Lectionary Calendar
Wednesday, May 1st, 2024
the Fifth Week after Easter
Attention!
Take your personal ministry to the Next Level by helping StudyLight build churches and supporting pastors in Uganda.
Click here to join the effort!

Bible Commentaries
2 Kings 2

Carroll's Interpretation of the English BibleCarroll's Biblical Interpretation

Verses 3-5

IV

THE SCHOOLS OF THE PROPHETS

The more important passages bearing on this subject are 1 Samuel 3:1-4; 1 Samuel 10:5; 1 Samuel 10:9-12; 1 Samuel 18:13-24; 1 Kings 19:18; 1 Kings 19:20-21; 1 Kings 20:35; 2 Kings 2:3-5; 2 Kings 4:38; 2 Kings 6:1; 1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29; 2 Chronicles 12:15; 2 Chronicles 13:22 and other chapters in that book I do not enumerate. The last one is Amos 7:14-15. The reader will understand that I give these instead of a prescribed section in the Harmony. These constitute the basis of this discussion.


Let us distinguish between the prophetic gift and the prophetic office, and give some examples. Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, his seventy elders, Balaam, Joshua, and others before Samuel’s time had the gift, but not the office; perhaps we may except Moses as in a measure having the office. After Samuel’s time, David, many of his singers, and particularly Daniel, had the gift in a high degree, but not the office. Moreover, the high priests from Aaron to Caiphas in Christ’s time, were supposed to have officially the gift of prophecy – that is, to hear and report what the Oracle said – but Samuel is the first who held the office.


The distinction between a prophet and a son of a prophet is this: A son of a prophet was a candidate for the office, ministering to the prophet, a disciple instructed by him, consecrated to the work, and qualifying himself to perform the services of the office with the highest efficiency. A prophet is one who, through inspiration of the Holy Spirit, speaks or writes for God. In this inspiration he is God’s mouth or pen, speaking or writing not his own words, but God’s words. This inspiration guides and superintends his speech and his silence; what is recorded and what is omitted from the record. The gift of prophecy was not one of uniform quantity nor necessarily enduring. The gifts were various in kind, and might be for one occasion only. As to variety of kinds, the revelation might come in dreams or open visions, or it might consist of an ecstatic trance expressed in praise or song or prayer. If praise, song, or prayer, its form was apt to be poetic, particularly if accompanied by instrumental music.


As to the duration of the gift, it might be for one occasion only, or a few, or many. The scriptures show that the spirit of prophecy came upon King Saul twice only, and each time in the form of an ecstatic trance. In his early life it came as a sign that God had chosen him as king. In his later life the object of it was to bar his harmful approach to David. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 12-14 inclusive, explains the diversity of these gifts and their relative importance.


There are two periods of Hebrew history in which we find clearest notices of the schools of the prophets, the proofs of their persistence between the periods, and their influence on the nation. The notices are abundant in the time of Samuel, and in the time of Elijah and Elisha, but you have only to study the book of Chronicles to see that the prophetic order, as an office, continued through these periods and far beyond. Later you will learn that in the time of persecution fifty of these prophets were hidden in a cave and fed regularly. The object of the enemy was to destroy these theological seminaries, believing that they could never lead the nation astray while these schools of the prophets continued. Their object, therefore, was to destroy these seats of theological education. Elijah supposed that every one of them was killed except himself, but he was mistaken.


Samuel was the founder of the first school of the prophets, and the scripture which shows his headship is 1 Samuel 19:20, where Saul is sending messengers to take David, and finally goes himself and finds the school of the prophets, with Samuel as its appointed head. The reason for such a school in Samuel’s time is shown, first, by an extract from Kirkpatrick’s Commentary on 1 Samuel, page 33. He says:


Samuel was the founder of the prophetic order. Individuals in previous ages had been endowed with prophetic gifts, but with Samuel commenced the regular succession of prophets which lasted through all the period of the monarchy, and did not cease until after the captivity. The degeneracy into which the priesthood had fallen through the period of the judges demanded the establishment of a new order for the religious training of the nation.


For this purpose Samuel founded the institutions known as the schools of the prophets. The "company of prophets" at Gibeah (1 Samuel 10:10) and the scene at Ramah described in 1 Samuel 19:18 ff., imply a regular organization. These societies are only definitely mentioned again in connection with the history’ of Elijah and Elisha but doubtless continued to exist in the interval. By means of these the Order was maintained, students were educated, and common religious exercises nurtured and developed spiritual gifts.


Kirkpatrick’s is a fine commentary. The priests indeed were instructors of the people, but the tendency of the priesthood was to rest in external sacrifices, and to trust in a mere ritualistic form of sacrifice. That is the trouble always where you have a ritual. And after a while both priest and worshiper began to rely upon the external type, and on external conformity with the ritual. God needed better mouthpieces than those, hence while in the past there was a prophetic gift here and there, he now establishes the prophetic school, or society, in which training, bearing upon the prophetic office, should be continuous. The value of these schools of the prophets is also seen from Kirkpatrick, page 1 Samuel 34:


The value of the prophetic order to the Jewish nation was immense. The prophets were privy-counsellors of kings, the historians of the nation, the instructors of the people. It was their function to be preachers of righteousness to rich and poor alike: to condemn idolatry in the court, oppression among the nobles, injustice among the judges, formality among the priests. They were the interpreters of the law who drew out by degrees the spiritual significance which underlay ritual observance, and labored to prevent sacrifice and sabbath and festival from becoming dead and unmeaning forms. Strong in the unshaken consciousness that they were expressing the divine will, they spoke and acted with a fearless courage which no threats could daunt or silence.


Thus they proved a counterpoise to the despotism of monarchy and the formalism of priesthood. In a remarkable passage in his essay on "Representative Government," Mr. John Stuart Mill attributes to their influence the progress which distinguished the Jews from other Oriental nations. "The Jews," he writes, "had an absolute monarchy and hierarchy. These did for them what was done for other Oriental races by their institutions – subdued them to industry and order, and gave them a national life. . . . Their religion gave existence to an inestimably precious institution, the order of prophets. Under the protection, generally though not always effectual, of their sacred character, the prophets were a power in the nation, often more than a match for kings and priests, and kept up in that little corner of the earth the antagonism of influences which is the only real security for continued progress."


I was surprised the first time I ever saw the statement from Mill. He was a radical evolutionist and infidel, but a statesman, and in studying the development of statesmanship among the nations, he saw this singular thing in the history of the Jews, unlike anything he saw anywhere else, and saw what it was that led that nation, when it went into backsliding, to repentance; what power it was that brought about the reformation when their morals were corrupted; what power it was that was the real light of the nation and the salt of the earth, and saw that it was this order of prophets which was the conservator of national unity, purity, and perpetuity. I have the more pleasure in quoting that passage, as it comes from a witness in no way friendly to Christianity, just as when I was discussing missions I quoted the testimony of Charles Darwin to the tremendous influence for good wrought by the missionaries of South America.


Particularly in this case of the schools of the prophets we find their value, by noting very carefully the bearing on the case under Samuel. We have already noticed the corruption of the priesthood under Eli, Hophni, and Phinehas; how the ark was captured, the central place of worship desecrated; how Samuel, called to the office of prophet, needed assistance, and how he instituted this school of the prophets. He gathered around him the brightest young men of the nation and had the Spirit of God rest on them, and in order that their instruction might be regular he organized them into companies, or schools; he would go from one to another, and these young "theologs" were under the instruction of Samuel and for twenty years worked as evangelists in making sensitive the national conscience. It took twenty years to do it, and he could not have done it by himself, but with that tremendous power, the help he had, at the end of twenty years, he saw the nation repentant and once more worshiping God. I am for a theological seminary that will do that.


I give a modern example somewhat parallel: Mr. Spurgeon was called to the city of London, when about nineteen years old, to be the pastor of the old historic church of Dr. Gill, and in his evangelical preaching impressed a number of men to feel that they were also called to preach (if your preaching does not impress somebody else to preach, you may be sure that you are not called to preach), and it impressed the women and a multitude of laymen to do active Christian service. Therefore, Mr. Spurgeon organized what is called "The Pastoral College." He wouldn’t let a drone be in it; he did not want anybody in it that was not spiritually minded. In other words, he insisted that a preacher should be religiously inclined, and should be ready to do any kind of work. He supported this institution largely through his own contributions, although the men and women all over England, when they saw what it was doing, would send money for its support. I used to read the monthly reports of the contributions and the list of donors that accompanied them.


Mr. Spurgeon determined to work a revolution, just as Samuel did, and he used this school of the prophets for that purpose. Consequently, hundreds of young preachers belonging to that school of the prophets preached in the slums of the city, in the byways, in the highways, in the hedges, in the mines, on the wharves to the sailors, and in the hospitals. Hundreds of laymen said, "Put us to work," and he did; he had pushcarts made for them, and filled them with books and so sent out over the town literature that was not poisonous. He put the women to work, and established) or rather perpetuated in better form, a number of the almshouses for the venerable old women who were poor and helpless, following out the suggestion in 2 Timothy, and he erected a hospital. Then they got to going further afield. They went all over England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, crossed over into the Continent, crossed the seas to Australia, and the islands of the seas, and into heathen lands. I have always said that Spurgeon’s Pastoral College came nearer to the Bible idea of a seminary than any other in existence. There was not so much stress laid on mere scholarship as on spiritual efficiency.


It is important to note particularly what I am saying now, because it was burnt into my heart as one of the reasons for establishing a theological seminary. The nature of that society was that it was a school. They left their homes and came to stay at this school, with what we now call a mess hall in which all the theological students, by contributing so much, have their table in common. It was that way then; they had their meals in common. In preparing dinner one day for the sons of the prophets, somebody put a lot of wild gourds into the pot, and when they began to eat it, one of them cried out: "Ah, man of God, there’s death in the pot!" Once I preached a sermon on this theme: "Wild Gourds and Theological Seminaries," to show that to feed the students in theological seminaries on wild gourds of heresy is to put death in the pot; they will do more harm than good, as they will become instruments of evil.


In determining what were their duties, we must consult quite a number of passages. We gather from this passage that they were thoroughly instructed in the necessity of repentance, individually and nationally, and of turning from their sins and coming back to God with faithful obedience. That lesson was ground in them. They were taught the interpretation of the spiritual meaning of the law, all its sacrifices, its feasts, its types, and therefore when you are studying a prophet in the Old Testament you will notice how different his idea of types and ceremonies from that of the priests. They will tell you that to do without eating is fasting, but the prophet will show that literal fasting is not true fasting; that there must be fasting at heart; that there must be a rending of the soul and not the garment as an expression of repentance; that to obey God w better than a formal sacrifice.


Another thing they were taught, which I wish particularly to emphasize, was music, both vocal and instrumental. In that school of the prophets started the tremendous power of music in religion so wonderfully developed by David, who got many of his ideas from associating with the schools of the prophets. And from that time unto this, every evangelical work, and all powerful religious work, has been associated with music, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament; not merely vocal, but instrumental music. The heart of a religion is expressed in its songs, and if you want to get at the heart of your Old Testament you find it in the hymnbook of the Hebrew nation – the Psalter. It is indeed an interesting study to see what has been the influence of great hymns on the national life. There is an old proverb: "You may make the laws of the people, if you will let me write their ballads." Where is there a man capable of measuring the influence of "How Firm a Foundation," or "Come, Thou Fount," or "Did Christ O’er Sinners Weep?" There is a rich literature on the influence of hymns on the life.


In the awful times of the struggle in England, Charles I against the Parliament, one faction of the nation held to ritualism, while the other followed spirituality, even to the extreme of not allowing any form, not even allowing any instruments of music. One of the finest stories of this period is the account of a church that observed the happy medium, using instrumental as well as vocal music, and congregational singing as well as the use of the choir; every sabbath somebody’s soul was melted in the power of that mighty singing. I can’t sing myself, but I can carry the tunes in my mind, and I can be more influenced by singing than by preaching. It was singing that convicted me of sin. It was on a waving, soaring melody of song that my soul was converted. I once knew a rugged, one-eyed, homely, old pioneer Baptist preacher, who looked like a pirate until his religion manifested itself, and then he was beautiful. I heard him one day when a telegram was put into his hand stating that his only son had just been killed by being thrown from a horse. While weeping, his face became illumined; he got up and clapped his hands and walked through that audience, singing, "O, Jesus, My Saviour, to Thee I Submit."


John Bunyan wrote that song while in Bedford Jail. They had put him there to keep him from preaching, and looking out through the bars of the dungeon he saw his poor blind girl, Mary, begging bread, and he sat down and wrote that hymn. The effect of the old preacher’s singing John Bunyan’s song was a mighty revival.


The relation of the schools of the prophets to modern theological seminaries is this: The purpose was the same. And so in New Testament times, Jesus recognized that if he wanted to revolutionize the world by evangelism he must do it with trained men. He did not insist that they be rich, great or mighty men. He did not insist that they be scholars. He called them from among the common people, and he kept them right with him for three years and a half, and diligently instructed them in the principles and spirit of his kingdom. He taught them in a variety of forms; in parables, in proverbs, in exposition, illustrating his teachings by miracles, and in hundreds of ways in order that they might be equipped to go out and lead the world to Christ. You cannot help being impressed with this fact: That the theological seminaries in Samuel’s time and in Christ’s time were intensely practical, the object being not to make learned professors, but to fill each one with electricity until you could call him a "live wire," so that it burnt whoever touched it.


This is why I called Samuel a great man, and why in a previous discussion, counting the men as the peaks in a mountain range, sighting back from Samuel to Abraham, only one other peak comes into line of vision, and that is Moses.

QUESTIONS

1. What are the more important passages bearing on the schools of the prophets?

2. Distinguish between the prophetic gift and the prophetic office and illustrate by examples.

3. Distinguish between a prophet and a son of a prophet.

4. What is the meaning of prophet?

5. In what two periods of Hebrew history do we find the clearest notices of the school of prophets, what are the proofs of their persistence between these periods, and what is their influence on the nation?

6. Who was the founder of the first school of the prophets?

7. What scripture shows his headship?

8. What was the reason for such school in Samuel’s time?

9. What was the value of these schools of the prophets, and particularly in this case, and what illustration from modern instances?

10. What was the nature of that society, and what was the instruction given?

11. What was the relation of the schools of the prophets to modern theological seminaries?

Verses 13-21

IX

ELISHA, THE SUCCESSOR OF ELIJAH

2 Kings 2:13-13:21; 2 Chronicles 21:1-20

For the sake of unity, this chapter, like the one on Elijah, will be confined to a single person, Elisha, who was the minister, the disciple, and the successor of the prophet Elijah. "Minister" means an attendant who serves another – generally a younger man accompanying and helping an older man. A passage illustrating this service is 2 Kings 3:11: "Elisha, who poured water on the hands of Elijah." We may here recall a situation when no wash basin was convenient, and the water was poured on our hands for our morning ablutions. A corresponding New Testament passage is Acts 13:5: "Paul and Barnabas had John Mark to their minister," that is, the young man, John Mark, attended the two older preachers, and rendered what service he could. Elisha was also a disciple of Elijah. A disciple is a student studying under a teacher. In the Latin we call the teacher magister. Elijah was Elisha’s teacher in holy things. Then Elisha was a successor to Elijah. Elijah held the great office of prophet to Israel, and in view of his speedy departure, God told him to anoint Elisha to be his successor, that is, successor as prophet to the ten tribes.


About four years before the death of Ahab, 800 B.C., Elijah, acting under a commission from God, found Elisha plowing, and the record says, "with twelve yoke of oxen." I heard a cowman once say that it was sufficient evidence of a man’s fitness to preach when he could plow twelve yoke of oxen and not swear. But the text may mean that Elisha himself plowed with one yoke, and superintended eleven other plowmen. Anyhow, Elijah approached him and dropped his mantle around him. That was a symbolic action, signifying, “When I pass away you must take my mantle and be my successor." Elisha asked permission to attend to a few household affairs. He called together all the family, and announced that God had called him to a work so life-filling he must give up the farm life and devote himself to the higher business. To symbolize the great change in vocation he killed his own yoke of oxen and roasted them with his implements of husbandry; and had a feast of the family to celebrate his going into the ministry. It is a great thing when the preacher knows how to burn the bridges behind him, and when the family of the preacher recognizes the fulness and completeness of the call to the service of God.


The lesson of this and other calls is that no man can anticipate whom God will call to be his preacher. He called this man from the plow handles. He called Amos from the gathering of sycomore fruit; he called Matthew from the receipt of custom; he called the fishermen from their nets; he called a doctor in the person of Luke. We cannot foretell; the whole matter must be left to God and to God alone, for he alone may put a man into the ministry. I heard Dr. Broadus preach a great sermon on that once: "I thank Christ Jesus, my Lord, for that he hath enabled me and counted me faithful, putting me into this ministry, who was before a blasphemer."


Elijah served as a prophet fifty-five years. That is a long ministry. There were six kings of Israel before he passed away, as follows: Ahab, Ahaziah, Jehoram, Jehu, Jehoahaz, and Joash. There were five sovereigns of Judah, to wit: Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Athaliah (this one a woman) and Joash. Athaliah was queen by usurpation.


God said to Elijah, "Anoint Elisha to be thy successor; anoint Jehu to be king of Israel, and anoint Hazael to be king of Syria." Now here were two men God-appointed to the position of king, as this man was to the position of prophet, and we distinguish them in this way: It does not follow that because the providence of God makes a man to be king, that the man is conscious of his divine call, like the one who is called to be a preacher. For instance, he says, "I called Cyrus to do what I wanted done: I know him, though he does not know me." The lesson is that God’s rule is supreme over all offices. Even the most wicked are overruled to serve his general purposes in the government of the world.


The biblical material for a sketch of Elisha’s life is 1 Kings 19:16 to 2 Kings 13:21. Elisha means, "God the Saviour." The Greek form is Elisaios; we find it in the Greek text of Luke 4:27, where our Lord says, "There were many widows in Israel in the days of Elisaios." "Elijah" is Hebrew, and "Elias" is the corresponding Greek word; "Elisha" is Hebrew, and "Elisaios" is the corresponding Greek form.


We will now distinguish between the work of Elijah and Elisha, giving some likenesses and some unlikenesses. In the chapter on Elijah attention has already been called to the one great unlikeness, viz: that Elijah did not live in public sight; he appeared only occasionally for a very short time. Elisha’s whole life was in the sight of the public; he had a residence in the city of Samaria, and a residence at Gilgal; he was continually passing from one theological seminary to another; he was in the palaces of the kings, and they always knew where to find him. He had a great deal to do with the home life of the people, with the public life of the people and with the governmental life of the people. There were some points of likeness in their work, so obvious I need not now stop to enumerate them. Elijah’s life was more ascetic, and his ministry was mainly a ministry of judgment, while Elisha’s was one of mercy.


The New Testament likenesses of these two prophets are as follows: Elijah corresponds to John the Baptist, and Elisha’s ministry is very much like the ministry of Jesus in many respects.


There were many schools of the prophets in the days of Elijah and Elisha. Commencing with Jericho we have one; the next was at Bethel; the third at Gilgal – not the Gilgal near Jericho but the one in the hill country of Ephraim – and there was one at Mount Carmel. These stretched across the whole width of the country – four theological seminaries. The history shows us that Elijah, just before his translation, visited every one of them in order, and that Elisha, as soon as Elijah was translated, visited the same ones in reverse order, and there is one passage in the text that tells us that he was continually doing this.


I think the greatest work of Elisha’s life was this instruction work; it was the most far-reaching; it provided a great number of men to take up the work after he passed away. Indeed the schools of the prophets were the great bulwarks of the kingdom of God for 500 years during the Hebrew monarchy. We cannot put the finger on a reformation, except one, in that five hundred years that the prophets did not start. One priest carried on a reformation – we will come to it later. But the historians, the poets, the orators, the reformers, and the revivalists, all came from the prophets. Every book in the Bible is written by a man that had the prophetic spirit. Elisha was the voice of God to the conscience of the kings and the people, and when we study the details of his life we will see that as the government heard and obeyed Elisha it prospered, and as it went against his counsel it met disaster.


We have two beautiful stories that show his work in the homes. One of them is the greatest lesson on hospitality that I know of in the Bible. A wealthy family lived right on the path between the Gilgal seminary and the Mount Carmel seminary. The woman of the house called her husband’s attention to the fact that the man of God, Elisha, was continually passing to and fro by their house; that he was a good man, and that they should build a little chamber on the wall to be the prophet’s chamber. "We will put a little table in it, and a chair, and a bed, and we will say to him, Let this be your home when you are passing through." Elisha was very much impressed with this woman’s thoughtfulness, and the reason for it. He asked her what he could do for her. But she lived among her own people, wanted no favor from the king nor the general of the army. Elisha’s servant suggested that she was childless, so he prophesied to her that within a year she would be the mother of a son. The son was born and grew up to be a bright boy, and, like other boys, followed his father to the field. One hot day when they were reaping – and it was very hot in reaping time over there – he had a sunstroke and said, "My head! My head!" The father told his servant to take him to his mother – as usual, let a child get sick and the daddy is sure to say, "Take him to his mother." I don’t know what would become of the children if the mothers did not take care of them when they are sick. But the boy died. The woman had a beast saddled and went to the seminary at Mount Carmel. She knew Elisha was there for he had not passed back. It was a very touching story. Anyhow, Elisha restored the boy to life, and to show how it lingered in his mind, years afterward he sent word to her that there would be a famine of seven years, and she had better migrate until the famine was over. She went away for seven years, and when she came back a land-grabber had captured her home and her inheritance. She appealed the case to Elisha, and Elisha appealed the case to the king, and then the kin said, "Tell me, I pray thee, all the great things that Elisha hath done." When he had heard the full story of this man’s work he said, "Let this woman have her home back again, and interest for all the time it has been used by another." This is a very sweet story of family life.


There is another story. One of the "theologs" – I do not know how young he was, for he had married and had children – the famine pressed so debt was incurred, and they had a law then – we find it in the Mosaic code – that they might make a bondman of the one who would not pay his debts. The wife of this "theolog" came to Elisha and said, "My husband is one of the prophets; the famine has brought very hard times, and my boys are about to be enslaved because we cannot pay the debt." Then he wrought the miracle that we will consider a little later, and provided for the payment of the debt of that wife of the prophet and for the sustenance of them until the famine passed away.


These two stories show how this man in going through the country affected the family life of the people; there may have been hundreds of others. I want to say that I have traveled around a good deal in my days, over every county in this state. It may be God’s particular providence, but I have never been anywhere that I did not find good people. In the retrospect of every trip of my life there is a precious memory of godly men that I met on the trip. I found one in the brush in Parker County, where it looked like a "razor-back" hog could not make a living, and they were very poor. I was on my way to an association, and must needs pass through this jungle, and stopped about noon at a small house in the brush, where I received the kindest hospitality in my life. They were God’s children. They fixed the best they had to eat, and it was good, too – the best sausage I ever did eat. So this work of Elisha among the families pleases me. I have been over such ground, and I do know that the preacher who is unable to find good, homes and good people, and who is unable to leave a blessing behind him in the homes, is a very poor preacher. I have been entertained by the great governors of the state and the generals of armies, but I have never enjoyed any hospitality anywhere more precious than in that log cabin in the jungle.


The next great work of Elisha was the miracles wrought by him. There were two miracles of judgment. One was when he cursed the lads of Bethel – that place of idolatry – and turned two she-bears loose that tore up about forty of them. That is one judgment) and I will discuss that in the next chapter. Just now I am simply outlining the man’s whole life for the sake of unity.


The second miracle of judgment was the inflicting on Gehazi the leprosy of Naaman. The rest of his miracles were miracles of patriotism or of mercy. The following is a list (not of every one, for every time he prophesied it was a miracle): 2 Kings 2:14 tells us that he divided the Jordan with the mantle of Elijah; 2 Kings 2:19, that he healed the bad springs of Jericho, the water that made the people sick and made the land barren, which was evidently a miracle of mercy. The third miracle recorded is in 2 Kings 2:23, his sending of the she-bears (referred to above) ; the fourth is recorded in 2 Kings 3:16, the miracle of the waters. Three armies led by three kings were in the mountains of Edom, on their way to attack Moab. There was no water, and they were about to perish, and they appealed to Elisha. He told them to go out to the dry torrent bed and dig trenches saying, "To-morrow all of those trenches will be full of water, and you won’t see a cloud nor hear it thunder." It was a miracle in the sense that he foresaw how that water would come from rain in the mountains. I have seen that very thing happen. Away off in the mountains there may be rain – one can’t see it nor hear it from where he is in the valley. The river bed is as dry as a powder horn, and it looks as if there never will be any rain. I was standing in a river bed in West Texas once, heard a roaring, looked up and saw a wave coming down that looked to me to be about ten feet high – the first wave – and it was carrying rocks before it that seemed as big as a house, and rolling them just as one would roll a marble.. So his miracle consisted in his knowledge of that storm which they could not see nor hear. If they had not dug the trenches they would have still had no water for a mountain torrent is very swift to fall. In that place where I was, in fifteen minutes there was a river, and in two or three hours it had all passed away. But the trenches of Elisha were filled from the passing flood.


The fifth miracle is recorded in 2 Kings 4:2-7, the multiplying of the widow’s oil, that prophet’s wife that I have already referred to. The sixth miracle is recorded in 2 Kings 4:8-37, first the giving and then the restoring to life of the son of the Shunamite. The seventh is given in 2 Kings 4:38, the healing of the poisonous porridge: "Ah, man of God! there is death in the pot," or "theological seminaries and wild gourds." The eighth miracle is found in 2 Kings 5:1-4, the multiplying of the twenty loaves so as to feed 100 men. The ninth, 2 Kings 5:1-4, the healing of Naaman’s leprosy, and the tenth, 2 Kings 5:26-27, the inflicting on Gehazi the leprosy of which Naaman was healed.


The eleventh miracle is found in 2 Kings 6:1-7, his making the ax to swim. One of the prophets borrowed an ax to increase the quarters; the seminary was growing and the place was too straight for them, and they had to enlarge it. They did not have axes enough, and one of them borrowed an ax. In going down to the stream to cut the wood, the head of the ax slipped off and fell into the water – and there is a text: "Alas, my master, for it was borrowed." The miracle in this case was his suspension of the law of gravity, and making that ax head to swim, so that the man who lost it could just reach out and get it.


Twelfth, 2 Kings 6:8-12, the revealing of the secret thought of the Syrian king, even the thoughts of his bedchamber. No matter what, at night, the Syrian king thought out for the next day, Elisha knew it by the time he thought it, and would safeguard the attack at that point.


Thirteenth, 2 Kings 6:15, his giving vision to his doubtful servant when the great host came to capture them. The servant was scared. Elisha said, "Open this young man’s eyes, and let him see that they who are for us are more than those who are against us." What a text! His eyes were opened, and he saw that hilltop guarded with the chariots of God and his angels. We need these eye openers when we get scared.


Fourteenth, the blinding of that Syrian host that came to take him. He took them and prayed to the Lord to open their eyes again. An Irishman reported at the first battle of Manasseh, thus: "I surrounded six Yankees and captured them." Well, Elisha surrounded a little army and led them into captivity.


Fifteenth, 2 Kings 7:6, a mighty host of Syrians was besieging Samaria, until the women were eating their own children, the famine was so great. Elisha took the case to God, and that night, right over the Syrian camp was heard the sound of bugles and shouting, and the racing of chariots, and it scared them nearly to death. They thought a great army had been brought up, and a panic seized them, as a stampede seizes a herd of cattle, and they fled. They left their tents and their baggage: their provisions, their jewels, and the further they went the more things they dropped, all the way to the Jordan River, until they left a trail behind them of the cast-off incumbrances. The word "panic" comes from the heathen god, "Pan," and the conception is that these sudden demoralizations must come from deity. I once saw sixteen steers put an army of 4,000 to flight, and I was one of the men. We were in a lane with a high fence on one side and a bayou on the other side, and suddenly, up the lane we heard the most awful clatter, and saw the biggest cloud of dust, and one of the men shouted, "The cavalry is on us! The cavalry is on us!" and without thinking everybody got scared. A lot of the men were found standing in the bayou up to their necks, others had gone over the fence and clear across the field without stopping. I did not get that far, but I got over the fence.


Sixteenth, 2 Kings 8:2-6, the foreseeing and foretelling of the seven years of famine.


Seventeenth, 2 Kings 8:11, the revelation of the very heart of Hazael to himself. He did not believe himself to be so bad a man. Elisha just looked at him and commenced weeping. Hazael could not understand. Elisha says, "I see how you are going to sweep over my country with fire and sword; I see the children that you will slay; I see the bloody trail behind you." Hazael says, "Am I a dog, that I should do these things?" But Elisha under inspiration read the real man) and saw what there was in the man. One of the best sermons that I ever heard was by a distinguished English clergyman on this subject.


Eighteenth, 2 Kings 13:14, his dying prophecy.


Nineteenth, the miracle from his bones after he was buried. We will discuss that more particularly later.


We have thus seen his great teaching work, his relation to the government, and his miracles.


Now, let us consider some of his miracles more particularly. The Romanists misuse the miracle of the bones of Elisha, and that passage in Acts 19:11-12, where Paul sent out handkerchiefs and aprons, and miracles were wrought by them. On these two passages they found all their teachings of the relics of the saints, attributing miraculous power to a bit of the cross, and they have splinters enough of that "true cross" now scattered about to make a forest of crosses. In New Orleans an’ auctioneer said, "Today I have sold to seventeen men the cannon ball that killed Sir Edward Packenham." The greatest superstition and fraud of the ages is the Romanist theory of the miracle working power of the reputed relics of the saints. Some of Elisha’s miracles were like some of our Lord’s. The enlargement of the twenty loaves to suffice for 100 men reminds us of two miracles of our Lord, and his curing a case of leprosy reminds us of many miracles of our Lord like that. In the Bible, miracles are always numerous in the great religious crises, where credentials are needed for God’s people, such as the great series of miracles in Egypt by Moses, the series of miracles in the days of Elisha and the miracles in the days of our Lord.


The greatest of Elisha’s work is his teaching work, greater than his work in relation to the government, his work in the families, or his miracles. I think the more far-reaching power of his work was in his teaching. There were spoken similar words at the exodus of Elijah and Elisha. When Elijah went up, Elisha said, "My Father! My Father! The chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof!" The same words are used when Elisha died. What does it mean? It pays the greatest compliment to the departed: that they alone were worth more to Israel than all its chariots, and its cavalry; that they were the real defenders of the nation.


At one point his work touched the Southern Kingdom, viz: When Moab was invaded, and he wrought that miracle of the waters, filled the trenches and supplied the thirsty armies. Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah was along, and for his sake Elisha saved them.


There are many great pulpit themes in connection with Elisha’s history. I suggest merely a few: First, "Let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me" – that was his prayer when Elijah was leaving him; second, "The chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof"; third, when he came to the Jordan he did not say, "Where is Elijah?" but he smote the Jordan and said, "Where is the Lord God of Elijah?" for it made no difference if Elijah was gone, God was there yet; fourth, "The oil stayed" not as long as the woman has a vessel to put it in; fifth, the little chamber on the wall; sixth, "Ah, man of God! There is death in the pot" – or "theological seminaries and wild gourds" – radical criticism, for instance – there is death in the pot whenever preachers are fed on that sort of food; seventh, "Is it well with thy husband?" "Is it well?" and I will have frequently commenced a meeting with that text; eighth, Elisha’s staff in the hands of Gehazi, who was an unworthy man and the unworthy cannot wield the staff of the prophets; ninth, "Alas, my master, it was borrowed!"; tenth, the Growing Seminary – "The place is too straight for us"; eleventh, "Make this valley full of trenches," that is, the Lord will send the water, but there is something for us to do; let us have a place for it when it comes; twelfth, the secret thoughts of the bedchamber are known to God; thirteenth, "They that be with us are more than those that be against us"; fourteenth, "Tell me, I pray thee, all the great works done by Elisha."


These are just a few in the great mine of Elijah or Elisha where we may dig down for sermons. The sermons ought to be full of meat; that is why we preach – to feed the hungry. We should let our buckets down often into the well of salvation, for we cannot lower the well, and we may draw up a fresh sermon every Sunday. We should not keep on preaching the same sermon; it is first a dinner roast, then we give it cold for supper, then hash its fragments for breakfast, and make soup out of the bones for the next dinner, and next time we hold it over the pot and boil the shadow, and so the diet gets thinner and thinner. Let’s get a fresh one every time.

QUESTIONS

1. Who was Elisha?

2. What is the meaning of "minister to Elijah"? Illustrate and give corresponding passage in the New Testament.

3. What is the meaning of "Elisha, a disciple of Elijah"?

4. What is the meaning of "Elisha, a successor to Elijah"?

5. Give the date, author, manner, and nature of Elisha’s call, his response and how he celebrated the event.

6. What is the lesson of this and other calls? Illustrate.

7. How long his prophetic term of office and what kings of Israel and Judah were his contemporaries?

8. What secular calls accompanied his, how do you distinguish between his and the call of the others and what is the lesson therefrom?

9. What is the biblical material for a sketch of Elisha’s life?

10. What is the meaning of his name?

11. What is the Greek and Hebrew forms of his name? Give other examples.

12. What likenesses and unlikenesses of the work of Elijah and Elisha?

13. What New Testament likenesses of these two prophets?

14. How many schools of the prophets in the days of Elijah and Elisha, and where were they located?

15. What was Elisha’s great teaching work in the seminaries? Discuss.

16. What was Elisha’s part in governmental affairs?

17. What of his work in the families? Illustrate.

18. What two classes of his miracles and what miracles of each class?

19. What is the Romanist misuse of the miracle of Elisha’s bones and Acts 19:11-12?

20. What miracles were like some of our Lord’s?

21. When and why were Bible miracles numerous?

22. Which of Elisha’s works was the greatest?

23. What words spoken at the exodus of Elijah and Elisha and what their meaning?

24. At what point did Elisha’s work touch the Southern Kingdom?

25. What New Testament lesson from the life of Elisha?

26. Give several pulpit themes from this section not given by the

27. What is the author’s exhortation relative to preaching growing out of this discussion of Elisha?

X

GATHERING UP THE FRAGMENTS THAT NOTHING BE LOST

The title of this chapter is a New Testament text for an Old Testament discussion. For the sake of unity the last two chapters were devoted exclusively to Elijah and Elisha. It is the purpose of this discussion to call attention to some matters worthy of note that could not very well be incorporated in those personal matters, and yet should not be omitted altogether.


It is true, however, that the heart of the history is in the lives of these two great prophets of the Northern Kingdom. In bringing up the record we will follow the chronological order of the scriptures calling for exposition.


Jehoshaphat’s Shipping Alliance with Ahaziah. We have two accounts of this: first, in 1 Kings 22:47-49, and second, in 2 Chronicles 20:35-37. I wish to explain, first of all, the locality of certain places named in these accounts. Tarshish, as a place, is in Spain. About that there can be no question. About Ophir, no man can be so confident. There was an Ophir in the southern part of Arabia; a man named Ophir settled there, but I do not think that to be the Ophir of this section. The Ophir referred to here is distinguished for the abundance and fine quality of its gold. Several books in the Bible refer to the excellency of "the gold of Ophir," and to the abundance of it. Quite a number of distinguished scholars would locate it in the eastern part of Africa. Some others would locate it in India, and still others as the Arabian Ophir. My own opinion is, and I give it as more than probable, that the southeastern coast of Africa is the right place for Ophir. Many traditions put it there, the romance of Rider Haggard, "King Solomon’s Mines," follows the traditions. The now well-known conditions of the Transvaal would meet the case in some respects.


Ezion-geber is a seaport at the head of the Gulf of Akaba, which is a projection of the Red Sea. What is here attempted by these men is to re-establish the famous commerce of Solomon. I cite the passages in the history of Solomon that tell about this commerce. In 1 Kings 9:26 we have this record: "And King Solomon made a navy of ships in Eziongeber, which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom. And Hiram (king of Tyre) sent in the navy his servants, shipmen that had knowledge of the sea, with the servants of Solomon. And they came to Ophir, and fetched from thence gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and brought it to King Solomon." Now, 1 Kings 10:11 reads: "And the navy also of Hiram, that brought gold from Ophir, brought in from Ophir great plenty of Almug trees and precious stones." This "almug-trees" is supposed to be the famous sweet-scented sandalwood. The precious stones would agree particularly with the diamond mines at Kimberly in the Transvaal.


Then1 Kings 10:22 reads: "For the king had at sea a navy of Tarshish with the navy of Hiram: Once every three years came the navy of Tarshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks." The ivory and apes would fit very well with the African coast, but we would have to go to India to get the spices, which are mentioned elsewhere, and the peacocks. A three years’ voyage for this traffic seems to forbid the near-by Arabian Ophir, and does make it reasonable that the merchant fleet touched many points – Arabia, Africa, and the East Indies. It is, therefore, not necessary to find one place notable for all these products – gold, jewels, sandalwood, ivory, apes, spices, and peacocks. Solomon, then, established as his only seaport on the south Eziongeber, a navy, manned partly by experienced seamen of Tyre, and these ships would make a voyage every three years. That is a long voyage and they might well go to Africa and to India to get these varied products, some at one point and some at another.


Now Jehoshaphat and Ahaziah (king of Israel) made an alliance to re-establish that commerce. The first difficulty, however, is that the Chronicles account says that these ships were to go to Tarshish, and the Kings account says that they were ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir. My explanation of that difficulty is this: It is quite evident that no navy established at Eziongeber would try to reach Spain by circumnavigating Africa, when it would be so much easier to go from Joppa, Tyre, or Sidon over the Mediterranean Sea to Spain. "Tarshish ships" refers, not to the destination of the ships, but to the kind of ships, that is, the trade of the Mediterranean had given that name to a kind of merchant vessel, called "Ships of Tarshish." And the ships built for the Tarshish trade, as the name "lndianman" was rather loosely applied to certain great English and Dutch merchant vessels. It is an error in the text of Chronicles that these ships were to go to Tarshish. They were Tarshish ships, that is, built after the model of Tarshish ships, but these ships were built at Eziongeber for trade with Ophir, Africa, and India.


1 Kings 22:47 of the Kings account needs explanation: "And there was no king in Edom; a deputy was king." The relevancy of that verse is very pointed. If Edom had been free and had its own king, inasmuch as Eziongeber was in Edom, Judah never could have gone there to build a navy. But Edom at this time was subject to Judah, and a Judean deputy ruled over it. That explains why they could come to Eziongeber.


One other matter needs explanation. The account in Kings says, "Then said Ahaziah the son of Ahab unto Jehoshaphat, Let my servants go with thy servants in the ships. But Jehoshaphat would not." Ahaziah attributed the shipwreck of that fleet to the incompetency of the Judean seamen. He did not believe that there would have been a shipwreck if he had been allowed to furnish experienced mariners, as Hiram did. So Kings gives us what seems to be the human account of that shipwreck, viz: the incompetency of the mariners; but Chronicles gives us the divine account, thus: "Because thou hast joined thyself with Ahaziah, the Lord hath destroyed thy works. And the ships were broken." How often do we see these two things: the human explanation of the thing, and the divine explanation of the same thing. Ahaziah had no true conception of God, and he would at once attribute that shipwreck to human incompetency, but Jehoshaphat knew better; he knew that shipwreck came because he had done wickedly in keeping up this alliance with the idolatrous kings of the ten tribes.

THE TRANSLATION OF ELIJAH
Let us consider several important matters in connection with the translation of Elijah, 2 Kings 2:1-18. First, why the course followed by Elijah? Why does he go from Carmel to Gilgal and try to leave Elisha there, and from Gilgal to Bethel and try to leave Elisha there, and from Bethel to Jericho and try to leave Elisha there? The explanation is that the old prophet, having been warned of God that his ministry was ended and that the time of his exodus was at hand, wished to revisit in succession all of these seminaries. These were his stopping places, and he goes from one seminary to another. It must have been a very solemn thing for each of these schools of the prophets, when Elisha and Elijah came up to them, for by the inspiration of God as we see from the record, each school of the prophets knew what was going to happen. At two different places they say to Elisha, "Do you know that your master will be taken away to-day?" Now, the same Spirit of God that notified Elijah that his time of departure was at hand, also notified Elisha, also notified each school of the prophets; they knew.


But why keep saying to Elisha, "You stay here at Gilgal; the Lord hath sent me to Bethel," and, "You stay here at Bethel; the Lord hath sent me to Jericho," and "You stay here at Jericho; the Lord hath sent me to the Jordan"? It was a test of the faith of Elisha. Ruth said to Naomi, "Entreat me not to leave thee, nor to forsake thee; for where thou goest, I will go; and God do so to me, if thy God be my God, and thy people my people, and where thou diest there will I die also." With such spirit as that, Elisha, as the minister to Elijah, and as the disciple of Elijah, and wishing to qualify himself to be the successor of Elijah, steadfastly replied: "As the Lord liveth and thy soul liveth, I will not forsake thee." "I am going with you just as far as I can go; we may come to a point of separation, but I will go with you to that point." All of us, when we leave this world, find a place where the departing soul must be without human companionship. Friends may attend us to that border line but they cannot pass over with us.


We have already discussed the miracle of the crossing of the Jordan. Elijah smote the Jordan with his mantle and it divided; that was doubtless his lesson to Elisha, and we will see that he learned the lesson. I heard a Methodist preacher once, taking that as a text, say, "We oftentimes complain that our cross is too heavy for us, and groan under it, and wish to be relieved from it." "But," says he, "brethren, when we come to the Jordan of death, with that cross that we groaned under we will smite that river, and we will pass over dry-shod, and leave the cross behind forever, and go home to a crown to wear."


The next notable thing in this account is Elijah’s question to Elisha: "Have you anything to ask from me?" "Now, this is the last time; what do you want me to do for you?" And he says, "I pray thee leave a double portion of thy spirit on me." We see that he is seeking qualification to be the successor. "Double" here does not mean twice as much as Elijah had, but the reference is probably to the first-born share of an inheritance. The first-born always gets a double share, and Elisha means by asking a double portion of his spirit that it may accredit him as successor. Or possibly "double" may be rendered "duplicate," for the same purpose of attenuation. The other prophets would get one share, but Elisha asks for the first-born portion. Elijah suggests a difficulty, not in himself, but in Elisha ; he said, "You ask a hard thing of me, yet if you see me when I go away, you will get the double portion of my spirit," that is, it was a matter depending on the faith of the petitioner, his power of personal perception. "When I go up, if your eyes are open enough to see my transit from this world to a higher, that will show that you are qualified to have this double portion of my spirit." We have something similar in the life of our Lord. The father of the demoniac boy says to our Lord, "If thou canst do anything, have compassion on us and help us." Jesus replied, "If thou canst! All things are possible to him that believeth." It was not a question of Christ’s ability, but of the supplicant’s faith.


The next thing is the translation itself. What is meant by it? In the Old Testament history two men never died; they passed into the other world, soul and body without death: Enoch and Elijah. And at the second coming of Christ every Christian living at that time will do the same thing. "In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, they shall be changed." Now, what is that change of the body by virtue of which without death, it may ascend into heaven? It is a spiritualization of the body eliminating its mortality, equivalent to what takes place in the resurrection and glorification of the dead bodies. I preached a sermon once on "How Death [personified] Was Twice Startled." In the account of Adam it is said, "And he died" and so of every other man, "and he died." Methuselah lived 969 years, but he died. And death pursuing all the members of the race, strikes them down, whether king or pauper, whether prophet or priest. But when he comes to Enoch his dart missed the mark and he did not get him. And when he came to Elijah he missed again. Now the translations of Enoch and Elijah are an absolute demonstration of two things: First, the immortality of the soul, the continuance of life; that death makes no break in the continuity of being. Second, that God intended from the beginning to save the body. The tree of life was put in the garden of Eden, that by eating of it the mortality of the body might be eliminated. Sin separated man from that tree of life, but it is the purpose of God that the normal man, soul and body, shall be saved. The tradition of the Jews is very rich on the spiritual significance of the translation of Enoch and Elijah. In Enoch’s case it is said, "He was not found because God took him," and in this case fifty of the sons of the prophets went out to see if when Elijah went to heaven his body was not left behind, and they looked all over the country to find his body. Elisha knew; he saw the body go up.


Now, in Revelation we have the Cherubim as the chariot of God. This chariot that met Elijah at the death station was the chariot of God, the Cherubim. Just as the angels met Lazarus and took his soul up to heaven, and it is to this wonderful passage that the Negro hymn belongs: "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot."


Elisha cried as the great prophet ascended, "My Father! My rather I The chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof," the meaning of which is that thus had gone up to heaven he who in his life had been the defense of Israel, worth more than all of its chariots and all of its cavalry. Now these very words "were used when Elisha died. "My Father! My Father! The chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof," signifying that he had been the bulwark of the nation as Elijah had been before him.

ELISHA’S MINISTRY, 2 Kings 2:19-25
As Elijah went up something dropped – not his body, but just his mantle – his mantle fell, and it fell on Elisha, symbolic of the transfer of prophetic leadership from one to the other. Now, he wants to test it, a test that will accredit him; so he goes back to the same Jordan, folds that same mantle up just as Elijah had done, and smites the Jordan. But, mark you, he did not say, "Where is Elijah" – the man, Elijah, was gone, but, "Where is the Lord God of Elijah?" and the waters divided and he came over. There he stood accredited with a repetition of the miracle just a little before performed by Elijah, which demonstrated that he was to be to the people what Elijah had been. And this was so evident that the sons of the prophets recognized it and remarked on it: "The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha." It is a touching thing to me, this account of more than fifty of these prophets, as the president of their seminary is about to disappear, came down the last hill that overlooks the Jordan, watching to see what became of him. And they witness the passage of the Jordan – they may have seen the illumination of the descent of the chariot of fire. They wanted to go and get the body – the idea of his body going up they had not taken in, and they could not be content until Elisha, grieved at their persistence) finally let them go and find out for themselves that the body had gone to heaven.


I have just two things to say on the healing of the noxious waters at Jericho. The first is that neither the new cruse nor the salt put in it healed the water. It was a symbolic act to indicate that the healing would be by the power of God. Just as when Moses cast a branch into the bitter waters of Marah, as a symbolic act. The healing power comes from God. The other re-mark is on that expression, "unto this day," which we so frequently meet in these books. Its frequent recurrence is positive proof that the compiler of Kings and the compiler of Chronicles are quoting from the original documents. "Unto this day" means the day of the original writer. It does not mean unto the day of Ezra wherever it appears in Chronicles, but it means unto the day of the writer of the part of history that he is quoting from. More than one great conservative scholar has called attention to this as proof that whoever compiled these histories is quoting the inspired documents of the prophets.

THE CHILDREN OF BETHEL AND THE SHE-BEARS
Perhaps a thousand infidels have referred Elisha’s curse to vindictiveness and inhumanity. The word rendered "little children" is precisely the word Solomon uses in his prayer at Gibeon when he says, "I am a little child" – he was then a grown man. Childhood with the Hebrews extended over a much greater period of time than it does with us. The word may signify "young men" in our modern use of the term. And notice the place was Bethel, the place of calf worship, where the spirit of the city was against the schools of the prophets, and these young fellows – call them "street Arabs," "toughs," whom it suited to follow this man and mock him: "Go up, thou bald bead; go up, thou bald head." Elisha did not resent an indignity against himself, but here is the point: these hostile idolaters at Bethel, through their children are challenging the act of God in making Elisha the head of the prophetic line. He turned and looked at them and he saw the spirit that animated them – saw that it was an issue between Bethel calf worship and Bethel, the school of the prophets, and that the parents of these children doubtless sympathized in the mockery, and saw it to be necessary that they should learn that sacrilege and blasphemy against God should not go unpunished. So, in the name of the Lord he pronounces a curse on them – had it been his curse, no result would have followed. One man asks, "What were these she-bears doing so close to Bethel?" The answer is that in several places in the history is noted the prevalence of wild animals in Israel. We have seen how the old prophet who went to this very Bethel to rebuke Jeroboam and turned back to visit the other prophet, was killed by a lion close to the city.


Another infidel question is, "How could God make a she bear obey him?" Well, let the infidel answer how God’s Spirit could influence a single pair of all the animals to go into the ark. Over and over again in the Bible the dominance of the Spirit of God over inanimate things and over the brute creation is repeatedly affirmed. The bears could not understand, but they would follow an impulse of their own anger without attempting to account for it.

THE INCREASE IN THE WIDOW’S OIL, 2 Kings 4:1-7


We have already considered this miracle somewhat in the chapter on Elisha, and now note particularly:


1. It often happens that the widow of a man of God, whether prophet or preacher, is left in destitution. Sometimes the fault lies in the imprudence of the preacher or in the extravagance of his family, but more frequently, perhaps, in the inadequate provision for ministerial support. This destitution is greatly aggravated if there be debt. The influence of a preacher is handicapped to a painful degree, when, from any cause, he fails to meet his financial obligations promptly. In a commercial age this handicap becomes much more serious.


2. The Mosaic Law (Leviticus 25:39-41; see allusion, Matthew 18:25) permitted a creditor to make bond-servant of a debtor and his children. For a long time the English law permitted imprisonment for debt. This widow of a prophet appeals to Elisha, the head of the prophetic school, for relief, affirming that her husband did fear God. In other words, he was faultless in the matter of debt. The enforcement of the law by the creditor under such circumstances indicates a merciless heart.


3. The one great lesson of the miracle is that the flow of the increased oil never stayed as long as there was a vessel to receive it. God wastes not his grace if we have no place to put it: according to our faith in preparation is his blessing. He will fill all the vessels we set before him.

DEATH IN THE POT, 2 Kings 4:38-41
We recall this miracle to deepen a lesson barely alluded to in the chapter on Elisha. The seminaries at that time lived a much more simple life than the seminaries of the present time; it did not take such a large fund to keep them up. Elisha said, "Set on the great pot," and one of the sons of the prophets went out to gather vegetables. He got some wild vegetables he knew nothing about – here called wild gourd – and shred them into the pot, not knowing they were poisonous. Hence the text: “O man of God, there is death in the pot." I once took that as the text for a sermon on "Theological Seminaries and Wild Gourds," showing that the power of seminaries depends much on the kind of food the teachers give them. If they teach them that the story of Adam and Eve is an allegory, then they might just as well make the second Adam an allegory, for his mission is dependent on the failure of the first. If they teach them the radical criticism; if they teach anything that takes away from inspiration and infallibility of the divine Word of God or from any of its great doctrines – then, “O man of God, there is death in the pot" – that will be a sick seminary.


In a conversation once with a radical critic I submitted for his criticism, without naming the author, the exact words of Tom Paine in his "Age of Reason," denying that the story of Adam and Eve was history. He accepted it as eminently correct. Then I gave the author, and inquired if it would be well for preachers and commentators to revert to such authorities on biblical interpretation. He made no reply. We find Paine’s words not only in the first part of the "Age of Reason," written in a French prison without a Bible before him, but repeated in the second part after he was free and had access to Bibles. I gave this man a practical illustration, saying, "You may take the three thousand published sermons of Spurgeon, two sets of them, and arrange them, one set according to the books from which the texts are taken – Genesis 1, 2, 3, etc., and make a commentary on the Bible. By arranging the other set of them in topical order, you have a body of systematic theology." Now this man Spurgeon believed in the historical integrity and infallibility of the Bible, in its inspiration of God, and he preached that, just that. As the old saying goes, "The proof of the pudding is in the chewing of the bag." He preached just that, and what was the result? Thousands and thousands of converts wherever he preached, no matter what part of the Bible he was preaching from; preachers felt called to enter the ministry, orphan homes rose up, almshouses for aged widows, colportage systems established, missionaries sent out, and all over the wide world his missionaries die in the cause. One man was found in the Alps, frozen to death, with a sermon of Spurgeon in his hand. One man was found shot through the heart by bush rangers of Australia, and the bullet passed through Spurgeon’s sermon on "The Blood of Jesus." Now, I said to this man, "Get all your radical critics together, and let them preach three thousand sermons on your line of teaching. How many will be converted? How many backsliders will be reclaimed? How many almshouses and orphanages will be opened? How many colportage systems established? Ah! the proof of the pudding is in the chewing of the bag. If what you say is the best thing to teach about the Bible is true, then when you preach, it will have the best results. But does it?"


We have considered Elisha’s miracle for providing water for the allied armies of Israel, Judah, and Edom, when invading Moab (2 Kings 3:10-19). We revert to it to note partakelarly this passage: "And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him seven hundred men that drew sword, to break through unto the king of Edom: but they could not. Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there was great wrath against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land" (2 Kings 3:26-27). On this passage I submit two observations:


1. Not long after this time the prophet Micah indignantly inquires, "Shall I give my firstborn for my transgressions, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?" The context is a strong denunciation of the offering of human sacrifices to appease an angry deity. The Mosaic law strongly condemned the heathen custom of causing their children to pass through the fire of Molech. Both this book of Kings and Jeremiah denounce judgment on those guilty of this horrible practice. The Greek and Roman classics, and the histories of Egypt and Phoenicia, show how widespread was this awful custom.


2. But our chief difficulty is to expound the words, "There was great wrath against Israel." But what was its connection with the impious sacrifice of the king of Moab? Whose the wrath? The questions are not easy to answer. It is probable that the armies of Edom and Judah were angry at Israel for pressing the king of Moab to such dire extremity, and so horrified at the sacrifice that they refused longer to co-operate in the campaign. This explanation, while not altogether satisfactory, is preferred to others more improbable. It cannot mean the wrath of God, nor the wrath of the Moabites against Israel. It must mean, therefore, the wrath of the men of Judah and Edom against Israel for pressing Mesha to such an extent that he would offer his own son as a sacrifice.

QUESTIONS

I. On the two accounts of Jehoshaphat’s shipping alliance with Ahaziah, 2 Kings 22; 2 Chronicles 20, answer:


1. Where is Tarshish?


2. Where is Ophir?


3. Where is Ezion-geber?


4. What is the relevance of 1 Kings 22:47?


5. Explain "ships of Tarshish" in Kings, and "to go to Tarshish" in Chronicles.


6. What commerce were they seeking to revive, and what passage from 1 Kings bearing thereon?


7. How does the book of Kings seem to account for the wreck of the fleet, and how does Chronicles give a better reason?

II. On the account of Elijah’s translation (2 Kings 2:1-18) answer:


1. Why the course taken by Elijah by way of Gilgal, Bethel, and Jericho?


2. How did both Elisha and the schools of the prophets know about the impending event?


3. What was the object of Elijah in telling Elisha to tarry at each stopping place while he went on?


4. What was the meaning of Elisha’s request for "a double portion" of Elijah’s spirit and why was this a hard thing to ask, i.e., wherein the difficulty? Illustrate by a New Testament lesson.


5. What was the meaning of Elijah’s translation, and what other cases, past or prospective?


6. What was the meaning of Elisha’s expression, "My Father! My Father! The chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof," and who and when applied the same language to Elisha?


7. How does Elisha seek a test of his succession to Elijah and how do others recognize the credentials?

III. How do you explain the seeming inhumanity of Elisha’s cursing the children of Bethel?

IV. On the widow’s oil (2 Kings 4:1-7), answer:


1. What often happens to the widow of a prophet or preacher, and what circumstance greatly aggravates the trouble?


2. What is the Mosaic law relative to debtors and creditors?


3. What one great lesson of the miracle?

V. On "Death in the Pot" answer:


1. What the incident of the wild gourds?


2. What application does the author make of this?


3. What comparison does the author make between Spurgeon and the Radical Critics?

VI. On Elisha’s miracle, the water supply, answer:


1. What is the allusion in Micah’s words, "Shall I give my first-born," etc.?


2. What the meaning of "There was great wrath against Israel"?

Verses 19-25

X

GATHERING UP THE FRAGMENTS THAT NOTHING BE LOST

The title of this chapter is a New Testament text for an Old Testament discussion. For the sake of unity the last two chapters were devoted exclusively to Elijah and Elisha. It is the purpose of this discussion to call attention to some matters worthy of note that could not very well be incorporated in those personal matters, and yet should not be omitted altogether.


It is true, however, that the heart of the history is in the lives of these two great prophets of the Northern Kingdom. In bringing up the record we will follow the chronological order of the scriptures calling for exposition.


Jehoshaphat’s Shipping Alliance with Ahaziah. We have two accounts of this: first, in 1 Kings 22:47-49, and second, in 2 Chronicles 20:35-37. I wish to explain, first of all, the locality of certain places named in these accounts. Tarshish, as a place, is in Spain. About that there can be no question. About Ophir, no man can be so confident. There was an Ophir in the southern part of Arabia; a man named Ophir settled there, but I do not think that to be the Ophir of this section. The Ophir referred to here is distinguished for the abundance and fine quality of its gold. Several books in the Bible refer to the excellency of "the gold of Ophir," and to the abundance of it. Quite a number of distinguished scholars would locate it in the eastern part of Africa. Some others would locate it in India, and still others as the Arabian Ophir. My own opinion is, and I give it as more than probable, that the southeastern coast of Africa is the right place for Ophir. Many traditions put it there, the romance of Rider Haggard, "King Solomon’s Mines," follows the traditions. The now well-known conditions of the Transvaal would meet the case in some respects.


Ezion-geber is a seaport at the head of the Gulf of Akaba, which is a projection of the Red Sea. What is here attempted by these men is to re-establish the famous commerce of Solomon. I cite the passages in the history of Solomon that tell about this commerce. In 1 Kings 9:26 we have this record: "And King Solomon made a navy of ships in Eziongeber, which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom. And Hiram (king of Tyre) sent in the navy his servants, shipmen that had knowledge of the sea, with the servants of Solomon. And they came to Ophir, and fetched from thence gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and brought it to King Solomon." Now, 1 Kings 10:11 reads: "And the navy also of Hiram, that brought gold from Ophir, brought in from Ophir great plenty of Almug trees and precious stones." This "almug-trees" is supposed to be the famous sweet-scented sandalwood. The precious stones would agree particularly with the diamond mines at Kimberly in the Transvaal.


Then1 Kings 10:22 reads: "For the king had at sea a navy of Tarshish with the navy of Hiram: Once every three years came the navy of Tarshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks." The ivory and apes would fit very well with the African coast, but we would have to go to India to get the spices, which are mentioned elsewhere, and the peacocks. A three years’ voyage for this traffic seems to forbid the near-by Arabian Ophir, and does make it reasonable that the merchant fleet touched many points – Arabia, Africa, and the East Indies. It is, therefore, not necessary to find one place notable for all these products – gold, jewels, sandalwood, ivory, apes, spices, and peacocks. Solomon, then, established as his only seaport on the south Eziongeber, a navy, manned partly by experienced seamen of Tyre, and these ships would make a voyage every three years. That is a long voyage and they might well go to Africa and to India to get these varied products, some at one point and some at another.


Now Jehoshaphat and Ahaziah (king of Israel) made an alliance to re-establish that commerce. The first difficulty, however, is that the Chronicles account says that these ships were to go to Tarshish, and the Kings account says that they were ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir. My explanation of that difficulty is this: It is quite evident that no navy established at Eziongeber would try to reach Spain by circumnavigating Africa, when it would be so much easier to go from Joppa, Tyre, or Sidon over the Mediterranean Sea to Spain. "Tarshish ships" refers, not to the destination of the ships, but to the kind of ships, that is, the trade of the Mediterranean had given that name to a kind of merchant vessel, called "Ships of Tarshish." And the ships built for the Tarshish trade, as the name "lndianman" was rather loosely applied to certain great English and Dutch merchant vessels. It is an error in the text of Chronicles that these ships were to go to Tarshish. They were Tarshish ships, that is, built after the model of Tarshish ships, but these ships were built at Eziongeber for trade with Ophir, Africa, and India.


1 Kings 22:47 of the Kings account needs explanation: "And there was no king in Edom; a deputy was king." The relevancy of that verse is very pointed. If Edom had been free and had its own king, inasmuch as Eziongeber was in Edom, Judah never could have gone there to build a navy. But Edom at this time was subject to Judah, and a Judean deputy ruled over it. That explains why they could come to Eziongeber.


One other matter needs explanation. The account in Kings says, "Then said Ahaziah the son of Ahab unto Jehoshaphat, Let my servants go with thy servants in the ships. But Jehoshaphat would not." Ahaziah attributed the shipwreck of that fleet to the incompetency of the Judean seamen. He did not believe that there would have been a shipwreck if he had been allowed to furnish experienced mariners, as Hiram did. So Kings gives us what seems to be the human account of that shipwreck, viz: the incompetency of the mariners; but Chronicles gives us the divine account, thus: "Because thou hast joined thyself with Ahaziah, the Lord hath destroyed thy works. And the ships were broken." How often do we see these two things: the human explanation of the thing, and the divine explanation of the same thing. Ahaziah had no true conception of God, and he would at once attribute that shipwreck to human incompetency, but Jehoshaphat knew better; he knew that shipwreck came because he had done wickedly in keeping up this alliance with the idolatrous kings of the ten tribes.

THE TRANSLATION OF ELIJAH
Let us consider several important matters in connection with the translation of Elijah, 2 Kings 2:1-18. First, why the course followed by Elijah? Why does he go from Carmel to Gilgal and try to leave Elisha there, and from Gilgal to Bethel and try to leave Elisha there, and from Bethel to Jericho and try to leave Elisha there? The explanation is that the old prophet, having been warned of God that his ministry was ended and that the time of his exodus was at hand, wished to revisit in succession all of these seminaries. These were his stopping places, and he goes from one seminary to another. It must have been a very solemn thing for each of these schools of the prophets, when Elisha and Elijah came up to them, for by the inspiration of God as we see from the record, each school of the prophets knew what was going to happen. At two different places they say to Elisha, "Do you know that your master will be taken away to-day?" Now, the same Spirit of God that notified Elijah that his time of departure was at hand, also notified Elisha, also notified each school of the prophets; they knew.


But why keep saying to Elisha, "You stay here at Gilgal; the Lord hath sent me to Bethel," and, "You stay here at Bethel; the Lord hath sent me to Jericho," and "You stay here at Jericho; the Lord hath sent me to the Jordan"? It was a test of the faith of Elisha. Ruth said to Naomi, "Entreat me not to leave thee, nor to forsake thee; for where thou goest, I will go; and God do so to me, if thy God be my God, and thy people my people, and where thou diest there will I die also." With such spirit as that, Elisha, as the minister to Elijah, and as the disciple of Elijah, and wishing to qualify himself to be the successor of Elijah, steadfastly replied: "As the Lord liveth and thy soul liveth, I will not forsake thee." "I am going with you just as far as I can go; we may come to a point of separation, but I will go with you to that point." All of us, when we leave this world, find a place where the departing soul must be without human companionship. Friends may attend us to that border line but they cannot pass over with us.


We have already discussed the miracle of the crossing of the Jordan. Elijah smote the Jordan with his mantle and it divided; that was doubtless his lesson to Elisha, and we will see that he learned the lesson. I heard a Methodist preacher once, taking that as a text, say, "We oftentimes complain that our cross is too heavy for us, and groan under it, and wish to be relieved from it." "But," says he, "brethren, when we come to the Jordan of death, with that cross that we groaned under we will smite that river, and we will pass over dry-shod, and leave the cross behind forever, and go home to a crown to wear."


The next notable thing in this account is Elijah’s question to Elisha: "Have you anything to ask from me?" "Now, this is the last time; what do you want me to do for you?" And he says, "I pray thee leave a double portion of thy spirit on me." We see that he is seeking qualification to be the successor. "Double" here does not mean twice as much as Elijah had, but the reference is probably to the first-born share of an inheritance. The first-born always gets a double share, and Elisha means by asking a double portion of his spirit that it may accredit him as successor. Or possibly "double" may be rendered "duplicate," for the same purpose of attenuation. The other prophets would get one share, but Elisha asks for the first-born portion. Elijah suggests a difficulty, not in himself, but in Elisha ; he said, "You ask a hard thing of me, yet if you see me when I go away, you will get the double portion of my spirit," that is, it was a matter depending on the faith of the petitioner, his power of personal perception. "When I go up, if your eyes are open enough to see my transit from this world to a higher, that will show that you are qualified to have this double portion of my spirit." We have something similar in the life of our Lord. The father of the demoniac boy says to our Lord, "If thou canst do anything, have compassion on us and help us." Jesus replied, "If thou canst! All things are possible to him that believeth." It was not a question of Christ’s ability, but of the supplicant’s faith.


The next thing is the translation itself. What is meant by it? In the Old Testament history two men never died; they passed into the other world, soul and body without death: Enoch and Elijah. And at the second coming of Christ every Christian living at that time will do the same thing. "In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, they shall be changed." Now, what is that change of the body by virtue of which without death, it may ascend into heaven? It is a spiritualization of the body eliminating its mortality, equivalent to what takes place in the resurrection and glorification of the dead bodies. I preached a sermon once on "How Death [personified] Was Twice Startled." In the account of Adam it is said, "And he died" and so of every other man, "and he died." Methuselah lived 969 years, but he died. And death pursuing all the members of the race, strikes them down, whether king or pauper, whether prophet or priest. But when he comes to Enoch his dart missed the mark and he did not get him. And when he came to Elijah he missed again. Now the translations of Enoch and Elijah are an absolute demonstration of two things: First, the immortality of the soul, the continuance of life; that death makes no break in the continuity of being. Second, that God intended from the beginning to save the body. The tree of life was put in the garden of Eden, that by eating of it the mortality of the body might be eliminated. Sin separated man from that tree of life, but it is the purpose of God that the normal man, soul and body, shall be saved. The tradition of the Jews is very rich on the spiritual significance of the translation of Enoch and Elijah. In Enoch’s case it is said, "He was not found because God took him," and in this case fifty of the sons of the prophets went out to see if when Elijah went to heaven his body was not left behind, and they looked all over the country to find his body. Elisha knew; he saw the body go up.


Now, in Revelation we have the Cherubim as the chariot of God. This chariot that met Elijah at the death station was the chariot of God, the Cherubim. Just as the angels met Lazarus and took his soul up to heaven, and it is to this wonderful passage that the Negro hymn belongs: "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot."


Elisha cried as the great prophet ascended, "My Father! My rather I The chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof," the meaning of which is that thus had gone up to heaven he who in his life had been the defense of Israel, worth more than all of its chariots and all of its cavalry. Now these very words "were used when Elisha died. "My Father! My Father! The chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof," signifying that he had been the bulwark of the nation as Elijah had been before him.

ELISHA’S MINISTRY, 2 Kings 2:19-25
As Elijah went up something dropped – not his body, but just his mantle – his mantle fell, and it fell on Elisha, symbolic of the transfer of prophetic leadership from one to the other. Now, he wants to test it, a test that will accredit him; so he goes back to the same Jordan, folds that same mantle up just as Elijah had done, and smites the Jordan. But, mark you, he did not say, "Where is Elijah" – the man, Elijah, was gone, but, "Where is the Lord God of Elijah?" and the waters divided and he came over. There he stood accredited with a repetition of the miracle just a little before performed by Elijah, which demonstrated that he was to be to the people what Elijah had been. And this was so evident that the sons of the prophets recognized it and remarked on it: "The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha." It is a touching thing to me, this account of more than fifty of these prophets, as the president of their seminary is about to disappear, came down the last hill that overlooks the Jordan, watching to see what became of him. And they witness the passage of the Jordan – they may have seen the illumination of the descent of the chariot of fire. They wanted to go and get the body – the idea of his body going up they had not taken in, and they could not be content until Elisha, grieved at their persistence) finally let them go and find out for themselves that the body had gone to heaven.


I have just two things to say on the healing of the noxious waters at Jericho. The first is that neither the new cruse nor the salt put in it healed the water. It was a symbolic act to indicate that the healing would be by the power of God. Just as when Moses cast a branch into the bitter waters of Marah, as a symbolic act. The healing power comes from God. The other re-mark is on that expression, "unto this day," which we so frequently meet in these books. Its frequent recurrence is positive proof that the compiler of Kings and the compiler of Chronicles are quoting from the original documents. "Unto this day" means the day of the original writer. It does not mean unto the day of Ezra wherever it appears in Chronicles, but it means unto the day of the writer of the part of history that he is quoting from. More than one great conservative scholar has called attention to this as proof that whoever compiled these histories is quoting the inspired documents of the prophets.

THE CHILDREN OF BETHEL AND THE SHE-BEARS
Perhaps a thousand infidels have referred Elisha’s curse to vindictiveness and inhumanity. The word rendered "little children" is precisely the word Solomon uses in his prayer at Gibeon when he says, "I am a little child" – he was then a grown man. Childhood with the Hebrews extended over a much greater period of time than it does with us. The word may signify "young men" in our modern use of the term. And notice the place was Bethel, the place of calf worship, where the spirit of the city was against the schools of the prophets, and these young fellows – call them "street Arabs," "toughs," whom it suited to follow this man and mock him: "Go up, thou bald bead; go up, thou bald head." Elisha did not resent an indignity against himself, but here is the point: these hostile idolaters at Bethel, through their children are challenging the act of God in making Elisha the head of the prophetic line. He turned and looked at them and he saw the spirit that animated them – saw that it was an issue between Bethel calf worship and Bethel, the school of the prophets, and that the parents of these children doubtless sympathized in the mockery, and saw it to be necessary that they should learn that sacrilege and blasphemy against God should not go unpunished. So, in the name of the Lord he pronounces a curse on them – had it been his curse, no result would have followed. One man asks, "What were these she-bears doing so close to Bethel?" The answer is that in several places in the history is noted the prevalence of wild animals in Israel. We have seen how the old prophet who went to this very Bethel to rebuke Jeroboam and turned back to visit the other prophet, was killed by a lion close to the city.


Another infidel question is, "How could God make a she bear obey him?" Well, let the infidel answer how God’s Spirit could influence a single pair of all the animals to go into the ark. Over and over again in the Bible the dominance of the Spirit of God over inanimate things and over the brute creation is repeatedly affirmed. The bears could not understand, but they would follow an impulse of their own anger without attempting to account for it.

THE INCREASE IN THE WIDOW’S OIL, 2 Kings 4:1-7


We have already considered this miracle somewhat in the chapter on Elisha, and now note particularly:


1. It often happens that the widow of a man of God, whether prophet or preacher, is left in destitution. Sometimes the fault lies in the imprudence of the preacher or in the extravagance of his family, but more frequently, perhaps, in the inadequate provision for ministerial support. This destitution is greatly aggravated if there be debt. The influence of a preacher is handicapped to a painful degree, when, from any cause, he fails to meet his financial obligations promptly. In a commercial age this handicap becomes much more serious.


2. The Mosaic Law (Leviticus 25:39-41; see allusion, Matthew 18:25) permitted a creditor to make bond-servant of a debtor and his children. For a long time the English law permitted imprisonment for debt. This widow of a prophet appeals to Elisha, the head of the prophetic school, for relief, affirming that her husband did fear God. In other words, he was faultless in the matter of debt. The enforcement of the law by the creditor under such circumstances indicates a merciless heart.


3. The one great lesson of the miracle is that the flow of the increased oil never stayed as long as there was a vessel to receive it. God wastes not his grace if we have no place to put it: according to our faith in preparation is his blessing. He will fill all the vessels we set before him.

DEATH IN THE POT, 2 Kings 4:38-41
We recall this miracle to deepen a lesson barely alluded to in the chapter on Elisha. The seminaries at that time lived a much more simple life than the seminaries of the present time; it did not take such a large fund to keep them up. Elisha said, "Set on the great pot," and one of the sons of the prophets went out to gather vegetables. He got some wild vegetables he knew nothing about – here called wild gourd – and shred them into the pot, not knowing they were poisonous. Hence the text: “O man of God, there is death in the pot." I once took that as the text for a sermon on "Theological Seminaries and Wild Gourds," showing that the power of seminaries depends much on the kind of food the teachers give them. If they teach them that the story of Adam and Eve is an allegory, then they might just as well make the second Adam an allegory, for his mission is dependent on the failure of the first. If they teach them the radical criticism; if they teach anything that takes away from inspiration and infallibility of the divine Word of God or from any of its great doctrines – then, “O man of God, there is death in the pot" – that will be a sick seminary.


In a conversation once with a radical critic I submitted for his criticism, without naming the author, the exact words of Tom Paine in his "Age of Reason," denying that the story of Adam and Eve was history. He accepted it as eminently correct. Then I gave the author, and inquired if it would be well for preachers and commentators to revert to such authorities on biblical interpretation. He made no reply. We find Paine’s words not only in the first part of the "Age of Reason," written in a French prison without a Bible before him, but repeated in the second part after he was free and had access to Bibles. I gave this man a practical illustration, saying, "You may take the three thousand published sermons of Spurgeon, two sets of them, and arrange them, one set according to the books from which the texts are taken – Genesis 1, 2, 3, etc., and make a commentary on the Bible. By arranging the other set of them in topical order, you have a body of systematic theology." Now this man Spurgeon believed in the historical integrity and infallibility of the Bible, in its inspiration of God, and he preached that, just that. As the old saying goes, "The proof of the pudding is in the chewing of the bag." He preached just that, and what was the result? Thousands and thousands of converts wherever he preached, no matter what part of the Bible he was preaching from; preachers felt called to enter the ministry, orphan homes rose up, almshouses for aged widows, colportage systems established, missionaries sent out, and all over the wide world his missionaries die in the cause. One man was found in the Alps, frozen to death, with a sermon of Spurgeon in his hand. One man was found shot through the heart by bush rangers of Australia, and the bullet passed through Spurgeon’s sermon on "The Blood of Jesus." Now, I said to this man, "Get all your radical critics together, and let them preach three thousand sermons on your line of teaching. How many will be converted? How many backsliders will be reclaimed? How many almshouses and orphanages will be opened? How many colportage systems established? Ah! the proof of the pudding is in the chewing of the bag. If what you say is the best thing to teach about the Bible is true, then when you preach, it will have the best results. But does it?"


We have considered Elisha’s miracle for providing water for the allied armies of Israel, Judah, and Edom, when invading Moab (2 Kings 3:10-19). We revert to it to note partakelarly this passage: "And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him seven hundred men that drew sword, to break through unto the king of Edom: but they could not. Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there was great wrath against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land" (2 Kings 3:26-27). On this passage I submit two observations:


1. Not long after this time the prophet Micah indignantly inquires, "Shall I give my firstborn for my transgressions, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?" The context is a strong denunciation of the offering of human sacrifices to appease an angry deity. The Mosaic law strongly condemned the heathen custom of causing their children to pass through the fire of Molech. Both this book of Kings and Jeremiah denounce judgment on those guilty of this horrible practice. The Greek and Roman classics, and the histories of Egypt and Phoenicia, show how widespread was this awful custom.


2. But our chief difficulty is to expound the words, "There was great wrath against Israel." But what was its connection with the impious sacrifice of the king of Moab? Whose the wrath? The questions are not easy to answer. It is probable that the armies of Edom and Judah were angry at Israel for pressing the king of Moab to such dire extremity, and so horrified at the sacrifice that they refused longer to co-operate in the campaign. This explanation, while not altogether satisfactory, is preferred to others more improbable. It cannot mean the wrath of God, nor the wrath of the Moabites against Israel. It must mean, therefore, the wrath of the men of Judah and Edom against Israel for pressing Mesha to such an extent that he would offer his own son as a sacrifice.

QUESTIONS

I. On the two accounts of Jehoshaphat’s shipping alliance with Ahaziah, 2 Kings 22; 2 Chronicles 20, answer:


1. Where is Tarshish?


2. Where is Ophir?


3. Where is Ezion-geber?


4. What is the relevance of 1 Kings 22:47?


5. Explain "ships of Tarshish" in Kings, and "to go to Tarshish" in Chronicles.


6. What commerce were they seeking to revive, and what passage from 1 Kings bearing thereon?


7. How does the book of Kings seem to account for the wreck of the fleet, and how does Chronicles give a better reason?

II. On the account of Elijah’s translation (2 Kings 2:1-18) answer:


1. Why the course taken by Elijah by way of Gilgal, Bethel, and Jericho?


2. How did both Elisha and the schools of the prophets know about the impending event?


3. What was the object of Elijah in telling Elisha to tarry at each stopping place while he went on?


4. What was the meaning of Elisha’s request for "a double portion" of Elijah’s spirit and why was this a hard thing to ask, i.e., wherein the difficulty? Illustrate by a New Testament lesson.


5. What was the meaning of Elijah’s translation, and what other cases, past or prospective?


6. What was the meaning of Elisha’s expression, "My Father! My Father! The chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof," and who and when applied the same language to Elisha?


7. How does Elisha seek a test of his succession to Elijah and how do others recognize the credentials?

III. How do you explain the seeming inhumanity of Elisha’s cursing the children of Bethel?

IV. On the widow’s oil (2 Kings 4:1-7), answer:


1. What often happens to the widow of a prophet or preacher, and what circumstance greatly aggravates the trouble?


2. What is the Mosaic law relative to debtors and creditors?


3. What one great lesson of the miracle?

V. On "Death in the Pot" answer:


1. What the incident of the wild gourds?


2. What application does the author make of this?


3. What comparison does the author make between Spurgeon and the Radical Critics?

VI. On Elisha’s miracle, the water supply, answer:


1. What is the allusion in Micah’s words, "Shall I give my first-born," etc.?


2. What the meaning of "There was great wrath against Israel"?

Bibliographical Information
"Commentary on 2 Kings 2". "Carroll's Interpretation of the English Bible". https://studylight.org/commentaries/eng/bhc/2-kings-2.html.
adsFree icon
Ads FreeProfile