The Elisha Miracles (2Ki 2 Kings 2:1-25; 2 Kings 4:1 to 2 Kings 6:23), His Prophetic Involvement In The Victory Over Moab (2 Kings 3:1-27), And Further Subsequent Events Where YHWH's Power Through Elisha Is Revealed (2 Kings 6:24 to 2 Kings 8:15).
We move away in this section from the annals of the kings of Israel and Judah, to the memoirs of the sons of the prophets, although even then possibly intermingled with further extracts from the official annals (e.g. 2 Kings 3:1-27). The events that will follow, in which YHWH's power through his prophet Elisha is remarkably revealed, were crucial to the maintenance of faith in YHWH at a time of gross apostasy. Just as YHWH through Moses had boosted the faith of Israel at the Exodus with specific miracles, and just as Jesus Himself would evidence His Messiahship by even greater miracles (Matthew 11:2-6), followed by miracles which accredited His Apostles (Mark 16:17-18; Acts 4:29-30; Acts 5:12; Hebrews 2:3-4) so now in these perilous times for Yahwism (the worship of YHWH, the God of Israel), God encouraged the faithful by miracles, some of which were remarkably similar, although lesser in extent, to those of Jesus. To call them pointless, as some have done, is to ignore the privations and dangers facing the ‘sons of the prophets' and all true Yahwists, dangers under which the very core of the faithful in Israel were living. Under such circumstances they needed their faith boosting in special ways. It is not without note that similar miracles have been experienced through the ages when Christian men and women have been facing up to particular difficulties and persecutions (as with the Corrie Ten Boom miracle described previously at 1 Kings 17:16).
It is also interesting to note that in some ways Elisha's spate of miracles can be seen as having commenced with his seeing a ‘resurrection', accompanied by a reception of the Spirit, as Elijah was snatched up into Heaven. It may be seen as a pointer to the future.
Note On The Two Contrasting Scholastic Approaches To These Passages.
Scholars are basically divided into two groups when considering these passages. On the one hand are those who believe that God was ready to perform special miracles in certain circumstances, in this case in view of the parlous situation in which most in Israel had mainly lost their faith, and on the other are those who dogmatically assert that such miracles could not have taken place per se, and that they must therefore be seen as legendary a priori (thus they speak of them as ‘saga'). Clearly the sceptical scholar must then find some way of discrediting, at least partially, the material in question, but when they do, it should only in fairness be recognised on their side, that they often do so on the basis of their dogmatic presuppositions, (which they are, of course, perfectly entitled to in a free world), and not on the basis of the text. Indeed had no miracles been involved it is doubtful whether, on the whole, they would have reached the same literary conclusions as the ones they now argue for (and disagree with each other about, like us all).
For the truth is that there are no grounds in the text for rejecting the miracles. Indeed in view of the soberness with which they are presented we can argue that there are actually grounds for accepting that the miracles did occur in front of eyewitness. The case is thus really settled by these scholars on the basis of external presuppositions and philosophical presumptions, which, of course, we all have (or in some cases even through fear of what their fellow scholars might think).
Unfortunately for these scholars their problem is exacerbated by the quantity and diversity of the miracles, and the differing places where they come in the text. Thus their ‘explanations' have to become many and varied, one might almost say amusing in their complexity, were it not for the seriousness of the issue involved. For the author was not generous enough to limit his account of miracles to one section alone. Thus they even appear in passages almost certainly taken from the official annals of the kings of Israel and Judah. It must be recognised that many of these scholastic interpretations are based simply on the initial dogmatic position that ‘miracles do not happen' so that they feel it incumbent on them to find another explanation. The literary arguments are then often manoeuvred in order to ‘prove' their case. because they are convinced that it must be so. As a result they find what they want to find (a danger with us all). That is not the right way in which to approach literary criticism.
While we ourselves are wary of too glib a claim to ‘miracles' through the ages, and would agree that large numbers of them have been manufactured for convenience, or accepted on insufficient grounds while having natural explanations, we stand firmly on the fact that at certain stages in history, of which this was one, God has used the miraculous in order to deliver His people. And we therefore in each case seek to consider the evidence. There are no genuine grounds for suggesting that prophetic writers enhanced miracles. Indeed it is noteworthy that outside the Exodus and the Conquest, the time of Elijah and Elisha, and the times of Jesus Christ and His Apostles, such miracles in Scripture were comparatively rare events. It will also be noted that Elisha undoubtedly had a reputation in his own time as a wonderworker (2 Kings 5:3; 2 Kings 6:12; 2 Kings 8:4). We thus accept the genuineness of the miracles of Elijah and Elisha, considering that it is the only explanation that fits the soberness of the accounts with which we are presented, just as we similarly accept the similar miracles of Jesus Christ and His Apostles because of Who He proved Himself to be.
And that is the point. We do not just accept such miracles by an act of optional faith, or because we are ‘credulous'. We accept them as a reality because they were a reality to Jesus Christ, and because we know that we have sufficient evidence from His life and teaching to demonstrate that Jesus Christ was Who He claimed to be, the only and unique Son of God. And we remember that He clearly assumed Elijah's and Elisha's miracles to have been authentic (Luke 4:26-27; Luke 9:54-56). Our belief in the miracles of Elijah and Elisha is thus finally founded on our belief in Jesus Christ as the true and eternal Son of God.
(This is not to make any judgments about the genuine Christian beliefs among some who disagree with us. Man has an infinite capacity to split his mind into different boxes).
End of note.
This Elisha material from 2 Kings 2:1 to 2 Kings 8:15 can be divided into two sections, which are clearly indicated:
1). SECTION 7 (2 Kings 2:1 to 2 Kings 3:27). After the taking of Elijah into Heaven Elisha enters Canaan as Israel had before him, by parting the Jordan, and then advances on Jericho, where he brings restored water to those who believe, after which he advances on Bethel, where he brings judgment on those who are unbelievers. And this is followed by a summary of the commencement of the reign of Jehoram, and an incident in his life where Elisha prophesies the provision of water for the host of Israel, something which is then followed by the sacrificing, by the rebellious and unbelieving king of Moab, of his son (2 Kings 2:1 to 2 Kings 3:27). In both these incidents the purpose of his ministry is brought out, that is, to bring blessing to true believers, and judgment on those who have turned from YHWH,
2). SECTION 8 (2 Kings 4:1 to 2 Kings 8:15). In this section the kings of Israel are deliberately anonymous while the emphasis is on YHWH's wonderworking power active through Elisha which continues to be effectively revealed (2 Kings 4:1 to 2 Kings 8:15). The kings simply operate as background material to this display of YHWH's power. In contrast from 2 Kings 8:16 the reign of Jehoram is again specifically taken up, signalling the commencement of a new section with the kings once more prominent.