Introduction
First Kings 17–19 contain one of the most well knownnarratives of the Old Testament. The prophet Elijah springs onto the scene, declaring an imminent drought. The Lord sustains him through this period, and after three years, Elijah confronts the wicked king Ahab and demands a competition between Yahweh and Baal. Yahweh clearly wins, displaying His great power. Elijah commands for the prophets of Baal to be killed, which infuriates Queen Jezebel. Elijah flees south from Jezreel to Beersheba, a journey of some one hundred miles. Through his despair and sheer exhaustion, Elijah begs for God to take his life (1 Kgs 19:4). After some rest and nourishment, God appears to Elijah and commissions him for three final tasks of his ministry.
Within this final encounter, one of the most cherished phrases occurs.
And behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind tore the mountains and broke in pieces the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. And after the wind an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. And after the earthquake a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire the sound of a low whisper [Heb.: hQ'd: hm'm'D> lwOq]. (ESV)
The above translation represents all major versions in its wording and seems to indicate that the wind, earthquake, and fire preceded Yahweh’s coming, but He contrasted their boisterous (and possibly destructive) manner with an almost silent whisper. “It was the shock of awful stillness which succeeded the sudden cessation of the earthquake and hurricane and thunderstorm, and instantly, in its appalling hush and gentleness, Elijah felt that God was there.” Pastors, teachers, and counselors often use this text to encourage their audience to filter the noise, schedules, financial burdens, and emotions from their mind. Instead, one should sit in silence, praying and waiting to hear the “still, small voice” of God. In this way, He reveals His perfect will, and one can be confident in his or her future act. Yet, can someone really claim to have heard the almost silent voice of God? If so, does this prove great maturity or spiritual ability? These questions demand a closer analysis of this text, since it often serves as the sole support for such a practice.
In 1975, an article by Johan Lust was published in Vetus Testamentum regarding these words, but Lust’s conclusion has not been widely circulated. He argued that an opposite connotation is meant: “roaring, thunderous sound.” How is this possible, and should this be considered? Two methodologies could be employed to validate the alternative translation of “roaring, thunderous sound.” First, the particular Hebrew phrase could be analyzed, discovered in other sources, and evaluated as to its most probable renderings. Then, this meaning could be inserted into the context of Kings and determined to be valid or not by the narrative and lexical surroundings. This approach from the specific to the general is plausible, but the adjectives modifying “voice,” hm'm'D> and hQ'd:, are not common in the Hebrew Bible, particularly in modifying this head noun. In addition, Lust has already provided a strong analysis of their derivation and range of meaning in his article.
Second, the strategy I have chosen then is to move from the general context to the specific phrase, and this broad study will include literary, historical, and religious contexts. Once the reader recognizes the events and sense of the text, the somewhat unique Hebrew phrase will be inserted to notice its contribution. I begin with a brief overview of the history of the northern kingdom, followed by a more specific look at Jezebel’s efforts to nationalize Baal worship. Next, the paper will discuss Yahweh’s response to this wickedness: the ministry and efforts of Elijah. Finally, other examples of storm theophanies in the Old Testament will be surveyed before including Lust’s interpretation of the Hebrew phrasing in 1 Kings 19:12. In sum, all these elements will be synthesized to argue for a contextual understanding of this verse on social, theological, and linguistic levels.
Historical Background
The reigns of David and Solomon represent the highlight of Israel’s history. Due to their obedience to Yahweh, both kings were blessed in expanding the kingdom, securing peace, and growing in wealth. Under Solomon, the Jerusalem temple was constructed, and his obedience resulted in unprecedented wealth and wisdom from Yahweh (cf. 1 Kgs 3:16–4:34; 9:10–10:29). However, his decision to marry multiple women and adopt their respective religions led directly to divine punishment and judgment. God promised to divide the kingdom and to leave only one tribe for Solomon’s son. In His faithfulness, Yahweh upheld the Davidic covenant yet still judged Solomon’s faithlessness, giving the ten northern tribes into the hand of Jeroboam.
Though Judah had a few righteous kings (e.g., Asa, Hezekiah, Josiah) that attempted to maintain proper worship of Yahweh among the people, the northern kingdom never had a “good” king. All were characterized by wickedness, following in the “sin of Jeroboam.” This phrase describes the false system of worship, in which Jeroboam built temples at Dan and Bethel to facilitate worship for the northern tribes. He built an altar, appointed priests, and held feasts at the high places so the people would not go to Jerusalem to worship. However, these shrines “became a sin” (1 Kings 12:29), and Jeroboam was harshly judged for attempting to counterfeit the worship demanded by the law. As the reader moves through 1 Kings, he will find that the northern kingdom declined in faithfulness to Yahweh under each successive king. During the reigns of Omri and Ahab, the northern kingdom fell into the darkest phase of its history. How could the situation become any worse? Evil has permeated the northern kingdom, but the author emphasizes that Ahab’s marriage to Jezebel resulted in the utmost state of idolatry and paganism.
Jezebel’s Efforts
Ahab’s reign is not the first time Baal is mentioned in Scripture. During the wilderness wanderings, the people of Israel were influenced to intermarry with the Moabites, and they began to sacrifice to Baal. Yahweh punished them with a plaguethat killed thousands (Num 25:9; cf. Deut 4:3). In the days of the judges, the tribes of Israel began interacting with surrounding nations, and they fell into idol worship, particularly that of Baal and Ashtoreth (Judg 2:11, 13). Finally, Solomon married women from among the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Hittites, bringing elements of their religion (including Baalism) into Israel. In each of these situations, Israel was severely punished for falling into pagan worship, yet eventually a system of compromise developed. “In the northern kingdom, a syncretism developed which resembled idolatry far more than that of Judah.” They began incorporating elements of pagan worship (e.g., high places) into that of Yahweh. Yet, this still opposed proper worship as the Lord instructed, and the prophets attempted to push the people back to sole worship of Yahweh.
The significance of Ahab’s wicked reign was that his marriage to Jezebel brought Baal to Israel on a higher level. First Kings 16:31 notes that Jezebel’s father was Ethbaal, the king of the Sidonians. Josephus quotes Menander, who claims Ethbaal was a priest of Astarte (Ashtoreth) and came to the throne after assassinating Pheles (C. Ap. 1.123). Ashtoreth and Baal were closely related, and it is no surprise that the daughter of a cultic priest would ambitiously promote pagan worship in her new territory. After marrying Ahab, Jezebel brought at least 450 prophets of Baal and 400 prophets of Asherah into Israel (1 Kgs 18:19). She also had part in building a temple to Baal (cf. Ant. 8.13.1), which the author of Kings attributes to Ahab (1 Kgs 16:32). In addition, Jezebel worshiped Asherah, indicating the queen was by no means monotheistic. In fact, she allowed Ahab to name her children with reference to Yahweh (e.g., Ahaziah, Jehoram, Athaliah), but Jezebel did not submit to exclusive worship of Yahweh. Rather, she was trying to give Baal an equal status to Yahweh. When Elijah resisted and argued for sole worship of Yahweh, Jezebel sought to destroy him and the other prophets (1 Kgs 18:4). That is, the queen elevated her efforts to establish Baalism as the national religion. By briefly looking at the nature of this deity and common worship elements, the reader will understand Yahweh’s indignation and Elijah’s persistence to call the people back to their God.
Baal and Baal Worship
Bronner provides a brief yet intriguing summary of the Ras Shamra tablets and the information they give regarding the Ugaritic pantheon. El was the ultimate deity, and his wife was Asherah, but it seems that El began to fade from power over time. Baal, a younger and stronger deity, gained an exalted status, but his rise to supremacy was not easy. His two main opponents were Yamm and Mot, the gods of the sea and of the netherworld, respectively. For a time, Mot actually conquered Baal, and “the rains cease falling, the sun scorches the earth, the vegetation is burned, the fields are unproductive, and the drought continues.” This is significant in light of Baal’s supposed realm of control (see below). Nevertheless, Anat,Baal’s “sister,” found his dead body, buried him, and made multiple sacrifices on his account. She then battled Mot and defeated him, and eventually Baal reappeared. “Thus Baal defeated his enemy and reigned supreme.” Upon his resuscitation, Baal demanded a temple in his honor, confirming his place as head of the pantheon.
Baal is commonly labeled as the god of fertility, both of agriculture and livestock. That is, through rain and storm, Baal proved his existence, power, and control, and Ortlund comments that Baal was actually present in the storms. “Baal’s thunder in his storm counts as a more intense revelation of his presence, for his thunder is the very uttering of his voice, sounded from his divine palace into the human realm.” One can easily see how the three-year famine and the battle on Mount Carmel made a sheer mockery of Baal. In addition, Baal’s power over fertility extended to reviving the dead, healing the sick, and giving children to women.
Not only did the power ascribed to Baal counter Yahwehism but also elements of pagan worship directly opposed God’s commands. First, sexual promiscuity was not only tolerated but also incorporated as part of worship. “At the altars on the high places, offerings of the fruits of the land and the increase of the flocks were made; beside them fornication was licensed—nay, consecrated.” In addition, various excavations uncovered temple rooms where people used cult prostitutes totake part in stabilizing “fertility” (both agricultural and human).After the Exodus, the people of Israel were “yoked” to Baal (cf. Num 25:1–9; Ps 106:28–29) through the influence of the Moabites, and a great number of them were killed. In this context, two distinct references to sexual relations are inserted (Num 25:1, 6). The reader should also note 1 Kings 14:24, which mentions various Asherah erected in Judah, including the circulation of male prostitution. This pagan worship allowed and encouraged these sexual acts, through which participants praised the god of fertility, ascribing power and honor to him.
Second, individuals would sometimes sacrifice their children into the “arms” of a Baal statue (Jer 19:5; cf. Ps 106:34–39) to thank the deity for greatly blessing them. However, this practice was more commonly involved in worship of Molech. Nevertheless, Baal worship was a direct attack not only on the sole existence of Yahweh but also on His moral law. Therefore, Jezebel’s establishment of Baalism as the state religion in opposition to worship of Yahweh was the utmost degree of wickedness and rebellion for the people of Israel. They were not only affiliated with the gods of the Canaanites but also dangerously close to excluding Yahweh from their religion altogether. Israel was on the cusp of becoming completely pagan, and the reader naturally becomes eager to observe Yahweh’s response.
The Ministry of Elijah
Faithful Boldness for Yahweh
In the midst of Israel’s descent into moral and religious chaos, Elijah the Tishbite emerges without genealogy or previous mention. From a physical perspective, the kingdom of Israel had great power and influence during the reigns of Omri and Ahab, but it appears the author of Kings has hardly mentioned anything about the former because of his utter wickedness (1 Kgs 16:21-28). Similarly, the author provides a brief summary of Ahab’s reign at the close of chapter sixteen (vv. 29-34). Yet, chapters seventeen through twenty-two present multiple narratives about Ahab, causing the reader to assume a high level of importance in these chapters. The efforts of Elijah largely contribute to the length of the book ascribed to this time period.
As the reader has already seen, Jezebel was able to control her husband enough to incorporate worship of Baal and Asherah into Israel’s religious system. Yet, Elijah’s mission was to oppose her efforts and call for an exclusive worship of Yahweh. Clearly, Elijah held that worship of Baal and that of Yahweh were incompatible. Furthermore, he most likely foresaw a unification of the two kingdoms as a result of his ministry. At Mount Carmel, Elijah “re-erects the altar, using twelve stones to symbolize the twelve tribes of Israel.” Through demonstrating the power of Yahweh, Elijah planned for Israel to put away all elements of foreign worship and forsake their invalid practices (e.g., worshipping at Dan and Bethel). He hoped the tribes would realize their wickedness, turn to Yahweh, and unite under one banner once again.
After announcing a drought and subsequent famine, Elijah lived by a brook where God provided sustenance for him. Later, he would stay with a widow and her son, depending on God for daily provision. After three years, Elijah returned to Ahab and demanded a showdown between Yahweh and Baal on Mount Carmel. First Kings 18 contains the climax of not only the Elijah narrative but also the book of Kings as a whole. In this chapter, Israel is faced with an ultimatum regarding whom they would worship. After Yahweh displayed His power, the people chanted, “The Lord, He is God,” (1 Kgs 18:39). The prophets of Baal were slaughtered, and the reader assumes Israel has chosen to turn back to Yahweh.
Despair and Depression
When Jezebel hears of Carmel’s result, she is not intimidated by Yahweh or his prophet. She rather threatens Elijah’s life, indicating her attitude remains the same, and nothing has changed. Her familial connections allow her to replace the slaughtered prophets, but she realizes that Baal will never be honored as the highest deity as long as Elijah lives. “In short, Jezebel … broke [Elijah] by her unrepentant spirit and her unhindered power to strike back at him in her continuing control of the nation.” When Elijah sees (Heb. ar>Y:w:; 1 Kgs 19:3) what has happened, he runs because he realizes his efforts have not accomplished what he intended. In his article, Allen presents multiple commentators that mourn over the cowardice and self-pity of Elijah. Most ponder how a man who did not flinch before 450 prophets ran away from a single queen. I agree with Allen that the real emotion of Elijah is one of despair, not fear, because he realized Carmel (and his entire ministry) meant nothing. His hopes and dreams of unified, faithful Israel had crumbled, and he ran to beg God to take his life and remove him from his miserable state.
Regardless of the victory at Carmel, Elijah feels “the people are so mired in sin that he has lost all hope of their repentance.” He leaves his servant behind and continues through the desert to Horeb. The progression of the narrative paints a bleak picture of the once audacious prophet.
Elijah’s State After Horeb
Nevertheless, the author of Kings does not remove Elijah from the narrative after his flight to Horeb. After appointing Elisha as his successor (1 Kgs 19:19-21), Elijah maintained a respected status as prophet. When Jezebel had Naboth executed for Ahab, Elijah confronted the king and foretold of the death of the royal family. Furthermore, 2 Kings opens with Elijah confronting messengers on their way to enquire of Baal regarding Ahaziah’s sickness. The king recognized Elijah’s authority and sent more groups of prophets to bring Elijah to the palace. These stories seem to indicate Elijah continued his ministry after encountering Yahweh in the wilderness, though he begged to die.
On the other hand, 1 Kings 19:21 mentions that Elisha began to assist Elijah, indicating a transition was in process. In addition, when Ben-hadad of Syria attacked Israel, the text only states “a prophet” came to tell Ahab what to do (1 Kgs 20:13; 22; cf. “a man of God,” in v. 28 and “a man of the sons of the prophets,” in v. 35). Furthermore, when Jehoshaphat tells Ahab to enquire of the Lord regarding the outcome of the battle (1 Kgs 22), Ahab mentions one prophet, Micaiah, that truly speaks for Yahweh. These accounts may indicate that chapters twenty-one and twenty-two have been arranged thematically rather than chronologically, allowing for the Naboth incident to have occurred previously (i.e., before the death threat against Elijah). Thus, the only narrative that mentions Elijah as authoritative after Carmel would be 2 Kings 1, which immediately precedes his ascension on chariots of fire. Without reaching conclusions about Elijah’s status after Horeb, the reader should at least notice that two interpretive grids are possible, and one’s interpretation of 1 Kings 19 greatly impacts his view of Elijah.
Elijah at Horeb: 1 Kings 19
Elijah’s Position
By looking at “command-and-compliance” patterns throughout 1 Kings 17–19, Walsh perhaps brings considerable clarity to Elijah’s state. In this study, the interpreter compares the instructions from one individual with the response of the recipient. Any changes in wording or actions may be significant. For example, Elijah commands Ahab to “send and gather all Israel” at Mount Carmel, including the 850 false prophets that eat at Jezebel’s table (1 Kgs 18:19). However, verse twenty states, “So Ahab sent to all the people of Israel and gathered the prophets together at Mount Carmel,” (ESV). Walsh notes that Ahab complied generally, but the narrator did not frame his actions in verbatim terms as Elijah’s instructions. That is, he removes the idea of “gathering Israel” and the specific number of prophets. “The effect is to depict Ahab as not submitting to Elijah’s authority but as voluntarily (and perhaps only grudgingly and imperfectly) cooperating with his wishes.” In contrast, when Elijah commands the people to “seize theprophets of Baal” (1 Kings 18:40), the narrator notes “they seized them.”
Applying this analysis to chapter nineteen, Walsh concludes that Elijah rejected any thought of further ministry. After leaving his ministry, his homeland, and his servant behind, Elijah wanders into the wilderness and falls asleep in isolation under a single bush. A messenger comes to feed him twice, indicating Yahweh’s pattern of provision (cf. 1 Kgs 17:1–7) andrepeated efforts to motivate Elijah’s stubbornness. Yet, the reader receives the first inclination that Elijah is not interested in Yahweh’s intention. The angel commands, “Arise and eat, for the journey (%r,D"h;) is too great for you,” (19:7). In response, Elijah rises, eats, drinks, and heads to Horeb. “The narrator’s deviation from the command-and-compliance pattern here leaves room to question whether the road to Horeb is the ‘way’ Elijah is supposed to be following.” Yahweh’s first question, “What are you doing here?” (19:9) seems to indicate Elijah should be elsewhere.
Furthermore, Yahweh commands Elijah, “Go out and stand on the mount before the LORD,” (19:11). The second locative phrase points to Elijah’s previous claims (1 Kgs 17:1; 18:15) that he stands “before Yahweh.” Walsh concludes that Yahweh is exhorting Elijah not only to witness a powerful theophany but also to “take up once again his prophetic ministry.” After the theophany, Elijah complies but imperfectly. He merely goes to the entrance of the cave, assuming “neither the place (fully exposed to Yahweh’s passing) nor the position (the posture of renewed service ‘before Yahweh’) that God commanded.”Finally, Yahweh instructs Elijah to anoint Hazael as king of Syria, Jehu as king of Israel, and Elisha as the next prophet. Elijah leaves Horeb and finds Elisha in the field. Though prophets were not typically “anointed,” Yahweh’s instructions allow one more example of Elijah obeying imperfectly. In addition, Elijah never fulfills the command to anoint Hazael or Jehu; rather, Elisha is the means of fulfillment in these cases. Thus, it seems that Yahweh provided opportunities for Elijah to revive his prophetic ministry, but he was content with allowing someone else to perform those duties.
In addition to his stubborn and imperfect compliance, Elijah’s attitude of self-pity is demonstrated in his speech. His first words after running to the wilderness are the following, “Enough now, Yahweh, take my life, because I am not better than my fathers!” (1 Kgs 19:4). Instead of a polite request as uttered on Mount Carmel, Elijah here cries in desperation and commands for Yahweh to kill him. The reason for his despair is really an attack against Yahweh. “If Elijah has failed, it is because Yahweh demanded too much of him.” Later, Elijah twice claims to be the one and only prophet left in Israel (yD;b;l. ynIa]), while the people of Israel have abandoned the covenant, torn down the altar, and killed the true prophets (19:10; 14). These are the only statements of Elijah in this passage, and they clearly are exaggerated, spoken out of exhaustion, and skeptical. He just witnessed Israel’s declaration that Yahweh was the true God, and he fled Jezebel before finding evidence to contradict that statement. “Elijah thus betrays his own cynicism about the people’s integrity.”
How does Yahweh respond to such claims and criticisms? Will He rebuke His despairing prophet or offer compassion to a weary soul? If Elijah has truly come to Horeb against God’s intentions, one would expect an encounter of judgment. Furthermore, such self-pity would seem to evoke stern comments from Yahweh. After the theophany and Elijah’s repeated complaints, God assigns him with the three tasks discussed previously and answers his claims. Hazael, Jehu, and Elisha will use the sword to remove Israel’s evildoers (1 Kgs 19:17), just as Israel used the sword to kill “all” Yahweh’s prophets but one (19:10; 14). In addition, seven thousand people have not bowed to Baal (19:18). Thus, Yahweh’s verbal response seems to be one of compromise. On one hand, He commands Elijah to perform further duties. On the other hand, that future ministry includes appointing new leaders, reminding Elijah that Yahweh’s purposes will be fulfilled whether he meets his responsibility or not. If Elijah rejects his office from this point, Yahweh will not hinder him, but if he is willing to continue, Yahweh has work for him.
The Theophany
In God at Sinai, Niehaus gives the following characteristicsof a typical theophany: divine initiation, a temporary encounter, salvation or judgment, human fear, and divine speech. In addition, theophanies occur when Yahweh reveals Himself to a man or woman, but a full revelation is impossible. Rather, God must also conceal His full glory, so that the individual does not die (cf. Exod 33:19–20). Savran also presents two characteristic elements of a theophany: isolation of protagonist (e.g., Jacob, Gen 28) and importance of location (e.g., Bethel, Shiloh). The former suggests “that there is something about the appearance of the divine that is antithetical to human company. This is a highly private experience, even though it always has public ramifications.” These elements clearly apply to 1 Kings 19, where Elijah is completely isolated at a special place (i.e., Mount Horeb or Sinai, cf. Exod 3:1, 12).
Niehaus also notes the various reasons for theophanies in the Old Testament. Yahweh appeared variously to initiate covenants (e.g., Gen 15; Exod 19), instruct or encourage the other party (e.g., Josh 5:13–15), commission a prophet in “covenant lawsuit” (e.g., Isa 6), and bring judgment on the disobedient (e.g., Gen 3, see below). This discussion is helpful, but one should attempt to find passages most similar to 1 Kings 19 to discover Yahweh’s intent here. That is, the reader should look for theophanies accompanied by storm elements. The message of the “voice” in 1 Kings 19:12 is not given, but comparing other storm theophanies may clarify the nature of the “voice” and its intent. Therefore, the following four passages will demonstrate the typical divine response when choosing to manifest His presence through wind, earthquakes, and fire.
Garden of Eden
After the man and woman ate of the forbidden fruit, Yahweh came to the garden to find them. Verse eight states that they heard the sound (lwOq) of Yahweh in the “cool of the day” (ESV; Heb.: ~wOY=h; x;Wr), which Niehaus claims is mistranslated. The word ~wOy clearly means “day” in most contexts, but HALOT provides a second root that is related to theAkkadian word umu, which can mean “day” or “storm.”Therefore, ~wOy can possibly be used likewise, which is probably the case in at least one other passage. Most versions translate Zephaniah 2:2 with the phrase “the day passes away like chaff,” (e.g., ESV). On the other hand, HALOT and Niehaus argue that ~wOy should be taken as “storm.” Niehaus offers the following implication: “the storm of coming judgment advances quickly, driving all before it like chaff drive by the wind.”
Though this example is not convincing by itself, the possibility of another root allows for other interpretive options in Genesis 3. When other words in the context are considered, I agree that Niehaus has translated accurately. For example, lwOqhas a wide range of meaning, and sometimes clearly refers to thunder (e.g., Exod 20:18, tlowOQh;). In addition, the Hithpael form of the verb %lh often has the sense of “going back and forth.” In the context of a storm, it usually refers to lightning (e.g., Ps 77:16–18; Ezek 1:13, see below). The Hithpael participle describes the entrance of God’s voice into the garden (Gen 3:8). The collocation of these terms and Yahweh’s probable intent of displaying great power (if not angry indignation) add plausibility to Niehaus proposed translation: “Then the man and his wife heard the thunder of Yahweh God going back and forth in the garden in the wind of the storm, and they hid from Yahweh God among the trees of the garden.” The reader will continue to notice a thematic response of fear or reverence to the divine presence.
Ezekiel
As referenced previously, at the beginning of his ministry the prophet Ezekiel received a vision preceded by storm elements (i.e., wind, blazing fire; cf. Ezek 1:4, 13). This spectacular vision was a tremendous display of various creatures and spirits, but the ultimate revelation was the throne (1:26–28), which represented the glory of Yahweh (1:28). Ezekiel’s response was to fall on his face, either out of fear, humility, or reverence. After the vision, Ezekiel heard a voice that proceeded to commission him for ministry (2:2–7). Without previous mention of Ezekiel, Israel, or any type of disobedience, one is hard pressed to find an angry tone in these words. The message to Ezekiel discusses the sin of God’s people, but the vision and theophany does not seem to be motivated by anger. Rather, I would argue that Yahweh simply displays power and glory to Ezekiel, reminding him of Whom he would be representing to Israel. That is, the purpose of the theophany was not to cause fear but to reveal the majesty and power of God. This intent seems accomplished, since Ezekiel naturally fell on his face.
Job
After Job’s defense of his character and his friends’accusations, Job begins to question his Maker and to seek answers for his suffering. His despair is understandable, but most readers often overlook Job’s boldness. In his final speech, he asks for God to come and measure his integrity (Job 31:6),and he demands for the Almighty to answer him (31:35). He acknowledges that evil deserves judgment, but he claims innocence and longs for the days when God actually cared about him (29:1–5). After the rebuke of Elihu, the young man who listened patiently to the others before defending Yahweh, God comes to Job and answers his questions (Job 38–42).
Job 38:1 states, “Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said,” (ESV). For the next few chapters, Yahweh basically speaks uninterrupted, except for a small statement by Job that he will remain silent (40:3–5). Then, Yahweh speaks again “from the whirlwind” (40:6) and continues to rebuke Job. The collocation of a whirlwind and a voice make this passage significant. After making this connection, the reader should attempt to notice the purpose of the theophany, for which one can observe the statements of Yahweh. Chapters thirty-eight and thirty-nine consist of a series of rhetorical questions in which Yahweh challenges Job’s perception of his Maker. The implication is that Yahweh has insurmountable power, and Job gives the proper response (i.e., silence). Furthermore, Yahweh twice commands Job to stand up and give an answer (38:3; 40:7), which seems to imply a sense of indignation.
Without a particular emphasis on the storm element (i.e., whirlwind), no absolute conclusions can be stated. However, this passage does seem to confirm previous nuances of a storm theophany. God’s purpose in speaking is to proclaim His power and control over all aspects of creation, including man and his circumstances. Through His questions, Yahweh seems angry with His faithful servant, but I would argue the primary purpose of this theophany is to relate His power, causing the recipient to react in humility.
Mount Sinai
I have placed this example last because it parallels 1 Kings 19 most closely. Moses led the people of Israel out of Egypt, through the Red Sea, and to the base of Mount Sinai, fulfilling Exodus 3:12. Exodus 19:16 states, “On the morning of the third day there were thunders and lightnings and a thick cloud on the mountain and a very loud trumpet blast, so that all the people in the camp trembled,” (ESV). In the following verses, God’s presence on top of Sinai results in fire and smoke (v. 18), and the “trumpet” sound grew louder as God answered with thunder.
God’s display of power in chapter nineteen clearly had an affect on the people, since Exodus 20:18 claims that the people trembled when they saw the thunder and lightning and heard the “trumpet.” They were so afraid that they begged Moses to mediate between them and God, lest they die from hearing His voice. The people have complained about bread and water in previous passages (Exod 16–17), but I do not perceive divine anger in this passage. Rather, I tend to see God’s tremendous display of power, reminding the people of their God, His majesty, and how they should respond to Him. Clearly, they eventually forget their initial fear, for they build a golden calf and worship it. Nevertheless, the thunder, lightning, and loud trumpet (which probably references God’s speaking) serve a similar purpose as the same elements in the other passages. Though God may use the storm to demonstrate His anger towards one’s actions, I think the common theme is the display of power, while other contextual factors (i.e., mention of sin) allow further interpretive decisions.
Other Old Testament authors explicitly express the wrath of God and a storm in tandem to one another. For example, in Psalm 18 (cf. 2 Sam 22:8-11), David recounts his cry to God for delivery from Saul. Yahweh responds with earthquakes, smoke, fire, wind, and thunder. Verse seven describes God this way“because he was angry.” In addition, multiple passages in Jeremiah describe the judgment of Yahweh against the wicked as a storm because of His anger (Jer 23:19–20; 30:23). Nahum also proclaims God’s power, wrath, and vengeance against evildoers, and he describes God’s way as “in the whirlwind and storm.” The mountains also “quake” before him (Nah 1: 2–8).This forces the reader to discern whether Elijah’s minor deviations from God’s instructions and self-pity (see above) constitute enough “wickedness” for God to respond in anger or if Yahweh is simply displaying His power to motivate the prophet to further service.
Regardless, it seems that biblical authors frequently described the “glory” (cf. Ezek 1:28) of Yahweh in reference to a storm. Clearly, humans realize their frailty and fear when confronted with natural elements they cannot control. Furthermore, during a storm theophany, Yahweh’s seems to intend to display His power and to cause the recipient to fear Him and obey Him. His purpose is not to comfort, console, or lightly encourage, but to demonstrate how powerful and worthy He is. This information begs the questions: How does all this fit with the previous and later contexts of 1 Kings 19? Does a “still, small voice” contribute anything to this picture or is it an anomaly? Before I present my conclusion, the prior parallels between Elijah and Israel’s experience at Sinai cause the reader to remember Moses’ theophany on the same mountain in Exodus 33. This connection demands the reader to compare and contrast the lives and ministries of these prophets more closely to establish a proper parallel for 1 Kings 19.
Excursus: Comparison of Elijah and Moses
An extensive look at the lives of these two prophets provides intriguing parallels, though a few contrasts exist. First, the parallels between Moses and Elijah largely surround the circumstances of 1 Kings 19, and these may impact one’s interpretation of the focal phrase of this paper. The following chart illustrates the parallels of their lives and ministries.Though the events are not exactly parallel chronologically, the similarities are intriguing.
Chart 1: Comparisons of Moses and Elijah
MosesElijah
Flee to Escape KingExod 2:151 Kings 17:5
Return to Challenge KingExod 4:21, 29; 5:11 Kings 18:1–2
Mighty Victory over KingExod 12, 14 1 Kings 18
Both Leave After VictoryExod 12:33–421 Kings 19:3
Miraculous FeedingsExod 16; Num 111 Kings 17:2–6
Bring Fire from YahwehLev 9:241 Kings 18:38
Head to SinaiExod 19:21 Kings 19:8
Deal with Wicked PeopleExod 321 Kings 19:10, 14
Kill People in JudgmentExod 32:271 Kings 18:40
Receive TheophanyExod 33:17–23 1 Kings 19:9–18
40 Years/Days in WildernessNum 14:34; Josh 5:61 Kings 19:8
Divine Involvement in “Death”Deut 34:5-62 Kings 2:11
Second, during their respective theophanies at Sinai, still more comparisons provide insight into how one should interpret 1 Kings 19. For example, both receive their divine encounter after dealing with an apostate people. The worship of the golden calf constituted an official breaking of the covenant (evidenced by Moses’ smashing of the tablets), and Elijah is despondent over the unchanging heart of the people. In addition, the mountain is described as the same place, and the cave Elijah enters may have been the “cleft” of rock in which the Lord hid Moses. 1 Kings 19:9 says Elijah entered “the cave” (hr"["M.h;), a point often denied in English translations. It is possible that the article functions as anaphoric. This is a common function of the Hebrew article (e.g., Gen 1:3–4; 18:7–8; Num 11:25b–26),though the temporal distance between Moses and Elijah may seem problematic. Still, Allen states, “The Hebrew is definite, and a study of the word ‘cave’ in Hebrew literature suggests that this word with the article is regularly specific rather than generic.” Furthermore, the activity of Yahweh is described as “passing by” (rb[) in both texts (Exod 33:19, 22; 1 Kings 19:11), though neither Moses nor Elijah fully sees God.
On the other hand, the contrasts in these theophanies are what may have implications for the text’s view of Elijah. As Walsh interestingly notes, “It is in 1 Kings 19 that the parallels between Moses and Elijah become contrasts.” Though being in the same location with similar circumstances, the reactions of the two prophets are very different. First, both deal with apostate Israel, but their reactions are quite different before Yahweh. Moses intercedes for his people (Exod 32:31–32), even asking to be blotted from God’s book instead of Israel. On the other hand, Elijah singles himself out as the only obedient person and blames the people (not Ahab and Jezebel). Moses appeals to God’s mercy, but Elijah begs for God to be jealous (cf. Exod 34:14). Twice he claims to have been “jealous” for the God of hosts, implying a desire for God to defend His covenant with the people by acting jealously. Furthermore, Moses asks for Yahweh to be “with him” (33:15), but Elijah simply complains about being alone. In effect, He blames God for appointing him to an unsuccessful and somewhat impossible mission.
Second, Moses explicitly begs to encounter the divine (Exod 33:18), but Elijah does not ask to see God. Nevertheless, Yahweh comes to each of them, displaying His power and glory. In Moses’ case, God must cover him with His hand, lest His glory consume Moses. Then the “goodness” passes by, and Moses is able to see God’s “back” (Exod 33:19, 23). In Elijah’s case, after the earthquake, fire, wind, and “voice,” he hides his face (1 Kgs 19:13). This seems to indicate he expects to encounter the divine presence, but he does not see anything. Rather, Yahweh demands why he is still in the cave, and Elijah repeats his self-defense. This major contrast between Moses and Elijah probably has the greatest implication for God’s response to Elijah’s state. “Here deprivation of the visual is a form of criticism, an experience of ‘not-seeing.’ … [It] nonetheless indicates divine displeasure.” Instead of giving Elijah propheciesand comfort, Yahweh tells the prophet to anoint his successor. In sum, these major differences indicate that Elijah’s attitude has not changed, and he is unable to meet Moses’ standard. That is, Elijah has been a prophet like Moses, but he will not become the prophet (cf. Deut 18:15).
Summary
By analyzing these levels of context, one now can gain a plausible picture of what occurs in 1 Kings 19. The overwhelming wickedness of Israel and her royal family (i.e., incorporating Baal as an equal option of worship) prompted Yahweh to send Elijah to prophesy against them. His bold tenacity was exemplified on Carmel at an event that completed the ultimate polemic against the “power” of Baal and his prophets. At that moment, Elijah likely envisioned national unification and a corporal return to Yahweh, yet Jezebel’s increased efforts discouraged the prophet, and he turned to the wilderness to complain of his failure. His declarations“Enough!” and “Take my life!” demonstrate his high state of depression. Even after receiving nourishment from an angelic messenger, Elijah continued to head south, refusing to return to his ministry.
When Elijah arrived at Sinai, Yahweh questioned his presence at this location, and Elijah expressed his piety, faithfulness, and utter isolation. He blamed Israel for wickedness and faithlessness to God’s covenant. Yahweh called him to come “stand before the Lord,” and a storm theophany took place. An earthquake, wind, and fire passed by, followed by a “voice.” These elements do not necessarily indicate divine anger, but the tremendous display of power parallels Israel’s experience at Sinai and attempts to motivate Elijah to further service. Just as Moses received a personal theophany after these storm elements, so Elijah experienced the same. Yet, he continued to complain (1 Kgs 19:14), and Yahweh gave instructions to appoint other leaders who would fulfill His purposes. It seems that Yahweh continued to offer further ministry to Elijah, but other pieces were in place regardless of his response. Elijah’s immediate calling of Elisha indicates he was ready to pass his office to another, though a few later narratives may include Elijah functioning as Yahweh intended.
In sum, this narrowing approach to context seems to indicate Elijah’s stubbornness and Yahweh’s power collide in 1 Kings 19. In similar narratives (e.g., Gen 3; Exod 32; Job 38), no mention of quiet voice occurs. In fact, all the noises in these passages are described as loud, causing fear or hyper-humility in the humans involved. Why then does the author of 1 Kings include a phrase that seems to imply a “still, small voice”? The context seems to demand quite the opposite nuance, so is there another way to interpret these three words? The next section summarizes Lust’s article, demonstrating how another understanding is not only possible but also probable based on the previous discussion.
The Hebrew Phrase: hQ'd: hm'm'D> lwOq
For this section, I am largely dependent on Lust’s article, since I have had no formal training in Akkadian or other Semitic languages. The head noun lwOq is extremely common in the Hebrew Bible and contains the meaning of “voice, sound, noise.” This semantic range demands for the context to narrowits connotation in a given context. On the other hand, the two adjectives are relatively rare, particularly in this collocation.hm'm'D. derives from ~md, for which HALOT gives three meanings. The first has a nuance of silence or quiet (e.g., Lev 10:3; Ps 30:13), which provides translators with a “whisper” in 1 Kings 19. The third takes the idea of perishing (e.g., Jer 8:14; 48:2). However, these roots are closely related to cognate forms(~wd and hmd, respectively). hm'm'D., though, clearly takes mem as both the second and third letter. Therefore, Lust argues that it should be read with the second root form of ~mr given in HALOT. As such, the term denotes a cry of lament or a wailing. “It is to be compared with the Accadian root damamu which basically appears to refer to the roaring or moaning of animals and metaphorically to the crying and mourning of human beings.”
The OT only contains this adjective in two other texts (Ps 107:29; Job 4:16). 1QIsaiah also contains two uses (33:3; 47:5), on which Lust bases his interpretations of the OT passages.
Demäma in 1Q Is xxxiii 3 implies a terrifying sound since it is used as a parallel to qôlhamôn in a description of God's intervention which causes terror among the peoples. It is interesting to notice that hämon is derived from the root hmh “to roar” used for the rendering of animal voices, a perfect parallel to 2 dmm. In 1 Q Is. xlvii 5 demäma is used metaphorically and applied to the mourning of the Daughter of Babylon. She is exhorted to “sit mourning in darkness.”
The other two biblical examples of this adjective are not as clear, but Lust interprets them similarly. Job 4:16 states: [m'v.a, lwOqw" hm'm'D> y=n"y[e dg<n<l. hn"WmT. Whaer>m; ryKia;-alow> dmo[]y:. Most versions describe the “voice” in the second half of the verse as “murmuring” or “hushed” (e.g., NIV, NCV, NET) or divide the statement into “I heard silence; then a voice” (e.g., NKJV, NASB, ESV). However, the close connection between this verse and 1QIsa 33:3 (i.e., collocation of lwOq and hm'm'D) causes Lust to see a similar meaning in Job. That is, Eliphaz received a vision in which he heard a roaring voice proclaiming something to him.
Psalm 107:29 is the other text with this adjective: ~h,yLeG: Wvx/Y<w: h=m'm'd>li hr'['s. ~qey". Most versions reflect that of the ESV: “He made the storm be still, and the waves of the sea were hushed.” Again, this translation most likely sees hm'm'd>li as originating from the first root of ~mr described above. Lust acknowledges this passage could be interpreted correctly by the translations, but he also proposes possible antithetical parallelism in this text. Thus, “He raised the storm into a thundering roar (lidemäma), and then, hushed were the waves that roared (hämu).” One can see how the traditional rendering came about, but Lust’s analysis of the roots and parallel texts from 1QIsaiah add plausibility to his view.
The other adjective that modifies “voice” in 1 Kings 19:12 is hQ'd:, which derives from the root qqd. This verb has the basic meaning of crushing (e.g., Isa 28:28) or making fine through grinding (e.g., Exod 32:20). Similarly, the adjective form often denotes something “thin” (e.g., Gen 41:3) or “fine” (e.g., Isa 29:5). Neither of these semantic ranges fit well with the head noun, since a voice is neither measured by size nor capable of grinding. However, Psalm 93:3 contains a related word (ykiD') which originates from the same root as hQ'd, and the parallelism of the verse connects the adjective with lwOq. The Psalmist declares that the floods have lifted their voice (lwOq), and they have lifted their “roaring” (ESV; ~y"k.D'). In verse four, Yahweh is proclaimed as mightier than the waves and the thunders of the water, indicating the previous verse refers to a mighty, crashing sound of the floods. Lust argues that this text provides an understandable translation for hQ'd in 1 Kings 19. Instead of a gentle whisper, the fire, wind, and earthquake were followed by a thunderous, roaring, and crashing voice.
Conclusion
Therefore, I conclude that Lust’s analysis of the phrase lexically aligns well with the theological, historical, and literary context previously discussed. The storm did not contain the presence of Yahweh, but they announced His arrival. Lust concludes, “The threefold repetition of the particle ‘not’ in 1 Kings xix 11-12 is to be read as ‘not yet.’ Yahweh is ‘not yet’ in the storm nor in the earthquake or in the fire. Those cosmic signs precede and announce God's coming as they did on Sinai (Ex. xix 16.19).” In this stormy context, a gentle whisper or “small voice” makes little sense, and since the words allow for a more plausible rendering, I argue that they should be interpreted accordingly. The wind, earthquake, and fire were accompanied by a loud and crashing sound much like what the Israelites experienced at Sinai. This experience was intended to display the majesty and power of Yahweh, even though it probably did not affect Elijah as much as anticipated. I perceive this as the sense of the current text, and this study of the larger context clearly benefits exegesis and a more probable understanding of 1 Kings 19:12.
Bibliography
Allen, Ronald B. “Elijah the Broken Prophet.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 22, no. 3 (1979): 193–202.
Braude, William G., tran. Pesikta Rabbati: Discourses for Feasts, Fasts, Special Sabbaths. 2 vols. Yale Judaica Series 18. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968.
Bronner, Leah. The Stories of Elijah and Elisha: As Polemics against Baal Worship. Pretoria Oriental Series 6. Leiden: Brill, 1968.
Cogan, Mordechai. 1 Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 10. New York: Doubleday, 2001.
Craigie, P. C., and G. H. Wilson. “Religions of the Biblical World: Canaanite (Syria and Palestine).” In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 4:95–101. Rev ed. Chicago: Howard-Severence Co., 1915. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.
DeVries, Simon J. 1 Kings. 2nd ed. Word Biblical Commentary 12. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2003.
Farrar, F. W. The First Book of Kings. The Expositor’s Bible. New York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1898.
Ganor, Nissim R. Who Were the Phoenicians? Israel: Kotarim International Publishing, 2009.
Gordon, Cyrus H. Ugaritic Literature: A Comprehensive Translation of the Poetic and Prose Texts. Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici 98. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1949.
Hens-Piazza, Gina. 1-2 Kings. Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon, 2006.
Jung, K. G. “Baal.” In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 1:377–79. Rev ed. Chicago: Howard-Severence Co., 1915. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.
Koehler, Lugwig, and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by Johann Jakob Stamm. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Leithart, Peter. 1 & 2 Kings. Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2006.
Lust, J. “A Gentle Breeze or a Roaring, Thunderous Sound?” Vetus Testamentum 25 (1975): 110–15.
Miller, Clyde M. First and Second Kings. The Living Word Commentary on the Old Testament 7. Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 1991.
Montgomery, James A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings. Edited by Henry Snyder Gehman. The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1951.
Niehaus, Jeffrey J. God at Sinai: Covenant and Theophany in the Bible and Ancient Near East. Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.
Ortlund, Eric Nels. Theophany and Chaoskampf: The Interpretation of Theophanic Imagery in the Baal Epic, Isaiah, and the Twelve. Gorgias Ugaritic Studies 5. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2010.
Savran, George W. Encountering the Divine: Theophany in Biblical Narrative. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 420. London: T & T Clark, 2005.
Smith, William R., and George F. Moore. “Baal.” In Encyclopaedia Biblica: A Dictionary of the Bible, edited by T. K. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black, 1:401–403. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1899.
Snaith, Norman H. Notes on the Hebrew Text of 1 Kings XVII-XIX and XXI-XXII. Study Notes on Bible Books. London: The Epworth Press, 1954.
Stuart, Douglas K. Exodus. The New American Commentary 2. Nashville: Broadman and Hollman, 2006.
Sweeney, Marvin A. I & II Kings: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library. Louisville: John Knox Press, 2007.
Walsh, Jerome T. 1 Kings. Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative and Poetry. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996.
Waltke, Bruce K., and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
Whiston, William, tran. Josephus: The Complete Works. Nelson’s Super Value Series. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998.
Woods, Fred E. Water and Storm Polemics Against Baalism in the Deuteronomic History. American University Studies 7: Theology and Religion 150. New York: Peter Lang, 1994.
No comments:
Post a Comment