The Old Prophet of
Bethel
(1 Kings xiii. 13-2: 2 Kings xxiii.
17,18.)
The events
recorded in the Thirteenth chapter of the First Book of Kings transpired in a
day when the nation of Israel was falling into apostasy. For this reason they
have special significance, and warning, for believers whose lot, as in the
present day, is cast in the midst of a corrupt Christendom fast moving on to
the great apostasy.
The story
unfolded is mainly concerned with three persons – King Jeroboam, “a man of God
out of Judah,” and “an old prophet in Bethel.”
Jeroboam had
received a definite word from God through the prophet Ahijah, that he should
reign over the ten tribes of Israel; and, he was told, that if he would hearken
unto God’s commands, walk in God’s ways, and keep the statues and commandments
of the Lord, God would be with him and establish his house. Alas! When Jeroboam
came to the throne, instead of depending upon God and His word, he sought to
establish his kingdom by his own devices. Having no faith in God he fell back
on natural reason, and human schemes to keep the professing people of God
together. So acting, he sealed the doom of his kingdom by setting up two golden
calves, and saying to the people, “Behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought
thee out of the land of Egypt” (1 Kings xii. 28.) One calf he set in Bethel and
the other in Dan. The solemn result was the people became worshippers of these
false gods, “sacrificing unto the calves;” and were thus led into apostasy.
Bethel, where Jacob had set up a pillar as a witness to God’s unconditional
promise of blessing to the seed of Jacob, and God’s unchanging faithfulness to
His own word, becomes the witness to man’s sin and apostasy. Through their
leaders the enemy had succeeded in undermining the people’s confidence in God
and thus separating them from Him.
God, however,
raised up a witness against this fearful evil. He sent a man of God out of
Judah to Bethel to condemn the wickedness of Jeroboam. “By the word of the
Lord,” this man was enlightened as to the evil in Bethel. He learnt that this
evil was so abhorrent to God that the day was soon coming when God would deal
with it is judgment (v. 1, 2.) He was directed by sign and word to witness
against the evil (v.3.) He was specially warned against weakening 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 who, while professing to be the people of God,
were walking in disobedience to the word of the Lord (v. 9,10.)
With great
faithfulness the man of God delivers his message and gives the sign, which
comes to pass. The enraged king charges his servants to lay hold of the man of
God, who is silent in the presence of threats and acts in interceding grace
when God smites the man by whom he is threatened. Finally he is proof against
the king’s offer of rewards, and, in obedience to the word of the Lord, firmly
refuses to eat or drink at Bethel.
In all these
ways the man of God faithfully discharges his mission, and yet withal in a
spirit of grace, while firmly refusing to be drawn into association with evil.
Passing on to
the latter part of this instructive story, we find that faithfulness to the
word of the Lord is put to a further and yet severer test. This portion of the
story is introduced with the significant words: - “Now there dwelt an old prophet
in Bethel” (v.11.) In the very place of the evil that the man of God was sent
to denounce, and with which the Lord said he was not to have any association by
eating or drinking – in this place, a brother prophet had found his dwelling.
He was truly a prophet, and was aware of the evil, but, dwelling in a wrong
association he not only was unable to witness against it, but actually put his
sanction upon it. It is through this “brother” and “prophet” that the obedience
of the man of God is put to the test. It is a severe test, for not only could
this old man plead that he was a brother and a prophet, but he could plead the
experience of age. Moreover, he shows much gracious hospitality to a weary 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” to bring the man of
God back to his house.
To refuse
such an appeal would appear to be putting a slight upon a brother prophet. It
would also have the appearance of disrespect for old age; it would look like
indifference to brotherly kindness that was so ready to show hospitality. Above
all it would have the appearance of ignoring the direct word of the Lord by an
angel. Yet the story clearly shows that behind all these specious reasons that
nature might please, there was the effort of the enemy to undermine the word of
the Lord by involving the man of God in a wrong association.
How does the
man of God act in the presence of this strong and subtle temptation? Alas!
Apparently on the plea of respect for old age, response to brotherly kindness,
fellowship with a fellow-servant, and professed obedience to the word of the
Lord, though this communication of the old prophet plainly invalidated and
contradicted his first instructions from God, he allowed himself to be drawn
into a wrong association by disobedience to them. An old prophet may alas!
Become a deceiver and seduce one from loyalty and obedience.
It is easy to
see how serious was this disobedience to the word of God.
First, by
turning back to eat and drink with the old prophet at Bethel, the man of God
put his sanction on an association which God’s word condemned.
Secondly, he
put his sanction upon the unfaithfulness of the old prophet in living in such
an association.
Thirdly, he
nullified his own testimony by sanctioning the very evil against which he was
sent to witness.
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, “So was it charged me by the word of the
Lord, saying, eat no bread, nor drink water, nor turn again by the same way
that thou camest.” Evidently, then, 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 are not to allow any after influence whatever to call it in
question, even although the latter may take the form of the word of God … In
every case our part is to obey what He has said.”
If the word
of God charged him not to eat drink at Bethel, in spite of the fact that a
brother prophet was dwelling there, was the man of God to turn back and eat and
drink because a brother prophet was at Bethel? If his eye had been single would
he not have discerned why the word of God so strictly forbad him to associate
with the old prophet? How was it that, when God was denouncing evil at Bethel,
He has to send a prophet from Judah, seeing there was already a prophet at
Bethel? Does not this action tell us that the old prophet at Bethel was not
himself separate from evil, and therefore not a vessel fit and meet for the
Master’s use?
Being in a false position the old prophet was
ready to go to great lengths to get the man of God to sanction his
unfaithfulness by associating with it. Alas! The man of God fell into the snare
and destroyed his own testimony by associating with one who, while admitting
the evil, yet bore with it.
Thus, as it
has been truly said, of this man of God, “He is proof against temptation when
presented in the form of evil, and he falls when tempted by apparent good. The
voice of a brother, his standing and reputation, are honored above the word of
God. He disobeys God and accredits a lie in his brother … He triumphed over the
opposition of the world without, and is seduced into unfaithfulness by a
brother within.” By abstaining from eating and drinking with the king he took
God’s part against the evil: by returning to eat and drink with the old prophet
he took his part in associating with it.
The last part
of the story (verses 20 to 32) clearly shows that God is not indifferent to the
unfaithfulness of the old prophet not the failure of the man of God. In the
governmental ways of God both come under His chastening.
The old
prophet is justly punished inasmuch as God compels him to expose his own
duplicity by pronouncing judgment upon the man of God. As to the man of God, he
has to learn that, if he regards the word of his brother more than the word of
God, the very one by whom he has been drawn into disobedience will be the
instrument in God’s hand for exposing his sin.
The severity
of the judgment that overtakes the man of God clearly shows how deeply God
resented his disobedience. The Lord had given this man of God great light as to
the evil of Bethel and His abhorrence of it, and the judgment that was coming
upon it. Great honor had been put upon him in being used as a witness against
the evil. God had plainly warned him against being entangled in a false
association. In spite of light, and privilege, and warning, he allowed himself
to be drawn into a false association with the result that in spite of all
former faithfulness, and boldness, his career as a witness for God is closed on
earth. It is no small matter to disregard the word of God and sin against the
light.
Nevertheless
we are permitted to see that if God, in His holiness, has to chasten His people
for their failure and unfaithfulness, yet He is not unrighteous to forget any
work or labor of love that has been shewn toward His Name. So it comes to pass
that three hundred and fifty years after these events, when Josiah carries out
the word of the Lord, by the man of God, and burns the bones of the false
prophets, he spares the sepulcher of the man of God who came from Judah and the
old prophet of Bethel. Through their unfaithfulness, the people of God may come
under His chastening; but, through the faithfulness of God they will not share
in the judgment that overtakes the world (2 Kings xxiii. 15-18.)
In seeking to
apply the lessons of this striking story, we do well to remember three great
facts: -
First, in the
day in which we live there has been, by the grace of God, a recovery of the
great truths concerning Christ and the Church as revealed in the word of God.
Secondly, in
the light of the recovery of the truth many have had their eyes opened to see
how far Christendom has departed from the truth. Like the man out of Judah, we
see that, as it was in Israel, so in Christendom, the corrupt condition of the
professing mass is leading to apostasy and judgment.
Thirdly, with
our eyes opened to see the departure from the truth, we have also been
enlightened as to God’s mind for the individual believer in relation to the
corruption of Christendom. We have learned that the knowledge of the truth on
the one hand, and the corruption of Christendom on the other, demands entire
separation from that which is a denial of the truth and is coming under the
judgment of God.
Christendom has
organized itself into a number of systems and denominations which form a
religion established on earth, having a human order of priests between the
people and God – a religion suited to man in the flesh. Such a religion was
Judaism, and such Christendom has become. God calls this system “the camp,” and
from such, true believers are exhorted “To go forth … unto Him without the
camp, bearing His reproach” (Heb. Xii.13.)
Moreover, we
read, “Let everyone that nameth the name of the Lord withdraw from iniquity;”
and again, we are to “purge” ourselves from vessels to dishonor, and “flee also
youthful lusts” (2 Timothy ii. 19-22.)
Thus the word
of God makes it very clear that in a day of ruin the separation to which we are
called is both ecclesiastical and personal. Alas! There may be one without the
other. We may be truly separate from the ecclesiastical evil and yet fail in
personal holiness. Or there may be a personal separation, as in the church at
Sardis where there were a few names, which had not defiled their garments, but
no separation from a lifeless and condemned ecclesiastical system. True
separation to Christ combines both. And, as in the days of the man of God from
Judah, so in ours, the power of our testimony will be in proportion to the
reality of our separation.
This being
so, those who have gone without the camp unto Christ will find, as with the man
of God from Judah, all the efforts of the enemy will be directed to marring
their testimony by once again drawing them unto associations condemned by the
word of God. To gain his ends the devil employs today the same devices by which
he sought to encompass the downfall of the man of God. First, he will seek to
entangle us in false associations by some worldly advantage that the
association may offer, even as he sought to entice the man of God into
disobedience to the word of God by the King’s rewards. Secondly, having failed
to turn us aside by this device he will endeavor to do so by the much more
subtle device of a fellow Christian in a false position.
Many, like
the man of God of old, may firmly reject the first device only to fall by the
second. We may see that the association is condemned by the word of God, and
one, if there were no Christians in it, that we should have nothing to do with.
This being so we many well ask ourselves, are we right in going back into a
false association under the plea that Christians are there? If God calls us out
of the camp, can it be right to return to the camp because they are there?
Nevertheless
the appeal to go back often comes with great force and under many specious
pleas. Brotherly love, old friendships, the desire to help the Lord’s people
and strengthen the things that remain, may all be used as reasons for going
back into associations condemned by the word of God. Moreover, we have the
flesh in us, and at times the call to go back may flatter the vanity and
self-importance of the natural heart. Nor can we shut our eyes to the fact that
the brother, who seeks to draw us back, also has the flesh in him, and, as with
the old prophet of Bethel, may seek to draw us into a wrong association with
the low motive of seeking to justify himself in that false position.
The fact that
we have left associations condemned by the word of God, is in itself a testimony
against them. To go back is to annul our testimony and, in principle, build
again the things we have destroyed.
Moreover, we
may well ask, does the brother by going back into a false association really
help the Christians in the false position? Or, will he by so doing deliver such
from a false association? It is evident that the man of God by eating and
drinking at Bethel in disobedience to the word of God, neither helped the old
prophet nor delivered him from his false position.
Furthermore,
by going back into wrong associations are we not in danger of not only
destroying our testimony against the evil, but also, like the man of God from
Judah, ending our career as a witness for the truth?
It is only as
we walk in unswerving obedience to the word of God, that we shall escape the
devices of the enemy to draw us back into the wrong position. Let us then seek
that the word may have its absolute authority over our souls, and be content to
take the outside path with all its obscurity, content if the Lord can say of
us, “Thou has a little strength, and hast kept My word and hast not denied My
Name” (Rev. iii. 8.)