The Royal Dynastic Grant to Jehu and the Structure of the Books of Kings

Author(s): E. Theodore Mullen, Jr.

Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 107, No. 2 (Jun., 1988), pp. 193-206
Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3267695 .
Accessed: 21/06/2014 20:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Biblical Literature.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.185 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 20:00:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JBL 107/2 (1988) 193-206

THE ROYALDYNASTIC GRANT TO JEHU AND

THE STRUCTURE OF THE BOOKS OF KINGS
E. THEODORE MULLEN, JR.
Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN 46202

The continued failure of the kings of Israel to put aside the cultic innova-
tions attributed to Jeroboam I and to return to the prescribed worship at one
central shrine constitutes a major theme within the deuteronomistic
historian'spresentation of the Israelite The negative theological
judgment passed on these kings for monarchy.
their breach of the law of centralized
worship formulated in Deuteronomy2 constitutes a part of the basic literary
framework that provides unity to the history as presented by the deuterono-
mistic historian (Dtr)? Alongside this thematic aspect of the historian's
technique stands another-the primacy of prophecy and its fulfillment
within the development of the kingdoms. As noted by G. von Rad, such
prophetic prediction together with its observed fulfillment "pervades"the
work of the deuteronomistic writer in If, then, the kings of the
Kings.
northern kingdom continued to allow worship cultic locations apart from
at
Jerusalem, and if those kings were indeed condemned by Dtr for this
practice,5it is understandable that the continuation of the dynasties of Omri

See the development of this position by F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973) 279-81.
The various centralization formulas employed in Deuteronomy and their relationships have
been investigated most recently by N. Lohfink, "Zurdeuteronomischen Zentralisationsformel,"
Bib 65 (1984) 297-329.
3 in the AncientWorldand the Originsof
J. van Seters,In Searchof History:Historiography
Biblical History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983) 315.
4 G. von Rad, "The Deuteronomic Theology of History in I and II Kings,"in The Problem of
the Hexateuchand Other Essays (trans. E. W. T. Dicken; New York:McGraw-Hill, 1966) 208-9.
5 Although it is generally asserted that every king of Israel is so condemned, such is not
accurate. The standard formulaic condemnation of the Israelite kings occurs in the cases of
Nadab (1 Kgs 15:26), Baasha (15:34; cf. 16:7), Zimri (16:19),Omri (16:25-26), Ahab (16:30-31;
cf. 21:25-26), Ahaziah (22:53-54), Jehoram (2 Kgs 3:2-3), Jehu (10:29, 31), Jehoahaz (13:2),
Jehoash (13:11),Jeroboam II (14:24), Zechariah (15:9), Menahem (15:18),Pekahiah (15:24), Pekah
(15:28). Though Elah is not explicitly linked with the sins of Jeroboam, such is implied in the
judgment of this ruler (1 Kgs 16:13). No evaluation is given in the presentation of the reign of
Shallum (2 Kgs 15:13-15) and, though it is noted that he "didevil in the eyes of Yahweh"(17:2),
Hoshea is not condemned for following in the sins of Jeroboam. For an analysis of the

193

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.185 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 20:00:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
194 Journal of Biblical Literature

and Jehu constituted situations for Dtr that demanded special explanation.
In the case of the Omride dynasty,which lasted for a total of four kings,
Dtr was able to explain the duration of the house by virtue of the pietistic
response of Ahab to the prophetic condemnation delivered by Elijah (1 Kgs
21:20-29). In reaction to this response, Yahwehpostpones the punishment
until the days of Ahab's offspring, that is, until the time of Jehoram (2 Kgs
9:22-37). The dynasty established by Jehu lasted even longer than the ruling
house that it replaced. This monarchical line endured for a total of five kings
and was enthroned over Israel for nearly a century. In order to account for
the special status implied by the duration of this line on the throne, Dtr
employs the concept of the "royalgrant"to explain the unshakable nature of
Jehu's household.6 The interpretation employed is analogous to the grant to
the Davidic dynasty in 2 Samuel 7; in distinction to that concept, Dtr
introduces the idea of a limited grant-extending in this case only to the
fourth generation.
But for Dtr the length of the dynasty of Jehu and its deeds presented
the opportunity for more than simply a special explanation. Rather,as we will
argue, the nature of the explanation chosen and employed by Dtr serves to
structure this part of the history and allows the author to address special
issues arising in the history of the southern kingdom. It is important to note
that the reigns of the kings of this dynasty and their deeds represent nothing
exceptional in the opinions of Dtr. Rather,each one of them, like all of their
predecessors to the throne, was judged to have acted evilly by following in
the ways of Jeroboam. The very manner in which the accounts of these kings
are presented emphasizes that each respective ruler of the dynasty of Jehu
has Yahwehto thank for his remaining on the throne. Rather than restructur-
ing the basic pattern of the condemnation of the northern rulers to accom-
modate this lengthy dynasty, Dtr was able to explain and secure the rule of
this household while, at the same time, continuing to condemn it. By so
doing, Dtr was able to turn the attention of the narrative from the northern
kingdom, which had been a major focus since the death of Solomon, and to
address the situation that had now developed in Judah as a result of the
actions taken by Jehu in the establishment of his rule.
Prior to the usurpation of the throne by Jehu, Dtr had recorded the rule
and reign of nine other kings, three of whom had seized the throne by
violence. Alongside this picture of dynastic instability7 Dtr presented the

deuteronomistic formulas of judgment applied to the kings, see H. Weippert, "Die 'deuterono-
mistischen' Beurteilungen der K6nige von Israel und Juda und das Problem der Redaktion der
Konigsbiicher,"Bib 53 (1972) 301-39.
6 On the nature and function of the royal grant in the ancient Near East, see M. Weinfeld,
"The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East;'," JAOS 90 (1970)
184-203.
7 It is no
longer possible to maintain a difference in the ideals of kingship between Israel and

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.185 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 20:00:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Mullen: The Royal Dynastic Grant to Jehu 195

reigns of six Judean successors to Solomon, all of whom had assumed the
throne peacefully and who enjoyed the protection, at least in theological
terms, of the divine promise and will that continued to maintain and support
the Davidic line.8With the accounts of the elimination of the house of Ahab,
the fulfillment of the prophetic pronouncements against that house, and the
establishment of a new dynasty in Israel, the historian was able to justify a
lengthy "golden age"in Israel guaranteed by this divine promise. At the same
time, the stability in the North was paralleled by a period of relative instabil-
ity in Judah, one that not only saw the assassination of three rulers (Athaliah,
Jehoash, and Amaziah) but also witnessed the only reported break in the
Davidic line. This segment of Dtr is governed, in literary and theological
terms, by the differing conceptions of the divine royal grant utilized by the
author in constructing the history.
The categorization of the promise of dynasty to Jehu as a "royalgrant"
of the same unconditional type given to David9 and common in the ancient
Near East is based on an analysis of the deuteronomistic summary of the
reign of Jehu contained in 2 Kgs 10:28-31.0 In accord with the prophetic
anointing and commission given to him (2 Kgs 9:6-10)," Jehu acted to

Judah based on a distinction between charismatic and dynastic models as argued by A. Alt ("The
Monarchyin the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah,"in Essays on Old TestamentHistory and Religion
[Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968] 311-35). For the evidence that the dynastic model served
as the ideal in both kingdoms, as it did throughout the ancient Near East, see Giorgio Buccellati,
Cities and Nations of Ancient Syria: An Essay on Political Institutions with Special Referenceto
the Israelite Kingdoms(Studi Semitici 26; Rome: Istituto di Studi del vicino Oriente, 1967) esp.
195-242.
8 Essential to the deuteronomic structuring of the history of the Judean monarchy is the

concept of Yahweh'sgracious actions in maintaining the dynasty "forthe sake of David" (1 Kgs
11:12,13, 32, 34, 36; 15:4; 2 Kgs 8:19; 19:34; 20:6). For the importance of this theme to Dtr, see
Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 281-85.
9 On the nature of the promise in 2 Samuel 7, see T. N. D. Mettinger, King and Messiah: The
Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings (Lund: Gleerup, 1976) 48-63.
10 On the deuteronomic nature of the language employed in these verses, see M. Weinfeld,
Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972) 334-35, 337, 340. The
awkwardness of these verses has led to the recognition that they might be ascribed to different
editors (see J. Gray, I & II Kings [2d ed.; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970] 562; H.
Weippert, "Die 'deuteronomistischen' Beurteilungen,"' 317; W. Dietrich, Prophetie und
Geschichte: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum deuteronomistischen Geschichts-
werk [FRLANT108; G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972] 34). The positive achievements
of Jehu's rule summarized in v 28 would present a logical introduction for the divine pronounce-
ment of the royal grant contained in v 30. This follows the argument of G. H. Jones (1 and 2
Kings [NCB Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984] 2. 472) that v 29 with its reference
to the golden calves at Bethel and Dan is an insertion by a later editor. Despite the difficulty
in reconstructing the exact process of redaction for this section, v 29 appears to be a rather
awkwardexpansion of the negative evaluation given in 31b, and should be viewed as a secondary
insertion.
" As pointed out by J. Gray (I & II Kings, 541), this commission given by the prophet
dispatched by Elisha "reechoes"the prophetic judgments given by Elijah in 1 Kgs 21:19-24 (see

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.185 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 20:00:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
196 Journal of Biblical Literature

complete the destruction of the house of Omri (9:14-10:17).Dtr twice notes

that this was in complete accord with the "wordof Yahweh"spoken to Elijah
(10:10, 17). In addition to these acts,12 Jehu attempted, with the help of
Jehonadab, to eliminate the worship of Baal (10:18-27).'3 This combination
of actions, while clearly meeting with the approval of Dtr in the narrative
presentation, does not earn Jehu the full approval of that writer.4 Even
though Dtr notes that "Jehu destroyed (wayyasimd) the Baal from Israel"
(10:28), the condemnation of the king for failing to turn aside from the "sins
of Jeroboam which he caused Israel to sin" (vv 29, 31)15 conditions any
approval that is expressed.
But such approval is indeed present in 10:30. It stands most emphati-
cally as the strongest endorsement given to any northern monarch in Dtr.
Framed by the standard deuteronomic notice of cultic failure-and hence
conditioned and interpreted by this judgment-10:30 is presented in terms
of a direct divine address to Jehu; though the speech appears to be prophetic
in form and function, it is reported without an intermediary.16 The way in

also 1 Kgs 14:10-11).It has been argued by Saul Olyan ("Hiadl6m:Some Literary Considerations
of 2 Kings 9:' CBQ 46 [1984] 654-59) that vv 7-10a, 14-15a, 28-29, and 36-37 of chap. 9 are
secondary to the story and are the editorial work of the deuteronomistic historian.
12 G. W
Ahlstr6m has contended that the rebellion of Jehu was a political insurrection that
lacked much popular support. The slaughter of the reigning royal family suggests the political
emergency felt by those engaged in the rebellion and its efforts to replace the pro-Egyptian king
and spare the country from the threat produced by the Assyrian army.In the present text, what
the deuteronomistic author has done is to transformthe politically motivated efforts of Jehu into
a religious purge ("KingJehu-A Prophet'sMistake"in Scriptureand History in Theology:Essays
in Honor of J. Coert Rylaarsdam [ed. A. L. Merrill and T W Overholt; PTMS 17; Pittsburgh:
Pickwick Press, 1977] 47-69).
13 On the reform efforts of Jehu, see H.-D. Hoffmann, Reformund Reformen:Untersuchungen
zu einem Grundthema der deuteronomistischen Geschichtsschreibung (ATANT 66; Zurich:
Theologischer Verlag, 1980) 99-101. Based on his analysis of the story and its parallels with the
Ahab story, plus the standardized language and actions found in the two accounts, Hoffmann
finds it unlikely that the account of Jehu's reforms goes back to an old annalistic source of any
kind (pp. 101-2).
14 If Hos 1:4 refers to the political coup of Jehu, as is most commonly asserted (see, e.g., F I.
Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea [AB 24; Garden City, NY: 1980] 172-73), then it is clear
that Jehu and his "reform"did not win the approvalof all the biblical writers. The rebellion also
was directly responsible for the death of the Davidic king Ahaziah and led to the accession of
Athaliah and the only break in the Davidic line. On these issues, at least as they pertain to Jehu,
Dtr remains silent.
15 For a comparison of the forms of these two verses, see H. Weippert, "Die 'deuterono-

mistischen' Beurteilung:' 316-17. Such a division of sources as that advocated by Weippert,

between vv 29 and 31, is common among commentators (see above, n. 10). As these verses stand,
they create a literary "frame"that reinforces the overall negative evaluation of Jehu and
emphasizes the limited aspects of the promise given in v 30.
16 Most notable, however, is the obvious fact that there is an intermediary directly involved
here- Dtr. It is this figure, perceived as prophetic in this instance, who is able to report the
speech of Yahweh to Jehu, "privately"delivered though it was. On the prophetic, interpretive
aspects of Dtr, see R. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist (New York:Seabury 1980) 216-17.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.185 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 20:00:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Mullen: The Royal Dynastic Grant to Jehu 197

which Dtr chooses to present this mixed assessment of Jehu is worthy of note.
Framed by the formulaic condemnation of the entire rule of Jehu is the
divine promise of the continuation of the dynasty. This promise, with its
obvious positive connotations, interrupts the standard deuteronomistic
evaluation of the king.7 In so doing, it draws attention to itself, for though
it is presented as a part of the standard formulaic evaluation, it is a clear
deviation from the pattern established in and by Dtr. Just as 10:10-11 and
10:28 summarize the completeness of the efforts of Jehu at fulfilling the
prophecies against Ahab and of destroying Baal worship, so 10:29-31 is
presented as consequent to and interpretive of those particular actions. The
introduction of the speech with the preposition ya'an 'dier, alerts
"because,'
the reader to the exceptional nature of the address which follows. As D. E.
Gowan'sanalysis of clauses introduced by ya'an has established,'8 the clause
introduced by ya'an generally describes an action in the past that forms the
basis for the action that is described in the main clause. Additionally, such
sentences normally contain exceptional pronouncements spoken either by
Yahwehor by a messenger. The promise given in 10:30 conforms completely
to this general characterization.
As the direct speech of Yahweh,it announces a future action of the deity
in response to the past actions of Jehu. The ya'an clause reads: "Because
(ya'an 'd"er) you have done well in doing what is right in my eyes (la'dd6t
hayya&drbe'&nay),as all which is in my heart (k kol 'daerbilbabt) you have
done to the house of Ahab,.. . The result clause, which announces the
future acts of the deity in response to the previously noted activities, reads
simply: "yoursons to the fourth [generation] (bendr b-' m ... lkaJ)will sit on
the throne of Israel."The divine speech stands, quite clearly, as the promise
of dynastic security as a result of the faithful actions of the vassal, that is,
Jehu. Yet such a promise is a clear innovation on the concept of eternal
dynasty promised to David (2 Sam 7:12-16), for it contains a self-imposed
limit-only four successors of Jehu shall rule Israel.9 What is produced is
a limited unconditional royal grant that stands, simultaneously, as vaticinium
ex eventu.

17 For an
analysis of the formulaic patterns involved in the presentation and evaluation of the
reigns of the kings, see H.-D. Hoffmann, Reform und Reformen, 33-38.
18 D. E. Gowan, "The Use of ya'an in Biblical Hebrew" VT 21 (1971) 168-85.
'bim, see 2 Kgs 15:12;Exod 20:5; 34:7; Num 14:18;Deut
19 For parallels to the phrase bend rbi
5:9; etc. A similar expression (bny rb') is contained in the Nerab sepulcher inscription (seventh
century B.C.E.; KAI 226.5). Two Babylonian parallels to the expression are cited by M. Weinfeld
(Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 25 n. 1). One, a tomb inscription of Nabonidus's
mother, refers to her seeing "my descendants to the fourth generation, all in full health" (adi
4 lipiya baltaissunudmurma; CAD, 2, 70); the other, an omen text, notes that "the king and his
offspring will sit on the throne until the fifth generation"(gar-ru-um[4i]ge-er-ri-?ua-di ha-am-gi-
[fu] i-na gigGU.ZA-im[ug]-ga-ab)[A. Goetze, Old Babylonian Omen Texts(Yale Oriental Series:
Babylonian Texts X; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1947) text 31, col. v:48-vi:3].

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.185 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 20:00:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
198 Journal of Biblical Literature

The reason, as Dtr presents it, for this specially constructed type of royal
grant,20 is Jehu's faithfulness in fulfilling the commission delivered by the
prophet sent by Elisha. While the destruction of Baal worship is used to
introduce the evaluation and promise, Dtr notes at a later point in the
narrative that such efforts had not been completely successful (2 Kgs 13:6).
If one takes seriously the references to Baal worship in Israel that pervade
the book of Hosea, then it is apparent that any reforming tendencies of Jehu
were short-lived at best. In spite of such historical problems, Dtr chose to
utilize the stories of the actions of Jehu in fulfillment of the prophetic
condemnations of the house of Ahab to provide the basis for a uniquely
designed divine assurance of dynastic stability for the Jehu dynasty.
In constructing the presentation and assessment of the dynasty in this
way, Dtr broke from the stylized mold used to present the reigns of the past
rulers of Israel. Most significant, the variations introduced in the construc-
tion of the stories of the Jehu dynasty provided the opportunity to present
a new and different aspect of the dynastic history in Judah that coincided
with this period. Though Jehu could be condemned for his failure to turn
aside from the sins of Jeroboam (10:29), and hence his failure to observe "the
t6rd of Yahweh,the God of Israel, with all his heart" (10:31),he remains the
only king of the northern dynasty who is evaluated as having done "what is
right in the eyes" of Yahweh and who acted in accord with all that was in
Yahweh'sheart. With only two exceptions, the formulaic evaluation "to do
what is right in the eyes of Yahweh"is used elsewhere in Kings by Dtr only
in reference to the kings of Judah.2 In 1 Kgs 14:8 it is used to describe the
actions of David in opposition to those of Jeroboam I. In other words, though
applied to Jeroboam, the phrase stands to condemn him, for the requirement
to do what is right had been placed upon the king as a condition for the
establishment of his dynasty.2 The second place is in the present evaluation
of Jehu. Only here is the phrase used in a positive evaluation of a northern
king.23While the stylized nature of the phrase makes it difficult to define
20 The unconditional nature of the
promise of dynasty differentiates the promise from the
conditionalized covenantal form that is present in the repetitions of the Davidic covenant to
Solomon (1 Kgs 2:4; 8:25; 9:4-5) or to Jeroboam (11:37-38). In both of these cases, the establish-
ment of dynasty is dependent on future actions of the ruler. In the case of Jehu, the dynastic
promise is the result of past acts already completed.
21 The phrase or a variant is used by Dtr in 1 Kgs 11:33,38; 14:8; 15:5, 11;22:43; 2 Kgs 12:3;

14:3; 15:3, 34; 16:2; 18:3; and 22:2.

22 1 Kgs 11:38. The same phraseology is used in the deuteronomistic condemnation of

Solomon for his actions (11:33).

23 It should be noted that despite the conditional nature of the evaluation of Jehu, this stands
as the only positive assessment of the rule of an Israelite king within the deuteronomistic
history. In the case of Jehoram, Dtr notes that though he "did evil in the eyes of Yahweh,-he
was not as evil as his father or his mother (2 Kgs 3:2). It is significant, however, that Dtr chooses
here to characterize the acts of this king as "evil"rather than as "upright:'In a similar manner,
the evaluation of Hoshea (2 Kgs 17:2) notes that the evil which he did was not as great "asthe
kings of Israel who were before him'

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.185 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 20:00:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Mullen: The Royal Dynastic Grant to Jehu 199

"what is right" in specific terms, it is clear that in the case of its application
to the kings of Judah it implies a comparison to the actions of David.24
One of the most explicit comparisons with David in this context is found
in 1 Kgs 15:3-5, where Abijam of Judah is condemned for his failure to act
as David did. By virtue of this comparison, it is asserted that David's heart
was perfect with Yahweh(lbb 9lm, v 3b),25and that David "didwhat was right
in the eyes of Yahweh and did not turn aside from anything which he
commanded him all the days of his life..." (v 5).26 Jehu is likewise com-
mended for "doingwhat was right"in the eyes of Yahweh(2 Kgs 10:30a), but
in this instance the evaluation is presented not as though it were the work
of the narrator,but rather as the direct address of Yahweh.Thus, the narrator,
who is responsible for the report of this otherwise completely "private"
address, allows no room for debate concerning the positive nature of these
deeds. At the same time, the "right"done by Jehu is specified: it was, continu-
ing the divine speech, "asall that was in my heart" which Jehu had done to
the house of Ahab. Although Jehu might be credited with having destroyed
the Baal from Israel (10:28), Yahweh rewarded him for his fulfillment of the
prophetic condemnation placed upon Ahab and the house of Omri. On the
basis of this direct commendation, the promise of a dynasty lasting four
generations beyond Jehu himself was divinely assured. Within the deuter-
onomistic conception of the absolute inviolability of the divinely delivered
promise, this guaranteed the fate of this newly established dynastic line.
While Dtr's own narrated evaluation of Jehu included the king along with his
predecessors as having done less than that desired by Yahweh,such could not
offset the divinely established reward given to the usurping general turned
monarch.
The use of this evaluation in terms of the way in which the history is
structured, however, is much more complex than simply creating a parallel
with the Davidic dynasty to explain the lengthy rule of this particular family.
Rather, it served as a backdrop against which the turmoils and intrigues of
the neighboring Judean kingdom could be presented and interpreted.
Ahaziah, the Judean monarch killed in the slaughter at Jezreel (2 Kgs
9:27-28), had been condemned by Dtr for "walkingin the way of the house
of to which he was related by marriage (8:27). Such relations make the
Ahab,'
ruler, at least by marriage, a member of Ahab'sfamily and, as interpreted by
Jehu, one included in the prophetic condemnation. This ruler's death,

24 Of the various applications of this evaluation, direct references to David are contained in

1 Kgs 14:8; 15:5, 11; 2 Kgs 14:3; 16:2; 18:3; 22:2.

25 See also 1
Kgs 8:61; 11:4; 15:14; 2 Kgs 20:3.
26
Despite the paradigmatic usage of David by Dtr, it is important to note that the author adds
notice of David's foible at the end of v 5: "only in the matter regarding Uriah the Hittite [did
David turn aside]."This phrase is omitted in the LXX and is commonly interpreted as a late,
editorializing gloss.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.185 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 20:00:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
200 Journal of Biblical Literature

however, brought about a crisis in the monarchy,for it led to the attempted

extermination of the line of David by Athaliah,the Judean queen mother who
was herself of the Omride line. Yet this usurpation occurs as only the first in
a series of dynastic problems that plagued the Judean monarchy during that
period which coincides, at least in part, with the dynastic stability of the
northern rulers of the house of Jehu.
The young king Jehoash, who, with the help of Jehoiadah, was able to
reestablish the Davidic line in Judah, was killed by his own servants and
replaced by his son Amaziah (12:21-22). Like his father, Amaziah was also
killed by a conspiracy (14:19-21) originating in Jerusalem. This rebellion
placed Azariah/Uzziah, the sixteen-year-old son of Amaziah, on the throne
of Judah. With this king, the dynastic situation in Judah once again returned
to the stable pattern that it had obtained prior to the murder of Ahaziah and
the usurpation of the throne by Athaliah. It should not go unnoticed that the
period ruled over by Azariah also coincides with the final period ruled over
by the dynasty of Jehu. Despite positive evaluations given to both Jehoash
(12:3-4) and Amaziah (14:3-4), both were killed in what could only be called
palace revolutions, which, interestingly enough, remained loyal to the
Davidic line. Indeed, for Dtr, the only explanation of this continuation of the
Davidic line is to be found in the expression of Yahweh'sfaithfulness to his
promise to David (8:19).27
A similar expression of divine interest and faithfulness is displayed by
Dtr in the way in which the accounts of the reigns of the descendants of Jehu
are presented. Of particular importance is the reign of Jehoahaz, son of Jehu,
whose reign is reported in 2 Kgs 13:1-9. Jehoahaz, whose reign overlaps with
that of Jehoash of Judah, receives the standard deuteronomistic evaluation
given to his predecessors and to his father: he did evil by continuing in the
sins of Jeroboam (13:2). In response to this failure, Dtr notes that Yahweh
became angry (wayyihar-'ap)and gave Israel into the power of (wayyitt&n?m
beyad-) Hazael and his son Benhadad. The resulting oppression led Jehoahaz
to "implore"Yahweh (wayhal), who responded to him (wayyilma') because
he saw the oppression (krat'd 'et-lahas) caused by the king of Aram (vv 3-4).
Yahwehgave the people a deliverer (m6Bia'),who then led them28from under
the power of the king of Aram.29

27 See also 1
Kgs 15:4 and 2 Kgs 19:34; 20:6 for other deuteronomistic applications of this
ideal. The basis for this promise, as developed by Dtr, is found in the divine address to Solomon
(11:13)and in the offer of dynasty to Jeroboam (1 Kgs 11:36).
21 Read of the MT.
wayyas7i',m with LXX (L) for the
29
Interestingly, the "deliverer"is not named in the text. For a discussion of the attempts to
wayy.es'iU
identify this figure with a historical personage, see J. Gray,I & II Kings, 594-95. Gray suggests
that the reappearance of Elisha in 13:14-19 signifies that for Dtr, Elisha was interpreted as the
deliverer.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.185 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 20:00:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Mullen: The Royal Dynastic Grant to Jehu 201

In attempting to present the reign of the first successor to Jehu, Dtr

returns to the formulaic patterns used to unite the stories of the deliverers
in the deuteronomistic presentation of the book of Judges30 Here, as in the
book of Judges (see Judg 2:1), Yahweh'sdeliverance of the sinful people is
credited to the divine allegiance to his covenantal promises. In short, as
Yahweh had chosen to allow Judah to stand "for the sake of David" (1 Kgs
15:4; 2 Kgs 8:19; 19:34; 20:6), so Jehoahaz would not perish at the hands of
the Aramean oppressors, even though Jehoahaz "haddone evil in the eyes of
Yahweh,' for the sake of the promise made to Jehu. Though not explicitly
stated in the text, this governing principle is clearly at work in the presenta-
tion by Dtr. Though Yahwehmight give Israel this "deliverer,"' Dtr structures
the presentation so as to make it clear that this was an act of divine mercy
and not a permanent change of events. To convey this, the historian frames
the story of Yahweh'sdeliverance with a second condemnation of Jehoahaz
for following in the sins of Jeroboam (13:6, cf. v 2). Just as the evaluation of
the reign of Jehu had been enclosed and interpreted by this repeated
condemnation for continuing in the ways of Jeroboam, so the divine
deliverance that occurred during the reign of the first of Jehu's successors
to the throne was likewise framed. Indeed, for Dtr, the notation that "the
'asherah'was still standing in Samaria"(13:6b) serves to indicate further that
there were no efforts at reforming the cult or even at continuing the anti-Baal
practices that had been attributed to Jehu3'
Such a failure to turn aside from those sinful ways had other, more direct
results. Dtr notes in 13:7 that the king of Syria allowed Jehoahaz only a very
small standing army-fifty horsemen, ten chariots, and ten thousand
footmen.32 This reference serves a twofold purpose: it continues the
deuteronomic presentation of the punishment of the kings of Israel by noting
their loss of territory or troops (cf. 10:32-33); it also serves to comment on
the nature of the m6i'a'provided by Yahweh.If Israel, with this small fighting
force, were to be able to break itself free from Syria, it would be only by the
deliverance brought about by a divinely directed figure, that is, the deliverer.

30 For an analysis of the deuteronomic formulas used in Judges, see W Richter, Die Bear-

beitungen des "Retterbuches"in der deuteronomischenEpoche (BBB 21; Bonn: Peter Hanstein,
1964) 63-90.
31 W Dietrich argues that 13:4-6 is an addition by a later deuteronomic author (DtrN) that

destroys the connection between 13:3 and 7 (Prophetie und Geschichte, 34 n. 51). J. Gray
suggests that 13:4-6 originally belonged to the account of the reign of Jehoash, the successor
of Jehoahaz, under whom Israel began to regain its freedom from Syria (I & II Kings, 594).
Although it seems clear that Dtr used various sources for the composition of this history, it is
far from certain that the precise redactions that are often argued for can be so precisely
delineated.
32 That this constitutes a reduction in military forces is based on the report of Shalmaneser
III that Ahab of Israel had provided two thousand chariots and ten thousand foot soldiers at the
battle of Qarqar in 853 B.C.E.(ANET,278-79).

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.185 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 20:00:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
202 Journal of Biblical Literature

For Dtr, this great reduction of forces serves as one of the "historical"results
for the continuing sinfulness of the king and people?3 Simultaneously, the
covenantal steadfastness of Yahwehprovided the theological rationale for the
continuation of the dynasty and nation, despite the sinful ways in which the
kings had acted.
This pattern of stability and success continues with the second succes-
sor to the throne of Jehu, Jehoash. Following the notice of his accession
(13:10), Dtr records the evaluation of the reign of this king (v 11). Like his
father and grandfather, he too was condemned for continuing the cultic
misdeeds of Jeroboam. Indeed, as Dtr has structured this particular section,
no specifics at all are given concerning the rule of king Jehoash. Rather,the
notices of the political activities of this ruler are embedded in the concluding
note regarding the chronicles of the kings of Israel and in a brief notice
separated by the account of the reappearance of Elisha. It seems obvious
either that Dtr had little or no information directly relating to Jehoash or that
the author had no interest in placing it at this point in the narrative?4Instead,
details of the reign of Jehoash are passed over quickly so that the narrative
may turn to the presentation of Elisha and a further prophetic action that will
ensure the welfare of the northern kingdom.
Immediately following the notice of the death and burial of the king
(13:13),Dtr introduces the final episode in the career of Elisha. As it stands,
this scene serves as a flashback to some point prior to the death of Jehoash,
since it directly involves this king and events that must have occurred
throughout his sixteen-year reign. When king Jehoash visits the sick Elisha,
he unwittingly participates in a prophetic act that results in a pronounce-
ment concerning the future of the state (13:14-19):Israel would defeat Aram
three times. Such an optimistic prophecy is tempered by the clear notice of
the anger and disappointment the prophet felt with Jehoash, even though he
was compelled to deliver the oracle. With the account of the delivery of the

33 2 Kgs 13:22-23 also addresses the problem of the relations between Jehoahaz and Hazael.
These verses are separated from the main treatments of the reign of Jehoahaz by the brief
account of the reign of Jehoash (13:10-13)and of the final acts of the prophet Elisha (13:14-21).
The reference to Hazael's oppression (lhs) of Israel "all the days of Jehoahaz" (13:22) and
Yahweh'spity on them "for the sake of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob"is to be
connected, conceptually speaking, with 13:4-6 and the references to the deliverer. We would
argue that the verses have not been displaced in the narrative. Rather, Dtr has constructed a
variation of the oppression-deliverer theme and has used it to frame the account of Jehoash and
to show that the continued existence of the dynasty was due to the covenant faithfulness of
Yahweh and to that alone.
34 Though the death and burial notice mentions "how he fought with Amaziah, king of Judah"

(13:12), this statement is to be seen as anticipatory. Dtr withholds discussion of the battle
between Israel and Judah until the presentation of the reign of Amaziah of Judah (14:8-14), for
the victory of Israel over its Judean counterpart reinforces the pattern of stability/instabilitythat
is developed against the background of the promised dynasty to Jehu.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.185 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 20:00:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Mullen: The Royal Dynastic Grant to Jehu 203

prophecy concluded and the political fate of the kingdom again secure, the
narrative records the death and burial of Elisha (13:20-21).
It is within this context, then, that the narrative flashback to Jehoahaz
and the oppression by Hazael and the deliverance by Yahweh is presented
(13:22-23). In the case of Jehoash, the defeats of Benhadad, son of Hazael,
were just as divinely delivered, for they were produced by virtue of the
prophetic pronouncement proclaiming them. In regaining the cities that had
been lost to Aram as part of his threefold defeat of the Syrians, Jehoash
secured his throne and the borders of his country. As is clear from the presen-
tations of the narratorthroughout this section, the victories and preservation
of the kingdom can be attributed only to Yahweh and his promise to Jehu.
Against this background of divinely directed and guaranteed political
stability and prosperity, Dtr presents the reign of the Judean Amaziah
(14:1-22). Though Amaziah was strong enough to reconquer Edom (v 7; cf.
8:20-22), his attempt to extend his power to Israel, a move that is without
motivation in the deuteronomistic history,35resulted in complete and total
disaster for the Judean monarch. The forces of Amaziah and Jehoash met at
Beth-Shemesh; the army of Judah was routed, sections of the wall of
Jerusalem were destroyed, and both the palace and temple treasuries were
plundered (14:11-14).
While 14:16notes the death and burial of the Israelite king Jehoash and
the peaceful accession of his son Jeroboam II36 a pattern much more
common to Dtr's presentation of the royal household in Judah, it is followed
by the notation of the continued reign of Amaziah. Though Dtr emphasizes
that Amaziah reigned fifteen years after the death of Jehoash of Israel, the
only event that Dtr notes in the remaining days of Amaziah's reign is his
assassination at the hands of conspirators (who remain otherwise unidenti-
fied). Thus, the reign of Amaziah, like that of his father Jehoash, though
standing as evidence of Yahweh'sfulfillment of the promise to the founder of
the Judean dynasty by virtue of its reestablishment and continuation after
Athaliah, is presented in contrast to the stable conditions existing in the
corresponding period in Israel, which were likewise guaranteed by divine
promise.
So as to continue the framing of the Judean reigns with the presentation
of the Israelite kings, Dtr presents the materials on the third successor to the

35 According to 2 Chr 25:5-24, Amaziah attacked Israel in retaliation for the havoc caused
by Israelite mercenaries. In accord with the pronouncement of a "man of God," Amaziah
released these retainers from his service and they, in turn, took out their frustration on Judean
cities on their way back home.
38 In the standard form of the deuteronomistic presentation of the various regnal formulas,
14:15 would be expected to follow 13:25. In the present instance, Dtr has separated this death
and burial notice from the remainder of the report so as to include the defeat of Judah and the
entirety of the reign of Amaziah under the divinely protected reign of Jehoash.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.185 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 20:00:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
204 Journal of Biblical Literature

throne of Jehu -Jeroboam II - immediately following the notice of the death

and burial of Amaziah and the enthronement of Azariah. So that there might
be no possibility of thinking that this king might be in any way different from
those who preceded him, Dtr immediately condemns Jeroboam II for follow-
ing in the sins of his namesake (14:24). Yet, while Dtr stresses the sinfulness
of this king, he also notes that Jeroboam was able to restore the boundaries
of Israel to their limits under Solomon (cf. 1 Kgs 5:1). These successes, like
those of Jehoash, were the result of the prophetically pronounced divine
will-in this case, by one Jonah ben Amittai.
Even though there is no more information provided about this prophet,
the reason for these divine sanctions is given: "because Yahweh saw the
extremely bitter37affliction of Israel38... and there was no helper to Israel.'
The parallel with 13:4 and the situation attributed to Jehoahaz is unmistak-
able. While there is no presentation of the reasons for the "affliction"noted,
as was given earlier (13:3-4), the same need is postulated. Just as in 13:5
Yahwehgave a nmwia'to Israel, so in 14:27b Jeroboam is allowed to "deliver"
Israel (wayy6it' m). As formerly,however,it is noted within the narrativethat
this action is possible only via divine decision: "forYahwehhad not declared
to blot39 out the name of Israel from under the heavens..." (14:27a). The
reason for such divine mercy that is given within the narrative is Yahweh's
promise to Jehu, a promise that had one successor yet before it would be
fulfilled. Despite his failure to live up to Dtr's standards,Jeroboam II realizes
a very successful reign.
After noting the death of Jeroboam and the succession of his son
Zechariah, the fourth member of the house of Jehu to follow the dynastic
founder to the throne (14:28-29)40 the narrativeturns briefly to the continu-
ing unstable situation in Judah. 2 Kgs 15:1-5 records the accession and reign
of Azariah, noting that he had done "what was right in the eyes of Yahweh"
Yet the text also notes that he was afflicted by Yahwehwith leprosy and was
forced to withdraw from public life, leaving the public side of his government
to his son Jotham (v 5). The following two verses conclude Dtr's account of
Azariah's rule. In the fifty-two-year reign of Azariah, Dtr notes no
accomplishments that are to be credited to this king. Rather, the narrator
records that Yahwehchose to afflict the king with leprosy, an event that can
be interpreted only as an expression of divine displeasure.

37 Read hammar for the moreh of the MTIsee BHS.

38 The precise meaning of the phrase w9'epes 'dsfr w9'epes 'dzfb is unclear. The combination
'asir w 'azab occurs in 1 Kgs 14:10in reference to the members of the household of Jeroboam
I and in 21:21, referring to the house of Ahab (cf. also 2 Kgs 9:8). For a discussion of possible
meanings, see Gray, I & II Kings, 337-38.
3 For the use of the verb mahd ("to wipe: "wipe out") in reference to the destruction of a
city or people, see 2 Kgs 21:13,Judg 21:17,etc.
40 Verse 28 is corrupt. For attempts at reconstructions of the text, see the commentaries. The

major difficulty is the reference to Judah.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.185 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 20:00:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Mullen: The Royal Dynastic Grant to Jehu 205

Alongside this account of divine displeasure are reported the events of

the reign of Zechariah (15:8-12). As with the other members of this dynasty,
it is immediately noted by the narrator that the king did evil by continuing
in the sins of Jeroboam (v 9). Absolutely no achievements are credited to
Zechariah, whose reign lasts only six months;41rather,he becomes the object
of a conspiracy led by one Shallum ben Yabesh.2 This figure, who remains
totally obscure, serves to bring to an end the nearly one-hundred-year rule
of the house of Jehu. As for Shallum himself, Dtr reports only that he
assassinated Zechariah, took the throne, ruled for a full month, and then was
assassinated (15:10, 13-14). Dtr does not even record an evaluation for
Shallum, something that was done for every other king of Israel.
For Dtr, the significance of the reigns of both Zechariah and Shallum lay
in the ways in which each of them contributed to the fulfillment of the
original promise to Jehu. With Zechariah, the promise that sons to the fourth
generation belonging to Jehu would sit on the throne of Israel was fulfilled.
With Shallum, the divine judgment on the failure of this dynasty was
executed; none of its members had done "what was right in the eyes of
Yahweh"(10:29, 31; 13:2, 6, 11; 14:24; 15:9). Thus, the guarantee of dynastic
stability, granted to Jehu for his faithful fulfillment of the prophetic commis-
sion to destroy the house of Ahab, was ended. With the accession of Shallum
to the throne, the lengthy period of temporal and narrative stability with
respect to the kingdom of Israel came to an end. The dynasty of Jehu had
endured solely by virtue of the royal grant that was given by Yahweh. As a
result of the grant, Yahweh had maintained the rulers of Jehu's house by
virtue of his faithfulness to his promise - as Dtr noted in regard to the rule
of Jeroboam II, Yahweh had not yet declared the destruction of Israel
(14:27a).While the promise was in force, Yahwehwould raise up a "deliverer"
or respond to the affliction of Israel; he would even allow the conquest of
Jerusalem and its Davidic monarch. Yet,just as the divine promise to David
could guarantee the continuance of that line, so it was with the descendants
of Jehu.
At the same time, Dtr used this concept of a divine royal grant for
something more than simply to explain why the dynasty established by this

4' It is clear from the structure of the narrative that Dtr is utilizing only those materials that
are critical to, or form a part of, the particular presentation that the author hoped to construct.
That the six-month reign of Zechariah of Israel should receive the same amount of narrative
material as does the fifty-two-year reign of Azariah is somewhat astounding on the surface. If
one places this in the context of the manner in which Dtr attempts to portray the future and
direction of the two nations by virtue of the narrative comparison of their fates, the lack of
information about the period of the reign of Azariah becomes more understandable.
42 It is difficult not to read some symbolic meaning into the name of the usurper to the throne
who brought about the end of the dynasty of Jehu. The name is passive in form, and it conveys
a sense of having been completed, requited, or the like. Such a meaning fits very well with the
role played by this figure.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.185 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 20:00:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
206 Journal of Biblical Literature

ruler Jehu should last so long. By establishing the dynastic stability of Israel,
the author was able to emphasize the dynastic instability that came to
characterize Judah during this same period. Corresponding to the expansion
and deliverance of Israel achieved under the Jehu dynasty, Judah endured
the assassination of a major part of the royal household by the queen mother
Athaliah, the assassination of two kings, the defeat of Jerusalem, and the
withdrawalof one ruler from public life because of leprosy. The development
of the history of the dynasties of Israel and Judah required, for Dtr, the
presentation of a particular understanding of the role of the divine and the
concepts of divine faithfulness and mercy as applicable to the events that
were to be narrated. So as to be able to focus attention on one kingdom at
a time and simultaneously to use such attention to serve as a commentary
on the other kingdom, Dtr utilized the idea of the royal grant. While the
promise to David (2 Sam 7:8-16) serves to explain various aspects of the
history of Judah, the grant to Jehu serves to account for the continuation of
this line of kings, who had sinned in the same manner as the rulers who had
been on the throne of Israel before them. Though the uses to which Dtr puts
the grant to Jehu within the narrativeare more restricted than the role played
by the dynastic promise to David, these two theological constructs are
similar. Both are granted by Yahwehin response to the faithful service of his
vassal; both promise the endurance of progeny on the throne irrespective of
the worthiness of their behavior. Only the Davidic, however, is eternal and
runs throughout the whole of the history. The limited unconditional grant to
Jehu serves a particular theological and literary purpose, and then expires.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.185 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 20:00:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions