crippled by syncretism (1 Kgs 18:17-24)

18:17 “When Ahab saw Elijah, Ahab said to him, ‘Is it you, you troubler of Israel’?” (ESV)

Culturally rendered, Ahab greets Elijah by saying, “Do I at last see you again? Have you ventured into my presence?” After three-and-a-half long, drought-strickened years, Ahab meets his enigmatic enemy for just the second time. The first meeting was likely a short, abrupt time, where Ahab no doubt dismissed Elijah as a wild-speaking fool from the rough hills of Gilead. ‏This time, Elijah has Ahab’s full attention, and Ahab was sure to have felt a whirlwind of conflicting emotions at this encounter. He accuses Elijah as “you troubler of Israel,” clearly pinning the drought and famine on him. The term here is ‘ākar (aw-KAR): “roil water, stir up, disturb, trouble.” This word reflects the social dimension of an individual's action. A person's negative action (this word always has a negative concept) has a harmful influence not only on himself, but also upon others. A person can “trouble” another person or the entire nation, bringing either man's or God's judgment upon others.

In Ahab’s mind Elijah was the one who was responsible for all the distress and suffering which filled the land. There was no discernment or acknowledgement of God's hand in the drought, nor any conviction or comprehension of his own sinful conduct. If the drought was a divine judgment, no doubt it was due to Elijah’s resistance to the worship of Baal, the storm god. Elijah had led the revolt against Ahab's desire for uniting Israel and effecting a peaceful settlement of the worship of Baal in the nation. No matter how Ahab look at the situation, Elijah clearly was responsible for the calamity that had fallen on Israel.

The fact Ahab didn’t have Elijah killed on the spot, shows how uncertain he was relative to what do with this prophet of Yahweh. In a polytheistic environment, you wouldn’t want to potentially anger a god by killing their prophet, particularly one who seemed as powerful as Elijah. Ahab certainly had to have had some knowledge of the miracles Yahweh had performed in and for Israel, and his worship of Baal didn’t necessarily mean he had rejected Yahweh, which we’ll address in a few verses, it meant more his belief that Baal was the superior god. Furthermore, if Elijah really did hold the key to bringing rain back upon the land, Ahab wouldn’t want to destroy his only source of relief from the drought. However, he clearly couldn’t be seen as being weak or intimidated by this unruly renegade, so he affects a brave front. However, for all his bluster and harsh words, he was on the horns of a dilemma, completely at a loss as to how to deal with Elijah.

For the servant of Yahweh, Ahab’s accusation and harsh words were actually a compliment. “There is no higher testimony to the consistency of our life than the hearty hatred of the Ahabs around us” (F. B. Meyer). Considering both Jesus and Paul were later referred to as troublemakers, Elijah is in good company: “He stirs up the people” (Luke 23:5); “These men are seriously disturbing our city” (Acts 16:20); “These men who have turned the world upside down” (Acts 17:6).

18:18 “‘I have not made trouble for Israel,’ Elijah replied. ‘But you and your father's family have. You have abandoned the LORD's commands and have followed the Baals’.” (NIV)

Ahab’s words are flung right back at him, as the unimpressed prophet boldly and fearlessly lays out the indictment against him. This is reminiscent of how the prophet Nathan just as boldly said to another king, David, “You are that man” (2 Sam 12:7). Ahab accused the wrong person, but Elijah put the finger on the sore spot and arraigned the right person. The national scourge was not a function of Elijah’s actions, rather the calamity was traceable directly to Ahab and his family’s patronage and practice of idolatry.

In setting the record straight, Elijah notes both in the plural and singular, the history of acceptance of idolatry in Ahab’s family, as well as adoption and national patronage of idolatry by Ahab. Note the order here, first the God’s words were abandoned and forsaken, then the worship of Baal followed. Idolatry was the end destination, not the departure point. Preceding kings and the people had started down the path of idol worship by forsaking God’s word and commandments, and now the entire nation was engaged in licentious and vile idolatry. This was the real issue and the root cause of all the trouble in Israel, spiritual as well as physical.

This is also the real issue and root cause for Christians and churches alike today. The path to sin is gradual and deceptively gentle, the shift in direction initiated by the neglect of God’s word. When we abide in His words and therefore in Him, our path is straight and our footsteps sure. But the moment we begin to depart from constancy in His word, we start veering, ever so unnoticeably and naturally, that we may not even realize how far off-course we are.

C. S. Lewis in his book, The Screwtape Letters, describes a letter from an elder demon to his nephew, a junior demon. The veteran is explaining to the novice how to keep a human in sin, and consequently drive the human away from the enemy (in this case God) with the final result that the human arrives at “our father’s house,” or hell:

“Thoroughly reliable people; steady…worldlings who without any spectacular
crimes are progressing quietly and comfortably towards our father’s house…You
will say that these are very small sins; and doubtless, like all young tempters,
you are anxious to be able to report spectacular wickedness. But do remember,
the only thing that matters is the extent to which you separate man from the
enemy. It does not matter how small the sins are provided that their cumulative
effect is to edge the man away from the light and out into the nothing. Murder
is no better than cards if cards can do the trick. Indeed the safest road to
hell is the gradual one – the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without any sudden
turnings, without milestones, without sign posts.”

The spark that had been ignited by the earlier kings of Israel, Ahab had fanned into a raging wildfire. That can happen only too easily in our lives as well.

The plural “Baals” may either refer to the various names and forms under which Baal was worshipped, or more probably to the various images or statues of this god set up in the land (Gesenius).

18:19 “Now summon all Israel to meet me at Mount Carmel, along with the 450 prophets of Baal and the 400 prophets of Asherah who eat at Jezebel’s table.” (HCSB)

Elijah did not stop with an arraignment of Ahab, he wasn’t there to bandy words or argue with him. Instead, the fugitive prophet issues the king an order, an assignment Ahab was to carry out. Consider Elijah was alone; Ahab was surrounded by a retinue. Ahab was indeed experiencing an unusual day. He was not used to being talked down by anyone (except perhaps Jezebel), he’s bluntly confronted as being the one responsible for the drought and famine on the land, and now he’s being issued orders. “There is no passage of Scripture which exhibits more forcibly the ascendancy that a Prophet of the Lord, armed with His spiritual powers, could, if he were firm and brave, exercise even over the most powerful and most unscrupulous of monarchs” (F. C. Cook). “This boldness, this high tone, this absence of the slightest indication of alarm, seems to have completely discomfited Ahab, who ventured on no reply” (Rawlinson). It would seem that, though Ahab initially put on a bold front, he was from the very first, thoroughly cowed. Such was “the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17).

Elijah very flatly orders Ahab to gather “all Israel.” This is a common Hebrew idiom referring to the heads of the tribes and families, who were considered to represent all the people. They were to meet him at Mount Carmel, and Ahab was to also bring with him the prophets of Baal and Ashtaroth (Asherah, Astarte, Venus), the female consort of Baal. The extent of the Baal worship in Israel can be estimated by the number of priests that were fed at Jezebel’s table, a total of 850 vs. Elijah. The expression that they were “fed at Jezebel’s table” refers to her as their benefactor and patroness, even to the extent of feeding them from her bounty.

There is some debate as to whether the prophets of Baal reported to Ahab and the prophets of Asherah belonged to Jezebel. The text leaves open the door that the king and queen had different religious establishments; the king and his servants worshipped Baal, the supreme lord and master of the world. For this establishment four hundred and fifty priests were maintained. The queen and her women worshipped ‏Astarte; and for this establishment four hundred priests were maintained. It appears that these eight hundred and fifty priests were the domestic chaplains of the king and queen, and likely not all the priests that belonged to the rites of Baal and Asherah in the land. Also, the language in the narrative to follow allows for debate as to whether or not Jezebel’s Asherah priests made their way to Mount Carmel, as we’ll see in the verses later in this chapter.

Notwithstanding, it was logical for Ahab to undertake this task. As the king, not only had the means to do the task; but he also had the advantage of government power to command the task be done and to order the people to assemble. “The king had the means for effecting the invitations. He would not have to visit all personally, as would Elijah, but by means of official posts would contact everyone efficiently and quickly” (Leon Wood). Additionally, Ahab's close connection with the vile prophets of Baal would ensure they were all assembled at Mount Carmel. While they no doubt would have been altogether thrilled to get their hands on Elijah, they may have needed the prodding from Ahab to show up at Carmel. Their failure to produce rain and crops may have lessened their appeal to the people, let alone the heads and rulers of the tribes/families.

18:20 “So Ahab summoned all the Israelites and gathered the prophets at Mount Carmel.”

Interestingly, there is nothing in the text to indicate anything beyond Elijah simply issued his orders to Ahab without offering any reason or explanation as to what was his real object in summoning all the people and the false prophets together. He just commanded without explanation, and Ahab obeyed, adding to the strong element of discombobulation on his part. Additionally, the Hebrew text allows for no significant time lapse between Elijah's command and Ahab's obedience. “A king’s heart is like streams of water in the Lord’s hand: He directs it wherever He chooses” (Pro 21:1).

Ahab sent through all Israel and gathered together representatives from all ten tribes of the Northern Kingdom, along with the prophets of Baal, upon Mount Carmel, just as Elijah had instructed. According to the verses to follow, it would appear more than just the leaders were present, that a large number of the people were there as well. Given the severity of the drought and famine, no doubt people were anxious to see what was transpiring, if it would somehow result in the return of the rains. On the other hand, not only is there no further reference in what follows to the 400 prophets of Asherah, it would seem apparent that the presence of the 450 prophets of Baal alone is supposed. This has lend some to conclude that the Asherah prophets, perhaps foreboding nothing good would come of this encounter with the fearsome Elijah, may have been able to circumvent Ahab’s orders because of their protection under Jezebel.

18:21 “Elijah stepped out in front of all the people. ‘How long,’ he said, ‘do you mean to hobble first on one leg then on the other? If Yahweh is God, follow Him; if Baal, follow him.’ But the people had nothing to say.” (NJB)

Consider the scene: the crowd which gathered at Carmel for the contest would have been considerable, with estimates running as high as 20,000. Given the royal summons, the great duress of the people, the later slaughter of the 450 false prophets, and the crowds that followed Jesus (5,000 men, besides women and children, Matt 14:21), no matter the estimation, the crowd would have been sizeable. The location of Mount Carmel would have not only accommodate a vast multitude, it would have been a tremendous stage onto which thousands more could have watched, as we’ll discuss later.

King Ahab was present, though Jezebel was not (19:1), and he would have likely been accompanied by his courtiers and guard, most likely including Obadiah. In stark contrast to the harsh appearance of the sole, black camel hair-clad Elijah (2 Kgs 1:8), stood the richly garbed and pampered 450-strong force of the vile priests of Baal, in their gaudy uniforms of white linen garments and high-pointed bonnets (2 Kgs 10:22).

The stage was now set. The huge audience was likely hushed, awed by the trio of king and retinue, the prophets of Baal, and the lone figure of the fearsome Elijah, at whose word the heavens had been as brass for the last three-and-a-half years. The prophet of Yahweh at once took the initiative and center stage, being completely in command of the situation, though ridiculously outnumbered. Yet he shows no fear, as he had been prepared these past three-and-a-half years to know the presence of “the Lord of hosts” (vs. 15), who was very real and present at that momentous occasion, at the head of vast legions of angels, who filled that mountainside, though they were invisible to the eyes of the idolatrous people.

He seemingly has no regard whatsoever for the king’s court or the false prophets, who no doubt were watching his every move with hatred and anger: As one commentator wrote, “No tiger ever watched its victim more fiercely! If they may have their way, he will never touch yonder plain again.”

When he speaks, note how he only addresses the people. Because the Divine judgment had been inflicted on account of the apostasy of the nation and especially as a testimony against its idolatry, the people must turn their backs on Baal and returned to Yahweh, before the judgment could be removed. However, the lengthy drought and famine seemingly had brought no change. So far as can be gathered from the text, the people appeared to be as much wedded to their idols as ever; and whatever may have been either the convictions or the practices of the remnant who bowed not their knee to Baal, they were so afraid to publicly express themselves (lest they be put to death) that Elijah was unaware of their very existence.

Elijah challenged the people, “Till when are ye leaping on the two branches?” (YLT). The term used here is pāsah (paw-SAKH), which means “to hop” or “limp.” Only found three times in the OT, it was first used to refer to Mephibosheth’s limp due to being lame in one foot (2 Sam 9:13), and is used again later in this chapter in verse 26, when Elijah derides and mocks the “hopping” ritual dances of the prophets of Baal. Referring metaphorically to birds who hop from branch to branch, seemingly not able to make up their minds where they should settle. In other words, these lame people were hobbling around spiritually, unable to determine who they should follow. Elijah’s challenge is reminiscent of the one issued by Joshua: “choose for yourselves today whom you will serve” (Josh 24:15).

This challenge paints the picture of a people trying to live spiritually in monotheism and polytheism. They wanted to combine the worship of Yahweh and Baal. They knew Yahweh demanded they worship Him with a whole and undivided heart (Deut 6:4-5), yet the sensual and licentious religion of Baalism had its lustful pull, something they had been unable and unwilling to ignore. Furthermore, embracement of the polytheism of the pagan lands around them meant they didn’t have to completely reject Yahweh, even though it was contrary to His covenant. Elijah and the false prophets were the only ones who had conviction. They had made their choice. The people had not. “They wished to unite the worship of Jehovah with that of Baal—to avoid breaking with the past and completely rejecting the old national worship, yet at the same time to have the enjoyment of the new rites, which were certainly sensuous” (F. C. Cook).

The basic problem of the Israelites was not that they had totally rejected the Lord and followed Baal, but that they wanted both the Lord and Baal. As written by Solomon, “there is nothing new under the sun” (Eccl 1:9). This desire to combine “the best” of religions to fit one’s purpose is called syncretism, though it has been packaged and marketed under many labels throughout history. Syncretism has always had a deadening effect on the work of God, and it still does yet today. A missionary in Japan noted how he had watched Buddhists in that country receive Jesus and simply add Him to the god shelf in their homes. In other words, Jesus was then worshipped along with the other gods of the Buddhist pantheon.

However, it doesn’t need to be a physical idol or a named god, our syncretism today allows for anything to capture our worship, despite God’s call for “choose you this day.” The issue in Israel in Elijah’s time is the same issue that every age faces. The issue is who is your God? Who is going to rule your life? Will it be the god of the lust of the flesh, or will it be the God of holiness? Elijah made it clear, then, just as it is true today, that the Lord is a jealous God who brooks no rivals to His worship. The people had to make up their minds. They could not worship both the Lord and Baal. The Bible is unequivocal on this:

“no man can serve two masters” (Matt 6:24)

“they profess that they know God, but in works they deny Him” (Titus 1:15)

“a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways" (Jam 1:8)

“because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spit you out of My mouth” (Rev 3:16)

In Hosea the people of Israel are likened to “a half-baked cake” or “a cake not turned” (Hos 7:8)

Elijah called for a definite decision on their part, instructing them to choose and follow only Yahweh or only Baal. The term used here is hālak (haw-LOCK), meaning “”to go, walk, behave.” Literally “walk straight after him and behave accordingly.”

The response of the people? Silence. Not even one word. It’s doubtful they even look into his eyes. Were they weak, lacking conviction? Perhaps they were frightened, unwilling to take a public stand? After all, there was King Ahab, and there were 450 prophets of Baal, and there was frightful Elijah. If three-and-a-half years of drought and famine hadn’t jarred them out of their spiritual stupor, what possibly could? They would have an answer yet that day!

18:22-24 “Then Elijah said to the people, ‘I am the only remaining prophet of the Lord, but Baal’s prophets are 450 men. Let two bulls be given to us. They are to choose one bull for themselves, cut it in pieces, and place it on the wood but not light the fire. I will prepare the other bull and place it on the wood but not light the fire. Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the LORD, and the God who answers by fire, He is God.’ And all the people said, ‘That is a good idea’.”

Elijah continues speaking directly to the people. The royal audience and the prophets of Baal continue to be of secondary importance. He was not trying to connect with them or to appeal to them. They had made their stand and their allegiance was well known. The people, however, were lacking in conviction, and they had no firm allegiance. Whether out of fear or indecision, they had thus far remained silent.

Consider how he pointedly says to them, “you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the Lord.” By not fully following after Yahweh, the people had to understand they were following after Baal. There could be no middle ground or compromise, it was either all Yahweh or not at all. Since they chose compromise, he views them bluntly as Baal followers only. Their lack of a firm stand was a firm stand in the eyes of Yahweh and His prophet.

There was also great strategic wisdom in Elijah presenting the plan to the people and not just to the prophets of Baal. For “when the appeal of Elijah to the people had gained their applause, he had the prophets of Baal at his command . . . the voice of the people rendered it impossible for them to evade the trial” (MacDonald). Considering Elijah was supremely outnumbered by the prophets of Baal and Ahab’s court, the people would likely have agreed to any proposals or ideas they would have suggested, no matter how devious or under-handed. But by giving the plan to the people and having them approve it so enthusiastically, the prophets of Baal had no recourse but to go along with it. The proposal was so reasonable that the people at once assented to it, which forced their false prophets out into the open: they must either comply with the challenge or acknowledge that Baal was an impostor.

Elijah starts out by emphasizing the odds – 450:1, though everyone present would have also counted Ahab’s court on the side of the prophets of Baal as well. Baal had the full backing of the royal court, an overwhelming majority of prophets, and according to Elijah, the people were in Baal’s camp as well. In terms of odds, Elijah was in a humanly impossible situation to win. Though Obadiah had shared with Elijah how he had been feeding 100 prophets of Yahweh, they weren’t present at this time and as far as this contest was concerned, Elijah was the only prophet of Yahweh, and it appeared the odds were against him.

That clearly doesn’t concern Elijah. After what he had learned and experienced by the Wadi Cherith and with the widow and her son in Zarephath, Elijah was supremely confident that there is no god but Yahweh. He knew it because he had experienced and lived it. While to the entire audience in front of him and all of Israel for the most part, this was a clash between Yahweh and Baal, a power struggle between rival deities. However, Elijah's lofty conception and understanding of Yahweh utterly excludes all other objects of worship and makes all the gods idols (1 Chr 16:26; Psa 96:5). Elijah had already proven that he believed the Yahweh of Israel was not limited sole to the territory of Israel, and he had demonstrated that Yahweh can perform miracles in Phoenicia as well, thus showing his belief in a universal, supreme and sole Deity. This therefore was not a contest between rival gods. Elijah’s goal is to completely eliminate Baal from consideration whenever Israel decides theological matters. Baal, and any other pagan god, was a non-entity, not simply lesser entities.

To achieve this goal Elijah suggests a contest. Each side would be given a bull and would prepare to sacrifice it as a burnt offering to their god, with the caveat that neither would place any fire under the wood. We see that Elijah emphasizes that point here and again in verse 25. Why the double emphasis? Because fraud abounds in false religions. Deceit is one of their most common trademarks. Why the extra emphasis? Because of the practice of Baalism. They secretly added fire to their altars to make it look like Baal was answering them with supernatural fire. Some of the altars of paganism had little dugouts under the altar where a priest could hide and covertly set the sacrifice on fire. But here on Mount Carmel it would be different. “For the first time in their history, these false priests were unable to inset the secret spark of fire among the wood which lay on the altar” (Pink). Satan is a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44); and we must not be so naïve as to think that just because something is religious it is honest.

Once the altars were prepared, each side would each call on their respective god and the god who answered by fire would be shown to be the true elohîm. This match would then prove two points: 1) it would put the powers of the rival deities to the test, and 2) it would also prove which of the rival and completely opposing systems of worship was acceptable to the Supreme Being. The people for the first time wholeheartedly agreed to something, and the text indicates the Baalists had no objections whatsoever. And why shouldn’t the people and the false prophets agree to this ridiculously lopsided contest that only Elijah failed to see was so obvious? He was clearly outnumbered, and by selecting fire, he stupidly played right into Baal’s strength. The three-and-a-half-year drought and famine would have been a great embarrassment to the worshipers of Baal. Elijah’s test to Baal’s followers seemed like a good opportunity to vindicate their god, so they readily agreed to it.

Elijah gave them every advantage when he granted that the god who answered by fire should be acknowledged as the true God Recall that Baal was believed to be the Sun-god and Lord of the elements and forces of nature. As the storm god, Baal was depicted with lightning bolts in his hand and writings refer to his flashing forth with fire or lightning. In one text fire was even used by Baal as a means of constructing his house. To the worshippers of Baal, he was the lord of fire. Baal was the Greek equivalent of Apollo, or the sun, with reference more to the fire and searing heat, than of the light. Fire would be just fine with the prophets of Baal, for it fit their god – he only to work in his own element. As an aside, the English term “bonfire” likely was derived from the Saxon word “Bael-fyr” which is related to Baal and fire, further underscoring the beliefs surrounding Baal.

Why the god who answers with fire? What the people and the land needed was rain, not more heat. Why not the god who answers with rain? In most, if not all, of the early religions, burnt offerings of this sort typically accompanied a petition. Either a burnt offering was made and the petition voiced, or a petition was requested with the promise of a burnt offering if the desired outcome was granted. In this case the petition on everyone's mind was for the drought to end. If both parties had been praying all along for the drought to end, the resulting rain could be attributed by either group to its own god. As a result, the contest was set up to demonstrate which deity was clearly and solely responding to the petition of his follower(s). If fire is sent, the petition has been granted, and the rain that follows can be attributed to the correct deity. It is therefore important to recognize the close connection between the sending of the fire and the sending of the rain. We must remember that all through the triennium prayers and sacrifices had, no doubt, been constantly offered with a view to procure rain. According to Menander, as written by Josephus (8:13, 2), even in Phoenicia supplication had been made for rain by Ethbaal, the king, Jezebel’s father, and the high priest of Astarte, Baal’s consort.

While Elijah had clearly prophesied there would be no rain or dew, was that a direct result of Yahweh’s intervention in Israel, or Baal’s anger at his sabotage of the spread of Baalism over all of Israel? Baal was the god of the storms and his blessing to the peoples was the rain and dew. Yahweh likewise made that claim, but He wasn’t specifically known as a storm god. Was there a drought because of Elijah’s intervention on Yahweh’s behalf, or because of his interference of Baal’s plans? This contest would settle the matter conclusively.

Furthermore, the drought was a Divine judgment upon the idolatrous country and God's wrath must be appeased before His judgment could be averted. The land needed water, but rain was not the sign, though it would seem to be the logical sign at this moment of who was God. Instead, fire was the sign. Why? Because fire spoke of judgment, and judgment must first come before blessing. Though circumstances did call for rain, they first called for judgment upon Israel's sin. Before God's blessings come upon mankind, the principle is that judgment must fall upon the sin of man. So there is great wisdom on many fronts in having fire, the symbol of judgment, be the test in this contest instead of rain.

Finally, we see the continued and purposeful intent to prove Yahweh’s superiority in every area of Baal's domain and strength, even in his homeland and in his core attribute. That being said, let us not forget that Yahweh sending fire from heaven was not without precedent. In the sacrifices of Moses, David and Solomon, Yahweh responded with fire from heaven (Lev 9:24; 1 Chr 21:26, 2 Chr 7:1).

The people finally took a stand. They endorsed the plan unanimously. Literally in the Hebrew, “Good the word.” Elijah’s proposal would provide undeniable proof that Yahweh or Baal was the one true Elohîm. Let Him therefore be accounted and acknowledged as the true God, and let Him be followed and worshipped as such. The people would serve as jury in the case between Yahweh and Baal.

healed and made whole

Matt 9:20-22; Mark 5:24-34; Luke 8:43-48

Our story begins with Jesus, His disciples, and a very large crowd rushing to the house of Jairus, a very important man, the ruler of the synagogue. Jairus had come to Jesus with an urgent need. His daughter was extremely sick and on the verge of dying. Try to place yourself into the scene as Jesus agrees to accompany him, and everyone rushes to get to his house before his daughter dies.

Mark 5:24 “So Jesus went with him, and a large crowd was following and pressing against Him.” (HCSB)

The term Mark uses to describe the crowd is synthlibō (soon-THLI'-bo): “to press together on all sides.” This was the word used in pressing grapes, when all the juice was squeezed out of them. Luke also uses graphic terms to describe the crowd:

Luke 8:42b “While He was going, the crowds were nearly crushing Him.” (HCSB)

Luke’s term here is sympnigō (soom-PNEE-go): “to strangle, choke, suffocate.” This is the same verb used to describe how the thorns choked the word in the parable of the sower (Luke 8:14). Later in verse 45 he uses synechō (soon-EKH-o): “to compress, siege, constrain.” This word was used of holding prisoners in jail or of being locked in a siege.

Furthermore, keep in mind that the crowd wasn’t rushing down a nicely paved, smooth wide path. The trail was likely rocky and uneven, and considering the vast crowds Jesus attracted, people were jostling and bumping into each other. Picture the end of a ball game or a sold-out concert, when everyone leaves at the same time. Now imagine everyone rushing to leave. Even if you’re paying attention and careful where you step, it’s not uncommon to bump into each other even on a smooth corridor, let alone a rocky and uneven trail. Keep picturing that scene, as we continue on in this story.

Matt 9:20a “A woman who had been bleeding for twelve years came up behind Jesus.” (CEV)

In the midst of this suffocating crowd, an unnamed woman makes her appearance, trying to be as inconspicuous as she can. Matthew uses a rare verb, found only this one time in the Bible, haimorroeō (high-more-REH-o), which means “to flow blood.” This is the term from which the English word “hemorrhage” is derived. Her condition is amplified in the original Greek text, which literally reads, “a woman hemorrhaging twelve years.” Written in the present active (tense and voice), she had been bleeding in a continuous manner for twelve straight years. The pitiful nature of her plight is expanded upon by Mark:

Mark 5:26 “And had suffered many things from many physicians. She had spent all that she had and was no better, but rather grew worse.” (NKJV)

The Greek term here for “suffered” is paschō (PAS-kho), which refers to enduring both physical and emotional trauma. Mark later in verse 29 uses another graphic expression to further describe her condition, using the term mastix (MAH-stix), which literally means “whip.” This word refers to the Roman cat-o-nine whip, used to scourge the worst of criminals. It became figuratively used of a plague or affliction so severe as to combine physical suffering and shame, hence something akin to punishment.

In her desperate desire to be healed of this scourge, she had undergone many forms and types of treatments at the hands of many doctors, enduring a steady cycle of physical and emotional trauma. All to no avail. Instead of getting better, her condition had only gotten worse. She had spent all she had, financially, emotionally, mentally and physically, and in the words of Luke, the physician:

Luke 8:43b “[she] could not be healed by anyone.” (NASB)

The term Luke uses here is therapeuō (ther-ah-PYOO-o), meaning “restore to health,” and it is the root for the English word “therapy” or “therapeutic.”

This woeful woman was financially bankrupt, her condition had deteriorated, and she had suffered tremendous emotional and mental anguish in her desperate attempts to find healing. We can only imagine the agony and despair that sapped her strength day after day. Her pitiful situation from our view today would be pretty grim indeed, but if we consider her circumstances from the perspective of her culture, it is unimaginable how she survived as long as she did.

The world in which she lived was a very male-dominated society, with women often regarded as mere possessions and inferior not only to the men, but also to the children they bore to their husbands. The regulation of a woman's life was considered so important that the Mishnah, one of the two parts (the other being Gemara) comprising the Jewish Talmud, the codification of oral laws and traditions, devotes one of its six orders, or major divisions, Nashim, for the many laws governing women. As if to illustrate this striking contrast in societal value, note how we are given Jairus’ name, a wealthy, religious leader, a man; vs. this lowly woman, who is anonymous.

Further underscoring the plight of this penniless, inferior woman, her physical affliction was compounded by significant social implications. Her physical ailment was likely a uterine hemorrhage, possibly caused by a tumor or other disease of the uterus. This was a condition that was not altogether uncommon in those days, though the extreme length of time she had been suffering from this malady only highlights the hopelessness of her situation. The Torah, or Mosaic Law, specified that a woman who suffered from such “a discharge of her blood many days…is unclean.” After seven days without any bleeding a woman was considered ceremonially clean and could then offer the prescribed sacrifices. However, if she had a protracted gynecological problem, as this woman does, she remained unclean throughout its entire duration. Anyone who came into direct or indirect contact with her would likewise be considered unclean, which included touching, sitting or lying on anything she had been in contact with (Lev 15:19-27).

This concept of being unclean is quite lost on our modern, Western way of thinking. To us, this may not seem to be anything particularly significant. In her culture, it meant nearly everything. This woman had no cessation of bleeding for twelve years and was therefore perpetually in a state of ceremonial uncleanness, a far greater and heavier matter than her physical suffering. The stigma and humiliation of such a hemorrhage were perhaps second only to those of leprosy. Her bleeding condition made her religiously and socially an outcast – she was an untouchable, unable to participate in the religious or social life of her community and the nation. Being ritually unclean would have precluded her ability to live normally with others, as they would have continually run the risk of becoming unclean themselves. Her condition caused her to be excluded from the synagogue and the Temple, because she would contaminate anyone and everything she touched, and render them unable to participate in worship. Later Jewish traditions made this condition even more serious than the Mosaic Law specified, so many teachers and religious leaders avoided circumstances in which they could come in contact with a woman, even to the extent of crossing the road to avoid a woman, lest they become accidentally contaminated.

The significance of her condition in the Jewish culture is highlighted by the Mishnah, in which an entire tractate in the sixth order, Tohoroth, which deals with laws of purity, is devoted to this hapless woman’s circumstances (Zavim), including providing some of the “remedies” for staunching the flow of blood, or “flux.” Keep in mind the medical art of that age was crude at best. The Talmud prescribed eleven different cures for this malady. Among the remedies, most of them superstitious, was that of carrying the ashes of an ostrich egg in a linen bag in the summer and in a cotton bag in the winter. Another involved carrying around a barleycorn kernel that had been found in the dung of a white female donkey. Other remedies prescribed:

“Take of the gum of Alexandria the weight of a zuzee (a fractional silver coin);
of alum the same; of crocus the same. Let them be bruised together, and given in
wine to the woman that has an issue of blood. If this does not benefit, take of
Persian onions three logs (pints); boil them in wine, and give her to drink, and
say, ‘Arise from thy flux.’ If this does not cure her, set her in a place where
two ways meet, and let her hold a cup of wine in her right hand, and let some
one come behind and frighten her, and say, ‘Arise from thy flux.’ But if that do
no good, take a handful of cummin (a kind of fennel), a handful of crocus, and a
handful of fenugreek (another kind of fennel). Let these be boiled in wine and
give them her to drink, and say, ‘Arise from thy flux!’ ” If these do no good,
other doses, over ten in number, are prescribed, among them this: “Let them dig
seven ditches, in which let them burn some cuttings of vines, not yet four years
old. Let her take in her hand a cup of wine, and let them lead her away from
this ditch, and make her sit down over that. And let them remove her from that,
and make her sit down over another, saying to her at each remove, ‘Arise from
thy flux!’” (Quoted from Lightfoot by Geikie, “Life and Words of Christ”)

Can you see why Mark would say she “had suffered many things from many physicians?”

As if all this were not enough, it was believed that personal tragedy and suffering was brought upon oneself due to their sins. Recall the remonstrations from Job’s friends – surely he must have sinned greatly to have suffered so terribly. Consider the disciples’ question to Jesus when they encountered the blind man: “Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?” (John 9:2). How greatly must this woman have sinned, that she should suffer and be unclean for over a decade?

So in other words, she was physically, emotionally, economically, spiritually and socially bankrupt. She could not touch or be touched, was probably now divorced or had never married, was separated from any friends or family, and was marginal to Jewish society. Scripture and tradition are silent on the source of this woman’s livelihood. Perhaps she lived off an inheritance, or perhaps she was divorced and her dowry had been returned to her. Whatever her means of support had been, it was now gone. She had nothing left.

After twelve years as an outcast and untouchable woman, what would have been left of her self-esteem, self-image and self-worth? She was defiled, destitute, discouraged, and desolate. What possible hope was there left for her? She had nowhere to go, no one to turn to, until:

Mark 5:27a “When the woman heard about Jesus” (NCV)

How did she hear about Jesus? Who had shown enough compassion for this outcast woman that they had reached out to her with the Good News of Jesus?

Rom 10:14 “But how can people call for help if they don't know who to trust? And how can they know who to trust if they haven't heard of the One who can be trusted? And how can they hear if nobody tells them?” (MSG)

What had she heard? Undoubtedly she had heard of all the miraculous healings He had performed, and how He reached out to the sick, the sinners and even the unclean, like her. Finally – a glimmer of hope!

Matt 9:20b-21 “[she] came behind Him and touched the tassel of His cloak” (WNT) “For she kept saying to herself, ‘If I only touch His garment, I shall be restored to health’.” (AMP)

Notice how she approached Jesus from behind, not wanting to draw any attention to herself and her desperate plan. Yet recall the “crush” of the crowd. How much pushing, shoving and elbowing did it take for her to reach Jesus? She should not have been anywhere near even the fringe of the people, let alone in the midst of this heavy crowd. How long would it have taken this untouchable woman to reach Him, and how many people, especially men, had she contaminated in the process? If any of the men had even an inkling of how terribly contaminated she was causing them to be, she very well could have been stoned to death for her scandalous actions.

The phrase “she kept saying to herself” is in the active voice and conveys the idea of repetition. She was saying over and over to herself, “If I only touch His garment, I will be healed.” “If I only touch His garment, I will be healed.” It’s like she was keeping up this mental repetition as if to drown out the thunderous, heart-pounding fear within her, as she was carrying out this horrifically scandalous act, one that could potentially mean death for her, if she was found out.

However, her desperation mixed with her faith in Jesus’ healing power gave her the resolve to overcome her fear, and to continue pushing through the throng until at last she was able to reach out and touch the fringe of His outer robe. Jewish men wore tassels of blue, twisted cords on the corners of their outer garments, as a reminder that they were to obey God's commandments (Num 15:37-40; Deut 22:12). The woman’s determination to touch Jesus’ clothing reflects the ancient idea that the power of a person extended to one’s clothing (Mark 6:56; Acts 19:11–12) or even one’s shadow (Acts 5:15).

Mark 5:29 “And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of her plague.” (ASV)

This key word “straightway” is the Greek euthys (yoo-THUSS), meaning “straight” in the sense of “free from obstacles,” and is very characteristic of Mark. While this word occurs 54 times in the New Testament, 42 of those occasions are found in Mark’s gospel. The significance of this term suggests not so much the speed of action, as would be connoted by “immediately,” the most common rendering of this term in modern translations, but rather, the sureness and inevitability of God’s sovereign plan, which may or may not be manifested instantly. In the three Synoptic Gospels this term is used in referring to the preparation of a straight path for the coming of the Messiah (Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4, 5), as foretold by Malachi (3:1) and Isaiah (40:3).

Here we see that Jesus, the Great Physician, in an instant heals an affliction that no one else had been able to heal for 12 years. Not only was her flow of blood (the symptom) stanched immediately, but the root cause of the hemorrhage was completed cured, insomuch that by her bodily sensations she immediately knew herself to be perfectly healed. The Greek term for “healed” here is iaomai (ee-AH-oh-my).

Mark’s use of tenses is significant. In the English language we have past, present and future tense. In the Greek the tenses are considerably different. The verbs translated “dried up” (“stopped”) and “felt” are in the aorist tense, which reflects a completed action. The verb translated “was healed” is in the perfect tense, which depicts the lasting effects of the completed action. In other words, this was no temporary healing – she was healed of this plague, once and for all, at the instant moment of her touch.

One can only imagine the pain and emotional agony that had sapped this woman’s strength, energy and hope day after day. She came to Jesus for physical healing, acting in desperate faith, and in the instant she touched the tassel on His robe, she was healed. How to even attempt to capture the joy and emotional release she would have felt at that moment? Her heart soaring and full of gratitude to God for this miraculous healing, she starts to slip away unnoticed into the heavy crowd.

As she turns away, the full-chorus singing and rejoicing within her came to a screeching halt, when Jesus spoke. Her grateful and soaring heart instantly plunged to the pit of her stomach and pounded with fear as Jesus stops her dead in her tracks, when He asks a simple question.

Mark 5:30 “At once Jesus realized in Himself that power had gone out from Him. He turned around in the crowd and said, ‘Who touched My robes’?” (HCSB)

Not only had something happened to the woman when she touched Jesus’ clothes, He immediately knew within Himself that healing power, some of His inherent essence, had gone forth out of Him. Fully God as He was fully human, Jesus wasn’t asking His question out of ignorance. This would be similar to God asking Adam and Eve, “Where are you?” when they were trying to hide from Him in the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:8-10). Just as God knew where they were, here Jesus knows the answer as well. Power did not leave Him without His knowledge and will. The touch of the tassel had no magical effect. It was He who had healed, not His garment.

Luke 8:45 “While everyone was denying it, Peter said, ‘Master, people are crowding all around and pushing You from every side’.” (CEV)

Mark 5:31 “His disciples said to Him, ‘You see the crowd pressing against You, and You say, ‘Who touched Me’?’” (HCSB)

How absurd Jesus’ question, “who touched My cloak?” (His outer garment), would have seemed to His disciples, in view of the crush of the crowd all about Him. They’re so utterly amazed by this ridiculous question, when Jesus should have been focused on the urgent matter of Jairus’ daughter, that they lose all composure and in front of the entire crowd, respond with unmitigated sarcasm. Their sarcastic implication is, “Are you crazy? Don’t ask ‘Who touched My cloak?’ You should ask instead, ‘Who hasn’t touched Me’?” Clearly this was an unnecessary delay in getting to where the real emergency was, and didn’t He realize who Jairus was and therefore how important his daughter was?

Luke 8:46 “But Jesus said, ‘Someone deliberately touched Me, for I felt healing power go out from Me’.” (NLT)

Mark 5:32 “[And] Jesus continued looking around to see who had touched Him.” (NCV)

Can you hear the Jeopardy theme playing here as Jesus and the bewildered disciples looked around the crowd? As absurd as His question seemed to the disciples, Jesus obviously was not going to simply let the matter go. How frantic would Jairus and his friends be at this moment? They did not have a moment to spare! Did Jesus not understand that every second of delay was a matter of life-and-death for Jairus’ daughter? Yet He’s simply standing in the middle of a suffocating crowd, asking “Who touched My cloak?” while the annoying Jeopardy theme keeps going. Would any man dare to step forward at this point? Who would want to claim credit for delaying this rush to save Jairus’ daughter? But Jesus continued looking around…

The expression “kept looking” is in the imperfect tense, placing emphasis on the intensity and persistence of His search. He “was looking penetratingly” and persistently in His search for the culprit. The multitude “thronged and pressed Him.” They had likely jostled against Him, but all involuntarily. This woman’s touch was different from the crowd’s. Only one person out of the masses had touched Him purposely in faith for healing. This emphasized Jesus’ divine ability and compassion to distinguish the touch of one who in faith and desperation reached out to Him for deliverance, from the inadvertent touch of those crowding against Him. There was, and still is, a great difference between the two.

Throughout His earthly ministry thousands of people came in contact with Jesus, but how many of them intentionally reached out to touch Him? Throughout the history of the church, countless others have also come in contact with Jesus, and many attend church today and walk through the motions of being His followers in this “Christian nation.” Yet how many truly are indeed followers of Jesus, and how many in our churches today are truly seeking a relationship with Him? Some go to a physical church each Sunday morning and consider it a religious experience or perhaps a good thing that they’re supposed to do, without ever having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Others go to Church purposefully to worship Him and to further their personal relationship with Him. That’s what being a Christian, a Christ-follower, was always intended to be. Christianity is not a religion, it’s a relationship. As with this woman, He still knows the difference between the person who approaches Him out of mere religious curiosity or duty, and the one who comes to Him in desperation and genuine faith.

Luke 8:47 “When the woman saw that she had not escaped notice, she came trembling and fell down before Him, and declared in the presence of all the people the reason why she had touched Him, and how she had been immediately healed.” (NASB)

This unclean, hapless woman had planned to slip away and get lost in the crowd. Now terrified and trembling, the only one in the entire throng who understood Jesus’ question, in the frightening presence of the entire multitude, she came and fell at Jesus’ feet, and told Him everything, not daring to look into His face. There could have been no greater sense of shame, humiliation and fear than what she was going through at that very moment. She understandably would have feared the dire consequences of defiling a holy man by touching Him in her unclean state, let alone all the men in that crowd she had pushed and shoved. Would He in His anger remove the blessing of His healing, would the men stone her to death?

Why did Jesus do this? Why did He make her go through this fear and very public confession and humiliation? Hadn’t this poor woman suffered enough? This seems so absolutely cruel! Why did He not simply permit her to remain anonymous and go her way with the healing she had so desperately sought?

Mark 5:34 “And He said to her, ‘Daughter, thy faith hath saved thee; go away in peace, and be whole from thy plague’.” (YLT)

To her wonder and immense relief, her fear and trembling was not met with reproach or censure, but with tender compassion. When this untouchable woman reached out in faith, she found Jesus was touchable and compassionate. While she sought physical healing, He had so much more in store for her.

First of all, everyone who knew this woman also knew of her unclean condition. If everyone knew that Jesus had very publicly healed her and therefore had made her clean again, it would be far easier for her to assimilate back into her community and spiritual life, than if she had just slipped off unnoticed. Who otherwise would accept the word of an outcast woman that she was healed and clean, after such a long history of medical futility? His public acceptance of her would have helped to overcome the extreme social ostracism she had been living under, just as His power overcame her disease.

More importantly, Jesus wanted to be to her something far more than a healer. He wanted to establish a personal relationship. He wanted her to look full into His face. In the culture of that time, you did not dare to look openly and fully into the face of someone who was so far above you, unless they condescended to give you that permission. If a ruler felt so inclined to grant a bowing subject, just as the woman is at Jesus’ feet, the opportunity to look him in the face, he would “lift up his head,” a sign of great honor. This is what was pictured when David wrote, “But you are a shield around me, O LORD; you bestow glory on me and lift up my head” (Psa 3:3).

In looking into the eyes of Jesus, she would have seen and felt His love and tenderness towards her. Had she stolen away in the crowd as she had planned, she would not have met Jesus personally nor have heard His words of assurance and comfort. His purpose was not to rebuke her but to make personal contact with her. By the time He finished speaking to her, she experienced something far more than physical healing.

Jesus addressed her by the affectionate term “daughter” – the only occurrence in the entire Gospels of Jesus addressing a woman by that term. Consider how He had addressed even Mary, His mother, so formally at the marriage feast in Cana of Galilee, when He performed His first miracle:

John 2:4 “Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come’.” (NKJV)

How long had it been since this woman had heard such an embracing and loving word and voice? Can you understand or imagine what this reassurance and acceptance would have meant to this untouchable outcast? Why did He call her “My daughter?” Why such a term for this particular woman? Who was He on His way to heal? Jairus’ daughter. The disciples and the crowd were completely focused on Jairus’ daughter. The interruption by this unclean woman was an unnecessary and unwelcomed delay in reaching his daughter. However, the Creator of the universe reaches down and stops the crowd and the urgent to connect with a woman who they saw as simply an irritating interruption and delay. Jesus wanted all of them to know that this poor woman was His daughter – just as important to Him as Jairus’ daughter was to Jairus.

It didn’t end there. Jesus explains it was not simply her touching of His garment that healed her, for others in the crowd came into contact with Jesus as well; it was the faith that caused her to touch Jesus that brought healing. Yes, her cure had been the result of the mighty power inherent in Jesus, but it only came to her because of her faith, not because of magic in a touch.

Moreover, look carefully at the term used here for “healed,” as translated by the NIV and several other versions: “your faith has healed you.” Unlike the previous usage of therapeuō and iaomai, which clearly refer to a physical healing, here “healed you” is literally saved you. Jesus said to her, “you are a saved woman” (Bruce). While physical healing is certainly prominent in this story, the term used here is sōzō (SODE-zoh), the most common verb in the New Testament meaning “save, deliver, make whole.” The term occurs around 110 times in a variety of contexts, although the most common of these refers to being saved, or delivered, from the penalty of sin and death. Recall the message of the angel to Joseph when he said of the child that was conceived in Mary, “He will save His people from their sins” (Matt 1:21). While sōzō certainly can be used of physical healing from sickness and disease, it is used with a spiritual meaning when connected with faith. So this moment was not only of physical healing, but a fuller and more wonderful salvation as well.

And it still didn’t end there. He further pronounced the peace of God upon her. The biblical concept of peace does not refer to the absence of war and other kinds of trouble. To the contrary, it is something that can exist even in the midst of conflict. It is a status of wholeness, completeness and well-being because of a right relationship with God. When was the last time this woman had experienced true internal peace?

Look how Jesus concludes His blessing upon her: “be whole.” She was more than just physically healed. Jesus had made her whole. He had healed her physically, emotionally, socially and spiritually. This outcast woman had been healed and made whole, the daughter of the King. Only Jesus can do that – and He still does that today.

Yet recall that for this woman to have had this moment of connection with Jesus, someone first had compassion on her and reached out to her. Do you have such compassion? Do you notice the untouchables and outcasts in the world around you and around the globe? Do you see the ones who are desperately reaching out for help? Will you take a moment to stop the maddening rush of the crowds and the urgent, to notice and reach out with Christ’s love?

Matt 25:40 “And the King will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of My family, you did it to Me’.” (NRSV)

As an aside, according to later tradition, likely influenced by legends, the woman’s name may have been Bernice (Acts of Pilate, 7) or Veronica. Eusebius refers to a bronze statue of Veronica in Caesarea Phillipi (Paneas), where she was alleged to have lived. At the entrance of the house, on a stone pedestal, stood two brazen statues – one represented a woman kneeling; the other, a man with his cloak over his shoulder and his hand stretched out toward the kneeling woman (Hist. Eccl. vii. 18). If indeed true, the story of this woman is greatly enhanced, for a bronze statue of such an event would only be conceivable in a Gentile setting. This would mean that the woman was a Gentile, making this story even more shocking. In the Hebrew mindset, the only thing lower than an unclean woman, would have been an unclean Gentile woman. In the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus, the name of the woman is Veronica, and it was she, who, on the Via Dolorosa, when the Lord, on His way to Calvary, stumbled and fell under the weight of the cross He was carrying, gave Him a handkerchief to wipe His face.

fear vs. confidence (1 Kgs 18:1-16)

18:1 “After a long time, the word of the Lord came to Elijah in the third year: ‘Go and present yourself to Ahab. I will send rain on the surface of the land’.” (HCSB)

A long time after the widow’s son had been raised from the dead, the Lord directs Elijah to the next step in his ministry. Consider how much Elijah’s faith and character must have been strengthened during his quiet and peaceful stay with the widow and her son. Off in this seemingly insignificant corner, far away from the center stage and where all the action was, his faith was being sharpened as he learned to rely daily on the provisions of the Lord. As he shared the simple blessings of food and shelter with this humble widow and her son, what must he have learned from them?

Consider also how much these few years would have impacted the widow and her son as well. When Elijah first met the widow, she was out gathering sticks to make a fire for their last meal, with no one to support and provide for her. Now she had experienced several years of grace and mercy at the hand of God, the capstone being the raising of her only son from the dead. How immeasurably distant was their parting, from where they met!

We see in this verse that the Lord spoke to Elijah “in the third year.” In the third year of what? Does this mean that he lived with the widow and her son for three years, the last significant milestone during his absence from Israel, or does this refer all the way back to his initial appearance before Ahab, meaning in the third year of the drought? This has been the subject of much debate, as the New Testament clearly indicates that the full duration of the drought was 3 ½ years:

Luke 4:25 “But I say to you, there were certainly many widows in Israel in Elijah’s days, when the sky was shut up for three years and six months while a great famine came over all the land.”

James 5:17 “Elijah was a man of like passions with us, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain; and it rained not on the earth for three years and six months.” (ASV)

How to reconcile the 3 ½ years in the New Testament with this “in the third year?” There are two primary schools of thought:

1) Elijah’s drought was three years. The rains in Palestine typically fall twice a year – the early rains in March, and the latter rains in October. The heavy, at times nearly fog-like dew helped to keep some vegetation alive during the hot months between the rains. So the first theory is that the three years in this verse is reconciled with the 3 ½ years in the New Testament by starting Elijah’s drought with the latter rains. The early rains in March must have happened, and sometime soon before the latter rains in October were to happen, Elijah appears on the scene and proclaims there would be no rain or dew for some years. Note that the New Testament references only speak of the rains, with no mention of the withholding of the dew. When the latter rains failed to materialize, this was the first indication that his prophesy was holding true, validated by the subsequent rains failing to appear as well. Then if you take into account that by the time Elijah’s prophesy went into effect, there had already been six months with no rain, therefore the full duration of time the land of Israel was without rain was 3 ½ years. This would mean that Elijah likely spent roughly six months at the Wadi Cherith, and approximately 2 ½ years with the widow and her son, and therefore the statement “in the third year” reflects all the way back to the date of Elijah’s pronouncement of the drought during his initial appearance before Ahab.

2) Elijah’s drought was 3 ½ years. In this school of thought, “in the third year” must be reflective of the duration of his stay with the widow and her son, the most recent episode in his narrative, as there is nothing in the text to indicate winding the clock all the way back to Ahab. Accordingly, given Elijah’s prophesy was both that there would be no rain and that there would be no dew, he must have appeared before Ahab shortly after the early rains in March. The dews following the early rains never appeared to satiate the thirsty land, and after six months of hot, dry weather, the drought took an even firmer hold when the latter rains failed to fall from the heavens onto the parched and barren land. This then would allow for him to have been at Cherith for roughly six months, and with the widow and her son for the three years mentioned in verse one.

Interesting as these debates may be and perhaps greatly stimulating intellectually, either one or both would seem to have sufficient merit to reconcile the two time periods, and given God’s Word cannot contradict itself, clearly the numbers must tie out. However, rather than debating this matter, there is a far greater value in spending the time looking more closely at the reference in James to this account.

To the Hebrews, the miracle of securing rain eventually came to be viewed as equivalent to raising the dead, two of the keys of power possessed by God. Given Elijah wielded these powers, it has been believed that his piety clearly has set him apart from other humans. However, to ensure no one would elevate him beyond the true identify of who he was, James affirms that Elijah, the greatest model for such miracle workers, was a person like James’ readers and is a model for all believers. James writes that “Elijah was a man of like passions with us.” Elijah was no superman. He was no demigod. He was a human, possessing the same elemental strengths and weaknesses as do all of us, a man of “like passions.” The Greek here is homoiopathēs (ha-ma-yo-poth-ACE), meaning “like or similarly afflicted,” that he was capable of suffering the same things, or being affected in the same manner as any of us. In other words, he was a just a mortal man, subject to the same weaknesses and limitations as any other human being. As an aside, this Greek term is where we derive our modern term, homeopathic.

Having clearly acknowledged Elijah’s humanness, James quickly points to why and how Elijah showed such superhuman powers: “and he prayed fervently.” Take a look at how this looks in the Greek – proseuchē prosēyxato (pross-yoo-KHAY pross-YOU'-khoh-my) – literally reading, “prayer with prayer.” This was a Hebrew way of expressing he “prayed intensely.” In today’s vernacular we might say, “He didn’t just pray, he PRAYED!” The emphasis being on the intense faith that drove such impassioned prayers, faith in the One for whom nothing is impossible. That is why such phenomenal works were accomplished in and through Elijah – not because of him, but because of the One in whom he trusted. Elijah was a human. We are humans. His God is our God. God hasn’t changed, He’s still the God of the impossible. So where’s the disconnect? Why don’t we see today what we see here in Elijah? An intense faith that drives “prayer with prayer,” fervent prayer.

Having now spent three pages on just the first half of verse one, let’s move on to the second half of verse one: “Go and present yourself to Ahab. I will send rain on the surface of the land.”

What seems to be missing here? Elijah couldn’t simply present himself to Ahab and say the drought was over. What would that prove? That Ahab had won. He had successful held out during an intensely rough time, and won out over Yahweh. For these Baal worshippers, the drought and famine would have been a visible manifestation that Baal was absent or dead for a longer than usual time period, but if the rains suddenly came back, that would only prove he was alive and vibrant again, ready to bless his followers once more. They could then simply continue on their merry, idolatrous ways.

Throughout the entire Bible, there is a very consistent theme of God sending judgment and punishment onto Israel for their turning away from Him to worship idols. In each instance, what was the singular factor that led to His withholding His anger and restoring His blessings? Repentance. Yet God clearly says here, “I will send rain” – not Baal. The Lord declares the drought and famine to be over, but just as clearly this is not a capitulation or surrender on His part. If He’s going to restore His blessings, that could only mean that the people will finally repent of their idolatrous ways and return to Him. His will never fails to be accomplished.

Yet what could possibly happen to dent the stubbornness and lack of repentance, that 3 ½ years of drought and famine thus far had seemed to only stiffen? If 3 ½ years of drought and famine didn’t shake these people out of their spiritual stupor, what could? Something remarkable and earth-shattering would be needed to jolt these stiff-necked people to turn from their sinful ways, for the Lord to renew His blessing of rain and dew onto the land. The 3 ½ years of drought and famine were not the shock and awe to clear the Baal-webs out of their minds, eyes and hearts, they were nothing more than simply setting the stage for an unequivocal wake-up call. For the Lord to say “I will send rain,” clearly something big was imminent, and clearly the strangle-hold of Baal was about to be shattered.

18:2 “So Elijah went to show himself to Ahab. Now the famine was severe in Samaria.”

Elijah continues to follow the directions of the Lord. He had seen and experienced first-hand the value and blessings of obedience, even when the directions didn’t appear to make any sense. Consider how going to Ahab this second time would be much harder to do than the first time. “If much boldness had been required when he was called upon to announce the awful drought, what intrepidation was needed for him to now face the one who sought him with merciless rage?” (Pink). However, increased difficulty does not diminish one iota the responsibility to obey, and Elijah, having the utmost confidence in his Lord, obeyed promptly. “The Lord said, ‘Go,’ and Elijah went! Not, Elijah objected; Elijah reasoned; Elijah pointed out the difficulties; but simply Elijah went” (Joseph Parker).

Note the emphasis on the severity of the famine in Samaria. Elijah had first appeared before Ahab in this proud and opulent capital city of Israel. Ahab and Jezebel had turned this cosmopolitan and wealthy city into the center of Baal worship. This proud and idolatrous capital was dealt a severe blow during these years of drought and famine, in mockery of the god who was believed to control the rains. The effect of 3 ½ years of drought on the already dry and arid land would be to reduce the entire people to the verge of starvation. The severity of the famine was likely mitigated, as before (Gen 41:57), by the importation of corn from Egypt and other surrounding countries that were not so terribly impacted by the extended drought, otherwise the Israelites would not have survived.

18:3-4 “Ahab called for Obadiah, who was in charge of the palace. Obadiah was a man who greatly feared the Lord and took 100 prophets and hid them, 50 men to a cave, and provided them with food and water when Jezebel slaughtered the Lord’s prophets.” (HCSB)

For the first and only time in the Bible, we meet one of Ahab’s most senior officials, a man who as been highly praised as well as roundly condemned by scholars and preachers. Obadiah, a common Hebrew name meaning “Yahweh's servant” [equivalent to the modern Arabic name Abdullah], was in charge of the palace, the governor or royal chamberlain of the palace, one of the highest offices in the administration. Though this post later becomes the equivalent of prime minister, at this stage it most likely designates stewardship of royal lands and possessions, the king's personal representative and the bearer of the royal seal. It’s been postulated that Obadiah was “probably the second man in the kingdom” (Maclaren) or the “third ruler in the kingdom” (J. Hammond). Clearly this was an important individual to hold such a high position, and one who would have been very trusted by Ahab. While this Obadiah has been identified in Jewish tradition as being the minor prophet of the same name, such an identification is unlikely, the Obadiah here is quite clearly identified as an important official in the northern kingdom of Israel, whereas the Book of Obadiah indicates that its author belonged to the southern kingdom of Judah.

In verse three here we see that the writer of Kings considers Obadiah to have been “a devout believer in the Lord,” and Obadiah refers to himself as having “feared the Lord from my youth” in verse 12. Though serving under the dark mantle of a wicked king and even more evil queen, Obadiah maintains an underground life of devotion to the Lord. Risking literally life and limb, he somehow hides 100 prophets of the Lord from Jezebel’s systematic slaughter and attempts to purge the land of every prophet of Yahweh. Hiding these prophets 50 in a cave, he managed to supply them with food and water, a remarkable feat in the days of drought and famine.

While other men may have been found out for routinely carrying food and water to others, his role as the governor of the palace would have put him in an area of responsibility to oversee the portioning of the foodstuffs, so he was uniquely positioned to be able to undertake this extremely risky humanitarian endeavor. It should be noted that while some translations seem to indicate he supplied just “bread and water,” this is an expression that translates better into our modern culture as “food and water.”

Undoubtedly Obadiah knew why the drought and famine was plaguing the land. He likely had been present at Elijah’s first appearance before Ahab. He certainly must have been extremely well-versed in the evils and wickedness that were a part of Ahab and Jezebel’s lives, though Ahab, when Jezebel isn’t around, appears to have been less wicked. In spite of his high position in wicked Ahab's government, verse three clearly indicates he “was a man who greatly feared the Lord.” This paradox has led to his being an enigma for scholars and researchers: “Obadiah stands in Scripture as one of the most baffling and bewildering of all characters” (Phillip Keller). “It is startling to find such a man as Obadiah occupying so influential a position at Ahab's court” (F. B. Meyer). “There are few things in these books of Scripture more surprising and suggestive than the position of Obadiah in the palace of Ahab” (J. Hammond).

While one author credits Ahab: it “tells in favour of the monarch’s tolerance that he should have maintained an adherent of the old religion in so important an office” (Rawlinson), others laud Obadiah, claiming the expression “greatly feared the Lord” is one of the highest tributes which can be paid a man in the Bible. Obadiah supporters point out how God has often given His people favor in the eyes of heathen masters (as Joseph and Daniel), and He has placed His people in the midst of the most unpromising environments, as with Esther and the saints in “Caesar's household” (Phil 4:22).

However, many are not so impressed. Ahab and Jezebel were very, very wicked people. Obadiah's job called for him to work with them and keep company with them. To be in their presence in good graces and especially to be acceptably employed by them in a high, vital position would create some definite character problems. For one thing Obadiah would have to muffle his witness. He “could only have continued in this position by keeping silent as to his religious allegiance" (Leon Wood). Furthermore, he could not cry out in holy protest of their evil ways. To do so would have cost him his job and perhaps even his life. This silence, therefore, made him “an accomplice with Ahab and Jezebel in their diabolical deeds, for silence gives both consent and tacit endorsement to any action it does not oppose” (Phillip Keller). Thus Obadiah is to be strongly condemned. He had no business being so closely associated with Ahab and Jezebel. His job was one no follower of Yahweh should have touched. It would be like a believer being a close associate of the notorious gangster Al Capone. These jobs are totally incompatible to being a Christian. You cannot work these jobs without compromising your Christian beliefs.

Some may insist that Obadiah was no different than Daniel and Joseph who both also held high government posts in governments run by rulers hardly considered to be godly. But about the only similarity between these two men and Obadiah is that they were all three Jews. After that there is little, if any, similarity in their situations. Daniel and Joseph obtained their positions because of their outspoken and clear testimony for God, which was accepted by the kings who appointed them to their high office. And these kings, unlike Ahab and Jezebel, did not oppose the worship of Yahweh as ardently as Ahab and Jezebel. While in Daniel's experience, the king did indeed make a law which temporarily opposed worshipping Yahweh, but note that Daniel went to the lions' den rather than compromise his religious convictions. Obadiah did nothing of the sort! He was not a Daniel or a Joseph in character, and he did not have the employment situation Daniel and Joseph did, either. His employment by Ahab cannot be justified by Daniel's and Joseph's position in government.

According to Vance Havner, “Obadiah was out . . . looking for grass when he should have been praying for rain and calling men to repent and return to God. Sin was the trouble then as it is today, and when men turned to God the showers fell. What a waste of time then . . . trying to find a little grass when the real trouble is politely ignored!” Spurgeon mused, “I suspect that Elijah did not think very much of Obadiah. He does not treat him with any great consideration, but addresses him more sharply than one would expect from a fellow-believer.” Others hold Obadiah was a self-promoter, “His hiding the prophets seems, in his estimation, to have been such a remarkable thing that he wondered if all had not heard it” (Mackintosh).

Moving away from Obadiah debate, who were these prophets? Likely they were a part of a school of prophets that Samuel appears to have started and that continued on after his death (1 Sam 10:5; 2 Kgs 2:3-7, 6:1-2). The standard religious systems of the ancient Near East were typically polytheistic and therefore generally tolerant of the worship of any deities. To ignore a potentially powerful deity or to persecute his worshipers would make one vulnerable to divine anger and punishment. Religious intolerance or persecutions did not arise until much later in history. Purgings that may look like religious persecution in the ancient world were usually political in nature. When the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten took action against the priests of Amun-Re, it was because of their substantial political and economic influence. He was seeking to defuse their power. However, though Jezebel clearly manifests fanatic loyalty to Baal and a desire to enthrone Baal as the king and national god of Israel instead of Yahweh, the systematic butchering of the prophets by Jezebel was a concerted effort on her part to utterly eradicate the presence of the prophets, as an act of reprisal for the drought brought on by Elijah. He was making a mockery of her god. That could not be tolerated. The language in this passage would seem to indicate that the slaughtering of the prophets had taken place during his long absence.

It has been suggested that these caves were on the hillsides of Mount Carmel, as there are large caves under the western cliffs (Stanley) and reportedly over two thousand caves in total. Given the distance from Samaria to Mount Carmel, it’s unlikely Obadiah would have regularly transported food and water over that stretch, the terrain adding to the challenge. In general, Palestine is largely of limestone formation, abounding in caves, both large and small, so it’s more likely Obadiah would have picked caves that would have made for easier, undetected transport of the supplies, while still providing sufficient security from the butcher of Samaria.

18:5-6 “Ahab said to Obadiah, ‘Go throughout the land to every spring of water and to every wadi. Perhaps we’ll find grass so we can keep the horses and mules alive and not have to destroy any cattle.’ They divided the land between them in order to cover it. Ahab went one way by himself, and Obadiah went the other way by himself.” (HCSB)

The severity of the drought had taken a firm hold of the land, yet there is little trace of repentance in the king or the people. Ahab’s reaction to the drought and famine was practical, to find water, and did not reach the heart of the issue: who is sovereign over nature and life and what was the root cause of the judgment. He revealed his plans for a sweeping survey of the land to see whether there was any fodder available at all for the herds and livestock in Israel, dividing the land between the two of them to search. In all of this, water and grass were all that occupied Ahab's thoughts, that is, relief from the Divine judgment was all he considered. It was so with Pharaoh: as each fresh plague descended upon Egypt he sent for Moses and begged him to pray for its removal, and as soon as it was removed he hardened his heart and continued to defy Yahweh. “And they gnawed their tongues for pain, and blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds” (Rev 16:10,11).

Some have noted that “This personal inspection by the king and one of his chief officers marks the extreme straits to which the Israelites were now reduced” (Rawlinson), and others have expressed surprise that the king was willing to leave the safety and comfort of the palace to scour the land for food for the animals. However, unlike the many lazy and self-centered monarchs of Europe, this is not without historical precedent, as in the agricultural regions of the East it is not considered beneath a ruler or chief to go at the head of such an expedition: “None (of the emirs of Arabia or the chiefs of central Asia) think it beneath them to lead an expedition in search of grass or water” (Kitto).

Ahab’s seeming concern for only the horses, mules and cattle has been vilified as showing an abject disregard for the sufferings of his subjects, or at least relegating them to a secondary level importance. However, there was a practical aspect, though clearly spiritually blinded, to this search. To the nations of the time, horses and mules were crucial to the strength of the military, and according to the records of Shalmaneser III of Assyria (859-824 B.C.), two thousand chariots were furnished by “Ahab the Israelite” to the Syrian coalition that opposed him at Qarqar. With the loss of his military backbone, Ahab’s kingdom would have been easily overrun by an enemy nation, subjecting the people of the land to even worse conditions and treatment. Furthermore, if they didn’t find enough grass and other foliage for the horses and mules, Ahab is obviously contemplating the need to begin slaughtering the cattle, as there would not be enough fodder to go around. However, such butchering of the livestock would further deteriorate the conditions in Israel.

18:7-8 “Now as Obadiah was on the way, behold, Elijah met him, and he recognized him and fell on his face and said, ‘Is this you, Elijah my master?’ He said to him, ‘It is I. Go, say to your master, 'Behold, Elijah is here’.’”

As Obadiah follows Ahab’s instructions, he finds far more than what he was looking for – Elijah. The Lord providentially led Elijah to the road that Obadiah was using and the two men met. Obadiah recognized Elijah and in a show of extreme fear and reverence, he fell on his face on the earth and called him, “My master/lord.” Elijah’s presence would have placed Obadiah in a precarious position, as undoubtedly he would not have been traveling throughout the countryside by himself. The desperate times during that famine would not have warranted a royal office, likely garbed as such, traveling throughout the county alone. In finding Elijah, what was Obadiah to do? He’s not given much time to consider, as in characteristic fashion, Elijah is short on words and formality. Showing no deference in turn to Obadiah, he simply instructs him to go back to his “master/lord” and tell him “behold Elijah.” The final “is here” is a textual add, softening the abruptness of Elijah’s words.

Note the contrast here in this encounter. Elijah has spent the past 3 ½ years in the desert, drinking from a brook and being fed by ravens, and living in the humble abode of a poor widow, in a Gentile land. Obadiah has been living in the capital city of Israel, overseeing the abundance of the palace. Though Elijah seemingly has nothing, and Obadiah is likely the second or third-highest ranking official in the land, who does the prostrating? The humble obeisance and the terms in which Obadiah addresses Elijah show the profound reverence with which Obadiah regarded him, though he was one of the chief men of the land. Obadiah’s reaction reveals who has the true power here. While Elijah’s position and conditions had been meager and humble physically speaking, yet consider the incredible power he wielded. The whole land was, so to speak, at his mercy.

Our personal occupation and financial, economic or social status may be humble and seemingly meager, yet consider who it is that calls us His children. The Lord who “who stretched out the heavens [100 billion galaxies made up of approximately 100 billion stars each] and laid the foundations of the earth” (Isa 51:13); who “holds the waters [340 quintillion gallons – that is 1+18 zeros] in the hollow of His hand or with the breath of his hand marked off the heavens [200 sextillion miles – that is 1 + 21 zeros]... [or] held the dust of the earth in a basket...or regards the nations as dust (sextillion metric tons) on the scales” (Isa 40:12,15).

What doesn’t belong to Him? “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it” (Psa 24:1).

What is beyond Him? “I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted” (Job 42:2). “The Lord does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths” (Psa 135:6).

What are the greatest rulers or the most power people on this planet in comparison to Him? “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. He brings princes to naught and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing” (Isa 40:22-23).

If that is who we call “Lord,” then truly we are in a remarkable position, regardless of what the world may think of us. We can then say assuredly, “Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD, whose confidence is in Him.” (Jer 17:7) and “It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man” (Psa 118:8).

18:9-12 “He said, ‘What sin have I committed, that you are giving your servant into the hand of Ahab to put me to death? As the LORD your God lives, there is no nation or kingdom where my master has not sent to search for you; and when they said, 'He is not here,' he made the kingdom or nation swear that they could not find you. And now you are saying, 'Go, say to your master, ‘Behold, Elijah is here’.’ It will come about when I leave you that the Spirit of the LORD will carry you where I do not know; so when I come and tell Ahab and he cannot find you, he will kill me, although I your servant have feared the LORD from my youth.” (NASB)

In stark contrast to Elijah’s confidence and few words, Obadiah is completely discombobulated and running at the mouth. He’s obviously completely at a loss and lives in great fear of Ahab. Obadiah reveals how Ahab had searched high and low for Elijah, both within Israel and in the surrounding nations, even to the extent of extracting an oath to support their claims of “no Elijah.” Ahab must have had considerable power and authority among the neighboring nations to require and exact such an oath. Obadiah himself utters an oath to support the veracity of what he is saying. Note how his oath is identical to the oath the widow uttered, when she first met Elijah, and before her spiritual growth:

Obadiah – “As the LORD your God lives” (18:10)
Widow – “As the LORD your God lives” (17:12)

This attribution of the Lord as “your God” has also led some to question whether Obadiah was a true follower of Yahweh.

It’s easy to understand Obadiah's concern lest the king come back and not find the prophet. During the three years Ahab had been searching for Elijah, no doubt he had followed up many false leads, and should Obadiah not be able to produce Elijah, after declaring his presence, Obadiah's head would be in jeopardy. Ahab had so long and so systematically sought for Elijah, that Obadiah could only imagine the prophet had been miraculously removed from shelter to shelter, just in time to save him from being detected by the messengers of Ahab. The sudden, mysterious disappearance and the long concealment of the prophet couldn’t be explained otherwise. His words suggest that some believed that the Lord had hid Elijah, and it is not improbable that during his long absence rumors had gained credence that he had been seen and had suddenly disappeared, just as later Jews have held that he “has appeared again and again as an Arabian merchant to wise and good Rabbis at their prayers or in their journeys” (Stanley).

18:13-16 “‘Has it not been told to my master what I did when Jezebel killed the prophets of the LORD, that I hid a hundred prophets of the LORD by fifties in a cave, and provided them with bread and water? And now you are saying, 'Go, say to your master, ‘Behold, Elijah is here;’ he will then kill me.’ Elijah said, ‘As the LORD of hosts lives, before whom I stand, I will surely show myself to him today’. So Obadiah went to meet Ahab and told him; and Ahab went to meet Elijah.”

Notice how Obadiah repeats again, “Behold, Elijah” in his panic and in his shock, terrified that Elijah would vanish again before a meeting with Ahab could be arranged, and that he would be held responsible and executed. To convince Elijah that his concern was sincere, Obadiah related proof that he was a devout believer in the Lord since his youth. Obadiah appears to think Elijah would have heard about his hiding and feeding the prophets of the Lord. Perhaps this was known among many of the faithful in Israel, especially the prophets, though of course not by Jezebel or her sympathizers. In other words, he is essentially saying, “and this is to be the reward of my devotion, that you’re going to have me killed by Ahab?”

Elijah reassured him, using an oath to underline his words, that he would meet with Ahab before the day was out. In contrast to Obadiah’s oath, look at Elijah’s oath: “As the LORD of hosts lives, before whom I stand” (18:15). “Lord of hosts” (YHWH sebaot) signifies that the Lord stands as a mighty ruler at the head of a vast retinue of heavenly powers that are ready to act at His command. With such a vision of who the Lord is, Elijah has no need to fear Ahab. King Ahab may indeed have been a mighty ruler with a strong army behind him, but what is an earthly ruler when compared to Yahweh Sabaoth? Secure and supremely confident in his Lord, Elijah would stand firm and wait to speak with Ahab, just as the Lord had commanded. With this reassurance, Obadiah goes to find Ahab.

a prayer for the impossible (1 Kgs 17:17-24)

17:17 “After this, the son of the woman who owned the house became ill. His illness became very severe until no breath remained in him.” (HCSB)

These past many days of experiencing God’s faithful providing of meal and oil for the three of them were likely ones of peace and contentment, against the broader backdrop of the drought and famine in Palestine and Phoenicia. As we’ve discussed earlier, the life of a widow was typically one of privation and deprivation, so it’s quite possible these days were an oasis of quiet and security, a break from what had likely been before a constant struggle for survival. Yet during this brief and pleasant time of respite came a calamity that pierced the poor widow to the very core of her heart.

After some unspecified time during Elijah’s stay with the widow, her son became severely ill and died. Critics claim that the boy lapsed into a coma or death-like torpor but really didn’t die, but it is unmistakably clear throughout this passage that the boy indeed died. It’s impossible to miss the significance of the text, which clearly states that there was no breath, or life, left in the young lad.

neshāmâ (nesh-aw-MAW): this feminine noun occurs around twenty-five times meaning “breath, wind, spirit.” The breath of humans is recognized as the source and center of life (Job 27:3). It is also understood that such breath originates with God, and He can withhold it, thereby withholding life from humanity (Gen 2:7; Job 34:14; Isa 42:5). Therefore, people's breath was also a symbol of their weakness and frailty (Isa 2:22).

With her only child dead, gone also was her only hope for the future and reason for living. The tie between a mother and an only son is, some consider, the closest and tenderest of all blood relationships; and it has been remarked that it is peculiarly strong and sacred in the East. “The only son of his mother and she was a widow” (Luke 7:12): who does not feel the pathos of these words! From a cultural standpoint, this was a double blow, as without a husband and a son to carry on the family name, there was no other reason for her to exist. There would be no one to care for her or to give her a reason to live. Her son could have one day worked and perhaps been successful enough to pull them out of their life of poverty and want. In him she had centered all her love and hope, and now with his death, even that very glimmer of hope was gone. There was nothing left for her. Before she had been destitute, but she had her son. Now even that had been taken from her. In this moment of extreme pain and anguish we see that there was something else going on within her as well, twisting and digging the knife ever deeper and more painfully into her mother’s heart.

17:18 “And she saith unto Elijah, ‘What--to me and to thee, O man of God? Thou hast come unto me to cause mine iniquity to be remembered, and to put my son to death’!” (YLT)

The widow confronts Elijah with the Hebrew idiom mah-lli walak, meaning “What do we have to do with each other?” This was a common Semitic way to express emphatic denial or differences of opinion between the persons involved (Judg 11:12; 2 Sam 16:10; 2 Kgs 3:13; John 2:4).

As this anguished mother was clutching the body of her dead child to her bosom, her next statement reveals the deep guilt and troubled conscience that she has been carrying for some time. In her agony, she cries out of some secret sin, for which she supposes that God was punishing her by killing her son. As God had shut up heaven upon a sinful land in consequence of the prophet, she was suffering on a similar account, with her only son the victim of her sin. She concludes Elijah had been sent to punish her. At first she and her son had benefited from his presence, but perhaps if he had not come, her son would have lived (forgetting, of course, that he would have starved). Prophets were often considered dangerous and having one around posed considerable risk. The gods could be harsh taskmasters as often as they could be generous benefactors, and the prophets represented them. Additionally, if the prophet were to become angered or offended at any little thing, he might, in an uncontrolled moment, pronounce some sort of curse that would inevitably come true.

There is something inherent within us that instinctively shrinks from the presence of the Divine. Whether an Adam and Eve in the garden hiding in fear from the presence of God (Gen 3:8-10), an Isaiah pronouncing doom upon himself in front of the throne (Isa 6:1-5), or a Peter begging Jesus to leave his sinful presence (Luke 5:8), the fierce bright light of God’s holiness cuts through our facades and bravado, bringing us face-to-face with our sinful state. On a far lower scale, how often do people even feel guilty when they realize they’re talking to a pastor or other spiritual leader?

The certainty in the widow’s mind that her son’s death was caused by her sins was reinforced by the culture of that day, which believed personal tragedy and suffering was brought upon oneself due to their sins. Recall the remonstrations from Job’s friends – surely he had sinned greatly to have suffered so terribly. Consider the disciples’ question to Jesus when they encountered the blind man: “Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?” (John 9:2). Today we might phrase the question, “What have I done to deserve this?” Yet the Bible does not teach an inevitable cause-and-effect connection between sin and suffering (or between righteousness and blessing), but leaves room for suffering which is undeserved and unexplained, from the human point of view. While clearly there are consequences for sin, not all suffering comes as a result of sin. That truth is evident in Job, and what was Jesus’ response to the disciples’ question? “Jesus answered, ‘It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him’” (John 9:3)

We live in a world where nothing is stable, and where life is full of strange twists and turns. As we discussed in the previous lesson, both Elijah and the widow had been faithful in their respective roles, and had been daily partaking in the fruit of their faith. Now, seemingly in spite of their faith and obedience, they experience a severe trial in the sudden death of the widow's son. Isn’t that so consistent with the way we think and feel entitled? Isn’t there a prevailing belief that if we live right, we should be exempt from suffering? Why else do people ask, “Why do bad things happen to good people?” “People, somehow, are given to believe, either through wrong teaching or false preaching, that if they put their confidence in Christ; if they are obedient to His commands; if they act in forthright faith, all will be well for the rest of their days. They conclude somehow that they will automatically be exempted from the tragedy and turmoil of their times.” (Phillip Keller)

Yet what does the Bible teach? “Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord delivers him out of them all.” (Psalm 34:19). Yes, Virginia, there will be suffering, but we can be assured that the Lord is ever in control and will deliver us.

“Affliction is no more proof of wrath than is the farmer's plowing of his field. To him, with his eye upon the future harvest, it is only the needful preparation of the soil.” (J. Urquhart).

“Extra-ordinary afflictions are not always punishment for extra-ordinary evils but sometimes the trial of extra-ordinary graces.” (Matthew Henry).

“It often happens that God exercises His people with the heaviest trials when they have been the recipients of His richest blessings . . . Having tasted experimentally of the Lord's goodness, they are better fitted to meet adversity.” (Arthur Pink).

17:19 “He said to her, ‘Give me your son.’ Then he took him from her bosom and carried him up to the upper room where he was living, and laid him on his own bed.” (NASB)
17:20 “Then he cried out to the Lord and said, ‘My Lord God, have You also brought tragedy on the widow I am staying with by killing her son’?” (HCSB)

‏Elijah’s response and actions provide a glimpse beyond the harsh exterior, exposing the very human side of him. He was obviously deeply moved. Notice how he doesn’t try to correct the widow’s errant theology, he doesn’t berate her for getting carried away in accusing him, and he doesn’t probe to determine what salacious details the widow has been keeping locked up within her. He doesn’t blame her or fault her. This was not the time for words or lessons. His response instead was to take part with her in her misery – to come alongside her.

Elijah took the little boy from her arms into his arms and carried him outside and up into the upper room, where he had been lodging. Many homes in Palestine at that time had rooms built on their roofs, which were accessible by a staircase outside of the house. The upper room was considered “the best apartment in an Eastern house” (Rawlinson), and it was typically a large, airy room, the choice location during the cool evening breezes when the sun was setting.

Obviously Elijah was not party to some punishment on the widow for her past sins. He clearly had no idea why this tragedy had struck. He couldn't believe that the Lord would miraculously provide food for the three of them and then allow the son to die. It just didn't make sense. His deep compassion for the widow leads him to intercede for her, bewildered and angry at this tragic loss. “Have You also” – in addition to the misery and suffering the widow had faced during the famine that he had himself brought upon the land. We see hear guilt and acknowledgement on Elijah’s part now, that it was because of him the widow had suffered previously. Elijah questions if the Lord had caused the son’s death. Note this is not a question of “why did You do this.” The why of God’s actions are not to be challenged by man. It is not for us to call into question His ways, which we would like not fully comprehend anyways. The meaning here is that he was pleading with God to relieve the widow of this latter, greater burden, which was a further layering of her trials.

His own heart-wrenching cry to the Lord evidences how this quiet, peaceful time with the widow and the young boy had impacted him so deeply. Day by day he had been the dispenser of God's goodness to the widow and her household, and had watched the unfolding of her faith. It must have been a time of strengthening and of joy to his heart. “Elijah had to learn compassion in the house of the widow of Sarepta, before he was sent to preach to his own people.” (St. Chrysostom)

17:21 “Then he stretched himself out over the boy three times. He cried out to the Lord and said, “My Lord God, please let this boy’s life return to him!”

It’s not known why Elijah stretched himself out on top of the young lad. Some have taken this as an example of mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, since in ancient times death was determined as having taken place when the person stopped breathing. But the full weight of a man on a child would be counterproductive to that procedure. A clue into Elijah’s thinking or method may come from ancient Mesopotamian incantation literature, where the touching of part to part was believed to be a means by which demons exercise power over their intended victims – it is the idiom of possession. In this belief, vitality or life force can be transferred from one body to the other by contact of each part. Therefore by imitating the procedure believed to be used by demons, the prophet is able, through the power of Yahweh (notice the prayer), to restore the boy's life. Regardless, his posture indicated total identification with the boy and his need (though an unclean act according to the Mosaic Law, Num 19:11), just as he had done downstairs with the widow. This is an important lesson for us in how we should identify and intercede for others.

Not so coincidentally, Elisha, Elijah’s disciple, did the same in order to restore the dead child of the Shunammite, 2 Kgs 4:34, and Paul appears to have stretched himself on Eutychus in order to restore him to life, Acts 20:10.

Consider Elijah’s simple, yet heart-felt prayer. Where did he get the idea to pray for the boy’s life to be restored? There was no precedent for such a request or miracle previously in the history of Israel. The boy was dead. End of story. Right? While this is the first death-to-life miracle recorded in the Bible, such a concept was not foreign to the ancient cultures. Recall that Baal was thought to die at the hands of Mot, his chief rival and sibling offspring of El, but was brought back to life by the intervening of his consort, Anat. Canaanite myths claimed that Baal could revive the dead, so if Yahweh was supreme over Baal, then it stands to reason that He would be able to conquer death as well.

Simple prayer, yes, but how bold and audacious! Great boldness is a combination of great faith in God and great esteem of God's power. If you truly believe God has infinite power, what can He not do? What can we possible think up that would be outside of His power? As Paul asked in front of Agrippa, “Why is it thought incredible by any of you that God raises the dead?” (Acts 26:8). What is too difficult or impossible for Yahweh?

“Oh, Lord God! You Yourself made the heavens and earth by Your great power and with Your outstretched arm. Nothing is too difficult for You!” (Jer 32:17)

“Look, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh. Is anything too difficult for Me?” (Jer 32:27)

“For nothing will be impossible with God.” (Luke 1:37)

“What is impossible with men is possible with God.” (Luke 18:27)

Our lack of bold prayers is not a function of God lacking power, it’s a function of our lack of faith and narrow thinking of the vastness of God. Unfortunately, there are some who believe that the age of miracles has ceased. Interestingly, people in parts of the world that aren’t as sophisticated and knowledgeable about this, are seeing miracles. Are we not seeing miracles because that age has passed, or are we not seeing miracles because we don’t have the faith to ask for miracles? After all, the Bible is pretty clear about how we can pray: “Come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need” (Heb 4:16).

Touching on the unfortunate, some translations have used “soul” vs. “life” in this verse: “let this child's soul come into him again.” (KJV, ASV, NJB, AMP)

Some well-intentioned authors and preachers, largely referencing the KJV translation, have used this phrase as evidence for the existence of an immortal and immaterial spirit in man, and that the spirit can and does exist in a separate state from the body. They claim that these words are important for clearly establishing the very definite distinction which there is between the soul and the body, that the soul is distinct from the body, that it does not die with the body, that it exists in a separate state after the death of the body, and that none but God can restore it to its original habitat. While not arguing against the distinctions of soul and body, it is better to not claim this verse as support.

The term here in question is the Hebrew nepesh (NEH-fesh), which has been translated “soul, self, life, heart” etc. This is a very common term in both ancient and modern Semitic languages, occurring over 780 times in the Old Testament. The noun refers to the essence of life, the act of breathing, taking breath. In its primary sense the noun appears in its first occurrence in Gen 1:20: “the moving creature that hath life.” However, from that concrete concept, a number of more abstract meanings have developed, with a wide variety of meanings and contexts. In over 400 occurrences it is translated “soul.” While this serves to make sense in many of these passages, it is an unfortunate mistranslation of the term. The real difficulty of the term is seen in the inability of almost all English translations to find a consistent equivalent or even a small group of high-frequency equivalents for the term. In other words it is virtually untranslatable by any one English word or concept. The KJV alone uses over 28 different English terms for this one Hebrew word. The problem with the English term “soul” is that no actual equivalent of the term or the idea behind it is represented in the Hebrew language.

In Hebrew usage, this term is not to be understood merely as the spiritual nature of a human being in opposition to the physical, as it may indeed refer to the physical nature, as in Lev 17:11: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood…” Needless to say, rendering “soul” would be meaningless in such a text. The Hebrew system of thought does not include the combination or opposition of the terms “body” and “soul,” which are really Greek and Latin in origin. The Hebrew contrasts two other concepts which are not found in the Greek and Latin tradition: “the inner self” and “the outer appearance” or, “what one is to oneself” as opposed to “what one appears to be to one's observers.” However, in the Hebrew, these are two separate terms, the inner person represented by nepesh, while the outer person, or reputation, is shēm, most commonly translated “name.”

17:22 “So the Lord listened to Elijah’s voice, and the boy’s life returned to him, and he lived.” (HCSB)

Canaanite myths claimed that Baal could revive the dead, but here it was Yahweh, not Baal, who gave back the boy’s life. This conclusively demonstrated that the Lord was the only true God and Elijah was His prophet. Baal may be dead, but Yahweh is not, nor is the widow’s son. Yahweh demonstrates His power not only to sustain life, as the meal and oil never ran out, but now He also clearly shows His power to impart life as well. By restoring the boy's life, Yahweh is yet again showing His power in the realm considered to be Baal's home turf.

17:23 “Elijah picked up the child and carried him down from the room into the house. He gave him to his mother and said, ‘Look, your son is alive’!” (NIV)

What joy must have filled Elijah’s heart as he witnessed the miraculous answer to his intercession! It is hard to imagine the tremendous joy and release which must have swept over the widow when Elijah brought her son back to her and said “your son is alive!” Consider the powerful impact this must have made on all three of them, an impact that would have been different for each, yet immense nevertheless.

17:24 “Then the woman said to Elijah, ‘Now I know that you are a man of God and that the word of the LORD in your mouth is truth’.” (NASB)

Note the extreme irony in the widow’s words. A Phoenician woman, lowest of the low, acknowledges that Elijah spoke the word of Yahweh, while the Israelite king, highest of the chosen, worshipping his Phoenician gods, refused to see the truth. Continuing the irony, Jesus cited the story of Elijah at Zarephath to support His comment that a prophet is not accepted in His own country, in His inaugural sermon in His homeland, the result being they tried to kill Him. (Luke 4:24-30).

The widow’s statement does not mean she had been in serious doubt about Elijah's identity. She had seen plenty of evidence in the daily miracle and in Elijah's lifestyle to show his identity as a man of God. This trial simply verified it and proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt. God's purpose was now evident. Her sin was not at issue, but the testing had come in order that her newly found faith might be brought to settled maturity. Yahweh was not only the God of the Hebrews but of all those who believe: “is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also” (Rom 3:29).

Consider the love and faithfulness of God for and to this widow. This Gentile, destitute widow had nothing left, no one to rely on for support. Yet omnipotent Yahweh, Creator of the universe, looked down to notice this widow, and to rescue her. He sent Elijah to her, as a means to provide for him and prepare him further for ministry, but also to provide for the widow – both physically and spiritually, healing her and freeing her of the chains of guilt and sin. How amazing, and how like our God!

Do you claim to be a Christian? To the world it may be just so many words until they see how you act under the stress of trial. They may not openly challenge your claim to being a Christian, for they can see your different lifestyle. But trials can be the real proving grounds of our profession of faith. Anyone can act nice in good times; but when troubles come, it is a different story. This is where Christianity should really show up. We read in James 1:2 “Consider it a great joy, my brothers, whenever you experience various trials,” and when speaking to the early Christians about their trials, Peter tells them “don’t be surprised” and encourages them to “rejoice” (1 Peter 4: 12-13). This isn’t anything new to us, we’ve read these verses countless times. Yet how many of us are able to exhibit the faith that rejoices during trials? Admittedly, it takes a strong faith to see the joy in trials when the trials first descend upon a person. Our troubles often seem to take away completely any hope of future joy.

Furthermore, trials are a classroom of extraordinary value. Trials are not a waste; they are not a loss; they are not a mistake. They teach us important truths, and can produce some of the greatest blessings we can ever know: Psa 119:71 “My troubles turned out all for the best – they forced me to learn from your textbook.” (MSG)

Interestingly, the final word in this verse is the genesis for the theory held by some that the widow’s boy is the prophet Jonah. The term “truth” is the Hebrew ’emet (EH-meth), meaning “certainty, truth, trustworthiness.” Now there are just two verses in the Old Testament that provide us with a clue as to Jonah’s background:

2 Kings 14:25 “He [Jeroboam II] restored Israel’s border from Lebo-hamath as far as the Sea of the Arabah, according to the word the Lord, the God of Israel, had spoken through His servant, the prophet Jonah son of Amittai from Gath-hepher.

Jonah 1:1 “The word of the Lord came to Jonah son of Amittai.”

Jonah’s father’s name, Amittai, is ’amittay (am-it-TAH-ee), which is derived from ’emet. Taking the widow’s confession as evidence her son is Jonah appears to be a considerable stretch, with no other information or backing to support this theory. Such a view is largely an attempt to paint the widow a Jewess and therefore argue her home and kitchen were levitically clean and kosher for Yahweh’s prophet. This would seem to be an unfortunate focus on legalism and missing the broader lessons contained in this important stage of God’s work through and in Elijah.


Table of the dead raised to life in the Bible, excepting Jesus

from the desert to the crucible (1 Kgs 17:8-16)

17:8 “Then the word of the Lord came to him:”

Just as we started the last lesson, when was this “Then?” God continues His pattern of revealing to Elijah the path he was to take one step at a time. Elijah could clearly see that the brook was slowly drying up. However, it wasn’t until after the brook had dried up that the Lord told him it was time to move on and revealed his new assignment. “God's servants must learn to take one step at a time . . . God does not give all the directions at once, lest we should get confused; He tells us just as much as we can remember and do. Then we must look to Him for more; and so we learn, by easy stages, the sublime habits of obedience and trust” (F. B. Meyer).

17:9 “Get up, go to Zarephath that belongs to Sidon and stay there. Look, I have commanded a woman who is a widow to provide for you there.” (HCSB)

There is a wealth of meaning and cultural significance buried in this verse, lost to us in our modern times and language. First, consider the city to which Elijah is directed: Zarephath (ZAR-ih-fath). The Hebrew sārepat (tsaw-reh-FATH) means “smelting place,” a place for the refining and smelting of metals. This term is also the root for the Hebrew noun translated “crucible.” We’ll come back to this in a moment.

Referred to in the New Testament by its Greek form, Sarepta, Zarephath is first mentioned in ancient Egyptian writings (13th century B.C.) as a harbor city. It was a flourishing manufacturing and industrial center, thriving for over a thousand years into the Roman times. The site of this ancient town is marked by the considerable ruins near the Mediterranean, extending along the shore for a mile or more. Remains of an ancient harbor are visible, and it still provides shelter today for smaller vessels. South of the harbor is an abundance of ruins consisting of columns, sarcophagi and marble slabs, indicating a city of considerable importance. The Wely, or shrine bearing the name of el-Khudr, the mysterious saint in whom legends of St. George are blended with Elijah, stands near the shore. It is thought that the Crusaders erected a chapel here on what they believed to be the site of the widow's house. Sometime after the Crusades, the modern village of Sarafend (Surafend) was built on the site of this ancient city.

Looking back at verse 9, where was Zarephath located? – “which belongs to Sidon”

Zarephath was roughly 100 miles to the northwest, off the coast of the Mediterranean Sea in Phoenicia, approximately nine miles south of Sidon and about 13 miles north of Tyre; on the spur of the mountain which divides the plain of Tyre from that of Sidon. Where have we heard of Sidon previously in this series?

“Then, as if following the sin of Jeroboam son of Nebat were a trivial matter, he [Ahab] married Jezebel, the daughter of Eth-baal king of the Sidonians, and then proceeded to serve Baal and worship him.” (1 Kgs 16:31)

Recall that Jezebel was the daughter of Eth-baal (“Baal is with him”), king of the Sidonians (Zidonians), the historical name for the Phoenicians. According to Josephus, Eth-baal was the high priest of the great temple of Ashtaroth (Ashtoreth, Astarte – the female consort of Baal) in Tyre, and his brother, Philetes (Phelles), was the king of the Phoenician empire. At the age of 36, Eth-baal murdered his brother (the last of the descendants of Hiram I of Tyre) and seized the throne, which he occupied for thirty-two years, spawning what has been referred to as “the most wicked dynasty the in power” (Edersheim).

That is where God is directing Elijah? Clearly a dried-up brook would encourage Elijah to go elsewhere, but the heart of Jezebel’s homeland? The journey of 100 miles through the rough and drought-stricken land would have been bad enough, but the Lord was directing Elijah into the lion’s den – the very heart of the domain of Eth-baal, Jezebel’s regicide father. Even more shocking, God’s prophet would be in Baal’s stronghold, where Baal ruled supreme over all other gods, including Israel’s Yahweh.

Culturally, the ancient peoples believed the gods were very geographically or territorially limited. Given Baal was the god of the Sidonians (Phoenicians), and through Ahab and Jezebel Baalism had conquered Israel, what possible hope or value could there be for Yahweh to send His key prophet so deep into Baal’s stronghold? Directing Elijah to speak before Ahab was the proverbial Sunday School picnic compared to this sheer madness. How is it that Elijah, fleeing from the royal sponsor of this Phoenician god, is directed to find refuge in Phoenicia? Why would Yahweh seemingly cast His prophet aside? He hadn’t been able to withstand the onslaught of Baalism on His own turf, what power would He have on Baal’s home territory?

The story gets better. Earlier, God had directed Elijah to “hide yourself by the brook Cherith.” It is thought that Elijah spent somewhere between six months to a year there. Here in verse 9, God instructs Elijah to “stay there.” The Hebrew term yāshab (yaw-SHAWB), literally means “to dwell.” So not only was Elijah to go deep into enemy territory controlled by Baal, he was to live there – to make his dwelling there. In other words, he was to sign more than just a six-month lease. We’ll see that he was actually there for a period of two years or more.

The story continues to get better. Look at the next few words: “Look, I have commanded a woman who is a widow to provide for you there.” For the good Israelite male, things couldn’t get any lower. It wasn’t enough to be dependent upon unclean ravens for support, now it was a woman, a widow, and a Gentile all wrapped into one person! Rabbis were known to cross the street to avoid walking by a woman, in case she would make him unclean. A Gentile woman was as about as unclean as one could get, and now Elijah was to be provided and sustained by the hand of this vulgar Gentile woman? Clearly she wouldn’t have a levitically clean or kosher kitchen – she herself was horribly unclean, living as she was in a pagan land.

Furthermore, not only was she a woman, and a Gentile woman at that, she was also a widow. That would hardly have been heartening to anyone from those times. The Hebrew ’almānâ (al-maw-NAW) is a feminine noun meaning “widow.” The word occurs many times in the Law and the Prophets, where the well-being and care of the widow are frequently mentioned (Deut 14:29; Isa 1:17; Jer 7:6; Zech 7:10), with the Lord declaring Himself to be their protector: “Father of orphans, champion of widows, is God in His holy house” (Psa 68:5, MSG). In agrarian societies subject to disease and warfare, destitute widows were almost proverbial.

Since a widow had no inheritance rights, special provisions were typically made for them under the law, allowing them to glean in harvested fields and protecting them from being oppressed. They needed protection under the law because they were powerless to protect themselves and were often dependent on meager charity for survival. Based on the statements in the prologues of the Ur-Nammu Code and the Code of Hammurabi, more noble kings considered it part of their role as “wise rulers” to protect the rights of the poor, the widow and the orphan. Nonetheless, the term “widow” was essentially synonymous with “poor,” as widows frequently were exceptionally poor and often in a desperate plight. Hyperbolizing on the destitute nature of widows, ’almānâ is also used figuratively of a desolate place, a devastated city (Lam 1:1; Isa 47:8).

So to paraphrase verse 9, Elijah is to leave the solitary sanctuary of the brook, where he has been safe and provided for, hike 100 miles across the desert during a drought, across the land of Israel where King Ahab was tearing about the countryside looking for him, into the very heart of the enemy territory whose god he had resoundly profaned and whose king was the father of the wicked queen looking to slaughter him, and he was to live there for at least a couple of years, sustained by an unclean, destitute Gentile woman. What wasn’t there to like about that? Everything?

Putting the fact that Elijah was an Israelite and the whole levitical clean/unclean heritage and upbringing aside, ‏I wonder how many rugged, capable, self-sufficient outdoorsmen would like the sounds of “a woman who is a widow [will] provide for you.” It would be one thing to be told, “flex your big muscles and provide for this poor, little ole lady,” but instead, it’s this poor, little ole lady that will be sustaining him! Talk about a humbling blow to the fragile male ego! After his brave and defiant speech in front of Ahab and his court, here’s Elijah, fleeing and hiding behind a widow’s skirt!

How humbling to be made dependent upon the poorest of the poor and the lowest of the low. Our times in the crucible or refining fires will undoubtedly include experiences to humble us and remove the dross of pride from our lives. Just as impurities can limit the usefulness of metals, so impurities (such as pride, anger, lack of faith, etc.) can get in the way of our being able to achieve the potential and purpose intended of us. “This is a wonderful reminder that it is often the most humbling tasks that prepare us for the higher, greater task” (Swindoll).

Consider how God’s directives go counter to everything that Elijah, as a human, a man, and a Jewish man would have naturally and culturally wanted, and what he would have thought and felt was rational and logical. God’s plan for Elijah led first to the desert, during a drought, to a solitary location with a temporary source of water and where unclean, scavenging ravens that typically feed on carrion were commanded to provide for him. The next step was the refining crucible of Zarephath, deep in the heart of Jezebel’s wicked father’s territory, where reason would dictate that the people would be only too happy to apprehend Elijah and turn him over to be butchered. Wouldn’t it have been more logical to remain hidden in some secret location far from Ahab’s searches and allies?

Furthermore, human reasoning would make it pretty clear that a Gentile widow would be the last person in the world to consider as a viable provider or sustainer. Given widows were typically destitute, they ran out of food first in a famine. This famine had been created by the very drought prayed for by Elijah (Jam 5:17). Therefore going to a widow for food during a time of famine was utterly beyond reason, not exactly the path we would take on our own.

God's directions may not always make sense to our emotions and intellect; though in fact they are the most logical things to do because they are God's commands. Keep in mind we are never asked to understand God's commands; we are only asked to obey them. Failure or inability to fully understand the reason for what God asks of us does not diminish the responsibility for our doing it. “God’s leading is often surprising; don’t analyze it. If God leads you to Zarephath, don’t try to make sense out of it. Just go…God’s leading is often humanly illogical. It’s a mystery, at least from our limited perspective” (Swindoll). The reality is, God has already warned us and shown throughout history that His ways are beyond us and He uses what we consider to be the foolish and weak for His purposes:

Isa 55:8-9 “‘My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,’ says the Lord. ‘And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine. For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts’.” (NLT)

1 Cor 1:25-31 “For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--and the things that are not--to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God--that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: ‘Let him who boasts boast in the Lord’.” (NIV)

Notice how God said, “I have commanded the ravens to provide for you there” (Cherith) in 17:4; and now He says, “I have commanded a widow there [Zarephath] to provide for you” in verse 9. God’s promise to Elijah that his needs would be met was very specific in location. The place of God’s appointment is the place of His provision. In other words, if you expect to claim the promises of God, consider if you’re in the place God wants you to be.

Elijah was neither forgotten nor shunted off to the side during the broader sphere of God’s actions and plans. Rather, he was right where he needed to be and where God could prepare, refine, equip him to be used most mightily, as well as provide for him during these years of physical and spiritual drought and famine in apostate Israel. No matter how far away or distant Elijah may at times have felt he had been removed from where he would have like to have been or where he thought he should be, we can clearly see that when he followed God’s directions, he was exactly where he was supposed to be and needed to be.

Not so incidentally, who was really providing for Elijah this whole time? Who was behind the ravens and the widow, making sure that Elijah had what he needed? “I have commanded…” See how masterfully God is orchestrating the intricate details of these events and steps at the individual level, taking place seemingly irrelevantly and so many forgotten miles from the center of the stage, into the broader, macro-level of national and world affairs. God never wastes a step, He never loses track of time, and He never forgets where any of His servants are. “I will not forget you. Look, I have inscribed you on the palms of My hands” ( Isa 49:15-16).

Whether a Joseph seemingly rotting away in an Egyptian prison, or a Moses spending 40 years tending sheep in the desert, wasting his world-class education and upbringing, history is replete with examples of God’s sovereignty, His faithfulness, and His perfect orchestration of the right person at the right location at the right time with the right resources. “For such a time as this…” (Est 4:14). What comfort and encouragement when we are facing the refining fires of the crucible!

17:10 “So Elijah got up and went to Zarephath. When he arrived at the city gate, there was a widow woman gathering wood. Elijah called to her and said, ‘Please bring me a little water in a cup and let me drink’.”

Elijah didn’t argue or run the opposite direction. He made no delay, but set off immediate upon his long and difficult journey. Humility and obedience. In this Elijah gave proof that he was indeed the servant of God, for the path of a servant is the path of obedience.

When Elijah arrived at the city gates, he saw “a widow woman gathering wood.” What an amazing coincidence! Obviously this was no coincidence. Rather, it was Divine providence.

Now how did Elijah know the woman was a widow? Apparently in the ancient Near East, it was customary for widows to wear clothing that identified them as such. In the shocking story of Judah and Tamar, his daughter-in-law, we see that Tamar “took off her widow’s clothes” and then later “put her widow’s clothes back on” (Gen 14, 19). Then in the Mosaic Law we read: “You shall not pervert the justice due an alien or an orphan, nor take a widow's garment in pledge” (Deut 24:17). Perhaps widows wore identifying garments for the purposes of charity or alms-giving, or perhaps to identify themselves when they were gleaning in fields of a landowner (as was their lawful right). In any event, clearly there was some way for Elijah to be able to identify the Phoenician woman as being a widow.

The fact that she was out gathering sticks wasn’t a promising sign. It only evidenced her depth of poverty. Such mundane and menial tasks were typically the job of servants, and if one was too poor to afford a servant, these tasks would fall to the children to carry out. So for this widow to be out gathering sticks herself indicated that 1) she was too poor to have any servants, 2) she either had no children or else her children were very young and unable to carry out such tasks, and 3) she didn’t have any grown up sons to support her, as it was the duty of the eldest son to support his widowed mother. Truly this was a most unfortunate and destitute widow to whom Elijah was called!

Elijah had walked 100 miles through the desert, during a drought, having set out from Cherith only after the brook had dried up. Think he might have been thirsty? His request for water was common and to be expected from a traveler in that land, both then and even in today’s inhospitable environment. The gift of water to the thirsty has always been regarded as a sacred duty in the East. “Never yet during many years’ residence in Syria and many a long day’s travel, have I been refused a draught of water by a single individual of any sect or race. The Bedawy in the desert has shared with me the last drop in his water-skin” (Porter).

17:11 “As she went to get it, he called to her and said, ‘Please bring me a piece of bread in your hand’.”

The immediacy in which the widow left off her task of gathering wood to “fetch a pail of water” evidences that the abundant water supply of Phoenicia was not in jeopardy at this time. “The fresh streams of Lebanon would retain their life-giving power long after the scantier springs of Palestine had been dried up” (Stanley). Additionally, observe the nature of this widow. She is out gather sticks for her last meal, yet at the first request for water from a complete stranger, she immediately heads off to extend him this act of hospitality and common courtesy. How often are we so caught up in our affairs that we don’t even notice others, almost as if they were invisible? Yet here is this widow with the cares of this world crashing down around her to the point of starvation for both her and her only son, and she immediately takes steps to bestow an act of kindness with what little she could still do. How sad is it that so often “Christian charity” comes nowhere close to this poor Gentile widow’s charity and unselfishness?

Even here in the simple request for water legalism rears its ugly head. Some have held that Elijah only drank water from a drinking cup that he had carried with him all the way from the Wadi Cherith, as using anything touch by this unclean Gentile widow would have defiled the water. Given the scope of all that transpires in Elijah’s life for these many years, it’s highly improbable that he would have held such concern for defiled water in a Gentile land where he would live for at least two years, that he would have carried a clean drinking cup on his trip across the desert. His entire time spent in Zarephath was ritually unclean. Concern for a levitically clean drinking cup in such extreme circumstances would seem downright ludicrous.

While Elijah’s modest request for something small to eat was not out of the ordinary, the widow’s response paints the bleakest picture possible, from a human perspective.

17:12 “‘As surely as the LORD your God lives,’ she replied, ‘I don't have any bread--only a handful of flour in a jar and a little oil in a jug. I am gathering a few sticks to take home and make a meal for myself and my son, that we may eat it--and die’.”

Isn’t that simply pitiful? This poorest of poor widow is out collecting just enough sticks to bake one last meager meal for her and her son, and she is clearly resigned to the fact that the two of them will starve to death thereafter. No other options were apparently open to her. They had reached the end of their scarce resources, and were left with nothing else but the prospect of being just another tragic casualty of poverty and famine. And this is the widow that was going to provide for Elijah!

The effects of the terrible famine and drought in Palestine were also felt in the adjacent countries. According to Menander of Ephesus, as recorded by Josephus (Ant 8.13.2) there was a devastating famine that lasted one full year, during the time of drought on Israel. Since Phoenicia depended on Israel for much of its food supply (1 Kgs 5:9; Acts 12:20), a drought and famine in Israel would have had a devastating impact upon Jezebel’s homeland: “Now he [Herod] was very angry with the people of Tyre and Sidon; and with one accord they came to him, and having won over Blastus the king's chamberlain, they were asking for peace, because their country was fed by the king's country” (Acts 12:20).

The widow’s oath indicates that just as Elijah had recognized that she was a widow, she in turn recognized him as being an Israelite, perhaps even a prophet by his distinctive clothing (2 Kgs 1:8). Some have held that her formal oath invoking the proper name of Yahweh, the Elohîm of Israel, with the acknowledgement that Yahweh lives, that she was a true worshipper of God. Rabbis have taken this further to claim she was a Jewish woman, the mother of Jonah.

However, given she said, “your God,” it’s highly doubtful that she was a true follower of Yahweh, more likely following the customary protocol of pronouncing her oath in the name of the deity of the person to whom she is speaking. If she really was a Jewess or true worshipper of Yahweh, she would have said as Elijah does later, “the Lord God of Israel,” the more customary pronouncement of the Israelites, as the nation chosen by Yahweh. However, she very may well have believed in Yahweh as a god, as polytheism was rampant in the ancient world, and the concept of monotheism would have been foreign to the Phoenicians. While Baal was their supreme god, he was one of many gods in which they believed.

It’s been said that despair breaks down barriers of reserve. To this complete stranger, the widow confesses her desperate circumstances. Hers was not an unwillingness to share or be hospitable, her immediacy to obtain water for him had already testified to her lack of selfishness, but rather, she had none left with which to share.

The bread she mentions is the common, flat round cake, the smallest kind of bread, likely made from wheat or barley, and cooked in oil, which would be our equivalent of butter. The flour bin or barrel was called a cad (from which we derive our English tea “caddy”), an earthenware container used to preserve corn and meal from insects and bugs. The jar or cruse of oil would be similar to our bottles of oil today. Flour and oil were the two most basic commodities for survival, and she was about to run out of even that.

As a side note, the lack of oil wasn’t the concern, but rather the flour. In Joshua 19:28, when the division of the conquered land of Canaan was undertaken, the distinct of Sidon (Zidon), which would have included Zarephath, fell to the lot of Asher. If we go back to Deuteronomy 33 where Moses offers his blessings to the 12 tribes of Israel, his blessing for Asher was: “Of Asher he said, ‘more blessed than sons is Asher; may he be favored by his brothers, and may he dip his foot in oil’” (33:24). Oil being one of the principal exports of this region, even after the long drought and famine, oil was still to be had in Sidon.

Now comes one of Elijah’s infamous, shocking statements:

17:13 “Then Elijah said to her, ‘do not fear; go, do as you have said, but make me a little bread cake from it first and bring it out to me, and afterward you may make one for yourself and for your son’.”

Who tells a widow to prepare the last of her meager food for them first, and then the widow and her son can eat? Typical man – they never listen! Hadn’t she just told him there was only enough for them, and then they would starve to death? Could he really be telling her, in essence, let me eat the last of your food and you and your son can die without another meal? He wants her to go to her house, bake the bread for him first, bring it out to him, and then return back home to bake what’s left for her and her son. Widows were often and frequently exploited of what little they had, and now Elijah is even stooping to take the last of her food? The “first” and “afterward” are emphatic by position. There’s no question where he’s telling her to place her priorities and actions.

Isn’t that absolutely shocking? Again, some emphatically state Elijah would not have made such a request, and that no Gentile widow would have paid any attention to a Jewish man making such an outlandish request. What would you do if you were this Gentile widow? Human reasoning would argue that “she had neither precedent nor example for such an act and for such a hope” (James Smith). She was being asked to give everything away on faith, to give up the certain for the uncertain. Not only that, she was being asked to potentially sacrifice her life and also that of her son’s. How could she possibly take care of Elijah when her situation was so desperate? Her supplies consisted of only food enough for one meal for herself and her son. Hardly does her poverty seem compatible to his request. Her circumstances would say she was the one who needed help, not the one to give help. Every poll in the land would unanimously call for her to reject insane Elijah. Her circumstances were simply too bleak. No one would criticize her if she said “no.” How could he make such a shocking and seemingly callous request in the midst of her desperate circumstances?

However, isn’t that exactly the type of faith and obedience the Lord wants from us? We’re to completely give ourselves over to Him, not holding back one iota of anything, even to the extent of becoming a bond-servant, a slave to Him. Wasn’t that Jesus’ message to the rich young ruler? “sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor…and come, follow Me” (Luke 18:22).

17:14 “For this is what the Lord God of Israel says, ‘the flour jar will not become empty and the oil jug will not run dry until the day the Lord sends rain on the surface of the land’.”

God is consistent and faithful. He never requires us to take a step that is outside of His promises. Elijah gives the widow the promise of Yahweh to provide for her and her son, and by extension, Elijah, until the rains returned.

17:15-16 “So she proceeded to do according to the word of Elijah. Then the woman, Elijah, and her household ate for many days. The flour jar did not become empty, and the oil jug did not run dry, according to the word of the Lord He had spoken through Elijah.”
What amazing faith and selflessness on the part of this humble widow! What a severe test for self. Even the best of unselfish people would struggle here, and the famine would make this challenge even more difficult. Famines have repeated brought out selfishness in the most hideous shapes and actions (2 Kgs 6:28,29), and yet this widow passed her test with flying colors. “We know nothing about genuine self-giving and self-sharing until our own self-survival is literally put on the line. Such a thought terrifies most of us!” (W. Phillip Keller). “The woman was asked for all she had, and she gave it!” (Joseph Parker). While her resources were small, her faith opened the doors of heaven to the limitless resources of God.

While a proud and apostate Israelite nation suffered because of the drought, God supplied the daily necessities to a humble, Gentile widow who willingly took Him at His word. She could dip in the barrel for meal, and there would always be some no matter how much she took out. She could tip the cruse of cooking oil to pour from it, and oil would always flow from it. The fresh supply of oil and flour each day would be a reminder to both the prophet and the widow of the value of personal trust in Him who alone is sufficient to meet every need: “And my God will supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus” (Phil 4:19). Though the fare was frugal, yet it was sufficient to sustain them: “And having food and clothing, with these we shall be content” (1 Tim 6:8).

Consider that God didn’t at first send Elijah to an abundant river during the time of drought, but rather a seasonal wadi. While he was hiding out at Cherith the food didn’t run out, but the water did. Now the Lord sends Elijah to Zarephath, which appears to have had abundant water, but clearly food was a scarcity. In both scenarios, a basic necessity for survival was at risk, from a human perspective, but God provided what was needed one day at a time. “Give us this day our daily bread” has been the simple but heartfelt prayer of many around this world down through the years and today. In our modern society, with its credit cards and convenient shopping, we need to remember that each meal we eat is a miracle from the hand of God. “Give us this day our daily bread” is much more than a line in a prayer that we may casually recite. It's the expression of a great truth, that the Lord cares for us and will provide for us.

Note that no massive supply of flour and oil, that would last them for two years, miraculously appeared. God gave them sufficient food for their daily use, but not a whole year's supply in advance or even a week's provision all at once. The Israelites were expressly forbidden to hoard up the manna: they had to go out and gather it new each morning. The ingredients were always on hand as they were needed. Each use of the flour and oil would require faith that God would meet daily need. Thus both Elijah and the widow learned to put their continued faith and trust in the Provider rather than in the provision.

Spurgeon asked, “Why did not God give her a granary full of meal at once, and a vat full of oil instantly? I will tell you. It was not merely because of God's intent to try her, but there was wisdom here. Suppose He had given her a granary full of meal, how much of it would have been left by the next day? I question whether any would have remained. For in the days of famine men are sharp of scent, and it would soon have been noised about the city, ‘The old widow woman who lives in such-and-such a street has a great store of food.’ Why, they would have caused a riot, and robbed the house, and perhaps have killed the woman and her son. She would have been despoiled of her treasure, and in four and twenty hours the barrel of meal would have been as empty as it was at first, and the cruse of oil would have been spilled upon the ground.”

Leon Wood has some similar observations on this subject: “This manner of miracle was for good reason. It was necessary that it work this way if Elijah's presence was to remain unnoticed. Borrowing of jars from neighbors would have invited attention, and so would a pantry full of meal. Such news would soon have spread as far as town officials, and then word would have been taken to Ahab. With the miracle working as it did, there was no reason for people to wonder.” God, in His wisdom, displayed His power in such a way that Elijah and the widow relied upon and received His blessing every day, while the unbelieving world about them was ignorant.

In the New Testament, Jesus honored this Phoenician widow in His first sermon, triggering a violent reaction from His hometown listeners: “There were many widows in Israel, I can assure you, in Elijah's day, when heaven remained shut for three years and six months and a great famine raged throughout the land, but Elijah was not sent to any one of these: he was sent to a widow at Zarephath, a town in Sidonia” (Luke 4:25-29).

It is conjectured that the Syrophoenician woman mentioned in Luke 4:26 was an inhabitant of Zarephath, and it is possible that Jesus visited the place in His journey to this region, the only time He traveled among the Gentiles (Matt 15:21; Mark 7:24-31).

Often hidden in this amazing narrative is the spiritual battle taking place. Why was Elijah sent to the region of Sidon? Some have reasoned that Jezebel was Elijah's greatest enemy; but to show her how powerless was her malice, God would find a hiding-place for him even in her own country.

Perhaps there’s some truth to that, but recall that Baal was the storm god, controlling the rains. His voice was believed to be the thunder heard in storms, with lightening the bolts thrown from his hands. Images of Baal holding such bolts led to his being referred to as the “god of fire.” Thus he was believed to control the very forces of nature – supreme over agriculture and all forms of fertility. Dry years or years of drought and famine were attributed to his temporary captivity and even death at the hands of Mot, Baal’s chief rival and sibling offspring of El. Sacrifices to Anat, Baal’s consort, would arouse her to do battle with Mot, and as the goddess of war, she would eventually defeat Mot, resulting in her reunion with the revived Baal. Their joyous coming together resulted in the rains, crops and offspring for both animals and humans. Thus the equating of fertility with the presence of a live and vibrant Baal, who as the storm god sent the life-preserving rains onto the land, and the equating of drought and famine with his periodic death.

Consider also the territorial beliefs of the pagans. Since gods were largely limited to geographic boundaries, this narrative is extremely significant. Baal was the god of Phoenicia, and he had seemingly conquered Yahweh as he had apparently overrun Israel. Yet Yahweh’s one prophet, in contrast to the many hundreds employed by Jezebel, had called for a complete drought on the entire land of Israel, effectively meaning the death of Baal in Israel. Furthermore, this same drought and famine have spread even to Phoenicia, proving Baal is powerless against Yahweh even in his home turf. After all, he’s dead and Yahweh lives (as the widow acknowledged). Not only that, while Baal is dead and can’t provide for his people, Yahweh is able to miraculously provide both flour and oil – products that were the blessings of Baal – for His prophet and the remarkable widow. In other words, Yahweh is systematically making a public mockery of every perceived strength of Baal, in both Israel and Phoenica.

F. C. Fensham asserts that in fact the main purpose of this narrative is “to demonstrate on Phoenician soil, where Baal is worshiped, that Yahweh has power over things in which Baal has failed.” Since Baal worshipers 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.

How much does this continue to reinforce Elijah’s faith in the Lord? For a period of three years or so, Elijah sees a daily, visible reminder of the power of Yahweh to provide. What a virtuous cycle of faith and obedience, resulting in more clearly seeing God’s faithfulness, which in turn strengthens his faith even more. Swindoll sums up this narrative: “Man’s obedience and God’s faithfulness – that’s a combination that leads to miracles! Don’t ignore your part of that equation!”