# 2 Kings 6:1-7



## PaulMc (Aug 17, 2015)

Brethren,

I recently heard a sermon on this text (concerning the miracle of Elisha in making the iron axe head to swim), and wanted your opinions on it.

The axe head represents to us God's power on our lives (that which is borrowed from God v.5), while we are the handle, as it were powerless on our own. This power or blessing of God can be lost and must be sought again by going back to where we have strayed from the Lord (the exact place - "Where fell it? And he shewed him the place." v.6), and repenting.
The cutting down of the stick and casting it into the river (v.6) shows us the condescension of the Son of God coming down to earth and humbling himself to the death of the cross and providing the means for the sinner to be raised up (v.7), or as in this case being brought back to fellowship with God from a place of backsliding or 'powerlessness'.

While I think that a lot of what was said was good and useful, is this a faithful expounding and application of the text, or it is fanciful (to one degree or another)?

I appreciate your thoughts!


----------



## johnny (Aug 17, 2015)

Matthew Henry heads a little towards it,

He did not throw the helve after the hatchet, but cut down a new stick, and cast it into the river. We need not double the miracle by supposing that the stick sunk to fetch up the iron, it was enough that it was a signal of the divine summons to the iron to rise. God’s grace can thus raise the stony iron heart which has sunk into the mud of this world, and raise up affections naturally earthly, to things above.

If we read the miracles of Elisha in context, then each of these events are intended 
to save the prophets and their extended families from finacial hardship of some kind.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 17, 2015)

That interpretation sounds too allegorical for me to be comfortable teaching it that way. There are plenty of good points that flow more naturally from the text: God cares about and redeems the frustrations of work, he is near to those who face economic calamity, he protects and provides for his people who are engaged in building his kingdom.

And if one desired a more direct connection to Christ, the account of the axehead is one of a series of "little" miracles under Elisha that preview the even greater miracles that will attest to the Chief Prophet himself. Consider Jesus walking on the water. It was not unprecedented. Elisha's miracle prepares us to expect such a thing from the Messiah.


----------



## timfost (Aug 17, 2015)

Thanks, Jack. I would rather see God's continual power and hand over creation in this passage than create an allegory out of it. It's one thing to use a small simile in the passage about a stony heart, it's another to say that the intent of the passage is allegorical. In short, it makes Scripture too subjective. This kind of subjective thinking is one of the root causes that many use to deny six day creation under the framework hypothesis.

Calvin on allegories in 1 Cor. 9:9 (his language might be a little strong):



> Nor is it as if he meant to expound that precept allegorically, as some hair-brained spirits take occasion from this to turn everything into allegories. Thus they turn dogs into men, trees into angels, and turn all scripture into a laughing-stock.


----------



## timfost (Aug 17, 2015)

I could just as easily say that the ax head represented the work of Satan seeking to suppress the work of Christ represented in the handle. For a time it appeared that Satan was victorious, but at last God reverses Satan's work and the handle conquers, representatively restoring the wood (humanity) to what it was created to be (represented in buoyantcy). 

If it is an allegory, what makes one interpretation any more valid than another? When the focus becomes, "what does it mean to you," we've entered the realm of the existential bible study.


----------



## PaulMc (Aug 18, 2015)

Thanks for the thoughts - I had the same misgivings in listening to it.
I did note, as you mentioned johnny, that Matthew Henry made a link between the axe head and a stony heart, but as Tim mentioned above, I think that the content of the sermon went so much further than this.
Thanks, Jack, for the points you brought out, both immediately from the text and also in connection to Christ.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (Aug 18, 2015)

Yeah, I think Tim and Jack got this right, this is a slippery slope and can lead to some dangerous interpretations of scripture. "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2Pe 3:16)


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 18, 2015)

Well, if it's the interpretation taken by the Reformed in generations past then it's not arbitrary, is it? If there's been a consistent understanding of this text, until today, then maybe the present understanding is wrong. Scripture is always, everywhere, pointing us to Christ; speaking to us spiritually. That is how we must interpret it.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 18, 2015)

alexandermsmith said:


> Well, if it's the interpretation taken by the Reformed in generations past then it's not arbitrary, is it? If there's been a consistent understanding of this text, until today, then maybe the present understanding is wrong. Scripture is always, everywhere, pointing us to Christ; speaking to us spiritually. That is how we must interpret it.



Doesn't matter if the man with the proposed interpretation is Reformed (in a certain sense, or the fullest sense) or not. Just because MHenry or Ch.Spurgeon or anyone else from the Protestant-pantheon of the past 500yrs may have added his  to the treasury, doesn't make a tin-dime worth a nickel.

The example given in the OP is straight-up allegory. MHenry's contribution (quoted above) isn't even in the same class of fancy; He shies clean away from uselessly adding-on miracles, and makes an _application_ from the text (a bit of a stretch, in my opinion) to the power of God that against all nature raises sunken sinners from their depths. He does NOT say that is the _*meaning*_ of the 1Ki. text. He offers an analogy (not allegory) from a natural-world miracle to spiritual reality.

The sermonic presentation, on the other hand, creates correspondences according to the interpreter's fancy. I can just as easily make completely different correspondences. And if this be a legitimate method of presenting the text, then either:
1) the text has no certain meaning, but various according to the genius of the presenter's imagination; or 
2) it's my allegory vs. his, and whoever gets the most votes, or whoever has the superiority by some other measure (height of steeple, weight of academic degree, etc.) "wins."​
In any case, the hearers are the losers, as Scripture is turned into a wax nose.

Getting to Christ is vital, no question about it. But just like in a race, "cheating" to get to the finish line by a "leap" does no favors to anyone.


----------



## timfost (Aug 18, 2015)

alexandermsmith said:


> Well, if it's the interpretation taken by the Reformed in generations past then it's not arbitrary, is it? If there's been a consistent understanding of this text, until today, then maybe the present understanding is wrong. Scripture is always, everywhere, pointing us to Christ; speaking to us spiritually. That is how we must interpret it.



Scripture from start to finish point us to Christ. This does not mean than Christ is the subject of every scripture.

Thanks, Bruce. Very clear, as usual!


----------



## MW (Aug 18, 2015)

The problem is not in making the application but in jumping to the application without the necessary step of interpreting the passage first. Christ Himself spoke of the way His work and ministry is to be understood in relation to Elijah and Elisha, Luke 4; and the Lukan narrative contains elements that are reflective of this relation in the way it speaks of certain miracles.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 19, 2015)

So it's ok for Matthew Henry to say what he says in his commentary but not in a sermon? Confused.

This particular example may be taken to an extreme, but my worry with the approach to interpretation being advocated here is that most of the OT is just dismissed as useless to the Christian, unless it's turned into some sort of practical/moral guide; that the only things we can take from it are motivational lessons. That's not the interpretation of Scripture I read in the godly divines of the past.


----------



## timfost (Aug 19, 2015)

alexandermsmith said:


> So it's ok for Matthew Henry to say what he says in his commentary but not in a sermon? Confused.
> 
> This particular example may be taken to an extreme, but my worry with the approach to interpretation being advocated here is that most of the OT is just dismissed as useless to the Christian, unless it's turned into some sort of practical/moral guide; that the only things we can take from it are motivational lessons. That's not the interpretation of Scripture I read in the godly divines of the past.



Hi Alexander,

It seems like you're arguing that unless we use the OT allegorically, it is useless to a Christian. Am I understanding you correctly? I would encourage you to consider Heidelberg 26-28. The providence of God is of unspeakable consolation to believers (Rom. 8:28). We see just that in the passage under consideration.

Again, it is one thing to draw a parallel to Christ in the passage as Jack suggested. It's entirely another thing to say that the historical occurrence is to be understood allegorically, and even worse to suggest that one allegory is superior to another.

Are you sure that the "godly divines" to whom you refer were proposing allegorical interpretation? I don't think Henry was doing that, though his application seemed a bit of a stretch to me.

If the subject of every scripture is Christ, how do we learn about the Father and Spirit?

Please let me know if I've missed your concern.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 19, 2015)

alexandermsmith said:


> So it's ok for Matthew Henry to say what he says in his commentary but not in a sermon? Confused.
> 
> This particular example may be taken to an extreme, but my worry with the approach to interpretation being advocated here is that most of the OT is just dismissed as useless to the Christian, unless it's turned into some sort of practical/moral guide; that the only things we can take from it are motivational lessons. That's not the interpretation of Scripture I read in the godly divines of the past.



Your concern that the Old Testament should not be made into mere motivational lessons is a good concern. Surely, many preachers are so concerned about not allegorizing that they avoid Christ altogether when they ought to notice him, and they are left with little to say but a few life guidelines. However, I don't think we have to turn to reading historical accounts as allegories to avoid that error.

Matthew Henry's comment did not turn the account into an allegory. He looked at what God had done and let himself be amazed by God's willingness to raise a hard and heavy object. Then he asked (as any good Bible teacher should) how God does something similar for us today, especially through Christ. This is one excellent approach that can be taken with most parts of the Old Testament, especially historical accounts. Henry's answer about God raising hard hearts is something of a stretch, as several of us have pointed out, but it is not an allegorical interpretation the way the sermon in the OP reinterpretted the entire meaning of the text. Henry's comment was more a matter of letting oneself be amazed by the plain meaning of the text and then contemplating how we've experienced something similar.

If you look at Matthew Henry's entire comment on the passage, you'll see that he almost slipped (uncharacteristically) into just presenting moral guidelines. Perhaps that's why he used the forced reference to stony hearts at the end; he knew it wouldn't do to go through the entire passage and fail to see God's grace to us in Christ. At the risk of critiquing a great scholar, I will say that in this case I think he could have drawn that out in better ways. But I appreciate his determination to draw it out, period.

I believe there's room for some parts of the Bible to have some allegorical meaning. We have to consider the genre we're dealing with in each passage. But we must not think that where we reject allegory we are only left with an Old Testament that's a moral guide. Far from it! There are many other ways to consider what we learn of God's character, how he acts, what he leaves undone, what patterns he establishes, etc. and from these see more clearly God's goodness to us in Christ.

I will agree with you this far: To read the Bible and fail to see Christ at all is a greater error than to look for Christ and end up seeing something about him that isn't really there. But those are two extremes. With a little study and discipline, we can avoid both errors.


----------



## jambo (Aug 19, 2015)

I have always viewed this as a smile miracle in which a borrowed axe floats back o the surface and presumably is returned after use to its rightful owner. To say the axe represents this or that is to turn it into an allegory. It's a miracle revealing God's power over nature through mundane things. It also shows concern the person who dropped it had for losing someone else's property.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 20, 2015)

timfrot, jack k-

I take your concerns seriously and would agree with them. I would place myself firmly with the approach of Henry, as outlined by jack. I haven't heard the OP sermon so I don't know how far the text is turned into an allegory. The approach I would take I would call "spiritualisation", which is what I believe Henry does. Taking a passage of the OT, which clearly had a particular significance to the time it was written, with a real, historical background and context, and taking from it spiritual lessons/applications to the Christian. I would also say these spiritual applications were always in the text: the text didn't suddenly mean something new two thousand years later; but its meaning/application maybe becomes clearer in the light of the Christ's coming.

A portion of Scripture which, to me, exemplifies this is the passage concerning the visit of the Queen of Sheba to Solomon. Re-reading this passage a few years ago it suddenly became alive to me in a way it had never been before. Before then I would have taken it purely as an historical account of Sheba's visit; re-reading it, this historical event suddenly assumed a whole new spiritual dimension: the parallels between the visit of Sheba to Solomon and the visit of the wise men to Christ (down to the gifts and spices brought); the wisdom of Solomon imparted to Sheba, the wisdom of Christ to the believer; receiving abundantly more than she asked for, the believer receiving abundance from Christ &c. the historical event remains intact, but its spiritual significance to the Christian is highlighted.

In terms of preaching these text I think the historical context/background aspect can be useful, but should not take up too much of the sermon. The substance of the sermon should be on what the text says to the Christian, i.e. the spiritual aspect of the text. I really don't think that's the same as allegory.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 20, 2015)

The Queen of Sheba is an excellent example of an event that foreshadows Christ for the reasons you mention. I think it's important to point out, though, that to get there we don't need to spiritualize that text in some random, sounds-spiritual-to-me way. A careful reading of that account in context will show us that most of God's promises to prosper his people in a good land and to bless them and make them a blessing to the nations (reaching back at least to Genesis 12) seem to reach their fruition in that section of the Bible. Yet Solomon eventually fails as a king, causing us also to look for another King in whom those promises will find still greater fulfillment.

That's a biblically informed way to see the spiritual application to us today, rather than a fanciful one that thinks stuff up out of the blue. Exactly where one crosses the line from one interpretive practice to the other is a matter of endless debate, but I do believe we need to acknowledge the difference and tread with care.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (Aug 20, 2015)

Here's a quick commentary from the "Summarized Bible" off of my e-sword account. "The God of nature is not tied up to its laws. As He raised the iron against the natural laws, so His grace can raise the iron heart which has sunk into the mud of this world and raise up affections naturally earthly to things above."


----------



## timfost (Aug 20, 2015)

Alexander,

I've been having an ongoing conversation with a Seventh Day Adventist. The SDAs believe that the soul and body both cease to exist at death and are finally resurrected when Christ returns. I gently challenged him with the example of the thief on the cross who looked forward to being with Christ "this day." I then learned that he never heard about the two natures of Christ (human, divine). According to this man, Christ ceased to exist for the three days in the grave. I then asked him, "did God cease to be Triune during that time?" He's still not answered.

My point in telling you this is because when we separate one Person from the Godhead, God is no longer the God revealed in scripture.

Part of the reason the NT focuses so much on Christ is not for the purpose of saying that the "spiritual" aspect of every passage has Christ for its subject, but to impress on us that Christ is our perfect substitute because He _is fully God and fully Man_ (Col. 1:15, Jn. 10:30). I'm sure that you would agree with me that Christ, without the Father and Spirit, is not the God of scripture. My concern is that as we acknowledge Christ, we do not see His Person _alone_ as God, for then God is not Triune.

Almost all error in the Christian religion exists because of isolating the Persons of the Trinity. JWs and Gnostics deny the deity of Christ. Mormons make the Trinity into a pantheon (and therefore not the Trinity). Charismatics emphasize spiritual experience over the work of Father and Son. Antinomians (e.g. Tobias Crisp) emphasize the work of Christ to the exclusion of the work of the Spirit. Isolation of a single Person of the Godhead is an easy, natural thing to do, since the Trinity is incomprehensible to the finite mind (Is. 40:28). Because of sin, we often try to make God more like us (Is. 44:13), so reducing God to one Person, either in doctrine or practice, is a sinful human inclination.

_I am not suggesting that you have done this_. But I do think that we need to be especially careful to see Christ in the context of the Trinity, not separately. Therefore, I don't think it is necessary to make all scripture fit a "spiritual" category with Christ as the subject. We are built up in the faith, not only when we consider God's hand in the spiritual, but also the physical (1 Tim. 4:10). We are strengthened in faith, not only when we learn about what Christ did, but what God Triune _does_ in all His works. In other words, we should be edified as we learn the _whole counsel of God_, not just one part of it (Acts 20:27). The reformed confessions give us a good summary of the whole counsel of God, which includes much more than bringing everything to the Person of Christ, though again, I cannot stress enough the importance of Christ!


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 21, 2015)

timfrost,

I would certainly agree with every thing you say. However ("I agree, but"), I don't think we undermine the Trinity by emphasising Christ. Christ is the especial revelation of God to man: God revealed in the person of Christ. Christ is the mediator, the substitute, the lamb, the shepherd. The Spirit's work, for example, is not to bring attention to Himself but to bring sinners to Christ through His work in the hearts of sinners. Again, the Father is not revealed to us to nearly the same extent as Christ. I won't say much more from fear of saying something really off-base. In matters such as these we must be very careful. The point I'm trying to express, which I think is legitimate, is that Christ is emphasised throughout Scripture because it is He who is the atonement. It is faith in Christ which saves; it is His righteousness which we need; it is believing views of Christ which are necessary for faith to be true faith and not merely head knowledge. And, of course, I'm not saying that you're saying something different.

Indeed, the work of the Trinity as the Trinity is wonderful to behold and experience and we should not neglect it, because in all things the Trinity is working together.


----------



## timfost (Aug 21, 2015)

Alexander,

Thanks for your reply. Honestly, it seems like we would agree on a lot. Hopefully if there is any disagreement, it is simply in vocabulary, not meaning. I just want to clarify one thing. You said:



> It is faith in Christ which saves



I absolutely agree! But we should also uphold that faith in God saves as belief in Christ cannot be separated from the Trinity (Gen. 15:6, 1 Peter 1:21).

To illustrate what separating Christ from the Trinity might look like, try reading some of Tobias Crisp's sermons. Much of what he says is good, but because of its emphasis it neglects the work of the Spirit. The result is false security and antinomianism. Interestingly, when my church was hyper-Calvinist, a man taught using the sermons of Tobias Crisp. Ironically, he was later caught stealing money from members of my church. I believe that he is now a devout atheist.

Again, I am no way implying that you have erred. I just wanted to illustrate what lopsided theology can look like when we emphasize Christ above/against the Father and Spirit.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 27, 2015)

timfost,

Agreed. I would only respond by saying that the preacher exhorts the sinner to flee to Christ, not to God per se, does he not? But this is perhaps, as you say, merely a question of emphasis. There are certainly exhortations in Scripture to return to God.


----------



## timfost (Aug 27, 2015)

alexandermsmith said:


> Agreed. I would only respond by saying that the preacher exhorts the sinner to flee to Christ, not to God per se, does he not? But this is perhaps, as you say, merely a question of emphasis. There are certainly exhortations in Scripture to return to God.



Yes, I think just emphasis. We should always keep in mind that though there are three Persons, there is only one Essence. If we make the Father, Son and Spirit three essences, we have a pantheon and any Person that we talk about is then less than God.


----------

