The Mockers

2Ki_2:18-25

About a mile and half north-west of Jericho,

at the base of some low hillocks, thought by
some to be mounds of rubbish, is the
fountain-head of a stream, to which the place
owes now, and must have formerly owed, its
supply of water, and the irrigation of its
fields. The water rises into an old ruinous
basin, and flows off in a stream large enough
to turn a mill. The principal stream runs
towards the village, the rest of the water
finding its way at random, in various channels
down the plain, which here is decked with the
broad forest of the nubk and other thorny
shrubs. The water is beautifully clear, and
although slightly tepid at the fountain-head,
is sweet and pleasant. Josephus, by whom it
is mentioned, ascribes to it a peculiar efficacy
in promoting vegetation, and declares, that it
affords a sweeter nourishment than other
waters. The fountain is now called by the
Arabs Ain es-Sultan; but the Christians and
Jews recognize it as Elishas Fountain, and
give it the prophets name.

Formerly, and perhaps in consequence of the

curse pronounced on the place by Joshua, the
waters were wholly unfit for domestic
purposes or for irrigation, by reason of their
unwholesomeness or bitterness. But the evil
was miraculously healed by Elisha, and the
waters brought into their present wholesome
state. Jericho was the first place he reached
after he had crossed the Jordan; and it was
probably the extraordinary miracle by which
he passed it that suggested to the people that
he had power over the waters, and might
remove the disadvantage which rendered
what would otherwise be a most pleasant
place scarcely habitablethere being perhaps
no water available in dry weather but such as
might be preserved in cisterns, or brought
from the inconveniently distant Jordan. So a
deputation of the inhabitants waited upon the
prophet, respectfully drawing his attention to
the case. He heard them, and desired them to
bring him a new dish. In the original the word
indicates a kind of dish used in cooking or
serving up victualswhich may be noted as of
itself a suggestive indication that the waters
were to be made potable. And it was new
the more to illustrate the intended miracle, by
making it evident that there was nothing in
the vessel, or adhering to it from previous
use, which possessed any curative power. He
also told them to put salt into the vessel. So
far from in any way contributing to the
intended result, the salt might be supposed
rather to increase the evilwater charged
with salt being unfit for use, and unfriendly to
vegetable life. No people knew this better
than the inhabitants, living, as they did,
within ken of the Salt Sea; and being well,
therefore, acquainted with the effects of salt
in water. It was probably for this reason that
the salt was chosenthat the effect might be
produced not only by agencies not in any way
contributing to the result, but naturally
contrary to it. This was, therefore, what the
Jews call a miracle within a miracle. Thus
furnished, Elisha forthwith proceeded to the
springattended, doubtless, by a large
concourse of people; and there he cast in the
salt, saying, in the fulness of faith, and in
language well suited to direct attention from
himself as the agent to the Lord as the author
of the miracleThus saith the Lord, I have
healed these waters: there shall not be from
thence any more death or barren land. And
so it came to pass, to the great joy of the
people, who could not but see the entirely
miraculous nature of the transaction, not only
in the agency employed, but in the fact that
no human act could have had any permanent
effect upon the water. The effect of whatever
human resource or knowledge could have
done, must have passed off before the day
closed, as the water then in the basin and the
channel became mixed with that which rose
freshly from the spring. It is surely impossible
for human art by any one act to produce an
abiding effect upon running water.
Soon after this the prophet went to Bethel.
This, it will be recollected, was a seat of the
worship of one of Jeroboams golden calves
the inhabitants of which were therefore
doubtless very corrupt in their religious
notions and services. The reception which the
prophet met with confirms the impression. He
was assailed by a rabble of young
blackguards with cries of Go up, thou bald-
head! go up, thou bald-head! And how did
the prophet meet this rude assault, from what
the reader takes from the narrative to have
been a gang of unmannerly boys? He turned
and cursed themnothing lesscursed them
in the name of the Lord; and forthwith came
two she-bearsperhaps robbed of their
whelpsand tore forty-and-two of them. We
dare say there are few young readers, or
indeed old ones, of this passage in the Bible,
who do not think the prophet was terribly
severe; and that, although the children
deserved a good whipping or something of
that sort for their impudence, it was going
rather too far to punish them with death. But,
in the first place, he did not do so. He cursed
themand that not from personal
resentment, but under a divine impulse,
without which, we will venture to say, no
prophet ever dared to pronounce a curse. He
cursed, and that was all. He did not punish.
He left it to the Lord to determine and inflict
the measure of punishment; and that the
Lord judged the crime worthy of death,
requires us to look more closely into its
nature.

In the first place, we are to take the children

not as mere thoughtless boys, scarcely
knowing what they were about, but as young
men acting from a strong animus against the
prophet for his works sake, and with a full
meaning to insult and discourage him at the
commencement of his career. The Hebrew
word here employed to describe them
(naarim, singular naar), no doubt does
denote even an infant, and a mere child; but
also does as frequently denote grown-up lads,
youths, and young men, and is often used,
irrespective of age, in application to servants
and soldiers. In fact its use is more extensive
than ours of the term boy, though that is
very wide, and more nearly corresponds to
the Irish use of the same word boy, or
gorsoon, or the French of garon. We
need only to point out a few passages to
show this. The term is applied to Ishmael
when he was about fourteen years old; Note:
Gen_21:16. to Isaac when he was grown up
to a young man; Note: Gen_22:12. Hamor of
Shechem, when of marriageable age, and
probably not less than twenty years old;
Note: Gen_34:20. to Joseph when he was
seventeen; Note: Gen_37:2. to Gideons son
Jether, when old enough to be ordered to slay
two kings; Note: Jdg_8:20. to Solomon after
he had become king; Note: 1Ki_3:7. to the
four hundred Amalekites who escaped on
camels; Note: 1Sa_30:17. to Elishas servant
Gehazi; Note: 2Ki_4:12. to the son of the
prophets who anointed Jehu; Note: 2Ki_9:4.
to the two hundred and thirty-two attendants
of the princes of the provinces who went out
against Benhadad; Note: 1Ki_20:15. to the
soldiers of the Assyrian king; Note: 2Ki_19:6.
and in other places too numerous to cite. In
all these cases, though differently translated
according to the apparent meaning of the
sacred writerby child, lad, young man,
servantthe word is but one in the original,
and is the same which is here employed to
express children.

But it will be said those designated here are

not only children, but little children. Even
so; but in one of the instances just cited,
Solomon calls himself a little child when
certainly a young man; and we wish to point
attention to the fact, which we have never
seen noticed, that although those who came
out against the prophet are called little
children, the little is dropped where the
forty-two who are slain are mentioned. Even
the word for children is then changed to
another (jeladim, singular jelad); and
although that word is of nearly synonymous
use and application with the other, Note:
Lamech applies it to the person he had slain,
whom he also calls a man, Gen_4:23. It is
also applied to Joseph when seventeen
(equally with the other term), Gen_37:30;
Gen_42:22; to the young men who were
brought up with Rehoboam, who was forty
years old, 1Ki_12:8; 1Ki_12:10; to Daniel
and the pious youths his companions,
Dan_1:4; Dan_1:10, etc. the change, with
the dropping of the word little, is probably
intended to mark the distinction. Wherever
there is a mob of idle young men, there is
sure to be a number of mischievous urchins,
who shout and bawl, as they do, without
knowing much of the matter. Although,
therefore, there were no doubt little children
among this rabble of young Bethelites, there
is every reason to suppose that the forty-two
of them who were destroyed were the oldest
ones, the ringleaders of the set, and who very
well knew what they were about. It is worthy
of note here, that the Jews have long
considered a father responsible for the sins of
his sons while they are under thirteen years
of age, after which they become accountable
for themselves. There is a ceremony, wherein
the father publicly in the congregation
transfers to his son, when he attains that age,
the responsibility he has hitherto borne for
him. This notion is old. We trace it in
Joh_9:23, where the parents decline to
answer for their son, on the ground that he
has reached the age of personal
responsibility, and can answer for himself. If
this idea was as old as the time of Elishaand
it probably was, though the age may then
have been laterit supplies a fresh argument
to show that the youngest of those destroyed
was not under the age to which personal
responsibility was fixed by the Jews
themselvesthe Bethelites among the rest.

Observe further, that these youths were not

accidentally encountered: they did not
happen to be at their sports outside the town
when the prophet passed; but they came
out of malice prepense to meet and insult
him. Such a purpose against the prophet
must have been the result of their ungodly
training in that evil place, and must have had
its root in the sneers and sarcasms which
they had all their lives heard leveled at the
name and acts of Elijah. Him, surrounded as
he was with terrors, they would not have
dared thus to insult and abuse; but from his
comparatively meek and gentle successor,
whom they had never hitherto seen in any
position of authority, they thought there was
nothing to apprehend, and that they could
with impunity pour out the blackness of their
hearts upon him. They had heard that Elijah
had been taken up to heaven, and they
believed it; but instead of being suitably
impressed by it, they regarded it as a fine
new subject of derisiontelling the disciple to
go up after his master, and then they
should be well rid of both. To this they added
the ignominious term of baldhead, which
was one of great indignity with the
Israelitesbaldness being usually seen
among them as the effect of the loathsome
disease of leprosy. It was a term of contempt,
equivalent to calling him a mean and
unworthy fellowa social outcast. In this
sense it is still used as a term of abuse in the
further East (India, etc.), and is often applied
as such to men who have ample heads of
hair. In western Asia, where men shave their
heads, the term is not now known as one of
reproach.

The offence, involving as it did a blasphemous

insult upon one of the Lords most signal acts,
made a near approach to what in the New
Testament is called the sin against the Holy
Ghost. It became the Lord to vindicate his
own honor among a people governed by
sensible dispensations of judgments and of
mercy; and it became him to vindicate the
character and authority of his anointed
prophet at the outset of his high career.