73 ISRAEL’S RETREAT FAILURE PROPHECY 2 KINGS 3 AND THE OF IN riously absent in the narrative of the battle, suggesting that YAHWEH did not give Moab into the hands of Israel. Provan’s understanding of prophe- cy is also questionable. He seems to assume that a failed prophecy consti- tutes a “lie.” But is this necessarily the case? I will argue to the contrary. b) Sprinkle’s proposal: “Prophets can be tricky” 8 Like Provan, Sprinkle argues, “the narrator does portray Elisha’s pro- phecies as coming true” 9. Yet this does not mean the prophet endorsed the actions he predicted. While Jehoram apparently assumed the oracle contained “prediction and licence [sic] to do what was predicted,” this was not the case. From the prophet’s perspective, the oracle was “simple prediction ”. Sprinkle adds, “Prophets can be tricky” 10. According to Sprinkle, Jehoram, due to “his lack of moral sensitivity,” failed to realize that the actions outlined in the oracle violated the laws of warfare re- corded in Deuteronomy 20: “Were Jehoram interested in following Deuter- onomic law, he would have immediately seen the conflict between what Elisha predicted and what the law allows” 11. Israel’s failure to take Kir-Hareseth is a problem for Sprinkle’s view. In attempting to explain how the prophecy was fulfilled completely, Sprinkle says, “Israel did strike and destroy cities”. But, as Westbrook ob- serves : “The text explicitly refers to every fortified city, and Qir-Hareseth was certainly a fortified city. The prophecy as explained by Sprinkle did not come true, because divine punishment intervened too soon, when the last stronghold was still standing” (emphasis his) 12. In fairness to Sprinkle, it should be said that he does ask and attempt to answer the question, “But what of the failure to take Kir Hareseth?” 13 However, his proposed answer to this question is not clear or convincing. Furthermore, like Provan, Sprinkle seems to overlook the fact that YAHWEH did not give Moab into Israel’s hand, as Elisha predicted would happen. Sprinkle’s appeal to the Deuteronomic laws of warfare is immaterial in this case, because the situation described in 2 Kings 3 was different t h a n what Deut 20,10-20 envisions. Verses 16-18 constitute “the J. SPRINKLE, “Deuteronomic ‘Just War’ (Deut 20,10-20) and 2 Kings 8 3 :27 ”, Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 6 (2000) 299. SPRINKLE, “2 Kings 3:27”, 298. 9 SPRINKLE, “2 Kings 3:27”, 299. 10 SPRINKLE, “2 Kings 3:27”, 299. 11 R. WESTBROOK, “Elisha’s True Prophecy”, JBL 124 (2005) 531. 12 SPRINKLE, “2 Kings 3:27”, 299. 13