Elisha and the Children

The account of Elisha’s curse of the forty-two young people and their seemingly unjustified fatal end when attacked by two bears has puzzled Latter-day Saints as well as other students of the Bible. An enlightening solution to this unusual incident, as I argue here, also leads to a clearer view of an important underlying issue: the acceptance or nonacceptance of divinely approved succession among prophetic personalities, in this case Elisha’s succession to the prophet Elijah.

Most scholars who have analyzed the problematic passage in which Elisha is called “baldy” or “baldheaded” (qērēaḥ) by a group of youths agree that this word should be translated literally (2 Kings 2:23–24). But the issue does not end here. Philological and contextual evidence suggests that the word qērēaḥ is being used figuratively to denote a person who is a usurper of authority. In this light, the question of how qērēaḥ is to be interpreted on a figurative level should be approached systematically, beginning with an analysis of the Hebrew text that underlies translations of 2 Kings 2:23–24 (see my rendition below). My analysis is designed first to identify the ambiguities and other interpretive problems inherent in this passage. Next, it is important to discuss both the setting of 2 Kings, chapter 2, and the chiastic structure of 2 Kings, chapters 1–2, with special attention to the hairy mantle and to the focal point of the chiasmus, which is the ascension of Elijah, the final act involving his priesthood authority. Moreover, the striking parallels between the Elisha and Korah narratives require examination. Finally, I will summarize the various strands of evidence and offer a few observations on the meaning of this account.

A representative translation of 2 Kings 2:23–24 reads as follows:

23. And he [Elisha] went up from there to Bethel, and as he was going up on the road, some young men¹ went out from the city and mocked him and said to him, “Go up qērēaḥ! Go up qērēaḥ!”

24. And he [Elisha] turned around and looked at them and cursed them in the name of Yahweh. And then two female bears went out from the forest and tore open forty-two of the youths.

These two verses raise several issues. Besides the issues of who these young men were and from what city they and Elisha came, the major problem of this passage is the word qērēaḥ. The traditional understanding—that it refers to Elisha’s baldness—creates a long-recognized theological problem: Why would a prophet of God pronounce a fatal curse simply for being called baldheaded by a group of youths? Further, how could God comply with the prophet’s curse?² Several solutions have been offered; even so, a deeper study into the origin and significance of the word qērēaḥ and the passage in which it is embedded is warranted.³

The “Young Men”

The first problematic phrase in this passage has always been translated literally to mean little children or small boys (n^e‘ārîm q^eṭannîm).⁴ If the passage is taken at face value, what age would these youths have been? Other passages using na‘ar qaṭan (the singular of n^e‘ārîm q^eṭannîm) give no hint concerning the intended age. However, a clue appears when Joseph is called a na‘ar at age seventeen (Gen. 37:2). He is referred to again as a na‘ar at least two years later when he interprets pharaoh’s dream (Gen. 41:12).⁵ Some clarification is also provided when the writer of the Elisha account selects the plural word “children” (y^elādîm) in the verse following the passage in question (2 Kings 2:24), rather than again choosing to use the words n^e‘ārîm q^eṭannîm. In Kings, the word y^elādîm (children) is attested two other times.⁶ Both of these refer to the young men who were serving as advisors to Rehoboam and had grown up with him (1 Kings 12:8, 10). In any case, the term n^e‘ārîm q^eṭannîm is imprecise with regard to exact age. But on the basis of the context, I suggest that the age of the youths designated by these combined words would probably fall slightly under twenty years. Taken in their plain sense, these words mean small youths. But a literal interpretation may not be the only valid one.

Rashi, a noted medieval Jewish sage, speculates that n^e‘ārîm q^eṭannîm in 2 Kings 2:23 may be interpreted figuratively because of an earlier incident. He draws from the tractate Sota in the Babylonian Talmud to suggest that these n^e‘ārîm q^eṭannîm were angry about the water miracle that Elisha had recently performed in Jericho (2 Kings 2:18–22). Elisha had earlier been approached by men of that city, who commented on the favorable location of Jericho but complained of the bad water (2 Kings 2:19). In response, Elisha asked for a flask full of salt; then he threw the salt into the bitter water and healed its bitterness (2 Kings 2:20–22).⁷ Rashi explains that these youths had found employment carrying good water into the city for the inhabitants of Jericho.⁸ With the miraculous healing of the bitter water, they were out of a job. Rashi also holds that these water carriers were specifically called n^e‘ārîm in 2 Kings 2:23 in order to symbolize that they were shaken from the commandments, as the Hebrew verbal root n-‘-r (“to be shaken”) suggests. In a related vein, the well-known sage Radaq speculates in typical rabbinic fashion that these young men were called n^e‘ārîm q^eṭannîm because, as the wise sages said, the youths were not only shaken from the commandments, but were also of little faith, as the Hebrew root q-ṭ-n (“little, small”) implies.

The Hebrew text of 2 Kings 2:23 states that these youths “went out of the city” (yāṣ^e’û min hā‘îr). From what city did they depart? The answer is not as obvious as most might think. Both ancient and modern interpreters state that these youths came out of Bethel. However, a careful reading of the text indicates that the city was not Bethel, but Jericho. As Elisha was going up the road to Bethel from Jericho after healing Jericho’s water, some young men went out of the city to mock him. The text states that “he turned around behind him” (wayipen ’aḥ^arayw) to address these mockers (2 Kings 2:24). Since Bethel was still ahead of Elisha and Jericho behind him and because he had to turn around to address the mocking youths, most logically the young men had followed Elisha out of Jericho. In this regard, Rashi’s connection between the healed-water and baldhead stories suggests to me an important interpretive direction.

A relevant matter concerns whether these young people (n^e‘ārîm) were a part of any of the preceding stories about Elijah and Elisha. Because the term n^e‘ārîm is attested in those earlier passages, one must entertain this possibility. Another group, for example, the “sons of the prophets” (benê-hannebî’îm) from Bethel, called Elijah master (2 Kings 2:3). These sons of the prophets in fact had their residence in Jericho (2 Kings 2:5, 15), and in 2 Kings 2:15 we are told that they accepted Elisha’s leadership. Elsewhere (e.g., in 2 Kings 5), we learn further that the prophets had n^e‘ārîm serving them. It could be that those n^e‘ārîm were laborers or servants who associated with the sons of the prophets still in Jericho. It is also possible to view the n^e‘ārîm as guards or soldiers, which is another meaning for this term (see, for example, 2 Sam. 18:5, 12; 1 Chron. 12:29), confirming that they were probably not mere children. Perhaps they refused to accept Elisha as the prophetic successor to Elijah, accusing him of usurping authority, for they appear to be in conflict with the sons of the prophets who show their allegiance to Elisha by bowing to him and declaring, “The spirit of Elijah does rest upon Elisha” (2 Kings 2:15). Whatever the case, it is evident that the location of the n^e‘ārîm in Jericho—the locale of the prophets and their assistants and the home of persons with deep loyalty to Elijah—is an important ingredient in the account. Events would certainly not have transpired as they did within a town inhabited by sons of the prophets.

The Epithet “Baldy” or “Baldhead”

Another matter needing clarification is the meaning of the term “baldhead” (qērēaḥ) which these youths hurl at Elisha. The Hebrew root q-r-ḥ is occasionally associated with ice and frost, but most often refers to baldness, as in the case of qērēaḥ here.⁹ Various translations of the key sentence in 2 Kings 2:23–24 read something like “Go up, baldhead,” or “Go up, baldy.” Perhaps there is more to the mocking of the young men, however, than just saying that Elisha was bald. What was it in their taunt that provoked Elisha’s curse?

Natural baldness is not viewed in the Old Testament as a condition of uncleanness. In fact, Leviticus 13:40 states, “And the man whose hair is fallen off his head, he is bald; yet he is clean.” The deliberate shaving of any or all of the head was forbidden by Israelite law (Lev. 19:27; 21:5; Deut. 14:1). However, the prophets did use shaving in a figurative way as a term of impending doom and bondage (Isa. 22:12; Jer. 47:5; 48:37). The only instances in which deliberate shaving of all of the hair of the body is approved occurs in the ritual cleansing of a leper (Lev. 14:8) and the purification of Levites (Num. 8:7–19). The shaving of the head is approved only in connection with a Nazarite vow. Initially, Nazarites would vow that razors would not come upon their heads (Num. 6:5). But when they concluded their vows, they were to shave their heads and make an offering of their hair in the sacrificial fire (Num. 6:18).¹⁰

In contrast to the plain meaning of the text, Rashi and Radaq—unlike most modern scholars—did not take the word qērēaḥ to mean that Elisha was physically baldheaded. Rather they suggested that the youths called Elisha qērēaḥ because he had “made bald” or destroyed their livelihood as water carriers for the inhabitants of Jericho.¹¹ However, this view is not supported by concrete evidence and should therefore be treated as unsubstantiated speculation. What seems more likely is that the youths were calling Elisha qērēaḥ to suggest that he was a usurper of prophetic authority, as I shall now demonstrate.

Literary Structure of 2 Kings 1–2 and Its Significance

2 Kings 1–2 contains the only detailed biblical account of prophetic succession. These chapters also form a chiastic structure, climaxed by the ascension of Elijah in 2 Kings 2:11. T. R. Hobbs has provided a general outline of this structure,¹² which has been adapted in the following diagram:

Hobbs notes that this chiasm contains the only physical description of prophets attested in the entire Old Testament. In 2 Kings 1:8 the characteristic feature of Elijah is that he is a “hairy man” (ba‘al Śē‘ār). At the opposite end of this structure is the description of Elisha as a qērēaḥ (2 Kings 2:23). Hobbs interprets these descriptions to mean that Elijah was a hairy man and Elisha was bald. However, Hobbs mentions nothing more about this intriguing set of features.

In contrast, Montgomery explains that scholars have two interpretations for the words ba‘al Śē‘ār. One translates them as “a hairy man,” the other as “a man with a hairy garment.”¹³ This latter interpretation seems more correct when the word Śē‘ār (“hairy”) is associated with the word “mantle” (’adderet),¹⁴ which plays a central role in this account of prophetic succession. The word ’adderet may be translated as either mantle, garment, or glory. In 1 Kings 19:16, Elijah is told by the Lord to anoint Elisha to take his place as prophet. When Elijah found Elisha plowing with twelve teams of oxen, he threw his mantle (’adderet) upon Elisha as a symbolic gesture to designate that he would soon succeed Elijah as prophet.¹⁵ Zechariah describes the prophetic mantle in more detail (Zech. 13:4). His record states that in a future day false prophets will no longer wear the “hairy mantle” (’adderet Śē‘ār) to deceive.¹⁶ The combination of these two words lends strong support to the interpretation in 2 Kings 1:8 that Elijah was a man with a hairy mantle or garment rather than being just a hairy man.¹⁷

The New Testament also lends support to this understanding. In Matthew 3:4, John the Baptist is described as wearing a mantle or garment (Greek, endyma) made of camel’s hair.¹⁸ He also wore a leather girdle about his loins. This description is virtually identical to that of Elijah’s apparel in 2 Kings 1:8. Later in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus warned the people to “beware of false prophets which come to you in sheep’s clothing [endymasin], but inwardly are ravening wolves” (Matt. 7:15), a possible allusion to the wearing of a hairy garment of skins that implies that such a person comes with authority.

In 2 Kings 2, the mantle of Elijah becomes crucial to the succession story. Elijah parted the River Jordan with his ’adderet (2 Kings 2:8). After Elijah and Elisha had crossed the River Jordan on dry ground, Elijah asked Elisha what he could do for Elisha before departing. Elisha asked for a double portion of Elijah’s spirit (2 Kings 2:9).¹⁹ Although Elijah acknowledged this request as difficult, he told Elisha that his desire would be granted, provided that Elisha saw him ascend into heaven (2 Kings 2:10). When Elijah ascended into heaven, Elisha saw the ascent and cried, “My father, my father, the chariot of Israel and its horsemen” (2 Kings 2:11–12).²⁰ After rending his own garments, Elisha picked up the prophetic garment of Elijah (’adderet); he too smote the waters of the Jordan and asked, “Where is the Lord God of Elijah?” (2 Kings 2:12–14). In parallel to 2 Kings 2:8, the waters again parted in 2 Kings 2:14, and Elisha walked back across the bed of the River Jordan on dry ground.²¹ Here the hairy garment of Elijah is clearly the symbol of prophetic authority, which now had passed to Elisha. Both men used this object to part the River Jordan as evidence that the power of Jehovah was invested in their appointment. One walked into Israel to lead her, and the other went out.²² The sons of the prophets were witnesses to this transition of power and saw that the spirit of the Lord that had once rested upon Elijah now rested upon his successor Elisha (2 Kings 2:15). As the chiastic correspondence in 2 Kings 2:7–8 implies, these witnesses would also have seen Elisha wearing the hairy mantle of Elijah, representing the internal power with which Elisha had been imbued.²³

Korah and Elisha

I began this examination of the structure in 2 Kings 1–2 with a discussion of the term for hair (Śē‘ār). The latter end of the chiasm deals with the young men calling Elisha a baldhead (qērēaḥ). I submit that these mocking youths called Elisha qērēaḥ because they refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the hairy garment that Elisha now wore as a symbol of prophetic authority. In a relevant vein, it is important to observe that if the vowels are dropped from this word we are left with the Hebrew root q-r-ḥ. This root is also the basis for the name of a Levite rebel named Qora (Korah),²⁴ who was the cousin of Moses and Aaron (Num. 16:1; Ex. 6:18). Korah’s reputation for trying to usurp priestly authority was infamous among the Israelites (Num. 16:40). The citation of Korah’s antics in the New Testament underscores the prominence of this narrative as an illustration of rebellion against divine authority (Jude 1:11). This point invites us again to ask, were the youths simply calling Elisha baldy because he had no hair on his head? Or were they insinuating that he was without legitimate right to the prophetic mantle and was thus spiritually bald or unclothed?²⁵ Could it also be that they were alluding to Korah, the Levite rebel, suggesting that Elisha was a usurper of authority, as Korah had sought to be?

Further suggestive parallels emerge in connection with the theme of authority when one compares the terminology and the punishments that are mentioned in the Korah and Elisha narratives. These similarities lend greater credibility to the idea that the word qērēaḥ on the lips of the young men may, in fact, have had reference to the infamous rebel Korah. 2 Kings 2:23 reads, “And he [Elisha] went up” (waya‘al), then “and as he was going up” (w^ehû’ ‘ōleh).²⁶ In this same verse, the term for “go up” (’^alēh) is used twice when the youths cry out, “Go up, baldhead! Go up, baldhead!” (’^alēh qērēaḥ! ’^alēh qērēaḥ!). This taunt seems to point back to 2 Kings 2:11, in which Elijah went up into heaven. The mocking youths may be saying or implying, “Go ahead, try to ascend to heaven as Elijah did, you usurper of authority!”²⁷ Furthermore, Korah and his rebels esteemed themselves to be as holy as Moses and Aaron and believed themselves to be on the same level of authority as their leaders (Num. 16:3).²⁸ They accused Moses and Aaron of exalting themselves above the congregation. The youths in the passage of 2 Kings 2:23 seem to be accusing Elisha of like motives when in fact they are the guilty ones.

The punishments pronounced upon both Korah’s group and the youths are remarkably similar when examined in light of verbal terminology. Two punishments fell upon Korah and his rebels. The text declares, “And the ground tore open [from b-q-‘] beneath them” (wattibbāqa‘ hā’^adāmāh ’^asher taḥ^etêhem) (Num. 16:31). The next verse states, “The earth opened her mouth and swallowed them, and their households, and all the men who were with Korah, and their property” (Num. 16:32). Others were consumed by fire: “And a fire went out (yāṣ^e’â)²⁹ from the Lord and consumed [them]” (Num. 16:35). These two punishments add significance to the narrative of the punishment of the forty-two mocking youths in 2 Kings 2:24,³⁰ for the two punishment verbs in the Korah story reappear in the Elisha pericope. After the youths said, “Go up qērēaḥ! Go up qērēaḥ!” Elisha turned, looked at them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord (2 Kings 2:23–24). The punishment that followed is described thus: “And two female bears went out from the forest and tore open [from b-q-’] forty-two youths of them” (2 Kings 2:24). The root of the Hebrew word for “went out” is y-ṣ-’. In 2 Kings 2:24, the bears “went out,” just as the fire “went out” against some of the rebels (Num. 16:35). The Hebrew verb “tear open” (b-q-‘) also appears in both stories. According to 2 Kings 2:24, the bears “tore open” the youths; in Numbers 16:31, the earth “tore open” under the feet of some of Korah’s fellow rebels, and they were swallowed.

Conclusion

The thematic and terminological evidence suggests that the mocking youths in the Elisha story were not simply calling him a baldheaded man when they called him qērēaḥ. Rather, they were speaking to Elisha figuratively. Whether they were refusing specifically to acknowledge the transmitted authority of the prophetic hairy mantle that he had received from Elijah or whether they were intimating that he was like Korah, the rebel in the wilderness, or both,³¹ is not entirely clear. Certainly they were not simply teasing Elisha by calling him “baldy,” as some interpreters have suggested. Instead, they were accusing him of being a usurper of authority, an act that warranted serious consequences for speaking evil against the Lord’s prophet. As a result, they incurred the vengeance of God who had previously warned, “And if you walk contrary to me, . . . I will send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children” (Lev. 26:21–22).³²