chl@computer-science.manchester.ac.uk (11/15/89)
I am looking for help/suggestions as to the meaning of 1 Kings 13, whose message, if any, seems difficult to discern. Here, to remind you, is the story. Jereboam, the first king of Israel, has erected an illegal altar at Bethel, complete with idols and other abominations. An unnamed prophet (let us call him Foo) comes to Bethel and prophecies against the altar. When Jereboam tries to have him arrested, his arm is paralysed, and the altar is struck in two. Jereboam asks Foo to pray to the Lord for his arm to be restored, which he does, and it is. Jereboam, being much relieved, invites Foo back to the palace to eat, but Foo says No, he has been commanded by the Lord not to eat or drink there, and to return home by a different way. So Foo departs. Now there is an old prophet living in Bethel (also unnamed - let us call him Bar) who, hearing of this, gets his sons to saddle his donkey and goes after Foo in order to invite him home for a meal (genuine visiting prophets of the Lord are few and far between in Bethel). But Foo says No, he has been commanded by the Lord not to eat or drink there, and to return home by a different way. But now Bar says to Foo that, he too being a prophet, he has seen a vision of an Angel saying that Foo may indeed eat with him (but Bar is lying - he has had no vision). So Foo is reassured and returns with Bar. But as soon as Foo is home eating with Bar, Bar denounces him, saying that he has broken the command of the Lord not to eat in that place, and he will surely die. And indeed, when Foo departs he is indeed attacked on the way by a lion and killed (we are to understand that the lion is certainly the agent of the Lord in this, for the totally confused lion is left standing by Foo's body, making no attempt to eat either him or his donkey). On hearing all this, Bar is distraught, saddles his donkey again, and goes to collect Foo's body, to which he gives a decent burial, saying to his sons that he himself wishes to be buried beside Foo when his time comes. Moreover, he announces that Foo's prophecy against the altar will indeed come to pass (as indeed it does towards the end of 2 Kings). Now for the questions. 1) Are we to take this story as it stands, or is it reasonable to postulate that it got garbled sometime before the writer of Kings set it down? 2) If the story is taken as it stands, who was the true prophet? Foo? Bar? Both? Neither? 3) I think Foo could justifiably claim that he had been "set up" (if he had still been alive, that is). But if so who set him up? Bar? Or God? The latter does not accord with my current beliefs about the way God interacts with his people, although in the context of Old Testament thinking it can just about be imagined. 4) Quite apart from what may actually have happened, what did the writer of Kings think he was writing about? Surely the ambiguity of the episode must have been apparent to him. Now I do not think we can expect a single "correct" answer to these problems. But there must be some range of "acceptable" scenarios that believers could reasonably hold. Perhaps others on the net can help clarify this range for me. Charles Lindsey.
phys-bb@garnet.berkeley.edu (11/17/89)
[In article <Nov.15.04.20.19.1989.13669@athos.rutgers.edu> chl@m1.cs.man.ac.uk. (Charles Lindsey) asks about 1 Kings 13. There are two prophets, who he calls Foo and Bar. Foo is told to go home without eating or drinking. Bar says he has seen a vision, and it's OK to eat with him. So Foo does. Bar then denounces Foo for violating the Lord's word, and say Foo will die. He does. --clh] >1) Are we to take this story as it stands, or is it reasonable to postulate >that it got garbled sometime before the writer of Kings set it down? Well, both taking the story as it stands and postulating that it got garbled are reasonable, but intuition tells me that to say it's garbled just because it's confusing is a little hasty.i >2) If the story is taken as it stands, who was the true prophet? Foo? Bar? >Both? Neither? They were both prophets in that they both spoke forth the word of God. Foo spoke the word of God to Jeroboam speaking of doom to Jerry's house. Bar spoke the word to Foo holding Foo to his word that he would not eat in that house. I'm not sure what you mean by 'true prophet', but certainly both compromised, or had mixed motives. >3) I think Foo could justifiably claim that he had been "set up" (if he had >still been alive, that is). But if so who set him up? Bar? Or God? The latter >does not accord with my current beliefs about the way God interacts with his >people, although in the context of Old Testament thinking it can just about be >imagined. Whether or not he was set up is a minor point compared to the major point --which we must not miss here--that Foo, the man of God, was faithless to God when he ate with Bar. God told him not to, and yet he did. It reminds me of the story of the serpent telling Eve, "Did God really say not to eat that apple? He didn't really mean it. . ." >Now I do not think we can expect a single "correct" answer to these problems. >But there must be some range of "acceptable" scenarios that believers could >reasonably hold. Perhaps others on the net can help clarify this range for me. > >Charles Lindsey. Well, I've not come near to giving a complete answer, but I think it's worth thinking about. By the way, thanks for bringing up this chapter. It's nice to see other Christians not afraid to figure out what the Bible really means. phys-bb@garnet.berkeley.edu / ". . .into the narrow lanes, \ (John Warren) \ I can't stumble or stay put. . ." / [If you are willing to postulate that God is testing Foo, he might have given Bar the vision that Bar claimed. So it could be that eveyone is telling the truth. In that case, Foo was indeed set up, by God. --clh]
murphy@mips.com (Mike Murphy) (11/20/89)
I agree with John Warren's explanation of I Kings 13; in fact when you read the actual Scripture as opposed to just the summary (because it gives more details), it seems somewhat obvious (at least to me) that both prophets were "true" in that they were able to receive "the word of the Lord". The reason I am responding is to question the moderator's response: >[If you are willing to postulate that God is testing Foo, he might have >given Bar the vision that Bar claimed. So it could be that eveyone is >telling the truth. In that case, Foo was indeed set up, by God. --clh] I suspect this was written without rereading I Kings 13, because vs. 18 specifically says "But he [Bar] lied to him." So Bar didn't really have a vision that Foo could eat with him, he was just lying in an attempt to convince him (his motivation is unclear from scripture, but perhaps he just wanted to spend time with someone who was obviously being used of God). Unfortunately, just because one is a prophet doesn't mean that one is free from sin. Foo's problem is that he was deceived, but that does not free him from responsibility. I thought John Warren's mention of the Fall was appropriate here, for Adam and Eve tried to avoid responsibility by claiming they were deceived so it was not there fault, but God apparently holds us responsible for being deceived (particularly when he has already told us something specific, as he did Foo, and yet we readily believe the nword of another without praying and testing the word). So the issue is not really about Foo being "set-up", but about Foo being used of God to speak to Jereboam yet not being fully obediant to what God was saying to him. Actually reminds me of myself: sometimes used of God and sometimes disobediant to what God wants me to do; thankfully God is more merciful to me than he was to Foo (but then I don't have the same responsibility as a prophet). [My thought was that the Foo was lying in the sense that he was passing on a lie. Indeed "he was lying to him" might even refer to the angel, at least in English. Maybe that reading is untenable, but nothing else in the passage suggests that Foo is anything other than an honest prophet. It looks like a test from God. --clh]
garys@decvax.uucp (Gary M. Samuelson) (11/20/89)
In article <Nov.15.04.20.19.1989.13669@athos.rutgers.edu> chl@m1.cs.man.ac.uk. (Charles Lindsey) writes: [Jereboam sets up an altar; an unnamed prophet (Foo for discussion purposes) prophesies against it...another prophet (Bar) lies to Foo, saying that an angel has said that Foo is permitted to eat with Bar, although Foo was previously told not to stay in Bethel at all. Bar prophesies against Foo, and Foo is killed on the way home by a lion.] >Now for the questions. >1) Are we to take this story as it stands, or is it reasonable to postulate >that it got garbled sometime before the writer of Kings set it down? I, for one, take it as it stands. >2) If the story is taken as it stands, who was the true prophet? Foo? Bar? >Both? Neither? Both. But who says prophets are perfect? Or that everything out of the mouth of a prophet is, in fact, prophecy? Bar lied to Foo to persuade Foo to return to Bar's home. That was Bar's doing, not God's. Then, Bar prophesied concerning what would happen to Foo on his way home. That was God's doing, not Bar's. I would imagine that Bar would have kept that particular prophecy to himself, if he could have. >3) I think Foo could justifiably claim that he had been "set up" (if he had >still been alive, that is). He knew that God told him to deliver his message and then leave; he should therefore have recognized that Bar was lying when he said that God told him otherwise. Compare Galatians 1:8: "If we, or an angel from heaven, preach to you a gospel other than what you received, let him be accursed." [Part quote, part paraphrase, part my poor memory -- look it up for exact wording.] >4) Quite apart from what may actually have happened, what did the writer of >Kings think he was writing about? Surely the ambiguity of the episode must >have been apparent to him. We learn from this that even true prophets are sinners, and that not everyone who says, "Thus saith the Lord," is speaking the words of God, but that we ought to weigh what is said with what we already know about God and his will. Gary Samuelson
jkk@aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk (John Kingston) (11/24/89)
[This is a comment on the discussion about 1 Kings 13, in which the an unnamed prophet (who we are calling Foo) is lied to by another unnamed prophet (who we are calling Bar). --clh] At least it's a Jewish name :-) [The original posting that raised this issue asked several questions about how we should take it: 1) do we take it at face value, or assume it got garbled? 2) which of the prophets were true prophets? 3) Bar seems to have been set up. By whom? 4) Did the author of Kings have any views on the episode? --clh] I don't see a reason to disbelieve the story. The way I look at it, the key to understanding it is that prophets can speak God's word even when they are not living in accordance with God's word. [Look at the story of Balaam for an example - there's also a bit in Revelation which gives a bit more information about Balaam's character and motives]. Hence, both Foo and Bar are true prophets. I sympathise with Foo's predicament, trying to decide between God's previous word and (apparently) a new, contradictory message from God. A difficult decision to make, especially when you're hungry and one way gets you a good meal. John Kingston, AI Applications Institute, University of Edinburgh, 80 South Bridge, Edinburgh EH1 1HN, Scotland E-mail jkk@uk.ac.ed.aiai, phone 031-225 4464 ext. 213 FAX: 031 226 2730 Arpanet: J.Kingston%uk.ac.ed@nfsnet-relay.ac.uk TELEX: 727442 UNIVED G
TTAERUM@ualtavm.bitnet (11/24/89)
In article <Nov.15.04.20.19.1989.13669@athos.rutgers.edu>, chl@computer-science. >Jereboam, the first king of Israel, has erected an illegal altar at Bethel, >complete with idols and other abominations. An unnamed prophet (let us call >him Foo) comes to Bethel and prophecies against the altar. When Jereboam tries >to have him arrested, his arm is paralysed, and the altar is struck in two. >3) I think Foo could justifiably claim that he had been "set up" (if he had >still been alive, that is). But if so who set him up? Bar? Or God? The latter This historical event tells us something about: - the nature of G-d - the role of the prophet - the role of the false prophet - G-d's judgement on all of these. A prophet, in the role of an ambassador for G-d, has many of the same restrictions as earthly ambassadors. You cannot have a message of judgement against sedition and then engage in sedition without facing the same judgement. The prophet, in his (excusable?) sedition, becomes a role model of what will happen to Israel - in the same way that Saul was a role model of what would happen to Israel because of their desire to have a king like the nations around them. The older prophet shows he recognises the truth of the younger prophet by requesting that his body be placed in the grave beside the younger prophet. In order words, where the young prophet goes after death - he wanted to go. It is impossible to answer the underlying question of "was G-d just?" If He was (and I believe He was) then one can construe ways in which G-d could have been acting justly. If He wasn't, then one can also construe ways in which G-d could have been acting unjustly. The text simply doesn't tell us enough to know - one can only work from presupposition. Terry Taerum
smith_c@ncsatl.uucp (11/24/89)
On the FooBar debate: Without a Bible handy, it seems to me that Foo, a true prophet, was punished by God for failing to have confidence in the Lord. The Lord had given Foo true visions yet Foo trusted another prophet before he trusted in the Lord. Hmm, the prophets Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc., are always railing against the false prophets. Woe to you, Jeremiah says (I think), who go around saying, "Thus says the Lord," and it isn't true. If you dream dreams, say so; if you speak the words of the Lord, speak truly. Foo did not trust in the Lord because he assumed that another prophet's words were more valid than his own vision. The Lord doesn't ask trick questions or give out trick commands. Either you obey the Lord or you don't. God doesn't give out contradictory commands, the author of this passage seems to say. I'm not sure I always go along with that, though my understanding may be flawed. For example, God tells David to take a census of the people, and is pleased when David obeys him. The people rail against David, and God punishes David for conducting a census of the people. Censuses were generally unpopular since they were often used by rulers to give out "draft notices." Ditto the prophet of a foreign god, Balaam, who prophesied the words of Yahweh nonetheless, and then an angel of the Lord barred his way, and his donkey spoke to him, saying, "There's an angel there, dummy, go around him," or something like that because the angel was trying to kill him for obeying the word of God. I haven't figured out that story yet. -- Sincerely, gatech!ncsatl!smith_c [You might want to look at it. There's no particular question about why Foo is punished. The question is why Bar lied to him. Bar is said to be a prophet, and he reports his claim as a prophetic revelation. The rest of the passage shows him as a reasonably upstanding person. So the whole thing seems odd to many readers. --clh]
bd@hp-ses.sde.hp.com (Bob Desinger) (11/29/89)
In soc.religion.christian, you asked about 1 Kings 13: > 1) Are we to take this story as it stands, or is it reasonable to postulate > that it got garbled sometime before the writer of Kings set it down? Since it's part of the Bible and "all scripture is inspired of God," according to 2 Timothy 3:16, we can take the story as it stands. > 2) If the story is taken as it stands, who was the true prophet? Foo? Bar? > Both? Neither? 1 Kings 13:18 says that the older prophet (Bar) lied to the younger (Foo). Of the seven things mentioned in Proverbs 6:16-19 that God especially detests, two of them involve lying: "a false tongue" and "a false witness that launches forth lies." John 8:44 calls Satan "the father of the lie," so lying is linked very closely with God's chief enemy. Revelation 21:8 says that liars will receive the second death, everlasting destruction. Given that God especially hates liars, the second prophet must not have been a true one. Deuteronomy 18:20-22 defines two aspects of a true prophet: he speaks in God's name and his prophecies come true. Deuteronomy 13:1-4 adds an additional acid test: his prophesying must be in harmony with God's commandments and promote true worship. The older prophet not only lied, he contradicted God's earlier commandment to the younger prophet about not eating. The younger true prophet disobeyed a direct order from God not to eat or drink while he was on his mission. That's why he was killed. The older false prophet saw that God's word was carried out with regard to this younger prophet, and realized that he was indeed a true prophet. > 3) I think Foo could justifiably claim that he had been "set up" (if he had > still been alive, that is). But if so who set him up? Bar? Or God? Given that God hates lying, it was the second prophet. James 1:13 adds that God doesn't tempt anyone with evil things, so we couldn't really be correct in saying that God sets anyone up. > 4) Quite apart from what may actually have happened, what did the writer of > Kings think he was writing about? Surely the ambiguity of the episode must > have been apparent to him. Well, internal evidence points to a prophet being the writer: the books of 1 and 2 Kings emphasize the prophets, especially Elisha and Elijah. 1 and 2 Kings have similarities in language, composition, and style with the book of Jeremiah; some Hebrew words appear only in the books of Kings and Jeremiah, but in no other Bible book. Jewish tradition also confirms the prophet Jeremiah as the writer. So the writer, being a seasoned man of God, probably wasn't confused by what he was writing. Romans 15:4 says that the OT was written for our instruction, so the account was evidently recorded to teach us something. The lesson is revealed by studying the context around 1 Kings 13. The kingdom of Israel had just `seceded from the union.' Jeroboam, the king of Israel, was worried that his people would go back to the rival kingdom of Judah to worship at the original temple in Jerusalem. So Jeroboam erected two altars for calf worship, one in northern Israel at Dan and one in the south at Bethel (1 Kings 12:27-29). Compounding the injury to true worship, Jeroboam appointed priests from people who were not of the priestly tribe of Levi. He also manufactured his own festival dates (1 Kings 12:31-32). The older prophet lived in the city of Bethel, once renowned for being a place of true revelation by God. With its altar for calf worship, it was now a symbol of big-time apostasy from true worship. God expressed His disapproval by sending the younger true prophet, whose prophecy against the altar came true. But the younger prophet allowed himself to be swayed by an old apostate prophet who claimed the exact opposite of what the young one was told by God. After he was killed, the old false prophet saw how God's word had been fulfilled and wanted to be buried at the same site. The lesson of the account? There are a few: * God's word certainly will be fulfilled (1 Kings 13:32). * The reason for God's low opinion of Jeroboam (1 Kings 13:34); God was justified for abandoning the Jews after they abandoned Him. * The bad results of listening to people who claim to have the word of God even though their counsel flies in the face of what you know to be true. We need to be open-minded, but still to weigh what people say like a judge weighs the evidence of a case. Hope this helps, bob desinger <bd@sde.HP.COM> <uunet!hplabs!hp-ses!bd>
chl@m1.computer-science.manchester.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) (11/29/89)
As the original poster of the Foo/Bar question, I was content to sit back and let others have their say. Perhaps now is the time for me to re-enter the discussion, and try to formulate my own opinion on the matter. Firstly, there was one omission from my original version of the story (I was typing it a work, and my bible was at home). It was specifically because the Lord told him to that Bar denounced Foo. Gary Samuelson makes this particular point clear: >Bar lied to Foo to persuade Foo to return to Bar's home. That was Bar's >doing, not God's. Then, Bar prophesied concerning what would happen to Foo on >his way home. That was God's doing, not Bar's. I would imagine that Bar >would have kept that particular prophecy to himself, if he could have. I think I can accept that as an explanation. Nevertheless, I still have the feeling that (here as elsewhere in the OT) some essential detail is missing from the story. Kings was written some 350 years after this particular event. Whoever wrote it (Bob Desinger suggests it was Jeremiah) certainly made use of existing texts (the "Annals of the Kings of Israel" are mentioned frequently), and doubtless of an oral tradition also. Nevertheless, there must have been many conflicts in his sources, and I am quite happy to accept that he may have got many details wrong (remember also that his purpose was to show how Israel had got into its mess, rather than to write conventional history). This was my reason for introducing the possibility that the story had got "garbled" (you will see that I do not take 2 Timothy 3:16 as literally as some contributors do). Sometimes, this "garbling" is plain for all to see. 'gatech!ncsatl!smith_c' quotes the story from 2 Samuel where David is told by God to take a census, and is then punished for doing so. But if you look in 1 Chronicles you will find almost the identical text as in Samuel, except that here it is Satan who tempts David to do it. Clearly, one of these texts in an "edited" version of the other, but which way around? There are several scenarios that might fit the Foo/Bar story. A very small "ungarbling" of the text could have confirmed any of them (but the text we have doesn't, of course). Here is one possibility. Foo goes home with Bar to eat, as already described. FOO "Tell me more about this angel you saw." BAR "Well ... actually there was no angel." FOO "Then I have disobeyed the command of the Lord." BAR (possibly prompted by the Lord) "Yes, indeed you have. I have to say that you will be punished." FOO "This is a fine mess you've gotten me into." Our moderator suggests another scenario, in which it is God who is setting up a Test for Foo. This I find it exceedingly hard to accept, for it would imply that God, through a lying Bar or a lying Angel, was practising a deliberate deception on Foo. I cannot believe that God would do that. Are we not told somewhere (my bible is at home, remember) that God will not allow us to be tempted more than we can bear? All contributors (except Bob Desinger) agree that both Foo and Bar were true prophets, whilst making the valuable point that even prophets can sin. Certainly, this view does come across strongly in the text of Kings. And the point that all supposed revelations from God should be carefuly tested is well taken. Finally, Gary raised the contradictions in the story of Balaam. Oddly, I have no problems here. God first tell Balaam not to go to Moab. But Balaam is clearly keen to do so (he sees the prospect of a big fat fee). So God says "All right, you may go if you really must, but only on condition that you say exactly what I tell you when you get there". The episode with the Angel and the Donkey is just God putting the "frighteners" on Balaam to make sure that he behaves himself in Moab (which he, with some reluctance as regards loss of his fee, just about manages to do). See Numbers 20, or thereabouts. Charles Lindsey.
davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (12/04/89)
In article <Nov.28.23.06.55.1989.24691@athos.rutgers.edu> bd@hp-ses.sde.hp.com (Bob Desinger) writes: >* The bad results of listening to people who claim to have the word of > God even though their counsel flies in the face of what you know to > be true. I would like to suggest a slight rewording of this as none of us dare trust his own mind when it comes to knowing what exactly is true. I would agree if we define what we know to be true by what the Scriptures say. We should always test everything that we are told, and even everything that we come up with in our own minds, by checking to see if it is consistent with what God has told us in the Bible. Acts 17:11 says "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.". Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3