I. Introduction
1 Kings 17 and 18 contain the
account of Elijah as a prophet who, to use Provan's words, bursts onto the
scene with a vengeance to address the house of Omri.[1]
The message of these two chapters is that Yahweh controls life and death,
fertility and infertility. Therefore, he is the one and true God as Elijah's
name אֵלִיָּהוּ
proclaims (Yahweh is God).[2]
The subject of this paper focuses on verses 8 to 16 of the 17th
chapter. This passage highlights Yahweh not only as a living transcendent God
in his sovereign control over all things, but also personal in his gracious
care to save and to provide.
II. Tabling the text in English (ESV) and Hebrew[3]
Before
going into the exegetical details provided in the two tables below, I’d like to
point out a text critical issue. In verse 11, the author uses an unusual form
of impv 2fs לִקְחִי of לָקַח instead of the usual form in verse 10 קְחִי.[4]
Out of all five occurrences of impv 2fs of לָקַח in the OT,[5]
only 1 Kings 17:11 uses לִקְחִי.
BHS proposes an emendation[6]
that לִקְחִי
was קְחִי לָהּ
in the original manuscript. This is a case of dittography followed by writing
the ל
too close to קְחִי.
With the proposed emendation, verse 11 becomes, “… and he said to her, ‘please bring to me…’” While this is plausible considering there are
19 occurrences of וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ
in the OT, my only question is why verse 10 does not have לָהּ since verse 11 follows the same pattern as
that in verse 10, …וַיִּקְרָא
אֵלֶיהָ וַיֹּאמַר.
8 Then
the word of the Lord came to
him,
9 “Arise,
go to Zarephath, which belongs to Sidon, and dwell there.
|
After God asked him to go east
to the brook of Cherith in the wilderness, Elijah’s next destination is a
Sidonian city, within the heart of Baalism about 50 miles northwest of
Cherith,
|
Behold, I have commanded a
widow there to feed you.”
|
The means by which the Lord
provides Elijah in Zarephath is no less strange and questionable than that
during the episode at Cherith; from one of the city’s lowliest and poorest.[7] כּוּל
is in Pilpel which means to provide, give sustenance necessary for
physical survival such as food and water (DBLH meaning 3). צָוָה is in Piel which in this context
means "to ordain."[8]
|
10 So
he arose and went to Zarephath. And when he came to the gate of the city,
behold, a widow was there gathering sticks.
|
Despite questionable means of provision,
Elijah obeys the Lord’s command. מְקֹשֶׁשֶׁת
is קָשַׁשׁ in Polel ptc fs which means to collect
pieces or sticks of wood for household fire (DBLH meaning 2).
|
And he called to her and said,
“Bring me a little water in a vessel, that I may drink.” 11 And as she was going to bring it, he called to
her and said, “Bring me a morsel of bread in your hand.”
|
Instead of waiting for the
widow to take action first, Elijah takes the initiative to ask for food and
drink perhaps implying the urgency of his hunger and thirst. “That I may
drink” is cohortative, literally “let me drink.”
|
12 And
she said, “As the Lord your God
lives, I have nothing baked, only a handful of flour in a jar and a little
oil in a jug. And now I am gathering a couple of sticks that I may go in and
prepare it for myself and my son that we may eat it and die.”
|
The expression “As the Lord
your God lives” is an introduction to an oath (GKC 149a, TDNT) that occurs 43
times in the OT. It is a way of saying, “I’m not lying to you.” A couple of
sticks שְׁנַיִם עֵצִים, is literally two
trees.
|
13 And
Elijah said to her, “Do not fear; go and do as you have said.
|
There are 30 occurrences of “Do
not fear” in the OT. It is a common prelude to God’s saving action.[9]
|
But first make me a little cake
of it and bring it to me, and afterward make something for yourself and your
son.
|
Elijah persuades the widow to
take a step of faith after an initial word of assurance that gives a hint
that everything will be OK (Do not fear). Against all parental instinct, she is
asked to feed him first before her son.[10]
|
14 For
thus says the Lord, the God of
Israel, ‘The jar of flour shall not be spent, and the jug of oil shall not be
empty, until the day that the Lord
sends rain upon the earth.’ ”
|
כִּי is best translated as “for” or “because” to indicate reason.
Elijah points out, by the authority of his God, “thus says the Lord, the God
of Israel,” why she should not fear and do what Elijah told her to do, namely
because his God promises deliverance from famine and continuous provision.
|
15 And she went and
did as Elijah said. And she and he and her household ate for many days. 16 The jar of flour
was not spent, neither did the jug of oil become empty, according to the word
of the Lord that he spoke by
Elijah.
|
In the midst of a dire need to
the point of near death, God gives her the faith to believe his promise
through Elijah. Furthermore, “to the miracle of faith, Yahweh adds the
miracle of a never-empty jar of meal and a never-failing cruse of oil."[11]
|
8 וַיְהִי
דְבַר־יהוה אֵלָיו לֵאמֹר׃
|
וַיְהִי is temporal indication introducing a new scene or episode
(BHRG 44.5.1.2.a) most appropriately translated as “and then” since it
“anchors an event, state of affairs, scene, episode or narrative to the time
line” (BHRG 44.5.1). We may also consider it as a sequence in time (BHRG
21.2.1.2.a) to respond to the readers’ anticipation of what comes next after
the water of Cherith dries up in verse 6. The infinitive construct acts as a
complementizer marking reported speech (BHRG 20.1.4).
|
9 קוּם לֵךְ
צָרְפַתָה אֲשֶׁר לְצִידוֹן וְיָשַׁבְתָּ
שָׁם
|
קוּם
לֵךְ is a double imperative meant
as a command (BHRG 19.4.2.1.a) to emphasize the urgency of the matter, go at
once (cf. Jon 1:2). The wcp וְיָשַׁבְתָּ
serves as a consecutive command (BHRG 21.1) as part of קוּם
לֵךְ.
|
הִנֵּה צִוִּיתִי שָׁם אִשָּׁה אַלְמָנָה
לְכַלְכְּלֶךָ׃
|
הִנֵּה occurs with a verbal clause. It functions to direct the
readers to focus on events that are surprising or unexpected for the person
addressed or the character(s) in a story (BHRG 44.3.4.i). Here the event is
the provision through a widow. The infinitive construct לְכַלְכְּלֶךָ describes purpose (BHRG 20.1.3.4) what
the Lord commands the widow for. But it also acts as a complement to צִוִּיתִי (BHRG 20.1.3.2). The Qal perfect צִוִּיתִי is a pre-formative action (BHRG 19.2.3).
|
10 וַיָּקָם וַיֵּלֶךְ צָרְפַתָה וַיָּבֹא
אֶל־פֶּתַח הָעִיר
|
The three wci’s
refer to sequence of actions in time.
|
וְהִנֵּה־שָׁם אִשָּׁה אַלְמָנָה מְקֹשֶׁשֶׁת עֵצִים
|
The first case of
fronting that begins with הִנֵּה + nominal clause
(BHRG 44.3.3.3.b): a widow was there gathering trees (sticks). The function
of הִנֵּה is to present someone i.e., the widow as
available at the moment of speaking (BHRG 44.3.4.2). The Polel ptc fs מְקֹשֶׁשֶׁת indicates continuous action (BHRG
20.3.1.1).
|
וַיִּקְרָא אֵלֶיהָ וַיֹּאמַר
|
The two wci’s
indicate sequence of actions in time.
|
קְחִי־נָא לִי מְעַט־מַיִם בַּכְּלִי
וְאֶשְׁתֶּה׃
|
Imperatives with נָא (please) usually means request (BHRG
19.4.2.1.c) as in the case here, “Please bring me a little water in a
vessel.” The cohortative וְאֶשְׁתֶּה
is also a request, “and let me drink.” (BHRG 19.4.3.1.b).
|
11 וַתֵּלֶךְ
לָקַחַת וַיִּקְרָא
אֵלֶיהָ וַיֹּאמַר
|
The three wci’s are
another instance of sequence of actions in time. The ESV translates the first
wci, “as she was going to bring it” that gives an impression that the first
and second wci’s are simultaneous actions which I think is warranted. The
infinitive construct לָקַחַת indicates purpose,
the widow went to get Elijah what he asked.
|
לִקְחִי־נָא לִי פַּת־לֶחֶם בְּיָדֵךְ׃
|
לִקְחִי is another instance of request-related imperative (see above
for text-critical issue associated with this word).
|
12 וַתֹּאמֶר
חַי־יהוה אֱלֹהֶיךָ
אִם־יֶשׁ־לִי מָעוֹג
כִּי אִם־מְלֹא כַף־קֶמַח בַּכַּד
וּמְעַט־שֶׁמֶן בַּצַּפָּחַת
|
The wci shows
sequential action in time where the widow responds to Elijah’s request for
bread. Here the preposition אִם is used to introduce a promise with negative certainty
after confirmation by an oath חַי־יהוה
(GKC 149.a). The wooden translation of
אִם־יֶשׁ־לִי מָעוֹג כִּי אִם־מְלֹא
כַף־קֶמַח בַּכַּד וּמְעַט־שֶׁמֶן בַּצַּפָּחַת
is, “There
certainly does not exist to me bread except a handful of flour in a jar and a
little oil in a jug.”
|
וְהִנְנִי מְקֹשֶׁשֶׁת שְׁנַיִם עֵצִים
וּבָאתִי וַעֲשִׂיתִיהוּ
לִי וְלִבְנִי וַאֲכַלְנֻהוּ
וָמָתְנוּ׃
|
Another occurrence
of הִנֵּה with verbal clause where the speaker
(the widow) present herself as available at the moment of speaking. As in the
previous occurrence, the Piel ptc fs מְקֹשֶׁשֶׁת here also
refers to a continuous action. The four wcp’s indicate possibility (BHRG
21.3.1.1.c) or expectation. The widow expects the meal she is about to
prepare and eat with her son to be their last due to the severity of the
drought.
|
13וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלֶיהָ אֵלִיָּהוּ
|
The wci shows
sequential action in time in which Elijah replies to the widow’s statement.
|
אַל־תִּירְאִי בֹּאִי עֲשִׂי כִדְבָרֵךְ
|
אַל־תִּירְאִי is a negative command (אַל
+ jussive, BHRG 19.4.2.2) while the imperatives בֹּאִי עֲשִׂי are
command-type imperatives (BHRG 19.4.2.1.a).
|
אַךְ עֲשִׂי־לִי מִשָּׁם עֻגָה קְטַנָּה
בָרִאשֹׁנָה וְהוֹצֵאת
לִי וְלָךְ וְלִבְנֵךְ תַּעֲשִׂי בָּאַחֲרֹנָה׃
|
עֲשִׂי is another occurrence of a command-type imperative. The Qal
imperfect 2fs תַּעֲשִׂי is also a command
(BHRG 19.3.5.3). The Hiphil wcp וְהוֹצֵאת
is another instance of consecutive command.
|
14 כִּי כֹה אָמַר יהוה אֱלֹהֵי
יִשְׂרָאֵל
כַּד הַקֶּמַח לֹא תִכְלָה וְצַפַּחַת
הַשֶּׁמֶן לֹא תֶחְסָר
עַד יוֹם תִּתֵּן־ יהוה גֶּשֶׁם עַל־פְּנֵי
הָאֲדָמָה׃
|
The two Qal
imperfect 3fs תִכְלָה and תֶחְסָר refer to definite events that will occur
in the future (BHRG 19.3.1.1). Note the gender mismatch between the feminine verb
תִכְלָה and the masculine noun כַּד הַקֶּמַח (according to AFAT). However, DBLH says כַּד is feminine.
|
15 וַתֵּלֶךְ
וַתַּעֲשֶׂה
כִּדְבַר אֵלִיָּהוּ
|
Two more sequential
action wci’s in time showing the widow’s response to Elijah’s command and
promise.
|
וַתֹּאכַל הוּא־ וָהִיא וּבֵיתָהּ
יָמִים׃
|
The wci acts as a
summary, what happens in the end (BHRG 21.2.3.1), “And she ate, he and she
and her house (for) days.”
|
16כַּד הַקֶּמַח לֹא כָלָתָה וְצַפַּחַת הַשֶּׁמֶן לֹא חָסֵר כִּדְבַר יהוה אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר
בְּיַד אֵלִיָּהוּ׃
|
The fronting here
reactivates previously mentioned entities כַּד הַקֶּמַח
and וְצַפַּחַת הַשֶּׁמֶן that serve as the
summary of an episode (BHRG 47.2.2.c), the happy-ending to the crisis Elijah,
the widow and her son faced through the fulfillment of the Lord’s promise of
deliverance in verse 14. The author highlights this reality of completed
actions-simple past from the perspective of the narrator, BHRG 19.2.1.1a
using the Qal perfect version of the same words חָסֵר
and כָּלָה used in imperfect forms in verse 14.
Note the double mismatches if we consider כַּד
as masculine (following AFAT) and the feminine verb כָלָתָה
and between the masculine verb חָסֵר and the feminine noun צַפַּחַת הַשֶּׁמֶן.
|
III. Contouring
the Text
We may observe a single-center AB-C-B’A’
chiastic pattern in 1 Kings 17:8-16 as shown above. The center of the structure
highlights the crisis discussed in the passage. The drought that Elijah
pronounced has taken effect throughout the land, not only in Israel but also in
its neighbor Sidon, Baal’s home territory. As a storm god, he is unable to take
care of even his own people, let alone Israel. His impotence is shown by the
severity of famine that the drought brought because of which the widow and her
son were at the point of near death. The revelation of her dire need from the
fact that she barely has any food left and that she and her son are preparing
their last meal (C) is enveloped by Elijah’s remarks. The first is a request
for water and bread (B) and the second is a prelude to the Lord’s promise of
deliverance by exhorting her not to be afraid and a challenge to her faith to
go ahead and provide Elijah what he asks for first (B’).
The outer envelope A-A' consists of the
theme of the passage that the center C alludes to. Unlike Baal who doesn’t
deliver what the people think he is capable of doing, namely providing them
food through the giving of abundance of rain, the Lord God of Israel delivers
what he promises to do. And he demonstrates the reality of his faithfulness in
actions to both his own people such as Elijah (A) and pagans such as the widow
and her son (A’). What I mean by quasi-inclusio is that both A and A’ display
an inclusio-like pattern in which a group of words from the beginning of a unit
is repeated at the end of that unit to form a frame (e.g., Psalm 8:9) with the
middle section showing Elijah’s and the widow’s response using the same formula,
“and he/she went.”[12]
On the other hand, it is not exactly inclusio because the closing statement
does not contain the exact same words as the opening statement. In A the word צִוִּיתִי is inserted between the words that make up
the inclusio הִנֵּה־שָׁם
אִשָּׁה אַלְמָנָה. In A’ the nouns that make up the inclusio
are the same as those in the opening statement: כַּד הַקֶּמַח and צַפַּחַת הַשֶּׁמֶן. The roots of the verbs in the inclusio are
the same as that of the opening statement כָּלָה and חָסֵר but the conjugation of the inclusio is
perfect unlike that of the opening statement which is imperfect. The change in
conjugation is necessary, however, to give a sense of completion in the
execution of what the Lord promises to do: to preserve the lives of Elijah, the
widow and her son, through the preservation of flour and oil.
IV.
Plotting the Text (based on ESV translation)
The pace of the narrative slows down for
the first time in verse 12. Prior to this verse, the narrative is full of
wci’s: one in verse 8, five in verse 10, and three in verse 11, a total of nine
wci’s in four verses. The flow of the narrative moved forward by the wci’s
prior to verse 12 is interrupted by off-line materials consisting of fronting
in verse 10 and speeches in verses 9-11.
The reduction in pace beginning in verse 12 is intended to highlight the
crisis in the passage as a result of Baal’s impotence by showing the effect of the
severe drought Elijah pronounced. The pace remains slow in verse 13 up to verse
14. Verses 12-14 are dominated by speech until the story picks up speed again
in verse 15 showing the widow’s actions in compliance with Elijah’s commands.
There are only five wci’s from verses 12 to 16, an average of one wci per-verse
compared to more than two wci’s per-verse from verses 8-11. As the story
approaches the resolution of the crisis after verse 12, there are less wci’s
since the resolution consists of a promise delivered through a speech and its
fulfillment highlighted via fronting in verse 16.
The topic of this text is Elijah and the
widow. Though the comments mostly consist of what Elijah and the widow do, it
is important to note that this passage is not ultimately about them, but
Yahweh. Elijah and the widow are the agents through whom the narrator conveys
the message, namely that Elijah’s God is alive and gives life[13]
demonstrated by the giving of instructions and promises along with their fulfillment.
The provision of food according to his word is the means for the deliverance
from death and the sustaining of life.
V. Historical
Context
Elijah served when Ahab
was king of Israel during which the nation enjoyed a period of prosperity –
thanks to the policy of his father Omri.[14]
Ahab’s marriage with Jezebel, daughter of Ethbaal a Sidonian king (1 Ki 16:31)
was part of a mutually advantageous alliance. Sidon offered Israel an outlet
for agricultural products and other commercial opportunities in return of
reactivation of trade not only with Israel, but also via Israel with the lands
of the south. The alliance was also a counterbalance to an immediate threat
from Ben-Hadad of Syria.[15]
Shalmaneser III of Assyria waged a westward expansion threatening Ben-Hadad who
responded by forming a coalition with 32 other kings. A hostility against
Israel ensued after Ahab refused to join Ben-Hadad’s coalition that led to the Syrian invasion of Samaria (1 Kings
20:1-34).[16]
Theocratic Israel was’t supposed to rely on
political alliance for her survival to begin with but solely on the Lord. Her
disobedience through Ahab’s marriage with Jezebel brought the nation into a deeper moral and
spiritual decadence. The introduction of Baal and Asherah worship officially
replaced the cult of Yahweh with no coexistence allowed.[17]
Israel in Ahab’s days resembled anti-Christian North Korea today more than the
syncretistic West as evident from Obadiah’s account of Jezebel’s murderous
campaign against the Lord’s prophets (1 Kings 18:13).
Elijah’s travel to the northwest crossing Israel’s territory
from Cherith to Zarephath covers a distance of more than 50 miles (see map
below).[18]
Zarephath was an important Sidonian harbor within the very heart of Baalism.[19]
to
demonstrate on Phoenician soil, where Baal is worshiped, that Yahweh has power
over things in which Baal has failed. Since Baal worshippers explained the
drought as a sign that Baal was dead, he could not help the widow and her son.
In the absence of Baal who lies impotent in the Netherworld, Yahweh steps in to
assist the widow and the orphan, and this is even done in the heartland of
Baal, Phoenicia. It is also done in Jezebel’s native land. Because Yahweh
exists and Baal does not, Elijah possesses power Jezebel and her prophets do
not.
VI. Literary Context
DeVries lists eleven possible subgenres of
prophet stories.[22]
He places 1 Kings 17:8-16 under prophet-authorization or word-fulfillment
narrative category.[23]
However, it may also fall under power-demonstration and
prophet-legitimation narrative.[24]
In my view, it is a combination of all three. It is a power-demonstration
narrative of a prophet in the miracle of continuous provision of flour and oil.
But the purpose of this power demonstration is two-fold. First, it shows that
Elijah was a genuine prophet. The widow's remark in 1 Kings 17:24 affirming
that he was indeed a "man of God and that the word of the Lord in your
mouth is true," is a response not merely to Elijah resurrecting her son,
but also to the fulfillment of his prophecy that she and her son would be
provided for. Second, in agreement with DeVries, it shows the power of a
prophet to prevail over an institutional rival, namely Baal that challenges
Yahweh's supremacy, though this is more clearly seen in the showdown at Carmel
in 1 Kings 18.
Within the context of the twofold purposes
of power demonstration discussed above, I follow Cohn for the reason behind the
placement of the story in 1 Kings 17:8-16,[25]
namely that it is part of "the rise of Elijah's prophetic power."
This passage serves as a transition from the Lord's ministry to Elijah
(1 Kings 17:1-7) to the Lord's ministry through Elijah that establishes
his status as "the man of God." Cohn observes that beginning from
Zarephath in verse 9, Elijah "confronts an increasingly more difficult
problem which must be solved" consisting of the lack of daily provision of
food (verse 12), the loss of life (verse 18) and the national sin of idolatry
(chapter 18). As for the significance of the placement of 1 Kings 17:8-16 in
the overall structure of 1 Kings, the author intends to convey the message that
God never leaves his backsliding people without a prophet. Just as a man of God
(1 Kings 13:1-10) confronts Jeroboam who promotes the worship of his golden
calves, so Elijah confronts Ahab who promotes the worship of his wife's
Baal. The reason why the author takes
three chapters to talk about Elijah is perhaps due to the depth of apostasy the
nation plunged into under Ahab, described as one who "did more to provoke the Lord,
the God of Israel, to anger than all the kings of Israel who were before
him" (1 Kings 16:33).
VII.
Canonical Context
Jesus quoted Elijah’s encounter with the
widow of Zarephath in Luke 4:16-30. In response to the crowd’s amazement at
Jesus’ claim that he is the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecy in Isaiah 61
he just read from the scroll, he delivered a scathing remark. He compared
himself with Elijah in two respects.[26]
First, just as Elijah was rejected in his own home country, so was Jesus, “No
prophet is welcome is his hometown” (Luke 4:24). Second, just God sent Elijah
to perform miracles to Gentiles in their territory, so did he to Jesus defying
the crowd’s expectation that he would perform miracles in his hometown as he
did in the Gentile town of Capernaum. But Jesus also alluded in this parallel
that the crowd, his audience, the people from his hometown Nazareth was
equivalent to Israel of Elijah’s days corrupted by Baal worship; one of the
reasons why the crowd was enraged. Another reason has to do with the
correlation between Jesus’ stopping-short of reading the entire verse of Isaiah
61:2 and the reference to Elijah. Contrary to the crowd’s anticipation that
Jesus would include “and the day of vengeance of our God” after “to proclaim
the year of the Lord’s favor,” he only read the latter. Just as Jonah resented
the extension of God’s mercy to Nineveh, Jesus’ audience, desiring the
destruction of their Gentile enemies, resented at him bringing up the account
of God’s mercy shown to the Sidonian Gentiles to teach them that as the Messiah,
Jesus also extends salvation to the Gentiles. Instead of rejoicing and responding
in repentance and faith in what he said, the crowd was so infuriated that they
tried to kill him.[27]
There
is an evangelical implication in the interpretation of Elijah’s ministry in
Zarephath in light of the NT reference discussed above. Rebellion against God,
refusing to acknowledge and submit to him results in death represented by the
severe drought and famine. Sin separates man from God the fountain of life, a
reality that affects both Jews and Gentiles. The life that would have continued
with the provision of rain is cut-off as a result of sin. Salvation consists of
trusting God in his authoritative word. The account of the widow trusting God’s
word spoken by his prophet demonstrated by her obedience to it teaches a gospel
lesson. Salvation from the effect and the dominion of sin lies in what God says
in his promise of what he would do to save his people. The OT revelation of the
means of salvation was limited to the imagery such as the one Jesus read from
Isaiah 61:1-2 and the symbolism given in the sacrificial system pointing to the
atonement of sin through the shedding of blood that symbolizes someone’s death
(e.g., Leviticus 16, cf. Hebrews 9:11-28, 10:1-18). Nevertheless the OT saints
were saved the same way as the NT saints, namely by trusting in the same object
of their faith according to God’s promise in his word: Jesus Christ the Messiah
who is more fully revealed in the NT, particularly in his atoning death on the
cross.
VIII.
Integrating Text and Life
The reason why Baal worship was so popular
among the nations in Elijah’s days was because the people relied on agriculture
for their sustenance. As the storm god, Baal was seen as holding the power to
provide rain, an indispensable necessity to the survival of the crops. To give
the readers an idea how influential the Baalist movement was, even Israel
forsook their reliance on and allegiance to the Lord despite the plethora of
testimonies of his faithfulness in the past to deliver and sustain his people.
Though we may not see outward acts of
worshipping stones and statues often today especially among those living in
modern societies, the threat of idolatry still exists on different objects.
Many no longer directly depend on agriculture for a living but the reality is
life is not getting easier everywhere. There are still temptations to replace
the Lord as the one and only object of our worship, the only one who holds the
place of supremacy in our lives with other things such as money, pornography, relationship,
career and science since they offer alluring promises of a better life or
survival in a highly competitive world.
The account of the Lord’s provision to
Elijah, the widow and her son challenges especially Christians with the
following questions, “Regardless of your circumstances, will you cling to the
Lord, trusting in his sufficiency and faithfulness to provide? Will you
compromise your faith and biblical principles in exchange of allegiance to
today’s Baals because of what they seem to offer, whether they be illicit
sensual pleasures, a husband or a wife, a promotion that allows you to climb up
the corporate ladder or a bank account that ensures that you will not be in
financial need ever again?” Just as the Baal of Elijah’s days was unable to
provide, neither are today’s Baals. On the other hand, God’s people will have
what they need, not necessarily what they want.[28]
If the Lord was able and willing to provide even for pagans like the Sidonian
widow and her son, how much more will he do the same to his people! And no,
this is not prosperity gospel. The lesson of God’s providence is not an
incentive to greed, envy and worldliness, but to faith. It induces faith as we
look back in our lives as well as to biblical accounts such as the Lord’s
provision to Elijah, the widow and the son and others such as the story of
Joseph in Genesis 37-50 and discover God’s fatherly providential care in them.
It also induces faith by exposure to such forward-looking promises as Rom 8:32,
1 Cor 3:21-23, Phil 4:19 and Heb 13:5-6. And the ultimate goal of all these is
to excite joyful praise to God in Christ as Flavel remarks,[29]
The due observation of
providence will endear Jesus Christ every day more and more to your souls.
Christ is the channel of grace and mercy. Through him are all the streams of
mercy that flow from God to us, and all the returns of praise from us to God (1
Cor 3:21-22). All things are ours upon no other title but our being his.
1. Wilhelm Friedrich Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, edited by E. Kautzsch and Sir Arthur Ernest Cowley, 2d English ed., (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910).
2. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich. electronic ed., (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964).
3. Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, vol. V (MacLean: MacDonald, 1985).
4. Richard D. Nelson, First and Second Kings (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1987).
5. Iain W. Provan, 1 and 2 Kings (NIBC; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995).
6. Paul R. House, 1, 2 Kings (NAC; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995).
7. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997).
8. James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997).
9. Christo Van der Merwe, Jackie Naude, Jan Kroeze, Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999).
10. Simon DeVries, 1 Kings (WBC; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004).
11. Francis I. Andersen, A. Dean Forbes, The Hebrew Bible: Andersen-Forbes Analyzed Text (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 2008).
12. ESV Study Bible (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008).
13. Eugene H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008).
14. John Flavel, The Mystery of Providence (Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 2009).
[3] The words
highlighted in yellow and magenta are wci and wcp verbs, respectively, while
the words highlighted in green are the cases of fronting in this passage. The
abbreviations in the tables refer to the following references from Logos Bible
Software:
-
AFAT:
The Hebrew Bible: Anderson-Forbes Analyzed Text by Francis I. Andersen
and A. Dean Forbes.
-
BHRG:
Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar by Christo H.J. van der Merwe, Jackie
A. Naudé, Jan H. Kroeze,
-
TDNT:
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard
Friedrich and Geoffrey Bromiley (ed),
-
GKC:
Genesius’ Hebrew Grammar by E. Kautzsch and A.E. Cowly (ed),
-
DBLH:
Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domain: Hebrew by James
Swanson.
[4] Christo Van der Merwe, Jackie
Naude, Jan Kroeze, Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 18.11. לָקַח behaves
like I-nun verbs where the ל assimilates
in the impf, impv, coh, juss and infc.
[6] Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997), 602. Also in Simon DeVries, 1 Kings (WBC; Nashville:
Thomas Nelson, 2004), 213.
[7] DeVries, 1 Kings, 218.
Nelson believes the widow was rich considering she lived in a two-story home to
highlight the severity of famine that it struck even the wealthy in Richard D.
Nelson, First and Second Kings (Louisville: Westminster, 1987), 110. I’m
leaning more towards DeVries’ view since wealthy people usually have reserves
of food and drink though it may be argued that the widow ran out of reserves
due to a prolonged drought. A stronger support of my view comes from DBLH where
it remarks that אַלְמָנָה has an
associative meaning of a class of
persons, low in status, meager in resources, and so pitiable that society was
to take special effort to help them (also NIDOTTE especially notes 2 and 4).
[19] House, 1,2 Kings, 215. Also
Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, 133, “God has decided to display power in a
different way – in what 1 Kings 16:31 implies is the very heartland of the
worship of Baal, the region of Sidon. Here is a region, some might have
thought, over which Israel’s God could have no authority. It is nonetheless an
area badly affected by the drought announced in 17:1 (cf. v.12). The Lord can
bring drought to all and can disarm death and sustain life in even this area,
as well as in Israel.”
[23] DeVries, 1 Kings, 207, 215,
"a marvelous story demonstrating the power of a prophet to prevail over
institutional rivals, enhancing belief in prophetic authority to challenge
usurpations of Yahweh's supremacy."
[24] DeVries, 1 Kings, 206-207.
The first and third categories are as follows. 1. Power-demonstration
narrative: a marvelous story exemplifying charismatic power, offering edifying
illustrations of what a model prophet can do. 3. Prophet legitimation
narrative: a marvelous story demonstrating the scope and nature of a prophet's
empowerment, identifying that prophet is genuine.
[25] House, 1,2 Kings, 214,
quoting R.L. Cohn, "The Literary Logic of 1 Kings 17-19," JBL
101/3(1982) 335.
[27] Contrary to the attitude of their
godly ancestors, as Henry remarks, “Their pious ancestors pleased themselves
with the hopes of adding the Gentiles to the church (witness many of David’s
psalms and Isaiah’s prophecies); but this degenerate race, when they had
forfeited the covenant themselves, hated to think that any others should be
taken in.”
