"Pious" Deception

1 Kings 13:11-19 ESV

11 Now an old prophet lived in Bethel. And his sons came and told him all that the man of God had done that day in Bethel. They also told to their father the words that he had spoken to the king. 12 And their father said to them, “Which way did he go?” And his sons showed him the way that the man of God who came from Judah had gone. 13 And he said to his sons, “Saddle the donkey for me.” So they saddled the donkey for him and he mounted it. 14 And he went after the man of God and found him sitting under an oak. And he said to him, “Are you the man of God who came from Judah?” And he said, “I am.” 15 Then he said to him, “Come home with me and eat bread.” 16 And he said, “I may not return with you, or go in with you, neither will I eat bread nor drink water with you in this place, 17 for it was said to me by the word of the Lord, ‘You shall neither eat bread nor drink water there, nor return by the way that you came.’” 18 And he said to him, “I also am a prophet as you are, and an angel spoke to me by the word of the Lord, saying, ‘Bring him back with you into your house that he may eat bread and drink water.’” But he lied to him. 19 So he went back with him and ate bread in his house and drank water.

There is an old saying that I know we have all heard before that says, “misery loves company”. And indeed, this isn’t just an old saying, it is a lifestyle, a lifestyle that I think everyone actively lives and takes on in same shape or form at various times throughout their lives for periods of time.

And that saying can take on several different meanings. It can mean that I can’t stand to be miserable all by myself, so in order to make my misery seem not as bad as it is, I want to make someone else miserable.

It can also mean that when someone is miserable, they are miserable to such an extent that whenever others are around them, they can’t help but become miserable as well, and so, it is an inadvertent making someone miserable.

But it could even mean that when someone is miserable, it is their hope that if they share their misery with someone who isn’t miserable, that maybe their own misery can go away.

This last definition of “misery loves company” I believe can be applied best to the one whom we will be introduced to in our reading for today as we continue in our series on “The Life and Times of the Man of God”.

As we left off in our reading from last week, we saw that the mysterious, “man of God” had left the presence of King Jeroboam and started to head back to his home in Judah by a different way in which he had come to Bethel. And with this taking place, we come to a new scene in this narrative concerning the man of God.

When we look to this first verse in our reading; verse eleven, we are introduced to a new character in the narrative who is described simply as “an old prophet (who) lived in Bethel”.

Now, this man, being described simply as “the old prophet” is almost as mysterious, if not more mysterious than the main character of this narrative, who is described as, “the man of God”.

And like the man of God, we don’t know a whole lot about this old prophet. We don’t know for sure whether he was a prophet of the God of Israel or a prophet of an idolatrous religion, perhaps the blasphemous religion that Jeroboam had created.

But I personally believe that the old prophet was a legitimate prophet of the God of Israel. And the reasons as to why I believe this is because, as we will see in the rest of the narrative throughout this series, the old prophet did not attend the idolatrous worship in Bethel that was mentioned in our reading from last week, he also showed great respect for the man of God, he did later have the word of God sent to him concerning the man of God, he believed what that word of God said, and he buried the man of God in his own grave.

But we read in this verse that the old prophet’s “sons came and told him all that the man of God had done that day in Bethel. They also told to their father the words that he had spoken to the king.”

Now, what this reveals to us, first, is that these sons of the old prophet had been present at the idolatrous festival set up by Jeroboam. It also reveals to us that the old prophet had not been present at that same festival. So, we can probably safely conclude that these sons of the old prophet were likely idolaters, while their father, the old prophet, was not.

So, if that is the case, then it could be that these sons of the old prophet, though they have a father who truly worshipped the God of Israel, nonetheless rebelled against their father and the faith of their father.

And as these sons of the old prophet came to their father, they told him about everything that had occurred that day in Bethel. They told him about the prophecy of the man of God, how Jeroboam’s hand had become dried up, the immediate sign signifying the certainty of the man of God’s prophecy, the prayer of the man of God which led to the restoration of the king’s hand, his refusal to go home with the king, and the word of God which told him to eat or drink nothing and to return home by a different way.

Now, as we move on to the next two verses of our reading, verses twelve and thirteen, we see how, at hearing the extensive report of his sons, the old prophet felt a strong inclination to see and to speak with the man of God, asking his sons if they knew which direction the man of God had traveled. And his sons, taking notice of the direction in which the man of God had headed, informed their father.

And so, knowing which way to go to, the old prophet determined to pursue the man of God so that he might meet up with him. And he showed this determination by immediately telling his sons to saddle his donkey for him, reasonably expecting to overtake the man of God, who was traveling on foot.

Then, as we move on to verse fourteen, we see that, having the donkey saddled for him, and mounting it to ride, the old prophet rode out and eventually overcame the man of God as he was returning to Judah.

When the old prophet found the man of God, he was sitting under an oak, likely resting before he got up to travel again. And when the old prophet found him, he asked about his identity, whether or not he was the one whom he had hear about; the man of God who had come from Judah, to which the man of God answered in the affirmative.

Now, what is ironic here is that as the man of God confirmed who he was, what he did was indirectly confess to the old prophet that it was his duty to obey the command of God, including returning home without stopping to eat or drink along the way, a command which he will shortly betray.

Now, as we move on to verse fifteen, we see that once the man of God has been positively identified, the old prophet requested that he come to his home to eat bread with him.

Now, as we said in our exposition of verse eleven, the old prophet had been told by his sons what the man of God had said while he was present at the idolatrous festival in Bethel, about how he was commanded by God to neither eat nor drink until he arrived back home in Judah, and so, that leads us to ask why the old prophet would ask the man of God to do something that God had commanded him not to do?

And we can’t give a 100% accurate answer to that question, because the text doesn’t give us the answer, we can only speculate. And my speculation in this matter is what we spoke of in the introduction to this sermon: misery loves company.

If this old prophet was a legitimate prophet of the one true God like I think he was, then I think he may have asked the man of God to return home with him because he sought godly fellowship and conversation with him.

And the reason why I think that this may be the case is because living in a place like Bethel, where the majority were now given over to idolatry, even having his own sons as idolators, it could be that the old prophet longed for fellowship with another orthodox believer.

Or perhaps it could have been that he was truly concerned about the wellbeing of the man of God and wanted to offer him refreshment, or perhaps, there could have been an ill design by the old prophet about all of this.

But regardless of his reasoning, the old prophet did indeed know of the command that God had given to the man of God, yet, for what is seemingly his own benefit, the old prophet sought to have the man of God disobey the divine command, which, of course, is never excusable, no matter what the circumstance.

Then, as we move on to verses sixteen and seventeen, we see the reply of the man of God to this offer of hospitality by the old prophet. And as we look at his reply, we see that he refuses this offer much in the same way that he had responded to the offer of Jeroboam in verses eight and nine.

But the wording of the man of God’s refusal to the old prophet is somewhat different than the refusal that he had given to Jeroboam. For example, the man of God had told Jeroboam, “I will not go”, while his response to the old prophet was, “I may not go”.

So, his response to the king seems to have been such a response which suggested his disdain for the king himself and the thought of sharing in fellowship with the one who promoted such a gross system of idolatry which had led so many Jews away from the orthodox worship of God.

But, in telling the old prophet that he “may notcome”, possibly suggests that though he would like the fellowship of one who appears to be of the orthodox faith, and while he certainly could use the rest and refreshment, he must not do so for God commanded him not to.

But then, when we look at verse eighteen, the old prophet tells the man of God that he has good news for him when he says that he shares the same credentials as the man of God, saying that he too is a prophet of the God of Israel, that he also worships the God of Israel, and that he receives revelations from the Lord just as the mad of God does.

And the old prophet tells the man of God that he too had received a revelation, and he said that in the revelation given to him, an angel who had been commissioned by God came to him and told him to bring the man of God back to his home so that he may eat bread and drink water. But of course, this could not possibly be the case, for God never contradicts Himself.

And indeed, it certainly was not the case, for the text tells us that what he told the man of God was a lie. There had been no angel, no messenger which came to him, nor was there even a message that he had received. Instead, this lie was told by the old prophet so that the man of God may return to his home with him, that he might have his company and conversation.

And so, as we move on to verse nineteen, the final verse of our reading for today, we see that the man of God, thinking that maybe perhaps the command of God was applicable only in regard to eating and drinking with idolaters, and seeing that this man was indeed a prophet, he broke God’s command by returning to the home of the old prophet to eat and drink.

But because the man of God had not taken into consideration the fact that God cannot contradict Himself, and also with his hunger and fatigue setting in, he disobeyed the command of God and performed that which God had expressly commanded him not to perform, and in doing this, he sinned against God.

Now, as we arrive at this point in the narrative, where the man of God disobeys the divine command and we hear what I just said, that in doing what God commanded him not to do, he sinned against God, it might be tempting to say, “But this is different! The context surrounding what happened here paints a different picture, cut the man of God some slack! After all, he was deceived!”

But has not every person in Hell been deceived? And of course, I’m definitely not suggesting that the man of God went to Hell, I’m not even suggesting that the old prophet went to Hell, but what I am saying is that there was a twofold error committed here, a twofold error that every one of us are capable of committing.

Like the old prophet, we, as faithful believers, can find ourselves in situations when it seems favorable to twist the Word of God because it seems to suit us better if we do. I really don’t think that the old prophet had any ill design towards the man of God, I think that he longed for his fellowship, which in and of itself is not a bad thing at all, but he was willing to do it in defiance to the revealed word of God.

And we see that happen all the time, especially in churches. How many times do we see people in the church blatantly doing things that are unbecoming to a Christian walk and the Bible commands us to confront those people so that they will cease from such ungodliness, but we don’t say anything. And the reason why we don’t say anything is because we want to keep the peace. And of course, keeping the peace is a good thing, but not when it comes at the expense of God’s Word.

And like the man of God, we may know what the Bible says, but when someone comes along and proclaims something that the Bible does not say and yet claims that it is true nonetheless, and because it might sound favorable to us, we say, “Ok, I’ll go along with that.” And it’s good to fellowship, it’s good to get along with others. It can sometimes be good to work together with people who don’t always think the same way that we do.

But beloved, this can never be the case when the way that these people act, reason, and go about their lives is done so in a way that is contrary to the teachings of the Bible.

Beloved, be not deceived, not even by your own heart. And hold fast to what is true!

Amen?