Commentary on 1 Kings 13:20–22 (Summary)

God did not hesitate to make his displeasure known, and it is odd that he makes use of the false prophet to deliver the message of judgment. The language says that the word of the Lord came as they sat at the table. From this we might gather the impression that the meal had not progressed very far when the words of judgment were spoken by the prophet who brought the man of God back.

It is noteworthy to see the similarity between the announcement of judgment pronounced by the man of God from Judah concerning the pagan altar and the one given here. Each prophet was said to cry against the object of God’s judgment.

In the present case, the word of the Lord rebuked the man of God for his disobedience, and the disobedience is said to be that he ate bread and drank water in the place, Israel, where he had been told not to do it. Note how the Lord’s rebuke sets forth exactly what he had commanded.

Then, the punishment was announced to be that his body would not return to Judah to be buried with his ancestors. We must not pass lightly over the emphasis upon being buried apart from the tomb of [his] fathers. That was a sign of having been cut off from the land of his inheritance and therefore removed from covenant promises. The law of Moses contained much detail that was designed to keep inheritance rights intact. Therefore, for God to act to destroy this link between the man of God and his interest in the Promised Land was a severe punishment indeed. Possibly, it was as severe as God’s refusal to allow Moses to enter the Promised Land because of his disobedience.

Why did God choose the old (false) prophet of Bethel to pronounce his judgment upon the disobedient man of God? We suggest that by using the mouth of the prophet who lied to the man of God, it would be clear to all who read (or heard) the story that the so-called revelation was indeed a lie, and no room does the Lord give for the excuse that it was divine revelation that caused the man of God to disobey.