Old man (Hastings' Dictionary)

See REGENERATION. OLD PROPHET, THE (j2) 15x x3}; Β πρεσβύτης els προφήτης, A προφ. els πρεσβ., Luc. προῴ. ἄλλος mpec8.)—This prophet lived in Bethel at the com- mencement of the reign of JeroboamI. A single incident in his life is narrated (1 K 13-2; ef. 13110 and 2 K 23!618), He desired to entertain as his guest a certain ‘man of God’ from Judah, who had appeared in Bethel to denounce the royal sanctuary (on the day of itsinauguration).

The stranger was already departing when the prophet overtook him and offered his hospitality. It was refused on the ground that J” had forbidden him to take food in the city. The prophet then falsely declared that he 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 * The last words of v.15 are so abrupt as to suggest interpola tion.

But there is nothing to support a confers that the prophet was simply mistaken, and the tenor of the narrative u pate the view that he was inspired by J” to tempt the man οἱ ᾿ OLD PROPHET, THE simple impostor. If the difference be not pressed, it remains true that the immunity of a false pro- het is not something peculiar to this narrative. he fate of Hananiah was an exceptional one. In estimating the historical value of this narra- tive the whole chapter must be taken into account.

The real theme of the chapter is the message and the death of the man of God from Judah. The message announced the future desecration of the royal altar by a ruler of the house of David, Josiah. It was proclaimed in the king’s presence, and only a miracle saved the man of God from the consequences of his act. J” had commanded him not to linger in the ity, and he refused to be the king’s guest.

It was because he yielded to the invitation of the old prophet that a lion met and killed him on the way home. The whole fabric of this narrative has been challenged on the ground that it implies such hostility to the worship at Bethel as is incon- ceivable in the age of Jeroboam. It is supposed to be a product of Deuteronomic opposition to the local worship of J” (Stade, Benzinger).

Such criticism overlooks two further influences cap- able of explaining contemporary hostility to the sanctuary at Bethel. (1) The worship at this sanctuary was image worship. Whatever the attitude of the majority to such worship, there was doubtless a party of purity strenuously op- posed to it (article BETHEL; Kittel, Hist. Heb. ii. 253f.) (2) The sanctuary at Bethel was bein made a royal sancti . It was the enbiem o a new nation, and as such calculated to stir feeling in Judah.

It is by no means improbable, in such circumstances, that a prophet, particularly one from Judah, should denounce Jeroboam’s double schism on the day he inaugurated his royal sanc- tuary. The grave of one who did so was shown, it seems, in Bethel (2 Καὶ 237). The cause of his burial there and the manner of his death cannot seriously be pnomced unlikely. The report of his words (1 K 133) contains no description of Jeroboam’s sin, Deuteronomie or otherwise.

The purport of his message simply is that a king of the house of David will undo Jeroboam’s work of that day. It admirably fits the situation. The suggestion that the story is pervaded by a confused memory of the appearance of Amos in Bethel ignores too much the fertility of history, and is a treatment of scanty records as if they were complete. The aponymity of the TW ih and of the man of God is not evidence of their unhistorical origin.

It points rather to a channel of oral transmission, in which the names were lost. Josephus calls the Judean man of God ᾿Ιάδων (Ant. VII. vili. 5). The name may come from 2 Ch 9”. The writer in the Bk. of Kings avoids confusion by the use of the titles ‘ prophet’ and ‘man of God.’* There is no distinction of office in these titles (v.18). The miraculous features of the story will be estimated, of course, according miracle in these histories. T Jeroboam’s hand and its restoration (vv.

°), and the lion’s quietly remaining beside the ass and the dead body (νν."" 38), are not essentials in the narrative. A prophet did not require miraculous protection (comp. Am 78), The sign of the altar as we judge all | he -withering of | (vv. δ) gives the impression of being a later addi- | tion. Judean king Josiah was named in the original * In ν. 5, AV and RV, the word ‘prophet’ denotes the man of God. But this is due to mistranslation.

‘He saddled for him- self the ass [which belonged] to the prophet who brought him back’ is the correct rendering. Besides, the text is faulty. Read as LXX B: ‘he saddled for himself his ass and departed back again.’ The words omitted, [)2°v7) 7¢'x 8°29, are a gloss It is not capable of historical proof that the | OLD TESTAMENT 595 prophecy. 1 K 13? and 2 K 2318 ent of each other. Regarding the date of the narrative in its present form, see article on Kincs.

Ewald con- siders it to have been written down for the first time after the desecration of the altar by Josiah. If it were clear that 13%. is the original con- tinuation of 12%!-2, it might be concluded that ch. 13 was not part of the original Bk. of Kings compiled by R?, but an addition by R°*. There seems to be no other argument against its in- clusion by R®. The possible difference of date scarcely affects the question of the general histor- icity of the narrative. LivgRATURE.

— Ewald, History, iv. 30ff.; Wellhausen, Com- position, 277{.=Bleek4, 244; Stade, Geschichte, i. 340 t's Ben- zinger. ad loc. (‘Kénige’ in Marti’s Kurzer Hdcom.) The possible motives of the old prophet receive special consideration in The Speaker's Commentary, and the nature of the guilt of the man of God in The Hxpositor's Bible (Farrar). See also Bahr in Lange's Commentary. Josephus (Ant. viii. and ix.)

expands and adds extensively to the history of the prophet, He represents him as ‘a certain wicked old false prophet,’ who sought to undo the effect of the miracles and message of the man of God, and pretended friendship and Divine inspiration in order to ruin and discredit him, The revelation of νν. 31" 22 is addressed to the man of God in this account (ὃ θεὸς ἐπιφαίνεται τῷ ᾿Ιάδωνι).

But Josephus may be judged capable of ignoring the present text because of prejudice against the * wicked old prophet.’ W. B. STEVENSON, are not independ-