Elisha and the Bears

[Questioner28]

I recall reading in one of the book of Kings how Elisha the successor to the prophet Elijah was going up the mountain and children greeted him cries of “Go up bald head”,“Go up bald head”…he got angry and bears came and tore up the children

I don’t understand what this is supposed to teach and is an impediment for my belief in scriptures.

 

[FCEGM]

I recall reading in one of the book of Kings how Elisha the successor to the prophet Elijah was going up the mountain and children greeted him cries of “Go up bald head”,“Go up bald head”…he got angry and bears came and tore up the children

I don’t understand what this is supposed to teach and is an impediment for my belief in scriptures.

This commentary should help put your concern to rest:

christianthinktank.com/qmeanelisha.html

 

[Roy5]

Hi -

Agreed! There are many atrocity stories in the Old Testament, but none that seems to make less sense than this one in II Kings 2:23-25. What makes it more grievious is that the outrageous, murderous punishment inflicted upon the 42 children follows Elisha’s calling “down a curse on them in the name of the Lord.” The clear implication is that God activated the two bears to appear and tear the childrfen to pieces. Makes quite a bedtime children’s story, doesn’t it?

Fundamentalists, Protestant and Catholic both, always come up with some explanation. Usually it's that God works in mysterious ways and since the story is in the Bible we have no right to question its accuracy. Silly - and it makes Christianity (and Orthodox Judaism, too) look silly.

Of course, there are many other stories of genocide on a large or small scale in the Bible, as when Joshua is ordered to kill all the inhabitants of Jericho and Saul is sent off to murder every remaining Amalekite. Some will answer: they were evil people! Really? All those children and babies in the womb were evil people? 

 This is my major objection to rigid Catholicism and Protestantism. Both insist that Biblical accounts rank higher than simple morality and/or common sense. I have gradually adopted a 'selective Christianity' which will offend 'true believers'. If stories in the Bible contradict the Ten Commandments and/or the Sermon on the Mount, I go with those commandments and that sermon. 

 Actually, I find that most Protestants and Catholics I know agree with me. Sadly, many in high ecclesiasical positions and in charge of cable ministries seem blind to the way in which such stories of wholesale slaughter contradict the basic ethics of Christianity as given us by Jesus.

 

[Roy5]

I just read posting #2. Nice try. Fundamentalists,. Protestant or Catholic, will go to any length to justify cruel, barbaric and merciless deeds if they are committed by God or ‘God’s messengers’ in the Bible. It’s tragic how many sincere, devoted Christians are misled by those who are determined to shield followers from the truth and even twist words to justify monstrous and inhumane events reported in scripture.

What about Ex. 22:18? How many innocent women were burned at the stake because of this verse? What about Ex. 22:20? Do we really believe that all those who worship anyone other than God should be killed? Sounds a lot like the radical and violent Al Qaeda version of Islam to me. 

At a young age I recall hearing the story of Noah at church. To begin with, God repented that he had made man. Apparently our perfect God had made a mistake, even after declaring that his creation had been 'good'. Then he directs Noah to build an ark and take on two (or more) of every animal. Hm! I'm suspicious already as to how he managed that. It rains 40 days and nights, but the waters remain on the earth for 150 days! Imagine all those animals and their food etc on that relatively small ark for about five months! Then Noah sacrificed some of the clean animals and birds, the Lord smelled the sweet aroma, and promised that he would never again do such a thing. Sounds like he yet again repented???

Anyway, the story of Noah and the Flood is obviously a myth likely with a kernel of truth. There must have been a great flood in that area of the world. A similiar story (Gilgamesh) is part of Babylonian (or is it Assyrian?) mythology. It became more and more embellished over time until we have the Noah story. Let's treat it as a fable, rather like one of Aesop's. There's a lesson to be learned from it, but to regard it as accurate detailed history is - sorry - absurd. No wonder some people mock Christianity when it continues to insist that such myths, often borrowed from paganism, are gospel truth!

 Here again, did God deliberately drown all the people, among them many children and babies still in the womb? I would refuse to worship such a vicious and heartless god. Christ taught us about a loving God, quick to forgive, not one who would deliberately murder in such a callous and barbaric way. Sounds more like Hitler than Jesus, who said that the children should come unto him, that we must become as young children to inherit the kingdom.

 This blind, myopic Bible-worship is destroying the validlity of Christianity among more and more well-educated and thinking people. True scholars of scripture reject it. The least we can expect of our faith is that it presents us with a God who is just as well as merciful rather than one who orders whole tribes annihilated and countless children murdered.

 I want to defend Christianity against those who would mock it. We can't do that if we continue to peddle wild myths, ancient legends and pagan fables as history.

 

[Garyjohn2]

Bah, so limited in imagination!

God killing children with bears is not cruel. They were just brought home early…their spiritual home. Why do people think that death is the worst thing, when it can be the best?

It’s limited insight that causes people to balk at these verses, and lack of trust. If God did these things, and they seem horrible to us, then we are not reading them properly. It means something is lacking in our understanding…nothing is lacking in scripture or in God’s actions.

 

[Rascalking]

I was just reading a book today that had this very question!

It’s called “The Case for Faith” by Lee Strobel. It’s not a big part of the book, but it is important.

It said basically the same thing that good link had.

 

[SonCatcher]

Roy5,

Your rantings rival those of a fundamentalist.

There is no reason to automatically reject attempts to interpret the “wrathful God” situations in light of the Loving God we are taught of. Those passages made it into the canon of Scripture for a reason even if we do not understand it.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Many years ago, I used a translation of the Bible which rendered
the 42 young men as little children. I too was appalled that God
would slaughter a bunch of little children over some
harmless and playful teasing. That, however, was not the case,
and the link to the article at christianthinktank, in the post above,
links to an article which is a very good and reasonable explanation.

The LORD has the right to DEMAND, not merely request,
that we respect sacred PEOPLE and sacred THINGS.
Those hoodlums were menacing the prophet.
In our Western Society,
sacrilege is treated with indifference. It is not treated with indifference by God.
We should all be careful.

 

[FCEGM]

Many years ago, I used a translation of the Bible which rendered
the 42 young men as little children. I too was appalled that God
would slaughter a bunch of little children over some
harmless and playful teasing. That, however, was not the case,
and the link to the article at christianthinktank, in the post above,
links to an article which is a very good and reasonable explanation.

The LORD has the right to DEMAND, not merely request,
that we respect sacred PEOPLE and sacred THINGS.
Those hoodlums were menacing the prophet.
In our Western Society,
sacrilege is treated with indifference. It is not treated with indifference by God.
We should all be careful.

:sad_yes: It’s a helpful step toward spiritual maturity when we come to understand that God isn’t “nice.”

 

[Tantum_ergo]

:sad_yes: It’s a helpful step toward spiritual maturity when we come to understand that God isn’t “nice.”

True. People tend to think that ‘fear of the Lord’ is some kind of outmoded vestige from the ‘bad old days’ (when children respected their parents who literally had the power of life or death over them). Nowadays, God is some senile “Grandpa” who just wants to let the young ones have fun, don’tcha know, cause he’s all LUV and peace and hearts and candy and flowers".

We SHOULD fear the Lord, not with ‘servile’ fear but with the ‘fear’ that is engendered by the RESPECT due to the awesome TRUTH and Divine Power and Authority that are His. We should be ‘fearing’ that we, presumptive little puffed up legends in our own minds, are not seeing Him in Truth but are worshipping some kind of little ‘god in the image of man’ instead.

God is so great and wonderful and good --and we figuratively spit in His face, laugh at Him, mock and insult Him regularly–and think He should be ‘grateful’ we show up for an hour a week to give him a fraction of our attention and that usually directed for whatever we think we can or should ‘get’ from it. And we don’t ‘fear’ Him because we think HE should be answering to US. . .

 

[Windfish]

Your “selective Christianity,” Roy5, is very problematic. For starters, a “selective Christianity” requires a selector and, of course, that selector is you. And yet you criticize us when we choose as our selector the divinely appointed teaching authority that is the Catholic Church. That is the hallmark bigotry of “selective Christianity,” or liberal Christianity. We appoint ourselves selectors in that kind of Christianity and select what is amenable to our sensibility - never mind that our knowledge and understanding is limited so that our selections are almost always off the mark, and never mind that we have asserted ourselves as authorities in place of what should be faithfulness to God. You have not freed yourself from “rigid” Catholicism, you just have accepted a far more rigid authority - yourself. The object of orthodoxy is truth and so orthodox Christians can discuss and entertain different interpretations and opinions to try to arrive at truth. The object of liberalism, though, is the individual’s whims. That is why it is more rigid and shuts down truth - see how you blithely waved away Glenn Miller’s discussion in post #2.

Finally, “selective Christianity” is just useless because it is another religion of men. We know that Christ founded the Catholic Church on his Apostles. We know that whatever Christianity you hold to is a heritage that you received from the history of the Catholic Church - anything that you might have added or taken away are your innovations as “selector.” And that makes you as Scripturally and historically in error as Protestants, the prototypical “selectors.” But why should we care what you or they select? A better question: why should you? In light of the Scriptural and historical truth of the Catholic Church, your “selective Christianity” is just an abstraction. A Christianity that reflects you. Shouldn’t you want a Christianity that reflects what Christ actually did and said? Otherwise, what’s the point?

Anyway, the reason I went into that rant was for the benefit of the OP. Don’t be like Roy5. This text is clearly beyond your understanding, and that is fine. It is in a chronological and cultural context far removed from yours. You may have a bad translation. You may not know how it fits into the larger context of the Bible. You may not know how it fits into the teaching of the Catholic Church. You may not know of the oral tradition that went along with the text or of the patristic interpretations of the text. All these things and more you probably don’t understand. Well, that’s fine. No one said you would be able to understand everything, you just have to understand enough: 1) that God exists 2) that he revealed himself in Christ 3) that Christ founded the Catholic Church. Once you have those three covered, you then make the act of faith and trust in God and what he has revealed, even though you may not understand all of what he reveals. Including this passage. You can then seek understanding in faith, knowing that perhaps you may not get an answer right away to your misunderstanding. That is the position you are in now with respect to this passage.

It just so happens that there is A LOT of information on this, but I am trying to provide you with a framework with which to properly seek out that information. This is a side issue that does not affect points 1-3. So have confidence, bring it to prayer, discuss with fellow Christians, and do some research.

 

[Roy5]

Windfish and others

Nothing personal. I assume we can discuss matters with mutual respect. For those who can believe such stories as that involving Elisha and the 42 young people (my Bible says children), fine. Thank God we live in a land where we can speak our views without being jailed or worse, as once was a serious possibility.

 There are so many accounts of God-ordered killings in parts of the Old Testament that if I had to believe them I would have to forsake Christianity. Joshua ordered to slaughter all the inhabitants of Jericho except for a prostitute and her family. Saul told to kill every remaining Amalekite, even 'sucklings'. How can anyone logically argue that God opposes abortion when the Lord has demanded such wholesale murder? There are many other such stories of tribal genocide in the Old Testament. What about the rejoicing that "Saul has killed his thousands but David has killed his ten thousands!" Explain to me how that fits in with the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount ("Love you enemies" etc). 

 Fortunately, I and millions of other devout Christians regard such bloody and barbaric acts as untrue. The acts may have happened, but certainly were not commanded or condoned by God. What kind of God would demand such cruelty? They are nationalistic boasts that contradict the spirit of genuine Christianity. 

 As for the argument raised by some poster that these 43 young people were simply hurried on to heaven! Wow! I presume abortionists could effectively use this argument. 

 I have debated with myself over the years as to whether religion has been more of a blessing or a bane over the centuries. When it produces a Mother Theresa and a Fr. Damien and thousands of other men and women who devoted their lives to helping others, men and women who began hospitals and schools, who gave totally of themselves in service to Christ - this is Christianity as it ought to be. But when Christians have been guilty of killing one another in shameful sectarian warfare, when they have promoted bigotry, when they have taught that they and they alone have the full spiritual truth - well, that to me is not Christianity. It is a perversion of what Christ came to show and teach us. 

 No offense, I hope. Whenever anyone expresses such opinions, of course, we get accused of egotism, relativism, arrogance, etc. I don't pretend to have the truth. I only argue that the universe is simply too mammoth and mysterious and marvelous for any of us to really understand it. While I firmly place my trust in God, I know that he is well beyond our human comprehension. That's why we're called to walk by faith rather than knowledge. More important than such knowledge or even great faith, of course, is love. 1 Corinthians 13 is a wonderful guide when it comes to our priorities.

 As mentioned before, I come from a mixed Catholic-Protestant heritage. I find little in dogmatic Catholicism or fundamentalist Protestantism. Most Catholics and Protestants I know seem to think more-or-less as I do. They may love the mass or the hymns or the priest or whatever, but as for doctrine most of them take it with a grain of salt. The same is true of most of my Protestant friends. They are wonderful Christians, most of them, but when it comes to doctrine they think for themselves.

 But, God bless everybody, whatever their creed, color, culture or country.

 

[Windfish]

There are so many accounts of God-ordered killings in parts of the Old Testament that if I had to believe them I would have to forsake Christianity.

That is exactly my point. Bear in mind: I am not staking any particular interpretation of those passages, though I happen to think your interpretation of them is indicative of biblical illiteracy. My larger point, though, is that your response to them is unacceptable, and I am pointing that out to the benefit of the OP. “Selective Christianity” is simply internally incoherent and nothing more than an individual abstraction - it has nothing to do with biblical and historical Christianity. It has more to do with that individual. And so, I am suggesting to the OP a general path within which he can search for answers while at the same time not take an unnecessary side path that leads to a dead-end. What matters is not our own individual sensibility, but what the truth is. For the sake of argument, let us assume that the “new” atheistic strawman of the “Old Testament God” is true. Let us assume that the amateur, simplistic interpretation they propose is what the text is really trying to convey. That does not change the three points on which we rest Catholicism: 1) that God exists 2) that he fully revealed himself in his divine son, Christ Jesus 3) that he founded the Catholic Church. Those, we claim, are demonstrable by reason and history. On that basis, we have faith in God and what he has revealed even though we may not understand what he has revealed. That would include those apparently controversial passages in the Bible. We know that the Catholic Church infallibly teaches that God is just, merciful, and all-loving, and so the apparent discrepancy we see is just that, only apparent. We know that because of the certainty faith provides - we just will not have a full understanding this side of heaven.

Once again, the problem of authority is at the forefront of this issue. You pick and choose based on your individual criteria - well, if that is the case, what is the point of following Christ if, at the end of the day, you have made yourself the real authority of your religion? It just lacks integrity.

As I said, though, I am not actually putting forth any interpretation. I am simply not qualified to do that yet and submit humbly to those with more knowledge than me and to the authority of the Church. What I am not about to do is follow your approach - think that I know all there is know to about Scripture and reject it as grotesque based on my individual sensibility. I just think that is arrogant in that it is preposterous to assume that our understanding is anything but limited.

 

[XinMinny]

An interesting question, which has led to a broader point - that of the wrath of God.

In the case of Elisha specifically, every translation I can find says that the young men said, “Go up!” I believe that to a mocking reference to the ascension of Elijah, which was very near past at that point. So, the young men were really saying, “if you are so great, just prove it to us rising up into the sky the way we say Elijah do!”

Now, I don’t mean to comment on whether that justifies their destruction, but it does seem to shed a different light upon their attitude.

Just my 2 cents,

Thanks

 

[dnar]

To God, no one is dead. He is the God of the living, not the dead.

God also has the power over life and death. When someone dies on planet Earth, their soul continues on. This is basic Christian teaching.

Roy5. God is in control. We all have to die here. Whether a bear eats us, or a heart attack kills us, we still die.

God is not guilty of murder every time a fatal stroke, or a fatal blood clot happens.

He is the master of it all. People die. Get over yourself. God can take anyone he wants to out of this world whether you like it or not, or whether you reject it or not, doesn’t matter what you think really.

 

[Roy5]

I’m not interested in debating this issue, except that I want to defend the outrageous depiction of God in parts of the Old Testament. Surely, if we believe the message of Christ, if God is our Father, merciful, forgiving, loving - such a God would not go around murdering or ordering the murder of innocent people.

 So, if you want to worship a god who is cruel, who orders the slaughter of entire tribes, who has two she-bears tear to pieces 42 children - if you can believe that and worship such a deity, go ahead. Sounds a lot like Moloch who demanded the sacrifice of children and other pagan deities.

 The problem with too many Christians is that they make an infallible idol out of the Bible - Bible worship. There is much in the Bible that is inspirational, and I read it with regularity, and contrary to one poster, I am rather well acquainted with the Bible. That's why I take issue with passages that clearly contradict the message of Christ as well as the character of the Lord. I can't stand by and have people misrepresent our great God.

  Many of the stories in the Old Testament present a god that seems to be totally out of step with the God of the New Testament. I've wondered if Christians haven't too often blessed wars, even against each other, because of the examples of wanton killing in the Old Testament. Fundamentalists, Catholic or Protestants, will - in my view - quickly push aside common sense, morality and the central theme of Christianity (love) to justify horrendous carnage because they will not remove the scales from their eyes long enough to see certain Biblical horror stories as just that. Sad. Keeps so many Christians in the dark, feeling obliged to believe the unbelievable.

  Jesus (for example) said: ye have heard it said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth (from the Old Testament). But I say unto you " Love your enemy", etc. Christ presented a message that specifically contradicted much of the Mosaic law which, among many other things, called for the stoning of women adulterers. Remember how Christ handled that. Compare that with Deut, 22-23, for example. Even a rebellious son is to be brought to the gate of the city where the elders are supposed to stone him to death as well. 

 Personally, I think many fundamentalists, Catholic or Protestant, are afraid to confront the myopic tribalism and excessive cruelty of Jehovah in parts of the Old Testament. They feel that if they lose the scales from the eyes and see reality, their whole "all or nothing" attitude toward religion, including scripture, could tumble. 

 But this is a free country, and we can thank God for that. So, 'think and let think'. I personally prefer an approach to religion that has room for different opinions, freedom to question, and even freedom to doubt. I think that God is simply too high above us for any mortal to pretend to have a significant understanding of the Lord and his amazing creation. What a surprise is in store for us when we enter the world to come and find that some of our petty doctrines have little relevance to our duties as Christians. See Matt. 25:31ff,

 

[Mark_David]

The problem with too many Christians is that they make an infallible idol out of the Bible - Bible worship.

“Bible worship” is entirely different from worshiping the God of the Bible. Furthermore, Catholics adhere to the teachings of the Church, which curb out potential misunderstandings of the Bible.

Many of the stories in the Old Testament present a god that seems to be totally out of step with the God of the New Testament.

So Marcion also thought. This is an ancient heresy.

Personally, I think many fundamentalists, Catholic or Protestant, are afraid to confront the myopic tribalism and excessive cruelty of Jehovah in parts of the Old Testament. They feel that if they lose the scales from the eyes and see reality, their whole “all or nothing” attitude toward religion, including scripture, could tumble.

If by “Fundamentalist” you mean someone who accepts the entire Bible as God’s word, then I guess that makes me a Fundamentalist (or a “Fundie”, as we’re often labeled). God doesn’t make mistakes, and I don’t apologize for believing that. Psalm 16:7 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried by the fire, purged from the earth refined seven times. Once you begin questioning and railing against the moral nature of God, you’re joining the battle cry with Satan. That, indeed, is a case of “all or nothing”.

 

[Roy5]

A couple quick thoughts.

If you don't regard some Old Testament stories as presenting a false picture of God, then we obviously see things differently. When a god, any god, commands Joshua to murder everyone in Jericho and demands that Saul slaughter every remaining Amalekite, I consider such acts as evil\ and outrageous genocide, totally at odds with the Sermon on the Mount. Those who see it differently, fine. Frankly, I believe in a 'big tent' when it comes to Christianity. 'Think and let think.' That's why I have developed serious reservations about traditional Catholicism. Most Catholics I know aren't all that traditional. In this area, where Catholics are the largest faith community, the legislature has legalized gay marriage, which suggests how little influence the church now has here. 

As for God not making mistakes - well, if he actually gave such orders he certainly made mistakes. But, I believe the authors of those Old Testament books made mistakes and not God. They wanted to boost Hebrew nationalism and justify crimes againt humanity, so they piled them on God. What a sinful thing to do! 

But, as I recall, God even admitted making a mistake if we are to believe scripture entirely. My Bible says that God 'repented' that he had made mankind (Gen. 6:6) so decided to drown everybody but Noah and his family, even all the children and babies in the womb. Now, how can we take a principled stand against abortion but excuse God for drowning everyone is something that puzzles me. I have to conclude that that story is a legend, exaggerated as it was passed from generation to generation. Yes, there must have been a massive flood in that part of the world. There is an ancient Babylonian legend that is similar (Gilgamesh, I believe was the 'Noah' in that version), and I suspect that both legends have a kernel of truth that grew into myth proportions.

 Enough for now. I have to get to pressing chores, even though I do enjoy this sort of dialogue. God bless everybody - yes, even those who appear ready (in my view) to let our God of peace, mercy and love be misrepresented, distorted, and slandered.

 

[Mark_David]

When a god, any god, commands Joshua to murder everyone in Jericho and demands that Saul slaughter every remaining Amalekite, I consider such acts as evil\ and outrageous genocide, totally at odds with the Sermon on the Mount.

So what? According to which standard or whose moral compass? Who gets to decide these things for us? Proverbs 3:5-6 Have confidence in the Lord with all thy heart, and lean not upon thy own prudence. In all thy ways think on him, and he will direct thy steps.

That’s why I have developed serious reservations about traditional Catholicism.

You’re making claims here about the unreliability of the Bible, so the burden of proof is on you.

Most Catholics I know aren’t all that traditional. In this area, where Catholics are the largest faith community, the legislature has legalized gay marriage, which suggests how little influence the church now has here.

That’s sad, not a cause for celebration. (According to God’s moral compass, anyway.)

As for God not making mistakes - well, if he actually gave such orders he certainly made mistakes. But, I believe the authors of those Old Testament books made mistakes and not God. They wanted to boost Hebrew nationalism and justify crimes againt humanity, so they piled them on God. What a sinful thing to do!

Yeah, you believe. You need to back that up with proof - otherwise it’s meaningless and a simple case of cherry-picking.

But, as I recall, God even admitted making a mistake if we are to believe scripture entirely. My Bible says that God ‘repented’ that he had made mankind (Gen. 6:6) so decided to drown everybody but Noah and his family, even all the children and babies in the womb.

Your interpretation contradicts the fact that God has perfect and total foreknowledge of all events. A Calvinist would go further and claim that everything is predestined by God. Either way - no mistakes.

Now, how can we take a principled stand against abortion but excuse God for drowning everyone is something that puzzles me.

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. Romans 9:14-15 What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy.

Yes, there must have been a massive flood** in that part of the world.**

Seems you have more faith in man than in God.

I pray that you’ll take Proverbs 3:5 to heart and stop belittling and slandering the infallible word of God.

 

[secondeve]

So what? According to which standard or whose moral compass? Who gets to decide these things for us? Proverbs 3:5-6 Have confidence in the Lord with all thy heart, and lean not upon thy own prudence. In all thy ways think on him, and he will direct thy steps.

You’re making claims here about the unreliability of the Bible, so the burden of proof is on you.

That’s sad, not a cause for celebration. (According to God’s moral compass, anyway.)

Yeah, you believe. You need to back that up with proof - otherwise it’s meaningless and a simple case of cherry-picking.

Your interpretation contradicts the fact that God has perfect and total foreknowledge of all events. A Calvinist would go further and claim that everything is predestined by God. Either way - no mistakes.

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. Romans 9:14-15 What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy.

Seems you have more faith in man than in God.

I pray that you’ll take Proverbs 3:5 to heart and stop belittling and slandering the infallible word of God.

Is there any vile, murderous, perverted, sick act that you wouldn’t try to justify on “God’s” behalf as long as it fitted in with your fundamentalist dogma? I find your extreme, fanatical views most disturbing. Thank God they are not the views of our Holy Father, as can easily be seen by reading his two new books.