The Prophet from Beit El/2

The Prophet from Beit El

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

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.)

Sources:modern scholars¹

Timing of the incident – R"E Samet suggests that our chapter is a direct continuation of Chapter 12 and takes place towards the beginning of Yerovam's reign, when he stood before the assembled crowd to bring incense on the altar in honor of his new holiday.²

Yerovam's invitation – 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.  As the invitation was issued in public,³ had the man of God 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 Man of God 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).⁴

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.⁵  Thus, had the prophet returned the way he had come it would have been viewed as a reversal of his mission and decree.⁶ R. Samet adds that going via a new path simultaneously represents the opposite, that the decree is irreversible: "דבר ה' אחור לא ישוב ריקם".‎⁷

הנביא מבית אל: True or false  prophet? According to this approach, the prophet from Beit El was a false prophet.⁸  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.⁹

Why wasn't the נביא at the ceremony? T. Verdiger¹⁰ 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. ¹¹

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 Man of God 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 Man of God 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 sign¹² was believed to actively affect the word of God that lay behind the sign.¹³  Thus, the prophet believed that if could reverse the decrees against eating etc. he could also undo the prophecy which lay behind them.

How was the man of God convinced? 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.¹⁴  As such, he saw no problem in accompanying the prophet from Beit El, and likely did so happily.

Harsh punishment – Though the Man of God did not act maliciously, 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.¹⁵  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 Man of God is 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"‎¹⁶ and by the fact that in verse 26 when the same term is used it clearly refers to the old prophet as the other has already died.¹⁷

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 Man of God died, he could confirm to the city that this happened by the word of Hashem for his transgression.¹⁸  In so doing he was able to reverse some of the damage done by his deception of the Man of God. 

• 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.¹⁹

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

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.

Sources:modern scholars²⁰

Prohibition of eating and drinking in Beit El – The prohibitions could have served to clarify and emphasize either of the following:

• The Man of God was a Divine messenger – Nili Samet²¹ 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"‎.²² If so, the Man of God was prohibited from eating to demonstrate that he was not for hire, but was a true prophet, expressing the message of Hashem, and not an emissary of a king.
• The Man of God did not share Yerovam's agenda – 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.²³  Since eating and drinking in the "Hoy City" were a big part of pilgrimage experiences, the Man of God was prohibitted from doing so.

Yerovam's Invitation – According to Nili Samet, Yerovam's invitation stemmed from the desire to "hire" 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.  The verse tells us that he lied to the Man of God 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? Since the prophet was actually a true prophet, and knew that only Yerushalayim, 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 prophet's discomfort with Yerovam's reformation, he was confused how he should view them.  Knowing that Yerovam had been chosen by God to establish a new monarchy, he was unsure whether the cultic reforms were also sanctioned.  The fact that Yerushalayim was filled with idolatrous shrines made the prophet question whether not just the Davidic dynasty, but also Yerushalayim 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 Man of God.  Was he an emissary of Rechovam, only claiming to speak the Divine word for political gain, or was he a true prophet, declaring the new in Beit El problematic. As such, he decided to test him.

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:Abarbanel

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.

Sources:Josephus, modern scholars

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 The phrase "וְיָרׇבְעָם עֹמֵד עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לְהַקְטִיר" in verse 1 of our chapter echoes and continues the last verse of Chapter 12: " וַיַּעַל עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה בְּבֵית אֵל בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁמִינִי בַּחֹדֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר בָּדָא [מִלִּבּוֹ] (מלבד) וַיַּעַשׂ חָג לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּעַל עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לְהַקְטִיר."

³ R. Samet is assuming that a large crowd had come to Beit El for the holiday.

⁴ 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.

⁵ 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.

⁶ 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".

⁷ 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).

⁸ 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 mistkaenly believed that they spoke the word of God, but really did not.

⁹ 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. T. Verdiger, however, points out that 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.

¹⁰ See her article, "ושבתם וראיתם בין צדיק לרשע" in Megadim 8 (Alon Shevut, 1989):97-104

¹¹ 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 correctly points out that the prophet's age did not prevent him later in the story from pursuing the Man of God.

¹² 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.

¹³ 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.

¹⁴ 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.

¹⁵ R. Samet points to Melakhim I 20 as another instance in which someone is killed by a lion for transgressing a prophetic directive.

¹⁶ See Ibn Kaspi who makes this point.

¹⁷ The same phrase is used also in verse

¹⁸ 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.

¹⁹ 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.

²⁰ 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).

²¹ See

²² Amazia tells Amos to return to be supported in Yehuda, presumably since that is where his words would be heard and found politically acceptable.

²³ She points to the centrality of eating specifically in the "Holy City" when one made pilgrimage.