- 83-
The first narrative^162 in this biographical sketch - as for want of better name we may
term it - has somewhat inaptly been compared with the account of Elijah's
miraculous provision for the widow of Sarepta (1 Kings 17:9-16).
On carefully comparing the two narratives, they will be seen to differ in every detail,
except this, that in both instances the recipient of the benefit was a widow. But
besides, the great object and meaning of the miracle at Sarepta was to be a
prefigurement of the mercy and help to be extended to the Gentile world, with all of
warning and teaching to Israel which this implied. Its counterpart, in the history of
Elisha, would be the healing of Naaman, rather than this narrative of Divine help
granted to the impoverished widow of one of the sons of the prophets.
Josephus and some of the Rabbis have suggested that this widow had been the wife
of that Obadiah who had provided shelter and food for the persecuted prophets in the
reign of Ahab (1 Kings 18). But here also the only point of similarity between the
two narratives is that the widow of the prophet pleads, in the words of Obadiah (1
Kings 18:12), that her husband "did fear Jehovah." The narrative bears that on the
death of her husband, who had been one of the sons of the prophets, and (what is
even more important) apparently well known to Elisha as one that feared Jehovah,
the creditor had come to take her two sons as bondsmen. We know not through what
adverse circumstances the family had been so far reduced; but we can readily believe
that in those days faithfulness to Jehovah might lead to outward reverses, not to
prosperity. And when he was removed who had been the support of his family by
that daily labor, which evidently was not regarded as incompatible with his vocation
as one of the "sons of the prophets," then "the creditor" seized on the sons of the
widow. In so doing he availed himself of his legal right in the matter (Leviticus
25:39; comp. Matthew 18:25),^163 although his action was unjustifiably harsh and
selfish.
If in these circumstances the prophet had not given heed to the appeal of the widow,
it would have implied either that he was not the living medium between God and His
people, which he professed, or else that Jehovah was not the living and the true God
in the sense in which Elisha had preached Him. With reverence be it said, the appeal
to the prophet could no more have remained unanswered than a cry for help
addressed to Christ in the days of His flesh.
A similar conclusion would be reached if, somewhat realistically, we were to
transport this history into our own days. If a widow were, in like circumstances, to
seek guidance and comfort, she would be pointed to the living God, and to His sure
promise of help in all straits. But what is this when translated into concrete fact other
than the miracle wrought at the intercession, or, if you please, at the instance, though
not by the hands, of Elisha? And may we not say that, as regards the result, the same
(^)