A friend since deceased, once told us that he never was able to find in any commentary, or to obtain from any minister whom he had consulted, an explanation that he could regard as satisfactory, of Elisha’s view in sending his staff to be laid upon the face of the dead son of the friendly Shunamite. As the prophet went himself, why send his staff before? and as no effect resulted from the operation, what was his view—apparently a mistaken one—in sending it at all? Attention being thus drawn to what seemed a matter not likely to have been overlooked by any commentator, we turned over a good many volumes of all sizes, and ascertained with some surprise that our friend’s information was correct. There is a dead silence on this point; and even Krummacher, who has written a whole volume on a part of the history of Elisha, has passed this over, though he as well as others do suggest reasons for the failure of the experiment.
Elisha evidently sent his staff by his servant with the expectation that it would be effectual to raise the dead. This was great faith in him; faith as strong as any that his great master exemplified—almost; for Elijah was the first to conceive the great thought that even the raising of the dead was not a thing too great for faith to ask. Elisha had that for a precedent; but he was the first to think that even his presence was not needful to this effect—that his faith might act thus mightily even at a distance, by the mere instrumentality of his staff, to indicate the power and influence from which it came. But why his staff in particular? One might think that the mantle of Elijah would more readily have occurred to his mind in connection with such a purpose and such ideas. We should ourselves at once have understood that. It would have been a most intelligible sign.
Now, it may be possible to explain both why he did not send the mantle, and why he did send the staff. As to the former point, little explanation is needed; for, bearing in mind what has been already stated in regard to the value and importance of the prophetic mantle, every one can feel that he would not himself like to trust it out of his own possession; and, in point of fact, the eastern inheritors of saintly mantles never do let them go out of their immediate charge on any account whatever, and scarcely, indeed, will allow them to be separated from their persons. They even sleep to them.
To see why he did send his staff, we must consider that the prophetic staff was probably of some particular shape or material, which indicated the authority and function of the person who bore it—being to him, in his degree, what a scepter was to a king. In fact ancient scepters, as symbols of power, were only rods or staves. So, in Eze_19:11, we read of “strong rods for the scepters of those that bear rule.” Now, the authority of the owner of such an official or symbolical staff was, and even to this day is, considered to be as effectually delegated, for any occasion, to the person to whom it is entrusted, as it would be by a signet ring. Thus, when Captains Irby and Mangles left an Arab camp to proceed to Shobek, the sheikh Abu Rashid sent on with them an Arab bearing his own mace, to ensure for them the same reception as if he had himself been in their company.
In connection with this matter, we cannot fail to recollect the rod of Moses, which was the instrument of all his numerous miracles in Egypt, and in the wilderness, and which he was on all occasions enjoined to use. We remember also that the chiefs of the tribes had staves or rods as the symbol of their authority; and that the budding of Aaron’s rod, when laid up along with theirs, became the sign of the peculiar powers with which he was invested. This rod was preserved for a standing memorial in the tabernacle. Even the magicians of Egypt had rods like that of Moses, which they used in the same manner, as signs of the thaumaturgic power with which they claimed to be endowed.
In India the orou-mulle-pirambu (i.e., cane with one knot) is believed to possess miraculous powers, whether in the hands of a magician or of a private person. It is about the size of the middle finger, and must have only one knot in its whole length. Mr. Roberts, in his “Oriental Illustrations,” produces the following native declarations on the subject— “A man bitten by a serpent will be assuredly cured, if the cane or rod be placed upon him: nay, should he be dead, it will restore him to life. ‘Yes, sir, the man who has such a stick need neither fear serpents nor evil spirits.’” Mr. Roberts adds, “A native gentleman, known to me, has the staff of his umbrella made of one of these rods, and great satisfaction and comfort he has in this, his constant companion. ‘The sun cannot smite him by day, neither the moon by night; the serpents and wild beasts move off swiftly; and the evil spirits dare not come near to him.’”
Various reasons have been offered to explain why the application of the staff to the dead child did not produce the effect intended by the prophet. Some suppose that the fault was in his servant Gehazi, who either did not follow the particular directions given him by his master, or lacked the proper faith, or was under the influence of wrong motives and feelings. All this is, however, purely conjectural, and has no foundation whatever in the sacred narrative. Others imagine that Elisha himself was not free from presumption in supposing that his staff alone would be a sufficient instrument for so great a miracle, even without his presence; and that for this reason his call upon the Lord was not in this form answered. Finally, some lay the failure upon the mother’s manifest want of faith in any result to be produced by the staff. To us the fact appears to be clearly this: Elisha did not at first mean to go himself to Shunem, and for that reason sent his staff to supply the lack of his own presence. If he had then intended to go himself, there would have been no need of sending his staff beforehand; and his haste to do so might have suggested to the ungodly a detraction of the miracle, in the supposition that he apprehended the child would be too dead, before he came himself, to be revived at all.
But after he had sent away the servant, his observation of the uneasiness of the mother—whom he now expected to go home satisfied, and her avowed determination not to leave him—which was a polite way of pressing him to go in person, induced him to alter his purpose, and, with the kindness natural to him, to forego his own engagements at Carmel in order to satisfy her wishes by accompanying her to her forlorn home. It was probably in consequence of this change of plan that no response was made to the first claim of faith by means of the staff. That appeal was in fact superseded the moment he resolved to go in person—the Lord thus reserving for the personal intercession of his prophet the honor of this marvellous deed.