while he thus stood, himself a sign, the top of the altar suddenly parted, and the ashes, clogged and heavy

with the fat of idol-sacrifices, poured out around him. No hand was stretched out to seize the "man of God".

Nor was there need of it - the "man of God" had neither design nor desire to escape. Rather was it now the

king's turn, n ot to command but to entreat. In the expressive language of the original, "And the king

answered" (to the unspoken word of Jehovah in the stroke that had arrested his hand), and said, Soften now

the Face of Jehovah thy God, and make entreaty on my behalf, and (or, that) "my hand shall return to me."

It was as he craved - for the prophecy and controversy were not with the king, but with the Altar. And all

this had been only a sign, which had fulfilled its purpose, and would fulfill it still more, if the same Power

that had appeared in the sudden stroke would again become manifest in its equally sudden removal. As for

Jeroboam, Jehovah had no controversy with him then and there, nor indeed anywhere. The judgment of his

sins would soon enough overtake him and his house. It might, indeed, seem passing strange that the king

could now invite this "man of God" to his palace and table, and even promise him "a reward," if we did not

bear in mind the circumstances of the times, and the heathen idea of miracles. To the heathen the

miraculous, as direct Divine manifestation, was not something extraordinary and unexpected. Heathenism -

may we not say, the ancient world? -expected the miraculous; and hence in those times God's manifestation

by miracles might almost be designated not as an extraordinary, but, according to the then notions, as the

ordinary mode of teaching. Moreover, heathenism regarded miracles as simply manifestations of power, and

the worker of miracles as a magician, possessed of power - the question being, whether the power of the

deity whom he represented was greater than that of other gods, or not. It was, no doubt, in this light that

Jeroboam regarded this "man of Elohim" the name Elohim itself expressing especially "power."  212 This, as

well as knowledge of the character of his own "prophets," and perhaps a secret hope that he might attach

him to himself by a "reward," prompted the words of the king. He would do honor to the man of power, and,

through him, to the deity whom he represented -perhaps even gain the man of God.213

It need scarcely be said, that the mere fact of the "man of God" entering the king's palace and sharing his

feast, probably a sacrificial idol-feast would not only have been contrary to the whole scope and spirit of his

embassy, but have destroyed the moral effect of the scene enacted before the people. So, to mention a much

lower parallelism is the moral effect of all Christian testimony, whether by word or life, annulled by every act

of conformity to, and fellowship with the world (comp. Romans 12:1, 2). But in the present instance any

danger of this kind had by anticipation been averted. God had given His messenger express command,

neither to eat bread nor to drink water in that place, nor even to return by the way that he had come. These

directions had, of course, a much deeper and symbolical meaning. They indicated that Bethel lay under the

ban; that no fellowship of any kind was to be held with it; and that even the way by which the messenger of

God had come, was to be regarded as consecrated, and not to be retraced.214

In the discharge of the commission entrusted to him, the "man of God," who had "come in the word of

Jehovah," was to consider himself as an impersonal being - till he was beyond the place to which, and the

road by which he had been sent. Whatever view, therefore, we may take of his after-conduct, it cannot at

least surprise us, that at that moment no earthly temptation could have induced him to accept the king's

offer (1 Kings 13:8, 9).

Yet, as we think of it, the answer of the "man of God" seems to us disappointing. It is like that of Balaam to

the messengers of Balak (Numbers 22:13, 18), and yet we know that all along his heart was with them, and

that he afterwards yielded to their solicitations, to his own destruction. We would have expected more from

the "man of God" than a mere recital of his orders -some expression of feeling like that of Daniel under

analogous circumstances (Daniel 5:17). But, in repeating before all the people the express command which

God had given him, the "man of God," like Balaam of old, also pronounced his own necessary doom, if he

swerved from the injunction laid upon him. He had borne testimony - and by the testimony of his own

mouth he must be content to be judged; he was quite certain of the command which God had laid upon him,

and by that certainty he must abide.