Il commento del pulpito
1 Re 13:11-34
ESPOSIZIONE
IL DISUBBIDIENZA E MORTE DI L'UOMO DI DIO .-La seduzione di un uomo di Dio, che ha sopportato tale testimonianza senza paura contro la politica ecclesiastica di Geroboamo, e la sua fine tragica, ora sono narrati, in parte a causa della profonda impressione la storia fatta al tempo, ma principalmente perché questi eventi furono di per sé una testimonianza eloquente contro il culto dei vitelli e tutta la politica ecclesiastica di Geroboamo, e un solenne monito per sempre contro ogni minima deviazione dai comandamenti di Dio.
La stessa infedeltà di questo accreditato messaggero dell'Altissimo, e la punizione istantanea che provocò, divennero parte della protesta divina contro il nuovo regime, contro l'infedeltà d'Israele; mentre il modo straordinario in cui questi avvenimenti furono ricordati alla memoria della nazione durante il regno di Giosia ( 2 Re 23:17 , 2 Re 23:18 ) rese impossibile allo storico della teocrazia di passarli sopra senza preavviso.
Ora abitava un vecchio profeta [Ebr. un certo (lett. uno) vecchio profeta . Per questo uso di אֶחָד (= τις) di. 1 Re 20:13 ; 1 Re 19:4 ] a Betel [In un primo momento è alquanto sorprendente trovare uno dell'ordine profetico residente qui, proprio nella sede e nella roccaforte dell'apostasia, specialmente dopo ciò che leggiamo in 2 Cronache 11:13 , che i sacerdoti e i Leviti, e sembrava che tutti i devoti adoratori del Signore, Dio d'Israele, avessero lasciato il paese e fossero andati a Roboamo. Non possiamo infatti supporre che il senso del dovere avesse tenuto questo profeta al suo posto (vedi nota a 2 Cronache 11:1). Il fatto che sia rimasto, non solo nel regno, ma nella sua capitale ecclesiastica; che egli stette a guardare senza protestare quando si faceva lo scisma, e che, pur non presentandosi al sacrificio, lasciò che i suoi figli vi fossero, è un indice sufficiente del suo carattere.
È del tutto possibile che forti simpatie politiche avessero deformato il suo giudizio e che si fosse persuaso che la politica di Geroboamo fosse resa necessaria dalla divisione del regno, che sapeva essere dal Signore, e che uno del suo stesso ordine aveva predetto. Oppure può essere che, nonostante il suo giudizio migliore, fosse andato con la sua tribù e la maggioranza della nazione, e ora sentisse difficile ritirarsi da una falsa posizione.
O, infine, potrebbe essersi schierato dalla parte di Geroboamo a causa dei maggiori onori e ricompense che il principe doveva concedere (vedi 2 Cronache 11:18 ). C'è una sorprendente somiglianza tra la sua posizione e azione e quella di Balaam]; e i suoi figli [l'ebr. ha figlio ; La LXX ; sir; e Vulg; figli . È del tutto vero che "un piccolissimo cambiamento nel testo ebraico lo porterebbe in accordo con la Settanta qui" (Rawlinson, allo stesso modo Ewald), ma sarebbe contro i sani principi della critica testuale farlo.
È molto più probabile che la LXX . e altre versioni sono già state alterate, e che il plurale è stato introdotto qui perché si trova uniformemente nella narrazione successiva. " Suo figlio " (בִּנו), come la lectio ardua, è quindi da ritenere . L'uso del singolare indica che uno di loro era in un primo momento l'oratore principale.
Forse uno si affrettò a casa con la notizia prima degli altri. I figli del profeta non devono essere confusi con "i figli ( cioè i discepoli) dei profeti " ( 2 Re 2:3 , 2 Re 2:4 , passim ); non solo perché "questi ultimi avrebbero appena assistito al culto del vitello d'oro" (Bähr), ma anche perché sarebbero stati designati diversamente] vennero e gli raccontarono tutte le opere [Ebr.
lavoro ] che l'uomo di Dio aveva fatto quel giorno a Betel: le parole che aveva detto al re, esse [osservano il plurale] le riferirono anche al loro padre. [È del tutto evidente che la virtuale scomunica pronunciata dall'uomo di Dio aveva fatto una grande impressione quanto i segni che aveva mostrato. L'interdetto era una questione che toccava ai beteliti, come un affronto all'intera comunità.]
E il loro padre disse loro: Che strada è andato? [La domanda mostra che il vecchio profeta comprese perfettamente l'importanza di quelle "parole" e che il suo primo pensiero fu che l'interdetto doveva essere rimosso ad ogni costo.] Perché i suoi figli avevano visto [Ebr. e i suoi figli videro, o mostrarono . LXX . ουσιν. Allo stesso modo la maggior parte delle versioni. Un leggerissimo cambiamento nei punti vocalici ויּרַאְוּ per darebbe questo senso] in che direzione andò l'uomo di Dio che venne da Giuda.
E disse ai suoi figli: Sellami l'asino. [Questo comando rapido e apparentemente brusco, anche se non possiamo essere sicuri che tutta la conversazione sia qui riportata, mostra la sua determinazione istantanea a seguirlo. Queste sono le parole di uno che aveva deciso , coute que coute, di ricondurre l'uomo di Dio.] Così gli sellarono l'asino: ed egli vi cavalcò.
E andò dietro all'uomo di Dio e lo trovò seduto sotto una quercia [Ebr. la quercia; cioè; la famosa quercia. Forse ce n'era solo uno, o uno di grandi dimensioni, nelle vicinanze: tali alberi sono relativamente rari in Palestina. Forse anche questo albero è diventato ben noto da questi eventi. È singolare che in un altro luogo ( Genesi 35:8 35,8) si legge della "quercia" (אַלּוֹן) di Betel, mentre in Giudici 4:5 legge della "palma" (תֹּמֶר) di Debora, tra Rama e Betel .
" E non è affatto improbabile, visto che in 1 Samuele 10:3 leggiamo del terebinto (אֵלוֹן) del Tabor- in AV reso" plain di Tabor "-che Ewald (" Hist Israele". 1 Samuele 3:21 ; 1Sa 4:1-22:31) considera solo una variazione dialettica di Debora, e ricordando la grande età a cui questi alberi raggiungono, che lo stesso albero è citato dappertutto.
La parola qui usata, è vero, è אֵלָה (che generalmente si suppone indichi il terebinto, ma è anche "usata di qualsiasi grande albero" (Gesenius), e che, quindi, può essere usata della אַלּוֹן di Betel. Entrambi i nomi derivano dalla stessa radice (אוּל fortis . Cfr . Amos 2:9 ), ed entrambi indicano varietà - quali varietà non è ben chiaro - della quercia.
Alcuni commentatori hanno visto in questo breve riposo l'inizio del suo peccato, e certamente sembrerebbe contro lo spirito delle sue istruzioni rimanere così vicino a un luogo (vedi nota a 1 Samuele 10:16 ) dal quale doveva svanire rapidamente, e, se possibile, inosservato. In ogni caso l'azione tradisce la sua fatica e stanchezza], e gli disse: Sei tu l'uomo di Dio che è venuto da Giuda? E lui ha detto, lo sono.
Allora gli disse: Vieni a casa con me [Ebr. Vieni con me a casa ] e mangia il pane. Il pungiglione era nella coda di questo invito. Se prendesse del cibo, rimuoverebbe così il divieto e quindi neutralizzerebbe una parte della sua missione.]
E lui disse: non posso [Ebr. non potrò ] tornare con te, né entrare con te: né mangerò pane né berrò acqua con te in questo luogo. [La traduzione " in quel luogo " adottata da Wordsworth (dalla Vulgata, in loco isto ) non concorda con l'ebraico. E non è richiesto dal contesto. L'albero probabilmente non era molto lontano dalla città.]
Poiché mi è stato detto [Ebr. una parola per me ] di [Ebr. nel ] la parola del Signore, tu devi mangiare pane né bere acqua più là e nemmeno girare di nuovo per andare dal modo in cui sei venuto.
Gli disse; anch'io sono un profeta come te; e un angelo Alcuni, compreso Giuseppe Flavio e la maggior parte dei commentatori ebrei, hanno supposto che fosse del tutto un profeta falso e bugiardo, come si è trovato abbondantemente più avanti nella storia ( 1 Re 22:6 ; Geremia 28:1 ); ma contro questo è il fatto che egli era senza dubbio il canale di una comunicazione divina (versetto 21). La vera difficoltà, senza dubbio, sta nel fatto che colui per mezzo del quale lo Spirito di Dio parlò all'uomo avrebbe dovuto agire da parte così vile come fece lui. Ma va ricordato
(1) che non sapeva quale terribile giudizio la sua menzogna avrebbe portato sull'"uomo di Dio";
(2) che la verità non aveva il posto nello schema ebraico che ha nella morale cristiana;
(3) che il dono della profezia è compatibile con molta imperfezione morale da parte del profeta - i casi di Balaam e Caifa si presenteranno a tutti - e
(4) che quest'uomo fu costretto a profetizzare quasi suo malgrado; fu costretto, cioè; proclamare la propria falsità, e annunciare la punizione dell'uomo che si era ingannato. C'è anche da considerare che questo profeta bugiardo, come quelli di 1 Re 22:22 , ha compiuto lo scopo di Dio, che era quello di fare dell'uomo di Dio un segno per gli uomini di quella generazione.
cfr. Isaia 20:3 ; Ezechiele 12:6 ; Ezechiele 24:24 . In quest'ultima considerazione, infatti, sta la chiave della storia. L' oggetto che il vecchio profeta aveva in vista non è così difficile da indovinare. Sente che il profeta di Giuda ha rifiutato l'ospitalità del re Geroboamo e ha messo al bando la città di Betel e il nuovo culto rifiutandosi di mangiare pane nel luogo o di mantenere qualsiasi comunicazione con gli abitanti, lui stesso tra il resto, sebbene non abbia preso parte, nemmeno con la sua presenza, al cerimoniale della giornata.
Si sente naturalmente condannato e addolorato da questa condotta. Un profeta sentirebbe l'interdetto molto più acutamente del popolo, e non c'è dubbio che quest'uomo, che aveva cercato di servire due padroni, fosse profondamente mortificato dalla scomunica pronunciata contro di lui. Decide, quindi, di riabilitare se stesso nella stima sua e del prossimo, riportando l'uomo di Dio a mangiare ea bere, e così di fatto togliere l'interdetto, ad ogni costo.
Se ci riesce, vince a far suo debitore tutta la città, e specialmente il sovrano, la cui politica è stata condannata con tanta forza; mentre realizzando ciò che il re non era riuscito a fare, guarirà subito il suo orgoglio ferito e si assicurerà una posizione di influenza nel nuovo regno. Se era la speranza del progresso temporale che lo aveva trattenuto alla Betel, ora vede, come crede, una via facile per raggiungerla; se era un'ardente simpatia per il nuovo stato di cose, vede davanti a sé un'opportunità per esprimerlo nel modo più pratico e utile.]
Così tornò con lui, e mangiò pane in casa sua e bevve acqua [cfr. 1 Re 13:10 ].
E avvenne che, mentre sedevano a mensa [cfr. Salmi 78:30 . Egli è colto in atto, "anche nei fiori del suo peccato"], che la parola del Signore è venuta al profeta che lo ha riportato indietro.
E gridò [stessa parola di 1 Re 13:2 . Colui che denunciò il "peccato di Geroboamo" viene ora denunciato a sua volta] all'uomo di Dio che venne da Giuda, dicendo: Così dice il Signore: Poiché hai disubbidito alla bocca del Signore e non hai osservato il comandamento che te l'ha comandato il Signore Dio tuo.
Ma è tornato, e hai mangiato pane e bevuto acqua nel luogo di cui il Signore ti aveva detto: non appiattire pane e non bere acqua; la tua carcassa [piuttosto cadavere ; "carcassa" è ora un termine di disprezzo, di cui, tuttavia, non c'è idea in ebraico] non verrà al sepolcro dei tuoi padri. [Il desiderio, comune in misura maggiore o minore a tutta l'umanità, di riposare dopo la morte tra la polvere affine , era particolarmente forte nell'ebreo.
Si è evidenziato dal eufemismo comune "fu riunito ai suoi padri, " e dalle disposizioni di Abramo ( Genesi 23:4 ), Giacobbe ( Genesi 47:29 ; Genesi 49:29-1 ), e Giuseppe ( Genesi 1:25 ). Vedi anche le parole di Barzillai ( 2 Samuele 19:37 ; e confronta 2 Samuele 2:32 ). Questa denuncia non implicava necessariamente una morte violenta (come Keil, al .) o anche una morte rapida, ma preparava l'uomo di Dio a una fine prematura.]
E avvenne che, dopo aver mangiato il pane, e dopo aver bevuto, sellò [ cioè; il profeta di Betel; l'"uomo di Dio" sembrerebbe venuto a piedi. Vedi sotto] per lui l'asino, vale a dire, per il profeta che aveva riportato. Questa traduzione è inammissibile. Infatti non solo il termine "profeta" in tutta questa narrazione è limitato al profeta di Betel (il profeta di Giuda è sempre stato definito "l'uomo di Dio"), ma l'espressione qui usata הַנָּבִיא א ה è anche usata due volte ( 1 Re 13:20 , 1 Re 13:26 ) dello stesso profeta.
Egli è caratterizzato lì, vale a dire, come "il profeta che lo riportò indietro"; è poco probabile, quindi, che le stesse parole debbano essere qui interpretate, "il profeta che ha ricondotto". L'errore è nato dalla vicinanza di ("per lui") a ("a" o "per il profeta"). Ma il לוֹè qui indicativo di possesso (il dativo del possessore), come in 1 Samuele 14:16 , "le sentinelle di", i.
e; di, "Saul" e 1 Samuele 16:18 , "un figlio a Jesse" (cfr Genesi 14:18 Eb .; 1 Re 5:1 Eb .; Rut 2:3 . Eb) Dobbiamo quindi rendere "Sellò per lui (l'uomo di Dio) l'asino del profeta che lo riportò indietro". L'uomo di Dio era stato ritardato dal suo ritorno a Betel, e il profeta, per pietà, gli presta o gli dà l'asino. Non solo, è probabile, per accelerarlo nel suo cammino, ma perché potesse avere con sé qualcosa di vivo in un viaggio che aveva così tanto motivo di temere.
E quando se ne fu andato [Ebr. e se ne andò ] , un leone (i leoni erano evidentemente numerosi in Palestina in passato, sebbene ora siano estinti. Ciò è dimostrato dai nomi di luoghi, come Lais, Lebaoth, ecc.; e dal costante riferimento ad essi nella Scrittura Avevano le loro tane nelle foreste, una delle quali esisteva vicino a Betel ( 2 Re 2:24 ), e specialmente nei boschetti della valle del Giordano ( Geremia 49:19 ; Zaccaria 11:3 ). 2 Re 2:24, Geremia 49:19, Zaccaria 11:3
] incontrato [Ebr. trovato . Il significato primario di מָצָא è, senza dubbio, "trovato accidentalmente", "trovato" (εὗρεν , invenit ), ma è spesso usato per trovare dopo una ricerca ( 1 Samuele 9:4 , ecc.), e va ricordato che questa è la parola usata nei versetti 14, 28] da lui [ in, come sotto] la via, e lo uccise: e il suo cadavere fu gettato sulla via [strada, strada maestra, versetto 25], e l'asino si fermò [Eb .
in piedi ] presso di essa, anche il leone stava [in piedi ] presso la carcassa . [Questi particolari sono menzionati per mostrare che la sua morte non è stata un incidente o un caso, ma una visitazione di Dio. Probabilmente sono poche le persone che non hanno sentito che questa punizione sommaria fosse caratterizzata da estrema severità; tanto più che il profeta fu crudelmente ingannato, e che da un fratello profeta, il quale sosteneva di aver ricevuto una successiva rivelazione, e al quale, di conseguenza, sembrava doveroso obbedire.
E quando si osserva che il vero colpevole, il profeta di Betel, per quanto sembra, è sfuggito a ogni punizione e con la sua menzogna si è assicurato il rispetto per le sue spoglie, sembra che abbiamo un caso di disagio e ingiustizia. Poiché ho discusso a lungo la questione altrove, è sufficiente dire qui che la difficoltà è immediatamente rimossa se ricordiamo che sebbene la dispensazione ebraica fosse una delle ricompense temporali, tuttavia c'è comunque un giudizio in seguito.
Senza dubbio l'uomo di Dio fu punito per la sua disobbedienza, per disobbedienza imperdonabile. È ben vero che gli fu solennemente assicurato che un angelo era apparso per revocare il suo incarico, ma per questo aveva solo la parola di uno sconosciuto, anche di uno, con il quale gli era stato comandato di "non mangiare nemmeno". Aveva "la parola del Signore"; vale a dire, la voce di Dio, portata sulla sua anima, impedendo il suo ritorno, e la parola di uno straniero irreligioso, che non ha dato "segno lo stesso giorno" a prova della sua missione, autorizzandola.
Non c'è dubbio che avrebbe dovuto seguire, tanto più che il comando che aveva ricevuto era stato così straordinariamente esplicito e decisivo (v. 9); così decisivo che difficilmente possiamo supporre che ne avrebbe deviato, se i dolori della fame e della sete non avessero invocato con forza la pretesa rivelazione del profeta betelita. In effetti, non è troppo dire che ha accolto con entusiasmo questa causa per tornare.
È impossibile, quindi, assolverlo dalla disobbedienza. Né è difficile vedere che le conseguenze di questa disobbedienza furono serie. Non era come se avesse disatteso un mero obbligo positivo , il cui unico scopo era di mettere alla prova la sua obbedienza (Rawlinson); aveva agito in modo calcolato per distruggere l'effetto morale della sua missione. Era stato impiegato non solo per testimoniare pubblicamente contro il culto del vitello, ma anche per imporre l'interdetto alla città e al nuovo santuario di Geroboamo, e al suo ritorno quell'interdetto perse gran parte della sua forza.
Il suo mangiare e bere, piccole cose in sé, erano piene di significato. Infatti, in un modo fece esattamente ciò che Geroboamo e il suo popolo stavano facendo, in un altro abbandonò i semplici comandi di Dio per le ordinanze degli uomini; ascoltò il tentatore e mangiò il frutto proibito; e così avvenne che la selce, invece di testimoniare contro la disubbidienza, diede loro stesso l'esempio della disubbidienza.
È di nuovo la storia della Caduta; e quindi la morte, il castigo della Caduta, lo colpì. Ma prima di dire che la sua punizione era troppo severa, ricordiamo che cosa, per misericordia di Dio, è diventata quella punizione primaria. È stato trasformato in una benedizione. Ci ha dato l'incarnazione, la redenzione, la vita eterna. Dimentichiamo che la morte non è necessariamente un male, è in realtà una benedizione.
Uno dei pagani ha detto che se solo sapessimo com'era la vita futura, non dovremmo accontentarci di vivere. Per questo "uomo di Dio" doveva sicuramente essere un guadagno morire. Se la carne è stata distrutta, è stato per salvare lo spirito ( 1 Corinzi 5:5 ). Solo perché dimentichiamo che la morte è la porta della vita ci lamentiamo della severità del suo destino. E quanto al profeta bugiardo che ha compiuto tutto questo male sfuggendo al castigo - cosa che, tra l'altro, non ha fatto, perché sicuramente deve aver avuto un rimorso per tutta la vita - si trascura che il giorno della punizione non è ancora arrivato.
C'è per lui un giudizio in arrivo . Potrebbe aver detto che l'ebreo non lo sapeva, che la vita futura non era stata allora rivelata. Questo è assolutamente vero, e proprio per questo motivo questa visita farebbe un'impressione più profonda nelle loro menti. A ciò si deve aggiungere che l'uomo di Dio non è morto solo o principalmente a causa del suo peccato, ma «affinché in lui si manifestassero le opere di Dio.
La sua morte era necessaria affinché la sua missione non fosse del tutto invalidata. La sua miserabile fine, come doveva sembrare loro, avrebbe sicuramente parlato agli abitanti di Betel e a tutto Israele e Giuda, per lunghi anni a venire, come alla sicura vendetta che attendeva il disubbidiente, fosse re, profeta, sacerdote o popolo.Anche morto "gridò contro l'altare di Betel". profeta" si è pentito del suo peccato.
È interessante notare che unisce la sua testimonianza a quella dell'uomo di Dio. Così, questa tragedia estorse anche a lui un monito contro la disobbedienza (versetto 26), e una conferma della profezia contro l'altare di Betel (versetto 32).]
Ed ecco, passarono degli uomini e videro il cadavere gettato sulla strada, e il leone che stava presso il cadavere: e vennero e lo raccontarono nella città dove abitava il vecchio profeta. [Questo era esattamente ciò che Dio aveva progettato. In questo modo, la stessa disobbedienza e morte dell'uomo di Dio divenne parte della protesta contro i nuovi riti. «Se infatti il mangiare contro il comandamento di Dio, benché non fosse frutto di indulgenza, ma di inganno, procurasse un così grande castigo al giusto, quali castighi sarebbero capitati a coloro che avevano abbandonato Dio, loro creatore, e adoravano immagini senza senso" (Theodoret.)]
E quando il profeta che lo ricondusse dalla via lo seppe, disse: È l'uomo di Dio che è stato disubbidiente [Ebr. ribellato ; stessa parola del versetto 21] fino alla parola [Ebr. " Bocca ", come nel versetto 21] del Signore: quindi il Signore ha di lui trasmessa ai leone, che ha lacerato [Eb.
come marg; rotto . La parola "è molto espressiva, perché il leone uccide con un colpo" (Tenio)] e lo uccise, secondo la parola del Signore, che gli rivolse.
E parlò ai suoi figli, dicendo: Sellami l'asino. E lo hanno sellato.
E andò e trovò la sua carcassa gettata sulla strada, e l'asino e il leone che stavano presso la carcassa: il leone non aveva mangiato la carcassa né strappato [Ebr. rotto , come nel versetto 26] l'ass.
E il profeta prese il cadavere dell'uomo di Dio e lo pose sull'asino [ cioè; quello che stava vicino], e lo riportò indietro: e il vecchio profeta venne in città, per far cordoglio e per seppellirlo. [Il lutto è particolarmente menzionato, perché in Oriente i lamenti professionisti erano e sono impiegati ai funerali. L'ebreo, non meno del greco e del romano, considerava una grande disgrazia e disgrazia essere privati di una degna sepoltura: Isaia 14:19 ; Geremia 22:19 ; e specialmente 2 Re 9:10 .]
E depose il suo cadavere nella sua stessa tomba [ Matteo 27:60 . Questo era un segno di profondo rispetto ( Rut 1:17 ; Genesi 23:6, Rut 1:17 )]; e fecero cordoglio per lui, dicendo: Ahimè, fratello mio. [Una formula consueta nel lamento ( Geremia 22:18 ). Difficilmente implica che "fu pianto e sepolto come un parente della famiglia" (Bähr). Vedendo che il vecchio profeta era responsabile della sua morte, difficilmente avrebbe potuto fare di meno. "È una crudele cortesia uccidere un uomo e poi aiutarlo nella tomba" (Hall).]
E avvenne che, dopo averlo seppellito, parlò ai suoi figli, dicendo: Quando sarò morto, seppellitemi nel sepolcro [La Palestina, essendo di formazione calcarea, ha un gran numero di grotte. Questi, ampliati e adattati, furono ovunque usati per le sepolture. ("Tutte le scogliere sul lato meridionale [Hinnom] sono piene di tombe", Porter). In tre lati della grotta le volte ( loculi ), ciascuna abbastanza grande da contenere un corpo, erano incassate nella roccia, l'ingresso essendo chiuso da una lastra di pietra Nelle cosiddette "tombe dei re" e "profeti" abbiamo tali sepolcri su larga scala.
Un documento sulle tombe della Palestina si trova nella Dichiarazione trimestrale del Fondo per l' esplorazione della Palestina , p. 66 mq. Risulta da 2 Re 23:17 che fu eretta una colonna per contrassegnare il luogo di riposo di questo profeta] in cui è sepolto l'uomo di Dio; posa le mie ossa accanto alle sue. [Cioè, "Seppelliscimi nella cella accanto alla sua" (Rawlinson).
Ma non è assolutamente certo che questa disposizione (di loculi ) si sia ottenuta in questo primo periodo. I corpi potrebbero essere stati in contatto molto più stretto. Vedi 2 Re 13:21 . La LXX . aggiunge qui: "Affinché le mie ossa possano essere salvate con le sue ossa;" un'ovvia glossa, fondata su 2 Re 23:18 . Questa richiesta getta un po' di luce sull'anelito desiderio dell'ebreo moderno di riposare il più vicino possibile ai corpi dei santi. Vedi Porter, 1. p. 145.]
Per la parola che egli gridò per la parola del Signore contro l'altare a Betel; e contro tutte le case degli alti luoghi [A quel tempo sembrerebbe che non vi fossero che due "alti luoghi". Keil vede "un elemento profetico in queste parole". Pensa che il vecchio profeta avesse previsto che tali santuari si sarebbero moltiplicati. Rawlinson deduce "dalla menzione del grande luogo elevato in 1 Re 3:4 , che c'erano molti luoghi minori nel paese", il che, senza dubbio, avvenne alla data dell'ascesa al trono di Salomone.
È probabile, tuttavia, che molti di questi, se non tutti, sarebbero stati abbandonati quando il tempio fu costruito. Ed è molto ragionevole supporre che in queste, come nelle parole seguenti, lo storico abbia rappresentato la predizione o affermazione del vecchio profeta nella lingua del suo tempo] che sono nelle città di Samaria. [Ovviamente, queste parole esatte non possono essere state usate dal profeta di Betel, poiché Samaria data la sua esistenza e il nome dal regno di Omri ( 1 Re 16:24 ).
Il compilatore dei Re probabilmente ha trovato il termine nei documenti che ha usato, o forse, come già suggerito, ha tradotto il significato del profeta nella lingua di un giorno successivo] .
Dopo questa cosa [calcolata per fare una profonda impressione e fornire un solenne avvertimento] Geroboamo non si allontanò dalla sua via malvagia. "Si trovò una mano che osava riparare l'altare che Dio aveva lacerato" (Matthew Henry). Secondo Giuseppe Flavio, il vecchio profeta ora spiegò i miracoli del profeta di Giuda, sostenendo che l'altare era caduto perché era nuovo e la mano del re era diventata impotente per la fatica (Ant; 1 Re 8:9 , § 1)], ma rifatto [Ebr.
" restituito e fatto ". La tautologia è significativa. Non è tornato dal suo peccato, ma è tornato ad esso] degli ultimi [vedi 1 Re 12:11 ] del popolo sacerdoti degli alti luoghi: chiunque lo volesse [Ebr. compiaciuto ] , consacrò [Ebr. riempito la sua mano .
Nella consacrazione di Aronne e dei suoi figli, e forse anche dei loro successori, le parti della vittima che di solito venivano bruciate sull'altare, insieme alla spalla o gamba destra, che era la porzione del sacerdote, e tre focacce di Pane Azzimo, furono messi nelle mani dei candidati al sacerdozio e salutati davanti al Signore prima di essere offerti sull'altare ( Esodo 29:22-2 ; Le Esodo 8:25-2 ).
"riempire la mano" di conseguenza divenne sinonimo di consacrazione] lui [Sembrerebbe quasi, dall'estrema prontezza con cui Geroboamo ordinò i suoi sacerdoti, che pochi candidati si offrissero all'ufficio. Sotto un aspetto, tuttavia, esigeva dal candidato più di quanto esigesse la legge. Infatti, mentre quest'ultimo richiedeva "un giovenco e due montoni" ( Esodo 29:1 , ecc.
), chiese un giovenco e sette montoni come offerta per la consacrazione ( 2 Cronache 13:9 ], e divenne uno dei sacerdoti [ebr. e divenne sacerdoti, ecc. Così il Caldeo. LXX . καὶ ἐγένετο ἱερεύς] del luoghi alti.
And this thing [Heb. "in this thing:" בַּדָּבָר. Cf. 1 Cronache 7:23; 1 Cronache 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 Re 15:29. The forfeiture of the crown would bring in its train, almost as a matter of course, the destruction of his family (1 Re 14:10). 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
1 Re 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 lanes—for Bethel was probably little more than a village—to 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?" (Matteo 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" (Luca 23:48).
Let us now suppose, however, for the sake of bringing out the lessons of this narrative, that there were some in the crowd—as on the first feast day there may well have been—strangers in Bethel (cf. Giovanni 12:20; Atti degli Apostoli 2:5), 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 way—whose corpse they knew not—and 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 (1 Re 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'" (1 Re 13:26).
And so the men of Bethel, and the strangers among them—and thousands of strangers would be present in Bethel at that time—would 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 this—how 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 minds—found 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 (Isaia 20:3; Ezechiele 24:24; Mat 12:1-50 :89, Matteo 12:40). 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 (1 Re 8:43, 1Ki 8:52, 1 Re 8:66; 1 Re 14:7; Levitico 26:12; Deuteronomio 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 (Esodo 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 (Levitico 26:1; Deuteronomio 4:16, Deuteronomio 4:25; Deuteronomio 5:8; Deuteronomio 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 prophet—who swore that he had received a revelation concerning him—and 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 (1 Corinzi 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. 1 Re 14:11 with 1 Re 13:28.)
2. In the case of his intrusive priests. If they escaped a violent death, their remains experienced disgrace worse than death (1 Re 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 1 Re 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 Geremia 52:1; Lamentations passim; Salmi 74:1; Salmi 137:1.) The people to death, the land to lions! (2 Re 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 (Giobbe 32:7; 1 Re 12:7), and piety. But see Homiletics, p. 225. The old king (1 Re 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" (Apocalisse 2:8). But God had not fixed the bounds of his habitation. What wonder if, like him who "pitched his tent toward Sodom" (Genesi 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 (Giacomo 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 1 Re 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. Giovanni 8:44). "What shall be given unto thee, or what shall be done unto thee, thou false tongue?" (Salmi 120:3.) Let us take care lest we destroy with our meat one for whom Christ died (Romani 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 (Matteo 7:15; Matteo 24:11.; Atti degli Apostoli 20:29; 1Jn 4:1; 1 Timoteo 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 (Galati 1:8). We have been reminded that "Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light" (2 Corinzi 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" (Giovanni 8:44). It was thus he deceived our first parents. That weapon has answered so well that he plies it again and again (cf. 2 Corinzi 4:4; 2 Tessalonicesi 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" (Matteo 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" (Giovanni 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 (1 Pietro 4:17). The teacher shall receive the greater condemnation (Giacomo 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" (2 Re 23:18), His honourable funeral (cf. Isaia 53:9; Matteo 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" (Salmi 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. Salmi 69:1; Salmi 73:1; 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
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 (Isaia 27:1; Salmi 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 there—on 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? (Geremia 23:18; Amos 2:11.)
(3) The spirit of lies (1 Re 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 Matteo 4:2). No example, save that of Jesus, may be followed implicitly.—J.A.M.
The Voice of Reproof.
No man of God will deliberately sin against God (Giovanni 8:44; 1 Giovanni 3:9; 1 Giovanni 5:18). But the good are liable to be surprised or deceived into transgression (Giacomo 1:13; 1 Giovanni 2:1, 1 Giovanni 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" (1 Re 13:1, 1 Re 13:2, 1 Re 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 (1 Re 13:9); to the old prophet (1 Re 13:17).
2. But could not God revoke or modify His word?
(1) Certainly. He did so to Abraham (see Genesi 22:11, Genesi 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 (1 Re 13:18, 1 Re 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 conclusive—external, 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 אשר השיבו here rendered, "who brought him back," are in 1 Re 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 (Genesi 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" (1 Giovanni 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 1 Re 13:26; 1 Re 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.
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) 1 Re 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, 1 Re 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; 2 Corinzi 13:5, 2 Corinzi 13:6).
(3) Judgment begins at the house of God, but falls more terribly upon the wicked (1 Pietro 4:17, 1 Pietro 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 (Marco 1:13; Matteo 17:27; Luca 5:4).
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 Genesi 49:9,Genesi 49:10; Apocalisse 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 Osea 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 (Genesi 49:14, Genesi 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.
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 (הוי אחי) was the refrain of a lamentation (see Geremia 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 Geremia 30:7; Ezechiele 6:11; Gioele 1:15; Amos 5:16,Amos 5:17; Apocalisse 18:10). 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 Genesi 1:24 Genesi 1:26; Esodo 13:19; Ebrei 11:22; see also 2 Re 13:20, 2 Re 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 (1 Re 13:32). And in further testimony of his faith put an inscription on the tomb (see 2 Re 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 2 Re 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 (1 Re 11:37-11). 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 (1 Re 13:3). 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 (1 Re 13:33).
(4) Now, therefore, the law of extremity must take its course. He and his house are devoted to destruction (1 Re 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
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 (1 Re 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 1 Re 13:11.)
(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. (Proverbi 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 1 Re 13:23-11.) 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 (1 Re 13:21, 1 Re 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. (Romani 2:2). In the consciousness of frequent disobedience let the prayer arise, "God be merciful to me a sinner."—A.R.
HOMILIES BY J. WAITE
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," 1 Re 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 (1 Re 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" (Numeri 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. (1 Samuele 15:22, 1 Samuele 15:23). The spirit of disobedience is the root of all practical iniquity. "By one man's disobedience many were made sinners" (Romani 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" (Giacomo 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 (2 Samuele 12:13, 2 Samuele 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
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 shipwreck—a sincere desire to know what the Lord saith, and a determination to follow that only.
III. HIS DOOM. (1 Re 13:20-11.)
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.
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 (2 Re 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 (1 Re 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.