Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Kings 20:35
And a certain man of the sons of the prophets said unto his neighbor in the word of the LORD, Smite me, I pray thee. And the man refused to smite him.
35 43. A prophetic message rebuking Ahab because he had let Ben-hadad go (Not in Chronicles)
35. a certain man of the sons of the prophets ] It is clear from what follows in the history (2 Kings 2) about the taking of Elijah into heaven, that in spite of Jezebel’s persecution, the prophets and their schools were not put down, but still flourished in various places. Josephus represents this ‘son of the prophets’ as Micaiah, spoken of in 1Ki 22:8, and says that it was in consequence of this message about Ben-hadad’s deliverance that Ahab put him in prison. ( Ant. viii. 14. 5.)
said unto his neighbour in [R.V. fellow by ] the word of the Lord ] The man to whom he made the request was probably one who like himself dwelt in one of the prophetic societies, and he ought therefore to have understood that there was some purpose in his companion’s request. Hence his sin in refusing to comply with it. ‘Fellow’ gives the idea of men of the same guild better than ‘neighbour’. The expression ‘by the word of the Lord’ is found in a similar passage (1Ki 13:17), and is the more usual form.
Smite me ] He wished to personate a man who had been engaged in the battle and had suffered something from the enemy.
the man refused ] Such a refusal was utterly at variance with the character of a prophet, who was to be prepared to obey at all costs a message which came as the word of the Lord. His companion puts the case very strongly in the next verse when he calls his own request ‘the voice of the Lord’.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The sons of the prophets – The expression occurs here for the first time. It signifies (marginal references), the schools or colleges of prophets which existed in several of the Israelite, and probably of the Jewish, towns, where young men were regularly educated for the prophetical office. These schools make their first appearance under Samuel 1Sa 19:20. There is no distinct evidence that they continued later than the time of Elisha; but it is on the whole most probable that the institution survived the captivity, and that the bulk of the prophets, whose works have come down to us belonged to them. Amos Amo 7:14-15 seems to speak as if his were an exceptional case.
Said unto his neighbor – Rather, to his friend or companion – to one who was, like himself, a prophets son, and who ought therefore to have perceived that his colleague spoke in the word of the Lord.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 35. In the word of the Lord] By the word or command of the Lord; that is, God has commanded thee to smite me. Refusing to do it, this man forfeited his life, as we are informed in the next verse.
By this emblematical action he intended to inform Ahab that, as the man forfeited his life who refused to smite him when he had the Lord’s command to do it; so he (Ahab) had forfeited his life, because he did not smite Ben-hadad when he had him in his power.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Unto his neighbour, or brother; another son of the prophets.
In the word of the Lord; in the name and by the command of God, whereof doubtless he had informed him.
Smite me, so as to wound me, 1Ki 20:37. He speaks what God commanded him, though it was to his own hurt; by which obedience to God he secretly reproacheth Ahabs disobedience in a far easier matter. And this the prophet by Gods appointment desires, that looking like a wounded soldier, he might have the more free access to the king, and discourse with him; which it was very hard for a prophet to obtain, that sort of men being hateful to Ahab, 1Ki 22:8, and to his courtiers.
The man refused to smite him; not out of contempt of Gods command, but most probably in tenderness and compassion to his brother.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
35-38. Smite meThis prophetis supposed (1Ki 20:8) to havebeen Micaiah. The refusal of his neighbor to smite the prophet wasmanifestly wrong, as it was a withholding of necessary aid to aprophet in the discharge of a duty to which he had been called byGod, and it was severely punished [1Ki20:36], as a beacon to warn others (see on 1Ki13:2-24). The prophet found a willing assistant, and then,waiting for Ahab, leads the king unconsciously, in the parabolicmanner of Nathan (2Sa12:1-4), to pronounce his own doom; and this consequentpunishment was forthwith announced by a prophet (see on 1Ki21:17).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And a certain man of the sons of the prophets,…. Which the Jews take to be Micaiah, and so Josephus u, which is probable; the same that had been with Ahab more than once; and, whoever he was, it is not unlikely that he was the same, since Ahab knew him when his disguise was off, 1Ki 20:41,
said unto his neighbour, in the word of the Lord, smite me, I pray thee; told his neighbour, that by the command of God he was ordered to bid him smite him, so as to wound him:
and the man refused to smite him; being his neighbour, and perhaps a fellow prophet, and having an affection for him.
u Antiqu. l. 8. c. 14. sect, 5.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The verdict of God upon Ahab’s conduct towards Benhadad. – 1Ki 20:35, 1Ki 20:36. A disciple of the prophets received instructions from God, to announce to the king that God would punish him for letting Benhadad go, and to do this, as Nathan had formerly done in the case of David (2Sa 12:1.), by means of a symbolical action, whereby the king was led to pronounce sentence upon himself. The disciples of the prophets said to his companion, “in the word of Jehovah,” i.e., by virtue of a revelation from God (see at 1Ki 13:2), “Smite me;” and when the friend refused to smite him, he announced to him that because of this disobedience to the voice of the Lord, after his departure from him a lion would meet him and smite him, i.e., would kill him; a threat which was immediately fulfilled. This occurrence shows with how severe a punishment all opposition to the commandments of God to the prophets was followed, as a warning for others; just as in the similar occurrence in 1Ki 13:24.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
Too Busy! Verses 35-43
Ahab was not to get off without God’s reprimand and judgment. The Lord moved one of the young prophets, probably from Elijah’s training school, to go to the king with His message. It called for a disguise as a wounded soldier, and the young prophet requested the aid of one of his fellows. He was to strike him and wound him, but he refused to do so. As a result he was told that disobedience to the Lord’s will would cost him his life. A lion would accost and slay him as soon as he left the company. It happened as foretold. This is a reminder to God’s servants to comply with His will regardless of how distasteful to self it may be (cf. Mat 16:24).
The young prophet succeeded in getting himself smitten, so soundly, in fact, that he received a bloody wound. The prophet then went out with his disguise and ashes on his face and stood by the road where Ahab would pass by. There he was when he stopped the king with a woeful story. He said he had been in the battle when another soldier brought a prisoner to him and charged him with keeping him safely. If he should escape he would require of the young man his life, or he should pay an indemnity of silver talent (almost $22, 000 in present values), which was an impossible sum for a poor man to acquire.
The story was a parable, directly applicable to Ahab and his handling of the Ben-hadad affair. It was the Lord who gave Ben-hadad a prisoner, into the hand of Ahab, who should have guarded him until the Lord passed judgment on him. But busy with his own thoughts about prestige and honor he was suddenly gone, and now Ahab must pay the penalty. The king decided his own fate. The prophet wiped the ashes from his face, and Ahab recognized him. Because Ahab had allowed Ben-hadad to escape, though God had appointed him to destruction, Ahab will pay with his own life, for he will perish in battle with the Syrians, (1Ki 22:34-35). His people and nation would perish at the hands of the Syrians and those who overcome them. Ahab was very upset and went back to Samaria, realizing that he had won a hollow victory, but too late to change it.
There is a great lesson in the parable of the young prophet, applicable to all God’s servants. It warns against lost opportunities. While people are busy here and there, with things of a selfish nature, things of the world, they let pass many opportunities to worship and bear a witness for the Lord. At what cost these are passed by may not be apparent until eternity. Christians should be always mindful of this. (Note Jer 8:20).
Lessons to be learned: 1) God is able to strengthen all those who will look to Him for the help they need to face the enemy; 2) God’s people should always be ready to go out with the promises of God, expecting victory; 3) God is unlimited; He is the same powerful force in every situation, for He is all-powerful; 4) men who leave God out of their plans and take credit for all good things in their experience will suffer a great disaster; 5) it is foolish to get too busy to do what the Lord has for one to do, and those who do so must answer to Him at last.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(35) A certain manaccording to Josephus, Micaiah, the son of Imlah. This tradition, or conjecture, agrees well with the subsequent narrative in 1 Kings 22.
The sons of the prophets.This phrase, constantly recurring in the history of Elijah and Elisha, first appears here. But the thing designated is apparently as old as the days of Samuel who is evidently surrounded by a company of disciples. (See 1Sa. 10:5; 1Sa. 10:10; 1Sa. 19:20.) The prophetic office seems never to have been, like the priesthood or kingship, hereditary. Sonship, therefore, no doubt means simply discipleship; and it is likely enough that the schools of the sons of the prophets were places of higher religious education, including many who did not look for the prophetic vocation; although the well-known words of Amos (Amo. 7:14), I was no prophet, neither was I a prophets son, clearly indicate that from their ranks, generally though not invariably, the prophets were called. Probably the institution had fallen into disuse, and had been revived to seal and to secure the prophetic victory over Baal-worship. To Elijah the sons of the prophets look up with awe and some terror; to Elisha, with affectionate respect and trust.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
AHAB’S REPROOF, 1Ki 20:35-43.
35. A certain man of the sons of the prophets A member of one of the schools of the prophets. The head of one of these schools was a spiritual father. See note on 1Sa 10:5.
His neighbour A fellow-student among the sons of the prophets.
Smite me Here we first meet with an example of those symbolical actions of the prophets which occur so often in the subsequent history of Israel and Judah. This demand was made in the word of the Lord. It was positively required by Jehovah, and was to be symbolical. The wonderful interposition of Divine power, by which the Syrians had been defeated and Ben-hadad made a captive, was a sufficient indication to Ahab that God had appointed the king of Syria to utter destruction. 1Ki 20:42. His letting him go, therefore, was a disobedience of the Divine will.
The man refused to smite him And so became a representative of Ahab in his refusal to obey the word of the Lord. The prophets mentioned 1Ki 20:13; 1Ki 20:22; 1Ki 20:28 had said enough to show Ahab that when his royal enemy fell into his power, he must not covenant with him, but smite and utterly destroy him. But his making a covenant with him, and sending him away, was a refusal to smite him.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Ahab Is Seen By The Prophets As Having Disobeyed YHWH By Not Putting Ben-hadad To Death, And Is Warned Of What The Consequences Will Be ( 1Ki 20:35-43 ).
We have not actually been told that Ben-hadad was ‘devoted to destruction’ (as Agag had been in 1Sa 15:13-33) but it may well have been recognised policy in Israel when a captured king fell into their hands, on the grounds that he now ‘belonged to YHWH’. Or it may be that Ahab had been given instructions to that end. Either way his failure to execute Ben-hadad was seen as a gross sin. In those violent days there was good cause to execute such kings, lest they go away and plot revenge for having been humiliated. It will be noted that the prophet goes out of his way to stress the seriousness of Ahab’s failure. He emphasises that in the end it will bring destruction on Israel.
Analysis.
a
b Then he said to him, “Because you have not obeyed the voice of YHWH, behold, as soon as you have left me, a lion will kill you.” And as soon as he was departed from him, a lion found him, and killed him. Then he found another man, and said, “Smite me, I pray you.” And the man smote him, smiting and wounding him (1Ki 20:36-37).
c So the prophet departed, and waited for the king by the way, and disguised himself with his headband over his eyes. (1Ki 20:38).
d And as the king passed by, he cried to the king; and he said, “Your servant went out into the midst of the battle, and, behold, a man turned aside, and brought a man to me, and said, ‘Guard this man. If by any means he is missing, then shall your life be for his life, or else you will pay a talent of silver” (1Ki 20:39).
e “And as your servant was busy here and there, he was gone” (1Ki 20:40 a).
d And the king of Israel said to him, “So shall your judgment be. You yourself have decided it (1Ki 20:40 b).
c And he hurried, and took the headband away from his eyes, and the king of Israel recognised him that he was of the prophets (1Ki 20:41).
b And he said to him, “Thus says YHWH, Because you have let go out of your hand the man whom I had devoted to destruction, therefore your life will go for his life, and your people for his people” (1Ki 20:42).
a And the king of Israel went to his house heavy and displeased, and came to Samaria (1Ki 20:43).
Note that in ‘a’ the man of the sons of the prophets was thwarted and displeased and in the parallel the king of Israel was displeased. In ‘b’ the man was slain for failing to obey the voice of YHWH, and in the parallel Ahab was to suffer for the same reason. In ‘c’ the prophet disguised himself with a headband over his eyes, and in the parallel he removed the headband. In ‘d’ the ‘old soldier’ lays out his case and in the parallel Ahab declares that he has passed his own judgment. Centrally in ‘e’ the failure was due to a careless attitude and being taken up with other things than the will of YHWH.
1Ki 20:35
‘ And a certain man of the sons of the prophets said to his fellow by the word of YHWH, “Smite me, I pray you.” And the man refused to smite him.’
The point behind this initial incident is the vital importance of obeying the word of YHWH even if we do not understand why it has been given, with the consequence of failure being death. We must presume that the prophet stressed that what he was being asked to do was ‘by the word of YHWH’, and the man certainly knew that he was a prophet. The man was thus flagrantly guilty of disobeying YHWH. At a time when Yahwists were suffering persecution it was necessary for the status of their prophets to be soundly upheld. (The death did, however, come about by natural means).
“A certain man of the sons of the prophets.” We are again reminded that there were still many faithful supporters of true Yahwism in Israel.
1Ki 20:36
‘ Then he said to him, “Because you have not obeyed the voice of YHWH, behold, as soon as you have left me, a lion will kill you.” And as soon as he was departed from him, a lion found him, and killed him.’
Because the man refused to obey the word of YHWH he was seen as deserving of death, and the prophet foresaw his death at the paws of a lion. And sure enough as he went on his way a lion killed him. It would appear from this and 1Ki 13:24 that deaths from a wayward lion were not uncommon (it may even have been considered to be ‘YHWH’s executioner’).
1Ki 20:37
‘ Then he found another man, and said, “Smite me, I pray you.” And the man smote him, smiting and wounding him.’
Then the prophet moved on to a second man who this time obliged, and hit him hard enough to leave marks.
1Ki 20:38
‘ So the prophet departed, and waited for the king by the way, and disguised himself with his headband over his eyes.’
Satisfied with how he looked the prophet then went and waited in a place where he knew that the king would shortly pass. The fact that he did it so openly may suggest that for the time being the persecution of the prophets of YHWH had ceased. Certainly Ahab appears to have become more amenable towards YHWH, something no doubt resulting from what he had seen on Mount Carmel, and from the encouragement that the prophets had given him during his wars.
But the prophet had disguised himself, covering his eyes with a headband. He may well have known that otherwise the king would recognise him.
1Ki 20:39-40 a ‘And as the king passed by, he cried to the king; and he said, “Your servant went out into the midst of the battle, and, behold, a man turned aside, and brought a man to me, and said, ‘Guard this man. If by any means he is missing, then shall your life be for his life, or else you will pay a talent of silver.” And as your servant was busy here and there, he was gone.’
As the king passed by the prophet, pretending to be an old, blind soldier, called on him to give him his judgment. It was quite normal for kings in those days to be called on by individuals to dispense justice, and for them to do so. While it is not mentioned the prophet clearly intended that the kings should notice his injury, and his supposed blindness. As the injury does not play any part in the story that must have been because he was wanting to see if the king would be sympathetic to his case and enquire further.
He described how (theoretically) a fellow soldier on the battlefield had committed to his hands a captured enemy, presumably in return for some payment, and had charged him to keep him safe. If he failed in his duty it would cost him a talent. A talent was a huge amount of money to a common soldier, which both knew would take a lifetime and more to repay. The prophet was trying to arouse the king’s sympathy, and possibly wanting him to take into account his wound and his blindness, which could theoretically have been caused by the escaping prisoner.
1Ki 20:40 b ‘And the king of Israel said to him, “So shall your judgment be You yourself have decided it.’
But the king’s judgment was callous. It meant nothing to him that this blind man would be burdened by his debt for life (or possibly he himself was not really aware of the value of a talent to such a person. He possessed many talents). His judgment was casual. The man had explained his own case. Let him abide by what he had said, and take the consequences.
1Ki 20:41
‘ And he hurried, and took the headband away from his eyes, and the king of Israel recognised him that he was of the prophets.’
The prophet then took the headband from his eyes and the king immediately recognised him for a prophet. This was probably because they had met before, although it is possible that prophets in those days bore some identifying mark.
1Ki 20:42
‘ And he said to him, “Thus says YHWH, Because you have let go out of your hand the man whom I had devoted to destruction, therefore your life will go for his life, and your people for his people.’
Then the prophet made clear that he had been speaking about the king himself. He in his blindness had let go the very man whom YHWH had devoted to destruction. His judgment thus returned upon himself. He had failed YHWH and he and his people would have to pay the price of his failure.
1Ki 20:43
‘ And the king of Israel went to his house heavy and displeased, and came to Samaria.’
The king, who had probably been very pleased with himself at the treaty that he had made now recognised that he had indeed gone against the custom of YHWH, and became heavy-hearted and displeased. The fact that nothing is said confirms the fact that he was aware that he had done wrong. Benhadad should not have been spared.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
1Ki 20:35-36. A certain mansaid unto his neighbour in the word of the Lord, Smite me, &c. Saidby the command of the Lord, &c. Houbigant. The prophets, as we have before observed, both in their parabolical speeches and symbolical actions, are to be considered as persons of a singular character. See ch. 1Ki 11:30-31. We have one here, desiring his companion, a person bred up in the same school with him, to give him a wound, that thereby he might have a better opportunity of reproving Ahab for his ill-timed clemency to Ben-hadad. To desire to be wounded was, in appearance, a request so frantic, that his brother prophet might justly have denied him, had he not been satisfied that his request was from God. But herein lay the great fault of the recusant; though he knew the authority of God’s commands, and that this was the very thing which he enjoined; yet, out of an indiscreet pity and compassion to his brother, he refused to comply. Had he been a stranger to the several methods of divine prophesy, he might have excused himself with a better grace; but as he was equally a prophet, bred up in the same school as the other, and well understood the weight of his brother prophet’s request, he was utterly inexcusable.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
(35) And a certain man of the sons of the prophets said unto his neighbour in the word of the LORD, Smite me, I pray thee. And the man refused to smite him. (36) Then said he unto him, Because thou hast not obeyed the voice of the LORD, behold, as soon as thou art departed from me, a lion shall slay thee. And as soon as he was departed from him, a lion found him, and slew him. (37) Then he found another man, and said, Smite me, I pray thee. And the man smote him, so that in smiting he wounded him. (38) So the prophet departed, and waited for the king by the way, and disguised himself with ashes upon his face. (39) And as the king passed by, he cried unto the king: and he said, Thy servant went out into the midst of the battle; and, behold, a man turned aside, and brought a man unto me, and said, Keep this man: if by any means he be missing, then shall thy life be for his life, or else thou shalt pay a talent of silver. (40) And as thy servant was busy here and there, he was gone. And the king of Israel said unto him, So shall thy judgment be; thyself hast decided it. (41) And he hasted, and took the ashes away from his face; and the king of Israel discerned him that he was of the prophets. (42) And he said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Because thou hast let go out of thy hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people. (43) And the king of Israel went to his house heavy and displeased, and came to Samaria.
Who this certain man of the sons of the prophets was is not said. The Jews have concluded that it was Micaiah, of whom we read in 1Ki 22 , because Ahab expresses in that chapter his hatred of him on account of his prophesying evil. But, be it whom it might, certain it is, that be came to Ahab in the name of the Lord. The story he feigned was just corresponding to the real state of the case. The Lord had delivered his enemy into his hand; and he, without consulting the Lord, had let him escape. And the prediction, that his life should pay the forfeiture for the life of Benhadad, and the people of Israel for the Syrians, came to pass. 1Ki 22:35 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
IV
THE SCHOOLS OF THE PROPHETS
The more important passages bearing on this subject are 1Sa 3:1-4 ; 1Sa 10:5 ; 1Sa 10:9-12 ; 1Sa 18:13-24 ; 1Ki 19:18 ; 1Ki 19:20-21 ; 1Ki 20:35 ; 2Ki 2:3-5 ; 2Ki 4:38 ; 2Ki 6:1 ; 1Ch 29:29 ; 2Ch 9:29 ; 2Ch 12:15 ; 2Ch 13:22 and other chapters in that book I do not enumerate. The last one is Amo 7:14-15 . The reader will understand that I give these instead of a prescribed section in the Harmony. These constitute the basis of this discussion.
Let us distinguish between the prophetic gift and the prophetic office , and give some examples. Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, his seventy elders, Balaam, Joshua, and others before Samuel’s time had the gift, but not the office; perhaps we may except Moses as in a measure having the office. After Samuel’s time, David, many of his singers, and particularly Daniel, had the gift in a high degree, but not the office. Moreover, the high priests from Aaron to Caiphas in Christ’s time, were supposed to have officially the gift of prophecy that is, to hear and report what the Oracle said but Samuel is the first who held the office.
The distinction between a prophet and a son of a prophet is this: A son of a prophet was a candidate for the office, ministering to the prophet, a disciple instructed by him, consecrated to the work, and qualifying himself to perform the services of the office with the highest efficiency. A prophet is one who, through inspiration of the Holy Spirit, speaks or writes for God. In this inspiration he is God’s mouth or pen, speaking or writing not his own words, but God’s words. This inspiration guides and superintends his speech and his silence; what is recorded and what is omitted from the record. The gift of prophecy was not one of uniform quantity nor necessarily enduring. The gifts were various in kind, and might be for one occasion only. As to variety of kinds, the revelation might come in dreams or open visions, or it might consist of an ecstatic trance expressed in praise or song or prayer. If praise, song, or prayer, its form was apt to be poetic, particularly if accompanied by instrumental music.
As to the duration of the gift, it might be for one occasion only, or a few, or many. The scriptures show that the spirit of prophecy came upon King Saul twice only, and each time in the form of an ecstatic trance. In his early life it came as a sign that God had chosen him as king. In his later life the object of it was to bar his harmful approach to David. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 12-14 inclusive, explains the diversity of these gifts and their relative importance.
There are two periods of Hebrew history in which we find clearest notices of the schools of the prophets, the proofs of their persistence between the periods, and their influence on the nation. The notices are abundant in the time of Samuel, and in the time of Elijah and Elisha, but you have only to study the book of Chronicles to see that the prophetic order, as an office, continued through these periods and far beyond. Later you will learn that in the time of persecution fifty of these prophets were hidden in a cave and fed regularly. The object of the enemy was to destroy these theological seminaries, believing that they could never lead the nation astray while these schools of the prophets continued. Their object, therefore, was to destroy these seats of theological education. Elijah supposed that every one of them was killed except himself, but he was mistaken.
Samuel was the founder of the first school of the prophets, and the scripture which shows his headship 1Sa 19:20 , where Saul is sending messengers to take David, and finally goes himself and finds the school of the prophets, with Samuel as its appointed head. The reason for such a school in Samuel’s time is shown, first, by an extract from Kirkpatrick’s Commentary on 1 Samuel, page 33. He says:
Samuel was the founder of the prophetic order. Individuals in previous ages had been endowed with prophetic gifts, but with Samuel commenced the regular succession of prophets which lasted through all the period of the monarchy, and did not cease until after the captivity. The degeneracy into which the priesthood had fallen through the period of the judges demanded the establishment of a new order for the religious training of the nation.
For this purpose Samuel founded the institutions known as the schools of the prophets. The “company of prophets” at Gibeah (1Sa 10:10 ) and the scene at Ramah described in 1Sa 19:18 ff., imply a regular organization. These societies are only definitely mentioned again in connection with the history’ of Elijah and Elisha but doubtless continued to exist in the interval. By means of these the Order was maintained, students were educated, and common religious exercises nurtured and developed spiritual gifts.
Kirkpatrick’s is a fine commentary. The priests indeed were instructors of the people, but the tendency of the priesthood was to rest in external sacrifices, and to trust in a mere ritualistic form of sacrifice. That is the trouble always where you have a ritual. And after a while both priest and worshiper began to rely upon the external type, and on external conformity with the ritual. God needed better mouthpieces than those, hence while in the past there was a prophetic gift here and there, he now establishes the prophetic school, or society, in which training, bearing upon the prophetic office, should be continuous. The value of these schools of the prophets is also seen from Kirkpatrick, page 1 Samuel 34:
The value of the prophetic order to the Jewish nation was immense. The prophets were privy-counsellors of kings, the historians of the nation, the instructors of the people. It was their function to be preachers of righteousness to rich and poor alike: to condemn idolatry in the court, oppression among the nobles, injustice among the judges, formality among the priests. They were the interpreters of the law who drew out by degrees the spiritual significance which underlay ritual observance, and labored to prevent sacrifice and sabbath and festival from becoming dead and unmeaning forms. Strong in the unshaken consciousness that they were expressing the divine will, they spoke and acted with a fearless courage which no threats could daunt or silence.
Thus they proved a counterpoise to the despotism of monarchy and the formalism of priesthood. In a remarkable passage in his essay on “Representative Government,” Mr. John Stuart Mill attributes to their influence the progress which distinguished the Jews from other Oriental nations. “The Jews,” he writes, “had an absolute monarchy and hierarchy. These did for them what was done for other Oriental races by their institutions subdued them to industry and order, and gave them a national life. . . . Their religion gave existence to an inestimably precious institution, the order of prophets. Under the protection, generally though not always effectual, of their sacred character, the prophets were a power in the nation, often more than a match for kings and priests, and kept up in that little corner of the earth the antagonism of influences which is the only real security for continued progress.”
I was surprised the first time I ever saw the statement from Mill. He was a radical evolutionist and infidel, but a statesman, and in studying the development of statesmanship among the nations, he saw this singular thing in the history of the Jews, unlike anything he saw anywhere else, and saw what it was that led that nation, when it went into backsliding, to repentance; what power it was that brought about the reformation when their morals were corrupted; what power it was that was the real light of the nation and the salt of the earth, and saw that it was this order of prophets which was the conservator of national unity, purity, and perpetuity. I have the more pleasure in quoting that passage, as it comes from a witness in no way friendly to Christianity, just as when I was discussing missions I quoted the testimony of Charles Darwin to the tremendous influence for good wrought by the missionaries of South America.
Particularly in this case of the schools of the prophets we find their value, by noting very carefully the bearing on the case under Samuel. We have already noticed the corruption of the priesthood under Eli, Hophni, and Phinehas; how the ark was captured, the central place of worship desecrated; how Samuel, called to the office of prophet, needed assistance, and how he instituted this school of the prophets. He gathered around him the brightest young men of the nation and had the Spirit of God rest on them, and in order that their instruction might be regular he organized them into companies, or schools; he would go from one to another, and these young “theologs” were under the instruction of Samuel and for twenty years worked as evangelists in making sensitive the national conscience. It took twenty years to do it, and he could not have done it by himself, but with that tremendous power, the help he had, at the end of twenty years, he saw the nation repentant and once more worshiping God. I am for a theological seminary that will do that.
I give a modern example somewhat parallel: Mr. Spurgeon was called to the city of London, when about nineteen years old, to be the pastor of the old historic church of Dr. Gill, and in his evangelical preaching impressed a number of men to feel that they were also called to preach (if your preaching does not impress somebody else to preach, you may be sure that you are not called to preach), and it impressed the women and a multitude of laymen to do active Christian service. Therefore, Mr. Spurgeon organized what is called “The Pastoral College.” He wouldn’t let a drone be in it; he did not want anybody in it that was not spiritually minded. In other words, he insisted that a preacher should be religiously inclined, and should be ready to do any kind of work. He supported this institution largely through his own contributions, although the men and women all over England, when they saw what it was doing, would send money for its support. I used to read the monthly reports of the contributions and the list of donors that accompanied them.
Mr. Spurgeon determined to work a revolution, just as Samuel did, and he used this school of the prophets for that purpose. Consequently, hundreds of young preachers belonging to that school of the prophets preached in the slums of the city, in the byways, in the highways, in the hedges, in the mines, on the wharves to the sailors, and in the hospitals. Hundreds of laymen said, “Put us to work,” and he did; he had pushcarts made for them, and filled them with books and so sent out over the town literature that was not poisonous. He put the women to work, and established) or rather perpetuated in better form, a number of the almshouses for the venerable old women who were poor and helpless, following out the suggestion in 2 Timothy, and he erected a hospital. Then they got to going further afield. They went all over England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, crossed over into the Continent, crossed the seas to Australia, and the islands of the seas, and into heathen lands. I have always said that Spurgeon’s Pastoral College came nearer to the Bible idea of a seminary than any other in existence. There was not so much stress laid on mere scholarship as on spiritual efficiency.
It is important to note particularly what I am saying now, because it was burnt into my heart as one of the reasons for establishing a theological seminary. The nature of that society was that it was a school. They left their homes and came to stay at this school, with what we now call a mess hall in which all the theological students, by contributing so much, have their table in common. It was that way then; they had their meals in common. In preparing dinner one day for the sons of the prophets, somebody put a lot of wild gourds into the pot, and when they began to eat it, one of them cried out: “Ah, man of God, there’s death in the pot!” Once I preached a sermon on this theme: “Wild Gourds and Theological Seminaries,” to show that to feed the students in theological seminaries on wild gourds of heresy is to put death in the pot; they will do more harm than good, as they will become instruments of evil.
In determining what were their duties, we must consult quite a number of passages. We gather from this passage that they were thoroughly instructed in the necessity of repentance, individually and nationally, and of turning from their sins and coming back to God with faithful obedience. That lesson was ground in them. They were taught the interpretation of the spiritual meaning of the law, all its sacrifices, its feasts, its types, and therefore when you are studying a prophet in the Old Testament you will notice how different his idea of types and ceremonies from that of the priests. They will tell you that to do without eating is fasting, but the prophet will show that literal fasting is not true fasting; that there must be fasting at heart; that there must be a rending of the soul and not the garment as an expression of repentance; that to obey God w better than a formal sacrifice.
Another thing they were taught, which I wish particularly to emphasize, was music, both vocal and instrumental. In that school of the prophets started the tremendous power of music in religion so wonderfully developed by David, who got many of his ideas from associating with the schools of the prophets. And from that time unto this, every evangelical work, and all powerful religious work, has been associated with music, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament; not merely vocal, but instrumental music. The heart of a religion is expressed in its songs, and if you want to get at the heart of your Old Testament you find it in the hymnbook of the Hebrew nation the Psalter. It is indeed an interesting study to see what has been the influence of great hymns on the national life. There is an old proverb: “You may make the laws of the people, if you will let me write their ballads.” Where is there a man capable of measuring the influence of “How Firm a Foundation,” or “Come, Thou Fount,” or “Did Christ O’er Sinners Weep?” There is a rich literature on the influence of hymns on the life.
In the awful times of the struggle in England, Charles I against the Parliament, one faction of the nation held to ritualism, while the other followed spirituality, even to the extreme of not allowing any form, not even allowing any instruments of music. One of the finest stories of this period is the account of a church that observed the happy medium, using instrumental as well as vocal music, and congregational singing as well as the use of the choir; every sabbath somebody’s soul was melted in the power of that mighty singing. I can’t sing myself, but I can carry the tunes in my mind, and I can be more influenced by singing than by preaching. It was singing that convicted me of sin. It was on a waving, soaring melody of song that my soul was converted. I once knew a rugged, one-eyed, homely, old pioneer Baptist preacher, who looked like a pirate until his religion manifested itself, and then he was beautiful. I heard him one day when a telegram was put into his hand stating that his only son had just been killed by being thrown from a horse. While weeping, his face became illumined; he got up and clapped his hands and walked through that audience, singing, “O, Jesus, My Saviour, to Thee I Submit.”
John Bunyan wrote that song while in Bedford Jail. They had put him there to keep him from preaching, and looking out through the bars of the dungeon he saw his poor blind girl, Mary, begging bread, and he sat down and wrote that hymn. The effect of the old preacher’s singing John Bunyan’s song was a mighty revival.
The relation of the schools of the prophets to modern theological seminaries is this: The purpose was the same. And so in New Testament times, Jesus recognized that if he wanted to revolutionize the world by evangelism he must do it with trained men. He did not insist that they be rich, great or mighty men. He did not insist that they be scholars. He called them from among the common people, and he kept them right with him for three years and a half, and diligently instructed them in the principles and spirit of his kingdom. He taught them in a variety of forms; in parables, in proverbs, in exposition, illustrating his teachings by miracles, and in hundreds of ways in order that they might be equipped to go out and lead the world to Christ. You cannot help being impressed with this fact: That the theological seminaries in Samuel’s time and in Christ’s time were intensely practical, the object being not to make learned professors, but to fill each one with electricity until you could call him a “live wire,” so that it burnt whoever touched it.
This is why I called Samuel a great man, and why in a previous discussion, counting the men as the peaks in a mountain range, sighting back from Samuel to Abraham, only one other peak comes into line of vision, and that is Moses.
QUESTIONS
1. What are the more important passages bearing on the schools of the prophets?
2. Distinguish between the prophetic gift and the prophetic office and illustrate by examples.
3. Distinguish between a prophet and a son of a prophet.
4. What is the meaning of prophet?
5. In what two periods of Hebrew history do we find the clearest notices of the school of prophets, what are the proofs of their persistence between these periods, and what is their influence on the nation?
6. Who was the founder of the first school of the prophets?
7. What scripture shows his headship?
8. What was the reason for such school in Samuel’s time?
9. What was the value of these schools of the prophets, and particularly in this case, and what illustration from modern instances?
10. What was the nature of that society, and what was the instruction given?
11. What was the relation of the schools of the prophets to modern theological seminaries?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
1Ki 20:35 And a certain man of the sons of the prophets said unto his neighbour in the word of the LORD, Smite me, I pray thee. And the man refused to smite him.
Ver. 35. And a certain man of the sons of the prophets. ] This was Michaiah, saith Josephus, and other Jewish doctors, whom Ahab therefore had cast into prison, and therefore so readily knew where to have him, 1Ki 22:9 and whither to resend him. 1Ki 22:26
Smite me, I pray thee.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
man. Hebrew. ish. Josephus identifies him with Micaiah (1Ki 22:8).
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
of the sons: 1Ki 20:38, 1Sa 10:12, 2Ki 2:3, 2Ki 2:5, 2Ki 2:7, 2Ki 2:15, 2Ki 4:1, 2Ki 4:38, Amo 7:14
in the word: 1Ki 13:1, 1Ki 13:2, 1Ki 13:17, 1Ki 13:18
Smite me: 1Ki 20:37, Isa 8:18, Isa 20:2, Isa 20:3, Jer 27:2, Jer 27:3, Eze 4:3, Mat 16:24
Reciprocal: 2Sa 12:1 – There were 1Ki 18:22 – I only 1Ki 19:10 – I only 1Ki 21:1 – after 1Ki 22:8 – concerning me 2Ki 5:22 – the sons 2Ki 6:1 – the sons 2Ki 9:1 – General Amo 2:11 – I raised 1Th 4:15 – by the
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Ki 20:35. A certain man said to his neighbour Hebrew, , eel regnehu, to his companion, as St. Hierom translates it, that is, to a prophet bred in the same school with himself, who well understood the importance of obeying the command. In the word of the Lord In the name and by the command of God, whereof, doubtless, he had informed him. Smite me, I pray thee So as to wound me, 1Ki 20:37. He speaks what God commanded him, though it was to his own hurt; by which obedience to God, he secretly reproacheth Ahabs disobedience in a far easier matter. And this the prophet desires, by Gods appointment, that, looking like a wounded soldier, he might have the more free access to the king. And the man refused to smite him Not out of contempt to Gods command, but probably, in tenderness to his brother.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Ki 20:35-43. Ahabs Death Foretold for Sparing Benhadad.This section reminds us of 1 Samuel 15, Sauls sparing of Agag. It does not appear to be part of the foregoing narrative, but may be of great antiquity. The sin of Ahab, like that of Saul, seems commendable in our eyes, but to the Hebrews it was the most deadly of allthe violation of the herem or ban (pp. 99, 114), the sparing of a person devoted to Yahweh (1Ki 20:42). The sons of the prophets are mentioned here for the first time in the Bible (1Ki 20:35).
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
20:35 And a certain man of the sons of the prophets said unto his neighbour in the word of the LORD, {q} Smite me, I pray thee. And the man refused to smite him.
(q) By this external sign he would more likely touch the king’s heart.