Difficult texts: 2 Kings 6.24—7.20 – Israelite woman cooks her own son?

The majority of the responses to this story were negative. No one expected the Bible to contain such a sadistic, gruesome and revolting narrative. This story is included in one of the stories encircling the prophet Elisha, which runs throughout 2 Kings 4.1—8.15. These tales are folklore that arose as a result of the people’s respect for the prophet. ¹ 2 Kings 6.24—7.20 is given a historical context by the compiler of this book; it refers to the time when Samaria was besieged by the Syrian army. Beginning in the eighth century bc, a Syrian army commanded by King Benhadad III besieged Samaria, the capital of the kingdom of Israel, which was ruled at the time by King Jehoahaz (13.1–9). ² The narrative itself, however, was set during the reign of King Jehoram, as the historical event served only as a backdrop. The compiler of the book appears to have intended to incorporate this story with others about Elisha the prophet in a collection. ³

As a consequence of being surrounded by the Syrian army, the Samaria-dwelling Israelites were helpless. No one could enter or exit the area. The supply of sustenance from the outside was cut off, and the enemy may also have controlled the outside water sources. Consequently, Samaria experienced a severe famine. The Syrian army encircled the Israelites, cut off their food supply, and rendered the city inoperable. The inhabitants were compelled to choose between submission and starvation.

They were surviving, but their circumstances were dire. In accordance with the principles of economics, prices increased as food supplies dwindled. For example, the price of a donkey’s head reached 80 silver shekels. During normal times, no one would consume such an unappealing animal. Even the price of dove’s dung rose significantly. ⁴ Clearly, all of these factors demonstrate the gravity of the situation. No money, nothing to consume, widespread starvation and despondency.

Things continued to deteriorate. A mother came to the king with a heart-wrenching story (to emphasize that this is not a historical account, both the mother and the king are anonymous). She complained about the injustice she had suffered. The mother and her friend had agreed to take turns to cook: today they would eat her child, tomorrow they would eat her friend’s child. They had to do this because they had nothing else to eat. But what happened? ‘So we cooked my son and ate him. The next day I said to her, “Give up your son so we may eat him,” but she had hidden him’ (2 Kings 6.29 NIV).

Sadistic! Disgusting! Horrible! Absurd! That’s how people react when they hear the story. The king’s reaction was much the same. It hurt his heart to hear his people commit such a barbaric act. The idolaters in Israel sometimes went to the extent of sacrificing their own children. Now it was even worse: hunger made people willing to eat their own children. The king tore his garments and wept before God. He was helpless to prevent the famine that plagued them. Similarly, he was unable to solve the mother’s dilemma. The case just ended. The monarch then vowed to kill the prophet Elisha.

Eating human flesh in extremis – during a famine or under enemy siege – was not uncommon in those days. The gruesome act was seen as a last resort for a person to survive. According to a number of Old Testament texts, cannibalism in Israel was evidence that the land was cursed by a God who was angry at the sins of his people. The text of Ezekiel 5.9–10, for example, says:

Because of all your detestable idols, I will do to you what I have never done before and will never do again. Therefore in your midst parents will eat their children, and children will eat their parents. I will inflict punishment on you and will scatter all your survivors to the winds. (Ezek. 5.9–10 NIV) ⁵

However, the text of 2 Kings 6.24—7.20 does not talk about sin. Surprisingly, cannibalism was not the main concern of this case. The mother went to the king not out of guilt and remorse for killing and then eating her own son’s flesh. The issue here was one of justice. The mother felt cheated because her friend had broken the agreement by not cooking her son as agreed. This story seems to be contrasted with the story of King Solomon, who judged two prostitutes (1 Kings 3.16–28). While Solomon was at the peak of his glory and was able to solve this complicated case, this king was at his lowest ebb. He completely failed to provide justice for his people. ⁶

Therefore, if we want to understand the mother’s cannibalistic act, it is good to read the passage of 2 Kings 6.24—7.20 in the context of ‘disaster and hope in God’. The enemy surrounded the city, famine was everywhere. The characters who appear in this passage are complete: the mother, the king, the king’s aide, Elisha the prophet and the four lepers each face the great disaster in their own way. The mother character is a picture of the common people, the little people who suffer the most when a disaster occurs; the famine has robbed her of all her possessions, as well as her most basic possession, which is humanity. That is why, for the sake of her life, she does everything possible, including eating her own child. It seems that the mother did not come to the realization that her act of killing, cooking and eating her child was a mistake. As readers, we may condemn her as a cruel killer, a ‘predatory mother’ or a ‘cannibal mother’, but we must also consider the conditions of society and the situation in which she found herself.

So how did the king of Israel react to the great disaster that befell them? When faced with the mother, he immediately tore his clothes as a form of lamentation and horror. He realized that the people were going crazy. They would do anything to stay alive, and he couldn’t stop them. The king did the only thing he could do: he accused God of being responsible for their calamity. That’s why he blamed Elisha and wanted to kill him. Perhaps the king had been assured by Elisha the prophet that they would survive the Arameans, and that God would help them. But as the situation worsened, help did not come. Feeling cheated, he hunted down the prophet. While the city was under siege, the king had time to besiege Elisha’s house to kill him.

The king’s attitude was truly deplorable. He accused God of being the source of the disaster, an idea that is strangely still popular today. But when one is powerless, blaming God is the easiest thing to do. Such was the case with the king. He no longer expected help from God. He believed in God’s power, but not in his kindness. Meanwhile, despite the difficult situation and even the threat of assassination, the prophet Elisha seemed to be taking it easy. When confronted by the angry king, Elisha emphasized his belief that God would save them. God is not the source of disaster; God is who will defeat it. Steadily, Elisha prophesied that tomorrow food prices would be cheap. It sounds strange, but the concrete problem they faced at that time was high prices. So, what happened the next day? The Syrian army suddenly retreated and food prices dropped dramatically!

Conclusion

Beginning with an enemy siege and high prices, the passage of 2 Kings 6.24—7.20 has a sweet ending: the enemy retreats and prices become cheap. Overall, the passage tells the story of the common effects of war: economic, social and political chaos. In such a situation, the ones who suffer the most are the common people, which in this story is shown by a mother who eats her own child. This cannibalism seems to complete the tragic stories of human children in the Bible. Readers of Scripture may feel outraged at the way in which the mother went about preserving her life. However, according to one commentary, we who have never experienced such a famine should be careful in passing judgement. Extreme situations usually drive people to extremes. The mother had indeed committed an act of madness, and a crime because it involved murder. But she is also a victim: a victim of an oppressive situation, a victim of a ruler who prefers war to diplomacy. So, before we condemn her, let’s consider the attitude of the author of this story: he made no comment.