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.

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)

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.

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)

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:

2 Kings 2:23 - 4: A Final Reply

On page 23 of issue No. 220 Anonymous says "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."

The implication appears to be that I'm disingenuously finding fault with the Bible, and that my motivation is the mere fact that I am an unbeliever. This, however, is not the case, and my final reply will focus on clarifying my position. I ask the reader to consider the following commentary from a Christian website (NOTE: The underlining is mine and the author of the quote reinterprets Scripture so the children become young men):

Fulfilling Elisha's prophecy, the Lord sent two bears to attack the men. Elisha walked away unharmed, yet the forty-two men did not. Also note the Bible says the youth were torn apart, which means gravely harmed but not necessarily killed (though some may have died). This was the Lord's judgment on these men, not merely Elisha's. Elisha didn't control the actions of the bear, but we know God did.

In conclusion, this moment was orchestrated by the Lord to ensure the people of Israel understood that Elisha would have the same power God gave to Elijah in his day. In fact, Elisha performed twice as many miracles over his tenure as did Elijah. (1)

In my original article on page 26 of Issue No. 217, I wrote: “In this passage of scripture, quoted from the Revised Standard Version [2 Kings 2:23 - 4], 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.”

My conclusion that God is portrayed as being ultimately responsible for the bears attacking and injuring/killing the children is basically the same position reached by a Christian. Why is this so? It is because this is what the author of 2 Kings 2:23 - 4 intended.

Do I really think God kills children using bears or any other means? No, I don't. If God exists and is the creator of a universe as complex as the one we inhabit, then God would be too intelligent to use such primitive and barbaric means to effect a solution to a problem.
 
Finally, some people may think that it is inappropriate to criticize the Bible when it portrays God harming children. I respect their right to this opinion, but I do not share their views for the following reason: The Bible influences those who believe in it, and this can lead to the ill-treatment of children in the form of religiously motivated abuse such as excessive corporal punishment, emotional cruelty, and even death (2). When Scripture portrays God harming children, some believers may think this is acceptable and thus their inhibitions against using violence might be reduced.
<>

< style="font-weight: bold;">BEARS AND PRINCIPLES
<>
<> Anonymous
 
(Investigator 23, 2025 July)

God is Good

II Kings 2 mentions two she-bears mauling 42 youngsters. To derive from this event the message that God kills children requires being blind to most of the Bible.

The Bible was written to show that "God is just in all his ways, and kind in all his doings". (Psalm 145) Character descriptions of God like this occur throughout the Bible and are the foundation for commands to imitate God and "Do good to one another and to all others." Anyone whose interpretations contradict what the entire Bible seeks to demonstrate — that "God is just in all his ways" — has misunderstood.

Some such critics may be motivated by failure to live up to biblical perfection, and feeling condemned react with offensive nonsense.

<>Mr Straughen once claimed that "You are from your father the Devil" teaches anti-Semitism. But Jesus was talking to a vigilante crowd seeking to kill him! If we want to extract valid or helpful principles from that event it's not "Go and be anti-Semitic" but something like Exodus 23:2 "You shall not follow a majority [a crowd] in wrongdoing."
<>
<> Extracting ethics from history can be a minefield for self-deception. Consider someone who reads a history of the WWII bombings of Germany and concludes: "The author sanctions the murder of Germans; he approves of violence." Such a comment or conclusion would be out-of-context nonsense yet resembles how critics often handle the Bible.

Another time Straughen argued that certain terrible events described in the book of Judges are presented as ethics endorsed by God. However, the theme of Judges is to show what happens when God's commands are ignored and everyone does "what is right in his own eyes". The message of Judges is that if God and his commands are disregarded everyone will be unsafe.

We can see the modern truth of this lesson in the lawlessness of Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Idi Amin's Uganda, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Kim Il Sung's Korea, Assad's Syria, Hamas' Gaza, Hezbollah's Lebanon, as well as Sudan, the Congo, Islamic State, etc.

< style="font-weight: bold;">Worthy Lessons
<>

<>Consider again the two she-bears (II Kings 2) who mauled 42 noisy young men who harassed Elisha. Straughen thinks this mauling teaches that God murders children and Scripture portrays God as harming children. But such a lesson ignores the Bible's concern for children, which I've previously outlined, whereby the lives of hundreds of millions of children were improved.
<>

<>Lessons from the bear attack, more worthy and biblical than what Straughen sees, could be "Don't harass travelers"; "Don't noisily arouse bears in bear country"; "Use common sense to avoid danger"; "Parents should teach children right conduct"; etc. These imperatives harmonize with commands in both the law of Moses and the New Testament whereas "It's OK to kill children" does not.

The bear-story warns people that ignoring the Scriptures, which the 42 fools did, could have life-ruining consequences. Common life-ruining, contrary-to-the-Bible actions today include immorality, thievery, child-abuse, terrorism, rape, homicide, deceit, speeding, gambling, illegal drugs, assault, defamation, drunkenness, and atheistic ideological brutality.

The consequences today won't be bear-attacks but could be even more deadly. Sexual immorality killed about 200 million people in the 20th century, and atheistic political brutality a comparable number.

The 42 boys (or young men) either had not been taught the Scriptures that teach hospitality and respect or they didn't care.

Christian website

Elisha uttered a "curse" prior to the bear attack.
 

The Bible, however, does not teach that God immediately fulfills every curse. He didn't when Goliath cursed (I Samuel 17:43) nor when Paul wrote of people who alter the Gospel, "let them be accursed".  (Galatians 1:8-9)

 
Straughen quotes a Christian website which claims "the Lord sent two bears" and the attack was "orchestrated by the Lord".

A Deep Question — "What does God Do?"

The website implies a deep question. Some Bible verses do refer to God as sending deception, creating evil, raining down fire, etc, which at first sight seem to disagree with descriptions of Him as good, kind, loving, merciful, truthful and forgiving.  What's going on?

God, as the creator of a trillion galaxies, could easily stop or thwart anything that hurts humans, but often does not, and therefore accepts some of the responsibility. Doing nothing although knowing what's about to happen often has the same deadly consequence as actually doing it. A child chasing a ball onto a street into traffic will die whether a bystander actively pushes him forward into the traffic or does nothing although able to grab and save him.

Superficially this seems to confuse God with Satan. However, if God created an environment where good and evil can happen, and if humans need God's guidance to avoid hurting themselves but this guidance humans reject and God therefore withholds – in that sense "God brings evil". Evil in that sense is a consequence of human decisions and incompetence. (#110, September 2006)

He covers the heavens with clouds, prepares rain for the earth, makes grass grow on the hills. He gives to
the animals their food, and to the young ravens when they cry. (Psalm 147:8-9)

If God is the creator of the Universe including its natural laws, then everything that follows from those laws can be attributed to God. In that sense God prepares the clouds, the earth, the rain, the hills, the animals, and their food — the laws he created are His tools or agents.  

Consider again the bear attack: Even if the Scriptures stated "God sent two she-bears to attack the young men", which the Scriptures don't, it should be interpreted as God permitting the attack by not intervening.

This brings us to the question of why God allows any bad things to happen. Why would someone "almighty" and "good" seemingly act like that bystander mentioned above who lets a kid run into traffic although able to prevent it?

A concise one-page explanation in Investigator 217 starts off: "Evil is permitted to convince humans that they need God, and has to run its full course for humans to learn this lesson."  (p. 40)

https://ed5015.tripod.com/
 
https://investigatormagazine.net