A Prophet in the Ancient Near East (ANE): What did that mean back then?

 

[Note: this section draws heavily from the outstanding work found in [Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives, by Martti Nissinen; OxfordUP: 2017. OPEN ACCESS, available at https://www.loc.gov/item/2019667830/; and The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World. Samuel A. Meier. Harvard/Scholars Press: 1988.]

 

Prophets and Kings

 

In the ANE (and biblical Israel as part of that), the prophets had the elite status of being the messenger of the Gods. As such, they were on par with the King who was the vassal and/or liaison between the nation/community and the deity which had installed him as royalty.

 

The prophets function as intermediaries and channels of communication for the divine knowledge necessary for the king and country to live in safety and receive divine advice in times of crisis and uncertainty. (Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives, by Martti Nissinen; chapter Prophets and Kings; OxfordUP:2017, p259)

 

The institutional affiliation between prophecy and kingship is quite natural when seen in the context of kingship and divination in general: they were one of the media through which the king was kept informed of the divine favors and obligations and the origin and legitimacy of his rule. This was the ideological foundation of the activity of the diviners and the basis of their acknowledgment by the royal court. Not every prophet was regarded as mouthpiece of the god, but the words pronounced by those prophets who enjoyed such a status were appreciated accordingly. (Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives, by Martti Nissinen; chapter Prophets and Kings; OxfordUP:2017, 264)

 

 

The ANE kings were constantly utilizing ANYTHING AVAILABLE to get information from their patron deity, as to where threats were coming form, what to do about rivals, how to approach individual battles, and so on.

 

A telling example of a divinatory consultation at war involving a prophet is the most recently found document of prophecy, an outlay of copper found among the clay tablets recently discovered at Ziyaret Tepe (ancient Tuḫan) and dating from the year 611 BCE, that is, from the very last days of the Assyrian empire after the fall of Nineveh.6 Just before the battle against the invading Babylonian army, both an augur (dāgil iṣṣūri) and a prophet (maḫḫ{) have been paid for their services. (Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives, by Martti Nissinen; chapter Prophets and Kings; OxfordUP:2017, p258)

 

 

They used divination methods like ruler-ordered divination (e.g. augury), scholarly interpretation of astrological patterns, and prophetic disclosures. The results of divination were done by court diviners and the results were kept top-secret. Astrology readings were a bit more public, but were also ruler-initiated. Prophetic disclosuresas linguistic based messages from their godwas something they could request of a prophet (but with no guarantee), but more often than not, they came from the outside. They were an independent voice from a suzerain deity to their vassal king (or representative on earth).

 

The prophetsat least in principlehad no personal authority and their eventual criticism did not express their personal opinions. As members of the divinatory apparatus, and especially as mouthpieces of gods, the prophets were able to exhort, warn, and even criticize the king and make direct demands on him. Moreover, prophets could perform in public, while the results of technical divination were highly classified information.23 (Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives, by Martti Nissinen; chapter Prophets and Kings; OxfordUP:2017, 262)

 

[l]et me point toward another Mariote text which shows prophets potential for stirring up popular emotions. The text contains the report of an event at far away Babylon. Yarim-Addu, Zimri-Lims man at the court of Ḥammu-rapi of Babylon, recounts how an āpilum-prophet of Marduk stood at the city-gates and kept on shouting to anybody who would listen that Ḥammu-rapi had given large parts of Marduks temple treasure away in order to make peace with Elam. It is not entirely clear whether this is the same āpilum-prophet of Marduk who is involved in another episode recounted in the same letter, in which the āpilum stood at the palace-gate and shouted that Ḥammu-rapi had offered refuge to the ailing king Ime-Dagan of Ekallatum. This shows that, far from being active only in temples, ancient Near Eastern prophets also took to the streets if their addressees were located there. In other words, prophets could act in order to stir up popular emotion and could therefore be capable of influencing the general mood.^ [Jonathan Stvkl, (Intuitive) Divination, (Ethical) Demands and Diplomacy in the Ancient near East, in Mediating between Heaven and Earth: Communication with the Divine in the Ancient near East (ed. C. L. Crouch, Jonathan Stvkl, et al.; vol. 566; Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies; New York; London; New Delhi; Sydney: Bloomsbury, 2013), 5668990.]

 

 

Although there were court prophets (like Nathan in Davids time), many prophets were associated with temples instead of the palace. As an independent voice, they had sentry duty to make sure the king was performing the divinely-demanded tasks assigned to him. Criticism of a king COULD be explicit, although we do not have a lot of examples outside of the biblical data.

 

Prophecies against the ruling king of the own country are rare in the extrabiblical sources, although there are two Neo-Assyrian texts demonstrating that prophecy against the king was indeed possible and sometimes uttered quite explicitly. (Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives, by Martti Nissinen; chapter Prophets and Kings; OxfordUP:2017, 276)

 

On the other hand, the harsh antagonism of many biblical prophets towards kings and kingship is virtually unparalleled in Near Eastern sources, where the king can certainly be criticized, as we shall see later in this chapter, but where the criticism never goes as far as to declare the end of the ruling dynasty of the country (cf. 1 Kgs 14:1011, 16:24; Jer. 22:30; Amos 7:9, 17)except for one case, reported by Nab{-rehtu-uṣur to Esarhaddon as a pseudo-prophecy proclaiming the destruction of the seed of Sennacherib (*115).210 This important piece of evidence shows that even in Assyria, prophecy could be used by oppositional circles against the ruling king, which is not surprising as such. (Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives, by Martti Nissinen; chapter Prophets and Kings; OxfordUP:2017,293)

 

 

Although most of the prophetic messages left in the archeological records are supportive of the ruler they were addressed to, for obvious reasons-- (think keeping a scrapbook of good things the media says about melol)not all were. Most of the ones that would be considered corrective are ones telling the king to keep up his donations to the temples (smile). This is not as bad/manipulative as we moderns might suspect, but the king was charged by the god to do SOCIAL JUSTICE and WELFARE, and the means that kings typically used for this were mainly the temples. Giving to the temples, was supposed to fund their charity work.

 

In the Mesopotamian setting, the king was the hub between the social and the cosmic order, and the ideal king was charged with implementing the requirements of civil society as well as securing the cult of and communication with the gods. The position of the Near Eastern king as the link between the divine and human worlds made him the prime recipient of prophetic and other oracles; the prophetic word was only one element in the mix that resulted in particular royal decisions. (Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives, by Martti Nissinen; chapter Prophets and Kings; OxfordUP:2017, p259)

 

The [biblical] prophets are concerned with issues of social justice and champion the rights of the poor and weak members of society. They will not abide the abuse of power and the use of economic forces to drive small farmers from their land or defraud them in the marketplace (Amos 8:46). A similar balance of power between prophet and king existed in Mari, where Nur-Sin, an official of King Zimri-Lim, reported: An apilum prophet of Addu, God of Halab, said to me: Am I not Addu, God of Halab, who has raised you  who helped you regain your fathers throne? I never ask too much of you. Respond to the appeals of your people when they experience injustice and give them a just verdict  (translated from G. Dossin, Sur le prophitisme ` Mari, in La divination en Misopotamie ancienne et dans les region voisines [Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1966], 78). [Victor H. Matthews, The Hebrew Prophets and Their Social World: An Introduction (Second Edition.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 2021.]

 

It is true that the plain and direct criticism of Amos and his ilk has few parallels in non-biblical prophetic sources. The social dimensions of the prophecies related to temples, their worship and personnel, notwithstanding, outspoken demands for social justice are rather a rarity in the ancient Near Eastern prophetical documents. Therefore, the role of social criticism in non- biblical prophecy has been considered marginal at the best. Nevertheless, there is enough evidence of the critical potential of prophecy in the available documentation throughout the ancient Eastern Mediterranean. (Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives, by Martti Nissinen; chapter Prophets and Kings; OxfordUP:2017, p261)

 

The ancient Near Eastern texts provide us with a few examples demonstrating that the king could be addressed in an outspokenly critical tone in prophetic messages. Letters concerning the failure of the king to fulfill his cultic duties have been already discussed in Chapter 6. In this chapter, I shall discuss texts dealing with the duty of the king to bring about a rightful order (mīarum) in the country. (Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives, by Martti Nissinen; chapter Prophets and Kings; OxfordUP:2017, 269)

 

The two letters of Nur-Sin, written in the eighteenth century BCE, are the only ancient Near Eastern prophetic documents that are quite explicit about the demand for social justice. (Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives, by Martti Nissinen; chapter Prophets and Kings; OxfordUP:2017, 274)

 

 

 

The prophetas the messenger and authorized representative of the deitydelivered messages from the god (which were not considered to be the prophets wordshe or she were just the messenger) which reminded the kings of this responsibility. Kings were told two baseline things: take care of the people and take care of the cult/temples (which took care of the people). They were able to address the king in ways which could not be done by the kings subjects!

 

The prophetsat least in principlehad no personal authority and their eventual criticism did not express their personal opinions. As members of the divinatory apparatus, and especially as mouthpieces of gods, the prophets were able to exhort, warn, and even criticize the king and make direct demands on him something that an Assyrian citizen, or even the kings nearest advisor, could not even begin to imagine. In this position, if the prophets did their service for the king (or for the temple) properly, they could not just deliver oracles of salvation. The Assyrian prophets were in a better position than other diviners to criticize the king also because they were probably not directly employed by the palace but rather by temples of Itar highly respected by the kings. (Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives, by Martti Nissinen; chapter Prophets and Kings; OxfordUP:2017, 262)

 

Since the prophets did not address the king as themselves but in the name of the deity, they spoke to the king as the gods do, unencumbered by the courtly phraseology that other diviners were obliged to use in their letters.  From this position, the prophets were entitled to address the king in different waysnot always favorably, as is most often the case, but also in a critical tone, as we shall see below. To use traditional forms of critical categories, the ancient Near Eastern prophecies do not just include Heilsworte (oracles of salvation) but also Mahnworte (oracles of admonition) and Gerichtsworte (oracles of doom); in other words, the prophecies communicate words of support and instruction as well as those of warning, indictment, and judgment. Even though only a relatively small number of Near Eastern sources represent the categories of indictment and judgment, they should not be overlooked. The distribution of these categories in the extant documents does not necessarily reflect the actual variety of prophetic proclamation. (Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives, by Martti Nissinen; chapter Prophets and Kings; OxfordUP:2017, p264-5)

 

Even the sparse and somewhat uneven evidence of prophetical criticism from Mari and Assyria demonstrates that the prophets indeed were in the position to criticize the king and to reproach him for neglecting his duties. The prophetical criticism that has found its way to the written documents often rises from concrete concerns of the temples and the kings officials. Nevertheless, it is motivated by the theology of kingship, according to which every king was obliged to fulfill the beau ideal of the just and righteous king. Consequently, the criticism is usually aimed at the kings comportment and decisions in individual cases, but not against his person or legitimacy.102 (Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives, by Martti Nissinen; chapter Prophets and Kings; OxfordUP:2017, 275)

 

 

A vivid example of messengers being invisible between their respective rulers [i.e., the messages not being THEIR OWN] can be seen in 2 Kings 19:23.

 

By your messengers you have mocked the Lord, and you have said, With my many chariots I have gone up the heights of the mountains, to the far recesses of Lebanon; I felled its tallest cedars, its choicest cypresses; I entered its farthest lodging place, its most fruitful forest.

 

Here we have the king of Assyrias (Sennacherib) messenger telling the people not to believe Hezekiah about trusting YHWH. The messenger claims that since no other god has saved their client nations, that there is no reason to believe YHWH would be able to. Hezekiah and Isaiah are both messenger-representatives of YHWH, so it is not THEM that have been mocked, but whom they represent  the LORD. And it is not the Assyrian MESSENGER who has mocked God, but the KING of ASSYRIA (by your messengers, you have ).

 

 

 

Accordingly, prophets were almost never mistreated by highest royalty in the nations they served, [Jezebel being a stark exceptionalthough she was neither the highest in rank, nor was she actually in alignment with Ahabs good-but-wimpy position], and were held in high esteem by the court. Mistreatment of a prophet would be considered mistreatment of the Gods messenger and there are NO records of any such mistreatment in those ANE kingdoms. (Of course, false prophets arose as one can imagine from the incomes they might getbut once detected, they were removed in some fashion). Records show they there sometimes compensated highly and/or were sustained by the court (e.g, eating at Jezebels table).

 

Just before the battle against the invading Babylonian army [against Assyria], both an augur (dāgil iṣṣūri) and a prophet (maḫḫ{) have been paid for their services. The substantial amount of six minas of copper given to the prophet is noteworthy regardless of whether he ever survived the fall of the city to be able to enjoy his riches. (Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives, by Martti Nissinen; chapter Prophets and Kings; OxfordUP:2017, p258)

 

Not every prophet was regarded as mouthpiece of the god, but the words pronounced by those prophets who enjoyed such a status were appreciated accordingly. (Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives, by Martti Nissinen; chapter Prophets and Kings; OxfordUP:2017, 264)

 

This may not be the whole truth [that prophets did not come face-to-face with the king often], however, since the gratuities received by prophets and documented in several administrative texts may have involved an audience in the palace. (Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives, by Martti Nissinen; chapter Prophets and Kings; OxfordUP:2017, 266)

 

In Assyria, prophecies were apparently not so often reported in letters of court officials; rather, they were transmitted to the king in reports limited to the oracle proper. In some cases, these reports were deposited in the royal archives. This implies a high esteem of prophecies which seem to have been considered to be on par with astrological and extispicy reports. (Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives, by Martti Nissinen; chapter Prophets and Kings; OxfordUP:2017, 267)

 

The existing sources indeed give the impression that the activity of prophets, while certainly not restricted to this period only, enjoyed a higher social esteem during the reign of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal than ever before in Assyria. The extant documents from the time of the previous Sargonid kings include no mention of prophets, neither do any documents from earlier periods provide us with information about their existence, save a couple of Middle and Neo- Assyrian decrees of expenditures in which prophets are listed among recipients of food rations. (Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives, by Martti Nissinen; chapter Prophets and Kings; OxfordUP:2017, 268)

 

 

In fact, other leaders were required to DELIVER to the king ANY prophecies that they found out in the field. Priests (especially) and military leaders are well-represented in the archives as sending letters reporting contents of prophecies they found out about. Prophetic figures had high status.

 

To summarize, the Mari texts show that Zimri-Lim takes prophecy seriously. Although there is no evidence he consulted prophets himself as he did diviners, he enacts appropriate measures to remain informed about prophetic activity in his kingdom. In particular, he has various officials and members of his court report the content of any prophetic oracles about which they should learn. The loyalty oath of the diviner suggests that Zimri-Lim may have made similar demands of the prophetic figures themselves, expecting full disclosure of any divine word, good or ill. The king's interest in prophecy reveals its social significance in Mari, suggesting that prophetic figures held no small political clout. (Amos vii 10-17 and Royal Attitudes toward Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, J. Blake Couey, in Vetus Testamentum , Brill:2008, Vol. 58, p 305)

 

Evidence from Assyria reveals largely similar royal attitudes toward prophecy. The majority of the Neo-Assyrian prophetic material comes from the reigns of Esarhaddon (681-669 B.C.E.) and Assurbanipal (668-627 B.C.E.), who displayed an especially keen interest in prophetic activity compared to other Neo-Assyrian rulers (Amos vii 10-17 and Royal Attitudes toward Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, J. Blake Couey, in Vetus Testamentum , Brill:2008, Vol. 58, 306)

 

Neo-Assyrian evidence thus confirms the picture from Mari regarding royal interest in prophecy. If anything, Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal took prophecy even more seriously, or at least belonged to a society that valued it more highly. Under their authorization, scribes collected and archived prophetic oracles for posterity, and the practice of transcribing the oracles with minimal additional information, just like astrological or extispicy reports, reveals a view of prophecy as intrinsically valuable apart from the circumstances of its delivery. (Amos vii 10-17 and Royal Attitudes toward Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, J. Blake Couey, in Vetus Testamentum , Brill:2008, Vol. 58, 308)

 

Extra-biblical texts from Mari, Nineveh, and Lachish show that royal officials frequently monitored prophetic activity and sent reports to the king as appropriate. [Amos vii 10-17 and Royal Attitudes toward Prophecy in the Ancient Near East, J. Blake Couey, in Vetus Testamentum , Brill:2008, Vol. 58, 313]

 

 

The kings were reasonably selfish in protecting prophets, since kings needed to know EVERYTHING that the god saidwhether good or bad, whether commendation or criticism, whether warning or consolation.

 

The prophets function as intermediaries and channels of communication for the divine knowledge necessary for the king and country to live in safety and receive divine advice in times of crisis and uncertainty. (Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives, by Martti Nissinen; chapter Prophets and Kings; OxfordUP:2017, p259)

 

 

 

Prophets as Messengers

 

The prophet was both a sentry (to notice the state of the kingdom welfare) and a messenger from one RULER to another ruler (typically DIVINE to HUMAN). The messenger aspect of the role evoked a larger set of ethical and protocol obligations on the kingthat of guaranteeing messenger protection (and immunity), treating messengers with hospitality at the level demanded by the relative honor/power status of the parties, and sensitivity to the nuances of each exchange.

 

Fifth, messengers were an important part of the biblical world, but the prophet was not just a messenger for the divine assembly. In Mesopotamia, messengers were responsible for communications and negotiations between monarchs. The Mari archives show some messengers carrying letters from one ruler to another, usually announcing the imminent arrival of an important official or a foreign army. Other messengers served as proxies for their monarchs and carried letters of introduction outlining the royal prerogatives that they enjoyed, which could include authorization to draft treaties. Hosts lavished them with food, clothing, and slaves, sensing that to honor a monarchs messenger was to honor that king himself. They also provided bodyguards and escorts to protect them from harm while they were in the country and to prevent them from spying as they traveled through it. Meticulous records from Mari list the names, destinations, and backgrounds of all messengers who came and went throughout the region. For strategic and political reasons, a host could temporarily delay messengers, but not permanently detain them. That was part of the diplomatic game, but it had its rules and limitations. [Victor H. Matthews, The Hebrew Prophets and Their Social World: An Introduction (Second Edition.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 2223.

 

 

 

Primitive societies generally accepted the ethic that messengers enjoyed special privileges and protections in their role. Even in hostile situations, a messenger might be bringing a message of compromise or surrender, so clarity of information/status was paramount. But warring nations in the ANE sometimes acted  oddly enough -- contrary to these norms, although mostly/only in times of actual war.

 

"[Primitive messengers], just like the diplomats of civilized nations, enjoy a number of special privileges. They are almost always personally inviolable . . . . A breach of the principal of inviolability of the messengers and envoys seems to be severely punished . . . even if the respective tribes are at enmity with each other" (R. Numelin, The Beginnings of Diplomacy, 147). See Ibid., 147-152 for specific data (and rare exceptions to the generalization on p.150-151). [OT:MASW] The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World. Samuel A. Meier. Harvard/Scholars Press:1988, 76.]

 

A Neo-Assyrian letter assures us that messengers have no special status when they are the enemy's messengers: "When you see his messengers, kill whomever you can kill, and capture whomever you can capture" (SLA 25.12-14). Diplomatic immunity was at best a messenger's dream. Immunity for the couriers between hostile powers was non-existent, a feature of society which repeated itself continually in the ancient Near East. This is noteworthy in so far as a general pattern in societies traditionally grants inviolability to such figures.' (note 14)] [OT:MASW] The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World. Samuel A. Meier. Harvard/Scholars Press:1988, 76.]

 

Orders are given to seize the messengers of the Babylonian king Shamash-shum-ukin, while the Hittite kings anticipate such seizures in time of war. Indeed, the Hittites violated a messenger's rights and encouraged their allies to do likewise: "If any one sends a messenger from a hostile land, don't hide him but seize him and deliver him to the king." [OT:MASW] The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World. Samuel A. Meier. Harvard/Scholars Press:1988, 77.]

 

 

 

Apart from these cases, there were international efforts to protect messengers between kingdoms from harm in their duties. Kings had to apologize to the other king if the messenger was in anyway mistreated or disrespected by his local populace, and they were expected to censure any citizen doing that. A kings responsibility to international messengers went beyond simple lack of mistreatmentthey were expected to provide both ample provision for the messenger while on the mission, and then provision for the return journey. The level of this provision (always including gifts for the sender, to match the gifts FROM the sender) varied by the status of the messenger and the relationship between the two kings (e.g. parity treaty, suzerain/vassal treaty, unaffiliated, etc.). But to provide hospitality LOWER THAN expected was at variance from rules of international diplomacy and would be noticed (and possible responded to) by the offended party.

 

 

In both the second and first millennium, international law attempted to restrain the abuse of messengers. The Akkadian text of a treaty between Hatti and Kizzuwatna stipulates that messengers sent between them, no matter their status were not to be mistreated by the king who received the messenger. A later Aramaic treaty (KAI 224.7-9) goes beyond reciprocal cordiality by guaranteeing any messenger from any land free access to the sovereign and vice versa. The vassal is ordered not to interfere or obstruct messenger traffic.  The plea for diplomatic privilege in such documents belies the reality of frequent abuse documented in actual letters. [OT:MASW] The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World. Samuel A. Meier. Harvard/Scholars Press:1988, 79-80.]

 

Creative insults when declining an audience to a messenger underscore that the life of a messenger was not always an attractive one. The commandant of Babylon threw several citizens into prison because "you threw lumps of clay at my messengers [OT:MASW] The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World. Samuel A. Meier. Harvard/Scholars Press:1988, 139.]

 

From other data and the evidence of the letters themselves, it is possible to flesh out these skeletal pieces of data. It is not simply true that the messenger was supplied with food which he could consume at his leisure. At least on the international level, the customs of diplomacy (no doubt arising in this case from the traditional regard for hospitality) called for the wining and dining of the messenger in the actual presence of the king. [OT:MASW] The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World. Samuel A. Meier. Harvard/Scholars Press:1988, 219]

 

At a later date, the Babylonian king feels that he must apologize for not so treating [wining and dining with the king and using the palace wine] the Egyptian messenger: "Since my brother's messenger arrived, I have not been well and so his messenger could not eat food or drink beer before me" (EA 7.8-10). Similar is the case where Aziru claimed he was unaware of the arrival of the Egyptian messenger in his territory. Nevertheless, he insists that the messenger was well taken care of, for "my brothers and Batilu were at his service . . . ; they supplied him with food and beer" (EA 161.11-22). [OT:MASW] The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World. Samuel A. Meier. Harvard/Scholars Press:1988, 220]

 

The Mitanni king, when complaining as usual of the paltry gifts he receives from his "brother" in Egypt, alludes to the fact that the pay of his messengers may come from the gifts which are sent from king to king: "The gold you send me is not enough for the wages of my messengers going and coming back" (EA 16.28-31). [OT:MASW] The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World. Samuel A. Meier. Harvard/Scholars Press:1988, 227]

 

A considerable amount of evidence from the second millennium makes it clear that the provisioning of messengers by their hosts was an essential part of international diplomacy. One finds that the messenger upon delivering his message was given provisions to meet his needs. Provision lists are preserved from the courts of several palaces, some of which assigned to messengers quantities of wine (from Ugarit and Rimah), while provision for both wine and honey is known from Mari [OT:MASW] The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World. Samuel A. Meier. Harvard/Scholars Press:1988, 229]

 

An Amarna text, imploring Amenophis IV to intervene on behalf of Babylonian merchants who had been robbed and murdered in Canaan, amply illustrates that the Admonitions contained more than mere rhetoric. My messengers, declares the sender, were held up on business in Canaan  in the city of Hinnatun in Canaan, [certain men] of Acco killed my merchants and took their silver  I have been robbed in your land  as to the people who killed my messengers, kill them and avenge their blood. Otherwise they will return and kill either a caravan belonging to me or one belonging to you (EA 8) [Barry J. Beitzel, Travel and Communication: The Old Testament World, ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 646.]

 

 

 

In some cases, messengers acted as forerunners for a visiting dignitary:

 

The messenger often served as a herald in the ancient world by delivering an oral message to another party, giving military or political news of some sort (whether good or bad), or announcing significant events. Typically the messenger was selected and commissioned in council by an authority figure, either royal or divine. The messenger as a representative of the authority figure was charged to speak only the message he had received.

The announcement of a visitation by a dignitary demanded preparation on the part of the people in keeping with the customs of hospitality and the obligation of loyalty to the overlord. Such preparation may also have involved making ready a processional highway for the dignitary more literally in terms of clearing and repairing the roads leading to the destination, so that the royal entourage, including the servants carrying the kings palanquin, were not at risk of stumbling (Song 3:79; cf. the report of the oxen stumbling while hauling the cart transporting the ark of the covenant, 2 Sam. 6:6). [John H Walton, Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (Old Testament): The Minor Prophets, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (vol. 5; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 238.]

 

 

 

Treaties, Messengers, and Honor/Shame relations

 

 

Partners in treaties (parity or otherwise) were bound by a covenant code to recognize each other by honoring each other in public ways (e.g. support, messenger treatment, solidarity in common challenges, etc.).

There are several points of contact between the sphere of covenant relations in particular and the notions of honor and shame. In contrast to non-covenantal social contexts in which persons of inferior status consistently honor their superiors (e.g., child/parent, young/elderly, inferior gods/superior gods), treaty partners must honor one another, just as they must love one another, even in situations where they are unequal. To honor a loyal treaty partner confirms publicly the strength of existing covenant bonds; to diminish or shame one who is loyal in covenant communicates at minimum a loss of status and may in fact constitute a covenant violation. The conferring of honor and the inscription of shame may function to externalize conformity or nonconformity to covenant stipulations or to communicate relative position in a status hierarchy. Covenant honor, like covenant love, is reciprocal; it applies to partners in parity treaties and to those in covenants of unequals (vassal-suzerain treaties), even if the reciprocal nature of honor is not always made explicit. YHWH himselfthe suzerain par excellence in Israelparticipates in reciprocal honor, as do human overlords. In 1 Sam 2:30 Yhwh says: Those who honor me I will honor; and as for those who despise me (בזי), they will be diminished (יקלו) (or, perhaps, dishonored). This verse illustrates perfectly the ideal expectations of reciprocal honor: to repay honor is the appropriate response to one who bestows honor; likewise, to return humiliation is the goal of one who is diminished or despised by a treaty partner, though this is not always possible or practical. [Saul M. Olyan, Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations in Ancient Israel and Its Environment, Journal of Biblical Literature 115 (1996): 204206.]

 

Artzi provides extrabiblical examples of acts of official mourning over the demise of a foreign king and notes that, although they are insufficient as a means of solving crises, they express solidarity in common human fate and may thus contribute to peaceful coexistence (Artzi, Mourning in International Relations, 16170). He suggests further that such mourning belongs to the same level of graciousness as that expressed in the sending of a delegation to convey wishes of good health on the eve of recovery from a dangerous illness (ibid., 167; cf. 170 n. 24, where Merodach-Baladans apparent concern for Hezekiah [2 Ki 20:12] is cited as an example). [Ronald F. Youngblood, 1, 2 Samuel, in The Expositors Bible Commentary: 1 Samuel2 Kings (Revised Edition) (ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland; vol. 3; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 3422423.

 

[An example of this latter might be in 1 Kings 5.15, where Hiram of Tyre, Davids ally, sends his servants to Jerusalem when he hears of Solomons accession to the throne, "for Hiram had always loved David" (i.e., conformed to covenant expectation_

 

 

 

Minor violations of this unwritten code were largely endured by the lesser party; but major infractions were understood as breaking a covenant/treaty and were often taken as a rebellion (if a non-parity treaty) or as a declaration of war (if in a parity treaty).

 

Expressions of honor in covenant settings abound. Yahwehs worshipers honor him through appropriate sacrifices and other cultic rites, just as a vassal honors a human suzerain with expected demonstrations of servitude and covenant loyalty. Partners in parity treaties honor one another in any number of ways. Frequently honor is expressed through the appropriate reception and treatment of the emissaries of ones treaty partner. In EA 20, 27 and 29, Tushratta, king of Mitanni, writes to his ally the pharaoh emphasizing the extent to which he has honored the messengers and even the troops of the king of Egypt (20:6465, 67; 27:108; 29:3031, 32, 37). But the embassy itself, and the gifts that often accompany it, must also communicate the honor worthiness of the partner to whom it has been sent. Apparently, this was not always thought to be the case. In EA 1, the pharaoh complains to the king of Babylon regarding the status of the messengers he has sent to Egypt: they are nobodies(rīqa), in contrast to those who are honored, who should have been sent (1:15, 18). In EA 27, Tushratta of Mitanni objects to the pharaohs gift of gold-covered wooden statues; he claims that the pharaohs father had promised him statues of solid gold and reminds his ally of his own unassailable covenant loyalty (27:3236). Sensitivity even to minor expressions of diminishment is a frequent theme in covenant discourses between partners in parity treaties, as the Amarna correspondence amply illustrates [E.g., EA 28:1719, where Tushratta of Mitanni informs the pharaoh that he intends to detain Mane, the pharaohs messenger, until the pharaoh allows Tushrattas messengers to return to him. In EA 3, the king of Babylon writes to the pharaoh that he will continue to make gestures of friendship though the pharaoh has detained his messenger, sent inadequate gifts of greeting, and neglected his obligation to honor his ally in any number of other ways.]. But rarely are minor cases of perceived diminishment judged to be covenant violations, worthy of serious retaliation. This response was apparently reserved for major humiliations that could not simply be protested. [Saul M. Olyan, Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations in Ancient Israel and Its Environment, Journal of Biblical Literature 115 (1996): 204206.

A review of Assyrian royal annals (Sargon II, Sennacherib and Ashurbanipal) contains justifications for a declaration of war based on a violation of a sworn agreement or the physical challenging of Assyrian authority. Although the annals are not as graphic as this example [David/Hanun], they also serve as a dropping of the gauntlet in political terms. [Victor Harold Matthews, Mark W. Chavalas, and John H. Walton, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (electronic ed.; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 2 Sa 10:25.]

 

 

Because messages between partners and allies, and between suzerains and vassals, were of critical importance to international relationships (and stability), the cessation of messages between parties set off an ALARM BELL in a rulers head. Uncertainty of whether friends had become foes, or whether friends had lost the ability to get messages through (due to hostile interference), or whether a suzerain was displeased and/or abandoning a vassal (!) were things kings had to know DAILY.

 

Consequently, a cessation of messengers could provoke consternation, prompting fears that perhaps former friends were no longer so amicable. After one OB king complains, "Why does your lord (Zimri-Lim) always write to Adalshenni but he didn't write to me?" (B.590 in A. Finet, "Adalsenni, roi de Burundum," RA 60 [1966] 24- 26, 1.10-12), this neglect becomes sufficient cause to refuse in turn delivery of a huge shipment of grain and wool to Zimri-Lim (cf. SH 827.50.-54). A cessation of messenger traffic was particularly threatening when one was a vassal of the king who stopped writing (EA 47.14-20) [OT:MASW] The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World. Samuel A. Meier. Harvard/Scholars Press:1988, 31.]

 

 

Closely related to the NEED for timely information (above) and related to the honor code of messenger treatment, is the sensitive issue of DETAINING a messenger from returning to his/her origin city.

 

The detention of messengers was such a sensitive issue because it could reflect potential or present hostility. Sargon II in the first millennium complains that his friendly overtures are met with such expressions of animosity (SLA 28.5-15):

 

From the beginning I have done good unto Elam, and although they did not repay my kind acts, I have protected their fugitives, kings and princes alike. I did give them food and drink and sent them back to their country. But they bound (iktesu) my messengers whom I sent to bring greetings to them.

 

The messengers are not simply detained but in this text actually treated like prisoners and put in fetters. Ashurbanipal, of course, later reciprocates toward the Elamites:

 

The two nobles whom Teumman sent with an insolent message - I held them before me in great wrath toward their lord.

 

 

The emphasis in letters upon quickly returning the messenger finds unanimous assent as well in literature and royal inscriptions. For example, no signs of hospitality are ever shown toward messengers in the Ugaritic literature. They deliver their message, turn around and return on their way, without even spending the night. And it is no wonder, since part of their commission may include the note of urgency, "Don't stay! Tuthmosis III boasts that his authority is so extensive that no one in Asia dares detain his messengers.[OT:MASW] The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World. Samuel A. Meier. Harvard/Scholars Press:1988, 241-242]

 

 

 

A Prophet in YHWHs Israel: What did that mean back then?

 

Israel  both unified and dividedwas set up in Deuteronomy as a vassal kingdom in relationship with YHWH as the suzerain. The covenant/treaty included both incentives to good behavior and penalties for bad behavior. The directives of the treaty (e.g. the commandments and statutes) were for the entire nation and not just the king (since there was no king at the inception).

 

When the monarchy emerged, the king became a shepherd of the people, and was in a similar relationship to YHWH as the ANE kings were to their patron deities. But in addition to day-to-day management of the nation for the welfare of the people (and their enjoyment of the benefits and incentives of the covenant), the king had to exercise the role of responsible party in all international interactions.

 

Israels kingslike their ANE counterpartswere thus dependent on extra messages , over and above the foundational charter documents of government (e.g. Torah), as indicators of how compliant the nation was under their rule and administration.

 

 

Like their ANE counterparts, biblical kings and prophets had almost peer-level roles in their relationships with YHWH. The king was the appointee of the Lord, tasked with ruling with the welfare of the people in mind, and the prophet was a source of feedback, guidance, and correction to the kingcoming explicitly from the mouth of YHWH, the suzerain.

 

Monarchs wished to portray themselves as Yahwehs stewards, responsible for feeding and protecting their countries; to do this they used the centralized economy common in most Canaanite city-states. By contrast, the prophets saw themselves as sentries (Jer. 1:1113) or heralds proclaiming the ideals of the covenant, and this often ran afoul of the policies and desires of the king and priestly community. The prophets are concerned with issues of social justice and champion the rights of the poor and weak members of society. They will not abide the abuse of power and the use of economic forces to drive small farmers from their land or defraud them in the marketplace (Amos 8:46). A similar balance of power between prophet and king existed in Mari, where Nur-Sin, an official of King Zimri-Lim, reported: An apilum prophet of Addu, God of Halab, said to me: Am I not Addu, God of Halab, who has raised you  who helped you regain your fathers throne? I never ask too much of you. Respond to the appeals of your people when they experience injustice and give them a just verdict  (translated from G. Dossin, Sur le prophitisme ` Mari, in La divination en Misopotamie ancienne et dans les region voisines [Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1966], 78). [Victor H. Matthews, The Hebrew Prophets and Their Social World: An Introduction (Second Edition.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 2021.]

 

 

 

Biblical history shows major, frequent and varied interactions between kings and prophets, along similar lines. Kings sought the input of prophets and prophets issued unsolicited feedback/input  even if the relationship was strained.

 

Much of this [ANE understanding/role of prophets] is easily observable also in the Hebrew Bible where prophets appear as proclaiming the word of Yahweh to kings and authorities, often in political or religious crises (Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives, by Martti Nissinen; chapter Prophets and Kings; OxfordUP:2017, 259)

 

Many times in the Hebrew Bible kings consult prophets on their own initiative. Kings who actively seek the services of prophets include Saul who looked after Samuel (1 Sam. 9), himself joined a prophetic band (1 Sam. 10:912), and (p. 290) later turned to prophets, albeit to no avail (1 Sam. 28:6); Jeroboam on the occasions of the destruction of the altar at Bethel and the sickness of his son (1 Kgs 13:610; 14:118); Ahab who needs an oracle concerning his joint campaign with Josaphath against Ramoth-Gilead (1 Kgs 22; 2 Chr. 18); Ahasiah, having fallen through a window in his upper chamber (2 Kgs 1); Jehoram, Jehoshaphat, and the king of Edom, planning a campaign against Moab (2 Kgs 3:920); Ben- Hadad, the sick king of Damascus (2 Kgs 8:715); Joash at the deathbed of the prophet Elisha (2 Kgs 13:1419); Hezekiah, intimidated by Sennacherib (2 Kgs 19:134; Isa. 37:135; cf. 2 Chr. 32:20); Josiah, scandalized by the newly found law book (2 Kgs 22:320; 2 Chr. 34:1928); and Zedekiah, facing the threat of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 21:110; 37:310; 38:1426). When there was no longer a king, the elders of Israel approached Ezekiel (Ezek. 8:1; 14:1; 20:1). (Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives, by Martti Nissinen; chapter Prophets and Kings; OxfordUP:2017, p290-291)

 

Viewed from the Near Eastern perspective, the patterns of communication between prophets and kings seem rather familiar. .... Like the kings of Mari and Assyria, the biblical kings turn to prophets in critical situations, and the prophets deliver oracles of support, instruction, warning, indictment, and judgment to the kings. The sayings of the prophets relate to political, cultic, and private matters, their activity is intensified in times of crises, and they proclaim judgment over foreign nations. Prophets in the biblical narrative, just like ancient Near Eastern prophets, are involved in the investiture of new kings (1 Sam. 910, 16:113; 1 Kgs 1:3240, (p.291) 19:15 16; 2 Kgs 8:13, 9:113; cf. Hag. 2:203), and they keep the kings informed of their duties, legitimacy, and the ideological and theological basis of their power. By and large, the function of prophets as specialists in the Herrschaftswissen in the Hebrew Bible, JoshuaKings in particular, corresponds to that in the ancient Near East in general. (Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives, by Martti Nissinen; chapter Prophets and Kings; OxfordUP:2017, p290-291)

 

Despite the frequent biblical condemnation of Jeroboam, he was in fact not one to flout either the religion of Yahwe or the legitimacy of Yahwe's prophets. When his son Abijah takes sick, he sends his wife in disguise to Ahijah, a prophet of Yahwe, in order to receive an oracle to tell what would happen to the child. The oracle is unfavorable and the boy dies ( 1 Kings 14). The story is interesting in that it represents Jeroboam as going out of his way to consult a true prophet of Yahwe. [The Bible and the Ancient Near East, Cyrus H. Gordon, WWNorton:1997, 192]

 

The (biblical) prophet is sent by Yahweh to deliver the divine message to the intended recipient(s). This concept of a messenger being sent as a mediator with a divine word can be seen in other ancient Near Eastern cultures as well. The Mari texts, for example, contain a number of prophetic oracles, which also involve a prophet being sent to convey a divine message, usually to a king. The Mari archives deal mostly with royal affairs, so naturally most of the prophetic oracles are directed toward the king. Like numerous examples in the OT, these oracles often are introduced with the formula thus says DN [divine name] (Malamat 1987; for the Mari texts see Roberts; Nissinen). [ B. T. Arnold and P. Cook, Word of God, ed. H. G. M. Williamson, Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 1001.

 

 

 

Subordinate officials reported prophetic messages to their kings, as was the case in the ANE generally.

 

Although he is described only as the priest of Bethel it seems clear that Amaziah is the priest in charge of the shrine at Bethel. He has the kings ear, and clearly sees it as part of his duties to look out for the kings interests. After all, Bethel is the kings sanctuary, and  a temple of the kingdom (v. 13) as Amaziah reminds Amos in his rebuke to him. Amaziah serves as priest in Bethel at the pleasure of the king. National interest and religious interest are wedded in Israel.  But Amaziah has either missed or intentionally distorted an important element of Amoss preaching. He reports to Jeroboam that these utterances come as the personal conspiracy and the personal utterances of Amos (Amos has conspired  his words). But Amos announced the fate of Jeroboam and Israel as Gods judgment, not his own. Amaziah is either unable or unwilling to recognize the authority of Gods word in the words of Amos. . [Bruce C. Birch, Hosea, Joel, and Amos (ed. Patrick D. Miller and David L. Bartlett; Westminster Bible Companion; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 238239.

 

 

 

Some were recognized and honored internationally, at the highest levels of authority.

 

But another dimension is gained when the release of the soldiers is seen as part of the wider theme: the fame of yhwhs prophet beyond the borders of Israel. The Aramaeans are his prisoners, not the kings; they are spared so that they, like Naaman, may spread the word of his greatness. [The idea that captives are spared so that they may sing the praises of the victorious monarch is a discernible topos in Neo-Assyrian Sargonid inscriptionse.g., Ashurbanipal concludes his report of the campaign against the Arab chieftan Uaiteʾ: I had mercy on him and spared his life so that he would proclaim the fame of Ashur, Ishtar and the great gods, my lords. See CAD D 46 for collected citations.]  The reader is left wondering whether the end of hostilities noted in the closing the Aramaean bands no longer raided the land of Israel (v. 23), resulted from an act of reciprocity to his graciousness or from respect for the powers he displayed: with such a prophet on their side, Israel could not be overcome. [Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (vol. 11; Anchor Yale Bible; New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 75.

 

Once again we see the motif of a rulers sending to inquire as to his chances of survival (cf. 1:2). The fact that Elisha was in Damascus and able to move about freely attests to the high respect in which Gods prophet was held. The presence of Elisha in Aramean Damascus would also enable him to fulfill Elijahs assignment to anoint Hazael as king (1 Ki 19:15), though no formal anointing would take place.  The exorbitant amount of gifts that Hazael took with him in gaining an audience with Elisha testifies further to Elishas importance, as does his portraying of Ben-Hadad as Elishas son. [Richard D. Patterson and Hermann J. Austel, 1, 2 Kings, in The Expositors Bible Commentary: 1 Samuel2 Kings (Revised Edition) (ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland; vol. 3; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 3844.

 

The aged Ben-hadad was quite ill at the time Elisha visited the city. Ben-hadad, knowing of the reputation of this man of God, immediately dispatched his trusted servant Hazael with presents for the prophet. He was instructed to make inquiry of Yahweh through the prophet concerning the prognosis for the king. The miracles of Elisha had convinced even these idolaters that Yahweh was a powerful God. The Aramean king paid great respect to the prophet by referring to himself in the message as your son (2 Kgs 8:79). [James E. Smith, The Books of History (Old Testament Survey Series; Joplin, MO: College Press, 1995), 586.

 

Another obstacle comes from Naaman himself. When he arrives at Elishas door with his horses and chariots and gifts, he fully expects an audience with the prophet. When a messenger is dispatched with the simple instruction to wash in the Jordan, Naaman is so enraged that he turns to leave. His speech in verses 11 and 12 suggests two issues he must overcome: his pride and his prejudice. Naaman has certain expectations of the encounter. Surely Elisha will come out to receive him. After all, Naaman is not an ordinary person. He is the commander-in-chief of the Syrian army and deserves respect and special treatment. His stature in life makes him superior to all except the king. By his coming, he shows Elisha respect as a prophet. Shouldnt Elisha reciprocate with proper respect to one who is his social superior? Where are the appropriate incantations and rituals for healing? And what is this ridiculous order to wash in the puny Jordan when the rivers of Damascus are so much better than Israels river? [Review and Expositor 94, no. 4 (1997): 590.]

 

and he stood in the door. This action of Naamans, so similar to that of the Shunemite, is a sign of his respect for the prophet^. [T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings (vol. 13; Word Biblical Commentary; Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1985), 64.

 

The civil administration of the country was entrusted by Nebuchadrezzar to Gedaliah, the son of Ahikam. The latter had held a high position in the reign of Josiah (2 Kings 22:12), and was even more distinguished for the piety and courage which saved the life of Jeremiah in the time of Jehoiakim (Jer. 26:24). The same adherence to the prophetic Word had induced Gedaliah to support the unpopular advice of submission to Nebuchadrezzar. Information of all that passed in the city would no doubt reach the camp of the Chaldeans, and it would be in consequence of what he had heard that Nebuchadrezzar appointed Gedaliah to his post. It was also this, as well as respect for the prophet and his office, which must have induced the king to give such charge about Jeremiah to Nebuzar-adan, his chief captain (Jer. 39:1114; 40:14). The prophet was apparently set at liberty, but afterwards, by some mistake, carried with the other captives in chains to Ramah. Here the error was discovered, and Nebuzar-adan gave the prophet the choice of either going to Babylon, where all honourable provision should be made for him, or of settling in any part of the country. [Alfred Edersheim, Bible History: Old Testament (vol. 7; Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975), 212.

 

The political wisdom which had coalesced with his prophetic testimony was known and admired in the great world outside Jerusalem and he was regarded so highly by Nebuchadrezzar that a special charge to take care of him was laid on Nebuzaradan by the Babylonian king. But questions about the significance of this representation may be directed towards the portrayal of Nebuchadrezzar which emerges from it rather than to Jeremiah. Is the point which is being made not perhaps the piety of Nebuchadrezzar and the deep respect and concern which he evinces for a prophet of Yahweha man of God? In that case there is a link with the portrayal of Nebuchadrezzar as a עבד of Yahweh at 25:9; 27:6 and 43:10 (see above on 27:6). [William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah (International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh: T&T Clark International, 1986), 988.]

 

 

Like their ANE counterparts, biblical prophets often spoke out for the welfare of the people. In biblical contexts, this was often seen as attacks on the upper class, who lived well as the expense of the poor.

 

He [AMOS] speaks of the unethical practices of the day: how the merchants sit around waiting for the end of the Sabbath or the New Moon when they could again cheat the public "making small the ephah (measure) and making large the shekel (weight)"; that is to say, selling short quantities but overcharging the customer, who pays with weighed silver. Amos hated hypocrites who frequented the shrine and altar but accumulated ill-gotten gains and abused the poor. He had no time for the rich who were living in "houses of ivory" with both summer and winter homes, in luxury all year, while the poor who were ground down under them had to pay for that luxury and groaned under the oppression. [The Bible and the Ancient Near East, Cyrus H. Gordon, WWNorton:1997, 222-223]

 

 

 

Even in cases of major criticism of ruling kings, they enjoyed access and proximity, and provided help in times of crisis. Their direct and personal access and interaction with kingseven in hostile situationsis unique in the ANE.

 

The relationship between kings and prophets seems rather more immediate in the Hebrew Bible. The list of encounters between prophets and kings, to which even Daniels communication with Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius (Dan. 16) should be added, is much longer than can be assembled from the entire Near Eastern documentation. Sometimes biblical kings, like the king of Mari, are only indirectly informed of prophecies (Josiah in 2 Kgs 22; Jehojachim in Jer. 36; the king of Nineveh in Jonah 3), but much more often the communication between prophets and kings in the Hebrew Bible is direct and personal. Jeremiah, with his antagonistic messages, faces some problems at times in this respect, but there are prophetsElijah, for instance (1 Kgs 21:1724)who seem to have no difficulties in approaching the king personally in spite of their aggressive proclamation against him. Indeed, prophets like Nathan (2 Sam. 7:417, 12:1 14) and Isaiah (Isa. 7) conform to the conventional picture of court prophets better than their Near Eastern colleagues of whom this term is (often derogatorily) used. (Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives, by Martti Nissinen; chapter Prophets and Kings; OxfordUP:2017, p291)

 

In the midst of these general hostilities, Elisha stands out as adviser to the king; through his foresight, Israels army regularly avoids entrapment. When his own life is threatened, he outsmarts the Aramaeans, who have come to take him, and takes them instead on a trip to Samaria. But once there, he does not permit the king to strike his enemy; since the Aramaeans were not royal prisoners, they were to be treated as invited guests and then sent home. [Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (vol. 11; Anchor Yale Bible; New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 75.

 

 

 

As messengers and envoys, they were respected as such, and accorded various levels of immunity, even though there were cases of persecution  rarely by the actual sitting-king, but rather by elite associates or middle-management.

 

Many have felt that Amaziah treats Amos with some deference considering that he had just reported him to the king for treason. This may indicate the respect given to the role of prophet in ancient Israel even when tension and conflict arose. Amaziah may be reluctant to be too harsh with one who speaks in the name of God even if he felt his words to be seditious. [Bruce C. Birch, Hosea, Joel, and Amos (ed. Patrick D. Miller and David L. Bartlett; Westminster Bible Companion; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 238239.

 

He [Amos] predicted the fall of Jeroboam by the sword and the exile of the Israelites for their iniquity. This was hardly popular with the authorities, but the priest of Bethel, Amaziah, could not have Amos killed because the latter enjoyed prophetic immunity. Prophets could be unpopular but normally their lives were spared, whether their divine message was agreeable or not.  [The Bible and the Ancient Near East, Cyrus H. Gordon, WWNorton:1997, 222-223]

 

After reporting to Jeroboam, Amaziah turns to Amos and, in effect, tells him to go home! Go back to Judah where you came from, he says. Many have felt that Amaziah treats Amos with some deference considering that he had just reported him to the king for treason. This may indicate the respect given to the role of prophet in ancient Israel even when tension and conflict arose. Amaziah may be reluctant to be too harsh with one who speaks in the name of God even if he felt his words to be seditious. He begins with some reticence by addressing Amos as seer (v. 12), a term used as an interchangeable alternative to the term prophet in ancient Israel. Many prophets were seers of visions as well as proclaimers of Gods word, and the use of this title indicates a measure of respect. [Bruce C. Birch, Hosea, Joel, and Amos (ed. Patrick D. Miller and David L. Bartlett; Westminster Bible Companion; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 238239.]

 

Nevertheless, much can be inferred about Amos personal situation, particularly from Amaziahs words. Amos preaching must have had considerable currency in Israel, because his direct attack by name on King Jeroboam (7:9) was taken very seriously. He was apparently well known as a Judean native, but in light of vv 1415 he may have wrongly been considered a typical professional prophet by some. His preaching was regarded by Amaziah as a program for revolt (v 10), yet Amos seems to have enjoyed the sort of diplomatic immunity generally accorded to prophets in both Israel and Judah (on this practice, see D. M. Scholer, Your Fathers Killed the Prophets, Th.D. diss., Harvard Univ., 1982) so that while Amaziah can freely rail against him, he does not go so far as to have him arrested or forcibly deported. [Douglas Stuart, HoseaJonah (vol. 31; Word Biblical Commentary; Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 369.]

 

36:16 they turned to one another in alarm. Baruch reads the scroll again, this time to the royal scribes. Their reaction reveals that they understand the importance of the prophetic charges against Judah. They may have hoped that the king would respond positively to the call for repentance. 36:17 from his mouth. The officials want to be certain that the words came from Jeremiah himself. Their questions may reflect their respect for Jeremiah as a prophet of Yahweh. [John D. Barry et al., Faithlife Study Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2016), Je 36:1617.]

 

The Ammonite princes or military leaders, aware of Davids rise to political power, misunderstood or, perhaps, chose to put a false construction on Davids motives. Therefore Hanun reacted and treated Davids messengers with utter contempt, disregarding the respect and immunity normally given to royal envoys. The insult was aimed not only at the messengers but, above all, at David himself (cf. A. R. Johnson, The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God [Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1961] 46). In a sense, it was a declaration of war (see Kegler, Politisches Geschehen, 290). [David A. Hubbard et al., Editorial Preface, in 2 Samuel (vol. 11; Word Biblical Commentary; Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1989), 11146147.

 

Davids messengers have half their beards shaved (symbolically emasculating them and by extension David) and their garments [were cut] in the middle at their hips, leaving them naked like slaves or captives (see Is 20:4). These men were ambassadors and as such were entitled to both respect and diplomatic immunity. [Victor Harold Matthews, Mark W. Chavalas, and John H. Walton, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (electronic ed.; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 2 Sa 10:3.

 

 

And as messengers for a foreign King YHWH, any rejection of the message and dishonoring of the messenger were seen as covenant/treaty violations. Covenant codes required that the status of the treaty and the loyalty of the parties would be DISPLAYED TO ALL by how messenger reception was experienced. Honoring of the messenger would result in honoring of the receiver; dishonoring of the messenger would result in proportionate and/or public retaliation (as a public proclamation of the breach, both to the communities involved and those around).

 

 

Royal messengers in the Bible do not always fare as well as those described in Mesopotamian texts. For instance, the messengers that David sends to the court of Hanun the Ammonite are intentionally shamed. The newly enthroned Ammonite king orders that half of their beards be shaved off and their clothing be cut off in the middle at their hips (2 Sam. 10:4). Such blatant disrespect for the representatives of a foreign government was an assertion of independence and was designed as a graphic means of dissolving all previous diplomatic ties. The subsequent invasion of Ammon results in a twofold victory, with Ammon and its Aramean allies defeated and new treaties established that enforced Israelite hegemony over much of Transjordan (10:1519) [Victor H. Matthews, The Hebrew Prophets and Their Social World: An Introduction (Second Edition.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 2223

 

A parallel theme, which also serves as a mini-version of the contest between gods that had taken place on Mount Carmel in 1 Kings 18, is tied to the judgment of Ahabs son Amaziah for his idolatry: the necessity of showing respect to a prophet as the messenger of God. The kings frustrated attempts to arrest Elijah result in the destruction of two squadrons of his soldiers at the word of the prophet (2 Kings 1:912). Only when the third military commander falls on his knees and humbly approaches the prophet does Elijah consent to speak to him and prophesy for the king (1:1316). The narrative thus sets a precedent in future dealings between king and prophet by linking respect for the prophet with respect for God. [Victor H. Matthews, The Hebrew Prophets and Their Social World: An Introduction (Second Edition.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 68.

 

The story of Elijahs spiritual victory over Baal and his ability to stop the rain would have been well-known in Israel. Even if the soldiers didnt know this man was Elijah, something about his demeanor or personal authority made them question the kings order. Ahaziah was a God-defying king who should have known better. He needed strong rebuke. Ahaziahs father Ahab repented in the face of the Lords judgment, but Ahaziah just got angry. Gods answer to Ahaziahs question was You will not recover. The kings insult to Gods character and power aroused Gods jealous anger (Ex 34:14).  Elijahs action in calling down fire seems severe at first. After all, these men were just following orders! But their command to Elijah demonstrates their arrogance toward the Lords prophet and their lack of proper respect for God. The fire showed these men and King Ahaziah who the true God wasjust as fire from heaven had demonstrated Gods power in Ahabs day. Elijah agreed to go with the third man because he came with a humble spirit and submissive words. [Douglas Connelly, Elijah: Living Securely in an Insecure World: 8 Studies for Individuals or Groups: With Notes for Leaders (A LifeGuide Bible Study; Downers Grove, IL: IVP Connect: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2005), 5658.

In the period immediately after the division of the kingdom, no strong prophetic figure emerges. However, one story particularly demonstrates the tension between prophet and king during this period. The tale involves an unnamed prophet who publicly confronts Jeroboam during a sacrifice at Bethel (1 Kings 13:110). Jeroboam is upset that his dedicatory ceremony is being interrupted. He makes a preemptory gesture, stretching out his arm, to signal to his guards to remove the troublemaker. The subsequent withering of the kings arm (13:4b) follows a pattern of events that is common in the Elijah-Elisha cycle where the person who fails to give proper respect to the Lords representative is slain or wounded (see 2 Kings 1:916; 2:2324; 5:19b27).  Frightened and publicly shamed, Jeroboam pleads with the prophet to pray to the Lord your God to heal his arm. Even though this is a direct acknowledgment of the prophets authority, it is a curious response by Jeroboam, who presumably is about to offer incense on the altar to Yahweh. [Victor H. Matthews and James C. Moyer, The Old Testament: Text and Context (Third Edition.; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 114115.

 

 

A vivid example of how international protocol and treaty requirements were sacrosanct comes from how the official messengers from David to Hanun were treated, and how this was UNDERSTOOD in the light of honor/shame obligations of such treaties.

 

 

Hanuns treatment of Davids men was clearly a violation of the courtesies normally extended to the envoys of other states in ancient times (Wiseman,  Is It Peace?  315). Indeed, the indignities heaped on them are a grotesque parody of the normal symbolic actions that accompanied mourning (cf. similarly Artzi, Mourning in International Relations, 170 n. 22; cf. also Lemos, 23334 [Ronald F. Youngblood, 1, 2 Samuel, in The Expositors Bible Commentary: 1 Samuel2 Kings (Revised Edition) (ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland; vol. 3; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 3423.]

 

Both kinds of treaties are well attested in the ancient Near East. In a parity treaty between the Hittite king Ḫattuili III and the Egyptian pharaoh Ramesses II, the two kings agree to mutual nonaggression, mutual defense, extradition of fugitives, and even assistance in cases of contested royal accession. All was designed to establish good peace (and) good brotherhood be[tween us] forever. [ANET, 2013.] That Hanun should dishonor Davids emissaries is, in essence, to renounce the treaty of peace and wittingly or unwittingly to invite retaliation by David. [John H. Walton, Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (Old Testament): Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel (vol. 2; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 455.]

 

Shaved off half of each mans beard (10:4). Beards also were considered a sign of manliness. For example, in one of the Mari letters, the Assyrian king Shamshi-Adad challenges his son: Are you not an adult? Is there no beard on your chin? Thus, to shave off half the beards of Davids envoys was to rob them symbolically of their manhood. As if that were not enough, Hanun also cut off their garments in the middle at the buttocks. McCarter remarks that the combination of shaving the beard and exposing the buttocks suggests symbolic castration. In the ancient Near East, such acts of disdain, defiance, or disloyalty typically elicited strong responses from the affronted party or power, and Davids response to Hanuns affront was to be expected. [John H. Walton, Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (Old Testament): Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel (vol. 2; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 455456.]

 

The Ammonites were fully cognizant of the implications of their actions and clearly expected David to respond with military force. [J. Robert Vannoy, Cornerstone Biblical Commentarya: 1-2 Samuel (vol. 4; Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2009), 325.]

 

Davids messengers have half their beards shaved (symbolically emasculating them and by extension David) and their garments [were cut] in the middle at their hips, leaving them naked like slaves or captives (see Is 20:4). These men were ambassadors and as such were entitled to both respect and diplomatic immunity. What may seem like a prank was in fact a direct challenge to Davids power and authority, and precipitated a war between the two nations. David could not allow such an obvious rape or symbolic castration of his representatives to go unavenged. A review of Assyrian royal annals (Sargon II, Sennacherib and Ashurbanipal) contains justifications for a declaration of war based on a violation of a sworn agreement or the physical challenging of Assyrian authority. Although the annals are not as graphic as this example, they also serve as a dropping of the gauntlet in political terms. [Victor Harold Matthews, Mark W. Chavalas, and John H. Walton, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (electronic ed.; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 2 Sa 10:3.

 

Part of the issue with this particular case (which would generalize across the ANE) is that this dishonoring of Davids emissaries would have been VISIBLE to the other emissaries present from Ammonite allies and vassals. This would be seen by THEM as a challenge to take sides quickly!

 

 

All of these norms/protocols can be found in the encounters between the Hebrew prophets and the Kings of Israel and Judah.

 

A quick list of a few of these will show this (other than the ones mentioned already above). I will BOLD some of the words/terms that are described above, in the analysis of messenger roles and praxis.

 

1.       The prophet Ahijah was sent to Jeroboam to announce that God would divide Solomons kingdom and give the northern 10 tribes to Jeroboam. [1 Kings 11]

2.       The man of God Shemaiah talks King Rehoboam out of starting a war with the northern tribes. [1 Kings 12]

3.       A man of God from Judah confronts King Jeroboam just as he is about to offer inauguration sacrifices on the new alternative altar at Bethel, but doesnt actually say anything about the kingbut only about the illegitimate altar. Jeroboam orders the messenger of God to be DETAINED (Seize him!) and this violation of protocol resulted in an instantaneous physical malaise. [The man of God didnt even have to say anything  the Suzerain punished the vassal directly and immediately.] King J recognized his folly and appealed to the now-fully-authenticated messenger, and his hand was restored. Now he performs correct messenger protocol, offering royal hospitality in the form of a palace meal with the king. And, also in protocol, he offers a gift to the messenger to return to his sender YHWH (which would go to YHWHs servants.] And, in keeping with his order to go/come quickly and not delay for hospitality, the messenger departs. But then, after being deceived by a lying prophet, he disobeys his Sender and pays the price of a disloyal messenger. Then, the lying prophet  his bitter enemy  now provides the posthumous respect that the man of God deserved for his role as messenger (the burial). [1 Kings 13]

4.       Much later, Jeroboam sends his wife from Tirzah to the blind prophet Ahijah in Shiloh about his sick son. He has access to the prophet (15 miles away). Ahijah then announces a change of regime by YHWH, like he had announced to Jeroboam originally. [1 Kings 14]

5.       God sends the prophet Jehu son of Hanani to announce a coming change of regime. Jehu has access to the king and no mistreatment is disclosed. [1 Kings 16]

6.       The prophet Elijah has easy access to King Ahab, and announces the drought. His wording looks like a proxy action. [1 Kings 17]

7.       At the end of the 3 years, Elijah grants audience to Ahab, who goes out to him. [Jezebel has installed almost a thousand Baal/Asherah prophets as court prophets, at the expense of the court, and has tried to systematically eliminate YHWH prophets.] Ahab obeys Elijah and then sees the victory at Carmel.

8.       Elijah acts a proxy for YHWH ordering the execution of the false prophets, in accordance with Torah.

9.       Ahab obeys Elijah again about eating and drinking and then about going home. Elijah goes to the same city, and apparently has lodging there, in immediate access to the king (and vice versa). [1 Kings 18]

10.   Jezebel sends a message to him saying that she will kill him within 24 hours and he flees (very bad treatment of a messenger of God). [1 Kings 19]

11.   An unnamed prophet has access to Ahab before a battle, gives him instructions (which he obeys) and assures him of success (which follows).

12.   The same prophet then having accesstells Ahab what to do for the upcoming Syrian offensive.

13.   The following year, a man of god tells Ahab--on the eve of battle--that he will win because of the faulty theology of the Syrians. Ahab wins but spares the leader Ben-Hadad.

14.   A member of the sons of the prophets gives a divine instruction to a co-prophet, who refuses to obey and pays the price for not obeying the messenger  a lion kills him, in accordance with the word of the first prophet.

15.   A second co-prophet obeys, and the original prophet waits in disguise for Ahab. While still in disguise, the prophet has an interaction with Ahab (as a citizen or soldier). When the prophet removes the disguise, AHAB actually recognizes him as one of the prophets (by clothing? By previous interactions?). The prophet condemns the saving of Ben-hadad and pronounces judgement on Ahab.

16.   The king takes no reprisal against the prophet. [1 Kings 20]

17.   God sends Elijah to pronounce doom on him and Jezebel at the vineyard of Naboth. Ahab responds in submission, and God delays punishment. No reprisal to the prophet. [1 Kings 21]

18.   In 1 Kings 22, before the battle of Ramoth-gilead, Ahab has his court prophets assembled. King Jehoshaphat asks for a prophet of YHWH, and Ahab reveals that (1) the prophet Micaiah son of Imlah has been saying bad things about him; (2) that Ahab knows where Micaiah lives, close by; (3) that Ahab has not mistreated the messenger of God [immunity].

19.   Micaiah appears before the kings of Israel and Judah and delivers a message of doom.

20.   A false prophet mistreats the messenger, and Micaiah pronounces punishment for him.

21.   Ahab makes the mistake at this point of imprisoning the messenger/prophet (bad thing).

22.   The prophecy comes true and Ahab dies in battle, for his disobedience to the suzerain YHWH.

23.   King Ahaziah seeks advice from a pagan deity, and Elijah sends a message to him of this disobedience to the suzerain, and of his death because of that.

24.   The king recognizes from the description that it is Elijah, and knows where Elijah is (has access). He sends a military troop to demand/order Elijah to appear before the king, and God destroys them for their arrogance (They would have known about the Carmel incident of fire-from-heaven, so there is no reason that they did not start with BEGGING instead of DEMANDING.) In relaying it as an ORDER of the king, both the first and second groups violate the principle of messenger independence. The prophet is a PEER of the king and any public exhibition that DENIES this is a devaluation of the messengers sender and a dishonoring of the messenger code.

25.   The 3rd group of military personnel do not make this mistakethey essentially DISOBEY the king, and present the message as a BEGGING / APPEAL to the messenger of God, instead of an ORDER that the king no doubt told them to ESCALATE.

26.   The prophet appears before the king, and gives the message of his death, but there is no reprisal or mistreatment recorded. [2 Kings 1]

27.   After Elisha succeeds Elijah, his first official act is to render some deadly water harmless, acting as a proxy, in accordance with the promised benefits of the covenant/treaty. [2 kings 2]

28.   [OUR PASSAGE IS HERE.]

29.   In 2^nd Kings 3, when the three allied kings are preparing to attack Moab, they face a crisis, and journey to make an appeal to Elijah in person. (Elijah lives in the capital city, but presumably accompanied the army in their journey to the entrance to Moab, at the southern tip of the Dead Sea).

30.   Elisha says that he has ceased giving messages to Israel (cessation of messages), but responds to the requests of the King of Judah.

31.   Other miracles are recorded of Elisha, all seemingly benefactions of the covenant. [2nd Kings 4]

32.   In 2^nd Kings 5, we have the story of Naaman  discussed abovethat shows the APPROPRIATE response to the messenger of YHWH.

33.   In 2 Kings 6, Elisha assists an unnamed king of Israel (all of them bad, according to the text) in avoiding Syrian military attacks. This is in spite of standing hostilities of the king of Israel and his suzerain YHWH.

34.   During a subsequent siege, Elisha is unharmed and unmolested in his residence INSIDE the city, and eventually the king breaks and plans to kill Elisha. But when the king comes into the house, Elisha announces relief from the siege, in a message from his Sender.

35.   The underling of the king expresses disbelief in the message from Elijah, and a punishment for this dishonoring of the message is announced on him. [2^nd Kings 7]

36.   In 2^nd Kings 8, we have the story of Elishas international fame described above [Ben-hadad and Hazael], complete with provisions for the messenger (which were refused as in the case of Naaman).

37.   In 2^nd Kings 9, we have Elisha acting as a proxy, in sending a messenger himself to anoint Jehu.

38.   The announcement of the content of message was done in secret, as would typically be the case in cases like this.

39.   Much later, the evil king Joash went in submission to Elisha on his deathbed, addressing him in complete honor (my father). The king had easy access yet no mistreatment, and Elisha pronounced some limited victory for him in the upcoming wars with Syria in Aphek.

40.   Jeroboam II restores the pagan temple in Bethel and Amos the prophet delivers some of his prophecies at the site  as noted above  with immunity. [2 Kings 14 and Book of Amos]

41.   Messages ceased from the suzerain YHWH to the vassal Israel at this point, and the vassal  for disobedience to the treatywas abandoned and left unprotected before the Assyrians. The fall of the northern kingdom is given its theological explanation in 2 kings 17. One of the clauses in the description is Yet the LORD warned Israel and Judah by every prophet and every seer, saying, Turn from your evil ways and keep my commandments and my statutes, in accordance with all the Law that I commanded your fathers, and that I sent to you by my servants the prophets. But they would not listen, but were stubborn, as their fathers had been, who did not believe in the LORD their God. They despised his statutes and his covenant that he made with their fathers and the warnings that he gave them.

 

We could find similar elements in the history of Judah, but the above details should suffice to make these points clear (as framework for our passage):

 

7         Prophets were messengers of the suzerain YHWH to his vassal kings in Judah and Israel.

7         As such, they also had proxy authority to execute/implement elements of the treaty.

7         They were on a peer with the king, and the kings were responsible to listen to them and to seek them out as needed.

7         Kings were responsible for all mistreatment done to a messenger while the messenger was in their land.

7         King and prophet had easy access to one another.

7         Prophets helped even hostile kings in times of war.

 

 

Mistreatment and/or dishonoring of these messengers by royalty would essentially be a statement of rebellion.

7         The fact that most of the power displays by the prophets were done in PUBLIC view, meant that everyone KNEW the authority and power of these messengers, and anyone who deliberately IGNORED this did so at personal risk! Even the kings with hostile relations with these messengers would NOT typically act against themthey KNEW BETTER.

7         Underlings on the kings payroll (e.g. priests and staff at the Bethel royal temple) would have zero excuse for how they treated a messenger that the king HIMSELF would honor and provide immunity for.

 

 

 

So, how was Elisha treated by those in power?

 

Elisha served as YHWHs messenger during the reigns of 4 kings of Israel: Joram (Jehoram), Jehu of Nimshi, Jehoahaz, and Jehoash (Joash) during whose reign he died.

 

If we survey the interactions between Elisha and the ruling powers, we can note that his treatment was more or less in line with the high standards expected. He apparently lived in the capital city Samaria (2 Kings 2.25), so he and the ruling monarch would have had easy access to one anotherfor help or harm.

 

In some/many of the below incidents, the king is unnamed so we might not be sure which of the 4 kings are being referred to. However, we will just treat them as if they are in chronological order.

 

7         2nd Kings 3 data:

o   In the three kings against Moab military initiative, Jehoram has an encounter with Elisha that is semi-hostile, but Elisha is treated with respect and he does still encourage Israel in that situation.

7         2^nd Kings 4 data:

o   In the story of the Shunammite Woman, in verse 13 Elisha offers to speak to the king or to the commander of the army on her behalf. This indicates that he certainly had favorable access to the two highest leaders of the land (probably Jehoram?).

7         2^nd Kings 5 data:

o   In the story of Naaman the Syrian (2^nd highest authority in Syria), Elisha sends a message to the unnamed king of Israel (Jehoram still?) and the king OBEYS Elisha.

o   In the story of Naaman, Elisha is treated as higher status by this foreign dignitary Naaman.

7         2^nd Kings 6 data:

o   In the horses and chariots of fire passage, Elisha helps the unnamed king of Israel in several of the Syrian military advances.

o   In that small passage, the king of Israel addresses Elisha as a superior, calling him my father and asks for instructions (and obeys them).

o   Later in chapter 6 and the first part of 7, in the Siege of Samaria event, Elisha is living still inside the capital citywhich is suffering tremendously. The (unnamed) king of Israel has actually been secretly humbling himself before the LORD (the sackcloth under his clothesv30), but after seeing the situation worsen to horrid levels, finally hits his faith limit and gets angry at God [like we ALL do SOME OF THE TIME sigh], and directs this toward His prophet. Uttering the threat of murder (which he could have done much, much earlier had he been so inclined), he sends a messenger to Elisha with the basic message I cant wait on God any longer!

o   But when the king arrived, Elisha simply announced the relief to show up within 24 hours! Nothing is done negative against the king, and the king does not harm Elishabut actually trusts him enough to go home.

o   Interestingly, although not a true scoffing, the underling to the king expresses doubt in Elisha (unlike the king!). This dishonoring [an implied accusation that YHWHs messenger is lying or ignorant] is met with a penalty for mistreatment of messengers.

7         2^nd Kings 8 data:

o   In the opening to this chapter, the (unnamed) sitting king of Israel is asking Elishas (former?) servant about all the great things that Elisha has done, apparently in admiration. At the end of the story, he honors the woman that Elisha honored by returning both her land and the intervening/lost profits from it (7 years worth!).

o   Later in the chapter, Elisha is honored HUGELY by Ben-Hadad of Damascus (even taking the inferior status of your son).

7         2^nd Kings 9 data:

o   None, other than Elisha sending a messenger to Jehu, announcing him to be both KING and the one to fulfill the prophecy of judgment (by Elijah) on the reigning dynasty.

7         2^nd Kings 10-12 data:

o   (none)

7         2^nd Kings 13 data:

o   No interactions between the new/third king Jehoahaz and Elisha (unless he was one or more of the unnamed kings above).

o   His son Joash (Jehoash), although also denigrated in the text, expresses deep humility and honor before Elisha as Elisha was about to die, even using the same phrase Elisha said at the departure of Elijah: My father, my father! The chariots of Israel and its horsemen!

 

 

Summary:

1.       Elisha never says a positive thing about any of these kingsin keeping with his current assigned message of the suzerain YHWHs disapproval of the vassal kings of Israel.

2.       Elisha consistently HELPS them in times of war.

3.       Elisha performs no large-scale damage miracles like Elijahs fire from heaven events.

4.       The kings of Israel and the foreign dignitaries in the narrative treat Elisha with the utmost respect and deference, including in some cases overt submission.

5.       The one possible negative from a king is the angry/frustrated outburst at the end of the Siege of Samaria (but it is seen in context as being out of character to the self-humbling king), but it is not acted upon and even quickly reversed.

6.       The one negative dishonoring of YHWHs messenger is by an underling, and is dealt with accordingly. (Actually, the king of Israel himself would be responsible to punish the actions of his underling, but the events are too compressed to see if any censure would have been issuedespecially when it was clear that that the man would be somehow punished within 24 hoursunspecified method though).

 

In other words, those in power, authority, and cognizant of the rules of treating official messengers WOULD NOT DARE mistreat or dishonor Elisha.

 

 

Back to main menu.