may be easily understood; his earnest desire to claim and have fellowship with a direct messenger of God

seems natural; and even his unscrupulous use of falsehood is accounted for.

These considerations will help to show that there was an essential difference between him and "the man of

God," and that the punishment which overtook the latter bears no possible relation to the apparent impunity

of the "old prophet." That terrible judgment ought to be viewed from two different points, as it were,

absolutely - from heaven downwards; and relatively to the person whom it overtook - from earth

heavenwards. The most superficial consideration will convince, that, from the nature of the case, the

authority of God must have been vindicated, and that by a patent and terrible judgment, if the object and

meaning of the message which He had sent were not to be nullified. When "the man of God" publicly

proclaimed in the temple the terms which God had prescribed, he pronounced his own sentence in case of

disobedience. Besides, the main idea underlying the Divine employment of such messengers was that of

their absolute and unquestioning execution of the exact terms of their commission. This essential condition

of the prophetic office it was the more necessary to vindicate in Bethel, as also at the commencement of a

period marked by a succession of prophets in Israel, who, in the absence of the God-ordained services, were

to keep alive the knowledge of Jehovah, and, by their warnings and teaching, to avert, if possible, the

catastrophe of national judgment which would overtake apostate Israel.

As regards "the man of God" himself, we have already noticed the increasing spiritual callousness,

consequent upon his first unfaithfulness. But putting this aside, surely there never could have been any

serious question in his mind as to his duty. By his own testimony, he had received express and

unmistakable command of God, which Scripture again and again repeats, for the sake of emphasis; and his

conduct should have been guided on the plain principle, that an obvious and known duty can never be set

aside by another seeming duty. Besides, what evidence had he that an angel had really spoken to the "old

prophet;" or even that his tempter was a "prophet" at all, or, if a prophet, acted in the prophetic spirit? All

these points are so obvious, that the conduct of the "man of God" would seem almost incredible, if we did

not recall how often in every -day life we are tempted to turn aside from the plain demands of right and duty

by a false call in contravention to it. In all moral and spiritual questions it is ever most dangerous to reason,

simple obedience and not argument is the only safe path (comp. here Galatians 1:8). One duty can never

contravene another and the plainly known and clear command of God must silence all side-questions.

Viewing the conduct of the "man of God" as a fall and a sin, all becomes plain. He had publicly announced

his duty, and he had publicly contravened it; and his punishment was, through the remarkable, though not

miraculous, circumstances 227 under which it overtook him, equally publicly known. Throughout the whole

history there is, so to speak, a remarkable equipoise in the circumstances of his sin and of his punishment,

as also in the vindication of God's authority.

And yet even so, the moral effect of God's message was apparently weakened through the sin of His

messenger. So terribly fatal in their consequences are our sins, even when publicly punished. For it is

scarcely possible to believe that, had it not been so, Jeroboam would "after this thing" have uninterruptedly

continued his former course of defiance of the authority of God. But here the history also turns from Israel

to its wretched king, and in a narrative of deepest pathos shows us at the same time the punishment of his

sin, and the wonderful tenderness of God's dealings towards those who, in the midst of greatest

temptations, have kept their hearts true to Him, and are preserved by His mercy from the evil to come. And

most comforting is it to know that God has and keeps His own - even though it be in the family of a

Jeroboam, and that true piety finds its respectful acknowledgment, even among a people so sunken as was

Israel at that time.

If it were necessary to show how unhappiness and sin go hand in hand, the history about to be told would

furnish ample evidence of it. The main reason of its insertion in the Biblical record is, of course, that it gave

occasion to announce the Divine punishment upon the race of Jeroboam, as having traversed the

fundamental condition on which the possibility of the new dynasty rested (1 Kings 11:38). At the same time,

it seems also to cast an important side-light on the transaction between Ahijah the prophet and Jeroboam,