Scriptures account of Ahab begins: “Ahab son of Omri did evil in the sight of the Lord more than all before him” (1 Kings 16:30). Now why in the world would the Deuteronomistic Historians pick on poor old Ahab? After all, in our readings this week we go through chapter by chapter depicting king after king, leader after leader and they all did evil in the sight of the Lord. Even those who followed the ways of the Lord in certain things fell short in others. So why did Ahab stick out as the worst sinner of all and the Deuteronomistic Historian writers take a greater effort in explaining his pilgrimage in ancient Israel’s dynasty over the others?
We must turn to Coogan and try to discover why this may be so and I am also sure Lester will give us further insight on Ahab in his lecture. Coogan states first off that the Deuteronomistic Historians were actually writing in Judah after the fall of the northern kingdom, and their presentation of that northern kingdom is almost entirely negative. Coogan also states that the history of the divided monarchies is highly selective and poor old Ahab seems the chosen one to talk about. So while the reigns of some kings are treated only perfunctorily, while considerable space is devoted to material that coincided with the ideological perspective (which I brought up last week but had not dug deep enough to explain myself when questioned by Lester as to what I meant) of the Deuteronomistic Historians (Coogan text, pg. 287). More on this ideological topic to follow.
Coogan also brings up the point that in organizing their narrative the Deuteronomistic Historians used a dominant theme: The obligation of Israel to observe the requirements of the teachings of Moses, especially the worship of Yahweh alone. So as with Ahab one of the worst offenders according to the Deuteronomistic Historian writers the result was divinely imposed punishments so the Deuteronomistic Historians interpretation of the internal and external events of Ahab was an important factor to share about the history of the kings of Israel and Judah (Coogan text, pg. 288).
Back to this ideological review of what the Deuteronomistic Historians are doing here is somewhat easy to follow because as Coogan states that closely related to the negative assessment of the northern kingdom are repeated positive statements about the Davidic dynasty in Jerusalem. The divine promise of an enduring dynasty (2 Samuel 7:11-16) will be kept, “for the sake of my servant David and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen” (1 Kings 11:13; 11:36; 15:4; 2Kings 8:19; 19:34). So we can plainly follow according to Coogan that the Deuteronomistic Historians are ideologically writing a biased story in which they have revised older prophetic legends (Elijah & Elisha) to express their negative view of the northern kingdom of Israel (Ahab) and their essentially positive view of the southern kingdom of Judah.
Another purpose that the Deuteronomistic Historians were inspired to elongate their text on Ahab was as Coogan points out and interestingly enough coincides as I stated earlier in the blog the purpose of fulfilling the promises of Moses through the folkloristic traditions in the case of the Elijah narratives. The historians develop a theme that Elijah is in fact the new Moses and of course Ahab has rather important encounters with Elijah that the Deuteronomistic Historians seem to focus on even more than his kingship. These ordeals begin with the drought threatened by Elijah and continue with episode of the vineyard of Naboth. In this ordeal as Coogan states the abuse of royal power by Jezebel to gain control of a privately owned property desired by her husband, King Ahab, was, for the Deuteronomistic Historians, a telling example of the problems with the monarchy. Among the “ways of the king” against which the prophet Samuel had warned the people when they requested a king is that “he will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards” (Coogan text, pg. 305).
So why did the compiler of 1-2 kings judge Ahab so Harsh? After all in all of my research the reality is that Ahab probably did not abandon the worship of Yahweh; but he permitted Jezebel his wife to patronize the cult of Baal of Tyre. He did not commit the crime of Naboth’s murder, but was willing to accept its profits. He seems to have been religiously indifferent; to him Elijah was the “troubler of Israel” (1 Kings 18:17), because he made an issue of whether Israel should worship Baal or Yahweh.
In conclusion, as my title states was Ahab worst than any other king in Israel? May be or may be not, but he truly seemed to be “addicted to sin” and his story is very familiar in the history of the Divided Monarchy. Ahab was a powerful ruler who continues the evil practices instituted before him, marries one who encourages further evil, and has significant opportunity to repent and turn to God, but continues in disobedience, bring much suffering to his nation and his own untimely death. The story is all too common, yet the specifics are anything but common. Despite all he saw God doing, Ahab remained bent toward sin One of the Scriptures most amazing displays of power God ever gave was Elijah’s triumph over the priests of Baal (1 Kings 20-40) the story of the fire from heaven of which all the people fell on their faces before God yet Ahab seems to have remained unmoved, and the event only invoked the anger of his wife, Jezebel, who was zealously committed to Baal. Ahab was at the very least if not the worst of sinners before the Lord as the Deuteronomistic Historians chose to write about he truly was addicted to sin!
God Bless,
Deacon Jim
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Your comment is very interesting and I did notice that Kings spends an inordinate amount of time on Ahab. I think it is important when thinking about whether Ahab is consumed by "sin," that the Deuteronomic Historians seem to have a very particular, and singular concept of sin. They see it as based entirely around the question of how devoted was the king to Yahweh and the covenant. At times during the story, Ahab seems almost reasonable in his actions, but in his indifference to the question of Yahweh vs. Baal, he is committing the greatest sin in their mind.
Thanks for your research and insight on this Deacon Jim. I think that the Duet. Historian's, like any good auhtor/creator, were really trying to focus in on what they wanted their audience to take away from their writings. As you and Coogan pointed out, the most important point is sigular worship--and if Ahab isn't following suit (or his wife isn't), the readers will know (from reading the author's work) that is not acceptable in their culture.
The passage of Ahab is one of many things that confuse modern readers. Thanks to your study, it seems clear that a place of worship is extremely important for Deutronomistic historians and no one can satisfy Yahweh until people do exactly He says. They sought leadership that brink back to the safe position with Yahweh, but maybe it never worked that way. I don't think Ahap is the worst, but he's still one of failures.
After all in all of my research the reality is that Ahab probably did not abandon the worship of Yahweh; but he permitted Jezebel his wife to patronize the cult of Baal of Tyre.
Jim, I think this is a great example of something that *could* have simply been spoon-fed you in a lecture, but which instead you have gone after and made your own: and this way, you'll likely retain it.
You make me think of something I haven't considered before: remember that 1Kgs 11 (Solomon) is perhaps an exilic (DtrH 2.0) simplification of the complexities of Solomon's actual reign (cf. 1Kgs 3-10). In light of your comment, I am struck by the idea that the DtrH 2.0 simplifies Solomon's reign *in a very Ahab-like direction*. Solomon is like a proto-Ahab, allowing his wives to practice and promote non-yahwistic religion.
As a last thought, I am struck by when we read these texts (and Ezra's dissolution of mixed marriages), we are inclined to cheer with the writer: and yet, in our own practice, do we find it so easy to *simply* condemn marriages between (say) Christians and Jews, or Catholics and Protestants, and so on? If not, then where do we see Scripture among our other sources of authority?
Post a Comment