# Elijah challenging the prophets of Baal



## Ezekiel3626 (Aug 14, 2008)

Part of the passage studied tonight was in 1 Kings 18, where Elijah challenged the prophets of Baal. Afterwards, my wife asked why Elijah did not kill Ahab as well. Several suggestions came to mind, but I chose to hold my answer until I had received more light. I would appreciate any comments. 

Thank you,


----------



## Poimen (Aug 14, 2008)

"who can stretch out his hand against the LORD's anointed, and be guiltless?" 1 Samuel 26:9


----------



## Christusregnat (Aug 14, 2008)

Ezekiel3626 said:


> Part of the passage studied tonight was in 1 Kings 18, where Elijah challenged the prophets of Baal. Afterwards, my wife asked why Elijah did not kill Ahab as well. Several suggestions came to mind, but I chose to hold my answer until I had received more light. I would appreciate any comments.
> 
> Thank you,



Ahab was not convicted of open idolatry (to my knowledge), but the prophets of Baal were. Jezebel was eventually executed for her open acts of idolatry.

The case of David stating that he wouldn't personally stretch out his hand against the LORD's anointed is one thing. It is quite another thing to allow a convicted idolater to remain on the throne, if one has the duty of executing justice upon him.

Execution requires a crime witnessed by two or three witnesses. All of the people could testify against the false prophets, and God Himself witnessed against them in the preceding "trial". No such trial took place for Ahab.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Poimen (Aug 14, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Ahab was not convicted of open idolatry (to my knowledge), but the prophets of Baal were. Jezebel was eventually executed for her open acts of idolatry.



Convicted as in tried and convicted? No. Guilty and worthy of dead with ample witnesses to testify? Yes. See 1 Kings 16:30-33. 



Christusregnat said:


> The case of David stating that he wouldn't personally stretch out his hand against the LORD's anointed is one thing. It is quite another thing to allow a convicted idolater to remain on the throne, if one has the duty of executing justice upon him.



Saul attempted murder and conspired to murder (1 Samuel 18:11; 19:1). Saul consulted a medium at En Dor (1 Samuel 28:7) Idolater? (1 Samuel 15:23) David was already the anointed of God, chosen to be king, but would not lift his hand against Saul. 



Christusregnat said:


> Execution requires a crime witnessed by two or three witnesses. All of the people could testify against the false prophets, and God Himself witnessed against them in the preceding "trial". No such trial took place for Ahab.



True there was no trial but it could have easily taken place. Why not? "who can stretch out his hand against the LORD's anointed, and be guiltless?" 1 Samuel 26:9


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 14, 2008)

It was a part of God's grace to Ahab, giving him opportunity to repent. Ahab was completely without excuse. If you are interested, I preached on this text a few weeks ago: 

Christ Church PCA » 1 and 2 Kings Sermons


----------



## Christusregnat (Aug 14, 2008)

Poimen said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > Ahab was not convicted of open idolatry (to my knowledge), but the prophets of Baal were. Jezebel was eventually executed for her open acts of idolatry.
> ...



Certainly, Ahab was worthy of death, but that's not the question posed. The reason he wasn't executed by Elijah is that Elijah had not presided over his trial. 




Poimen said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > The case of David stating that he wouldn't personally stretch out his hand against the LORD's anointed is one thing. It is quite another thing to allow a convicted idolater to remain on the throne, if one has the duty of executing justice upon him.
> ...



Again, David had not presided over a trial. Vigilanti "justice" is not countenanced under biblical law. 



Poimen said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > Execution requires a crime witnessed by two or three witnesses. All of the people could testify against the false prophets, and God Himself witnessed against them in the preceding "trial". No such trial took place for Ahab.
> ...



If I'm not mistaken (which I very well may be), this sounds like the theory of the "divine right of kings" refuted long ago by Samuel Rutherford:

Rutherford: Lex, Rex, or The Law and the Prince

Kings have never been above the law, they have always been subject to it. To think otherwise is to countenance for absolute corruption. 

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## TimV (Aug 14, 2008)

> True there was no trial but it could have easily taken place. Why not? "who can stretch out his hand against the LORD's anointed, and be guiltless?" 1 Samuel 26:9



I think Rutherford in _Lex Rex_, Buchanan in _Rules for the King of Scotland_ et. al. showed that strict of an interpretation of 1 Sam 26:9 is wrong. Cromwell for just one example followed proper means and allowed a King to be tried and executed, and we have many other examples. After all, while David was arguably the greatest man who ever lived, he was still a man, and his words weren't always inspired. And I don't think that's just my personal issues with authority that's talking ;-)


----------



## TimV (Aug 14, 2008)

We posted at the same time, Adam, I didn't plagiarise you!


----------



## Christusregnat (Aug 14, 2008)

TimV said:


> We posted at the same time, Adam, I didn't plagiarise you!



hahahaha I didn't think you did


----------



## Robbie Schmidtberger (Aug 14, 2008)

He was the king. Period.


----------



## TimV (Aug 14, 2008)

> He was the king. Period.



We all agree on that! But are you suggesting that a King is above the law? Or to be more specific, was a King of Israel not subject to the Mosaic judicial law? If so, specifically was there no possibility of civil punishment for any violation of any law?


----------



## louis_jp (Aug 14, 2008)

It's not really a question of whether the King is or is not above the law, is it? Elijah didn't strike down Ahab, not because proper judicial procedure needed to be observed, but simply because God did not want him struck down at that time. He had another plan to deal with Ahab. 

Which, I think is the point about Saul.... I don't take David's statement about not stretching out one's hand against the Lord's annointed as a statement of legal precedence, or the rights of kings, so much as a recognition that God put Saul on the throne, and it would be God who would remove him. Likewise with Ahab.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 14, 2008)

louis_jp said:


> It's not really a question of whether the King is or is not above the law, is it? Elijah didn't strike down Ahab, not because proper judicial procedure needed to be observed, but simply because God did not want him struck down at that time. He had another plan to deal with Ahab.



This is the point. When we try and analyze the situation and limit God to certain processes, it misses the substance for the form. (As if God could be called on a 4th Amendment violation!)

God was doing more in the Ahab story than simply conducting justice. He was carrying out his covenantal purposes. I think most exegetes miss the boat, for example, on 1 Kings 19. Ralph Davis is dead on. That is a covenantal lawsuit against both Ahab and Israel. We must look at redemptive history, not mere technicalities. That is where Theonomy misses the boat.


----------



## Ezekiel3626 (Aug 15, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> It was a part of God's grace to Ahab, giving him opportunity to repent. Ahab was completely without excuse. If you are interested, I preached on this text a few weeks ago:
> 
> Christ Church PCA » 1 and 2 Kings Sermons



Actually, I d/l the sermon from your site on that particular chapter before I posted, but I must admit that I have not listened to it yet. I plan on listening to it tonight. I thank you, sir, for your responses along with the helpful input from everyone else. 

Sincerely,


----------

