FAMINE IN ELISHA'S TIME
FAMINE IN ELISHA’S TIME
ANW Do you see any relation between these two families?
JT There is a relation between them; in both cases it is a question of what is done. In the one, the gatherer of the wild gourds brought in death; and in the other, the four lepers, we may say, brought in life.
AFM It does not appear that this man’s act was wilful. He was ignorant of the harm he was doing.
JT We have not had this feature, so far, in our readings: viz., what we are to do under such circumstances such as are here presented.
WB-w Does this first famine refer more to the sons of the prophet — whereas the one in Samaria has a wider bearing?
JT Quite. A famine was in the land, and the sons of the prophets were before Elisha; the circumstances were such that there was a necessity for providing food for them.
HSD What class do the sons of the prophets represent?
JT Those who have light from a previous generation; they have great prominence in this book. They do not make a good showing, generally; but still they have an important place. Their distinction is not of themselves, but from their fathers. They are not said to be prophets, but sons of the prophets, and they may or may not be helpful. The sequel shows which it is.
WB-w They would represent those brought up in the light.
JT In the light of a given movement of God.
[p. 219] They would have to prove whether they have profited by it, or not.
AFM Being sons in relation to any specific prophetic movement, would give them great advantage, but corresponding responsibility, too.
ANW They seem to be found in groups and in contradistinction to the prophets, who stand out in their individualities.
AFM Such as Elijah, Elisha, and others who served on individual lines.
WB-w There were also fifty “valiant men” with the sons of the prophets.
ARS These sons of the prophets were characterised by unbelief with regard to Elijah’s departure.
JT Such knowledge helps us as to them. They were interested in the movements of Elijah and of Elisha, and they knew about Elijah’s translation, but they did not add anything of value to that fact. They would instruct Elisha as to Elijah’s translation, but he was more intelligent as to it than they, and far more interested.
ARS Spiritually, they seemed to be unable to accomplish anything.
JT What marks them at the outset of this book is, they know what is current, but they do not add anything to it. If people undertake to minister, you look for some additional contribution. Elisha knew better than the sons of the prophets; they would inform him of Elijah’s translation, but he said, “I also know it: be silent!” (chapter 2:3). And then, there were fifty valiant men, already referred to, whom these sons of the prophets would send to seek Elijah, contrary to Elisha’s wishes. “And he said, Ye shall not send. And they pressed him till he was ashamed, and he said, Send. They sent therefore fifty men, and they sought three days, but did not find him. And they came again to him (now he was staying at Jericho); and he said to them, Did I not say to you, Go not?” (chapter 2:16 - 18). It was a futile enterprise marked by unbelief. But then there is another side of the truth in connection with these sons of the prophets; the Spirit of God does not dismiss them as devoid of usefulness. In chapter 6 we find them saying to Elisha, “Behold now, the place where we dwell before thee is too strait for us. Let us go, we pray thee, to the Jordan” (verses 1,2). That seemed to be a spiritual movement; they had been “on the opposite side” (chapter 2:15), but now they wanted to go to the Jordan, to make a place and dwell there.
CAM There seems to be an element in them that is capable of education, as opening up great possibilities.
JT As a class, you cannot be sure of them; but there are possibilities, which is an important fact.
WGT In chapter 4 a widow of one of the sons of the prophets said, “Thy servant my husband is dead, and thou knowest that thy servant feared Jehovah”. He had that distinction.
HSD Is there not something potential in these sons of the prophets that is capable of expansion for service?
JT That is the point. We have a good few young brothers in this district, and it is for them to prove themselves by their ministry.
ANW I was wondering whether a son of a prophet develops into a prophet.
JT One of them is called a young prophet, in chapter 9. There are possibilities in them, but what comes out is that their salvation, development, and usefulness lie in their coming under the influence of Elisha.
ARS They got into trouble here through the wild gourd, and in chapter 6 one of them in felling a beam lost the axe head, but Elisha met both difficulties.
JT [p. 221] They are marked by defectiveness, but generally are subject to correction. They needed the guidance of the man of God.
AFM It was to their credit that they knew Elijah was going to be translated and that the spirit of Elijah had fallen on Elisha.
ANW Would you say they were a product of the light objectively, but needed the subjective work of God?
JT I think so. The first mention of them in this book brings out that they were capable of speaking of what God was about to do; they had that much knowledge, but they were not affected by it. They were at a distance when Elijah and Elisha crossed the Jordan, merely as spectators. There are many like them in Christendom today, people who are benefiting by the light that has been recovered, but who are at a distance from those who are walking in it. They can speak about divine things and even write books about the Lord’s coming and other such great subjects, but they are not identified with those who are going on in these things, although they may not be against them. Such people are capable of turning the truth into ridicule and of causing damage, as is illustrated here; for sending fifty men to find Elijah (chapter 2:15 - 18), was an infidel thing, and they even, for the moment, influenced Elisha. But on the other hand they were capable of being turned in the right direction.
FHL In famine conditions they sit before Elisha as obedient to him.
WB-w In ordering this great pot to be set on, Elisha would feed them; he saw possibilities in them.
JT He makes much of them; it alludes, I think, to the Spirit of Christ that would foster every potential element for the work of God; that is the idea of it. This book is marked by the feature of grace and consideration for [p. 222] others.
AFM Chapter 6:3 supports that; when the sons of the prophets would go to the Jordan, and desired Elisha to go with them, he said, “I will go”.
CAM As you say, there seems to be a great advance in chapter 6:1: “Behold now, the place where we dwell before thee is too strait for us”.
JT Yes; they did not want to act independently, but with Elisha. They would learn much from his causing the axe head to swim, upon the wood being cast in. Typically, they are now on resurrection ground.
WGT They are seen here as “sitting before him”.
JT I think we can see progress as we proceed, they are coming more into evidence. The son of the prophet who died was evidently a worthy man, and Elisha took account of his widow and sons. Then Elisha came again to Gilgal. Will they go too? The first mention of Gilgal in this book is in chapter 2, where Elijah went from there with Elisha; it is now seen in that spiritual setting. Here Elisha came again to Gilgal, and the sons of the prophets were sitting before him, which was to their credit.
WB-w Do you think they learned at Jordan that the power of death is overthrown, and now they are at Gilgal with him?
JT Yes; the Holy Spirit is now bringing into evidence the possibilities there are, and the test is Jordan and Gilgal.
AFM What do you think was the occasion of this famine?
JT We have no previous notice of it, but I think it is to bring out this very condition — of what was in the sons of the prophets, and what Elisha could be to them.
AFM It was for their special benefit.
JT I think that is the lesson we have to learn — how we are to behave in a famine. Elisha said, “Set on the great pot”, which means that it was to be a mutual and large affair. It could be applied to a conference where there is opportunity for liberal contributions in ministry; God would thus bring out what there is amongst His people. It could further be applied to the “edification” meeting, which affords opportunity for prophetic ministry.
CAM One man made a mistake and brought in the wrong kind of food.
JT There is the possibility in the great pot of good or evil; what one says may, or may not, be right.
JTJr It may be Gilgal outwardly but not inwardly.
CAM They do not seem to be like grown men that have power of discernment between good and evil.
JT This man did not know that what he brought in was poisonous. He did not mean to poison the brethren. Applying the figure to the present time: one may not mean to say anything wrong, and yet do so. Going to the field was not wrong, for “the king himself is dependent upon the field”, (Ecclesiastes 5:9). The field should be productive of good food; it is really oneself.
AFM We can only contribute as edifying that which we cultivate.
WB-w Certain herbs are good. We have to select the kind suitable for food.
JT Hebrews 6:7 speaks of “useful herbs”; we have to “prove all things”, and “hold fast the right”, (1 Thessalonians 5:21).
ARS Do you not think that the man, in going to get the herbs, became careless in his selection?
JT That is exactly what happened. One has seen it in persons that minister; they gather up from books, or from other sources, information which is false yet interwoven with the truth — perverted [p. 224] things; but they do not mean to give out what is wrong. It says, “Then one went out into the field to gather herbs, and found a wild vine, and gathered from it his lap full of wild colocynths”. The meaning of colocynths is obscure; but it says they were wild
JS Would this famine bring to light whether the sons of the prophets were with God or not?
JT That is the point; this feature comes first. Elisha is concerned for the sons of the prophets, and orders his servant to boil pottage for them. Pottage consists of several ingredients; it is generally good food and suggests mutuality. We might have an “open” meeting with three addresses, and some thanksgivings and hymns, all of which might be most helpful, yet something might be introduced by one of the speakers, poisonous in character, which would affect all present.
JS If we were with God, the food would be wholesome.
JT Quite. You would yourself prove what you say; you would be sure it was of God. “If anyone speak — as oracles of God”, (1 Peter 4:11). This man gathered a lapful; he had no proper vessel. The lap was unlike the cruse and the barrel which the widow of Sarepta had.
TA Does the meal cast into the pot suggest a spiritual ministry of Christ?
JT Yes; it is the kind of humanity seen in the Lord Jesus.
AFM It would appear that these sons of the prophets discerned what was in the pot and refused it while eating, and said, “Man of God, there is death in the pot!”
JT That is the next thing. They are entirely dependent upon Elisha. It was as they were eating that they discovered the “death”.
ARS This man may represent a good speaker.
[p. 225] He gathered a lot in his lap, but the character of it was not discerned until they commenced to eat it. It is like the Newton movement: some thought it was all right, but others discerned that there was death in the pot.
JT That was deliberate, but, as you say, the evil was not generally discerned at first.
JTJr Would you connect the famine in verse 38 with what the man actually did in bringing in what was wild?
JT There was a famine in the land, and the great pot is put on so that there might be something to eat in spite of the famine. One evidently acted of himself and gathered these wild gourds, and the others did not discern that they were poisonous. In other words, the mutual side failed; so we must be on our guard. You may say you had a very good meeting, but then you want to be sure that everything that was said is right.
WB-w Accordingly, it is important to have notes carefully revised before circulation.
CN So that Paul begged Timothy to remain at Ephesus, “that thou mightest enjoin some not to teach other doctrines, nor to turn their minds to fables and interminable genealogies”, (1 Timothy 1:3,4).
JT Yes; all corrective epistles are like the meal.
ANW In connection with damaging ministry, typified in the wild gourds, it is one thing to discover what is wrong, and another to supply the meal. The sons of the prophets discerned the defect, but Elisha applied the remedy.
JT We must bear in mind that the mutual side cannot be trusted very much; you must bring in the element of the “man of God”.
JS We must bring in the spiritual element.
FHL There is no suggestion of Elisha’s sharing in the pot or in the loaves; it is set before the sons [p. 226] of the prophets.
JT Elisha represents the mind of God — the Spirit of Christ here as representative of God; otherwise there is no authoritative element, because the mutual side is not authoritative in itself. I am not now speaking of the assembly, but of what is called mutual.
CAM That seems immensely important — the recognition of the mind of God authoritatively; where that is lost sight of there is independence and disintegration.
JT It is beautiful to see brethren together, and it is right that there should be opportunity for mutual participation in divine things, but without the authoritative element we are apt to get the wild gourds.
ANW Elisha is contrasted with Elijah in connection with famine conditions. Elisha seems to be above them — what is in the pot is not for him; whereas, in connection with Elijah, the cake was made for him first.
JT Elijah had to go through the consequences of the famine in a very personal way; but that side is not presented in this second book; here the man of God is not seen as in need, but rather meets it.
WFK Is Elisha’s action like the apostle Paul’s ministry to the Corinthians?
JT Just so; his epistles to them furnish the “meal”.
ARS Do you not think that this man who shred the gourds into the pot was a kind of free lance; he got away from the company and went into the world?
JT I should not like to say that the field here is the world; it is a legitimate place in which to look for food. Ecclesiastes tells us that “the king himself is dependent upon the field”. In Proverbs 24:27 we have: “Prepare thy work without, and put thy field in order, and afterwards build thy house”. We must have the field; it is the place of tillage, but then if it is not properly tilled it may yield [p. 227] poisonous things; the man who went out for the herbs did not take account of that, he did not consider the danger of gathering from the untilled part. As already remarked, the field really is oneself, which brings the responsibility home to us, to keep the field in order.
HSD The situation was met by bringing something positive in, not by pouring out the contents of the pot, but by putting the meal into it.
JT That is important; it shows that divine things cannot be handled like human things. The meal would allude to powerful ministry being brought in, a ministry of Christ which is corrective, as at Corinth, so that the poison is overcome.
FHL Do you not think it was the servants who brought the meal?
JT In verse 41 Elisha said, “Then bring meal”. And he cast it into the pot; the correction was evidently in the way Elisha used the meal.
AR The meal was to neutralise what was there.
JT The apostle said to the Corinthians, “Do ye not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?” (1 Corinthians 5:6); and he said the same thing to the Galatians: “A little leaven leavens the whole lump”, (Galatians 5:9). But instead of the Corinthians being leavened, the correction was successful and they were restored.
WGT The one who went out to gather the wild gourds ignored the man of God. You would think he would have gone to Elisha first, before casting them into the pot.
JT Yes; especially with a lapful.
AR Sometimes it is said that our “open” meetings, so-called, are poor. Would you look for this remedial element?
JT Yes; if I complain, then I should, in such a case, bring in the meal.
AFM As the result of what Elisha did “there was no harm in the pot”. Paul’s letters to the Corinthians brought about positive results; his second letter shows that — the new covenant and reconciliation are on positive and constructive lines.
JTJr Would you look for this man, who brought in the wild gourds, to be recovered, because the next setting in the chapter gives another man? The idea of adjustment comes in. You look for the brother, the next time, to bring in something positive.
JT Yes; what follows is sequential.
ANW Does not every corrective epistle use the occasion to bring in a further suggestion of Christ?
JT It does; it brings in the positive side; so that in verse 42, we have a man from another realm, Baal-shalishah, a significant name. It was a place having a dominant element; that is not the mutual side, but a place governed by authority. It is suggestive of heaven, where everything is according to the mind of God.
JTJr There is nothing “wild” there.
ANW Would it suggest Ephesians, which is hardly corrective at all?
JT I think it goes on to Ephesians; there is a positive line. The second epistle to the Corinthians really lays the basis for Ephesians; the new covenant and reconciliation lay the basis in our souls for the heavenly side — man coming from another place. In Ephesians the gospel includes the idea of place, involving not only salvation from Satan’s power and the world, but also from the earth as a place.
JS The man came from a place where things were evidently under cultivation.
JT Baal-shalishah would mean a place where there is authority. Baal is “lord” — the Lord dominates, and, as has been remarked, there is nothing wild there. “Let thy will be done as in heaven so upon the earth”, (Matthew 6:10). It implies [p. 229] subjection to authority, and that is what we must come to.
WB-w He was thinking of the man of God, not of the sons of the prophets; he brought the man of God bread.
JT Yes; you are on a higher level now, and the food that is brought is in keeping with it; it is “bread of the first-fruits, twenty loaves of barley, and fresh ears of corn in his sack”. Notice that the corn is not in his lap, but in his sack — a proper container. Elisha said, “Give to the people that they may eat. And his attendant said, How shall I set this before a hundred men? And he said, Give the people that they may eat; for thus saith Jehovah: They shall eat and shall have to spare”. That is a very fine word in a famine — “They shall eat and shall have to spare”.
JS It is authority now.
JT Yes; “They shall eat, and shall have to spare”. God has come in now from another place; we are lifted out of the realm of man’s world into the realm of God’s world.
JS It reminds us of the incident of the Lord’s feeding the multitude, when the disciples took up twelve baskets of fragments. It is also like the father’s house of Luke 15.
JT Abundance of bread; yet the prodigal had been perishing with hunger!
CB This kind of ministry which is positive would overcome all our doubts.
JT I think that is right; here you are lifted up into God’s realm. Baal-shalishah signifies God’s realm — a realm wholly dominated by God where there are no wild things; everything is of God and according to His mind.
WB-w Things-from God are always [p. 230] fresh.
GMcP As apprehending these things we would be lifted out of the sphere of mere profession into what is real.
JT Yes; it is not a question, here, of testing the sons of the prophets; we are now on known ground, each food is mentioned. The great pot contained a mixture.
AFM Would you say a word about the first-fruits, the loaves of barley, and then the fresh ears of corn? They each seem to have a distinctive setting.
JT First-fruits have their own significance — “The first-fruits, Christ”, (1 Corinthians 15:23). I suppose it is the very best; and then the baking process has been gone through.
AFM In Leviticus 23 we get the two wave-loaves of the first-fruits baken. Is this after that order?
JT Yes. In that chapter the first of the first-fruits is the sheaf cut down and waved before Jehovah, in that instance the fire is not applied; it refers to Christ Himself in resurrection. But the second part of the first-fruits is the wave-loaves which are baked; they are brought out of the dwellings of Israel.
WB-w Does this go beyond the wave-loaves? There is a big supply of twenty loaves.
JT It is quantity here. The two wave-loaves were more a testimony as to what was possible in the households of the people.
ANW How distinct these elements are! A herb may be difficult to classify, but wheat, barley, and corn are very distinctive.
WGT The man from Baal-shalishah would displace the official element, such as the sons of the prophets, who had a standing.
JT His importance lies in the fact that he comes from Baal-shalishah bringing food to the man of [p. 231] God. He is, typically, the link between heaven and that which represents God down here.
APT Would the supplies this man brought be on the line of ministry — a direct word from God?
JT I think so; and it links on, in Ephesian character, with what is known to be of God down here. The food is brought to the man of God.
RAL And all get the benefit of it.
JT Yes. “He set it before them, and they ate and left thereof, according to the word of Jehovah”.
HSD What the man from Baal-shalishah had was capable of expansion.
JT Well, we see what it is as in the hands of the man of God.
WB-w Why does it say a hundred men?
JT That is, relatively, a goodly number; the twenty loaves are also a goodly, though not a vast, number — something you can compass, but there were some left over.
AFM In the words, “they ate and left thereof”, we have a suggestion of the abundance contained in the epistle to the Ephesians, made available through prophetic ministry.
FHL Does what this man brought suggest the immense possibility of the field as properly cultivated; i.e., what comes in here in contrast to the wild vine?
JT What the man brings indicates the country from which he comes and what prevails there.
ANW Would what he brought suggest ministry from the ascended Head?
JT I think so; you feel how orderly and well things are done at Baal-shalishah.
WFK We should note that all is “according to the word of Jehovah”.
JT Things are determined by His word, which is in keeping with the ground we are on here.
AC When the attendant asks, “How shall I set this before a hundred men?” he brings in an element of doubt. The man of God emphasises what he had said before.
JT Yes; it is a question of authority: “And he said, Give the people that they may eat; for thus saith Jehovah: They shall eat, and shall have to spare. And he set it before them, and they ate and left thereof, according to the word of Jehovah”.
AC Would that not impress the attendant further as to the man of God?
JT I think so. It should come home to every one of us that there is authority in heaven to be reflected in the assembly.
AR It is remarkable that the will of God enters into Ephesians.
JT That is a very important thing — the idea of “the good pleasure of his will”, “the mystery of his will”, and “the counsel of his own will” (Ephesians 1:5; Ephesians 1:9; Ephesians 1:11) — so that we do well to recognise it and bow to it as essential to our spiritual growth and prosperity.