Thread by @JamesBejon

THREAD: The next instalment in some tweets on Ahab’s first encounter with Elijah (1 Kgs. 16.29-19.21).

As usual, the aim isn’t to cover/summarise the whole text, but simply to pick out particular (and sometimes overlooked) points of interest.

Ch. 18 describes the 3rd intrusion of the word of YHWH into our text,

and is set in the 3rd year of Israel’s drought.

At the same time, it introduces ‘Scene 3’ in our story:

Scene 1 = Life in Cherith;
Scene 2 = Life in Zarephath;
Scene 3 = Life Back in Israel.

In 18.1-4, we are introduced to Obadiah, whose relationship to the rest of ch. 18’s cast is noteworthy.

Obadiah functions as a kind of counterpart/complement to Elijah.

Whereas Elijah counters Ahab’s plans from the outside,

Obadiah subverts them (as well as those of Jezebel) from the inside.

As such, the two men work in tandem.

Neither is more or less faithful than the other; they are simply different men with different vocations and different calls on their lives.

Elijah advocates for public reform,

while Obadiah uses his position and influence in order to limit how much damage ungodly authorities are able to do--a position which an outspoken Elijah would not have been able to hold.

As such, Obadiah is to be commended.

Although by name Obadiah is a servant of YHWH (עבדיהו = ‘servant of YHWH’), Obadiah is officially employed as a servant of Ahab,

which must have made life difficult for him.

Yet Obadiah turns his position to his advantage (and hence also to YHWH’s advantage).

When Jezebel seeks to eliminate the prophets of YHWH from the land and provides food for the prophets of Asherah (18.19), Obadiah hides a hundred of YHWH’s prophets in a cave and feeds them (כלכל) with bread and water,

which would only have been possible for someone in a position of responsibility in Ahab’s service to do.

(Meanwhile, Ahab’s misplaced priorities are painfully obvious to see: as Obadiah seeks to spare the lives of YHWH’s prophets, Ahab worries about his livestock.)

The events of chs. 17-18 therefore have a certain sense of irony about them.

An Israelite citizen (Obadiah) foils a Sidonian queen’s commands to remove the prophets of YHWH from the land,

while a Sidonian citizen (the widow of Zarephath) foils an Israelite king’s commands to hunt down a prophet of YHWH outside of the land (18.10-11),

the end result of which will be the removal of the prophets of *Baal* from the land.

Such are God’s unfathomable ways.

Note: The way in which Obadiah undermines the plans of Ahab and Jezebel is hinted at in a variety of textual and numerical means.

The gematrial value of the name ‘Jezebel’ (איזבל) is 50,

which reflects her designs on YHWH’s 100 prophets. who Obadiah divides into two groups of 50.

#Tenuous

The value of the verb ‘feed’ (כלכל) is 100, which reflects Obadiah’s sustenance (כלכל) of the 100 prophets.

#SlightlyBetter

And Obadiah’s claim to have hidden the prophets of Baal--cp. אחבא = ‘I have hidden (them)’--is a rearrangement of the name ‘Ahab’ (אחאב),

which reflects the way in which Obadiah undoes/undermines Ahab’s commands.

#BetterStill

#EspeciallySinceItExplainsTheDefectiveSpellingאחבא

Either way, Obadiah’s actions represent a third occasion when life arises from the dead.

At Cherith, ravens take meat from dead bodies in order to bring life to Elijah.

At Zarephath, Elijah raises the widow’s son from the dead.

And here in ch. 18, Obadiah turns a death sentence into a means of life as he takes 100 prophets from a barren, parched, and dangerous land and provides them with bread, water, and shelter.

The question now is whether *Israel* can be raised from their state of spiritual death.

In 18.7, Obadiah encounters Elijah.

Elijah does not seem to be the kind of person people like to bump into.

Like the widow of Zarephath, Obadiah thinks Elijah has come to confront him about his sin (18.9 cp. 17.18), yet Elijah has actually come to meet Ahab.

(By way of contrast, Ahab does *not* think Elijah has come to confront him about his sin, which is exactly what Elijah *has* come to do.)

Elijah instructs Ahab to send all Israel up to Mount Carmel together with the prophets of Baal, which Ahab duly does.

Note: Mount Carmel was the perfect location for what is about to follow.

Carmel was initially allotted to Israel, but the Asherites had been unsuccessful in their conquest of the territories to the north of it (Judg. 1.31-32),

and Solomon had given many of Asher’s cities to Tyre (9.11),

which may explain why extra-Biblical texts make it sound as if Mount Carmel functioned as a kind of border/neutral-ground between Israel and Tyre (cf. ABD on Carmel).

In Elijah’s day, then, Mount Carmel would have lain on the border between Israel and Sidon,

which made it ideal for a contest between Israel and Sidon’s deities, especially one which would be witnessed by a people torn between the two deities.

Yet, despite its status as neutral ground, Carmel had become associated with the worship of Baal over the years (also from ABD).

YHWH’s victory on Mount Carmel would, therefore, have been seen as a victory over Baal on Baal’s home territory.

Mount Carmel was also a significant location insofar as it pictured Israel’s spiritual condition.

Carmel was normally a place of beauty and fertility, as Israel was meant to be.

But, in times of drought, such as those brought about by Elijah in chs. 17-18,

Carmel became an area of barrenness and desolation (Isa. 33.9, Amos 1.2, Nah. 1.4),

which was exactly what had happened to Israel in spiritual terms.

Indeed, YHWH’s fire is said to have licked up ‘the dust’ around Elijah’s altar,

which is testimony to Carmel’s condition at the time of ch. 18 (cp. the mention of ‘dust’ in Deut. 28.22-24).

As such, Mount Carmel was a microcosm of Israel’s problem, and would soon become a microcosm of Israel’s solution as fire and rain descended upon it (18.45).

So then:

In 18.21, once the Israelites have assembled themselves on Mount Carmel, Elijah asks them the now immortal question:

‘For how much longer will you falter between two alternatives (שתי הסעפים)?’

Or alternatively (if we associate סעפה with pieces of wood: cf. DCH),

‘For how much longer will you hobble along on two crutches?’

Elijah’s challenge is simple. As things stand, the people of Israel follow neither Baal nor YHWH.

The people must, therefore, decide which of these deities is the true God and commit themselves to him alone.

The people’s response speaks volumes: like Baal, they do not answer (18.21).

Perhaps they enjoy their lives too much as they are, and do not want to have to choose between their favourite gods.

Undeterred, however, Elijah goes on to lay out the terms of his ‘true God test’.

18.24 recounts a moment of high drama as he delivers the ultimatum: ‘The god who answers by fire is indeed God!’,

to which the people consent, saying, טוב הדבר = ‘The word (you have spoken) is good’,

which the normally-sensible NASB inexplicably renders as ‘That is a good idea!’.

#NoTranslationIsPerfect

In 18.24, it sounds as if Elijah’s test will be a race: the prophets of Baal will call on their god while Elijah calls on his, and whoever answers first wins.

But, once the test actually begins, Elijah seems quite happy to sit back and let the prophets of Baal have the first crack of the whip (18.25+).

(Why should he not? It is not as if Baal will answer.)

The test then proceeds at Elijah’s command.

Elijah gives the prophets of Baal the instruction to begin, and they begin.

Elijah tells them to shout louder (in case Baal is engaged), and they shout louder.

And so the sorry saga continues.

The prophets evidently think they can make up for the lack of activity in the heavenly realms with an abundance of activity on the earth--a ploy not entirely unknown in Christian circles.

But, ultimately, it is all to no avail.

The heavens remain like bronze, and the prophets’ prayers go unanswered.

And so, at the end of a long day’s prayer, Elijah brings an end to the prophets’ endeavours just in time for him to offer up the evening sacrifice (18.29).

Then, as the prophets of Baal stand on top of Mount Carmel--exhausted, bedraggled, and wounded--, Elijah calmly tells the Israelites to gather round.

He sets up his altar, lays his sacrifice on it, douses the altar and sacrifice in water

(just in case anyone present is tempted to attribute what follows to the result of a hot day and a dry climate), and simply calls on the name of YHWH,

at which point two dramatic falls take place:

fire falls from the heaven and consumes Elijah’s sacrifice,

and the people fall on their faces before YHWH’s incredible presence and power.

It is an awesome moment,

which is entirely expected from our point of view (as readers of Scripture),

but must have turned the Israelites’ blood cold

...as they suddenly realised they stood in the presence of a awesome and holy God;

and, to some extent at least, it should have the same effect on us today.

A short and simple moral of the story: For all their faults, the prophets of the Baal did not lack faith, nor did they lack commitment.

When was the last time any of us set aside a whole day simply to pray and to seek God’s face?

(We could do without the swords and spears, but it would not otherwise be a bad idea.)

The grammar of 18.21-18.26 brings these points out subtly yet clearly.

While the Israelites are said to have ‘hobbled’ (פסח Qal) between two opinions, the prophets of Baal are said to have ‘leapt’ (פסח Piel) around their altar like fanatics.

In other words: unlike the Israelites, the prophets of Baal were not divided in their loyalties.

They were entirely sold out for their god, in which sense they put the Israelites to shame.

And, as Christians, we can find ourselves in the same situation today.

At times, non-Christians exemplify a commitment and devotion to their causes which puts Christians to shame.

They have strategies and a level of time/financial commitment which far exceed ours.

Of course, as Christians, we are not in exactly the same situation since we are not ultimately reliant on our own means and plans.

But is it therefore acceptable for us to be less committed to our cause than others in terms of time/finances, or for our plans to be any less well-formulated than those of our non-Christian counterparts?

We are in a battle after all.