CHAPTER XIII.

GRACE BEFORE MEAT.

"And there came a man from Baal-shalisha, and brought the man of God bread of the first-fruits, twenty loaves of barley, and full ears of corn in the husk thereof. And he said, Give unto the people, that they may eat. And his servitor said, What, should I set this before an hundred men? He said again, Give the people, that they may eat for thus saith the Lord, They shall eat, and shall leave thereof. So he set it before them, and they did eat, and left thereof, according to the word of the Lord." -2 KINGS iv. 42-44.

66

IT was no common privilege, when the saints of old were allowed to see the day of Christ afar off and rejoice. Ever and again did a ray of that heavenly brightness light up their horizon. From the glory which gathered around one of their own prophets might men infer what would be the power and goodness of Him Who was "before Abraham and 'greater than Moses." In such events, Gospel times and Gospel truths were anticipated, that so the mind of Israel might be prepared what to expect from Him Who was "the Desire of all nations." Rare as, comparatively speaking, such anticipations of Christ were, we are naturally led to look for a large proportion of them during the ministry of Elisha, not merely because his was specially typical of the ministry of Jesus, but also because he may be said to conclude the series of the prophets of deed. They were, in the onward progress of the kingdom of God, followed by the prophets of word, until, at last, both word and deed merged in Him Who was "the Word become flesh." Thus the marvellous feeding of the multitude upon the few barley loaves and fishes was

foreshadowed in Gilgal, with such differences, however, as correspond to those between them who, in each case, spake the multiplying "grace."

It is this "grace before meat," this blessing of God invoked and bestowed upon the food, which makes it really nourishing. Why should it seem strange that, dispensed by the Hand of God Incarnate, the bread should have sufficed to nourish thousands? We too often fail to perceive the close connection between nature and God. Without God, nature were dead; its continual life depends on the continual Presence of God not only with it, but in it. As there is a false materialism which fails to recognise God in anything, because it identifies God with everything, so there is a spurious spiritualism which equally fails to recognise God, because it separates God from all, save that limited sphere which it designates as religious. The consequence of this is a morbid asceticism which is not gladdened by the beauties of nature, nor interested by the productions of art, nor elevated by the researches of mind, not even warmed by the joys of home and its circle, simply because it sees not God in any of them, and thus, looking away from God in all His gifts, at last settles into a half-desponding, austere gloom. But let us take a believing view of God's relation to His world and to His people. It is not strange that, by the touch of His Hand and the breath of His Mouth, the Lord Jesus could expand the scantiness of provision into sufficiency for all-for the creature only owned the power of its Creator, and we ourselves, in outward things, daily experience similar blessing. It was not even strange that, as recorded in the narrative before us, His forerunner could foreshadow this event by the fare. increased to satisfy the one hundred sons of the prophets. But it was strange, that, in the infinitude of His love, Jesus should so have condescended to our human weakness as visibly, in the

presence of all-believers and unbelievers-to breathe upon His creature of bread, that, for all time coming, it might serve as a lesson of Him and as a lesson also of multiplied food. And, to return to the present narrative, it was strange -at least to our human experience it seems so that so unexpectedly there should have come from a wholly unknown quarter, what, under the blessing of God, proved not only seasonable, but sufficient relief to the prophets.

In reading the history of such a miracle, the thought involuntarily rises why an agency and means so manifestly inadequate were employed, and not the miracle wrought directly and immediately. We answer: They were not required, but God condescended to use them. And this, first, Because He is the God of nature, and employs His creature, nature. Secondly, Because He is the God of grace, and, in the use of such means, alike disposes the hearts of those whom He uses as His instruments, and prepares the hearts of those who are the recipients of His gifts. Who "the man from Baal-shalisha" was, we know not; we know not even his dwelling-place, nor anything connected with his history. Possibly he may have been equally unknown-at least, personally-to the prophet. At any rate, he appears as that exceptional character in the modern lists of religious societies: "An anonymous contributor." But whatever his name, rank, or condition, he was a just, a conscientious, and a liberal contributor. The Angel, whose recording pen enters the gifts offered to the Lord, has written it down for acknowledgment in heaven, and when the Spirit of God chronicled it for the instruction of the Church on earth, He allowed not the joy nor the reward of the giver to be minished by having his ministry known.

For, the seven long years of famine (2 Kings viii.) were at last drawing to a close. Once more the prospect of plenty

gladdened the heart of the nation. Emigrants thought of setting their faces again homewards; and those who had wearily toiled, where toil was so long unrewarded, gathered fresh strength. In fact, the early harvest had actually commenced. Under ordinary circumstances the first-fruits belonged unto the Lord. It was the privilege of every family in Israel, as it were, to receive home and substance every year anew in fief from their God, and in the first-fruits to consecrate all unto Him. But times had sadly changed. To whom were the first-fruits now to be brought throughout the kingdom of Israel? Its established religion was Baalworship, its established priesthood idolatrous. Doubtless there were who brought their gifts to Jerusalem, or offered them through the faithful among the Aaronic priesthood. But considering the difficulties in the way, these must, in the nature of the case, have formed a very small minority even among the small minority of Jehovahworshippers left in Israel.

That we may learn present lessons, let us try to transport ourselves into the past, and realise the circumstances of the time. It would have been easy to argue, that one was released from obedience to a command of which the literal fulfilment had become well nigh impossible. But love is ingenious, and knows under the letter to discover the spirit of the law. The man from Baal-shalisha "brought the man of God bread of the first-fruits." There are, who are ingenious in their liberality, not in its eccentric application, which only argues folly or vanity, but in finding out the right mode of its exercise. There are others who always refuse and somehow always refuse on principle. On principle they would on this occasion, of course, have refused to contribute to Samaria; and on principle they could not bring anything to Elisha, since he was neither a

priest, nor in office in the Temple. And so "on principle" they would have held what they had, and this would have been their peculiar mode of "making the best of both worlds." Nor would their conduct have been singular. There are only too many, in all ages, who would fain combine the principles of the coming, with the practices of the present world.

Nor was

Not so the anonymous donor in our narrative. his contribution inconsiderable. after a seven years' famine. paired in broken fortunes!

It was of "the first-fruits" How many gaps had to be re

Ill could a man spare the best of the first for an object primarily religious, and therefore, in the view of many, unpractical. Even if contributions were to be made, the argument for postponing it to the end of the summer would be overwhelming-for, as the world would apply one of its sayings, not quite untrue in itself, but often thoroughly hypocritical on its lips: It is necessary to be just before being generous. As if man could be just while neglecting the claims of the Most High! But, indeed, many mean by this saying rather to express that they must be generous to themselves before they can be just; and such is their generosity in this respect, that what between the claims of friends and of society, the exigencies of their station, and a future provision, there is little left for the exercise of charity. Let there be no misunderstanding here. Thank God, the Church has not lost the grace of liberality. It can point from among its members, high and low, rich and poor, to noble instances of devotion to the Lord, even although the organised system of advertising their bounty, as it were placing men with trumpets at every streetcorner, has sadly broken in upon the music of their worship in offering gifts unto God. The system itself was, no doubt, well intended-but, on the whole, it seems a kind of

K