Difference between revisions of "The Prophet from Beit El/2"
m |
m |
||
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
<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> | <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 | + | <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.</point> |
− | <point><b>Prohibition of returning via the same path</b> – | + | <point><b>Prohibition of returning via the same path</b> – This prohibition was symbolic of the fact that Beit El was to be destroyed, and all paths to it erased.<fn>He assumes that returning he way he came would mean re-entering the city.</fn></point> |
<point><b>הנביא מבית אל: True or false prophet?</b> 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.</point> | <point><b>הנביא מבית אל: True or false prophet?</b> 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.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>The invitation of the prophet from Beit El</b> – Abarbanel | + | <point><b>The invitation of the prophet from Beit El</b> – According to Abarbanel, 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.</point> |
− | <point><b>Can a true prophet lie?</b> 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.<fn>See above point.</fn> One might, nonetheless, question from the laws of <a href="Devarim18-19-22" data-aht="source">Devarim 18</a> whether any prophet is allowed to claim Divine authority for his speech when he has none | + | <point><b>Can a true prophet lie?</b> 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.<fn>See above point.</fn> One might, nonetheless, question from the laws of <a href="Devarim18-19-22" data-aht="source">Devarim 18</a> whether any prophet is allowed to claim Divine authority for his speech when he has none.<fn>See <a href="Invoking Hashem's Name Without Explicit Divine Sanction" data-aht="page">Invoking Hashem's Name Without Explicit Divine Sanction</a> for further discussion.</fn></point> |
<point><b>How was the Man of God duped?</b> 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),<fn>Abarbanel suggests that the word "כָּמוֹךָ" implies that he had received the same prophecy.</fn> 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.</point> | <point><b>How was the Man of God duped?</b> 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),<fn>Abarbanel suggests that the word "כָּמוֹךָ" implies that he had received the same prophecy.</fn> 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.</point> | ||
<point><b>Harsh punishment</b> – 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.<fn>See <multilink><a href="RYosefBekhorShorDevarim18-19" data-aht="source">R"Y Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorDevarim18-19" data-aht="source">Devarim 18:19</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink> on Devarim 18.</fn></point> | <point><b>Harsh punishment</b> – 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.<fn>See <multilink><a href="RYosefBekhorShorDevarim18-19" data-aht="source">R"Y Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorDevarim18-19" data-aht="source">Devarim 18:19</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink> on Devarim 18.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>חוטא נשכר</b> – 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.</point> | <point><b>חוטא נשכר</b> – 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.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>"וַיֹּאמֶר אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים הוּא אֲשֶׁר מָרָה אֶת פִּי י"י"</b> – The Prophet from Beit El | + | <point><b>"וַיֹּאמֶר אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים הוּא אֲשֶׁר מָרָה אֶת פִּי י"י"</b> – The Prophet from Beit El explained to all that the real reason for the Man of God's death was his transgression.<fn>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 <b>לוֹ</b>".  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.</fn>  Otherwise Yerovam would have interpreted it as his being killed for his original prophecy against Beit El.</point> |
<point><b>Burial, eulogy and prophecy</b> – 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.</point> | <point><b>Burial, eulogy and prophecy</b> – 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.</point> | ||
</category> | </category> | ||
Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
<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> | <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 | + | <point><b>Yerovam's Invitation</b> – After the withering of his hand, the king believed the words of the Man of God to be Divine and true.  Thus when he prayed that his hand be restored and it was, he invited him home to express his gratitude.</point> |
<point><b>The prohibitions</b> – 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.</point> | <point><b>The prohibitions</b> – 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.</point> | ||
<point><b>הנביא מבית אל – True or false prophet?</b> The Prophet from Beit El was a false prophet who was trying curry favor with the king.</point> | <point><b>הנביא מבית אל – True or false prophet?</b> The Prophet from Beit El was a false prophet who was trying curry favor with the king.</point> | ||
Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
<point><b>Prophecy foretelling the Man of God's punishment</b> – According to Josephus, the "נָּבִיא אֲשֶׁר הֱשִׁיבוֹ" who receives the prophecy is the Man of God himself.<fn>The phrase, הַנָּבִיא אֲשֶׁר הֱשִׁיבוֹ, means the prophet who had been returned.</fn>  [The false prophet does not deserve to receive the word of Hashem.]</point> | <point><b>Prophecy foretelling the Man of God's punishment</b> – According to Josephus, the "נָּבִיא אֲשֶׁר הֱשִׁיבוֹ" who receives the prophecy is the Man of God himself.<fn>The phrase, הַנָּבִיא אֲשֶׁר הֱשִׁיבוֹ, means the prophet who had been returned.</fn>  [The false prophet does not deserve to receive the word of Hashem.]</point> | ||
<point><b>Shared burial</b> – Josephus presents the older prophet as being joyful in the Man of God's downfall<fn>After all, this was exactly what he had planned.</fn> 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.</point> | <point><b>Shared burial</b> – Josephus presents the older prophet as being joyful in the Man of God's downfall<fn>After all, this was exactly what he had planned.</fn> 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.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>"אַחַר הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה לֹא שָׁב יָרׇבְעָם מִדַּרְכּוֹ הָרָעָה"</b> – 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.<fn>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.</fn> Moreover, he told the king of the Man of God's death, implying that it was proof that he had no prophetic standing.</point> | + | <point><b>"אַחַר הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה לֹא שָׁב יָרׇבְעָם מִדַּרְכּוֹ הָרָעָה"</b> – Josephus places the blame for Yerovam's continued disobedience on the Prophet from Beit El. He suggests that despite the king's original belief in the Divinity of the Man of God, he was swayed when the Prophet form Beit El tried to prove him a fraud.  Thus, the prophet explained away all of the Man of God's wonders as coincidences.<fn>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.</fn> Moreover, he told the king of the Man of God's death, implying that it was proof that he had no prophetic standing.</point> |
</opinion> | </opinion> | ||
<opinion>Co-opt the Man of God | <opinion>Co-opt the Man of God | ||
Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
<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>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 <a href="Bemidbar22-16-22" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22</a>. 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>"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 <a href="Bemidbar22-16-22" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 22</a>. 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> – According to this approach, it is possible that an originally true prophet, can veer off the correct path and sin.  Such a position begs the question of why God would choose such a messenger, especially in a case such as this, where the prophet is willing to sin so soon after being commissioned by Hashem. Moreover, if prophets can turn so easily, how is anyone to know when to trust a prophet?</point> |
<point><b>הנביא מבית אל –  True or false prophet?</b> 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.].</point> | <point><b>הנביא מבית אל –  True or false prophet?</b> 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.].</point> | ||
<point><b>The invitation from the prophet from Beit El</b> – 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",<fn>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.</fn> he invited him home, hoping to cajole him into joining his prophetic business in Beit El.</point> | <point><b>The invitation from the prophet from Beit El</b> – 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",<fn>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.</fn> he invited him home, hoping to cajole him into joining his prophetic business in Beit El.</point> |
Version as of 06:34, 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.