Big Bible Questions: Did Elisha Attack a Bunch of Children?

Hello again, friends and family! Welcome back! It's good to be back myself. I'm all right, just been caught up in work and personal projects. You know how it is. 

Work is keeping me well on my toes, but compared to how work used to be, I should be grateful. I'm happy to announce that my college debt has been paid in full (with plenty of help from Mom and even a little unofficial help from Grandma and Grandpa) so now I can keep at least part of my paycheck. Maybe now I can finally start building up a nest egg, get on my own feet. In any case, it's such a relief to have one less debt to worry about.

When I'm not working my tail off, I use art to unwind and I'm just getting back into writing. It's so fun and so therapeutic, as it's always been. 

It would be really nice if I could live off my writing and art, but at least I've got a bit of a financial cushion now. Even my professors could never stress enough the importance of having a backup job, since you're a lot more likely to win the lottery than to write a New York Times bestseller. 

I'm also happy to announce that I got my COVID-19 vaccination last week. Yeah, I'm well aware of how passionate some people are about that, and sadly, a couple of friendships have ended because my so-called friends read me the riot act for following my own conscience. I don't mind so much the fact that they choose not to get the vaccine as I mind how they look down their noses at me and belittle me to my face. 

This isn't the first time this happened. Over the last decade or so, I've gotten roped into quite a few heated discussions about religion, politics, human rights, animal rights, and all that jazz. I've even been called an "animal murderer" just because I like meat, even though I'm against hunting for pure sport and I believe an animal must be killed quickly and humanely. Funnily enough, these hardcore vegetarians don't seem to realize that animals kill other animals; everything lives at the expense of something else, and we can't all subsist purely on plants.

That's just the trouble with the world these days. People care a whole lot more about "being right" than about other people's feelings. They'd much rather lose a close relationship than an argument. 

This serves as a nice segue into today's blog post. Here, I'm doing my fifth "Big Bible Question," where I take an extremely touchy topic from the Good Book and do my best to create a quiet, peaceful study area instead of a noisy, hostile boxing ring. 

Last time, for BBQ #4, I talked about why God smote the firstborn of Egypt, in the day of Moses.

For BBQ #3, I talked about who's responsible for Joseph's bondage in Egypt. 

For BBQ #2, I talked about whether or not Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve Apostles, could still be considered a traitor for making Jesus Christ's soul-saving death possible.

And for BBQ #1, I talked about whether or not Ananias and Saphira, the two-faced New Testament couple, deserved to be instantly cursed to death. 

Today, I shall talk about the Old Testament prophet Elisha, the successor of the celebrated Elijah. I have noticed a few colorful complaints about the following passage, 2 Kings 2:23-24: "And he went up from thence unto Beth-el: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 

"And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them." 

Did Elisha seriously send two bears to slaughter, or at least maul, a pack of children just for insulting him? A lot of irate modern readers seem to think so. 

Well, my religious and non-religious friends, let's take this moment to calm down and reevaluate this scene with a tiny bit more logic.

Firstly, the King James Version of the Bible includes a footnote that reveals these were not small children; rather, they were teenagers or young adults, well into their 20s or possibly 30s. 

This in itself proves that Elisha's targets had to be old enough to know better. Therefore, how much more deserving of their punishment would you say they were? How inclined are you to be merciful to somebody who does something wrong on purpose? 

Sure, I'm a big believer in mercy myself. I believe in giving people another chance if they sincerely ask for it and work to earn it. Even so, there's a mighty fine line separating a little kid throwing a tantrum from a young adult who shamelessly mouths off. The disrespect for parents I see nowadays is absolutely incredible. If I ever spoke to my parents or grandparents like that, they would have mounted my hide on the wall before I knew what hit me. 

There's a reason why one of the Ten Commandments is, "Honor thy father and thy mother." It's kind of a big deal...an ever-so-slightly bigger deal than people realize.

Secondly, Elisha was a prophet, so these infantile adults were showing terrible contempt for a holy man, for God Himself. 

This is a million and one times worse than disrespecting parents. 

This called for so much more than a hundred spankings. 

Given just how powerful God is, how much He's done for us of His own volition, we're lucky He's so kind and loving and doesn't abuse His power. Any puny mortal who dares to insult the very Creator of heaven and earth has got the most incredible gall.

Thirdly, it's quite likely that these wild bears did not kill this insolent bunch. Note the word "tare" in the scripture; this is a strong implication that the bears caused no more damage than a few lacerations, or serious scratches. Even if the damage wasn't permanent, there's no way you can ignore a bloody gash, especially if there's a nice little scar left behind.

When the youths cursed Elisha, he gave them a little taste of their own medicine, cursing them right back. Given how a prophet's place is to bless people, you know it must be a big deal when the prophet does the exact opposite.

It's also worth noting the use of "she" in "she bears." What's the first thing you think of when you hear "Mama Bear"? 

You're right: a mother bear with cubs. 

And everybody with half a brain knows coming between a bear and her babies (or any mother animal and her babies, for that matter) will be the last thing you ever do. 

(screencaps courtesy of Animation Screencaps)

So, it's quite possible these youths were not only guilty of disrespect for a prophet of God, but they must have done something to provoke these wild animals beforehand. I'm not so sure the "she bears" just popped out of nowhere. 

Adam Clarke, a well-known Bible scholar, offered this theory: "But is it not possible that these forty-two were a set of unlucky young men, who had been employed in the wood, destroying the whelps of these same she-bears, who now pursued them, and tore them to pieces, for the injury they had done? We have already heard of the ferocity of a bear robbed of her whelps; see at the end of [2 Samuel, chapter 17]. The mention of she-bears gives some colour to the above conjecture; and, probably, at the same time when these young fellows insulted the prophet, the bears might be tracing the footsteps of the murderers of their young, and thus came upon them in the midst of their insults, God's providence ordering these occurrences so as to make this natural effect appear as a Divine cause. If the conjecture be correct, the bears were prepared by their loss to execute the curse of the prophet, and God's justice guided them to the spot to punish the iniquity that had been just committed." (Commentary, 2:486)

So, there you have it, friends. 

While it's a bit of an unspoken law for young people to do foolish if not downright stupid things on occasion, it goes to show we can get more than a little carried away and we must know just who we're dealing with. 

We must respect our elders, and everyone else, for that matter. 

It also goes to show some lessons must be learned the hard way, with some poor fools choosing a much harder way than others. 

Big Bible Questions: Why Did God Smite the Firstborn?

Hello, friends and readers. It's been quite a while since my last "Big Bible Question," so I decided it was time to do another. 

If you don't know what I mean by "Big Bible Questions," I basically take a controversial topic from the Bible, a topic that gets a lot of people pretty riled up, and try to discuss it in a quiet, levelheaded, enlightening manner. You don't have to be particularly religious yourself (or religious at all) to read this blog post; surely you can still appreciate the educational aspect of this, and I learn every bit as much as you do.

Incidentally, this is BBQ #4. 

For number three, I asked who was responsible for Joseph's enslavement. Joseph's jealous brothers sold him into slavery behind their father's back, which we can all agree in a heartbeat is bad. On the other hand, their father had shown Joseph some rather blatant favoritism, and no doubt Joseph himself let at least some of that "extra special treatment" go to his head. So, on the whole, was Joseph's enslavement a cruel injustice or a much-needed lesson for the entire family? 

For number two, I asked whether or not Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ who ended up betraying Him, was a true traitor. If Jesus was meant to die for our salvation, was Judas still in the wrong?

And for number one, I asked whether or not Ananias and Sapphira, the New Testament couple who claimed to be devoted Church members but still did a few unscrupulous things for their own gain, deserved to be "struck dead" on the spot. 

For number four, we're going back to the Old Testament, to the Book of Exodus. This time, we'll be looking at the story of Moses and asking a question that only appears to grow more and more controversial: why did God smite the firstborn? 

Why would God take the lives of so many innocent children? Even if it was crucial to the Hebrews' liberation from Egypt, did all those children deserve to die? Did all those Egyptian families deserve such a catastrophic loss? Was it worth "the great cry" that resounded throughout the whole kingdom?

We all know that profound saying: no parent should have to bury their child. 

Out of all the losses in the world, there is surely no greater loss than that of your child, because that's the kind of loss you never see coming. As much as it hurts to lose a parent, a grandparent, a best friend, or even a sibling, those losses are a lot more natural; you sort of expect them to happen. 

But no one remotely considers the possibility of their son or daughter (or in some cases, their grandson or granddaughter) dying first. 

So, why did God do it? 

Couldn't there have been another way? 

Well, if we take a closer look at the Ten Plagues, they all discredit the Egyptian beliefs of the day. 

First, the Nile turning to blood was a discredit to Orsis, the god of the Nile, which was the Egyptians' most reliable source of water. Whether or not you believe the water became literal blood, the fact remains that anything that went wrong with the Nile posed many serious problems. 

Second, the infestation of frogs challenged Hekt, the god always depicted as a frog. If frogs being all over the place wasn't bad enough, they caused a putrid smell all over the place when they died. 

Third, the intense lice prevented the people from being around each other and the Egyptian priests from officiating in their temples. A rather scary similarity to the Coronavirus we're dealing with right now.

Fourth, the swarm of flies opposed the Egyptian god Hatok, who was depicted as (take a wild guess) a fly. If you can't stand a bunch of flies in your own backyard, imagine that bunch multiplied at least a thousand times, if not ten thousand. Spiders and bats would kill themselves trying to eat them all.

Fifth, the death of cattle was a slam against Hathor, the cow-headed goddess of the desert. Not only were cows valuable by means of milk and meat, but they were very sacred animals, too, and not just in Egypt. Imagine the kind of message a bunch of dead cows would send to those countries. 

Sixth, boils on the skin (besides their obvious inconvenience and pain) took a direct hit to Thoth, the god of intelligence and medical learning. People were dreadfully sick inside and out, and there was no quick cure.

Seventh, the "fiery hail" or "hail of burning ice" challenged at least two Egyptian deities: Shu, the god of the wind, and Nut, the goddess of the sky. 

Even I wonder to this day how it was possible to rain down ice and fire at the same time, but that must have been an awesome if not downright terrifying sight. As you can see from the screencaps, The Prince of Egypt did an absolutely phenomenal job in bringing these plagues to life. If not 100% accurate, they're still quite dazzling, and the epic song ("I send my scourge, I send my sword, thus saith the Lord!") brings it all together seamlessly.

Eighth, the swarm of locusts attacked Serapia, who was supposed to be Egypt's guardian against locusts. As any farmer of any era can tell you, a locust spells utter disaster for crops. No crops, no food.

Ninth, the darkness (a darkness you could actually feel on your skin) reduced the pedestal of Ra, the sun god, the leader of all the Egyptian gods, to rubble. 

And now we've arrived at the tenth plague, the death of the firstborn, by far the worst plague of them all because the effects were permanent. Eventually the frogs, the locusts, the lice, and even the darkness went away, but nothing would bring the children back. This was an enormous discredit to Taweret, the Egyptian goddess of childbirth and maternity, and the so-called guardian of the household.

Not even the Pharaoh was exempt from this tragedy. He lost his child along with the rest; he was hit where it hurt the most. 

It's plain enough that some lessons must be learned the hard way. This was a harsh lesson to the people of Egypt about the falseness of their beliefs, as well as to Pharaoh himself that he wasn't as great as he claimed to be. 

In the end, Pharaoh was just an ordinary man pretending to be extraordinary, and the God of Israel very easily trumped all of Egypt's overinflated gods and goddesses.

Even so, we must ask: why must the children pay the ultimate price? 

While I can't really answer that one, I will concede that people all too often suffer the consequences of other people's actions, especially children. Far too many people get what they don't deserve, or don't get what they do deserve, at least in this life. 

There was a time when child abuse wasn't taken seriously. It was a virtual no-brainer that children must do as they're told, elders must be respected, and the idea of anybody harming their own flesh and blood was unthinkable. Even stepparents could get away with abuse because who would everyone believe: the child or the adult? While I believe stepparents get a bad rap from movies and literature, the "wicked" type isn't so farfetched, either.

The Sandy Hook massacre of 2012 also springs to mind. All those poor little victims were below the age of eight, and yet they all perished, along with their teachers, at the hands of a madman. 

But this is God we're talking about. Why would a loving, merciful God do something like this? Surely the children hadn't done anything wrong. 

This brings our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to mind. He didn't do anything wrong, either, and yet it was necessary for Him to die for us. He suffered in ways we can't even begin to fathom; He was the best of us all and He went through the worst. What He suffered at the hands of His enemies was atrocious, but what He suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane made even that look tame. In the end, death could only provide a blessed release from all that physical and mental pain. 

No one knows better than Heavenly Father what it's like to see your child suffer, regardless of the cause. I remember a story about a father who was a railroad operator, and he had to make the agonizing decision to save a train full of people at the cost of his young son. If he saved the train, his son would die; if he saved his son, everyone on the train would die. The ultimate choice, while far from ideal, turned out to be the best choice.

The death of the firstborn is a clear foreshadowing of the death of Heavenly Father's Beloved and Begotten Son. It's no coincidence that the people who painted their door posts with lamb's blood were spared from the Angel of Death. 

So, couldn't have God set Moses's people free some other way? 

Yes, He could. 

What He brought about in Egypt wasn't a mere demonstration of His awesome power. It went far beyond delivering the Hebrews out of bondage and giving Pharaoh a much-needed reality check.

This was living proof to all the world that God is the one true God, that all the worldly idols pale in comparison to Him, and none are exempt from suffering or death. 

Even to this very day, the young perish along with the old. 

The rain showers the just and the unjust. 

Every form of life is subject to God. 

As it says in Ezekiel 38:23, "Thus will I magnify myself, and sanctify myself; and I will be known in the eyes of many nations, and they shall know that I am the Lord."

Still sounds pretty harsh, doesn't it? Maybe so...but God is still more benevolent than we give Him credit for. 

He may have cut those children's lives short, but that's not to say they didn't end up somewhere much better. After all, what better place than the kingdom of heaven, where everyone is free, where love and kindness replace cruelty and hate? 

For all its earthly splendor, the kingdom of Egypt was built on a foundation of oppression...and to quote Moses in The Prince of Egypt, which I consider one of the best movies of all time, if not the best, "No kingdom should be made on the backs of slaves." 

(Screencaps courtesy of Animation Screencaps.)