It’s been awhile since the last installment of this series (lots more to come), but this one should be fairly straightforward. 2 Kings 2:23–24 tells of the prophet Elisha calling a curse down upon a group of “children” (KJV), “youths” (NIV), “boys,” (NRSV/ESV), or “lads” (NASB), resulting in two bears (she-bears, if you must) mauling forty two of them. Here’s the passage:
וַיַּעַל מִשָּׁם בֵּית־אֵל וְהוּא עֹלֶה בַדֶּרֶךְ וּנְעָרִים קְטַנִּים יָצְאוּ מִן־הָעִיר וַיִּתְקַלְּסוּ־בוֹ וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ עֲלֵה קֵרֵחַ עֲלֵה קֵרֵחַ׃
וַיִּפֶן אַחֲרָיו וַיִּרְאֵם וַיְקַלְלֵם בְּשֵׁם יְהוָה וַתֵּצֶאנָה שְׁתַּיִם דֻּבִּים מִן־הַיַּעַר וַתְּבַקַּעְנָה מֵהֶם אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁנֵי יְלָדִים׃“And [Elisha] went up from there to Bethel. While he was on his way, young juveniles* came out from the city and mocked him, saying, ‘Go up, bald-head! Go up, bald-head!’ When he turned back and saw them, he cursed them in the name of YHWH. Then two female bears came out from the forest and mauled forty two of those juveniles.”
* The Hebrew word underlying what I have translated “juveniles” is notoriously difficult to translate in this context. The word can mean “child,” “servant,” “young man,” or several other possibilities, depending on the context. For example, it is used of the “young man” Absalom (1 Sam 18:5) and a group of 400 Amalekite warriors 1 Sam 30:17. The generally agreed meaning is that it is used of a young man (& can include females in the plural) who is not yet betrothed, setting the range from a mere boy to a young warrior. This passage uses the additional adjective “little” or “young” in the first case, which may tilt the meaning more towards the “children” end of the spectrum, but it’s certainly not clear. I’ve chosen the somewhat clunky “juveniles” to reflect this range, though the translation is admittedly less than ideal.
A Difficult Passage
This passage has disturbed many a reader, bringing up the question of how a prophet of YHWH could call a deadly curse down upon a group of kids for taunting him about something as insignificant as baldness. The following video is an outstanding (and, frankly, hilarious) example of this sort of misgiving (WARNING: a couple bits of language might be offensive for some):
The video actually depicts the “youths” at the older end of the spectrum (given younger kids, it would look even worse), but the basic sentiment is still there: as one of the video characters declares, “this seems like a disproportionate response” to insulting Elisha’s lack of hair.
Are Bald People Just Temperamental?
The first thing to dismiss is that this was an older man who reacted badly to taunts about his male pattern balding. According to 2 Kings, this event immediately followed Elisha taking over for Elijah; Elisha was still quite a young man at this point in the story, living about 60 years after this event (through the reigns of four more kings and into a fifth’s reign: Ahaziah, Joram, Jehu, Jehoahaz, & Jehoash/Joash). He wasn’t exactly an old monk as portrayed in the video, probably coming closer to the age of the older “children” in the group taunting him than to their parents. As an aside, given Elisha’s young age (and the possibility that his head would have been covered anyway), it isn’t clear the reference is to male-pattern baldness. It is just as likely that (were he actually bald) that his baldness was the result of the fulfillment of a vow before YHWH (which would make sense in the time immediately following Elijah’s departure). Some have also suggested that “baldy” was a reference to lepers or other outcasts who had to shave their heads. Either way, the baldness referenced in the passage is neither clear nor is it especially important.
Secondly, the emphasis in the passage isn’t Elisha’s baldness or that the juveniles bring it up—it’s that the youth of Bethel reject and scorn YHWH’s prophet (signaling a rejection of God himself). The problem is that, rather than receiving the prophet, they tell him to “go up”—the exact word (עלה) used to describe Elijah’s departure to heaven twelve verses earlier. That is, they tell him to stay away, that they wanted nothing to do with him or his God, that he should go join Elijah in heaven if he was really such a powerful prophet. That they call him “baldy,” though certainly disrespectful, was not the cause of the cursing.
On that front, it is not insignificant that this event happens just outside Bethel, one of the two state-sponsored centers of idolatry (Dan being the other), complete with a golden calf set up by Jeroboam after the kingdoms divided. Bethel had been the center of another prophetic confrontation before—in 1 Kings 13, an unnamed young prophet cursed the altar of Bethel and its priests, with a sign performed when Jeroboam’s arm withered when he ordered the prophet siezed. A generation after Elisha, Bethel would again be the center of prophetic controversy, when Amos declared his prophecy against Israel (which we have in the book of Amos) in Bethel, cursing Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, declaring, “Thus says YHWH, ‘Your wife will become a whore in the city, your sons and daughters will fall by the sword, your land will be divided up by a measuring line, and you yourself will die upon unclean soil’” (Amos 7:10–17). In addition, if forty two of these young comedians were mauled by the bears, exactly how many are we to assume were actually present for this scene of mockery? When a couple large wild bears run out of the woods and begin wreaking havoc, people tend to scatter rather quickly. In my experience, such large groups of people rarely form accidentally; from the numbers involved, this appears to be an organized public demonstration against Elisha and his God.
Bethel’s rejection of YHWH—reflected in these youngsters’ behavior towards the prophet—is what leads Elisha to curse these youthful hooligans “in the name of the Lord.” In fact, like Amos after him, Elisha’s curse appears to be a repetition of (part of) the curse for rejecting YHWH in the covenant from Sinai: “If then you act with hostility and are unwilling to hear/obey me … I will send the wild beasts among you and bereave you of your children” (Lev 26:22–23), exactly what happens in this case. Much is made about the blessings contained in the covenant and the many blessings promised by God, but not many want to remember the other side of the equation—disobedience calls forth awful curses. That Elisha’s curse brings about swift comeuppance is no less a sign of his authority as a prophet and representative of the covenant (and thus the truth of his protests against idolatry) than Elijah’s victorious confrontation on Carmel had been. Recall that in his first act as Elijah’s successor, Elisha had just miraculously purified the accursed, polluted water of Jericho, bringing blessing to those who received YHWH; this second act serves as a sign of God’s continued judgment upon covenant-breakers. Such a visible sign of judgment serves—just as Elijah’s drought and victory on Carmel (complete with the slaughter of 450 false prophets)—as a sign of YHWH’s reality and his covenantal claim upon Israel. In addition, given the fact that Elijah had been sought by the king and threatened with death by the queen, this kind of mockery and aggressive behavior serves as a threat—and as with Elijah before him, it becomes immediately clear that YHWH himself will look after the safety of his prophet(s), much to the disadvantage of their opponents.
God Will Not Be Mocked, So Don’t Taunt a Prophet of YHWH (Even if he is bald)
So, Elisha’s curse was not simply a case of a temperamental guy getting bit touchy about his appearance and calling down curses upon a group of kids for drawing attention to his baldness. Rather, it was a prophetic sign—at the very beginning of his service as God’s spokesperson—of YHWH’s displeasure at Israel’s covenantal disobedience, a warning that, without repentance, the other curses stipulated in the covenant were soon to come. Granted, modern sensibilities tend to be at odds with any sort of divine retribution—”How dare God kill anyone!” (Then again, a rather high percentage of people tend to die at the end of their lives anyway, suggesting it’s just a matter of when God chooses to “kill.”) This tends to be even more the case when involving children. But such a complaint involves more of a problem with the essential worldview reflected in the Bible at large; this is by no means a problematic passage if one is willing to take the worldview reflected in the text and accept God’s authority as judge. It is also important to note that God is the one who defends himself/his prophet here—no human being is taking into his/her own hands to defend God or himself against others in a violent manner. Elisha’s curse simply marks yet another occasion in which Israel’s rejection of God results in receiving the curses of the covenant, yet another milestone on the downward path towards the final, most serious of covenantal curses promised for disobedience—being scattered among the nations in exile.
Related posts:
- “Whoever Looks at a Woman With Lust”: Misinterpreted Bible Passages #1
- “That day will come like a thief”: Misinterpreted Bible Passages #4
- “Pearly Gates” and “Streets of Gold”: Misinterpreted Bible Passages #2
- “Judge not, lest you be judged”: Misinterpreted Bible Passages #3
- “The Signs of the Times”: Misinterpreted Bible Passages #5
Mr. Jason Staples I just wanted to let you know that I’ve read all of your blogs about the misinterpreted scriptures. Keep doing what you’re doing because these things need to be known since many things are taught in the church incorrectly. God bless you.
this is a very fucked up verse, like many others in the “good book”…..justify it all you want, you disgust me
Wow… Nice use of language and good job on completely lacking of an actual argument. I think if there is anything disgusting on this page it’s your use of language. I wouldn’t be surprised if you didn’t even read the page that you are commenting on. Good job.
Victims of serious emotional and physical abuse often get to the stage where they will justify their captor’s actions, highlighting once again that if there is a god (YHWH), he is an evil, psychopathic entity with very, very low self esteem and rage issues second to none. Elisha being touchy about his baldness is understandable as he is a human, but god being touchy about a bunch of young upstarts, now that speaks volumes about the kind of entity which christians so masochistically wish to prostrate themselves before. We would have to be very afraid of a god like that and worship/respect would only be given out of pure fear, much like a kidnap victim will respect the wishes of the kidnapper if enough violence is dished out. Oh I forgot, he does all this bad shit to us…..but he luvs us?!?! Fortunately there is not a god.
He explained that it is not about baldness. It that they rejected God. In the Old Testament, there was a law. A just God is required to give the punishment. It is not something God wants. And your last statement is just wrong. You cannot prove “there is not a god.”
I don’t see your point. It’s still a disproportionate response. Even the worst verbal abuse and hate speech and slander imaginable could never ever warrant physical violence, especially the kind delivered of she-bears onto 42 people. Who cares how old the priest is and how old the youths are?(Although if you ask me, youths don’t have full beards.) The fact that God cares if you mock him should be a flashing neon sign flashing that god is a whining little girl with an ego problem. And by the way, I blaspheme every chance I get and have never felt the wrath of God. So this story, if anything, teaches me first that God isn’t real, and second, if he was he’d be evil.
I don’t see your point. ANY punishment for the rejection of God would be a disproportionate response to someone who doesn’t believe in God. lol!
children call it the way they see it. They don’t hold back to be polite like adults. Elisha was bald because he had a shaved head. He was mourning…17th of tammuz is the beginning of 21 days of mourning ending on the 9th of Av. 21 more days brings you to the end of the year… INGATHERING. Each bear averaged 21 kills for a total of 42. This is also the 127 days (provinces) plus one week feast of King Ahasuerus (Esther 1)…134 days from Passover (Nisan 15). It is also one month after a major feast. Just as Moses and Hezekiah understood that the feast of Tabernacles could be celebrated a month later, this ingathering feast is exactly one month after the true Pentecost which was 102 days after Passover (Elijah called for a captain plus 50=51 to be struck dead twice over for a total of 102). Ingathering is at the turn of the year. Elul is the new year for tithing animals. Ingathering happens a day before this obscure new year. New wine needs to go into new wine skins! peter lindner
Well, I guess that settles it.
It’s the honor of kings to search out a matter.
Dear Jason,
From this blog, I understand that you are justifying, or at least trying to justify, that God destroys those who oppose him. I have a hard time believing this. Yes, it was wrong for all those people to gather to mock God and his prophet. However, does this justify killing them? When Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s directions, were they punished with death? When Jesus was crucified, did God sentence those responsible for His son’s crucifixion to death? You cannot have a God who wants to be in loving relationship (covenant) with you and say that Him killing all those people in the Bible is ok. Please think this over and answer my question when you can Jason. Thanks!
Sincerely,
Alex
Excellent questions, Alex. First of all, I want to make it clear that this “Misunderstanding the Bible” series isn’t really about justifying the various passages under discussion. Rather, the point is to discuss passages that have been misread and misinterpreted and suggest better ways of reading these passages. As for your questions themselves:
1) Yes, Adam and Eve were punished with death for their disobedience. That’s actually the point of the story. They’re told that if they disobey, they will die, and when they disobey, they are cast out of the garden, cut off from the Tree of Life (the fruit of which presumably would have made them immortal), and ultimately die as promised. Like I said, that’s pretty much the point of the whole story.
2) Yes, every person responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion (and all those not responsible also) died.
Ultimately, presuming the existence of God, God is responsible for the death of every human since God could presumably keep everyone from dying were he so to choose. Once that’s understood, the question isn’t really about death or whether it’s “okay” for God to “kill” people (since he does so every day), it’s really about the timing of each individual death. One thing that the biblical authors fundamentally agree upon is the idea that God has the authority to create and to destroy/kill. Human beings, on the other hand, are commanded not to murder one another, as they do not have this authority since they are not God.
Actually, this notion of God’s authority is foundational to the “turn the other cheek” concept in the Sermon on the Mount, as it rests upon the assumption that God, being just, will ultimately set things right and repay everyone according to what he/she deserves. Given that, people should never repay evil for evil or respond with violence, as doing so only makes them equally ripe for God’s judgment. This isn’t the only concept underlying this teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, but it’s definitely one upon which it all rests. The basic concept is “God will judge justly and has authority to dispense whatever is right, so leave it to him.”
Finally, the Israelite covenant that you mention actually included the promise that if Israel was unfaithful to the covenant, God would cause the wild animals to attack and kill them. This was part of the “loving relationship (covenant)” spelled out in the Torah. It’s certainly distasteful to us moderns, but it’s internally coherent and we should read it on its own terms if we want to see how they understood the character of the God of Israel.
Does this help?
Thank you very much for answering my questions Jason. This does help me in a way to understand how some things in life work. It’s 12:24 A.M. and my mind is a bit elsewhere so I’m going to re-read your reply again in the morning for it to be ingrained in my mind. Thank you very much for taking the time to answer my questions Jason! Hope you have a great day/night.
Sincerely,
Alex Le
for the exact word of god do you see how a simple paragraph needed so much in apologetics to shoe horn it into being normal? For a book written by illiterate bronze age shepherds for all people it sure is a mess. So either “god” is a poor example of what a deity is to be, or people are really stupid. But hey we can always happily bash our children on the rocks… I bet you have some bullshit apologetics to fix that..now why does the word of god need fixed so much? Tolkien told a very involved make believe tale and he doesn’t have near the trouble being understood
Excuse me? Who said we’re talking about “the exact word of god” here? What is the reasoning for this rant?