NOW BEN-HADAD king of Aram mustered his entire army. Accompanied by thirty-two kings with their horses and chariots, he went up and besieged Samaria and attacked it. 2He sent messengers into the city to Ahab king of Israel, saying, “This is what Ben-Hadad says: 3‘Your silver and gold are mine, and the best of your wives and children are mine.’”
4The king of Israel answered, “Just as you say, my lord the king. I and all I have are yours.”
5The messengers came again and said, “This is what Ben-Hadad says: ‘I sent to demand your silver and gold, your wives and your children. 6But about this time tomorrow I am going to send my officials to search your palace and the houses of your officials. They will seize everything you value and carry it away.’”
7The king of Israel summoned all the elders of the land and said to them, “See how this man is looking for trouble! When he sent for my wives and my children, my silver and my gold, I did not refuse him.”
8The elders and the people all answered, “Don’t listen to him or agree to his demands.”
9So he replied to Ben-Hadad’s messengers, “Tell my lord the king, ‘Your servant will do all you demanded the first time, but this demand I cannot meet.’” They left and took the answer back to Ben-Hadad.
10Then Ben-Hadad sent another message to Ahab: “May the gods deal with me, be it ever so severely, if enough dust remains in Samaria to give each of my men a handful.”
11The king of Israel answered, “Tell him: ‘One who puts on his armor should not boast like one who takes it off.’”
12Ben-Hadad heard this message while he and the kings were drinking in their tents, and he ordered his men: “Prepare to attack.” So they prepared to attack the city.
13Meanwhile a prophet came to Ahab king of Israel and announced, “This is what the LORD says: ‘Do you see this vast army? I will give it into your hand today, and then you will know that I am the LORD.’”
14“But who will do this?” asked Ahab.
The prophet replied, “This is what the LORD says: ‘The young officers of the provincial commanders will do it.’”
“And who will start the battle?” he asked.
The prophet answered, “You will.”
15So Ahab summoned the young officers of the provincial commanders, 232 men. Then he assembled the rest of the Israelites, 7,000 in all. 16They set out at noon while Ben-Hadad and the 32 kings allied with him were in their tents getting drunk. 17The young officers of the provincial commanders went out first.
Now Ben-Hadad had dispatched scouts, who reported, “Men are advancing from Samaria.”
18He said, “If they have come out for peace, take them alive; if they have come out for war, take them alive.”
19The young officers of the provincial commanders marched out of the city with the army behind them 20and each one struck down his opponent. At that, the Arameans fled, with the Israelites in pursuit. But Ben-Hadad king of Aram escaped on horseback with some of his horsemen. 21The king of Israel advanced and overpowered the horses and chariots and inflicted heavy losses on the Arameans.
22Afterward, the prophet came to the king of Israel and said, “Strengthen your position and see what must be done, because next spring the king of Aram will attack you again.”
23Meanwhile, the officials of the king of Aram advised him, “Their gods are gods of the hills. That is why they were too strong for us. But if we fight them on the plains, surely we will be stronger than they. 24Do this: Remove all the kings from their commands and replace them with other officers. 25You must also raise an army like the one you lost—horse for horse and chariot for chariot—so we can fight Israel on the plains. Then surely we will be stronger than they.” He agreed with them and acted accordingly.
26The next spring Ben-Hadad mustered the Arameans and went up to Aphek to fight against Israel. 27When the Israelites were also mustered and given provisions, they marched out to meet them. The Israelites camped opposite them like two small flocks of goats, while the Arameans covered the countryside.
28The man of God came up and told the king of Israel, “This is what the LORD says: ‘Because the Arameans think the LORD is a god of the hills and not a god of the valleys, I will deliver this vast army into your hands, and you will know that I am the LORD.’”
29For seven days they camped opposite each other, and on the seventh day the battle was joined. The Israelites inflicted a hundred thousand casualties on the Aramean foot soldiers in one day. 30The rest of them escaped to the city of Aphek, where the wall collapsed on twenty-seven thousand of them. And Ben-Hadad fled to the city and hid in an inner room.
31His officials said to him, “Look, we have heard that the kings of the house of Israel are merciful. Let us go to the king of Israel with sackcloth around our waists and ropes around our heads. Perhaps he will spare your life.”
32Wearing sackcloth around their waists and ropes around their heads, they went to the king of Israel and said, “Your servant Ben-Hadad says: ‘Please let me live.’”
The king answered, “Is he still alive? He is my brother.”
33The men took this as a good sign and were quick to pick up his word. “Yes, your brother Ben-Hadad!” they said.
“Go and get him,” the king said. When Ben-Hadad came out, Ahab had him come up into his chariot.
34“I will return the cities my father took from your father,” Ben-Hadad offered. “You may set up your own market areas in Damascus, as my father did in Samaria.”
Ahab said, “On the basis of a treaty I will set you free.” So he made a treaty with him, and let him go.
35By the word of the LORD one of the sons of the prophets said to his companion, “Strike me with your weapon,” but the man refused.
36So the prophet said, “Because you have not obeyed the LORD, as soon as you leave me a lion will kill you.” And after the man went away, a lion found him and killed him.
37The prophet found another man and said, “Strike me, please.” So the man struck him and wounded him. 38Then the prophet went and stood by the road waiting for the king. He disguised himself with his headband down over his eyes. 39As the king passed by, the prophet called out to him, “Your servant went into the thick of the battle, and someone came to me with a captive and said, ‘Guard this man. If he is missing, it will be your life for his life, or you must pay a talent of silver.’ 40While your servant was busy here and there, the man disappeared.”
“That is your sentence,” the king of Israel said. “You have pronounced it yourself.”
41Then the prophet quickly removed the headband from his eyes, and the king of Israel recognized him as one of the prophets. 42He said to the king, “This is what the LORD says: ‘You have set free a man I had determined should die. Therefore it is your life for his life, your people for his people.’” 43Sullen and angry, the king of Israel went to his palace in Samaria.
Original Meaning
THIS CHAPTER IS very different in character from those describing the battles against the Baal cult. It deals with the wars against the Arameans and is identified as having come from a different cycle of source material dealing with the Omride wars.1 Though prophets are key players in the war stories, Elijah does not appear. In the LXX this chapter is joined with the last chapter of 1 Kings, while the story of Naboth’s vineyard follows the account of Elijah battling Ahab as leader of the Baal cult.2 In that arrangement of Kings, the Elijah stories are grouped together, as well as those about the wars against the Arameans.
This chapter on the wars between Ahab and Ben-Hadad is prophetic in showing how Yahweh works through historical events in order to accomplish his purposes. Victory does not come through the might of Ahab’s armies but through divine intervention; the prophet or man of God (20:13, 28) plays the decisive role in determining the outcome of events.
There are two wars against the Arameans here. The first is a siege against Samaria (20:1–21), the second a battle at Aphek, a town east of Lake Tiberias (vv. 22–34). Each battle has a similar structure: consultation and mustering of forces (vv. 12–15, 22–28), confrontation and battle (vv. 16–20, 29–30), and report of results (vv. 21, 31–34). In the second battle Ben-Hadad suffers a humiliating defeat (vv. 22–34). After his victory Ahab is confronted by a prophet in disguise and condemned for his dismissal of Ben-Hadad (vv. 35–43). Ahab does not realize he is pronouncing judgment on himself when he exacts judgment on a presumed negligent soldier.
The Battle for Samaria (20:1–21)
THE BATTLE FOR Samaria results when negotiations break down between the Aramean king and his Israelite vassal (20:1–11). The demands begin when the Aramean forces are able to break down Israelite control of its provinces and besiege Samaria (v. 1). The thirty-two kings may be compared with the ten states under the hegemony of Ben-Hadad son of Hazael in the Zakkur inscription.3 These kings were not heads of state but tribal chieftains who roamed with semi-independence in the area of Damascus. Damascus was a great oasis southeast of the southern extremity of the Anti-Lebanon mountain range. Tribesman of the north Arabian steppe roamed and settled in the area of Damascus. The title “king of Aram” (v. 1) refers to the control Ben-Hadad has in mustering these chieftains against Ahab. Aram is an ethnic rather than a geographic term, and the “kings” are rulers of various tribes or confederacies.
The negotiations are arranged in three sets of dialogue between Ben-Hadad and Ahab: verses 2–4, 5–9, and 10–11. In the middle set Ben-Hadad addresses Ahab (vv. 5–6), Ahab has exchanges with his elders (vv. 7–8), and he finally responds to Ben-Hadad (v. 9). The whole is governed by the word “send” (šlḥ) as exchanges of messengers conduct the negotiations (vv. 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10). The subordinate situation of Ahab is indicated by his acceptance of the Aramean king as “my lord the king” (v. 4) and a willingness to be subservient to his demands of taxation.
Ben-Hadad demands that his officers conduct the taxation as they see fit, including possession of members of the royal family, leaving Ahab to rule as a vassal (vv. 5–6). Ahab follows the advice of his elders in resisting this demand. Ahab still defers to the Aramean king as his “lord” (v. 9) and concedes to his original demands, but Ahab will not be reduced to Aramean occupation of his territory. Ben-Hadad responds to this with an oath that he will turn Samaria into dust scooped up by his soldiers (v. 10), but Ahab replies with a proverb of his own (v. 11): Boasting only comes after the battle.
On hearing this response, Ben-Hadad orders his troops to attack Samaria (20:12). It is likely that his army is based in Succoth in the Jordan Valley at the mouth of the Jabbok.4 The Hebrew sukkôt can refer to the city or to army encampments (cf. NIV footnote), but the use of sukkôt to mean field bivouacs (temporary encampments) is unusual.5 By midday Ben-Hadad has become scandalously drunk. Ahab in turn is given assurance by an unnamed prophet that God will win the battle as in the time of the Exodus, so the Israelites may know the meaning of the name Yahweh (v. 13; cf. Ex. 7:5; 10:2; 15:3). The word of proof offered by the prophet (1 Kings 20:14–15) is that Ahab will appoint 232 elite troops engaged in the protection of the provinces, who will be joined by seven thousand of the regular troops marshaled for the occasion. As at Mount Sinai (cf. Ex. 3:12), the meaning of “Yahweh” (“Yah will be with you”) will be seen in the defeat of his enemies.
The report goes out to Ben-Hadad that the troops have left the capital of Samaria. In his drunken and arrogant state, Ben-Hadad demands they be seized alive, whether their intentions are for peaceful negotiations or war. The Israelites meet the Aramean army man for man, pursue them, and inflict heavy casualties. Ben-Hadad manages to escape with his horsemen, but the Israelites decimate their cavalry as well (20:21).6
The Battle for Aphek (20:22–34)
THOUGH BEN-HADAD SHOULD have been forced into a conciliatory position, it is Ahab who continues to be reticent. Ahab is given a prophetic warning to strategize carefully, because the Arameans will be back at the “turn of the year” (20:22). Spring is a usual time for military expeditions; weather is more favorable, and crops are available for marching armies (e.g., 1 Sam. 23:1). Ben-Hadad revises his battle strategy to make better use of his superior cavalry, determining to engage the battle on level terrain rather than the mountains (vv. 23–25). The Aramean king is advised to abandon the ineffective alliances with area chieftains and bring his military forces directly under his control, with officials he appoints himself. He further needs to tally a force equal to the troops and cavalry that desert him.7
When the entire Israelite army is mustered, it has the appearance of two exposed flocks of goats (20:27).8 The prophet responds with a message identical to the one given before the first battle (v. 28; cf. v. 13), with the same assurance the God of the Exodus will be with them in defeat of his enemies.
The battle at Aphek is described briefly (20:29–30), depicting the victory in terms of holy war. The armies face each other seven days and the walls of Aphek fall. The parallels to Jericho must be tempered by the fact that no ceremony precedes the attack (cf. Josh. 6:12–21). The Israelites shatter the Arameans; 100,000 are struck down in one day, and another 27,000 are crushed by the falling walls. Ben-Hadad himself manages to seek security within a secret room.
Ben-Hadad is left with no alternative but to appeal to treaty loyalty, which he expects from Ahab (20:31). “Merciful” (ḥesed) is a covenant term denoting loyalty to a relationship. Submission, made evident in their garments, is the basis of appeal to someone who can respect agreements. Course black cloth attached to the waist is a sign of penitence, a sign of suspension of normal activities to focus on critical relational matters. A rope on the head indicates servitude, either as a prisoner of war or as someone who has given up his rights to one who has the power of life and death.9
Ahab responds to this with a willingness to continue a treaty relationship: “He is my brother” (20:32). The envoys are looking for an omen, some sign that their mission will succeed; they test Ahab by suggesting a renewed loyalty (v. 33).10 Ahab sends for Ben-Hadad and invites him into his chariot. Ben-Hadad agrees to restore territory he has taken and to set up preferential commercial relations in Damascus; in return Ahab agrees to release Ben-Hadad.
Prophetic Confrontation with the King of Israel (20:35–43)
A MESSAGE FOR Ahab comes from one of the “sons of the prophets,” a group associated with Elisha, mentioned only here in connection with Elijah (v. 35).11 The message of the prophet is delivered through an enacted parable. The prophet demands that someone from his company strike and injure him. The refusal of his request is a disobedience that results in death by a lion (v. 36), a fate consistent with that of the disobedient prophet from Judah (cf. 13:24). A second companion does strike and injure him, allowing him to disguise himself for the king.
When the king comes by, he sees a wounded soldier crying out for justice. The story of the prophet to the king assumes that a prisoner of war was the property of his captor and that his escape is a breach of pledge demanding restitution. A talent of silver is an exorbitant price for a poor man to pay, about a hundred times the price of a slave provided for in the covenant code (Ex. 21:32).12 The debt would have driven such a wounded soldier into slavery. The exorbitant price for the loss of a slave may have been a way of impressing the king with the severity of breaching the divine covenant and causing the death of the entire nation.13 The king in rendering his judgment assumes he is indicting a wounded soldier with a punishment determined by the soldier himself. He does not realize that “your life for his life” (1 Kings 20:39) is a verdict he is bringing on himself and his people.
The king recognizes the prophet the instant he removes his disguise. The king may have known the man; there is no indication he has some distinguishing mark as is occasionally mentioned (cf. Isa. 44:5; Zech. 13:6). The doctrine of “holy war”—wars where God acts as the warrior in defeating the enemy—requires that the spoils belong entirely to God (as at Jericho, cf. Josh. 6:18). A prisoner in such a case cannot be treated as common property; anything so devoted cannot be sold or redeemed by substituting something else (cf. Lev. 27:28; Deut. 7:2; 20:16–17). According to prophetic theology, the Aramean king is under such a ban (ḥerem, 1 Kings 20:42), and it is not Ahab’s prerogative to make a treaty with him. The king, learning of the judgment pronounced on him and his country, returns to his capital resentful and angry.
Bridging Contexts
ISSUES OF HISTORY. The accounts of the wars of Ahab against the Arameans (1 Kings 20, 22) have been integrated into the Elijah narratives to show the resistance of the king to following the word of the prophets. Historians have grave reservations in using these stories as historical sources for the time of the Omride dynasty.14 These episodes occur near the end of Ahab’s life, beginning about three years before his death at the hands of the Arameans (22:1–2, 37). This is near the time of the battle of Qarqar, when Ahab is allied with the Arameans against the Assyrians, making it untimely for them to be at war with each other. Further, Ahab is only able to muster seven thousand troops to resist Ben-Hadad (20:15), compared to the ten thousand troops said to be present just a couple of years later at the battle of Qarqar.15
According to Assyrian inscriptions, the Aramean king at the battle of Qarqar is not Ben-Hadad but Hadadezer, who is not named as king until 845 B.C. Whitley thinks the submission of Israel to the Arameans must have been after the destruction that Hazael inflicted on Israel during the reign of Jehoahaz son of Jehu the usurper (2 Kings 13:1–9).16 Further, the establishment of a treaty by which the Arameans return cities to Israel corresponds to the victories of Jehoash, son of Jehoahaz over Ben-Hadad the son of Hazael (1 Kings 20:34; cf. 2 Kings 13:25).
A further ambiguity is suggested because Ahab is named only four times (1 Kings 20:2, 13, 14; 22:20); the king of Israel is usually mentioned but not named (20:7, 11, 21, 22, 28, 31, 32), indicative of the name being secondary to the account. Whitely believes that the author of Kings has arranged and supplemented his sources to make the Aramean wars part of the Omride dynasty rather than that of Jehu.17 The prophetic achievements of Elijah and Elisha are deliberately arranged to contrast with national calamities attributed to the reign of Ahab because of his profligate violation of Israelite religion.
It is the goal of the prophetic authors to provide a theological interpretation of events; as in any historiography, chronology serves ideological ends. But chronological strategy must retain historical integrity, or past events cannot substantiate the viewpoint presented. Revisionist histories can be nothing more than ideological propaganda. The transposition of events from one dynasty to another would fail to accomplish a historiographic purpose.
There are serious historical difficulties with such a transposition of events. If the battle against the Moabites took place during the reign of Jehoash (1 Kings 22), son of Jehoahaz, then the king of Judah present as his ally would have been Amaziah, the son of Joash (2 Kings 14:1–4). Given the inimical relations between Jehoash and Amaziah (vv. 8–14), this is an unlikely scenario; Jehoshaphat must have been the compliant Judean king supporting the king of Israel. While the Ben-Hadad in these Aramean wars with Ahab is not otherwise known, it is a common name for Aramean kings; it may have been a throne name rather than a personal name.
The Arameans were continually in hostilities with Israel and in part shared its territory. The upper Transjordan region to Ramoth Gilead in the south was a buffer zone with mixed Israelite-Aramean population (cf. 1 Chron. 2:23; 7:14), and it periodically changed hands. Assyrian pressure during the days of Ahab, as evident in the battle at Qarqar, need not have prevented an attack from Damascus. It could also explain why Ahab defeated Ben-Hadad, so the latter was compelled to return towns in the Transjordan conquered by the first Ben-Hadad.18 Israelite merchants were granted preferential rights in Damascus (1 Kings 20:34), like those previously enjoyed by the Arameans at Samaria. Ben-Hadad II was also forced to reconstitute his vassal states to provinces in order to consolidate his empire (20:24–25).
Know that I am Yahweh. Twice the prophetic message to Ahab is that he will learn the significance of the name of God: “You will know that I am the LORD” (1 Kings 20:13, 28). This signifies victory after the manner of holy war, one in which God joins the army as a soldier. In the first instance God brings triumph through a small band led by untrained junior officers, normally assistants to the regional commanders (v. 14).19 Ahab is to prepare for battle by mustering his troops; seven thousand is a small but complete force (v. 15). In the second instance the Aramean army is forced into retreat to Aphek, where the soldiers who manage to escape are crushed under the rubble of falling walls (v. 30). Ben-Hadad begins with demanding the surrender of Ahab, but ends with imposing on himself humiliating concessions in order to earn his own release. The prophetic word declares these wars to be of the same order as the great battles of the past in which the few triumph over the many under divine direction (e.g., Judg. 7:1–8). Victory comes through allegiance to the name of Yahweh.
Learning to know the name was at the heart of the Exodus story. God spoke to Moses saying, “I am the LORD” (Ex. 6:2). Before that time God had been known as the Almighty (šaddāy), but from that time on the Israelites understood the meaning and significance of the name Yahweh (6:3). The name was identified with the covenant promise that God would give the land of Canaan to his people (6:4). The name was associated with redemption, bringing the oppressed people out of bondage into the land of their inheritance (6:5–6). God’s word of the covenant was: “I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God” (6:7). “I am the LORD” not only makes confession of redemption; it signifies the oath of the promise (6:8).
The battle against Pharaoh will teach the meaning of the name as revealed to Israel. Pharaoh had a logical question for Moses from an Egyptian point of view: “Who is the LORD, that I should obey him?” (Ex. 5:2). Pharaoh had no reason to believe this God would be a threat to his own divine status. His question set the motif for the narrative to follow; the whole story of the plagues and the crossing of the Reed Sea was the answer to this question. Egyptians and Israelites learned the meaning of the name as judgment came against Egypt in the redemption of Israel (7:5, 17; 8:18; 10:2; 14:4, 18; 16:12).
At the Song of the Sea the Israelites triumphantly declared their victory in the name of Yahweh; he is the “man of war,” he delivered them by casting the Egyptians into the sea (15:3–6). The sign of the Sabbath was a fundamental confession of the covenant, setting this people apart from all the others (31:13); the distinction of this sanctification was to know what it meant for God to say, “I am the LORD.” The divine provision through forty years in the desert taught Israel the name, so they would be prepared to enter the land of promise (Deut. 29:5).
The power of God’s name is as effective in bringing judgment against Israel as it is in victory. The call of Ezekiel fell during that brief period between the first exile of Nebuchadnezzar (598 B.C.) and the fall of the city of Jerusalem (586 B.C.). His task was to deal with the recalcitrant and corrupt leadership in Jerusalem, who treated the covenant promises as unconditional guarantees. Convinced that the city was theirs for exploitation, they used the temple as the place to plot their schemes (Ezek. 11:1–5). It fell to Ezekiel to bring the message of doom: Their corpses would fill the streets; God was wielding the swords that came in the hands of the Babylonians (11:6–8). The God of Ezekiel was the cosmic king whose chariot moved effortlessly and instantly to the farthest corners of the earth, but in the exercise of his authority over the nations, his focus was always on Israel.
From beginning to end, God is passionate about his relationship with his people and is willing to stake his reputation on their fate or fortune.20 Ezekiel repeatedly uses the covenant formula: “I will be your God and you will be my people” (Ezek. 11:20; 14:11; 34:24, 30–31; 36:28; 37:23). His prophecy leaves the impression that when Yahweh acts in judgment against his people, it is not primarily to punish them but that they and the world may know him. Ezekiel uses the redemptive declaration from the Exodus story over seventy times: “You will know that I am the LORD.” God’s primary goal in bringing down foreign powers is not to destroy the enemies of Israel (such as Gog and his hordes), but to manifest his greatness, glory, and holiness.
Ezekiel makes the revelation of the name of God the time of his election of the nation. He paraphrases Exodus so the self-revelation of God becomes an oath, whose substance is redemption from Egypt and deliverance in the Promised Land.21
a and raised my hand to the seed of … Jacob
b and made myself known in the land of Egypt
a′ when I raised my hand to them
b′ saying “I am YHWH your God”—
On that day I raised my hand to them to bring them out of the land of Egypt, to a land that I scouted for them (a land flowing with milk and honey). (Ezek. 20:5–6, pers. trans.)
The oath of God revealed in his name guarantees that judgment on the relentless idolatries of Israel is unavoidable:
The end has come—the end, upon the four corners of the land.
Now the end is upon you, I am sending my wrath against you.
I will judge you according to your deeds; I will set your abominations on you.
My eye will not pity you; I will not spare you.
I will set your ways upon you, your abominations will be in your midst.
You will know that I am Yahweh. (Ezek. 7:2b–4, pers. trans.)
These sentiments are not unique to Ezekiel, though no other prophet expresses them so consistently. The prophetic message against Ahab shares that same view. Mercy may be granted repeatedly, but violation of the oath necessitates judgment. Ahab has released the man whom God brought under the ban, the judgment of holy war (1 Kings 20:42). The judgment destined for the Aramean enemy will devolve on Ahab and bring an end to his dynasty. Ahab will come to know Yahweh, as the prophets have said, not in victory but in death. The accounts of the Aramean wars serve the purpose of the Deuteronomistic History well. That history demonstrates the repeated violation of the covenant and disregard for the repeated warnings of the prophets. Ahab is an example par excellence of how desecration of the name has inevitable consequence.
Contemporary Significance
GOD, MERCY, AND JUDGMENT. The prophets writing the Deuteronomistic History had the task of explaining divine judgment. Judgment had come on Israel repeatedly throughout the history of the kingdom; in the end it removed the nation entirely. Their belief that God was committed to make them his people demanded that these catastrophes be explained in terms of divine judgment.
This judgment was necessarily understood in the context of divine love. The blazing mountain at Sinai was an everlasting testimony to God’s freely loving his people and bringing them out of bondage with great power (Deut. 4:37); the Lord of the highest heavens and all peoples had chosen them, his love was revealed in them (10:15). The love of God was utterly unconditional; there was nothing Israel had done to earn the privilege of a relationship with God. Such faith and such a calling had to be reconciled with the circumstances of Israel in the midst of the nations. The Aramean wars with Ahab served the prophets well in teaching the truth about God, mercy, and judgment.
Judgment is conspicuously absent in contemporary concepts of God. Judging is a bad odor, always equivalent to judgmentalism. Knowing God in acts of divine judgment is regarded as primitive, even primordial in the development of moral understanding. Unconditional love is regarded as equivalent to unconditional forgiveness. The God of popular imagining is less father than uncle. Judgment, especially in relation to God, is regarded as arbitrary and capricious.
The church may shoulder its share of blame for this perception; divine punishment has often been attached to rules that have little to do with morality or requirements of faith that have little to do with biblical theology. It may also be the consequence of a permissive culture in pursuit of personal freedom without responsibility for the consequences of such choices. A therapeutic culture has replaced judgment with validation of feelings.
The scandal of divine judgment has its transfer to evaluation of human conduct. Those who found it offensive that a president in office would take advantage of a young intern with sexual dalliances were charged with being condemnatory. The only questions for such noble office should concern effective management of matters of state. A dichotomy is driven between character and concern for justice; concern about character means lack of concern about social-political issues, while concern for large scale issues of justice leaves questions of personal virtue as a minor, bourgeois matter. Jean Elshtain relates a debate in the Clinton affair with an ethics professor and pastor who argued that God loves sinners, and everyone needed to assist the president in his “quest for maturity” by not judging his behavior.22 There is an assumption that any judgment leads to a punitive way of understanding life. This, of course, is itself a judgment and passes judgment on all those who are victims of power.
Thomas Jefferson trembled for the nation when he reflected that God was just. Abraham Lincoln saw the American Civil War as visited on his country by a just God’s punishment for the sin of slavery. The God of the fathers and the God of Jesus the Christ was the judge of the nations, a God who paid attention to what was done and who had done it, and in time he would act as the judge of all. Charles Colson reminds Christians that they must ask the question of God’s judgment in time of a terrorist attacks.23 It must not be asked in terms of laying blame; like the prophets of old, it must be asked in terms of learning to know God and to know ourselves. It is a serious question. If terrorist attacks are a sign of divine judgment on a decadent and presumptuous society, then Marines, cruise missiles, satellites, and smart bombs will be powerless to save. The only thing that can save is a deep sense of repentance.
Mercy is implicit in the Ahab narrative. The attack of Ben-Hadad is nowhere said to be because of the sin of Ahab or the nation. At the same time, Ahab is consistently presented as culpable; even if the Aramean attack itself is not divine judgment, Ahab not only fails to seek divine guidance, he appears to resist it each time it is given. His failure to pass God’s judgment on Ben-Hadad is fatal. He responds to the announcement of his own judgment with anger and resentment, to his own demise and that of his nation.
No doubt the attacks of the Arameans seem as unjustified to Ahab’s wealthy and comfortable state as the highjacking of an airplane and turning it into a suicidal and homicidal bomb to bring down twin towers representing the fruits of industry and freedom. Both may be judged to be capricious evil attacks against the undeserving and unsuspecting. Both should be regarded as a time for self-evaluation and for discerning the requirements of judgment and justice.
Judgment always begins with God’s own people. The first message of the church in turbulent political times must point to its own need for repentance. If Christians are honest, they have much for which to repent. Their values and use of resources do not suggest that their lives are committed to seeking first the kingdom of God. The idols of the church look little different from that of the surrounding culture. Colson reminds Christians of William Wilberforce, a member of parliament who fought to abolish slavery in the British empire. During a crucial moment in the campaign he said that his hope for Britain depended “not so much on her navies and armies, nor on the wisdom of her rulers, as on the persuasion that she still contains many who love and obey the Gospel of Christ, that their prayers may yet prevail.” If Wilberforce is right, then the role of the church is of life-and-death importance.
Jesus was confronted with the question of why bad things happen to good people. Herod had killed some of the Galileans, making them a part of their own sacrifices (Luke 13:1–5). Jesus added a situation of his own, one that did not involve direct human volition; a tower had fallen and killed eighteen people in Jerusalem. Jesus warned against passing judgment on such situations or against seeking to lay blame. The lesson was the same for every person: All will perish unless they repent.
A call to accountability. Disasters and troubles are always a reminder of the same lesson; it is not a question of self-justification or faultfinding. Repentance was always central to the life of Christ. God is not to be blamed for evil, whether it originates with political tyranny or natural disaster. God does not create evil but does use it to his purposes. Troublesome times are a time to cry out for God’s mercy—personally, for the church, for the country. Peace and security prevail not so much because of diplomatic or military efforts but because God in his mercy forgives, heals, and restores.
John Garvey relates a conversation with a woman in his parish who had come from a Muslim background and had been baptized as an adult in her husband’s Orthodox Christian faith. It was important for a couple to share religion, she said, but what really matters is belief in God. His fear was that she would follow that observation with the standard response: “We are all going the same way, but by different paths.” Instead she said, “I think that I am able to trust a person more if he knows that someday he will be judged.”24 For her, belief in God was tied to a belief in judgment. A God of unconditional love and knowledge with the power to judge provides confidence in the midst of many travesties of personal experience. It is at the same time a sobering reminder of accountability not only for deeds actually done, but also for those intended.
The God of the Bible is not beyond good and evil. He has made us in his image to represent his will in this world, and in turn he demands accountability. This is not a matter of human choice; it is the human situation in this world. Judgment is demanded by the belief that God is revealed in those he has created. Knowledge of God is comprehended in compassion and in accountability for what has been given and done. It is not possible to enter into the joy of the Lord without judgment. God’s judgment is not the external verdict of a magistrate passing judgment on someone he hardly knows. It is the judgment present in an intimate relationship with a personal God.
As with the prophet who confronts Ahab for his failure to execute judgment, there is a role for Christians to call for accountability. The warning Jesus gave against judgment is not a prohibition against all judgment; it is a reminder that judgment be given with the same measure it should be received (Matt. 7:1). It is a warning against vindictive judgment, but not against all judgment. The behavior of terrorists must not be excused; alleged efforts to find “root causes,” attempting to correlate terrorism with poverty and despair, turns analysts into apologists. Instead of looking at extenuating circumstances, there is a tendency to recite exculpatory conditions.
This well-intentioned effort leads to cultural condescension. Terrorists are held to a different moral standard than is normally applied. In refusing to judge violence, justice is denied to the majority, who never engage in such destructive acts. Politics is an arena in which tough judgments must be rendered; irresolute leaders who refuse to judge are incapable of carrying out the responsibility of their own office.
Judgments of conduct are inseparable from the function of integrity in home, community, church, and social relationships. There are many things wrong with the “system,” but the faults of the system do not absolve individuals of their own conduct within it.25 The judgments of the prophets against the nation were not separable from the choices made by individuals. Systems do not work apart from the integrity of individuals involved. Failure to deal with plagiarism not only undermines the education of the student concerned but also the function of the entire class.
There needs to be judgment of work if learning is to take place. Responsible parenting requires a parent to assess a child’s behavior at all points; judging behavior and attempting to understand it are not mutually exclusive. Choosing the route of irresponsibility (“Who am I to judge?”) stems from moral weakness more than a sense of appropriate humility. Judging involves calling things by their right names. This includes the use of powerful words like evil and sinful. “An enormously enlarged empathy” does not suffice to sustain the critical capacity called judging.26 The harder truths of life and politics must be confronted.
There is a tendency to see the God of the Old Testament as much harsher and judgmental than the Jesus of the New Testament. The stern judgments of God against the nations, including Israel, seem incompatible with him who insists that we love our enemies. N.T. Wright says the good news is that Western culture needs to come to terms with this sterile sort of antithesis. Theologians and church leaders are facing the challenge of articulating a worldview in which individuals may find their way forward in their thinking, their communities, and their reading of texts.
If any journalist had predicted, thirty-four years ago, that a black archbishop of Cape Town would preside over the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for the whole community, he or she would have been laughed off the airwaves as hopelessly optimistic. The image of white secret policemen and black terrorists together confessing their atrocities and seeking reconciliation with their victims ought to be recognized as one of the great moral landmarks of the late twentieth century.27
The commission faced attack from both sides: those who wanted vengeance rather than reconciliation, and those who wanted to let bygones be bygones, not to stir up the past. Both wanted to live with the antithesis of judgment and mercy, distorting both by keeping them separate. Like many Bible readers, they were unable or unwilling to face the possibility that in their highest form, judgment and mercy are inseparable.