Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - 2 King 2:1 - 2:25
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Ki_2:1-25
13[Then] He took up also [omit also] the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and went back, and stood by the bank of Jordan; 14And he took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and smote the waters, and said, Where is the Lord God of Elijah [even He]? And when he also [omit also] had smitten the waters, they parted hither and thither: and Elisha went o2 Kings 2Ki_2:15 And when the sons of the prophets which were to view [omit to view] at Jericho saw him [from the opposite side], they said, The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha. And they came to meet him, and bowed themselves to the ground before him. 16And they said unto him, behold now, there be with thy servants fifty strong men; let them go, we pray thee, and seek thy master: lest peradventure the Spirit of the Lord hath taken him up, and cast him upon some mountain, or into some valley.2 And he said, Ye shall not send. 17And when they urged him till he was ashamed [to refuse them, Bähr], he said, Send. They sent therefore fifty men; and they sought three days, but found him not. 18And when they came again to him, (for he tarried at Jericho,) he said unto them, Did I not say unto you, Go not?
19And the men of the city said unto Elisha, Behold, I pray thee, the situation [inhabiting] of this city is pleasant, as my lord seeth: but the water is naught 20[bad], and the ground barren [the locality causes barrenness].3 And he said, Bring me a new cruse, and put salt therein. And they brought it to him. 21And he went forth unto the spring of the waters, and cast the salt in there, and said, Thus saith the Lord, I have healed these waters; there shall not be from thence any more death or barren land [barrenness, omit land]. 22So the waters were healed unto this day, according to the saying of Elisha which he spake.
23And he went up from thence unto Beth-el: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children [young persons] out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. 25And he went from thence to mount Carmel, and from thence he returned to Samaria.
2Ki_2:2. And Elijah said, &c. It was known not only to Elijah himself (2Ki_2:9), but also to Elisha (2Ki_2:3), and to the “sons of the prophets” at Bethel and Jericho (2Ki_2:3; 2Ki_2:5), that the time of his departure was come. Evidently the object of his visit to the three schools of the prophets, one after another, was to see them once more before his departure, and to warn and strengthen them. Keil, following the older expositors, says: “The Lord had revealed to both (Elijah and Elisha) that the seal of the divine ratification should be set to the work of Elijah by his miraculous translation to heaven,.… but to each of them separately, so that Elijah did not surmise that Elisha was aware that he was to be taken away. For this reason he wished to separate himself from his servant, not in order to test his love and attachment (Vatablus), but from humility (Corn. a Lapide, and others). He did not wish to have any witness of his glorification, without being fully satisfied that such was the divine will.… His ascension had been revealed to the disciples of the prophets also…. He took this road (to Bethel and Jericho) by the direction of the Divine Spirit,.… without supposing that they (the disciples of the prophets in those places) had been informed of his approaching departure from this life by the Spirit of God. God had revealed it to so many in order that they might be established in their calling by the miraculous glorification of their master, still more than by his words and teachings and warnings.” But the most important considerations are opposed to this very common conception of the passage. In the first place, the assertion that a divine revelation had given, not only to Elijah, but also to Elisha, and to the disciples of the prophets at Bethel and Jericho, information of the approaching ascension of the first, is a pure hypothesis: the text knows nothing of it, and even any remote hint of it is wanting. To pass over that, however, in the second place, no analogy can be found in the Scriptures for any such thing as that different persons, nay, even entire communities, in different places, at one and the same time, received the same divine revelation; and no one of these persons surmised that the same thing had happened to others. Thirdly, the disciples of the prophets at Jericho would never have urged so perseveringly upon Elisha, after his return, to allow fifty men to seek for the departed master on the mountains and in the valleys (2Ki_2:16-18), if they had been informed in regard to Elijah’s ascension into heaven by a divine revelation. We are therefore compelled to conceive of the event, we might almost say, more simply and naturally. As concerns Elijah himself, he knew, of course, that the time of his departure was come, and that the Lord was going to take him away; the manner in which he would be taken, however, he did not know, nor did he say a syllable about it; especially he did not know, as Krummacher affirms, that “the horses of fire and the chariot of flame were already standing behind the clouds ready to come for him,” and that he “should ride, in a few days, past Orion and the Pleiades, on a gleaming road, far above the sun and the moon, and away through the veil into the divine sanctuary.” Still less did Elisha and the disciples of the prophets know it. In the 3d and 5th verses the latter only say that “now” ( äַéּåֹí does not mean here “to-day,” but as in 1Sa_12:17; 2Ki_4:8; Job_1:6, at this time) Elijah is going to be taken away from them and from Elisha; even this they could only know from Elijah himself. For Elijah had no reason for wishing to conceal his departure from Elisha; on the contrary, he must have felt himself driven to make it known to him, since Elisha was now to step into his place and be his successor. Neither did he conceal it from the disciples of the prophets; for his visit to them had for its chief object to take leave of them. He simply did not wish that his departure should be much spoken of, and still less would he permit that any one should be a witness of it; therefore he urged Elisha himself to remain behind. This he did, however, not “from humility,” in view of his approaching glorification, but “because he was uncertain whether it was agreeable to God that Elisha should go with him; cf. 2Ki_2:10” (Thenius). Only when Elisha would not allow himself to be held back, and had declared earnestly three times over (cf. the similar triple repetition, Joh_21:15 sq.) that he would not leave him until the final moment—only when he had thus stood the trial of his unchangeable fidelity and perseverance, and thus maintained himself as competent and fit to carry on the office of prophet, did Elijah yield his scruples, and allow Elisha to accompany him. (Cf. in general on the verse the apt remarks of Vilmar, Pastoraltheol. Blätter, 1862, s. 234.)
2Ki_2:3. And the sons of the Prophets…. came forth, &c. [The áְּðֵéÎäַðְּáִéàִéí are the pupils or disciples of the prophets; not necessarily their sons in a literal sense, though they probably were such in very many cases.—W. G. S.] This does not mean: “In Bethel, the disciples of the prophets came to meet Elisha, with the information, ‘Knowest thou?’ &c.” (Keil), but that after Elijah had come with Elisha to Bethel (2Ki_2:2), in order to take his leave there also, the disciples of the prophets came forth with them, that is, accompanied them, and said to Elisha: “Dost thou also ponder,” &c.? In like manner they were accompanied by those of Jericho (ver 7). [This explanation does violence to the meaning of the preposition àֶì , which never contains any idea of accompaniment, above all with a verb of motion; moreover, 2Ki_2:7 is not the parallel, but 2Ki_2:5. åַéֵּöàåּ àֶì can only mean “They came forth to” (cf. Gen_19:6), and it is stated that they came forth to “Elisha,” which certainly seems to imply that they already had heard of the expected event. æַéִּâְּùׁåּ àֶì , 2Ki_2:5. is less certain. It might mean that as they were all standing in a group, and after Elijah had declared that he had come to them for the last time, some of them approached Elisha. The objection taken to the theory of independent revelations is, however, a just one, and must be maintained, even if we cannot fix definitely the details of the occurrence which the words refer to. Many hypotheses suggest themselves, as, for instance, that Elijah went on to the schools of the prophets in the first place alone, and that they then “came forth to Elisha.”—W. G. S.] ìָ÷ַç îֵòַì øֹàùֶׁêָ , according to Keil, “expresses graphically the removal from his side by elevation into heaven.” Thenius also says, following Böttcher: “Nihil aliud nisi viam modumque tollendi pingit: away off above thine head.” [So also Bunsen.] It is very improbable, however, in the first place, that the disciples of the prophets, at Bethel as well as at Jericho, should have expressed themselves “graphically,” independently of one another, and just on this occasion. The words îֵòַì øֹàùֶׁêָ are equivalent to îֵòִîָּêְ and îֵàִúָּêְ , which are used by Elijah, in 2Ki_2:9-10, for the same idea, i.e., literally, “from with you,” the sense being “out of connection or companionship with you,” except that the first form hints at the nature of this connection more distinctly than the others. Luther, in a marginal gloss on the passage, says: “To be at the head is to be master and teacher; to be at the feet is to be pupil and subject. For when the teacher teaches he sits in a more elevated position than the pupils, so that he has them at his feet, and they have him at their head. Therefore St. Paul says (Act_22:3), that he had learned the law at the feet of Gamaliel.” (Cf. Schöttgen, Hor. Hebr. on this passage.) Elisha is the disciple of Elijah; the latter is his “master,” as he is called here. The words, “The Lord will take away thy master from thy head,” do not therefore mean, He will cause Elijah to arise away above thy head towards heaven, but, He will take him away from thy head, i.e., break up the relationship which has existed hitherto between you, as pupil and master, and as thy chief thou wilt lose him. ( îֵòַì is used as in Gen_48:17; Amo_7:11.) When the words are thus taken, each gets its full force, and it is easy to see why both the disciples at Bethel and those at Jericho put the question to Elisha, “Knowest thou?” &c. The separation touched Elisha nearest of all, and was more important for him than for any of the rest. The question signifies: Knowest and considerest thou also, that thou wilt now lose the master whose servant and disciple thou art (1Ki_19:21)? What will become of us when thy guide and ours is gone? The answer of Elisha, which would otherwise be obscure and difficult, is then appropriate to this question: “Yea, I know it,” i.e., Alas! I know it and consider it well, even as ye do. When he then adds, “Hold ye your peace,” he does not mean to say: Tell no one that he is now going to ascend into heaven, in order that there may be no concourse of people (Clericus, J. Lange), nor: Speak no further of it, for Elijah, on account of his modesty and humility, does not wish that much should be said of his glorification (Seb. Smith, Keil), but: Compose yourselves, yield to the will of Jehovah; do not sadden my heart now that I am about to lose my beloved master and lord. [Bunsen.]
2Ki_2:7. And fifty men of the sons, &c. As Elijah and Elisha departed in the direction of the Jordan, a band of prophets followed them at a distance, and remained standing at a point (probably on an elevation) from which they could see “whether and in what way the departing ones would get over the Jordan at a place where there was no arrangement for crossing” (Hess, Thenius); that is to say, they followed, out of sympathy and anxiety, and not “that they might be eyewitnesses of the removal of their master” (Keil), for, according to 2Ki_2:10, it was not certain that even Elisha, who accompanied him, would see this. They were witnesses only of that which is narrated in 2Ki_2:8. The manner of crossing the Jordan must have reminded them involuntarily of Exo_14:16 (cf. Jos_4:23). As once Moses struck the water and divided it, in the presence of the whole people, with his staff, which was the insigne of his office as teacher, and is called the “rod of God” (Exo_17:9), whereby he was confirmed and accredited as chief, so Elijah, the second Moses, here strikes the water, and divides it in the presence of the band of the prophets, with his mantle, the sign of his prophetical calling (1Ki_19:19), an action which confirms him, before the disciples of the prophets, just as he is leaving them, in his position as chief of the prophets. He folds or rolls the mantle together, possibly in order to give it at the same time the appearance of a staff, for in other cases the water is always struck with a staff (Isa_11:4; Isa_10:24; Num_20:11). [The first two passages cited refer to a beating with a rod as punishment or correction, and the third to the smiting of the rock to make water come out. There is no ground for supposing that the words in the text have any further significance than such a folding as would make the mantle convenient to handle in smiting the water.—W. G. S.] However, the very fact that he makes use of the prophet’s mantle instead of making use of the staff, makes the action a distinctly prophetical, i.e., symbolical one. The miraculous power is no more attached, in any magical way, to the mantle than to the staff; but it is the prophetical calling which God has armed with such power for the attainment of His ends, as was shown immediately afterwards in the case of the successor and representative of Elijah (cf. 2Ki_2:14; 2Ki_2:19 sq.).
2Ki_2:9. And it came to pass when they were gone over, &c. The command of Elijah: “Ask,” &c., and the reply of Elisha, “Let a double portion,” &c., are to be explained by their relation to one another, which was not so much that of a master to his servant or of a teacher to his disciple, as rather that of a (spiritual) father to his son (2Ki_2:12). Elisha had maintained his attachment, love, and fidelity to the very end, in that he would not quit Elijah; and now the latter treats him as a dying father would (Gen_27:4), and says: “If thou hast yet any wish in thine heart, tell it to me;” he is ready to grant him the blessing of a father and of a prophet. Elisha answers as son to father: “I pray thee, let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me!” According to the law (Deu_21:17), the first-born son received, of what the father left behind, ôִּé ùְׁðַéִí , i.e. two parts, twice as much as the other sons received. According to this analogy, Elisha begs that Elijah will regard him as his first-born, and will give to him, as compared with the other sons of the prophets, a richer measure of his (prophetic) spirit, that is to say, of that øåּçַ , which is the condition of all prophetical activity, whether in word or deed, and which is not only a spirit of knowledge and wisdom, but also of strength and power (Isa_11:2). The translation of the words of Elisha, “That thy spirit may be doubled in me.” (Luther, following the Sept. and Vulg.), is unquestionably false. Still this interpretation is found again and again in modern expositions. Krummacher even asserts, as a result of this interpretation, that the spirit of Elisha, as an evangelical (?) spirit, was certainly twice as great as the spirit of Elijah, which was Mosaic and legal. If this had been the prayer of Elisha, however, it would have been, not only in the highest degree immodest, but also incomprehensible, since Elijah could not give more than he himself had. Elisha did not wish to be more or greater than his master and lord. He only desired so much as was necessary for him, in order that he might be that to which Elijah had destined him, namely, the one who should succeed to his place as leader of the prophets. Menken’s interpretation of the words of Elijah is also a mistake, i.e., that Elisha should give him a commission for the other world, and beg for himself some service there, where the Lord would not refuse Elijah any request he might make on behalf of his faithful servant. Not to notice other objections, Elijah says: “Ask what I can do for you before I be taken away,” and not when I am in heaven. Neither can this place, therefore, by any means be cited as a support of the Roman Catholic dogma of the effectual mediation of the saints in heaven, as is often done.—Elijah means to say, by the words in 2Ki_2:10 : Thou hast prayed for something which it is not in my power, nor in that of any man, to give, but only in the power of God; if it is granted to thee alone, of all the sons of the prophets, to remain with me until my removal, and to be a witness of it, then thou mayest know, by this fact, that thou art to continue the prophetical work, which I have begun, and which I must now abandon, and then shalt thou also receive that measure of the prophetical spirit of which thou hast need for this work.
2Ki_2:11. And it came to pass, as they still went on, &c. The verse is generally translated as it is by Luther, “Behold! there came a chariot of fire and horses of fire,.… and so Elijah rode, in a whirlwind, towards heaven.” This is then understood to mean, that a fiery chariot with fiery horses attached to it came, and that it received Elijah and took him to heaven. According to that, Elijah really “rode” into heaven, as indeed we find it often represented, especially in pictures. This conception of the event has struck such deep root that people scarcely inquire whether the text really justifies it or not. It is especially welcome to those who explain the story of Elijah as myth and poetry, because, as they think, such an ascension would remove all doubt as to the mythical character of the narrative. Here it is necessary, before all else, to take the words of the text accurately, and not to add or fill out anything which is not absolutely demanded. In the first place, the text knows nothing whatever of a fiery chariot, with fiery horses attached, but only says: “Behold! chariot of fire and horses of fire!” Then it does not say that Elijah mounted into this literal chariot, as it is supposed to be, and rode in it towards heaven, but the òָìָä took place “in a whirlwind” ( áַּñְòָøָä ), and not in the chariot. Still further äַùָּׁîָéִí does not mean: up into heaven, but: towards or in the direction of heaven, heavenwards; especially when it is used with òָìָä (Jdg_20:40; Psa_107:26; Jer_51:53). Finally, òָìָä is not ride, but go up, in the sense of disappear [like the German aufgehen, it is used in the sense of come to an end, disappear, be consumed.—W. G. S.], see Jdg_20:40 : “The entire city [E. V. has, incorrectly, “the flame of the city”] òָìָä äַùָּׁîָéְîָä , arose towards heaven, i.e., disappeared, was consumed by the fire. Also, Eze_11:24 : “So the vision that I had seen ( åַéַּòַì ) went up from me,” i.e., it disappeared (Vulg.: et sublata est a me visio); it was taken away. In the hifil (2Ki_2:1) it means exactly tollere, auferre, take away, as, for instance, in Psa_102:25 : “Take me away in the midst of my days,” cf. Job_5:26; Job_36:20; Amo_3:5. Furthermore, the word òֹìָä is the name of the burnt offering, because it, in distinction from the other sacrifices, disappears entirely—is completely consumed by the fire. The clearest proof that the word here has the signification, take away, remove, is the fact that the disciples of the prophets, as well as Elisha himself, always make use of the word ìָ÷ַç , and not of òָìָä , when speaking of Elijah’s removal (2Ki_2:3; 2Ki_2:5; 2Ki_2:9-10), and say nothing of any taking up into heaven. It is not possible, therefore, that òָìָä should signify something altogether different from ìָ÷ַç here. Precisely this latter word is used, Gen_5:24, in reference to Enoch: “And he was not ( åְàֵéðֶðּåּ , i.e., he disappeared suddenly, and left no trace behind, Job_7:8; cf. Delitsch on Heb_11:5. Luther: ‘He was seen no more’); for God took him ( ìָ÷ַç ).” The removal is therefore the main point; and it is only stated here in addition—which is not done in the case of Enoch—in what way the removal took place, viz.: áַּñְòָøָä , in the whirlwind; and besides, äַùָּׁîָéִí , towards heaven. ñְòָøָä signifies not only “the rapidity of the elevation” (Thenius), but also a storm, combined with thunder, dark clouds, wind, and fire (Isa_29:6; Eze_1:4; Eze_13:11; Eze_13:13; Psa_107:25). Through such a storm, then, Elijah was separated from Elisha, and removed heavenwards. Now when Elisha sees, in this fiery storm-cloud, “chariot and horses” of fire, that does not mean to say that he saw a literal chariot and literal horses. On the contrary, he recognized, in the fiery appearance, that which “chariot and horses” signify. According to the usage of the Old Testament language, these things, as the principal means of protection and defence of a people against foreign aggression, are the representation of its might and strength, of its glory and fearfulness (cf. Isa_31:1 sq.; Isa_36:9; Exo_14:9; Exo_14:17; Deu_20:1; 1Ki_10:29). They art also ascribed to Jehovah, and then they are an indication of His great might, majesty, and glory, with which He conquers and annihilates His opponents, but protects and saves His own. Thus Habakkuk: “Was thy wrath against the sea, that thou didst ride upon thine horses and thy chariots of salvation?” Also Isaiah (Isa_66:15): “For behold the Lord will come with fire, and with his chariots, like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.” Cf. also Psa_104:3 : “Who maketh the clouds his chariots.” That we have here also to think of the chariot and horses of Jehovah, is shown by the àֵùׁ which occurs with both words, for fire is the well-known form of theophany in the Old Testament (Exo_24:17; Deu_9:3 sq.; Psa_1:3; Isa_29:6; Eze_1:4; Eze_1:27). Just in the same manner, the servant of Elisha, after his eyes have been opened, in accordance with the prayer of the prophet (2Ki_6:14-17), sees, opposed to the “horses and chariots” with which the Syrians had surrounded the city in which Elisha was, the whole mountain full of “horses and chariots of fire;” i.e., over-against the earthly power, he sees the infinitely greater protecting and saving might of Jehovah. The following verse (12), where Elisha calls Elijah “Chariot of Israel and Horsemen thereof,” especially supports the figurative interpretation. Recognizing the inadmissibility of the literal acceptation, which presupposes the existence of literal fiery chariots, with fiery horses attached to them, passing down from heaven and up again into heaven, in which one could ride without being burned, some expositors have understood by “chariot and horses,” as Grotius does, Angeli ea specie apparentes. “The vehicle,” says, among others, J. Lange, “or the outward sign with which Elijah rose towards heaven, was doubtless a cloud. Still, as Elijah was no doubt accompanied by an entire band of angels, as Christ was afterwards, these gave to the cloud the form of a fiery chariot and fiery horses, by virtue of the divine power and the divine will, so that the cloud took the form of a heavenly triumphant chariot.” Similarly Menken says that Elijah “was taken up by the service of angels; but that the appearance was that of a flaming chariot and flaming horses.” But the text, in this place, says not a word about angels, although, according to this view, they would be the chief agents; and although the history of Elijah makes mention of the service of angels, in other places (1Ki_19:5; 1Ki_19:7; 2Ki_1:3; 2Ki_1:15). Psa_68:17 cannot be cited to support this interpretation, for there also øֶëֶֹá is not equal to angel, but is a designation of the immeasurable and mighty war-power of Jehovah. The interpretation of Keil seems more probable: “The storm-gust is the earthly substratum of the theophany; the fiery chariot with the fiery horses is the symbolic form in which the translation of the master into heaven presents itself to Elisha, who remains behind.” The chariot and the horses would, however, in that case, hare been just as much definite and visible forms, even if symbolic ones, and we should have to suppose that Elisha saw Elijah actually in the chariot and riding in it towards heaven, of which the text knows nothing. It is not the form and outline which is symbolic, but the expression “chariot and horses of fire.” We have not to think of a “symbolic form” in 2Ki_2:11 any more than in 2Ki_2:12, when Elisha calls Elijah “Chariot of Israel and Horsemen thereof.” In this way, under a more accurate observation of the text, it is true that the supposition that Elijah rode away into heaven in a fiery chariot, drawn by fiery horses, which is still so generally adopted, is overthrown; by no means, however, is the miraculous removal or translation of Elijah overthrown: that is the main point of the narrative, with which we must satisfy ourselves, just as we must satisfy ourselves with what is said, Gen_5:24 (cf. Heb_11:5), in regard to the translation of Enoch. So Von Gerlach remarks on the passage in Genesis: “All the questions in regard to the departure of this patriarch and that of Elijah, whither they were removed? where they now are? what changes they underwent in the translation? are left unanswered by the Scriptures.” Keil also says: “All further questions, e.g., in regard to the nature of the chariot of fire and the place to which Elijah was translated,…. are to be set aside as useless subtleties concerning things which surpass the limits of our understanding.” We are only justified in thus setting them aside, however, if we have rejected the fiery horses and the fiery chariot and the ride up into heaven, which Keil does not do. It is well worth observing that the primitive church, little inclined as it was to shrink back from a miracle, still did not know anything of any heavenward ride of Elijah. The Sept. render äַùָּׁîָéִí , in 2Ki_2:1 and 2Ki_2:11, by ὡò åἰò ôὸí ïὐñáíüí , and thereby show clearly that they conceived of a raising up towards, but not into, heaven. Ephraim Syrus says, “Suddenly there came a fiery storm-gust from on high,…. and divided the two from one another; the one it left upon earth, the other, Elijah, it bore away on high: but whither the Ruach bore him, or in what place it let him down, the Scriptures do not tell us.” (Cf. Keil’s remarks on the passages.) Theodoret says: ‘ Ï ìÝãáò ’ Çëßáò ἀíåëÞöèç ìÝí , ἀëë ̓ ïὐê åἰò ôὸí ïὐñáíüí , ἀëë ̓ ὡò åἰò ôὸí ïὐñáíüí . In like manner Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Œcumenius (see the citations in Suicer, Thesaur, Ecclesiast. i. 1317). That the Jews also, before and at the time of Christ, knew nothing of an ascension of Elijah into heaven, is clear from the fact that in the great eulogy of Elijah (Sir_48:1-12), where this wonderful removal is mentioned, neither in 2Ki_2:9 nor in 2Ki_2:12 do we find åἰò ôὸí ïὐñáíüí : Josephus, also, who narrates all the miracles in the history of Elijah, says, at length (Antiq. xi. 2, 2): ’ Çëßáò ἐî ἀíèñþðùí ἠöáíßóöç .— êáὶ ïὐäåὶò ἔãíù ìÝ÷ñé ôῆò óÞìåñïí áýôïῦ ôὴí ôåëåõôÞí , and then he adds that the Scriptures declare of Enoch and Elijah: ὅôé ãåãüíáóéí ἀöáíåῖò · èÜíáôïí äὲ áὐôῶí ïὐäåὶò ïἶäåí . In the Scriptures themselves there is no mention whatever of the ascension of Elijah into heaven, not even in Hebrews 11. where we should most expect it. Now if this ascension was, as is asserted, “one of the most glorious, significant, and joyful events which the world, before the time of Christ, had seen” (Krummacher), how does it happen that, however often mention may be made of Elijah, just this event, which is asserted to be the most important in his career, remains utterly unmentioned? Kurtz (in Herzog’s Encyclop. iii. s. 758) asserts indeed that “as regards the ascension of Elijah, all those who are not ready to look upon the gospel history as a collection of myths will be compelled to adopt the opinion which regards this as an historical event, for the Transfiguration of Christ, Matthew 17, can only be maintained as a fact if 2 Kings 2 is also a fact; the one narrative stands of falls with the other.” This conclusion, however, is incorrect; for, if Elijah could only appear in and at the Transfiguration of Christ, because he had ascended into heaven, then Moses also, who appears with him, must have ascended into heaven, of which there is not the least mention, either in Deu_34:5 sq. or anywhere else. [A general protest should also be raised against the last clause of this opinion of Kurtz. The mode of defending a disputed point by connecting it with some other very important and generally accepted one, and then asserting that they stand or fall together, is very often adopted, but it is on every account to be condemned. It is not a sound method of procedure either according to logic or history, and it is fatal to all exegetical science.—W. G. S.]
2Ki_2:12. And Elisha saw it, &c, i.e., that Elijah “was miraculously carried away” (Keil). By the words: “My father, my father!” Elisha expresses what the departing one was for himself (see 2Ki_2:9), and by the words: “Thou chariot of Israel and horsemen thereof!” what he was for the whole nation. King Joash makes use of the same figurative expression in 2Ki_13:14, in regard to Elisha. It does not mean “that Elijah had been the protection and help of Israel even in war” (Calwer Bibel), but “Elijah is thereby designated as the one in whom consisted that true defence of Israel, which far surpassed its physical strength.” (Thenius.) See notes on 2Ki_2:11. Elijah was the might for war and the strength for defence of Israel, especially in so far as he defended it against its greatest and most dangerous enemy, who threatened it with ruin—against the intruding idolatry, with which he struggled victoriously. The exclamation stands, as was noted above, in unmistakable connection with the words “chariot of fire and horses of fire.” If this is a designation of the protecting, saving, and conquering might of Jehovah, then it was very natural to call the great prophet, who had maintained himself, in all his career, as an instrument of this power in its dealings with Israel, “the Chariot of Israel and the Horsemen thereof.” If, on the other hand, this fiery phenomenon which separated the two prophets from one another had had the form and figure of a chariot drawn by horses, which was intended to bring Elijah to heaven, it would be inexplicable how a mere equipage, even if it were ever so wonderful a one, could have led Elisha to call his departing master a “Chariot.” Elijah’s whole nature was fiery and energetic: “He burst forth like a fire, and his word burned like a torch,.… thrice brought he down fire” (Sir_48:1; Sir_48:3). To this the mode of his removal in the fiery whirlwind corresponded, and it was, as it were, the divine seal upon his entire career; so that he stands, for all coming time ( åἰò êáéñïýò , Sir_48:10), as the man of the fiery jealousy of God.—And he saw him no more; that is, he did not see how Elijah rode into heaven in a fiery chariot, but from the moment when the fiery blast, the storm-cloud, separated them from one another, he saw him no more: ἐí ëáßëáðé ἐóêåðÜóèç (Sir_48:12), he disappeared suddenly from his eyes, became ἀöáíÞò . Then Elisha rent his garments, and that too “in two pieces,” i.e., from top to bottom, as a sign of the greatest grief and the deepest sorrow. If he had been a witness of the “triumphal entry” of his master into heaven, as it has been often supposed that he was, he would have had more cause to rejoice than to rend his clothes for grief; his feelings were by no means joyous, they were rather in the highest degree sad.
2Ki_2:13. He took up also the mantle, &c. The mantle is here, as in 2Ki_2:8, the insigne of the office of the prophetical leader. When Elijah chose Elisha as his successor he threw this mantle upon him (1Ki_19:19). Now, however, he leaves it to him as a bequest and sign that his prayer in 2Ki_2:10 is fulfilled, and that he must now undertake the leadership of the prophets. He returns with this symbol in his possession, and, when he arrives at the Jordan, has to make the trial whether the power itself has been granted him together with the symbol. As Elijah had done in passing over the Jordan, he also strikes the water with the mantle, and says: Where is the Lord God of Elijah, even He? Jer_2:6; Jer_2:8, where the severest charge against the people, and especially against the priests and teachers, is, that they have not asked the question àַéֵּä éְäåָֹä , “Where is Jehovah?” but have turned away from Him, shows that this was not a question of doubt or imperfect faith. On the contrary, Elisha presents a prayer, full of faith and confidence, to Jehovah, in the more emphatic form of a question: “Thou God of Elijah, if Thou art also mine, and if I am Thy servant according to Thy will and command as he was, then let this become evident by granting that that may take place at my word which Thou grantedst should come to pass at his”(Menken). The massoretic punctuation separates the words àַóÎäåּà from the question, and joins them with the following sentence. Accordingly De Wette translates: “Also he (as Elijah had done before) smote the water,” [and Bunsen: “Also when he smote the water;”] and Ewald: “Hardly had he smitten the water, when it divided again.” But the å before éëä is a bar to this interpretation, and àַó nowhere has the meaning of “hardly.” [Apparently feeling the force of this latter objection, Ewald, ed. 7. s. 853, note, changes àַó to àַêְ . The reading of the E. V. agrees with that of De Wette and Bunsen.—W. G. S.] Böttcher and Thenius following Houbigant wish to read àֶôåֹà : “Where is now Jehovah, the God of Elijah?” This reading, however, is entirely without authority, and the position of the word at the end of the question is also against it. The Sept. render it meaninglessly by the same sounds in Greek letters: ἀööþ . We take àַó here as in Pro_22:19, (where Gesenius translates: doceo te, te inquam,) that is to say, even He; He, I say. (So also Keil [and Scott].) The Vulg. has in 2Ki_2:14 : et percussit aquas, et non sunt divisœ. Et dixit: ubi est Deus Eliœ etiam nunc? percussitque aquas et divisœ sunt. The Complutensian edition of the Sept. has the addition: êáὶ ïὐ äéçñÞèç , following which Theodoret and, later, Dathe explain the verse thus: that Elisha considered the mantle of Elijah capable of working miracles, and, in the first place, struck the water with it, without saying anything; but that, as this was unsuccessful, he called upon the God of his master complainingly. It is evident, however, that the addition is only an explanatory gloss, occasioned by the repetition of åַéַּëֶּä , which does not, however, indicate any repetition of the act of striking.
2Ki_2:15. And when the sons of the Prophets, &c. They saw Elisha come back alone, and, since he had been able to do the same as Elijah, they concluded that the øåּçַ of Elijah rested upon him, that is, that the same extraordinary power and gifts had been given to him by Jehovah, as preparation for the same calling; therefore they went to meet him and showed their respect for him. From their words in 2Ki_2:16, however, it is clear that they were uncertain whether Elijah had been “taken up” forever, or only for a time, perhaps in the manner referred to by Obadiah, 1Ki_18:12. It would have been impossible for them to speak in this way if they had had especial information, by a divine revelation, of a formal ascension of Elijah into heaven, as has been deduced from 2Ki_2:3; 2Ki_2:5. It is a supposition which cannot be maintained, that, although Elisha had no doubt narrated to them what had occurred, they still believed that “the Lord had taken his (Elijah’s) soul up into heaven, but that his earthly body had fallen down somewhere upon the earth, and that they desired to find this in order that they might show it the last honors” (Keil), for, in this case, Elisha must have answered them: I saw Elijah ride on a fiery equipage in glory into heaven; he is therefore no longer upon earth, but in heaven, as was revealed to you beforehand:—or else, what reason did he have for not saying this? Moreover their words, 2Ki_2:16, do not indicate by any means that they simply desired to find his corpse, in order to bury it. It is evident that they expected to find the living and not the dead. The fact that they insisted upon their proposition in spite of Elisha’s attempts to dissuade them shows plainly that he had not communicated anything in regard to an ascension into heaven to them. He was certain that Elijah had departed or been taken away forever. Hence he said: “Ye shall not send.” When, at length, he permits them to send, on account of their ceaseless persistency, he does so in order that they may become satisfied, by their own investigation, that he has now succeeded to the position of Elijah, and that they have henceforward to attach themselves to him as their leader. òַãÎáּùׁ (2Ki_2:17) does not mean: very long, justo diutius (De Wette and others), nor: more than was becoming, nor: in a shameless manner (Menken, Thenius), but: until he was himself disappointed in the hope (of dissuading them from their purpose). áּåֹùׁ often has this meaning (cf. Psa_22:5; Psa_25:2-3; Psa_25:20; Psa_69:6), and it is also a very appropriate signification for Jdg_3:25, and 2Ki_8:11. The sons of the prophets wished to have “strong men” sent out, because the search over mountains and in valleys was attended with difficulty and danger. It should also be observed that Elisha on the return of the fifty men, only reminds them of his advice which they had neglected, but does not say a word of the ascension of Elijah, much as we might expect that he would now do so.
2Ki_2:19. And the men of the city said, &c. Perhaps it was the authorities who, in the name of the city, addressed themselves to Elisha, who now stood at the head of the prophets, and whose affable disposition had inspired them with confidence. äָàָøֶõ cannot here mean “ground” (Keil), for it is not the ground, but, as 2Ki_2:21 says distinctly, “the water” which was drunk, which caused miscarriage, and “in fact the direct use or enjoyment of this or that water has either a beneficial or a prejudicial effect on the functions of conception and parturition” (Thenius). àֶøֶõ stands here, therefore, as it does Gen_9:19; Gen_11:1; Gen_19:31. It was “pleasant to dwell” in Jericho, for it lay in a magnificent situation, “rising like an oasis from a broad plain of sand” (Winer, R.-W.-B. i. s. 543). 2Ki_2:20. Elisha calls for a “new” vessel, i.e., one which had not yet been used for any purpose whatever, because it was intended for a religious act, for, in general, all that was employed in the service of Jehovah must be as yet unused, i.e., uncontaminated (cf. Num_19:2). Keil takes the “new cruse” “as a symbol of the renewing power of the Word of God,” but it was only the receptacle for the salt, by means of which the water was to be made good and healthful, and it had nothing to do with the “Word of God.” The prophet made use of salt because it is used as a means of preserving that into which it is placed, and keeping it from rottenness and decay (death), in that it draws out the impure particles. In so far, then, it has healing and vivifying power (cf. Symbol. des Mosa. Kultus, ii. s. 325 sq.); it is a symbol of the purifying, restoring power which proceeds from Jehovah, for it was He, and not the salt, as such, who purified the spring and made the waters uninjurious, as 2Ki_2:21 distinctly declares. [The “salt” was neither more nor less significant in this case than the “meal” in 2Ki_4:41.—W. G. S.] The act of casting the salt into the spring was a prophetical, symbolical action, in which (see 1 Kings 17. Hist. § 6) the prophet represents that which the Lord is about to do, by visible signs, and with the corresponding natural means. When P. Cassel (Der Prophet Elisa, s. 21) declares that there is a reference here to the salt of the covenant in the sacrifices (Lev_2:13; Num_18:19), and says: “The miracle of Elisha signified, for the inhabitants of Jericho and for Israel through all time, a covenant of salt with the word and promise of God,” it is an evident error, for Jehovah does not say: I make with you a covenant of salt! but: I make this water healthful, I heal it. It is true that salt serves as the symbol of a covenant, to indicate its durability and sanctity, but only on account of its power of preserving and protecting from corruption and decay, which is the only thing that here comes into consideration. In this connection there is no reference whatever to a “covenant of salt.”—The spring in question exists “unto this day,” 2Ki_2:22; and is “doubtless the spring now known as Ain es Sultan, the only spring in the neighborhood of Jericho. Its waters spread over the plain of Jericho.…. A large spring of water, which is indeed not cold, but at the same time not warm, and has a sweet and pleasant taste” (Keil.; cf. Robinson, Bibl. Res. in Palest. i. 554–5, or, ii. 283–4, ed. of 1841).
2Ki_2:23. And he went up from thence unto Bethel, &c. As the successor of Elijah in the office of leader of the prophets, Elisha wished to visit, for the first time, the school of the prophets at Bethel, the principal seat of the illegal worship (2Ki_2:3). The ðְòָøִéí ÷ְèַðִּéí can scarcely be “little boys” (Luther), i.e., irresponsible children, who do not know what they say. In the first place their mocking address is opposed to this view, and still more the judgment which fell upon them. Solomon was at least twenty years old when he commenced to reign, and yet he calls himself ðַòַø ÷ָèֹï (1Ki_3:7). Jeremiah also calls himself a ðַòַø at the time of his calling to be a prophet, Jer_1:6-7, likewise Joseph was so called at a time when he was at least seventeen years old (Gen_37:2). It is also shown by 1Ki_12:8; 1Ki_12:10; 1Ki_12:14, where the young counsellors of Rehoboam are called éְìָãִéí , that this word (2Ki_2:24) need not necessarily be understood of little boys. Therefore Krummacher and Cassel translate correctly by “young people.” [There is an element of modesty in the use of the word by Jeremiah and Solomon, at a comparatively advanced age. There were quite a number of these persons, more than forty-two, according to 2Ki_2:24. ðְòָøִéí is the word which would be used of them if they were of various ages, from children up to young men. It would not exclude the possibility that there were two or three older persons among them.—W. G. S.] Both the older and more recent expositors, Krummacher, J. Lange, and Kurtz, translate the mocking address by “Ascend, bald-head! (i.e., like Elijah).” so that there would be in it, at the same time, scorn for the ascension of Elijah [Patrick and Comp. Comm.], and the sense would be: “Let him also ascend and be off, that they might be rid of him,” or: “Elisha, fool that thou art, show thyself a prophet. If thou canst do anything, let us see it!” (Krummacher.) This is certainly incorrect, for òֲìֵä evidently refers to the preceding òֹìֶä , and it is impossible that it should mean something entirely different from this. Furthermore, òìä never means ascend (see notes on 2Ki_2:11); and how could these young people have heard and known already about the “ascension” of Elijah, which (2Ki_2:16) was not known even to the disciples of the prophets? Doubtless the young people had recognized him from a distance by his prophet’s mantle (perhaps the one left behind by Elijah, 2Ki_2:13), as a prophet, and therefore, as a zealous opponent of the calf and Baal worship, which had its principal seat in Bethel (1Ki_12:29); as they saw him now going up the hill to the city, they called to him in mockery: Go up into our city, thou bald-head, what dost thou want here among us? The expression “bald-head” is not to be understood as it generally is, of actual baldness, nor of “a smooth place on the back of the head” (Keil), for how were the young people to notice this in Elisha as he approached them from a distance? Moreover, Elisha was still in his best years, and he lived for at least fifty years after this time, so that he could not possibly have been bald-headed already on account of age. Still less can there be any reference to an artificial bareness of the head, for the Law forbade directly all persons who were consecrated to the service of Jehovah, as, for instance, the priests and nazarites, to shave the hair of the head (Lev_21:5; Num_6:5). In general, to make bald the head was a sign of dishonor and disgrace (Isa_3:17; Isa_15:2), and baldness was also a mark of leprosy (Lev_13:43). “Bald-head” is, therefore, a disgraceful epithet, which refers, not to a bodily imperfection, a “natural fault” (Keil), but to the calling of Elisha as man of God and prophet; he is thereby designated as one who is the opposite of that which he pretends to be and appears to be, as an impure and expelled person. Cassel remarks: “The expression of the Jews for Roman Catholic priests, during the Middle Ages, and until recent times, was ‘bald-heads:’ the tonsure passed among them as a mark of the very opposite of consecration and holiness.” [The epithet either had its origin in fact and Elisha was prematurely bald, or else it was a standing epithet of insult used for old or reverend people, independently of the fact whether the particular person addressed was bald or not.—W. G. S.] It is evident, then, from this epithet, that the young people had recognized, in Elisha, a prophet, and that they meant to scoff at him precisely as such. Therefore the prophet had to deal here with something very different from mere wantonness, such as little boys sometimes practise with a failing old man.
2Ki_2:24. And he turned back, &c. That which Moses and Aaron say to the people about their complaints: “Your murmurings are not against us but aganist the Lord” (Exo_16:8; cf. Act_5:4), is also applicable here. The scorn of the children attacked not so much the person of Elisha as the calling which had been bestowed upon him by Jehovah, and, in so far, it was a contemning of Jehovah himself, which the prophet, on his first appearance in that capacity, and here in Bethel, of all places, could not allow to pass in silence and unrebuked, without denying his holy calling. He cursed them in the name of the Lord, that is, he threatened them with a divine judgment, which in the sequel did not fail to befall them. There came forth two she-bears, whether at once, and in the presence of Elisha, or not, is uncertain (Köster: “How long afterwards, is not mentioned”). Bears, especially she-bears, are represented as very fierce and ravenous (Pro_17:12; Pro_28:15; Hos_13:8; Dan_7:5. Cf. Winer, R.-W.-B. i. s. 130). That they ate up forty-two of the children is not asserted in the text, for úְּáַ÷ַּòְðָä only means: they split, opened, i.e., tore to pieces (Hos_13:8). Perhaps it only means to say in general that they perpetrated a great massacre among them; the word îֵäֶí shows that there were many more than forty-two of them in all, and this has led to the conjecture that their meeting, for the purpose of reviling the prophet, was planned and prepared. It is possible that they had heard of the coming of a new head of the prophets, and had gone out to meet him in a body, in order to revile him. Nevertheless, the number, forty-two, which cannot be a round or symbolic number, is a very large one to be destroyed by two bears. In general, such is the brevity and disconnectedness of the narrative, that all sorts of questi