HOSPITALITY LEADING TO ENLARGEMENT
HOSPITALITY LEADING TO ENLARGEMENT
JT This is a chapter of spiritual enlargement which the Lord may use to help us at this time. This woman, as many will know, carries forward the figure of the previous type, that is the widow who was unable to meet her creditors, but by the light furnished her she was able to do so and to live on the rest. She lives spiritually. The Shunammite would be a continuation of this woman. She lives. It says she was a wealthy woman, a woman of great spiritual means. But what strikes the mind is the effect of the light shining through Elisha as compared with ourselves. The light comes constantly to us and as we move in it, we become enlarged and able to fulfil our obligations in every way, among others in the exercise of hospitality. God greatly honours this feature amongst His people, and in the case of this woman, she constrained Elisha that he should eat bread. Her hospitality went just so far, to eat bread, and so it was that as oft as he passed by, he turned in thither to eat bread. He did not go beyond the hospitality offered. The social side was omitted by her and omitted by him; it was just to eat bread. Then she says to her husband, “Behold now, I perceive that this is a holy man of God, who passes by us continually. Let us make, I pray thee, a small upper chamber with walls, and let us set for him there a bed, and a table, and a seat, and a lampstand; and it shall be when he cometh to us, he shall turn in thither. And it came to pass on a day, that he came thither, and he turned into the upper chamber, and lay there”. In the exercise of hospitality, she avoided the social side. The mere social side should not enter into our hospitality. The prophet only [p. 162] availed himself of what was in her mind, first to eat bread and then to use the chamber she prepared for him.
FI Would you say that the provision of the chamber was the outcome of what she saw in the prophet, eschewing the social side?
JT That is what I thought. He did not go beyond what she constrained him to do. She provided what was needed to sustain his life and she perceived he was a holy man of God, not only a man of God. He was safe to be in her house, so she prepared this chamber; still avoiding the social side. She does not invite him to be one of the family, but to be in isolation. That was in keeping with what she perceived him to be. She prepared nothing to gratify the mere social side, which is often damaging.
AH Is there remarkable spiritual alertness with her? It is on a day; she does not miss him that day.
JT Quite so, and then she noticed him every day when he passed by. He passed by continually, it says; she evidently noticed him all the time and perceived he was a holy man of God. He was not idle, not a man who would put himself on the brethren; he just accepted what was offered. He was constrained to do so, and then she perceived what he was, seeing him pass by, she prepared this chamber. She called her husband into it. The suggestion is that everything is healthy and seemly and holy and in keeping with the testimony.
FI I thought what you said in relation to her discerning the prophet was shown in that the chamber that was built was with walls to provide the prophet with what was consistent with his movements. Shutting out the social side.
JT Yes. Windows are not stressed. I suppose the idea would be seclusion rather than occupation with the outer world, like Eutychus.
AH It was an upper chamber, is [p. 163] that significant?
JT That would suggest moral elevation, I suppose.
AH Do you see any similitude between the features of this woman and those of Abraham who sat in his tent door?
JT Yes, I think so. He saw what was going on, he saw three men coming to him. Here this woman has eyes for what is in relation to God. She is not observing the dresses of the women who pass by, or of the men, but she perceives this one is a holy man of God. She represents a person of spiritual discernment. She has eyes for the testimony and what belongs to the testimony and moves with it. She omits all the social features.
AHH Sensibilities of this sort would have their compensations.
JT That is what we get in the chapter, I thought we might see how the enlargement comes. Here first this great woman perceives this man and considers for him that he must be sustained. The widow of Zarephath, to whom Elijah was sent, did not have means. She was opposite to this woman. She was not great in that sense and yet she is used of God, showing that a person of small measure may be designated by God to serve in the testimony, so let no one plead his poverty in this matter. Jehovah said to Elijah, “I have commanded a widow woman there to maintain thee”; she was by no means a person of means outwardly, but He commanded her to do this, and when the prophet arrives he meets her, as if God would put her in his way at once. This indicates that if we are at all disposed to have part in the testimony we are never to plead our poverty, for God can use a person who is poor. He takes up unlikely persons to set out what He can do. We are not told how He commanded this woman, but when Elijah came and met her, she was gathering sticks that she might make a little cake and eat it and die.
[p. 164] You may say, Not a likely person to maintain the testimony, but let no one think he is not a likely person because he is not rich. God may wish to show He can get along without the rich. So the prophet says to her, “Make me thereof a little cake first”. The point is to consider for God in whatever little you have. A handful of meal and a little oil in a cruse, you have that anyway. Think on what you have. There must have been something put on her mind by God because He told the prophet He had commanded her. The point is to be available to God and not plead our poverty. How are you keeping the little? Are you keeping it carefully? The meal was in the barrel and the oil in the cruse. The next thing is to make the little cake ‘for me first’, which links with the idea of the assembly, because a little cake is a whole thought. It is small, but it is whole. She had to maintain him there a year. She and her house and the prophet were cared for for a whole year. Now this woman is different; she has plenty and the prophet does not ask for anything; there is no burden put on her. The question is whether she is ready to find out the need, and she does. The prophet comes and she says, ‘Come in and eat bread’, which he does, and then he passes by. He is not a lazy man. No servant of God should put himself on the saints and stay with them too long. But he goes and comes. What is he doing? He is working the Lord’s work, and she sees this, and she brings her husband into it; as much as to say, This man is perfectly safe to be in the house. It is not a question of making him one of the family, or making him a guest room. What is suitable to him? She is tested as to what she is herself, and she has spiritual discernment. The moving about of the testimony, or those whom God uses in it, is to bring out what we all are. God loves to bring out what is latent [p. 165] in us.
Ques Why are these things represented on the feminine side?
JT Because it is a question, I think, of the work of God in us. That is not on the surface.
Sisters cannot speak in the meetings and brethren get disheartened because they cannot speak well, but this is a question of what comes out as opportunity affords.
AH So the husband does not seem to shine very well just here.
JT No, not right through, so as to bring out into relief the subjective state. God loves to bring that out.
FI The continual passing in and out amongst us of those who serve, becomes a test to us in relation to the truth.
JT That is what I had in mind. We have to learn not to attach anything to a brother because he has natural qualities. Some have great ability with the social side, but that is to be avoided. She makes no provision whatever for it. There is no need for it. There are the essentials. He wants sustenance and a room like this, no piano or anything like that. All the essentials, and only just what is essential.
EB Would it not be a mark of her spirituality, as she is a wealthy woman, to suggest to her husband a small upper chamber? Would it distinguish her as being spiritual?
JT I think so, there was nothing showy about it. She brings her husband into it, which is very seemly. He cannot be left out, however poor he may be; he is her husband.
EW Would the principle of headship be here?
JT That is what comes in. She is not an independent person. She is a great woman, but not moving independently of her husband. She brings him [p. 166] into it.
Rem It would have been a denial of her spirituality.
JT If she did not bring him in, quite so. He was old, it says, probably older than she was, but she brings him into it. The husband must have his place.
HY In pressing the social side, do you feel that this is not good for the prosperity of the saints?
JT Yes. One is speaking of the spirit of things. It often is made everything in house parties and the like. This woman is not on that line. She perceived the man is a holy man of God, and a holy man of God wants just essentials.
HY Do you think there is a danger of our being on that line?
JT There is, particularly with young people. Not that one would say too much, because we need to be considerate, but it is well to have the right thing in mind.
FI It is a great thing to be able to supply bread, to have that which is sufficient to meet the need of one who serves, and for him at the same time to be able to accept it.
JT Just so. We can see that Elisha makes no move beyond what is offered to him. When it is bread, he comes in every day and eats it, and then with this room, he uses it. He takes no liberties at all.
HL Why is it there is such a long time before the prophet speaks to the woman? He speaks through Gehazi.
JT I think the thought here is that the servant of the Lord should be maintained in a proper attitude of spiritual dignity and not be commonplace. We are speaking now in the spirit of things and not in the letter. If we make them apply to the letter, we shall make ourselves legal, but a servant of the Lord, according to what Paul says, is to maintain spiritual dignity, but he is ready to deal personally when needed. He called her, in verse 15, and she stood in the doorway. He spoke directly to her.
[p. 167] Gehazi was not much, anyway. Think of him asking a woman like this if she wished to be spoken for to the king. How incongruous this was! Gehazi was exposed.
HL Gehazi finished up by standing in the presence of the king.
JT Then he is rebuffed again, but that is the kind of man he is.
AH Does this woman represent one who enters into things and has not herself before her?
JT I have no doubt. She is a great woman spiritually. I believe she is a woman of Romans 8 — “If ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live”. She is living; the previous incident, in type, speaks of one living on the rest.
WL Why do you get the three features, the table, the seat and the lampstand?
JT The table would be to write on, or maybe to eat on. They are just the barest essentials of life and comfort; that is all. We must not be legal and say this is what we should have, because God gives us all things richly to enjoy, but if there is anything beyond that, you are not living in it. You are living somewhere else. Your life is elsewhere.
JM In principle are the saints to her the excellent of the earth? “I dwell among mine own people”.
JT That is the next thing. Gehazi is exposed. He is occupied with the king and the captain of the host. This would appeal to any woman of means, as she was, if she were worldly, but she is not worldly. She is occupied with the testimony, she is occupied with the holy man of God. Not that God calls him that, she calls him that. The next thing is that she has got a son, that is, her affections are enlarged. She is merging into a Colossian saint. Christ is in her. In Romans the body is dead on account of sin and the Spirit is life on account of righteousness, but in Colossians Christ is in us the hope of glory; and [p. 168] this son, I think, is the thought of Christ, in a small way, yet the suggestion of a son.
AH Is that the idea of fruitfulness?
JT Well, it is that, spiritual enlargement, but it is a son. It is a suggestion of Christ in a moral way in us developed as the hope of glory. Then there is the sorrow and further exercise of having not only a living Christ, here after the flesh, but a risen Christ, and that is what she has. She took up her son and went out. She is well off. She has Christ risen in type. All is well. He is the hope of glory.
AH Is your suggestion then that Romans 8 is the wealthy person and, as making use of this, we pass on to Colossians?
JT Yes. This type leads right on, reaching Ephesians. You will have noticed that the man from Baal-shalishah in verse 42 is a man from another land altogether and he has the fruit of that land, barley and fresh ears of corn, in his sack. That is a wonderful type of what we are speaking of, this element of hospitality and how it develops into enlargement. If we take up little things we develop into big things and God respects us. She did not ask for the son; it was from God’s side. Gehazi is rebuffed. Still he had the right thought at the bottom. He said she had no son, and that is what gave rise to this, so that the prophet spoke directly to her.
PP Would the house of Stephanas be a house where hospitality was seen? There was something there that was lacking amongst the saints.
JT No doubt there was. You mean at Corinth. One would think there was a great lack of hospitality there — not because they could not entertain, but because of partisan feeling, that is, you invite persons whom you like, your own set. That is what they were doing, and they carried it into the assembly, including one and excluding others because they do not belong to their party. In Colossians we have the statement, “Love ... towards all the saints”. That is, you do not discriminate.
AHH It seems that, although she was wealthy, she was hardly ready for the suggestion of a son.
JT Well, she is hardly ready, but yet God honours us if we are faithful in little. If we are faithful in little, we shall be faithful in much.
FI She gives a good example of hospitality, because what she did would not accrue to herself. When we take on hospitality we often have ourselves in view, what will accrue to us. In supplying bread and building a chamber, there is nothing that would accrue to her.
JT Quite so. There is no thought of her having invited people to meet the prophet.
FI I thought there is to be a good deal of discretion used. We have to be careful how far we go with these things.
JT Yes, you have to consider whether you are doing it for yourself, whether it is an occasion for a show. I find these occasions in the afternoons before meetings and after the meetings sometimes, although they are taxing, are very profitable all over the country. The truth comes out in an informal way: brothers and sisters can say things, and I find they are very profitable, but then there is the danger of making a show of the occasion as in the world when they have a party or dinner or the like — a family affair in that sense. She does not bring in anything of that at all. There is no suggestion of her inviting anybody to meet the prophet. He has a little room, that is all. He is the theme of the whole chapter; as he moves everything is brought to light. The man who brought the wild colocynths is exposed. The man of God exposes everybody as he moves about. Light radiates from him.
Then there is this matter of the boy when he is out with the reapers. It would seem as if the father was [p. 170] remiss. We are dealing with the subjective side. The thought of the father is the idea of authority, whether in the house or in the meeting, but he seems here to be remiss. It says, “The child grew, and it came to pass one day, that he went out to his father to the reapers. And he said to his father, My head, my head! And he said to the servant, Carry him to his mother ... and he sat on her knees till noon, and died”, so that both father and mother failed. The father does not do anything. Later on when the prophet comes back to the house it says, “He went up, and lay upon the child, and put his mouth upon his mouth, and his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands, and bent over him; and the flesh of the child grew warm. And he returned, and walked in the house to and fro”; he is coming out of his room now. Well! this boy — what happened to him? It is a head matter with the boy. Of course fathers and mothers make much of schools and the books the children read, and it seems to me that Elisha walking to and fro might suggest looking around to see what books are there. He would look in the bookcases, and maybe in the shelves which were not so conspicuous. What has happened to the boy? What has caused his death spiritually? As he began to get warm it came to the prophet and he went up and down in the house. Surely there must be some reason for this in the house. Are there any things lying around which would be likely to damage the child? What do you think?
FI I can see what you are after. The woman and her husband had right thoughts as to what was due to the prophet, but there may have been in the house that which would be the cause of the effect on the lad’s head. When we have a servant of the Lord in the house we encircle him with things he can look at so that he does not move around and find that which might cause headiness.
JT [p. 171] Yes, that is the thought. If there are godly men in the house things are often put out of sight.
EH Have we something similar to this in the Lord going into Jairus’ house, in what He had to turn out?
JT That is the same thing. There were flute players making a noise. There was weeping, too. It was all natural. The Lord is said to walk in the midst of the candlesticks. Why? To see what there is, and He speaks of what there is. And in verse 35 it says the prophet walked in the house to and fro. He went up and bent over him, as if to say, Is there anything here that has caused this boy’s death? If there is, it will cause somebody else’s death as well. Is it not a warning to us as to what we have in our houses if we have children?
EW Why could not Gehazi use the prophet’s staff?
JT He could not use it; it was of no value. Of course Elisha failed a little, because I think he attaches too much to his experience and an elder brother is liable to do that.
WL He is quickly recovered.
JT He is. A man of God would always recover himself quickly. He humbles himself and looks around for the other causes.
AHH Do you think it is possible that, whilst we may present what is suitable for the man of God, we might have something different in our minds in regard to our families?
JT Something different, something perhaps that we know well enough the man of God would not appreciate — that is what is in mind here.
AHH Do you think that the furniture of the upper room should be the furniture of the rest of the house?
JT The house would be in keeping with [p. 172] it.
WL We read in Zechariah that the eyes of the Lord are running to and fro.
JT That is right. Now he goes back and bends over the boy. The lad sneezed seven times and opened his eyes. What a wonderful experience for this boy. He sneezed seven times, that meant that the lungs were right and there was the power of life there in a real way; it is not the head now. The lungs are right and life is operating.
EH Is there a suggestion in this incident of some of us who may have gone out into service too soon, and found it was a question of our heads? He went out with the reapers. Is there something of that in it?
JT Yes, I suppose there is something in that, instead of going with the sowers. If we want to be it the service we should begin by sowing. This question of sowing seed introduces the thought that I have some conception of Christ of my own. It belongs to me and I can present it to others. Reaping is what other men sow. You can go a long way on this line, but if it is a question of bringing out a fresh conception of Christ, that is the seed to sow; you are tested.
AH Is it noteworthy that this holy man of God had known what is was to plough?
JT He was a ploughman. He was the twelfth, content to be last; he was not a forward man. That is the idea, to turn up the ground and put seed into it instead of working on what other men have done.
FI We have perhaps got heady. We might have gone reaping where others have previously sown and have taken it to ourselves and had to cry out, My head, my head! Many a young brother has taken on that which does not attach to him. The work has perhaps been done over a period of years, and he might just add a little to it and claim it for [p. 173] himself.
JT One has seen it frequently. The head carries us a long way in natural ability and putting energy into it. If there is no reality we have to come back and begin at the bottom.
EH The sneezing was more himself than being with the reapers?
JT I am sure. He is referred to now as a lad twice. He is a potential man. The word ‘lad’ is used, and not ‘child’. He is developing and now he can sneeze seven times, showing there is inward power.
CK Is it going too far to suggest that in figure the lad is brought on to resurrection ground?
JT He is, and I think his mother is too. We have to watch as to the types. His resurrection is a suggestion of Christ in the mother. She went out, we are told. He said to Gehazi, “Call this Shunammite. And he called her”; because she is in mind all through, “and she came to him. And he said, Take up thy son. And she came and fell at his feet, and bowed herself to the ground; and she took up her son, and went out”. She has no speech to make, like the widow of Zarephath. She made a speech and said, “Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of Jehovah in thy mouth is truth”. She said it because of the miracle. He raised up her son, too, but this woman knew he was a man of God before. She is further advanced. She is ready now for this. She worships.
AHH In coming to the man of God she says, “Did I desire a son of my lord?”, but now she is ready to take on.
JT There is no question like that now. It is said to be well. She had said before, “It is well” as it were abstractly in her soul, but now she is in it and she moves out.
Ques In regard to the lad, you said that the sneezing would suggest the action of the lungs,
[p. 174] movement of life. What about the eyes in contrast to the head?
JT Well, the eyes are to see, of course. It is not the ears. Ears take in knowledge, eyes see. The Lord says, “Blessed are your eyes”. They are open, you can see, they are open on the prophet himself.
AH Would you say something about that, his mouth, his eyes, his hands?
JT That is the selection of the prophet. He went up and lay upon the child and put his mouth upon his mouth, his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands, and bent over him. The mouth would be what he would say, and also the power of eating. Eyes would be what he would see with, and the hands what he would do, the leading features of a man. I suppose the boy would come out like the prophet. He is identified with his members.
AH So that he would speak like the man of God, see like him and serve like him.
JT That would be the effect. He is the son of the prophet in that sense, for there is nothing in the child’s father of virtue.
FI So that the woman receiving back her son really reached the point you have spoken of in Colossians, the hope of glory. That is what she had in view.
JT You can see she is ready for it.
CK She received him back in figure through death; that is Colossians, is it not?
JT Just so. We gentiles have Christ in resurrection, and in heaven too. Paul says, “If even we have known Christ according to flesh, yet now we know him thus no longer. So if any one be in Christ, there is a new creation”. I believe this chapter reaches on to that.
Ques What about the intervening [p. 175] incident?
JT Well, that is another view. Colossians is not a very safe place. If you stay there you are liable to bring in the wild colocynths. Colossians is a dangerous position if we are not on the up-line. Colocynths are poisonous. That is what a young man would do who would get up to give an address to make himself conspicuous, something we have not had before. I remember three-day meetings in a place and a brother wrote to me that they had something very new and wonderful, but it was bad, and they thought they had a good time. Because something is different it does not prove it to be safe and useful.