Verse 1. - And, behold, there came a man of God [see on 1 Kings 12:22. The "man of God" is throughout carefully distinguished from the "prophet." Josephus calls the former Jadon, probably the Grecized form of Iddo, עִדּו, which appears as יֶעְדו Ia'do in the Keri of 2 Chronicles 9:29. Iddo, however, notwithstanding his "visions against Jeroboam the son of Nebat" (2 Chronicles 9:29), it cannot have been, for he survived to the reign of Abijah, and indeed wrote a "story" (Heb. Midrash, i.e., Commentary) of that reign, whereas this man of God died forthwith. For a similar reason, we cannot believe it to have been Shemaiah, the historian of the reign of Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 12:5, 15)] out of Judah [whither, as a rule, both priests and prophets would seem to have retreated (2 Chronicles 11:14, 16). It is clear, however, that the migration of the latter was not so general as that of the former. In ver. 11 we find a prophet at Bethel; in ch. 14. Ahijah is still at Shiloh, and at a later day we find schools of the prophets at Bethel, Jericho, etc. (2 Kings 2:3, 5). Stanley says with truth that "the prophetical activity of the time... is to be found in the kingdom, not of Judah, but of Israel," but omits to add that it was because the northern kingdom more especially needed their ministry. It was just for this reason that Ahijah and others remained at their posts.] by [Heb. in, same word as in vers. 2, 9, 17, 20, 32, etc. Similarly, 1 Samuel 3:21. The ב is not merely instrumental, but, like the ἐν, of the N.T., denotes the sphere or element. "By the word" would imply that he had received a Divine communication; "in the word," that his message possessed him, inspired him, was "in his heart as a burning fire shut up in his bones" (Jeremiah 20:9)] the word of the Lord unto Bethel [It is worth remembering that the new sanctuary at Bethel would probably be visible from the temple (Porter, p. 219; Van de Velds, 2:283), so that this function was an act of open defiance]: and Jeroboam stood by [Heb. upon. See on 1 Kings 12:32, 33. It is the same occasion] the altar to burn incense [or to burn the fat, etc., of the sacrifice. See on 1 Kings 12:33. This altar was clearly, pro hac vice, an altar of burnt offering; not an altar of incense, as is proved by the next verse.]

Verse 2. - And he cried against the altar in the word of the Lord, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the Lord [This apostrophe of the altar is very striking and significant. It is as if the prophet disdained to notice the royal but self-constituted priest; as if it were useless to appeal to him; as if his person was of little consequence compared with the religious system he was inaugurating, the system of which the altar was the centre and embodiment]; Behold a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name [This particular mention of the Reformer by name was formerly regarded, as by many it is still, as a remarkable instance of prophetic foresight. But the tendency of late, even amongst orthodox theologians, has been to doubt the authenticity of these two words, on the ground that it is unlike Scripture prophecy in general to descend to such details, which rather belong to soothsaying than prediction. Prophecy concerns itself not with names, times, and similar particulars, but with the "progressive development of the kingdom of God in its general features" (Keil). It is not for a moment denied that the prophet could just as easily, speaking "in the word of the Lord," have mentioned the name of Josiah, as the circumstance that a son of the house of David would utterly destroy the worship of calves. But it is alleged that the latter prediction is quite in accordance with Scripture usage, and the former altogether contrarient thereto. The case of Cyrus (Isaiah 44:28; Isaiah 45:1), it is true, is an exception to the rule, unless כֹרֶשׁ (which means the sun) is, like Pharaoh and Hadad, a name of office, a title of the Persian kings. The instances of Isaac (Genesis 17:19) and Solomon (1 Chronicles 22:9) are not parallels, as in both these cases the name was highly significant, and each was mentioned, not by way of prophecy, but as a direction to bestow that name on a child shortly about to be born. And it is certainly noticeable - though the argument e silentio is necessarily a precarious one - "that where this narrative is again referred to (2 Kings 23:15-18) there is no allusion to the fact that the man of God had prophesied of Josiah by name" (Rawlinson). On the whole, therefore, it seems probable that the two words יֹאשׁיָּהוּ שְׁמו were no part of the original prophecy, but a marginal note which in course of time found its way accidentally into the text. The idea of Keil, that "Josiah" is mentioned here not as a proper name, but as an appellation, "he whom Jehovah sustains," is hardly worthy of serious consideration. It may be allowed, however, that the meaning of the name affords some slender reason for its mention]; and upon thee shall he offer [lit., sacrifice] the priests of the high places [see on 1 Kings 12:32] that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones [Heb. bones of man, i.e., human bones. Nothing could more completely foreshadow the future desecration of the altar. The presence in the congregation of a living man who had merely touched a dead body and had not been purified, defiled the tabernacle (Numbers 19:13), how much more the dead body itself, burnt on the very altar. The Samaritan who once strewed the temple with human ashes (Jos., Ant. 18:02.2) knew that he took the most effectual way to pollute it] shall be burnt [Heb. shall they burn] upon thee. [For the fulfilment, see 2 Kings 23:20, "At the ground of this judgment, as of the whole theocratic law, lies the jus talionis" (Keil, 1846).] It is worthy of note how completely this brief protest proclaimed to Jeroboam the utter and shameful overthrow, both of his political and religious systems. A child of the rival house of David should stand where he then stood, his successors extinct or powerless to prevent him, and should cover this new cultus with disgrace and contempt. The man of God, he must have felt, has proclaimed in few words the fall of his dynasty, the triumph of his rival, and the failure of all his schemes.

Verse 3. - And he gave a sign [The Heb. מופֵת rather signifies a portent (τέρας, miraculum, prodigium) than a sign, the proper word for which is אות. The word occurs repeatedly in the Pentateuch, where it is rendered wonder, or miracle, by our translators (Wordsworth). Signs had, of course, been given before (Exodus 4:30; Exodus 7:9; 1 Samuel 12:17; etc.) but hardly in such immediate attestation of a special message. From this time forward such signs are not infrequent (Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 38:8; 2 Kings 19:29). They mark the decline of faith (Matthew 12:39). As to the need at this crisis for some miraculous token, see Homiletics. The fitness of this particular sign is obvious] the same day, saying, This is the sign which [Rather that; דועק ְ אֲֶשר. The A.V. rendering hardly makes sense. Nor does it agree, as Rawlinson seems to think, with the LXX., which reads τοῦτο τὸ ῤῆμα ο{ ἐλάησε κύριος, etc.] the Lord hath spoken [i.e., by me. "This is the proof that my message is from Him, and is no idle threat." Wordsworth sees in this sign "a proof vouchsafed by God Himself to the man of Judah, as well as to Jeroboam, that he was really sent by God," etc. But surely a man who came "in the word of the Lord," and cried, "Thus saith the Lord," wanted no proof that "he was doing God's bidding" (see 1 Corinthians 14:22)]; Behold, the altar shall be rent and the ashes [strictly, fat ashes. דֶּשֶׁן; properly, "fatness" (see Judges 9:9; Psalm 63:5. πιότης, LXX.), is the fat of the sacrifice, which was burnt upon the altar, mixed with the ashes that consumed it] that are upon it shall be poured out. [The sign, a partial destruction of the altar, and the scattering of the sacrifice, was admirably calculated to presage its ultimate and final and ignominious overthrow. The idea favoured by Stanley ("Jewish Ch." 2:280) that this prediction was fulfilled "if not before, at least" in the time of Amos, when the altar was destroyed by an earthquake shock (Amos 9:1; cf. 3:14), does not seem to take account of ver. 5.]

Verse 4. - And it came to pass when king Jeroboam [The A.V. follows the LXX. The Heb. omits "Jeroboam"] heard the saying of the man of God, which had cried against the altar in Bethel, that he put forth his hand [instinctively. His first thought was, not to wait and see whether the promised sign was given, but to seize and punish the man who had dared thus to denounce and thwart him. And we may imagine how extremely mortifying this interruption must have been to him. It threatened the complete frustration of his policy at the very moment when it seemed certain of suceess] from the altar [the ledge or platform, i.e., where he stood. He did not leave it, but shouted his commands to his servants], saying, Lay hold on him. ["Arrest him," "let him not escape." One word in the Heb.] And his hand, which he put forth against him, dried up [Possibly the result of paralysis or tetanus (Ackermann in Bahr). It was like the "withered hand" of the New Testament (Matthew 12:10, etc.) deprived of feeling and vital force, as the next words show], so that he could not pull it in again to him. [It was not only powerless to punish, it was punished. "Now stands the king of Israel, like some antique statue, in a posture of impotent endeavour" (Hall). This was a warning to the king, not so much against his unauthorized and schismatical rites, as against his attempt to avenge himself on the messenger of God (Psalm 105:14, 15).]

Verse 5. - The altar also was rent [by the same invisible power, and probably at the same moment], and the ashes poured out from the altar, according to the sign which the man of God had given by the word of the Lord.

Verse 6. - And the king [humbled and alarmed by the judgment he had experienced in his own person] answered and said unto the man of God, Intreat now [The Heb. is very expressive - "Smooth or stroke the face." It is an expression which occurs several times. See especially Exodus 32:11; 2 Kings 13:4; 2 Chronicles 33:12; Proverbs 19:6] of the Lord thy God [i.e., whose messenger thou art. "Jeroboam, conscience stricken, does not dare to call Jehovah his own God" (Wordsworth). This was probably the case, yet surely it is an inference not warranted by the text. The expression, "The Lord thy God," is of constant occurrence, especially when a "man of God" is addressed; cf. 1 Kings 17:12; 1 Kings 18:10], and pray for me [This sudden change in his bearing shows how much Jeroboam was frightened. The sight, too, of the king humbly supplicating the prophet who a moment before had protested against the calf worship was calculated to make an impression on the minds of the people], that my hand may be restored me again. And the man of God besought [lit., stroked the face of] the Lord, and the king's hand was restored him, and became as it was before.

Verse 7. - And the king said unto the man of God, Come home with me, and refresh thyself [with food, ablutions, etc. (Genesis 18:4, 5; Genesis 19:2; Mark 7:3, etc.) We are hardly justified in seeing in these words (with Bahr and Keil) an attempt to "gain the prophet over to his side by friendliness," and to render his threat harmless in the eyes of the people. The king doubtless may have hoped that it would "blunt the edge of the prophet's denunciation of his schismatical altar" (Wordsworth); but this was not the object, or not the sole object, with which the invitation was given. Jeroboam could not possibly have done less, after the signal service the man of God had rendered him, than invite him to his palace. Eastern courtesy alone (Genesis 18:4; Genesis 19:2; Genesis 43:24, etc.) would require him to offer hospitality to his benefactor. And he could scarcely hope that any hospitalities would either neutralize the impression which the recent miracles had made, or win over to his side one who had a direct commission from the Most High to oppose him. With more reason, Wordsworth cites 1 Samuel 15:30, "Honour me now, I pray thee, before the elders of my people." A feeling of gratitude may have prompted the invitation, while the king at the same time was very sensible of the advantages which would accrue to himself if it were accepted], and I will give thee a reward. [The services, especially of seers and prophets, were invariably requited in the East with presents, as are those of Judges, Kadis, Kaimakams, and other officers at the present day (see 1 Kings 14:3; Genesis 24:53; Genesis 33:11; Genesis 43:11; Numbers 22:17; Judges 3:17; Judges 6:18; Judges 13:15; 1 Samuel 9:7, 8; 1 Samuel 12:3; 2 Kings 5:5, 15; 2 Kings 8:8, 9).]

Verse 8. - And the man of God said unto the king, If thou wilt give me half thine house [cf. Numbers 22:18, of which, however, there is hardly a reminiscence. Obviously, half the contents or wealth of thy house], I will not go in with thee, neither will I eat bread nor drink water in this place.

Verse 9. - For so was it charged [Heb. he, sc. the Lord, charged me] me by [Heb. in] the word of the Lord, saying, Fat no bread, nor drinkwater [Participation in food - the "eating salt" - is in the East a token of friendship and affinity; a sign of close communion and fellowship. The prophet's refusal to participate was consequently a practical and forcible disclaimer of all fellowship, a virtual excommunication, a public repudiation of the calf worshippers. Cf. 1 Corinthians 5:11, "With such an one, no, not to eat." As Corn. a Lapide," Ut ipso facto ostenderet, Bethelitas idololatras adeo esse detestabiles, et a Deo quasi excommunicates, ut nullum fidelium cum iis cibi vel potus communionem habere velit"], nor turn again by the same way that thou camest. [ the object of this command was not "simply to test the obedience of the prophet" (Rawlinson), nor yet that no one might "force him to a delay which was irreconcilable with his commission" (Keil), for that was practically executed, but to avoid as far as possible - what, indeed, happened in spite of these precautions - his being traced and followed. Because of this provision, the old prophet (ver. 10) was reduced to ask, "What way went he?" But the charge, we can hardly doubt,was also designed to serve another purpose, viz., to warn the prophet against doing what he did presently - against returning to Bethel. When he was followed, and when he was told of a revelation commanding his return, he should have remembered, among other things, that it had clearly been part of God's purpose, as evidenced by the explicit instructions given him, that he should not be followed. This alone should have led him to suspect this old prophet of deceit.]

Verse 10. - So he went another way, and returned not by the way that he came to Bethel.

CHAPTER 13:11-34. 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 (2 Kings 23:17, 18) made it impossible for the historian of the theocracy to pass them over without notice.

Verse 11. - Now there dwelt an old prophet [Heb. a certain (lit. one) old prophet. For this use of אֶחָד ( = τις) cf. 1 Kings 20:13; 1 Kings 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 2 Chronicles 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 ver. 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 ver. 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" (בִּנו), 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" (2 Kings 2:3, 4, passim); not merely because "the latter would scarcely have witnessed the golden calf worship" (Bahr), 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.]

Verse 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. δεικνύουσιν. Similarly most of the versions. A very slight change in the vowel points ויּרַאְוּ for ויּרִאוַּ would give this sense] what way the man of God went which came from Judah.

Verse 13. - And he said unto his sons, Saddle me the ass. [This prompt and seemingly abrupt command - though we cannot be sure that all the conversation is here reported - shows 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.

Verse 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 neighbourhood - such trees are comparatively rare in Palestine. Possibly also this tree became well known from these events. It is singular that in another place (Genesis 35:8) we read of "the oak" (אַלּון) of Bethel, whilst in Judges 4:5 we read of the "palm tree" (תֹּמֶר) of Deborah, between Ramah and Bethel." And it is not at all improbable, seeing that in 1 Samuel 10:3 we read of the terebinth (אֵלון) of Tabor - in the A.V. rendered "plain of Tabor" - which Ewald ("Hist. Israel," 3:21; 4:31) 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 אֵלָה (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 אַלּון of Bethel. Both names are derived from the same root (אוּל fortis. Cf. Amos 2:9), and both indicate varieties - what varieties it is not quite clear - of 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 ver. 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.

Verse 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.]

Verse 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.]

Verse 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.

Verse 18. - He said unto him; I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel (Bahr observes that "he does not venture to say that Jehovah spake to him, but says an angel did." Is it not more probable that the angel was mentioned, partly for the purpose of giving an air of circumstantiality and reality to his story, 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. Cf. Acts 7:53; Hebrews 2:2; Luke 1:13, 29; Acts 27:23, etc. Observe, the prophet speaks presently of "the word of Jehovah"] spake unto me by [Heb. in; same expression as in ver. 17] the word of the Lord, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house that he may eat [Heb. and he shall eat] bread and drink water. But he lied to him. [These last words are inserted parenthetically; hence there is no "but" in the Heb. The true character and designs and motives of this "old prophet" have long been a crux interpretum (see Hall, Contempl., 2:151-3.) 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 (1 Kings 22:6; Jeremiah 28:1); but against this is the fact that he was undoubtedly the channel of a Divine communication (ver. 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 prophet - the cases of Balaam and Caiaphas will occur to all - and

(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 1 Kings 22:22, accomplished the purpose of God, which was to make the man of God a sign to the men of that generation. Cf. Isaiah 20:3; Ezekiel 12:6; Ezekiel 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.]

Verse 19. - So he went back with him, and did eat bread in his house, and drank water [cf. ver. 10].

Verse 20. - And it came to pass, as they sat at the table [cf. Psalm 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.

Verse 21. - And he cried [same word as in ver. 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.

Verse 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 (Genesis 23:4), Jacob (Genesis 47:29; Genesis 49:29-31), and Joseph (Genesis 50:25). See also the words of Barzillai (2 Samuel 19:37; and compare 2 Samuel 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.]

Verse 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 הַנָּבִיא א ה is also twice used (vers. 20, 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 לו ("for him") to לַנָּבִיּא ("to" or "for the prophet"). But the לוis here indicative of possession (the dative of the possessor), as in 1 Samuel 14:16, "the watchmen to," i.e., of, "Saul," and 1 Samuel 16:18, "a son to Jesse" (cf. Genesis 14:18 Heb.; 1 Kings 5:29 [1 Kings 5:15] Heb.; Ruth 2:3 Heb.) We must therefore render "He (the old prophet, but this is not absolutely certain; the "man of God" may be understood) 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.

Verse 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 (2 Kings 2:24), and especially in the thickets of the Jordan valley (Jeremiah 49:19; Zechariah 11:3).] met [Heb. found. The primary meaning of מָצָא is, no doubt, "found accidentally," "came upon" (εῦρεν, invenit), but it is often used of finding after a search (1 Samuel 9:4, etc.), and it should be remembered that this is the word used in vers. 14, 28] him by [in, as below] the way, and slew him: and his carcase was cast in the way [road, highway, ver. 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 (Homil. Quart., vol. 4. pp. 214-221), 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 (ver. 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 evil - is 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 (1 Corinthians 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 retribution - which, by the way, he did not do, for assuredly he must have had a life-long remorse - it 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 this - that 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 end - as it must have seemed to them - would 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 (vers. 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 (ver. 26), and a confirmation of the prophecy against the altar of Bethel (ver. 32).]

Verse 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.)]

Verse 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 ver. 21] unto the word [Heb. "mouth," as in ver. 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.

Verse 27. - And he spake to his sons, saying, Saddle me the ass. And they saddled him.

Verse 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 ver. 26] the ass.

Verse 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: Isaiah 14:19; Jeremiah 22:19; and especially 2 Kings 9:10.]

Verse 30. - And he laid his carcase in his own grave [Matthew 27:60. This was a mark of profound respect (Ruth 1:17; Genesis 23:6)]; and they mourned over him, saying, Alas, my brother. [A customary formula in lamentation (Jeremiah 22:18). It hardly implies that "he was mourned and buried as a relative of the family" (Bahr). 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).]

Verse 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 (see Conder, pp. 85, 96, 118, etc.) 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 2 Kings 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 2 Kings 13:21. The LXX. adds here, "That my bones may be saved with his bones;" an obvious gloss, founded on 2 Kings 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.]

Verse 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 1 Kings 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 (1 Kings 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.

Verse 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., 8:09, § 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 1 Kings 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 (Exodus 29:22-26; Leviticus 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" (Exodus 29:1, etc.), he demanded one Bullock and seven rams as the offering on consecration (2 Chronicles 13:9], and he became one of the priests [Heb. and he became priests, etc. So the Chaldee. LXX. καὶ ἐγένετο ἱερεύς] of the high places.

Verse 34. - And this thing [Heb. "in this thing:" בַּדָּבָר. Cf. 1 Chronicles 7:23; 1 Chronicles 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 [1 Kings 15:29. The forfeiture of the crown would bring in its train, almost as a matter of course, the destruction of his family (1 Kings 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.]