Law Code as Plot Template in Biblical Narrative (1 Kings 9.26–11.13;Joshua 2.9–13)

1. Introduction

Michael Fishbane observes that prophetic literature utilized legal material toward ‘aggadic’ or rhetorical ends. ¹ Thus, the injunctions concerning the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16 and 23.24–32) serve as an ideological matrix for their inversion and reapplication about fasting in Isaiah's discourse concerning asceticism (58.1–12). ² Fishbane maintains that the prophets often had no intention of reinterpreting law or of portraying their normative application as part of a corpus juris in their hortatory use of pre-existing legal materials. Rather, the law is extracted from its original focus and emerges within a new configuration of meaning. ³ The aggadic exegesis exists in such instances solely for its own rhetorical sake. ⁴

I seek here to draw light to a sub-category of such legal exegesis. I examine two narratives from the so-called Deuteronomistic History which incorporate traditions that we find today in the law corpora of the Pentateuch. In each, I demonstrate that the narrative does not merely access an isolated phrase or a specific law. Rather, by invoking a phrase from a legal passage it calls upon us to read the narrative in light of that passage as a whole. In each of these two cases, I shall review how the allusion to specific phrases has been conventionally understood and then demonstrate the exegetical fruits to be harvested by reading the narrative in light of the legal passage as a whole. In both cases I will show that the legal passage forms a template which the later author employed in the construction of a homiletic tale.

2. The Deuteronomic Law of the King (Deuteronomy 17.14–20) and the Sins of King Solomon (1 Kings 9.26-11-13)

As expositors of the narrative of the downfall of King Solomon have noted since talmudic times, Solomon's misdeeds correspond to the proscriptions found in the Deuteronomic law of the king (Deut. 17.14–20). ⁵ Expositors have wrestled, however, with the scope of these allusions: What is the scope of the narrative in 1 Kings 9–11 that references this Deuteronomic passage? Conversely, what is the scope of references within the Deuteronomic law of the king that the author of 1 Kings is invoking? Many maintain that a limited section of 1 Kings 11 alludes to a limited set of references to the law of the king. They point to the most explicit lexical and motivic resonances between the two texts. Other scholars are more expansive on both fronts: they maintain that a wider narrative field within 1 Kings 9–11 invokes references from the law of the king. I claim that by reading the allusions as references not only to specific phrases but to the passage as a whole, we should legitimately extend the field of allusions further still, and conclude that the entire passage of the law of the king in Deuteronomy serves as a broad template for the narrative of the downfall of Solomon in the book of 1 Kings.

Many commentators read the opening verses of 1 Kings 11 in light of Deut. 17.17. Solomon married ‘many’ (‭תובר‬) wives in violation of Deut. 17.17, ‘he shall not have wives in excess’ (‭הברי‬ ‭אל‬). These wives ‘swayed his heart’ (1 Kgs 11.3, 4, 9), invoking a similar, if not identical, phrase in Deut. 17.17. Other commentators, however, posit that the author of 1 Kings begins his invocation of the law of the king earlier along his textual continuum. They note that the closing passage of ch. 10, which immediately precedes the account of Solomon's many wives, tells of the many horses that he amassed and his dealings with Egypt to procure them (10.26–29), activities that contravene the directive of Deut. 17.16. ⁶ Yet other scholars extend both the scope of the narrative of 1 Kings that references the law of the king and the scope of the allusions that are accessed from that Deuteronomic passage. They observe that the long narrative between 1 Kgs 9.26 and 10.25 is an extended chronicle of the gold and silver that Solomon amassed to excess and mentions ‘gold’ fifteen times. ⁷ Indeed, there was so much gold that ‘silver was given no thought’ (10.21). For the author of 1 Kings, they maintain, Solomon contravenes the law of the king (17.17) stating the king should not amass gold and silver (‭דאמ‬ ‭ול‬ ‭הברי‬ ‭אל‬ ‭בהזו‬ ‭ףסכו‬). For these scholars, Solomon violates the three express prohibitions placed upon a king by the law of the king in Deut. 17.14–20, especially those contained in vv. 16–17. He amasses gold and silver to excess (1 Kgs 9.26–10.25), he amasses horses (10.26–29), and he amasses wives, who sway his heart (11.1–10). ⁸

However, scholars who adopt this line of interpretation must respond to a challenge: the author of 1 Kings explicitly criticizes Solomon only for supporting the idolatrous ways of his many foreign wives, in 11.1–10. The tone of the section 9.26–10.25—which includes the court visit of the Queen of Sheba—is laudatory. Donald Schley Jr reflects the view of many scholars when he writes that the passage ‘celebrates the magnificence of Solomon's rule’. ⁹ Indeed, the account of Solomon's gold and silver confirms the fulfillment of the divine promise to him at Gibeon (3.13) that he would be blessed with unparalleled wealth. ¹⁰ Where divine promise is fulfilled it would seem that there is no place to suggest allusions implicitly critical of Solomon's behavior.

Scholars who see in this passage violations of the law of the king offer two responses. The first is a diachronic one. By this reckoning, 1 Kgs 11.1–10 is largely a composition of the Deuteronomistic Historian (Dtr), while the material found in 9.26–10.29 reflects pre-Dtr material, favorably disposed toward Solomon. The Dtr editor arranged this material so that it would immediately precede his own critique concerning Solomon's many wives. This editor retained the original, laudatory language of the pre-Dtr material, while leveling his critique through the various allusions to the prohibitions of the law of the king. ¹¹

In a recent work, Steven Weitzman offers insight from a synchronic perspective. He writes,

Weitzman's reading of the contradictory clues inherent in 1 Kgs 9.26–10.29 concerning Solomon's great wealth accounts for the change intone between chs. 10 and 11. For the author of 1 Kings, Solomon courted potentially corruptive influences as he amassed great wealth. Solomon strays from the path of the Lord only once he violates the prohibition of marrying in excess, and only then he is castigated. The author expresses Solomon's behavior in 9.26–10.29 through phrases and images that evoke the prohibitions of the law of the king to intimate that the seeds of his downfall in ch. 11 had begun to germinate already in the preceding events.

To summarize the existing scholarship on the correlation between 1 Kings and the law of the king: although there is little agreement on the details of the history of this material prior to its present arrangement, these various traditions now are melded into a thematic and formal unity. Marc Brettler is correct in his assessment that 1 Kgs 9.26–11.10 may aptly be titled ‘Solomon's Violation of Deut. 17.14–17’. ¹³

I would claim, however, that the lines of resonance encompass a wider scope of both the narrative of 1 Kings and the directives found in the Deuteronomic law of the king. Scholars that have interpreted Solomon's actions with reference to the law of the king have focused on the formal laws contained exclusively within vv. 16–17 of that pericope. The author of 1 Kings, I would claim, seeks to engage Deut. 17.14–20 not only as a series of laws, but as a whole text.

Deuteronomy 17.18–20 describes the nature of the king's rule. Verse 18 opens with the clause, ‘And when he sits (‭ותבשכ‬) upon the throne (‭אסכ‬) of his kingdom …’ The phrase describes not only his physical posture, that he ‘sits’, but that he ‘rules’. Elsewhere, the phrase conjures an image of grandeur, of a king sitting at the pinnacle of his power (cf. 1 Kgs 1.46; Lam. 5.19; Est. 1.2). Ancient reliefs of the king sitting upon his throne are commonplace, as seen, for example, atop the Susa stele of Hammurabi's code. Rhetorically, however, Deut. 17.18–20 inverts the image and depicts a near caricature of a king sitting and ruling. By v. 18, we know that this king ‘rules’ over a limited army, a limited treasury, and a limited harem (cf. vv. 16–17). No powers or authorities are described whatever. Instead, the king is to ‘sit’ on his ‘throne’ in modesty, limit and restraint. The clauses that follow in vv. 18–20 only underscore that sense. Other ancient Near Eastern kings, such as Hammurabi, composed laws. This king must copy the laws given to him. Rather than ‘ruling’, he is subject to the text given him by the levitical priests (17.18). Further, he must constantly review its contents, lest he feel superior to any of his brethren, and must always feel himself under the Lord, whom he must fear and obey (vv. 19–20).

1 Kings 10 also depicts a king ‘sitting’ on his ‘throne’. The passage that most vividly portrays Solomon's excess focuses on the construction of the ornate throne (10.18–20) and the stream of tribute-bearing potentates that would visit him there (10.22–25). The passage utilizes some of the same language as Deut. 17.18: ‘Then the king made a great throne (‭אסכ‬) covered with ivory and overlaid with fine gold. The throne (‭הסכ‬) had six steps, and a round top to the throne (‭הסכ‬) at its rear, and arms on each side of the seat (‭תבשה‬), and two lions standing beside the arms’ (1 Kgs 10.18–19). One could argue that there is no deliberate invocation here of Deut. 17.18, that these are the terms a biblical author naturally employs to depict a royal throne. Nonetheless, the many other resonances of language and motif found between 1 Kings 10–11 and the text of Deut. 17.14–20 suggest that the author wishes us to consider the image of Solomon on his throne with reference to Deuteronomy's diminished king, ‘sitting’ on his throne.

On the one hand, it is from that throne that Solomon dispenses wisdom that God granted him (10.24) in fulfillment of the promise to him at Gibeon (3.12). On the other hand, the description of Solomon's throne and his activity there stands at a great remove from the activity of Deuteronomy's typological king, as he sits on his throne. Solomon's throne (10.18–19) of gold, ivory, steps, backrests, armrests and elaborate carvings radiates opulence. The king of Deut. 17.18 is met at his throne by levitical priests who issue him the law that he is to copy and abide by. Solomon, by contrast, is met at his throne by incoming shipments of gold, ivory, exotic birds, monkeys, and a stream of subservient, tribute-bearing potentates (10.21–25). Was this a blessing? From the perspective of the dream at Gibeon, perhaps it was. From the perspective of the description of the king in Deut. 17.18–20, however, Solomon is the antithesis of a king who comports himself on equal footing with his brethren.

Finally, we witness how 1 Kings 10–11 employs the wider text of Deut. 17.14–20, and not merely its formal laws, with regard to Solomon's punishment. Deuteronomy 17.20 concludes that the divinely chosen king (cf. 17.15—‭וב‬ ‭ךיהלא‬ ‭הוהי‬ ‭רחבי‬ ‭רשא‬) shall be rewarded if ‘he keeps (‭רמשל‬) all of this Torah, and performs all of these statutes (‭םיקחה‬)’ (17.19). His reward shall be: ‘his days (‭םימי‬) shall be extended upon his kingdom (‭ותכלממ‬), for him and his sons (‭וינב‬) within Israel’ (17.20). The author of 1 Kgs 1.11–13—the detail of Solomon's punishment—creatively reworks this cause and effect in his formulation of Solomon's punishment:

Solomon's punishment is not an inversion of the reward promised the obedient king in Deuteronomy; instead, it is a radical contraction of it: Solomon's kingdom will indeed endure into the time of his sons; that kingdom, however, will be but a sliver of its former whole.

To summarize: scholars who have sought a wider field of allusion between the law of the king in Deuteronomy and the narrative of Solomon's downfall have distilled the law of the king to its formal proscriptions, and have identified correspondences, therefore, only with vv. 16–17 of that passage. They delimit the pericope that engages the law of the king to 1 Kgs 9.25–11.10, the passage that depicts Solomon's wayward behavior. My analysis underscores how the narrative of 1 Kings engages Deut. 17.14–20 as a whole text, with a range of hortatory messages. The linguistic resonances to the passage begin with the reference to the ‘chosen’ king (17.15) and conclude with allusions to the curtailing of the kingdom in the time of the king's sons (17.20). The passage serves as a template for the narrative of Solomon's downfall in 1 Kings. That passage references the proscriptions that he violated. But it also contrasts the opulence of Solomon's throne room and his superiority over all around him with the restraint and diminutive nature of the king of Deuteronomy 17. Those allusions extend not only to 1 Kgs 11.10, as a comment on Solomon's misdeeds, but through to 11.13, as a comment on his punishment as well.

3. Rahab's Soliloquy (Joshua 2.9–13) and the Decalogue

A second narrative passage that employs a legal text as a plot template is the account of Rahab and the spies in Joshua 2. Scholars have drawn fruitful narrative analogies between this story and an array of other biblical passages: the stories of Jael (Judg. 4–5), ¹⁵ Lot (Gen. 19), ¹⁶ and Pharaoh's daughter (Exod. 2.1–10). ¹⁷ Some scholars interpret allusions in this story to non-narrative texts and understand Rahab's behavior to be in accordance with the covenantal norms expected of Israel herself. Already midrashic sources pointed to Rahab's exclamation in 2.9, ‘the fear of you has fallen (‭םכתמיא‬ ‭הלפנ‬) upon us, and all of the inhabitants of the land have melted away (‭ץראה‬ ‭יבשי‬ ‭לכ‬ ‭וגמנ‬) from before you’, detecting an echo of Exod. 15.15–16: ‘All of the inhabitants of Canaan have melted away (‭ןענכ‬ ‭יבשי‬ ‭לכ‬ ‭וגמנ‬). Let fear and awe fall upon them (‭םהילא‬ ‭לפת‬ ‭דחפו‬ ‭התמיא‬)’. ¹⁸ Some see this stylized speech as the narrator's attempt to circumvent the herem legislation of Deut. 20.15–18. ¹⁹ Canaanites must be killed because they pose a cultural threat to Israel. Rahab views the God of Israel with awe and fear, and thus, poses no such threat. ²⁰ Other expositors have similarly shown that the narrator's account of the red cord parallels the account of the blood placed by the Israelites on their doorposts in anticipation of the coming of the Plague of the First Born (Exod. 12.7–28). In each story those to be saved must be indoors and anyone outside of the protected enclosure is subject to death (Josh. 2.18–21; cf. Exod. 12.13, 22–23). In each story, a red sign on the portal of the guarded enclosure signals to the destroying force that those inside are to be spared. The Lord sees the blood and passes over the house and likewise the red cord serves to alert the invading Israelites that Rahab and her family inside are to be spared annihilation. ²¹ As L. Daniel Hawk explains, ‘Rahab and her family participate in one of the constitutive events in Israel's history. Rahab's family will experience its own Passover … [T]he incorporation of Rahab into Israel is now complete.’ ²²

I add to this line of interpretation, identifying within Rahab's soliloquy (vv. 9–13) carefully woven references and allusions to the first stipulations of the Decalogue (Exod. 20.1–14 = Deut. 5.6–18). ²³ I propose that her speech communicates on two separate narratological levels. On one level, the character Rahab communicates her knowledge and desires to the Israelite spies. She is ignorant of the Decalogue as such, and knows only that the Lord of Israel has performed mightily for Israel and that she wishes to be saved. On a second level, however, the author communicates with his audience. Here, in the hands of the author, her words resonate with the language and imagery of the Decalogue. The author alludes to some of the stipulations, or ‘commandments’, so that his audience will perceive Rahab as a paragon of covenantal behavior. These allusions function much as does the allusion in Josh. 2.9 to the Song of the Sea, as explained by Assis. ²⁴ By highlighting Rahab's exemplary, ‘covenantal’ behavior, the narrator explains why she should be spared the fate of herem, as dictated by Deuteronomy 20. I seek to elucidate this second level of communication—between author and audience.

In her soliloquy of vv. 9–13, Rahab professes her belief in the potency of the God of Israel, seen through YHWH's salvific acts on Israel's behalf in Egypt and against the Transjordanian kings, Sichon and Og. She concludes that the townsfolk of Jericho are dispirited, ‘because Yhwh your God is God in the heaven above and on the land below’ (‭םיהלא‬ ‭אוה‬ ‭תחתמ‬ ‭ץראה‬ ‭לעו‬ ‭לעממ‬ ‭םימשב‬, 2.11). No other biblical figure uses quite this language as an epithet of YHWH. ²⁵ Our author has reached for language found twice in Deuteronomy, at 4.39 and at 5.8. The former proclaims that the Lord reigns ‘in the heavens above and on the earth below’ (‭תחתמ‬ ‭ץראב‬ ‭רשאו‬ ‭לעממ‬ ‭םימשב‬ ‭רשא‬), while the same language is used in 5.8, proscribing the fashioning of graven images of anything ‘in the heavens above and on the earth below’ (Exod. 20.4 = Deut. 5.8). I would suggest that the author of Joshua 2 reached for this phrase in a call to the reader to engage one of those texts—the Decalogue—as an intertext to animate the reading of her soliloquy. The immediate impression is that Rahab affirms God's sovereignty over the heavens and earth, as the people of Israel are instructed in Exod. 20.4 = Deut. 5.8. Other elements of Decalogue terminology and motif, however, are tightly woven into her soliloquy. Admittedly, none of the parallels that I propose here when read in isolation mandates that we read here a deliberate allusion to either version of the Decalogue. The case for allusion stems from the aggregate of all of the parallels within such a limited text continuum, both in the source text (Exod. 20.2–12 = Deut. 5.6–16), and in the target text of Josh. 2.9–13. The case is fortified when we note the penchant of our author for invoking a wide range of biblical passages in his crafting of the character of Rahab.

Rahab affirms what the talmudic tradition (b. Mak. 24a) understood as the first commandment, and what other traditions refer to as the prologue to the commandments (Exod. 20.2 = Deut. 5.6): ‘I am Yhwh your God who has taken you of Egypt (‭םירצממ‬ ‭ךיתאצוה‬), the house of bondage’. Rahab affirms God's role in the Exodus in similar terms (2.10): ‘For we have heard that Yhwh dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you, as you came out of Egypt (‭םירצממ‬ ‭םכתאצב‬)’.

Her request to the spies for shelter in v. 13 expressly mentions both her father and her mother. No other figure in the Hebrew Bible performs an action for the good of his or her parents, where the words ‘father’ and ‘mother’ both appear. One could aver that her expression ‭יבא‬ ‭תא‬ ‭םתייחהו‬ ‭ימא‬ ‭תאו‬ does not deliberately invoke the language of Exod. 20.12 (= Deut. 5.16), ‘honor your father and mother’ (‭ךמא‬ ‭תאו‬ ‭ךיבא‬ ‭תא‬ ‭דבכ‬), as she simply seeks to shelter both her parents, and that is the only way the author can express that sentiment. The point here, however, is not only lexical, but motivai. Rahab is seen here fulfilling what the Decalogue would consider a fulfillment of one's duties to father and mother. Indeed, the reward to one who honors one's father and mother, ‘so that you lengthen your days in the land’ (Exod. 20.12 = Deut. 5.16), is Rahab's reward (6.25): ‘And Joshua delivered Rahab the harlot, her father's house, and all that was hers, and she dwelled in the midst of Israel to this very day’. Further, it is Rahab who reminds the spies of the promise of the land alluded to in the reward for honoring one's parents. Rahab opens her soliloquy with the declaration (2.9), ‘I know that Yhwh will give you the land’ (‭ץראה‬ ‭תא‬ ‭םכל‬ ‭הוהי‬ ‭ןתנ‬ ‭יכ‬ ‭יתעדי‬), language that echoes the reward proffered in that commandment (Exod. 20.12 = Deut. 5.16): ‘so that you lengthen your days in the land which Yhwh your God has given you’ (‭ךל‬ ‭ןתנ‬ ‭ךיהלא‬ ‭הוהי‬ ‭רשא‬ ‭המדאה‬ ‭לע‬ ‭ךימי‬ ‭ןוכראי‬ ‭ןעמל‬).

Rahab's behavior also implicitly affirms the injunction against taking the Lord's name in vain (Exod. 20.7 = Deut. 5.11). She enjoins the spies (2.12) to swear in the name of Yhwh (‭הוהיב‬ ‭אנ‬ ‭ועבשה‬ ‭התעו‬) that they will protect her and her family, putting all of her stock in the belief that the name of Yhwh is so sacrosanct that they would not dare take the Lord's name in vain, and fail to abide by their oath. The language of that commandment is echoed further on in the Rahab narrative. The Decalogue states that one who does not uphold his vow and takes the Lord's name in vain, shall not be ‘cleared’ or ‘exonerated’ (‭הקני‬ ‭אל‬). The spies express their understanding that they will be ‘clear’ of the oath, only if they uphold it (2.20): ‘And if you divulge our plan with you, we shall be clear of your oath (‭ךתעובשמ‬ ‭םיקנ‬)’ (cf. 2.17).

Finally, Rahab demonstrates her fidelity to the spirit of the Sabbath commandment. To be sure, Rahab is not ‘Sabbath observant’. Alone, however, among the commandments the Sabbath commandment is the only one offered a rationale for its observance, an explanation of its commemorative function. While Rahab may not refrain from work on the Sabbath, she does display a keen appreciation of the events that the Sabbath is meant to commemorate. For the Decalogue in Exodus, the Sabbath is enjoined, ‘because in six days Yhwh your God created the heaven and the earth’ (‭ץראה‬ ‭תאו‬ ‭םימשה‬ ‭תא‬). Rahab, as we already saw, affirms God's sovereignty over the heaven and earth, in 2.11: ‘because Yhwh your God is God in the heaven above and on the land below’ (‭תחתמ‬ ‭ץראה‬ ‭לעו‬ ‭לעממ‬ ‭םימשב‬ ‭םיהלא‬ ‭אוה‬). For the Decalogue in Deuteronomy, the Sabbath commemorates the Exodus (Deut. 5.15): ‘And you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and Yhwh took you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm’. As already noted, Rahab appreciates that the God of Israel is the God who took them out of Egypt (2.10).

To summarize: as scholars have noted, the author of Joshua 2 invokes the Song of the Sea and the narrative of the paschal sacrifice of Exodus 12, creatively adapting those texts to portray Rahab as one who is nearly ‘Israelite’ in her comport and outlook, and thus worthy of being spared. I have added here that toward that end, the author of Joshua 2 also invokes the first half of the Decalogue within the text of her soliloquy. ²⁶ Even as Rahab is unaware of the Decalogue as such, these allusions are a communication, not between characters, but between author and audience. As with the use of the law of the king by the author of 1 Kings, the use of a legal passage here by the author of Joshua 2 is not with reference to laws in isolation. Rather, each author sought to engage the sensus plenior of the legal text as a whole. In each case, the author adapted its various laws, teachings, motifs and language as a template around which to craft his homiletic tale.