Charles Ellicott Commentary 1 Kings 13

A man of God out of Judah. — Josephus calls him Jadon (Iddo); but from 2 Chronicles 13:22 it appears that Iddo was the chronicler of the reign of Abijah, and must, therefore, have lived until near the close of Jeroboam’s reign. Probably the tradition came from a mistaken interpretation of the “visions of Iddo against Jeroboam.”

By the word of the Lord. — A weak rendering of the original, “in the word of the Lord.” The constantly recurring prophetic phrases are, the word of the Lord came to me, and the Spirit of the Lord was upon me, enabling, or forcing, him to declare it. The original phrase here implies both. The prophet came clothed in the inspiration of the word put into his mouth.

Thus says the Lord. —This is one of those rather infrequent prophecies found in Holy Scripture, which, not content to foreshadow the future in general outline, descend to striking particularity of detail. It has indeed been suggested that the words “Josiah by name” are a marginal gloss which has crept into the text, or the insertion of the chronicler writing after the event, and not a part of the original prophetic utterance. The latter supposition is in itself not unlikely.

But the mention of the name in prediction is exemplified in the well-known reference to Cyrus in Isaiah 44:28; and in this instance, as perhaps also in that, the name is significant (for Josiah means “one healed” or “helped by Jehovah”), and is not, therefore, a mere artificial detail. The particularity of prediction, which is widely recognized as exceptional, will be credible or incredible to us, according to the view we take of the nature of prophetic prediction.

If we interpret this particularity as the intuitive sagacity of an inspired mind forecasting the future, because it sees more clearly than ordinary minds the seeds of that future in the present, it must seem incredible. If, on the other hand, we believe it to be the supernatural gift of a power to enter, in some measure, into “the mind of God,” in whose foreknowledge all the future is already seen and ordained, then it will be to us simply unusual, but in no sense incredible, that from time to time foreknowledge of details, as well as generalities, should be granted.

It is beyond controversy that the latter view is the one put forward in Holy Scripture, both in the Old Testament and in the New. Prophecy is, indeed, something higher and greater than supernatural prediction; but it claims to include such prediction, both as a test of mission from God, and as a necessary part of its revelation of the dispensations of God. On the fulfillment of this prediction, see 2 Kings 23:15–20.

The sign. —Both the signs, like most miraculous signs, plainly foreshadow the thing signified. The sign, announced to lend credibility to the prediction, is itself a visible type of what that prediction foretold, in the shattering of the altar and the scattering of the ashes of the burnt-offering. The sign actually given includes, besides this, the sudden withering of the king’s hand, stretched out in defiance of the prophet—an equally plain symbol of the miserable failure of his strength and policy, when opposed to the Law and the judgment of God.

It should be noted that the withdrawal of this last sign of wrath, upon the submission of the king and the prayer of the prophet, was apparently designed to give Jeroboam one more opportunity for repentance. The last verses of the chapter (1 Kings 13:33–34) seem to imply that, but for the intervention of the old prophet of Bethel, he might still have taken that opportunity.

Come home with me ... —The invitation may have been in part the mark of some impression made on the king, and an impulse of gratitude for the restoration of his withered hand. Such was the request of Naaman to Elisha (2 Kings 5:15), though even this was emphatically refused. But it still suggests astute policy in Jeroboam: for the acceptance of hospitality and reward would, in the eyes of the people, imply a condonation of the idolatrous worship, which might well destroy or diminish the impression made by the prophet’s prediction. It also indicates a low conception of prophetic character and mission—such as experience with men like “the old prophet” would have produced—similar to what is shown in Balak’s treatment of Balaam.

That such conceptions are perfectly compatible with a certain belief in the reality of a supernatural power in the prophet—although they, of course, detract from its true sacredness—the monstrous request of Simon Magus (Acts 8:19) shows with the most startling clarity. It was evidently to guard against these things—as being fatal to the effectiveness of the prophet’s mission—that the prohibition of 1 Kings 13:9 was given; nor could its general purpose have been easily misunderstood, either by the king or by the prophet himself. It is a curious coincidence that in his refusal, he uses words strikingly similar to the reluctant refusal of Balak’s offer by Balaam (Numbers 22:18). The very strength of the language is suspicious.

Nor turn again ... —The significance of this command is less obvious. It may have meant that he should not allow the way of his return (which would clearly not be the obvious way) to be known, but should vanish swiftly, like the messenger of Elisha to Jehu (2 Kings 9:3; 2 Kings 9:10), when his work was done. If so, his neglect of the spirit of the command was the first step on the path to his destruction.