David Ker has followed up his bad boy bible reading approach with a reading of this classic story from the Elisha cycle.
From there he went up to Bethel, and while he was on the road, some small boys came out of the town and jeered at him. ‘Hurry up, baldy!’ they shouted. ‘Come on up, baldy!’ He turned round and looked at them; and he cursed them in the name of Yahweh. And two bears came out of the forest and savaged forty-two of the boys. From there he went on to Mount Carmel and then returned to Samaria. (2 Kings 2:23-25 NJB)
He has tagged me among a large number of others wanting to know how we would preach or teach from this story. Here are the first two answers.
- I wouldn’t.
- It depends on the audience. “And that, children, is why you should never make fun of my follicly challenged countenance.”.
On the way to a third answer I might need to do a bit of methodological reflection.
- Acknowledging that not everybody in the Bible is perfect or to be emulated is a good step. Neither are the interpreters.
- What sort of story are we reading? Is this a cautionary tale for children who need to learn to respect their elders? Or are Elijah and Elisha the Bible’s Batman and Robin, with the Crusader’s cape having now passed to the Bald Wonder – is this primarily entertainment? Is this just the third of three mighty deeds to show that Elisha has inherited all the superpowers needed to kick the Canaanites in their Baals?
- How much should we pay attention to the OT’s own intertextuality before jumping into the NT? Elisha like Elijah before him can strike the waters of the Jordan and part them. Holy Moses, Baldman.
- Does every story in Scripture have to teach us something? David develops his bad boy theory from Paul’s idea in 1 Cor 10:11 “Now all these things happened to them by way of example, and they were described in writing to be a lesson for us, to whom it has fallen to live in the last days of the ages.” But does Paul mean that of every OT text, or just the particular ones cited? Moreover, Paul is citing examples of what the OT narrative itself considers as sinful behaviour. Not only does the narrative fail to treat Elisha’s behaviour as anything other than a demonstration of his strength, it is unclear whether Paul would have treated it differently either. That is to say, are the lessons we might find in such a story (by considering it as an example of human frailty, say) actually ones our pre-existing morality imports into the story rather than reading anything out? What makes us decide that this story teaches us how not to behave, other than that it offends our sensibilities?
- Note how Paul’s reading of his biblical examples is a reading mediated by tradition (the rock that accompanies them), and conditioned by the Corinthian context into which he’s reading it, hence he rereads the texts in terms of baptism and spiritual food and drink. That’s why the context in which we might read this Elisha snippet actually matters. Are we reading it after a gang of children have kicked a pensioner to death, or are we reading it after some irate householder has set her Rottweiler on the children who throw rubbish into her garden on the way home from school? My sermons might look very different in those very different contexts.
- How long do I stay with exploring the instant reactions? “How horrible!” “Serve the little buggers right!” “We can’t possibly read that in all age worship” “Damn, there’s never a bear round when I need one”. Do I leap into generalities, and the relationships between the young and the old, the desire for revenge or vigilanteism and the need to live in a civilised and lawful society? Do I shortcut everything by a dive into piety: unlike Elisha, when Jesus was taunted, he did not answer back, but prayed “Father, forgive” (Like all homiletic accounts of the Passion this is badly jumbled up!)
In short, there is no third answer. There are third, fourth and fifth answers and so on, but they come out of a three way conversation between text, teacher and audience. And I don’t know how I would preach on this (or any other) text until I know whom I am preaching to, and when, and why.
(BTW, of the other responses to this meme, you must read James McGrath’s)
I tag a couple of OT bloggers David left of his list. John Anderson, and Joseph Kelly
{ 12 comments }
Thanks for a lot of great ideas. I feel like a bear in a field full of boys. Which one to maul first!
Back when I was a college director, this was a favorite among my students…hey, at least it got them to read the Old Testament.
Hmmm, I’m doing a talk at this year’s Greenbelt called “Biblical Horror Stories for Children” (which links nicely to your image), but basically looking at some of the stories where God appears to authorise, command or implement killing on a reasonably large scale, and how we don’t really talk about these stories in adult church, but they do in Sunday School, although this one rarely gets taught in children’s groups I imagine.
What none of your points on this really cover is the implicit (though not explicit) suggestion that Elisha’s curse motivated Yahweh to send the bears to kill the boys. It’s all very well saying “not everybody in the Bible is perfect or to be emulated” but when it’s implied that it’s God that does the killing then it’s another matter surely? God’s action on Elisha’s behalf endorses, rather than opposes, his desire for vengance, which is why it’s such a troubling passage, for me at least.
FWIW, if you’ve not seen it already then you might appreciate this south park style cartoon of the story:
Elisha and the She Bears
I might add a bit more about this on my blog.
Matt
I suppose I include among those who aren’t perfect the implied storyteller and his (hers is unlikely) image of God. This point, however, was in response to David Ker’s original where he rather appeared to limit the imperfection to OT characters.
I’ve written a fuller version of my thoughts over at my blog.
Matt
Here’s my take:
http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2009/08/the-power-to-kill-and-restore-to-life.html
Doug,
As for your suggestion that the narrator of the Primary History thought of this passage *only* as a demonstration of the prophet’s power, I think you’re quite wrong. Both Elijah and Elisha are far from being stick-figures with uncomplicated personalities, Mr. Rights, as it were.
It also overlooks this author’s technique, which is precisely to tell tales of horror with zero or little interpretive direction. It’s a great way to tell a story, perfected by Chekhov.
Since we are mourning the loss of Geoffrey Bromiley, I might as well point readers to Jacques Ellul’s “The Politics of God and the Politics of Man” (trans. G. Bromiley). It’s still the best treatment of a number of passages in the Elijah-Elisha cycle, though he doesn’t touch on this one in particular.
Of course, the Primary History has been cursed with a plethora of incompetent readers, but I think it’s unfair to blame the author.
John, I’m not sure how one of a series of questions that need thinking about becomes “my suggestion”? Not everyone uses the Hobbins style of infallible declamation, you know. Sometimes, mate, you just come across as really arrogant.
I stand corrected, Doug, if you did not intend to make a suggestion with the following:
“Not only does the narrative fail to treat Elisha’s behaviour as anything other than a demonstration of his strength . . .”
I failed to note the question mark.
You are right, of course: I tend to frame my arguments, especially their conclusions, in terms of statements, as I just did.
I’m realizing now that that may strike you as impolite. Since standards of politeness are set by a form of free negotiation between two or more parties, I truly will try to be just as polite, when I take issue with something I hear you saying, as you are, so far as I can see, when you take issue issue with something you hear someone saying. I’m hoping that sounds fair to you.
You tend to frame your arguments as questions. Quite often your conclusions are questions. I’m not about to adopt your overall rhetorical strategy, though you help me to see the need to vary my own more often, for which I am thankful.
Given your predilections, I will try to present challenges to your apparent opinions with more indirection in the future, especially since I am proving inadept at identifying what your opinions are. Though perhaps I would be wiser to stay away from challenging you altogether.
Aha. I thought you were commenting on one of the questions in my point 3, and you were dealing with a statement in point 4. In which case, yes, I did make a statement. And yes, I do think that the narrator here is dealing with a demonstration that Elisha has received the power to be a man of God as this narrator understod it.
However my point in this paragraph, which is why I did not realise it was this one you were quoting, was not about the Elisha story, but about David’s interpretation of Paul. Paul in discussing what was written for our instruction cites various issues of disobedient behaviour, recognised as disobedient both in his scriptural text and in his argument. I was suggesting that he may not use the same hermeneutic about a story which in no way recognises Elisha’s behaviour as sinful, and indeed that Paul probably wouldn’t recognise Elisha’s story as an example of sinful behaviour.
You wil see that there is no question in the above set of statements, just an attempt to put right a failed communication.
Incidentally, blogs and comments not being any good at conveying tone, I can’t make up my mind how much of your above comment is intended to be dripping in vitriolic sarcasm.
(PS – you will have to leave any reply in the mainstream. Comment threads cut of at four)
Doug,
No sarcasm or vitriol intended. An uncomfortable level of honesty was intended.
In that case my apology for misreading you. Shall we start off again?
By all means.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 3 trackbacks }