ave his invitation in accordance with a message
trom J”, and the stranger returned and partook of ameal. He never reached his home again. News came to Bethel that a lion had slain him a short distance from the city. The old prophet recog- nized this as J”s punishment, saddled his ass, brought in the body, held lamentation over it, and buried it in his own grave. By this he showed his Bympethy and respect.
The old prophet is really a secondary figure in this narrative, a factor in the fate of the man of God. His character and motives are not the centre of interest and lack clearness. They appear more vividly after the death of the man of God. What is then prominent is the prophet’s sympathy for the stranger, not a sense of guilt or o Tesponsi- bility for his death (vv.*-*?; the LXX addition to v."is taken from 2 K 9318), This is consistent with what seems to be the writer’s view, that the man of God was himself to blame for his death (see below). It might be accounted for by a lack of interest in the situation of the prophet as compared with the sad end of the stranger.
The old prophet of Bethel in this narrative is no doubt pn as one of the true prophets of J". Without taking account of vv.”#, we may infer this from the use of the name ‘prophet,’ which is applied to him without qualification. What then does the narrative contribute to a conception of the prophetical character? We may infer from y."* that it was not felt to be impossible
OLD PROPHET, THE
that one who had received the Divine call to be a prophet should utter a pretended revelation. It is not supposed that a man once a prophet is always a prophet. Vy.** go further. ‘The prophet’s mis- use of his position does not prevent his receiving an actual revelation immediately after. Disobedience is to be rebuked. The pronkes had shared in it. He had even prostituted his office to bring it about. He had uttered a lie in the name of J’,* and now without rebuke for himself he is divine commissioned to rebuke the man he deceived. The absence of rebuke for himself does not indeed imply that he is considered blameless. It may be accounted for by the lack of interest in the prophet displayed by the narrator. It is only what con- cerns the man of God that is related. Still the prophet is not for a moment disqualified for his office by his pretended revelation. Or, more accur- ately, J" uses him again as the medium for con- veying His message. The inference from vv.” seems then to be that prophets, truly inspired, may sometimes be guilty of fabricating Divine messages, But the verses contain elements of suspicion. hy should J” not have spoken to the heart of the stranger himself? An utterance in the mouth of the old prophet loses strength, for his own previous statement contradicts it. The last words of v.* almost imply a direct utterance to the stranger. This may, originally, have been the purport of νυν. The pronoun of the 3rd person in ν. 3 certainly refers to the man of God (see below), whereas in the present text of the preceding verses it does not. he verses as they stand are very abrupt. Some further explanation from the prophet to the man of God is required. It may be noted, also, that the words ‘who came from Judah’ (v.74) are superfluous, and that after the first clause of Ven ΜῈ has an unusual blank.
The conception of Divine retribution in the narrative offers nothing that is really peculiar to it. The man of God is punished because of his failure to pay strict obedience to J”s command. It was the same with Lot’s wife. The actual significance of the command has no importance attached to it. We are not justified in sup- posing that he was unavoidably deceived, and sinned in ignorance. The false statement of the old pro ὅτ is probably, regarded as a temp- tation w a he ought to have cast aside (comp. above). He had been a direct recipient of revela- tion, and the assertions of another were not on the same plane of certainty. Presumably, also, he is regarded as one who might, if he pleased, have ascertained for himself the Divine will, and so was responsible for his ignorance. Jeremiah in similar circumstances (Jer 28) recognized, indeed, the possibility that another prophet had received a message reversing his own (v.§), but reserved his judgment (v.*) until the word of J” came to him (v.). Retribution, therefore, in his case is not in- operative (against Benzinger on 1 K 13); there was no disobedience, and consequently no ground for retribution. The treatment of the false prophet in Jer 28 is more properly a contrast to the treatment of the prophet of Bethel in 1 K. Hananiah dies within a year because of his false prophecy in the name of J”; the prophet of Bethel continues to be a medium of Divine revelation (1 K 13-2), But vy. may not be in their original form, and it is not certain that the narrative in Kings really con- dones the offence of the prophet of Bethel (see above). Besides, there is this difference between the cases: the prophet of Bethel is not regarded as a false prophet, Hananiah is represented as a