75 ISRAEL’S RETREAT FAILURE PROPHECY 2 KINGS 3 AND THE OF IN source) ? ” He concludes: “That 2 Kings 3 depicts a violation of the law could not be more patent” 17. This argument would be compelling if the policy in Deut 20,19-20, which pertains to chopping down trees to build siege works, was applicable in all military situations. But suppressing a rebellious subject is a different matter; implementation of treaty curses is permitted. In 2 Kings 3 trees are chopped down as a punitive measure in conjunction with stopping up wells and throwing stones on fields, not for purposes of erecting siege works. c) Westbrook’s proposal: “a deceptively worded prediction that acts as a trap” 18 Westbrook contends, “Elisha’s prophecy was fulfilled to the letter” 19. But given the fact that Kir-Hareseth was not conquered, how can this be the case? According to Westbrook, “the key to Elisha’s prediction” lies in the prophet’s ambiguous and ironic use of the verb hkn. Those hearing the oracle (cf. v. 19) would have assumed that the verb meant, “destroy, con- quer ”, but in verse 25, which describes the slingers attacking Kir Hare- seth, it simply means “to strike, without necessarily causing any damage at all” 20. After drawing a parallel to the famous Delphic oracle, Westbrook concludes : “Elisha’s prophecy is part of the same literary topos: the de- ceptively worded prediction that acts as a trap for the unwary. Elisha pre- dicted a course of events; he did not predict victory, except in the mind of the listener. Like Croesus, Jehoram fell foul of ambiguous language” 21. Like Provan, Westbrook seems to assume that the use of hkn in verse 25 signals the complete fulfillment of the prophecy of verse 19, albeit in a different way than one might have expected. However, like Provan, he fails to account for the fact that the narrative does not state that Moab was given into Israel’s hands. The use of the verb hkn in verse 25 is indeed ironic, but its literary function is different from what Westbrook proposes. J. WRIGHT, “Warfare and Wanton Destruction: A Reexamination of De- 17 uteronomy 20:19-20 in Relation to Ancient Statecraft”, JBL 127 (2008) 450-451. Sprinkle and Wright are, of course, not alone in this opinion. See, for example, H. BRICHTO, Toward a Grammar of Biblical Poetics. Tales of the Prophets (New York 1992) 207-208; and P. KISSLING, Reliable Characters in the Primary History. Profiles of Moses, Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha (JSOTSS 224 ; Sheffield 1996), 175, 185. For a survey of scholarly opinion on the subject see HASEL, “The Destruction of Trees”, 197-199. WESTBROOK, “Elisha’s True Prophecy”, 532. 18 WESTBROOK, “Elisha’s True Prophecy”, 531. 19 WESTBROOK, “Elisha’s True Prophecy”, 531-532. 20 WESTBROOK, “Elisha’s True Prophecy”, 532. 21