Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadPulpit Commentary - 1 Kings 13:1 - 13:10
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Ki_13:1
And, behold, there came a man of God [see on 1Ki_12:22. The "man of God" is throughout carefully distinguished from the "prophet." Josephus calls the former Jadon, probably the Grecized form of Iddo, òÄãÌåÉ , which appears as éÆòÀãåÉ Ia'do in the Keri of 2Ch_9:29. Iddo, however, notwithstanding his "visions against Jeroboam the son of Nebat" (2Ch_9:29), it cannot have been, for he survived to the reign of Abijah, and indeed wrote a "story" (Heb. Midrash, i.e; Commentary) of that reign, whereas this man of God died forthwith. For a similar reason, we cannot believe it to have been Shemaiah, the historian of the reign of Rehoboam (2Ch_12:5, 2Ch_12:15)] out of Judah [whither, as a rule, both priests and prophets would seem to have retreated (2Ch_11:14, 2Ch_11:16). It is clear, however, that the migration of the latter was not so general as that of the former. In 2Ch_9:11 we find a prophet at Bethel; in 2Ch_14:1-15. Ahijah is still at Shiloh, and at a later day we find schools of the prophets at Bethel, Jericho, etc. (2Ki_2:8, 2Ki_2:5). Stanley says with truth that "the prophetical activity of the time… is to be found in the kingdom, not of Judah, but of Israel," but omits to add that it was because the northern kingdom more especially needed their ministry. It was just for this reason that Ahijah and others remained at their posts.] by [Heb. in, same word as in verses 2, 9, 17, 20, 32, etc. Similarly, 1Sa_3:21. The á is not merely instrumental, but, like the ἐν , of the N.T; denotes the sphere or element. "By the word" would imply that he had received a Divine communication; "in the word," that his message possessed him, inspired him, was "in his heart as a burning fire shut up in his bones" (Jer_20:9)] the word of the Lord unto Bethel [It is worth remembering that the new sanctuary at Bethel would probably be visible from the temple, so that this function was an act of open defiance]: and Jeroboam stood by [Heb. upon. See on 1Ki_12:32, 1Ki_12:33. It is the same occasion] the altar to burn incense [or to burn the fat, etc; of the sacrifice. See on 1Ki_12:33. This altar was clearly, pro hac vice, an altar of burnt offering; not an altar of incense, as is proved by the next verse.]
1Ki_13:2
And he cried against the altar in the word of the Lord, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the Lord [This apostrophe of the altar is very striking and significant. It is as if the prophet disdained to notice the royal but self-constituted priest; as if it were useless to appeal to him; as if his person was of little consequence compared with the religious system he was inaugurating, the system of which the altar was the centre and embodiment]; Behold a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name [This particular mention of the Reformer by name was formerly regarded, as by many it is still, as a remarkable instance of prophetic foresight. But the tendency of late, even amongst orthodox theologians, has been to doubt the authenticity of these two words, on the ground that it is unlike Scripture prophecy in general to descend to such details, which rather belong to soothsaying than prediction. Prophecy concerns itself not with names, times, and similar particulars, but with the "progressive development of the kingdom of God in its general features" (Keil). It is not for a moment denied that the prophet could just as easily, speaking "in the word of the Lord," have mentioned the name of Josiah, as the circumstance that a son of the house of David would utterly destroy the worship of calves. But it is alleged that the latter prediction is quite in accordance with Scripture usage, and the former altogether contrarient thereto. The case of Cyrus (Isa_44:28; Isa_45:1), it is true, is an exception to the rule, unless ëÉøÆùÑ (which means the sun) is, like Pharaoh and Hadad, a name of office, a title of the Persian kings. The instances of Isaac (Gen_17:19) and Solomon (1Ch_22:9) are not parallels, as in both these cases the name was highly significant, and each was mentioned, not by way of prophecy, but as a direction to bestow that name on a child shortly about to be born. And it is certainly noticeable—though the argument e silentio is necessarily a precarious one—"that where this narrative is again referred to (2Ki_23:15-18) there is no allusion to the fact that the man of God had prophesied of Josiah by name" (Rawlinson). On the whole, therefore, it seems probable that the two words éÉàùÑéÈÌäåÌ ùÀÑîåÉ were no part of the original prophecy, but a marginal note which in course of time found its way accidentally into the text. The idea of Keil, that "Josiah" is mentioned here not as a proper name, but as an appellation, "he whom Jehovah sustains," is hardly worthy of serious consideration. It may be allowed, however, that the meaning of the name affords some slender reason for its mention]; and upon thee shall he offer [lit; sacrifice] the priests of the high places [see on 1Ki_12:32] that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones [Heb. bones of man, i.e; human bones. Nothing could more completely foreshadow the future desecration of the altar. The presence in the congregation of a living man who had merely touched a dead body and had not been purified, defiled the tabernacle (Num_19:13), how much more the dead body itself, burnt on the very altar. The Samaritan who once strewed the temple with human ashes (Jos; Ant. 18.2. 2) knew that he took the most effectual way to pollute it] shall be burnt [Heb. shall they burn] upon thee. [For the fulfilment, see 2Ki_23:20, "At the ground of this judgment, as of the whole theocratic law, lies the jus talionis".]
It is worthy of note how completely this brief protest proclaimed to Jeroboam the utter and shameful overthrow, both of his political and religious systems. A child of the rival house of David should stand where he then stood, his successors extinct or powerless to prevent him, and should cover this new cultus with disgrace and contempt. The man of God, he must have felt, has proclaimed in few words the fall of his dynasty, the triumph of his rival, and the failure of all his schemes.
1Ki_13:3
And he gave a sign [The Heb. îåÉôÅú rather signifies a portent ( τέρας , miraculum, prodigium) than a sign, the proper word for which is àåÉú . The word occurs repeatedly in the Pentateuch, where it is rendered wonder, or miracle, by our translators (Wordsworth). Signs had, of course, been given before (Exo_4:30; Exo_7:9; 1Sa_12:17; etc.) but hardly in such immediate attestation of a special message. From this time forward such signs are not infrequent (Isa_7:14; Isa_38:8; 2Ki_19:29). They mark the decline of faith (Mat_12:39). As to the need at this crisis for some miraculous token, see Homiletics. The fitness of this particular sign is obvious] the same day, saying, This is the sign which [Rather that; àÂùÆø = quod. The A.V. rendering hardly makes sense. Nor does it agree, as Rawlinson seems to think, with the LXX; which reads τοῦτο τὸ ῥῆμα ὃ ἐλάησε κύριος , etc.] the Lord hath spoken [i.e; by me. "This is the proof that my message is from Him, and is no idle threat." Wordsworth sees in this sign "a proof vouchsafed by God Himself to the man of Judah, as well as to Jeroboam, that he was really sent by God," etc. But surely a man who came "in the word of the Lord," and cried, "Thus saith the Lord," wanted no proof that "he was doing God's bidding" (see 1Co_14:22)]; Behold, the altar shall be rent and the ashes [strictly, fat ashes. ãÆÌùÆÑï ; properly, "fatness" (see Jdg_9:9; Psa_63:5. πιότης , LXX.), is the fat of the sacrifice, which was burnt upon the altar, mixed with the ashes that consumed it] that are upon it shall be poured out. [The sign, a partial destruction of the altar, and the scattering of the sacrifice, was admirably calculated to presage its ultimate and final and ignominious overthrow. The idea favoured by Stanley ("Jewish Ch." 2:280) that this prediction was fulfilled "if not before, at least" in the time of Amos, when the altar was destroyed by an earthquake shock (Amo_9:1; cf. Amo_3:14), does not seem to take account of verse 5.]
1Ki_13:4
And it came to pass when king Jeroboam [The A.V. follows the LXX. The Heb. omits "Jeroboam"] heard the saying of the man of God, which had cried against the altar in Bethel, that he put forth his hand [instinctively. His first thought was, not to wait and see whether the promised sign was given, but to seize and punish the man who had dared thus to denounce and thwart him. And we may imagine how extremely mortifying this interruption must have been to him. It threatened the complete frustration of his policy at the very moment when it seemed certain of suceess] from the altar [the ledge or platform, i.e; where he stood. He did not leave it, but shouted his commands to his servants], saying, Lay hold on him. ["Arrest him," "let him not escape." One word in the Heb.] And his hand, which he put forth against him, dried up [Possibly the result of paralysis or tetanus (Ackermann in Bähr). It was like the "withered hand" of the New Testament (Mat_12:10, etc.) deprived of feeling and vital force, as the next words show], so that he could not pull it in again to him. [It was not only powerless to punish, it was punished. "Now stands the king of Israel, like some antique statue, in a posture of impotent endeavour" (Hall). This was a warning to the king, not so much against his unauthorized and schismatical rites, as against his attempt to avenge himself on the messenger of God (Psa_105:14, Psa_105:15).]
1Ki_13:5
The altar also was rent [by the same invisible power, and probably at the same moment], and the ashes poured out from the altar, according to the sign which the man of God had given by the word of the Lord.
1Ki_13:6
And the king [humbled and alarmed by the judgment he had experienced in his own person] answered and said unto the man of God, Intreat now [The Heb. is very expressive—"Smooth or stroke the face." It is an expression which occurs several times. See especially Exo_32:11; 2Ki_13:4; 2Ch_33:12; Pro_19:6] of the Lord thy God [i.e; whose messenger thou art. "Jeroboam, conscience stricken, does not dare to call Jehovah his own God" (Wordsworth). This was probably the case, yet surely it is an inference not warranted by the text. The expression, "The Lord thy God," is of constant occurrence, especially when a "man of God" is addressed; cf. 1Ki_17:12; 1Ki_18:10], and pray for me [This sudden change in his bearing shows how much Jeroboam was frightened. The sight, too, of the king humbly supplicating the prophet who a moment before had protested against the calf worship was calculated to make an impression on the minds of the people], that my hand may be restored me again. And the man of God besought [lit; stroked the face of] the Lord, and the king's hand was restored him, and became as it was before.
1Ki_13:7
And the king said unto the man of God, Come home with me, and refresh thyself [with food, ablutions, etc. We are hardly justified in seeing in these words (with Bähr and Keil) an attempt to "gain the prophet over to his side by friendliness," and to render his threat harmless in the eyes of the people. The king doubtless may have hoped that it would "blunt the edge of the prophet's denunciation of his schismatical altar" (Wordsworth); but this was not the object, or not the sole object, with which the invitation was given. Jeroboam could not possibly have clone less, after the signal service the man of God had rendered him, than invite him to his palace. Eastern courtesy alone (Gen_18:4; Gen_19:2; Gen_43:24, etc.) would require him to offer hospitality to his benefactor. And he could scarcely hope that any hospitalities would either neutralize the impression which the recent miracles had made, or win over to his side one who had a direct commission from the Most High to oppose him. With more reason, Wordsworth cites 1Sa_15:30, "Honour me now, I pray thee, before the elders of my people." A feeling of gratitude may have prompted the invitation, while the king at the same time was very sensible of the advantages which would accrue to himself if it were accepted], and I will give thee a reward. [The services, especially of seers and prophets, were invariably requited in the East with presents, as are those of Judges, Kadis, Kaimakams, and other officers at the present day (see 1Ki_14:3; Gen_24:53; Gen_33:11; Gen_43:11; Num_22:17; Jdg_3:17; Jdg_6:18; Jdg_13:15; 1Sa_9:7, 1Sa_9:8; 1Sa_12:3; 2Ki_5:5, 2Ki_5:15; 2Ki_8:8, 2Ki_8:9).]
1Ki_13:8
And the man of God said unto the king, If thou wilt give me half thine house [cf. Num_22:18, of which, however, there is hardly a reminiscence. Obviously, half the contents or wealth of thy house], I will not go in with thee, neither will I eat bread nor drink water in this place.
1Ki_13:9
For so was it charged [Heb. he, sc. the Lord, charged me] me by [Heb. in] the word of the Lord, saying, Fat no bread, nor drinkwater [Participation in food—the "eating salt"—is in the East a token of friendship and affinity; a sign of close communion and fellowship. The prophet's refusal to participate was consequently a practical and forcible disclaimer of all fellowship, a virtual excommunication, a public repudiation of the calf worshippers.
Cf. 1Co_5:11," With such an one, no, not to eat." As Corn. à Lapide, "Ut ipso facto ostenderet, Bethelitas idololatras adeo esse detestabiles, et a Deo quasi excommunicates, ut nullum fidelium cum iis cibi vel potus communionem habere velit"], nor turn again by the same way that thou camest. [ the object of this command was not "simply to test the obedience of the prophet" (Rawlinson), nor yet that no one might "force him to a delay which was irreconcilable with his commission" (Keil), for that was practically executed, but to avoid as far as possible—what, indeed, happened in spite of these precautions—his being traced and followed. Because of this provision, the old prophet (1Co_5:10) was reduced to ask, "What way went he?" But the charge, we can hardly doubt,was also designed to serve another purpose, viz; to warn the prophet against doing what he did presently—against returning to Bethel. When he was followed, and when he was told of a revelation commanding his return, he should have remembered, among other things, that it had clearly been part of God's purpose, as evidenced by the explicit instructions given him, that he should not be followed. This alone should have led him to suspect this old prophet of deceit.]
1Ki_13:10
So he went another way, and returned not by the way that he came to Bethel.
And as, under such circumstances, mere threats, of whatsoever character and by whomsoever spoken, would have had but little weight without "signs following," the message straightway receives the confirmation of a miracle. That the man of God "came from Judah" was in itself reason enough why the men of Israel should not listen to him, unless he compelled their attention by prodigies. "A partizan," they would say, "perhaps a hireling of Rehoboam, it was natural such a one would prophecy evil of the Northern Church and kingdom," and so his words would have been unheeded, even if his life had been spared. Besides, one who professed to come as he did, "in the word of the Lord," they had a right to ask for his credentials, and those credentials could only be miraculous. Had not Moses and Aaron "wrought signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, before Pharaoh and all his servants?" Had not Samuel, too, supported his message by a portent? (1Sa_12:18.) If the denunciation of the schism, consequently, was not to be inoperative, he must "give a sign" the same day.
And to these "two witnesses"—"the "sure word of prophecy" and the "sign following"—the rashness and impiety of Jeroboam procured the addition of a third, or rather of two more—silent, but eloquent attestations, each of them, that the prophet had not spoken in his own name. For, enraged at this bold, this most unwelcome and sinister interruption of his ritual, and fearing the effect of this brave protest on his audience and the thousands of Israel to whom the news would ultimately come, and forgetting at the moment the sacred character of the speaker and the unseen panoply which protected him, he stretches forth his hand intuitively, as if to detain the prophet, and thunders his commands to the attendant soldiery to arrest him. But that hand, really raised against the Most High, suddenly becomes rigid and powerless, and he must needs stoop to beg the prophet's prayers that it may be restored to him again. And so it came to pass that the heretic king furnished in his own person, much against his will, two powerful proofs that the "man of God" did indeed speak the word of God and was supported by the power of God. It is thus that God makes the wrath of man to praise Him.
Such, then, was the PROTEST, in word and deed, which marked the first great service of the schismatic Church. But that was not all. The protest was to be followed by an INTERDICT. The man of God was commissioned at the same time to put the city and inhabitants of Bethel under a ban. He was to treat them as lepers, as so tainted with heresy, so polluted and unclean in the sight of God, that he could neither eat of their bread nor drink of their cup. For this was clearly the object of the injunction, "Eat no bread nor drink water there;" it was to show that all who participated in this unhallowed worship were thenceforward to be treated by Divine command as heathens and publicans. And to the children of the East this public disclaimer of fellowship, this practical excommunication, would have a significance such as with our altered conditions of society we can hardly conceive, though the "Boycotting" of our own time may help us to understand its operation. Every citizen of Bethel, every worshipper of the calves, would feel himself branded as unclean. The "scarlet letter" which the Puritans of New England printed on the bosom of the adulteress hardly involved a greater stigma. It was for this reason, therefore, that when the king bade the man of God to his palace and promised him a royal recompense for the service he had rendered him, the latter flung back his invitation in his face, and swore that half the king's house would not tempt him to eat of his dainties. Jeroboam, and his people through him, should learn that if they would persist in their wanton defiance of Divine law; if they would have two churches and three sanctuaries where God had decreed there should in either case be but one; if they would sacrifice before the works of their own hands, and by ministers of man's ordaining, and at times of man's devising, then the pious Hebrews who preserved inviolate the ancient faith should wipe their hands of them, and treat them as renegades and aliens from the commonwealth of Israel
The lessons of this history are manifold. Two, however, occupy a position of pre-eminence above the rest.
1. That corruptions of religion are not to be consummated without PROTEST on the part of the Church. That Christianity, as well as Judaism, should have its heresies and schisms was distinctly foretold by St. Paul himself (1Co_11:19; Act_20:29, Act_20:30). But if they are inevitable, because of the frailty of our nature and the hardnesss of our hearts, they are none the less sinful, and it is none the less our duty to strive and to witness against them. If God did not suffer that first great schism to pass unreproved, can we do better, or do less, than follow His example? It may be said that we cannot always distinguish between heresy and orthodoxy—that we "call our doxy orthodoxy, and other people's doxy heterodoxy," and this is quite true. But individual opinion is one thing and the teaching of the Church another. Has the Church, then, no teaching office? Is she or is she not "the pillar and ground of the truth"? Has she or has she not the promise of our Lord's guidance and illumination? (Mat_18:17, Mat_18:18; Mat_28:20.) Or can the Church universal err? (Mat_16:18.) Is her "Quod semper, quod ubique," etc; no test of truth? It is not for the private Christian to claim any infallibility, but it is for the Church to say what is in and what is against her depositum fidei. And furthermore it is her duty, in her synods and by her officers, to protest against all corruptions of the faith. "A man that is a heretic … reject," Tit_3:10; cf. Tit_1:9-11; 1Ti_6:3-5 ("From such withdraw thyself"); Rom_16:17; Mat_18:17; Mat_8:1-34 Joh_9:1-41, Joh_10:1-42; Gal_1:8; Gal_2:11. The Christian verity is not less dear to God than was the teaching of Hoses. The preacher is as much bound to preserve the faith whole and undefiled as was the prophet. And it is idle to say, as it sometimes is said, that mere protests are worse than useless. They may not avert a schism—this protest did not—but they may have their use nevertheless, as this had. Or if they are entirely futile as regards others, they are not forgotten of God. Besides, who shall say that success or non success is to alter the standard of Christian duty? It is surely something to be able to say, whatever the issue, Liberavi animam meam. It is to be remembered that God knew beforehand that this His protest, though enforced by signs and wonders, would be comparatively unavailing.
2. That certain crimes against morality and religion are still to be visited by EXCOMMUNICATION. Not the excommunication of bell and book and candle—that finds no place in Holy Scripture—but social excommunication such as that described to us in this history. Indeed, there is also an ecclesiastical excommunication which must sometimes be wielded. There are persons with whom we have no right to eat and to drink at the Table of our Blessed Lord—persons who must be repelled at any cost from Holy Communion, lest we should indirectly make ourselves "partakers of other men's sins" (1Ti_5:22). When Jn Wesley once proposed to give a note of admission to the Lord's Table to a man of dubious character, Henry Moore, one of his preachers, bluntly said that if that man were admitted he should refuse to attend. "Sir," said Wesley, "I should attend even if the devil came to Holy Communion." "So should I," was the answer; "but not if John Wesley gave him a note of admission." For it is obvious that the Eucharist, the closest rite of fellowship—the rite which makes and proclaims us members one of another (Rom_12:4, Rom_12:5)—if knowingly administered to the "notorious evil liver" is a virtual condoning of his sin; it is equivalent to bidding him God speed (2Jn_1:10, 2Jn_1:11), and so it makes the Church "partaker of his evil deeds." "Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person" (1Co_5:1-13 :15). But our history points rather to social than ecclesiastical interdict. And it must be distinctly understood that the refusal to eat and drink with notorious and incorrigible evil livers is a part of Christian duty (see 1Co_5:9-11; 2Th_3:14, 2Th_3:15; Mat_18:17). We are not permitted to know them and to treat them like other men. The story of St. John's hurriedly leaving the bath because of the presence there of the heretic Cerinthus, is one for which the so called tolerance of the age can only afford a contemptuous smile; but the age is often wiser in its own conceit than Christ and His apostles. Only let us remember, if we must treat any as heathens and publicans, how Christ treated the penitent publicans (cf. Luk_15:1, Luk_15:2); and then let us not shrink from discharging this painful duty both to our country, our Church, and our God. Among the secondary lessons of our story are these:
1. That right shall triumph in the long run. The schism throve for 250 years, but the altar was ultimately dishonoured and overthrown. The Reformer who should desecrate it with bones of men was already appointed in the counsels of God. Even so, sooner or later, "every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up" (Mat_15:18). "If this work be of men, it will come to nought" (Act_5:38).
"Our little systems have their day,
They have their day and cease to be."
Magma est veritas, etc. The Babel of sects cannot last forever.
2. The ministers of God are secure so long as they do their duty. Jeroboam, with the ten tribes at his back, was powerless against the unprotected missionary. "He reproved kings for their sakes, saying… Do my prophets no harm" (Psa_105:14, Psa_105:15). The stars shall fall from their courses before a hair of their heads shall be injured. Cf. Dan_3:27; Dan_6:22; 2Ki_1:10, etc. But it may be objected, "The saints and messengers of God have often been brutally outraged and murdered" (Heb_11:35-37). True, but who shall say that they were not then most secure? "Through much tribulation we must enter into the kingdom of God" (Act_14:22). It was when Stephen was martyred that he saw "Jesus standing"—i.e; to help—"at the right hand of God." It has been suggested that it was when St. Paul was stoned and taken up for dead (Act_14:19) that he was caught up into Paradise (2Co_12:4). Sic iter ad astra.
3. The wicked cannot dispense with the prayers of the saints. "Entreat the face of the Lord thy God and pray for me" (cf. Exo_9:28; Num_12:2, Num_12:13; Act_8:24). How often has this history repeated itself; and what a foreshadowing of the world to come! Here was one of the synagogue of Satan worshipping at the prophet's feet, etc. (Rev_3:9). Observe, too, it is the part of a man of God to answer threats with prayers. "They are mine adversaries, but I, prayer" (Psa_109:4, Heb.; cf. Psa_35:13 sqq.) It is the very best way of overcoming evil with good.
4. Men are often more concerned about their sufferings than about their sins. Jeroboam's entreaty is, not that his sin may be forgiven, but that his hand may be restored. How many pray, "Heal my body;" how few, "Heal my soul, for I have sinned against thee" (Psa_41:4). The plague of head or hand extorts more cries for mercy than the plague of the heart (1Ki_8:38).
5. "Law and order cannot be violated with impunity by any ruler under any religious pretext" (Maurice). The rent altar teaches the lesson of Psa_2:2-5 : "Those betray themselves that think by any sin to support themselves."… "He promised himself that the calves would secure the crown to his family, but it proved they lost it" (M. Henry).
6. Let the ministers of God beware of bribery. "Come home with me and I will give," etc. The device of Jeroboam for silencing and conciliating the prophet has often been tried since, and with fatal success. How many men's mouths have been stopped by a sop—by place or pension, nay, by an insignificant present. Men know well—the enemy of man knows well—that the preacher finds it hard to reprove a benefactor. The writer once heard an influential person boasting that he had silenced his clergyman's remonstrances and appeals by a present of game! The world has a shrewd suspicion that the clergy are not incorruptible; that they, like others, have their price. Let us be on our guard against social corruption. How sinister the influence of some homes on the younger clergy. The cordial "Come home with me" was to them a snare of Satan. With the State clergy how strong the temptation to sacrifice independence for a benefice; with Nonconformists, to speak smooth words lest the congregation should "stop the supplies." The man of God thus speaks to all ministers of God.
I. THAT GOD SEES THE END FROM THE BEGINNING.
1. This is evinced in His works of creation.
(1) There is foresight in the constitution and adjustments of the framework, and in the motions, of the orbs.
(2) Also in the anticipatory instincts of animals—storing of food, provisions for young. Moths deposit their eggs upon leaves, not used by themselves as food, but proper to sustain the larvae.
(3) And in the anticipatory faculties of man. Intelligent foresight in business, in politics, in science, in religion.
2. It is evinced in prophecy.
(1) Great outlines of the world's history pre-written there (see Gen_9:25-27; Dan_7:1-28.).
(2) Particular example here. (Compare this with 2Ki_23:15-20.) The facts here were attested—By the Jews, on whose behalf they were ordered—By the Ephrathites, who would have impugned their authority if they could.
3. This example is too circumstantial to have been accidental.
(1) The child was to be of the house of David. Who but God could foresee that the house of David should occupy the throne of Judah at a distance of 856 years?
(2) Who but God could foresee that Bethel would then have passed from the kings of Israel under the dominion of Judah? (See 2Ch_13:19.)
(3) Who but God could foresee that at a distance of 840 years a child should be born to the house of David, bearing the name of Josiah, who should in due time do these things?
(4) Who else could anticipate, even when Josiah received his name, that the grandson of the wicked Manasseh, and son of the no less wicked Amen, should come to the throne, and with pious zeal bring these things to pass? Note: Such prescience as God displayed in this prophecy, and such providence as He evinced in its accomplishment, encourage faith. They assure us that our very names are in His book (Php_4:8). They encourage prayer.
II. THAT HE WILL CONFRONT THE SINNER IN JUDGMENT.
1. The message to Jeroboam was to this very effect.
(1) He bore His testimony against the altar. It had been consecrated, after a fashion, by the king, but God would desecrate it. The bodies of its priests were to be sacrificed upon it, and the bones of men were to be burnt upon it (1Ki_13:2). God will accept no will worship—no worship ordered after the policy of statesmen.
(2) In the demolition of the altar, not only is the religion connected with it doomed to be overthrown, but the judgment involves its votaries—the king, his priests, his people.
(3) The testimony was strong. The man of God cried aloud. He did not quail in the presence of the king amidst his friends. God's messengers should never cringe nor quail God's word can never fail.
2. These things were an allegory.
(1) Many of the wonderful narratives of Holy Scripture may be thus understood. We have the famous example, Gal_4:21-31.
(2) Here Jeroboam, like all other leaders in apostasy, was a forerunner of the Antichrist. As the religion of the "man of sin" is a caricature of the religion of Christ, so was that of Jeroboam a parody upon the Mosaic.
(3) Josiah was a type of Christ, the true Son of David. (Compare Isa_7:14.) Warning and mercy come before destruction. The army of Judah was stayed from crushing Jeroboam (1Ki_12:24), and in the mission of the man of God there was mercy in the warning. Let the sinner be admonished not to refuse the gospel.—J.A.M.
1Ki_13:4-6
I. JEROBOAM WAS A TYPICAL SINNER.
1. He transgressed God's law—
(1) In making images. The law forbad this (Exo_20:4, Exo_20:5). But he made two golden calves. Note: Images of God must be caricatures, and God will not be mocked, solemnly or otherwise, with impunity. How many frightful caricatures of Deity has the "man of sin" perpetrated! (2Th_2:3-12.)
(2) In multiplying altars. Legal worship was limited to one altar "in the place which the Lord should choose" (Deu_16:16). This was to keep before men the one only Mediator (Joh_14:6; 1Ti_2:5). Therefore other altars than that at Jerusalem were "altars unto sin" (Hos_8:11).
(3) In creating priests. According to the law, none but sons of Aaron had a Divine vocation to the priesthood (Exo_30:7, Exo_30:8; 2Ch_26:18; Heb_5:4). According to the gospel, Christ is sole Priest. Jeroboam, an Ephrathite, invaded the law principle, making himself high priest, and making subordinate priests of the lowest of the people.
2. He did so impudently.
(1) His sin was not of ignorance, for he had access to the Scriptures; but it did not serve his purpose to refer to them.
(2) Prophecy was particularly distasteful to him, for his doom is written there. Jeroboam had this from the lips of Ahijah, and now has it from the man of God from Judah. Beware of the spirit that would discourage a study upon which God has pronounced a blessing (Rev_1:3).
(3) The spirit of his religion was political. He would not have troubled himself with it had he not political ends to serve (1Ki_12:26-29). And to carry out these he dissembled: "It is too much for you to go to Jerusalem!"
II. HIS DOOM ALSO WAS TYPICAL.
1. He was confronted by the word of God.
(1) With this the man of God from Judah withstood him at his altar. So by the word of the Lord, and especially with the spirit of prophecy, has the man of sin been confronted by Waldenses, Paulikiaus, Hussites, Lutherans, and such like men "from Judah."
(2) But against this testimony he invoked the civil power under his usurped control (1Ki_13:4). The spirit of persecution was there. The modern Jeroboam carried it further (Dan_12:1-13 :21; Rev_13:7; Rev_17:6).
2. He was humbled by the power of God.
(1) His hand was withered; his power to persecute was paralyzed. How powerless is the hand of man when arrested by the hand of God! Behind the political restraints which now hold the persecuting hand of our enemies we must discern the invisible hand of God.
(3) The altar, then, was cloven, and the ashes of the spurious sacrifices poured out as with contempt. This also was effected by the same invisible hand. Who can resist the might of God?
(4) Constrained by these judgments, he confessed the finger of God, and entreated the man of God to pray for the restoration of his hand (see Exo_10:16, Exo_10:17; Num_21:7; Mat_5:23, Mat_5:24).
3. Yet he persisted in his sin.
(1) His humiliation was selfish. It was the creature of his terror and suffering, so it was transient.
(2) True repentance is of a loftier principle, and is enduring. It is a life, as faith also is a life.
(3) Instead of using his restored hand to demolish his high places, he used it to repair the altar at Bethel, and persisted in his sin (1Ki_13:33, 1Ki_13:34; 2Ch_13:20). But Josiah executed the judgments of prophecy in due time, So will the modern Jeroboam and his monstrous organization of sin perish in the fires of the judgment (Dan_7:10, Dan_7:11; 2Th_2:8). Note: Let those come out of Babylon who would escape her plagues.—J.A.M.
1Ki_13:7-10
I. HE MUST HOLD NO FELLOWSHIP WITH THEM.
1. He must not eat and drink with them.
(1) For this was anciently a profession of fellowship. Hence the Hebrews in Egypt would not eat with the Egyptians (Gen_43:32). The Jews would not eat with the Samaritans (Joh_4:9); and they were shocked to see Jesus eating with publicans and sinners (Mat_9:11). For the same reason Christians were forbidden to eat with ungodly persons (1Co_5:11; see also Rom_16:17; 2Th_3:6,2Th_3:14; 2Ti_3:5; Jas_4:4; 2Jn_1:10).
(2) The law of distinction between clean and unclean meats set forth not only the duty of avoiding fellowship with moral uncleanness, but also with those who are morally unclean; for the unclean animals represented "sinners of the Gentiles" while the clean stood for the "holy people" of Israel (Act_10:14, 84, 85).
(3) The eating of the forbidden fruit in Eden at the instigation of the serpent, who also seems to have eaten of it first, expressed fellowship with Satan! As the trees of Eden were sacramental, it may have expressed a covenant with the Evil One! Those who ate together were understood to stand to each other in a covenant relationship (Gen_31:43-46).
(4) In this light the Christian Eucharist sets forth the covenant fellowship, that we have, first, with Christ, and secondly, with those who are in such fellowship with Him (see, in this light, Joh_6:53-56).
2. He must refuse their presents.
(1) Some think Jeroboam's offer to "reward" the man of God was to give him a bribe. This is not evident. Yet good men are liable to be tempted with bribes, but should stoutly refuse them (1Sa_12:3; Job_15:34).
(2) The king's intention was to do honour to the man of God, according to a constant custom in the East (see 1Sa_9:7; 2Ki_5:15). The word îúú here translated "reward," would have been better rendered "gift," as in many other places it is. But such a gift or present, if accepted, would express friendship, and therefore, coming from the hand of an arch idolator and schismatic, it must be declined,
(3) Good men must be careful how they accept favours from the wicked, lest in doing so they may compromise to them their independence, or come unduly under their influence (see Gen_14:1-24 :28; Gen_23:13-16; 2Ki_5:16).
II. HIS INTERCOURSE WITH THEM SHOULD BE BRIEF.
1. While serving God he is safe.
(1) His very testimony for God commits him to a course of conduct consistent with it. This element of moral strength is lost to those who hide their light under a bushel.
(2) He has a right to claim God's help (Mat_10:19, Mat_10:20; Mat_28:20).
2. But it is perilous longer to remain.
(1) The very disposition to remain amidst circumstances with which we should have no sympathy argues weakness which should alarm.
(2) He lays himself open to temptation. He may find the "king" disposed to honour him. Some are foolishly susceptible to flattery from the great ones of this world. The man of God should be proof against this (1Ki_13:8).
(3) He may be taken at a disadvantage. Being away from the influence of godly friends. Having now no claim to special help from God.
3. But why must he return by another way?
(1) Not only did the man of God give a sign, but he was also himself a sign. As Jeroboam was the sign of the man of sin, this prophet was, at least in his instructions, a typical "man of God."
(2) In coming from Judah, where God was purely worshipped in His temple, to Ephraim, where "altars were made unto sin," he would personate that moral lapse into which Ephraim had fallen.
(3) In his speedy return from Ephraim to Judah, after deprecating the sin of the place, he would represent to the Ephrathites what God expected from them, viz; repentance and reformation.
(4) But the way hack to God is not precisely the reversal of the way from Him. Adam fell by sin of his own and was turned out of Eden, but must return by the righteousness of another (Gen_3:24). Our way hack to God is the "new and living way opened in the blood of Jesus."—J.A.M.
I. HIS MESSAGE.
1. Its Divine origin. "He cried… in the word of the Lord." A remarkable expression. It represents the word as the sphere in which he lived, the atmosphere he breathed. A sense of the Divine presence, a confidence in the Divine call, a certainty of the Divine message, characterized him. This was a sign of the true prophet. Compare with this the call of Samuel, the announcements of Elijah, the commission of Isaiah, etc. To some the declarations of God's will came fitfully. Prophecy was never a constant possession of a servant of God. There was a tidal flow of inspiration, the law of which we know not. So was it with the miraculous powers of the Apostles.
2. Its definite nature (verse 2). The very name of the coming avenger is mentioned more than three hundred years before Josiah's birth. It was foretold that the priests would be sacrified on the altar at which they had insulted God. The lex talionis is the ground of this, as of other theocratic laws. It reminds us that the sinner is destroyed by his own sin; that punishments are not arbitrary, but are the legitimate issues of crime against God. It was further announced that the bones of the dead would be taken from the graves and burnt on the altar, so that the place of idolatry might be defiled and dishonoured. See Num_19:16. For fulfilment of prophecy read 2Ki_23:15-20.
3. Its merciful design. In 1Ki_12:24 we read that God forbade the advance of the army of Judah on Jeroboam. Instead of carnage he sends this message. He willeth not the death of a sinner, but would rather he should turn from his wickedness and live. Suggest the warnings God now sends to rouse us to thought and penitence.
II. HIS COURAGE. It was a bold thing to venture amongst the people at a time when they were full of hatred to Judah, and of unwillingness to be reminded of Jehovah; and to face the king, who was a man of despotic and resolute temper, in the very pride of his royal strength. But in the presence of them all the prophet's cry arose, "O altar, altar, thus saith Jehovah," etc; as if the stones would listen more readily than the people. Give examples of similar courage being displayed by men who have had the Consciousness they were speaking for God; e.g; Moses before Pharaoh, Elijah before Ahab, John the Baptist before Herod, Peter and John before the Sanhedrim, Paul before Felix. From church history, too, such examples as that of Ambrose, John Knox, etc; may be cited. Show how requisite courage is now to genuine fidelity to conviction, amongst sceptical or sinful associations.
III. HIS CREDENTIALS. A sign was given there and then. The altar was cleft in twain, and the ashes were poured out. For the significance of the latter see Le Joh_16:3, Joh_16:4. Point out the credibility of supernatural signs as attesting supernatural revelations. Refer to the miracles of Christ, of which He said, "Believe me for the very works' sake." See also Mar_16:20; Act_2:1-47 :48. Indicate the nature of the credentials which the world may fairly demand of Christian men in the present day; and show how far we fail in giving these, and the causes of our failure.
IV. HIS SAFETY. Amidst all the perils encircling him he was "kept by the power of God." The hand that would have slain him was withered; the man who cursed his message besought his prayers. "Man is immortal till his work is done." When God's servants die, it is because they have fulfilled the purpose of their lives. They have many enemies, but God can disable all their foes. The path of duty is the path of safety. Illustrate this from the records of the Christian Church; Luther at Worms, etc.
1. Learn to listen for God's message. He would make you His "voice."
2. Learn to dare anything in God's name. The rarity of Christian chivalry.
3. Learn to trust in God's protection. "He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty."
4. Learn to pray even for your persecutors. Compare Act_2:6 with Mat_5:44.—A.R.
I. In the person of the king we see THE HELPLESSNESS OF A WICKED MAN IN THE HANDS OF AN OFFENDED GOD. The physical associations and the mental conditions here presented are alike suggestive of this. It is a striking picture of restrained infatuation and impotent rage.
1. The king's withered arm tells how God can in a moment turn the strength that is used against Him to weakness. "When thou with rebukes dost correct man for iniquity," etc. (Psa_39:11).
2. The rent altar suggests the certain frustration, sooner or later, of the purposes and plans of those that are at enmity with God. "The Lord bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought," etc. (Psa_33:10). "If this counsel or this work be of man," etc. (Act_5:38).
3. The king's inability to pray for himself reminds us how God sometimes forsakes those who forsake Him, so that it seems utterly vain for them to call upon Him. Many a man has felt like Saul, "I am sore distressed, and God is departed from me," etc. (1Sa_28:15).
4. His appeal to the prophet to intercede for him is typical of the way in which ungodly men are often contrained by force of circumstance to seek succour from those whom they have despised. "The wheel of fortune turns and lowers the proud," and they are placed, perhaps, at the mercy of the very men whom they once scorned and injured. Such are the penalties that God often inflicts on those who trifle with His authority and defy His power. Such is the curse that falls upon "presumptuous sin."
II. The behaviour of the prophet presents A FINE EXAMPLE OF MORAL DIGNITY AND CONSCIOUS STRENGTH. See here—
(1) The courage of a man who knows that God is on his side. The prophets of old, conscious of a more majestic Presence and a higher Sovereignty, never trembled before the face of wicked kings. The fear of God casts out all other fear. "Be not afraid of them that kill the body," etc. (Luk_12:4, Luk_12:5). "If God be for us," etc. (Rom_8:31).
(2) The magnanimity of one who feels that he is called to witness for God among men. The prophet will not take advantage of the king's helpnessness; rather responds at once to his appeal. He who is inspired by God's Spirit will not return scorn for scorn, or retaliate an attempted injury, but rather use for beneficent ends the power that he possesses. "Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven and consume them? Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of," etc. (Luk_9:54, Luk_9:56).
(3) The efficacy of the prayer of a righteous man. The withered arm is restored, and though this had no happy moral effect, as might have been expected, on Jeroboam, the whole transaction, in which mercy was thus blended with judgment, vindicated the honour of Jehovah, and established afresh His sovereign claim to the allegiance alike of king and people.—W.
I. THE PRETENSIONS OF ERROR DEEPEN ITS SHAME. The idolatrous altar was being solemnly consecrated. The people's eyes were dazzled with the splendour of the priestly and regal display. Jeroboam himself stood by the altar to offer incense. And then the cry arose which arrested every ear and thrilled through every soul.
1. The attempt to give importance to the new idolatry only broadened the mark for God's rebuke: it simply lent emphasis to His condemnation. They had come to consecrate, and had really come to attend upon God while He desecrated the work of their hands. Heathenism in its splendour thus rebuked by the preaching of the cross, Rome by the light of the Reformation.
2. The agent by whom God's glory was vindicated. The insignificance of the poor, weary, travel-stained man deepened their disgrace. "God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty."
II. THE DOOM OF IDOLATROUS WORSHIP.
1. The altar will be desecrated. The place will be made an abomination and horror. Sin's judgment will in the end be sin's destruction.
2. The sin will be wiped out in the blood and shame of those who have wrought it. The priests will be offered upon the altar, the bones of its worshippers burned upon it. The world's sin will be ended in God's fiery judgment upon the sinful.
3. The certainty of God's purpose. Centuries intervened between the prediction and the fulfilment, but all was arranged. The time was fixed, the avenger named. There is no uncertainty in God's mind regarding the end of iniquity. The decree has been recorded, the time fixed, THE MAN named by whom He will judge the world in righteousness.
4. The sign meanwhile given. The altar was rent and its ashes poured out. The wrath revealed from heaven now is proof that all God's purpose shall be fulfilled.
III. MAN'S INABILITY TO CONTEND WITH GOD.
1. The withered arm. The arm outstretched in eager, wrathful command to arrest the man of God, withered in the very attitude. It was the emblem of his house and of his people; they were withered in the attitude of rebellion against God.
2. The prophet's safety. He needed none to shield him. God protects all those who serve Him.
3. Jeroboam's humiliation. He turns from idol and altar and priests, and requests the prophet's intercession with Jehovah.
4. His arm is restored at the prophet's request, and he thus bears in his person another token that the word he has heard is from God. It is the story of God's contest with darkness and wrong today.
IV. SEPARATION ESSENTIAL FOR TESTIMONY. Jeroboam's hospitality and reward were alike refused. The prophet was even forbidden to return by the same way: he was not to enter even into acquaintance with men who were sinning so deeply against God. Unless there be separation our testimony is a sham. Our life unsays our speech. If we will speak God's word to the sinful, our attitude must reveal their distance from God and the peril in which they stand. If our own heart be filled with holy fear it may pass item us to them.—J.U.