Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Kings 13:11
Now there dwelt an old prophet in Bethel; and his sons came and told him all the works that the man of God had done that day in Bethel: the words which he had spoken unto the king, them they told also to their father.
11 22. The prophet of Judah is deceived and brought back to Bethel (Not in Chronicles)
11. Now there dwelt an old prophet in Beth-el ] Josephus describes him as ‘a wicked old man, a false prophet, whom Jeroboam had in honour, being deceived by him because he spake things to his liking’. He says too that ‘he was bedridden’ ‘because of the weakness of old age, (though this is difficult to reconcile with his riding forth after the man of God,) and that when he heard of all that had taken place he was fearful that the stranger would surpass him in the estimation of Jeroboam, and gain more honour than he’. The man can hardly have been a true prophet of Jehovah, or he would not have countenanced, even by the presence of his sons, the calf-worship which God had forbidden. His favour with the king, and his desire to retain it, are Josephus’ exposition of the story.
and his son came ] R.V. and one of his sons came. The noun and the two verbs ‘came’ and ‘told’ are singular, but before the close of the verse there comes in a plural verb and pronoun ‘ they told also to their father’. The language is very natural. One son was the principal reporter, but when the story was dwelt upon the rest filled out the narrative till the father had a complete knowledge of the whole occurrence. Instead of the final words of this verse ‘them they told also to their father’ the LXX. has . The same phrase is employed in Jdg 18:23 of persons turning round on hearing a cry, and the text of the LXX. probably implies that the father’s attention was arrested by the story.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The truly pious Israelites quitted their homes when Jeroboam made his religious changes, and, proceeding to Jerusalem, strengthened the kingdom of Rehoboam 2Ch 10:16-17. This old prophet therefore, who, without being infirm in any way, had remained under Jeroboam, and was even content to dwell at Bethel – the chief seat of the new worship – was devoid of any deep and earnest religious feeling.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
1Ki 13:11-32
Now there dwelt an old man in Bethel
The nameless prophet
This passage forms part of a very remarkable narrative.
The miraculous element is so prominent that certain critics would have the chapter expunged from Holy Scripture. The natural and the supernatural are closely interwoven, as are the woof and web of a fabric, and the destruction of either would be the practical dissolution of the whole; indeed, nowhere is this more manifestly true than in the life and death, in the resurrection and ascension, in the works and claims of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Who was this bold prophet? Josephus identified him with Iddo, the seer; but the statement is merely conjectural. The man must remain nameless, as he is left in this chapter.
I. The message delivered by this nameless prophet.
1. Its divine origin is expressly asserted in the second verse: he cried . . . in the word of the Lord. This is a remarkable phrase. It is not said that he cried the word of God, but that he cried in it–as if his message were the sphere in which he lived, the atmosphere he breathed. Nothing could more forcibly suggest the source from which all religious teachers draw their power. It is the consciousness of having a Divine message, the sureness of a Divine call, the confidence that what they have to say is the Word of the Lord, which is the sign of the true prophet.
2. The definite nature of this message deserves attention. The very name of the avenger, Josiah, is mentioned, though it was 300 years before he was born; and it was distinctly foretold that idolatrous priests would be slain on the altar erected in defiance of God, and that the site now being set apart for heathen worship would be defiled and dis-honoured by the bones of the dead. Centuries elapsed before the fulfillment of this threat, but it came at last, and came at the appointed time, proclaiming to all future ages this solemn truth, which it is madness to ignore: the wages of sin is death. Gods punishments are never arbitrary. They are the legitimate issues of the crime or vice they belong to. The sinner is destroyed by his own sin. And this is in harmony with all that we know of Gods works. Science is showing the links between cause and effect with ever-growing clearness and certainty; and the doctrine of evolution reveals that limbs may perish by disuse or may be developed by necessities of life in new surroundings. This is true everywhere, not least in the punishments and privations threatened in Scripture, here and hereafter.
II. The courage he displayed. His boldness it is not easy to overrate. It was the consciousness the prophet had that he was Gods messenger that gave him this heroism. It was this which prepared Moses to dare the wrath of Pharaoh, this which nerved Elijah to stand alone face to face with the prophets of Baal; this which enabled Peter and John undauntedly to face the Sanhedrim; and this which made Ambrose, and Knox, and Luther, and Zwingli types of a truer heroism than any field of battle has revealed.
III. The safety of the prophet was assured, and credentials of his commission were given, when the altar was suddenly cleft in twain, and all the ashes poured out. We see nothing incredible here, or in many other miraculous signs mentioned in the Old and New Testaments. Supernatural signs are surely the legitimate evidences of a supernatural revelation. They are simply the assertion of the supremacy of the spiritual and unseen over the material and visible; and if we really believe that the things seen were not made of things which do appear, we need not be incredulous when evidences of the existence of these are given. Among the phenomena of Nature, we all know that a mountain may be still and silent for ages, villages cluster around its base, men toil and children play on its sides, and they have no suspicion that it is volcanic; but at last the subterranean fires may burst out, and just as that force, long hidden, asserts itself within the limits of half-known law: so it may be, so it has been, within the limits of unknown law. Our Lord Jesus Christ boldly said of His own miracles: If ye believe not Me, believe the works, the works which modern admirers of His moral teaching would rule out of court!–and the apostles put the resurrection of Christ, which some would explain away, into the very forefront of Christian evidences.
IV. The temptation he resisted, to which our text alludes. Jeroboam failed in the use of violence; but, nothing daunted, he sought to overcome the messenger of Jehovah by craft. Doubtless there are many who have had such conflicts and conquests. Tempted to sin, you have replied: How can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God? Sitting among the sinners, when you could not avoid them, you did not approve their mockery even by the faintest smile. Able to win wealth and position, you resolutely refused to stoop to do what you knew was base and false. In such hours of triumph I would entreat you most vividly to remember, and most humbly to acknowledge, that the victory came only through Him that loved you, or you may ultimately experience the fall which came to the prophet after his first victory was won.
V. The second temptation, which we must not overlook, was successful and fatal. It came from an old prophet, who lived near by, who approached his fellow-servant when he was tired, and who, professing to have received message from God, induced him to enter his house in Bethel, and thus to disobey the command of the Lord. If it be asked why this temptation succeeded, while that of Jeroboam failed, we should attribute it to the self-complacence and self-confidence engendered by successful resistance to the king, and to the sense of false security which generally succeeds in a crisis of peril. Evidence of this is seen in the fact that he rested under a terebinth, instead of pressing homeward, as he had been told to do.
1. Learn from this that the conquest of one evil often leads to an assault from another.
2. Learn also that it is a perilous thing to linger in a scene of temptation, though for a time we may have to go into it in order to do Gods work. If this prophet had not rested, instead of hurrying forward, he would not have been overtaken before he crossed the border line of safety between the two kingdoms.
VI. The trifling disobedience which brought about so terrible a retribution. It seemed a very small offence to go home with a brother prophet for pleasant, and perhaps profitable, intercourse. But there was no doubt about the will of God in this matter. An act may seem as trifling as that; and yet it may involve a momentous principle. It was a small thing for Eve to take the fruit of the tree; but it was an act of direct disobedience, and therefore brought death into the world, and all our woe. It is in what we call trifles that God tests our obedience and love. (A. Rowland, B. A.)
The penalty of disobedience
It may seem, at first sight, that the prophet was hardly visited for breaking such a commandment as this; and yet we may remember that Adam brought death on himself and us all by an act of disobedience much akin to this; for he was commanded not to eat, but he did eat: why should any of his children fare better, especially when sinning like this prophet, to whom the word of God came not as to other men, immediately into his heart from the Holy Spirit of God? He grieved the Holy Spirit. But though he did not sin wilfully, but was most artfully tempted into his sin, Gods justice could not spare him; an example must reeds be made of the punishment of faithlessness in so high a commission- Such is the example: now how does it concern the Christian?
1. The Christian is a prophet, for he has the gift of the Word of God and of His Holy Spirit, and the revelation of the world to come. And his profession is to protest and struggle against the corruption of the world, against which he must denounce the wrath of God which cometh on the children of disobedience.
2. As the prophet had the commandment given him, to eat no bread, nor drink water, nor turn again by the same way that he came, that is, to have no fellowship with the sinners whose idolatry God had sent him to denounce, so the Christian has a special injunction on this head; it has been given him both in the word of his Saviour, and in the example of his Saviour. We must not as Christians eat and drink by the way; we must not waste our precious time and heavenly substance in the carnal enjoyments of this life; but we must go on the way which God hath pointed out to us, without turning to the right or to the left for refreshment, for if we do, then we are out of His way, then we are in the forbidden habitations of sin; still less must we return by the same way that we came.
3. The prophet was tempted by a false brother; and even so are Christians tempted by false brethren, and persuaded by them to sit down to the meat and drink of sinful indulgence, and to return by the same way that they came, going backward, though at a much quicker rate, through the same steps that they have come forward in the Christian race.
4. And whom did God choose to pronounce sentence of death upon him? His very deceiver. And is not this continually the case? Is not the tempter into sin often the very first to reproach the tempted with his sin, and to mock at him when it is beyond remedy? Is he not often the first to open his eyes to his real state, and laugh at him? This is the way of Satan, the grand tempter of all, and therefore the way of his children also. Thus sin is felt by the tempted as the sting of death indeed!
5. And now see the end: a lion met the prophet in his way and slew him. And is there no lion ready for the faithless Christian too? Yes; the lion is at the door ready for all the unwary, gaping upon them with his mouth, staring upon them with his eyes, on the crouch, and ready to spring at the first favourable moment, and rend and tear the soul in pieces.
6. If God could visit with such strict justice the disobedience of a man who was tempted to believe that he was obeying God, how will He visit those who yield to temptation with the clear knowledge that they are disobeying God, and hearken to men who they know cannot be prophets of God, as was the man to whom this prophet listened, but are evidently prophet of Satan. (R. W. Evans, B. D.)
The prophets temptation and fall
Holy Scripture gives some terrible warnings as to the power and danger of temptation. Notably, the fall of men of God through temptation. This narrative is such a warning. Brings before us–
1. Generally, the subject of temptation.
2. Specially, temptation.
(1) By means of our fellow-men.
(2) To disobedience of Gods express command. It is thus illustrative of, and illustrated by, other passages of Scripture.
I. Temptation promptly repelled.
1. Plain command had been given to this man of God (verse 9). But no reason assigned. This is in keeping with many positive obligations of Gods law..
2. King Jeroboam desires him to act in opposition to Gods command.
(1) It is an open temptation, recognised as such.
(2) It is a temptation of the world.
(3) It appeals to self-interest: something is to be gained (verse 7). Like the temptation of Eve (Gen 3:5), of Balaam (Num 22:16-17), of Christ (Mat 4:8-9).
3. He understands it, resolves, acts. He turns away from it (verse 10). Like Joseph (Gen 39:9-12). Learn–our real safety is to flee from temptation.
II. Temptation feebly resisted.
1. Again the same temptation comes: but not now from standpoint of the world, of open enmity with God. A seeming prophet is tempter (verses 11-15).
2. The man of God feels some inward desire to comply with the temptation. There is hesitation In his resistance; he says, I may not, and therefore will not. Learn–
(1) The beginning of our fall is when our will begins to be out of accord with Gods law; when we would sin, but dare not.
(2) There is danger in parleying with temptation.
III. Temptation yielded to.
1. For third time same temptation assails him, and with additional inducement. Satan becomes as an angel of light, his emissary assumes the position of a minister of God (verse 18). This case resembles Satans quotation of Scripture (Mat 4:3; Mat 4:6).
2. The man of God is deceived by the insidiousness of the lie.
(1) Temptation at first repelled, then entertained, is at last successful.
(2) He yields, and disobeys Gods Word.
(3) His sin meets with direct judgment (verse 24).
Learn–
(1) The transgression of Gods law in any particular is sin.
(2) The wages of sin is death.
Conclusion–Two passages in the New Testament sum up and enforce the whole subject:–
1. 1Co 10:13.
(1) Temptation is a law of all human life. The man of God is not exempt.
(2) Temptation is in Gods mercy regulated according to our ability to resist.
(3) A way of escape is ever open to us. Generally by our promptly turning away from the person or thing tempting us.
2. Gal 1:8.
(1) Temptation often comes by the example or persuasion of our fellow-creatures.
(2) It will come as though with the authority of God. This specially in temptations to scepticism and disbelief as to the truth of Rom 6:23.
(3) Gods Word cannot contradict itself. Should it seem to do so, or any human interpretation make it appear to do so, we may doubt our own views or the interpretation of others, and should adhere to the plain truth of Holy Scripture. (T. H. Barnet.)
The disobedient prophet, and the liar, masked in the angel-face of truth-The first and last phase of the evil one
I. The mission of this man of God to Bethel is a most important one. He is entrusted by his heavenly Master with unfolding the Divine judgments to King Jeroboam, on account of his great sin in making the lowest of the people priests of the high places, and in consequence also of his open and zealous patronage of the most abominable idolatry.
1. The time of the prophets arrival at Bethel. It happened when Jeroboam stood at the altar to burn incense. To face a guilty monarch and unveil the Divine denunciations threatened on account of his rebellious conduct, is by no means an easy task.
2. The mode of address. He addresses himself not to the guilty monarch, but as if he wished Jeroboam to feel he had forfeited the honour of being addressed like a rational agent, the prophet accosts the inanimate altar, that altar by which the king now usurpingly stood to burn incense. O altar, altar! he cries, not in his own name, but in the name of that God who sent him, Thus saith the Lord.
3. The matter of the prophets address. Now it is well worthy of remark, that though this predicted king is so particularly mentioned by name, none of the kings of Israel thought fit to assume the name, until the real and good Josiah himself appeared as the executor of all the vengeance of a righteous God against sin. This name was given by the wicked Manasseh to his son quite undesignedly, a name which was to be the terrible watchword of the downfall of idolatry practised by Manasseh and Jeroboam: it was a name given by Manasseh to his son, in spite, as it were, of Manasseh himself, in diametrical opposition to Manassehs policy
II. Regard his test of obedience. The man of God having executed in a bold and faithful manner the grave commission on trusted to him, is preparing to take his departure, when Jeroboam, anxious it would appear to render the man of God some recompense for his kindness in having petitioned the Majesty of Heaven to restore his hand, approaches him with the friendly invitation. The prophet having manfully, by the grace of God, resisted the temptation of the kings invitation, is already on the way back to Judah, the way pointed out by the Lord for him to take. But although he has resisted one temptation and got apparently clear of Bethel, he is not yet safe. We are never secure while we are pilgrims and travellers in this world, which is not our rest, against the varied and constant assaults of Satans temptations; as soon as one temptation is overcome, another is ready to overtake us on lifes road; which teaches us ever to be watchful and prayerful.
III. The prophets disobedience, and its result. How does the faith of the man of God now stand against this tremendous trial? He, who had a little previous so triumphantly combated the temptation to eat bread and drink water at a royal table, now, alas! totters in his obedience, and listens to the unlikely lie of an aged prophet, sanctioned, as he diabolically pretended, by an angels revelation, and consents to return with him. The most dangerous form temptation can assume, is that of a lie, disguised in the mantle of truth, uttered by the ravening wolf clad in the sheeps clothing. By the snares of this temptation, the prophet now fell into the labyrinth of disobedience. It is Satans master temptation. By this truth-gilded lie our first parents fell, and sin and death entered into the world. The devil put on a goodly outside, entered into the then attractive serpent, approached our unsuspecting mother in that so sleek form, and led her to fail in the first great test of human obedience, which was to be the proof of mans love, the eating of the forbidden fruit. The man of God, disobedient to the Divine command, accompanies the old prophet back to Bethel. There, dead to the fearful consequences of what he is doing, he refreshes the exhausted body at the board of hospitality. Swift indeed, and signal is the punishment inflicted on the man of God, and some may think the punishment severe; but the disobedience of the prophet in eating bread and drinking water was aggravated by the circumstances under which it was committed. Learn a lesson from this sorrowful circumstance, which Jeroboam failed to learn, even the lesson of obedience to the Word of God. Keep only in the track pointed out by that Word, though an angel from heaven might tell thee to do contrary to its Divine message to thy soul. Obey its every precept, small or great. (R. Jones, M. A.)
The disobedient prophet
We have in this account a very striking illustration of the truth enunciated by the Apostle James, the Lords brother, at the first council at Jerusalem, namely, that known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world (Act 15:18). The prediction uttered by the man of God against the altar at Bethel was not fulfilled for the space of 360 years; and yet, when the time fixed in the counsels of Omnipotence arrived, not one thing failed of accomplishment of all that he had declared should come to pass. Now, this truth may afford comfort to all who love and fear God. Many of Gods people, when they hear of the overflowings of ungodliness and unbelief, may be almost inclined to think that God hath forgotten His gracious promises, and that He will in truth shut up His loving-kindness in displeasure. But they may chide away their unbelieving fears as David did: Why art thou cast down, O my soul? and why art thou disquieted within me? Hope thou in God (Psa 42:1-11.). But I must point out a few lessons of instruction which this portion of holy writ may furnish us with.
1. And, first, it may teach us that, whenever God hath plainly declared His will, no grounds of supposed expediency, and no less fully authenticated declarations, however they may profess to proceed from Him, should ever induce us to depart from it. This we may learn both from the conduct of Jeroboam, as well as from that of the man of God. And, assuredly, we have abundant examples of its danger. We know that the Jews, who lived at the time when our Saviour was upon earth, are accused by Him of making void the law of God by their traditions; and even to the present day, by listening to the same fallacious guide, though they nominally admit the Divine authority of the Old Testament scriptures, they fritter away all their most important requirements. But how, it may be asked, does it arise that men can satisfy themselves to pay any attention to such a pretender? And the answer is, because, like the old prophet, it comes forward with a bold assertion of its Divine authority, though with as little regard to truth as he displayed. Tradition, among the Jews, professes to be an interpretation of the law given by God to Moses, and transmitted through elders, prophets, and wise men.
2. Another lesson to be learned from what is here recorded is that we cannot judge of a mans eternal state from the way m which he may be taken out of this world. A man of God sins; and within a few hours a lion slays him: the lying prophet that seduced him lives on, and goes to his grave in peace; yea, wicked Jeroboam continues his idolatrous worship, and treads upon the grave of his reprover. What shall we make of this? Doubtless such events teach us that there must be a judgment to come, when all these seeming inequalities will be corrected, and when rewards and punishments will be dispensed with impartial justice and unerring wisdom. At present Gods people are chastened; but it is that they may not be condemned with the world; whereas the ungodly and the profane are in many instances unpunished.
3. A third lesson which may be learned from this narrative is, not to be induced heedlessly to follow any guide, whatever may be his pretensions, or whatever his apparent sanctity. The Apostle John gives the following caution: Beloved, believe hot every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world (1Jn 4:1). And, if such advice was needful in apostolic times, much more is it required now.
4. The last lesson which I would point out to you as derivable from this passage of Scripture is, that no command of God is to be lightly regarded, and that the nearer people are to God the more certainly will their transgressions be punished. Implicit, unquestioning obedience has been in all ages the characteristic of Gods most eminent servants. (T. Grantham.)
The disobedient prophet of Judah
The fate of the prophet of Judah has always been deemed a hard one. That it should be so is by no means surprising. We should certainly expect so striking a punishment to have been inflicted upon a very different kind of person. And it is that very circumstance which makes it the more important that we should look into the case. To sum what may be said for him, it comes to this:
(1) he fulfilled faithfully the essential part of his mission;
(2) his trifling transgression was excusable considering the plot laid to deceive him; and
(3) in any case his punishment was extreme in severity. In thinking of the severity of the punishment, I have no doubt that we unconsciously infuse into our thoughts the assumption that the prophet of Judah suffered eternal death, because it was deemed necessary to execute him. As to his future state we know nothing whatever. No doubt at the great day his destiny will be settled, not by one act, but by his life. But he fulfilled the essential part of his mission. Even supposing that we could so far enter into the Divine mind as to say what is essential in any command; still it is plain that there may be a wide difference between that part of the Divine command which was the more important in, so to speak, its missionary and public aspect, as regarded Jeroboam, and that part of it which regarded the prophet personally, and would be the more likely to try him. But surely, setting aside all thought of religion, we know that trifles lead into serious evils, and are often the turning-points of life as well as the tests of principle. And, as men of the world and men of honour, we shall admit that the importance of a principle does not depend upon the importance of the thing to which it is applied in some particular instance. You decide upon a mans dishonesty, not by the magnitude of his fraud, but the fact. When once we receive, no matter how, what we believe to be a Divine command, it is plain that we have no right to decide how much of it God meant to be attended to, and how much we may set aside as immaterial. Here is the case of no vulgar sinner, no thoughtless transgressor of the Divine law, but one whom we are justified in regarding as a man of pre-eminent virtue, honoured by the King of kings by being chosen to discharge a difficult and dangerous duty, and supplied with minute instructions. The difficult and dangerous part of his mission he performed; he even so far discharged the seemingly less important part as to refuse the royal invitation. The crisis, as we should naturally think, had been passed. But it was not in the great matter, but in the small matter that he was tried, and that he failed; as he who has escaped perils of waters over thousands of miles of angry ocean, sometimes is drowned in the narrow unrippled river, within sight of home. It is not in the hour of persecution only, or of open and obvious peril that we need to be on our guard. We often brace ourselves for that. It is in the smaller occurrences of life that we need to be careful and watchful unto prayer, if principle be involved. And in how few things is it not involved, after all? The thought, doubtless suggests danger in these small things; but does it not also invest them with dignity? Does it not raise them out of the dust? What can be small in action or in suffering by which the character can be tested and the soul tried? (J. O. Coghlan, D. D.)
On the character of the man of God that came from Judah
Now, in order to come to a right understanding of the conduct of the man of God which came from Judah, and to appreciate the error of which he was guilty, and for which he suffered; it will be necessary to remember how critical were the circumstances under which he was called to act; how extensive and sacred were the interests which were, more or less, to be involved in the discharge of his mission to Bethel. He came on an express mission, to denounce the apostasy of the times. He came to confront the very author of all this mischief as he stood by the altar of his own pride; to tell him, and his benighted worshippers, of their blasphemy and iniquity; to prophesy the day, when God s signal vengeance should be poured on the altar at which they so blindly knelt; when one of His anointed servants, of the kingly race of David, should fearfully purge that land of its crimes; should destroy the houses, and all the priests of the reigning idolatry, and bum the very reliques of their bodies on the altars of their profane worship. Nothing, therefore, could have been more important, nothing more full of trust, than the mission of him who was thus sent from Judah to Bethel. His instructions must have been of the most solemn kind; and we have reason to know that they were in all things express and minute. Now, in reviewing the conduct of the prophet, we are fur. Dished with a key to a right apprehension of its error, and the cause of its signal punishment. In the outset of his conduct, when the temptation was manifest, and the snare but clumsily laid, he acted in every respect with fidelity and decision. Here, then, it becomes a natural question,–in what had the great guilt of the man of God consisted? True, he had disobeyed the Divine command; but was not the force of that command in a manner cancelled by what the old prophet professed? Could the prophet of Judah have judged that his aged brother was lying to him? if not, wherefore this great and summary punishment? The answer to this is that the man of God ought so to have judged. He should have remembered, that on the one part he would be obeying his Maker, whose will he fully knew; on the other, he would be listening to a mere mortal, whose truth and authority he did not know, but which he even had good reason to suspect. Against the dictates of conscience, and calm judgment, he yielded to the latter; and therefore brought himself under the displeasure and condemnation of his God. In such times of apostasy and disbelief as those, slight actions assumed the importance of great ones; especially if depending on the known will of God. The prophet of Judah was placed in a conspicuous and important pest; and it was essential that his conduct in it should be signally marked. As to the punishment itself, we only know that it affected the body; not a word do we know of the destiny of the soul. Lessons–
1. What God has commanded and sanctified, can be no trifle. If it be but a particle, a tittle of His will, it is enough. The least compromise on our part may tend to evil that we know not of; and our only safe and right course is in simple, implicit obedience.
2. Again, we must be always on our guard against the effect of any apparent sanctity in profession. I am also a prophet as thou art, was the rock on which the prophet of Judah foundered. Let us not be so deceived. We know where to look for Gods revealed will; we know where to look for its authorised interpretation and enforcement.
3. Finally, looking at the example in a more general point of view, let it teach us the peril of all dalliance, vacillation, and delay. Let us not be found sitting under the wayside oak; loitering on the world s highroad. We cannot toy and idle as we pass, in a region of contamination and guilt. Wherever there is one thoughtless, vacant, indifferent to his everlasting salvation, that man is first marked for a prey by his eternal foe. (J. Puckle, M. A.)
The disobedient prophet
I. The great professional and spiritual eminence of this young prophet who came out of Judah. He belongs to that great company of men and women of all ages and countries who have contributed much to the service of God, much to the well-being of their fellow-creatures, while on earth. It is only remembered what they did and not who they were. But as to his high standing among his fellows there can be no question.
1. This would appear, first of all, from the Divine mission with which he was entrusted.
2. And the high character and capacity of the nameless prophet of Judah appears, secondly, from the manner in which he discharged his mission.
II. And now came his trial. Now, it is natural to ask, what was the old prophets motive in taking so much trouble to induce the younger man to do what was wrong? Was the old prophet a false prophet of the type which a few years later abounded in Israel during the ascendency of the Baal-worship? Were his sympathies really on the side of Jeroboam and the new religion of the Egyptian calf, and did he think anything fair if he could only ruin the courageous young man who, on an occasion of such capital importance, had covered both the upstart religion and the upstart king with such great and public discredit? This is what has been thought by some eminent authorities, but it cannot easily be reconciled with the Sequel of the history: for how should a false prophet be entrusted with the message announcing to the prophet of Judah the punishment of his transgression? How would a prophet who was opposed to the whole mission and work of the prophet of Judah have insisted on giving him honourable burial in his own grave? Once more, if the old prophet were at heart on the side of Jeroboam and the calf worship, how are we to explain his confirming the prediction of the prophet of Judah, about the coming destruction of the altar at Bethel? It is impossible to suppose that the old prophet was other than a true prophet of God, who had settled at Bethel. And here we must observe that this old prophet, although a true prophet, was evidently a person with no keenness of conscience, with no high sense of duty. There he was, settled at Bethel, witnessing the triumphant establishment of the new idolatry and of the false, uncommissioned, intrusive priesthood. It does not appear that he had the heart to say a word against the profane proceedings of Jeroboam, while yet he had no hesitation about claiming heavenly authority for a message which he knew was solely dictated by his own wishes. He was evidently an easy-going old prophet, not embarrassed by scruples when he had an object in view, and the appearance on the scene of a younger man, conspicuous for the courage and energy in which he himself was personally deficient, would naturally have affected him in a double manner.
III. See here a tragical instance of the misuse of authority. The prophet of Bethel had the sort of authority which accompanies age and standing. It is an authority which comes in a measure to all who live long enough; it is an authority which belongs especially to fathers of families, and to high officers in Church or State, to great writers, to conspicuous philanthropists, to public eminence in whatever capacity. It is a shadow of a greater and unseen authority which thus rests upon His earthly representatives, and invests this or that creature of a day with something of the dignity of the eternal. What can be more piteous than when, with deliberation or thoughtlessly, it is employed against Him whose authority alone makes it to be what it is? What more lamentable than when the old make truth and goodness more difficult of attainment to those who look up to them, or when, like this prophet of Bethel, they deliberately allure youth into the paths of sin, by appealing to its simple confidence in the wisdom of riper years, or to its reverence for a claim to teach, which would speedily disappear if the world at large were to join them in undermining loyalty to Gods commands? Ah! there are prophets of Bethel in all ages. This disposition to discourage high and generous ideals of duty which have not presented themselves to an older generation, or still worse, have been neglected by it, is not unknown in the history of the Christian Church. A great movement may have taken place, in which God the Holy Ghost has placed before a generation of younger men a higher conception of what Gods truth and Gods service really mean than had occurred to their predecessors. It is always possible, or more than possible, that in a movement like this men will make mistakes, and that such a movement is all the better for the restraining, steadying, guiding influence of authority. But when authority, instead of guiding, discourages, instead of making the best use of the sacred fire–of which, after all, there is not too much in the world–sets to work deliberately to extinguish it, the consequences are disastrous.
IV. The prophet of Judah, who had braved death and had rejected royal courtesies at the altar of Bethel, fell when tempted by the old prophet. It may be thought that the younger prophet sincerely believed his own instructions to be cancelled by the alleged message of the angel to his older brother at Bethel. A moments thought would, should, have told him that this could not be. He knew that God had spoken to himself; he knew that God does not contradict Himself. He might have been embarrassed for the moment by the confident story of the old prophet about the angel, if he did not suspect, as he might well have suspected, that all was not right, and that there was dishonesty somewhere. When any of us know certainly one piece of the Divine will, we simply have to act upon it, let others say what they may. No earthly authority can cancel, or suspend, or dispense with a duty which is perfectly clear to our own conscience. It has been maintained that the punishment awarded to the prophet of Judah was a disproportionately severe punishment. He forfeited his life, men say, not for committing murder, not for committing adultery, but only for eating bread in a particular place. After all, the command to abstain from eating and drinking at Bethel was not a moral precept, it was only a positive precept. But there are times when positive precepts assume high moral importance, and there are persons upon whom the observance of positive precepts exerts, or may exert, the very highest obligation–persons in whose ease a precept positive assumes a distinctly moral character. (H. P. Liddon, D. D.)
Disobedience visited
I. His general character–The man of God. The designation itself may serve to denote, in those to whom it refers:
1. Their special employment.
2. Their special qualifications. As God engaged them in His work, so He furnished them for it.
3. Their eminent devotedness.
(1) Observe his fidelity and zeal
(2) Observe his meekness and placability.
(3) Observe, too, his fortitude and disinterestedness (verses 7-9).
II. His Temptation (verses 11-18). This temptation was–
1. In suitable time and circumstances.
2. By a suitable agent;–an old prophet. Venerable through age,–a prophet in garb and appearance,–and professing a direct and special revelation (verse 18.)
III. His Fall. Here we must blame–
1. His unwatchfulness.
2. His easy credulity and compliance.
3. His positive transgression.
IV. His Punishment. (Sketches of Sermons.)
The disobedient prophet
I. He discharged a truly heroic duty and then failed to do a most ordinary one. Jeroboam was not in the mood to listen to a prophet from the land of Judah. There was a breach at that time between Israel and Judah, and he did not desire that breach to be healed. He was full of the pride of his newly-acquired power as king over Israel, and full of envy and of hatred of the rival kingdom of Judah. He had established religious services at Dan and at Bethel, so that his people might not need to go up to Jerusalem. We may do the truly heroic deed in some great crisis of our life and show that we are ready to die rather than be disobedient unto God, and yet in the manifold trials and duties of our daily life we may fail to cherish the spirit and reveal the mind of Christ. It is the little duties, the trivial cares, the small disappointments and vexations of our daily life which most severely try our faith, and it is in these that we are most in danger of doing dishonour to our Lord.
II. This man of God very nobly resisted one temptation and then was overcome by a second and more subtle temptation.
III. This prophet is an example of those who come almost to the close of life with honour and then end it in shame. How often do we find that towards the evening of life men yield to temptation which covers them with shame and which mars the whole of the glory of their life! Dr. Dale once said that special sermons were often preached for the benefit of the young, but it was equally needful to give special counsel to men of mature age, for the temptations which assail men when the fires of youthful enthusiasm have died away, are often more perilous and more deadly in their effect than those which attack the young. (G. Hunsworth, M. A.)
The fatal result of disobedience
I. The success of the prophet.
1. His sudden disappearance. History is silent regarding his birth, education, and family; his very name is concealed–simply, The man of God, who came from Judah. Travellers tell us that the river Jordan, after springing out of the mountains of Anti-Lebanon, runs underground for miles, and then rushes forth suddenly, a strong, transparent current, and meanders towards the Dead Sea. Even so the early history of this prophet runs through the dark tunnel of silence, unseen by mortal eye; but at Bethel he rushes forth into public life with suddenness and force, and it is easier to imagine than describe the effect of his unexpected appearance both upon the king and populace. It was a moral ambuscade.
2. His stern honesty. When he arrived on the scene of action he did not shrink from his duties, but proclaimed his message as a man who felt the awfulness of his position.
3. His forgiving temper. Instead of taking advantage of the misfortune which befel the apostate king, the man of God prayed that his hand should be restored.
II. The transgression of the prophet. Under our changing western sky, we have often seen the sun shining brilliantly in the morning, and at noon its smiling face was veiled by dark clouds. So the morning of this mans life was successful and promising, but soon and suddenly the meridian splendour of his character became tarnished by the clouds of misfortune. The best of men have their faults.
1. His indecision of character. Indecision is great blemish in a mans character–a crack through which the steam of resolution escapes–and an impediment in his way to accomplish any heroic deed.
2. That temptation is strongest when it comes in the guise of friendship. This renegade prophet enticed him into the net by false pretensions. Are we not troubled by these false prophets in modern times? Yea, they are found in the pulpit and under it, and yet they will not leave religion alone, but persist in offering strange fire upon the altar of God, like the sons of Aaron, and will, like them, receive their reward.
III. The judicial death of the prophet. The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. His death shows–
1. That disobedience is a great sin.
2. Once a man steps off the path of duty he is out of the path of safety. We hear people often complain of Providence, whereas their misfortunes arise from their own folly. All the trouble which comes from God to meet us, He gives strength according to the days to bear and to conquer them; but the troubles that arise from perverse temper and wilful caprice in us, we cannot make God responsible for them, and so we must carry or drag them ourselves. Duty is like the magic circle of the old magicians–all that was inside it was perfectly safe, but all that was outside the ring was liable to be destroyed. Duty likewise is a magic circle–whilst we are inside destruction is impossible.
3. God showed mercy in judgment. Though the lion was permitted to slay him, he was not allowed to feast upon the dead body. Natural historians say that the king of the forest will not attack anything except when hungry. In this case we are not positive whether he was hungry or not, but we are told this much, that the lion had not eaten the carcase nor torn the ass. Cruel animal! hitherto shalt thou come, and no further. The man of God had a burial; the prophet of Bethel performed the ceremony, and pretended to mourn, saying, Alas, my brother! Nations and families often profess to weep after those whom they had ill-treated in their lifetime. (W. A. Griffiths.)
The law of obedience
Because the dead leaf obeys nothing, it flutters down from its bough, giving but tardy recognition to the law of gravity; while our great earth, covered with cities and civilisation, is instantly responsive to gravitys law. Indeed, he who disobeys any law of Nature flings himself athwart her wheels, to be crushed to powder. And if disobedience is destruction, obedience is liberty. Obeying the law of steam, man has an engine. Obeying the law of speech, he has eloquence. Obeying the law of fire, he has warmth. Obeying the law of sound–thinking, he has leadership. Obeying the law of Christ, he has character. The stone obeys one law, gravity, and is without motion. The worm obeys two laws, and adds movement. The bird obeys three laws, and can fly as well as stand or walk. And as man increases the number of laws that he obeys, he increases in richness of nature, in wealth and strength and influence. Nature loves paradoxes, and this is her chiefest paradox–he who stoops to wear the yoke of law becomes the child of liberty, while he who will be free from God s law wears a ball and chain through all his years. Philosophy reached its highest fruition in Christs principle. Love is the fulfilment of the law. (N. D. Hillis, D. D.)
Disobedience in one point
Does it make any difference where the murderers knife touched me? Whether in the face, or on the arm, or over the heart? He may say that he only touched one part. Yes, but it was I whom he attacked; he only touched one part, but he was guilty of injuring the whole body, for it was the whole body that received the shock and felt the pain. Does it make any difference where Prussia strikes in her war on France? Whether at Strasburg, or Metz, or Fontainebleau, or Epernay? She might say, Oh, I have only taken one or two cities. Yes, but France is a unit, and her government is one body; so that wherever Germany strikes, whether a petty village, or a railroad, or a fort, or a city, she means to strike death to the heart of France. So is the law of God one body, containing the outspoken will and nature of the Lord. If you treat it with violence at any point you strike a blow at the whole government, the very throne itself of God. The law of God is a perfect sphere, and if you mar or disfigure it at all, you mar and disfigure it as a whole, and strike a blow at its whole symmetry and beauty. We all understand this unity of government. If a master makes rules for his pupils, and a pupil offends purposely against the least of them, he opposes his teacher. If my father has certain rules for my guidance, I need not break them all in order to array myself in opposition to him, for on the very least of them I may confront and oppose his authority; and in disobeying one rule of the house, I dispute my fathers just right to enforce the remainder. So with the law of God. Disobedience even in one point is the man in his entire nature against God in His entire nature. (F. F. Emerson.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 11. An old prophet] Probably once a prophet of the Lord, who had fallen from his steadfastness, and yet not so deeply as to lose the knowledge of the true God, and join with Jeroboam in his idolatries. We find he was not at the king’s sacrifice, though his sons were there; and perhaps even they were there, not as idolaters, but as spectators of what was done.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
An old prophet; a prophet of the Lord; one to whom and by whom God did sometimes impart his mind, as is manifest from 1Ki 13:20,21, and one first had a respect to the Lords holy prophets, and gave credit to their predictions; all which the following relation shows: but whether he was a holy and good man may justly be doubted, seeing all those qualifications might meet in a vicious man, to and by whom he may reveal some part of his mind, as he did to Balaam, Num 23, &c., and in such his other qualities are sometimes found; and we find him in a downright and premeditated lie, and that without any great temptation to it, 1Ki 13:18. And albeit a holy prophet might possibly have continued in the kingdom of Israel, he would never have gone from his own habitation to dwell at Beth-el, the chief seat of idolatry, unless with design to preach against it; which it is evident he did not; his sons seem to have been present at, and to have joined with others in that idolatrous worship, 1Ki 13:11, and that not without their fathers connivance. In Beth-el; for thither he came to dwell, probably expecting some great advantages from Jeroboam; but he came out of Samaria, 2Ki 23:18, where he either was born, and had lived before; or his usual dwelling was at Beth-el, but had lately been at Samaria, and was now returned to Beth-el.
His sons came; who probably were eye and ear witnesses of what had passed.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
11. Now there dwelt an old prophetin Beth-elIf this were a true prophet, he was a bad man.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Now there dwelt an old prophet in Bethel,…. The Targum is, a false prophet, so Josephus b; it is hard to say what he was, a good man or a bad man; if a good man, he was guilty of many things which are not in his favour, as dwelling in such an idolatrous place suffering his sons to attend idolatrous worship, and telling the man of God a premeditated lie; and yet there are several things which seem contrary to his being a bad man, and of an ill character, since he is called an old prophet, did not attend idolatrous worship, showed great respect to the man of God, had the word of God sent unto him concerning him, believed that what he had prophesied should come to pass, buried the man of God in his own grave, and desired his sons to bury him with him. In some copies his name is said to be Micah, as Kimchi observes, and other Jewish writers c say the same; though some take him to be Amaziah the priest of Bethel, and others Gersom the son of Moses d, but without any foundation; though he now dwelt at Bethel, he was originally of Samaria, 2Ki 23:18,
and his sons came and told him all the works that the man of God had done that day in Bethel; that the altar was rent, and the ashes poured out, as he had said, and that Jeroboam’s hand withered, and was restored upon his prayer to God:
the words which he had spoken unto the king; that one should be born of the family of David, Josiah by name, that should offer the idolatrous priests, and burn the bones of men upon that altar, and that that should be rent, and its ashes poured forth, which was done:
them they told also their father; gave him a particular account of his actions and words.
b Antiqu. l. 8. c. 9. sect. 1. c T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 104. 1. d Shalshalet Hakabala, ut supra. (fol. 11. 1.) Shirhalbirim Rabba, fol. 10. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Seduction of the man of God by an old prophet, and his consequent punishment. – 1Ki 13:11-19. The man of God had resisted the invitations of Jeroboam, and set out by a different road to return to Judah. An old prophet at Bethel heard from his sons what had taken place (the singular as compared with the plural may be explained on the supposition that first of all one son related the matter to his father, and that then the other sons supported the account given by the first); had his ass saddled; hurried after him, and found him sitting under the terebinth (the tree well known from that event); invited him to come into his house and eat with him; and when the latter appealed to the divine prohibition, said to him (1Ki 13:18), “I am a prophet also as thou art, and an angel has said to me in the word of the Lord: Bring him back with thee into thy house, that he may eat and drink,” and lied to him ( without a copula, because it is inserted as it were parenthetically, simply as an explanation) – then he went back with him, and ate and drank in his house.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Prophet Deceived. | B. C. 974. |
11 Now there dwelt an old prophet in Beth-el; and his sons came and told him all the works that the man of God had done that day in Beth-el: the words which he had spoken unto the king, them they told also to their father. 12 And their father said unto them, What way went he? For his sons had seen what way the man of God went, which came from Judah. 13 And he said unto his sons, Saddle me the ass. So they saddled him the ass: and he rode thereon, 14 And went after the man of God, and found him sitting under an oak: and he said unto him, Art thou the man of God that camest from Judah? And he said, I am. 15 Then he said unto him, Come home with me, and eat bread. 16 And he said, I may not return with thee, nor go in with thee: neither will I eat bread nor drink water with thee in this place: 17 For it was said to me by the word of the LORD, Thou shalt eat no bread nor drink water there, nor turn again to go by the way that thou camest. 18 He said unto him, I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel spake unto me by the word of the LORD, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water. But he lied unto him. 19 So he went back with him, and did eat bread in his house, and drank water. 20 And it came to pass, as they sat at the table, that the word of the LORD came unto the prophet that brought him back: 21 And he cried unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying, Thus saith the LORD, Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the LORD, and hast not kept the commandment which the LORD thy God commanded thee, 22 But camest back, and hast eaten bread and drunk water in the place, of the which the LORD did say to thee, Eat no bread, and drink no water; thy carcase shall not come unto the sepulchre of thy fathers.
The man of God had honestly and resolutely refused the king’s invitation, though he promised him a reward; yet he was over-persuaded by an old prophet to come back with him, and dine in Beth-el, contrary to the command given him. Here we find how dearly his dinner cost him. Observe with wonder,
I. The old prophet’s wickedness. I cannot but call him a false prophet and a bad man, it being much easier to believe that from one of such a bad character should be extorted a confirmation of what the man of God said (as we find, v. 32) than that a true prophet, and a good man, should tell such a deliberate lie as he did, and father it upon God. A good tree could never bring forth such corrupt fruit. Perhaps he was trained up among the sons of the prophets, in one of Samuel’s colleges not far off, whence he retained the name of a prophet, but, growing worldly and profane, the spirit of prophecy had departed from him. If he had been a good prophet he would have reproved Jeroboam’s idolatry, and not have suffered his sons to attend his altars, as, it should seem, they did. Now, 1. Whether he had any good design in fetching back the man of God is not certain. One may hope that he did it in compassion to him, concluding he wanted refreshment, and out of a desire to be better acquainted with him and more fully to understand his errand than he could from the report of his sons; yet his sons having told him all that passed, and particularly that the prophet was forbidden to eat or drink there, which he had openly told Jeroboam, I suppose it was done with a bad design, to draw him into a snare, and so to expose him; for false prophets have ever been the worst enemies to the true prophets, usually aiming to destroy them, but sometimes, as here, to debauch them and draw them from their duty. Thus they gave the Nazarites wine to drink (Amos ii. 12), that they might glory in their fall. But, 2. It is certain that he took a very bad method to bring him back. When the man of God had told him, “I may not, and therefore I will not, return to eat bread with thee” (his resolutions concurring with the divine command, 1Ki 13:16; 1Ki 13:17), he wickedly pretended that he had an order from heaven to fetch him back. He imposed upon him by asserting his quondam character as a prophet: I am a prophet also as thou art; he pretended he had a vision of an angel that sent him on this errand. But it was all a lie; it was a banter upon prophecy, and profane in the highest degree. When this old prophet is spoken of (2 Kings xxiii. 18) he is called the prophet that came out of Samaria, whereas there was no such place as Samaria till long after, ch. xvi. 24. Therefore I take it he is so called there, though he was of Beth-el, because he was like those who were afterwards the prophets of Samaria, who caused God’s people Israel to err, Jer. xxiii. 13.
II. The good prophet’s weakness, in suffering himself to be thus imposed upon: He went back with him, v. 19. He that had resolution enough to refuse the invitation of the king, who promised him a reward, could not resist the insinuations of one that pretended to be a prophet. God’s people are more in danger of being drawn from their duty by the plausible pretences of divinity and sanctity than by external inducements; we have therefore need to beware of false prophets, and not believe every spirit.
III. The proceedings of divine justice hereupon; and here we may well wonder that the wicked prophet, who told the lie and did the mischief, went unpunished, while the holy man of God, that was drawn by him into sin, was suddenly and severely punished for it. What shall we make of this! The judgments of God are unfathomable. The deceived and the deceiver are his, and he giveth not account of any of his matters. Certainly there must be a judgment to come, when these things will be called over again, and when those that sinned most and suffered least, in this world, will receive according to their works. 1. The message delivered to the man of God was strange. His crime is recited, 1Ki 13:21; 1Ki 13:22. It was, in one word, disobedience to an express command. Judgment is given upon it: Thy carcase shall not come to the sepulchre of thy fathers, that is, “Thou shalt never reach thy own house, but shalt be a carcase quickly, nor shall thy dead body be brought to the place of thy fathers’ sepulchres, to be interred.” 2. Yet it was more strange that the old prophet himself should be the messenger. Of this we can give no account but that God would have it so, as he spoke to Balaam by his ass and read Saul his doom by the devil in Samuel’s likeness. We may think God designed hereby, (1.) To startle the lying prophet, and make him sensible of his sin. The message could not but affect him the more when he himself had the delivering of it, and had so strong an impression made upon his spirit by it that he cried out, as one in an agony, v. 21. He had reason to think, if he must die for his disobedience in a small matter who sinned by surprise, of how much sorer punishment he should be thought worthy who had belied an angel of God and cheated a man of God by a deliberate forgery. If this were done to the green tree, what shall be done to the dry? Perhaps it had a good effect upon him. Those who preach God’s wrath to others have hard hearts indeed if they fear it not themselves. (2.) To put the greater mortification upon the prophet that was deceived, and to show what those must expect who hearken to the great deceiver. Those that yield to him as a tempter will be terrified by him as a tormentor; whom he now fawns upon he will afterwards fly upon, and whom he now draws into sin he will do what he can to drive to despair.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
A Weary prophet, Verses 11-19
The prophet out of Judah is a prime example of those who `grow weary in well doing” (Gal 6:9), stopped before he got back where he belonged, and came to tragedy. However, another prophet is introduced now, a resident of Bethel, who had also evidently grown “weary in well doing.” Here he must have been, sitting at home, opposed to the new religion, but keeping quiet, discouraged, and resigned to doing nothing to alter the situation. Perhaps he was resentful that a prophet from another area came and preached the message which he had been afraid and unwilling to preach. To get even he went after the prophet from Judah to cause him to violate the Lord’s commission. It is sad, but true, that there have always been those bitter persons who will try to justify themselves by pulling down others who are trying to do the right thing (Php_3:18-19).
The younger generation had fallen in with the new religion and were in attendance at the festival of Jeroboam. The old prophet had not taught his sons to stand for the truth, and his example told them it did not matter what one believed. It was these who brought him the news of the exciting occurrence at the dedication of the altar and caused him to set off enviously after the prophet of Judah.
The old prophet of Bethel never should have overtaken the prophet out of Judah. The prophet of Judah stopped before his journey finished. The Lord had very clearly told him to return, and he had not done so. So he was caught. He was still aware that he should comply with the Lord’s command, for when accosted by the old prophet he replied that he had it by the very word of the Lord. That he wanted to rest a while is apparent. Clearly he desired a change in the Lord’s requirement and was therefore deluded by the old prophet’s lie. The old prophet persuaded him to return home with him and there rest, eat and drink, before resuming his journey. He told him an angel had spoken to him and sent him to bring the prophet of Judah back to his house. He doubtless knew better than to believe such, but it is what he desired, and he succumbed. The word of the Lord even supersedes that of angels (Gal 1:8-9).
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.
1Ki. 13:11. An old prophet in Bethel: who had been faithless amid surrounding faithlessness. His alertness to win the prophet of Judah to his house arose from
(1) his interest (professional) in a fellow-prophets missionthis feeling awoke immediately he heard of one of his own class being near.
(2) A sense of shame may have stirred in him that a prophet from a distance should have come to do what he himself, being near, should have long ago done.
(3) He may have desired to reinstate himself in the kings confidence, and in public estimation, by uniting himself in this way with a distinguished and true prophet. There may have been no desire on his part to induce the prophet of Judah into sinning, but he himself prevaricated in order to succeed in his wish to gratify his curiosity or calm his self-rebuke by this act of courtesy.
1Ki. 13:18. An angel spake unto me by the word of the LordNot the Lord spake, but an angel, or messenger, one of his sons; hiding the real facts, and conveying a false impression.
1Ki. 13:20. The word of the Lord came, &c.Making deceitful lips speak truth.
1Ki. 13:21. And he criedRather, it cried. The man was but the passive agent; the Word of God used the mans organs of utterance.
1Ki. 13:31. Bury me in the sepulchre wherein, &c.Deeply impressed now that he was a true prophet, and that it was an evil and a bitter thing to sin against the Lord. Possibly he had a superstitious hope that by burial with this true prophet he himself might be advantaged when the dead should be raised, or that his own bones would be allowed to rest undisturbed in company with a man of God.W. H. J.
HOMILETICS OF 1Ki. 13:11-32
TEMPTATIONS TO DISOBEDIENCE
I. Assail us at the moment we are most clearly conscious of duty done. The mysterious prophet of Judah had, with great effort and at great peril, accomplished his important mission, and, in obedience to the positive directions he had received, was returning homeward by a different route, when a temptation came upon him from a most unexpected quarter. It is ever so. There is little space afforded for self-gratulation on the achievement of one difficult task ere we are confronted with another; and woe to him who is off his guard at that moment. It is not always in the midst of the storm that the mariner finds his greatest danger, but in the deceitful and uncertain calm when some sudden and unexpected gust may strike his vessel unprepared. It was only lately that the Eurydice, a noble British man-of-war, after successfully navigating the world, was approaching the shores of England with every stitch of canvas spread, when her sails were smitten with a terrific blast, and in a few moments she heeled over and sank to the bottom of the sea, with hundreds of brave seamen whose hearts were beating with joy in the near prospect of home! (1Co. 10:12).
II. Are most dangerous when they come to us with a pretended religious sanction (1Ki. 13:18). The prophet of Bethel was old (1Ki. 13:11), and commanded the reverence that belongs to age. He was recognized as a prophet, and had so much regard for his sacred office as to be absent from the kings idolatrous sacrifices, though he allowed his sons to be there (1Ki. 13:11-12). His object might be to curry favour with the king by making the man of God contradict himself, and thus impair the moral weight and authority of the message that had been so faithfully delivered, and weaken its impression on the minds of the people. He gained his end by telling a liea lie that was aggravated by its boldness and profanity (1Ki. 13:18). The prophet of Judah was too guileless to suspect the trap that was laid for him, though, being himself in direct communication with Jehovah, he ought not to have acted upon a contradiction of the command imparted to himself, or any other authority than that from which he had received it. He was beguiled; he turned back, and his doom was sealed. The most dangerous allurements of evil are presented when it robes itself in the external garb of goodness. When rack, and sword, and faggot fail to intimidate, a false show of piety will fatally deceive! Ah! how much need have we to cry
Awake, my soul, when sin is nigh,
And keep it still awake.
III. Cannot be yielded to with impunity.
1. The disobedient are made conscious of their sin (1Ki. 13:20-22). The two prophets were startled at their humble meal by hearing the voice of the Lord uttering unmistakable condemnation; and this time the false prophet was made the vehicle of a true message from heaven, which he understood, we may well suppose, with real concern, and delivered with reluctance. A conviction of wrong-doing always precedes punishment: the sinner will be made to understand what it is for which he suffers.
2. The disobedient are certainly punished (1Ki. 13:23-24). The punishment may be strange, singular, and in a form utterly unexpected; but it will be certain. Here a lion was made the instrument of vengeance. It is said that lions like not to attack man unless driven to extremity for prey, and that an ass is choice food for a lion, while it is well known that a lion kills to eat. But in this case we see the natural instinct of the brute controlled by a superior power: the man is assailed and slain; his body and that of the ass remain unmolested. God is not restricted to any one method of punishing transgression: all the powers of the universe wait on His bidding.
3. The punishment of the disobedient is evident (1Ki. 13:25). The scene was patent to every passer-by, and soon became the common talk of the city. Where the offence was committed, there its punishment was witnessed. Jehovah will vindicate His righteous government of the universe by the most public and terrible punishment of sin (2Co. 5:10).
4. The punishment of the disobedient is not unlamented (1Ki. 13:26-30). The awful transactions in which the prophet of Bethel was thus called to take a part could not but make a profound impression on his mind, and might be beneficial in promoting his spiritual reformation. He sorrowed over the unfortunate fate of his brother-prophet, and interred his body in his own tomb (1Ki. 13:29-30). Do not think, O sinner! that your transgressions are unnoticed, or that you are the only one affected by them: they cannot be regarded with indifference by a Just and Beneficent God. And if you will persist in your disobedience, breaking through all restrictions, and spurning all helpif you will court ruin, and voluntarily surrender youself to the inevitable consequences of your sinsHe who has done all He consistently can to recall you to obedience resolves you shall not perish unwept and unlamented; and as you drop into the abysmal depths of unutterable woe the voice of Infinite Pity shall exclaim in tones which, though not intended to do so, can only sharpen the stings of remorse: O! that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments, &c. (Isa. 48:18).
IV. Will not prevent the ultimate fulfilment of the Divine Word (1Ki. 13:31-32). The saying which he cried by the Word of the Lord shall surely come to pass. Thus did the faithless prophet bear his testimony to the faithfulness of God. Jehovah is stronger than the Tempter, and will ere long expose his most plausible deceptions, baffle his wicked designs, and consign him to his own place.
LESSONS:
1. False prophets are the most dangerous and fatal enemies of Gods people.
2. They who seek to seduce the soul from its allegiance to Gods Word, however specious their pretexts, are the emissaries of Satan.
3. We may be tempted to do evil by counterfeit appearances of piety, when we should not be driven to it by any fear of suffering.
This passage may also be homiletically treated as follows:
AN UNFAITHFUL PROPHET
I. Is content to live in the midst of idolatry and moral corruption without lifting up a protesting voice (1Ki. 13:11). The prophet of Bethel could not be ignorant of the innovations of the idolatrous king; and while it does not appear that he actually sanctioned them by his presence, he did not restrain his sons from worshipping at the unholy altar. He lacked the courage to protest against the wickedness of the king, though he might be often powerfully moved to do so. He resisted the impulse until it became feebler; and he sank down a voiceless witness to the insults that were daily offered to his God. He seemed to be one of those mixed characters, true to history and human nature, which perpetually appear among the sacred persons of the Old Testament; moved by a partial wavering inspiration; aiming after good, yet failing to attain it; full of genuine tender admiration for the prophet of whose death he had been the unwilling cause, the mouthpiece of truths which he himself but faintly understood. To disobey repeated calls to duty only confirms the soul in its unfaithfulness, and renders it content with evils against which it was wont to loudly and faithfully protest. There are times when silence becomes a sin.
II. Will descend to the most deceptive practices to tempt the faithful from their allegiance (1Ki. 13:12-19). What the prophet of Judah did, showed the old prophet what he should have done. Filled with shame for his neglect, and wishful to restore himself in his own opinion and in the opinion of others who had perhaps accused him of unfaithfulness, he sought to have intercourse with so courageous a witness for God, and to gain prestige by having him under his own roof. The objects were thoroughly selfish, and to accomplish it he did not scruple to tell a lie (1Ki. 13:18). The most abandoned crave for companion ship in their sins, and will resort to all kinds of methods to bring down others to their own level. It is impossible to say to what depths of iniquity one single act of unfaithfulness may lead (Luk. 16:10).
III. Is compelled to own the solemn reality and authority of the Divine Word. A message came to the old prophet the source and meaning of which he could not mistake (1Ki. 13:20-22). God may often speak through a wicked prophet. He did so through Balaam, uttering the sublimest oracles of blessing, though that sooth-sayer would fain have cursed Israel. The Bethel-prophet was also firmly convinced that the prophecy against the altar would certainly come true; and he therefore directed his sons to bury his corpse in the same grave as that of the Judah-prophet (1Ki. 13:30-32). The bones of the seducer and seduced being thus intermingled in the tomb, it so happened, as the former probably intended, that his bones escaped at the appointed time the defilement to which they would otherwise have been subjected. The tomb of the prophet that came out of Judah was then recognised, and for his sake the contents were spared from dishonour (2Ki. 23:17-18). The Word of God will vindicate itself, even in the lips of those who have sometimes ignored its authority.
IV. Involves his victims in fatal disaster (1Ki. 13:23-26). We are ready to admit that the old prophet did not intend to bring upon his victim the result that really happened. He might have a vague impression that his disobedience would not escape some kind of punishment; but had he foreseen how awful and immediate that punishment would be, he would not have persisted in his plot. But that is ever the way with wrong-doing; it goes farther than it intended, and stands aghast at the ruin it has itself produced.
V. Need not be devoid of brotherly sympathy and respect, nor be beyond the reach of reformation (1Ki. 13:28-30). The Bethel-prophet sincerely mourned over the sad fate of his brother prophet, and, with the most genuine respect, reverently interred his body in his own grave. The heart that was thus touched with fraternal pity was perhaps also smitten with grief on account of sin. He repented his unfaithfulness in the past; and he showed his desire to henceforth imitate the spirit and example of the dead prophet, by giving particular directions that his body should be laid in the same grave. As if he said:If I can have no more fellowship with my brother in life, I will at least be united to him in death; our common grave, to which I shall soon go down in sorrow, shall be a lasting testimony against the sin of Jeroboam.
LESSONS:
1. It is a great honour and a great responsibility to be a prophet of the Lord.
2. An unfaithful prophet has a great power for evil.
3. The unfaithfulness of the messenger does not invalidate the Divine authority of the message.
GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES
1Ki. 13:11-32. The history of these two prophets offers an important view of the relation of this class to the new order of things: in the prophet out of Judah we see a man of God full of life and strength, but who yet proved unstable in these disturbed times; in the old Israelite we look upon one in whom the fire is almost quenched, it only glimmers faintlya type of the expiring high and manly strength of Israel; he is still upheld by faith in Gods Word rather than by self-reliance. They both yet speak and testify in death. The fall and death of the man of Judah set forth two great truths.
1. He who thinketh he standeth, let him take heed (1Co. 10:12). He had conducted himself grandly and nobly, and victoriously withstood a severe temptation, yet he yielded to a lesser one. The higher a man stands the deeper is his fall, and to whom much is given from him will much be required (1Co. 16:13; 1Co. 10:13). Only those who are true unto death can obtain the crown of life.
2. How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out (Rom. 11:33). He who is holy in all His ways, knows how to establish firmly that which is threatened with destruction and annihilation by human treachery and deceit. The death and the grave of the man of God announce, in louder and more threatening accents than did his lips, the altar is rent.Von Gerlach.
1Ki. 13:11-19. I do not know any passage more useful than this for disabusing us of a prejudice which the mere word prophet is liable to create in our minds. If the man was inspired, we say to ourselves, inspired by God, we must be sure he would do the right thing, and say the right thing. It would destroy all our security if we thought otherwise. No, brethren; it would destroy no security at all which the Bible designs to give us. On the contrary, we shall lose a great security, we shall fall into a great danger, if we do not strictly adhere to the teaching of the Bible on this subject, but set up certain canons of our own. The first obvious lesson which this passage teaches us is, that a prophet, a true prophet, a prophet of God, might be grossly deceived. The second is, that he must be deceived if he yielded to any pretences of inspiration on the part of any man, though that man were called a prophet, and were a prophet, when what he said went against a sure witness and conviction as to his own duty. The third is, that a prophet, not habitually a deceiver, might on a certain occasion wilfully deceivein the plain language of Holy Writ, might lie. All these statements we accept on the authority of Scripture. And if we accept them, we may derive the very greatest profit from them. We are often apt to suppose that a prophet or inspired man is one who is raised above laws and government, who can lay down laws for himself, whose internal power is itself the rule for others and for his own conduct. The Scripture teaches us quite a different lesson. The characteristic quality of the prophet, when he is true, is obedience. He is nothing in himself. He is merely a servant. In the acknowledgment of his service, of the power which is upon him, his strength consists. But it is no mere impulse to which he yields himself. He is liable to all the same chances and foolish impulses as other people. He is particularly liable to confound these impulses with Gods teaching and commands. He is, therefore, to be more suspicious of himself, more watchful against this confusion, than other men. If he once forgets the Invisible Ruler and Lawgiver, no one will commit such flagrant errors, such falsehood, such blasphemy.Maurice.
1Ki. 13:11-15. The old prophet, when he hears of the man of God, hastens upon his way, and spares neither care nor pains to see him and bring him to his house. How much time, pains, and money are expended by the children of this world to see and hear what will gratify their senses, whilst they stir neither hand nor foot to acquire that which pertains to their peace and salvation!
1Ki. 13:11. Doubtless he was a prophet of God, but corrupt, resty, vicious. Prophecy doth not always presuppose sanctification: many a one hath had visions from God, who shall never enjoy the vision of God. A little holiness is worth much illumination.Bp. Hall.
1Ki. 13:14. The danger of delay.
1. Gives an opportunity to be overtaken by the tempter.
2. The difficulties of our mission seem to multiply.
3. Often involves suffering and disaster.
1Ki. 13:16-19. So in indifferent ordinary matters, which God has either ordered or forbidden, we must observe unerring obedience. Whatever obtains success and position by means of deceit cannot be followed by blessing, but rather by a curse. The Scripture is not silent concerning the sins of the man of God; and this, not that we may excuse our sins by his, but that we may guard ourselves from haughtiness and spiritual pride.
1Ki. 13:18. There is no temptation so dangerous as that which comes shrouded under a vail of holiness, and pretends authority from God Himself. Jeroboam threatens, the prophet stands undaunted: Jeroboam fawns and promises, the prophet holds constant. Now comes a grey-headed seer, and pleads a counter message from God; the prophet yields and transgresses. Satan may affright us as a fiend, but he seduces us as an angel of light. Who would have looked for a liar under hoary hairs and a holy mantle?Bp. Hall.
Falsehood.
1. Is always inexcusable.
2. Aggravated when in the garb of sanctity.
3. Never fails to produce mischief.
4. An evidence of moral degradation.
The door of his heart seems to have been standing ajar, almost half opened already, to the invitations of the old man. Otherwise, surely he would have said: Thou a prophet! How is it, then, that thou dwellest at Bethel, the house of Jeroboams corrupt worship? If thou hadst been indeed a prophet of the Lord, thou wouldst have denounced that worship, and I should not have been sent from Judah to lift up my voice against it.Wordsworth.
1Ki. 13:20-22. The same sentence which the old prophet pronounced upon the man of God he pronounced upon himself, while he had led and betrayed him to disobedience. How often does the judgment which we utter for others fall upon ourselves, when we have sinned equally, or in greater measure (Rom. 2:1).Lange.
O woful prophet! when he looks on his host, he sees his executioner; while he is feeding his body, he hears of his carcase; at the table he hears of his denied sepulchre; and all this for eating and drinking where he was forbidden by God, though bidden as from God. The violation of the least charge of God is mortal; no pretences can warrant the transgression of a Divine command.Bp. Hall.
Punishment.
1. Results from disobedience.
2. Is not inflicted without due warning.
3. Is certain.
4. In the hands of God, is never unjust.
1Ki. 13:21. It has been asked, how did the prophet from Judah sin? or, at any rate, how did he sin so grievously as to deserve the punishment of death? Was he not justified in believing that God might revoke His command? Would it not have been wrong in him to suspect the old prophet of telling a lie? To such enquiries it may be replied: With God is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. He cannot revoke a command until the circumstances under which the command was given are materially changed. The circumstances here were not changed. Again, if God gives a command and revokes it, He will revoke it as plainly and with as much evidence as He gave it. Here there was neither the same plainness, nor as strong evidence. The evidence to the man of God was in the one case the mere word of a man, and of a man who, by his lingering at Bethel, yet not rebuking Jeroboam, was clearly not a very good man; while in the other case the evidence had been the direct word of God. It was not the duty of the man of God to disbelieve the old prophet; but it was his duty not to have suffered himself to be persuaded. He should have felt that his obedience was being tried, and should have required, ere he considered himself released, the same, or as strong evidence as that on which he had received the obligation. With respect to the question whether the sin was such a heinous one as to deserve death, we may answerfirst, that the sin, disobedience to certain positive commands of God, was one which it was at this time very important to punish signally, since it was exactly the sin of Jeroboam and his adherents; and secondly, that temporal death is not among Gods heaviest punishments, that it comes on men both naturally and miraculously for light offences, and that in such cases we may regard it as sent in lieu of future punishment, and therefore as in some sort a mercy. We are not to suppose that the man of Judah perished eternally because he perished temporally.Speakers Comm.
1Ki. 13:23-31. A stern punishment, it will be said, for such a crime. An actual punishment, certainlyone which asserted the fact that a prophet will not be more, but less, excused for his transgressions than another man. What was the magnitude of the punishment, we are no judges. A man who has been witness of a great national sin, and has foretold a great national calamity, who has found out the falsehood of a friend and a prophet, and who is conscious of having done wrong himself, may not think the sentence a very hard one which calls him out of a confused world; or more hard because it comes in a form which assures him that there is an eternal order which will vindicate itself in spite of his errors and those of all other men. A man of God who had learnt to trust God, could trust Him when He was slaying him, and see that there was a deep and awful righteousness and wisdom in the way in which the creatures of God going forth to seek their meat from Him may, without the least departure from the ordinary law of their kind, be made the instruments of punishing mans transgressions. The prophet who betrayed him, and then had the heavy punishment of being forced to proclaim the wrong which he himself instigated, is surely the greater object of compassion, especially if, as the narrative half leads us to suspect, his conscience was blunted, and he was able to understand Jeroboams sin without any keen sense of his own. A man with a clear apprehension of the evil doings of rulers, and admiration for those who protest against them with a prophetical power of uttering the truth, yet with no love of truth or resolute abhorrence of falsehood, is a very painful but a very instructive spectacle. Everyone must be conscious of something akin to such a state of mindsome possibility of it, at all events, in himself. He should think of that with trembling and with the prayerSee if there be any wicked way in me. Lead me in the way everlasting. There is something very pathetic in the homage to a truer and better man, which is expressed in the wordsLay my bones beside his bones. The lion slew him for returning with me to eat bread and drink water; yet I should have been glad to die his death; for I feel that he was right within, and, therefore, that there is a sacredness in his carcase which I would wish mine to share! Maurice.
1Ki. 13:23-25. The judgments of God often fall suddenly and unexpectedly, thus proving that though long delayed, they are sure to come, even as this, after the lapse of three hundred years, was the punishment threatened for the golden calf-worship.
1Ki. 13:23-24. The last dread journey.
1. Was entered on with the oppressive consciousness that it must lead to death.
2. Was occupied with tormenting apprehensions as to what might be the particular form of death.
3. Was suddenly terminated by the appointed agent of retribution.
4. How many sad, painful journeys there are in the course of human life!
5. Who can tell the issue of a single journey?
1Ki. 13:23. This old Bethelite that had taken pains to come and fetch the man of God into sin, will not now go back with him to accompany his departure. Doubtless he was afraid to be enwrapped in the judgment which he saw hanged over that obnoxious head. Thus the mischievous guides of wickedness leave a man when they have led him to his bane, as familiar devils forsake their witches when they have brought them once into fetters.
1Ki. 13:24. The very wild beasts are led by a providence; their wise and powerful Creator knows how to serve himself of them. The lions guard one prophet, kill another, according to the commission received from their Maker. What sinner can hope to escape unpunished when every creature of God is ready to be an avenger of evil? Where a holy man buys so dearly such a slight frailty, what shall become of our heinous and presumptuous sins? Violent events do not always argue the anger of God; even death itself is to His servants a fatherly castigation.Bp. Hall.
1Ki. 13:25-29. The chastisement with which God visits our fellow-men for their sins is both a warning to reflect upon our sins and deserts, and a call to work active deeds of love with all our might, in life and in death.
The fierce beast stands by the carcase, as to avow his own act and to tell who sent him, so to preserve that body which he had slain. O wonderful work of God! The executioner is turned guardian; and as the officer of the Highest, commands all other creatures to stand aloof from his charge, and command the fearful ass that brought this burden thither not to stir thence, but to stand ready pressed to carry it to the sepulchre; and now, when he hath sufficiently witnessed to all passengers that this act was not done upon his own hunger, but upon the quarrel of his Maker, he delivers up his charge to that old prophet who was no less guilty of this blood than himself.Bp. Hall.
1Ki. 13:28. These strange circumstances at once showed the miraculous nature of the death, and were of a nature to call mens attention to the matter, and cause the whole story to be bruited abroad. By these means an incident which Jeroboam would have wished to be hushed up, became, no doubt, the common talk of the whole people.
1Ki. 13:30-31. We often for the first time, at the grave of a friend, recognise what we possessed in him, and how we have sinned against him. One look into the open grave of one dear to us in life is adapted beyond anything to remind us of our own end. It is a very natural thing to rest in death near those who were closely bound to us in life by ties of blood or strong affection; but yet stronger should be the wish to die in the Lord, and enter into eternal glory. Then, whatever in the providence of God we may find our grave, there shall we rest in peace, for the earth is the Lords, and the fulness thereof (Psa. 24:1).Lange.
1Ki. 13:30. Grief. I. One of the fruits of sin. II. Is never out of place at the grave. III. Is intensified when at the grave of one whose death we have accelerated. IV. May lead to a blessed reformation of life.
It is hard to find a man absolutely wicked: some grace will betray itself in the most forsaken breasts. It is a cruel courtsey to kill a man, and then to help him to his grave; to betray a man with our breath, and then bedew him with our tears. The prophet had needed no such friend, if he had not met with such an enemy.
1Ki. 13:32. The infallibility of the Divine Word. I. Is not affected by time or the opposition of men. II. Is sustained by the testimony of competent witnesses. III. Is a powerful reason for placing implicit faith in it. IV. Constitutes it an unerring standard of judgment.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
B. THE DECEPTION OF THE MAN OF GOD 13:1119
TRANSLATION
(11) Now a certain old prophet lived in Bethel; and his son[347] came and related to him all which the man of God had done that day in Bethel; the words which he had spoken unto the king, they told to their father. (12) And their father spoke unto diem, What way did he go? For his sons had seen the way which the man of God who had come from Judah had gone. (13) And he said unto his sons, Saddle the donkey! And they saddled for him the donkey and he rode after him. (14) And he went after the man of God and found him sitting under an oak; and he said unto him, Are you the man of God who came from Judah? And he said, I am. (15) And he said unto him, Come with me to my house and eat bread. (16) And he said, I cannot return with you, nor go with you, nor will I eat bread or drink water with you in this place. (17) For it was said unto me in the word of the LORD, Do not eat bread nor drink water there; do not return by going the way in which you went. (18) And he said to him, I also am a prophet like you, and an angel spoke unto me in the word of the LORD, saying, Bring him back with you unto your house, that he may eat bread and drink water. But he lied to him. (19) So he returned with him, and ate bread in his house and drank water.
[347] The Hebrew is singular here, but plural in the last clause of the verse. Apparently one of the sons acted as spokesman for the rest.
COMMENTS
It is somewhat surprising to find a prophet of God residing in Bethel, the very stronghold of the Northern apostasy, Faithful priests and Levites had emigrated to Judah (2Ch. 11:13-16), and probably most all other devout worshipers of the Lord had followed their lead. It was not a sense of duty which kept the old prophet in Bethel. The fact that he remained silent while the schism was being born, and that he permitted his sons to attend Jeroboams sacrificial feast is perhaps an index to the character of this prophet. His allegiance to his tribe superseded his allegiance to truth. Despite his better judgment, he had gone along with the majority of the nation. Now he found it difficult to withdraw from that position even though he personally could not participate in the apostate worship.[348]
[348] Others see the old prophet as one who had condoned Jeroboams apostasy and who attempted to use the weapon of lying to thwart the mission of the man of God. He would, then, be one of the first of the false prophets.
Upon returning from the Bethel temple, the sons of the old prophet reported to their father what they had seen and heard[349] (1Ki. 13:11). The account of the fearless appearance of the man of God before Jeroboam stirred the old prophet to assert himself. The old prophet, wishing to converse with the man of God inquired as to what way the man of God had gone. The motives of the old prophet are not entirely clear. Did he merely wish to fellowship with the dynamic and daring young prophet? Or was it his intention to persuade that man of God to reverse or change the curse he had pronounced against the Bethel altar? The sons, having noted the route the young prophet had selected,[350] related this information to their father (1Ki. 13:12). The old man promptly ordered his donkey to be saddled and he then rode off in pursuit of the man of God (1Ki. 13:13).
[349] 1Ki. 13:11 begins by quoting one son and ends by quoting several of them. Very likely one son started talking and the others joined in the account of what happened. Something of the excitement of the occasion is thus skillfully conveyed to the reader (Honor, JCBR, p. 193).
[350] Targum, Septuagint and Vulgate read his sons showed him the way the man of God went. This implies a change only of one vowel in the Hebrew text.
The old prophet caught up with the man of God sitting under an oak[351] along the road to Judah. Some have seen in this brief rest the beginning of the sin of the young prophet, and certainly it would seem against the spirit of his instructions to tarry so near a place from which he was to speedily disappear. In any case the action betrays his fatigue and exhaustion. Suspecting that this might be the man of God, the old prophet inquired and learned that he was indeed the man for whom he had been searching (1Ki. 13:14). He invited the man of God to his home to eat with him (1Ki. 13:15), but was rebuffed with the same words used in response to Jeroboams invitation (1Ki. 13:16-17). Determined to succeed in his mission, the old prophet fabricated a story about an angelic visitation in which he was instructed to bring the man of God back to Bethel (1Ki. 13:18). Probably the angel was mentioned partly for the purpose of making his story sound authentic, and partly to convey the idea of his having a superior authority for his message. A communication through a celestial messenger would seem to have been regarded as a higher form of revelation than a subjective communication to the mind of the prophet.[352]
[351] The Hebrew reads the oak suggesting that some particular, well-known landmark is meant.
[352] Hammond, PC, p. 296. cf. Act. 7:53; Heb. 2:2; Luk. 1:13; Luk. 1:29, etc. Slotki (SBB, p. 101), on the other hand, regards a communication through an angel as being inferior to the direct communication from God which the man of God had received. Gray (OTL, p. 330) thinks the angel was mentioned in order to avoid telling a deliberate lie in the name of God, which might have called down immediate wrath.
The motives of the old prophet are not entirely clear. Putting his action in the best possible light, his lie may have been born out of an ardent desire for fellowship with the man of God. At least two more sinister interpretations for his actions have been suggested:
1. When the man of God rejected the hospitality of Jeroboam, he had put the city of Bethel and the calf cult under a bana prophetic anathema. Though the old prophet had not personally participated in the temple activities, he felt himself condemned by the actions of the man of God. If the man of God returned to Bethel and broke bread there, it would be a public repudiation of his earlier stern stand against any fellowship with the apostates.
2. Still another viewthat of Gray (OTL, p. 322)is that the old prophet was testing the authority of his colleague, attempting to determine whether the prophet spoke with the authority of God or was merely an agent for the political enemies of the Northern Kingdom. He concentrated on the alleged divine command not to eat and drink. If the man of God could evade this word of God with impunity, his threats regarding the future of the Bethel altar might be viewed as idle.
Thus it may be that the old prophet was acting in the interest of his king. By bringing back the man of God the old prophet would make the whole city, and especially the sovereign, his debtor. By accomplishing what the king had failed to effect, he would secure for himself a position of no little influence in the new kingdom.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(11) An old prophet in Bethel.The narrative clearly impliesand, indeed, part of its most striking instructiveness depends on thisthat this old prophet was not a mere pretender to prophetic inspiration, nor an apostate from the worship of Jehovah. Like Balaam, he united true prophetic gifts with a low worldliness of temper, capable on occasion of base subterfuge and deceit. Such union of elements, which should be utterly discordant, is only too characteristic of mans self-contradictory nature. He had thrown in his lot with Jeroboams policy, which did not want plausible grounds of defence: in spite of this adhesion, he desired to continue still a prophet of the Lord, and to support the kings action by prophetic influence. It has been noticed that, after the maintenance of the idolatry of Beth-el, even the true prophets did not break off their ministry to the kingdom of Israel, and that, indeed, they never appeared in open hostility to that kingdom, till the introduction of Baal worship. But their case is altogether different from that of the old prophet. He deliberately supports the idolatry, and that by the worst of falsehoodsa falsehood in the name of God. They rebuke the sin (see 1Ki. 14:9), but do not forsake their ministry to the sinner.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
11. An old prophet An old man who in his youth had probably been trained up in the schools of the prophets, and thence derived the title of prophet. It is usually supposed, and with reason, that he had fallen from his integrity, and had become corrupt and worldly.
His sons came and told him He did not himself go forth to witness the abominations of the king’s calf-worship, but he allowed his sons to go.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Old Prophet And The Man Of God ( 1Ki 13:11-32 ).
Meanwhile dwelling in Bethel was an old prophet who had served YHWH for many years. The fact that he was not present at the celebrations taking place at the Sanctuary, but rather sent his sons, indicates that he was very old. He was no longer actively involved as a prophet.
But when he learned from his sons what the man of God from Judah had done, and the words that he had spoken, he was clearly concerned. He felt that it was his duty as a prophet of Israel to ensure that the man of Judah had been a true prophet (1Ki 13:32). So he sought the man of God out and invited him home to eat bread with him. But as he had with Jeroboam the man of God refused because YHWH had forbidden him to partake of food and drink in Israel as a sign that He was at odds with Israel.
Unless we see the old prophet as being deliberately malicious through jealousy we can only assume that what happened next was a test that he was making so as to determine whether the man of God really was a true prophet, or was simply acting on behalf of the king of Judah in order to undermine Jeroboam’s authority. His reasoning was probably that if the man was a true man of God he would discern that he was lying to him. Thus he told the man of God a false story suggesting that YHWH had countermanded His previous command and was now willing for him to partake of food in Israel. When the man of God changed his mind and began to eat with him the old prophet no doubt felt himself satisfied that the man of God was not a true prophet after all.
But then, as of old, the word of YHWH came to him while they were eating, and to his horror he learned what he had really done. He had to acknowledge to himself that he had seemingly betrayed a true prophet of YHWH. But, however embarrassed he might have felt, because it was the word of YHWH for the man of God he could not hold it back, and he declared to the man of God that because he had disobeyed YHWH he would not die in peace (would not be laid in the tomb of his fathers) although no other detail was given. We are not told what the man of God’s reaction was.
The man of God then departed, and while he was on the rough trail back to Judah (in obedience to YHWH he had had to avoid the normal road), he came across a lion which attacked him and killed him, so fulfilling the prophecy of the old prophet. When the old prophet learned of this he was filled with dismay and arranged for the man of God’s body to be brought back to Bethel to be laid in his own tomb, and as a result confirmed to his sons the genuineness of the man of God’s prophecy. He now knew that he was a true man of God after all.
In our easygoing Christianity and our modern lack of the fear of God we necessarily question why God allowed this to happen to His true servant. But it is important to recognise the significance of the situation. This man of God was the first of many who would be called on to prophecy to an antagonistic Israel, and thus through what happened to him God was bringing a warning to all future prophets that once He had given His word, they must strictly obey His word and not turn aside from it for any reason. Nor must they listen to those who would seek to play it down. It indicated to all future prophets the seriousness of being a man of God. (We can in fact look back in the Scriptures and see similar situations. Consider for example the case when YHWH ‘attacked’ Moses on his way back to Egypt for having been disobedient and not circumcising his son (Exo 4:24-26), or when Moses and Aaron were both punished severely for smiting the Rock and misrepresenting God (Num 20:12), or when the sons of Aaron were smitten for disobedience in the Sanctuary (Lev 10:1-2), or when Uzzah was struck down for touching the Ark (2Sa 6:7). All were examples of a similar gross disobedience by chosen servants of God).
Furthermore we should remember that by his folly the man of God had in effect countermanded his own message by eating and drinking in Israel, and had the matter ended there all Israel would have believed that the man of God’s message no longer applied. We must remember in considering this the vital role that hospitality played in ancient society. It was not just a casual thing. Once you had supplied hospitality, or received it, you had made a pledge of friendship which was seen as sacrosanct. It was a sign of guaranteed friendly relations. On the other hand to refrain from hospitality was a direct sign of enmity, and of evil intentions. Thus the man of God’s disobedience could have had catastrophic results on the faith of the true believers in Israel. The only way in which that could be avoided was by YHWH’s judgment falling on the man of God, thus indicating that in his act of enjoying hospitality he had not been YHWH’s representative.
Analysis. .
a Now there dwelt an old prophet in Beth-el, and one of his sons came and told him all the works that the man of God had done that day in Beth-el. The words which he had spoken to the king, them also they told to their father (1Ki 13:11).
b And their father said to them, “What way did he go?” Now his sons had seen what way the man of God went, who came from Judah (1Ki 13:12).
c And he said to his sons, “Saddle for me the ass.” So they saddled the ass for him, and he rode on it (1Ki 13:13).
d And he went after the man of God, and found him sitting under an oak, and he said to him, “Are you the man of God who came from Judah?” And he said, “I am.” Then he said to him, “Come home with me, and eat bread” (1Ki 13:14-15).
e And he said, “I may not return with you, nor go in with you, nor will I eat bread nor drink water with you in this place, for it was said to me by the word of YHWH, “You shall eat no bread nor drink water there, nor turn again to go by the way in which you came” (1Ki 13:16-17).
f And he said to him, “I also am a prophet as you are, and an angel spoke to me by the word of YHWH, saying, ‘Bring him back with you into your house, that he may eat bread and drink water.’ ” But he lied to him (1Ki 13:18).
g So he went back with him, and ate bread in his house, and drank water (1Ki 13:19).
f And it came about, as they sat at the table, that the word of YHWH came to the prophet who brought him back, and he cried to the man of God who came from Judah, saying, “Thus says YHWH, Forasmuch as you have been disobedient to the mouth of YHWH, and have not kept the commandment which YHWH your God commanded you, but came back, and have eaten bread and drunk water in the place of which he said to you, ‘Eat no bread, and drink no water,’ your body will not come to the sepulchre of your fathers’ ” (1Ki 13:20-22).
e And it came about, after he had eaten bread, and after he had drunk, that he saddled for him the ass, to wit, for the prophet whom he had brought back, and when he was gone, a lion met him by the way, and slew him, and his body was cast in the way, and the ass stood by it. The lion also stood by the body (1Ki 13:23-24).
d And, behold, men passed by, and saw the body cast in the way, and the lion standing by the body, and they came and told it in the city where the old prophet dwelt. And when the prophet who brought him back from the way heard of it, he said, “It is the man of God, who was disobedient to the mouth of YHWH, therefore YHWH has delivered him to the lion, which has torn him, and slain him, according to the word of YHWH, which he spoke to him (1Ki 13:25-26).
c And he spoke to his sons, saying, “Saddle me the ass.” And they saddled it (1Ki 13:27).
b And he went and found his body cast in the way, and the ass and the lion standing by the body. The lion had not eaten the body, nor torn the ass. And the prophet took up the body of the man of God, and laid it on the ass, and brought it back, and he came to the city of the old prophet, to mourn, and to bury him. And he laid his body in his own grave; and they mourned over him, saying, “Alas, my brother!” (1Ki 13:28-30).
a And it came about, after he had buried him, that he spoke to his sons, saying, “When I am dead, then bury me in the sepulchre in which the man of God is buried. Lay my bones beside his bones, for the saying which he cried by the word of YHWH against the altar in Beth-el, and against all the houses of the high places which are in the cities of Samaria, will surely come about” (1Ki 13:31-32).
Note that in ‘a’ the old prophet heard the words that the man of God had spoken and in the parallel he declares that he was a true man of God. In ‘b’ the old prophet determines the way that the man of God has taken, and in the parallel he finds his body cast in the way. In ‘c’ he calls for his ass to be saddled, and in the parallel does the same. In ‘d’ the old prophet calls on the man of God to eat bread with him, knowing that it had been forbidden by YHWH and in the parallel we learn of the consequence of the man of God’s disobedience. In ‘e’ the man of God says that he cannot eat bread with him and in the parallel he disobeys YHWH by eating bread with him. In ‘f’ the old prophet gives a lying prophecy, and in the parallel he gives a true prophecy. Centrally in ‘g’ we learn of the man of God’s gross disobedience.
1Ki 13:11
‘ Now there dwelt an old prophet in Beth-el, and one of his sons came and told him all the works that the man of God had done that day in Beth-el. The words which he had spoken to the king, them also they told to their father.’
The old prophet was seemingly very old and no longer active, for he refrained from going to the feast and sent ‘his sons’. It may even be that this was his way of avoiding partaking in something that he was not sure about for 1Ki 13:20 indicates that he was a genuine prophet of YHWH. On the other hand the fact that he sent his ‘sons (they may have been younger members of his prophetic guild – i.e. ‘sons of the prophets’, rather than actual sons, but we cannot be sure), prevents us from being too dogmatic about it, and it may in fact be that he was not fully aware of all that was going on, or indeed that he was willing to compromise for the good of the nation. But he was certainly moved into action when he learned of what the man of God had done.
It would seem that as an elder statesmen among the prophets he felt that it was his responsibility to check out the man of God’s credentials. Was he a genuine man of God whose word should be listened to? Or was he one of Rehoboam’s magicians who had been sent to try to undermine Jeroboam’s position by the use of magic?
1Ki 13:12
‘ And their father said to them, “What way did he go?” Now his sons had seen what way the man of God went, who came from Judah.’
So he asked his sons which way the man of God had gone. In that mountainous country there were not many routes that a man could take back to Judah, and as the departure of the man of God had no doubt been observed with keen interest by many after the exciting events, his sons knew which route he had taken. Having arrived on the normal road from Jerusalem he had seemingly taken one of the rougher trails back, which led through rougher country, so as to avoid going back on the same road that he had come in on.
1Ki 13:13
‘ And he said to his sons, “Saddle for me the ass.” So they saddled the ass for him, and he rode on it.’
On learning which route he had taken, the old prophet called on his sons to saddle his ass so that he could pursue the man of God.
1Ki 13:14
‘ And he went after the man of God, and found him sitting under an oak, and he said to him, “Are you the man of God who came from Judah?” And he said, “I am.” ’
The old prophet soon came across the man of God sitting under an oak tree. The man of God had had a strenuous and unnerving time and was probably seeking to refresh himself. It was not every day that he was called on to confront kings and arrange for miracles, and the road back was rough. He was probably gathering his resources. The old prophet then ascertained from him whether he really was the man of God who had come from Judah.
1Ki 13:15
‘ Then he said to him, “Come home with me, and eat bread”’
Once he knew that he had found his man he invited him back to his home to eat bread with him. This may have been a test in order to ascertain whether his words had been genuine, or it may just be that he thought that the prohibition would not apply to eating in his home.
1Ki 13:16
‘ And he said, “I may not return with you, nor go in with you, nor will I eat bread nor drink water with you in this place, for it was said to me by the word of YHWH, “You shall eat no bread nor drink water there, nor turn again to go by the way in which you came.” ’
But the man of God soon put him straight, and pointed out that he could not return with him, nor could he eat and drink water ‘in this place’ because it had been forbidden to him by YHWH. He clearly saw this as a specific ‘word of YHWH’. ‘In this place’ appears to have meant Israel (Judah was only a few miles away from where they were).
1Ki 13:18
‘ And he said to him, “I also am a prophet as you are, and an angel spoke to me by the word of YHWH, saying, ‘Bring him back with you into your house, that he may eat bread and drink water.’ ” He lied to him.’
The old prophet then informed the man of God that he too was a prophet of YHWH, something which the man of God had probably discerned from the way in which he was dressed. And he informed him that an angel had spoken to him ‘by the word of YHWH’ and had told him to bring the man of God back to his house so that he might eat food and drink water. ‘By the word of YHWH appears to be the equivalent of inspiration by the Spirit.
The mention of the angel was probably the old prophet’s way of avoiding putting his lie directly in the mouth of YHWH, and it should possibly have caused the man of God to stop and think. This was clearly a less direct message than he had himself received. However, as he knew that angels had spoken to men in the past he let it go.
The kindest way in which we can see these words of the old prophet is to consider them as a kind of test of the genuineness of the man of God, otherwise they are both inexcusable and incomprehensible. Indeed as the old prophet was seemingly himself a godly man (1Ki 13:20) it is the only reasonable explanation. It is true that there may have been other conflicting emotions such as jealousy on behalf of the prophets of Israel that a man from Judah should be fulfilling this role, but it is difficult to believe that for such a reason he would actually plot the man of God’s downfall. On the other hand if he was genuinely trying to discover whether this really was a genuine ‘man of God’ what he did was explicable, and even possibly justifiable. His reasoning was probably that if the man of God were truly a man of God he would discern his lie.
“He lied to him.” The bald statement without a conjunction brings out the horror and starkness of the thought.
1Ki 13:19
‘ So he went back with him, and ate bread in his house, and drank water.’
Unfortunately the man of God took his words as genuine and returned to his house to eat and drink with him. He should not, of course, have done so without Himself receiving a word from YHWH, but one problem with being an honest man was that he assumed that others, especially prophets of YHWH, were also honest men. He would probably not have considered the possibility that he was being tested out. After all had not YHWH’s miraculous working confirmed his genuineness? The old prophet meanwhile was probably congratulating himself on the success of his attempt to prove that the man was an impostor. Otherwise why would he have gone against a word that he had received from YHWH? Neither had considered the possibility of the depths of human sinfulness.
1Ki 13:20-22
‘ And it came about, as they sat at the table, that the word of YHWH came to the prophet who brought him back, and he cried to the man of God who came from Judah, saying, “Thus says YHWH, Forasmuch as you have been disobedient to the mouth of YHWH, and have not kept the commandment which YHWH your God commanded you, but came back, and have eaten bread and drunk water in the place of which he said to you, ‘Eat no bread, and drink no water,’ your body will not come to the sepulchre of your fathers.’ ” ’
But once they were participating in the meal the old prophet, to his horror, unexpectedly received the word of YHWH in the same way as he had done of old. And this word revealed to him that he had misjudged the man of God and had actually led him astray. He had caused him to disobey the express command of YHWH. He must have been appalled and ashamed at himself. But as it was the word of YHWH he knew that he had to communicate it and so he declared to the man of God that because he had been disobedient to the word of YHWH by coming back with him and eating and drinking with him he would not die of old age in peace and be buried in the family tomb. Rather he would suffer an untimely death. It was the same punishment as had been exacted on Moses and Aaron when they had disobeyed YHWH by striking the rock against the express commend of YHWH (Num 20:12). It left the date of death uncertain.
We have already mentioned above the seriousness of what the man of God had done. By accepting hospitality in Israel he had indicated as the representative of YHWH that YHWH was at peace with Israel. But this was to invalidate his own previous message. Thus it was necessary for him to be punished in such a way that all would see that in spite of his wrong behaviour, the word of YHWH against Israel stood sure, and that in eating and drinking he had not been acting as YHWH’s representative, but as a disobedient sinner.
1Ki 13:23
‘ And it came about, after he had eaten bread, and after he had drunk, that he saddled for him the ass, that is, for the prophet whom he had brought back,’
The man of God appears to have taken what he had learned calmly enough, (after all many suffered untimely deaths), and once the meal was finished he went on his way on his own ass which had been saddled for him.
1Ki 13:24
‘ And when he was gone, a lion met him by the way, and slew him, and his body was cast in the way, and the ass stood by it. The lion also stood by the body.’
But as he took the rough mountain road through the hills he was met by a lion which was ‘by the way, which slew him, leaving his body lying in the road with the ass standing beside him. It is significant that YHWH spared the man of God’s body from being mauled and eaten. That would have been looked on as an ignominious double judgment (compare 2Sa 21:10).
It is often questioned why a lion should uncharacteristically not maul and eat his kill once he had made it. There are a number of possibilities. The first is that the lion was not in fact hungry, having recently eaten, and had only killed because it had felt itself trapped. That would explain why it neither scavenged the body nor attacked the ass, and why it was in no hurry to desert the spot. It was sated. Furthermore it is necessary to take God into account.
The second possibility is that the lion was aware of a kind of holy aura that surrounded the man of God and his ass. Animals are often responsive to the supernatural when men themselves are not so aware. It may therefore have been held at bay, as the lions would later be with Daniel (Dan 6:22). The third possibility is that animals do not always act in character. Men have often been taken by surprise by the unexpected behaviour of animals. They do not always act ‘true to form’.
1Ki 13:25
‘ And, behold, men passed by, and saw the body cast in the way, and the lion standing by the body, and they came and told it in the city where the old prophet dwelt.’
But certainly the sight was unusual enough to cause comment, and when men passed by and saw the dead body, and the live ass and lion, they immediately reported what they had seen in the next city that they came to, which was the city where the prophet dwelt.
The indirect ‘the city where the old prophet dwelt’ rather than saying ‘Bethel’ is intended to draw attention to the fact they were unconscious instruments of YHWH. He had deliberately ensured that the message reached the old prophet by bringing them to his city.
1Ki 13:26
‘ And when the prophet who brought him back from the way heard of it, he said, “It is the man of God, who was disobedient to the mouth of YHWH, therefore YHWH has delivered him to the lion, which has torn him, and slain him, according to the word of YHWH, which he spoke to him.’
The news reached the ears of the old prophet who ‘had brought him back from the way’, and it probably included a description of the man and his clothing. This last comment about being ‘brought back from the way’ probably has a double significance. He had not only brought him back from the road that he had taken, but had also stopped him from walking in the way of YHWH. ‘Walking in YHWH’s way’ is a popular description of the spiritual life in Kings (e.g. 1Ki 2:4; 1Ki 3:14; 1Ki 9:4). And when the old prophet learned of the dead man he recognised that it must be the man of God who, because of his disobedience to YHWH’s word, had been slain by a lion at YHWH’s behest.
1Ki 13:27
‘ And he spoke to his sons, saying, “Saddle me the ass.” And they saddled it.’
So once again he called for his ass and set off on the route that the man of God had taken.
1Ki 13:28
‘ And he went and found his body cast in the way, and the ass and the lion standing by the body. The lion had not eaten the body, nor torn the ass.’
The lion was clearly quiescent which suggests that it had previously gorged itself and was feeling listless and uninterested in food, for it had not only not eaten the body of the dead man of God, or his ass, but also allowed the old prophet to remove them both from the scene. Lions are very lazy creatures and regularly lie about for hours when they are full, occasionally rising to stretch themselves in the hot sun. It had clearly decided that this mountain track was a suitable resting place. But to people who had never taken the time to study the habits of lions this seemed like a miracle, for all knew what lions usually did when they had made a kill.
1Ki 13:29
‘ And the prophet took up the body of the man of God, and laid it on the ass, and brought it back, and he came to the city of the old prophet, to mourn, and to bury him.’
The prophet then took up the body of the man of God and laid it over his ass, and then led the ass back to his own city, where he could mourn his death and bury him respectably.
1Ki 13:30
‘ And he laid his body in his own grave, and they mourned over him, saying, “Alas, my brother!” ’
Laying the body in his own family grave and they all mourned him, calling him ‘brother’. It was an acknowledgement that they recognised him as also being a genuine man of God.
1Ki 13:31
‘ And it came about, after he had buried him, that he spoke to his sons, saying, “When I am dead, then bury me in the sepulchre in which the man of God is buried. Lay my bones beside his bones.” ’
The old prophet, no doubt filled with remorse, then spoke to his sons after he had buried him and called on them to ensure that when he himself was dead they would bury him in the same tomb in which the man of God was buried, laying his bones by the bones of the dead man of God. It was a declaration of solidarity with the man and his message. We should not overlook the bravery of the old prophet in thus openly declaring himself as in favour with the man of God and his message. It would not make him popular with Jeroboam. But it would indicate clearly whose side he was on.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
A Lion Slays the Man of God Note R. W. Shambach’s four-point sermon outline on 1Ki 13:11-34.
1. Idle Distraction (1Ki 13:14) – “Sitting” is a stance of idleness, lack of faith. Standing is a position of faith (Eph 6:13).
Eph 6:13, “Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.”
2. Diabolical Deception (1Ki 13:18) – The devil tries to get supernatural in our lives:
Joh 8:44, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”
2Co 11:14-15, “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.”
Gal 1:8, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”
3. Deliberate Disobedience (1Ki 13:21-22) – Sin brings judgment even in godly men’s lives. Illustration: Moses struck the rock twice, so he did not lead the people of Israel into the Promised Land.
4. Definite Destruction (1Ki 13:24) – The man of God did not repent. The lion did not really want to eat the ass or the carcass. He was just carrying out God’s judgement. [31]
[31] R. W. Schambach, “Sermon,” Schambach Ministries (Flint, Texas), cassette tape.
1Ki 13:34 And this thing became sin unto the house of Jeroboam, even to cut it off, and to destroy it from off the face of the earth.
1Ki 13:34
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Prophet Punished for his Disobedience
v. 11. Now, there dwelt an old prophet in Bethel, v. 12. And their father said unto them, What way went he? For his sons had seen, v. 13. And he said unto his sons, Saddle me the ass, v. 14. and went after the man of God, and found him sitting under an oak, v. 15. Then he said unto him, Come home with me and eat bread, v. 16. And he said, I may not return with thee nor go in with thee, neither will I eat bread nor drink water with thee in this place; v. 17. for it was said to me by the word of the Lord, Thou shalt eat no bread nor drink water there, nor turn again to go by the way that thou camest. v. 18. He said unto him, I am a prophet also as thou art, and an angel spake unto me by the word of the Lord, v. 19. So he went back with him, and did eat bread in his house and drank water. v. 20. And it came to pass, as they sat at the table, v. 21. And he cried unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying, Thus saith the Lord, Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the Lord, and hast not kept the commandment which the Lord, thy God, commanded thee, v. 22. but camest back, and hast eaten bread and drunk water in the place of the which the Lord did say to thee, Eat no bread and drink no water; thy carcass shall not come unto the sepulcher of thy fathers; v. 23. And it came to pass, after he had eaten bread, and after he had drunk, that he saddled for him the ass, to wit, for the prophet whom he had brought back, v. 24. And when he was gone, a lion met him by the way and slew him. And his carcass was cast in the way, v. 25. And, behold, men passed by and saw the carcass cast in the way and the lion standing by the carcass; and they came and told it in the city where the old prophet dwelt.
v. 26. And when the prophet that brought him back from the way heard thereof, he said, It is the man of God who was disobedient unto the word of the Lord; therefore the Lord hath delivered him unto the lion, which hath torn him, v. 27. And he spake to his sons, saying, Saddle me the ass, v. 28. And he went and found his carcass cast in the way, and the ass and the lion standing by the carcass. The lion had not eaten the carcass nor torn the ass, v. 29. And the prophet took up the carcass of the man of God, and laid it upon the ass, and brought it back. And the old prophet came to the city to mourn and to bury him.
v. 30. And he laid his carcass in his own grave, v. 31. And it came to pass, after he had buried him, that he spake to his sons, saying, When I am dead, then bury me in the sepulcher wherein the man of God is buried; lay my bones beside his bones; v. 32. for the saying which he cried by the word of the Lord against the altar in Bethel, and against all the houses of the high places which are in the cities of Samaria, v. 33. After this thing, v. 34. And this thing became sin unto the house of Jeroboam,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
THE DISOBEDIENCE AND DEATH OF THE MAN OF GOD.The seduction of the man of God, who has borne such fearless witness against Jeroboam’s ecclesiastical policy, and his tragical end, are now narrated, partly because of the deep impression the story made at the time, but principally because these events were in themselves an eloquent testimony against the worship of the calves and the whole ecclesiastical policy of Jeroboam, and a solemn warning for all time against any, the slightest, departure from the commandments of God. The very unfaithfulness of this accredited messenger of the Most High, and the instant punishment it provoked, became part of the Divine protest against the new regime, against the unfaithfulness of Israel; whilst the remarkable manner in which these occurrences were recalled to the nation’s memory in the reign of Josiah (2Ki 23:17, 2Ki 23:18) made it impossible for the historian of the theocracy to pass them over without notice.
1Ki 13:11
Now there dwelt an old prophet [Heb. a certain (lit. one) old prophet. For this use of (= ) of. 1Ki 20:13; 1Ki 19:4] at Bethel [It is at first somewhat surprising to find one of the prophetic order residing here, at the very seat and stronghold of the apostasy, especially after what we read in 2Ch 11:13-16, that the priests and Levites, and it would seem all devout worshippers of the Lord God of Israel, had left the country, and had gone over to Rehoboam. For we cannot suppose that a sense of duty had kept this prophet at his post (see note on 2Ch 11:1). The fact that he remained, not only in the kingdom, but at its ecclesiastical capital; that he stood by without protest when the schism was being effected, and that, though not present himself at the sacrifice, he permitted his sons to be there, is a sufficient index to his character. It is quite possible that strong political sympathies had warped his judgment, and that he had persuaded himself that the policy of Jeroboam was necessitated by the division of the kingdom, which he knew to be from the Lord, and which one of his own order had foretold. Or it may be that, despite his better judgment, he had gone with his tribe and the majority of the nation, and now felt it difficult to withdraw from a false position. Or, finally, he may have taken the side of Jeroboam because of the greater honours and rewards that prince had to bestow (see on 2Ch 11:18). There is a striking similarity between his position and action and that of Balaam]; and his sons [The Heb. has son; The LXX; Syr; and Vulg; sons. It is quite true that a “very slight change in the Hebrew text would bring it into accordance with the Septuagint here” (Rawlinson, similarly Ewald), but it would be against sound principles of textual criticism to make it. It is much more likely that the LXX. and other versions have been altered already, and that the plural has been introduced here because it is uniformly found in the later narrative. “His son“ (), as the lectio ardua, is therefore to he retained. The use of the singular indicates that one of them was at first the principal speaker. Perhaps one hastened home with the news before the rest. The sons of the prophet are not to be confounded with “the sons (i.e; disciples) of the prophets“ (2Ki 2:3, 2Ki 2:4, passim); not merely because “the latter would scarcely have witnessed the golden calf worship” (Bhr), but also because they would have been differently designated] came and told him all the works [Heb. work] that the man of God had done that day in Bethel: the words which he had spoken unto the king, them they [observe the plural] told also to their father. [It is quite clear that the virtual excommunication which the man of God had pronounced had made as great an impression as the signs which he had showed. The interdict was a matter which came home to the Bethelites, as an affront to the whole community.]
1Ki 13:12
And their father said unto them, What way went he? [The question shows that the old prophet throughly understood the import of those “words,” and that his first thought was that the interdict must be removed at any cost.] For his sons had seen [Heb. and his sons saw, or showed. LXX. . Similarly most of the versions. A very slight change in the vowel points for would give this sense] what way the man of God went which came from Judah.
1Ki 13:13
And he said unto his sons, Saddle me the ass. [This prompt and seemingly abrupt commandthough we cannot be sure that all the conversation is here reportedshows his instant resolve to follow. These are the words of one who had made up his mind, coute que coute, to bring the man of God back.] So they saddled him the ass: and he rode thereon.
1Ki 13:14
And he went after the man of God and found him sitting under an oak [Heb. the oak; i.e; the well-known oak. Possibly there was but one, or one of great size, in the neighbourhoodsuch trees are comparatively rare in Palestine. Possibly also this tree became well known from these events. It is singular that in another place (Gen 35:8) we read of “the oak” () of Bethel, whilst in Jdg 4:5 we read of the “palm tree” () of Deborah, between Ramah and Bethel.” And it is not at all improbable, seeing that in 1Sa 10:3 we read of the terebinth () of Taborin the A.V. rendered “plain of Tabor”which Ewald (“Hist. Israel,” 1Sa 3:21; 1Sa 4:1-22 :31) considers to be only a dialectic variation of Deborah, and remembering the great age to which these trees attain, that the same tree is referred to throughout. The word here used, it is true, is (which is generally supposed to indicate the terebinth, but is also “used of any large tree” (Gesenius), and which, therefore, may be used of the of Bethel. Both names are derived from the same root ( fortis. Cf. Amo 2:9), and both indicate varietieswhat varieties it is not quite clearof the oak. Some expositors have seen in this brief rest the beginning of his sin, and certainly it would seem against the spirit of his instructions to remain so near a place (see note on 1Sa 10:16) from which he was to vanish speedily, and, if possible, unperceived. In any case the action betrays his fatigue and exhaustion], and he said unto him, Art thou the man of God that camest from Judah? And he said, I am.
1Ki 13:15
Then he said unto him, Come home with me [Heb. Come with me to the house] and eat bread. The sting was in the tail of this invitation. If he would partake of food, he would thereby remove the ban and so neutralize one part of his mission.]
1Ki 13:16
And he said, I may not [Heb. am not able to] return with thee, nor go in with thee: neither will I eat bread nor drink water with thee in this place. [The translation “in that place” adopted by Wordsworth (after the Vulgate, in loco isto) does not agree with the Hebrew. And it is not required by the context. The tree was probably at no great distance from the town.]
1Ki 13:17
For it was said to me [Heb. a word to me] by [Heb. in] the word of the Lord, Thou shalt eat no bread, nor drink water there, nor turn again to go by the way that thou camest.
1Ki 13:18
He said unto him; I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel Some, including Josephus and most Jewish commentators, have supposed him to be altogether a false and lying prophet, such as are found plentifully later on in the history (1Ki 22:6; Jer 28:1); but against this is the fact that he was undoubtedly the channel of a Divine communication (verse 21). The real difficulty, no doubt, lies in the fact that one by whom the Spirit of God spake to man should have acted so base a part as he did. But it must be remembered
(1) that he did not know what a terrible judgment his lie would bring upon “the man of God;”
(2) that truth had not the place in the Jewish scheme which it has in Christian morals;
(3) that the gift of prophecy is compatible with much moral imperfection on the part of the prophetthe cases of Balaam and Caiaphas will occur to alland
(4) that this man was constrained to prophesy almost in spite of himself; he was compelled, i.e; to proclaim his own falseness, and to announce the punishment of the man he had himself deceived. It is also to be considered that this lying prophet, like those of 1Ki 22:22, accomplished the purpose of God, which was to make the man of God a sign to the men of that generation. Cf. Isa 20:3; Eze 12:6; Eze 24:24. In this latter consideration, indeed, lies the key to the history, The object the old prophet had in view it is not so difficult to divine. He hears that the prophet of Judah has refused the hospitality of King Jeroboam, and has put the city of Bethel and the new cultus under a virtual ban by refusing to eat bread in the place, or to hold any communication with the inhabitants, himself among the rest, although he has taken no part, even by his presence, in the ceremonial of the day. He naturally feels himself condemned and aggrieved by this conduct. A prophet would feel the interdict much more keenly than the people, and there can be little doubt that this man, who had been trying to serve two masters, was deeply mortified by the excommunication pronounced against him. He resolves, therefore, to rehabilitate himself in his own estimation and that of his neighbours, by bringing back the man of God to eat and to drink, and so in effect to remove the interdict, at any cost. If he succeeds, he win make the whole city, and especially the sovereign, whose policy has been so emphatically condemned, his debtor; while by accomplishing what the king had failed to effect, he will at once heal his wounded pride and secure a position of influence in the new kingdom. If it was the hope of temporal advancement had detained him at Bethel, he now sees, as he thinks, an easy way to its attainment; if it was an ardent sympathy with the new state of things, he sees before him an opportunity of expressing it in a most practical and serviceable way.]
1Ki 13:19
So he went back with him, and did eat bread in his house, and drank water [cf. 1Ki 13:10].
1Ki 13:20
And it came to pass, as they sat at the table [cf. Psa 78:30. He is taken in the act, “even in the blossoms of his sin”], that the word of the Lord came unto the prophet that brought him back.
1Ki 13:21
And he cried [same word as in 1Ki 13:2. He who denounced the “sin of Jeroboam” is now denounced in turn] unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying, Thus saith the Lord, Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the Lord, and hast not kept the commandment which the Lord thy God commanded thee.
1Ki 13:22
But camest back, and hast eaten bread and drunk water in the place, of the which the Lord did say to thee, flat no bread, and drink no water; thy carcase [rather corpse; “carcase” is now a term of disparagement, of which, however, there is no idea in the Hebrew] shall not come unto the sepulchre of thy fathers. [The desire, common in a greater or less degree to all mankind, to rest after death amongst kindred dust, was especially strong in the Jew. It is evidenced by the common euphemism “he was gathered unto his fathers,“ and by the provisions of Abraham (Gen 23:4), Jacob (Gen 47:29; Gen 49:29-31), and Joseph (Gen 1:25). See also the words of Barzillai (2Sa 19:37; and compare 2Sa 2:32). This denunciation did not necessarily imply a violent death (as Keil, al.) or even a speedy death, but it prepared the man of God for some untimely end.]
1Ki 13:23
And it came to pass, after he had eaten bread, and after he had drunk, that he saddled [i.e; the prophet of Bethel; the “man of God” would seem to have come on foot. See below] for him the ass, to wit, for the prophet whom he had brought back. This translation is inadmissible. For not only is the term “prophet” throughout this narrative restricted to the prophet of Bethel (the prophet of Judah being always spoken of as “the man of God,”) but the expression here used is also twice used (1Ki 13:20, 1Ki 13:26) of the same prophet. He is characterized there, that is to say, as “the prophet which brought him back;” it is hardly likely, therefore, that the same words are here to be interpreted, “the prophet whom he brought back.” The mistake has arisen from the proximity of (“for him”) to (“to” or “for the prophet”). But the is here indicative of possession (the dative of the possessor), as in 1Sa 14:16, “the watchmen to,” i.e; of, “Saul,” and 1Sa 16:18, “a son to Jesse” (cf. Gen 14:18 Heb.; 1Ki 5:1-18 :29 Heb.; Rth 2:3 Heb.) We must therefore render “He saddled for him (the man of God) the ass of the prophet which brought him back.” The man of God had been delayed by his return to Bethel, and the prophet, out of pity, lends or gives him his ass. Not merely, it is probable, for the sake of speeding him on his way, but that he might have some living thing with him on a journey which he had so much cause to dread.
1Ki 13:24
And when he was gone [Heb. and he went], a lion (Lions were evidently numerous in Palestine in former days, though they are now extinct. This is proved by the names of places, such as Laish, Lebaoth, etc; and by the constant reference to them in Scripture. They had their lairs in the forests, one of which existed near Bethel (2Ki 2:24), and especially in the thickets of the Jordan valley (Jer 49:19; Zec 11:3).] met [Heb. found. The primary meaning of is, no doubt, “found accidentally,” “came upon” (, invenit), but it is often used of finding after a search (1Sa 9:4, etc.), and it should be remembered that this is the word used in verses 14, 28] him by [in, as below] the way, and slew him: and his carcase was cast in the way [road, highway, verse 25], and the ass stood [Heb. standing] by it, the lion also stood [standing] by the carcase. [These particulars are mentioned to show that his death was no accident, or chance, but a visitation of God. There are probably but few persons who have not felt that this summary punishment was marked by extreme severity; the more so, as the prophet was cruelly deceived, and that by a brother prophet, who claimed to have received a subsequent revelation, and whom, consequently, it appeared to be a duty to obey. And when it is observed that the really guilty person, the prophet of Bethel, so far as appears, escaped all punishment, and by his lie secured for himself respect for his remains, we seem to have a case of positive hardship and injustice. As I have discussed the question at some length elsewhere, it must suffice to say here that the difficulty is at once removed if we remember that although the Jewish dispensation was one of temporal recompenses, yet all the same there is a judgment hereafter. No doubt the man of God was punished for his disobedience, for inexcusable disobedience it was. It is quite true that he was solemnly assured that an angel had appeared to revoke his commission, but for this he had only the word of a stranger, of one, too, with whom he had been commanded “not even to eat.” He had “the word of the Lord;” that is to say, the voice of God, borne in upon his soul, forbidding his return, and the word of an irreligious stranger, who gave no “sign the same day” in proof of his mission, authorizing it. There can be no doubt which he ought to have followed, the more so as the command he had himself received was so remarkably explicit and decisive (verse 9); so decisive that we can hardly suppose he would have deviated from it, had not the pains of hunger and thirst pleaded powerfully in favour of the pretended revelation of the Bethelite prophet. Indeed, it is hardly too much to say that he eagerly welcomed this cause for returning. It is impossible, therefore, to acquit him of disobedience. Nor is it difficult to see that the consequences of this disobedience were serious. It was not as if he had disregarded a mere positive obligation, the only object of which was to test his obedience (Rawlinson); he had acted in a way calculated to destroy the moral effect of his mission. He had been employed not only to testify publicly against the calf worship, but also to lay the city and the new sanctuary of Jeroboam under an interdict, and by his return that interdict lost much of its force. His eating and drinking, small matters in themselves, were full of significance. Indeed, he did in one way precisely what Jeroboam and his people were doing in another he forsook the plain commands of God for the ordinances of men; he listened to the tempter and ate the forbidden fruit; and so it came to pass flint, instead of witnessing against disobedience, he himself set them the example of disobedience. It is the story of the Fall over again; and therefore death, the punishment of the Fall, befell him. But before we say that his punishment was too severe, let us remember what, by the mercy of God, that primal punishment has become. It has been turned into a blessing. It has given us the incarnation, redemption, eternal life. We forget that death is not necessarily an evilis in reality a blessing. One of the heathen has said that if we only knew what the future life was like, we should not be content to live. To this “man of God” it must surely have been gain to die. If the flesh was destroyed, it was that the spirit might be saved (1Co 5:5). Only because we forget that death is the gate of life do we complain of the severity of his doom. And as to the lying prophet who wrought all this mischief escaping retributionwhich, by the way, he did not do, for assuredly he must have had a life-long remorseit is overlooked that the day of retribution has not yet arrived. There is for him a judgment to come. It may he said that the Jew did not know of thisthat the future life had not then been revealed. That is quite true, and for that very reason this visitation would make all the deeper impression on their minds. To this must be added that the man of God did not die merely or principally because of his sin, but “that the works of God might be made manifest in him.” His death was necessary in order that his mission might not be altogether invalidated. His miserable endas it must have seemed to themwould surely speak to the inhabitants of Bethel and to all Israel and Judah, for long years to come, as to the sure vengeance awaiting the disobedient, whether king, prophet, priest, or people. Though dead “he cried against the altar of Bethel.” And the sacred narrative (verses 26-32) affords us some ground for hoping that the “old prophet” became penitent for his sin. It is noteworthy that he joins his testimony to that of the man of God. Thus, this tragedy extorted even from him a warning against disobedience (verse 26), and a confirmation of the prophecy against the altar of Bethel (verse 32).]
1Ki 13:25
And, behold, men passed by, and saw the carcase cast in the way, and the lion standing by the carcase: and they came and told it in the city where the old prophet dwelt. [This was precisely what God had designed. By this means, the very disobedience and death of the man of God became a part of the protest against the new rites. “For if the partaking of food against the commandment of God, though the result not of indulgence, but of deceit, brought so great a punishment upon a righteous man, what sort of chastisements would befall those who had left God their Maker and were worshipping senseless images” (Theodoret.)]
1Ki 13:26
And when the prophet that brought him back from the way heard thereof, he said, It is the man of God, who was disobedient [Heb. rebelled; same word as in verse 21] unto the word [Heb. “mouth,“ as in verse 21] of the Lord: therefore the Lord hath delivered him unto the lion, which hath torn [Heb. as marg; broken. The word “is very expressive, for the lion kills with one blow” (Thenius)] and slain him, according to the word of the Lord, which he spake unto him.
1Ki 13:27
And he spake to his sons, saying, Saddle me the ass. And they saddled him.
1Ki 13:28
And he went and found his carcase cast in the way, and the ass and the lion standing by the carcase: the lion had not eaten the carcase nor torn [Heb. broken, as in verse 26] the ass.
1Ki 13:29
And the prophet took up the carcase of the man of God, and laid it upon the ass [i.e; the one standing by], and brought it back: and the old prophet came to the city, to mourn and to bury him. [The mourning is specially mentioned, because in the East professional wailers were and are employed at funerals. The Jew, no less than the Greek and Roman, esteemed it a great misfortune and disgrace to be deprived of decent burial: Isa 14:19; Jer 22:19; and especially 2Ki 9:10.]
1Ki 13:30
And he laid his carcase in his own grave [Mat 27:60. This was a mark of profound respect (Rth 1:17; Gen 23:6)]; and they mourned over him, saying, Alas, my brother. [A customary formula in lamentation (Jer 22:18). It hardly implies that “he was mourned and buried as a relative of the family” (Bhr). Seeing that the old prophet was responsible for his death, he could hardly have done less. “It is a cruel courtesy to kill a man and then help him to his grave” (Hall).]
1Ki 13:31
And it came to pass, after he had buried him, that he spake to his sons, saying, When I am dead, then bury me in the sepulchre [Palestine, being of limestone formation, has a large number of caves. These, enlarged and adapted, were everywhere used for interments. (“The whole cliffs on its southern side [Hinnom] are honeycombed with tombs,” Porter). In three sides of the cave vaults (loculi), each large enough to hold a body, were recessed in the rock, the entrance being closed by a slab of stone In the so called “tombs of the kings” and “prophets” we have such sepulchres on a large scale. A Paper on the Tombs of Palestine will be found in the Quarterly Statement of the Palestine Exploration Fund, p. 66 sqq. It appears from 2Ki 23:17 that a pillar was erected to mark this prophet’s resting place] wherein the man of God is buried; lay my bones beside his bones. [That is to say, “Bury me in the cell next to his” (Rawlinson). But it is not absolutely certain that this arrangement (of loculi) obtained at this early period. The bodies may have been in much closer contact. See 2Ki 13:21. The LXX. adds here, “That my bones may be saved with his bones;” an obvious gloss, founded on 2Ki 23:18. This request throws some light on the yearning desire of the modern Jew to rest as near as possible to the bodies of the saints. See Porter, 1. p. 145.]
1Ki 13:32
For the saying which he cried by the word of the Lord against the altar in Bethel; and against all the houses of the high places [At that time there would seem to have been but two “high places.” Keil sees “a prophetic element in these words.” He thinks the old prophet foresaw that such sanctuaries would be multiplied. Rawlinson gathers, “from the mention of the great high place in 1Ki 3:4, that there were many lesser high places in the land,” which, no doubt, was the case at the date of Solomon’s accession. It is probable, however, that many of these, if not all, would be deserted when the temple was built. And it is most reasonable to suppose that in these, as in the following words, the historian has represented the prediction or affirmation of the old prophet in the language of his own time] which are in the cities of Samaria. [Obviously, these exact words cannot have been used by the prophet of Bethel, for Samaria dates its existence and name from the reign of Omri (1Ki 16:24). The compiler of the Kings probably found the term in the documents which he used, or possibly, as already suggested, translated the prophet’s meaning into the language of a later day] shall surely come to pass.
1Ki 13:33
After this thing [calculated though it was to make a deep impression and to furnish a solemn warning] Jeroboam turned not from his evil way. “Some hand was found that durst repair the altar God had rent” (Matthew Henry). According to Josephus, the old prophet now explained away the miracles of the prophet of Judah, alleging that the altar had fallen because it was new and the king’s hand had become powerless from fatigue (Ant; 1Ki 8:9, 1)], but made again [Heb. “returned and made.” The tautology is significant. He returned not from his sin, but returned to it] of the lowest [see on 1Ki 12:11] of the people priests of the high places: whosoever would [Heb. pleased], he consecrated [Heb. filled his hand. In the consecration of Aaron and his sons, and possibly of their successors also, the portions of the victim which were usually burned upon the altar, together with the right shoulder or leg, which was the priest’s portion, and three cakes of unleavened Bread, were put into the hands of the candidates for the priesthood, and waved before the Lord before they were offered on the altar (Exo 29:22-26; Le Exo 8:25-28). To “fill the hand” consequently Became a synonym for consecration] him [It would almost appear, from the extreme readiness with which Jeroboam ordained his priests, that few candidates offered themselves for the office. In one respect, however, he exacted more from the candidate than did the law. For whereas the latter required “one bullock and two rams” (Exo 29:1, etc.), he demanded one Bullock and seven rams as the offering on consecration (2Ch 13:9], and he became one of the priests [Heb. and he became priests, etc. So the Chaldee. LXX. ] of the high places.
1Ki 13:34
And this thing [Heb. “in this thing:” . Cf. 1Ch 7:23; 1Ch 9:33] became sin unto the house of Jeroboam, even to cut it off, and to destroy it from off the face of the earth [1Ki 15:29. The forfeiture of the crown would bring in its train, almost as a matter of course, the destruction of his family (1Ki 14:10-14). And we are taught here that both events are to be regarded, under the dispensation of temporal rewards and punishments, as the recompenses of his impiety; of that daring schismatic policy which, in all its branches, betrayed a complete disregard of the terms of the covenant, and which was persevered in contemptuous defiance of the repeated warnings of God.]
HOMILETICS
1Ki 13:21 sqq.-The Man of God and the People of God.
The morning of that fifteenth day of the eighth month, that black day in the Hebrew Kalendar, that birthday of division, was hardly more memorable or eventful than the evening. In the morning the Bethelites saw the signs of the man of God; in the evening they saw in him a sign, a parable, and a terrible warning. The lesson of the rent altar and the rigid hand was followed by the lesson of the lion and the ass and the rigid corpse. Truly, of that day it might be truly said, “The evening and the morning were one day.”
For we may be sure, when the old prophet came back from his quest of the body, and brought with him that melancholy burden, swinging across the ass, the men of Bethel, who had already heard from wayfarers of the tragedy, would crowd the streets or lanesfor Bethel was probably little more than a villageto meet him, and would gaze, hushed and awestruck, into the dumb and helpless face of the man whose words and deeds bad that day been so full of power. There was not a child that night but would leave his play to stare in silent wonder, or with whispered question, on the corpse. Of that sad funereal procession, the words which, near a thousand years later, described the entry of a living Prophet into an adjoining city, might justly be used, “All the city was moved, saying, Who is this?” (Mat 21:10.) Nor would the language which described the effect of that same Prophet’s death a few days later be less applicable here, “All the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts and returned” (Luk 23:48).
Let us now suppose, however, for the sake of bringing out the lessons of this narrative, that there were some in the crowdas on the first feast day there may well have beenstrangers in Bethel (cf. Joh 12:20; Act 2:5-11), who did not understand the things which were come to pass there that day. Let us join them, as they go, carried by the stream, to meet the body; let us listen to their questions, and to the answers they receive. We shall not gather all the truth from the discourse we overhear, but we shall learn at all events one lesson which this tragedy had for the men of that time.
Now the first question which would rise to these strangers’ lips, as they came upon the body, borne by the patient ass, which was the one terrified witness of the catastrophe, would be, “Who is this?” They think, perhaps, it is some peasant who has been slain as he tilled his fields, or some itinerant; chapman who has been murdered on his journey. But the bystanders speedily undeceive them. They tell them that this is “a man of God who came from Judah.” His name, it may be, is unknown to them, but not his deeds. They relate, with breathless excitement, not unmixed with fear, how a few short hours ago he was amongst them; how on the morning of that very day he had confronted their king as he was in the act of sacrificing, had denounced his innovations, had foretold the overthrow of his policy and dynasty, and had then wrought wonderful works in attestation of his mission. The strangers listen with steadily increasing wonderment. Had this man been “a murderer whom vengeance suffered not to live,” or a sinner above all men that dwelt in Bethel, they could have understood it. Such a one, however he might have met his end, would only have received the just reward of his deeds, but “a man of God,” a man who wrought miracles, a favourite of Heaven!they cannot comprehend it, and they, as excited as their informants, hurriedly ask how he has come by his death.
“A lion slew him,” is the answer. It is true no human eye saw the deed, but there can be no doubt as to the manner of his death. Then they tell how wayfaring men that afternoon had seen a strange sight, a corpse cast in the waywhose corpse they knew notand an ass and a lion standing as joint sentinels over it, etc. And then the strangers would understand that this man of God had died by the visitation of God. They would remember that the “teeth of evil beasts” were one of the plagues denounced in the law, and they would wonder, and they would ask, what this messenger of the Most High, this miracle worker, could have done between morning and evening to bring this terrible judgment down upon his head.
And this was a question which only the old prophet could rightly answer, and he had answered it already. He had told his sons and neighbours that afternoon, when first he heard of this tragedy, that it was the punishment of disobedience (1Ki 13:26). Not improbably he proclaimed it again to the crowd which awaited his return. “He had been charged,” he would say, as they stood gazing on the helpless corpse, “to lay our city under a ban; he had been commanded to eat no bread, to drink no water here. And he came back, and he ate bread and he drank water in my house; therefore it is that ‘the lion hath torn him and slain him, according to the word of the Lord'” (1Ki 13:26).
And so the men of Bethel, and the strangers among themand thousands of strangers would be present in Bethel at that timewould understand that this man, albeit a prophet, and a doer of wondrous works, had paid the penalty of his partial disobedience with his life. They would perceive that God had not spared His own elect messenger. They would see that the man who had been commissioned to protest against Jeroboam’s will worship, who had courageously faced the king in his might, and had stood like an Athanase against the world, had received judgment without mercy when he overstepped the commandment of his God. And they would assuredly be reminded, some of them at least, how sinful and how dangerous must be that departure from the law which they had that day seen instituted amongst themselves. And as one by one they dropped off, and, deeply awed and impressed, returned to their tents or booths, the one thought which above all others filled their minds would be thishow sure and swift and terrible was the recompense of disobedience.
But if these strangers, in their perplexity, proceeded to make further inquiries, as they may well have done; if they asked what could have led such a man as this to set at nought the plain commandment of God: if they discovered from the old prophet, or his sons, or others, the circumstances of his sin; if they learned that this man of God had resisted the entreaties of the king, had obeyed his own instructions to the letter, and had only come back and eaten bread on the solemn assurance of this old prophet himself that an angel from heaven had distinctly reversed his commission; if they understood that it was because he had taken this man at his word and trusted to his good faith, as they themselves would have done in like circumstances, that he had been induced to return; and that because of this, and nothing else, this ambassador of the Most Merciful had died by the stroke of a wild beast, we may imagine what their astonishment and horror would be like. “Who shall deliver us,” they would cry, “out of the hand of this mighty God?” And it is probable that at first they would find it difficult to see wherein his sin lay, and to disentangle the right and the wrong in his conduct. They would say, and rightly, that he was much more sinned against than sinning. It would seem to them that the really guilty party escaped unpunished, whilst his innocent victim paid to the uttermost farthing. And it is possible that some found, at least for a time, in this episode, as some in later days have done, a riddle which they could not read. But its meaning could not be lost upon them all; if it had been, the Divine purpose in this visitation would have been defeated. It may be the old prophet himself expounded its lessons; it may be that “such as set their heart to seek the Lord”and we may be sure that Jeroboam’s innovations had occasioned the gravest misgivings and fears in many mindsfound them out for themselves. But in any case some would not be long in discovering that these things were an allegory. “As hieroglyphics,” says Lord Bacon, “preceded letters, so parables were more ancient than arguments.” May we not add that acted parables were still more ancient than spoken ones. A Tarquin, striking off the heads of the tallest poppies, belongs to the beginnings of history. This was the age when men not only gave signs, but were such themselves (Isa 20:3; Eze 24:24; Mat 12:1-50 :89, 40). The death of the “man of God” accordingly was a parable, an object lesson of the most impressive kind as to the doom of the unfaithful people of God. In his end, men might see a foreshadowing of their nation’s, if it should persevere in the worship of the calves.
For they would assuredly remember, as they pondered this history, that as this prophet of Judah was a man of God, precisely so was Israel the people of God (1Ki 8:43, 1Ki 8:52, 1Ki 8:66; 1Ki 14:7; Le 26:12; Deu 26:18). As he was to other men, so was Israel to other nations. Was he elect of God and precious? So were they. Had he a mission? So had they. Had God spoken to him? He had also spoken to them, and moreover had given them a charge not unlike his. For it is to be also considered that God had plainly spoken to Israel on this very subject of Divine worship. At the very threshold of the Decalogue, at the head of “the words of the covenant,” stood the charge, “Thou shalt have none other gods but me. Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image,” etc. And it is to be noted here that these words stand side by side with the formula,” I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt”the very words which Jeroboam had cited in instituting his new mode of worship; the very cry which had been raised before when Israel made its first golden calf (Exo 32:8). It is almost certain, therefore, that these initial words of the covenant had been lately and forcibly recalled to their minds. But in any case they could not be ignorant that their forefathers had been expressly charged to make no similitude, no graven or molten image (Le 26:1; Deu 4:16, Deu 4:25; Deu 5:8; Deu 27:15, etc.) And this commandment. too, like the message of that morning, had been confirmed with signs following. The blackness, darkness, tempest, trumpet, fire, all these had attested that revelation of God’s will. It might possibly occur to some of their minds, therefore, that when the first protest against a corrupt following of the true God was raised, He “gave a sign the same day.”
Such, then, was the commandment given to Israel. It was as explicit, as authoritative as that which this dead prophet had recently received. But of late a new teacher had appeared amongst them, in the person of their king, who presumed to countermand this law of the Almighty. We are not told, indeed, that Jeroboam claimed to be prophet as well as priest, but we find him acting as one, and received as one. It is hardly likely that he laid claim to any revelation from on high. He was not the man to pretend to visions of angels. It was his contention that he was re-vetting to the old form of religion, but that was all. At the same time, he was the great false prophet of the Old Testament. Just as Moses was the giver of the law, just as Elias was its restorer, so was Jeroboam its depraver. Precisely what the lying prophet taught the man of God, that had he taught the people of God, viz; that God’s command was somehow abrogated. Prophet of Bethel and priest king of Bethel were alike in this, that each met the Divine, “Thou shalt not,“ with the human, “Thou shalt.” There was this difference between them, that the first inculcated disobedience to but one command, whilst the second contravened a whole system; but this very divergence would make the parallel all the more impressive. “If,” they would argue, “if a prophet, a doer of signs and wonders, died without mercy because he listened to the voice of a brother prophetwho swore that he had received a revelation concerning himand so was betrayed into breaking one commandment, of how much sorer punishment shall those be thought worthy who at the mere word of their king, albeit he claimed no spiritual authority, and acted from political motives only, reject the gracious covenant of heaven, confirmed by many signs, and go after false gods,” etc. There were some, no doubt, would see in the corpse borne to its burial that day a foreshadowing of the more terrible judgment then hanging over their own heads.
And so we find this prophet of Judah has not lived or suffered in vain. His death, like that of Samson, wrought even more effectually than his life. He was set forth as it were appointed to death (1Co 4:9). He silently and unconsciously mirrored forth the sin and the punishment of a disobedient people.
It now only remains for us to indicate briefly how the analogy between man of God and people of God received its completion in the punishment which befell the latter. The punishment of the prophet was death; of the people, whose sin was much greater, death and superadded infamy. We see this
1. In the case of Jeroboam’s house. For the family of the deceiver was the first to suffer. As in the case of the man of God, “swift retribution” followed upon sin. And what retribution! The death and destruction of the race. He himself was smitten of God. His seed was suddenly cut off. The sword of Baasha was as swift as the lion’s paw. Only one of his children “came to the grave.” The rest were devoured of beasts and birds. (cf. 1Ki 14:11 with 1Ki 13:28.)
2. In the case of his intrusive priests. If they escaped a violent death, their remains experienced disgrace worse than death (1Ki 13:2). Here prophet and priests stand in contrast. The respect accorded to his ashes was denied to theirs.
3. In the case of the entire people. For the captivity, foretold in 1Ki 14:15, was the death of the kingdom, and the death knell of the people. The ten tribes soon lost their corporate existence. And what agonies preceded that dissolution! (See Jer 52:1-34; Lamentations passim; Psa 74:1-23; Psa 137:1-9.) The people to death, the land to lions! (2Ki 17:25.) Could the analogy be much closer?
But indeed the analogy does not end there. De te fabula narratur. The Christian Church has inherited the place, the privileges, the responsibilities of the Jewish people. If that Church, or if the individual Christian be unfaithful or disobedient, let them see their own fate glassed and pourtrayed in that of the disobedient prophet. “If God spared not the natural branches,” etc. “I will remove thy candlestick out of his place.” “Shame and everlasting contempt.”
The Two Prophets. We have already considered the principal lesson which this strange history had for that time. Let us now indicate some of the lessons which it has for all time. The text, to borrow Bishop Ridley’s phrase, “shall lead us by the hand;” we will record them as we find them set down in the story. And first let us contemplate the OLD PROPHET. Observe
1. It was the false prophet that was old. Age should bring wisdom (Job 32:7; 1Ki 12:7), and piety. But see Homiletics, p. 225. The old king (1Ki 11:4) and the old prophet alike remind us that there is “no sinner like an old sinner.”
2. It was only the false teacher that was styled a prophet. Probably because he alone had been taught in the schools. He was, so to speak, in the prophetical succession. The man of God was an irregular, though not self-constituted messenger. But observe, when God employs an irregular, He authenticates his mission with a sign. And consider, too, the unworthiness of ministers argues nothing against the office or the succession. See Art. XXVI.
3. The old prophet was in Bethel. “Where Satan’s seat is” (Rev 2:8). But God had not fixed the bounds of his habitation. What wonder if, like him who “pitched his tent toward Sodom” (Gen 13:12), he fell into temptation and sin? The old prophet, in his way, has “lifted up his eyes and beheld the plain of the Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere.” He has remained here to worship the rising sun. Conscience bade him go. Convenience made him stay.
4. The old prophet tries to serve two masters. Though Jeroboam sets up molten images, a sanctuary, a priesthood, he raises no protest. But when Jeroboam burns incense and sacrifices, he does not sanction the proceeding by his presence, But he compromises the matter by sending his sons. “Video meliora proboque, Deteriora sequor.” “He that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed (Jas 1:6). The temporiser soon finds difficulties in his path. Those who try to gain both worlds generally contrive to lose both. After the conduct of 1Ki 14:18, he could not respect himself; and after the prophecy of verse 32, he could expect no advancement from the king.
5. The old prophet stoops to lies. And yet he was a true prophet. A preacher of righteousness, yet he practised deceit. Bedlam has been called “a strange mixture of a man.” This prophet’s character and conduct were equally strange. But, alas! it is a common thing to find men’s example differing widely from their precept; to find insight without holiness, light without love. Prophetic gifts do not imply piety. It is no new thing for God’s ministers to fall into sin.
6. The old prophet slays a man of God. It was his tongue, not the lion’s paw, really slew a man more righteous and better than he. A prophet is the instrument of a murder (cf. Joh 8:44). “What shall be given unto thee, or what shall be done unto thee, thou false tongue?” (Psa 120:3.) Let us take care lest we destroy with our meat one for whom Christ died (Rom 14:15). Let us remember
“What guilt, what grief may be incurred
By one incautious, hasty word.”
Now let us turn to the MAN OF GOD. Observe
1. The man of God believes every word. He was not altogether without excuse. False prophets were not as plentiful as they afterwards became. He was unprepared for such unblushing deceit. We should probably have done the same. Yet we have had manifold warnings (Mat 7:15; Mat 24:11.; Act 20:29; 1Jn 4:1; 1Ti 4:1, etc.) We have been taught that if “an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto us,” it is at our peril we listen (Gal 1:8). We have been reminded that “Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light” (2Co 11:14).
2. The man of God is deceived by lies. It is a favourite device of the enemy. He is the “father of lies” (Joh 8:44). It was thus he deceived our first parents. That weapon has answered so well that he plies it again and again (cf. 2Co 4:4; 2Th 2:11).
3. The man of God goes back to Bethel. This faithful and courageous servant, who had defied the king, who had refused his dainties and rewards, etc; does not endure to the end. “Let him that thinketh he standeth,” etc. “Whosoever shall keep the whole law and offend in one point he is guilty of all,” because he is guilty of disobedience. “Evil is wrought by want of thought.” The commands of God must be kept in their entirety.
4. The man of God is denounced by the prophet. Those who lead us into sin are the first to tax us with it afterwards. The deceiver turns upon his victim. We get scant comfort from companions in sin. “What is that to us? See thou to that” (Mat 27:4).
5. The man of God hears his doom in silence. “He was speechless.” “I became dumb and opened not my mouth, for it was thy doing.” “Being convicted by their own conscience” (Joh 8:9).
6. The man of God dies without mercy. Though a prophet, the teeth of an evil beast avenge his disobedience. Judgment begins at the house of God (1Pe 4:17). The teacher shall receive the greater condemnation (Jas 3:1). “Many stripes” are for those who knew and did not. “The wages of sin is death.”
7. Yet his corpse is not mangled or dishonoured. It was partly for our admonition that he died. He was ordained to be a sign to that generation. Therefore, though deceived, he was not forsaken. The lion and the ass keep watch over his remains. “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints.” “A bone of him shall not be broken.” “Let no man move his bones” (2Ki 23:18), His honourable funeral (cf. Isa 53:9; Mat 27:60) and the respect subsequently paid him show that he was no castaway.
And now that we have considered the prophet of Bethel and the prophet of Judah separated by deceit and death, let us see them for a moment reunited.
1. In their testimony. For to the witness of the man of God against the altar of Bethel was added the unwilling, and therefore powerful, witness of the old prophet (verse 32). Jeroboam has gained nothing by the death of the man who had denounced him and his rites. Though dead, he speaks, and speaks as he could never have done in life. And now “one of themselves, even a prophet of their own,” has been constrained to echo and enforce his testimony. The king has now the testimony of two unimpeachable witnesses against his impious proceedings.
2. In their grave. “Lay my bones beside his bones.” Like Balaam, this old prophet would “die the death of the righteous.” “Gather not my soul with sinners” (Psa 26:9) is his cry. “Sit anima mea cum illo.” He will take his chance with the man of God rather than with the king. “I had rather be,” says one, “with Origen wherever he is than with Justinian and Theodora wherever they are,” “In death they were not divided.”
But how different their lot in life. The deceived dies; the deceiver lives. The lion which slew the comparatively innocent man of God would not touch the lying prophet. Though old, he is spared to grow older, while the other’s sun went down at noon. What an illustration this of the strange confusion of this present life (cf. Psa 69:1-36; Psa 73:1-28; etc.); what a proof of a life to come, where each shall receive his just recompense of reward! To the Jew, suckled in a creed of temporal rewards, etc; this history would present some anxious problems, all of which are clear since our Prophet, Priest, and King “brought life and immortality to light.”
HOMILIES BY J.A. MACDONALD
1Ki 13:11-19
The Old Serpent again.
As the ways of the serpent are tortuous so are those of Satan. If he cannot effect his purposes by moving in one direction he will move in another, and thus by crooked ways he advances (Isa 27:1; Psa 125:5). He had already tempted the man of God by means of the schismatic king, and failed; his next work is to see what influence an old prophet may have upon him. So versatile are his devices that it is our wisdom to be ever on the alert. Observe the adroitness with which he lays his plans. His astuteness is seen
I. IN CHOOSING HIS INSTRUMENTS. These were
1. “The sons of the old prophet.”
(1) They were near the altar. Whether by the contrivance of Satan, or that, finding them there, he made them his tools, is not revealed. Or whether they were there out of curiosity, or sympathy with the apostasy, is not revealed. But they were thereon the devil’s ground. We must keep from that if we would escape mischief.
(2) They were witnesses of the words and works of God. So, might have been rebuked for sympathy with evil and admonished to separate themselves from it. They also saw the way the man of God took in returning to Judah.
(3) They lost no time in reporting to their father, urged, unconsciously to themselves, by Satan. We cannot always tell when we are prompted by the devil, or when he uses for his purposes our natural promptings. We should pray God to spare us the humiliation of serving Satan’s purposes.
2. The old prophet himself.
(1) He was an “old” prophet, or had been a prophet in the old time before the apostasy of Jeroboam. Probably he had backslidden from God; for, though he did not appear at Bethel, he allowed his sons to be there. Had he not lost his old fire would he not have lifted his voice against the national sin? Backsliders from God become the devil’s dupes.
(2) The energy of Satan is seen in the promptness of this old prophet’s action. He quickly got information. He lost no time in the pursuit. The sluggishness of age was shaken off under the excitement of the devil’s spur.
(3) But what was the old man’s motive? Probably the desire to display that hospitality which the Easterns cultivated so carefully, mingled with a curiosity to know more about the wonders the man of God was commissioned to discover. But Satan’s motive was very different. Beware that your motives become not subservient to those of the devil. Let your motives be pure and godly.
II. IN USING THEM.
1. See the stratagem in Eden, repeated.
(1) Had Satan tempted Eve in his proper character he would have failed (1 Timothy 11:14). So the man of God was proof against the solicitations of the king whom he discerned to be the “man of sin” of his time.
(2) Satan therefore concealed himself under the sleek, lustrous form of a serpent, and deceived our mother. Then transferring himself to the fallen Eve, under her lovely disguise, overcame Adam. So, enshrining himself in the old prophet, he vanquished the “man of God.” Beware of Satan’s disguises. Especially beware of the religious devil.
(3) The offence, again, was eating. In Eden it was eating the forbidden thing. Note: The place may be right, the thing wrong. At Bethel it was eating in the forbidden place. Note: The thing may be right, the place wrong.
2. See the spirit of the devil.
(1) The spirit of cruelty. The old prophet knew that the man of God was forbidden to eat in Bethel, yet he importuned him to eat bread with him. Cruelty is no less real because sheathed in professions of kindness. Over-indulgent parents are their children’s cruelest enemies.
(2) The spirit of treachery. The man of God had refused a king: will he withstand a prophet? (Jer 23:18; Amo 2:11.)
(3) The spirit of lies (1Ki 13:18). Now is Satan transformed into an angel of light. Could the old prophet have been himself thus deceived? He deceived the man of God. Beware of the devil of hospitality. Perhaps the man of God the more readily yielded being weak with fatigue and fasting (compare Mat 4:2-4). No example, save that of Jesus, may be followed implicitly.J.A.M.
1Ki 13:20-22
The Voice of Reproof.
No man of God will deliberately sin against God (Joh 8:44; 1Jn 3:9; 1Jn 5:18). But the good are liable to be surprised or deceived into transgression (Jas 1:13-15; 1Jn 2:1, 1Jn 2:2). We must be ever on our guard against the “wiles” and “depths” of Satan. For lack of vigilance this man of God fell into the snare, and we see here how he was reproved.
I. HE SINNED AGAINST THE WORD OF JEHOVAH.
1. This is evident upon the face of the narrative.
(1) He came out of Judah “by the word of Jehovah.” Cried against the altar at Bethel “in the word of Jehovah.” Gave the sign upon the altar “by the word of Jehovah” (1Ki 13:1, 1Ki 13:2, 1Ki 13:5).
(2) He professed that .his instructions not to eat in Mount Ephraim, but to return to Judah by another road, were by the same word. Professed to the king (1Ki 13:9); to the old prophet (1Ki 13:17).
2. But could not God revoke or modify His word?
(1) Certainly. He did so to Abraham (see Gen 22:11, Gen 22:12). What had been might be.
(2) Upon the recognition of this principle the old prophet proceeded, and so far was the man of God from disputing it that he was taken in the snare (1Ki 13:18, 1Ki 13:19).
3. Wherein, then, was his fault? The revocation here came not with the evidence of the command. The command was immediately from “the mouth of the Lord” (per. 21). The revocation came immediately from the mouth of the old prophet. Note: We are responsible for the proper use of reason in religion.
(2) Faith in the word of the Lord must be implicit. The Bible is that word. The evidence that it is such is conclusiveexternal, internal, collateral.
(3) Other voices must not be allowed to replace this. The voice of “nature,” of “reason,” of the “Church.” We listen implicitly to these at our peril.
II. BY THE WORD OF JEHOVAH HE WAS REPROVED.
1. This came to the man of God himself.
(1) The reading of the text would lead us to conclude that it came to the old prophet. The words here rendered, “who brought him back,” are in 1Ki 13:23 construed, “whom he had brought back,” and might be so construed here. Josephus asserts that the word of the Lord here came to the man of God; and so does the Arabic. In the 26th verse we are assured by the old prophet that this word of the Lord came to the man of God.
(2) According to this view it was “Jehovah” who “cried unto the man of God,” viz; from heaven as He called to Abraham (Gen 22:11). So, coming to himself, as the command did in the first instance, he had not to weigh contradictory testimonies from the old prophet, but was left without a doubt. God brings home sin with demonstration.
2. It came to him in the ripeness of his transgression.
(1) “As they sat at table.” Conscience reproves the sinner in the very act of sin. This is the voice of God in the soul. But here was an external voice to which the internal voice responded. Conscience responds to the word or law of God.
(2) It came to all who were at the table. To the old prophet as well as to the man of God. His conscience, too, would respond to the voice of God. To the sons of the old prophet, if present, there would also be a voice. What will our emotions be when in the day of judgment all the mischief to which we have been accessories will be discovered?
3. It was terribly severe.
(1) He is doomed to dis. “Sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” We all die in consequence of sin entailed. But here is an actual “sin unto death” (1Jn 5:16).
(2) He is doomed to die abroad. The mention of his carcase not coming to the sepulchre of his fathers implied a violent death away from home. Possibly the manner of his death may have been made known to him (compare 1Ki 13:26; 1Ki 20:36). The word of God is not violated with impunity. What will be the case of those who seldom take pains to consult it?J.A.M.
1Ki 13:28-29
The Visitation of Judgment.
The man of God from Judah, deceived by the old prophet of Ephraim, ate and drank in that land of apostasy. This was a disobedience to the word of the Lord, and a complicity in the abominations he was sent to denounce. For this he heard the Divine voice of reproof, and went forth to suffer accordingly, as detailed in the text.
I. THE SEQUEL VERIFIED A REMARKABLE PROPHECY.
1. Review the prophecy.
(1) 1Ki 13:22. He was, therefore, doomed to die away from his home; and, presumably, by violence.
(2) With what solemn feelings would he see his ass saddled with the prospect of such a journey! Ought not our feelings also to be solemn to whom death is certain, though the moment and the manner be unknown?
2. Note the fulfilment.
(1) 1Ki 13:29, 1Ki 13:30. He was met and slain by a lion, and his corpse was cast in the way. There was a spectacle for all passengers! What an evil thing is sin!
(2) Thus suffered for disobedience a “man of God.” The sanctity of his profession did not protect him from sin, neither can it protect him from punishment. So neither, the dignity of his office. So neither, the service he had rendered to God (see 1Co 9:27; 2Co 13:5, 2Co 13:6).
(3) Judgment begins at the house of God, but falls more terribly upon the wicked (1Pe 4:17, 1Pe 4:18). They may well tremble before “Him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.”
(4) The man of God came not to the sepulchre of his fathers, yet was mourned over by one who had been a snare to him, but to whom he had been made a blessing. There are strange reciprocities.
II. THE FULFILMENT WAS ATTENDED BY REMARKABLE SIGNS.
1. Miracle controlled the instincts of animals.
(1) The lion was moved, not by thirst for prey, but by revenge. But this revenge was the Lord’s. The animal had suffered nothing from the hand of the man of God.
(2) Instinct was otherwise controlled. For here were the lion and the ass together watching the carcase. The ass did not fly from the face of the lion; neither did the lion molest the ass.
(3) Nor was this strange witnessing the accident of a momentary surprise. It was maintained while certain passengers, who first observed it, journeyed to the city and reported it; and until, in consequence, the old prophet, divining its import, came upon the scene.
2. Here let us admire the Divine resources.
(1) He that moved upon the instincts of the lion and the ass was the same who made the representatives of the animal creation defile before Adam to receive their names; who brought them into the ark of Noah; restrained the lions from injuring Daniel; the same who, in the days of His flesh, dwelt among the wild beasts in the wilderness, and who controlled the movements of fishes in the depths (Mar 1:13; Mat 17:27; Luk 5:4-7). This power over the instincts of the lion and ass is but a sample of corresponding dominion over every department of nature. And the resources of this power are the resources of justice and mercy.
3. But what is the mystical meaning of the signs?
(1) The death of the man of God was judgment for his complicity with the sin of Ephraim in eating and drinking in that polluted place. So it was the last of the series of warnings to Jeroboam before the abandonment of his house to destruction (see verse 33).
(2) The lion that inflicted the penalty was the symbol of Judah, of its royalty, and especially of Shiloh, in whom that royalty culminated. Hence Messiah is described as the “Lion of the tribe of Judah” (see Gen 49:9,Gen 49:10; Rev 5:5). Of this glorious Lion, Josiah was to be a type. Messiah visits the sin of Ephraim in the apostasy of the son of Nebat, and the sin of Judah for complicity in its abominations (see Hos 5:14). So in like manner will He strike down the forms of apostasy extant in these latter times.
(3) The ass was the symbol of Issachar (Gen 49:14, Gen 49:15); but not of Judah; for it is difficult to justify the translation in verse 11, which is better rendered, “and him shall the peoples obey; binding up the shoots of the vine, and the branches of the choice vine.”
(4) As the ass stood as a witness of this judgment of God upon the sin of Jeroboam, and then carried the carcase away to be buried, so “Baasha, the son of Ahijah, of the house of Issachar,“ destroyed and put out of sight the house of Jeroboam, fulfilling the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite (ch. 15:27-30). How manifold is the wisdom of God! How deep are His judgments!J.A.M.
1Ki 13:30-34
The Law of Extremity.
God has made us free to choose or refuse good or evil Will cannot be coerced and yet be free; coercion here, therefore, would be destruction. But while God does not compel us to choose the right, He induces by gracious promises, and admonishes by alternative penalties. Still we remain free to elect the good with its blessings, or the evil with its entailments of misery. But so loth is He to see His creatures wretched that He has opened a way of repentance and reformation for sinners. In this, mercy is carried to the extreme limit which consists with the welfare of the universe, which must ever depend upon the order and harmony of righteousness. At this point there comes in the law of extremity; and the sinner passing it has to encounter “judgment without mercy.”
I. THE OLD PROPHET SOUGHT MERCY.
1. His conduct expressed repentance.
(1) He went out for the corpse of the man of God, and brought it to his home, discerning the hand of God in the judgment. Looking now upon that ghastly form of death he saw his own sad work. He had caused a mischief he could not now repair. How inadequately men estimate beforehand the consequences of their wrong doing! (9.) He decently interred the body in his own grave. This was the only reparation now within his power for the injury he had caused, But how inadequate! What a bitter thought!
(3) He “mourned over him, saying, Alas, my brother!” This exclamation ( ) was the refrain of a lamentation (see Jer 22:18). Ward, in his “Manners and Customs of the Hindoos,” gives two specimens of such lamentations. There are frequent allusions to these in the prophets (see Jer 30:7; Eze 6:11; Joe 1:15; Amo 5:16,Amo 5:17; Rev 18:10-19). With the old prophet this was more than a conventional mourning, he mourned for himself before God.
2. His conduct also expressed faith.
(1) He commanded his sons, when he died, to lay his bones beside those of the man of God. He believed him to be a man of God in reality, notwithstanding this single act of disobedience for which he had suffered death. There are “sins unto death,” viz; of the body, which do not involve the final death of the soul. He desired to be with him in the resurrection. The concern of the ancients respecting the disposition of their bodies after death arose out of their faith in a resurrection (see Gen 1:24 26; Exo 13:19; Heb 11:22; see also 2Ki 13:20, 2Ki 13:21).
(2) He gave as the reason of his command the faith he had in the certainty of the prophecy of the man of God (1Ki 13:32). And in further testimony of his faith put an inscription on the tomb (see 2Ki 23:17). He desired to be associated in death with the denouncers of Jeroboam’s sin rather than with those involved in that sin. Nor would he be identified in the judgment with perverters of true worship.
(3) By this faith his bones were spared when those of the priests and votaries of Jeroboam were burnt upon the altar by Josiah (see 2Ki 23:19). By a corresponding faith shall we be saved from the judgments of the more illustrious Son of David upon the man of sin of the mystical Babylon.
II. BUT JEROBOAM ENCOUNTERED THE EXTREMITY OF WRATH.
1. He disregarded the goodness of God.
(1) The conditional promises by the hand of Ahijah were very gracious (1Ki 11:37-39). What a magnificent opportunity he had! But he missed it.
(2) What opportunities have we wasted? Who can estimate their value? No opportunity of glorifying God should escape us.
2. He disregarded his remonstrances.
(1) The judgments upon Rehoboam were lessons to him. The same God who in them visited the sins of Solomon had also set him upon the throne of Israel, and would deal with him upon the same principles. But he sinned against this admonition.
(2) Then came the warning from the man of God at the altar. That God was in this warning was left without doubt by the signs (1Ki 13:3-6). These staggered him for a moment; but there was no true repentance.
(3) Then came the final warning in the death of the man of God for being implicated, though by a deception, in his sin. This also was shown to be from God by miraculous signs (verse 64). But this also he disregarded (1Ki 13:33).
(4) Now, therefore, the law of extremity must take its course. He and his house are devoted to destruction (1Ki 13:34). This last warning was written in letters of blood. God gave it to Him at the expense of His own servant. And He warns us at the expense of His own Son; and if we finally reject Christ the extremity of mercy is spurned, and we must encounter the extremity of wrath.J.A.M.
HOMILIES BY A. ROWLAND
1Ki 13:18, 1Ki 13:19
Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
The miraculous element in this chapter is, with many, a reason for its rejection. The same reason might lead us to reject the story of our Saviour’s life, and deny the possibility of supernatural revelation. If miracles and signs ever occurred they would be likely to do so at the time described in this chapter. Idolatrous practices were being set up. Many who had been worshippers of Jehovah had been seduced. Worldly policy, social influences, moral enervation, following on the extravagant prosperity of Solomon’s reign, and an inherent tendency to sensuous worship, were all combining to induce the people to put away all belief in Jehovah. Then, if ever He would fitly reveal His power, as He did at the later crisis when Elijah faced the false prophets on Carmel. The effect on Jeroboam was nil, but the godless had warning, and the secret worshippers of the Lord still left in Israel were encouraged. The story of the temptation and fall of this prophet, who at least delivered one message with fidelity, is tragic and suggestive. After reading it we have left with us the following thoughts:
I. THAT A STRONG TEMPTATION HAD BEEN RESISTED. Jeroboam had failed to reach the prophet by violence, but resolved to overcome him by craft. Terrible as had been the effect of Jehovah’s wrath (1Ki 13:4), the king’s conscience was not stirred. His heart was not touched, though his arm was withered. Hence he did not ask the prophet to pray that his sin might be forgiven, but that his arm might be restored. Immediately after, with a show of civility and gratitude, he invited him to his house. Clearly this was not in order to honour the prophet, but to weaken the effect of his message. The people had heard it, and had been moved by it; but if they saw the messenger going down in seeming friendship with their king, this would diminish, perhaps destroy, the effect of his words. Lest this should happen, the prophet had been forbidden to enter any house. As the representative of Jehovah, he was to show that God would not dwell amongst the people. Firmly, therefore, he rejected the invitation of the king, saying, “If thou wilt give me half thine house, I will not go in with thee, neither will I eat bread not drink water in this place,” etc. The temptation was resisted; the victory won. Give illustrations of similar moral conquests. A young man tempted to impurity says, “How can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?” Another sits silent among the scorners, and cannot be induced to join or smile with them, etc. There are times when we are specially able to resist: e.g; when we come fresh from the influences of a Christian home; when we are feeling the impression of an earnest sermon; when we are made serious by the death of a dear friend. Under such influences many obey the command, “Resist the devil, and he will flee from you!”
II. THAT A NEW TEMPTATION WAS SUCCESSFUL. (Read 1Ki 13:11-19.)
(1) What were the motives of this old prophet of Bethel? Probably he was not a false prophet, though these existed; as tares amongst the wheat, as Judas among the apostles. Nor must he be charged with the malignant wish to bring this man to his death. Picture him as one who knew his Lord’s will, but did it not. He had been silent, instead of protesting against the impiety of Jeroboam, and now felt rebuked by this daring stranger. To entertain him might reinstate him in his own good opinion, and in the eyes of the people. Hence he gives the invitation, and when it is resisted another sign of his moral decadence appears, and he tells a lie about receiving a message from the Lord.
(2) How came this temptation to succeed? Not improbably there was some self-complacency in one who had just resisted the king successfully, and a sense of false security which is indicated by his resting under the terebinth instead of pressing on homewards. Observe here
1. The conquest of one evil may only bring on the assault of another; e.g; when sensuality is repressed, scepticism may arise and prevail. We sometimes forget that it is not a momentary but a life-long conflict we have to wage. If the Egyptians are drowned, the Amorites and Canaanites await us. A gross sin fails to conquer us, but a subtle sin may lead us to bitter bondage. We can never say to our soul, “Take thine ease;” but always, and everywhere, must listen to the command, “Watch, and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.”
2. Lingering near scenes of temptation may imperil us fatally. Had the prophet not rested he might not have been overtaken, but would have crossed the border line of the two kingdoms. As the moth flutters round the candle, so do some hover about sin. They read of vices which they think they would never commit, and choose associates unlike what they mean to be, and yet dare to pray, “Lead us not into temptation.” He who “standeth in the way of sinners,” as one half inclined to join them, may at last “sit in the seat of the scorners,” as one who has united with them. “Avoid it, pass not by it,” etc. (Pro 3:15).
III. THAT A TRIVIAL ACT OF DISOBEDIENCE WAS A GREAT SIN. It seemed a small offence to go home with a brother prophet; but observe that he was in no doubt as to the will of God. He was not really deceived by that lie about the angel’s message. He knew that he was forbidden to enter any house, and that the reason for that inhibition was weighty: he knew further that God would not contradict Himself, or alter his command, yet his sensuous wish for food and rest prevailed. An act may seem trifling, but the principle involved in it may be momentous. So it was in Eden. To eat the fruit, or to leave it untouched, might appear a question of small consideration; but man’s decision of it, “brought death into the world, and all our woe.” It is in trifles that we test the willingness of our children’s obedience. If they refuse to do an unimportant act because to do it would be to disobey us, we are more satisfied with their sensitive loyalty than if the act were notoriously evil. To sin for the sake of a passing pleasure is morally worse than to sin for the sake of a kingdom, for the temptation is less.
IV. THAT A TRAGIC PUNISHMENT WAS INFLICTED. (Read 1Ki 13:23-25.) Note the points which marked out this event as the result of God’s displeasure, and not of accident; e.g; that it was foretold (1Ki 13:21, 1Ki 13:22), and that the lion did not kill the ass, nor eat the dead body. Show how Jesus Christ used the judgments of God, as recorded in the Old Testament, for purposes of moral and religious instruction. Sin merits punishment. “We are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth, against them which commit such things,” etc. (Rom 2:2-5). In the consciousness of frequent disobedience let the prayer arise, “God be merciful to me a sinner.”A.R.
HOMILIES BY J. WAITE
1Ki 13:20-22
The Disobedient Prophet.
The “old prophet,” though here employed as the medium of a Divine message, had acted falsely towards his “brother” (“he lied unto him,” 1Ki 13:18). The fact that he was content to remain in the land under the rule of Jeroboam was against him. As the Levites had been supplanted by a base priesthood, so the prophets in Israel would seem to be a degenerate race. It must have aggravated the bitterness of the remorse the “man of God” felt, that the prophet who had dealt so treacherously with him should be commissioned to pronounce the Divine sentence on his transgression. His case seems altogether a hard one. How shall we explain it? What lessons does it teach?
I. THE INFLEXIBILITY OF A DIVINE COMMAND. The command had been given clearly and positively (1Ki 13:9), and He who gave it had in no way revoked it. The reasons for it remained as they were. The man of God greatly erred in giving more weight to the report of an angelic message delivered to another than to the clear voice of “the word of the Lord” in his own soul. “God is not a man, that he should lie; nor the son of man, that he should repent” (Num 23:19), and His commands can be abrogated only by others that are equally explicit and authoritative.
II. THE DANGER OF PARLEYING WITH THE TEMPTER. The integrity of the man of God was imperilled as soon as he began to listen to the persuasion that would lead him astray. The first deliverances of conscience are generally right, and we run great moral risk when we begin to question them. He who had resisted the allurements of the king yields to those of the seeming prophet. Moral evil is always most fascinating when it assumes a sacred disguise, and the false “prophet” is the most plausible and dangerous of all tempters.
III. THE GUILT OF DISOBEDIENCE. “To obey is better than sacrifice,” etc. (1Sa 15:22, 1Sa 15:23). The spirit of disobedience is the root of all practical iniquity. “By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners” (Rom 5:19). A seemingly trifling offence may thus, especially under certain circumstances, have an important meaning, and entail fatal consequences out of all proportion to its outward form. It is on this principle, that every act of wilful wrong is a violation of the spirit of obedience, that St. James says, “Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all” (Jas 2:10).
IV. THE TEMPORAL PENALTIES THAT FOLLOW THE SIN EVEN OF GOOD MEN. The “man of God” may have been at heart a true prophet, and may have received in another world the eternal reward of the true prophet; but his transgression involved him in a violent death, and he was denied the privilege, so much desired by every Hebrew, of having his body laid in the “sepulchre of his fathers.” Sin may be pardoned and yet punished. The temporal penalty may be inflicted though Divine mercy cancels the eternal. David’s sin is forgiven, but his child must die (2Sa 12:13, 2Sa 12:14). Christ is “the propitiation for our sins,” and His blood “cleanseth us from all sin,” but He promises us no immunity from the ill effects, the shame and loss and pain and sorrow in which our sin may in this world involve us.W.
HOMILIES BY J. URQUHART
1Ki 13:11, 1Ki 13:12
The Tempter.
I. THE PROPHET‘S SIN AND DOOM. Evil is never wanting in emissaries. It finds them among the so-called followers of God as well as in the world. This was
1. a prophet. The possession of privileges does not ensure salvation. Balaam took the wages of unrighteousness. “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name?” etc. Is our own life on a level with the place God has given us? If not, we may be among those whose influence and suggestions place stumbling blocks in the path of God’s children.
2. He dwelt at Bethel, without testifying against its sin, and unmoved by fear of God’s judgment. How many who know God’s will and have declared it to others remain in Bethel still!
3. His instant resolve. The very story of the prophet’s obedience led him to tempt the man of God. His own religion was not like this, and this must therefore be either hypocrisy or delusion. Had the king’s request not been made publicly it might have been acceded to. There must be a weak point somewhere, and he will try to find it. Lower life is ever suspicious of a higher, and is anxious to prove that it is not higher. The prophets in Bethel are ever on the watch to break the credit of the men of God from Judah. Is thine the spirit of the learner or of the scorner? Does the higher life judge thee and fill thee with desire to press upward, or only with angry suspicion and desire to show it is no better than thine own? They who are of the wicked prophet’s spirit still do his work.
II. THE FALL OF THE MAN OF GOD.
1. How the tempter found him. He sat, weary and faint, resting under the shadow of the tree. The invitation to eat bread had more power there than before in Bethel. The tempter knows his opportunity. In times of weakness and need we should hide ourselves in the joy and strength of God.
2. The weapons he uses. When an appeal to appetite fails, he professes his oneness with him and uses falsehood. “I am a prophet also as thou art, and an angel spake unto me,” etc. To eat bread in Bethel with a prophet did not seem quite the same thing as eating with the idolatrous king; nor does fellowship with those who profess to know God, but yet remain in communion with the world, seem the same thing as fellowship with the world itself. It is thus that the testimony of the Church against idolatry and iniquity has so largely ceased. And then there is Scripture forevery concession. “An angel spake unto me but he lied unto him.” A worldly Church ensnares where the world itself cannot.
3. The fatal neglect. God was as near to him as He could be to his tempter, and he might have inquired of Him. But in the weakness of the flesh he desired to have it so. There is only one preservative from spiritual shipwrecka sincere desire to know what the Lord saith, and a determination to follow that only.
III. HIS DOOM. (1Ki 13:20-22.)
1. It was uttered as he sat at meat. Conviction found him in his Sin, and the food he had desired became as wormwood and gall to him.
2. It came from the lips of his seducer. We do not rise in the world’s estimation through compliance with its desires. As God used the lying prophet so will He use the men of the world for the humbling of those who yield before their temptations.
3. The penalty. Death in the land where he had sinned. His carcase, buried in Bethel, declared the truth his obedience should have impressed. God will judge His unfaithful servants. If not glorified in their service, He will be glorified in their punishment.J.U.
1Ki 13:23-34
Judgment and its result.
I. MERCY DISPLAYED IN THE MIDST OF JUDGMENT. The sin may have been forgiven though the chastisement fell.
1. His body was preserved from dishonour. The lion’s ferocity was bridled; the prophet’s body was neither eaten nor torn; he guarded the remains from the fowls of the air and the beasts of the field.
(1) Though God chastises His erring people, He will not utterly cast them away.
(2) The fiercest instruments of His vengeance can go only so far as He permits them.
2. The message he had borne received added weight by his punishment. In his humiliation God was exalted. The circumstances showed that the blow was from the hand of God, and the question was no doubt raised in many a heart, if the Lord has so punished His servant’s error, what will Israel’s judgment be?
3. He still preached in his grave. He was buried near the altar, and over his tomb was graven the story of his mission and his fate (2Ki 23:17).
II. THE PUNISHMENT OF UNFAITHFULNESS. When all has been said that can be of the attendant mercy, the judgment still stands out in terribleness. The prophet still preached, but the cry came up from the dark pathway of death. Its place was not among the vessels of mercy, but among the vessels of wrath. If we eat in idolatrous Bethel, even though it be in ignorance, God’s hand will find us. He punishes now in spiritual leanness, and that again leads to deeper judgment; in the falling away of our children into indifference and worldliness and sin, and will not God demand their blood at our hand? God will have perfect compliance in regard to the conduct of His own worship; He demands “a pure offering.” Are we making His word our only law? Whose altar are we serving, Jehovah’s or Jeroboam’s?
III. BETHEL‘S ANSWER TO GOD‘S WARNINGS.
1. The prophet’s fear.
(1) He owned God’s servant. He cared for his body, mourned over him with the cry, “Alas my brother!” placed him in his own tomb and had his own bones laid beside those of the man of God.
(2) He lifted up again God’s testimony (1Ki 13:32). The beginning of a better thing in Bethel is ever after this fashion: the honouring God’s servants, cleaving to them, and continuing their work.
2. The king’s unconcern. We are not told that he did anything worse than he had done before; he simply “returned not from his evil way.” And this became sin to his house, to cut it off and to destroy it, etc. To bring upon ourselves God’s judgments we need do no more than turn a deaf ear to His warnings.J.U.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
1Ki 13:11. An old prophetand his sons came and told him It appears from this, that these sons of the old prophet were present when Jeroboam stood at the altar, and therefore joined in that idolatrous worship, though their father did not: who, nevertheless, was too timorous to reprove them. There are various opinions concerning this prophet of Beth-el. Some will needs have him to have been a false prophet, highly in esteem with king Jeroboam, because he prophesied to him soft things, and such as would humour him in his wickedness. Others, however, have believed, that he was a true prophet of God, though a wicked one; not unlike the famous Balaam, who sacrificed every thing to his interest; whilst others say that he was a weak one, who thought that he might innocently employ an officious lie to bring the prophet of Judah back, who was under a prohibition indeed, but such a one as, in his opinion, related only to the house of Jeroboam, and such others as were of an idolatrous religion. See Joseph. Antiq. l. viii. c. 3.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
(11) Now there dwelt an old prophet in Bethel; and his sons came and told him all the works that the man of God had done that day in Bethel: the words which he had spoken unto the king, them they told also to their father.
The character of this man is not far to fetch. Had he been a true prophet of the Lord how could he live in Beth-el, and be witness to Jeroboam’s continued iniquity, without reproving him? Hence, therefore, in the very opening of his history it is easy to discover that he was of the false prophets. And we read not only of Jezebel’s prophets, but of the prophets of Samaria, who caused the Lord’s people to err. See 1Ki 18:19 ; Jer 23:13-14 . With this view of the real character of this old prophet, as he is called, we shall be now better able to enter into a proper apprehension of the circumstances of the whole history.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
1Ki 13:11 Now there dwelt an old prophet in Bethel; and his sons came and told him all the works that the man of God had done that day in Bethel: the words which he had spoken unto the king, them they told also to their father.
Ver. 11. Now there dwelt an old prophet in Bethel. ] A prophet of God, likely, but corrupt, resty, vicious. Prophecy doth not always presuppose sanctification. The Chaldee here calleth him Michal, the false prophet; Josephus, Rupertus, Cajetan, and others hold the same. See reasons to the contrary in Junius upon the text.
And his sons came and told him.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
in Beth-el. A true prophet could not have remained there. Compare 2Ch 11:16, 2Ch 11:17.
and his sons. Septuagint reads “whose sons”.
the words. Syriac and Vulg, read “and the words”.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Led Astray by a False Messenger
1Ki 13:11-19
The unnamed prophet from Judah had received distinct instructions not to eat bread nor drink water while on his divinely-commissioned errand. He was therefore justified in refusing the royal invitation; and it would have been well with him had he also refused the invitation of the old prophet, who followed him with the persistent invitation to return with him to his house. But the younger prophet failed, because the older man professed to speak by divine warrant and because the invitation chimed in with his own inclinations. As he sat there under the oak, tired and hungry, he was only too willing to believe that the prophets message was true, although it was altogether contrary to his own impression.
When God has spoken to us, let us not dare to turn aside on the advice of others, however good they seem, even though their proposals may be draped with a show of religious phraseology. God does not say Yea or Nay; but all His commands, like all His promises, are Yea and Amen in Christ. In Him is no variableness, nor shadow cast by turning.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
an old prophet: 1Ki 13:20, 1Ki 13:21, Num 23:4, Num 23:5, Num 24:2, 1Sa 10:11, 2Ki 23:18, Eze 13:2, Eze 13:16, Mat 7:22, 2Pe 2:16
sons: Heb. son
came: 1Ti 3:5
Reciprocal: 1Ki 12:22 – the man
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Ki 13:11. There dwelt an old prophet in Beth-el One to whom and by whom God did sometimes reveal his will, as is manifest from 1Ki 13:20-21; and one who had a respect to Gods holy prophets, and gave credit to their predictions. But that he was not a truly and uniformly good and pious man is certain, because we here find him guilty of a downright lie, 1Ki 13:18. And, although a holy prophet, who had lived there before, might possibly have continued in the kingdom of Israel after its separation from Judah, and defection from the true worship of God; yet such a one would not have chosen to reside at Beth-el, the chief seat of idolatry, unless with a design to preach against it: this, it is evident, he did not; for his sons, it appears, were present when Jeroboam stood at the altar, and therefore joined in that idolatrous worship, and yet their father was too timorous to reprove them. He was probably somewhat like the famous Balaam, who was commissioned to utter divers true prophecies, but nevertheless loved the wages of unrighteousness, and was a wicked man.