We are ready to look at the actions
The actions of the [N]:
The text states that the [N] do 3 things, marked by waw-consecutives:
1. They come out (yts’) of the city
2. They scorn (qeles) him [Elisha]
3. They say to him “go up, baldhead’’ twice.
These are stand-alone verbs and not modifiers of one of the others.
In other words, it does NOT say any of these things:
· The come out of the city, scorning him, saying GUBH/GUBH.
· The come out of the city, and scorn him, saying GUBH/GUBH.
· Coming out of the city, they scorn him, saying GUBH/GUBH.
The Waw-Consecutive would be roughly equivalent to “and then they did X”. Sometimes there is not a ‘hard break’ between the actions, but they are still distinct actions/predications from one another.
So, for us, this means:
· The came ‘out of’ the city, and not ‘up from’ the city – i.e. they came from Bethel not Jericho.
· Their ‘scorning’ was distinct from (although clearly reflected in) their SAYING ‘go up, baldy’.
· The ‘go up, baldy’ could be seen as more frivolous, but this would NOT lessen/change the meaning and implications of the ‘scorn’ word in the previous clause.
So, let’s investigate the FIRST action: coming out of the city
It is pretty easy to forget the scale of this, in visualizing what happens on the road, so we need to keep in mind that this is probably an organized mob, which would have required consensus among many of the elite (their supervisors), or at least very strong top-down management pressure:
“That 42 men were mauled by the two bears suggests that a
mass demonstration had been organized against God and Elisha.” [Thomas
L. Constable, “2 Kings,” in The Bible
Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (ed. J. F. Walvoord
and R. B. Zuck; vol. 1; Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 1541–542.]
Since we noted earlier that this mob must be BEHIND Elisha at the turn-around / curse moment, and that they must have operated in stealth (or at least not triggered Elisha’s notice?) before this, the basics of the geography of the path would require them to DELIBERATELY go through the forest for at least the last part of their trip.
As mentioned earlier, there were two main paths that could have been used for this trip:
[Base map from
Retrieving the Past: essays on
archaeological research and methodology in honor of Gus W. Van Beek ,
Eisenbrauns:1996; “Hurvat Shilhah: An Iron Age Site in the Judean Desert”, A.
Mazar / D. Amit / Z.Ilan. Additional data from David Dorsey, The Roads and Highways of Ancient Israel,
WipfStock: 1991.]
The paths on these routes would not have been as large as the ‘main roads’, and starting from the Jordan plain they would have been reasonably wide, but bounded by cliffs and not forests. About one-third of the way through the trip they would have start up the steppe, coming in the last third into the Central Highlands, where the forests would be thick (mostly with underbrush) and the road very narrow.
Restating the description of roads from earlier:
“From the
Bronze Age up to the Roman period, roads
outside of cities were not paved thoroughfares.
Main roads in the countryside tended to
be 3–4 yards wide (Dorsey, Roads,
19). Depending on the road’s location, it might not be much more than a foot-packed dirt path or
donkey trail on which weeds and thorny scrub would grow (Prov 15:19; 22:5; Hos 2:6).” [ Kevin P. Sullivan
and Paul W. Ferris, “Travel in Biblical Times,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham,
WA: Lexham Press, 2016).]
Although designed for ‘two lane traffic’, with a width of 2.75m (3 yards) to 4.5m (4 yards), even the main open roads would have been choked by a group of 50+ people.
“Although
examples of paved streets in Israel have been found, open roads were not paved
before the Roman period. They were constructed by clearing boulders, brush and
other obstacles and then filling in the holes and leveling the surface (Prov
15:19; 22:5; Is 40:3; 57:14; 62:10; Hos 2:6). Maintenance and rebuilding of
roads probably occurred in the spring after the winter rains had ended.
Governments may have been responsible for this task, but local roads probably
were maintained by the local people.
Open roads in ancient Israel were two lanes wide (3–4 m) to allow
traffic to pass in both directions, but wider and narrower roads probably existed.”
[G. L. Linton, “Roads and Highways,” ed. Bill T. Arnold and H. G. M.
Williamson, Dictionary of the Old
Testament: Historical Books (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005),
841.]
At 3 yards wide, each lane is 1.5 yards wide, or 54 inches. At 4 yards wide, each lane is 2 yards wide or 72 inches.
How big is this?
Adult donkeys are about 18 inches wide, and when loaded with side-bags would take up 3 times that width, or 54 inches (one full lane of the smaller road)—or the entire footpath for most forest paths. I doubt that donkeys were used by Elisha on this trip, but I would expect that there would be one or more of the ‘junior prophets’ traveling with him, and perhaps carrying baggage.
The average stride of a modern male in the US is 2.5 feet or 30 inches. If we allow a width of 30 inches (a little cramped, but we are just sizing this somewhat), and add 1 foot of spacing between travelers (so our strides don’t accidently step on others’ sandals/etc), and 6 inches between our shoulders, we get a ‘block’ of space per person of 42 inches in the direction of travel (1.167 yards), and 36 inches in the perpendicular (1.0 yards).
[This is tight—according to published anthropometric data. Published numbers in 2012 for USA males, give a range for ELBOW SPAN (from elbow to elbow when arms are extended fully parallel to ground) as from 31.18 inches (5th percentile) to 36.11 inches (95th percentile).]
Sizing this at 3 levels of ‘efficiency’ (military, ‘less efficiently” at 25% worse, and “casual” at 50% worse):
We could make a guesstimate as to which of these scenarios might be closest, by sampling some known roads, but with the clear understanding that Roman roads will be different than the original road. They would be paved, and a bit wider, and clearer of debris—especially for those used for military and administrative purposes.
And we should not visualize these roads as somehow ‘straight’ or ‘simple’:
“Geographical Factors in Travel Perhaps the greatest obstacle that travelers and road builders had to overcome was the rugged geographical character of Palestine. The desert regions of the Negev and Judean highlands in the south required the identification of wells and pasturage for the draft animals. The hilly spine of central Palestine forced the traveler to zigzag around steep ascents (such as that between Jericho and Jerusalem) or follow ridges along the hilltops (the Beth-horon route northwest of Jerusalem), or go along watersheds (Bethlehem to Mizpah).” [Victor H. Matthews, “Transportation and Travel,” ed. Chad Brand, Charles Draper, et al., Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 1615.]
But looking back at the montages given in the first part of this, these numbers look optimistic. But if this visual “estimate” of a MAJOR INTERNATIONAL HIGHWAY (the KINGS HIGHWAY) is true to history, then our tiny mountain passes and narrow wadi-paths will be much, much smaller.
Using the mostly likely path sizes (2 and 3 yards), and the ‘casual’ level of discipline, this block of folks would take up between 44 yards (a little less than half a US football field) and 66 yards (2/3rds of a US football field), and would block the road from other foot traffic.
[If they somehow passed BY Elisha before doing the ‘scorn’ thing [without him seeing them?], then these lengths would double (since they could only use half the road at points).]
It seems obvious to me that these folks had to do part of the trip IN THE WOODS, before emerging behind Elisha to begin their efforts to derail his mission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IF that is the case (they DELIBERATELY go into the
woods somewhere and emerge later behind E):
Then they must be more afraid of their superiors—who would have ordered this—than they are of the forest, which is a very, very dangerous position to be in.
Forests were DANGEROUS – and everybody knew it:
“As a
wooded area separate from towns and cultivated fields, the forest is the abode of wild animals, especially nocturnal predators.
We thus find references to “every wild animal of the forest” (Ps 50:10 NRSV),
the “boar from the forest” that ravages a cultivated field without walls (Ps
80:13), “animals of the forest” that “come creeping out” while people sleep at
night (Ps 104:20), “wild animals in the forest” (Is 56:9), “a lion in the
forest” (Jer 12:8; cf. Amos 3:4; Mic 5:8) and a forest in which wild animals devour people (Hos 14:5). Here the
forest is an image of terror.” [Leland Ryken et al., Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 2000), 302.]
“Woods and
forests provided a home for animals of various kinds (2 K. 2:24; Ps. 50:10),
and in the pre-exilic period the area known to the Arabs as the Zor, close to
where the Jordan emptied into the Dead Sea, was luxuriant with trees and
tropical vegetation. Asiatic lions
were to be found there also, and it was
deemed an outstanding feat of virility for a man to enter the area and kill a
wild animal unaided (cf. 1 S. 17:35).” [R. K. Harrison, “Forest; Woods,”
ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, The
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (Wm. B. Eerdmans,
1979–1988), 338.]
“[H]ow common were predator attacks? Lions and other predators were much more
common in the Middle East than they are today. An attack by a predator was not
considered a rare or surprising occurrence.” [Victor Harold Matthews, Mark W.
Chavalas, and John H. Walton, The IVP
Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (electronic ed.; Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), Je 5:6.]
“Lion from the forest (Jer 5:6). Wild animals such as the lion were much
more prevalent in the ancient Near East than they are in modern times. The
metaphor of these wild predators representing the attack of an enemy would have
been readily understood in Jeremiah’s context, particularly among those who
worked as shepherds.” [John H Walton, Zondervan
Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (Old Testament): Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel (vol. 4; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009),
248.
“Carnivores. The wild carnivores of Palestine
included the wolf, the lion, the leopard (both spotted and black varieties),
the cheetah, the jackal, and the bear. Recent archaeological excavations have
uncovered remains of both the lion and the bear in Iron Age levels (Martin
1988). While the lion appears to have disappeared before modern times, the bear
survived until early in this century. Tristram (SWP 7), for example, wrote of having seen a Syrian bear (Ursos arctos syriacus) in the Wadi
Hammam. Wolves, leopards, and cheetahs were also still seen as late as the
beginning of this century in Carmel and Galilee. Leopards survive today in
parts of the Judean Desert and the Negeb. … While the lion captured the
imagination of biblical poets (as in Homer, most of the references to the lion
occur in poetic similes), the leopard seems to have had a greater real impact
on human society. Leopard traps from as early as the Chalcolithic period are
found in the ʿUvda Valley in the SE Negeb.” [Edwin Firmage, “Zoology
(Fauna): Animal Profiles,” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992),
1143.]
And MORE DANGEROUS THAN ENEMY armies (2 Samuel 18:6-8):
So the army
went out into the field against Israel, and the battle was fought in the forest
of Ephraim. And the men of Israel were defeated there by the servants of David,
and the loss there was great on that day, twenty thousand men. The battle
spread over the face of all the country, and the forest devoured more people that day than the sword.”
Commentators seem to be uncomfortable with such a statement, and offer suggestions on why it really wasn’t the forest itself that devoured the people (the chief suggestion being about the experience of David’s soldiers/warriors):
“The statement that “the fighting was spread over the face of all the country” (עַל פְּנֵי כָל הָאָרֶץ, al peney khal ha'arets, 2 Sam 18:8) means that there was no single massive pitched battle, but rather a series of ambushes and guerrilla attacks, all masked by the heavily wooded terrain. This also is what is meant by the statement in v. 8b about the forest devouring (אָכַל, akhal, “eat”) Absalom’s men.” [Harry A. Hoffner Jr., 1 & 2 Samuel (ed. H. Wayne House and William Barrick; Evangelical Exegetical Commentary; Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015), 2 Sa 18:7–8.]
“The forest
contributed to David’s victory, for although the Israelite army was defeated by
David’s men (18:7), the forest claimed
more lives that day than the sword (18:8).
The forest did not literally kill men, but Israel’s soldiers were not
accustomed to fighting in a forest, and may have become lost in it as they
fled, so that they died there of thirst and hunger.” [Tokunboh Adeyemo, Africa Bible Commentary (Nairobi, Kenya;
Grand Rapids, MI: WordAlive Publishers; Zondervan, 2006), 401.]
“[t]he forest consumed more troops … than the sword. Clearly the Forest of Ephraim was “not an orderly tree-planted area,
but rough country with trees and scrub and uneven ground, dangerous terrain for
both battle and flight” (Ackroyd). By delaying in Jerusalem on Hushai’s advice,
Abishalom permitted David to cross the Jordan (17:16) and choose for the
battleground the forests of Gilead, which could be compared even to those of
Lebanon for density (Jer 22:6; Zech 10:10), and where the numerically superior
force of Abishalom’s conscript army would be at a disadvantage against David’s
more skilled private army, with its considerable experience of guerrilla
warfare.” [P. Kyle McCarter
Jr, II Samuel: A New Translation with
Introduction, Notes, and Commentary (vol. 9; Anchor Yale Bible; New Haven;
London: Yale University Press, 2008), 405.]
“Natural
phenomena are often more deadly than human enemies (cf. Jos 10:11; cf. Conroy,
p. 59 n. 54). Of the many suggestions concerning what it means that the forest
would “devour” more than the sword, McCarter’s seems best: The dense “forest of
Ephraim” (v.6), characterized by uneven and dangerous terrain, was a
battleground “where the numerically superior force of [Absalom’s] conscript
army would be at a disadvantage against David’s more skilled private army, with
its considerable experience of guerrilla warfare” (II Samuel, p. 405).” [Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary:
Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel (ed. Frank E.
Gaebelein; vol. 3; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 31019.]
But others include some aspect or assertion about the powerful forces in the forest, even while offering other ‘non-sword’ explanations.
“The
forest claimed more lives that day than the sword (18:8). Whether
through actual casualties (the forest apparently posed various natural dangers;
cf. vv. 9, 17), through temptation to desertion (which would have been
facilitated by the thick cover), or through the advantages that savvy fighters
can exploit in terrain where troop movements are impeded, the forest
contributed to David’s success. Out-numbered but well-trained troops often fare
best in difficult terrain.” [John H. Walton, Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (Old Testament):
Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel (vol. 2; Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 2009), 468.]
“18:8. forest claimed more lives than the sword. When the Old Testament speaks of land
devouring people (as the forest does here), it is indicating a hostile, inhospitable environment that threatens
survival. Since this was a battlefield chosen by David and not Absalom,
it may be expected that the king’s forces utilized the rough terrain and
forested areas to their advantage. Ambushes, feints drawing troops into ravines
or wadis, and other guerilla tactics may have been employed. Divisions can get
disoriented, lost or isolated and become easy targets.” [Victor Harold
Matthews, Mark W. Chavalas, and John H. Walton, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (electronic ed.;
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 2 Sa 18:8.
And the classic commentators of the past can state it succinctly:
“The battle
became a rout; scattered over the face of
the country, and the jungle devoured more than the sword] the rocky
thickets were fatal to those who attempted to flee.” [Henry
Preserved Smith, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel. (International Critical
Commentary; New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1899), 357.]
To me, the explicit contrast is determinative, in identifying the FOREST AS DEVOURER.
· The contrast is between the FOREST-AS-DEVOURER and the SWORD-AS-DEVOURER —not the SWORD-IN-THE-FOREST versus the SWORD-IN-THE-FIELD (i.e. the position of ‘more experienced fighters’ – although that also was true).
· The contrast is between the FOREST-AS-DEVOURER and the SWORD-AS-DEVOURER, and not FOREST-AS-COVER-FOR-DESERTION and SWORD-AS-DEVOURER (i.e. the position of facilitating successful desertions—although that no doubt happened).
· The contrast is between the FOREST-AS-DEVOURER and the SWORD-AS-DEVOURER, and not FOREST-AS-CREATOR-OF-EASY-TARGETS-FOR-THE-SWORD and SWORD-AS-DEVOURER.
And the connection – oddly enough --- can be seen in images of ANIMAL MOUTHS in actual SWORDS of elite soldiers:
“A visual
confirmation of the association of the sword’s “eating” with its blade is
provided by the form of some ANE swords whose hilts connected to the blade in the shape of
the open mouth of an animal.” [Harry A. Hoffner Jr., 1 & 2 Samuel (ed. H. Wayne House and
William Barrick; Evangelical Exegetical Commentary; Bellingham, WA: Lexham
Press, 2015), 2 Sa 18:7–8.]
The forest was so dangerous from its animal population, that when YHWH repeated his eschatological promise of ultimate future protection for those loyal to the covenant in Ezekiel, the fact of danger was often emphasized in the promise:
“I will make with
them a covenant of peace and banish wild beasts from the land, so that they may
dwell securely in the wilderness and sleep in the woods.” [Ezek 34:25]
“No lion shall
be there, nor shall any ravenous
beast come up on it; they shall not be found there, but the redeemed shall
walk there. [Is 35:9.]
“The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder’s den. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.: [Isaiah 11]
“Anciently, settlements were endangered by wild animals (Jer 5:6; Prov 22:13); in the blessed
future even their haunts (forests and deserts: Jer 5:6) will be safe,
and even at night (when they
prowl; Ps 104:20f.), because they will be gone.” [Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary (vol. 22A; Anchor Yale Bible; New Haven;
London: Yale University Press, 2008), 702–703.]
One of the
blessings of covenant compliance and loyalty was protection from these fierce animals—even before the
eschatological future:
“And David said, “The LORD who delivered me from the paw of the lion and from the paw of the bear will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine.”
“Because you have made the LORD your dwelling place— the Most High, who is my refuge— no evil shall be allowed to befall you, no plague come near your tent. For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways. On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone. You will tread on the lion and the adder; the young lion and the serpent you will trample underfoot. [Psalm 91:9ff]
I will eliminate (vicious
beasts from the land). wĕhišbattî,
literally “cause to cease.” According to the rabbis (Sipra Beḥuqotay 2:1), this can be done in two ways: by
removing them (R. Judah; cf. Ezek 34:25) or neutralizing them (R. Simeon)—that
is, by changing their nature (Isa 11:9a; Ramban; Job 5:23; Hoffmann 1953).
Philo (Praem. 88) connects the two
halves of verse: “that when the wild beasts within us are fully tamed, the
animals too will become tame and gentle.” …In biblical times, lions and bears
inhabited Canaan (Judg 14:5; 2 Kgs 2:24; Isa 11:6–7; cf. Gen 9:5; 37:33; 1 Kgs
13:24–25; Sefire I A: 30–32). Lions reappeared after the destruction of North
Israel and preyed on the new settlers (2 Kgs 17:24–28; cf. Exod 23:29). One can
thus comprehend the implication of this blessing that man alone is incapable of
coping with this menace: its resolution can stem only from YHWH (see also Hos
2:20; Job 5:23).” [Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus
23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (vol. 3B; Anchor
Yale Bible; New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 2296.]
“The
blessing of safety from wild animals is promised in Lev. 26:6; Hos. 2:20; cf.
Isa. 11:6–8; cf. Job 5:22–23.” [Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy
(The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996),
309.]
And one of the
last-resort penalties for covenant non-compliance was WITHDRAWAL of
protection from predators and even bereavement of children due to wild
animal activity. And this animal action was linked to TRAVEL ON THE ROADS:
“Then if
you walk contrary to me and will not listen to me, I will continue striking
you, sevenfold for your sins. 22 And
I will let loose the wild beasts against you, which shall bereave you of your children and destroy your livestock and make you few in number,
so that your
roads shall be deserted.” [Le 26:21–22]
“I will send famine and wild beasts against you, and they will rob you
of your children” [Eze 5:17]
“If I cause
wild beasts to pass through the land, and they ravage it, and it be made
desolate, so that no one may pass
through because of the beasts, even if these three men were in it, as I
live, declares the Lord God, they
would deliver neither sons nor daughters. They alone would be delivered, but
the land would be desolate” [Ezek 14:15-16]
And if you remain
hostile toward Me, I will loose wild beasts against you The Hifil form used here, ve-hishlaḥti, is rare in biblical
Hebrew. It conveys the sense of “driving” the beasts through the land.
This threat is the reverse of the Blessing stated in verse 6. --- and they shall bereave you of your
children The verb sh-kh-l is
used specifically to connote the loss of children or with respect to animals,
the loss of young. --- They shall
decimate you Deserted roads are
often depicted as a feature of wars and invasion in biblical literature.
Compare Lamentations 1:4: “Zion’s roads are in mourning.” Similar themes occur
in Isaiah 33:8; Ezekiel 30:3–4; and in Psalms 107:38.” [Baruch A. Levine, Leviticus (The JPS Torah Commentary;
Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 186–187.
“Fanged beasts … venomous creepers in dust Wild animals, such as lions or bears,
and poisonous snakes. Settled territory was often in danger of being overrun by
wild animals; the threat of that is one of the curses in Leviticus 26:22.”
[Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy (The
JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 309.]
“I will let loose wild beasts
against you. Reversing “I will eliminate vicious beasts from the
land” (v. 6bα; Bekhor
Shor). The Hipʿil wĕhišlaḥtî
bĕkā with the beth of
hostility is attested elsewhere, such as hinĕnî
mašlîaḥ bĕkā ‘behold, I am sending against you’ (Exod 8:17;
cf. 2 Kgs 15:37; Ezek 14:13; Amos 8:11 [also punishments]). The outbreak of
wild beasts is frequently regarded as a punishment for sin (Deut 32:24; 2 Kgs
2:24; 17:25; Isa 13:21, 22; Ezek 5:17; 14:15; cf. Hillers 1964: 54–56).
Weinfeld (1993: 191, n. 17) aptly points to a similar series of punishments of
drought, wasteland, and wild animals (vv. 20–22) that appears in the Sefire
treaty 1A 27–28 (eighth century B.C.e).
--- “they shall bereave you.
Reversing “and (I) shall make you fruitful” (v. 9aβ); note the emphasis on pĕrî ‘fruit, offspring’. Ezekiel
repeats this verse almost verbatim (Ezek 5:17; cf. 14:15). --- “make you few. wĕhim ʿîṭâ ʾetkem
(cf. Ezek 29:15b). This statement is not redundant in view of the previous
“they shall bereave you,” since its purpose is to reverse the blessing wĕhirbêtî ʾetekem ‘multiply
you’ (v. 9aγ; Ḥazzequni).
Perhaps, this explains why hirbêtî is
separated from hiprêtî in v. 9 in
order to be matched by two distinct curses.
“and your roads
shall be deserted. The same
sequence, wild beasts and deserted roads, is found in Ezekiel: “Or, if I were
to send wild beasts to roam the land and they depopulated it, and it became a desolation with none passing
through it because of the beasts” (Ezek 14:15; cf. Judg 5:6; Isa 33:8; Lam
1:4). This is a standard curse in the
ancient Near East: “That no one tread the highways, that no one seek out
the roads” (ANET 612, 1. 39).” [Jacob
Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27: A New
Translation with Introduction and Commentary (vol. 3B; Anchor Yale Bible;
New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 2296.]
“Ezek 5:17. famine and wild beasts. These two punishments are related only
as part of a typical group of punishments that deity is inclined to send (two
more, plague and bloodshed, occur in the second half of the verse). As early as
the Gilgamesh Epic in Mesopotamia, the god Ea had reprimanded Enlil for not
sending lions to ravage the people rather than using something as dramatic as a
flood. The gods used wild beasts along with disease, drought and famine to
reduce the human population. A common threat connected to negative omens in the
Assyrian period was that lions and wolves would rage through the land. In like
manner, devastation by wild animals was one of the curses invoked for treaty
violation (see also Deut 32:24).” [Victor Harold Matthews, Mark W. Chavalas,
and John H. Walton, The IVP Bible
Background Commentary: Old Testament (electronic ed.; Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2000), Eze 5:17.]
“2:12. punishment by wild animals. The eighth-century Aramaic inscription
from Deir’Alla that contains the prophecy of Balaam and the twentieth-century
Egyptian Visions of Neferti both
describe an abandoned land in which strange and ravenous animals forage for
food. Ravaging wild beasts were considered one of the typical scourges that
deity would send as punishment.´ [ Victor Harold Matthews, Mark W. Chavalas,
and John H. Walton, The IVP Bible
Background Commentary: Old Testament (electronic ed.; Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2000), Ho 2:12.]
And these types of dangers and issues were prevalent in the ANE nations around them – also enshrined in such treaties:
“Thereby
Yahweh stresses the severity—i.e., violence—of the coming destruction. In vv 7
and 8a, the lion (שחל), leopard (נמר) and bear (דב) typify devouring animals (cf. 1 Sam 17:34–37). The attack of wild animals was a common
curse motif in ancient Near Eastern covenant
sections (Hillers, Treaty Curses and the Old Testament Prophets,
54–56). Lev 26:22 (“I will send wild animals against you …”) and Deut 32:24
(“The teeth of animals I will send upon them; with the venom of creatures that
crawl in the dust …”) present this motif in the Sinai covenant (cf. Lam
3:10–11; Isa 5:29–30; 7:18; 14:29; 15:9; 56:9; Jer 2:14–15; 4:7; 12:9; 48:40;
49:22; 50:44; Hos 5:14; Hab 1:8). In these references the lion is described
most often, though a variety of animals
from bees to wolves are also mentioned as animal agents symbolic of divine
wrath. --- The attack of the “animals” will kill, not merely maim. .” [Douglas
Stuart, Hosea–Jonah (vol. 31; Word
Biblical Commentary; Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 204.
“Among the common
varieties of curse found in ancient Near Eastern treaties
and related biblical literature are threats of being attacked and killed by ravenous animals and of having one’s corpse desecrated by being
eaten by such animals. --- The eighth-century
Aramaic treaties from Sefire in northern Syria
contain the following curse against a would-be rebel: ‘May the gods send every
sort of devourer against Arpad and against its people! [May the mo]uth of a
snake [eat], the mouth of a scorpion, the mouth of a bear,
the mouth of an ant …’ (Sefire
1.A.30–31). --- Another of the Sefire curse lists threatens with: ‘the mouth of
a lion, the mouth of a [wol]f,
the mouth of a panther’ (Sefire 2.B.9). The Akkadian treaty of Esarhaddon with
Baal of Tyre says similarly, ‘May Bethel and Anath-Bethel deliver you to a man-eating
lion’ (rev. IV 6–7; Reiner 1969: 534). --- And Ashurbanipal’s annals relate
that he punished the fugitive Arab king Uaiṯe’ I by locking him up in a
cage with a dog and a bear (Eph‘al
1984: 143–44 and n. 501).” James M. Lindenberger, “What Ever Happened to
Vidranga? A Jewish Liturgy of Cursing from Elephantine,” in The World of the Aramaeans III: Studies in
Language and Literature in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion (ed. P. M. Michèle
Daviau, John W. Wevers, and Michael Weigl; vol. 326; Journal for the Study of
the Old Testament Supplement Series; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
2001), 326149.]
And the danger from animals in the FOREST was compounded (as noted also above) with danger from animals ON THE ROADS:
“Two Egyptian
literary documents from the late 13th century B.C. warned of the problem of wild beasts. “A soldier,
when he goes up to Retenu (i.e., Palestine),” says the one text, “has neither
staff nor sandals. He does not know whether he is dead or alive, by reason of
fierce lions” (Waterhouse 1963: 160). Of conditions along a Canaanite roadway,
the other papyrus utters, “Lions are
more numerous than leopards or bears, (and the road is) surrounded by
Bedouin on (every) side of it” (ANET,
477). Wild beasts were also a formidable threat to travel, as described
in the Bible. Samson is said to have encountered a young lion on the Sorek
valley road between Zorah and Timnah (Judg 14:5–6). Citing evidence that he was
a worthy opponent of the giant Goliath, David boasted that he had slain bears
and lions while tending his father’s sheep along Judean pathways (1 Sam
17:34–36). … Travelers
on roads that aligned the Jordan river valley must have faced the same reality: the Medeba map depicts a lion on the prowl in the valley (cf. Jer
50:44; Mark 1:13); many Arabic towns in this valley appear to bear the names of
beasts; skeletal remains of beasts have been exhumed from the Jordan’s flood
plain; and mention is frequently made in itineraries of the sighting of beasts
in this valley.” [Barry J. Beitzel, “Travel and Communication: The Old
Testament World,” ed. David Noel Freedman, The
Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 646.]
“Travelers
faced the danger of predators, such
as lions (e.g., Judg 14; 1 Sam
17:34–37; Amos 5:19) and bears
(e.g., 2 Kgs 2:23–24; Amos 5:19; Prov 28:15). The Bible also mentions wolves,
jackals, and hyenas.” [Kevin P. Sullivan and Paul W. Ferris, “Travel in
Biblical Times,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The
Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).
So, this first
action puts this mob into imminent danger from wild beasts of the
forest—whether their intentions were good or not. The expectation of the
culture was that they would be in danger BOTH in the forest AND on the road
(i.e. the references to predators attacking people on the roads).
…………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………….
SECOND ACTION: “SCORN”
So, let’s investigate the scorn word (QeLeS) for its import on the events.
First of all, our word is very
rare in the Hebrew Bible, and not really used for ‘normal level’ mocking and
taunting.
If we pull up all the words/phrases that are translated [ESV] as mock, taunt, scorn, spurn, scoff, derided, and jeered, this becomes very obvious. We have a little over 100 occurrences of such words, with the various forms of those words generating at least 267 total occurrences.
Here are visual representations of those words (in descending frequency), with the number of Hebrew words used, and if our QLS (“scorn”) word is ever translated by that English word.
How to read the bubbles:
· The outer ring represents 100% of all the times that some version of the English word in the center occurs.
· Each colored segment in this ring represents the relative number of times a Hebrew word (or form) is translated by that English term. In other words, if one-fourth of the ring was GREEN, then 25% of all occurrences of the English term came from the SAME HEBREW word.
· In the center of the ring, is the English term, the number of times it shows up (which equals 100% of the outer ring, obviously), the number of Hebrew words/forms that are translated by that English term, and an indication of whether our QLS scorn word is used.
· If it is NOT used to generate that particular English word, the center simply has “0 of X words”.
· If it IS used to generate that particular English word, the center points to the segment(s) on the other ring generated by our word – to gauge how often it is used to represent that notion. A small segment means it is uncommon for that English word; a larger segment indicate more common.
Here is that data in tabular form:
|
English Gloss |
Core Case count |
Number of Hebrew words |
QLS? |
Is QLS > 50% of cases (outer ring)? |
|
Mock |
32 |
9 |
1 |
No |
|
Taunt |
29 |
6 |
0 |
No |
|
Scorn |
20 |
9 |
1 |
No |
|
Spurn |
11 |
4 |
0 |
No |
|
Scoff |
7 |
5 |
1 |
No |
|
Derided |
4 |
4 |
1 |
No |
|
Jeer |
3 |
2 |
1 |
No |
You can see that in these core cases, it is very infrequently used for these more ‘normal level’ mocking, scoffing, and jeering.
We can also see this from the frequency of Hebrew words sometimes translated into mocking-type words. This table (accurate but NOT comprehensive) includes 267 of the various English translations of essentially ALL of the Hebrew word, forms and/or phrases used for this purpose (omitting ‘despise’ as a ‘scorn’ word). The leftmost and right most columns contain the basic lexical data of definitions and nuances, with the leftmost containing the Hebrew form (not lemma, which we just looked at). The center column has the number of times that Hebrew construction is used for the English concepts on the right.
Our word is highlighted in yellow, and the main words that would be used for taunts about someone’s personal appearance (lol) are highlighted in pale red. It doesn’t even make the top 10.
Our QLS root is used in only 8 places in the Hebrew bible:
· 4 verbal forms: 3 in our verbal Hithpael stem and 1 in a the Piel stem (translated ‘despise’ with a core of ‘scorn’)
· 3 masculine noun forms - Ps 44:13, Ps 79.4, Jer 20.8 (scorn, derided, derision)
· 1 feminine noun form - Ezek 22.4 (mockery)
When we add the 3 cases NOT represented in the table above, we get a table total of 270, and a QLS-related total of 8 – that is slightly less than 3%. This word is RARE, and only ‘brought out for special occasions’ (smile).
When we approach it from the Hebrew verb side, we can understand why it is not represented in these ‘normal’ mock words: it is a super-strong word…
When we put our Hebrew verb in the center of the circle, we get 4 English words commonly used to translate it.
Of the 3 other cases of our word, only 2 match our verb stem form (hithpael) here: Habakkuk 1:10 and Ezekiel 22.5.
[Briefly, the third case in Ezekiel 16:31: (a) uses a Piel stem, (b) does not refer to persons, (c) is not accompanied by a speech act, and (d) is in a highly figurative passage, but it still reflects the word’s vehemence and arrogant rejection of its object, by an agent who considers herself above the law:
“How sick is your heart [Jerusalem] declares the Lord GOD, because you did all these things, the deeds of a brazen [sallatet, Lit. “ruling”; i.e., who does what she pleases, being subject to no one (Kara). J. C. Greenfield (Eretz-Israel 16 [1982], 56–61; English summary, 253*); “headstrong, domineering”, NIDOTTE.] prostitute, building your vaulted chamber at the head of every street, and making your lofty place in every square. Yet you were not like a prostitute, because you scorned [qilles] payment. … Men give gifts to all prostitutes, but you gave your gifts to all your lovers, bribing them to come to you from every side with your whorings.”
“These
verses expand on Jerusalem’s high-handed behavior. First, she has broken
the generally accepted norms of a
prostitute’s behavior by scorning payment. … Jerusalem has reversed the
customary roles of payer and payee in harlotrous relationships. Whereas
prostitutes generally follow their profession as a means of livelihood, Jerusalem has
scorned the payment that men normally pay for a woman’s sexual favors. Worse
yet, she has bribed them to satisfy her lusts, stifling all sense of shame, and
inverting normal roles of prostitute and client. The resources that
Yahweh had bestowed liberally on her she dispensed to her lovers (mĕʾahăbayik, v. 33), all
the surrounding nations.” [Daniel Isaac Block, The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24 (The New International
Commentary on the Old Testament; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co., 1997), 497–498.]
The motif of replacement of something ‘reasonable’ (receiving payment for services) for something ‘unreasonable’ (making payment for services) reflects a complete reversal of values, and is stated in terms of our word – ‘scorning’—to the point of REJECTION and REPLACEMENT.]
……………………………………………………………………………………….
The two OTHER cases of this verb
reveal how INTENSE and SHOCKING this word actually is.
The first one is from Habakkuk and the other from another passage in Ezekiel.
ONE: The passage from Habakkuk (1:10) is the clearest one for getting to the core of this usage by the [N]. Speaking of the Babylonian armies, the text reads:
“At kings they scoff (qls, our word), and at rulers they laugh (mshkq).”
Commentators draw attention to the abject arrogance and anti-authority position of this army:
§ “The corollary of Babylonian autonomy is contempt for all other authority, which
is evaluated in purely military terms. The Babylonians “deride kings” and
“scoff at rulers,” since they can “laugh” at their defenses.” [Carl E.
Armerding, “Habakkuk,” in The Expositor’s
Bible Commentary: Daniel–Malachi (Revised Edition) (ed. Tremper Longman III
and David E. Garland; vol. 8; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 8615.]
§ “The contempt of the Chaldeans for foreign
rulers, whom they can subdue with the greatest of ease, is exactly like
that of their predecessors, the Assyrians (2 Kgs 18:33–35, where they ridicule
the gods).” [Francis I. Andersen, Habakkuk:
A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (vol. 25; Anchor Yale
Bible; New Haven; London: Yale
University Press, 2008), 157.]
§ “They were fierce, cruel people who never
tired in pursuit of their goal of conquest. Their successes struck fear into
the hearts of all who stood in their path. A terror and dread to all, they arrogantly
acknowledged no law but themselves. … No wonder, then, that enemy rulers were merely
a joke to them. With disdain they laughed at them and moved against
their cities, however strongly fortified. …
Its armies have been portrayed as the finest and fiercest in the world,
being capable of moving swiftly across vast stretches of land to strike the
enemy. Babylon
was an arrogant bully who contemptuously mocked all its foes and knew no god
but strength.” [Richard D. Patterson and Andrew E. Hill, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, Vol 10:
Minor Prophets, Hosea–Malachi (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers,
2008), 408.]
§ “So he at kings will mock; and sovereigns are a joke to him. Israel always previously had been able
to count on buffer nations to absorb the lethal blows of invaders. But this adversary makes fun of the most
powerful figures of the earth. How then may the remnant of Judah expect to
resist successfully the invasion of this enemy? [O. Palmer Robertson, The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah
(The New International Commentary on the Old Testament; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 154–155.]
§ “Everyone
should fear one in whom no fear exists. The Babylonian army mocked kings and made rulers objects of derision. They
had “contempt
for all other authority.” … Though no one else would dare do so, they
scoffed and made sport of the rulers of the people. If the army did not tremble before kings, what
could the common people do? Nothing could stand before the Chaldean army. The
Babylonians (again emphasized) laughed at the fortresses of the nations.”
[Kenneth L. Barker, Micah, Nahum,
Habakkuk, Zephaniah (vol. 20; The New American Commentary; Nashville:
Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 307–308.]
§ “Confident in their strength, the
Babylonians scoffed at kings and
ridiculed rulers. It was their custom
to exhibit captive rulers as public spectacles. Their brutality is seen in
the way they treated Zedekiah after Jerusalem fell. They killed his sons before
his eyes and then, with that awesome sight burned into his memory, they put out
his eyes, bound him in shackles, and took him prisoner to Babylon (2 Kings
25:7). … But not only did the Babylonians scoff at their foes; they also laughed at all fortified cities (lit., “every fortress”). They poured
derision on the strongholds which their victims considered impregnable.” [J.
Ronald Blue, “Habakkuk,” in The Bible
Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (ed. J. F. Walvoord
and R. B. Zuck; vol. 1; Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 11510.]
TWO: The passage from Ezekiel 22.4-5 reveals the same level of arrogant de-valuation (deserved in this case) and trivialization:
“Therefore I have made you a reproach [herpa] to the nations, and a mockery [qallasa, a noun form of our
word] to all the countries. Those who are near and those who are far from you
will mock [our word, QLS] you…”
Commentators note how ‘low’ a status this is, and how the hostility of the nations is connected to Jerusalem’s hostility to the Law:
“Both moral
and cultic sins were reviewed to show the hostility that existed for the law.
… The first two sins mentioned included bloodshed and idolatry. … Disregard for
the law of God led to a dramatic increase in crimes of violence so that
Jerusalem was called the “city of bloodshed”. [Lamar Eugene Cooper, Ezekiel (vol. 17; The New American
Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), 217.]
“The acts of
idolatry and bloodshed bring God’s judgment near. Jerusalem has come of age for
judgment. She will become a reproach to the surrounding nations, both far and
near. They will laugh at her miserable state
and her
infamous reputation (vv. 4b–5).” [Ralph H. Alexander, “Ezekiel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary:
Jeremiah–Ezekiel (Revised Edition) (ed. Tremper Longman III and David E.
Garland; vol. 7; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 7761.
But Block picks up on an intersecting theme from Deuteronomy:
“The
accusation concludes with an elaboration of the nations’ response to
Jerusalem’s fate. Those near (ḥaqqĕrōbôt)
and far away (hārĕḥōqôt)
represent a merismic word pair for “all nations” who mock (yitqallĕsû) her for her “defiled reputation” (ṭĕmēʾat haššēm)
and the “magnitude of her tumult” (rabbat
hammĕhûmâ). Although
Ezekiel employs vocabulary different from Deuteronomy, the present
statement reflects intense disappointment over Jerusalem’s failure to achieve the
Deuteronomic vision for the nation: to be exalted over the nations for praise (tĕhillâ),
fame (šēm), and honor (tipʾeret) (Deut. 26:19; cf. Jer.
13:11; 33:9). Now she must prepare for the full force of the covenant curse: becoming the
object of astonishment/horror (šammâ),
a proverb (māšāl), and a
byword (šĕnînâ). Yahweh cannot
stand idly by while life is cheapened and his claim to exclusive allegiance is
trampled underfoot. When he is through with the city the din of rebellion
within her walls will have been exchanged for the external taunts of the nations.” [Daniel Isaac Block, The Book of Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24 (The
New International Commentary on the Old Testament; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), 705–706.]
In the
Deuteronomy passages, being SCORNED and DETESTED (e.g., a ‘horror’) was one of
the major penalties of covenant non-compliance.
After
listing the blessings / benefits of covenant compliance (Deut 28:1-14), the
penalties are listed: destruction, disease, drought, defeat in battle, physical
and mental diseases of Egypt, oppression and theft, exile and revulsion by the
nations (28.36-37), and crop failure and economic ruin.
Verse 37 reads like this:
And you shall become a horror, a proverb, and a byword among all the peoples where the LORD will lead you away.
And it is echoed/explained often throughout the prophets, as they try to steer the king and the people back onto compliance (and its blessings):
“… then I will cut off Israel from the land that I have given them, and the house that I have consecrated for my name I will cast out of my sight, and Israel will become a proverb and a byword among all peoples” [1 Ki 9:7]
“I will make them a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth, to be a reproach, a byword, a taunt, and a curse in all the places where I shall drive them.” [Je 24:9–10.]
What this means for us, is that the use of this same word to describe the action of the people in our passage, links it with two things:
(1) Complete rejection of authority; and
(2) Complete devaluation of the authority (as if Elisha were being rejected and/or punished by YWHW as being evil , like Jerusalem in Ezekiel).
……………………………………………
Summary of the ‘scorn’ word/action: The word is a VERY strong word, actually. It is NOT the normal word for ‘taunt’ (chrp) nor basic mocking (various words). This word is about SCOFFING / REJECTION / DEVALUATION of legitimate authority, based upon one’s OWN assertion of self-authority:
“Each
occurrence of this root describes actions that either contradict customary practices (e.g., Ezek 16:31) or flaunt acceptable standards (e.g., 2
Kgs 2:23; Jer 20:8; Hab 1:10). The
attitude of disdain and its accompanying behavior are consistently directed toward authority
figures, especially when individuals are the perpetrators (e.g., 2 Kgs
2:23; Jer 20:8). “ [Willem VanGemeren, ed., New
International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), 929.]
Strictly speaking, we could stop right here – with
full justification for the action of YHWH in inflicting a pre-announced,
statutory treaty penalty.
Not only is this COMPLETELY contrary to ethical standards of how messengers/prophets were supposed to be treated, it is also the highest LEVEL of repudiation, insult, rejection, and REVOLT against the suzerain YHWH and his emissary.
It is – at the same time – a clear statement of what will be the Northern kingdom’s demise, and that of Judah’s as well:
“The LORD, the God of their fathers, sent persistently to them by his messengers, because he had compassion on his people and on his dwelling place. But they kept mocking the messengers of God, despising his words and scoffing at his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD rose against his people, until there was no remedy.” [2 Chronicles 36.16]
These were not foreigners repudiating YHWH, but the citizens of a vassal kingdom (Israel was still bound to YHWH under the treaty, regardless of any changes in government structure). What does a king do when his/her subjects refuse to follow the rules of the authorities, even to the point of VOCAL DENOUNCIATIONS?
Let’s ask Jesus (smile):
· Parable of the 10 Minas (Luke 19): “He said therefore, “A nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return. Calling ten of his servants, he gave them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Engage in business until I come.’ But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us.’ When he returned, having received the kingdom, he ordered these servants to whom he had given the money to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by doing business. [SNIP] But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”
· The Parable of the Wedding Feast (Matthew 22): “And again Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come. Again he sent other servants … But they paid no attention and went off, … while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’ … So the wedding hall was filled with guests.
…………………
THIRD ACTION: Chanting “go up, baldy”
Their third action – ‘saying’
something – is fairly obscure to us, but not something that needs to be clearly
understood. The ‘scorn’ word up above is enough for
triggering YHWH’s action, but this clause adds an extra element of oddness to
this.
Their
statement has two parts: ‘go up’ and “baldhead”.
The Go UP verb
has already been used twice in the passage already: “Elisha went up to Bethel” and “As He was going up”.
Since our
passage is said to happen while he was in transit, one would easily
think that this group was somehow using the word in the same sense – “go
ahead, go on up – you!”. Even with the possible element of ‘baldness’, it is
not obvious to me why this might count as a taunt in itself (and certainly less
so, without the ‘baldness’ word)?
Commentators—wrestling
with this --- surface some of the obvious choices, all of which have SOMETHING
to commend them:
“Go away, baldy! Lit., “go on up, baldy” (‘aleh
qereakh [TH7142, ZH7944]). The root ‘alah [TH5927, ZH6590]
regularly conveys the idea of “going up” or “ascending,” and that is the idea
here (the same root is already used twice in the verse, indicating Elisha’s
“going up” to Bethel and “walking along” the road [uphill?]). A number of
commentators, however, prefer the basic idea of “going away” or “departing” for
the present text (cf. NRSV; also Cogan and Tadmor 1988:38), so the NLT
translation here is quite defensible. Still,
those who read here a sardonic challenge for the bald Elisha to “go on up” as
the very hairy Elijah (cf. 1:8) recently did, have a point.” [William H. Barnes, 1-2 Kings (ed. Philip W. Comfort; vol. 4b; Cornerstone Biblical
Commentary; Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2012), 206.]
“The
jeering “Go on up!” may be a reference to Elijah’s translation, with the sense
of “Go away like Elijah,” perhaps spoken in “contemptuous disbelief.” [[1] Paul R. House, 1, 2 Kings (vol. 8; The New American
Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 260–261.]
“As Elisha was traveling
from Jericho to Bethel several dozen
youths (young men, not children)
confronted him. Perhaps they were young false prophets of Baal. Their jeering,
recorded in the slang of their day, implied that if Elisha were a great prophet
of the Lord, as Elijah was, he should go
on up into heaven as Elijah
reportedly had done.” [Thomas L. Constable, “2 Kings,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures
(ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck; vol. 1; Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985),
1541–542.]
The spatial
arrangement is important here.
·
After
they say this, Elisha turns around and ‘sees them’, and then does his
judgment thing.
·
He is headed UP to Bethel at this point.
·
They came out of the city [presumably Bethel], but are now behind
him (either passing him first, or going through the woods first and then
emerging behind him)—or some mix of the two.
·
Their one-word imperative ‘go up’ makes perfect geographical sense.
We can more or less eliminate the meaning ‘go away’, since the normal words for that would be hlk (e.g. “depart and go to the land of Judah”)—like is used when he leaves Bethel for Mount Carmel-- or swr (“Go, depart; e.g., go down from among the Amalekites).
Okay, let’s see if the
‘baldness’ thing can help with this—
They use the adjective qereach for this, which only occurs two other times … sigh.
But the root of this word is about shaving one’s head, so it might not be about some kind of natural baldness to begin with. But it’s quite murky—from TWOT:
2069a קֵרֵַח
(qērēaḥ) bald.
2069b קָרְחָה (qorḥâ) baldness.
2069c קָרַחַת (qāraḥat) back
baldness.
Our root denotes the lack of hair on the
human head. This may result from shaving
(Mic 1:16, where gāzaz “to
shear” is the parallel; Job 1:20; Jer 7:29), from plucking (māraṭ,
Neh 13:25), from leprosy (Lev
13:42), and other and natural causes
(Lev 13:40?). For synonyms see gāzaz,
and gibbēaḥ (forehead
baldness). The root occurs twenty-three times.
Ritualistic shaving of the head in imitation of Canaanite
mourning rites is prohibited for priests
(Lev 22:24; cf. Jer 41:5) and laity
(Deut 14:1), because as holy servants and children of God they were to keep
themselves as from all idolatry (cf. Barnes on Mic 1:16). Not all baldness,
however, is unclean (Lev 13:40). Indeed, not all shaving of the head to express mourning
is prohibited. God commands (Mic 1:16) and expects his people (Isa
22:12) to show deepest mourning over their sin. His punishment will effectuate
mourning over their dead (Ezk 7:18; Isa 3:24), but even such tragedy will not
humble them. Ultimate judgment is preceded by a picture of widespread death and
a prohibition of mourning (Jer 16:6). Baldness is a picture of mourning (Jer 47:5).
… The taunt (J. W. Kapp, “Baldness” ISBE, I, p. 380f.) hurled at Elisha (II Kgs
2:23) is especially ignominious because it showed abject disrespect for God’s
prophet (qālaṣ, q.v.) and
God himself. According to the Law, death was the punishment (cf. qālal and
Lev 20:9). [Leonard J.
Coppes, “2069 קָרַח,” ed. R. Laird Harris,
Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological
Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 815.]
This would not
be the baldness of the forehead, since that had its own word:
גִּבֵּחַ (gibbēaḥ), adj. bald
in the forehead (#1477); גַּבַּחַת (gabbaḥat),
nom. bald forehead” [NIDOTTE]
Some take our
word as baldness on the BACK of the head (which would only be visible from BEHIND
Elisha…):
“(qē·rēaḥ):
adj.; ≡ Str 7142; TWOT 2069a—LN 8.9–8.69 bald, bald-headed, i.e., pertaining to having no hair on the back part
of the crown of the head as is common in male-pattern baldness (Lev 13:40;
2Ki 2:23(2×)+)” [James Swanson, Dictionary
of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament) (Oak
Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).
We have
already noted the possibility that his head would not have been visible
due to headwear, but assuming for the moment that the head was
uncovered, let’s see what our options are for understanding this:
“go up, baldy.” The paucity
of references to the physical characteristics of prophets in the OT throws this
into sharp relief. It is in direct contrast to the identifying features of
Elijah (1:8). Since artificial baldness was legislated against in Israel
(Deut 14:1), Elisha’s condition was a
natural one.” [T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings
(vol. 13; Word Biblical Commentary; Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1985), 24.]
“If Elijah was a
hairy man, Elisha’s baldness would be a stark
contrast and perhaps suggest to some that he could never have the same
powers as his master. This taunt would therefore be a disavowal of his
prophetic office and calling and would be strikingly refuted by the immediate
fulfillment of his curse. Therefore in verses 19–22 Elisha removed a curse,
while in 23–24 he effectuated a curse.” [Victor Harold Matthews, Mark W.
Chavalas, and John H. Walton, The IVP
Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament (electronic ed.; Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 2 Ki 2:23.]
“The reference to the baldhead
is not clear, but Elisha might have already been so bald by nature that to
youthful eyes he looked grotesque; or perhaps some prophets, like later Christian
monks, shaved their heads as a mark of their vocation” [Crossway Bibles, The ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL:
Crossway Bibles, 2008), 649.]
“Baldness, regarded as a disgrace, was
here an epithet of scorn (cf. Isa 3:17, 24).” [R. D. Patterson and Hermann J.
Austel, “1, 2 Kings,” in The Expositor’s
Bible Commentary: 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah,
Esther, Job (ed. Frank E. Gaebelein; vol. 4; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1988), 4178.
“The epithet baldhead may allude to lepers who had to shave their heads and were
considered detestable outcasts. Or
it may simply have been a form of scorn, for baldness was undesirable (cf. Isa.
3:17, 24). Since it was customary for men to cover their heads, the young men
probably could not tell if Elisha was bald or not.” [Thomas L. Constable, “2
Kings,” in The Bible Knowledge
Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B.
Zuck; vol. 1; Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 1541–542.]
“Other
traditions, however, especially in the prophetic tradition suggest that shaving
heads or beards as a sign of mourning or judgment was practiced (Amos 8:10;
Isa 22:12; Jer 41:5; Mic 1:16; Ezek 5:1; cf. Job 1:20). Indeed, tearing out
one’s hair or beard could indicate shame and anger (Ezra 9:3).” [Douglas R.
Edwards, “Dress and Ornamentation,” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New
York: Doubleday, 1992), 234.]
"But
was Elisha an old man short on patience and a sense of humor? This charge is
also distorted, for Elisha can hardly have been more than twenty-five when this
incident happened. He lived nearly sixty years after this..." [HSOBX]
To me, the core meaning of the root carries the day:
קרח 5 vb. make
bald—Qal …—make bald, make a bald patch, shave,
prohibited by law (Lv 21:5), in mourning (Mc
1:16)…”[ David J. A. Clines, ed., The
Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic
Press; Sheffield Phoenix Press, 1993–2011), 321.
I can easily
visualize Elisha’s grief over Elijah’s ascension, as portrayed in his ‘My
father, my father’ exclamation at that event.
“And Elisha saw it (comp. ver. 10). The
condition was fulfilled which Elijah had laid down, and Elisha knew that his
request for a “double portion” of his master’s spirit was granted. And he cried, My father! my father! It
was usual for servants thus to address their masters (ch. 5:13), and younger
men would, out of respect, almost always thus
address an aged prophet (ch. 6:21; 13:14,
etc.). But Elisha probably meant something more than to show respect. He regarded himself as Elijah’s specially
adopted son, and hence had claimed the “double portion” of the firstborn.
That his request was granted showed that the relationship was acknowledged.”
[H. D. M. Spence-Jones, ed., 2 Kings
(The Pulpit Commentary; London; New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1909),
21.]
And I can see
him expressing the same intensity of grief as described in Micah 1:16:
“Make yourselves bald
and cut off your hair, for the children of your delight; make yourselves as
bald as the eagle, for they shall go from you into exile.”
“shave your heads. This was a custom associated with mourning the dead. The symbolic
disfigurement was intended to show empathy with those in the throes of grieving
over deceased family members (see Walton, Matthews, and Chavalas 2000:782).” [Richard
D. Patterson and Andrew E. Hill, Cornerstone
Biblical Commentary, Vol 10: Minor Prophets, Hosea–Malachi (Carol Stream,
IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2008), 307.]
“The last
stanza is an address to personified Jerusalem, the city in which Micah stands.
He urges it to engage in full mourning
rites. Behind the prophet’s exhortation must have lain the impulse
of his own aching heart. He has been speaking of places he knew better than
most of his hearers, towns and villages springing from childhood memories. We
recall his poignant reference to “my people” at the end of the former oracle:
how much more would he be affected by the prospect of disaster overtaking his
friends and acquaintances, his own kith and kin? So it is his personal sense of
shock that inspires this appeal to Jerusalem to go into deep mourning. He alludes to the traditional custom of
making a bald patch on the head. Shaving one’s hair, normally worn
long by both sexes, was one of a number of external tokens of sorrow. So
great would be the grief in this case that Micah calls for a larger area than
usual to be shaved.” [Leslie C. Allen, The
Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah (The New International Commentary
on the Old Testament; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976),
283.
The prohibition of this for priests (Lev 21.5) was understood more as
of the forehead or of ALL the head, not just the back (Deut 14.1), and as being
a special symbol. Leviticus had similar restrictions for the common folk, but
these were very situational: trying to distance from the Canaanite cult of the
dead.
So, at Leviticus 21.5:
“The
prohibition against shaving may be related
to the cult of the dead as a gift of one’s vitality (Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1802), or more likely,
it is one of several mourning rituals in which the person separates from the
community and identifies with the dead (Olyan, 616–17)” [Richard S. Hess,
“Leviticus,” in The Expositor’s Bible
Commentary: Genesis–Leviticus (Revised Edition) (ed. Tremper Longman III
and David E. Garland; vol. 1; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 1768.
But
expressions of grief in many/most cases do not carry the connotations of
participating in the cult of the dead—even if the manifestations or symbols are
similar.
Indeed, YHWH
calls for expressions of grief on occasions:
“In that
day the Lord GOD of hosts called for weeping and mourning, for baldness and wearing sackcloth; [Is
22.12)
“And on
that day,” declares the Lord GOD, “I will make the sun go down at noon and
darken the earth in broad daylight. I will turn your feasts into mourning and
all your songs into lamentation; I will bring sackcloth on every waist and baldness on every head; I will make it
like the mourning for an only son and the end of it like a bitter day.” [Amos
8.9-11)
Summary:
There is very
little certainty on the meaning of this saying, as well as on its intended
purpose.
The most
plausible scenario to me looks like this:
·
Elisha expressed his grief over the loss of his ‘adopted father’ in the
way an everyday citizen would have – shaving part of the back of the head.
·
He would have temporarily avoided headgear (if he wore it routinely)
out of the need for public display of his grief/mourning for Elijah.
·
The group of lowest-level employees from the city either passed through
the woods or walked by Elisha (and his party) on the road.
·
They have been scorning him during the entire time, with specific
verbal content not described in the text (like the content of the curse won’t
be).
·
They then turn around in the road, spot Elisha’s shaved spot, and utter
what would have been considered (in that culture for sure) a horrific
violation of social values. Their making fun of a mourner is shocking, and
could easily be the ‘straw that broke the camel’s back’ for Elisha.
·
On top of violating messenger protocols and arrogant rejection of YHWH’s
authority as suzerain – in the ‘scorn’ action—they violate basic rules of
civility and community solidarity.