Revised: July 19th, 2001
[Note: This is a revision of an older piece on the
problem with Hos 1.4. I now have a different understanding of that verse, and
you can find that explanation at qjehu.html.]
..............................................................................................
Glenn,
I am a long-time skeptic and fledgling believer
(thanks in part to this site), and I have come across some "tough"
questions in the "Internet Infidels" Web pages which I have not seen
addressed here (there are several others, but these "spoke to me" for
some reason).
In 2 Kings chapters 9-10 detail an account of Jehu
carrying out Yahweh's orders to slaughter Joram and his company at Jezreel and
being praised for this work. While Hosea later pronounces judgment on Jehu's
house for "the blood of Jezreel." Is this a contradiction or am I (and
the author of the piece) missing something?
Thanks in advance.
P.S. I have found your Christian Think Tank to be
EXTREMELY helpful and an answer to prayer.
........................................................................................
Let's set up the problem clearly:
Point
One: Jehu
was in the presence of Ahab (2 Kgs 9.25) when Elijah first pronounced that YHWH
would destroy all the males of Ahab's line (I Kings 21.17f):
Then the word of the Lord came to Elijah the
Tishbite, saying: 18 Go down to meet King Ahab of Israel, who rules in Samaria;
he is now in the vineyard of Naboth, where he has gone to take possession. 19
You shall say to him, “Thus says the Lord: Have you killed, and also
taken possession?” You shall say to him, “Thus says the Lord: In the place
where dogs licked up the blood of Naboth, dogs will also lick up your blood.”
20 Ahab said to Elijah, “Have you found me, O my enemy?” He answered, “I have
found you. Because you have sold yourself to do what is evil in the sight of
the Lord, 21 I will bring disaster on you; I will consume you, and will cut
off from Ahab every male, bond or free, in Israel; 22 and I will make
your house like the house of Jeroboam son of Nebat, and like the house
of Baasha son of Ahijah, because you have provoked me to anger and have
caused Israel to sin. 23 Also concerning Jezebel the Lord said, ‘The
dogs shall eat Jezebel within the bounds of Jezreel.’ 24 Anyone belonging to
Ahab who dies in the city the dogs shall eat; and anyone of his who dies in the
open country the birds of the air shall eat.” [NRSV]
According to 2 Kings 9.25, Jehu and Bidkar were both
in the presence of Ahab when Elijah issued that initial prophetic announcement
of judgment:
Then Jehu said to Bidkar his officer, “Take him up and cast him
into the property of the field of Naboth the Jezreelite, for I remember when
you and I were riding together after Ahab his father, that the Lord laid
this oracle against him: 26 ‘Surely I have seen yesterday the blood of
Naboth and the blood of his sons,’ says the Lord, ‘and I will repay you in this
property,’ says the Lord. Now then, take and cast him into the property,
according to the word of the Lord.” [NASB; notice that Jehu recalls the first prophecy
Elijah made at that encounter--relative to Ahab's personal death at Naboth--and
was therefore personally present at the pronouncement of judgment. Notice also
that more people than just Jehu were there--at least Bidkar and possibly
other officers and staff personnel as well.]
There are three separate judgments spoken to
Ahab in this context, some with multiple elements:
1.
Personal death of Ahab at Naboth (and his blood being licked up by dogs in
that locale) [Reason: the murder of Naboth, through the instrumentality
of his wife]
2. Destruction of Ahab’s dynastic house [Reason: ‘selling
himself’ to do evil/disaster (rab), angering God (e.g., the well-known
killing of prophets via Jezebel—cf. 18.13), and the closely related ‘causing
Israel to sin’ (baal worship, cf. the judgment against Baasha in 16.2ff)]
*
God will bring evil/disaster on Ahab [as Ahab had brought disaster/evil upon
the prophets of YHWH and others that opposed him and Jezzie]
*
God will “consume Ahab” [cf. WBC: Behold, I am about to bring disaster on
you, and will pursue you with fire. And I will cut off from Ahab anyone
urinating against the wall, helpless and abandoned in Israel.]
* God will cut off from Ahab every male, “both bond and free”, throughout the
land (e.g., not just at Jezreel).
* God will make the House of Ahab like the House of Jeroboam and Basha
* Some of Ahab’s dead will die in the city and some in the field (not all in
the city of Jezreel, obviously)
3.
Dogs will eat Jezebel in the district of Jezreel [That this is a separate
prophecy from the judgment on Ahab’s ‘house’ is clear from the presence of the
Hebrew conjunction gam and Lamed
preposition in front of Jezzie , the phrase literally being “and also,
about Jezebel He speaks, Yahweh, saying…”
Notice that an explicit comparison is made with the
Houses of Jeroboam and Baasha, and that the wording of this pronouncement is
very similar to that against Jeroboam/Baasha in 1 Kings 14.10ff and 1 Kings
16:
"therefore behold, I am bringing calamity
on the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam every male
person, both bond and free in Israel, and I will make a clean sweep of
the house of Jeroboam, as one sweeps away dung until it is all gone. 11
“Anyone belonging to Jeroboam who dies in the city the dogs will eat. And he
who dies in the field the birds of the heavens will eat; for the Lord has
spoken it.”’ [Fulfillment at
15.27: Then Baasha the son of Ahijah of the house of Issachar conspired
against him, and Baasha struck him down at Gibbethon, which belonged to the
Philistines, while Nadab and all Israel were laying siege to Gibbethon. 28 So
Baasha killed him in the third year of Asa king of Judah, and reigned in his
place. 29 And it came about, as soon as he was king, he struck down all the
household of Jeroboam. He did not leave to Jeroboam any persons alive,
until he had destroyed them." It seems this reference is broader than
males--unless the reader is somehow supposed to know the 'males' clause. See
discussion of this passage below ]
"Now the word of the Lord came to Jehu the son of Hanani against
Baasha, saying, 2 “Inasmuch as I exalted you from the dust and made you leader
over My people Israel, and you have walked in the way of Jeroboam and have made
My people Israel sin, provoking Me to anger with their sins, 3 behold, I
will consume Baasha and his house, and I will make your house like the
house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat. 4 “Anyone of Baasha who dies in the
city the dogs shall eat, and anyone of his who dies in the field the birds of
the heavens will eat.” [Fulfillment at 16.11f: And
it came about, when he became king, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he
killed all the household of Baasha; he did not leave a single male, neither
of his relatives nor of his friends. 12 Thus Zimri destroyed all the
household of Baasha, according to the word of the Lord, which He spoke
against Baasha through Jehu the prophet. This fulfillment formula looks a
bit different, perhaps indicating that dynastic households are represented by
'males only' (as they are in genealogies), and KD point out that "these
words (goel-avenger and friends) simply serve to explain (males) and
show that this phrase is to be understood as relating to males only" [KD: in loc]. If this is the case, then the "all
breath" above might be restricted to males-only. We do know that royal
wives were typically not killed (except the high Queen), but rather were
married by the new king, since they represented international treaties and
relationships--see given2rape.html. In the case
of non-political marriages, the widow would simply move back in with her
father/brothers and no longer represent the former king/husband's house. Thus, one
could destroy an 'entire royal house' simply by destroying all
the males, since all the inheritance structures would also disappear. The
household 'skeleton' would thus be destroyed and some of the widows and female
children would just 'drift off' back to other 'households'. Some royal wives
would be killed, especially those with sons who were being executed in the
process--hence Bathsheba's fear for her life when David is about to die. She
fears Adonijah will kill both her and Solomon. But wives that represented
treaty obligations would not. See the discussion below on the members of a
‘household’.]
Now, we need to drill down a bit further here, into
the Hebrew of the text, to see just what the text says, but first we
need to gain a reasonable understanding of what a “house of X” was,
especially in the case of a king.
The word ‘house’ or ‘household’ is bayit, and it has both the
obvious literal meaning (structure one lives in), and an extended meaning of
the “ancestral household group”.
“HOUSEHOLD. A term that signifies the members of a
family and others living together as a social unit, often under the same
roof. It is used interchangeably with "house" and "family,"
and the translations vary considerably in their use of these terms, the AV
frequently retaining the translation "house."...Households could
include husbands, wives, concubines, children, close relatives, slaves, and
even strangers. For example, Noah's household (Gen. 7:1; AV
"house") consisted not only of himself and his wife, but also of his
three sons and their wives. Gen. 14:14 says that 318 trained men who had been
born into Abraham's household tried to rescue Lot. Later Abraham was commanded
to put the sign of the covenant on all the male members of his household:
"every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house, or
bought with your money from a foreigner who is not your offspring"
(Gen. 17:12; cf. 17:27). The bayit (house or household) of Jacob (Gen.
46:27) included all his offspring - his unmarried daughters, his sons, their
wives, and his sons' sons and daughters seventy in all (46:1-27). [ISBE: s.v. “Household”]
“Depending
on its economic assets, and especially the state and extent of its inherited
landholding, the typical household would also have included some or all of the
following: grandparents, the families of grown children (since
postmarital patrilocal [based on husband's family] residence must have
been very common), an adopted child or adopted children, a divorced adult
daughter who had returned to the paternal homestead, male and female
servants or slaves, and other dependents. It is interesting to observe that dependents,
including resident aliens (gerini) and slaves, were--ideally
and in theory, at any rate--considered members of the household, taking
part in festivals, profiting by the Sabbath rest, and so on, not unlike
servants in a pious household in colonial New England who were expected to
attend church, take part in family prayers, and the like. With respect to the
larger and better-off households, therefore, we are really dealing with an
extended family group and its dependents, occupying a compound with
several houses in close proximity. [OT:FAI:52]
Are there any relatives of the father that are NOT considered members of his ‘household’? Yes.
One
major category here is that of married daughters, their attendants (and
servants), and their offspring. These are reckoned as being members of the new
husband’s households. So, for example, when Rebekah left her father’s house and
took her nurse-maid with her, both she and her maid (and her offspring by her
husband Isaac) belonged to Isaac’s (or actually, Abraham’s, since he was still
alive) household. She/they had ‘switched’ households.
“It
would have been suitable for a woman betrothed to a wealthy man to have an
entourage of servants. The nurse, however, would have higher status as the
nurturer of the child who would now remain as part of her new household
and serve as a chaperon on the return journey. [BBCALL: at Gen 24.59]
“By
marriage a woman left her parents, went to live with her husband, and joined
his clan, to which her children would belong.” [HI:AIdeVaux:28]
Another
category would be kinfolk (still relatives)
living in separated locales:
Blessed be the Lord, the God of my master Abraham, who has not forsaken
His lovingkindness and His truth toward my master; as for me, the Lord has
guided me in the way to the house of my master’s brothers.” [Gen 24.27, in which
Abraham’s steward has traveled back to Abraham’s family. Note that though
Abraham and these folk are “brothers”, they are members of different “houses”]
When King David came to Bahurim, a man of the family of the house
of Saul came out whose name was Shimei son of Gera [2 Sam 16.5; note that
Shimei is not ‘of the house of Saul’ but ‘of the family of the house of Saul’—related,
but not ‘in’.
As
well as physical brothers, living in separate
domiciles:
“Then
Abner was very angry over the words of Ish-bosheth and said, “Am I a dog’s head
that belongs to Judah? Today I show kindness to the house of Saul your
father, to his brothers and to his friends, and have not
delivered you into the hands of David;
(2 Sam 3.8; NRSV; note that the House of Saul does not include “his
brothers”)
And
the same passage would indicate that friends
(not living in his actual household) would also be excluded:
“Then Abner was very angry over the words of Ish-bosheth and said, “Am
I a dog’s head that belongs to Judah? Today I show kindness to the house of
Saul your father, to his brothers and to his friends, and have not
delivered you into the hands of David; (2 Sam
3.8; NRSV; note that the House of Saul does not include “his friends”)
We
might include kinfolk (sometimes
called ‘brothers’) that have an oppositional
stance to another kinsman (our example is actually relevant to
dynastic houses):
“Now these are the ones who
came to David at Ziklag, while he was still restricted because of Saul the
son of Kish; and they were among the mighty men who helped him in war. 2 They were equipped with
bows, using both the right hand and the left to sling stones and to
shoot arrows from the bow; they
were Saul’s kinsmen from Benjamin…And of the sons of Benjamin,
Saul’s kinsmen, 3,000; for until now the greatest part of them had kept
their allegiance to the house of Saul. [1 Chron 12.1, 29; note that these
kinsmen of Saul will be considered—in the war between the dynasties—as not part
of the ‘house of Saul’]
Members
of the general “clan” (members of a
“further-back house”, so to speak; the next higher/broader level of
organization). They are kinfolk but reckoned at
‘one remove’ from the ‘family’ or bayit of one of their
members. The clan did try to look out after its constituent houses, in some
ways:
“Often
the clan designated one male, called a goel, to extend help to clan
members in need. In English, this person is referred to as the
kinsman-redeemer. His help covered many areas of need…A goel was
expected to avenge a kinsman’s murder. In such a case, he was called the
‘avenger of blood’ (Deut 19.12)” [NIEBF:417;
note the goel, although not necessarily part of the bayit of a
kinsman, was still bound to avenge his death.]
When we get to “royal households”—generally considered to be dynasties—the concept
gets even more narrow, and it turns into something very different
from a regular/ancestral “house of X”. This can be seen in the “foundation”
interactions between God and David, in the founding of David’s “House” (1 Chron
17.10ff; 18.23ff):
“Moreover
I declare to you that the Lord will build you a house. 11 When your
days are fulfilled to go to be with your ancestors, I will raise up your
offspring after you, one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom.
12 He shall build a house for me, and I will establish his throne
forever. 13 I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me. I will not
take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from him who was before you, 14
but I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom forever, and his throne
shall be established forever [NRSV]
“And
now, O Lord, as for the word that you have spoken concerning your servant and
concerning his house, let it be established forever, and do as you have
promised. 24 Thus your name will be established and magnified forever in the
saying, ‘The Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, is Israel’s God’; and the house
of your servant David will be established in your presence. 25 For you, my God,
have revealed to your servant that you will build a house for him;
therefore your servant has found it possible to pray before you. 26 And now, O
Lord, you are God, and you have promised this good thing to your servant; 27
therefore may it please you to bless the house of your servant, that it may
continue forever before you. For you, O Lord, have blessed and are blessed
forever. [NRSV]
Notice in these passages, David already has a
‘house’ (both in that he has an ancestral one, and that he is already king)
yet God will “build him one” in the future. The
‘building of the house’ (17.10) is declared to
mean “the succession of the throne to his own offspring”
(17.11). In other words, in a royal context, “house” means basically “series
of kings, all from the same parent”. It thus becomes almost a synonym for
“dynasty” or “throne” (indeed, this was specified in 17.14). As such a political
word, it would ONLY include possible successors to the throne and
not non-candidates (e.g., wives, servants, visitors, live-in brothers)
who could be members of the ‘regular’ ancestral/economic (i.e.,
non-political) household of David. In other words, we have two kinds of “house
of David”—one associated with kingship, and one defined by
regular ancestral family traditions (the ‘regular’ household that would include
in-house dependents).
What this would mean for our study, since each
judgment deals specifically with the political arena and forcible “change of management”, would be
that the concept of “house of X” would be more likely to mean “male offspring, suitable for accession to the throne”.
Excluded from the royal household are apparently certain officials (the example below has Abner
differentiating himself from the ‘house of Saul’):
“Now
Saul had a concubine whose name was Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah; and
Ish-bosheth said to Abner, “Why have you gone in to my father’s concubine?” 8
Then Abner was very angry over the words of Ish-bosheth and said, “Am I a dog’s
head that belongs to Judah? Today I show kindness to the house of
Saul your father, to his brothers and to his friends, and have not
delivered you into the hands of David; “ [2 Sam 3.7ff]
Also
excluded from the royal ‘house’ (the
dynastic one) are at least some of the
servant/officials. Ziba, a servant of Saul, ‘reverted’ to servant of
David upon David’s accession to the throne. In the interchange with David about
Mephibosheth, it is clear that Ziba is NOT ‘of the house of Saul’ even
though he was servant in it, and that only Mephibosheth is of ‘the house of
Saul’ (in a dynastic sense, this makes sense—he is the sole surviving potential
successor to his father Saul):
David asked, “Is there still anyone left of the house of Saul to
whom I may show kindness for Jonathan’s sake?” 2 Now there was a servant of
the house of Saul whose name was Ziba, and he was summoned to David. The
king said to him, “Are you Ziba?” And he said, “At your service!” 3 The king
said, “Is there anyone remaining of the house of Saul to whom I may show
the kindness of God?” Ziba said to the king, “There remains a son of
Jonathan; he is crippled in his feet.” 4 The king said to him, “Where is he?”
Ziba said to the king, “He is in the house of Machir son of Ammiel, at
Lo-debar.” 5 Then King David sent and brought him from the house of Machir son
of Ammiel, at Lo-debar. 6 Mephibosheth son of Jonathan son of Saul came to
David, and fell on his face and did obeisance. David said, “Mephibosheth!”He
answered, “I am your servant.” 7 David said to him, “Do not be afraid, for I
will show you kindness for the sake of your father Jonathan; I will restore
to you all the land of your grandfather Saul, and you yourself shall eat at
my table always. [2 Sam 9]
“Ziba
must have been in charge of Saul’s estate although it is not made clear to
whom the patrimony now belonged. It is likely that it had become crown
property (see Mettinger, Solomonic State Officials, 85): David
apparently had the right to restore it to Mephibosheth (see also
Ben-Barak, Bib 62 [1981] 79). If so, Mephibosheth had no more claim upon
it because the paternal estate had become part of the crown lands (see
also 1 Sam 8:14; 22:7). [WBC: in .loc.; note: as
would like the servants ‘attached to it’]
Saul had other male descendants ( two sons via a concubine, and 5 sons-in-law, cf.
2 Sam 21), but since none of these would be full-fledged dynastic progeny
(which required a full royal ‘wife’ as a mother), only Mephibosheth was
considered ‘of the house of Saul’ (above). David’s offering of Saul’s sons-in-law, perhaps prompted by
having to come up with seven while sparing Mephibosheth, is unusual since sons-in-laws
were NOT considered part of the household at all, as we noted above:
“Stolz
(281) regards it as surprising that Merab’s sons should be killed because
they did not belong to Saul’s family but to the important family of Barzillai.”
[WBC: at 2 Sam 21; note: in the passage, the
Gibeonites did not actually ask for members of “Saul’s house” (i.e., only
throne-heirs) but for male descendants (ish beni).]
The
2 Sam 21 passage, as noted by Stolz above, seems an anomaly to all we know
about inheritance and lineage in Israel. Merab is the Saul’s daughter, who is
given in a political marriage to Adriel of Abel-Meholah:
“As
a Meholathite, Adriel was an inhabitant of the town of Abel-Meholah... His marriage
to a Saulide princess may have sealed a treaty between his city-state and
Saul’s new Israelite state (Edelman 1990). Such diplomatic marriages
were an established convention in the ancient Near East (Malamat
1963:8–10). Abel-Meholah did not become a corporate part of the Israelite state
until David or Solomon’s reign, as indicated by the city’s inclusion in
Solomon’s fifth district (1 Kgs 4:12). [REF:ABD: s.v. “Adriel”]
Merab
had already been promised to David, in a plot to destroy David by Saul(!), and
if David had married her, he would have been called the “king’s son-in-law” (hatan),
but not “son enough” (bene) to be in the throne-line:
“Marrying
the eldest daughter of the king would give David the title of “king’s
son-in-law,” raising his status immensely. In some societies this would have
been a potential steppingstone to the throne, but no such practice is
evidenced in Israel. [BBCALL: at 1 Sam 18.17]
Saul
had offered her to David in exchange for David’s continued service to Saul.
This would have not been the normal marriage arrangement in which the
daughter left the house of her father and moved away to David’s house—since
David was to be a court official (both musician and military!)—but it would
have let David be “kept under observation” (if the ruse about having him killed
didn’t work). Merab ended up marrying the Adriel fellow—son of the important
Barzillai—and became the kings ‘son-in-law’. Since this would have been a
political marriage in which the lesser house (Barzillai) married into the
greater house (Saul), Adriel very likely moved to Jerusalem and took up
responsibilities at the court, but might have remained at home and acted as an
‘advocate for Saul’ in the house of his father. However, in either case, their
offspring, though the physical grandsons of Saul, would NOT have been
possible throne-successors. Physical beni of Saul, yes; members of ‘house of
Saul’, no. So, in our 2
Samuel 9 passage, these grandsons do NOT show up as members of the “house of
Saul”, but in 2 Samuel 21, they show up as “close enough” for ish bene
Saul. [But note that the commentator remarked that David was having to stretch
it by including these grandsons in this list…It was simply not really
legitimate to refer to these people as ‘males among the sons’ of Saul. It constitutes an exception to the
normal usage, but still supports our
observation that “house of X” (political/dynastic) IS NOT EQUAL to ‘ALL
male descendants of X’.]
What
this would indicate, though, is that not even all male descendants
would be considered ‘of the house of X’ in the dynastic sense. Males that could not accede to the throne were excluded
from the royal ‘house of X’ as well.
Some
of the high-ranking public officers/officials
are also excluded from the royal family (and therefore also excluded from the
more narrow ‘House of X’). So Brueggemann (parenthesis his, bold mine)
in describing the actions of Jehu in 2 Kings 10:
“In
his cunning, he invites the royal officials (not the family) to send a
‘champion’ son of Ahab against Jehu…Thus he has tricked and seduced the royal entourage
into killing the royal family…”
[This
makes sense, of course, since the officials could ‘change allegiance’ from one
dynastic house to another (implying they were NOT part of the ‘House’ to begin
with). So we see the cases of Ziba (above), the Ahabite officials in 2 Kings
10, and David’s counselor Hushai
(2 Sam 16.15ff). In the case of Jehu, this is explicit in the text:
“Without
delay, the palace officials (including the ‘steward of the palace’) refuse to
take the bait of the invitation, quickly surrender, and declare themselves
adherents of the new regime.” [Brueggeman]
“To
Jehu they express their obsequiousness and make him king by default, ceding to
him the right to do ‘what is best’ (hattob, v.5). In essence they
have offered themselves as covenant partners: ‘Your servants we are, and
all that you say, we will do.’ Having thus sworn allegiance to Jehu…Jehu’s
second letter echoes the covenant language of the officials’ reply…” [2
Kings, Robert L. Cohn, in Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative and
Poetry, Michal Glazier, p.71-2]
Wives may be somewhat ‘detached’ from the patrilineal definitions of
populace groups generally, since they are ‘mobile’. In this passage from
Zechariah 12.12, it appears that the wives are actually ‘related to’ but not
actually ‘part of’ the individual Houses:
“The
land shall mourn, each family by itself; the family of the house of David by
itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of
Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves; 13 the family of the house of
Levi by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the Shimeites by
itself, and their wives by themselves; 14 and all the families that are left,
each by itself, and their wives by themselves. [NRSV]
“The
land shall wail, each family by itself: the family of the House of David by
themselves, and their womenfolk by themselves; the family of the House of
Nathan by themselves, and their womenfolk by themselves…etc.” [JPS]
This would mean, that in royal
“house of X” expressions, it may only
be the male, possible-successor descendants of the founding monarch
(and therefore, potential possessors of the throne) that are considered ‘house
of king X’. This, of course, would make perfect sense of why our passages use
‘all house/every male’ phrases—they are identical meanings, in royal
dynastic contexts.
One final passage will clearly illustrate this—I Chronicles
10.1-6:
Now
the Philistines fought against Israel; and the men of Israel fled before the
Philistines, and fell slain on Mount Gilboa. 2 And the Philistines closely
pursued Saul and his sons, and the Philistines struck down Jonathan, Abinadab
and Malchi-shua, the sons of Saul. 3 And the battle became heavy against
Saul, and the archers overtook him; and he was wounded by the archers. 4 Then
Saul said to his armor bearer, “Draw your sword and thrust me through with it,
lest these uncircumcised come and abuse me.” But his armor bearer would not,
for he was greatly afraid. Therefore Saul took his sword and fell on it. 5 And
when his armor bearer saw that Saul was dead, he likewise fell on his sword and
died. 6 Thus Saul died with his three sons, and all those of his house died
together.
[Note that this reference to Saul’s bayit would not include his
wives, his administration/officials back in the capital, and other members of
his economic bayit who were not present/participants in this specific
battle. In this case, bayit referred to him and his sons only,
and the emphasis is on their dying ‘together’.]
[One might compare a dynasty-like house of
the priesthood. In 1 Sam 22.11, the bayit of Ahitub, but the text
indicates this referred to only the priests (i.e., male descendants):
The king sent for the priest Ahimelech son of Ahitub and for all his
father’s house, the priests who were at Nob; and all of them came to the
king (NRSV;
there is no waw-connective here, no ‘and’ to extend the reference)
However, when Saul gets into violence mode, he kills
more than the ‘bayit’—he kills the entire city, which would have included more
people than in Ahimelech’s bayit (e.g., merchants, resident aliens,
etc.)]
……………………………………………………………
Okay, back to the judgment texts…The operative
phrases we need to look at (from the combined judgments against Ahab, Baasha,
and Jeroboam) are (in sequence in the text; all cites from the NRSV):
I Kings 13.34:
“to
bring down and to destroy from the face of the earth, the house of Jeroboam”
at 13.34 [bkhd (“be hidden”)and shamad, (“destroyed”); the first
word indicates simple ‘disappearing’ of the group, which could be implemented
in several ways. The second work is a stronger term, used for example of the
‘destruction’ of the Canaanites [e.g. Dt 7.23f] and for the Israelite exile
[Deut 28 et. al], which as I have documented elsewhere for the Canaanites, was
a destruction of their identity and culture—NOT annihilation of the peoples.
See qamorite.html. As such this word is a ‘judgment
word’ and is too general to convey ‘annihilation’ of all the people of the
lineage of Jeroboam, since it can range from physical death to
expulsion/humiliation. Scope: “the
house of Jeroboam”—in this case the royal house, since the acts cited as
the cause were related to royal acts: Even after this event Jeroboam did
not turn from his evil way [i.e. the anti-Yahweh cult], but made
priests for the high places again from among all the people; any who wanted
to be priests he consecrated for the high places. [NRSV: at 13.33]
I Kings 14.8f (prophecy against Jeroboam):
“and
tore the kingdom away from the house of David to give it to you; yet you have
not been like my servant David, who kept my commandments and followed me with
all his heart, doing only that which was right in my sight, but you have done
evil above all those who were before you and have gone and made for yourself
other gods, and cast images, provoking me to anger, and have thrust me behind
your back; [NRSV; Reason:
national leadership in idolatry, presumptuous rejection of God, in spite of
God’s giving him the kingdom and offering him a dynasty]
“ therefore, I will
bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam.” [general ra’, meaning
‘disaster’…nothing specific as to implementation; Scope: “house of Jeroboam”
again, national leadership sin=>royal house]
“I will cut off from Jeroboam
every male, both bond and free in Israel” [karat meaning
‘exterminate, ostracize’ (in the Hiphil, as here). Since rejection of the Jehu
line is here, it probably means ‘exterminate’. Scope: “everyone who urinates
against a wall”==male, ‘belonging to’ Jeroboam (lamed…not a clear
indication of how extensive this ‘belonging’ is, but since it is sandwiched in
between two uses of the phrase “house of J”, it would be reasonable to expect
it to refer again to the possible successor-heirs, i.e., ‘house of J’.
Kutsch/Gray point out that the phrase is no broader than the royal family (and
therefore, not about servants etc.): “Kutsch rightly points out that…the
reference is to ‘all males of the royal family’, I and II Kings,
John Gray, in the Old Testament Library, Westminster, p.337). A further
qualification of that phrase is given by the enigmatic phrase rendered “both
bond and free” in the NRSV (note: there is no ‘wav’ in front of the
first term, but one in between, so whatever it means, it is NOT a cumulative
construction of “all males AND all bound (either sex) AND all slave (either
sex)”). We don’t have a clue what the phrase specifically means, actually, with
widely varying suggestions:
* The JPS scholars footnote it at 14.10 with "Meaning
of Hebrew uncertain”".
* WBC sees the phrase as meaning ‘helpless and
abandoned’, referring to males-only (" the crude saying about
‘helpless and abandoned’ males").
* The NIV Study Bible notes suggests that it is a
figure of speech, expressing "without exception" [i.e., no
males excepted], and give as references 2Ki 9:8; 14:26.
* KD took this to mean "married and single",
based on a synonymous phrase in Deut 32.36; again referring to the males.
All
the commentators can say in this confusion is that it does apply to the
‘males of J’ clause and not to some further/larger group.
The
in Israel phrase, applied to a royal house, would refer to the heirs
scattered throughout the kingdom at the various government centers. [We have
seen already that it would not extend to kinfolk, since they are not
part of the ‘ancestral house’ if they lived outside of the main living compound
of Jeroboam. However, the “house of J” would certainly be scattered through out
Israel, as a ‘royal’ house.] Jezreel was a winter capital, and Samaria was the
summer capital, for example. There may be heirs of Jeroboam stationed as
managers at each of the capitals and major government centers in the
northern kingdom. This phrase indicates that removal of the dynasty of J would
be complete.
“and will consume the
house of Jeroboam, just as one burns up dung until it is all gone.”
[‘consume/burn’ is ba’r (“light, kindle, ignite, keep a fire burning,
burn down”), which is used to paint a blazingly bright image of the destruction
of the “House of J”. Commentators also understand this symbolism to refer to
extermination of only the male HEIRS of J: “Because Jeroboam had
led God’s people away from God his house (dynasty) would be cut
off. No male would be
able to perpetuate his line which God compared to dung.” [BKC: in loc] However, note that the NASB
understands this verse as an image of sweeping instead of burning
(i.e., deposition): “I will make a clean sweep of the house of Jeroboam, as
one sweeps away dung until it is all gone.”]
“Anyone belonging to
Jeroboam who dies in the city, the dogs shall eat; and anyone who dies in the
open country, the birds of the air shall eat; for the LORD has spoken”
[This is a judgment of death and dishonorable burial, although it doesn’t
indicate scope [literally reads ‘the dead of J’], other that what has already
been stated (i.e., “house of J”). WBC understands this to apply specifically to
the male heirs (i.e. the royal “house of J”): “V 11 predicts, with v 13,
the nonburial of Jeroboam’s heirs, which is for Jews always the
ultimate horror and humiliation” as does Brueggemann (“The heirs of
Jeroboam will be treated like excrement, left for the dogs to devour in
ultimate dishonor”).
Burke
Long points out that this prophecy is about heirs—not the ‘occupants of
the living compound’ (I Kings with an Introduction to the Historical
Literature, Eerdmans, p.155):
“A
newly chosen king will cut off his [Jeroboam’s] dynastic issue.”
Observations:
*
There is no prophecy of the death of Jeroboam(!)—all the judgments are against
his royal house (this alone is evidence that it is succession/heir-oriented)
*
The royal house is in view throughout this passage, even comparing it to the
House of David.
*
There are no references to general-category physical descendants (e.g., no
‘sons’ or ‘seed’).
*
The focus is clearly on males, and commentators understand the passage in terms
of dynastic male-heirs.
*
The ‘national’ scope of the judgment (“in Israel”) demonstrates that it is a
royal house (heirs) and not the economic/ancestral household of J that is under
discussion.
*
There is nothing in the passage that would suggest that judgment was intended to fall on other
members of the economic/ancestral household at all.
*
Even the nonburial verse is taken to refer to heirs.
.
I Kings 15.29f (fulfillment of the
above, against bayit Jeroboam):
“As soon as he was
king, he killed all the house of Jeroboam” [nakah… “The meaning of
the vb. ranges from hitting to killing…strike, hit, beat, strike dead, wound,
batter, destroy”…Some translations see this as a more general image of “smote”,
but it is more likely that it is more literal here—the execution of Jeroboam’s
heirs (i.e., the ‘house of J’, bayit). Scope: literally, “the whole bayit
of J”…in the context of change of kingship, this would refer to the royal
house—all the male heirs.]
“he left to the house
of Jeroboam not one that breathed, until he had destroyed it” [lit: “he
left not any-of breath to Jeroboam but he destroyed him…”. The NRSV sees the
‘to Jeroboam’ (lamed) as a reference to the ‘house of J’ , since there
is no connective between the preceding clause and this one. In other
words, we have the “killed whole/killed every” structure of
completeness that we noted above, describing the same event. Scope: the
reference to the bayit of J would indicate male-heirs only (royal
house), and this is confirmed by the following fulfillment formula : “according
to the word of the LORD given through his servant Ahijah the Shilonite”.
This prophetic word was discussed above at 14.10 and we saw that the passage is
generally understood to refer to male-heirs only. If that is the case, then
this verse is scoped to the same scope—male heirs only, regardless of locale.
See the Observations above. It should be noted that scripture generally is more
specific about this, if wives/children are intended—it often adds some phrase
like “plus their wives and children”—e.g. Num 16.27; Jud 21.10; 2 Chrn 20.13; ]
I Kings 16.1f: (prophecy against Baasha)
“The word of the LORD
came to Jehu son of Hanani against Baasha, saying, 2 "Since I exalted you
out of the dust and made you leader over my people Israel, and you have
walked in the way of Jeroboam, and have caused my people Israel to sin,
provoking me to anger with their sins, 3 therefore, I will consume Baasha
and his house, and I will make your house like the house of Jeroboam
son of Nebat. 4 Anyone belonging to Baasha who dies in the city the dogs
shall eat; and anyone of his who dies in the field the birds of the air
shall eat." [No surprises
here…Definitely a royal context, involving change of dynasty…the consume word (ba’r)
is the same used in 14.10, against Jeroboam—hence the reference to ‘like the
house of J’ in our passage. Here there are no specific mention of males—except
the implication from ‘royal house’ and from the case of Jeroboam.
[Interestingly,
Baasha is judged for actually fulfilling the prophecy against the House of
Jeroboam! In 16.7 we read:
“Moreover the word
of the LORD came by the prophet Jehu son of Hanani against Baasha and
his house, both because of all the evil that he did in the sight of
the LORD, provoking him to anger with the work of his hands, in being like
the house of Jeroboam, and also because he destroyed it.
[Unlike
Jehu, who was ordered by God to take out Ahab, Baasha was not operating under
the command of God. His was just a bloody coup. As such, he was simply guilty
of bloodshed. The fact that he fulfilled a prophecy in the meantime,
does NOT at all exonerate him from guilt, no more so than the prophecy of
Judas’ betrayal or the prophecy of crucifixion/death by the
religious/governmental authorities of Jesus’ day exonerate these
“prophecy-fulfillers”. So, BKC:
“The writer followed his regular recording of the facts surrounding the king’s
death (vv. 5-6) with an additional reemphasis on the reasons for Baasha’s
judgment by God (v. 7). Baasha’s destruction of Jeroboam’s house (family
or dynasty) was one reason. Even though God determined that Jeroboam’s dynasty
would be destroyed and announced this beforehand through Ahijah, God held
Baasha responsible for killing Jeroboam’s descendants. In doing so Baasha had
not acted under God’s direction, but only to gain his own ends” and Brueggemann:
“Baasha in v. 27 is given no theological warrant for his action. He is not
initiated by Yahweh. He acts only on his own as a political schemer and
terrorist.”]
I Kings 16.11f:
“When he began to reign,
as soon as he had seated himself on his throne, he killed all the house of
Baasha; [This is the standard formula we have already seen. Scope “whole
house of B”—in a royal coup, this again would suggest royal dynastic
household.]
“he did not leave him
a single male of his kindred or his friends.” [The NRSV is a bit off here, in the way it expresses the ‘kindred’
and ‘friends’ words as genitives (“of”). JPS translation is closer to the
actual structure, reading:
“he did not leave a
single male of his, nor any kinsman or friend.”
[The
‘male’ phrase here is again the “urinating against the wall” one we saw in the
Jeroboam judgment. The Hebrew structure looks like this:
“not-he-spared
to-him (lamed) one-urinating against-wall or
(waw) ones-being-goel-of-him or
(waw) friend-of-him”
Walsh
points out [1 Kings, Jerome T. Walsh, in Berit Olam: Studies in
Hebrew Narrative and Poetry, Michal Glazier, p.215] that these males are
male descendants of the king (and not male occupants of the household
compound):
“…he
(the narrator) uses the same crude language as Yahweh used in 14:10, “one who
urinates against a wall”, to refer to the male descendants of Elah.”
Zimri
is the one doing this coup, although, just like Baasha, he is not
specifically directed to do this. He might not even have known of the
prophecy of Jehu about this. In any event this looks like a ‘regular’ bloody
coup and not a deliberate fulfillment of the prophecy. The list of who all
Zimri killed is:
“all
the house of B”, further defined as “all males” (there is no conjunction
between these two phrases; no waw to make the construction into an
“and”);
all
the goel’s of Baasha (We saw earlier that these were not part of
someone’ ancestral household, but in a coup like this, it would be important to
eliminate anyone who was appointed by the clan to avenge the death of the king
you murdered!)
all
the friends of Baasha (We saw earlier that if these were not actually living in
the person’s compound—which they might could have been, of course—then they would
not even be considered part of the economic/ancestral bayit—much less
the royal-heir one)
In
other words, this certainly fulfilled the Word of the Lord that the dynasty of
Baasha would be eliminated completely, but it went way, way beyond
the bayit.
“Zimri completely destroyed
Israel’s second ruling family plus
friends of the family in order to avoid retaliation against his coup
d’etat. [BKC: in. loc]
“Leaving
any living relatives of a king who had been forcibly deposed from the throne by
assassination was an invitation to civil war. The relatives would be
honor-bound to avenge the death of the previous king…” [REF:BBC: in loc]
“He
goes far beyond Baasha’s purge, however. He wipes out the males not
only of Baasha’s entire house, but of all his kin and friends as
well.” (Walsh)
I Kings 21.21ff (the prophecy against
Ahab):
I will bring disaster on you; I will consume you, and
will cut off from Ahab every male, bond or free, in Israel; 22 and I will make your
house like the house of Jeroboam son of Nebat, and like the house of
Baasha son of Ahijah, because you have provoked me to anger and have
caused Israel to sin. 23 Also concerning Jezebel the Lord said, ‘The
dogs shall eat Jezebel within the bounds of Jezreel.’ 24 Anyone belonging to
Ahab who dies in the city the dogs shall eat; and anyone of his who dies in the
open country the birds of the air shall eat.” [NRSV]
There
is nothing new in content here, concerning the house Ahab:
*
God will bring disaster on Ahab [Same phrase as against Jeroboam]
*
God will “consume Ahab” [Same phrase as against Jeroboam (but without the
‘dung’ part); and as against Baasha ]
* God will cut off from Ahab every male, “both bond and free”, throughout the
land [Same as against Jeroboam]
* God will make the House of Ahab like the House of Jeroboam and Basha [as
noted]
* Some of Ahab’s dead will die in the city and some in the field [Same phrase
as against Baasha]
Since
we have noted in the cases of Jeroboam and Baasha that the references are to
dynastic heirs, it is reasonable to conclude that the same understanding
applied to the judgment against Ahab. In other words, since (a) the same phrases
were used; and (b) the judgment is said to be “like the House of X”, we are
warranted to believe the same scope was intended in the prophecy (not
necessarily in the execution, though, as we saw above and will see yet
again with Jehu).
[We
should also note that the "male" clauses do seem to be restricting
the scope of the "whole house" (especially given the custom of
sparing the wives), since otherwise the 'male' clause would be completely
redundant in these cases. If "all the house" meant "all
males and all females", then adding another clause of "and
all the males" would not make any sense. Cases of 'completely redundant'
in scripture often suggest literary parallelism, which might be present in
these formulae. This would make the phraseology of "all the house//every
male"--in which both pieces were identical in content-- function as a
parallelism for emphasis.
We
have noted in the section on Jeroboam that the “consume Ahab” clause, in the
Hebrew was literally “burn after you (singular)”. The phrase itself has no
reference to descendants, sons, males, houses, etc.—ONLY Ahab! It might be
interesting to compare how translations interpret this somewhat-vague image:
I am going to bring disaster on you. I will
consume your descendants and cut off from Ahab every last male in
Israel—slave or free. [NIV]
Behold, I will bring evil upon you, and will
utterly sweep you away, and will cut off from Ahab every male, both bond
and free in Israel; [NASB]
I will bring disaster on you; I will consume you,
and will cut off from Ahab every male, bond or free, in Israel; [NRSV]
I am bringing evil upon you: I will destroy you
and will cut off every male in Ahab’s line, whether slave or freeman, in
Israel. [NAB]
I will bring disaster upon you. I will make a clean
sweep of you, I will cut off from Israel every male belonging to Ahab, bond
and free. [Jewish Pub. Soc.]
Behold, I will bring evil upon you, and will take
away your posterity, and will cut off from Ahab every one who pisses
against the wall, and he who is shut up and he who is left free in Israel
[Soncino]
And among ancient versions:
"Behold I am bring upon you evil, and I will
seach after you and destroy for Ahab everyone knowing knowledge
(Targumic euphemism for 'male', Harrington/Saldorini), bond and free, in
Israel" [Targum]
"Behold, I bring evils upon theee: and I
will kindle a fire after thee, and I will utterly destroy every male of
Achaab, and him that is shut up and him that is left in Israel." [LXX]
Notice how some of the modern versions ‘expand’ the image from “Ahab” to
“descendents/posterity”.
[Note: I did not include the ASV and RSV
versions since they are too out of date to use in this discussion (in which the
individual Hebrew words need to be examined), and both have been superceded by
new revisions (NASV, NRSV). The RSV was translated in 1885, and the ASV at the
same time. The ASV, however, was not ‘allowed’ to be published until 1901.
“Several American scholars had been invited to join the revision work [i.e.,
RSV], with the understanding that any of their suggestions not accepted by the
British scholars would appear in an appendix. Furthermore, the American
scholars had to agree not to publish their own American revision until after
fourteen years. When the time came (1901), the American Standard Version
was published by several surviving members of the original American committee.”
(Complete Guide to Bible Versions, Philip Wesley Comfort, Tyndale House)]
So
the data from looking closely at the judgment texts, coupled with the analysis
of what all was included in/excluded from the royal house, leads me to take the
position of many commentators/specialists that the object of these
prophecies was the dynastic line, the male throne-heirs. Of course, in the
case of Baasha and Zimri, the coup itself went beyond that prophecy and killed others
associated with the king and heirs (“house of X”). But in these cases,
the two assassins were not ‘ordered’ to do so by a prophet.
Point
Two: Jehu was given a message from God by
the prophet in 2 Kings that he was to be the executor of that
judgment--repeated almost verbatim (2 Kings 9.6-9):
So Jehu got up and went inside; the young man poured the oil on his head,
saying to him, “Thus says the Lord
the God of Israel: I anoint you king over the people of the Lord, over Israel. 7 You shall strike
down the house of your master Ahab, so that I may avenge on Jezebel the
blood of my servants the prophets, and the blood of all the servants of the Lord. 8 For the whole house of
Ahab shall perish; I will cut off from Ahab every male, bond or free, in
Israel. 9 I will make the house of Ahab like the house of Jeroboam son of
Nebat, and like the house of Baasha son of Ahijah. 10 The dogs shall eat
Jezebel in the territory of Jezreel, and no one shall bury her.” [NRSV]
Jehu got up and went into the house. Then the prophet poured the oil on
Jehu's head and declared, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says:
`I anoint you king over the LORD's people Israel. 7 You are to destroy the
house of Ahab your master, and I will avenge the blood of my servants
the prophets and the blood of all the LORD's servants shed by Jezebel. 8
The whole house of Ahab will perish. I will cut off from Ahab every
last male in Israel -- slave or free. 9 I will make the house of Ahab like
the house of Jeroboam son of Nebat and like the house of Baasha son of Ahijah. [NIV]
The
elements of the judgment included these phrases:
"strike the house of Ahab, that I (YHWH) may avenge the blood of ...the
prophets"
"the whole house of Ahab shall perish" [nakah – “The meaning of the vb. ranges from hitting to
killing”, see above]
"every male person, both bond and free, of Ahab's (dynastic bloodline)
will be cut off"
"the house of Ahab will become like the house of Jeroboam and Baasha"
This
is essentially the same judgment pronounced earlier, focused on (a) destruction
of the “house of A”—dynastic heirs; and (b) ignominious death of Jezebel. The
dynastic character is likewise indicated by (a) the ‘house of A’ terminology,
instead of ‘sons of’ or ‘descendents’; and (b) the references to the dynastic
overthrows of J and B. To ‘destroy’ a dynastic house simply meant to kill (or
actually ‘exile’ would work, given the wide range of meaning in the Hebrew word
translated ‘destroy’) the king and any possible blood-successors to his throne.
The
one difference in this passage is in the reference to the death of the
prophets (1 Kings 18.4, 13) and God’s people (e.g., Naboth), and
in Jezebel’s involvement. As one can see the NRSV seems to make Jezebel the
target of the vengeance, whereas the NIV only names her as the
instrument in the killing of the prophets (with Ahab as her ‘sponsor’
taking/sharing the blame). In this case the NIV is correct, over against the
NRSV, as can be seen from the Hebrew structure:
And-I-will-avenge//bloods-of//my-servants//the-prophets,//and-bloods-of//all-of//servants-of//Yahweh//by-hand-of//Jezebel.
The
last phrase there (‘by the hand of Jezebel’, mid ‘izabel) is constructed
from the preposition min (by, with), the noun yad (hand), and
Jezebel. Although min can be used to express the target of the vengeance
(e.g. in Jeremiah), the presence of the word “hand” indicates instrumentality
(instead of ‘head’—as in ‘bring guilt upon their head’—which would communicate
target). So, the NASB (“And you shall strike the house of Ahab your
master, that I may avenge the blood of My servants the prophets, and the blood
of all the servants of the Lord,
at the hand of Jezebel.”)
and NAB (“You shall destroy the house of Ahab your master; thus will
I avenge the blood of my servants the prophets, and the blood of all the other
servants of the LORD shed by Jezebel”). WBC renders: “Now you
shall strike the house of Ahab your master and avenge the blood of my servants
the prophets, and the blood of all the servants of Yahweh who suffered at
the hand of Jezebel.” So also the LXX, and even the older ASV…
BTW,
when vengeance-words are used with the word ‘hand’ in scripture (in other forms
of construction), ‘hand’ is always the instrument OF judgment---“I will
avenge him by my own hand”. It never is a target of
vengeance-words. In fact, vengeance-words only target individuals or
groups; they are never mixed with images of hand, heads, etc. The scripture will
say “I will require it at their hand” and “I will bring guilt upon
their head” but NEVER uses ‘head’ or ‘hand’ in a target clause of
avenging words.
So,
Jezebel is not the sole target of some ‘vendetta’ action by God, but shares
in the responsibility with Ahab, her king and husband. Cohn (op.cit.):
“Jezebel
who is identified twice in this narrative, by the prophet and by Jehu himself,
as the source of the evil which the kings sponsored” (p.69)
So,
the message Jehu gets is the same he heard earlier, and the same announced (not
actually ‘ordered’) by God in the two preceding dynasties—“eliminate the king
and his royal heirs”.
And
remember, the phrase ‘bond and free(?)’
is NOT another element in a "list" of what all is to be
destroyed, but rather an appositive phrase, describing (again) the
comprehensiveness of the judgment on the males—whatever this
incomprehensible phrase means. All of the above interpreters take it
as referring back to the 'males'. it's a little like saying "All the
house/every male/no exceptions".
Point
Three: Jehu
goes on a rampage, killing all the heirs of Ahab (plus others)--2 Kings 9-10.
Point
Four: Jehu
is commended by YHWH for executing the house of Ahab in 2 Kings 10.30:
The LORD said to Jehu, "Because you have done well in
accomplishing what is right in my eyes [note: this is probably a reference to the
destruction of Baal worship] and have done to the house of Ahab all I
had in mind to do, your descendants will sit on the throne of Israel to the
fourth generation."
Point
Five: And
then, in Hosea 1.4, Jehu is apparently punished for the massacre! [but see qjehu.html, where I document that this verse is not about
Jehu’s guilt at Jezreel at all.]
Then the LORD said to Hosea, "Call him Jezreel, because I will
soon punish the house of Jehu for the massacre at Jezreel, and I will put an
end to the kingdom of Israel.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
It simply looks bad--God said "do this",
the poor guy "did this", and then God punishes him for "doing
this"!
But, as with many types of 'problems', the answer
lies in paying close attention to WHAT ACTUALLY WAS RECORDED--what was said,
and what was done.
So, let’s notice what Jehu was supposed to do,
and then what he actually did…
What he was supposed to do:
The
judgment on Ahab was to be only on his dynastic heirs, the royal “bayit
of Ahab”. (1 Kings 21.21) and when the command is given to Jehu, that fact is
repeated—dynastic heirs of Ahab (2 Kings 9.8).
What he actually did:
He kills Joram, the
current king of Ahab's line. This was clearly the primary referent
in the anti-dynastic prophecies (2 Kings 9.24). Joram would actually have been
a member of both the royal house of A (heirs only) and the ancestral
house of A (heirs plus non-heir family members, living together):
Then Jehu drew his bow and shot Joram between the shoulders. The arrow pierced his heart and he slumped down in his chariot.
This would have been intended in the prophecy, but he does something odd after this. He dumps the body into the field at Naboth and expands the original judgment prophecy (a pattern that will increase):
“Now he even gives his own version of that word, expanding
it even beyond what the disciple had said by claiming divine vengeance not
only for Naboth but also for his sons.” [Cohn, opcit p. 68]
He then kills (mortally wounds) Ahaziah, king of Judah, not a throne heir of Ahab (2 Kgs 9.27):
When Ahaziah king of Judah saw what had happened, he fled up the road to Beth Haggan. Jehu chased him, shouting, "Kill him too!" They wounded him in his chariot on the way up to Gur near Ibleam, but he escaped to Megiddo and died there.
Ahaziah is of course
a physical grandson of Ahab, since the political marriage between Ahab’s
daughter Athalia and Jehoram of David produced Ahaziah. He is a member of the
‘house of David’, since his father is Jehoram. But as we documented above in
our discussion of the members in a bayit,
Ahaziah would be neither a member of Ahab’s ancestral house
(since Ahab’s daughter would have left A’s house and become a member of
Jehoram’s house) nor of Ahab’s royal house (since he would not
have been a throne-heir to Ahab). And,
of course, the fact that he was “genetically linked” to Ahab had actually no
bearing on whether he was in the bayit or not—there were plenty of kinfolk of Ahab that
would not be considered members of his ancestral or royal
households (including grandsons through daughters—cf. the story about
Mephibosheth again). Even Jehoram would not have been considered a son (bene) but a son-in-law (hatan).
And this is
generally the understanding of this passage—that Jehu overshot the command
of Yahweh (some even arguing that he was trying to reunite both kingdoms
under his rulership):
“Jehu’s single utterance in this scene, ‘Him too shoot!’, the direct
object pointedly in first position, sets into motion an assassination that oversteps
the divine orders in the oracle given him…Already, then, the positive
evaluation of Jehu implied in his execution of the divine initiative against
the house of Ahab is negatively colored by his unauthorized extension of
the revolution to Judah” [Cohn, op. cit. p.69]
He then kills Jezebel,
the wife of Ahab, who was the target of her own prophecy (2 Kings
9.30-33):
Then Jehu went to Jezreel. When Jezebel heard about it, she painted her eyes, arranged her hair and looked out of a window. 31 As Jehu entered the gate, she asked, "Have you come in peace, Zimri, you murderer of your master?" 32 He looked up at the window and called out, "Who is on my side? Who?" Two or three eunuchs looked down at him. 33 "Throw her down!" Jehu said. So they threw her down, and some of her blood spattered the wall and the horses as they trampled her underfoot.
This
result is basically in line with the intent of the judgment, but the writer
portrays Jehu in a very bad light, both highlighting his callousness (e.g., he
eats Jezzie’s food inside while her body is eaten outside) as well as his
‘extension’ of the Word again!
“Yet,
as earlier (v.26), Jehu expands Elijah’s oracle. The prediction that Jezebel’s
corpse will be like dung, and that no one will recognize her is not part of
Elijah’s original prophecy.” [Cohn, op. cit. p.71]
He then has 70 (or
“many”) sons of Joram, members of the dynastic “house of Ahab”,
killed by the palace/city officials in Samaria (2 Kings 10.1-8):
Now Ahab had seventy sons in Samaria. So Jehu wrote
letters and sent them to Samaria, to the rulers of Jezreel, to the elders, and
to the guardians of the sons of Ahab, saying, 2 “Since your master’s sons
are with you and you have at your disposal chariots and horses, a fortified
city, and weapons, 3 select the son of your master who is the best
qualified, set him on his father’s throne, and fight for your master’s house.”
4 But they were utterly terrified and said, “Look, two kings could not
withstand him; how then can we stand?” 5 So the steward of the palace, and the
governor of the city, along with the elders and the guardians, sent word to
Jehu: “We are your servants; we will do anything you say. We will not make
anyone king; do whatever you think right.” 6 Then he wrote them a second
letter, saying, “If you are on my side, and if you are ready to obey me, take
the heads of your master’s sons and come to me at Jezreel tomorrow at this
time.” Now the king’s sons, seventy persons, were with the leaders of the
city, who were charged with their upbringing. 7 When the letter reached
them, they took the king’s sons and killed them, seventy persons; they put
their heads in baskets and sent them to him at Jezreel. 8 When the messenger
came and told him, “They have brought the heads of the king’s sons,”
he said, “Lay them in two heaps at the entrance of the gate until the morning.”
9
Observations:
The number “70” may just be a “conventional indefinite number” (Gray) for “many” (Brueggemann, Cohn), although some argue that it simply means ‘seven’.
That these is a dynastic issue is clear from the use of the name “Ahab” in the text to describe these princes, even though they are actually sons of Joram (“your master”, v. 2,3,6). [If they were first-generation sons of Ahab, they would actually be rivals to Joram.] These are princes in training by the leading men of the city, to furnish a co-regent for Joram later:
“[t]hey were all potential rulers, for whom such education was necessary, since the most promising of the princes was often chosen as co-regent with his father” [Gray]
Samaria was “bought by Omni, was the crown possession of his house, and the foundation of the power of the dynasty” (Gray).
The ‘rulers of Jezreel’ were professional soldiers acting as commanders of the city (Jezreel) who had likely fled to Samaria after the death of the king [WBC: in loc]. And [EBC:
“…those officials in Jezreel entrusted with the care of the royal children had taken their wards and fled to Samaria. The letters thus addressed per se to "the officials of Jezreel" (i.e., the place where they often served and from which they had just come) would be intended for all the officials of Samaria (cf. v. 5). Such an address would make the leaders of Samaria aware that Jehu meant business and yet indicate that their lives were not in jeopardy--Jehu simply wanted the royal survivors.”
These killings did NOT occur in Jezreel, but in Samaria. The “officials of Jezreel” apparently bring the baskets back to Jezreel (while the ‘political trainers’—the ‘great men of the city) perhaps remained in Samaria—they ‘sent’ the heads in the baskets). The officials, remember, were FROM Jezreel, whereas the elders and leaders of the city could have been residents of either city.
Although all of the 70 or “many” were killed, there is some indication that only adult sons were so treated. The specific instruction in Jehu’s letter has the construction “take the-heads-of the-men-of the-sons-of your-master” instead of “take the-heads-of the-sons-of your-master”. The men phrase (ish) is untranslated, but the force of it would be to specify ‘adult’ sons (of marriageable age). Otherwise, the phrase would be unintelligible (and superfluous) here. In any case, the text says that the 70/many are ‘ish’ and this, of course, leaves open the possibility that younger men (geber) and boys (na’ar) were not targeted.
All in all, this action would seem to be in compliance (at least the result would be, not necessarily the means or even Jehu’s attitude) with the stated prophecy.
He then kills the rest of the bayit,
and then ALL of Ahab's supporters, most of whom would be members of neither
Ahab’s ancestral/economic house nor his royal house (2 Kgs 10.11):
Then in the morning when he went out, he stood and
said to all the people, “You are innocent. It was I who conspired against my
master and killed him; but who struck down all these? 10 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.” 11 So Jehu killed all who
were left of the house of Ahab in Jezreel, all his leaders, close
friends, and priests, until he left him no survivor. [NRSV]
So Jehu killed everyone in Jezreel who remained of the house of Ahab,
as well as all his chief men, his close friends and his priests [NIV]
So Jehu killed all who remained of the house of Ahab
in Jezreel, and all his great men and his acquaintances and his priests [NAS]
Here the text specifies four individual groups,
all separated by waw conjunctions [the NRSV doesn’t reflect this
structure, as do the NAS/NIV, above] :
* “all the ones
remaining of the bayit Ahab in Jezreel” (the princes who did NOT
flee? The dynastic term ‘house of A’ instead of ‘house of Joram’ might argue
for this, but the ‘of’ makes the reference a little nebulous).
* “all the chief
men/leaders” (same word as those assigned to groom the princes, no
doubt Ahab/Joram loyalists, but not in bayit at all; the term could also
include government officials, which as we have already seen, were ‘attached’ to
a royal bayit and could be ‘detached and transferred’)
* “close friends” (some of these would not even be Israelites! So [REF:BBC: in loc: “The term translated “close friend” here is a technical term used both in Akkadian and Ugaritic sources describing those who enjoy the sponsorship of the court. They are royal wards who enjoy court privileges and were probably non-Israelite.”] They are funded by the dynasty, but would not have been considered part of the government, but NOT of the bayit. And certainly would not have been considered part of the bloodline or dynastic bayit )
* “priests” (presumably priests of Baal, used by Ahab, Jezzie, and Co.)
As Cohn notes [p.72-3], these actions are way beyond the oracle (and also presented negatively by the Scripture, btw):
“In this episode the narrator refrains from judging
Jehu directly, but his actions and words project a figure increasingly
taken up by his own historical role. While in the assassination of Jehoram,
Jehu simply enacted the oracle given to him, in the murder of Jezebel he
displays both viciousness, and in his scatological interpretation of her
remains, sick perversity. Furthermore, the writer’s spotlight on Jehu’s
underhanded strategy with the guardians of Ahab’s descendants and his
terroristic use of their severed heads illuminates a man who relishes the
vengeance he feels called upon to wreak. And his extension of the bloodbath
beyond the house of Ahab to ‘officials, intimates, and priests’ (v. 11) takes
his actions beyond even his own elaborations of Elijah’s prophecy.”
He then kills 42 princes of Judah, on a diplomatic visit to
the Northern kingdom—neither members of Ahab’s ancestral nor royal
house (2 Kings 10.12-14):
Then he set
out and went to Samaria. On the way, when he was at Beth-eked of the Shepherds,
13 Jehu met relatives of King Ahaziah of Judah and said, “Who are
you?” They answered, “We are kin of Ahaziah; we have come down to visit
the royal princes and the sons of the queen mother.” 14 He said, “Take them
alive.” They took them alive, and slaughtered them at the pit of Beth-eked,
forty-two in all; he spared none of them.
These people, as
residents of Judah, would not be considered members of Ahab/Joram’s ancestral
house (due to reasons of location, if nothing else) and certainly not of Ahab’s
royal dynastic house.
In fact, they may
not actually have been ‘kin’ to Ahaziah (Ahab’s grandson through his daughter,
remember) at all:
“The
traditional identification of Beth Eked as modern Beit Qad, a small site near
Jenin (Beth Haggan) is undoubtedly wrong unless the narrative is misplaced, or
else there is more in the story than first appears. Beit Qad is about
seven kilometers east northeast of Jenin, and some one hundred meters above the
road which runs from Samaria through Jenin to Jezreel. It is quite off the
beaten track. Also, the “kinsmen” (rsv) of Ahaziah were north of Samaria,
the city where the king’s descendants were (v 1). It is most unlikely that
these men were completely ignorant of the events that had just taken place and
were on their way, by such a devious route, to “greet” Ahaziah. The
term a “brother” can also mean
fellow soldier.
Further, the expression /lv]li is difficult to interpret
as a noun. A small emendation, to point it piel infinitive construct (Lev'l]), would offer the
translation “avenge.” The group intercepted by Jehu consisted of
Judean soldiers on their way north, by an inconspicuous route, to avenge the
death of their king [Ahaziah] and his cousins. The incident then
follows well after the previous one. Jehu’s “finding” of such a group might
indicate that he launched a deliberate search for them or that one of his
patrols chanced upon them. 14 ya ynw y[bra “all forty-two of them.”
That Jehu was able to kill forty-two men indicates that he had with him a
sizable force to deal with such eventualities and increases the likelihood that
his force was a regular military patrol, policing the countryside in the light
of the chaos surrounding the revolt.” [WBC: in.
loc.]
In either scenario, Jehu is out-of-bounds.
He then goes to Samaria and kills some more of Ahab's descendants--of
unspecified sex, but presumably some males (2 Kings 10.17):
When he came to Samaria, he killed all who were left to Ahab in Samaria, until he had wiped them out, according to the word of the Lord that he spoke to Elijah.
The Masoretic text
does not include bayit here, but some
textual traditions do have it (Gray includes it: “Certain MSS and S read lebet, though this would be sufficiently understood from
MT.”), indicating that ‘left to Ahab’ should be understood as a reference to
the bayit of Ahab. So, KD: “’all that
remained to Ahab,’ i.e. all the remaining members of Ahab’s house”. The
‘according to the Word of the Lord…’ clause would not say anything more than
the simple fact that the dynastic heirs were killed (regardless of how many
non-family members were killed in the process), in fulfillment of the prophecy.
Okay,
let’s try to get a summary idea of what all this data tells us. Let’s look at
it from two perspectives: geographically and from the perspective of bayit.
What we want to do here is see which of the above victims would have been considered members of either the ancestral/economic house or the royal dynastic house, and where they were actually killed:
|
Victim(s) |
Ancestral/Economic Bayit? |
Royal Dynastic Bayit? |
In the city of Jezreel? |
1. |
Joram |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
2. |
Ahaziah, king of Judah |
No
|
No
|
No |
3. |
Jezebel |
(special case—own
prophecy) |
(special case—own
prophecy) |
|
4. |
“70”/many princes of Joram |
Yes |
Yes |
No (in Samaria) |
5. |
Rest of Bayit in
Jezreel |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
6. |
Chief Men in Jezreel |
No |
No |
Yes |
7. |
Royal Wards |
Possibly? |
No |
Yes |
8. |
Priests |
(special case—different
law) |
(special case—different
law) |
Yes |
9. |
42 princes or soldiers of
Judah |
No |
No |
No |
10. |
“rest (of house) of Ahab” |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
So, did Jehu kill anyone beyond the
limits of the Oracle? The answer is obviously “YES”, under EITHER
meanings of bayit. (rows 2, 6, 9, and possibly 7).
And
the big question: Were any of these killed in (the city of) Jezreel? The
answer is again “YES” (definitely Row 6 and possibly Row 7, under
Ancestral definition; and definitely Rows 6,7 under Royal Dynastic definition).
[Of
course, Ahaziah was shot on the Plain of Jezreel, but I am working under the
simpler “objection-favoring” (smile) “city of Jezreel” scenario…]
What
becomes obvious from this is that Jehu killed MANY MORE people than he was
commissioned to do--esp. the people from Judah, and the friends of Ahab. This
significant, extra, and unauthorized violence by Jehu is generally considered
by commentators to be a self-serving move for his political aspirations. As too
many people do even today, he takes a clear command of God and 'stretches it'
to cover all types of personal interest concerns and personal agendas.
So, that
God approved ONLY the SPECIFIC PART He authorized (2 Kings 10.30:The
LORD said to Jehu, "Because you have done well in accomplishing what is
right in my eyes and have done to the house of Ahab all I had in mind to
do...), but condemned part of the excess in Hosea 1.4: I will soon
punish the house of Jehu for the massacre at Jezreel, would make good
sense… [but remember, I don’t believe Hosea means that anymore…see qjehu.html]
………………………………………………………………..
Pushback: “Good grief, bud! You mean
to say that you believe Jehu did all this wrong stuff, and then God just give
him a pat on the back for what was good—without even rebuking him for such
extreme violence?! It is simply inconceivable that God would give a sparkling
commendation for the good part, without the tiniest hint of even ‘disapproval’
for anything horrific he did? Isn’t it preposterous to think that God would not
have pointed out these over-killings at Jezreel/etc to Jehu? You may have
solved the Hosea problem, but by doing so, you created a ‘credibility’ problem
for the God who commended Jehu for ‘doing all that was in My heart to do to
Ahab’!!!!
Actually, its not quite that simple…it’s a matter of
what the passage as a whole, and overall characterization of a figure teach and
require—the issue is that of literary strategy: “what is the author/Author
‘showing us’ about this character or event?
For example, take the book of Judges. In this book
God consistently delivers his rebellious and unappreciative people, but does so
with some of the most uninspiring and despicable characters and events…the author/Author
consistently paints disgusting portraits of all of the heroes in this book.
The reader is supposed to make value judgments on these characters—IN
SPITE of how God called them and used them to accomplish temporary deliverance.
Kikawada and Quinn [OT:BAW: epilogue] go through
most of the main characters, showing how the narrator/Narrator draws attention
to the ‘ugliness’ of the hero’s moral condition. Let me add a few (longer)
citations from the Epilogue, to give you a sample of how narrative analysis can
reveal what the real message of a text is (as opposed to only the
‘building blocks’ from which the mosaic is constructed):
“We must ask if the author of Judges intends for
us to respond by sharing in this boasting [note: of Israel’s victories over
the pagan nations] ... Let us return to the question of how we are intended
to respond. In some instances the response intended by a passage in judges
is not difficult to guess. How, for instance, should the reader respond to
the following verse from the episode of Ehud?
And Ehud reached with his left hand, took the sword from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly; and the hilt also went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade, for he did not draw the sword out of his belly (3:21-22).
“Whatever a reader's feelings about killing an
unarmed person with a concealed weapon (or, for that matter, about people who
normally use their sinister hand), the detail of the fat closing over the
blade cannot help but provoke our disgust. And surely that disgust increases
if, with the Authorized Version, we follow the Targum and Vulgate by adding:
"the dirt came out." The excrement oozing from the fat does more
for us than simply specify that the knife had entered the king's colon. It
shapes our response to that event.
“And our response to this verse is, we think, typical
of that hoped for by judges as a whole. And an extraordinary response it
is. At the very moment we might expect the author to allow us to exult over
God's deliverance of his people, he dwells instead on disgusting details.
This is no racial melodrama; the author will not pander to our ethnic
prejudices.
“Of course, sections of judges do exult in God's
deliverance judges indeed contains the most famous of such exultations, the
song of Deborah. But let us look at this song in its context.
“The very death of Sisera, as described in the prose
version, is disturbing. Sisera is killed by Jael, with whom he sought
sanctuary as the wife of an ally. She deceives this suppliant by the generosity
of her welcome. She goes out to meet him, and soothes him: "Have no
fear." When he asks for water, she gives him milk. Then, exhausted in his
defeat, Sisera, trusting in the treaty, her hospitality, her obvious concern,
falls asleep. "Jael the wife of Heber took a tent peg, and took a hammer
in her hand, and went softly to him and drove the peg into his temple till it
went down into the ground, as he was lying fast asleep from weariness"
(4:21).
“Why add the detail "till it went down into
the ground" unless to emphasize the brutality of the act? And why
then add the clause "as he was lying fast asleep from weariness"
unless to excite our sympathy for him? However despicable Sisera was as a
person, his vulnerability at this moment--defeated, deceived, exhausted,
asleep--cannot help but excite our compassion. Twentieth-century commentators
recognize this and also recognize that our horror at this murder would have
been shared by an ancient audience. The Tyndale Biblical Commentary on
Judges admits that Jael "broke every accepted standard of hospitality.
" Soggin, in a similar vein, after examining various attempts to explain
away Jael's culpability, finally admits that despite them "the scene
remains sinister ... it cannot but raise negative reactions, in the
same way as the classical parallels mentioned above caused their audience to
shudder." Nonetheless, having reached this conclusion, Soggin will not
take the next obvious step and admit that perhaps the author of Judges was a
master of his material, wanting us to shudder. Rather, Soggin explains the
effect as a flaw resulting from the facqbqqkkqbbbuot;probably too deeply rooted in the tradition" to be ignored; the
author (or editor) "preferred the risk of repeating it to the risk of
leaving it out."
“This would be a plausible argument if the Jael
story were an isolated horror. But the Book of judges leads us from one
horror to another. [OT:BAW: 128ff]
………………
“But why employ irony, why invite disgust when
describing the heroes of Judges? The author's attitude toward them is
surely not the attitude he takes toward God's repeated deliverance of his
people. This repeated deliverance would indeed be the cause of joy
and exultation. But this is only one-half of the story--and the response of
the reader is tied to the other half. The author's attitude toward these
heroes is rather the attitude he thinks his readers should have toward the
repeated need for God to save (and to punish) his people, to do so again and
again long after he has already brought them to the promised land. Embarrassment, revulsion, disgust. God might well have been
saving the sinful Israelites, but he was sending them exactly the kind of
judges they deserved, judges who embodied the Hebrews' own weakness and
perversity. [OT:BAW:133]
…………….
“If
this interpretation holds, then we are now in a position to understand the most
important (and perplexing) story of judges. Samson fits the pattern of a
champion worthy of a people unworthy of their God--a champion strong but
stupid, willful, lustful, unclean; one of his great triumphs coming after the
humiliation of Judah (the once vaunted lion's whelp) and through the ridiculous
agency of the ass's jawbone; his other triumph coming after his own humiliation
by the uncircumcised and through an act tantamount to suicide. Even in this
final triumph the author takes care to deflect our sympathies. Samson
calls not for God's glory but for his own revenge. And then there is the
young boy who places Samson's hands on the pillars, the young boy who in an act
of kindness places Samson so he can rest, a young boy who for his kindness will
be crushed to death. [OT:BAW:134]
Their point should be clear. The narrative ‘thrust’
of the passage is what the ‘message’ is. The characters are described by the
narrative story, and our response to them needs to consider all the data. It’s
not a matter of seeing the passages that show that the Judge ‘wrought a great
deliverance in Israel’; it’s also a matter of seeing and responding ethically
to the details given by the author/Author.
When we come to Jehu, we see exactly the same
pattern. The summary given in chapter 10 is definitely ‘mixed’:
Thus Jehu wiped out Baal from Israel. 29 But Jehu did not
turn aside from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, which he caused Israel
to commit—the golden calves that were in Bethel and in Dan. 30 The Lord said to
Jehu, “Because you have done well in carrying out what I consider right,
and in accordance with all that was in my heart have dealt with the house of
Ahab, your sons of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of
Israel.” 31 But Jehu was not careful to follow the law of the Lord the God
of Israel with all his heart; he did not turn from the sins of Jeroboam,
which he caused Israel to commit. 32 In those days the Lord began to trim off
parts of Israel. Hazael defeated them throughout the territory of Israel: 33
from the Jordan eastward, all the land of Gilead, the Gadites, the Reubenites,
and the Manassites, from Aroer, which is by the Wadi Arnon, that is, Gilead and
Bashan. [2
Kings 10.28ff, NRSV]
But the totality of the data paints a portrait of
Jehu that DOES reveal the revulsive character of much of his ‘zeal’ and
savagery. The narrator/Narrator paints an amazingly grotesque portrait of an
‘escalating fanatic’, whose sole good acts occurred in the first few months of
a 28-year reign. Consider some of the narrative characterizations noticed
by Cohn (some already noted above):
“In this episode the narrator refrains from judging
Jehu directly, but his actions and words project a figure increasingly
taken up by his own historical role. While in the assassination of Jehoram,
Jehu simply enacted the oracle given to him, in the murder of Jezebel he
displays both viciousness, and in his scatological interpretation of her
remains, sick perversity. Furthermore, the writer’s spotlight on Jehu’s
underhanded strategy with the guardians of Ahab’s descendants and his
terroristic use of their severed heads illuminates a man who relishes the
vengeance he feels called upon to wreak. And his extension of the bloodbath
beyond the house of Ahab to ‘officials, intimates, and priest’ (v. 11) takes
his actions beyond even his own elaborations of Elijah’s prophecy.” [Cohn,
72f]
…………………….
“From the account Of the destruction of Baal's
worshipers and temple the text moves directly to the conclusion of Jehu's
reign. Nothing but his initiating acts in Jezreel and Samaria are dramatized;
in but a few lines the rest of his reign is summarized. Clearly, Jehu's
claim to fame rests in the elimination of the house of Ahab and the extirpation
of Baal worship, including the "house of Baal." The other events
of his reign merit only the briefest mention and further problematize the
already problematic modus operandi of this fiery revolutionary.
“No sooner has Jehu been credited with
eradicating Baal from Israel than he is criticized for not also eliminating
the golden calves at Bethel and Dan; thus, although fie has eliminated the
sins of the house of Ahab, he is criticized for falling into the sinful
pattern of Jeroboam, the writer's arch-villain (v. 29). And no sooner has
the narrator leveled this critique than the voice of YHWH is interjected
directly into the narration, praising Jehu for having "successfully done
the right thing in my eyes according to everything that was in my heart to the
house of Ahab" (v. 30). This unqualified praise is followed by YHWH'S
promise of a four generation dynasty. Yet in the next verse (v. 31) the
narrator takes up his critique again, sandwiching YHWH'S praise in a sea of
negativity. By thus checking (hedging?) divine plaudits with his own
appraisal, the writer is able to account both for the continuation of
Jehu's line and the reduction of his territory (v. 32). Indeed both divine
and human causation (the perennial challenge by Hazael) are invoked to explain
the loss of land east of the Jordan. But in his last statement on Jehu the
narrator does modify the summary formula to include mention of "all of his
heroism" (v. 34), thus offering a final one-word tribute to the king.
“This closing ambivalence about the character of Jehu well reflects the entire presentation. On the one hand, he is charged by Elisha's messenger with destroying the house of Ahab and is praised for doing so. On the other hand, he goes beyond the call of duty in his vehemence and deviousness. He takes advantage of Jehoram's medical condition, presses the guardians of Ahab's descendants to kill their wards, and gratuitously slaughters the peaceable kin of Ahaziah. He is shown in constant movement and bloody slaughters. To every question about peace--from his comrades, Jehoram, Jezebel--he responds with war. Furthermore as one critic puts it, he too conveniently has a divine oracle at hand whenever he needs one. In fact, his repeated elaborations of Elijah's oracle get no confirmation from the narrator, raising further questions about his integrity. Yet for all of his "madness," 9:20, he accomplishes what had been left undone since Elijah's days the wiping out of Baalism and its sponsors in Israel. While this laudable end is thus praised, Jehu's methods are severely criticized. [Cohn, p.75f]
In other words, the totality of the data—presented
by the author/Author—are very critical of Jehu, even about his methods and
manner in the initial ‘good thing’ he did. At the same time, they recognize the
initial contribution he made. The YHWH quote looks almost like its only
purpose in being there is to explain how a Jeroboam-clone ended up having a
four-generation dynasty! [cf. Gray: “Space is found, too, to explain how it was
that the house of Jehu lasted for four generations, culminating in the glorious
reign of Jeroboam II”] But even in this the author/Author has a veiled
criticism. So Hobb, [WBC: in loc]:
“29–36
Formally these verses have echoes elsewhere in the OT. V 29 is typical of so
many statements made at the end of the reigns of apostate kings, but an
adaptation is made to suit the conditions of Jehu’s reign. Vv 30–31 echo the
promises made to Solomon by David in 1 Kgs 2:1–4 and 9:1–9, which are in turn
reminiscent of Deut 4:9. Applied to Jehu, however, the promise turns to
parody. The eternal throne now lasts a mere four generations, because the
command to obey the law is not followed with all the heart.
At any rate, you should see what I mean here…the
biblical message about a character or event or attitude or whatever is to be
determined by the totality of the data, in the argument form of the
author/Author. God can certainly express approval to someone (and even record
it for us to learn from), but can just as easily ‘embed’ that approval in an
overall narrative that communicates overall failure and dysfunction. So many
failures in the bible go “uncommented on” by God or His prophets, but the
scriptural presentation of those failures present them as such with visceral
clarity…
………………………………………………….
Once again, what appears (to some) to be a
contradiction at a surface level, turns out to make good sense once we pay
close attention to what the text actually says.
glenn miller, June 2001