The Evangelical Universalist Forum

God Killed the Deceived but Not the Deceiver

Thank you, Jason, and others for commenting on this story.

Not quite only an angel. He said it was an angel who told him the word of Yahweh.

LLC, at the time Reheboam was doing well enough, although he was already on the slope downward. As usual, political polygamy was a key opening that door. :unamused: Going up against their brothers meant military action – and they were certainly arming forts on the border to prevent Jeroboam from trying to come take Jerusalem and its neighborhood! But God was going to have them go up against their brothers to some extent later when Josiah rose to be king, so a prophet being sent up to Samaria to warn about that coming would be consistent enough.

Paidion, true my eyes must have done that reverse ellipsis thing where one of two somewhat similar details gets blipped out. :blush:

Jason, according to the story, the whole reason for the split was because Solomon was worshipping other gods and forcing the people into slavery.
1 Kings 11:31-34 "And he said to Jeroboam, “Take for yourself ten pieces (tribes) for thus says the Lord, the God of Israel; 'Behold, I will tear the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon and will give ten tribes to you (but he shall have one tribe for the sake of My servant David, and for the sake of Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel) because they have forsaken Me, and worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, an Milcom the god of the people of Ammon, and have not walked in in my ways to do what is right in My eyes and keep My statutes and My judgments, as did his father David.”
I suppose if it wasn’t David, Rehoboam would have been left with nothing. When Rehoboam came into power, he was instructed by the elders to be a servant to the people, and all would be well. Instead he acted the tyrant as he states in verse 11: “Whereas my father laid a heavy yoke on you, I will add to your yoke; my father chastised you with whips ; but I will chastise you with scourges!”
Jeroboam had no intentions to return to Jerusalem. In fact, he went to the mountains of Ephraim to build a new city. Jeroboam wanted nothing to do with Rehoboam, nor did he want the people to return to Jerusalem because in doing so they might return to Rehoboam. This is why he built the golden calves. From what I understand, Rehoboam was the one who was planning a military attack on Jerobaom and the house of Israel. He was mad because he did not have complete power over all the tribes.

The reason I suggested that the man of God may have gone to Bethel to start trouble is because of his warning. When the man of God told Jeroboam that a child was to be born of the house of David and destroy his altars, I would think that he would have taken this as a threat that was to occur sometime in the near future. It seems odd that a man of God would be sent to warn Jeroboam of something that was to occur some three hundred years in the future. By then, he would be long dead and gone. Why would he care?

I’m beginning to think that maybe this story is out of place. It would make more sense if the man of God was addressing Jeroboam II.

.

Here’s a couple of other somewhat similar stories:

35 And a certain man of the sons of the prophets said to his fellow at the command of the LORD, “Strike me, please.” But the man refused to strike him.
36 Then he said to him, “Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, behold, as soon as you have gone from me, a lion shall strike you down.” And as soon as he had departed from him, a lion met him and struck him down.
37 Then he found another man and said, “Strike me, please.” And the man struck him—struck him and wounded him.
38 So the prophet departed and waited for the king by the way, disguising himself with a bandage over his eyes.
39 And as the king passed, he cried to the king and said, “Your servant went out into the midst of the battle, and behold, a soldier turned and brought a man to me and said, ‘Guard this man; if by any means he is missing, your life shall be for his life, or else you shall pay a talent of silver.’
40 And as your servant was busy here and there, he was gone.” The king of Israel said to him, “So shall your judgment be; you yourself have decided it.”
41 Then he hurried to take the bandage away from his eyes, and the king of Israel recognized him as one of the prophets.
42 And he said to him, “Thus says the LORD, ‘Because you have let go out of your hand the man whom I had devoted to destruction, therefore your life shall be for his life, and your people for his people.’” (1 Kings 20)

Paidion, Now you’ve got me going! I can’t make heads or tails of anything! :question: :laughing: According to 2 Chronicles chapter 13, Rehoboam’s son, Abijah, is the one who came up against Jeroboam I and took Bethel as well as some other cities and villages. I was thinking that the man of God would be warning Jeroboam of this attack, rather than one that was to come hundreds of years later. That’s why I suggested the story in question seems out of place. We see from 1 Kings 11:35-37 according to the prophet Ahijah, God was giving reign over Israel to Jeroboam because Solomon was worshipping other gods. In chapter 12:22-24, Shemaiah, the man of God warns Rehoboam and the house of Judah, not to go against Jeroboam because the split was God’s doing. Yet again in 2 Chronicles, Abijah claims( chapter 13, verse 5) that Jeroboam was the one in rebellion, that he took advantage of a young Rehoboam, and that all of Israel belonged to the house of David. So,wasn’t Abijah the one disobeying the Lord’s commands not go against his brothers?

So, this is my last attempt at trying to decipher the story. The man of God represents the message that Jeroboam was given by the prophet Ahijah; that Jeroboam would have ten tribes and be king of Israel only if he followed the ways of the Lord. God gave him rule over these tribes because Solomon was worshipping other gods. However, Jeroboam did not listen. Instead, he turned back to the very same ways from which he came, that of worshipping other gods. I’d say that the lion represents Judah. They go up against Jeroboam but do not completely destroy him. I think the donkey here represents some kind of enlightenment that happened because of the whole ordeal. The only thing I don’t get is the prophecy of Josiah when it was Abijah who attacked Jeroboam and took Bethel.

Prophecies can be fulfilled multiple times. Abijah is a case of details being fulfilled partially early, and other details being fulfilled later.

There is a proverb that says not to rejoice when your enemy falls. The time where we are most vulnerable to defeat is after a victory. Jesus said, “Watch and Pray for the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.”

There is another place, where God asked, “Who will go for me?” and one of the sons of God said, “I will go and be a lying spirit in the mouth of his prophets”- I think this was to draw Ahab out to battle.

Whatever the reason for the prophet’s lie, the man of God may have been reveling in his victory and not on point, attentive to the voice of the Lord.

I personally think the lesson concerns God, as no respecter of persons, weighing the motives of the heart, and a haughty spirit going before a fall. Saul, when he was small in his own eyes was powerful for God, but when he became careless in executing the word of the Lord, he stumbled and fell.

Samson was the anointed of the Lord, but his arrogance cost him, even tho God used even his defeat to bring victory- showing that we ought never count out the servant of God, even tho he be disgraced, because God might bring the hair back upon his head for a final victory- all to the glory of God.

Eaglesway, what you presented makes sense. I was previously thinking along the same lines myself. One is stated as being a man of God, the other just a prophet. Could this have been a slight of some sort, such as one having more knowledge or wisdom than the other? Both seemed to have been partially right, however both had their own faults as well.

Jason, seeing that history repeats itself, what you suggested may be the case. However, I’m also inclined to think that there may be some mixing up of the stories. A couple of things I found strange in reading a little further (1Kings, chap. 14) is that Jeroboam had a son named Abijah as well. According to 1Kings 15:1-2 Rehoboam’s son was named Abijam, who’s mother’s name was Maachah. According to 2 Chronicles 13:1-2 Rehoboam’s son was named Abijah, who’s mother’s name was Michaiah. Also some of the details of each of the stories of Jeroboam and Rehoboam are different. It says in 2 Chronicles 13:20 " So Jeroboam did not recover strength again in the days of Abijah; and the Lord struck him and he died." I was wondering if there was some relationship between the man of God being killed and Jeroboam being struck down.

Jeroboam and the “man of God and prophet” story have some interesting similarities.

God’s intention for Jeroboam was good. Jeroboam was a great man in Solomon’s’s entourage, and built many things. He received a prophecy that he would receive a throne over Israel “like unto David’s throne”- one that would continue into perpetuity. Because Rehoboam offended the people by raising taxes and disregarding their concerns, God tore off israel and gave it to Jeroboam.

But Jeroboam, once he had the throne, became fearful. He said in his heart, "If i let the people go up to Jerusalem to worship the Lord they will go back under Rehoboam. So he set up golden calves at the northern and southern borders of Israel(Dan and Beersheba) and he said to the people, “These are your gods, O Israel” and he built a temple in Samaria and put the altar of the Lord there and also built an image of the god Dagon(a chief god of the Philistines) in the temple.

He threw out the Levites and created his own priesthood. He changed the times and the seasons and replaced the holy days and feasts.

All to protect something God had already promised him, just like Saul trying to kill David as if such a thing could forestall the word of the Lord Samuel had laid upon him for disobeying the command of God concerning Agag and the spoil of the Amalekites.

So jeroboam was used as a watch word for evil in a king thereafter.

The failure to trust the Lord has cost many a servant of the Lord and it seems success makes most vulnerable.

Great thread and while I have not commented on it, I do the feel the need to now. These are my personal beliefs and I don’t hope to offend anyone. But, as it occurs, in the O.T. the way to know if someone was false Prophet or a true prophet was if their prophecy came true. This seems a bit to ‘convenient’ shall we say. For example, Isaiah would have been a false prophet if he had been judged 300 years before Christ and even today, as not all his prophecies have come true (yet) and the fact is - they might not ever. Right? If you throw enough crap on the wall, some of it is sure to stick. All this to say, if something seems morally wrong, it probably is wrong, at least as far as that individual is concerned. No, I am not suggestion moral relativity, but I am suggesting that perhaps the O.T. isn’t inspired as many would like to think. I mean, I don’t have to read long before part of me says “This was totally inhumane”. There are lots of ‘atrocious’ things done in the O.T. that are supposedly supposed to be in the name of God, both for him and approved by him.

For example: Saul’s sons and grandson’s…

2nd Samuel 21:6 “let seven men from his sons be given to us, and we will hang them before the LORD in Gibeah of Saul, the chosen of the LORD.” And the king said, “I will give them.” BTW, these grand children were crucified/impaled. Now, some might suggest these were bad kids… All 7? Seems unlikely. Besides, didn’t the somewhere in Deut (I can provide a reference if necessary) it says that sons shall not pay for the sins of their fathers and vice versa? Seems to me, that David did not follow this law as set forth when he present the 7 descendants of Saul to be dealt with in a cruel manner.

Of course, the reasoning behind accepting these verses tends to be “Well, there must be a good reason, the text just doesn’t give the details” yet the text gives specific details or somethings that don’t seem important… You know? It seems all to convenient to accept a text and pretend there is something we don’t know. While that is the truth, there are things we don’t know, God can only rightly assume that we will judge matters based on what we do know. Hence, I see no reason to reject things in the Bible that see morally corrupt and evil, no matter if they are attributed to God or not.

FYI - I know very well that I make typos and rarely do I present something in a format where it could be published. I am capable of writing much better, but I don’t due to lack of time. Anyhow, just wanted to throw that edit in there, which is why I don’t often provided references and paraphase many things. Once of these days I might dedicate some time to really post something a bit more professional, but I do that all day at work. The last thing I want to do is spend 1 hour proofing through a posting and editing, etc… Hope you all understand. Now that most of you care anyway, as I am a nobody. Just a person with his own walk with God who is pretty cynical over what Christianity has become. I may be to blame in that too… Lord knows I am far from where I need to be.

I think it is a simple thing that the scriptures of the OT are inspired but not every act recorded within the histories was of God. When God judges we as men sometimes judge Him back, as if to wipe out a society is impossible to rectify, because life and survival are our highest morality. Looking at it from God’s perspective it might be different, considering the depravity of man, who comes up with things that never entered the mind of God, acts of wickedness that he Himself could never have conceived without our help.

It appears that Saul pursued a program of genocide against the Gibeonites, despite an existing covenant between them and Israel that had been in force for some time.

At that point in time the world was a hard place, and man was more limited in compassion, the world having not yet received the age of Messiah Jesus and the leaven of the kingdom of God.

Also i think that you should cite some authority for the whole crucified/impaled thing. I think thats an exageration and they were simply hanged, as it says. also, nothing in those verses actually says God had anything to do with this, it could simply be a record of an interaction between David and the Gibeonites- and we surely know from scripture that not all the acts of the kings of Israel and Judah- including David, were inspired.That the act was recorded in the scriptures doesnt mean the act was inspired by God.

But imo denying the veracity of the OT is a slippery slope, since Jesus and the apostles all quoted from it repeatedly without any reserve ever stated concerning its veracity- and in fact, all stating just the opposite, regarding the words of the prophets and the scriptures.

“Holy men moved by God” I think Peter says.

I don’t understand why citing an authority as to whether they were crucified, impaled or hung would be crucial to your position. As if slitting someone’s throat, drowning them, starving them or just flat out beheading them would make it any better? The fact is, the sons died died for the sins of their father. While you are correct that God doesn’t necessarily give his blessing and nowhere in the text is this implied, except for the fact that David was a ‘man of God’ and ‘was a man after God’s own heart’. Since Christians typically hold him in high regard, with the exception of his two ‘major sins’ from which he repented, they assume he was a genuinely good person.

If being righteous or a good man merely means that one follows their own conscience than many people, even people like Hitler can be ‘men of God’ since they are convinced in their own minds that they are doing the right thing.

As far as the slipping slope - In my opinion, if you believe in the active work of the spirit of God, then this isn’t really a slippery slope at all. If God wants any of us to believe an act was inspired or approved by him, then he will reveal it to us in due time. If he can’t be trusted to make known to us what we need to know, then can we trust him for anything? As for the argument that Jesus quoted from the OT - I used to share that same idea, but then I realized, quoting sections doesn’t mean you support the entire work. We see it all the time where someone reads an author’s work and says “I didn’t agree with all of it, but that was a brilliant quote” some people even drop the “I didn’t agree with all of it” while still believing such. Hence, you have quotes from George MacDonald that people love and cherish without necessarily agreeing with everything he says.

For what it is worth, I thought this was an interesting article. The SDA’s have some weird quirks, but I think their exegeses is far greater than your typical evangelical fundy. They tend to mix a bit of logic with interpretation and are typically pretty balanced about their theology. That said, it goes without saying, but I’ll say it anyway, I disagree with them on a great many of things, but I can see where they come from.

It is not critical to my position at all. You stated it- perhaps for effect to add weight to your point. It didn’t ring true to me so I asked where you got that info.

I believe in the active work of the Holy Spirit. I think His active work was in the scriptures from the beginning really, and it is easier to debunk the spiritual authority of the scriptures than to allow the Holy Spirit to sort it out for you because, at least as far as I can see, if the OT is not inspired then the whole of scripture is not inspired.

I am not a hard liner on inerrancy, but I just think there was something deeper going on than the Hebrews just recording their history in the form of propaganda and legend.

I think the NT is a vastly superior revelation so when we look back at ancient times we have to recognize an inferior paradigm was at work.

In the process of creation, as the Holy Spirit hovers over the waters of the new creation, the separations of the waters and the emergence of dry ground(civilized spiritual humanity) occur as the “let there be light” of God penetrates the chaos and the futility of tohu and bohu man. In my opinion that explains a lot of the conflicts many people have with the OT.

I read the article. I really dont want to argue the points of the article, it is not an unreasonable perspective… but really, the story could be read as the record of a decision David made, and imo is not presented by the scriptures as any more than"'what happened", which doesnt change my essential point. it is too easy to pick and choose the verses you want to believe, the ones you consider legend, the ones you consider unlikely or unjust.

Thats just a fundamental position we disagree upon and we are not likely to come into agreement on it either :slight_smile:

I believe the “corporate man”(Adam) is a body within which God is operating and he is limited in the “bringing out” by the light that is growing within us. we humans are incredibly violent and manipulative and without compassion, even now, in the light of the gospel. The human race has a long way to go yet and YHWH is bringing us along in the administration suitable to the fulness of times. It is a painful and bloody birth with which the entire creation groans in the pangs of childbirth.

Here are two of the laws of Moses, supposedly originating with God:

*If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

If two men fight together, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her. (Deut 25:11-12)(Deut 21:18-21)*

Does it seem to you that God would give such commands?
Moses recorded also that God commanded the Israelites to make war on other nations, and even wipe them out completely.

All of this is contrary to the way our Lord Jesus described his Father. Jesus described the Most High as being kind to ungrateful people and to evil people (Luke 6:35). Do these Mosaic commands sound like kindness to evil people?

Also, according to Hebrews 1:3, Jesus is the exact imprint of the Father’s essence. Did Jesus ever command his disciples to kill disobedient children, or anyone else? Moses said that adulteress wives were to be stoned to death, but Jesus saved the woman caught in adultery, by shaming her accusers. Did Jesus ever command his disciples to make war or fight? He said that because his Kingdom was not of this world, He would NOT command his servants to fight. It seems that Jesus’ ways of dealing with people demonstrated the love of God, and were always totally different from the way Yahweh conducted Himself according to Moses.

I am not a gnostic, but I think I understand why second-century gnostics thought the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ was the Supreme God, whereas Yawweh was a lesser god who thought he was Supreme. I think the gnostics were mistaken on that point. But it seems to me that Moses had a big job trying to lead those many Israelites, some of whom were causing problems. So he came up with ideas as to how to control them, and then thought that God had planted those ideas in his mind, and thus affirmed that God had given these commands.

In 1650, the laws in Connecticut were based on these Mosaic laws. What follows is the 1650 Capital Laws of Connecticut, listing the crimes that received capital punishment, and quoting the Mosaic Scriptures to justify the Connecticut Laws. What if these laws were incorporated into state laws today? Would you find that acceptable?


If I had read this 10-12 years ago, I would have thought “Wow, what an outrageous and sacrilegious viewpoint. He is going to Hell” … Now, I totally agree with your comment. The biggest flaw in Christianity today is the refusal to use logic and incorporate it into our theology.