Now there dwelt a certain old prophet in Bethel; and his sons came and told him all the works that the man of God had done that day in Bethel; the words that he had spoken to the king, them they told also to their father.
Verse 11 moves from the king to a quiet household in Bethel, where an old prophet hears his sons' report of the day. One question hangs over everything that follows: why was a prophet of the Lord living in the town God had just condemned?
The text gives no hint that this man joined in Jeroboam's calf worship. Commentators still point to where he lived as the root problem.
At Bethel there was an old prophet. He was not living there by command of the Lord, for the Lord was not using him in His service. He was living there with his family. Perhaps, we might even say probably, he had nothing to do with Jeroboam's false religion. But his presence alone at Bethel approved what was going on there, and the prophet from Judah understood this. Whether he wanted to be or not, the old prophet was tied to the evil. The result of that tie was that he, a prophet, was not let into the secret of God's thoughts. He learns them from others — from his sons who repeat the words of the Lord to him. God shows neither Himself nor His thoughts to a servant found in an association that dishonours Him.
One writer weighs the word "old" itself, and what living in a bad setting had cost him.
The one who led the man of God from Judah astray was himself a prophet of the Lord. The Holy Spirit calls him "an old prophet" (1 Kings 13:11)… Like Lot before him, he lived in bad surroundings, and "bad company ruins good morals" (1 Cor. 15:33). Large numbers of godly people gave up everything in the Northern Kingdom to escape Jeroboam's idol worship. They went south into Judah and Jerusalem, where there was still some regard for the law of the Lord (2 Chron. 11:13-17). But the old prophet stayed in Bethel! … He was not the kind of man God could use to denounce in public the wickedness of Jeroboam and his followers. That is why there was a special mission for the man of God out of Judah.
Others put it as a simple question of consistency: how could he rebuke a darkness he shared in?
There was "an old prophet" in Israel at that time — another man of God, I have no doubt, but, like Lot, found in a place where he ought not to have been, and where he could not act in character as a prophet; for how could he reprove the darkness with which he was more or less in fellowship?
One writer points to what the report touched in him, and to the faith he lacked.
An old prophet lived in Bethel. But he did not have the energy of faith to resist Jeroboam's idol worship. His sons told him of the man of God who came from Judah, what he had done and what he had spoken for the Lord to Jeroboam (v.11). These things clearly spoke to the old prophet's conscience. He thought he should have some contact with the man of God from Judah.
One writer names the motive underneath his interest in the man of God:
What was his interest in acting this way against him? It was this: if the man of God would listen to him, it would be like a divine approval of his position at Bethel.
The old prophet's appeal came wrapped in good things: age, hospitality, a shared calling, even a word said to come from an angel.
To refuse such an appeal would appear to be slighting a fellow prophet. It would also look like disrespect for old age. And it would look like indifference to brotherly kindness that was so ready to show hospitality. Above all it would look like ignoring a direct word of the LORD given by an angel. Yet the story shows what lay behind all these plausible reasons that nature might plead. The enemy was at work to undermine the word of the Lord by drawing the man of God into a wrong association.
One commentator points to something earlier still. The man of God sat down when God had never told him to.
He was not told to sit under an oak. There was the beginning of it. There was his first failure, and there is no failure — there is no ruin — that takes place at one step. There is always a departure from the word of the Lord that exposes us to the power of the devil. And it is not first, I repeat, Satan's power. It is first our own failure, our own sin, our own disobedience.
- Dwelling. His sin was where he lived, not what he believed. Staying in Bethel approved what God had just condemned.
- Barrenness. Because of where he lived, God passed him over. He heard the day's news from his sons, not from the Lord.
- Silence. He was not a man God could use against Jeroboam's evil, so the special mission went to a man from Judah.
- Seduction. Unable to speak for God, he worked to draw the man of God into his own position — approval by association.
- Sitting. The man of God's ruin began with a pause under an oak that God never ordered. No collapse happens in one step.
And their father said to them, Which way went he? for his sons had seen which way the man of God went, who came from Judah.
The question is small: a father asks his sons which road the man of God took. It begins the chain that ends with a faithful messenger dead on the road. Why did a prophet of God need his sons to tell him what God had just done in his own town?
His sons had to tell him what God had done and which road the man took. One writer ties that to where the old prophet had settled.
At Bethel there was an old prophet. He was not living there by the Lord's command, for the Lord was not using him in His service. He was living there with his family. Perhaps — probably, even — he had nothing to do with Jeroboam's false religion. But his presence alone at Bethel gave approval to what was going on there. The prophet from Judah understood this. Whether he wanted to be or not, the old prophet was associated with the evil. The result was that he, a prophet, did not share the secret of God's thoughts. He learns them from others — from his sons, who repeat the words of the Lord to him. God shows neither Himself nor His thoughts to a servant found in an association that dishonours Him.
The sons could point to the road because the man of God had not gone far. He had stopped and sat down.
He was not told to sit under an oak. That was the beginning of it. That was his first failure, and no failure — no ruin — happens in one step. There is always a departure from the word of the Lord that exposes us to the power of the devil. It is not first, I repeat, Satan's power. It is first our own failure, our own sin, our own disobedience.
Another writer asks what the man of God should have felt about the place he had just condemned.
He and his sons followed the man of God and found him sitting under an oak tree. Now that he was away from Bethel, it seems he thought he could sit back and enjoy the experience in which he had been faithful to God. What a mistake! If he had a proper horror of the evil he prophesied against, would he not have wanted to get far away from that scene?
Commentators differ on why the old prophet went after him. One finds self-interest behind the chase.
This old prophet becomes an instrument of ruin for the ruin of the Lord's witness. What was his interest in acting against him? It was this: if the man of God would listen to him, it would be like a divine approval of his position at Bethel.
Another asks for a fairer hearing of the old man.
Let us be reasonable in our criticism of the old prophet at this point. He probably knew nothing of God's strict command. The Lord's witness must not eat or drink in Bethel. What is likely is that he longed for time with a man who feared God... But why had he not long before turned his back on Bethel? Separation from evil is vital for the growth of spiritual life.
Whatever the motive, the next voice came from a prophet, not a king.
But notice what follows. "Now an old prophet lived in Bethel." Beware of old prophets! This old prophet followed the man of God and said to him, "Come home with me and eat bread." This was the devil in a new shape. What the word of a king had failed to do, the word of a prophet might accomplish. It was a trick of Satan, and the man of God was clearly not ready for it.
The man of God already had all he needed to come through this meeting safely.
What should have kept the man of God from falling into this trap? His own words give the answer. He says, "So I was charged by the word of the LORD: eat no bread, drink no water, and do not return by the way that you came." This, then, was his protection against every effort to draw him into a false association: unswerving obedience to the word of God. On this scene one has truly said, "Whenever God has made His will known to us, we must not let any later influence at all call it in question. That holds even if the influence takes the form of the word of God... In every case our part is to obey what He has said."
- Which way — the old prophet's first move is to find the road the messenger took. The whole disaster begins with a route, not a doctrine.
- Why he asked — his sons had to tell him what God had done. God does not share His thoughts with a servant who settles where His honour is insulted.
- Where he was found — the chase worked because the man of God had stopped under an oak. Ruin never arrives in a single step.
- Whose voice — commentators differ on the old man's motive: self-interest or loneliness. They agree on the danger. It wore a prophet's dress and won where a king's word had failed.
- What would have kept him — the word already given. No later message, even one claiming to be from God, may overturn what God has plainly said.
And he said to his sons, Saddle me the ass. So they saddled him the ass; and he rode thereon,
The old prophet of Bethel has heard from his sons what happened in town that day. Now he calls for his donkey and rides after the stranger from Judah. It is a small verse about travel, yet a lie and a broken commission both start with this old man's decision to ride out.
Many godly people had left the northern kingdom to escape Jeroboam's idol worship. This prophet had not. One writer draws attention to the word chosen to describe him:
The man who led the man of God out of Judah astray was himself a prophet of the LORD. The Holy Spirit calls him "an old prophet" (1 Kings 13:11). The adjective catches our attention. In God's family, "fathers" are believers at the highest stage of growth; old men, in the spiritual sense, suggest decay. Large numbers of devout people had left everything in the Northern Kingdom to get away from Jeroboam's idolatries. They went south into Judah and Jerusalem, where there was still some regard for the law of the LORD (2 Chron. 11:13-17). But the old prophet stayed in Bethel!
Notice how he learns what happened: his sons tell him.
Whether he wanted to be or not, the old prophet was linked with the evil. The result was that he, a prophet, did not share the secret of God's thoughts. He learns them from others — from his sons, who repeat the words of the Lord to him. God shows neither Himself nor His thoughts to a servant who stays tied to what dishonours Him. He gave this prophet no revelation. He used someone else, while this man stayed barren for the work of the Lord. How could he prophesy against Bethel when he was used to living there?
Commentators differ over what drove him onto the road. Some see a troubled conscience looking for company in failure:
The old prophet could not bear the fact, for if this was the case with the man of God, where was the old prophet? And it is not said that he was a false prophet; the outcome of the story seems to show the opposite. But the old prophet was determined to test the man of God and see whether he could make him as unfaithful as himself. That would have been a miserable comfort to a bad conscience.
Others judge the same ride more kindly:
Let us be fair in our criticism of the old prophet at this point. He probably knew nothing of God's strict command that His witness must not eat or drink in Bethel. What is likely is that he longed for time with a man who feared God. Perhaps he also wanted recognition from a man who had acted so wonderfully in front of the king and his people. But why had he not long before turned his back on Bethel?
The man of God had already refused a king's invitation to eat.
"Now an old prophet lived in Bethel." Beware of old prophets! This old prophet followed the man of God and said to him, "Come home with me and eat bread." This was the devil in a new shape. What the word of a king had failed to do, the word of a prophet might achieve. It was a trick of Satan, and the man of God clearly was not ready for it.
The rider catches up with a man who has stopped moving. Commentators mark that pause as the first crack, before the lie:
He was not told to sit under an oak. That was the beginning of it. That was his first failure, and there is no failure — there is no ruin — that happens in one step. There is always a departure from the word of the Lord which exposes us to the power of the devil... He had been told not to return by the way he came. He was meant to get away as fast as possible. A man who is forbidden to eat and drink was not meant to sit under a tree.
The scene puts an older man and a younger man on the same road, and both are answerable.
It is possible for an older believer to become a spent force; shall we not guard against this? Advanced years do not necessarily mean more spiritual growth. A long record of useful service can breed self-satisfaction, and then our words of advice may carry weight with younger believers which they do not deserve... Respect for age and experience is good; but our only authority for action in any area of life is the Word of God. "A brother advised me," or "an angel spoke to me," will not sound well at the judgement seat of Christ.
- Place — He lived in Bethel, the very place God had just condemned, while others had moved away from it.
- Poverty — Staying there left him barren. God used someone else, and he heard the news from his sons.
- Pursuit — Saddling the donkey took effort. Writers differ on what he wanted: company, recognition, or someone as unfaithful as himself.
- Prophet's dress — The next temptation wears a prophet's clothes. A king's offer had already failed.
- Pause — The chase caught a man who had already stopped under an oak. Ruin never comes in one step.
and went after the man of God, and found him sitting under a terebinth; and he said to him, Art thou the man of God that camest from Judah? And he said, I am.
The man of God from Judah has just done everything right: he spoke against the altar at Bethel and set off home by a different road. Then a stranger catches up with him — and the whole chapter turns on that meeting.
Before the old prophet says a word, something has already gone wrong. Notice where he is found — not on the road, but resting beside it.
He was not told to sit under an oak. There was the beginning of it. That was his first failure, and no failure — no ruin — ever happens in one step. There is always a departure from the word of the Lord which exposes us to the power of the devil, and it is not first, I repeat, Satan's power. It is first our own failure, our own sin, our own disobedience. He had been told not to return by the same way he came, so he was meant to get away as fast as possible. A man forbidden to eat and drink was not meant to sit under a tree.
The stop looks harmless. Commentators see it as the moment his guard came down.
When he stood face to face with an angry king, he stood calmly in faith; when the persuasive voice of a religious "friend" reached his ears, he failed badly. Had he gone straight home, all might have been well, but his seducer found him "sitting under an oak." The Christian life is a race. While our souls are in motion we are safe; but even a short pause may undo us.
The text does not just say "a prophet." Writers take that extra word as a clue to his spiritual state. They read it against what other godly people in the north were doing.
In 1 John 2 the family of God is divided into three grades: "babes," "young men," and "fathers." "Fathers" are believers at the highest stage of spiritual growth. Old men, in the spiritual sense, suggest decay… Like Lot before him, he lived in bad surroundings, and "bad company ruins good morals" (1 Cor. 15:33). Large numbers of godly people had given up everything in the Northern Kingdom to get away from Jeroboam's idolatry. They went south into Judah and Jerusalem, where there was still some regard for the law of Jehovah (2 Chron. 11:13-17). But the old prophet stayed in Bethel!
He is a real prophet. Yet he hears the news from his sons, not from God. Writers tie that silence to where he lives.
Whether he wanted to be or not, the old prophet was tied to the evil around him. The result was that he, a prophet, was not in the secret of God's thoughts. He learns them from others — from his sons, who repeat the Lord's words to him. God shows neither Himself nor His thoughts to a servant found in an association that dishonours Him. God gave him no revelation and used another man, while this prophet stayed barren for the Lord's work. How could he prophesy against Bethel when he was used to living there?
The chase is not simple kindness. The old prophet has something to gain if the visitor eats at his table.
What was his interest in acting this way against him? It was this: if the man of God listened to him, it would look like God's approval of his position at Bethel… The old prophet gives no thought to the consequences for his brother. He is drawing him into a course of unfaithfulness. A false position makes us selfish and dishonest.
The old prophet's opening words are not an attack. He greets the traveller as God's servant.
He said to him, "Are you the man of God who came from Judah?" Nothing could seem a more complete recognition of his mission and of his work from God. He was a servant of the Most High God who had, no doubt, come to show them the right way. There was great respect.
The pressure changes shape here. Everything about this invitation makes a refusal look rude.
It is a severe test, for this old man could plead not only that he was a brother and a prophet, but also the experience of age. On top of that, he shows generous hospitality to a tired and hungry brother. "Come home with me," he says, "and eat bread." Above all, he claims that an angel had given him "the word of the LORD" to bring the man of God back to his house.
- Stop. The failure starts before the lie does. He was told to leave fast; instead he sat down. No ruin happens in one step.
- Silence. The prophet living at Bethel got no message from God. He learned the day's news from his sons. God does not confide in a servant settled in what dishonours Him.
- Search. The old prophet rides out for a reason. If the faithful man eats at his table, his own place in Bethel looks approved.
- Squeeze. The new pressure wears a brother's face, an elder's years, and a hungry man's meal. It even claims a word from an angel. That is harder to resist than a king's threat.
- Speed. While the soul keeps moving it is safe. The danger comes right after a faithful stand, at the moment we pause.
And he said to him, Come home with me, and eat bread.
The man of God from Judah has just denounced the altar at Bethel and turned down the king's offer of a meal. Now an old prophet who lives in Bethel catches up with him and makes the same offer again.
The words are nearly the king's own. One writer counts this as a third test, of a different kind.
Now in verse 15 you have the third test, by the old prophet, who repeats the king's invitation almost in the same words. "Come home with me and eat bread." This is the test of religious associations. Here is a prophet, a man who shines in the religious sphere. Taken at face value, he speaks on God's behalf. Yet he lives at ease surrounded by all this idolatry, and we never hear that he said one word of protest. … That is a test which comes to us again and again. "It is for a good cause," they say; "it is religious." Beware of worldly, compromising religion.
Nothing about the offer sounds wrong. That is what makes it hard to refuse.
A brother prophet had made his home in the very place of the evil that the man of God was sent to denounce. The Lord had told him to have no association with that evil by eating or drinking there. He was truly a prophet, and he knew about the evil. But he lived in a wrong association. So he could not witness against it, and he even put his approval on it. This "brother" and "prophet" is the one who tests the obedience of the man of God. It is a severe test. This old man could plead that he was a brother and a prophet, and he could also plead the experience of age. On top of that, he shows generous hospitality to a tired and hungry brother. "Come home," he says, "with me, and eat bread."
There is a clue the man of God could have read.
The old prophet had clearly been set aside as unfit for the Master's use. He was living in the very city where the Lord had business to be done, but he was passed over. The Lord had gone down to Judah to get a witness against the altar at Bethel. Yet one of His own saints was living on the very spot. How could "the man of God" think that the Lord could use the prophet of Bethel as His vessel? He had already passed him by.
The same offer comes again, this time from someone dressed as a prophet.
But notice what follows. "Now there dwelt an old prophet in Bethel." Beware of old prophets! This old prophet followed the man of God and said to him, "Come home with me and eat bread." This was the devil in a new shape. What the word of a king had failed to do, the word of a prophet might accomplish. It was a trick of Satan that the man of God was plainly unprepared for. The prophet's clothing deceived him and threw him completely off his guard.
The old prophet found him sitting under an oak. One writer traces the fall back to that detail.
He was not told to sit under an oak. That was the start of it. That was his first failure, and there is no failure — there is no ruin — that happens in one step. There is always a turning aside from the word of the Lord. That leaves us open to the power of the devil. It is not the devil's power first, I repeat. It is first our own failure, our own sin, our own disobedience. … A man who is forbidden to eat and drink was not meant to be sitting under a tree.
One thing would have kept him safe.
So his safeguard against every attempt to draw him into a false association was steady obedience to the word of God. About this scene someone has truly said: "Whenever God has made His will known to us, we are not to allow any later influence at all to call it in question. That holds even if the later influence takes the form of the word of God … In every case our part is to obey what He has said."
- Same offer. The old prophet repeats the king's invitation almost word for word. The temptation has not changed — only the voice carrying it.
- New voice. What a king could not do, a prophet might. The enemy changed clothes, and the prophet's costume threw the man of God off guard.
- Pleasant packaging. Brotherhood, age and kindness all pull the same way. Saying no looks rude instead of obedient.
- Missed clue. God had passed over the prophet in Bethel and brought a witness from Judah. A man God has set aside is not the man to follow.
- One safeguard. Once God has made His will known, no later voice may reopen the question — not even a voice claiming to bring God's word.
And he said, I cannot return with thee, nor go in with thee; neither will I eat bread nor drink water with thee in this place.
The man of God from Judah had just denounced Jeroboam's altar at Bethel and turned down the king's reward. Now an old prophet from that same town catches up with him and invites him home. His answer here is a plain no — the last steady moment before everything unravels.
His words were not personal preference. Commentators trace them back to why God sent him to Bethel, and to the orders God gave him before he arrived.
God sent a man of God out of Judah to Bethel to condemn the wickedness of Jeroboam… He learnt that this evil was so abhorrent to God that the day was soon coming when God would deal with it in judgment. God gave him a clear warning: he must not weaken his testimony by associating with the evil. He was to deliver his message, give his sign, and then depart. On no account was he to eat bread, or drink water, at Bethel. He was not to go back by the same road he came. He was to have no fellowship with the false position of these people. They claimed to be God's people, yet they were disobeying the word of the LORD.
Not eating and not drinking was not a side detail attached to the sermon. It was the sermon, acted out.
The old prophet — though he truly was one — put up with the evil around him. The testimony of God, on the contrary, declared that the evil must not be put up with. This was the testimony God entrusted to the other prophet. His refusal to eat or drink in that place was the moral and personal testimony of his own faithfulness, of his conviction, and of his obedience.
The word of a king had already failed to move him. The next invitation comes wrapped in religion.
"Now there lived an old prophet in Bethel." Beware of old prophets! This old prophet followed the man of God and said to him, "Come home with me and eat bread." This was the devil in a new shape. What the word of a king had failed to do, the word of a prophet might do. It was a trick of Satan, and the man of God was not ready for it.
Compare this refusal with the one he gave Jeroboam, and the wording has softened. Mackintosh notices it word by word. His wording for verse 9 comes from an older translation.
But in his reply to the prophet there is a clear decline in energy, boldness and decision. He says, "I may not return with you, or go in with you." And when he gives his reason, instead of the forceful word "charged," we have the weak expression, "It was said to me."
This man really was a prophet. So why refuse his table? The answer lies in where he had settled, and in what God did not tell him.
At Bethel there was an old prophet. He was not living there by command of the Lord, for the Lord was not using him in His service. He was simply living there with his family… Whether he wanted it or not, the old prophet was tied to the evil. The result was that he, a prophet, was not let in on the thoughts of God. He learns them from others — from his sons who repeat the words of the Lord to him. God shows neither Himself nor His thoughts to a servant who is tied to an association that dishonours Him. God gave him no revelation. He used another man instead, while this prophet stayed fruitless for the work of the Lord.
The man of God states his reason out loud in the next breath. Commentators say that reason was all the protection he needed. It even covered a new message claiming to come from God.
His own word gives the answer. He confesses that the word of the LORD had charged him: eat no bread, drink no water, and do not go back by the same road you came. So his safeguard against every effort to draw him into a false association was unswerving obedience to the word of God. Someone has rightly said of this scene: "Once God has made His will known to us, we must not let any later influence call it into question. That holds true even when the influence takes the form of the word of God… In every case our part is to obey what He has said."
- The word given. God told him to speak, give the sign, and leave. No bread, no water, no going back the same road, and no fellowship with people who claim God's name while disobeying His word.
- The word lived. Turning down the meal was not rudeness. It made his faithfulness, conviction and obedience visible.
- The word tested. What a king's word could not buy, a prophet's invitation almost won — the same pressure, dressed in religion.
- The word weakening. "I will not" becomes "I may not." "Charged me" becomes "it was said to me." The softening shows in his words before it shows in his steps.
- The word obeyed. Obedience is the safeguard — even when a later message claims God's authority, our part is to do what He has already said.
For it was said to me by the word of Jehovah, Thou shalt eat no bread nor drink water there, nor turn again to go by the way that thou wentest.
Israel's king had turned the nation's worship to a golden calf at Bethel, and God sent a man from Judah to condemn it. Here that messenger refuses a meal from an older prophet by repeating his orders: no bread, no water, no going home the same way.
These three bans were not random rules. They gave practical shape to a testimony against the evil at Bethel.
God directed him by sign and word to witness against the evil. God gave him a special warning: he must not weaken his testimony by associating with the evil. He was to deliver his message, give his sign, and then depart. On no account was he to eat bread, or drink water, at Bethel, nor was he to turn again by the same way that he came. He was to have no fellowship with the false position of those people. They claimed to be the people of God, yet they were walking in disobedience to the word of the LORD.
A shared meal sounds like a small thing to forbid. But eating together says something.
Here was Jehovah slighted. Where? Among the Gentiles? That would be no wonder. Among His own people — direct apostasy from the Lord God of Israel. Here was a man who went out in the strength of the word of the Lord. So complete separation was required. In every age, people have rightly seen eating and drinking as the sign of fellowship.
Compare how he answered the king in verse 9 with how he answers the prophet here. The words still say no. The force behind them has faded. (Older translations render verse 9 "charged," where the ESV has "commanded.")
But in his reply to the prophet, there is clear decline in energy, boldness and decision. He says, "I may not return with you, or go in with you." Then he gives his reason. Instead of the forceful word "charged," we have the feeble expression, "It was said to me."
Saying no to the meal was not an add-on to his errand. It was his errand, carried in his own conduct.
In any case the word of God was a binding command: he was neither to eat nor to drink there. He knew it, and he remembered it. But there seemed to be another testimony, and with it a motive for ignoring the Lord's command… In fact, by going back with the old prophet, the prophet from Judah destroyed the power of his own testimony. The old prophet — although he really was one — put up with the evil around him. God's testimony, on the other hand, declared that the evil must not be put up with… His refusal to eat or drink in that place was the moral and personal testimony of his own faithfulness, his conviction, and his obedience. God did not take back His word when the prophet disobeyed it.
The invitation was not simple kindness. A man living at Bethel had something to gain if God's messenger would sit at his table.
This old prophet becomes the instrument that ruins the Lord's witness (vv. 11-19). What was his interest in acting this way against him? It was this: if the man of God would listen to him, it would be like a divine sanction of his position at Bethel.
He had the answer in his own mouth in this verse. His knowledge did not fail. His hold on it did.
What, we may ask, should have kept the man of God from falling into this trap? His own words give the answer… Clearly, then, his safeguard was unswerving obedience to the word of God. That is what kept him from every effort to draw him into a false association. Someone has rightly said of this scene, "When God has made His will known to us, we are not to allow any later influence to call it in question. That holds even if the influence takes the form of the word of God… In every case our part is to obey what He has said."
The spirit of obedience is the great moral safeguard against every scheme and every trap of the enemy. The enemy may shift his ground. He may change his tactics. He may use different agents. But obedience to the plain and simple Word of God keeps the soul from all his wicked schemes and crafty devices.
- Word given. The ban on bread, water and the old road meant one thing. He was to have no fellowship with people who claim God's name but disobey His word.
- Word enacted. Sharing a meal has always been the sign of fellowship. So the refusal was itself the message, preached by his conduct and not just his mouth.
- Word softened. To the king it was a command; to the prophet it becomes "it was said to me." The wording drops before the man does.
- Word replaced. The invitation had a motive. A man in a false position wanted God's messenger to approve it by sitting at his table.
- Word kept. No later voice may reopen what God has settled — not even a voice that claims to speak for God. Steady obedience is what no scheme of the enemy can get past.
And he said to him, I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel spoke to me by the word of Jehovah saying, Bring him back with thee into thy house, that he may eat bread and drink water. He lied unto him.
The old prophet of Bethel has chased down a man who has just refused a king's invitation. He now makes the same offer with better credentials — a fellow prophet, an angel, and a word from the LORD — and the verse ends by calling it a lie.
One writer lists what the old man could offer before he ever mentioned an angel.
This "brother" and "prophet" is the one who tests the obedience of the man of God. It is a severe test. The old man could claim that he was a brother and a prophet, and he could claim the experience of age as well. On top of that, he offers generous hospitality to a tired and hungry brother. "Come home," he says, "with me, and eat bread." Above all he claims that an angel had given him "the word of the LORD," telling him to bring the man of God back to his house.
Refusing him would have looked bad from every angle.
To refuse such an appeal would look like an insult to a fellow prophet. It would also look like disrespect for old age, and like indifference to a brother's kindness that was so ready to offer hospitality. Above all, it would look like ignoring a direct word from the LORD given by an angel.
One writer imagines the reply that never came.
If the Word of his Lord had been living in him, he would have said at once: "If ten thousand prophets and ten thousand angels were to say, 'Bring him back,' I would count them all liars and messengers of the devil, sent to lure me away from the holy, happy path of obedience." That would have been a wonderful reply. It would have the same heavenly ring as these glowing words of the apostle: "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed."
Those closing words are the apostle's, from Galatians 1:8.
The lie rests on a wrong idea about God — that He changes His orders after He has given them.
So he pretends that he has a fresh message from God. What was the man of God thinking? Does God say a thing and then unsay it? If He did, we would have no standard at all and no certainty, and what would become of the poor children if such a thing were possible? I know that unbelief says it all the time, and tries to make the Bible contradict itself. But those who do so are guilty, and so the old prophet was guilty of lying — "he lied to him."
One writer passes on this counsel:
Whenever God has made His will known to us, we are not to let any later influence call it into question — even if that influence takes the form of the word of God. If we were morally nearer to the Lord, we would feel that the only true and right position is to follow what He told us at first.
Commentators differ on how deliberate the lie was. Some call it flatly a deliberate lie; another allows that the old man may have been deceived himself — "He did not see an angel that came from heaven. It may have been an angel from the pit." What most agree on is the setting.
Do we wonder that the prophet lied? Where he lived is explanation enough. No one could live in Bethel without his whole spiritual tone sinking.
There was also a motive: pulling another man down levels the ground. The old prophet "was determined to try the man of God and see whether he could not make him as unfaithful as himself, for that is what would have been a miserable salve to a bad conscience."
One writer hears the same line from Christians today.
And yet this is what unfaithful Christians tell us, to justify their bad way of living in their own eyes. Everyone, they say, understands the Word differently. "I am a prophet also!" But no — thank God, His will can be understood in only one way. And who can understand it except the one who has separated from evil in obedience to the Word?
- Test: The severe test came from a fellow prophet, not from a king. Religious credentials made the invitation hard to refuse.
- Credentials: He offered brotherhood, age, kindness and an angel. Every credential was real except the message.
- Standard: God does not say and unsay. A later word that cancels His plain word is a lie, whoever carries it and however heavenly the messenger.
- Answer: Count ten thousand prophets and ten thousand angels liars before you doubt one clear command. The apostle passed the same verdict on any angel who preaches another gospel.
- Warning: Living where the evil is lowers a man's whole spiritual tone. The excuse "I am a prophet also" still serves people who want their way of living justified.
Then he went back with him, and ate bread in his house, and drank water.
The man of God from Judah had already said no twice. He refused King Jeroboam's invitation, and then an old prophet who met him on the road. This verse records the moment he said yes. How does a man who stands firm against a king give way to a fellow servant?
The king's invitation had no power over him. A different appeal did.
By appealing to brotherly love the old prophet succeeds where the king's offer had failed. The old prophet was a godly and respectable man. Why should the man of God not believe what he said? But however godly he might be, should a man's word have more weight than the word of God? The age and authority of this fellow prophet trap the prophet from Judah, and so does his sympathy for him. Let us ask ourselves what part these ties play in our religious life when obedience to the Word is at stake.
Going back was not his first mistake. The old prophet found him sitting under an oak, when his orders were to leave and not return by the way he came.
He was not told to sit under an oak. There was the beginning of it. There was his first failure, and there is no failure — there is no ruin — that takes place at one step. A departure from the word of the Lord always comes first, and that is what exposes us to the power of the devil. It is not first, I repeat, Satan's power. It is first our own failure, our own sin, our own disobedience... A man told not to eat or drink was not meant to sit under a tree.
Open evil could not move him. Something that looked good could.
He is safe from temptation when it comes in the form of evil. He falls when temptation comes as apparent good. He honours a brother's voice, standing and reputation above the word of God. He disobeys God and treats his brother's lie as true.
The old man was not simply being hospitable. He had something to gain from the visit.
The unfaithful old prophet badly wanted one thing. He wanted a man whom God was using for testimony — a man whose testimony he himself believed — to approve his unfaithfulness by associating with it. On the surface he seemed to honour the testimony of God and the man who carried it. But by going back with the old prophet, the prophet from Judah destroyed the power of his own testimony.
A second message claimed to cancel his orders. A moment's thought would have shown how unlikely that was.
Oh, why did he listen! A few moments' thought would have been enough to put him on his guard. Does God usually fail to see the end from the beginning? Does He then have to cancel His instructions before His work is finished? If God gave him his first instructions directly, would He now fail to tell him directly? Would He send further instructions through someone who had no part in the matter? But it was easy and pleasant to give in. He did so, and disobeyed.
He could still recite the command. Repeating it was not the same as keeping it.
What, we may ask, should have kept the man of God from falling into this snare? His own word gives the answer, for he confesses, "For it was said to me by the word of the LORD, 'You shall neither eat bread nor drink water there, nor return by the way that you came.'" So his safeguard against every effort to draw him into a false association was unswerving obedience to the word of God. In reference to this scene one has truly said, "Whenever God has made His will known to us, we must not let any later influence call it in question. That holds even when the influence takes the form of the word of God… In every case our part is to obey what He has said."
Readers expect the liar to be struck down. The chapter goes the other way.
If the man of God was false to God, God would still be true to the man of God. He would be true in a most painful way, and, mark it, beloved friends, in a most righteous way. But it is a righteousness according to God. In our folly we would have thought, "Surely the old prophet is the man that is going to die for this." Not so — it was the man of God. For when those who ought to know best fail, God chastises them most.
- Sitting — The collapse began before the meal, when a man ordered to leave sat down under an oak instead.
- Listening — A new message that cancels a clear command should raise one question: why would God send it through a stranger?
- Eating — Going back to share a meal put his approval on the man and the place his testimony stood against.
- Losing — His testimony lost its power the moment his obedience did.
- Learning — One thing guards against every plea, however kind or religious: holding to what God has already said.