The Pulpit Commentary — 1 Kings — Section 381

e11y, 11 11nd he died,'' we mudt conclude that the mode of building in Elijah's timo and it did not mea.1;1 to s11y H. (3) Verses 18, 20 the custom of giving the 'alliyeh to the do not neceaa1tnte the belief that he we.e guest were the s11I11e e.e now ; also til at this dee.~ (ace below). (4) Josephus, who we.a not poor widow we.a not originall,r a.mong the 11fro.1d of the muo.culoue, he.a interpreted the poorest classes (who ba.ve no 'alliyeh), but words thus: .:., icai r,jv ,j,vx;~v a,Ptivai .:al that her extreme destitution was owin" to oof;a, veicpov. To this it may be added that the famine "J, and la.id him. upon his ~wn i11?~? simply means breath, a.nd that where bed. ,[It may be doubted whether the verb it ie desired to convey the idea of life, addi- ~i'l~;l~! lit., made him to lie down, would be tional words a.re used (as in Gen. ii. 7, 11 the used of a corpse.] bi·eath of life; Gen. vii. 22, " the breath of Ver. 20.-And he cried unto the Lo?'d, and the spirit of life." CI. Job xxvii. 3, Prov. xx. !13-ld, 0 -~Ord my God, bast Thou also [i.e. 27 (where the intelligence or rea.son a.ppears m addit10n to the misery and suffering to hil meant), Eccles. iii. 21. It must be brought through me upon my country] confessed also that the statemeut, 11 his brought evil upon the widow with W"nom sickness was so sore," &c., ie quite apropos I sojourn, by slaying [Heh. to slay. Words- and iutelligible, if we may understand that worth partly bases his conclusion that the he lay iu a state of coma, but would be o.n child wo.s dead on the inexact translation of extremely rouudabout way of affirmiug that the .A. V.] her son ? he was de:id. Ver. 21.-And he stretched him.self Ver. 18.-And she said unto Elijah, What [marg. me,1sured himself, but Geseniusholds have I to do with thee [Heh. what to me that stretch out is the primary meaning of and thee. Same formula, Judg. xi. 12; 2 the root] upon the child [cf. 2 Kings iv. Sam. xvi. 10; 2 Kings iii. 13 ; Matt. viii. 34. The commentators are again a.t variance 29; John ii. 4. It means, "What is there as to whether these worda imply the use of between ue?" or practically, 11 What have I natural· means or not. Those who hold done?" 11 Is this the result of my association that t!Je child was dead ne.tural'y adopt the with thee? Must such sorrow befal me negative, and some (Keil, Ro.-,,1.i..nson, al.) because thou art with me?" Bii.hr], O thou compare with it the acLion of our Lord in ma.n of God? [This woman, if a Phcenician, the case of the blind, deaf and dumb (Matt. was evidently familiar with the titles borne ix. 35; Luke vii. 14; John ix. 6, 7). But by the Hebrew prophets (eh. xii. 22; xiii. surely the circumstances a.nd the purpose passim; Judg. xiii. 6, 8). Nor ls this to be a.like, in these llltter cases, were entirely wondered at. The intercourse between the different. The object of the touch, of anoint- two nations had been very considerable] iug the eyes, &c., in these cases of healing, art thou come unto me to call my sin [not appears to have been to a.waken a. sufficient necessarily e.ny II special sin in her past faith-without which "He could do no life,"] to remembrance [her idea evidently miracle" (Matt. xiii. 59)-in men whose is that the prophet by residing with her, infirmities o! blindness, deafness, &c., pre- seeing her life, &c., had become acqnaiuted vented their attaining faith through the with her sinfuluess, and had called it to the ordinary channels of seeing and hearing tho remembranoo of the Almighty. She does merciful and gracious Son of man. But not mean the.t he had recalled it to her here the child, if not dead, was senseless. mind, but that he he.d been the i':;llt,;) or We are driven, therefore, to the belief that remembra.ncer of God. Cf. Gen. xl'. 14 ; the prophet II used r11tionaJ. means for Ezek. xxi. 29; Jar. iv. 16) and to slay my warmiug and revivifying" the child, "not son? [Obse1·ve1 she does not speak of him with the hope that of themselves they would prove effectuaJ., but in the sure as ale.in.] confidence that God, in answer to h.is Ver. 19.-And he saJd unto her, Give me weeping supplication, would impart super- thy son. And he took him out of her bosom, natural force to the natural human ~the age of the· child mo.y hence be roughly agencies," Bahr] three times [Not only lllferred] and ce.rried him up into & loft [Heb. in his prayer but also in this triple repeti- ."l!?P,Q the upper chamber. LXX. ro inr,p,jiov. tion do we recognize Elijah's profound con- Loft is mo~t misleading. The upper room viction that only by the Almighty power of 11 w11s often [rather, always] the best apart- God could the child be restored, and that ment in an Eastern house" (Rawlinson). whatever means were used, God a.lone oould It was sometimes the guest-chamber (Luke me.ke them effectual. For three is the num- xxii. 11, 12), and, from the uses to which it ber and signature of the Godhead-" uie ~~s put, must have ~een ~arge (Acts i. 13 ; eigentlich gottliche Zahl, die Signatur Jes 1x. 39 ; xx. 8 ; 2 Kings 1. 2). Thomson gottlioh~11. W~sens" \Bahr, Symb, i. 143). (U. & B. i. 235) infers from the fact that Henoe 1t lB, wter aha, that " the calling thti :widgw's houF.e 4ad an UJ>per room, 11 that upo11 the name of Jehovah in the old 888 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [oe, XVII. 1-94.