Difference between revisions of "The Prophet from Beit El/2"
m |
m |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
<point><b>Miracles of the Man of God</b></point> | <point><b>Miracles of the Man of God</b></point> | ||
<point><b>Yerovam's invitation</b> – R. Samet suggests that Yerovam was hoping that if the prophet 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.  A public, positive response from the prophet<fn>R. Samet is assuming that a large crowd had come to Beit El for the holiday so the prohet's response would have made an impact on the masses.</fn> would have provided much needed legitimacy to Yerovam's religious upheaval.</point> | <point><b>Yerovam's invitation</b> – R. Samet suggests that Yerovam was hoping that if the prophet 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.  A public, positive response from the prophet<fn>R. Samet is assuming that a large crowd had come to Beit El for the holiday so the prohet's response would have made an impact on the masses.</fn> would have provided much needed legitimacy to Yerovam's religious upheaval.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>Prohibition of eating and drinking in Beit El</b> – It was for this very reason that Hashem prohibited the Man of God from eating or drinking in Beit El.  The | + | <point><b>Prohibition of eating and drinking in Beit El</b> – It was for this very reason that Hashem prohibited the Man of God from eating or drinking in Beit El.  The refusal to partake in a meal in Beit El 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 in the future).<fn>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 <multilink><a href="RadakMelakhimI13-9-21" data-aht="source">Radak</a><a href="RadakMelakhimI13-9-21" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 13:9-21</a><a href="R. David Kimchi (Radak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Kimchi</a></multilink> 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 <multilink><a href="RalbagMelakhimI13-9-18" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagMelakhimI13-9-18" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 13:9-18</a><a href="RalbagMelakhimIToalot13-16" data-aht="source">Melakhim I Toalot 13:16</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink> 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.</fn></point> |
− | <point><b>Prohibition of returning via the same path</b> – Prof. Simon suggests that returning to one's point of departure and retracing one's footsteps signify a cancelling of the journey.<fn>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.</fn>  Had the prophet returned the way he had come it could be viewed as a reversal of his mission and decree.</point> | + | <point><b>Prohibition of returning via the same path</b> – Prof. Simon suggests that returning to one's point of departure and retracing one's footsteps signify a cancelling of the journey.<fn>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.</fn>  Had the prophet returned the way he had come it could be viewed as a reversal of his mission and decree.<fn>Cf. Ralbag, "<b></b>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".</fn></point> |
<point><b>הנביא מבית אל: True or false  prophet?</b></point> | <point><b>הנביא מבית אל: True or false  prophet?</b></point> | ||
<point><b>Why wasn't the נביא at the ceremony?</b></point> | <point><b>Why wasn't the נביא at the ceremony?</b></point> |
Version as of 01:40, 6 December 2017
The Prophet from Beit El
Exegetical Approaches
Reversal of Prophecy
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.)
Test of Prophet
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 aimed to protect his prophetic business and standing with the king / hoped to sway the Man of God to defect to Beit El and work with him in his prophetic business.