The Prophet from Beit El/2
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
The Prophet from Beit El
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
Exegetes paint vastly different portraits of the prophet from Beit El, and offer a range of possible motives to explain his actions. Many assume that he was a false prophet, acting out of either national or personal interest. R. Samet, thus, suggests that he was trying to undo the Man of God's prophecy so as to legitimize Yerovam's religious innovations in Beit El, while Josephus asserts that he attempted to defame the Man of God for selfish reasons, hoping to prevent prophetic competition. While Samet suggests that the prophet had a change of heart and repented by the end of the story, Josephus presents him as being the main cause of Yerovam's persistence in his idolatrous ways.
Others claim that the elderly prophet was a retired, true prophet, with positive, but misguided, intentions. T. Verdiger suggests that his actions were motivated by his confusion regarding the religious practices taking place in Beit El. Despite their problematic nature, he was uncertain if the Divine choice of Yerovam sanctioned his religious innovations as well, and thus wanted to determine if the Man of God spoke truth or not. Finally, Abarbanel suggests that the prophet was utterly altruistic and had only wanted to be hospitable to a fellow Man of God. According to both, the prophet was not wicked, and only unintentionally caused the Man of God's downfall.
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.
Sources:modern scholars,1
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 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. [In contrast to R. Samet, though, Prof Simon 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]
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 transgressed only unintentionally, his actions deserved punishment,14 since they served to undermine his entire prophecy and had the potential to cause a desecration of Hashem's name. The supernatural nature of his death was needed to ensure that the people knew that his eating and drinking in Beit El was not sanctioned by God and did not mean that Beit El was once again in Hashem'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.15 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 term "הַנָּבִיא אֲשֶׁר הֱשִׁיבוֹ" is used again, 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 אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים died, he could confirm to the people of 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 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),19 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.20
Sinner rewarded? 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 – The underlying message of the story is the immutability of God's word. Hashem's will cannot be overturned and His decrees are always fulfilled despite any efforts to annul them. In fact, sometimes the very individual who aims to defy God's will, turns out to be His messenger.
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 and, thus, whether or not Beit El was Divinely rejected.
Sources:modern scholars,21
Prohibition of eating and drinking in Beit El – Nili Samet22 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".23 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.24
Yerovam's Invitation – Yerovam's invitation was an attempt 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.25 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 political emissary, when the older prophet told him that he had received word from God allowing a meal, he was not suspicious.26
Who gets the prophecy regarding the Man of God's punishment? According to this approach, it is the Prophet from Beit El who receives the prophecy.
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, the אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים was deserving of punishment since he went against his own prophecy, as decreed in Devarim 18: "וְהָיָה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִשְׁמַע אֶל דְּבָרַי אֲשֶׁר יְדַבֵּר בִּשְׁמִי אָנֹכִי אֶדְרֹשׁ מֵעִמּוֹ".
Sinner rewarded? 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 – R"A 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: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.
Prohibition of returning via the same path – This prohibition was symbolic of the fact that Beit El was to be destroyed, and all paths to it erased.27
הנביא מבית אל: True or false prophet? The prophet from Beit El was a true prophet, as he would not be granted the title "נביא" otherwise, but rather נביא הבעל or the equivalent.
The invitation of the prophet from Beit El – 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 to sustain him on the way back to Yehuda. 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.28 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.29
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),30 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 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.31 Though he did not act intentionally, he still should have thought to question the prophet further before agreeing to disregard his own prophecy.
Sinner rewarded? 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 explained to all that the real reason for the Man of God's death was his transgression.32 Otherwise Yerovam would have interpreted 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.
Message of the story
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 regarding 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:Josephus
Yerovam's Invitation – After the withering of his hand, the king believed the words of the Man of God to be Divine and true. Thus, when his enfeebled hand was restored, he invited him home to express his gratitude.
The prohibitions against eating and drinking – 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 had been trying to 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 (the Man of God) 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, and not intending to transgress 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.33 After all, a false prophet would not deserve to receive the word of Hashem.
Shared burial – Josephus presents the older prophet as being joyful in the Man of God's downfall34 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 totally 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 to change his mind when the Prophet from Beit El tried to prove him a fraud. The prophet explained away all of the Man of God's wonders, suggesting that they were coincidences rather than miracles.35 Moreover, he told the king of the Man of God's death, implying that it was proof that he had no prophetic standing. All of this, though, is not mentioned in the text and, though possible, is only conjecture as to what might have happened.
Purpose of story – According to this approach the purpose of the story might be to explain why Yerovam did not repent of his ways.
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 scholars36
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.
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.37
"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.38
נביא שסרח – 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?
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, even if 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",39 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.40 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.41
Change of heart – Reis suggests that after the Divine declaration that the Man of God was to be punished for his transgression, the old Prophet from Beit El had 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". Reis responds that the verse might represent the perspective of Yoshiyahu who only knew that the Man of God had been the one to prophecy his destruction of Beit El's altar and the burning of the priests' bones, but was unaware of his inner intentions and the other prophet's actions.
