ELIJAH AND ELISHA WITHIN THE

ARGUMENT OF KINGS
________________

A Thesis
Presented to
the Faculty of the Department of Bible Exposition
Dallas Theological Seminary

________________

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Theology

________________

by
J. Banks Corl
May, 1987

Accepted by the Faculty of the Dallas Theological Seminary in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree Master of Theology.

Grade _______

Examining Committee

___________________________________

___________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION

. 1

The Need for this Study

The Approach Adopted for this Study
Biblical Historical Narrative as a Genre
The Importance of Elijah and Elisha
II.

THE ARGUMENT OF THE BOOK OF KINGS .

. .

. . . . 11

The Method for Interpreting the Book of Kings

The Determination of the Argument of Kings
Statement of the Argument of Kings
III.

POINTS OF COMPARISON AND CONTRAST BETWEEN ELIJAH AND

ELISHA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Names
Call to Ministry
Pattern of Ministry
Message Proclaimed
Miracles
Encounters with Kings
Close of Ministry and Successor

IV.

THE ARGUMENT APPLIED TO THE STORIES OF ELIJAH AND ELISHA 44

Purpose of the Chapter
Elijah and Elisha Within the Literary Arrangement of Kings
Elijah and Elisha Within the Argument of Kings
Conclusion

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. 59

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The Need for the Study
Elijah and Elisha are so often associated with one another, and spoken of in the same
breath, that the marked distinctions between them are easily overlooked. Few commentators
pay much attention to their differences. Even when they do draw a contrast between the fiery
prophet, Elijah, and his more gracious successor, Elisha, it is generally embodied in a very
1

brief paragraph, or in survey form on a chart. Yet these surveys do not begin to describe fully
the extent of the differences in habit and ministry between Elijah and Elisha, nor give a
reasonable explanation as to why such diversities occur. It is usually assumed a disciple will be
like his mentor, but such is not the case at all with Elijahs protg, Elisha. In fact, apart from
their common devotion to YHWH, and a few obvious similarities (e.g., their common task of
upholding the word of YHWH to a rebellious nation and its kings), the method and ministry of
these two prophets were very different. The goal of this study is to account for the differences
between them based on a literary analysis of Kings.
It is clear that book of Kings traces the gradual decline of the Jewish monarchy and
nation due to their continued unfaithfulness to the covenant with YHWH. This is what will be
called the major movement in the plot of the book of Kings. Israel's spiritual and moral decline
is the main idea around which pivots the entire narrative, from Solomon's succession to the fall
of Judah. But it is not just a simple, one-dimensional plot. Alongside the major movement of
Kings is a second literary strand, one which has generally been ignored: the author's focus on
the prophets as an opposite and correcting force to the kings of Israel and Judah. Noth
observes that, the prophets, men of God, appear chiefly as opponents to the kings and surely
Dtr. meant them to be understood in this way. They confront those rulers who are apostates, or
2

inclined to apostasy, with an unambiguous statement of the word and will of God. This
second focus will be called the minor movement. This minor movement runs like counterpoint

to the careers of the kings. Far from being political figures themselves, as Wellhausen, Smith,
and other historical reconstructionists have supposed, the prophets political activities were
3

subservient to their spiritual interests in the welfare of the nation. At key times when evil
threatened to extinguish the covenant order in Israel, these prophets of God arose in an attempt
to forestall apostasy and its consequent judgment and to reestablish YHWHs supremacy in the
eyes of His nation (cf. 1 Kings 1:11ff; 11:29-39; 13:6; 18:39; 21:27; 2 Kings 3:2b; 10:28;
17:13). 2 Kings 17:13 summarizes the role of the prophets as reformers:
Yet the Lord warned Israel and Judah, through all His prophets and every seer,
saying, Turn from your evil ways and keep My commandments, My statutes
according to all the law which I commanded your fathers, and which I sent to you
through My servants the prophets.
This is not to say that the prophets were always largely successful, for many were martyred, or
at the very least ignored (1 Kings 11:40; 13:33; 19:2; 2 Kings 17:14; cf. Neh. 9:26 & 30). The
writer of Kings also pointed out the bent of the nation to rebel against God's covenant:
However, they did not listen, but stiffened their neck like their fathers, who did
not believe in the Lord their God. And they rejected His statutes and His
covenant which He made with their fathers, and His warnings with which He
warned them.
until the Lord removed Israel from His sight, as He spoke through all
His servants the prophets (2 Kings 17:14, 15, 23).
Nevertheless, to the extent that reform was accomplished, the prophetic ministry would then
change character from one of confrontation with the monarchy to one of aiding it.
Nowhere in Kings is this pattern as evident as in the case of Elijah and his protg
Elijah, as noted, was the fiery champion of YHWH in the face of the flood-tide of Baalism and
consequently had a ministry of confrontation. Elisha, on the other hand, had a ministry that
for the most part attempted to aid the reigning king in his administration. It is the minor
movement, the focus on Israel's prophets as a correcting force to its kings, that accounts for the
difference. It appears that no work has ever been written that tries to show how the change in
ministry between Elijah and Elisha as recorded in Kings advances the literary arrangement, and

the biblical theology of the book. Therefore, the goal of the present work is to show that there
is a difference between Elijah and Elisha's ministries, and that it is not due merely to different
personalities but to the effect of the prophetic ministry as indicated in the minor movement
above.
The Approach Adopted for this Study
This study will take an inductive approach to see how Elijah and Elisha fit into the
literary argument of the book of Kings. First, it will examine the significant differences in
habit and ministry between Elijah and Elisha.

Having done this, it will seek to show why

these differences exist, and how one can best account for them. Viable alternative explanations
will be evaluated, such as the contention that they simply reflect a personality difference and
nothing more. Then the argument of the book of Kings will be exposed through a literary
analysis of the book, paying attention to the issues at the time of its writing (just after the
Babylonian Exile) and to the specific historical setting of the Northern Kingdom in the days of
Elijah and Elisha. Finally, the last chapter will attempt to show how the contrasting roles of
Elijah and Elisha are used to advance the writer's argument.
Biblical Historical Narrative as a Genre
The records of the ancient history of Israel differ from those of the empires that
surrounded her both in regard to the type of sources extant and, at the idea level, the outlook
the Israelite chronicler had toward history. As for the sources extant, the Empires of Egypt,
Assyria, Babylon, and Persia left behind innumerable contemporary records inscribed in stone,
5

or clay, or presented in murals and mosaics. In the case of the so-called Chronicles of
Chaldean Kings, actual court records of Babylon from 626-556 B.C. sit in the British Museum.
By contrast, there are very few contemporary writings extant, inscriptions or otherwise, dating
from the period of Israel's monarchy.

Nevertheless, it is evident that Judah and Israel also kept contemporary court records,
or Chronicles, for the writer of Kings alludes to them often and based much of his work on
them. However these records themselves have not survived. What we know of Israel and
Judahs Chronicles comes to us from secondary sources, the canonical books of 1 & 2 Kings
and 1 & 2 Chronicles. These were compiled in their final form well over a hundred years later
and, in the case of Kings, in a land hundreds of miles away from Palestine. The significance of
this is not the accuracy of their content. The conservative evangelical accepts the historical
reliability of Kings and Chronicles, a position which the historical critic has not been able to
disprove. What is important is the difference in how the history of the monarchy is presented.
In the Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings the official court accounts of what successive
kings did or said are cast in an formal tone. Wiseman observes regarding the Chronicles that
they are distinguished by their impersonal style, as written by detached observers, from our
principle source of historical information, the inscriptions of Sumerian, Babylonian, and
Assyrian kings. They are also distinguished from the history of Israel's monarchy as given
in Kings and Chronicles. Kings is anything but a bland, formal approach to history. Many
dramatic episodes fill its chapters. There is theological commentary and evaluation made in
the reign of each king. Most importantly, the author wrote with the persuasive and didactic
purpose of showing how the kings unfaithfulness to the covenant resulted in the Exile. With
the Babylonian Chronicles, by contrast, from at least the first of Esarhaddon (680 B.C.), an
entry was made for every year, even if nothing very notable occurred in it.

A second difference of biblical historical narrative from the histories of other ancient
near eastern nations is in the concept of history itself. Israels God acts not simply in the
inner consciousness of people but in the arena of history. Historical narrative is the inevitable
10

mode for writing about a God who acts in history.

The history of Israel is above all a

history of YHWHs dealings with His chosen, covenant people. Samuel, Kings, and
Chronicles are more than just historical documentaries in which a writer simply included all
the events he thought important to an era. Each book has as its framework some aspect of the
nations covenant relationship with YHWH. The covenant awareness is strongly reflected in
the selection and rendition of their various component stories. For the Israelite the decisive act
of God in the nation's history was His deliverance of His chosen people from Egypt and His
establishment of a covenant with them.

11

Yet Israel was indebted to YHWH not only for their

deliverance from Egypt and initiation of the Mosaic covenant, but also for the multiplied
blessings that YHWH would bring in like manner to His people once in the land as a
continuing result of the covenant. Thus it is natural to find in the ritual for offering the first
fruits (Deuteronomy 26:5-9 ) a prescribed summary of God's deliverance:
My father was a wandering Aramean, and he went down to Egypt and sojourned
there, few in number; but there he became a great, mighty and populous nation.
And the Egyptians treated us harshly and afflicted us, and imposed hard labor on
us. Then we cried to the Lord, the God of our fathers, and the Lord heard our
voice and saw our affliction and our toil and our oppression; and the Lord brought
us to this place, and has given us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey.
And now behold, I have brought the produce of the ground which Thou, O Lord
hast given me.
The Jew is a man of destiny and responsibility. The effects of the covenant continue on
throughout the nations history and are echoed in all its historical books. The book of Esther is
a good example. YHWH is never mentioned in the book, yet it poses a penetrating question
concerning both the destiny and responsibilities of His covenant people. Notice Mordecai's
reproof of queen Esther when she was afraid to act on behalf of her people (Esther 4:13,14):
Do not imagine that you in the kings palace can escape any more than all the
Jews. For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the
Jews from another place and you and your father's house will perish. And who
knows whether you have not attained royalty for such a time as this?
Mordecai had the assurance that YHWH will somehow defend His people, even in the land of
their captors. He also points out the distinct possibility that this may well be the sole reason

Esther was exalted to royalty. If so, he reasons, by shirking this responsibility Esther would
certainly bring destruction upon herself.
At a later point, near the close of the Old Testament canon, Nehemiah surveys the
nation's history from the perspective of its covenant relationship to YHWH. Nehemiah 9:6-38
is perhaps the greatest single summary of history in the Old Testament, spanning from the
creation, to Abraham's election, to the Exodus, to the Conquest, to the Judges and Monarchy,
to the Exile, and finally to the Restoration periodNehemiah's day. At every point world
history is seen from the perspective of Israel living in obedience or disobedience to YHWH's
covenant. Obedience causes realization of the blessings of the covenant; rebellion, which is far
more prominent, causes divine discipline at the hands of their enemies. God is destined to
fulfill His covenant promise to Abraham concerning Israel (9:8, 32, 38), and yet at the same
time He holds them accountable and responsible to obey His Law.
It is significant that the prophets are described as having the role of representing God
and admonishing the nation to keep the Law (Neh. 9:26, 30; cf. 2 Kings 17:7-23). In fact, it is
highly significant that the prophets are included in the list of leaders who faced hardship
through exile (v. 32), but they are excluded from the list of those responsible through
disobedience for causing it: the kings, priests, princes and fathers (v. 34). Again, the ministry
of Israels prophets in the biblical historical narrative is the counterpoint to the spiritual
attrition of its kings.
The Importance of Elijah and Elisha
The sheer proportion of Kings devoted to the stories of Elijah and Elisha is itself an
indicator of their importance to Israel's history. It is noteworthy that nearly a third of the book
deals with these two prophets, whose ministries span only about a fifth of the time period
covered.

12

Furthermore, when one considers that only the 26 of the chapters from 1 Kings 12

to 2 Kings 17 have anything to do with the history of the Northern Kingdom (and even here not

without considerable digression into the affairs of the Southern Kingdom) the amount of
attention given to them becomes even more striking. Over 60 percent of the history of the
Northern monarchy is given within the framework of their ministries.
A second consideration that makes these two important is that they were part of only
four periods of biblical history characterized by an abundance of miracles. Moses's ministry
accounts for the first. The ministries of Elijah and Elisha is the second period. Christ's life and
ministry is the third, and the life and ministry of the apostles in the establishing of the church is
the fourth. Moses, Christ, and the apostles all stood in the threshold of important changes in
the administration of God's purposes on earth. The primary reason for miracles in each of
these instances was for authentication of God's messenger and his message.

13

They needed

signs from God to demonstrate the authenticity of their message in the face of bitter opposition.
While there were no apparent dispensational changes during the ministries of Elijah and Elisha,
they did, however, share the need for authentication of their ministry and message as they
warred against Baal worship and struggled with evil kings.
Elijah
Of all the Old Testament prophets Elijah stands out as unique in three particular
14

ways.

First, he was one of only two men that never tasted physical death. When the time for

his departure drew near there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire.And Elijah went
up by a whirlwind to heaven (2 Kings 2:11).
A second distinction is that the last of the Old Testament prophets, Malachi, closes the
Old Testament canon with a prophecy concerning him: Behold, I am going to send you Elijah
the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord. And he will restore
the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I
come and smite the land with a curse (4:5-6). There was something about the ministry of
Elijah so significant that he became the archetype Malachi chose to represent the precursor of
the Lord. The expectation engendered by this final prophecy can be seen over four hundred

years later in the gospels when Jesus asked His disciples, Who do the multitudes say that I
am? Many of the people believed that Jesus was the Elijah Malachi predicted (Matthew
16:14; Mark 8:28; Luke 9:18-19). Furthermore, it is significant that Jesus called John the
Baptist the greatest prophet of all time in the same passage where He linked John to the Elijah
of Malachi's prophecy. In fact, the association of John with Elijah is offered as final evidence
for the Baptist's superlative rank (11:9-14 and 17:13-14).
The third distinctive is Elijah's appearance on the mount of transfiguration. The fiery
prophet was privileged to participate in a face to face discussion with the transfigured Lord
concerning His crucifixion (Luke 9:31). The only other person with him was Moses, the lawgiver, and the representative of the Torah. By implication, Elijah here may well be the
representative of Israel's prophets.

16

Elisha
The very fact that he was the successor of as great a prophet as Elijah lends importance
to Elisha. This was immediately recognized by the sons of the prophets who, when they saw
him part the Jordan, proclaimed, The spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha (2 Kings 2:15).
Actually a double-portion of Elisha's spirit rested on Elisha (2:9,10). This was not a request
to have twice the spirit of Elijah, nor to be able to perform twice the miracles, but most likely a
request to be Elijah's successor, his spiritual heir (and possibly head of the school of the
prophets) patterned after the Deuteronomic laws regarding heirs (Deuteronomy 21:17).

17

Nevertheless, Elisha did perform many more recorded miracles than his predecessor. In fact,
the only other biblical figure with more recorded miracles was Christ Himself. Whether these
two men actually performed about the same amount of miracles or not (cf. John 20:31) is
beside the point. The writer gave great emphasis to the supernatural aspect of Elisha's
ministry. Aside from his succession, and the amount of miracles he performed, Elisha is most
important for his long ministry to the kings of the Northern kingdom. The discussion of
Elishas ministry to these kings will be a major topic of chapters two and four below.

NOTES
1

Though Leon Woods devotes a chapter to each, he includes only a single short
paragraph on the differences between the two in The Prophets of Israel, p. 246. A slightly
more complete treatment can be found in Leah Bronners The Stories of Elijah and Elisha as
Polemics against Baal Worship, pp. 28-29.
2

Martin Noth, The Deuteronomic History, p. 68.

Edward J. Young, My Servants the Prophets, p. 82.

Kings was probably compiled in its final form around 561 BC, since it records the
favorable release of Jehoiachin from a Babylonian prison in that year, according to G. H.
Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, NCBC 1:31.
5

Robert C. Dentan, The Idea of History in the Ancient Near East, p. 101.

Most conservative scholars (including Albright, Bright, and Wood) feel that the book
of Kings was written by a prophet (perhaps Jeremiah in Egypt, Ezekiel in Babylon, or maybe a
prophet associated with one of them) during the time of the Babylonian exile (c. 550 BC). For
a discussion of authorship by a conservative scholar the reader is directed to Gleason Archer, A
Survey of Old Testament Introduction, pp. 295-97. Archer believes nearly all of Kings was
written or compiled before the exile, with the exception of the last chapter, which was likely
written from Babylon, since it records the release of Jehoiachin.
7

Inerrancy rules out fictitious embellishment, common in the historical literature of

surrounding nations. Nevertheless, it does not rule out a highly selective, morally and
spiritually interpretive approach to history. Norman Geisler, Inerrancy , especially chapters 9
and 10.
8

Donald J. Wiseman, Chronicles of Chaldean Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the Museum of

British History, p. v.
9

Ibid.

10

Leland Ryken, The Literature of the Bible, p. 77.

11

Dentan, p. 111.

12

15 out of 47 chapters in Kings are devoted to the stories of Elijah and Elisha while
their ministries span a period of only 80 out of 410 years covered in the book (Solomon's
succession in 971 to the release of Jehoiachin in 561 B.C.)

10
13

Terry R. Kern, Parallels Between the ministries of Elijah and Elisha and the Ministry
of Christ, pp. 41-42.
14

Wood, pp. 210-211.

15

Often the Torah is simply referred to as, Moses, using a metonomy of cause, the
author used for the book he produced (e.g., Luke 16:29). E.W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech
Used in the Bible, p. 544.
16

The Hebrew canon places Kings among the section of Scripture designated ~yaybn, the
prophets. The Law and the Prophets is a common metonomy of adjunct for the Old
Testament.
17

G.H. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, NCBC, 2:385.

CHAPTER II
THE ARGUMENT OF THE BOOK OF KINGS

The Method for Interpreting the Book of Kings

Before the argument of the book of Kings can be surfaced it will be necessary to define
the method to be used in interpreting the text. The traditional view of the book of Kings holds
that it is a literary unit, and that its accounts of the supernatural and miraculous should be
1

accepted as historically reliable. The hermeneutic that will be proposed in this chapter
follows these presuppositions. However, a survey of modern commentaries and journal
articles on the book of Kings reveals that the majority of commentators subscribe to methods
of interpretation which reject the traditional view. Generally, they see the canonical book as
the product of multiple editors and compilers, so that it is not a unity. Furthermore, the
accounts of Elijah and Elisha are seen as legendary. Their method focuses on getting
behind the text to the original sources or forms, an approach that cuts right across the grain of
the method of study proposed in this thesis. If their conclusions be true, then looking for the
argument of the book is not only wasted effort, but a misleading and inappropriate approach.
The first part of this chapter is a response to the methods of the form critical, documentary, and
redaction critical schools.

The form critical method

The sources of Kings. The canonical book of Kings was probably written not long after
the Exile of Judah to Babylon around 560-550 B.C. since it records the release of Jehoiachin
2

(561 B. C.). Its written sources (which include excerpts from The Chronicles of the Kings of
3

Israel, The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, and The Acts of Solomon ), however, appear to
date from the eighth century at the latest, due to the classical Hebrew style found in Kings.

12

Thus Albright thinks a long period of oral tradition is unlikely given this stylistic consideration
4

and the explicit references to early written accounts.

The approach of form criticism. It is generally unquestioned that the Hebrew kings
kept contemporary records of their reigns. The question posed by the form critic is whether the
stories of Elijah, Elisha, and the other prophets would have been part of these, or any other,
contemporary written accounts? This is not by any means the consensus of scholars.
According to G. H. Jones, the sources listed cannot possibly account for the variety of
material used by the Deuteronomic historians, for they depended on annals and lists, narrative
4

and legends [emphasis mine], in addition to the records of reigns. Honeycutt, following
Gray, sees the episodes of Elijah and Elisha as best described by the form critical terms saga
and legend :
This narrative and those associated with Elisha have probably come to us through
the hands of the sons of the prophets who treasured memories of the actions of
Elijah and Elisha. In the process of oral transmission it seems likely that
successive prophets transformed the original historical nucleus of various stories
by the addition of materials somewhat akin to the character of stories associated
with the saints at certain stages of Christian history.
Whether one interprets the stories literally or as wonder stories in the
category of saga and legend, the narrative suggests that Elisha did in fact restore
the life of the child. That this is most likely a wonder story in the category of
saga and legend is most probable
Gray [p. 460] suggests that the historical event or factual basis resting behind
the miracle of the floating ax head 'may be that Elisha with a long pole or stick
probed about the spot indicated (an important point in the text) until he succeeded
either in inserting the stick into the socket, or having located the hard object on
6
the muddy bottom, moved it until the man was able to recover it.
Inadequacies of the form critical method. There are several major weaknesses which
make the form critical view of the origin of Kings untenable. First, there is no historical
evidence for the supposed revisions of prototype versions of Kings, nor is any historical
nucleus extant. All we have is the final product. Secondly, since the oral traditions, out of
which arose allegedly exaggerated accounts of miracles, are unknown any attempt to
reconstruct them, or get behind them to the historical situation, must be guided by pure

13

speculation. In effect, the historical nucleus becomes whatever any particular commentator
wants to make it. Note the subjectivity in Grays explanation of how Elisha found the ax head.
Thirdly, the trend in the Hebrew narrative found in the Scriptures is not to idealize great men.
Quite the contrary, virtually all the great men of faith have their flaws dutifully recorded:
Noah's drunkenness, Abraham's sojourn in Egypt and his lie to Abimelech, Isaac's poor
judgment in his affections, Jacob's craftiness and deceit, Moses' fear and anger, Samuel's
intense mourning over Saul's rejection, David's sin with Bathsheba, Solomon's apostasy, and of
course, Elijah's fearful flight to Horeb. Elisha stands out as an exception to this pattern. Yet
certainly it is less speculative to say that the reason no obvious sins or flaws are recorded of
him is because he was above public reproach than that through oral tradition these were
eradicated. Fourthly, this view dismisses the role of the Holy Spirit both in being able to effect
miracles of the type recorded in Kings, and in the inspiration of the Scripture so that it was
preserved from error. Finally, even if it were conceded that the stories of Elijah and Elisha
were in a form comparable to the sagas and legends of other ancient near eastern cultures this
cannot logically necessitate that their content must be of a similar (fanciful) nature. This is
what Hirsch calls the fallacy of the homogeneous past. He characterizes its faulty logic with
a syllogism:
Medieval Man believed in alchemy.
Chaucer was a Medieval Man.
5
Chaucer believed in alchemy.
The problem with the form critical school's interpretation of the stories of Elijah and Elisha is
that it makes fictitiousness a necessary trait of all literary forms to which it gives the
classification, legend.
In conclusion, we know neither the form nor the source of the accounts of Elijah and
6

Elisha before their appearance in the book of Kings. Therefore there is no compelling literary
or historical reason to prevent one from taking the stories of Elijah and Elisha at face value as
they are presented in Kings, realizing that these men were prophets of YHWH, with His power

14

available to perform miracles through them. This is how the accounts of their ministries will
be taken in developing the argument.

Literary (source) and redaction criticism

As was noted, it is obvious that the author used various source materials in writing
Kings. This does not conflict at all with the doctrine of inerrancy or inspiration for Luke
clearly states that he used sources in composing his gospel (Luke 1:1-4 ), and it appears that
Paul quotes secular authors (1 Cor. 6:12-20). There is also nothing to preclude the possibility
of an earlier editor collecting material from various sources in the Northern and Southern
Kingdoms into one work, which in turn was a source the writer of Kings used, for inerrancy
and inspiration apply only to the final product, not its sources. The source and redaction
critics, however, attempt to get behind the canonical text to identify these earlier sources.
Once they have done this, they make a wide variety of conclusions based on these alleged
sources. A classic example of this are the conclusions drawn by Nelson in his version of the
double-redaction hypothesis. He distinguishes between a pre-exilic and an exilic author. The
first redaction is dated from Josiah's reign and is interpreted as a piece of propaganda for
Josiah's policies. Around 560 B.C., he claims, additions were made which changed the
theological emphasis of the whole work.

10

The question is, how does he know this? Though

there is clear evidence of sources in Kings, their boundaries cannot be defined objectively, let
alone the purposes for which they wrote. There is no way to know how much the final editor
of a text changed his sources. Therefore, Nelson uses a supposed source to establish an alleged
purpose in order to pass judgment on the meaning of the one objective thing he has, the
content. In this way, the source and redaction critics reverse the logical order of study,
allowing the subjective to interpret the objective; unknown sources and purposes to control the
canonical text, which is all they really have in hand. The fallacy of this approach was aptly
demonstrated by J.B. Griffiths whose work pointed out that in the case of Deuteronomy
scarcely more than three of the twenty-five laws that critical scholars regarded as being unique

15

to Deuteronomic law could have held any real significance for the circumstances surrounding
Josiah's reform. In fact, they could just as easily have originated in an earlier period of Israel's
history.

11

In light of the subjectivity of form and source criticism what is needed is an

approach that does not allow the unknown to change that meaning of the known. The next
section will seek to develop such a method.
The argument approach defined
Before going further, it is necessary to examine what is meant by the argument of a
book of the Bible, particularly books that belong to the genre of historical narrative. The
argument of a book is the organizing principle behind its presentation of ideas or events. It is
the main idea, or thesis, which can be put in a single message statement that best explains or
summarizes all the subordinate elements. I. Howard Marshall, speaking as an editor
representing several evangelical scholars wrote that, Exegesis seeks for an interpretation of a
passage which will account satisfactorily for all the features of that passage, both on its own
and in its context.

12

This is what an argument statement attempts to do for an entire book.

There is, however, considerable difference of opinion as to how to arrive at the point where
one recognizes the argument. Therefore, it will be necessary to describe the different
approaches briefly, and then explain the approach this study will take. Elliott Johnson has
observed at least three different approaches used in the department of Bible Exposition at
Dallas Seminary.

13

be seen in Table 1.

The differences are related to different questions asked of the text, as can

16

TABLE ONE
Approach
Argument
(Outline)

Question Asked

Form

Why?

The reason/purpose for _____,

is because/in order that ______.

How?

The manner/means by which _____, is by _____.

1) The changes desired in the audience (goal)

Subject/purpose
statement

What & Why?

Message
(Subject/Compl.)

What?

2) Literary reasons for writing (genre)

3) Theological reasons for writing (biblical theology)
What the author talks about (subject)
What the author affirms about the subject (complement)

The argument outline approach. The argument outline tries to map the logical flow of
ideas in a passage or book by placing the material of the text into one of two categories:
material that is intended by the author to answer why and material that is intended to answer
how. The material that answers the why question can be restated roughly in the form,
The reason that _____, is because _____, or The purpose of _____, is in order that _____.
The material that answers the how question can be restated roughly in the form, The
manner by which ____, is by _____, or The means by which ____, is by ____. For
example, The means by which men are justified before God is by faith in Jesus Christ, might
be the argument statement for Romans chapter 5. The interpreter tries to form such a statement
based on his examination of the particular propositions found the passage, from which he
comes to recognize the flow of thought. Ideally, the statement in turn should be one that best
accounts for all the particulars of that passage and its context. The arguments of individual
passages may then be synthesized into one argument statement for a larger section of the text.

17

Finally, the arguments of all the sections of a book are synthesized into one statement that
expresses the argument of the entire book.
This method works best with books which are expository, or more or less propositional
in nature, such as the New Testament epistles. Looking for the argument outline of one of
Paul's epistles, for example, is often a matter of looking for the structure of his sentences and
paragraphs, and then arranging subordinate ideas under principle ones. In an epistle such as
Ephesians there are even an abundance of structural markers in the form of prepositions,
participles, infinitives, and subordinating conjunctions that can aid in surfacing the structure of
thought. Unfortunately, most biblical literature does not contain such obvious clues to its
structure and flow of thought. When narrative literature is encountered neat propositional
packages of theology are comparatively few and far between.
The subject/purpose statement approach. The second approach to finding the
argument (subject/purpose) is intent on finding a books literary design by first identifying
what the author is talking about (the subject of a passage, or of the book as a whole) and then
seeking to explain why it has been said. The question why in the argument outline approach
above was looking for a syntactical type of answer, that is, it was content to trace the author's
flow of thought and record it in a propositional (exegetical) outline. However, the
subject/purpose argument goes one step further when it asks why by attempting to explain the
author's reason for selecting certain material and for arranging it in his book as he did. It tries
to answer the question, What response was the writer seeking from his audience? To do this
the interpreter must study the author's audience. The occasion for writing is of prime
importance to this approach, for it ultimately seeks to discover what change in the attitude or
actions of his audience the author hoped to produce with his book: Dispensationalists have
made a contribution of inestimable value to hermeneutics by their insistence on considering the
situation or occasion in which a performative or commissive utterance is given.

14

Working

18

with this approach, John Martin gives the following subject/purpose statement for the book of
Isaiah:
Isaiah recorded that judgment would come on the nation because of a failure
to keep the covenant but promised that God would deliver the nation through a
Messianic deliverer who would bring in a time of kingdom blessing in order to
encourage preexilic people to turn back to God and exilic people to return to the
15
land from Babylon.
Elliott Johnson, though he no longer emphasizes subject/purpose, labels this as the goal, in
order to distinguish it from the subject/complement approach which he uses. The goal is the
behavioral objective for which the author designed his composition to affect in his audience.
Subject/purpose statements may also relate to the literary design (genreWhy was the
message expressed in this way?) of a text or to its theological design (biblical theology
Why is this book written, from a theological standpoint?).

16

The literary reason for writing

may be to refute, to persuade, or to teach. The theological reason for writing may be to focus
on God, His purposes, or the administration of His purposes.

17

The message (subject/complement) approach. The third approach to finding the

argument of a book seeks to make an essential summary of the whole of a passage or book,
called the message:
The answers which constitute the essential summary are the product of carefully
created questions. . . .The two initial questions have been stated clearly:
(a) What is the author talking about? (subject), and
(b) What does he say about that subject? (complement)
These two questions can be combined into one question:
18

(a and b) What is the message?

The subject is the organizing topic of a composition which may be stated in a noun clause.
The complement is what the author says about his topic and completes the thought expressed in
the book. Together these two elements comprise the message. For example, the message a the
book of Hebrews might be stated thus:

19

Subject:
Complement:

The superiority of faith in Christ over Judaism

is evidenced by the superiority of His person, of His
priesthood, and His covenant with those who believe in Him.

Ryken gives a brief procedure for finding an author's subject and complement in
narrative literature. Generally, the most reliable guide to what a story is about [subject] is the
principle of repetition. What keeps getting repeated in a story invariably becomes the central
focusthe thing toward which everything points.

As for the complement, sometimes the

author breaks into the story and states the interpretive framework he desires his readers to
apply.

19

Both repetition and the authors interpretive statements will be used to form a

subject/complement statement of Kings.

This approach does not deny the importance of understanding the goal the author
intended for his composition, however, neither does it allow the goal to define the meaning of a
text. Johnson calls this approach literal, meaning textually based. The author's intended
meaning is found in what is actually expressed and affirmed in the text, and is not dependent
on the readers response. Thus while accepting the validity of a subject/purpose statement that
expresses the goal, this approach puts limitations on its use, referring to it as an associated
20

trait of the author's meaning, and not a defining trait.

This prevents the interpreter from

lapsing into a subjectivism which argues that a texts meaning is simply its meaning to us
21

today or from forcing its meaning into a supposed Sitz em Leben that is at odds with the
author's message.

Approach used for the study

The method that will be used in determining the argument of Kings, and how the stories
of Elijah and Elisha advance that argument, will combine elements from the subject/purpose
and the subject/complement approaches. From the subject/purpose approach attention will be
given to the author's selection and especially his arrangement of material, taking note of his
exilic audience. How the Elijah and Elisha stories fit into the literary arrangement will be the

20

major topic of chapter four. The most important contribution of the subject/complement
approach will be to provide a textually-based control through the use of a message statement.
There are an unlimited number of Sitz em Leben's that an interpreter could propose as the
framework out of which the author wrote about these two prophets. However, no scheme can
be accepted which is at odds with or alters the message of the text. That which is more
subjective should not be made to define that which is objective, though it may help elucidate its
meaning.

Definition of argument for historical narrative

As was noted under the discussion of the argument outline approach above, not every
method is equally appropriate for the various genres of biblical literature. Narrative literature
is particularly subtle in this regard. Often events are recounted with little or no editorial or
interpretive comment. For example, king David takes another man's wife, and murders her
husband through a devious plot. But it is not until the very end of this story that the writer
expresses the fact that, the thing that David had done was evil in the sight of the Lord (2
Samuel 11:27). Sometimes, as in the account of Solomon's multiplying gold, silver, and horses
from Egypt, the fact that this was strident disobedience to the Law (Deuteronomy 17:16-17) is
omitted altogether (cf. 1 Kings 10:21, 27, 28). In this case it is clear that the ancient writer
depended on the literary competence of his audience.

22

That is, he assumed his readers

already knew the Deuteronomic laws regarding the king, so that the mere mention of
Solomon's vast stores of gold, horses, and silver would bring these to mind and trigger the
appropriate response of indignation. Without such basic competence the modern reader might
even suppose the writer was approving Solomon's practices. In discussing argument in
biblical narrative literature Leland Ryken observes:
It is evident that the story form is uniquely suited to the task of embodying the
main outlines of biblical truth. . . .By presenting a double plot in which spiritual
and earthly levels of action occur simultaneously, biblical narrative illuminates
the spiritual reality that is always the context for human experience.

21

Fictional inventiveness is not the primary ingredient of narrative, as a

modern reader may be inclined to think. The essence of a story is plota unified
and meaningful sequence of events. The focus of interest is in the unfolding
dynamics of the action. The important consideration for the storyteller is the
selection of material according to unifying principles and with a sense of the
proportion of the individual parts in relation to each other and the whole.
23
[emphasis mine.]
Determination of the Argument of Kings
The principle of selectivity in the book of Kings
The attempts of the Documentary hypothesis and form critical schools to ferret out the
written and oral sources behind the text have been dismissed by this study as too subjective.
This does not deny, however, that the author used sources. Indeed, the writer of Kings
indicates that he did select material from at least three different written sources. The
references to additional material in the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41), The Chronicles of the
Kings of Israel (1 Kings 14:19, and sixteen additional times), or The Chronicles of the Kings of
Judah (1 Kings 14:29, and fourteen additional times), implies that the author consciously
selected his material, rather than give a comprehensive history of the period.

24

The question at

this point is what criterion did the author of Kings use to guide him in his selection of material
and how can one recognize this unifying principle. The criterion is the message or argument of
the book as a whole; the method for recognizing his argument is to observe what the author has
included in the text and in what fashion he has arranged it.
There are two objective sources of information that will help in discovering what
guided the writer in his selection and arrangement of material. The first is what is known of
Israels history from extra-biblical sources. This will help show what Kings is not designed to
be: a political or comprehensive history of the monarchy. The second source, and by far the
most determinative, is the material present in the text of Kings itself. This will help show what
Kings is designed to be (the message or argument of the book): a history of Israel's covenant
relationship with YHWH during the period of the monarchy.

22

Not a political history. Though it records the reigns of the Northern and Southern
monarchs, Kings does not give a political history of the nation. Some periods of great political
importance are passed over briefly, apparently because they are not significant to the writer's
message. The most notable of these is the reign of Omri in Israel (885 - 874 B. C.). Omri held
off the Syrian threat by forming an alliance with king Ethbaal of Sidon through the marriage of
Ethbaals daughter, Jezebel, to his own son, Ahab. He became strong enough to make Moab
his vassal, as is attested to by king Mesha of Moab in the famous Moabite Stone.

25

Furthermore, he built a new capital city at Samaria (cf. 1 Kings 16:24) which remained until
the fall of Israel in 722. Apparently his reputation had spread far, for the Assyrians referred to
26

Israel as the land of Omri until the reign of Sargon II (722-705 B.C.).

As important as his

reign was politically, it is dispatched with in only eight verses (1 Kings 16:21-28). The fact is,
Kings does make an allusion to his might which he showed, but refers the curious reader to
the annals of the Kings of Israel (v. 27). If the writer did not intend Kings to be a political
history then what is it?
A history of Israel's relationship with YHWH. The book of Kings is a history of the
nations relationship with YHWH during the period of the monarchy. Its original audience
were the exiles in Babylon. As a history, Kings analyzes what went wrong spiritually with the
Jewish monarchy, and why the nation had been taken into captivity by Babylon. This is what
guided the author's selection of material. In light of this purpose, it makes sense that whatever
material he wrote (or included from other sources) regarding the fall of Israel and Judah was
central to his message. Is there evidence or literary clues within the text that validate this
conclusion? In 2 Kings 17:7-23 the narrator breaks in to the flow of events in a unique way to
give a theological interpretation of Israel's history leading to the fall of the northern kingdom:
All this came about because the sons of Israel had sinned. Therefore, the examination of
the argument will begin with the account of their collapse.

23

It was noted that Kings is history from a particular theological viewpoint. Part of this
perspective was the awareness of Israel as a nation constituted under a covenant with YHWH:
Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you
shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and
you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exodus 19:5,6).
This covenant contained stipulations: blessing for faithfulness to YHWH; judgment for
disloyalty and disobedience to His law. Seven-hundred years before the Exile Deuteronomy
28:15-36 had promised a curse upon the land of Israel if they did not obey the Lord.
Furthermore, if they and their kings continued in rebellion they would be removed from the
land and taken captive to a foreign land:
But it shall come about, if you will not obey the Lord your God. . . these
curses shall come upon you.The Lord will bring you and your king, whom you
shall set over you, to a nation which neither you nor your fathers have known, and
there you shall serve other gods, wood and stone (Deut. 28:15, 36).
Key summary passages
The principle of selectivity the writer used can best be seen in the passages where this
blessing or judgment reach their peak. The climax of judgment is found in the fall of Israel and
Judah (2 Kings 17:7,8,15; 21:10-15):
Now this [the fall of Samaria] came about, because the sons of Israel had
sinned against the Lord their God, who had brought them up from the land of
Egyptand they had feared other gods and walked in the customs of the nations
whom the Lord had driven out before the sons of Israel, and in the customs of the
kings of Israel which they had introducedthey rejected His statutes and His
covenant.
Now the Lord spoke through his servants the prophets, saying,
Because Manasseh king of Judah has done these abominations. . . and has made
Judah sin with his idols; therefore thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, Behold, I
am bringing calamity on Jerusalem and Judahand I will stretch over Jerusalem
the line of Samaria and the plummet of the house of Ahab. . . and deliver them
into the hand of their enemiesbecause they have done evil in My sightfrom
Egypt, even to this day.
Compare these two passages with the one in Deuteronomy. All three implicate the kings of
Israel as playing a leading role in the apostasy that caused the fall of the Northern and Southern
kingdoms. It should be pointed out that the pronouncement against Manasseh is likewise a

24

global evaluation. Notice that while it begins with his sins, as the capstone of a long tradition
of rebellion, the entire history of the nation comes into viewfrom the Exodus to Manasseh's
reign.
The reason these two passages are central in looking for the argument of the book is
that they summarize its theological and historical perspective. In the case of the Northern
Kingdom, the author breaks into the narrative to express his interpretation of events. In dealing
with the Southern Kingdom, his evaluation comes through the word of the prophets and
anticipates the imminent exile that will terminate it. Both passages, however, represent his
conclusion: the fall and exile came about as well-deserved judgments from YHWH because of
Israel's constant disobedience (led by their kings) to the covenant stipulations. With this
guiding idea, the writer skims over otherwise significant events (such as the reign of Omri) to
focus on those which most clearly show the principle of divine reward or retribution following
fidelity to, or departure from, the covenant. These two summaries do not recount the blessing
aspect of the covenant due to the nature of the occasion. However, the covenant blessing does
figure prominently in the reign of at least one kingSolomon.
This leads to the third passage which must be considered central to the message. It is
found at the high point of the monarchy, the period of greatest realization of the covenant
blessings. This climax, as presented in Kings, is undoubtedly during the early part of
Solomon's reign, in the events surrounding the dedication of the Temple (958 B. C.) and
YHWH's response. Perhaps nowhere else is the narrative so detailed as in this place, where the
writer slows the pace in order to focus on these pivotal events. It is at this time that the
Shekinah glory returns to dwell in the meeting place above the Ark of the Covenant (1 Kings
8:10-13), which it had not done for 146 years.
In his prayer of dedication, Solomon anticipates that YHWH will now confirm the
promises He made regarding him in the Davidic covenant (1 Kings 8:26; cf. 2 Sam. 7:12-16).
He also recalls the covenant blessings and cursings:

25

When they sin against Youand You are angry with them and deliver
them to an enemy, so that they take them away captive to the land of the enemy,
far off or near; if they take thought in the land where they have been taken
captive, and repent and make supplication to You in the land of those who have
taken them captivethen hear their prayerand forgive Your people who have
sinned (1 Kings 8:46-50).
In response to Solomon's prayer the Lord appears to him a second time (1 Kings 9:2) and
repeats and confirms the covenant promise and stipulations. Notice the pattern:
Obedience
And as for you, if you will walk before Me as your father David walked, in
integrity of heart and uprightness, doing according to all that I have commanded you,
and will keep My statutes and My ordinances (9:4)
Blessing
then I will establish the throne of your kingdom over Israel forever (9:5)
Disobedience
But if you or your sons shall indeed turn away from following Me, and shall not
keep My commandment and My statutes which I have set before you and shall go and
serve other gods and worship them, (9:6)
Curse
I will cut off Israel from the land which I have given them. (9:7)
With the dedication of the Temple in chapter 8 of 1 Kings, and the confirmation of the
covenant by YHWH in chapter 9 it is as if the monarchy has moved into an ideal situation.
Immediately, however, the narrative begins to show how Solomon did not measure up to the
requirements of the covenant. In 1 Kings 9:10-14 his greed is evident in dealing with Hiram.
Soon, he began to break the very restrictions placed on the king in Deuteronomy 17:16-17 that
forbade him to multiply horses for himself[from] Egyptwives for himself (lest his heart
turn away)silver and gold for himself. The author of Kings is quite specific, though subtle in
his accusation, in recording Solomon's great store of gold (1 Kings 9:28; 10:14), the fact that
silver was not considered valuable in the days of Solomon because, the king made silver
as common as stones in Jerusalem (10:21, 27), and his import of horses from Egypt (10:28).
In dealing with Solomon's fatal flaw, however, the author is not at all subtle. In 1
Kings 11:1-13 he again breaks in to express his theological evaluation. Solomon's cardinal

26

offense, and indeed, the sin that ultimately set the nation on its downward path to destruction,
was Solomon's marriages to multiplied foreign wives:
Now King Solomon loved many foreign womenfrom the nations concerning
which the Lord had said to the sons of Israel, You shall not associate with
themfor they shall surely turn your heart away after their godsFor it came
about when Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart away after other
gods....Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh.Thus also he did for all
his foreign wives . . . (11:1-8).
The consequences of Solomon's sin were that YHWH took most of the kingdom from his
dynasty and gave it to Jeroboam to set up a Northern Kingdom (11:11-13).
The glory of Solomon through the first part of chapter 9, then, serves as a type of literary
foil.

28

The kingdom is shown in its greatest glory, from which its plunge is made all the more

tragic. This arrangement of material, together with the specific references to Solomon's
violations of the Deuteronomic law, clearly reflect the author's theology: the choice to violate
the covenant stipulations, which originated with Solomon, set in motion the downfall of the
monarchy as most successive kings continued in disobedience.
Repetition in the evaluation of kings
The examination of the authors summary passages at the pivotal points of the
monarchy helped uncover his theological perspectives, which will largely shape the
complement of the message statement for Kings. Now it is the principle of repetition, in the
author's evaluation of each king of Israel and Judah, that will give guidance in recognizing the
book's subject. An important thread that begins in 1 Kings 11 and follows through to the end
of the book is the evaluation of the rulers of Israel and Judah based on their purity of devotion
(or lack of it) to the true worship of YHWH. There are several standard phrases used of the
kings. In the South, many are compared to David as the godly norm: and his heart was not
wholly devoted to the Lord his God, like the heart of his father David, or, [he] did right
in the sight of the Lord, like his father David. Of Judah's good kings, six receive only
qualified approval since they did not take away the high places that Solomon set up: Asa, (1

27

Kings 15:14), Jehoshaphat (1 Kings 22:43), Joash (2 Kings 12:3), Amaziah (2 Kings 14:4),
Azariah (2 Kings 15:4), and Jotham (2 Kings 15:35). There are only two who receive
unqualified approval: Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:3-7) and Josiah (2 Kings 22:2). Jones observes
that this is probably because they alone took positive action against the high places, and so met
the ideal of the historian.

29

In the North, the kings are judged as to whether or not they

walked in the way of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat. This refers to the two golden calves that
Jeroboam set up in Dan and Bethel as alternative worship centers to the Temple in Jerusalem
(1 Kings 12:27-28). All the kings of Israel are given unfavorable evaluations, though in the
cases of Jehoram (2 Kings 3:2), Jehu (2 Kings 10:28-31), and Hoshea (2 Kings 17:2) their
condemnation is lessened somewhat.
The only two common elements that are repeated in every one of the evaluations, North
and South, are the focus on the kings degree of orthodoxy in worship (sin of Jeroboam/high
places) and whether they did right, or did evil in the sight of the Lord. Thus, the kings
worship and their personal practices are the focus of the historian. It should not be surprising,
then, that these were the same two reasons given in the summary passages examined earlier (2
Kings 17:7-23; 21:10-15) for the judgment leading to the exile of Israel and Judah: they
had sinned against the Lord their Godand had feared other gods. and, made Judah sin
with his idolsthey have done evil in My sight
Proportion: the ministry of the prophets to the kings
The principle of proportion is another literary device that will be helpful for interpreting
the subject of Kings. The author may choose to highlight a particular detail or event by giving
it a greater amount of space in a story.

30

The most outstanding example, as noted in chapter 1,

is the amount of space given to the prophetic ministry in Kings, and especially in the case of
Elijah and Elisha. Yet even apart from these two, the role of the prophets in Kings is
impressive and instructive.

28

By surveying the roles given the lesser known prophets in Kings, insight can be gained
into the part that Elijah and Elisha play in the book's development. Kings portrays a course of
history which was shaped and led to a fulfilment [sic] by a word of judgment and salvation
continually injected into it.

31

It is the prophets who speak this word. The opening scene finds

Nathan heroically foiling Abijah's attempted coup (1 Kings 1:11ff), thus establishing
Solomon's kingdom. Near the end of Solomon's reign another prophet, Ahijah, announces the
rending of ten tribes from his kingdom as punishment (1 Kings 11:29-39). When Rehoboam is
about to initiate an all out war to regain the North, the prophet Shemiah brings God's
prohibition that prevents it (1 Kings 12:22-24). In response to Jeroboam's false system of
worship YHWH sends another servant, simply referred to as a man of God, to condemn the
practice and prophesy the destruction of the altar in Bethel by Josiah (1 Kings 13:1-32).
Ahijah then pronounces doom on Jeroboam's dynasty (14:1-16). Jehu is the next prophet to
appear, carrying a similar announcement of doom on Baasha's house (1 Kings 16:1-4). From
this early activity it is clear that the prophets are pictured as YHWH's special servants who, as
His spokesmen, wield a message of authority far beyond that of the monarchy. Furthermore,
all the prophetic activity has been directed toward the kings, and up to this point the focus has
been divine messages, not miracles.
With the coming of Ahab to the throne the apostasy of the Northern kingdom took on a
new vigor. With Ahab came Jezebel, and with Jezebel came Baal (Baal-Malquart). One of
Jezebel's policies was the extermination of YHWH's prophets who to this point had held such
sway over the monarchy (1 Kings 18:4). It is against this new threat that the mighty prophet
Elijah is introduced (1 Kings 17-19, 21; 2 Kings 1, 2). Interspersed in his story, however, are
several other prophets who also deal with Ahab. Up till this point in the history of the
Northern Kingdom all the activity of the prophets has been directed against the activity of the
reigning king. Yet, in 1 Kings 20:13-15, 22, and 28, two different prophets aided Ahab by
speaking words of deliverance from the Syrian threat. Nevertheless, when Ahab later

29

disobeyed God by sparing Ben-hadad he too fell under condemnation, this time by a third
unnamed prophet (1 Kings 20:35-43). In the final chapter of Ahabs reign a contrast is drawn
between the 400 prophets of Ahab's court, and Micaiah, the one true prophet of the Lord
(YHWH). From the prophetic activity during Ahab's reign it is apparent that false worship and
false prophets have become a major problem. In spite of this, YHWH's prophets offer a
measure of aid against Syria. The reasons will be examined later.
During Elisha's ministry there are whole companies of YHWH's prophets under his
care. The sons of the prophets, at Bethel, Jericho, and Gilgal (2 Kings 2:3, 5; 4:38) were most
likely prophetic apprentices of some sort. It is one of these whom Elisha sends to anoint Jehu
as king to end Ahab's dynasty (2 Kings 9:1-10). After the death of Elisha (2 Kings 13:14-21)
there is no further mention of prophets before Israel falls, with the exception of a brief
reference to Jonah, through whom God told Jeroboam II to retake the eastern borders of Israel
(2 Kings 14:25).
In the surviving kingdom of Judah Isaiah ministered to the godly King Hezekiah (2
Kings 19:2-20:19). When Assyria threatened Jerusalem and later when Hezekiah was mortally
ill, Isaiah's message was one of deliverance. However, when Hezekiah foolishly showed off
his riches to Babylonian officials Isaiah was not slow to rebuke him and foretell the disastrous
consequences of his action (2 Kings 20:12-19). Hezekiah's son, Manasseh, was Judah's most
evil king. It is in the face of his abominations that the announcement of doom fell, through
the Lord's servants, the prophets (2 Kings 21:10). The last prophet to appear in kings is
Huldah the prophetess. After Josiah read the recovered book of the Law he inquired of Huldah
whether the wrath of YHWH could be averted. The prophetess response was that it was too
late, due to the sins of Manasseh, nevertheless Josiah himself would go to his grave before the
exile (2 Kings 22:8-20). This final period can be divided in two: before and after the
pronouncement of judgment on Manasseh and Judah. In the period before Manasseh, Isaiah
had a relationship with Hezekiah much like Nathan had with David, aiding the monarch in his

30

godly administration; rebuking him if he sinned. In the period following Manasseh, however,
there is no encouraging word recorded regarding the nation. The inquiry by Josiah, Judah's
most godly king, yields only God's approval of Josiah himself.

Statement of the Argument of Kings

The subject of Kings defined
From the principle of selection it was seen that kings is not a political history, but a
theological one, examining why the monarchy ended in the Exile. From the principle of
repetition it was noted that the kings level of cultic purity and their personal practices are the
constant focus of the writer. Finally, using the principle of proportion, the important place of
the prophetic ministry could be seen, especially as it is interwoven with the monarchy. Indeed,
after Solomon the two most prominent figures in the book are Elijah and Elisha. Taking these
considerations into account the subject of the book of Kings is:
The choice by the kings and the people to reject YHWH's covenant through their
persistent disobedience and idolatry, and in spite of the efforts of the prophets . . .

The complement of Kings defined

In the key summary passages the writer viewed Solomon's choice to violate the law
through his marriages to pagan women as that which set in motion the downfall of the
monarchy. After the fall of the Northern Kingdom he reflects that the exile was a welldeserved judgment that resulted from Israel's constant disobedience (led by their kings) to the
covenant stipulations. In the pronouncement of doom on Manasseh and Judah again
disobedience and idolatry result in Exile. On the basis of these considerations, the
complement for the book of Kings is:
. . . resulted in their exile as well-deserved judgment.

31

NOTES
1

Thomas L. Constable, 1 Kings, in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New

Testament, pp. 483-4.
2

D. J. Wiseman supports this date for Jehoiachin's release, Chronicles of the Chaldean
Kings, 1956, pp. 34-35.
3

G. H. Jones, 1 & 2 Kings, NCBC, 1:47.

W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, p. 307.

Jones, p. 47.

Roy Honeycutt, "2 Kings," in Broadman Bible Commentary, vol. 3:228, 238, & 242.

E. D. Hirsch, Jr, The Aims of Interpretation, p. 40.

The same may be said for the subjectivity of the Documentary hypothesis when
applied to Kings, and for the more recent "fragmentary hypothesis" of M. Noth; Jones, p. 48.
9

Leah Bronner, The Stories of Elijah and Elisha, p. ix.

10

R. D. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History JSOT

Supplement 18 (1981):14ff.
11

J. B. Griffiths, The Problem of Deuteronomy (1911); cited in R. K. Harrison,

Introduction to the Old Testament, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1969, p.
43.
12

I. Howard Marshall, Introduction, New Testament Interpretation, p. 15.

13

Elliott Johnson, "Discussion on Hermeneutics" (outline for a forum discussion

between representatives from the departments of Bible Exposition, Old Testament, and New
Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary, November 18, 1986. Hereafter referred to as
Hermeneutic.)
14

Bruce K. Waltke, Grammatical Problems in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the

Bible, p. 119.
15

John Martin, Subject/Purpose Statements (class notes for 304 Pre-exilic Prophets,
Dallas Theological Seminary, Spring 1985.)

32
16

Johnson, Hermeneutic, Unit 2, pp. 56, 72.

17

Johnson, Hermeneutic, Unit 2, pp. 73, 80.

18

Elliott Johnson, An Evangelical Literal Hermeneutic (a manuscript for a forthcoming

book, (Expository Hermeneutics); current text used in 315 Advanced Hermeneutics, Dallas
Theological Seminary, Fall 1986), Unit 2, p. 16. AddendumCf. published book: Elliott
Johnson, Expository Hermeneutics: An Introduction, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990, pp. 8384.
19

Leland Ryken, How to Read the Bible as Literature, (hereafter, Read) p. 59.

20

Johnson, Hermeneutic, Unit 2, p. 53.

21

E. D. Hirsch, Jr., Validity in Interpretation, p. 209.

22

John Barton, Reading the Old Testament, pp. 11-13.

23

Leland Ryken, The Literature of the Bible, pp. 75-76, passim.

24

Jones, p. 47.

25

ANET, p. 320.

26

ANET, pp. 281-285.

27

The glory departed when the Ark was captured at the battle of Aphek, in 1104 B. C.
(1 Samuel 4:1-22).
28

Leland Ryken, Read, p. 55.

29

Jones, p. 29.

30

Ryken, Read, pp. 60-61.

31

Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 2 vols., 1:344.

CHAPTER III
POINTS OF COMPARISON AND CONTRAST BETWEEN ELIJAH AND ELISHA
Names
Even the names of these two prophets suggest a difference in the character of their
1

ministries. Elijah's name means, My God is YHWH, and is certainly significant in light
of his dramatic challenge of Baal worship in Israel. Elisha's name, however, means God is
salvation, and is in keeping with the more positive nature of his ministry to Israel. In fact,
the names of these two prophets make good summaries for their respective ministries. It was
common practice for Hebrew men and women to have names incorporating the divine name
(la especially as an alternative for ~yhla) and reflecting their parents' spiritual outlook, or,
2

as in the case of a later name change, the outlook of the one bearing the name. We do not
know into which category Elijah and Elisha fall, but regardless, their names do indeed reflect
their lives and peculiar ministries. Elijah's ministry was one long confrontation with the
worshippers of Baal to prove that YHWH was the true God. While Elisha also attacked Baal
worship, his was typically a ministry of deliverance for the northern kingdom, especially
from the threat of Syria.
Call to Ministry
There is no record that Elijah had formal training as a prophet. Characteristic of his
ministry he simply appears on the pages of Scripture proclaiming a word from the Lord to the
king (1 Kings 17:1). Elisha, on the other hand, did have a formal call to succeed Elijah (1
Kings 19:19-21) and apparently a time of apprenticeship. This training may have lasted as
long as ten years in view of the events that took place between Elisha's calling and Elijah's
translation.

As to their backgrounds before being called, Elijah came from the poor region of

34

Gilead near the desert (17:1). On the other hand, Elisha was probably from a family of
means, since when he was called he was plowing in a large field where twelve other teams of
oxen were plowing ahead of him. That it was his family's field is evidenced by his feeling
free to slaughter his team of oxen and by the apparent proximity of his family (1 Kings
19:19-21).
Pattern of Ministry
Even before examining why God chose a man like Elisha to succeed Elijah one thing is
obvious: Elisha was not as much of a mystery figure to the people of his day as was his
predecessor. Elijah had been a man who seemed to pop up out of thin air and disappear just as
rapidly. This pattern was so well known that even Obadiah, a loyal acquaintance, did not want
to leave him in order to report his presence to Ahab for fear the Spirit would snatch him away
before he could return with the king (1 Kings 18:9-12). Indeed, Elijah the Tishbite preferred to
retreat regularly to the solitude of the desert, a lonely cave, or a mountaintop where he could
reflect, and commune with God (1 Kings 17:5; 19:4, 8, 9). At the Lord's command he lived
incognito for three years with an obscure widow in a small town near Sidon (1 Kings 17:8-24).
Though he lived under the same roof and provided food miraculously for the widow and her
son it seems that it took him a long time to win her confidence. When her son became sick and
died she immediately accused Elijah of visiting her sins upon her, causing his death. It was
only after he raised her son from the dead that she could say, "Now I know that you are a man
of God, and that the word of the Lord is in your mouth" (1 Kings 17:24). Elijah's isolation,
however, extended to the emotional and spiritual realm as well. At Horeb he even voiced to
God his sense of aloneness in the cause of reform: I alone am left; and they seek my life
(19:10, 14). In keeping with his penchant for seclusion, both when he anointed Elisha his
successor and when he was about to be taken up into heaven, Elijah walked on as if to leave his
disciple, his closest associate on earth, behind him (19:19-21; 2 Kings 2:2-11). It is interesting
in this connection that although Elijah seems to have been the leader of a group of young

35

prophets in training (1 Kings 18:4;13), apparently part of the same group called the sons of
5

the prophets, yet he is only tacitly connected to them by the author of Kings. He was not
dependent on them; they were not greatly dependent on him. Notice that in spite of the fact
that he knew 100 of these prophets were safe in hiding from Jezebel, he still considered
himself the sole proponent of YHWH before the nation (18:22; 19:10).
Elisha, on the other hand, was familiar with and to the people, traveling a fairly
regular circuit with the result that the Shunammite woman could expect him to return
periodically and stay in their improvised quarters, and that he could instruct the sons of the
prophets in Bethel and Jericho (with whom he had a much closer relationship than Elijah) on
a regular basis. In contrast to Elijah, people knew his general itinerary. Furthermore, it
should be noted how much more quickly the Shunammite woman was willing to accept
Elisha as a holy man of God. In fact, she took the initiative and persuaded him to start
accepting hospitality (2 Kings 4:8ff). Though the conditions were different (in Israel, no
famine, a wealthy woman) this contrast nevertheless makes the point of how different
Elishas ministry was from Elijahs. In light of Elisha's more urbane background it is not
surprising to find him staying close to the cities, and often keeping company with kings.
Wood observes:
Though having the same objectives in view as Elijah, Elisha's manner in reaching
them was somewhat different. In keeping with his contrasting background, he was
more at home in the cities and was often in the company of kings. Also, whereas
Elijah had been more a man of moods, either strongly courageous or despairing to the
point of death, Elisha was self-controlled and even tempered. Elisha never staged
dramatic contests nor sulked in a desert. It may be, too, that Elisha was more
interested in the needs of people, for many of his miracles were for the purpose of
6
aiding and giving relief to persons in difficulty.
Message Proclaimed
There is one significant expression unique to and characteristic of both of these men
of God. Both spoke of YHWH as the One before whom I stand, meaning that He was the
King whom they served. This was not a coincidental means of describing their relationship

36

to YHWH in light of their confrontation with Israel's wicked kings (1 Kings 17:1; 18:15; 2
7

Kings 3:14). Both prophets conveyed the message to Israel's monarchs that YHWH was the
only true God. Elijah's activities were in direct response to the early efforts of Jezebel to
bring the Phoenician worship of Baal-Malquart into Israel as the state religion. Elijah waged
a crusade against this imported pagan or foreign religion finding a home in Israel. It was
holy war and his message reflected this fact. Throughout his ministry he spoke only
condemnation and judgment upon Ahab, his house, and all the leadership of the northern
kingdom for their apostasy. In the book of Kings YHWH used Elijah as the front line of
defense against Baal's encroachment.
While Elijah was always confronting the kings of Israel through his words and by
miraculous power, Elisha had a markedly different relationship to the kings. He was quick to
rebuke Jehoram for having trusted in Baal (2 Kings 3:13,14), nevertheless most of the time
Elisha acted in ways beneficial to Israel's throne. Most often he was an advisor and ally on
behalf of Israel against Syria (2 Kings 3:1-27; 6:8-12; 6:13-23). Furthermore, his power was
not even once directed against Israel for evil, even though he preached the same message as his
predecessor. Surely something greater than mere personality difference must account for this.
Miracles
The miracles of Elijah and Elisha contained similar elements (fire, rivers, rain, water,
oil, grain, life, sickness). Their success in controlling these by YHWH's power is usually
8

taken as a polemic against Baal, who was supposed to be god over such things. However,
the significant contrast between Elijah and Elisha does not lie so much in the types of
miracles they performed as in their targets. All of Elijah's public miracles were directed
against the apostate northern kingdom as judgments. On the other hand, while Elisha
9

performed nearly twice as many recorded miracles yet none were directed against Israel as
judgments. Quite the contrary, they were a source of blessing and deliverance for the people
of the northern kingdom.

37

Miracles in the hands of Elijah were offensive weapons. As a result of his miraculous
ministry the spread of Baalism was checked, and it lost the lofty position it had held in the
days of Ahab: Jehoram put away the sacred pillar of Baal which his father had made (2
Kings 3:2). Once this was attained the prophetic ministry assumed a peace time posture,
shoring up the true worship and knowledge of YHWH and keeping foreign invaders (notably
Syria) at bay. This will be seen more clearly in the following section. Nearly all of Elisha's
miracles were acts of mercy. He himself was distanced from most of the work of judgment.
In fact, when the final purge of Baal worship came, Elisha himself was two steps removed
from it. One of his students anointed Jehu, who in turn carried out the bloody purge against
Ahab's house (2 Kings 9:1-10).
Encounters with Kings
Elijah vs. king Ahab
Elijah's encounters with king Ahab and Jezebel are a peculiar mixture of fiery attacks
and hasty retreats, and yet his actions show him playing a progressively bolder, and more
effective role. Why there is this progression will be addressed in chapter four, where it will be
linked to the development of the argument of Kings. Regarding his boldness, after his first
encounter he ran from Ahab, being commanded to do so by God (1 Kings 17:1ff). It is not
stated specifically why God told Elijah to hide (1 Kings 17:3), nor is it necessary to speculate
on this point. The fact remainsfor three years the prophet disappeared from public view, so
that boldness was not required of him. However, at the end of this time, and again in
obedience to the word of YHWH, he emerged and stood up to Ahab and the prophets of Baal
in a bold contest of power at Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18:1-46). A few hours after this victory,
however, he fled from the wrath of Jezebel for fear

10

of his life (1 Kings 19:1ff). Finally, in

Naboths vineyard, where he had his last and most stinging confrontation with Ahab, he stood
up to the wicked king face to face with no trace of fear (1 Kings 21:17-24).
The writer of Kings paints each of Elijah's three encounters with Ahab in

38

progressively greater drama and detail. At the same time the scope of his ministry is shown
to be narrowing its focus, zeroing in on Israel's evil king (see Table 1). The miracle of the
drought in the first part of his ministry touched the entire northern kingdom. Although this is
his most far-reaching miracle the writer does not make note of any specific spiritual response
by the nation as a result of it. Furthermore, Elijah did not hold a dialogue with Ahab but
simply pronounced judgment, then left. This first encounter is presented flatly, without
drama. In fact, any potential for confrontation was avoided by the Lord's instructing the
prophet to hide yourself by the brook Cherith (1 Kings 17:3). The miracle of the fire from
heaven in the mid-part of his ministry was directed against a smaller group, the 450 prophets
of Baal. This dramatic, all-day encounter, to which the entire nation was invited (18:19-20),
is presented with great detail in contrast to Elijah's first encounter with the king. Finally, the
encounter with Ahab in Naboth's vineyard is the most specific of all. No miracle was
worked; simply a dialogue between Elijah and Ahab in which the prophet revealed the king's
doom (21:1-29).
TABLE 1
ELIJAH CONFRONTS AHAB
IN 1 KINGS

Focus

Level of Drama

Effect

17:1-3

Against Northern Kingdom

Not dramatic; no
dialogue with Ahab

No recorded effect

18:1-46

Against 450 Prophets of

Baal

Very dramatic; little

dialogue with Ahab

Israel proclaims YHWH

their God

21:1-29

Against Ahab himself

Very dramatic; dramatic

dialogue with Ahab

Ahab repents

When the prophet announced the coming drought Ahab searched all Israel, and even
foreign countries, for him (1 Kings 18:10). Wood interprets Ahab's actions toward Elijah as
respect.

11

It is questionable, however, whether Ahab conducted this search out of respect for

39

him. The fact that God instructed Elijah to hide is strong evidence to the contrary (17:3).
On the occasion of his second and third encounters with the prophet, Ahab referred to him as
the troubler of Israel (18:17), and my enemy (21:20). It is only after the confrontation
in Naboth's vineyard, when Ahab had repented, that he showed any respect for Elijah.
However when Ahab's son, Ahaziah, became king the prophet was once again treated
as an outlaw. In a fourth and final conflict Ahaziah sent two companies of soldiers to capture
him (2 Kings 1:9-16). The result was that two companies and their captain were consumed
by fire that Elijah called down from heaven. As it is presented in Kings, Elijah did not
hesitate for a moment to call for their destruction. Indeed, though Azahiah's attempt to
enquire of Baal-zebub was worthy of such wrath, it comes as a surprise to the reader that fire
should fall so quickly on these soldiers who were merely doing their duty, and who had not
as yet tried to take Elijah by force.

12

However their insistent command, The king says,

Come down! was an attempt to place the prophet under the king's authority. Instead, the
king was to be under the authority of the word of the Lord as spoken by the prophets (cf. 1
Sam. 10:25; 12:33). Elijah stood before the Lord and so could not acquiesce to serve this
wicked despot. He was within his rights to call down fire.

Elisha's ministry to the kings

Elisha's reaction to royal opposition was far less volatile. Unlike Elijah, he did not
immediately call down fire when the son of Ahab sought him. Elisha preferred to simply
avoid king Jehoram (2 Kings 3:13-14). Moreover, in none of his encounters did Elisha run
away in fear. In large part this was due to the fact that he enjoyed greater respect and more
popular support than his predecessor (see Table 2). After the incident very early in his
ministry where the she-bears killed the youth who mocked him (2 Kings 2:23-24), he walked
about Israel without fear for life or threat from anyone.

40

TABLE 2
ELISHAS MINISTRY TO
ISRAELS KINGS
(2 KINGS)

King

Description

Attitude

3:1-27

Jehoram

Supplies water on march

Respect, seeks Elishas help

5:1-27

Jehoram

Helps Jehoram by healing Naaman

Respect, refers to Elisha

6:8-12

Jehoram

Helps Jehoram by revealing enemy moves

Respect

6:13-23

Jehoram

Leads Syrian captives to Jehoram

Respect, My father

6:24-7:20

Jehoram

Elisha blamed by Jehoram for siege

Disrespect, grew impatient

8:1-6

Jehoram

Jehoram asks to hear Elishas miracles

Respect, admiration

9:1-3

Jehu

Elishas man anoints Jehu king

Respect, obeys

13:14-19

Jehoash

King pays dying prophet final visit, is

offered victory

Respect, My father

When king Jehoram

13

accused Elisha of being the source of starvation conditions

brought about by the siege of Samaria Elisha did not attack him (except by labeling him a
son of a murderer, though not even to his face), but rather gave a reassuring revelation that
by the next day they would have all the food they desired (2 Kings 6:28-32).
Close of Ministry and Successor
Why YHWH named Elijah's successor and abruptly called the prophet home when
He did is not clearly stated. Elijah was still in good physical condition and quite able to
minister (viz, his disposing of two companies of Ahaziah's troops, and his journey from
Bethel to Jericho) and probably could have continued to do so for years to come. Unlike
Elisha's departure, the time for a natural death had not drawn near for Elijah when he was
taken up into heaven on a chariot of fire. By contrast, Elisha was the head of a school of
disciples, or apprenticed prophets, whom he continually trained for the ministry and who no
doubt succeeded him.
The succession narrative is a pivotal section which will be dealt with in greater depth

41

in chapter four. Elijah's early retirement in light of the contrast between his ministry and his
successor's is unexplainable unless it reflects part of a broader pattern that sweeps the entire
book and the history of God's dealings with Israel. Furthermore, there seems to be a cause
and effect relationship between Elijah's ministry of confrontation and Elisha's ministry of
deliverance. The ministry of the former clears a path for the ministry of the latter. Elijah
then, like his New Testament counterpart, John the Baptist, had a preparatory role that
14

involved open confrontation with the spiritual status quo.

straight path" for his successor.

He was one who "cleared a

42

NOTES
1

Two forms of spelling occur: wyhla is the more common form and is probably the
original (since names tend to be abbreviated with usage and this form contains the older,
longer form of the divine name). In a few places (2 Kings 1:3,4,8) the shorter form, hyla , is
used and yet the meaning is the same. BDB, S. v., "hyla."
2

Leah Bronner, The Stories of Elijah & Elisha as Polemics Against Baal Worship, pp.

Leon J. Wood, The Prophets of Israel, p. 217.

Ibid, p. 246.

Edward J. Young, My Servants the Prophets, p. 92.

Wood, p. 246.

Bronner, p. 29.

22-23.

This is the thesis of Leah Bronner's excellent book, to which the reader is referred
for in depth analysis and support. Thomas Constable gives a concise summary of how their
miracles were directed against Baal's supposed powers (Bible Knowledge Commentary,
OT, chart on p. 541).
9

The principle of selectivity in biblical narrative must be taken into account at this
point. Whether or not we have an exhaustive list of Elisha's miracles we do not know,
however we can at least assert that the writer chooses to record approximately twice the
number of miracles for Elisha as for Elijah.
10

The MT has ar:y:w and he saw while Mss G S V read a'r:yw and he was afraid. In either
case, the context makes it clear that Elijah was running for his life from Jezebel and this
constituted a failure on his part.
11
12

Wood, p. 223.

The question is why did YHWH judge this violation when He allowed seemingly
greater transgressions go without instant retribution? This instant and severe judgment finds
parallels at other pivotal points in God's administration of His kingdom: Uzziah's handling
of the Ark (2 Samuel 6:6-7); Ananias and Saphira's lie to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:1-11). In
both of these latter incidents the result was renewed fear of God at a crucial time in God's
dealings with His people. What might be tolerated at one point in God's plan must be
immediately judged at another.

43

13

The fact that no other king has been named by the writer would most naturally lead
the intended audience to equate this unnamed king with Jehoram (Joram). It is he, a member
of the "house of Ahab," whom Jehu assassinates (2 Kings 9:7, 14). Therefore this king
cannot be identified with Jehoahaz or Jehoash, Jehu's son and grandson. At any rate there is
no evidence which prevents this conclusion, or positively suggests otherwise.
14

Terry R. Kern, Parallels Between the ministries of Elijah and Elisha and the
Ministry of Christ, pp. 4-9.

CHAPTER IV
THE ARGUMENT APPLIED TO THE STORIES
OF ELIJAH AND ELISHA

Purpose of The Chapter

The major purpose of this chapter is to account for the differences between Elijah and
Elisha on a literary basis. First, the change in ministry styles, from one of confrontation with the
king to one of aiding him, will be explained by showing its place within the literary arrangement
of Kings. Then, in the last part of the chapter it will be shown how the difference between these
two prophets was used by the writer to advance his argument, as expressed in the message
statement in chapter two above (pp. 27, 28).
Elijah and Elisha Within the Literary Arrangement of Kings
In the first chapter it was noted that Kings has more than one movement in its plot.
Alongside the decline of the monarchy, which is the major movement of the book, there was the
correcting and stabilizing ministry of the prophets to the kings, which is its minor movement.
These two movements, it was said, are dramatic counterpoint. Whenever prophet and king met it
was for one of two purposes: to rebuke a king and proclaim condemnation on him for an act of
evil; or to aid a king in the establishment or administration of his kingdom, to the degree he was
abiding by the covenant stipulations.
The one story of literature
The weaving of the major and minor movements in Kings is part of a larger pattern that
runs throughout all the Old Testament historical narrative, from Genesis to the fall of Judah.
Genesis begins with the unfallen creation and man in the Garden of Eden and all the world in
harmony with God.

This is the ideal state.

Soon, however, man makes a choice which

results in a fallen world, his expulsion from the Garden and alienation from God.

This is

tragedy , the story of a downward fall due to a fatal choice. From Cain and Abel to the Tower of

45
Babel man is in a miserable state of sin and bondage. This is the unideal state. Beginning with
Abraham, however, the plot begins to turn upward. God calls a people for Himself to be His
own holy possession and receive the blessings He originally intended man to experience. This
is comedy , the story of a rise from bondage and misery to freedom and happiness. Finally, the
kingdom is established in Israel. Solomon reigns as a godly, wise, and powerful king and the
nation prospers. God inhabits the Temple in Jerusalem and dwells with his people in harmony.
Once more this is the ideal state, or as close as Israel has ever come to it in history.
This pattern of movement from the ideal to the unideal and back is common in not only
in biblical literature but, as a result of the Bible's influence, in all of western literature as well.
Northrop Frye developed this into a theory of "fictional modes" around which literature revolves.
It is a cycle that is as common as everyday life: sunrise, zenith, sunset, darkness; birth,
adulthood, old age, death; and spring, summer, fall, winter. His theory has been put in chart
form by Ryken (see figure 1):
FIGURE 1: The Monomyth of Literature
Ideal
(Romance)
(the story
of summer)

Tragedy

Comedy

(the story
of fall)

(the story
of spring)

Unideal
(Anti-Romance)
(the story
of winter)

This cycle, called the monomyth, or one story of literature,2 appears on many
different scales in the Bible. In fact, the whole of salvation history as recorded in the Bible has

46
this pattern: the ideal state in Eden, the tragic fall of man, the redemption through Christ, and
finally the glorification of man and consummation in the new heavens and earth. The terms
ideal and unideal will be used because they are more meaningful than romance and antiromance when dealing with the history of Israel's covenant relationship.
The literary arrangement of Kings
The major movement. This cycle can also be applied to the book of Kings as a whole.
It begins with a comic motif, rising from a somewhat unsure state of affairs to the establishment
of Solomon's reign (1 Kings 1:1-3:28). For several chapters (1 Kings 4:1-9:9) the writer focuses
on the peace and prosperity of Solomon's early reign, a time when "Judah and Israel were
eating and drinking and rejoicingand lived in safety, every man under his vine and his fig tree,
from Dan even to Beersheba (4:20, 25). This is the ideal state of the monarchy.
Soon, however the narrative takes a tragic turn. Tragedy always involves a choice that
proves to be the downfall of the one who makes it. Solomon chose to violate the prohibition
against marrying pagan women (11:1-6). Furthermore, he chose to accommodate their foreign
religions by building them worship places (11:7-8). For this violation of the covenant YHWH
judged Solomon by tearing the kingdom from his dynasty by civil war (11:11-13). This tragic
movement toward the unideal state occupies the remainder of the book as first Israel and then
Judah are carried away into exile. The very last event of Kings, the release of Jehoiachin from
prison in Babylon, adds just a touch of the comic motif. The seed of David has been preserved.
What has been called the major movement of the book of Kings, then, is really the writer's
focus on the tragic movement from the glory of Solomon to the shame of the captivity.
The minor movement in Kings. This literary-historical cycle can be seen on an even
smaller scale, within Kings. At this level it will help explain why there was such a contrast
between the ministries of Elijah and Elisha from the standpoint of literary arrangement. If this
cycle is applied to just the stories of these two prophets, encompassing the reigns of Ahab to

47
Jehu (1 Kings 16:29 - 2 Kings 10:35) it will yield the clearest picture of what has been labeled
the "minor movement" of Kings, the correcting and stabilizing influence of the prophets on the
monarchy (see Figure 2).
FIGURE 2: The Minor Movement of Kings

Ideal
Elisha

ag
Tr
y
ed

om
Elijah C

y
ed

(Jehu
(Jehora)
m)

Unideal
(Ahab &
Jezebel)
When the story of Elijah begins the northern kingdom has reached a spiritual low point
due to the influence of Ahab and Jezebel. It is already in the unideal state:
And it came about as if it were a trivial thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the
son of Nebat, that he married Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians, and
went to serve Baal and worshipped him. So he erected an altar for Baal in the house of
Baal, which he built in Samaria. And Ahab made the Asherah. Thus Ahab did more to
provoke the Lord God of Israel than all the kings of Israel who were before him (1 Kings
16:31-33).
The characterization of the kings and other important figures is a major literary clue to
plot movement and message of a book. Characters in biblical stories are conscious creations of
the story tellers, not in the sense that the writers disregard the real-life person, but in the sense
5

that they decide what to include and exclude from their portrait. Jezebel cannot qualify as a
tragic figure for when she is introduced she is already morally bankrupt. She is an amazing
character who remains totally unchanged in spite of the miraculous judgments of Elijah against
Baal worship. To the very end she defies YHWH's servants (2 Kings 9:31). The writer leaves
his audience no room to develop sympathy for her.

48
The same cannot be said for Ahab, however. Though he begins in the same spiritual
quagmire as Jezebel there is evidence that he was not quite as content to sink in it. With the
introduction of Elijah the narrative turns upward in a comic direction. Each of the prophet's
three encounters with Ahab was more dramatic than the one before, that is, his confrontations
grew bolder and more direct, as pointed out in chapter three (pp. 35-37). Moreover, with each
confrontation Elijah had more of an impact on the king. The drought seems to have had no
effect on Ahab (cf. 1 Kings 18:17), but the contest on Mt. Carmel silenced him, and the
encounter in Naboth's vineyard actually evoked contrition. Furthermore, between Mt Carmel
and Naboth's vineyard the writer portrays Ahab in a very different light. In chapter 20 he
actually takes on a more or less heroic posture as he leads Israel in battle against Syria. Three
times prophets of YHWH aided him by giving him the winning battle plan (20:13-15; 22, 28).
It is probable that Ahab had showed a measure of repentance during this period and so gained the
aid of the prophets, especially as he acts in the interests of the nation. These prophets were not
the type to condone sin, however. Notice that as soon as he sinned by sparing Ben-hadad he was
immediately condemned (20:40-43). The story of Ahab's tragic failure, far from breaking the
upward plot movement, actually reinforces it by demonstrating the power of YHWH's prophets
over him.
The period between Mt. Carmel and the succession of Elijah by Elisha can be
summarized as one of comic movement, from the depths of the unideal to a more acceptable
state of affairs in which the prophets of YHWH had freedom to minister publicly. Regardless of
Ahab's spiritual state one fact is obvious about the period following Mt. Carmel, the Lord's
prophets were no longer hiding in caves from Jezebel (cf. 18:4). The contest between Elijah and
the prophets of Baal had been the turning point. Elijah had invited the whole nation to watch
and then to make a choice. When YHWH answered with fire they fell on their faces in
repentance and proclaimed YHWH is God! At Elijah's bidding they seized the 450 prophets of
Baal so the he could slay them. God had reassured Elijah at Horeb that He had kept 7,000 men
who had not served Baal. No doubt the three prophets who aided Ahab against Syria were

49
among this number, as well as the sons of the prophets who make their first appearance at this
point in Kings (20:35). Far from hiding, they do not hesitate to follow the example of their
6

mentor Elijah in rebuking Ahab (20:40-43). In the final chapter of 1 Kings it is interesting that
the prophets of Ahab's court, though false, claimed to testify in the name of YHWH (22:11, 24),
not Baal or some other deity. If not in truth at least in name YHWH was once more the God of
Israel. At this point in the history of Israel's covenant relationship Ahaziah was not allowed the
opportunity of consulting a foreign god, as his father had done for so long (2 Kings 1:16-17).
YHWH's prophets had become a force for the king of Israel to consider.
R. K. Harrison suggests an alternative interpretation of the period between Mt. Carmel
and the ministry of Elisha. He suggests that by the time of Elisha's ministry God has already
irrevocably rejected the northern kingdom due to its failure to fully implement the monotheistic
reform called for by Elijah on Mt. Carmel. As evidence for this he notes that during much of the
story of Elisha the name of the Israelite king is suppressed (cf. 2 Kings 5:1-8:15). If this is so,
Harrison concludes, then Elisha's task was simply to build up the righteous remnant which,
7

according to the promise to Elijah (1 Kings 19:18) included 7,000 faithful men. Against this
interpretation it must be pointed out that Elisha's ministry was not only to the sons of the
prophets and the righteous, but also to King Jehoram, and even to Naaman and Hazael of Syria.
Furthermore, if God had given up on the northern kingdom then why was Elisha's ministry
characterized by aid to the monarchy? While this could be interpreted as buying time for the
strengthening of the remnant it seems unlikely, for no such remnant is mentioned in the passage
regarding the fall. Even more problematic is the continuation of the program to eradicate Baal
worship followed by the promise to Jehu (2 Kings 10:28-30). Finally, such a view directly
contradicts the statement of 2 Kings 13:23: But the Lord was gracious to them and had
compassion on them and turned to them because of His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, and would not destroy them or cast them from His presence until now.

50
The period following the death of Ahaziah was one of great transition for the northern
kingdom. King Jehoram took the throne. The prophet Elisha succeeded Elijah. God directly
brought about both events. Ahaziah had died an untimely death according to the word of the
Lord. The prophet Elijah, though apparently in good physical health, was suddenly and
dramatically translated into heaven before the time of his natural death. Why should there be
such transition? Why did God take Elijah at this point rather than at least allowing him to remain
in the background of Elisha's ministry? These questions cannot be answered with absolute
certainty, however they are probably related to the upward movement that has been traced from
the Mt. Carmel contest. Elijah's ministry had had a considerable impact on Israel by turning the
tide of Baal worship and reasserting a strong testimony for YHWH. To the extent he had
brought about reform this reformer had worked himself out of a vocation. Reform was anywhere
from complete, nevertheless a line had been crossed, so to speak. The situation as presented in
Kings has crossed from the unideal side of the monomyth to the ideal side. The focus of the
writer in 2 Kings 2:1-10:28 is not the curse of the covenant, but its blessing. The monomyth may
be relabled to reflect covenant terminology (see Figure 3):
FIGURE 3
Blessing

o
Ap
sy

s ta

en

Curse

Elijah Rep

Elish
(Jehu)
a e (Jehoram)
c
tan

(Ahab & Jezebel)

In a very real way Elijahs ministry was preparatory for Elishas. After all, confrontation
of an apostate nation was not the normal state of affairs God desired in his covenant nation.
Reform by its very nature must give way to an institution or establishment that carries on and
consolidates its gains. Luther was followed by his young friend Melanchthon whose work was

51
not to nail up more theses, but to systematize and teach Protestant doctrine to a new generation.
Is it surprising, then, to find Elisha much more heavily involved with the sons of the prophets
than his predecessor? Petersen notes that Elijah's style of ministry was to enter the public scene
from the outside:
Elijah is perceived as peripheral to the structures of society. . . .when he is available in his
own land, he appears not in a city but rather on top of a hill (2 Kings 1:9). Such an
existence may surely be understood as peripheral to the loci of power and prestige in the
society. . . .
. . . The position of Elisha is presented differently. He is depicted less as an outcast
and more as a holy man who associates with those of peripheral status. 8
Understandably Elisha was a man better suited to the task of administering a school and acting as
counsel to the king.
The preparatory role of Elijah is, of course, a theme used elsewhere in Scripture.
Malachi's reference to him focuses on his ministry of restoring the hearts of the fathers to the
children, and the hearts of the children to the fathers in preparation for the coming of the Day of
the Lord (4:5, 6). If the nation does not heed his message and repent then they will fall under the
curse of the covenant. It is not reading back into Kings to suggest that Elijah had a preparatory
role. Quite the contrary, it was the fact that he had such a role in Kings that he became an
9

archetype for Malachi and Matthew to use in describing the nature of John the Baptist's ministry
in relation to the Messiah (Matt. 17:11-13).
The reform that took place as the result of Elijah's ministry was mostly in regard to the
theme of purity of worship, not obedience to other covenant stipulations. It is important to note
the pattern Baal worship took in the northern kingdom from the reign of Ahab to Jehu (Figure 4):
FIGURE 4
Introduction of Baal

Put away pillar of Baal

Eradicated Baal

Ahab

Jehoram

Jehu

Beginning

Mid-Point

End

(1 Kings 16:31-32)

(2 Kings 3:2)

(2 Kings 10:28)

52
Whereas Elijah had been a minister of the covenantal curse, his successor, Elisha, received a
more positive role. When Elisha began his ministry the spiritual situation had been improved
considerably. The growth of Baalism had been checked. It had already lost its strong grip in
Israel by the early part of Elisha's ministry. Only once does he rebuke Jehoram for such
practices (1 Kings 3:13). The remainder of his reign finds Elisha aiding him in times of war.
Baal worship was finally crushed when Jehu came to the throne (2 Kings 10:28).
Contribution of this analysis. The analysis presented above shows that indeed there was
a reform in the North. The fact that Elisha's ministry is not one of miraculous judgments against
Israel (but in fact, quite gracious toward the Northern kingdom) is evidence that there must
already have been at least a minor reform by the time he began. For some unknown reason,
however, this is often overlooked. For example, Jones says there are only two Northern kings
whose disapproval was lessened: Jehoram and Hoshea.

10

He completely overlooks Jehu, of

whom more positive things are said, and to whom more is promised (four generations of rulers in
his dynasty) than any other Northern king due to his role in completing the reform begun by
Elijah (2 Kings 10:30; cf. 1 Kings 19:16).

11

This analysis also explains the change in mode

between the ministries of Elijah and Elisha in terms of the books literary and theological design.
Kings is a history of Israels covenant relationship with YHWH. Within this framework, Elijah
ministered as a reformer while the nation was under the curse (unideal) of the covenant, whereas
Elisha took office just as the nation crossed into a more ideal covenant situation (blessing) in
which he could function as God's agent of deliverance.

Elijah and Elisha Within the Argument of Kings

How Elijah and Elisha advance the argument or message of Kings is closely related to
their function within its literary design. In this section the analysis will be deductive, working
from the subject/complement message statement to the particulars. The message of the book of
Kings is as follows:

53
The choice by the kings and people to reject YHWH's covenant through their persistent
disobedience and idolatry, and in spite of the efforts of the prophets, resulted in their
exile as a well-deserved judgment.
The efforts of the prophets
Obviously the clause and in spite of the efforts of the prophets is of greatest
importance in determining how the stories of Elijah and Elisha advance the argument. The
efforts of the prophets refers generally to their ministry of warning the nation of impending
judgment for sin:
Yet the Lord warned Israel and Judah, through all His prophets and every seer, saying,
Turn from your evil ways and keep My commandments, My statutes according to all
the law which I commanded your fathers, and which I sent to you through My servants
the prophets (2 Kings 17:13).
The ministries of Elijah and Elisha exemplify this effort dramatically and clearly. The shear
proportion of the narrative given to them has already been discussed in some detail. Using the
principle of proportion, this seems to be the writer's way of highlighting these two prophets in
particular as examples of how urgently God tried to forewarn the nation and forestall judgment.
It is not just the length, however, but the magnitude of their stories which impresses the reader.
As was said, within the whole canon their ministries are one of only four periods of prolific
miracles. The abundance of signs, whether the display of power at Carmel, or judgment of fire
upon Ahaziah's troops, or miraculous provision for the two widows, or healings, or deliverance
from an enemy, all underscore the intensity with which YHWH strove to turn the hearts of His
people back to Him. In short, Elijah and Elisha show the extent to which God went to prevent
the exile. The significance of this for the author's audience is that YHWH's working in the
nation's history is made crystal clear. None of the exiles reading Kings could have accused God
of idly standing by.
The choice of the kings and people
The effort of the prophets is the foremost role Elijah and Elisha play in the message of
Kings, but not the only one. One feature of stories in biblical narrative is that they focus on the
choices their characters make as they stand at crossroads.

12

This was certainly true with the

54
nation and its kings in response to Elijah and Elisha. The effort of the prophets, especially the
abundance of miracles performed, gave undeniable authority to their message and ministry and
thereby forced the people to stand repeatedly at the crossroads of decision. Israel had to chose
whom they would serve and whether they would repent and return to right living under the
covenant.
What was it that God was offering the northern kingdom if they repented? Some
dispensationalists have looked at the miracles during this period and concluded that this must
have dispensational significance; perhaps ushering in a transition between Old and New
Covenants, since the sovereign Davidic monarchy would soon be interrupted indefinitely.

13

transition, however, is not necessary. Although the idea of the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31) was
current at the time Kings was written it is not mentioned or alluded to in any way in Kings,
though certainly there would have been ample opportunity had the writer so desired. A
preferable view is that during the ministries of Elijah and Elisha YHWH was offering not a new
covenant, but a renewed covenant relationship through repentance, and thus all the miracles.
What choice did Israel make? Though there was minor reform it was not long lived. Ultimately
the nation chose to reject YHWH's covenant through their idolatry and disobedience to the law
(2 Kings 17:15-16). The significance of this for the exilic audience is that it lays the blame
squarely on the nation and its kings.

Well-deserved exile
Though there was minor reform in the North during the days of Elijah and Elisha, yet
none of those kings turned to God with all their heart. Neither God's wrath through Elijah, nor
His grace and deliverance through Elisha could turn His rebellious nation from sin. In the final
analysis, when the exilic reader considered the effort God had made through His prophets to
forestall judgment, and the hard-hearted choice of the kings and people to reject YHWH's
covenant in spite of they fact that they could have repented and been restored, he could only

55
conclude that the exile was a well-deserved punishment. The stories of Elijah and Elisha are
eloquent evidence that the God who sent them into exile was just.
Conclusion
What can be learned from this analysis of how the stories of Elijah and Elisha advance the
argument of the book of Kings? There are basically three areas where light has been shed.
The history of Israels spiritual life
The history of the northern kingdoms spiritual decline cannot be plotted with a simple
straight line. The study has established that there was indeed a small reform begun under Elijah
and strengthened by his successor Elisha, and that the formers gains paved the way for and
shaped the character of the latters ministry. The nature of this reform seems to have been
restricted mainly to the question of cultic purity, of whether YHWH or Baal would be
preeminent in Israel. The evidence for a shift from Baal to YHWH is threefold: the free-dom of
YHWHs prophets to walk about in public life once more and even establish societies in Jericho
and Gilgal, the purge of Baal worship beginning at Mount Carmel and culmination under Jehu,
and especially the more amicable character of Elishas ministry toward the northern kingdom
and its monarchs. This reform was not complete, however, for Jehu (and all of the northern
kings) clung to the idols that Jeroboam I had set up (2 Kings 10:29).
The relationship of Israel's prophets to her kings
With the stories of Elijah and Elisha come the most detailed accounts of interaction
between Israel's prophets and her kings in the historical literature. The contrast and comparison
of Elijah and Elisha on this point has helped clarify their role in the northern kingdom. Both the
reclusive Elijah and the more gregarious Elisha had a common focal point: the king of Israel.
This is more noticeable with Elijah since all his public miracles are directly related to the king,
and since there is less intervening material about his dealings with common folk (widows, the
sons of the prophets, etc.). Nevertheless, the majority of Elisha's miracles also involve the king

56
either directly or indirectly. Whether in time of blessing or of curse, YHWH had a spokesman to
the king, for as the king went so went the nation.14
The distinction between Elijah and Elisha as a function of the message of Kings
The major differences between Elijah and his successor have been exposed and explained
in terms of the literary arrangement and message of Kings. The author sought to trace the history
of the nation in terms of its covenant loyalty or disloyalty and the resultant experience of blessing
or curse. Elijah began his ministry during a very dark period of Israels history, when the
prominence of Baal had peaked and the prophets of YHWH were in hiding from Jezebel.
However, God raised up a champion in Elijah. It was his primary task to confront and bring
judgment upon the apostate northern kingdom. In this role he is depicted as a minister of the
covenantal curse of Deuteronomy (Deut. 28:15, 22-24). As pointed out, Elijah's fiery ministry
made considerable headway to the point where he was no longer forced to hide or escape to the
wilderness from Jezebel. The sons of the prophets once more took an active role in dealing with
the king (1 Kings 20), and even the false prophets of Ahabs court pretended to speak in YHWHs
name (cf. 1 Kings 22:6, 11). At length, Ahaziah was powerless to apprehend Elijah (2 Kings 1:917). When Jehoram came to power he put away pillar of Baal which he father had made (2
Kings 3:2). It was with this foundation already laid that Elisha became successor to Elijah.
Furthermore, it was precisely because of that foundation that Elishas ministry took on such a
different character. To the extent that reform had taken place or continued Elisha was able to aid
the northern kingdom as a minister of the covenantal blessings (Deut. 28:1-14). As presented in
Kings, the difference between the two prophets demeanor and ministry was not mere coincidence
of personality, but due to different times; times that illustrated the Deuteronomic alternatives of
blessing or cursing from God.

57
Notes
1

Northrop Frye, Anatomy of Criticism, p. 14.

Leland Ryken, How to Read the Bible as Literature, (hereafter Read) p. 191.

In the progress of revelation to this point there had been the announcement of a coming
King in the Day of YHWH (cf. Isa. 60:1-22), however this period in Solomon's early reign
appears to live up to the covenant ideal (cf. Lev. 26:3-13; Deut. 28:1-14).
4

The story of Elisha actually ends with his death in chapter 13 during the reign of Jehoash.
However the cycle completes its movement with the eradication of Baal by Jehu, so that Elisha's
last encounter with a king is only a continuation of the movement in chapter 10.
5

Ryken, Read, p. 65.

Leon J. Wood, The Prophets of Israel, p. 231.

R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, pp. 727-728.

David L. Petersen, The Roles of Israel's Prophets, p. 47.

Ryken, Read, p. 191.

10

G. H. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, 2 vols., 1:29.

11

It must be kept in mind that Kings is focusing primarily on cultic purity in his
evaluations. This emphasis explains why the writer of Kings does not make any negative
comment on Jehus slaughter of innocent men in Jezreel, namely Ahaziah of Judah and 42 of his
relatives (2 Kings 9:27-28; 10:12-14). Jehu went beyond the command of the Lord in striking the
house of David. While their deaths were not actually in Jezreel, they were associated with that
place of slaughter. The writer of Kings passes over this act of wrong without comment, and even
goes on to commend Jehu for having done to the house of Ahab according to all that was in My
heart (2 Kings 10:30), making the purge of Ahabs dynasty the basis for a blessing. The
prophet Hosea, on the other hand, roundly condemns Jehus brutal act (Hosea 1:4) and makes it
the basis for the Assyrian judgment on the northern kingdom. In light of this the interpreter must
be careful not to read into the message of Kings what was later revealed to Hosea. The two
writers wrote for different purposes, with different messages. The writer of Kings wanted to
emphasize the aspect of cultic reform in the north.
12

Ryken, Read, p. 51.

13

Elliott Johnson, from class notes for 315 Advanced Hermeneutics, Dallas Theological
Seminary, Spring 1985.
14

The writer summarizes the prophets function as one of warning in 2 Kings 17:13, 23.

58
In this passage, however, kings are not specifically mentioned. The writer substitutes the nation
as a whole for the kings. For example, in verse 16 he writes that Israel, made for themselves
molten images, even two calves The effect is substituted for the cause. Jeroboam I had
actually instituted the calves. The point seems to be that as the kings of Israel went, so went the
people. This explains why Elijah and Elisha (as presented in Kings) focused on the king of Israel.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Archer, Gleason L., Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Chicago: Moody
Press, 1964.
Barton, John. Reading the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984.
Bronner, Leah. The Stories of Elijah & Elisha as Polemics Against Baal Worship.
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968.
Bright, John. A History of Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972.
Constable, Thomas. "1 & 2 Kings." In Bible Knowledge Commentary, Old Testament,
pp. 483-588. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton, Ill.:
Victor Books, 1985.
Crockett, William Day. A Harmony of the Books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles.
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.
Dentan, Robert C. The Idea of History in the Ancient Near East.
Ellison, H. L. The Old Testament Prophets: Men Spoke from God. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1955.
Freeman, Hobart E. An Introduction to the Old Testament Prophets. Chicago: Moody
Press, 1968.
Frye, Northrop. Anatomy of Criticism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957.
Geisler, Norman L., ed. Inerrancy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980.
Gray, John. I & II Kings, A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964.
Harrison, R. K. Introduction to the Old Testament, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co, 1969.
Hirsch, E. D., Jr. The Aims of Interpretation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1978.
________. Validity in Interpretation. New Haven and London: Yale University Press,
1967.
Honeycutt, Roy. "2 Kings." in The Broadman Bible Commentary

60
Jones, Gwilym H. 1 and 2 Kings, 2 vol., vols 1 and 2. The New Century Bible
Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984.
Marshall, I. Howard. New Testament Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1977.
Noth, Martin. The Deuteronomic History. Translated by Max Niemeyer Verlag;
reprinted ed., Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1981.
Petersen, David L. The Roles of Israel's Prophets. Sheffield, England: Univ. of
Sheffield Press, 1984.
von Rad, Gerhard. Old Testament Theology. 2 vols. Edinburgh: Univ. of Edinburgh
Press, 1962.
Ryken, Leland. The Literature of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1974.
________. How to Read the Bible as Literature. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1984.
Waltke, Bruce K. "Grammatical Problems." In Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible,
pp. 69-129. Edited by Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus. Grand Rapids:
Academie Books, 1984.
Wilkinson, Bruce & Boa, Kenneth. Talk Thru the Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson
Publishers, 1983.
Wiseman, D. J. Chronicles of Chaldean Kings in the British Museum, London:
Trustees of the British Museum, 1956.
Wood, Leon J. The Prophets of Israel. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979.
Young, Edward J. My Servants the Prophets. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1952.
Dictionaries, Encyclopedias, and Periodicals
Allen, Ronald Barclay. "Elijah the Broken Prophet." Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 22 (Sept., 1979):193-202.
Anderson, F. I. "The Socio-Juradical Background of the Naboth Incident." Journal of
Biblical Literature 85 (1966):46-57.
Bauckham, Richard. "The Martyrdom of Enoch & Elijah: Jewish or Christian?" Journal
of Bibilcal Literature 95 (Sept., 1976):447-58.
Carroll, R. P. "The Elijah-Elisha Sagas: Some Remarks on Prophetic Succession in
Ancient Israel." Vetus Testamentum 19 (1966):400-415.

61
Lundbom, Jack R. "Elijah's Chariot Ride." Journal of Jewish Studies 24 (Spring,
1973):39-50.
Lust, J. "A Gentle Breeze or a Roaring Thunderous Sound?: Elijah at Horeb." Vetus
Testamentum 25 (1975):110-115.
Megiddo Message. "Elijah the Prophet: Man of God, Man of Mission, Man of Destiny."
67 (Dec., 1980):4-9, 23.
Miller, J.M. "The Elisha Cycle and the Accounts of the Omride Wars." Journal of
Bibilcal Literature 85 (1966):441-454.
Miller, J. M. "The Fall of the House of Ahab." Vetus Testamentum 17 (1967):307-324.
Napier, B. D. "The Omrides of Jezreel." Vetus Testamentum (1959):366-78.
Neal, Marshall. "'Where Is the Lord God of Elijah?': 2 Kings 1-2." Biblical Viewpoint 17
(Nov.,1983):17-26.
North, Gary. "Confirmation, Confrontation, and Caves." Christianity and Civilization 2
(winter, 1983):40-65.
Parzen, Herbert "The Prophets & the Omri Dynasty." Harvard Theological Review 33
(1940) 69-96.
"Sarepta, Host Town to Elijah." Buried History 9 (Dec., 1973):109-110.
Schaya, Leo. "The Eliatic Function." Studies in Comparative Religion 13
(Winter/Spring 1979):31-40.
Schaya, Leo. "The Mission of Elias." Studies in Comparative Religion 14 (SummerAutum, 1980):159-167.
Unpublished Materials
Kern, Terry R. "Parallels Between the Ministries of Elijah/Elisha/Christ." Th.M thesis,
Dallas Theological Seminary, 1979.
Johnson, Elliott. "An Evangelical Literal Hermeneutic." A manuscript for a forthcoming
book of the same title; current text used in 315 Advanced Hermeneutics, Dallas
Theological Seminary, Fall 1986).
Johnson, Elliott. "Discussion of Hermeneutics." Outline for a forum discussion between
representatives from the departments of Bible Exposition, Old Testament, and
New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary, November 18, 1986