11 - 12 Personal BibleReflections - Kings PDF

2014-
PERSONAL BIBLICAL REFLECTIONS 2016
COMPILATION OF BIBLICAL RESEARCH VOLUME 2

JOEL JOSOL
Personal Reflections
Table of Contents
11. First KINGS.............................................................................................................................................................3
11.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................ 3
11.2 The Rebellion of Adonijah........................................................................................................................... 5
11.3 The Anointing of Solomon...........................................................................................................................9
11.4 The Last Words of David to Solomon .......................................................................................................12
11.5 Solomon Takes the Kingdom.....................................................................................................................15
11.6 Solomon in Gibeon....................................................................................................................................20
11.7 The Case of the Single Child and Two Mothers........................................................................................ 26
11.8 The Reign of Solomon............................................................................................................................... 29
11.9 King Hiram of Tyre.....................................................................................................................................37
11.10 Bible Chronology and Temple Building................................................................................................... 42
11.11 More on Bible Chronology and Temple Building................................................................................... 44
11.12 The Temple of Jehovah God....................................................................................................................46
11.13 The Inauguration of the Temple of Jehovah God................................................................................... 63
11.14 Post-Inauguration of the Temple............................................................................................................75
11.15 The Queen of Sheba................................................................................................................................84
11.16 The Fall of Solomon.................................................................................................................................92
11.17 The Dividing of the Kingdom...................................................................................................................99
11.18 Jeroboam, First King of Israel................................................................................................................106
11.19 Reflections on Jeroboam and His Sick Son Abijah................................................................................ 112
11.20 Rehoboam, King of Judah, son of Solomon.......................................................................................... 115
11.21 Abijam, Asa Kings of Judah; Jeroboam, Nadab, Baasha Kings of Israel................................................ 119
11.22 Baasha, Elah, Zimri, Omri, Ahab - Kings of Israel.................................................................................. 127
11.23 Ahab, King of Israel, son of Omri.......................................................................................................... 132
11.24 Ahaziah, King of Israel, son of Ahab......................................................................................................183
12. Second KINGS.................................................................................................................................................... 186
12.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 186
12.1 Ahaziah, king of Israel, son of Ahab........................................................................................................ 188
1|Page
12.2 Elijah and Elisha.......................................................................................................................................192
12.3 Jehoram, King of Israel, son of Ahab.......................................................................................................200
12.4 Elisha, a Widow, the Prominent Woman, and Feeding 100 Men with 20 Loaves..................................205
12.5 Naaman, the Syrian Army chief.............................................................................................................. 215
12.6 The Ax, Syrian War, and the Siege of Samaria....................................................................................... 220
12.7 The Shunemmite Woman, Hazael, King Jehoram of Israel, son of Ahab and King Ahaziah of Judah, son
of Jehoram...................................................................................................................................................... 231
12.8 Jehu, king of Israel...................................................................................................................................236
12.9 Athaliah, daughter of Ahab, Queen of Judah......................................................................................... 250
12.10 Jehoash, King of Judah, son of Ahaziah................................................................................................ 256
12.11 Jehoahaz, King of Israel, son of Jehu.....................................................................................................259
12.12 Jehoash, King of Israel, son of Jehoahaz............................................................................................... 261
12.13 Amaziah, King of Judah, son of Jehoash and Jehoash, King of Israel, son of Jehoahaz........................263
12.14 Azariah, King of Judah, son of Amaziah and Jeroboam, King of Israel, son of Jehoash........................268
12.15 Azariah, Jotham, Kings of Judah and Zechariah, Shallum, Menahem, Pekahiah, Pekah, Kings of Israel270
12.16 Ahaz, King of Judah, son of Jotham.......................................................................................................275
2.17 Hoshea, last king of Israel, Kingdom falls, dissolves, People send into Exile..........................................281
2.18 Hezekiah, king of Judah, son of Ahaz...................................................................................................... 286
12.19 Manasseh, king of Judah, son of Hezekiah........................................................................................... 303
12.19.1 Manasseh, king of Judah, son of Hezekiah - Part 1............................................................................303
12.20 Amon, king of Judah, son of Manasseh; Josiah, king of Judah, son of Amon.......................................305
12.21 Josiah, king of Judah, son of Manasseh................................................................................................ 310
12.22 Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, kings of Judah, sons of Josiah; Jehoaichin, king of Judah, son of Jehoiakim.... 316
12.23 Zedekiah, last king of Judah, son of Josiah........................................................................................... 320
12.24 The Chart of the Kings of Judah............................................................................................................ 326
2|Page
11. First KINGS

11.1 Introduction
Just like the other books of the Bible, Bible critics have never accepted the book as containing true history. They
dismissed the first five books of Moses as never written in the time it was supposed to be written. The popular view is
that the books were produced much later by others and those others promoted the claim that it was from Moses. One
of the key proof claimed is as below
"Not only is it true that the Hebrew language did not exist, but it is urged by critics that no written language, as we
understand it, existed in Western Asia in the time of Moses. Prof. Andrew Norton says: "For a long time after the
supposed date of the Pentateuch we find no proof of the existence of a book or even an inscription in proper
alphabetical characters among the nations by whom the Hebrews were surrounded." (The Pentateuch, p. 44)
Hieroglyphs were then in use, and it cannot be imagined that a work as large as the Pentateuch was written or
engraved in hieroglyphics and carried about by this wandering tribe of ignorant Israelites."
But are the assertions above still holds with contemporary archaeological discoveries related to the Hebrew language
and its script? The book, "A History of Hebrew: Its Language and Philosophy" by Jeff Benner has this to say about the
origin of writing related to Hebrew:
"The early Semitic alphabet existed between the 20th and 12th centuries B.C. However, note that the 20th century date
is based on the oldest inscriptions found thus far and it is possible that future discoveries may push the date of the
Semitic alphabet back even farther into history. To date, the Wadi El-Hhol inscriptions found in southern Egypt, are the
oldest Semitic inscriptions found and date to between the 19th and 20th centuries B.C. The Sinaitic inscriptions from
the Sinai peninsula date to about the 15th century B.C.
The middle Semitic alphabet, the Phoenician and old Hebrew, was in use between the 12th and 4th century B.C. The
Gezer calendar, Mesha Stele, Siloam inscription, the Lachish inscription and the Phoenician sarcophagus date to this
time period.
The late Semitic alphabet, the square Aramaic script, was in use between 4th century BC and into modern times with
the modern Hebrew alphabet that is used to this day."
How do Bible critics react to this development? This news report captures the prevailing attitude.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/07/31/3000-year-old-inscription-translated-biblical-history/
The Bible wins while the Bible critics wobble into a "maybe or maybe not". Why is this important to reflect on? Every
time the Bible is vindicated, the stronger our appreciation for it as God's communication to mankind. You can study the
Bible and learn more about what it says on the more important things in life.
One blog article describes the theory critical scholars apply specific to the books of Kings and the ones before it
“While this account of the authorship of these books is widely accepted by Christian and Jewish religious authorities,
modern-day biblical scholars overwhelmingly reject it. Most biblical scholars believe in some form of the theory that
Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings are part of a single historical opus written in the late First Temple
period, roughly 600 BCE. In a paper written during World War II, the German biblical scholar Martin Noth called this
work “The Deuteronomistic History,” and this is the term used to this day.” [ ]
One reference described the state of this theory (DtrH is short for Deuteronomistic History)
“But as scholars multiplied on the Deuteronomistic History so did Dtrs. Soon, there arose a great division in the
earth. Those in the North—of America—followed Cross while those across the Sea went after Smend. Each
faction did what was right in his own eyes, and there was little interaction between them.” [2]
3|Page
The author then adds this later in the reference
“Another major hurdle facing DtrH studies has been the discussion of what actually makes something
“Deuteronomistic.” Wilson rightly points out that the pervasive problem within DtrH studies is that there really is no
consensus in this regard, perhaps with the exception of language. And even here, the criteria for determining
what writing style and language peculiarities conclusively demonstrate Deuteronomistic style is questioned.” [3]
The books of Kings starts where the books of Samuels end at the latter part of the days of King David. The Bible-based
encyclopedia Insight explains
“Books of the Holy Scriptures relating the history of Israel from the last days of King David until the release of King
Jehoiachin from prison in Babylon.
Originally the two books of Kings comprised one roll called Kings (Heb., Mela·khimʹ), and in the Hebrew Bible
today they are still counted as one book, the fourth in the section known as the Former Prophets. In the Greek
Septuagint the Books of the Kings were called Third and Fourth Kingdoms, the Books of Samuel having been
designated First and Second Kingdoms. In the Latin Vulgate these books were together known as the four books
of Kings because Jerome preferred the name Regum (Kings), in harmony with the Hebrew title, to the literal
translation of the Septuagint title Regnorum (Kingdoms). Division into two books in the Septuagint became
expedient because the Greek translation with vowels required almost twice as much space as did Hebrew, in
which no vowels were used until the second half of the first millennium of the Common Era. The division between
Second Samuel and First Kings has not always been at the same place in the Greek versions.” [4]
The writer of the books is not identified but indicators within the books and Jewish tradition point to the prophet
Jeremiah. How was this conclusion arrived at? Insight explains
“Many Hebrew words and expressions found in these two books appear elsewhere in the Bible only in Jeremiah’s
prophecy. The books of Kings and the book of Jeremiah complement each other; events, as a rule, are briefly
covered in one if they are fully described in the other. Absence of any mention of Jeremiah in the books of Kings,
although he was a very prominent prophet, could be expected if Jeremiah was the writer, because his activities
were detailed in the book bearing his name. The books of Kings tell of conditions in Jerusalem after the exile had
begun, indicating that the writer had not been taken to Babylon, even as Jeremiah was not.—Jer 40:5, 6.
Some scholars see in the books of Kings what they consider to be evidence of the work of more than one writer or
compiler. However, except for variation because of the sources used, it must be observed that the language, style,
vocabulary, and grammar are uniform throughout.” [5]
While scholars continue to promote their theories as many as there are scholars on how they think this part of the
Bible was developed, composed and finally closed, I will now proceed to journey what the books themselves
report to me in how Jehovah God continue to handhold the story of how His sovereignty will be vindicated, his
holy name sanctified, and how the means to do that the Messianic government will be finally fully realized.
References
[1] Gilad, Elon. “Who Really Wrote the Biblical Books of Kings and the Prophets?”, Haaretz blog article.
[2] Peterson, Brian Neil. The Authors of the Deuteronomistic History - Locating a Tradition in Ancient Israel, Fortress
Press, 2014, p. 9.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Kings, Books of. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 170.
[5] Ibid., p. 172.
4|Page
11.2 The Rebellion of Adonijah

God’s sovereignty is supreme. He had made that part defined in the covenant law of Israel. Jehovah God was
really their Chief Executive. Failing to understand this has led to failed ambitions as exemplified by the
personalities described in the Bible. This has repercussion in contemporary times when Jehovah God, once more,
will exercise the full expression of His sovereignty on the earth through the agency of the Messianic kingdom
under Christ.
In the book of 2 Samuel, Jehovah God promised David that his son by Bathsheba who will succeed him will build
the temple. In the opening chapter of 1 Kings, this succession is in peril. The current crown-prince and oldest
surviving son of David, older than Solomon, Adonijah is poised to take the kingship. So scholars understand the
last chapters of 2 Samuel and the opening chapters of 1 Kings are all about the succession to the throne
narratives of Solomon.
It appears that Adonijah was blinded by his own ambition to the throne. David’s sons played a sort of game of
thrones. Absalom killed his oldest brother Amnon, placing him next in line. But Absalom was killed in his own
rebellion, leaving Adonijah to be the next in line. And now Adonijah is mounting a coup to pre-empt the choice of
the next king.
I realized that what David’s sons failed to recognize is the exercise of God’s sovereignty over Israel. Their
forefathers rebelled against Jehovah and wanted to have a king just like the nations. Jehovah God as an invisible
king is not enough for them. Jehovah knew this would happen and there is already a provision in the covenant law
which serves as their constitution. It was Jehovah God as Sovereign who chose the human king, his
representative. First, it was Saul of the tribe of Benjamin. His son, crown-prince Jonathan, later realized that due
to the disobedience of his father, God decided to reject his father as king and announced that He will choose
another who is agreeable to His heart. Unlike David’s sons, Jonathan submitted himself to God’s sovereign will
and did not impose what from human point of view was his right to succession. He gave way to David.
It must have been a big disappointment for David who enjoyed an intimate relationship with Jehovah God that his
sons had failed to cultivate that relationship with God. Instead they think human thoughts and forgot that they
were subject to God’s sovereign will. Their rebellion was in reality a rebellion against God’s sovereignty.
The Bible relates how this all happened
“Now King David was old, advanced in years, and although they would cover him with garments, he could not get
warm.” (1:1)
The Bible writer tells me that I am now reading the concluding years of David’s life as king. Eventually, David will
die, making the succession question a pressing issue. On the matter that David ‘could not get warm’, the Bible
reports what the servants of David did next
“So his servants said to him: “Let a girl, a virgin, be found for my lord the king, and she will wait on the king as his
nurse. She will lie in your arms so that my lord the king may feel warm.” They searched throughout all the territory
of Israel for a beautiful girl, and they found Abʹi·shag the Shuʹnam·mite and brought her in to the king. The girl
was extremely beautiful, and she became the king’s nurse and waited on him, but the king did not have sexual
relations with her.” (1:2-4)
The solution found was Abishag- the Bible describes her as “extremely beautiful”. Bathsheba was described in the
Bible as “very beautiful” (2 Samuel 11:2) while Abigail was described as “discerning and beautiful” (1 Samuel 25:
3). In his commentary, Philip Ryken wrote
“Abishag’s employment as a kind of human hot water bottle raises more questions than it answers. Were David’s
servants simply trying to keep him warm? If so, then why did they conduct a Miss Israel pageant to find the
prettiest young thing in the whole country? Though the situation seems charged with sexuality, we also sense that
the king is diminished. This is hardly the David who knew Bathsheba—the David who fathered Solomon and
many other sons. Not even a stunning young virgin can warm his blood. On the contrary, his sexual incapacity
5|Page
shows that he has suffered the loss of vitality and virility. Soon old King David will be dead and buried, which
shows one of the inherent limitations of kingship in ancient Israel. All the kings died, throwing the kingship into
question for each new generation of the people of God. David was the best of Israel’s kings, yet even he went
down to the grave, where his body remains to this day. His very mortality meant that he could never be the
ultimate king for God’s people.” [1]
Indeed, the combination of “an extremely beautiful” Abishag and “the king did not have sexual relations with her”
bring home the point that the succession issue has to be resolved fast. Abishag, introduced this early will come
back to the story on this very same issue. Who is Abishag? The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight briefly describs
her
“A young virgin from the town of Shunem, N of Jezreel and Mount Gilboa, in the territory of Issachar. (Jos 19:17-
23) She was “beautiful in the extreme” and was chosen by David’s servants to become the nurse and companion
of the king during his final days.—1Ki 1:1-4.
David was now about 70 years of age (2Sa 5:4, 5), and as a result of debilitation he had little body heat. Abishag
waited on him during the day, doubtless brightening the surroundings with her youthful freshness and beauty, and
at night she ‘lay in the king’s bosom’ to give him warmth, but “the king himself had no intercourse with her.”
Nevertheless, the attitude later manifested by Solomon regarding her indicates that Abishag was viewed as being
in the position of wife or concubine of David. As such, by a rule in the ancient East, she would become the
property of David’s heir at the time of his death.” [2]
Next the Bible reports Adonijah’s rebellion
“Meanwhile, Ad·o·niʹjah the son of Hagʹgith was exalting himself, saying: “I am going to be king!” He had a chariot
made for himself with horsemen and 50 men to run before him.” (1:5)
One paper commented on the sequence of the narrative from David being now sexually impotent with Adonijah’s
rebellion
“Immediately after this explicit information about sexual relations, or the lack thereof, the story turns to Adonijah’s
pretensions to the throne (1 Kgs 1:5): “Then Adonijah, son of Haggith, exalted himself saying, ‘I will be king!’ He
provided himself with chariots and horses, and an escort of fifty outrunners. The placement of Adonijah’s
preparations to be David’s successor immediately after the statement that David does not have sexual intercourse
with Abishag is not merely a coincidence but indicates a connection between these two statements. It is
suggestive that David’s lack of virility is a signal that succession is imminent, and this correlation further
underscores the significance of sexuality for power politics as portrayed by the David Narrative. Despite his lack
of sexual performance, David still holds the power as king, for he names Solomon as his successor and his
choice is upheld.” [3]
Another paper explains why if David will not act, Adonijah is positioned to be the heir-apparent
“A look at the ancient Israelite dynastic succession narratives showns that, as a rule, the successor to the throne
was the first-born son or the eldest surviving son of the king. However, if the king was still alive, his was the final
decision as to who would be his successor.
After the death of Amnon, Chileab, and Absalom (2 Sam 3:3; 13:1-30; 18:9-15), Adonijah became the oldest
surviving son of David (1 Kgs 1:6c) and therefore the legitimate crown-prince and potential successor to the
throne.” [4]
Both Absalom and Adonijah used runners ahead of them. Insight comments
“It was the Oriental custom that runners go before the royal chariot to prepare and announce the king’s coming
and to assist him generally. (1Sa 8:11) Absalom and Adonijah, in imitation of such regal dignity and to add
prestige and seeming sanction to their respective rebellions, placed 50 runners before their personal chariots.—
2Sa 15:1; 1Ki 1:5; see RUNNERS.” [5]
6|Page
The Bible reports that Adonijah, just like his older brother Absalom, is also “very handsome” was joined by David’s
long time associates Joab and Abiathar (1:6,7)
Insight comments on long time associate Abiathar
“In view of his faithful record of enduring many hardships in David’s company during his time as a fugitive from
Saul and again during Absalom’s rebellion, and considering his having enjoyed David’s confidence, friendship,
and favor during some four decades, it is surprising to find Abiathar linking himself up with another son of David,
Adonijah, in a later conspiracy for the throne. Though the plot also had the support of Joab as head of the army, it
failed; and Solomon was appointed as king, with loyal priest Zadok doing the anointing at David’s instruction. (1Ki
1:7, 32-40)” [6]
Insight also comments on the motive of Joab for joing Adonijah
“Despite his previous service under David, when David became old and sick, Joab forsook David and joined the
conspiracy of David’s son Adonijah. (1Ki 1:18, 19) Perhaps he did this because he felt that, with Adonijah as king,
he would be the power behind the throne, or it may be that he felt more sure of his position with Adonijah than
with Solomon. When he heard that Solomon had been made king by David, he forsook Adonijah. (1Ki 1:49)” [7]
However, David’s government is now split into two factions. The second faction is described next
“But Zaʹdok the priest, Be·naiʹah the son of Je·hoiʹa·da, Nathan the prophet, Shimʹe·i, Reʹi, and David’s mighty
warriors did not support Ad·o·niʹjah.” (1:8)
Adonijah proclaimed himself king near En-rogel. (1:9) Insight comments on this location
“It is generally agreed that En-rogel corresponds to the modern Bir Ayyub, or Job’s well. It is located S of the SE
corner of Jerusalem’s wall, at the foot of the western bank of the Kidron Valley about 100 m (330 ft) S of the
junction with the Valley of Hinnom. The well reaches an underground stream or spring, which, after a rain,
sometimes flows so abundantly that it raises the level of water to the surface.” [8]
Nathan sprang into action to make sure Solomon was made king by David (1:10-13) Insight summarizes what
happened next
“Bath-sheba comes forward in the account again toward the close of David’s 40-year reign. David had sworn to
her: “Solomon your son is the one that will become king after me.” So when Solomon’s older half brother Adonijah
attempted to usurp the throne just before David’s death, Bath-sheba, on the suggestion of the prophet Nathan,
reminded David of his oath. Immediately David put Solomon on the throne, and Bath-sheba thus became the
queen mother.—1Ki 1:5-37.” [9]
One article reading the account from a feminist viewpoint comments
“However, in 1 Kings, Bathsheba does take on the role of a more full-fledged character. In that story, she is shown to be
intelligent and having a will of her own, despite Nathan’s promptings. While she is still shown to be subject to other men,
she uses her influence to get what she desires from David, just as he had originally used his influence to get what he
desired from her. In this way, one may come to the conclusion that although women may be oppressed Bathsheba is
one who eventually overcomes. [10]
How will this end for Adonijah? If Solomon were to made king as God’s sovereign intent was, where will Adonijah be in
the scheme of things? What will happen to his co-conspirators? That is for the next installment.
References
[1] Ryken, Philip Graham. 1 Kings, P&R Publishing Company, 2011, p.6.
[2] Abishag. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 26.
[3] Fleming, Erin. “The Politics of Sexuality in the Story of King David”, A dissertation submitted to John Hopkins
University with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Baltimore, Maryland, October 2013.
7|Page
[4] Kalimi, Isaac. “The Rise of Solomon inthe Ancient Israelite Historiography”, from the book ‘The Figure of
Solomon in Jewish, Christian and Islamic Tradition’, BRILL, 2013, p. 12.
[5] Forerunner. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 860.
[6] Abiathar. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 19.
[7] Joab. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 79.
[8] En-rogel. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 730.
[9] Bath-sheba. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 264
[10] Sheets, Daniel. “Bathsheba: A Feminist Approach”, an article from ‘Contemplatives in the World’ blog site.
8|Page
11.3 The Anointing of Solomon

The Bible declares that God opposes the haughty ones. Adonijah was definitely presumptuous in claiming the
succession for himself without authorization from God or His still living anointed, David. This is rebellion not just
against his father but against God’s expressed sovereignty on the earth.
In parallel scenario for our times, the Bible has foretold that God will exercise his sovereignty on the earth, doing
away all the other sovereign nations and their institutions standing against His purpose
“In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. And this
kingdom will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone
will stand forever.” (Daniel 2:44)
The Bible relate how God opposed the arrogant Adonijah. God’s prophet Nathan went to work to neutralize the
rebellion.
The Bible continues the narrative
“So Bath-sheʹba went in to the king, into his private room. The king was very old, and Abʹi·shag the Shuʹnam·mite
was waiting on the king. Then Bath-sheʹba bowed low and prostrated herself to the king, and the king said: “What
is your request?” She replied: “My lord, it was you who swore by Jehovah your God to your servant, ‘Your son
Solʹo·mon will become king after me, and he is the one who will sit on my throne.’ But look! Ad·o·niʹjah has
become king, and my lord the king does not know anything about it. He sacrificed bulls, fattened animals, and
sheep in great quantity and invited all the sons of the king and A·biʹa·thar the priest and Joʹab the chief of the
army; but he did not invite your servant Solʹo·mon. And now, my lord the king, the eyes of all Israel are upon you
to tell them who will sit on the throne of my lord the king after him. Otherwise, as soon as my lord the king is laid
to rest with his forefathers, I and also my son Solʹo·mon will be considered traitors.” (1:15-21)
Bathsheba mentioned that David swore to her Solomon will be king. One paper explores that claim
“Another controverted issue is whether David really ever swore to Bathsheba that Solomon would succeed him.
Numerous scholars have argued that no such pledge was ever given, and that it was only the intriguing Nathan,
motivated by personal preference for Solomon over the legal heir, who made the senile king believe that he had
once so vowed. Zalevsky rejects this out of hand, since there is no indication that David’s mental faculties were in
any way impaired by his enfeebled body. This is evident from the measures which David took on hearing
Adonijah’s coronation. His testament shows such presence of mind that it would have been impossible to mislead
him with some fabrication about a vow he had never made.” [1]
As planned by the prophet Nathan, he came in second to report what Adonijah has done. (1: 22-27) King David
responded and the Bible reports his words
“King David now answered: “Call Bath-sheʹba for me.” At that she came in and stood before the king. The king
then swore an oath: “As surely as Jehovah is living, the one who rescued me out of all distress, just as I swore to
you by Jehovah the God of Israel, saying, ‘Your son Solʹo·mon will become king after me, and he is the one who
will sit on my throne in my place!’ that is what I will bring about this day.” Then Bath-sheʹba bowed low with her
face to the ground and prostrated herself to the king and said: “May my lord King David live forever!”” (1:28-31)
King David acted promptly and arranged for the anointing of Solomon. (1:32-37) Then David’s servants set it in
motion
“Then Zaʹdok the priest, Nathan the prophet, Be·naiʹah the son of Je·hoiʹa·da, and the Cherʹe·thites and the
Pelʹe·thites went down and had Solʹo·mon ride on the mule of King David, and they brought him to Giʹhon.” (1:38)
What is the significance of riding the mule of the current king in a succession story? One reference explains
“The first Scriptural reference to the mule is in connection with the sheep-shearing feast planned by Absalom for
9|Page
the plot against Amnon. It says: "All the king's sons arose, and every man got him up upon his mule, and fled" (II
Samuel 13:29). Each prince had a mule for his personal travel use, and thus this animal had taken the place of
the donkey for such use. The mule was used by King David when he traveled in state, and to ride upon the mule
belonging to the king was considered to be much the same thing as sitting upon the throne of the king. Thus
David said concerning Solomon whom he wanted to make king to succeed him: "Take with you the servants of
your lord, and cause Solomon my son to ride upon mine own mule, and bring him down to Gihon" (I Kings 1:33).
Adonijah, who attempted to usurp the throne against the wishes of his father, heard that Solomon had ridden on
the mule of David, he knew thereby that he had been made the new king (I Kings 1:44f)” [1a]
This was echoed by Bible-based encyclopedia Insight
“In the time of David, mules were used as mounts by prominent persons. David’s own she-mule was assigned for
Solomon’s use on the occasion of his anointing at Gihon.—2Sa 13:29; 18:9; 1Ki 1:33, 34, 38, 39.” [1b]
While Adonijah was proclaiming himself as king in En-rogel, Solomon will be anointed in Gihon (1:39-40). Insight
described this location
“A spring today called Ha Gihon having its fountainhead in a natural cave in the Kidron Valley a short distance E
of the upper end of the section of Jerusalem anciently called “the City of David.” (2Ch 32:30) It was a principal
source of water for the city in ancient times, there being only two springs in the vicinity. The name Gihon is
particularly appropriate for this spring inasmuch as it ‘gushes forth’ intermittently, as much as four or five times a
day following a rainy winter, less frequently in the dry season.” [2]
What was the reaction of the people with Adonijah on his own proclamation? The Bible reports
“Ad·o·niʹjah and all those invited by him heard it when they had finished eating. As soon as Joʹab heard the sound
of the horn, he said: “Why is there such a noisy uproar in the city?”” (1:41)
Insight explains how this was possible that the two places could hear the noise from the other
“A further view of the layout of the terrain around Jerusalem, this time to the E and S, is given in the account of
the anointing of Solomon by order of aged King David. Another son, Adonijah, was at the spring of En-rogel,
plotting to seize the kingship, when Solomon was anointed at the spring of Gihon. The distance between the two
points was short enough (c. 700 m; 2,300 ft) that Adonijah and his coconspirators heard the noise of the horn and
celebrations at Gihon.—1Ki 1:5-9, 32-41.” [3]
After Jonathan the son of Abiathar the priest confirmed the report of Solomon’s enthronement (1:42-48), the Bible
describes the reaction of those with Adonijah
“And all those invited by Ad·o·niʹjah became terrified, and each of them rose up and went his own way. Ad·o·niʹjah
was also afraid because of Solʹo·mon, so he got up and went and grabbed hold of the horns of the altar.” (1:49,
50)
Finally, Adonijah was left by himself and afraid of what Solomon could do to him
“The report was made to Solʹo·mon: “Here Ad·o·niʹjah has become afraid of King Solʹo·mon; and he has taken
hold of the horns of the altar, saying, ‘Let King Solʹo·mon first swear to me that he will not put his servant to death
by the sword.’” To this Solʹo·mon said: “If he behaves in a worthy manner, not a single hair of his will fall to the
ground; but if what is bad is found in him, he will have to die.” So King Solʹo·mon sent for him to be brought down
from the altar. Then he came in and bowed down to King Solʹo·mon, after which Solʹo·mon said to him: “Go to
your own house.”” (1:51-53)
The ‘horns of the altar’ that Adonijah went to is the one patterned in Exodus. Insight offers a description
“The horns of both the incense altar and the altar of sacrifice at the tabernacle were hornlike projections extending
outward from the four corners. They were overlaid with the same material as the altar, either copper or gold. (Ex
27:2; 37:25, 26)” [4]
10 | P a g e
Where could this be? It should be where the tabernacle was. Insight explains where this is at the time of Solomon
“After Israel crossed the Jordan River into the Promised Land, the tabernacle was set up at Gilgal. (Jos 4:19) It
was relocated at Shiloh during the time of dividing the land (Jos 18:1), where it remained for years (1Sa 1:3, 24)
before being moved to Nob. (1Sa 21:1-6) Later it was at Gibeon. (1Ch 21:29) When the ark of the covenant was
moved to Zion by David, it had not been in the tabernacle for many years. But until the temple was built by
Solomon, sacrifices were still offered at the tabernacle in Gibeon, it being called “the great high place.” (1Ki 3:4)
After the construction of the temple, Solomon had the tabernacle brought up to Jerusalem and apparently stored
there.—1Ki 8:4; 2Ch 5:5.” [5]
The narrative I just read and reflected on is seen by scholars as a sort of an apologetic in behalf of Solomon,
justifying his own rise to the throne. One reference describes the various negative scholarly position
“For example, David Gunn states that in this passage “we are witnessing an act of deliberate deception, an
ingenious ploy by the Solomonic party.” Raymond Frontain concludes that “the narrative is at pains to emphasize
the role of human duplicity in the selection of David’s successor.” Gwilym Jones states that “we are dealing with a
devious attempt to intervene in what was an expected pattern of succession.” And according to John Van Seters,
“The manipulation of the old man is quite pathetic.” [5a]
This reference later highlights the internal biblical text and the parallel report of Chronicles which are positive for
Solomon citing 2 Samuel 12:24, 1 Kings 2:15, and 1 Chronicles 22: 7-10. So the paper concludes
“Rather than being the result of human duplicity in the royal court, Solomon’s ascent to Israel’s throne was the
fulfillment of YHWH’s word to David in line with his covenant promises.” [5b]
Another reference also discounts this scholarly theory around deceiving David
“Seibert investigates this phenomenon using 1 Kgs 1-2 as a test case. What sets him apart from advocates of the
redaction-critical school is that he views the subversion as originating in Solomon’s court, from the scribes tasked
with promoting him:” I would conclude that 1 Kgs 1-2 was was written- at least in part- by (a) subversive scribe(s)
who was/were commissioned to produce a peice of political propaganda but who, in the process of completing
that assignment, took the liberty to inscribe his/their own subtle critique of the king” (2006,157). Thus Solomon’s
scribes were compelled by their own convictions to conceal subversive elements within the same. The result is an
ostensible apology, but one with many embedded misgivings. Such an idea is intriguing and not untenable, but
remains almost entirely unprovable.” [6]
There is the key point for human theories about the Bible - intriguing but almost entirely unprovable and is
contrary to the internal biblical evidence. As I read the Bible itself, I never got the impression these critical
scholars are imposing on the text.
So, Adonijah’s rebellion and self-proclamation failed. But, his claim for the throne has not yet ended. Adonijah’s
stubbornness will bring harm to himself. He has made himself an opposer of God’s will and sovereignty.
References
[1] Zipor, Moshe. Review of “Solomon’s Ascension to the Throne: Studies in the Books of Kings and Chronicles”
by Saul Zalevsky, The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol 73, No. 4 (Apr., 1983), p. 398.
[1a] Wight, Fred. “Domestic Animals” “ from “Manner and Customs of Bible Lands”, 1953, p. 7.
[1b] Mule. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 449.
[2] Gihon. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 940.
[3] Jerusalem. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 42.
[4] Horn. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1143.
[5] Tabernacle.Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1060.
[5a] Newkirk, Matthew. “Reconsidering The Role of Deception in Solomon’s Ascent to the Throne”, Journal of
Evangelical and Theological Society, 57/4 (2014), p. 705.
[5b] Ibid., p. 713.
[6] Knapp, Andrew. Royal Apologetic in the Ancient Near East, SBL Press, 2015, p.263.
11 | P a g e
11.4 The Last Words of David to Solomon

In the book of 2 Samuel, I read the last words of David written in a song of praise to his God Jehovah. This time,
the book of 1 Kings introduces to me the last words of David to his now anointed king-son, Solomon. What would
a dying father who went through troublesome times in the later years of his life counsel his son? What would the
covenant law and the sovereignty of God play in such counsel? What else would he wanted to say? These are my
initial focus for reflections for the ascension of Solomon to the throne. There is an equivalent last words of David
recorded in the Chronicles as well.
The Bible reports these last words of David to his son. The first part began with this
“When the time of David’s death drew near, he gave his son Solʹo·mon these instructions: “I am about to die.
Therefore, be strong and prove yourself a man. You must keep your obligation to Jehovah your God by walking in
his ways and by observing his statutes, his commandments, his judgments, and his reminders as they are written
in the Law of Moses; then you will succeed in everything you do and everywhere you turn. And Jehovah will carry
out his promise that he made concerning me: ‘If your sons pay attention to their way by walking faithfully before
me with all their heart and soul, there will never fail to be a man of your line sitting on the throne of Israel.’” (2:1-4)
David focused on the loyalty to the covenant law, also known as Law of Moses, which Israel willingly entered into
with Jehovah God their Savior from the land of Egypt. Reminding his son that loyalty and obedience are key as
defined by the blessings and curses associated with the covenant law. In addition, Solomon is reminded that
Jehovah God has an additional covenant - the covenant with David, stating that his dynasty will last for as long as
David’s sons and future grandsons will walk faithfully with God. That is priority number one.
This reminds of what the Bible placed upon parents to bring up their children in the spirit of what the Christian
Greek Scriptures also known as the New Testament (NT for short) has expressed in the letter to the Ephesians
6:4 where it said for parents to ‘ go on bringing them up in the discipline and admonition of Jehovah.’
The Bible does not disclose how David raised up his sons. His older sons killed each other due to ambition. His
last oldest son has followed his older brother Absalom in rebelling against his father. But Adonijah is not yet done
with his claim. With these last words addressed to Solomon, this is the only glimpse of parental guidance David is
reported to have done for his sons. David’s priorities for his son are right.
Then, David focused on three personalities- Joab, his nephew and Solomon’s uncle; Barzillai, the wealthy, old
man from Gilead; and Shimei the Benjamite.
First, with Joab, David gave these instructions
““You also well know what Joʹab the son of Ze·ruʹiah did to me, what he did to two chiefs of the armies of Israel—
Abʹner the son of Ner and A·maʹsa the son of Jeʹther. He killed them, shedding the blood of war in peacetime, and
he put the blood of war on the belt around his waist and on the sandals on his feet. You must act according to
your wisdom and not let his gray hairs go down in peace to the Grave.”” (2:5,6)
David used the metaphor of putting blood on Joab’s belt and sandals. The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight
offered an explanation
“David instructed Solomon to punish Joab, who had “put the blood of war . . . in his sandals” during peacetime—a
figurative statement representing Joab’s bloodguilt for killing Generals Abner and Amasa. (1Ki 2:5, 6)” [1]
David told Solomon, ‘you well know’. David must have shared the stories with Solomon. Abner was killed by Joab
during the early phase of David’s reign, while Amasa, not very long ago after his older brother Absalom rebelled
against their father.
This Davidic instruction is not accepted by critical scholars. To them, the writer put on David’s mouth the go-signal
to kill Joab as an excuse (apologetics) to justify Solomon’s purge of pro-Adonijah individuals. How does one
paper assess these human theories? It wrote
12 | P a g e
“Despite David’s supposed speech to Solomon, when one considers that both Abiathar’s banishment and Joab’s
execution came on the heels of what Solomon perceived to be a grasp for power by Adonijah, it is no wonder why
so many scholars view Solomon’s actions with suspicion. After all, if the bloodguilt that Joab supposedly brought
upon the Davidic house was so severe, why was his execution not carried out sooner? Even though the murders
of Abner and Amasa may have been the stated reason why Solomon had Joab executed, the real reason seems
to have been that Solomon saw both Abiathar and Joab, having originally backed Adonijah, as a threat to his
power. Jerome T. Walsh puts it this way: “[Solomon] is always attentive to the niceties of legal observance, yet he
is not above twisting evidence, and, if need be, falsifying it in order to gain what he wants.”
Nevertheless, although we would be right to view Solomon’s actions with a high degree of suspicion, we would be
wrong to assume that 1 Kgs 1–2 is nothing more than a poor piece of propaganda to justify Solomon’s bad
actions. After all, to claim that Solomon is merely twisting evidence for personal gain, or that a pro-Solomonic
apologist simply put the decision to kill Joab in David’s mouth, is to claim something for which there is no textual
evidence. Try as we might, we cannot get behind the text to “what really happened.”[2]
Note, that this paper clearly spelled it out that such human theories have no textual evidence. They are, in effect,
speculations and promoting themselves and their view. What views? The paper claims
“Simply put, whereas Rost argued that the Succession Narrative was pro-Solomonic from the start, and Delekat
argued that it was really anti-Solomonic, Wilrthwein, Veijola, and Langlemat argued that it was originally anti-
Solmonic, but then was redacted to where it is now, in its present form, pro-Solomonic...Simply put, in their rush
to dissect the text into two hypothetical “antiSolomonic” and “pro-Solomonic” sources, these scholars have failed
to consider that perhaps the Succession Narrative is, in fact, a work of literary artistry by a single author, that
contains both “pro” and “anti” points of view regarding Solomon, and thus invites the reader to live within that
tension in the story.” [3]
Another paper echoed the same expert opinion in what critical scholars are promoting
“Beyond this, one moves into the realm of uncertainty; scholars question the veracity of several points of the
account on the grounds that the apologist fabricated certain conversations and events in order to justify the
ruthlessness of an insecure and illegitimate despote.” [4]
Notice the phrase “moves into the realm of uncertainty”. This critical scholar efforts do not devalue what the Bible
has presented.
His other instruction is towards the sons of Barzillai.
“But toward the sons of Bar·zilʹlai the Gilʹe·ad·ite, you should show loyal love, and they should be among those
eating at your table, for that was how they stood by me when I ran away from your brother Abʹsa·lom.” (2:7)
What is the significance of being at the dining table with the king? Insight comments
“To eat a meal with someone signified friendship and peace between the persons involved. Therefore one who
was privileged to eat regularly at the table of a king was especially favored and enjoyed a very close bond with
the monarch. (1Ki 2:7)” [5]
Finally, on Shimei, who reviled David when he retreated from Jerusalem when Absalom rebelled
““There is also with you Shimʹe·i the son of Geʹra the Benʹja·min·ite from Ba·huʹrim. He was the one who cursed
me with a vicious curse on the day that I was going to Ma·ha·naʹim; but when he came down to meet me at the
Jordan, I swore to him by Jehovah: ‘I will not put you to death by the sword.’ Now do not leave him unpunished,
for you are a wise man and you know what you should do to him; you must bring his gray hairs down to the Grave
with blood.” (2:8,9)
This portion I found a strong contrast with was what David did to Shimei when the latter repented and asked for
David’s forgiveness. David did not allow Abishai to hurt him or put him to death. But here, David gave instructions
13 | P a g e
to have Shimei killed.
Then, David finally bows out of the Bible’s narrative.
“Then David was laid to rest with his forefathers and was buried in the City of David. The length of David’s reign
over Israel was 40 years. In Hebʹron he reigned for 7 years, and in Jerusalem he reigned for 33 years.“ (2:10, 11)
Insight comments on the phrase ‘laid to rest with his forefathers’
“However, the frequent expression ‘to lie down, or be buried, with his forefathers’ does not necessarily imply a
sharing of the same burial site, for this phrase is used concerning men who were clearly not buried in the same
place as their forefathers. (Ge 15:15; De 31:16; 32:50; 1Ki 2:10; Ac 13:36) It must thus refer to their common
entrance into Sheol (Hades), the common grave of mankind. Such common grave is called “the house of meeting
for everyone living.”—Job 30:23.” [6]
What sort of burial place is there in the City of David? Insight again comments
“First Kings 2:10 tells us that David was buried in “the City of David,” and apparently this became the customary
burial place of later kings of Judah. Twelve of the 20 kings following David are directly mentioned as being buried
in the City of David, though not all of these were placed in “the burial places of the kings”—Jehoram, Joash
(Jehoash), and Ahaz being specifically mentioned as not buried there. (2Ch 21:16, 20; 24:24, 25; 28:27) Instead
of being one common tomb of many chambers, “the burial places of the kings” may have constituted a particular
area within the City of David where the memorial tombs of the kings were located. King Asa was buried in a
“grand burial place that he had excavated for himself in the City of David” (2Ch 16:14), and Hezekiah is spoken of
as being buried “in the ascent to the burial places of the sons of David.” (2Ch 32:33) Leprous King Uzziah was
buried “with his forefathers, but in the burial field that belonged to the kings, for they said: ‘He is a leper.’” This
would seem to indicate the placement of his diseased body in the ground rather than in a tomb hewed out of
rock.—2Ch 26:23.” [7]
References
[1] Sandal. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 861.
[2] Anderson, Joel Edmund. “A Narrative Reading of Solomon’s Execution of Joab in 1 Kings 1-2: Letting Story
Interpret Story”, Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament 1.1 (2012), p. 44.
[3] Ibid., p.46.
[4] Knapp, Andrew. Royal Apologetic in the Ancient Near East, Society of Biblical Literature Press, 2015, p. 250.
[5] Meal. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 356.
[6] Burial, Burial Places. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 377.
[7] Ibid., p. 379.
14 | P a g e
11.5 Solomon Takes the Kingdom

11.5.1 Solomon Takes the Kingdom - Part 1
Human scholars driven by the theory that the Bible as a finished product went through supposed several revisions,
editions, and compiled from many sources by different compilers or editors and were not actual records of real
events but a propaganda to justify the Jewish religion and the kingship of a David and Solomon they did not
accept as real personalities that lived, look at what they read with skepticism and so interpret what they think what
was not in the text but was there but was removed. My previous reflections show that all these theories are
unprovable.
But such theories get scholars exposure and they get to be printed in books. They add books to libraries but not
one of them has disproved what is in the Bible. This only vindicates the Bible as God’s revealed Word to humans.
If despite the effort of critics in the last 100 years failed to discredit the Bible, the book does not just deserve our
respect. Imagine this for a moment - it is a gift from the greatest extra-terrestial Being out there who wants to
communicate with us. The greatest extra-terrestial Being has a level of civilization far greater than the one we
have here on earth. To top it off, He has introduced himself in the book and gave himself a name which in
Hebrew was represented by four consonants, known as tetragrammaton or four letters, YHWH, which is
translated in English as JEHOVAH. He is not just an impersonal Force or Being. We can communicate with Him
and He has left this book which scholars are reducing as mere human literature.
But the amazing thing is that this book, a 1,600 years in the making, told a consistent story or plot from beginning
to the end, across 39 Jewish male writers of various skills across various times. A project of such duration is truly
amazing. JW.org has featured an online article about the history of this book, the Bible.
Going back to my journey reflecting this unfolding story, I have now gone past the story of David with whom
Jehovah has made a covenant for an everlasting kingdom. This covenant is in addition to the covenant God
made with Israel through Moses as mediator as captured in the covenant law or also known as Law of Moses.
These two covenants are in addition to the very first covenant Jehovah God made with humans, the covenant
with Abraham.
As the story continues, the Davidic covenant is now beginning to unfold as Solomon replaces his father on the
throne. The Bible reports
“Solʹo·mon then sat down on the throne of David his father, and gradually his kingship became firmly established.”
(2:12)
The key word there is ‘gradually’. In the next verses, Solomon will purge his kingdom of David and his enemies.
The fisrt one is his stubborn, older brother who failed to acknowledge Jehovah’s hands in the kingship. The Bible
reports what Adonijah did
“In time Ad·o·niʹjah the son of Hagʹgith came to Bath-sheʹba, Solʹo·mon’s mother. She asked: “Is your coming
peaceable?” He replied: “It is peaceable.” He then said: “I have something to say to you.” So she said: “Speak.”
He continued: “You well know that the kingship was to become mine, and all Israel expected me to become king;
but the kingship eluded me and became my brother’s, for it was from Jehovah that it became his. But now there is
just one request that I am making of you. Do not turn me away.” So she said to him: “Speak.” He then said:
“Please, ask Solʹo·mon the king—for he will not turn you away—to give me Abʹi·shag the Shuʹnam·mite as a wife.”
To this Bath-sheʹba said: “Very well! I will speak for you to the king.”” (2:13-17)
When the first time I read this in my previous Bible reading program, I missed and did not follow-up on the
significance of this conversation between Adonijah and Bathsheba. In this conversation, Adonijah himself as
quoted recognized that ‘it was from Jehovah that it became [Solomon]’ what was supposed to have been
Adonijah’s, for being the oldest son. The ‘it’ referring to the kingship. What intrigued me, though the Bible does not
elaborate, is why did Adonijah requested Abishag knowing full well the implication of that request and the
previous rebellious conduct of his older brother Absalom when he had sexual intercourse with the ten concubines
of his father? His line of reasoning with Bathsheba clearly exposes a mindset that continues to believe that the
15 | P a g e
kingship should have been his, even citing ‘all Israel expected me to become king’. Why did Bathsheba agreed to
relay this message if Bathsheba is aware of the custom or rules of conduct around the king’s harem or
concubines? Scholars love to speculate and provide their own answers. Reflection opens up an investigation of
what is possible but not factual. The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight explains
“However, following David’s death, Adonijah approached Bath-sheba and induced her to act as his agent before
Solomon to request David’s youthful nurse and companion, Abishag, as his wife. Adonijah’s statement that “the
kingship was to have become mine, and it was toward me that all Israel had set their face for me to become king”
indicates that he felt he had been deprived of his right, even though he professedly acknowledged God’s hand in
the matter. (1Ki 2:13-21) While his request may have been based solely on the desire for some compensation for
the loss of the kingdom, it strongly suggested that the fires of ambition continued in Adonijah, since by a rule in
the ancient East the wives and concubines of a king would only become those of his legal successor. (Compare
2Sa 3:7; 16:21.) Solomon so viewed this request made through his mother and ordered Adonijah’s death, which
order was promptly carried out by Benaiah.—1Ki 2:22-25.” [1]
What is the import of such request given the custom of kings back in ancient times? Insight explains
“The marriage and family customs of the Judean kings included the practice of having a plurality of wives and
concubines, although the Law stipulated that the king was not to multiply wives to himself. (De 17:17) The
concubines were considered to be crown property and were passed on to the successor to the throne along with
the rights and property of the king. To marry or take possession of one of the deceased king’s concubines was
tantamount to publishing a claim to the throne. Hence, Absalom’s having relations with the concubines of his
father, King David, and Adonijah’s requesting as wife Abishag, David’s nurse and companion in his old age, were
equivalent to claims on the throne. (2Sa 16:21, 22; 1Ki 2:15-17, 22) These were treasonable acts.” [2]
A professor of Old Testament believes that Bathsheba knew what this request meant and she acted to protect
Solomon. The blog article said
“Many scholars see Solomon’s action to be a contradiction of his portrayal as a wise and merciful king. But the
author of the book of Kings is trying to persuade the reader that Solomon’s action was justified. The role
Bathsheba played in the preservation of her son’s throne reveals that she was a wise mother and a skilled
strategist who did what was necessary to preserve the life and the throne that belonged to her son. She saw the
threat Adonijah posed to her son and acted to help her son and save his life and his kingship.” [3]
Other scholars chimed in with their perspective on Bathsheba and her relationship with Abishag. One reference
says this
“Bathsheba’s perception of Abishag, noted in David’s death-bed scene before, is reflected again here. Why would
Bathsheba have agreed to carry Adonijah’s request to Solomon? Was it only to placate Adonijah so that he would
cause no further trouble, or was it perhaps that Bathsheba was a bit jealous of Abishag and did not want Solomon
to have her? Or did she, even more cunningly, anticipate Solomon’s reaction and see this as a way to get rid of
her son’s opposition permanently? In any case, the opportunity to have Abishag at the center of a troublesome
issue would not have been lost on Bathsheba.” [4]
Hence, the Bible reports the consequence to Adonijah of such request
“So Bath-sheʹba went in to King Solʹo·mon to speak to him for Ad·o·niʹjah. At once the king rose to meet her and
bowed down to her. Then he sat down on his throne and had a throne set for the king’s mother, so that she could
sit at his right. She then said: “There is one small request that I am making of you. Do not turn me away.” So the
king said to her: “Make it, my mother; for I will not turn you away.” She said: “Let Abʹi·shag the Shuʹnam·mite be
given as a wife to your brother Ad·o·niʹjah.” At this King Solʹo·mon answered his mother: “Why are you requesting
Abʹi·shag the Shuʹnam·mite for Ad·o·niʹjah? You may as well request the kingship for him, for he is my older
brother, and supporting him are A·biʹa·thar the priest and Joʹab the son of Ze·ruʹiah.”” (2:19-22)
Solomon knew the implication of the request and he knew who were conspiring with Adonijah on the matter. The
16 | P a g e
result? The Bible reports
“With that King Solʹo·mon swore by Jehovah: “So may God do to me and add to it if it was not at the cost of his
own life that Ad·o·niʹjah made this request. And now, as surely as Jehovah is living, who has firmly established
me and seated me on the throne of David my father and who made a house for me, just as he promised,
Ad·o·niʹjah will be put to death today.” King Solʹo·mon immediately sent Be·naiʹah the son of Je·hoiʹa·da, who
went out and struck Ad·o·niʹjah down, and he died.” (2:23-25)
David lost his older sons, all born in Hebron, in violence - Amnon, Absalom, and now Adonijah. Each one went
against the expressed will of Jehovah God as detailed in his covenant law and rebelled against His sovereignty.
References
[1] Adonijah. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 49.
[2] King. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 157.
[3] Mariottini, Claude. “Bathsheba: A Mother with Determination”, blog article at Dr. Claude Mariottini blog site.
[4] Berlin, Adele. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2005, p. 29.
17 | P a g e
11.5.2 Solomon Takes the Kingdom - Part 2

This portion of the narrative closes the era of David and his generation. The era of Solomon will commence
shortly. The realization of the covenant of God with David is now in full force with Solomon as king. Everyone else
who will rise up against him will pay the cost of treason and disobedience.
What happens to the conspirators of Adonijah? Solomon moved quickly with Adonijah’s co-conspirators. First with
Abiathar the priest
“To A·biʹa·thar the priest, the king said: “Go to your fields in Anʹa·thoth! You deserve to die, but on this day I will
not put you to death because you carried the Ark of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah before David my father and
because you shared in all the hardships that my father suffered.” So Solʹo·mon drove A·biʹa·thar out from serving
as a priest of Jehovah, to fulfill Jehovah’s word against the house of Eʹli in Shiʹloh.” (2:26,27)
This prophecy was uttered in the beginning of 1 Samuel. It was fulfilled about a 100 years later with Solomon
driving out Abiathar from the priesthood. Hence, the book of 1 King was a testimony to the fulfillment of the word
of Jehovah from 1 Samuel.
Insight commented on this action
“King Solomon took no immediate action against Abiathar, but when evidence showed that the plot was still
smoldering, he ordered Adonijah’s and Joab’s death and banished priest Abiathar from Jerusalem, saying: “Go to
Anathoth to your fields! For you are deserving of death; but on this day I shall not put you to death, because you
carried the ark of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah before David my father, and because you suffered affliction during
all the time that my father suffered affliction.” (1Ki 2:26)” [1]
Finally, Solomon moved swiftly to Joab. The Bible reports
“When the news reached Joʹab—for Joʹab had supported Ad·o·niʹjah but he had not supported Abʹsa·lom—Joʹab
fled to the tent of Jehovah and grabbed hold of the horns of the altar. Then King Solʹo·mon was told: “Joʹab has
fled to the tent of Jehovah, and he is there beside the altar.” So Solʹo·mon sent Be·naiʹah the son of Je·hoiʹa·da,
saying: “Go, strike him down!”” (2:27-29)
Adonijah’s death was definitely bad news for Joab. He knew Solomon was moving fast against the conspiracy as
the Bible writer put it “for Joab had supported Adonijah”. His loyalty to the new king was now questionable. He
probably heard the news that he will be put to death. What did Joab do? He went to Gibeon where the tent of
Jehovah was, entered the sanctuary and hid by the altar. This is where Adonijah went last time when he was
spared. Will Joab be spared like Adonijah the last time he was there? The Bible reports what happened next
“So Be·naiʹah went to the tent of Jehovah and said to him: “This is what the king says, ‘Come out!’” But he said:
“No! I will die here.” Be·naiʹah brought word back to the king: “This is what Joʹab said, and this is what he
answered me.”” (2:30)
Benaiah did not take any action the first time he went. But when he returned with Solomon’s instruction, he was
put to death. Solomon citing the deaths of Abner and Amasa whose blood was asked from Joab. Scholars noted
the omission of Joab’s contribution to the death of Uriah and Absalom, for whom David grieved hard (2:31-34).
Thus, the long career of Joab, David’s commander since David’s youth ended.
One paper explored what Solomon did here
“In any case, we can be certain of how the execution of Joab was explained by Solomon. He believed that
Adonijah, Abiathar, and Joab were plotting to overthrow him, and thus had them punished for treason. In Joab’s
case, though, Solomon’s speech emphasizes that YHWH was returning the blood of Abner and Amasa onto the
head of Joab. There is one thing we must be clear on: the charge that led to Joab’s execution was one of treason.
He was not officially being killed for two questionable murders he committed early in David’s reign. In this respect,
Wesselius is wrong in his assessment that “the grounds which they [David and Solomon] mentioned for
18 | P a g e
condemning Joab to death were weak.” Joab was executed because he was suspected of treason. The murders
of Abner and Amasa were further justifications for it, but they were not the charges that led to his execution. From
Solomon’s point of view, Joab’s brutal actions towards David’s enemies in Israel had made him look bad, and
therefore had detrimental political ramifications throughout his reign. It was therefore imperative that Solomon, at
the beginning of his reign, clear David from any suspicion of murdering Abner, the commander of northern Israel
who originally supported Ishbaal, and Amasa, the Judean commander of Absalom’s army, in order to try to bring
peace to a kingdom that had been on the brink of chaos for over forty years. In a very pragmatic way, one can
see that executing Joab could very well satisfy certain northern factions and southern factions who were resistant
to the Davidic House precisely because of what was perceived to be unjust murders of their former commanders.
Solomon’s decision to execute Joab, in the sanctuary nonetheless, though it may seem bloody to us, was to a
certain extent politically justified, especially if Joab was indeed involved in a plot with Adonijah and Abiathar to
overthrow Solomon.” [2]
Other scholars believe the same position - Joab died of treason for supporting Adonijah more than his killing of
Abner and Amasa. As to why Joab did not put up a fight, being a soldier himself, one paper puts up this expert
opinion
“It remains puzzling why so resourceful a soldier as Joab should die without a fight, especially at the hand of
Benaiah who in a sense fulfils to Solomon the role which Joab had fulfilled to David during his reign, but with so
much less style and ability. At one level it may be suggested that once Adonijah his master was dead, Joab no
longer had any cause to promote. He could not transfer his allegiance to Solomon, and there was apparently no
third generation in the line from David through Adonijah. On another level, it may be fitting that he should not
outlive the king whose purposes he had served so faithfully and efficiently.” [3]
After the elimination of his enemies, Solomon quickly appointed their replacements
“Then the king appointed Be·naiʹah the son of Je·hoiʹa·da over the army in his place, and the king appointed
Zaʹdok the priest in place of A·biʹa·thar.” (2:35)
The last one that David gave instructions to Solomon to watch out for is Shimei. Solomon gave Shimei
instructions not to leave Jerusalem but he disobeyed. Shimei was put to death for that disobedience (2:36-46).
So the Bible concludes with the removal of all these enemies
“Thus the kingdom was firmly established in the hand of Solʹo·mon.” (2:46)
A new era has begun.
References
[1] Abiathar. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 19.
[2] Anderson, Joel Edmund. “A Narrative Reading of Solomon’s Execution of Joab in 1 Kings 1-2: Letting Story
Interpret Story”, Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament 1.1 (2012), p. 58.
[3] Nicol, George. “The Death of Joab abd the Accession of Solomon”, Scandinavian Journal of the Old
Testament, 7:1, Routledge, 2008, p. 150.
19 | P a g e
11.6 Solomon in Gibeon

11.6.1 Solomon in Gibeon - Part 1
I am now again in another transition, from Davidic regime era, to the Solomonic regime era. The Bible will now
introduce the setting of the times of Solomon when it comes to the worship of Jehovah God. What has happened
to what God required as to the legitimate way of worshiping Him? How do the scholars look at this history and its
reporting in the Bible?
“Solʹo·mon made a marriage alliance with Pharʹaoh king of Egypt. He married Pharʹaoh’s daughter and brought
her to the City of David until he finished building his own house, and the house of Jehovah, and the wall around
Jerusalem.” (3:1)
After establishing his kingship, Solomon’s first major event is marrying a non-Israelite. The patriarchs were careful
of not marrying a non-worshiper of Jehovah. The covenant law expressedly forbid inter-marriages for fear of
apostasy. A Bible-based publication comments on Solomon’s marriage
“Solomon formed “a marriage alliance with Pharaoh the king of Egypt and [took] Pharaoh’s daughter and [brought]
her to the City of David.” (1 Ki. 3:1) Did this Egyptian woman imitate Ruth by taking up true worship? Nothing
indicates that she did so. Rather, in time Solomon built a house for her (and perhaps her Egyptian maids) outside
the City of David. Why? The Scriptures say that he did so because it was not fitting for a false worshipper to dwell
near the ark of the covenant.—2 Chron. 8:11.
Solomon may have seen political advantages in marrying an Egyptian princess, yet could he justify it? Long
before, God had forbidden the marrying of pagan Canaanites, even listing certain peoples. (Ex. 34:11-16) Did
Solomon reason that Egypt was not one of those listed nations? Even if he reasoned that way, would such
rationalizing be valid? Actually, his course ignored the clear risk that Jehovah had mentioned—that of turning an
Israelite from true worship to false.—Read Deuteronomy 7:1-4.” [1]
Bible scholars are looking at this introduction as seemingly out of place to what happened next in the narrative
with respect to Solomon in Gibeon. One reference said
“However, even if Sanda and Montgomery are wrong, 3:1 should still not be considered the proper introduction to
the tale of Solomon at Gibeon. Scholars are unanimous in their belief that 1 Kgs 3:1-3 represents a separate
textual unit from the Gibeon dream narrative in 3:4-15.” [2]
The Bible writer, Jeremiah, did not comment on this marriage. But he did comment on what he wrote next
“But the people were still sacrificing on the high places, because until that time a house for the name of Jehovah
had not yet been built. Solʹo·mon continued to love Jehovah by walking in the statutes of David his father, except
that he was sacrificing and making offerings smoke on the high places.” (3: 2,3)
This verse started with a ‘but’ as if what the people were doing was wrong. With Solomon, there was an ‘except’
as if this to say Solomon himself was doing something unacceptable. Why? So, I back-tracked to the days of
Moses in the wilderness.
In the wilderness, there was a clear center of worship - the tabernacle which housed the ark of the covenant. As
the Israelites moved from one place to another, the tabernacle moved with them. What will happen once they
enter the Promised Land to the tabernacle? Where will it be located? The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight
summarizes the locations of the tabernacle inside what has become the territory of Israel
“After Israel crossed the Jordan River into the Promised Land, the tabernacle was set up at Gilgal. (Jos 4:19) It
was relocated at Shiloh during the time of dividing the land (Jos 18:1), where it remained for years (1Sa 1:3, 24)
before being moved to Nob. (1Sa 21:1-6) Later it was at Gibeon. (1Ch 21:29) When the ark of the covenant was
moved to Zion by David, it had not been in the tabernacle for many years.” [3]
Critical scholars question the late declaration of the Chronicles that identified the Tabernacle to be at Gibeon
20 | P a g e
when Bible books before it did not mention where it was. One book wrote
“The Chronicler, however, claims that Solomon’s frequenting Gibeon is in order as this was the seat of the
tabernacle (2 Chron 1.3) However, there is no other evidence for this beyond the statements of the Chronicler (cf.
1 Chron 16.39; 21.29).” [4]
Meanwhile, Insight reports what happened to the Ark of the Covenant
“The Ark had no permanent resting-place until the erection of Solomon’s temple. With the major conquest of the
land completed (c. 1467 B.C.E.), it was moved to Shiloh, where it apparently remained (with the exception of a
time when it was at Bethel) until captured by the Philistines. (Jos 18:1; Jg 20:26, 27; 1Sa 3:3; 6:1) Upon its return
to Israelite territory it rested successively at Beth-shemesh and Kiriath-jearim, at this latter place for about 70
years.—1Sa 6:11-14; 7:1, 2; 1Ch 13:5, 6.” [5]
It appears that offering sacrifices in “high places”, the way it was presented in the narrative, is not acceptable. To
the Bible writer, this must be important. He did not comment on the marriage of Solomon with the daughter of
Pharaoh (although there was no covenant law strictly forbidding it but the principle was there) but he did on the
offering in high places.
When Israel entered the promised land, Insight recalls what was the instruction of what was already existing then
in Canaan as high places
“Before entering the Promised Land, the Israelites were commanded to destroy the sacred high places of the
Canaanites and all the appendages of false worship associated therewith. (Nu 33:51, 52) But the Israelites failed
to do this, and after the death of Joshua and the older generation, wholesale apostasy set in.—Jg 2:2, 8-13; Ps
78:58.” [6]
So, given this background, why do I read in the books of Samuels and now Kings that God’s servants are offering
sacrifices in the high places? Insight explains
“According to Jehovah’s law, sacrifices were to be offered only at the place he designated. In the days of Joshua,
the Israelites recognized that the unauthorized building of an altar for burnt offering was, in effect, rebellion
against Jehovah. (De 12:1-14; Jos 22:29) However, there are indications that, after the sacred Ark was removed
from the tabernacle (1Sa 4:10, 11; 6:1, 10-14; 7:1, 2), approved sacrificing at places other than the tent of
meeting was done, not only under special circumstances but, in some cases, also on somewhat of a regular basis.
(1Sa 7:7-9; 10:8; 11:14, 15; 16:4, 5; 1Ki 3:3; 1Ch 21:26-30) On the high place at an unnamed city in the land of
Zuph, a structure had been erected where, it seems, the communion sacrifices could be eaten. The dining hall
there accommodated about 30 men, if not more. Even the girls in the city were familiar with the sacrificial
procedure there. (1Sa 9:5, 11-13, 22-25) It may also have been a practice for families to have a yearly sacrifice,
not at the tabernacle, but in their own cities.—1Sa 20:6, 29.
The sacrificing on high places was excused on the ground that no house had been built to the name of Jehovah.
Hence, Solomon had to sacrifice on the great high place at Gibeon, where the tabernacle was located at the
time.—1Ki 3:2-4; 1Ch 16:37-40, 43; 21:29; 2Ch 1:3, 13; see ALTAR; OFFERINGS.” [7]
The covenant law in Deuteronomy was explicit when it came to the venue of sacrifices
“Be careful not to offer up your burnt offerings in any other place you may see. You should offer your burnt
offerings only in the place that Jehovah chooses in one of your tribal territories, and there you should do
everything I am commanding you.” (Deuteronomy 12: 13,14)
Embedded in the explanation above was the apparent dependency on the removal of the Ark of the Covenant
from the tabernacle where it was last at Shiloh. The Philistines destroyed Shiloh during the time of the Judges
because of the constant rebellion of the Israelites. Ever since then, Jehovah apparently approved sacrifices on
other high places other than the one designated by Jehovah. That place was already designated by God by
approving David’s son Solomon to build the temple in Jerusalem.
21 | P a g e
This is why critical scholars consider the book of Deuteronomy all the way to the Kings and Chroniclers were all
books written by the so-called Deuteronomist and what this so-called Deuteronomist wrote is called
Deuteronomistic history.
One article commented on this view
“Martin Noth’s Deuteronomistic History hypothesis views the Former Prophets as a unified narrative expressing a
unified theological perspective, namely, the perspective of Deuteronomy. Three arguments in favor of the
hypothesis are emphasized by Noth’s defenders. First, in spite of a few incompatible sources and additions, a
series of end-of-era summary speeches are said to glue each section to the next. Second, slightly overlapping
chronological systems in Judges and Kings are alleged to demonstrate that the narrative was conceived as a
unified history. Third, a series of prophetic predictions followed by explicitly marked fulfillment notices are said to
reflect deuteronomistic teaching about prophecy and divine intervention. Although defenders of the hypothesis do
not agree on how many deuteronomistic writers contributed to the Former Prophets, Noth’s basic idea has
become a consensus within the guild of Hebrew biblical scholarship. Unfortunately, Noth’s hypothesis is not
compelling.” [8]
Although the scholar who wrote the article promote the idea that there have been many redactors or revisors of
this collection, due to his and others textual analysis of the books and others books in the so-called Former
Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings as opposed to the Latter Prophets and Minor Prophets collection),
Insight took this position with respect to Kings alone
“Some scholars see in the books of Kings what they consider to be evidence of the work of more than one writer
or compiler. However, except for variation because of the sources used, it must be observed that the language,
style, vocabulary, and grammar are uniform throughout.” [9]
References
[1] “Is He a Good Example for You or a Warning?”, The Watchtower, December 15, 2011, p. 10.
[2] Wilson, Stephen. Making Men: The Male Coming-Of-Age Theme in the Hebrew Bible, Oxford University Press,
2015, p. 121.
[3] Tabernacle. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1060.
[4] Rezetko, Robert, Ed.. Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme
Auld, Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands, 2007, p. 131.
[5] Ark of the Covenant. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 167.
[6] High Places. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1107.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Noll, K.L. “Deuteronomistic History or Deuteronomic Debate? (A Thought Experiment), Journal for the Study of
the Old Testament Vol 31.2 (2007), London: Sage Publications, p. 312.
22 | P a g e
11.6.2 Solomon in Gibeon - Part 2

What is the relationship between the narrative of Solomon asking God for wisdom and making the later amazing
decision between two women? What is the significance of Solomon offering 1,000 burnt sacrifices in Gibeon?
Was God pleased by such outward show of devotion? What does Solomon’s request for wisdom and God’s
pleasure in hearing it informs me about things to ask God for? These are my reflection notes.
“The king went to Gibʹe·on to sacrifice there, for that was the most prominent high place. Solʹo·mon offered 1,000
burnt sacrifices on that altar.” (3:4)
What do I already know about Gibeon? It is here that the tabernacle was installed but without the Ark of the
covenant which is the symbol of God’s presence. In the tabernacle, before the Holy portion of the tabernacle, the
outer room, stands the altar of burnt offering. Here, 1,000 burnt sacrifices mostly of bulls were burnt. What is a
burnt offering? The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight explains
“Burnt offerings were presented in their entirety to God; no part of the animal being retained by the worshiper.
(Compare Jg 11:30, 31, 39, 40.) They constituted an appeal to Jehovah to accept, or to signify acceptance of, the
sin offering that sometimes accompanied them.” [1]
How long would that take and what is the significance of this effort? One blog article has this to say
“Consequently, Solomon devoted a thousand burnt offerings on that altar with his officials and leaders in order to
display to God their faithfulness at the high place at Gibeon. In addition, he prayed that God would bless him and the
Israelites. A burnt offering is one that is consumed by fire and regarded as ascending to God while being consumed.
Part of every offering was burnt in the sacred fire, but this was wholly burnt to God. Therefore, they devote to God this
burnt offering when they want to have a good relationship with God or want to give themselves to God. In this way,
Solomon sacrificed on that altar at Gibeon for himself and Israel at the beginning of his reign.
However, the most notable fact is that there is no record of a thousand offerings in the Bible except this story, so this
proves not only the devotion of the Israelites but also Solomon’s obedience and enthusiasm. However, some scholars
comment that the thousand burnt offerings take a minimum of seven or eight days in order to devote to God. Never-
theless, some scholars claim that Solomon devoted his thousand burnt offerings over a thousand days; however, the
former seems to be right when we interpret this story in this sense.” [2]
These 1,000 burnt offerings must have been appreciated by Jehovah God as a sign of devotion by Solomon and Israel.
For the next portion of the narrative is positive. The Bible reports
“In Gibʹe·on Jehovah appeared to Solʹo·mon in a dream by night, and God said: “Ask what you would like me to
give you.”” (3:5)
I don’t know of anyone else from whom God has given the privilege to respond to this. It is only Solomon that the
Bible specifically says ‘Jehovah loved him’ when he was born (2 Samuel 12:24). So, this is a rare privilege for
God to speak this way to Solomon, from the Universal Sovereign, the real King behind the throne of David,
speaking to his representative king. We already know what Solomon asked for. The Bible reported
“At this Solʹo·mon said: “You have shown great loyal love toward your servant David my father as he walked
before you in faithfulness and in righteousness and in uprightness of heart. You have continued to show him this
great loyal love down to this day by giving him a son to sit on his throne. And now, Jehovah my God, you have
made your servant king in the place of David my father, though I am just a youth and I am inexperienced. Your
servant is among your people whom you have chosen, a people so vast that they cannot be numbered or counted.
So grant your servant an obedient heart to judge your people, to discern between good and bad, for who is able
to judge this numerous people of yours?”” (3:6-9)
From Solomon’s response in the dream, he asked for an “obedient heart” and wisdom to be able to “discern
between good and bad”. I personally appreciated that request as a validation of what drove Solomon to offer
23 | P a g e
1,000 burnt offerings. He has devotion for God even in His youth and despite his early mistakes. God loved him
despite his imperfections. The Bible reports God’s response
“It was pleasing to Jehovah that Solʹo·mon had requested this.” (3:10)
For a human to do something that will actually please the Creator of all things, the Sovereign of the Universe, and
make His heart glad, that was something. (Proverbs 27:11) I can imagine God’s smile of divine favor from the
heavens every time I choose to do His will no matter the hardship at times. The Bible now discloses God’s
reaction
“God then said to him: “Because you requested this and you did not request for yourself long life or riches or the
death of your enemies, but you requested understanding to hear judicial cases, I will do what you asked. I will
give you a wise and understanding heart, so that just as there has never been anyone like you before, there will
never be anyone like you again. Furthermore, what you have not requested I will give you, both riches and glory,
so that there will be no other king like you in your lifetime. And if you walk in my ways by keeping my regulations
and my commandments, just as David your father walked, I will also give you a long life.”” (3:11-14)
That Jehovah God is pleased with Solomon after the report of his marriage with non-Israelites is noted by a Bible-
based publication
“It is interesting that after mentioning Solomon’s marriage to that foreign princess, the Bible relates that God
granted his request for wisdom, and He also added riches. (1 Ki. 3:10-13) Solomon had ignored God’s
instructions, yet there is no indication that Jehovah quickly rejected him as king or strongly disciplined him. That
accords with the fact that God realizes that we are imperfect humans, made from dust. (Ps. 103:10, 13, 14)” [3]
Regarding God’s use of dreams to communicate with humans, Insight discussed the dreams recorded in Genesis
- Abimelech with respect to Sarah, Abram’s own dream, Jacob’s at Luz (Bethel), Joseph’s, Pharaoh’s own- and
other dreams in the rest of the Bible, particularly Daniel’s. So, prior to this Solomonic dream, the Bible has already
recorded other instances where God used it to communicate with humans.
The Bible reports what happened next
“When Solʹo·mon awoke, he realized that it had been a dream. Then he went to Jerusalem and stood before the
ark of the covenant of Jehovah and offered up burnt sacrifices and communion offerings and spread a feast for all
his servants.” (3:15)
Because of the positive dream message from Jehovah God, Solomon went from Gibeon, where the tabernacle
was, to where the Ark of the Covenant was, in Jerusalem. He stood before the symbolic presence of God on earth.
There he again offered up burnt sacrifices as an expression of his devotion.
Such burnt offerings require personal sacrifices because God demanded that only the best bulls, or best sheep,
or goats are to be offered up as a whole burnt offering. So, Solomon offered at first 1,000 of the best bulls he and
the Israelites had. Then, in addition, he again offered up more whole burnt offerings to Jehovah God.
Although Jehovah God is pleased with such offerings, I am reminded of what Jehovah through the prophet
Samuel told Saul when he disobeyed God in the pretext of offering the bulls for sacrifice to Jehovah
“Look! To obey is better than a sacrifice, to pay attention than the fat of rams.” (1 Samuel 15:22)
Solomon’s father learned this after his own disobedience followed by his father’s repentance
“For you do not want a sacrifice—otherwise I would give it;

You do not find delight in a whole burnt offering.
The sacrifices pleasing to God are a broken spirit;
A heart broken and crushed, O God, you will not reject.” (Psalms 51:16,17)
This informs that Jehovah God is not appeased by outward show of devotion. He still examines the heart of the
24 | P a g e
one making such outward show. In the case of Solomon, Jehovah God was pleased. Despite the early failures of
Solomon, Jehovah has assessed his imperfect heart. At that point in time, it still brought joy in His heart.
References
[1]*** it-2 p. 525 Offerings ***

[2] Park, Paul. “Why Did King Solomon Devote a Thousand Burnt Offerings to God?”,OBST 591 Reflections blog
site. Available (online).
[3]*** w11 12/15 p. 11 par. 15 Is He a Good Example for You or a Warning? ***
25 | P a g e
11.7 The Case of the Single Child and Two Mothers

A well-known story from the Bible is the judgment of Solomon over two women who claimed the same child. This
narrative came after the dream in Gibeon where Solomon asked from God to give him an “obedient heart” and
wisdom to judge the people of Israel. Jehovah God was pleased with Solomon’s request that even those that he
did not ask for Jehovah God generously gave also to Solomon. It was not unconditional though. God linked those
rewards with Solomon staying faithful to Him just like his father David.
What can we learn from this judicial case about process, about Solomon, and about women of the time? Is this an
evidence of wisdom? Did Solomon did the right thing? On what did he based his judgment? There is a lot of noise
around this matter as there are scholars. This is my reflection note.
The Bible narrative opens this way
“At that time two prostitutes came in to the king and stood before him.” (3:16)
The narrative introduces to us two women, described as prostitutes. Their names were not disclosed. What sort of
prostitute are they? The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight offered an explanation
“It was the case of two prostitutes, handled in a wise and understanding way, that greatly strengthened the faith of
the people in Solomon as the fitting successor of David to the throne of Israel. Probably the case had been one
upon which the judges of the lower court could not decide, and it was referred, therefore, to the king. (De 1:17;
17:8-11; 1Sa 8:20) These women may have been prostitutes, not in a commercial sense, but women who had
committed fornication, either Jewish women or, quite possibly, women of foreign descent.—1Ki 3:16-28.” [1]
The Bible does not explain much about their being prostitutes or as Insight explains fornicators. But the Law
forbids fornication either by an engaged woman or married woman with capital punishment as penalty. (Deut.
22:22-27) The unengaged girl would be married to the man who fornicated with her and would not be allowed to
divorce her. (Deut. 22:28,29) The fact that they were not meted this punishment and are not apparently married
may imply that they are of foreign descent.
Scholars ask the question of did Solomon did the right thing? Was the true mother really discovered? One paper
promoted this answer
“The obvious answer is that we have no way of knowing; there is no way for us to get outside the story and either
corroborate it or falsify with other evidence. Consequently, I will not pretend to be wiser than Solomon. Instead, I
will proceed assuming that Solomon was as wise as the biblical tradition has always asserted and I will ask
wherein his wisdom lies. In doing so, I will be swimming against the tide of the standard law school analysis.
When law professors address Solomon’s judgment, they tend to argue: did Solomon get it right? And the standard
ploy is to demonstrate the ways in which one can challenge the judgment.” [2]
Then, the author of this paper offered the position below
“But we should not travel in the other direction; we should not judge her to have abused a child because we feel
disgust for her. And so, in the case of Solomon’s judgment, we search for a reasonable grounds for judging that
the second woman could not be the mother. And since logic is one of the best of all reasonable grounds, we try to
rest our conclusions on an argument that has impeccable logical credentials.” [3]
Then, the writer asserts that if our logic was that a true mother would not say things that are contrary to being a
mother and hold our conclusion that because the other woman did say or agree with a bad thing, she is not a true
mother, then the premise is suspect. Even true mothers do bad things with their children. The writer claims that
evidences are sometimes incomplete, inconclusive, or inconsistent and the witnesses are fallible. Feminist critics
take this position as well.
The Bible narrates that the first woman claimed but does not explain why both of them live in the same house.
Apparently their beds would be adjacent with each other. Nobody else was there. She witnessed the other woman
26 | P a g e
lost her child and the only witness to the supposed event. When she fell asleep, the other woman switched the
babies. When the first woman woke up she discovered that the dead baby with her is not hers. (3:17-21)
At this point the other or second woman was given a speech
“But the other woman said: “No, my son is the living one, and your son is the dead one!”” (3:22a)
Then, the first woman countered
“But the first woman was saying: “No, your son is the dead one, and my son is the living one.”” (3:22b)
Was the first woman being deceitful and playing nice to Solomon hoping Solomon can be deceived? What about
the reaction of the second woman? Was she being deceitful and boldly claiming a child not hers? How did
Solomon resolved the issue? The Bible narrative continues?
“Finally the king said: “This one says, ‘This is my son, the living one, and your son is the dead one!’ and that one
says, ‘No, your son is the dead one, and my son is the living one!’” The king said: “Bring me a sword.” So they
brought a sword to the king.”” (3:23-24)
From the context of law and procedures, some critics ask, who of us today would admire a judge who brings out a
deadly weapon to resolve a judicial case between two arguing parties? They claim that this is exactly what
Solomon did. One paper commented on this stage of the procedures
“In the traditional evidence course interpretation, Solomon’s violence and impatience and radical disregard for due
process recede into the background. We are supposed to stand in awe of Solomon for anticipating the modern
“best interest of the child” standard. Solomon did not have to determine who the biological mother was – that is
not the “fact of consequence,” as professors like to say, using Federal Rules of Evidence language. He
determined who should have custody, and of course, we say a woman who would have her baby cut in two if she
could not get her selfish way is a worse custodian than the woman who gives up her own interests for the sake of
the child. Of course.” [4]
Now, back to the story. At this point Solomon, who still remains unnamed in this narrative, declared
“The king then said: “Cut the living child in two, and give half to one woman and half to the other.”” (3:25)
Here, critics are asking whether Solomon was bluffing or not. Solomon they claim is trying to secure a confession
under the threat of violence. Some even go so far that this is like torturing a witness to extract a confession. Other
scholars even propose what Solomon could have done
“The failure of Solomon to use other methods of inquiry to discover the truth is sometimes noted by scholars
(Hens-Piazza 1996: 147; Lasine 1989: 63–66). Solomon could have cross-examined the women, looked for other
unknown witnesses, character witnesses, or he could have looked for physical evidence such as the babies’
navels. If the babies were born several days apart, the degree of healing where the umbilical cord was severed
would indicate relative age. But Phyllis Bird (1989: 183) concludes ‘he does not attempt to discern the truth
through interrogation – a hopeless approach with habitual liars’. Claudia Camp (1992: 100) also reads this
assumption with the help of wisdom writing that characterises harlot speech as deceitful: ‘female sexuality that
exists outside of male control functions as a metaphor for deceitful speech, and the character of the “harlot” thus
poses the ultimate test of kingly wisdom’.” [5]
The Bible now discloses two different responses. The first woman responded
“At once the woman whose son was the living one pleaded with the king, for her compassions were stirred toward
her son. She said: “Please, my lord! You should give her the living child! By no means put him to death!”” (3:26a)
If I pause and reflect on how the Bible writer depicted the first woman here, the phrase “her compassions were
stirred” plays an important modifier. This was not said of the other woman, the second prostitute. Solomon could
have seen and sense something with this woman distinct to her that made this an important data to add in the
27 | P a g e
narrative.
Meanwhile, the other woman declared
“But the other woman was saying: “He will be neither mine nor yours! Let them cut him in two!”” (3:26b)
Interestingly, feminist critics do not see in this response a necessarily negative against the second woman. They
see the first woman as surrendering to violence while the second woman to resisting violence at great cost to her.
Critics are discussing whether Solomon was trying to prove who the real mom was or who was the better mom.
Either way, modern critics disagree that Solomon has made the right decision based on available evidence, or
“facts of consequence” and their relevance.
One book described the approach of Solomon here
“In one interpretation, Solomon employed abductive reasoning in identifying the sword as a useful tool to generate
additional evidence that would aid him in deciding the question before him (see pages 2–3). Kemelman and Welt
were engaging in abductive reasoning throughout their analysis in “The Nine Mile Walk,” especially when they
searched for ways to set up and test the hypothesis that the statement concerning a “nine mile walk” reflected
events that had actually occurred (see pages 11–18).”[6]
I checked what is abductive reasoning and I found out that it is a form of logical inference which goes from an
observation to a theory which accounts for the observation, ideally seeking to find the simplest and most likely
explanation. In effect, the sword was a tool to test Solomon’s own theory. This is all looking at this from a human
standpoint without even considering the possibility that as the Bible would reveal - the role of God’s wisdom.
Now, the Bible discloses that the king after hearing the immediate responses of the two, he passed judgment
“At that the king answered: “Give the living child to the first woman! By no means put him to death, for she is his
mother.”” (3:27)
So, the question, on what did Solomon based his judgment under the threat of violence to the women? Verse 25
is to me the clincher. The narrative ends which connects it to the Gibeon dream
“So all Israel heard about the judgment that the king had handed down, and they were in awe of the king, for they
saw that the wisdom of God was with him to execute justice.” (3:28)
References
[1]*** it-2 pp. 700-701 Prostitute ***

[2] LaRue, L.H. “Solomon’s judgment: A short essay on proof”, Law, Probability and Risk 3 (2004), p. 13.
[3] Ibid., p. 16.
[4] Althouse, Ann. Beyond King Solomon's Harlots: Women in Evidence 65 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1265 (1992).
[5] Ipsen, Avaren. Solomon and the Two Prostitutes, The Bible and Critical Theory, Vol. 3, Number 1, 2007,
Monash University Express.
[6] Twining, William. Analysis of Evidence, Second Edition. Cambridge University Press, 2005, p. 99.
28 | P a g e
11.8 The Reign of Solomon

11.8.1 The Reign of Solomon - Part 1
This chapter summarizes the glory days of King Solomon, the peace and prosperity during his reign, the lack of
wars and enemies, and details the cabinet of his administration. His dominion is described here and his fame is
reportedly have spread in the ancient Near East. The Bible also reported that Solomon continue to fail in little
things forbidden by the covenant law for kings. Yet, it appears that Jehovah God chose to let it go at this time.
God chose to be patient with Solomon.
What does Solomon’s cabinet officials tell me in terms of their division of labor? in terms of delegation of work?
What does this imagery tell me about God’s kingdom rule when it is finally realized by the Messiah himself? This
is my reflection note.
First, the chapter revealed the officers in Solomon’s government (4:1-6)
“King Solʹo·mon ruled over all Israel. These were his high officials:
* Az·a·riʹah the son of Zaʹdok was the priest;

* El·i·horʹeph and A·hiʹjah the sons of Shiʹsha were secretaries;
* Je·hoshʹa·phat the son of A·hiʹlud was the recorder;
* Be·naiʹah the son of Je·hoiʹa·da was in charge of the army;
* Zaʹdok and A·biʹa·thar were priests;
* Az·a·riʹah the son of Nathan was over the deputies;
* Zaʹbud the son of Nathan was a priest and the king’s friend;
* A·hiʹshar was over the household; and
* Ad·o·niʹram the son of Abʹda was over those conscripted for forced labor.
In the list above, the term priest is often used. But this is another use for the word ‘priest’ outside of the roles of
priests in the tabernacle. The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight explains
“The word “priest” was also used occasionally to denote a “lieutenant” or “chief minister or official.” In the list of
the chief officers serving under King David the record reads: “As for the sons of David, they became priests.”—
2Sa 8:18; compare 2Sa 20:26; 1Ki 4:5; 1Ch 18:17.” [1]
The role of “secretaries” as performed by Elihoreph and Ahijas was described by Insight
“At least at times in Israel there was a trusted court official of high rank called “the secretary of the king” or “the
secretary.” (2Ch 24:11; 2Ki 19:2) He was not simply a scribe who was employed in making documents, nor was
he merely a copyist of the Law. (Jg 5:14; Ne 13:13; compare 2Sa 8:15-18; 20:23-26; see COPYIST; SCRIBE.) On
occasion the secretary of the king handled financial matters (2Ki 12:10, 11) and spoke as a representative of the
king, in a capacity similar to that of a ‘foreign secretary.’ (Isa 36:2-4, 22; 37:2, 3) Under Solomon’s rule two of the
“princes” are named as secretaries.—1Ki 4:2, 3; compare 2Ch 26:11; 34:13.” [2]
Another function was “recorder”. This role was described by Insight

“A highly responsible officer in the royal court of Israel. The title is translated from a form of the Hebrew word
za·kharʹ (remember) and literally means “remembrancer.” (2Sa 8:16, ftn) His duties are not described in the Bible,
but it appears that he was the official chronicler of the kingdom, furnishing the king with information on
developments in the realm and also reminding him of important matters for his attention, supplying advice on
them.
On occasion the recorder represented the king on important national matters.” [3]
From the previous chapter, the Bible already narrated that Solomon removed Abiathar as high priest and replaced
him with Zadok. Insight explains what the mention of the two together in the list could mean
“Solomon expelled Abiathar from Jerusalem and made Zadok high priest. This fulfilled Jehovah’s prophecy
29 | P a g e
spoken against Eli’s house. (1Ki 2:26, 27, 35) The later listing of “Zadok and Abiathar” at 1 Kings 4:4 is probably
in a historical sense. Josephus claims that Zadok was the first high priest at Solomon’s temple. (Jewish
Antiquities, X, 152 [viii, 6])” [4]
Zabud has a special function. Insight describes him this way

“A priestly adviser of King Solomon; son of Nathan. (1Ki 4:5) It is not certain, but Zabud’s father Nathan may have
been the prophet who was a close adviser of King David.—2Sa 7:3; 12:1.” [5]
In King David’s time, Hushai was described as the king’s friend and counselor. This distinction now goes to Zabud.
And the role of Joab in King David’s government, Benaiah now assumes under King Solomon.
A paper summarized these various roles
“First, the commander of the army has responsibility in recruiting, training, moving soldiers to wars, so his primary
job has to do with security of the land. This security concerns not just about external threats like foreign invasions
but also about internal conflicts that might challenge the royal power. Now about the royal herald, his job includes
the work of royal communication to the king, duties of protocol work, and accompanying the king on journeys (De
Vaux, 132). Third, the two chief priests oversee religious matters and their primary function in the cabinet has to
do with providing religious legitimation of the royal power though the temple rituals. Also in times of war they
should tell the people the necessity of the holy war supported by God. The presence of the chief priests tells of
the fact that religion and the state worked together. Fourth, the duties of the chief of corvée include mobilizing of
the labor forces required to do Solomon’s aggressively various building projects (1 Kings 5:27; 9:15). This post
should work with local governors because the labor force should come out of the whole provinces. Fifth, the
officer over the governors does a job related with taxation of the local provinces. Sixth, the secretary (sopher)
mainly concerns the “official correspondence, both external and internal” and his job includes record keeping of
taxes, tolls, and tribute (Bright, 203). So under him many scribes work to assume a huge task of job as such.
Smith’s study hints the importance of scribal functions in ancient world as he relates the Assyrian king’s support
for scribal acts to the effective royal administration (Smith, 28). Seventh, the secretary of the palace works in
managing the royal property and the logistics of the palace. Lastly, the king’s friend concerns the matters of the
king’s private life, providing a personal counseling service to the king. (Bright, 203).” [6]
Insight compares the two administrations of David and of Solomon

“Upon the establishment of the kingdom in Israel, a more complete system of administration developed. Under
King David the administrative structure was quite detailed, with officials directly under the king and with divisional
administrators serving throughout the country. (1Ch 26:29-32; 27:1, 16-22, 25-34) The priesthood was also
thoroughly organized during David’s reign, with supervisors for the tabernacle work, officers and judges,
gatekeepers, singers and musicians, and the setting up of 24 priestly divisions for handling the service at the
tabernacle. (1Ch 23:1-5; 24:1-19) Solomon’s administration was even more extensive and provides an
outstanding example of capable administration in the construction of the temple.—1Ki 4:1-7, 26, 27; 5:13-18.” [7]
An interesting archaeological find is claimed by Bible-believing scholars as proof of such advanced and well-
organized administration was discovered in Israel. One scholar who interpreted the text from a jar says it is old
Hebrew from the time of Solomon. The report says
“Of all the region’s languages, Galil noted, only southern Hebrew wrote the word yayin with two instances of the
letter yod, rather than one.
According to Galil’s interpretation, the inscription describes the wine that was in the jar bearing the inscription.
The first letter is a final mem, which could be the end of the word "esrim" (twenty) or "shloshim" (thirty,) referring
to either the twentieth or thirtieth year of Solomon’s reign. Next comes the word "yayin" (wine) followed by the
word "halak", and then the letter mem, the first letter of the wine’s place of origin.
"Halak" is an oenological term from the Northern Syrian language of Ugarit. It referred to the lowest of three types
30 | P a g e
of wine – “good wine,” “no good wine” and lowly "halak". Galil speculated that the poor-quality wine was drunk by
the king's conscript labor force working on various building projects.” [8]
References
[1] Priest. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 686.
[2] Secretary. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 885.
[3] Recorder. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 762.
[4] Zadok. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1218.
[5] Zabud. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1217.
[6] Kim, Yung-Suk. “The Organization Chart of Solomon’s Administration”.
[7] Administration. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 48.
[8] Hasson, Nir. “Inscription on Jar From Time of King Solomon May Refer to Cheap Wine”, Haaretz blog site.
31 | P a g e

God promises through the Bible that He will provide a world ruler that will restore peace and prosperity to the
Earth through the Messiah. A key story of the Bible is how this came about. Now, I know that this Messiah is the
Lord Jesus himself. By reading the Old Testament, I am getting a sort of a pre-sequel story which is so common
today in the entertainment world. Movies about beginnings and how it all started. That is my journey by reading
the Bible from the Hebrew portion, or the Hebrew Scriptures, also known as the Old Testament.
The reign of Solomon is the first I ever read since the days of King Saul that the general situation of peace and
security was described in a very positive way. In the days of the judges leading to King Saul, Israel because of its
pattern of disobedience to the covenant law was frequently at war or under occupation by its hostile neighbors.
During the days of King David, the major hostile neighbors were finally subjugated or neutralized by the king
namely, the Philistines, Ammonites and Moabites.
For many Bible readers, his reign is a foretaste of what the future world ruler or Messiah will do for us. The Bible
described his reign this way
“Judah and Israel were as numerous as the grains of sand by the sea; they were eating and drinking and
rejoicing.” (4:20)
If we compare this verse with verse 24, 25
“He enjoyed peace in every region, all around him. Judah and Israel lived in security, everyone under his own
vine and under his own fig tree, from Dan to Beʹer-sheʹba, all the days of Solʹo·mon.” (4:25)
How do critical scholars view this description of Solomon’s reign? One book wrote
“The summary description of wealth and stability during the time of Solomon culminates in the sentence that
sounds like true utopia: “During Solomon’s lifetime Judah and Israel lived in safety, from Dan to Beer-sheba, all of
them under their vines and fig trees” (5:5; cf. Mic 4:4) Now the narrative focuses not only on (northern) Israel but
on the entire united kingdom that Solomon took over from David. All the inhabitants of the heartland enjoy an
equally high standard of living, claims the narrator.” [1]
Another paper was more negative in its assessment
“Indeed, virtually the entire aspect of Solomon’s reign fits the pattern of typical ancient Near Eastern royal
ideology and propaganda.” [2]
This reference says that scholars, for example, cannot take at face value the recorded marriage of Solomon with
the daughter of Pharaoh at the beginning of this chapter because there is no available evidence today that
validate that event. Instead, what is available is that Pharaohs do not marry their daughters with foreigners as the
current state of discoveries.
However, archaeology have come up with discoveries in a location called Tel Dan which uncovered different
fragments that leads to identifying the existence of the “house of David”, the kings Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah
of Judah.
Dietrich wrote his expert opinion
“Based on this information, a certain David would have founded a dynasty that had already become a household
name with its own specific pronunciation even in foreign countries during the time in which the Tel Dan inscription
was written. This does not occur overnight; it takes generations.” [3]
In other words, for a foreigner to write something about a foreign personality like King David years beyond David’s
time can only mean the dynasty of David had been around for years.
Instead of taking the biblical report at their face value, critical scholars class the biblical data with the reports of
other Ancient Near Eastern nations which are heavily slanted for propaganda. What these critical scholars failed
32 | P a g e
to note is that these other ANE story-tellers had never mentioned negative reports about their kings less they
minimize the glory these kings wanted to portray themselves.
The Bible writers are way above the league of such writers. Bible writers report the very failures of these kings in
a time where there is no media to expose such failures of administration. Hence, a Bible reader can trust the
information that the Bible writers put in the Bible.
The dominion of Solomon is also described
“Solʹo·mon ruled over all the kingdoms from the River to the land of the Phi·lisʹtines and to the boundary of Egypt.
They brought tribute and served Solʹo·mon all the days of his life.” (4:21)
From these territories, Solomon’s government was well supplied with food - flour, cattle and meat - as reported
below (4:22-26)
“Solʹo·mon’s food for each day was
* 30 cor measures of fine flour (1 cor = 220L. Hence, 6,600L)

* 60 cor measures of flour (13,200L)
* 10 fattened cattle
* 20 pastured cattle
*100 sheep, besides some stags, gazelles, roebucks, and fattened cuckoos.
One notable item in the description of Solomon’s reign is the quantity of horses.
“And Solʹo·mon had 4,000 stalls of horses for his chariots and 12,000 horses.” (4:26)
Insight comments about these horses
“During Solomon’s reign, royal merchants trafficked in horses and chariots. The price of a horse was 150 silver
pieces ($330, if the silver pieces were shekels), and the price of a chariot was 600 silver pieces (c. $1,320, if
shekels).—1Ki 10:28, 29; 2Ch 1:16, 17.” [4]
However, Insight notes that the covenant law has a restriction for kings when it comes to horses, something
Solomon ignored
“God’s chosen people of ancient times, the Israelites, though, were not to be like the Egyptians and other
contemporary nations that considered horses and chariots indispensable to safety and independence. Israel’s
kings were forbidden to increase horses for themselves. (De 17:15, 16) Instead of trusting in military might,
horses, and chariots, the Israelites were to look to Jehovah for help, and they were never to become fearful of the
war equipment of their foes.—De 20:1-4; Ps 20:7; 33:17; Ho 1:7.” [5]
This is a good example where Bible writers do not hide or conceal failure of kings to obey the covenant law. It is
not as critical scholars claim as writing for propaganda purposes. Propaganda has no room for reporting what will
discredit their king.
References
[1] Dietrich, Walter. The Early Monarch in Israel: The Tenth Century B.C.E., translated by Joachim Vette, Biblical
Encyclopedia, Society of Biblical Literature, 2007, p. 92.
[2] Ash, Paul. David, Solomon and Egypt: A Reassessment”, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
Supplement Series 297, Sheffield Academic Press, 1999, p. 111.
[3] Dietrich, Walter. The Early Monarch in Israel: The Tenth Century B.C.E., translated by Joachim Vette, Biblical
Encyclopedia, Society of Biblical Literature, 2007,p. 153.
[4] Horse. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1145.
[5] Ibid.
33 | P a g e

How should a Bible reader view the grand biblical report of King Solomon’s reign? What picture does this paint for
me regarding King Solomon? How productive was Solomon as a wise king? I conclude my reflection note on this
chapter of Solomon’s reign.
The other feature reported on Solomon’s government is the 12 regional districts and its 12 deputies all reporting
to Azariah son of Nathan. This shows an organized government with more expansions for new roles. In the list
below, some of the deputies are notable for having married into the daugthers of Solomon the king (4:7-19)
* The son of Hur, in the mountainous region of Eʹphra·im;

* the son of Deʹker, in Maʹkaz, Sha·alʹbim, Beth-sheʹmesh, and Eʹlon-beth-haʹnan;
* the son of Heʹsed, in A·rubʹboth (he had Soʹcoh and all the land of Heʹpher);
* the son of A·binʹa·dab, in all the slopes of Dor (Solʹo·mon’s daughter Taʹphath became his wife);
* Baʹa·na the son of A·hiʹlud, in Taʹa·nach, Me·gidʹdo, and all Beth-sheʹan, which is beside Zarʹe·than below
Jezʹre·el, from Beth-sheʹan to Aʹbel-me·hoʹlah to the region of Jokʹme·am;
* the son of Geʹber, in Raʹmoth-gilʹe·ad (he had the tent villages of Jaʹir the son of Ma·nasʹseh, which are in
Gilʹe·ad; he also had the region of Arʹgob, which is in Baʹshan: 60 large cities with walls and copper bars);
* A·hinʹa·dab the son of Idʹdo, in Ma·ha·naʹim;
* A·himʹa·az, in Naphʹta·li (he took Basʹe·math, another of Solʹo·mon’s daughters, as his wife);
* Baʹa·na the son of Huʹshai, in Ashʹer and Be·aʹloth;
* Je·hoshʹa·phat the son of Pa·ruʹah, in Isʹsa·char;
* Shimʹe·i the son of Eʹla, in Benjamin;
* Geʹber the son of Uʹri, in the land of Gilʹe·ad, the land of Siʹhon king of the Amʹor·ites and of Og king of Baʹshan.
Of those in the list, the son of Abinadab and Ahimaaz became members of the royal family.
Their roles were repeated in the concluding verse of the chapter as a sort of summary
“These deputies supplied food to King Solʹo·mon and to everyone who ate at the table of King Solʹo·mon. Each
was responsible for his month and saw to it that nothing was lacking. They also brought barley and straw
wherever it was needed for the horses and for the teams of horses, each according to his quota.” (4:27,28)
Other commentators saw in this chapter as a whole the various manifestations of his God-given wisdom all the
way to how Solomon administered his government and the choices of personalities to man the functions even to
the environment - the trees, animals, bids
“And God gave Solʹo·mon wisdom and discernment in very great measure and a broadness of heart like the sand
on the seashore. Solʹo·mon’s wisdom surpassed the wisdom of all the people of the East and all the wisdom of
Egypt. He was wiser than any other man, wiser than Eʹthan the Ezʹra·hite and Heʹman, Calʹcol, and Darʹda, the
sons of Maʹhol; his fame spread among all the surrounding nations. He composed 3,000 proverbs and his songs
numbered 1,005. He would speak about the trees, from the cedar in Lebʹa·non to the hyssop that grows on the
wall; he would speak about the animals, the birds, the creeping things, and the fish. People from all the nations
came to hear Solʹo·mon’s wisdom, including kings from all over the earth who had heard about his wisdom.”
(4:29-34)
If I break down what God gave Solomon, they are
* wisdom
* discernment
* broadness of heart
How do these three differ from one another? One paper described it this way
“* Wisdom or hokmah is practical wisdom or the ability to decide what is the truthful, judicious and useful course
34 | P a g e
to pursue; it enables a person to live skillfully in ethical conformity to laws of God worked into the very fabric of
creation and present in all aspects of life.
* Very great discernment or tebunah is a keenness of understanding enabling one to discriminate between good
and evil so as to make smart choices and pursue prudent courses of action in relation to life’s complex issues and
problems.
* Breadth of mind/heart or rohab leb is a special divine illumination coupled with an amazing mental capacity to
understand God’s truth about all aspects of reality, how that truth about each thing fits together into a whole
universal system of understanding (a gloss on J. H. Newman).” [1]
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight has an entry for each. I checked out the first one, wisdom
“The Biblical sense of wisdom lays emphasis on sound judgment, based on knowledge and understanding; the
ability to use knowledge and understanding successfully to solve problems, avoid or avert dangers, attain certain
goals, or counsel others in doing so. It is the opposite of foolishness, stupidity, and madness, with which it is often
contrasted.—De 32:6; Pr 11:29; Ec 6:8.
The basic terms signifying wisdom are the Hebrew chokh·mahʹ (verb, cha·khamʹ) and the Greek so·phiʹa, with
their related forms. Also, there are the Hebrew tu·shi·yahʹ, which may be rendered “effectual working” or “practical
wisdom,” and the Greek phroʹni·mos and phroʹne·sis (from phren, the “mind”), relating to “sensibleness,”
“discretion,” or “practical wisdom.”” [2]
Insight also discusses discernment
“A Hebrew word frequently rendered “discernment” (tevu·nahʹ) is related to the word bi·nahʹ, translated
“understanding.” Both appear at Proverbs 2:3, which the translation by The Jewish Publication Society renders: “If
thou call for understanding, and lift up thy voice for discernment . . . ” As with understanding, discernment involves
seeing or recognizing things, but it emphasizes distinguishing the parts, weighing or evaluating one in the light of
the others. A person who unites knowledge and discernment controls what he says and is cool of spirit. (Pr 17:27)
The one opposing Jehovah displays lack of discernment. (Pr 21:30) Through his Son, God gives discernment (full
understanding or insight).—2Ti 2:1, 7, NW, NE.” [3]
Some of those 3,000 proverbs found their way in the Bible book of Proverbs and some of the songs found their
way in the Bible book Song of Solomon. And yet despite such literary production, archaeologists could not find
proof of his existence from buried evidence on the earth. But should we discount Solomon’s existence simply
because critical scholars and minimalist archaeologists have not found the material evidence from the earth? Well,
they took that position with his father King David but the evidence is piling in the favor of the Bible’s David.
And Solomon is reported to have bested the best in his day in Israel. One of the four men, Ethan the Ezrahite, is
said to be the writer of Psalms 89. [4]
How should modern readers view this description of the era of Solomon? One paper offered this view
“When considering the content of an ancient book or documents, it is easy to judge it by current expectations and
experience. In some respects that is correct; the plainly impossible is to be rejected. In many respects it is wrong,
and as unfair to the ancient record as Procrustes' bed to his victims. To apply such terms as 'vague' and 'fantastic'
to the claims of the biblical writers is to pass a judgement on them without supplying evidence for it, even if it is
the common verdict of previous commentators. In fact, the accounts of King Solomon's reign include specific
figures for the amounts of gold he received, for the method of supplying his court (see Kitchen, 1982b) and for his
trading ventures in chariots and horses (see Ikeda 1982). More exact information is given for Solomon's wealth
than for any other king of Israel and Judah, quite enough information, clearly, so far as the compiler(s) of Kings
were concerned. Modern scholars might be better satisfied with the chancellor's ledgers or the palace day-books,
but Kings, although it is a narrative with a purpose, not an archive, is hardly 'vague' on these matters. Where
according to Miller 'the biblical descriptions are ... fantastic' is presumably in their reports of the Temple with its
35 | P a g e
interior entirely plated with gold, and of the great quantities of gold which Solomon received, among them 120
talents of gold (about 4.5 tons) from the Queen of Sheba. Fantastic the descriptions may seem to the modern
western reader, but, as other studies have shown, they cannot be so lightly dismissed .”[5]
The Bible claim to be God’s revealed Word. The book has survived efforts to discredit it, destroy it, change its
content, and other things to prevent ordinary humans to learn and discover Jehovah as God in the Bible. All this
has failed because God wants us to get to know Him. It is up to each one of us whether we believe God deserves
such time and attention.
References
[1] Naugle, David. “Solomon the Scholar”, Dallas Baptist University Scholars’ Luncheon, April 7, 2009.
[2] Wisdom. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1189.
[3] Knowledge. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 182.
[4] Ethan. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 765.
[5] Millard, Alan. “Texts and Archaeology: Weighing the Evidence. The Case for King Solomon”, Palestine
Exploration Quarterly (January-June 1991), p. 23.
36 | P a g e
11.9 King Hiram of Tyre

11.9.1 King Hiram of Tyre - Part 1
Why was Solomon’s time a reign of peace and prosperity? What happened to the imperial powers of the day- the
Egyptians, or Assyrians and Babylonians? One article wrote below
“Was this a time of peace in Israel? What do the archaeological records show? From contemporary Egyptian,
Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions, we find these once-powerful kingdoms afflicted by military weakness.
Assyria was occupied with constant battles against the Arameans. Internal strife over dynastic disputes further
weakened the kingdom. “These Assyrian preoccupations,” states Donald Wiseman, professor of Assyriology, “left
David and Solomon free to extend their own territory into south Syria. The intruders from the Syrian desert
impoverished Assyria under the aged Ashurnasirpal I …” (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia ,
Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1979,Vol. 1, p. 334). Meanwhile, the Assyrians held the Babylonians in check, blocking
any Chaldean intrusion into Israelite territory.
On Israel's southern flank, the Egyptians were also experiencing a general decline. Commenting on the beginning
of this long period of weakness, one authority observes: “After the empire [of the previous centuries], Egypt never
regained her former dominance in the eastern Mediterranean world … In large part this foreign weakness arose
from domestic weakness. Egypt kept breaking up into smaller states … From the time of Samuel to the fall of the
kingdom of Israel, Egypt was normally in a state of divided weakness” ( The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible ,
Abingdon, Nashville,1962, Vol. 2, p. 52).
This international backdrop is faithfully reflected in the biblical account. In fact, the weak priestly dynasty ruling
Egypt made great concessions to Solomon because of his increasing power and influence.
Opinion among scholars is divided over which pharaoh was Solomon's contemporary. Eugene Merrill believes it
was Siamun. “… Siamun soon realized that Solomon was to be ruler of a kingdom which would rival or even
exceed his own in power and influence. He therefore decided it was to his best advantage to cultivate amicable
relations with the young monarch, even to the extent of recognizing him as an equal. That this is the case is clear
from his willingness to provide his own daughter as a wife for Solomon, a concession almost without parallel in
Egyptian history since it was a candid admission to the world of Egypt's weakness and conciliation. Normally
Egyptian kings took foreign princesses but did not give up their own daughters to foreign kings” ( Kingdom of
Priests , Baker, Grand Rapids, 1987, p. 292. Compare to David Rohl, A Test of Time: The Bible-From Myth to
History , Arrow Books, London, 1996, pp. 173-185).” [1]
In this context, I find Solomon leveraging the friendship of King Hiram of Tyre, a friend of his father King David.
The Bible reported this friendship
“When Hiʹram the king of Tyre heard that Solʹo·mon had been anointed as king in place of his father, he sent his
servants to Solʹo·mon, for Hiʹram had always been a friend of David’s. In turn Solʹo·mon sent word to Hiʹram: “You
well know that David my father was not able to build a house for the name of Jehovah his God because of the
wars waged against him from every side until Jehovah put his enemies under the soles of his feet.” (5:1-3)
Hiram is reported as someone who “had always been a friend” of David. So, Solomon freely made a request.
Insight comments on this request
“King David entertained a strong desire to build a house for Jehovah, to contain the ark of the covenant, which
was “dwelling in the middle of tent cloths.” Jehovah was pleased with David’s proposal but told him that, because
he had shed much blood in warfare, his son (Solomon) would be privileged to do the building. This was not to say
that God did not approve David’s wars fought in behalf of Jehovah’s name and His people. But the temple was to
be built in peace by a man of peace.—2Sa 7:1-16; 1Ki 5:3-5; 8:17; 1Ch 17:1-14; 22:6-10.” [2]
At this point, the Bible discloses Solomon’s plan to build the temple to King Hiram
“But now Jehovah my God has given me rest on all sides. There is no one opposing me and nothing bad
happening. So I intend to build a house for the name of Jehovah my God, just as Jehovah promised to David my
37 | P a g e
father, saying: ‘Your son whom I will put on your throne in your place, he is the one who will build the house for
my name.’ Now command your people to cut cedars of Lebʹa·non for me. My servants will work with your servants,
and I will pay the wages of your servants according to the rate you set, for you are aware that not one of us knows
how to cut trees like the Si·doʹni·ans.”” (5:4-6)
Some found this initiative negative to Solomon. One article made this assessment
“This contingent of divinely elected workers seems to stand in sharpest contrast to the man that Solomon
employed. While the Tyrian was possessed at one level of sufficient skill- skill that was indeed rooted in wisdom-
there were negative factors at work. He was not fully an Israelite, he was not uniquely called by YHWH, he was
not assisted by craftsmen similarly endowed, and he was not said to possess the "Spirit of God." In spite of the
fact that Solomon was building the temple at David's and YHWH's behest (2 Sam 7 : 13- 14; I Kgs 8 : 18-19), his
use of Hiram appears to throw something of a shadow over the project. Hiram's involvement undercuts the
supposition that Solomon's building project was a full -orbed fulfillment of God's will.” [3]
Hiram and Solomon finally agreed with an exchange, cedar logs for food (5:7-11)
Scholars are figuring out in the context of covenant/treaty agreements common in the Ancient Near East, what
sort of relationship or agreement has occured between the two. Was Hiram subordinate to Solomon? Or was it
the other way around? Is this an agreement between equal? Apparently the language in this chapter evoke
parallelism with ancient covenants outside of Israel as the Bible discloses the agreement the two entered into
“And Jehovah gave Solʹo·mon wisdom, just as He had promised him. And there was peace between Hiʹram and
Solʹo·mon, and the two of them made a treaty.” (5:12)
One article described this treaty agreement
“Regarding this treaty, a thousand years later the Jewish historian Josephus noted that copies of this alliance
could be read in the public archives in Tyre. “The copies of these epistles,” writes Josephus, “remain at this day,
and are preserved not only in our books, but among the Tyrians also; insomuch that if any one would know the
certainty about them, he may desire of the keepers of the public records of Tyre to shew him them, and he will
find what is there set down to agree with what we have said” ( Antiquities of the Jews , Book VIII, Chapter II,
Section 7).
In Solomon's day, the Israelites were just beginning to clearly define their own culture. To initiate such vast
projects as the temple (see G. Ernest Wright, “The Stevens' Reconstruction of the Solomonic Temple,” Biblical
Archaeologist , Vol. 18, 1955, pp. 41-44), fortified towns and maritime trade, Solomon could have found no more
enterprising a people to help than the Phoenicians.” [4]
Another paper commented on the implication of this treaty-making in the context of the Ancient Near East
“Jerusalem's tenth-century treaty with Tyre therefore leads to much more than a new Temple. Architecturally,
Hiram builds Solomon a religious sanctuary based on Canaanite/Phoenician prototypes. Socioeconomically,
Hiram invites Solomon to participate in a booming economy at a time when the Mediterranean is one huge
Phoenician lake. Religiously, the deuteronomistic theologian relates these events dispassionately, even as he
later punishes Solomon for marrying Pharaoh's daughter and worshiping her gods.” [5]
References
[1] Seiglie, Mario. “King Solomon’s Reign- Israel’s Golden Years”, The Bible and Archaeology.
[2] Temple. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1076.
[3] Spina, Frank Anthony. “In But Not of the World: The Confluence of Wisdom and Torah in the Solomon Story (1
Kings 1-11)”, The Asbury Theological Journal, Spring 2001, Vol 56, No.1, p. 26.
[4] Seiglie, Mario. “King Solomon’s Reign- Israel’s Golden Years”, The Bible and Archaeology.
[5] Moore, Michael. “Big Dreams and Broken Promises: Solomon’s Treaty with Hiram in its International Context”,
Bulletin for Biblical Research 14.2, 2004, p. 221.
38 | P a g e
11.9.2 King Hiram of Tyre - Part 2

Sometimes the Bible does not comment on the critical human failures of important personalities in it. Take my
reflections on the failures of Solomon that have started to trickle down early in his reign. What can I learn from
that? What does this teach me about Jehovah God and His relationship with such human rulers?
The remainder of the report of Solomon’s early reign dealt with his use of forced labor both Israelites and non-
Israelites. Why is this striking? It is striking at many levels. It reminded me of the experience of Israel as slaves in
Egypt under forced labor. And Solomon is doing exactly the same, continuing the policy started by his father
David. This is something the Bible does not comment on. It just reports the facts. But a Bible reader knows that
this is not good as the reader follows along the story of king Solomon.
Jehovah God had been extra patient with Solomon - from marrying a non-Israelite, an Egyptian princess; keeping
horses a direct violation of the covenant law; and now using forced labor for his building projects. For all the
wisdom that God gave him, he has already started showing hints of major weaknesses in his person that will
eventually lead to his loss of favor.
This is not the sort of propaganda that is common and in the same league as Israel’s neighbors. So scholars who
thought that all this record is propagandistic in nature have missed the finer points of the biblical report. This is
why Bible writers can be trusted with what they write in it is really inspired of God.
One, this is a violation of Jehovah’s instruction to the Israelites to remove the Canaanites from the land. The
Bible-based encyclopedia Insight recognized this
“Upon entering the Promised Land, instead of following through on Jehovah’s command to drive out all the
Canaanite inhabitants of the land and devote them to destruction, the Israelites forced them into task work,
slavish labor. This had the bad effect of luring Israel into the worship of false gods. (Jos 16:10; Jg 1:28; 2:3,
11, 12) King Solomon continued levying the descendants of these Canaanites, that is, of the Amorites, Hittites,
Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, for slavish forced labor.—1Ki 9:20, 21.” [1]
Second, the way Solomon went to building the temple is different from the ways Moses went ahead to build the
tabernacle. Scholars noted this too. The builders of the tabernacle received the “spirit of God” led by men like
Bezalel. We don’t have those equivalents in Solomon’s temple building project. Instead, he resorted to using
forced labor of pagans and non-worshipers.
“King Solʹo·mon conscripted men for forced labor out of all Israel; 30,000 men were conscripted. He would send
them to Lebʹa·non in shifts of 10,000 each month. They would spend a month in Lebʹa·non and two months at
their homes; and Ad·o·niʹram was over those conscripted for forced labor.” (5:13,14)
“”There can be no doubt,” says one scholar, “that the Israelite and Judean kings made use of the corvée as a
means of securing unpaid labor for their building activities as well as for work on the crown-lands. The burden
was heavy under Solomon.” [2]
I found out corvee means “a day’s unpaid labor by a vassal to his feudal lord”. That sounded like exploitation. But
Solomon expanded this policy to both Israelites and non-Israelites. This policy of forced labor will reach a
breaking point at the end of Solomon’s reign. Insight comments on the later development
“Solomon conscripted 30,000 men of Israel for his temple-building operations. Nevertheless, these were not
constituted slaves, for they served in shifts of 10,000 a month in Lebanon and thus were able to spend two
months at home and a month at the work. But it appears that considerable resentment built up against the
conscripting of Israelites for forced labor. When Rehoboam did not agree to lighten the heavy yoke Israel bore
under the rulership of Solomon and subsequently sent Adoram (Hadoram, Adoniram) to them, the Israelites
stoned Adoram, who must have been quite advanced in years then, since in David’s time he had begun to serve
as overseer of those conscripted for work.—2Sa 20:24; 1Ki 4:6; 5:13, 14; 12:14, 18; 2Ch 10:18.” [3]
Some scholars saw in this arrangement what the prophet Samuel has predicted about Israel’s kings what some
39 | P a g e
calls the “taking” economy. One reference said this
“Solomon is remembered as having policies that replicated and imitated those of Pharaoh in ancient days, the
Pharaoh whose belated daughter he had married. Even after the qualification of 9:22 is allowed, moreover, it may
mean only that the Israelites were higher-ranking state recruits but still recruits for the acquisitive exhibitionism of
the imperial corporate economy. Such a conscription would be unthinkable in old covenantal patterns. This new
“Canaanite” patterns of deployment of cheap labor had of course long ago been anticipated by Samuel in his
critique of the coming urban economy.” [4]
The Bible reports additional detail of this forced labor force
“Solʹo·mon had 70,000 common laborers and 80,000 stonecutters in the mountains, as well as Solʹo·mon’s 3,300
princely deputies who served as foremen to supervise the workmen.” (5:15)
Regarding these common laborers and the Hebrew word used to describe them is reported by the Bible-based
encyclopedia Insight
“Related to the Hebrew word seʹvel is sab·balʹ, meaning “burden bearer.” After taking a census of the men who
were alien residents in Israel, Solomon put them in service, and 70,000 of their number became burden bearers.
(2Ch 2:2, 17, 18) Many years later King Josiah repaired the temple, and “the burden bearers” were among those
doing the work.—2Ch 34:12, 13.” [5]
Regarding these deputies, Insight comments
”“Princely deputies” also served as foremen and overseers of the labor force engaged in construction during
Solomon’s reign. It seems that the two accounts of these deputies in First Kings and Second Chronicles differed
only in methods of classification, the first listing 3,300 plus 550 for a total of 3,850 (1Ki 5:16; 9:23), and the
second giving 3,600 plus 250, which also totals 3,850. (2Ch 2:18; 8:10) Scholars (Ewald, Keil, Michaelis) suggest
that the Chronicles figures distinguish between the 3,600 non-Israelite and the 250 Israelite deputies, whereas in
Kings the distinction in deputies is between 3,300 subordinate foremen and 550 chief supervisors, this latter figure
including 300 non-Israelites.” [6]
Other scholars as I am used to by now are expectedly negative about figures like this. One pre-1980’s publication
wrote
“These figures are, we believe, exaggerations, the accounts in Kings and Chronicles having been written by a
priest who while familiar with the details of the structure, changed the figures to magnify the splendor of the holy
building.” [7]
This forced labor force were use to prepare the Temple
“At the king’s order, they quarried large stones, expensive stones, to lay the foundation of the house with hewn
stones. So Solʹo·mon’s builders and Hiʹram’s builders and the Geʹbal·ites did the cutting, and they prepared the
timbers and the stones to build the house.” (5:17,18)
One paper explained that this arrangement appears to be not a temporary arrangement and it explains why
“Perhaps we should not be surprised, since already in the office note Adoniram’s job as head of the forced labor
contingent indicatres that this was hardly a temporary policy on Solomon’s part (4:6). Even if it is the case that the
kind of labor to which Israelites were subjected is to be distinguished from that to which non-Israelites were
subjected (see 9:15-22, especially v 22), that does not absolve Solomon entirely. Samuel had warned early on
that Israel’s king would introduce a range of oppressive exactments, including making the people “his slaves” (1
Sam 8:11-18, especially v 17). Besides, had Solomon’s policy regarding Israelite laborers been as benign as
some commentators maintain, it would be hard to explain the later reaction of Rehoboam, the king’s successor (1
Kgs 12:4).” [8]
40 | P a g e
References
[1] Forced Labor. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 848.
[2] ‘If You Are Impressed Into Service’, The Watchtower, February 15, 2005, p. 23.
[3] Forced Labor. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 848.
[4] Brueggemann, Walter. Mandate to Difference: An Invitation to the Contemporary Church, Louisville, Kentucky:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2007, p. 21.
[5] Compulsory Service. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 495.
[6] Deputy. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 615.
[7] Lothair, Frank. “The Domestic and Foreign Policies of King Solomon”, Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, 1935, Boston University Graduate School, 1933, p. 54.
[8] Spina, Frank Anthony. In But Not of the World: The Confluence of Wisdom and Torah in the Solomon Story (1
Kings 1-11), The Asbury Theological Journal Spring 2001, Vol 56, No.1, p. 24.
41 | P a g e
11.10 Bible Chronology and Temple Building

Can any Bible reader predict the end of all evil by reading the Bible? Chronology is an important study of the Bible.
It helps a Bible reader understand the timing of events and the expected fulfillment of Bible prophecies. The Bible
itself gives the data to allow Bible readers to make the assessment. In this reflection note, I will highlight why
critical scholars differ in their chronology of what happened in the Bible and why the Bible is a more accurate
source of chronology. Then, I will conclude with an answer to the question raised.
The next chapter of 1 Kings introduces chronology in its opening verse
“In the 480th year after the Israelites came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year after Solʹo·mon became king
over Israel, in the month of Ziv (that is, the second month), he began to build the house of Jehovah.” (6:1)
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight explains this verse
“It was in the “four hundred and eightieth year after the sons of Israel came out from the land of Egypt,” in the
fourth year of Solomon’s reign, that construction began on the temple at Jerusalem. (1Ki 6:1) “Four hundred and
eightieth” is an ordinal number representing 479 full years plus some additional time, in this case one month.
Counting 479 years from the Exodus (Nisan 1513 B.C.E.) brings us to 1034 B.C.E., with the temple construction
beginning in the second month, Ziv (corresponding to part of April and part of May). Since this was the fourth year
(another ordinal number) of Solomon’s rule, his reign began three full years earlier in 1037 B.C.E. His 40-year rule
evidently ran from Nisan 1037 to Nisan 997 B.C.E., with the division of the kingdom taking place in the latter
year.” [1]
A Bible reader might ask how do we know that Israel’s Exodus from Egypt happened in the Jewish month of
Nisan, in the year 1513 B.C.E. when the Bible itself does not say so explicitly? Where did Insight get that number?
Before that gets answered, a Bible reader needs to recognize the difference between secular chronology and
their basis for counting time or reference versus the Bible. Insight highlights this
“Concern is often expressed over the need to try to “harmonize” or “reconcile” the Biblical account with the
chronology found in ancient secular records. Since truth is that which conforms to fact or reality, such coordinating
would indeed be vital—if the ancient secular records could be demonstrated to be unequivocally exact and
consistently reliable, hence a standard of accuracy by which to judge. Since the Biblical chronology has so often
been represented by critics as inferior to that of the pagan nations, it is worth while to examine some of the
ancient records of nations and peoples whose activities and life touch on and connect with the people and events
recorded in the Bible.” [2]
Secular, critical scholars position is that ancient secular records are more reliable than the Bible itself. But Insight
took the position inviting readers to examine this assertion and see if this secular, critical scholars’ position is
stable. What can be said about those so-called ancient secular records? Insight reports
“What is known from secular sources of these ancient nations has been laboriously pieced together from bits of
information obtained from monuments and tablets or from the later writings of the so-called classical
historiographers of the Greek and Roman period. While archaeologists have recovered tens of thousands of clay
tablets bearing Assyro-Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions, as well as large numbers of papyrus scrolls from Egypt,
the vast majority of these are religious texts or business documents consisting of contracts, bills of sale, deeds,
and similar matter. The considerably smaller number of historical writings of the pagan nations, preserved either
in the form of tablets, cylinders, steles, or monumental inscriptions, consist chiefly of material glorifying their
emperors and recounting their military campaigns in grandiose terms” [3]
What do scholars themselves say about their sources primarily the Egyptian sources? One report cited by BBC
News last September 4, 2013 under “Science & Environment” has important re-calibration with chronology
“Previous records suggested the pre-Dynastic period, a time when early groups began to settle along the Nile and
farm the land, began in 4000BC. But the new analysis revealed this process started later, between 3700 or
3600BC.”
42 | P a g e
The paper itself published by the Royal Society gave the following problem with previous assessments
“The antiquity of Egyptian civilization has been a source of speculation for many centuries. Flinders Petrie
published a relative chronology for Early Egypt based on the stylistic evolution of ceramics found in human burials.
His system of Sequence Dates is regarded as the origin of the technique now known as seriation. However, it has
become apparent that this relative scheme is no longer sufficient for detailed socio-political analysis. Problems
include the subjectivity of object classification, variations in assemblages from site to site and the inherent
challenges of interpreting broader social and economic change on the basis of funerary evidence alone.” [4]
Another scholarly paper echoed similar woes
“The chronology of Mesopotamia and much of the remainder of the ancient Near East has been linked with
Egyptian absolute dating (Knapp 1992:716). During the historic/dynastic period written sources in Egypt include
king lists, royal annals, and biographic treatises (Redford 1986; Kantor 1992; Ward 1992). In the early twentieth
century, W. F. Petrie, the recognized founder of Egyptology and the archaeological principles of stratigraphy and
superimposition, published the beginning of the historic/dynastic period (Dynasty I) at 5510 BC (Petrie 1906:175).
His conclusions were based primarily on “the authority of the Turin papyrus and of Manetho,” for “it is only
reasonable to accept those lists as substantially accurate” (Petrie 1906:175). Other noted Egyptologists later
placed Dynasties I and II at 3425-3000 BC (Weigall 1910: xvii) or 3400- 2980 BC (Breasted 1916:419). It is
significant that the most extensive adjustments have occurred in the Old Kingdom where relative dates allow for
more change due to the length of the First Intermediate Period. However, the last century of Egyptological
research, expanded by incredible amounts of new data from excavations and textual studies, has raised serious
questions not only for the length of the historic periods, but also for the absolute nature of early dates. Several
serious questions have been raised which necessitate revisions for the traditional absolute chronology prior to the
Egyptian New Kingdom (Ward 1992:55).” [5]
What does this consideration lead us to conclude given the problems of secular chronology? More in the next
reflections.
References
[1] Chronology. Insight of the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 461.
[2] Ibid., p. 448.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Dee, Michael. “An absolute chronology for Early Egypt using radiocarbon dating and Bayesian stastistical
modelling”,
[5] Hasel, Michael. “Recent Developments in Near Eastern Chronology and Radiocarbon Dating”, Origins 2004, p.
11.
43 | P a g e
11.11 More on Bible Chronology and Temple Building

Should we trust the Bible or secular chronology? Insight raises some more of these specific issues on chronology
“Uncertainties are multiple. The works of Manetho, used to give order to the fragmentary lists and other
inscriptions, are preserved only in the writings of later historians, such as Josephus (first century C.E.), Sextus
Julius Africanus (third century C.E., hence over 500 years from Manetho’s time), Eusebius (fourth century C.E.),
and Syncellus (late eighth or early ninth century C.E.). As stated by W. G. Waddell, their quotations of Manetho’s
writings are fragmentary and often distorted and hence “it is extremely difficult to reach certainty in regard to what
is authentic Manetho and what is spurious or corrupt.” After showing that Manetho’s source material included
some unhistorical traditions and legends that “introduced kings as their heroes, without regard to chronological
order,” he says: “There were many errors in Manetho’s work from the very beginning: all are not due to the
perversions of scribes and revisers. Many of the lengths of reigns have been found impossible: in some cases the
names and the sequence of kings as given by Manetho have proved untenable in the light of monumental
evidence.”—Manetho, introduction, pp. vii, xvii, xx, xxi, xxv.
The probability that concurrent reigns rather than successive reigns are responsible for many of Manetho’s
excessively long periods is shown in the book Studies in Egyptian Chronology, by T. Nicklin (Blackburn, Eng.,
1928, p. 39): “The Manethonian Dynasties . . . are not lists of rulers over all Egypt, but lists partly of more or less
independent princes, partly . . . of princely lines from which later sprang rulers over all Egypt.” Professor Waddell
(pp. 1-9) observes that “perhaps several Egyptian kings ruled at one and the same time; . . . thus it was not a
succession of kings occupying the throne one after the other, but several kings reigning at the same time in
different regions. Hence arose the great total number of years.”” [1]
Sometime back in 1992, a paper already recognized this state of affairs
“The comfortable situation has now been challenged, although the extent of any change is still under continuing
debate. A thorough reassessment of the accepted chronological structure of Egypt during the second millenium
B.C.E. Is currently underway and scholarship on the subject is in some disarray.” [2]
What about other ancient nations in the Ancient Near East and their chronological records? Insight has this to say
“Casual students of ancient history often labor under the misconception that the cuneiform tablets (such as may
have been used by Berossus) were always written at the same time or shortly after the events recorded on them.
But, aside from the many cuneiform business documents that were truly contemporary, the Babylonian historical
texts and even many astronomical texts often give evidence of being of a much later period. Thus, according to
Assyriologist D. J. Wiseman, one portion of the so-called Babylonian Chronicle, covering the period from the rule
of Nabu-nasir to Shamash-shum-u-kin (a period dated by secular historians as from 747-648 B.C.E.), is “a copy
made in the twenty-second year of Darius [footnote says: I.e. 500/499 B.C. if Darius I] from an older and damaged
text.” (Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings, London, 1956, p. 1) So, not only was this writing separated from the events
recorded on it by anywhere from 150 to 250 years but it was also a copy of a defective earlier document, perhaps
an original, perhaps not.” [3]
What about so-called astronomical calculations as basis? Insight again has this to say
“Many of the so-called synchronizations of astronomical data with events or dates of ancient history are based on
solar or lunar eclipses. However, any “particular town or city would on the average experience about 40 lunar
eclipses and 20 partial solar eclipses in 50 years, [although] only one total solar eclipse in 400 years.”
(Encyclopædia Britannica, 1971, Vol. 7, p. 907) So, only in the case of a definitely stated total solar eclipse visible
in a specific area would there be little reason for doubt in the fixing of a particular historical date by such means.
In many cases the material from the ancient cuneiform texts (or other sources) concerning eclipses does not
provide such specific information.” [4]
But the Bible chronology is different. The history in it is connected and measured. Insight points to two important
secular dates that can help a Bible reader connect biblical chronology with the modern calendar. This is the year
44 | P a g e
29 C.E., the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar (Luke 3:1-3) and the year 539 B.C.E., the year of the overthrow of
Babylon by Cyrus the Persian (Ezra 1:1-11). From these a Bible reader can work backwards using the data from
the Bible.
Hence, when Insight reported that the Exodus took place in 1513 B.C.E. and the 480th year will then be 1034
B.C.E., the start of the temple building, that is a reliable conclusion. We can trust the Bible record.
But when it comes to when what the Lord Jesus prophesied as the end of Evil, the Lord Jesus has a
straightforward answer
“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.”
(Matthew 24;36)
References
[2] Ward, William. “The Present Status of Egyptian Chronology”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research, No. 288 (Nov., 1992), p. 53.
[4] Ibid., p. 454.
45 | P a g e
11.12 The Temple of Jehovah God

11.12.1 The Temple of Jehovah God - Part 1
The Temple built by King Solomon for Jehovah is a controversial subject for scholars and archaeologists. The
non-believers assert that there was no temple ever built and that it was all fiction just like Solomon is fiction. The
primary reason is the absence of archaeological evidence to validate the account. One article explains why the
search is difficult and why despite that such design was authentic in Solomon’s time. The article says
“For centuries, scholars have searched in vain for any remnant of Solomon’s Temple. The fabled Jerusalem
sanctuary, described in such exacting detail in 1 Kings 6, was no doubt one the most stunning achievements of
King Solomon in the Bible, yet nothing of the building itself has been found because excavation on Jerusalem’s
Temple Mount, site of the Temple of King Solomon, is impossible.
Fortunately, several Iron Age temples discovered throughout the Levant bear a striking resemblance to the
Temple of King Solomon in the Bible. Through these remains, we gain extraordinary insight into the architectural
grandeur of the building that stood atop Jerusalem’s Temple Mount nearly 3,000 years ago.
As reported by archaeologist John Monson in the pages of BAR, the closest known parallel to the Temple of King
Solomon is the ’Ain Dara temple in northern Syria. Nearly every aspect of the ’Ain Dara temple—its age, its size,
its plan, its decoration—parallels the vivid description of the Temple of King Solomon in the Bible. In fact, Monson
identified more than 30 architectural and decorative elements shared by the ’Ain Dara structure and the
Jerusalem Temple described by the Biblical writers.” [1]
Another paper describes what scholars have been searching for in this temple
“Solomon’s Temple, as described in 1 Kings 6-7, has exercised the ingenuity of both archaeologists and biblical
scholars. Archaeological studies have tended to concentrate on the constituent elements and minutiae, providing
ancient Near Eastern parallels for architectural features, furnishings, and decorative motifs. In contrast, biblical
scholars have focused on the general religious significance of the structure. Solomon’s Temple is considered by
many biblical scholars to be a symbolic representation of the heavenly abode and of creation, the paradisiacal
garden (e.g., Levenson 1988:90-99; Smith 1992: 160-61).” [2]
The BAR article, being an archaeological article, focused on the architectural features in comparison to temples in
the ancient Near East. But why was it difficult to identify Solomon’s temple? One article reviewed the history of
what happened to Jerusalem as a city and its temple
Philip King, in his scholarly essay, wrote about the limitations of archaeology relative to biblical studies
“Even with its new sophistication archaeology has inherent limitations, as two leading practitioners of the
discipline pointed out a decade ago. After a lifetime in archaeology Roland de Vaux and Ernest Wright cautioned
against expecting too much from archaeology in the way of historical reconstruction; they also warned against the
tendentious use of archaeological evidence. Despite the fact that Palestine, including modern Israel and the
occupied West Bank, is perhaps the most excavated land in the world, only a small portion of the material data
has been retrieved; much more remains to be done.” [3]
So, in view of the limitation of archaeology, no Bible reader should take the non-believing archaeologists word
that because they had not found yet any evidence for Solomon’s temple on the ground, that it is necessarily a fact
that the temple never existed. The Bible has proven itself as the Word of God for being trustworthy and authentic.
I can now proceed to reflect on the details provided to modern Bible readers of this great temple.
This temple would later be burned by Babylonians in 607 B.C.E. And Jews would be exiled from Judea to Babylon
for the next 70 years. That goes to show that glorious though the temple was as built by Solomon, Jehovah God
was not impressed by it compared to the obedience and faithfulness He demanded from the Israelites who
willingly entered into a covenant with God back in Sinai. The temple did not serve like a talisman to Jews who
thought it was unthinkable for God to destroy His own temple. They thought wrong.
46 | P a g e
References
[1] “Searching for the Temple of King Solomon”, Bible History Daily article, Biblical Archaeological Review (BAR)
site, August 10, 2015.
[2] Bloch-Smith, Elizabeth.”’Who is the King of Glory?’ Solomon’s Temple and Its Symbolism”, essay from
“Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King”, Westminster John
Knox Press, 1994, p. 18.
[3] King, Philip. “The Contribution of Archaeology to Biblical Studies”, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 45, No.
1 (January, 1983), p. 3.
47 | P a g e

How different was the temple of Solomon to the portable tabernacle in the wilderness? What is the significance of
the materials used in it? What is Jehovah God teaching humans as to access to Him via the tabernacle that later
became the temple? These are my reflection notes.
The Bible opens the temple specifications of Solomon this way
“The house that King Solʹo·mon built for Jehovah was 60 cubits long, 20 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. The
porch in front of the temple was 20 cubits long, corresponding to the width of the house. Its depth was ten cubits
from the front of the house.” (6:2)
60 x 20 x 30. This is the temple specifications with a porch that is 10 cubits in front of it. A cubit is roughly 44.5cm
or 17.5 in. So, the temple is nearly 26m x 4m x 13m (nearly 3 stories high).
30 x 10 x 10. This is the tabernacle specifications without an equivalent porch as described in chapter 26 of
Exodus. It was just the height of a one-story building. Evidently, Solomon doubled the dimension of the temple
except its height (which he tripled). Regarding the detail on the porch, the Bible-based encyclopedia Insight
described it
“While the primary portions of the temple were the Holy and Most Holy compartments, in front of the Holy (toward
the E) there was a massive porch that served as an entrance way to the temple. The porch was 20 cubits (8.9 m;
29.2 ft) long (running along the width of the temple) and 10 cubits (4.5 m; 14.6 ft) deep. (1Ki 6:3) It was 120 cubits
(53.4 m; 175 ft) high. Second Chronicles 3:4 presents the height of the porch in the context of other
measurements for the house, measurements that are generally accepted and that harmonize with those in First
Kings. (Compare 2Ch 3:3, 4 with 1Ki 6:2, 3, 17, 20.) Thus the porch would have appeared as a tall, evidently
rectangular, tower that extended high above the rest of the temple building. In front of it stood two massive copper
pillars named Jachin and Boaz. (1Ki 7:15-22; 2Ch 3:15-17) The porch also had doors (King Ahaz closed these up,
but his son Hezekiah later opened and repaired them). (2Ch 28:24; 29:3, 7) Especially in the morning when the
sun rising in the E shone directly on it, the lofty temple porch must have been a most impressive sight.” [1]
The details below has no comparison in the tabernacle - windows and a side structure
“He made windows of narrowing frames for the house. Further, he built a side structure against the wall of the
house; it went around the walls of the house, those of the temple and the innermost room, and he made side
chambers all around. The lowest level of the side chambers was five cubits wide, the middle level was six cubits
wide, and the third level was seven cubits wide, for he made offsets all around the house, so that nothing was
attached to the walls of the house.” (6:4-6)
What sort of materials were used for this temple? The Bible continues
“The house was built with quarry stone that had already been prepared, so that no hammers or axes or any iron
tools were heard in the house while it was being built.” (6:7)
Regarding this quarry stone, one Bible-based publication commented
“Some of these walls stand to this day and among them are found stones thirty feet long, seven feet high and
weighing well over a hundred tons.
On the other hand, greatly helping in the quarrying was the fact that this limestone in its natural state is so soft
that it can be cut with a saw. When exposed to the sun and air, however, it becomes as hard as marble and is
capable of a very high polish. “Indeed, it is a kind of marble,” we are told. On some of the stones are even found
the markings of the ancient Phoenician quarry workers.” [2]
The Bible described in detail some staircase outside the temple
“The entrance of the lowest side chamber was on the south side of the house, and a winding staircase led up to
48 | P a g e
the middle floor, and from the middle floor up to the third floor. He continued building the house and finished it and
covered the house with cedar beams and rows of cedar planks. He built the side chambers all around the house,
each five cubits high, and they were joined to the house by cedar timbers.” (6:8-10)
In the middle of the descriptions of the temple building, the quarry stones, and the side structure, God is
mentioned to have spoken to Solomon
“Meanwhile, the word of Jehovah came to Solʹo·mon, saying: “As for this house that you are building, if you walk
in my statutes and carry out my judgments and observe all my commandments by walking in them, I will also
carry out with you my promise that I made to David your father, and I will reside in the midst of the Israelites, and I
will not forsake my people Israel.”” (6:11-13)
The report above does not say how the word of Jehovah came to Solomon. The last time it came was in a dream,
while he was in Gibeon. It did not say whether it was through a prophet like Nathan or through a dream. What is
God’s message to Solomon? How does what God say to him speaks to me also?
Jehovah God’s message has an “if’ and that was linked to ‘walk’, ‘carry out’, and ‘observe’ all tied to God’s
demands for loyalty to His statutes, judgments, and commandments embodied in the covenant law both as law
and as principles. If the king lives up to his side of this arrangement, Jehovah God will do His share. And so it is
that God’s blessings have always been tied to the fulfillment of the covenant law. Today, God expects and
demands the same from His worshipers, that I live, walk, carry out and observe His statutes, judgments and
commandments.
It must have been reassuring to Solomon to hear that in the middle of his building project. The Bible reports
“Solʹo·mon continued building the house to finish it.” (6:14)
Next, the Bible reports the use of cedar boards and juniper boards
“He built the inside walls of the house with cedar boards. He paneled the inside walls with timber, from the floor of
the house up to the rafters of the ceiling, and he overlaid the floor of the house with juniper boards. And he built a
section of 20 cubits at the rear of the house with cedar boards, from the floor up to the rafters, and he built inside
of it the innermost room, the Most Holy. And the temple—the part of the house in front of it—was 40 cubits.”
(6:15-17)
Regarding this cedar board, Insight comments
“The wood of the cedar has a warm red tone, is free from knots, and was valued highly for building purposes
because of its beauty, fragrance, durability, and resistance to attack by insects. (Ca 1:17; 4:11) The Phoenician
shipbuilders used it for their masts. (Eze 27:5) King Hiram of Tyre supplied men and materials for building “a
house of cedars” for David in Jerusalem. (2Sa 5:11; 7:2; 2Ch 2:3) Solomon later used cedarwood in the temple,
for the beams (1Ki 6:9), for overlaying the altar of incense (1Ki 6:20), and for paneling the interior of the temple in
its entirety so that “there was no stone to be seen.” (1Ki 6:15-18)” [3]
The Bible added this detail
“The cedar inside the house was carved with gourds and flowers in bloom. All of it was cedar; no stone was
seen.” (6:18)
“The gourd-shaped ornaments (Heb., peqa·ʽimʹ) adorning the molten sea and the cedar wood paneling inside
Solomon’s temple may have been round like the fruit of the colocynth.—1Ki 6:18; 7:24; 2Ch 4:3.” [4]
The description now goes inside the temple itself
“And he prepared the innermost room inside the house to put there the ark of the covenant of Jehovah. The
innermost room was 20 cubits long, 20 cubits wide, and 20 cubits high; and he overlaid it with pure gold; he
overlaid the altar with cedar. Solʹo·mon overlaid the interior of the house with pure gold, and he stretched gold
49 | P a g e
chains in front of the innermost room, which was overlaid with gold. He overlaid the whole house with gold until all
the house was completed; he also overlaid with gold the entire altar near the innermost room.” (6:19-22)
What got my attention with this description is the perfect cube dimension of the Most Holy room. The tabernacle
dimension is also a perfect cube for the Most Holy. Insight made a comparison with these two
“The innermost room of the tabernacle and, later, of the temple; also called the Holy of Holies. (Ex 26:33, ftn; 1Ki
6:16) This compartment in the tabernacle was apparently cubical, each of its three dimensions being ten cubits
(4.5 m; 14.6 ft); the dimensions of the Most Holy in the temple built by Solomon were twice those of the
tabernacle, so that it was eight times as large in volume.—Ex 26:15, 16, 18, 22, 23; 1Ki 6:16, 17, 20; 2Ch 3:8.” [5]
The other one is its overlaid with gold. The Most Holy represents or is symbolic of God’s heaven or dwelling
place. God saw fit to associate the cubic shape and gold to His dwelling.
In addition to these, the Bible adds the content inside the Most Holy
”In the innermost room he made two cherubs of pinewood, each ten cubits high.” (6:23)
“The identification of this tree is doubtful. The Hebrew expression indicates a “fatwood” tree, rich in oil or similar
substance. It has long been considered to be the oleaster (Elaeagnus angustifolia), which is a small tree or shrub
common in Palestine, bearing gray-green leaves similar to those of the olive tree and producing a fruit from which
an oil is obtained, much inferior to the oil of the olive. While its wood is hard and fine-grained, making it suitable
for carving, it hardly seems to fit the description given of the ‘oil tree’ at 1 Kings 6:23, 31-33. There it is stated that,
in the temple construction, the two cherubs, each standing 4.5 m (14.6 ft) tall, as well as the doors to the Most
Holy and the “foursquare” doorposts for the main entrance to the temple, were made of the wood of the ‘oil tree.’
The oleaster seems much too small a plant to fit these requirements adequately.
The King James Version and Revised Standard Version refer to wood of the olive tree at 1 Kings 6:23, and it is
suggested that the cherubs may have been constructed of several pieces joined together, since the olive’s short
trunk does not provide timbers of great lengths. Still, the fact that the olive tree is alluded to as distinct from the oil
tree at Nehemiah 8:15 would seem to rule out this suggestion.
For this reason some scholars recommend the Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis), which they believe could have
been called the oil tree because of its producing tar and turpentine. This lofty pine is one of the most common
evergreens in Palestine, and there is evidence to show that the region around Jerusalem once had a sizable
forest of it. It grows up to 20 m (66 ft) tall, with smooth gray bark, light-green needles, and reddish-brown cones.
Its wood is said to be of a quality approaching that of the cedar. This tree could, therefore, fit the requirements for
the temple building; however, in view of the lack of positive evidence, the New World Translation renders the
Hebrew expression simply as “oil tree.”” [6]
There are more details to follow for my reflection on this temple.
References
[1] Porch. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 654.
[2] “Visiting Solomon’s Temple”, The Watchtower, September 15, 1959, p. 566.
[3] Cedar. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 424.
[4] Gourd. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 991.
[5] Most Holy. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 441.
[6] Oil Tree. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 547.
50 | P a g e

How would God represent his holy place of dwelling, the heavens, on earth? What place on earth can God
designate as sacred space for His symbolic presence? What can I learn from the decorative art that filled the
temple - cherubs, palm trees, and flowers? What can I learn from the use of gold to fill the most sacred space in
the temple, the Most Holy? What is God saying here by approving the building of a temple for Him and the various
services in support of the temple? These are my reflection notes.
Zooming into the Most Holy, innermost room, the Bible now describes the contents of this room. Its primary
content ist the Ark of the Covenant that at this time is already in Jerusalem and in addition to the Ark are two huge
cherubs. The Bible reports
“One wing of the cherub measured five cubits, and the other wing was five cubits. From the tip of one wing to the
tip of the other wing was ten cubits. The second cherub was also ten cubits. The two cherubs had the same size
and shape. The height of the one cherub was ten cubits, as was that of the other cherub. Then he put the cherubs
inside the inner house. The wings of the cherubs were extended so that the wing of the one cherub reached to
one wall and the wing of the other cherub reached to the other wall, and their wings extended toward the middle
of the house, so that the wings touched.” (6:24-27)
Regarding these cherubs, the Bible-based encyclopedia Insight explains
“The detailed architectural plans for Solomon’s magnificent temple called for two huge cherubs in the Most Holy.
They were made of oil-tree wood overlaid with gold, each standing ten cubits (4.5 m; 14.6 ft) high. They both
stood facing the E on a N-S line running presumably through the center of the room. Although standing ten cubits
apart, one wing of each cherub reached to touch the tip of the other’s extended wing in the center of the room,
overshadowing the ark of the covenant and its poles, which rested beneath. The outer wings of each cherub
touched the N and S walls respectively. Thus the wings of the cherubs spanned the 20-cubit width of the room.
(See TEMPLE.) Engraved carvings of cherubs, overlaid with gold, also decorated the walls and doors of the
temple. Likewise the sides of the copper water carriages were ornamented with cherubs. (1Ki 6:23-35; 7:29-36;
8:6, 7; 1Ch 28:18; 2Ch 3:7, 10-14; 5:7, 8) In a similar manner, carved cherubs ornamented the walls and doors of
the temple that Ezekiel envisioned.—Eze 41:17-20, 23-25.” [1]
I can imagine the high priest who once a year would enter through the dividing screen of the Holy room and the
Most Holy room, into the Most Holy room. He would catch the bright Shekinah light, reflected by the gold all
around the perfect cube of space, and before him is the Ark of the Covenant, and towering over it nearly 15 feet
high are the two cherubs, from base of their feet to the tip of their wings.
How is this different from the cherubs in the tabernacle in the wilderness? The Bible book of Exodus did not
specify the dimension of the two cherubs seated on the two ends of the cover of the Ark of the Covenant. It was
overlaid with gold. With the two huge cherubs in the Most Holy, the Bible reports
“And he overlaid the cherubs with gold.” (6:28)
Now, aside from the two huge cherubs in the Most Holy room of the temple, the Bible reports where else they can
also be found and what other things can be found
“And on all the walls of the house all around both the inner and outer rooms, he carved figures of cherubs, palm
trees, and flowers in bloom. He overlaid the floor of the house with gold in the inner and outer rooms. And for the
entrance of the innermost room he made doors of pinewood, side pillars, and doorposts, as a fifth part. The two
doors were of pinewood, and he carved on them cherubs, palm trees, and flowers in bloom, and he overlaid them
with gold; and he hammered the gold down over the cherubs and the palm trees. For the entrance of the temple,
that was how he made the doorposts of pinewood, belonging to a fourth part. And he made two doors of juniper
wood. The one door had two leaves that turned on pivots, and the other door had two leaves that turned on pivots.
He carved cherubs, palm trees, and flowers in bloom, and overlaid gold foil on the carvings.” (6:29-35)
The phrase “cherubs, palm trees, and flowers in bloom” were considred significant by scholars. What do these
51 | P a g e
images represent as a whole to someone who has the privilege to enter into this temple? One paper wrote
“Garden imagery filled the temple, evoking the idea of Eden. Barker writes, “Solomon built the temple as a garden
sanctuary; the walls of the hêkālwere decorated with golden palm trees and flowers, set with precious stones; the
bronze pillars were decorated with pomegranate patterns and the great lamp was a stylized almond tree.” Victor
Hurowitz suggests the pillars, which drew the eye heavenward, “may be stylized trees, bringing to mind the Tree
of Life and the Tree of Knowledge which stood in the centre of the Garden of Eden.”” [2]
The paper also related the two cherubs of the temple with the two cherubs in the Garden of Eden
“Gordon Wenham draws a parallel between the two cherubim that guarded the entrance to the garden east of
Eden with the cherubim who guarded the entrance to the debir, which is also entered from the east.” [3]
I found the conclusion of the article interesting
“Adam’s purpose in the Garden of Eden was to expand it until it filled the entire earth. His failure led to the
establishment of first the tabernacle and then the temple. The temple was modelled on Eden and was a
microcosm of the whole cosmos. It symbolised the Kingdom of God and points to the future realisation when the
presence of God will fill the whole earth.” [4]
Now, how does one distinguish the use of images for decorative art versus the use of images for worship when
the covenant law forbids the carving of images of any likeness? Insight has this explanation
“Even the cherubs of the tabernacle were covered over with a cloth when being transported and thus were hidden
from the gaze of the populace (Nu 4:5, 6, 19, 20), while those of the later temple were seen only by the high priest
on one day a year. (1Ki 6:23-28; Heb 9:6, 7)” [5]
So, all that decorative art or images of the temple - were not publicly viewable. They were seen by the craftsmen
who made them but after that they no longer had access.
The Bible now describes the outside of the temple building
“He built the inner courtyard with three rows of hewn stone and a row of cedar beams.” (6:36)
Insight reports the wide use of the cedar in Israelite construction
“Solomon later used cedarwood in the temple, for the beams (1Ki 6:9), for overlaying the altar of incense (1Ki
6:20), and for paneling the interior of the temple in its entirety so that “there was no stone to be seen.” (1Ki 6:15-
18)” [6]
This was also noted by one archaeological article about cedars and the Bible
“In the Biblical world, Lebanese cedar (Cedrus libani) trees were highly sought after as an excellent source of
timber for ancient woodworking. The wood’s high quality, pleasant scent and resistance to both rot and insects
made it a popular building material for temples, palaces and seagoing vessels, from Solomon’s famed Temple to
the socalled “Jesus Boat” of the first century C.E. Today, Lebanese cedar trees grow mostly in Lebanon and
southern Turkey, with a few found in Cyprus and Syria. As the Bible makes clear, the valuable wood had to be
imported into ancient Israel.
The Phoenician king Hiram of Tyre sent Lebanese cedar, carpenters and masons to Jerusalem to build a palace
for King David (2 Samuel 5:11). Likewise, Hiram provided cedars and artisans to King Solomon for the
construction of his own palace as well as the Temple in Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 2:3,7; 1 Kings 5:20). The Bible
also informs us that Lebanese cedar timbers were commonly transported by sea. The Book of Ezra reports that
timbers were hauled to the Phoenician coast and then sailed to Jaffa for transport to Jerusalem (Ezra 3:7).” [7]
Finally, the Bible reports the completion of the 7-year temple building work.
“In the 4th year, in the month of Ziv, the house of Jehovah had its foundation laid; and in the 11th year, in the
52 | P a g e
month of Bul (that is, the eighth month), the house was finished in all its details and according to its plan. So he
spent seven years building it.” (6:37,38)
The Jewish calendar includes the month of Bul, the eight month which will fall into today’s contemporary calendar
as October.
The temple, magnificient thought it was, was only a representation or a shadow of realities that will become clear
once the Son of God becomes human and who will serve Jehovah God his Father in a more glorious, spiritual
temple not made by human hand. The temple of Solomon just like the tabernacle is a sacred space and it is off
limits to most Israelites except the Levites and the priests. There is a high standard of requirement even for the
priests to be able to serve. Since it is a holy or sacred space, physical and spiritual cleanliness is demanded
strictly. God made a statement here. It highlighted the gap between the holiness of God as symbolized by the
perfect golden cube of the Most Holy room. It is accessed only once a year and by just one human - the high
priest, to do one function, to atone for the sins of all Israel. And in performing such a duty, the high priest must
comply to all aspects of cleanliness or he risks dying before the presence of God.
The temple then is God’s arrangement for humans to approach Him and keep their standing before Him clean by
offering God atonement and in return God extending forgiveness back to humans. This means God wants to
maintain relationship with us humans so he made this arrangement. The sad part of the story is that humans are
not that interested in maintaining their relationship with Him.
References
[1] Cherub. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 432.
[2] Atkin, Robert. “What cosmic symbolism did Solomon’s temple have, what purpose did that symbolism have
(and what contribution to biblical theology and spirituality does that symbolism make)?”, Robert Atkin blog site.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Art. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 180.
[6] “Lebanese Cedar - The Prized Tree of Ancient Woodworking”, Bible History Daily article, May 2013.
53 | P a g e

As a Bible reader, I did not initially relate to the fact that the Bible writer of 1 Kings had just devoted 38 verses to
describe the temple of Jehovah God and then spent only 12 verses to describe Solomon’s house and then spend
the remaining 40-plus verses back to describe the temple. 78 verses versus 12 verses.
The Bible writer has a message there. Solomon’s house though big and complex was not as important as the
building of the temple for Jehovah God. The focus is on Jehovah God’s and not so much on Solomon’s.
What does that inform me on how God looks at things here on earth, our human achievements for ourselves
versus what we do for God? That is worthy of reflection.
The Bible opens the work on Solomon’s house this way
“And it took Solʹo·mon 13 years to build his own house, until his whole house was completed.” (7:1)
While the temple was built in 7 years, Solomon’s took an additional 6 years. This house of Solomon and its
various complexes was summarized by one reference
“It seems clear from the description that the palace-often labeled “the king’s house”- was constructed within a
“great court’ which probably separated it from the temple and other structures in the acropolis. Inside the great
court were built six units which were introduced consecutively
1. “The house of the forest of Lebanon.” This unit alone was nearly the same size as the temple.
2. The “hall of columns,” a rectangular hall which was about 75 feet long and 45 feet wide.
3. The “hall for the throne,” also called the “hall of judgment.” This was the main ceremonial hall of the palace in
which the king’s magnificent throne to be described below was undoubtedly placed.
4. “The other court,” which “within the hall.” The living quarters of the palace adjoined this court.
5. “His own house where he was to reside” which obviously was the king’s private abode.
6. “A house for Pharaoh’s daughter,” which was a separate dwelling unit within the palace built for Solomon’s
famouse wife, who probably was the daughter of Pharaoh Siamun. This unit may also have included the living
quarters for other wives and concubines as well.” [1]
The Bible describes the first complex
“And he built the House of the Forest of Lebʹa·non 100 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high on four
rows of cedar pillars; and there were cedar beams on the pillars. It was paneled above with cedar on the girders
that rested on the pillars; they numbered 45, with 15 to a row. There were three rows of framed windows, and
each window was opposite another window in three tiers. All the entrances and the doorposts had square frames,
as did the front of the windows that were opposite each other in three tiers.” (7: 2-5)
One bible scholar compared this “clearly largest and most remarkable single edifice in the palace complex” to
ancient Near East buildings for kings
“Large pillared halls are well attested in ancient Near Eastern palaces in the late second millennium, and in the
early first millenium also. In the fourteenth century Egypt’s sun-worshiping pharaoh, Akhnaten, built a vast official
palace at his new capital Akhet-Aten (now Tell el-Amarna). At its south end stood a huge hall (about 380 feet by
240 feet) of 527 pillars (17 x 31) with six lesser-pillared halls on its north and south sides. This palace contained a
variety of other columned halls of much less size, including one (about 50 x 30 feet) of four rows of columns and
three aisles (with matching exits at either end) very similar to Solomon’s “Forest of Lebanon” hall.” [2]
The second complex is the Hall of Pillars (columns)
“And he built the Hall of Pillars 50 cubits long and 30 cubits wide, and there was a porch in front of it with pillars
54 | P a g e
and a canopy.” (7:6)
Regarding this porch, Insight explains
“One of the official buildings Solomon constructed in the temple area sometime after he completed the temple
was the Porch of Pillars. (1Ki 7:1, 6) Since mention of the Porch of Pillars is made between comments about the
House of the Forest of Lebanon and comments about the Porch of the Throne, it is quite possible that the Porch
of Pillars was S of the temple and between these other two official buildings. Thus, one coming from the S might
pass through or around the House of the Forest of Lebanon and then enter the Porch of Pillars, walking through it
into the Porch of the Throne.
The building was 50 cubits (22.3 m; 72.9 ft) long and 30 cubits (13.4 m; 43.7 ft) wide. Its very name suggests that
it was made up of rows of impressive pillars. First Kings 7:6 mentions another porch in front with pillars and a
canopy. Perhaps this means that one first came to a porch having an extending canopy supported by pillars. Then
this porch merged right into the Porch of Pillars proper. If the dimensions given apply just to the Porch of Pillars,
then the size of the canopied portion is not given.
This building may have served as a grand entranceway to the Porch of the Throne and as a place where the king
conducted the ordinary business of the kingdom and received some visitors.” [3]
The third complex is now reported on
“He also built the Hall of the Throne, where he would judge—the Hall of Judgment—and they paneled it with
cedar from the floor to the rafters.” (7:7)
The Bible next reports the last two
“The house where he was to live, at the other courtyard, was set back from the Hall, and it was similar in
workmanship. He also built a house similar to this Hall for Pharʹaoh’s daughter, whom Solʹo·mon had taken as a
wife.
All of these were made of expensive stones hewn according to measure, trimmed with stonesaws inside and out,
from the foundation up to the coping, and outside as far as the great courtyard. And the foundation was laid with
very large, expensive stones; some stones measured ten cubits, and other stones, eight cubits. And above these
were expensive stones, hewn according to measure, as well as cedar. Around the great courtyard were three
rows of hewn stone and a row of cedar beams, like that for the inner courtyard of the house of Jehovah and the
porch of the house.” (7:8-12)
Solomon lived in a house made out expensive materials and worked on by forced labor.
The story now goes back to the work in the temple for things or utensils used outside the courtyard for the priests
mostly made of copper
“King Solʹo·mon sent for Hiʹram and brought him from Tyre. He was the son of a widow from the tribe of Naphʹta·li,
and his father was a Tyrʹi·an coppersmith; and he had great skill, understanding, and experience for all kinds of
work in copper. So he came to King Solʹo·mon and did all his work.” (7:13,14)
The Bible first cites the two pillars of copper
“He cast the two pillars of copper; each pillar was 18 cubits high, and it took a measuring cord 12 cubits long to
encircle each of the two pillars. And he made two capitals cast in copper to put on the tops of the pillars. One
capital was five cubits high, and the other capital was five cubits high. The capital on top of each pillar had mesh
network with wreathed chains; seven for the one capital and seven for the other capital. And he made
pomegranates in two rows around the one network to cover the capitals that were on the top of the pillars; he did
the same for both capitals. The capitals on top of the pillars at the porch were of a lily pattern four cubits high. The
capitals were on the two pillars, just above the rounded portion adjoining the network; and there were 200
pomegranates in rows all around on each capital.” (7:15-20)
55 | P a g e
Regarding the detail of the capital on top of the pillars, Insight explains
“The uppermost section and crowning decoration of a building’s column. Massive capitals topped Jachin and
Boaz, the pillars that stood in front of Solomon’s temple. (2Ch 3:15-17) These capitals and the pillars upon which
they rested were made under the direction of the craftsman Hiram at the time of the temple’s construction (1034-
1027 B.C.E.) and survived over 400 years until Jerusalem was sacked by the Babylonians in 607 B.C.E. (2Ch
4:11-13; Jer 52:17, 22) In every reference to these capitals, except for one, the Hebrew word ko·theʹreth is used.
It comes from the root ka·tharʹ (‘surround’; Jg 20:43) and is related to keʹther (“headdress”; Es 1:11). The Hebrew
word for “capital” occurring in 2 Chronicles 3:15 (tseʹpheth) comes from the root verb tsa·phahʹ, meaning
“overlay.”—Ex 25:11.
The pillars themselves were of cast copper, about 1.7 m (5.6 ft) in diameter and 18 cubits (8 m; 26 ft) high. In
addition, the capitals were 5 cubits (2.2 m; 7.3 ft) high. (1Ki 7:15, 16) In view of the passages indicating that the
capitals were five cubits high, a number of scholars have concluded that the reference to “three cubits” in 2 Kings
25:17 is a scribal error. That is why some Bible translations (for example, JB, NAB) have replaced “three cubits”
with “five cubits.” Since the pillars were hollow, with walls about 7.5 cm (3 in.) thick, it is reasonable to suppose
that the capitals were of similar construction and were also cast in clay molds “in the District of the Jordan.”—2Ch
4:17; Jer 52:21.” [4]
The Bible reports the names associated with the pillars
“He set up the pillars of the porch of the temple. He set up the right-hand pillar and named it Jaʹchin, and then he
set up the left-hand pillar and named it Boʹaz.” (7:21)
Insight explains the meaning of these names
“The northernmost of the two huge copper pillars erected before the porch of Solomon’s glorious temple was
named Boaz, possibly meaning “In Strength.” The southern pillar was called Jachin, meaning “May [Jehovah]
Firmly Establish.” So, putting the two together and reading from right to left as one faced the E would convey the
thought ‘May [Jehovah] firmly establish [the temple] in strength.’—1Ki 7:15-21; see CAPITAL.” [5]
Other scholars have promoted their different theories as to why the pillars were given personal names. I decided
not to explore that speculative and often times ridiculous path.
The Bible now ends the portion of the copper work on the two pillars
“And the top of the pillars were of a lily pattern. So the work of the pillars was completed.” (7:22)
Yet, the work on copper is not yet done.
References
[1] Ussishkin, David. “King Solomon’s Palaces”, The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol 36, No. 3 (Sep., 1973), The
American School of Oriental Research, p. 82.
[2 ] Kitchen, Kenneth. On the Reliability of the Old Testament, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company:
Cambridge, UK, 2003, p. 128.
[3] Porch. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 654.
[4] Capital. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 412.
[5] Boaz, II. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 348.
56 | P a g e
11.12.5 The temple of Jehovah God - Part 5

Bible critics find the smallest detail to disparage the Bible as God’s Word and in the account on the copper huge
sea basin, they claim that not only it contains wrong scientific data but conflicting data. I will explore this in this
reflection note/
The details of the items made of copper for use outside the temple building but within its courtyard are described
next - the Sea, a big copper wash basin; ten carriages, ten basins, shovels, bowls. Why are the water or wash
basins an important component in the temple service? What is the significance of these items for the priests who
serve in the courtyard of the temple? What do these things inform me about Jehovah God’s requirement of
holiness and cleanliness? Where did Solomon get all the copper to make these items? These are my reflection
notes for this series on the copper items of the temple.
After the two huge copper pillars standing in the porch of the temple, the Bible now describes the other items
made of copper. The first one to be described is the Sea
“Then he made the Sea of cast metal. It was circular in shape, 10 cubits from brim to brim and 5 cubits high, and
it took a measuring line 30 cubits long to encircle it.” (7:23)
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight explains comments about the circumferential measurement of 30 cubits,
given the diameter of 10 cubits which yields a result of 30 for pi (which technically is supposedly a wrong value if
one were to be precise about it)
“Circumference. The circumference of 30 cubits is evidently a round figure, for more precisely it would be 31.4
cubits. In this regard, Christopher Wordsworth quotes a certain Rennie as making this interesting observation: “Up
to the time of Archimedes [third century B.C.E.], the circumference of a circle was always measured in straight
lines by the radius; and Hiram would naturally describe the sea as thirty cubits round, measuring it, as was then
invariably the practice, by its radius, or semi-diameter, of five cubits, which being applied six times round the
perimeter, or ‘brim,’ would give the thirty cubits stated. There was evidently no intention in the passage but to give
the dimensions of the Sea, in the usual language that every one would understand, measuring the circumference
in the way in which all skilled workers, like Hiram, did measure circles at that time. He, of course, must however
have known perfectly well, that as the polygonal hexagon thus inscribed by the radius was thirty cubits, the actual
curved circumference would be somewhat more.” (Notes on the King James Version, London, 1887) Thus, it
appears that the ratio of three to one (that is, the circumference being three times the diameter) was a customary
way of stating matters, intended to be understood as only approximate.” [1]
There is another paper that discussed the various theories and explanations how from the given biblical data, ‘pi’
can be derived. There is a theory that the Hebrew letters offered a clue, others computing the outside diameter
with the internal circumference, and so on and so forth. The article concluded this way
“Which perspective is correct? Since the Sea is reported as broken and carted away in about 586 BC by the
conquering Babylonians in Jeremiah 52:17, there are no irrefutable answers. Each of the arguments has some
merit. And it may very well be that the true story lies in a combination of these perspectives. Whatever the
resolution for this puzzle, what I find most interesting is that the chroniclers somehow decided that the diameter
and girth measurements of Solomon’s Sea were sufficiently striking to include in their narrative.” [2]
One paper due to the lack of description of the function of the Sea, in Kings, scholars presume that its symbolic
function was lost in writing. Then, they connect the interpretation of this item with the mythological stories of the
ancient Near East about Sea or Water as representative of the chaotic force of the primordial waters in creation-
myth stories. In effect, the Israelites according to these scholars were borrowing concepts from pagan religions
around them and incorporating them into their own worship. This paper wrote
“But as regards its related issue of the New Year festival in ancient Israel, many scholars seemingly believe that
the Israelites celebrated a festival analogous to the Babylonian Akitu festival during which Enuma Elish was
recited. In the Babylonian festival, Marduk’s overpowering his enemies and establishing an order, as narrated in
57 | P a g e
the myth, functioned to ensure the dynasty’s peace and prosperity. In a similar vein, the recitation of Yahweh’s
cosmic victories over the Sea, symbolized by the huge basin in the Temple, would have reminded the audience of
the divine power and presence, ensuring the security and stability of the Davidic dynasty as indicated in the so-
called enthronement psalms:” I will set his [the king’s] hand upon the sea, his right hand upon the rivers” (Ps
89,26 [E 25])” [3]
More details about this big copper basis was provided
“And there were ornamental gourds below its brim, completely encircling it, ten to a cubit all around the Sea, with
two rows of the gourds cast in one piece with it. It stood on 12 bulls, 3 facing north, 3 facing west, 3 facing south,
and 3 facing east; and the Sea rested on them, and all their hindquarters were toward the center. And its
thickness was a handbreadth; and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It would hold 2,000
bath measures.” (7:24-46)
Insight describes this detail further
“The brim of the sea resembled a lily blossom. The thickness of this large vessel was “a handbreadth [7.4 cm;
2.9 in.].” (1Ki 7:24-26) This huge quantity of copper came from the supplies King David had obtained in his
conquests in Syria. (1Ch 18:6-8) The casting was done in a clay mold in the region of the Jordan and was indeed
a remarkable feat.—1Ki 7:44-46.
Capacity. The account at 1 Kings 7:26 refers to the sea as ‘containing two thousand bath measures,’ whereas
the parallel account at 2 Chronicles 4:5 speaks of it as ‘containing three thousand bath measures.’ Some claim
that the difference is the result of a scribal error in the Chronicles account. However, while the Hebrew verb
meaning “contain” in each case is the same, there is a measure of latitude allowable in translating it. Thus some
translations render 1 Kings 7:26 to read that the vessel “held” or “would contain” 2,000 bath measures, and
translate 2 Chronicles 4:5 to read that it “had a capacity of” or “could hold” or “could contain” 3,000 bath measures.
(AT, JB, NW) This allows for the understanding that the Kings account sets forth the amount of water customarily
stored in the receptacle while the Chronicles account gives the actual capacity of the vessel if filled to the brim.
There is evidence that the bath measure anciently equaled about 22 L (5.8 gal), so that, if kept at two thirds
capacity, the sea would normally hold about 44,000 L (11,620 gal) of water. For it to have had the capacity
indicated, it must not have had straight sides, but instead, the sides below the rim, or lip, must have been curved,
giving the vessel a bulbous shape. A vessel having such a shape and having the dimensions stated earlier could
contain up to 66,000 L (17,430 gal). Josephus, Jewish historian of the first century C.E., describes the sea as “in
the shape of a hemisphere.” He also indicates that the sea’s location was between the altar of burnt offering and
the temple building, somewhat toward the south.—Jewish Antiquities, VIII, 79 (iii, 5); VIII, 86 (iii, 6).” [4]
This issue are one of those little things Bible critics used to disparage the book claiming contradiction. One paper
explored this issue as well
“For many years the capacity of the inner court’s large basin known as “the Sea” has been at the center of
controversy. The reason: 1 Kings 7:26 indicates that it held 2,000 baths. (A bath was the largest of the liquid
measures in Hebrew culture; estimates are that it corresponds to anywhere from 4½-9 U.S. gallons). However, 2
Chronicles 4:5 says that the Sea held 3,000 baths. Thus, critics of the Bible’s inerrancy have charged that a
blatant contradiction exists and that such lack of agreement discredits divine authorship.” [5]
It then discussed the various explanations offered including scribal error. The paper discussed this explanation
“Keil and Delitzsch, in their commentary on 2 Chronicles, indicated their support of this theory. They tend to
believe that the number 3,000 given in 2 Chronicles 4:5 has arisen from the confusion of the letter gimel (Hebrew
transliterated letter-number for “3”) with beth (Hebrew transliterated letter- number for “2”). By a comparison of the
two Hebrew letters, it easily is seen that their shape is quite similar. Even a tiny smudge from excessive wear on a
scroll-column or a slightly damaged manuscript could have resulted in making the gimel look like a beth. With
such an adjustment, the statements in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles are harmonized easily. However, it very well may
58 | P a g e
be that this is not a copyist’s error at all.” [6]
Then, the article took a similar line of thinking as Insight
“A second possible explanation to this alleged contradiction revolves around a Hebrew word used in 2 Chronicles
4:5 that does not appear in 1 Kings 7:26. Whereas in 1 Kings it says that the molten Sea “held” (ASV) 2,000 baths,
2 Chronicles says that it “received (Hebrew machaziyq) and held three thousand baths” (ASV, emp. added). The
difference in phraseology may indicate that the Sea ordinarily contained 2,000 baths, but when filled to its utmost
capacity it received and held 3,000 baths (Haley, 1951, p. 382). Thus, the chronicler informs the reader that 3,000
baths of water were required to completely fill the Sea, which usually held 2,000 baths (Barnes). Anyone who has
ever been around large pools of water (like a swimming pool) knows that the pool actually can hold a few
thousand gallons of water more than generally is kept in it. It very well may be that the wording in 2 Chronicles
indicates such a difference about the water level in the Sea.” [7]
Then, it offered a third explanation
“A third possible solution to this “problem passage” is that the “bath” unit mentioned in 1 Kings was larger than the
“bath” unit used in 2 Chronicles. Since the latter account was written after the Babylonian exile, it is quite possible
that reference is made to the Babylonian bath, which might have been less than the Jewish bath used at the time
of Solomon. As Adam Clarke observed: “The cubit of Moses, or of the ancient Hebrews, was longer than the
Babylonian by one palm…. It might be the same with the measures of capacity; so that two thousand of the
ancient Jewish baths might have been equal to three thousand of those used after the captivity.” In considering a
modern-day example, a 20% difference exists between the U.S. gallon and the Imperial gallon, even though the
same term is used for both quantities. Thus, this alleged discrepancy may be simply a misunderstanding on the
part of 21st-century readers.” [8]
Hence, from the above references, I can see that effort of Bible critics to disparage the Bible has no serious basis.
The Bible remains worthy of my trust and this much specific details show that it is talking about real things in real
places made by real people.
Why does that matter? It matters because the Bible claim to tell us what is in store for us in the near future - a life
of peace and prosperity but not under any human political administration but under the very agency whose
formation is the main plot of the Bible - God’s Kingdom with the Son of God as its Messiah.
In fact this Bible truth is so important that Jesus, the Son of God, foretold, “this good news of the kingdom will be
preached in all the inhabited earth, as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.” (Matthew 24:14)
References
[1] Molten Sea (Copper Sea). Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 425.
[2] Simoson, Andrew. “Solomon’s Sea and Pi”, The College of Mathematics Journal, Vol. 40, No. 1, January 2009,
Mathematics Association of America, p. 31.
[3] Kang, Seung Il. “The ‘Molten Sea’, or Is It?”, Biblica, Vol. 89, No. 1 (2008), Gregoriann Biblical Press, p. 102.
[4] Molten Sea (Copper Sea). Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 426.
[5] Lyons, Eric. “How Much Water Could “the Sea” Hold?”, Apologetics Press blog site article.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
59 | P a g e
11.12.6 The temple of Jehovah - Part 6

Is the Biblical report on Solomon’s building work of the temple and his use of great quantity of copper supported
by contemporary archaeological find? Despite the limitation of archaeology to validate the authenticity of the Bible,
what value are those finds that does validate its contents? Why would this be important to a Bible reader?
The remaining items of copper were now reported by the Bible. The specifications of the items were detailed to
their dimension, design, and artwork. Where could have Solomon gotten all this copper? Are there traces of this
copper mining sites today dating back to the period of Solomon? What was the role of these coppercarriages and
copper basins? These are my reflection notes.
The Bible describes the copper carriages
“Then he made the ten carriages of copper. Each carriage was four cubits long, four cubits wide, and three cubits
high. And this was how the carriages were constructed: They had side panels, and the side panels were between
the crossbars. And on the side panels between the crossbars were lions, bulls, and cherubs, and the same design
was on the crossbars. Above and beneath the lions and the bulls were wreaths in relief. And each carriage had
four copper wheels and copper axles, and its four corner pieces served as supports for them. Beneath the basin
were the supports, cast with wreaths at the side of each. Its opening was inside the crown, extending upward one
cubit; and its opening was round, making up a stand of one and a half cubits, and on its mouth were engravings.
And their side panels were square, not round. The four wheels were below the side panels, and the supports of
the wheels were attached to the carriage, and the height of each wheel was one and a half cubits. And the wheels
were made like chariot wheels. Their supports, rims, spokes, and hubs were all of cast metal. There were four
supports on the four corners of each carriage; its supports were cast as part of the carriage. On top of the
carriage was a circular band half a cubit high, and on the top of the carriage, its framing pieces and its side panels
were cast as part of it. On the surfaces of its framing pieces and on its side panels he engraved cherubs, lions,
and palm trees according to the amount of space on each, with wreaths all around. This is how he made the ten
carriages; they were all cast alike, with the same measure and shape.” (7:27-37)
On these carriages, basins were put on each. The description of each basin is also provided
“He made ten copper basins; each could hold 40 bath measures. Each basin measured four cubits. There was
one basin for each of the ten carriages.” (7:38)
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight described these basins
“Each of the ten copper basins (lavers, AT; RS) Hiram made for temple use could hold “forty bath measures,” or
about 880 L (230 gal) of water. If these basins were hemispherical in shape this would mean that they had a
diameter of perhaps 1.8 m (6 ft). Of course, if they bulged and tapered somewhat toward the top, the
measurements would be different, and it must be observed that the Bible does not provide detailed information on
their form, though it says that “each basin was four cubits.” Each basin was placed on a four-wheeled carriage
skillfully made with ornamental work and engravings, five being placed on the right and five on the left side of the
house.—1Ki 7:27-39.” [1]
After describing the carriages and basins, the Bible next described their placements in the courtyard of the temple
“Then he put five carriages on the right side of the house and five on the left side of the house, and he placed the
Sea on the right side of the house, toward the southeast.” (7:39)
Next, the Bible described the utensils for use in the temple sacrifice work
“Hiʹram also made the basins, the shovels, and the bowls. So Hiʹram finished all the work that he did for King
Solʹo·mon on the house of Jehovah: the two pillars and the bowl-shaped capitals that were on top of the two
pillars; the two networks to cover the two bowl-shaped capitals that were on top of the pillars; the 400
pomegranates for the two networks, two rows of pomegranates for each network, to cover the two bowl-shaped
capitals that were on the two pillars; the ten carriages and the ten basins on the carriages; the Sea and the 12
60 | P a g e
bulls beneath the Sea; and the cans, the shovels, the bowls, and all the utensils, which Hiʹram made of polished
copper for King Solʹo·mon for the house of Jehovah. The king cast them in clay molds in the district of the Jordan,
between Sucʹcoth and Zarʹe·than.” (7:40-46)
Who is this Hiram by the way? Some Bible critics claim that the Bible present conflicting data about his
background. Insight has this to say
“The skilled artisan who made many of the furnishings of Solomon’s temple. His father was a Tyrian, but his
mother was a widow “from the tribe of Naphtali” (1Ki 7:13, 14) “of the sons of Dan.” (2Ch 2:13, 14) This apparent
difference resolves itself if we take the view, as some scholars do, that she was born of the tribe of Dan, had been
widowed by a first husband of the tribe of Naphtali, and then was remarried to a Tyrian.” [2]
The Bible reports that the copper was cast in clay molds in the “district of the Jordan, between Succoth and
Zarethan”. Insight commented on this location
”Later the record states that at the time of the casting of copper items for the temple, such casting was done in the
District of the Jordan, “in the clay mold, between Succoth and Zarethan.” (1Ki 7:46) The clay available in the
Jordan Valley contributed toward the feasibility of such copper-casting operations in this area.
Since the site of Adam is generally placed at Tell ed-Damiyeh (on the E side of the Jordan opposite the entrance
to the Wadi Farʽah) and since Succoth is considered to be located about 13 km (8 mi) NNE of Adam, these texts
would indicate that Zarethan lay on the W side of the Jordan not far from Adam and Succoth.” [3]
There is an interesting development in the field of archaeology searching for Solomon’s copper mines. It was a
see-saw kind of cycle. First it was thought it was found. Then, other scholars rejected the proposition. Then,
recently it was reaffirmed to be true. One paper described the second phase
“During the 1990’s and 2000s it seemed that David and Solomon were going to lose the battle against their
oblivioin. The rise of the Tel Aviv Low Chronology coincided with, and actually benefitted from, a time of rapid
changes in the field of biblical studies, with scholars more prone to take more challenging approaches towards the
biblical text. A specific group of scholars, known as the “Minimalist School”, shared some points of view with
Finkelstein’s vision of the development of the Hebrew Bible.” [4]
Then, new developments appeared that bolstered the Biblical account of David and Solomon. It continues
“Most famous are the current excavations at Khirbet en-Nahas, a large Iron Age square fortress in the copper
district of Faynan in southern Jordan, directed by Thomas E. Levy of the University of California San Diego. The
UCSD team boast is that it will strip the archaeological business down to the methods that are shown to
contribute directly to the chronology debate. With the use of digital field recording on a daily basis and the
gathering of dozens of radiocarbon dates, Levy has tried to inaugurate a new era in the archaeology of the Middle
East.... Research in Faynan encouraged more excavations at Timna, at the other side of the border. One of these
is directed by Tel Aviv University archaeologist Erez Ben-Yosef, who is digging in one of the camps – known as
Site 30, close to the famous shrine of Hathor – that housed the workers digging at the mines and smelting the
copper extracted there. His team has collected several samples of radiocarbon dates which suggest a period of
occupation during the 11th and early 10th centuries.” [5]
In Levy’s own scholarly paper, he wrote about the impact of his work with radiocarbon dating of his archaeological
find
“The result is a new chronological framework that pushes the occupation of Edom back to the 13th century BC.
Prior to our project researchers argued that the Iron Age occupation of Edom was late and only began in the 7th
and 6th centuries BC (Bienkowski 1992; Bienkowski and van der Steen 2001). Consequently, our work has been
at the centre of of debate concerning the history and archaeology of Edom and its relations neighbouring ancient
polities (Ben-Yosef et al. 2010a; Finkelstein 2005; Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz 2008; Levy 2010l Levy and Najjar
2006; Levy et al. 2006, 2010al van der Steen and Beinkowski 2006).” [6]
Levy in another article, recognized Nelson Glueck’s original assessment of Solomon’s copper mines
61 | P a g e
“Giving credit where credit is due, Nelson Glueck, although examining only the larger Iron Age sites in the area,
suggested that Khirbat enNahas was the center of mining and smelting sites in the vicinity. Based on the pottery
sherds he collected, he suggested that the most important periods of activity were during and shortly after the
reign of King Solomon. Glueck’s observations in the 1930s were based solely on the relative chronology afforded
by pottery sherds collected from the surface. With the exception of his unpublished excavations at Tell elKheleifeh
near Aqaba, there simply were no stratified contexts of pottery assemblages from excavated sites in Jordan at
that time. Now our excavations at Khirbat enNahas are providing support for many of Glueck’s insights.” [7]
The Bible now closes the work on copper items
“Solʹo·mon left all the utensils unweighed because they were in such great quantities. The weight of the copper
was not ascertained. Solʹo·mon made all the utensils for the house of Jehovah: the altar of gold; the gold table on
which to put the showbread; the lampstands of pure gold, five on the right and five on the left before the innermost
room; and the blossoms, the lamps, and the snuffers, of gold; the basins, the extinguishers, the bowls, the cups,
and the fire holders, of pure gold; and the sockets for the doors of the inner house, that is, the Most Holy, and for
the doors of the house of the temple, of gold.” (7:47-50)
Now, I know, if the all the archaeological work is proved accurate where Solomon had all that copper come from.
The Bible now concludes this portion of the building work
“So King Solʹo·mon completed all the work he had to do for the house of Jehovah. Solʹo·mon then brought in the
things that David his father had made holy, and he put the silver, the gold, and the articles into the treasuries of
the house of Jehovah.” (7:51)
The Bible has proven countless times that it is God’s Word. It has survived all sorts of attack against it. If it is
really God’s Word, one owes it to himself to understand what God is telling us about Him in it.
The online article below engages us to think about it
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-no4-2016-july/original-bible-text/
References
[1] Basin. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 261.
[2] Hiram. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1121.
[3] Zarethan. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1219.
[4] Tebes, Juan Manual. “Biblical Archaeology and the Quest for the Ancient Israelite State’s Oldest Remains”,
American School of Oriental Research blog site article.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Levy, Thomas, et al. “New perspectives on Iron Age copper production and society in the Faynan Region,
Jordan”, an article in “Eastern Mediterranean Metallurgy and MetalWork in the Second Millenium BC, A
conference in honour of James D. Muhly, Nicosia”, 10th-11th October 2009”, Oxbow Books, 2012, p. 210.
[7] Levy, Thomas. “Edom and Copper: The Emergence of Ancient Israel’s Rival”, Biblical Archaeology Society
blog article, July/August 2006.
62 | P a g e
11.13 The Inauguration of the Temple of Jehovah God

11.13.1 The Inauguration of the Temple of Jehovah God - Part 1
The time for inauguration of the temple in the bible account has arrived. Bible scholars look this account not as a
prayer of Solomon alone but as a literary form they call “building account”. Other neighboring nations of the
ancient Near East also wrote about their own temple inaugurations. What have scholars found about this genre?
Are what scholars writing about Solomon and the temple inauguration makes sense when compared to the
Biblical account? What does the prayer of Solomon request from God? What does the prayer teach? These are
my reflection notes.
Scholars found a similarity in structure. One paper mentioned this similarity in six parts
“Victor Hurowitz in his book I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of
Mesopotamian and North-West Semitic Writings has offered an important ANE background for temple building
and dedication that can help us better understand the movements and expectations found in Solomon’s Temple
Prayer. After surveying Sumerian, Assyrian, Babylonian and NW Semitic parallels to temple/palace building
projects, Hurowitz lays out the following standardized literary form which closely parallels the Solomonic temple
narrative in 1 Kings 5-9: (1) a reason to build or restore a temple/palace along with the command from or consent
of the gods to engage the project (cf. 1 Kgs 5:17-19); (2) materially preparing for the building (acquisition of
materials, drafting workers, laying the foundation; cf. 1 Kgs 5:20-32); (3) a description of the process of
construction of the building and its furnishings (cf. 1 Kgs 6:1-7:51); (4) dedication of the temple/palace with the
appropriate festivities and rituals (1 Kgs 8:1-11, 62-66); (5) a prayer or blessing “meant to assure a good future for
the building and builder” (1 Kgs 8:12-61); and (6) an optional addition of blessings and curses for those rebuilding
or damaging the temple/palace in the future (1 Kgs 9:1-9) (Hurowitz, 64, 109- 10, 311). He argues for a genre that
he labels as a “building account” based on common language and themes (Hurowitz, 312). 1 Kings 5-9
exemplifies this common literary structure found in the description of ancient Near East temple building projects.”
[1]
This paper highlight why the prayer of Solomon is the first longest report about Solomon whereas prior to this, he
is presented as “off-stage” of the narrative. Then, the paper quotes one scholar
“Balentine, in his work Prayer in the Hebrew Bible, suggests an entry point into understanding Solomon: “Biblical
prayer is but one of the means afforded in Hebrew narrative for building character portraits” (Balentine, 49).
So who is Solomon? First and foremost Solomon in this prayer narrative is portrayed as the son of David (8:15,
17, 18, 20, 24, 25; cf. 9:4). This is apparent in his actions which recapitulate the moving of the ark accompanied
by many sacrifices just as his father had done earlier (2 Sam 6; 1 Kgs 8:5; Long, 97). In the opening of the prayer
the text portrays Solomon as a witness to the fulfillment of what God had promised to his father (8:24, 25, 26).
This whole prayer narrative not only repeatedly recalls the Davidic covenant and Solomon’s role in its fulfillment
that has already occurred (8:15, 19, 20, 24, 25; 9:5) but also Solomon’s role as the one determining its future
direction depending on how he would meet the conditions of the covenant that had not yet happened (8:23, 25-
26; 9:6).” [2]
Meanwhile, the scholars who promote the idea of Deuteronomistic history and their editors, are still lacking
agreements in details of this theory and this includes the meaning of Solomon’s dedication prayer. One paper
touched this disagreement
“Aside from diverging on the composition and date of 1 Kings 8, commentators also disagree about its meaning,
specifically the trope: Solomon's royal shrine as a house of prayer. The imperative in Deuteronomy 12 for one
"place for Yhwh's name" has explicitly to do, of course, with sacrifice, the main form of worship in the ancient Near
East (Deut 12:4-18,26-27). Why, then, does the Deuteronomist have Solomon utter a lengthy prayer at the
dedication of "the place that Yhwh shall choose to make his name dwell there?" According to Kaufmann, the
replacement of sacrifice with prayer results from the Israelite understanding of worship as "dependence upon and
submission to the one, omnipotent God.” [3]
63 | P a g e
This paper then cites examples of the scholarly explanations of what their expert opinions are relative to this
inauguration story
“For Noth, Solomon's prayer indicates deuteronomistic devaluation of the temple. The Deuteronomist, writing after
the temple's destruction, purportedly recasts the temple's significance, "For him the temple is little more than a
place towards which one turns in prayer." Similarly, Weinfeld sees Solomon's prayer as evincing the
deuteronomic demythologization of worship.
Upon close scrutiny, none of these explanations is compelling. Prayer does not seem inherently to be any less
mythological or any more clearly a sign of submission than sacrifice. If an exilic deuteronomist wished to
downplay the temple's importance, why would this writer stress that the temple was the focal point of Israelite life
and insist that people use the temple in all sorts of predicaments to supplicate Yhwh "at this house" or "toward
this place"? Nor should prayer in an ancient context be disassociated from sacrifice. Halpern, McKenzie, and
Miller point to a number of ancient Near Eastern texts that mention both prayer and sacrifice. In this regard, the
deuteronomistic presentation of Solomon's dedication of the temple is no different, for it depicts both royal
sacrifice (1 Kgs 8:5,62-64) and royal prayer (8:31-51). Hurowitz documents the claim that the Deuteronomist's
temple narrative contains similar components to those found in many ancient Near Eastern narratives of the
construction of a temple or a palace. Hence, in many respects, the sequence of events in 1 Kings 6-9 is not
unusual.” [4]
The way scholars reason out shows how stovepiped their approach seems when as an ordinary Bible reader
myself, I found their logic completely out of context of what the Bible presents.
The Bible opens the inauguration activities this way
“At that time Solʹo·mon congregated the elders of Israel, all the heads of the tribes, the chieftains of the paternal
houses of Israel. They came to King Solʹo·mon at Jerusalem to bring up the ark of the covenant of Jehovah from
the City of David, that is, Zion.” (8:1)
Solomon first organized the leaders of the nation - elders, heads of the tribes, and chieftains of the paternal
houses. The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight explains this important functions. First the elders
“The Hebrew word za·qenʹ and the Greek word pre·sbyʹte·ros, both meaning “older man,” or “elder,” are used not
only to refer to persons of advanced age (Ge 18:11; De 28:50; 1Sa 2:22; 1Ti 5:1, 2) or to the older of two persons
(Lu 15:25) but also to apply in a special way to those holding a position of authority and responsibility in a
community or nation. The latter sense is the predominant one in both the Hebrew and the Christian Greek
Scriptures.” [5]
Insight adds that as elders, these may function in different ways
“References to “all Israel, its older men and its heads and its judges and its officers” (Jos 23:2; 24:1), “the older
men of Israel and all the heads of the tribes, the chieftains of the paternal houses” (2Ch 5:2), do not mean that the
“heads,” “judges,” “officers,” and “chieftains” were distinct from the “older men” but, rather, indicate that those
named in such a specific way held singular offices within the body of older men.—Compare 2Ki 19:2; Mr 15:1.
Those serving as “older men” on a national level are designated by the expressions “older men of Israel” (1Sa 4:3;
8:4), “older men of the land” (1Ki 20:7), “older men of the assembly” (Jg 21:16), or, after the division of the
kingdom, “older men of Judah and Jerusalem,” for the southern kingdom.—2Ki 23:1.” [6]
Regarding the heads or chieftains of the paternal houses of Israel, Insight explains
“A man in a ruling position, such as the hereditary head of a tribe or a paternal house. The Hebrew word na·siʼʹ is
variously rendered by Bible translators as “prince,” “leader,” “ruler,” “chieftain.” (See LEADER, NOBLE, PRINCE.)
The heads of the 12 paternal houses or tribes of Israel were termed “chieftains.” (Nu 1:16; Jos 22:14) The term is
also applied to the heads of the 12 clans springing from Ishmael. (Ge 17:20; 25:16) The title was used regarding
Kings Solomon and Zedekiah as rulers. (1Ki 11:34; Eze 21:25) The esteem that the Hittites had for Abraham
64 | P a g e
might be indicated by his being called “a chieftain of God,” or a mighty chieftain.—Ge 23:6, ftn.” [7]
King Solomon with the leaders of the nation together they brought the ark to the temple from the City of David.
The Bible said it was brought up from the City of David. Regarding that Insight comments
“Solomon transferred the Ark to the newly constructed temple on the more spacious plateau to the N of the City of
David. The expression that they ‘brought up the ark out of the City of David’ shows that the temple area lay on
higher ground, Mount Moriah being higher than the southern spur. (1Ki 8:1)” [8]
The Bible dates this inauguration
“All the men of Israel assembled before King Solʹo·mon at the festival in the month of Ethʹa·nim, that is, the
seventh month.” (8:2)
“This was the seventh lunar month of the sacred calendar of the Israelites, but the first of the secular calendar.
(1Ki 8:2) It corresponded to part of September and part of October. Following the Babylonian exile it was called
Tishri, a name that does not appear in the Bible record but that is found in postexilic writings.” [9]
The actual carrying of the Ark and the holy utensils made of gold into the temple
“So all the elders of Israel came, and the priests lifted up the Ark. They brought up the Ark of Jehovah, the tent of
meeting, and all the holy utensils that were in the tent. The priests and the Levites brought them up. King
Solʹo·mon and the entire assembly of Israel, who had been summoned to meet with him, were before the Ark. So
many sheep and cattle were being sacrificed that they could not be counted or numbered.” (8:3-5)
It is an amazing record that the sheep and cattle sacrificed could not counted in number. There is the big
courtyard and the big altar where these are burned. Hundreds of priest are serving in this courtyard slaughtering
the animals and burning them in the altar. Smoke is ascending to the heavens. Finally, the ark came to the temple
itself
“Then the priests brought the ark of the covenant of Jehovah to its place, into the innermost room of the house,
the Most Holy, underneath the wings of the cherubs.” (8:6)
More details of the inauguration will follow in the next installment.
References
[1] Hildebrandt, Ted. “The Temple Prayer of Solomon (1 Kings 8:1-9:9), p. 4.

[2] Ibid.
[3] Knoppers, Gary. “Prayer and Propaganda: Solomon’s Dedication of the Temple and the Deuteronomist’s
Program”, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 57, 1995, p. 230.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Older Man. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 548.
[6] Ibid., p. 549.
[7] Chieftain. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 433.
[8] David, City of. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 591.
[9] Ethanim. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 765.
65 | P a g e

The dedication of the very first Jerusalem temple was a day of celebration. But God allowed this same temple to
be destroyed twice. First by the Babylonians in 607 B.C.E. and later completely by the Romans in 70 C.E. without
anymore restoration since that time. That fact informs me about how God feels about organized religion when
they fail God.
For now, I will focus on the time when Israel complied with God's covenant law. At the time,
The Ark of the Covenant finally found a home in the temple after thousands of years moving from one place to
another. The Bible reports
“Thus the wings of the cherubs were spread out over the place of the Ark, so that the cherubs overshadowed the
Ark and its poles. The poles were so long that the tips of the poles were visible from the Holy in front of the
innermost room, but they were not visible from outside. And they are there to this day.” (8:7,8)
To some Bible readers, this is a puzzle. They had a hard time figuring this scene. A Bible-based publication
explored one scenario
“Some have imagined that the poles touched the curtain, producing visible bumps. But that would not be so if the
poles were in a north-south orientation, with the curtain parallel to the poles. (Numbers 3:38) There is a more
reasonable explanation. The poles might have been visible if there was a slight gap between the curtain and the
wall of the temple or when the high priest had to enter the Most Holy. The curtain obstructed any view of the Ark
itself, but the poles extending to each side might have shown through the gap. While this explanation is plausible,
we cannot be dogmatic about it.” [1]
The Bible writer now describes the content of the Ark
“There was nothing in the Ark but the two stone tablets that Moses placed there at Hoʹreb, when Jehovah made a
covenant with the people of Israel while they were coming out of the land of Egypt.” (8:9)
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight comments on the content of the Ark
“The Ark served as a holy archive for the safekeeping of sacred reminders or testimony, the principal contents
being the two tablets of the testimony, or the Ten Commandments. (Ex 25:16) A “golden jar having the manna
and the rod of Aaron that budded” were added to the Ark but were later removed sometime before the building of
Solomon’s temple. (Heb 9:4; Ex 16:32-34; Nu 17:10; 1Ki 8:9; 2Ch 5:10) Just before Moses died, he gave a copy
of the “book of the law” to the Levitical priests with instructions that it should be kept, not within, but “at the side of
the ark of the covenant of Jehovah your God, . . . as a witness there against you.”—De 31:24-26.” [2]
How did Jehovah view this building, this temple, built for His name, using forced labor employed by Solomon?
The next verse discloses the outcome
“When the priests came out from the holy place, the cloud filled the house of Jehovah.” (8:10)
What is this cloud that filled the house of Jehovah? The next verse offered the explanation
“The priests were not able to stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of Jehovah filled the house of
Jehovah. At that time Solʹo·mon said: “Jehovah said he would reside in the thick gloom. I have successfully built a
lofty house for you, an established place for you to dwell in forever.”” (8:11-13)
When Solomon said that it was Jehovah who said that he would reside in the thick gloom, it must have been a
reference to the days of Israel in the wilderness when a similar thing happened with the inauguration of the
tabernacle, at the time of Moses. Insight recalls this
“When the tabernacle was set up in the wilderness, the cloud resided over it and “Jehovah’s glory filled the
tabernacle,” so that Moses was unable to enter. (Ex 40:34, 35; compare 1Ki 8:10-12; Re 15:8.) After this the cloud
66 | P a g e
stood over the Most Holy, in which was the ark of the covenant, and the cloud became a pillar of fire at night.
Doubtless this cloud was visible from any part of the camp, marking the camp’s center. When it rose, Israel
prepared to break camp. When it moved, they followed its direction to the next camping place, although the exact
site to set up the camp may have been selected with the help of Hobab, who had a good knowledge of the land,
including watering places and other features necessary to a camp of such tremendous proportions.—Ex 40:34-38;
Nu 10:29-32.
Inside the Most Holy, over the ark of the covenant, was a cloud that was very brilliant, the only light to illuminate
that compartment. (Le 16:2) In post-Biblical Hebrew, it was called the Shechinah. When the high priest went into
the Most Holy on Atonement Day with the blood of animals, he was symbolically standing in the presence of
Jehovah.” [3]
In effect, the presence of the cloud was a stamp of divine approval. Jehovah God visibly showed Israel in
Solomon’s time a parallel endorsement of the temple with the tabernacle in the days of Moses. The Bible now
reports Solomon speaking to the congregation of Israel
“Then the king turned around and began to bless all the congregation of Israel while all the congregation of Israel
stood. He said: “May Jehovah the God of Israel be praised, the one who by his own mouth promised my father
David, and by his own hand has given fulfillment, saying, ‘From the day I brought my people Israel out of Egypt, I
have not chosen a city out of all the tribes of Israel in which to build a house for my name to remain there, but I
have chosen David to be over my people Israel.’ And it was the heart’s desire of my father David to build a house
for the name of Jehovah the God of Israel. But Jehovah said to my father David, ‘It was your heart’s desire to
build a house for my name, and you did well to desire this in your heart. However, you will not build the house, but
your own son who is to be born to you is the one who will build the house for my name.’ Jehovah has carried out
the promise that he made, for I have succeeded my father David and I sit on the throne of Israel, just as Jehovah
promised. I have also built the house for the name of Jehovah the God of Israel and have set up a place there for
the Ark containing the covenant that Jehovah made with our forefathers when he was bringing them out of the
land of Egypt.”” (8:14-21)
If we break up this speech into its components, Solomon cited God’s choosing or anointing of David to be a
leader, His choosing David’s son to be the builder of the temple, and Solomon affirming that God has fulfilled His
word. Jehovah God is presented as a Fulfiller of His divine promises. After this speech, Solomon now faced the
altar of Jehovah, to recite one of the longest prayers recorded in the Bible. What can we learn from Solomon’s
prayer of dedication? That will be for the next installment. Scholars have explored and studied the logical
organization of that prayer.
Construction has always been a feature of the worship of Jehovah God in the Bible. Noah was the first builder.
His was an ark that became their place of refuge during the global flood. Later on, Jehovah God instructed Moses
to build the tabernacle, also known as the tent of meeting, with an Ark and with Cherubs on its cover, placed in
the innermost portion of the tabernacle. Now, this temple that took 7 years to build. Later on, after the return from
Babylonian exile, Jehovah God told the returning Jews to rebuild the temple and Jerusalem.
However, due to the persistent failure of Israel to comply with the covenant, and with the murder of His own Son,
Jehovah God abandoned this temple, which was first destroyed by the Babylonians in 607 B.C.E. and finally by
the Romans in 70 C.E. and never to be rebuilt.
The temple was a place where Jews offered sacrifices, the blood of animals. But just like with King Saul, Israel’s
first king, to Jehovah God obedience was better than sacrifices. Just as he rejected Saul, so he rejected Israel
and its temple.
In a similar fashion, Jehovah God will hold an accounting of all religions claiming to represent Him, to lead people
back to Him, but who failed to live by His divine principles. Just as He allowed the destruction of the Jerusalem
temple, God will allow the destruction of all false religion. The Bible describes that day to be a day of great
distress. False religious organizations will see a decline in support. A billion people in the world today do not have
religion. [4][5]Today research shows that the more affluent the country is, the more secular, the less religious, if
67 | P a g e
not shifting to practical atheism. One online article explored this issue of trusting religion
(https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/wp20130701/question-religion/#?insight[search_id]=51449bde-
0d42-4273-b925-684b61014c06&insight[search_result_index]=54)
References
[1] Questions From Readers, The Watchtower, October 15, 2001, p. 31.
[2] Ark of the Covenant. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 166.
[3] Cloud. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 484.
[4] Dennett, Daniel. “Why the Future of Religion is Bleak”, The Wall Street Journal, April 26, 2015.
[5] “The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050, Pew Research Center,
Demographic Study, Pew Forum blog site.
68 | P a g e

What important truth does the Solomon temple dedication prayer teach me? A Bible reader would be surprised
that it belies a popular idea about God. Bible scholars have explored the prayer of dedication of Solomon. They
studied in the context of a genre of literature that has an equivalent in the neighboring peoples of the ancient Near
East who also dedicate temples to their gods. One reference highlighted this commonality
“Halpern, McKenzie, and Miller point to a number of ancient Near Eastern texts that mention both prayer and
sacrifice. In this regard, the deuteronomistic presentation of Solomon's dedication of the temple is no different, for
it depicts both royal sacrifice (1 Kgs 8:5,62-64) and royal prayer (8:31-51). Hurowitz documents the claim that the
Deuteronomist's temple narrative contains similar components to those found in many ancient Near Eastern
narratives of the construction of a temple or a palace. Hence, in many respects, the sequence of events in 1
Kings 6-9 is not unusual.” [1]
However, there is something in the prayer of Solomon that scholars find different. The paper brings that out
“Yet some problems remain, despite the affinities between Kings and the written remains of other ancient Near
Eastern cultures. Solomon's prayer repeatedly promotes the temple as a place of prayer, not as a place of
sacrifice. Moreover, Solomon wishes his sanctuary to function specifically as a place of popular prayer. To be
sure, Solomon, like a number of other ancient Near Eastern monarchs, is also concerned about the role of his
dynasty (8:15-21) and the efficacy of his prayers (8:28-30,52-53), but most of his attention is devoted to popular
prayer (8:31-51). Solomon clearly encourages Israelites to journey to the temple and offer petitions there. Such
prayer is an event of public worship.” [2]
Other scholars noted parallelism with other Biblical texts in the prayer of Solomon. One paper cited examples
“Echoes may be heard from the dedication of the tabernacle in Exodus 32-40 (especially 40)/Leviticus 8-9 as well
as from the post-exilic inauguration of the Second Temple in Ezra 1-6 (cf. Haggai). While much of 2 Chronicles 6
is drawn word for word from 1 Kings 8 including the seven Prayer Occasions yet 2 Chronicles 6:41-42 swaps out
1 Kings 8:51-53 in favor of Psalm 132:8-10. Parallels with David’s bringing of the ark to Jerusalem, and the
Davidic Covenant (2 Sam 6-7) are also featured in Solomon’s own prayer narrative.”[3]
Then, it adds another set of scriptures
“Another set of texts that clearly provide a background for Solomon’s Temple Prayer are the covenant curses in
Deuteronomy 28, Leviticus 26 and Amos 4:6ff. The curses are clearly reflected in several of Solomon’s seven
Prayer Occasions (#2 defeat [Deut 28:25]; #3 drought [Deut 28:23f.]; #4 calamity [Deut 28:22, 42, 52ff.], and #7
exile [Deut 28:36, 64]). The phrase “ark of the covenant of the Lord” (1 Kgs 8:1, 6) is not found anywhere in the
Pentateuch except in the book of Deuteronomy (10:8; 31:9, 25, 26). It occurs nowhere in the prophets or psalms
but does occur in Jeremiah (3:16). Even the rhetorical question of disdain (1 Kgs 9:8) is echoed in Deuteronomy
29:24--“All the nations will ask: ‘Why has the LORD done this to this land? Why this fierce, burning anger?’” One
of the most interesting intertextual references comes from the words “ironsmelting furnace” as a descriptor of
Egypt (1 Kgs 8:51). It is found elsewhere only in Deuteronomy 4:20 and Jeremiah 11:4.” [4]
Then, it discussed the logical organization of this prayer citing seven key requests
“The seven Prayer Occasions (8:31-51) at the heart of this lengthy prayer seem to envision Solomon’s
intercessory understanding of the types of scenarios for which his people would need divine assistance and may
also reflect situations that were of concern to him as king. Notice that Prayer Occasions #2 (defeat), #4 (siege),
#6 (war) and #7 (exile) all involve military conflict that may have threatened Solomon as a king of peace and rest.
Prayer Occasion #3 focuses on drought and #4 on blight, locusts, grasshoppers and other natural calamities, both
of which were situations beyond his control as king and yet of great concern to his people.” [5]
Solomon in his opening prayer repeats the key concept that Jehovah God has no equal, “there is no God like you
in the heavens above or on the earth beneath”. He repeats his initial declaration that Jehovah is a fulfiller of
promises as he himself is the fulfillment. (8:22-26)
69 | P a g e
Solomon declared an important truth about God
”But will God really dwell on the earth? Look! The heavens, yes, the heaven of the heavens, cannot contain you;
how much less, then, this house that I have built!” (8:7)
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight explains the importance of this declaration
“Solomon, the constructor of the temple at Jerusalem, stated that the “heavens, yes, the heaven of the heavens”
cannot contain God. (1Ki 8:27) As the Creator of the heavens, Jehovah’s position is far above them all, and “his
name alone is unreachably high. His dignity is above earth and heaven.” (Ps 148:13) Jehovah measures the
physical heavens as easily as a man would measure an object by spreading his fingers so that the object lies
between the tips of the thumb and the little finger. (Isa 40:12) Solomon’s statement does not mean that God has
no specific place of residence. Nor does it mean that he is omnipresent in the sense of being literally everywhere
and in everything. This can be seen from the fact that Solomon also spoke of Jehovah as hearing “from the
heavens, your established place of dwelling,” that is, the heavens of the spirit realm.—1Ki 8:30, 39.” [6]
In the first request of Solomon, he requested that his prayer be attended to
“Now pay attention to the prayer of your servant and to his request for favor, O Jehovah my God, and listen to the
cry for help and to the prayer that your servant is praying before you today. 29 May your eyes be open toward this
house night and day, toward the place of which you said, ‘My name will be there,’ to listen to the prayer that your
servant prays toward this place. 30 And listen to your servant’s request for favor and to the request by your people
Israel that they pray toward this place, and may you hear from your dwelling place in the heavens; yes, may you
hear and forgive.” (8:28-30)
In the last part of this prayer, Solomon used an important phrase “your dwelling place in the heavens”. Solomon
reuses this phrase several times in his prayer. What does this teach me? A Bible-based publication explains
“MANY people believe that God is omnipresent, meaning that he is literally everywhere and in everything. Wise
King Solomon made this request to Jehovah in prayer: “May you yourself hear from the heavens, your established
place of dwelling.” (1 Kings 8:30, 39) According to the Bible, then, Jehovah God has a place of dwelling. Solomon
referred to that place as “the heavens.” But what does that mean?”
The Bible sometimes uses the words “heaven” and “heavens” to refer to the physical realm surrounding the earth.
(Genesis 2:1, 4) However, since God created all things, his dwelling place must have existed before he formed
the material universe. Hence, God must exist in a realm that is not bound by material things. Therefore, when the
Bible speaks of heaven as the dwelling place of Jehovah God, it is referring, not to a location in the sky or in outer
space, but to a spirit realm.” [7]
The remainder contains the seven requests (8:31-52), part of which refers to the Deuteronomic curses. In the final
portion, Solomon repeats one more time “the heavens, your dwelling place”
“May you then listen from the heavens, your dwelling place, and do all that the foreigner asks of you, so that all
the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you, as your people Israel do, and may know that your
name has been called on this house that I have built.” (8:43)
Another Bible-based publication explains
“Actually, the Bible speaks of God as having a specific place of dwelling—the heavens. It records a prayer of King
Solomon in which he called upon God: “May you yourself listen from the heavens, your established place of
dwelling.” (1 Kings 8:43) When teaching his disciples how to pray, Jesus Christ told them to address their prayers
to “Our Father in the heavens.” (Matthew 6:9) After his resurrection, Christ entered “into heaven itself, now to
appear before the person of God,” states the Bible.—Hebrews 9:24.
These verses clearly indicate that Jehovah God dwells, not everywhere, but only in heaven. Of course, “the
heavens” mentioned in these passages does not refer to the atmosphere surrounding the earth nor to the vast
70 | P a g e
expanse of outer space. The physical heavens cannot contain the Creator of the universe. (1 Kings 8:27) The
Bible tells us that “God is a Spirit.” (John 4:24) He resides in the spiritual heavens, a realm independent of the
physical universe.—1 Corinthians 15:44.” [8]
References
[1] Knoppers, Gary. “Prayer and Propaganda: Solomon’s Dedication of the Temple and the Deuteronomist’s
Program”, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 57, 1995, p. 231.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Hildebrandt, Ted. “The Temple Prayer of Solomon (1 Kings 8:1-9:9)”. Gordon College.
[4] Ibid., p. 8.
[5] Ibid., p. 13.
[6] Heaven. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1060.
[7] “Is God Omnipresent?”, Awake!, April 2011, p. 28.
[8] “Does God Dwell in One Place?”, The Watchtower, August 1, 2011, p. 27.
71 | P a g e

Solomon’s concluding speech reflected the very same thoughts that he expressed at the outset. The speech also
teach important truths about Jehovah God. What are these? These are my reflection notes.
Bible scholars when studying the structure or logical organization of Solomon’s story in Kings use a structure they
call chiastic (from chiasmus defined as a rhetorical device in which two or more clauses are balanced against
each other by the reversal of their structures in order to produce an artistic effect). One paper described the
structure this way
“In order to understand the framework of the Solomonic narrative of 1 Kings 1-11 in which the temple prayer is set,
the literary structure should be noted before jumping into the prayer itself. The following is a useful chiastic
structural diagram giving an overview of this narrative (adapter from Parker, 43; Williams, 66)
Frame Story chs. 1-2 [Adversaries: Adonijah, Joab, Abiathar]

1. Dream #1 3:1-15 [Asks for Wisdom at Gibeon high place]
A. Domestic Policy
2. Women and Wisdom [Two women/one baby] 3:16-28
3. Administration and Wisdom 4:1-5:14
B. Labour Relations
4. The Contract with Hiram 5:15-27
5. The Corvee 5:28-32
6. Solomon’s Religious Expression chs. 6-8 [Temple: built/PRAYER]” [1]
This is the first half of the chiasmus. Remember each of this will have a counter-balance but in the reverse order
“1. Dream #2 9:1-10a [“if” torah faithful-presence/ “if not” - abandoned]

B’. Labour Relations
2. The Contract with Hiram 9:10b-14
3. The Corvee 9:15-28
A’. Foreign Policy
4. Woman and Wisdom 10:1-13 [Queen Sheba visits]
5. Wealth and Wisdom 10:14-29
6. Solomon’s Religious Expression 11:1-13 [ wives, idolatry and high places]
Frame Story 11:14-43 [Adversaries: Hadad, Rezon, Jeroboam, death]” [2]
What did Solomon expressed in his concluding speech? Solomon acknowledged the following
* Jehovah God deserved to be praised (8:56a)

* God is a fulfiller of promises (8:56b)
* the request for God to draw Israel to himself so they may fulfill their covenant obligation (8: 58)
* the request that Solomon’s own requests be granted (8:59)
* Jehovah is the only true God, there is no other (8:60)
The thoughts expressed by Solomon echo the words of Moses and of Joshua from the book of Deuteronomy and
Joshua. I will now examine verse 56b
“Not one word of all his good promise that he made through Moses his servant has failed.”
Compare that to Joshua
“Not one word out of all the good promises that Jehovah your God has spoken to you has failed.” (23:14)
I also noted verse 58
72 | P a g e
“May he draw our heart toward himself, to walk in all his ways and to keep his commandments, his regulations,
and his judgments, which he commanded our forefathers to observe.”
Compare to Deuteronomy
“And you must choose life so that you may live, you and your descendants, by loving Jehovah your God, by
listening to his voice, and by sticking to him, for he is your life and by him you will endure a long time in the land
that Jehovah swore to give to your forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” (30:19,20)
After these speeches, Solomon went on with the sacrifices.
“Now the king and all Israel with him offered a grand sacrifice before Jehovah. Solʹo·mon offered the communion
sacrifices to Jehovah: He offered 22,000 cattle and 120,000 sheep. Thus the king and all the Israelites
inaugurated the house of Jehovah.” (8:62, 63)
It is interesting that most of the sacrifices were communion sacrifices. Just as a refresh, the Bible-based
encyclopedia Insight describes the purpose of communion sacrifices
“Communion offerings acceptable to Jehovah denoted peace with him. The worshiper and his household partook
(in the courtyard of the tabernacle; according to tradition, booths were set up around the inside of the curtain
surrounding the courtyard; in the temple, dining rooms were provided). The officiating priest received a portion,
and the priests on duty, another portion. Jehovah, in effect, received the pleasing smoke of the burning fat. The
blood, representing the life, was given to God as his. Therefore the priests, the worshipers, and Jehovah were as
if together at the meal, signifying peaceful relationships.” [3]
This inauguration day, Solomon and Israel were expressing their joy in the peaceful relationship that they have
with Jehovah their God. All that cattle and sheep, they will partake together - priests and Israelites - to display
their happy and peaceful relationship with God.
Solomon had to take an adjustment for the inauguration day. The Bible reports
“On that day the king had to sanctify the middle of the courtyard that is before the house of Jehovah, for there he
had to offer up the burnt sacrifices, the grain offerings, and the fat pieces of the communion sacrifices, because
the copper altar that is before Jehovah was too small to contain the burnt sacrifices, the grain offerings, and the
fat pieces of the communion sacrifices.” (8:64)
Aside from the communion sacrifices, another important sacrifice is the burnt offering. As a refresh, Insight
explains the significance of the burnt offering
“Burnt offerings were presented in their entirety to God; no part of the animal being retained by the worshiper.
(Compare Jg 11:30, 31, 39, 40.) They constituted an appeal to Jehovah to accept, or to signify acceptance of, the
sin offering that sometimes accompanied them.” [4]
Unlike the communion sacrifice where the one offering partakes with the meat of the sacrifice, burnt offering is
burnt whole in the altar. Nothing is left to the offerer to partake. Regarding the volume of work for the inauguration
day, Insight comments
“Despite the fact that it covered an area of over 79 sq m (850 sq ft), this copper altar proved too small for the
immense quantity of sacrifices made then, and so a portion of the courtyard was sanctified for that purpose.—1Ki
8:62-64.” [5]
The festival lasted 14 days (8:65). That was surely a joyous occasion for all the worshipers of Jehovah God then.
No wonder the end of the festival of the inauguratio of the temple ended positively as reported
“On the following day, he sent the people away, and they blessed the king and went to their homes rejoicing and
feeling glad of heart over all the goodness that Jehovah had shown to David his servant and Israel his people.”
(8:66)
73 | P a g e
Surely, since Jehovah God’s glory filled the golden temple, God and his angels were equally happy to see His
faithful worshipers on earth celebrating the inauguration of a building which is the center of worship for Jehovah
on earth.During this time, only Israel was giving God the worship He deserves. But, the last book of the Bible offer
a vision that one day all humanity will be giving Jehovah God the worship that He deserves. Why would God
deserve that? The last book of the Revelation offered an important reason
““You are worthy, Jehovah our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all
things, and because of your will they came into existence and were created.” (4:11)
One minor detail I would like to pay attention to in this chapter is the comparison between the dominion
associated with David compared to that of Solomon mentioned in verse 65. There the expression was “from Lebo-
hamath down to the Wadi of Egypt”. With David, the reference was “from the river of Egypt as far as Lebo-
hamath”. Insight provides an explanation
“Similarly, a correspondency is noted between the reference to David’s congregating the people of Israel from
Shihor (“the river of Egypt,” NW) to Hamath (when endeavoring to bring the ark of the covenant up to Jerusalem)
and the congregating of the people in Solomon’s day from “the entering in of Hamath down to the torrent valley of
Egypt.” (1Ch 13:5; 1Ki 8:65) The explanation for this may be that in the latter case (Solomon’s time) the account
gives the practical boundaries of Israelite residence. The region between the Wadi el-ʽArish and the eastern arm
of the Nile is basically desert territory and scrubland, so this wadi, or torrent valley, fittingly marked the limit of
territory suitable for Israelite inhabitation, whereas in the former case (David’s) the description may be that of the
entire region of Israelite activity, the region effectively dominated by David, which indeed ran to the border of
Egypt.” [6]
This story is also featured in the children’s book “My Book of Bible Stories”
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-stories/4/solomons-temple/
References
[1] Hildebrandt, Ted. “The Temple Prayer of Solomon (1 Kings 8:1-9:9)”, Gordon College, p. 1.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Offerings. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 526.
[4] Ibid., p. 525.
[5] Altar. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 83.
[6] Shihor. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 927.
74 | P a g e
11.14 Post-Inauguration of the Temple

11.14.1 Post-Inauguration of the Temple - Part 1
What can I learn from Jehovah God’s second revelation to Solomon? Does God love unconditionally or not? Does
God require loyalty and obedience? What is the consequence if I fail God? Are the material I am reading from the
Bible fiction as asserted strongly by certain scholars? Do all scholars feel the same way? Is there a model that
both critics and conservative scholars take on the Bible? These are my reflection notes.
“As soon as Solʹo·mon had finished building the house of Jehovah, the house of the king, and everything
Solʹo·mon desired to make, Jehovah appeared to Solʹo·mon a second time, just as he had appeared to him in
Gibʹe·on. Jehovah said to him: “I have heard your prayer and your request for favor that you made before me. I
have sanctified this house that you built by permanently putting my name there, and my eyes and my heart will
always be there.” (9:1-3)
When the Bible quoted God saying in a dream to Solomon that he had heard the prayer of Solomon, the timing
was after Solomon finished building both the house of Jehovah and and of the king which took which took an
additional 12-13 years after the temple was finished. Some Bible readers are asking why it took Jehovah God that
long to hear Solomon’s prayer. The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight explains whether that was the case
“Some have questioned the view just mentioned that the inauguration took place in the year after the temple was
completed, because of 1 Kings 9:1-9, which speaks of Jehovah as appearing to Solomon after “the house of the
king” was constructed, saying that he had heard Solomon’s prayer. (Compare 2Ch 7:11-22.) This was in his 24th
year, after his 20-year building work. Was God 12 years in answering Solomon’s prayer given at the inauguration
of the temple? No, for at that inauguration, at the close of Solomon’s prayer, “the fire itself came down from the
heavens and proceeded to consume the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and Jehovah’s glory itself filled the
house.” This was a powerful manifestation of Jehovah’s hearing of the prayer, an answer by action, and was
acknowledged as such by the people. (2Ch 7:1-3) God’s later appearance to Solomon showed that he had not
forgotten that prayer offered 12 years previously, and now he was answering it verbally by assuring Solomon of
his response to it. God, at this second appearance, also gave Solomon added admonition to continue faithful as
had David his father.” [1]
The next portion of God’s revealed response was a reference to David
“And you, if you walk before me as your father David walked, with integrity of heart and with uprightness, by doing
everything I have commanded you, and you obey my regulations and my judgments” (9:4)
Why could God describe David as having an “integrity of heart” despite his serious sins? A Bible-based
publication explains
“Although David was exemplary in many ways, he committed several serious sins. (2 Sam. 11:2-4, 14, 15, 22-27;
1 Chron. 21:1, 7) Over the course of his life, however, David proved repentant when he sinned. He walked before
God “with integrity of heart.” (1 Ki. 9:4) Why can we say that? Because David tried to act in accord with Jehovah’s
will.” [2]
Jehovah God does not love unconditionally. He demands loyalty and obedience and he is forgiving for the truly
repentant. This God required from Solomon as He required it from David his father. The Bible continues
“Then I will establish the throne of your kingdom over Israel forever, just as I promised your father David, saying,
‘There will never fail to be a man of your line sitting on the throne of Israel.’ But if you and your sons turn away
from following me and do not keep my commandments and my statutes that I have put before you, and you go
and serve other gods and bow down to them, I will cut Israel off from the surface of the land that I have given to
them, and the house that I have sanctified for my name I will cast out of my sight, and Israel will become an object
of scorn and a cause for ridicule among all the peoples. And this house will become heaps of ruins. Everyone
passing by it will stare in amazement and will whistle and say, ‘Why did Jehovah do that to this land and this
house?’ Then they will say, ‘It was because they abandoned Jehovah their God, who had brought their forefathers
75 | P a g e
out of the land of Egypt, and they embraced other gods and bowed down to them and served them. That is why
Jehovah brought all this calamity on them.’”” (9:5-9)
King Solomon gave as gifts to King Hiram of Tyre 20 cities. There was a problem though
“At the end of 20 years, during which Solʹo·mon built the two houses, the house of Jehovah and the house of the
king, Hiʹram the king of Tyre had supplied Solʹo·mon with cedar and juniper timbers and with as much gold as he
desired, and King Solʹo·mon gave to Hiʹram 20 cities in the land of Galʹi·lee. So Hiʹram went out from Tyre to see
the cities that Solʹo·mon had given him, but he was not satisfied with them. He said: “What sort of cities are these
that you have given me, my brother?” So they came to be called the Land of Caʹbul down to this day. 14 In the
meantime, Hiʹram sent to the king 120 talents of gold.” (9:10-13)
There are several things that interest me in this report. One was Hiram calling Solomon his ‘brother’. Insight
comments on this
““Brother” is also applied to those united in a general cause and having similar aims and purposes. For example,
King Hiram of Tyre called King Solomon his brother, not simply because he was an equal in rank and position but
also perhaps because of mutual interests in supplying timbers and other things for the temple. (1Ki 9:13; 5:1-12)”
[3]
The other that got my interest was Hiram calling the cities “Land of Cabul”. Again, Insight explains
“The name applied to a Galilean district of 20 cities given by Solomon to King Hiram of Tyre, the gift likely deriving
from Solomon’s appreciation for Hiram’s assistance in his building program. Hiram, however, on inspecting the
cities, found them “not just right in his eyes,” saying to Solomon: “What sort of cities are these that you have given
me, my brother?” Thereafter they came to be called “the Land of Cabul.”—1Ki 9:10-13.
According to Josephus, the cities “lay not far from Tyre.” (Jewish Antiquities, VIII, 142 [v, 3]) Galilee is called by
Isaiah (9:1) “Galilee of the nations,” and certain scholars consider it probable that the 20 cities were inhabited by a
pagan population. It does not seem likely that Solomon would turn them over to a foreign king if they were
inhabited by Israelites, and they may indeed have been outside the boundaries actually inhabited by Israel,
though still within the limits of the original area promised Israel by God and conquered by Solomon’s father David.
(Ex 23:31; 2Sa 8:1-15) The propriety of Solomon’s action has been questioned because of God’s law at Leviticus
25:23, 24. This law may have been regarded as applying only to the region actually occupied by God’s covenant
people, in which case Solomon’s gift would not have been improper. If otherwise, then it would be an additional
example of his failure to adhere completely to divine counsel, as in the case of his multiplying horses and also
taking many wives from the foreign nations.—Compare De 17:16, 17 with 1Ki 4:26; 11:1-8.” [4]
Scholars continue all the details of the Solomon era to strike a balance between competing models or approach in
both literary and archaeological exploration. One paper highlighted this
“Finally in performing this analysis certain assumptions will be retained. Thus the existence of these kings and the
generally accepted 10th century chronology of their reigns will not be challenged. Both topics have been
extensively debated in recent literature and although serious doubts about the size and structure of the United
Monarchy remain, the existence of David, Solomon and Hiram I during the 10th century is not questioned by
mainstream scholars today (Whitelam 1996, 40; Finkelstein, 1999, 40, 42; Dever 2001, 128, 132, n. 47; Kitchen
2001). “ [5]
In this paper, the author explained his approach to understand this Solomonic era report and its authenticity
“In spite of the apparent commercial success of these activities, the arrangement came to a less than satisfactory
conclusion after two decades, at which time Solomon transferred 20 cities in Galilee to Tyrian control, and
received a quantity of gold. Hiram was disappointed with this transaction and described the towns as ‘Cabul,’ a
word of some uncertainty indicating displeasure (Gal 1993, 39). Thereafter no more is heard of the alliance.
76 | P a g e
Since little extra-biblical information exists to support the biblical passages describing the Agreement, a decision on
their authenticity or otherwise must derive from circumstantial evidence. I will explore this question by adopting a
variation of the ‘adversarial’ approach suggested by Dever by considering seven arguments addressing the
hypothesis that no such commercial agreement did exist (Dever 2001, 104, 106-8). These will then be answered
with an equal number of counter-arguments. By comparing the available biblical and extra-biblical evidence
relating to this specific question it may be possible to determine whether the probability of the hypothesis being
true is significantly above or below 50%.” [6]
What was his conclusion? His paper end this way
“The conclusion is that not one of the arguments against the existence of the treaty can be considered to be
strong. In each case the issues raised may be explained or rationalized by consideration of the commercial
opportunities and threats facing the region at that time. Indeed the circumstantial evidence would appear to
support rather than deny the existence of joint trading activities. “ [7]
References
[1] Solomon. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 989.
[2] “Teach Me to Do Your Will”, The Watchtower, November 15, 2012, p. 7.
[3] Brother. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 369.
[4] Cabul. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 381.
[5] Hagens, Graham. “Copper futures and Cabul: On ‘Reconstructing’ the Monarchic Narratives”.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
77 | P a g e

This chapter is another controversial account contested by critics both from the field of archaeology and textual
criticism. Bible critics disparage claims that initial archaeological work actually validated the biblical account of
Solomon. What is the state of research today on this material? Why is the reversal of such negative views of the
Bible a positive development amidst the many efforts to reduce the authenticity of the Bible? These are my
reflection notes.
The Bible account of Solomon’s continued building projects opens this way
“This is the account of those whom King Solʹo·mon conscripted for forced labor to build the house of Jehovah, his
own house, the Mound, the wall of Jerusalem, Haʹzor, Me·gidʹdo, and Geʹzer. (Pharʹaoh king of Egypt had come
up and captured Geʹzer and had burned it with fire, and he had also killed the Caʹnaan·ites dwelling in the city. So
he gave it as a parting gift to his daughter, the wife of Solʹo·mon.) Solʹo·mon built up Geʹzer, Lower Beth-hoʹron,
Baʹal·ath, and Taʹmar in the wilderness, within the land.” (9:15-17)
Why are the three cities - Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer - are important to be mentioned in the Bible? One paper
explains
“Megiddo was taken by the Israelites sometime during the period of the Judges (c. 1150 B.C.) while Hazor had
been taken by Joshua during the Conquest. Solomon chose to fortify these cities because of their strategic
importance: Hazor, in northern Israel, guarded the roads to Syria and Phoenicia; Megiddo commanded the trade
routes that crossed near Jezreel that went up into northern Palestine or south into Philistia and Egypt; Gezer,
near the southwest coast, was an old Canaanite city which Solomon used as a bulwark against the Philistines,
subdued under David but still considered a threat.” [1]
Archaeologist Yigael Yadin found a common architecture in the way the gates of Jerusalem, Hazor, Megiddo and
Gezer were built. The paper cites the similarities
“Jerusalem is obviously bigger than these other cities and was already significantly fortified during the time of
David. But excavations at Jerusalem's east wall and East Gate have revealed striking similarities to the
fortifications of the other cities we examined.
The east wall of Jerusalem was actually excavated back in the 1860's by archaeologist Charles Warren. Warren
found a heavy wall and courtyard dating from the time of Solomon that subsequently turned out to be identical to
the one later excavated at Megiddo. Warren also discovered a tower, which has come to be known as the
"Projecting Tower" or also the "Extra Tower." This tower and the massive wall were part of the ancient East Gate.
In the twentieth century, archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon (famous for her excavations at Jericho), identified the
type of construction "of the character identified as Phoenician at Samaria, with irregularly projecting bosses
having unequal margins on one, two, or three sides." In other words, casemate construction, as found at Gezer,
Megiddo, Hazor and other Solomonic era sites. "Solomon's use of Phoenician masons is undoubted", Kenyon
added.” [2]
This is contested though. One scholar David Ussishkin claims that these gates were built from the time of King
Ahab rather than Solomon. The paper responds to this claim
“Renowned Israeli archaeologist David Ussishkin considers the ruins of Megiddo's gate to date from the time of
Ahab, based on certain topographical considerations relating to the construction. This would not mean that
Solomon did not build the gate of Megiddo, however, only that the current ruins are not Solomonic in origin. While
Ussishkin's argument has some considerable merit, it does fail to address the similarity between the gates of
Megiddo and those of Gezer, Hazor and Jerusalem, all of which are generally agreed to date from the time of
Solomon.” [3]
David Ussishkin and Israel Finkelstein both deny the era of Solomon. They were both working at the
archaeological site of Megiddo one of the three sites referred to in the Bible where Solomon did fortifications.
78 | P a g e
One paper reported
“Beginning in 1992, Israel Finkelstein and David Ussishkin renewed excavations at Tel Megiddo on behalf of the
Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University. The scientific and operational framework of the excavation,
including the organization of the Expedition’s international consortium was established during the two years
preceding the first full-scale season at the site in 1994 (Finkelstein et al. 2000). The Expedition runs under the
auspices of Tel Aviv University with Pennsylvania State University as the senior American partner, and is
endorsed by the Israel Exploration Society, the National Parks Authority of the State of Israel, the Megiddo
Research Council, Kibbutz Megiddo and Lord Allenby of Megiddo (Finkelstein et al. 2000).” [4]
Finkelstein was quoted in one online article questioning the era of Solomon
““Someone sitting in Jerusalem cooked these words up at the end of the seventh century B.C., so how did they
know what really happened centuries before, in the 10th century B.C.?” Finkelstein says.” [5]
That response indicate Finkelstein is a believer of the Documentary Hypothesis that claims the Bible was only
written during the 7th century BC. In effect, everything we read in the Bible by implication has been fabricated
rather than real history. Of course, that view has already lost its power as a theory at this time. A different paper
contested the views of Finkelstein
“This vague correlation between the archaeology of the 8th century BCE and the Bible seems exactly the type of
‘Biblical Archaeology’ that Finkelstein and others have been railing against. Yet, Finkelstein and Silberman make
no attempt to conduct a critical literary analysis of 1 Kgs 9:15 nor do they explain how the editor of the book of
Kings (presumably another century later according to Finkelstein’s argument) came to have this particular
information about Jeroboam II’s alleged building projects in the northern cities or why they would have seemed so
important to him.” [6]
The gates mentioned above is the one described also by Insight below
“Among the more impressive ruins uncovered are those of the identical city gates of ancient Megiddo, Hazor, and
Gezer, thought to have been built in Solomon’s time. (1Ki 9:15) In each case the 20-m-long (66 ft) external walls
were made with carefully drafted stones. Within the gate passage there were three successive pairs of jambs or
extended piers, thus producing six recessed chambers flanking the passage on either side, in which business
might be transacted or from which soldiers could harass any troops attempting to force their way through the
gates.” [7]
The Bible reports Solomon’s on-going construction of other types of cities using forced labor of non-Israelites
“As well as all of Solʹo·mon’s storage cities, the chariot cities, the cities for the horsemen, and whatever Solʹo·mon
desired to build in Jerusalem, in Lebʹa·non, and in all the land of his dominion. As for all the people who were left
from the Amʹor·ites, the Hitʹtites, the Perʹiz·zites, the Hiʹvites, and the Jebʹu·sites, who were not part of the people
of Israel, their descendants who were left in the land—those whom the Israelites had been unable to devote to
destruction—were conscripted by Solʹo·mon for forced labor as slaves until this day.” (9:19-21)
No, the Bible critics have not solidly establish their position as superior to the Bible. Their human theories, if they
become popular, are short-lived. The Bible still wins in the end.
References
[1] “Solomonic Gates: Hazor, Megiddo, Gezer”, an article from Unam Sanctam Catholicam blog site.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Westpfahl, Jennifer. “The Megiddo Expedition: Archaeology and the Bible”, UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research VIII
(2005)
[5] Weintraub, Pamela. “Rewriting Tel Megiddo’s Violent History”, Discover Magazine online, November 2015.
[6] Schniedewind, William. “Excavating the Texts of 1 Kings 9 - In Search of the Gates of Solomon”, Historical
79 | P a g e
Biblical Archaeology and the Future, p. 244.

[7] Architecture. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 158.
80 | P a g e

Some Bible readers read the Bible in search of gold, literal gold, and where it could be found, rather than the
precious spiritual gems found there in. Solomon’s gold or its source of gold intrigued many treasure hunters
including Christopher Columbus. But the Bible contains wisdom worth more than pure literal gold. The story of this
search for Solomon’s gold is reported after the temple construction narrative was closed.
The Bible clarifies who were not in this forced labor used to build the temple
“But Solʹo·mon did not make any of the Israelites slaves, for they were his warriors, servants, princes, adjutants,
and the chiefs of his charioteers and horsemen. There were 550 chiefs of the deputies who were over the work of
Solʹo·mon, the foremen over the people who were doing the work.” (9:22, 23)
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight comments on the role of adjutants
“After mentioning that none of the sons of Israel were constituted slaves by Solomon, 1 Kings 9:22 states: “For
they were the warriors and his servants and his princes and his adjutants and chiefs of his charioteers and of his
horsemen.” Commenting on this text, C. F. Keil states that the term sha·li·shimʹ (plural), used in this passage,
could be understood as “royal adjutants.”—Commentary on the Old Testament, 1973, Vol. III, 1 Kings, p. 146.” [1]
The next detail is the transfer of the daughter of Pharaoh to her new residence
“But Pharʹaoh’s daughter came up from the City of David to her own house that he had built for her; then he built
the Mound.” (9:24)
Why was she moved to a new residence? Insight explains
“After his marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter, Solomon had placed her in the City of David. (1Ki 3:1) But, upon the
completion of a new residence closer to the temple area, he removed her from the City of David because it was
viewed as holy, the Ark having been stationed there. (1Ki 9:24; 2Ch 8:11)” [2]
The Bible, for this chapter, mentions the temple one more time and Solomon’s construction project
“Three times a year Solʹo·mon offered up burnt sacrifices and communion sacrifices on the altar that he had built
for Jehovah, also making sacrificial smoke on the altar, which was before Jehovah, so he completed the house.”
(9:25)
The way I read this is that the Bible writer was summarizing the temple building work and the sacrifices that was
done by Solomon on it once completed. With the temple work done, the Bible now reports on Solomon’s ship-
building
“King Solʹo·mon also made a fleet of ships in Eʹzi·on-geʹber, which is by Eʹloth, on the shore of the Red Sea in the
land of Eʹdom. Hiʹram sent his own servants with the fleet of ships, experienced seamen, to serve along with the
servants of Solʹo·mon. They went to Oʹphir and took from there 420 talents of gold and brought it to King
Solʹo·mon.” (9:26-28)
Insight explains this ships going to Tarshish and the gold trade. Insight reports on Tarshish
“Phoenician trading with Tarshish is clearly borne out by the record of King Solomon’s time (some 13 centuries
after the Flood), when maritime commerce also began to be engaged in by the nation of Israel. Solomon had a
fleet of ships in the Red Sea area, manned in part by experienced seamen provided by Phoenician King Hiram of
Tyre, and trafficking especially with the gold-rich land of Ophir. (1Ki 9:26-28) Reference is thereafter made to “a
fleet of ships of Tarshish” that Solomon had on the sea “along with Hiram’s fleet of ships,” and these ships are
stated to have made voyages once every three years for the importation of gold, silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks.
(1Ki 10:22) It is generally believed that the term “ships of Tarshish” in course of time came to stand for a type of
ship, as one lexicon puts it: “large, sea-going vessels, fit to ply to Tarshish.” (A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the
Old Testament, by Brown, Driver, and Briggs, 1980, p. 1077)” [3]
81 | P a g e
One paper reports the study on the source of silver for Solomon and Tarshish
“Did the Phoenicians trade in the western Mediterranean before establishing these colonies? Where is Tarshish,
the Biblical source of the Phoenician silver trade? A recent Hacksilber Project study published by Christine M.
Thompson and Sheldon Skaggs in Internet Archaeology points to Spain and Sardinia as the Biblical world’s
source of silver in the 10th century B.C.E., lending scientific credence to textual associations between Biblical
Tarshish and modern Sardinia.” [4]
Then the article adds
“Thompson and Skaggs’s analyses provide the first archaeometric source data corroborating Cross’s association
between Sardinia and Tarsish. While they cautiously state that “the evidence at hand does not compel us to
believe that Solomon actually made silver as common in Jerusalem as stones, or that trips to Tarshish were as
politically subordinated as they sometimes appear in Biblical sources,” the hacksilber studies do expand our
understanding of the development of the Phoenician mercantile system, Iron Age trade networks and the wealth
of Solomon in the Bible.” [5]
Regarding the gold, Insight reports
“Later, the trading fleet of David’s son Solomon regularly brought back from Ophir 420 talents of gold. (1Ki 9:26-
28) The parallel account at 2 Chronicles 8:18 reads 450 talents. Some scholars have suggested that this
difference came about when letters of the alphabet served as figures—that an ancient copyist could have
mistaken the Hebrew numeral letter nun , representing 50, for the letter kaph, standing for 20, or vice versa.
However, the evidence is that all numbers in the Hebrew Scriptures were spelled out, rather than represented by
letters. A more probable explanation, therefore, is that both figures are correct and that the gross amount brought
was 450 talents, of which 420 were clear gain.
In 1946, as confirmation of these Biblical accounts about imports of gold from Ophir, a potsherd was unearthed
NE of Tel Aviv-Yafo. Thereon was an inscription saying “Ophir gold to bet horon, thirty shekels.”—Journal of Near
Eastern Studies, 1951, Vol. X, pp. 265, 266” [6]
As I was researching Solomon’s gold, I discovered the trivia below on what led the great navigators of the world to
sail to distant places - the search for Solomon’s gold. One blog article wrote
“One of the explorers who thought he had figured out the source of Solomon’s wealth was none other than
Christopher Columbus, though of course he is better known today for other discoveries. We know from Columbus’
writings that he studied the Bible and other ancient sources like Josephus for clues about the location of Ophir
and Tarshish, which he assumed were the same place, and from such sources he surmised that Ophir was an
island located in India or China, perhaps an island that Marco Polo had learned of during his journey to China, an
island once called Cipango and what we now know as Japan. In contrast to Marco Polo, however, Columbus
realized he did not need to travel east to find it. Since by his day it was known that the world was round, he
reasoned that it would take him much less time to reach Ophir and Tarshish if he traveled west—just a few weeks
rather than the three-year round trip traveled by Solomon’s ships.
Columbus' journey ended up taking a little longer than he thought, but he eventually found what he was looking
for on the island of Hispaniola, where Haiti and the Dominican Republic are now located, or so he thought. There,
he spent a decade searching for gold, and when it became clear that he had been mistaken, he was sent back to
Spain. In Columbus’ mind, however, the problem was not that he had been wrong to look for Ophir but that he
had been looking in the wrong place. Further study led him to modify his views about its whereabouts; and in
1502, the Spanish monarchs gave him another chance to find it. After a fourth and final journey across the sea,
Columbus found what he believed was the true source of Solomon’s wealth, this time in Central America. He even
wrote a letter to Ferdinand and Isabel putting this wealth at their disposal.
Whether Columbus had actually found Ophir and Tarshish was much debated by scholars at the time. Some were
convinced that he had, but others began looking elsewhere. It was during this period, for example, that a Spanish
expedition led by Alvaro de Mendaña, a nephew of the Peruvian viceroy, discovered what they took to be the
82 | P a g e
source of Solomon’s gold on a chain of islands not far from what is now New Guinea--islands known to this day
as the Solomon Islands. For their part, the Portuguese extended the search into Africa, a location suggested by
the similarity of the name Africa itself to Ophir, while the English extended the search to places like Arabia, East
Africa, and India.” [7]
The Bible said about God’s wisdom
“They are more desirable than gold, than much fine gold.” (Psalms 19:10)
References
[1] Adjutant. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 47.
[2] David, City of. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 591.
[3] Tarshish. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1066.
[4] Wiener, Noah. “Tarshish: Hacksilber Hoards Pinpoint Solomon’s Silver Source”, Bible History Daily article at
Biblical Archaeology blog site.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ophir. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 558.
[7] Weitzman, Steven. “The Fool’s Gold of Ophir”, an article from the Bible Interpretation blog site.
83 | P a g e
11.15 The Queen of Sheba

11.15.1 The Queen of Sheba - Part 1
As I continue this journey to read the Bible, I realized how many critics the Bible from many fronts - higher
criticism folks who disparage that the Bible was a production of literature that is only recent instead of the
ancientness that the Bible claims to be, the minimalist camp of archaeologists who use the popular media to say
what we read in the Bible never happened at all, and some clergy-theologian groups who claim that the Bible is
just another good, moral book of lessons and should not be taken as real history.
An ordinary folk getting that sort of barrage from many fronts would lose interest and respect in the Bible. But my
journey showed how such arrogant posturings were either premature or baseless and the truth finally comes out.
The Bible has continued to be proven authentic and trustworthy.
I found new ways to help others who were misled by this misinformation and gain a new respect of the Bible.
Hence, my journey continues.
In Solomon's time, who has already married an Egyptian princess, her primary wife or queen, has another queen
as visitor- the queen of Sheba. The Bible reports
"Now the queen of Sheʹba heard the report about Solʹo·mon in connection with the name of Jehovah,+ so she
came to test him with perplexing questions. (10:1)
One archaeological reference explains the limitations of archaeology, the different voices and Solomon
"They continue to repeat that Solomon had no "empire that stretched from the Mediterranean to the Eupharates".
This is disingeuous at the least; I know of no archaeologist (and very few biblical scholars) who ever believed that
he did amass such an empire. Such hyperbole is all too typical of revisionist arguments. What the majority of
archaeologists are now saying is that by the mid-late 10th century Israel had indeed achieved full-fledged
statehood, and that a king of "Solomon's" stature and achievements must be presupposed on the basis of the
stricly archaeological evidence of Israel's increasing centralization and growing prominence. Of the archaeological
revisionists, only Finkelstein differs, and that only by down-dating some elements of these changes to the early
9th century. He still speaks, however, of a "United Monarchy" in the 10th century. In short, archaeology cannot
comment on the biblical stories about Solomon's fabled wisdom, his coffers of gold, his many wives and
concubines, the visit of the Queen of Sheba, or the role of the Bathsheba in Solomon's succession. Archaeology
can, however, document in the mid-late 10th century an era of relative peace with the Philistines, a highly
centralized administrative system in operation throughout most of Western Palestine, a growing and increasingly
prosperous populationm and the construction of such monumental architecture as impressive city fortifications at
many sites and in all likelihood a national temple or shrine in Jerusalem that was modeled on similar structures in
the surrounding Canaanite-Phoenician regions of the Southern Levant. The biblical writers did not "invent"
Solomon, although they have aggrandized him out of their intent to glorify the Davidic line of kings. Nevertheless,
if they had not described him, we archaeologists would have to imagine a "Solomon by another name," simply to
account for the actual evidence of kingship that we now have." [1]
That's a nice summary of what I personally realized myself. With what archaeologists have already found, it
authenticates the Bible history. The rest archaeology has not yet found the data to validate. To those whose
confidence in the Bible was shaken by negative archaeologists, the fact that the authenticity of the biblical data is
attested is more than good enough.
84 | P a g e
So, does Finkelstein, a lead archaeologists who continue to disparage the Bible, have a better approach in
building his version of Israel’s history? Two experts reviewed his theories in a book he published. One expert
wrote this assessment without knowing the assessment of the other
“Although Finkelstein’s greatest career achievement may be the demonstration of the value of hard sciences to
traditional Biblical archaeology, in this book he wades deep into the morass of traditional text-critical studies of the
Bible only to demonstrate how unsatisfying the results can be. The book is replete with speculative
reconstructions that depend on a series of assumptions about chronology and Biblical history that cannot be
substantiated. Thus his book lacks an articulated methodology. His effort here to integrate Biblical text-studies
with archaeology only reveals both how difficult such an enterprise is and fundamentally how uncertain the results
will be.“ [2]
The other expert wrote this
“It is impossible to summarize Israel Finkelstein’s latest book, The Forgotten Kingdom, in a brief review because
its numerous errors, misrepresentations, over-simplifications and contradictions make it too unwieldy. Specialists
will know these flaws, since all of Finkelstein’s pivotal views have been published elsewhere. Here I can only alert
unwary BAR readers that this book is not really about sound historical scholarship: It is all about theater.
Finkelstein is a magician, conjuring a “lost kingdom” by sleight-of-hand, intending to convince readers that the
illusion is real and expecting that they will go away marveling at how clever the magician is. Finkelstein was once
an innovative scholar, pioneering new methods; now he has become a showman. A tragic waste of talent, energy
and charm—and a detriment to our discipline.” [3]
Now that I have a better understanding of some Bible critics, I can now proceed with the rest of the Bible story.
How about the Queen of Sheba? Is she a real person or just a legend? Another group of archaeologists were in
the news years ago
"But did she really exist? The question has been argued for years. Many scholars and archeologists have
assumed that the biblical land of Sheba was in southwestern Arabia, where the ancient Greeks placed the
Sabaeans and where some noble ruins testify to the inhabitants' former glory. So perhaps, since her country
existed, the biblical Queen of Sheba existed.
One flaw in this hypothesis has been that Solomon ruled Israel in the 10th century B.C., three centuries earlier
than the oldest known remains of Sheba's highest civilization.
But now an archeologist at the University of Pennylvania, James A. Sauer, who has headed an archeological
project in the area of ancient Sheba for the past five years, argues that Sheba is older than some scholars have
believed.
Dr. Sauer's hypothesis, stated in a recent paper on the project, is based partly on an excavation in a dry valley
called Wadi al-Jubah, about 25 miles south of the remains of Sheba's capital at Marib, in the eastern region of
present-day Yemen." [4]
Dr. Sauer in their own article wrote the following
"The dates suggest that the South Arabian cultures began to form as early as the 13th century B.C., which is
about the same time that the camel seems to have been introduced in the Near East as a common beast of
burden (see Bulliet 1975). The camel bones in our probes may agree with this reconstruction, and may constitute
evidence for a breakthrough in transportation that helped to facili¬tate the development of these ‘re¬mote’
cultures. The dates also sup¬port the biblical tradition of the Queen of Sheba (ca. 950 B.C., con¬temporary with
Solomon), as well as the later Assyrian and Babylonian references to the Sabaeans and other Arabs. Although
85 | P a g e
the Wadi al-Jubah may have been abandoned after ca. 400 to 300 B.C. for reasons which are not yet understood,
it is clear that pre-Islamic Arabic culture continued to flourish into later cen¬turies at other sites, such as Marib
and el-Fau (Al-Ansary 1981)." [5]
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight has this to report about where Sheba is
"The descendants of Sheba (whether of the line of Shem or of Ham is uncertain) who evidently formed a kingdom
near the tip of the Arabian Peninsula. Likely the queen of Sheba who visited Solomon was from this land. (1Ki
10:1) Secular sources often refer to this kingdom as Sabean, and the Bible may do likewise.—See SHEBA No. 6.
Certain translations read “Sabeans” at Ezekiel 23:42 (KJ, Yg, Da), so interpreting the marginal reading in the
Hebrew Bible. However, the main text reads “drunkards,” and that is how modern translations frequently render
the verse.—Ro, NW, AS, RS." [6]
The Bible reports next
"She arrived in Jerusalem with a very impressive entourage,*+ with camels carrying balsam oil+ and great
quantities of gold and precious stones." (10:2a)
Insight comments about the mention of camels
"Camel caravans out of the more fertile S wound along the desert routes that ran parallel to the Red Sea, moving
from oasis to oasis and from well to well until reaching the Sinai Peninsula, from which point they could branch off
to Egypt or continue up into Palestine or to Damascus. Besides their highly prized spices and aromatic resins,
such as frankincense and myrrh (Isa 60:6), they might carry gold and algum wood from Ophir (1Ki 9:28; 10:11)
and precious gems, as did the queen of Sheba on her visit to King Solomon. (1Ki 10:1-10, 15; 2Ch 9:1-9, 14) The
waters of the Persian Gulf abound with pearl oysters. Since the SW corner of Arabia is separated from Africa by a
narrow strait of water only about 32 km (20 mi) across, products from Ethiopia (2Ch 21:16), such as ivory and
ebony, could also have been included in the wares of these traveling merchants.—Eze 27:15." [7]
An archaeological paper talks about Camels in Palestine
"This casual mention of a camel caravan is significant in view of the doubt that has been expressed in past years
concerning the early use of the camel. Archaeological discoveries show, however, hat the effective domestication
of the camel came at least as early as the period 1200-1000 B.C. It is during the period that the camel appears in
cuneiform inscriptions, on the monument known as the Black Obelisk of SHalmaneser (FSAC, 120; for a picture
see PANEP, 120), and on a sculptured stone relief from Halaf showing a one-hundred dromedary with a rider
sitting on the saddle. Thus the archaeological evidence shows the effective domestication of the camel even
before the time of the Queen of Sheba (c. 950 B.C.)" [8]
Where did the queen of Sheba got her gold? That will be for the next installment.
References
[1 ] Dever, William. "What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did they Know It? What Archaeology Can Tell
Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel", William Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002, p. 269.
[2] Dever, William and Burke, Aaron. “Divided Kingdom, United Critics”, Bible History Daily article.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Campbell, Colin. "Was There a Queen of Sheba? Evidence Makes Her Likely", Science section, New York
Times, 4 February 1986.
[5] Sauer, James. "The Road to Wadi al-Jubah- Archaeology on the Ancient Spice Route in Yemen", Expedition,
Vol. 27, No. 1, March 1985.
86 | P a g e
[6] Sabean. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 834.
[7] Camels. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 140.
[8] Vos, Howard. "Solomon's Reign", Archaeology and Bible History Revised Edition, Zondervan Publishing
House, 1992, p. 145.
87 | P a g e
11.15.2 The Queen of Sheba - Part 2

In this installment, I did some searching where scholars thought the queen of Sheba got its gold. There are other
stories included as well that relates to gold in Solomon’s time and the prestige of Solomon and his investment in
horses and chariots. Why are these details important in painting the personality of Solomon and his attitude
toward obedience or compliance with God’s requirements? One news item reported this
"Almost 3,000 years ago, the ruler of Sheba, which spanned modern-day Ethiopia and Yemen, arrived in
Jerusalem with vast quantities of gold to give to King Solomon. Now an enormous ancient goldmine, together with
the ruins of a temple and the site of a battlefield, have been discovered in her former territory.
Louise Schofield, an archaeologist and former British Museum curator, who headed the excavation on the high
Gheralta plateau in northern Ethiopia, said: "One of the things I've always loved about archaeology is the way it
can tie up with legends and myths. The fact that we might have the Queen of Sheba's mines is extraordinary."
An initial clue lay in a 20ft stone stele (or slab) carved with a sun and crescent moon, the "calling card of the land
of Sheba", Schofield said. "I crawled beneath the stone – wary of a 9ft cobra I was warned lives here – and came
face to face with an inscription in Sabaean, the language that the Queen of Sheba would have spoken."
On a mound nearby she found parts of columns and finely carved stone channels from a buried temple that
appears to be dedicated to the moon god, the main deity of Sheba, an 8th century BC civilisation that lasted 1,000
years. It revealed a victory in a battle nearby, where Schofield excavated ancient bones.
Although local people still pan for gold in the river, they were unaware of the ancient mine. Its shaft is buried some
4ft down, in a hill above which vultures swoop. An ancient human skull is embedded in the entrance shaft, which
bears Sabaean chiselling." [1]
What did the queen of Sheba do once she was before Solomon? The Bible reports
"She went in to Solʹo·mon and spoke to him about everything that was close to her heart. Solʹo·mon then
answered all her questions. There was nothing too difficult for* the king to explain to her." (10:2b,3)
Insight explains this visit and its timing
"Sometime after Solomon had completed many building works, he was visited by “the queen of Sheba,” who had
heard “the report about Solomon in connection with the name of Jehovah.” This queen, unnamed in the Bible,
went to Jerusalem with “a very impressive train, camels carrying balsam oil and very much gold and precious
stones.” (1Ki 10:1, 2) The mode of her travel and the type of gifts she brought indicate that she was from the
kingdom of Sheba in SW Arabia. This is also indicated by Jesus’ comment that she was “the queen of the south”
and that she “came from the ends of the earth.” (Mt 12:42) From the standpoint of persons in Jerusalem, she had
truly come from a distant part of the then-known world. (Ps 72:10; Joe 3:8) Marib is about 1,900 km (1,200 mi)
from Ezion-geber, which is on the N shore of the Red Sea.
Jesus said of the queen of Sheba that she came “to hear the wisdom of Solomon.” (Lu 11:31) She was impressed
by what Solomon said, by what she saw of the prosperity of his kingdom, and by his wise organization of his staff.
She pronounced the king’s servants happy for being able to hear his wisdom, and she blessed Jehovah for
putting him on the throne. (1Ki 10:2-9; 2Ch 9:1-9)." [2]
The Bible writer quotes the queen of Sheba
"When the queen of Sheʹba had seen all the wisdom of Solʹo·mon,+ the house that he built,+ the food of his
table,+ the seating of his servants, the table service of his waiters and their attire, his cupbearers, and his burnt
sacrifices that he regularly offered up at the house of Jehovah, she was left completely breathless.* So she said
88 | P a g e
to the king: “The report that I heard in my own land about your achievements* and about your wisdom was true.
But I did not put faith in the reports until I had come and had seen it with my own eyes. And look! I had not been
told the half. You have far surpassed in wisdom and prosperity the report that I heard. Happy are your men, and
happy are your servants who stand before you constantly, listening to your wisdom!+ May Jehovah your God be
praised,+ who has taken pleasure in you by putting you on the throne of Israel. Because of Jehovah’s everlasting
love for Israel, he appointed you as king to administer justice and righteousness.”" (10:4-9)
"Then she gave the king 120 talents* of gold and a great amount of balsam oil+ and precious stones.+ Never
again was such a quantity of balsam oil brought in as what the queen of Sheʹba gave to King Solʹo·mon." (10:10)
120 talents of gold is a big deal. Insight comments on its contemporary value (1988)
"Then she bestowed upon Solomon the magnificent gift of 120 talents of gold ($46,242,000) and a great number
of precious stones and balsam oil in unusually great quantity. Solomon, in turn, gave the queen whatever she
asked, apart from his own generous-hearted bounty, possibly more than she had brought to him.—1Ki 10:10, 13;
2Ch 9:9, 12." [3]
Hiram is brought back to the narrative, in the middle of the queen of Sheba narrative, in the context of the Algum
timbers and its use for construction
“Hiʹram’s fleet of ships that carried gold from Oʹphir+ also brought from Oʹphir algum timbers+ in very great
quantity, and precious stones. The king made from the algum timbers supports for the house of Jehovah and for
the king’s house,* as well as harps and stringed instruments for the singers.+ Such algum timbers have never
again been brought in or seen down to this day." (10:11,12)
What is this Algum timber? Insight offered some explanation
"A tree included by Solomon in his request to Hiram of Tyre for timbers for the construction of the temple and from
which stairs and supports as well as harps and stringed instruments were constructed.
The algum tree of this account cannot be identified with certainty. It is traditionally suggested to be the red
sandalwood (Pterocarpus santalinus) now found in India and Sri Lanka, although some favor the white
sandalwood (Santalum album), perhaps because of Josephus’ statement that it is whitish in color. (Jewish
Antiquities, VIII, 177 [vii, 1]) The red sandalwood grows to heights of about 7.5 to 9 m (25 to 30 ft) and has a hard,
fine-grained, reddish-brown wood that takes a high polish. It is suggested as suitable for musical instruments of
the type mentioned in the Bible account. The wood has a sweet scent and is highly resistant to insects." [4]
The only reason I thought why Hiram was brought back in the narrative was because of the mention of gold from
the queen of Sheba. The Bible writer was like by the way, speaking of gold, the gold that was from Ophir, Hiram
also brought in Algum timbers from Ophir. Now, we are back to the queen of Sheba narrative
“King Solʹo·mon also gave the queen of Sheʹba whatever she desired and asked for, in addition to what he gave
her out of his own generosity.* After that she left and returned to her own land, together with her servants.” (10:13)
That ended the story of the visit of the queen of Sheba. However, the Bible did not specify what the queen desired
and asked for that Solomon gave to her.
Now, we are back with the gold. First, gold from the queen of Sheba, and the gold from Ophir brought by Hiram.
This time the Bible writer assessed the amount of gold Solomon gets yearly
“And the weight of the gold that came to Solʹo·mon in one year amounted to 666 talents of gold, besides that
from the merchants and the profit from the traders and from all the kings of the Arabs and the governors of the
89 | P a g e
land." (10:14, 15)
Regarding that quantity, the queen brought in 120 talents of gold. That was like 20% of what Solomon gets in a
year. Insight comments on the amount of that gold
"Solomon’s annual revenue of gold came to be 666 talents (c. $256,643,000), aside from silver and gold and
other items brought in by merchants. (1Ki 10:14, 15; 2Ch 9:13, 14)" [5]
"King Solʹo·mon made 200 large shields of alloyed gold+ (600 shekels* of gold went on each shield)+ and 300
bucklers* of alloyed gold (three miʹnas* of gold went on each buckler). Then the king put them in the House of the
Forest of Lebʹa·non.+" (10:16, 17)
Insight covered these military equipment and the Hebrew words used to refer to them
"The smaller “shield” or “buckler” (Heb., ma·ghenʹ) was customarily carried by archers and is usually associated
with light weapons such as the bow. For instance, it was carried by Benjaminite bowmen of Judean King Asa’s
military force. (2Ch 14:8) The smaller shield was usually round and more common than the large shield, probably
being used chiefly in hand-to-hand fighting. That the Hebrew tsin·nahʹ and ma·ghenʹ differed considerably in size
seems to be indicated by the gold shields Solomon made, the large shield being overlaid with four times as much
gold as the smaller shield, or buckler. (1Ki 10:16, 17; 2Ch 9:15, 16) Ma·ghenʹ, like tsin·nahʹ, seems to be used as
part of a formula for weapons of war.—2Ch 14:8; 17:17; 32:5." [6]
Now, I get to the throne of Solomon
“The king also made a great ivory throne+ and overlaid it with refined gold. There were six steps to the throne,
and the throne had a round canopy behind it, and there were armrests on both sides of the seat, and two lions+
were standing beside the armrests. And there were 12 lions standing on the six steps, one at each end of the six
steps. No other kingdom had made anything like it.” (10:18-20)
Solomon has a throne of gold-overlaid ivory decorated with lion on both armrests. There were six steps with a lion
on the sides of each step. Next, the Bible describes the drinking cups and other utensils of gold
“All the drinking vessels of King Solʹo·mon were of gold, and all the utensils of the House of the Forest of
Lebʹa·non+ were of pure gold. There was nothing made of silver, for silver was considered as nothing in the days
of Solʹo·mon. For the king had a fleet of ships of Tarʹshish+ on the sea along with Hiʹram’s fleet. Once every three
years, the fleet of ships of Tarʹshish would come loaded with gold and silver, ivory,+ apes, and peacocks.”
(10:21,22)
Now, in addition from gold from Ophir, there is also gold from Tarshish. I already reflected on the use of Tarshish
on a separate reflection.
"In King Solomon’s time his fleet of ships of Tarshish made triannual voyages, bringing cargoes of “gold and silver,
ivory, and apes and peacocks.” (1Ki 10:22) While certain of Solomon’s ships made trips to Ophir (evidently in the
Red Sea area; 1Ki 9:26-28), 2 Chronicles 9:21 mentions ships “going to Tarshish” (likely in Spain) in connection
with the carrying of the above commodities, including peacocks. It is not certain, therefore, from what place or
area the peacocks were imported. These beautiful birds are held to be native of SE Asia and are abundant in
India and Sri Lanka. Some believe that the Hebrew name (tuk·ki·yimʹ) is to be connected with the Old Tamil name
for the peacock, tokei. Solomon’s fleet could have obtained the peacocks when the ships sailed along their usual
route and stopped at some trading center that had contacts with India. Of interest, also, is the statement in The
Animal Kingdom, by Frederick Drimmer: “For centuries scientists assumed that there were no peacocks in
Africa—their known dwelling places were the East Indies and southeastern Asia. The belief of the naturalists was
90 | P a g e
shattered in 1936, when the Congo peacock [Afropavo congensis] was discovered in the Belgian Congo.”—1954,
Vol. II, p. 988." [7]
From the report below, Solomon is a popular king visited by other kings (and queen) from other kingdoms
“So King Solʹo·mon was greater than all the other kings of the earth in riches+ and wisdom. And people of all the
earth sought an audience with* Solʹo·mon to hear his wisdom that God had put in his heart. They would each
bring a gift—articles of silver, articles of gold, garments, armor, balsam oil, horses, and mules—and this continued
year after year.” (10: 23-25)
The story of Solomon in this chapter ends with references to his chariots and horses
“And Solʹo·mon kept accumulating chariots and horses;* he had 1,400 chariots and 12,000 horses,*+ and he kept
them stationed in the chariot cities and close by the king in Jerusalem. The king made the silver in Jerusalem as
plentiful as the stones, and cedarwood as plentiful as the sycamore trees in the She·pheʹlah.+ The horses of
Solʹo·mon had been imported from Egypt, and the company of the king’s merchants would obtain the horses in
droves* for one price.+ Each chariot imported from Egypt cost 600 silver pieces, and a horse cost 150; in turn,
they would export them to all the kings of the Hitʹtites+ and the kings of Syria." (10:26-29)
The covenant law has regulations and restrictions for kings when it comes to horses. And yet, the Bible writer
detailed Solomon’s investment in horses. For all the God-given wisdom of Solomon, it is not enough to make him
faithfully walk in all of God’s requirements. He seemingly ignored the principles behind inter-marriages with non-
Israelites, non-worshipers of Jehovah, and for keeping horses and chariots. Regarding these horses, Insight
comments on their monetary value and the differences in the figures between Kings and Chronicles
"However, David’s son and successor, Solomon, began to accumulate thousands of horses. (1Ki 4:26 [here “forty
thousand stalls of horses” is generally believed to be a scribal error for “four thousand”]; compare 2Ch 9:25.)
From Egypt as well as other lands, King Solomon received horses (2Ch 9:28), and horses were among the gifts
brought by those desiring to hear his wisdom. (1Ki 10:24, 25; 2Ch 9:23, 24) The animals were stabled in special
chariot cities and also at Jerusalem. (1Ki 9:17-19; 10:26) The barley and straw furnished as fodder for the horses
were supplied by the regional deputies in charge of providing food for the royal table.—1Ki 4:27, 28.
During Solomon’s reign, royal merchants trafficked in horses and chariots. The price of a horse was 150 silver
pieces ($330, if the silver pieces were shekels), and the price of a chariot was 600 silver pieces (c. $1,320, if
shekels).—1Ki 10:28, 29; 2Ch 1:16, 17." [8]
At this point, the Bible has been sprinkling us with little items that have laid the foundation for the weakness in
Solomon despite his wisdom. The Bible says that God cannot be mocked. What you sow, you reap. Solomon has
started to sow disobedience with God’s principles. He, in time, will reap a bad harvest.
References
[1] Alberge, Dalya. "Archaeologists strike gold in quest to find Queen of Sheba's wealth", Archaeology section,
The Guardian, 12 February 2012.
[2] Sheba. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 992.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Algum. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 72.
[6] Arms, Armor. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 172.
[7] Peacocks. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 593.
91 | P a g e
11.16 The Fall of Solomon

11.16.1 The Fall of Solomon - Part 1
What can I learn from the fall of Solomon as a leader? What does this teach me about God and his loyalty to His
promises despite the failure of men? How does God’s purpose remain on track despite the failure of men like
Solomon? These are my reflection notes.
At 2 Samuel 12:24, the Bible wrote about Solomon when he was born, “and Jehovah loved him”. He was then
nicknamed ‘Jedidah’ by the prophet Nathan. The nickname meant ‘Beloved by Jah’. When Solomon grew up as a
man and anointed as king, Jehovah granted his wish and added more to it. Unlike other sons of David, the Bible
did not describe Solomon whether he was handsome like Absalom or Adonijah the other sons of David. The
description focused on his wisdom.
But Jehovah’s love was not sentimental or romantic. It was conditional. However, as I read along the story of
Solomon, the Bible writer provided tiny details narrated as a matter of fact of Solomon’s tendency to disobey the
covenant law. God was patient with Solomon. But Solomon crossed the line of disloyalty. Regarding that failure to
be loyal to the true Sovereign, the Bible-based encyclopedia Insight commented
“As long as Solomon remained true to the worship of Jehovah, he prospered. Evidently his proverbs were uttered,
and the books of Ecclesiastes and The Song of Solomon, as well as at least one of the Psalms (Ps 127), were
written during his period of faithful service to God. However, Solomon began to disregard God’s law.” [1]
One article cited the Talmud, a collection of Jewish traditions why Solomon finally failed. It was not just the wives
who led him astray in the end. The article wrote
“One Talmudic tradition points to the danger of trying to outsmart God. Deuteronomy prohibits a man from too
much marrying – lest "his heart will turn away" to other gods. Solomon figured that, since he knew the larger
purpose, Weitzman wrote, "He could skip the part about not marrying a lot of women and just focus on the end
goal: avoiding idolatry."
It didn't work. Moral of the story: You can know too much for your own good.” [2]
I like that analysis. Solomon tried to outsmart God and it did not work. How did this happen? The Bible opens this
part of the narrative
“But King Solʹo·mon loved many foreign women besides the daughter of Pharʹaoh: Moʹab·ite, Amʹmon·ite,
Eʹdom·ite, Si·doʹni·an, and Hitʹtite women. They were from the nations about whom Jehovah had said to the
Israelites: “You must not go in among them, and they should not come in among you, for they will surely incline
your heart to follow their gods.” But Solʹo·mon clung to them and loved them. And he had 700 wives who were
princesses and 300 concubines, and his wives gradually inclined his heart.” (11:1-3)
What led to his fall? 1,000 women who worshiped other gods. Solomon did not convert his wives to accept and
put faith in Israel’s God. He allowed them to practice their pagan religions inside his royal realm. At first he did not
worship those inanimate gods made of wood and stone. He just tolerated their religion. He could have reasoned
that it was their personal choice. They are not under obligation to the covenant law. They are foreigners. Yet,
Solomon’s own wisdom got better of him. The Bible reports next
“In Solʹo·mon’s old age, his wives inclined his heart to follow other gods, and his heart was not complete with
Jehovah his God like the heart of David his father. And Solʹo·mon followed after Ashʹto·reth, the goddess of the
Si·doʹni·ans, and Milʹcom, the disgusting god of the Amʹmon·ites. And Solʹo·mon did what was bad in the eyes of
Jehovah, and he did not follow Jehovah completely as David his father had done.” (11:4-6)
The diagnosis - Solomon’s heart was not complete with Jehovah his God. There lies the mechanism behind the
pattern that the Bible writer disclosed little by little why Solomon had a tendency to disobey God. His heart was
not complete with Jehovah. This was the opposite of what his father David reminded him in his death bed
92 | P a g e
“And you, Solʹo·mon my son, know the God of your father and serve him with a complete heart and with a
delightful soul, for Jehovah searches through all hearts, and he discerns every inclination of the thoughts’”. (1
Chronicles 28:9)
What did he do that demonstrated the falling away from true worship? The Bible reports
“It was then that Solʹo·mon built a high place to Cheʹmosh, the disgusting god of Moʹab, on the mountain in front
of Jerusalem and to Moʹlech, the disgusting god of the Amʹmon·ites. That was what he did for all his foreign wives
who were making sacrificial smoke and sacrificing to their gods.” (11:7,8)
Insight noted that this structures would later be destroyed by one of his righteous grand son
“King Solomon built high places for idolatrous worship there “to the right [south] of the Mount of Ruination,” but
King Josiah later made these unfit for worship. (1Ki 11:7; 2Ki 23:13, ftn)” [3]
What happened to Jehovah’s love for Solomon? The Bible reports God’s change of heart
“Jehovah became furious at Solʹo·mon, because his heart had inclined away from Jehovah the God of Israel, who
had appeared to him twice and had warned him about this very thing, that he should not go after other gods. But
he did not obey what Jehovah had commanded. Jehovah now said to Solʹo·mon: “Because you have done this
and you have not kept my covenant and my statutes as I commanded you, I will surely rip the kingdom away from
you, and I will give it to one of your servants. However, for the sake of your father David, I will not do it in your
lifetime. I will rip it out of the hand of your son, but I will not rip away the entire kingdom. One tribe I will give to
your son, for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen.”” (11:9-13)
Jehovah was furious. God warned him but Solomon ignored it. How did Jehovah God handle the situation - he
has a covenant with David for an everlasting kingdom but the successor-son was unfaithful. God’s decision is to
rip away most of the kingdom from Solomon and just leave him to rule one tribe. But because of David, God
chose to do so in the generation of his son.
Insight comments on this development
“JUST 120 years after Saul became the first king of Israel, the nation was torn in two. Why? Because of the
apostasy of King Solomon. Desiring to please his foreign wives, Solomon allowed rank idolatry to infiltrate the
nation, building ‘high places’ to false gods. This interfaith was abhorrent to Jehovah. Yet, loyal to his covenant
with David, God did not cut short the Davidic dynasty. Rather, he decreed the ripping away of part of the nation.—
1Ki 11:7-13.
This occurred in 997 B.C.E. when the actions of Solomon’s headstrong son Rehoboam incited ten tribes to rebel
and form a kingdom largely in the northern part of the land but also including Simeonite enclave cities scattered
throughout Judah. Only the tribes of Benjamin and Levi remained loyal to the southern kingdom in Judah.” [4]
During this period of falling away, or apostasy, the Bible reports the loss of peace in Solomon’s reign
“Jehovah then raised up a resister against Solʹo·mon, Haʹdad the Eʹdom·ite, of the royal family of Eʹdom. When
David defeated Eʹdom, Joʹab the chief of the army went up to bury the slain, and he tried to strike down every
male in Eʹdom.  (For Joʹab and all Israel stayed there for six months until he had done away with every male in
Eʹdom.) But Haʹdad fled with some of his father’s Eʹdom·ite servants, and they went to Egypt; Haʹdad was then a
young boy.  So they set out from Midʹi·an and came to Paʹran. They took men with them from Paʹran and came to
Egypt, to Pharʹaoh king of Egypt, who gave him a house, assigned him a food allowance, and gave him land.
Haʹdad found favor in the eyes of Pharʹaoh, so much so that he gave him in marriage the sister of his own wife,
Tahʹpe·nes the queen. In time the sister of Tahʹpe·nes bore him a son, Ge·nuʹbath, and Tahʹpe·nes brought him
up in the house of Pharʹaoh, and Ge·nuʹbath remained in the house of Pharʹaoh among the sons of Pharʹaoh.”
(11:14-20)
93 | P a g e
Who is this Hadad? All we know of him is what the Bible reported above. A reference commented about Hadad
marrying into Egyptian royalty just as Solomon married an Egyptian princess
“One historical problematic item becomes the central component in this short passage. Hadad’s purported
marriage with Pharaoh’s kin is a matter greatly at variance with the Egyptian historical record, but makes sense
within the wider biblical context. Earlier biblical figures had married into the Egyptian royal court. The OT has
Pharaho complain that he never would have taken Sara as his wife if he knew that she was married to Abraham
(Gen 12:19), Solomon himself marries Pharaoh’s daughter (1 Kgs 9:16). These marriages make sense within the
biblical context, but raise questions in terms of the ANE material on Egyptian royal marital policy. Leaving aside
the debate over whether Edom was even a significant polity at this time Edom, Hadad’s homeland, surely lacked
the prestige needed to have its prince marry a family member of a ruler of an ancient superpower.” [5]
In other words, to this author, the narrative around Hadad is literary fiction than true history based on what they
have found on Egyptian documentary practice on royal marriages. Even the dialogue between Hadad and the
Pharaoh is supposedly should be taken only as a literary material not true history. (11:21, 22)
The reference above implies that the Bible record could not be true because the validation from Egyptian records
is not there. The Bible has not yet been proven false. It is a trustworthy and accurate book. It’s writers do not hide
their own mistakes. Their candor has no equal in their time.
Things have changed for Solomon. He thought that he can outsmart God and find a way to circle around God’s
requirements. However, he was wrong. He lost God’s affection which was never unconditional ever.
The biblical message is clear - God’s love for humankind is not romantic or sentimental. If I love God in return, I
must demonstrate it with loyal acts of obedience.
References
[2] Haven, Cynthia. “King Solomon: Stanford scholar considers how the man who had everything ended with
nothing”, Stanford Report, July 14, 2011.
[3] Olives, Mount of. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 553.
[4] Divided Kingdom. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 947.
[5] Galvin, Garrett. Egypt as a Place of Refuge, Mohr Siebeck: Tubingen, Germany,, 2011, p. 85.
94 | P a g e
11.16.2 The Fall of Solomon - Part 2

When David failed Jehovah God by committing adultery with Bathsheba, David lost the peace of his kingdom. The
same case with his son Solomon. First, it was Hadad of Edom who raised himself against him. Peace did not
return until he died. The Bible narrative now reports another one.
“God also raised up against Solʹo·mon another resister, Reʹzon the son of E·liʹa·da, who had fled from his lord,
Had·ad·eʹzer the king of Zoʹbah. He gathered men to himself and became chief of a marauder band when David
defeated them. So they went to Damascus and settled there and began reigning in Damascus. And he became a
resister of Israel all the days of Solʹo·mon, adding to the harm done by Haʹdad, and he abhorred Israel while he
reigned over Syria.” (11:23-25)
Who is this Rezon of Syria (Greek; Aram, Hebrew)? The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight comments
“If, as some suggest, he was the person called Hezion at 1 Kings 15:18, this would make him founder of the
Syrian dynasty that had extensive dealings with Israel.” [1]
But who is this Hezion? Insight provides the note
“Grandfather of the first King Ben-hadad of Syria mentioned in the Bible. (1Ki 15:18) Hezion is thought by some to
be the person called Rezon at 1 Kings 11:23.” [2]
In both notes, Insight did not identiy who were the “some” who are making the claim that Rezon and Hezion are
the same person. Outside of the Bible Rezon has not yet been identified. One Bible dictionary has this entry
“The succession of Syrian kings who reigned at Damascus and elevated the city-state to the height of its power.
Under them it became the inveterate foe of Israel for a full century and a half after 925 B.C. Biblical reference to
the Ben-hadads has been remarkably illuminated by archaeology as a result of the discovery of the inscribed
stela of Ben-hadad I, recovered in N Syria in 1940. This important royal inscription in general confirms the order of
early Syrian rulers as given in 1 Kings 15:18, where Ben-hadad is said to be the “son of Tabrimmon, the son of
Hezion, king of Abram, who lived in Damascus.” According to W. F. Albright’s rendering of the Ben-hadad
monument, with the somewhat precarious restoration of the partly undecipherable portion, the sequence is
identical: “Bir-hadad, son of Tab-ramman, son of Hadyan, king of Aram” (cf. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 87 [Oct. 1942]: 23–29; 90 [Apr. 1943]: 32– 34). Bir-hadad is equivalent to Bar-hadad (Heb.
Ben-hadad), and Tab-ramman and Hadyan are equatable with Heb. Tabrimmon and Hezion. The correct name of
the first king of Damascus has been corroborated by archaeological evidence, but the identity of Rezon who
seized Damascus during Solomon’s reign and apparently ruled there (11:23–25) is still unsolved. Is Hezion the
same as Rezon? If so, then the form Rezon is secondary and may be regarded as a corruption of Hezion. If this is
not the case, which apparently is unlikely, Rezon must be excluded from the dynastic list of 15:18, which is
improbable since he was ostensibly the founder of the powerful Damascene state.”[3]
Finally, the key protagonist for Solomon is introduced - Jeroboam, an Ephraimite.
“And there was Jer·o·boʹam the son of Neʹbat, an Eʹphra·im·ite from Zerʹe·dah, a servant of Solʹo·mon’s whose
mother’s name was Ze·ruʹah, a widow. He too began to rebel against the king.” (11:26)
What do I know of Jeroboam? Insight has this entry
“First king of the ten-tribe kingdom of Israel; the son of Nebat, one of Solomon’s officers in the village of Zeredah;
of the tribe of Ephraim. Apparently at an early age Jeroboam was left fatherless, to be raised by his widowed
mother Zeruah.—1Ki 11:26.” [4]
The Bible gives the reason for Jeroboam’s rebellion
“This is why he rebelled against the king: Solʹo·mon had built the Mound and had closed up the gap of the City of
David his father. Now this Jer·o·boʹam was a capable man. When Solʹo·mon saw that the young man was a hard
worker, he made him overseer over all the compulsory service of the house of Joseph.” (11:27, 28)
95 | P a g e
The Bible introduces Jeroboam as a “capable man” resulting for him being made an overseer of all the forced
labor of the two tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim. While he was an overseer, Jehovah gave him an assignment
through the prophet Ahijah
“During that time Jer·o·boʹam went out from Jerusalem, and the prophet A·hiʹjah the Shiʹlo·nite found him on the
road. A·hiʹjah was wearing a new garment, and the two of them were by themselves in the field. A·hiʹjah took hold
of the new garment he was wearing and ripped it into 12 pieces.” (11:29, 30)
What happened along the road was a prophetic dramatization of what would happen to the United Monarchy.
Ahijah disclosed to Jeroboam the significance of his action
“Then he said to Jer·o·boʹam:
“Take ten pieces for yourself, for this is what Jehovah the God of Israel says: ‘Here I am ripping the kingdom out
of the hand of Solʹo·mon, and I will give you ten tribes.  But one tribe will remain his for the sake of my servant
David and for the sake of Jerusalem, the city I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel. I will do this because they
have left me and are bowing down to Ashʹto·reth the goddess of the Si·doʹni·ans, to Cheʹmosh the god of Moʹab,
and to Milʹcom the god of the Amʹmon·ites, and they have not walked in my ways by doing what is right in my
eyes and observing my statutes and my judgments as his father David did. But I will not take the entire kingdom
out of his hand, and I will keep him as a chieftain for all the days of his life, for the sake of David my servant whom
I chose, because he obeyed my commandments and my statutes. But I will take the kingship out of the hand of
his son and give it to you, that is, ten tribes. To his son I will give one tribe, so that David my servant may always
have a lamp before me in Jerusalem, the city that I have chosen for myself as the place to put my name.” (11:31-
36)
Jehovah’s message was clear
1) God is giving the 10 tribes to Jeroboam for him to rule over

2) The reason for God’s action was the unfaithfulness of Solomon and the people
3) 2 tribes will remain for the sake of David and of Jerusalem
Regarding Jerusalem, Jehovah God spoke of it as “the city that I have chosen for myself as the place to put my
name”. What is the significance of this? Insight comments
“It was the only city in all the earth upon which Jehovah God placed his name. (1Ki 11:36) After the ark of the
covenant, associated with God’s presence, was transferred there, and even more so when the temple sanctuary,
or house of God, was constructed there, Jerusalem became Jehovah’s figurative ‘residence,’ his “resting-place.”
(Ps 78:68, 69; 132:13, 14; 135:21; compare 2Sa 7:1-7, 12, 13.)” [5]
Jehovah then set the condition for Jeroboam
“I will take you, and you will reign over all that you desire, and you will become king over Israel. And if you obey all
that I command you and walk in my ways and do what is right in my eyes by obeying my statutes and my
commandments, just as David my servant did, I will also be with you. I will build you a lasting house, just as I have
built for David, and I will give you Israel. And I will humiliate the offspring of David because of this, but not
always.’”” (11:37-39)
The conditions are clear and has not changed. Jehovah demands loyalty and faithfulness to the covenant law that
is binding for both the 10 tribes and the remaining 2 tribes. Insight comments on this demands from God
“Subsequently, Jeroboam was approached by God’s prophet Ahijah with startling news. After tearing his own new
garment into 12 pieces, the prophet told Jeroboam to take ten of them in symbol of how Jehovah would rip
Solomon’s kingdom in two and make Jeroboam king over ten of the tribes. This, however, was to be merely a
governmental division and not also a departure from true worship as centered at the temple in Jerusalem, the
capital of the southern kingdom. So Jehovah assured Jeroboam that he would bless and prosper his reign and
build him a lasting house of successors provided he kept God’s laws and commandments.—1Ki 11:29-38.” [6]
96 | P a g e
Solomon must have heard of the news of the anointing of Jeroboam. The Bible reports next
“So Solʹo·mon tried to put Jer·o·boʹam to death, but Jer·o·boʹam fled to Egypt, to Shiʹshak the king of Egypt, and
he remained in Egypt until Solʹo·mon’s death.” (11:40)
Who is this Pharaoh Shishak? Insight came up with this note
“An Egyptian king that is known as Sheshonk (I) from Egyptian records. Shishak, regarded as the founder of the
“Libyan dynasty,” is generally credited with a rule of about 21 years. His son Osorkon I succeeded him to the
throne.”[7]
Insight cited some archaeological evidence
“There is archaeological evidence concerning Shishak’s invading the area of Palestine. A fragment of a stele
found at Megiddo mentions Sheshonk (Shishak), possibly indicating that the stele was erected there to
commemorate his victory. (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, pp. 263, 264) Also, a relief
on a temple wall at Karnak (the N part of the ancient Egyptian city of Thebes) lists numerous cities or villages that
Shishak conquered. (PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 952; Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Leiden, 1957, Vol. IV,
pp. 59, 60) A considerable number of the places that can be identified with Biblical sites were located in the
territory of the ten-tribe kingdom. This would indicate that the purpose of Shishak’s campaign was, not to assist
the ten-tribe kingdom, but to gain control of the important trade routes and thereby extend Egypt’s power and
influence.” [8]
One blog article wrote about the same
“Shishak's campaign is documented in Egypt as well as in the Bible. Upon his return, he constructed a large
festival court in front of the great Temple of Amun at Thebes in southern Egypt. The project was no doubt
financed by plunder from Judah and Israel. On one of the walls of the court, Shishak commissioned a
commemorative relief of his Palestinian campaign. Unfortunately, it is badly damaged. Enough remains, however,
to show that he not only attacked Judah, as the Bible records, but also the northern kingdom of Israel. The scene
depicts Shishak on the right side about to club a group of foreigners, most likely Israelites given the context of the
relief. The figure of Shishak is all but destroyed. On the left side is the chief Egyptian god Amun leading captive
cities by means of ropes. Each city is represented by an oval cartouche containing the name of the city, with a
bound prisoner on top. The list mainly contains place names in Israel, the Judahite section being almost totally
obliterated. Jerusalem does not appear in the list. One of the Israelite towns is Megiddo. At the site of Megiddo a
portion of a commemorative stela of Shishak was found by the Oriental Institute excavations in 1926. His name
can be clearly read and the stela is without doubt from the 925 B.C. campaign. Solid silver coffin of Shishak's
grandson Sheshonq-II. It was discovered in 1939 by Pierre Montet at Tanis in the Egyptian delta. The silver used
to make the coffin possibly came from Judah and Israel as a result of Shishak's 925 BC campaign. One footnote
to the story of Shishak's campaign. When Shishak's son Osorkon-I took the throne, he gave huge amounts of
gold and silver (383 tons!) to the temples of Egypt. What is more, he buried his son Sheshonq-II in a coffin made
of pure silver. Where did all of this wealth come from? The only plausible explanation is that it came from the
treasuries of the Temple and royal palace at Jerusalem (1 Kings 14:26), and other cities of Judah and Israel, in
Shishak's campaign of 925 B.C.” [9]
With this development, the Bible ends the story of Solomon
“As for the rest of the history of Solʹo·mon, all that he did and his wisdom, is it not written in the book of the history
of Solʹo·mon?  The length of Solʹo·mon’s reign in Jerusalem over all Israel was 40 years. Then Solʹo·mon was laid
to rest with his forefathers and was buried in the City of David his father; and his son Re·ho·boʹam became king in
his place.” (11:41-43)
What will happen now to Solomon? Does he have a hope to live again in the resurrection?
“This conclusion implies that the possibility of being resurrected is open to others concerning whom the Scriptures
specifically say, ‘they lay down with their forefathers.’ In fact, many of the kings who succeeded Solomon, though
97 | P a g e
unfaithful, are spoken of in this way. This is not inconceivable, since “there is going to be a resurrection of both
the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Acts 24:15) Of course, only after “all those in the memorial tombs” are raised
will we know for a certainty who has been favored with a resurrection. (John 5:28, 29) So rather than be dogmatic
about the resurrection of any particular individual of old, we wait, trusting in Jehovah’s perfect decision.” [10]
References
[1] Rezon. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 803.
[2] Hezion. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1105.
[3] Unger, Merrill. Benhadad. The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, Chicago: Moddy Press, 1988.
[4] Jeroboam. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 37.
[7] Shishak. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 934.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Sturgeon, Jeff. “What evidence has been found of the Egyptian king, Shishak?”. Christian Answers blog site.
[10] Questions From Readers, The Watchtower, July 15, 2015, p. 31.
98 | P a g e
11.17 The Dividing of the Kingdom

11.17.1 The Dividing of the Kingdom - Part 1
It is the end of another era - the death of King Solomon. He started out as a humble man seeking wisdom so he
can govern God's people justly. Jehovah God was impressed with his attitude but He also warned Solomon to
stay the course, to continue to comply with the covenant law.
Interestingly, despite coming from a family of handsome men and lovely women, Solomon's physical appearance
was not mentioned at all. The emphasis was on the 聽 display of his wisdom and building projects.
God made a promise to David, Solomon's father, which was later called the Davidic covenant. That was an
important promise, an important milestone to God's revelation of his purpose. Why? That promise will later be
linked to Jesus Christ who will be called the Son of David, heir to the throne of the kingdom.
The Bible story unfolded with God's first promise declared in Eden that He will destroy evil using an unidentified
offspring. God continued to reveal this purpose by making another promise to the man called Abram, later
renamed Abraham. That promise was later called Abrahamic covenant. God promised that through the offspring
of Abraham, the nations will bless themselves.
The next important milestone in God's gradual revealing of his purpose was in the Davidic covenant. Jehovah
God will remove evil through an agent and an agency He will designate. That agency was typified by the kingdom
of Israel and the agent was the later offspring of David.
When Jesus came to the earth, he was identified and acknowledged that he was the heir to the throne, the Son of
David. But God shifted his direction without dropping his original purpose.
When Solomon failed God, God chose to be patient with the offspring or descendants of David until Christ came.
When he came, God decided to drop Israel from being the nation and the kingdom that will implement his purpose.
He chose the congregation Jesus Christ established that will form the core of what Jesus taught as God's
kingdom.
The kingdom will no longer be earthly with its capital in Jerusalem and the king sitting on an earthly throne. Jesus
became a heavenly king, a heavenly ruler, with God's kingdom in heaven, and not on the earth.
Jesus taught his follower to pray, 'Thy kingdom come.' What will God's kingdom do once it arrives? The Bible
discloses
"In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left
to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever."
(Daniel 2:44)
So, God was never sleeping at anytime. As I read the Bible, I can see Him actively moving to realize His purpose
on His schedule. God's purpose is not hidden from men as if it was something mysterious or incomprehensible.
Individuals like Solomon may fail Him, but His divine purpose moves forward.
99 | P a g e

It is common for God-believing folks to say that God has a purpose for each one. We will not leave the earthly
scene until that purpose has been accomplished. I am not sure where people got that idea or whether some folks
believe that God predestined anyone for some specific purpose. It is a mechanism people resort to explain the
unexplainable.
But God has stated His purpose for mankind and for this earth. Sadly and surprisingly many people don’t know
that. Even those who profess belief in God don’t know it. The primary reason is that purpose is mentioned in the
Bible. So much negativity has been in the media about the Bible that it led to people disbelieving its content,
without giving it a hearing, a fair chance to understand what it says.
Rather than resorting to false clutches to hold on to to explain the unexplainable, the Bible has a simple answer
for God’s purpose. His purpose continues to move forward, may alter how it gets done or with whom, but it moves
forward to completion.
The Bible tells us that God’s purpose is to vindicate his sovereignty, or right to rule, which was questioned by the
rebels in the Garden of Eden. He wants to sanctifiy His holy name, represented in Hebrew by four letters, YHWH,
also known and translated in English as JEHOVAH. How will God accomplish this purpose? He used men to write
in the Bible the various milestones towards accomplishing that purpose.
The various milestones are
1) God’s declaration of war in Eden that evil will be destroyed by His chosen “offspring”
2) God made a covenant with Abraham through whom the “offspring” will appear
3) God made a covenant with Israel for a kingdom to produce kings and priests
4) God made a covenant with David through whom the “offspring” will become a Messiah
In my Bible-reading journey, I have already reached the fourth milestone. But the sons of David has failed
Jehovah God. Yet, his purpose moved on. We know that God’s decision is wise because this covenant led
mankind to the most important son of David, Jesus of Nazareth.
For now, the narrative introduces the failure of another son of David, Rehoboam
“Re·ho·boʹam went to Sheʹchem, for all Israel had come to Sheʹchem to make him king.” (12:1)
Where is Shechem? It is in the northern part of Israel. The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight explains
“An ancient city linked with Nablus or, more precisely, with nearby Tell Balata. (Ps 60:6; 108:7; PICTURE, Vol. 1,
p. 530) Situated at the E end of the narrow valley running between Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal, Tell Balata
lies about 48 km (30 mi) N of Jerusalem. A good supply of water is available, and just E of the site there is a fertile
plain. Anciently Shechem commanded the E-W and N-S roads traversing central Palestine. (Compare Jg 21:19.)
Lacking the military advantage of being built on a mountain, the city depended on its fortifications for security.—Jg
9:35.” [1]
What is significant about Shechem? Insight relates it with Abraham, the ancestor of the nation of Israel
“The first mention of Shechem in the Bible is Genesis 12:6, when Abram first entered Canaan. It is succinctly
described: “Abram traveled through the land as far as the site of the great tree of Moreh at Shechem.” At that time,
God promised Abram, “To your offspring I will give this land” (Gn 12:7). The next mention of Shechem is 11
chapters, and about 200 years, later, when the Bible records that Jacob, Abram’s grandson, “camped within sight
of the city” (Gn 33:18).” [2]
Why are those changes in reference significant? The article above continues
“Assuming a conservative dating for the Patriarchal events in the Bible,3 note that Abram camped in Canaan
about 2090 BC and there is no mention of a city. However, when Jacob arrived 200 hundred years later, around
100 | P a g e
1890 BC, the Bible notes that he “camped within sight of the city [Shechem].” In the original Hebrew, the word
translated in our English Bible as “city” meant a permanent, walled settlement (Hansen 2003:81, Wood 1999:23).
Genesis 34:20 and 24 report that Shechem had a city gate; therefore it was fortified.
Can archaeology clarify if there was or was not a city? Yes. The absence of a “city” and walls at Tell Balata when
Abram came through and the existence of a city in the time of Jacob is in complete agreement with what the Bible
indicates is Shechem’s early history.” [3]
The city is mentioned again after the return of Israel under Joshua
“When Jacob’s descendants, the Israelites, entered the Promised Land after the sojourn of more than two
centuries in Egypt, they buried Joseph’s bones “in Shechem in the tract of the field that Jacob had acquired from
the sons of Hamor.” (Jos 24:32)” [4]
King Saul was confirmed in Gilgal while King David was confirmed king in Hebron. King Solomon was confirmed
in Jerusalem. This is the first instance where a king was being confirmed in the northern territory.
The Bible now brings back Jeroboam into the narrative
“As soon as Jer·o·boʹam the son of Neʹbat heard of it (he was still in Egypt because he had run off on account of
King Solʹo·mon and was living in Egypt), 3 they sent for him. After that Jer·o·boʹam and all the congregation of
Israel came to Re·ho·boʹam and said: 4 “Your father made our yoke harsh. But if you make the harsh service of
your father easier and you lighten the heavy yoke he put on us, we will serve you.”” (12:2-4)
Scholars view this assembly narrative for various reasons of their own as unhistorical. One reference cites why
scholars thought so citing that there are two versions of the story. One was found in Hebrew, in the Masoretic
Text, while the other was in Greek, referring to the Septuagint.
“Other scholars opposed the view that the short account of the division possessed any historical value. Keil
argued that additions in 3 Reg 12:24a-z “are nothing more than a legendary supplement made by an Alexandrian”.
Kittel regarded the short account as erroneous and ill-considered in terms of narrative cohesion, expressed in the
manner of late midrash. Meyer advocated strongly that the account of the assembly at Shechem in MT 1 Kgs
12:1-14 was the original and the Greek version was a disfigured and abbreviated reworking. He pointed out that
the time allotted between Solomon’s death and the assembly at Shechem is too prolonged, as a large interval
would be required for Jeroboam to return from Egypt, fortify Ephraim, and suffer condemnation against his
descendants from Ahijah. In the MT, Jeroboam also plays a minor role in the assembly, while in the Greek version
he summons the tribes of Israel to convene”. [5]
David was chosen to replace Saul while Saul was king, ending completely the Saulide dynasty. Jeroboam was
chosen while Rehoboam was king but not to replace him, because the Davidic covenant, but to take away 10
tribes from Rehoboam, for Jeroboam to rule on. A blog article described the appearance of Jeroboam in the
narrative
“In I Kings 11:28 he is referred to as a mighty man of valor. Because of these exemplary qualities, King Solomon
appointed him foreman of a project to seal the breaches in the walls of Jerusalem and to erect the Millo, a fortress
at the entrance to Jerusalem (11:27). Thereafter, he was made taskmaster of the house of Joseph. As the royal
overseer of all the labor of the house of Joseph (11:28), he came face to face with widespread discontent
caused by an extensive corvee and an oppressive fiscal system which marked Solomon’s reign. A rebellion was
in the making and Jeroboam was the leader of the conspiracy against the King (11:26).” [6]
Then, it continued with
“In David’s day, the enemy had been the Philistines. Two generations later the only nation-state strong enough to
withstand pressure from King Solomon to extradite his subject was Egypt. The Egyptian Pharaoh Shishak had
ample geopolitical reasons to give Jeroboam asylum and to treat him kindly as he had treated David’s enemy, the
101 | P a g e
Edomite prince Hadad (11:26-28). During his exile, which lasted 16 years, Shishak gave Jeroboam his sister in
law in marriage and it was this union which produced a son, named Abijah (12:24).
After the death of Solomon, Jeroboam was summoned by his countrymen to return and act as their spokesman at
a confrontation with Rehoboam which took place in Shechem (12: 3). The Israelite delegation came to petition
Rehoboam to lighten the burdens which his father had placed upon them. This was to be Rehoboam’s last
chance to save the United Monarchy.” [7]
“At this he said to them: “Go away for three days; then return to me.” So the people went away.” (12:5)
How does a contemporary Bible reader understand the use of “three days” from the Hebrew? Insight explains
“There are times when the Hebrews used ‘day and night’ to mean only a portion of a solar day of 24 hours. For
example, 1 Kings 12:5, 12 tells of Rehoboam’s asking Jeroboam and the Israelites to “go away for three days”
and then return to him. That he did not mean three full 24-hour days but, rather, a portion of each of three days is
seen by the fact that the people came back to him “on the third day.”” [8]
This is significant if we apply this understanding to Jesus’ use of “three days” with his resurrection
“At Matthew 12:40 the same meaning is given to the “three days and three nights” of Jesus’ stay in Sheol. As the
record shows, he was raised to life on “the third day.” The Jewish priests clearly understood this to be the
meaning of Jesus’ words, since, in their effort to block his resurrection, they quoted Jesus as saying: “After three
days I am to be raised up,” and then they requested Pilate to issue a command for “the grave to be made secure
until the third day.”—Mt 27:62-66; 28:1-6; note other examples in Ge 42:17, 18; Es 4:16; 5:1.” [9]
What will be the outcome when the “three days” have been accomplished? That will be for the next installment.
References
[1] Shechem. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 914.
[2] Hansen, David. “Shechem: Its Archaeological and Contextual Significance”, Associate for Biblical Research
blog site article. Available (online).
[3] Ibid.
[4] Shechem. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 914.
[5] Thomas, Benjamin. Hezekiah and the Compositional History of the Books of Kings, Laup & Gobel, 2014, p.
268.
[6] Green, Yosef. “Jeroboam Ben Nebat: A Reappraisal”, Jewish Bible Quarterly blog article. Available (online).
[7] Ibid.
[8] Day. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 593.
102 | P a g e

What happens when men don’t trust God’s promises and assurances? King Rehoboam and the new King
Jeroboam both did not trust in God’s wisdom, promises and assurances. They decided to do things according as
they see fit. Both ended in disasters.
What God has declared will happen, unless humans provide God a basis to change His mind, will happen.
Jehovah God told Solomon that the kingdom will be divided in the days of his son because of his unfaithfulness.
His son Rehoboam has an opportunity to change God’s mind. But the narrative shows that he chose to be foolish
and arrogant. His father Solomon has promoted the practice of forced labor and the practice has now
boomeranged to his kingship. It is an example that God’s purpose is not thwarted but will move forward despite
the failure of men that God chooses to use to carry on that purpose.
The Bible now resumes the narrative after the “three days” has finally arrived
“King Re·ho·boʹam then consulted with the older men who had served his father Solʹo·mon while he was alive,
saying: “What advice would you give on how to reply to this people?” They answered him: “If today you would
become a servant to this people and submit to their request and give them a favorable answer, they will always
be your servants.”” (12:6,7)
The older men gave Rehoboam wise advise - ‘if you would become a servant to this people’. Would this be below
the royal dignity of Rehoboam? The Bible relates the development
“However, he rejected the advice that the older men gave him.” (12:8a)
A young ruler rejects the counsel of older and wiser men. Where did he go for advise? The Bible narrates
“And he consulted with the young men who had grown up with him and who were now his attendants. 9 He asked
them: “What advice do you offer on how we should reply to this people who have said to me, ‘Make the yoke your
father put on us lighter’?” The young men who had grown up with him said to him: “This is what you should say to
this people who have said to you, ‘Your father made our yoke heavy, but you should make it lighter for us’; this is
what you should tell them, ‘My little finger will be thicker than my father’s hips.” (12: 8b-10)
He exchanged the counsel of older men to his peers, younger men, who promoted an arrogant and harsh image
- ‘little finger thicker than my father’s hips’. The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight commented on this analogy
“When a delegation asked King Rehoboam for a lighter load of service than his father Solomon had laid upon
them, the king was advised by his young attendants to respond that ‘his little finger would be thicker than his
father’s hips’; this metaphor meant that he would put a much heavier burden on them. (1Ki 12:4, 10, 11) The
Hebrew word used here for “little finger” comes from a root meaning “be small, little, least.”” [1]
The counsel would suppose to instill fear against Rehoboam with his fierce words
“My father imposed a heavy yoke on you, but I will add to your yoke. My father punished you with whips, but I will
punish you with scourges.’”” (12:11)
But would the people cower in fear before Rehoboam? The account continues
“Jer·o·boʹam and all the people came to Re·ho·boʹam on the third day, just as the king had said: “Return to me on
the third day.” 13 But the king answered the people harshly, rejecting the advice that the older men had given him.
14
He spoke to them according to the advice of the young men, saying: “My father made your yoke heavy, but I
will add to your yoke. My father punished you with whips, but I will punish you with scourges.” So the king did not
listen to the people, for this turn of events was caused by Jehovah, in order to carry out the word that Jehovah
had spoken through A·hiʹjah the Shiʹlo·nite to Jer·o·boʹam the son of Neʹbat.” (12:12-15)
103 | P a g e
I could imagine the arrogance and self-confidence that Rehoboam felt delivering this brief dialogue. The Bible
reported that the development “was caused by Jehovah” or permitted by Him, allowing His words to be fulfilled.
How did the people respond to Rehoboam’s harshness? The Bible reports
“When all Israel saw that the king refused to listen to them, the people replied to the king: “What share do we
have in David? We have no inheritance in the son of Jesʹse. To your gods, O Israel. Now look after your own
house, O David!” With that Israel returned to their homes. But Re·ho·boʹam continued to reign over the Israelites
living in the cities of Judah.” (12:16, 17)
The northern tribes decided to abandon Rehoboam, with Judah remaining with him for the kingdom. Rehoboam
apparently did not recognize this rebellion but sends Adoram to them only to be stoned to death. (12:18,19)
Instead, the one who Jehovah anointed to be king of the northern kingdom of Israel during the days of Solomon
was confirmed to be their king. (12:20)
Rehoboam thought he can still quell the rebellion and arrest the separation of the 10 tribes from his kingdom. The
Bible reports
“When Re·ho·boʹam arrived in Jerusalem, he immediately congregated all the house of Judah and the tribe of
Benjamin, 180,000 trained warriors, to fight against the house of Israel in order to restore the kingship to
Re·ho·boʹam the son of Solʹo·mon.” (12:21)
This is when Jehovah God decided to step in, sending the prophet Shemaiah. The Bible reports
“Then the word of the true God came to She·maiʹah the man of the true God, saying: “Say to Re·ho·boʹam the
son of Solʹo·mon the king of Judah and to all the house of Judah and Benjamin and the rest of the people, ‘This is
what Jehovah says: “You must not go up and fight against your Israelite brothers. Each one of you must return to
his house, for I have caused this to happen.”’” So they obeyed the word of Jehovah and went back home, as
Jehovah had told them.” (12:22-24)
Rehoboam must have been shocked of how small his kingdome became, all because of his arrogance and his
foolishness trusting in the counsel of his inexperienced peers. The Bible does not say anything more about those
peers who have counseled Rehoboam.
The story of a new kingdom now begins to the north, one that will be led by Jehovah’s anointed Jeroboam. The
Bible reports
“Jer·o·boʹam then built up Sheʹchem in the mountainous region of Eʹphra·im and lived there. From there he went
out and built up Pe·nuʹel. Jer·o·boʹam said in his heart: “Now the kingdom will return to the house of David. If this
people continues to go up to offer sacrifices at the house of Jehovah in Jerusalem, the heart of this people will
also return to their lord, King Re·ho·boʹam of Judah. Yes, they will kill me and return to King Re·ho·boʹam of
Judah.” After consultation, the king made two golden calves and said to the people: “It is too much for you to go
up to Jerusalem. Here is your God, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.” Then he placed one in
Bethʹel, and the other he put in Dan. 30 And this caused them to sin, and the people went as far as Dan to worship
the one there.” (12:25-30)
However, God’s own anointed Jeroboam has a different set of plans to ensure his kingdom. Not trusting on God’s
promise to establish his kingdom, Jeroboam chose to rebel against the God who anointed him by putting up a
rival religion in his kingdom, one that he instituted in Dan and Bethel.
The Bible reports the build up of this false religion
“And he made houses of worship on the high places and appointed priests from the people in general, those who
were not Levites. Jer·o·boʹam also established a festival in the eighth month, on the 15th day of the month, like
the festival in Judah. On the altar that he made at Bethʹel, he sacrificed to the calves he had made, and at Bethʹel
he assigned priests for the high places that he had made. And he began to make offerings on the altar that he
had made at Bethʹel on the 15th day in the eighth month, in the month that he had devised on his own; and he
104 | P a g e
established a festival for the people of Israel, and he ascended the altar to make offerings and sacrificial smoke.”
(12: 30-33)
Jeroboam went back to the sin of Israel in the wilderness when they worshiped a golden calf. He supported this
with non-Levite priests and a calendar of festivals to mimic the true worship in Jerusalem. The Bible narrative now
takes us from one foolish king to another foolish king.
References
[1] Finger. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 832.
105 | P a g e
11.18 Jeroboam, First King of Israel

11.18.1 Jerorboam, First King of Israel - Part 1
As I press on the journey of reading the Bible’s continuing narrative, critical Bible scholars have built a theory that
all of the Bible was produced for and in behalf of king Josiah of Judah, that the all of the books of the Old
Testament up to this book I am presently reading were written and compiled to promote the agenda of King
Josiah. In effect, all of the personalities or characters and events in the OT were invented or fabricated to support
this so-called agenda.
It is my intention to explore the state of affairs of this theory officially called ‘deuteronomistic history’.
The Bible narrative now proceeds
“By the word of Jehovah, a man of God came from Judah to Bethʹel while Jer·o·boʹam was standing by the altar
to make sacrificial smoke. Then he called out against the altar by the word of Jehovah and said: “O altar, altar!
This is what Jehovah says: ‘Look! A son named Jo·siʹah will be born to the house of David! He will sacrifice on
you the priests of the high places, those making sacrificial smoke on you, and he will burn human bones on you.’””
(13:1,2)
Jeroboam was a capable Ephraimite. He must have been a fine servant of Jehovah God while he was serving in
king Solomon’s labor force. Jehovah God chose him to lead the 10-tribes that will form the kingdom of Israel as
separate from the kingdom of Judah. God promised Jeroboam if he remained loyal to the same covenant law
where all of Israel promised to abide by, his kingdom will lasts. But, Jeroboam chose to be selfish once he gained
power as king. He established a new religion for Israel, going back to the golden calves that snared Israel in the
wilderness. He put up two altars, one in Bethel and one in Dan, that competed with the temple of Jerusalem.
Regarding these places of worship or high places, the Bible0based encyclopedia Insight comments
“About 100 years after this, faithful King Josiah of Judah pulled down the altar and the high place at Bethel and
desecrated the altar by burning human bones upon it. He also removed all the houses of the high places in the
cities of Samaria, sacrificed (killed) all the priests of the high places, and burned human bones upon the altars.
(2Ki 23:15-20) This fulfilled a prophecy uttered over 300 years earlier by an unnamed “man of God.”—1Ki
13:1, 2.” [1]
The role of king Josiah in this story was commented on by Insight
“Jehovah’s prophecy concerning Josiah called for some descendant of David to be so named, and it foretold his
acting against false worship in the city of Bethel. (1Ki 13:1, 2) Over three centuries later a king so named fulfilled
this prophecy. (2Ki 22:1; 23:15, 16) On the other hand, he failed to heed “the words of Necho from the mouth of
God,” and this led to his being killed. (2Ch 35:20-24) Hence, while foreknown by God and foreordained to do a
particular work, Josiah was still a free moral agent able to choose to heed or disregard advice.” [2]
On the other hand, bIblical scholars look at all this as plain literature and they considered this portion of the Bible
as another stuff of legend. One book wrote
“Although many scholars have claimed that this entire legend, which goes ahead to tell about an encounter
between this same man of God and a prophet of Bethel, is a post-deteronomistic addition to the Book of Kings, a
recent study by Lemke has persuasively argued that 1 Kings 13 is another “pivotal passage” in the
Deuteronomistic History which, like other such passages, has an important place in the structure and theology of
the whole work. This passage, as Lemke has correctly noted, draws upon older prophetic traditions which the
Deuteronomist has creatively adapted for his own purposes.” [3]
106 | P a g e
Another book assessed the state of this scholarly view - that the narratives found in the Bible are legends - built
on the theory of the deuteronomistic history
“It seems extremely unlikely that an author who wished to conclude a history with a strong affirmation of the law of
centralization in Deuteronomy, and the importance of obedience to the deuteronomic covenant, would deliberately
alter the terminology and so lessen the impact of the intended reference. Peckham offers no reason for the
difference in terminology. It appears the reader is expected to accept the interpretation proposed on the strength
of Peckham’s conviction. On a more general level it is odd that a history written from the perspective of Judah and
David has no reference to David’s prophetic anointing, and no reference to the construction and dedication of the
temple. In short the Dtr1 history looks to be an extremely unlikely hypothesis.
The flaws in Peckham’s hypothesis of a Dtr1 history have damaging implications also for the Dtr2 history.” [4]
It adds quoting a different scholar
“Nevertheless, while Mayes provides quite a detailed breakdown of source and redaction, and offers insightful
comments on certain texts, his study is mainly concerned with a review and discussion of the literature on DtrH.
At the end of his book the reader is still left unsatisfied about the precise nature of the Josianic DtrH, and how its
parts go to make a well planned and unified interpretation of Israel’s life in the land from the occupation to the
reign of Josiah.” [5]
Even this book is trying to propose its own version of the theory. One essay described the field of study
“Beyond this relatively unfocused description, I suspect we would find little agreement on much of anything else,
except that the title .“Deuteronomistic History.” and its incarnated reflex .“Deuteronomistic Historian.” provide
handy and wonderfully elastic shorthand phrases that mask a multitude of problems. Students of the Hebrew
Bible often use the term merely to acknowledge in the most general way the evident theological and literary
interconnections within Deuteronomy-Joshua-Judges-Samuel-Kings.” [6]
Note the author’s comment of “little agreement”, “elastic shorthand” and “multitude of problems” around this
theory. The author then briefly discusses the competing models trying to sustain the deuteronomistic theory
“The Römer version of the Deuteronomistic History is essentially a layer model that traces successive redactional
stages as strata through the whole text. As such it is similar to the Göttingen school.’s layer model of two topically
oriented DtrN and DtrP strata overlaying an exilic DtrH base text in numerous, often relatively small units. At the
same time, Römer.’s Deuteronomistic History shares with the rival block model the understanding that such
redactional stages can be coordinated with and understood on the basis of definite watershed moments in
history.” [7]
Another paper captured this state of affairs in a tongue-in-cheek description in the 1990’s
“In the beginning was the Deuteronomistic History. It was not tohu wabohu but a well ordered creation by one
author who had access to Israel’s traditions. We knew not his name, though scoffers say it was Martin Noth. We
called him simply “Dtr.” And it was good. But as scholars multiplied on the Deuteronomistic History so did Dtrs.
Soon, there arose a great division in the earth. Those in the North—of America—followed Cross while those
across the Sea went after Smend. Each faction did what was right in his own eyes, and there was little interaction
between them. Then in the 50th year an invitation went out from America saying, “Come, let us celebrate and let
us reason together”.” [8]
This paper repeats what is already obvious to me as an explorer of the Bible and related research fields
“Another major hurdle facing DtrH studies has been the discussion of what actually makes something
“Deuteronomistic.” Wilson rightly points out that the pervasive problem within DtrH studies is that there really is no
consensus in this regard, perhaps with the exception of language.” [9]
107 | P a g e
So, rather than relying on human theories that come and go and with scholars who are one in concluding that the
BIble is made up of legends when they themselves are not sure what they thought is the true version of what
happened, I chose to put faith in the Bible. I have already seen demonstrated the Bible’s consistent story from
beginning to end, its authenticity, its veracity, and its practical value, embarrassing the arrogant scholars and
refuting their once popular theories associated with their names.
References
[2] Foreknowledge, Foreordination. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 856.
[3] Hallo, William. Scripture in Context II: More Essays on the Comparative Method, Eisenbraums, 1983, p. 122.
[4] O’Brien, Mark. The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment, Universistasverlag Freiburg
Schweiz, 1989, p. 20.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Nelson, Richard. “A Response to Thomas C. Romer, The So-Called Deuiteronomistic History”, an essay in the
collection of “In Conversation with Thomas Romer, ‘The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological,
Historical and Literary Introduction (London: T&T. Clark, 2005), The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, Volume 9,
Article 17, p. 5.
[7] Ibid., p. 6.
[8] Peterson, Brian Neil. The Authors of the Deuteronomistic History: Locating a Tradition in Ancient Israel,
Fortress Press, 2014, p. 9.
[9] Ibid., p. 20.
108 | P a g e
11.18.2 Jerorboam, First King of Israel - Part 2

Jehovah God had been patient as his divine purpose unfolds and as recorded in the Bible. Humans have failed
him along the way. Some have repented and reconciled themselves with God and started anew. Others chose to
stay the path of rebellion. The Bible painted for us the blessings of obedience and the disaster of disloyalty.
Why did Jehovah God bothered to have this record of human interaction with Him for posterity? The Bible said
“These things happened to them as examples for us. They were written down to warn us who live at the end of
the age.” (1 Corinthians 10:11)
The Bible narrative is taking us from one unfaithful king to another unfaithful king and the sad consequences it led
to. Regarding new king Jeroboam’s rebellion by putting up a new religion to counter that in Jerusalem, the Bible
reports
“He gave a sign on that day, saying: “This is the sign that Jehovah has declared: Look! The altar will be ripped
apart, and the ashes that are on it will be spilled out.”” (13:3)
The prophet was not named but his prophecy will find fulfillment at a later time. How did Jeroboam respond to this
judgment from Jehovah God who anointed him in the first place? The Bible reports
“As soon as the king heard the word that the man of the true God had called out against the altar at Bethʹel,
Jer·o·boʹam stretched out his hand from the altar and said: “Seize him!” Immediately, the hand that he had
stretched out against him dried up, and he could not draw it back. Then the altar was ripped apart and the ashes
were spilled out from the altar according to the sign that the man of the true God had given by the word of
Jehovah.” (13:4, 5)
Jeroboam using his authority ordered the arrest of the man of the true God. But Jehovah has struck this defiant
and thankless king with a disease resulting to his hand drying up.He was not able to prevent the word of Jehovah
from getting accomplished. What happens now? The Bible reports
“The king now said to the man of the true God: “Please, beg for the favor of Jehovah your God, and pray in my
behalf that my hand may be restored to me.” At this the man of the true God begged for the favor of Jehovah, and
the king’s hand was restored to its former condition. The king then said to the man of the true God: “Come home
with me and take some food, and let me give you a gift.”” (13: 6,7)
Jehovah God’s mercy is amazing. Here is a man who one moment ago was defiant and arrogant, a man he chose
to lead the 10-tribes but was an ingrate, was healed because God listened to His prophet. But the prophet’s
loyalty to his God will be put to the test. Jeroboam offered him to dine with him and to receive a gift. A Bible-based
publication discussed the implication of this offer
“Then Jeroboam says to the man of the true God: “Do come with me to the house and take sustenance, and let
me give you a gift.” (1 Ki. 13:7) What is the prophet to do now? Should he accept the king’s hospitality after
delivering a message of condemnation to him? (Ps. 119:113) Or should he reject the king’s invitation, even
though the king appears to be remorseful? Jeroboam certainly has the means to lavish expensive gifts on his
friends. If God’s prophet has harbored any secret desire for material things, the king’s offer is likely to be a huge
temptation. However, Jehovah has commanded the prophet: “You must not eat bread or drink water, and you
must not return by the way that you went.” So the prophet unequivocally replies: “If you gave me half of your
house I would not come with you and eat bread or drink water in this place.” And the prophet leaves Bethel by
another way. (1 Ki. 13:8-10) What lesson does the prophet’s decision teach us about heartfelt loyalty?—Rom.
15:4.” [1]
How will things turn out for this prophet? The Bible continues the report
“But the man of the true God said to the king: “Even if you gave me half your house, I would not come with you
and eat bread or drink water in this place. For this is what I was commanded by the word of Jehovah: ‘You must
109 | P a g e
not eat bread or drink water, and you must not return by the way you came.’” So he left by another way, and he
did not return by the way he had come to Bethʹel.” (13:8-10)
The prophet reasoned by citing God’s restriction. This reminded me of the dialogue of Eve with the serpent. She
responded by citing God’s restriction. The prophet here, also called man of the true God, acted on God’s
restriction. He showed loyalty to God. On his way home, the Bible introduced another prophet
“There was a certain old prophet dwelling in Bethʹel, and his sons came home and related to him all the things
that the man of the true God had done that day in Bethʹel and the words he had spoken to the king. After they
related this to their father, their father asked them: “Which way did he go?” So his sons showed him the way that
the man of the true God from Judah had gone. He now said to his sons: “Saddle the donkey for me.” They
saddled the donkey for him, and he mounted it.” (13:11-13)
What is the plan of the old prophet? Why was he interested to go after the other prophet? What will he say to the
man of the true God? The Bible continues
“He followed the man of the true God and found him sitting under a big tree. Then he said to him: “Are you the
man of the true God who came from Judah?” He replied: “I am.” He said to him: “Come home with me and eat
bread.” But he said: “I cannot go back with you or accept your invitation, nor may I eat bread or drink water with
you in this place. For I was told by the word of Jehovah, ‘You must not eat bread or drink water there. You must
not return by the way you came.’” At this he said to him: “I too am a prophet like you, and an angel told me by the
word of Jehovah, ‘Have him come back with you to your house so that he may eat bread and drink water.’” (He
deceived him.) So he went back with him to eat bread and drink water in his house.” (13:14-19)
Now, the first prophet had to weigh the word that he got from Jehovah against the word of this old prophet from
an angel reversing the instructions. Unknown to him, this was a deception. Why did he allow himself to listen to
this old prophet, accepting the claim of an angelic message reversing Jehovah’s word? If that were true, Jehovah
could have told him Himself. How did Jehovah, his master, view this disobedience? The Bible reports
“While they were sitting at the table, the word of Jehovah came to the prophet who had brought him back, and he
called out to the man of the true God from Judah, saying, “This is what Jehovah says: ‘Because you rebelled
against the order of Jehovah and did not keep the commandment that Jehovah your God gave you, but you went
back to eat bread and drink water in the place about which you were told, “Do not eat bread or drink water,” your
dead body will not come into the tomb of your forefathers.’”” (13:20-22)
The parallelism with the Eve account is so close. Eve was deceived. So was this prophet. Eve could have
consulted her husband, his master, rather than proceeding ahead. In the same way, the prophet could have
consulted his Master, Jehovah God. But he did not. Jehovah God did not take this lightly. He will die without a
decent burial with his forefathers.
The expression of death and associating it with one’s forefathers has been interpreted to mean a possible hope of
resurrection. But, if that is correct, God’s statement here is the opposite of “lying down with his forefathers”. A
Bible-based publication took this view citing the case of Solomon
“What happened to Solomon when he died? The Bible answers: “The days that Solomon had reigned in
Jerusalem over all Israel were forty years. Then Solomon lay down with his forefathers, and was buried in the City
of David his father.” (1 Kings 11:42, 43) Hence, it seems reasonable to conclude that Solomon is in Sheol, or
Hades, from which he will be resurrected.
This conclusion implies that the possibility of being resurrected is open to others concerning whom the Scriptures
specifically say, ‘they lay down with their forefathers.’ In fact, many of the kings who succeeded Solomon, though
unfaithful, are spoken of in this way. This is not inconceivable, since “there is going to be a resurrection of both
the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Acts 24:15) Of course, only after “all those in the memorial tombs” are raised
will we know for a certainty who has been favored with a resurrection. (John 5:28, 29) So rather than be dogmatic
about the resurrection of any particular individual of old, we wait, trusting in Jehovah’s perfect decision.” [2]
110 | P a g e
In short, no one knows the correct interpretation. The Bible now completes the sad consequence for the prophet
“After the man of the true God ate bread and drank, the old prophet saddled the donkey for the prophet whom he
had brought back. Then he got on his way, but a lion came across him on the road and killed him. His dead body
was thrown onto the road, and the donkey stood beside it; the lion was also standing beside the dead body. There
were men passing by who saw the dead body thrown onto the road and the lion standing beside the dead body.
They came in and told about it in the city where the old prophet lived.” (13:23-25)
The prophet was sentenced to death by Jehovah God, a God of justice and perfect are all His ways. The prophet
just had his last meal like a man in death row. The second prophet would later wail over him, ‘Too bad, my
brother!’ (13:26-32) That must be a very difficult thing to cause the death of a fellow prophet. Jehovah’s word was
fulfilled. He was not buried with his forefathers but in the burial tomb of the second prophet.
In his final instructions to his sons, the second prophet reminded them that the first prophet’s words will be fulfilled
on the “cities of Samaria”. The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight comments on the reference to “cities of Samaria”
“The territory of the ten-tribe northern kingdom of Israel. The name of its capital city, Samaria, was sometimes
applied to this entire area. For example, when Ahab was called “the king of Samaria,” it was not with the restricted
meaning of being king of the city only, but in the broader sense as king of the ten tribes. (1Ki 21:1) So, too, “the
cities of Samaria” referred to those scattered throughout the ten tribes, not to towns clustered around the capital.
(2Ki 23:19; this same expression recorded at 1Ki 13:32 as if used before the city Samaria was built, if not
prophetic, may have been introduced by the compiler of the Kings account.) The famine “in Samaria” in the days
of Ahab was extensive throughout the whole kingdom of Samaria and, in fact, even took in Phoenicia, extending
at least from the torrent valley of Cherith, E of the Jordan, to Zarephath on the Mediterranean. (1Ki 17:1-12; 18:2,
5, 6) Similarly, the restoration promise regarding “the mountains of Samaria” must have embraced the whole of
the realm of Samaria.—Jer 31:5.” [3]
Despite being disciplined by God, Jeroboam stood path in his rebellion against Jehovah God. The portion of this
narrative ends this way
“Even after this happened, Jer·o·boʹam did not turn back from his bad way, but he kept appointing priests for the
high places from the people in general. He would install as priests anyone who so desired, saying: “Let him
become one of the priests for the high places.” This sin on the part of the household of Jer·o·boʹam led to their
destruction and annihilation from the face of the earth.” (13:33.34)
The consequences was grave for the family of Jeroboam.
References
[1] “Maintain Loyalty With a Unified Heart”, The Watchtower, August 15, 2008, p. 8.
[2] “Questions From Readers”, The Watchtower, July 15, 2005, p. 31.
[3] Samaria. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 847.
111 | P a g e
11.19 Reflections on Jeroboam and His Sick Son Abijah

Why should anyone invest in reading the Bible? If one really thinks of God as his or her friend, getting to know
more about your friend will only enrich the friendship. The Bible discloses little by little about God that most of us
claim as our Friend. Reading the Bible is telling God that we want to get to know Him better.
The next episode of the narrative in the life of the new northern kingdom of Israel is rich with disclosures on the
kind of God Jehovah is as presented in the Bible. Reading it provides a spiritually uplifting experience and
provides an additional reason why Jehovah God deserves our love and worship. Archaeology has also validated
an important historical data recorded in Kings that is supported by extra-biblical material found in Egypt and in
Palestine. It affirms the Bible’s authenticity and veracity. I am not just reading a fairy tale narrative or fictional
personalities and places as some biblical critics would like the public to believe. I am reading facts about real
people and real events.
What touched my heart to appreciate Jehovah God’s love and mercy has something to do with how he dealt with
the son of the man he anointed to become king of the northern 10-tribe kingdom of Israel but who turned traitor
once he had gained political power. The Bible opens this portion
“At that time A·biʹjah the son of Jer·o·boʹam fell sick.” (14:1)
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight provides a summary detail about this son of Jeroboam
“The son of King Jeroboam I of Israel who died in his youth as a judgment from Jehovah. With Jeroboam’s
apostasy, adversity began plaguing his house, including the desperate sickness of young Abijah. Thereupon
Jeroboam disguised the identity of his queen and sent her to consult the aged and blind prophet Ahijah at Shiloh.
But Jehovah cannot be deceived. Through his prophet Ahijah, Jehovah declared that He would exterminate the
male heirs of Jeroboam “just as one clears away the dung until it is disposed of.” (1Ki 14:10; 15:25-30) Abijah,
however, was the only descendant of Jeroboam who was honorably buried “for the reason that something good
toward Jehovah” had been found in him.—1Ki 14:1-18.” [1]
Ahijah the prophet to whom the queen was to go incognito was blind. That was interesting. The queen had to go
incognito despite the prophet being blind because of his old age. (14:4) However, the queen as mentioned is up
to a surprise. The Bible reported
“But Jehovah had told A·hiʹjah: “Here is the wife of Jer·o·boʹam coming to inquire of you regarding her son, for he
is sick. I will tell you what to say to her. When she arrives, she will conceal her identity.”” (14:5)
So, even before the queen arrived she was already exposed. The queen got an earful from the prophet Ahijah
“Go, tell Jer·o·boʹam, ‘This is what Jehovah the God of Israel says: “I raised you up from among your people to
make you a leader over my people Israel. Then I ripped the kingdom away from the house of David and gave it to
you. But you have not become like my servant David, who kept my commandments and who walked after me with
all his heart, doing only what was right in my eyes. But you have done worse than all those who were prior to you,
and you made for yourself another god and metal images to offend me, and it is I whom you have turned your
back on.” (14: 7-9)
Certainly, Jeroboam’s selfish reason not wanting people to go to Jerusalem for the fear that they might return to
Rehoboam betrayed a serious lack of faith in God’s promises. Jehovah God, the ultimate Sovereign, demanded
from Jeroboam allegiance to the covenant law but he turned traitor. God was right in describing Jeroboam that he
“turned your back on” his God. The Hebrew language uses concrete physical descriptions to describe abstract
concepts of unfaithfulness and disloyalty. So, Jehovah God considered this a breach of trust. He is no longer
bound to keep his promise to Jeroboam. The prophet now reveals the judgment
“For that reason I am bringing calamity on the house of Jer·o·boʹam, and I will annihilate from Jer·o·boʹam every
male, including the helpless and weak in Israel, and I will make a clean sweep of the house of Jer·o·boʹam, just as
112 | P a g e
one clears away the dung until it is all gone! Anyone belonging to Jer·o·boʹam who dies in the city, the dogs will
eat; and anyone who dies in the field, the birds of the heavens will eat, for Jehovah has spoken it.”’” (14:10, 11)
Jeroboam and his family are one of the first individuals in the Bible to be condemned this way. Insight comments
on the mention of dogs
“Dogs (Canis familiaris), like carrion birds, were scavengers, particularly in the cities. The Law directed throwing
to the dogs flesh that had been torn by a wild beast. (Ex 22:31) At times Jehovah’s judgment against his enemies
was that their dead bodies would be eaten or their blood licked up by scavenger dogs. Because of the course of
gross unfaithfulness followed by Kings Jeroboam, Baasha, and Ahab, any who belonged to their respective
households and who died in the city were to be devoured by dogs.” [2]
Now, here is the part.
““Now rise up; go to your house. When you set foot in the city, the child will die.All Israel will mourn him and bury
him, for he alone of Jer·o·boʹam’s family will be laid in a grave, because he is the only one of the house of
Jer·o·boʹam in whom Jehovah the God of Israel has found something good.” (14: 12,13)
A Bible-based publication comments on God’s action here
“Abijah lived in a wicked household. His father, Jeroboam, was the head of an apostate dynasty. Jehovah
purposed to make a clean sweep of Jeroboam’s house, “just as one clears away the dung.” (1 Kings 14:10) But
God ordered that only one member of Jeroboam’s household, Abijah—who was gravely ill—be given an
honorable burial. Why? God explained: “Something good toward Jehovah the God of Israel has been found in him
in the house of Jeroboam.” (1 Kings 14:1, 12, 13) What do these words tell us about Abijah?
The Bible does not say that Abijah was a faithful worshipper of God. Still, there was a measure of goodness in
him. This goodness was “toward Jehovah,” perhaps involving His worship. Rabbinic writers suggest that Abijah
made a pilgrimage to the temple in Jerusalem or that he removed the guards that his father had posted to prevent
the Israelites from going to Jerusalem.
Whatever its exact nature, Abijah’s goodness was noteworthy. First, it was genuine. This goodness was “in
him”—that is, in his heart. Second, it was exceptional. Abijah exhibited this goodness even though he was “in the
house of Jeroboam.” One scholar says: “It is a great commendation for men to retain their goodness whilest they
live in bad places and families.” Another says that Abijah’s goodness was “conspicuous . . . , just as the stars are
brightest when the sky is dark, and the cedars are most beautiful when surrounding trees are leafless.”
Most important, the words of 1 Kings 14:13 teach us something beautiful about Jehovah and what he looks for in
us. Recall that something good was “found in” Abijah. Jehovah evidently searched through Abijah’s heart until He
found a trace of goodness. Compared to his family, Abijah was, as one scholar put it, the lone pearl “in a heap of
pebbles.” Jehovah cherished this goodness and rewarded it, granting a measure of mercy to this one member of
a wicked family.” [3]
The son died yes. But he did not suffer the sort of death that Jehovah God has judged Jeroboam and his other
members of the family. In the context of a future resurrection, if Jehovah God noted something good in him, would
it be far-fetched to expect a resurrection?
The prophet continues with the pronouncement of judgment
“Jehovah will raise up for himself a king over Israel who will do away with the house of Jer·o·boʹam from that day
forward, yes, even now. Jehovah will strike Israel down like a reed that sways in the water, and he will uproot
Israel off this good land that he gave to their forefathers, and he will scatter them beyond the River, because they
made their sacred poles, offending Jehovah. And he will abandon Israel because of the sins that Jer·o·boʹam has
committed and has caused Israel to commit.”” (14: 14-16)
113 | P a g e
Jehovah has decreed years in advance that Israel will be exiled off the land as specified in the covenant law. A
Bible-based publication explains the result
“Jehovah’s word proved true. Seven of Israel’s kings ruled for two years or less—some for only a few days. One
king committed suicide, and six were assassinated by ambitious men who usurped the throne. Especially after the
reign of Jeroboam II, which ended about 804 B.C.E. while Uzziah was reigning in Judah, Israel was plagued with
unrest, violence, and assassinations.” [4]
Everything the prophet foretold from Jehovah God has happened. (14:17-20)
Bible scholars who are critical of revelations, miracles, and prophecies consider this account where prophecies
are declared and whose fulfillment are also recorded within the same book are just literary formulas. Simply
because they are convinced such things don’t happen. But it is their word against the Bible. I have seen that
these scholars who are divided themselves could not agree on what they think should be the truth.
What a wonderful God the author of the Bible is.
References
[1] Abijah. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 23.
[2] Dog. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 644.
[3] “He Looks for the Good”, The Watchtower, July 1, 2010, p. 29.
[4] “Isaiah’s Prophecy- Light for All Mankind Vol 1”, Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 134.
114 | P a g e
11.20 Rehoboam, King of Judah, son of Solomon

The covenant law described the blessings of compliance and obedience as recognition of God’s sovereign rule
and the curse and punishment for disobedience and disloyalty. Just as Israel experienced this during the time of
the judges, the failure of the national leadership and its people to adhere to the covenant law saw a period of
suffering imposed by foreign powers. In the instance of Rehoboam, the Egyptian empire came in and invaded the
land and plundered its wealth. This is not just a fabrication as recalled by so-called bible editors and redactors of
post-exile Jewish era. This reflection will highlight that.
The Bible narrative returns to Rehoboam after reporting the rebellion of Jeroboam
“Meanwhile, Re·ho·boʹam the son of Solʹo·mon had become king in Judah. Re·ho·boʹam was 41 years old when
he became king, and he reigned for 17 years in Jerusalem, the city that Jehovah had chosen out of all the tribes
of Israel as the place to put his name. The name of Re·ho·boʹam’s mother was Naʹa·mah the Amʹmon·it·ess.
“ (14:21)
A Bible-based publication highlights some facts from this verse
“According to that verse, upon Solomon’s death his son Rehoboam became king at age 41, his mother being
“Naamah the Ammonitess.” This means that before Solomon became king, he married a foreigner from an enemy
nation that served idol gods. (Judg. 10:6; 2 Sam. 10:6) Did she worship them? Even if she did at one time, she
may have turned away from idols and may have become a true worshipper, as did Rahab and Ruth. (Ruth 1:16;
4:13-17; Matt. 1:5, 6) Still, Solomon likely came to have Ammonite in-laws and relatives who did not serve
Jehovah.” [1]
But how was the unfaithfulness of the leadership impact the people? The next verse replies
“And Judah was doing what was bad in the eyes of Jehovah, and by the sins they committed they provoked him
more than their forefathers had done. They too kept building for themselves high places, sacred pillars, and
sacred poles on every high hill and under every luxuriant tree.” (14:22,23)
Regarding these high places, one article wrote about it from an archaeological perspective
“The open-air altar shrine, called a bamah (plural bamot), is known through several books of the Biblical canon-
but none more so than the Book of Kings, where they play a prominent role in assessing the performance of a
king. Often referred to as “high places” in translations of the Bible, bamot were worship sites that usually
contained an altar. A general understanding about the bamah and how it functioned can be gained by using
evidence from the Biblical text as well as archaeology.” [2]
The article introduced something interesting, something not obvious in the biblical text. The article continues
“Eminent scholar Roland de Vaux said, “The idea which the word expresses, therefore, is something which stands
out in relief from its background, but the idea of a mountain or hill is not contained in the word itself.” This could
explain why this word is used even though some of the shrines were not located on hills. The Ugaritic and
Akkadian cognate usually means an animal’s back or trunk. The Akkadian can also mean land that is elevated. In
the text of the Bible they can be found on hills (2 Kings 16:4; 17:9-10; 1 Kings 11:7), towns (1 Kings 13:32; 2
Kings 17:29; 23:5) and at the gate of Jerusalem (2 Kings 23:8). Ezra 6:3 says they were in the ravines and valleys.
The position of a bamah in the valley can also be seen in Jeremiah 7:31; 32:35.” [3]
It adds this
“It is believed that bamot were artificially-made mounds, which may or may not include a prominent rock. There is
some debate as to whether the word bamah refers to a naturally occurring mound that is already present or
whether it refers to the altar itself. If it was something that was built, it could account for references to bamot being
built (1 Kings 11:7; 14:23; 2 Kings17:9; 21:3; Jeremiah 19:5) and destroyed (2 Kings 23:8; 18:4). Often attached
to the bamot were buildings (1 Samuel 9:22; 1 Kings 3:5)—houses/temples—where services were conducted and
115 | P a g e
idols were kept (1 Kings 12:31; 2 Kings 17:29, 32; 23:19). Famed archaeologist W. F. Albright has claimed that
the bamot were used for funerary purposes, but this has been challenged by W. Boyd Barrick.
De Vaux suggested that Israelite bamot were modeled after the Canaanite ones. The bamah is also known from
the Ras Shamra text. In Megiddo, located in the Carmel Ridge overlooking the Jezreel Valley from the west,
a bamah was believed to have been found. The structure was a 24 x 30-foot oval platform, which stood six feet
tall, was made of large stones and had stairs that lead to the top. A wall surrounded the structure. A cultic
structure found in Nahariyah, located in Western Galilee, was discovered in 1947 and dates to the Middle Bronze
Age, but was used until the Late Bronze Age. It consisted of a circular open-air altar, which compares to the one
found in Megiddo, and a rectangular building probably used as a temple workshop. It is also believed that
two bamot were found on a hill near Malhah from the seventh and sixth centuries B.C.E. De Vaux says, “There is
no need for hesitation: these installations were bamah. Their dates range from the old Canaanite epoch to the
end of the monarchy in Judah.” Therefore, it seems that the archaeological evidence supports the Biblical account
in placement of the bamot and the time periods in which they were used.” [4]
De Vaux also debunked another scholar Albright for proposing this high places were funeral sites. [5]
This tells me that the Bible is authentic. I am reading about real places. So much for legends and fabricated
stories from biblical critics.
“There were also male temple prostitutes in the land. They acted according to all the detestable things of the
nations that Jehovah had driven out before the Israelites.” (14:24)
One paper describes the state of research on the existence of temple prostitutes, including male ones. One paper
wrote about a female scholar Assante who denies there ever was such type of people. The article wrote
“Moreover, she denies that prostitutes had cultic connections. “There are no cuneiform words for hierodule,
prostitute, or prostitution; nor is there evidence for sacred prostitution” (Assante 2000, 9; cf. Budin 2006, 77).
Assante finds no room in her vision of antiquity for such women and sexual practices and they are removed from
history.” [6]
So, does that mean the Bible is fabricating here about “male temple prostitutes”? The paper disagreed with her. It
cited other scholars
“On the other hand, “temple/sacred prostitution” does not at all refer to or have as its objective “fertility”. The
outcome/service demanded by buyers and supplied by sellers is sexual pleasures. Thus, the paper does not
adhere to Lambert’s (1992, 143) suggestion that “Thus, in ancient Mesopotamia all prostitution was by definition
sacral, because the sexual act was a natural force working for the well being of the human race and was a power
personified in the goddess Inanna/Ishtar.” [7]
Because of the widespread violation of the covenant law, Jehovah God punished Judah and king Rehoboam
using the Egyptian army
“In the fifth year of King Re·ho·boʹam, King Shiʹshak of Egypt came up against Jerusalem. He took the treasures
of the house of Jehovah and the treasures of the king’s house. He took everything, including all the gold shields
that Solʹo·mon had made.” (14:25, 26)
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight comments about Pharaoh Shishak of Egypt
“Shishak (known as Sheshonk I from Egyptian records) had founded a Libyan dynasty of Pharaohs (the “Twenty-
second Dynasty”), with its capital at Bubastis in the eastern Delta region. In the fifth year of the reign of Solomon’s
son Rehoboam (993 B.C.E.), Shishak invaded Judah with a powerful force of chariots, cavalry, and foot soldiers
including Libyans and Ethiopians; he captured many cities and even threatened Jerusalem. Because of Jehovah’s
mercy, Jerusalem was not devastated, but its great wealth was handed over to Shishak. (1Ki 14:25, 26; 2Ch 12:2-
9) A relief on a temple wall at Karnak depicts Shishak’s campaign and lists numerous cities in Israel and Judah as
having been captured.” [8]
116 | P a g e
This temple wall also known as Bubastite Portal did not mention the attack on Jerusalem although it did mention
other cities. Why? One blog article explains
“Why was Jerusalem not mentioned on the Bubastite Portal, and why does the passage in Kings mention
Jerusalem but not Sheshonq’s other campaigns in Judah? Some scholars believe that Jerusalem’s toponym was
erased by time. Others believe that Rehoboam’s tribute to Sheshonq saved the city from destruction and
therefore from the Bubastite Portal’s lists. Still others suggest that Sheshonq claimed conquest that he did not
enact (Egyptian Pharaohs made false claims about their conquests frequently) and copied the list of conquered
territories from an old Pharaoh’s conquest list. Finally, as Kings is a religious text, it focuses on Jerusalem without
including full details on the military, history and politics of the surrounding region, though Chronicles tells a fuller
account of the Egyptian invasion.
Yigal Levin and most modern scholars believe the Bubastite Portal recounts legitimate and historical campaigns
conducted by the Egyptian Pharaoh Sheshonq. He says that “Sheshonq’s campaign in Israel and Judah brought
an end to the many architectural, military and political achievements of the United Monarchy of David
and Solomon and ushered in a new age—that of the nation divided.”” [9]
Yigal Levin who wrote the article referred to in the blog confirmed what happened with many other place-names
(or toponyms)
“There are at least 11 rows of these name-rings containing toponyms on the Bubastite Portal. Many of them have
been partially or wholly obliterated. Some are so worn that they are difficult or impossible to read. More than 100,
however, remain largely intact.” [10]
The question that scholars debated on was whether Pharaoh Sheshonq was the Pharaoh Shishak of the Bible.
What is the state of affairs today? After the discovery of a stone tablet (stela) that contained the name of Pharaoh
Sheshonq around the site of Megiddo, scholars had a confirmation that the record of the Bubastite Portal was a
real event. Scholars now agree that the time frame of the attack is the same time frame as of the Bible. So? The
paper reported
“While there are many uncertainties, most scholars agree that Sheshonq’s campaign as reflected in the Bubastite
Portal and the campaign of Shishak as mentioned in the Bible are one and the same.” [11]
This is recognized in other references such as the one below
“Although the identity of biblical Shishak is technically uncertain, most historians surmise that Shishak is one and
the same iwth Pharaho Shoshenq I, the founder of the Twenty-Second Dynasty of Egypt. Aside from a
complementary chronology, two pieces of epigraphic evidence [inscriptions] support this conclusion. First,
Shoshenq left a record of the itinerary of his campaign, an inscription at the southern entrance to the temple of
Amon at Karnak. Although the inscription has its challenges, its partially obstructed list of several dozen
conquered Levantine cities demonstrates his military presence there in the late tenth century. Among the more
prominent cities in the list are (in order of appearance) Gaza, Gezer, Beth Shean, Gibeon, Megiddo, Penuel,
Tirzah, and Arad. Second, a stela fragment bearing Shosheng’s name has been unearthed at Megiddo.” [12]
So, in this reflection, the account is enriched by its authenticity. When it mentioned sacred prostitution and
Pharaoh Shishak, these are attested by archaeology. It reinforces the lessons learned by writing them down. It
does not pay to disobey God and the covenant law had clear implications for such disloyalty and disobedience.
The account in the book of Kings documented that for our reflection.
References
[1] “Is He a Good Example for You or a Warning?”, The Watchtower, December 15, 2011, p. 10.
[2] White, Ellen. “High Places, Altars and the Bamah”, an article in Biblical Archaeology Society blog site.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
117 | P a g e
[5] Barrick, W. Boyd. “The Funerary Character of “High Places” in Ancient Palestine: A Reassessment”, Vetus
Testamentum, Vol 25, Fasc. 3 (Jul. 1975), pp. 565-595.
[6] Silver, Morris. “Temple/Sacred Prostitution in Ancient Mesopotamia Revisited”, Ugaritt-Forschungen 38, 2008,
p. 632.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Egypt, Egyptian. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 697.
[9] Biblical Archaeology Society staff. “Did Pharaoh Sheshonq Attack Jerusalem?”, Bible History Daily blog article.
Available (online).
[10] Levin, Yigal. “Did Pharaho Sheshonq Attack Jerusalem?”, Biblical Archaeology Review, July/August 2012, p.
45.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Arnold, Bill. Ancient Israel’s History: An Introduction to Issues and Sources, Baker Academic, 2014.
118 | P a g e
11.21 Abijam, Asa Kings of Judah; Jeroboam, Nadab, Baasha Kings of Israel
11.21.1 Abijam, Asa Kings of Judah; Jeroboam, Nadab, Baasah Kings of Israel - Part 1
For many who are not familiar with what God has been doing these thousands of years to prepare mankind for its
restoration to God’s original purpose for the earth, God seems unconcerned with what has been happening in the
world. That is not true.
The Bible discloses that God is resolving an issue raised against Him in Eden - His right to rule or His sovereignty.
Satan proposed that mankind will be better off if left alone and independent of God. Jehovah God gave Satan and
humans the time to prove their case while He prepared the agency or mechanism to restore mankind back to Him.
We are all witnesses to the failure of mankind to find a formula for a better government. Jehovah God, in His
wisdom, knew this to be the case but He permitted humans to experience this failure so that God’s sovereignty
can be vindicated. As previously cited, God started working out this restoration from Abraham to the nation of
Israel. Now, I am in that journey, witnessing the failure of people God trusted to exercise sovereignty in His behalf.
After promising David a covenant of an everlasting kingdom, Jehovah God was met by a series of kings who were
disloyal and were rebels against His covenant law. He promised Jeroboam a lasting kingdom as well but
Jeroboam and his sons were equally apostates. This is a period for God to exercise His patience until the day the
rightful son of David appears to claim the kingdom for himself. That patience will go through nearly a 1,000 years
to the day Jesus of Nazareth appeared on the scene.
The Bible narrative continues with the son of Rehoboam

“In the 18th year of King Jer·o·boʹam the son of Neʹbat, A·biʹjam became king over Judah. He reigned for three
years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Maʹa·cah the granddaughter of A·bishʹa·lom. He went on walking in
all the sins that his father committed prior to him, and his heart was not complete with Jehovah his God like the
heart of David his forefather. However, on account of David, Jehovah his God gave him a lamp in Jerusalem by
raising up his son after him and keeping Jerusalem in existence.” (15:1-4)
God referred to kings as a “lamp”. The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight comments on this
“Jehovah God established King David on the throne of Israel, and David proved to be a wise guide and leader of
the nation, under God’s direction. He was therefore called “the lamp of Israel.” (2Sa 21:17) In his kingdom
covenant with David, Jehovah promised: “Your very throne will become one firmly established to time indefinite.”
(2Sa 7:11-16) Accordingly, the dynasty, or family line, of rulers from David through his son Solomon was as a
“lamp” to Israel.—1Ki 11:36; 15:4; 2Ki 8:19; 2Ch 21:7.
When King Zedekiah was dethroned and taken captive to Babylon to die there, it appeared that “the lamp” was
extinguished. But Jehovah had not abandoned his covenant. He merely held rulership on the throne in abeyance
“until he comes who has the legal right.” (Eze 21:27) Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the “son of David,” was heir to
that throne forever. Thus “the lamp” of David will never go out. Jesus is therefore an everlasting lamp as the one
who possesses the Kingdom forever.—Mt 1:1; Lu 1:32” [1]
Why was God tolerating wicked kings like Solomon, Rehoboam, and Abijam? The Bible reports
“For David did what was right in the eyes of Jehovah, and he did not turn aside from anything that He had
commanded him all the days of his life, except in the matter of U·riʹah the Hitʹtite. And there was warfare between
Re·ho·boʹam and Jer·o·boʹam all the days of his life.” (15:5,6)
The mention of warfare between Rehoboam and Jeroboam was an echo in the previous chapter about the conflict
between the two.
Abijam was compared with David, and found that his heart was not complete with Jehovah his God. So, how did
Abijam’s short rule ended? The Bible reports
119 | P a g e
“As for the rest of the history of A·biʹjam, all that he did, is it not written in the book of the history of the times of the
kings of Judah? There was also war between A·biʹjam and Jer·o·boʹam. Then A·biʹjam was laid to rest with his
forefathers, and they buried him in the City of David; and his son Aʹsa became king in his place.” (15: 7,8)
After three unfaithful kings - Solomon, Rehoboam, and Abijam, the Bible introduced a fine king with a positive
report
“In the 20th year of King Jer·o·boʹam of Israel, Aʹsa began to reign over Judah. He reigned in Jerusalem for 41
years. His grandmother’s name was Maʹa·cah the granddaughter of A·bishʹa·lom. Aʹsa did what was right in the
eyes of Jehovah, like David his forefather. He expelled the male temple prostitutes from the land and removed all
the disgusting idols that his forefathers had made. He even removed Maʹa·cah his grandmother from her position
as queen mother, because she had made an obscene idol for the worship of the sacred pole. Aʹsa cut down her
obscene idol and burned it in the Kidʹron Valley.” (15:9-13)
Where Abijam ruled in just two years, the next king Asa ruled for 41 years. Unlike his grandfather and father, Asa
chose to be loyal to Jehovah God and he started acting swiftly to remove the pagan influences in his kingdom. He
even removed his queen mother. Who is Maacah?
Insight reports about her
“Absalom’s granddaughter, who was the most beloved wife of Judean King Rehoboam and the mother of King
Abijah (Abijam). (2Ch 11:20-22; 1Ki 15:1, 2, 9, 10) She was regarded as “lady” in the kingdom, being queen
mother, until her grandson, King Asa, in a restoration of true worship, removed her “because she had made a
horrible idol to the sacred pole,” or the Asherah. (1Ki 15:9-13; 2Ch 15:16) She is called Micaiah at 2 Chronicles
13:2.” [2]
Scholars call Maacah in Hebrew the “gebira” or queen mother. The role of a queen mother, was a role once filled
by Bathsheba while Solomon was king. Since Maacah was the daughter of Absalom, the rebel son of king David,
she actually lived through the reign of five kings - David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijam, and Asa. With the
unfaithfulness of Solomon, her uncle, falling into apostasy, and with Rehoboam her husband, the son of an
Ammonite princess, the influence towards pagan worship was already set in motion. But, Asa chose to be faithful
to the covenant law and he deposed the queen mother.This means that pagan worship existed right inside the
royal family. Wow, imagine that level of disloyalty to Jehovah God and his covenant law. But not only that Asa
destroyed and burned the idol of his grandma.
The Bible added more detail about Asa’s zeal
“But the high places were not removed. Nevertheless, Aʹsa’s heart was complete with Jehovah all his life. And he
brought the things that he and his father had made holy into the house of Jehovah—silver, gold, and various
utensils.” (15:14,15)
Some feel that there is a contradiction here in the Bible between what Kings and Chronicle reports. Insight
explains
“Asa, who succeeded Abijam to the throne, served Jehovah in faithfulness and put forth decisive efforts to rid the
kingdom of all appendages of false worship. (1Ki 15:11-13) “He removed from all the cities of Judah the high
places and the incense stands.” (2Ch 14:2-5) However, 1 Kings 15:14 and 2 Chronicles 15:17 apparently indicate
that the high places were not removed. It may be that, although Asa removed the high places for worship of false
gods, he left those at which the people worshiped Jehovah. Or, perhaps, high places cropped up again toward the
end of his reign and were thereby present for his successor Jehoshaphat to destroy. But even during
Jehoshaphat’s reign the high places did not fully disappear. (1Ki 22:42, 43; 2Ch 17:5, 6; 20:31-33) So entrenched
was Judah’s worship at high places that the reforms of both Asa and Jehoshaphat could not remove all of them
permanently.” [3]
120 | P a g e
Asa’s loyalty to God was exemplary. It was more than his loyalty to his blood-relatives like his own grandmother.
God’s demands are superior to our human relationships with anyone. But sadly at the time of Asa, pagan worship
and idolatry has become entrenched in Israel as it was in the days of the Judges.
References
[1] Lamp. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 195.
[2] Maacah. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 286.
121 | P a g e
The break-up of the United Monarchy under David and Solomon because of Solomon’s unfaithfulness resulted in
the lost of peace between Israel and Judah. The northern kingdom has tried several times to do away with the
southern kingdom. What the kings from the kingdom of Israel forgot what that this division happened because of
Jehovah’s punishment and discipline. Instead of cooperating with the kingdom of Judah in promoting a unified
worship of Jehovah God, they have spiraled into wickedness. Jehovah God would have to endure all this until it
gets to the point where there is no more healing.
The Bible now reports what has happened between the third king from the North and the fifth king from David in
the south
“There was constant warfare between Aʹsa and Baʹa·sha the king of Israel.” (15:16)
How does this reconcile with what the later report in Chronicles? Insight offered an explanation
“So, too, the apparent difference between the statement at 2 Chronicles 15:19 to the effect that, as for “war, it did
not occur down to the thirty-fifth [actually, the fifteenth] year of Asa’s reign,” and the statement at 1 Kings 15:16 to
the effect that “warfare itself took place between Asa and Baasha the king of Israel all their days,” may be
explained in that once conflicts began between the two kings they were thereafter continuous, even as Hanani
had foretold.—2Ch 16:9.” [1]
King Baasha from the kingdom of Israel tried to isolate the northern kingdom from the south by this strategy
“So King Baʹa·sha of Israel came up against Judah and began to build up Raʹmah to prevent anyone from going
out or coming in to King Aʹsa of Judah.” (15:17)
Insight reports further on this
“During the divided kingdom, Ramah came in for considerable attention, located, as it was, near the border
between Israel and Judah and the N-S road of the hill country. King Baasha of Israel began to expand or fortify
Ramah in Benjamin while warring against Asa. (1Ki 15:16, 17; 2Ch 16:1) But when the king of Syria attacked
Israel from the N, Baasha’s attention was diverted and Asa took Ramah as well as the building materials Baasha
had been using there, using these to build up neighboring Geba and Mizpah. (1Ki 15:20-22; 2Ch 16:4-6” [2]
King Asa of Judah responded against this move. The Bible reports
“At that Aʹsa took all the silver and the gold that were left in the treasuries of the house of Jehovah and the
treasuries of the house of the king and handed them over to his servants. King Aʹsa then sent them to Ben-haʹdad
the son of Tab·rimʹmon the son of Heʹzi·on, the king of Syria, who was dwelling in Damascus, saying: “There is a
treaty between me and you and between my father and your father. I am sending you a gift of silver and gold.
Come, break your treaty with King Baʹa·sha of Israel, so that he will withdraw from me.”” (15: 18, 19)
What is wrong with this move by king Asa? Why did he have to recruit the king of Syria to his side? Insight
explains
“Intrigue and Warfare Against Baasha. King Baasha of Israel set out to block the path of any inclining toward a
return to Judah by fortifying the frontier city of Ramah, located on the main road to Jerusalem and only a short
distance N of that city. Asa, by some process of human reasoning or because of heeding bad counsel, now failed
to rely solely on Jehovah and resorted to diplomacy and conspiratorial maneuvering to remove this threat. He
took the temple treasures and those from the royal house and sent them as a bribe to King Ben-hadad I of Syria
to induce him to divert Baasha’s attention through an attack on Israel’s northern frontier. Ben-hadad I accepted,
and his raid on Israelite cities in the N disrupted Baasha’s building work and brought a withdrawal of his forces
from Ramah. Asa now conscripted all the available manpower from the entire kingdom of Judah and carried off all
Baasha’s supplies of building materials, using them to build up the cities of Geba and Mizpah.—1Ki 15:16-22;
2Ch 16:1-6.” [3]
122 | P a g e
Taking the temple treasures, treasures that have been dedicated to Jehovah God, is not a smart move. King Asa
failed to rely on God to confront a threat against his kingdom. King Benhadad came to his aid. The Bible reports
”Ben-haʹdad listened to King Aʹsa and sent the chiefs of his armies against the cities of Israel, and they struck
down Iʹjon, Dan, Aʹbel-beth-maʹa·cah, all Chinʹne·reth, and all the land of Naphʹta·li. “ (15:20)
Why is this verse significant? One reference article commented on this verse
“This verse is part of the story of the war between the king of Israel, Baasha, and the king of Judah, Asa (vv. 17–
22). As already well observed by Noth (1968, 338; see also Würthwein 1985, 188), these verses apparently go
back to some annalistic document, and they fit the ancient Near Eastern context (Gray 1970, 351; Lemaire 1995b,
136–41; Parker 1996, 219, 223 n. 19; Lemaire 2007b). Furthermore, this story reveals that, by this time, the king
of Jerusalem had to appeal to the king of Aram against the king of Israel, which does not seem ad majorem regis
gloriam of the Judean king. It seems, therefore, a reliable source (Pitard 1987, 107–9; Dion 1997, 182–83;
Lipiński 2000, 372).” [4]
According to this paper, this is the time frame that led to the destruction of the city of Hazor under the Aramean
campaign in Israel. A news report also on an archaeological discovery cited this verse
“The broken monument, or stele, was found in the ruins of a wall at Tel Dan, the site of an ancient city in northern
Israel near the Syrian border and at one of the sources of the Jordan River. The discovery was made this summer
by Dr. Avraham Biran, an archeologist at Hebrew Union College and the Jewish Institute of Religion in Jerusalem
and director of excavations at Tel Dan since 1966.
Dr. Biran said the stele was inscribed with 13 truncated lines of Aramaic text referring to the "House of David."
From the style of the script and its references to a "king of Israel" and a king of the House of David, the
archeologist surmised that this probably was a victory stele erected in the first quarter of the ninth century B.C. by
the king of Damascus after he "smote Ijon, and Dan, and Abel-beth-maachah," in the words from I Kings 15:20.
In that case, according to Dr. Biran's interpretation, the "king of Israel" of the inscription may be identified with
Baasha and the king of the "House of David" with Asa, a descendant of David who ruled as king of Judah. A split
among the Israelites after the death of Solomon in the 10th century B.C. had led to the northern kingdom of Israel
and the southern kingdom of Judah, centered at Jerusalem. As related in I Kings, when war broke out between
the two kingdoms, Asa secured an alliance with Ben-Hadad, king of Aram at Damascus in Syria, who defeated
the forces of Baasha.” [5]
King Baasha was forced to quit Ramah and retreated to Tirzah. King Asa carried off the stones and timbers from
Ramah to build Geba and Mizpah. (15:21,22) The story of Asa ended with him getting illness on his feet in his old
age. A new king replaced him, his son Jehoshaphat. (15:23,24)
Chronicles completes the story of Asa who Jehovah once blessed with a great victory over his enemies. But his
confidence with Jehovah his God faltered over the threat of Baasha. Sadly, he lost that confidence and has chose
not to return to God in his final days. What is the verdict then for King Asa of Judah? Insight concludes
“Despite the lack of wisdom and spiritual insight he manifested at times, Asa’s good qualities and freedom from
apostasy evidently outweighed his errors, and he is viewed as one of the faithful kings of the line of Judah. (2Ch
15:17) The 41-year reign of Asa touched or covered the reigns of eight kings of Israel: Jeroboam, Nadab, Baasha,
Elah, Zimri, Omri, Tibni (who ruled a segment of Israel in opposition to Omri), and Ahab. (1Ki 15:9, 25, 33; 16:8,
15, 16, 21, 23, 29)” [6]
References
[1] Asa. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 184.
[2] Ramah. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 731.
123 | P a g e
[4] Lemaire, Andre. “Hazor in the Second Half of the Tenth Century B.C.E.: Historiography, Archaeology and
History”, The Historian and the Bible, p. 8.
[5] Wilford, John Noble. “From Israeli Site, News of House of David”, The New York Times, August 6, 1993, World
Section.
124 | P a g e
Jehovah made a promise to Jeroboam, to make him a lasting kingdom if he stays loyal. Jeroboam once he
assumed the kingship took a different path, starting a religious rebellion in the pretext of preventing his subjects to
return to the southern kingdom. What was the consequence to Jeroboam? Jehovah will terminate his kingship.
How did this came about? The Bible reports
“Naʹdab the son of Jer·o·boʹam became king over Israel in the second year of King Aʹsa of Judah, and he reigned
over Israel for two years.” (15:25)
That is a short stint for a king compared to his father who ruled for 22 years. What is the explanation? The Bible
reports
“He kept doing what was bad in the eyes of Jehovah and walked in the way of his father and in his sin that he
caused Israel to commit. Baʹa·sha the son of A·hiʹjah of the house of Isʹsa·char conspired against him, and
Baʹa·sha struck him down at Gibʹbe·thon, which belonged to the Phi·lisʹtines, while Naʹdab and all Israel were
besieging Gibʹbe·thon. So Baʹa·sha put him to death in the third year of King Aʹsa of Judah and became king in
his place.” (15: 26-28)
There, the kingship of Jeroboam was cut off by the death of Nadab his son in the hands of Baasha. Regarding
Gibbethon, the Bible-based encyclopedia Insight offers this note
“A city originally assigned to the tribe of Dan (Jos 19:40, 41, 44) but later given to the Kohathites as a Levite city.
(Jos 21:20, 23) Centuries later, Gibbethon was in the hands of the Philistines, and it was while Israel’s King
Nadab was attempting to wrest the city from them that the conspirator Baasha assassinated him. (1Ki 15:27)
Gibbethon was under Philistine control some 24 years later when Omri, army chief of Israel, encamped against it.
Acclaimed as king by the Israelite camp there, Omri broke off the siege of Gibbethon to attack the rival Israelite
king Zimri.—1Ki 16:15-18.
Gibbethon is generally identified with Tell el-Melat (Tel Malot), about 9 km (5.5 mi) N of the suggested site of the
Philistine city of Ekron.” [1]
The Bible reports that Baasha became the tool or instrument to execute Jehovah God’s judgment against
Jeroboam
“And as soon as he became king, he struck down all the house of Jer·o·boʹam. He did not let remain anyone
breathing who belonged to Jer·o·boʹam; he had them annihilated according to Jehovah’s word that he had spoken
through his servant A·hiʹjah the Shiʹlo·nite. This was because of the sins that Jer·o·boʹam had committed and had
caused Israel to commit and because he had greatly offended Jehovah the God of Israel. As for the rest of the
history of Naʹdab, all that he did, is it not written in the book of the history of the times of the kings of Israel?” (15:
29-31)
‘This was because of the sins that Jeroboam had committed’ is an acknowledgment of the fulfillment of God’s
judgment on Jeroboam. Jehovah God promised Jeroboam a lasting kingdom but he did not have the faith to trust
God’s promise. Instead he acted on his own understanding to preserve his kingdom. Instead, God destroyed his
dynasty. His son lasted only two years as king. What a terrible consequence for lack of faith!
“And there was constant warfare between Aʹsa and King Baʹa·sha of Israel.” (15:32)
The narrative already wrote about this in v. 16. But at that point, it did not show the transition from Jeroboam to
Nadab to Baasha. It jumped right into the story with Asa after introducing Asa with reference to the reign of
Jeroboam. The narrative has now collapsed into this common point of intersection.
125 | P a g e
The story resumes after the Ramah conflict where Baasha retreated to Tirzah. What happens now to this new
king Baasha? The Bible reports
“In the third year of King Aʹsa of Judah, Baʹa·sha the son of A·hiʹjah became king in Tirʹzah over all Israel and
reigned for 24 years. But he kept doing what was bad in the eyes of Jehovah, and he walked in the way of
Jer·o·boʹam and in his sin that he caused Israel to commit.” (15:33, 34)
Baasha did not learn the lesson of the failure of the house of Jeroboam. He was like Jeroboam who wanted to
prevent a reunification with the south because of the temple of Jerusalem and the worship there as catalyst. Just
like Jeroboam, Baasha will go the way of the house of Jeroboam.
How God must have been pained by such stubborn men lacking faith in his ability to keep his word. It is their lost.
God extended to them a privilege they failed to appreciate.
References
[1] Gibbethon. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 929.
126 | P a g e
11.22 Baasha, Elah, Zimri, Omri, Ahab - Kings of Israel

11.22.1 Baasha, Elah, Zimri, Omri, Ahab - Kings of Israel - Part 1
Is material prosperity an indicator of God’s blessings? Can wicked and corrupt governments deliver prosperity?
The Bible narrative on the economic condition of the kingdom of Israel under the dynasty of Omri offers an
intriguing answer. That is an important reflection point.
History repeats itself. This is no more true today as in the days of the wicked kings of the northern kingdom of
Isarel. The fall of Jeroboam and his dynasty should have been a lesson learned for whoever replaced him.
Jehovah did not raise a replacement but God allowed a conspirator to assassinate Jeroboam’s son Nadab, the
successor king. This was Baasha. Baasha must have not realized that his success was due to Jehovah permitting
it to happen because of Jeroboam’s wickedness and to fulfill God’s word through the prophet Hanani. Since
Baasha must have credited his success all to himself, he failed to relate Jeroboam’s failure to Jeroboam’s
religious unfaithfulness. So he repeated the same religious unfaithfulness, he failed to uphold the covenant law.
Thus, the judgment from God repeats itself.
The Bible now introduces that judgment to Baasha

“The word of Jehovah against Baʹa·sha then came to Jeʹhu the son of Ha·naʹni, saying: “I raised you up out of the
dust and made you leader over my people Israel, but you kept walking in the way of Jer·o·boʹam and caused my
people Israel to sin so that they offended me with their sins.” (16:1,2)
Baasha failed Jehovah God as Jeroboam failed Him. What is Jehovah God’s judgment? The Bible makes the
announcement
“So I am making a clean sweep of Baʹa·sha and his house, and I will make his house like the house of
Jer·o·boʹam the son of Neʹbat. Anyone belonging to Baʹa·sha who dies in the city the dogs will eat; and anyone
belonging to him who dies in the field the birds of the heavens will eat.”” (16:3,4)
This is the very same formula pronounced against Jeroboam in 14: 10,11
“I will make a clean sweep of the house of Jer·o·boʹam, just as one clears away the dung until it is all gone!
Anyone belonging to Jer·o·boʹam who dies in the city, the dogs will eat; and anyone who dies in the field, the birds
of the heavens will eat.”’”
Baasha is the second individual judged the same way. His kingdom ended as judged by Jehovah with his son
Elah replacing him. (16: 5-7) His son just like the son of Jeroboam lasted only for 2 years. (16: 8) With the
kingdom of Baasha condemned just as Jeroboam, the Bible introduces the replacement king
“His servant Zimʹri, the chief of half of his chariot forces, conspired against him while he was in Tirʹzah drinking
himself drunk at the house of Arʹza, who was over the household in Tirʹzah.” (16:9)
As Baasha conspired against Nadab, the son of Jeroboam, so did Zimri against the so of Baasha. Elah must have
not realized what struck him as he was all drunk. No burial was mentioned of the men whom God cursed.
Jehovah God used Zimri to wipe out the house of Baasha as He used Baasah to wipe out the house of Jeroboam.
(16:10-14) As Baasha fulfilled the word of Ahijah the Shilonite, Zimri fulfilled the word of the prophet Jehu the son
of Hanani.
It is noteworthy that King Asa saw the troubles of the northern kingdom and how Jehovah God could raise and
depose any king He chooses. King Asa witnessed the fall of Jeroboam’s son Nadab and Baasha’s son Elah, the
rise of Zimri, Tibni, and finally Omri.
The books of kings referred to the “book of the history of the times of the kings of Israel” with Nadab, son of
Jeroboam (15: 31) and the “book of the history of the times of the kings of Judah” from Abijam, son of Rehoboam
(15:7). The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight cites these sources
127 | P a g e
“Several other uninspired historical writings are referred to in the books of Kings and Chronicles, one being “the
book of the affairs of the days of the kings of Israel.” (1Ki 14:19; 2Ki 15:31) “The book of the affairs of the times of
the kings of Judah” is its counterpart for the kings of the southern kingdom, starting with Solomon’s son
Rehoboam. It is referred to 15 times. (1Ki 14:29; 2Ki 24:5) Another record of Solomon’s rule is mentioned at
1 Kings 11:41 as “the book of the affairs of Solomon.”” [1]
Although Zimri successfully executed God’s judgment, he ruled only for 7 days. The army has chosen to put the
chief of the army as king. This chief was Omri (16:15-,16) Regarding this new king, the 6th for the northern
kingdom, Insight comments
“Omri came to the throne, not by inheritance, but by the sword. He had been chief of Israel’s army under King
Elah (and perhaps under his predecessor Baasha) when Zimri, chief of half the chariots, overthrew Elah, took the
kingship for himself, and wiped out the house and friends of Baasha. As soon as this was reported to the Israelite
army, at the time camped against the Philistines at Gibbethon, “all Israel,” doubtless the tribal heads “in the
camp,” made Omri their king. At once they withdrew from Gibbethon and stormed Zimri’s capital Tirzah. Zimri,
seeing the hopelessness of his cause, burned down the king’s house over himself, tragically ending his seven-day
rule.—1Ki 16:8-20.” [2]
Despite eliminating Zimri who killed himself in the burned tower where he hid himself, Israel was divided still into
two factions - Omri and a certain Tibni, son of Ginath. (16:21,22) However, Omri’s forces were stronger and it
eliminated their rival group. Now, officially, Omri becomes the new king of the northern kingdom of Israel. Of all
the kings in Israel, Omri is the only one that will be able to establish a dynasty that will last four generations. Why
has that happened is something I am keen to explore.
“In the 31st year of King Aʹsa of Judah, Omʹri became king over Israel, and he reigned for 12 years. In Tirʹzah he
reigned for six years. 24 He bought the mountain of Sa·marʹi·a from Sheʹmer for two talents of silver, and he built a
city on the mountain. He named the city that he built Sa·marʹi·a, after Sheʹmer the owner of the mountain.”
(16:23,24)
One paper recognized that this turn of events is an important one in biblical history. Samaria would henceforth
become an important city for the northern kingdom of Israel. The paper wrote
“Reading about the reign of Omri (885/884-874/873 BCE, Thiele 1983 :217) and his establishment of a new
capital city, Samaria (1 Ki 16: 15-28), we can deduce that his accession was an important turning point in the
history of both Israel and Judah (Miller1987:2).” [3]
Based on the paper, archaeology reveals what sort of period existed in the time of Omri
“The monumental remains which were excavated at Samaria (palaces, buildings, walls) and Jezreel (walls,
towers), reflect a power base which had the necessary wealth and manpower with which to accomplish
these building projects. The archaeological remains do not only represent 'stone upon stone', but by implication
speak of a period of peace and stability, and of effective government and great prosperity. They also project a
preparedness in the event of a confrontation or war with neighbouring countries. The Biblical paucity on Omri, and
the severity with which Ahab has been treated, fail to give credit to these monarchs for any such achievements. In
1 Kings 22:39 only very brief mention is made of the 'ivory house' and the 'cities' which Ahab had built.
Although extra-Biblical sources do give information, such as for instance the Monolith Inscription (see illustration 3)
regarding the Omrids, these types of sources are so far and between that we need a more substantial body of
evidence to work with. And it is here that the archaeological spade can fill the gap. Hence my proposal to use this
medium, as an instrument of persuasion, towards a realisation of the grandeur and achievements of the Omrids at
Samaria and Jezreel. To persuade successfully means that the evidence used - in our case archaeological
discoveries - can prove themselves adequately enough so as to induce a conviction of their contribution towards
the greatness of the Omrids.
128 | P a g e
However, archaeology cannot stand on its own, since much that is found must be interpreted, and thus we have,
of necessity, to use Biblical sources in conjunction with archaeology. But, as Dever said in an interview with
Hershel Shanks: 'Archaeologists and Historians must read between the lines, to look not only at what the Biblical
writers say, but at what they allude to, what they avoid saying' (Dever 1996 ( 5): 3 5). Take for instance the
following: SHEMER 'S estate (1 Ki 17:24), the MARRIAGE of Jezebel to Ahab (1 Ki 16:31), and the HOUSES I
BEDS of IVORY (Am 3: 15; 6:4). These examples have inherent information, bringing to the fore the practical, real
and tangible world in which the Omrids lived. Shemer' s estate became a new city, Samaria, a reality consisting of
many factors, such as choice of site, defence possibilities, water supply, building projects, labour, payments and
material. Marriage to a kings's daughter, from a rich and mercantile city such as Sidon, had not only certain
political implications, but also the benefit of reciprocal trade and the economical wealth such trade generated. If
we temper Amos' condemnation, of the ivory houses and beds, with a sensible realization of the artistry and time
involved in the creation of objects of art from ivory, we shall still find a connotation of wealth and indulgence, but
also a sense of appreciation for the employment of such artists and their craft. The Omrid kings lived royally,
surrounding themselves with the luxuries which power can bring, and which they deemed to be their right.
Neighbouring kings, to the north, south and east of them, did exactly the same.” [4]
Despite that prosperity and material success, what is important to God is loyalty to Him and the covenant law.
How did Omri fared? The Bible reports
“Omʹri kept doing what was bad in the eyes of Jehovah, and he was worse than all who were prior to him. He
walked in all the ways of Jer·o·boʹam the son of Neʹbat and in the sin he had caused Israel to commit by offending
Jehovah the God of Israel with their worthless idols. As for the rest of the history of Omʹri, what he did and his
mighty exploits, is it not written in the book of the history of the times of the kings of Israel? Then Omʹri was laid to
rest with his forefathers and was buried in Sa·marʹi·a; and his son Aʹhab became king in his place.” (16: 25-28)
King Asa must have witnessed this material success of the northern kingdom of Israel in the closing years of his
reign. Could this influence others in the wrong way? Could Asa’s son, Jehoshaphat, interpret this as a sort of
blessing from Jehovah God despite the continuing wickedness? That will be an interesting angle to pursue as I
continue this journey.
The next installment will focus on Ahab, son of Omri.
References
[1] Book. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 355.
[2] Omri. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 554.
[3] Schneider, Catharina Elizabeth. “Persuasions of Archaeology: The achievements and grandeur of the Omrids
at their royal cities of Samaria and Jezreel”, University of South Africa, 2001,p. 2.
[4] Ibid.
129 | P a g e
11.22.2 Baasha, Elah, Zimri, Omri, Ahab - Kings of Israel - Part 2

In my previous reflection, the era of the Omri dynasty in the kingdom of Israel ushered Israel into a period of
peace and prosperity. But it was deceptive. Omri and Ahab must have felt that the prosperity was brought about
by their promotion of the false gods of Canaan. Ahab is going to have an unforgettable experience as he realizes
his mistake on giving up on Jehovah God by forsaking the covenant law and promoting first his selfish interests.
It is a good thing when Bible narratives are supported by archaeology. It helps establish the authenticity and
veracity of the Bible persons, places, and events mentioned. It tells me that the Bible is not a book of myths and
legends as popularized in the media by bible critics. I am reading real history. Critics argue that because the
Bible’s history was written with a theological slant, it cannot be reliable history. So much for the critics who in the
last decades have continued to experience reversals.
What is interesting is that the kings now mentioned in this Bible narrative - Omri and Ahab - are found outside the
Bible. One article listed them as the #12 and #13 personalities confirmed of 50 individuals outside of the Bible.
Regarding these two the article says
“12. Omri, king, r. 884–873, 1 Kings 16:16, etc., in Assyrian inscriptions and in the Mesha Inscription. Because
he founded a famous dynasty which ruled the northern kingdom of Israel, the Assyrians refer not only to him as a
king of Israel (ANET, pp. 280, 281), but also to the later rulers of that territory as kings of “the house of Omri” and
that territory itself literally as “the house of Omri” (Raging Torrent, pp. 34, 35; ANET, pp. 284, 285). Many a later
king of Israel who was not his descendant, beginning with Jehu, was called “the son of Omri” (Raging Torrent, p.
18). The Mesha Inscription also refers to Omri as “the king of Israel” in lines 4–5, 7 (Dearman, Studies, pp. 97,
100–101; COS, vol. 2, p. 137; IBP, pp. 108–110, 216; “Sixteen,” p. 43.
13. Ahab, king, r. 873–852, 1 Kings 16:28, etc., in the Kurkh Monolith by his enemy, Shalmaneser III of Assyria.
There, referring to the battle of Qarqar (853 B.C.E.), Shalmaneser calls him “Ahab the Israelite” (Raging Torrent,
pp. 14, 18–19; RIMA 3, p. 23, A.0.102.2, col. 2, lines 91–92; ANET, p. 279; COS, vol. 2, p. 263). ” [1]
But, archaeology has limitations. It is in catch-up mode with the Bible. It does not mean that if archaeology has
not found evidence for a biblical person, place or event that the Bible is writing about a mythical or legendary
person, place or event as Bible critics would like everyone to believe. This is ridiculous. This was illustrated by an
archaeologist in one reference
“However, other scholars note that there are other blank spots in Jerusalem’s archaeological record during
periods when the city is known to have been occupied, and they caution against reading too much into a lack of
evidence. Ronny Reich, an archaeologist with the Israel Antiquities Authority, notes, for example, that excavations
near the Gihon spring outside the the present Old City have turned up “no pottery, nothing” from the Byzantine
era-roughly A.D. 330-1450. “Does that mean there were no people in Jerusalem?” Reich asks. “Of course not.
How do you explain it? You can’t”. [ J.L. Scheler, ‘News from the Holy Land’]” [2]
King Ahab is featured in detail up to the last chapter of 1 Kings, the longest exposure in the Bible for the northern
kings. In the Bible record, his description is emphatically negative and he even went further than where Jeroboam
went so far as apostasy is concerned. The Bible reports
“Aʹhab the son of Omʹri became king over Israel in the 38th year of King Aʹsa of Judah, and Aʹhab the son of Omʹri
reigned over Israel in Sa·marʹi·a for 22 years. Aʹhab the son of Omʹri was worse in the eyes of Jehovah than all
those who were prior to him. As if it were a trivial thing for him to walk in the sins of Jer·o·boʹam the son of Neʹbat,
he also took as wife Jezʹe·bel the daughter of Eth·baʹal, the king of the Si·doʹni·ans, and began to serve Baʹal and
to bow down to him. Further, he set up an altar to Baʹal at the house of Baʹal that he built in Sa·marʹi·a. Aʹhab also
made the sacred pole. Aʹhab did more to offend Jehovah the God of Israel than all the kings of Israel prior to him.”
(16: 29-33)
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight comments on the depth of Ahab’s rebellion against Jehovah in a religious
sense
130 | P a g e
“Ahab’s record was one of the worst as regards the vital area of true worship. Not only did the corrupted worship
of Jehovah by means of Jeroboam’s golden calves continue but Ahab also allowed Baal worship to infect Israel
on an unprecedented scale due to his early marriage to Jezebel, the daughter of Ethbaal, king of Sidon. Josephus,
quoting ancient historian Menander, refers to Ethbaal as Ithobal, and the account (Against Apion, I, 123 [18])
relates that he was the priest of Astarte before ascending the throne by murdering the king.
Ahab allowed his pagan wife Jezebel to lead him into Baal worship, to build a temple for Baal, and to erect a
sacred pole in honor of Asherah. (1Ki 16:30-33) Before long there were 450 prophets of Baal and 400 prophets of
the sacred pole, all being fed from Jezebel’s royal table. (1Ki 18:19)”[3]
Who is Ethbaal? Insight notes
“King of the Sidonians, the father of Jezebel the wife of King Ahab. (1Ki 16:31) By giving his daughter in marriage
to Ahab, Ethbaal entered into a political alliance with him. Ethbaal is evidently the Ithobal mentioned in Josephus’
quotation of historian Menander as being the priest of the goddess Astarte (Ashtoreth). This priest got the
kingship by murdering Phelles, a descendant of Hiram the king of Tyre with whom Solomon had had dealings in
connection with the building of the temple. Ethbaal is said to have ruled for 32 of the 48 years of his life. (Against
Apion, I, 123 [18]) Indicative of the commercial expansion carried on during his reign is Menander’s reference to
Ethbaal’s building Auza in Libya. Menander also mentions that a one-year drought occurred during Ethbaal’s
reign.—Jewish Antiquities, VIII, 324 (xiii, 2).” [4]
Scholars see in the marriage of Ahab with the daughter of the king of Sidon as both political and economic in
gains. But this is not what Jehovah sees. He sees Ahab despising him.
The introduction to Ahab was concluded by a side note to a fulfillment of a curse uttered by Joshua on Jericho
“In his days, Hiʹel the Bethʹel·ite rebuilt Jerʹi·cho. At the cost of A·biʹram his firstborn he laid its foundation, and at
the cost of Seʹgub his youngest he put up its doors, according to the word of Jehovah spoken through Joshua the
son of Nun.” (16:34)
“The firstborn son of Hiel the Bethelite. At Joshua 6:26 Joshua’s oath is recorded concerning the destroyed city of
Jericho, foretelling that whoever should rebuild it would do so at the loss of his firstborn son. Abiram’s father, Hiel,
ignored this oath and, during the reign of King Ahab (c. 940-920 B.C.E.) some five centuries after Joshua’s time,
he laid Jericho’s foundations. Abiram, his son, died, evidently prematurely as a historically recorded fulfillment of
the prophecy.—1Ki 16:34.” [5]
The brief account opens many questions that are left unanswered. Does Hiel know the curse on Jericho? Did he
know that he is going to lose sons in rebuilding it? If he is, why would he knowingly sacrifice his sons in exchange
for rebuilding a city? Was he testing God’s faithfulness on accomplishing His word or the words of His servants?
The Bible writer is aware of a curse that was pronounced about 600 years before on he city. That was some very
expensive price to pay for rebuilding the city.
As I reflected previously, the material prosperity that ushered in the northern kingdom of Israel with the reign of
the Omri dynasty as attested by archaeology maybe impressive to scholars. It does not mean that God blesses
the wicked. But it might mislead individuals that if they put themselves ahead of God they can reward themselves
with much material blessings. This aspect is very much illustrated in the story of Ahab, king of Israel.
References
[1] Mykytiuk, Lawrence. “50 People in the Bible Confirmed Archaeologically”, article in BIble History Daily,
January 12, 2016.
[2] Widdowson, Frederic. A Bible Believer Looks at World History.p. 56.
[3] Ahab. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 59.
[4] Ethbaal. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 766.
[5] Abiram. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 25.
131 | P a g e
11.23 Ahab, King of Israel, son of Omri

11.23.1 Ahab, King of Israel, son of Omri - Part 1
Can we trust God? That is essentially the theme of the entire Bible. The fall of Adam and Eve was anchored on
that question. They did not trust God. They chose to believe the lie that God’s enemy planted in their minds.
Jehovah God is selfish. He withdraws from His creation good things that will benefit them. He chooses to control
His creation. The first humans believed all that to their harm.
The story of the Bible marched on from one personality to the other of individuals who made the choice to trust
God and those who chose not to. The Bible demonstrated the blessings God generously gave to those who trust
Him and His instructions. In the Old Testament, the primary example of someone trusting God is Abraham. He
would be called later as “the friend of Jehovah”.
As I continue my journey in my Bible reading about kings who led the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, I encounter
men, leaders of their nation, who made decisions whether to trust God or not. The new kingdom of Israel, that
God turned over to the man of His own choosing, Jeroboam, chose not to trust God and His promises to give him
a lasting kingdom. He was replaced by others who chose not to trust Jehovah God. I have come to the point of
the Bible story where one of the wicked kings of the northern kingdom of Israel, if not the worst king of them all, is
introduced, Ahab. Ahab might have deceived himself with the material prosperity and peace that accompanied his
reign. He might have thought that it was possible to enjoy the blessings of material prosperity and peace without
God. Worse, with his support for pagan gods like Baal, he credited an inanimate god, as the source of his
blessings. Well, the time has come for the true God Jehovah to wake him up from his delusions.
In this reflection, for the first time, I am introduced to a prophet, one of the great prophets of the Old Testament,
after Moses, the prophet Elijah. Jehovah will demonstrate His ability to take care of His servants in an unorthodox
way, in fact, miraculous way. He will encounter a non-Israelite mother who will have to decide whether she can
trust Jehovah God with her life. It’s a heart-warming story to read.
The Bible began this narrative this way
“Now E·liʹjah the Tishʹbite, an inhabitant of Gilʹe·ad, said to Aʹhab: “As surely as Jehovah the God of Israel whom I
serve is living, during these years there will be no dew or rain except by my word!”” (17:1)
Why was this significant a declaration to tell wicked king Ahab? The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight comments
“Likely because Baal, believed to be the owner of the sky, was regarded by his worshipers as the giver of rains
and fertility, a drought was ordered by Elijah in the name of Jehovah. (1Ki 17:1)” [1]
As a backgrounder on Baal, the New World Encyclopedia have this to say
“Like other ancient cultures, Canaanite society was largely concerned with agricultural themes. As a land dryer
than either Egypt or the Fertile Crescent, which were blessed with large rivers, Canaanite traditions were
particularly concerned with rain and drought. The supreme deity of the Canaanite pantheon was El, together with
his consort, Asherah. As with the Greek tradition, these early gods were later supplanted by younger, more
immediate presences, especially the rain/thunder god Ba'al and his consorts, such as the warrior goddess Anat
and the love/fertility goddess Astarte.” [2]
The Encyclopaedia Judaica discussion the mythology behind Baal and rains echoes the above discussion
“The worship of Baal in Syria-Palestine was inextricably bound to the economy of the land which depends on the
regularity and adequacy of the rains. Unlike Egypt and Mesopotamia, which depend on irrigation, the Promised
Land drinks water from the rain of heaven (Deut. 11:10–11). During the summer months the rains cease, but the
temporary drought is no threat unless it is abnormally prolonged. Figs and grapes ripen during the dry season and
the grain harvest also takes place before the rains resume. In a normal good year, when the rains come in due
season, there is no hiatus in productivity, for the land yields its increase, the trees produce their fruit, the threshing
overlaps, the vintage overlaps the sowing, and there is food aplenty, prosperity, and peace (Lev. 26:4–6). But not
all years are good, and in a bad year, or a series of bad years, when the rains fail, the skies become like iron, the
land like brass, and man's toil is futile for the earth will not yield its increase (Lev. 26:19–20). A series of bad years,
which were apparently believed to come in seven-year cycles (cf. Gen. 41; II Sam. 1:21), would be catastrophic.
132 | P a g e
Thus in any year anxiety about the rainfall would be a continuing concern of the inhabitants which would suffice to
give rise to rites to ensure the coming of the rains. Thus the basis of the Baal cult was the utter dependence of life
on the rains which were regarded as Baal's bounty.” [3]
Given that background, imagine the impact of that judgment against the Baal-worshiping Ahab! No rains unless
the word came from the prophet Elijah. But who is Elijah? Apparently, we don’t know much about this prophet
other than what verse 1 has already said at this point. Insight has this note
“One of the foremost prophets of Israel. Evidently his home was in Tishbeh, thought by some to be a village in the
land of Gilead, E of the Jordan River. (1Ki 17:1) He started his long career as prophet in Israel during the reign of
King Ahab, who began to rule about 940 B.C.E., and continued during the reign of Ahab’s son Ahaziah (began
c. 919 B.C.E.). (1Ki 22:51) The last time he is mentioned as serving as a prophet (this time for Judah) is toward
the end of the eight-year reign of King Jehoram of Judah, which rule started in 913 B.C.E.—2Ch 21:12-15; 2Ki
8:16.” [4]
Having announced a drought, the prophet Elijah now received new instructions from Jehovah God. If Elijah
wondered how he himself would survive at the very period of drought where he also lived, God has already
answered that concern as shown below
“The word of Jehovah came to him, saying: “Leave here, and turn eastward and hide at the Valley of Cheʹrith,
east of the Jordan. You should drink from the stream, and I will command the ravens to supply you food
there.” He immediately went and did according to the word of Jehovah; he went and stayed by the Valley of
Cheʹrith, east of the Jordan. And the ravens were bringing him bread and meat in the morning and bread and
meat in the evening, and he drank from the stream. But after some days, the stream ran dry, because there was
no rain in the land.” (17:2-7)
Regarding where Cherith was where Jehovah instructed Elijah to go, Insight tells us it is unidentifiable today per
below
“A torrent valley E of the Jordan where Elijah concealed himself and was fed by ravens after announcing a
coming drought to Israel’s King Ahab. (1Ki 17:1-7) The exact location is unknown.” [5]
Why did Jehovah God choose the raven to bring food to Elijah at Valley of Cherith? Insight offered this
explanation
“The raven also has the practice of storing surplus food in rock crevices or burying it beneath leaves. These birds
were thus an apt selection when God used them miraculously to carry in bread and meat twice daily to Elijah
while the prophet was concealed in the torrent valley of Cherith.—1Ki 17:2-6.” [6]
This got me interested to check on the raven from the context of the Bible. Insight explains further
“The first bird specifically named in the Bible. (Ge 8:7) The largest of the crowlike birds, the raven measures about
0.6 m (2 ft) in length and may have a wingspan of more than 1 m (3 ft). Its glossy plumage is notable for its jet-
black color (Ca 5:11) with iridescent steel-blue and purple hues, the underparts at times having a touch of green.
It has an extremely wide range of diet, eating anything from nuts, berries, and grains to rodents, reptiles, fish, and
young birds. Though it will attack the young and weak among small animals, it is primarily a scavenger. When
eating carrion it has the habit of eating the eyes and other soft parts of the victim before tearing at the abdomen
with its sturdy beak. (Pr 30:17) It is a powerful flier, flapping its wings in strong, steady beats, or soaring
effortlessly in wide circles while it scans the area below for food. Its continuous search for food takes it over an
unusually large area.
By naturalists, the crafty raven is considered to be one of the most adaptable and resourceful of all birds. In view
of this as well as its flying strength and ability to survive on a wide variety of food, including carrion, the raven was
an apt candidate for being the first creature to be sent outside the ark by Noah at the time the waters of the Flood
had begun to recede. The text indicates that the raven thereafter remained outside the ark, using it only as a
resting-place.—Ge 8:5-7.
133 | P a g e
The raven was declared unclean in the Law covenant (Le 11:13, 15; De 14:12, 14), and the phrase “according to
its kind” is understood to embrace the crow and other apparently related crowlike birds such as the rook, the
jackdaw, and the chough, all of which are to be found in Palestine” [7]
That got me into thinking. Jehovah fed the prophet Elijah using a bird, a raven, that is declared ceremonially
“unclean” by the covenant law. It was unclean from the point of view of eating the raven as food for an
Israelite.But it is OK to use an “unclean” bird to bring food to Elijah. From the point of view of God, it does not
make the prophet Elijah “unclean” or impure from His holy presence.
Where the raven got the bread and meat, the Bible does not say. It went on like this until the drought dried up the
river. However, Jewish thinkers speculated to answer the question where did the meat come from and were
ravens actually people who brought food to the prophet? One blog article wrote
“From whence did the raven bring the meat? One of the sages, Rav Judah, said that they brought the meat from
Achav's slaughterhouse -- and Achav kept the commandments whilst worshiping idols. This means that Elijah ate
meat which Achav slaughtered and that meat slaughtered by an idolater is acceptable. The scholars replied that
Elijah's consumption is not proof, as he ate at the command of the Lord. The scholars asked: Who were the
ravens which brought meat to Elijah? Answer: They were actual ravens. The scholar Rav Ada son of Minyomi
suggested that they were two men named Orev [Raven]. We have found, in the Scriptures, that Orev can be a
person's name, "And they captured two princes of the Midianites, Orev and Zeeb" (Judges 7:25). The scholars
replied: It is not reasonable that both men who brought meat to Elijah had the unusual name of Orev. The
scholars then asked: Perhaps these were two men who came from the place known as Orev? Answer: Were they
people who had come from a place named Orev they would have been called Orevi'im based on their place of
origin. Since they are called orvim, we see they were actual ravens.” [8]
So, understanding the original language shows that the Bible writer did mean ravens the birds not anything else.
To non-believers of miracles, this is another so-called myth-making in the Bible. Such thinking is built on the
foundation that there is no God and that the Bible is just a cultural product and heritage of humanity. In other
words, they promote the idea that miracles cannot happen because they are miracles. But because the Bible is
trustworthy and authentic, there is no reason not to trust what the Bible writers have recorded.
The next installment will now focus on another sweet miracle from Jehovah God who cares.
References
[1] Baal. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 230.
[2] Canaanite Religion. New World Encyclopedia online. Available (online).
[3] Baal Worship. Encyclopedia Judaica, entry in Jewish Virtual Library online. Available (online).
[4] Elijah. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 710.
[5] Cherith, Torrent Valley of. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 431.
[6] Raven. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 754.
[7] Ibid., p. 753.
[8] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Chulin 4b-5a.
134 | P a g e

In the previous installment, Jehovah God demonstrated that He could take care of His servants in times of need.
He fed the prophet Elijah miraculously. This is not the first time that God literally fed His servants. The first time I
read about God feeding His servants literally with supplied food, after the fall of man in Eden, was with the
Israelites in the wilderness with manna. God did this for 40 years for nearly 6 million people. So, what is one
person like Elijah? Back in the wilderness then prophet Moses disclosed an important fact about feeding from
God’s provisions, which came to my mind,
“So he humbled you and let you go hungry and fed you with the manna, which neither you had known nor your
fathers had known, in order to make you know that man does not live by bread alone but man lives by every
expression from Jehovah’s mouth.” (Deuteronomy 8:3 NWT 2013)
Man lives by “every expression from Jehovah’s mouth”. God is teaching humans to be dependent upon Him, on
His instructions. It might appear contrary to the discipline of bringing up the young to be self-reliant by teaching
dependence on God. By “dependence” means, as I understood it, is to trust God’s direction and execute it with
faithfulness, not to deviate from it, or improvised one’s way around it. Elijah is one example who literally lived by
the expression of Jehovah’s mouth. When God told him to go meet wicked king Ahab, he did. When God told him
to go to Cherith and stay there until the river dried up, he did.
At this point in the narrative, this important principle is demonstrated again by God’s next instruction to the
prophet. The Bible declares God’s new instruction
“The word of Jehovah then came to him: “Rise up, go to Zarʹe·phath, which belongs to Siʹdon, and stay there.
Look! I will command a widow there to supply you with food.” (17: 8,9)
Jehovah just told the prophet Elijah to go out of the territory of Israel to a Gentile city of Zarephath. What kind of
place is Elijah going to? Isn’t Sidon the city where the equally wicked wife of king Ahab came from, a worshiper of
Baal? An archaeological article disclosed what they found in this city
“Zarephath, whose Phoenician name was Sarepta, was a seaport lying on the Mediterranean coast between
Sidon and Tyre. It thrived from about 1600 to 100 B.C. and occupied an area of 15 to 20 acres. Today Zarephath
lies beneath the modern fishing village of Sarafand.
During the summer of 1972, Dr. Pritchard completed his fourth season of excavating at Zarephath under a six-
year Lebanese permit. (See BIBLE AND SPADE,Vol. 1, No. 1, pg. 21 for a previous report.) Pritchard’s team of
13 archaeologists and about 75 laborers cleared a 65 by 98 foot area during the past season. Most of the site was
an industrial area, but in one section the excavation uncovered a temple. The temple was an important discovery,
for it represents the first Phoenician temple to be found in the homeland of these seafaring merchants. In addition,
the first material evidence of two Phoenician industries, dye-making and metal working, was recovered.
The ancient stone temple was used during the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. Phonecian craftsmen built the
walls of rectangular limestone blocks and the 12 by 24 foot floor with a single cement slab about four inches thick.
An altar, offering tables and a cache of religious objects found inside the temple.” [1]
So, Zarephath was a pagan city with pagan temples. Jehovah is not worshiped there. But Elijah trusted in God’s
instruction. He entered into this city and he will look for a widow while there to supply him food. I wondered how
could a non-worshipping widow that is also suffering from the drought and famine provide for Elijah while there
after the river stream where he came from inside Israel dried up? Jehovah has told Elijah something that was not
yet disclosed in the text. The next portion discloses this
“So he rose up and went to Zarʹe·phath. When he came to the entrance of the city, there was a widow gathering
pieces of wood. So he called to her and said: “Please, bring me a little water in a cup so that I may drink.” As she
went to get it, he called to her: “Please, bring me a piece of bread in your hand.” At this she said: “As surely as
Jehovah your God is living, I have no bread, only a handful of flour in the large jar and a little oil in the small jar.
Now I am gathering a few pieces of wood, and I will go in and make something for me and my son. After we have
eaten, we will die.” (17:10-12)
135 | P a g e
How Elijah was able to identify that this is the widow the Bible does not say. Elijah requested for assistance and
the Bible recorded that he courteously asked for water and then food. Elijah did not command the widow but
sought her assistance if she will. That was a nice gesture from the prophet especially that he is a foreigner. But
when it came to asking for food, the response of the widow disclosed the severity of the drought and famine to me.
Was Zarephath affected by the famine or was the widow was just so poor that she could not afford to buy more
food? That was not clear to me.
However, clearly by her answer a reader can sense that she belongs to another religion. A Bible-based
publication noted this
“The widow recognized Elijah as a God-fearing Israelite. This is evident from her words “as surely as Jehovah
your God is living.” It appears that while she had some knowledge of Israel’s God, it was not to the point of using
the words “my God” when referring to Jehovah. She lived in Zarephath, a town that ‘belonged to,’ or was
apparently dependent upon, the Phoenician city of Sidon. Very likely, Zarephath was inhabited by Baal
worshippers. Nevertheless, Jehovah had seen something exceptional in this widow.
Although the poor widow of Zarephath lived among idolaters, she exercised faith. Jehovah sent Elijah to her for
the sake of both the woman and the prophet. From this, we can draw a vital lesson.
Not all the inhabitants of Baal-worshipping Zarephath were completely corrupt. By sending Elijah to this widow,
Jehovah showed that He takes note of well-intentioned individuals who are not yet serving Him. Indeed, “in every
nation the man who fears [God] and does what is right is acceptable to him.”—Acts 10:35.” [2]
This is the second instance where I read in the Bible that God takes note of individuals even if they don’t worship
Him or their families don’t worship Him. The first one was Abijah, son of Rehoboam, and now this widow. This is
incredibly amazing of God to take note of individuals and now someone from outside of His covenant people. How
did Elijah handle the concern if not objection of the widow from his request for food? This is where Elijah discloses
a promise that went with his going to Zarephath
“Then E·liʹjah said to her: “Do not be afraid. Go in and do as you said. But first make me a small round loaf of
bread with what is there, and bring it out to me. Then you can make something afterward for you and your son.
For this is what Jehovah the God of Israel says: ‘The large jar of flour will not run out, and the small jar of oil will
not run dry until the day Jehovah makes it rain on the surface of the ground.’”” (17: 13, 14)
First, Elijah offered assurance - ‘do not be afraid’. Then, he disclosed the reason behind the assurance - Jehovah,
the God of Israel, not of the Sidonians, the Baals - will take care of her. Elijah is asking this foreigner to put faith in
the words of a God who is foreign to her. But her initial response where she used the divine name imply that she
is familiar with Jehovah. Would she put the future of her life and the life of her son to the God of Elijah who
promises to take care of her in this drought and famine until it is over? The Bible discloses her decision
“So she went and did as E·liʹjah said, and she together with him and her household ate for many days. The large
jar of flour did not run out, and the small jar of oil did not run dry, according to Jehovah’s word that he had spoken
through E·liʹjah.” (17: 15,16)
She was blessed for her faith. The second time this city will be mentioned in the Bible is when the Son of God
referred to this show of faith
“For instance, I tell you in truth: There were many widows in Israel in the days of E·liʹjah when heaven was shut
up for three years and six months, and a great famine came on all the land. Yet E·liʹjah was sent to none of those
women, but only to a widow in Zarʹe·phath in the land of Siʹdon.” (Luke 4: 25, 26, NWT 2013)
I still need that kind of faith in God, to trust in His blessings and not be tempted to put material gain ahead of the
spiritual work assigned to Christians in these last days of this evil world. Elijah could not help notice that the river
stream from where he drank was drying up and he can foretell that soon he will have no more water to drink in
Cherith. Jehovah God must have been watching Elijah carefully, observing his faith as the water slowly dries up.
136 | P a g e
How relieved Elijah could have been to receive the new instruction. How blessed the widow must have felt for her
obedience and faith. But something happened despite this positive story. The Bible discloses this next
“After these things, the son of the woman who owned the house fell sick, and his sickness became so severe that
he stopped breathing. At this she said to E·liʹjah: “What do you have against me, O man of the true God? Have
you come to remind me of my guilt and to put my son to death?” But he said to her: “Give me your son.” Then he
took him from her arms and carried him up to the roof chamber, where he was staying, and he laid him on his own
bed.” (17: 17-19)
It must have been difficult for both the widow and Elijah that they were helpless as the child got sick and
eventually died. It was not the kind of ending to a story that they both wanted. The widow in her words “remind me
of my guilt” imply that the death of her son was a punishment to her by Jehovah for whatever sins she had
committed, including worshiping idols. But why would God punish her now after God has been blessing her for
her faith? Her response is echoed by suffering people today. Sadly, religious leaders are reinforcing this mistaken
notion that God is behind this suffering, that He had done it to punish and compel individuals to return to God. The
Bible teaches the very opposite. A God of Love will not cause us to suffer. But He does permit suffering to happen
and He acts to end such suffering but he has never been the cause of human suffering.
Sickness and death are by-products of the fall of man into sin. The Bible teaches that the penalty for sin is death.
Since humankind is under the curse of sin, all humans will die for their sin. This is repeated in the Old Testament
in Ezekiel 18:4, 20.
On a side note, Insight has a comment on the structure of the house where Elijah stayed because the record said
Elijah carried the boy “up to the roof chamber”
“Often a roof chamber or upper chamber was built on the housetop. This was a pleasant, cool room that often
served as a guest room. (Jg 3:20; 1Ki 17:19; 2Ki 1:2; 4:10) Of course, some homes were two-story buildings with
a regular upper story.” [3]
The next dialogue came from Elijah who with the widow has helplessly watched the sick boy die. Elijah’s
response caught my attention too
“He called out to Jehovah: “O Jehovah my God, are you also bringing harm to the widow with whom I am staying
by putting her son to death?”” (17: 20)
Elijah’s response implies to God whether He had caused the death of the child. How could such thing as this
happened while he was in her home? Could Elijah have a false expectation here? Whatever it was, Elijah next
sought God’s mercy
“Then he stretched himself out over the child three times and called out to Jehovah: “O Jehovah my God, please,
let this child’s life come back into him.” (17:21)
Was there ever an instance before Elijah that God listened to a man’s plea to bring back the dead? None that I
know of. This was the first time that a human is asking God to bring back to life the dead. God’s response? The
Bible discloses
“Jehovah listened to E·liʹjah’s request, and the life of the child came back into him, and he revived. E·liʹjah took
the child and brought him down from the roof chamber into the house and gave him to his mother; and E·liʹjah
said: “See, your son is alive.” At that the woman said to E·liʹjah: “Now I know that you truly are a man of God and
that Jehovah’s word in your mouth is truth.”” (17: 22-24)
When the Bible said that Jehovah listened to Elijah’s request, God honored Elijah his imperfect servant. God must
have been equally happy to see the joy from the foreigner woman who is not even His worshiper. What about the
angels in heaven who have witnessed for the first time in human history the dead coming back to life? It must
have been a joyous moment not just on the earth but all who worship the loving God Jehovah.
137 | P a g e
References
[1] “Archaeologists Bring Ancient Zarephath to Life”, Bible and Spade 02:1 (Winter 1973).
[2] “The Widow of Zarephath Was Rewarded for Her Faith”, The Watchtower, February 15, 2014, p. 14.
[3] House. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1155.
138 | P a g e

How is the true God going to teach wicked king Ahab that despite the prosperity and peace that his kingdom is
enjoying, Ahab still needs to recognize that Jehovah the true God is the Sovereign of Israel that he needs to
recognize it and comply with the covenant law? Interrupt the prosperity by bringing in drought.
How is the true God going to teach His own people who has fallen to idolatry and preferred to worship a non-god
like Baal, to whom they relied for blessings for their agricultural land? Stop the rain to demonstrate that He is the
true source of blessings and not Baal.
In a land where Baal is worshiped, the sky god who brings rain to make the soil fertile, the people could not count
on Baal to reverse Elijah’s word from Jehovah God about the drought. This should have embarassed the priests
and priestesses of Baal who could not explain to their followers why Baal has not responded as the drought
extended to several years. They missed the point that Jehovah God was teaching them that He alone is the true
God.
This is my reflection point that I will focused on in this series of installments.
“After some time, in the third year, Jehovah’s word came to E·liʹjah, saying: “Go, present yourself to Aʹhab, and I
will send rain on the surface of the ground.” (18:1)
A Bible-based publication commented on what Jesus said about the drought in Elijah’s day where bible critics
found an apparent contradiction
“Jehovah’s prophet Elijah announced to King Ahab that the long drought would end soon. That happened “in the
third year”—evidently counting from the day Elijah first announced the drought. (1 Kings 18:1) Jehovah sent rain
soon after Elijah said that He would. Some might conclude, then, that the drought ended during the course of its
third year and that it was therefore less than three years long. However, both Jesus and James tell us that the
drought lasted “three years and six months.” (Luke 4:25; James 5:17) Is this a contradiction?” [1]
The publication continues
“Not at all. You see, the dry season in ancient Israel was quite long, lasting up to six months. No doubt Elijah
came to Ahab to announce the drought when the dry season was already proving to be unusually long and severe.
In effect, the drought had begun nearly half a year earlier. Thus, when Elijah announced the end of the drought “in
the third year” from his previous announcement, the drought had already lasted nearly three and a half years. The
full “three years and six months” had elapsed by the time all the people assembled to witness the great test on
Mount Carmel.
Consider, then, the timing of Elijah’s first visit to Ahab. The people believed that Baal was “the rider of the clouds,”
the god who would bring rains to end the dry season. If the dry season was unusually long, people likely
wondered: ‘Where is Baal? When will he bring the rains?’ Elijah’s announcement that neither rain nor dew would
occur until he said so must have been devastating to those Baal worshippers.—1 Kings 17:1.” [2]
One blog offered this explanation
“Those who contend that Luke 4:25 and James 5:17 contradict 1 Kings 18:1 (cf. Matheney and Honeycutt, 1970,
3:210) assume that “in the third year” refers to the drought. Yet, no proof exists for such an interpretation. First
Kings 18:1 does not say, “...in the third year of the drought,” but only “in the third year.” Considering both the
immediate context and the fact that originally there was no chapter break separating 1 Kings 17:24 and 18:1, the
most natural reading is that Elijah was “in the third year” of his residence in Zarephath. Elijah, the widow, and her
household ate of the miraculously replenished flour for “(many) days” (17:8-15, ASV). Some time later Elijah
revived the widow’s son. Then, “it came to pass after many days that the word of the Lord came to Elijah” (18:1,
emp. added). It is reasonable to conclude that Elijah spent more than two years in Zarephath, since it was “in the
third year” that God sent Elijah away from Zarephath to confront Ahab.
The “three years and six months” to which Jesus and James referred includes the two-plus years Elijah was in
Zarephath and the several months Elijah lived at Brook Cherith. Although skeptics would rather assume guilt on
the part of the inspired historian, Jesus, and/or James, once again they are unable to present real evidence for a
genuine Bible contradiction.” [3]
139 | P a g e
So there. There is no real contradiction at all. Now, I am back to the story. The Bible continues
“So E·liʹjah went to present himself to Aʹhab, while the famine was severe in Sa·marʹi·a.”
I want to understand and picture in my mind Samaria during the days of the Omrid dynasty, specifically under
Omri’s son Ahab. One archaeological blog article comments
“Samaria lies a few miles to the northwest of Shechem in Israel. Samaria, or Shomron, means something like
“watchtower,” and this is very evident when you stand upon the hill. Omri purchased this hill from its owner,
Shemer, for two talents of silver, and then built a new capital at Samaria in about 876 BC. The new city had the
advantage of easy access to the Phoenician coastal cities, which played a large part in the life of King Ahab.” [4]
The article adds about archaeological discoveries in Samaria
“Samaria is unique in that it is the only known major city that was founded by the Israelites, and so its earliest
strata is easily identified as Iron Age II (9th century) Israelite. Because Samaria was built of stone instead of mud
brick, much of the ancient buildings were reused in later construction, leaving little of the ancient Israelite city
intact.
A royal citadel was found on the summit of the hill constructed of fine ashlar masonry (1 Kings 16:24). At a
Samaria section named Building Period I appears to be the citadel built by Omri, while Building Period II appears
to be a later expansion, possibly under Ahab. The Old Testament claims that six kings were buried in Samaria:
Omri, Ahab, Jehu, Jehoaz, Joash, and Jeroboam II. During excavations, two tombs were discovered under the
Omride palace at Samaria. Tomb A was made at the same time that the palace was built, while Tomb B was
made either at the same time or slightly later. It has been recently suggested that these tombs were built for Omri
and Ahab. Omri and Ahab were both famous and powerful kings of the Northern Israelite Kingdom. Both are
mentioned on steles and inscriptions of foreign powers. For example, the Mesha Stele (or Moabite Stone) records
Omri and his conquest and submission of Moab (cf. 2 Kings 3:5), while the Khurk Stele records the contribution of
Ahab’s army in the battle of Qarqar.” [5]
Then, it added the additional archaeological discoveries that proved the level of prosperity in the days of Ahab
“At Samaria, Ahab expanded the palace and decorated it with ivory (1 Kings 22:39). Excavations revealed many
ivory items from Ahab’s palace in a building dubbed “the ivory house,” where many fragments of carved ivory
plaques were found. These are often called the “Samaria Ivories.”
A group of 64 ostraca inscribed in archaic Hebrew, found in the treasury of Ahab’s palace, probably date to the
reign of Jeroboam II (ca. 785-753 B.C.), or Menahem (752-742 B.C.). The ostraca appear to be receipts of goods
such as wine and oil, and many being with the line “In the xxx year,” presumably of a king’s reign, and include the
names of the taxpayers and royal officials. Some scholars argue that the numbers on the ostraca only bear the
regnal year numbers 9 and 10, and since Menahem ruled only 10 years and heavily taxed his subjects to pay the
Assyrian tribute, that they date to his reign (2 Kings 15:19-20).” [6]
These reports tell me that I am reading real history of real people and real places. It affirms once again the
authenticity and veracity of the Bible record when the archaeological data is available.
Elijah has lived in Zarephath with the widow and his son all these years of the drought. The time has now come to
return to Israel and meet wicked king Ahab in his capital city of Samaria. The Bible continues
“Meanwhile, Aʹhab called O·ba·diʹah, who was over the household. (Now O·ba·diʹah greatly feared Jehovah, and
when Jezʹe·bel was doing away with Jehovah’s prophets, O·ba·diʹah took 100 prophets and hid them 50 to a cave,
and he supplied them with bread and water.) Aʹhab then said to O·ba·diʹah: “Go through the land to all the springs
of water and to all the valleys. Perhaps we can find enough grass to keep the horses and mules alive and not
have all our animals die.” So they divided between themselves the land they were going to pass through. Aʹhab
went alone by one way, and O·ba·diʹah went alone by another way.” (18:3-6)
140 | P a g e
This brief report tells me many things. Ahab was concerned with his horses and mules if they can still find some
grass in the land due to the drought. The Bible does not detail if these horses are for military purposes or
otherwise. But if it were, Ahab maintains chariots in his army and he needs these horses. That he has these
horses and mules speaks of Ahab’s prosperity.
Second, it adds some detail about the wife of Ahab. She was not just a Baal-worshiping queen. She does not like
competition. Those who would not take up her state religion, she would do away and Jehovah’s worshipers are
her target. Jehovah God must be furious over this queen for blatantly persecuting the worshipers of the true God
and who wanted to stay loyal to Him.
Third, the Bible introduces a new personality to me – Obadiah. This is all the Bible presents about Obadiah, his
faith in Jehovah, and his love for his fellow loyal worshipers. They stand out to me from the page because he is so
unlike his master king Ahab who has left Jehovah God. It must have been a difficult job to serve a wicked king
and worship the true God during this time. But God took noticed and inspired the Bible writer to put that in the
Bible. What does that tell me again about Jehovah God, of the attention He gives to those who are faithful to Him
and what they do for Him? What does that tell me about Obadiah serving the true God in an environment of
wickedness, without the temple and the Levites to serve their spiritual need?
The setting is now in place for the return of the prophet Elijah.
References
[1] “He Watched, and He Waited“, The Watchtower, April 1, 2008, p. 17.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Lyons, Eric. “Elijah and the Drought”, The Apologetics Press online article. Available (online).
[4] “Samaria”, All About Archaeology blog article. Available (online).
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
141 | P a g e
As Christians, the Lord Jesus expects us to be actively showing love for one another, not just to a select few, but
for one another. This love should be trained not to be partial but to be sensitive toward those we have shown less
love due to whatever distance they have with us, be that physical, emotional, or economic status. In fact, such
love is modeled after the Lord’s self-sacrificing love, to the point he puts himself at risk for others. This is exactly
what came to mind upon reading the example of Obadiah.
In the previous example, the Biblical narrator has told us that Obadiah has put himself at risk trying to save fellow
loyal worshipers of Jehovah God. In this installment, the Biblical narrator gave Obadiah the dialogue to say this
himself
“As O·ba·diʹah was on his way, E·liʹjah was there to meet him. At once he recognized him and fell facedown and
said: “Is this you, my lord E·liʹjah?” He replied to him: “It is I. Go and tell your lord: ‘E·liʹjah is here.’” But he said:
“What sin have I committed that you should hand your servant over to Aʹhab to put me to death? As surely as
Jehovah your God is living, there is not a nation or a kingdom where my lord has not sent to look for you. After
they said, ‘He is not here,’ he made the kingdom and the nation swear that they could not find you. Now you are
saying, ‘Go and tell your lord: “E·liʹjah is here.”’” (18: 7-11)
In the first part of the dialogue, Obadiah is the first to speak in his chance encounter with the prophet. He calls the
prophet, “my lord Elijah”. In this exchange, I find the parallel story of Elijah while he was in Cherith valley and then
later moved on to Zarephath. Wicked king Ahab has tried to look for him inside and outside Israel, making people
swear that they did not really find him. Obadiah is afraid that Elijah must just disappear all over again.
In the second portion of his dialogue, he now discloses what he had done for other servants of Jehovah God
“
When I depart from you, the spirit of Jehovah will carry you away to a place I will not know, and when I tell Aʹhab
and he does not find you, he will surely kill me. Yet, your servant has feared Jehovah from his youth. Has my lord
not been told what I did when Jezʹe·bel was killing the prophets of Jehovah, how I hid 100 of the prophets of
Jehovah by groups of 50 in a cave and kept supplying them bread and water? But now you are saying, ‘Go and
tell your lord: “E·liʹjah is here.”’ He will certainly kill me.” 15 However, E·liʹjah said: “As surely as Jehovah of armies
whom I serve is living, today I will present myself to him.”” (18: 12-14)
He reports the following to Elijah
 The queen has been killing Jehovah’s loyal servants

 His hiding 100 of the prophets by groups of 50
 He also supplied them food and water at a time of drought
Jehovah must have been blessing the love of Obadiah for true worship that God was able to use him to support
the other prophets at a time of drought just as Elijah was provided for by God himself. Obadiah was certainly loyal
to God and to his brorhers not letting them suffer. After being reassured by Elijah that he will not go away, the
Bible relates
So O·ba·diʹah went off to meet Aʹhab and told him, and Aʹhab went to meet E·liʹjah.” (18:16)
“
The narrative ends here with Obadiah. I could imitate the faith of Obadiah. With self-sacrificing love, I can work to
secure others, help provide for their material needs, motivated by love for God and fellowmen. I am sure the
prophets were inspired by Jehovah Gods use of their fellow servants. At times of distress Christians need the love
and concern of their fellow Christians.
Now the next installment bring us to the climax of the narrative – the meeting of the prophet Elijah and the wicked
king.
142 | P a g e

This is one of the many dramatic confrontations recorded in the Bible. It parallels the appearance of Moses to
Pharaoh after returning from exile in Midian. In that first dramatic confrontation recorded in the Bible between
God’s representative and a tyrant, Jehovah God acted to prove to this arrogant tyrant who considered himself a
god, a son of a sun-god Ra, that He alone is the true God. All the gods of Egypt failed Pharaoh. Pharaoh, himself
a god, failed the Egyptian people. Contemporary critics are hard at work to discredit this record and to reduce the
narrative to myth-making. In effect, these critics are trying to prove the opposite – that Jehovah is not the true God
but an invention of the Jewish mind.
In this narrative, the godship of Jehovah is again at stake. Despite being the declared Sovereign in the covenant
law where Israelites willingly allow themselves to be put under, hundreds of years ago, at the present time
Israelites chose to promote other gods. Jehovah God considered that as treachery per the covenant law. This is
an important reflection point. There is a serious consequence from Jehovah for those who are exposed as liars
and promoters of false gods.
The part of this narrative opened this way when Ahab and Elijah finally met again
As soon as Aʹhab saw E·liʹjah, he said to him: “Is this you, the one bringing great trouble on Israel?”” (18:17)
“
Perhaps Ahab felt that since there was material prosperity in the kingdom and relative peace, why would
someonel like Elijah disrupt it by calling for a drought, a seemingly uncalled for curse? Elijah pointed to the real
source of the “great trouble”
“
To this he said: “I have not brought trouble on Israel, but you and the house of your father have, by abandoning
the commandments of Jehovah and by following the Baʹals.” (18:18)
Disloyalty and treachery were the sins of the house of Omri. These are sins against not just their Sovereign but
against the true God. Jehovah God has called for a confrontation, a challenge against Ahab’s false gods. This is
the only time in the Bible that I know of that the true God has called for such a challenge. The Bible reports
“
And now summon all Israel to me at Mount Carʹmel, as well as the 450 prophets of Baʹal and the 400 prophets of
the sacred pole, who are eating at the table of Jezʹe·bel.” So Aʹhab sent word among all the people of Israel and
collected the prophets together at Mount Carʹmel.” (18: 19, 20)
That is like some sort of reunion for all the worshipers of the false gods, 840 of its key promoters at the mountain
of Carmel near the Mediterranean coast. I can imagine the commotion of all these false prophets coming up to the
mountain at the spot chosen by Elijah. Once everyone has assembled in the chosen spot, the prophet Elijah was
looking at the crowd around him. At one side, the false prophets of Baal. At one side, the Israelites who chose to
promote these false prophets and their false gods. Elijah finally spoke to them all
“
Then E·liʹjah approached all the people and said: “How long will you be limping between two different opinions? If
Jehovah is the true God, follow him; but if Baʹal is, follow him!” (18:21a)
That would have been a no-brainer. Of course, Jehovah is the true God and not Baal. But for the Israelites who
grew up promoting the false gods, how did they answer? The Bible reports
“But the people did not say a word in answer to him.” (18:21b)
Jehovah must be exercise super patience with this people who have clearly violated the requirements of the
covenant law regarding loyalty and exclusive devotion to Him. The prophet now started to describe the mechanics
of the challenge
“
E·liʹjah then said to the people: “I am the only prophet of Jehovah left, while the prophets of Baʹal are 450 men.
Let them give us two young bulls, and let them choose one young bull and cut it into pieces and put it on the wood,
but they should not put fire to it. I will prepare the other young bull, and I will place it on the wood, but I will not put
fire to it.” (18: 22,23)
143 | P a g e
Two altars, one bull each to be cut into pieces and put in the altar, for it to burn on the altar. The only restriction
was the bull should burn on the altar without putting fire to it. One publication has a footnote to this restriction. The
footnote says
“Notably, Elijah told them: “You must not put fire to” the sacrifice. Some scholars say that such idolaters
sometimes used altars with a secret cavity beneath so that a fire could appear to be lit supernaturally.” [1]
Critics who promote the idea of evolution of religion explain that this contest is a contest of gods and who will turn
out to be a supreme God. These critics know that the Canaanite religion teach that there are many gods. In the
Canaanite mythology, the gods fought each other and one later would become supreme and this is Baal. This
mythology, apparently, was later absorbed by the Greeks with their own version of gods and goddesses. One
article correctly made the statement the narrative itself does not present such an idea
“The second point to make is that the individuals who were faithful to the covenant only worshiped YHWH. 1
Kings 18:19 says, “Now then send and gather to me all Israel at Mount Carmel, together with 450 prophets of
Baal and 400 prophets of the Asherah, who eat at Jezebel’s table” (NASB). After Elijah said those words, he
proceeded to challenge the prophets saying “If YHWH is God then follow Him; but if Baal, follow him” (18:21:
NASB). The story continues to show that even with Elijah setting odds against YHWH, YHWH prevailed. House
mentions in his commentary, “Despite what some scholars argue, Elijah does not accept the existence of many
gods, thinking only that Yahweh is the strongest.” House is saying that Elijah wasn’t making a statement of who’s
God is best. He was making of statement of who believes the One True God, and that there are no other gods in
existence.” [2]
How will the sacrifice of the bull be accomplished if there were no fire? Elijah continues the mechanics
“
Then you must call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of Jehovah. The God who answers by
fire will show that he is the true God.” To this all the people answered: “What you say is good.”” (18: 24)
Here is an important point many Bible readers today are not aware or conscious of. The false god worshiped by
the false prophets has a name – Baal. The true God himself also has a name. It is not God or Lord, for these are
titles. Elijah said that he will call on the name of Jehovah. In the original Hebrew Bible, that name “Jehovah” was
written as the equivalent of the English YHWH. So, God has a name and when translated in English, it is Jehovah.
In Hebrew, as in some Bibles, God’s name appears as Yahweh. One can easily see the four letters – YaHWeH. It
is noteworthy that the name YHWH appeared nearly 7,000 times in the Bible compared to the word ‘Lord’
appearing only about 400 times and the word ‘God’ referring to Jehovah as less than a hundred.
In the next installment, the narrative will feature the humiliation of the false prophets for calling on their non-god
Baal.
References
[1] “He Stood Up for Pure Worship”, Imitate Their Faith, Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 87.
[2] Mitchell, Josh. “Goddess Worship”, in requirement of the course Old Testament Survey 1, taught by Doctor
Branch, November 13, 2012.
144 | P a g e

Jehovah God once proved to the arrogant Pharaoh of Egypt that there is only one true God. The Egyptian
Pharaoh consider themselves as son of their god Ra. But he was humiliated in the Red Sea. This time around
Jehovah God will prove himself one more time in front of Baal worshiping Canaanites. God promises that He will
do this one more time at the end of the last days of all evil.
How the account is read and understood has caught excitement among scholars of various influences. One paper
wrote about the narratives of the prophet Elijah and Kings
“Few cycles of stories in the Old Testament have aroused more interest in recent decades from the great scholars
in the field as have those concerning the prophet Elijah in the book of First Kings. Not only are these narratives
highly attractive in their own right, but they open a vista upon a variety of important literary, historical, and
theological problems. The apparent ability of scholars to read these stories from a variety of different angles has
only increased the challenge for each new generation to seek a fresh insight from renewed study.” [1]
How does new knowledge in various fields help enlighten Bible reading and increase comprehension? This same
article wrote
“Still it is equally naive to welcome the new knowledge with such uncritical enthusiasm as not to see the serious
problems posed by an abundance of new information. It is simply not the case that the more historical and literary
knowledge acquired, the better one is able to understand the biblical text. One can end up with a confused and
distorted picture much like a malfunctioning television set. Rather, the issue turns on the use of proper
discernment. How does one wisely use historical-critical tools in illuminating the canonical text?” [2]
As I have seen in past reflections, the multiplicity of scholarly theories which contradict each other do not
contribute to the understanding of the Bible but rather the contemporary scholars are so set to promote their own
ideas as theories as the superior explanation of the Bible. However, this paper presents an accurate summary of
the issue at hand with the Bible narrative I am following. It wrote
“Significantly, although the biblical account is formulated in theological terms, it dovetails well with the historical
situation of the Northern Kingdom in the ninth century which critical scholarship has reconstructed. The nature of
religious syncretism was not to exclude Yahweh—except in the mind of a fanatic like Jezebel—but rather to fuse
the old and the new. This inclusive attitude, however, offered an impossible compromise for the monotheism of
Elijah.” [3]
The exciting moment has finally arrived for the prophet Elijah. The contest to prove who is the true God will now
commence. The Bible reports
“E·liʹjah now said to the prophets of Baʹal: “Choose one young bull and prepare it first, because you are the
majority. Then call on the name of your god, but you must not put fire to it.” So they took the young bull that was
given to them, prepared it, and kept calling on the name of Baʹal from morning until noon, saying: “O Baʹal,
answer us!” But there was no voice and no one answering. They kept limping around the altar that they had
made.” (18: 25, 26)
That must be the loneliest moment for the false god worshipers - “no one was answering”. Atheists would have a
field day celebrating watching these false god worshipers. Regarding their “limping around the altar”, the Bible-
based encyclopedia reports
“The worship of Baal was associated with wild, unrestrained dances. In Elijah’s time there was such a display by
the priests of Baal who, in the course of the demonic dance, lacerated themselves with knives as they kept
“limping around” the altar. (1Ki 18:26-29) Other translations say they “performed a limping dance” (AT), “danced
in halting wise” (JP), “performed their hobbling dance” (JB). On making the golden calf, the Israelites also
indulged in a form of pagan dancing before their idol, thus meriting Jehovah’s condemnation.—Ex 32:6, 17-19.” [4]
145 | P a g e
“About noon E·liʹjah began to mock them and say: “Call out at the top of your voice! After all, he is a god! Perhaps
he is deep in thought or he has gone to relieve himself. Or maybe he is asleep and someone needs to wake him
up!” (18: 27)
Those words were fit for atheists to say and mock the non-god worshipers. But this is Elijah the prophet of the
true God. He was exposing to the crowd of Israelites what kind of god they had put their trust in who cannot be
expected to respond for a call for aid to him.
There is a significance here that was caught by an article I already quoted in this reflection which I already echoed
in the previous reflection. Some scholars are claiming that Jehovah or as He is known in Hebrew, Yahweh, is one
of the gods of the Canaanites. In their view this contest is to demonstrate who is the mightiest god of all. This
paper rightly expressed those scholars are wrong and the mockery of Elijah drove home that point. The paper
wrote
“Notice again how the biblical writer portrays Elijah's mockery: "cry aloud, maybe your god is in deep reflection, is
visiting the privy,is on a journey, or fallen asleep." Does it really help to understand this idiom to recover the
historical facts surrounding Baal Melqart, or is this sarcasm completely from the Hebrew point of view? Actually
this is not really a contest between two gods. Elijah does not believe that Baal is a god at all. The confrontation is
between Yahweh, God of Israel, and a sheer delusion.” [5]
Meanwhile as Elijah mocks them, the Bible reported something strange that they did on themselves
“They were calling out at the top of their voice and cutting themselves with daggers and lances, according to their
custom, until their blood gushed out all over them.” (18: 28)
“Inflicting lacerations upon the flesh, however, was not limited to mourning rites. In the hope of having their god
answer their appeals, the prophets of Baal cut themselves “according to their custom with daggers and with
lances, until they caused blood to flow out upon them.” (1Ki 18:28) Similar rites were engaged in by other ancient
peoples. For example, Herodotus (II, 61) mentions that during the festival of Isis, the Carians residing in Egypt cut
their foreheads with knives.” [6]
It is truly a sad day of the worshipers of a non-god. The Bible narratives ends their portion to demonstrate the
power of their god Baal
“Noon was past and they continued in a frenzy until the time the evening grain offering is presented, but there was
no voice and no one answering; no one was paying attention.” (18:29)
The lie was finally exposed before all Israel despite being given a chance to call on their god for a whole day.
References
[1] Childs, Brevards. “On Reading the Elijah Narratives”, Yale Divinity School, p. 128.
[2] Ibid., p. 129.
[3] Ibid., p. 130.
[4] Dancing. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 575.
[5] Childs, Brevards. “On Reading the Elijah Narratives”, Yale Divinity School, p. 132.
[6] Cuttings. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 563.
146 | P a g e

Today, atheists demand proof that God exists. Bertrand Russel, a popular brilliant British mathematician and
philosopher, who is publicly known as an atheist, wrote in his article “Why I Am Not A Christian”
“It’s a most astonishing thing … that this world with all …. its defects, should be the best that omnipotence and
omniscience have been able to produce in millions of years. Do you think that if you were granted omnipotence
and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the
KKK or the Fascists?” [1]
This tells me that Russell did not bother to read the Bible and to argue against the story offered in it. If he did he
would have understood that God’s sovereignty was challenged in the beginning by the first humans. God allowed
humans to experiment in governance so that the case can be demonstrated that it was a hurtful challenge against
God and against the future offspring of humans. God knew human governance will fail and His sovereignty will be
vindicated.
Why is the world full of trouble today? It was the direct result of human choice to be independent of God at the
prodding of God’s chief enemy, his former angel, turned Satan the Devil. Today, the Bible describes our world this
way
“The whole world is under the control of the evil one.” (1 John 5:19)
Remember the song “He’s Got the Whole World in His Hands”? It’s not true. God has allowed the world to be
controlled by His enemy because of the issue over God’s sovereignty. The failures of human governments and
the unending global crisis shows that it was a wrong move to separate from God and his sovereignty.
But God has been preparing for this transition back to His sovereignty. He has unfolded a series of milestone
covenants that prepared the way for the arrival of the Messiah who God will use to restore His sovereignty on the
earth. The last book of the Bible announces this
“The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will reign for ever and
ever.” (Revelation 11:15)
So, what was deemed by religious teachers as the mystery of suffering and is beyond logic is actually
understandable by ordinary men. God has a reason for allowing humans to suffer and is directly attributable to
their choice to separate from Him and His sovereignty. But that is changing soon as the Bible announced.
Antony Flew, once a champion of atheism, wrote the book “The Presumption of Atheism” where he explained the
title
“What I want to examine is the contention that the debate about the existence of God should properly begin from
the presumption of atheism [innocent until proven guilty, mine], that the onus of proof must lie upon the theist
[god-believer, mine].”
But why has Flew turned around to produce later a book with the title “There is A God”. In the illustration of the
cover of the book, the word “A” was superimposed on the word ‘No’. What convinced Flew to abandon atheism?
He wrote in his book
“It has had no connection with any of the revealed religions. Nor do I claim to have had any personal experience
of God or any experience that may be called supernatural or miraculous. In short, my discovery of the Divine has
been a pilgrimage of reason and not of faith.” [2]
I would like to quote one of the several lines of thought that he has disclosed
147 | P a g e
“The important point is not merely that there are regularities in nature, but that these regularities are
mathematically precise, universal, and “tied together.” Einstein spoke of them as “reason incarnate.” The question
we should ask is how nature came packaged in this fashion. This is certainly the question that scientists from
Newton to Einstein to Heisenberg have asked—and answered. Their answer was the Mind of God.” [3]
Then, he went on to say that in addition to Einstein, other great scientists thought the same way including Max
Planck, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrodinger, and Paul Dirac. How about the atheistic scientists who
confidently claim that life evolved and God is not needed? Flew quoted on his book one such scientist Andy Knoll
“We don’t know how life started on this planet. We don’t know how exactly when it started, we don’t know under
what circumstances.” [4]
Flew ended his book positively this way
“Some claim to have made contact with this Mind. I have not-yet. But who knows what could happen next?” [5]
The narrative I am reading in the book of Kings is told in very simple way but it affirms an important truth- that
Jehovah God is the true God. He exists and demands loyalty from His worshipers. I am now returning to that story
“At length E·liʹjah said to all the people: “Approach me.” So all the people approached him. Then he repaired the
altar of Jehovah that had been torn down. E·liʹjah then took 12 stones, corresponding to the number of the tribes
of the sons of Jacob, to whom Jehovah’s word had come, saying: “Israel will be your name.” With the stones he
built an altar in the name of Jehovah. Then he made a trench all around the altar, an area large enough to sow
with two seah measures of seed. After that he put the pieces of wood in order, cut the young bull into pieces, and
placed it on the wood. He now said: “Fill four large jars with water and pour it on the burnt offering and on the
pieces of wood.”” (18:30-33)
What is significant about the details of Elijah’s preparation after the failure of the Baal prophets? The Bible-based
encyclopedia Insight comments on the source of the water during a time of drought
“Afterward, the bull, the altar, and the wood were thoroughly soaked with water, and the trench was filled with
water (no doubt seawater obtained from the Mediterranean Sea)” [6]
Why is this significant? A Bible-based publication explains
“In some cases the omission of certain details only adds to the credibility of the Bible writer. For example, the
writer of 1 Kings tells of a severe drought in Israel. It was so severe that the king could not find enough water and
grass to keep his horses and mules alive. (1 Kings 17:7; 18:5) Yet, the same account reports that the prophet
Elijah ordered enough water to be brought to him on Mount Carmel (for use in connection with a sacrifice) to fill a
trench circumscribing an area of perhaps 10,000 square feet [1,000 sq m]. (1 Kings 18:33-35) In the midst of the
drought, where did all the water come from? The writer of 1 Kings did not trouble himself to explain. However,
anyone living in Israel knew that Carmel was on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, as an incidental remark later
in the narrative indicates. (1 Kings 18:43) Thus, seawater would have been readily available. If this otherwise
detailed book were merely fiction masquerading as fact, why would its writer, who in that case would be a clever
forger, have left such an apparent difficulty in the text?” [7]
To make the sacrifice more dramatic, Elijah gave the following instructions
“Then he said: “Do it again.” So they did it again. Once more he said: “Do it a third time.” So they did it a third time.
And the water ran all around the altar, and he also filled the trench with water.” (18: 34, 35)
The Baal prophets and the crowd of Israel in the mountain must be wondering that if the Baal prophets with their
dry altar were unable to burn with fire their sacrifice, how could Elijah do so now with the altar drenched in water?
The answer lies in the next development
“About the time when the evening grain offering is presented, E·liʹjah the prophet stepped forward and said: “O
Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, today let it be known that you are God in Israel and that I am
148 | P a g e
your servant and that it is by your word that I have done all these things. Answer me, O Jehovah! Answer me so
that this people may know that you, Jehovah, are the true God and that you are turning their hearts back to you.””
(18: 36-37)
It was already evening. Darkness must have covered the surrounding. In this darkness, a miracle fire would be
completely visible in the darkness! Elijah recited a brief but very meaningful prayer. He communicated the
following for Israel to hear
1) Jehovah has been their God since the days of the patriarchs
2) Request for Jehovah to demonstrate that He is God in Israel
3) Affirm that Elijah is his messenger to Israel
4) Repeats his first request in a dramatic way, repeating twice his request
5) Show that Jehovah God wanted to turn Israel’s heart back to him after being misled by their leaders
Then, the dramatic moment finally came amidst the darkness of the evening
“At that the fire of Jehovah fell from above and consumed the burnt offering, the pieces of wood, the stones, and
the dust, and it licked up the water from the trench.” (18: 38)
The fire from above appeared and it burnt everything. How did Israel react after witnessing the miracle? The Bible
relates
“When all the people saw it, they immediately fell facedown and said: “Jehovah is the true God! Jehovah is the
true God!” Then E·liʹjah said to them: “Seize the prophets of Baʹal! Do not let a single one of them escape!” At
once they seized them, and E·liʹjah brought them down to the stream of Kiʹshon and slaughtered them there.” (18:
39, 40)
As demanded by the covenant law, the false worshipers of the non-god Baal were killed, all 850 of them, with
their blood mixing in with the waters of the stream of Kishon.
Today, with the complete Bible in our hands, Jehovah God’s message to us in modern times is coherent with His
messages from ancient times. God plans to do this dramatic affirmation of His existence and Godship again when
He exercises His sovereignty again on the Earth. The Son of God taught all Bible readers to look for that day
when he taught in prayer, “Thy kingdom come.”
References
[1] Russel, Bertrand. “Why I Am Not A Christian”, 1927.

[2] Flew, Antony. There is A God- How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind, HarperCollins
ebook, 2007, p. 93.
[3] Ibid., p. 96.
[4] Ibid., p. 130.
[5] Ibid., p. 158.
[6] “Elijah Exalts the True God”, The Watchtower, January 1, 1998, p. 31.
[7] “Can This Book Be Trusted?”, Book for All, Jehovah’s WItnesses, 2006, p. 17.
149 | P a g e

It was a dramatic affirmation by Jehovah God that He alone is the true God and the Baals worshiped by the
Israelites were non-gods. The demonstration was quick, decisive, and thorough versus the whole day noise
created by the Baal worshipers for nothing. It achieved its desired effect of turning back the hearts of Israel to
Jehovah their God and declared Sovereign per the covenant law.
Atheists would like something like that happen today. That is why the Bible was written to record such events.
Despite the efforts of Bible critics to disparage the Bible, its authenticity remain intact. Archaeology has validated
many of the personalities and events in the Bible all the way back to King David. That is amazing given that I am
talking about a personality who lived 3,000 years ago. Interestingly although archaeology has not found
somebody that says he is Abraham and his wife is Sarah and that they have a son called Isaac, but these names
are already in use and popular in the time these very same people lived. The culture, customs and practices
mentioned in Genesis are attested to by ancient documents written in stone tablets.
That is why someone who professes to believe in God should find time to read, study and reflect on the Bible. It is
the only book Jehovah God produced to introduce Himself to humankind. Modern man has been using powerful
radios focused on distant galaxies hoping to pick up some extra-terrestrial life out there. Well, God has sent his
messages down to the earth and was written in a book, in a style that is so easy to read.
But, I am now going back to the narrative to discover how did all this affect Israel’s wicked king Ahab? Ahab did
not interfere with the killing of the 850 false prophets of Baal in the river Kishon. The Bible continues the narrative
“E·liʹjah now said to Aʹhab: “Go up, eat and drink, for there is the sound of a heavy downpour.” So Aʹhab went up
to eat and drink, while E·liʹjah went up to the top of Carʹmel and crouched on the ground, keeping his face
between his knees.” (18: 41, 42)
When Elijah first met Ahab, he told him that there will be no rain unless he said so. More than three years later,
Elijah is announcing the arrival of rain. Ahab agreed to do just as Elijah bid him. Its probably dinner time. What is
Elijah going to do to the top of Mount Carmel? The Bible relates
“Then he said to his attendant: “Go up, please, and look toward the sea.” So he went up and looked and said:
“There is nothing at all.” Seven times E·liʹjah said, “Go back.” The seventh time his attendant said: “Look! There is
a small cloud like a man’s hand ascending out of the sea.” “ (18: 43, 44a)
Elijah was praying for the rain. He knew that Jehovah God would listened to him. God’s response was not
immediate. It took Elijah 7 times to send his attendant to look toward the sea. Did Elijah knew if God was going to
listen to him? He knew God would listened. But he was patient, waiting for God’s time to act. He was not puzzled
by the apparent delay.
Now that he is sure that the rain has come, he instructed his attendant to send Ahab away before the downpour
arrives.
“He now said: “Go, say to Aʹhab, ‘Hitch up the chariot! Go down so that the downpour may not detain
you!’” Meanwhile, the sky grew dark with clouds, the wind blew, and a heavy downpour fell; and Aʹhab kept riding
and made his way to Jezreel. But the hand of Jehovah came on Eliʹjah, and he wrapped his garment around his
hips and ran ahead of Aʹhab all the way to Jezreel.” (18: 44b-46)
Jehovah has listened to his prophet and the downpour came. Ahab rode his chariot and went back to Jezreel.
What about Elijah? The report said that he ran ahead on foot of Ahab who was riding on a chariot. God gave the
prophet super energy to burn to run at that speed, faster than horses. How far was the distance that Elijah ran
and in the rain at that when the road is slippery? The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight comments
“From here Elijah ran at least 30 km (19 mi) to Jezreel, by Jehovah’s help outpacing Ahab’s chariot all the way.—
1Ki 18:46.” [1]
150 | P a g e
Elijah may not be as strong as Samson but God’s power made him run faster than horses on soil drenched by a
downpour. This episode is so dramatic that in the New Testament it is recalled as a powerful example that God
listens to prayers. The disciple James wrote
“E·liʹjah was a man with feelings like ours, and yet when he prayed earnestly for it not to rain, it did not rain on the
land for three years and six months. Then he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain and the land produced
fruit.” (James 5:17, 18)
What more could an Israelite ask for to prove to himself that Jehovah is the true God and He alone? Fire and rain
in one day after a long drought.
God’s interactions with several personalities in the life of Elijah has given me insights about the kind of God
Jehovah is. There is Ahab, the widow of Zarephath, Obadiah, and of course Elijah. It has taught me that Jehovah
is a God who pays attentions, who cares, and is able and willing to support and provide for those loyal to Him in
times of need.
In the next installment, I am about to discover something gentle about Jehovah God.
References
[1] Carmel. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 420.
151 | P a g e

Critics of the Bible, including bible literary scholars who read the narratives from a human standpoint, accuse the
Bible as using double-standards while at the same time convinced that the narratives are mythical. This is how
these critics view the opposite characters of the prophet Elijah and queen Jezebel. They claim that it is OK for
Elijah to slaughter 850 Baal worshipers but it is not OK for Jezebel to do the same. They claim that from a
character portrayal standpoint, Elijah and Jezebel are the same except Jezebel is designed to lose in a story-
telling where Jehovah is the only God.
Instead of espousing plurality of culture and tolerance for other beliefs, Elijah is presented as intolerant and as
vicious as Jezebel can be. The king of Israel is apparently beholden to the queen who is presented as the power
behind the throne. Very few women are given a voice in biblical narratives these scholars claimed. Jezebel is one
of those women. But is this a fair appraisal by the critics who are for tolerance for various religious beliefs in Israel?
I will consider the development of the narrative and what these scholars are saying first. The Bible reveals the
next development
“Then Aʹhab told Jezʹe·bel all that E·liʹjah had done and how he had killed all the prophets with the sword.” (19:1)
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight comments on this reaction from Ahab
“When Ahab reached his palace in Jezreel, did he give any evidence of being a changed, more spiritual man? We
read: “Ahab told Jezebel all that Elijah had done and all about how he had killed all the prophets with the sword.”
(1 Kings 19:1) Notice that Ahab’s account of the day’s events left out Elijah’s God, Jehovah. A fleshly man, Ahab
saw the day’s miraculous events in strictly human terms—what “Elijah had done.” Clearly, he had not learned to
respect Jehovah God.” [1]
That is interesting. The miraculous event apparently did not impress Ahab. The failure of the Baal prophets to call
on their god to respond did not disturb Ahab. Ahab looks like that he is not interested in religion. But what thing
that he was interested on is reporting the outcome of Jezebel’s imported Baal worshipers to her. How did Jezebel
react? To me it seemed predictable. The Bible reports
”At that Jezʹe·bel sent a messenger to E·liʹjah, saying: “So may the gods do to me and add to it if by this time
tomorrow I do not make you like each one of them!” (19:2)
Biblical literary scholars’ reaction to their interpretation of Jezebel is a mixed bag. One interpretation is coming
from the feminist side, they being kinder to Jezebel in their analysis, thinking that the male writer of the story is
stacked up against Jezebel right at the outset. One such view is quoted below
“Yet there is much to admire in this ancient queen. In a kinder analysis, Jezebel emerges as a fiery and
determined person, with an intensity matched only by Elijah’s. She is true to her native religion and customs. She
is even more loyal to her husband. Throughout her reign, she boldly exercises what power she has. And in the
end, having lived her life on her own terms, Jezebel faces certain death with dignity.” [2]
What was missed out here by the feminist scholar? What kind of religion is she promoting with Baal and the
female Ashera with her “sacred post”? What kind of non-gods were she promoting in her stubborn, arrogant
ignorance? Jezebel is promoting polytheism where Baal, a male god, is worshiped alongside a goddess. This
goddess is represented in figurines as a nude female, sometimes pregnant, with exaggerated breasts she holds
out. In Canaanite mythology, she became the wife of one of the gods she gave birth to, Baal. In their mythology,
the sexual union of the mother-wife and her son-husband leads to good harvests.
Despite some scholars questioning this sexual practice of reflecting the conduct of the mythical gods known as
sacred prostitution, a recent study responded to affirm their existence. [3]
These very practices are condemned in the covenant law. Israel willingly entered to comply with the covenant law.
The covenant law demanded that there will be no other god than Jehovah God. Considering that Jehovah is the
152 | P a g e
true God, how can the true God tolerate the lie of the worship of a non-god like Baal and Asherah? How can the
introduction of a foreign worshiper like Jezebel not have known the demand from Israel’s God to worship only Him?
The true God Jehovah considers the promotion of other gods as treachery or treason. In today’s laws, treason
gets a death sentence. That is exactly what happened to the 850 worshipers of Baal.
How can one be sympathetic to Jezebel considering that the God of the Bible is the only true God? There is no
competition.
This other view is based on what the biblical text has presented
“Rice (1990:157) suggests that Ahab’s report to Jezebel in Verse 1 was a great opportunity for him to take a stand
for God. Instead, he passively yields to the desire of Jezebel for revenge, which is expressed by her vowing to
take Elijah’s life. Ahab reports to her, as though religious and political power is allocated to her. For the first time
the narrator assigns speech to Jezebel in Verse 2. This speech affirms the development of her character in the
narrative. The result of her threatening message to Elijah is his flight to Beer-Sheba in Judah. The role and
importance of her Canaanite gods are emphasised through the force of her words in Verse 2. The oath that she
utters, ‘May the gods deal with me, be it ever so severely...’, parallels Elijah’s first speech in Chapter 17:1. Here
Elijah and Jezebel are contrasted concerning their calling on their gods. Trible (1995:8) suggests that these
utterances share a genre but not a deity. They also share a theme but not the specificities.
The strength of Jezebel’s character is revealed through this narrative not as a positive trait but negatively. She is
shown to be fearless in her revenge and capable of extreme violence to attain her goal of establishing the worship
of Baal.” [4]
Insight comments on the anger of Jezebel

“She was furious! Livid with rage, she sent this message to Elijah: “So may the gods do, and so may they add to it,
if at this time tomorrow I shall not make your soul like the soul of each one of them!” (1 Kings 19:2) This was a
death threat of the worst kind. In effect, Jezebel was vowing that she herself should die if she could not have
Elijah killed within the day to avenge her Baal prophets. Imagine Elijah being awakened from sleep in some
humble lodging in Jezreel on that stormy night—only to hear the queen’s messenger deliver those awful words.”
[5]
How did this ugly development impacted Elijah and how did the true God dealt with it? That would be an
interesting reflection in itself.
References
[1] “He Took Comfort in His God”, The Watchtower, July 1, 2011, p. 18.
[2] Gaines, Janet Howe. “How Bad Was Jezebel?” Bible History Daily article, from Bible Archaeology Review blog
site.
[3] McCarthy, Carmel & Healey, John. Biblical & Near Eastern Essays, Studies in Honor of Kevin J. Cathcart, T&T
Clark International, 2004.
[4] Stark, S.G. & Van Deventer, Hans, 2009, “The ‘Jezebel spirit”: A scholarly inquiry”, Verbum et Ecclesia 30(2),
Article #301, 9 pages.
153 | P a g e

How does God deal with his imperfect human representatives when they suddenly fold up and abandon their
assignment? What can I learn about the way Jehovah God handled the apparent breakdown of His prophet Elijah
from a triumphant prophet at Mount Carmel to one sunk in fear and discouragement? Was God disappointed by
the turn of events? Is Elijah’s a case of depression? What can I learn from the way God dealt with Elijah? These
are my reflection notes.
The Bible describes Elijah’s reaction after getting the news of the death threat
“At that he became afraid, so he got up and ran for his life. He came to Beʹer-sheʹba, which belongs to Judah, and
he left his attendant there.” (19:3)
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight comments on Elijah’s reaction
“On being informed of the death of her Baal prophets, Queen Jezebel vows to have Elijah put to death. In fear
Elijah flees some 150 km (95 mi) southwestward to Beer-sheba, to the W of the lower Dead Sea. (MAP, Vol. 1,
p. 949)” [1]
Elijah left with his attendant. That was quite a distance. He would have been physically exhausted as he
journeyed across hills and mountains. He ran inside the territory of the kingdom of Judah. But his journey did not
stop there. The Bible continues
“He went a day’s journey into the wilderness and came and sat down under a broom tree, and he asked that he
might die. He said: “It is enough! Now, O Jehovah, take my life away, for I am no better than my forefathers.”
Then he lay down and fell asleep under the broom tree.” (19: 4,5)
Physically exhausted, emotionally drained, and alone, Elijah wished to die in a surrounding that is deserted. What
do these details tell us about what Elijah is going through? Regarding the mentioned “broom tree”, Insight
comments about this tree
“When Elijah fled into the wilderness to escape Jezebel’s wrath, the record at 1 Kings 19:4, 5 says, he “sat down
under a certain broom tree” and then slept there. While the smaller broom trees would provide very scant shade
from the burning sun of the wilderness, one of good size could give welcome relief. This desert bush also served
as fuel. The wood of the broom tree makes excellent charcoal, which burns with an intense heat.” [2]
Elijah must have been very tired that he fell asleep. What happens next? The Bible narrates
“But suddenly an angel touched him and said to him: “Get up and eat.” When he looked, there at his head was a
round loaf on heated stones and a jug of water. He ate and drank and lay down again.” (19: 5b,6)
What has Jehovah God done in behalf of Elijah? Does God scold Elijah for running away? Is this a case of
depression with details of the disorder coming out? Jehovah God arranged that bread and water be prepared for
the prophet. Regarding preparing the bread, Insight comments on the “round loaf on heated stones”
“Bread was generally baked in ovens in Bible times. (See OVEN.) Occasionally, however, baking was done by
kindling a fire on stones that had been laid together. When they were well heated, the cinders were swept aside
and dough was placed on the stones. After a while, the cake was turned and then left on the stones until the
bread was thoroughly baked. (Ho 7:8) Travelers might bake coarse bread in a shallow pit filled with hot pebbles,
upon which a fire had been built. After the embers were removed, dough was laid on the heated stones, perhaps
being turned several times while the bread was baking.—1Ki 19:6.” [3]
So, the angel knew how to prepare a hot bread and it was still on heated stones when Elijah woke up. There was
even water jug to quench Elijah’s thirst. That was kind of God to send his angel to kind of baby-sit Elijah who was
exhausted for running away for his life. I noticed that Elijah did not think of thanking the angel for his kindness. He
just went back and slept again. Could this be a case of hypersomnia?
154 | P a g e
The angel prepared food for Elijah brushing aside the lack of thankfulness of Elijah the first time. He has even
comforting words
“Later the angel of Jehovah came back a second time and touched him and said: “Get up and eat, for the journey
will be too much for you.” So he got up and ate and drank, and in the strength of that nourishment he went on for
40 days and 40 nights until he reached Hoʹreb, the mountain of the true God.” (19:7,8)
The angel apparently knew where Elijah was heading, encouraging him to eat some more. A Bible-based
publication offers some comments
“How do you think Jehovah felt as he looked down from heaven and saw his beloved prophet lying under that tree
in the wilderness and begging for death to take him? We do not have to guess. After Elijah sank into sleep,
Jehovah sent an angel to him. The angel gently woke Elijah with a touch and said: “Rise up, eat.” Elijah did so, for
the angel had kindly set out a simple meal of fresh, warm bread and water for him. Did he even thank the angel?
The record says only that the prophet ate and drank and went back to sleep. Was he too despondent to speak?
At any rate, the angel woke him a second time, perhaps at dawn. Once more, he urged Elijah, “Rise up, eat,” and
he added these remarkable words, “for the journey is too much for you.”—1 Kings 19:5-7.
Thanks to God-given insight, the angel knew where Elijah was headed. He also knew that the journey would be
too much for Elijah to carry out in his own strength. What a comfort to serve a God who knows our goals and our
limitations better than we do! (Psalm 103:13, 14)” [4]
Other scholars noted that Elijah had an episode of depression. But how does the medical field describe
depression? One medical paper describes it this way
“The psychiatric nomenclature emphasizes this core experience [referring to burn out or grieving] and several
additional symptoms. Depressed mood or dysphoria is the primary feature of major depressive disorder (MDD),
the most common depressive diagnosis. In addition to this core experience, there are several other symptoms of
MDD, including loss of interest in activities, sleep and appetite changes, guilt and hopelessness, fatigue,
restlessness, concentration problems, and suicidal ideation. As discussed in detail below, the medical model
holds that this constellation of symptoms represents a syndrome, but complexity is immediately introduced
because the presence and nature of these symptoms vary considerably across clients (Líndal & Stefánsson,
1991). For example, some clients experience vegetative symptoms of depression (decreased appetite and
insomnia) whereas, less commonly, others experience reversed vegetative symptoms of increased appetite and
hypersomnia. Similarly, psychomotor retardation is more common and agitation is less common, and both may be
demonstrated by the same individual at different times.” [5]
An Old Testament scholar describes the case of Elijah as depression
“When Elijah heard about Jezebel’s threat, he was greatly afraid. He became so depressed that “he got up and
fled for his life” (1 Kings 19:3). It is in Elijah’s experience that we learn about the consequences of depression and
how to overcome it.
When does depression happen? Generally, depression happens after a mountain-top experience, after a tragic
event in one’s life, when one is afraid, or when a person believes there is nothing to be gained through personal
effort.
Elijah’s depression came out of his mountain-top experience: he was on Mount Carmel when he gained his great
victory. But, soon that victory caused him to fear for his life. When his life was threatened, Elijah went through the
valley, the valley of deep darkness. Because of Jezebel’s threat, Elijah was afraid; he felt sad, helpless, and
hopeless.
What causes depression? There are many reasons for depression. Stress is one of the major causes of
depression. Stress can be caused by health problems, death in the family, financial crisis, anger, and many other
reasons.
155 | P a g e
Depression can also occur because of conflict. Some of these depressing feelings are generally caused by a
close relative or a friend. In some cases it can be a spouse, a member of the family, one’s boss, a co-worker, or
even one’s enemy. In Elijah’s case, that person was Jezebel… Was Elijah depressed? He sure was.” [6]
In the next installment, the narrative will disclose how further God will comfort his depressed prophet.
References
[2] Broom Tree. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 368.
[3] Bake, Baker. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 243.
[5] Kanter, Jonathan & Busch, Andrew & Weeks, Cristal & Landes, Sara. “The Nature of Clinical Depression:
Symptoms, Syndromes, and Behavior Analysis”, Behavior Analyst, 2008 Spring; 31(1):1-21.
[6] Mariottini, Claude. “Elijah’s Depression”, Dr. Claude Mariottini blog site, May 20, 2013.
156 | P a g e

Scared, tired, lost appetite to live, lonely, mostly sleeping all the time - this is the state of Elijah until the angel
offered assistance. He will reached Mount Horeb 300 km further, or double the distance he already traveled. What
is special about Mount Horeb? Why did Elijah think of going there? It is the mountain of the true God. This is the
mountain where Moses spent 40 days and 40 nights capturing God’s revelation that will become part of the
covenant law. This is the same mountain from where Moses went down to witness the sons of Israel worshiping a
golden calf. What can I learn as a Bible reader with how Jehovah God engaged Elijah here? What was the impact
to Elijah of his meeting God here? These are my reflection notes.
“There he entered a cave and spent the night; and look! Jehovah’s word came to him, telling him: “What are you
doing here, E·liʹjah?”” (19:9)
The setting is not clear to me as to the timing when the Jehovah’s word came to him. It does not say how the
word of Jehovah came. He had spent the night in a cave in Mount Horeb. Was it still night time? Was it already
morning? The account does not seem to say. God’s word was about the reason why Elijah was on this mountain.
What did Elijah say? The Bible continues
“To this he said: “I have been absolutely zealous for Jehovah the God of armies; for the people of Israel have
forsaken your covenant, your altars they have torn down, and your prophets they have killed with the sword, and I
am the only one left. Now they are seeking to take my life away.”” (19:10)
Elijah reports the contrast of his lonesome self who stood loyal to God versus the people of Israel who did three
bad things - forsaken the covenant law, torn down God’s altars, and killed the prophets. He is afraid of them.
God’s response? The Bible said
“But He said: “Go out and stand on the mountain before Jehovah.” (19:11a)
Elijah had not left the cave to stand on the mountain before God. This observation was also noticed and
highlighted in a biblical paper. It wrote
“From this generally accepted reading it appears that Elijah was not present on the mountain, or even at the
mouth of the cave, to observe the phenomena mentioned in 1 Kgs 19.11-12.2 Yet the idea of a “theophany”
without anyone present to witness it is extremely peculiar—after all, if God makes an “appearance” then one
expects him to have an audience of some sort!
As it turns out, the apparent lack of witnesses to this theophany is only one of a number of peculiarities in the
narrative of 1 Kings 19.3 One also notes, for example, the unusual lapse of time between the directive given by
the voice in v.11 and Elijah’s carrying it out in v.13. This delay is more curious than it might initially appear, since
elsewhere in the narrative Elijah has a consistent record of immediate obedience to a command from Yahweh.
Yet the text is not clear as to the reason for Elijah’s slowness to respond: Is it because there was a great
windstorm taking place outside and he was simply waiting for it to “blow over” before exiting the cave? Or is the
narrator seeking to characterize Elijah as reluctant, fearful, depressed, or despairing, as a number of interpreters
have argued? Furthermore, the text gives no indication as to how Elijah knew to exit the cave when he did:
Perhaps it was nothing more than his realization that the storm outside had passed—but on the other hand, if his
“delay” was due to his avoidance of his prophetic calling or despairing state of mind, as some have suggested,
then why did he emerge from the cave at all?” [1]
The same paper reports Josephus version where Elijah actually stepped out of the cave the next day, to see the
supernatural event. How are these two to be reconciled? The paper offers that it is an issue of Hebrew translation
to English of the Hebrew verbs in their participial form (not simple past tense but an action in process).
“Thus, although at first it appears that they are in conflict with one another, the Josephan reading of Elijah at Mt.
Horeb challenges us to revisit and refine our analysis of the MT. In so doing it emerges that the two accounts of
157 | P a g e
the episode are best read in a complementary fashion. Elijah did in fact exit the cave prior to the theophany on Mt.
Horeb, as Josephus explicitly states in his version, and as can be legitimately inferred from a grammatically
improved reading of the MT, and thus was present to witness it.” [2]
So, I checked the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, an English translation that is faithful in rendering
the Hebrew verbs in English. The verse below indicate that they are in the participial form - passing, splitting,
breaking - as should be per the correct translation
“And look! Jehovah was passing by, and a great and strong wind was splitting mountains and breaking crags
before Jehovah, but Jehovah was not in the wind. After the wind, there was an earthquake, but Jehovah was not
in the earthquake. After the earthquake, there was a fire, but Jehovah was not in the fire. After the fire, there was
a calm, low voice.” (19:11b, 12)
He was looking outside from the inside of the cave as the Hebrew Bible stands today (MT). There were four
things that God did for Elijah - there was a strong wind that broke crags, there was an earthquake, and there was
a fire. Each time the Bible writer clarified that Jehovah was not on each of those. Why is that clarification
important? Elijah lived in a time when nations surrounding Israel worshiped many gods. There was a god for
something. There was a god for the wind, sky, rain, fire and other things. Ancient mythologies of the ancient
nations reflect this mentality. The religion of Israel was completely different. There was only one God and that
God is Jehovah. Jehovah is only one Jehovah. There is no sign of animism in this account nor of polytheism.
But how are the two events related - the victory of God and his prophet in Mount Carmel and now the feeling of
isolation of Elijah in Horeb? A biblical paper offered this
“After one has completed reading the story in Chapter 19, suddenly it becomes evident that the latter story has
had a major effect on how one understands the earlier one of Chapter 18, the contest on Mount Carmel. Even
Elijah misunderstood its significance and expected God to continue the fireworks. The effect of the events which
transpired after the contest have shifted the weight of this narrative dramatically. The struggle of faith has another
and equally important side. Chapter 18 dealt with the issue of national apostasy, whereas 19 focuses on one's
individual faith. Chapter 18 portrays the outer battle of faith, 19 deals with the inner struggle. Chapter 18 has a
wealth of extra-biblical parallels, whereas 19 shares no parallels, but reflects a uniquely biblical concern.” [3]
The last was that there was a “calm, low voice”. The Bible reports
“As soon as E·liʹjah heard it, he wrapped his face in his official garment and went out and stood at the entrance of
the cave. Then a voice asked him: “What are you doing here, E·liʹjah?”” (19:13)
What is the significance of the calm, low voice asking Elijah twice about the question what he is doing in Horeb. I
would continue the reflection on this part of the narrative on the next installment.
References
[1] Rogland, Max. “Elijah and the ‘Voice’ at Horeb (1 Kings 19): Narrative Sequence in the Masoretic Text and
Josephus”, Vetus Testamentum 62 (2012), BRILL, p. 89.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Childs, Brevard. “On Reading the Elijah Narratives”, American Theological Library Association Serials, p. 135.
158 | P a g e

Bible reading is not just an exercise for the intellect. It is a search for knowledge and wisdom to discover God.
The reason for the search is to help bring the reader closer to God, the author of the Bible. In this installment, I
find an aspect of God’s personality as revealed in the narrative. It is an aspect that helps draw the Bible readers
closer to Jehovah God.
Elijah’s zeal for God climaxing in the contest between non-god Baal and Jehovah the true God did not lead to a
national repentance and return to the true God. Ahab himself was not impressed. He did not see the event as
from Jehovah God but what “Elijah had done”. The queen was so furious that she vowed to kill Elijah leading to
this part of the narrative - Elijah running away from the northern kingdom of Israel to Horeb. How is Jehovah God
going to handle Elijah now? What does that tell me about God? These are my reflection notes.
God has asked Elijah before why he was here. God asked him again. His reply was just like the first time
“To this he said: “I have been absolutely zealous for Jehovah the God of armies; for the people of Israel have
forsaken your covenant, your altars they have torn down, and your prophets they have killed with the sword, and I
am the only one left. Now they are seeking to take my life away.”” (19:14)
The Jews in their midrash has a different take in the significance of this conversation. One Jewish blog quoted the
midrash on this encounter
“The episode is enigmatic. It is made all the more so by a strange feature of the text. Immediately before the
vision, God asks, ‘What are you doing here, Elijah?’ and Elijah replies, ‘I am moved by zeal for the Lord, the God
of Hosts….’ (I Kings 9:9-10). Immediately after the vision, God asks the same question, and Elijah gives the same
answer (I Kings 19:13-14). The midrash turns the text into a dialogue:
Elijah: The Israelites have broken God’s covenant

God: Is it then your covenant?
Elijah: They have torn down Your altars.
God: But were they your altars?
Elijah: They have put Your prophets to the sword.
God: But you are alive
Elijah: I alone am left.
God: Instead of hurling accusations against Israel, should you not have pleaded their cause?” [1]
Another blog proposes that the “calm, low voice” could be a mistranslation. It quotes one scholar and his
explanation
“The still, small voice of 1 Kings 19:12 might not even be properly translated. According to Johan Lust, there is a
three-pronged case suggesting another interpretation. First, “The [Hebrew] expression qôl demamâ daqâ is
unique in the Bible. Both the qualifying terms added to qôl [voice] are very rare.” Specifically, Lust argues that the
qualifier demamâ is not derived from the root “to speak softly, to be silent;” rather, it is derived from “the Accadian
root damamu which basically appears to refer to the roaring or moaning of animals…” As a matter of fact, we find
a contextual coherence in other scriptural usages of demamâ if we employ the Accadian root as an interpretive
constant, so to speak. Consider Psalm 107:29. While it traditionally reads, “He caused the storm to be still”
(NASB), the alternative “He raised the storm into a thundering roar” fits as well. Lust’s proposed interpretation
also reflects the thrust of v. 25, “For He spoke and raised up a stormy wind” (NASB), while the traditional
translation does not.
Second, the qualifier daqâ is derived from the same root as daka found in Psalm 93:3 “The floods lift up their
pounding waves” (NASB). Lust characterizes this “pounding” as a crushing, thunderous sound. It would be difficult
to suggest thatdaqâ must translate into “thin” or “scarce” (according to tradition) since qôl demamâ daqâ would
then literally read “roaring scarce voice” which is an oxymoron. Rather, qôl demamâ daqâ makes more sense to
read “roaring and thundering voice” to be consistent with the theme of God’s communication.” [2]
159 | P a g e
Another blog cited the same scholars for a potentially different translation
“The different translations reflect the fact that the Hebrew can be taken in more than one way. Indeed, some
scholars, appealing to the theophanic context, have suggested that the sound in verse 12b wasn't quiet at all but
a thunderous and crushing sound. It is hard to say for certain, though the flow of the imagery suggests a contrast
between the pyrotechnics of wind, earthquake, fire, and the sound thereafter. That "sound" may be a "voice" -- the
Hebrew word qôl can mean either -- and it seems to be soft and quiet.
The significance of this, and the contrast between it and the earlier phenomena, is not entirely clear. What is
certain is that the phrases "but the LORD was not in" is not reiterated with reference to the sound. Perhaps this is
enough to suggest that the LORD was "in" this sound; at the very least, Elijah has taken his cue:7 he wraps his
face (to avoid seeing God?) and goes to the entrance of the cave. There he hears a voice or sound (again
Hebrew qôl) that speaks to him (verse 13). The close parallel of this verse to verse 9 suggests that the qôl of
verse 13, at least, is a voice, not just a sound. Perhaps it is not too going too far to posit that the relationship of
the two verses also suggests that the "sound" of verse 12, too, is a "voice" -- and a divine one at that. But even if
that is correct (and it can't be said for certain), the Hebrew of verse 12 remains open and unclear -- ambiguous,
yes, but no less inviting, and perhaps even more inviting precisely because of that.
The close relationship between verses 9 and 13 continues in the specific content of the voice. The divine question
regarding Elijah's presence is repeated, word-for-word, as is Elijah's answer (verse 14). There is more than one
way to interpret this repetition. Some speak of Elijah's "repeated, self-righteous lament"; but others note that
"such repetition is well-known in the saga convention and may be deliberate, in order to emphasize the isolation
of Elijah and his zeal for Yahweh and the measure of his frustration." In my judgment, the latter sentiment is more
likely to be accurate. Elijah is neither punished nor demeaned for his (repeated) answer, even if he is corrected on
a point (one might contrast the dialogue here with the dialogue in Jonah 4).” [3]
The New World Translation 2013 revised edition has stayed with “calm, low voice” as the translation. A Bible-
based publication offered its own understanding of this “calm, low voice”
“After the fire was gone, a hush fell and Elijah heard “a calm, low voice.” It invited Elijah to express himself again,
and he did so, pouring out his concerns a second time. Perhaps that brought him further relief. Undoubtedly,
though, Elijah found even more comfort in what the “calm, low voice” told him next. Jehovah reassured Elijah that
he was far from worthless. How so? God revealed much of his long-range purpose regarding the war against Baal
worship in Israel. Clearly, Elijah’s work had not been in vain, for God’s purpose was moving inexorably forward.
Furthermore, Elijah still figured in that purpose, for Jehovah sent him back to work with some specific
instructions.—1 Ki. 19:12-17.
What about Elijah’s feelings of loneliness? Jehovah did two things about that. First, he told Elijah to anoint Elisha
as the prophet who would eventually succeed him. This younger man would become Elijah’s companion and
helper for a number of years. How practical that comfort was! Second, Jehovah revealed this thrilling news: “I
have let seven thousand remain in Israel, all the knees that have not bent down to Baal, and every mouth that has
not kissed him.” (1 Ki. 19:18) Elijah was far from alone. It must have warmed his heart to hear of those thousands
of faithful people who refused to worship Baal. They needed Elijah to keep up his faithful service, to set an
example of unshakable loyalty to Jehovah in those dark times. Elijah must have been deeply touched to hear
those words through Jehovah’s messenger, the “calm, low voice” of his God.” [4]
Where some Bible commentators are stretching the significance of the “calm, low voice” even into the field of
mysticism, I might lose the effect intended by the show of control of natural forces by God, even as it has already
been shown by Jehovah God on Mount Carmel, with the end of drought and the arrival of rain. Could God be
comforting Elijah and reminding Him that He still exercises His sovereignty? That He has vast powers superior to
Queen Jezebel? When I combine that with the contrast of all that sound and fury over nature with the “calm, low
voice” which moved Elijah to go out to the entrance of the cave but at first covering his face, what does that inform
me? Elijah was not being castigated by God after abandoning his assignment. He left out of fear for his life.
160 | P a g e
After God gave Elijah a second chance to explain himself, God gave Elijah something new to work on
“Jehovah said to him: “Return, and go to the wilderness of Damascus. When you arrive, anoint Hazʹa·el as king
over Syria. And you should anoint Jeʹhu the grandson of Nimʹshi as king over Israel, and you should anoint
E·liʹsha the son of Shaʹphat from Aʹbel-me·hoʹlah as prophet to take your place.” (19: 15,16)
Regarding thew new tasks of anointing given to Elijah, Bible-based encyclopedia Insight comments
“There are instances in which a person was regarded as being anointed because of being appointed by God,
even though no oil was put on his head. This principle was demonstrated when Jehovah told Elijah to anoint
Hazael as king over Syria, Jehu as king over Israel, and Elisha as prophet in place of himself. (1Ki 19:15, 16) The
Scriptural record goes on to show that one of the sons of the prophets associated with Elisha did anoint Jehu with
literal oil, to be king over Israel. (2Ki 9:1-6) But there is no record that anyone anointed with oil either Hazael or
Elisha.” [5]
Jehovah God provided the details of their instruction
“Anyone escaping from Hazʹa·el’s sword, Jeʹhu will put to death; and anyone escaping from Jeʹhu’s sword,
E·liʹsha will put to death. And I still have left 7,000 in Israel, all whose knees have not bent down to Baʹal and
whose mouths have not kissed him.” (19: 17, 18)
Are the numbers given literal for the number of faithful prophets to God? Insight comments
“Occasionally numbers are used in an approximate sense, as round numbers, for example, at Psalm 90:10,
where the psalmist speaks of man’s age limit, and possibly also at 1 Kings 19:18 (7,000 who had not bowed to
Baal) and 2 Chronicles 14:9 (the million Ethiopians defeated by Asa).” [6]
Elijah went ahead and did the task given to him by God. The Bible reports
“So he went from there and found E·liʹsha the son of Shaʹphat while he was plowing with 12 pairs of bulls ahead
of him, and he was with the 12th pair. So E·liʹjah went over to him and threw his official garment on him.” (19:19)
Who is Elisha? Insight provides some detail
“The son of Shaphat and a prophet of Jehovah in the tenth and ninth centuries B.C.E.; successor to the prophet
Elijah. Elijah was directed by Jehovah to anoint Elisha from Abel-meholah. Finding Elisha plowing, Elijah threw his
official garment over him, designating an appointment. (1Ki 19:16) Elisha was plowing behind 12 spans of bulls,
“and he with the twelfth.” It is of interest that in the 19th century William Thomson in The Land and the Book (1887,
p. 144) reported that it was a custom among the Arabs to work together with their small plows, and one sower
could easily sow all that they plowed in a day. Elisha, in the rear of the group, would be able to stop without
disrupting the work of the rest. The fact that he sacrificed a span of the bulls and used the implements as fuel
speaks for Elisha’s promptness, decisiveness, and appreciativeness for Jehovah’s call. After preparing a meal,
Elisha immediately left to follow Elijah.—1Ki 19:19-21.” [7]
Elisha will be serving as minister of Elijah and he will be succeeding him in due time. Elisha finally says good-bye
to his family
“At that he left the bulls and ran after E·liʹjah and said: “Please, let me kiss my father and my mother. Then I will
follow you.” He replied to him: “Go, return, for what have I done to stop you?” 21 So he went back and took a pair
of bulls and sacrificed them, and he used the plowing gear to boil the meat of the bulls and gave it to the people,
and they ate. After that he rose up and followed E·liʹjah and began to minister to him.” (19: 20, 21)
Elijah’s experience in Mount Horeb energized him back to carry out his ministry. The way Jehovah God handled
the situation led to a positive experience for Elijah. It is something worth emulating when fellow ministers go
through some trials that discourages them to continue. It validates that Jehovah God is merciful and
compassionate. He cares for His servants. Elijah would not be the last whom Jehovah God will have to encourage
to carry on with their assignments.
161 | P a g e
References
[1] Sacks, Jonathan. “Elijah and the Still, Small Voice”, Covenant and Conversation, Pinchas 11 July 2015/24
Tammuz 5775.
[2] Sala, Nate. “The Case for the Mistranslation of “Still Small Voice”, A Clear Lens blog article, Oct. 20, 2014.
[3] Strawn, Brent. “Commentary on 1 Kings 19:1-18”, Working Preacher blog article.
[4] Imitate Their Faith, Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 106.
[5] Anointed, Anointing. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 113.
[6] Number, Numeral. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 511.
[7] Elisha. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 714.
162 | P a g e

Does God consider bad people like Ahab unreformable? I will explore the next narrative to understand God’s
point of view. This will be my reflection note.
The way God has dealt with the demoralized, some experts say, depressed Elijah, is very instructive and
encouraging. Rather than reading mystical meaning to the “calm, low voice” from Jehovah God that encouraged
Elijah, and lose the presentation of God’s personality, His kindness and loyalty, I recognize the aspect of God’s
personality as presented in the narrative.
Bible readers believe that God is kind and merciful. That is fine. But reading an actual instance in the Bible
displaying such aspects of His personality provides a solid basis for such appreciation. That is exactly why God
inspired to have it in the Bible so those who will take the time to read it will be encouraged and strengthened in
their own time of need.
The next narrative for now leaves Elijah. It now focused back on the other main character, king Ahab. The next
narrative focuses me to question my knowledge and assumption of God and how He chooses to deal with people.
I already know that Ahab is a wicked leader but archaeology informs me that he is a good administrator bringing
prosperity to the northern kingdom of Israel. But can Ahab be reformed? The dramatic display of Jehovah God’s
power in Mount Carmel did not move Ahab to repent. The way I read this next narrative, Jehovah God is
persuading Ahab, giving him a chance to repent and turn around.
The Bible introduces this narrative ths way
“Now King Ben-haʹdad of Syria gathered his whole army together along with 32 other kings and their horses and
chariots; he went up and laid siege to Sa·marʹi·a and fought against it.” (20:1)
Who is Benhadad, king of Syria? The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight says there are three kings of Syria
mentioned in the Bible record. Insight talks about this one
“The next mention of a Syrian king named Ben-hadad occurs during the reign of King Ahab of Israel (c. 940-
920 B.C.E.). About the fifth year before Ahab’s death, “Ben-hadad the king of Syria” led the combined forces of 32
kings, evidently vassals, against Samaria, besieging the city and calling on King Ahab to surrender
unconditionally… Whatever the circumstances and time of the capture of the Israelite cities, the Scriptural
evidence would seem to point to a different Ben-hadad as ruling by Ahab’s time, and hence he may be referred to
as Ben-hadad II.” [1]
Insight also adds that there is archaeological evidence validating the authenticity of this Syrian king
“An inscription of Shalmaneser III, after relating a conflict with the Syrians, states: “Hadadezer (himself) perished.
Hazael, a commoner (lit.: son of nobody), seized the throne.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard,
1974, p. 280) Thus, Ben-hadad II appears to be called “Hadadezer” (Assyrian, Adad-idri) by Shalmaneser III.” [2]
Regarding this inscription and the name of Ben-hadad as Hadadezer, a technical paper wrote
“Clay, in his Light on the Old Testament from Babel, 318, favors the view long ago proposed by Pinches in the
Proceedings of the Society for Biblical Archaeology (1883), 71 f., that the original name was Ben-Hadad-’idri, the
Hebrew preserving the first part of the name, the Assyrian the latter. This view, which on first sight seems very
attractive, does not, however, account for the fact that both the names Benhadad and Adad-’idri (Hadadezer)
occur in both the Hebrew and the Assyrian records. It seems better, therefore, to keep the names separate.” [3]
The inscription of Shalmeneser III actually records the battle of Karkar. The paper above notes that this was not
recorded in the Bible
“It will be observed that the Old Testament does not mention the battle of Karkar, but according to the prevailing
interpretation of the Hebrew account in the light of the Assyrian records, the two years’ truce mentioned in 1 Kings
163 | P a g e
22: 1 follow immediately upon the defeat of Benhadad in Aphek, and leave room for Ahab’s presence at Karkar.”
[4]
This is significant information for me because I am not just reading an allegory, or a parable, that teaches a moral
lesson. I am reading history of real people and real events where God chooses to intervene in human affairs at
the time because of the covenant law that Israel entered into with Jehovah God.
This king sent messengers back and forth to Ahab advising him (20:2-6) that Benhadad will “seize and take away”
all of Ahab’s desirable things - the best of his wives, sons, silver and gold. Ahab consulted with the council of
elders and he was advised not to give in (20: 7-9).
Benhadad responded with a formula used by Jezebel
““So may the gods do to me and add to it if there is enough dust in Sa·marʹi·a to give each of the people following
me a handful!”” (20:10)
Jezebel’s version is reproduced below
“So may the gods do to me and add to it if by this time tomorrow I do not make you like each one of them!” (19:2)
In effect, Benhadad is vowing to destroy Samaria with his huge army that there will be enough soldiers to bring a
handful of dust out of Samaria. Since the city is relatively large, it would take a huge army to accomplish what
Benhadad is vowing to do.
Ahab’s reply got Benhadad very mad (20:12). But I did not get the sense of Ahab’s reply to cause one to be very
angry. Ahab’s reply was
“The king of Israel answered: “Tell him, ‘The one who puts on his armor should not boast about himself like one
who takes it off.’” (20:11)
One blog site said that this is equivalent to not counting your chickens before they hatch. Removing the armor
indicates that the battle is over and won.
I now come to an interesting aspect of the narrative. Jehovah God chose to intervene to give victory to a wicked
king. The narrative discloses this
“But a prophet approached King Aʹhab of Israel and said: “This is what Jehovah says, ‘Have you seen all this
large crowd? Here I am giving it into your hand today, and then you will know that I am Jehovah.’” Aʹhab asked:
“By whom?” to which he said: “This is what Jehovah says, ‘By the attendants of the princes of the provinces.’” So
he asked: “Who will start the battle?” to which he said: “You!”” (20:13. 14)
God’s message to Ahab confirmed the boast of Benhadad that he has a “large crowd” of soldiers with him. Why is
God doing this to a wicked king? God himself declared “and then you will know that I am Jehovah”. God is keen to
persuade this wicked man to acknowledge Him and perhaps move Ahab to repent. He has not given up on this
wicked man even after he failed to show appreciation at Mount Carmel.
Could it be because Ahab did not resort to calling on Baal to help him at this point, even recruiting his wife
Jezebel to pray to her gods for victory? Could it be because Ahab is seeking help outside of himself? Was there a
sign of humility there? Will Ahab be moved to repentance and reform? That will be for the next installment.
References
[1] Ben-hadad. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 286.
[2] Ibid., p. 287.
[3] Luckenbill, D.D. “Benhadad and Hadadezer”, The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol.
27, No. 3, (Apr 1911), p. 274.
[4] Ibid., p. 276.
164 | P a g e

In this reflection, I will highlight my observation in God’s use of the phrase “you will know that I am Jehovah”.
What is God’s motivation for supporting a very bad king like King Ahab? Scholars are saying that although Ahab
got poor grades when it comes to worship, he has high grades as an administrator, paving the way for prosperity
of his kingdom. Scholars even credit him for his military successes. But the Bible account discloses that his
victories were not his. It came from God and He has a special reason for giving Ahab the victory: so that Ahab
may know that He is Jehovah God. Why is that significant? What does it mean?
In the days of Ahab’s ancestors, when they were still in Egypt, God sent Moses to tell then world’s powerful leader,
a pharaoh to let Israel go. What was his response? The Bible captured that moment in Exodus 5:2 as it appeared
in the following English Bible translations
“And Pharaoh said, Who is Jehovah, that I should hearken unto his voice to let Israel go? I know not Jehovah,
and moreover I will not let Israel go.” (American Standard Version)
“ And Pharaoh said, Who is Jehovah, to whose voice I am to hearken to let Israel go? I do not know Jehovah,
neither will I let Israel go.” (Darby Translation Bible)
“And Pharaoh saith, `Who [is] Jehovah, that I hearken to His voice, to send Israel away? I have not known
Jehovah, and Israel also I do not send away.'”(Young’s Literal Translation)
““Is that so?” retorted Pharaoh. “And who is Jehovah, that I should listen to him, and let Israel go? I don’t know
Jehovah and I will not let Israel go.”” (The Living Bible)
Pharaoh did not recognize the sovereignty of God. Pharaoh has no plans to recognize Jehovah’s sovereignty.
How did God deal with such arrogance? Jehovah God later disclosed to His prophet, Moses, His purpose and
response in Exodus 9:16
“But I’ve left you standing for this reason: in order to show you my power and in order to make my name known in
the whole world.” (Common English Bible)
Yes, God wanted to show Pharaoh that He is Jehovah, the true God of the whole world. Pharaoh and his army
discovered that He is a real God, and that He is fighting for His people. But it was too late for them. Just as God
promised, He showed them His power as the sea clobbered them all and drowned the entire chariot army in the
Red Sea.
What did Jehovah God said when He was already drawing the Egyptian army to the Red Sea? The Bible in
Exodus 14: 4, 18 said ““the Egyptians will certainly know that I am Jehovah”.
(A side note in my reflections in Exodus, some Bible readers insist that it was originally called in Hebrew “Reed
Sea”. The quote from my Exodus reflection is reproduced below citing Gary Byers’ article, “New Evidence from
Egypt on the Location of the Exodus Sea Crossing: Part 1”
“The “Red Sea” phrase came into the account with the third century BC translation of the Old Testament into
Greek. Called the Septuagint (abbreviated as LXX), its translators made yam suph (“Sea of Reeds”) into eruthrá
thálassē (“Red Sea”). The Latin Vulgate followed their lead with mari Rubro (“Red Sea”) and most English
versions continued that tradition.
Unfortunately, “Red Sea” was not a translation at all, and the LXX translators understood that. While we do not
know their reasoning, they gave yam suph a historicized interpretation, based on their understanding of the region
at the time (Kitchen 2003: 262; Hoffmeier 1996: 206; 2005: 81). When the Bible indicated the Israelites crossed a
significant body of water on Egypt’s eastern border, the LXX translators connected it with the body of water they
knew as the Red Sea. Instead of translating the Hebrew phrase literally, they offered this historical identification
as their interpretation of the text.””)
165 | P a g e
So, from the way God uses the phrase “will certainly know that I am Jehovah”, it could mean disaster for the
individual or group just like what happened with the Egyptians. But in Ahab’s case, God was saving Ahab from his
enemies so that Ahab “may know that I am Jehovah”. This is a positive thing. But did Ahab come to know that that
God is Jehovah? I will now go back to the narrative
“Aʹhab then counted the attendants of the princes of the provinces, and they were 232; after that, he counted all
the Israelite men, 7,000. They went out at noon while Ben-haʹdad was drinking himself drunk in the tents along
with the 32 kings who were helping him.” (20:15,16)
Benhadad was so secure in his military strength that he can afford to get drunk during the day time when they
were at war. But as revealed by Jehovah God to Ahab, the attendants of the princes of the provinces will
successfully rout the Syrian forces. (20:17-20) Then, king Ahab came and joined the fight
“But the king of Israel went out and kept striking down the horses and the chariots, and he inflicted a great defeat
on the Syrians.” (20:21)
After that victory, the Bible did not report a ‘thank you’ from Ahab to Jehovah God or an acknowledgment of His
foreknowledge that enabled him to win the battle. Jehovah God, for the second time around, sent his prophet
back to Ahab
“Later the prophet approached the king of Israel and said to him: “Go, strengthen yourself and consider what you
are going to do, for at the start of the next year the king of Syria will come up against you.”” (20:22)
This gave Ahab time to prepare militarily. But the Syrians are thinking of a different military tactic. Jehovah God
knew this
“Now the servants of the king of Syria said to him: “Their God is a God of mountains. That is why they
overpowered us. But if we fight against them on level land, we will overpower them. Also do this: Remove all the
kings from their places, and replace them with governors. Then gather an army equal to the army you lost, horse
for horse and chariot for chariot. Let us fight against them on level land, and we will surely overpower them.” So
he listened to their advice and did just that.” (20: 23-25)
The Syrian culture has different gods for different things and even places. So, they concluded that Jehovah God
is such a god and that His powers is limited elsewhere. The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight offered a comment
“Horses, however, do not lend themselves well for military use in mountainous, rough terrain. (Am 6:12) Hence,
when King Ahab of Israel defeated the army of Syria, Ben-hadad’s servants offered the excuse that it was
because the God of Israel was “a God of mountains” and not of the level plains, where horses and chariots
operate to advantage. Nevertheless, Jehovah gave Israel the victory even in the plains.—1Ki 20:23-29.” [1]
What kind of place is Samaria which the Syrians laid siege to? Insight offered this detail
“The rather flat top of the Samarian hill, about 2 km (1 mi) across from E to W, was an ideal location for a city. The
abrupt rise of about 90 m (300 ft) from the plain below made the location easy to defend. The view too was
magnificent, for to the N, E, and S were higher peaks, while to the W the land gently sloped down from an altitude
of 463 m (1,519 ft) to the blue Mediterranean, 34 km (21 mi) away.” [2]
What are the Syrians planning next militarily? The Bible continues
“At the start of the year, Ben-haʹdad mustered the Syrians and went up to Aʹphek for battle against Israel.” (20:26)
By this time Ahab was ready for them. The Bible reports
“The people of Israel were also mustered and supplied, and they went out to meet them. When the people of
Israel camped in front of them, they were like two tiny flocks of goats, while the Syrians filled the whole land.”
(20:27)
166 | P a g e
Can Ahab win this battle with a much smaller force? Jehovah God chose to aid this bad king once again for a
specific reason
“Then the man of the true God approached the king of Israel and said: “This is what Jehovah says, ‘Because the
Syrians have said: “Jehovah is a God of mountains, and he is not a God of plains,” I will give all this large crowd
into your hand, and you will certainly know that I am Jehovah.’”” (20:28)
For the second time, God used the phrase “and you will certainly know that I am Jehovah”. God was not talking of
the Syrians. He was addressing it to Ahab. It is plain that God is trying to persuade Ahab to have some faith for
witnessing the show of His power. What was the result? The Bible continues its report
“They remained encamped opposite each other for seven days, and on the seventh day the battle began. The
people of Israel struck down 100,000 Syrian foot soldiers in one day. And the rest fled to Aʹphek, into the city. But
the wall fell down on 27,000 of the men who were left. Ben-haʹdad also fled and came into the city, and he hid in
an inner room.” (20:29, 30)
The last time Ahab’s forces were about 7,000 soldiers. The Bible does not report this time whether Ahab was able
to assemble a bigger force. With God on Ahab’s side, the first time, he was able to route the same big military
force of 100,000 Syrians. Benhadad this time was not able to escape back to Damascus. He got trapped in Aphek,
near the Sea of Galilee.
Would Ahab demonstrate gratitude to the real sovereign, Jehovah God, and execute His will, to destroy this
Syrian force who was given in his hand? Or will Ahab disappoint the God assisting him? Is God’s hope for an
Ahab repentance and reform disappoint Him? The next installment of my reflection will highlight this.
References
167 | P a g e

If there is one consistent thing that God has been demanding from humans it is obedience, obedience out of an
appreciative heart. In the history of Israel, it’s first king lost the privilege to continue ruling because he disobeyed
God’s clear instruction. As the true Sovereign of Israel, Jehovah God deserves the obedience of the nation as
described in the covenant law. It is the same sort of failure of the first perfect human pair, to give God the kind of
obedience He deserves.
God has been helping Ahab, a wicked king, so that Ahab, in the words of God, “he may know that I am Jehovah”.
But did Ahab care about that? Did he appreciate the helping hand God gave him even without him asking for it? I
would like to discover in the continuation of the narrative how Ahab failed God.
The Bible narrative continues
“So his servants said to him: “Look, we have heard that the kings of the house of Israel are merciful kings. Please,
let us wear sackcloth on our hips and put ropes on our heads and go out to the king of Israel. Perhaps he will
spare your life.” (20:31)
Wearing sackloth carry a special meaning in ancient times. The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight describes the
significance
“Bowing could also be a symbol of acknowledgment of defeat. (Isa 60:14) Those persons defeated might appear
before their conqueror in sackcloth and, additionally, with ropes upon their heads in an appeal for mercy. (1Ki
20:31, 32) Some think that the ropes mentioned were put about their necks to symbolize their captivity and
submission.” [1]
How did Ahab replied to the gesture of the Syrians? The Bible discloses what happened next
“So they wore sackcloth around their hips and ropes on their heads and came in to the king of Israel and said:
“Your servant Ben-haʹdad says, ‘Please, let me live.’” He replied: “Is he still alive? He is my brother.” The men
took it as an omen and quickly took him at his word, so they said: “Ben-haʹdad is your brother.” At that he said:
“Go and get him.” Then Ben-haʹdad went out to him, and he had him get up into the chariot.” (20: 32,33)
Ahab called his enemy Benhadad “my brother”. In effect, Ahab spared the life of Benhadad despite being an
enemy not just of Israel but of Jehovah God. Benhadad, for his part, reciprocated the mercy he got from Ahab
“Ben-haʹdad now said to him: “The cities that my father took from your father I will return, and you may establish
markets for yourself in Damascus, just as my father did in Sa·marʹi·a.”” (20:34)
The “markets” mentioned in the text is literally “streets”. Insight comments on this translation
“The “streets” that Ben-hadad II offered to be assigned to Ahab in Damascus were evidently for the establishment
of bazaars, or markets, to promote Ahab’s commercial interests in that Syrian capital.—1Ki 20:34.” [2]
Insight had additional information on the identity of this Benhadad
“There is considerable difference of opinion as to whether this Ben-hadad is the same Syrian king of Baasha and
Asa’s day or whether he is instead a son or grandson of that king. For Ben-hadad I (of Asa’s time) to be the Ben-
hadad of Ahab’s and even of Jehoram’s time (c. 917-905 B.C.E.) would require a reign of some 45 years or more.
This, of course, is not impossible.
However, those who hold that the Syrian king of Ahab’s day should be called Ben-hadad II point to the promise
made by Ben-hadad to Ahab, quoted above. (1Ki 20:34) On the face of it, this appears to say that Ben-hadad’s
father had taken cities from Omri, Ahab’s father. But if the seizure referred to was that effected by Ben-hadad I
during Baasha’s rule, that would make Ben-hadad I the father (or perhaps simply the predecessor) of the Ben-
hadad II of Ahab’s reign. Likewise, Ahab’s “father” could possibly refer to a royal predecessor on the throne even
though not related by blood as a lineal ancestor.—See BELSHAZZAR.
168 | P a g e
Nevertheless, the fact that Ben-hadad’s promise to Ahab made reference to Samaria would appear to limit the
Syrian capture of the Israelite cities to the reign of Omri, since Samaria was built by him and thereafter made
Israel’s capital. The “streets” assigned apparently were for the establishment of bazaars, or markets, to promote
commercial interests.
Whatever the circumstances and time of the capture of the Israelite cities, the Scriptural evidence would seem to
point to a different Ben-hadad as ruling by Ahab’s time, and hence he may be referred to as Ben-hadad II. It
appears that the promise of Ben-hadad to return the cities taken from Israel by his father was not completely
fulfilled, for in Ahab’s final year of rule this Israelite king formed an alliance with Jehoshaphat in a vain attempt to
recover Ramoth-gilead (E of the Jordan) from the Syrians. Ben-hadad II is evidently the anonymous “king of
Syria” who ordered his “thirty-two chiefs of the chariots” to concentrate their attack on Ahab in that battle. (1Ki
22:31-37)” [3]
How did God handle this disobedience on the part of Ahab? The Bible reports
“By the word of Jehovah, one of the sons of the prophets said to his companion: “Strike me, please.” But the man
refused to strike him.” (20:35)
The Bible inserts a new narrative to lay down the background and case of Ahab’s disobedience. This will be
played out by one of the sons of the prophet. Insight explains the use of this phrase “sons of the prophets”
““Sons of the Prophets.” As Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar explains (Oxford, 1952, p. 418), the Hebrew ben (son
of) or benehʹ (sons of) may denote “membership of a guild or society (or of a tribe, or any definite class).”
(Compare Ne 3:8, where “a member of the ointment mixers” is literally “a son of the ointment mixers.”) “The sons
of the prophets” may thus describe a school of instruction for those called to this vocation or simply a cooperative
association of prophets. Such prophetic groups are mentioned as being at Bethel, Jericho, and Gilgal. (2Ki 2:3, 5;
4:38; compare 1Sa 10:5, 10.) Samuel presided over a group at Ramah (1Sa 19:19, 20), and Elisha seems to
have held a similar position in his day. (2Ki 4:38; 6:1-3; compare 1Ki 18:13.) The record mentions their building
their own dwelling place and the use of a borrowed tool, which may indicate that they lived simply. Though often
sharing quarters and food in common, they might receive individual assignments to go out on prophetic
missions.—1Ki 20:35-42; 2Ki 4:1, 2, 39; 6:1-7; 9:1, 2.” [4]
So, the Bible is not actually referring to actual sons but to a member of an association of prophets. What is God’s
message through him? I will follow now the Bible narrative
“So he said to him: “Because you did not listen to the voice of Jehovah, as soon as you leave me, a lion will kill
you.” After he left him, a lion came upon him and killed him.” (30:26)
A man refused to strike him despite a clear instruction from a known prophet. The Bible does not report the
reason for the refusal of the unidentified man. But his refusal constituted disobedience to a divine command
costing him his life. This turns out to be an illustration of what will happen to Ahab. The prophet found another
man who did strike him. (20:37)
The next scene is this prophet meeting up with King Ahab and presenting to him a case for judgment where a
soldier was negligent in his duty to keep watch an enemy who escaped under his watch. (20:38-40a) Ahab
passed judgment
“The king of Israel said to him: “So your own judgment will be; you have decided it yourself.” (20: 40)
What was the significance of this role playing performed by the prophet? Insight explains
Even when being used to give correction to a person, illustrations can be used to sidestep prejudice on the part of
the hearer, keeping his mind from being beclouded by such prejudice, and thereby accomplishing more than
would a mere statement of fact. Such was the case when Nathan found a hearing ear in reproving King David for
his sin in connection with Bath-sheba and Uriah. (2Sa 12:1-14) This was also the case when an illustration was
used to get wicked King Ahab unknowingly to weigh the principles involved in his own disobedient action in
169 | P a g e
sparing the life of King Ben-hadad of Syria, an enemy of God, and to utter a judgment condemning himself.—1Ki
20:34, 38-43.” [5]
The prophet finally revealed himself and passed judgment against Ahab
“Then he quickly removed the bandage from his eyes, and the king of Israel recognized that he was one of the
prophets. He said to him: “This is what Jehovah says, ‘Because you have let the man whom I said should be
destroyed escape from your hand, your life must take the place of his life, and your people the place of his
people.’” At that the king of Israel went home to Sa·marʹi·a, sullen and dejected.” (20: 41-43)
The illustration was effective and it exposed Ahab’s error. King Saul before him did the same thing and disobeyed
Jehovah in preserving an enemy king, Agag of the Amalekites. King Saul lost the kingship in Israel. Now, Ahab
will now lose the kingship. Jehovah God judged him worthy of death for defying the orders of the true Sovereign in
Israel for whom he rules by permission.
This narrative demonstrates that Jehovah God exercises His sovereignty on the earth. When it suits His purpose,
He can remove any ruler from power or defeat any ruler from any nation. There is a long list of rulers that Jehovah
God humiliated for their gross lack of respect for Him. Pharaoh of Egypt was one of the first high profile rulers who
was humiliated in the Red Sea. This was followed by opposing city-state kings in Canaan. Jehovah God even
deposed His own representative kings in Israel - Saul and later Jeroboam.
What is the message here? God demands obedience as an act of loyalty and appreciation. Jehovah gave Ahab
reason to obey Him many times. The first one was the dramatic confrontation on Mount Carmel. The recent one is
his military victories against the 100,000-strong Syrian army versus his 7,000-strong military.
This is the first time that the Bible reported Ahab to be “sullen and dejected”. What does that mean? There is
another incident with Ahab that led to his being “sullen and dejected”. I will consider that next.
References
[1] Attitudes and Gestures. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 216.
[2] Damascus. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 571.
[3] Ben-hadad. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 286..
[4] Prophet. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 697.
[5] Illustrations. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1176.
170 | P a g e

What does God’s judgment of Ahab over the case of Naboth tells us about God and his concern for justice, his
making accountable the source of injustice? Why did Naboth not sell his property to the king? What does the
Bible disclose about Queen Jezebel and her setting up the death of Naboth? These are my reflection notes.
The Biblical narrative opens with
“After these things, an incident took place concerning a vineyard that belonged to Naʹboth the Jezʹre·el·ite; it was
in Jezʹre·el, next to the palace of Aʹhab the king of Sa·marʹi·a.” (21:1)
Scholars find the affinity of locations significant - Naboth “the Jezreelite”, Ahab “the king of Samaria”. The Bible-
based encyclopedia Insight explains the usage of “the king of Samaria”
“The territory of the ten-tribe northern kingdom of Israel. The name of its capital city, Samaria, was sometimes
applied to this entire area. For example, when Ahab was called “the king of Samaria,” it was not with the restricted
meaning of being king of the city only, but in the broader sense as king of the ten tribes. (1Ki 21:1) So, too, “the
cities of Samaria” referred to those scattered throughout the ten tribes, not to towns clustered around the capital.
(2Ki 23:19; this same expression recorded at 1Ki 13:32 as if used before the city Samaria was built, if not
prophetic, may have been introduced by the compiler of the Kings account.) The famine “in Samaria” in the days
of Ahab was extensive throughout the whole kingdom of Samaria and, in fact, even took in Phoenicia, extending
at least from the torrent valley of Cherith, E of the Jordan, to Zarephath on the Mediterranean. (1Ki 17:1-12; 18:2,
5, 6) Similarly, the restoration promise regarding “the mountains of Samaria” must have embraced the whole of
the realm of Samaria.—Jer 31:5.” [1]
Bible scholars were figuring out where this scene has happened
“Aʹhab said to Naʹboth: “Give me your vineyard for me to use as a vegetable garden, for it is near my house. Then
I will give you a better vineyard to replace it. Or if you prefer, I will give you its value in money.” But Naʹboth said
to Aʹhab: “It is unthinkable, from Jehovah’s standpoint, for me to give you the inheritance of my forefathers.””
(21:2,3)
In the previous verse, the Bible said “it was in Jezreel”. What was the perspective of the writer? Where was he
when he wrote “it was in Jezreel”. Would he write that way if the writer was in Jezreel? What about the refusal of
Naboth to sell his property? What is the significance of his refusal? A Bible-based publication offered this
explanation
“Ahab summoned him and offered to give him money or to trade for the vineyard. Naboth, though, said: “It is
unthinkable, from Jehovah’s standpoint, for me to give you the inheritance of my forefathers.” (1 Kings 21:3) Was
Naboth stubborn? Reckless? Many have assumed so. In fact, he was obeying the Law of Jehovah, which did not
allow Israelites permanently to sell land that was the hereditary possession of their family. (Leviticus 25:23-28) To
Naboth, it was unthinkable to break God’s Law. He was a man of faith and courage, for he surely knew that it was
dangerous to stand up to Ahab.” [2]
This was also in the same line of thought in one paper
“As most commentators note, he does not refuse to sell Ahab his vineyard because Ahab’s offering price is too
low, rather “[he] refused to part with the vineyard … on religious grounds, because the sale of paternal inheritance
was forbidden in the law (Lev. 25:23–28; Num. 36:7ff.). He was therefore not merely at liberty as a personal right
to refuse the king’s proposal, but bound by the commandment of God.”If, therefore, Naboth was a man of
righteous moral character (as is suggested by the text), an unjust accusation against Naboth in Jezreel would run
the risk of being exposed as a sham, and thus it would have been more expedient to accuse him of wrongdoing in
Samaria anyways since his reputation there would have been largely unknown.“ [3]
King Ahab was unable to get what he wants. The Bible reports the results
171 | P a g e
“So Aʹhab came into his house, sullen and dejected over the answer that Naʹboth the Jezʹre·el·ite had given him
when he said: “I will not give you the inheritance of my forefathers.” Then he lay down on his bed, kept his face
turned away, and refused to eat.” (21:4)
Ahab is also aware of the covenant law and he is not ready to break the covenant law at this time, the way he and
his wife broke the covenant law with the introduction of false gods. Ahab despite his authority was not incline to
abuse it. He was obsessed with the plot of land but he felt helpless.
How did his wife who had no fear of Jehovah in her heart handle the frustration of her husband-king? The Bible
reports
“His wife Jezʹe·bel came in to him and asked him: “Why are you so sad that you refuse to eat?” 6 He replied to her:
“Because I said to Naʹboth the Jezʹre·el·ite, ‘Give me your vineyard for money. Or if you prefer, let me give you
another vineyard to replace it.’ But he said, ‘I will not give you my vineyard.’” 7 His wife Jezʹe·bel said to him: “Are
you not the one ruling as king over Israel? Get up, eat something, and let your heart be cheerful. I will give you
the vineyard of Naʹboth the Jezʹre·el·ite.”” (20: 5-7)
How could the queen give the king the plot of land that the king was unable to secure himself despite a generous
offer? The Bible disclosed her plans
“So she wrote letters in Aʹhab’s name and sealed them with his seal and sent the letters to the elders and the
nobles who lived in Naʹboth’s city. She wrote in the letters: “Proclaim a fast, and have Naʹboth sit at the head of
the people. And have two good-for-nothing men sit in front of him and testify against him, saying, ‘You have
cursed God and the king!’ Then bring him out and stone him to death.”” (21:8-10)
That was an evil plan. The covenant law condemns raising false witnesses. But Jezebel is apparently aware of
the mechanics of trial in the covenant law especially the requirement for two witnesses. The letters were sent
back to influence the elders and nobles in Jezreel. Where the actual meeting took place is explored by scholars.
One paper claimed it happened in Samaria where he was tried or he was brought to Samaria to be tried.
The elders and nobles collaborated with the queen.(20:11-14) Ahab took possession of the plot of land (20:15,16)
However, the injustice did not escape Jehovah’s attention. He quickly sent the prophet to the king and to declare
the judgment against him. The Bible reports the confrontation
“But Jehovah’s word came to E·liʹjah the Tishʹbite, saying: “Get up, go down to meet Aʹhab the king of Israel, who
is in Sa·marʹi·a. There he is in the vineyard of Naʹboth, where he has gone to take possession of it. You must tell
him, ‘This is what Jehovah says: “Have you murdered a man and also taken his property?”’ Then say to him, ‘This
is what Jehovah says: “In the place where the dogs licked up the blood of Naʹboth, the dogs will lick up your own
blood.”’”” (20:17-19)
Jehovah used a question to expose Ahab’s sin. Then, this was followed by the judgment. The Bible reports the
actual confrontation
“Aʹhab said to E·liʹjah: “So you have found me, O my enemy!” He replied: “I have found you. ‘Because you are
determined to do what is bad in the eyes of Jehovah, here I am bringing calamity upon you, and I will make a
clean sweep after you and will annihilate from Aʹhab every male, including the helpless and weak in Israel. And I
will make your house like the house of Jer·o·boʹam the son of Neʹbat and like the house of Baʹa·sha the son of
A·hiʹjah, for you have provoked my anger and have caused Israel to sin.’ Also concerning Jezʹe·bel, Jehovah has
said: ‘The dogs will eat up Jezʹe·bel in the plot of land of Jezʹre·el. Anyone belonging to Aʹhab who dies in the city
the dogs will eat up, and anyone who dies in the field the birds of the heavens will eat up.” (20:20-24)
Those words of judgment were the same judgment passed against Jeroboam and Baasha. Insight comments on
this
“At times Jehovah’s judgment against his enemies was that their dead bodies would be eaten or their blood licked
up by scavenger dogs. Because of the course of gross unfaithfulness followed by Kings Jeroboam, Baasha, and
172 | P a g e
Ahab, any who belonged to their respective households and who died in the city were to be devoured by dogs.
(1Ki 14:11; 16:4; 21:24) In fulfillment of Jehovah’s word, the dogs licked up Ahab’s blood, and the flesh of his wife
Jezebel became food for the dogs. (1Ki 21:19; 22:38; 21:23; 2Ki 9:10, 35, 36)” [4]
Bible readers and scholars offer different explanations how the prophecy of Elijah was fulfilled. The paper
describes the problem
“Elijah’s prophecy concerning Ahab’s death is a case in point. In 1 Kgs 21:19 Elijah foretold, “In the place where
dogs licked up the blood of Naboth, dogs will also lick up your [Ahab’s] blood.”1 Since most scholars assume that
Naboth was stoned in the city of Jezreel, it is surprising to read in 1 Kgs 22:38 that “they washed the chariot [of
Ahab] by the pool of Samaria; the dogs licked up his blood, and the prostitutes washed themselves in it, according
to the word of the Lord that he had spoken” (italics mine). If Ahab’s blood was licked up by the dogs in Samaria
and Naboth was stoned in Jezreel, then how was Elijah’s prophecy “fulfilled”?
This question is not new. As we shall see, even the translator of the Septuagint struggled to understand how the
licking up of Ahab’s blood in Samaria (1 Kgs 22:38) fulfilled Elijah’s prophecy concerning Ahab’s death (1 Kgs
21:19). And recent interpreters have been puzzled as well. Some argue that we simply have misunderstood the
Hebrew of Elijah’s prediction (references will be given throughout the article below). Others assert that Elijah was
not necessarily referring to a specific location but to a particular situation (i.e. simply that dogs would lick up
Ahab’s blood just as they licked up Naboth’s). Still others contend that Elijah’s prognostication was modified after
Ahab repented (1 Kgs 21:27–29). Other suggestions have also been advanced.
Given the lack of consensus concerning how this prophecy relates to its fulfillment, it is surprising that there has
not, until now, been a study which examines the strengths and weaknesses of each of these explanations.” [5]
This paper offered the resolution below
“While none of these points may be decisive on their own, the cumulative evidence suggests that Naboth was
tried and executed in Samaria. If this is correct, then the events can be reconstructed as follows: (1) the elders
and leaders of Jezreel proclaim a fast in Jezreel while Naboth is brought to Samaria for sentencing; (2) as Naboth
is sitting before the people in Samaria two scoundrels from Jezreel accuse him of cursing God and the king; (3)
the people gather together for the “trial” take Naboth outside of Samaria and stone him; (4) after hearing from
Jezebel that Naboth has been stoned, Ahab travels from Samaria to Jezreel in order to take possession of
Naboth’s vineyard; (5) Ahab is met by Elijah along the way and is informed that his blood will be licked by dogs in
the same place that dogs licked up the blood of Naboth. Thus, when Ahab’s blood was subsequently licked up by
the dogs near the pool of Samaria, the author could confidently say that this happened “according to the word of
the Lord that he had spoken.”” [6]
Jehovah God sees the injustice on the world. To those who are accountable to Him by virtue of the covenant law,
He makes accountable. This is a good example of God acting on an injustice.
References
[2] “He Endured in the Face of Injustice”, The Watchtower February 1, 2014, p. 13.
[3] Foreman, Benjamin. “The Blood of Ahab: Reevaluating Ahab’s Death and Elijah’s Prophecy”, Journal of
Evangelical Theological Society 58/2 (2015), p. 263.
[4] Dog. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 644.
[5] Foreman, Benjamin. “The Blood of Ahab: Reevaluating Ahab’s Death and Elijah’s Prophecy”, Journal of
Evangelical Theological Society 58/2 (2015), p. 249.
[6] Ibid., p. 264.
173 | P a g e

Why does God changes His mind after already passing judgment on an individual even upon nations? What does
this indicate about God’s personality as revealed in the Bible? This was brought to my attention as I continue to
read the narratives around a wicked king like Ahab.
Ahab already has done several very offensive acts against Jehovah God - he has married a non-Israelite who
introduced false religion into Israel which resulted into the promotion of not just calf worship but the worship of
Baal; he has ignored Jehovah’s punishment of the drought and was not impressed by Jehovah’s display of
godship on Mount Carmel; and recently he has put to death an innocent man, Naboth, and then stealing his
property for his own use (in modern times, this is called land-grabbing).
Jehovah sent his prophet Elijah to let Ahab know that God has witnessed all of it and He has now decided to pass
judgment of death to Ahab and his dynasty. The judgment has exposed the influence of Jezebel. The Bible says
he was “egged on by his wife Jezebel”. (20:25,26)
The wisdom of God’s covenant law has been demonstrated one more time. The first time, it was seen as the
cause of the fall of Solomon leading to the division of the kingdom. Now, it has been clearly demonstrated in the
spiritual corruption of Ahab by his foreign wife Jezebel. But is Ahab unreformable? The Bible reports Ahab’s
reactions
“As soon as Aʹhab heard these words, he ripped his garments apart and put sackcloth on his body; and he went
on a fast and kept lying down in sackcloth and walking despondently. Jehovah’s word then came to E·liʹjah the
Tishʹbite: “Have you seen how Aʹhab has humbled himself on my account? Because he has humbled himself
before me, I will not bring the calamity during his lifetime. I will bring the calamity upon his house in the days of his
son.”” (21: 27-29)
What does the “ripping of garments” and “putting sackcloth” and “fasting” have to do with humility that Jehovah
God saw in this wicked man? The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight described the ripping of garments
“A common sign of grief among the Jews, as well as among other Orientals, particularly upon hearing of the death
of a near relative. In many cases such ripping consisted of a rending of the garment in front just sufficient to lay
open the breast, thus not necessarily a complete ripping of the garment so as to make it unfit for wearing.” [1]
Insight also described the putting sackcloth
“It was the traditional garment of mourning, and we first read of its use when Jacob mourned over the supposed
death of his son Joseph, girding sackcloth upon his hips. (Ge 37:34; 2Sa 3:31) In some cases the mourners used
it as a seat or used it to sleep on. (2Sa 21:10; Isa 58:5; Joe 1:13) The servants of Ben-hadad, in pleading for the
life of their king before Ahab, went with sackcloth on their loins and ropes on their heads. (1Ki 20:31, 32) It was
worn next to the skin at times, with other clothing on top (Job 16:15; Isa 32:11; 1Ki 21:27; 2Ki 6:30), while in other
cases it may possibly have been simply “girded on” over undergarments.—Eze 7:18; Joe 1:8.” [2]
Insight also comments on fasting
“Abstinence from all food for a limited period. Rightly motivated fasts were to show godly sorrow and repentance
concerning past sins. (1Sa 7:6; Joe 2:12-15; Jon 3:5) They were also fitting in the face of great danger, when in
sore need of divine guidance, while enduring tests and meeting temptations, or when studying, meditating, or
concentrating on God’s purposes. (2Ch 20:3; Ezr 8:21; Es 4:3, 16; Mt 4:1, 2) Fasting was, not a self-inflicted form
of punishment, but a humbling of oneself before Jehovah. (Ezr 8:21; 9:5; compare 1Ki 21:27-29.)” [3]
So, what does all of this mean for Ahab? Insight explains
“These words hit home, and in deep grief Ahab fasted in sackcloth, alternately sitting and pacing the floor in
despondence. On this basis a measure of mercy was extended to him as regards the time when the calamity
would come on his house.—1Ki 21:1-29.” [4]
174 | P a g e
Jehovah God has demonstrated how He balances His primary qualities of love, justice, wisdom and power
without sacrificing or compromising any of them. Ahab benefited from such a display of fine qualities that despite
all that he did, God extended to him such mercy. Ahab would not be the last to taste of such mercy. In the
southern kingdom of Judah, one of its kings, Hezekiah, also benefited in the same manner. The Bible reports
“However, Hez·e·kiʹah humbled himself for the haughtiness of his heart, he and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and
Jehovah’s indignation did not come upon them in the days of Hez·e·kiʹah.” (2 Chronicles 32:26)
Hezekiah told the prophet Isaiah after hearing the judgment against him after humbling himself
“At that Hez·e·kiʹah said to Isaiah: “The word of Jehovah that you have spoken is good.” Then he added:
“Because there will be peace and stability during my lifetime.” (Isaiah 39:8)
A Bible-based publication explains further God’s quality of justice
“While Jehovah shows great mercy toward those who draw near to him in sincerity, he will not forever tolerate a
situation that brings reproach upon his holy name. (Psalm 74:10, 22, 23) The God of justice is not one to be
mocked; he will not shield willful sinners from the adverse judgment their course deserves. Jehovah is “a God
merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abundant in loving-kindness and truth, . . . but by no means will he give
exemption from punishment.” (Exodus 34:6, 7) True to these words, Jehovah has at times found it necessary to
execute judgment upon those who deliberately violate his righteous laws.” [5]
But would Ahab change of heart lead him to turn around? The final chapter of the book of 1 Kings will disclose
his final end.
References
[1] Ripping of Garments. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 813.
[2] Sackcloth. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 834.
[3] Fast. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 811.
[4] Ahab. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 60.
[5] “All His Ways Are Justice”, Draw Close to Jehovah, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 2014, p. 115.
175 | P a g e

Has Ahab reformed after the initial display of humility that Jehovah God appreciated? What is wrong for putting
personal friendships ahead of friendship with God? What does the final days of Ahab teach me about more
disclosures of God’s view of our relationship with Him relative to our relationship with people? These are my
reflection notes.
This part of the Bible narrative begins with a comment
“For three years there was no war between Syria and Israel.” (22:1)
King Ahab has brought prosperity in the northern kingdom. Now, he is currently enjoying peace. But, I will
backtrack for a moment what Jehovah God has decided will happen with the house of Ahab or his dynasty.
During the days that prophet Elijah escaped the threat of Queen Jezebel, running as far as Mount Horeb (also
known as Mount Sinai), Jehovah God determined the following
* anoint his successor Elisha

* anoint Jehu the successor to the house of Ahab, as king of the northern kingdom of Israel
* anoint Hazael to be the new king of Syria
In the last narrative, Jehovah God acknowledging the humility of Ahab deferred the destruction of the house of
Ahab in the days of his son. I recall prior to the Naboth incident, Ahab disobeyed Jehovah over the case of the
Syrian king Benhadad. Apparently, Ahab has gotten a short-term benefit from this act. One reference reports
“Whatever Ahab's motives may have been, these hereditary foes really fought side by side against the common
enemy, the king of Assyria, in the battle at Karkar on the Orontes in the year 854, as is proved by the inscription
on the monolith of Shalmaneser II, king of Assyria.” [1]
But, is this assertion really proven? The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight lines up four reasons why this could be
wrong. The first one is shown below
“The participation of Ahab in the battle as an ally of the Syrians is popularly viewed as an accepted fact. Yet, the
Bible makes no mention of such event, and despite the apparent similarity in the names, there are serious
reasons for doubting the identification of A-ha-ab-bu matSir-ʼi-la-a-a with Ahab of Israel. The Encyclopædia Biblica
(London, 1899, Vol. I, col. 91) says “The name of Ahabbu Sirʼlai, which, as most scholars are now agreed, can
only mean Ahab of Israel (or, as Hommel thinks, of Jezreel).” (Italics ours.) This shows that the identification was
not always as generally accepted as today, and it shows as well that the translation of matSir-ʼi-la-a-a as “Israelite”
has also been subject to doubt. It may be noted that matSir-ʼi-la-a-a is not the term used elsewhere in Assyrian
inscriptions to refer to the northern kingdom of Israel. In other Assyrian inscriptions of the time, that land is
referred to either by the name of its capital Samaria (Sa-me-ri-na in the inscriptions) or as Bit Hu-um-ri-ia (Omri-
land), an expression still used a century after the death of Omri.—Ancient Near Eastern Texts, pp. 284, 285.” [2]
Aside from the naming convention of the Assyrians, which is at odds with the assignment to Ahab of the term
“Ahaabbu Sirlaaa”, the other is timing or chronology. Insight continues with the second
“Though most commentators would place Ahab’s supposed joining of the Syrian alliance toward the close of his
reign, this still does not fit the Bible’s chronological framework. Recognizing this problem, scholars Kamphausen
and Kittel offered the suggestion that Ahab’s name has been confused with that of Jehoram in the Assyrian
records. (Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, 1904, Vol. I, p. 53) There is, however, no record in the Bible of any
such participation by Jehoram in the battle of Karkar.” [3]
Insight offers the third
“It is also difficult to explain why Ahab would unite with the hard-set enemies of Israel in such a coalition. Thus,
The Encyclopedia Americana (1956, Vol. I, p. 269) says, “We find [Ahab] strangely allied with his old enemy
Benhadad against Shalmaneser (q.v.) of Assyria, though one would suppose he would gladly have seen
176 | P a g e
Benhadad crushed, and Assyria was no immediate danger.” Ahab had just fought two wars with the Syrians, and
though there was a brief period of nonaggression between Israel and Syria, in the third year of that period Ahab
fought a final conflict with them, losing his life. (1Ki 22:1-4, 34-37) The efforts made at explaining his entry into the
Syrian combine, either as a willing ally or under compulsion, are not convincing.” [4]
Insight offers the fourth and last reason
“Finally, the large force attributed to A-ha-ab-bu in Shalmaneser’s inscription does not ring true with the Biblical
indications of Israel’s war equipment. A-ha-ab-bu is listed as bringing “2,000 chariots” with him, more than any of
the other kings in the alliance. Recognizing the difficulty here, the advocates of A-ha-ab-bu’s identification with
King Ahab only compound the problem by suggesting a further strange union of Judean, Tyrian, Edomite, and
even Moabite contingents with Ahab’s forces to fill out the needed number of chariots. (Encyclopædia Biblica,
Vol. I, col. 92; The Encyclopædia Britannica, 1910, Vol. I, p. 429) It may be noted that in his reign even powerful
King Solomon had only 1,400 chariots.—1Ki 10:26.” [5]
Hence, Insight concludes that the Shalmaneser’s inscription does not prove that the Ahaabbu in it is king Ahab of
Israel. Although most scholars believe that the three year period of peace will allow Ahab to join forces with his
enemy Syrian king in the battle of Karkar.
But despite the peace enjoyed, Ahab has come up with a plan to go to war with Syria again. The Bible reports
“In the third year King Je·hoshʹa·phat of Judah went down to the king of Israel. Then the king of Israel said to his
servants: “Do you know that Raʹmoth-gilʹe·ad belongs to us? And yet we are hesitating to take it back from the
king of Syria.” He then said to Je·hoshʹa·phat: “Will you go with me to fight at Raʹmoth-gilʹe·ad?” Je·hoshʹa·phat
replied to the king of Israel: “I am the same as you. My people are the same as your people. My horses are the
same as your horses.”” (22:2-4)
The king of Judah “went down” to the king of Israel. This is accurate as Jerusalem is a city on the mountains of
Zion and Moriah, 2,500 feet above sea level. Samaria was only 300 feet above sea level.
Ahab disclosed his plans to recover Ramoth-gilead from the Syrians. He asked the visiting king of Judah, if he is
open to help recover it. As the account reports, King Jehoshaphat declare, “my people are the same as your
people”. Is this a wise course of action? Could the king of Judah made a mistake here in building friendship with a
wicked king? I will consider this in the next reflection note.
Reflections
[1] Ahab. International Bible Encyclopedia Online. Available (online).

[2] Shalmaneser. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses,1998, p. 907.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
177 | P a g e

Why does the Bible report the mistakes of its key personalities? How does Jehovah God handle when mistakes
happen compared to deliberate wrongdoing? How does God view the choice people make when they put human
friendship above God’s? This is the highlight of this narrative and it taught me a lot how Jehovah God view our
claims that we love Him.
The narrative introduces a king from the southern kingdom of Judah, from the Davidic dynasty, Jehoshaphat
“But Je·hoshʹa·phat said to the king of Israel: “First inquire, please, for the word of Jehovah.” So the king of Israel
gathered the prophets together, about 400 men, and said to them: “Should I go to war against Raʹmoth-gilʹe·ad, or
should I refrain?” They said: “Go up, and Jehovah will give it into the king’s hand.”” (22: 5, 6)
The last Judean king mentioned in the King’s narrative after the division of the kingdom under Rehoboam, was
the Judean king Asa. Jehoshaphat is his son. The story of the kings of Judah post-division is detailed in the
Chronicles.
The narrative introduces Jehoshaphat as someone who is keen to hear the counsel from God, from Jehovah. The
Chronicles portray him as zealous for the worship of the true God. However, being an imperfect man, he made
mistakes. Those were deemed by God as serious mistakes. In this narrative, his choosing to befriend Ahab who
had no respect for Jehovah God.
In the introduction, Ahab is not mentioned by name but as “king of Israel”. He gathered 400 prophets. Who are
these prophets? There used to be 400 prophets of the sacred pole and 450 prophet of Baal. Yet, in the Mount
Carmel episode, they were slaughtered by Elijah. Where did this 400 prophets came from? Could it be from the
7,000 remaining prophets loyal to Jehovah God. For the prophets responded that “Jehovah will give [Ramoth-
gilead]” to his hand. However, the next dialogue casts doubt to that understanding.
“Je·hoshʹa·phat then said: “Is there not here a prophet of Jehovah? Let us also inquire through him.” At that the
king of Israel said to Je·hoshʹa·phat: “There is still one more man through whom we can inquire of Jehovah; but I
hate him, for he never prophesies good things concerning me, only bad. He is Mi·caiʹah the son of Imʹlah.”
However, Je·hoshʹa·phat said: “The king should not say such a thing.”” (22: 7,8)
It is Jehoshaphat’s question that cast doubt if these 400 prophet were Jehovah’s. Why would he say that if before
him are 400 prophets of Jehovah? However, Ahab’s response of “there is still one more man” rather than “only
man” tell me that Ahab was identifying this other prophet as of the same class as the 400. This prophet will be
introduced in the narrative for the first time, in addition to Elijah. The contrast of Micaiah’s message the 400 will
expose the 400 as false prophets.
One reference also explored the identity of these prophets
“If they were true prophets of Yahweh then we wonder how they survived Jezebel’s pogrom (1 Kgs. 18: 4,13; cf.
19:10,14). If they were prophets of Baal (cf. 18:19), then we wonder how they had escaped Elijah’s massacre
(18:40), and to conclude that the Baalistic establishment was more deeply entrenched than the narrative had
suggested. The fact that Ahab assembled 400 prophets provides a numerical link with 18:19, according to which
Elijah had challenged Ahab to gather not only 450 prophets of Baal but also 400 prophets of Asherah, who ate at
Jezebel’s table. The absence of any reference to these prophets or to Asherah in the account of the contest on
Mount Carmel (18;20-40) suggests that they may have survived Elijah’s purge… In view of Zedekiah’s explicitly
Yahwistic performance in vv. 11-12, the latter seems more likely (Wiseman 1993: 185). Apparently two forms of
Yahweh worship existed simultaneously in the Northern Kingdom: the syncrestic form represented by the calf cult
and designed to prop the monarchy, and the orthodox version represented by Elijah, Elisha, and Micaiah ben Imla
in this chapter (Burney 1903: 252).” [1]
In other words the 400 prophets were prophets of the golden calf. The Bible describes the scene
178 | P a g e
“So the king of Israel called a court official and said: “Bring Mi·caiʹah the son of Imʹlah quickly.” Now the king of
Israel and Je·hoshʹa·phat the king of Judah were each sitting on his throne, dressed in royal attire, at the
threshing floor at the entrance of the gate of Sa·marʹi·a, and all the prophets were prophesying before them.” (22:
9.10)
The setting is a scene where the royal presence of two kings are pictured. In front of them are 400 false prophets.
One of them, Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah, boldly predicted a positive outcome even using iron horns to
demonstrate Ahab’s power. When Micaiah’s turn came, he repeated what everyone else is saying. (22: 11-15)
How did Ahab respond to Micaiah? The Bible reports
“At that the king said to him: “How many times must I put you under oath not to speak to me anything but the truth
in the name of Jehovah?” (22:16)
If Ahab really cares for the truth, Micaiah told him the truth
“So he said: “I see all the Israelites scattered on the mountains, like sheep that have no shepherd. Jehovah said:
‘These have no master. Let each one go back to his house in peace.’”” (22: 17)
Ahab was forewarned. Death was imminent if he pursues the war. Yet,now that the truth is told, how did Ahab
respond? The Bible reports
“Then the king of Israel said to Je·hoshʹa·phat: “Did I not tell you, ‘He will not prophesy good things concerning
me, only bad’?”” (22: 18)
While Ahab was still speaking, Micaiah shared a glimpse of the heavenly court of Jehovah, in contrast to the
earthly court of the two kings, and assembled before Jehovah was his army of angels
“Mi·caiʹah then said: “Therefore, hear the word of Jehovah: I saw Jehovah sitting on his throne and all the army of
the heavens standing by him, to his right and to his left. Jehovah then said, ‘Who will fool Aʹhab, so that he will go
up and fall at Raʹmoth-gilʹe·ad?’ And one was saying one thing while another said something else. Then a spirit
came forward and stood before Jehovah and said, ‘I will fool him.’ Jehovah asked him, ‘How will you do it?’ He
replied, ‘I will go out and become a deceptive spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ So he said, ‘You will fool him,
and what is more, you will be successful. Go out and do that.’ And now Jehovah has put a deceptive spirit in the
mouth of all these prophets of yours, but Jehovah has declared calamity for you.”” (22: 19-23)
Some theologians find this portion difficult to explain. One reference line up the apparent issues to theologians
“How can Yahweh authorize a member of his heavenly court to deceive a person? And how is that Yahweh does
not appear to have full control of the course and outcome of historical events? .. We note that the answers to this
question vary greatly from those who argue that the ‘lying spirit’ involved was a demon, if not actually Satan
(Mayhue 1993: 135-63), to Yahweh himself being totally truthful but sovereignly controlling a ‘spirit of deceit’
(Williams 2002: 58-66; cf. Seow 1999: 649-63; Fretheim 1999: 126-28).” [2]
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight offered this explanation
“Jehovah God allows “an operation of error” to go to persons who prefer falsehood “that they may get to believing
the lie” rather than the good news about Jesus Christ. (2Th 2:9-12) This principle is illustrated by what happened
centuries earlier in the case of Israelite King Ahab. Lying prophets assured Ahab of success in war against
Ramoth-gilead, while Jehovah’s prophet Micaiah foretold disaster. As revealed in vision to Micaiah, Jehovah
allowed a spirit creature to become “a deceptive spirit” in the mouth of Ahab’s prophets. That is to say, this spirit
creature exercised his power upon them so that they spoke, not truth, but what they themselves wanted to say
and what Ahab wanted to hear from them. Though forewarned, Ahab preferred to be fooled by their lies and paid
for it with his life.—1Ki 22:1-38; 2Ch 18.” [3]
For telling the truth in front of 400 false prophets, Ahab detained Micaiah until the king returned in peace (22:24-
27). But Micaiah replied
179 | P a g e
“But Mi·caiʹah said: “If you do return in peace, Jehovah has not spoken with me.” Then he added: “Take note, all
you peoples.”” (22:28)
Jehovah cared enough for wicked Ahab that He allowed Ahab to see the consequence of his action. But Ahab
was a faithless man. He never really cared about Jehovah God. Jehoshaphat chose to be silent in all this. This is
his another mistake. The king of Judah should have learned from the prophet Micaiah but he chose to ignore the
warning like Ahab. Was his friendship with Ahab stronger than with Jehovah’s that he allowed himself to walk into
a disaster with his friend? That seemed to be the case.
References
[1] Slater, EA & Bienkowski, Piotr & Mee, CB. Writing and Ancient Near East Society: Essays in Honor of Alan
Millard, T & T Clark International, 2005, p. 194.
[2] Ibid., p. 191.
[3] Lie. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 245.
180 | P a g e

I have been encouraged with the biblical disclosure of how patient God can be to lead even a very bad person to
repentance if He can. Jehovah God until the last moment tried to lead wicked King Ahab called in this narrative
only as “king of Israel”. It was supposed to be a warning to the faithful King Jehoshaphat of Judah. But both kings
appeared to be stubborn. They are not willing to be led by God. What is the consequence of such
hardheadedness? This will be disclosed by the final days of Ahab as “king of Israel”.
The Bible opens up the final days of Ahab this way
“So the king of Israel and Je·hoshʹa·phat the king of Judah went up to Raʹmoth-gilʹe·ad. The king of Israel now
said to Je·hoshʹa·phat: “I will disguise myself and will go into the battle, but you should put on your royal attire.”
So the king of Israel disguised himself and entered the battle.” (22:29, 30)
What kind of friend is Ahab here? He disguised himself so that his enemy Syrians will not target him. But he
orders his friend, King Jehoshaphat, to wear his royal attire. Jehoshaphat did not complain. He is clearly visible
and to the foreign army, who does not have a photograph of King Ahab will mistake King Jehoshaphat as the one.
Meanwhile, the Bible reports the Syrian side
“Now the king of Syria had ordered his 32 chariot commanders: “Do not fight with anyone, small or great, except
the king of Israel.” And as soon as the chariot commanders saw Je·hoshʹa·phat, they said to themselves: “Surely
it is the king of Israel.” So they turned to fight against him; and Je·hoshʹa·phat began to cry for help. When the
chariot commanders saw that it was not the king of Israel, they immediately turned back from following him.” (22:
31-33)
King Ahab’s strategy worked. The Syrians targeted King Jehoshaphat, forcing him to cry for help. The account in
the Chronicles added that “and Jehovah helped him, and God at once diverted them from him.” (2 Chronicles 18:
31) God has shown mercy on a man who ignored His warning through the prophet who King Jehoshaphat sought
before going to battle. What happens now? How will they be able to identify King Ahab who had disguised himself?
“But one man shot his bow at random, and he struck the king of Israel between the joints of his coat of mail. So
the king said to his charioteer: “Turn around and take me out of the battle, for I have been badly wounded.” 35 The
fighting raged throughout that day, and the king had to be propped up in the chariot, facing the Syrians. The blood
of the wound poured out into the interior of the war chariot, and he died in the evening.” (22: 34,35)
The Syrians did not know that they had killed the king of Israel, struck by an arrow between the joints of his coat
of mail, blood spilling into the chariot. He died from loss of blood. The Bible now concludes the life story of Ahab
“Around sunset a cry passed through the camp, saying: “Everyone to his city! Everyone to his land!” Thus the king
died, and he was brought to Sa·marʹi·a; they buried the king in Sa·marʹi·a. When they washed off the war chariot
by the pool of Sa·marʹi·a, the dogs licked up his blood and the prostitutes bathed there, according to the word that
Jehovah had spoken.” (22: 36-38)
In previous reflection, scholars explored how Elijah’s prophecy was fulfilled and key was understanding what
Elijah told Ahab at the time
““In the place where the dogs licked up the blood of Naʹboth, the dogs will lick up your own blood.” (1 Kings 21:19)
The question was where was Naboth’s blood licked up by dogs? Since Ahab’s blood was licked up by dogs on the
chariot “by the pool of Samaria”, and the Bible writer confirmed that this was a fulfilled prophecy, then it appears
that Naboth was brought from Jezreel to Samaria to die. Scholars then asked if that is the case, why was his son
thrown on the plot of land of Naboth in Jezreel? Are there two prophecies where Ahab’s was modified because of
his humbling himself when he heard the judgment of God?
The Bible concluded Ahab’s life story that consumed six chapters of the book of Kings this way
181 | P a g e
“As for the rest of the history of Aʹhab, all that he did and the house of ivory that he built and all the cities that he
built, is it not written in the book of the history of the times of the kings of Israel? Then Aʹhab was laid to rest with
his forefathers; and his son A·ha·ziʹah became king in his place.” (22: 39,40)
The Biblical account acknowledged the prosperity that King Ahab had brought to Israel with reference to “house of
ivory”. One archaeological paper described the importance of the reference to ivory
“The interplay between archaeology and the Bible is perhaps nowhere better illustrated than in the subject of ivory.
The Bible helps us to understand the archaeological artifacts, and the archaeological artifacts help us to
understand the Bible.
In the Bible, we are told of King Solomon’s ivory throne (1 Kings 10-18; 2 Chronicles 9-17) and of King Ahab who
built an entire house of ivory (1 Kings 22-39). At times, ivory was used as we might use money, for barter, tribute
or exchange (Ezekiel 27-15). We learn of the precious ivories brought back from three year voyages by
Solomon’s ships plying a trade route between Tarshish and Ophir, ports of uncertain location (1 Kings 10-22; 2
Chronicles 9-21). And we also learn of ivory as a symbol of wealth and decadence- Amos inveighs against Israel
lolling on its ivory beds (Amos 6-4). He prophesies in the name of the Lord that the house of ivory will perish and
be demolished (Amos 3-15). The beauty of ivory was universally recognized- In the Song of Songs, the lover
whose stature is as majestic as Lebanon, stately as the cedars, has a belly like a polished ivory tablet (Song of
Songs 5-14); his beloved has a neck like an ivory tower (Song of Songs 7-4).” [1]
It adds
“An important ivory find from the Iron Age comes from Ahab’s capital in Samaria where over 500 ivory fragments
were found. The work is clearly non-Palestinian. It is tempting to conclude that these fragments formed part of the
pagan cult materials that Jezebel introduced into Ahab’s court. However, there is a dispute over the date of the
collection. Some scholars ascribe it to the ninth century B.C., when Ahab ruled; others prefer an eighth-century
B.C. date.
The Bible speaks of Ahab’s “house of ivory” (1 Kings 22-39). Does this refer to the paneling of the walls or to the
furnishings? To put the matter differently, did the ivory fragments found at Samaria decorate the walls of the
building or the furniture? There is some evidence from Nimrud that a room in an Assyrian palace was, in fact,
paneled with ivory veneer. Was this the case at Samaria? On the basis of the evidence at hand, it is difficult to tell.
Whether paneling for the wall or decoration for furniture, the houses of ivory—based on a highly sophisticated
Phoenician ivory industry—were for the Hebrew prophets symbols of social oppression and injustice; the “ivory
houses” were also evidence of participation in the barbarous pagan practices and heathen worship of Phoenicia.
Based on the archaeological evidence, the prophets knew what they were talking about.” [2]
Ahab neglected the most important aspect of his rule - for him to recognize the true Sovereign of Israel, Jehovah
God. Several times, God tried to lead him to repentance. He almost did but it fell short. All the prosperity that he
brought did not matter to God. In the end, he died unnecessarily because of his failure to recognize Jehovah.
Jehovah could have been his God.
References
[1] Shanks, Hershel. “Ancient Ivory”, Biblical Archaeology Review 11:05, Sep-Oct, 1985.
[2] Ibid.
182 | P a g e
11.24 Ahaziah, King of Israel, son of Ahab

Some weaknesses are long-lasting, not easily shed. This is true in the case of Jehoshaphat. Despite the warnings
and close brush with death over his wrong friendship, he stuck to them. It was only balanced by his zeal for true
worship, removing them while he can in his kingdom, including the hotly-contested by scholars as practice of
temple prostitutes, male or female. The book of 1 Kings closes with these notes.
“Je·hoshʹa·phat the son of Aʹsa had become king over Judah in the fourth year of King Aʹhab of Israel.
Je·hoshʹa·phat was 35 years old when he became king, and he reigned for 25 years in Jerusalem. His mother’s
name was A·zuʹbah the daughter of Shilʹhi. He kept walking in all the way of Aʹsa his father. He did not deviate
from it, and he did what was right in Jehovah’s eyes. However, the high places were not removed, and the people
were still sacrificing and making sacrificial smoke on the high places. Je·hoshʹa·phat kept peaceful relations with
the king of Israel. As for the rest of the history of Je·hoshʹa·phat, his mighty exploits and how he waged war, is it
not written in the book of the history of the times of the kings of Judah? He also cleared out of the land the rest of
the male temple prostitutes who had been left over in the days of Aʹsa his father.” (22: 41-46)
In the introduction to Jehoshaphat, his mother was identified as “Azubah the daughter of Shilhi”. His father Asa
had deposed her great-grandmother Maacah for promoting the worship of Asherah (1 Kings 15:13). Azubah must
have been a notable lady in the kingdom for her to be mentioned in the account. Regarding roles of mothers in
the royal court, one article wrote
“Most biblical references to royal mothers occur in the announcements in the books of 1 and 2 Kings that a new
king has begun to reign. These announcements appear for all the kings of Judah except two (Jehoram and Ahaz),
from the division of Israel into two kingdoms (922 B.C.E.) until the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem (587
B.C.E.). The announcements indicate the relationship of the new king (typically a son) to the previous one, the
name of the mother, the number of years the king ruled, and whether or not the king “did what was right in the
sight of the Lord” (for example, 2Kgs 15:3). The regular mention of the king's mother stands out in comparison to
the announcements regarding the kings of the northern kingdom (Israel) and other ancient Near Eastern king lists.
These announcements underscore the position of the royal mother in the dynastic system as providing continuity
between the king whose reign has concluded and the new king. Since the announcements also include an
assessment of whether or not the king’s reign conformed to divine standards, royal mothers are included in this
judgment.
Royal women also connect the dynasty to peoples and places in the nation and beyond. The mother of King
David's firstborn son, Amnon, was Ahinoam of Jezreel, and the mother of his second son, Chileab, was Abigail of
Carmel in southern Judah. David's third son, Absalom, was the "son of Maacah, daughter of King Talmai of
Geshur" (2Sam 3:3). This international connection proved fortunate for Absalom, who fled to Geshur for three
years after killing his half-brother Amnon. The mother of Rehoboam, King Solomon's heir, was also a foreigner,
Naamah the Ammonite.
Royal mothers provided life instruction for their sons and daughters. The wisdom of Prov 31:1-9 is identified as
words King Lemuel's mother had taught him. Royal mothers (such as Athaliah) could also be implicated in an
heir's doing "what was evil in the sight of the Lord" (2Kgs 8:27).
A royal mother was active directly and indirectly in securing the status and future well-being of her children.
Marriages needed to be arranged between royal or prominent families in the country or neighboring nations (a
diplomatic strategy reflected in the marriages of King David mentioned above). A king's eldest son might have the
best—but not the only—chance of succession.” [1]
From the record, Jehoshaphat was already mature when he became king at 35 and ended his rule at 60. His
reputation as a loyal servant of Jehovah God, the true Sovereign of all Israel is intact with his initiatives to remove
the “male temple prostitutes”. Today there is a heated discussion on this term whether this refers to homosexuals
or not. The covenant law prohibited this practice and Jehoshaphat worked to remove them.
183 | P a g e
How widespread in ancient times the practice of temple prostitution? Though there are some scholars who
question the existence of such prostitution, one paper describes it
““Temple/sacred prostitution” does not at all refer to or have as its objective “fertility.” The outcome/service
demanded by buyers and supplied by sellers is sexual pleasure. Thus, this paper does not adhere to Lambert’s
(1992, 143) suggestion that “Thus, in ancient Mesopotamia all prostitution was by definition sacral, because the
sexual act was a natural force working for the well being of the human race and was a power personified in the
goddess Inanna/ Ishtar.” Note in this connection, Pruss’ (2002, 544) rejection of the view that female figurines with
emphasized sexual characteristics pertain to fertility and reproduction: “Generally, there is no reason to believe
that the ancient inhabitants of Mesopotamia and Syria could not separate the fields of eroticism and human
procreation. They were able to perceive sexuality as an independent thriving force behind human behavior.
Contrary to our modern understanding, human fertility was in the Ancient Near East more closely linked with
males than with females.” [2]
This paper discusses what sort of evidence is available and what is not, citing one scholar Julia Assante
“On the other hand, Assante (1998, 8 n. 9) stresses that the “over 2000 tablets and fragments” from the Inanna
temple in Nippur “did not produce a single fragment documenting sacred prostitution.” Be this as it may, many if
not most of the tablets were of an economic nature. As what economists call “spot transactions,” much like the
purchase of bread in the local bakery, it is unlikely that contracts for sex were ever written. (A spot market is a
market in which products are bought and sold for cash and delivered immediately.) Assante (1998, 65) suggests
that “Sex for pay was simply not a topic Mesopotamians wished to record.” It is no exaggeration to say that once
literary texts are excluded, the proverbial “oldest profession” mostly ceases to exist. However, as we shall see,
legal texts from the archive of a priest in Sippar Amnnum are consistent with the view that cults reaped a financial
benefit from prostitution.” [3]
Another paper citing Deuteronomy 23:19, concluded that the “male temple prostitute” is a homosexual
“Ironically, the intuitive translation, “male homosexual prostitute,” with a pedigree going back as far as the King
James Version, “sodomite,” is borne out by more recent studies of the evidence. In ancient Israel, as elsewhere in
the ancient Near East, the passive role in homosexual intercourse disrupted traditional and socially immutable
gender roles. The freeborn male who adopted it voluntarily deserved contempt and possibly death; the passive
male prostitute plying his sexually liminal trade, was dubbed “dog” as befitting his fawning passivity and
incorrigible perversity.” [4]
A sort of historical marker was included in the closing
“Then there was no king in Eʹdom; a deputy was acting as king.” (22:47)
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight comments
“It is also stated that at some point in Jehoshaphat’s reign Edom had no king; the land was ruled by a deputy, who
evidently was answerable to the Judean throne, so Judah’s access to the Gulf of ʽAqaba and its port or ports was
unobstructed. (1Ki 22:47, 48)” [5]
One final note with Jehoshaphat was his trading with ships. But the initiative failed.
“Je·hoshʹa·phat also made Tarʹshish ships to go to Oʹphir for gold, but they did not go because the ships were
wrecked at Eʹzi·on-geʹber. It was then that A·ha·ziʹah the son of Aʹhab said to Je·hoshʹa·phat: “Let my servants go
with your servants in the ships,” but Je·hoshʹa·phat did not consent.” (22: 48, 49)
This was another mistake by Jehoshaphat. He never seemed to get over building friendship with the northern
kingdom. Insight comments
184 | P a g e
“Later, Jehoshaphat became partner to King Ahaziah, Ahab’s successor, in a shipbuilding enterprise at Ezion-
geber on the Gulf of ʽAqaba. But Jehovah disapproved of this maritime alliance with wicked Ahaziah. Therefore, in
fulfillment of prophecy, the ships were wrecked.—1Ki 22:48, 49; 2Ch 20:35-37.” [6]
This was highlighted in the records of Chronicles
“After this King Je·hoshʹa·phat of Judah made an alliance with King A·ha·ziʹah of Israel, who acted wickedly. So
he made him his partner in making ships to go to Tarʹshish, and they built the ships in Eʹzi·on-geʹber. However,
E·li·eʹzer the son of Dod·avʹa·hu of Ma·reʹsha spoke prophetically against Je·hoshʹa·phat, saying: “Because you
have made an alliance with A·ha·ziʹah, Jehovah will destroy your works.” So the ships were wrecked, and they
were unable to go to Tarʹshish.” (2 Chronicles 20: 35-37)
At this point the next generation of kings are introduced, the son of Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, who Jehoshaphat
arranged to marry the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel. On the northern kingdom, Ahaziah succeeds Ahab.
“Then Je·hoshʹa·phat was laid to rest with his forefathers and was buried with his forefathers in the City of David
his forefather; and his son Je·hoʹram became king in his place.” (22: 50)
Ahaziah’s rule was short, lasting only two years. In his reign, Jehovah’s prophecy of judgment was completed.
“A·ha·ziʹah the son of Aʹhab became king over Israel in Sa·marʹi·a in the 17th year of King Je·hoshʹa·phat of
Judah, and he reigned over Israel for two years. And he kept doing what was bad in Jehovah’s eyes and walking
in the way of his father and his mother and in the way of Jer·o·boʹam the son of Neʹbat, who had caused Israel to
sin. He continued serving Baʹal and bowing down to him and kept offending Jehovah the God of Israel, just as his
father had done.” (22: 51-53)
Ahaziah became king in the 17th year of Jehoshaphat. He ruled until the 19th year of Jehoshaphat but
Jehoshaphat ruled 6 more years, to his 25th year. Jehoram his son replaced him.
The book of 1 Kings closes.
References
[1] Solvang, Elna. “Biblical Royal Mothers”, Bible Odyssey online, Sep. 6, 2016.
[2] Silver, Morris. “Temple/Sacred Prostitution in Ancient Mesopotamia Revisited”, UF 38, p. 632.
[3] Ibid., p. 636.
[4] Burns, John Barclay. “Devotee or Deviate, The “Dog” (keleb) in Ancient Israel as a Symbol of Male Passivity
and Perversion”, Journal of Religion & Society, The Kripke Center, Volume 2 (2000).
[5] Edom. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 681.
[6] Jehoshaphat. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1272.
185 | P a g e
12. Second KINGS

12.1 Introduction
The Book of Kings, of which I am now on the second book, continues the Bible’s plot on God’s sovereignty.
Human rebellion against God’s sovereignty led to Jehovah God promising to crush the rebellion by raising a
future offspring who will destroy God’s arch enemy, Satan the Devil. The Bible books carried the development
and unraveling of the plot by first associating that future offspring with Abraham. From Abraham the Bible
narrative led us to the nation of Israel. In Mount Sinai, God promised that if Israel will stay faithful, God can use
them to become a “kingdom of priests”. The covenant law became the constitution of the new nation of Israel. But
the narrative journey revealed that humans are not steady when it comes to supporting God’s sovereignty. It
affirms that the Bible has plot harmony despite being written by different men in different periods of time. Of the
1,600 years it will take to complete the Bible, by the time of the Book of Kings, about 500 years has been spent
producing the book. There is a 1,000 years more to go. This shows that the Bible has an Author who is guiding its
production across the years. The Bible claims its Author is Jehovah God, the Father.
The Book of 1 Kings covered the period of the rise to kingship of Solomon on the United Monarchy. It ended with
the death of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah in the Divided Kingdom. That is 129 years, from 1040 B.C.E. to 911
B.C.E. The account proved Jehovah God was faithful to the covenant law that the forefathers of the Israelites
entered into back in 1513 B.C.E. at the foot of Mount Sinai. It was Israel and Judah who proved themselves
unfaithful to the requirements of the covenant law. Nearly all of the leaders of the northern kingdom sought
religious independence for political gain, inventing a false religion centered first on the golden calf and later on
with Baals with the rise of Ahab.
The story will now enter an evil period in both kingdoms because of the error of Jehoshaphat in building an
alliance with the northern kingdom of Israel. The story will end with the fall of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. and to the
exile of Jehoiachin in Babylon, 580 B.C.E., about 340 years in duration. The total history of the two books is about
469 years.
The book of 2 Kings was originally part of the single roll called Kings that was later split when the Hebrew Bible
was translated into Greek. The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight explains
“Originally the two books of Kings comprised one roll called Kings (Heb., Mela·khimʹ), and in the Hebrew Bible
today they are still counted as one book, the fourth in the section known as the Former Prophets. In the Greek
Septuagint the Books of the Kings were called Third and Fourth Kingdoms, the Books of Samuel having been
designated First and Second Kingdoms. In the Latin Vulgate these books were together known as the four books
of Kings because Jerome preferred the name Regum (Kings), in harmony with the Hebrew title, to the literal
translation of the Septuagint title Regnorum (Kingdoms). Division into two books in the Septuagint became
expedient because the Greek translation with vowels required almost twice as much space as did Hebrew, in
which no vowels were used until the second half of the first millennium of the Common Era.” [1]
The Bible writer though not identified within the book is the prophet Jeremiah based on writing style. Most of his
content were compiled from various sources. Insight explains this part
“The books of Kings were largely compiled from written sources, and the writer shows clearly that he referred to
these outside sources for some of his information. He refers to “the book of the affairs of Solomon” (1Ki 11:41),
“the book of the affairs of the days of the kings of Judah” (1Ki 15:7, 23), and “the book of the affairs of the days of
the kings of Israel” (1Ki 14:19; 16:14).” [2]
The theory promoted by bible scholars around the so-called Deuteronomistic History assumes that the most of the
Bible books of Moses to Kings were written to support the reforms of the Judean king Josiah. Deuteronomy,
supposedly the book of Moses, was not really by Moses but was forged to promote the reforms of Josiah. But this
theory has been discredited with the new knowledge resulting from Ancient Near East studies and some.
Previous reflections have highlighted the issues with this theory.
186 | P a g e
The reporting about the kings from both kingdoms follow a certain formula. Insight explains
“After considering the reign of Solomon, there is, with some exceptions, a general set pattern for describing each
reign, as two parallel lines of history are interwoven. For the kings of Judah there is usually given first an
introductory synchronism with the contemporaneous king of Israel, then the age of the king, the length of his reign,
the place of rule, and the name and home of his mother, the latter being an item of interest and importance
because at least some of the kings of Judah were polygamous. In concluding the account for each king, the
source of the information, the burial of the king, and the name of his successor are given. Some of the same
details are provided for each king of Israel, but the king’s age at the time of his accession and the name and
home of his mother are not given.” [3]
I will now commence on my journey to read and reflect on the second book of Kings.
References
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
187 | P a g e
12.1 Ahaziah, king of Israel, son of Ahab

12.1.1 Ahaziah, king of Israel, son of Ahab - Part 1
Is God in the Old Testament, who identified himself by the name Jehovah, deficient in mercy? My journey in
reading the narrative of the book of Kings show the exact opposite. God was so patient with King Solomon as he
made imperfect decisions that will later haunt him. He was patient with Jeroboam who led Israel into idolatry on
the golden calf, a clear violation of the covenant law. He was patient with every replacement since then. He was
merciful with King Ahab who He tried to lead to repentance and shown him mercy when he showed one time
signs of humility. He was merciful with Jehoshaphat despite his mistakes and being stubborn with his friendship
with the northern kingdom of Israel.
Under the covenant law where God is the real and ultimate Sovereign, how would God treat leaders who promote
rival non-gods and who have no respect for His messengers, the prophets? This is treachery. Treachery is
treason.
Jehovah God, the ultimate Sovereign of Israel, had patiently tried to lead Ahab to repentance in so many ways.
But Ahab failed God. Hence, Jehovah God passed judgment on his dynasty - it will end. God is acting here as
Sovereign and He can remove any of His royal representatives who fail Him. He has removed King Saul of
Benjamin and his dynasty. He has severed the 10-tribes from King Rehoboam of Judah. In the 10-tribe kingdom
of Israel, Jehovah has been removing one dynasty after another for failing to comply with the covenant law where
the king is Jehovah God’s representative.
As my journey begins in the second book of Kings, the narrative opens with the death of the son of Ahab, Ahaziah.
Names are important with Hebrews. The meanings of their names are significant. Ahab’s son has an important
name. It carries God’s name in it. Ahaziah as a name means “Jehovah Has Taken Hold”. If Ahab gave the name,
it reflected some knowledge of God in Ahab though it did not make any difference to him. Now, his son with such
a meaningful name, despite what he must have witnessed or heard of the contest of godship on Mount Carmel,
the warning given his father going to the battle of Ramoth-gilead, had no acknowledgment of the godship of
Israel’s true Sovereign, Jehovah.
For this reflection, I will focus on the first verse about the Moabite rebellion. The narrative opens with
“After the death of Aʹhab, Moʹab revolted against Israel.” (1:1)
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight explains the historical value of this statement
“The Moabite Stone was one of the earliest discoveries of importance in the area E of the Jordan. (PICTURE,
Vol. 1, p. 325) Found in 1868 at Dhiban, N of the Arnon Valley, it presents Moabite King Mesha’s version of his
revolt against Israel. (Compare 2 Ki 1:1; 3:4, 5.) In part the inscription says: “I (am) Mesha, son of Chemosh-[. . .],
king of Moab, the Dibonite . . . As for Omri, king of Israel, he humbled Moab many years (lit., days), for Chemosh
[the god of Moab] was angry at his land. And his son followed him and he also said, ‘I will humble Moab.’ In my
time he spoke (thus), but I have triumphed over him and over his house, while Israel hath perished for ever! . . .
And Chemosh said to me, ‘Go, take Nebo from Israel!’ So I went by night and fought against it from the break of
dawn until noon, taking it and slaying all . . . And I took from there the [vessels] of Yahweh, dragging them before
Chemosh.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 1974, p. 320) Thus the stone not only mentions
the name of King Omri of Israel but also, in the 18th line, contains God’s name in the form of the
Tetragrammaton.” [1]
Scholars however found inconsistencies in terms of timing of events between the Hebrew Bible and the Moabite
Stone (Mesha Stele). An article vouched for the veracity of the Bible record. It wrote
“Such complete consistency among all the statements of the Hebrew record for this period, such minute
agreement with the details of the Assyrian annals, lend to the Hebrew declarations an authority not lightly to be
rejected. Were then choice between the credibility of the Hebrew and the Moabite stories necessary, preference
might justly be claimed for the former on the ground that it is derived from annals of the kingdom presumably
188 | P a g e
contemporary with the events, whereas Mesha had his stone inscribed a considerable time after the revolt; that
the general authenticity of the Hebrew narrative is abundantly confirmed, while the credibility of Mesha is
unknown; and especially on the ground that the Hebrew record deals with domestic affairs, while the Moabite
king’s note of time is a reference to the internal history of a realm foreign to Moab.” [2]
There are other scholars who promote the idea that the Moabite Stone is not a historical record but an allegory.
One recent paper even claimed based on his analysis of the text, a forgery. But this latter scholar ended his paper
this way
“At any rate, I am afraid that the problem will not be definitely solved, until other inscriptions of that period and
from that region turn up, which will prove that such a biblical style and language, with such an admixture of
Aramaic words and forms and quite un-Hebrew expresssions, were current in the plains and heights of Moab; and
the Mesa was not the only Moabite King who set up himself a monument, to give to coming generations a glowing
account of his great achievements and beneficent works, for which he would have needed three life-times to
accomplish.
In that event, and in that event alone, we shall have to yield; for one fact is always stronger than many
arguments.” [3]
So there. Something briefly mentioned in the Bible turned out to have a corroboration outside of it. Why did this
archaeological find created such an excitement? It happened at a time that there was a strong belief that the Bible
could not be taken as factual. The theory of documentary hypothesis was on its heyday. This theory claimed that
the Bible was a cultural production of the Jews trying to re-create their history after their Babylonian exile. That is
on the literary scholarship side. There was the equivalent in archaeology of the so-called minimalist camp who do
not believe that archaeology supports the biblical history because the history in the Bible was fabricated.
However, today, there is an abundance in archaeological find that corroborates the Bible accounts and narratives.
The Moabite Stone is just one the many finds.
Back to the Moabite rebellion. King Azariah was unable to repel this rebellion. Insight comments
“Son of Ahab and Jezebel, and king of Israel for two years beginning in about 919 B.C.E. He followed his
idolatrous parents in Baal worship. (1Ki 22:51-53) Upon the death of Ahaziah’s father, Moab seized the
opportunity to revolt and thereby free itself from the heavy tribute of 100,000 lambs and an equal number of male
sheep with their wool. (2Ki 1:1; 3:4, 5) This revolt is described by King Mesha of Moab in the Moabite Stone
inscription. Perhaps due to his subsequent accident and early death, Ahaziah made no effort to subjugate the
Moabites.” [4]
An accident happened to Ahaziah injuring him. What did he do to recover and heal? The Bible reports
“It was then that A·ha·ziʹah fell down through the grating in his roof chamber in Sa·marʹi·a and was injured. So he
sent messengers and said to them: “Go, inquire of Baʹal-zeʹbub the god of Ekʹron to find out whether I will recover
from this injury.”” (1:2)
Who is this Baal-zebub? Insight explains
“The Baal worshiped by the Philistines at Ekron. There are indications that it was a common practice among the
Hebrews to change the names of false gods to something similar but degrading. Hence, the ending “zebub” may
be an alteration of one of the titles of Baal shown in the Ras Shamra texts as “Zabul” (“Prince”), or Zebul. Some
scholars, however, suggest that the name was given to the god by his worshipers because of his being viewed as
the producer of flies and therefore able to control this common pest of the Middle East. Since the giving of oracles
was associated with Baal-zebub, others favor the view that Baal-zebub was a god who was regarded as giving
oracles by the flight or buzzing of a fly.—2Ki 1:2.” [5]
Jehovah God was displeased that he had Elijah intercept the messengers and deliver the judgment against
Ahaziah - death (1:3-6). Ahaziah upon inquiring who told them to turn around, the Bible reports
189 | P a g e
“At this he asked them: “What did the man look like who came up to meet you and spoke these words to you?” So
they said to him: “He was a man with a garment of hair and a leather belt around his waist.” Immediately he said:
“It was E·liʹjah the Tishʹbite.”” (1:7,8)
Ahaziah sent three batches of 50 soldiers and their chief to bring back Elijah, the first two perished on Elijah’s call
for fire. (1:5-12) The chief of the 50 bore responsibility for the lives of his men. The first two apparently had no
respect for the office of Elijah, failing to account that he represents the ultimate Sovereign of Israel. The chief of
the 50 forgot the relative position of the wicked king he serves and the one who permitted his king to rule, the
ultimate Sovereign. 102 lives were lost over such conduct.
The third batch was different
“Then the king sent again a third chief of 50 and his 50 men. But the third chief of 50 went up and bowed down on
his knees in front of E·liʹjah and began to beg for favor and say to him: “Man of the true God, please, let my life
and the lives of these 50 servants of yours be precious in your eyes. Fire has already come down from the
heavens and consumed the two former chiefs of 50 and their groups of 50, but now let my life be precious in your
eyes.”” (1:13,14)
A Bible-based publication offered notes on this incident
“A second chief of 50 was sent to get Elijah. He too tried to order Elijah to go with him. Once again, fire came
down from the heavens. But then, a third chief of 50 came to Elijah. This man showed respect. Instead of giving
Elijah an order, he bent down upon his knees and pleaded: “Man of the true God, please let my soul and the soul
of these fifty servants of yours be precious in your eyes. Here fire came down from the heavens and went eating
up the two former chiefs of fifty and their fifties, but now let my soul be precious in your eyes.” Would God’s
prophet call down fire on someone who may have been fearful but spoke with such respect? That would be
unthinkable! Instead, Jehovah’s angel told Elijah to go with this officer. (2 Ki. 1:11-15) Does that not emphasize
the value of showing respect?” [6]
Elijah came with this batch of soldiers and the narrative reports that he personally delivered the judgment of
Jehovah God, the ultimate Sovereign, to King Ahaziah (1:15, 16) The Bible reports the conclusion
“So he died, according to the word of Jehovah that E·liʹjah had spoken; and because he did not have a son,
Je·hoʹram became king in his place, in the second year of Je·hoʹram the son of Je·hoshʹa·phat the king of Judah.
As for the rest of the history of A·ha·ziʹah, what he did, is it not written in the book of the history of the times of the
kings of Israel?” (1:17, 18)
What a sad ending for stubborn men who refused to acknowledge God and His role in the nation of Israel who
willingly entered into a covenant with Him and who accepted the covenant law as binding to them. Had he
displayed humility and repented of his wickedness, Jehovah could have shown him mercy. God did just that to his
father King Ahab when he humbled himself after hearing God’s judgment. No, Ahaziah was stubborn and God
allowed him to die with his injury.
References
[1] Archaeology. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 152.
[2] Davis, John. “The Moabite Stone and the Hebrew Records”, Hebraica Vol 7, No. 3 (Apr., 1891), p. 180.
[3] Yahuda, A.S. “The Story of a Forger and the Mesa Inscription”, The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol
35, No. 2 (Oct., 1944), p. 162.
[4] Ahaziah. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 62.
[5] Baal-zebub. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 233.
190 | P a g e
12.1.2 Ahaziah, king of Israel, son of Ahab - Part 2

Some scholars say that there is something that can be learned for how Jehovah God’s message was relayed
from the beginning until the end of the narrative with Ahaziah.
The first instance of this message was recorded in the beginning at verse 3
““‘Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are going to inquire of Baʹal-zeʹbub the god of Ekʹron? Therefore
this is what Jehovah says: “You will not leave the bed on which you are lying, for you will certainly die.”
When Elijah delivered the message as recorded in verse 6 and reported by the very messengers he intercepted
“‘Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are sending to inquire of Baʹal-zeʹbub the god of Ekʹron?
Therefore, you will not leave the bed on which you are lying, for you will certainly die.’”
The key messages were intact as reported by the men who received God’s message. When Elijah himself
delivered the message, in verse 16, this is what is recorded
“You sent messengers to inquire of Baʹal-zeʹbub the god of Ekʹron. Is it because there is no God in Israel? Why
did you not inquire of his word? Therefore, you will not leave the bed on which you are lying, for you will certainly
die.’”
Let us compare the three instances how God’s message was relayed
“Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are going to inquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron?” (Jehovah)
‘Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are sending to inquire of Baʹal-zeʹbub the god of Ekʹron?” (Men)
“You sent messengers to inquire of Baʹal-zeʹbub the god of Ekʹron. Is it because there is no God in Israel?” (Elijah)
In the first part of God’s message, all the key components were relayed. The difference with Elijah is that he
transposed what God said and placed the question last. The differences reflect the state of the action with respect
to time, the request of Ahaziah to the messengers. But all transmission is faithful to the original instruction by
Jehovah God.
The other part of God’s message is His judgment of Ahaziah
“You will not leave the bed on which you are lying, for you will certainly die.” (Jehovah)
“You will not leave the bed on which you are lying, for you will certainly die.” (Men)
“You will not leave the bed on which you are lying, for you will certainly die.” (Elijah)
Here it is very clear that the transmission is faithful. The recording was almost to a word. What is the significance
of this recording of Jehovah’s word as it was relayed to Elijah, to the messengers of Ahaziah, and to Ahaziah
himself? Elijah was faithful in delivering the message of Jehovah God. He did not deviate from the key messages.
191 | P a g e
12.2 Elijah and Elisha

12.2.1 Elijah and Elisha - Part 1
I have come to one of the controversial narratives in the books of Kings. This is about the chapter that tells about
Elijah going to heaven and Elisha later punishing children with death. Many Bible readers understood that Elijah
went to heaven, leaving behind his successor Elisha to carry on the ministry. But did Elijah go to heaven, the
heaven where God is? Why did Elisha punished the children with death? I aim to discover the answers.
For this reflection, I will focus on the departure and separate of Elijah from Elisha who was his minister. The
narrative opens this way
“When Jehovah was about to take E·liʹjah up to the heavens in a windstorm, E·liʹjah and E·liʹsha went out from
Gilʹgal.” (2:1)
The part that says “to take Elijah up to the heavens in a windstorm” at first read might give a reader the idea that
the heavens there is where God lives. But here is where context will clarify if this is the heaven of God’s dwelling
or just the sky above us. How can I find out? The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight explains
Elijah does not die at this time, nor does he go into the invisible spirit realm, but he is transferred to another
prophetic assignment. (Joh 3:13) This is shown by the fact that Elisha does not hold any period of mourning for
his master. A number of years after his ascension in the windstorm Elijah is still alive and active as a prophet, this
time to the king of Judah. Because of the wicked course taken by King Jehoram of Judah, Elijah writes him a
letter expressing Jehovah’s condemnation, which is fulfilled shortly thereafter.—2Ch 21:12-15; see HEAVEN
(Ascension to Heaven).” [1]
Insight cites the statement of Jesus when he came down to the earth saying
“No man has ascended into heaven but the one who descended from heaven, the Son of man.” (John 3:13)
No man, and that includes Elijah, has ascended into heaven. Insight cited next the fact that Elisha did not mourn
over Elijah. Where did Elijah go? He later served in a new territory. He was transferred from serving in the
northern kingdom of Israel to the southern kingdom of Judah. Insight quotes the book of Chronicles
“Eventually a written message came to him from E·liʹjah the prophet, saying: “This is what Jehovah the God of
David your forefather says, ‘You have not walked in the ways of your father Je·hoshʹa·phat or in the ways of King
Aʹsa of Judah.” (2 Chronicles 21:12)
Another subject in Insight further explains this
“At 2 Kings 2:11, 12 the prophet Elijah is described as “ascending in the windstorm to the heavens.” The heavens
here referred to are the atmospheric heavens in which windstorms occur, not the spiritual heavens of God’s
presence. Elijah did not die at the time of such ascension, but he continued to live for a number of years after his
heavenly transportation away from his successor Elisha. Nor did Elijah upon death ascend to the spiritual
heavens, since Jesus, while on earth, clearly stated that “no man has ascended into heaven.” (Joh 3:13; see
ELIJAH No. 1 (Elisha Succeeds Him).) At Pentecost, Peter likewise said of David that he “did not ascend to the
heavens.” (Ac 2:34) In reality, there is nothing in the Scriptures to show that a heavenly hope was held out to
God’s servants prior to the coming of Christ Jesus. Such hope first appears in Jesus’ expressions to his disciples
(Mt 19:21, 23-28; Lu 12:32; Joh 14:2, 3) and was fully comprehended by them only after Pentecost of 33 C.E.—
Ac 1:6-8; 2:1-4, 29-36; Ro 8:16, 17.” [2]
The first chapter of 2 Kings ended the 2-year rule of Ahaziah and he was replaced by Jehoram as king of Israel.
Meanwhile, in Judah, Jehoshaphat was replaced by his son Jehoram, 6 years after the death of Ahaziah, king of
Israel. King Jehoram of Judah ruled only for 8 years. So between the death of Ahaziah and the new assignment
of Elijah to serve in Judah under King Jehoram, it does not say when in Jehoram’s rule. The only major event
mentioned before the letter was the war against Edom.
192 | P a g e
Hence, based on John 3:13 and 2 Chronicles 21: 12-15, Elijah did not go up to the heavens where God is but only
to earth’s atmosphere.
Another detail scholars are trying to understand is the mention of Gilgal in the account. Is this the same Gilgal
used by Joshua as his camp in the early days of the nation? Insight explains
“Although some view it otherwise, the Gilgal mentioned in connection with Elijah and Elisha is evidently not the
same as No. 1. Before being taken up to the heavens in a windstorm, Elijah, accompanied by Elisha, went from
Gilgal down to Bethel and then to Jericho. (2Ki 2:1-5) This route suggests a location near Bethel. Also, their going
“down” implies that this Gilgal was in a mountainous region. The Gilgal in the Jordan Valley would not fit this
description. Hence this Gilgal is usually linked with Jil Jiliya, a large village atop a hill about 11 km (7 mi) N of
Bethel. Elisha later rendered harmless a poisonous stew there. (2Ki 4:38-41) Perhaps this or still another Gilgal is
the one described at Deuteronomy 11:29, 30 as having Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal in front of it.” [3]
The Bible reports that Elijah kept moving on and asking Elisha to stay behind three times but Elisha was recorded
to have insisted three times as well, ““As surely as Jehovah is living and as you are living, I will not leave you.”
(2:2, 4, 6). So he joined Elijah from going down to Bethel, Jericho, then the Jordan. Why is this significant? A
Bible publication explains
“Before God ‘took Elijah up to the heavens in a windstorm,’ he sent the prophet from Gilgal to Bethel. Elijah
suggested that his companion not accompany him, but Elisha replied: “I will not leave you.” As the trip continued,
two more times Elijah urged Elisha to stay behind but to no avail. (2 Ki. 2:1-6) Just as Ruth had clung to Naomi,
so Elisha stuck with Elijah. (Ruth 1:8, 16, 17) Why? Evidently because Elisha appreciated his God-given privilege
of ministering to Elijah.
Elisha set a fine example for us. If we receive some privilege of service in God’s organization, we will value it
highly if we bear in mind that we are serving Jehovah. No greater honor exists.—Ps. 65:4; 84:10.” [4]
Ruth came to mind when I saw the stickiness of Elisha with his master Elijah. Elisha made a wise decision
because he is going to see some miracles along the way. The first one is told below
“And 50 of the sons of the prophets also went and stood watching from a distance while the two of them stood by
the Jordan. Then E·liʹjah took his official garment and rolled it up and struck the waters, and they were divided to
the left and to the right, so that both of them went across on the dry ground.” (2:7, 8)
What came to my mind in this scene? This brought back memories of the Israelites under Joshua crossing the
Jordan. Jehovah God miraculously stopped the Jordan River to allow the Israelites to cross.
“As soon as they had gone across, E·liʹjah said to E·liʹsha: “Ask what you want me to do for you before I am taken
from you.” So E·liʹsha said: “Please, may I receive a double portion of your spirit?”” (2:9)
What is the significance of Elisha asking for a “double portion” from Elijah? Insight explains
“Before Elijah leaves, Elisha asks him for “two parts in [his] spirit,” that is, a double part, which was due the
firstborn son. This position he occupies because of his official appointment as Elijah’s successor at the time that
Elijah threw his official garment over him. (2Ki 2:9) “ [5]
“He replied: “You have asked a difficult thing. If you see me when I am taken from you, it will happen for you that
way; but if you do not, it will not happen.”” (2:10)
That is why Elisha made a wise decision to stick with his master until Elijah was taken away from him. Insight
explains
“There Elisha is rewarded for his faithfulness by seeing a fiery war chariot and fiery horses and Elijah ascending
in a windstorm to the heavens. Elisha takes up Elijah’s official garment that had fallen off him, and “two parts” (like
a firstborn son’s portion) in Elijah’s spirit, a spirit of courage and of being “absolutely jealous for Jehovah the God
of armies,” come on him.—2Ki 2:1-13; 1Ki 19:10, 14; compare De 21:17.” [6]
193 | P a g e
Elisha served as a minister to Elijah, for several years. He was faithful in serving a courageous and faithful
prophet of many years. His time came to replace his master and he sought the privilege of being jealous for
Jehovah God. Where 1 Kings was mostly the acts of the prophet Elijah, 2 Kings will now cover the acts of Elijah’s
successor.
However, Elisha will meet some resistance in his new role. I will take that up in my next reflection.
References
[2] Heaven. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1064.
[3] Gilgal. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 961.
[4] “Elisha Saw Fiery Chariots—Do You?”, The Watchtower, August 15, 2013, p. 29.
194 | P a g e

Did Elijah go to heaven? From my previous reflection, I discovered that Elijah did not go to heaven where God is.
He did not die. He was just lifted to the heavens of the earth’s atmosphere and transferred to a new territory. It
was like lift from a modern helicopter. This time, I am going to focus on the second item which is controversial to
Bible critics - Elisha punishing children with death. What is the real story in that episode?
The Bible narrative continues with the actual departure of Elijah
“As they were walking along, speaking as they walked, suddenly a fiery chariot and fiery horses made a
separation between the two of them, and E·liʹjah ascended to the heavens in the windstorm.” (2:11)
Imagine that dramatic scene. “Suddenly” implies a surprising event, an unexpected appearance. Between Elisha
and Elijah, there appeared a fiery chariot and not just one fiery horse but fiery horses together with the windstorm.
It did not describe whether Elijah was lifted into the chariot, or that he rode it. The record just said when the
chariot appeared, Elijah ascended to the heavens. For this reason, one paper exploring this verse said
“These theories, no doubt, aided in the confusion as to whether Elijah ascended via the whirlwind or the fiery
chariot. This is evident in such commentaries as that of Montgomery-Gehman, who say that Elijah "[ascended] to
heaven in a whirlwind" and then almost immediately assert that "his command over the fire from heaven (I.18, II.1)
is climaxed here by his ascent in a fiery chariot with fiery steeds."4 This confusion has a long history. Sirach 48:9
asserted the same thing: "[Elijah] was taken up in a whirlwind of fire, in a chariot of fiery horses."
While some scholars consider the reference to the whirlwind in verse 1a a redactional link,5 others disagree
whether the tradition of the whirlwind or the one about the chariot of fire is original. Galling argued that the
references to chariots and horses as well as Elisha's cry in v. 12 are secondary.6 According to his reconstruction,
Elijah's ascension was via the whirlwind and Elisha saw him no more. Verses 11b and 12ad are to be considered
original while 11a and 12bc are to be considered insertions. Schmitt takes the opposite view,7 arguing that the
references to the whirlwind (1a and 11b) are, in fact, the additions. According to this reconstruction, a chariot and
horses of fire separated Elisha. This was These theories, no doubt, aided in the confusion as to whether Elijah
ascended via the whirlwind or the fiery chariot. This is evident in such commentaries as that of Montgomery-
Gehman, who say that Elijah "[ascended] to heaven in a whirlwind" and then almost immediately assert that "his
command over the fire from heaven (I.18, II.1) is climaxed here by his ascent in a fiery chariot with fiery steeds."4
This confusion has a long history. Sirach 48:9 asserted the same thing: "[Elijah] was taken up in a whirlwind of fire,
in a chariot of fiery horses."
While some scholars consider the reference to the whirlwind in verse 1a a redactional link, others disagree
whether the tradition of the whirlwind or the one about the chariot of fire is original. Galling argued that the
references to chariots and horses as well as Elisha's cry in v. 12 are secondary. According to his reconstruction,
Elijah's ascension was via the whirlwind and Elisha saw him no more. Verses 11b and 12ad are to be considered
original while 11a and 12bc are to be considered insertions. Schmitt takes the opposite view, arguing that the
references to the whirlwind (1a and 11b) are, in fact, the additions. According to this reconstruction, a chariot and
horses of fire separated Elisha.” [1]
Some scholars connect this scene with mythological gods of the Ancient Near East. But I agree with this paper
when it said the following
“Actually these mythological connections do not provide the background for the metaphor's imagery. All they
provide is circumstantial data which show that similar imagery existed in both the Old Testament and the ancient
Near East. The imagery for any of the phrases ("rider of the clouds," "Rakkab-el," "chariots of the sun," "chariotry
of Israel and its horses," or "chariot of fire with horses of fire") derives from real life experiences.” [2]
When the separation took place, the Bible records Elisha’s reaction
“While E·liʹsha was watching, he was crying out: “My father, my father! The chariot of Israel and his horsemen!”
When he could no longer see him, he took hold of his own garments and ripped them into two pieces. After that
195 | P a g e
he picked up the official garment of E·liʹjah that had fallen off him and went back and stood by the bank of the
Jordan.” (2:12. 13)
I remember the discussion in Insight what ripping one’s garment meant - to express grief, usually with death of a
near relative. But Insight shows other instances of grief other than death which in the case of Elijah, he did not die
“Many other instances of such expression of grief are found: that of Job, who ripped his sleeveless coat apart
when advised of the death of his children (Job 1:20); his three pretended friends who, when they first saw him in
his diseased state, put on a demonstration of grief by weeping, ripping their garments, and throwing dust into the
air (Job 2:12); Joshua, after the defeat at Ai (Jos 7:6); the young man announcing King Saul’s death (2Sa 1:2);
David, when given the false notice of the murder by Absalom of all his other sons (2Sa 13:30, 31); and King
Hezekiah and his servants, who ripped apart their garments upon hearing the words spoken by Assyrian
Rabshakeh against Jehovah and Jerusalem (Isa 37:1; 36:22). Queen Athaliah, seeing her usurpation of the
throne coming to an end, also “ripped her garments apart and began crying: ‘Conspiracy! Conspiracy!’”—2Ki
11:14.” [3]
The grief expressed by Elisha then is the grief of separation, having served his master for more than 6 years. Now
he has to take his place and since he saw the departure, he has acquired the “double portion” he was asking for.
This reminded me of another succession story in the Bible - the case of Moses to Joshua. But that one was made
public. Moses presented Joshua to Israel. The other succession story is David to Solomon. That one was also
made public. There is a clear endorsement seen by the public for the successor. What about this succession from
Elijah to Elisha?
The narrative disclosed that the “sons of the prophets” or a guild of prophets were following this transition and
observing Elisha now that the awaited for event has taken place. Apparently, the “sons of the prophet” had prior
revelation about this development as well. The Bible continues
“Then he took the official garment of E·liʹjah that had fallen off him and struck the waters and said: “Where is
Jehovah, the God of E·liʹjah?” When he struck the waters, they were divided to the left and to the right, so that
E·liʹsha went across.” (2:14)
There are several details that caught my attention in this scene. First, the question of Elisha. Second, the miracle
using the official garment of Elijah. The question “where is Jehovah” prior to striking the waters of the Jordan is a
question that have been raised before by Elihu to Job (Job 35:10) and later by Jeremiah himself the author of
Kings (Jer 2: 6,8). Elisha had to struck the waters twice unlike Elijah who had done it once. Others commenting
on the incident imply that Elisha waited after striking the waters the first time. When nothing happened, that was
the time Elisha asked the question. Only then after striking the waters again, did the miracle happened. It is not
clear from the text that there was a waiting time after strking the waters and asking the question. But the question
is profound. It is a request for affirmation, or guidance from God. For example, the way Jeremiah framed the
question and Elihu, a Bible-based publication commented
“If you were seriously ill, would you not want an accurate diagnosis so that you could be treated in time?
Spiritually speaking, the Jews in Jeremiah’s day should have sought an honest appraisal of their spiritual
condition. They ought to have asked: “Where is Jehovah?”—Jer. 2:6, 8.
For the Jews to ask, “Where is Jehovah?” would have meant seeking divine guidance when faced with decisions,
both major and minor. The Jews at that time did not do so. But after the desolation of Jerusalem and their return
from Babylon, they were to ‘seek Jehovah’ and ‘search for him.’ By so doing, they would be able to find him and
come to know his ways. (Read Jeremiah 29:13, 14.) How could they do that? One way was by approaching God
in sincere prayer, asking for his direction.” [4]
Jehovah has answered Elisha’s question by enabling a miracle, letting him pass through the Jordan River on a
dry riverbed. This was witnessed by the sons of the prophets and they knew Jehovah God is now using Elisha.
The sons of the prophets volunteered to look for Elijah but he was not found. This signified they did not think he
died but was just transferred (2:15-18).
196 | P a g e
The second miracle of Elisha was again with water. This time the water in Jericho (2:19-22) It was after this that
an incident happened prompting Elisha to punish them with death.
References
[1] Bailey, Randall. “Elijah and Elisha: The Chariots and Horses of Israel in the Context of ANE Chariot Warfare”.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ripping of Garments. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 813.
[4] “God’s Word for Us Through Jeremiah”, Jehovah’s Witnesses, , 2010, p. 114.
197 | P a g e

Why did Elisha punished the “young boys” with death? This is a controversial topic among Bible critics. I needed
to dig deeper into the narrative to come up a clear understanding. This is my reflection note.
This Bible narrative began this way
“He went up from there to Bethʹel. As he was going along the way, some young boys came out from the city and
began to jeer at him, and they kept saying to him: “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” Finally he turned
around and looked at them and cursed them in the name of Jehovah. Then two she-bears came out of the forest
and tore 42 of the children to pieces. He kept going from there to Mount Carʹmel, and from there he returned to
Sa·marʹi·a.” (2:23-25)
Elisha was exiting Jericho where the sons of the prophets were and he is on his way to Bethel. The young boys
came out from Jericho. One paper explored the implication of the Hebrew word translated “young boys” to give us
a picture of their age
“The first problematic phrase in this passage has always been translated literally to mean little children or small
boys (nearim qetannim). If the passage is taken at face value what age would these youths have been? Other
passages using naar qatan (the singular of nearim qetannim) give no hint concerning the intended age. However,
a clue appears when Joseph is called a naar at age seventeen (Gen. 37:2). He is referred to again as naar at
least two years later when he interprets pharaoh’s dream (Gen. 41:12). Some clarification is also provided when
the writer of the Elisha account selects the plural word “children” (yeladim) in the verse following the passage in
question (2 Kings 2:24) rather than again choosing to use the words nearim qetanim. In Kings, the word yeladim
(children) is attested two other times. Both of these refer to the young men who were serving as advisors to
Rehoboam and had grown up with him (1KIngs 12:8,10). In any case the term nearim qetannim is imprecise with
regard to exact age but on the basis of the context, I suggest that the age of the youths designated by these
combined words would probably fall slightly under twenty years.“ [1]
In Hebrew, the word is translated literally as small boys. The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight comments
“Great disrespect was shown to God’s appointed prophet Elisha by a group of small boys who derided him, crying
out: “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” They wanted Elisha, who was wearing Elijah’s familiar garment,
either to go on his way up to Bethel or to get off the earth as Elijah was supposed to have done. (2Ki 2:11) They
did not want him around. Elisha finally turned and called down evil upon them in the name of Jehovah. “Then two
she-bears came out from the woods and went tearing to pieces forty-two children of their number.”—2Ki 2:23, 24.”
[2]
Insight mentioned that the boys did not want Elisha around. But why? Insight explains under a different subject
“Jehovah’s prophet Elisha was bald. After he had succeeded to the prophetic office of Elijah, he was proceeding
uphill from Jericho toward Bethel when he was mocked by a mob of children who cried: “Go up, you baldhead! Go
up, you baldhead!” The primary reason for their jeers seems to have been not that Elisha was bald but that they
saw a bald man wearing Elijah’s familiar official garment. They did not want any successor of Elijah around. He
should either keep going his way up to Bethel or ascend in a windstorm to the heavens as the former wearer of
that official garment had done. (2Ki 2:11) To answer this challenge of his being Elijah’s successor and to teach
these young people and their parents proper respect for Jehovah’s prophet, Elisha called down evil upon the
jeering mob in the name of the God of Elijah. It was a test of his prophetship. Jehovah manifested his approval of
Elisha by causing two she-bears to come out of the nearby woods and to tear to pieces 42 of them.—2Ki
2:23, 24.” [3]
The young boys were rejecting Elisha as God’s prophet. It was not a simple case of the boys having fun. They did
not recognize Jehovah God’s appointment of Elisha as the sons of the prophets had done from the same city of
Jericho. This view of Insight is echoed in a paper that explored the narrative structure
198 | P a g e
“Further suggestive parallels emerge in connection with the theme of authority when one compares the
terminology and the punishments that are mentioned in the Korah and Elisha narratives.These similarities lend
greater credibility to the idea that the word qerea on the lips of the young men may, in fact, have had reference to
the infamous rebel Korah. 2 Kings 2:23 reads, “And he [Elisha] went up” (waya’al), then “and as he was going up
(webu oleh). In this same verse ,the term for “go up”(aleh) is used twice when the youths cry out, “Go up,
baldhead! Go up, baldhead!” (aleh qerea! aleh qerea!). This taunt seems to point back to 2 kings 2:11, in which
Elijah went up into heaven. The mocking youths may be saying or implying, “Go ahead, try to ascend to heaven
as Elijah did, you usurper of authority!” Furthermore, Korah and his rebels esteemed themselves to be as holy as
Moses and Aaron and believed themselves to be on the same level of authority as their leaders (Num 16:3). They
accused Moses and Aaron of exalting themselves above the congregation. The youths in the passage of 2 Kings
2:23 seem to be accusing Elisha of like motives when in fact they are the guilty ones.” [4]
The additional parallel that this paper discussed is in the same Hebrew verbs used when Koreh was punished
was used in the punishment of the youths. In Koreh, the Hebrew words used were [b-q] for “tore open” and [y-s]
for “went out”. In Koreh, the paper explains that the ground “tore open” and devoured Koreh while in the Elisha
narrative, it was the bears that “tore open” the youths. Also, fire “went out” and consumed the rest of the rebels of
Koreh. In the Elisha narrative, the bears “went out” after the youths.
In any case, Jehovah God did not tolerate such disrespect of His authority through His representatives. Hence,
when Elisha called out for the bears, Jehovah God approved his call in support of Elisha being His prophet. I
know that Jehovah is a merciful and patient God as disclosed in the pages of Kings. His judgments are just. In
this case, we have to trust Jehovah God that the hearts of these young boys were wicked that they deserved the
death penalty. The Bible did not provide a lot of detail on the incident. No one is in the right position with complete
data to charge God of injustice.
References
[1] Woods, Fred. “Elisha and the Children: The Question of Accepting Prophetic Succession”, BYU Studies 32, No.
3 (1992), p. 48.
[2] Child, Children. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 435.
[3] Baldness. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 245.
[4] Woods, Fred. “Elisha and the Children: The Question of Accepting Prophetic Succession”, BYU Studies 32, No.
3 (1992), p. 54.
199 | P a g e
12.3 Jehoram, King of Israel, son of Ahab

12.3.1 Jehoram, King of Israel, son of Ahab - Part 1
What has King Jehoram learned about his father King Ahab’s experiences? Or even from his brother who ruled
for only 2 years, Ahaziah? What can I learn from his failure? What important small detail about Elisha is worth
emulating? The Bible discloses
“Je·hoʹram the son of Aʹhab became king over Israel in Sa·marʹi·a in the 18th year of King Je·hoshʹa·phat of
Judah, and he reigned for 12 years. He kept doing what was bad in Jehovah’s eyes, but not to the extent of his
father or his mother, for he removed the sacred pillar of Baʹal that his father had made. However, he clung to the
sins that Jer·o·boʹam the son of Neʹbat had caused Israel to commit. He did not depart from them.” (3:1-3)
Jehoram learned from the Mount Carmel demonstration how Jehovah God showed that the Baals were nothing.
They were useless during the drought. They were useless in Mount Carmel. Despite her queen mother Jezebel
who introduced them in Israel, he removed the sacred pillar of Baal (the Asherah). The bad thing is that he could
have done it fully by removing the sin of Jeroboam with the golden calf. But he did not. Jehoram’s selfish political
reason could have been the same as Jeroboam’s. He was afraid that Israel would return to the king of Judah.
But times have changed. The king of Judah, Jehoshaphat built an unsanctioned friendship with the king of the
northern kingdom of Israel. Jehoram now tapped this friendship because of a threat. The Bible tells the
development
“Now Meʹsha the king of Moʹab was a sheep raiser, and he used to pay 100,000 lambs and 100,000 unshorn
rams as tribute to the king of Israel. As soon as Aʹhab died, the king of Moʹab revolted against the king of Israel.”
(3:4, 5)
I already encountered Mesha of Moab at the beginining of 2 Kings. The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight explains
“King of Moab in the time of Kings Jehoshaphat of Judah and Ahab, Ahaziah, and Jehoram of Israel. The
Moabites, under subjugation to the northern kingdom of Israel, paid King Ahab a tribute of 100,000 lambs and
100,000 unshorn male sheep, apparently of a breed noted for their quality of wool. Following Ahab’s death,
Mesha rebelled against Israel’s King Ahaziah. But Ahaziah died after a short rule and was succeeded by his
brother Jehoram, who secured an alliance with Jehoshaphat of Judah and an unidentified king of Edom, in order
to bring Mesha again under subjection. Taking a difficult route S of the Dead Sea, their forces ran out of water.
But Elisha the prophet gave assurance that if ditches were dug in the dried-up torrent valley, Jehovah would fill
them with water.—2Ki 1:1; 3:4-19.” [1]
Insight has an additional note on a different subject
“Mesha, king of Moab, revolted against Israelite domination many centuries later, “as soon as Ahab died,”
according to the Bible account at 2 Kings 3:4, 5. The Bible does not say precisely how long this uprising lasted,
and it is possible that, as Mesha boasts on the Moabite Stone, he managed to annex several Israelite cities to
“Qarhah” at that time. Nevertheless, unlike Mesha’s propagandistic inscription, the Scriptural record makes it clear
that Moab was soundly defeated when its forces entered into battle against the combined armies of Israel, Judah,
and Edom.—2Ki 3:4-27.” [2]
As a result of the Moabite rebellion, King Jehoram mobilized the King of Edom and King of Judah
“So King Je·hoʹram went out on that day from Sa·marʹi·a and mustered all Israel. He also sent a message to King
Je·hoshʹa·phat of Judah, saying: “The king of Moʹab has revolted against me. Will you go with me to war against
Moʹab?” To this he said: “I will go. I am the same as you. My people are the same as your people. My horses are
the same as your horses.” Then he asked: “By which way should we go up?” He replied: “By the way of the
wilderness of Eʹdom.”” (3:6-9)
The scene that follows in the narrative is an echo of a similar event in the days of Jehoram’s father when Ahab
called Jehoshaphat to join him in battle. The response of Jehoshaphat was similar. The Bible reports
200 | P a g e
“The king of Israel then set out with the king of Judah and the king of Eʹdom. After they journeyed roundabout for
seven days, there was no water for the camp and for the domestic animals that were following behind them. The
king of Israel said: “How terrible! Jehovah has called these three kings, only to give them into the hand of Moʹab!”
At that Je·hoshʹa·phat said: “Is there no prophet of Jehovah here through whom we may inquire of Jehovah?” So
one of the servants of the king of Israel answered: “There is E·liʹsha the son of Shaʹphat, who used to pour out
water on the hands of E·liʹjah.”” (3:9-12)
With Ahab, King Jehoshaphat asked, “Is there not here a prophet of Jehovah? Let us also inquire through him.“ (1
Kings 22:7) The same pattern is found here, “Is there no prophet of Jehovah here through whom we may inquire
of Jehovah?”. This is not just a literary repetition but a pattern of thinking of Jehoshaphat. The difference from the
last time, was that Elijah was not tapped as a prophet but this time his successor Elisha was. The way Elisha was
described in the text, Insight comments
“Pouring water on another’s hands. Elisha was identified as the minister or servant of Elijah by the expression “[he]
poured out water upon the hands of Elijah.” This was a service performed particularly after meals. In the Middle
East it was not the custom to use knives and forks, but fingers, and the servant would afterward pour water over
the hands of his master for washing. (2Ki 3:11)” [3]
Elisha humbly did this task for 6 years before he took over the role of Elijah. That stood out from my reading.
Elisha was happy to serve where he was as God allowed him to be. He was patient and had a waiting attitude to
wait for his turn. How would Elisha react compared to the prophet Micaiah the last time? The Bible reports
“E·liʹsha said to the king of Israel: “What do I have to do with you? Go to the prophets of your father and to the
prophets of your mother.” But the king of Israel said to him: “No, for it is Jehovah who has called these three kings
to give them into the hand of Moʹab.” To this E·liʹsha said: “As surely as Jehovah of armies whom I serve is living,
if I did not have regard for King Je·hoshʹa·phat of Judah, I would not look at you or take notice of you. Now bring
me a harpist.” As soon as the harpist started playing, the hand of Jehovah came on him. He said, “This is what
Jehovah says: ‘Dig trench after trench in this valley, for this is what Jehovah says: “You will not see wind, and you
will not see rain; yet this valley will be filled with water, and you will drink from it, you, your livestock, and your
other animals.”’” (3: 13-17)
The exchange was interesting. Elisha replied using a Hebrew idiom, “what do I have to do with you?”. One
reference explains this idiom
“What about the expression “what have I to do with you?” This is apparently a common Jewish idiom that appears
a number of times in the Bible. For example, at 2 Samuel 16:10, we find David stopping Abishai from killing
Shimei by saying: “What do I have to do with you men, you sons of Zeruiah? Thus let him call down evil, because
Jehovah himself has said to him, ‘Call down evil upon David!’” Likewise, we read at 1 Kings 17:18 that the widow
of Zarephath, upon finding that her son had died, said to Elijah: “What do I have to do with you, O man of the true
God? You have come to me to bring my error to mind and to put my son to death.”
From these Bible examples, we can see that the expression “what have I to do with you?” is often used, not to
show disdain or arrogance, but to refuse involvement in some proposed or suggested action or to express a
difference in viewpoint or opinion.” [4]
Elisha let Jehoram know that it was because of Jehoshaphat that God was entertaining his request. Then, Elisha
disclosed what Jehovah God would do against their enemies. Insight comments on this strategy
“With regard to the campaign against Moab, the predicted flooding of the previously dry torrent valley where the
allied armies camped may have resulted from a desert thunderstorm on the higher plateau. Such storms in
modern times can send torrents of water rushing down the wadis toward the Arabah. Or the water may have
appeared by purely miraculous means.—2Ki 3:16-23.” [5]
After this, Jehovah God instructed the combined forces to punish Moab and its land
201 | P a g e
“But this is a trivial thing in the eyes of Jehovah, for he will also give Moʹab into your hand. You must strike down
every fortified city and every choice city, you should cut down every good tree, you should stop up all the springs
of water, and you should ruin every good plot of land with stones.”” (3: 18, 19)
Regarding cutting down good trees, Insight explained it in the context of the covenant law regarding warfare and
trees
“On invading the land, the Israelites were instructed not to destroy the fruit-bearing trees when attacking the cities,
although centuries later the kings of Judah and Israel were authorized by God to devastate the ‘good trees’ of the
kingdom of Moab. The reason appears to be that Moab was outside the Promised Land. It was punitive warfare
against Moab, and the Israelite action was a protection against Moabite revolt or retaliation. (De 20:19, 20; 2Ki
3:19, 25; compare Jer 6:6.)” [6]
What would happen next? I will look at it in the next installment.
References
[1] Mesha. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 381.
[2] Dibon. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 625.
[3] Attitudes and Gestures. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 217.
[4] Questions From Readers. The Watchtower, December 1, 2006, p. 30.
[5] Edom . Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, 681.
[6] Trees. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1123.
202 | P a g e
12.3.2 Jehoram, King of Israel, son of Ahab - Part 2

How does God act in behalf of his chosen people? What does that teach the leaders of Judah and Israel when it
comes to leaning on God rather than on just themselves? How did God end up routing the Moabite forces? The
prophet Elisha described how God will use water to rout the Moabites. The Bible now describes how it happened
“And in the morning, at the time of the morning grain offering, water was suddenly coming from the direction of
Eʹdom, and the land became filled with the water.” (3:20)
How will water rout the Moabite forces? The Bible describes what happened next
“All the Moʹab·ites heard that the kings had come up to fight against them, so they called together all the men who
could bear arms, and they stationed themselves at the border. When they got up early in the morning, the sun
was shining on the water, and to the Moʹab·ites on the opposite side, the water looked red like blood.” (3: 21, 22)
Here is the critical phase of the story. Water looking like red blood. The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight explains
“This occurred, and the reflection of the early morning sun upon the water made it look like blood to the Moabites,
possibly because of red clay in the freshly cut ditches. The illusion deceived them into thinking the allied armies of
Israel, Judah, and Edom had turned on one another. It was not unreasonable for them to think this, in view of the
fact that they knew of the jealousy between Israel and Judah. Also, the Edomites were no lovers of the men of
Judah, who were allied with Israel on this occasion.—2Ki 3:20-23; compare 2Ch 20:10, 11, 24, 25.
Thinking their enemies had slaughtered one another, the Moabites shouted, “So now, to the spoil, O Moab!” and
entered the camp of Israel, only to be put to flight. Israel followed up by destroying the Moabite cities, stopping up
their springs, and filling their tracts of land with stones, until they got to the city of Kir-hareseth (Kir of Moab).—2Ki
3:23-25.” [1]
The Moabites mis-interpreted the water and what was the consequence? The Bible reports
“They said: “This is blood! The kings have surely slaughtered one another with the sword. So, then, to the spoil, O
Moʹab!” When they came into the camp of Israel, the Israelites rose up and began striking down the Moʹab·ites,
who fled from them. They advanced into Moʹab, striking the Moʹab·ites down as they went. They tore down the
cities, and each man threw a stone into every good plot of land, filling it with stones; they stopped up every spring
of water, and they cut down every good tree. Finally only the stone walls of Kir-harʹe·seth remained standing, and
the slingers surrounded it and struck it down.” (3:23-25)
The Moabites looked like they entered into an ambush because of that false interpretation. Not only did they flee
from the forces of Israel, but they were chased into their cities. They did exactly as God told them. What do the
Moabites do now? The Bible reports
“When the king of Moʹab saw that the battle was lost, he took with him 700 men armed with swords to break
through to the king of Eʹdom; but they were not able to. So he took his firstborn son who was going to reign in his
place and offered him up as a burnt sacrifice on the wall. And there came to be great indignation against Israel, so
they withdrew from against him and returned to their land.” (3:26, 27)
I must confess that the paper below captures my reaction to the end of the story
“Our shock at the sacrifice by Mesha of his eldest son is surpassed only by our surprise at the completion of the
Biblical account of this military oper-ation. We had been witnessinga dramatic, climactic fulfillment of prophecy,
when we are unexpectedly left hanging in mid-air. Israel leaves the battle-field and leaves us with our mouths
hanging wide open. Why did the conflict end in this manner? What could the meaning of this verse be? The
unfulfilled expectations and the ambiguous phrases of the verse leave us perplexed.” [2]
There are many related questions - who was indignant against Israel? Was it what scholars claim as Chemosh or
was it Jehovah God?
203 | P a g e
The paper then concluded that of the different possible explanations, the most readily acceptable is that Mesha is
a Chemosh-lover, their national god, and Mesha thought that he needed to appease Chemosh. Why did Isarel
withdrew from Moab after this? The paper offered the speculation of scholars
“The most likely reason seems to be that Israel feared the retribution of Chemosh, and so they fled! Most of the
commentators who take a critical approach to the Scriptures take this option (cf. Dentan, Gray, and Roland de
Vaux), but this fact alone does not render the position invalid. Rawlinson and Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown are
among the more conservative scholars who hold that this was the cause of the sudden retreat. Let us not forget
that these people shared many of the superstitions of the people around them (cf. Judges II :24), and furthermore,
that many of the Israelites were unbelievers! They had been taught the importance of sacrifices' and now seeing
such a sacrifice, fear gripped their superstitious hearts and they ceased the advance. This brings us to our final
question. “ [3]
So several scholars conclude that the sacrifice of the prince of Moab to their god Chemosh actually saved Moab
from annihilation from the allied forces of Israel, Judah and Edom as if Chemosh, a non-god, is more powerful
than Jehovah, the God of prophecy. This reference proposed the following resolution
“It is entirely plausible to read 2 Kings 3 and conclude that Elisha was wrong: he predicted total victory for the
allied forces over Moab (vv. 18-19), but, in the end, the Israelites withdraw from the battle (v. 27b). The text allows
for the possibility that the fighting unfolds in a way that even Elisha did not foresee, defying his prediction. The
prophet did not know that the Moabite king would sacrifice his son to his god and bring down the divine wrath
upon the Israelites.” [4]
Whose divine wrath? For this scholar, it is Chemosh’s. The conclusion of this scholar is coming from the
perspective that the Bible is just a human book with an agenda to tell. It failed to recognize that it is a book
inspired by God, Jehovah God, and its contents would be programmed by Him. Hence, all scholars could do is
speculate what is not there in the text. The scholar failed to note that Moab as a nation is already extinct as
prophesied by the Hebrew prophets commissioned by Jehovah God. Where is Chemosh now? Where is Moab?
Insight offers this explanation
“The majority of commentators agree that Mesha offered up his own son as a sacrifice to his god Chemosh. The
few who think otherwise say it was a captured son of the king of Edom that was sacrificed, citing Amos 2:1 as
evidence, where reference is made to Moab “burning the bones of the king of Edom for lime.” Though
grammatically the Hebrew will allow for such an interpretation, this latter suggestion seems contrary to other
known facts. For example, it was unheard of for Moabites and Ammonites, Israel’s neighbors, to offer up their
enemies as sacrifices to their gods, but it was a known practice of their religion to offer their own children as burnt
sacrifices to appease the anger of their gods. (De 12:30, 31; Mic 6:6, 7) It is therefore understandable why this
Chemosh worshiper, Mesha, faced with imminent danger of defeat, would have resorted to such drastic
measures.” [5]
Jehovah God is extra kind to Jehoshaphat despite this king’s apparent slowness to pick up God’s principles over
his friendship with the kings of the northern kingdom of Israel. He ensured the victory of the combined forces
because of the presence of this Judean king. Jehovah God did it in His own way using the illusion of vision to
defeat the Moabites.
References
[2] Harton, George. “The Meaning of II Kings 3:27”, p. 35.
[3] Ibid., p. 39.
[4] Parker, Julie Faith. Valuable and Vulnerable: Children in the Hebrew Bible Especially the Elisha Cycle, Brown
Judaic Studies, 2013.
204 | P a g e
12.4 Elisha, a Widow, the Prominent Woman, and Feeding 100 Men with 20 Loaves
12.4.1 Elisha, a Widow, the Prominent Woman, and Feeding 100 Men with 20 Loaves- Part 1
Can I trust God, the heavenly Father Jehovah, to take care of my own and my family’s needs? What does the
Bible narratives about women teach me about Him? How does the Bible present women in its narratives? How
does Jehovah God deal with women and their concerns? How do these biblical presentations endear Jehovah
God to me as the common Protector, the Father who takes care of my needs?
This next narrative is heart-warming. If Jehovah God is willing to provide for a non-Israelite widow of Zarephath,
and keep her small jar of olive oil full for her daily use the entire days of the famine because of showing faith the
first time, how much more will Jehovah God provide for those who in their entire lives trusted and put faith in Him?
This is my reflection note.
In this narrative, I am going to explore the widow, her problem and the solution offered to her. This narrative
discloses something about the widow and about faith and Jehovah God who knows what we need. The narrative
started this way
“Now one of the wives of the sons of the prophets cried out to E·liʹsha, saying: “Your servant my husband is dead,
and you well know that your servant had always feared Jehovah. Now a creditor has come to take both of my
children as his slaves.” (4:1)
In this short verse, I am not told of the setting as to where it is. The last chapter located the prophet Elisha going
to Bethel from Jericho. But this is not disclosed in the opening verse. Instead, the narrative quickly introduced to
us a woman, a wife of one of the members of the guild of prophets that Elisha must be familiar with.
The woman speaks and I learn that she is a widow. Her husband-prophet is dead. Elisha must have known this.
From the tragedy of being a widow, there is another problem. She was about to lose her sons to creditors, to
become slaves to them to pay off their debt. The narrative does not say why the family or the husband fell into
debt or how big the debt was. Could it be that the husband got sick and they have to borrow money to support
themselves while he was sick until he died? I don’t know.
In this short verse, I will see in action the principles enshrined in the covenant law for the special protection of a
class of people in Israel - the widow, the fatherless boy, and aliens. In this narrative, speaking before the prophet
Elijah are two types of special people - the widow and fatherless boy.
One paper recognize the importance that the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible places on them
“There are several blocks of traditions in the Old Testament that emphasize different aspects of the life of those
referred to as ‗poor‘. Three groups within the community of the covenant people Israel experienced the harsh
condition of poverty. These ones were: the orphans or fatherless, widows and strangers or sojourners. In a
society structured upon the male as the worker, the widow and orphan struggled to survive. Since they were
powerless, they depended upon the good will of others (Deut 24:17). We shall concern ourselves with only two
groups of the poor class in the Old Testament, namely the ‘fatherless or orphan‘ and the ’widow‘, particularly as
described as ‘weak, feeble, poor‘, ‘afflicted, poor‘, ‘needy‘, and ‘poverty stricken’, ‘one in serious need or
destitute.‘” [1]
This paper differentiated the Hebrew concept of ‘widow’ to its neighboring countries
“The Hebrew word for widow is [ ] and its meaning goes beyond simply a woman whose husband has died. Some
scholars have argued on the basis of the Akkadian cognate almattu in Middle Assyrian Law 33, that widows in
ancient Israel was a woman whose husband and father-in-law were both dead, and who had no son. However,
the Old Testament accommodates this understanding as rather a lack of an adult male capable of shouldering the
responsibility of the family. This is so because in the OT widow had a son or sons (e.g. 2Samuel 14:4-8;
1Kings17:8-24).“ [2]
Another paper recognized that the protection of ‘widow and the fatherless boy’ is not unique to the Bible but is
widespread in the Ancient Near East. What is the implication of this for the Bible? The paper writes
205 | P a g e
“The Old Testament now be seen as part of a broader and intricately interrelated cultural milieu whose customs,
institutions and linguistic and literary patterns were shared in large measure throughout the Fertile Crescent.
Nevertheless, it must be quickly added that although the Old Testament partakes of that international culture and
even utilizes it in the presentation of God's life giving message, its concept of God, its high ethical standards and
its objective verifiability make it distinctively unique among the writings of the pre-Christian world.” [3]
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight discusses widows
“Jehovah spoke of himself as the One “executing judgment for the fatherless boy and the widow.” (De 10:18)
Strong injunctions are given in the Law as to the administration of full and equal justice to widows. (Ex 22:22-24;
De 24:17) A curse was pronounced upon those perverting the judgment of widows (De 27:19), and proper
treatment of widows was urged in the writings of the prophets.—Isa 1:17, 23; 10:1, 2; Jer 22:3; Eze 22:7; Zec 7:9,
10; Mal 3:5.” [4]
Insight also discusses the second type, ‘fatherless boy’
“With no man in the house to support them and to protect their interests, the fatherless boy, or orphan, and the
widow might more easily become subject to oppression and difficulties. Their welfare was, therefore, provided for
under the Law, which ensured justice for the fatherless boy, the widow, and the alien resident and also included
provisions for their sustenance. (Ex 22:22-24; De 24:17) Gleanings left in the field, on the olive tree, and in the
vineyard were available to these poor ones. (De 24:19-21) A special invitation was extended to them to participate
in the bounteous yearly Festival of Ingathering (Festival of Booths), during which they could enjoy the feasting
that accompanied the celebration. (De 16:9-14) Every third year the special tithe that the Israelites normally ate at
Jerusalem was deposited within the gates of their home cities. From this tithe the fatherless boy was legally
entitled to a portion.—De 14:28, 29; 26:12, 13.” [5]
Given that this widow and her sons are to be given special protection, their debt problem have exposed their
economic vulnerability. What does the covenant law say regarding payment of debts? Insight comments
“Faithful Israelites recognized that meeting their debts was a divine requirement. (Ps 37:21) So the creditor could
rest assured of receiving repayment. An Israelite with no material assets could sell himself or his children into
slavery to care for his debts.—Ex 21:7; Le 25:39; compare 2Ki 4:1-7.” [6]
So, the debtor is taking advantage of the provision of the covenant law to employ (as slave) the children until the
debt is paid off. But the widow is not willing to do this. Hence, she went to Elisha. The conversation continues
“At this E·liʹsha said to her: “What can I do for you? Tell me, what do you have in the house?” She replied: “Your
servant has nothing at all in the house but a jar of oil.””
The widow’s answer to Elisha confirms to me that this family is poor. She has nothing that can be used to pay off
the debt. What does Elisha now recommends?
“Then he said: “Go outside, ask for containers from all your neighbors, empty containers. Do not limit yourself to a
few. Then go in and close the door behind you and your sons. Fill all these containers, and set the full ones
aside.” So she left him.” (4:3-5a)
Sometimes God’s instruction do not make sense at first hearing. We do not see far enough to see God’s purpose
unfolding. Despite this, the widow complied. She went to ask for containers from her neighbors. She may not
have an idea what to do with it. But she has shown something that her husband-prophet might have taught her -
faith and trust in Jehovah God. What happened?
“When she closed the door behind her and her sons, they passed the containers to her, and she kept pouring.
When the containers were full, she said to one of her sons: “Bring another container to me.” But he said to her:
“There are no more containers.” At that the oil stopped.” (4: 5b, 6)
206 | P a g e
A miracle has just happened. She only had a jar of oil that filled all the containers with oil. She may not have
figured out yet what to do with all the oil but her family had just witnessed a miracle. She reported this to Elisha
“So she came in and told the man of the true God, and he said: “Go, sell the oil and pay off your debts, and you
and your sons can live from what is left.”” (4:7)
Jehovah God provided for their needs because of her faith in Jehovah God, and for the service to Jehovah that
her husband had rendered which God did not forget (Heb 6:10)
In the previous set of reflections, I read the woman Jezebel who was a strong woman and advocate of false
worship, who despite the strong show of the true God’s powers against her useless non-gods was not led to
repentance and instead went on doing even greater evil.
Prior to her Queen Bath-sheba was presented initially as an exploited woman by King David, who silently took the
abuse of power of the king, and witnessed the trouble that visited the king’s household over his evil deed, but who
later apparently, innocently relayed the request of David’s other rebel son Adonijah to King Solomon that led to
Adonijah’s death.
In the book of Samuels, I was presented the long-suffering Hannah, the barren wife, who would become the
mother of the great prophet Samuel and Abigail who with her wisdom prevented David from committing a great
sin of bloodshed. If I go further back, I will be recalling the leadership of Deborah the prophetess who supported
Judge Barak and greedy Delilah whose charms would lead to Samson to lose his Naziriteship. These are
powerful women in positive and negative ways. They exerted their influence on the men of their times for the good
or for the bad. It also showed God’s concern for women and their needs.
References
[1] Ekpo, Paul Cookey. “The Old Testament and Poverty Alleviation with Special References to ‘Widows’ and
‘Orphans’. A conference paper presented at the University of Johannesburg (APB Campus), Johannesburg,
South Africa, organized by SASNES & OTSSA from 1-5 September, 2014, p. 2.
[2] Ibid., p. 3.
[3] Patterson, RIchard. “The Widow, Orphan, and the Poor in the Old Testament and the Extra-Biblical Literature”,
Bibliotheca Sacra (July 1973), by Dallas Theological Seminar, cited with permission, p. 223.
[4] Widow. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1182.
[5] Fatherless Boy. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 816.
[6] Debt, Debtor. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 601.
207 | P a g e
How does the Bible show that Jehovah God is not partial when dealing with people, with women, be they poor or
rich? What does this teach about Jehovah God in the different cases of different women encountered by the
prophets Elijah and Elisha? This is my reflection note.
In the previous reflections, I read how Jehovah God blessed the faith of a poor foreign mother from Zarephath
through the prophet Elijah by allowing her to survive the period of famine, together with her son. I read again how
Jehovah God took care of the needs of a poor, buried in debt, widow-mother and her two sons through the
prophet Elisha. Clearly, the book of Kings portrays Jehovah’s keen interest to be the protector of the vulnerable
and helpless such as widows and fatherless children.
But, in this narrative, I am introduced not to a poor, widow-mother. The Bible introduces this woman this way
“One day E·liʹsha went to Shuʹnem, where there was a prominent woman, and she urged him to eat a meal there.
As often as he would pass by, he would stop there to eat. So she said to her husband: “I know that it is a holy
man of God who comes this way regularly. Please, let us make a small room on the roof and put there for him a
bed, a table, a chair, and a lampstand. Then, whenever he comes to us, he can stay there.”” (4:8-10)
Where is this Shunem? How significant is this place in Bible history? The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight
explains
“A city in the territory of Issachar (Jos 19:17, 18) and not far from Jezreel and Mount Gilboa. (1Sa 28:4) Shunem
is identified with modern Sulam (Shunem), which is on the SW slope of Jebel Dahi (Givʽat Ha-More) and
overlooks the Low Plain of Jezreel. The place lies about 5 km (3 mi) N of the abandoned village of Zerʽin (Tel
Yizreʽel) and some 8 km (5 mi) N of the western end of Mount Gilboa.
It was at Shunem that the Philistines encamped before the battle that resulted in the death of King Saul. (1Sa
28:4) From Shunem came the beautiful Abishag (“the Shunammite”) who cared for aged King David (1Ki 1:3, 4),
and later, the prophet Elisha often lodged in the home of a hospitable couple there.—2Ki 4:8.” [1]
This prominent woman is hospitable and took the initiative to provide accommodation to the prophet Elisha.
Insight comments about this “small room on the roof”
“Often a roof chamber or upper chamber was built on the housetop. This was a pleasant, cool room that often
served as a guest room. (Jg 3:20; 1Ki 17:19; 2Ki 1:2; 4:10) Of course, some homes were two-story buildings with
a regular upper story. In a large upper chamber, either a roof chamber or a room of an upper story.” [2]
Though many Bible scholars do not accept the narratives involving the prophets Elijah and Elisha as authentic
and true, they still explore the text for what it presents, in this case of the wealthy Shunemmite woman. One paper
comments
“In my own study of biblical gender, the Shunnemite was noteworthy, first as an independent woman who extends
patronage to Elisha and then as a determined petitioner willing to confront everyone - husband, prophet, and king-
in her pursuit of the physical and economic well-being of her household. Moreover, read closely, this story
indicates how gender intersects with class. The Elijah and Elisha stories take place against a backdrop of great
poverty among the rural poor. Most of the miracles that Elijah and Elisha perform involve providing food for a
staving peasantry. In contrast to all the poor women found in these stories, the Shunemite is wealthy. This factor
gives her striking boldness in her dealings with the prophet: after all, she is his patron and benefactor, the one
who provides food and hospitality on his journeys. Wealthy women have greater freedom of action than poor
women do, and sometimes even more than poor men.” [3]
The paper also adds
“She does not ask his permission when she entertains Elisha, bringing him into the picture only when she wishes
to make an addition to her house. Later, when she seeks Elisha, she does not inform her husband why she is
208 | P a g e
leaving. Though she is wealthy, does her economic well-being not depend on her husband’s goodwill? Is she not
in danger of divorce? A clue to the answer lies in her puzzling reply to Elisha when the prophet wants to reward
her for her beneficence: “I llive among my own kin” (2 Kgs. 4: 13) This odd statement seems to contradict what we
know about ancient marriage. We expect her to be living among her husband’s kin-folk, not among her own.” [4]
Assuming that the Shunnemite could have been similar to the daughters of Zelophehad who own land but marries
their tribesman, the paper explains
“This is probably why the woman of Shunnem, singular among the barren women in the Bible, does not actively
seek a child before Elisha announces that she will have one. Because she is economically secure., the
Shunnemite has no need to ask her husband’s permission either to seek or entertain Elisha. The same economic
security makes it possible for her to enjoy both status and a secure old age even without ever having had a child.
The story of the Shunnemite can be understood as a biblical example of how women act when the economic
constraints of patriarchy are removed.” [5]
Finally, Elisha passed through Shunem again and the Bible reports
“One day he came there, and he went to the room on the roof to lie down. He then said to Ge·haʹzi his attendant:
“Call this Shuʹnam·mite woman.” So he called her, and she stood before him. Then he said to Ge·haʹzi: “Please
tell her, ‘Here you have gone to all this trouble for us. What can be done for you? Should I speak in your behalf to
the king or to the chief of the army?’” But her reply was: “I am living among my own people.”” (4:11-13)
As noted previously, in the response of the wealthy Shunammite woman, there is a sense of self-sufficiency. In
this account, I am introduced for the first time, another new character, the attendant of the prophet Elisha- Gehazi.
There is nothing much said about his background. He just came into the scene.
Another paper commented on this initial conversation
“In response, the prophet offers her a boon perhaps a goqd word put in with the king or arrny commander? -
which she refuses. Elisha's offer is notable for two reasons. First, though it is refused, it foreshadows later events
in the relationship of this woman and the prophet. Second, it is suggestive of the particular life setting of such a
woman and her family. As one of the landed gentry, she does not suffer the privation of the peasants. Her life is
hardly secure, however, for her property and possessions are to some degree subject to the demands of the king
and his army, with whom members of her class have at best an uneasy alliance.” [6]
Because the wealthy woman refused Elisha’s initial offer, Elisha persisted in offering her something that would
benefit her. It is here that Gehazi is given a dialogue. The Bible reports
“So he said: “Then what can be done for her?” Ge·haʹzi now said: “Well, she does not have a son, and her
husband is old.” Immediately he said: “Call her.” So he called her, and she stood at the doorway. Then he said:
“At this time next year, you will be embracing a son.” But she said: “No, my master, man of the true God! Do not
tell lies to your servant.”” (4: 14-16)
The words of Elijah bring back to me the words of the angel to Abraham about having his own child via Sarah.
(Genesis 18:10) The text does not say whether the Shunemmite woman recognized those similar words spoken
to their ancestor Abraham and Sarah. Her response shows that it is too wonderful a thing for her. She does not
want to raise her hopes high only to be disappointed. Motherhood as scholars would say is still an important role
or function of women in the Bible. Same reference previously quoted commented on this
“This motif is a common one in the Bible, but it takes some unexpected turns in this instance. Most childless
wornen in the Bible are defined by that status from the outset and the stories about them revolve around their
desire for a child and the social lack they experience without one. The Shunammite woman, on the other hand, is
presented as having a self-sufficiency and an authority independent of motherhood and is defined by her
relationship to the prophet. Indeed, it comes as a surprise to the reader to learn at this point that she has no child,
a surprise marked by and reflected in the prophet’s own unawareness of the fact that Elisha has to be informed by
209 | P a g e
his otherwise ineffective sidekick Gehazi. Even after receiving Elisha’s promise of pregnancy, the woman
responds not with joy but with wary caution.” [7]
The Shunammite woman was not the first barren woman in the Bible. I recall Sarai, wife of Abraham, who was
later renamed Sarah who gave birth at the age of 90. There is Rachel, the loved wife of Jacob, who later gave
birth to Joseph and Benjamin before dying. There is Hannah who later gave birth to the prophet Samuel. All these
women received divine blessing to bear a child. The case of this Shunammite woman will be different as the story
unfolds. How would this wealthy woman handle the change of circumstances that will take place? What will this
reveal about Jehovah God? How would Jehovah God’s actions show that He is not partial? This will be
highlighted in my next reflection.
References
[1] Shunem. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 937.
[2] House. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1155.
[3] Frymer-Kensky, Tivka. Studies in Bible and Feminist Criticism (JPS Scholar of Distinction Series), The
Jewish Publication Society, 2006, p. 164.
[4] Ibid., p. 165.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Newsom, Carol & Ringe, Sharon, editors. “1 and 2 Kings”, The Women’s Bible Commentary, John Knox Press,
1992.
[7] Ibid.
210 | P a g e
When bad things happen to us, the initial cry is why did God let it happen or caused it to happen. After several
narratives of Jehovah God offering aid to different women, two who are poor, and one who is rich, I get the picture
of God’s concern on humanity and His desire to alleviate it when asked. I don’t forget that all these human
suffering is tied around the issue of God’s sovereignty that was questioned by humans and who separated from
God’s sovereignty to build their own independent lives. The result? Human suffering. But the good news is that
God will end human suffering when He started unraveling His purpose to restore His rule or sovereignty on the
earth and remove all human-built political institutions.
In this narrative, after Jehovah God blessed the barren woman with a child, things took a different turn. The Bible
narrative reveals the development
“However, the woman became pregnant and gave birth to a son at the same time the next year, just as E·liʹsha
had told her. The child grew up, and one day he went out to his father, who was with the reapers.” (4: 17, 18)
In these short verses, I find abridged the story of happiness of a barren woman who finally had a child. In Israel,
this is important as inheritance passes through the son. Scholars have explored the possibility that the woman
has inherited the property of her parents because there is no son in the family and that according to the covenant
law married a male from her tribe, “her people”. Now, there is an heir. The Bible does not say how many years
was covered by “the child grew up”. But definitely all those years were happy years. Blessed indeed she was. But
this will be interrupted. The Bible continues
“He kept saying to his father: “My head, O my head!” Then his father said to the attendant: “Carry him to his
mother.” So he carried him back to his mother, and he sat on her lap until noon, and then he died.” (4:19, 20)
There was a medical emergency. There was no doctor or hospital to go to. Even with her wealth, the mother was
helpless. The boy died in her lap. The Bible relates it in a matter-of-fact way. But parents who lost a child that
quick to disease can imagine the pain of loss and loneliness with the happy memories with the boy. What will she
do now? The Bible discloses the kind of person this wealthy Shunemmite mother is
“Then she went up and laid him on the bed of the man of the true God, and she shut the door behind her and left.
She now called her husband and said: “Send me, please, one of the attendants and one of the donkeys, and let
me go quickly to the man of the true God and return.” But he said: “Why are you going to see him today? It is not
a new moon or a sabbath.” However, she said: “Everything is all right.” So she saddled the donkey and said to her
attendant: “Go quickly. Do not slow down for me unless I tell you to.”” (4: 21-24)
What is the Bible disclosing about the mother here? She did not just accept the situation. She acted with urgency.
She will not be deterred. What is in her mind? What is her plan? The Bible discloses next
“So she went to the man of the true God at Mount Carʹmel. As soon as the man of the true God saw her from afar,
he said to Ge·haʹzi his attendant: “Look! The Shuʹnam·mite woman is over there. Please run to meet her and ask
her, ‘Are you well? Is your husband well? Is your child well?’” To this she said: “All is well.”” (4: 25, 26)
Mount Carmel is about 30-40 kilometers north-west of Shunem. We can imagine the speed that they went racing
up on the mountain. When asked by Gehazi about the child, she replied “all is well” when it is not. She wanted to
reveal things with Elisha who persisted to offer her a reward for her generosity, a child. She finally meets Elisha
“When she came to the man of the true God at the mountain, she at once grabbed hold of his feet. At this
Ge·haʹzi came near to push her away, but the man of the true God said: “Let her alone, for she is in bitter distress,
and Jehovah has hidden it from me and has not told me.” She then said: “Did I ask my lord for a son? Did I not
say, ‘You must not give me a false hope’?”” (4: 27,28)
Finally, the narrative unleashed all the pain that was untold since the boy died. We now see the wealthy
Shunemmite vulnerable with her loss. Elisha was not told in advance by Jehovah God. In other Bible narratives,
as in the case of Ahijah, he already knew who was the woman arriving and her purpose. (1 Kings 14: 5,6) Bitter
211 | P a g e
words were thrown Elisha’s way. As a prophet, the woman expected him to have known things will go this way
and would not have wanted to set in motion the process of bringing this painful loss. But he did. How would Elisha
respond? What does the woman expect now? Does she know the miracle of Elijah with the woman of Zarephath’s
child who was raised back from the dead? I don’t know. The Bible continues
“He immediately said to Ge·haʹzi: “Wrap your garments around your waist and take my staff in your hand and go.
If you encounter anyone, do not greet him; and if anyone should greet you, do not answer him. Go and place my
staff on the boy’s face.”” (4: 29)
The staff is an important piece of accessory by prophets in the Bible. Moses was the first prophet whose
shepherd’s staff was used by Jehovah God in a very powerful way. Aaron’s staff was used the same way as well.
Elisha’s sense of urgency is clear with his instructions. Some scholars believe that this is not a case of real death
but possibly a coma, or temporary unconsciousness. One paper claims this
“In fact, the statement (v. 20) that the child “died” ( ‸㐲⸹) does not necessarily denote irreversible death. It can also
refer to a critically ill person who stops breathing, or stops breathing normally. The biblical author may have
exaggerated here and the child was simply in a coma. We know that the boy was in the field with the harvesters,
evidently bareheaded; it is plausible that he came down with sunstroke, which is why he cried out that his head
was hurting. Rabbi Manna explicitly stated that it was a case of heatstroke: “Accidents occur during the harvest
season, because the sun inflames the head of people.” Another possibility is that the boy was suffering from
fulminating encephalitis or a subarachnoid hemorrhage. “ [1]
The Shunammite mother insisted for Elisha. (4: 30,31) Elisha finally joined them with Gehazi going ahead of them.
According to the narrative, Elisha did the following
* he prayed to Jehovah
* laid himself down on the child, with his mouth on the boy’s mouth, his palms on the boy’s palms
* the boy’s body started to grow warm
* he got up, walked, went back to the boy and repeated the procedure above
Finally, the boy sneezed 7 times and he opened his eyes. (4:32-36)
The boy finally revived. How did the mother react? The Bible relates
“And she came in and fell at his feet and bowed down to the ground before him, after which she picked up her son
and went out.” (4: 37)
She was so thankful her determination and persistence paid off. Jehovah God has seen her and rewarded her a
second time. Imagine the day when Jehovah God brings back all the dead loved ones from the grave to be with
their living relatives! The Bible discloses how God feels to see that day come true (Job 14: 14, 15)
“If a man dies, can he live again?

I will wait all the days of my compulsory service
Until my relief comes.
You will call, and I will answer you.
You will long for the work of your hands.”
Yes, God is longing for the dead to come back to life.
References
[1] Bar, Shaul. “Resurrection or Miraculous Cures? The Elijah and Elisha Narrative Against its Ancient Near
Eastern Background”, OTE 24/1 (2011), p. 11.
212 | P a g e
Are miracles believable? The narratives of Elijah and Elisha are full of supernatural or miraculous activities that
bible scholars who do not believe in miracles call them ‘tales’. Most non-believers of Bible miracles follow the
thoughts of philosopher David Hume. One article laid down the basic reasoning of Hume
“Are Hume’s views on testimony convincing?
‘Hume, seeking to make his case, quickly denies that sufficient credible witnesses exist to substantiate
miracles. By contrast, my subsequent chapters on miracle claims will emphasize that we have an
overwhelmingly greater number of witnesses today than were available to Hume, an observation that
should make his case far more tenuous for interpreters today than it appeared in his day. But let us
consider his argument in more detail: Are the witnesses and their miraculous interpretations potentially
reliable?
According to a common reading of Hume (which I think most probable), he rejects in practice the
possibility of any witnesses reliable enough to challenge the unlikelihood of miracles. He circularly bases
this denial on the assumed uniformity of human experience against such miracles, a uniformity that would
deconstruct if there were any adequately clear instances of such miracles.’
How can Hume claim uniform experience against miracles? How could he possibly know that?
‘Claiming uniform experience against miracles is not really an argument, scholars often note, because it
“begs the question at issue, which is whether anyone has experienced a miracle.” Or as one critic puts it,
“Hume used the unproved conclusion (that miracles are not possible) and made it a datum of his
argument (miracles do not happen).” Some supporters of miracles articulate this logical problem even
more bluntly: “It amounts to saying ‘miracles violate the principle that miracles never happen.’”’ [1]
The article further writes about why Hume would dismiss witnesses of miracles
“Hume essentially dismisses all witnesses as “fools or liars,” as one scholar puts it. Yet this suspicion of witnesses
is arbitrary, dependent entirely on Hume’s theory and increasingly implausible as the number of normally reliable
witnesses increases. His warning that people are prone to credulity and deception does not apply equally to all
individuals, so one cannot dismiss all claims without evaluating them on a case-by-case basis. Using this
standard, and a priori suspicion of any antecedently improbable information, would undermine ordinary
communication.’” [2]
One Bible-based publication countered Hume’s position that miracles are lies because they are not universally
experienced
“The truth is, educated people today are less prepared than was David Hume to insist that the familiar laws of
nature hold true everywhere and at all times. Scientists are willing to speculate on whether, instead of the familiar
three dimensions of length, breadth, and height, there may be many additional dimensions in the universe.2 They
theorize on the existence of black holes, huge stars that collapse in on themselves until their density is virtually
infinite. In their vicinity the fabric of space is said to be so distorted that time itself stands still. Scientists have
even debated whether, under certain conditions, time would run backward instead of forward!
Stephen W. Hawking, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, when discussing how the
universe began, said: “In the classical theory of general relativity . . . the beginning of the universe has to be a
singularity of infinite density and space-time curvature. Under such conditions, all the known laws of physics
would break down.” So, modern scientists do not agree that because something is contrary to the normal laws of
nature it can never happen. In unusual conditions, unusual things may happen. Surely, if we believe in an
almighty God, we should admit that he has the power to cause unusual—miraculous—events to take place when
it befits his purpose.—Exodus 15:6-10; Isaiah 40:13, 15.” [3]
213 | P a g e
So, it is incorrect to assert that miracles are not true because they are miracles, has never universally
experienced, or the witnesses are fools or liars. The Bible has proven itself to be authentic and accurate in its
content. Its writers are not deceivers and liars. They write about the bad things and mistakes even of its key
personalities in the narratives.
In this series of miracles performed by Elisha, this one reminds of what Jesus did when he was on earth. A Bible
reader would find it familar.
The setting of this new narrative is that there is a famine and Elisha needs to feed the sons of the prophets. (4:38)
This is an important gesture because these men have dedicated themselves to God’s service. What happened
next?
“So one of them went out to the field to pick mallows, and he found a wild vine and picked wild gourds from it,
filling his garment. He then returned and sliced them into the stewpot, not knowing what they were. 40 They later
served it to the men to eat, but as soon as they ate from the stew, they cried out: “There is death in the pot, O
man of the true God.” And they could not eat it.” (4:39, 40)
The gourd put into the stew pot appeared to poison the pot. So those eating from it cried, ‘there is death in the
pot’. The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight has this to explain
“The Hebrew word rendered “gourds” appears in the Bible only with reference to an incident occurring during a
time of famine in Elisha’s day. Someone had gathered some unfamiliar wild gourds and sliced them in with a stew.
Upon tasting it, “the sons of the prophets” feared food poisoning and stopped eating, but Elisha miraculously
saved the stew from being wasted.—2Ki 4:38-41.
Although a number of other suggestions have been made, the colocynth (Citrullus colocynthis), a plant related to
the watermelon, is generally favored as the plant whose fruit probably corresponds to the “wild gourds” of the
Scriptural record. The vine of the colocynth trails like the cucumber and also has similar foliage. The fruit is about
the size of an orange; it has a thick, smooth rind with green and yellow mottlings, and it contains a very bitter and
poisonous spongy pulp, from which the colocynth of medicine is derived. The characteristics of the colocynth
would fit the Bible narrative of a wild gourd that was apparently poisonous, as suggested by its very taste. (2Ki
4:40) When most other plants have withered, it is still green and hence is a temptation to one unfamiliar with it.” [4]
Elisha was able to miraculously fix it with flour. (4: 41) What happens next is the interesting part. A man supplied
Elisha with 20 loaves of bread. Elisha instructed Gehazi who brought the bread to feed the sons of the prophets
(4:42). When Gehazi looked at the group that he is supposed to feed with the 20 loaves, the Bible reports
“However, his attendant said: “How can I set this before 100 men?” (4:43a)
Elisha replied to Gehazi, “Give it to the people so that they may eat, for this is what Jehovah says, ‘They will eat
and have some left over.’” (4:43b)
So, Jehovah used 20 loaves to feed 100 men. And after eating, they even have left overs. (4:44) Is not that a
familiar miracle? That reminded me of a greater miracle that God’s Son would do later. Like Father, like Son.
This series of miracles of Elisha demonstrate that Jehovah God cares and can provide for the needs of His
people.
References
[1] Pratt, Bill. “Why Was Hume Wrong About Miracles? Part 1”, Tough Questions Answered blog. Available
(online).
[2] Pratt, Bill. “Why Was Hume Wrong About Miracles? Part 2”, Tough Questions Answered blog. Available
(online).
[3] The Bible-God’s Word or Man’s?, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 2006, p. 73.
[4] Gourd . Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 991.
214 | P a g e
12.5 Naaman, the Syrian Army chief

12.5.1 Naaman, the Syrian Army chief - Part 1
Will there come a time when no one will say ‘I am sick’? I have come to my journey in Bible reading where three
different individuals will intersect in time because of a desire to be healed from sickness. One will be taught
humility, another will be chastised for his greed, and the other will be a source of praise for her courage. This is
the inspiring story of a Syrian army chief who will be converted to recognizing the only true God Jehovah, thanks
to the courage of a young captive Israelite girl brought to his family, and how God does not minimize the danger
of greed among his servants who try to gain profit from God’s acts of mercy.
This narrative opens with the introduction of the main personality, Naaman
“Now Naʹa·man the army chief of the king of Syria was a prominent man who was held in esteem by his lord,
because through him Jehovah had given victory to Syria. He was a mighty warrior, although he was a leper.” (5:1)
Naaman was a powerful man, a military man and chief of the army. The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight
explains further
“A Syrian army chief of the tenth century B.C.E., during the reigns of Jehoram of Israel and Ben-hadad II of Syria.
Naaman, ‘a great, valiant, mighty man held in esteem,’ was the one by whom “Jehovah had given salvation to
Syria.” (2Ki 5:1) The Bible gives no details as to how or why Naaman was used to bring this salvation to Syria.
One possibility is that Naaman headed the Syrian forces that successfully resisted the efforts of Assyrian King
Shalmaneser III to overrun Syria. Since, by remaining free, Syria formed a buffer state between Israel and Assyria,
this may have served the purpose of slowing down Assyria’s aggressive push in the W until Jehovah’s due time to
allow the northern kingdom to go into exile.” [1]
So Naaman has done a special service in behalf of Jehovah God. What he did not know was that God will not
forget the service he rendered. If he exercises faith in Him who was able to use him for His purpose, Naaman will
be rewarded with the opportunity to worship Him. The Bible contnues
“On one of their raids, the Syrians had taken captive from the land of Israel a little girl who became a servant to
Naʹa·man’s wife. She said to her mistress: “If only my lord would visit the prophet in Sa·marʹi·a! Then he would
cure him of his leprosy.” So he went and reported to his lord, telling him what the girl from Israel had said.” (5:2-4)
How special was the courage of a captive young Israelite girl in a foreign land whose people worships a different
set of gods and goddesses? What does that say of her upbringing by her parents in a land that has mostly
abandoned the worship of the true God Jehovah? A Bible-based publication comments
“Centuries later, a little Israelite girl taken captive by a marauding band became a servant in the home of the
Syrian army commander Naaman, a man afflicted with leprosy. Having heard about the miracles God performed
through the prophet Elisha, the girl courageously told Naaman’s wife: ‘If my master would go to Israel, Jehovah’s
prophet would cure him of his leprosy.’ Naaman did go to Israel, and he was miraculously healed. (2 Ki. 5:1-3)
What a fine example that girl is for youngsters who rely on Jehovah for the courage to witness to teachers,
schoolmates, and others!” [2]
Naaman must have asked for leave of absence from the military service to go to Israel, for the Bible reports next
“Then the king of Syria said: “Go now! And I will send a letter to the king of Israel.” So he went, taking with him ten
talents of silver, 6,000 pieces of gold, and ten changes of garments.” (5:5)
Who is this Syrian king who gave Naaman the permission? Insight answers
“Ben-hadad II is evidently the anonymous “king of Syria” who ordered his “thirty-two chiefs of the chariots” to
concentrate their attack on Ahab in that battle. (1Ki 22:31-37) He must also be the king who sent his leprous army
chief Naaman to be cured by Elisha during Jehoram’s reign. The Syrian king worshiped the god Rimmon (whose
name forms part of that of Tabrimmon, the father of Ben-hadad I).—2Ki 5:1-19.” [3]
215 | P a g e
According to Bible footnotes, 10 talents of silver is 340 kg (at current prices of $600/kg, he is bringing the
equivalent of $200,000 and 6000 pieces of gold is 69 kg (at current prices of $42,474/kg that is nearly USD 2M).
Naaman to get peaceful entry to Israel had a letter for the king of Israel
“He brought to the king of Israel the letter, which read: “Along with this letter that has come to you, I send my
servant Naʹa·man so that you may cure him of his leprosy.” As soon as the king of Israel read the letter, he ripped
his garments apart and said: “Am I God, to put to death and to keep alive? For he is sending this man to me,
telling me to cure him of his leprosy! You can see for yourselves that he is seeking a quarrel with me.”” (5:6)
Sometimes this happens in communications. We have a serious mis-communication between the two kings. The
king of Israel thought that the letter was a provocation. But the prophet Elisha heard the news.
“But when E·liʹsha the man of the true God heard that the king of Israel had ripped his garments apart, he at once
sent word to the king: “Why did you rip your garments apart? Please let him come to me so that he may know that
there is a prophet in Israel.” So Naʹa·man came with his horses and his war chariots and stood at the entrance of
the house of E·liʹsha.” (5: 8,9)
This is where Naaman would be tested as to his humility. What happened next? The Bible reports
“However, E·liʹsha sent a messenger to tell him: “Go, wash seven times in the Jordan, and your flesh will be
restored, and you will be clean.” At this Naʹa·man became indignant and started to leave, saying: “Here I said to
myself, ‘He will come out to me and stand here and call on the name of Jehovah his God, moving his hand back
and forth over the leprosy to cure it.’ Are not the A·baʹnah and the Pharʹpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than
all the waters of Israel? Can I not wash in them and become clean?” With that he turned and went away in a
rage.” (5: 10-12)
Naaman was expecting a welcome party proportionate to his rank. But he did not get that. Instead, a messenger,
an attendant met him. Disappointed, he left in a rage. He mentioned two rivers in his outburst. Insight comments
on one
“One of the two “rivers of Damascus” that Naaman considered superior to “all the waters of Israel.” (2Ki 5:12) The
fact that Naaman mentioned the Pharpar second may indicate that it was the smaller stream. This river is usually
linked with the Nahr el-ʼAʽwaj. Besides the Nahr Barada (identified with the Abanah), it is the only independent
stream in the Damascus area.” [4]
The next dialogue is important test of Naaman’s humility
“His servants now approached him and said: “My father, if the prophet had told you to do something extraordinary,
would you not do it? How much more, then, since he only said to you, ‘Wash and be clean’?” At that he went
down and plunged into the Jordan seven times, according to the word of the man of the true God. Then his flesh
was restored like the flesh of a little boy, and he became clean.” (5:13, 14)
Naaman responded positively and he was healed of leprosy in a miraculous way.
“After that he went back to the man of the true God, he and all his entourage, and he stood before him and said:
“Now I know that there is no God anywhere in all the earth but in Israel. Now accept, please, a gift from your
servant.” However, E·liʹsha said: “As surely as Jehovah whom I serve is living, I will not accept it.” He urged him to
accept it, but he kept refusing.” (5: 15,16)
What do I learn from Elisha’s refusal to accept $2.2M in payment? Insight explains
“He offers Elisha a gift, which is refused. This harmonizes with the principle that the miracle is by Jehovah’s
power, not his, and he will not profit from the office Jehovah has given him.—2Ki 5:9-19; compare Mt 10:8.” [5]
Naaman, next, made some requests
216 | P a g e
“Finally Naʹa·man said: “If not, please, let your servant be given two mule-loads of soil from this land, for your
servant will no longer offer a burnt offering or a sacrifice to any gods other than Jehovah. But may Jehovah
forgive your servant for this one thing: When my lord goes into the house of Rimʹmon to bow down there, he
supports himself on my arm, so I have to bow down at the house of Rimʹmon. When I bow down at the house of
Rimʹmon, may Jehovah, please, forgive your servant for this.” At this he said to him: “Go in peace.”” (5:17-19a)
Insight comments on these requests by Naaman
“Now filled with gratitude and humble appreciation, the Syrian army chief returned to Elisha, a distance of
perhaps 50 km (30 mi), and offered him a most generous gift, which the prophet insistently refused. Naaman then
asked for some of the earth of Israel, “the load of a pair of mules,” to take home, that upon Israel’s soil he might
offer sacrifices to Jehovah, vowing that from then on he would worship no other god. Perhaps Naaman had in
mind offering sacrifices to Jehovah upon an altar of ground.—2Ki 5:15-17; compare Ex 20:24, 25.
Naaman next requested that Jehovah forgive him when, in the performance of his civil duties, he bowed before
the god Rimmon with the king, who evidently was old and infirm and leaned for support upon Naaman. If such
was the case, then his bowing would be mechanical, being solely for the purpose of dutifully supporting the king’s
body and not in personal worship. Elisha believed Naaman’s sincere request, replying, “Go in peace.”—2Ki
5:18, 19.” [6]
What a transformation for Naaman and the opportunity opened to him to become Jehovah God’s friend and be
healed in a miraculous way. All because of a courageous unnamed young Israelite girl.
The good news is God inspired the prophet Isaiah to write about the future, the removal of sicknesses when the
Earth is made a global Paradise (Isaiah 33:24)
“And no resident will say: “I am sick.””
The last book of the Bible, Revelation, echoes this prophecy (Revelation 21: 4,5)
“And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor
pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.
And the One seated on the throne said: “Look! I am making all things new.””
References
[1] Naaman. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 456.
[2] “Walk in Jehovah’s Ways”, The Watchtower, February 15, 2008, p. 9.
[4] Pharpar. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 626.
[6] Naaman. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 456.
217 | P a g e
12.5.2 Naaman, the Syrian Army chief - Part 2

Can someone who has been serving God for a long time be corrupted by money to the tune of million dollars?
The Bible described the process of how a decent person can be corrupted and abandon his integrity. In the letter
of disciple James, he described this way
“You are tempted by the evil things you want. Your own desire leads you away and traps you. Your desire grows
inside you until it results in sin. Then the sin grows bigger and bigger and finally ends in death.” (James 1:14,15)
This is the process that happened inside Gehazi, the attendant of Elisha. When the opportunity opened up for him,
he took advantage of it. The Bible reports
“After he departed from him and had traveled for some distance, Ge·haʹzi the attendant of E·liʹsha the man of the
true God said to himself: ‘Here my master has spared this Syrian Naʹa·man by not accepting from him what he
brought. As surely as Jehovah is living, I will run after him and take something from him.’ So Ge·haʹzi chased after
Naʹa·man.” (5: 19b-21a)
Before he physically chased after Naaman, Gehazi has been chasing these things in his heart. In addition to
greed, he had to lie
“When Naʹa·man saw someone running after him, he got down from his chariot to meet him and said: “Is
everything all right?” To this he said: “All is well. My master has sent me, saying, ‘Look! Just now two young men
from the mountainous region of Eʹphra·im from the sons of the prophets came to me. Give them, please, a talent
of silver and two changes of garments.’”” (5:21b,22)
Lie #1. Elisha sent him. Lie #2. Visitors from Ephraim came. Lie #3. He was trying be nice to the visitors who
appeared to need material assistance. Gehazi even named what he wanted - the equivalent of $20,400.00. Did
Naaman believe it? The Bible reports
”Naʹa·man said: “Go on, take two talents.” He kept urging him, and he wrapped up two talents of silver in two bags,
with two changes of garments, and gave them to two of his attendants, who carried them before him.” (5:23)
Naaman had no reason to doubt the sincerity of someone working for God’s service. He even doubled the sum to
$40,000.00. The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight describes this gift
“Syrian army officer Naaman gave greedy Gehazi “two talents of silver in two bags [Heb., chari·timʹ], with two
changes of garments, and gave them to two of his attendants, that they might carry them.” Since a talent was
equal to about 34 kg (92 lb t), it is evident that such a container (cha·ritʹ) must have been of ample size and
strength to hold a talent plus a change of garment and, hence, when filled was about as much as one man could
carry. (2Ki 5:23) However, the same word is also used to refer to the “purses” used as articles of luxurious
adornment by the haughty daughters of Zion.—Isa 3:16, 22.” [1]
That must be some bags to carry such heavy load, each at least 34 kg. Where did Gehazi store all this? The Bible
reports
“When he reached Oʹphel, he took them from their hand and put them in the house and sent the men away.” (5:
24a)
“Scholars believe that the term ʽOʹphel at 2 Kings 5:24 refers to some prominent hill or fortified place in the vicinity
of Samaria to which Elisha’s attendant Gehazi took the riches he obtained from Naaman. This indicates that the
word was applied to mounds other than the one in Jerusalem.” [2]
After hiding away his loot, he went back to his master. The Bible now ends the story with the confrontation of
Gehazi and Elisha
“After they left,he went in and stood by his master. E·liʹsha now said to him: “Where did you come from,
Ge·haʹzi?” But he said: “Your servant did not go anywhere.” E·liʹsha said to him: “Was my heart not there with you
218 | P a g e
when the man got down from his chariot to meet you? Is it a time to accept silver or to accept garments or olive
groves or vineyards or sheep or cattle or male or female servants? Now Naʹa·man’s leprosy will stick to you and
your descendants forever.” Immediately he went out from before him a leper, white as snow.” (5: 24b-27)
‘I did not go anywhere’. Gehazi added lies upon lies. This led to his condemnation, transferring the disease of
Naaman, leprosy, to him. This will lead to his isolation, be declared “unclean” ceremonially, disqualifying him from
his privilege of service.
The story of the intersection of the three personalities ended here. Thanks to the courage of young Israelite girl,
separated from her homeland where she could worship Jehovah God freely, but has kept in her memory the true
God, she helped a foreigner to discover the true God. This foreigner, the Syrian army chief, because of his
humility was cleansed by God of his leprosy and was able to worship Jehovah God under very restrictive
circumstances.
Naaman was the second foreigner in the books of Kings that received God’s undeserved kindness. The first one
was the widow of Zarephath. Although Israel has a special relationship with Jehovah, that did not stop God to be
merciful with people of other nations. In due time, Jehovah will open himself for worship from people of all nations.
It is a privilege that we all now enjoy.
References
[1] Bag. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 242.
[2] Ophel. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 558.
219 | P a g e
12.6 The Ax, Syrian War, and the Siege of Samaria

12.6.1 The Ax, Syrian War, and the Siege of Samaria - Part 1
I have reflected previously that miracles cannot be dismissed because they are miracles. Many papers have been
written to expose the errors of philosopher David Hume. One more miraculous story is introduced in the book.
The narrative opens this way
“The sons of the prophets said to E·liʹsha: “Look! The place where we are staying with you is too cramped for us.
Please let us go to the Jordan. Let each of us take a log from there and make a place there where we can dwell.”
He said: “Go.” One of them said: “Will you please come along with your servants?” At that he said: “I will come.”
(6:1-3)
From the last narratives, the prophet Elisha was on Mount Carmel where the Shunemmite woman came to him.
Then, Elisha went to Gilgal where there was famine.It appears now that the prophet Elisha is in Samaria. It is here
that the sons of the prophets who were with him have felt that they need to find a better place. I recall that
Samaria is a mound or a hill. The new site for their relocation is to the Jordan. The Bible continues with the
narrative
“So he went with them, and they came to the Jordan and began to cut down the trees. As one of them was cutting
down a tree, the axhead fell into the water, and he cried out: “Alas, my master, it was borrowed!” The man of the
true God said: “Where did it fall?” So he showed him the place. He then cut off a piece of wood and threw it there
and made the axhead float. He said: “Lift it out.” So he reached out his hand and took it.” (6:4-7)
From what I know of the laws of gravity, what I just read is incredible or miraculous - making a heavy axhead float
from the water. It was so matter of factly reported and bible scholars are at a loss as to why these minor stories
are included at all in the narratives. This is difficult to accept if one does not recognize that the Bible is inspired by
a living God who can suspend the laws of nature that He himself created if He wishes so and the dignity He gives
His servant through whom He allows this power to be tapped. This is as incredible as the New Testament miracle
of the Lord Jesus walking on water.
It might be useful at this point to rehash why such incredible biblical stories not be rejected outright. A Bible-based
publication summarised the philosopher David Hume’s objections to miracles below
“First he writes: “A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature.” Man has relied from time immemorial on the laws
of nature. He has known that an object will fall if it is dropped, that the sun will rise each morning and set each
night, and so forth. Instinctively, he knows that events will always follow such familiar patterns. Nothing will ever
happen that is out of harmony with natural laws. This ‘proof,’ Hume felt, “is as entire as any argument from
experience” against the possibility of miracles.
A second argument he presented was that people are easily fooled. Some want to believe in marvels and
miracles, especially when it has to do with religion, and many so-called miracles have turned out to be fakes. A
third argument was that miracles are usually reported in times of ignorance. The more educated people become,
the fewer miracles are reported. As Hume expressed it, “Such prodigious events never happen in our days.” Thus,
he felt it proved that they never did happen.” [1]
Why are Hume’s arguments no longer valid today? The same publication answers
“The truth is, educated people today are less prepared than was David Hume to insist that the familiar laws of
nature hold true everywhere and at all times. Scientists are willing to speculate on whether, instead of the familiar
three dimensions of length, breadth, and height, there may be many additional dimensions in the universe. They
theorize on the existence of black holes, huge stars that collapse in on themselves until their density is virtually
infinite. In their vicinity the fabric of space is said to be so distorted that time itself stands still. Scientists have
even debated whether, under certain conditions, time would run backward instead of forward!
Stephen W. Hawking, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, when discussing how the
universe began, said: “In the classical theory of general relativity . . . the beginning of the universe has to be a
220 | P a g e
singularity of infinite density and space-time curvature. Under such conditions, all the known laws of physics
would break down.” So, modern scientists do not agree that because something is contrary to the normal laws of
nature it can never happen. In unusual conditions, unusual things may happen. Surely, if we believe in an
almighty God, we should admit that he has the power to cause unusual—miraculous—events to take place when
it befits his purpose.—Exodus 15:6-10; Isaiah 40:13, 15.” [2]
When Bible books don’t fit the theories of scholars, does that mean the Bible has failed? Or rather it is the
scholars who failed to get the message of the Bible? What about those who championed theories about what the
Bible is supposed to be but later lost out in the battle of ideas? These theories when they reached the popular
media are gobbled up uncritically and as a result contributes to the lost of respect for the Bible as God’s revelation
to man.
When scholars read the Bible as literature, they examine its genre, form, structure and theme. They try to impose
on the Bible a certain assumption or assumptions. When it does not comply with their assumption they raise that
as issues. This is true of the books of Kings. One paper articulated that especially in the books I am reading now,
the books of Kings
“It has been suggested that many of the events narrated in chs. 2-8 did not take place during the reign of Jehoram,
where Kings seems to locate them. My impression is that most readers find these chapters difficult. The difficulty
consists not in the fact that the individual narratives fail to make clear points about God’s dealings with men and
women (on the contrary, they are regularly expounded along these lines), but in the fact that it is hard to see why
one narrative follows another.” [3]
I agree with this author of the paper that the books of Kings has coherence because the second book affirms the
fulfillment of Elijah’s prophecies on the house of Ahab found on the first book. The author added
“War between Aram and Israel dominates 2 Kings 5-8. The theme is first referred to at the time of Baasha (1 Ki.
15:18-21), but the relevant passage for our purposes is 1 Kings 19:15-17, in which the Aramean Hazael is
introduced as one of three human agents (the others being Jehu and Elisha himself) who will finally defeat Baal
and bring an end to Ahab’s line (the second point is implied in the command to anoint Jehu as king over Israel, v.
16). From then on, references to war with Aram are read in the light of this prediction that an Aramean king will be
among those used to accomplish these purposes. As the Arameans, at first laughably over-confident and inept (1
Ki. 20), come to pose an ever more formidable threat to Israel in the chapters following, the reader senses a
judgment drawing closer to the house of Ahab. It fits with this that Ahab is killed by an Aramean weapon (1 Ki.
22:34-35), and that Jehoram’s wounding in battle against Hazael (2 Ki. 8:28-29) is the prelude to Jehu’s coup (2
Ki. 9).” [4]
References
[1] “The Miracles—Did They Really Happen?”, The Bible-God’s Word or Man’s?, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 2006, p.
72.
[2] Ibid., p. 73.
[3] Satterwaite, Philip. “The Elisha Narratives and the Coherence of 2 Kings 2-8”, Tyndale Bulletin 49.1 (1998), p.
2.
[4] Ibid., p. 4.
221 | P a g e
Jehovah God listens to prayers and if He so wills it can act for His servants by listening to their prayers. This is
demonstrated in the next Elisha narrative. On the other hand, are scholarly theories reliable as they try to make
sense of the Bible how it was produced? One theory put up by scholars is that the books of Kings were compiled
from various sources who apparently have different agenda and they have put up the books together. One such
theory is called the Deuteonomistic History that I have reflected on in the past. One paper touched on this aspect
of the Bible production
“Wilson (1995, 1999, 2000) discusses the problems involved in the choice of criteria for distinguishing between
the different redactions of the book of Kings. He claims that the scholars who adhere to the theory of multiple
redactions ignore the general literary structure of the book. The book of Kings is not a collection of formulae of
different types, and there is room for a discussion of the central theological themes expressed within the book. A
similar approach is presented by Lohfink (1999).
Westermann (1994) suggests that one could see the book of Kings as an independent work with unique features,
in spite of its similarity to the rest of the Deuteronomistic History. This approach is also found in Auld (1999, 2000);
Linville (1998); and Knauf (2000). McKenzie (1991) and Friedman (1995) point out that the term ‘Deuteronomistic
school’ is indeterminate and therefore unclear. It is not clear who the authors of the Deuteronomistic History were,
nor why they wrote these books. One can do no more than distinguish between author and editor. Albertz (2000)
identifies the authors with the family of Hilkiah, the high priest, who wished to promote an anti-Babylonian policy.”
[1]
One can see from his survey of current scholarship the Deuteronomistic History as a theory is beset by many
issues. As many scholars there are, the same can be said of their theories. The author of this paper also
highlighted the roles of the prophets Elijah and Elisha in the narratives
“The centrality of prophets and prophecy in the book of Kings can be proved by the fact that more than a third of
this book is dedicated to the description of Elijah and Elisha. To this, one may add emphasis in the book of Kings
on the fulfillment of prophecies (Weinfeld 1992: 200-209; Weippert 2000).” [2]
As I have previously noted these Bible scholars consider the many miraculous stories in the books of Kings
associated with the prophets Elijah and Elisha as tales or what van Seters would call in his article below as the
genre of “prophetic legends”
“The books of Kings contain a number of popular stories, many of which are derogatory to the monarchy. It is
therefore unlikely that these emanate from the court or any official historiographic sources. This large corpus of
material, usually referred to as “prophetic legends,” is regarded as based upon oral traditions that one or more
historians incorporated into Kings. According to Gunkel and Gressmann, these religious legends, best exemplified
in the stories of Elijah and Elisha, form a line of development from Sagen- one that did not end in historiography
but retained the more fanciful aspects of the older form. Just as Sagen represent the oral traditions of the
preliterate period of political life before the rise of the monarchy, the prophetic legends mark the preliterate period
of prophecy before the rise of the classical prophets.
And yet this scheme, which is still widely accepted, does not do justice to the diversity of the prophetic stories or
to their role within the historical works of which they are a part. In two recent studies, A. Rofe has offered a new
analysis and classification of the prophetic legends in the books of Kings, as well as some suggestions about the
relationship between the types thus identified- a kind of Gattungsgeschichte of prophetic stories. His point of
departure is the discovery of a model in the medieval legendae, stories whose theme is the veneration of pious
men, Christian saints and Jewish rabbis; he sees this model as basic to a number of types of prophetic stories.” [3]
But as highlighted in my previous reflection, miracles could not just be dismissed as legends because they are
miracles. The Bible as a whole has been proven authentic and accurate. There is no hints of deceptions in its
authors.
222 | P a g e
In the next narrative, I am going to encounter again another miraculous event. The Bible story begins this way
“Now the king of Syria went to war against Israel. He consulted with his servants and said: “I will encamp at such
and such a place with you.” Then the man of the true God sent word to the king of Israel, saying: “Beware of
passing by this place, because that is where the Syrians are coming down.” So the king of Israel sent word to the
place that the man of the true God had warned him about. He kept warning him, and he stayed away from there
on several occasions.” (6:8-10)
Here Elisha is doing another miraculous activity. He knows the movements of the king of Syria and he advises the
king of Israel accordingly. I found this interesting as the kings from the house of Ahab are unfaithful to Jehovah
God and yet God is helping him. The Syrian king is at a loss how this is discovered.
“This enraged the king of Syria, so he summoned his servants and said to them: “Tell me! Who among us is on
the side of the king of Israel?” Then one of his servants said: “None of us, my lord the king! It is E·liʹsha the
prophet in Israel who tells the king of Israel the things that you say in your own bedroom.” He said: “Go and find
out where he is, so that I may send men to capture him.” Later the report was made to him: “He is in Doʹthan.” He
immediately sent horses and war chariots there, as well as a large army; they came by night and surrounded the
city.” (6:11-14)
Where is Dothan? The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight answers
“A city figuring in two Biblical narratives. Dothan is today identified with Tell Dothan (Tel Dotan), situated on a hill
in a small basinlike plain lying between the hills of Samaria and the Carmel Range, 16 km (10 mi) NNE of
Samaria.—PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 950.” [4]
The Syrian army with its chariots finally came to Dothan. The Bible reports
“When the attendant of the man of the true God rose early and went outside, he saw that an army with horses and
war chariots was surrounding the city. At once the attendant said to him: “Alas, my master! What are we to do?””
(6:15)
One paper describes the fearsomeness of an army of chariots
“At the appropriate moment the commander initiates the charge with a war shout. The horses lunge forward
pulling the chariot which is filled with driver, archer, and shield bearer. As the chariot approaches the enemy the
archer shoots his arrows causing those shot at to take defensive action. As the chariot picks up speed, bearing
down on the enemy, the distance becomes too short for arrows so the sword and spears are brought out. The
riders hack and stab at any and every enemy soldier within reach. Those that cannot take appropriate defensive
measures are either hacked in pieces by the sword or trampled by the horse and chariot. When these elements of
the battle are multiplied by fifty (fifty chariots making a squadron), and to this number is added the sounds of
dying men, the whine of the horses and the thundering of their hoofs, the rumbling of the chariot wheels, and the
stirred-up dust, it is easy to see how the enemy, terrorized beyond imagination, is put to flight with parents
abandoning children and officers forsaking posts. It truly was like an earthquake, or storm, which could shake
buildings!
With this kind of imagery with which to work, the words of Elisha's servant in 2 Kgs 6:16 really come to life. Upon
seeing an army of horses and chariots surrounding the city (v.15), he said, "Alas, my master! What shall we do?"
His feelings of helplessness cannot be overemphasized. This kind of imagery also explains the terror produced
among the Syrians in 2 Kgs 7:6-7. They, upon hearing "the sound of chariots, and of horses, and the sound of a
great army," abandoned their camp with all its materials.” [5]
But the attendant (who is not identified, could this still be the leper Gehazi?) was calmed down by Elisha
223 | P a g e
“But he said: “Do not be afraid! For there are more who are with us than those who are with them.” Then E·liʹsha
began to pray and say: “O Jehovah, open his eyes, please, that he may see.” Immediately Jehovah opened the
attendant’s eyes and he saw, and look! the mountainous region was full of horses and war chariots of fire all
around E·liʹsha.” (6: 16, 17)
If the Syrian chariot force was fearsome, imagine the whole mountainous region “full of horses and war chariots of
fire all around”! This is Jehovah’s heavenly army arrayed to be made visible to the attendant. Insight explains the
use of chariot
“In a figurative and prophetic sense, chariots are symbols of war just like the bow and sword. (Isa 21:7, 9; Zec
9:10) “The war chariots of God” are said to be “in tens of thousands, thousands over and over again,” denoting
God’s invincible power to destroy his enemies.—Ps 68:17; 2Ki 6:17.” [6]
The Syrians do not see this heavenly force. So, they finally took their move.
“When the Syrians came down to him, E·liʹsha prayed to Jehovah and said: “Please, strike this nation with
blindness.” So he struck them with blindness, just as E·liʹsha had requested. E·liʹsha now said to them: “This is
not the way, and this is not the city. Follow me, and let me lead you to the man you are looking for.” However, he
led them to Sa·marʹi·a.”” (6:18,19)
This is an important reflection point in the books of Kings. Jehovah God is demonstrated as a hearer of prayers.
The prophets Elijah and Elisha were so confident in their relationship with God that their prayers have power.
Jehovah God has dignified such imperfect men by listening to them. Bible readers today just like me should be
encouraged that there is indeed someone listening to prayers. This incident shows that Jehovah if He wants to He
protects His servants according to His purpose.
Now, I just paused and imagine the scenario. Elisha, perhaps already an old man, leading an entire powerful
military force of the Syrians with their chariots from Dothan to Samaria across the hills to the hill of Samaria and
into the walled city of Samaria. What could the Israelite forces from Samaria must have thought as they saw this
from the distance, coming up and led by Elisha himself? On the other hand, what kind of “blindness” has
happened here? Insight explains this
“The blindness that was brought on the military force of the Syrians at the word of Elisha was evidently mental
blindness. If the entire army had been struck with physical blindness, they would all have had to be led by hand.
But the account simply says that Elisha told them: “This is not the way, and this is not the city. Follow me.” On this
phenomenon William James in his Principles of Psychology (1981, Vol. 1, p. 59) states: “A most interesting effect
of cortical disorder is mental blindness. This consists not so much in insensibility to optical impressions, as in
inability to understand them. Psychologically it is interpretable as loss of associations between optical sensations
and what they signify; and any interruption of the paths between the optic centres and the centres for other ideas
ought to bring it about.” This was apparently the kind of blindness removed by Jehovah when the Syrian army
reached Samaria. (2Ki 6:18-20) Such mental blindness also may have been involved in the case of the men of
Sodom, since the account shows that, instead of being distressed at loss of the faculty of sight, they persisted in
trying to find the door of Lot’s house.—Ge 19:11.” [7]
Is Elisha guilty of lying in his answer to the Syrian force? Insight clarifies
“While malicious lying is definitely condemned in the Bible, this does not mean that a person is under obligation to
divulge truthful information to people who are not entitled to it. Jesus Christ counseled: “Do not give what is holy
to dogs, neither throw your pearls before swine, that they may never trample them under their feet and turn
around and rip you open.” (Mt 7:6) That is why Jesus on certain occasions refrained from giving full information or
direct answers to certain questions when doing so could have brought unnecessary harm. (Mt 15:1-6; 21:23-27;
Joh 7:3-10) Evidently the course of Abraham, Isaac, Rahab, and Elisha in misdirecting or in withholding full facts
from nonworshipers of Jehovah must be viewed in the same light.—Ge 12:10-19; chap 20; 26:1-10; Jos 2:1-6;
Jas 2:25; 2Ki 6:11-23.” [8]
224 | P a g e
The story ended in an unusual way. Instead of slaughtering the Syrians inside Samaria, they were treated
hospitably. That has Jehovah God’s blessing because the outcome was positive. The result?
“And not once did the marauder bands of the Syrians come again into the land of Israel.” (6:20-23)
References
[1] Avioz, Michael. “The Book of Kings in Recent Research (Part I), CBR 4.1 (2005), p. 15.
[2] Ibid., p. 19.
[3] Van Seters, John. In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History,
Eisenbrauns, 1997, p. 303.
[4] Dothan. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 646.
[5] Bailey, Randall. “Eijah and Elisha: The Chariots and Horses of Israel in the Context of ANE Chariot Warfare”.
[6] Chariot. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 428.
[7] Blindness. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 343.
[8] Lie. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 245.
225 | P a g e
Why does Jehovah God allow suffering with His chosen people Israel? Jehovah, being a patient God, has been bearing
up with the unfaithfulness of the northern kingdom of Israel with its kings. In fact, God has already rendered judgment
on the house of Ahab. It’s line of kings will end and a new one will replace it. Because of this unfaithfulness, Jehovah
God may invoke the curses specified in the covenant law (a binding mutual agreement entered into by God and Israel
with Moses as its mediator) and withhold His support to Israel when it is oppressed by its enemies just as He did during
the time of the Judges. This time around, Jehovah allowed the Syrians to take the upper hand and to siege Samaria.
The Bible reports
“Afterward Ben-haʹdad the king of Syria gathered all his army together and went up and besieged Sa·marʹi·a. So
there was a great famine in Sa·marʹi·a, and they besieged it until a donkey’s head was worth 80 silver pieces, and
a fourth of a cab measure of dove’s droppings was worth 5 silver pieces.” (6: 24,25)
According to one paper, siege is an ancient military tactic. The paper reports
“References to sieges in ancient texts date back to the third millenium B.C. and indicate that the taking of walled
cities was commonplace, though no early text describe siege methods in detail. By the beginning of the second
millenium B.C. advances in military technology such as the composite bow, battering ram, and siege tower
inspired counter-developments in defensive fortifications: the fosse, rampart, and glacis. In order to get siege
machinery over these obstacles to the city walls, attackers built earthen ramps.” [1]
Another reference describes the siege in the ancient Near East
“One of the most brutal tactics by ancient armies and the one which involved the least differentiation between
civilians and military personnel was siege. Modern descriptions of the use of siege warfare by the Assyrians are
negative to the point of condemnatory; J.W. Wevers describes it as designed to be both physically and morally
destructive, while M. Walzer declares that its object “is surrender; and the means is not the defeat of the enemy
army, but the fearful spectacle of the civilian dead.”
Such an assessment, however, is based at least in part on more modern siege warfare. The inscriptions suggest
that sieges frequently did not last very long, so many of the more gruesome consequences may have been
averted. More importantly, sieges were the last line of offence, employed only when surrender could not be
obtained in some other way.” [2]
The Bible writer tried to describe the siege in terms of economics. The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight explains
“In times of scarcity, prices rose sharply. The 80 silver pieces (c. 240 days’ wages) that at one time might have
bought eight homers (1,760 L; 50 bu) of barley would, in time of siege, only procure the thinly fleshed head of an
ass, an animal unfit for food according to the terms of the Mosaic Law.—2Ki 6:25; compare Ho 3:2.” [3]
Imagine 2/3 of an annual salary of a laborer and daily wage earner could only buy the head of an ass that do not
have much flesh, and is considered “unclean” by the covenant law or also known as Mosaic Law. That’s how bad
things became for civilians. According to Insight 80 silver pieces is about $176.[4] In addition, 1.22L of dove’s
dung is worth $11. [5] But why would people buy dove’s dung? Insight explains
“Arguments have been advanced that the term “dove’s dung” may have been applied to a certain plant. However,
there is no evidence that the plants referred to by those favoring this view were ever known by the name dove’s
dung or that such plants would be accessible to the people bottled up in Samaria by the siege.
Those who acknowledge a literal meaning of the expression are, in turn, divided as to the use made of the
substance. Some point out that dove’s dung has long been used as a fertilizer by people in the Middle East in the
cultivation of melons, but it seems reasonable that persons bordering on death by starvation would be concerned
with food for immediate consumption rather than with a crop that would not be available for perhaps several
months.
226 | P a g e
Many prefer the view that the dove’s dung was actually used for food, pointing out that the subject is that of
famine and the terrible extremes to which humans are driven by the pangs of hunger. Though purposely extreme
and cruel in order to create a weakening fear, the threat by Sennacherib’s officer, Rabshakeh, that a siege by
Assyria would cause the people of Jerusalem to have to “eat their own excrement and drink their own urine” may
have had some basis in fact. (2Ki 18:27) While the thought of using literal dung for human consumption is
extremely repulsive, that in itself is no basis for rejecting this view. The fact that the hunger was so great in
Samaria that women would boil and eat their own children indicates that they had reached the point of consuming
anything available. (2Ki 6:26-29) While some point out that dung would have little value as a nutrient, this factor
alone would not disprove the possibility of its being purchased for food, for starving persons are frequently
irrational, eating anything to deaden the pangs of hunger.” [6]
But there is an even graver development. Women have started eating their sons. (6:26-29) Instead of repenting
for his sins and return to Jehovah God, the king had put the blame on Elisha (6:30,31) The chapter ended with the
king raging against Jehovah God (6: 32,33)
“This calamity is from Jehovah. Why should I wait any longer for Jehovah?”
How would Jehovah God who allowed this to happened respond to this king, son of Ahab, whose house or dynasty
Jehovah God has condemned? That’s for the next installment.
References
[1] Melville, Sarah & Melville, Duncan. From the Banks of the Euphrates- Studies in Honor of Alice Louise Slotsky,
Eisenbrauns, 2008, p. 146.
[2] Crouch, C.L. War and Ethics in the Ancient Near East- Military Violence in Light of Cosmology and History,
Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG. 2009, p. 46.
[3] Money. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 427.
[4] Ass. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 196.
[5] Cab. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 381.
[6] Dove’s Dung. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 648.
227 | P a g e
Unfaithful Israel experienced famine that God has tolerated. Will God relieve the famine? Will the king of Israel
humble himself before God? This is the next narrative. What can I learn from God’s merciful response to this
famine?
“E·liʹsha now said, “Listen to the word of Jehovah. This is what Jehovah says: ‘Tomorrow about this time at the
gate of Sa·marʹi·a, a seah measure of fine flour will be worth a shekel, and two seah measures of barley will be
worth a shekel.’”” (7:1)
The statement in our modern-day language means that food will be cheap and abundant. In effect, the famine will
end. Why Jehovah God chose to act and end the famine on the city of a king who does not even recognize Him, I
can only say it was undeserved kindness towards the Israelites inside the city. The question raised in the minds of
Elisha’s audience though is how can food overnight be abundant and cheap amid a famine? In fact, there was a
negative reply to Elisha’s prophecy
“At that the adjutant whom the king relied on said to the man of the true God: “Even if Jehovah should open
floodgates in the heavens, could this possibly take place?” To that he said: “You will see it with your own eyes,
but you will not eat from it.”” (7:2)
The adjutant expressed lack of faith. Elisha’s prophecy appeared illogical and unreasonable. But the adjutant has
underestimated what Jehovah God can do. Hence, for his lack of faith he will pay dearly for it. How will the
prophecy be fulfilled? The Bible related what had happened that evening
“There were four lepers at the entrance of the city gate, and they said to one another: “Why are we sitting here
until we die? If we say, ‘Let us go into the city,’ while the famine is in the city, we would die there. And if we sit
here, we will die anyway. So now let us go over to the camp of the Syrians. If they spare our lives, we will live, but
if they put us to death, then we will die.” They then got up in the evening darkness and entered the camp of the
Syrians. When they reached the outskirts of the Syrian camp, there was nobody there.” (7:3-5)
The 4 lepers were key to the discovery of abundant food for Samaria where famine has been so severe that
mothers are now eating their sons. But why were the Syrians gone after doing a siege of the city for an extended
period of time? The Bible reports what had happened before the 4 lepers came to the camp
“For Jehovah had caused the Syrian camp to hear the sound of war chariots and horses, the sound of a huge
army. So they said to one another: “Look! The king of Israel has hired the kings of the Hitʹtites and the kings of
Egypt to come against us!” 7 They immediately got up and fled in the evening darkness, leaving their tents, horses,
donkeys, and the whole camp just as it was, and they fled for their lives.” (7: 6,7)
How Jehovah God managed to cause the Syrian camp to hear “the sound of war chariots and horses, the sound
of a huge army” the Bible does not say. Why would the Syrians think that there were several ‘kings of Egypt’? The
Bible-based encyclopedia Insight offered an answer
“Government and law were centered on the king or Pharaoh, regarded as a god in human form. He ruled the land
through subordinates, or ministers, and through feudal chiefs, whose power in times of royal weakness rivaled
that of the king. Perhaps these latter chieftains were indeed viewed by those under their domain as virtual kings,
thus accounting for the Biblical mention of “the kings [plural] of Egypt” when referring to specific times. (2Ki 7:6;
Jer 46:25)” [1]
Why would the sound of war chariots and horses and of a huge army lead to the desertion of the camp? One
paper visualized the power of the sound of rushing chariots shaking the earth, the pounding of the hoofs of horses,
the dust it generates like a whirlwind. The paper comments
“This kind of imagery also explains the terror produced among the Syrians in 2 Kgs 7:6-7. They, upon hearing "the
sound of chariots, and of horses, and the sound of a great army," abandoned their camp with all its materials.
228 | P a g e
Placed against the imagery of the chariot charge, these verses are almost expressionless. What they do imply is
that people of that time knew the terror of the charge. The mere statement of the bald facts left open to the hearer
the application of that terror from his own experience. Thus it is easily understood how the Syrians, upon thinking
they were experiencing a chariot charge, would flee for their lives.” [2]
What did the lepers do next with all that booty left behind by the Syrians in haste? The Bible reports
“When these lepers reached the outskirts of the camp, they entered into one of the tents and began to eat and
drink. They carried away from there silver, gold, and garments and went and hid them. Then they returned and
entered another tent and carried things away from there and went and hid them.” (7:8)
But, wait, are the lepers taking advantage of all the booty for themselves while people are dying inside the city of
Samaria? The Bible reports next what happened
“Finally they said to one another: “What we are doing is not right. This day is a day of good news! If we hesitate
and wait until dawn, we will deserve to be punished. Let us now go and report this at the king’s house.” So they
went and called out to the gatekeepers of the city and reported to them: “We went into the camp of the Syrians,
but nobody was there—we did not hear anyone at all. There were only the horses and donkeys tied and the tents
left just as they were.” At once the gatekeepers called out, and it was reported inside the king’s house.” (7: 9-11)
One blog article commented on how the lepers were presented in this narrative
“As mentioned earlier, the narrator’s positive depiction of the lepers allows us to consider a touch of humanity of
the lepers. Through the scene of the lepers’ looting for silver and clothing, the narrator reminds us of the similar
behavior of Gehazi in 5:23-24 and reveals a difference between the lepers and Gehazi. Feeling guilty about their
pillaging, the lepers stopped and began to think that they are obliged to inform the Israelites of this good fortune.
The narrator draws our attention to the lepers’ ethical sense. The portrayal of the lepers’ awareness of qualms
and the obligation to apprise the good news of the entire nation intimates that they are general human beings who
can reason and feel qualms not differently from normal people. Furthermore, the narrator depicts the lepers as
agents of change who plays a key role in transforming the devastating situation of famine into a recovery of
market prices as Elisha’s prophetic word promised (7:1). The lepers’ action discloses that in their heart the
patriotic spirit still exists despite their desperate and lowly situation.
Still, taking into account of the lepers’ initial decision to desert to the Arameans, we are aware of the tension
between the portraits of the lepers as rational figures who abandon their nation, and as morally awakened social
transformers. It seems that the narrator does not intend to romanticize the lepers as national heroes in a one
dimensional way. This illuminates the literary irony and realism, which suggest that the characters of the biblical
narratives embody the literary artistry understood in a multidimensional way. In the same vein, there is a
possibility to reconsider Elisha, the main character of the entire Elisha narratives, in the context of this narrative,
where Elisha does not appear.” [3]
So, with their conscience bothering them for being selfish, enjoying all that loot to themselves, they decided to
relay the news to the king. How did the king take the news? The Bible reports
“Immediately the king got up by night and said to his servants: “Please let me tell you what the Syrians have done
to us. They know that we are hungry, so they left the camp to hide in the field, saying, ‘They will come out of the
city, and we will catch them alive and enter into the city.’”” (7:12)
The king interpreted the event as a trap, an ambush waiting for them if they go out of the city. Is there a better
way to find out? The Bible reported what happened next
“Then one of his servants said: “Please, let some men take five of the remaining horses that are in the city. Look!
They will end up the same as all the crowd of Israel that remain here. Look! They will end up the same as all the
crowd of Israel that perished. Let us then send them out and see.” So they took two chariots with horses, and the
king sent them out to the camp of the Syrians, saying: “Go and see.” They followed them as far as the Jordan,
229 | P a g e
and the entire way was covered with garments and utensils that the Syrians had thrown away as they fled in panic.
The messengers returned and reported it to the king.” (7:13-15)
So a group verified the report while it is evening. They went from Samaria as far as the Jordan. What did they
discover? Garments and utensils covering the ground like trackers. Upon confirmation that they Syrians had truly
left, how did those inside Samaria who have been suffering because of the famine do? The Bible reports
“The people then went out and plundered the camp of the Syrians, so that a seah measure of fine flour came to
be worth a shekel, and two seah measures of barley came to be worth a shekel, according to the word of
Jehovah.” (7:16)
You could imagine that when the gates were opened, they being conditioned with the news that the Syrians had
left behind abundant food supplies, stampeded to the supplies until the food became cheap because of the
abundance. Elisha’s word from Jehovah took place as Elisha said. What about the adjutant who strongly doubted
Elisha? The Bible reported
“The king had appointed the adjutant whom he relied on to be in charge of the gate, but the people trampled him
to death at the gate, just as the man of the true God had told the king when he came down to him. It happened
just as the man of the true God had said to the king: “Two seah measures of barley will be worth a shekel, and a
seah measure of fine flour will be worth a shekel tomorrow at this time at the gate of Sa·marʹi·a.” But the adjutant
had said to the man of the true God: “Even if Jehovah should open floodgates in the heavens, could such a thing
take place?” To this E·liʹsha had said: “You will see it with your own eyes, but you will not eat from it.” That is
exactly what happened to him, because the people trampled him to death at the gate.” (7: 17-20
The formula “just as the man of the true God had told” and “according to the word of Jehovah” are often found in
the books of Kings to confirm the statement of God as prophecy and its fulfillment. The leaders of the kingdom of
Israel have not cultivated their friendship with Jehovah God. Hence they have displayed lack of faith. But God is
merciful. He provided relief to the people of Samaria despite the failure of its rulers to do so. Noticeably, Elisha is
no longer included in the narrative.
References
[1] Egypt, Egyptian. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 692.
[2] Bailey, Randall. “Eijah and Elisha: The Chariots and Horses of Israel in the Context of ANE Chariot Warfare”.
[3] Yoon Kyung Kim. “Subversive Implications of 2 Kings 7:3-10 with Focus on the Lepers”, Asian American
Theological Forum (Vol 3 No. 2), Aug. 4, 2014.
230 | P a g e
12.7 The Shunemmite Woman, Hazael, King Jehoram of Israel, son of Ahab and King Ahaziah of
Judah, son of Jehoram
12.7.1 The Shunemmite Woman, Hazael, KIng Jehoram of Israel, son of Ahab and King Ahaziah of Judah,
son of Jehoram - Part 1
The turn of events has started for Jehovah God’s judgment on the house of Ahab to be accomplished after a long
time bearing up with its wicked kings. Before the judgment on the house of Ahab unraveled, the narrative brings
back the Shunammite woman. This part was not disclosed in the initial story the first time she was introduced in
the Bible’s narrative
“E·liʹsha said to the woman whose son he had restored to life: “Rise up and go, you with your household, and live
as a foreigner wherever you can, for Jehovah has declared a famine, and it will come on the land for seven
years.” So the woman got up and did what the man of the true God said. She went with her household and settled
in the land of the Phi·lisʹtines for seven years.” (8:1,2)
From Elisha’s statement of warning, the famine has not started. The woman has time to find a safer place. She
went to the land of the Philistines. To do that, she has to leave behind her property for she is a wealthy woman.
The Bible fast forwards to the end of 7 years. The Bible narrative continues
“At the end of seven years, the woman returned from the land of the Phi·lisʹtines and went to appeal to the king for
her house and her field.” (8:3)
As she went to the king, a parallel event is taking place with the king
“Now the king was speaking to Ge·haʹzi the attendant of the man of the true God, saying: “Relate to me, please,
all the great things that E·liʹsha has done.”” (8:4)
From my previous reading, Gehazi already turned leper. But, in this account, apparently he is not a leper. So this
portion of the narrative must have happened before Naaman came to visit Elisha. While he was relating the great
things done by Elisha, the Shunemmite woman came. The Bible continues
“Just as he was relating to the king how he had restored the dead one to life, the woman whose son he had
restored to life came to the king, appealing for her house and her field. At once Ge·haʹzi said: “My lord the king,
this is the woman, and this is her son, whom E·liʹsha restored to life.” At that the king asked the woman, and she
related the story to him. Then the king assigned her a court official, telling him: “Return all that belongs to her and
all the products of the field from the day she left the land until now.”” (8:5, 6)
Things happened quickly. The property left behind was restored to her. What other scholars noticed that the
woman has a strong personality because she is the one taking the initiatives in behalf of her husband. This
narrative ends at this point.
What have I learned from this brief story? The Shunammite woman was blessed one more time by Jehovah God.
Not only was she given a son, who died and miraculously revived, but she was a given warning to flee the famine
that lasted 7 years. There is no mention that she entrusted or her husband had entrusted her property to other
people until her family returned. She has no qualms leaving behind her property in obedience to Elisha’s
instruction. For her obedience and trust in God, Jehovah blessed her again.
That is a comforting message from the Bible about God’s care of individuals according to their needs. Jehovah
God took care of a poor, non-Israelite widow during a time of famine through the prophet Elijah. Jehovah God
took care of an Israelite widow with a heavy debt to pay for using Elisha. Now, Jehovah God took care of a
generous, wealthy Israelite woman, gave her a son, revived him after dying, and gives them time to flee the
famine.
231 | P a g e
This informs me that whatever our circumstances, if we can express faith and confidence in Jehovah God and His
instructions, whether we are financially challenged or blessed materially, when times become difficult for us, and
we need help, Jehovah God will be there for us in a way we have not imagined.
232 | P a g e
12.7.2 The Shunemmite Woman, Hazael, KIng Jehoram of Israel, son of Ahab and King Ahaziah of Judah,
son of Jehoram - Part 2
The previous reflection taught me that despite the general atmosphere of lack of faith in Jehovah God by the
northern kingdom of Israel under the house of Ahab, God can take note of individuals who still maintain their
friendship with Him. Jehovah God rewards those individuals for such faith, coming to their aid when they needed
it.The time has come to set in motion God’ punitive action against the house of Ahab. During Elijah’s escape to
Mount Horeb, Jehovah gave instructions that deal with political change in Syria and in Israel. Elijah’s successor
will now accomplish those instructions.
The development shows that Jehovah God exercises His sovereignty on the earth and His will cannot be
interrupted to accomplish His purpose. This narrative is just an example to build one’s faith that soon when God
will fulfill the prayer, “Thy kingdom come”, God’s purpose for this Earth to become a global Paradise free from
suffering will come true.
The Bible started the unraveling of the change
“E·liʹsha came to Damascus when Ben-haʹdad the king of Syria was sick. So the report was made to him: “The
man of the true God has come here.” At that the king said to Hazʹa·el: “Take a gift with you and go and meet the
man of the true God. Inquire of Jehovah through him, asking, ‘Will I recover from this sickness?’”” (8:7)
Benhadad, the Syrian king that has been raiding into Israel, is sick and Elisha came to Damascus. The time has
come for the transition to Hazael. Elisha is apparently well-known in Syria that his presence was not feared at all.
Instead, the king even sent his representative Hazael to consult with him recognizing Elisha’s powerful role as
prophet of Jehovah.But who is Hazael that Jehovah has determined to replace Benhadad with? The Bible-based
“A notable king of Syria, Hazael apparently began to rule during the reign of King Jehoram of Israel (c. 917-
905 B.C.E.). (2Ki 8:7-16) He died during the reign of King Jehoash of Israel (c. 859-845 B.C.E.). (2Ki 13:24, 25)
Hazael was not of royal lineage but had merely been a high officer in the service of his predecessor, King Ben-
hadad II of Syria.—2Ki 8:7-9.
Years prior to Hazael’s reign, Jehovah had instructed Elijah to “anoint Hazael as king over Syria.” The reason for
the appointment was that Israel had sinned against God and Hazael was to execute punishment upon the
nation.—1Ki 19:15-18.
Hazael was never literally anointed with oil, but the commission given to Elijah was nevertheless fulfilled by his
successor Elisha the prophet. This occurred when Syrian King Ben-hadad II fell sick and sent Hazael to Syria’s
principal city Damascus. Hazael was to take a gift and to inquire of Elisha whether or not Ben-hadad would
survive his sickness. Elisha said to Hazael: “Go, say to [Ben-hadad], ‘You will positively revive,’” but the prophet
continued, saying: “And Jehovah has shown me that he will positively die.” He further said to Hazael: “Jehovah
has shown me you as king over Syria.” On Hazael’s return, in reply to the king’s question as to Elisha’s answer,
Hazael said: “He said to me, ‘You will positively revive’”; but then, on the next day, Hazael suffocated the king with
a wet coverlet and began to rule in his place.—2Ki 8:7-15.” [1]
Hazael met with Elisha bring gifts worth 40 camels load. Now, that is a lot of gifts. A search in Google informed
that a single camel can carry about 500 pounds of load. Benhadad must be a wealthy ruler and super generous at
the same time. Other commentators I read imply that Benhadad is buying the favor of Elisha. The Bible reports
“Hazʹa·el went to meet him and took a gift with him, every sort of good thing of Damascus, the load of 40 camels.
He came and stood before him and said: “Your son, Ben-haʹdad the king of Syria, has sent me to you, asking,
‘Will I recover from this sickness?’” E·liʹsha replied to him: “Go and tell him, ‘You will certainly recover,’ but
Jehovah has shown me that he will certainly die.” (8: 8-10)
From Elisha’s reply, the outcome is different from the message he will bring. Insight comments on this statement
233 | P a g e
“The words of Elisha to Hazael have been the subject of considerable conjecture. According to the margin of the
Masoretic text, as well as the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, and 18 Hebrew
manuscripts, the text reads: “Say to him, ‘You will,’” whereas the main body of the Masoretic text says, “Say, ‘You
will not.’”
If the reading is taken that Hazael was told to tell Ben-hadad “‘You will positively revive,’” Elisha’s answer to Ben-
hadad’s inquiry may have been in the form of a riddle, meaning that Ben-hadad’s sickness itself would not kill him
but that he would nevertheless die (as he did, by the hand of Hazael). At any rate, Hazael verbally gave the king
the first part of Elisha’s answer: “You will positively revive,” but the rest of the answer Hazael carried out in violent
action.—2Ki 8:10.” [2]
Then, Elisha stared at Hazael for a long time. The Bible reported this
“And he kept staring at him to the point of embarrassment. Then the man of the true God gave way to weeping.
Hazʹa·el asked: “Why is my lord weeping?” He replied: “Because I know what harm you will do to the people of
Israel. Their fortified places you will set on fire, their choice men you will kill with the sword, their children you will
dash to pieces, and their pregnant women you will rip open.”” (8: 11,12)
That must be shocking to Hazael to hear such violent acts of war. The Bible reported Hazael’s response
“Hazʹa·el said: “How could your servant, who is a mere dog, do such a deed?” But E·liʹsha said: “Jehovah has
shown me that you will be king over Syria.”” (8:13)
That’s it. Hazael would be the next king of Syria. This happened at a time the present king is ill. What happened
next?
“Then he left E·liʹsha and returned to his own lord, who said to him: “What did E·liʹsha say to you?” He replied:
“He told me that you will certainly recover.” But the next day, Hazʹa·el took a coverlet, dipped it in water, and held
it over his face until he died. And Hazʹa·el became king in his place.” (8: 14,15)
Hazael murdered his own king. Insight referred to an archaeological inscription that described Hazael
“In fulfillment of Jehovah’s prophecy through Elisha, Hazael, the chamberlain of King Ben-hadad of Damascus,
killed his master and became king, probably toward the close of the reign of King Jehoram (c. 917-905 B.C.E.).
(2Ki 8:7-15) An inscription of Shalmaneser III confirms this, stating: “Hadadezer [Adad-idri, evidently Ben-hadad II
of Damascus] (himself) perished. Hazael, a commoner (lit.: son of nobody), seized the throne.” Conflicts with
Hazael are mentioned in Shalmaneser’s 18th and 21st years, with the Assyrian gaining victories but never being
able to take Damascus.—Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 280.” [3]
A “son of a nobody” rises to the kingship of Syria. Meanwhile, back in Israel, a transition also happens. The Bible
reports
“In the fifth year of Je·hoʹram the son of Aʹhab the king of Israel, while Je·hoshʹa·phat was king of Judah,
Je·hoʹram the son of King Je·hoshʹa·phat of Judah became king.” (8: 16)
What does that verse mean when it said “while Jehoshaphat was king of Judah, Jehoram … became king”?
Insight explains
“Whereas some Biblical chronologers endeavor to synchronize the data concerning the kings by means of
numerous coregencies and “interregnums” on the Judean side, it appears necessary to show only one coregency.
This is in the case of Jehoram, who is stated (at least in the Masoretic text and some of the oldest manuscripts of
the Bible) to have become king “while Jehoshaphat was king of Judah,” thus giving some basis for assuming a
coregency. (2Ki 8:16) In this manner the overall period comes within the 390-year limit.” [4]
What is the assessment of the kingship of Judah during Jehoram’s reign? Was he like his father who tried to be
faithful to Jehovah God? The Bible reports
234 | P a g e
“He was 32 years old when he became king, and he reigned for eight years in Jerusalem. He walked in the way of
the kings of Israel, just as those of the house of Aʹhab had done, for Aʹhab’s daughter had become his wife; and
he kept doing what was bad in Jehovah’s eyes. But Jehovah did not want to bring Judah to ruin for the sake of
David his servant, since he had promised him to give a lamp to him and to his sons always.” (8: 17-19)
The kingdom of Judah has entered one of its lowest point but Jehovah God was patient as he was patient with the
house of Ahab. But just as the covenant law says, when the kingdom is unfaithful as the kingdom of Judah is now,
wars will be visiting the kingdom just as the kingdom of Israel was beset by Syrian conflict. Just like the house of
Ahab, they were winning against their enemy the Syrians, Jehoram of Judah won battles agaist the forces of
Edom (8:20-22) Both armies were equipped with chariots but Judah won the battle.
This reference to Edom as a true city-state which existed even before Israel became a monarchy is now
recognized by scholars. One article conclude the archaeological study on Khirbet-Nahas in Edom with these
words
“In this context, the Biblical references to the Edomites, especially their conflicts with David and subsequent
Judahite kings, garner a new plausibility.” [5]
After 8 years of short rule, Jehoram died at the young age of 40. His son Ahaziah took his place (8: 23, 24)
The Bible reports the transitions like this relative to the reign of an existing king from the other kingdom
“In the 12th year of Je·hoʹram the son of Aʹhab the king of Israel, A·ha·ziʹah the son of King Je·hoʹram of Judah
became king. A·ha·ziʹah was 22 years old when he became king, and he reigned for one year in Jerusalem. His
mother’s name was Ath·a·liʹah the granddaughter of King Omʹri of Israel.” (8: 25, 26)
Ahaziah is one of those Judahite kings that ruled for a very short period. He died at the young age of 23. How was
his short rule described? The Bible reports
“He walked in the way of the house of Aʹhab and kept doing what was bad in Jehovah’s eyes, like the house of
Aʹhab, for he was related to the house of Aʹhab by marriage. So he went with Je·hoʹram the son of Aʹhab to wage
war against King Hazʹa·el of Syria at Raʹmoth-gilʹe·ad, but the Syrians wounded Je·hoʹram. So King Je·hoʹram
returned to Jezʹre·el to recover from the wounds that the Syrians had inflicted on him at Raʹmah when he fought
against King Hazʹa·el of Syria. A·ha·ziʹah the son of Je·hoʹram the king of Judah went down to Jezʹre·el to see
Je·hoʹram the son of Aʹhab, because he had been wounded.” (8: 27-29)
Just as Ahaziah’s grandfather Jehoshaphat joined his grandfather Ahab in the battle against the Syrians, so did
he with Jehoram, son of Ahab. Ahab died from his wounds in the battle with the Syrians. Jehoram experienced
the same outcome. The stage is now ready for the extinction of the house of Ahab just as prophesied since the
days of Elijah.
References
[1] Hazael. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1046.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Shalmaneser. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 908.
[4] Chronology. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 462.
[5] Levy, Thomas and Najjar, Mohammad. “Edom and Copper- The Emergence of Ancient Israel’s Rival”, Biblical
Archaeology Review July/August 2006, p. 35.
235 | P a g e
12.8 Jehu, king of Israel

12.8.1 Jehu, king of Israel - Part 1
Why is it important for Bible readers to appreciate the narratives of prophecy-fulfillment formula so abundant in
the books of Kings? If the Bible is truly the Word of God, then these narratives are affirmation that the promises
and prophecies of Jehovah God can be trusted. If the Bible were just literature, and as scholars claim the
narratives were just “legends” or “tales” then what value are the narratives if the God that the narratives talk about
has not done such wonderful things? It reduces the Bible to a book of myths.
Unfortunately for such bible scholars, the field of research has not supported them over the years. Yet, not all the
details can be corroborated with archaeology. But then again, there is still so much to dig. One paper highlighted
this important turn of events
“At first the critical scholars discounted the claims of archaeology. When Hermann Hilprecht discovered bricks in
the ruins of a Babylonian temple bearing the stamp of a king whom the scholars believed to be mythical, they
accused Hilprecht of fabricating the temple ruins himself as a hoax. But, little by little, surely and inexorably, the
retreat began. Today no reputable archaeologist, liberal or conservative, would presume to undertake the
excavation of a Biblical site without studying very carefully all that the Bible has to say about it. To do so may
save hours or days of futile effort.” [1]
However, the article noted that we still don’t have all the data available. So explanations may change over time as
to the meaning of what is dug as material artifact. One reference explained this aspect referring to them as
“fractions”
“The inherent limitations of archaeology are assessed most clearly in Edwin Yamauchi’s compilation of the
information “fractions” an archaeologist must live with.
1. Only a fraction of the evidence survives in the ground.

2. Only a fraction of possible sites has been detected.
3. Only a fraction of detected sites has been excavated.
4. Only a fraction of any site is excavated.
5. Only a fraction of what has been excavated has been thoroughly examined and published.
6. Only a fraction of what has been examined and published makes a contribution to biblical studies.” [2]
What is clear so far are that many assumptions about the Bible as historically unreliable or just plain fiction have
been reversed. That should give me as a Bible reader respect for the Bible accounts or narratives as truly God-
inspired using imperfect men to transmit the message in a form that can encapsulate the divine message.
Now, back to the account of Elisha. The transition to the fulfillment of Jehovah’s word by His prophet Elijah
begins in earnest. The book of Kings is full of this prophecy-fulfillment narratives showing Jehovah God is true to
His word. The narrative in this section unfolds with urgency
“E·liʹsha the prophet then called one of the sons of the prophets and said to him: “Wrap your garments around
your waist, and quickly take this flask of oil with you and go to Raʹmoth-gilʹe·ad.” (9:1)
I can sense from Elisha’s instruction to “quickly take this flask of oil” the urgency of the times. What about the
flask of oil and Ramoth-gilead? The Bible discloses why in the next verses
“When you arrive there, look for Jeʹhu the son of Je·hoshʹa·phat the son of Nimʹshi; go in and have him get up
from among his brothers and take him into the innermost room. Then take the flask of oil and pour it out on his
head and say, ‘This is what Jehovah says: “I anoint you as king over Israel.”’ Then open the door and flee without
delay.”” (9:2,3)
Again, Elisha’s instruction comes with urgency - “flee without delay”. One of the sons of the prophet cannot tarry.
He must carry on with the task immediately. The next verses show that the task was accomplished with urgency
236 | P a g e
“So the prophet’s attendant got on his way to Raʹmoth-gilʹe·ad. When he arrived, the army chiefs were seated
there. He said: “I have a message for you, O chief.” Jeʹhu asked: “For which one of us?” He said: “For you, O
chief.” So Jeʹhu got up and went into the house; the attendant poured the oil out on his head and said to him,
“This is what Jehovah the God of Israel says: ‘I anoint you as king over Jehovah’s people, over Israel. You must
strike down the house of Aʹhab your lord, and I will avenge the blood of my servants the prophets and of all the
servants of Jehovah who died at the hands of Jezʹe·bel. And the whole house of Aʹhab will perish; and I will
annihilate from Aʹhab every male, including the helpless and weak in Israel. And I will make the house of Aʹhab
like the house of Jer·o·boʹam the son of Neʹbat and like the house of Baʹa·sha the son of A·hiʹjah. As for Jezʹe·bel,
the dogs will eat her up in the plot of land at Jezʹre·el, and no one will bury her.’” With that he opened the door
and fled.” (9:4-10)
If I compare the words of Elisha with the words uttered by the attendant, I discover the instructions he received
that was not included in the original words of Elisha. The words were the same words uttered to Elijah back in 1
Kings 21: 22-24
“And I will make your house like the house of Jer·o·boʹam the son of Neʹbat and like the house of Baʹa·sha the
son of A·hiʹjah, for you have provoked my anger and have caused Israel to sin.’ Also concerning Jezʹe·bel,
Jehovah has said: ‘The dogs will eat up Jezʹe·bel in the plot of land of Jezʹre·el. Anyone belonging to Aʹhab who
dies in the city the dogs will eat up, and anyone who dies in the field the birds of the heavens will eat up.”
Jehu apparently heard all of this with Bidkar, his adjutant, because Jehu reminded him later when they went out
for Jehoram adding this detail below
‘“As surely as I saw the blood of Naʹboth and the blood of his sons yesterday,” declares Jehovah, “I will repay you
in this very plot of land,” declares Jehovah.” (2 King 9: 25, 26)
In addition, what was added to the message that was not there anywhere in the previous narratives were the part
below
“I will avenge the blood of my servants the prophets and of all the servants of Jehovah who died at the hands of
Jezʹe·bel. “
That statement confirmed the threat Elijah felt when he tried to escape from Jezebel. She martyred many of
Jehovah’s servants. The time for action has come. This was delayed because of Ahab’s display of humility when
he heard the judgment. The first book of Kings reported in 1 Kings 21: 29
““Have you seen how Aʹhab has humbled himself on my account? Because he has humbled himself before me, I
will not bring the calamity during his lifetime. I will bring the calamity upon his house in the days of his son.”
The days of his son has come. How did the rest of the commanders reacted with the intriguing visit of one of the
sons of the prophet with a flask of oil?
“When Jeʹhu went back to the servants of his lord, they asked him: “Is everything all right? Why did this crazy man
come to you?” He answered them: “You know that sort of man and his sort of talk.” But they said: “That is not true!
Tell us, please.” Then he said: “This is what he said to me, and then he added, ‘This is what Jehovah says: “I
anoint you as king over Israel.”’”” (9: 11,12)
The rest reacted quickly
“At this each of them quickly took his garment and put it under him on the bare steps, and they blew the horn and
said: “Jeʹhu has become king!” Then Jeʹhu the son of Je·hoshʹa·phat the son of Nimʹshi conspired against
Je·hoʹram.” (9: 13,14)
King Jehoram had left from Ramoth-Gilead for Jezreel because of his wounds (9: 14,15). The time for action has
arrived. Jehu has started to move fast. He and some of his men went to Jezreel, and he was met by King
Jehoram’s messengers (9: 16-19). The watchman identified him by the way he drove his chariot
237 | P a g e
“The watchman then reported: “He reached them, but he has not returned, and the driving is like the driving of
Jeʹhu the grandson of Nimʹshi, for he drives like a madman.” (9: 20)
Jehu was driving his chariot with such urgency. He was met by King Jehoram and his cousin King Ahaziah of
Judah at a very familiar place, the plot of land of Naboth the Jezreelite. (9:21) The confrontation finally took place
“As soon as Je·hoʹram saw Jeʹhu, he said: “Are you coming in peace, Jeʹhu?” But he said: “What peace could
there be as long as there is the prostitution of Jezʹe·bel your mother and her many sorceries?”” (9: 22)
Jehu’s response was alarming. Jehoram quickly realized the implication of the answer. He tried to escape with
Ahaziah but Jehu’s arrow found him, killing him. To fulfill the word of Jehovah God, Jehu instructed Bidkar, his
adjutant
“Remember, you and I were riding together behind Aʹhab his father when Jehovah himself made this
pronouncement against him: ‘“As surely as I saw the blood of Naʹboth and the blood of his sons yesterday,”
declares Jehovah, “I will repay you in this very plot of land,” declares Jehovah.’ So now pick him up and throw him
into the plot of land, according to the word of Jehovah.”” (9:25,26)
King Ahazia of Judah after witnessing his cousin die, tried to escape himself but he was also killed on his way up
from Jezreel to Gur, until he died in Megiddo. Ahaziah was carried off to Jerusalem to be buried. (9: 27-29)
The action is fast-paced in this narrative. Starting from Elisha’s instructions, the attendant’s prompt compliance to
carry on the assignment, to Jehu’s swift actions. Thus, in one day Jehovah’s judgment on the house of Ahab
swiftly overtook them.
What is the reflection here? The Bible talks about a final war called Armageddon. It is God’s war against all evil.
The Bible presents that day to be “the day of Jehovah” and it will be swift just like how the judgment on the house
of Ahab came upon it. Jehovah will use the Messianic Kingdom of His Son Jesus Christ to wage war against all
evil to pave the way for a cleansed earth where only the meek will inherit the earth.
More discussions on the battle of Armageddon here - https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/battle-of-

armageddon
References
[1] Weddle, Forest. “The Limitations of Archaeology Imposed by Interpretation and Lack of Data”, Grace Journal,
11:3 (Fall 1970).
[2] Hill, Andrew and Walton, John. A Survery of the Old Testament, Zondervan, 2009.
238 | P a g e

Can God be violent? Why would a loving and merciful God use violence? The Bible narrative I am reading is an
expression of God’s judgment on evil individuals who have long oppressed and rebelled against God with
apparent impunity. I will tackle this at the end after completing the narrative on the death of Ahab’s wife, the
queen Jezebel.
After the deaths of Kings Jehoram, son of Ahab, and his cousin King Ahaziah of Judah, there is one more to be
punished by Jehovah through Jehu- the queen mother Jezebel. The Bible reports
“When Jeʹhu came to Jezʹre·el, Jezʹe·bel heard of it. So she painted her eyes with black paint and adorned her
head and looked down through the window.” (9:30)
Why would Jezebel do that after the death of her son Jehoram? One scholar proposes the following
“Ironically, this is her finest hour, though the Deuteronomist intends the queen to appear haughty and imperious to
the end. Realizing that Jehu is on his way to kill her, Jezebel does not disguise herself and flee the city, as a more
cowardly person might do. Instead, she calmly prepares for his arrival by performing three acts: “She painted her
eyes with kohl and dressed her hair, and she looked out of the window” (2 Kings 9:30). The traditional
interpretation is that Jezebel primps and coquettishly looks out the window in an effort to seduce Jehu, that she
wishes to win his favor and become part of his harem in order to save her own life, such treachery indicating
Jezebel’s dastardly betrayal of deceased family members. According to this reading, Jezebel sheds familial
loyalty as easily as a snake sheds its skin in an attempt to ensure her continued pleasure and safety at court.
Applying eye makeup (kohl) and brushing one’s hair are often connected to flirting in Hebraic thinking. Isaiah 3:16,
Jeremiah 4:30, Ezekiel 23:40 and Proverbs 6:24–26 provide examples of women who bat their painted eyes to
lure innocent men into adulterous beds. Black kohl is widely incorporated in Bible passages as a symbol of
feminine deception and trickery, and its use to paint the area above and below the eyelids is generally considered
part of a woman’s arsenal of artifice. In Jezebel’s case, however, the cosmetic is more than just an attempt to
accentuate the eyes. Jezebel is donning the female version of armor as she prepares to do battle. She is a
woman warrior, waging war in the only way a woman can. Whatever fear she may have of Jehu is camouflaged
by her war paint.
Her grooming continues as she dresses her hair, symbol of a woman’s seductive power. When she dies, she
wants to look her queenly best. She is in control here, choosing the manner in which her attacker will last see and
remember her.
The third action Jezebel takes before Jehu arrives is to sit at her upper window. The Deuteronomist may be
deliberately conjuring up images to associate Jezebel with other disfavored women. For example, contained
within Deborah’s victory ode is the story of the unfortunate mother of the enemy general Sisera. Waiting at home,
Sisera’s unnamed mother looks out the window for her son to return: “Through the window peered Sisera’s
mother, behind the lattice she whined” (Judges 5:28). Her ladies-in-waiting express the hope that Sisera is
detained because he is raping Israelite women and collecting booty (Judges 5:29–30). In truth, Sisera is already
dead, his skull shattered by Jael and her tent peg (Judges 5:24–27). King David’s wife Michal also looks through
her window, watching her husband dance around the Ark of the Covenant as it is triumphantly brought into
Jerusalem, “and she despised him for it” (2 Samuel 6:16). Michal does not understand the people’s euphoria over
the arrival of the Ark in David’s new capital; she can only feel anger that her husband is dancing about like one of
the “riffraff” (2 Samuel 6:20). Generations later, Jezebel also appears at her window, conjuring up images of
Sisera’s mother and Michal, two unpopular Biblical women.” [1]
This view appears to be a common view today. This was echoed in the summary of the subject “Jezebel” in an
encyclopedia
“The famous scene from II Kings 9:30-33 in which Jezebel applies make-up before her death, which has
traditionally been interpreted as her attempt to seduce Jehu to spare her life, and has largely led to her reputation
239 | P a g e
as a `whore’, is now believed by some scholars to be the appropriate action of a Princess of Sidon and Queen of
Israel, preparing for her end with dignity as a monarch and true priestess of her gods.” [2]
Whatever it is that Jezebel is trying to present as an image of herself, she greeted Jehu in what appears to be a
sarcasm
“As Jeʹhu came in through the gate, she said: “Did it go well with Zimʹri, the killer of his lord?” (9:31)
One paper explored the possible meaning or implication of this response
“A number of arguments have been presented by scholars who have attempted to explain the somewhat cryptic
words of Jezebel to Jehu when he entered the palace gate of Jezreel: hasalom zimri horeg adonayw (“Is it well
[with] Zimri, murderer of his lord?” or “Is it peace …?”) Is Jezebel trying to seduce Jehu, as S. Parker recently
argued? Is she assuming a defiant posture and taunting him proudly? Or is the narrative simply too ambiguous to
determine her motives? What is the writer’s use of the name Zimri meant to convey?” [3]
Who was Zimri? He was the only who ruled for only a week. Another blog explored why that happened focusing
on the Hebrew word used to describe him in the Bible - ‘ebed or slave
“Zimri dominates a week in Israel's history and the text in which he figures. His actions reveal him as an
impetuous, hot-headed man bereft of supporters. His actions point to a moral purpose the narrator condemns as
inconsistent with the covenant and the revealed biblical witness. Zimri wanted the throne and seated himself on it
(v. 11). His covetousness propelled him to the status of a significant character in 1 Kings.
Zimri's reign presents additional evidence of social upheaval, political instability, and apostasy in Israel. Truly, this
charioteer contributes to the biblical text, howbeit in a negatively assessed way. The text never treats Zimri as
insignificant; instead it accords him a villain's applause by retaining his story and bestowing on him momentary
limelight and stardom — but all the while condemning his decision to walk in the evil ways of Jeroboam.
Zimri emerges with a discernible personality. He leaves a dominant impression and is a believable character.
Zimri, by force of his actions and personality, controls the textual space in which he appears. He emerges as a
leader without followers, a usurper lacking administrative ability, and a slave/servant/official whose foolish actions
lead to his own death. The text muzzles Zimri — probably because he's long on brawn and short on brain! It
appears he murdered Elah on the spur of the moment within the context of a drinking bout gone sour. While the
text mentions Zimri plotted against Elah, it reveals no details about a plan. Consequently, the text shows Zimri
lacks the quality of administration so necessary for an ongoing, successful kingship. Furthermore, his fellow
Israelite soldiers refuse to acknowledge him, indicating that they recognize he lacks the qualities necessary to
lead them in battle. Therefore, their refusal to follow him, the omission of any tribal affiliation associated with him,
the silence regarding his patrimony, the rarity of suicide as a means of death in the biblical text, Jezebel's
mocking slur on his name that equates her assassin to him, and his designation as an 'ebed and not a
mesharet — all these make me believe that Zimri lived and died a slave.” [4]
Jehu is like Zimri, in some ways. Jehu like Zimri is a charioteer and a commander. Zimri assassinated the then
reigning king Elah, son of Baasha. Jehu did likewise. Could this be the reason why Jezebel used the name Zimri?
Whatever her motives, her judgment has finally come upon her
“Looking up to the window, he said: “Who is on my side? Who?” Immediately two or three court officials looked
down at him. He said: “Throw her down!” So they threw her down, and some of her blood splattered on the wall
and on the horses, and he trampled her.” (9: 32,33)
The court officials knew they don’t stand a chance with the queen with the king-son dead. So they took the side of
the new king, and threw Jezebel on the ground. Her death was graphically reported. Her head could have
crushed upon landing on the ground, splattering blood on the wall and horses. In addition, to show his disdain of
this queen, Jehu trampled the dead queen.
240 | P a g e
The Bible reports what Jehu did next after killing three royal family members of Ahab - Jehoram, Ahaziah, and
Jezebel
“After that he went in and ate and drank. He then said: “Please, take care of this accursed woman and bury her.
After all, she is the daughter of a king.”” (9:34)
It must have taxed the energy of Jehu that he has to eat and drink to recover. But the Bible did not point that out.
He just ate and drank just like that after killing three royal family members. Unlike Jehoram where there is no
mention of burial, Jehu wanted to give the queen a burial. What happened next?
“But when they went to bury her, they did not find anything but her skull and her feet and the palms of her hands.
When they returned and told him, he said: “This fulfills the word of Jehovah that he spoke through his servant
E·liʹjah the Tishʹbite, saying, ‘In the plot of land of Jezʹre·el, the dogs will eat the flesh of Jezʹe·bel. And the dead
body of Jezʹe·bel will become as manure on the surface of the field in the plot of land of Jezʹre·el, so that they
may not say: “This is Jezʹe·bel.”’””(9:36,37)
That ends the reign of the woman who introduced Baal worship in the northern kingdom of Israel starting from the
day King Ahab brought her as his queen. She finally paid for with her life all the murders she committed in the
name of Baal.
Some Bible readers might ask, why is a loving and merciful God like Jehovah carry on with violence? For
example, Jehovah God sanctioned the killing of 450 Baal priests and other false prophets brough by Jezebel by
Elijah. That is a lot of humans to kill in one day by one man Elijah. Now, Jehovah has authorized by His prophet
Elisha to appoint Jehu to do the executions? A Bible-based publication addressed this question
“Nearly three hundred times in the Hebrew Scriptures and twice in the Christian Greek Scriptures, God is given
the title “Jehovah of armies.” (1 Samuel 1:11) As Sovereign Ruler, Jehovah commands a vast army of angelic
forces. (Joshua 5:13-15; 1 Kings 22:19) The destructive potential of this army is awesome. (Isaiah 37:36) The
destruction of humans is not pleasant to contemplate. However, we must remember that God’s wars are unlike
petty human conflicts. Military and political leaders may try to attribute noble motives to their aggression. But
human war invariably involves greed and selfishness.
In contrast, Jehovah is not driven by blind emotion. Deuteronomy 32:4 declares: “The Rock, perfect is his activity,
for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice; righteous and upright is he.”
God’s Word condemns unbridled rage, cruelty, and violence. (Genesis 49:7; Psalm 11:5) So Jehovah never acts
without reason. He uses his destructive power sparingly and as a last resort. It is as he stated through his prophet
Ezekiel: “‘Do I take any delight at all in the death of someone wicked,’ is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord
Jehovah, ‘and not in that he should turn back from his ways and actually keep living?’”—Ezekiel 18:23.” [5]
Then, it adds
“After praising God as “a manly person of war,” Moses declared: “Who among the gods is like you, O Jehovah?
Who is like you, proving yourself mighty in holiness?” (Exodus 15:11) The prophet Habakkuk similarly wrote: “You
are too pure in eyes to see what is bad; and to look on trouble you are not able.” (Habakkuk 1:13) Although
Jehovah is a God of love, he is also a God of holiness, righteousness, and justice. At times, such qualities compel
him to use his destructive power. (Isaiah 59:15-19; Luke 18:7) So God does not blemish his holiness when he
fights. Rather, he fights because he is holy.—Exodus 39:30.
Consider the situation that arose after the first human couple, Adam and Eve, rebelled against God. (Genesis 3:1-
6) Had he tolerated their unrighteousness, Jehovah would have undermined his own position as Universal
Sovereign. As a righteous God, he was obliged to sentence them to death. (Romans 6:23) In the first Bible
prophecy, he foretold that enmity would exist between his own servants and the followers of the “serpent,” Satan.
(Revelation 12:9; Genesis 3:15) Ultimately, this enmity could only be resolved by the crushing of Satan. (Romans
16:20) But that judgment act would result in great blessings for righteous mankind, ridding the earth of Satan’s
influence and opening the way to a global paradise. (Matthew 19:28) Until then, those who sided with Satan
241 | P a g e
would constitute an ongoing threat to the physical and spiritual well-being of God’s people. On occasion, Jehovah
would have to intervene.” [6]
Thus, the key members of the house of Ahab came to an end. It took their story 16 chapters or 1/3 of the Bible
books of Kings. Their lives overlapped with the three kings from Judah - Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram and Ahaziah.
Thus the words of Jehovah on the house of Ahab were fulfilled. Jehovah God does not tolerate forever evil. His
patience has limits and when it runs out, punitive judgment is carried out as His prerogative as Universal
Sovereign.
References
[1] Gaines, Janet. “How Bad Was Jezebel?”, Bible Review, October 2000. Available (online).
[2] Mark, Joshua. “Jezebel: Princess of Sidon and Queen of Israel”, Ancient History Encyclopedia. Available
(online).
[3] Olyan, Saul. “2 Kings 9:31-Jehu as Zimri”, Notes and Observations, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 78,
Issue 1-2, April 1985, p. 203.
[4] Branch, Robin Gallaher. “Zimri: Briefly, Brightly King: The Strange Story of Israel’s Shortest Reigning King, 1
Kgs 16: 8-20”, Society of Biblical Literature
[5] “Destructive Power—“Jehovah Is a Manly Person of War”, Draw Close to Jehovah, Jehovah’s Witnesses,
2014, p. 59.
[6] Ibid., p. 61.
242 | P a g e

Jehovah’s word can be trusted. This is the message highlighted many times in the books of Kings. What God
says will happen, happens. In this new era in the Bible’s narrative, Israel has a new God-anointed king, Jehu. He
is tasked by God to completely wipe out the house of Ahab. But he will also repeat what the prophet Elijah once
did slaughter the worshipers of a false god Baal.
The action which was happening at a fast pace from the previous chapter continues in this new chapter. The Bible
continues the narrative
“Now Aʹhab had 70 sons in Sa·marʹi·a. So Jeʹhu wrote letters and sent them to Sa·marʹi·a, to the princes of
Jezʹre·el, the elders, and the guardians of Aʹhab’s children, saying: “Now when this letter comes to you, the sons
of your lord will be with you, as well as the war chariots, the horses, a fortified city, and weapons. Select the best
and most suitable of the sons of your lord and put him on the throne of his father. Then fight for the house of your
lord.”” (10: 1-3)
How would the princes, elders and guardians of Ahab’s children respond to Jehu? Will they fight to the death?
The Bible reports
“But they were overcome with fear and said: “Look! If two kings could not stand before him, how can we stand?””
(10:4)
The two kings they mentioned were Jehoram and Ahaziah. So what would their plan be?
“So the overseer of the palace, the governor of the city, the elders, and the guardians sent this message to Jeʹhu:
“We are your servants, and we will do everything that you tell us. We will not make anyone king. Do whatever
seems good in your eyes.”” (10:5)
Jehu responded back with a letter. The Bible reports
“Then he wrote them a second letter, saying: “If you belong to me and are willing to obey me, bring the heads of
the sons of your lord and come to me tomorrow at this time at Jezʹre·el.”” (10:6a)
Will they comply and kill all of the 70 sons? The Bible confirmed this
“Now the 70 sons of the king were with the distinguished men of the city who were raising them. As soon as the
letter came to them, they took the sons of the king and slaughtered them, 70 men, and they put their heads in
baskets and sent them to him at Jezʹre·el. The messenger came in and told him: “They have brought the heads of
the sons of the king.” So he said: “Put them in two heaps at the entrance of the city gate until morning.”” (10:6b-8)
Jehu upon checking the two heaps, spoke to the people of Samaria
“You are innocent. Yes, I conspired against my lord, and I killed him, but who struck down all of these? Know,
then, that not a single word of Jehovah’s that Jehovah has spoken against the house of Aʹhab will go unfulfilled,
and Jehovah has done what he spoke through his servant E·liʹjah.”” (10: 9,10)
Here I find again, another instance of prophecy-fulfillment is recorded. The words of Jehovah through the prophet
Elijah from the first book of Kings is now finally confirmed. Then this episode is completed with the words below
“Moreover, Jeʹhu struck down all who were left of the house of Aʹhab in Jezʹre·el, as well as all his distinguished
men, his acquaintances, and his priests, until he had left him no survivor.” (10:11)
The following were additional details of Jehu’s cleansing campaign with another 42 men
“Then he got up and went on his way to Sa·marʹi·a. The binding house of the shepherds was on the way.” (10:12)
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight explains what this “binding house of the shepherds” is
243 | P a g e
“A place on the road from Jezreel to Samaria where, by a cistern, Jehu met and slew the brothers of King Ahaziah
of Judah. (2Ki 10:12-14) Its name apparently indicates a house where the sheep were bound to facilitate the work
of shearing. Some versions render behth-ʽeʹqedh as “meeting house,” indicating an inn where “the shepherds”
(ha·ro·ʽimʹ) met; others simply transliterate the Hebrew name, viewing it as the name of a town. It is generally
identified with Beit Qad (Bet Qad) about 6 km (3.5 mi) ENE of modern Jenin. There are several cisterns at this
place.” [1]
On this site, the Bible reveals Jehu slaughtered the other 42 men
“There Jeʹhu encountered the brothers of King A·ha·ziʹah of Judah, and he said to them, “Who are you?” They
said: “We are the brothers of A·ha·ziʹah, and we are on our way down to ask if all is well with the sons of the king
and the sons of the queen mother.” Immediately he said: “Capture them alive!” So they captured them alive and
slaughtered them at the cistern of the binding house, 42 men. He did not let a single one of them survive.” (10:
13,14)
Jehu became God’s instrument to execute His judgment. I already covered in the previous reflection why a God of
love use violence to remove His enemies who after decades of effort to lead them to repentance has remained
incorrigible. The next series of events will be as dramatic as the Mount Carmel slaughter of 850 prophets of Baal
and Ashera.
The new God-anointed king, Jehu, is carrying the task assigned to him with zeal and speed.
References
[1] Binding House of the Shepherds. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 315.
244 | P a g e

I do not forget that though Jehovah, our heavenly Father, is a merciful and loving God, His justice requires that He
enforces His sovereign will. When He does that, He will use violence. He did that to Pharaoh and his army in the
Red Sea. He used Israel to push the inhabitants of Canaan away from the land which the Canaanites polluted.
Since Jehovah is the universal Sovereign, everything God created He owns. Whoever lives on any piece of land
on the earth is only by His permission. So when humans choose to stand up against His divine will, God
considers that rebellion. Death will be the penalty for such rebellion.
This is what I am seeing now as God’s judgment declared since the days of the prophet Elijah when he was the
primary prophet against the house of Ahab is getting accomplished through His agent, His personal appointed
replacement king of Israel, Jehu. As I noticed the way the Bible tells the story, it highlights how Jehu acted with
zeal and speed.
Other scholars call the effort of Jehu as a revolution, wiping out the current dynasty and ruling family. But Jehu
has another task - to remove Baalism in Israel. Just like on the Mount Carmel narrative, 800+ prophets of Baal
paid with their lives during the Elijah purge. Jehu will now launch his own purge,
This part of the narrative starts with the one below
“As he went from there, he encountered Je·honʹa·dab the son of Reʹchab, who was coming to meet him. When he
greeted him, he said to him: “Is your heart fully with me, just as my heart is with your heart?”
Je·honʹa·dab replied: “It is.”
“If so, give me your hand.”
So he gave him his hand, and Jeʹhu pulled him up into the chariot with him.” (10:15)
Who is this Jehonadab? The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight reports
“Son of Rechab; companion of King Jehu. His encounter with Jehu was not accidental, for on Jehonadab’s own
initiative he was “coming to meet him,” and in turn, he received Jehu’s blessing. The subsequent events showed
that Jehonadab was in complete agreement with Jehu’s determination to annihilate Baal worship out of Israel.” [ ]
What is the significance of Jehu asking for the hands of Jehonadab? Insight explains
“Security for the fulfillment of an obligation; a pledge, guaranty, or bond; one who has made himself responsible
for another. The psalmist appealed to Jehovah to act as his “surety,” protecting him from defrauders.—Ps
119:122.
The customary mode of becoming surety for another remained unchanged for centuries. The patriarch Job made
the following reference to it: “Please, do put my security with yourself. Who else is there that will shake hands with
me in pledge?” (Job 17:3) Proverbs 17:18 is helpful in determining the procedure followed: “A man that is wanting
in heart shakes hands, going full surety before his companion.” Evidently a person became surety for another
when, in the presence of witnesses, he struck, clasped, or shook the hand of the creditor of the transaction and
promised to assume the obligations of the debtor if he should fail to make payment. In the Orient this act of
striking or touching hands meant that a bargain or covenant was sealed. (Pr 11:21) Apparently in this way Jehu
confirmed Jehonadab’s affirmative reply to the question, “Is your heart upright with me, just as my own heart is
with your heart?” For he said to Jehonadab: “If it is, do give me your hand.”—2Ki 10:15.” [2]
Jehonadab will witness the demonstration of Jehu’s zeal. The Bible reports
“Then he said: “Come along with me, and see my toleration of no rivalry toward Jehovah.” So they had him ride
with him in his war chariot. Then he came to Sa·marʹi·a, and he struck down all who were left over of Aʹhab’s
house in Sa·marʹi·a until he had annihilated them, according to Jehovah’s word that he had spoken to E·liʹjah.”
(10:16, 17)
245 | P a g e
With the political assignment completed, Jehu turns his attention his religious assignment, removing Baalism
imported to Israel by Jezebel. How will Jehu do this? He has a plan. The Bible discloses the plan
“Further, Jeʹhu collected all the people together and said to them: “Aʹhab worshipped Baʹal a little, but Jeʹhu will
worship him much more. So summon all the prophets of Baʹal, all his worshippers, and all his priests to me. Do
not let a single one be absent, because I have a great sacrifice for Baʹal. Anyone who is absent will not live.” But
Jeʹhu was acting with cunning to destroy the worshippers of Baʹal.” (10: 18, 19)
For the Baal supporters to understand what this meeting is for, Jehu makes a pronouncement
”Jeʹhu continued: “Declare a solemn assembly for Baʹal.” So they proclaimed it.” (10:20)
A Bible-based publication comments on the importance of the Bible’s use of “solemn assembly” by Jehu
“A recently published Ugaritic text (KTU 1.161) confirms the reliability of 2 Kings 10:19, 20. To destroy the Baal
worshipers, King Jehu commanded: “Sanctify a solemn assembly for Baal.” (A false god, possibly represented by
the statuette at the left.) According to Vetus Testamentum, a magazine published in the Netherlands, this
expression is “genuine Canaanite” and means “‘a closed circle’: any outsider could be punished with a curse.”
“We now perceive that the author of the passage in 2 Kings apparently betrays good knowledge of Canaanite
religious terminology,” comments Vetus Testamentum.” [3]
The worshipers of Baal came. Jehu gave them wardrobes to identify themselves readily (10:21,22) What happens
next? The Bible reports
“Then Jeʹhu and Je·honʹa·dab the son of Reʹchab went into the house of Baʹal. He now said to the worshippers of
Baʹal: “Search carefully and see that there are no worshippers of Jehovah here, only worshippers of Baʹal.” Finally
they came in to offer up sacrifices and burnt offerings. Jeʹhu had stationed 80 of his men outside and said: “If any
one of the men I am putting into your hands escapes, it will be your life for his.”” (10: 23, 24)
It was a heavy responsibility for the soldiers of Jehu. When Jehu gave the signal, the slaughter started. (10:25) In
the account, the Bible uses the word “adjutant”. What does adjutant mean? Insight comments
“The Hebrew word sha·lishʹ (third man, referring to the third warrior in a war chariot) has been translated in
various Bible versions as “captain,” “chariot-leader,” “lord,” “warrior,” “adjutant.”
Some monumental inscriptions illustrating “Hittite” and Assyrian war chariots show three men: one, the driver;
another, the fighter with the sword, lance, or bow; and a third, the carrier of the shield. Though Egyptian
monuments usually do not show three-manned chariots, the term is used at Exodus 14:7 with respect to
Pharaoh’s charioteers. The third chariot warrior, usually the one carrying the shield, was an assistant commander
in the war chariot, an adjutant. The English word “adjutant” literally means “one that helps; assistant.”
In the days of King Jehoram of Israel, the Syrians put Samaria under siege, which in time caused famine
conditions within the city. When Elisha prophesied that there would be plenty of food, Jehoram’s special adjutant
ridiculed the prophecy. As Elisha had foretold, the adjutant saw the fulfillment of the prophecy but did not get to
eat any of the food, being trampled to death in the gateway.—2Ki 7:2, 16-20.”
At Jehu’s command, his runners and adjutants, likely including Bidkar, struck down the Baal worshipers. (2Ki 9:25;
10:25)” [4]
Next, Jehu’s forces destroyed the paraphernalia used for Baal worship. The Bible reports
“Then they brought out the sacred pillars of the house of Baʹal and burned each one.” (10:25)
Most sacred pillars are made of stone but this one can be burned. Insight comments on that
“Before entering the Promised Land, the Israelites were commanded not to erect any sacred pillars and were
instructed to break down or shatter the already existing sacred pillars of the Canaanites. (Ex 34:13; Le 26:1; De
246 | P a g e
12:3; 16:22) The manner in which these were to be destroyed indicates that they were probably made of stone. At
2 Kings 10:26, however, mention is made of burning sacred pillars, suggesting that some were made of wood. In
this case, though, the reference may be to the sacred pole, or Asherah.—See SACRED POLE.” [5]
Then, they turned next to the images of Baal
“They tore down the sacred pillar of Baʹal, and they tore down the house of Baʹal and turned it into latrines, as it
remains to this day.” (10:27)
The story of Jehu ends with this note, with the speed, zeal and faithfulness to the instructions of God
“Thus Jeʹhu annihilated Baʹal out of Israel.” (10:28)
Jehovah, according to the Bible, is a Jealous God, that is, He demands exclusive devotion from humans. God
deserves it. That is exactly what Jehu did, tolerate no rivalry against Jehovah God. Does the New Testament
carry the concept of a God who demands exclusive devotion from humans? Yes, and the Lord Jesus himself
quoted from the Old Testament in answering the question what is the greatest commandment in the covenant law
“You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’
(Matthew 22:37)
References
[1] Jehonadab. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1269.
[2] Surety. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1046.
[3] “An Accurate Eyewitness Report!”, The Watchtower, March 15, 1989, p. 25.
[4] “Adjutant. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 47.
[5] Sacred Pillar. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 835.
247 | P a g e

How would God have felt when the man he tasked to do his purpose strays and chooses to rebel himself? That
must have been hurtful. How many times Jehovah God must have felt hurt and disappointed in his heart that so
many men failed to remain loyal. In this narrative, that is how Jehu ended up.
The Bible concluded the portion of his life story with a note on where he failed God
“However, Jeʹhu did not turn away from the sins that Jer·o·boʹam the son of Neʹbat had caused Israel to commit
as regards the golden calves that were in Bethʹel and in Dan. So Jehovah said to Jeʹhu: “Because you have acted
well and have done what is right in my eyes by carrying out all that was in my heart to do to the house of Aʹhab,
four generations of your sons will sit on the throne of Israel.” But Jeʹhu did not take care to walk in the Law of
Jehovah the God of Israel with all his heart. He did not turn away from the sins that Jer·o·boʹam had caused Israel
to commit.” (10:29-31)
What I understand from the history of kings in the northern kingdom of Israel, Jehovah God never promised
anyone with an everlasting kingdom the way He did with David. The most that Jehovah God promised is ‘four
generations” sitting on the throne of Israel. It is out of God’s undeserved kindness that men like Jehu gets the
privilege to lead the 10-tribe nation and for doing the assigned tasks faithfully, with zeal and speed, gets his sons
to sit on the throne. What is sad is that despite all that Jehovah God did for him, he did not get to build a faith
strong enough to overcome the selfish ambition to keep the 10-tribe as part of his kingdom by persisting on the
worship of the golden calf. His motives may not have been to fall away from Jehovah but his political goals were
stronger than his loyalty to God.
But why then the prophet Hosea declared that Jehovah will avenge on the house of Jehu the bloodshed of
Jezreel? Bible critics claim that this is a contradiction - the prophet Hosea contradicting the positive view of Jehu
for wiping out the family or house of Ahab. The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight explains
“However, after Jehu’s day, by the prophet Hosea, Jehovah said: “For yet a little while and I must hold an
accounting for the acts of bloodshed of Jezreel against the house of Jehu, and I must cause the royal rule of the
house of Israel to cease.” (Ho 1:4) This bloodguilt on Jehu’s house could not be for his carrying out the
commission to destroy the house of Ahab, for God commended him for this. Neither could it be because he
destroyed Ahaziah of Judah and his brothers. By their family connections, namely, the marriage of Jehoram of
Judah, the son of King Jehoshaphat, to Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, the royal line of Judah was
contaminated with an infiltration of the wicked house of Omri.
Rather, the key to the matter seems to lie in the statement that Jehu let calf worship continue in Israel and did not
walk in the law of Jehovah with all his heart. Probably Jehu came to believe that independence from Judah could
be maintained only through religious separation. Like other kings of Israel, he sought to secure his position by
perpetuating calf worship. This was really an expression of lack of faith in Jehovah, who had made it possible for
Jehu to become king. So, it may be that, apart from the proper execution of Jehovah’s judgment against the
house of Ahab, the wrong motivations that prompted Jehu to let calf worship remain also caused him to spill blood.
The real power of the kingdom of Israel was broken when Jehu’s house fell, the kingdom lasting only about 50
years longer. Only Menahem, who struck down Zechariah’s murderer Shallum, had a son who succeeded him on
the throne. This son, Pekahiah, was assassinated, as was his murderer and successor Pekah. Hoshea, Israel’s
last king, went into captivity to the king of Assyria.—2Ki 15:10, 13-30; 17:4.” [1]
A blog site echoed similar ideas
“The answer really is quite simple. As Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe observed: “God praised Jehu for
obeying Him in destroying the house of Ahab, but condemned Jehu for his sinful motive in shedding their blood”
(1992, p. 194). Skeptics are fond of citing 2 Kings 10:30 to support their position, but they often conveniently
overlook verses 29 and 31, which state: “ Jehu did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who
248 | P a g e
had made Israel sin, that is, form the golden calves that were at Bethel and Dan.... Jehu took no heed to walk in
the law of the Lord God of Israel with all his heart; for he did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam, who had made
Israel sin.” Jehu obeyed God’s command to “strike down the house of Ahab” and utterly exterminate his
descendents (2 Kings 9:7-8; 10:30), but he did not obey God in all that he did. The passage in 2 Kings 10:29-31
indicates that even though Jehu had done what God commanded, “he did so out of a carnal zeal that was tainted
with protective self-interest” (Archer, 1982, p. 208). It seems obvious that since Jehu followed in the footsteps of
Israel’s first wicked king by worshipping false gods and not walking according to God’s law, he did not destroy
Ahab’s descendents out of any devotion to the Lord. Furthermore, in commentating on Jehu’s actions, biblical
scholar Gleason Archer noted:
“The important principle set forth in Hosea 1:4 was that when blood is shed, even in the service of God
and in obedience to His command, blood-guiltiness attaches to God’s agent himself if his motive was
tainted with carnal self-interest rather than by a sincere concern for the purity of the faith and the
preservation of God’s truth (such as, for example, animated Elijah when he had the 450 prophets of Baal
put to death after the contest with them on Mount Carmel) [p. 209].” [2]
The difference between the two explanations is that Insight cited the “ wrong motivations that prompted Jehu to let
calf worship remain also caused him to spill blood” while the blog article explored only the motives.
The Bible continues with God’s permission to have Israel continue to face trouble from neighboring nations
primarily from Hazael, the new Syrian king
“In those days Jehovah started to cut off Israel piece by piece. Hazʹa·el kept attacking them throughout the
territory of Israel, from the Jordan eastward, all the land of Gilʹe·ad—of the Gadʹites, the Reuʹben·ites, and the
Ma·nasʹsites—from A·roʹer, which is by the Arʹnon Valley, to Gilʹe·ad and Baʹshan.” (10: 32, 33)
God’s permission was consistent with the terms of the covenant law when the nation becomes unfaithful. After 28
years of rule, Jehu was succeeded by his son Jehoahaz, (10: 34-36)
References
[1] Jehu. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 24.
[2] Lyons, Eric. “Motives Matter”. Alleged Discrepancies, The Apologetics Press, Available (online).
249 | P a g e
12.9 Athaliah, daughter of Ahab, Queen of Judah

12.9.1 Athaliah, daughter of Ahab, Queen of Judah - Part 1
Did Jehu destroy the house of Ahab? Some critics are saying how then do you explain Queen Athalia? The Bible
narrative shifts from the kingdom of Israel to the kingdom of Judah where Jehoshaphat ruled when Ahab was still
alive. King Jehoshaphat was replaced by his son Jehoram and later by Ahaziah who was killed by King Jehu of
the kingdom of Israel.
When I read the Bible, several times there were attempts to thwart God’s purpose by God’s enemies. This
happened at a very early period with the family of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Then,again, when Israel grew in
population in Egypt, Egypt’s king tried to wipe out the Israelite male population. There are other many instances
where God’s purpose seems to be close to getting thwarted. Yet, in the end, Jehovah blessed the efforts of those
who stay loyal to him.
The opening verse of this narrative is
“Now when Ath·a·liʹah, A·ha·ziʹah’s mother, saw that her son had died, she rose up and destroyed the entire royal
line.” (11:1)
Who is Athaliah? The Bible says she was the mother of Ahaziah, grandson of Jehoshaphat. Some scholars claim
that Athaliah was the daughter of Omri, sister of Ahab. If that were the case, Jehoram would have married a
woman, a contemporary of his father Jehoshaphat. The claim is based on the English translation of 2 Kings 8: 26
in the King James Version Bible
“Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his
mother’s name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.”
Should Bible readers read the phrase “daughter of Omri”, Ahab’s father, literally? How is the word “daugther” in
Hebrew used, similar to the use of the word “son”? The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight explains
“The term “daughter” was applied to relationships other than one’s immediate progeny. For example, under
certain circumstances the term referred to a sister (Ge 34:8, 17), an adopted daughter (Es 2:7, 15), a daughter-in-
law (Jg 12:9; Ru 1:11-13), a granddaughter (1Ki 15:2, 10, where the Hebrew word for daughter, bath, is rendered
“granddaughter” in Mo, NW; see 2Ch 13:1, 2), and a descendant.—Ge 27:46; Lu 1:5; 13:16.” [1]
This is the same thought recognized by other scholars
“In summation, there seem to be two legitimate traditions concerning the parentage of Athaliah. Both traditions
are forced to explain that some verses in the Bible are not literal. Some commentators propose that the word
"daughter" can refer to a granddaughter, and that Athaliah was really the daughter of Ahab and is sometimes
called the daughter of Omri because she was his granddaughter. Other commentators, who maintain that the
word "daughter" can refer to a sister, therefore assert that Athaliah was really the daughter of Omri and is
sometimes called the daughter of Ahab because she was his sister. “ [2]
Insight discusses this violent and wicked queen, the daughter of an equally wicked and violent queen Jezebel of
the kingdom of Israel
“Queen of Judah, daughter of King Ahab of Israel and his wife Jezebel; granddaughter of Omri. (2Ki 8:18, 26) She
was the sister of Israel’s King Jehoram, and sister or half sister of the other 70 sons of Ahab, all of whom Jehu
ordered killed. (2Ki 3:1, 2; 10:1-9) Athaliah was given in a marriage of political expediency to Jehoram, the eldest
son of Jehoshaphat of Judah. (2Ki 8:25-27; 2Ch 18:1) She was the mother of Ahaziah, who in time became king
of Judah.
Like her mother Jezebel, Athaliah egged on her husband, Jehoram, to do what was bad in Jehovah’s eyes during
his eight-year reign. (1Ki 21:25; 2Ch 21:4-6) And like her mother, Athaliah wantonly shed the blood of the
innocent. When her wicked son Ahaziah died after a one-year reign, she killed off all the others of the royal line,
250 | P a g e
except the infant Jehoash, who had been hidden by the high priest and his wife, who was Jehoash’s aunt.
Thereupon Athaliah installed herself as queen for six years, c. 905-899 B.C.E. (2Ch 22:11, 12) Her sons robbed
Jehovah’s temple of the holy things and offered them up to Baal.—2Ch 24:7." [3]
The Bible reports that her own son died. Her husband dead and the heir, her son dead, Queen Athaliah has
nowhere to go. What did she do to ensure that she holds the power in Jerusalem? Kill the “offspring of the
kingdom”. This is must be one of the darkest eras in the Davidic dynasty. It was a direct threat to the fulfillment of
Jehovah’s purpose and covenant to David. God’s enemy, Satan, has embedded his champion in the kingdom of
Judah. Would this be the end of the Davidic line and kingdom?
Insight comment on the phrase “offspring of the kingdom”
“Children of the king may be referred to as “the offspring of the kingdom.”—2Ki 11:1.” [4]
Now, what did those who are loyal to Jehovah and the Davidic covenant do to ensure God’s purpose is fulfilled?
The Bible reports
“However, Je·hoshʹe·ba the daughter of King Je·hoʹram, A·ha·ziʹah’s sister, took Je·hoʹash the son of A·ha·ziʹah
and stole him away from among the sons of the king who were to be put to death, keeping him and his nurse in
an inner bedroom. They managed to keep him concealed from Ath·a·liʹah, so he was not put to death.” (11: 2)
To combat an evil woman, an upright woman, sister of Ahaziah, Jehosheba took action. Did she commit a sin
because the Bible said she “stole away” the very young Jehoash? Insight comments
“In some cases, stealing may refer to the justified act of taking what one has a right to take, the emphasis being
on the stealthy manner in which the act is executed. For example, Israelites ‘stole’ the body of Saul from the
public square of Beth-shan. (2Sa 21:12) The aunt of young Jehoash saved his life by ‘stealing him away from
among his brothers,’ who were killed by wicked Athaliah.—2Ki 11:1, 2; 2Ch 22:11.” [5]
For how long did Jehosheba kept Jehoash a secret? The Bible reported
“He remained with her for six years, hidden at the house of Jehovah, while Ath·a·liʹah was ruling over the land.”
(11:3)
What would happen next? The Bible discloses the other developments. I will cover them in the next reflections.
References
[1] Daughter. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 585.
[2] Klein, Rudolph. “Queen Athaliah: The Daughter of Ahab or Omri?”, Jewish Bible Quarterly Vol 42, No.1, 2014,
p. 18.
[3] Athaliah. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 209.
[4] Kingdom. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 158.
[5] Thief. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1093.
251 | P a g e

Though God permitted the wicked woman Athalia to rule on His theocratic government in Jerusalem for 6 years,
an evil queen that like her evil queen mother Jezebel in the kingdom of Israel, was equally murderous, the time
has come for Jehovah God to cut off her wickedness.
Her end unfolded this way
“In the seventh year, Je·hoiʹa·da sent for the chiefs of hundreds of the Caʹri·an bodyguard and of the palace
guards and had them come to him at the house of Jehovah. He made a pact with them and had them swear to it
at the house of Jehovah, and then he showed them the son of the king.” (11:4)
Who is Jehoiada? The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight describes Jehoiada
“High priest in the time of Jehoram, Ahaziah, Athaliah, and Jehoash. Jehoiada was married to King Jehoram’s
daughter Jehosheba, also called Jehoshabeath (the only recorded instance of a high priest marrying into the royal
family). Jehoiada was noted especially for overthrowing Athaliah and elevating true worship in Judah. After
Athaliah’s ruling son Ahaziah was slain, she proceeded to kill off all the remaining royal offspring and placed
herself on the throne. However, Jehosheba, herself a sister of Ahaziah though not necessarily Athaliah’s daughter,
took Ahaziah’s infant son Jehoash away and kept him hidden for six years. In the seventh year, Jehoiada secured
the support of the Levites, the chiefs of the Carian bodyguard and of the runners, as well as the heads of the
paternal houses of Israel. He then produced Jehoash, whom they proclaimed as king. Jehoiada next ordered
Athaliah taken outside the temple grounds and slain.—2Ki 11:1-16; 2Ch 22:10–23:15.” [1]
So, he was high priest. He must be aware of the Davidic covenant. He acted to make sure God’s purpose is not
thwarted. To ensure the safety of the heir, he worked with special forces such as the Carian bodyguards. Who are
they? Insight explains
“A body of troops that aided Jehoiada in the overthrow of Athaliah and the installation of Jehoash as king of
Judah.—2Ki 11:4, 13-16, 19.
Many scholars consider the Carian bodyguard to be another name for the Cherethites, mentioned as serving in
the military forces of David and Solomon. In the view of some scholars, the Cherethites also functioned as a
special bodyguard for these kings. (2Sa 8:18; 1Ki 1:38; 1Ch 18:17) This connection of the Carian bodyguard with
the Cherethites is additionally based on the fact that the Masoretic text says “Carian bodyguard” at 2 Samuel
20:23, while the reading in its margin, as well as in many Hebrew manuscripts, is “Cherethites.” [2]
But who are the Cherethites? Insight answers
“The name of a people connected with the Philistines. (Eze 25:16; Zep 2:5) Some Cherethites served with the
military forces of Jehovah’s chosen nation.—2Sa 8:18; 20:23; 1Ch 18:17.
Certain Hebrew lexicographers believe that kere·thimʹ comes from the root word ka·rathʹ (meaning “cut off”) and
should be rendered “executioners.” The majority of Bible commentators, however, consider the Hebrew term for
“Cherethites” (kere·thimʹ) to refer to nationality. But they do acknowledge that ka·rathʹ may be the correct root of
kere·thimʹ and that Jehovah, at Ezekiel 25:16, may be making an alliterative play on words when pledging, “I will
cut off [hikh·rat·tiʹ] the Cherethites [kere·thimʹ],” or, in effect, ‘I will slay the slayers.’” [3]
So, these were foreign soldiers from the Philistines who had been serving the royal Davidic family since the days
of David. Now, Jehoiada gave instructions to them
“He ordered them: “This is what you are to do: One third of you will be on duty on the Sabbath and will keep strict
watch over the king’s house, another third will be at the Gate of the Foundation, and another third will be at the
gate behind the palace guards. You will take turns watching over the house.” (11:5,6)
Some of the gates mentioned have uncertain location. [4] He added the following instruction to protect the king by
keeping the heir surrounded by them. (11:7,8) Then, Jehoiada armed the guards (11: 9.10) The time finally came
to proclaim a new king. Here is how Jehoaida arranged the proclamation behind Queen Athalia’s back
252 | P a g e
“And the palace guards took their positions, each with his weapons in hand, from the right side of the house to the
left side of the house, by the altar and by the house, all around the king. Then Je·hoiʹa·da brought the king’s son
out and put on him the crown and the Testimony, and they made him king and anointed him. They began to clap
their hands and say: “Long live the king!”” (11:11, 12)
In this crowning ceremony, the high priest did several things
* put the crown on the new king

* put the Testimony on the new king
* anointed him
What is the Testimony that the narrative wrote about as being put on the king? A Bible-based publication explains
““THEN [Jehoiada the priest] brought the son of the king out and put upon him the diadem and the Testimony;
and so they made him king and anointed him.” (2 Kings 11:12) This is how the book of Kings describes the
coronation of King Jehoash. Did you notice that besides “the diadem,” or royal headgear, Jehoiada also put “the
Testimony” upon the young king. What was the Testimony? And why was it part of this coronation ceremony?
The Hebrew word here translated “Testimony” usually refers to the Ten Commandments or to God’s Law in
general. (Exodus 31:18; Psalm 78:5, Revised Standard Version) In harmony with this, the parallel account at
2 Chronicles 23:11 reads in The Jerusalem Bible (1966): “Then Jehoiada brought out the king’s son, crowned him,
and imposed the Law on him.” However, at 2 Kings 11:12, this translation substitutes the word “armlets” for “the
Testimony,” although the same Hebrew word appears in both verses. Why?
A noted German Bible commentary, Herders Bibelkommentar, explains that some translators cannot imagine that
the king would wear the Law on his head or on his arm. Since, when discussing King Saul, 2 Samuel 1:10
mentions an armlet (or, bracelet) along with the diadem that he wore, they believe that the text at 2 Kings 11:12
originally must have read “the diadem and the armlets.” But this is mere speculation. Replacing “the Testimony”
with “armlets” represents a radical textual change.
The New Jerusalem Bible (1985) therefore restores the thought of the Law, or the law covenant, rendering the
phrase “and gave him a copy of the covenant.” But did Jehoiada give Jehoash “the Testimony”? True, the Hebrew
word translated “put” can also be rendered “gave.” But in both Kings and Chronicles, it only appears once,
referring both to the diadem and to the Testimony. Moreover, it is followed immediately by the Hebrew word
“upon.” Hence, “put upon” must be the correct translation. Both the diadem and the Testimony were “put upon”
young King Jehoash, as the New World Translation shows.
So why—and how—did the high priest “put” the Testimony upon the young king? Consider the observation of
German scholar Otto Thenius: “The Law, a book in which Mosaic decrees were recorded. This was symbolically
held on the king’s head, after he had been adorned with the diadem.” (Die Bücher der Könige) Similarly,
Professor Ernst Bertheau remarks: “The laying of the Law [upon the king] indeed carried a symbolic sense, that
the king was obliged to rule in accordance with it.”—Die Bücher der Chronik” [5]
The Hebrew word for “anointing” is Messiah. Both the high priest and the king are anointed by Jehovah or His
Messiahs. At this point, the High Priest Jehoaida successfully protected the heir as an infant, grew up to be a 7
year-old boy, and was proclaimed as the new king supported by the foreign bodyguards. What now the wicked
Queen Athalia?
References
[1] Jehoiada. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1268.
[2] Carian Bodyguard. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 419.
[3] Cherethites. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 431.
[4] Gate, Gateway. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 897.
[5] “The Diadem and the Testimony”, The Watchtower, February 1, 1991, p. 31.
253 | P a g e

The first time I read the account of the wicked Queen Athalia, it became a puzzle to me why Jehovah God would
allow someone so wicked compromise the expression of His sovereignty on the earth through those sitting on the
“throne of Jehovah” in Jerusalem. When Jehu started his campaign to wipe out the house of Ahab, it also puzzled
me why his campaign did not include Queen Athalia when it included Queen Jezebel in the northern kingdom of
Israel.
One reference notices the irony of the wicked queen’s reputation and her name
“Furthermore, the first verse in 2 Kings 11 lends itself to ambiguity because Athaliah’s name carries a theophoric
component of Yahweh. Is she for or against Yahweh? Her very name, which may combine “to grow large” and “to
be exalted” with Yahweh, is ironic because, as the reader quickly learns, she has spent her life erecting temples
to Baal (Hobbs, 1985:138).16 Irony appears several other times in both accounts, emphasising the narrators
assumed their audience knew the historical details of Athaliah’s story.” [1]
Queen Athalia as it were sat on Jehovah’s throne for 6 years, the only woman to rule in either the two kingdoms
of Israel and of Judah. A Bible-based publications called this type of developments as detours in God’s purpose.
But the divine purpose continues to move forward despite human failures and opposition. As I have seen in this
account, the high priest and his royal wife kept in secret the future king, the only survivor in the family of Ahaziah
while the boy was nearly 1 years old. But the time has come for Jehovah God to bless not just Jehu, who God
made king in the northern kingdom of Israel, but Jehoiada’s effort to restore the God designated family of kings
from the house of David.
But how did she manage to survive 6 years of rule without being overthrown as with the kings of the northern
kingdom of Israel? One online reference claimed this
“However, that she managed to sustain her reign for six years can be attributed to her successful use of various
sources of power: her royal origins and connections, involvement in her husband’s and son’s reigns, economic
independence, personal ability, and political knowledge—all of which are not mentioned, apart from notes on her
wicked influence on her husband and son.” [2]
The account in Kings did not report that her husband King Jehoram of Judah was the first to eliminate his brothers
and other heirs of the throne. It was reported in Chronicles (2 Ch 21:4). Athalia, Jehoram’s wife, did the same
thing with the rest of the surviving heirs under Jehoram after her own son Ahaziah was killed by Jehu. One
reference commented on her infanticide
“Perhaps she consciously copies Jehoram’s earlier massacre, as Bright (1981: 252) suggests. Her plan fails,
however, for one escapes. The texts recount the heroic rescue of year-old Joash and his nurse by Jehosheba, the
wife of Jehoiada the priest; Jehosheba is Ahaziah’s older half-sister. Presumably, Jehosheba is not the daughter
of Athaliah but the daughter of Jehoram and another wife. The texts leave unanswered the natural question of
why Athaliah allows Jehosheba to live and not be slaughtered along with others in the royal line. Jehosheba and
Jehoiada, the two loyalists and believers in Yahweh, hide the baby and his nurse in the temple.” [3]
But the time to act has come, Jehovah has blessed the loyalty of the high priest and an heir from the house of
David was put back on the throne. Of course, the wicked queen found out. What happened? The Bible discloses
the development
“When Ath·a·liʹah heard the sound of the people running, she immediately came to the people at the house of
Jehovah. Then she saw the king standing there by the pillar according to the custom. The chiefs and the
trumpeters were with the king, and all the people of the land were rejoicing and blowing the trumpets. At this
Ath·a·liʹah ripped her garments apart and cried out: “Conspiracy! Conspiracy!”” (11:13,14)
Queen Athaliah had sensed something is not right and people are flocking to the house of Jehovah, the temple
courtyard. She joined the crowd and there she saw her replacement, a 7-year old boy-king. She thought she had
succeeded in wiping out the heirs. It reminded me of what Pharaoh had felt that despite his pronouncements to
254 | P a g e
kill the male infants of the Israelites, they still grew in number. There was rejoicing all around the queen. Angered
and at the same frustrated with the development, she cried out ‘Conspiracy’ twice. Bible scholars note that this is
the only dialogue given the wicked queen.
By announcing her presence with her cry, the forces loyal to Jehoaida, the high priest, took action. She was killed
outside the house of Jehovah. (11:15,16)
With God’s enemies wiped out in the two kingdoms, the kingdom of Israel and now kingdom of Judah, Jehoaida
instituted a sort of covenant renewal whereby the nation will stay loyal to Jehovah God. The Bible relates the
renewal
“Then Je·hoiʹa·da made a covenant between Jehovah and the king and the people, that they would continue as
the people of Jehovah, and he also made a covenant between the king and the people. After that all the people of
the land came to the house of Baʹal and tore down his altars, completely smashed his images, and killed Matʹtan
the priest of Baʹal in front of the altars.” (11:17, 18a)
That renewal echoed what the prophet Elijah did in his assigned territory in the 10-tribe kingdom of Israel - tore
down the Baal altars, smashed the Baal images, and kill the pries of Baal. After doing so, Jehoiada organized the
worship of Jehovah back and secure the new boy-king. (11:18b-21)
The series of accounts educated me that no one can oppose Jehovah God for long. He also dignified his human
servants as they act to protect and promote Jehovah God’s interests. God blessed those human efforts for they are
according to His will.
References
[1] Branch, Robin Gallaher. “Athaliah, a Treacherous Queen: A Careful Analysis of Her Story in 2 Kings 11 and 2
Chronicles 22:10-23:21”, In die Skriflig 38(4), 2004, p. 543.
[2] Brenner, Athalya. “Athaliah: Bible”, Jewish Women’s Archive online encyclopedia. Available (online).
[3] Branch, Robin Gallaher. “Athaliah, a Treacherous Queen: A Careful Analysis of Her Story in 2 Kings 11 and 2
Chronicles 22:10-23:21”, In die Skriflig 38(4), 2004, p. 541.
255 | P a g e
12.10 Jehoash, King of Judah, son of Ahaziah

If a child were reared in a positive environment by good foster parents, would he turn OK when he grows older? If
the foster parents were God-fearing, would he end up God-fearing as well? The life of King Jehoash will provide
an illustrative answer. This is an important reflection for parents and their limitation when bringing up a child.
The Bible opens the next phase in the life of the boy-king Jehoash
“In the seventh year of Jeʹhu, Je·hoʹash became king, and he reigned for 40 years in Jerusalem. His mother’s
name was Zibʹi·ah from Beʹer-sheʹba.” (12:1)
When I read this, I thought that is one good thing that the wicked king Ahaziah has done - marry an Israelite, a
fellow worshiper. When the boy-king was 1 year old, her mom was not mentioned what happened to her. She
probably cooperated to keep her son in hiding. The Bible did not report whether she missed her son in the next 6
years. She must have endured the separation for the safety of her son and heir to the throne. Or could she have
been murdered by wicked queen Athaliah?
“Je·hoʹash continued doing what was right in Jehovah’s eyes all the days that Je·hoiʹa·da the priest instructed
him.” (12:2)
What an important thing to note by the Bible writer. The role of a mentor in shaping the future personality of the
young king. Jehoash allowed himself to be influenced by the one who kept him safe while a child. Jehoiada was
Jehoash’s source of spiritual education.
The Bible writer put this comment below and it is a frequently used commentary
“However, the high places were not removed, and the people were still sacrificing and making sacrificial smoke on
the high places.” (12:3)
One reference cited the explanation for its application
“The limitation on a king's righteousness by referring to ongoing worship at high places is recorded for six kings in
the Deuteronomic History. In two cases, the Chronicler repeats the information from Kings (2 Chron. 14:17 // 2
Kings 15:14 and 2 Chron. 20:33 // 2 Kings 22:43). The Chronicler's treatment of the other three passages, in
addition to 2 Kings 12:4, seems also to be motivated by theological considerations. He omits the reference to high
places under Amaziah (2 Kings 14:4; cf. 2 Chron. 25:2) since this king's life, like Joash's, was divided into good
and bad periods, with the bad period beginning at 2 Chron. 25:14. The reference to high places in the account of
Azariah/ Uzziah (2 Kings 15:4; cf. 2 Chron. 26:3) was also omitted because of the Chronicler dividing Uzziah's life
into good and bad periods. In the reign of Jotham (2 Kings 15:35), the Chronicler rewrote the verse as he
compared the king to his father Uzziah: "Only he did not invade the temple of Yahweh, and still the people acted
corruptly" (2 Chron. 27:2). The latter clause is the Chronicler's recasting of the reference to the high places.” [1]
Influenced by the high priest on the need to appreciate spiritual matters, the young king started a temple repair
project. The Bible reports
“Je·hoʹash said to the priests: “Take all the money that is brought to the house of Jehovah for the holy offerings,
the money for which each one is assessed, the money given as an estimated value for a person, and all the
money that each person’s heart is moved to bring to the house of Jehovah. The priests will personally take it from
their donors and use it to repair the house, wherever any damage is found.”” (12:4,5)
Why was the repair needed at this time? The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight explains
“Jehovah’s house was badly in need of repairs not merely because of age (now no more than 150 years old) but
also because of neglect and plunder during the reign of Athaliah. As a consequence, Jehoash urged the Levites
to raise the money for the restoration by going from city to city throughout Judah, but the response of the Levites
was not wholehearted, and the work was not getting done. (2Ki 12:4-8; 2Ch 24:4-7)” [2]
256 | P a g e
However, the priests did not carry on the task. The Bible does not offer an explanation.
“By the 23rd year of King Je·hoʹash, the priests had not yet repaired the damage to the house. So King Je·hoʹash
called Je·hoiʹa·da the priest and the other priests and said to them: “Why are you not repairing the damage to the
house? Therefore, do not take any more money from your donors unless it is used to repair the house.” At that
the priests agreed not to take any more money from the people and not to be responsible for repairing the house.”
(12:6-8)
Jehoiada, the Bible reports now took the initiative to have a treasury chest to fund the repair work. The Bible
reports the process of accounting the money and its disposal for the temple repair work
“Je·hoiʹa·da the priest then took a chest and bored a hole in its lid and put it next to the altar on the right as one
enters the house of Jehovah. That is where the priests who served as doorkeepers would put all the money that
was brought into the house of Jehovah. Whenever they saw that there was a great deal of money in the chest, the
secretary of the king and the high priest would come up and collect and count the money that had been brought to
the house of Jehovah. They would give the money that had been counted to those appointed over the work being
done in the house of Jehovah. They, in turn, paid it to the woodworkers and to the builders who were working at
the house of Jehovah, as well as to the masons and the stonecutters. They also bought timbers and hewn stones
for repairing the damage to the house of Jehovah and used the money for all the other expenses incurred in
repairing the house.” (12: 9-12)
This bag where the secretary of the king and the high priest put the collected money is described by the Bbile-
based encyclopedia Insight below
“The Hebrew word tserohrʹ is derived from a verb meaning “wrap up” (Ex 12:34) and describes a common form of
receptacle tied with a cord or string, either as a “bundle” (Ge 42:35) or as a “bag” with only the neck being drawn
together and tied. (Pr 7:20; Ca 1:13) It appears that the money received from the chest of temple contributions
was bound into such bundles, doubtless of uniform quantities. (2Ki 12:10) In ancient times, in business
transactions involving large sums of money, the pieces were at times weighed and then put in such bundles or
bags, the knot thereafter being sealed. If desired, the bag could then pass from one person to another as
warranted to contain the stipulated amount. The unbroken seal thus could vouch for the amount of silver, gold, or
other metal contained. Job apparently uses such a figure at Job 14:17, saying to God: “Sealed up in a bag is my
revolt, and you apply glue over my error.”” [3]
What I found out interesting is that an ancient stone, with Hebrew inscription, became a controversial item in the
first decade into 2000. That stone is called Jehoash tablet. It contains the royal instruction to repair the temple
recorded in the Bible that I am reading at this point. Initially, it was declared a forgery. But, later, the Supreme
Court of Israel dismissed the case of forgery. One blog article reported on the development and why it is
considered authentic
“The scientific evidence strongly points in this direction. The plaque had a deep crack running through four lines of
the inscription. After the police confiscated the plaque, it (accidentally) broke in two along the crack. The crack
could then be seen from the side. Part of the crack had ancient patina in it, proving that the crack was ancient.
Would a forger choose to work with a stone that had a crack in it, where a slip of his engraving tool might break
the stone in two, ruining all his careful work? Hardly. But even if he decided to take the chance, how did he
manage to engrave four lines across the ancient crack?
In addition, the patina on the inscription contains minute globules of gold. Was the plaque once plated with gold?
These gold globules are so small (one or two millionths of a meter) that they are not available on the market. They
can be created, however, in an intense fire such as might have occurred in the conflagration that accompanied
the destruction of the Temple—the First Temple in the 6th century B.C.E. or the Second Temple in 70 C.E. All this
is explained in a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Archaeological Science, authored by five experts from
Israel and the United States who defend the authenticity of the inscription.
257 | P a g e
(BAR editor Hershel Shanks has argued for years that the allegations of forgery against Golan and Deutsch are
not backed by sufficient evidence. The March 14 verdict supports Shanks’s position.)
Finally, I have my own psychological reasons as evidence of authenticity. As I often put it, the first thing they
teach you in forgery school is, “Make it short.” This vastly reduces your chance of getting caught. The Yehoash
inscription, however, at 15 lines, flagrantly violates this basic principal of forgery. Many forgeries have been
exposed in modern times, but none so long as this.” [4]
Changes were made in the temple repair and collection of funds. The Bible reports
“However, none of the money brought to the house of Jehovah was used to make basins of silver, extinguishers,
bowls, trumpets, or any sort of gold or silver article for the house of Jehovah. They would give it only to those who
did the work, and with it they repaired the house of Jehovah. They would not call for an accounting from the men
to whom they gave the money to give to the workers, for they were trustworthy. However, the money for guilt
offerings and the money for sin offerings was not brought to the house of Jehovah; it belonged to the priests.” (12:
13-16)
The Bible commended the men in charge of the money. No accounting was made from them for the Bible said
“they were trustworthy”.
During his reign, Hazael, who I already met previously in my Bible reading was chosen by Jehovah God to
replace the Syrian king Benhadad. He has been wreaking havoc to the northern kingdom of Israel, that he was
able to reach further south up to Jerusalem. King Jehoash, instead of asking for Jehovah God’s help tried to
appease King Hazael of Syria with tribute from God’s treasury. (12:17, 18) This is a bad decision. There must be
a reason why Jehovah God permitted Hazael to harass the kingdom of Judah under Jehoash. Whatever it is, the
books of Kings did not reports. But, later in the books of Chronicles, the reason will be disclosed.
In the books of Kings, Jehoash was assassinated and was replaced by his son Amaziah after reigning 40 years or
at the age of 47. (12:19-21)
That’s a terrible ending for someone who was protected and kept safe as a child. He was educated and nurtured
by the high priest, for he no longer had parents. His father was killed by Jehu. His mother, Zibia, her whereabouts
is unknown. He was OK while the high priest was alive. When he was gone, things went bad for King Jehoash.
That informs me that he was not able to build a close and serious relationship with Jehovah despite the education
given him by the high priest.
References
[1] Klein, Ralph. “The Ironic End of Joash in Chronicles”, p. 118.
[2] *** it-1 p. 1266 Jehoash. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1266.
[3] Bag. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 242.
[4] Shanks, Hershel. “Verdict: Not Guilty, Two Remaining Defendants Cleared of Forgery After 5-year Trial”, Bible
History Daily, March 14, 2012, BAR blog site.
258 | P a g e
12.11 Jehoahaz, King of Israel, son of Jehu

When the Bible says that Jehovah God’s loving-kindness is forever, the history of God’s dealings with the two
kingdoms, of Israel and of Judah, bear witness to that. What does that teach me about God and His dealing with
me and other imperfect humans?
After a brief break from the bad kings of Israel, under the reign of Jehu, towards the end, the kingdom has
returned to where it was before - promoting the golden calf out of selfish desire to keep their kingdom intact, a
faithless and disloyal act towards Jehovah. The pattern of disobedience-punishment-repentance-favor cycle
continues similar to the pattern in the book of the Judges.
I am to examine the pattern specifically in the case of Jehoahaz the son of Jehu
“In the 23rd year of Je·hoʹash the son of A·ha·ziʹah the king of Judah, Je·hoʹa·haz the son of Jeʹhu became king
over Israel in Sa·marʹi·a, and he reigned for 17 years. He continued to do what was bad in Jehovah’s eyes, and
he persisted in the sin that Jer·o·boʹam the son of Neʹbat had caused Israel to commit. He did not turn away from
it. So Jehovah’s anger grew hot against Israel, and he gave them into the hand of King Hazʹa·el of Syria and into
the hand of Ben-haʹdad the son of Hazʹa·el all their days.” (13:1-3)
This biblical data tells me that King Jehoash of Judah’s reign overlapped with King Jehu and his son Jehoahaz.
The name of Jehoahaz, most probably given by Jehu, contains God’s divine name in it. It means “Jehovah Has
Taken Hold”. [1] Interestingly, it is the inverse of the name Ahaziah, king of Judah who was killed by Jehu’s father.
(Je·hoʹa·haz) [May Jehovah Take Hold; Jehovah Has Taken Hold].
Jehoahaz must have known the zeal of his father for Jehovah God and how Jehu removed the Baals from the
kingdom. But he and the other kings failed to see the point of the covenant law that Jehovah hates idolatry even if
the image was claimed to represent Him such as the golden calf. As a consequence, and as specified in the
covenant law, Jehovah punished the kingdom for their disobedience, allowing Hazael and his successor, his son
Benhadad, to ravage Israel. As noted previously, King Hazael of Syria was so successful raiding the territories of
Israel, he was able to reach Jerusalem, the domain of King Jehoash of Judah.
The following biblical description is reminiscent of the days of the Judges
“In time Je·hoʹa·haz begged for the favor of Jehovah, and Jehovah listened to him, for he had seen the
oppression the king of Syria had inflicted on Israel. So Jehovah provided Israel with a savior to free them from
Syria’s grip, and the Israelites were able to dwell in their homes as before.” (13: 4,5)
This is the only other time that I had read of the kings of Israel, begging Jehovah for favor. The first time I
encountered that was with the first king of Israel, God’s own choice, Jeroboam, who rebelled against God, and
was the original promoter of the golden calf. (1 King 13: 6) Jehovah God has listened to the requests of Jeroboam,
and now with Jehoahaz. In a language similar to the days of the Judges, “Jehovah provided Israel with a savior”
(Judges 3:9) The difference is that in the days of the Judges, Israel was a 12-tribe nation. In this last instance, the
Bible writer is talking only of the 10-tribe kingdom of Israel. Who that savior was the Bible writer did not identify.
Could that refer to King Jehoahaz himself? The Bible does not say.
Who is the Benhadad, son of Hazael? What is known about him? The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight explains
and comments on the identity of the ‘savior’
“The son of Hazael, king of Syria. (2Ki 13:3) Ben-hadad III was evidently associated with his father in the
oppression of Israel in the days of Jehoahaz (876-c. 860 B.C.E.) and in the Syrian capture of Israelite cities.
Jehovah, however, raised up “a savior” for Israel, apparently in the persons of Jehoahaz’ son Jehoash (c. 859-
845 B.C.E.) and his successor Jeroboam II (c. 844-804 B.C.E.). (2Ki 13:4, 5) In fulfillment of Elisha’s final
prophecy, Jehoash recaptured “from the hand of Ben-hadad the son of Hazael the cities that he had taken from
the hand of Jehoahaz,” defeating the Syrian forces on three occasions. (2Ki 13:19, 23-25) Jeroboam II followed
up his father’s victories over Syria, returning Israel’s boundaries to their former state, thus serving as a savior for
259 | P a g e
Israel. (2Ki 14:23-27) Ben-hadad III is not mentioned in connection with Jeroboam’s conquests and may not have
been living by that time.” [2]
There are archaeological inscriptions found that mentioned this Benhadad III as others have labelled him
“Ben-Hadad III ruled for an unknown number of years in the early eighth century BC. His name means “son of
(the god) Hadad.” We know of this king from three sources—The Zakkur Stela, an inscription from the reign of the
Assyrian king Adad-nirari III, and the Bible. The order of the events described in these sources is not known for
certain, but scholars suggest they occurred in the order we have listed them (Pitard 1994: 221–22).
The Zakkur Stela was a memorial inscription set up by Zakkur, king of Hamath and Luash, adjacent city-states
north of Aram in central Syria. It was discovered in 1904 in Afis, 25 mi southwest of Aleppo, Syria. Afis was
undoubtedly the site of a shrine to Ilu-Wer, the Akkadian weather god, to whom the stela was dedicated. The
inscription describes an attack on Hadrach, probably the capital of Luash, by a coalition of kings led by Ben-
Hadad. Zakkur was able to turn back the attack with the help of his god Ba’al-shemain (Rosenthal 1969:655–56).
This record demonstrates the decline of Ben-Hadad’s power on his northern frontier.
In addition to the mention of the Biblical figure Ben-Hadad III, the Zakkur Stela is also interesting in that two of the
places mentioned in the document are also recorded in the Bible—Hamath and Hadrach. The city-state of
Hamath is referred to many times in the Old Testament in connection with Aram. Solomon’s kingdom extended as
far as Hamath (2 Chr 8:4). Excavations at Hamath have produced evidence for a prosperous kingdom in Old
Testament times. Hadrach is mentioned but once in the Bible, in Zechariah 9:1. Writing in post-exilic times,
Zechariah declared, “The word of the Lord is against the land of Hadrach.” The location of Hadrach is unknown.”
[3]
Despite the mercy from Jehovah God, and after getting relief what happens? Exactly as the pattern in the days of
the Judges. The Bible reports
“(However, they did not depart from the sin of the house of Jer·o·boʹam that he had caused Israel to commit. They
continued in this sin, and the sacred pole continued to stand in Sa·marʹi·a.) Je·hoʹa·haz was left with an army of
only 50 horsemen, 10 chariots, and 10,000 foot soldiers, because the king of Syria had destroyed them, trampling
them like the dust at threshing time.” (13: 6,7)
10,000 foot soldiers of King Jehoahaz was a better number compared to Ahab when he faced Ben-hadad II (1
Kings 20:15).
The story for now concludes the kingship of the son of Jehu
“As for the rest of the history of Je·hoʹa·haz, all that he did and his mightiness, is it not written in the book of the
history of the times of the kings of Israel? Then Je·hoʹa·haz was laid to rest with his forefathers, and they buried
him in Sa·marʹi·a; and his son Je·hoʹash became king in his place.” (13: 8.9)
References
[1] Jehoahaz. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1265.
[3] Wood, Bryant. “Ben-hadad III, King of Aram, and Jehoash, King of Israel”, Bible and Spade 13:3 (Summer
2000), p. 90.
260 | P a g e
12.12 Jehoash, King of Israel, son of Jehoahaz

It is heart-warming for me to read how quick Jehovah God can cast away His righteous anger and be softened by
an erring human if that human humbles himself before God and repents. The Bible continues its narrative of how
God’s chosen nation continues to be astray but from time to time its leaders are moved to humble themselves and
God changes accordingly His dealings with them. God’s kindness was not just to a nation. The end of this chapter
God extends unusual kindness to an individual. The Bible now reports a new king after King Jehoahaz of Israel,
son of Jehu
“In the 37th year of King Je·hoʹash of Judah, Je·hoʹash the son of Je·hoʹa·haz became king over Israel in
Sa·marʹi·a, and he reigned for 16 years. He continued to do what was bad in Jehovah’s eyes, not departing from
all the sins that Jer·o·boʹam the son of Neʹbat had made Israel commit. He continued in these sins.” (13: 10,11)
Towards the end of the reign of a good-turned evil King Jehoash, another Jehoash becomes king in the northern
kingdom of Israel. Jehovah promised Jehu that there will be four generations to rule from him. This is now the
third generation. He reigned one-year short of the reign of his father. There is nothing in this king. He perpetrated
the error of all the previous kings of Israel. His reign was summarized in the same way as other kings
“As for the rest of the history of Je·hoʹash, all that he did and his mightiness and how he fought against King
Am·a·ziʹah of Judah, is it not written in the book of the history of the times of the kings of Israel? Then Je·hoʹash
was laid to rest with his forefathers, and Jer·o·boʹam sat on his throne. And Je·hoʹash was buried in Sa·marʹi·a
with the kings of Israel.” (13:12,13)
Although Jehoash was like the other kings of Israel, the Bible reported an important development during his reign
“Now when E·liʹsha became ill with the sickness from which he eventually died, Je·hoʹash the king of Israel came
down to him and wept over him, saying: “My father, my father! The chariot of Israel and his horsemen!” E·liʹsha
then said to him: “Take a bow and arrows.” So he took a bow and arrows. Then he said to the king of Israel: “Put
your hand to the bow.” So he put his hand to it, after which E·liʹsha laid his hands on the king’s hands. Then he
said: “Open the window toward the east.” So he opened it. E·liʹsha said: “Shoot!” So he shot. He now said:
“Jehovah’s arrow of victory, the arrow of victory over Syria! You will strike down Syria at Aʹphek until you finish it
off.”” (13: 14-17)
Elisha is ill. The illness is going to be fatal for Elisha. It does not say what it was. The Bible does not record
whether Elisha appealed to Jehovah for healing. On his last days, he was still keen on his work as a prophet. In
the previous reflection, the Bible did not say who the “savior” was that Jehovah God will raise upon the request of
King Jehoahaz. Now, in this chapter, it is evident that Jehoahaz’s son will be that “savior”. Elisha told Jehoash,
king of Israel, he will strike Syria at Aphek.
Aphek was already mentioned back in the days of King Ahab where they met a defeat from the forces of King
Ahab. The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight comments
“A city mentioned at 1 Kings 20:26 as the site of the defeat of the Syrian Ben-hadad II. The retreating Syrians
pulled back to the city, only to have its wall fall upon 27,000 of them. (1Ki 20:29, 30) It likewise seems to be the
place prophetically indicated to King Jehoash by the dying prophet Elisha as the point where the Syrians would
suffer future defeats at the hands of Israelites. (2Ki 13:17-19, 25) Some scholars would place the Aphek
mentioned in these texts about 5 km (3 mi) E of the Sea of Galilee, where the modern village of Afiq or Fiq is
found. However, so far no remains older than the fourth century B.C.E. have been found at the site. But at nearby
ʽEn Gev on the shore of the Sea of Galilee remains of a large fortified city of the tenth to eighth centuries B.C.E.
have been discovered.” [1]
After King Jehoash has shot the arrows, Elisha instructed the king to strike the ground with the arrows. What
happened? Elisha was so disappointed. The Bible reports
“He continued: “Take the arrows,” and he took them. Then he said to the king of Israel: “Strike the ground.” So he
struck the ground three times and stopped. At that the man of the true God grew indignant at him and said: “You
should have struck the ground five or six times! Then you would have struck down Syria until you finished it off,
but now you will strike down Syria only three times.”” (13: 18,19)
261 | P a g e
Jehoash disappointed Elisha. He was already told that with his arrows he will defeat Syria. With those same
arrows, he should have exerted much to strike the ground several times not just three. He lacked zeal in
accomplishing the task. A Bible-based publications comments on this disappointment
“To illustrate the importance of being zealous in God’s service, note an event that took place in the life of King
Jehoash of Israel. Concerned over the apparent fate of Israel at the hands of Syria, Jehoash came weeping to
Elisha. The prophet instructed him to shoot an arrow out the window toward Syria, indicating victory by Jehovah’s
hand against that nation. This certainly should have invigorated the king. Elisha next told Jehoash to take his
arrows and strike the earth with them. Jehoash struck the earth three times. Elisha was incensed at this, for
striking the earth five or six times would have indicated “striking down Syria to the finishing point.” Now Jehoash
would enjoy only three partial victories. Because he acted with a lack of zeal, Jehoash experienced limited
success. (2 Kings 13:14-19) What lesson can we learn from that account? Jehovah will abundantly bless us only
if we do his work wholeheartedly and with zeal.” [2]
But Jehovah God allowed Jehoash to fulfill those three times that he will strike Syria. This was reported in the
concluding verses of the chapter. King Jehoash was able to accomplish it because of God’s mercy
“
Now King Hazʹa·el of Syria oppressed Israel all the days of Je·hoʹa·haz. However, Jehovah extended favor and
mercy to them and showed his concern for them for the sake of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He
did not want to bring them to ruin, and he has not cast them away from his presence to this day. When King
Hazʹa·el of Syria died, his son Ben-haʹdad became king in his place. Je·hoʹash the son of Je·hoʹa·haz then took
back from Ben-haʹdad the son of Hazʹa·el the cities that he had taken in war from Je·hoʹa·haz his father. Three
times Je·hoʹash struck him down, and he recovered the cities of Israel.” (13: 22-25)
Jehovah God was merciful because of his covenant to Israel’s ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, all faithful
men. This is how relief came to Israel using Jehoash as the “savior”.
In between the scene of Elisha and Jehoash and the fulfillment of Elisha’s prophecy, the Bible reports not just his
death but a miracle
“After that E·liʹsha died and was buried. There were Moʹab·ite marauder bands that would come into the land at
the beginning of the year. As some men were burying a man, they saw the marauder band, so they quickly threw
the man into E·liʹsha’s burial place and ran off. When the man touched the bones of E·liʹsha, he came to life and
stood on his feet.” (13: 20, 21)
I must confess that I found this portion of the narrative a bit comical. The men just threw a dead body on Elisha’s
burial place and ran off. Since I would expect the body of Elisha to be underground, I found it difficult to visualize
how the dead body touched the bones of Elisha. But the good news for the dead man and his family, is that he
came back to life. I am wondering how the men who threw him just like that to run for their lives would have
reacted on the sight of this dead man now alive again. Elisha resurrected a child when he was alive. What could
be the meaning or object of this resurrection? Insight comments
“A miracle performed in connection with Elisha (posthumously) was the immediate raising to life of a man whose
dead body was thrown into Elisha’s burial place and touched his bones. This was proof that it was God’s power,
not Elisha’s, that performed the miracles Elisha had accomplished, and it was a powerful attestation or a seal of
God as to the genuineness of his faithful prophet.—2Ki 13:20, 21.” [3]
References
[1] Aphek. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 120.
[2] “Are You Fully Following the Christ?”, The Watchtower, April 15, 2010, p. 26.
[3] Bones. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 352.
262 | P a g e
12.13 Amaziah, King of Judah, son of Jehoash and Jehoash, King of Israel, son of Jehoahaz
12.13.1 Amaziah, King of Judah, son of Jehoash and Jehoash, King of Israel, son of Jehoahaz - Part 1
If one wants to understand Jehovah God better, become His friend, read the books of Kings. It has helped me
understand the depth of God’s mercy, his loving-kindness, loyalty, and faithfulness to His promises. He promised
an everlasting kingdom for David. Despite David’s grandsons failing to stay loyal and faithful to Jehovah, in behalf
of that promise, Jehovah disciplined those sons from the House of David, but did not let the kingdom of Judah to
suffer until they are nothing. The kings of Judah has this cycle of starting out fine and ending badly. The kings of
Israel were forever trapped in the sin of Jeroboam, the first king, with the worship of the golden calf. In all this,
Jehovah God chooses to be merciful in the instances that even these kings when they humble themselves before
Him, despite their errors, God was willing to help.
In this journey, I will meet Jehoash, king of Israel, the third generation of four generations that God has blessed
Jehu with. I will be introduced to Amaziah, king of Judah, son of Jehoash of Judah, who was protected as a boy
by the high priest Jehoiada but who turned bad in the end.
The Bible introduces the new narrative this way
“In the second year of Je·hoʹash the son of Je·hoʹa·haz the king of Israel, Am·a·ziʹah the son of King Je·hoʹash of
Judah became king.” (14:1)
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight notes some facts how Jehoahaz was recorded in the hand-written copies of
ancient Bibles
“Variant spelling of the name of Jehoahaz, king of Israel, as found in certain translations (AS, JP, Ro, RS) of
2 Kings 14:1. There the Masoretic text reads Yoh·ʼa·chazʹ, but on the authority of Hebrew manuscripts that read
Yehoh·ʼa·chazʹ, other translations (AT, JB, Mo, NW) render the name Jehoahaz.—See JEHOAHAZ No. 2.” [1]
Just as with other Judean kings, Amaziah’s mother was identified
“He was 25 years old when he became king, and he reigned for 29 years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was
Je·ho·adʹdin of Jerusalem.” (14:2)
Insight notes the use of the name as it it written in ancient hand-written Bible copies
“Mother of Judah’s King Amaziah; wife of Jehoash. (2Ki 14:1, 2) In the Hebrew text the name is written
“Jehoaddin,” with a marginal note saying it should be read as “Jehoaddan,” as at 2 Chronicles 25:1.” [2]
One paper noted the frequent identification of the mothers of kings. Is there a significance in that? The paper
writes
“The clearest evidence for the importance of the queen mother lies in the regnal formulas. As previously
discussed, the text names the mother of the king for each Judean king in their respective regnal formulas with
the exception of Jehoram and Ahaz, thereby listing fifteen different women for seventeen kings. The text does not
name the queen mothers for the northern kingdom. As demonstrated in chapter three, the formulas serve as a
lens by which the editor communicates a theological perception of the divided monarchy: the kingship as a whole
has failed God and failed the people in its responsibility of keeping the Mosaic law. The exile, therefore, is just
punishment for the nation’s disloyalty. The following section will investigate what the formulas themselves may
offer, if anything, in regard to the place of the queen mother in the narrator’s theological platform of 1 and 2
Kings.” [3]
The term ‘formula’ is a literary term referring to words or phrases that regulary appear in the Bible text. In this
instance, one example is the phrase “his mother’s name was <blank> of <blank>”. Bible scholars have several
theories why the mother’s names are there. But the theories are mostly speculation. There is no known
explanation. But it is interesting that when compared with other ancient regnal lists, the paper notes
263 | P a g e
“No other pattern of regnal reports in the ancient Near East lists the name of the queen mother consistently such
as with Judah.” [4]
King Amaziah of Judah started out fine. For this Jehovah provided help when he needed it
“He continued to do what was right in Jehovah’s eyes, but not like David his forefather. He did everything as
Je·hoʹash his father had done. However, the high places were not removed, and the people were still sacrificing
and making sacrificial smoke on the high places. As soon as he had the kingdom firmly in his control, he struck
down his servants who had struck down his father the king. But he did not put the sons of the murderers to death,
in harmony with Jehovah’s commandment written in the book of Moses’ Law: “Fathers should not be put to death
for their sons, and sons should not be put to death for their fathers; but each one should be put to death for his
own sin.” He struck down the Eʹdom·ites in the Valley of Salt, 10,000 men, and captured Seʹla in the war, and its
name became Jokʹthe·el to this day.” (14: 3-7)
There were fine things reported here
* he was as good as his father Jehoash but not like his ancestor David (Jehoash turned bad in the end)
* he complied with the covenant law on the case of the assassins of his father
Jehovah has reasons to bless and support Amaziah in the beginning of his reign. However, the book of Kings did
not report what happened to Amaziah after striking Edom. The book of Chronicles did. One of the things
Amaziah’s army did was throw 10,000 Edomite soldiers alive from the crags of Sela to fall down to their death
below. One article wrote about the site
“In one of the Old Testament’s colder and more brutal episodes, King Amaziah of Judah (c. 801–783 B.C.E.),
after having slain nearly 10,000 Edomites in battle near the southern end of the Dead Sea, is said to have thrown
another 10,000 captives from the top of nearby Sela, where they were “dashed to pieces” (2 Chronicles 25:12; 2
Kings 14:7). While the Biblical account provides only vague clues as to where this horrible event took place (Sela
simply means “rock” in Hebrew), the archaeology of a little-known mountaintop stronghold in southern Jordan
may hold the answer.” [5]
The other thing reported by Chronicles was that he adopted the gods of the Edomites. What Amaziah did was
foolish. He adopted the gods of the Edomites for worship. Jehovah God rebuked him through His prophet but
Amaziah was too proud to be corrected. Thus his reign began to founder from there. The next development of the
narratives showed that Jehovah God had abandoned him. This happened with his confrontation with the king of
Israel, Jehoash
“Then Am·a·ziʹah sent messengers to Je·hoʹash son of Je·hoʹa·haz son of Jeʹhu the king of Israel, saying: “Come,
let us confront each other in battle.”” (14:8)
Why is Amaziah doing this? Insight provided some answers
“Amaziah’s second campaign was tragic from start to finish. The 100,000 from Israel who were dismissed raided
towns of Judah on their return north. Perhaps it was this that provoked Amaziah foolishly to challenge Jehoash of
the strong northern kingdom, saying: “Do come. Let us look each other in the face.”” [6]
But King Jehoash belittled Amaziah’s call for battle. How do I know this? Well, from his answer below
“King Je·hoʹash of Israel sent this message to King Am·a·ziʹah of Judah: “The thorny weed in Lebʹa·non sent a
message to the cedar in Lebʹa·non, ‘Give your daughter to my son as a wife.’ However, a wild beast of Lebʹa·non
passed by and trampled down the thorny weed.” (14:9)
Insight explains the analogy of Jehoash
“In the Scriptures the majestic cedar is used figuratively to represent stateliness, loftiness, and strength, either
real or apparent. (Eze 31:2-14; Am 2:9; Zec 11:1, 2) Thus, King Jehoash of Israel intended his reply to King
264 | P a g e
Amaziah of Judah to be a withering insult when he compared Amaziah’s kingdom to a “thorny weed” while
likening his own kingdom to a mighty cedar of Lebanon. (2Ki 14:9; compare Jg 9:15, 20.)” [7]
What was the result of this insistence of Amaziah of Judah to battle with the stronger Jehoash of Israel? On the
next installment, I will explore that.
References
[1 Joahaz. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 80.

[2] Jehoaddin. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1265.
[3] Brewer-Boydston, Ginny. “Good Queen Mothers, Bad Queen Mothers: The Theological Presentation of the
Queen Mother in 1 and 2 Kings”, A Dissertation Approved by the Department of Religion, Baylor University,
December 2011, p. 118.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Corbett, Glenn. “The Edomite Stronghold of Sela- Is this where 10,000 Edomites were thrown to their deaths?”.
Bible History Daily, Biblical Archaeology Review blog site, August 12, 2015.
[6] Amaziah. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 88.
265 | P a g e
12.13.2 Amaziah, King of Judah, son of Jehoash and Jehoash, King of Israel, son of Jehoahaz - Part 2
It is truly a sad note to see someone start fine and end badly. This is the pattern of many of the kings of the house
of David in Judah. The kings of Israel, very few of them have remained loyal and faithful to Jehovah compared
with the kings of Judah. This narrative now reports the downhill direction of Amaziah, king of Judah.
What was the result of this insistence of Amaziah of Judah to battle with the stronger Jehoash of Israel? The Bible
reports
“So King Je·hoʹash of Israel went up, and he and King Am·a·ziʹah of Judah confronted each other in battle at
Beth-sheʹmesh, which belongs to Judah. Judah was defeated by Israel, so each one fled to his home. King
Je·hoʹash of Israel captured King Am·a·ziʹah of Judah, son of Je·hoʹash son of A·ha·ziʹah, at Beth-sheʹmesh.
Then they came to Jerusalem, and he made a breach in the wall of Jerusalem from the Gate of Eʹphra·im to the
Corner Gate, 400 cubits.” (14:11-13)
Amaziah was defeated, Jerusalem was breached. What did Jehoash do to the treasures of Jerusalem in both the
temple and the king’s treasures?
“He took all the gold and the silver and all the articles that were found in the house of Jehovah and in the
treasuries of the house of the king, as well as hostages. Then he returned to Sa·marʹi·a.” (14:14)
Insight commented on the consequences of Jehovah God abandoning Amaziah
“Jehoash’s response: How foolish for a thorny weed to confront a massive cedar only to be trampled by a wild
beast! Amaziah refused to listen; he was apparently puffed up with his recent victory, and Jehovah had doomed
Amaziah to defeat because of his idolatry. The battle was joined at Beth-shemesh, Judah fled, Amaziah was
captured, a breach of about 178 m (584 ft) was made in Jerusalem’s wall, and much temple treasure and many
hostages were carried back to Samaria.—2Ki 14:8-14; 2Ch 25:13, 17-24.” [1]
The Bible concludes Jehoash’s rule and introduces his successor
“As for the rest of the history of Je·hoʹash, what he did and his mightiness and how he fought against King
was laid to rest with his forefathers and was buried in Sa·marʹi·a with the kings of Israel; and his son Jer·o·boʹam
became king in his place.” (14: 15, 16)
Scholars noticed that this is the second time the end of Jehoash’s rule was recorded. The first time was back in 2
Kings 13: 12,13 which is replicated below
“As for the rest of the history of Je·hoʹash, all that he did and his mightiness and how he fought against King
was laid to rest with his forefathers, and Jer·o·boʹam sat on his throne. And Je·hoʹash was buried in Sa·marʹi·a
with the kings of Israel.”
Bible scholars are figuring out why the Bible writer have to write the epilogue twice. Their focus was the phrase
“Jeroboam sat on his throne” which was not included in the final epilogue. Instead, the second just said
“Jeroboam became king in his place”. One reference explains the significance of the first phrase in the context of
Jehovah God’s grant to Jehu back in 2 Kings 10:30
“The phrase in 2 Kg 13:13, however, is intended to draw the reader’s attention to the founding prophecy (or royal
grant) of the House of Jehu. The prophetic endorsement of Jehu’s coup states that his line will continue for four
generations (2 Kg 10:30), a prophecy cited when the house is terminated by Shallum’s coup (15:12). The
operative phrase in this prophecy is “sit upon the throne of Israel”. Therefore, the statement that “Jeroboam sat
upon his throne” (v. 13ab) plays a small, yet significant role int he depiction of the House of Jehu. The narrative
account, in which the statement occurs, portrays the House of Jehu’s relative success and limited divine
approval.” [2]
266 | P a g e
The Bible also concludes Amaziah’s rule and his successor
“Am·a·ziʹah the son of Je·hoʹash the king of Judah lived for 15 years after the death of Je·hoʹash the son of
Je·hoʹa·haz the king of Israel. As for the rest of the history of Am·a·ziʹah, is it not written in the book of the history
of the times of the kings of Judah? Later a conspiracy was formed against him at Jerusalem, and he fled to
Laʹchish, but they sent men after him to Laʹchish and put him to death there. So they carried him back on horses,
and he was buried in Jerusalem with his forefathers in the City of David.” (14: 17-20)
Amaziah died the same way his father Jehoash did. He was overthrown. He started well like his father but his
heart was not complete with Jehovah his God. Both of them were abandoned by God.
References
[1] Amaziah. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 88.
[2] Suriano, Matthew. The Politics of Dead Kings: Dynastic Ancestors in the Book of Kings and Ancient Israel,
Mohr Siebeck, 2010, p. 137.
267 | P a g e
12.14 Azariah, King of Judah, son of Amaziah and Jeroboam, King of Israel, son of Jehoash
The story of human failure in governance, failure of cultivating their relationship with God, and God’s continued
acts of mercies despite the human failures - this is the continuing motif in the book of Kings. God continues to
work with imperfect humans to carry forward his divine purpose until the Messiah arrives who will carry on God’s
sovereignty in a future, to-be-established God’s kingdom for the earth.
The story of the two kingdoms - Judah and Israel - continue. From the north, the promise of Jehovah God to Jehu
for a kingdom up to four generations is on its tail end. Meanwhile, on the south, the 11th king from the House of
David, rises to the throne of the kingdom of Judah, Azariah, also known as Uzziah. What is the track record of this
new king? How is his loyalty to Jehovah God, the ultimate Sovereign of Israel? What is the track record of the
fourth generation king under the House of Jehu, Jeroboam?
“Then all the people of Judah took Az·a·riʹah, who was 16 years old, and made him king in place of his father
Am·a·ziʹah. He rebuilt Eʹlath and restored it to Judah after the king was laid to rest with his forefathers.” (14: 21,22)
It is an amazing thought that in the Bible children are given governance power at an early age. Jehoash was 7
years old when he was anointed king. But during the time of Jehoash it was abnormal times. A wicked queen took
to the throne. There was an urgency to reclaim it. But he and his son Amaziah were both overthrown and there
was a need to anoint a replacement. Thus, even as a teener Azariah or Uzziah was made king. The Bible-based
encyclopedia Insight adds
“King of Judah for 52 years (829-778 B.C.E.). Son of Amaziah and Jecoliah. (2Ki 14:21; 15:1, 2) He is called
Uzziah in 2 Kings 15:13.—See UZZIAH No. 3.” [1]
A key project reported under King Azariah or King Uzziah was Elath. Insight comments
“Control of Elath evidently reverted to Edom during the reign of Jehoram of Judah. (2Ki 8:20-22) In the following
century the city was restored to Judah and rebuilt by King Uzziah (Azariah). (2Ki 14:21, 22; 2Ch 26:1, 2)” [2]
Elath was conquered by David during his reign but was recovered by the Edomites. The report above now states
King Uzziah reclaimed it back. One scholar pointed out that Elath is an important pivot in the life of King Azariah
and King Uzziah
“Moses sets forth the rules and regulations concerning the future rule of kings of Israel / Judah (Deut. 17:14-
20). He states that the king will be chosen from “your brethren” (17:15). He was not to multiply horses to himself
(17:16). This is to prevent the king from boasting about his own strength (cf. Josh. 11:6; II Sam. 8:4; Micah
5:10). The king is not to multiply wives (17:17a). An example of one who did was Solomon and the foreign wives
drew his heart away from the Lord. The king was not to greatly multiply silver and gold to himself (17:17b). They
need silver and gold to keep the kingdom functioning, but the instruction is not to “multiply” the precious
metals. The king was to write a copy of the (Mosaic) Law (17:18) and read the Law (17:19). The king is subject
to the Law and is not above it (17:20).
King Uzziah followed all these principles in the first part of his reign. In the beginning he learned to fear God (II
Chron. 26:16a); he observed God’s statues (26:16b); his heart was not lifted up (26:16b); nor did not turn away
from the LORD (26:18), thus his days were prolonged (26:21). Yet after he took Eilat, he built up his military and
it included multiplying horses for his army. As a result of controlling the international highways and receiving
tribute, he multiplied gold and silver to himself. The Prophet Isaiah acknowledged this state of affairs. “Their land
[Judah] is also full of silver and gold, and there is no end to their treasures; their land is also full of horses, and
there is no end to their chariots” (2:7).” [3]
What was the consequence of his military pivot from Elath? The blog reports
“King Uzziah began his reign on the “right foot” by being obedient to the Word of God. Somewhere along the line,
he stepped out of the will of God, as revealed in the Word of God, by taking Eilat. When he did this, he had built
up his military in order to control the Transjordanian Highway and the International Coastal Highway. As a
268 | P a g e
consequence of controlling these roads, he had to fortify these and other routes. Yet with the control of these
roads, the national treasury increased. Yet the sad fact is, because of his military strength and wealth, King
Uzziah developed a proud heart that led to his downfall (II Chron. 26:15, 16; Prov. 16:18).” [4]
The book of Chronicles fully explored the life of King Azariah or King Uzziah. His rule is another typical “success
made him arrogant” narrative among the kings of Judah. This led to God’s rejection of Azariah or Uzziah.
Meanwhile, the Bible continues its report on the kings of Israel
“In the 15th year of Am·a·ziʹah the son of Je·hoʹash the king of Judah, Jer·o·boʹam the son of King Je·hoʹash of
Israel became king in Sa·marʹi·a, and he reigned for 41 years. He continued to do what was bad in Jehovah’s
eyes. He did not depart from all the sins that Jer·o·boʹam the son of Neʹbat had caused Israel to commit. He
restored the boundary of Israel from Leʹbo-haʹmath clear to the Sea of the Arʹa·bah, according to the word that
Jehovah the God of Israel spoke through his servant Joʹnah the son of A·mitʹtai, the prophet from Gath-heʹpher.”
(14: 23-25)
Jeroboam will be the last of the four generations from the House of Jehu. Like all the other kings of Israel, they
followed the path of its first king, Jeroboam. A key achievement reported has to do with the boundary of Israel,
citing Jonah the prophet. Insight commented on Jonah the prophet
““Son of Amittai”; a prophet of Jehovah from Gath-hepher (2Ki 14:25), a border city in the territory of Zebulun.
(Jos 19:10, 13) In fulfillment of Jehovah’s word spoken through Jonah, Israel’s King Jeroboam II succeeded in
restoring “the boundary of Israel from the entering in of Hamath clear to the sea of the Arabah [the Salt Sea].” (2Ki
14:23-25; compare De 3:17.) So it appears that Jonah served as a prophet to the ten-tribe kingdom sometime
during the reign of Jeroboam II. He is evidently the same person Jehovah commissioned to proclaim judgment
against Nineveh (Jon 1:1, 2) and, therefore, also the writer of the book bearing his name.” [5]
Other prophets served under Jeroboam’s reign aside from Jonah. Insight comments on this
“In the wake of these successes doubtless came a wave of material prosperity for the northern kingdom. But at
the same time the nation continued in its spiritual decline. The prophets Hosea and Amos had some harsh
criticism to offer rebellious Jeroboam and his supporters for their outright apostasy, as well as their immoral
conduct—fraud, thievery, fornication, murder, oppression, idolatry, and other God-dishonoring practices. (Ho
1:2, 4; 4:1, 2, 12-17; 5:1-7; 6:10; Am 2:6-8; 3:9, 12-15; 4:1) Particularly pointed was Jehovah’s warning to
Jeroboam by the mouth of his prophet Amos: “I will rise up against the house of Jeroboam with a sword.”—Am
7:9.” [6]
Despite the spiritual failure of the nation amidst material prosperity under Jeroboam, the mercy of God moved him
to make Jeroboam successful to give Israel relief
“For Jehovah had seen the very bitter affliction of Israel. There was no one left to help Israel, not even the
helpless or the weak. But Jehovah had promised not to wipe out the name of Israel from under the heavens. So
he saved them by the hand of Jer·o·boʹam the son of Je·hoʹash.” (14: 26, 27)
Thus, the story of Jeroboam ended (14: 28,29)
The story of the kingdom of Israel will never be the same after the fall of the House of Jehu.
References
[1] Azariah. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 224.
[2] Elath. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 704.
[3] Franz, Gordon. “The Geography and Military Strategy of King Uzziah: An Expansionist Policy That Led to His
Destruction”, Associates for Biblical Research blog site. Available (online).
[4] Ibid.
[5] Jonah. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 98.
269 | P a g e
12.15 Azariah, Jotham, Kings of Judah and Zechariah, Shallum, Menahem, Pekahiah, Pekah,
Kings of Israel
12.15.1 Azariah, Jotham, Kings of Judah and Zechariah, Shallum, Menahem, Pekahiah, Pekah, Kings of
Israel - Part 1
The book of Kings is full of testimonies that Jehovah God’s word can be trusted. When he says so, it will happen.
I remember that Jehovah God promised Jehu that “four generations” of his sons will sit on the throne of Israel as
a reward for annihilating the family of Ahab. After the “four generations” of Jehu’s sons has sat on the throne, the
kingdom of Israel has entered an unstable period that will lead to its downfall and exile. A series of kings, many
ruled very briefly, faced the consequence of failure to uphold the covenant law. Its unfaithfulness is finally
overreaching the 10-tribe Israel. The patience of Jehovah God is finally reaching its limit. God is going to use a
powerful nation who is flexing its muscle in the international scene - the Assyrians.
The Bible introduces this phase of the narrative
“In the 27th year of King Jer·o·boʹam of Israel, Az·a·riʹah the son of King Am·a·ziʹah of Judah became king.” (15:1)
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight explains the recording of Azariah’s, also known as Uzziah’s kingship
“After the death of his father, 16-year-old Uzziah was made king by the people of Judah. (2Ki 14:21; 2Ch 26:1)
According to 2 Kings 15:1, however, Uzziah became king in the 27th year of Israelite King Jeroboam (II). As this
would place the beginning of Uzziah’s rule approximately 12 years after the death of his father, this must refer to
his ‘becoming king’ in a special sense. It may be that in the 27th year of King Jeroboam, the two-tribe Judean
kingdom was freed from subjection to the northern kingdom, a subjection that perhaps began when Israelite King
Jehoash defeated Uzziah’s father Amaziah. (2Ch 25:22-24) So it may be that Uzziah became king a second time
in the sense of being free from the domination of Israelite King Jeroboam (II).” [1]
The typical formula for describing a kingship is applied - age when he became king, how long his reign was, his
mom, assessment of his relationship with Jehovah God, and what he failed to do - as can be seen below
Je·co·liʹah of Jerusalem. He continued to do what was right in Jehovah’s eyes, just as his father Am·a·ziʹah had
done. However, the high places were not removed, and the people were still sacrificing and making sacrificial
smoke on the high places.” (15:2-4)
However, God has disciplined him and the Bible reports
“Jehovah afflicted the king, and he remained a leper until the day of his death; and he stayed in a separate house,
while the king’s son Joʹtham was in charge of the house, judging the people of the land.” (15: 5)
A Bible-based publication citing the records in the book of Chronicles the reason why God did this to Uzziah
“Why did Jehovah plague Azariah (Uzziah, 15:6, footnote) with leprosy? “As soon as [Uzziah] was strong,
his heart became haughty . . . , so that he acted unfaithfully against Jehovah his God and came into the temple of
Jehovah to burn incense upon the altar of incense.” When the priests “stood up against Uzziah” and told him to
“go out from the sanctuary,” he became enraged against the priests and was struck with leprosy.—2 Chronicles
26:16-20.” [2]
Then, the Bible closes his reign and introduces his heir
“As for the rest of the history of Az·a·riʹah, all that he did, is it not written in the book of the history of the times of
the kings of Judah? Then Az·a·riʹah was laid to rest with his forefathers, and they buried him with his forefathers
in the City of David; and his son Joʹtham became king in his place.” (15: 6, 7)
270 | P a g e
Another sad ending for a king who started well but who allowed pride of his success to make him forget that his
success were made possible by Jehovah God. Bible readers should take note that even success can be a snare
or trap.
The story now shifts into the state of affairs of the kingdom of Israel, the word of Jehovah of the “four generations”
from the House of Jehu has arrived to complete its term
“In the 38th year of King Az·a·riʹah of Judah, Zech·a·riʹah the son of Jer·o·boʹam became king over Israel in
Sa·marʹi·a, and he reigned for six months. He did what was bad in Jehovah’s eyes, just as his forefathers had
done. He did not depart from the sins that Jer·o·boʹam the son of Neʹbat had caused Israel to commit. Then
Shalʹlum the son of Jaʹbesh conspired against him and struck him down at Ibʹle·am. After putting him to death, he
became king in his place. As for the rest of the history of Zech·a·riʹah, it is written in the book of the history of the
times of the kings of Israel. That fulfilled Jehovah’s word spoken to Jeʹhu: “Four generations of your sons will sit
on the throne of Israel.” And that is how it happened.” (15: 8-12)
Shallum killed Zacariah who reigned for only 6 months. Then, Shallum became king for only one month.
Menahem killed Shallum and he became king himself (15: 13, 14) Regarding Menahem, his reign lasted a decade.
Insight comments on his reign
“Son of Gadi and king of Israel for ten years from about 790 B.C.E. Upon learning that Shallum had assassinated
King Zechariah, Menahem went from Tirzah to Samaria and killed the assassin there. He then assumed rulership.
Evidently during the early part of his reign Menahem struck down Tiphsah “and all that was in it and its territory
out from Tirzah, because it did not open up.” The town was apparently reluctant to open its gate to him. (LXX, Vg,
Sy) Harsh treatment was meted out to the populace: “All its pregnant women he ripped up.”—2Ki 15:10, 13-17.” [3]
Just like the previous kings of Israel, Menahem took the path of Jeroboam just as the previous kings from the
House of Jehu. The result? Jehovah God allowed the new powerful nation of Assyria to oppress Israel
“In the 39th year of King Az·a·riʹah of Judah, Menʹa·hem the son of Gaʹdi became king over Israel, and he reigned
for ten years in Sa·marʹi·a. He continued to do what was bad in Jehovah’s eyes. He did not depart from all the
sins that Jer·o·boʹam the son of Neʹbat had caused Israel to commit, all his days. King Pul of As·syrʹi·a came into
the land, and Menʹa·hem gave Pul 1,000 talents of silver in return for his support in strengthening his hold on the
kingdom.” (15: 17-19)
1,000 talents of silver is equivalent to USD 21M in 2016. The amount he gave to the Assyrian King Pul also
known as King Tiglath-Pileser. Regarding this Assyrian king and his names, Insight explains
“Tiglath-pileser III. The first Assyrian king to be mentioned by name in the Bible is Tiglath-pileser III (2Ki 15:29;
16:7, 10), also called “Pul” at 2 Kings 15:19. At 1 Chronicles 5:26 both names are used, and this caused some in
the past to view them as separate kings. However, Babylonian and Assyrian King Lists give both names to the
same individual. The suggestion is made by some that this king was originally known as Pul and that he assumed
the name Tiglath-pileser upon ascending to the Assyrian throne.—See PUL No. 1.” [4]
Where did Menahem source this amount in his kingdom? Insight clarifies the Bible data
“During his reign, King Pul (Tiglath-pileser III) invaded Israel, and Menahem was forced to pay that Assyrian
monarch “a thousand talents of silver.” ($6,606,000) He acquired this sum by imposing an assessment of 50 silver
shekels upon each of “the valiant, mighty men” of Israel. Since a talent of silver equaled about 3,000 shekels, the
silver was obtained from about 60,000 persons. Menahem gave the silver to the Assyrian king, “that his hands
might prove to be with him to strengthen the kingdom in his own hand.” Upon receiving this amount, Pul withdrew
from the land.—2Ki 15:19, 20.” [5]
As a result, the Assyrian king pulled out of Israel’s territory
“So Menʹa·hem raised the silver from Israel by exacting it from the prominent, wealthy men. He gave the king of
As·syrʹi·a 50 silver shekels for each man. Then the king of As·syrʹi·a turned back and did not stay in the land. As
271 | P a g e
for the rest of the history of Menʹa·hem, all that he did, is it not written in the book of the history of the times of the
kings of Israel? Then Menʹa·hem was laid to rest with his forefathers; and his son Pek·a·hiʹah became king in his
place.” (15:20-22)
Will this Assyrian peace remain stable? What will be the outcome for the kingdom of Israel the rise of such a
powerful nation? The next installments will reflect on this.
References
[1] Uzziah. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1146.
[2] “Highlights From the Book of Second Kings”, The Watchtower, August 1, 2005, p. 11.
[3] Menahem. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 371.
[4] Assyria. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 204.
[5] Menahem. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 371.
272 | P a g e
12.15.2 Azariah, Jotham, Kings of Judah and Zechariah, Shallum, Menahem, Pekahiah, Pekah, Kings of
Israel - Part 2
The ancient northern kingdom of Israel is on its way to collapse. Jehovah God is going to bring to bear on this
kingdom the curses recorded in the covenant law for failure to uphold it. Israel entered into a covenant with
Jehovah God in Mount Sinai back in 1513 B.C.E. In less than 800 years, the kingdom of Israel will disappear and
its people sent out to exile in a foreign land.
The collapse started with the fall of Menahem’s son, Pekahiah
Menahem’s son failed to maintain the kingdom under a pro-Assyrian arrangement. Just like the previous kings
before him, Menahem’s son Pekahiah chose the path of rebellion first introduced by the first king of Israel,
Jeroboam I. Jehovah allowed him to perish in the hands of his enemies. (15: 23-25) His killer Pekah became the
new king cutting short Pekahiah’s reign of only 2 years. His record was briefly concluded (15: 26)
The change of family in the kingdom, led to a change in Assyrian policies. A paper recognized the influence of
Assyrian policies at this period of time
“It seems that this political instability should be attributed to differences in position regarding the Assyrian empire.
It is reasonable to assume that Israel was deeply influenced by Aram-Damascus's rise in power during the
Assyrian absence, and pro-Assyrian policies were being challenged within the kingdom of Israel, creating political
tensions. An anti-Assyrian coalition was being constructed by Rezin of Aram-Damascus and Hiram II of Tyre
(Miller and Hayes 2006: 374-377). However, Israel continued to be faithful to Assyria during the reign of
Menahem. Both from Tiglath-Pileser III's inscriptions and from the biblical text it is evident that Menahem
preferred the pro-Assyrian approach (Tadmor 1994: 69, Ann. 14*: 10; II Kings 15: 19-20).
Menahem ruled Israel for ten years and died a natural death. His son Pekahiah, succeeded him on the throne.
However, after only two years in power, he was murdered by Pekah (II Kings 15: 22-26), who probably held anti-
Assyrian positions and was interested in cooperating with Rezin's activities against the Assyrians (Na'aman
1991a: 92; Lipinski 2000: 403; Miller and Hayes 2006: 378)” [1]
This should explain why the Assyrians returned in the days of King Pekah of Israel whose reign lasted 20 years.
He was no different from the previous kings when it came to unfaithfulness to Jehovah (15: 27,28) The Bible
reports the consequences of the return of the Assyrians
“In the days of King Peʹkah of Israel, King Tigʹlath-pil·eʹser of As·syrʹi·a invaded and captured Iʹjon, Aʹbel-beth-
maʹa·cah, Ja·noʹah, Keʹdesh, Haʹzor, Gilʹe·ad, and Galʹi·lee—all the land of Naphʹta·li—and he took the
inhabitants into exile in As·syrʹi·a.” (15: 29)
This is the first mention of exile from the people of Israel to Assyria as an Assyrian policy. Insight even cites an
Assyrian inscription of this campaign
“A fragmentary historical text of Tiglath-pileser III reports about his campaign against Israel: “All its inhabitants
(and) their possessions I led to Assyria. They overthrew their king Pekah (Pa-qa-ha) and I placed Hoshea (A-ú-si-ʼ)
as king over them.”—Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 1974, p. 284.” [2]
This was also echoed in another article
“The Bible records the story of the invasion of Tiglath-pileser in 2 Kings 15:29-30: “In the days of Pekah king of
Israel, Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria came and took Ijon … Hazor, Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali;
and he carried them captive to Assyria. Hoshea son of Elah led a conspiracy against Pekah … and killed him; so
he reigned in his place …”
The biblical account is corroborated in an Assyrian victory stela, or inscribed, commemorative stone (also spelled
“stele”), of Pulu ( Tiglathpileser). The Assyrian king boasts, “The House of Omri [Israel] … all of its inhabitants and
goods, I took to Assyria. overthrew their king Pekah and I installed Hoshea as their king. I received from them
273 | P a g e
ten talents of gold, a thousand talents of silver as tribute and I deported them to Assyria” ( Archaeological Bible
Commentary,1984, p.133).
This began a 15-year period during which the northern Israelites were forcibly deported from their homeland to
Assyrian territory. Few would remain in the land when the Assyrians were through.” [3]
The covenant law spoke of exile as one of the consequences of failure to uphold the covenant.
After 20 years, Pekah was overthrown by Hoshea. Hoshea would be the last king of the kingdom of Israel (15:30).
Meanwhile in the south, Judah, Uzziah is already replaced by his son Jotham. Jotham as usual was described in
typical regnal formula as the other Judean kings - his age when he became king, how long he ruled, his mother’s
name, what he did with respect to faithfulness to covenant law and Jehovah God and what he failed to do. (15:
32-35)
There seems to be a conflict in verses 30 and 33, because the first verse wrote about the 20th year of Jotham
while the other states Jotham reigned only for 16 years. Insight explains
“Since Jotham ruled only 16 years, the reference at 2 Kings 15:30 to the “twentieth year of Jotham” evidently is to
be understood to mean the 20th year after his becoming king, that is, the fourth year of Ahaz. The writer of the
Kings account may have chosen not to introduce Jotham’s successor Ahaz at this point because of yet having to
supply details about Jotham’s reign.” [4]
During the reign of King Ahaz of Judah, Israel under King Hoshea of Israel, will finally dissolve as a state under
the powerful and aggressive expansionist policy of the empire of Assyria. That will be my next reflection.
References
[1] Ras, Keren. “The Impact of Assyrian Rule on Rural Northern Palestine - Settlement Dynamics under Imperial
Domination”, Thesis submitted for the M.A. Degree, under the supervision of Prof. Israel Finkelstein, Tel Aviv
University.
[2]Pekah. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 595.
[3] Seiglie, Mario. “The Later Kings of Israel- A Kingdom’s Downfall”, The Bible and Archaeology blog site.
[4]Jotham. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 119.
274 | P a g e
12.16 Ahaz, King of Judah, son of Jotham

12.16.1 Ahaz, KIng of Judah, son of Jotham - Part 1
This portion of the narrative has highlighted the rise of a new imperial power, in the nation of Assyria. In the
ancient world, they are known as cruel bullies. Their army is feared for their fierceness and violence. It so
happened that Assyrians recorded their contacts and communications with its neighboring countries including
Israel and Judah. Would the leaders of Israel and Judah trust in Jehovah their God or the fierceness of Assyria
would lead them to become vassals to Assyria? How would Jehovah God feel when His leaders in the two nations
chose to trust Assyria rather than their God? That is the object of my reflection.
This portion of the Biblical narrative introduces Ahaz, son of Jotham as new king of Judah
“In the 17th year of Peʹkah the son of Rem·a·liʹah, Aʹhaz the son of King Joʹtham of Judah became king.” (16:1)
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight describes this king and his age when he became a father producing an heir
“The son of King Jotham of Judah. Ahaz began to reign at the age of 20 and continued for 16 years.—2Ki 16:2;
2Ch 28:1.
Since Ahaz’ son Hezekiah was 25 when he began to reign, this would mean that Ahaz was less than 12 years old
when fathering him. (2Ki 18:1, 2) Whereas puberty in males is usually reached between the ages of 12 and 15 in
temperate climates, it may come earlier in warmer climates. Marriage customs also vary. Zeitschrift für Semitistik
und verwandte Gebiete (edited by E. Littmann, Leipzig, 1927, Vol. 5, p. 132) reported that child marriage is
frequent in the Promised Land even in modern times, one case being cited of two brothers aged 8 and 12 who
were married, the wife of the older attending school with her husband. However, one Hebrew manuscript, the
Syriac Peshitta, and some manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint at 2 Chronicles 28:1 give “twenty-five years” as
the age of Ahaz when beginning to reign.
Whatever his exact age, Ahaz died relatively young and left a record of consistent delinquency. Despite the fact
that Isaiah, Hosea, and Micah all actively prophesied during Ahaz’ time, rank idolatry marked his reign.” [1]
Ahaz is one of the biblical kings that is validated by archaeology. A royal seal under his name was found. One
blog article discussed that royal seal of Ahaz
“The king whose seal is impressed in this well-preserved piece of reddish-brown clay is King Ahaz of Judah, who
ruled from 732 to 716 BCE. Alas, he was not a good king: He "did not do what was right in the sight of the Lord
his God, as his ancestor David had done" (2 Kings 16:2; 2 Chronicles 28:1). He worshipped idols and followed
pagan practices. "He even made his son pass through fire, according to the abominable practices of the nations"
(2 Kings 16:3).
This lump of clay, called a bulla, was used to seal a papyrus document. We know this because the back of the
bulla still bears the imprint of the texture of the papyrus. Also on the back of the bulla, we can see the impression
of the double string with which the document was tied.
On the left edge of the front of the bulla is a fingerprint that may well be that of King Ahaz himself! Around the
edge of the seal impression is a groove about a millimeter thick. This indicates that the seal with which it was
impressed was set in a metal bezel, either in a signet ring or in a pendant.” [2]
Regarding the name of Ahaz in the seal, the article explains
“The name Ahaz is an interesting one. It appears in the annals of the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III (744-727
BCE), who boasts that he received tribute from Ahaz. Here it is spelled Ia-u'-ha-zi or Yeho-ahaz (in cuneiform).
This longer form of Ahaz's name indicates that the form used on the seal has dropped the theophoric, or divine,
element. Such divine elements often appear at the beginning or end of ancient names. Many divine names -- Qos,
Baal, Milcom -- are incorporated into personal names in this way, as is, of course, the name of the Hebrew God
275 | P a g e
Yahweh (YHWH). The form of Yahweh incorporated into names in the northern kingdom of Israel differed from
that used in the southern kingdom of Judah. In the north Yo (YW) was generally used at the beginning of a name
and -yo (YW) or -yah (YH) at the end of a name. In Judah it was Yeho (YHW) at the beginning of a name (as in
the cuneiform example mentioned above) and -yahu (YHW) at the end.” [3]
In the Bible writer’s regnal formula description of Ahaz, her mother’s name was not mentioned at all. Ahaz has a
negative assessment on record. The Bible reports
“Aʹhaz was 20 years old when he became king, and he reigned for 16 years in Jerusalem. He did not do what was
right in the eyes of Jehovah his God as David his forefather had done. Instead, he walked in the way of the kings
of Israel, and he even made his own son pass through the fire, following the detestable practices of the nations
that Jehovah had driven out from before the Israelites. He also kept sacrificing and making sacrificial smoke on
the high places, on the hills, and under every luxuriant tree.” (16:2-4)
King Ahaz did not only copy the wicked kings of Israel who promoted calf worship, that Jehovah God considered
a rebellion against him, he was worse than them that he “made his own son pass through the fire” as a sacrifice.
He promoted apostasy in Judah, a falling away from the worship of Judah’s real and ultimate sovereign, Jehovah
God. When kings rebel against Jehovah, He removes His protection from such a king and its kingdom. The Bible
now reports
“It was then that King Reʹzin of Syria and Peʹkah son of Rem·a·liʹah the king of Israel came up to wage war
against Jerusalem. They laid siege against Aʹhaz but were not able to capture the city. At that time King Reʹzin of
Syria restored Eʹlath to Eʹdom, after which he drove the Jews out of Eʹlath. And the Eʹdom·ites entered Eʹlath, and
they have occupied it down to this day.” (16: 5,6)
The combined powers or alliance of Syria and northern Israel raided the territories of Judah and even tried to
breached Jerusalem. Elath who was originally with Edom but who the kings of Judah claimed for themselves,
especially in the days of Azariah or Uzziah, was now recovered and restored to Edom, thanks to alliance of Syria
and Israel. Insight notes that
“Then, during the rule of Ahaz (761-746 B.C.E.), it was wrested from Judah by the Syrians and was reoccupied by
the Edomites, thereafter never returning to the Judeans. (2Ki 16:6) The Masoretic text here reads “Syria” or
“Aram” (Heb., ʼAramʹ) instead of “Edom” (ʼEdhohmʹ). Most current scholars, however, accept the latter reading, in
the margin, believing that a scribe confused the Hebrew letter daʹleth 떈༻i ༻i༻ 떈䁡떈䀀㌳䁏 i㌳ ༻㌳䀀༻༻༻༻䁏 rehsh .” [4]
It was during this time that Assyria started to exert itself militarily in Palestine under a new king, Tiglath-pileser III.
One article related the rise of Tiglath-pileser and the parallel record in the books of Kings
“The Levant in the second half of the eighth century B.C. went through a series of changes reflected in the shifting
of allegiance. Palestine and Syria were not an exception. When Israel allied with Aram, the previous partners
Judah-Israel became enemies. The alliance between Aram and Israel has often been called the Syro-Ephraimite
league. The result of this shift of allegiance was that Judah lost some territories and was even invaded by Aram,
Israel, Edom and Philistia (2 Kgs 15-16, 2 Chr 28; Isa 7). In scholarly literature several theories about the nature
and the goals of the Syro-Ephraimite league and their invasion of Judah have been advanced. B. Oded, whose
opinion has been followed by most modern scholars, convincingly argued that the main reason for the Aram-Israel
attack against Judah was control over Transjordan. Thus, the coalition Aram-Israel was primarily interested in
territorial expansion and not in forming an antiAssyrian league as was thought earlier. C.S. Ehrlich applied this
logic to Phoenicia and Philistia. Thus, both Phoenicia and Philistia, even though presented as Assyrian enemies,
were primarily interested in controlling the lucrative Levantine trade routes and ports along the Mediterranean
coast. However, even though from the modern historians’ point of view the Levantine states were not primarily
interested in forming an anti-Assyrian league, from the Assyrian point of view the aspirations of the Levantine
states for economic independence and their attempt to expand their territories were perceived as an anti-Assyrian
activity. At the heart of this movement was Damascus (Aramean tribes) and Samaria (tribes in Northern Israel).
Summ. 9:r. 4 adds that Tyre also plotted with Rezin, the king of Damascus and from other Assyrian inscriptions it
is possible to conclude that Gaza and Arabian tribes led by queen Samsi were also part of this movement (see
276 | P a g e
below). Since the entire region between the Jordanian desert and the Mediterranean Sea was in the hands of this
movement we can rightly call it a coalition. This coalition controlled the trade of the Mediterranean sea ports and
along three major traffic routes — the sea route (coastal route), the hill route (route through the Judahite hills),
and the king’s route (Transjordanian route).
Whatever the primary goal of this coalition was, according to written, glyptic as well as archaeological evidence,
Tiglath-pileser III considered the development in the Levant hostile enough to be punished by military intervention.
According to the second group of biblical texts, Judah perceived the expansionist policy of the Levantine states, in
particular Aram, Philistia and Israel, from its own perspective. Judah lost Transjordan, was plundered by invading
troops and a number of Judahites were exiled and killed. Ahaz, the king of Judah, seeing his kingdom falling apart
opted for a shrewd diplomatic move: he invited Tiglathpileser III to save him.” [5]
The parallel Bible record is found in the next verse
“So Aʹhaz sent messengers to King Tigʹlath-pil·eʹser of As·syrʹi·a, saying: “I am your servant and your son. Come
up and save me from the hand of the king of Syria and the hand of the king of Israel, who are attacking me.” Aʹhaz
then took the silver and the gold that was to be found at the house of Jehovah and in the treasuries of the king’s
house and sent the king of As·syrʹi·a a bribe.” (16: 7,8)
The Bible writer described the tribute of King Ahaz of Judah to Assyria as a bribe. One article noted the use of
“bribe” for the payment
“The Assyrian and biblical references agree that Tiglath-pilesar III campaigned in the region of Israel and Judah.
Tiglath-pilesar III knew the rulers of the surrounding communities, and the Assyrian comments, preserved in the
cuneiform tablets, conform generally to what the biblical text provides… In verse 7, Ahaz writes to Tiglath-pilesar
III referring to himself as “your servant and your son.” Cogan and Tadmor claim that this combination of terms is
unique in the Bible and is rarely attested in non-biblical historical documents. Moreover, the biblical writer reveals
that paying the Assyrians is viewed negatively by using the term sohad [bribe] for Ahaz’s payment to Tiglath-
pilesar III.” [6]
King Ahaz allied himself with the powerful Assyrian military regime rather than on his God. What would be the
consequences to him and the kingdom? With his wickedness, Jehovah will apply the curses of the covenant law
against him as it happened to previous Judean kings who were overthrown.
Some scholars noted that there appears to be a discrepancy between what was reported in the books of Kings
and in the books of Chronicles. I will reflect on this and its resolution on the next reflection.
References
[1] Ahaz. Inght on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 61.
[2] Deutsch, Robert. “First Impression: What We Learn from King Ahaz’s Seal”, Archaeological Center blog site.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Elath. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 704.
[5] Dubovsky, Peter. “Tiglath-Pileser III’s Campaigns in 734-732 B.C.: Historical Background of Isa 7; 2 Kgs 15-16
and 2 Chr 27-28”, Pontifical Biblical Institute, p. 154.
[6] Schneider, Tammi. “Through Assyria’s Eyes: Israel’s Relationship with Judah”, Expedition Magazine Vol. 44,
Issue 3, November 2002.
277 | P a g e
12.16.2 Ahaz, King of Judah, son of Jotham - Part 2

The corroboration of ancient Assyrian government records of events and personalities in the Bible confirm that the
Bible is not a book of myths or legends or fabrications. What a Bible reader reads in it are real people participating
in real events in real places. Indeed, the Bible is the revealed Word of God and I should pay attention to its
message especially about the incoming, world government of God’s Kingdom.
Yes, there are events recorded in the Bible that are miraculous, supernatural. But if God exists, can He not
perform such miracles? Of course, He can. Biblical scholars who are non-believers categorize this events as
myth-making. But their attitude that miracles cannot happen because they are miracles is no longer a strong
position. It does not diminish the Bible record’s authenticity.
In the previous reflection, I cited that some scholars noted that there appears to be a discrepancy between what
was reported in the books of Kings and in the books of Chronicles. During this time, Jehovah God sent several
prophets to correct the kings of Israel and Judah. These prophets were Isaiah and Amos. Their prophecies
against specific nations and individuals were fulfilled as another validation of the prophecy-fulfillment pattern that
the books of Kings is so full of. It confirms that Jehovah’s word can be trusted.
One paper after exploring the various theories and explanations in an effort to reconcile the two accounts,
examined the two Bible accounts and compared it with the ancient Assyrian records. This is the study’s
conclusion
“We can now offer a reading of the problematic biblical accounts that explains the discrepancy without amending
the text. Both II Kings and II Chronicles can be viewed as historically accurate, and each in its way accords to the
inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III. We can now say that during his reign, Ahaz felt considerable pressure from the
attacks in the north by the Syro-Ephraimite coalition and from the south and the east by the Edomites and
Philistines. This led to Ahaz calling on Assyria for help. Tiglath-Pileser III responded by crushing the Syro-
Ephraimite crisis and by establishing the trans-Jordanian vassals. The account of Ahaz’s reign given by the
author of Kings discussed only the Syrian problem, and consequently viewed Tiglath-pileser’s aid as a significant
force in Ahaz’s defense of Judah. The Chronicler, however, in focusing on Judah;s southern neighbours, perhaps
even irrelevant to the problems Judah faced from its southern and eastern neighbours, and thus the ‘aid’ did not
return the Edomites and Phlistines to Judean control, but turned them into Assyrian vassals”. [1]
The Bible narrative continues
“The king of As·syrʹi·a responded to his request, and he went up to Damascus and captured it and led its people
into exile to Kir, and he put Reʹzin to death.” (16:9)
This is the second time that I read Assyrian policy of exiling the people it captured who rebelled against it. The
Bible-based encyclopedia Insight explains
“Assyria, it seems, was the first to introduce the policy of uprooting and removing the entire populations of
captured towns from their homeland and repopulating the territory with captives from other parts of the empire.
This deportation policy of Assyria was not enforced against only the Jews, for when Damascus, the capital of
Syria, fell under the crushing military onslaught of this second world power, its people were banished to Kir, as
foretold by the prophet Amos. (2Ki 16:8, 9; Am 1:5) The practice had a twofold effect: It discouraged the few
remaining ones from subversive activity; and the surrounding nations that may have been friendly with those
taken captive were less inclined to give aid and assistance to the new foreign element brought in from distant
places.” [2]
From biblical viewpoint, Jehovah God used Assyria as a weapon against Syria to fulfill God’s prophecy against it.
Insight cites that prophecy in its note on “Hazael”
“However, Shalmaneser III evidently failed to take Damascus itself. This was apparently left for Tiglath-pileser III
to accomplish, in the days of Syrian King Rezin. This fulfilled Jehovah’s prophecy through Amos: “I will send a fire
278 | P a g e
onto the house of Hazael, and it must devour the dwelling towers of Ben-hadad. And I will break the bar of
Damascus.”—Am 1:4, 5; 2Ki 16:9.” [3]
Insight repeated that explanation in the discussion on “Damascus”
“During the reign of King Ahaz of Judah (761-746 B.C.E.), Rezin of Damascus, in league with Pekah of Israel,
swept through Judah to Elath on the Gulf of ʽAqaba. This so frightened King Ahaz that he sent a bribe to Tiglath-
pileser III of Assyria, asking him to divert Syrian pressure from Judah. With alacrity, the Assyrian attacked
Damascus, captured it, put Rezin to death, and exiled many of the Damascenes. (2Ki 16:5-9; 2Ch 28:5, 16)
Thereby Jehovah’s prophecies through Isaiah and Amos were fulfilled (Isa 8:4; 10:5, 8, 9; Am 1:3-5)” [4]
Next, the Bible reports another offense against God by King Ahaz. Not only did he fail to trust in Jehovah God, he
continued to promote idolatry, a clear violation of the covenant law
“Then King Aʹhaz went to meet King Tigʹlath-pil·eʹser of As·syrʹi·a at Damascus. When he saw the altar that was in
Damascus, King Aʹhaz sent U·riʹjah the priest a plan of the altar, showing its pattern and how it was made. U·riʹjah
the priest built an altar according to all the directions that King Aʹhaz had sent from Damascus. U·riʹjah the priest
finished building it before King Aʹhaz returned from Damascus. When the king returned from Damascus and saw
the altar, he approached the altar and made offerings on it. And on that altar he continued to make his burnt
offerings and his grain offerings smoke; he also poured out his drink offerings and sprinkled the blood of his
communion sacrifices on it. Then he moved the copper altar that was before Jehovah from its place in front of the
house, from between his own altar and the house of Jehovah, and he put it at the north side of his own altar. King
Aʹhaz commanded U·riʹjah the priest: “Make the morning burnt offering smoke on the great altar, also the evening
grain offering, the king’s burnt offering, and his grain offering, as well as the burnt offerings, the grain offerings,
and the drink offerings of all the people. You should also sprinkle on it all the blood of the burnt offerings and all
the blood of the other sacrifices. As for the copper altar, let me decide what to do with it.” And U·riʹjah the priest
did everything that King Aʹhaz had commanded.” (16: 10-16)
Jehovah’s temple was disrespected by King Ahaz with his own pagan altar built by God’s own high priest. What
did he do with the rest of the copper altar in Jehovah’s temple? He mutilated them, says Insight. For what? The
Bible record answers
“Furthermore, King Aʹhaz cut the side panels of the carriages into pieces and removed the basins from them, and
he took the Sea down off the copper bulls that supported it and put it on a stone pavement. 18 And the covered
structure for the Sabbath that had been built in the house and the king’s outer entryway he shifted away from the
house of Jehovah; he did so because of the king of As·syrʹi·a.” (16: 17,18)
Jehovah God’s temple became a source of the tribute King Ahaz paid to the king of Assyria, Tiglath-pileser III. I
can sense in this narrative the patience of Jehovah God against King Ahaz and with the House of David. King
Ahaz might have thought that he can do things with impunity. But the days of reckoning are drawing close against
the Israel and Judah for their sustained failure to comply with the covenant law. But, can a good king come out
from such an evil king like Ahaz? The Bible concludes the story of Ahaz and introduces his son
“As for the rest of the history of Aʹhaz, what he did, is it not written in the book of the history of the times of the
kings of Judah? Then Aʹhaz was laid to rest with his forefathers and was buried with his forefathers in the City of
David; and his son Hez·e·kiʹah became king in his place.” (16: 19,20)
Would Hezekiah copy the bad example of his father and continue to rely on Assyria to support his kingship? Or,
would he humble himself and trust the God of Israel and of Judah, its true, invisible Sovereign King? That would
be my next reflection.
References
[1] Siddall, Luis Robert. “Tiglath-pileser III’s Aid to Ahaz: A New Look at the Problems of the Biblical Accounts in
Light of the Assyrian Sources”, Ancient Near East Studies 46 (2009), p. 103.
[2] Captivity. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 414.
279 | P a g e
[3] Hazael. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1047.
[4] Damascus. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 572.
280 | P a g e
2.17 Hoshea, last king of Israel, Kingdom falls, dissolves, People send into Exile
2.17.1 Hoshea, last king of Israel, Kingdom falls, dissolves, people send into Exile - Part 1
The fall of Samaria signaled the dissolution of the state of the northern kingdom of Israel. God’s patience has
limits. Israel has finally consumed its limits. Jehovah God decided to use the new, powerful empire of Assyria as
His weapon to smash the kingdom of Israel. It is proof that God exercises His sovereignty on the earth by
removing any ruler or kingdom that God chooses to destroy.
The fall of Samaria began with the rise of King Hoshea
“In the 12th year of King Aʹhaz of Judah, Ho·sheʹa the son of Eʹlah became king over Israel in Sa·marʹi·a; he ruled
for nine years.” (17:1)
Insight comments on this new king
“It appears that Hoshea was not fully recognized as king over Israel until sometime later, however. Second Kings
17:1 states that, in the 12th year of Ahaz, Hoshea “became king in Samaria over Israel for nine years.” So, it may
be that at this point Hoshea was able to establish full control from Samaria. Possibly Assyrian backing at this point
aided him, for the records of Assyrian King Tiglath-pileser III make the claim that he put Hoshea on the throne.—
See chart “Outstanding Dates During the Period of the Kings of Judah and of Israel” in CHRONOLOGY article.” [1]
I first met Hoshea in 2 Kings 15:30 where he is mentioned after killing Pekah
“And he became king in his place in the 20th year of Joʹtham the son of Uz·ziʹah.”
Since Ahaz succeeded Jotham, that provided the basis for the view above. How was Hoshea as king in the last
days of the kingdom of Israel? The Bible reports
“He continued to do what was bad in Jehovah’s eyes, only not to the extent of the kings of Israel prior to him. King
Shal·man·eʹser of As·syrʹi·a came up against him, and Ho·sheʹa became his servant and began to pay tribute to
him.” (17: 2,3)
That was something notable of the last king. He was bad like the other previous kings of Israel but not to the
same degree as them. Still, he was a bad king. What helped him finally get established as king? Insight
comments
“Possibly Assyrian backing at this point aided him, for the records of Assyrian King Tiglath-pileser III make the
claim that he put Hoshea on the throne.” [2]
But later Hoshea rose up against the Assyrians. The Bible reported
“However, the king of As·syrʹi·a learned that Ho·sheʹa was involved in a conspiracy, for he had sent messengers
to King So of Egypt and did not bring the tribute up to the king of As·syrʹi·a as in former years. Therefore, the king
of As·syrʹi·a kept him confined and bound in prison.” (17:4)
Who is this “King So of Egypt”? Insight response below
“Attempts to identify So with secularly known Egyptian rulers of this general period (such as Osorkon IV or
Shabaka) are very uncertain, particularly in view of the uncertainty of Egyptian chronology.” [3]
But this did not save Hoshea nor his kingdom. Hoshea’s political move led to the final fall of Samaria and the
dissolution of the kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians
“The king of As·syrʹi·a invaded the entire land, and he came to Sa·marʹi·a and laid siege to it for three years. In
the ninth year of Ho·sheʹa, the king of As·syrʹi·a captured Sa·marʹi·a. He then led the people of Israel into exile in
As·syrʹi·a and made them dwell in Haʹlah and in Haʹbor at the river Goʹzan and in the cities of the Medes.” (17: 5,6)
281 | P a g e
Who is this “king of Assyria”? In the beginning of the chapter, Shalmaneser of Assyria came up against Hoshea
and made him a vassal king. But later on he rebelled. Who is now the “king of Assyria”? Insight notes the current
evidence from the Assyrian side
“In his annals Sargon made the claim: “I besieged and conquered Samaria (Sa-me-ri-na).” (Ancient Near Eastern
Texts, edited by James B. Pritchard, 1974, p. 284) However, that appears to be simply a boastful claim by Sargon
or those who sought to glorify him, in which the accomplishment of the preceding ruler was claimed for the new
monarch. A Babylonian chronicle, which may be more neutral, states concerning Shalmaneser V: “He ravaged
Samaria.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 73) The Bible, at 2 Kings 18:9, 10,
states simply that Shalmaneser ‘laid siege’ to Samaria and that “they got to capture it.” Compare 2 Kings 17:1-6,
which says that Shalmaneser the king of Assyria imposed tribute on Hoshea, the king of Samaria, and then states
that later “the king of Assyria captured Samaria.”
Inscriptions relating to Sargon illustrate the folly of placing great confidence in the ancient secular records, even to
the point of equating them in value with the Biblical record. Following Sargon’s accession to the throne, the
Babylonians under Merodach-baladan revolted, with the support of Elam. Sargon warred against them at Der but
was evidently unable to smash the revolt. Sargon’s inscriptions show him claiming a complete victory in the battle,
yet the Babylonian Chronicle states that the Elamites defeated the Assyrians, and a text of Merodach-baladan
boasts that he ‘overthrew the Assyrian hosts and smashed their weapons.’ The book Ancient Iraq observes:
“Amusing detail: Merodach-Baladan’s inscription was found at Nimrud, where Sargon had taken it from Uruk . . . ,
replacing it in that city with a clay cylinder bearing his own and, of course, radically different version of the event.
This shows that political propaganda and ‘cold war’ methods are not the privilege of our epoch.”—By G. Roux,
1964, p. 258.” [4]
An article studied the various proposals of scholars evaluating the Assyrian records as to who is the “king of
Assyria” that finally destroyed Samaria
“Shalmaneser V dealt with the rebellious King Hoshea (who had turned to So, king of Egypt, much as Hanunu
would turn to the Egyptians or Nubians a few years later) by besieging Samaria. The city fell in 722 B.C. The
manner of taking the city was consistent with the sense of the verb “hepu” in the Babylonian Chronicle’s
description of the event. Shalmaneser died a natural death shortly thereafter. Sargon II assumed the throne in the
midst of internal strife. In 720 B.C. he defeated the Western coalition and proceeded to besiege and recapture
Samaria during a rapid campaign which included virtually all of the Levant. He deported a significant number of
Israelites to several locations throughout his empire. Samaria never recovered. It remained an Assyrian province
until the end of the empire” [5]
Sargon II was mentioned only once in the Bible. It is a significant data because for many years Bible critics
claimed that this Assyrian king was an invention until archaeology found evidence that he did exist.
Finally, Jehovah God allowed the curses mentioned in the covenant law come true to the 10-tribe Israel, by their
getting exiled in the provinces of Assyria. It fulfilled the words of the prophet Amos. Insight commented on that
“The highly fortified city of Samaria itself was besieged and captured in 740 B.C.E., and the Assyrian army took
the inhabitants “into exile beyond Damascus,” as foretold by Amos. (Am 5:27; 2Ki 17:5, 6)” [6]
Another prophet who prophesied on the fall of Samaria was Hosea. Insight explains
“The prophetic words of Hosea 13:16 concerning Samaria’s fall were fulfilled. Hosea’s prophecy also showed that
Israel would be deserted by her lovers among the nations. (Ho 8:7-10) Indeed, they were of no assistance when
Samaria was destroyed and inhabitants of Israel became Assyrian captives in 740 B.C.E.—2Ki 17:3-6.” [7]
The prophet Isaiah mentioned that Ephraim will be broken in 65 years. Insight offered this explanation how that
prophecy was fulfilled
“With regard to the “sixty-five years” at Isaiah 7:8, which Isaiah prophesied would be the period within which
Ephraim would be “shattered to pieces,” the Commentary on the Whole Bible (by Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown)
282 | P a g e
states: “One deportation of Israel happened within one or two years from this time [the time of Isaiah’s prophecy],
under Tiglath-pileser (2 Kings 15. 29). Another in the reign of Hoshea, under Shalmaneser (2 Kings 17. 1-6), was
about twenty years after. But the final one which utterly ‘broke’ up Israel so as to be ‘not a people,’ accompanied
by a colonization of Samaria with foreigners, was under Esar-haddon, who carried away Manasseh, king of Judah,
also, in the twenty-second year of his reign, sixty-five years from the utterance of this prophecy (cf. Ezra 4.2, 3, 10,
with 2 Kings 17.24; 2 Chronicles 33.11).” [8]
The Bible writer, the prophet Jeremiah, wrote down the reason for God permitting for this to happen
“This happened because the people of Israel had sinned against Jehovah their God, who brought them up out of
the land of Egypt from under the control of Pharʹaoh king of Egypt. They worshipped other gods, they followed the
customs of the nations that Jehovah had driven out from before the Israelites, and they followed the customs that
the kings of Israel had established.” (17: 7-11)
Israel had sinned against Jehovah God for centuries. Their leaders were stubborn despite the mercy God has
been extending to them. The Bible writer Jeremiah recorded the Israelite response to God’s lead
“They continued to serve disgusting idols, about which Jehovah had told them: “You must not do this!” Jehovah
kept warning Israel and Judah through all his prophets and every visionary, saying: “Turn back from your wicked
ways! Keep my commandments and my statutes according to all the law that I commanded your forefathers and
that I sent to you through my servants the prophets.” But they did not listen, and they remained just as stubborn
as their forefathers who had not shown faith in Jehovah their God.” (17: 12-17)
The prophet Jeremiah described them as “stubborn as their forefathers” back in the Sinai wilderness where the
generation that left Egypt perished. It was their forefathers who created the first golden calf and the 10-tribe down
to the day of their perishing stuck to the two golden calves, and they added the sacred pole (Asherim) and Baa
and “to all the army of the heavens”. Regarding this last portion, Insight explains its relationship with the worship
of Baal
“There are indications that Baal and other gods and goddesses of the Canaanite pantheon were associated in the
minds of their worshipers with certain heavenly bodies. For instance, one of the Ras Shamra texts mentions an
offering to “Queen Shapash (the Sun) and to the stars,” and another alludes to “the army of the sun and the host
of the day.”
It is, therefore, noteworthy that the Bible makes several references to the heavenly bodies in connection with Baal
worship. Describing the wayward course of the kingdom of Israel, the Scriptural record states: “They kept leaving
all the commandments of Jehovah . . . , and they began to bow down to all the army of the heavens and to serve
Baal.” (2Ki 17:16)” [9]
The result? The Bible reports God’s attitude towards them
“So Jehovah was very angry with Israel, so that he removed them from his sight. He did not let any remain but the
tribe of Judah alone.” (17:18-23)
References
[1] Hoshea. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1149.
[2] Ibid.
[3] So. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 983.
[4] Sargon. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 865..
[5] Younger, Jr. K. Lawson. “The Fall of Samaria in Light of Recent Research”, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol
61, No. 3 (July 1999), p. 48222.
[6] Amos, Book of. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 100.
[7] Hosea, Book of. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1148.
[8] Ahaz. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 62..
283 | P a g e
2.17.2 Hoshea, last king of Israel, Kingdom falls, dissolves, people send into Exile - Part 2
Would a God of love use violence to discipline His own people? The case of the kingdom of northern Israel
demonstrates that He does. This is not the first time that God who is the Source of life can choose to take away
the lives of humans as His judgment for their failure to repent and change their ways. Human life is precious but
God’s justice and sovereignty has to be upheld and the righteous protected against wicked men. Finally Isarel
received its judgment after the patience of God ran its course. God used the rising power of Assyria to execute his
judgment. As part of Assyrian policies, the Assyrians brought other people to stay in the land of Israel
“The king of As·syrʹi·a then brought people from Babylon, Cuʹthah, Avʹva, Haʹmath, and Seph·ar·vaʹim and settled
them in the cities of Sa·marʹi·a in place of the Israelites; they took possession of Sa·marʹi·a and lived in its
cities. When they first began dwelling there, they did not fear Jehovah. So Jehovah sent lions among them, and
they killed some of the people. It was reported to the king of As·syrʹi·a: “The nations that you have taken into exile
and resettled in the cities of Sa·marʹi·a do not know the religion of the God of the land. So he keeps sending lions
among them, which are putting them to death, because none of them know the religion of the God of the land.””
(17: 24-26)
Insight explains the timing of this migration of people into the land of Israel
“It was perhaps first during Sargon’s reign that people from Babylon and Syria were brought into Samaria to
repopulate it, the Assyrian king later sending an Israelite priest back from exile to instruct them in “the religion of
the God of the land.”—2Ki 17:24-28; see SAMARIA No. 2; SAMARITAN.” [1]
With this transfer, a new set of people who lived in this former kingdom of Israel, would later be called Samaritans.
Insight noted a development with the new settlers and how they came to practice an interfaith or intermixing of
religions
“Lions began to multiply in the land, probably because the land, or a large part of it, had lain waste for a time.
(Compare Ex 23:29.) The settlers doubtless felt, superstitiously, that it was because they did not understand how
to worship the god of the land. Therefore the king of Assyria sent back a calf-worshiping Israelite priest from exile.
He taught the settlers about Jehovah, but in the same manner as Jeroboam had done, so that they learned
something about Jehovah but actually continued to worship their own false gods.—2Ki 17:24-41.” [2]
The Bible reported that this calf-worshiping priest taught the foreigners “how they should fear Jehovah”. (17: 28)
But did they learn to worship Jehovah God properly from this calf-worshiping priest? The Bible reports the end
result
“However, each different nation made their own god, which they placed in the houses of worship on the high
places that the Sa·marʹi·tans had made; each different nation did so in their cities where they were living. So the
men of Babylon made Sucʹcoth-beʹnoth, the men of Cuth made Nerʹgal, the men of Haʹmath made A·shiʹma, and
the Avʹvites made Nibʹhaz and Tarʹtak. The Seʹphar·vites would burn their sons in the fire to A·dramʹme·lech and
A·namʹme·lech, the gods of Seph·ar·vaʹim. Although they feared Jehovah, they appointed priests for the high
places from the people in general, and these officiated for them at the houses of worship on the high
places. Thus, they feared Jehovah, but they worshipped their own gods according to the religion of the nations
from which they had been deported.” (17: 29-33)
The account mentioned several gods - Succoth-benoth, Nergal, Ashima, Nibhaz and Tartak. Some even burn
their sons in the fire to Adrammelech. Insight provided some data on each of these gods
* Ashima - this was a god in the form of a hairless he-goat according to the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 63b)
* Nergal - god of the underworld, of war, and fire and is also a Babylonian deity
* Nibhaz - an unknown god
* Succoth-benoth - derived supposedly from the Babylonian god Merodach, creator of the world
* Tartak - a god in the form of an ass, a demon of the lower region per the Babylonian Talmud
284 | P a g e
Despite the introduction that was given them by a calf-worshiping priest about Jehovah, since they did not live by
the covenant law, these foreign people stuck to their religions. (17:34-39) The Bible concluded the sad ending of
the kingdom of Israel and its getting exiled to Assyria, with its own lands and territories occupied by foreigners
bringing with them their own religion
“But they did not obey, and they followed their former religion. So these nations came to fear Jehovah, but they
were also serving their own graven images. Both their sons and their grandsons have done just as their
forefathers did, down to this day.” (17: 40, 41)
Thus, the state or the kingdom of Israel passed away from history. The list of kings in the table shows that nearly
all of them have failed to comply with the covenant law and instead chose a path of rebellion against Jehovah
God
Despite this setback with God’s purpose, Jehovah God continues to move forward with His set purpose that in
due time will yield the Messiah.
References
[1] Assyria. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 204.
285 | P a g e
2.18 Hezekiah, king of Judah, son of Ahaz

2.18.1 Hezekiah, king of Judah, son of Ahaz - Part 1
Jehovah God’s sovereignty or right to rule over human affairs is not a theoretical or intellectual concept good only
in paper. It is a real, active thing. The Bible is full of examples of God exercising his sovereignty on the earth.
Soon, as the Bible prophecy on Daniel 2: 44 shows God will forcibly exercised his sovereignty on the earth by
removing all other human political institutions on the earth.
In this Biblical narrative found in the books of Kings, Jehovah God exercised His sovereignty by allowing the
kingdom of Israel to be dissolved and its capital Samaria burnt to the ground by the Assyrians and the people
exiled into the various provinces of Assyria. The interesting twist is that the Assyrians boasted that Jehovah God
has nothing to do with their success. Will the mighty, fierce Assyrians experience Jehovah’s exercise of His
sovereignty against them?
The northern kingdom of Israel is gone, the state dissolved, the population exiled by the new imperial power of
Assyria, replacing Egypt. In the midst this development, the southern kingdom of Judah, allied itself with Assyria,
with King Ahaz paying tribute. The king of Israel, Hoshea, rebelled against Assyria leading to its fall. What will the
new king of Judah, son of Ahaz, do under the harsh rule of the Assyrians? Will the kingdom of Judah suffer the
same consequences as the northern kingdom? Samaria was burnt down and its people exiled. Will the same
thing happened with Jerusalem? This is now my reflection point.
The Bible introduces at this time a new king in the southern kingdom of Judah
“In the third year of Ho·sheʹa the son of Eʹlah the king of Israel, Hez·e·kiʹah the son of King Aʹhaz of Judah
became king.” (18:1)
There is a special significance for the “third year of Hoshea” in the text. It is not referring to his ascension to the
role as king. The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight explains
“King of Judah, 745-717 B.C.E. He apparently became king when his father Ahaz died, in “the third year of
Hoshea” king of Israel (perhaps meaning Hoshea’s third year as tributary king under Tiglath-pileser III), counting
his reign officially from Nisan of the following year (745 B.C.E.).” [1]
King Hezekiah is attested in archaeology. One article featured one of the surviving royal seal in his day that was
found
“For the first time, the royal seal of King Hezekiah in the Bible has been found in an archaeological excavation.
The stamped clay seal, also known as a bulla, was discovered in the Ophel excavationsled by Dr. Eilat Mazar at
the foot of the southern wall of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The discovery was announced in a recent press
releaseby the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Institute of Archaeology, under whose auspices the excavations
were conducted.
The bulla, which measures just over a centimeter in diameter, bears a seal impression depicting a two-winged
sun disk flanked by ankh symbols and containing a Hebrew inscription that reads “Belonging to Hezekiah, (son of)
Ahaz, king of Judah.” The bulla was discovered along with 33 other stamped bullae during wet-sifting of dirt from
a refuse dump located next to a 10th-century B.C.E. royal building in the Ophel.
In the ancient Near East, clay bullae were used to secure the strings tied around rolled-up documents. The bullae
were made by pressing a seal onto a wet lump of clay. The stamped bulla served as both a signature and as a
means of ensuring the authenticity of the documents.” [2]
This means that I am not just reading another fictional character in a book that supposedly contains myths,
fictions, and legends. Hezekiah was a real person who trusted in a real God, Jehovah.
286 | P a g e
The city of Samaria fell according to Bible chronology in the year 740 B.C.E. King Hezekiah became king in 745
B.C.E., about 6 years of King Hoshea’s reign and before the fall of Samaria. But Hezekiah as a Judean king is
different. The Bible using the regnal formula of how old he is when he reigned, how long he reigned, his mother’s
name, and what he did with his relationship with Jehovah as king in compliance to the covenant law, describes his
reign
Aʹbi the daughter of Zech·a·riʹah. He kept doing what was right in Jehovah’s eyes, just as David his forefather had
done. He was the one who removed the high places, smashed the sacred pillars, and cut down the sacred pole.
He also crushed the copper serpent that Moses had made; for down to that time the people of Israel had been
making sacrificial smoke to it and it used to be called the copper serpent-idol.” (18: 2-4)
After David, there are very few kings who matched his integrity and loyalty to Jehovah God, the ultimate
Sovereign of Israel and Judah. But Hezekiah was compared with David, “just as David his forefather had done”.
One more thing unique with Hezekiah is that he is the only one “who removed the high places” that had been
there for ages. Not only that.The Bible writer Jeremiah credits him for smashing the sacred pillars, cutting down
the sacred pole, even the copper serpent. This copper serpent is the one mentioned and first deployed in the
days of Moses. Insight comments
“The Israelites kept the copper serpent and later improperly began to worship it, making sacrificial smoke to it.
Hence, as part of his religious reforms, Judean King Hezekiah (745-717 B.C.E.) had the more than 700-year-old
copper serpent crushed to pieces because the people had made an idol of it. According to the Hebrew text, the
account at 2 Kings 18:4 literally reads, “he (one) began to call it Nehushtan.” Some translations leave the word
“Nehushtan” untranslated. (AT; Ro; RS) In Koehler and Baumgartner’s lexicon, suggested meanings of the
Hebrew term nechush·tanʹ are “bronze serpent” and “serpent-idol of bronze.” (Hebräisches und Aramäisches
Lexikon zum Alten Testament, Leiden, 1983, p. 653) The New World Translation appropriately says that the
copper serpent “used to be called the copper serpent-idol.”” [3]
The online Jewish Virtual Library adds this with respect to the “nehushtan”
“The name suggests both its serpentine shape (naḥash) as well as the material (neḥoshet) of which it was made.
Since the smashing of the copper serpent parallels the shattering of the pillars and the cutting down of the
Asherah (ibid.), it was probably located in the Temple court in Jerusalem. It was thus one of the cultic symbols of
the people who assembled in the Temple courts. Like the local shrines (bamot), however, and like the two other
objects named in the verse, it was illegitimate in the Deuteronomic view, in accordance with which Hezekiah
abolished the former and destroyed the latter (ibid.). The Nehushtan probably stood in the Temple court, and the
people believed that it had the power of curing sicknesses. Serpents are also associated with fertility. In this
respect the copper serpent differed from the *cherubim , whose location was in the innermost sanctum of the
Temple, hidden from human sight. Some scholars hold that the copper serpent in Jerusalem was set near "the
stone of Zoheleth ("the crawler's [i.e., serpent's] stone"), which is beside En-Rogel" (I Kings 1:9), that is, outside
the Temple enclosure. However, there are no grounds for connecting the copper serpent with the stone of
Zoheleth. At the latter, sheep and oxen were sacrificed (ibid.), whereas only meal-offerings were offered to the
copper serpent.”
So, the description of Hezekiah, king of Judah, was accurate in the following verse
“He trusted in Jehovah the God of Israel; there was no one like him among all the kings of Judah after him nor
among those prior to him. He held fast to Jehovah. He did not turn away from following him; he continued to keep
the commandments that Jehovah had given to Moses.” (18:5,6)
Insight comments about this description
“Hezekiah was outstanding as a king who “kept sticking to Jehovah,” doing what was right in Jehovah’s eyes and
following his commandments. From the beginning of his reign he proved himself zealous for the promotion of true
worship, not only in Judah but in all the territory of Israel. In following the ways of Jehovah as David his forefather
287 | P a g e
had done, it could be said of Hezekiah that “after him there proved to be no one like him among all the kings of
Judah, even those who had happened to be prior to him.” For this “Jehovah proved to be with him.”—2Ki 18:3-7.”
[4]
It had been a long time that a king was described this way, in terms of the faithfulness, loyalty and compliance to
the covenant law. “He held fast to Jehovah”. How would God respond to such a king? The Bible relates
“And Jehovah was with him. Wherever he went, he acted wisely. He rebelled against the king of As·syrʹi·a and
refused to serve him.” (18: 7)
King Hoshea did that in the northern kingdom of Israel and that kingdom fell, its people exiled, and its capital city
burnt down. Seeing how the northern kingdom of Israel fell to the imperial power of the Assyrians, and how heavy
the tribute was, King Hezekiah chose the path of Hoshea, to rebel against Assyria. But will the consequence be
different for Hezekiah and Jerusalem? The Bible reports a positive development in Hezekiah’s military campaign
“He also defeated the Phi·lisʹtines clear to Gazʹa and its territories, from watchtower to fortified city.” (18: 8)
Insight comments on the significance of this military victory
“From this time onward, Gaza appears to have been generally loyal to Assyria. Hence, it may be that King
Hezekiah’s striking down the Philistines as far as Gaza was a phase of his revolt against Assyria. (2Ki 18:1, 7, 8)”
[5]
Another significant reason is that the military victory was part of a fulfillment of a prophecy by the prophet Joel
“Prophetic References. The prophecy of Joel indicated that because of their selling “the sons of Judah” and “the
sons of Jerusalem” to “the sons of the Greeks,” the Philistines would experience like treatment. (Joe 3:4-8) Since
the words of the prophet Joel appear to have been recorded in the ninth century B.C.E., the defeats of the
Philistines at the hands of Uzziah (2Ch 26:6-8) and Hezekiah (2Ki 18:8) could have been included in the
fulfillment of this prophecy.” [6]
King Hoshea of Israel for his failure to be loyal to Jehovah God did not have God by his side when he chose to
rebel against Assyria. Jehovah God abandoned him to the Assyrians. With the positive description of Hezekiah
and Jehovah God with him, how will the mighty Assyrians fare against Hezekiah? Will they be able to do to
Jerusalem what they did to Samaria? That will be for my next installment.
References
[1] Hezekiah. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1102.
[2] Ngo, Robin. “King Hezekiah in the Bible: Royal Seal of Hezekiah Comes to Light”, Bible History Daily, Biblical
Archaeology Society web site.
[3] Copper Serpent. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 505.
[5] Gaza. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 901.
[6] Philistia. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 633.
288 | P a g e

Will the mighty military machine of the Assyrian empire stand up against the Universal Sovereign Jehovah God?
Can it oppose the sovereignty of God? There is a new world power in the 8th century B.C.E. in the Fertile
Crescent, also known as Ancient Near East. This is the expansionist, imperial power of the Assyrian empire. It
has already started demolishing its opposition from the north of the kingdom of Judah, coming down to the south.
Syria with its capital Damascu and Israel with its capital Samaria already has fallen to the the military might of
Assyria.
The kingdom of Judah initially through King Ahaz chose to be a vassal king to Assyria paying heavy tribute. But
his successor and son, King Hezekiah chose a different path. How will King Hezekiah and the kingdom of Judah
be different from the other city-kingdoms that stood in the way of mighty Assyria and have fallen? This is why the
positive introduction of Hezekiah in the previous chapter and the healthy state of his relationship with the Ultimate
Sovereign Jehovah God plays an important background to the next chain of events. The succeeding narratives
will demonstrate that Jehovah God is for real and that He exercises His sovereignty upon the earth. He can
oppose anyone who will stand up against His sovereignty even the mighty military might of then world power
Assyria.
The next developments is reported by the Bible
“In the fourth year of King Hez·e·kiʹah, that is, the seventh year of Ho·sheʹa the son of Eʹlah the king of Israel,
King Shal·man·eʹser of As·syrʹi·a came up against Sa·marʹi·a and began to lay siege to it. They captured it at the
end of three years; in the sixth year of Hez·e·kiʹah, which was the ninth year of King Ho·sheʹa of Israel, Sa·marʹi·a
was captured. Then the king of As·syrʹi·a took Israel into exile in As·syrʹi·a and settled them in Haʹlah and in
Haʹbor at the river Goʹzan and in the cities of the Medes. This was because they had not listened to the voice of
Jehovah their God but kept violating his covenant, all that Moses the servant of Jehovah had commanded. They
neither listened nor obeyed.” (18: 9-12)
The kingdom of Israel finally realized that they cannot continue opposing God’s sovereignty with impunity.
Jehovah God has been patient with the likes of Jeroboam, Ahab, and the other kings. As the Bible puts it, “they
neither listened nor obeyed”. King Hezekiah saw the consequences of disloyalty and disobedience with the
kingdom of Israel. Ten years later, a new Assyrian king is on a military campaign in the area. The Bible reports
“In the 14th year of King Hez·e·kiʹah, Sen·nachʹer·ib the king of As·syrʹi·a came up against all the fortified cities of
Judah and captured them. So King Hez·e·kiʹah of Judah sent word to the king of As·syrʹi·a at Laʹchish:” (18: 13,
14a)
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight describes who is this new Assyrian king, Sennacherib
“Nineveh, Assyria’s capital, was the site of excavations that unearthed the immense palace of Sennacherib,
containing about 70 rooms, with sculptured slabs lining over 3,000 m (nearly 10,000 ft) of the walls. One depicted
Judean prisoners being led into captivity following the fall of Lachish in 732 B.C.E. (2Ki 18:13-17; 2Ch 32:9;
PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 952)” [1]
The Bible account locates King Sennacherib at Lachish. Archaeologists today are in consensus where Lachish is
and the destruction caused by the Assyrians.
“Sennacherib's campaign against Hezekiah in 701 B.C. is well known and accepted by OT scholars and
Assyriologists because we have unusually complete accounts of the episode from both sides. The third key
"problem" mentioned above is whether or not these accounts indeed refer to only a single episode. As I have
already mentioned, Ussishkin assumes that they do so without arguing the case.
It is generally agreed by OT specialists that 2 Kgs 18:13-16 and Sennacherib's annals of his third campaign in
701 refer to the same event. They correspond in date, in the scope of the conquest of Judah, and in the tribute
exacted from Hezekiah, who is mentioned by name. The question is whether the continuation of the biblical story
in 2 Kgs 18:17-19:36 describes a continuation of the same campaign or whether it reports a later campaign by
289 | P a g e
Sennacherib. The annal in question ends, as far as Judah is concerned, with Hezekiah's payment of tribute;
strangely, Lachish is never mentioned.” [2]
In Hezekiah’s letter to the Assyrian king, the message reads
““I am at fault. Withdraw from against me, and I will give whatever you may impose on me.” The king of As·syrʹi·a
imposed on King Hez·e·kiʹah of Judah a fine of 300 silver talents and 30 gold talents. So Hez·e·kiʹah gave all the
silver that could be found at the house of Jehovah and in the treasuries of the king’s house. At that time
Hez·e·kiʹah removed the doors of the temple of Jehovah and the doorposts that King Hez·e·kiʹah of Judah himself
had overlaid, and he gave them to the king of As·syrʹi·a.” (18: 14b-16)
In effect, King Hezekiah did what his father King Ahaz did before. He surrendered to the Assyrian power and paid
a heavy tribute equivalent to $7.3M dollars (silver talents) and $52M (gold talents) or a total of nearly $60M dollars.
According to documents, King Sennacherib lifted the siege of Lachish due to this tribute. What scholars are
confused about when comparing the Bible and the Assyrian records, is why the Assyrian king sent emissaries to
King Hezekiah to surrender when in fact he has already done so by paying the tribute.
The account that started below became a scholarly issue
“The king of As·syrʹi·a then sent the Tarʹtan, the Rabʹsa·ris, and the Rabʹsha·keh with a vast army from Laʹchish to
King Hez·e·kiʹah in Jerusalem. They went up to Jerusalem and took up a position by the conduit of the upper pool,
which is at the highway of the laundryman’s field.” (18: 17)
This location of this ‘upper pool’ is uncertain today per Insight [3]. The 2013 New World Translation cites “sent the
Tartan, the Rabsaris, and the Rabshakeh”. This is a reflection of advanced knowledge of Bible times. Older Bibles
refer to the same words as “sent Tartan and Rab-saris and Rabshakeh” as if those were names. Advancing Bible
knowledge and Assyrian knowledge helped Bible translation committees to translate them more accurately. Other
Bible versions chose to replace the words with their meanings as “sent his supreme commander, his chief officer
and his field commander”. Insight has additional notes
“The title of the chief court official in the Assyrian and Babylonian governments. The Rabsaris was one of the
committee of three high Assyrian dignitaries that was sent by the king of Assyria to demand the surrender of
Jerusalem in King Hezekiah’s time.—2Ki 18:17.
The Rabsaris was one of the Babylonian officials taking control of Jerusalem for Nebuchadnezzar when the city
fell in 607 B.C.E., and Nebushazban is named as the Rabsaris in connection with Jeremiah’s being directed to
dwell with Gedaliah. (Jer 39:3, 13, 14; 40:1-5) Excavations have unearthed inscriptions bearing the title.—Bulletin
of the Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem, 1967, Vol. XXXI, p. 77; Le palais royal d’Ugarit, III, Paris, 1955,
No. 16:162, p. 126.” [4]
For Rabshakeh, Insight has additional notes
“The title of a major Assyrian official. (2Ki 18:17) A building inscription of the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III says:
“I sent an officer of mine, the rabsaq, to Tyre.” Also, from a tablet in the British Museum an inscription of King
Ashurbanipal reads: “I ordered to add to my former (battle-) forces (in Egypt) the rabsaq -officer.”—Ancient Near
Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, pp. 282, 296.
While Sennacherib, the king of Assyria, was laying siege to the Judean fortress of Lachish, he sent a heavy
military force to Jerusalem under the Tartan, the commander-in-chief, along with two other high officials, the
Rabsaris and the Rabshakeh. (2Ki 18:17; the entire account appears also at Isa chaps 36, 37.) Of these three
superior Assyrian officials, Rabshakeh was the chief spokesman in an effort to force King Hezekiah to capitulate
in surrender. (2Ki 18:19-25) The three stood by the conduit of the upper pool. This Rabshakeh, whose personal
name is not revealed, was a fluent speaker in Hebrew as well as Syrian.” [5]
The three high-ranking officials were met by the three officials of Hezekiah
290 | P a g e
“When they called for the king to come out, E·liʹa·kim son of Hil·kiʹah, who was in charge of the household,
Shebʹnah the secretary, and Joʹah son of Aʹsaph the recorder came out to them.” (18:18)
What was the message of the Rabshakeh, the field commander? The Bible discloses
“So the Rabʹsha·keh said to them: “Please, say to Hez·e·kiʹah, ‘This is what the great king, the king of As·syrʹi·a,
says: “What is the basis for your confidence? You are saying, ‘I have a strategy and the power to wage war,’ but
these are empty words. In whom have you put your trust, so that you dare to rebel against me? Look! You trust in
the support of this crushed reed, Egypt, which if a man should lean on it would enter into his palm and pierce it.
That is the way Pharʹaoh king of Egypt is to all those who trust in him.” (18: 19-21)
The field commander has accused Hezekiah of making an alliance with Egypt, an already weak military power at
this time. The field commander is rebuking Hezekiah that he will not succeed. But is this true? Was Hezekiah
trusting in alliance with Egypt? Insight comments
“Faithful Hezekiah of Judah, however, though falsely accused of trusting in Egypt, relied solely on Jehovah and
was saved from the Assyrian Sennacherib’s attack.—2Ki 18:19-22, 32-35; 19:14-19, 28, 32-36; compare Isa 31:1-
3.” [6]
The message of the Rabshakeh then is misinformation, a propaganda against Hezekiah. Then, the Rabshakeh
added some more misinformation
“And if you should say to me, ‘We trust in Jehovah our God,’ is he not the one whose high places and altars
Hez·e·kiʹah has removed, while he says to Judah and Jerusalem, ‘You should bow down before this altar in
Jerusalem’?”’ So now make this wager, please, with my lord the king of As·syrʹi·a: I will give you 2,000 horses if
you are able to find enough riders for them. How, then, could you drive back even one governor who is the least
of my lord’s servants, while you put your trust in Egypt for chariots and for horsemen? Now is it without
authorization from Jehovah that I have come up against this place to destroy it? Jehovah himself said to me, ‘Go
up against this land and destroy it.’”” (18: 22-25)
The Assyrian field commander confused Hezekiah’s loyalty to Jehovah of removing the high places as the high
places of Jehovah. He also then claimed that it was Jehovah who authorized the Assyrian king to come to
Jerusalem and destroy it. Then, I learnt that the Rabshakeh was speaking in the Hebrew language, the language
of the Jews, instead of Aramaic which was the equivalent of English in ancient times. (18:26)
What is the real motive of the Assyrians by speaking to the Jews in Jerusalem? Why would King Sennacherib
demand a full surrender when King Hezekiah has agreed to pay tribute and become a vassal king? That is for the
next installment.
References
[1] Archaeology. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 148.
[2] Geraty, Lawrence. “Archaeology and the Bible at Hezekiah’s Lachish”, Andrews University Seminary Studies,
Vol 25, Number 1, Article 1, 1987, p. 30.
[3] Pool. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 651.
[4] Rabsaris. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 725.
[5] Rabshakeh. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 725.
[6] Alliance. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 77.
291 | P a g e

It is unthinkable that humans would array themselves in confrontation against the Almighty. But Bible history
shows that there are such men. During the height of the glory days of Egyptian pharaohs, the Pharaoh during the
time of Moses thought that he was invincible and he rejected that there is another Ruler, another god, superior to
him, son of their god Ra. ‘Who is Jehovah that I should listen to his voice? I don’t know Jehovah and I will not let
Israel go.’ Pharaoh brought it upon himself for Jehovah to show who He is, the real Sovereign and who can
depose and destroy who will stand in His way. For the first time, the Sovereign Lord Jehovah declared, that
nations shall know ‘that I am Jehovah’.
Nearly 800 years later, with the rise of a new, seemingly unstoppable military might of Assyria, comes another
human ruler who thought himself invincible, the Assyrian king Sennacherib who sent messengers defying the God
of King Hezekiah, the same God of Moses. The battle is almost predictable. It is faith strengthening as much as it
is entertaining to see a puny human ruler stand up against Jehovah God, the Sovereign Lord. Just like Pharaoh,
King Sennacherib of Assyria brought it upon himself to be humiliated and destroyed.
The Bible narrative discloses how it all happened. In the previous reflection, Sennacherib sent his top three
military officials to Jerusalem to confront King Hezekiah. The Assyrian field commander or the Rabshakeh finally
disclosed why he was speaking all these words in the first place to the crowd on the walls of Jerusalem
“But the Rabʹsha·keh said to them: “Is it just to your lord and to you that my lord sent me to speak these words? Is
it not also to the men who sit on the wall, those who will eat their own excrement and drink their own urine along
with you?”” (18: 27)
What a display of arrogance from the mighty military officers of the Assyrians! Changing tactics, the Rabshakeh
delivered what appeared to be a logical line of reasoning
“Then the Rabʹsha·keh stood and called out loudly in the language of the Jews, saying: “Hear the word of the
great king, the king of As·syrʹi·a. This is what the king says, ‘Do not let Hez·e·kiʹah deceive you, for he is not able
to rescue you out of my hand. And do not let Hez·e·kiʹah cause you to trust in Jehovah by saying: “Jehovah will
surely rescue us, and this city will not be given into the hand of the king of As·syrʹi·a.” Do not listen to Hez·e·kiʹah,
for this is what the king of As·syrʹi·a says: “Make peace with me and surrender, and each of you will eat from his
own vine and from his own fig tree and will drink the water of his own cistern, until I come and take you to a land
like your own land, a land of grain and new wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of olive trees and honey.
Then you will live and not die. Do not listen to Hez·e·kiʹah, for he misleads you by saying, ‘Jehovah will rescue
us.’ Have any of the gods of the nations rescued their land out of the hand of the king of As·syrʹi·a? Where are the
gods of Haʹmath and Arʹpad? Where are the gods of Seph·ar·vaʹim, Heʹna, and Ivʹvah? Have they rescued
Sa·marʹi·a out of my hand? Who among all the gods of the lands have rescued their land out of my hand, so that
Jehovah should rescue Jerusalem out of my hand?”’”” (18: 28-35)
There are four instances of ‘do not’ that the Rabshakeh commanded the Jews
* do not let Hezekiah deceive you

* do not let Hezekiah cause you to trust in Jehovah
* do not listen to Hezekiah, twice
Even in the ancient times, psy-war is already part of warfare. The Assyrians have falsely accused Hezekiah of
relying on the Egyptians for military support against the Assyrians. Now, they are using the fact that Hezekiah
relies on his God Jehovah will also be a disappointment. Their logic seems solid - ‘have any of the gods of the
nations rescued their land out of the hand of the king of Assyria?” Of course, the gods of the nations were non-
gods and were unable to rescue them from the king of Assyria.
I already know that King Hezekiah is paying tribute to Assyria just like his father Ahaz did. The detail of the siege
that the Bible reported King Sennacherib of Assyria also boasted in his records. A reference translated the record
from what is known as Taylor Prism. Below is what is partly written in it that parallels the Bible’s own account
292 | P a g e
“'As for Hezekiah the Judahite who had not submitted to my yoke, I surrounded 46 of his strong walled towns, and
innumerable small places around them, and conquered them by means of earth ramps and siege engines, attack
by infantrymen, mining, breaching, and scaling. 200,150 people of all ranks, men and women, horses, mules,
donkeys, camels, cattle and sheep without number I brought out and counted as spoil. He himself I shut up in
Jerusalem, his royal city, like a bird in a cage. I put watch-posts around him, and made it impossible for anyone to
go out of his city. The cities which I had despoiled I cut off from his territory and gave to Mitinti king of Ashdod,
Padi king of Ekron, and Sil-Bel king of Gaza, so reducing his realm. I added to their previous annual tax a tribute
befitting my lordship, and imposed it on them. Now the fear of my lordly splendour overwhelmed that Hezekiah.
The warriors and select troops he had brought in to strengthen his royal city, Jerusalem, did not fight. He had
brought after me to Nineveh, my royal city, 30 talents of gold, 800 talents of silver, best antimony, great blocks of
red stone, ivory-decorated beds.” [1]
I did note that Sennacherib has never claimed that he captured Jerusalem in his campaign against it. This is
important data as the Bible record will later disclose why he failed. How did the Jews though respond to this
Assyrian propaganda? The Bible reported
“But the people kept silent and did not say a word to him in reply, for the order of the king was, “You must not
answer him.” But E·liʹa·kim son of Hil·kiʹah, who was in charge of the household, Shebʹnah the secretary, and
Joʹah son of Aʹsaph the recorder came to Hez·e·kiʹah with their garments ripped apart and told him the words of
the Rabʹsha·keh.” (18: 36, 37)
Was it easy for King Hezekiah to deal with this? The Bible reported
“As soon as King Hez·e·kiʹah heard this, he ripped his garments apart and covered himself with sackcloth and
went into the house of Jehovah. Then he sent E·liʹa·kim, who was in charge of the household, Shebʹnah the
secretary, and the elders of the priests, covered with sackcloth, to the prophet Isaiah, the son of Aʹmoz. They said
to him: “This is what Hez·e·kiʹah says, ‘This day is a day of distress, of rebuke, and of disgrace; for the children
are ready to be born, but there is no strength to give birth. Perhaps Jehovah your God will hear all the words of
the Rabʹsha·keh, whom the king of As·syrʹi·a his lord sent to taunt the living God, and he will call him to account
for the words that Jehovah your God has heard. So offer up a prayer in behalf of the remnant who have
survived.’”” (19:1-4)
King Hezekiah did several things
* he covered himself with sackcloth, a symbol for mourning and grief

* he sent his leaders and council to the prophet Isaiah, asking Jehovah God for help
How did his God Jehovah respond to the abuse heaped by the Assyrian representatives? The issue has now
become God’s sovereignty as exercised in the kingdom of Judah. The prophet Isaiah responded back
“So the servants of King Hez·e·kiʹah went in to Isaiah, and Isaiah said to them: “This is what you should say to
your lord, ‘This is what Jehovah says: “Do not be afraid because of the words that you heard, the words with
which the attendants of the king of As·syrʹi·a blasphemed me.Here I am putting a thought in his mind, and he will
hear a report and return to his own land; and I will make him fall by the sword in his own land.”’”” (19: 5-7)
The prophecy predicted that King Sennacherib will return to his own land, that is withdraw from Jerusalem, and in
his own land, fall by the sword. An examination of the Assyrian records have proved that Sennacherib died by the
sword in his own land. A deciphered Assyrian record relates the story as presented by one scholar in his blog site
“In 694, Sennacherib eldest son and heir-designate Assur-n 茫 din-sumi is captured by Babylonians and carried
off to Elam; he is no more heard of. The second-eldest son, Arda-Mulissi, now has every reason to expect to be
the next crown prince; however, he is outmaneuvered from this position in favor of Esarhaddon, another son of
Sennacherib. This one is younger than Arda-Mulissi but becomes the favorite son of Sennacherib thanks to his
mother Naqia, who is not the mother of ArdaMulissi. Eventually, Esarhaddon is officially proclaimed crown prince,
and all Assyria is made to swear allegiance to him. However, ArdaMulissi enjoys considerable popularity among
293 | P a g e
certain circles who would like to see him as their future king rather than sickly Esarhaddon. As years pass, the
opposition to Esarhaddon grows, while at the same time Arda-Mulissi and his brother(s) gain in popularity. This
political development leads to a turn of events, but not to the one hoped for by ArdaMulissi and his supporters.
Foreseeing trouble, Sennacherib sends Esarhaddon away from the capital to the western provinces; yet he does
not revise the order of succession. In this situation, Arda-Mulissi and his borther(s) soon find themselves in a
stalemate. On the one hand, they are at their political zenith while their rival brother has to languish in exile; on
the other hand, the latter remains the crown prince, and there is nothing his brothers can do about it since the
position of Sennacherib remains unchanged and Esarhaddon himself is out of reach in the provinces. Supposing
he were able to score military victories, his popularity would undoubtedly rise while that of his brothers might
easily start to sink. The only way for them to make good of the situation, it seems, is to act swiftly and take over
the kingship by force. A "treaty of rebellion" is concluded; and probably not much later, Sennacherib is stabbed to
death by Arda-Mulissi or, perhaps, crushed alive under a winged bull colossus guarding the temple where he had
been praying at the time of the murder .This reconstruction closely follows Esarhaddon's own account of the
events. and similar interpretations have been presented earlier by others.
I believe, however. that the story now rests on a firmer ground than before. Surely we are now in a position to
finally acquit the harassed king of the murder charge he does not deserve. and convict the man to whom all the
evidence points (and who in his lifetime escaped punishment by fleeing to the .'land of Ararat").” [2]
The immediate threat appeared to have relaxed by the next Bible report
“After the Rabʹsha·keh heard that the king of As·syrʹi·a had pulled away from Laʹchish, he returned to him and
found him fighting against Libʹnah. Now the king heard it said about King Tir·haʹkah of E·thi·oʹpi·a: “Here he has
come out to fight against you.”” (19:8,9)
Regarding this new development, the Bible-based encyclopedia Insight comments
“The Assyrian committee returned to Sennacherib, who was now fighting against Libnah, as it was being heard
“respecting Tirhakah the king of Ethiopia: ‘Here he has come out to fight against you.’” (2Ki 19:8, 9) Sennacherib’s
inscriptions speak of a battle at Eltekeh (c. 15 km [9.5 mi] NNW of Ekron) in which he claims to have defeated an
Egyptian army and the forces of “the king of Ethiopia.” He then describes his conquest of Ekron and his
restoration of the freed Padi to the throne there.—Ancient Near Eastern Texts, pp. 287, 288.” [3]
However, other scholars claim that because of the mention of “King Tirhakah of Ethiopia”, there were two
campaigns by Sennacherib against Jerusalem. One paper cited the king of Ethiopia
“The second reason is that the Biblical records bring Sennacherib's campaign or one of his campaigns, if there
were two-in connection with "Tirhakah king of Ethiopia" (z Ki 19 : g; Is 37 : 9) ; but the campaign of Sennacherib,
of which numerous Assyrian annal editions have come to light, took place in 701 B.c., some 12 years before
Tirhakah came to the throne.” [4]
An OT scholar also laid his assessment why he felt that the two campaign theory was more believable rather than
the one-campaign theory of Sennacherib. Below are his notes
“As mentioned before, scholars differ on their interpretation of the events recorded in the eighteenth and
nineteenth chapters of 2 Kings. Those who propose the “one campaign theory” believe that the events recorded
above refer to Sennacherib’s campaign against Hezekiah which occurred in 701 B.C. This argument is based on
Assyrian records which do not mention a campaign by Sennacherib into Palestine after 701 B.C.
The “two campaign theory” is discussed by John Bright in his book A History of Israel(Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press, 1981), pp. 298-309. This view proposes that the text refers to two different campaigns against
Hezekiah. 2 Kings 18:13-16 refers to Sennacherib’s first campaign which took place in 701 B.C. After receiving
tribute from Hezekiah, Sennacherib returned home.
According to Bright, 2 Kings 18:17 through 19:37 refers to a second campaign, probably in 688 B.C. The two
campaign theory addresses the problem of Sennacherib sending an embassy to Hezekiah after receiving
294 | P a g e
Hezekiah’s tribute. It also explains the appearance of the Egyptian king Tirhakah mentioned in 2 Kings 19:9, since
according to Egyptian record, Tirhakah began to reign in 690 B.C. Those who reject the two campaign theory, say
that the presence of Tirhakah in 2 Kings 19:9 is an anachronism. Although scholars are divided on this issue, I
believe the two campaign theory provides a better explanation of 2 Kings 18-19 and takes seriously the mention
of Tirhakah in 2 Kings 19:9.” [5]
Since the issue is chronology and dates, the Bible-based encyclopedia Insight comments
“Usually identified as Pharaoh Taharqa, although the dates generally assigned by modern historians to Taharqa’s
rule do not fit Biblical chronology. (For evidence favoring Biblical chronology over the secular, see
CHRONOLOGY [Bible Chronology and Secular History].) During Hezekiah’s reign, while Assyrian King
Sennacherib was fighting against Libnah, news came that Tirhakah, the Ethiopian king of Egypt, was on his way
to fight the Assyrians. (2Ki 19:8, 9; Isa 37:8, 9) An Assyrian inscription, though not mentioning Tirhakah, indicates
that Sennacherib defeated the forces that came from Egypt and captured “the charioteers of the king of Ethiopia.””
[6]
Is Jerusalem now free from the Assyrian threat? That will be my next reflection.
References
[1] Millard, A.R. “Sennacherib’s Attack on Hezekiah”, The Tyndale Biblical Archaeology Lecture 1984, Tyndale
Bulletin 36, 1985, p.62.
[2] Parpola, Simo. “The Murderer of Sennacherib”, extracted from Death in Mesopotamia, XXVIeme Rencontre
Assyriologique Internationale, edited by Professor Bendt Alster, Akademisk Forlag, 1980.
[3] Sennacherib. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 894.
[4] Horn, Siegfried. “Did Sennacherib Campaign Once or Twice Against Hezekiah?” , Andrews University
Seminary Studies, Vol 4, Number 1, January 1966, p. 1.
[5] Mariottini, Claude. “Hezekiah and Sennacherib”, Dr. Claude Mariottini, Professor of Old Testament blog site.
[6] Tirhakah. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1109.
295 | P a g e

What would an arrogant king at the peak of a siege enforced by his military might discover one morning that
185,000 fierce warriors of his army were all dead? Well, retreat! That is how Jehovah God, the Sovereign Lord,
humiliated King Sennacherib and his arrogant army when it confronted God.
How far would Assyrian representatives of King Sennacherib go to weaken the resolve of the Jews in Jerusalem?
They decided to attack the God of Israel, Jehovah himself. The day of reckoning against the Assyrians is drawing
close.
While the king of Assyria was distracted by the forces of Ethiopia, the Assyrians temporarily shifted their attention
somewhere else. But he sent his messengers to continue the pressure on King Hezekiah of Judah. The
messengers originally attacked Hezekiah to weaken the confidence of the Jews on their king. They falsely made
claims that Jehovah God had authorized them to attack Jerusalem. Those words did not work out. They have now
decided to attack their confidence on their God Jehovah. The Bible reports
“So he sent messengers again to Hez·e·kiʹah, saying: “This is what you should say to King Hez·e·kiʹah of Judah,
‘Do not let your God in whom you trust deceive you by saying: “Jerusalem will not be given into the hand of the
king of As·syrʹi·a.” Look! You have heard what the kings of As·syrʹi·a did to all the lands by devoting them to
destruction. Will you alone be rescued? Did the gods of the nations that my forefathers destroyed rescue them?
Where are Goʹzan, Haʹran, Reʹzeph, and the people of Eʹden who were in Tel-asʹsar? Where is the king of
Haʹmath, the king of Arʹpad, and the king of the cities of Seph·ar·vaʹim, and of Heʹna, and of Ivʹvah?’”” (19: 9-13)
The words were strong - ‘do not let your God in whom you trust deceive you’. The challenge of the Assyrians was
simple, ‘will you alone be rescued?’ The fight is no longer about Hezekiah. The Assyrians escalated the battle
between them and their gods and Jehovah the true God. Hezekiah understood this. So he brought the letter to the
temple of God. The Bible reports
“Hez·e·kiʹah took the letters out of the hand of the messengers and read them. Hez·e·kiʹah then went up to the
house of Jehovah and spread them out before Jehovah. And Hez·e·kiʹah began to pray before Jehovah and say:
“O Jehovah the God of Israel, sitting enthroned above the cherubs, you alone are the true God of all the kingdoms
of the earth. You made the heavens and the earth. Incline your ear, O Jehovah, and hear! Open your eyes, O
Jehovah, and see! Hear the words that Sen·nachʹer·ib has sent to taunt the living God. It is a fact, O Jehovah,
that the kings of As·syrʹi·a have devastated the nations and their lands. And they have thrown their gods into the
fire, because they were not gods but the work of human hands, wood and stone. That is why they could destroy
them. But now, O Jehovah our God, please save us out of his hand, so that all the kingdoms of the earth may
know that you alone are God, O Jehovah.”” (19: 14-19)
Hezekiah clearly understood that Jehovah has to respond to the arrogance of the Assyrians so that “all the
kingdoms of the earth may know that you alone are God”. Jehovah God through the prophet Isaiah who has been
helping Hezekiah responded
“ Isaiah son of Aʹmoz then sent this message to Hez·e·kiʹah: “This is what Jehovah the God of Israel says, ‘I have
heard your prayer to me concerning King Sen·nachʹer·ib of As·syrʹi·a.” (19:20)
Those words must be heart-warming and encouraging to Hezekiah. Jehovah is alive and is listening to his prayers.
What did Jehovah say? In poetic language, Jehovah told Isaiah
“The virgin daughter of Zion despises you, she scoffs at you.

The daughter of Jerusalem shakes her head at you.
Whom have you taunted and blasphemed?
Against whom have you raised your voice
And lifted your arrogant eyes?
It is against the Holy One of Israel!
Through your messengers you have taunted Jehovah and said,
296 | P a g e
‘With the multitude of my war chariots

I will ascend the heights of mountains,
The remotest parts of Lebʹa·non.
I will cut down its lofty cedars, its choice juniper trees.
I will enter its farthest retreats, its densest forests.
I will dig wells and drink foreign waters;
I will dry up all the streams of Egypt with the soles of my feet.’
Have you not heard? From long ago it was determined.
From days gone by I have prepared it.
Now I will bring it about.
You will turn fortified cities into desolate piles of ruins.
Their inhabitants will be helpless;
They will be terrified and put to shame.
They will become as vegetation of the field and green grass,
As grass of the roofs that is scorched by the east wind.
But I well know when you sit, when you go out, when you come in,
And when you are enraged against me,
Because your rage against me and your roaring have reached my ears.
So I will put my hook in your nose and my bridle between your lips,
And I will lead you back the way you came.”
I notice that Hebrew poetry is full of parallelisms whether those are synonymous or contrasting parallelisms, and
concrete imagery. For example, the first line
“The virgin daughter of Zion despises you,

She scoffs at you”
That is a very good example of parallelism. The “virgin daughter of Zion” is parallel with “she” while “despises you”
is parallel with “scoffs at you”. There are two similar ideas in the parallels. While the phrases “raised your voice”,
“lifted your arrogant eyes”, “hook in your nose”, and “bridle between your lips” are all examples of concrete
imagery.
The first response illustrated how Judah should feel towards her enemy, “the daughter of Jerusalem shakes her
head at you”, referring to Sennacherib and his forces. Sennacherib will fail as the last line of the poem says, “and
I will lead yo back the way you came”.
The conclusion is another poem
“‘Therefore this is what Jehovah says about the king of As·syrʹi·a:

“He will not come into this city
Or shoot an arrow there
Or confront it with a shield
Or cast up a siege rampart against it.
By the way he came he will return;
He will not come into this city,” declares Jehovah.
“I will defend this city and save it for my own sake
And for the sake of my servant David.”’”
Jehovah repeatedly keeps saying “he will not come into this city” and “by the way he came he will return”. The
role of emphasis is important to reinforce God’s message to Hezekiah. It is encouraging for Hezekiah to hear that
no arrow, shield or siege rampart will even come close against Jerusalem. TThose words must have calmed the
heart of Hezekiah especially the fighting words of God in the last couplet, “I will defend this city”.
297 | P a g e
What happened to the great army of Sennacherib outside the walls of Jerusalem? The Bible reports
“On that very night the angel of Jehovah went out and struck down 185,000 men in the camp of the As·syrʹi·ans.
When people rose up early in the morning, they saw all the dead bodies. So King Sen·nachʹer·ib of As·syrʹi·a
departed and returned to Ninʹe·veh and stayed there. And as he was bowing down at the house of his god
Nisʹroch, his own sons A·dramʹme·lech and Shar·eʹzer struck him down with the sword and then escaped to the
land of Arʹa·rat. And his son Eʹsar-hadʹdon became king in his place.” (19: 35-37)
For the first time in the Bible and the only instance mentioned, that one angel of Jehovah struck down 185,000
Assyrian soldiers. Imagine the horror of Sennacherib upon hearing this report! What did he do? He ‘departed and
returned to Nineveh’. The promise of Jehovah God came true. He humiliated the arrogant king. God exercised his
sovereignty over Sennacherib and he was helpless against it. To complete God’s humiliation of Sennacherib, the
Bible reports he being put to death by his own sons.
Bible scholars could not find an explanation outside of the Bible why Sennacherib did not record his conquest of
Jerusalem. Can we expect the arrogant Assyrians to record their defeat in the hands of the Sovereign Lord
Jehovah? A Bible-based publication cited a scholar
[1] “A Book You Can Trust -Part 2. Assyria and Bible History”, Awake! Magazine, December 2010.
“Note, though, that Sennacherib does not claim to have conquered Jerusalem. In fact, he says nothing about the
crushing defeat his army suffered through divine intervention. According to the Bible, God’s angel took the lives of
185,000 Assyrian soldiers in one night. (2 Kings 19:35, 36) Says scholar Jack Finegan: “In view of the general
note of boasting which pervades the inscriptions of the Assyrian kings, however, it is hardly to be expected that
Sennacherib would record such a defeat.” [1]
First, arrogant Pharaoh of the time of Moses met his end in the Red Sea. Next, Sennacherib was humiliated with
185,000 dead soldiers and later with his own death. This increases one’s confidence that Jehovah God as a
Sovereign acts to impose His will when it is time to do so. Soon, God will act once again to clear this earth of all
human political institution. No superpower or super empire can stop Him.
Reference
[1] “A Book You Can Trust -Part 2. Assyria and Bible History”, Awake! Magazine, December 2010.
298 | P a g e

Hezekiah for all the positive assessment given to him when he was introduced into the Bible narrative made a
mistake that would come back against the kingdom of his sons. Hezekiah humbled himself and Jehovah God
forgave him for his show of humility.
King Hezekiah became sick with an apparently incurable disease. How did he respond to this new challenge? The
Bible reports
“In those days Hez·e·kiʹah became sick and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah the son of Aʹmoz came
and said to him, “This is what Jehovah says: ‘Give instructions to your household, for you will die; you will not
recover.’” (20:1)
The words of the prophet was discouraging to Hezekiah. He would die from his illness. How did Hezekiah
respond to Isaiah’s message? Did he just accept the prophet’s instruction? The Bible reports
“At that he turned his face to the wall and began to pray to Jehovah: “I beg you, O Jehovah, remember, please,
how I have walked before you faithfully and with a complete heart, and I have done what was good in your eyes.”
And Hez·e·kiʹah began to weep profusely.” (20: 2,3)
Hezekiah up until this sequence of narratives have proved to be the only one who was like David his forefathers.
So on this basis, he appealed for Jehovah God to change his heart. Does God changes His mind? Let the Bible
report
“Isaiah had not yet gone out to the middle courtyard when Jehovah’s word came to him, saying: “Go back and say
to Hez·e·kiʹah, the leader of my people, ‘This is what Jehovah the God of David your forefather says: “I have
heard your prayer. I have seen your tears. Here I am healing you. On the third day you will go up to the house of
Jehovah. I will add 15 years to your life, and I will rescue you and this city out of the hand of the king of As·syrʹi·a,
and I will defend this city for my own sake and for the sake of David my servant.”’”” (20: 4-6)
God has changed His mind! He told the prophet Isaiah to return and told the kind three important messages
* he will recover
* his life will be longer by 15 years
* Jerusalem will be defended against the king of Assyria
One possible explanation for Jehovah God to heal Hezekiah was at this time he still had no heir. If Jehovah gave
him 15 more years, and his son Manasseh was 12 when he became king, after Hezekiah’s 29 years of reign, then
he still does not have an heir at the time he got sick. Interestingly, Isaiah instructed to bring pressed dried figs to
Hezekiah. (20: 7) The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight comments on the figs
“Pressed figs also had medicinal value. A poultice of pressed, dried figs was applied to a boil that threatened the
life of King Hezekiah, though his subsequent recovery was principally due to divine intervention.—2 Kings 20:4-7.”
[1]
Something extraordinary happened next. Hezekiah sought a sign that he will recover. Isaiah told him what the
sign will be
“Isaiah replied: “This is the sign from Jehovah to show you that Jehovah will carry out the word that he has
spoken: Do you want the shadow on the stairway to move forward ten steps or back ten steps?” Hez·e·kiʹah said:
“It is an easy thing for the shadow to extend itself ten steps but not to go back ten steps.” So Isaiah the prophet
called out to Jehovah, and He made the shadow on the stairway of Aʹhaz go back ten steps after it had already
descended the steps.” (20: 9-11)
What is the significance of this miracle? It has something to do with time, reverting back 10 steps. What is the
significance of the ‘shadow on the steps’? Insight comments on that
299 | P a g e
“As to “the shadow of the steps” referred to at Isaiah 38:8 and 2 Kings 20:8-11, this may possibly refer to a
sundial method of keeping time, whereby shadows were projected by the sun on a series of steps.—See SUN
(Shadow That Went Ten Steps Back).” [2]
Was that a physical change in the sun and earth movement? Insight explored the miracle
“The use of sundials extends back beyond the eighth century B.C.E. in both Babylon and Egypt. However, the
Hebrew word ma·ʽalohthʹ, translated “dial” at 2 Kings 20:11 and Isaiah 38:8, in the King James Version, literally
means “steps” (NW) or “degrees,” as is indicated in the King James Version marginal readings on these verses.
This word is also used in the superscriptions of the 15 ‘Songs of the Ascents,’ Psalms 120 to 134.
In the scriptures mentioned, at 2 Kings 20:8-11 and Isaiah 38:4-8, the account is related of the portent God gave
sick King Hezekiah in answer to Isaiah’s prayer. It consisted of causing a shadow that had gradually fallen to
reverse its direction and go back up ten steps. This could refer to the steps, or degrees, of a dial for measuring
time, and it is not impossible that Hezekiah’s father possessed such a sundial, even obtaining it from Babylon.
However, the Jewish historian Josephus in discussing the account speaks of these steps of Ahaz as being “in the
house,” apparently indicating that they formed part of a stairway. (Jewish Antiquities, X, 29 [ii, 1]) There may have
been a column placed alongside the stairs to receive the sun’s rays and cause a shadow to extend gradually
along the steps and serve as a measurement of time.
The miracle performed could have involved the relationship between earth and sun, and if so, it could have been
similar to the miracle recorded at Joshua 10:12-14. (See POWER, POWERFUL WORKS [Sun and moon stand
still].) It appears that this portent had far-reaching effects, inasmuch as 2 Chronicles 32:24, 31 shows that
messengers were sent from Babylon to Jerusalem to inquire about it.” [3]
Did we lose time because of that retreat of the shadow? There seems to be no answer or even how God did the
miracle from a natural perspective.
After this miracle, news of Hezekiah’s recovery reached all the way to Babylon where Merodach-baladan was
reigning as king.
“At that time the king of Babylon, Be·roʹdach-balʹa·dan son of Balʹa·dan, sent letters and a gift to Hez·e·kiʹah, for
he had heard that Hez·e·kiʹah had been sick. Hez·e·kiʹah welcomed them and showed them his entire treasure-
house—the silver, the gold, the balsam oil and other precious oil, his armory, and everything that was to be found
in his treasuries. There was nothing that Hez·e·kiʹah did not show them in his own house and in all his dominion.”
(20:12, 13)
Who is this Berodach-baladan, king of Babylon? Insight explains
“The son of Baladan” and king of Babylon who sent letters and a gift to King Hezekiah of Judah following that
king’s recovery from illness. (Isa 39:1) He is called “Berodach-baladan” at 2 Kings 20:12, but this difference is
generally considered to be the result of a scribal error, or else to represent an attempt at transliterating an
Akkadian consonant with a sound somewhere between that of “m” and “b.”
The name of Merodach-baladan occurs in Assyrian and Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions as “Marduk-apla-
iddina.” He there appears as the ruler of a Chaldean district known as Bit-Yakin, situated in the marshlands above
the head of the Persian Gulf and S of Babylon. He claims royal descent, giving the name of King Eriba-Marduk of
Babylon (considered as of the early part of the eighth century B.C.E.) as his forefather.—Iraq, London, 1953,
Vol. XV, p. 124.” [4]
What is the significance of the visit of this Babylonian king? Insight, again, explains
Sends Delegation to Hezekiah. Merodach-baladan is stated to have entered Babylon and proclaimed himself
king at the time of the accession of Sargon II to the Assyrian throne. Merodach-baladan had the support of the
Elamites in this action, and although Sargon soon endeavored to dislodge him from Babylon, the Chaldean was
able to maintain his position there for a period of about 12 years, according to the Babylonian King List. It may
300 | P a g e
have been during this time that he sent his embassy to King Hezekiah, either in the 14th year of the Judean king
(732 B.C.E.) or shortly thereafter. It is suggested by some, including Jewish historian Josephus, that Merodach-
baladan’s expressions of interest in Hezekiah’s health involved more than a formality and that his ulterior motive
was to attempt to gain the support of the kingdom of Judah, along with that of Elam, in a coalition against Assyria.
At any rate, Hezekiah’s action in showing the royal treasure-house and his armory (2Ki 20:13) to the Chaldean’s
messengers was roundly condemned by the prophet Isaiah as presaging eventual conquest of Judah by
Babylon.—Isa 39:2-7.” [5]
King Hezekiah made a mistake here by showing the Babylonian king everything that he had. Isaiah was sent by
Jehovah to rebuke Hezekiah
“After that Isaiah the prophet came in to King Hez·e·kiʹah and asked him: “What did these men say, and where did
they come from?” So Hez·e·kiʹah said: “They came from a distant land, from Babylon.” Next he asked: “What did
they see in your house?” Hez·e·kiʹah replied: “They saw everything in my house. There was nothing that I did not
show them in my treasuries.”” (20: 14, 15)
What is God’s judgment over Hezekiah on this matter? Jehovah decided calamity for Jerusalem
“Isaiah now said to Hez·e·kiʹah: “Hear the word of Jehovah, ‘Look! Days are coming, and all that is in your house
and all that your forefathers have stored up to this day will be carried off to Babylon. Nothing will be left,’ says
Jehovah. ‘And some of your own sons to whom you will become father will be taken and will become court
officials in the palace of the king of Babylon.’”” (20: 16-18)
Insight comments on Hezekiah’s response to the rebuke
“Hezekiah’s Mistake and Repentance. The Scripture record states that “according to the benefit rendered him
Hezekiah made no return, for his heart became haughty and there came to be indignation against him and
against Judah and Jerusalem.” (2Ch 32:25) The Bible does not say whether or not this haughtiness was
connected with his unwise act in showing the entire treasure of his house and all his dominion to the messengers
of the Babylonian king Berodach-baladan (Merodach-baladan) who were sent to Hezekiah after he recovered
from his illness. Hezekiah may have displayed all this wealth to impress the king of Babylon as a possible ally
against the king of Assyria. This, of course, could tend to excite the greed of the Babylonians. The prophet Isaiah
was against any alliance with or dependence on God’s age-old enemy Babylon. When Isaiah heard how
Hezekiah had treated the Babylonian messengers, he uttered the inspired prophecy from Jehovah that the
Babylonians in time would carry away everything to Babylon, including some of Hezekiah’s descendants.
Hezekiah, however, humbled himself and God kindly allowed that the calamity would not come in his days.—2Ki
20:12-19; 2Ch 32:26, 31; Isa 39:1-8.” [6]
An important data associated with Hezekiah was mentioned in the summary of his reign
“As for the rest of the history of Hez·e·kiʹah, all his mightiness and how he made the pool and the conduit and
brought the water into the city, is it not written in the book of the history of the times of the kings of Judah? Then
Hez·e·kiʹah was laid to rest with his forefathers; and his son Ma·nasʹseh became king in his place.” (20: 20,21)
What is this pool and conduit mentioned here? Insight explains
“One of the outstanding engineering feats of ancient times was the aqueduct of Hezekiah. It ran from the well of
Gihon, E of the northern part of the City of David, in a rather irregular course, extending some 533 m (1,749 ft) to
the Pool of Siloam in the Tyropoeon Valley below the City of David but within a new wall added to the southern
part of the city. (2Ki 20:20; 2Ch 32:30) An inscription in ancient Hebrew characters was found by archaeologists
on the wall of the narrow tunnel, which had an average height of 1.8 m (6 ft). The inscription reads, in part: “And
this was the way in which it was cut through:—While [. . . ] (were) still [. . . ] axe(s), each man toward his fellow,
and while there were still three cubits to be cut through, [there was heard] the voice of a man calling to his fellow,
for there was an overlap in the rock on the right [and on the left]. And when the tunnel was driven through, the
quarrymen hewed (the rock), each man toward his fellow, axe against axe; and the water flowed from the spring
301 | P a g e
toward the reservoir for 1,200 cubits, and the height of the rock above the head(s) of the quarrymen was 100
cubits.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. B. Pritchard, 1974, p. 321) So the tunnel was cut through the
rock from both ends, meeting in the middle—a real engineering accomplishment.” [7]
References
[1] “Each One Will Sit Under His Fig Tree”, The Watchtower, May 15, 2003, p. 25.
[2] Day. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 593.
[3] Sun. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1043.
[4] Merodach-baladan. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 380.
[5] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
302 | P a g e
12.19 Manasseh, king of Judah, son of Hezekiah

12.19.1 Manasseh, king of Judah, son of Hezekiah - Part 1
Can God forgive the most wicked king of Judah and of Israel ever? His name was Manasseh, son of the good
king Hezekiah.
Jehovah God exercised His sovereignty over the kingdom of Israel causing it to dissolve, its capital city Samaria
burnt down, and its people exiled in Assyria. God used the Assyrian military machine as His instrument. But with
respect to the kingdom of Judah whose line of kings will later lead to the future Messiah, God has been patient
just as He was with the kings of Israel, with its kings. Many of the kings of Judah were faithful to Jehovah God
despite their imperfections and shortcomings.
David, their forefather repented of his grievous sins - adultery with the wife of his elite soldier Uriah, Bath-sheba
and then killing the elite soldier in battle and the unauthorized census. His son Solomon turned apostate in old
age. There are some descendants who became kings like Asa and Jehoshaphat who made mistakes. Jehovah
balanced their record with the good things He saw in them despite the mistakes. Then, there is Hezekiah who
was described as loyal and faithful as his forefather David. But, in the end, he too made a mistake. Jehovah God
rebuked him and he humbled himself, receiving forgiveness in the process.
There were also evil kings and queen. There was Ahaz who brought idolatry into the temple of Jehovah. There
were Amaziah and his father Jehoash who were bought assassinated for their wickedness and their heir put to
the throne.Jehovah God was patient with this kingdom. But the time has come that the Bible narrative will
introduce the most wicked king Judah will ever have and whose wickedness will cause the fall of the kingdom of
Judah. The king was Manasseh, son of the good king Hezekiah. Can God forgive the most wicked king recorded
in the Bible?
The Bible introduces him this way using the typical regnal formula - how old he is, how long he reigned, his mom,
and his reputation or accomplishments
“Ma·nasʹseh was 12 years old when he became king, and he reigned for 55 years in Jerusalem. His mother’s
name was Hephʹzi·bah. He did what was bad in Jehovah’s eyes, following the detestable practices of the nations
that Jehovah had driven out from before the people of Israel. He rebuilt the high places that his father Hez·e·kiʹah
had destroyed, and he set up altars to Baʹal and made a sacred pole, just as Aʹhab the king of Israel had done.
And he bowed down to all the army of the heavens and served them. He also built altars in the house of Jehovah,
about which Jehovah had said: “In Jerusalem, I will put my name.” And he built altars to all the army of the
heavens in two courtyards of the house of Jehovah. And he made his own son pass through the fire; he practiced
magic, looked for omens, and appointed spirit mediums and fortune-tellers. He did on a grand scale what was bad
in Jehovah’s eyes, to offend him.” (21: 1-6)
Just as a good king (Hezekiah) followed a bad king (Ahaz), a bad king follows a good king. The Bible does not
disclose the influences on Hezekiah why he chose not to imitate his father and chose to be loyal to Jehovah. In
the same way the Bible does not disclose what where the influences to Mannaseh why he would chose to rebel
against Jehovah, become like his grandfather Ahaz and become worse than him. Could there still be influences in
the royal house from the days of Jehoshaphat who entered into an alliance with wicked king Ahab of Israel? But
Manasseh will turn out to be the most wicked of them all.
The Bible adds some more
“He put the carved image of the sacred pole that he made into the house about which Jehovah had said to David
and to his son Solʹo·mon: “In this house and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will
permanently put my name. And I will never again make the feet of Israel wander from the land that I gave to their
forefathers, provided they carefully observe all that I have commanded them, the entire Law that my servant
Moses ordered them to follow.” But they did not obey, and Ma·nasʹseh kept leading them astray, causing them to
do greater evil than the nations that Jehovah had annihilated from before the Israelites.” (21: 7-9)
303 | P a g e
With the kingdom of Israel already dissolved, Judah has gone worse. What is God’s assessment? The Bible
reports
“Jehovah kept speaking through his servants the prophets, saying: “Ma·nasʹseh the king of Judah has done all
these detestable things; he has acted more wickedly than all the Amʹor·ites before him, and he has made Judah
sin with his disgusting idols. Therefore this is what Jehovah the God of Israel says: ‘Here I am bringing such a
disaster on Jerusalem and Judah that it will make both ears of anyone who hears about it tingle. And I will stretch
out on Jerusalem the measuring line applied to Sa·marʹi·a and use the leveling tool applied to the house of Aʹhab,
and I will wipe Jerusalem clean, just as one wipes a bowl clean, wiping it and turning it upside down.” (21: 10-13)
Now, Judah and Jerusalem will go through the same experience that Israel and Samaria did. Jehovah God further
adds
“I will forsake the remnant of my inheritance and give them into the hand of their enemies, and they will become
plunder and spoil to all their enemies, because they did what was bad in my eyes and were continually offending
me from the day that their forefathers came out of Egypt to this day.’”” (21: 14, 15)
For nearly 800 years, Israel has been offending Jehovah God. The story has been the same and recurring from
the day they left Egypt, in the wilderness, through the days of the judges, and now they have gone worse in the
days of their kings.
The Bible recorded what has become the tipping point
“Ma·nasʹseh also shed innocent blood in very great quantity until he had filled Jerusalem from one end to the
other, besides his sin of causing Judah to sin by doing what was bad in the eyes of Jehovah.” (21:16)
A Bible-based publication highlighted this
“Likewise, it was Manasseh’s bloodguilt that finally sealed Judah’s doom. Adding to his sin of false worship,
Manasseh ‘filled Jerusalem with blood from end to end.’ Even though Manasseh later repented of his bad course,
bloodguilt remained. (2 Chron. 33:12, 13) Not even the good reign of Josiah, and his putting away of all idolatry,
could wipe out the community bloodguilt carrying over from Manasseh’s reign. Years later, when Jehovah began
to bring his executioners up against Jerusalem, he declared that it was because Manasseh had “filled Jerusalem
with innocent blood, and Jehovah did not consent to grant forgiveness.” (2 Ki. 21:16; 24:4)” [1]
The books of Kings ended the story of Manasseh at this point
“As for the rest of the history of Ma·nasʹseh and all that he did and the sins that he committed, are they not written
in the book of the history of the times of the kings of Judah? Then Ma·nasʹseh was laid to rest with his forefathers
and was buried in the garden of his house, in the garden of Uzʹza; and his son Aʹmon became king in his place.”
(21:17, 18)
It was up to the Chronicler to report that Manasseh was punished by Jehovah God. He later repented and tried to
undo the harm he inflicted upon Judah. Jehovah God allowed himself to be entreated by Manasseh after he
humbled himself before Him. God forgave the most wicked king that ever reigned in Judah and Israel.
But the future of Judah was sealed.
References
[1] “Bible Book Number 12—2 Kings”, All Scriptures is Inspired, Jehovah’s Witnesss, p. 34.
304 | P a g e
12.20 Amon, king of Judah, son of Manasseh; Josiah, king of Judah, son of Amon
12.20.1 Amon, king of Judah, son of Manasseh; Josiah, king of Judah, son of Amon - Part 1
Can I trust the Bible as I read it as authentic, accurate and factual? I have seen in my journey that there is no
reason to doubt that what I read is instead the opposite. Numerous human theories promoted by various scholars
promoting themselves have come and go. Their theories were discredited and replaced.
At this point of my journey in my Bible reading, a very important personality among Bible scholars is their theory
around King Josiah who supposedly have started Bible production only in his time. This is my reflection note.
One would think that if your parent who was the most notorious of his time recognized his error and humbled
himself before God and received His forgiveness, his son would learn that lesson and not follow the same path.
The next king of Judah, Amon, chose to follow the evil path of his father Manasseh.
Then, the successor, another boy-king, turns up completely different from the evil parents - Josiah. He is an
important personality in the study of the Bible for many reasons. Those scholars who don’t believe that the Bible
is the Word of God, claims that the Bible production sort of started with him. Everything else that we read in the
Bible is a fabrication to support his rule. I have already examined this criticism against the Bible.
The Bible introduced Amon with the usual regnal formula
”Aʹmon was 22 years old when he became king, and he reigned for two years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name
was Me·shulʹle·meth the daughter of Haʹruz from Jotʹbah. He continued to do what was bad in Jehovah’s eyes,
just as his father Ma·nasʹseh had done. He kept walking in all the ways that his father walked, and he continued
serving and bowing down to the disgusting idols that his father had served. So he abandoned Jehovah the God of
his forefathers, and he did not walk in the way of Jehovah. Eventually Aʹmon’s servants conspired against him
and put the king to death in his own house.” (21:19-23)
He tried to copy his wicked father Manasseh who ruled for 55 years. But, some people won’t have that. He was
killed in his own house after reigning just 2 years. However, there is a bright spot on the horizon with the rise of a
new king, his son, Josiah.
“But the people of the land struck down all those who conspired against King Aʹmon, and they made his son
Jo·siʹah king in his place. As for the rest of the history of Aʹmon, what he did, is it not written in the book of the
history of the times of the kings of Judah? So they buried him in his grave in the garden of Uzʹza, and his son
Jo·siʹah became king in his place.” (21: 24-26)
How young was Josiah when he became king? One year older than his ancestor Jehoash when his ancestor
became king. The Bible reports using the regnal formula
“Jo·siʹah was eight years old when he became king, and he reigned for 31 years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name
was Je·diʹdah the daughter of A·daiʹah from Bozʹkath. He did what was right in Jehovah’s eyes and walked in all
the ways of David his forefather, and he did not deviate to the right or to the left.” (22:1,2)
That was a very positive assessment of Josiah.Hezekiah was described nearly the same, “he kept doing what
was right in Jehovah’s eyes, just as David his forefather had done”. (2 Kings 18:1) He was the other boy-king of
Judah. The first one was his ancestor Jehoash,
At the age of 26, Josiah started to repair the temple of Jehovah
“In the 18th year of King Jo·siʹah, the king sent Shaʹphan the secretary, the son of Az·a·liʹah the son of
Me·shulʹlam, to the house of Jehovah, saying: “Go up to Hil·kiʹah the high priest, and let him collect all the money
that is being brought into the house of Jehovah, which the doorkeepers have collected from the people. Have
them give it to those appointed over the work in the house of Jehovah who, in turn, will give it to the workers in the
house of Jehovah who are to repair the damage to the house, that is, to the craftsmen, the builders, and the
305 | P a g e
masons; and they are to use it to buy timbers and hewn stones to repair the house. But no accounting should be
required of them for the money that they are given, because they are trustworthy.”” (22: 3-7)
It was during this time a significant find was discovered inside the Temple of Jehovah God. The Bible-based
“During the course of the temple repair work, Hilkiah found the very “book of Jehovah’s law by the hand of
Moses.” What made the find outstanding was most likely the manuscript’s being the original book written by
Moses. Hilkiah gave it to Shaphan the secretary, who took the manuscript to the king. Upon hearing Shaphan
read the book, King Josiah dispatched a delegation headed by High Priest Hilkiah to Huldah the prophetess to
inquire of Jehovah in behalf of the king and the people.—2Ki 22:3-14; 2Ch 34:14.” [1]
Bible scholars are a confused bunch. They have different views of what “book of Jehovah’s law” was found. One
blog article cited the different views
“Many identify the book as Deuteronomy, however, what is meant by Deuteronomy varies greatly from one
scholar to another. There are those such as Craige and Robinson who consider it to be the whole Mosaic
Deuteronomy in its present form. In a similar vein there are those such as Wood who affirm that the “book of the
law” was probably a copy of, not only Deuteronomy, but the five books of the Law. Then those such as Lundbom
say that only the song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32 was found. However, probably the most favored view by
modern Old Testament scholars is that which was originally presented by W.M.L. de Wette in 1805, to be
developed and most classically expressed by Wellhausen, that the “book of the law” found by Hilkiah had been
recently written (seventh-century) by prophets (or a prophet) with the purpose of promoting a religious reform
which did indeed occur after Josiah had read the book. One last view was that it was not Deuteronomy which was
found but the “Holiness Code” of Leviticus 17--26 because Deuteronomy is of post-exilic origin.” [2]
Another reference how significant this find is
“The incident was the discovery in the Temple of ‘the book of the law’ and the king’s reaction to it. After a brief
general introduction the records jumps straight to this incident of the eighteenth year, and the usual comment on
the king’s life is found immediately at its close. Even the account of Josiah’s death appears only as a
supplementum outside the main framework, which is thus seen to be occupied entirely by this one illuminated
scene: xxii.3-xxiii.24.” [3]
The discredited Documentary Hypothesis and the Wellhausen followers have promoted the idea that the books of
Moses were written during the exile days of the Jews in Babylon. Some promote the idea that it was started by
King Josiah to justify his effort to centralize worship in Jerusalem. I have raised the issues against this theory as I
have journeyed through each book of the Old Testament.
Once the book was found, it was read to the king. What was his reaction?
“As soon as the king heard the words of the book of the Law, he ripped his garments apart. Then the king gave
this order to Hil·kiʹah the priest, A·hiʹkam the son of Shaʹphan, Achʹbor the son of Mi·caiʹah, Shaʹphan the
secretary, and A·saiʹah the king’s servant: “Go, inquire of Jehovah in my behalf, in behalf of the people, and in
behalf of all Judah concerning the words of this book that has been found; for Jehovah’s rage that has been set
ablaze against us is great, because our forefathers did not obey the words of this book by observing all that is
written concerning us.”” (22:11-13)
Bible scholars do not take the narrative at its face value and presumed it was a fabrication. One reference cite
one such scholar who promote such an idea
“Handy has assessed the trust-worthiness of the account in 2 Kgs 22–23 by comparing it with types of
Mesopotamian texts related to temple affairs. He argues that Josi-ah‟s account is an “after-the-fact propaganda”
text, that is, a “non-contemporary and unreliable” tale composed of stereotypical elements, in no way concerned
with the time and events it narrates, and whose authors are not connected to Josiah‟s reign. Such doubts, of
306 | P a g e
course, are to be expected when considering the fact that there is no external evidence testifying to the events
recorded in the biblical story of Josiah‟s reign.” [4]
One reference cited the lack of archaeological data as reason to doubt (again) the Bible’s narrative. This is what
one paper said
“Archaeologists have found no evidence of a major cultic reform for either the eighth or seventh century,
confirming Hezekiah or Josiah’s biblical reforms. Only a small shrine in Tel Arad and fragments to a large
horned ashlar altar in Tel Beer-sheba, have lent controversial evidence to the reforms.” Considering the amount
of purging Josiah is thought to have done throughout his realm, scholars would anticipate many fragments of
different cultic shrines described throughout the biblical account.” [5]
To such scholars the content of the Bible is not trustworthy. To them, their theories are far better than what the
Bible says. Such intellectual arrogance have suffered many setbacks as knowledge and scholarship increased in
the late 1980’s. It is well to note what one paper said about one of this popular theories about the “book of the
Law” that was discovered in Josiah’s time as part of the so-called deuteronomistic history
“Steven McKenzie;s comment, while humorous, does in fact summarize well the state of DtrH studies as of 1993.
Since that time, a consensus on the authorship, date, purpose, scope, and so forth, of the DtrH is far from being
reached. On the contrary, in the survey that follows, Jeffrey Geoghegan’s assertion that “The field of
Deuteronomistic studies can no longer be characterized as refining Noth’s original hypothesis, but rather as
reconsidering it or, in some cases, rejecting the whole,” indeed sheds light on the true nature of DtrH studies in
the first decade of the twenty-first century.” [6]
Yes, human theories change over time as these men try to disparage the Bible. However, their theories lose
steam as more knowledge is secured. The Bible is vindicated as authentic and trustworthy.
References
[1] Hilkiah. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1118.
[2] Malick, David. “The Book of Josiah’s Reform”, from the Bible.org web site.
[3] Robinson, Donald W. B. “Josiah’s Reform and the Book of the Law”, Tyndale Press, 1951, p. 5.
[4] Macelaru, Marcel. “Phoenix Rising: Josiah’s “Book of the Law” and the Rebirth of Israel”. Bible,Culture, Society
- Postgraduate Explorations. Selected papers presented at Postgraduate International Symposia held at
Evandeoski teoloski fakultet, Osijek, Croatia, 2007-2009, p. 72.
[5] Wilson, Leah. “Josiah’s Reforms in Correlation with Israelite History: A Summary Based on Biblical and
Historical Analysis”. A Literature Review presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Course BIB 310
History and Historiography of Ancient Israel, December 9, 2011.
[6] Peterson, Brian Neil. “The Deuteronomistic History since Martin Noth”, p. 8, from “The Authors of the
Deuteronomistic History-Locating a Tradition in Ancient Israel”, Fortress Press, 2014.
307 | P a g e
12.20.2 Amon, king of Judah, son of Manasseh; Josiah, king of Judah, son of Amon - Part 2
Is reform too late for King Josiah and the kingdom of Judah? With the kingdom of Israel, it has become hopeless.
Jehovah God decided to dissolve that state and he allowed its people to be exiled by the Assyrians. What would
happen now with God’s sovereignty on the earth if the only government where He is represented through the
Davidic kings are gone? My reflection continues as the narrative evolves.
After years of failure to live up to the covenant law, a king finally realized how serious the situation had become. A
prophetess was consulted, Huldah who lived in the Second Quarter of Jerusalem (22:14)
Who is Huldah and where is this “Second Quarter”? Insight provided an answer, first for Huldah
“When Josiah heard the reading of “the very book of the law” found by Hilkiah the high priest during the temple
repair work, he sent a delegation to inquire of Jehovah. They went to Huldah, who, in turn, relayed the word of
Jehovah, indicating that all the calamities for disobedience recorded in the “book” would befall the apostate nation.
Huldah added that Josiah, because of having humbled himself before Jehovah, would not have to look upon the
calamity but would be gathered to his forefathers and be taken to his graveyard in peace.—2Ki 22:8-20; 2Ch
34:14-28.
Some consider Huldah’s prophecy to be in error in view of Josiah’s death in an unnecessary battle. (2Ki 23:28-30)
However, the “peace” in which Josiah would be gathered to his graveyard is obviously in contrast with “the
calamity” due to come upon Judah. (2Ki 22:20; 2Ch 34:28) Josiah died prior to the coming of that calamity in 609-
607 B.C.E., when the Babylonians besieged and destroyed Jerusalem. Additionally, that the expression ‘to be
gathered to one’s forefathers’ does not necessarily exclude dying a violent death in warfare is indicated by the
use of the comparable expression ‘to lie down with one’s forefathers’ with reference to a death in battle as well as
a nonviolent death.—Compare De 31:16; 1Ki 2:10; 22:34, 40.” [1]
How about the “Second Quarter”? Insight responded
“During Josiah’s time “the second quarter” (“the new town,” JB) of the city receives initial mention. (2Ki 22:14; 2Ch
34:22) This “second quarter” is generally understood to be the section of the city lying W or NW of the temple
area.—Zep 1:10.” [2]
So, Huldah was a prophetess. When the “book of the law of Jehovah by the hand of Moses” was brought to her,
the Bible reported what she said
“She said to them: “This is what Jehovah the God of Israel says, ‘Tell the man who sent you to me: “This is what
Jehovah says, ‘I will bring calamity on this place and its inhabitants, all the words of the book that the king of
Judah has read. Because they have abandoned me and are making sacrifices smoke to other gods in order to
offend me with all the work of their hands, my rage will be set ablaze against this place and it will not be
extinguished.’”” (22: 15-17)
Jehovah has decided that Jerusalem will go the way of Samaria. The evil kings like Jehoram, Jehoash, Amaziah,
Ahaz, and the worse of them all Manasseh had brought God’s patience to its limits. However, what about the
good King Josiah? The prophetess continues
“But to the king of Judah who sent you to inquire of Jehovah, this is what you should say to him, “This is what
Jehovah the God of Israel says: ‘Regarding the words that you have heard, because your heart was responsive
and you humbled yourself before Jehovah on hearing what I have spoken against this place and its inhabitants—
that they would become an object of horror and a curse—and you ripped your garments apart and wept before
me, I also have heard you, declares Jehovah. That is why I will gather you to your ancestors, and you will be laid
in your grave in peace, and your eyes will not see all the calamity that I will bring on this place.’”’” Then they
brought the reply to the king.” (22: 18-20)
King Josiah was spared. He will not see the day when Jerusalem will be destroyed by foreign armies and its
people exiled just as what happened in the days of King Hoshea of Israel and in Samaria in 740 B.C.E. Some
308 | P a g e
Bible readers believed that Huldah’s prophecy of King Josiah’s death did not come true. But Insight has this to
say
“The prophecy concerning Josiah’s ‘being gathered to his own graveyard in peace’ indicated that he would die
before the foretold calamity upon Jerusalem. (2Ki 22:20; 2Ch 34:28; compare 2Ki 20:19.)” [3]
From this point on, the days of the kingdom of Judah and its people are numbered. The last days of Judah has
begun.
References
[1] Huldah. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1157.
[3] Peace. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witness, 1988, p. 591.
309 | P a g e
12.21 Josiah, king of Judah, son of Manasseh

12.21.1 Josiah, king of Judah, son of Manasseh - Part 1
What reforms did King Josiah implement to cleanse Judah of all the false religions that the former kings has
supported? There must be a lot from all the deposits of pagan items that the previous kings had brought inside
the temple of Jehovah God and tolerated by the Levitical priesthood.
These reforms started to happen just as the last days of the kingdom of Judah has begun. The only consolation
for King Josiah is that it will not happen in his lifetime. The reforms started with the “book of the law of Jehovah by
the hand of Moses” also called “book of the covenant”. The Bible reports
“So the king sent word, and they summoned all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem. 2 After that the king went up to
the house of Jehovah with all the men of Judah, all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the priests, and the prophets—
all the people, from small to great. He read in their hearing all the words of the book of the covenant that had
been found in the house of Jehovah.” (23:1,2)
“All the words” of the book must have included all the five books of Moses with the covenant inauguration and
laws in the book of Exodus, the tabernacle operations in Leviticus, and the covenant renewal and history in the
book of Numbers and Deuteronomy. There was one reference I read before that the way this reading was done,
was that as in the days of Hezekiah who had done this, there was a layer of other repeaters who were echoing
what was read to the public.
Then, King Josiah made a personal covenant with Jehovah God
“The king stood by the pillar and made a covenant before Jehovah, that he would follow Jehovah and keep his
commandments, his reminders, and his statutes with all his heart and with all his soul by carrying out the words of
this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people agreed to the covenant.” (23: 3)
As proof of this covenant, that the people agreed to be loyal to Jehovah as required by the covenant law, the
Bible reports a string of activities reminiscent of the days of Hezekiah
“The king then ordered Hil·kiʹah the high priest, the priests of the second rank, and the doorkeepers to bring out
from the temple of Jehovah all the utensils made for Baʹal, for the sacred pole, and for all the army of the heavens.
Then he burned them outside Jerusalem on the terraces of Kidʹron, and he took their ashes to Bethʹel.” (23:4)
Wow, that is a lot of false religion’s items inside the holy temple of Jehovah God. Bethel is already mentioned
here where he brought the ashes. King Josiah will do more to Bethel later. Regarding the reference to “all the
army of the heavens”, the Bible-based encyclopedia Insight explains
“There are indications that Baal and other gods and goddesses of the Canaanite pantheon were associated in the
minds of their worshipers with certain heavenly bodies. For instance, one of the Ras Shamra texts mentions an
offering to “Queen Shapash (the Sun) and to the stars,” and another alludes to “the army of the sun and the host
of the day.”
It is, therefore, noteworthy that the Bible makes several references to the heavenly bodies in connection with Baal
worship. Describing the wayward course of the kingdom of Israel, the Scriptural record states: “They kept leaving
all the commandments of Jehovah . . . , and they began to bow down to all the army of the heavens and to serve
Baal.” (2Ki 17:16) Concerning the kingdom of Judah, it is noted that right in the temple of Jehovah there came to
be “utensils made for Baal and for the sacred pole and for all the army of the heavens.” Also, the people
throughout Judah made “sacrificial smoke to Baal, to the sun and to the moon and to the constellations of the
zodiac and to all the army of the heavens.”—2Ki 23:4, 5; 2Ch 33:3; see also Zep 1:4, 5.” [1]
Then, King Josiah focused on outside of Jerusalem into Judea
“So he put out of business the foreign-god priests, whom the kings of Judah had appointed to make sacrificial
smoke on the high places in the cities of Judah and the surroundings of Jerusalem, as well as those making
310 | P a g e
sacrificial smoke to Baʹal, to the sun, to the moon, to the constellations of the zodiac, and to all the army of the
heavens.” (23: 5)
Regarding the word “zodiac”, Insight has this note
“The Aramaic Targum equates Mazzaroth with the maz·za·lohthʹ of 2 Kings 23:5, “constellations of the zodiac,” or
“twelve signs, or, constellations.” (NW; KJ margin) Some believe that the word is derived from a root meaning
“engird” and that Mazzaroth refers to the zodiacal circle. However, at Job 38:32 a singular pronoun is used in
Hebrew in the expression “in its appointed time,” whereas the reference in 2 Kings 23:5 is in the plural. Hence,
Mazzaroth appears to refer to a particular constellation rather than to the entire zodiacal circle, but no positive
identification is possible at present.” [2]
The Kidron Valley has become a favorite spot for King Josiah to dump all the items of false religions, including the
ones brought out of the temple
“He brought the sacred pole out from the house of Jehovah to the outskirts of Jerusalem, to the Kidʹron Valley,
and he burned it in the Kidʹron Valley and ground it to dust and scattered its dust on the graves of the common
people.” (23: 6)
What is this “graves of the common people”? Again, Insight offeed a note
“The reference to “the graveyard of the sons of the people” (“the burial place of the common people,” RS) in the
Valley of Kidron is believed to refer to a graveyard for the poorer class. (Jer 26:23; 2Ki 23:6)” [3]
He is not done yet. The Bible reports more idolatry items from inside the temple
“He also tore down the houses of the male temple prostitutes, which were in the house of Jehovah and where the
women were weaving tent shrines for the sacred pole.” (23: 7)
Imagine that - houses of male temple prostitutes inside the temple and the place where women work to provide
tent shrines for the sacred pole. Insight adds
“The degraded worship of Asherah came to be practiced in the very temple of Jehovah. King Manasseh even
placed there a carved image of the sacred pole, evidently a representation of the goddess Asherah. (2Ki 21:7)
Manasseh was disciplined by being taken captive to Babylon and, upon his returning to Jerusalem, showed he
had profited from that discipline and cleansed Jehovah’s house of idolatrous appendages. However, his son
Amon resumed the degrading worship of Baal and Asherah, with its accompanying ceremonial prostitution. (2Ch
33:11-13, 15, 21-23) This made it necessary for righteous King Josiah, who succeeded Amon to the throne, to
pull down “the houses of the male temple prostitutes that were in the house of Jehovah, where the women were
weaving tent shrines for the sacred pole.”—2Ki 23:4-7.” [4]
But there is more
“Then he brought all the priests out of the cities of Judah, and he made unfit for worship the high places where the
priests had been making sacrificial smoke, from Geʹba to Beʹer-sheʹba. He also tore down the high places of the
gates that were at the entrance of the gate of Joshua the chief of the city, which were on the left as one entered
the city gate.” (23:8)
Insight commented on this “gate of Joshua”
“At 2 Kings 23:8 reference is made to “the high places of the gates that were at the entrance of the gate of Joshua,
the chief of the city, which was at the left as a person came into the gate of the city.” Here “gate of Joshua” is not
the name of a city gate but evidently is a gate within the city walls leading to the governor’s residence, which was
at the left as a person entered the city gate.” [5]
The next site is interesting
311 | P a g e
“The priests of the high places did not serve at the altar of Jehovah in Jerusalem, but they did eat unleavened
bread along with their brothers. He also made unfit for worship Toʹpheth, which is in the Valley of the Sons of
Hinʹnom, so that no one could make his son or his daughter pass through the fire to Moʹlech.” (23: 9, 10)
Where is this site, Topheth?
“A place outside Jerusalem where, for a considerable period, apostate Israelites, including Ahaz and Manasseh,
engaged in child sacrifice. Finally, King Josiah made it unfit for worship. (2Ki 23:10; 2Ch 28:3; 33:6; Jer 7:31-33;
19:3-14; 32:35) Topheth probably occupied a section of the eastern part of the Valley of Hinnom near the Gate of
the Potsherds.—Jer 19:2, 6, 14; see HINNOM, VALLEY OF.
Commenting on 2 Kings 23:10, the Jewish commentator David Kimhi (1160?-1235?) offers this possible
explanation concerning Topheth: “The name of the place where they caused their sons to pass through [the fire]
to Molech. The name of the place was Topheth, and they said it was called thus because at the time of worship
they would dance and strike tambourines [Heb., tup·pimʹ] so that the father would not hear his son’s cries when
they were causing him to pass through the fire, and that his heart might not become agitated over him and he
take him from their hand. And this place was a valley that belonged to a man named Hinnom, and it was called
‘Valley of Hinnom’ and ‘Valley of the Son of Hinnom’ . . . . And Josiah defiled that place, reducing it to an unclean
place, to cast there carcasses and all uncleanness, that it might never again come up into the heart of a man to
cause his son and his daughter to pass through in the fire to Molech.”—Biblia Rabbinica, Jerusalem, 1972.” [6]
This site is referred to in the New Testament as the Greek word ‘Gehenna’ a combination of Ge- and -Henna.
Henna is for Hinnom.
Then, King Josiah proceeded to destroy what the other kings had installed
“And he prohibited the horses that the kings of Judah had dedicated to the sun from entering the house of
Jehovah by the chamber of Naʹthan-melʹech the court official, which was in the porticoes; and he burned the
chariots of the sun in the fire. The king also tore down the altars that the kings of Judah had set up on the roof of
Aʹhaz’s upper chamber, as well as the altars that Ma·nasʹseh had set up in two courtyards of the house of
Jehovah. He crushed them and scattered their dust in the Kidʹron Valley. And the king made unfit for worship the
high places in front of Jerusalem that were to the south of the Mount of Ruination, which Solʹo·mon the king of
Israel had built to Ashʹto·reth the disgusting goddess of the Si·doʹni·ans; and to Cheʹmosh the disgusting god of
Moʹab; and to Milʹcom the detestable god of the Amʹmon·ites.” (23: 11-13)
I can see that Josiah’s reform is far reaching than Hezekiah’s because he cleansed and not just repaired the
temple of Jehovah of artifacts associated with false religion. He went all the way to the northern parts of what
used to be Israel’s territory before Assyria converted it into an Assyrian province.
References
[2] Mazzaroth Constellation. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 355.
[3] Burial, Burial Places. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 378.
[4] Sacred Pole. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 835.
[5] Gate, Gateway. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 897..
[6] Topheth. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1115.
312 | P a g e
12.21.2 Josiah, king of Judah, son of Manasseh - Part 2

Why was King Josiah able to execute his reforms across the land where once mighty Assyria held sway? A
reference brought this out
“Assyria reached the zenith of its power in the first half of the 7th century BCE, with the conquest of Egypt. But by
the time Josiah reached the age of maturity in the latter part of the same century, Assyria was on the verge of
collapse. WIth the decline of Assyrian power, Josiah had a relatively free hand to rule his own country, and
perhaps to expand his authority over the former Northern Kingdom of Israel.” [1]
Then, it adds
“Viewed on the political level, Judah’s resurgence under Josiah, including his activity in Samaria (cf. 2 Kgs. 23:
15-18), must have coincided with, and resulted from, the retreat of Assyria from Judah’s borders and the
termination of the former’s century-long sovereignty over that region. All the undertakings of King Josiah were
inevitably connected, directly or indirectly, with the pattern of world politics of his time.” [2]
Given the political climate where Assyria has weakened, King Josiah has campaigned to the North, up to Bethel.
“He broke the sacred pillars to pieces and cut down the sacred poles and filled their places with human bones. He
also tore down the altar in Bethʹel, the high place that Jer·o·boʹam the son of Neʹbat had made that caused Israel
to sin. After tearing down that altar and the high place, he burned the high place, ground it to dust, and burned the
sacred pole.” (23: 14, 15)
Regarding what King Josiah did to Bethel, Insight explains
“About 100 years after this, faithful King Josiah of Judah pulled down the altar and the high place at Bethel and
desecrated the altar by burning human bones upon it. He also removed all the houses of the high places in the
cities of Samaria, sacrificed (killed) all the priests of the high places, and burned human bones upon the altars.
(2Ki 23:15-20) This fulfilled a prophecy uttered over 300 years earlier by an unnamed “man of God.”—1Ki
13:1, 2.” [3]
This is another example of prophecy-fulfillment instances in the book of Kings. Then, he proceeded to do more
“When Jo·siʹah turned and saw the graves on the mountain, he had the bones taken from the graves and burned
them on the altar, making it unfit for worship, according to Jehovah’s word that had been proclaimed by the man
of the true God who foretold that these things would happen. Then he said: “What is the gravestone over there
that I am looking at?” At this the men of the city said to him: “It is the grave of the man of the true God from Judah
who foretold these things that you have done against the altar of Bethʹel.” So he said: “Let him rest. Do not let
anyone disturb his bones.” So they left his bones undisturbed, as well as the bones of the prophet who had come
from Sa·marʹi·a.” (23: 16-18)
King Josiah went even further north
“Jo·siʹah also removed all the houses of worship on the high places that were in the cities of Sa·marʹi·a, which the
kings of Israel had built to offend God, and he did the same thing to them that he had done at Bethʹel. So he
sacrificed on the altars all the priests of the high places who were there, and he burned human bones on them.
After that he returned to Jerusalem.” (23: 19, 20)
The Bible now reports the second passover under a king that was celebrated. The first instance was under an
earlier reformist king Hezekiah. The Bible reports
“The king now commanded all the people: “Hold a Passover to Jehovah your God as is written in this book of the
covenant.” No Passover like this had been held since the days when the judges had judged Israel or in all the
days of the kings of Israel and the kings of Judah. But in the 18th year of King Jo·siʹah, this Passover to Jehovah
was held in Jerusalem.” (23: 21-23)
313 | P a g e
In addition, the Bible reported what Josiah did with other things
“Jo·siʹah also cleared out the spirit mediums, the fortune-tellers, the teraphim statues, the disgusting idols, and all
the disgusting things that had appeared in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, in order to carry out the words of
the Law that were written in the book that Hil·kiʹah the priest had found in the house of Jehovah.” (23: 24)
This was a really one extensive or comprehensive reform that a Judean king has carried out. No wonder the Bible
describes King Josiah this way
“There was no king like him prior to him, who returned to Jehovah with all his heart and with all his soul and with
all his strength, according to all the Law of Moses; nor did anyone like him rise up after him.” (23: 25)
King Josiah was the focal point in the history of Judean kings. After him, the last days of the kingdom of Judah
marched down to the kingdom’s end. The Bible reported that Jehovah has not changed his heart over His
decision
“Nevertheless, Jehovah did not turn away from his burning anger that blazed against Judah because of all the
offensive things that Ma·nasʹseh had done to offend Him. Jehovah said: “I will also remove Judah from my sight,
just as I removed Israel; and I will reject this city that I chose, Jerusalem, and the house about which I said, ‘My
name will continue there.’” (23: 26, 27)
After reporting primarily these reforms, no other activity about Josiah was reported. Then, his death was reported
after a fatal confrontation with the army of Egypt
“As for the rest of the history of Jo·siʹah, all that he did, is it not written in the book of the history of the times of the
kings of Judah? In his days Pharʹaoh Neʹchoh the king of Egypt came to meet the king of As·syrʹi·a by the
Eu·phraʹtes River, and King Jo·siʹah went out to confront him; but when Neʹchoh saw him, he put him to death at
Me·gidʹdo.” (23: 28, 29)
King Josiah must have failed to consult Jehovah God before going to this battle. It had no blessing nor protection
from God.
“Toward the close of Josiah’s 31-year reign (659-629 B.C.E.), Pharaoh Necho was on his way to help the
Assyrians at the river Euphrates. At that time Josiah disregarded “the words of Necho from the mouth of God” and
was mortally wounded while attempting to turn the Egyptian forces back at Megiddo. About three months later,
Pharaoh Necho took Jehoahaz, Josiah’s successor to the throne, captive and made 25-year-old Eliakim his
vassal, changing the new ruler’s name to Jehoiakim. Necho also imposed a heavy fine on the kingdom of Judah.
(2Ch 35:20–36:4; 2Ki 23:29-35) At Carchemish, between three and four years later (625 B.C.E.), Necho’s forces
suffered defeat at the hands of the Babylonians under the command of Nebuchadnezzar.—Jer 46:2.” [4]
How were the Assyrians at this point in time? One blog article wrote
“"Pharaoh Necho [II] (609-594 b.c.) was the recently crowned king of Egypt's twenty-sixth dynasty. During the
long years of Josiah's reign (640-609 b.c.), Assyrian power had steadily crumbled until, as Nahum had predicted,
Nineveh itself had fallen (612 b.c.) to a coalition of Chaldeans, Medes, and others. The surviving Assyrian forces
had regrouped at Haran. Because Egypt was a long-standing ally of Assyria [since its integration into the empire
several decades earlier], Necho journeyed northward to help the beleaguered Assyrians" (Nelson Study
Bible,note on 2 Kings 23:29-30). The King James Version incorrectly has Necho marching against the Assyrians.
"Pharaoh Necho turned up in Judah at the head of a more impressive-looking Egyptian army than had been
fielded in centuries. Taking advantage of Assyrian decline, Necho's father Psammetichus I [who had been
appointed pharaoh by Assyrian emperor Ashurbanipal] had greatly revived his country's clout as a superpower"
(Ian Wilson, The Bible Is History, 1999, p. 174). "Emboldened by his success... Psammetichus refused to
continue payment of tribute to Assyria...though Egypt remained more or less an ally of Assyria until his death and
even beyond" (Merrill, Kingdom of Priests, p. 439). Perhaps Necho at this later time was not so much interested in
restoring Assyria as he was in keeping a balance among the Mesopotamian powers. If Assyria were utterly
314 | P a g e
eliminated, Babylon would fill the void as an unchecked power, creating major problems for Egypt. In any event,
Necho advanced up the coastal plain, through Philistine territory. But this area was now under the control of
Judah's king, Josiah.” [5]
Thus, King Josiah’s reign ended
“So his servants transported his dead body in a chariot from Me·gidʹdo and brought him to Jerusalem and buried
him in his grave. Then the people of the land took Jo·siʹah’s son Je·hoʹa·haz and anointed him and made him king
in place of his father.” (23:30)
From this point on, the history of the kingdom of Judah will go downhill to its destruction.
References
[1] Asher, Adele Hazel. “Judah and Her Neighbours in the Seventh Century BCE”, submitted in accordance with
the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Literature and Philosophy in the subject Judaica at the University of
South Africa, November 1996, p. 98.
[2] Ibid.
[4] Necho(h). Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 483.
[5] “The Stunning Death of Judah’s Most Righteous King (2 Kings 23: 26,27; 2 Chronicles 35: 20-36:5; Jeremiah
22: 1-23) June 20, Beyond Today web site.
315 | P a g e
12.22 Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, kings of Judah, sons of Josiah; Jehoaichin, king of Judah, son of
Jehoiakim
There is a new foreign power rising in the ancient Near East as the once fierce Assyrians continue to decline. The
new power is the military might of the Babylonians. What role will they play in God’s purpose?
Meanwhile, the kingdom of Judah has entered its last days. For the failure of the entire nation of Israel to live up
to its obligation under the covenant law given by Moses, Jehovah God has determined He will invoke the terms of
the covenant law. The covenant law after enumerating the curses for failing to live up to the covenant law
concluded
“Then Jehovah’s burning anger came against that land by bringing upon it the entire curse written in this
book. Therefore, Jehovah uprooted them from their soil in his anger and fury and great indignation and deported
them to another land, where they are today.’” (Deuteronomy 29: 27, 28)
God has determined that this will happen after King Josiah’s reign. Now, with Josiah dead after his confrontation
with Pharaoh Necho, the curses will now apply to Judah and Jerusalem and things started to happen fast. Who
will Jehovah God use to execute the curse on the land and the kingdom? There is a new political power rising
who will eclipse the Assyrians.
The Bible continues the narrative post-Josiah
“Je·hoʹa·haz was 23 years old when he became king, and he reigned for three months in Jerusalem. His mother’s
name was Ha·muʹtal the daughter of Jeremiah from Libʹnah. He began to do what was bad in Jehovah’s eyes,
according to all that his forefathers had done.” (23:31,32)
Despite the zeal of his father Josiah in reforming Judah and what remained of Israel, Jehoahaz went back to the
old ways. His reign as described in the typical regnal formula was a brief 3 months but he quickly undone what
Josiah so zealously reformed.
Pharaoh Necho who killed his father removed him from the throne and placed the kingdom of Judah under his
control with tributes to pay to the tune of about $20M (silver price today) and about $1M (gold price today) or
$21M in total. (23:33) The Bible adds
“Furthermore, Pharʹaoh Neʹchoh made Jo·siʹah’s son E·liʹa·kim king in place of his father Jo·siʹah and changed his
name to Je·hoiʹa·kim; but he took Je·hoʹa·haz and brought him to Egypt, where he eventually died.” (23: 34)
The pharaoh taking Jehoahaz to Egypt became a fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy
““For this is what Jehovah says concerning Shalʹlum son of Jo·siʹah, the king of Judah who is reigning instead of
his father Jo·siʹah and who has gone out of this place: ‘He will return there no more. For he will die in the place
where they have taken him into exile, and he will see this land no more.’”(Jeremiah 22: 11, 12)
With Jehoahaz (Shallum) out of the way, Pharaoh Necho installed his brother Jehoiakim to the throne who would
continue to pay the tribute. (33:25)
The Bible describes Jehoiakim’s reign using the same regnal formula. He was just like his brother Jehoahaz who
returned to the evil that Josiah their father tried to remove
“Je·hoiʹa·kim was 25 years old when he became king, and he reigned for 11 years in Jerusalem. His mother’s
name was Ze·biʹdah the daughter of Pe·daiʹah from Ruʹmah. He continued to do what was bad in Jehovah’s eyes,
according to all that his forefathers had done.” (23: 36, 37)
Jehovah has no reason to change His mind in invoking the curse of the covenant law with these developments.
The new military power of Babylon finally reached Palestine. The Bible reports
316 | P a g e
“In Je·hoiʹa·kim’s days King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came against him, and Je·hoiʹa·kim became his
servant for three years. However, he turned against him and rebelled.” (24: 1)
From being a vassal of the Assyrians, then Egypt, now Judah has become a vassal of Babylon but Jehoiakim
rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar. Who is this king? The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight comments
“Second ruler of the Neo-Babylonian Empire; son of Nabopolassar and father of Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach),
who succeeded him to the throne. Nebuchadnezzar ruled as king for 43 years (624-582 B.C.E.), this period
including the “seven times” during which he ate vegetation like a bull. (Da 4:31-33) To distinguish this monarch
from the Babylonian ruler by the same name but of a much earlier period (the Isin dynasty), historians refer to him
as Nebuchadnezzar II.
Historical notices in cuneiform inscriptions presently available about Nebuchadnezzar somewhat supplement the
Bible record. They state that it was in the 19th year of Nabopolassar’s reign that he assembled his army, as did
his son Nebuchadnezzar, then crown prince. Both armies evidently functioned independently, and after
Nabopolassar went back to Babylon within a month’s time, Nebuchadnezzar successfully warred in mountainous
territory, later returning to Babylon with much spoil. During the 21st year of Nabopolassar’s reign,
Nebuchadnezzar marched with the Babylonian army to Carchemish, there to fight against the Egyptians. He led
his forces to victory. This took place in the fourth year of Judean King Jehoiakim (625 B.C.E.).—Jer 46:2.
The inscriptions further show that news of his father’s death brought Nebuchadnezzar back to Babylon, and on
the first of Elul (August-September), he ascended the throne. In this his accession year he returned to Hattu, and
“in the month Shebat [January-February, 624 B.C.E.] he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon.” (Assyrian and
Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 100) In 624 B.C.E., in the first official year of his kingship,
Nebuchadnezzar again led his forces through Hattu; he captured and sacked the Philistine city of Ashkelon. (See
ASHKELON.) During his second, third, and fourth years as king he conducted additional campaigns in Hattu, and
evidently in the fourth year he made Judean King Jehoiakim his vassal. (2Ki 24:1)” [1]
The Bible reports next the reaction of Babylon for his rebellion
“Then Jehovah began to send against him marauder bands of Chal·deʹans, Syrians, Moʹab·ites, and Amʹmon·ites.
He kept sending them against Judah to destroy it, according to Jehovah’s word that he had spoken through his
servants the prophets. Surely it was by the order of Jehovah that this happened to Judah, to remove them from
his sight because of all the sins that Ma·nasʹseh had committed, and also the innocent blood that he had shed, for
he had filled Jerusalem with innocent blood and Jehovah was not willing to forgive.” (24: 2-4)
It is now clear that the end of Judah is near. Jehovah God is permitting the forces of Babylon to do the job for him.
This is what I understand when the Bible says “Jehovah began to send”. During this time, Jehoiakim died and his
son replaced him, Jehoiachin. (23: 5,6) These kings did not live up to their names which contained the name of
God. Below are the meanings of their names
Jehoahaz - Jehovah Has Taken Hold

Jehoiakim - Jehovah Raises Up
Jehoiachin - Jehovah Has Firmly Established
They lived up opposite the meanings of their names. They were unfaithful leaders of Judah.
Meanwhile, the Bible reports that Babylon has finally attained superiority in the ancient Near East with King
Nebuchadnezzar solidifying his foothold from the boundary of Egypt with Palestine all the way to Babylon
“Never again did the king of Egypt venture out of his land, for the king of Babylon had taken all that belonged to
the king of Egypt, from the Wadi of Egypt up to the Eu·phraʹtes River.” (24: 7)
Jeremiah, the traditionally acknowledged writer of the book of Kings, wrote in his own book this report that
Jehovah God is going to use this new power
317 | P a g e
““Therefore this is what Jehovah of armies says, ‘“Because you would not obey my words, I am sending for all the
families of the north,” declares Jehovah, “sending for King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon, my servant, and I will
bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these surrounding nations. I will devote
them to destruction and make them an object of horror and something to whistle at and a perpetual ruin. I will put
an end to the sound of exultation and the sound of rejoicing from them, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice
of the bride, the sound of the hand mill and the light of the lamp. And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will
become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’” (Jeremiah 25:
8-11)
God called King Nebuchadnezzar, “my servant”, to punish Judah and inflict the curse of the covenant law. After
reigning 11 years, with the last 3 years under siege of Nebuchadnezzar, Jehoiakim died and his son was installed
as king. The Bible reports using the typical regnal formula (how old the king was when installed, how long he
reigned, his mom, and his reputation or accomplishment)
“Je·hoiʹa·chin was 18 years old when he became king, and he reigned for three months in Jerusalem. His
mother’s name was Ne·hushʹta the daughter of El·naʹthan of Jerusalem. He continued to do what was bad in
Jehovah’s eyes, according to all that his father had done.” (24: 8,9)
The siege is reported by the Bible which explains why Jehoiachin’s rule was only 3 months
“During that time the servants of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city
came under siege. King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came to the city while his servants were laying siege to
it.” (24: 10, 11)
Insight comments on this development
“It appears that during this siege Jehoiakim died and his son Jehoiachin ascended the throne of Judah. But a
mere three months and ten days thereafter the reign of the new king ended when Jehoiachin surrendered to
Nebuchadnezzar (in the month of Adar [February-March] during Nebuchadnezzar’s seventh regnal year [ending
in Nisan 617 B.C.E.], according to the Babylonian Chronicles). A cuneiform inscription (British Museum 21946)
states: “The seventh year: In the month Kislev the king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Hattu. He
encamped against the city of Judah and on the second day of the month Adar he captured the city (and) seized
(its) king [Jehoiachin]. A king of his own choice [Zedekiah] he appointed in the city (and) taking the vast tribute he
brought it into Babylon.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. K. Grayson, 1975, p. 102; PICTURE, Vol. 2,
p. 326) Along with Jehoiachin, Nebuchadnezzar took other members of the royal household, court officials,
craftsmen, and warriors into Babylonian exile. It was Jehoiachin’s uncle Mattaniah that Nebuchadnezzar made
king of Judah, and he changed Mattaniah’s name to Zedekiah.—2Ki 24:11-17; 2Ch 36:5-10; see CHRONOLOGY;
JEHOIACHIN; JEHOIAKIM” [2]
Judah now has a new king installed by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, a son of King Josiah. He will be the last
king of Judah and Jerusalem when the curse is finally applied. The Bible describes his reign using the regnal
formula (24: 18, 19). Zedekiah was just like the other sons of Josiah.
The Bible explains why Jehovah God has allowed these things to happen
“It was because of Jehovah’s anger that these things took place in Jerusalem and in Judah, until he cast them out
of his sight. And Zed·e·kiʹah rebelled against the king of Babylon.” (24: 20)
Israel and Judah will come to know that the God they so despised is very much alive and his day of reckoning is
fast approaching. Jehovah God cannot tolerate indefinitely the lack of respect Israel and Judah heaped on Him.
This is an important lesson for modern times. Jehovah God has setup a kingdom in heaven and the day of
reckoning for human governments is fast approaching. Human political institutions may ignore him like the kings
of Israel and Judah but as determined by him, He will "crush and put an end" all these kingdoms. (Daniel 2:44)
318 | P a g e
References
[1] Nebuchadnezzar. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 480.
[2] Ibid.
319 | P a g e
12.23 Zedekiah, last king of Judah, son of Josiah

12.23.1 Zedekiah, last king of Judah, son of Josiah - Part 1
Will another king from the house of David be able to sit on the throne after the upcoming tragedy to Jerusalem
strikes? Is the answer related to the expectation around Jesus as the Messiah? Judah has entered the end of its
monarchy days. There will be no more kings from the house of David to sit on the throne of Jerusalem from this
point on. No more kingdom of Israel. No more kingdom of Judah. The answer to whether there will be another
king from the house of David that will sit on the throne and restore the kingdom to its glory has been enveloped
around the expectation of a future Messiah. Jehovah God promised David, the founder of the dynasty, an
everlasting kingdom. Jehovah God will fulfill it but how, God will reveal in due time.
For now, the end has come. The Bible reports
“In the ninth year of Zed·e·kiʹah’s reign, in the tenth month, on the tenth day of the month, King
Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came with all his army against Jerusalem. He camped against it and built a siege
wall all around it, and the city was under siege until the 11th year of King Zed·e·kiʹah. On the ninth day of the
fourth month the famine was severe in the city, and there was no food for the people of the land. The city wall was
broken through, and all the soldiers fled by night through the gate between the double wall near the king’s garden,
while the Chal·deʹans were surrounding the city; and the king went by the way of the Arʹa·bah” (25: 1-4).
The Bible writer noted the exact date of the breach of the wall of Jerusalem unlike in the fall of Samaria (2 Kings
18:9,10) Both cities took 3 years to breach. The siege caused famine inside the city. Jeremiah reported in his
Bible book “Lamentations” the pain of hunger
“We bring in our bread at the risk of our life, because of the sword of the wilderness. Our skin has become as hot
as a furnace, because of the pangs of hunger.” (Lamentations 5: 9,10)
Zedekiah with his soldiers left by the way to the valley of Kidron. The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight comments
“Not far from this spring the Kidron Valley widens and forms an open space. It has been suggested that this open
area may correspond to the ancient “king’s garden.”—2Ki 25:4”
The corresponding report of Jeremiah was exactly as reported in Kings, citing it in two places. The first was here
with additional detail
“In the ninth year of King Zed·e·kiʹah of Judah, in the tenth month, King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon and all his
army came to Jerusalem, and they besieged it. In the 11th year of Zed·e·kiʹah, in the fourth month, on the ninth
day of the month, they broke through the city wall. And all the princes of the king of Babylon went in and sat down
in the Middle Gate, namely, Nerʹgal-shar·eʹzer the Samʹgar, Neʹbo-Sarʹse·chim the Rabʹsa·ris, Nerʹgal-shar·eʹzer
the Rabʹmag, and all the rest of the princes of the king of Babylon. When King Zed·e·kiʹah of Judah and all the
soldiers saw them, they fled, going out of the city by night by way of the king’s garden, through the gate between
the double wall, and they continued by the way of the Arʹa·bah.” (Jeremiah 39: 1-4)
In Jeremiah’s first accout, the focus was on the entry of the Babylonian army and its official inside Jerusalem after
the wall was breached. On the second instance, Jeremiah reported it nearly the same as in Kings
“In the ninth year of Zed·e·kiʹah’s reign, in the tenth month, on the tenth day of the month, King
Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came with all his army against Jerusalem. They camped against it and built a
siege wall all around it. And the city was under siege until the 11th year of King Zed·e·kiʹah. In the fourth month,
on the ninth day of the month, the famine was severe in the city, and there was no food for the people of the land.
Finally the city wall was broken through, and all the soldiers fled from the city by night through the gate between
the double wall near the king’s garden, while the Chal·deʹans were surrounding the city; and they continued by the
way of the Arʹa·bah.” (Jeremiah 52: 4-7)
320 | P a g e
The Bible writer of Kings, Jeremiah, wrote in his own Bible book called today “Jeremiah” reported the last days of
Judah of how the people inside rejected the counsel of God up to the last minute when hope was extended to
them but they refused. (Jeremiah chapter 38)
Now, back to Kings, the Babylonians found out the king escaped, the chased him
“But the Chal·deʹan army pursued the king, and they overtook him in the desert plains of Jerʹi·cho, and all his
troops were scattered from his side. Then they seized the king and brought him up to the king of Babylon at
Ribʹlah, and they passed sentence on him. They slaughtered Zed·e·kiʹah’s sons before his eyes; then
Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar blinded Zed·e·kiʹah’s eyes, bound him with copper fetters, and brought him to Babylon.” (25:
5-7)
That was quite some distance that they were able to travel going down to the plains of Jericho. But the
Babylonians caught up with him and disaster fell to his family. Insight reported on the practice of foreign armies
“In order to humiliate and to shatter the power of their enemies, some ancient nations followed the cruel practice
of blinding prominent men among the captured enemy.—Jg 16:21; 1Sa 11:2; 2Ki 25:7.” [2]
When the city was occupied by his forces, King Nebuchadnezzar entered the ruined city
“In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, that is, in the 19th year of King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar the king
of Babylon, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard, the servant of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem.” (25: 8)
Insight reported on an apparent discrepancies between what Jeremiah wrote in the book Jeremiah and what he
recorded in Kings
“Second Kings 25:8 says that it was on the seventh day of this month that Nebuzaradan, the servant of the king of
Babylon, “came to Jerusalem.” However, Jeremiah 52:12 tells us that it was on the tenth day of this month that
Nebuzaradan “came into Jerusalem.” The Soncino Books of the Bible comments on this, saying: “The interval of
three days may be accounted for as representing the date of Nebuzaradan’s arrival on the scene and the
commencement of operations.” (Edited by A. Cohen, London, 1949) It would appear, then, that Nebuzaradan
arrived at Jerusalem on the seventh day, made his survey from his camp outside the city walls, and gave
directions for the demolition of the city fortifications and the plundering of its treasures; finally, on the tenth day of
the month, he entered the city and its holy temple.” [3]
Who is Nebuzaradan? Insight explains
“Chief of the bodyguard and principal figure in Nebuchadnezzar’s forces at the actual destruction of Jerusalem in
607 B.C.E. It does not appear that Nebuzaradan was present during the initial siege and breakthrough of
Jerusalem, for it was about a month later that he “came to Jerusalem,” after King Zedekiah had been brought to
Nebuchadnezzar and blinded.—2Ki 25:2-8; Jer 39:2, 3; 52:6-11.
From outside the city, Nebuzaradan directed the Babylonian operations of destroying the city, which began “on
the seventh day of the month” (the fifth month, Ab), and which included looting the temple treasures, wrecking the
wall, dealing with the captives, and allowing some of the lowly ones to remain. (2Ki 25:8-20; Jer 39:8-10; 43:5, 6;
52:12-26) Three days later, on the tenth day of the month, it appears that Nebuzaradan “came into Jerusalem”
(“entered Jerusalem,” RS, JB) and, after an inspection, put a torch to the house of Jehovah and reduced the city
to ashes. (Jer 52:12, 13) Josephus observed that it was on the very same day, the tenth day of the fifth month,
when Solomon’s temple was burned, that the temple rebuilt by Herod was also burned, in 70 C.E.—The Jewish
War, VI, 250 (iv, 5); VI, 268 (iv, 8); see AB.” [4]
The temple of Jehovah God was finally ruined for the first time. The first time a place dedicated to the worship of
Jehovah God was destroyed was Shiloh in the days of high priest Eli and the prophet Samuel. The Philistines
destroyed the place.
321 | P a g e
“He burned down the house of Jehovah, the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem; he also burned down
the house of every prominent man. And the walls surrounding Jerusalem were pulled down by the entire
Chal·deʹan army that was with the chief of the guard. Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took into exile the rest
of the people who were left in the city, the deserters who had gone over to the king of Babylon, and the rest of the
population.” (25: 9-11)
The unthinkable has happened. God has allowed His temple to be destroyed. Now, the people of Judah like the
people of northern kingdom of Israel will go into exile. Insight reports the outcome
“Those taken captive to Babylon included “some of the lowly ones of the people and the rest of the people that
were left remaining in the city and the deserters . . . and the rest of the master workmen.” The expression “that
were left remaining in the city” apparently indicates that great numbers had died from famine, disease, or fire, or
else they were slaughtered in the war. (Jer 52:15; 2Ki 25:11) Zedekiah’s sons, the princes of Judah, court officials,
certain priests, and many other prominent citizens were put to death at the order of the king of Babylon. (2Ki 25:7,
18-21; Jer 52:10, 24-27) All of this could account for the rather low number of those actually listed as exiles that
were led off, the number given being only 832, probably heads of households, their wives and children not being
counted.—Jer 52:29.” [5]
I could imagine Jerusalem with a thick smoke coming out of the city as its temple and palaces were burned, its
street filled with the dead from famine and the sword. Her arrogant false prophets and priests who deceived the
king and the people ate their lies and saw the end of their own lives.
This taught me that the patience of God has limits. His justice required to execute his judgments on those who
opposed him even when these come from His own supposed chosen people.
References
[1] Kidron, Torrent Valley of . Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 150.
[2] Eye. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 789.
[3] Ab. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 11.
[4] Nebuzaradan. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 2, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 482.
[5]*** it-1 pp. 415-416 Captivity. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 415.
322 | P a g e
12.23.2 Zedekiah, last king of Judah, son of Josiah - Part 2

Why would Jehovah God allow his holy temple of Jerusalem to be ransacked and destroyed by the Babylonian
army? What happens now with the kingdom of Judah and the kings that sit on the throne of David? What is the
role of Jesus when this kingdom resumes? These are my reflections.
The Babylonian army then ransacked the temple of Jehovah, getting all that they can from it - copper, silver and
gold. The Bible reports
“But the chief of the guard left some of the poorest people of the land to serve as vinedressers and as compulsory
laborers. And the Chal·deʹans broke into pieces the copper pillars of the house of Jehovah and the carriages and
the copper Sea that were in the house of Jehovah, and they carried the copper away to Babylon. They also took
the cans, the shovels, the extinguishers, the cups, and all the copper utensils used in the temple service. The
chief of the guard took the fire holders and the bowls that were of genuine gold and silver. As for the two pillars,
the Sea, and the carriages that Solʹo·mon had made for the house of Jehovah, the copper of all these articles was
beyond weighing. Each pillar was 18 cubits high, and the capital on it was of copper; and the height of the capital
was three cubits, and the network and pomegranates all around on the capital were all made of copper. The
second pillar with its network was like it.” (25: 12-17)
The Bible-based encyclopedia Insight comments on the copper pillars
“The pillars themselves were of cast copper, about 1.7 m (5.6 ft) in diameter and 18 cubits (8 m; 26 ft) high. In
addition, the capitals were 5 cubits (2.2 m; 7.3 ft) high. (1Ki 7:15, 16) In view of the passages indicating that the
capitals were five cubits high, a number of scholars have concluded that the reference to “three cubits” in 2 Kings
25:17 is a scribal error. That is why some Bible translations (for example, JB, NAB) have replaced “three cubits”
with “five cubits.” Since the pillars were hollow, with walls about 7.5 cm (3 in.) thick, it is reasonable to suppose
that the capitals were of similar construction and were also cast in clay molds “in the District of the Jordan.”—2Ch
4:17; Jer 52:21.” [1]
Included among the captives were the leaders of the priesthood.
“The chief of the guard also took Se·raiʹah the chief priest, Zeph·a·niʹah the second priest, and the three
doorkeepers.” (25:18)
Insight comments on the mention of the chief priest and second priest
“The sanctuary, its service, and treasury were under the high priest’s supervision. (2Ki 12:7-16; 22:4) In this
responsibility, it appears that there was a secondary priest who was his chief assistant. (2Ki 25:18) In later times,
this assistant, called the Sagan, would officiate for the high priest when for some reason the high priest was
incapacitated. (The Temple, by A. Edersheim, 1874, p. 75)” [2]
The Babylonians took other officials
“And he took from the city one court official who was the commissioner over the soldiers, five close associates of
the king who were found in the city, as well as the secretary of the chief of the army, the one mustering the people
of the land, and 60 men of the common people of the land who were yet found in the city.”
What happened to these officials and the leaders of the priesthood? The Bible reports
“Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took them and brought them to the king of Babylon at Ribʹlah. The king of
Babylon struck them down and put them to death at Ribʹlah in the land of Haʹmath. Thus Judah went into exile
from its land.” (25: 20,21)
Finally, the king of Babylon left behind a Jewish administration under his command to take care of the survivors
“King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon appointed Ged·a·liʹah the son of A·hiʹkam the son of Shaʹphan over the
people whom he had left behind in the land of Judah.” (25: 22)
323 | P a g e
The survivors came to Gedaliah the appointed governor
“When all the army chiefs and their men heard that the king of Babylon had appointed Ged·a·liʹah, they
immediately came to Ged·a·liʹah at Mizʹpah. They were Ishʹma·el the son of Neth·a·niʹah, Jo·haʹnan the son of
Ka·reʹah, Se·raiʹah the son of Tan·huʹmeth the Ne·tophʹa·thite, and Ja·az·a·niʹah the son of the Ma·acʹa·thite,
together with their men.” (25: 23)
Archaeologists found seals containing names similar to these men in the time frame of the Babylonian siege.
Insight comments about that
“An onyx seal bearing the figure of a cock was found near Mizpah and contains the inscription “belonging to
Jaazaniah, servant of the king.” If, as some suggest, this Jaazaniah (Jezaniah) is the one mentioned at 2 Kings
25:23 and Jeremiah 40:8, this would indicate the keeping of cocks in Israel back in the seventh century B.C.E.” [3]
But tragedy struck Gedaliah
“Ged·a·liʹah swore an oath to them and their men and said to them: “Do not be afraid of being servants to the
Chal·deʹans. Live in the land and serve the king of Babylon, and it will go well with you.”
And in the seventh month, Ishʹma·el son of Neth·a·niʹah son of E·lishʹa·ma, who was of the royal line, came with
ten other men, and they struck down Ged·a·liʹah and he died, along with the Jews and the Chal·deʹans who were
with him in Mizʹpah. After that all the people, from small to great, including the army chiefs, rose up and went to
Egypt, for they were afraid of the Chal·deʹans.” (25: 24-26)
Thus the story of the fall of Jerusalem and the dissolution of the kingdom of Judah took place as God has foretold
years in advance in the days of King Josiah. The book of Kings concluded in the days of the Babylonian king Evil-
merodah and the now exiled King Jehoiachin of Judah
“And in the 37th year of the exile of King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah, in the 12th month, on the 27th day of the month,
King Eʹvil-merʹo·dach of Babylon, in the year he became king, released King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah from
prison. He spoke kindly with him and put his throne higher than the thrones of the other kings who were with him
in Babylon. So Je·hoiʹa·chin took off his prison garments, and he regularly ate before him all the days of his life. A
regular allowance of food was given him from the king, day after day, all the days of his life.” (25: 27-30)
Who is this Babylonian king? Insight provides some details
“The Babylonian king who succeeded Nebuchadnezzar to the throne in 581 B.C.E. In the year of his becoming
king, Evil-merodach extended kindness to Jehoiachin the king of Judah by releasing him from the house of
detention. That was in the 37th year of Jehoiachin’s exile in Babylon. Evil-merodach granted him a position of
favor above all the other kings who were in captivity in Babylon. (2Ki 25:27-30; Jer 52:31-34) Josephus claims
that Evil-merodach viewed Jehoiachin as one of his most intimate friends.” [4]
Archaeological documents from Babylon have parallel record of this report. Insight highlights it
“Notable archaeological confirmation of the last statement in the books of Kings has been found in cuneiform
tablets excavated at Babylon. These indicate that Jaʼukinu (Jehoiachin) was imprisoned in Babylon and mention
that he was provided with rations from the royal treasury.—2Ki 25:30; Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 308.” [5]
Although Jehovah God found delight in the temple dedicated by Solomon, He found no pleasure in it after the
nation has chosen to violate the provisions of the covenant law especially the requirement of loyalty to Jehovah
God, their real Sovereign. It started with the king who built the temple, Solomon. For nearly 300 plus years, God
has been patient with what has become the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah “until there was no more
healing”.
What happens now with the royal family of David? Who will now sit on this throne after the overthrow by the
Babylonians? I now come to a crucial point in time where Jehovah God promised the arrival of a future Messiah
who will sit on Jehovah’s throne in Jerusalem and in due time establish that kingdom once again.
324 | P a g e
God inspired the various prophets of this period - Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel - to declare in advance
how this will happen. Several world powers or empires soon dominated Judah and Jerusalem one after the other -
after the Babylonians, the Medo-Persians; after the Medo-Persians, the Greeks; after the Greeks, the Romans.
During the Roman period, the future Messiah was identified, the one who will resume the kingdom and sit on the
throne of David where once kings from his family sat. The angel Gabriel told then virgin Mary
“And look! you will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and you are to name him Jesus. This one will be
great and will be called Son of the Most High, and Jehovah God will give him the throne of David his father, and
he will rule as King over the house of Jacob forever, and there will be no end to his Kingdom.” (Luke 1:31-33)
The New Testament made it clear who will inherit the throne of David that will be vacant in the next 600 years. But
the question is when will Jehovah God allow Jesus to restore the kingdom. The apostles did ask that from the
Messiah
“So when they had assembled, they asked him: “Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?” (Acts
1:6)
The next series of Bible books will enlighten me along the way.
References
[1] Capital. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 412.
[2] High Priest. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 1112.
[3] Cock. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 486.
[4] Evil-merodach. Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 773.
[5] Kings, Books of . Insight on the Scriptures Vol 1, Jehovah’s Witnesses, 1988, p. 174.
325 | P a g e
12.24 The Chart of the Kings of Judah
326 | P a g e

11 - 12 Personal BibleReflections - Kings PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

11 - 12 Personal BibleReflections - Kings PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

2014-

PERSONAL BIBLICAL REFLECTIONS 2016

COMPILATION OF BIBLICAL RESEARCH VOLUME 2

11.2 The Rebellion of Adonijah........................................................................................................................... 5

11.3 The Anointing of Solomon...........................................................................................................................9

11.4 The Last Words of David to Solomon .......................................................................................................12

11.5 Solomon Takes the Kingdom.....................................................................................................................15

11.6 Solomon in Gibeon....................................................................................................................................20

11.7 The Case of the Single Child and Two Mothers........................................................................................ 26

11.8 The Reign of Solomon............................................................................................................................... 29

11.9 King Hiram of Tyre.....................................................................................................................................37

11.10 Bible Chronology and Temple Building................................................................................................... 42

11.11 More on Bible Chronology and Temple Building................................................................................... 44

11.12 The Temple of Jehovah God....................................................................................................................46

11.13 The Inauguration of the Temple of Jehovah God................................................................................... 63

11.14 Post-Inauguration of the Temple............................................................................................................75

11.15 The Queen of Sheba................................................................................................................................84

11.16 The Fall of Solomon.................................................................................................................................92

11.17 The Dividing of the Kingdom...................................................................................................................99

11.18 Jeroboam, First King of Israel................................................................................................................106

11.19 Reflections on Jeroboam and His Sick Son Abijah................................................................................ 112

11.20 Rehoboam, King of Judah, son of Solomon.......................................................................................... 115

11.22 Baasha, Elah, Zimri, Omri, Ahab - Kings of Israel.................................................................................. 127

11.23 Ahab, King of Israel, son of Omri.......................................................................................................... 132

11.24 Ahaziah, King of Israel, son of Ahab......................................................................................................183

12. Second KINGS.................................................................................................................................................... 186

12.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 186

12.1 Ahaziah, king of Israel, son of Ahab........................................................................................................ 188

12.2 Elijah and Elisha.......................................................................................................................................192

12.3 Jehoram, King of Israel, son of Ahab.......................................................................................................200

12.5 Naaman, the Syrian Army chief.............................................................................................................. 215

12.8 Jehu, king of Israel...................................................................................................................................236

12.9 Athaliah, daughter of Ahab, Queen of Judah......................................................................................... 250

12.10 Jehoash, King of Judah, son of Ahaziah................................................................................................ 256

12.11 Jehoahaz, King of Israel, son of Jehu.....................................................................................................259

12.12 Jehoash, King of Israel, son of Jehoahaz............................................................................................... 261

12.16 Ahaz, King of Judah, son of Jotham.......................................................................................................275

2.18 Hezekiah, king of Judah, son of Ahaz...................................................................................................... 286

12.19 Manasseh, king of Judah, son of Hezekiah........................................................................................... 303

12.19.1 Manasseh, king of Judah, son of Hezekiah - Part 1............................................................................303

12.21 Josiah, king of Judah, son of Manasseh................................................................................................ 310

12.23 Zedekiah, last king of Judah, son of Josiah........................................................................................... 320

12.24 The Chart of the Kings of Judah............................................................................................................ 326

11. First KINGS

The author then adds this later in the reference

11.2 The Rebellion of Adonijah

The Bible relates how this all happened

Next the Bible reports Adonijah’s rebellion

Insight comments on long time associate Abiathar

Insight also comments on the motive of Joab for joing Adonijah

One article reading the account from a feminist viewpoint comments

11.3 The Anointing of Solomon

The Bible continues the narrative

This was echoed by Bible-based encyclopedia Insight

11.4 The Last Words of David to Solomon

First, with Joab, David gave these instructions

His other instruction is towards the sons of Barzillai.

to have Shimei killed.

Then, David finally bows out of the Bible’s narrative.

Insight comments on the phrase ‘laid to rest with his forefathers’

11.5 Solomon Takes the Kingdom

Hence, the Bible reports the consequence to Adonijah of such request

result? The Bible reports

[1]* it-2 p. 525 Offerings *

[1]* it-2 pp. 700-701 Prostitute *