I am (belatedly!) working through Brueggemann’s 1 & 2 Kings commentary (Smyth & Helwys 2000). In 1 Kgs 20 one of the “company of prophets” announces divine judgment against the king of Israel for having let the defeated king of Aram (Syria) live. Brueggemann writes:

This chapter, as much as anywhere in the Elijah materials, may help us thing clearly about the single-minded ideology of Yahwism. Taken as a theological statement, the claims are singular and appropriate to convinced faith. They assert that Yahweh counts decisively and that Yahweh’s will will be enacted in public issues, established royal authority notwithstanding. Taken politically, however, we are able to see how demanding, how problematic, and perhaps how objectionable such ideology is, for the insistence of this prophetic, carnivalistic company is that the enemy should be killed—no compromises, no prisoners. No objection can be made to the theological claim. When taken with political literalness, however, such a perspective contributes endlessly to ever fresh cycles of brutality.

In passing, Brueggemann clearly knows that there are multiple ideologies of Yahwism (however defined), so would doubtless be happy to nuance that first sentence.

Reading 1 Kgs 20 and Brueggemann’s commentary: an aha moment. It’s easy to assume that the authors/editors of 1-2 Kgs take the cited prophetic words at face value. But maybe not. The clearest counter-example occurs in 2 Kgs 9. There Elisha commissions one of the company of prophets to anoint Jehu and deliver a short message (vv.1-3). The young prophet anoints Jehu, but with a considerably expanded message, prefaced by “Thus says the LORD” (vv.4-10). There’s some slippage between the word Elisha commissions and the word the young prophet delivers!

Now, normally (?) the text encourages us to take the prophetic words at face value. Elijah announces a drought (1 Kgs 17:1); that drought drives the action in that and the next chapter. Micaiah reports an extended vision; the following events validate the vision (1 Kgs 22). But the 2 Kgs 9 story gives pause.

Where to go with this? On the one hand, “the company of the prophets” shows up repeatedly in 1-2 Kgs (often in connection with Elijah or Elisha). Perhaps the issue is bringing the text’s judgment regarding this group into focus. On the other hand, perhaps the issue is deeper. The 2 Kgs 9 story shows that “Is this an authentic word of the Lord?” does not always have a clear yes or no answer. Does this constitute a sort of interpretive warning sign, the text encouraging use to read every cited prophetic speech critically?

To rephrase, does 1-2 Kgs operate with a true/false prophet binary (e.g., 1 Kgs 18 and 22) or something more nuanced (“The ‘company of the prophets’: take their words with a few grains of salt”?).

If something like the latter is true, circling back to 1 Kgs 20, the question Brueggemann poses via the modern categories of “theological” and “political” may be a question the text itself is encouraging us to ask.

And, obviously, I’ll be listening to see if Brueggemann brings this “prophets’ voice = author’s voice” into focus in subsequent chapters!