|
The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit
Midrash
The Eliyahu Narratives Yeshivat Har Etzion
Shiur #20: The Second Encounter Between Eliyahu and
Achav (18:16-18) (part 1)
By Rav Elchanan Samet
(18:16) "... and Achav went to meet Eliyahu.
(17) And it was, when Achav saw Eliyahu, Achav said to him: Is
it you, O troubler of Israel?
(18) He said: [It is] not I [who has] troubled Israel, but you
and your father's house, by abandoning God's commandments and going after the
Be'alim."
1. Differences Between the First and Second Meetings with
Achav
The present altercation between the prophet and the king closes
a circle. This circle started with the prophet's first appearance before Achav,
where he made his oath to stop the rain:
(7:1) "Eliyahu the Tishbi, one of the inhabitants of Gilad,
said to Achav: As the Lord of Israel lives, before Whom I stand, there will be
no rain or dew during these years, except by my word."
There are so many differences between the original
confrontation and the present one that they may in fact be regarded as
inversions of one another:
i. Inversion of role: In the original confrontation, with which
the story begins, Eliyahu appears to be the one who initiated the meeting with
Achav; he appears before him as a prosecutor, bringing punishment. In the
present confrontation the situation is reversed. Although we, the readers, know
that Eliyahu has come in order to appear before Achav as God commanded him to
do, Achav is unaware of this. From his point of view it seems that he finally
happens to have an opportunity to meet the prophet whom he has sought so
desperately. Therefore he goes to meet Eliyahu; it is he who initiates the
encounter, and his address is, astonishingly, a rebuke of the prophet and an
accusation for what he has brought upon the nation of Israel.
ii. Reciprocity: In the first confrontation between them,
Eliyahu's oath is met with no reaction on Achav's part - or, at least, if there
was one it is not recorded in the text. Thus the description of that meeting is
one-sided; it is the description of Eliyahu's one-man show. From a certain
perspective, the second encounter between the king and the prophet contains
Achav's delayed reaction to Eliyahu's oath, following years of drought and
suffering, during which the severity of the oath has become apparent.
The present confrontation is of an entirely different nature.
It is a dialogue; admittedly tense, but attention is given to both sides.
Eliyahu responds to Achav's accusation and explains his position. Moreover, this
dialogue serves as the introduction to the cooperation that Eliyahu demands of
Achav, and to which Achav agrees (verses 19-20).
iii. Circumstances and results: The most important difference,
of course, concerns the circumstances that have brought each of the parties to
the meeting and, consequently, the results that each reaps from it. The first
meeting is initiated by Eliyahu himself, with no preceding Divine command.
Eliyahu's initiative of making an oath to stop the rain led to a period of
severe drought in the land and terrible hunger in Shomron.
Eliyahu's second appearance before Achav takes place not on his
own initiative, but rather as a result of God's command. Although Achav is
unaware of this Divine command, we know of its existence. Another matter of
which Achav is unaware at the beginning of this encounter, and which we know in
advance, is the purpose of the meeting: a renewal of the rains. Indeed, the rest
of this second encounter between the king and the prophet is conducted with
cooperation, with an eventual return of the rain and an end to the drought.
Thus, from almost every possible angle, the two altercations
between the king and the prophet are opposites of one another.
The present meeting represents the conclusion of the first
narrative within the larger story that occupies chapters 17-19. Our story begins
(apparently) in Achav's royal palace in Shomron with a confrontation between the
prophet and the king; it concludes close to Shomron with another confrontation
between them. The crux of the story that takes place in between these two
confrontations (some forty verses) is the description of the events and
circumstances that Eliyahu has experienced during the course of his wanderings
from his starting point until his return (and, to some extent, also the events
that have been experienced by Achav and Israel during the same period). It is
these events and tribulations that have facilitated the change in the respective
stances of both characters. In other words, the story essentially comes to show
how the two confrontations, at the bookends of the narrative, come to be the
opposite of one another.
2. The Confrontation Between Eliyahu and Achav as a Link
Between the Story of the Drought and the Story of the Test at Carmel
The meeting with Achav that now awaits Eliyahu has a dual
purpose. On one hand, this event intertwines all the encounters that Eliyahu has
experienced throughout the story, all of which were aimed at softening the
prophet's stance and preparing him to agree to the renewal of rain, as we shall
clarify below. On the other hand, the ultimate purpose of this encounter is
spelled out at the end of God's command to him: "And I shall give rain upon the
land." The appearance before Achav is a preparatory stage on the road to this
objective. The road is still long from this encounter between them to the actual
rainfall. Although in chronological terms it may not have taken more than a few
days, it includes many actions which are described in the following narrative,
covering twenty-eight verses.
Thus, the altercation between Eliyahu and Achav serves as the
link between the two stories. On one hand, it concludes the chain of events that
were aimed at bringing about a change in the prophet's view (which appears to be
the subject of the story of the drought), and in this respect it forms part of
that collection. On the other hand, this dialogue serves as the first in a
series of actions by Eliyahu, described principally in the next story, actions
aimed at changing the national reality such that Israel will be worthy of God
restoring the rain. From the first perspective, the aim of the meeting is to
bring the prophet closer to the experience of the king (who is the
representative of the nation). From the second perspective, its aim is to bring
the king closer to the position of the prophet. Thus the encounter between the
two of them is meant to lead them to the point of consensus which will
ultimately facilitate the restoration of the rainfall.
Let us now examine the encounter itself and see how it, like
Eliyahu's previous encounters, promotes the conclusion that the policy
undertaken by the prophet thus far should not be pursued any longer, and how
Eliyahu directs matters, by means of the encounter, so as to lead to the
rainfall with which the next story concludes.
3. Achav's "Rebuke"
When Ovadyahu comes to Achav and tells him, in accordance with
Eliyahu's command, "Eliyahu is here," Achav is faced with two possibilities. One
would be to try to capture Eliyahu by calling for reinforcements from nearby
Shomron. For this purpose Achav could even make use of Ovadyahu, who - by
Achav's command - would call for the king's forces to block all escape routes,
while the king spoke with the prophet. Achav has several reasons to choose this
course of action:
i. He has desperately sought Eliyahu in every possible
location, as Ovadyahu testifies in his speech (verse 10). Now he has an
opportunity to catch the elusive prophet. Can he allow him to get away again?
ii. If Ovadyahu feared Eliyahu's sudden disappearance in order
to irritate Achav, Achav himself must certainly be entertaining the same
possibility.
iii. Preservation of his own honor as king would likely have
represented a barrier for Achav from going to Eliyahu. The sense of power
invested in him by virtue of his office could easily lead him to seek a forceful
conflict with Eliyahu.
But Achav chooses to avoid this path. Trusting the prophet's
serious intentions, he chooses the opposite course:
(16) "Achav went to meet Eliyahu."
Close attention should be paid to these simple words, because
they conceal a most significant picture: the king of Israel foregoes his honor
and goes, alone and on foot, with no entourage and no trappings of royalty, to
meet with the prophet. This is the downcast step of a person who understands the
gravity of the situation and who, in his search for "some grass to keep the
horses alive," is prepared to hold dialogue with the prophet and to recognize
the supremacy of his path. It would seem that it is with a sense of submission
that Achav approaches Eliyahu. The prophet's plan to appear before Achav in this
mood appears to have been met with success, and we expect the flow of events to
continue unchallenged in accordance with Eliyahu's plan.
But then we are surprised: the lowly spirit with which Achav
approaches Eliyahu suddenly turns into an outpouring of anger:
(17) "Is that you, O troubler of Israel?!"
Was it for the purpose of expressing such words that Achav went
to Eliyahu? Were we wrong in our description of his mood? Apparently not. The
text uses a great many words to lead up to Achav giving vent to his anger:
(17) "And it was, when Achav saw Eliyahu, that Achav said to
him...."
This introduction could be written in considerably fewer words;
the end of verse 16 - "Achav went to meet Eliyahu" could be followed immediately
by "He said to him." Had the text indeed been formulated in this way, we would
have reason to think that it was for the purpose of this declaration that Achav
went to meet Eliyahu. But the unusual foot-dragging of the text, postponing
Achav's attack, conveys a clear message: this was a spontaneous outburst that
boiled up in him at the sight of Eliyahu: "It was, when Achav saw Eliyahu..." It
was at that moment that Achav's anger boiled up at the thought of what the
prophet had caused to his nation, by means of his oath, and his previous mood of
submission was suddenly replaced by a rage that finds expression in his
invective: "Achav said to him: Is it you, O troubler of Israel?!"
This change in Achav takes place before the prophet's eyes. At
first, Eliyahu sees Achav coming towards him alone, and he understands correctly
the meaning of this gesture of submission and acceptance. But he also sees how,
as the king comes closer and recognizes the prophet, standing firm in his
stance, his facial expression changes; he becomes angry, and then finally bursts
forth with his rebuke.
Applying the title "troubler of Israel" to Eliyahu is a harsh
criticism. This expression appears in only one other place in all of
Tanakh:
"The children of Karmi: Akhar, THE TROUBLER OF ISRAEL, who
stole from the consecrated property." (Divrei Ha-yamim I 2:7)
What is the meaning of the inescapable comparison to the deed
of Akhan (Yehoshua 7, where Akhan is described repeatedly as having
troubled Israel)? It would seem that what Achav means to say is that, like
Akhan, Eliyahu too has brought catastrophe upon his nation out of personal
interests. It is specifically this emphasis on the human independence of
Eliyahu's oath - the pretension of complete control over the rainfall, "except
by my word," followed by the prophet's mysterious disappearance while his nation
collapses with weakness from the "severe famine in Shomron" - that lead Achav to
accuse him of "troubling Israel": i.e., as someone who insists on his view being
upheld at any price, for the sake of preserving his own pride and honor, even at
the expense of the national disaster that is thereby brought upon his
nation.
This title for Eliyahu, "troubler of Israel," is expressed as
part of a penetrating rhetorical question: "Is it you, O troubler of Israel?!" -
just like the question of Ovadyahu who, recognizing Eliyahu and falling
prostrate before him, asks: (7) "Is that you, my lord Eliyahu?!"
While Ovadyahu expresses an outward display of honor towards
Eliyahu, with the criticism only hinted at in the rhetorical question, Achav
dispenses with any form of polite veneer, leaving only the harsh, glaring
criticism. But both questions have the same intention: to criticize Eliyahu for
his prolonged absence and for waiting so long to come back.
Attention should be paid to the fact that Eliyahu does not
respond to this rebuke - neither when it is presented by Ovadyahu (when he
answers simply, "It is I," as though it were an informative question) nor when
it is posed by Achav. He responds only to Achav's title for him, "troubler of
Israel," with no comment on the reproach for how long it took for him to
appear.
In the appendix to this section (at the conclusion of the next
shiur) we shall compare the encounter between Eliyahu and Achav in our
story to their encounter in the story of Navot's vineyard (chapter 21). One of
the most significant differences between the two is the title that Achav uses
for Eliyahu when he sees him. In our story he calls him "troubler of Israel,"
while in Navot's vineyard he asks, "Have you found me, MY ENEMY?" (21:20). In
Navot's vineyard Eliyahu comes to rebuke Achav for his personal sin, and this
rebuke is interpreted by Achav as an expression of personal aversion. In their
encounter here, Achav emphasizes the damage that Eliyahu has caused to the
entire nation of Israel through his oath of drought - to righteous and wicked
alike.
As regards our story, this comparison is instructive concerning
Achav's conviction of the justice of his moral cause as the representative of
the nation of Israel. That which has only been hinted to Eliyahu in various ways
during the course of the story thus far, by God and His agents - Ovadyahu and
the widow of Tzarfat - is now presented most directly by Achav.
But it must be admitted that Achav is not the right person to
accuse the prophet in this way. The fact that it comes from him opens the door
for Eliyahu to defend himself by placing the responsibility squarely upon the
shoulders of his attacker:
(18) "[It is] not I [who has] troubled Israel, but rather you
and your father's house, by abandoning God's commandments and going after the
Be'alim!"
(to be continued)
Translated by Kaeren Fish |