The problem raised by the Deuteronomic outlook of the writer continues right through the Bible and into the history of the Christian Church. What should be the relationship between religious faith and the political structures in which people live? The problem is still with us today. In 1978 an Islamic state, in which Islamic religious law was to be followed, was set up in Iran to try to solve this problem there. The Biblical writers have no doubt that loyalty to God must come first over all other loyalties, but the problem which has to be worked out in each particular situation is exactly how this primary loyalty is to be demonstrated. After we have studied the story of Ahab and the prophet Elijah, we are left with the impression that the writer is in no doubt that it would have been better for Ahab to have nothing to do with Phoenicia or Syria and to accept the political consequences of being the ruler of a small state in a dangerous situation, but to have remained faithful to the great insights of the covenant faith about the character of God. From the position of understanding the spiritual history of the people of God, the writer is right.

In case we think that the historical writer is unfairly prejudiced not only against Ahab but against all the kings of Israel, we should note that when Ahijah predicted that Jeroboam would become the ruler of the northern kingdom, he said this to him in a message from God: 'If you obey me completely, live by my laws, and win my approval by doing what I command, as my servant David did, I will always be with you. I will make you king of Israel and will make sure that your descendants rule after you, just as I have done for David' (1 Kings 11: 38). From this we can see that the writer did not rule out the possibility of a king of the northern kingdom upholding the covenant faith; but no king of Israel turned his people back from the wrong path which Jeroboam took when he set up the golden bulls at Bethel and Dan.