I KINGS 18:21

 

Right before the famous contest between Elijah and the 450 prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel, Elijah says to the people: “How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him, but if Baal is God, follow him.” (NIV)

In this manner, Elijah stands in the company of two other great leaders of Israel, Moses and Joshua who posed similar challenges:

    “I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life that you and your descendants may live.” (Deuteronomy 30:19)

    “And if you be unwilling to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” (Joshua 24:15)

The general gist of Elijah's statement in I Kings 18:21 is quite clear, especially in its second sentence. It is the first half of the verse, however, that has caused a bit of trouble. Look at how some other translations handle it:

    “How long halt ye between two opinions?” (KJV) At the time of this translation, the meaning of the verb “halt” was “limp.” Thus, both RSV and NRSV go with that basic meaning.

    “How long will you waver between two opinions?” (Living Bible)

    “How long are you going to sit on the fence?” (NEB, The Message)

    “How much longer will it take you to make up your mind?” (TEV)

    “How long do you mean to hobble first on one leg then on the other.” (JB)

    “How long will you keep hopping between two boughs.” (AB)

LaSor says, “This was possibly a popular expression of the day, lost to us now. It seems to be literally, 'Till when are you hopping at two forks?'” The main problem in translation is that the two key words in this sentence, “limp” and “opinion” are quite rare within the Old Testament, and the proper understanding of either one influences how we translate the other. Let us first concentrate on the noun at the end of the sentence, generally understood to mean “opinions.” Unfortunately, it is an hapax legomenon, a fancy word indicating that it only appears once in the Bible, and thus we have no other passages with which to compare it.

Cogan takes the first step in explaining the etymology of the original Hebrew word. He says that “the noun refers to boughs of a fruit tree as well as the clefts of rocks.” But that is just the first, literal meaning of the word. Hostetter then helpfully explains that the noun “has at least two potential meanings. It could denote 'crutches' made out of tree limbs, or it could indicate 'alternatives' set forth as choices...”

To understand the logic behind that progression, just imagine a primitive crutch fashioned from a straight tree limb that has forking branches off of it. It can easily be cut in a Y-shape with an elongated branch going downward and a short top that can fit underneath one's armpit. On the other hand, look at the way we figuratively use the concept of a river or road that “forks” so that one has the option of taking either route – thus giving rise to the use of “fork” as one of two possible alternatives or options. So this explanation now gives rise to three different ways to render the Hebrew thought behind the noun: (1) literally, as tree branch, (2) the derived meaning of a crutch, or (3) symbolically and figuratively as an “alternative.” The choice between the three depends greatly on one's understanding of the verb in the sentence:

The Hebrew word translated as “limping, etc.” appears two additional places in the Old Testament. One is to describe the crippled Mephibosheth in II Samuel 4:4. Thus, some translators and commentators stick to that general concept. C.G. Martin chooses as one of the ways to explain its appearance in I Kings 18:21 as a description of “a cripple making his uneasy way on two crutches.”

However, the word appears even closer to the present context in I Kings 18:26. There it is used to make fun of the way the priests of Baal dance around the altar.

Stinespring says that “they performed a kind of limping dance, bending first on one knee and then the other. This form of ritual is well known from a number of sources.” Cogan compares it with “later sources of ceremonial encompassing of a sacred stone, especially the perambulation of the Ka'aba in Mecca.”

Although most scholars feel that the above three passages are the only ones in which this particular Hebrew verb appears, C.G. Martin claims to see it also in Isaiah 31:5. In that verse, God is portrayed as a bird hovering protectively over Jerusalem. But even more strangely, Martin then couples the picture of a bird hovering with a literal rendering of the noun denoting the branch of a tree to come up with the image of “a bird flitting from branch to branch.” I think that we are safe to disregard that unique interpretation.

The bottom line regarding this verse has been summarized well by a number of commentators:

    The people's sin was syncretism. “Such syncretism is always considered to be broad-minded, whereas the other is narrow-minded. But Yahweh of Israel left no room for other gods.” (La Sor) Similarly, C.G. Martin says that Elijah's words “struck at the root of the broadminded, inclusive culture Ahab had been fostering.” In this regard, I am reminded to two quotations by my favorite Christian authors:

            “An open mind, in questions that are not ultimate, is useful. But an open mind about the ultimate foundations of either Theoretical or of Practical Reason is idiocy. If a man's mind is open on these things, let his mouth at least be shut.” (C.S. Lewis)

            “Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.” (G.K. Chesterton)

    “They could not bring themselves to renounce entirely all allegiance to him [Yahweh]; therefore many of them probably sought to persuade themselves that they were not idolaters in reality, but worshippers of the true God, under the name of Baal...What awful self-delusion, what pitiful double-mindedness.” (Krummacher)

    “The people are non-commital at best. They 'limp' along without conviction.” (House)

    “From the very start of its portrayal of human life...the Bible concentrates on the person at the crossroads; and as we read, the godly life emerges in our imaginations as above all, a life of choice.” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

    “Elijah's rhetoric on Mount Carmel is intended precisely to turn people both from outright apostasy and from mere hesitation between two ways (I Kings 18:21). The possibility of repentance is held out virtually to the end.” (McConville)