In the ninth part of our series on the non-writing prophets, Fred Wright looks at the record of the ministry of the unnamed prophet.
The record of the ministry of the unnamed prophet of 1 Kings 13 is set during the period when Jeroboam son of Nebat (931-910 BC) was consolidating his reign in the northern kingdom of Israel. The biblical narrative records (1 Kings 12:26f) how Jeroboam had set up rival sanctuaries to the temple in Jerusalem at Dan and Bethel.
Jeroboam had reasoned that political and religious cohesion in his new kingdom could be best attained by establishing centres of religious observation which would divert attention from the central sanctuary in Jerusalem, the capital of rival Judah (1 Kings 12:27).
The golden calves that he placed within these sanctuaries may not have been idols per se but could be viewed as pedestals or platforms for the invisible god's presence to stand upon. The establishment of rival sanctuaries was contrary to the injunction of Scripture (see Deut 12:5-7, 11-14; 16:2 and 26:2 cf. 2 Kings 21:4) — which clearly states that there was one particular sanctioned site for worship.
An Accurate Prophecy
The unnamed prophet, we are told, was sent “by the word of the Lord” from Judah to prophesy against Jeroboam and the altar at Bethel. His title, ‘man of God’, appears to have been first applied to Moses (eg. Deut 33:1) and was frequently used from the time of the judges onwards. It designates one who was recognised as a representative of God by his contemporaries (cf. 2 Kings 6:9).
The prophet encountered Jeroboam at the altar in Bethel, as he was burning incense. He proceeded to pronounce one of the most outstanding examples of predictive prophecy recorded in the scriptures, naming both Josiah and the manner of his reforms some three centuries before the event (621 BC). These details included the demolition of the altar at Bethel (2 Kings 23:15) and the defiling of the site and its associated high places by men's bones (2 Kings 23:7-14, 16-19).
The unnamed prophet’s title, ‘man of God’, was first applied to Moses.
The encounter was attended to by a miracle akin to one of those which Moses experienced. As the king stretched out his hand to initiate punitive measures against the prophet, it withered. The king immediately sought the intercession of the prophet. The Lord listened to his plea and restored the king's hand (1 Kings 13:4-6).
Jeroboam's Temple in Bet El. See Photo Credits.The Man of God
The major issue covered by the rest of the narrative in 1 Kings 13 concerns two prophets: the afore-mentioned ’man of God’ and ‘the old prophet' (note that the latter is not referred to as a ‘man of God’ here). The man of God started well. It must have taken a high degree of certainty and confidence in his calling, coupled with great courage, to approach the king with such a condemning word. In those days, unauthorised entry into the royal presence would invariably result in death.
The man of God had been commanded not to eat bread (food) or drink water, or to return by the way he came. The vow was simply to fast during the period of his commission. The significance of being commanded not to return by the way that he came may well have been for his physical safety.
Walk Your Talk
Vows in Scripture fall broadly into two categories: either to perform a particular action, such as Jacob’s vow at Bethel to serve the Lord (Gen 28:20); or to abstain from a particular action, such as David's vow not to enter his home, get into his bed or sleep until he had found a dwelling place for the Lord (see Ps 132:2-5).
The taking of vows is best understood in sacrificial or liturgical terms — namely as votive offerings to God. This concept is illustrated by the warning in Deuteronomy 23:21: “If you make a vow to the LORD your God, do not postpone fulfilling it; for the LORD your God will surely require it of you and you would incur guilt” (NRSV) — echoed in Proverbs 20:25.
Do not be hasty in making vows. One can only be released from a vow when the vow is fulfilled. There is no room for autonomy in such matters. The content of any vow, therefore, has the quality and quantity of a sacrifice and as such is ‘holy to the Lord’. When Jeroboam offered the man of God a reward he stated emphatically that as he was bound by his vow, even “half the kingdom” would not persuade him (1 Kings 13:7-10).
The content of any vow has the quality and quantity of a sacrifice and as such is ‘holy to the Lord’.
The Old Prophet
By contrast, the old prophet is introduced as a man dwelling with his sons in Bethel. His purpose in attempting to divert the man of God from his course will probably remain a mystery. It is interesting to note that in 2 Kings 23:18 the old prophet is described as being from Samaria. At the time of the events of 1 Kings 13, Samaria did not exist in real terms or serve as a geographical entity. It was established by Omri (1 Kings 16:24) some 30 years later. We may therefore assume that the term is meant to describe one who was either not wholly consistent with the standard set by the cultus or a syncretist.
Once he had identified the man of God, the old prophet invited him to his house for rest and refreshment. When the man of God refused on the grounds of his vow, the old prophet claimed brotherhood and divine revelation by an angel in order to overrule it.
Was this angel a lying spirit similar to the type described in 1 Kings 22:20f (cf. Jer 29:8-9)? Was the old prophet deceiving the man of God out of misplaced enthusiasm and a desire to spend time with one who had moved powerfully for the Lord? Or did the old prophet have his own more sinister agenda — such as to disgrace the man of God in retribution for his own support of the sanctuary at Bethel? We will never know his true motivation. What is important is that the man of God was deceived.
The man of God started well – but he was deceived.
A Bizarre Death
Whilst at the table, the old prophet condemned the man for his disobedience in the name the Lord. He stated that he would not be buried with his fathers. The expression, “in the tomb of your fathers” would have been a chilling proclamation, since in those times it was considered important to be with one's ancestors, or in an associated site. As a further example of this, consider Jacob’s request for his bones to be taken back to be buried with his ancestors in the cave of Machpelah, which had been bought from Ephron the Hittite (Gen 49:29-32).
The man of God departed and was killed by a lion. What happened next is both fascinating and somewhat bizarre. The dead man, the lion and the donkey became a tableau in the road. Normally the lion would have devoured the man and the donkey, assuming the donkey had not bolted first. Instead, the three became frozen in time and space, as the townspeople visited the scene. It was as if the Lord was using it to impart the deep truth of the consequences of disobedience.
The old prophet who deceived the man of God became aware of the validity of the dead man’s mission and subsequently mourned for him and buried him in his own burial plot.
Test All Spirits
It is a sad fact that not all that purports to come from the Lord through the mouths of those who profess to be servants of the Lord is to be trusted. Hence the salutary warning of 1 John 4:1 to test all spirits. The man of God was deceived by a so-called prophetic message and a claim to brotherhood. The deception resulted in him breaking his vow and led to his subsequent death.
Whereas it is right and proper to trust those who are members of the Body, one should always use discernment in spiritual matters. The best way to be able to ascertain the validity of any spiritual matter is by studying the scriptures and getting to know the character of God better through time spent in prayer and fellowship. It is all too easy to be led astray by sentiment, romantic notions and false assumptions.
The best way to ascertain the validity of any spiritual matter is to study the scriptures and get to know the character of God better through prayer and fellowship.
It is interesting to note that the old prophet is condemned only by his actions: he was not condemned by the writer of 1 Kings. The absence of condemnation points to the principle that each one of us is responsible for our own decisions and actions. The blame for any event is primarily with the one who commits the offence (not that the one who inspires the offence is without blame or not also subject to judgment).
Finishing Well
It is of equal importance to finish well and start well. Those leading mission teams, for example, should be aware that the commission is not completed until the task is completed and the team have returned, been debriefed and any subsequent issues dealt with. It is all too easy to get caught out when the main event has taken place and one's guard is dropped. Good finishing is possibly the most important part of any task.