Original Meaning

Reprieve from Aramean Oppression (13:1–25)

ASSYRIAN POWER UNDER Shalmaneser III at the time of Jehu (841 B.C.) confines Hazael to Damascus for a time. But Assyrian expansion declines during the reign of Shamshi-Adad V (824–811 B.C.), and the severely decimated power of Israel after the purge of Jehu allows for Aramean expansion in the Transjordan (10:32–33). Hazael and his successor Ben-Hadad III are able to oppress Jehoahaz king of Israel during most of his seventeen-year reign (13:1–3, 7). Even so, a prophetic word declares that Yahweh will send deliverance to Israel (vv. 3–5), which enables the dynasty to survive.

The prophetic note explains that Jehoahaz prays for deliverance and that Yahweh sends a savior (môšîaʿ ) to help them (13:5). This deliverer may have been a political figure, but historically there is no outstanding king who may be regarded as bringing relief to Israel. Adad-Nirari III, the Assyrian successor to Shamshi-Adad V at the end of the ninth century (810 B.C.) has often been suggested as the deliverer.1 A campaign to the west near the beginning of his reign (ca. 805 B.C.) is well attested in several inscriptions.2 In this campaign Adad-Nirari encountered a coalition headed by Ataršumki king of Arpad to the west of the Euphrates, in which he subjugated northern Syria. He then went south to Damascus, which submitted and paid an enormous tribute. Jehoahaz of Israel, if he is the king at the time, and kings from the coast of Phoenicia appear to have sent tribute as well rather than risk Assyrian invasion. This is no real deliverance from the Aramean powers.

Hamath, a northern Aramean city, apparently remained loyal to Assyria and became the target of an Aramean coalition headed by Ben-Hadad III of Damascus. A statue erected by Zakkur king of Hamath celebrates the defense of his capital Hazrak (the biblical Hadrak of Zech. 9:1) against a north Syrian coalition of a dozen or more kings led by Ben-Hadad son of Hazael, king of Aram. Zakkur was the successor of Irhuleni, the king who accompanied Hadadezer of Damascus at the battle of Qarqar. The defensive action of Zakkur recorded on the stela likely temporarily distracted the power of Damascus, but this probably did not provide a political deliverance to Israel. Further, the attack of the coalition against Hazrak was after the reign of Hazael in Damascus (cf. 2 Kings 13:22–24), though not likely much later than the end of the reign of Jehoahaz. Damascus itself was reduced to a powerless state by the Assyrian campaign in 796 B.C. Jehoash was soon able to successfully counter the Arameans (vv. 24–25).

In the context of the Elisha passage (13:14–21), it is more likely that the savior (môšîaʿ ) intended by the Deuteronomistic Historians is a prophetic figure. This would fit the pattern of Judges, in which a charismatic figure like Deborah inspires nationalistic revival in time of oppression. Hobbs points out the specific verbal parallels between the deliverance described in 2 Kings 13:4–5 and the summary of the theological significance of the Exodus found in Deuteronomy 26:7–9.3 Such a direct allusion indicates that the Deuteronomists have in mind a succession of prophets, of which Moses is the prototype.4 If Elisha were this figure, it would be about forty years after his activity in anointing of Jehu to succeed the Omride dynasty.

Ten thousand foot soldiers of Jehoahaz (2 Kings 13:7) are a marked contrast to the ten chariots left to his forces. This statement still serves as an explanation for his subjugation to the Arameans, because the superiority of power belongs to the number of mobile forces. A large number of infantry does not provide resistance to the speed of chariots.5 Israel is crushed like dust before the Arameans; Amos describes it as being under the threshing sledge (Amos 1:3). Hazael is vastly superior in both infantry and chariots.

Jehoahaz is succeeded by his son Jehoash (2 Kings 13:10–13), the same name as his counterpart in Judah. The synchronistic data for the reign of Jehoash is idiosyncratic. The thirty-seventh year of Joash of Judah (v. 10) does not correspond to a seventeen-year reign of Jehoahaz beginning in the twenty-third year of Joash (v. 1), or to the reign of Amaziah his son beginning in the second year of Jehoash of Israel (14:1).6

Jehoash also has the distinction of being named in the Assyrian records. The Rimah Stela, which records a campaign of Adad-Nirari III deep into Aramean territory, declares that he received tribute from “Iaʾasu the Samaritan,” along with the rulers of Tyre and Sidon.7 The king (mariʾ ) of Damascus is not named, so it may have been either Hazael or Ben-Hadad III. Shea proposes that this stela records the first campaign of Adad-Nirari III, which according to the eponym list would have been 805 B.C.8 He further proposes a revision of the biblical chronology, suggesting that the seven-year reign of Athaliah must not be counted in the regnal years, so the reign of Jehoash actually begins in 805, as suggested by his name in the stela.9 It is possible, however, that the stela contains summaries of several campaigns, so that the tax paid by Jehoash could have been in a campaign as late as 796 B.C. The interpretation of the stela is not sufficiently conclusive to require an extensive revision of the chronology as given in Kings.

The significant events of the reign of Jehoash are only mentioned within the regnal summary of his reign (13:10–13), indicating that these events have been excerpted from the historical records of Jehoash. His victory over Ben-Hadad III is given with a summary of the domination of the Arameans (vv. 22–25), and his war with Amaziah is given as part of the history of the Judean king (14:8–14). The fortunes of Israel begin to rise significantly during the reign of Jehoash until it becomes a formidable and wealthy country under his son, Jeroboam II.

The reign of Jehoash is followed by a report of his visit to Elisha. The prophet has not been part of the history since his anointing of Jehu about forty years previous (9:1–3). The absence of any reference to his activity in the interim shows that interest in Elisha and the sons of the prophets is limited to their significance for the main theme of the history of Israel and Judah under the covenant. The visit of Jehoash is to bring his last respects as Elisha is dying.

The location of this visit is not given; if Elisha dies in the vicinity of his burial near Moab (13:20), it may be near his home in Abel Meholah (cf. 1 Kings 19:16). The encomium of Jehoash is the same as that spoken by Elisha to his master, Elijah (2 Kings 13:14; cf. 2:12). The expression “my father, my father” is an attribution of honor by a leader of the younger generation to the older.10 “The chariots and horseman of Israel” in the first instance referred to the fiery departure of Elijah in glory. Elisha, unlike Elijah, has had active military leadership in the conflicts of Israel against the Arameans (cf. 3:11–19; 6:13–17); the words of Jehoash acknowledge that role and attribute to Elisha the same distinction that belonged to Elijah.

The last action of Elisha is to give a message of promise to the dynasty of Jehu, not unlike the final blessing of other leaders (Jacob, Gen. 49:1–28; Moses, Deut. 33). The king of Israel is instructed to shoot an arrow east towards Aphek, east of the sea of Tiberias. Ahab successfully defended Aphek from an attack of the Arameans (1 Kings 20:22–30), but it had since come under Aramean control. The arrow represents complete victory in regaining Aphek.

The king is then instructed to strike the ground with his arrows. His three strikes signify only a partial recovery from the dominion of the Arameans. The significance of this action is like that of the prophet Ahijah in the call of Jeroboam (1 Kings 11:29–32). They are best regarded as rhetorical, nonverbal communication, persuasive in nature and intent.11 They are communicative and interactive, a message with a persuasive dimension. The participation of Elisha in guiding the hands of the king (2 Kings 13:16b) conveys the assurance that God will provide victory over the Arameans irrespective of the decimated state of his armies. The limited strikes of the arrows signify that this will not be a complete triumph. The anger of the prophet is instigated by the king’s limited faith and resolve.

The legacy of Elisha is last of all remembered in a story about his burial. Aramean conflict with rising Assyrian power provides relief for Israel and other neighboring countries, such as Moab. Moabite raiding bands can extend their liberties well beyond the Arnon, possibly as far north as the hometown of Elisha. Such a band of raiders surprises a group of mourners in the process of burying a comrade. In haste they temporarily dispose of the body in the grave of Elisha, with the result that the man revives. The ministry of Elisha was inaugurated with the curse of death on those who scorned his prophetic anointing (2 Kings 2:23–25). His prophetic anointing is again attested after his death, as contact with his bones leads to life-giving power. Like the episode with the arrows, it signifies the life-giving power of the prophet for the nation, through the declaration of the divine will.

A summary of events in the Aramean conflict brings the focus of the narrative to the political fortunes of the dynasty of Jehu. Hazael, whose reign extended to about the end of the ninth century, had attempted to forge an alliance in Palestine that would be sufficient to repel the Assyrian advances.12 His raids deep into Judah had forced a heavy tribute from Joash, who followed the policy of Assyrian alliance (12:17–18). Jehu in similar manner rejected alliances with the Arameans to resist Assyria. Hazael aggressively pursued a policy of bringing them into subjugation, threshing Gilead with an iron sledge (Amos 1:3).

The aggression of Hazael constituted the greater part of the reign of Jehoahaz, whose seventeen-year sovereignty extended into the eighth century. Hazael controlled the major trade routes, exercising control to the Arnon on the east (2 Kings 10:33) and Gath on the west (12:17). Matters begin to change under the reign of Jehoash, with the death of Hazael and the increased Assyrian pressure under the campaigns of Adad-Nirari III. The delay of the judgment of Israel under Jehu’s dynasty is in keeping with the covenant promise according to Deuteronomistic theology (13:23; cf. Deut. 6:10–12). The location of the cities that Jehoash is able to recover for Israel is not given (2 Kings 13:24–25); Aphek must have been counted among them (v. 17), and probably Lo Debar and Karnaim (Amos 6:13).

Rise of Israelite Power (14:1–29)

Bridging Contexts

FULFILLMENT OF THE prophetic word. The tension the Deuteronomistic Historians feel in describing the Israelite survival of the Aramean threat and the subordination of Judah illustrates the mystery of God’s mercy. Though Jehoash and Jeroboam continued in the apostasy of Jeroboam son of Nebat, they are extremely successful politically. The Judean kings are said to have done what is right in the opinion of Yahweh, but both Joash and Amaziah end in disgrace and are assassinated by members of their own court.

This whole segment is concerned with the fulfillment of the prophetic word. The three strikes of the arrows find their fulfillment in the three attacks against the Arameans (13:18, 25). More important, the promise to Jehu that his descendants will rule for four generations is shown to be true in spite of the idolatry of the northern kings (10:30). Amaziah faces the hostility of his countrymen from the start; though he does exercise constraint in securing his rule (13:5–6), following the directives of the covenant that the innocent not be punished, he can only be said to have done good to the measure of his father Joash. He finally dies by conspiracy in exile in Lachish (14:19), sharing in the judgment that befell his father. The Israelite kings, by contrast, experience success and the restoration of territory (13:25; 14:25) in spite of their apostasy. The first of these is assured by Elisha, the second by the prophet Jonah. In spite of its disobedience, Israel receives divine mercy—its destiny according to the word of the prophets.

The material and organization of the chapter invites inquiry into the process of composition, which does have different outcomes, as seen in the different text versions. Gray suggests that the account of the attack of Amaziah against Joash belonged to northern sources (14:8–16), resulting in a repetition of the regnal summary of Joash when it was incorporated in the history of Amaziah.26 This episode appears to have belonged to a northern source, referring to Beth Semesh as belonging to Judah (v. 11), but that does not explain the organization of the narrative. The episode is about Jehoash defending his territory against the hostile challenge of Amaziah. The repetition of the regnal summary of Joash is essential to facilitate the transition back to the life of Amaziah (vv. 15–17) and the usual regnal summary of his reign (vv. 18–22).27 The narrative returns to the northern kingdom with the usual summary of Jeroboam II (vv. 23, 28–29) and the unusual inclusion of the prophetic word of Jonah (vv. 25–27). The method of the prophetic historians is to demonstrate the fulfillment of the prophetic words of Elisha and Jonah. The report is creatively composed from a variety of sources.

The theological explanation for the restoration of Israel is that God in his freedom shows mercy through the preaching of Jonah, the prophet from Gath Hepher, a town on the border of Zebulun (cf. Josh. 19:13). The bitter affliction of Israel probably recalls the Aramean oppression experienced in the days of Hazael and Ben-Hadad (2 Kings 13:3–4). At that time Israel was left without a leader who could deliver them (14:26).28 Yahweh extends his mercy to preserve Israel during the days of Jeroboam. The terse presentation of the long and notable reign of Jeroboam is not proportionate to his actual accomplishments in political and military affairs. As with Omri, renowned political achievements are regarded as insignificant because they are compromised by following in the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat.

The Deuteronomistic prophets are inspired to interpret political events according to the blessings and curses of the covenant. Jehu is blessed for his annihilation of the Baal cult in Israel. An Aramaic inscription found at Tel Dan (Tel el-Qâdī, between Hazor and Damascus) gives testimony to the extensive territorial expansions of the later kings of the Jehu dynasty. The inscription is in two fragments that cannot be related in any conclusive fashion.29 The inscription makes reference to a king of Israel and the “house of David” (bytdwd). Pottery found at the same level as the fragments date them to the late ninth century or the beginning of the eighth century. Assuming the inscription was made by an Aramean king, the most likely candidate is Hazael; the author claims to have killed a king of Israel and of Judah, described as the “house of David.”30 The only king of Israel who matches the fragment of the name preserved is Joram (son of Ahab), and the likely king of Judah is his ally Ahaziah (son of Jehoram). The candidates capable of later destroying this stele set up by a victorious Aramean king are Jehoash and his son Jeroboam.31 The broken stele is a testimony to these distant intrusions into the territory of Damascus.

There are difficulties with historical reconstruction for the broken stele. The biblical record makes Jehu, not Hazael, responsible for the deaths of Joram and Ahaziah. But it would not be unusual for an Aramean king to claim responsibility, regarding Jehu as his agent in defeating Israel at Ramoth Gilead. Wesselius has proposed that the author of the stele is actually Jehu, writing in Aramaic as a vassal of Aram Damascus.32 This hypothesis is also unconvincing. The author of the stele claims that Hadad (an Aramean weather god) made him king; Kings, by contrast, tells us Jehu destroyed the Baal temple under the ruse of serving Baal (10:18). Though Jehu may have served Baal along with Yahweh, the hypothesis that the Tel Dan stele is the first royal inscription of Israel to be discovered is scarcely convincing.33 The biblical record testifies to Hazael decimating the territory of Jehu (10:32–33), though at other times there was some type of alliance between Aram and Israel.34 The stele does testify to the expansion of Israel to distant northern territories during the times of Jehoash and Jeroboam, the blessed descendants of Jehu.

Prophetic perspective on moral violations. Such political influence and power bring with it greed and corruption that come under the vigorous condemnation of the eighth-century prophets. Hosea gives a summary as a preface to a series of judgments proclaimed against Israel:

Hear the word of Yahweh, Israelites

Indeed Yahweh has a dispute with the inhabitants of the land

For there is no integrity and no mercy and no knowledge of God in the land

Swearing, lying, murdering, stealing, committing adultery

They break out—blood everywhere—and they strike down.

Therefore the land dries up and all its inhabitants are enfeebled.

Along with the wild animals and birds of the sky and even fish of the sea, they are swept away. (Hos. 4:1–3)35

The chastisement of the prophet is presented as a lawsuit (“dispute”) that Yahweh has against Israel for flagrant violations of the covenant. Though attention is immediately directed toward the priest (Hos. 4:4), the “inhabitants of the land” is general and comprehensive for all sectors of society who appear in the following chapters—priest, prophet, king, prince, people, man, woman, child, and even the animals. The words “integrity,” “mercy,” and “knowledge of God” all designate elements of the covenant faith. The covenant vow was to be a genuine commitment kept with integrity, kindness, and an understanding of the God of the covenant.

The covenant was conceived as a personal relationship with God that affected all other relationships. Failure to understand God led to crimes against humanity and nature enumerated by the prophet (Hos. 4:2). The first five items are a summary of what are usually called the Ten Commandments. “Swearing” or “breaking the oath” is to use the name of God in vain, denying that he is the only and uncompromising deity (Exod. 20:1–7); “lying” is to make false representation with another person (20:16). “Murdering, stealing, committing adultery” are three fundamental violations of human life and addressed in the covenant law (20:13–15).

Two verbs in Hosea describe such violent activity. They will “break out” in anger, and they “will strike” down in violence; blood is shed everywhere (Hos. 4:2b). The ambiguity of the words makes them inclusive of a variety of actions in destroying the life of others. The prophet is likely talking about the shedding of innocent blood by official action. Shedding of innocent blood is the ultimate crime in the eyes of the prophets, symbolizing the rebellion against God in the destruction of human beings made in his image and representing him on earth.

The violation of the covenant also has implications for the earth (Hos. 4:3). When covenant virtues—integrity, mercy, and knowledge of God—are lacking, the disorder affects all creation. God’s covenant with Noah included all of the earth (Gen. 9:12–16); humans and all other creatures were committed to divine providence. Violation of the covenant brings the entire creation under judgment; even animals suffer under the violence. The prophet Isaiah looks forward to the day when there will be no pain or destruction in the entire domain of God (Isa. 11:6–11). The “drying up of the land” and the mourning of its inhabitants is a wordplay often used by the prophets (cf. Joel 1:10–12a). When there is a mourning for drought, the people are said to wail and be disgraced, while plants are said to dry up or whither. Judgment for violence of the covenant resulted in ruination (Hos. 4:3). Land dries up and withers, and the living creatures (animals, birds and fish) “are swept away.” The denizens of the three great regions of the earth are specified: land, air, and water. Isaiah looks to the day when the chaos of universe will be reversed and the order of creation restored.

The moral violations of Israel at the end of the Jehu dynasty demand prophetic judgment against its leadership, as pronounced by the Deuteronomistic Historians. Their task is to explain the delay of judgment for these covenant violations. This may explain the inclusion of the name of Judah in the context of the extensive northern expansions of Jeroboam (2 Kings 14:28). Writing from a Judean perspective, the Deuteronomistic Historians include Judah in the experience of divine grace during the most splendid period of power after David and Solomon.36 At the same time they acknowledge that Judah is within the political influence of Israel.

The coming day of the Lord according to Amos. Prosperity and political success must invariably be regarded as gifts of God. Divine mercy is the only explanation not only for the survival of the dynasty of Jehu, but also for its unrivaled wealth and prosperity. This can be described as the “day of the LORD,” the time when God defeats the enemies of the covenant people and grants them the abundance of his great storehouse. Amos also knows that there will come a “day of the LORD” that will bring vengeance on Israel as the enemy of God (Amos 5:18–20). This announcement of an inescapable judgment day is preceded by a proclamation of the funeral of Israel. Though Israel is in a time of great prosperity, the prophet from Tekoah in Judah makes his way to the shrine at Bethel, where he announces the death of the nation (5:1–17). He called on those gathered to worship at the altar to lament; they are attending their own funeral.

In a pattern of repetitions that calls attention to the divine presence, Amos declares the cause of Israel’s death (Amos 5:1–17). He expresses lamentation, exhortation, and accusation as he declares the power of the name of Yahweh. His lament is like that of David for Saul (2 Sam. 1:17); Israel has fallen, just like Saul on the battlefield of Gilboa. Israel refuses to seek Yahweh; instead, in violation of the covenant, they have turned justice to bitterness. The worst sins committed concern the greed of accumulating wealth. The Creator of the galaxies, the Lord of the starfields, the universe maker, will not allow such atrocities to go unnoticed.37 His name is to be praised in judgment. Note the chiastic construction of this section of Amos:

A Lamentation (Amos 5:1–3)

B Exhortation (5:4–6)

C Accusation (5:7)

D Hymn (5:8a–c)

E “Yahweh is his name” (5:8d)

D′ Hymn (5:9)

C′ Accusation (5:10–12)

B′ Exhortation (5:14–15)

A′ Lamentation (5:16–17)

Divine justice will not leave unpunished the blood that is shed everywhere. The reputation of Yahweh, the majesty of his name, is at stake. The “prosperous” (Amos 5:13),38 those with skill and success, will be silent in that time. Silence is a euphemism for death.39 The day of Yahweh for Israel will be one of inevitable extinction. Its delay is like that of flight from the mouth of the lion right into the path of a bear; the fugitive finally reaches home, but instead of home being a refuge, he is bitten by a snake in the wall (5:19–20). “The day of the LORD” for Israel will be nothing but darkness.

In the days of Amos, the rich and prosperous reject the preaching of the prophet. Amaziah, the priest at Bethel, expels him from the territory; the land cannot contain this kind of speech (Amos 7:10–13). Amos does not leave without protest and a proclamation of judgment against Jeroboam. He is not a prophet or the son of a prophet; rather, he is a herdsman and farmer of sycamore figs (7:14–15). He is at Bethel under divine compulsion; the lion of Judah (Yahweh) has roared (3:3–8); he is compelled to pronounce the death of Israel. The wife of the priest will be driven to prostitution, and their children will die in battle (7:17). Amaziah himself will die in exile, while foreigners apportion his land for themselves.

God’s mercy as seen through the prophet Jonah. Divine mercy delays judgment against the greedy and corrupt nation. One of the great prophetic ironies is that Jonah proclaims such mercy to a fraudulent and oppressive people. Jonah is named as a nationalist prophet who supports the military ambitions of Israel as the word of Yahweh against the enemies of Israel (2 Kings 14:25). Jonah is the prophet who finds it impossible to rejoice in mercy because of the repentant Assyrians (Jonah 3:6–4:1), but who can proclaim prosperity to wicked Israel. Mercy to repentant Assyria is evil for Jonah, but mercy to unrepentant Israel is his mission, at least as stated in the only historical note he receives in the Deuteronomistic History (2 Kings 14:25).

The author of Jonah plays on the word evil. He is called to warn an evil people (Jonah 1:2); when he finally does announce judgment against Assyria, they repent, even to the point of their animals fasting and wearing coarse clothes (3:7). They turn from their evil in the hope that God will relent in his judgment (v. 8). When God sees their repentance, he turns from the evil of judgment that is destined for Nineveh (v. 10). Nineveh’s escaping of judgment is evil for Jonah, the greatest of evils (4:1).40

Jonah knows well that the name of Yahweh expresses his primary characteristic as mercy. When the Israelites sinned at the time of the golden calf, the name of Yahweh was revealed as meaning “he will be merciful” (Ex. 33:19; 34:6). This significance of the divine name is celebrated by singing it in praise (Ps. 103:8). Jonah has good reason to flee; he knows from this history of Israel at Mount Sinai, and the history of King Jeroboam, that God is merciful to sinners (Jonah 4:2). Jonah can proclaim mercy to a sinful people, but he finds it a complete travesty of good order when applied to the despotism of Nineveh. Jonah prefers death to the thought that Nineveh might escape divine justice for its brutal treatment of all the victims that have suffered in the advance of its armies.

The lesson of the gourd does nothing to change the sentiments of the prophet (Jonah 4:5–9). The mercy of the gourd is fitting, but when it withers and the hot wind blows, Jonah again would rather choose death. Jonah feels it is justified and right that God should spare a mere gourd that could give him some small comfort; he is unwilling, however, to spare a repentant city of 120,000 people, not to speak of the many cows (who also repent!). The author of Jonah expresses how difficult it is to understand the lessons of the mercy and justice of God. God is not a respecter of persons. Ninevites who repent will receive forgiveness. Israelites who do not repent will receive judgment.

The Deuteronomistic prophets have a sound theology of divine mercy. They are true to historical events as they know them, and they interpret them accordingly. Israel suffers under the oppression of the Arameans, particularly after Jehu decimates the entire leadership of the former regime, because of their failure to remove the idolatrous shrines (2 Kings 13:3–4). At the same time, God grants them mercy in spite of their failure to reform their ways (v. 5). This mercy extends to the oppressions of greed and wickedness against their own people. The nation is never more powerful or prosperous than the days of Jeroboam (14:23–27), days in which the prophet Amos is commissioned to proclaim Israel’s end because they “turned justice to bitterness” (Amos 5:7). The word of Yahweh to Jehu stands firm (2 Kings 10:30), but not more than four generations (15:11–12).

Contemporary Significance

Contemporary Significance

THE QUALITY AND risk of mercy in the context of justice. The tension of mercy and justice is particularly evident in the account of the dynasty of Jehu. This is a time of judgment well deserved, since there can be no pretense that Israel has kept the covenant in exclusive worship of God. At the same time, justice includes deliverance and mercy.

There is a double side to justice in covenant theology. Justice is not only the process of establishing an indictment for offenses; it includes the restoration that should result for the victim as a result of the decision. The judge was a helper or deliverer.41 Yahweh is just such a deliverer in his judgment against the perpetrators of the Baal cult. Deliverance is experienced as an undeserved mercy by the successors of Jehu, who receive unmerited blessing for several generations under Jehoahaz (2 Kings 13:5), Jehoash (13:25), and Jeroboam (14:25–27). Such deliverance is a mercy received in spite of the continuing idolatrous practices at the Bethel shrine. As taught by Jonah in relation to Israel, the Deuteronomistic Historians show that mercy is the primary characteristic of God. Judgment that God may bring against evil is only that mercy may yet be possible for those who seek to know him as their God.

The message of Jesus is that the primary characteristic of God is his mercy. Secular society has a partial assessment of the function of mercy, or of justice as deliverance and recompense for victims. Human perception of justice takes its usual starting point as some form of equal treatment. Justice is punishment meted out for a debt to society; crimes are not perceived as violence against individuals but as an insult to the good order established by government. The courts must determine a sentence defensible as fair for conviction of a crime, with all due consideration of rights for the offender. Justice as a mercy or deliverance for the victim is not given consideration. This is not justice as understood by biblical covenant; God is just because he brings deliverance to his people when he brings judgment on offenders.

Justice can mean that human life must be taken, by lawful authority, in order to prevent the perpetuation of violence. The Omride dynasty was infamous for its killing of the prophets in the interests of perpetuating the power of the Baal cult and the control of imperial power. The attempt of Athaliah to seize the throne of Judah by killing all eligible heirs to the throne was but another example of her mother’s violence exemplified in the seizure of Naboth’s vineyard. Jehu was anointed as the deliverer from such violence, and in the process exercised much killing of his own. When a life is taken, it can never be thought that justice is to take life in turn. Life is taken to make peace possible; it is the responsibility of courts and law enforcement to protect the innocent. This is justice in the positive sense of providing safety from offenders.

The problem of law enforcement is that the enforcers may be as guilty of violence and wrong as those they seek to punish. Such was the case with Jehu; worship at the shrines continued to flourish, and the goals of the covenant were not realized. Mercy extended to Jehu and his violent ways, as he did provide deliverance from Baal for which he was ordained. Such exercise of violence in the interests of justice can never be the jurisdiction of the church. The church is never required to be deliverer, the agency responsible for the control of violent actions.

Jesus teaches his followers to love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them (Matt. 5:43–44). The followers of Jesus can be no less generous than their Father in heaven in impartiality (v. 48); they must have the integrity of God himself. He makes his sun to shine on all, both the bad and the good, and he provides rain for the just and the unjust (v. 45). If Christian love is limited to returning the love of others, then Christians cannot be distinguished from the practices of the ungodly (v. 46). Lamech could demand that revenge for him be enacted seventy-seven times (Gen. 4:24), but Jesus requires that his followers grant forgiveness until seventy-seven times (Matt. 18:21–22). The character of God is revealed in mercy shown to his unworthy people, as seen in the preaching of Jonah. Such mercy cannot be limited to one race or group. The mercy of God is available for all, just as the sun and the rain.

Mercy particularly requires care for the needy and dependent. In the society of Jehoash and Jeroboam, poverty and dependency are caused by injustice and a violation of covenant loyalty. In economic terms, justice is a heavenly demand; nothing less than full compensation for losses incurred can be considered justice. Care for the dependent, such as widows and orphans, is a justice issue, not a question of mercy (e.g., Isa. 1:16–17). But instead of justice, the leaders of Israel in their greed demand more at the expense of the poor (e.g., Amos 4:1); the leaders of Judah usurp property through economic power (Isa. 5:8; Mic. 2:1–2) and strip the skin and flesh of the poor (Mic. 3:1–3).

The mystery of mercy. Generations in Israel enjoy God’s mercy before the warnings of judgment are fulfilled. The Deuteronomists explain this as God’s mercy in time of a failure of leadership and the promise of divine preservation (2 Kings 14:26–27). They do suffer punishment for their sins at the hands of the Arameans (13:3–6), but they receive the promise of deliverance from Elisha (13:18–19, 22–25). Mercy is granted to Israel and Judah, but it does not extend to the lower classes and the needy in the land. Mercy makes the powerful more rich and exacerbates conditions for the poor. While God makes his sun to shine on the just and unjust, unjust leaders turn the mercy of God into oppression against the weak.

Mercy has a risk and a price; mercy allows evil to be perpetuated and puts vulnerable people at risk. How should the Christian church deal with offenders guilty of violent crimes, deemed by many to be at risk of offending again? This pressing question forces its way to the front of the Canadian justice system in the case of the notorious killer known as Karla Homolka. Homolka was convicted of killing her own sister and two other teenage girls as an accomplice in the crimes of her former husband, Paul Bernardo. Bernardo was declared a dangerous offender, with no promise of release, but Homolka served her full term agreed upon in a plea bargain for her testimony to convict Bernardo.

People like Homolka pose a challenge for communities, but especially for churches.42 God is forgiving and accepting of all who desire change; churches declare that everyone is welcome. What would be sufficiently convincing to invite Homolka to be welcomed in a church? Some believe that the church is the best place for offenders to integrate back into the community. Tim Newell, governor of Grendon Prison in Grendon Underwood, Buckinghamsire, England, says the process “can be greatly helped by partnerships with faith communities, and that society will be safer as a result. The Board of Social Responsibility of the Church of England states that the process of restoration, mediated through a congregation, can be a vital part of that change.”43 Reaching out to such offenders demands both vigilance and risk.

In a program created to prepare the church to deal with sex offenders, the Church of England Child Protection Advisory Service has adopted three key principles. The church must establish a contract with the offender, clearly delineating the boundaries to be observed when attending church; the church must work closely with the police and other agencies; there must be professional and ongoing assessment of the individual. Mennonites in Ontario have pioneered a program called Circles of Support and Accountability. Eileen Henderson, a volunteer in the program, said in a BBC interview that “some of these guys aren’t very nice characters. But even with them you see small changes, small growth, small miracles. These people have done horrendous things, but you see glimpses of the human.”

More difficult is a situation where abuse takes place within the church by church workers. Sue Jackson, herself sexually abused by a church youth worker, says, “There is a profound lack of ability to handle power, manipulation, and abuse in healthy ways in the church. Offenders cleverly put responsibility and guilt onto everyone else. They make other people responsible. Christians, with an overdeveloped sense of duty and responsibility, can get sucked into that too.”

Sexual exploitation was part of the violence done in Israel during the days of Jeroboam, when Jonah was preaching mercy and expansion of the empire. Amos cited the violence done to Israel by the nations all around as a means of coming to address the violence within Israel. Among his charges of pursuit of the poor, he says, “father and son use the same girl and so profane my holy name” (Amos 2:7). The nature of the offense need not be further defined. While God showed mercy to Israel, the wealthy drank the wine of fines and exploited the vulnerable. Mercy did not change Israel; mercy was presumed or guilt denied even while the prophetic warning declared the judgment of death on the nation to be inevitable.

Mercy does not nullify the truth of the Deuteronomistic Historians that there is divine retribution, that we reap what we sow, as the friends of Job were at pains to prove (Job 4:8). The intervention of mercy does not permit the principle to be predictable in immediate retribution or particular cases, as the friends of Job presumed. The history of Israel does not demonstrate that mercy comes to those who worship at Jerusalem and judgment to those that worship at Bethel and Dan. Though Joash and Amaziah both support worship at the temple, both suffer humiliating defeat before the armies of Arameans and Israelites, and both end up being assassinated by members of their own court. These events do not support the idea that the reason for defeat is failure to worship at the temple only or that support of the temple brings victory and prosperity. At best it may be possible to infer that blessing comes to Israel in its relationship with Judah (2 Kings 14:28), but the reading of history itself testifies to the truth that right must be done for its own sake, without the expectation of immediate reward.

An example of the mystery of faith and prosperity is the story of Aaron Feuerstein and his textile mill in Lawrence, Massachusetts.44 When the mill burned down on December 11, 1995, Feuerstein could have taken the $300,000,000 in insurance money and walked away into a comfortable retirement. What happened has been described as incomprehensible in the world of business. At seventy years of age he told his three thousand workers he would rebuild the factory and pay them until they could return to work. The decision cost more than $25,000,000 in wages and benefits. Today the mill is up and running again, manufacturing Polartec, a highly regarded lightweight thermal material. Feuerstein, an observant Jew, rebuilt his mill because of his faith. In an interview he quoted the first-century Talmudic scholar Hillel: “In a situation where there is no righteous person, try to be a righteous person.” His workers were depending on him, the community was depending on him, his customers and family were depending on him.

The actions of Feuerstein earned him the sobriquet the “Mensch of Malden Mills” (mensch is a Yiddish word for a man with backbone). The story, however, does not have a fairy tale ending. Malden Mills ended up filing for Chapter Eleven protection, struggling to service debt from rebuilding, suffering from loss of market share after the fire and from a sluggish retail market. There is no real connection between faithfulness and financial success. Fine Christians can lose their shirts while scoundrels have eminent success. God is the author of all good, but how that good is experienced in particular circumstances is part of the mystery of mercy.

A business expert, commenting in the New York Times about the financial woes besetting Feuerstein’s company following the fire, suggested that his “desire to take principled action somehow blinded him to thinking long term.” According to Rabbi Avi Shafran, writing on the website of Aish HaTorah, an international network of Jewish educational centers commented that “she had it exactly wrong of course. Long term was precisely what he was thinking.” Immediate results often make no sense in terms of reward and retribution.

The long-term thinking of the prophets. The presentation of the reigns of Joash and Amaziah of Israel, and Jehoash and Jeroboam of Israel, are told from the viewpoint of long-term thinking. It is important to do right because of the long term, not because of immediate results. According to the prophetic historians, Joash and Amaziah of Judah have the right goals in mind, even though the immediate results for each of them are disastrous. The kings of Israel, particularly Jehoash and Jeroboam, are eminently successful politically, but their reigns receive no commendation in the Deuteronomistic History. Worship at the temple and the values of the covenant are of much more worth than immediate economic success for a few. For the prophets Amos and Hosea, the violence done to the people through violating the covenant is intolerable; in the long term it will bring about the death of Israel. “As a shepherd saves from the lion’s mouth only two leg bones or a piece of an ear, so will the Israelites be saved” (Amos 3:12).

The religious leaders of Israel appear to be scarcely aware of their grievous sin in making God’s mercy an occasion for the imposition of injustice to the poor. The response of Amaziah the high priest is that there is no place for Amos in Jeroboam’s kingdom (Amos 7:10). It may be possible to drive Amos from Israel, but it is not possible to avert the long-term consequences (7:11, 17). Long term is what the prophets are thinking; immediate and lavish material gains achieved with disregard to the injury done to the powerless will bring death to the nation in just one generation.

The prophetic warnings of judgment against the oppressive rich are continued for the church. In the visions of the last plagues, the apostle John sees the judgment of Babylon, the great representative of wealth and oppression in the world (Rev. 18:2–3). The safety of the church depends on her having no association with this Babylon and its sins (vv. 4–8). Babylon the Great will receive double for all the evil she has afflicted on others. Those who enjoy the wealth of this great harlot will lament when they see her smoke ascending, destroying the vast wealth accumulated.

Individual Christians and congregations by necessity are a part of this great and greedy commercial venture. They must be vigilant in using such wealth to seek first the kingdom of God. This is the only way to dissociate from Babylon, to avoid participating in her sins (Rev. 18:4). Seeking first God’s kingdom in the wealth of this world is a daily discipline, a continuous and conscious choice to use money and resources to further the values of the kingdom of God and to bring others into that kingdom. The choices are not easy, and they are not without compromise. The mercy of God is to be found for the motives of those who participate in the economy of the great harlot, as they are in this world, but at the same time we must seek always to bring justice and good news to the weak and the needy.