Elisha, the "Boys," and the Bears

A reply to a recent thread here made me think it’d be a good idea to share my study on this topic. Much misunderstanding of the Bible and resulting malignment of God’s character is due to ignorance - whether willful or incidental - resulting from a lack of understanding and/or study of the nature of the scriptures.

This discussion covers the Old Testament passage of II KIngs 2:1-24. Here, I’ll quote the most pertinent section, verses 23-25, but if this interests you, I recommend that you read the entire chapter for context and to understand more clearly what I am about to explain.

23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. 25 And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.

Much has been said, especially from people who would seek to find fault with the scriptures and with the character of God, regarding this passage where Elisha, having been slandered by a group of “young boys”, curses them in the name of the LORD, resulting in two she-bears coming out of the woods and “mauling” or “tearing” 42 of them.

In order to analyze and pass judgment on this event, there is much under the surface that one must understand. None of this is hidden or esoteric knowledge. It’s all available for anyone willing to study.

GEOGRAPHY:
Gilgal and Bethel in modern times are called Jiljilya and Beitin or Beit El. They are located north of Jerusalem, southwest of Shiloh where the tabernacle was placed during early occupation. The following image will give you an idea of the geography and layout of the region, where the places are in relation to one another. Routes and such are surely not the same ones that Elijah and Elisha would have followed, but we get the gist. You can see that it would have been a good day’s hike between their point of origin and their destination.




Setting the Scene with the Departure from Gilgal

vv. 2-3 - 2 And Elijah said to Elisha, “Please stay here, for the Lord has sent me as far as Bethel.” But Elisha said, “As the Lord lives, and as you yourself live, I will not leave you.” So they went down to Bethel. 3 And the sons of the prophets who were in Bethel came out to Elisha and said to him, “Do you know that today the Lord will take away your master from over you?” And he said, “Yes, I know it; keep quiet.”

The principles are Elijah and Elisha. God sends Elijah to Beth El (and on to Jericho, Jordan, c.f. vv. 2, 4, 6). Elisha wishes to accompany him. Now, Immediately they DESCEND to Bethel - except that they do not literally descend.

Gilgal:
“Gilgal” was apparently a common place name in ancient Palestine. There are several Gilgals in the OT, just as there are many towns and cities in any country that share the same name. One was the place where the Israelites first camped on entering the Promised Land under Joshua's leadership. This is not that Gilgal.

The Gilgal mentioned here was likely just north of Bethel, was where the school of prophets was established under Elisha, and was likely Elisha’s home town. It is probably the Gilgal mentioned in Deut. 11:30. In modern times it is called Jiljilya, is about 10km north of Bethel as the crow flies and stands at about 750m altitude.

Beth El:
Beth El is considered to be at modern Beit El or Beitin, and is at about 900m altitude. Now, it is important to know that Jereboam established Beth El (I Kings 12, 13) in disobedience to the law of God. He made Bethel a center of idolatry (I Kings 12:25-22) and the prophet of Jehovah cursed it (I Kings 13:1-10).

Bethel and Gilgal juxtaposed in the Scriptures:
Beth El is higher than Gilgal. Why would they descend to a place that is higher in altitude (Bethel at nearly 900m) than the place they were leaving (Gilgal at about 750m)? As in all literature, biblical language is often figurative. This phrasing does not refer to a descent in altitude, but signifies a spiritual descent from a place of holy spiritual significance to a place of uncleanness, idolatry. When they “descended” nearly 150m above where they started out, they were descending into a place of spiritual darkness, sin, idolatry.

Elisha’s Return Alone from Jordan to Gilgal:
Elisha spent time, after Elijah’s ascent in the chariot, with the prophets in Jericho (vv. 15-22). Later he passed back through Bethel (vv. 23-25) and this is where the controversial event occurred. Again, I’ll quote the passage for emphasis:

23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. 25 And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.

The question is always, “Why would “small boys” be subject to such a terrible judgment?” The answer is, “They were not…”

[cont’d next post ...]
:

a reply to: incoserv cont'd ...

“Small boys” is translated from two Hebrew words:

qâṭân (קָטָן)
Small is from the Hebrew qâṭân. It can mean diminutive, literally (in quantity, size or number) or figuratively (in age or importance), with the nuances of least, less(-er), little (one), small(-est, one, quantity, thing), young(-er, -est).

It is translated in the Authorized Version 101 times, as follows: small 33, little 19, youngest 15, younger 14, least 10, less 3, lesser 2, little one 2, smallest 1, small things 1, young 1;

Other possible nuances of meaning include: small, insignificant, young, unimportant.


na‘ar (נַעַר)
Boys is from the word na‘ar. It can refer to a boy from the age of infancy to adolescence, but can also imply a servant, a lad or a young man.

The phrase “young men” in all of these passages was translated from na’ar: Gen 14:24, Gen 18:7, Gen 19:4, Ex. 24:5. Ex. 33:11; Num. 11:27; Jos. 6:23; Judges. 8:14, 8:20, 9:54, 13:24, 16:26, 17:7, 17:11, 17:12; 19:13, 19:19.

The word “servant” is also translated many times from the word na’ar: Num. 22:22, Judges 7:10 and 11, Ruth 2:6, 2 Sam. 9:9.

Think of the English word “lad.” One might use it to refer to a little boy, a “lad who’s just starting school. Or, one might speak of going to the pub with the “lads.” So, does the world “lad” mean a small boy or a young man or one’s peers? It can mean any of these, depending on context.

Given that the Hebrew words can mean young or lesser servant or a young man, this passage likely refers not to little boys, but to young men who were not yet heads of households. Given what we know about Bethel - that it was a center of idolatry and the worship of false gods - these young men were very likely apostate Hebrews who worshiped foreign gods and were hostile toward the prophet because of his relationship with Jehovah and the divine authority with which he’d been entrusted. Their mockery was not simply the act of immature children making fun of an old, bald man, but was a matter of young men who directed their hostility and disdain at Jehovah himself, mocking the very idea that Elisha was a prophet of the Most High.

(Incidentally, Spanish translations of this passages use the world muchachos in place of "small boys." The Dictionary of the Spanish Language of the Royal Academy of Spanish (the world authority on the Spanish language) includes in it's definitions of the world muchacho, "a person in his youth" as well as "mozo que sirve de criado" (basically, a servant).)

The young men, clearly a large band that ran together and were likely acolytes of the idolatrous temple at Bethel, were antagonistic toward the prophet and, by extension, toward the God of Israel. Mocking the one who brought the Word of God, they were mocking the very Word itself. Taunting the prophet demonstrated a contempt for not only the called one, but for the One who had called him. Their judgment was meant to serve as a warning to other idolaters who would scorn Jehovah and rebuff his warnings. It was a just and deserved judgment on arrogant young men who would lead the people astray. Their just demise was a warning to the entire society to not mock the God who loved and cared for them.

Be cautioned that divine judgment - even severe judgment - is always mingled with mercy. A loving father may inflict discomfort or pain on an errant child with the ultimate goal of correcting bad behavior for that child's ultimate good.

Hebrews 12:11 -- No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.

So, God loves his creation and will exercise His divine right to discipline even by acts of seemingly harsh judgment when it is for the ultimate good of humanity.
:

a reply to: incoserv
On a point of detail; there is another way of understanding "down".

In English popular usage (perhaps also in Hebrew usage?), one's present location may be "up" and "going down" means going anywhere else. The classic example in my own experience is the way that students "come up" to Oxford in order to join the university, and the act of expulsion is traditionally described as "being sent down". Having said that, the usage may be reversed, so that northerners are as likely to talk about "going up to London" as "going down to London".

All the same, it opens up the possibility that "going down to Bethel" might simply mean "leaving the place where they were in order to go there".

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: incoserv
On a point of detail; there is another way of understanding "down".

In English popular usage (perhaps also in Hebrew usage?), one's present location may be "up" and "going down" means going anywhere else. The classic example in my own experience is the way that students "come up" to Oxford in order to join the university, and the act of expulsion is traditionally described as "being sent down". Having said that, the usage may be reversed, so that northerners are as likely to talk about "going up to London" as "going down to London".

All the same, it opens up the possibility that "going down to Bethel" might simply mean "leaving the place where they were in order to go there".

That's all possible, but it does not negate the fact that moving from Gilgal (home of the prophet, place of the school of the prophets, etc.) to Bethel (a place known for idolatry) represented a "spiritual descent" from light to dark, from godliness to demon worship.

a reply to: DISRAELI
Used in my language too. Also like saying "I come from inside" or "I go outside" is like saying "I came from town" or "going to town".

"malignment of God's character" you mean holding him accountable for summoning a bear to murder kids. You're right, we should be more forgiving. It's not like they were babies in the womb because that's sinful.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Your post is why bible studies are necessary.

a reply to: projectvxn

Studies usually have a goal in the scientific context the bible studies have amounted to very little in terms of proof for a claim. They are however very interesting when seen from a philosophical, or sociocultural side.

Then there are studies trying to justify every contradiction, without contemplating the former aspects that could easily explain many of them. These are more exercises in confirmation bias than serious studies...

a reply to: Terpene

I think trying to understand context and translations is absolutely necessary and absolutely a scientific endeavor.

a reply to: projectvxn

Yes indeed might be one of the most promising avenue. Laguage is very old like bible contradictory old, that aside I totaly agree that alot gets lost in translation...

originally posted by: TzarChasm
"malignment of God's character" you mean holding him accountable for summoning a bear to murder kids. You're right, we should be more forgiving. It's not like they were babies in the womb because that's sinful.

You didn't even read the entire post. Context. Historical and cultural context. Sheesh ...

a reply to: incoserv

That his MO.

That and thinking so highly of his own thoughts that he thinks he can hold God accountable for the crimes of his own misinterpretations.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: TzarChasm

Your post is why bible studies are necessary.

Your post is why studies in civil rights and constitutional protections are necessary.

Taunting the prophet demonstrated a contempt for not only the called one, but for the One who had called him. Their judgment was meant to serve as a warning to other idolaters who would scorn Jehovah and rebuff his warnings. It was a just and deserved judgment on arrogant young men who would lead the people astray. Their just demise was a warning to the entire society to not mock the God who loved and cared for them.

Any authority who punishes free speech with death is an authority to be scorned for its fragile ego and brutal censorship tactics.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Your post is why studies in civil rights and constitutional protections are necessary.

So your answer is "I know you are but what am I" using a premise that is not germane to the topic... Neat.

a reply to: incoserv

Good explanation, they picked a physical feature to focus in on with their disrespect, it could have been something else but that's what they picked up on, baldness in this case.
But your right, it's the disrespect shown and the reaction by God that served as a warning to those that dismissed the God of Israel.

Now on to the comments of those both in this thread and the other one, on God having the right to take out those that oppose him. It always amuses me when a being with less than 100 years of life thinks they know better than a being that has existed for all eternity. Somehow they think they have achieved a higher state lawfulness, the absolute arrogance of such thinking. God has allowed some really bad sinners to escape death King David and King Manasseh come to mind, if you know what they did they deserved the death penalty under God's Mosaic law, but he spared them from that, they paid in other ways of coarse but escaped the death penalty.
Why ?
Because unlike humans, God can look into the core of a persons mind/heart/soul and see if a person is redeemable, humans can't do that, we just see what is on the surface.
There are countless examples of judgment in the bible we might not understand, from the guy that gathered wood on the sabbath that was put to death, to every man woman and child killed in things like the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah.
Even the final 10th plague of Egypt killing the first born's

The modern generation has no concept of parental or larger societal responsibilities had on past generations from Gods' perspective, the King could condemn or save an entire nation from God's view, look at the story of Jonah and Nineveh, the King literally saved his people from negative judgement by repenting at that moment in time.
What ever form of societal leadership was in Sodom and Gomorrah condemned everybody in that area to death by allowing such evil to permeate it's cities and not caring to stop it. The Pharaoh is responsible for the death of all the those first borns when he refused to see reason from 9 nasty plagues brought on him and not letting the Israelites go free.
This concept evades the modern mind, probably because people think it's just unfair or unjust.

One example that went the other way, was the prostitute Rahab in Jericho who saved her family by taking God's side, so we see God allows this to go both ways.

Something to think about when final judgement comes in our time, parents will once again influence if their young ones survive or not, God has been very consistent with his judgements towards entire families, and it isn't going to change.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: TzarChasm

Your post is why bible studies are necessary.

Your post is why studies in civil rights and constitutional protections are necessary.

Taunting the prophet demonstrated a contempt for not only the called one, but for the One who had called him. Their judgment was meant to serve as a warning to other idolaters who would scorn Jehovah and rebuff his warnings. It was a just and deserved judgment on arrogant young men who would lead the people astray. Their just demise was a warning to the entire society to not mock the God who loved and cared for them.

Any authority who punishes free speech with death is an authority to be scorned for its fragile ego and brutal censorship tactics.

Lemme know how that works out for you...

Worth noting a gang of at least 42 youth, on a travelled road, beyond most legal jurisdictions.
What are they doing there, why dont they fear bandits, wild animals, where do they get their food and water, finances.
Some interesting questions need to be asked.

Just before the bear attacks
2 Kings, 2: 21 Then he went out to the spring and threw the salt into it, saying, “This is what the Lord says: ‘I have healed this water. Never again will it cause death or make the land unproductive.’” 22 And the water has remained pure to this day, according to the word Elisha had spoken.

Elisha had just healed the waters of Jericho, did that upset the youth? Where they bandits extorting travelers and traders on the trade route? Selling water at extortion prices and Elisha had just sent them broke?

Whatever, unlikely to be young children out on a picnic?

As for Gods prophets, always under constant attack and oppression, many were murdered or executed, not a good life being a prophet. Calling one bald, considering what other prophets were subject to, not really a big issue, more here going on than name calling I think


Also worth noting a chapter back, 2 Kings 1:10, Elijah calls down fire three times, killing 150 odd men, before God restrains Elijah and suggests that Elijah has nothing to fear and go with the men who requested Elijah's company.
Maybe Elisha was just having a bad day like Elijah suffered, maybe the fear of a group of angry youths caused Elisha's curse and as we have seen previously with Elijah

a reply to: Raggedyman

Some excellent points there! Thanks.

Where the parents to tell their kids not feed the bears or poke a crazed mountain hermit that a prodigy to a Volcanoe God that heals or talks to Bears.