EXPOSITION
THE DISOBEDIENCE AND DEATH OF THE MAN OF GOD.—The seduction of the man of God, who has borne such fearless witness against Jeroboam's ecclesiastical policy, and his tragical end, are now narrated, partly because of the deep impression the story made at the time, but principally because these events were in themselves an eloquent testimony against the worship of the calves and the whole ecclesiastical policy of Jeroboam, and a solemn warning for all time against any, the slightest, departure from the commandments of God. The very unfaithfulness of this accredited messenger of the Most High, and the instant punishment it provoked, became part of the Divine protest against the new regime, against the unfaithfulness of Israel; whilst the remarkable manner in which these occurrences were recalled to the nation's memory in the reign of Josiah (2 Kings 23:17, 2 Kings 23:18) made it impossible for the historian of the theocracy to pass them over without notice.
1 Kings 13:11
Now there dwelt an old prophet [Heb. a certain (lit. one) old prophet. For this use of אֶחָד (= τις) of. 1 Kings 20:13; 1 Kings 19:4] at Bethel [It is at first somewhat surprising to find one of the prophetic order residing here, at the very seat and stronghold of the apostasy, especially after what we read in 2 Chronicles 11:13-16, that the priests and Levites, and it would seem all devout worshippers of the Lord God of Israel, had left the country, and had gone over to Rehoboam. For we cannot suppose that a sense of duty had kept this prophet at his post (see note on 2 Chronicles 11:1). The fact that he remained, not only in the kingdom, but at its ecclesiastical capital; that he stood by without protest when the schism was being effected, and that, though not present himself at the sacrifice, he permitted his sons to be there, is a sufficient index to his character. It is quite possible that strong political sympathies had warped his judgment, and that he had persuaded himself that the policy of Jeroboam was necessitated by the division of the kingdom, which he knew to be from the Lord, and which one of his own order had foretold. Or it may be that, despite his better judgment, he had gone with his tribe and the majority of the nation, and now felt it difficult to withdraw from a false position. Or, finally, he may have taken the side of Jeroboam because of the greater honours and rewards that prince had to bestow (see on 2 Chronicles 11:18). There is a striking similarity between his position and action and that of Balaam]; and his sons [The Heb. has son; The LXX; Syr; and Vulg; sons. It is quite true that a "very slight change in the Hebrew text would bring it into accordance with the Septuagint here" (Rawlinson, similarly Ewald), but it would be against sound principles of textual criticism to make it. It is much more likely that the LXX. and other versions have been altered already, and that the plural has been introduced here because it is uniformly found in the later narrative. "His son" ( בִּנו), as the lectio ardua, is therefore to he retained. The use of the singular indicates that one of them was at first the principal speaker. Perhaps one hastened home with the news before the rest. The sons of the prophet are not to be confounded with "the sons (i.e; disciples) of the prophets" (2 Kings 2:3, 2 Kings 2:4, passim); not merely because "the latter would scarcely have witnessed the golden calf worship" (Bähr), but also because they would have been differently designated] came and told him all the works [Heb. work] that the man of God had done that day in Bethel: the words which he had spoken unto the king, them they [observe the plural] told also to their father. [It is quite clear that the virtual excommunication which the man of God had pronounced had made as great an impression as the signs which he had showed. The interdict was a matter which came home to the Bethelites, as an affront to the whole community.]
1 Kings 13:12
And their father said unto them, What way went he? [The question shows that the old prophet throughly understood the import of those "words," and that his first thought was that the interdict must be removed at any cost.] For his sons had seen [Heb. and his sons saw, or showed. LXX. δεικνύουσιν. Similarly most of the versions. A very slight change in the vowel points ויּרַאְוּ for ויּרִאוַּ would give this sense] what way the man of God went which came from Judah.
1 Kings 13:13
And he said unto his sons, Saddle me the ass. [This prompt and seemingly abrupt command—though we cannot be sure that all the conversation is here reported—shows his instant resolve to follow. These are the words of one who had made up his mind, coute que coute, to bring the man of God back.] So they saddled him the ass: and he rode thereon.
1 Kings 13:14
And he went after the man of God and found him sitting under an oak [Heb. the oak; i.e; the well-known oak. Possibly there was but one, or one of great size, in the neighbourhood—such trees are comparatively rare in Palestine. Possibly also this tree became well known from these events. It is singular that in another place (Genesis 35:8) we read of "the oak" ( אַלּוֹן) of Bethel, whilst in 4:5 we read of the "palm tree" ( תֹּמֶר) of Deborah, between Ramah and Bethel." And it is not at all improbable, seeing that in 1 Samuel 10:3 we read of the terebinth ( אֵלוֹן) of Tabor—in the A.V. rendered "plain of Tabor"—which Ewald ("Hist. Israel," 1 Samuel 3:21; 1 Samuel 4:1-22:31) considers to be only a dialectic variation of Deborah, and remembering the great age to which these trees attain, that the same tree is referred to throughout. The word here used, it is true, is אֵלָה (which is generally supposed to indicate the terebinth, but is also "used of any large tree" (Gesenius), and which, therefore, may be used of the אַלּוֹן of Bethel. Both names are derived from the same root ( אוּל fortis. Cf. Amos 2:9), and both indicate varieties—what varieties it is not quite clear—of the oak. Some expositors have seen in this brief rest the beginning of his sin, and certainly it would seem against the spirit of his instructions to remain so near a place (see note on 1 Samuel 10:16) from which he was to vanish speedily, and, if possible, unperceived. In any case the action betrays his fatigue and exhaustion], and he said unto him, Art thou the man of God that camest from Judah? And he said, I am.
1 Kings 13:15
Then he said unto him, Come home with me [Heb. Come with me to the house] and eat bread. The sting was in the tail of this invitation. If he would partake of food, he would thereby remove the ban and so neutralize one part of his mission.]
1 Kings 13:16
And he said, I may not [Heb. am not able to] return with thee, nor go in with thee: neither will I eat bread nor drink water with thee in this place. [The translation "in that place" adopted by Wordsworth (after the Vulgate, in loco isto) does not agree with the Hebrew. And it is not required by the context. The tree was probably at no great distance from the town.]
1 Kings 13:17
For it was said to me [Heb. a word to me] by [Heb. in] the word of the Lord, Thou shalt eat no bread, nor drink water there, nor turn again to go by the way that thou camest.
1 Kings 13:18
He said unto him; I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel Some, including Josephus and most Jewish commentators, have supposed him to be altogether a false and lying prophet, such as are found plentifully later on in the history (1 Kings 22:6; Jeremiah 28:1); but against this is the fact that he was undoubtedly the channel of a Divine communication (verse 21). The real difficulty, no doubt, lies in the fact that one by whom the Spirit of God spake to man should have acted so base a part as he did. But it must be remembered
1 Kings 13:19
So he went back with him, and did eat bread in his house, and drank water [cf. 1 Kings 13:10].
1 Kings 13:20
And it came to pass, as they sat at the table [cf. Psalms 78:30. He is taken in the act, "even in the blossoms of his sin"], that the word of the Lord came unto the prophet that brought him back.
1 Kings 13:21
And he cried [same word as in 1 Kings 13:2. He who denounced the "sin of Jeroboam" is now denounced in turn] unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying, Thus saith the Lord, Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the Lord, and hast not kept the commandment which the Lord thy God commanded thee.
1 Kings 13:22
But camest back, and hast eaten bread and drunk water in the place, of the which the Lord did say to thee, flat no bread, and drink no water; thy carcase [rather corpse; "carcase" is now a term of disparagement, of which, however, there is no idea in the Hebrew] shall not come unto the sepulchre of thy fathers. [The desire, common in a greater or less degree to all mankind, to rest after death amongst kindred dust, was especially strong in the Jew. It is evidenced by the common euphemism "he was gathered unto his fathers," and by the provisions of Abraham (Genesis 23:4), Jacob (Genesis 47:29; Genesis 49:29-31), and Joseph (Genesis 1:25). See also the words of Barzillai (2 Samuel 19:37; and compare 2 Samuel 2:32). This denunciation did not necessarily imply a violent death (as Keil, al.) or even a speedy death, but it prepared the man of God for some untimely end.]
1 Kings 13:23
And it came to pass, after he had eaten bread, and after he had drunk, that he saddled [i.e; the prophet of Bethel; the "man of God" would seem to have come on foot. See below] for him the ass, to wit, for the prophet whom he had brought back. This translation is inadmissible. For not only is the term "prophet" throughout this narrative restricted to the prophet of Bethel (the prophet of Judah being always spoken of as "the man of God,") but the expression here used הַנָּבִיא א ה is also twice used (1 Kings 13:20, 1 Kings 13:26) of the same prophet. He is characterized there, that is to say, as "the prophet which brought him back;" it is hardly likely, therefore, that the same words are here to be interpreted, "the prophet whom he brought back." The mistake has arisen from the proximity of לוֹ ("for him") to לַנָּבִיּא ("to" or "for the prophet"). But the לוֹis here indicative of possession (the dative of the possessor), as in 1 Samuel 14:16, "the watchmen to," i.e; of, "Saul," and 1 Samuel 16:18, "a son to Jesse" (cf. Genesis 14:18 Heb.; 1 Kings 5:1-18:29 Heb.; Ruth 2:3 Heb.) We must therefore render "He saddled for him (the man of God) the ass of the prophet which brought him back." The man of God had been delayed by his return to Bethel, and the prophet, out of pity, lends or gives him his ass. Not merely, it is probable, for the sake of speeding him on his way, but that he might have some living thing with him on a journey which he had so much cause to dread.
1 Kings 13:24
And when he was gone [Heb. and he went], a lion (Lions were evidently numerous in Palestine in former days, though they are now extinct. This is proved by the names of places, such as Laish, Lebaoth, etc; and by the constant reference to them in Scripture. They had their lairs in the forests, one of which existed near Bethel (2 Kings 2:24), and especially in the thickets of the Jordan valley (Jeremiah 49:19; Zechariah 11:3).] met [Heb. found. The primary meaning of מָצָא is, no doubt, "found accidentally," "came upon" ( εὗρεν, invenit), but it is often used of finding after a search (1 Samuel 9:4, etc.), and it should be remembered that this is the word used in verses 14, 28] him by [in, as below] the way, and slew him: and his carcase was cast in the way [road, highway, verse 25], and the ass stood [Heb. standing] by it, the lion also stood [standing] by the carcase. [These particulars are mentioned to show that his death was no accident, or chance, but a visitation of God. There are probably but few persons who have not felt that this summary punishment was marked by extreme severity; the more so, as the prophet was cruelly deceived, and that by a brother prophet, who claimed to have received a subsequent revelation, and whom, consequently, it appeared to be a duty to obey. And when it is observed that the really guilty person, the prophet of Bethel, so far as appears, escaped all punishment, and by his lie secured for himself respect for his remains, we seem to have a case of positive hardship and injustice. As I have discussed the question at some length elsewhere, it must suffice to say here that the difficulty is at once removed if we remember that although the Jewish dispensation was one of temporal recompenses, yet all the same there is a judgment hereafter. No doubt the man of God was punished for his disobedience, for inexcusable disobedience it was. It is quite true that he was solemnly assured that an angel had appeared to revoke his commission, but for this he had only the word of a stranger, of one, too, with whom he had been commanded "not even to eat." He had "the word of the Lord;" that is to say, the voice of God, borne in upon his soul, forbidding his return, and the word of an irreligious stranger, who gave no "sign the same day" in proof of his mission, authorizing it. There can be no doubt which he ought to have followed, the more so as the command he had himself received was so remarkably explicit and decisive (verse 9); so decisive that we can hardly suppose he would have deviated from it, had not the pains of hunger and thirst pleaded powerfully in favour of the pretended revelation of the Bethelite prophet. Indeed, it is hardly too much to say that he eagerly welcomed this cause for returning. It is impossible, therefore, to acquit him of disobedience. Nor is it difficult to see that the consequences of this disobedience were serious. It was not as if he had disregarded a mere positive obligation, the only object of which was to test his obedience (Rawlinson); he had acted in a way calculated to destroy the moral effect of his mission. He had been employed not only to testify publicly against the calf worship, but also to lay the city and the new sanctuary of Jeroboam under an interdict, and by his return that interdict lost much of its force. His eating and drinking, small matters in themselves, were full of significance. Indeed, he did in one way precisely what Jeroboam and his people were doing in another he forsook the plain commands of God for the ordinances of men; he listened to the tempter and ate the forbidden fruit; and so it came to pass flint, instead of witnessing against disobedience, he himself set them the example of disobedience. It is the story of the Fall over again; and therefore death, the punishment of the Fall, befell him. But before we say that his punishment was too severe, let us remember what, by the mercy of God, that primal punishment has become. It has been turned into a blessing. It has given us the incarnation, redemption, eternal life. We forget that death is not necessarily an evil—is in reality a blessing. One of the heathen has said that if we only knew what the future life was like, we should not be content to live. To this "man of God" it must surely have been gain to die. If the flesh was destroyed, it was that the spirit might be saved (1 Corinthians 5:5). Only because we forget that death is the gate of life do we complain of the severity of his doom. And as to the lying prophet who wrought all this mischief escaping retribution—which, by the way, he did not do, for assuredly he must have had a life-long remorse—it is overlooked that the day of retribution has not yet arrived. There is for him a judgment to come. It may he said that the Jew did not know of this—that the future life had not then been revealed. That is quite true, and for that very reason this visitation would make all the deeper impression on their minds. To this must be added that the man of God did not die merely or principally because of his sin, but "that the works of God might be made manifest in him." His death was necessary in order that his mission might not be altogether invalidated. His miserable end—as it must have seemed to them—would surely speak to the inhabitants of Bethel and to all Israel and Judah, for long years to come, as to the sure vengeance awaiting the disobedient, whether king, prophet, priest, or people. Though dead "he cried against the altar of Bethel." And the sacred narrative (verses 26-32) affords us some ground for hoping that the "old prophet" became penitent for his sin. It is noteworthy that he joins his testimony to that of the man of God. Thus, this tragedy extorted even from him a warning against disobedience (verse 26), and a confirmation of the prophecy against the altar of Bethel (verse 32).]
1 Kings 13:25
And, behold, men passed by, and saw the carcase cast in the way, and the lion standing by the carcase: and they came and told it in the city where the old prophet dwelt. [This was precisely what God had designed. By this means, the very disobedience and death of the man of God became a part of the protest against the new rites. "For if the partaking of food against the commandment of God, though the result not of indulgence, but of deceit, brought so great a punishment upon a righteous man, what sort of chastisements would befall those who had left God their Maker and were worshipping senseless images" (Theodoret.)]
1 Kings 13:26
And when the prophet that brought him back from the way heard thereof, he said, It is the man of God, who was disobedient [Heb. rebelled; same word as in verse 21] unto the word [Heb. "mouth," as in verse 21] of the Lord: therefore the Lord hath delivered him unto the lion, which hath torn [Heb. as marg; broken. The word "is very expressive, for the lion kills with one blow" (Thenius)] and slain him, according to the word of the Lord, which he spake unto him.
1 Kings 13:27
And he spake to his sons, saying, Saddle me the ass. And they saddled him.
1 Kings 13:28
And he went and found his carcase cast in the way, and the ass and the lion standing by the carcase: the lion had not eaten the carcase nor torn [Heb. broken, as in verse 26] the ass.
1 Kings 13:29
And the prophet took up the carcase of the man of God, and laid it upon the ass [i.e; the one standing by], and brought it back: and the old prophet came to the city, to mourn and to bury him. [The mourning is specially mentioned, because in the East professional wailers were and are employed at funerals. The Jew, no less than the Greek and Roman, esteemed it a great misfortune and disgrace to be deprived of decent burial: Isaiah 14:19; Jeremiah 22:19; and especially 2 Kings 9:10.]
1 Kings 13:30
And he laid his carcase in his own grave [Matthew 27:60. This was a mark of profound respect (Ruth 1:17; Genesis 23:6)]; and they mourned over him, saying, Alas, my brother. [A customary formula in lamentation (Jeremiah 22:18). It hardly implies that "he was mourned and buried as a relative of the family" (Bähr). Seeing that the old prophet was responsible for his death, he could hardly have done less. "It is a cruel courtesy to kill a man and then help him to his grave" (Hall).]
1 Kings 13:31
And it came to pass, after he had buried him, that he spake to his sons, saying, When I am dead, then bury me in the sepulchre [Palestine, being of limestone formation, has a large number of caves. These, enlarged and adapted, were everywhere used for interments. ("The whole cliffs on its southern side [Hinnom] are honeycombed with tombs," Porter). In three sides of the cave vaults (loculi), each large enough to hold a body, were recessed in the rock, the entrance being closed by a slab of stone In the so called "tombs of the kings" and "prophets" we have such sepulchres on a large scale. A Paper on the Tombs of Palestine will be found in the Quarterly Statement of the Palestine Exploration Fund, p. 66 sqq. It appears from 2 Kings 23:17 that a pillar was erected to mark this prophet's resting place] wherein the man of God is buried; lay my bones beside his bones. [That is to say, "Bury me in the cell next to his" (Rawlinson). But it is not absolutely certain that this arrangement (of loculi) obtained at this early period. The bodies may have been in much closer contact. See 2 Kings 13:21. The LXX. adds here, "That my bones may be saved with his bones;" an obvious gloss, founded on 2 Kings 23:18. This request throws some light on the yearning desire of the modern Jew to rest as near as possible to the bodies of the saints. See Porter, 1. p. 145.]
1 Kings 13:32
For the saying which he cried by the word of the Lord against the altar in Bethel; and against all the houses of the high places [At that time there would seem to have been but two "high places." Keil sees "a prophetic element in these words." He thinks the old prophet foresaw that such sanctuaries would be multiplied. Rawlinson gathers, "from the mention of the great high place in 1 Kings 3:4, that there were many lesser high places in the land," which, no doubt, was the case at the date of Solomon's accession. It is probable, however, that many of these, if not all, would be deserted when the temple was built. And it is most reasonable to suppose that in these, as in the following words, the historian has represented the prediction or affirmation of the old prophet in the language of his own time] which are in the cities of Samaria. [Obviously, these exact words cannot have been used by the prophet of Bethel, for Samaria dates its existence and name from the reign of Omri (1 Kings 16:24). The compiler of the Kings probably found the term in the documents which he used, or possibly, as already suggested, translated the prophet's meaning into the language of a later day] shall surely come to pass.
1 Kings 13:33
After this thing [calculated though it was to make a deep impression and to furnish a solemn warning] Jeroboam turned not from his evil way. "Some hand was found that durst repair the altar God had rent" (Matthew Henry). According to Josephus, the old prophet now explained away the miracles of the prophet of Judah, alleging that the altar had fallen because it was new and the king's hand had become powerless from fatigue (Ant; 1 Kings 8:9, § 1)], but made again [Heb. "returned and made." The tautology is significant. He returned not from his sin, but returned to it] of the lowest [see on 1 Kings 12:11] of the people priests of the high places: whosoever would [Heb. pleased], he consecrated [Heb. filled his hand. In the consecration of Aaron and his sons, and possibly of their successors also, the portions of the victim which were usually burned upon the altar, together with the right shoulder or leg, which was the priest's portion, and three cakes of unleavened Bread, were put into the hands of the candidates for the priesthood, and waved before the Lord before they were offered on the altar (Exodus 29:22-26; Le Exodus 8:25-28). To "fill the hand" consequently Became a synonym for consecration] him [It would almost appear, from the extreme readiness with which Jeroboam ordained his priests, that few candidates offered themselves for the office. In one respect, however, he exacted more from the candidate than did the law. For whereas the latter required "one bullock and two rams" (Exodus 29:1, etc.), he demanded one Bullock and seven rams as the offering on consecration (2 Chronicles 13:9], and he became one of the priests [Heb. and he became priests, etc. So the Chaldee. LXX. καὶ ἐγένετο ἱερεύς] of the high places.
1 Kings 13:34
And this thing [Heb. "in this thing:" בַּדָּבָר. Cf. 1 Chronicles 7:23; 1 Chronicles 9:33] became sin unto the house of Jeroboam, even to cut it off, and to destroy it from off the face of the earth [1 Kings 15:29. The forfeiture of the crown would bring in its train, almost as a matter of course, the destruction of his family (1 Kings 14:10-14). And we are taught here that both events are to be regarded, under the dispensation of temporal rewards and punishments, as the recompenses of his impiety; of that daring schismatic policy which, in all its branches, betrayed a complete disregard of the terms of the covenant, and which was persevered in contemptuous defiance of the repeated warnings of God.]
HOMILETICS
1 Kings 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?" (Matthew 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" (Luke 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. John 12:20; Acts 2:5-11), who did not understand the things which were come to pass there that day. Let us join them, as they go, carried by the stream, to meet the body; let us listen to their questions, and to the answers they receive. We shall not gather all the truth from the discourse we overhear, but we shall learn at all events one lesson which this tragedy had for the men of that time.
Now the first question which would rise to these strangers' lips, as they came upon the body, borne by the patient ass, which was the one terrified witness of the catastrophe, would be, "Who is this?" They think, perhaps, it is some peasant who has been slain as he tilled his fields, or some itinerant; chapman who has been murdered on his journey. But the bystanders speedily undeceive them. They tell them that this is "a man of God who came from Judah." His name, it may be, is unknown to them, but not his deeds. They relate, with breathless excitement, not unmixed with fear, how a few short hours ago he was amongst them; how on the morning of that very day he had confronted their king as he was in the act of sacrificing, had denounced his innovations, had foretold the overthrow of his policy and dynasty, and had then wrought wonderful works in attestation of his mission. The strangers listen with steadily increasing wonderment. Had this man been "a murderer whom vengeance suffered not to live," or a sinner above all men that dwelt in Bethel, they could have understood it. Such a one, however he might have met his end, would only have received the just reward of his deeds, but "a man of God," a man who wrought miracles, a favourite of Heaven!—they cannot comprehend it, and they, as excited as their informants, hurriedly ask how he has come by his death.
"A lion slew him," is the answer. It is true no human eye saw the deed, but there can be no doubt as to the manner of his death. Then they tell how wayfaring men that afternoon had seen a strange sight, a corpse cast in the 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 Kings 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 Kings 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 (Isaiah 20:3; Ezekiel 24:24; Matthew 12:1-50:89, 40). The death of the "man of God" accordingly was a parable, an object lesson of the most impressive kind as to the doom of the unfaithful people of God. In his end, men might see a foreshadowing of their nation's, if it should persevere in the worship of the calves.
For they would assuredly remember, as they pondered this history, that as this prophet of Judah was a man of God, precisely so was Israel the people of God (1 Kings 8:43, 1 Kings 8:52, 1 Kings 8:66; 1 Kings 14:7; Le 26:12; Deuteronomy 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 (Exodus 32:8). It is almost certain, therefore, that these initial words of the covenant had been lately and forcibly recalled to their minds. But in any case they could not be ignorant that their forefathers had been expressly charged to make no similitude, no graven or molten image (Le 26:1; Deuteronomy 4:16, Deuteronomy 4:25; Deuteronomy 5:8; Deuteronomy 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."