TEXT [Commentary]

4. A prophet denounces Jeroboam (13:1-34)

1 At the LORD’s command, a man of God from Judah went to Bethel, arriving there just as Jeroboam was approaching the altar to burn incense. 2 Then at the LORD’s command, he shouted, “O altar, altar! This is what the LORD says: A child named Josiah will be born into the dynasty of David. On you he will sacrifice the priests from the pagan shrines who come here to burn incense, and human bones will be burned on you.” 3 That same day the man of God gave a sign to prove his message. He said, “The LORD has promised to give this sign: This altar will split apart, and its ashes will be poured out on the ground.”

4 When King Jeroboam heard the man of God speaking against the altar at Bethel, he pointed at him and shouted, “Seize that man!” But instantly the king’s hand became paralyzed in that position, and he couldn’t pull it back. 5 At the same time a wide crack appeared in the altar, and the ashes poured out, just as the man of God had predicted in his message from the LORD.

6 The king cried out to the man of God, “Please ask the LORD your God to restore my hand again!” So the man of God prayed to the LORD, and the king’s hand was restored and he could move it again.

7 Then the king said to the man of God, “Come to the palace with me and have something to eat, and I will give you a gift.”

8 But the man of God said to the king, “Even if you gave me half of everything you own, I would not go with you. I would not eat or drink anything in this place. 9 For the LORD gave me this command: ‘You must not eat or drink anything while you are there, and do not return to Judah by the same way you came.’” 10 So he left Bethel and went home another way.

11 As it happened, there was an old prophet living in Bethel, and his sons[*] came home and told him what the man of God had done in Bethel that day. They also told their father what the man had said to the king. 12 The old prophet asked them, “Which way did he go?” So they showed their father[*] which road the man of God had taken. 13 “Quick, saddle the donkey,” the old man said. So they saddled the donkey for him, and he mounted it.

14 Then he rode after the man of God and found him sitting under a great tree. The old prophet asked him, “Are you the man of God who came from Judah?”

“Yes, I am,” he replied.

15 Then he said to the man of God, “Come home with me and eat some food.”

16 “No, I cannot,” he replied. “I am not allowed to eat or drink anything here in this place. 17 For the LORD gave me this command: ‘You must not eat or drink anything while you are there, and do not return to Judah by the same way you came.’”

18 But the old prophet answered, “I am a prophet, too, just as you are. And an angel gave me this command from the LORD: ‘Bring him home with you so he can have something to eat and drink.’” But the old man was lying to him. 19 So they went back together, and the man of God ate and drank at the prophet’s home.

20 Then while they were sitting at the table, a command from the LORD came to the old prophet. 21 He cried out to the man of God from Judah, “This is what the LORD says: You have defied the word of the LORD and have disobeyed the command the LORD your God gave you. 22 You came back to this place and ate and drank where he told you not to eat or drink. Because of this, your body will not be buried in the grave of your ancestors.”

23 After the man of God had finished eating and drinking, the old prophet saddled his own donkey for him, 24 and the man of God started off again. But as he was traveling along, a lion came out and killed him. His body lay there on the road, with the donkey and the lion standing beside it. 25 People who passed by saw the body lying in the road and the lion standing beside it, and they went and reported it in Bethel, where the old prophet lived.

26 When the prophet heard the report, he said, “It is the man of God who disobeyed the LORD’s command. The LORD has fulfilled his word by causing the lion to attack and kill him.”

27 Then the prophet said to his sons, “Saddle a donkey for me.” So they saddled a donkey, 28 and he went out and found the body lying in the road. The donkey and lion were still standing there beside it, for the lion had not eaten the body nor attacked the donkey. 29 So the prophet laid the body of the man of God on the donkey and took it back to the town to mourn over him and bury him. 30 He laid the body in his own grave, crying out in grief, “Oh, my brother!”

31 Afterward the prophet said to his sons, “When I die, bury me in the grave where the man of God is buried. Lay my bones beside his bones. 32 For the message the LORD told him to proclaim against the altar in Bethel and against the pagan shrines in the towns of Samaria will certainly come true.”

33 But even after this, Jeroboam did not turn from his evil ways. He continued to choose priests from the common people. He appointed anyone who wanted to become a priest for the pagan shrines. 34 This became a great sin and resulted in the utter destruction of Jeroboam’s dynasty from the face of the earth.

NOTES

13:1 man of God. Generally, this expression serves as a synonym for the more typical term “prophet” (nabi’ [TH5030, ZH5566]; see note on 13:11). In Deut 33:1 Moses was called a “man of God” (and in Deut 34:10, he was categorized in essence as the greatest of the prophets). Both the prophets Elijah (17:18; etc.) and Elisha (2 Kgs 4:7; etc.) were also repeatedly called “men of God.” (For a helpful study on the usage of this phrase throughout the Bible, see Wiseman 1993:142-143.) Here, the Judahite prophet is invariably termed “the man of God” and the old Bethelite “the prophet.”

13:2 A child named Josiah. This is a reference to the godly seventh-century Judahite king who is the hero of what many have categorized as a major edition of 1–2 Kings (see “Earlier Editions of Kings?” in the Introduction). The fulfillment of this Josiah prophecy is detailed at some length in 2 Kgs 23:15-18 (for the overall extent of Josiah’s radical reformation, see 2 Kgs 23:1-25). Many scholars would see the reference here to a king who reigned over 300 years later as a so-called prophecy ex eventu (after the event), indeed as the classical reference to Josiah’s heroic status, seemingly foretold many years before the event but in actuality inserted by a scribe or editor during (or soon before, or even after?) his actual reign. Generally, an interpreter’s a priori theological assumptions will tend to be the guide in regard to any acceptance or rejection of the possibility of such long-term prophecies, but the incidental nature of the reference here, along with its corresponding conclusion in 13:32, inspires confidence in its veracity. In any case, the “short-term” prediction confirming the man of God’s credentials and the overall truthfulness of his message becomes the major focus of the text in the next verse.

13:3 a sign to prove his message. One of the famous tests of a true prophet (Deut 18:15-22) refers to the accuracy of a future prediction of the would-be prophet as a ­confidence-inspiring test of his or her orthodoxy. I have come to refer to this phenom­enon as “the test of short-term prediction,” since such a test would work best in the short-term future. This is the case in the present verse: Jeroboam’s altar will split apart and its ashes will be poured out—a prediction that comes to pass that very same day (see 13:5).

13:6 Please ask the LORD your God to restore my hand again! The relative powerlessness of the king vis-à-vis the prophet is rarely represented more effectively than here (concerning the intended relationship between prophet and king, see the commentary on 1:5-27).

13:7 Come to the palace with me. The king was still seeking some sort of “withdrawal of judgment” from the man of God, “to link himself in fellowship with him as a form of insurance” (Wiseman 1993:146, citing Robinson and Noth).

13:9 You must not eat or drink . . . and do not return to Judah by the same way you came. Seemingly arbitrary prohibitions, these are seen by Cogan (2001:369) as drawing attention to God’s total rejection of Bethel and its king; they were crucial in ascertaining the true extent of the obedience and devotion of the Judahite man of God to his God, as we soon shall see.

13:11 an old prophet. The word for “prophet” (nabi’ [TH5030, ZH5566]) probably meant “one called out,” or “one designated” (as a spokesperson for God). It was evidently derived from a foreign term, probably a passive participle from the Akkadian verb nabû, “to call” (see Blenkinsopp 1983:36-37; ABD 5.482). There is evidence that the term was perceived somewhat negatively in Israel in early times (cf. Num 12:6-8; Amos 7:14; also cf. Blenkinsopp 1983:20; ABD 5.487). A more neutral historical reminiscence, however, is in 1 Sam 9:9: “For prophets (nabi’ [TH5030, ZH5566]) used to be called seers (ro’eh [TH7200A, ZH8014]).” This is a reminder that the term “seer” or “visionary” of the early days would implicitly emphasize the phenomenon of supernatural dreams or visions (cf. Deut 13:1-5 [2-6]), whereas in later times, those men and women of God would focus more on the phenomenon of “hearing,” and then “speaking forth” the word of Yahweh (“thus says the LORD”). I suspect the negative nuance of the term “prophet” in the early period is subtly meant to be noticed in the present passage, as well, in contrast with the transparently positive parallel expression “man of God” (but see the Bethelite’s comment in 13:18 about his Judahite counterpart!).

sons. The MT reads the singular “son” for the first part of 13:11b and then reads plurals for the final section; as the NLT mg indicates, the LXX reads plurals throughout. Evidently, the MT envisions one son giving the preliminary information and then all the sons joining the conversation (cf. Cogan 2001:369).

13:12 they showed their father. The LXX (and the other versions) translates a causative verb (Hiphil), “they showed [their father],” where the MT reflects the simple transitive (Qal), “they had seen” (there would probably have been no difference in the consonantal text). The versions are probably to be preferred, as the NLT text reads.

13:18 And an angel. Note Paul’s apparent reference to this story in Gal 1:8, “Let God’s curse fall on anyone, including us or even an angel from heaven, who preaches a different kind of Good News than the one we preached to you” (see the commentary below).

But the old man was lying to him. This is a narrative aside to help the reader—after all, whom are we to trust, the “man of God,” or the “prophet”?

13:24 a lion. Lions roamed throughout Palestine until modern times (see the first note on 7:29, above; also cf. Wenham 1994:476). With the interplay of Bethel versus Judah here, commentators have found here an ironic echo of the familiar “lion of Judah” imagery found elsewhere in the OT (see Gen 49:8-9; and cf. Joel 3:16 [4:16]; Amos 1:2; 3:8; and in the NT, Rev 5:5). That it is particularly a lion that kills the Judahite “man of God” cannot, therefore, be entirely coincidental.

13:30 Oh, my brother! Heb., hoy [TH1945, ZH2098] ’akhi, a typical funeral lament (see Cogan 2001:372). Ironically, only after helping cause the death of the Judahite does the Bethelite indicate his prophetic solidarity. But it is true solidarity since he instructs his sons to be sure that, after he dies, they should lay his bones with the Judahite’s bones (13:31). Cogan goes on to comment: “In this manner it would be impossible to distinguish bone from bone.” (For more on the burial practices of the ancient Israelites, see the commentary below.)

13:33 But even after this. In the commentary on 12:25-33, I noted that Jeroboam’s “sins” fall into three different areas: (1) matters of geography, (2) matters of genealogy, and (3) matters of chronology. Here, “matters of genealogy” alone are cited (see note on 12:31). Later on, however, “matters of geography” will predominate, usually in the vague sense of Jeroboam’s calf-idols in Bethel and Dan still remaining as snares for the people. In contrast, “matters of chronology” will never specifically be mentioned again. Perhaps the immediate message of 13:33-34, however, is the fact that inasmuch as Jeroboam saw fit to promote just anyone into the priesthood, Yahweh could do the very same for the monarchy. “Man proposes but God disposes” (cf. Prov 16:9).

COMMENTARY [Text]

“Prophet against prophet”—this is how DeVries (1978:59-61) entitles his helpful study of the prophetic narratives found in 1–2 Kings, and it certainly also serves as an apt title for the present chapter of 1 Kings. In his later commentary on 1 Kings (1985:171-174), DeVries expands upon his work in a way that has challenged me for years. The excerpts given below for the reader’s benefit offer a brief exposure to this challenge:

Very clearly and emphatically, the Judahite man of God has been instructed [by ­Yahweh in 13:16-17] what not to do. . . . If the Judahite actually does die for his ­disobedience, the Bethel prophet will know that he did indeed have authority to denounce the holy altar at Bethel. And so it is: the lion kills him; the old prophet ­buries him. And the old prophet tenderly places his body in his own tomb, instructing his sons to bury him alongside himself, for truly this was a holy man, a man in whom was the very word of God. Had the prophecy not come true and the man of God come safely home to Judah, the message of the Bethel prophet would have been proven false, but not it alone. Most important, nonfulfillment would have proven the man of God false, a presumptuous liar who pretended to obey the word of God when he had received no true word from God.

In every age there are those who presume to speak for God. . . . How will the people know to whom to listen, which prophet to fear? . . . Scripture offers many different tests, but 1 Kgs 13, once properly interpreted, offers the clearest test of all. That test is radical obedience [emphasis added]. The preacher-prophet must be so committed to the transcendent truth of what he proclaims that his own life is affected by it.

The Judahite man of God had to believe in his own stern word of denunciation against the Bethel altar so intensely that his whole behavior would be determined by it. It was not enough to demonstrate his spiritual power by restoring the shrunken arm of a king; it had to be demonstrated by a tenacity in such “little things” as not eating, not drinking, not returning by the same road.

Did the man of God understand the reasons for these strange prohibitions? Undoubtedly not. They seemed trivial, and in the case of refusing the king’s hospitality he refused them out of a naive obedience that had not yet been put to the sorest test. Somehow, his obedience was not carried out simply because Yahweh had said so. So what if Yahweh should speak through a colleague, some other man of the Spirit, to set these rules aside? Would it not make more sense to follow this new word than to adhere stubbornly to a set of arbitrary and aimless rules? Being of such a mind, the Judahite man of God was bound to fall for the Bethelite’s trick. So he failed, and failing he perished. But let us observe that, though he failed, God’s word did not fail. . . . Thus today we look for radical obedience in the way of life to which God’s servants commit themselves. If they stumble—and stumble they will—their very weakness may confirm the word of God which they preach. (DeVries 1985:173-174)

For years, I stumbled over my apprehensions concerning the ethics of the Bethel­ite prophet—how unfair it was that he would trick the Judahite into losing his very life, and only then show him honor. But the scandal of the present text lies in this very point. The Bethelite’s livelihood lay in that altar, and it would take a tremendous sign from God to change his mind and the mind of his family concerning its sanctity. That test, indeed, would have to encompass something like DeVries’s call to “radical obedience”—a call that we in the ministry must embrace (and, of course, any committed Christian is in a real sense “in the ministry”). We must be willing to give our very life, if necessary, for that call. Not surprisingly, DeVries ends his homily with a reference to Jesus: “He too was doomed to die, but for the sins of others rather than for sins of his own. In his grave he sanctified the death of many others—of all those who call him not just ‘man of God’ but ‘Son of God.’” This paradox is even greater than the one presented by 1 Kings 13:1-34.

To turn from this sublime truth to a more prosaic topic, an awareness of Israelite burial practices is essential for understanding the old prophet’s reference in 13:29-32. Recently, McCane summarized our understanding of Iron Age burial practices as follows:

The prevailing custom in the ancient Near East, going back to the Middle Bronze Age (2000–1500 BCE), was burial in caves by extended family groups. Secondary burial—i.e., reburial of human bones after the flesh of the body has decayed—was common. Later, during the Iron Age, the Israelite “bench” tomb emerged as the most common form of tomb architecture. In these square (or slightly rectangular) underground chambers, typically about 8 ft. [2.5 m] on a side, a waist-high bench ran along three sides of the tomb. The side in which the entrance was situated usually did not have a bench. At the time of death, bodies were laid on the benches, and after decomposition was complete, the bones were gathered into a repository hollowed out beneath one of the benches. Over time, this repository came to hold all the bones of family members long dead, and when an individual’s bones were placed therein, that individual was dissolved into the collective ancestral heap. The familiar biblical expression, “to sleep and to be gathered to one’s fathers” (2 Kgs 22:20, et al.) vividly captures the contours of this Israelite custom. (McCane 2006:509-510)

Among other clarifications, this analysis affords insight into Ruth’s famous declaration of undying devotion to her mother-in-law (Ruth 1:16-17), “Wherever you go, I will go; wherever you live, I will live. Your people will be my people, and your God will be my God. Wherever you die, I will die, and there I will be buried. May the LORD punish me severely if I allow anything [including] death to separate us!” (so the NLT text, with one alteration in the last clause, following Campbell 1975:74-75). Although Naomi urged her to go home, Ruth stubbornly wished to remain united with Naomi’s family and clan forever—in fact, even in death. Her bones were to be buried with Naomi’s bones. (And, of course, because of her faith and her faithfulness to her new extended family, Ruth’s name will forever also be linked to the famous descendant of Naomi’s family, the Messiah, the Son of David [see Matt 1:5].)

Finally, what about that “angel” reference back in 13:18? As I have noted above, I think the apostle Paul makes clear reference to this text in his “angel from heaven” comment in Galatians 1:8 (I have not seen any such parallel noted in any of the Galatians commentaries I have consulted, but I still suspect that it is there, and that Paul’s Jewish audience would have immediately recognized it as such). In any case, “radical obedience” remains the key for Paul in Galatians (how ironic for the Judaizers there!), just as it is for the narrator of 1 Kings 13. “Let God’s curse fall on anyone” who preaches another gospel or alleged message from God. Let us forever remain as faithful as Ruth and Paul in wherever God leads us, and in whatever he calls us to say or do—for the continued glory of God and for the continued growth of his Kingdom.