The Prophet from Beit El/2

The Prophet from Beit El

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

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.

Sources:modern scholars¹

Yerovam's invitation to eat and drink – R"E Samet suggests that Yerovam was hoping that if the אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים acquiesced to eat by him, it would be taken as a sign that, despite the devastating prophecy, the Man of God did not view the city of Beit El and its king as reprehensible.  As the invitation was issued in public,² had the אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים responded positively, it would have been viewed by the masses as a legitimization of Yerovam's religious innovations.

Prohibition of eating and drinking in Beit El – It was for this very reason that Hashem prohibited the אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים from eating or drinking in Beit El.  The refusal to partake in a meal in the city symbolized the total rejection of the city, and moreover, that such rejection began already in the present (even if the full prophecy was only to be fulfilled far in the future).³

Prohibition of returning via the same path – Prof. Simon suggests that returning to one's point of departure and retracing one's footsteps signify a cancelling of one's original journey.⁴  Thus, had the אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים returned the way he had come it would have been viewed as a reversal of his mission and decree.⁵ R. Samet adds that going via a new path simultaneously represents that the original decree is irreversible: "דבר ה' אחור לא ישוב ריקם".‎⁶

הנביא מבית אל: True or false  prophet? According to this approach, the Prophet from Beit El was a false prophet.⁷  R. Samet suggests, moreover, that he was closely connected to Yerovam's new religious enterprise and served to give it a prophetic stamp of approval.⁸  It is possible that the different titles given to the prophets reflect their different statuses.  "נביא" is a generic term which could refer to any prophet, be he true or false, while "אִישׁ אֱלֹהִים" is limited to those who speak the word of Hashem.

Why wasn't the נביא at the ceremony? T. Verdiger⁹ questions, if the Prophet from Beit El was so central to the religious upheaval, why was he not present at the ceremony during  the holiday?  R. Samet does not address the question directly but implies that the prophet intentionally absented himself so as not to directly witness any miraculous signs which might "force" him to recognize the truth of the Man of God's prophecies.¹⁰

The invitation of the prophet from Beit El – Prof. Simon and R. Samet agree that the prophet's motivation was to undo certain aspects of the Man of God's prophecy, but disagree regarding the specifics:

• 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.

How was the Man of God duped? According to R. Samet, it was the Man of God's status as true prophet and his sincere desire that the people repent that led him to believe the old prophet.  When the Prophet from Beit El told him that he had received word from Hashem allowing eating and drinking, he concluded that the people must have repented leading Hashem to rescind his decree against the city as a whole.¹³  As such, he saw no problem in accompanying the prophet from Beit El, and likely did so happily.

Harsh punishment – Though the אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים did not transgress his word intentionally, his actions deserved punishment since they served to undermine his entire prophecy and had the potential to cause a huge desecration of Hashem's name. The supernatural nature of his death was needed to ensure that the people knew he was punished for his transgression.¹⁴  It sent a message that his eating and drinking in Beit El was not sanctioned by God and did not mean that Beit El was once again in God's favor.

Who gets the prophecy regarding the Man of God's punishment? Both Prof. Simon and R. Samet assume that "הַנָּבִיא אֲשֶׁר הֱשִׁיבוֹ" who received the prophecy regarding the fate of the אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים was the false prophet who had caused the other to veer from his path. This is supported by the fact that throughout the chapter it is he who is referred to as "נביא"‎¹⁵ and by the fact that in verse 26 when the term "הַנָּבִיא אֲשֶׁר הֱשִׁיבוֹ" is used again, it clearly refers to the old prophet as the other has already died.¹⁶

Why does the נביא מבית אל get the prophecy?

• 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?

Shared burial – Prof. Simon points out that the damage done via the false prophet is only totally reversed with his request to his sons that they bury him with the Man of God, and his accompanying explanation, "כִּי הָיֹה יִהְיֶה הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר קָרָא בִּדְבַר י"י..."  In so doing, the false prophet created a new prophetic sign to replace the one he had foiled, and reaffirmed the original prophecy. While Prof. Simon sees this as the byproduct of selfish motives (that his bones be saved), R. Samet goes further to suggest that the formerly false prophet had actually totally repented of his ways, and the main goal of his request was actually to relay the truth of the prophecy.¹⁸

חוטא נשכר? According to R. Samet, the prophet from Beit El is rewarded rather than punished, because in the end he repented of his ways, took responsibility for his deeds and tried to correct what he had done.

Message of the story

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.

Sources:modern scholars¹⁹

Prohibition of eating and drinking in Beit El – Nili Samet²⁰ points out that in Tanakh when a prophet "eats by a king" it means that they are being being financially supported by him, and, as such, are expected to express a certain political opinion or religious agenda. As evidence, she points to the Baal prophets who were "אֹכְלֵי שֻׁלְחַן אִיזָבֶל" and to Amos 7 where Amaziah says to Amos, "חֹזֶה לֵךְ בְּרַח לְךָ אֶל אֶרֶץ יְהוּדָה וֶאֱכׇל שָׁם לֶחֶם וְשָׁם תִּנָּבֵא"‎.²¹ If so, the אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים was prohibited from eating to demonstrate that he was not for hire, but was a true prophet, expressing the message of Hashem, and not the king.²²

Yerovam's Invitation – Yerovam's invitation stemmed from the desire to commission the Man of God to represent his interests.

הנביא מבית אל: True or false prophet? According to these sources, the Prophet from Beit El was a true prophet, but one who had not received prophecy in a long while.²³  The verse tells us that he lied to the אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים to teach that it was only in this specific case that he veered from the truth; normally he did not.

Why wasn't the נביא at the ceremony? T. Verdiger points out that since the prophet was actually a true prophet, and knew that only Yerushalayim (and not Beit El) is the holy city, he was uncomfortable with Yerovam's religious innovations and thus hesitant to attend the dedication of the altar.

Doubts – Despite the older prophet's discomfort with Yerovam's reformation, however, he was not certain that it was illegitimate.  After all, if Yerovam had been chosen by God to establish a new monarchy, perhaps his cultic reforms were also Divinely sanctioned.  The fact that Yerushalayim was filled with idolatrous shrines only increased the prophet's confusion, making him wonder whether perhaps it was not just the Davidic dynasty, but also Yerushalayim that was being rejected.

The invitation of the prophet from Beit El – It was this confusion that led the prophet to wonder how he should view the אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים.  Was he an emissary of Rechovam, only claiming to speak the Divine word for political gain, or was he a true prophet, declaring the reformation in Beit El problematic? Filled with uncertainty, the prophet decided to test the אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים, assuming that if he were willing to go against his own word, he must be a false prophet.

How was the Man of God duped? It is possible that the Man of God was duped because he thought that it was really only eating by the king himself that was problematic. As there was no reason that eating by a true prophet should lead people to view him as a prophet-for-hire or political emissary, when the older prophet told him that he had received word from God allowing a meal, he was not suspicious.²⁴

Why does the נביא מבית אל get the prophecy? Since the prophet from Beit El was a true prophet it is not odd that he should receive prophecy. Moreover, since his intentions in deceiving the Man of God were sincere, but had nonetheless produced the wrong conclusions, Hashem wanted to correct his misconception.

Miraculous circumstances of death – The fact that the אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים died a supernatural death in retribution for transgressing his own word proved to the nation as a whole that he was not an imposter with a political agenda, but a true messenger of God.

Harsh punishment – Despite having no negative intentions, since the אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים went against his own prophecy, he was deserving of punishment, as decreed in Devarim 18: "וְהָיָה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִשְׁמַע אֶל דְּבָרַי אֲשֶׁר יְדַבֵּר בִּשְׁמִי אָנֹכִי אֶדְרֹשׁ מֵעִמּוֹ".

חוטא נשכר? Since the Prophet from Beit El was motivated solely by a desire to ascertain what was the true Word of Hashem, he was not punished for his deed, but instead turned into a tool to further spread the truth.

Larger message of the incident – Alex Israel suggests that the uncertainty which gripped the old prophet was likely shared by the entire nation. They, too, wondered if Yerovam's Divine selection served to legitimize his actions, despite their appearing to defy Hashem's Torah. The death of the Man of God provided an answer to their dilemma.  He, too, was chosen by God, but then transgressed Hashem's word.  His punishment sent a clear message: even if your mission is Divinely mandated, when you fail to comply with Hashem's laws, you lose your Divine legitimacy.

Act of Altruism

The prophet's motives were misguided, but altruistic. He simply wanted to prevent the Man of God from going home hungry.

Sources:AbarbanelMelakhim I 13About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel

Yerovam's invitation to eat and drink – 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.

Prohibition against eating and drinking – 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.

Prohibition of returning via the same path – Abarbanel suggests that this prohibition was symbolic of the fact that Beit El was to be destroyed, and all paths to it erased.²⁵

הנביא מבית אל: True or false prophet? Abarbanel maintains that the prophet from Beit El was a true prophet, claiming that he would not be granted the title "נביא" otherwise, but rather נביא הבעל or the equivalent.

The invitation of the prophet from Beit El – Abarbanel suggests that the prophet from Beit El had no evil intentions when he invited the אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים to his home, and simply wanted to provide him with a meal so he would not starve on the way home.  The prophet had not realized that the Man of God was truly Divinely prohibited from eating in the city and assumed that he had simply fabricated an excuse which would allow him to refuse the king.

Can a true prophet lie? Abarbanel suggests that the prophet did not think of himself as lying by giving his invitation in the name of Hashem, since he was simply doing what he thought the Man of God had done when refusing the original invitation.²⁶ One might, nonetheless, question from the laws of Devarim 18 whether any prophet is allowed to claim Divine authority for his speech when he has none, especially in such a case as this, which would seem not to require any such authority regardless.²⁷

How was the Man of God duped? Since the older prophet claimed that he, too, was a true prophet, and hinted that he had even received the same prophecy that the Man of God had shared in Beit El (גַּם אֲנִי נָבִיא כָּמוֹךָ),²⁸ the אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים thought he could trust him.  Moreover, the older prophet suggested that the original prohibition only applied to eating with idolators, not with true prophets.  He thus removed from the אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים any further concerns that acquiescing would be defying the word of God.

Harsh punishment – Since the punishment for transgressing the word of God is death, the אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים received his appropriate due. Though he did not act intentionally, he still should have thought to question the prophet further before agreeing to disregard his own prophecy.²⁹

חוטא נשכר – The fact that the Prophet from Beit El is not punished and is even rewarded by having his bones saved is one of the motivating factors leading Abarbanel to defend him and suggest that his intentions were altruistic.

"וַיֹּאמֶר אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים הוּא אֲשֶׁר מָרָה אֶת פִּי י"י" – The Prophet from Beit El was needed to explain to all that the real reason for the Man of God's death was his transgression.³⁰  Otherwise Yerovam would interpret it as his being killed for his original prophecy against Beit El.

Burial, eulogy and prophecy – The fact that the older prophet mourns the death of the Man of God, buries him, and helps spread his prophecy, is further proof that he was a true prophet, sincerely upset at what he had caused and desirous that the Man of God's word be heard.

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.

Sources:Josephus8 8:58 9:1About Josephus Antiquities of the Jews

Yerovam's Invitation – 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.

The prohibitions – Josephus does not address the question but would likely suggest that eating and drinking was prohibited lest the actions appear to sanction the idolatrous practices of the city.

הנביא מבית אל – True or false prophet? The Prophet from Beit El was a false prophet who was trying curry favor with the king.

The invitation from the prophet from Beit El – After hearing of the miracles performed by the Man of God and how he both paralyzed and cured the king's hand, the older prophet feared for his job, concerned lest the new prophet gain a better standing with the king than himself. As such, he hoped to trick the אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים into sinning and transgressing his own words to prove to the king that he was not trustworthy.

How was the Man of God duped? Josephus presents the Man of God as being gullible, but having had no intention of transgressing his prophecy. In his innocence, he truly believed that the Prophet from Beit El had received an alternative prophecy which overturned the original one.

Prophecy foretelling the Man of God's punishment – According to Josephus, the "נָּבִיא אֲשֶׁר הֱשִׁיבוֹ" who receives the prophecy is the Man of God himself.³¹  [The false prophet does not deserve to receive the word of Hashem.]

Shared burial – Josephus presents the older prophet as being joyful in the Man of God's downfall³² and continuing to act in his own best interest after his death. He claims that the false prophet is motivated to save and bury the corpse of the אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים only so that he can save his own bones later.

"אַחַר הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה לֹא שָׁב יָרׇבְעָם מִדַּרְכּוֹ הָרָעָה" – Josephus places the blame for Yerovam's continued disobedience on the Prophet from Beit El. He suggests that the prophet explained away all of the Man of God's wonders as coincidences.³³ Moreover, he told the king of the Man of God's death, implying that it was proof that he had no prophetic standing.

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.

Sources:modern scholars³⁴

Yerovam's Invitation – 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.³⁵

Prohibitions of eating and drinking – 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.

"אִם תִּתֶּן לִי אֶת חֲצִי בֵיתֶךָ לֹא אָבֹא עִמָּךְ" – 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.³⁶

נביא שסרח

הנביא מבית אל –  True or false prophet? The Prophet from Beit El was a false prophet, though not necessarily in the employ of Yerovam. [As such, he might not have felt  compelled to attend the dedication of the altar, evenif he had no issue with it.].

The invitation from the prophet from Beit El – The false prophet thought that having the אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים as a professional partner would be good for his business.  The Man of God's public demonstration of his powers had been quite impressive and was likely to attract customers.  Thus, when he learned that the Man of God was willing to be "bought",³⁷ he invited him home, hoping to cajole him into joining his prophetic business in Beit El.

How was the Man of God duped? According to Reis, the Man of God had been tempted to stay in Beit El and turn his back on God all along.³⁸ Thus, when the older prophet told him "אֲנִי נָבִיא כָּמוֹךָ" hinting that they are two of the same breed, prophets with their eyes on material advantage rather than on God's will, he did not need much convincing.  According to this reading, however, it is not clear why the false prophet felt the need to pretend that he had received a Divine prophecy overturning the previous one; after all, his working assumption was that both prophets were willing to dismiss God's word regardless.

Harsh Punishment – According to Reis, the Man of God's punishment is not overly harsh as he had not accidentally transgressed Hashem's word, but knowingly defied God.  Moreover, he had being willing to join Beit El in its apostasy.³⁹ 

Change of heart – Reis suggests that after the Divine declaration that the Man of God is to be punished for his transgression, the old Prophet from Beit El has a change of heart.  His contrition is demonstrated by his saddling of a donkey for the Man of God,  braving the lion to recovering the corpse, bringing the body to burial, and eulogizing of the prophet.  Most telling, though, is his endorsing of the Man of God's original prophecy against Beit El, as he declares, "כִּי הָיֹה יִהְיֶה הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר קָרָא בִּדְבַר י"י עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֲשֶׁר בְּבֵית אֵל וְעַל כׇּל בָּתֵּי הַבָּמוֹת אֲשֶׁר בְּעָרֵי שֹׁמְרוֹן".

חוטא נשכר – Reis suggests that it is the repentance of the old prophet which merits his bones to be saved, and even goes as far as to suggest that it is only in his merit that the Man of God's bones are saved as well. This, however, directly contradicts the text which states, "וַיְמַלְּטוּ עַצְמוֹתָיו אֵת עַצְמוֹת הַנָּבִיא אֲשֶׁר בָּא מִשֹּׁמְרוֹן".

¹ See Prof. U. Simon, "אות נבואי גובר על שלושת מפיריו- מלך ישראל, נביא בית אל ואיש האלהים מיהודה", in קריאה ספרותית במקרא: סיפורי נביאים (Jerusalem, 1997) 157-188, and R"E Samet, גדול הוא קידוש ה' מחילול ה' - מלכים א' פרק י"ג - סיפר ופשרו in Megadim 6 (Alon Shevut, 1988): 55-85.

² R"E Samet assumes that many people had traveled to Beit El for the dedication of the altar during the new holiday.

³ R. Samet compares the city to an עיר נדחת, a city of idolators which is designated to destruction and from which it is prohibited to benefit. See RadakMelakhim I 13:9-21About R. David Kimchi who similarly explains that due to the idolatrous nature of the city, it was prohibited to enter it except to rebuke the people.  See also RalbagMelakhim I 13:9-18Melakhim I Toalot 13:16About R. Levi b. Gershom who claims that the prohibition to benefit from the city signified that it was to be totally destroyed.  Prof. Simon compares this to the symbolic acts done by Yirmeyahu (not to marry, or enter a house of parties etc) which represented the doomed nature of Yerushalayim.

⁴ He compares it to the command not to return to Egypt to buy horses, where Hashem says, "לֹא תֹסִפוּן לָשׁוּב בַּדֶּרֶךְ הַזֶּה עוֹד".  Willingly returning to Egypt is considered a lack of recognition of the Exodus, a undoing of sorts of the original miracle.

⁵ Cf. Ralbag, "וצוהו שלא ישוב בדרך אשר בא בה אל בית אל כאילו יעיר כי דרכו אשר דרך בה ללכת לבית אל לאמר אלו הדברים אשר אמר שם אין בה תועלת".

⁶ Though R. Samet and Prof. Simon agree fundamentally regarding the meaning of the prohibitions, they disagree regarding their purpose: whether they constituted prophetic signs, or reactive measures. Prof. Simon asserts that they were meant to serve as signs and buttress the original message of the Man of God, while R. Samet suggests that they do not have independent value and serve only to negate the invitations of Yerovam and the Prophet from Beit El.  He views them as Hashem's preempting of potential problems to come (הקדים רפואה למכה).

⁷ See Bavli SanhedrinSanhedrin 104aAbout the Bavli, Targum YonatanMelakhim I 13:11About Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, RashiMelakhim I 13:11-20About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, RadakMelakhim I 13:9-21About R. David Kimchi, and RalbagMelakhim I 13:9-18Melakhim I Toalot 13:16About R. Levi b. Gershom who all agree. R. Samet suggests that the prophet himself did not even believe that true prophecy existed, assuming that most so-called prophets were like himself, acting in the name of political or other interests, while others mistakenly believed that they spoke the word of God, but really did not.

⁸ Later in Melakhim II 23:18, the נביא הזקן is described as the prophet from Shomron, leading R. Samet to suggest that he was originally from the region of Shomron in Ephraim and was recruited by Yerovam to move to Beit El to help push through his reforms. Just as the priests of Beit El were not true priests, but imported to act as such, so too the prophets of Beit El were imported to provide legitimacy for the masses. However, the fact that the prophet has his own burial place would suggest that he had already been living in Beit El for some time, and not that he had recently moved.

⁹ See her article, "ושבתם וראיתם בין צדיק לרשע" in Megadim 8 (Alon Shevut, 1989):97-104

¹⁰ This, though, is not convincing as he would have had no way of knowing upfront what was to occur at the dedication of the altar.  Though one might alternatively suggest that the infirmities of old age kept the prophet home, T. Verdiger points out that the prophet's age did not prevent him later in the story from pursuing the Man of God.

¹¹ Prof Simon distinguishes between prophetic signs (אותות) and wonders (מופתים), suggesting that while the latter are simply miraculous acts which serve to prove that the messenger is Divinely sent, but need not add to the content of the particular mission, prophetic signs always serve to share a Divine message as well. As such, the prophet tried to undo the prophetic signs (but not the מופתים), and together with them, the message they were to express.

¹² As another example of this, he points to the exchange between Yirmeyahu and Chananiah in Yirmeyahu 28.  When Chananiah breaks the yoke as a sign that the yoke of Babylonia will break, Yirmeyahu immediately restores it, saying  "מוֹטֹת עֵץ שָׁבָרְתָּ וְעָשִׂיתָ תַחְתֵּיהֶן מֹטוֹת בַּרְזֶל".  In addition, he adds a new sign, Chananiah's death.

¹³ According to R. Samet, though there was no evidence that the people had in fact repented, and the prophet from Beit El did not say any such thing, the Man of God was blinded by his desire that it be true.  As such, he did not ask any questions and simply accepted the false prophet's words as fact.  In addition, it is possible that the young, Judean prophet was easily impressed by the older, more experienced prophet from Beit El, making it uncomfortable for him to question the veracity of his words.

¹⁴ R. Samet points to Melakhim I 20 as another instance in which someone is killed by a lion for transgressing a prophetic directive.

¹⁵ See Ibn Kaspi who makes this point.

¹⁶ The same phrase is used also in verse

¹⁷ Though the miraculous behavior of the lion and donkey sufficed to alert passers-by that this was no coincidental accident, the full meaning of the sight could only be understood after the arrival of the prophet from Beit El.

¹⁸ He suggests that since the Man of God was buried in his burial plot, even had he not asked his children, they wold surely have buried him there anyway.

¹⁹ See Tamar Verdiger, "ושבתם וראיתם בין צדיק לרשע" in Megadim 8 (Alon Shevut, 1989):97-104,  Alex Israel, "The Altar, the Prophet, and the Lion" and Chen-Tzion Nayot, "נביא ונבואה".  See also Hoil Moshe who agrees that the prophet's motives were to test the Man of God, but suggests that this was not because he wanted to see if he was Rechovam's spokesman rather than a true prophet. Rather, the prophet wanted to ascertain whether the Man of God spoke in Hashem's name or in his own name (but nonetheless merited that Hashem acquiesce to perform a miracle on his behalf).

²⁰ See

²¹ Amazia tells Amos to return to be supported in Yehuda, presumably since that is where his words would be heard and found politically acceptable.

²² Chen-Tziyon Nayot instead suggests that the prohibitions related to the Man of God's need to clarify that he was not one of the עולי רגל who had come to Beit El to celebrate the new holiday and that he did not view Beit El as a holy city.  Since eating and drinking in the "Hoy City" were a big part of pilgrimage experiences, the Man of God was prohibited from doing so.

²³ Chen-Tzion Nayot suggests that this is perhaps why he is referred to as "הַנָּבִיא הַזָּקֵן".

²⁴ Since the original intent of the prohibition would not apply when eating with a fellow prophet, he did not think of the new directive as Hashem changing His mind.

²⁵ He assumes that returning he way he came would mean re-entering the city.

²⁶ See above point.

²⁷ See Invoking Hashem's Name Without Explicit Divine Sanction for further discussion.

²⁸ Abarbanel suggests that the word "כָּמוֹךָ" implies that he had received the same prophecy.

²⁹ See R"Y Bekhor ShorDevarim 18:19About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor on Devarim 18.

³⁰ According to Abarbanel, the Prophet from Beit El himself did not receive the prophecy that this was to occur, as he says, "כִּדְבַר י"י אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר לוֹ".  The death had been foretold only to the Man of God (who relayed the fact to the Prophet from Beit El.)  Thus, according to him, the phrase "הַנָּבִיא אֲשֶׁר הֱשִׁיבוֹ" in verse 20 means "the prophet who had been returned" and refers to the Man of God from Yehuda.

³¹ The phrase, הַנָּבִיא אֲשֶׁר הֱשִׁיבוֹ, means the prophet who had been returned.

³² After all, this was exactly what he had planned.

³³ He suggested that his hand had become enfeebled due to overexercising it during the dedication of the altar. On resting, it returned to normal. Similalry the altar, being new, had broken under the weight of the many sacrifices.

³⁴

³⁵ See the opinion of N. Samet above.

³⁶ 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 Shemuel II 24, 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.

³⁷ Reis assumes that the false prophet correctly read between the lines of the interaction between the king and Man of God, recognizing his refusal to "eat and drink" as really being a counter-offer and willingness to defect to Beit El.

³⁸ Given the high taxes and uncertain political situation in Jerusalem, moving to Beit El might have seemed like a promising alternative.

³⁹ She points out that Hashem only explicitly refers to his "eating and drinking in Beit El" because man is always punished more for his actions than his thoughts. Though he might have been motivated by avarice, and might have thought to promote idolatry, he had not yet actively done so