Blue Cord

The OT reading from the Revised Common Lectionary for today included 1 Kings 19:19-21, which reads:

So [Elijah] set out from there, and found Elisha son of Shaphat, who was plowing. There were twelve yoke of oxen ahead of him, and he was with the twelfth. Elijah passed by him and threw his mantle over him. He left the oxen, ran after Elijah, and said, “Let me kiss my father and my mother, and then I will follow you.” Then Elijah?? said to him, “Go back again; for what have I done to you?” He returned from following him, took the yoke of oxen, and slaughtered them; using the equipment from the oxen, he boiled their flesh, and gave it to the people, and they ate. Then he set out and followed Elijah, and became his servant. (NRSV)

As I was listening to the reading, a question occurred to me: Why did Elisha kill the oxen? Was it a sacrifice or not?

When I got home, I checked the different translations. The ESV and NASB say that Elisha sacrificed the oxen, while the NRSV and NIV both say that Elisha slaughtered them.  The Hebrew does not provide much help here.  The verb used is zabakh.  This generally indicates a sacrifice, but also could be used for common slaughter of animals.

If this passage were from the priestly layers of the OT, it would be a moot point.  All slaughter of animals was considered a sacrifice in the priestly schema.  But Deuteronomy allows for the non-sacrificial slaughter of animals (Deut. 12:13-27).  Since the 1 Kings passage is part of the DtrH, this could be either.

But Deuteronomy also states that all sacrifice must be done in Jerusalem.  Elisha is from Abel-Meholah.  Although 1 Kings 19 does not state it explicitly, it is likely that the call of Elisha took place in or near his home town, not in Jerusalem.  If Elisha is being pictured following the Deuteronomic law, then what he is doing should not be considered a sacrifice.  I would say the NRSV and NIV have the better translation in this case.

But that leaves us with out original question: Why did Elisha kill the oxen?  If it was not a sacrifice, why did he do it?  Although the passage is not explicit, I think the clue to interpretation needs to come from Elisha’s request to kiss his father and mother before following Elijah.  The slaughter of the oxen and ensuing feast seem to be the fulfillment of that wish.

Now, if I really wanted to go out on a limb, I might argue that his request to kiss his father and mother and the feast that followed were part of paying homage to his departed ancestors, since his new life would be one that took place outside of his family.  I am not feeling that brave today, so I will offer that suggestion only as a possibility.

Over the past few days, several bibliobloggers have been discussing the idea of how exclusive biblical interpretation should be. That is, who makes the best interpreters. Two bloggers, Alastair and Jim West, have argued against just anyone interpreting the Bible, while Chris Heard at Higgaion has countered by arguing again exclusivism in interpretation. I will allow my readers to read their posts, as I do not plan to engage in the conversation directly, but I did want to make one comment.

One of the things I have been thinking about recently is the idea of a chronological exclusivism in biblical interpretation. That is, to what extent does my own approach to interpreting the Bible imply that interpreters throughout history have been wrong? If I claim that the historical critical method is the way we should interpret the Bible (and indeed this is what I teach), does that not imply that anyone who does not use this method is wrong? Since no one prior to the 19th century used this method and not everyone uses it today, is that not in and of itself a bit of scholastic hubris?

I don’t have any answers so far, but what I am seeking to elucidate is a way of saying that I believe that the historical critical method is the best way of interpreting the text for today while not invalidating other methods of reading the text, whether those methods be contemporary of historical. The Bible is a dynamic book and cannot be limited to one method of interpretation, so how do we say that some methods are good, others are better, but still others are unacceptable?

Granted, these are not the most cohearent thoughts, but one of the pluses and minuses of Open Source Scholarship ™ is seeing scholarship in progress, even when it is sloppy. I would love to hear the thoughts of others on this topic.