19

with the character of the warrior god Baal. As “the paradigmatic warrior god” in

Canaanite myth (cf. ABD III:305), Baal is identified with the storm—the strong wind, the

earthquake, the fire. Yahweh, however, is not in the fire; but after the fire a still small

voice (RSV), or a sound of sheer silence,(NRSV)—the first possibility denotes divine

communication; the second, the prophet’s contemplative receptivity, his or her

intuitiveness to receive Yahweh’s communication.

In contrast to the Baal-like warrior god(s) of the ancient NE, it is because the

Warrior Yahweh is dominant in Hebrew Scripture that Yahweh’s prophet must know:

human violence as the basis for NE law is fundamentally displaced as the foundation

of Sinai law—indeed, in the entire Bible there is no kingship law code! The prophetic

covenant God Yahweh is not to be confused with the kingship god Baal. Because

Yahweh is different from Baal at the point of power politics, the prophet must suffer;

Yahweh will not defend him with a powerful human army. At the center of biblical law is

covenant love rather than human violence and retribution.

The Blood Bath at Jezreel

John Gray comments, “The significance of the theophany to Elijah at Horeb has

been taken to be the revelation that the violent measures adopted by Elijah at Carmel

were not the methods Yahweh desired of his servants.”Gray does not accept this

interpretation(Gray:410). Indeed, this logical interpretation is negated by the fact that

the still small voice of prophecy now touches offan even greater blood bath than that on

Carmel—the blood of Jezreel, a blood bath which must wait for its retribution, as

prophesied by the prophet Hosea a century later (Hos. 1:4-5).

Yahweh’s still small voicetells Elijah to anoint three persons: Hazaelas king of

Syria;Jehu, king Joram’s army commander, as king of Israel;and Elishaas Elijah’s

prophetic successor. Yahweh then explains,

20

Whoever escapes from the sword of Hazael, Jehu shall kill; and whoever escapes

from the sword of Jehu, Elisha shall kill (1 Kings 19:17).

But Elijah follows through with none of this violence; he only designates Elisha

as his successor (1 Kings 19:19-21). Hazael’s Syrian coup is then touched off by his

disciple, Elisha (2 Kings 8:7-15). Jehu’s Israelite coup, though prompted by Elisha, is

touched offby a member of Elisha’s prophetic school (2 Kings 9:1-13). And as far as

we know, Elisha kills no one.

How is this variance between command and execution to be explained—with its

transfers from Elijah to Elisha, then to an unknown member of the prophetic school?

There may be several possible explanations. But might one be that the sources

(Cogan:117-122) may reflect tensions within the prophetic party, perhaps within the heart

of individual prophets, about the rightness of prophetic participation in retributive

violence, given the nature of Yahweh as warrior? Compare the narrative of the unknown

member of the school of the prophets who heartlessly enforced the ban against the Syrian

king Benhadad, countermanding the merciful decision of the king of Israel (1 Kings

20:23-43); compare this with the two narratives ofElisha’s compassionate healing of

Naaman, the Syrian army commander (2 Kings 5:1-19), and of that prophet’s gracious

hospitality to the entrapped Syrian army which, after a feast, he then sent home, refusing

to enforce the ban (2 Kings 6:8-23).

The experience of Elijah clarifies the meaning of Sinai, this time at the Center: the

character of Yahweh’s own being as (prophet) warrior God in contrast to the (kingship)

warrior god, Baal (1 Kings 1:9-18). Now follows the struggle as to how this clarification

is to be implemented in the tumultuous religious-political conflict of the concrete

historical situation, in the arena of collective and individual legal offenses and of

techniquelaw.

21

In our text, the scene at Jezreelis indeed a blood bath. There a rebel army officer,

Jehu, shoots king Joram, Ahab’s great grandson, through the heart with an arrow as

retribution for his great grandfather’s murder of Naboth the Jezreelite(2 Kings 9:14-26,

esp. vv. 25-26; cf. 1 Kings 21; Exod. 20:5). At Jezreel,Jehu expedites the obscene death

ofJezebel and says, This is the word of the Lord, which he spoke by his servant Elijah

the Tishbite, ‘In the territory of Jezreel the dogs shall eat the flesh of Jezebel ... (2 Kings

(9:30-37, esp. v. 36; cf. 1 Kings 21:23). At Jezreel,this rebel leader orders by letter the

elders and guardians of Ahab’s house to bring the 70 heads ofking Joram’s sons, to me

at Jezreeltomorrow at this time. Heexplains to the people of that city, Know then that

there shall fall to the earth nothing of the word of the Lord, which the Lord spoke

concerning the house of Ahab; for the Lord has done what he said through his servant

Elijah (2 Kings 10:1-11, esp. vv. 6, 10).

Yahweh’s Affirmation of Jehu’s Blood Bath, with Retribution’s Limits

Besides these retributions at Jezreel, Jehu killed all who were left to Ahab in

Samaria. An editor ofthe book of Kings comments on this massacre: ...he had wiped

them out, according to the word of the Lord that he spoke to Elijah (2 Kings 10:15-17,

esp. v. 17). An editor again comments after the narrative of the massacre of all the Baal

prophets, priests, and worshipers throughout Israel whom Jehu, scheming with the leader

of a radical Judean sect, had gathered in solemn assembly in Samaria: Thus Jehu wiped

out Baal from Israel (2 Kings 10:28). As retribution for Israel’s violation of the first

commandment of the Decalogue as prescribed by technique law, Jehu finishes what

Elijah had begun (cf. 1 Kings 19:40; Exod. 22:20). Finally, in a sweeping summary

statement on these violent acts, an editor of the book of Kings reports Yahweh’s

affirmation of Jehu’s retributions: Because you have done well in carrying out whatI

consider right, and in accordance with all that was in my heart have dealt with the house