And Elijah took twelve stones [This number, too, was full of significance. Not only would it carry back their thoughts to the giving of the law (Exodus 24:4; Exodus 28:21), and to their fathers' entrance into the promised land (Joshua 4:3, Joshua 4:9), but it would remind them of the essential unity of the people, notwithstanding the division of the kingdom. The act was thus a protest against the schism. We cannot hold with Keil, Wordsworth, al. that it was "a practical declaration on the part of the prophet that the division of the nation into two kingdoms was at variance with the will of God," because we are distinctly told that that division was "from the Lord" (1 Kings 12:15). But it was certainly a witness against a divided Church, and a reminder of the unity of the race], according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, unto whom the word of the Lord came [Genesis 32:28], saying, Israel shall be thy name. [He thus protests against the exclusive assumption of the name of Israel, and the exception of the southern kingdom from the glorious heritage and calling of Israel, by the ten tribes. But we cannot follow Bähr in the belief that Jacob received "from Jehovah the name of Israel," i.e; the "soldier of God," because he commanded his house to "put away the strange gods" (Genesis 35:2, Genesis 35:10 sqq.), or that Elijah would teach that "only those who did as Jacob did had a claim to his name." The great idea is that the people are one, and are the Lord's.]
1 Kings 18:32
And with the stones [the twelve he had chosen out of the ruins. Cf. Exodus 20:25] he built an altar in the name of the Lord [not "by the command of Jehovah" (Bähr), but rather as the minister and for the service of Jehovah, or, as Keil. "by the authority and for the glory of Jehovah." Nor is it certain that "he called, as he Built it, on the name of Jehovah, and so dedicated it to His service" (Rawl.) See Genesis 12:8; Genesis 13:4; Genesis 33:20; Genesis 35:7]: and he made a trench [or channel, 2 Kings 18:17; Isaiah 7:3; Isaiah 36:2; Ezekiel 31:4. The word implies that it was for holding the water, not for keeping off the people] about the altar, as great as would contain two measures of seed [Heb. as the inside (lit; house) of two seahs of seed. These words have been variously interpreted. Keil, with Thenius and Wordsworth, understands that "the trench was so large that you could sow two seahs of seed upon the ground which it covered." But apart from the fact that בַּיִת must refer to capacity rather than superficial extent, one does not measure a trench, as Bähr observes, by the ground which it covers, but by its depth. He would follow Gesenius in understanding that the trench was so deep as to hold two seahs of seed; i.e; as deep as the grain measure containing two seahs. The סְאָה was the third of an ephah. Cf. Jos; Ant. 9.4. 5, and the σάτα τρία of Matthew 13:33.]
1 Kings 18:33
And he put the wood in order, and cut the bullock in pieces, and laid him on the wood [Rawlinson says "He obeyed, that is, all the injunctions of the law with respect to the offering of a burnt sacrifice (see Le 1 Kings 1:3-9), and adds, "He thus publicly taught that all the ordinances of the law were binding on the kingdom of Israel." But it is very probable that the priests of Baal had done the same things. All sacrifice involved such manual acts. Cf. Genesis 22:9, where the same word עָרַךְ is used. No doubt the prophet did everything in an orderly and regular way; but the people could hardly learn a lesson of obedience from such elementary acts as these, and the less so as the law provided, that the sacrifice should be offered only "by the priests, the sons of Aaron" (Le Genesis 1:8), and Elijah's ministrations, consequently, might seem to warrant or condone the ministrations of Jeroboam's intrusive priesthood. That they did not lend any real sanction to those irregularities is clear, however, to us. For, in the first place, priests were not to be had, all having long since left the kingdom. In the second place, the higher commission of the prophet embraced within itself the authority for all necessary priestly Ac. Cf. 1 Samuel 16:2. Elijah acted, as Grotius well observes, jure prophetico, minoribus legibus exsolutus, ut majores servaret], and said, Fill four barrels [Heb. כַדּים. Cf. 1 Kings 17:12. It designates the ordinary water-pitcher, generally carried then, as now, by women: Genesis 24:14-20; 7:16; Ecclesiastes 12:6] with water, and pour it on the burnt sacrifice, and on the wood. [The water, as already remarked, was doubtless brought from the adjoining spring. "In such springs the water remains always cool, under the shade of a vaulted roof, and with no hot atmosphere to evaporate it. While all other fountains were dried up, I can well understand that there might have been found here that superabundance of water which Elijah poured so profusely over the altar".]
1 Kings 18:34
And he said, Do it the second time. And they did it the second time. [Heb. Repeat, and they repeated.] And he said, Do it the third time. And they did it the third time. [See note on 1 Kings 17:21.]
1 Kings 18:35
And the water ran round [Heb. the waters went round] about the altar, and he filled the trench also [i.e; the trench, which was only partially filled with the water of the twelve כַדִּים, he now filled to the brim] with water. [The object of these repeated drenchings of the victim and altar was to exclude all suspicion of fraud. It would almost seem as if tricks not unlike that practised year by year at the Greek Easter at Jerusalem were familiar to that age. Some of the fathers expressly state that the idolatrous priests of an earlier time were accustomed to set fire to the sacrifice from hollow places concealed beneath the altar, and it was an old tradition (found in Ephrem Syrus, and Chrysostom) that the Baal prophets had concealed a man for that purpose beneath their altar, but that he had died from suffocation (Stanley). Bähr, however, sees in these 3 x 4 vessels of water a symbolical act. The significance of this combination, he says, is unmistakable, though we cannot be certain as to the precise meaning of the prophetic act. His only suggestion is that it points to abundance of rain as the reward of keeping the covenant (Deuteronomy 28:12, Deuteronomy 28:23). But all this is extremely precarious, and the more so as the pitchers may have been filled any number of times before the trench was full.]
1 Kings 18:36
And it came to pass at the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice [see note on 1 Kings 18:29], that Elijah the prophet [this designation of Elijah is unusual. Cf. Malachi 4:5. Elsewhere he is "the Tishbite," or the "man of God"] came near, and said, Lord [Heb. Jehovah. Not only does the sacred name stand at the head of his prayer, it is also mentioned thrice (LXX. four times)] God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel [Two things are to be noticed here: first, that this formula had only once before been used, and that by God Himself, before the giving of law, at the burning bush. It was when God revealed Himself in flaming fire that He had proclaimed Himself the God of Abraham, etc. Secondly, that the variation "Israel" is made designedly (cf. verse 31), not only to proclaim the Lord as the "God of Israel" (cf. 1 Kings 17:1), but also to suggest that the name and privileges of Israel belonged to all the sons of Jacob. The LXX. adds, "Hear me, O Lord, hear me this day by fire"—most of which is clearly borrowed from the next verse], let it be known this day that thou art God in Israel [according to verse 24, "the God that answereth by fire, etc.], and that I am thy servant, and that I have done all these things according to thy word. [LXX. διὰ σε. Not only the earlier proceedings of the day, but the three years' drought, etc. Keil would include the miracle about to be performed, but the people could hardly doubt that that, when done, was done according to the Divine word. It is interesting to compare with these words 1 Kings 17:2, 1 Kings 17:3, 1 Kings 17:8, 1 Kings 17:16, 1 Kings 17:24, and 1 Kings 18:1, all of which mention the "word of the Lord."]
1 Kings 18:37
Hear me, O Lord [Jehovah], hear me [or answer me; same word as in 1 Kings 18:24, 1 Kings 18:26, and 1 Kings 18:29], that this people may know that thou art the Lord God [Rather, "that thou, Jehovah, art the God." Same expression as in 1 Kings 18:24, "let him be the God"], and that thou hast turned their heart back again. [Cf. Malachi 4:5, Malachi 4:6: "He "Elijah the prophet") shall turn the heart of the fathers," etc. He speaks as if the miracle were already wrought (cf. John 11:41), and the people already repentant. His prayer is that they may understand that the prodigy about to be performed was wrought for their conversion.]
1 Kings 18:38
Then the fire of the Lord [Jehovah. Not lightning, but supernatural light and heat emanating from God Himself. Cf. Le 1 Kings 9:24; 1 Chronicles 21:26; 2 Chronicles 7:1; Hebrews 12:29] fell, and consumed [Heb. ate up, devoured] the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones [in calcem redigit, Cler.], and the dust [Bähr translates die Erde, and understands this to be the earth with which the altar of twelve stones had been packed. Similarly Rawlinson. But it is very doubtful whether עָפָר pulvis, could be used in this sense. It may mean dry earth, but this altar had been deluged with water], and licked up [ לָחַךְ is clearly onomatopoetic, like our lick; Germ. lecken; Gr. λείχω, etc. It expresses well the action of tongues of flame] the water that was in the trench.
1 Kings 18:39
And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces [As in Le 1 Kings 9:24; 2 Chronicles 7:3; cf. Numbers 22:31; Joshua 5:14; Revelation 11:16. They recognized in the fire, that is to say, the token of the Divine Presence]: and they said, The Lord [Jehovah. The connexion of this verse with the three verses preceding is obscured by our translation], he is the God; the Lord, he is the God. [The echo of verse 24. The Hebrew words are the same. Stanley remarks that it is as if (by a slight inversion) they turned "the name of the prophet himself into a war-cry, 'Eli-Jah-hu.'"]
1 Kings 18:40
And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. [Elijah's promptitude is extremely striking. The people had hardly recovered from their terror and awe before he proceeds to judgment. The narrative has the air of truth, and was doubtless reduced to writing by an eye-witness.] And they took them: and Elijah brought them down [Heb. caused them to go down, i.e; had them brought down. He could but lead the way, as they numbered 450] to the brook [Wady. "Like most of the so called ' rivers of Palestine,' the perennial stream forms but a small part of the Kishon" (Grove)] Kishon ["Tortuous," now called Nahr el Mukatta, the "river of slaughter." See Thomson, L. and B. 2. pp. 140, 141; Porter, pp. 383-4; Dict. Bib. 2.p.45. It flows directly under Carmel], and slew them there. [Obviously, he merely superintended the slaughter. That he slew them all with his own hand is altogether out of the question. Nor is it clear that" sword in hand he stood over them" (Stanley). Josephus rightly explains: "they slew the prophets at Elijah's instigation." It is almost certain, from their resorting to the Kishon for this purpose, that it was not quite dry at the time. Their blood would mingle with its waters, and the flood which the "great rain" would presently produce (cf. 5:21) would carry their corpses down to the sea. It has often been supposed that the mound near the Kishon, known as Tell el Cassis, "the mound of the priests," derives its name from this slaughter of the prophets of Baal. But Conder remarks that "Kassis is the word applied to a Christian priest, and the word Kohen or Kamir would more naturally be expected if there was any real connexion with the idolatrous priests of Baal."]
This action of the prophet Elijah in instituting this wholesale slaughter in the hour of his triumph has been repeatedly arraigned and denounced, but most unjustly. According to some, it was an act of gross fanaticism and cruelty; others have seen it in a wild and terrible vendetta for the murder of the Lord's prophets. By some, indeed, it has been justified on the principles of the lex talionis (Exodus 21:24, etc.); on the ground, that is to say, that the men who had instigated Jezebel in her attempted extermination of the prophetic schools had merited extermination in their turn. But it is a fatal objection to their view, first, that we not only have no proof, but no reason for thinking, that it was at their instigation that the queen "cut off the prophets of the Lord;" and, secondly, that it is not clear that she succeeded in her sanguinary purpose, or that many lives were sacrificed to her fury. And Elljah's action needs no such lame apologies. As the Lord's prophet, as the vindicator and restorer of the law, there was no other course open to him. If the Mosaic law was then written, and this very incident is one of the proofs that it was then written; if, however it had fallen into contempt or desuetude, it was still binding upon Israel; and if Elijah was justified in executing its provisions, and was required to execute them, however repugnant they might be to his inclinations (Deuteronomy 27:26; Galatians 3:10), then he could not have done otherwise than he did. For it was an essential part of that law, it was an obligation that was laid, not once or twice, but on three separate occasions (Exodus 22:20; Deuteronomy 13:1-18.; Deuteronomy 17:2-7), on the Jewish people, it was a duty they were to perform, however distressing and harrowing it might be (Deuteronomy 13:6-9), to provide that the worshipper of false gods, and especially the teacher of such worship, should be put to death. It was primarily, of course, the duty of the authorities, of the theocratic king and his subordinates, to execute these injunctions. But the king of that age was corrupt and powerless—nay, was himself idolatrous. So great was the depravity of the time that the false prophet enjoyed the favour and protection of the court, and the true prophet was everywhere being hunted to death. The execution of this law, consequently, could not be expected from the king. It must be executed, if at all, in spite of him, and in disregard of his protests. It was only Elijah, therefore, could put it into force, and Elijah only in the hour of his triumph. And the jus zelotyparum, the right claimed by every faithful Jew to execute vengeance, after the example of Phinehas (Numbers 25:11), upon any gross breach of the Divine law committed in his presence, was not his only warranty; he held a commission, higher than the king's, as the prophet of the Most High. He had just proved that the Lord He was God. It was now for him to prove that God's law was no dead letter. It was for him to cut off the men—some of them renegades from the faith of Israel, some of them foreign emissaries introduced into the land who had corrupted his countrymen, and threatened the very existence of the true religion. It is necessary, therefore, for those who challenge his conduct in this respect, who call him sanguinary, vindictive, etc; to settle their account with the law which he obeyed, and, indeed, with Him who has approved this deed, and has forewarned us that He too will act in like manner (Luke 19:27). For this terrible retribution is by no means an exceptional or isolated act, in contrast to the general spirit of that dispensation; on the contrary, it is in thorough accord with the system out of which it sprung. We gain nothing, therefore, by repudiating this one transaction. For clearly, in the first place, it was allowed and approved of God, who otherwise would hardly have answered the prayer which Elijah presently offered, and (2) other similar acts have distinctly received Divine commendation (Exodus 32:25-28; Numbers 25:7-13; 2 Kings 1:9 sqq.) It is true that the spirit of Elias was not the spirit of Christianity (Luke 9:56), but it is forgotten how different was the dispensation of Elijah from that of the New Covenant. In that age idolaters must receive their just recompense of reward, because the judgment to come had not then been revealed; because justice must be measured out to men in this life. We do not avenge idolatry or irreligion now with fire and sword, not because the thing is any the less sinful, but because the duty has been taken out of our hands; because our religion instructs us to leave it to Him who has said, "Vengeance is Mine," etc. It is perhaps worth remarking here that there is nothing in this history half so dreadful as might be seen on a thousand battlefields—and those not battlefields for truth and right—on which, nevertheless, Elijah's critics have learned to look with complacency. It may, however, be objected to this view that the punishment denounced by the law was stoning (Deuteronomy 13:10; Deuteronomy 17:5). But surely it is easy to see why, in this particular, the law was not kept. It was simply that the exigency of the occasion did not permit of its being kept. It was because the 450 traitors to God and their country could not be stoned within the few hours that remained before the night closed in and the multitude dispersed, that a more speedy punishment, that of the sword, was adopted. And it would have been a sacrifice of the spirit of the law to the letter had some few false prophets been stoned and the rest thereby been afforded the opportunity to escape, and, under Jezebel's protection, to renew their efforts against truth and morality and religion.
1 Kings 18:41
And Elijah said unto Ahab, Get thee up [It is clear from the word עֲלֵה that the king had gone clown with the crowd to the Kishon. Curiosity had perhaps impelled him to witness the slaughter which he was powerless to prevent. And no doubt he had been profoundly awed by the portent he had just witnessed], eat and drink [It is hardly likely that there was aught of derision in these words. It is extremely probable that the excitement of the ordeal was so intense that the king had barely tasted food all day long. Elijah now bids him eat if he can, after what he has witnessed. There is now, he suggests, no further cause for anxiety or alarm. The people being repentant (1 Kings 18:39, 1 Kings 18:40), and the men who have brought a curse on the land being cut off, the drought can now be abated (cf. 2 Samuel 21:1, 2 Samuel 21:6, 2 Samuel 21:14). The next words assign the reason why he should eat and drink. It is a mistake, however (Ewald, Rawlinson), to suppose that he was bidden to "eat of the feast which always followed a sacrifice," for this was a whole burnt offering and had been entirely consumed (1 Kings 18:38). It is probable that the attendants of the king had spread a tent for him upon the plateau, and had brought food for the day along with them]; for there is a sound of abundance of rain [Heb. for a voice of a noise— הָמוֹן; cf. hum, an onomatopoetic word—of rain. Gesenius and Keil think that the prophet could already hear the sound of the drops of rain, but if so, it was only in spirit (cf. verse 45). The words may refer to the rise of the wind which so often precedes a storm, but it is more probable that Elijah speaks of signs and intimations understood only by himself. This was the "word" of 1 Kings 17:1.]
1 Kings 18:42
So Ahab went up to eat and to drink. And Elijah went up to the top [Heb. head] of Carmel [It is clear from Verse 43 that this was not the actual summit, nor can it have been, as Bähr supposes, the outermost promontory towards the sea, unless he means the foot or slope of that ridge or promontory, for from this רֹאשׁ the sea was not visible. It also appears from the עֲלֵה of verse 44 that this point must have been at a lower elevation than the plateau where the altar had stood and where Ahab's tent was]; and he cast himself down upon the earth [Same word 2 Kings 4:34, 2 Kings 4:35, of Elisha's prostration upon the dead child. But if Elijah "stretched himself full length" upon the earth, as the Easterns constantly do in prayer (see Thomson, 1:26, 27) it was but for a moment, as we presently find him kneeling], and put his face between his knees. ["The Oriental attitude of entire abstraction" (Stanley). The posture witnessed to the intensity of his supplication.]
1 Kings 18:43
And said to his servant [of whom we now hear for the first time. It is an old tradition that this was none other than the son of the Sareptan, who was afterwards known as the prophet Jonah (Jerome, Praef. in Jonam). See note on 1 Kings 17:24], Go up now, look toward [Heb. the way of] the sea. [It is a striking confirmation of the theory which identifies El Murahkah with the scene of Elijah's sacrifice that the sea, though not visible from the plateau itself, is from the crest of the hill, a few feet higher. Van de Velde writes, "On its west and northwest sides the view of the sea is quite intercepted by an adjacent height. That height may be ascended, however, in a few minutes and a full view of the sea obtained from the top." Similarly the latest authority, Mr. Condor: "The peak is a semi-isolated knoll with a cliff some forty feet high, looking southeast.... The sea is invisible, except from the summit, and thus it was only by climbing to the top of Carmel, from the plateau where the altar may have stood, that the prophet's servant could have seen the little cloud," etc.] And he went up, and looked, and said, There is nothing. And he said, Go again seven times. [Cf. Joshua 6:15-20; 2 Kings 5:14; Matthew 18:21; Psalms 119:164. The idea here is that of sufficiency, of completion, rather than, as elsewhere, of covenant. And yet it must be remembered that Elijah was only praying for what God had already promised to grant (Psalms 119:1). This earnest prayer for rain under these circumstances suggests that the former prayer "that it might not rain" (James 5:17) had also been inspired of God. But it is worth considering whether Elijah's attitude was not one of reverent and assured expectation, as much as of prayer. When Rawlinson says that "the faithfulness and patience shown [by the servant] in executing this order without a murmur, imply devotedness of no common kind," he surely forgets that the drought had lasted for three years and a half, and that the servant had that day seen the fires of God descend at Elijah's prayer. It is inconceivable, under such circumstances, that any man could murmur.]
1 Kings 18:44
And it came to pus at the seventh time, that he said, Behold, there ariseth a little cloud out of the sea, like a man's hand. [ כַף lit; palm, hollow of hand. Cf. Luke 12:54, "When ye see the cloud (Gr. τὴν νεφέλην) arise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is." "Still in autumn the Utile cloud comes up like a man's hand and swells till huge thunder pillars are piled black and high above the mountains" (Condor). But it is not in Palestine alone that a little cloud on the horizon is frequently the harbinger of rain]. And he said, Go up [see note on Luke 12:42], say unto Ahab, Prepare thy chariot [Heb. bind], and get thee down [Keil, Stanley, and others assume that Ahab's chariot was waiting at the foot of the mountain. But it is to be noticed that the command to harness the horses precedes that to "go down." The writer rode down from El Murahkah to the plain, and it is quite conceivable that the royal chariot may have conveyed Ahab to the plateau of sacrifice and have waited for him there], that the rain stop thee not, [After heavy rain ( גֶּשֶׁם) the Kishon, which "collects the whole drainage of this large basin" (Conder), the Great Plain, soon becomes an impassable swamp.(Judg, 5:21), "I can tell you from experience that in wet seasons it (the Wady) is extremely muddy, and then the Kishon causes great tribulation to the muleteers. Rarely indeed do they get over it without some of their animals sticking fast in its oozy bottom".]
1 Kings 18:45
And it came to pass in the meanwhile [Heb. unto thus and unto thus, i.e; till now and then (cf. Exodus 7:16; Joshua 17:14). Gesen; Bähr, al. support the rendering of the A.V. Ewald, Keil, al. understand "while the hand is being moved hither and thither," i.e; very speedily. The practical difference is not great], that the heaven was black with clouds and wind, and there was a great rain. ["The cry of the boy from his mountain watch had hardly been uttered when the storm broke upon the plain" (Stanley). "The storm" [over "the dark slate-coloured ridge of Carmel," witnessed by Conder in 1872] "burst suddenly, the rain descending with violence, hissing on the ground, as if not able to come down fast enough, and accompanied with gusts of wind, thunder, and lightning."] And Ahab rode, and went to Jezreel.
1 Kings 18:46
And the hand of the Lord was on Elijah [Same expression 2 Kings 3:15; Ezekiel 1:3; Ezekiel 3:14; Ezekiel 8:1; Ezekiel 33:22; cf. also Exodus 9:3; 2:15; Ruth 1:13; Acts 11:21; Acts 13:11. Some of the commentators understand the words of Divine guidance, some of a supernatural strengthening. There is no need to exclude either interpretation. An impulse from on high impelled him to "gird up his loins" and go with the king; a strength not his own sustained him whilst "he ran," etc. The distance across the plain to Jezreel is about fourteen miles; the royal chariot would drive furiously, and whatever fleetness and endurance the prophet had acquired in the wilds of Gilead, it seems hardly likely that, after the fatigues and excitement of that day, he would have been able, without the hand of the Lord upon him, to keep ahead of the chariot horses], and he girded up his loins [i.e; gathered round his waist the abba, or "mantle"—the אַדֶּרֶת (cf. 1 Kings 19:13, 1 Kings 19:19; 2 Kings 2:13, 2 Kings 2:14) was so-called from its ample size—which would otherwise have impeded his movements. Probably this, apart from the girdle, was his sole garment.], and ran before Ahab [Thomson mentions an interesting illustration of this incident which he witnessed. The forerunners of Mohammed All Pasha "kept just ahead of the horses, no matter how furiously they were ridden, and in order to run with the greatest ease they not only girded their loins very tightly, but also tucked up their loose garments under the girdle." But such a spectacle is of common occurrence in the East. Kitto remarks that the Shatirs of Persia keep pace with case with their masters' horses. They also are tightly girded. His object was apparently twofold. First, to honour the sovereign whom he had that day humbled in the presence of his subjects. The great prophet, by assuming the lowly office of a footman, or forernnner (see note on 1 Kings 1:5), would give due reverence to the Lord's anointed, like Samuel on a somewhat similar occasion (1 Samuel 15:30, 1 Samuel 15:31). Secondly, he may have hoped by his presence near the king and court to strengthen any good resolves which the former might have made, and to further the work of reformation which he could not but hope the proceedings of that day would inaugurate. That this tribute of respect would be grateful to Ahab, who hitherto had only regarded Elijah as an adversary, it is impossible to doubt. And that Elijah believed he had struck a death blow to the foreign superstitions fostered by the court, and especially by the queen, is equally certain. It is not clear, as Bähr assumes, that his servant accompanied him on the road. He may have rejoined him later on in the day or night] to the entrance [Heb. until thou comest to. The Arab aversion, which Elijah is supposed to have shared, to entering cities, has often been remarked. But there were other and deeper reasons why he should not adventure himself within the city. Probably the same guiding hand which led him to Jezreel impelled him to lodge outside the walls. It was impossible to say what Jezebel, in her transports of rage, might do. After such a day, too, any prophet would shrink from familiar contact with men and from the strife of tongues] of Jezreel. [Ahab had a palace here (1 Kings 21:1). But Samaria was still the capital, and so remained till the captivity (1 Kings 22:37; 2 Kings 15:13, 2 Kings 15:14; 2 Kings 17:5, 2 Kings 17:6). The selection of Jezreel as a royal residence is easily accounted for. It stands on "a knoll 500 feet high" (Conder), overlooking both the plain of Esdraelon and the valley of Jezreel. In fact, it is the finest situation in the "Great Plain." Hence perhaps its name "the sowing place of God." See Stanley, S. and P. pp. 336 sqq.; Porter, p. 353; Dict. Bib. vol. 1.p. 1080; Van de Velde, vol. 2. p. 370.]
HOMILETICS
1 Kings 18:3, 1 Kings 18:4
The Governor of Ahab's House.
There are few things in these books of Scripture more surprising and suggestive than the position of Obadiah in She palace of Ahab. Consider—
I. THE AGE. We have seen that during this reign (1 Kings 16:30, 1 Kings 16:33; 1 Kings 21:25), and especially in the capital city of Samaria (1 Kings 16:32), the wickedness of Israel had reached its zenith. From the accession of Jeroboam, and the schism which followed it, the northern kingdom had steadily gone from bad to worse, till its apostasy and impiety culminated under the malign influences of Ahab and Jezebel. Their joint reign marks a new departure in the religious history of the ten tribes. Hitherto men had worshipped the God of their fathers, though in an irregular and unauthorized way, and idolatry, though not unknown, had not been open and unblushing. Now, however, the whole nation, with but few exceptions, abandoned itself to the licentious worship of Phoenician gods, and the ancestral religion was proscribed, its altars were overthrown, and a determined effort was made to stamp out its prophets and professors.
II. THE PLACE. We should expect, consequently—what Elijah really believed to be the case (1 Kings 19:10)—that to find a pious man we must search the land as with a lantern. We should expect to find some Abdiels, "faithful among the faithless found," but we should look for them away from the haunts of men, in "caves and dens of the earth," in the brook Cherith, or the cottage of Zarephath, or wandering about "in sheepskins and goatskins," etc. (Hebrews 11:37, Hebrews 11:38). But we should hardly hope to find them in the cities of Israel, in the broad light of day, in conspicuous positions, and least of all should we look for them in Samaria, where Satan's seat was, the fortress and citadel of Baal.
Or if we were so sanguine, notwithstanding the godlessness of the times and the genius of the place, as to count on some saints in Samaria, we should never betake ourselves to the great men (Jeremiah 5:5); we should go in search of piety in the cottages of the poor. We should never dream of finding any followers of the Lord occupying an exalted station, living under the shadow of the palace, or in close contact with the determined and unscrupulous queen.
III. HIS POSITION. But if we were assured that even in Ahab's palace, under the same roof with Jezebel, a devout and steadfast servant of Jehovah was to be found, we should certainly have expected to find him in some insignificant servitor, some poor retainer of the place. That any high official, that a minister of state could retain his piety in that cesspool of corruption, that hotbed of idolatry and immorality, and at the very time that Jezebel was cutting off the Lord's prophets, would seem to us altogether out of the question. "What communion," we should ask, "hath light with darkness? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?"
IV. HIS PIETY. Yet we find that Obadiah, the intendant of the palace of Samaria, the trusted and faithful minister of Ahab, the "third ruler in the kingdom," "feared the Lord greatly" (Obadiah 1:3), and, though surrounded by Baal-worshippers, never bowed the knee to Baal; though risking his life by his devotion to Jehovah, yet served Him truly, and succoured His prophets.
We have a parallel to this, and a still more striking instance of piety under the most adverse and discouraging circumstances in the New Testament. We have something like it, indeed, in the case of Daniel and the three Hebrew children; something approaching it in the case of Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward (Luke 8:8); but we find a still closer analogue in the saints of Caesar's household (Philippians 4:22).
When we remember that the saints of Rome were the talk, the admiration, the patterns of the early Christian Churches" throughout the whole world" (Romans 1:8); that among the saints of Rome, those of the palace or of the barracks (Philippians 1:18) attached to Caesar's palace on the Palatine, were conspicuous, at least (Daniel 4:22) for their charity, for the crowning Christian grace of φιλαδελφία, the stamp and seal royal of the saints (John 13:35; 1 John 4:20); when we remember, too, that this was in Rome, at that period the very worst city in the world, the resort—their own writers being witness—of all the knaves and charlatans and libertines of the empire; that this was in the year A.D. 63, when the palace of the Caesars was occupied by Nero, of all those born of women perhaps the meanest, basest, most infamous, most profligate; that this Nero was murderer of brother, murderer of mother, of wife, of paramour; persecutor and butcher of the Christians, sworn foe of goodness and purity in every shape, patron and abettor of every kind of abomination, according to some the "Beast" of the Apocalypse; when we consider that under his roof, in the pandemonium which he had created around him, saints were found, meek followers of the unspotted Christ, we cannot but be impressed with the fact that the wisdom of God has preserved for our encouragement two conspicuous instances—one under the Old Dispensation, one under the New—of fervent piety living and thriving in a palace under the most adverse circumstances, amid the overflowings of ungodliness. And these facts may suggest the following lessons: