Difference between revisions of "The Prophet from Beit El/2"
m |
m |
||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
<category>Act of Altruism | <category>Act of Altruism | ||
<p>The prophet's motives were misguided, but altruistic. He simply wanted to prevent the Man of God from going home hungry.</p> | <p>The prophet's motives were misguided, but altruistic. He simply wanted to prevent the Man of God from going home hungry.</p> | ||
− | <mekorot>Abarbanel</mekorot> | + | <mekorot><multilink><a href="AbarbanelMelakhimI13" data-aht="source">Abarbanel</a><a href="AbarbanelMelakhimI13" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 13</a><a href="R. Yitzchak Abarbanel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel</a></multilink></mekorot> |
<point><b>Yerovam's invitation to eat and drink</b> – When Yerovam saw that treating the אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים harshly resulted in punishment he changed tactics, hoping that if he honored him, Hashem's anger would be appeased.</point> | <point><b>Yerovam's invitation to eat and drink</b> – When Yerovam saw that treating the אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים harshly resulted in punishment he changed tactics, hoping that if he honored him, Hashem's anger would be appeased.</point> | ||
<point><b>Prohibition against eating and drinking</b> – Abarbanel suggests that Beit El had the status of an עיר נדחת from which it is prohibited to benefit.  In addition, as it is prohibited to enter a city of idolators except to rebuke them, it was imperative that the Man of God did not stay to socialize, thereby clarifying that he viewed the city in such a manner.</point> | <point><b>Prohibition against eating and drinking</b> – Abarbanel suggests that Beit El had the status of an עיר נדחת from which it is prohibited to benefit.  In addition, as it is prohibited to enter a city of idolators except to rebuke them, it was imperative that the Man of God did not stay to socialize, thereby clarifying that he viewed the city in such a manner.</point> | ||
Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
<p>The prophet from Beit El was looking after his personal interests, and doing what he thought would be best for his prophetic business. The variations of this approach differ both in their evaluation of the Man of God and in the immediate motives of the Prophet from Beit El:</p> | <p>The prophet from Beit El was looking after his personal interests, and doing what he thought would be best for his prophetic business. The variations of this approach differ both in their evaluation of the Man of God and in the immediate motives of the Prophet from Beit El:</p> | ||
<opinion>Defame the Man of God | <opinion>Defame the Man of God | ||
− | <p>The prophet | + | <p>The prophet from Beit El viewed the Man of God as competition, leading him to try and de-legitimize him in the eyes of the king.</p> |
<mekorot><multilink><a href="JosephusAntiquitiesoftheJews88-5" data-aht="source">Josephus</a><a href="JosephusAntiquitiesoftheJews88-5" data-aht="source">8 8:5</a><a href="JosephusAntiquitiesoftheJews89-1" data-aht="source">8 9:1</a><a href="Josephus Antiquities of the Jews" data-aht="parshan">About Josephus Antiquities of the Jews</a></multilink></mekorot> | <mekorot><multilink><a href="JosephusAntiquitiesoftheJews88-5" data-aht="source">Josephus</a><a href="JosephusAntiquitiesoftheJews88-5" data-aht="source">8 8:5</a><a href="JosephusAntiquitiesoftheJews89-1" data-aht="source">8 9:1</a><a href="Josephus Antiquities of the Jews" data-aht="parshan">About Josephus Antiquities of the Jews</a></multilink></mekorot> | ||
<point><b>Yerovam's Invitation</b> – After the withering of his hand, the king believed the words of the prophet to be Divine and true.  Thus when he prayed that his hand be restored and it was, he invited the prophet home to express his gratitude.</point> | <point><b>Yerovam's Invitation</b> – After the withering of his hand, the king believed the words of the prophet to be Divine and true.  Thus when he prayed that his hand be restored and it was, he invited the prophet home to express his gratitude.</point> | ||
Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
<mekorot>modern scholars<fn></fn></mekorot> | <mekorot>modern scholars<fn></fn></mekorot> | ||
<point><b>Yerovam's Invitation</b> – Yerovam's invitation and offer of a present was an attempt to commission the Man of God from Yehuda to work for him and thereby give a Southern seal of approval to his idolatrous practices.<fn>See the opinion of N. Samet above.</fn></point> | <point><b>Yerovam's Invitation</b> – Yerovam's invitation and offer of a present was an attempt to commission the Man of God from Yehuda to work for him and thereby give a Southern seal of approval to his idolatrous practices.<fn>See the opinion of N. Samet above.</fn></point> | ||
− | <point><b>"אִם תִּתֶּן לִי אֶת חֲצִי בֵיתֶךָ לֹא אָבֹא עִמָּךְ"</b> – P. Reis suggests that the Man of God's apparent refusal of the king's offer is actually not a refusal at all, but a setting of the price for which he would be willing to defect to Beit El and defy God. Though his opening offer (half the kingdom) is couched in the negative (לֹא אָבֹא עִמָּךְ), such feigned reluctance is simply the standard manner in which business deals were negotiated in Biblical times.<fn>Reis points to the negotiations between Efron and Avraham as another example of similar "no means yes" bargaining. Efron begins by offering the plot a | + | <point><b>Prohibitions of eating and drinking</b> – Since eating and drinking by a king indicated being supported by him, the prophet was commanded upfront not to eat in Beit El, lest he be viewed as a puppet of the king rather than a true prophet.</point> |
+ | <point><b>"אִם תִּתֶּן לִי אֶת חֲצִי בֵיתֶךָ לֹא אָבֹא עִמָּךְ"</b> – P. Reis suggests that the Man of God's apparent refusal of the king's offer is actually not a refusal at all, but a setting of the price for which he would be willing to defect to Beit El and defy God. Though his opening offer (half the kingdom) is couched in the negative (לֹא אָבֹא עִמָּךְ), such feigned reluctance is simply the standard manner in which business deals were negotiated in Biblical times.<fn>Reis points to the negotiations between Efron and Avraham as another example of similar "no means yes" bargaining. Efron begins by offering the plot as a gift, though both sides are fully aware that eventually money will pass hands. Other examples of feigned reluctance in business deals include the interaction between Aravna and David in <a href="ShemuelII24-21-25" data-aht="source">Shemuel II 24</a>, and Bilaam's responses to Balak in Bemidbar 22. Reis suggests that the latter is very similar to our story as Bilaam states, "אִם יִתֶּן לִי בָלָק מְלֹא בֵיתוֹ כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב לֹא אוּכַל לַעֲבֹר אֶת פִּי י"י" even though he, apparently, had every intention of doing so.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>נביא שסרח</b></point> | <point><b>נביא שסרח</b></point> | ||
<point><b>הנביא מבית אל –  True or false prophet?</b> The Prophet from Beit El was a false prophet who had a "prophetic business" in the city.</point> | <point><b>הנביא מבית אל –  True or false prophet?</b> The Prophet from Beit El was a false prophet who had a "prophetic business" in the city.</point> |
Version as of 06:28, 13 December 2017
The Prophet from Beit El
Exegetical Approaches
Political Agenda
The Prophet from Beit El hoped that by having the Man of God disobey his own words and prophetic sign, he could undo the prophecy against Beit El and restore legitimacy to the worship taking place there.
- Reaffirm status of Beit El – According to R. Samet, after the אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים cast doubt on the legitimacy of the new worship during the dedication ceremony, the Prophet from Beit El realized he needed to reaffirm his prophetic position and thereby restore Beit El's religious status. By getting the אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים to accept his word, he could assert himself as the more senior prophet, and prove that his stance towards the new worship was the correct one.
- Reverse the prophetic sign and its content – Prof. Simon, in contrast, assumes that the fate of the new religious system was less troubling to the old prophet than the prophecy regarding the burial plots, and it was mainly this which he wanted to prevent coming to fruition. He suggests that the act of undoing a prophetic sign11 was believed to actively affect the word of God that lay behind the sign.12 Thus, the prophet believed that if he could reverse the decrees against eating he could also undo the prophecy which they symbolized.
- Corrective– It was imperative for the Prophet from Beit El to get the prophecy so that after the אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים died, he could confirm to the city that this happened by the word of Hashem for his transgression.17 In so doing, he was able to reverse some of the damage done by his deception of the אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים.
- Test – R. Samet adds that the prophecy was also a test to the false prophet. Would he change in the aftermath of hearing the word of God, recognize the truth of the original prophecy, and help spread it, or would he remain mired in his old ways?
Religious Motives
The Prophet from Beit El did not know if the Man of God was a legitimate prophet or an emissary sent by Rechovam to attack Beit El for political reasons. His invitation was intended to discover whether or not he truly spoke the word of Hashem.
Act of Altruism
The prophet's motives were misguided, but altruistic. He simply wanted to prevent the Man of God from going home hungry.
Personal Gain
The prophet from Beit El was looking after his personal interests, and doing what he thought would be best for his prophetic business. The variations of this approach differ both in their evaluation of the Man of God and in the immediate motives of the Prophet from Beit El:
Defame the Man of God
The prophet from Beit El viewed the Man of God as competition, leading him to try and de-legitimize him in the eyes of the king.
Co-opt the Man of God
The Prophet from Beit El saw in the Man of God a potential partner who might join him in his false prophesying.