Association of Jehu’s Rule with Yahwism - A Ploy to Garner Support for those 'Dsenfranchised' Under Ahab

Question 1

Jehonadab, one of the heads of the Yahwistic sectarian group had been the supporter of Jehu’s take-over. This support had been observed as the opposition to a settled agricultural culture, idealizing a pastoral existence and passionate attachment to Yahweh and refusal to dwell in houses until the soil and drink wine (Hayes 1971, 157). 

According to Hutton (200904), Jehu’s rule is prophetically intended and privileged by the God of Israel and Jehu seemed to give response to this devotion and loyalty on Yahweh’s part through purifying the Israel’s monarchy of Baal worship. Jehu regarded herself as the one who used her religion to improve the political power; therefore, great association of Jehu with Yahwism apparently seems as merely a ploy to garner the support to improve the political power. 

Question 2

Comparison between the Coups under Solomon and Jehu

King Solomon who had been son of King David and Bathsheba was the known ruler of the kingdom extended from the Euphrates River in the north to Egypt in the south. However, Solomon had inherited considerable empire from his father he had to face great opposition from two of his father’s closest advisors (Emmerson 1984, 15). In order to deal with conspiracy, King Solomon adopted rigid monarch strategy and therefore he strengthened his kingdom through military alliances.

 Jehu, the son of Jehoshaphat, had been the king of the northern kingdom of Israel, and famous for the brutality as he killed great number of people and he is known in the history for his cruelty. Comparing the coups under Solomon and Jehu, the major difference is that Solomon had been wise king and he more focused on the accumulation of wealth therefore he killed people while Jehu had been more concerned about the political power and for that purpose he killed great numbers of people and sustained his regime (Hayes 1971, 85).

Question 3

Deuteronomic Criticism on Jehu

            The king Jehu had been one of the most controversial figures in the history of Israel whereas Hosea had announced the punishment of his dynasty due to massacre of Jezreel in the book of kings, which gives two different appraisals for the actions of Jehu (Crüsemann and Mahnke 1996, 58). Moreover, there have been strong words affirming the criticism on the actions of Jehu, as verse 31 says that Jehu was not careful to walk according to the Torah. Thus, it is seen that the major criticism on Jehu is regarding his irreligious acts which surely denied the education and preaching of Torah (Emmerson 1984, 63). Jehu has been evaluated through the law of God revealed to Deuteronomy, which Jehu had failed to follow and this is the reason why editor criticized Jehu.

Question 4

The Tel Dan Stele and debate on the Historicity of Solomon and David

The Tel Dan Stele, which was found in 1993 in secondary use in the leftovers of the wall by the archaeologist, has been dated back to the first half of the 9th century B.C. The inscription that had been found reads in old Aramaic“house of David”. The inscription has proved to be one the most contentious and debated exploring in the previous decades. Ever since the inscription is issued, different publications on the expected ramifications have debated and it was followed by different critical pieces showing that this is an original indirect archaeological reference to the person of David. In addition, different articles have endeavored to harmonize to the debate that demonstrated to be absolutely acrimonious. The major problem in the argument is that there is no evidence in the Bible about this god, temples and altars; therefore, arguing that the house of David existed to warrant two mentions by neighboring foes on royal stelae provides only indirect reference (Halpern 2004, 72).

Review posted and now it's pending for approval!Review posted and now it's pending for approval!

Users Page Reviews

Click Here to order & get UPTO


75% OFFTAlk To Agent