2 Kings 2:24

THE GENTLE PROPHET’S CURSE

‘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.’

2 Kings 2:24

I. This story teaches that the faults of our youth, and those which are most natural to us at that age, are not considered by God as trifling, but are punished by Him after the same measure as the sins of men.—Men measure faults by the harm which they do in this world, and not by the harm which they do in unfitting us for the Kingdom of God, by making us unlike God and Christ.

II. What is it that Jesus Christ means when He tells us that ‘he who is unjust in the least is unjust also in much,’ and that ‘if we have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to our trust the true riches’?—He means that when we talk of the consequences of our actions, we forget that as in one point of view the consequences of the greatest crimes that the most powerful tyrant ever committed are as the least thing in the sight of God, so in another the consequences of the common school faults of the youngest boy are infinitely great. That is important to God, and that He wills His creatures to regard as important, which is an offence against His laws, a departure from His likeness. And of this, even of sin, He has willed the consequences to be infinite, not confined to the happiness and misery of a few years, but of all eternity.

Here is the all-important reason why the faults of boyhood are so serious: because they show a temper that does not love God, and a heart unrenewed by His Holy Spirit.

—Dr. Thos. Arnold.

(SECOND OUTLINE)

There is an incident in Elisha’s history on which, as it presents some degree of difficulty and has been laid hold of by those who seek occasion against Holy Scripture, it may not be unreasonable to bestow a deliberate and sober consideration.

The incident I refer to is the treatment of the children who mocked Elisha in the outskirts of Bethel. Elisha’s conduct in this instance is not what we should have looked for: nor is it in keeping with the general benevolence of his character. They who have no reverence for God’s saints, and who judge them by what comes under their own cognisance alone, would have no scruple in ascribing it to irritation; or in speaking of the punishment which the prophet’s imprecation drew down upon the offenders as strangely disproportioned to the offence. What is the view which Christian piety would dictate?

I. First of all, it is to be observed that God heard and ratified the imprecation.—The punishment which followed was of God’s infliction. God, therefore, if we may reverently say so, made Himself responsible for the charge of severity. They who blame, blame God, not man.

Still, no doubt, the case is a perplexing one; but it is one of many in which, if we cannot give an account wholly satisfactory, we are called upon to suspend our judgments, not doubting that if we knew all the circumstances our perplexity would be removed. And this is really the feeling with which a reverential mind will regard Scripture difficulties generally. Its thoughts will be that which a loving child has in reference to the conduct of a wise parent, in whom he reposes entire confidence. Where I can discern a reason for it—or as far as I can—well and good; I rejoice to see His hand. Where I cannot, I rest with confidence on the wisdom and justice and goodness of my heavenly Father. What He does I know not now, but perhaps I shall know hereafter, and the reason why He does it. For the present I am content to walk by faith; to believe, where I do not see.

Such reflections, it is true, will afford little satisfaction to the scoffer, though a glance at the world in which he lives might convince him there is reason in them; but they will not seldom free the Christian from perplexing thoughts.

II. If we cannot discern the whole of the account which is to be given, we may at least discern some reasons which may serve to explain the severity of the punishment.—If there was one spot in the whole kingdom of Israel which more than any other had made itself obnoxious to God’s judgments. Bethel was that spot. But ‘Bethel’ had now become ‘Bethaven’—the House of Vanity, the house of naught. There Jeroboam had set up his calves—making it the great centre of that idol-worship by which the Israelites were drawn aside from the service of the God of their fathers. Bethel was, in fact, to the kingdom of the ten tribes for evil, what Jerusalem and the Temple were designed to be for the whole race of Israel for good. Need we wonder, then, that in a dispensation which was characterised by a system of temporal rewards and punishments, some signal display of God’s justice should be manifested towards such a place on the occurrence of a special occasion to call it forth? Such an occasion there was in the present instance. The scoffing cry of the children too accurately reflected the infidel and apostate spirit of their parents, and the terrible fate which befell the one was a meet chastisement of the other: a chastisement which would be felt the more keenly by those whose consciences were not seared beyond all feeling from the circumstance of the youthful age of those who were its immediate subjects. If these things were done in the green tree, it would be obvious to ask, what would be done in the dry?

There can be no doubt that the scoffing words which formed the burthen of the children’s cry referred to the ascension of Elijah, and were uttered in ridicule of the account of it which had been circulated, and as such, that they did indicate an infidel spirit, and as such were punished. But they were also a contumelious reproach directed against Elisha, and against Elisha as God’s servant, and He who said, ‘Touch not Mine anointed, and do My prophets no harm,’ regarded the insult as an insult offered to Himself, and did not suffer it to go unpunished.

The fate, then, which befell these youths was to the men of their generation a protest against idolatry generally, and in particular it held out an awful warning against a scoffing spirit, especially when the objects of its ridicule are God’s servants, and still more God’s ministers.

III. And assuredly the lesson is for us also. It shows us in what light God regards such a spirit and the manifestations of it.—For it does not follow, because this or the other form of evil is suffered ordinarily to go unpunished, that it is not highly displeasing to God, and will not eventually receive that recompense which is due to it. Every lie is not visited with prompt punishment, but the fate of Ananias and Sapphira declares what God’s mind is with regard to lying; every instance of covetousness is not at once detected and exposed, but the leprosy of Gehazi has set God’s mark of reprobation upon such deeds for ever. Every instance of intemperance, or of unbridled lust, is not followed by immediate tokens of God’s displeasure; but occasionally when some startling case occurs—as when one has been hurried out of the world from a scene of debauchery, or another has been summoned to his account from a harlot’s bed—here again we are shown in what light God views such sins; and so in like manner, though every instance of ridicule directed against religion or the ministers of religion, as such, or God’s servants, as such, is not followed by speedy punishment, yet the fate which befell these youths at Bethel is a warning once for all—for us as well as for the people of their own day and generation, that sooner or later such conduct shall receive the due recompense of reward. Nor is the warning, as far as this age is concerned, a needless one.

Illustration

‘An unfortunate translation of the passage, making it read as if it were a troop of little children that were eaten by the bears, has injured the record, and misinterpreted the meaning of this righteous judgment. There is no question as to the right interpretation. It is young men, not boys and girls, who are intended. Comparing 1 Kings 3:7 and Jeremiah 1:6 we find that Solomon, when anointed king, and Jeremiah, when anointed prophet, were denominated “children” and a “little child” by the same Hebrew words here employed. They do not mean what the English idiom represents. It was not upon children, who could scarcely be supposed to know what they were doing, that the judgment fell, but upon a mob of riotous, profane, blaspheming idolaters, the worshippers of Baal and of the golden calves of Jeroboam. These young men, fresh from the orgies of the demon temple, and bent on the highest defiance of God and His chief prophet, who they knew was coming to pursue the same course that Elijah had taken before him, cried out in scorn: “Go up, thou bald head! go up, thou bald head!” and they would have continued their hootings had not God’s vengeance interposed. But God converted what they intended should be a procession of demoniac yellings and opprobrium (for doubtless they were cheered on by the vile rabble) into such retributive wrath and wailing as shot terror into the hearts of the inhabitants. It would be a long time from that day forward before the young men, or the priests, or the prophets of Baal, would dare attempt another mob, or another insolent defiance of God’s preachers and seers, protected by the vengeance of such miracles. As Dr. Cheever observes: “The she-bears from the wilderness were fit symbols of Jezebel’s cruelty, who had slain so many of God’s prophets.” ’