Elijah’s Whirlwind Exit (II Kings 2:11)

Who was taken up to heaven in a whirlwind? Elijah (II Kings 2:11)

At the end of his career, the prophet Elijah exits the earth in a blaze of glory, specifically in a whirlwind (II Kings 2:1-11). Knowing his mentor’s exit is imminent, Elijah’s protégé, Elisha, refuses to leave his side (II Kings 2:2). With Elisha in tow, the prophet embarks on a whirlwind farewell tour through Gilgal, Bethel and Jericho (II Kings 2:3-6) before crossing the Jordan River (II Kings 2:7-8).

Mid-conversation, the two prophets are separated when a “chariot of fire” famously appears and Elijah is taken “by a whirlwind to heaven” (II Kings 2:11 NASB).

As they were going along and talking, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire which separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven. (II Kings 2:11 NASB)

Elijah goes out in style. Contrary to popular belief, however, it is the whirlwind, not the fiery chariot, which takes the prophet (II Kings 2:11). Richard D. Nelson (b. 1945) summarizes:

In the middle of their conversation, the climax strikes like a sudden wind storm. A fiery chariot and its team, suggesting the fire of theophany, comes between the two men. The whirlwind of God’s theophany catches Elijah up. (The common misunderstanding that Elijah rode to heaven in a chariot of fire is at least as old as Sirach 48:9). (Nelson, First and Second Kings (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 160)

The verse’s Hebrew construction is decidedly awkward. Volkmar Fritz (1938-2007) asserts:

The translation of Elijah is reported twice in II Kings 2:11, although the sentence “and Elijah ascended in a whirlwind to heaven” (II Kings 2:11b) is redactional. Originally, the ascent to heaven was only alluded to by the “chariot of fire and horses of fire” (II Kings 2:11a), to which Elisha’s cry in II Kings 2:12 makes reference. Elijah’s end is not death and burial but translation. (Fritz. 1 & 2 Kings (Continental Commentary), 235)

The whirlwind is referenced twice as the reader is told at the beginning of the pericope that Elijah will be seized by the whirlwind and it is mentioned again when it actually occurs (II Kings 2:1, 11). A. Graeme Auld (b. 1941) deduces:

Since notice of Elijah’ removal by whirlwind is signalled at the outset (II Kings 2:1) and not delayed until the dramatically appropriate moment, we may suppose that that fact—however remarkable—is not of greatest concern to the storyteller. (Auld, I & II Kings (Daily Study Bible), 153)

Robert L. Cohn (b. 1947) surmises:

The tale begins with the omniscient narrator’s revelation to the reader of its climax: the ascent of Elijah (II Kings 2:1). From this reader-elevated position, we are free to focus on Elisha’s gradual coming to terms with the departure of the master. Not suspense but curiosity drives the tale: how, we might wonder, will this miraculous event take place and how will Elisha react to it? From the outset YHWH is named as the subject of this marvelous occurrence and the sě‹ārāh (“storm, whirlwind,” a term often associated with theophany [e.g. Job 38:1]) as the agent of Elijah’s ascent to the sky. (Cohn, 2 Kings (Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry), 11)

Though the whirlwind is predicted, the “chariot of fire” is not (II Kings 2:1, 11). Russell H. Dilday (b. 1930) lauds:

Elijah’s departure was even more spectacular than expected. The prophet knew there would be a whirlwind (II Kings 2:1), but the chariot and horses of fire were apparently a surprise. (Dilday, 1, 2 Kings (Mastering the Old Testament), 265-66)

There is some uncertainty regarding Elijah’s trajectory. J. Edward Wright (b. 1956) scrutinizes:

The account of Elijah’s disappearance...states that he actually went upward: “They (Elijah and Elisha) were walking and talking when suddenly a fiery chariot and fiery horses appeared and separated them from one another. Then Elijah went up in a whirlwind into the sky” (II Kings 2:11). The Hebrew here is admittedly awkward. The phrase ם’השמ בסערה הו’אל על’ו is literally rendered “then Elijah went up in a (the) whirlwind in the sky.” The ambiguity in the meaning of the term ם’השמ (“sky” or “heaven”) here could have been avoided in a couple of ways. First, it could have been put into a genitival relationship with the term “whirlwind” (בסעה), thus “a whirlwind of the sky,” but no such phrase occurs in the Hebrew Bible, and the only close parallel would be “whirlwind of Yahweh” (ה’ה’ בסעה Jeremiah 23:19, 30:23). Second, ם’השמ could have been governed by a preposition indicating direction toward (i.e., ל or אל), as it is in the Aramaic Targum (הו’אל ק’סל א’שמ ח’לצ בעלעולא), “Elijah went up in a whirlwind towards the sky”). Finally the authors could have used the “locative he” (i.e., מה’השמ), a fairly common construction used for both “skyward” (Genesis 15:5; Exodus 9:8, 10; Deuteronomy 4:19; Joshua 8:20; Judges 13:20, 20:40; Job 2:12) and “heavenward,” that is, towards the realm of the gods (Genesis 28:12; Deuteronomy 30:12, II Chronicles 6:13). Any of these options would have removed the ambiguity of how to understand ם’השמ in II Kings 2:11. The modifications apparent in the Greek translation hint at some of the difficulty the ancients had with this verse: καὶ ἀνελήμφθη ’Ηλιοὺ ἐν συσσεισμω ὡς τὸν οὑρανόν (“Elijah was taken up in a whirlwind as it were into heaven”). (Esther G. Chazon [b. 1953], David Satran [b. 1952] and Ruth A. Clements [b. 1957], “Whither Elijah?: The Ascension in Biblical and Extrabiblical Traditions”, Things Revealed: Studies In Early Jewish And Christian Literature In Honor of Michael E. Stone [b. 1938], 124-25)

Jon Douglas Levenson (b. 1949) critiques:

There is no reason to think that Elijah is here assumed into heavenly glory, rewarded for his service, or brought into the company of other righteous servants of God. Rather, the God of Israel, whose throne is in the sky, whisks his servant Elijah away from the earth and toward his own mysterious and unapproachable abode. The storm or “whirlwind” (sě‘ārâ II Kings 2:11) through which he does this contributes a sense of awesome violence, intensifying our perception of the unpredictable, unnatural, indeed, otherworldly character of the event. (Levenson, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life, 101)

The ambiguity and irregular construction may be intentional as the author faces the dilemma of describing a unique supernatural phenomenon within the constraints of natural language.

Some interpreters have attempted to mitigate the miraculous features of the incident. Nelson P. Estrada relays:

There are two possible explanations concerning the relationship of Elijah’s disappearance and the ‘whirlwind’ with the definite article after the chariot and horses. John Gray [1913-2000], for example, suggests that since the former was a natural phenomena, the latter (chariot and horse) may also have been. He adds that the whirlwind and the sudden disappearance of Elijah may be compared with the visible progress of an accompanying dust-storm by horses and chariots. Th other explanation is the historification of a native myth or cult legend. (Estrada, From Followers to Leaders: The Apostles in the Ritual Status Transformation in Acts 1-2, 96)

Most contemporary interpreters concede that the passage attempts to convey a supernatural anomaly. Richard D. Patterson and Hermann J. Austel (1926-2011) correct:

Elijah was taken up to heaven in the whirlwind, not in the chariot and horses of fire as is so often taught. Nor is the account of Elijah’s translation drawn from mythological sources (contra Gwilym H. Jones [b. 1930], 385-86), such as those depicting a god moving across the sky (e.g., the Egyptian god Re). (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], 1 Samuel ~ 2 Kings (Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 813)

Elijah is taken by a “whirlwind” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) or “strong wind’ (CEV). Joseph Robinson (b. 1927) notes:

A whirlwind would be a fairly frequent and therefore relatively well-known occurrence in the deserts of Transjordan. Wind and spirit were closely related in the minds of the Hebrews. The Hebrew ruah means both. The link was probably the idea of energy, as in the New Testament where the double meaning of the word is used as a basis for teaching (cp. John 3:8 and Acts 2:1-4). (Robinson, The Second Book of Kings (Cambridge Bible Commentary, 24)

Despite the relative unanimity of translators, the Hebrew term se‘ârâh is broader than the English “whirlwind”. Paul R. House (b. 1958) clarifies:

Literally the phrase השמים בסערה says “in the storm of the heavens,” which does not designate whether or not a “whirlwind” is meant. Cf. Francis Brown [1849-1916], S.R. Driver [1846-1914] and Charles A. Briggs [1841-1913], 704. (House, 1, 2 Kings (New American Commentary), 257)

Marvin A. Sweeney (b. 1953) informs:

The term sě‹ārâ, “whirlwind, storm, wind,” appears frequently in depictions of YHWH’s theophanies (e.g. Ezekiel 1:4, 13:11, 13; Zechariah 9:14; Job 38:1, 40:6; cf. Isaiah 29:6, 40:24, 41:16; Jeremiah 23:19, 30:23) to portray YHWH’s amorphous yet powerful presence. The imagery of the storm wind likely relates to YHWH’s role in creation as the source of rain, wind, storm, and thus fertility, much as the Phoenician, Syrian, and Mesopotamian storm gods, such as Baal or Hadad, fill similar roles in their respective cultural contexts. The weather deities are frequently portrayed as riding chariots through the heavens. Baal is designated rkb‘rpt, “the rider of the clouds,’ and Hadad and other weather gods are likewise portrayed either in the chariots (The Ancient Neat East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament 689) or in relation to winged sun disks that convey them through the heavens (The Ancient Neat East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament 501, 531, 532, 534-36). Other biblical texts portray YHWH riding through the heavens in a chariot (Psalm 68:5, 34; Psalms 18:11/II Samuel 22:11; Deuteronomy 33:26; Isaiah 19:1; cf. Habakkuk 3:8; Ezekiel 1:8-11). (Sweeney, I & II Kings: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 271-72)

The same term is used in Job 38:1. Jo Bailey Wells (b. 1965) discusses:

The term translated “whirlwind” is used in the context of divine appearance (see Ezekiel 1:4). The broader use of a storm as a sign of divine appearance occurs using other terms as well (see Psalms 18:7-15, 50:3, 68:8; Nahum 1:3; Zechariah 9:14). Elijah was taken off in the midst of a whirlwind (II Kings 2:11). The whirlwind strikes the reader as a place where the reader is not at home. (David L. Bartlett [b. 1941] and Barbara Brown Taylor [b. 1951], Feasting on the Word: Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary, Year B, 149)

The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary compares:

Elijah the prophet, at the end of his earthly career, was taken up alive into heaven in a whirlwind (II Kings 2:11). The Hebrew word there behind “whirlwind” (se’arah) also describes the atmospheric phenomenon of Ezekiel 1:4, “the windstorm”—the early impression the prophet had of the flying cherubim, above which God was enthroned. Thus, God communicates in a special way to these two prophets in the whirlwind/windstorm; in both cases, this encounter initiated a climactic event in their prophetic ministries: Elijah’s ended, and Ezekiel’s began. (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952], The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1711)

Most have seen Elijah’s whirlwind removal as a theophany, a divine appearance. August H. Konkel (b. 1948) remarks:

The topic of the chapter is introduced by saying that Elijah is taken up to heaven in a storm [II Kings 2:1]...The force and power of the wind are symbolic of the majestic and holy presence of the divine. The storm is the means by which the immanence of God can be perceived, somewhat like the storm on Mount Sinai (Exodus 20:18-19). (Konkel, 1 & 2 Kings (NIV Application Commentary), 379)

Ironically, Elijah had once sought God’s voice on Mount Horeb through dramatic weather manifestations such as wind and earthquakes but instead heard a divine tone in “a gentle blowing” or silence (I Kings 19:11-14 NASB). Here, God finally speaks in the storm.

Jesse C. Long, Jr. (b. 1953) connects:

Once more, Elijah is associated with fire (cf. I Kings 18:38; II Kings 1:9-15). The prophet goes up (‘ālāh) to heaven in a whirlwind (סערה s‘ār āh, “storm,” often associated with Yahweh; cf. Job 38:1, 40:6; Isaiah 29:6; Jeremiah 30:23), even though Yahweh was not in the storm on Horeb (cf. I Kings 19:9-18). (Long, 1 & 2 Kings (College Press NIV Commentary), 290)

Elijah’s departure further validates him against his adversaries. Gary Inrig (b. 1943) contrasts:

Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind, not in the chariot, another indication of the emptiness of the claims of Baal, the so-called storm god. It was the Lord who controlled the storm and God’s prophet who rode it into his presence. Ahab and Jezebel’s deaths would be associated with dogs [I Kings 21:19, 23, 24, 22:38]; Elijah’s departure happened through supernatural intervention. (Inrig, 1 & 2 Kings (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 205-06)

Just as being taken by God is more honorific than being devoured by dogs, so does the supernatural trump the natural.

This exit was especially befitting of Elijah. John H. Walton (b. 1952) and Kim E. Walton (b. 1954) opine:

Fire and whirlwind were generally associated in the ancient world with a storm god whose chariot is the storm cloud. In I Kings 17:1-18:46 Elijah contended on Yahweh’s behalf against Baal, a storm god. He demonstrated that Yahweh was the Storm God (he sent fire to consume the sacrifice and then sent rain), not Baal. Of course, Yahweh filled every divine function, but Elijah had been most involved with showing Yahweh to be the true Storm God. It is therefore appropriate that fire and whirlwind with chariots and horses was his vehicle. (Walton and Walton, The Bible Story Handbook: A Resource for Teaching 175 Stories from the Bible, 206)

The whirlwind serves as one final stamp of approval that God is with Elijah. He is a prophet indeed.

What messages are conveyed by Elijah’s whirlwind exit (II Kings 2:11)? How are we to picture this scene, as a twister enveloping the prophet as in The Wizard of Oz? Which image is more significant, the chariot of fire or the whirlwind? Why is this methodology employed? In what ways does the phenomenon reflect the situation? When have you left a job or city? How do you hope to depart the earth? When have you been validated? Have you ever felt God’s stamp of approval?

The whirlwind mirrors the myriad of emotions Elisha must feel as he says goodbye to the man he considers his “father” (II Kings 2:12) and faces the unenviable task of following a legend. As Elijah passes the great divide in a whirlwind, there is a clear line of demarcation between he and his successor.

Marvin A. Sweeney (b. 1953) contends:

The portrayal in II Kings 2:11 of Elijah’s ascent into the heavens marks the transfer of prophetic power to Elisha. The verse emphasizes that the fiery chariot separates them as Elijah ascends to the heavens in a whirlwind to differentiate Elijah’s new place in the second realm of the heavens and Elisha’s continued presence in the profane realm of the earth. (Sweeney, I & II Kings: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 274)

The whirlwind provides a definitive before and after, a clear changing of the guard. Gina Hens-Piazza (b. 1948) considers:

Elisha must pass a test for which he cannot even prepare. Whether he sees Elijah parting is out of his control. He must transfer his dependence on Elijah to complete dependence upon God. But God’s whirlwind does not grant easy access, nor does the Lord’s manifestation in the wilderness afford spiritual comfort. Indeed, Elisha does see Elijah depart, but the whirlwind also blows asunder his safety and robs him of the one who gave him his identity. The whirling upheaval that whisks Elijah from him requires Elisha to surrender the safety of his position as servant to grapple with God as one of God’s prophets. He must become the Lord’s instrument, delivering the divine word before kings throughout Israel. (Hens-Piazza, 1-2 Kings (Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries), 239)

Handling such difficult change and loss is typical of the human experience. Richard D. Nelson (b. 1945) preaches:

Literature has always helped the human race rehearse change and come to terms with it, perhaps even find value in it...Biblical literature goes even further, insisting that change is meaningful and bearable because God is the author of change. God’s whirlwind blows away every love, every security, every safety. The same changeless God pushes ceaseless change on the world. Yet God’s commission for ministry transcends change. (Nelson, First and Second Kings (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 163)

Elijah’s absence leaves a gaping whole in both Elisha’s and the nation’s life. As the whirlwind envelops his mentor, Elisha is positioned literally and figuratively at the edge as he faces the challenge of filling the void. With God’s help, he will do so.

Who does the whirlwind most benefit, Elijah, Elisha or the nation as a whole? What does the whirlwind accomplish? Does it in any way give Elisha “closure”? How does the whirlwind assist in the leadership transition from Elijah to Elisha? When have you experienced a whirlwind of change? What is the smoothest succession of leadership with which you are familiar? Must the previous regime depart for its successor to thrive? Must the old pastor leave for her successor to succeed? Whose shoes do you need to fill?

“Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful. It's the transition that's troublesome.” - Isaac Asimov (1920-1992)

A Cloud The Size of a Hand (I Kings 18:44)

Who saw “a cloud no larger than a man’s hand” and knew the three-year drought was over? Elijah’s servant (I Kings 18:44)

One of the most famous incidents in the life of Elijah is his defeat of 450 prophets of Ba’al in a contest to determine whose god would send fire on Mount Carmel (I Kings 18:20-40). Immediately after this great triumph, while in the midst of a drought and with nary a cloud in the sky, Elijah dismisses King Ahab in anticipation of a torrential downpour (I Kings 18:41). The prophet then assumes the fetal position (I Kings 18:42) and instructs his unnamed servant to inspect the horizon seven times (I Kings 18:43). After the first six trips prove fruitless, the servant returns a seventh time having witnessed the smallest of signs (I Kings 18:44).

It came about at the seventh time, that he [the servant] said, “Behold, a cloud as small as a man’s hand is coming up from the sea.” And he [Elijah] said, “Go up, say to Ahab, ‘Prepare your chariot and go down, so that the heavy shower does not stop you.’” (I Kings 18:44 NASB)

Marvin A. Sweeney (b. 1953) summarizes:

Elijah goes to the top of Carmel and prostrates himself, with his head between his knees, in a position of prayer. The purpose of this action becomes evident as he bids his servant seven times to look out to the sea. When the boy observes at his seventh attempt a small rain cloud forming over the Mediterranean it is evident that the drought is about to come to an end. (Sweeney, First and Second Kings: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 229-30)

The only evidence the servant produces is a seemingly inconsequential cloud (I Kings 18:44) yet this is enough confirmation to satisfy Elijah.

When James recounts the event, he attributes the downpour to the prophet’s prayers (James 5:17-18). August H. Konkel (b. 1948) interprets:

A sevenfold repetition indicates the fullness of prayer (I Kings 18:43-44); each time the servant ascends one of the peaks of Carmel for the best view. At the first sign of a small cloud the company begins its descent from the mountain lest the rain bog them in the valley below. As Ahab rides furiously towards Jezreel, Elijah runs on ahead [I Kings 18:46]. Running before the king indicates service to the king, now with the intent that the king will fulfill his proper mission in service to God. (Konkel, 1 & 2 Kings (The NIV Application Commentary), 301)

Warren W. Wiersbe (b. 1929) applies:

Unlike the answer to the prayer at the altar, the answer to this prayer didn’t come at once. Seven times Elijah sent his servant to look toward the Mediterranean Sea and report any indications of a storm gathering, and six of those times the servant reported nothing. The prophet didn’t give up but prayed a seventh time, and the servant saw a tiny cloud coming from the sea. This is a good example for us to follow as we “watch and pray” and continue to intercede until the Lord sends the answer...The little cloud wasn’t a storm, but it was the harbinger of the rains that were to come. (Wiersbe, Be Responsible (I Kings): Being Good Stewards of God’s Gifts, 169)

The precursor to rain is a natural one, namely a cloud. Richard D. Patterson and Hermann J. Austel (1927-2011) define:

The Hebrew word for “cloud” (’āb) refers to a thick, dark, rainy cloud mass (cf. Judges 5:4; II Samuel 23:4). Ahab’s need for haste in the face of the oncoming cloudburst can be appreciated when one realizes that his chariot must travel seventeen miles through the accumulating mud and across the quickly swelling dry wadis. (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], 1 Samuel-2 Kings (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 779)

The cloud is “as small as a man’s hand” (I Kings 18:44 NASB). In her classic devotional Streams in the Desert, L.B. Cowman (1870-1960) remarks:

“A cloud as small as a man’s hand is rising from the sea” (1 Kings 18:44). What a fitting description, for a man's hand had been raised in prayer to God before the rains came. (Cowman, Streams in the Desert: 366 Daily Devotional Readings, 176)

Other authors writing to a popular audience have also found symbolism in the cloud’s comparison to a hand. Clark Strand (b. 1957) sees:

The cloud witnessed by Elijah’s servant is very small—the tiniest cloud you could see, just like a little hand coming up over the horizon. So small is it, in fact, that it might almost seem insignificant, if it weren’t for the fact that it is shaped like a hand. That makes it intimate, and that intimacy gives Elijah an intimation of things to come. When it pops up from the blank horizon of the sea, immediately he leaps up. (Strand, How to Believe in God: Whether You Believe in Religion or Not, 109)

Craig B. Polenz (b. 1948) concurs:

There is a small cloud like a man’s hand on yonder horizon that is rising out of the sea, which is a type of our humanity (I Kings 18:44a). By injecting the human element of a hand, I believe the divine suggestion is that the things such as prolonged draughts, hopelessness, and bitter disappointment must acquiesce to the divinely empowered, small hand of a man. (Polenz, The Chronicles of Elijah: To Jericho and Beyond God’s Path of Enlightenment, 28)

The text’s emphasis, however, is on the cloud’s size, or lack thereof, not its shape. It uses a double description. First, it is described as “small” (ASV, CEV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NKJV) or “little” (ESV, KJV, MSG, NLT, NRSV, RSV).

Then the servant adds the simile “as a man’s hand” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, RSV). More modern translations use the equally accurate but more inclusive language of a “person’s hand” (NRSV) or “someone’s hand” (MSG).

A similar comparison occurred around Chattanooga, Tennessee, in 1917. Coal miners had begun dipping their graham crackers in marshmallow fluff. Noticing that he was selling an excessive number of graham crackers to the miners, Earl Mitchell Sr. (1884-1945), an industrious salesman for Chattanooga Bakery, investigated and decided to combine the two ingredients into a single product. Legend has it that during a moonlit night, Mitchell asked how the product should be packaged. Noting that it would fit into the average lunch pail, a coal miner held up circled fingers and framed the moon to indicate its size. With that, the Moon Pie was born. Despite taking its name from the moon, much like Elijah’s servant, the miner was indicating size, not shape.

The palm sized cloud is minuscule particularly against the backdrop of the vast sky. But it is enough for the prophet. Choon-Leong Seow (b. 1952) relates:

The servant sees a little cloud “no bigger than a person’s hand” arising from the horizon. The approaching cloud, though appearing small in the distance, is reminiscent of the cloud of glory that represented the Lord’s presence at the mountain of God in the time of Moses. (Seow, 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Tobit, Judith (The New Interpreter’s Bible), 137)

Interpreting natural phenomena as divine omens is common among religious people. Piotr Sadowski (b.1957) philosophizes:

Sometimes...some reactions produced by non-human systems can be interpreted as “signs” by persons who regard certain natural phenomena, such as the strike of a thunderbolt, a flood, an earthquake, or a pestilence as resulting not just from physical causes but from the actions of some purposeful, supernatural intelligence, variously identified as “god,” “providence,” or “fate.” Interpreted in this light natural phenomena begin to assume human-like characteristics, as when the prophet Elijah’s prayer for rain is answered with “Behold, there ariseth a little cloud out of the sea, like a man’s hand” (I Kings 18:44). Because having a purposeful design about things presupposes an autonomous system equipped with metainformational cognitive faculties, for religious persons the entire universe, created by such a superior being, can indeed be filled with “signs” rather than simply with physical states. (Sadowski, From Interaction to Symbol: A systems view of the evolution of signs and communication (Iconicity in Language and Literature), 69)

The belief in a personal God creates the hope that the deity is attempting to communicate. Joyce Meyer (b. 1943) encourages:

If you and I could just look at our situation really hard, I am sure we could always find a cloud of hope at least the size of a man’s hand. No matter how things may look right now, I am sure that there must be at least that much hope we can hang onto. (Meyer, The Battle Belongs to the Lord: Overcoming Life’s Struggles Through Worship, 175)

Why does the servant describe the cloud? What does the analogy “as small as a man’s hand” add to the story? How would you have described the cloud had you been Elijah’s servant? Do you believe that God speaks through natural occurrences? When have you gained confidence from a seemingly negligible sign? Why do you think that both the king and the servant followed Elijah’s instructions to vacate the vicinity?

Elijah believes in his prayer so much that he employs a lookout. He puts his money where his mouth is, placing his reputation (invaluable to a prophet) on the line. And his faith is rewarded.

Iain W. Provan (b. 1957) elucidates:

It is a long wait but at last a cloud as small as a man’s hand is seen rising from the sea. Though small, it is enough to assure Elijah that the drought is over (cf. Luke 12:54), and after warning Ahab to leave or get wet, he races him to Jezreel in the power of the LORD. As we might expect, in view of the story so far, he wins. It is a fitting conclusion to the chapter. (Provan, 1 and 2 Kings (New International Biblical Commentary), 139)

Elijah’s forecast is correct marking a rare instance in which a cloud serves as a good omen. The small hand-sized cloud represents the first fruits of the heavy rains that follow (I Kings 18:45).

Jesse C. Long, Jr. (b. 1953) praises:

For Elijah, an unsurpassed stalwart of faith, even a small cloud is enough to know that Yahweh is about to send rain. Ahab is told to hurry back before the rains mire his travel. The sky grows black, the winds pick up, and a heavy rain begins. Ahab sets out in his chariot, and the power of the Lord seizes Elijah, enabling him to run ahead of Ahab to Jezreel (the location of Ahab’s winter palace, not far from Carmel). (Long, 1 & 2 Kings (College Press NIV Commentary), 218)

Richard Nelson (b. 1945) reveals:

The climax comes in I Kings 18:45 with a colorful description of the storm’s sudden onset. The dramatic tension drains away in the denouement of Elijah’s spirit-driven twenty-five kilometer run to Jezreel (I Kings 18:46). Once more, Ahab, who has been either passive or absent during much of the chapter, simply reacts to events. (Nelson, First and Second Kings (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 120)

The large faith generated from such a small sign has inspired many. James Joyce (1882-1941) titled the eighth story in his Dubliners collection “A Little Cloud” and the expression “Cloud Like a Man’s Hand” developed from this narrative (I Kings 18:41-45).

David L. Jeffrey (b. 1941) traces:

The expression is often used simply to portend the imminence of greater things. It is of little moment in medieval and Renaissance literature, but emerges to prominence in Protestant preaching of the Puritan tradition in connection with meditations on prayer “in faith believing” (see Matthew Poole [1624-1679]’s commentary in his Annotations upon the Holy Bible; also on James 5:7), and in Sunday sermons on Elijah and Elisha such as Cytherea reflects sorrowfully as she ponders being forced into marriage in Thomas Hardy [1840-1928]’s Desperate Remedies. (Jeffrey, A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature, 148)

Elijah is able to see the great potential in such a small sign as he views the world with the eyes of faith ( Matthew 5:8; Ephesians 1:18). He takes action before the sign comes to fulfillment, instructing the king to get while the getting’s good (I Kings 18:44).

John W. Olley (b. 1938) describes:

Elijah is confident as he hears with the ears of faith: there is the sound of a heavy rain – but as yet no cloud (I Kings 18:41, 43). He expectantly commands the king to go up, eat and drink...that is, participate in the meal associated with the sacrifice, here signifying for Ahab a reaffirming of the covenant with Yahweh. (Olley, The Message of Kings (Bible Speaks Today), 177)

Gary Inrig (b. 1943) adds:

Elijah’s confidence that God would answer this prayer was so great that this was all the evidence he needed. He sent the servant to advise Ahab to head for home as quickly as possible, before the storm overtook him. Torrential rain after a drought presented the likelihood of swollen streams, mudslides, and flash floods that would make charioteering dangerous. (Inrig, I & II Kings (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 150)

Elijah’s faith does not merely lead to belief. It transforms into action.

When have you taken an action based upon your faith in an as yet unrealized occurrence? What action do you need to be taking in faith now? How do you know that a sign is from God? How much evidence do you need before acting upon a sign from God?

“Signs must be read with caution. The history of Christendom is replete with instances of people who misread the signs.” - Sheldon Vanauken (1914-1996), A Severe Mercy, p. 190

Elijah & The Ravens (I Kings 17)

Who was fed by ravens? Elijah

Elijah bursts onto the Biblical scene seemingly from out of nowhere. (I Kings 17:1). The prophet makes an explosive entrance with what amounts to a hit and run prophecy as immediately after declaring a three-year drought in Israel, God sends Elijah east to the brook Cherith (I Kings 17:1-3). Some have interpreted the immediate voyage to the brook as evidence of an instantaneous stoppage of rain.

Under the direction of King Ahab, Israel had been engaging in idolatry (I Kings 16:31-32) and the drought asserts that Yahweh, not the pagan deity Ba’al, controls the weather.

Amid the drought, God promises to sustain the prophet through the brook’s water and food fed to him by ravens (I Kings 17:4). Elijah follows instructions and God fulfills his promises as twice daily ravens dutifully come with provisions (I Kings 17:5-6).

The ravens brought him bread and meat in the morning and bread and meat in the evening, and he would drink from the brook. (I Kings 17:6 NASB)

Peter J. Leithart (b. 1959) summarizes, “During a drought, Elijah drinks from a wadi (a seasonal stream) for days and eats the food brought by ravens. Yahweh makes a ‘garden’ in the midst of the wilderness, as he had done for Israel centuries before (Leithart, 1 & 2 Kings (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 127).”

Elijah is sent on a mission that few would envy; a reminder that God’s call does not always lead to places the servant would have otherwise chosen. Iain W. Provan (b. 1957) acknowledges:

Elijah leaves Ahab’s presence to hide in an inhospitable atmosphere east of the Jordan where, we deduce, there is no normal food supply. God has saved him from Ahab and Jezebel, it is implied (I Kings 17:3; cf. I Kings 18:4, 19:1-2), but under normal circumstances he will now die of hunger. God is, however, able to provide for him. (Provan, 1 and 2 Kings (New International Biblical Commentary), 132-133)

Terence E. Fretheim (b. 1936) adds:

This seems almost as risky as staying near Ahab; he is to drink from a wadi and be fed with food provided by ravens...Elijah obeys...and God provides—in an extravagant way for the culture (meat twice a day!)—through unlikely sources. (Fretheim, First and Second Kings (Westminster Bible Companion), 97)

Elijah demonstrates faith worthy of a prophet. Gary Inrig (b. 1943) commends:

This demanded faith because the brook that ran through the Kidron was a wadi, a stream that flowed only during the rainy season—hardly a long-term source of water when a drought was on the way. And ravens were untamed scavengers, not providers. How could they serve as a food source?...Nevertheless, Elijah followed God’s instructions. He made his way to the wadi Kerith, where he spent a period of time. It was a place of total dependence upon God, and the Lord demonstrated his sufficiency. (Inrig, 1 & 2 Kings (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 134)

God provides abundantly for the prophet through both natural and supernatural means. Volkmar Fritz (1938-2007) dissects:

While the provision with water happens in a natural way, the provision of food by ravens points to a miracle. Ravens, which are normally regarded as scavengers and as aggressive birds, serve as carriers of food. The daily meat included in the provision moves beyond the average diet since meat was normally eaten only on feast days. Because of the miraculous supply, Elijah is free from concerns; as a man of God he does not need any help and the drought does not concern him. Elijah is already portrayed as an obedient prophet, led by the word of Yahweh because he does not act on his own initiative but follows the orders of Yahweh. It is not his own power but the help of Yahweh that secures his survival in time of need triggered by a drought. (Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings: A Continental Commentary, 183)

There is a stark contrast between the prophet’s circumstances and the nation’s. While Israel dries up, Elijah drinks cool water. While Israel starves, Elijah enjoys a veritable feast. While the constituents of Ba’al suffer, the prophet of Yahweh prospers.

Like God had done during the wilderness wandering, food was available to God’s people even amidst a barren environment (Exodus 16:8, 12). Richard Nelson (b. 1945) notes:

The story of Elijah and the ravens (I Kings 17:2-6) reflects the common folktale motif of the hero being fed by beasts and reminds the reader of the canonical traditions of wilderness feeding. (The LXX caught this implication and makes specific reference to Exodus 16:8, 12.)...The narrator emphasizes that the word of God is the prime mover in the story; Elijah is passively obedient (I Kings 17:2-5a). (Nelson, First and Second Kings (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 109)

Paul R. House (b. 1958) affirms:

Regardless of harsh physical circumstances, the Lord provides for the prophet. The drought has begun, but Elijah has resources because his God controls all natural resources. God directs him to a brook that has water and where ravens will feed him. Also God has protected Elijah by taking him out of Ahab’s reach (cf. I Kings 18:10). Nothing he needs has been withheld. (House, 1, 2Kings (New American Commentary), 213)

Bruce Wilkinson (b. 1947) applies:

How does God’s sending ravens to feed Elijah during a drought (I Kings 17:6) apply to us today? Obviously this does not mean God desires to feed Christians by means of birds. Instead the principle is that God sometimes meets human needs by unusual means. The application of this principle is that believers can trust the Lord to supply all their needs. (Wilkinson, Almost Every Answer For Practically Any Teacher, 171)

If you could be fed by any animal what would it be? If God is sustaining the prophet, why does he go into exile? When have you experienced a personal drought? How did God provide? Is being fed by a raven sanitary? What do you associate with ravens? Why were ravens enlisted for this task?

Ravens, unclean animals (Leviticus 11:13-15; Deuteronomy 14:12-14), are agents of God. A raven was utilized by Noah to confirm that the flood had not subsided (Genesis 8:6-7). In contrast, it is implied that ravens devour the sons of evil kings who die in the field (I Kings 14:11, 16:4)

In this passage, ravens acts against their nature. Working against type, they share food with Elijah. Frederick Buechner (b. 1926) envisions:

When the ravens came and fed Elijah bread and meat by the brook Cherith (I Kings 17:6), we’re told they did it because the Lord commanded them to. However, I suspect that since, in spite of Edgar Allan Poe [1809-1949], ravens are largely nonverbal, the Lord caused the sight of the old man to be itself the command the way the smell of breakfast is a command to the hungry or the sound of your best friend on the stair a command to rejoice...If the ravens could have talked, they would probably have tried to talk either the Lord or themselves out of doing anything about it. As it was, there was simply nothing for it but to bring him two squares a day till he moved on somewhere else. The sleek, black birds and the bony intractable prophet—since all life is one life, to save another is to save yourself, and with their wings, and beaks, and throbbing birds’ hearts all working at once, the ravens set about doing it. (Buechner, Whistling in the Dark: An ABC Theologized, 7-8)

Being fed by ravens is highly unusual and not surprisingly attempts have been made to naturalize the text. Russell H. Dilday (b. 1930) surveys:

Interpreters with antisupernatural presuppositions are uncomfortable with the miraculous element in passages like this. Some have gone to extremes to provide natural explanations for the ravens. For example, some suggest that the Hebrew word for “ravens,” oˉrbîm. could be changed a little to stand for “Arabs” or “Orebites,” natives of an imaginary city called “Oreb.” Others say the word means “steppe-dwellers,” suggesting Elijah was fed by friendly bedouins or itinerant traders. But the supernatural miracles belong in the passage and are acceptable to persons of faith, who see them as consistent with the omnipotent power of the Lord who made the universe. (Dilday, 1 & 2 Kings (Mastering the Old Testament)), 204

In this case, eliminating the supernatural from the narrative defeats the text’s purpose. God is presented as the Beastmaster as the obedient ravens are further proof that Yahweh, not Ba’al is in control.

Marvin A. Sweeney (b. 1953) comments:

YHWH’s statements that the prophet will drink the water of the Wadi Cherith and eat the food brought to him by the ravens highlight the contention that YHWH controls nature to support the prophet. The reference to ravens presupposes their ability to scavenge for food (cf. Proverbs 30:17), to live in inhospitable environments (cf. Isaiah 34:11), and to find their way generally (cf. Noah’s use of ravens in Genesis 8:7). Job 38:41 indicates that YHWH cares for the ravens, which is analogous to the use of the raven to care for Elijah in the present context. This motif suggests associations with the wilderness tradition of the Pentateuch in which YHWH sustained the people by providing water, manna, and quails (Exodus 16:1-17:7; Numbers 11:1-35, 20:1-13; cf. Jeremiah 35:1-19, which refers to the Rechabites, who live in the desert in keeping with the traditions of their ancestors). (Sweeney, First and Second Kings: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 212)

In the midst of drought, God, unlike Ba’al provides. Terence E. Fretheim (b. 1936) concludes:

Communication between God and the nonhuman is not an uncommon Old Testament theme (even for ravens, Psalm 147:9). But the point...is not miracle or micromanagement. Rather, it stakes a claim that Israel’s God, not Baal, is the Creator, who provides water and who works through nonhuman creatures that are not usually among the animals who provide food in order to sustain the faithful. (Fretheim, First and Second Kings (Westminster Bible Companion), 99)

The prophet’s food source (ravens) like the prophet’s proclamation (drought) reminds that Yahweh is superior to Ba’al. And the contest is not close.

How can we, like the ravens, act against our own selfish impulses to benefit God’s cause? What is the most surprising way in which God has provided for you? Have you ever been fed by an animal? Where have you seen animals assisting humans? What is the nicest thing an animal has ever done for you?

“Animals are not humans with reduced capacities. They have their own capacities, their own spectrum of aptitudes and behaviors.” - Jean Kazez, Animalkind: What We Owe to Animals, p. 95

Herodias’ Blank Cheque (Mark 6:24)

What did Herodias want from John the Baptist? His head (Mark 6:24)

The Synoptic gospels report that Herod Antipas ordered John the Baptist’s beheading (Matthew 14:3-12; Mark 6:14-29; Luke 3:19-20, 9:7-9). Matthew and Mark flashback to a decadent scene in the royal court to show how the execution transpired (Matthew 14:3-12; Mark 6:14-29).

Herodias’ daughter performs a crowd pleasing dance at Herod’s birthday party (Matthew 14:7; Mark 6:21-22). To show his gratitude, Herod offers the girl “up to half my kingdom.” (Mark 6:23 NASB; cf. Matthew 14:7). In turn, the daughter consults her mother who makes her desire known – John’s head (Matthew 14:8; Mark 6:24-25).

And she went out and said to her mother, “What shall I ask for?” And she said, “The head of John the Baptist.” (Mark 6:24 NASB)

According to Mark’s gospel, which provides the most thorough account, the girl herself added the dramatic touch- “on a platter” (Mark 6:25). Presumably John is imprisoned close by because her request is granted and the prophet is put to death before the party ends (Matthew 14:9-12; Mark 6:26-28).

Herodias is depicted as the evil genius pulling strings behind the scenes. Her agency in John’s demise is poetic. John is presented as a type of Elijah (Matthew 11:14, 17:10-13; Mark 9:11-13) and Elijah’s nemesis was also a wicked queen, Jezebel (I Kings 18:11-13, 19:2-9).

Herodias holds a vendetta against the prophet because John had denounced the intrigues of the Herodian court, specifically her marriage (Matthew 14:3-4; Mark 6:17-20; Luke 3:19). Prior to being Herod’s wide, Herodias had been married to his brother, Philip, and John had the audacity to point out the illegality of such wife swapping (Matthew 14:3-4; Mark 6:17-18). For those who bemoan the downfall of the family, there have always been nontraditional families and Herod’s family was more dysfunctional than most.

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) chronicles:

Herod is called king [Mark 6:14], surely an ironic twist because though Antipas ruled Galilee from 4 B.C. to A.D. 39 and had pretensions to be a king, it was precisely...the request for the title...that eventually got him sent into in exile in 39 by a paranoid Caligula. In fact, he was tetrarch of the region of Galilee and Perea. Antipas must not be seen as a good Jew. Besides his forbidden marriage to Herodias, his brother’s wife, which was prohibited according to Leviticus 18:13 while the brother was still alive, Antipas also built his capital Tiberias on top of a pagan cemetery, something an observant Jew would never sanction. A good Jew would never even enter the city due to its uncleanness. In many ways he was a chip off the old block, being a son born to Herod the Great and his Samaritan wife Malthace in 20 B.C. (Witherington, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 213)

There is some debate as to the Bible’s accuracy in naming the principal players in this affair. C.E.B. Cranfield (b. 1915) reports:

Herodias was the daughter of Aristobulus, the son of Herod the great and Mariamne, and so the niece of Herod Antipas. If by ‘Philip’ Philip the Tetrarch is meant, this contradicts Josephus who says (Antiquities XVIII.136) that Herodias was married to Herod the son of Herod the Great and Mariamne II. Philip the Tetrarch actually married Salome. It would seem either Mark is mistaken, or the Herod to whom Herodias was married had also the name Philip... (Cranfield, The Gospel According To Saint Mark: An Introduction and Commentary, 209)

On a personal note, this family needed more originality in naming its members. These potential discrepancies do not alter the text’s meaning. Sharyn Dowd (b. 1947) assures, “The evangelist...is less interested in such details than in the way his macabre interpretation of the episode can be used to foreshadow the passion of Jesus and perhaps also to suggest future suffering for Jesus’ followers, who have just been sent out on their first assignment (Dowd, Reading Mark: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Second Gospel, 66).”

Herod essentially offers Herodias’ daughter a blank cheque. While this may have been unwise, no one could have predicted her request and the offer was not unheard of in antiquity. Bas M.F. van Iersel (1924-1999) comments, “That he offers her half his kingdom is not unusual at a royal court, especially when the king has had a drop too much. King Ahasuerus addresses Esther twice in the same way in Esther 5:3, where the king is impressed by her beauty, and in Esther 7:2 where he has had some wine (van Iersel, Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary (Library Of New Testament Studies), 222).”

Many blame the women for John’s untimely demise and see the tale as an exemplar of William Congreve (1670-1729)’s famous line:

Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned
Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned. -
Congreve, “The Mourning Bride”, Act III, Scene VIII, 1697)

Tellingly, Herod does not denounce the women, instead taking personal responsibility for the prophet’s death (Mark 6:16; Luke 9:19).

Though John was correct, was he correct to speak? Was this the hill on which he should have chosen to die? Were you Herodias’ daughter, what would you have asked for? Who was most responsible for the death of John the Baptist? Why was John killed?

John was not executed because of his message. The prophet was only arrested because of his proclamation. Josephus (37-100) attributed John’s death to his being perceived as a political threat (Antiquities of the Jews 18.116-118). In response, Vincent Taylor (1887-1968) reasons that “political ends and the anger of an insulted woman cannot be regarded as mutually exclusive (Mark, The Gospel According to St. Mark: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indexes, 311).”

The true cause of John’s death was peer pressure. Herodias could not tolerate the prophet’s public denouncement of her character as it could lead to public backlash and threaten her status (Mark 6:18-19). In response, Herod wanted to kill John instantly but abstained because he feared “the crowd” (Matthew 14:5). The witless dancing daughter was willing to succumb to any pressure so long she pleased and unfortunately she chose to dance to her mother’s tune. Then, having given the daughter carte blanche, Herod was more afraid of how he would look in front of his dinner guests than he was of killing an innocent man (Matthew 14:9; Mark 14:26). The only one in the story unconcerned with appearances is John the Baptist.

Do you think Herodias’ daughter ever had buyer’s remorse or was she pleased with her choice? To what extent are you willing to go to appease your friends? What message influences you most: Jesus’ message or the competing messages of the world?

“The logic of worldly success rests on a fallacy: the strange error that our perfection depends on the thoughts and opinions and applause of other men! A weird life it is, indeed, to be living always in somebody else’s imagination, as if that were the only place in which one could at last become real!” - Thomas Merton (1915-1968), The Seven Storey Mountain, p. 362

Elijah’s Exit (II Kings 2:11)

Who went to heaven in a chariot of fire? Elijah (II Kings 2:11).

The prophet Elijah knew the day that he was making his final exit from the earth (II Kings 12:3, 5). On that day, he along with his protégé, Elisha, made one last circuit, revisiting places of importance in Israel’s history. They traveled from Gilgal to Bethel (II Kings 12:2) to Jericho (II Kings 12:4) back to the east side of the Jordan River (II Kings 12:6) where they crossed to the other side (II Kings 12:8). The journey encompassed 50+ miles. At each stop, Elijah appears to attempt to do as he had done previously in the desert and leave his servant so that he could die alone (I Kings 19:3). At each site, Elijah ordered Elisha to stay behind and each time his apprentice refused to leave his master (II Kings 12:2, 12:4, 12:6). After crossing the Jordan, Elijah and Elisha were separated by a chariot and horsemen of fire (II Kings 2:11). Elijah “went up by a whirlwind to heaven” (II Kings 2:11 NASB) departing the earth and leaving his successor with only his mantle (II Kings 2:13).

The heaven to which Elijah ascended is not the ethereal place the modern word evokes. Jesus said, “No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man (John 3:13 NASB).” The Hebrew, shamayim, indicates the sky. This is evidenced by the fact that the fifty prophets who witnessed Elijah’s exit (II Kings 2:7) assumed that the prophet was taken elsewhere and searched for him for three days (II Kings 2:15-18). Regardless of his destination, Elijah went out in style.

Elijah’s end in a fiery blaze of glory was fitting. His greatest triumph was calling down fire to defeat the prophets of Ba’al (I Kings 18:38) and in one of his finals acts, he again called down fire to consume the soldiers of the rebelling king Ahaziah (II Kings 1:10, 12, 14). The horse and the chariot were symbols of battle. The fiery prophet who had spent his life battling for God was given an honorary military procession.

Tradition, reenforced through hymns (“Swing Low, Sweet Chariot”) and paintings, has evoked Ben Hur images of the chariot carrying the prophet away. Elijah was actually taken by a whirlwind, not a chariot of fire (II Kings 2:11). The fiery chariot served to separate the two ministry partners (II Kings 2:11). The horses may not have even been drawing the chariots as Elisha describes them distinctively (II Kings 12:12). Perhaps the fiery horses and chariot were merely Elijah’s escorts.

Elijah knowingly spent his last day on earth traveling Israel, presumably saying his goodbyes. Missionary Jim Elliott (1927-1956) who was martyred at age 28 in Ecuador, wrote in his journal on March 25th, 1951, “When it comes time to die, make sure that all you have to do is die (Elliot, The Journals of Jim Elliott, 324).”

If you could, would you want to know the exact day on which you would die? If you did know that today was your last day, where would you go? Why does Elijah exit the earth in this manner? For whose benefit were the “chariots for fire”?

“Chariots of fire” is now part of the cultural lexicon. Chariots of fire later come to Elisha’s rescue (II Kings 6:17) and similar imagery is used in Isaiah (Isaiah 66:15-16). Though it has numerous religious overtones, the 1981 Academy Award winning film Chariots of Fire is not actually named for this Biblical passage. Rather the title is taken from a line from a hymn sung in the movie, “Jerusalem”. The hymn, written by C. Hubert H. Parry (1848-1918) in 1916, was based upon a William Blake (1757-1827) poem. Blake’s poem was inspired by the apocryphal story of a young Jesus, accompanied by Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 27:57; Mark 15:43; John 19:38), visiting Glastonbury, England.

It is said that only two Biblical characters did not die: Enoch (Genesis 5:21-24) and Elijah (II Kings 2:1-11). Not surprisingly many legends have arisen around the two figures. Elijah did not die in the sense that his body never decayed but he died like everyone else in the sense that he moved from this life to the next.

What, if anything, do you fear most about death? Do you more dread the transition to the next life or the destruction of the body?

But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “Death is swallowed up in victory. O Death, where is your victory? O Death, where is your sting? (I Corinthians 15:54-55, NASB)

Elijah: Troublemaker for God

Which prophet did Ahab call “troubler of Israel”? Elijah (I Kings 18:17)

When Ahab encounters Elijah, the king addresses the prophet as “troubler of Israel” (I Kings 18:17). The only other time this descriptor is used in the Bible it is employed to characterize Achan (I Chronicles 2:7) whose disobedience wronged the entire nation (Joshua 6:18, 7:1, 18-26).

Ahab incorporates a gerund as he uses the verb ‘akar (meaning “to trouble, stir up, disturb, make (someone) taboo”) as a noun. Though many translations render the word as “troubler” (ASV, ESV, NASB, NIV, KJV, NRSV, RSV) this term is not actually in the dictionary. The word “troublemaker” (used by the MSG and NLT) is an accurate translation. Elijah was a troublemaker.

This is a terrible insult and not just due to its severity. Could Ahab not think of anything better? What is your most creative insult?

In the story, Elijah does what prophets do. He confronted the realpolitik (diplomacy based on realism rather than idealistic or religious concerns) of Israel’s kings. Elijah is introduced in the Biblical text by accurately predicting a drought in Israel (I Kings 17:1, James 5:17). The prophet attributed the drought to Israel’s unfaithfulness as Ahab had turned the people’s worship away from God and onto Ba’al (I Kings 18:18). Ahab blamed the messenger (I Kings 18:17).

Have you ever seen someone blame another for a problem they created? Have you? Why do people do this?

At the time of this confrontation, Israel was indeed troubled as the nation had endured three years of drought (I Kings 18:1). Yet it was not Elijah who was the troublemaker of Israel. Elijah courageously corrected Ahab saying, “I have not troubled Israel, but you and your father’s house have, because you have forsaken the commandments of the LORD and you have followed the Baals (I Kings 18:18, NASB).” Elijah was the troublemaker of Ahab, not Israel. Making trouble for politicians tends to be a primary facet of a prophet’s job description.

Who are today’s prophets, those who righteously confront politicians? Who, if anyone, should you be troubling? Can you handle the backlash of being labeled a “troublemaker”?

Elijah and Speaking Louder Longer

How many books did Elijah write? None.

Elijah is in many ways the quintessential Old Testament prophet. And yet he wrote nothing and his prophecies have seldom been interpreted as prognosticating Israel’s long-term future. He intervened in the life of the people, performed miracles, and spoke to their present situation. Elijah is evidence that, contrary to popular belief, a prophet is a forthteller, not necessarily a foreteller.

Still, Isaiah, at 66 chapters the longest of the Old Testament’s prophetic books, is the most mentioned prophet in the New Testament. Isaiah is quoted or referenced 85+ times in the New Testament. While Elijah appears in 29 verses and six books of the New Testament, he is never quoted. Are words more lasting than actions? Jesus famously said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.” (Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33, NASB)

And yet the people did not anxiously await the return of Isaiah, but rather Elijah (Malachi 4:5, Matthew 17:10, 11, 12, Mark 9:11)

French author Michel de Montaigne, (1532-1592) famously wrote, “Saying is one thing and doing is another.” Which speaks louder longer, actions or words?

Ideally, the Christian will do both.

“Preach the gospel at all times. Use words if necessary.” - attributed to Francis of Assisi (1181-1226)