Elijah’s Whirlwind Exit (II Kings 2:11)

Who was taken up to heaven in a whirlwind? Elijah (II Kings 2:11)

At the end of his career, the prophet Elijah exits the earth in a blaze of glory, specifically in a whirlwind (II Kings 2:1-11). Knowing his mentor’s exit is imminent, Elijah’s protégé, Elisha, refuses to leave his side (II Kings 2:2). With Elisha in tow, the prophet embarks on a whirlwind farewell tour through Gilgal, Bethel and Jericho (II Kings 2:3-6) before crossing the Jordan River (II Kings 2:7-8).

Mid-conversation, the two prophets are separated when a “chariot of fire” famously appears and Elijah is taken “by a whirlwind to heaven” (II Kings 2:11 NASB).

As they were going along and talking, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire which separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven. (II Kings 2:11 NASB)

Elijah goes out in style. Contrary to popular belief, however, it is the whirlwind, not the fiery chariot, which takes the prophet (II Kings 2:11). Richard D. Nelson (b. 1945) summarizes:

In the middle of their conversation, the climax strikes like a sudden wind storm. A fiery chariot and its team, suggesting the fire of theophany, comes between the two men. The whirlwind of God’s theophany catches Elijah up. (The common misunderstanding that Elijah rode to heaven in a chariot of fire is at least as old as Sirach 48:9). (Nelson, First and Second Kings (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 160)

The verse’s Hebrew construction is decidedly awkward. Volkmar Fritz (1938-2007) asserts:

The translation of Elijah is reported twice in II Kings 2:11, although the sentence “and Elijah ascended in a whirlwind to heaven” (II Kings 2:11b) is redactional. Originally, the ascent to heaven was only alluded to by the “chariot of fire and horses of fire” (II Kings 2:11a), to which Elisha’s cry in II Kings 2:12 makes reference. Elijah’s end is not death and burial but translation. (Fritz. 1 & 2 Kings (Continental Commentary), 235)

The whirlwind is referenced twice as the reader is told at the beginning of the pericope that Elijah will be seized by the whirlwind and it is mentioned again when it actually occurs (II Kings 2:1, 11). A. Graeme Auld (b. 1941) deduces:

Since notice of Elijah’ removal by whirlwind is signalled at the outset (II Kings 2:1) and not delayed until the dramatically appropriate moment, we may suppose that that fact—however remarkable—is not of greatest concern to the storyteller. (Auld, I & II Kings (Daily Study Bible), 153)

Robert L. Cohn (b. 1947) surmises:

The tale begins with the omniscient narrator’s revelation to the reader of its climax: the ascent of Elijah (II Kings 2:1). From this reader-elevated position, we are free to focus on Elisha’s gradual coming to terms with the departure of the master. Not suspense but curiosity drives the tale: how, we might wonder, will this miraculous event take place and how will Elisha react to it? From the outset YHWH is named as the subject of this marvelous occurrence and the sě‹ārāh (“storm, whirlwind,” a term often associated with theophany [e.g. Job 38:1]) as the agent of Elijah’s ascent to the sky. (Cohn, 2 Kings (Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry), 11)

Though the whirlwind is predicted, the “chariot of fire” is not (II Kings 2:1, 11). Russell H. Dilday (b. 1930) lauds:

Elijah’s departure was even more spectacular than expected. The prophet knew there would be a whirlwind (II Kings 2:1), but the chariot and horses of fire were apparently a surprise. (Dilday, 1, 2 Kings (Mastering the Old Testament), 265-66)

There is some uncertainty regarding Elijah’s trajectory. J. Edward Wright (b. 1956) scrutinizes:

The account of Elijah’s disappearance...states that he actually went upward: “They (Elijah and Elisha) were walking and talking when suddenly a fiery chariot and fiery horses appeared and separated them from one another. Then Elijah went up in a whirlwind into the sky” (II Kings 2:11). The Hebrew here is admittedly awkward. The phrase ם’השמ בסערה הו’אל על’ו is literally rendered “then Elijah went up in a (the) whirlwind in the sky.” The ambiguity in the meaning of the term ם’השמ (“sky” or “heaven”) here could have been avoided in a couple of ways. First, it could have been put into a genitival relationship with the term “whirlwind” (בסעה), thus “a whirlwind of the sky,” but no such phrase occurs in the Hebrew Bible, and the only close parallel would be “whirlwind of Yahweh” (ה’ה’ בסעה Jeremiah 23:19, 30:23). Second, ם’השמ could have been governed by a preposition indicating direction toward (i.e., ל or אל), as it is in the Aramaic Targum (הו’אל ק’סל א’שמ ח’לצ בעלעולא), “Elijah went up in a whirlwind towards the sky”). Finally the authors could have used the “locative he” (i.e., מה’השמ), a fairly common construction used for both “skyward” (Genesis 15:5; Exodus 9:8, 10; Deuteronomy 4:19; Joshua 8:20; Judges 13:20, 20:40; Job 2:12) and “heavenward,” that is, towards the realm of the gods (Genesis 28:12; Deuteronomy 30:12, II Chronicles 6:13). Any of these options would have removed the ambiguity of how to understand ם’השמ in II Kings 2:11. The modifications apparent in the Greek translation hint at some of the difficulty the ancients had with this verse: καὶ ἀνελήμφθη ’Ηλιοὺ ἐν συσσεισμω ὡς τὸν οὑρανόν (“Elijah was taken up in a whirlwind as it were into heaven”). (Esther G. Chazon [b. 1953], David Satran [b. 1952] and Ruth A. Clements [b. 1957], “Whither Elijah?: The Ascension in Biblical and Extrabiblical Traditions”, Things Revealed: Studies In Early Jewish And Christian Literature In Honor of Michael E. Stone [b. 1938], 124-25)

Jon Douglas Levenson (b. 1949) critiques:

There is no reason to think that Elijah is here assumed into heavenly glory, rewarded for his service, or brought into the company of other righteous servants of God. Rather, the God of Israel, whose throne is in the sky, whisks his servant Elijah away from the earth and toward his own mysterious and unapproachable abode. The storm or “whirlwind” (sě‘ārâ II Kings 2:11) through which he does this contributes a sense of awesome violence, intensifying our perception of the unpredictable, unnatural, indeed, otherworldly character of the event. (Levenson, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life, 101)

The ambiguity and irregular construction may be intentional as the author faces the dilemma of describing a unique supernatural phenomenon within the constraints of natural language.

Some interpreters have attempted to mitigate the miraculous features of the incident. Nelson P. Estrada relays:

There are two possible explanations concerning the relationship of Elijah’s disappearance and the ‘whirlwind’ with the definite article after the chariot and horses. John Gray [1913-2000], for example, suggests that since the former was a natural phenomena, the latter (chariot and horse) may also have been. He adds that the whirlwind and the sudden disappearance of Elijah may be compared with the visible progress of an accompanying dust-storm by horses and chariots. Th other explanation is the historification of a native myth or cult legend. (Estrada, From Followers to Leaders: The Apostles in the Ritual Status Transformation in Acts 1-2, 96)

Most contemporary interpreters concede that the passage attempts to convey a supernatural anomaly. Richard D. Patterson and Hermann J. Austel (1926-2011) correct:

Elijah was taken up to heaven in the whirlwind, not in the chariot and horses of fire as is so often taught. Nor is the account of Elijah’s translation drawn from mythological sources (contra Gwilym H. Jones [b. 1930], 385-86), such as those depicting a god moving across the sky (e.g., the Egyptian god Re). (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], 1 Samuel ~ 2 Kings (Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 813)

Elijah is taken by a “whirlwind” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) or “strong wind’ (CEV). Joseph Robinson (b. 1927) notes:

A whirlwind would be a fairly frequent and therefore relatively well-known occurrence in the deserts of Transjordan. Wind and spirit were closely related in the minds of the Hebrews. The Hebrew ruah means both. The link was probably the idea of energy, as in the New Testament where the double meaning of the word is used as a basis for teaching (cp. John 3:8 and Acts 2:1-4). (Robinson, The Second Book of Kings (Cambridge Bible Commentary, 24)

Despite the relative unanimity of translators, the Hebrew term se‘ârâh is broader than the English “whirlwind”. Paul R. House (b. 1958) clarifies:

Literally the phrase השמים בסערה says “in the storm of the heavens,” which does not designate whether or not a “whirlwind” is meant. Cf. Francis Brown [1849-1916], S.R. Driver [1846-1914] and Charles A. Briggs [1841-1913], 704. (House, 1, 2 Kings (New American Commentary), 257)

Marvin A. Sweeney (b. 1953) informs:

The term sě‹ārâ, “whirlwind, storm, wind,” appears frequently in depictions of YHWH’s theophanies (e.g. Ezekiel 1:4, 13:11, 13; Zechariah 9:14; Job 38:1, 40:6; cf. Isaiah 29:6, 40:24, 41:16; Jeremiah 23:19, 30:23) to portray YHWH’s amorphous yet powerful presence. The imagery of the storm wind likely relates to YHWH’s role in creation as the source of rain, wind, storm, and thus fertility, much as the Phoenician, Syrian, and Mesopotamian storm gods, such as Baal or Hadad, fill similar roles in their respective cultural contexts. The weather deities are frequently portrayed as riding chariots through the heavens. Baal is designated rkb‘rpt, “the rider of the clouds,’ and Hadad and other weather gods are likewise portrayed either in the chariots (The Ancient Neat East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament 689) or in relation to winged sun disks that convey them through the heavens (The Ancient Neat East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament 501, 531, 532, 534-36). Other biblical texts portray YHWH riding through the heavens in a chariot (Psalm 68:5, 34; Psalms 18:11/II Samuel 22:11; Deuteronomy 33:26; Isaiah 19:1; cf. Habakkuk 3:8; Ezekiel 1:8-11). (Sweeney, I & II Kings: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 271-72)

The same term is used in Job 38:1. Jo Bailey Wells (b. 1965) discusses:

The term translated “whirlwind” is used in the context of divine appearance (see Ezekiel 1:4). The broader use of a storm as a sign of divine appearance occurs using other terms as well (see Psalms 18:7-15, 50:3, 68:8; Nahum 1:3; Zechariah 9:14). Elijah was taken off in the midst of a whirlwind (II Kings 2:11). The whirlwind strikes the reader as a place where the reader is not at home. (David L. Bartlett [b. 1941] and Barbara Brown Taylor [b. 1951], Feasting on the Word: Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary, Year B, 149)

The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary compares:

Elijah the prophet, at the end of his earthly career, was taken up alive into heaven in a whirlwind (II Kings 2:11). The Hebrew word there behind “whirlwind” (se’arah) also describes the atmospheric phenomenon of Ezekiel 1:4, “the windstorm”—the early impression the prophet had of the flying cherubim, above which God was enthroned. Thus, God communicates in a special way to these two prophets in the whirlwind/windstorm; in both cases, this encounter initiated a climactic event in their prophetic ministries: Elijah’s ended, and Ezekiel’s began. (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952], The Baker Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1711)

Most have seen Elijah’s whirlwind removal as a theophany, a divine appearance. August H. Konkel (b. 1948) remarks:

The topic of the chapter is introduced by saying that Elijah is taken up to heaven in a storm [II Kings 2:1]...The force and power of the wind are symbolic of the majestic and holy presence of the divine. The storm is the means by which the immanence of God can be perceived, somewhat like the storm on Mount Sinai (Exodus 20:18-19). (Konkel, 1 & 2 Kings (NIV Application Commentary), 379)

Ironically, Elijah had once sought God’s voice on Mount Horeb through dramatic weather manifestations such as wind and earthquakes but instead heard a divine tone in “a gentle blowing” or silence (I Kings 19:11-14 NASB). Here, God finally speaks in the storm.

Jesse C. Long, Jr. (b. 1953) connects:

Once more, Elijah is associated with fire (cf. I Kings 18:38; II Kings 1:9-15). The prophet goes up (‘ālāh) to heaven in a whirlwind (סערה s‘ār āh, “storm,” often associated with Yahweh; cf. Job 38:1, 40:6; Isaiah 29:6; Jeremiah 30:23), even though Yahweh was not in the storm on Horeb (cf. I Kings 19:9-18). (Long, 1 & 2 Kings (College Press NIV Commentary), 290)

Elijah’s departure further validates him against his adversaries. Gary Inrig (b. 1943) contrasts:

Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind, not in the chariot, another indication of the emptiness of the claims of Baal, the so-called storm god. It was the Lord who controlled the storm and God’s prophet who rode it into his presence. Ahab and Jezebel’s deaths would be associated with dogs [I Kings 21:19, 23, 24, 22:38]; Elijah’s departure happened through supernatural intervention. (Inrig, 1 & 2 Kings (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 205-06)

Just as being taken by God is more honorific than being devoured by dogs, so does the supernatural trump the natural.

This exit was especially befitting of Elijah. John H. Walton (b. 1952) and Kim E. Walton (b. 1954) opine:

Fire and whirlwind were generally associated in the ancient world with a storm god whose chariot is the storm cloud. In I Kings 17:1-18:46 Elijah contended on Yahweh’s behalf against Baal, a storm god. He demonstrated that Yahweh was the Storm God (he sent fire to consume the sacrifice and then sent rain), not Baal. Of course, Yahweh filled every divine function, but Elijah had been most involved with showing Yahweh to be the true Storm God. It is therefore appropriate that fire and whirlwind with chariots and horses was his vehicle. (Walton and Walton, The Bible Story Handbook: A Resource for Teaching 175 Stories from the Bible, 206)

The whirlwind serves as one final stamp of approval that God is with Elijah. He is a prophet indeed.

What messages are conveyed by Elijah’s whirlwind exit (II Kings 2:11)? How are we to picture this scene, as a twister enveloping the prophet as in The Wizard of Oz? Which image is more significant, the chariot of fire or the whirlwind? Why is this methodology employed? In what ways does the phenomenon reflect the situation? When have you left a job or city? How do you hope to depart the earth? When have you been validated? Have you ever felt God’s stamp of approval?

The whirlwind mirrors the myriad of emotions Elisha must feel as he says goodbye to the man he considers his “father” (II Kings 2:12) and faces the unenviable task of following a legend. As Elijah passes the great divide in a whirlwind, there is a clear line of demarcation between he and his successor.

Marvin A. Sweeney (b. 1953) contends:

The portrayal in II Kings 2:11 of Elijah’s ascent into the heavens marks the transfer of prophetic power to Elisha. The verse emphasizes that the fiery chariot separates them as Elijah ascends to the heavens in a whirlwind to differentiate Elijah’s new place in the second realm of the heavens and Elisha’s continued presence in the profane realm of the earth. (Sweeney, I & II Kings: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 274)

The whirlwind provides a definitive before and after, a clear changing of the guard. Gina Hens-Piazza (b. 1948) considers:

Elisha must pass a test for which he cannot even prepare. Whether he sees Elijah parting is out of his control. He must transfer his dependence on Elijah to complete dependence upon God. But God’s whirlwind does not grant easy access, nor does the Lord’s manifestation in the wilderness afford spiritual comfort. Indeed, Elisha does see Elijah depart, but the whirlwind also blows asunder his safety and robs him of the one who gave him his identity. The whirling upheaval that whisks Elijah from him requires Elisha to surrender the safety of his position as servant to grapple with God as one of God’s prophets. He must become the Lord’s instrument, delivering the divine word before kings throughout Israel. (Hens-Piazza, 1-2 Kings (Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries), 239)

Handling such difficult change and loss is typical of the human experience. Richard D. Nelson (b. 1945) preaches:

Literature has always helped the human race rehearse change and come to terms with it, perhaps even find value in it...Biblical literature goes even further, insisting that change is meaningful and bearable because God is the author of change. God’s whirlwind blows away every love, every security, every safety. The same changeless God pushes ceaseless change on the world. Yet God’s commission for ministry transcends change. (Nelson, First and Second Kings (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 163)

Elijah’s absence leaves a gaping whole in both Elisha’s and the nation’s life. As the whirlwind envelops his mentor, Elisha is positioned literally and figuratively at the edge as he faces the challenge of filling the void. With God’s help, he will do so.

Who does the whirlwind most benefit, Elijah, Elisha or the nation as a whole? What does the whirlwind accomplish? Does it in any way give Elisha “closure”? How does the whirlwind assist in the leadership transition from Elijah to Elisha? When have you experienced a whirlwind of change? What is the smoothest succession of leadership with which you are familiar? Must the previous regime depart for its successor to thrive? Must the old pastor leave for her successor to succeed? Whose shoes do you need to fill?

“Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful. It's the transition that's troublesome.” - Isaac Asimov (1920-1992)

The Prophet’s Chamber (II Kings 4:10)

What did the Shunammite woman do for Elisha? She built him a room (II Kings 4:10)

On his travels, the prophet Elisha forges a lasting friendship with an unnamed Shunammite woman (II Kings 4:8-37; 8:1-6). Their relationship begins when the “prominent” woman provides the prophet with a meal (II Kings 4:8 NASB). This starts a tradition as not only does the prophet repeatedly return to the Shunammite’s home, throughout the centuries grateful clergy have been fed by parishioners.

Russell H. Dilday (b. 1930) relays:

II Kings 4:8 says that the woman “persuaded” (KJV: “constrained”) Elisha to eat the food that she had prepared. What preacher has not had an identical experience—a talented cook in the church family who delights in frustrating every good intention of pastoral weight control by “constraining” him to eat a second helping...? No wonder Elisha “as often as he passed by...would turn in there to eat some food.” (Dilday, 1 & 2 Kings (Mastering the Old Testament), 294)

The two grow closer and eventually the Shunammite woman asks her husband to build an addition on to their home to host the prophet (II Kings 4:10)!

Please, let us make a little walled upper chamber and let us set a bed for him there, and a table and a chair and a lampstand; and it shall be, when he comes to us, that he can turn in there.” (II Kings 4:10 NASB)

August H. Konkel (b. 1948) speculates that the prophet’s holiness led to the addition of the extra room:

Elisha has occasion to pass the location regularly on his journeys from Carmel (II Kings 4:9); like Samuel (I Samuel 7:15-17), he probably follows a circuit in the administration of his duties. Elisha is regarded as a holy man, distinguished from the other prophets who continue to have regular vocations. This status may have been the reason for providing a separate room for him; separate quarters protect the family from having inappropriate intimacy with this man of God. The woman’s reverence is also expressed in the vocabulary used to describe her hospitality (II Kings 4:13); Elisha says she “trembled” (hāradt) with “fear” (b^erādâ) for him, expressing the care she has taken not to infringe on his sanctity as a man of God. (Konkel, 1 & 2 Kings (The NIV Application Commentary), 413-14)

This dwelling is ideal for the prophet as he travels to and through the Jezreel Valley. Marvin A. Sweeney (b. 1953) details:

Joshua 19:18 locates Shunem in the territory Issachar. It is identified with the modern site of Sulam at the foot of Mount Moreh in the northern portion of the Jezreel Valley opposite Mount Gilboa and the site of Jezreel to the south. The site is strategically located as it guards the eastern approaches to the Jezreel Valley and the western approaches into the northern regions of the Jordan Valley around Beth Shean. It thereby aids in controlling the trade routes through the Jezreel that connect the Transjordan to the Mediterranean coast. Elisha’s relationship with the Shunammite woman portends the growth of a base of support for the prophet, who will be instrumental in the recovery of her own property (II Kings 8:1-6) and in Jehu’s revolt (II Kings 9-10). (Sweeney, First and Second Kings: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 289)

Volkmar Fritz (1938-2007) adds:

Shunem, which is also mentioned in Joshua 19:18 and I Samuel 28:4, is to be found at Sōlem on the eastern border of the Jezreel plain. (Shunem is also the place of origin of Abishag, who cared for David toward the end of his life; see I Kings 1:1-4.) The geographical position requires that Elisha would occasionally leave his sphere of influence in the south of Israel, although the destination of his wanderings is not mentioned. (Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings: A Continental Commentary, 250)

The Shunammites expand their home upward as the prophet’s quarters were located atop the roof. J. Robinson (b. 1927) details:

Why not build...a little roof-chamber: the N.E.B. has paraphrased because the Hebrew is not entirely clear. The houses had flat roots which were often used to provide extra accommodation. Tents could be pitched on the roofs or temporary wooden rooms built. The suggestion here is that a permanent rather than a temporary room should be provided. The wall of the house would be higher than the roof to provide a parapet. The N.E.B. makes the woman suggest that a part of the wall should be raised and a permanent room built against it. She may have suggested building a walled chamber anywhere on the roof (cp. the Revised Standard Version). The justification for his expense and for the luxurious conditions provided – travellers usually sat, ate and slept on the floor – was her acknowledgement of Elisha as ‘a holy man of God’. (Robinson, The Second Book of Kings (Cambridge Bible Commentaries on the Old Testament), 43)

The room was large enough to walk around in (II Kings 4:35) and was apparently spacious enough to also host Gehazi, Elisha’s servant (II Kings 4:13). The prophet’s apartment was furnished modestly with predominantly indispensable items. One of the items was a “lamp”, pottery containing oil and shaped to hold a wick.

Philip J. King (b. 1925) and Lawrence E. Stager (b. 1943) note the anomaly:

The only reference [in the Bible] to a household lampstand (měnôrâ) is included in a list of furnishings in Elisha’s quarters (II Kings 4:10). Ordinarily lampstands were used in cultic rather than domestic contexts. (King and Stager, Life in Biblical Israel (Library of Ancient Israel), 30)

It was not the opulence of the room that was noteworthy, but its availability. Such edifices have been built for traveling holy people many times since and are commonly referred to as the “Prophet’s Chamber”.

Christine D. Pohl (b. 1950) chronicles:

The possibility of welcoming Jesus into one’s home shaped ancient church teachings on home-based hospitality. John Chrystostom [347-407] instructed his parishioners: “Make for yourself a guest-chamber in your house: set up a bed there, set up a table there and a candlestick. [cp. II Kings 4:10]...Have a room to which Christ may come; say, ‘This is Christ’s cell; this building is set apart for Him.’” Christ’s room, Chrystostom wrote, would be for the “maimed, the beggars, and the homeless.” Even if it were inadequate, “Christ disdains it not.” (Pohl, Making Room: Recovering Hospitality As a Christian Tradition, 154)

Have you ever had a room in someone else’s home? Why does the Shunammite make the offer to host the prophet? Have you ever demonstrated hospitality when it was inconvenient? Do you have a guest room? Who is welcome there? What do you do to show gratitude to the holy people in your life? What does your pastor need that you can provide? (Definitely the most self serving question in the blog’s history.)

Despite not being identified by name, the woman is described by the Hebrew word gadowl (II Kings 4:8). This word has produced a wide array of translations: “great” (ASV, KJV), “leading” (MSG), “notable” (NKJV), “prominent” (HCSB, NASB), “rich” (CEV), “wealthy” (ESV, NLT, NRSV, RSV), “well-to-do” (NIV).

Despite these many interpretations, the word is quite simple - the woman is great. Jesse C. Long, Jr. (b. 1953) comments:

The Shunammite is literally named “a great woman” (...’iŝŝāh g’dōlāh), with the nuance of a person of wealth. By the end of the story, however, there will be reason to believe that the narrator intends more in this designation than financial means. (Long, 1 & 2 Kings (College Press NIV Commentary), 311)

Robert L. Cohn (b. 1947) praises:

Although she is unnamed, she is called a “great woman,” and by the end...we know why...Not only does she urge Elisha to stay and eat on this first occasion but she provides for him each time he comes to Shunem. Moreover, she declares to her husband her intention to furnish a guest room for he “holy man of God” for his use whenever he is in town. The initiative is all hers; Elisha asks for nothing and her husband does not encourage her. Indeed, everywhere in the story he is defined in relationship to her: “her husband.” Her “greatness” is also reflected in her recognition of the holiness of this man of God before he offers any demonstration of it. (Cohn, 2 Kings (Berit Olam: Studies In Hebrew Narrative And Poetry), 28)

The woman demonstrates great initiative as she, not her husband, is the catalyst for the action in the story. (Though in my experience, the woman being the one to suggest a house addition is as cliché as being the cook in the family.)

Warren W. Wiersbe (b. 1929) admits, “We get the impression that her husband lacked his wife’s spiritual insight, but at least he didn’t oppose her hospitality to the itinerant preacher (Wiersbe, Be Distinct: 2 Kings & 2 Chronicles), 42).”

Tikva Frymer-Kensky (1943-2006) admires the Shunammite’s remarkable independence:

She is not identified as her father’s daughter or her husband’s wife, for these relationships do not define her destiny or her role in the story. She is identified by the name of her village because her attachment to a particular location will turn out to be important in her life and in her story...The Shunammite is strikingly free in her dealings with the prophet...She acts on her own, without asking her husband’s permission, as she provides food and hospitality to him in his journeys. Her wealth may contribute to her boldness, for wealthy women have greater freedom of action than poor women, and sometimes even more than poor men. But poor women could also be close to the prophets. The prophet Elijah lodged with a poor widow without worrying about gossip, and no one would react badly to the Shunammite’s entertaining Elisha. A wife can dispense food without her husband’s supervision: another woman of means, Abigail, brought great amounts of food to David without her husband’s knowledge. The Shunammite brings her husband into the picture only when she wishes to add an addition to her house. (Frymer-Kensky, Reading the Women of the Bible: A New Interpretation of Their Stories, 65)

Claudia V. Camp (b. 1951) exalts:

The portrayal of this unnamed woman is one of the most remarkable in the Bible. Both independent and maternal, powerful and pious, she brings to mind a number of other female characters, yet surpasses them all. She is observant in both practical and spiritual ways: she notices not only Elisha’s regular passing through Shunem but also the aura that marks him as a “man of God.”...The Shunamite takes the initiative that might have been her husband’s. She has an upper room built and furnished for Elisha’s use (compare Elijah’s lodging with the Sidonian woman). (Carol Ann Newsom [b. 1950] and Sharon H. Ringe [b. 1946], The Women’s Bible Commentary: Expanded Edition, 113)

His connection to the great Shunammite woman will add to the prophet’s own greatness. The account of her house addition is only the background exposition to the story which follows (II Kings 4:11-37). Alice L. Laffey (b. 1944) notes:

Elisha acts...on behalf of the powerless...Though married and wealthy, she is nevertheless dependent upon her husband in the society’s social structure. Elisha rewards this woman who provided lavishly for him and for his servant by promising her that she will bear son. (Laffey, First and Second Kings (New Collegeville Bible Commentary), 98)

The Shunammite’s hospitality pleased the prophet so much that he looked for a way to bless her (II Kings 4:11-14). She had yet to bear children and the prophet promises her a child (II Kings 4:15-17). He eventually will raise that child from the dead, a feat which rivaled his predecessor (II Kings 4:28-37).

Paul R. House (b. 1958) compares:

Despite all he has done, Elisha has not yet matched Elijah’s greatest feat, for he has not been used to raise the dead. Even this difference is removed when a...woman and her family enter Elisha’s life. (House, 1, 2 Kings (New American Commentary), 267)

In making room for the prophet in her home, the Shunammite also makes room for a miracle in her life.

There are many explanations drawn from many lenses as to why the Shunammite woman was “great”. Most simply, Elizabeth George (b. 1944) appraises:

So what did the Shunammite do that was so great? So heroic? She did what you and I could do and should do—She looked out and saw a need, she reached out and extended a helping hand, and she gave out of a heart of love for another person. (George, Young Woman After God’s Own Heart, 183)

What makes this woman great? What makes any person great? Does Christian hospitality always bring reciprocal blessing (Luke 6:38)? What needs do you see in your community? How can you personally meet them?

“We don’t need more strength or ability or opportunity. What we need is to use what we have.” - Basil S. Walsh

The Prophet Who Lost His Head (II Kings 6)

Who lost a head of an ax in a stream? The sons of the prophet (II Kings 6:5, 6)

In the midst of a series of miraculous stories featuring Elisha, the prophet made iron float (II Kings 6:1-7). Though living in a tumultuous time spiritually, Elisha was developing a following, so much so that the prophets had a housing problem. There was not enough room for all of them (II Kings 6:1). (This is a good problem to have.) Elisha accepted his protégés’ recommendation and agreed to join them in building a new settlement along the Jordan River (II Kings 6:2-3).

While cutting trees, one of Elisha’s pupils’ ax heads plunged into the river (II Kings 6:4). The fact that the tool had been borrowed made matters worse. The (literally) poor man turned to Elisha and explained his plight, presumably to evoke empathy, not a miracle (II Kings 6:5).

Mark Batterson (b. 1969) writes:

Notice the verb tense. This apprentice uses the past tense. As far as he’s concerned, this ax head is gone. It reminds me of one of Jack Handey’s deep thoughts: If you drop your keys in a river of molten lava, let ’em go man, ’cause they're gone! If you drop your iron ax head in the river, let it go man, ’cause it's gone! (Batterson, In A Pit With A Lion On A Snowy Day, 31)

Undeterred, Elisha asked where the ax head fell and successfully defied the laws of nature by throwing a stick where his student indicated which signaled the iron to float (II Kings 6:6). The story ends with the prophet instructing his pupil to procure the lost object (II Kings 6:7). The narrator supplies neither explanation nor interpretation. The story ends with no moral, object lesson, life application or even a suggestion to be more prudent.

In many ways, the story is typical as Elisha often saved his fellow prophets from physical want or financial disaster (II Kings 4:1-7, 38-41, 42-44) and Elisha stories often involve water (II Kings 2:18-22, 3:16-20, 5:10-14, 6:1-7). The two halves of the story are unified by the term: maqowm. This word is used for both the “place” where the prophets wish to build (II Kings 6:1, 2) and the “place” where the ax head fell (II Kings 6:6) The floating iron verifies the prophet’s true identity - what Elisha does can only be done by God working through him.

The story’s trainee prophet is in a difficult position. As evidenced by the fact that he had to borrow the tools, he was poor. The law was clear - he would be obligated to make restitution for the lost tool (Exodus 22:13-14). He likely could not. It was the Iron Age and an ax head represented the height of technological achievement. Unlike copper and bronze, iron had to be molded while hot which required a significant amount of fuel. Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. (b. 1943) summarizes, “iron was expensive in Bible times and the student-prophet was very poor (Hubbard, First and Second Kings (Everyman’s Bible Commentary), 157).” The student prophet became another in a long line of poor, hard working religious workers who could not afford to lose a borrowed tool.

Have you ever borrowed anything you could not afford to replace? Have you ever lost or damaged a borrowed item? When has God bailed you out of a predicament as is the case with this young prophet?

Though the event meant a great deal to Elisha’s student, the episode is strikingly mundane. Commentaries devote little space to it. It is overshadowed by most all of the incidents that precede it: saving a widow and her son from slavery (II Kings 4:1-7), raising a child back to life (II Kings 4:8-36) and curing a Syrian of leprosy (II Kings 5:1-27). Retrieving an ax seems insignificant in comparison. If Elisha were going to utilize divine power, why not simply erect a structure for the prophets?

Critics might even say that Elisha exploits his divinely granted power for pedestrian purposes. The incident is nothing if not a miraculous. Though a few have speculated that Elisha thrust the pole into the water to spear the ax head through the haft-hole or that he simply maneuvered the ax head into shallower waters this was certainly not the author’s intent. Iron, like any mineral with a density greater than one gram per cubic centimeter, does not float. (The density of cast iron is approximately 7.2 grams per cubic centimeter). Elisha performed a miracle in making an iron ax head buoyant. Was this incident worthy of a miracle?

Perhaps the triviality of the story is its significance. Batterson concluded, “God is great not just because nothing is too big for him. God is great because nothing is too small for him either (Batterson, 32).”

In 1980, William J. Krutza (b. 1929) published a book entitled How Much Prayer Should a Hamburger Get?.

How much prayer should a hamburger get? Do you ever opt not to pray for something because it seems too inconsequential? Is anything too trivial to pray about? If something bothers you, why would you not take it to God (Philippians 4:6-7; I Peter 5:7)? How many ax heads lie lifelessly upon river bottoms because no one attempted to retrieve them?

“God may not play dice but he enjoys a good round of Trivial Pursuit every now and again.” - Federico Fellini (1920-1993)

Elisha and the Killer Bears (II Kings 2:24)

What happened to children who made fun of Elisha’s bald head? Bears ate them (II Kings 2:24)

Elisha was involved in a graphic incident at Bethel in which the prophet’s curse led to the death of his critics (II Kings 2:23-24). The story seems out of character for Elisha who had just completed a mercy mission in Jericho (II Kings 2:15-22) and went to Bethel not to curse, but to bless. Bethel had a history of idolatry as King Jeroboam had promoted pagan worship there (I Kings 12:28-33). Elisha arrived to criticism from a group of youth and cursed the offending parties, 42 of whom were subsequently devoured by bears (II Kings 2:23-24). This troublesome text has often been viewed as a cautionary tale to not harm God’s anointed (Psalm 105:15).

This short horror story has evoked images like the one above from New Zealand caricaturist Graham Williamson and nonbelievers have often cited this atrocity as reason to reject the faith. Not surprisingly, apologists have attempted to soften the story. The mitigating circumstances used to cushion the text include posing that the victims were not children, that their criticism of Elisha had little to do with his bald head and that the bears likely only mauled rather than ate the children.

The age of the bears’ victims is debated. The wording “little children” comes from the King James Version (II Kings 2:23). The standard refutation of this understanding is exemplified by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. (b. 1933):

“Little children” is an unfortunate translation. The Hebrew expression n^e‘urîm q^eţannîm is best rendered “young lads” or “young men.” From numerous examples where ages are specified in the Old Testament, we know that these were boys from twelve to thirty years old. One of these words described Isaac at his sacrifice in Genesis 22:12, when he was easily in his early twenties. It described Joseph in Genesis 37:2 when he was seventeen years old. In fact, the same word described army men in 1 Kings 20:14-15...these are young men ages between twelve and thirty (Kaiser, Hard Sayings of the Bible, 232).

Ancient Jewish society did consider a male to be a young lad until he reached the age of thirty and the cases Kaiser cites of the use of the Hebrew na’ar (“lads”) are accurate but in this text, the adjective quatan (“small”) is added to na’ar . In response, Kaiser cites the case of David being described by similar terms when he was old enough to serve as a shepherd (I Samuel 16:11-12). Kaiser’s argument is not conclusive as evidenced by the various translations of the text. While different translations make the age of the victims seem slightly different, they all affirm that the victims were younger. The text is alternately rendered “small boys” (ESV, HCSB, NRSV, RSV), “boys” (CEV, NIV, NLT), “young lads” (ASV, NASB), “youths” (NKJV), and “little kids” (MSG). The real issue regarding the age is that of innocense.

Because of the youth of the adversaries and their numeric advantage, Norman Geisler (b. 1932) defends the prophet by attacking the youths: “As best we can tell, this was a violent mob of dangerous teenagers, comparable to a modern street gang (Lee Strobel [b.1952], The Case for Faith, 123).” It has also been speculated that this group was associated with prophets of Ba’al making the text parallel Elijah’s triumph on Mount Carmel (I Kings 18:16-40). Coincidentally, Mount Carmel was Elisha’s next destination (II Kings 2:25).

Was the prophet in danger? Even if he was, is the punishment not severe? How does the age of the children effect your reading of the passage? Does your interpretation change if you picture the Hitler Youth instead of elementary school students? Does God ever ordain the killing of children?

The divisive issue was not Elisha’s hairstyle. The prophet is mocked with the refrain “Go up, you baldhead (II Kings 2:23 NASB)”. The command “go up” both mocked the ascension of Elijah (II Kings 2:1-12) and instructed the prophet to leave the premises. The juvenile epithet “you bald head” was then added. Given that prophets’ heads were covered it is doubtful they knew whether or not Elisha was bald. Baldness was rare in the Ancient Near East and could have been associated with leprosy (Isaiah 3:17, 24).

F.W. Krummacher (1796-1868) expounds:

Baldness was regarded by the lower orders as a kind of disgrace; for as it was one of the usual consequences of leprosy, so it was accounted a sign of personal and mental degradation. Hence, in using this opprobrious epithet, the young profligates had a most malicious intention (Krummacher, Elisha, A Prophet For Our Times, 13).

The prophet’s credibility, not alopecia, was the real issue. Their mocking strategically attacked both God’s message and the messenger.

In response, Elisha cursed his detractors “in the name of the LORD” which resulted in two she-bears emerging from the woods to maul 42 youths (II Kings 2:24 NASB). The Hebrew for “cursed” (qalal) does not entail being laced with profanity. It has been speculated that Elisha pronounced a curse similar to the covenant curse of Leviticus 26:21-22. Elisha neither summoned the bears nor called for the youths’ deaths. He merely pronounced judgment on the demonstrators and God decided the form of the response.

Did Elisha intend for the youths to die? What should Elisha have done? What would you have done had you been surrounded by a horde of mockers?

Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. (b. 1933) sees mercy in the text:

The savagery of wild animals was brutal enough, but it was mild compared to the legendary cruelty of the Assyrians who would appear to complete God's judgment in 722 BC. The disastrous fall of Samaria would have been avoided had the people repented after the bear attack and the increasingly sever divine judgments that followed it. But instead of turning back to God, Israel, as would Judah in a later day, “mocked God’s messengers, despised his words and scoffed at his prophets until the wrath of the LORD was aroused against his people and there was no remedy” (II Chronicles 36:16). (Kaiser, Hard Sayings of the Bible, 233-34)

While this provides a positive slant on this text, a lot of harm could be done and has been done using this same rationale (Read: The Inquisition).

Even taking the most tame version of the story - a prophet’s ministry was in peril (not a hypersensitive image conscience leader) by a gang of miscreants (not preschoolers) who were mauled (not eaten) by bears - the story is problematic and God appears harsh.

The passage does not bear any resemblance to the teachings of Jesus. How should a Christian handle this text? Why was the misdeed of the youths punished so severely when others in Scripture were not? Is there a moral to this story? Why is this passage included in the Scriptures? Is it simply a cautionary tale?

“We’re all born bald, Baby!” - Telly Savalas (1922-1994)

Elijah’s Exit (II Kings 2:11)

Who went to heaven in a chariot of fire? Elijah (II Kings 2:11).

The prophet Elijah knew the day that he was making his final exit from the earth (II Kings 12:3, 5). On that day, he along with his protégé, Elisha, made one last circuit, revisiting places of importance in Israel’s history. They traveled from Gilgal to Bethel (II Kings 12:2) to Jericho (II Kings 12:4) back to the east side of the Jordan River (II Kings 12:6) where they crossed to the other side (II Kings 12:8). The journey encompassed 50+ miles. At each stop, Elijah appears to attempt to do as he had done previously in the desert and leave his servant so that he could die alone (I Kings 19:3). At each site, Elijah ordered Elisha to stay behind and each time his apprentice refused to leave his master (II Kings 12:2, 12:4, 12:6). After crossing the Jordan, Elijah and Elisha were separated by a chariot and horsemen of fire (II Kings 2:11). Elijah “went up by a whirlwind to heaven” (II Kings 2:11 NASB) departing the earth and leaving his successor with only his mantle (II Kings 2:13).

The heaven to which Elijah ascended is not the ethereal place the modern word evokes. Jesus said, “No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man (John 3:13 NASB).” The Hebrew, shamayim, indicates the sky. This is evidenced by the fact that the fifty prophets who witnessed Elijah’s exit (II Kings 2:7) assumed that the prophet was taken elsewhere and searched for him for three days (II Kings 2:15-18). Regardless of his destination, Elijah went out in style.

Elijah’s end in a fiery blaze of glory was fitting. His greatest triumph was calling down fire to defeat the prophets of Ba’al (I Kings 18:38) and in one of his finals acts, he again called down fire to consume the soldiers of the rebelling king Ahaziah (II Kings 1:10, 12, 14). The horse and the chariot were symbols of battle. The fiery prophet who had spent his life battling for God was given an honorary military procession.

Tradition, reenforced through hymns (“Swing Low, Sweet Chariot”) and paintings, has evoked Ben Hur images of the chariot carrying the prophet away. Elijah was actually taken by a whirlwind, not a chariot of fire (II Kings 2:11). The fiery chariot served to separate the two ministry partners (II Kings 2:11). The horses may not have even been drawing the chariots as Elisha describes them distinctively (II Kings 12:12). Perhaps the fiery horses and chariot were merely Elijah’s escorts.

Elijah knowingly spent his last day on earth traveling Israel, presumably saying his goodbyes. Missionary Jim Elliott (1927-1956) who was martyred at age 28 in Ecuador, wrote in his journal on March 25th, 1951, “When it comes time to die, make sure that all you have to do is die (Elliot, The Journals of Jim Elliott, 324).”

If you could, would you want to know the exact day on which you would die? If you did know that today was your last day, where would you go? Why does Elijah exit the earth in this manner? For whose benefit were the “chariots for fire”?

“Chariots of fire” is now part of the cultural lexicon. Chariots of fire later come to Elisha’s rescue (II Kings 6:17) and similar imagery is used in Isaiah (Isaiah 66:15-16). Though it has numerous religious overtones, the 1981 Academy Award winning film Chariots of Fire is not actually named for this Biblical passage. Rather the title is taken from a line from a hymn sung in the movie, “Jerusalem”. The hymn, written by C. Hubert H. Parry (1848-1918) in 1916, was based upon a William Blake (1757-1827) poem. Blake’s poem was inspired by the apocryphal story of a young Jesus, accompanied by Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 27:57; Mark 15:43; John 19:38), visiting Glastonbury, England.

It is said that only two Biblical characters did not die: Enoch (Genesis 5:21-24) and Elijah (II Kings 2:1-11). Not surprisingly many legends have arisen around the two figures. Elijah did not die in the sense that his body never decayed but he died like everyone else in the sense that he moved from this life to the next.

What, if anything, do you fear most about death? Do you more dread the transition to the next life or the destruction of the body?

But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “Death is swallowed up in victory. O Death, where is your victory? O Death, where is your sting? (I Corinthians 15:54-55, NASB)