Next, lets examine the consequences of their actions.
The text records the following
actions:
1. Elisha turns around, facing behind him on the path (He turned behind)
2. Elisha sees the group (and he saw them_
3. Elisha pronounces a curse on them in the name of YHWH (and he cursed them)
4. Two she-bears come out of the wood (same word as the mobs came out of city)
5. The she-bears maul (bq) 42 of the [Y].
One:
Elisha is headed forward toward Bethel, and at this point he either stops and
turns around. We presume (and probably are MEANT TO) that it was in response to
the [N]
scorn and/or baldness taunt. We have no idea of how long the [N]
had been scorning nor how many times they would have chanted their infantile
go up, baldy.
But at some
point, something prompted him to stop and turn around (e.g. the Spirit,
comments by any co-travelers).
Two:
He saw them. This is a very basic, bland, seeing verb (rh).
Some commentators try to make this stronger (e.g. stared or fixed
his gaze on), but there are separate words for that type of looking (hzh [Is 47.13]; sh [Gen 24.21], or even pane+sym [faced/stared, 2 Kings 8.11]).
It IS a
slightly stronger word that might meet the eye (pun), but not in some kind of
staring-gazing way. It seems to be used for situations NOT SEEN BEFORE, but of
interest: perceiving (Ex 2.2) and
inspecting for value (Gen 11.5) and even assessing a situation (Ex 4:18).
This is a
stand-alone verb again, and not an adverbial clause. That is, it is a full waw+verb
(and then he saw) and not and WHEN he saw them.
I find it difficult to escape the sense that this is
actually the FIRST TIME Elisha saw the mob. He would presumably have heard them
scorning as they traversed the woods in the opposite direction to HIS path, and
perhaps as the LARGE BLOCK of people started following him along the path
upwards.
This is NOT a
simple looked word [nbt], but a
saw (with a nuance of understood as if his seeing them was ALSO a
recognition of what they were; cf: When Eve saw (=perceived) that the
fruit was good.).
That look
and see are two separate notions in biblical Hebrew, we can simply note two
passages where the two words are together:
As David came to Ornan, Ornan looked [nbt] and saw [rh] David and went out from the threshing floor and paid homage to David with his face to the ground. (1 Chron 21.21)
In that day you looked [nbt] to the weapons of the House of the Forest, and you saw [rh] that the breaches of the city of David were many. (Is 22.8-9)
Third:
He cursed them, in the name of the Lord. Another active, stand-alone sentence.
Israels Covenant curses
were simply agreed-upon principles of law, in which some act or behavior
(Doing X) is identified as a punishable crime, recognized by all (You are
liable for punishment, if you DO X). When a curse (i.e., principle of law) is
agreed on by citizens (by saying amen and alternatives), it constitutes an oathNOT to do X, and an acceptance of the
legitimacy of punishment for doing X.
ALL Israelites were required
to take such a large-scale oath at the (re-) launching of the covenant at
their entrance to the Land (Deut 27), and
this oath-ceremony witnesses to their agreement with the stated penalties:
The
present ceremony [Deut] is designed to discourage such offenses and to provide
for their punishment by God. An anathema is pronounced on those who commit
them, and the
people express their assent by responding Amen, which constitutes an oath
to avoid these acts. [Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society, 1996), 253.]
Then Moses and the Levitical priests said to all Israel, Keep silence and hear, O Israel: this day you have become the people of the LORD your God. You shall therefore obey the voice of the LORD your God, keeping his commandments and his statutes, which I command you today.
That day Moses charged the people, saying, When you have crossed over the Jordan, these shall stand on Mount Gerizim to bless the people: Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Joseph, and Benjamin. And these shall stand on Mount Ebal for the curse: Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali.
And the Levites shall declare to all the men of Israel in a loud voice:
7 Cursed be the man who makes a carved or cast metal image, an abomination to the LORD, a thing made by the hands of a craftsman, and sets it up in secret. And all the people shall answer and say, Amen.
7
Cursed be anyone who dishonors his father or
his mother. And all the people shall
say, Amen.
7
Cursed be anyone who moves his neighbors
landmark. And all the people shall say,
Amen.
7
Cursed be anyone who misleads a blind man on
the road. And all the people shall say,
Amen.
7
Cursed be anyone who perverts the justice due
to the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow. And all the people shall say, Amen.
7
Cursed be anyone who lies with his fathers
wife, because he has uncovered his fathers nakedness. And all the people shall say, Amen.
7
Cursed be anyone who lies with any kind of
animal. And all the people shall say,
Amen.
7 Cursed be anyone who lies with his sister, whether the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.
7
Cursed be anyone who lies with his
mother-in-law. And all the people shall
say, Amen.
7
Cursed be anyone who strikes down his neighbor
in secret. And all the people shall
say, Amen.
7
Cursed be anyone who takes a bribe to shed
innocent blood. And all the people
shall say, Amen.
7
Cursed be anyone who does not confirm the words of this
law by doing them. And all the people shall say, Amen.
This final
curse concerns the law as a whole rather than focusing on a single issue. In an
all-inclusive manner, a curse is
pronounced on anyone who does not wholeheartedly obey Gods law in every area
of life. Even though one can imagine a persons avoiding the eleven
offenses cited in the previous verses, no one can perfectly and always avoid
committing this offense. This last pronouncement of curse encompasses all
covenantal violations not mentioned in the preceding list. [Michael A.
Grisanti, Deuteronomy, in The
Expositors Bible Commentary: NumbersRuth (Revised Edition) (ed. Tremper
Longman III and David E. Garland; vol. 2; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012),
2721.
The covenant was the historic agreement
sealed centuries earlier at Sinai, in which God promised to supply all the
material and spiritual needs of the infant nation in return for undivided
worship and obedience. The claim of Israel to possess the Promised Land was based
upon the proposing, acceptance and ratification of these conditions (cf. Deut.
29:1 = mt 28:69). Curses are called down on the person who
ignores the covenantal stipulations. Ancient Near Eastern international treaties normally contained a section of benedictions
and maledictions which were expected to occur according to whether or not the
covenant was honoured. Pagan deities were regularly invoked as witnesses to
such clauses, and were consequently respected as the executive agents. [R. K.
Harrison, Jeremiah and Lamentations: An
Introduction and Commentary (vol. 21; Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries;
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1973), 98.]
The Mosaic covenant was similar to the
treaties of the day, which also had pronouncements of pre-judgments (curses)
associated with specific penalties.
Tigay lists
many of these (selected):
The epilogue to
Hammurabis laws includes such curses as,
7
May Enlil incite turmoil against him [that is, against the king who
changes or abolishes Hammurabis laws or effaces the stele on which they are
written] that cannot be suppressed;
7
May Enlil order the destruction of his city, the dispersion of his
people;
7
May Enlil order the scattering of his people;
7
May Ea deprive him of knowledge and understanding and constantly
lead him in the dark;
7
May [the gods] shatter his weapons on the field of battle strike
down his warriors;
7
May [his enemies] carry him away in bonds to a land hostile to him;
7
May Ninkarrak inflict upon him in his body a grievous malady, an
evil disease, a serious injury which never heals, whose nature no physician
knows, which he cannot allay with bandages;
7
May these curses overtake him quickly.
Mesopotamian omens
include:
7
promises as,
o
That cattlefold will become increased and
o
The king will attack and overthrow the land of his enemy
7
warnings such as,
o
An enemy will enjoy the harvest of the land, [SNIP]
o
the members of the family will be taken as booty, and their mother
will mourn over them.
Babylonian boundary
stones contain such curses as,
7
May his corpse be cast aside and may there be no one to bury him,
7
May Sin clothe his whole body with leprosy that never departs,
and
7
May somebody else take over the house he may build.
A
fourteenth-century-B.C.e. Hittite
treaty states,
7
If you obey these words, may these gods graciously protect you,
your wife, your sons, grandsons, your lands, your cities, your threshing
places, your vineyards, your pastures, your cows, your sheep, and all of your
possessions, and may you see good prosperity and live to old age.
7
If you violate these words may these oaths destroy you, your wife,
your sons, your lands, your cities, your vineyards, your threshing places, your
pastures, your cows, your sheep, and all of your possessions, and may they
destroy your progeny from the earth.
The Vassal Treaties
of Esarhaddon contain the following warnings:
7
Keep this treaty lest you deliver your land to destruction, your
people to be deported;
7
May Anu rain upon all your houses disease, exhaustion, diʾu-disease, sleeplessness,
worries, ill health;
7
May Sin clothe you in leprosy ;
7
May Shamash [the sun god], the light of heaven and earth, not give
you an accurate, reliable oracle; may he take away your vision and may you walk
about in darkness!
7
May Ninurta fell you with his fierce arrow, and fill the plain with
your corpses, give your flesh to eagles and vultures to feed upon;
7
May Venus let your wives lie in the embrace of your enemy before
your very eyes, may your sons not take over your house, may a foreign enemy
divide your possessions;
7
May locusts, which diminish the [produce of] the land, [devour] your
crops;
7
Mother shall [bar the door to] her daughter, may you eat in your
hunger the flesh of your children, may one man eat the others flesh through
want and famine;
7
May Ishtar, lady of battle, break your bow in a heavy battle, tie
your arms, and have you crouch at the feet of your enemy;
7
May Nergal [god of fever and pestilence] extinguish your life with
his merciless dagger, may he plant carnage and pestilence among you;
7
so may you never rest nor sleep.
An Aramean monument contains the curse,
7
May he sow but let him not reap, may he sow a thousand [measures] but
get one [measure] in return.
[Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society, 1996), 495496.
There were other oath/curse arrangements in the nation, often very specific and ad hoc.
Oaths of this type are used in the Bible to
impose certain duties on people or to restrain them from performing certain
acts. For example, the other tribes swore, Cursed be anyone who gives a
wife to Benjamin after the tribe of Benjamin provoked a civil war (Judg.
21:18), and Saul declared, Cursed be the man who eats any food before night
falls and I take revenge on my enemies, making his army swear to fast all day
during a battle (1 Sam. 14:24). Later, Nehemiah censured the nobles who
foreclosed on their fellow Jews and made them swear to return their property;
shaking out part of his garment, he
said, So may God shake free of his household and property any man who fails to
keep this promise, and the nobles responded Amen
(Neh. 5:13). In each case the oath effectively
restrained all who knew of it from violating it; clearly, people feared the
dire punishment the oath called for (see Comment to v. 15). Since punishment is
handed over to God, such oaths are particularly well suited for discouraging
acts whose would-be perpetrators might think they could escape detection or
prosecution. [Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy
(The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996),
253.]
Curses were
non-discriminatory. No one was exempt, even the speaker.
If I said, All who eat biscotti are guilty of a
punishable crime, then that would apply to me if I ate biscotti.
In a covenant community
context (like Israel under YHWH and most national/international ANE treaties),
everyone man, woman, and child were bound to these principles, whether they
personally knew them, agreed to them, disliked them, or were not even BORN yet.
Everyone was under the covenant, so rival
religious personnel and groups (e.g. false prophets, curses-for-hire women,
priests of Baal) were both EXCLUDED from the blessings of protection, and ALREADY
under the curse status. In other words, they were ALREADY guilty (as covenant
parties), so it was up to YHWH (and His proxies the prophets, priests,
and kings) as to WHEN and IF punishment would fall.
The fact that all Israel
and all Judah EVEN SURVIVED the
first year or two in the Land (with all their rampant non-compliance that later
prophets pointed out to them REPEATEDLY), shows a very important principle of governance:
YHWH was long-suffering, not taking pleasure in the death of the wicked but
giving them time and opportunity to LISTEN TO HIS PROPHETS as they tried
to call them back.
Butunder the terms they all
agreed toHe had every right to
visit the penalties of the covenant on ANY OF THEM at ANY TIME at ANY LEVEL of
severity and duration.
Historically, we know that He
only did this in the rarest of occasions, when said occasions were (1) public
and (2) had the potential to subvert His efforts to call them back. [The
breach against Uzzah is a good example of this, 2 Sam 6, see https://www.Christian-thinktank.com/gutripper.html#ark.]
But He didnt kill all the
pagan priests in either Judah or Israel en
masse. He DID expect, however, the community ITSELF to do that when
critically needed. It was THEIR JOB to visit capital punishment upon saboteurs
(e.g. false prophets, the clergy of Baal in 1 Kings 18).
This was WELL KNOWN and was
even a tool of abuse.
So she [Jezebel] wrote letters in Ahabs name and sealed them with his seal, and she sent the letters to the elders and the leaders who lived with Naboth in his city. And she wrote in the letters, Proclaim a fast, and set Naboth at the head of the people. And set two worthless men opposite him, and let them bring a charge against him, saying, You have cursed God and the king. Then take him out and stone him to death. And the men of his city, the elders and the leaders who lived in his city, did as Jezebel had sent word to them. [1 Kings 21]
But cursing by an individual
was often 80% a statement of disapproval, but in using the word for curse,
they were implicitly
(1) asking YHWH to vindicate
their moral position and/or legal right; and to
(2) demonstrate this by
visiting some obvious punishment upon the object of their cursing. [Vindication
of the righteous / innocent is a frequent request in the Psalms, obviously.]
This, of course, could be
hit-or-miss, since our notions of who is in the right are often biased toward
self
But when a proxy messenger
of YHWH decided that a certain
situation warranted EVOKING THE PENALTY CLAUSE on select individual, then it
was done In the name of the Lord not in their own name.
Priests and Kings (as proxies) had
the authority to EVOKE THE BLESSING CLAUSES, by virtual of their officeand
they did explicitly stating their
authority to do, as in the Name of the Lord (e.g. as representing Him and
acting with His approval):
|
Priest |
Deuteronomy
18:5 |
For the Lord
your God has chosen him out of all your tribes to stand and minister in the
name of the Lord, him and his sons for all time. |
|
Priest |
Deuteronomy
18:7 |
And
ministers in the name of the Lord his God, like all his fellow Levites who
stand to minister there before the Lord, |
|
Priest |
Deuteronomy
21:5 |
Then the
priests, the sons of Levi, shall come forward, for the Lord your God has
chosen them to minister to him and to bless in the name of the Lord, and by
their word every dispute and every assault shall be settled. |
|
Prophet |
Deuteronomy
18:22 |
When a
prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or
come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has
spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him. |
|
Prophet |
1 Kings
18:32 |
And with the
stones he built an altar in the name of the Lord. And he made a trench about
the altar, as great as would contain two seahs of seed. |
|
Prophet |
1 Kings
22:16; 2 Chronicles 18:15 |
But the king
said to him, How many times shall I make you swear that you speak to me
nothing but the truth in the name of the Lord? |
|
Prophet |
1 Chronicles
21:19 |
So David
went up at Gads word, which he had spoken in the name of the Lord. |
|
Prophet |
2 Chronicles
33:18 |
Now the rest
of the acts of Manasseh, and his prayer to his God, and the words of the
seers who spoke to him in the name of the Lord, the God of Israel, behold,
they are in the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel. |
|
Prophet |
Jeremiah
26:16 |
Then the
officials and all the people said to the priests and the prophets, This man
does not deserve the sentence of death, for he has spoken to us in the name
of the Lord our God. |
|
Prophet |
Jeremiah
26:20 |
There was
another man who prophesied in the name of the Lord, Uriah the son of Shemaiah
from Kiriath-jearim. He prophesied against this city and against this land in
words like those of Jeremiah. |
|
Prophet
(false) |
Zechariah
13:3 |
And if
anyone again prophesies, his father and mother who bore him will say to him,
You shall not live, for you speak lies in the name of the Lord. And his
father and mother who bore him shall pierce him through when he prophesies. |
|
Royalty |
1 Samuel
20:42 |
Then
Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, because we have sworn both of us in the
name of the Lord, saying, The Lord shall be between me and you, and between
my offspring and your offspring, forever. And he rose and departed,
and Jonathan went into the city. |
|
Royalty |
2 Samuel
6:18; 1 Chronicles 16:2 |
And when
David had finished offering the burnt offerings and the peace offerings, he
blessed the people in the name of the Lord of hosts |
|
Royalty |
Psalm
118:10-12 (3x) |
All nations
surrounded me; in the name of the Lord I cut them off! |
|
Royalty (military) |
1 Samuel
17:45 |
Then David
said to the Philistine, You come to me with a sword and with a spear and
with a javelin, but I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God
of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. |
|
Royalty Messianic King |
Psalm 118:26 |
Blessed is
he who comes in the name of the Lord! We bless you from the house of the
Lord. |
So, when Elisha finally
curses the mob, it is done:
7
as an authorized agent of YHWH,
7
implementing the Law/treaty,
7
in a situation deemed BOTH
accurate,
7
AND with large-range
implications if left UNDONE,
7
AND with people who may be past their point of no return in
their rejections (SCORN!!) of the covenant (i.e., patience-time is over, no
meaningful chance of reversal/reformation but I suspect this is NOT the case,
as I will comment on toward the end).
But we do not know WHAT THE
CONTENT WAS that E saidthe text just says he cursed them. We dont know if
he said let loose the bears, some generic neutralize the damage, or some
pre-emptive request like do whatever it takes to ensure that their actions
dont become a role model to the rest of the citizens of Bethel.
[We did not know the content
of the SCORN action either.]
Andas Irwin points outwhat
E did was in complete alignment with and was consistent with all the other prophets:
what we witness Elisha undertaking in 2 Kings 2 is what we see the prophets doing in their oracles throughout prophetic literaturepronouncing covenant curses. What makes the action of Elisha stand out so dramatically is the fact that his proclamation is recorded in narrative and is immediately realised whereas the curses of prophetic literature are embedded in literary oracles with fulfilment typically only a future possibility. In both cases, however, it should be observed that it is Yahweh who brings the curse to pass. [Brian P. Irwin, The Curious Incident of the Boys and the Bears: 2 Kings 2 and the Prophetic Authority of Elisha, Tyndale Bulletin 67, no. 1 (2016): 2829.]
And covenant curses were
principles with conditional components. The statement If a person does X, then let him be under
the curse penalty is a conditional statement --- And if you did NOT
do X, and a messenger evoked the curse-request, then you wouldnt be affected by that.
Curses do not usually take effect except where they are deserved. This curse must spring in part from the prophecies of judgment spoken against Jeroboam, Ahab and other kings. Because of their ungodly lives, the Lord was bringing disaster on the lives of those living in the land, including these youth, who were mauled by bears (2:24b). [Tokunboh Adeyemo, Africa Bible Commentary (Nairobi, Kenya; Grand Rapids, MI: WordAlive Publishers; Zondervan, 2006), 445.]
That finishes the 3 actions of Elisha:
1. He turned around.
2. He saw them.
3. He cursed them in the name
of the Lord.
.
Then we have 2 actions by the
she-bears:
7
Two she-bears come out (ts same word as the mob coming
out of the city) of the woods/forest
7
They tear (bq) 42 [Y], out of them (i.e. the group)
We have already
shown how dangerous forests were due to wild animals, and how the covenant
blessings and cursing invoked the realities of harmful beasts.
Here we need
to drill down on the bears and their behavior in this passage.
First of all, these are brown bears.
The Syrian bear, sometimes named as a
distinct species, Ursus Syriacus, is
better to be regarded as merely a local variety of the European and Asiatic brown bear, Ursus
arctos. The figurative references to the bear take account of its ferocious
nature, especially in the case of the bear robbed of her whelps (2 S. 17:8;
Prov. 17:12; Hos. 13:8). Her transformation in the messianic age is
envisaged in Isa. 11:7. [A. E. Day, Bear, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, The International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia, Revised (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 19791988), 441442.]
The
Palestinian bear is a Syrian version of the brown bear (Ursus
arctos syriacus). It can grow to a height of 6 feet and may weigh as much
as 500 pounds. .... They are omnivorous (eating any kind of food); they subsist
largely on vegetation, fruits, insects,
and fish. Bears are usually peaceful and inoffensive, but if they
think they must defend themselves (Lam 3:10) or their young (2 Sm
17:8; Prv 17:12; Hos 13:8) they may be formidable and dangerous adversaries.
David boasted of his role as a bear-killer (1 Sm 17:3437). Since a blow
from a bears paw can be fatal, Davids courage and strength as a young
shepherd in running after a bear and wrenching one of his fathers sheep from
its jaws were noteworthy. In biblical times bears seem to have roamed all
over Palestine. Today they are found only in the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon
mountains, and even there they are rare. [Walter A. Elwell and Barry J.
Beitzel, Animals, Baker Encyclopedia of
the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 95.]
From various specialist websites (any paraphrases and summaries by me):
7 Despite their reputation, most brown bears are not highly carnivorous, as they derive up to 90% of their dietary food energy from vegetable matter. They often feed on a variety of plant life, including berries, grasses, flowers, acorns and pine cones, as well as fungi such as mushrooms. Among all bears, brown bears are uniquely equipped to dig for tough foods such as roots, bulbs and shoots. They use their long, strong claws to dig out earth to reach the roots and their powerful jaws to bite through them.
7 Almost all bear attacks result from the human surprising the bear. Suddenly appearing before a bear can startle the bear into an instinctive act of aggression.
7 Another dangerous situation that leads to bear attacks occurs when a bear perceives a threat to their baby cubs. Female bears, especially Brown Bears, are very protective of their young.
7 Bears all alone will typically retreat but a bear protecting her cubs is more likely to attack.
7 Brown Bears do not defend a territory.
7 Females with cubs are willing to challenge even an alpha male
7 No territory defense, but "personal space" vigorously defended by prompt attack
7 Although brown bears have a reputation as fierce carnivores, they actually obtain as much as 90% of their calories from vegetation. Bears are omnivorous and naturally curious about eating nearly any creature. Their preferred food is anything abundant and easy to obtain, which varies according to the season. Their diet includes grass, berries, roots, carrion, meat, fish, insects, nuts, flowers, fungi, moss, and even pine cones.
7 Adult bears tend to be solitary, except for females with cubs or gatherings at fishing spots
7 Unpredictable and often impulsive, brown bears have been consistently characterized as dangerous. The danger of attack, however, is greatly exaggerated. Brown bears typically avoid human contact whenever possible. Their reputation as livestock predators is also inflated and has led to the persecution of target populations.
Secondly, the behavior of the bears is very
revealing they were provoked and/or threatened by the mob moving through the
forest.
The data we
have (some mentioned above) on brown bear behaviors strongly suggests that they
AVOID HUMAN CONTACT. They can smell us (up to 5 miles away!) and have good
hearing, and they ROUTINELY take evasive action.
The cases
where they DO NOT do so are these:
1. They were somehow surprised by
some human action (shows up in National Parks, but not in our situation)
2. They feel like their food
sources are at risk, in times of scarcity (both males and females).
3. They feel like the welfare
of their cubs are threatened (she-bears only), either by direct physical signs
of aggression, or by potential loss of food sources due to other creatures.
With #3 being
our most likely scenario, we have to note that the text makes the point of it
being female bears, and that they came out of the woods to confront the mob
(who is currently on the road (with some probable spillover into the
woods).
In normal
cub protection mode, they would not stray too far from the den, so this attack
range must be close to home for the two. With litter sizes being in the 1-3
range, and up to 6 cubs, the presence of a loud, chanting, mob of low-level
employee humans crashing through the woods and/or shouting from the road, could
seriously be considered a threatas the mob got close and/or passed by
especially.
If the brown
bear had been alone, it would have fled the noisenot being territorial
and therefore needing to defend a territory. But with cubs, the situation is
OPPOSITE.
[Nota Bene: The motivation of the bears
conjectured above is NOT AT ALL necessary to make this story be more
understandable. The lion that attacked the disobedient man of God of 1 Kings
13 probably was not threatened, was obviously not hungry, and was at peaceful
coexistence with the donkey. The only reason I explore this aspect here is
because the text is explicit in describing the bears as female. When
something is specified like this in the biblical text, the reader should ALWAYS
be asking why is this detail included.]
And so, the large mob show of force may be part of
its undoing
Then, in 24c,
we are told that they torefrom out of the them (min-hem) -- 42 [Y].
We naturally
interpret this (in context) as being the result of the curse and that YWHW
allowed and/or facilitated the natural protective instincts of the bears to
take action to defend their dens/cubs. So, it would be reasonable to assign
direct causation to YHWH (So, YHWH sent 2 she-bears to implement a PENALTY
CLAUSE of the covenant against violators.)
The most
important thing to note here is what the text
does NOT say they did.
We only
have 3 other cases in narrative where YHWH (apparently) sends beasts (lions, since they were
more populousand more aggressive!), as some kind of judgment for disobedience
(two of which are against His workers):
I Kings 13
Thus says the LORD, Because you have disobeyed the word of the LORD and have not kept the command that the LORD your God commanded you your body shall not come to the tomb of your fathers. And as he went away a lion met him on the road and killed [mwt] him. And his body was thrown in the road, and the donkey stood beside it; the lion also stood beside the body. And they came and told it in the city where the old prophet lived. And when the prophet who had brought him back from the way heard of it, he said, It is the man of God who disobeyed the word of the LORD; therefore the LORD has given him to the lion, which has torn [sbr] him and killed [mwt] him, according to the word that the LORD spoke to him
7 Sbr means shatter, smash, break into pieces (but not kill)
7 Mwt is the normal word for kill
Notice though that it never says that YHWH directly sent the Lion, although the connection is clear. And the attack is while traveling on the road. And the text is clear and explicit in using the word kill. We are NOT left to wonder whether the tearing was fatal or not.
1 Kings 20
And a certain man of the sons of the prophets said to his fellow at the command of the LORD, Strike me [nkh], please. But the man refused to strike [nkh] him. Then he said to him, Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, behold, as soon as you have gone from me, a lion shall strike [nkh] you down. And as soon as he had departed from him, a lion met him and struck [nkh] him down.
Nkh has a range from a
non-fatal strike (like the request in the passage) to the be struck dead
level.
7
strike, smite, strike dead, hit, injure
o Non-fatal examples: Moses striking the water
and the dust
o More severe: Angels striking with
blindness, hail striking down vegetation
o Fatal: Moses striking the
Egyptian, the men of Ai
Commentators almost
universally understand there to be a play on words here, with the second case
(the Lion) referring to an escalated NKH -- striking dead. [When a lion strikes you, you normally die]
Once again, notice that it never says that YHWH directly sent the Lion, although the connection is again clear. And the attack is while departing (presumably upon a road).
2 Kings 17
And at the beginning of their dwelling there, they did not fear the LORD. Therefore the LORD sent lions among them, which killed [hrg] some of them. So the king of Assyria was told, The nations that you have carried away and placed in the cities of Samaria do not know the law of the god of the land. Therefore he has sent lions among them, and behold, they are killing [mwt] them, because they do not know the law of the god of the land.
7 hrg means slay, kill, slaughter
7 Mwt is the normal word for kill
Here we have two explicit kill words.
These are the only ACTUAL cases of employment of the wild beast penalty that show up in HISTORY. Prophetic warnings are REPLETE with such descriptions and warnings, though!
The actual cases will have to have higher priority in informing our exegesis, than will poetic and prophetic passages (which often have hyperbolic elements in them).
Now, lets look at our verb bq
what does it normally MEAN?
Here are words given in the lexicons for the various stems/etc.:
7 Split, cleave, hatch, force a breach (Logos)
7 Split, cleave, force a breach, break forth, rip up, tear to pieces, burse, be ripped up [HALOT]
7 Cleave, break open or through [BDB]
7 To cleave asunder, to divide, to cleave into [Gesenius, GHCLOT]
7 Split, hatch, force breach, break forth, pull to pieces [Concise HALOT, CHALOT]
7 Divide, be divided, split, be burst open, split open, be cracked [Dictionary of Biblical Languages, DBL Hebrew]
7 Cleave, rend, break, rip, open [Strongs Concise; CDWGTHB]
7 Split [Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, DCH]
One can see
that it mainly is a laceration worda ripping, a tearing, a breaking
the skin, or a splitting.
It occurs 51 times in its various forms in the
Hebrew bible.
Almost always it clearly refers to a splitting something from the outside
(e.g. chopping wood, splitting the Red/Reed Sea, striking the Rock that was
Christ, breaching city walls) or something splitting from the inside out
(e.g. eggs hatching; YHWHs store house of stormy wind; great deeps for Noahs
flood; earth fissures in Numbers 16:31; cloth that was then mended).
Here is a
chart of those uses and how each refers to some type of splitting.
In itself, it
does not have any meaning of to kill.
[If it did,
would bq-ing turn the Red Sea
into the Dead Sea? smile]
However, when
it is done on something vulnerable, it obviously can result in
horror and death. It is the only word used for ripping pregnant women up as
barbaric acts of war (in the 4 passages in which this is mentioned)probably
because the act itself is one of splitting someones torso open.
NEXT: What do large predators DO? The next step is to look at
all/most of the passages that have acts or threats of large predators
mentioned/used, and see how many of them use our word and use it as a kill
word.
Heres a
canonical-order list of most such passages, using terminology of lions, bears,
wolves, leopards, and harmful beasts (of the field). When a passage has
multiple words, the entry gets one line per word.
We then
analyze each word and classify it into one of 4 categories:
1. Explicit kill wordregardless of means.
2. Death/killing is entailed in the word e.g. eating
something, carrying off a carcass to the den.
3. Physical Contact this is non-lethal damage
done, from actual bodily contact (e.g. tear, lacerate, strike). Death MAY
result, but the core meaning of the word is one of MEANS and type of contact.
4. Other/General these are words of threat
/ danger, but are more abstract or general (e.g. devastate, attack).
We then sort
by VERB (to be able to assess frequency in the next step):
And then we
compute FREQUENCY of the words and rank by this:
Looking at
this, we can note the following:
7
There are 3 explicit KILL words [4 passages] that could have been
used to indicate that the bears KILLED their victims2 of which WERE USED
in other cases.
7
Two of the 3 entailment words wouldnt make sense here. Two of them
are food words, and had the bears been just wanting food for themselves
and/or their cubs, they would have stopped at 3 or 4 bodies and carried them
back to the den. Most of 42 cadavers would become inedible within a day or two
or three.
7
The 3rd entailment word does not fit either, because the
object of the verb is NOT the victim, but the parent.
7
In the PHYSICAL CONTACT category, our word represents 2 of 18 cases
(11%) and 1 of 8 Hebrew words (12.5%).
7
Combining the KILL and PHYSICAL CONTACT categories into an explicit
damage category gives us 11 words and 23 passages.
7
Our word would represent 9.1% of the explicit damage words and 8.7%
of the explicit damage mentions.
Implications:
1. Our word is not used to
indicate or even suggest killing.
2. Our word would best be
understood to refer to the lacerations that a bear claw would make (tearing
the skin) but not tear UP (trp) or tear APART (psch).
3. When you combine this with
the fact that these 2 bears chased down and wounded 42 people between
themin the small amount of time this would have takenyou get the impression
that these wounds are made very quickly, but not too deeply nor more than one
per victim.
If the bears
are on different sides of the road, then the fleeing people might try to
stay on the path inside of the woods. But this is of no helpbears can run
up to 40mph, much faster than people. But it might be more likely that they
attempt an initial escape into the woodsin the opposite direction to the
bears then-current path of destruction.
In any case, some
of the mob are not affected by the bears. The text says 42 FROM THEM, so
some indeterminate number got away unscathed but with a PERMANENTLY ALTERED
view of YHWH and ELISHA, and a story to tell others that would be a wake-up
call to others in Bethel and beyond.
All of the
data above suggests that the 42 people were NOT killed, but wounded
and forever marked (mentally AND scar-wise?) as a walking piece
of evidence to the reality and importance of the Covenant. (Say, how did you
get that big scar?... )
When we zoom
out a little here now, and look at this ONLY from the framework of covenant obligations,
something amazing (but not surprising to those who know and live in grace)
appears.
Irwin gives a cogent and
deep understanding of this event:
Returning
to our passage, the recognition that Elisha is pronouncing a covenant curse helps us understand that this incident is not
just random violence or solely a statement that one must show respect for the prophet.
The episode goes beyond the latter to say that if you disregard or are
dismissive of the prophet of Yahweh, then you will eventually begin to
experience the curses of the covenant. The covenant curse of wild animals
that Elisha pronounces, therefore, is in itself a prophetic warninga single, localised event that warns the
people of Bethel of worse to come if it persists in its disobedience.
[Brian P. Irwin, The Curious Incident of the Boys and the Bears: 2 Kings 2 and
the Prophetic Authority of Elisha, Tyndale Bulletin 67, no. 1 (2016): 2829.]
And elsewhere:
"The savagery of wild animals was brutal enough, but it was mild compared to the legendary cruelty of the Assyrians who would appear to complete God's judgment in 722 BC. The disastrous fall of Samaria would have been avoided had the people repented after the bear attack and the increasingly sever divine judgments that followed it. But instead of turning back to God, Israel, as would Judah in a later day, 'mocked God's messengers, despised his words and scoffed at his prophets until the wrath of the LORD was aroused against his people and there was no remedy' (2 Chron 36:16)." [HSOBX]
Although I
didnt see it mentioned in the article (or anywhere actually), we could point
out that the switch from [N] at first, to the [Y] at
the end would support his point that this was to be understood as
offspring and children (in the DNA sense, not AGE-wise).
Pointing out
that the apparent implementation of the covenant curse was to GENETIC OFFSPRING
(our [Y])
might be another way the author of the passage was trying to get a reader to
SEE THOSE REALITIES.
And yet something is missing
The covenant
curse was for the DEATH of the rebellious, scorning, and non-compliant
subjects.
It was for
BEREAVEMENT not WOUNDING.
When YHWHs own agents disobeyed the word of
the LORD, they were KILLED. When YHWHs own agents broke the covenant rules THEMSELVES, they experienced
the curse EXACTLY and FULLY.
For example,
when David violated two VERY deep tenets of the law in the murder of Uriah and
the coveting a neighbors wife Bathsheba (and this was known publicly soon
afterwards), the death of the infant son was tied explicitly to
scorn (even a lighter word than the one in OUR passage):
And Nathan said to David,
The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die. Nevertheless, because
by this deed you have utterly scorned the LORD, the child who is born to
you shall die. [2 Samuel 12:13ff]
Although this
did not involve animals, the wording of the LEV/DEUT curses referred to
bereavementwhich was manifested here in a different way.
But why not here?
Irwins
insight was that this event (implementation of an instance of a covenant curse)
was itself a prophetic warning to the OTHER PEOPLE in Bethelso they could
AVOID a similar fate or worse. This would in itself be an overture of
grace and patience.
The northern
kingdom was not known for responding to these consistent outreaches:
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 36:15-16]
Even the
beautiful overture of Hezekiah to the conquered north for a national Passover
was met with the stubborn, lifeless, and contemptible ethics of the majority:
So the couriers went from city to city through the country of Ephraim and Manasseh, and as far as Zebulun, but they laughed them to scorn and mocked them. However, some men of Asher, of Manasseh, and of Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem. [2 Chron 30:10ff]
And the group
in our passage manifests this dangerous and ultimately destruction perspective:
Elisha,
having traveled from Jericho to Bethel, is greeted by a jeering group of youths
who ridicule him (2:2325). These youths express the general view and
attitude of the older generation to the prophets of the Lord. [Gerard Van
Groningen, 1-2 Kings, in Evangelical
Commentary on the Bible (vol. 3; Baker reference library; Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Book House, 1995), 3252.]
But in spite
of this being absolutely true, we can still add another nuance to the
goodness inherent in the warning
The events of
this episode DO communicate the urgency and seriousness of YHWHs claims and
covenant, but the fact that these cultic underlings who have largely been
FORCED into this disastrous situation by their elite bosses are COMPLETELY SPARED
is amazing (but perhaps predictable to those of us who know and live in grace).
How or why
there were 42 WOUNDED but no reports of any DEATHS? The biblical texts do not shy away from being
very candid about such all of them were killed, except a few who fled.
Why doesnt it say and killed 20 of them
wouldnt that shock as well as 42 wounded?
But wounds can
be recovered from, and learned fromby all. But with death, only the living can
learn.
Whats more, the violence in this event would have
COMPLETELY CHANGED these wounded people! If they had no belief in YHWH or
belief in the covenant blessings/cursing GOING INTO THIS EVENT, you can BET
their worldview changed immediately! A painful lesson for some (but non-fatal),
and less so for the ones the bears didnt get to, but NONE OF THEM would
be able to go back to the old belief system after this.
There is
another odd mercy in here.
I have seen in
my life, and I have read in Scripture over and over, that it is the poor in
this world who become rich in faith. The elite so often tend to harden their
minds and their vision to not even HEAR messages of Gods love and the reality
of Gods ethics-based judgement.
But
underlings and the less-honored and less privileged seem to be able to see
reality better (after a few crises and such smile). Not many wise, not many
noble
Andfor good
or illthe elite have layers of arrogance too This lower-level employees
(although a member of the better than commoners elite, so that they were not
chained to field labor 18 hours a day) would have been looked down on by the
upper echelon. And they would have known that too
And if and
when these people DO see, and are embraced by the living truth, their story and
their witness is too often discounted and marginalized by their bosses and superiors.
So, to import
some New Testament terminology onto this event (smile): If anybody got saved
from this event, it would have been the folks who encountered the bears!
Before I
mention the MAJOR OMISSION in this discussion (smile), which will have to
developed later, lets do a quick look
at structure (loved by all the Hebrew authors back then delightfully so).
We will add in relevant background elements as implied as warranted.
Heres a small
image of the structure, with sequence going from top to bottom, in the popular
chiastic structure, where the text does stair-steps down and then MATCHING
stair-steps up.
Implied
background elements are included, providing necessary context for the textual
elements.
The top line is the start of a
ministry journey by Elisha, and the bottom
one is its continuation. AFTER the intervening events.
The top half
of the structure consists of the actions of the RIVAL CULTIC PERSONS, as
they attempt to interfere with the progress of YHWHs covenant rule/outreach.
The ministry
journey is INTERRUPTED by this INITIATIVE (Pivot
Point), and then the bottom half of the structure consists of actions by
YHWH, His messenger, and His workers.
When we
thematically organize and label the parts, we get this diagram, with the LABEL
BLOCKS on the left, lining up with their textual or implied details on the
right:
The blocks on
the left identify the importance of the details on the right, in increasing
level of aggregation as they move to the left.
The chiastic
structure is maintained in the text and colors of the aggregation blocks (but
without the indentation).
This last
image is labeled with numbers, to which the remarks below it refer:
The numbers
occur in pairs, one in the top section (A+B), and a matching one in the bottom
section (A + B). This list describes the elements corresponding to the number
of the item in the list.
1. First is the narrative
framing pair, of Elishas ministry journey from Jericho through Bethel to
Samaria,
2. In B, this represents the
backdrop theology of the rival cult / cult leadership. They already exist in
conflict with YHWHs covenant rule over the Northern Kingdom, and they either
DENY the reality of the covenants legitimacy and of its power to bless/curse.
Triggered by the knowledge of Elijahs disappearance and replacement by his
assistant, they try to take advantage of the disappearance of Elijah and the
presumed lacuna in PROVEN leadership. They decide to send a very large mob of
their underlings (lowest-level employees) to attempt to delay/deter any
consequences of their non-compliance with the covenant. This must IMPLY a
CONSENSUS of elite managers, to be able to spare such a large contingent of
employees (a large mob) at the same time. In the matching row in B, the
doubted covenant force is DEMONSTRATED and POWERFULLY AFFIRMED by the actions
of 2 of YHWHs underlings (the bears) who wound a large mob (42).
3. In B, the rival cultic
authority acts upon the decision, and DISPATCHES the subordinates with
the purpose of trying to delay, deter, and/or deny the consequences of their
covenant non-compliance. The matching row in B identifies the DISPATCHING of
the bears to demonstrate the consequences of non-compliance.
4. The top half of B3 and B3
were implied steps, as was B2. This sub-row represents explicit data in the
text. The same word is used for the matching actions of the subordinates ([Qa]
+ [N])
and the bears-- (come out of, yts). And the origins of the
movements are described with the same 3 Hebrew radicals, with one letter
transposed. The connection between the two would be obvious to a native reader.
5. In B, this represents the attempts
of the subordinates to accomplish their assignment, first in abject and
blatant rejection of ALL authority but their own (the SCORN word), and then
in a fairly infantile taunting (SAY). In B, the matching reverse elements are
SAW and CURSE.
6. In B, this is the MAJOR
provocation the SCORN word without any specific content given for it. in
B, the MAJOR, matching response the CURSE word without any specific
content, other than its connection to the Divine authority who is about to get
involved. There is a slight alliteration between the scorn word (qeles)
and the curse word (qelel).
7. This has the MINOR
provocation in B (the SAID action) and the B match has the SAW action.
8. This is the PIVOT point of
the chiasm, and couples the physical turning of Elisha with the literary
turning of the chiasm. This is the pivot point in that the forward ministry
journey is NOW INTERRUPTED by an urgent localized need. The messenger is
now aware of violations of covenant law, violations of international
messenger protocols, and violation of deeply rooted community values,
and must decide what type of response is warranted (and which would be
sanctioned by the actual ROYALTY of that kingdom, had they been present).
[The 3 images
can be accessed as a PDF here.]
Note that the
IMPLIED elements above would have been part of the day-to-day beliefs of this
group/time, and/or required for the events to have happened in this way.
[There is a higher
level 2 element chiasm in which our narrative is one half.
Irwin notes that both this
event and the immediately prior episode in Jericho of E healing the waters have
bereavement as a centerpiece that specific covenant curse we have been
talking about:
The connection
between these two brief vignettes is further confirmed by the fact that each shares an element of the covenant
curse from Leviticus 26:22. In Leviticus, the curse of wild animals (חַיַּת
הַשָּׂדֶה) taking over
leaves Israel bereaved (וְשִׁכְּלָה). In the episode of
the tainted water, the obedience of the people of Jericho to the word of the
prophet brings an end to their
bereavement (וּמְשַׁכָּלֶת
לֹא־יִהְיֶה
מִשָּׁם עוֹד מָוֶת) (2 Kgs 2:21). In
the case of the attack on the children of Bethel, animals that fall within the
category of חַיַּת
הַשָּׂדֶה emerge to fulfil the
curse spoken by the prophet and bereave the parents of Bethel of their
children. In short, the two episodes are
connected in that each includes a portion
of the curse from Leviticus 26:22. In the first episode, obedience to
prophetic authority ends
bereavement; in the second episode disrespect for the same authority causes bereavement. The juxtaposition of
Jericho and Bethel shows that the state of curse need not be permanent. By
their positive response to the prophetic word, the people of Jericho are able
to shed the mantle of divine curse. By contrast, the way in which the people of
Bethel continue to reject and ridicule the prophet means that the curse remains
with them and becomes even more severe. [Brian P. Irwin, The Curious Incident of the Boys and the Bears: 2
Kings 2 and the Prophetic Authority of Elisha, Tyndale Bulletin 67, no. 1 (2016):
2829.]
So, our
understanding of the passage fits into a standard Hebrew literary form, and
this encourages us that our understanding may be correct.
_______________________________________
Minor
Excursus: What if the city of origin of the mob was NOT BETHEL but rather
JERICHO?
It has bothered me in this analysis that the reference to the mob coming out of the city clashes a good bit with the cursing behind him visual.
At the outset we should recognize that our passage is an interruption in the travel description (as noted in the discussion of the chiastic structure above). It is a story INSIDE verses 23a and 25. The sequence would be this:
7 Segment 1: Verse 23a says And he went up from there to Bethel (sounding like he had completed that segment of the journey)
7 Segment 2: [implied traversing the city Bethel itself, from one edge to the other]
7 Segment 3: Verse 25a says And he went on from there to Mount Carmel
7 Segment 4: Verse 25b says and from there he returned to Samaria.
Our story is an interlude that occurs during those travels, with the specific segment being identified by while he was going up on the way. The only segment that has a going UP is segment 1. All segments except the implied #2 have an on the way (derek) [That is the general word for roads/paths/mostly small not inner city streets.]
Logically, it would be: E went up to B. Butincidentallywhile he in transit, this X event happened. Butback to the storyHe then went on to Mount Carmel etc).
The alternatives which I cannot find discussed--and probably for a good reason of lexical/literary features I have missed (smile) might be these:
One:
The mob/scorn
episode is a parenthetical insertion inside a continuous narrative, and
takes place at the beginning of SEGMENT 3.
The continuous
narrative consists of the text in BOLD / RED, which would be rearranged:
He went up from there [ilh + min = depart] to Bethel, and while he was going up [ilh] on the way [derek], some small boys came out [yts] of the city [min + yir = from the city] and jeered at him, saying, Go up [ilh], you baldhead! Go up [ilh], you baldhead! 24 And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. And two she-bears came out [yts] of the woods [min + yaar = from the forest/thicket and tore forty-two of the boys. 25 From there he went [hlk = walk] on to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria.
Which rearranged would be:
He went up from there [ilh + min = depart] to Bethel. 25 From there he went [hlk = walk] on to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria. and while he was going up [ilh] on the way [derek], some small boys came out [yts] of the city [min + yir = from the city] and jeered at him, saying, Go up [ilh], you baldhead! Go up [ilh], you baldhead! 24 And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. And two she-bears came out [yts] of the woods [min + yaar = from the forest/thicket and tore forty-two of the boys.
This would allow the mob to come out of the city AFTER Elisha had traversed and emerged from the city, and was on the third segment of the trip (Bethel to Carmel. This makes much better sense of the looking behind, but would require: (1) the go up taunt to refer to something OTHER THAN the incline that Elisha would still have ahead of him, if he were still on the first segment; and (2) require the change of locomotion word from ilh (segment 1) to hlk (segment 2) to be of no consequence. [Biblical writers rarely do that! they layer nuance upon nuance, in the most intriguing and powerful ways.]
TWO:
A second alternative and no real justification is given for itis that in AYBC. They translate the text as everyone else does, but gives this as the explanation in the Comment:
On his way through Beth-el, Elisha is accosted by a group of jeering urchinsa scene often repeated even today in the streets and markets of the Middle East to the discomfort of the unwary traveler. These he drives off with a curse, potent enough to cut down forty-two of their number. [Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (vol. 11; Anchor Yale Bible; New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 39.]
This has the event occurring in the implied Segment 2, and has the same difficulties as the first one (i.e. making going up into going through and making go up, baldy into keep going, baldywithout the up) and adds the difficulty of why the phrase on the road/derek is in there. That looks like it is to draw our attention to the event occurring IN THE WILD, which would be difficult (but not impossible) to reconcile with an urban setting for the event.
THREE:
A third alternative makes the most sense of the look behind him, (IMO) and has the fewest geographical difficulties overall, but requires a slight jump in the reference range of one of the. This makes the city of v23b refer to Jericho rather than to Bethel. So, to paraphrase the text/changes, it would change this:
He went up from there [ilh + min = depart] to Bethel, and while he was going up [ilh] on the way [derek], some small boys came out [yts] of BETHEL [min + yir = from the city] and jeered at him, saying, Go up [ilh], you baldhead! Go up [ilh], you baldhead! 24 And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. And two she-bears came out [yts] of the woods [min + yaar = from the forest/thicket and tore forty-two of the boys. 25 From there he went [hlk = walk] on to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria.
Into this:
He went up from there [ilh + min = depart] to Bethel, and while he was going up [ilh] on the way [derek], some small boys came out [yts] of JERICHO [min + yir = from the city] and jeered at him, saying, Go up [ilh], you baldhead! Go up [ilh], you baldhead! 24 And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. And two she-bears came out [yts] of the woods [min + yaar = from the forest/thicket and tore forty-two of the boys. 25 From there he went [hlk = walk] on to Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria.
And it would be based (loosely) on the earlier reference to city:
This would have a couple of implications:
7 The low-level-employees of a pagan cult would have to have been in Jericho at that size mob. This is not unreasonable since Jericho was an equally-pagan city (that had been cursed by Joshua), was larger in size, and could have had even a wider range of [N]s to dispatch for this (as opposed to just ONE rival temple).
7 This would, though, make a great contrast between the men of the city (who treated E with respect and submission) and the [N] of the city who did the exact opposite.
7 The biggest argument against this scenario (other than requiring the city to be referring further away than might be expected) is that it would allow the Bethel cult / royal-religion to escape without censure! I.e. No Bethel-ites were harmed in the making of this episode. And since Bethel is a core source of religious corrosion against the worship and enjoyment of YHWH and his covenant blessings, this would seem very ODD.
Bethel was singled out at its inception with Jeroboam (unnamed man of God) and would be again with Jeroboam the 2nd (Amos). And if these [N] are from the temple/state-religion, the event is a clear illusion of its turpitude.
So, I will continue with the normal scenario, which requires the [N] to go into the woods prior to appearing behind Elisha.
---------End Excursus---------------------------------------------------------
MAJOR
OMISSION(for later).
I did not have
enough time (or research knowledge yet) to investigate another factor involved
in how this event developed: that of
honor/shame of the messenger.
We in
individualist cultures might consider honor and shame to be more psychological
than socio-economic and ethical.
But I am
learning that honor/dishonor IN PUBLIC SETTNGS were actually statements about
the VALUES one stood for. For example, if a person A were publicly dishonored
by person B, because person A had a good education, then if A did not somehow
neutralize and/or overcome that dishonoring BY a more effective dishonoring,
then those watching would tend to accept the implied anti-educational values of
B. Alternatively, if an external party WITH HIGH HONOR, did a public honoring
act of A without A doing any dishonoring of Bthat would have similar effect.
Honor/shame were relative states, but they were powerful statements of VALUES
and the community SURVIVED on the basis of the right set of values.
So, in such a
required honor/dishonor environment (culturally legitimate because value
communication was the foundation of society and its future), the DEMAND UPON
ELIJAH to defend his honor would not have been OPTIONAL, and to us
westernersnor would it have been pathological or ego-centric or
pride-based etc.
The book I am
currently working through on this is: Misreading
Scripture with Individualist Eyes: Patronage, Honor, and Shame in the Biblical
World. By E. Randolph Richards and Richard James. IVP:2020.
It was able in
only 15 minutes to destroy my go-to objections to the drive for honor, more
honor, and to avoid being dishonored: Jesus, the Sermon on the Mount, and John
13, etc. (LOL).
But you wont
get a spoiler from me here smile but I hope to work through this and
supplement this piece later as warranted.
Thanks, glenn