Robert B. Jr. Chisholm, «Israel’s Retreat and the Failure of Prophecy in 2 Kings 3», Vol. 92 (2011) 70-80
This is not a story of failed or deceptive prophecy, but rather an account of Israel’s failure in the face of opposition. YAHWEH’s promise was inherently contingent upon Israel’s willingness to bring it to completion. Their failure to do so is not surprising. Jehoram’s partial success in battle ironically mirrors his partial commitment to YAHWEH (vv. 1-3). As such, the concluding report of Israel’s retreat combines with the introductory report to form a thematic inclusio for the chapter: Those whose commitment to YAHWEH is half-hearted invariably forfeit his blessing.
72 ROBERT B. CHISHOLM, JR.
4. The prophecy was fulfilled, but it did not include the whole truth
Several interpreters have taken this approach, though from slightly
different angles:
a) Provan’s proposal: “a wicked Israelite king has been lured to disas-
ter †4
Despite Israel’s retreat and failure to conquer Kir Hareseth, Provan
insists, “Everything that Elisha predicted actually happened: all the
cities of Moab were attacked, all the good trees cut down, and so on ...
Elisha did not lie†5. Commenting on the use of the verb hkn in verse
19, he points out that this same word appears in verse 25, which
informs us that Israel attacked Kir Hareseth. According to Provan, “at
this point everything promised by Elisha has, strictly speaking, come to
pass †6. Yet Provan does qualify his assertions to some degree. He ac-
knowledges :
“ There is in his prophecy, nevertheless, a certain economy with the
truth. All that he said about the Moabite campaign was true, but the
whole truth was not spoken. Some crucial information (about its
end) was withheld — information whose absence led the recipients
of revelation (and the reader) to have quite mistaken expectations
about what would happen. The LORD did hand Moab over to the
kings (3:18) — but only up to a certain point. After that point, he
handed the kings over to Moab. In light of 1 Kings 22, we can
scarcely doubt that this was his intention from the start. Total
victory was never on the agenda, in spite of the way Elisha’s words
might have been construed. Once again a wicked Israelite king has
been lured to disaster, this time not by a lying spirit speaking
through false prophets, but by the Spirit of God revealing partial
truth to a true prophet†7.
Provan’s handling of the expression “give into your hand†in verse 18
is problematic. Elsewhere when this expression occurs in a military con-
text with a proper name as object, it invariably refers to total and un-
qualified victory (cf Josh 10,32; Judg 3,28; 4,14; 7,2.7; 8,7; 1 Sam 23,4;
28,19 ; Jer 44,30). Israel’s retreat, as described in verse 27, hardly qual-
ifies. Furthermore, the expression, while included in the oracle, is myste-
I. PROVAN, 1 and 2 Kings (NIBC ; Peabody, MA 1995) 184.
4
PROVAN, 1 and 2 Kings, 183.
5
PROVAN, 1 and 2 Kings, 186.
6
PROVAN, 1 and 2 Kings, 183-184.
7
FOLLOW US