|
Commentary on 2 Kings 2:23 - 24
Kirk Straughen (Investigator 217, 2024 July) “He [the prophet Elisha]went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys.” (2 Kings 2:23 - 24). In this passage of scripture, quoted from the Revised Standard version it is clear that, if taken literally: God kills (or at the very least severely injures) children. Some apologists may attempt to deflect blame by claiming that it is Elisha who killed the children by his curse. This, however, is untenable as the act is clearly brought about by the intervention of divine power which comes directly from God. Other apologists may attempt to justify the brutality by claiming that it is a punishment for insulting the prophet - the mouthpiece of God, and therefore it is a response to a personal insult to God. But if this is the case then it is a very poor reflection on God. Is God’s ego so fragile, so debased that he has to kill children to relieve the affront of childish insults? This behaviour is more in keeping with the actions of a psychopathic Middle Eastern tyrant than the actions of an all-wise, all-powerful and loving God, or his representatives for that matter. How can this passage of scripture be explained? In my opinion the answer is most likely found in the psychology of its author: People with authoritarian personality traits abhor being ridiculed as they perceive this as a threat to their authority and prestige. Humor that makes fun of an individual can undermine the image they have of themselves, and authoritarian personalities are particularly sensitive to this. Therefore, people with authoritarian personalities often seek to eliminate the perceived threat to their ego and this can lead to extreme violence - behaviour to which they are often predisposed: “Because they are full of hatred, authoritarians need to punish others. They are likely to advocate for capital punishment, for harsh punishment for all offenders … Authoritarians are regularly assaultive and violent and even more often—sometimes constantly—in a state of barely suppressed near-violence.” (1) People create gods in their own image. Kindly people create a kindly conception of God; brutal people create a brutal conception of God. In my opinion this is illustrated in the unedifying 2 Kings 2:23 - 24. Did the event described in 2 Kings 2:23 - 24 actually happen? If God exists and is an all-wise and loving deity then I think that we can be sure the answer is no. Notes 1. What You Can Expect From an Authoritarian: https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/rethinking-mental-health/201711/what-you-can-expect-authoritarian Bible (Revised Standard Version) Why Trump — and other authoritarians — can’t take a joke: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/19/why-trump-other-authoritarians-cant-take-joke/ BEARS and The Bible
Anonymous (Investigator 217, 2024 September) Israel like Africa
Elisha served as prophet for over 50 years, starting about 850 BCE, in ancient Israel. Near the start of his ministry two "she bears" mauled 42 youngsters who were harassing him. (II Kings 2:24) Is this plausible?. Ancient Israel's dangerous wildlife was like 19th century Africa: Lions, leopards, cheetahs, jackals, hyenas, hippos, camels, wild horses, zebra, crocodiles, ostriches, wolves, wild dogs, hornets, large birds of prey, poisonous snakes, scorpions, spiders, disease-carrying insects, and bears. Bears North America
Wikipedia lists more than 200 known fatal bear attacks in North America since 1784 by Black bears, Brown bears and Polar bears. The attacks include cases of 2 or 3 people killed in one attack by one bear. In 2022 a bear attacked a "group" of soldiers, the actual number not stated, with one death. Many attacks were by female bears when the female perceived threat to her cubs. Some bears were predatory and without provocation pulled people out of tents or smashed into cabins. People often fled but the bear chased and caught them or climbed a tree after them. One bear in 2005 killed two adults in a tent but was distracted by three others on a raft and chased them downriver for 800 meters. Most attacks occurred when people appeared suddenly or were noisy or displayed "vigorous activity". The maximum children killed in one attack is three. Syrian Brown Bear
The Syrian Brown Bear was common anciently throughout the Middle East and still survive in mountain forests around the Caspian Sea. They eat a range of vegetation, grains, nuts and small mammals. Their young are born in winter usually in a cave or hollow of a tree. Syrian Bears are smaller than North American bears. But their behavior toward humans is similar. Adults can weigh 250kg and can be as dangerous as lions if sensing threat to their cubs: Like a roaring lion or a charging bear is a wicked ruler over a poor people. (Proverbs 28:15)
Better to confront a she-bear robbed of its cubs than to confront a fool immersed in folly.(Proverbs 17:12) I Samuel 17:37 mentions lion, bear and Goliath the Philistine giant in order of danger, implying bears can be more dangerous than lions. Especially when cubs are involved. (Hosea 13:8) Young's Analytical Concordance confirms the bears (in II Kings 2) were "she bears" which therefore acted as she bears with cubs would act. The 42 youngsters were not necessarily all killed. The King James Bible says "tare" [= "torn"]; the NIV Bible says "mauled". Ferocious Bears
The age range the Hebrew word na'ar refers to is child to "young man". But would 20-year-olds chase someone and yell "you baldhead", "you baldhead"? Or is it what kids would do? The intention for recording Elisha's bear experience might be merely as another event in his eventful life. Alternatively it perhaps suggests that God guarded Elisha from wild animals like He may have guarded David. (I Samuel 17:34-37) Baldness was not, in the Scriptures, regarded negatively unless the exposed skin was diseased in which case quarantine was commanded. (Leviticus 13:4-44) Deliberate self-induced baldness, however, was banned. (Leviticus 21:1-5; Deuteronomy 14:1) The "baldhead" chant could imply that Elisha's appointment to ministry was invalid and he's a fraud. Such allegations the bears, by subduing the harassment, refuted. Critics might ask whether the bear attack was coincidence or whether the Bible writer implies God stirred the bears into action. The Bible doesn't say. However, the location was west of the Jordan near Jericho, an area of hills, narrow rocky valleys, in ancient times forested, and the bears did what threatened she-bears naturally do. Plausible is that two bears each with cubs, nested a short distance apart among trees and out of sight. Elisha walking quietly got past safely. The crowd of noisy young ruffians yelled insults when situated between the two bears. Responding to perceived threat, movement and noise, the bears charged out in front and behind the crowd. Pandemonium, with people screaming and trampling each other in attempts to flee, would have exacerbated the bears' ferocity. The Bible gets the circumstances of location, bear-gender, noise, movement and threat, and bear-response correct. Therefore, if one bear in America can kill three people, possible also is the Elisha scenario of two bears mauling 42 juveniles caught between them. Straughen speculates that the author of II Kings 2:24 was a "Middle Eastern tyrant" of "authoritarian personality". This is as silly as dismissing American bear attacks as stories invented by authoritarian reporters. Bear attacks have lately also increased in Japan, and are unrelated to reporters' character, more than 200 attacks in 2023 with six people killed. Objective analysis of II Kings 2 considers bear behavior and assesses whether the scenario is physically possible. This we have done, and it is. Ethical Lessons
In Elisha's time the Law of Moses and the Proverbs were available as Scripture. If the crowd had observed the following proverbs, the bear attack might not have happened: Whoever belittles another lacks sense, but an intelligent person remains silent. (Proverbs 11:12)
Those who mock the poor insult their Maker... (17:5) Foolish children are a grief to their father... (17:25) Elisha, despite his overall reputation for mildness, "cursed" the provocative crowd, perhaps forgetting that:
Fools show their anger at once, but the prudent ignore an insult. (Proverbs 12:16) Those with good sense are slow to anger, and it is their glory to overlook an offense. (19:11) Perhaps more forbearance by Elisha was desirable, but we don't know all the circumstances. One theme of the Bible is that no human is perfect. (Romans 3:23) REFERENCES: Cansdale, G.S. 1970 Animals of Bible Lands, Paternoster Pinney, R. 1964 The Animals in the Bible, Chilton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America.html https://www.worldlandtrust.org/species/mammals/syrian-brown-bear/ 2 Kings 2:23 - 24. A Reply to Anonymous
Kirk Straughen (Investigator 219, 2024 November) I have read Anonymous’ response to my article on the above (Inv. 219, page 28) with interest, but am unable to agree with him. Firstly, on page 29 he seems to suggest that the children’s insults might have been intended to imply that Elisha’s appointment as a prophet was invalid, and that the allegation was somehow refuted by the attacking bears. In my opinion it is rather strange that an all-wise, all-powerful and loving god would use the death of children to settle a dispute rather than reasoned arguments. Secondly, Anonymous appears to suggest another possibility - that the attack by the bears was simply a coincidence impartially reported. However, if we look at the passage of scripture more fully, then I don’t think this is a tenable proposition. “He [the prophet Elisha]went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys. From there he went on to Mount Carmel, and thence he returned to Samaria.” (2 Kings 2:23 - 25). The intention of the author of scripture is to clearly link the bear attack with Elisha’s curse. As soon as the prophet utters his malediction, misfortune is portrayed as befalling the children. The message intended to be conveyed is probably something along the lines of: “if you insult God’s prophet serious punishment will follow.” If this attack was simply an unintended coincidence then Elisha, if he was truly compassionate, would have offered assistance to the injured victims. But the Bible makes no reference to such acts, nor any sadness or horror on Elisha’s part concerning the death and injury of children. Rather, it blandly outlines his onward journey as if the tragic incident was of little consequence. This is what we would expect if the spiteful curse was intended to produce a malicious outcome. In view of the above I think my original conclusion stands: People create gods in their own image. Kindly people create a kindly conception of God; brutal people create a brutal conception of God. In my opinion this is illustrated in the unedifying 2 Kings 2:23-24 where God is portrayed as enacting Elisha’s curse. BEARS AND CURSES
(Investigator 220, 2025 January) Anonymous Do curses activate bears?
My analysis of Elisha and the two she-bears that mauled 42 youngsters was based on known bear behavior. I asked "Is this plausible?" (Investigator 218, p. 28) It was my usual "test what is testable" method to check for scientific accuracy or plausibility. Straughen's claim that the story-teller implies that Elisha's "curse" led God to move the bears to kill kids is not stated. It is merely Straughen's addition to the story to have something to criticize. One meaning of cursing, or a curse, is: "a general denigration or reviling of a person or group, with the implication that those affected by such a curse could be regarded as people of little or no esteem." (Harrison 1987) Such a curse is similar to the abusive speech commonly heard in "road rage". The other meaning of curse is: "if delivered by a prophet (Deut. 23:4) or a judge (Judg. 9:19-21) they were felt to carry some form of divine sanction and could only be disregarded at great risk." (ibid) After a person got cursed in this second sense usually nothing happened, at least not immediately. It was like apostle Paul's statement: But
even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel
contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed.
(Galatians 1:8)
A curse, if merited by the cursed person's conduct, implied loss of God's favor and protection, therefore being at greater risk of injury, loss or death. God is not expected to do anything, merely leave the cursed person to his own devices and consequences. In II Kings 2:23–24 consequences after a curse came quicker than usual by means of natural bear behavior but is not blamed on God's interference. Is and Ought
Straughen speculates that "God" could have handled matters without 42 people getting mauled or that Elisha could have administered first-aid. We don't know what Elisha did immediately afterwards, as that's not part of the story. Speculating on alternatives is problematical because it jumps from statements of fact to inferring value judgments or moral judgments from those facts. The Dictionary of Philosophy explains: In
moral philosophy, fact/value dualism is the view that statements of
fact — factual statements — are of a different kind from statements of
value — evaluative statements — and that no statements of the second
kind can be inferred from statements of the first kind; in other words,
that evaluative statements are logically independent of factual
statements, so that even if all the facts are given, the question of
how to evaluate the situation still remains open. (Mautner 2005)
There's also fact/ought dualism, often called the is/ought question. The Dictionary explains: Hume
notes in Treatise of Human Nature ... that every 'vulgar system' (i.e.
commonly accepted theory) of morality he has come across proceeds from
'is'-propositions without explaining what seems unintelligible i.e. how
such a transition can be justified. This much-quoted passage has
commonly been interpreted as a statement of fact/value and fact/ought
dualism. (Mautner 2005)
Any fact can lead to many different evaluations and responses. Many different "oughts" or no "ought" can follow from an "is". It's easy to establish the fact that there's an apple tree on public land near my place. But to establish how people "ought to" evaluate and react to the tree is very different to noting the simple fact the tree exists. Today the sins, crimes, negligence and stupidities contrary to Scripture probably number in billions worldwide every week, often with obvious hurtful consequences. "God", as with the bears incident, apparently just lets it all happen whether preceded by curses or not. Bears and Scriptures
The bear story does not tell us what to value — it's a factual narration. However, anyone who values life, health and not being mauled by bears, irrespective of how those values originated in his mind, "ought to" walk quietly in a bear area like Elisha apparently did, and not noisily like his critics. Elisha set an example of safety. The noisy critics "came out of the city", perhaps incited by anti-Elisha parents. Harassing Elisha as "baldhead" may have implied he disobeyed Leviticus 21:5 or Deuteronomy 14:1 and was therefore not a man of God but a fraud. These verses, however, refer to baldness that is self-inflicted to lament the dead, not to being naturally bald. Observing Proverbs 11:12 would have kept the youngsters safe: "Whoever belittles another lacks sense, but an intelligent person remains silent." Elisha was not old but definitely older than his accusers. Therefore Leviticus 19:32 could also have kept them safe: "Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God." In every newspaper I see stories of lives getting ruined from illegal or foolish conduct of a sort contrary to biblical ethics. A useful lesson to learn from the bear narrative is therefore that the Scriptures are meant for our good and to ignore them can hurt. As for what God "ought to" have done when the she-bears mauled 42, the answer is nothing. Why God, if He is caring and omnipotent, does nothing when people suffer, is explained in Investigator #217 p. 40 and #104. References:
Harrison, R.K. (General Editor) 1987 Encyclopedia of Biblical and Christian Ethics, Thomas Nelson Publishers, p. 98. Mautner, T. 2005 Dictionary of Philosophy, Second Edition, Penguin, p. 213 <> |