SHARING BIBLE VERSES

[Oscar]

Folks,

It is important not to forget that the events you are discussing, (Elisha and the children), took place somewhere around 800-900 BC.  We have a tendency to evaluate what we read in the Bible by the standards of a culture that has had the benefit of 2000 years of Christian history, and 1500 years of OT history before that.

The people that Moses brought out of Egypt around 3500 years ago, give or take a century, were ancient Near Eastern pagans.  Their culture was much like that of the Bedoins that we see in movies like "Lawrence of Arabia".  Superstitious beliefs and practices, no concept of people having rights, fear of curses and spells, slavery and concubinage, social mores enforced through violence and brutality.  All through Israel's history these things were constant problems.  The Temple worship we read about was the official religion.  What the people believed and did was another matter entirely.  If you don't believe me, read Judges 19!!!

Another example of how our cultural understandings can be a problem is the parable of the prodigal son.  To us, asking your father to give you your inheritance early and then wasting it is disrespectful and dumb.  In the ancient world what he did was viewed as an unforgivable offense that put him outside  of all family obligations.  (Remember, under the law a child who cursed his father could be stoned). So, the parable had a much more powerful effect on the original hearers than it does on us.  We see kindess and mercy in the father.  They saw this, but to an astonishing degree.  What for us is an illustration, for them was an alteration of their mental paradigm!

So, we have to remember two things: First, our sensibilities about fairness, human rights, and morality in general are strongly influenced by our culture.  Second, God makes the rules, not us.  If an atheist gripes about what Elisha did, instead of trying to excuse God you might want to remind him that our God is a consuming fire.

Blessings,

Tom Maddux

[Joe Sperling]

Tom---

Thanks.  But when I "discuss" with atheists I don't try to "excuse God" for anything. If I am
involved in a discussion with 5 people (which has happened at work), 4 of them unbelievers, and one  confirmed atheist, and the atheist brings up Elisha and the bears, "our God is a consuming fire" may be a nice and very true statement, but it is not going to answer the question for the 4 unbelievers who are
waiting to see what the defintion is concerning those bears. In fact "our God is a consuming fire" is most likely going to have them saying "what??"

And it is only going to add fuel to the fire for the atheist who posed the question in his deceit.  What most likely will happen is that some of the unbelievers may go to the internet to find the interpretation, and most likely face the same definitions that I might posit to them in front of the atheist. It's a matter of "defending the faith" in that case.  This verse is extremely difficult to explain to those WANTING a sincere answer. A "pat" answer will not do it for these seeking some kind of explanation for the verses.

So, I can offer them the explanations that commentators have given, and add "but I really don't know the explanation" and try to point them to other verses filled with the mercy of God, and his call to them to come to Jesus. All I was saying, and continue to say, is that this verse with Elisha and the bears is one of the most difficult verses to discuss or explain when used as ammunition to "prove" God is cruel, etc.

On the one hand,  those asking are "expecting" some sort of answer---and not some patented response that they don't really understand,  and yet on the other hand, trying to find that answer is extremely difficult. I don't think a discussion about "culture" is going to make the cut. Though I do appreciate what you have to say about ancient culture.   The atheist is saying God is cruel----our "I don't know" as an explanation, or a pat "our God is a consuming fire" won't cut it with the (4) unbelievers waiting with baited breath for our response.   I'm not arguing your point, just being sincere about real situations.   

[Oscar]

Joe,

A good tactic to use when the munching bears are brought up is to ask the atheist, "What is wrong with what Elisha did?"  He will then proceed to tell you how bad Elisha was, unfair, extreme, cruel and so on, and God was even worse for having empowered him.

So, you just ask him, "Since you believe God and Elisha did something wrong, would you please explain why it is wrong.  (In his worldview, nothing CAN be wrong with anything!)  So, if he admits that right and wrong objectively exist, he has just handed you an excellent argument for God's existence.  (Someone has to make the rules)

Or, if he says there is no such thing as right and wrong, you can ask him if he actually lives according to what he believes is true.  (Atheists frequently criticize Christians for being intolerant.) He doesn't, and you can point that out. Point out that atheists really don't live as if atheism is true...so  why should anyone be an atheist.

Tom M.

[Joe Sperling]

Tom---

Nice argument, but remember we have (4) witnesses.  The atheist is going to say "the burden of
proof is not on me.  You are the one saying God is loving and merciful. According to who you say God is there is something VERY wrong about what Elisha did, and what God allowed.  For making
fun of a bald man Elisha cursed the children, and bears came out and slew 42 of them!!"

Asking the atheist why what Elisha did was wrong is only going to make the (4) witnesses shake their heads in wonder that you could be so callous as to not realize how cruel the situation is.  "What's wrong with what Elisha did?" they ask in amazement, "are you kidding us?"  "He maimed or killed 42 children because they insulted him!!"

I understand where you are coming from Tom, and I understand your argument when dealing with moral absolutes. And it would be great if it were just you and the atheist having the conversation. But often that is not the case.

But hey----we could go back and forth with this forever.    I just try to stay away from conversations dealing with Elisha and the bears, because I to this day cannot answer for what purpose that event happened, or give a good explanation for it.


Sing to theme of Yogi Bear:

Elisha's Bears are smarter than the average bears,
They defend the absence of the prophet's hair.
At a public cursing you will find them there
Stuffing down more children than the average bears.

They will sleep till noon but before it's dark,
They'll maim all the mocking children that are in the park.

They all have it better than a millionaire
That's because they're smarter than the average bears.

Sorry---couldn't resist.   

[Oscar]

Joe,

In real life, I have found that the majority of atheists are quite taken aback by having their basic assumptions challenged.  The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion.  If the atheist has made the assertion that Elisha or God did something wrong, just ask him how he knows this.

If he goes to the "you say God is loving and kind" argument that you reference, I would ask him who said that.  That is certainly not all that Christians believe about God.  Christians believe that God is merciful and good, but that is not all.  We also believe that he is powerful and just. Remember, most of what we know about hell comes from the public teaching of Jesus.  If you mocked the men who God sent to speak for him, you were mocking God.  The culture into which the story of Elisha and the bears was spoken would have understood this.

Tom M

[Joe Sperling]

Tom---

Again---I understand your argument. I have also, many times, told atheists that not only is
God merciful and loving, he is also powerful and just. But again, let's get real here---we are
talking about a prophet who is insulted about his bald head, who then looks upon the "children",
and then bears come forth and "tear" 42 of them.  Even if one mentions that God is powerful and just,
it is a bit hard to explain that an insult would result in the maiming, or deaths of "children" or "young
men" (as if this would justify the deaths).

If I ask the atheist "how do you know this is wrong?" I myself am faced with asking a question which is a form of defense for something I myself find to be absolutely cruel.  Now----I believe the Bible, and I believe God has his reasons for doing what he does----but I have never understood why it was necessary for bears to kill or maim 42 children due to an insult myself.  When I MYSELF read the passage I am siezed with the immediate thought "WHY?"   If one wants to be beyond questioning (not saying you are doing this Tom) for themselves this passage, and feels they are so "holy" that they will never question the Bible, fine and good. But I myself have often
wondered at this passage, and asked myself if it REALLY happened---if it should be taken literally---or is it placed
as a figurative example of something else.  Again--just being honest. I trust God knows what he is doing----and I
believe the Bible is his Holy Word----but I still question the verse---it's hard not to.

[moonflower2]

I can remember thinking as a child that this was a rather strong punishment for the mocking children, but back then (when people were given kind of a "one chance" to obey God or the earth swallowed them up, or they were stoned) it showed me the seriousness of what these children were really doing. Verbally mocking God's servant?? As a group of 42?? Directly to his face?? That's pretty heavy. (unless I've been really brainwashed by the GG regime of cruelty to children, this is a step even beyond total lack of respect.) I wonder how they treated their parents at home.

What would cause "innocent", naive children to do that? These were children of God's children at that time. So something had gone seriously awry. Didn't the demonically controlled people of the NT have the same kind of disrespectful attitude towards Jesus? "what do you have to do with us......?"

Just my thoughts on this.

[Joe Sperling]

Good point Moonflower.  Probably wouldn't have been a good time period for someone to
have invented the Teddy Bear though huh?  Kids would probably had screamed and ran at the sight
of one back then.   

[Explorer]

I think what happened is they were Chicago Bears.

[moonflower2]

Good point Moonflower.  Probably wouldn't have been a good time period for someone to
have invented the Teddy Bear though huh?  Kids would probably had screamed and ran at the sight
of one back then.   

Too funny.      Maybe that's what's behind the invention of Smokey the Bear. He's friendly!!

[Oscar]

Joe,

You said:

If I ask the atheist "how do you know this is wrong?" I myself am faced with asking a question which is a form of defense for something I myself find to be absolutely cruel. 

If you are correct about this being wrong, then God must have been wrong as well.  It might be best to look for another explaination.

What these folks are doing, and you seem to be playing along, is called "Whig History".  That means that you are judging the actions of people in the past by current popular standards.  Just because someone doesn't like something or other the Bible describes God as having done, that does not mean it was wrong to do.

It is perfectly all right to ask the person just how he/she knows God should not have done this.  What, after all, is legitimate conduct for God, and how does this fellow know this?

A good way to handle this is simply say that you don't understand everything about this event and then bring the conversation around to the real issue...is there a God and are we responsible to Him?  That is what the onlookers are probably really wishing to know.

Tom Maddux

[Mark C.]

  Re. the "Killer bears":

  It's not just a large historical/culture gap that leaves us scratching our heads, it's our lack of being able to picture what actually happened.  There are many things that God has done that lack the kind of explanation that would cause us to say, "oh now I see."

  I hate to use "Mad Magazine" as an illustration, but many years ago (are they still in business?) they ran a satire on how the news media distorts events.  In the "Mad" satire news story little "Johnny Witherspoon" appears to have been run over by a car in his driveway.  In an attempt to make the story even more lurid they say also that his sister is a "Thespian."   In actuality, Johnny was just retrieving his skateboard and wasn't hurt.

    Okay, so this may be a bad analogy, as God is not trying to distort the event, but he doesn't always explain things in a way that would justify his actions to us.  Trying to explain to others what we don't know reminds me of what I tried to do as a preacher in the Assembly!   I think it is okay to say, "I don't know what was going on here."

   If someone was going to force me to fill in the blanks in the Bear scenario I would say that I would have to start first with what I do know about God and his attitude toward children (or probably as is most likely young men who were behaving in a gangsta like manner).

 1.) God was absolutely opposed to killing children (as in child sacrifice) or in any kind of murder.  There were just causes for a death sentence, but as to the "stoning of rebellious kids", we also know that this sentence was never carried out in Israel, as there is no historical evidence of this ever happening.

 2.) Children were to be loved and valued throughout the bible.  The laws directing parents to "love their children", by caring for their souls and bodies, shows that what happened in the Elisha incident must have some information that we are unaware of.

 3.) In the NT we have Jesus saying, "suffer the little children to come unto me for of such is the Kingdom of God."  We also have all the exhortations re. loving our kids, etc.

 4.) Probably the biggest help in guiding my doubtful thoughts re. a passage that seems to put God in a contradictory light re. his loving nature is to consider that God sent his only Son to die for all humanity to save them from destruction from something a whole lot worse than killer bears.

   With the above context to aid my interpretation I can make a pretty sure guess that these "children" were not just naughty school kids, but probably something closer to our modern day gang-bangers who were involved in some pretty wicked acts of violence and got what was coming to them.  This gang had no fear of God or of His authority and probably lived their lives this way.  This meant they were most likely a danger to the community and to protect society had to be judged.

                                                                  God Bless,  Mark C.

   

[outdeep]

This had been a good discussion for me.  Some of the things I appreciate about it:

First, it never occurred to me to think though the intensity of what could have been happening.  To see it as a capricious and random act by a prophet that was just ticked off is merely an assumption - yet that assumption is what is often held onto without much thought.  I, for one, never thought about it enough to wonder if the young men were acting out in a violent and evil way.

Second, a discussion like this points out how it is much easier it is to focus in on "intellectual difficulties" as opposed to the spiritual concerns of my life.  The Bible is indeed history but it not mere history.  It is a spiritual book as well intended to deal, uncover and turn the light on what is going on the inside of us.  While understanding the Bible with our intellect is very important, it is easy for me to intellectualize theology and salvation instead of facing the issues it is exposing in my life.  Like Mark Twain said, "I'm not as concerned about what I don't understand in the Bible but what I do understand."

Third, I think there is freedom in being able to hold passages loosely.  We don't have to interpreter everything and "get" something out of every passage.  This is counter to the Assembly where we were taught that he had to find the hidden, spiritual meaning to every line of Scripture.

Tom Maddux did something twice in my recollection that I always admired.  It was standard interpretation in the Assembly to think of Solomon's palace as a good thing (kind of like George's house, come to think of it).  It was also standard interpretation to believe that when Jonathan went with his father to fight instead of joining forces with David, he was making a carnal and cowardly decision (instead of leaving one's father's home to join the Assembly).

On the first passage, Tom preached about how he thought Solomon's palace was overdone and overindulgent (kind of like George's house and life, come to think of it).

On the second passage, Tom preached that neither God nor David told Jonathan to abandon his father and join David so why would he think to do so?  George tried to counter this thinking the following week by preaching a passionate message on "God doesn't have to tell you.  You just know."

The point is, in the Assembly we thought we had deep insight into the narratives of the Old Testament because George attached interpretations to the events.  But, these interpretations were often based upon assumptions and were rooted in the way George wanted us to think - not on any firsthand knowledge of what was really going on.  Some narratives are no-brainers (such as Saul's disobedience - the Bible clearly indicates that was wrong).  Others such as some of the actions of Sampson and Jehu, can be filled with mixed-motives and circumstances we don't fully understand.

[Joe Sperling]

Dave said:
Tom Maddux did something twice in my recollection that I always admired.  It was standard interpretation in the Assembly to think of Solomon's palace as a good thing (kind of like George's house, come to think of it).  It was also standard interpretation to believe that when Jonathan went with his father to fight instead of joining forces with David, he was making a carnal and cowardly decision (instead of leaving one's father's home to join the Assembly).

Dave--

Very good point.  I remember in the Assembly that George also spoke of Paul and Barnabas's parting due to John Mark as rebellion on Barnabas's part. (You may recall that in Acts Paul and Barnabas have a sharp disagreement about bringing John Mark with them because Mark had turned back and gone home on an earlier journey).  George would say "You never hear from Barnabas again after that" as though he had been set aside by God due to rebelling against Paul.  Yet, many commentators actually say that Paul was the one being off-base, and being far too critical of John Mark.  They call Barnabas an "encourager" as he was one of the first to also encourage Paul shortly after his conversion. He wanted to give John Mark a second chance-----and later in some of the Epistles, Paul speaks of John Mark's value to him and all of the other believers. He had realized by then how wrong he had been about John Mark. Some even credit Barnabas with being the author of Hebrews.

Not that any contention is good----but the fact is, Paul was human, and prone to the same human frailties we all are.  That teaching about Barnabas though just added to the legalistic bondage of thinking
that you could fail once and be set aside forever, etc.  George used it to stress what can happen to a man in "the
work" who opposes or questions authority in any way.  He never took into consideration that Paul could have been
being critical of a brother who showed weakness in the past, and needed a second chance.

[Joe Sperling]

Father, they are your gift to me. I wish that where I am they also may be with me, that they may see my glory that you gave me, because you loved me before the foundation of the world. (John 17:24 NAB)

Jesus in His great prayer asks here that we may be with him where he is, and that we may see His
glory. What a great hope! One day we will literally be where Jesus is, and will be able to see him as He is.