DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH by JANICK FORTIER BTh in Pastoral Ministry, SEMBEQ, 2016 Graduate Diploma in Ergonomic Intervention, Université du Québec à Montréal, 2006 BA in Fine Arts, Université du Québec à Montréal, 2004 Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES in the FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY May 2022 © Janick Fortier, 2022 DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH Abstract How does one differentiate between true and false prophets? The Bible gives numerous criteria for such discernment, but biblical scholars have long recognized the challenge to their applicability. Focusing on the book of Jeremiah, my investigation leads me toward a clearer understanding of what constitutes a true prophet and a list of criteria on how to distinguish them from false prophets. My criteria bring attention primarily to the person and the message of the prophet. These criteria do not eliminate all doubts for all prophetic claims, but I argue that they prove to be useful enough to inspire confidence for the assessment of prophets. It is my contention that complexity and difficulties should not lead one to conclude that prophetic discernment is impossible. Like in many more areas, discernment criteria expect the use of prudence and wisdom in their application. i DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH ii Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ i Contents .......................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iv Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Discerning Between True and False Prophets ................................................................................ 2 The Challenge ................................................................................................................................. 3 Prospectus ....................................................................................................................................... 8 Chapter 1: The Person of the Prophet ...................................................................................... 10 Called by God ............................................................................................................................... 10 Yahweh’s Initiative ................................................................................................................. 11 Yahweh’s Words ..................................................................................................................... 14 Personal Godliness ........................................................................................................................ 15 Jeremiah 23:9-15: The Prophets Are Ungodly ....................................................................... 15 Jeremiah’s Distress Caused by the Presence False Prophets ............................................ 17 Wickedness and Idolatry of the False Prophets ................................................................ 18 Judgment on the Priests and Prophets ............................................................................... 20 Jerusalem’s Prophets Have Filled the Land with Their Ungodliness ............................... 22 Judah’s Sins in Jeremiah’s Time............................................................................................. 26 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 29 Chapter 2: The Content of the Prophet’s Message .................................................................. 31 Alignment with the Torah ............................................................................................................. 32 Jeremiah and the Mosaic Covenant ........................................................................................ 33 The Concept and Definition of a Covenant ...................................................................... 33 The Mosaic Covenant in Jeremiah .................................................................................... 36 The New Covenant ........................................................................................................... 37 Sin, Land and Exile ................................................................................................................. 39 Jeremiah and the Ten Commandments ................................................................................... 42 Alignment with the Historical Context ......................................................................................... 47 The Potter’s House .................................................................................................................. 48 The Prophet’s Role ........................................................................................................... 49 Prophecy and Fulfillment .................................................................................................. 54 Case Study: Jeremiah and Hananiah in Conflict..................................................................... 56 Summary of the Conflict and the Historical Context........................................................ 56 Conclusions for Prophetic Discernment ........................................................................... 59 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 63 Chapter 3: The Origin of the Prophet’s Message .................................................................... 66 Jeremiah 23:16-22 ......................................................................................................................... 67 From another Prophet? .................................................................................................................. 71 The Complexity of Verbal Parallels for Prophetic Inspiration ............................................... 72 DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH iii The Prophet as Interpreter and Theologian ............................................................................. 76 Some Conclusions and Suggestions........................................................................................ 80 Prophetic Revelation ..................................................................................................................... 82 Critical Views in Evangelical Circles ..................................................................................... 86 Modern and Ancient Worldview: A Confrontation .......................................................... 88 Gilkey on Special Revelation............................................................................................ 90 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 91 Chapter 4: The Evaluation of a Prophet................................................................................... 95 Hidden Criteria.............................................................................................................................. 95 Called by God ......................................................................................................................... 95 Sent with a Message from God ............................................................................................... 97 Has Stood in Yahweh’s Council ............................................................................................. 98 Visible Criteria .............................................................................................................................. 99 Personal Godliness ................................................................................................................ 100 Non-Profit Ministry ........................................................................................................ 109 Alignment with Scripture ...................................................................................................... 111 Alignment with the Torah ............................................................................................... 112 Theological Framework .................................................................................................. 114 Alignment with the Historical Context ................................................................................. 117 Fulfillment of the Word ........................................................................................................ 118 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 123 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 125 The Person of the Prophet ........................................................................................................... 126 The Content of the Prophet’s Message ....................................................................................... 127 The Origin of the Prophet’s Message ......................................................................................... 128 Criteria for Prophetic Discernment ............................................................................................. 129 Limits and the Principle of Synergy ........................................................................................... 131 Applications Outside the Old Testament .................................................................................... 132 Further Developments ................................................................................................................. 134 On Criteria for Prophetic Discernment ................................................................................. 134 On Prophecy.......................................................................................................................... 134 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 136 Curriculum Vitae ........................................................................................................................ 144 DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH iv Acknowledgments The completion of projects like a master’s thesis is rarely the fruit of one person. Moreover, even though it took me about a year to complete this thesis, it represents the accomplishment of far more than one year of work. It is the culmination of countless hours of reading, discussions, prayers, thinking and writing. Because of that, it is not possible to thank everyone involved in my preparation for this thesis. I would nevertheless like to acknowledge the implication in my life and in this project from some of them. I would like to give thanks and praise to God, without whom none of this would have been possible. I am grateful for my wife Vénusia, for her constant support in my theological training, for her patience and the numerous theological conversations we regularly have. I would also like to thank Gaël, Lilah, Florali and Hénoc, my four wonderful children, for accepting to share their father with his theological studies. I would like to thank each professor I had that contributed in their own way to my theological and spiritual training. I would like to thank SEMBEQ for supporting me and allowing me to pursue my training. A special thanks to François Turcotte and Patrick Murphy for their wisdom and friendship. I am also grateful for Northwest Seminary and College and my church for their support. A special thanks to the members of my prayer group for their amazing support. Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Andrew Krause for his support and wisdom. I am also grateful to Dr. Robert J. V. Hiebert for his welcome contributions to this thesis. I would also like to thank Joyce Kersten Murphy for her patient revision of my English writing. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 1 Introduction Prophets play an important role in the Bible. Even though prophecy is often narrowly associated with the phenomenon of predicting the future, prophets should instead be viewed as God’s spokesmen and spokeswomen.1 Although they sometimes predict the future, the basic nature of a prophet is rather someone who speaks to the people for Yahweh. The relationship between God and his prophet is probably best summarized by Yahweh’s words to Moses when the latter resisted God’s call to serve as a prophet. Yahweh said to Moses about his brother Aaron: “He indeed shall speak for you to the people; he shall serve as a mouth for you, and you shall serve as God for him” (Exod. 4:16).2 As God’s spokesman, the prophet serves as a mediator between God and the people, transmitting divine messages. As R. W. L. Moberly rightly noted, this concept of mediating messages from God to his people is central to the Christian faith: The potential implications of the possibility that humans may speak for God are, therefore, enormous. Indeed, although prophecy itself does not constitute the central content of Christian faith in the kind of way that, say, christology and Trinity or election and grace or atonement and resurrection do, it is a presupposition of Christian faith. For Christians believe that the content of their faith is indeed given by God through human mediation. If, therefore, the notion of divine communication through human mediation cannot be sustained as coherent and valid, then the whole structure of historic Christian faith becomes untenable; ‘revelation’ becomes no more than imaginative and moving poetry (at best), and ‘God’ becomes the projection of deep human aspirations and longings.3 1 The Christian Scriptures contain both men and women prophets. However, for the sake of simplicity, I will nevertheless use the masculine form in this thesis. In no place does the gender of the prophet is significant for my arguments and demonstrations. 2 Unless otherwise stipulated, all Bible quotations are from the NRSV. 3 R. W. L. Moberly, Prophecy and Discernment, Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 12 (emphasis his). DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 2 As Moberly indicates, prophetic speech is vital for defining and sustaining the Christian faith.4 Without surprise, the prophetic movement in Israel¾and their neighbours¾has been the subject of many studies throughout history. Among the various issues that have emerged from these studies is the presence of conflicting prophets. Indeed, the Bible presents some narratives where prophets are proclaiming conflicting messages.5 In light of Moberly’s comment, the gravity of the problem it creates is noticeable. Indeed, if the people of God are supposed to align their belief and conduct along the message of the prophets, what are they to do when two or more prophets proclaim conflicting messages? Which prophet should they listen? Discerning Between True and False Prophets This question has often been explored under the topic of true and false prophets. In this context, ‘true’ prophets are the canonical prophets and ‘false’ prophets are illegitimate spokesperson. Although the expression “false prophet” (ψευδοπροφητῶν) is not found anywhere in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the concept is clearly present. As Walter C. Kaiser indicates: Even though the Old Testament does not use the term “false prophet,” it is clear that such “professional prophets” existed throughout much of Israel’s history and that they were diametrically opposed to the canonical prophets. Scripture, however, regarded them as mere imitations of the genuinely appointed prophets of God. … It was the Septuagint translators who introduced the term pseudoprophētēs (“false prophet”) ten times where the Hebrew text simply used the generic term nābɩ̂ (“prophet”) (Jer. 6:13; 26:7—8, 11, 16; 27:9; 28:1; 29:1, 8; Zech. 13:2). But the Hebrew text nevertheless still made the same point with the whole battery of negative descriptions.6 4 Certainly, the same also apply to the Jewish faith, based on the Hebrew Scriptures. For instance, 1 Kings 22:1-38; Jer. 28:1-17. 6 Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “False Prophet,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996), 242. 5 DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 3 Even though the expression is not used by biblical writers, it will be used throughout this study to identify prophets who, unlike Moses, have not been commissioned by Yahweh with a message.7 The central question I will be answering in this thesis is the following: How does one differentiate between true and false prophets? In the Bible, different texts can be used to answer this question. Two books stand out: “The only book in the prophetic corpus that seems as interested in the question of labeling and defining legitimate and illegitimate prophets as Deuteronomy is Jeremiah.”8 In Deuteronomy, there are essentially two passages that need attention for prophetic discrimination: Deut. 13:1-5 and 18:15-22. In Deut. 18:21, Moses even anticipates the need of discernment question when he says: “You may say to yourself, ‘How can we recognize a word that the LORD has not spoken?’” In my investigation, I will include these passages from Deuteronomy, but I will focus my attention on the book of Jeremiah. On the one hand, Jeremiah’s interaction with false prophets constitutes a more important element of the book than Deuteronomy, whose interest in them is essentially limited to chapters 13 and 18. Moreover, Jeremiah contains key texts for the study of true and false prophets. On the other hand, focusing on Jeremiah will limit the scope of my research. The Challenge The Bible offers numerous criteria for distinguishing between true and false prophets, but biblical scholars have recognized the challenge to their applicability. It has been observed that Prophetic research in general has moved about three centers of concern: the man, the message, and audience response reflecting popular religion. While all three of 7 Although the categories of ‘true’ and ‘false’ prophets are largely used, they are sometimes challenged. For instance, see Matthijs J. De Jong, “The Fallacy of ‘True and False’ in Prophecy Illustrated by Jer 28:8-9,” The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 12 (October 21, 2012): 1–29. Yet, I believe they still are the easiest way to refer to both categories of prophets. 8 J. Todd Hibbard, “True and False Prophecy: Jeremiah’s Revision of Deuteronomy,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 35, no. 3 (March 2011): 342. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 4 these areas are related, the chronology of their popularity as centers of research is in the order given above.9 Thus, research on prophetism, and indirectly on criteria for distinguishing between true and false prophets, were first primarily centered on the man. The question of ecstasy and morality of the prophet have been the main issues.10 For instance, Sigmund Mowinckel argues that the older phenomenon of prophecy was characteristically ecstatic in the ancient Israelite prophetic movement. The ecstasy was a possession of the prophet by the spirit of Yahweh who “made him lose control of himself and behave differently from normal people.”11 However, Mowinckel argues that the reforming prophets rejected “the idea of inspiration in the form of possession by the spirit of Yahweh ; they speak in a controversial tone of the nebhi’im who are thus possessed.”12 These prophets believed that the “essential nature of Yahweh is morality and justice, mišpāṭ.”13 Thus, a prophet being influenced by the spirit of God should proclaim a word in line with the nature of the divine: “Yahweh’s nature is clearly and definitely moral, and his gift to the prophet is the clear intelligible moral word which speaks of justice, uprightness, fraternity and humility before God.”14 While Mowinckel’s contention might be said to be primarily interested in the man, his emphasis on the nature of the word indicates that he was also concerned with the message of the 9 Ronald E. Manahan, “A Theology of Pseudoprophets: A Study in Jeremiah,” Grace Theological Journal 1 (1980): 79. 10 E.g., Abraham J. Heschel, The Prophets, (1962; repr., New York: Perennial, 2001); Gustav Hölscher, Die Profeten : Untersuchungen zur Religionsgeschichte Israels (Leipzig, Germany: J.C. Hinrichs, 1914); Johannes Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963); Sigmund Mowinckel, “‘The Spirit’ and the ‘Word’ in the Pre-Exilic Reforming Prophets,” Journal of Biblical Literature 53 (1934): 199–227; Sigmund Mowinckel, The Spirit and the Word: Prophecy and Tradition in Ancient Israel, Fortress Classics in Biblical Studies (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2002). 11 Mowinckel, “‘The Spirit’ and the ‘Word’,” 199. 12 Mowinckel, “‘The Spirit’ and the ‘Word’,” 204. 13 Mowinckel, “‘The Spirit’ and the ‘Word’,” 221. 14 Mowinckel, “‘The Spirit’ and the ‘Word’,” 226. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 5 prophet, which has also been the second main area of interest in prophetic studies.15 A classic example of a scholar focusing on the message is Gerhard von Rad. Von Rad is known for the idea that prophets can be distinguished by their proclamation of salvation or judgment.16 However, von Rad does not rigidly argue that true prophets prophesied judgment and false prophets gave oracles of peace. James L. Crenshaw’s following remark on von Rad nuances such a rigid interpretation: Von Rad notes that a word of weal is at home in Isaiah’s message, and finds its advocates in Jeremiah’s opponents and the antagonists of Micaiah. The thesis is even proposed that, whereas Jer 28 9 demands that the message of weal must be legitimated, Dtn 18 20-22 requires the validation of a judgmental word, since the genuine prophetic movement is understood to be institutional.17 Thus, von Rad recognized that the question is more complex than a simple correspondence of the message of woe and weal with true and false prophets respectively. Moreover, such a rigid association would arguably constitute a clear criterion for discriminating between true from false prophets. On the contrary, von Rad’s view is rather the opposite since he does not seem to recognize any sure criterion. Indeed, regarding Jeremiah, von Rad believes that “The very fact that Jeremiah could not point to any criterion that might in principle answer the question¾who was the false prophet and who the true¾showed him the full difficulty of the problem; for there could be no such criterion in respect of form or content.”18 Moreover, he adds: Deuteronomy too tries¾not very successfully¾to draw up objective criteria by means of which the false prophet might be recognized (Deut. XVIII.21). The contradiction between prophet and prophet, each speaking in the name of Jahweh (cf. Jer. XXVII. 4, XXVIII. 2), must have been particularly confusing in the final 15 E.g., Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, vol. 2, 2 vols. (New York: Harper & Row, 1965, Claus Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech (Cambridge: Lutterworth, 1991). 16 J. E. Brenneman, “True and False Prophecy,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Prophets, ed. Mark J. Boda and Gordon J. McConville, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012), 784; “A Theology of Pseudoprophets,” 82; Willem A. VanGemeren, “Prophets, the Freedom of God, and Hermeneutics,” The Westminster Theological Journal 52, no. 1 (1990): 82. 17 James L. Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict: Its Effect upon Israelite Religion (1971; repr., Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), 15. The book was originally published by Walter de Gruyter & Co.; Manahan. 18 Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 209. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 6 period of the Monarchy .... The falsity cannot be seen either in the office itself, or in their words themselves, or in the fallibility of the man who spoke them. It could only be seen by the person who had true insight into Jahweh’s intentions for the time, and who on the basis of this, was obliged to deny that the other had illumination. (Quell, op. cit. p. 66.)19 In other words, von Rad believes that the only sure way to detect a false prophet is by a true prophet having access to “true insight into Jahweh’s intentions.” According to Crenshaw, it represents Gottfried Quell’s view on the question: “[O]nly another prophet can distinguish the true from the false.”20 Thus, von Rad and Quell believes that criteria revolving around the man and the message are not conclusive. A third area of interest in prophetic studies has been the audience response. Two concepts are important in this field of study. The first one is the notion of Realpolitik (power politics), a form of pragmatism in which the ends justify the means, possibly to the detriment of religious, moral and ethical values. As Willem VanGemeren explains, it “gives coherence to all human structures (power, society, economics, and cult) and is readily adaptable to new situations or crises.”21 It can easily lead a king to incorporate the worship of a new deity in order to gain more power (e.g., 2 Kings 16:10-18; 2 Chron. 28:22-25) The second concept is vox populi (the voice of the people), in which a pressure is put on the prophets to proclaim words agreeable and comforting for the people: “Vox populi rewards all who support the common ideals but punishes anyone who challenges them.”22 VanGemeren engages in a very useful discussion on false prophets in the light of these concepts, the ancient Near Eastern context and the biblical material. He characterizes such prophets, not as consciously deceptive but as individuals who “encouraged 19 Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, n210. Von Rad cites Gottfried Quell, Wahre und falsche Propheten: Versuch einer Interpretation (Gütersioh: Bertelsmann, 1952). 20 Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, 18. 21 Willem A. VanGemeren, Interpreting the Prophetic Word: An Introduction to the Prophetic Literature of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 26. 22 VanGemeren, Interpreting the Prophetic Word, 26. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 7 the people by giving concrete solutions in crises and by speaking comforting words based on their understanding of the Word of God.”23 His incorporation of these audience response elements into his analysis of true and false prophets help explain the forces that are in operation and are pressuring the prophets. The element of vox populi plays a dominant role in various studies on prophecy.24 For instance, Crenshaw “concluded that the vox populi was crucial to the understanding of false prophecy.”25 This led him to identify causes behind the prophetic conflicts.26 One conclusion to draw from the research of prophetism is that it has moved toward a strong skepticism regarding the possibility of gathering valid criteria on prophetic discernment. A large number of scholars consider the task to be impossible and should be abandoned. For instance, in 1976 Robert P. Carroll concluded that “every attempt to delineate the true from the false produced criteria which would have rendered every prophet false.”27 In his view, the whole project of discriminating true from false prophets is doomed to failure. Few years before him, Crenshaw identified two main tendencies in the literature on false prophecy in the twentieth century; the first one being “the trend toward a denial of valid criteria for distinguishing the false from the true prophet.”28 Various scholars identified a similar tendency.29 It has also been noted 23 VanGemeren, Interpreting the Prophetic Word, 59. E.g., Robert P. Carroll, “A Non-Cogent Argument in Jeremiah’s Oracles against the Prophets,” Studia Theologica 30, no. 1 (1976): 43–51; ¾¾¾, When Prophecy Failed: Cognitive Dissonances in the Prophetic Traditions of the Old Testament. (New York: Seabury, 1979); ¾¾¾, From Chaos to Covenant: Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah (New York: Crossroad, 1981); James L. Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict: Its Effect upon Israelite Religion (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007); A.S. Van Der Woude, “Micah in Dispute With the PseudoProphets,” Vetus Testamentum 19, no. 2 (1969): 244–60. 25 Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, 23. 26 Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, 38. 27 Carroll, “A Non-Cogent Argument,” 51. 28 Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, 13. 29 Manahan offers a very similar evaluation. According to him, one of tendency in the research on false prophets is “a denial of valid objective criteria for distinguishing false from true prophets.” Manahan, “A Theology of Pseudoprophets,” 81. See also Paul Gallagher, “Discerning True and False Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah,” The Asia Journal of Theology 28, no. 1 (2014): 3–15. 24 DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 8 by Willem A. VanGemeren that in the twentieth century “the distinction between true and false prophets has been blurred.”30 For instance, Crenshaw concludes that “Since no single criterion serves to distinguish in every instance the true from the false prophet, a degree of fluidity between the two is inevitable,”31 and “The fact that one has once been a prophet of Yahweh does not guarantee continued service as his spokesman.”32 However, while recognizing their limits, Moberly compellingly argued in Prophecy and Discernment that some criteria can be formulated. In this work, Moberly examines “how the Bible presents the phenomenon of human speech on behalf of God – for which the prime biblical designation is ‘prophecy’ – and its disciplined critical appraisal – ‘discernment’.”33 Essentially, Moberly is interested in observing how the Bible deals with the phenomenon of conflicting claims of revelation, and applying the biblical approach to the contemporary scene. Although I do not agree with all his conclusions, I believe his book is a great contribution to the discussion on prophetic discernment. By my own work in this thesis, I wish to contribute towards a similar goal of clarifying the biblical phenomenon of prophecy and offering a list of criteria for distinguishing between true and false prophets. I will not be able to reflect significantly on the application of my definitions and criteria for the New Testament and contemporary scene, but I will nevertheless point to some applications throughout this study. Prospectus For my investigation in this thesis, my goal is to build a list of criteria for discriminating between true and false prophets. I will first need to develop a clearer understanding of what 30 VanGemeren, “Prophets, the Freedom of God,” 79. Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, 62. 32 Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, 64. 33 Moberly, Prophecy and Discernment, 1. 31 DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 9 constitutes a true prophet, in order to distinguish him from false ones. Chapter 1 will focus on the person of the prophet, demonstrating that a true prophet has been called by God and is characterized by a godly character. In chapter 2, I will study the content of a prophet’s message, concluding that a true prophet proclaims a word that is aligned with the Torah and the historical context. In this second chapter, I will use the case of Jeremiah’s confrontation with the prophet Hananiah to test and illustrate my findings. In chapter 3, I will discuss the origin of the prophet’s message. I will argue, mainly from Jer. 23:16-22, that true prophets proclaim messages coming from Yahweh, while false prophets proclaim messages coming from their own minds. Additionally, I will also consider associated questions such as intertextuality within prophetic books, prophetic revelation and the divine council. I will then conclude my investigation in chapter 4 with the presentation and defence of my criteria for distinguishing between true and false prophets. These criteria will be largely based on my study of the book of Jeremiah. I will nevertheless integrate other key texts of Scripture in my research. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 10 Chapter 1: The Person of the Prophet Constructing the profile of a true prophet based on the study of the Old Testament—more specifically on the book of Jeremiah—is a more challenging undertaking than one might think. Having perused key studies on the topic of distinguishing between true and false prophets, I have decided to address this problem from two perspectives. The first, which is the focus of the present chapter, has to do with the person of the prophet. The second, to be dealt with in chapters 2 and 3, pertains to the message of the prophet. Naturally, this division is artificial. Indeed, on many levels the person and the message are dependent upon one another. Consequently, some characteristics of true biblical prophecy could be treated in either chapter. I have decided, however, to focus in the present chapter on two essential attributes of the true prophet. From the book of Jeremiah, I will demonstrate that a true prophet is a person who is called by God and a person who is characterized by godly character. Called by God There are numerous call narratives in Scripture. Some features are common to them all, others are distinctive to a particular narrative.34 Most of them involve the call of a prophet, but 34 A call narrative is a literary genre in the form-critical studies describing the narratives in which a person (usually a prophet) is commissioned by God. Norman C. Habel suggested six “major divisions of the literary structure of the call accounts” which can serve as a model for most of the call narrative: “1. divine confrontation, 2. introductory word, 3. commission, 4. objection, 5. reassurance, 6. sign.” Norman C. Habel, “Form and Significance of the Call Narratives,” Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 77, no. 3 (1965): 298. See also D. N. Phinney, “Call/Commission Narratives,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Prophets, ed. Mark J. Boda and Gordon J. McConville (Downers Grove, IL; IVP Academic, 2012): 65-71; Fred Guyette, “The Genre of the Call Narrative: Beyond Habel’s Model,” Jewish Bible Quarterly 43, no. 1 (2015): 54–58. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 11 some pertain to other kinds of leaders.35 It must nevertheless be recognized that there is not a call narrative for each biblical prophet.36 Therefore, one must be careful when establishing it as a criterion for determining true prophets. However, studying such narratives can be illuminating in terms of discovering what it means to be a prophet. In Jeremiah’s case, there is a passage in the opening chapter of the book that is usually referred to as the call of Jeremiah (Jer. 1:4-10)37 and it proves to be significant for understanding what it means to be a prophet. Yahweh’s Initiative There are basically two ways of defining the meaning of the Hebrew word ‫( ָנִביא‬prophet). First, various etymological studies have been performed in order to retrieve the original meaning of the word. Following various leads, these studies have oriented the understanding of a prophet in different directions. Some have supposed that prophets were initially associated with ecstatic movements.38 However, some of these older studies “were motivated by an interest in 35 See, for instance, the inclusion of Gideon in Norman Habel’s study of call narratives. Habel, “Form and Significance,” 297–301. 36 Most of the minor prophets do not have a proper call narrative like the ones found in Jeremiah (Jer. 1:410 or 1:4-19), Isaiah (Isa. 6:1-13) and Ezekiel (probably Ezek. 1:1-3:15). See for instance the books of Joel, Amos, Nahum or the narrative introducing the prophet Elijah in 1 Kings 17. 37 It must be noted that the call narrative opens with a formula that is typical for a prophetic oracle, not a narrative. Indeed, Jeremiah’s call narrative is introduced by the phrase, “the word of the LORD came to me” (Jer. 1:4). Five times in this initial chapter that expression is used. The first two are found in verses 2 and 3 and are used to provide the historical context of Jeremiah’s call. The third one introduces the call narrative itself. The fourth and fifth ones each introduce a vision that Jeremiah received. Interestingly, these visions also include dialogue between Yahweh and its prophet, like the one found in the call narrative. Consequently, and in context, Jeremiah’s call reads more like a prophetic oracle, a revelation from God regarding what he is about to do, than a narrative. Form-critical studies have classified this passage as a call narrative, but is it the best way to read it? Although authors like Peter Craigie do not find entirely satisfactory the Gattung of call narrative suggested by scholars like Habel (Habel, “Form and Significance,” 297-323), the category of “narrative” is still used to describe Jer. 1:4-10. Peter C. Craigie, Page H. Kelley, and Joel F. Drinkard, Jeremiah 1–25, Word Biblical Commentary 26 (Dallas, TX: Word, 1991), 8 (note: The Introduction and the commentary from Jer. 1:1 to 8:3 is from Craigie; 8:4 to chapter 16 is the work of Kelly; chapters 17 through 25 are from Drinkard; I will thus refer to the author responsible for the according section when citing this collective commentary). It seems to me that a “call oracle” would describe more accurately what is found here. A lengthier study on this question should be pursued in order to adequately evaluate this suggestion and its impact on other “call narratives.” Throughout this study, I will nevertheless follow general conventions and refer to Jer. 1:4-10 as a call narrative. 38 Robert D. Culver, “1277 ‫ָנָבא‬,” ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody, 1999), 544. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 12 establishing the ecstatic element of prophetic activity as its origin.”39 Today, it is almost universally associated with the Akkadian word nabû, meaning “to name, call.”40 The debate now concentrates on whether the noun should be taken actively or passively. In the first case, a prophet would be a speaker, a proclaimer. Taken passively, it would mean that a prophet is someone who is called.41 I believe that Robert Culver is right when he assesses that “the essential idea in the word is that of authorized spokesman. Interpreters have found the basic thought, not in the etymology, which is lost in the dust of antiquity, but in the general usage of the word.”42 His formulation of an “authorized spokesman” is actually integrating both the passive and active meanings of the Akkadian root word and I believe that part of the debate is still going on because both are right. As Culver points out, both are found to be true in the general usage of the word. Narratives like the call of Moses (Exod. 3:1-4:17) and Yahweh’s words to Moses: “I am the LORD; tell Pharaoh king of Egypt all that I am speaking to you” clearly bears both connotations. Moses is called by Yahweh to proclaim words he will give him to say. Based on these studies, even if some elements are still in debate, it seems that the concept of a prophet intrinsically includes the idea of being called and appointed by a god. Thus, unless someone is an impostor, being a prophet would then involve the idea of being appointed in a messenger’s position by a divinity. The making of a prophet is undoubtedly in the deity’s hands. As for Jeremiah, the prophetic call narrative clearly indicates that Yahweh not only appointed and called Jeremiah to prophetic ministry, but he also took the initiative and directed 39 J. Jeremias, “‫ ָנִביא‬nābîʾ prophet,” in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997), 697 (emphasis mine). 40 Jeremias, “‫ ָנִביא‬nābîʾ prophet,” TLOT, 697. 41 Jeremias, “‫ ָנִביא‬nābîʾ prophet,” TLOT 697. 42 Culver, “1277 ‫ָנָבא‬,” TWOT, 544. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 13 the whole process.43 Indeed, the text indicates that he was consecrated as a prophet even before he was born (Jer. 1:5). This affirmation most certainly emphasizes the divine origin and initiative of the prophet’s calling. Moreover, according to the text of Jeremiah 1:4-10, the prophet from Anathoth did nothing to earn the privilege of being called to that ministry. God decided that he would become his messenger and he made it happen.44 Moreover, Jeremiah resisted the call, considering himself only a boy,45 and thus unable to speak on God’s behalf. He did not ask to become a prophet; it was Yahweh’s idea and decision.46 Another indication that Jeremiah’s lifelong ministry came about as a result of God’s initiative pertains to the prophet’s struggles with the prophetic office. Indeed, passages like Jer. 20:7-18 offer a clear picture that Jeremiah would not be a prophet if it were not for Yahweh’s insistence, overcoming,47 and support.48 Indeed, Jeremiah tried not to talk, but could not resist Yahweh (Jer. 20:9). Jeremiah’s lament should remind the audience that the prophet is only submitting himself to God’s call and will. 43 “It was God who took the initiative to summon young Jeremiah to a lifetime of service on behalf of the high calling of heaven itself.” Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Tiberius Rata, Walking the Ancient Paths: A Commentary on Jeremiah (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2019), 34. 44 There is a striking resemblance between the establishment of Jeremiah’s prophetic ministry and the election of Jacob as depicted by the apostle Paul: “Even before they had been born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose of election might continue, not by works but by his call) she was told, ‘The elder shall serve the younger.’” (Rom. 9:11-12, emphasis mine). Further comparative studies between call narratives and the doctrine of election would undoubtedly bear fruit. 45 The Hebrew word (‫ )ַ֫נַﬠר‬translated in the NRSV by “boy” is notorious for its vagueness: “a word meaning anything from an ‘infant’ (Exod 2:6) to a ‘boy/child’ (1 Sam 3:1) or even someone up to young manhood, a ‘young man’ (Gen 14:24; 22:3; 34:19).” Kaiser Jr. and Rata, Walking the Ancient Paths, 35. 46 There is no clear indication that he could have refused the office. Notably, the text does not indicate Jeremiah’s response and final acceptance of his calling, but there is no need for it. The book itself is a testimony to his acceptance and perseverance in the office. 47 Craigie, Kelley, and Drinkard, Jeremiah 1–25, 275. 48 John Calvin, Commentaries on the Prophet Jeremiah and the Lamentations, vol. 3 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 32. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 14 Yahweh’s Words In the call narrative, Yahweh’s answer to Jeremiah’s objection is significant. Indeed, he does not try to convince the newly appointed prophet that he is gifted and able to do the task and trust more in his own capacities. On the contrary, Yahweh tells Jeremiah “you shall speak whatever I command you” (Jer. 1:7). He then touches Jeremiah’s mouth and says to him: “Now I have put my words in your mouth” (Jer. 1:9). Jack Lundbom comments that the “Hebrew nātattî (‘I have put’) is what grammarians call a ‘prophetic perfect,’ i.e., the reckoning of a future event as if it were already past,”49 indicating that all of Jeremiah’s prophetic oracles are under this divine sanction. Those statements clearly indicate that Jeremiah is proclaiming Yahweh’s words, not his own. These affirmations are obviously reinforced by the repeating the phrase “the word of the Lord came to me” and all of its variations.50 Whether words proclaimed by the prophet are in fact the words of God or simply his own—and thus he is only pretending to speak God’s words—the basic premise of a prophetic proclamation is that it is a message from the deity. Thus, prophetic oracles are not presented as interpretations of the divine will or as contextualizations of previous revelations to a new context. The prophets are generally regarded by their contemporaries to be God’s heralds, proclaiming words51 received from the deity. More attention will be given to this element in chapter 3, but it is important to recognize that a prophet is understood not to be simply an interpreter of proclamations or a theologian but someone who receives a word from Yahweh. 49 Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible 21A (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 235. 50 For instance, “to whom the word of the LORD came” (1:2) and “The word that came to Jeremiah” (7:1; 11:1). 51 I shall discuss further the nature of prophetic revelation in chapter 3. For now, it will suffice to say that the prophet proclaims a message that is not his own and that the book of Jeremiah relates to this phenomenon mainly by claiming that what is proclaimed is “the word of the LORD.” DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 15 In summary, according to this short analysis of the call narrative in Jeremiah 1:4-10, the book introduces Jeremiah as a true prophet, which means that he is portrayed as someone who has been called by Yahweh. This calling implies that the prophet is a messenger, proclaiming words that God has placed in his mouth. Furthermore, the establishment of Jeremiah as a prophet is clearly not to be regarded as having come about as the result of his own initiative, but is to be understood as a matter of divine election. One does not declare oneself to be a prophet. Yahweh is the one who initiates and actualizes the process. Personal Godliness An important aspect of Jeremiah’s description of the true prophet has to do with the moral quality of the prophet. The call narrative of Jeremiah emphasizes the message of the prophet, but the book as a whole clearly indicates that not only the message of a prophet must be evaluated, but also his/her personal morality as well. Implicitly, the book invites the reader to evaluate the personal godliness of a prophet. Thus, I will now investigate the description that Jeremiah provides of the spiritual condition of his fellow prophets in Judah. Jeremiah 23:9-15: The Prophets Are Ungodly A short study in the book of Jeremiah will quickly reveal that the other prophets of his time are corrupt. Indeed, again and again, the book is focused on denouncing the moral flaws of the prophets with whom Jeremiah is in conflict. In fact, more than any other Old Testament prophet, Jeremiah describes these flaws.52 In the process, he portrays his rivals as being morally 52 Only few other books in the Hebrew Scriptures refer to false prophets. When they do, they usually contain one or two passages on them (e.g., Deut. 13, 18; 1 Kings 13, 22; Ezek. 13-14, 22; Mic. 3). As for Jeremiah, there around seventeen oracles (depending on the way to count them) referring to false prophets (e.g., Jer. 2:4-13, 4:5-10, 5:10-19, 5:20-31, 6:9-15 [8:4-12], 13:1-27; 14:1-15:9; another six oracles in 23:9-40; 27:1-22; 28:1-17; 29:132). DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 16 corrupt and as evildoers. Although the book of Jeremiah contains numerous passages that focus on this topic, one passage stands out for its clarity, thoroughness and length. Indeed, as Walter Brueggemann recognizes, Jeremiah 23:9-40 is a key text for any discussion on the subject of false prophets: “In these verses he [Jeremiah] makes his clearest argument for his version of reality.”53 In order to describe the moral corruption of the prophets, I will thus start with this important passage, focusing on verses 9–15, and then come back to verses 16 and following in chapter 3, where I will address the issue of the origin of the prophet’s message. Then I will demonstrate that the whole book echoes and completes the description found in this foundational chapter. Following the superscription found in verse 9, “concerning the prophets,” this section (23:9-40) is unmistakably about the prophets. Moreover, it is usually recognized as a collection of oracles.54 More specifically, these oracles concern the “false prophets.” Although the expression is not found in the text, the various attacks against them make that clear. As noted earlier, the expression is actually not found anywhere in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. It was introduced by the Septuagint (LXX). Although, the LXX does not use “false prophets” in Jeremiah 23:9-40, their description indicates that they are not to be regarded as genuine prophets of God. Indeed, as noted by Kaiser a “whole battery of negative descriptions”55 is used by Jeremiah who finds them to be ungodly, wicked, adulterers and liars (23:11, 14). A full 53 Walter Brueggemann, A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 208. 54 Brueggemann, A Commentary on Jeremiah, 208; William Lee Holladay, Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1-25, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 624; Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21-36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible 21B (New York: Doubleday, 2008), 178; J. A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 493. 55 Kaiser Jr., “False Prophet,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, 242. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 17 investigation of their portrayal will follow, accompanied by a consideration of the significance of that portrayal and its implications for true prophecy. Jeremiah’s Distress Caused by the Presence False Prophets This collection of oracles opens with a description of Jeremiah’s distress caused by the situation. The false prophets are bringing judgment on themselves and the people. Yahweh’s word to Jeremiah and his distress illustrate the gravity of the situation. Indeed, his heart is crushed, his bones are shaking and he is like a drunken man. Although the word “heart” can refer to the physical organ, it also has a figurative meaning. In Hebrew, “‘[H]eart’ became the richest biblical term for the totality of man’s inner or immaterial nature…. By far the majority of the usages of lēb [heart] refer either to the inner or immaterial nature in general or to one of the three traditional personality functions of man; emotion, thought, or will.”56 Therefore, the image of the crushed heart should be understood as a description of a serious distress affecting Jeremiah’s emotional and intellectual abilities, or as articulated by R. W. L. Moberly, the fact that Jeremiah has become “mentally incapacitated.”57 Moreover, the imagery of a drunken man should be taken as a description of the way Jeremiah has become overwhelmed by the situation. He somehow feels dominated by an uncontrollable distress: “What is revealed to the prophet, all the hidden and overt sins of the people of God, shakes his whole being.”58 The cause of his distress is twofold: what God has to say and the fact that the land is filled with evildoers. The following verses introduce this divine word and the description of the false prophets. 56 Andrew Bowling, “1071 ‫ָלַבב‬,” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, (Chicago: Moody, 1999), 466. 57 Moberly, Prophecy and Discernment, 70. 58 Hetty Lalleman, Jeremiah and Lamentations: An Introduction and Commentary, ed. David G. Firth Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries 21 (Nottingham, England: InterVarsity, 2013), 195. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 18 Wickedness and Idolatry of the False Prophets Jer. 23:10 describes the land as “full of adulterers.” This general accusation against the land (all of the people) of adultery is also found elsewhere in the book of Jeremiah. For instance, Jer. 9:2 declares that the people of God are “all adulterers.” In context, it means that they have abandoned Yahweh and his ways. In Jeremiah, abandoning Yahweh usually means worshiping other gods (e.g., Jer. 2:5, 11–13; 3:1-13; 16:11). This type of spiritual adultery is nothing other than idolatry. Moreover, among the various accusations from Jeremiah against the people is also found the more specific denunciation of the worship of Baal (e.g., Jer. 7:9; 9:14; 11:13; 19:5; 32:29). Consequently, one way of interpreting verse 10 is to understand that Yahweh is accusing Judah of idolatry. However, even though idolatry is usually the book’s main focus when the people are said to be adulterers, Jeremiah also includes accusations of literal (sexual) adultery.59 I will give examples and explore this option in a discussion on verse 14 below, but following the interpretation on the next verse, I will suggest that idolatry is in view in verse 10. A significant change happens in verse 11. Indeed, Jeremiah was the speaker in verse 10, but the end of verse 11 makes it explicit that Yahweh is now speaking.60 The word revealed to Jeremiah is now revealed to the reader. Both the prophets and the priests are corrupted and ‫חנף‬ “ungodly,” a term that is applied to that which is polluted and profane.61 The only other passage in the book where ‫ חנף‬is employed is chapter 3 (vv. 1, 2 and 9), where it is translated by 59 For instance, William McKane concludes from Jer. 23.10-11 that, “There is widespread moral decay, especially evident in the breakdown of sexual morality and the disintegration of the institution of marriage,” and he adds that “Weiser, who thinks in terms of the rapacity, gluttony and sexual immorality of prophets and priests, offers a similar interpretation [Weiser, A. Das Buch Jeremia. 6th ed. Vol. 20/21. Das Alte Testament Deutsch (Göttingen, 1969)].” William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah: Volume I, Introduction and commentary on Jeremiah 1-25, 2 vols., International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark International, 1986), 571–572. 60 “In my house I have found their wickedness” (Jer. 23:11; emphasis mine). 61 F. B. Huey, Jeremiah, Lamentations, The New American Commentary 16 (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1993). 214. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 19 “polluted” in the NRSV and applies to the pollution caused by adultery. In this oracle (3:1-5), the marriage imagery is used to describe the idolatrous conduct of Israel and Judah. The land is polluted because of their idolatry. Another word is used in both passages to describe Judah’s conduct is ‫ָרָﬠה‬. In Jeremiah 23:10 and 23:11, the NRSV translates it as “evil” and “wickedness” respectively. The same English words are used in chapter 3 (vv. 2 and 5) to translate ‫ָרָﬠה‬. The inaugural visions found in chapter 1 of Jeremiah to introduce the whole book offer a general explanation for Yahweh’s judgment upon his people, which is significant for this discussion: “And I will utter my judgments against them, for all their wickedness in forsaking me; they have made offerings to other gods, and worshiped the works of their own hands” (Jer. 1:16). Although Judah has sinned in many ways, the only transgression that is mentioned in this opening word declared against the holy city of Jerusalem is the one of idolatry. Forsaking God is defined as wickedness (‫)ָרָﬠה‬, as a great evil.62 Idolatry is thus highlighted here as the central sin of Judah: “The decisive evil of Judah, which will lead to the end of all old arrangements of power and security, is the abandonment of Yahweh.”63 Truly, the theme of idolatry and forsakenness of Judah is a recurring one throughout the book of Jeremiah.64 Thus, when one reads verses 10 and 11 together, in the light of the rest of the book, one is drawn to conclude that the false prophets were idolatrous.65 62 The same Hebrew word was used in v.14 to describe the coming judgment on the land. Thus, the same word is used to describe a disaster (‫ )ָרָﬠה‬coming from the north and the sin committed by the people against God. Because of Judah’s ‫ָרָﬠה‬, ‫ ָרָﬠה‬will fall on her. Moreover, this same relation of cause and effect is found in Jer. 23:9-12, as noted by Drinkard: “He will bring evil on the people for their evil.” Craigie, Kelley, and Drinkard, Jeremiah 1–25, 337. 63 Brueggemann, A Commentary on Jeremiah, 29. 64 For instance, chapter 10 describes idols as mere fabrications of men with no power, incapable of doing any good or evil (Jer. 10:3-5). This way of depicting idols is used elsewhere in the Old Testament (e.g., Ps 115:4; Isa. 40:18-20; 44:9-20; Hab. 2:19) and points to the foolishness of bowing down to and trusting any other god than Yahweh. He alone is worthy of worship, fear and trust (Jer. 10:6-10). Unfortunately, Judah is guilty of abandoning Yahweh, the fountain of life, and of replacing him with helpless idols, cracked cisterns that can hold no water (Jer. 2:13). 65 This statement could also be supported by the claim that prophets are prophesying by Baal (Jer. 2:8). However, this is a complex accusation. By definition, the prophets with whom Jeremiah was in conflict were DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 20 In summary, verses 10 and 11 should be read as an accusation of idolatry against the people, the prophets and the priests. As has been aptly remarked by Drinkard, it should also be noted that there is a narrowing movement in verses 10 and 11: “The accusation starts very broadly: the land is full of adulterers. Then it narrows: prophet and priest are profane. Finally, it focuses at a climax: even in my house I have found their evil.”66 Judgment on the Priests and Prophets The inclusion of the priests in this oracle entitled “concerning the prophets” is somewhat surprising.67 Indeed, one might wonder why they are mentioned in this section about the prophets. The larger context of the book helps the reader here. Indeed, during Jeremiah’s time there was a close relationship between the two. This is especially clear in 26:1-29:32, where both priests and prophets are regularly addressed together, and where Jeremiah interacts with them directly in the temple. Furthermore, the prophets are often included as part of the leadership of Israel, alongside the rulers and the priests.68 Thus, it is not completely surprising to have them mentioned here. Also, the reference to the temple in the same verse could point to an explanation for their presence, but I think that they are introduced for a deeper reason than this. claiming to speak in Yahweh’s name. Otherwise, there would be no need to distinguish between the true and false prophets of Yahweh, since they could have simply been distinguished from the name by which they prophesied. If then, they claimed to speak in Yahweh’s name, how should one understand the accusation of prophesying by Baal? It probably means that, although claiming to speak in Yahweh’s name, the prophet was in fact drawing his/her inspiration from Baal. In other words, the content of their speech was more influenced by Baalism than Yahwism. They were leading the people according to Baal’s way instead of Yahweh. Ultimately, this kind of prophetic ministry led the people away from Yahweh towards the idolatrous worship of Baal. Similarly, Lundbom comments on verse 14: “It is doubtful whether any prophets are still speaking for Baal in Zedekiah’s reign.” Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 187. There, Lundbom equates “walking by the lie” with “walking by Baal”. See also, Kaiser Jr. and Rata’s comments about v. 15: “Even as they claimed to be prophets of Yahweh (and not, as the northern prophets claimed to be, prophets who spoke in the name of Baal), their actions and words ran directly counter to how God had instructed them to live and teach in his word.” Kaiser Jr. and Rata, Walking the Ancient Paths, 283. 66 Craigie, Kelley, and Drinkard, Jeremiah 1–25, 337. 67 The priests are mentioned in vv. 11, 33 and 34, but only v. 11 deals directly with them. In vv. 33–34, they form a triad with the prophets and the people. 68 See Jer. 2:7-8; 3:26; 4:9; 5:31; 8:1; 13:13; 23:11; 26:5-8, 16; 29:1; 32:32. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 21 Indeed, I would like to suggest that the temple and the priests are mentioned in order to underline the extent of the corruption brought by the prophets. If so, this would mean that the prophets participated in the corruption not only of the land and the commoners, but also of the priests. While the text does not explicitly affirm this point, there are good reasons to suggest that this idea should be considered. First, the section is explicitly about the prophets. Even though there is a close relationship between the prophets and the priests, as both could be described as religious leaders, they are clearly two distinct groups. How they relate to each other in this context should be given serious attention. Second, as mentioned previously, the prophets rather than the priests are clearly the main focus in this section (23:9-40). Although they are both the subjects in verses 11 and 12, the priests are secondary in the larger context. Third, we know from the larger prophetic corpus that prophets spoke not only to the people but also to kings and even to priests.69 As God’s spokespersons, the prophets were to be representatives of God to everyone in Israel, including the priests. Fourth, the prophets are accused in this passage of leading the people astray (23:13), strengthening the hands of evildoers (23:14) and spreading ungodliness throughout the land (23:15). If they have done so, it seems reasonable to include the priests in their sphere of influence. As will be demonstrated shortly, the responsibility of the prophets was to turn the Israelites from their evil way (23:22). It seems only natural to include the priests. Whether or not the prophets directly influenced the people, including the priests, to commit evil, they should have exhorted them to return to Yahweh instead of comforting them in their ungodliness. Fifth, an interesting comparison can be made with Jer. 5:30-31. In this passage, verse 30 echoes well Jeremiah’s shock, described in 23:9-10, as a result of the evil that filled the 69 Jeremiah 26:1-24 is a good example of a prophetic ministry which includes everyone. The people, the officials, the elders, the king and the priests are mentioned. The prophet Shemaiah also sent letters to the priests in 29:25 to convince them to rebuke Jeremiah. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 22 land. Jer. 5:31 describes this wickedness by stating that “the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule as the prophets direct” or “go hand in hand with them.”70 As Lundbom rightly observes, the relationship between the priests and the prophets is a complex one: “In the Temple, prophets are under the discipline of the chief priest (20:1–2; 29:26). Yet prophets, by means of divinely-inspired oracles, give priests directives for the present (27:16; 29:24–32) and predictions concerning the future (20:3–6).”71 Although 5:30-31 is a complex passage, it nevertheless seems to be reinforcing the idea that prophets exercised an influence on the priests. In conclusion, it seems safe to consider the mentioning of the priests as illustrating the extent of the spiritual poverty in Israel and the level of dysfunctionality in the prophetic office. Finally, Jer. 23:12 contains a pronouncement of judgment by God upon the prophets and the priests. They will slip in the darkness and disaster will be brought upon them in the year of their punishment, which could be identified with the Babylonian conquest.72 The surrounding context of this passage (21:1-29:32) supports this interpretation, since the fall of Jerusalem is depicted as a judgment by God on Jerusalem and its inhabitants for their evil deeds. Jerusalem’s Prophets Have Filled the Land with Their Ungodliness Verses 13–15 of Jeremiah 23 contain a denunciation of the sin committed by the prophets and a pronouncement of judgment by Yahweh. The prophets of Samaria are first condemned for leading Israel astray. Given the history of the situation associated with the northern capital, it does not come as a surprise to the reader. The prophets of Samaria have prophesied by Baal, they have been corrupted and they have worked against Yahweh. Predictably, they will be judged for their evil ways. What is not expected, however, is the declaration that Jerusalem’s prophets have 70 Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, 251. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20, 410. 72 Huey, Jeremiah, Lamentations, 214. 71 DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 23 been even worse. God has seen something even more shocking in the holy city (23:14). First, they commit adultery. As it was noted above about the mention of adultery in v. 10, there is a debate here too whether it should be understood literally or metaphorically (as idolatry). As I demonstrated earlier, there is a strong case for reading in the accusation of adultery a reference to idolatry. However, it does not mean that every mention of adultery is always metaphorical.73 Jeremiah also accuses Judah, and more specifically the prophets, of literal adultery. The clearest passage is probably Jer. 29:21-23, where Jeremiah speaks against two prophets—Ahab and Zedekiah: “they have perpetrated outrage in Israel and have committed adultery with their neighbours’ wives, and have spoken in my name lying words that I did not command them” (Jer. 29:23).74 Thus, from other accusations in the book, there are sufficient grounds for considering a transgression of the eighth commandment in verse 14. While Huey considers that both are probably intended here,75 Holladay suggests that “given the reminiscence of 7:9 here, one must understand the accusation of adultery to be literal and not metaphorical.”76 While both options are possible, it is probably best to conclude that this verse emphasizes “immoral behaviour, as is suggested by the comparison with Sodom and Gomorrah at the end of verse 14.”77 Because of that comparison, William McKane also reads in this charge a reference to sexual immorality.78 However, the reference to the two iconic cities might also be an allusion to a more general corruption and “disregard of Yahweh’s purpose of justice and righteousness.” As Brueggemann points out, “in Ezek. 16:48–52 the metaphor of Sodom is used again with the contrast of Israel 73 Especially when one reads Jer. 29:9-40 as a collection of oracles. If they were indeed separate oracles when first delivered, it is “easier” to consider a literal and metaphorical usage of the same word four verses apart. 74 Judah is also clearly accused of literal adultery in Jer. 7:9: “Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, make offerings to Baal, and go after other gods that you have not known” (emphasis mine). 75 Huey, Jeremiah, Lamentations, 214. 76 Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 631. 77 Lalleman, Jeremiah and Lamentations, 195. 78 McKane, Jeremiah: Volume I, 575. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 24 and Judah. There the sins of Sodom are ‘pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease,’ and lack of aid for the poor and needy.”79 Second, they walk in lies. Here, this expression “may refer simply to lying; but because Jeremiah uses ‫ שׁקר‬so frequently of prophesying falsely, that may be its thrust here. The prophets live by the lies they are prophesying.”80 In other words, they do not speak truly and they walk according to the lies they proclaim. They are false prophets not only by virtue of the fact that they prophesy falsehood, but also because they walk falsely. Another passage where Jeremiah uses ‫ שׁקר‬to qualify the false prophets is Jer. 6:13-15,81 whereas in verse 13 he says that “from prophet to priest, everyone deals falsely” (‫)ֶ֫שֶׁקר‬. In his commentary, Huey translates this as “all practice deceit,” 82 but many commentators opt for the idea of engaging in / practising “falsehood.”83 This picture is close to the description found in chapter 23. These prophets walk in / practice falsehood. They do not conform to truth and their words are not in accord with what is true. Also of note in this passage is the other accusation against the inhabitants of the land, that “from the least to the greatest of them, everyone is greedy for unjust gain.” Thompson is correct in affirming that “such greed (beṣaʾ) extended to the prophets and the priests also, all of whom practiced fraud.”84 Thus, including Jer. 6:13-15 in the analysis of false prophets, they can also be characterized as greedy. These were not the only prophets guilty of greed. Micah also accused the prophets in his day of greed, and his description is illuminating (Mic. 3:5): Thus says the LORD concerning the prophets who lead my people astray, 79 Brueggemann, A Commentary on Jeremiah, 210. Craigie, Kelley, and Drinkard, Jeremiah 1–25, 340. 81 Jer. 6:12-15 parallels almost word-for-word 8:10-12. The LXX omits these verses, “as it does with numerous other MT doublets.” Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 517. Either passage could have served to introduce the following analysis. 82 Huey, Jeremiah, Lamentations, 97. 83 For instance, Craigie, Kelley, and Drinkard, Jeremiah 1–25, 101; McKane, Jeremiah: Volume I, 144; Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 210. 84 Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, 258. 80 DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 25 who cry “Peace” when they have something to eat, but declare war against those who put nothing into their mouths. Micah’s depiction of greediness for a prophet illustrates what temptation they were facing. The story of Balaam in Numbers 22–24 could also be used to demonstrate the danger money represents for a prophet’s integrity. Indeed, it gives a vivid representation of a prophet being paid for his service and how this relationship between money and prophecy challenges the prophet’s integrity regarding his prophetic ministry. Therefore, it could certainly be argued that if a prophet seeks his own interest and his prophecies depend on the money received (or not received), it is a sure sign that he is a false prophet. Moreover, verse 14 indicates that they influence others to do evil, strengthening their hands instead of causing them to loosen their grip on wickedness. When they should have turned the people from their sins, they encouraged them in their decadent state. Their own personal sins and moral depravity spread out to the people: “The prophets fail to exercise a moral authority and there is a consequent, widespread decline in moral standards.”85 Implicitly, Jeremiah makes a clear distinction between the true and the false prophet. The true prophet’s life must be characterized by a blameless moral integrity. Although a perfect sinless life is impossible, when a prophet is deeply implicated in sin, serious questions should be asked. All of Jeremiah’s accusations regarding the immorality of false prophets are indications that true prophets are not characterized by a corrupt morality. John Calvin aptly comments about the relationship between the personal morality of the prophets and their ability to rebuke the people for their sin: “It ought not to appear strange that the prophets were silent when they ought to have loudly cried out, because they were guilty themselves: and whence can freedom of speech 85 McKane, Jeremiah: Volume I, 576. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 26 come except from a good conscience? Hypocrites, who indulge themselves, are indeed often severe against others, and even more than necessary; but no one can dare honestly to cry out against wickedness, but he who is innocent.”86 To summarize, on the basis of this short analysis of Jer. 23:9-15, the false prophets can be described as evildoers and hypocrites, as those who are ungodly, who walk in lies, and who are greedy, deceptive, idolatrous and sexually immoral. Furthermore, the prophets’ sins result in judgment by God (23:15). For the second time in 23:9-15, judgment follows a description of sin and is introduced by “therefore” (23:11-12, 13–15). Clearly, the consequence of sin is judgment. God does not let ungodliness go unpunished. While this is true of all people, those who speak in Yahweh’s name—whether as prophets or teachers—should expect a more severe judgment (James 3:1). Judah’s Sins in Jeremiah’s Time When one surveys the whole book of Jeremiah, it is worth noting that, apart from Jer. 23:9-40, there is not much in the way of descriptions of the sins of the prophets specifically. The main accusations against them pertain to the messages they proclaim. However, it should be noted that Jeremiah often groups the prophets with the people, rulers and priests.87 For instance, in 32:32, Jeremiah describes the prophets doing evil, along with all the people of Israel and Judah, including their civil and religious leaders. This accusation is very broad and vague, but it echoes the one found in chapter 23. While recognizing the limits of this association, I think it is 86 87 Calvin, Commentaries on the Prophet Jeremiah, 157. See Jer. 2:7-8; 3:26; 4:9; 5:31; 8:1; 13:13; 23:11; 26:5-8, 16; 29:1. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 27 worth considering how the people and leaders are described in the book of Jeremiah. These accusations can offer a more complete description of what the prophets’ sin could be like.88 As the opening chapter of Jeremiah makes clear, the great evil of Judah is their abandonment of Yahweh and their worship of other gods (Jer. 1:16). Idolatry is a clear sign that Judah’s relationship with God is broken. Unfortunately, the internal relationships within the nation of Judah are also broken. The land is plagued with sin, social injustice and moral depravity. Jeremiah 5:1 testifies gravely against the holy city: Run to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, look around and take note! Search its squares and see if you can find one person who acts justly and seeks truth— so that I may pardon Jerusalem. Sinfulness characterizes the inhabitants of Jerusalem, whom Jeremiah describes as being stubborn and rebellious (Jer. 5:23). The prophet links their abandonment of Yahweh with their iniquities (5:22-28), which could be seen as the result of turning away from God. Brueggemann describes Israel’s heart as being alienated from Yahweh and thus disoriented.89 He rightly suggests that the structure of these verses points to the “close relation between the dysfunction of Israel’s faith and the disorder in Israel’s life.”90 This brokenness can certainly apply to the corrupt prophets as well. Their spiritual lives and connection with Yahweh are certainly impaired. In his “temple sermon” (Jer. 7:1-34), Jeremiah also communicates a word from Yahweh that places the social injustices and idolatry of the people side by side (Jer. 7:5-6). Indeed, Judah 88 It is important to mention here that almost any description of the false prophet does not necessarily apply to every single false prophet. There are fundamental and secondary elements of true and false prophets. This question will be explored later on. For now, my interest is in listing how the book of Jeremiah describes them. Whether this description applies to all or not will be considered later, alongside the critiques that were elaborated about the different criteria. 89 Brueggemann, A Commentary on Jeremiah, 68. 90 Brueggemann, A Commentary on Jeremiah, 69. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 28 is condemned for oppressing the alien, the orphan and the widow, as well as shedding the blood of the innocent. Jeremiah continues and adds to the list by declaring that they steal, murder, commit adultery and swear falsely (Jer. 7:9). Obviously, Jeremiah does not claim that every inhabitant of Jerusalem commits every one of those crimes. Similarly, not every prophet should be considered guilty of each of those crimes, but the text of Jeremiah describes them as participating in the same lifestyle as the people and they are therefore exposed to the same accusations. The prophets are never distinguished from the people and the other leaders. Jeremiah’s testimony is that every inhabitant is wicked, including the prophets. Each member of the group must be judged individually for his or her own sin, but as a group, they are characterized by sin, idolatry rebellion and moral corruption. Judgment will fall on them all (Jer. 23:13). In summary, following this analysis of some key texts in the book of Jeremiah— especially Jer. 23:9-15—the false prophets in Jeremiah’s time were no different than the people. They too were characterized by the sins that triggered the exile. They were evildoers, idolatrous, adulterers and liars. Other qualifiers can be added to this list when one looks at the accusations against the people of Judah and Jerusalem as a whole. By widening the analysis and extending it to other texts of scripture, one finds that “Isaiah adds drunkenness to the list (Is 28:7). Micah accuses false prophets of his day of being motivated by greed (Mic 3:5–7). Such moral criteria were picked up later by Jesus, who said that true and false prophets could be identified ‘by their fruits’ (Mt 7:16).”91 This last verse is very significant for this conversation. Jesus warns his disciples about false prophets and the criterion he provides to identify them is the fruit they are 91 J. E. Brenneman, “True and False Prophecy,” DOT:P, 783. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 29 bearing (Matt. 7:15-20). Robert B. Girdlestone also makes reference to this criterion and verse in a discussion about the tests of true prophecy: “Further, our Lord said, ‘Ye shall know them by their fruits’ (Matt. 7.16). Thus the authority of teaching was to be recognized by the tendency of the life which it produced. The sceptical scoffers referred to by St. Peter and St. Jude walked after their own lusts (2 Pet. 3.3; Jude 18). This was enough to condemn them.”92 Conclusion As this exploration of key passages in the book of Jeremiah demonstrates, its oracles invite the hearers and readers to take a look at the person of the prophet. First, as Jeremiah’s own case illustrates, it is clear that a true prophet is called by God. Although this trait might prove difficult to evaluate for the prophet’s audience, it is important to recognize that it is nevertheless an important characteristic of a true prophet. Still, it has been recognized that prophetic call narratives, like the one found in Jeremiah 1, “are traumatic public proclamations in which the prophet announces his divine commission and thereby commits himself openly to the secret, inner compulsion from God. The call form is designed to be preached or read.”93 Thus, what happens on a personal level is supposed to be manifested publicly. Following the analysis of the call narrative in Jeremiah 1:4-10, I have demonstrated that according to the book of Jeremiah, the establishment of a prophet is the work and choice of Yahweh. It is he who chooses and establishes them. This aspect of the prophet’s call and divine initiative will also play a role in chapter 3, when I discuss the origin of the prophet’s message and the idea of being sent by Yahweh.94 92 Robert Baker Girdlestone, The Grammar of Prophecy: An Attempt to Discover the Method Underlying the Prophetic Scriptures (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1901), 24. 93 Habel, “Form and Significance,” 306. 94 Again, the separation of the person from the message is somehow artificial. I have nevertheless associated the call with the person of the prophet, following the usual categorization. For instance, in his evaluation of the criteria of prophetic discernment, Crenshaw places the criterion “Conviction of Having Been Sent” (or having been called) under the category “Criteria Focusing upon the Man.” Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, 56-60. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 30 Second, various passages in the book of Jeremiah, but especially Jer. 23:9-15, characterize the false prophets as being guilty of the same wickedness that Judah and Israel exhibit. These prophets even take the lead and encourage the people in their sin. Jeremiah declares the prophets to be evildoers, idolatrous, adulterers and liars. As has been demonstrated, this list can be expanded by looking at the accusations more generally brought against the people. Since the prophets have been strengthening the hands of evildoers (Jer. 23:14), it seems reasonable to do so. Thus, by looking at the larger description of Judah’s sins in Jeremiah’s time, it is possible to associate the false prophets with social injustices such as the oppression of the alien, the orphan and the widow, as well as with theft, murder, adultery and false testimony (Jer. 7:5-9). What each prophet did or did not do should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but the book of Jeremiah clearly regards the false prophets as part of this corrupt society (Jer. 5:1-5; 6:13). Judgment will come, and the prophets too are under Yahweh’s wrath (Jer. 23:13). In summary, I have argued that a true prophet has been called by God and is characterized by a godly character. False prophets appointed themselves as prophets and can be characterized by sin and wickedness. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 31 Chapter 2: The Content of the Prophet’s Message An important way of distinguishing between true and false prophets is to consider the content of the message they proclaim. The idea is not new. For instance, Crenshaw could write in 1971: “It has become almost a commonplace that the great prophets predicted doom, whereas the false prophets promised peace to the people of God.”95 Thus, the content of the prophet’s message has been suggested as a criterion for distinguishing between true and false prophets. As Crenshaw observed and as I will demonstrate in this chapter, although the promise of ‘weal or woe’ as a criterion is not without foundation, it is at best an oversimplification, and at worst a serious misunderstanding of the prophetic office and message. In this chapter, I will demonstrate the importance of analyzing the content of the prophets’ proclamations in order to discern between true and false prophets. On the one hand, I will argue that the message Jeremiah proclaims is closely aligned with the Torah. The Mosaic covenant is integral to his prophetic proclamations. On the other hand, I will demonstrate that the message of a true prophet is deeply rooted in the historical situation in which he lives. Consequently, a false prophet is recognizable by the disconnection between the spiritual state of the people and his message. This close relationship between message and context will be founded in Jeremiah 18:111 and illustrated by Jeremiah’s conflict with Hananiah in chapter 28. I will begin by demonstrating the alignment between Jeremiah’s message and the Torah. 95 Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, 52. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 32 Alignment with the Torah The relationship between the books of Jeremiah and the Deuteronomy has been widely recognized.96 Various critical studies posit a group of exilic and post-exilic theologians who have been called the “Deuteronomists.” They are presented as scribes and editors who left their imprint on many biblical books, among which is the book of Jeremiah. Following in the steps of D. Bernhard Duhm, Mowinckel identifies a source in Jeremiah, which is closely associated with sermonic prose and is characterized by its similarity to Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic History.97 Following Mowinckel, the classic redactional theory calls this corpus of editorial additions (or revisions) in Jeremiah “source C.” As the following analysis will demonstrate, there are good reasons why the book of Jeremiah has been closely associated with the book of Deuteronomy and with Deuteronomist editors. However, even though this is not my primary concern here, I intend to demonstrate that Jeremiah is dependent upon the whole Pentateuch, not only Deuteronomy.98 My goal is to explore the relationship between the Pentateuch and Jeremiah, in order to demonstrate the deep connection between the Law of Moses and the message of Jeremiah.99 96 Dalit Rom-Shiloni, “‘On the Day I Took Them out of the Land of Egypt’: A Non-Deuteronomic Phrase within Jeremiah’s Conception of Covenant,” Vetus Testamentum 65 (2015): 623. 97 D. Bernhard Duhm, Das Buch Jeremia, Kurzer Hand-Commentar Zum Alten Testament (Tübingen and Leipzig: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1901); Mowinckel, Sigmund, Hist.-Filos. Klasse. Zur Komposition Des Buches Jeremia. 5th ed. Vol. II. Videnskapsselskapets Skrifter. Oslo: Jacob Dybwad, 1914;1913. 98 It is not my goal here to discuss redactional history between books of the Torah, Jeremiah and other books of the Old Testament. Unless it is necessary, I will not be commenting on which text is in fact indebted to the other. Generally speaking, I am adopting the view that the Law came first and the prophets were upholders of the God-given instructions. Holladay’s view that Deuteronomy (independently of which redactional theory one accepts and the exact form of the book at that time) was “recited every seven years at the feast of booths (tabernacle)” could explain why the book has such an influence on the book of Jeremiah. This view could also explain the influence of Deuteronomy in more than editorial additions, but in Jeremianic texts as well, since the fifth book of the Pentateuch would legitimately also have an impact on Jeremiah’s “sermons.” Holladay, Jeremiah 1, 1–2. It should also be noted that it is not my intention to explore at length the phenomenon of intertextuality within the Old Testament, including implications for authorship or literary and redactional criticism. I will nevertheless briefly explore the question of intertextuality within prophetic books in chapter 3. 99 Others have observed this relationship as well. For instance: “So far as we have found Jeremiah’s prophecy to have roots in tradition the case is clear – Jeremiah stands and acts upon the Exodus-Sinai tradition, and DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 33 Jeremiah and the Mosaic Covenant A key element in understanding the message of Jeremiah is the covenant Yahweh made with Israel when he brought them out of Egypt. The Mosaic covenant is fundamental to an understanding of most of the oracles in the book. Indeed, whether the covenant is directly mentioned, as in Jer. 11:1-17 or not, the Mosaic covenant lies behind most oracles.100 Thus, establishing the relationship between Jeremiah’s message and the covenant is imperative. First, I will examine Jer. 34:8-22 to establish basic elements of biblical covenants. Secondly, I will examine Jer. 11:1-17, because of the centrality of the Mosaic covenant in this oracle.101 It will serve to illustrate the role of the Mosaic covenant in Jeremiah. The Concept and Definition of a Covenant As noted by Gordon McConville, the meaning of the word covenant (‫ )ְבּ ִרית‬should not be sought out in its etymology, but by its usage102 and the word could also be translated as treaty, agreement or alliance. The narrative in Jer. 34:8-22 illustrates both the nature of the engagement in a covenant and the consequences of breaking it. The story is part of a judgment oracle against Judah. According to J. A. Thompson, the account concerns an event that takes place in 588 this gives his preaching a very broad foundation.” Gerhard von Rad, The Message of the Prophets (New York: Harper & Row, 1962), 186. Also, a distinction should be made between the message and the theology of Jeremiah. One way of making that distinction is to identify the message as the first level of communication and the theology as the deeper level. The message is at the surface, and the theology is the background and the various ramifications behind and beyond that message. Although they are closely connected, my focus for this chapter is on the message of the prophet Jeremiah, not his theology. 100 Although my main focus will be the mosaic covenant, I will also mention references to other covenants in the book and Jeremiah, like the Davidic covenant (e.g., Jer. 23:5-8; 33:14-22). 101 “Jeremiah 11:1-14 presents a covenant speech, one of five such speeches within the prose sermons, which are usually treated as non-Jeremian additions (Jer 7:1-14; 11:1-14; 17:19-27; 22:1-5; 25:1-14).” Rom-Shiloni, “‘On the Day I Took Them out,” 624. Whether this passage is Jeremian or not is not important for my studies, as I am interested in the message of the canonical book as a whole. 102 “The catalogue of proposals concerning the meaning of ‫ ְבּ ִרית‬illustrates the close connection between etymological derivation and theological interpretation that has characterized the attempt to understand covenant in the Bible. All the proposals mentioned, however, are flawed. … In the end, the meaning of ‘covenant’ must be sought by means of a study of its usage.” Gordon J. McConville, “‫( ְבּ ִרית‬berît),” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 1:747. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 34 B.C.103 In that year King Zedekiah, the officials and all the people entered into a covenant (‫)ְבּ ִרית‬ committing themselves to liberate all Hebrew slaves (34:8-10). They did so, but then changed their minds and took back their former slaves (34:11). Jeremiah received a word from Yahweh, reminding the people that, when God brought them out of Egypt, he made a covenant with them, which included a clause that demanded that Hebrew slaves would be set free every seventh year. The ancestors of Jeremiah’s audience did not listen and disobeyed. Although Jeremiah’s contemporaries had recently repented and freed their slaves, they had now turned around and committed the same sin as their ancestors had. It seems that what they did was aggravated by the fact that they broke a covenant made before Yahweh in the temple (34:15). What is particularly useful in this account for the discussion on the covenant is the word of judgment upon the covenant-breakers: 18 And those who transgressed my covenant and did not keep the terms of the covenant that they made before me, I will make like the calf when they cut it in two and passed between its parts: 19 the officials of Judah, the officials of Jerusalem, the eunuchs, the priests, and all the people of the land who passed between the parts of the calf 20 shall be handed over to their enemies and to those who seek their lives. Their corpses shall become food for the birds of the air and the wild animals of the earth (Jer. 34:18-20). This passage refers to a rite that may have taken place104 when a covenant was established. Animals were cut (‫ )ָכַּרת‬in half and people entering into covenant would pass between the halves. Furthermore, the verb commonly associated with the establishment of a covenant is “cut” (‫)ָכַּרת‬. Thus, the expression “to cut a covenant” probably comes from the rite. This action signified that 103 From the phrase “I will bring them back” (v. 22), Thompson suggests that “them” refers to the Babylonians. From that inference, he identifies the year the oracle was probably proclaimed. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, 609. 104 There is no clear evidence that this rite always took place during the establishment of a covenant. It is better to consider it as either optional or contextual. There is not enough historical evidence to establish the extent and commonality of this rite. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 35 anyone who broke the covenant was fated to become like the beasts that were cut in half. It was a self-imprecatory commitment. There is also a case for understanding a covenant to involve either a one-sided obligation or a reciprocal one.105 The Jeremiah 34 passage would then be a good example of a one-sided commitment. Indeed, only the owners of slaves seem to have had an obligation in this covenant. It looks like a solemn commitment. However, there are also cases in which both parties engaged in a covenant. It looks like a solemn commitment. However, there are also cases where both parties engaged in a covenant. For instance, Solomon entered into such a relationship with Hiram: “So the LORD gave Solomon wisdom, as he promised him. There was peace between Hiram and Solomon; and the two of them made a treaty” (1 Kings 5:12).106 As for the Mosaic covenant, it too was a reciprocal covenant. Indications of Israel’s responsibilities are numerous (e.g., Exod. 24:7-8; Lev. 26:15; Deut. 29:9; Jer. 11:1-10), but there are also references in Jeremiah to Yahweh’s commitment to the covenant: “Do not spurn us, for your name’s sake; do not dishonor your glorious throne; remember and do not break your covenant with us” (Jer. 14:21, emphasis mine). In summary, Jer. 34:8-22 defines a covenant as a solemn commitment (oath) to do something in particular (e.g., set free one’s slaves) and submitting oneself to a curse should one break the covenant. I will now turn to Jer. 11:1-17 to illustrate how the Mosaic covenant is manifested in the message of Jeremiah. 105 See E. Kutsch “‫ְבּ ִרית‬,” in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. Jenni, Ernst, and Claus Westermann (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997): 256-266. This view is also behind Huey’s definition of a covenant: “A covenant is an agreement between two or more parties in which obligations are placed on one or both.” Huey, Jeremiah, Lamentations, 281. 106 In the light of this discussion—and the two options just described—I would suggest that the Abrahamic covenant was a one-sided covenant in Gen. 15, but it became reciprocal in Gen. 17. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 36 The Mosaic Covenant in Jeremiah Out of the twenty-three mentions of the word covenant in the book,107 Jer. 11:1-17 contains five of them. Moreover, as Page Kelley aptly points out, the passage—and the whole book of Jeremiah—also contains various expressions invoking the Mosaic covenant, in addition to these five direct references: The passage is composed of numerous phrases evoking images of the covenant. (i) “When I brought them up out of the land of Egypt” evokes images of the original Mosaic covenant; see 7:22 and 34:13. (ii) “Obey the (my) voice” is a common covenantal phrase both in Jeremiah and Deuteronomy; see Jer 3:13; 7:23; 9:12; 11:7; 18:12; 22:21; Exod 19:5; Deut 4:30. (iii) “All I command you,” also found in 1:7 and 7:23, is common to both the Deuteronomic and Priestly traditions; see Exod 25:22; Deut 31:5. (iv) “You shall be my people and I will be your God” is a common covenant formula; see Jer 7:23; 30:22; 31:33; Exod 6:7. (v) “A land flowing with milk and honey” is also common in the Deuteronomic and Priestly traditions; see Deut 6:3; Exod 6:3; Josh 5:6.108 Not surprisingly, the passage opens with the common expression “The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD” (11:1). It is immediately followed by “Hear the words of this covenant” (11:2) and the ominous imprecation, “Cursed be anyone who does not heed the words of this covenant” (11:3). This warning reminds the audience of an important element of a covenant: a curse awaits the party that breaks the covenant. While Yahweh has kept his end of the arrangement by giving them a land flowing with milk and honey (11:5), the people of Israel have broken the covenant by serving other gods (11:10). They will suffer dire consequences for their disobedience: “Therefore, thus says the LORD, assuredly I am going to bring disaster upon them that they cannot escape; though they cry out to me, I will not listen to them” (11:11). In brief, this passage reminds the reader of the covenant established between Yahweh and Israel at Mount 50:5. 107 Jer. 3:16; 11:2, 3, 6, 8, 10; 14:21; 22:9; 31:31, 32 (2x), 33; 32:40; 33:20, 21, 25; 34:8, 10, 13, 15, 18 (2x); 108 Craigie, Kelley, and Drinkard, Jeremiah 1–25, 170. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 37 Sinai and the consequences spelled out for Israel should she fail to follow through on her commitment.109 The covenantal principle that Judah is under a curse110 because they abandoned Yahweh is present throughout the book. For instance, after a judgment oracle, one can read: “And many nations will pass by this city, and all of them will say one to another, ‘Why has the LORD dealt in this way with that great city?’ And they will answer, ‘Because they abandoned the covenant of the LORD their God, and worshiped other gods and served them’” (Jer. 22:8-9, emphasis mine). However, the ministry of the prophet Jeremiah represents the limit of God’s patience and the book witnesses to the possibility that Judah can repent and avoid the coming disaster of Jerusalem’s destruction. Indeed, Jeremiah’s ministry could be summarized in three stages: 1) a call to repent in order to avoid the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple; 2) a call to submit to the Babylonians (and Yahweh’s will) since it is too late because the city will inevitably fall; and 3) a call to submit to the Babylonians (and Yahweh’s will) since it is too late, the city will fall; and 3) a call to submit to the Babylonians and trust in Yahweh, who will restore his people and the land. The New Covenant Because the promises about the new covenant do not bear as much weight as the judgment oracles for the question of discerning the true from the false prophets, I will not examine them much detail. Much could be said about the message of hope from Jeremiah, but 109 In the Bible, there is no real consideration for the possibility that Yahweh would fail to deliver on his promises and engagement. The scripture does not present this scenario as a real possibility. Numerous times Israel is reminded of Yahweh’s fidelity, but there is no clear picture of what would be the consequences for him if he did not uphold his engagement. Even in Gen. 17 when “Yahweh” passes through the carcasses, it is not obvious what would happen to him if, hypothetically, he did not keep his promise to Abraham. Likewise, the Deuteronomy contains specific woe for Israel if she disobeys, but nothing is said about Yahweh. 110 See Lev. 26:1-46 and Deut. 28:1-68. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 38 space is lacking to cover this ground appropriately. Among key texts in Jeremiah for the new covenant are Jer. 3:15-18; 31:31-40; 32:36-44 and 50:5, but the best-known passage in the book is undoubtedly Jer. 31:31-34.111 What I would like to underscore here is the fact that the language used in this new covenant echoes texts found in the Pentateuch. Indeed, the proclamation of a new covenant is not a complete break with the Sinaitic Covenant. There are elements of continuity and discontinuity. The new covenant builds on the Mosaic one. Thus even though there are some differences, “Jeremiah’s use of the new covenant does not replace but renews the Torah.”112 For instance, the description of Israel’s restoration announced in Deut. 30:1-6 announces that Yahweh will circumcise the people’s hearts (cf. Lev. 26:41; Deut. 10:16). The language is also found in Jeremiah, in the form of an exhortation: “Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, remove the foreskin of your hearts” (Jer. 4:4). This urging is much needed, because “all the house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart” (Jer. 9:26) and “the sin of Judah is written with an iron pen; with a diamond point it is engraved on the tablet of their hearts” (Jer. 17:1). Ultimately, Yahweh will need to change their devious hearts (Jer. 17:9) and Jeremiah proclaims this promise in his announcement of the new covenant that Yahweh will make with Israel and Judah: “I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts” (Jer. 31:33). Thus, Jeremiah “shows his indebtedness to tradition both when he looks back (Jer. 2) and when he looks forward (Jer. 31.31ff.).”113 I believe that this short analysis of the Mosaic covenant in Jeremiah demonstrates the importance of the covenant for understanding how Yahweh deals with Judah. In summary, 111 Huey, Jeremiah, Lamentations, 281. Gary Edward Schnittjer, Old Testament Use of Old Testament: A Book-by-Book Guide (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2021), 281. 113 Von Rad, The Message of the Prophets, 186. 112 DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 39 Jeremiah’s words of doom against the holy city and the temple are aligned with the Torah and the Mosaic covenant. However, it must be noted that the book also contains hopeful promises. Jeremiah’s message in not monolithic. That being said, what one reads in the books of Moses often corresponds to the message of Jeremiah and what his generation experienced.114 I will now turn to the relationship between sin, land and exile, in order to demonstrate further theological linkages between Jeremiah and the Torah. Sin, Land and Exile As the Mosaic covenant makes clear, there is a close connection between the existence of Israel in the promised land and their obedience. Truly, “Obedience to God’s covenant insures that God will guarantee the people’s continuing existence in the land, in accordance with his past promise to the forefathers.”115 However, there is a deeper connection between the land and Israel’s sins than might be evident on the surface. This theological relationship between sin, land and exile is another element characterizing Jeremiah’s dependency upon the Torah. One key passage to illustrate this principle is Jer. 2:1-7.116 The first three verses take the audience back to the exodus event. Using two poetic images, the word of Yahweh reminds the audience that, when Israel came out of Egypt, she was faithfully devoted to her God. Indeed, Israel is depicted both as a faithful young bride (v. 2) and as the holy (“set apart for his enjoyment alone”117) first fruit of Yahweh’s harvest (v. 3). Moreover, she was protected by God 114 It has been suggested that there are theological differences between Jeremiah and the Torah. I will discuss some of these observations as I cover them individually (e.g., Jeremiah’s distinction between a message of doom and a message of peace and the Deuteronomic criteria of fulfillment [cf. Deut. 18:22 and Jer. 28:8-9]). It should also be noted that space is lacking here to compare every passage of Jeremiah and the Pentateuch in order to establish a complete portrait of the similitudes and possible contrast/contradictions. I nevertheless contend that the general picture is one of continuity and affinity. 115 Rom-Shiloni, “‘On the Day I Took Them out,” 625. 116 The oracle (or collection of oracles) runs through all thirty-seven verses of chapter 2, but for the sake of the argument I will focus on vv. 1-7. 117 Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, 164 (emphasis his). DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 40 and whoever “ate of it” was met by Yahweh’s wrath (v. 3). As is generally noted, this description of Israel in the desert does not seem to accord perfectly with the narrative found in Exodus through Deuteronomy.118 However, as John Goldingay suggests, Yahweh is not looking back to the beginnings of his marriage with Israel with rose-tinted spectacles, as it might appear. What Jeremiah 2:1-3 points out is that “there is a contrast between Israel’s commitment to him [Yahweh] after the exodus and what’s happened since.”119 Unfortunately, Israel “went after worthless things and became worthless” herself (v. 5).120 The worship of idols led them to their own deterioration, becoming worthless as these idols are.121 Moreover, while God led them “into a plentiful land to eat its fruits and its good things,” they entered the land and defiled it, making of Yahweh’s heritage an abomination (v. 7). This last verse reveals that the land is not only a gift that Israel receives and benefits from when she is faithful, but that the land is affected by the sins of its inhabitants. This same theological principle is also manifested in Jer. 3:1-3, where it is said that Israel’s sins have “greatly polluted” the land (3:1). Israel’s ‘whoring’122 and wickedness polluted the land (3:2) and, consequently, “the showers have been withheld, and the spring rain has not come” (3:3). Not only does the land mourn because of Judah’s judgments by Yahweh (Jer. 12:4, 11; 14:2), but the land is spiritually polluted: “And I will doubly repay their iniquity and their sin, because they have polluted my land with the carcasses of their detestable idols, and have filled 118 Huey, Jeremiah, Lamentations, 62. John Goldingay, The Theology of Jeremiah: The Book, the Man, the Message (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2021), 28. 120 Cf. Isa 41:21-29; Jer. 10:1-16. 121 The relationship between worship (including idolatry) and identity is well recognized. See for instance G. K. Beale, We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008); Richard Lints, Identity and Idolatry: The Image of God and Its Inversion, NSBT 36 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2015). 122 Idolatry is often referred to as spiritual adultery in Scripture; thus the use of whoring for the description of Israel idolatrous conduct. See Jer. 3:6-9; 13:27; Ezek. 23:36-39. 119 DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 41 my inheritance with their abominations” (Jer. 16:18). Again, this principle is in agreement with a Pentateuchal description of Israel’s relationship with Yahweh and the land. In the Torah, we read that Yahweh gave a good land to Israel (Deut. 1:25). This land is presented to Israel as an inheritance (Exod. 32:13; Lev. 25:23; Num. 34:2; Deut. 25:19; Jer. 12:14; 16:18) that must not be defiled lest it vomits its inhabitants (Lev. 18:25-30). Indeed, the Pentateuch presents the conquest of Canaan as a judgment against the people in the land, because of their iniquity and wickedness (Gen. 15:16; Deut. 7:1-5; 9:4). This principle and relationship between sin, land and exile is also present in the “temple sermon.” F. B. Huey emphasizes this correlation—and its Pentateuchal anchoring—in his reading of Jer. 7:5-7: In vv. 5–7 Jeremiah defined the kind of religion that pleases God (cf. Ezek 18:5–9; Mic 6:6–8; Jas 1:26–27). He made it clear that God’s promise to let them remain in the land was conditional. If they practised justice with one another (Deut 16:20), did not oppress others (Exod 22:21–22; Deut 24:17; 27:19), did not shed innocent blood (Deut 19:10), or worship other gods (Exod 20:3–4), he would let them remain in the land.123 Moreover, the word that Jeremiah proclaims in the gate of the LORD’s house also establishes a relationship between God’s presence in the land with them and their sin. This principle is summarized in this exhortation: “Amend your ways and your doings, and let me dwell with you in this place” (Jer. 7:3). Otherwise, Yahweh will do to Jerusalem what he did to Shiloh (Jer. 7:1215; cf. 1 Sam. 1–4), so that his dwelling place will be devastated. Shiloh once housed the ark of the covenant, but that city had been destroyed. The same can (and will) happen to Jerusalem.124 In other words, separation from sin is a condition for Israel if she wishes to live in the promised 123 Huey, Jeremiah, Lamentations, 106. Jeremiah 7, and particularly this reference to Shiloh, is a good witness to the Zion theology. I will come back later in this chapter on this subject when I address the message of the false prophets. My goal here is to highlight the message Jeremiah is proclaiming. 124 DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 42 land in right relationship with Yahweh. This principle is also at work in the Pentateuch. For instance, we read in Exod. 33:1-3 Yahweh’s word to Moses, in which God tells his prophet that he will not go up to the promised land with them, lest he consumes them, because they are a “stiff-necked people” (Exod. 33:3). In summary, there is a relationship between Israel’s sins, her place in the land and the purity of the land, as established in the Torah. Another way of looking at the Torah and the book of Jeremiah in order to compare them is to consider how sin is defined. In other words, what constitutes a sin? Is there a relationship between the sins Jeremiah accuses Judah of committing and the covenantal transgressions described in the Law given by Moses? It might come as no surprise that there is in fact a close connection between the two. It is therefore fruitful to explore the extent of that connection. Jeremiah and the Ten Commandments One way of comparing the two biblical corpora is to compare the accusations in Jeremiah with the significant list of the Ten Commandments.125 The opening accusation of Jeremiah and explanation for the disaster coming from the north is key for the whole conversation. Indeed, Jeremiah’s indictment of the nation pertains to its idolatry, and is reminiscent of the prohibitions in the first and second commandments:126 “And I will utter my judgments against them, for all their wickedness in forsaking me; they have made offerings to other gods, and worshiped the works of their own hands” (Jer. 1:16). Those words parallel very closely those of Exodus: “you shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, […] You shall not bow down to them or worship them” (Exod. 20:3-5). As was made clear in chapter 1, the sin of 125 Or, following the Hebrew text, the ten words (‫)ַהְדָּב ִ֥רים‬. Different traditions have numbered the commandments in a different manner. I am using the Orthodox and Reformed numbering. See J. W. Marshall, “Decalogue,” DOT:P, 172. 126 DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 43 idolatry is very predominant theme in Jeremiah’s prophetic utterances. Numerous passages could be explored, but there is no need here to do so.127 The third commandment is not as widely represented as the first two, but although it surfaces more subtly in the text of Jeremiah, I would like to suggest that it plays a very important role as well. It is recognized that the interdiction of misusing Yahweh’s name bears a “wide and somewhat ambiguous range of meaning” and “is couched in language deliberately chosen to permit a wide range of applications, covering every dimension of the misuse of Yahweh’s name.”128 Indeed, “the linguistic range of meaning for šāwʾ (‘misuse’) includes false swearing, false speech, and that which brings disaster. Thus, the misuse described in this commandment pertains to associating the name of Yahweh with false or disastrous purposes.”129 As previously mentioned, “false speech” plays a key role in the description of Judah’s sin, and especially of false prophets in Judah during Jeremiah’s times. Moreover, it has even been suggested that ‫ָשׁ ְוא‬ (“misuse”) is “equivalent to ‫‘ ֶשֶׁקר‬lie,’ and so it is equivalent here to false swearing or witnessgiving.”130 The establishment of a connection with ‫ֶשֶׁקר‬, if it is correct, is significant for the comparative study with Jeremiah. Indeed, on the one hand, the people of Jerusalem are guilty of breaking this commandment in Jer. 5:2, where Yahweh says through Jeremiah: “Although they say, ‘As the LORD [YHWH] lives,’ yet they swear falsely [‫]ֶשֶׁקר‬.” On the other hand, the prophets are accused of speaking falsely in Yahweh’s name. For instance, in Jer. 23:25, a word is addressed against the false prophets: “I have heard what the prophets have said who prophesy lies [‫ ]ֶשֶׁקר‬in my name, saying, ‘I have dreamed, I have dreamed!’” The prophets and the people in 127 E.g., Jer. 1:16; 2:5, 23; 4:1; 7:6, 18; 10:1-16; etc. John I. Durham, Exodus, vol. 3, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 288. 129 Marshall, “Decalogue,” DOT:P, 176. 130 Durham, Exodus, 288. For this interpretation, Durham refers to M. Klopfenstein. Die Lüge Nach Dem Alten Testament (Zurich: Gotthelf-Verlag, 1964), 18–21; and Brevard S. Childs, Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary, Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 410–11. 128 DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 44 Jeremiah’s times were using the name of Yahweh in vain—in other words, they were misusing it. They gave the impression of following him, while they were following their own hearts. They spoke deceivingly. Another form of misuse of Yahweh’s name can also be found in Jer. 34:1516, where the people are accused of profaning Yahweh’s name because of their sin: You yourselves recently repented and did what was right in my sight by proclaiming liberty to one another, and you made a covenant before me in the house that is called by my name; but then you turned around and profaned my name when each of you took back your male and female slaves, whom you had set free according to their desire, and you brought them again into subjection to be your slaves [italics mine]. The people have profaned Yahweh’s name by breaking the covenant they made with him. This case is different from the more direct example in Jer. 5:2, but it still represents an “attack” on the name of Yahweh. Its value and holiness are diminished and despised. The fourth commandment is not often alluded to in the book of Jeremiah, but there is a clear reference to it in chapter 17. The tone is different as it does not represent a direct accusation of breaking the Sabbath. Instead, the oracle presents itself as a sermon to the inhabitants of Jerusalem in which the previously-given sabbath law is repeated (vv. 21-22), and the breaking of it by their ancestors is recalled (v. 23), followed by a promise of what will be in store for them if they obey (vv. 24-26) and a warning of the judgment that will fall if they disobey (v. 27). Although Jeremiah does not directly declare Jerusalem guilty of breaking the fourth commandment, the presence of this oracle is probably due to the lack of obedience from at least a portion of the people living in Jerusalem. Either way, the book of Jeremiah clearly upholds the Sabbath law. As for the fifth commandment pertaining to the honouring of fathers and mothers, I did not find any specific reference to it in the book of Jeremiah. The silence about this particular commandment does not necessarily indicate the innocence of the people, but it could be a sign DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 45 that it was not a central problem in Judah in Jeremiah’s time. However, given the general decay of social justice and love for one’s neighbour, it would be surprising if they had in fact kept this command well. Still, for this comparative study, I will conclude that no reference is made to this commandment. As for the sixth (murder), seventh (adultery), eighth (robbery) and ninth (bearing false witness) commandments, they are all referred to in one verse in the temple sermon: “Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, make offerings to Baal, and go after other gods that you have not known” (Jer. 7:9).131 Although the reference to the ninth commandment is somehow more ambiguous than the others, other passages like Jer. 9:3-8 leave no room for doubt. Yahweh declares: 3 5 8 They bend their tongues like bows; they have grown strong in the land for falsehood, and not for truth; for they proceed from evil to evil, and they do not know me, says the LORD…. They all deceive their neighbors, and no one speaks the truth; they have taught their tongues to speak lies; they commit iniquity and are too weary to repent…. Their tongue is a deadly arrow; it speaks deceit through the mouth. They all speak friendly words to their neighbors, but inwardly are planning to lay an ambush. The tenth commandment prohibits the Israelites from coveting anything that belongs to their neighbours. There is a vivid pictorial reference to this commandment in Jer. 5:8: “They were well-fed lusty stallions, each neighing for his neighbor’s wife.”132 Furthermore, as lust is usually 131 The reference to the ten commandments in Jer. 7:9 has been recognized by others as well. For instance, Rom-Shiloni identifies an allusion to six commandments in this verse. Rom-Shiloni, “‘On the Day I Took Them out,” 626. 132 It should be noted that this verse could also be interpreted as spiritual adultery. The context, especially v. 7 seems to indicate that idolatry is denounced here. However, it is most probably referring to both, being a denunciation of sacred prostitution: “The language of adultery and prostitution indicates that the particular forms of idolatry were those associated with the fertility cult, specifically that of Baal.” Craigie, Kelley and Drinkard, Jeremiah 1–25, 88. Moreover, J. A. Thompson interprets these verses as ultimately referring to sexual adultery and a DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 46 the step before its consummation (whether adultery or theft), references to stealing the property of one’s neighbour could also be viewed as a sign of infractions of the tenth commandment. Thus, other accusations like the one found in Jer. 5:26 could also be read as indirect references to this tenth commandment: “For scoundrels are found among my people; they take over the goods of others. Like fowlers they set a trap; they catch human beings.” In summary, only the fifth commandment is not directly referred to in the book of Jeremiah. I believe the references to the other commandments provide evidence for the degree of dependence of Jeremiah’s message upon the law of Moses. As I hope to have demonstrated in this chapter, this connection does not stand alone. Indeed, there is also a correspondence between the book of Jeremiah and the Torah discernible in the substantial presence of the Mosaic covenant in the message of Jeremiah and in its reaffirmation of the relationship between sin, land and exile. Consequently, I believe that there is a marked alignment between the message of the book of Jeremiah and the Torah.133 In the context of my study on discerning between true and false prophets, it thus means that a true prophet proclaims a message in harmony with the Torah. By doing so, Jeremiah echoes Deuteronomy 13:2-6. Indeed, a true prophet reinforces the Law of God and encourages the people to serve God, turning them away from idolatry. It is useful to be reminded here of some conclusions of the analysis found in chapter 2. There, I have shown that Jeremiah accuses the false prophets of idolatry and wickedness. They are evildoers, transgressors of the Torah and they encourage the people to commit idolatry. There is an agreement between their message and their personal behaviour. The typical false prophets’ transgression of God’s commandments: “The picture in vv. 7 and 8 is of men who began with irregular sexual relationships in the harlot’s house and then moved on to adultery. Jeremiah was depicting a crumbling society in open revolt against both the commandments of Yahweh.” Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, 241. 133 Again, my interest is not in constructing a redactional scenario explaining the relationship between the two. My goal is to explicit key correspondences between the two. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 47 behaviour and message is contrary to what the Torah whereas Jeremiah is depicted as a true prophet. However, the book of Jeremiah also portrays other prophets whose legitimacy proved harder to assess. As my analysis of the analogy of the potter and the clay in Jeremiah 18 and the conflict between Jeremiah and Hananiah will demonstrate, another key to discerning between true and false prophets is to consider the connection between the message of the prophet and the historical context. Alignment with the Historical Context In his study of true and false prophets, Thomas W. Overholt identifies a relationship between the message of the prophet and the historical situation: “To be true the message of a prophet must proclaim Yahweh’s will in terms appropriate to the concrete historical situation in which the prophet finds himself.”134 The attention he draws to the historical context is very important. Indeed, the evaluation of a prophetic oracle cannot be separated from its historical situation.135 Thus, I will argue that a true prophet is recognizable by the correct alignment between his message and the historical context of his original audience. I will begin by exploring the analogy of the potter’s house in Jeremiah 18. It will allow me to explore the role of a prophet and the question of fulfillment (and non-fulfillment) of prophecy. This examination will serve to explore principles regarding the alignment between the prophet’s message and the historical context. I will then use the conflict between Jeremiah and Hananiah in Jeremiah 28 as a case 134 Thomas W. Overholt, “Jeremiah 27–29: The Question of False Prophecy,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 35, no. 3 (1967): 248. 135 This claim does not invalidate the relevance and applicability of a prophetic oracle for later generations. This is a complex issue, which I will not be covering here. Again, I focus here is on the distinction between true and false prophets for the first generation hearing the prophets speak. How are they to discern between true and false. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 48 study to examine the use of the various criteria presented thus far—about the person of the prophets and their message. The Potter’s House In Jeremiah 18, the word of Yahweh is addressed to Jeremiah, inviting him to go down to the potter’s house136 (v. 2). There, I saw the potter at work and God used this activity to reveal things to him about how he deals with Israel and the nations, and about the prophet’s role. While Jeremiah observed the potter, it happened that the vessel he was making was spoiled. Then, the potter reworked it into another vessel, “as seemed good to him” (v. 4). Following this event, another word came to Jeremiah, emphasizing Yahweh’s sovereignty over Israel to do whatever pleases him (vv. 5–6). Considering the context of the potter’s house and the analogy articulated in vv. 5–6, what follows in verses 7–10 is surprising. Moberly offers three reasons why it is surprising: First, the recipient of the divine address shifts from “house of Israel” (18:6) to “a nation or a kingdom” (18:7, 9). Second, the words of verses 7–10 apparently do not depict the expected divine power of verse 6 but rather divine contingency and responsiveness. Third, in this part of the divine address the imagery of the potter simply disappears.137 Indeed, verses 7–10 now include the nations in Yahweh’s dealings, not only Israel, and it appears now that Yahweh is not fully in control. In the description of what occurs at the potter’s house, the clay seems to be very passive,138 but in verses 7–10, Yahweh apparently deals with the 136 I would like to acknowledge the influence Moberly had on my understanding of Jeremiah 18 and the concepts developed in this chapter. For a thorough investigation on the meaning of the potter’s analogy and the question of God’s “repentance,” see Moberly, Prophecy and Discernment, 48–55 and R. W. L Moberly, Old Testament Theology: Reading the Hebrew Bible as Christian Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2015), 107–127. 137 Moberly, Old Testament Theology, 118. 138 This passiveness seems to have been picked up by Paul in Romans 9:19-22. However, Paul’s emphasis in using the potter’s imagery is on the absolute sovereignty of God over his creation. In fact, his argument is more closely related to Isaiah than Jeremiah: You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay? DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 49 nations according to their response to his word. In these verses, Yahweh reveals that he is responsive to the nations’ conduct. These verses complete the portrait of verses 1–6 in which Yahweh’s sovereignty is more dominantly expressed. Verse 11 offers a concluding statement in the form of a warning for Israel that incorporates both aspects of God’s dealings with Israel and the nations: “Look, I am a potter shaping evil against you and devising a plan against you. Turn now, all of you from your evil way, and amend your ways and your doings.” Put in the terminology of systematic theology, “This episode of the potter’s house becomes a striking formulation of the relationship between divine sovereignty and human responsibility.”139 The Prophet’s Role Jeremiah 18:1-11 reveals important aspects of the prophet’s role. One key factor in being able to understand the vocation of prophets is that they are sent by Yahweh to warn nations that are doing evil. In this context, the warning has the goal of provoking a change in that nation.140 The oracle is thus designed to motivate repentance. If the people respond by repenting (‫שׁוב‬, turn back, return) from their evil (‫ָרָﬠה‬, evil), Yahweh will respond by “changing his mind” (‫נחם‬, regret, relent, repent, be sorry, renounce) about the disaster (‫ָרָﬠה‬, evil) he had planned against them (v. 8). This verb, ‫נחם‬, is a very important and nuanced one. The Hebrew word is difficult to Shall the thing made say of its maker, “He did not make me”; or the thing formed say of the one who formed it, “He has no understanding”? (Isaiah 29:16) Woe to you who strive with your Maker, earthen vessels with the potter! Does the clay say to the one who fashions it, “What are you making”? or “Your work has no handles”? (Isaiah 45:9) 139 Moberly, Prophecy and Discernment, 51. 140 It must be acknowledged that sometimes judgment is declared upon a nation for whom no possibility of repentance is offered. Sometimes, it is too late to repent (cf. Jer. 7:13-16; 15:1, 6). See also Moberly, Old Testament Theology, 124-25. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 50 translate because there is no clear and direct equivalent in English.141 The wording is also very important, because implying that God can repent has significant theological consequences. Throughout the Bible, humans are invited to repent of their evil deeds so they can receive forgiveness and avoid judgment. Repentance is a recognition that one has done wrong, has sinned or made a mistake, and should have chosen a different path. When this definition of repentance is applied to God, a theological problem suddenly emerges. How can God repent of something if he is good, perfect, sinless and omniscient? The concept of repentance as formulated in the Bible for humans, when applied to God, would imply the idea that Yahweh is not perfect after all, that he makes mistakes and possibly even commits sins. I would like to argue that only a superficial reading of the text can lead to this conclusion. First, the Hebrew word usually142 used to express God’s “repentance” or “change of mind” (NRSV) is ‫נחם‬, while the word usually used to call people to repentance is ‫שׁוב‬, which is an invitation to turn (‫“ )שׁוב‬from sin to God.”143 Thus, the Bible generally distinguishes between the two. They are not synonyms. Recent translations employ different words to differentiate between them, trying to avoid the use of “repentance” for God.144 Secondly, what is expressed here in Jeremiah 18, and elsewhere,145 is God’s responsiveness to a change of heart in humans. The idea is not that the first “plan” or “direction” was bad or wrong.146 There is no recognition that it was a 141 The following comment from Moberly is helpful: “There is no difficulty-free translation of niham [‫]נחם‬, but preferable is ‘rescind’ or perhaps ‘repeal’ or ‘revoke’; the point is not YHWH’s psychology, but rather his responsiveness whereby he will authoritatively reverse a previous equally authoritative pronouncement (I am indebted to Rob Barrett for discussion and suggestions here).” Moberly, Prophecy and Discernment, 50n21. 142 Marvin R. Wilson, “1344 ‫ָנַחם‬,” TWOT, 571. 143 Wilson, “1344 ‫ָנַחם‬,” 571. 144 Moberly, Old Testament Theology, 110. 145 E.g., Jer. 15:19; 26:3; 42:9-18. 146 There are other passages that are more complex than Jeremiah 18 for the question of God’s “repentance.” For instance, 1 Sam 15:29 claims that “the Glory of Israel [Yahweh] will not recant [‫ ]שׁוב‬or change his mind [‫;]נחם‬ for he is not a mortal, that he should change his mind [‫]נחם‬.” I do not have the space here to cover adequately more complex passages like this one. For a thorough explanation of the problem presented by this verse and others like it and a comprehensive solution, see Moberly, Old Testament Theology, 107–143. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 51 bad idea to judge Israel for their sins. What is put forward is the idea that repentance by humans can lead to a change in God’s plan, so that he will bring peace where he had planned disaster. This concept of God’s responsiveness is important for understanding the role of prophets. They are calling sinners to repent, to turn away from their sins and toward God. A second characteristic of the prophet’s role that Jeremiah 18:1-11 reveals is that a prophet can also bring words of peace. Indeed, prophets are seen in the Scriptures as bringing words of both hope and well-being. For instance, Jeremiah not only announces the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, but he also proclaims a new covenant better than the Sinaitic one (Jer. 31:31-34). Also, while the army of the king of Babylon is besieging Jerusalem, Yahweh directs Jeremiah to buy a field in a transaction carried out before witnesses. This is a sign, accompanied by a word of Yahweh: “Houses and fields and vineyards shall again be bought in this land” (Jer. 32:15). There is also the well-known seventy years of captivity announced by Jeremiah in Jer. 29:10, followed by the promise that the captives will call upon Yahweh’s name and be rescued (Jer. 29:11-14). Even the word addressed to the fearful people that come to Jeremiah after the destruction of Jerusalem is filled with words of hope and compassion (Jer. 42:9-12). Thus, a comprehensive look at the prophet Jeremiah’s oracles reveals that the theological depiction of a true prophet is not restricted to oracles of judgment, as is sometimes suggested.147 A true prophet can also be entrusted by God with a message of hope. This twofold role of a prophet is clearly expressed in Jeremiah 18:7-10 in the description of plans to either destroy or build up nations. Moreover, the language of nation, kingdom, plucking, breaking down, building and planting (vv. 7-9) is reminiscent of Jer. 1:10: See, today I appoint you over nations and over kingdoms, to pluck up and to pull down, 147 I will say more about this in the discussion on Jeremiah’s conflict with Hananiah below and in chapter 5 on challenges to prophetic discernment. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 52 to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant. Clearly, what is described in Jeremiah 18:7-9 is consistent with Jeremiah’s call, so that what Yahweh reveals to Jeremiah at the potter’s house is coherent with the word the prophet received when he was first called by God to serve him. What is “new” in this passage has at least two aspects. First, Jeremiah 18:1-11 clarifies the relationship between the type of prophetic speech uttered concerning a nation and its spiritual life. It is very simple. If a nation does evil, Yahweh will send prophets to proclaim disaster, calling her to repentance. If a nation is obedient to Yahweh (not doing evil), he will send his prophets to proclaim words of well-being to her. What this means for prophetic discernment is that a comparison between the prophet’s message and the spiritual state of the audience can offer a criterion for evaluating the validity of the prophet. This dynamic is present in the word of Yahweh to the people who approach Jeremiah as described in chapter 42. Indeed, the oracle exhibits the expected form in that obedience leads to blessing (vv. 9-12) and disobedience to disaster (vv. 13–18). This relationship between the word of the prophet and the spiritual state (historical context—circumstance) of the audience is also found elsewhere in the Old Testament. For instance, after Jeroboam, the first king of the northern tribes, builds an altar at Bethel in defiance to the Jerusalem cult, an unnamed prophet is sent to prophesy against the altar (1 Kings 12–13). Thus, rebellion against Yahweh leads to a prophecy of woe. On the other hand, when the good king David makes known to the prophet Nathan his plan to build a temple for Yahweh, the prophet receives an extraordinary word of well-being for the king and his descendants (2 Sam 7). In both cases, the word of Yahweh is aligned with the historical context. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 53 Secondly, the potter’s house analogy reveals Yahweh’s responsiveness to human activity. What it means is that when God declares something about a nation (whether for good or for ill), “that which will take place cannot be predicated tout court; human attitude and action are integral to the divine unfolding of history.”148 Consequently, God can “change his mind” about an action planned in regard to a nation if it changes its way. An excellent illustration of that principle is found in the book of Jonah. Much could be said about this small book, but I will only mention how Jonah exemplifies this prophetic paradigm. Contrary to what some might suggest, Jonah did not refuse at first to go to Nineveh because he was afraid of its inhabitants.149 According to Jonah’s own words, he fled because he knew that Yahweh is “a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and ready to relent [‫ ]נחם‬from punishing” (Jon. 4:2). The rebellious prophet knew that if he proclaimed disaster for Nineveh, there would be a chance that its inhabitants would repent and be spared by God. Yahweh had declared disaster against them. It was the direction history was taking and Jonah was happy with it since the people of Nineveh were enemies of Israel. The prophet did not want to change that course by revealing to the sinful city what was awaiting her. Eventually, Jonah went to Nineveh and proclaimed Yahweh’s word of disaster, the people repented and God relented from sending the disaster that had been announced. This story marvellously reveals Yahweh’s responsiveness to human activity and the prophet’s awareness of it. As Moberly aptly summarizes, “Prophetic speech is a response-seeking speech.”150 Whether it seeks repentance from sin or faith in a promise, prophetic oracles are expecting a response from their hearers.151 This “fluidity” in the course of 148 Moberly, Prophecy and Discernment, 52 (italics his). As Josephus seems to imply in Antiquities 9.208. 150 Moberly, Prophecy and Discernment, 52. 151 In Jeremiah 42, the expected response is clear: “The LORD has said to you, O remnant of Judah, Do not go to Egypt. Be well aware that I have warned you today” (v. 19). The people are told to stay in Judah and receive the blessings of God. If they go down into Egypt, they will suffer God’s wrath (v.18). 149 DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 54 history and God’s plans leads directly to the problem of prophetic fulfillment, to which I will now turn. Prophecy and Fulfillment The problematic aspect of fulfillment in prophecy is rooted in a criterion found in the book of Deuteronomy that seems to be in contradiction with the responsiveness presented in Jeremiah 18:1-11. In order to explore this difficulty and offer a solution, I will now turn to Deuteronomy 18:20-22 in order to summarize this second criterion: But any prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, or who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded the prophet to speak—that prophet shall die.” You may say to yourself, “How can we recognize a word that the Lord has not spoken?” If a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by it. The criterion is quite simple. If what the prophet says does not take place, then the prophet was not sent by Yahweh and has spoken falsely. Conversely, if the words of the prophet come true, he probably152 has been sent by Yahweh. This can conveniently be referred to as the fulfillment criterion. The difficulty arises when this criterion in used in contexts like the book of Jonah. Indeed, Jonah’s prophecy is given in the unconditional form of a decree: “Forty days more, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” (Jon. 3:4). Yet, his prophecy was not “fulfilled” due to Nineveh’s repentance. So, since the city was not destroyed, was Jonah a true or false prophet?153 From a canonical perspective, the reader knows Jonah is prophesying an authentic word of Yahweh. Are 152 This criterion must be completed with the other one developed in Deut.13:1-5. This second Deuteronomic criterion warns Israel against those prophets whose oracles are fulfilled, but who incite her to turn away from Yahweh to worship other gods. Deut. 18:20 similarly invites the people to reject prophets prophesying in the name of other gods. 153 Elizabeth Achtemeier observed that “very frequently, scholars have held that Jonah knew God would not punish Nineveh, and Jonah did not want to be known as a false prophet.” Elizabeth Achtemeier, Minor Prophets I, ed. W. Ward Gasque, Robert L. Hubbard Jr., and Robert K. Johnston, Understanding the Bible Commentary Series (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2012), 262. Whether Jonah feared to be labelled a false prophet or not, the possibility of that association was probably real. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 55 the two texts contradicting each other? Does the Jonah story invalidate the Deuteronomic criterion of fulfillment? The problem partly resides in the grammatical form of the oracle. Since Jonah’s prophecy is expressed in an unconditional and declarative form, on a linguistic level it is natural to expect that the predicted outcome is set in stone. However, as I have argued above, Jonah knew that his prophecy was an invitation for repentance, making his declaration a conditional one. As Moberly explains, this way of speaking is common in other types of speech: Prophetic announcements of coming disaster can be seen to have the logic and dynamics of warning. If someone says to a person carelessly stepping onto a busy road, “You’re going to be run over,” the words are a warning, unconditional in form but conditional in substance, whose purpose is to bring about a response (moving off the road) such that what is spoken of does not happen.154 In light of Moberly’s observation, it must be recognized that prophetic utterances can be unconditional in form, but conditional in substance. This makes the application of the fulfillment criterion less problematic. For instance, although the declaration in Jonah’s oracle is unconditional in form, it is conditional in substance. Moreover, if the city does not repent, it is expected that the Deuteronomic fulfillment criterion be followed. However, since it is conditional in substance, and given the repentance manifested by the people of Nineveh, it is not problematic that the destruction of the city did not occur forty days after Jonah’s proclamation. In conclusion, the evaluation of a prophetic speech must take into consideration the purpose of the oracle, its fulfillment and its conditionality.155 The fulfillment criterion is valid, but must not be applied too simplistically or mechanically. I will now turn to the conflict between the prophets Jeremiah and 154 Moberly, Old Testament Theology, 120 (emphasis his). Moberly also points out that this sort of relationship between speech and purpose in investigated in the recent developments on speech-act theory (Moberly, Old Testament Theology, 120n). 155 A question that should be pursued it whether all prophetic speeches are conditional. Are there certain types of oracles that are conditional and others that are not? How to distinguish them? Are the messianic oracles in a different category? DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 56 Hananiah. I will evaluate this encounter in the light of the role of the prophet and the fulfillment criterion. Case Study: Jeremiah and Hananiah in Conflict Jeremiah 28 reports the story of a conflict between the prophets Jeremiah and Hananiah. This is the only place where Hananiah is mentioned in the Bible. His father, Azzur from Gibeon, is not mentioned either anywhere else in Scripture. Multiple times, Hananiah is referred to as a prophet (vv. 1, 5, 10, 12, 15 and 17).156 Interestingly, even when his prophecy is revealed as being false and he dies under Yahweh’s judgment, Hananiah is still referred to as a prophet (v. 17). In order to examine this encounter, I will begin by summarizing the conflict and the historical context. Then, I will draw some conclusions for the discernment between true and false prophets, focusing on the alignment between the message and the historical situation. I will nevertheless take into consideration other criteria presented thus far in this study. Summary of the Conflict and the Historical Context The conflict probably takes place in 594 B.C., shortly after the proclamation found in Jeremiah 27, when the prophet was inviting the nations (including Judah) to submit to the king of Babylon. Jeremiah was wearing a yoke to illustrate his prophetic speech. Jerusalem had fallen in 597 B.C. and was now a vassal of the Babylonians (cf. 2 Kings 24:8-17). The king of Jerusalem, Jehoiachin, and “all of Jerusalem” were brought into captivity to Babylon. Only the poorest people of the land remained (2 Kings 24:14). The city’s demise was the work of Yahweh and he demanded that Judah submit to the king of Babylon. The word of Yahweh proclaimed by 156 On this, the LXX differs from the MT. In verse 1 (chapter 35), the LXX has “ψευδοπροφήτης” (pseudoprophētēs; false prophet) instead of “prophet.” In all the other verses, the word “prophet” is simply left out, as they are for Jeremiah himself, who is surprisingly never called a prophet in this chapter. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 57 Jeremiah came true. Now, the prophet declared that “all the nations shall serve him [the king of Babylon] and his son and his grandson, until the time of his own land comes; then many nations and great kings shall make him their slave” (Jer. 27:7). Until then, they were to submit and serve Babylon. In chapter 28, the reader is introduced to Hananiah who proclaimed a different message to Jeremiah and the people in the temple—also in Yahweh’s name—and in a very similar fashion: Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: I have broken the yoke of the king of Babylon. Within two years I will bring back to this place all the vessels of the LORD’s house, which King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon took away from this place and carried to Babylon. I will also bring back to this place King Jeconiah157 son of Jehoiakim of Judah, and all the exiles from Judah who went to Babylon, says the LORD, for I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon” (Jer. 28:2-4, emphasis mine). Hananiah’s message is radically different from that of Jeremiah. Both prophets claim that their message is from Yahweh. Interestingly, Jeremiah first answers to Hananiah with a word of his own (vv. 5–9). His answer does not come from Yahweh. Here, the man Jeremiah speaks. He begins with an “Amen,” so be it! It is debated whether Jeremiah is being ironic or speaking sincerely.158 I think Jeremiah shares his sympathy for the exiles and his desire that the vessels of the house of the LORD would be returned.159 On a personal level, Jeremiah would most certainly like that. However, there is a problem. Jeremiah reminds all the witnesses to Hananiah’s prophecy that “the prophets who preceded you and me from ancient times prophesied war, 157 As with other persons in the Bible, the name of this king is sometimes written differently. Jehoiachin (yĕhôyākı̂ n) is probably the throne name. His given name would be Jeconiah (yĕkonyāhû; yĕkonyāh). A shortened form of his name is also found in Jeremiah 22:24, 28 and 37:1; Coniah (konyāhû). See J. S. Rogers, “Jehohanan (Person),” The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 3:660-61; and S. J. Schultz, “Jehoiachin,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, ed. James Orr, John L. Nuelsen, Edgar Y. Mullins, and Morris O. Evans. (Chicago: The Howard-Severance Company, 1915), 2:975-76. 158 Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 128. 159 “The fulfillment of Hananiah’s pronouncement (v. 4) would be a dream come true, the top of everybody’s wish list, including Jeremiah’s.” Leslie C. Allen, Jeremiah: A Commentary, ed. William P. Brown, Carol A. Newsom, and David L. Petersen, TOTL (Louisville, KY; London: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 316. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 58 famine, and pestilence against many countries and great kingdoms. As for the prophet who prophesies peace, when the word of that prophet comes true, then it will be known that the LORD has truly sent the prophet” (vv. 8–9). This criterion that Jeremiah uses to discern the “trueness” of a prophet is similar to the one found in Deuteronomy 18:20-22.160 The difference is that in the Torah, there is no distinction between prophecies of woe and weal. Both are to be evaluated on the basis of their fulfillment. I will return to this issue in chapter 4 when discussing the challenges to prophetic discernment,161 but for now it suffices to mention that Jeremiah seems to be aware of the Deuteronomic criterion of fulfillment and responds with his own words, sharing his doubts about the accomplishment of Hananiah’s prophecy. Hananiah reacts by taking Jeremiah’s yoke, breaking it in front of everyone and repeating his proclamation that in two years the yoke of the Babylonians will be similarly broken. Jeremiah’s symbolic action is now turned against him by this conflicting prophet. Jeremiah seems to leave it at that, as no further response is given for the time being. However, sometime162 after the event, a word from Yahweh comes to Jeremiah (vv. 12–17). If doubts could have possibly entered Jeremiah’s mind about the validity of Hananiah’s proclamation, there is no room for them anymore. Indeed, Yahweh reveals three things to Jeremiah: 1) the wooden yoke will be replaced by iron bars; 2) Yahweh did not send Hananiah—his message was a lie; 3) Hananiah will die 160 See the discussion above. It has been suggested that true prophets are prophets of doom and false prophets are peace prophets. Although there are some reasons for why this was proposed, this view is based on superficial and incomplete data. I will explore this view in chapter 4. 162 How much time? The text is vague, but it must probably be in the next couple weeks, because Hananiah died in “that same year, in the seventh month” (Jer. 28:17). That is probably the same year as Jer. 28:1, meaning that Hananiah died about two months after the proclamation of his false prophecy (Hananiah’s word and symbolic act occurred during the fifth month; see Jer. 28:1). 161 DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 59 within the same year.163 As Jeremiah’s words were fulfilled by the death of Hananiah and the continuing exile, Jeremiah was vindicated as being the true prophet of Yahweh. Conclusions for Prophetic Discernment From the outset, looking at the portrayal of Hananiah in this chapter, there is no evidence that he was an ungodly man. As was demonstrated in chapter 2, Jeremiah often accused the false prophets of being morally corrupt, but there is no insinuation of, or attack on, Hananiah about his moral conduct. Jeremiah could have tried to discredit Hananiah based on this criterion as he does so often in the rest of the book, but he is silent about the morality of Hananiah. The fact that no reference is made to the personal character of the false prophet is no proof of his godliness, but it is significant. Furthermore, Hananiah does not prophesy in another deity’s name (like Baal), but he does in Yahweh’s name. Prophesying in the name of another deity is a characteristic of false prophets that is mentioned in the book of Jeremiah (e.g., Jer. 2:8; 23:13) and in Deuteronomy (Deut. 18:20). Moreover, the prophet Hananiah uses the same phraseology that Jeremiah employs to introduce his oracle: “Thus says the LORD!” The oracle itself also shows some similarities. For instance, when Hananiah proclaims “I have broken the yoke” in verse 2, he uses the prophetic perfect,164 which is “also called the perfect of certainty.165 This is typical of authentic prophetic speech.166 By itself, the message of Hananiah seems legitimate. Some authors have also pointed out that Hananiah’s announcement resembles some of Isaiah’s. For instance, Lundbom compares167 Hananiah’s oracle with the three following passages: 163 Similarly, Deut. 18:20 says that the prophet speaking falsely in Yahweh’s name shall die. It is remarkable that both the Deuteronomy and Jeremiah texts are vague about who puts the false prophet to death. 164 Lundbom, Jeremiah 21-36, 332. 165 Huey, Jeremiah, Lamentations, 246–247. 166 Huey, Jeremiah, Lamentations, 247. 167 Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 332. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 60 For the yoke of their burden, and the bar across their shoulders, the rod of their oppressor, you have broken as on the day of Midian. (Isa 9:4) On that day his burden will be removed from your shoulder, and his yoke will be destroyed from your neck. (Isa 10:27) I will break the Assyrian in my land, and on my mountains trample him under foot; his yoke shall be removed from them, and his burden from their shoulders. (Isa. 14:25) Yet, Lundbom rightly recognizes the importance of the historical setting: “However right this message was coming from Isaiah, it is now wrong. Von Rad (1965: 129) points out that the prophetic message is not timeless truth but a ‘particular word relevant to a particular hour in history.’”168 Similarly, Overholt aptly points out that the key to identifying the falseness in the prophet’s message is located in its relation to the historical context: To all outward appearances, Hananiah was also a true prophet of Yahweh. If he is to be identified as a “false” prophet, this must be done from the point of view of the message he brought to the people. The curious thing is that considered apart from its historical context, there is nothing particularly “false” about Hananiah’s message.169 In summary, if one is to distinguish between Jeremiah and Hananiah and determine who is the true prophet, one needs to examine more than the moral character of the prophet and in whose name he is speaking. Even the form of the message seems not to be distinctive. As pointed out by Overholt and Lundbom, one needs to look at the correspondence between the message and the historical context. Is the message proclaimed appropriate for the historical context? 168 169 Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 332. Overholt, “Jeremiah 27–29,” 244. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 61 Consequently, in evaluating Hananiah’s message, it is important to take into consideration Jeremiah’s description (as well as those found in the books of Kings and Chronicles) of the spiritual state of the inhabitants of Judah at that time. The entire book of Jeremiah describes and denounces the sins of God’s people. Although the book covers a relatively long period of time,170 there is no sign of repentance anywhere. The people are far away from God. The prophet seems to have been tolerated, at best. At the time of the conflict with Hananiah, although Jeremiah has been partially vindicated (his oracles against the holy city and the temple were partially fulfilled171), there is still no sign of repentance. Indeed, even after this conflict and the eventual destruction of Jerusalem, the people continued to refuse to listen to Jeremiah. For instance, when the people of Judah were afraid of Babylonian retaliation—after the assassination of the governor appointed by the king of Babylon (Jer. 40:7-43:7)—and came to Jeremiah in search of Yahweh’s guidance, the people did not listen to Jeremiah and the word of God. Worse, after Jeremiah gave them a word from Yahweh urging them to submit to the Babylonians, they said that Jeremiah was telling a lie. They followed their own hearts and fled to Egypt, bringing him with them. There, after the prophet delivered another word from Yahweh, all the people answered Jeremiah: As for the word that you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD, we are not going to listen to you. Instead, we will do everything that we have vowed, make offerings to the queen of heaven and pour out libations to her, just as we and our ancestors, our kings and our officials, used to do in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. We used to have plenty of food, and prospered, and saw no misfortune. But from the time we stopped making offerings to the queen of heaven and pouring out libations to her, we have lacked everything and have perished by the sword and by famine (Jer. 44:16-18). 170 There is a debate concerning the date at which Jeremiah began his ministry. Jeremiah 1:1-3 situates the prophetic ministry of Jeremiah between 627 B.C. and 587 B.C. (the fall of Jerusalem). Essentially, the date of 627 B.C. is being questioned because it would situate the beginning of Jeremiah’s activity during Josiah’s reform, whereas the content of Jeremiah’s oracles is essentially critical of the king, leaders and the people. It should also be noted that Jeremiah continued to prophesies during the exilic period (cf. Jer. 42–44). For a discussion on the date of Jeremiah’s call (and beginning of ministry), see McKane, Jeremiah: Volume I, 3–5; and Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, 50– 56. 171 The temple has been sacked, but not yet destroyed. See in particular Jeremiah 26-27. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 62 It is remarkable that their narrative of what happened in Judah and Jerusalem is different from the one that is documented in the oracles of Jeremiah and in the books of Kings and Chronicles. In the eyes of those who fled to Egypt, the fall of Jerusalem is the result of their cessation of worshiping the queen of heaven. This break with pagan practice is traditionally viewed as a reference to Josiah’s reform, and the people’s answer to Jeremiah reflects the “popular opposition to the reform and a continuing conviction that it was a mistaken policy.”172 Thus, instead of explaining the exile by their infidelity to Yahweh, they find the source of their misfortune in their abandonment of the queen of heaven. They completely misunderstand their circumstances. Consequently, it is not surprising that no repentance toward Yahweh is expressed on their part. Thus, looking at the historical context before, during and after the conflict between Jeremiah and Hananiah, there is no evidence that the announcement of a restoration by the latter prophet was legitimate. Overholt reminds us that Hananiah “ignored the fact that with the promise of security goes the obligation of the people to be Yahweh’s faithful servants.”173 As I have demonstrated above, Jeremiah’s message was anchored in the Mosaic covenant, including Israel’s obligations towards God. An essential part of the role of a prophet of Yahweh was to reinforce the covenant: The prophets witnessed to the way of Yahweh and to the pride, evil, and sinfulness of the way of man. They addressed this collision of interests and announced that Yahweh would be victorious and that man’s plans, scheming, and counsel would be frustrated. The true prophets exhorted people to respond with a radical loyalty to Yahweh. They called for people, nations, and society to be transformed and to be agents of transformation.174 172 William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah: Volume II, Introduction and commentary on Jeremiah 26-52, 2 vols., International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark International, 1986), 1087. 173 Overholt, “Jeremiah 27–29,” 246. 174 VanGemeren, “Prophets, the Freedom of God,” 87 (emphasis his). DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 63 As the book of Jeremiah makes clear, there is no substantial evidence of faithful service to Yahweh during this time and Hananiah’s message gives no indication of it either. He does not call the people to obedience, but gives them empty words of hope. His word is disconnected from the historical situation and from the poor spiritual state of Judah and Jerusalem. His message should have been either 1) accompanied by a call of repentance—the deliverance being conditional to their obedience; or 2) following an actual act of repentance—the deliverance being a response from Yahweh due to their act of repentance.175 In Hananiah’s case, there was neither. There is only reassurance. In the end, his announcement was nothing more than wishful thinking. Conclusion In this chapter, based on my studies in Jeremiah, I have discussed the importance of considering the content of a prophet’s message in order to evaluate its validity. On the one hand, I have observed that the message Jeremiah proclaims is closely aligned with the Torah. The Mosaic covenant is integral to his prophetic proclamations. There are direct references to the Torah, particularly to the Ten Commandments, and the language used throughout Jeremiah often resonates with the Pentateuch. Moreover, the theological relationship between sin, land and exile in Jeremiah reflects what is to be found in the Torah. Indeed, in both corpora there is a close relationship between Israel’s sins, the purity of the land and the warning of an eventual exile in case of disobedience. On the other hand, the message of Jeremiah is deeply rooted in the historical situation in which he lives: his message is closely associated with the spiritual state of the people. 175 A good example of a prophetic speech of deliverance following a positive act of devotion is found in the narrative of Isaiah 36–37. In this passage, the promise of deliverance followed the prayer of Hezekiah. This passage of Isaiah is actually closer to Hananiah’s oracle than Isa. 9, 10 and 14 cited earlier. For instance, both Hananiah’s and Isaiah’s prophecies contained a clear time reference (Isa. 37:30). DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 64 Accordingly, the prophet will call to repentance the people in a time of sin and corruption, and he will proclaim messages of blessing upon a repentant and faithful nation.176 Two passages in Jeremiah are key in illustrating this close relationship between message and context. First, there is the analogy given by Yahweh to Jeremiah at the potter’s house (Jer. 18:1-11). From this passage, I have emphasized the importance of Yahweh’s responsiveness to human activity. God is willing to change his plans regarding the nations when they change course. Thus, plans for disaster as well as plans for good can be changed. I have also noted the importance of considering the conditional nature of some prophecies expressed in an unconditional form. I have argued that the question of prophecy and fulfillment must be answered from this perspective, avoiding at the same time simplistic readings of prophetic oracles. Additionally, I have used the narrative of the conflict between Jeremiah and Hananiah (Jer. 28:1-17) to illustrate these principles. Hananiah’s case is particularly useful because there are no obvious signs that he is not a true prophet. Indeed, the main accusation of ungodliness found elsewhere in the book of Jeremiah against the false prophets is absent in this account. Hananiah even speaks in Yahweh’s name, with very similar language to that of Jeremiah. I have argued that what distinguishes Hananiah’s message from Jeremiah’s is his disconnection with both the Torah and the historical context. The false prophet’s message does not take into account the sins of the people, prophesying peace to a nation heading for more disaster. However, this conflict cannot be attributed simply to Hananiah’s difficulty in interpreting the historical situation and Yahweh’s plan for Israel. Neither can it be merely a matter of 176 It should be noted that messages of hope have also been offered to unrepented people. For instance, the book of Jeremiah contains extraordinary promises of blessing and the coming of a new covenant, even though no significant sign of repentance and faithfulness is provided. On the contrary, Jeremiah call to repentance all his life the people and their leaders. However, Yahweh’s blessings will be offered not because of Israel’s faithfulness, but because of God’s mercy (Jer. 31:10-12). Repentance in nevertheless implied and expected on Israel’s part (Jer. 31:18-20). Still, to bring blessing on Israel, Yahweh will eventually need to change their heart (Jer. 31:31-34; 32:3840). DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 65 Jeremiah being assessed as a better theologian or interpreter than Hananiah. The various criteria for prophetic assessment that I have presented thus far are all observable by a prophet’s audience.177 There is, however, something more fundamental that distinguishes true from false prophets, something that cannot be seen with the eye or heard with the ear. As I will demonstrate in the next chapter, the fundamental reason why Hananiah’s message was false is because it originated from his own heart, whereas Jeremiah’s message came from Yahweh. I will now turn to the question of the origin of the message, exploring key aspects that contribute to my study of the discernment of true and false prophets. 177 Being called by God is probably the exception. Even if one claims to have been called by Yahweh to a prophetic ministry, the audience typically does not have access to the calling of the prophet. However, there are sometimes witnesses to a prophet’s call. For instance, I would argue that the call narrative of Samuel includes Eli as witness (1 Sam. 3:1-21). DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 66 Chapter 3: The Origin of the Prophet’s Message In the previous chapter, I analyzed the content of the prophetic message in order to extract criteria for distinguishing between true and false prophets. As I hope to have demonstrated, the content of an oracle is a very important facet of a prophet’s message. It represents the external and visible aspect of the message of a prophet. However, there is also a hidden—behind the scenes— side to every prophetic oracle, which pertains to the question of the origin of the prophet’s message. The book of Jeremiah contains a key text on this issue: Jeremiah 23:16-22. I will begin with an analysis of that passage and then draw the conclusion that true prophets proclaim messages coming from Yahweh, while false prophets proclaim messages coming from their own minds. Additionally, I will also consider associated questions such as intertextuality within prophetic books, prophetic revelation and the divine council. I will also deal with other questions related to the origin of the message of a prophet. The first one will be the nature of the divine council mentioned in Jeremiah 23. I will consider various interpretations found in the literature and implications for prophetic discernment. The second question I will explore is the suggestion made by numerous scholars that prophets borrowed oracles from other prophets. I believe this type of affirmation has important implications for my question and I will identify some key elements I believe should be kept in mind for the evaluation of the validity of such claims. Finally, I will analyze the concept of revelation in regard to the origin of the message Jeremiah is proclaiming. Understanding prophetic revelation and defining it appropriately is important for a proper interpretation of the prophetic ministry of Jeremiah. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 67 This study will help to distinguish the fundamental difference between true and false prophets and to expand the description of the phenomenon of biblical prophecy. Although there are limits to the applicability of the following conclusions—due to the hidden nature of the origin of a prophetic oracle—I believe they will nevertheless prove useful to the establishment of criteria for discerning between true and false prophets. Jeremiah 23:16-22 In chapter 1, I covered the first part of the collection of oracles found in Jeremiah 23:9-40 (vv. 9–15), focusing on the person of the prophet. In these verses, the flawed moral character of the false prophets is denounced. They are described as ungodly, wicked, adulterous and walking in lies (vv. 11 and 14). Moreover, Jeremiah also claims that “from the prophets of Jerusalem ungodliness has spread throughout the land” (v. 15). Given this corruptness of the false prophets and their negative influence on the people, the word of Yahweh is not surprising: “Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you” (v. 16). Through Jeremiah, the people are told not to listen to these prophets. Two reasons are given as to why these impostors should not be heeded. First, “they are deluding (‫ )ָהַבל‬you” (v. 16). The ESV has “filling you with vain hope.” Indeed, the verb ‫ ָהַבל‬is related to the well-known term ‫ ֶהֶבל‬in Ecclesiastes, which is often translated with the word “vanity.” How are they filling the people with vain hope? The false prophets “keep saying to those who despise the word of the LORD, ‘It shall be well with you’; and to all who stubbornly follow their own stubborn hearts, they say, ‘No calamity shall come upon you’” (v. 17). This accusation is directly related to the question of alignment between prophetic speech and historical context, discussed in chapter 2. These prophets say to those who “despise the word of the LORD” and “stubbornly follow their own stubborn hearts” that everything will be fine, that no judgment is coming upon them. In other words, instead of calling sinners to DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 68 repentance, they comfort them in their evil ways. This is the first reason why they should not be listened to. The second reason is that “[t]hey speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD” (v. 16). This is the heart of the problem. Although they proclaim their message in Yahweh’s name, they speak “visions of their own minds.” Their message does not originate from the mouth of Yahweh, but from their minds. Thus, if we recall the conflict between Jeremiah and Hananiah in the light of this accusation, “the dispute is not only about the substance [content] of competing prophetic announcements, but also about the authority that lies behind and justifies those competing announcements.”178 The following verses in this unit (vv. 18-22) repeat basically the same idea, but introduce a new element. To begin with, Yahweh explicitly declares, “I did not send179 the prophets, yet they ran; I did not speak to them, yet they prophesied” (v. 21). Yahweh then adds that “if they had stood in my council, then they would have proclaimed my words to my people, and they would have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings” (v. 22). Again, if they were truly speaking the word of Yahweh, they would have called out the sins of the people, urging them to turn away from their evil way instead of comforting them.180 Verses 19–20 178 Brueggemann, A Commentary on Jeremiah, 212. One should also note the parallel with Jeremiah’s call (Jer. 1:4-10), who was sent (v. 7) by Yahweh to proclaim the words that he has put in his mouth (v. 9). Thus, the characteristic of a prophet of being called by God (see chapter 1) finds here a support in the negation of that “sending” in the description of false prophets. Only true prophets are sent by Yahweh. 180 Carroll has claimed that the argument found in verse 22 is “non-cogent.” Carroll, “A Non-Cogent Argument,” 43–51. In this article, Carroll suggests that “In the heat of the argument Jeremiah did not realise that the saying could be turned against himself” (45), because according to Carroll Jeremiah 23:22 presents a criterion for distinguishing between true and false prophets, which he formulate as following: “The genuine prophet is one who turn the people from evil by preaching the word of Yahweh. The proof of his genuineness is the people’s response. Therefore any prophet who fails to turn the people is per definitionem a false prophet!” (45). Although he recognises that it is an oversimplification, it is still how he reads Jeremiah’s words and a basis for qualifying Jeremiah’s argument as non-cogent. Carroll’s remark is that since Jeremiah clearly did not succeed in turning the people away from their sin, he just painted himself as a false prophet. The weakness of Carroll’s attack has been recognized (see below). Contra Carroll, the deciding factor for Jeremiah is not the success of the prophetic speech, but the nature and content of that speech. All of Jeremiah is based on the content and origin of the prophetic speech, not on the response from the people. The analogy of the sentinel in Ezekiel 33:1-9 vividly illustrates that the responsibility of the prophet is to proclaim the message, while the audience’s responsibility is to listen and obey. 179 DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 69 contain a message of judgment that contrasts with the message of peace proclaimed by the false prophets (v. 17). Thus, Jeremiah 23:16-22 forms a coherent unit, describing the false prophets as those who proclaim a message that originates in their own minds. Based on these verses, it seems that the origin of the message can sometimes be deduced by the content of the message. Indeed, if they had stood in the council of Yahweh, they would have called the people to repentance.181 This council in which Jeremiah is indirectly said to have stood, unlike the false prophets, is a complex issue. Part of the discussions about the divine assembly revolve around the identity of the members forming this council.182 While this is a significant issue, what is more relevant to my study is the question of whether this is actual encounter (or vision) or an imaginative, poetic portrayal of the prophet’s proximity to Yahweh.183 See the discussion by Moberly for a thorough discussion on Carroll’s accusation in Moberly, Prophecy and Discernment, 83-88. See also McKane’s comments in McKane, Jeremiah: Volume I, 584. 181 I would like to add that the argument goes in one direction only. What I mean is that a false prophet can be identified by the disconnection between his message and the spiritual state of the people (not calling sinners to repentance in this case), but it does not mean that if someone proclaims the “right” message for the “right” circumstance it automatically means that it is a true prophet. I would say that it is a good sign, but not a guarantee. 182 For studies on the nature of the council and its members see: George R. Beasley-Murray, John, Volume 36: Revised Edition, Revised edition (Dallas, TX: Word, Incorporated, 1999), 175–177; D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England: InterVarsity, 1991), 397–398; Lowell K. Handy, “Dissenting Deities or Obedient Angels: Divine Hierarchies in Ugarit and the Bible,” Biblical Research 35 (1989): 18–35; ¾¾¾, Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994); Michael S. Heiser, “Divine Council,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings., ed. Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008): 112–116; ———, “Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism?: Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 18, no. 1 (2008): 1–30; ———, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2015); Min Suc Kee, “The Heavenly Council and Its Type-Scene,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 31, no. 3 (March 2007): 259–73; Mark S. Smith, “Divine Travel as a Token of Divine Rank,” Ugarit Forschungen 16 (1984): 359; ¾¾¾, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) 183 This poetic portrayal is well represented by Moberly’s view: R. W. L. Moberly, The God of the Old Testament: Encountering the Divine in Christian Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020), 112. Moreover, Smith also writes of an intimacy that is developed between God and his prophets. They are “in sympathy with Jehovah’s heart and will,” and “intimates of Jehovah.” Smith, McKane suggests that this proximity is what Jeremiah alludes to: “[A] one-to-one closeness of the prophet to Yahweh is more appropriate here than simply his membership of a heavenly cabinet. In virtue of his prophetic office he is in Yahweh’s confidence and has a special access to his word.” DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 70 Moberly’s view is that standing emphasizes the proximity and intimacy of the prophets with their God and does not refer to an actual encounter.184 While I appreciate the relationship Moberly stresses between the prophets’ conduct and message with their personal relationship with Yahweh, his interpretation of standing in Yahweh’s council seems to be an incomplete representation of what Jeremiah portrays. According to Jeremiah, what makes these prophets “false” is not that they are ungodly; it is the fact that Yahweh did not speak to them and did not send them. Their ungodliness and the absence of a rebuke on their part of the Israelite’s sins manifest that Yahweh did not send them with a message. I would argue that the visible signs (the alignment of the character and the content of the prophet’s message) are indicators of the invisible experience of the prophet (the experience of standing in Yahweh’s council and receiving an authentic word). More importantly, the council of Yahweh raises the question of revelation, which is fundamental for the prophetic ministry. I will now consider a related suggestion in the literature about Israelite prophecy. I will look at the possibility that some prophets borrowed prophecy for other prophets. 184 “Standing in the council of YHWH is not a matter of some unusual ‘experience’ but of having a disposition that is open to, engaged with, and responsive to YHWH’s will for his people when YHWH calls; such a person’s consciousness is indeed altered, but not through transitory or induced states of ‘exaltation’ but through appropriation of God’s will in such a way that one’s vision of the world and of life within it, and one’s conduct correspondingly, is transformed. The trouble with the prophets whom Jeremiah denounce is that the character of their conduct and message show all too clearly that what they say is self-willed and people-pleasing and does not convey the will of YHWH.” Moberly, Prophecy and Discernment, 81. Similarly, McKane suggests that this proximity is what Jeremiah alludes to: “[A] one-to-one closeness of the prophet to Yahweh is more appropriate here than simply his membership of a heavenly cabinet. In virtue of his prophetic office he is in Yahweh’s confidence and has a special access to his word.” McKane, Jeremiah: Volume I, 582. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 71 From another Prophet? Richard L. Schultz has conducted impressive research on the question of verbal parallels in the prophetic books: The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets.185 His research is founded on the observation, widely attested in the literature, that verbal parallels exist in the prophetic books. He investigates them in search of a better methodological approach than what has been suggested thus far. In scholarly literature, these parallels are often referred to as allusions, quotations or echoes, usually depending on the level of “borrowedness.” Studies on intertextuality, or inner-biblical exegesis, focus on these parallels.186 It is not my intent here to introduce, discuss and evaluate the various propositions. My concern has to do with the impact of the idea of a prophet borrowing a word from another prophet, in the light of what is said in the book of Jeremiah. I will begin with a formulation of the problem, drawing attention to its complexity. I will follow with some reflections for guiding propositions while striving to maintain an evangelical and biblical187 view of prophetic inspiration and revelation and at the same time dealing seriously with the textual data. 185 Richard L. Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 180 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic, 1999). This book is based on his PhD dissertation. 186 For instance, see G. K. Beale, Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012); G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007); D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson, eds., It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988); Michael A. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985); Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989); Steve Moyise, The Old Testament in the New: An Introduction, Second Edition, Revised and Expanded, T & T Clark Approaches to Biblical Studies (London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2015); Stanley E. Porter, ed., Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament, McMaster New Testament Studies (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006); Gary Edward Schnittjer, Old Testament Use of Old Testament: A Book-by-Kook Guide (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2021); Christopher D. Stanley, Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (New York: T&T Clark International, 2004); Marvin A. Sweeney, Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature, Forschungen Zum Alten Testament 45 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005); J. Ross Wagner, Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans (Boston: Brill, 2003). 187 By using “biblical” I mean a definition that takes seriously the biblical material, as opposed to a critical approach that refuses to take Scriptures at face value. The following comment from John H. Walton illustrates well the evangelical approach I have in mind: “[Michael Fox has] said that ‘the willingness not to take the text at face value is the essence of critical scholarship.’ Whether we are willing to agree with that assessment or not, if it were true, then evangelicals could not engage in critical scholarship, because we are committed to taking the text at face DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 72 The Complexity of Verbal Parallels for Prophetic Inspiration The common assumption or conclusion regarding the presence of verbal parallels between two prophetic oracles188 is that one text is dependent upon the other. Scholars regularly debate about which text is the antecedent, or whether they both depend upon some non-extant written or oral tradition. It is usually taken for granted that verbal parallels imply dependency. The closer the parallels are, the more likely it is that direct dependency explains the connection.189 For instance, after a thorough analysis, Schultz concludes that “there is substantial evidence that verbal dependence and even extensive quotation underlie the parallel between Isaiah 15–16 and Jeremiah 48.”190 Similarly, Lundbom asserts, “While the book may contain poetry borrowed from other prophets, or of unknown provenance, the majority is sui generis, and a legacy of the Jeremianic preaching.”191 Again, while Lundbom might not see as much borrowed texts in the book as Shultz, they both agree that Jeremiah borrowed from other prophets.192 Elsewhere, Lundbom contends that “Jeremiah’s preaching betrays indebtedness to the northern prophet Hosea.”193 Schultz and Lundbom both model careful reading and analysis of Hebrew Scripture. I believe value. When we say we take the text at face value, it means we are not trying to read anything into the text nor are we trying to squeeze something out of the text. We are not trying to sidestep the text or to avoid what it makes obvious. We are not trying to subordinate the text to our own agenda or purpose, nor are we trying to co-opt it for our theology or make it answer our questions. We are simply trying to understand the text in the way that the author wanted it to be understood by his audience.” John H. Walton, Genesis, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 44, citing Michael V. Fox, Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther (Columbia: Univ. of South Carolina, 1991), 148-49. 188 For my discussion, I focus on parallels between two prophetic speeches. The implications are different for in other situations (e.g., a New Testament author citing a text from the Old Testament). 189 It also seems that the closer parallels are between the two texts, the higher are the chances that a written source lies behind the borrowing. 190 Schultz, The Search for Quotation, 312. 191 Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 65. 192 Discussions on the influence of a Deuteronomist editor to the book of Jeremiah are closely related to this question. They try to discern Deuteronomic influences in Jeremiah. Direction of dependency being debated. 193 Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 142. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 73 their comments are also representative of other studies on intertextuality and the prophet Jeremiah. There is one particular text in Jeremiah that must be considered in the light of these arguments. In the same collection of oracles against the false prophets that I am investigating (Jer. 23:9-40), Jeremiah proclaims the following word from Yahweh: “See, therefore, I am against the prophets, says the LORD, who steal my words from one another” (Jer. 23:30). The exact meaning of this verse is debated. In his short paper on this verse, R. J. Zwi Werblowsky rejects the “most obvious sense” of the text, which would be that Jeremiah accuses the false prophets of stealing true words of Yahweh.194 This seems indeed to be the reproach Yahweh makes against the prophets, since he accuses them of stealing “my word” from one another. The interpretation that Hananiah proclaimed words first delivered by the prophet Isaiah would fall into this category. Werblowsky supports his rejection on the basis of Jeremiah’s declaration that only true prophets may proclaim a true word from Yahweh. Werblowsky concludes his short study by arguing that false prophets “themselves steal it from and to each other, being their own inspirators (xxiii 16b) and the inventors of their own prophecies.”195 Those are the two basic options. Fundamentally, Jeremiah’s accusation is that of an illegitimate proclamation of the word of Yahweh. Either they are stealing (borrowing) a true prophetic word (e.g., Hananiah), but using it illegitimately or out of context, or they are stealing words and visions from one another (one false prophet from another). Either way, they are accused of proclaiming a word not given directly to them. Lundbom himself comments that “[p]rophets also should be reporting their own revelations, not the revelations of other prophets.”196 Since Lundbom affirms that Jeremiah 194 R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, “Stealing the Word,” Vetus Testamentum 6, no. 1 (1956): 105. Werblowsky, “Stealing the Word,” 106. 196 Lundbom, Jeremiah 21-36, 209. 195 DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 74 borrowed oracles from Hosea, is he contradicting himself? How can one suggest that Jeremiah borrowed prophecies from other prophets, while suggesting that he accused false prophets of doing so? Recognizing the difficulty—and the problem this verse could create for his research— Schultz offers a short analysis and solution. Since he believes that Jeremiah consciously borrowed texts from other true prophets and does not contradict himself, Schultz concludes that “Jeremiah’s perspective must be seen as follows: Denying their divine commission and access to the divine council (vv. 21–22), he must also deny both the validity of their message and the legitimacy of its sources.”197 Schultz adds that even if the false prophet did borrow his oracle from a legitimate source, the “qualitative difference between his and their prophetic activity” led Jeremiah to a “total rejection of his prophetic opponents.”198 Schultz’s argument is not entirely satisfactory. On the one hand, his rationale for not favouring the most obvious sense of the text, as Werblowsky puts it—namely, that it would create a contradiction because Jeremiah himself borrowed oracles from other prophets—is not convincing. This argument may motivate one to look for alternatives, but it does not constitute an argument by itself. On the other hand, his interpretation sounds more like Jeremiah’s word than Yahweh’s, although he recognizes that Jeremiah’s accusation “is presented as the first person message of Yahweh.”199 Still, Schultz interprets this passage as containing Jeremiah’s rejection of false prophets, not Yahweh’s rejection. When Schultz uses the expressions “Jeremiah’s perspective” and “Jeremiah’s total rejection,” he is contradicting the natural reading of the text, which, as Schultz recognizes, is presented as Yahweh’s rebuke, not Jeremiah’s. 197 Schultz, The Search for Quotation, 104. Schultz, The Search for Quotation, 105. 199 Schultz, The Search for Quotation, 104. 198 DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 75 By doing so, is he suggesting that Jeremiah is speaking his own mind while using Yahweh’s voice? Is the famous “thus says the Lord” simply a rhetorical device? This would have important implications for prophecy. Indeed, Schultz could be implying exactly what Jeremiah is accusing his opponents of doing. I believe that this topic warrants further study. John Bright’s comments on this verse are appropriate: “This is bitter irony: the prophets, having received no word, repeat what they have heard others say as if this had come to them by direct revelation from Yahweh.’”200 I am thus asking the question: Is this not what Schultz and Lundbom are suggesting for some of Jeremiah’s oracles? Moreover, it seems to be significant that Jeremiah never refers to another prophet when he proclaims, “Thus says Yahweh.” Even if one must not impose a modern method of citation on the biblical writers, it must be acknowledged that Jeremiah’s oracles are always presented as words directly given by God to him.201 This is obviously a complex issue with significant implications. In my opinion, there is a conflict between the plain reading and theological outlook of the book of Jeremiah and the propositions of Schultz and Lundbom. Based on the theology and message of the book of Jeremiah, I am very reluctant to affirm that Jeremiah borrowed prophetic speeches from other prophets. I am not ready to reject the idea, but I would like to see a more coherent presentation. Furthermore, it seems that the basic idea of the pericope in Jeremiah 23:16-32 is that the message of a true prophet originates with Yahweh. The question is whether it is legitimate to conclude that this oracle allows for the possibility of a prophet proclaiming a message that does 200 John Bright, Jeremiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 2nd Edition, The Anchor Bible 21 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965), 153. 201 While there are mentions of other prophets in the prophetic books (e.g., Jer. 26:17-23; Dan. 9:2), there is no reference to another prophetic source for any given oracle. All oracles in Jeremiah seems to present themselves as being given to Jeremiah. Studies on intertextuality in the prophets would benefit to develop and answer this question. Of course, one cannot impose modern expectations on how ancients were making references to other works. However, I believe that the absence of any reference to another prophet as a source for an oracle is significant. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 76 not come directly from Yahweh, but that is mediated via another true prophet. Technically speaking, even if a prophet did not receive the message that he proclaims directly from Yahweh, if the word truly originates from Yahweh, one could argue that he is a true prophet since the message comes ultimately from Yahweh. In this view, what matters is solely the origin of the message. I believe that the scholarly literature on Hananiah and the false prophets warns us against such an understanding. It must be remembered that what God said to Judah during the reign of one king does not necessarily apply to Judah during another king’s reign. I believe that what is behind Schultz’s and Lundbom’s statements is a conception of the prophet as an interpreter and a theologian. This view is very common, but not always explicitly expressed. I will now define this concept and explore its implications for the understanding of the prophetic ministry. The Prophet as Interpreter and Theologian Typically, when a prophet is understood to be receiving directly and personally a message from Yahweh which he immediately delivers, he is “simply” a messenger. The prophet is then pictured as a herald proclaiming a message he has received to the intended audience.202 Texts like Jer. 26:1-2 are clearly representative of this picture: “At the beginning of the reign of King Jehoiakim son of Josiah of Judah, this word came from the LORD: Thus says the LORD: Stand in the court of the LORD’s house, and speak to all the cities of Judah that come to worship in the house of the LORD; speak to them all the words that I command you; do not hold back a word.” This prophetic activity could be formulated as a two-step process: hearing and proclaiming. 202 In the past, prophets have sometimes been represented as mere parrots, repeating word for word what they heard from Yahweh. Recent studies have emphasised the prophet’s role in shaping the message. I will briefly explore below the challenges of the dual authorship of Scripture. For now, I would like to remind the traditional view of a prophet as speaking what he has heard from Yahweh. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 77 However, when the prophet is portrayed as borrowing words from another prophet, the process is more complicated. First, the prophet does not hear the word directly from Yahweh. The word comes from another prophet. Whether the word is read or heard, it does not come directly from Yahweh. Secondly, there is the additional interpretative stage in the prophetic activity. Most likely the prophet does not simply proclaim a word that he has received from Yahweh; the prophet must interpret what the word means for the original audience. Thirdly, the prophet must analyze the borrowed oracle through his theological lens in order to be able to apply the word in his own context. He must answer a question like, “Is this word still valid for my context?” Consequently, the prophetic activity becomes a four-step process: Hearing/reading, interpreting, applying and proclaiming. This multi-step understanding of prophetic activity is commonly implied (for borrowed oracles), but it is also expanded to original (not borrowed) oracles as well. For instance, John Goldingay clearly depicts prophets as “contextual theologians.”203 He further expands what he means by suggesting that “the prophets are those who can see that calamity is coming on Israel and Judah, who offer a theological interpretation of that calamity.”204 This representation of the prophetic ministry is actually quite similar to a modern preaching ministry. Goldingay himself draws that conclusion: They [prophets] are people who can bring together what they read in the newspapers, what they see in worship and in society, and what they know from Israel’s gospel story. When a Bishop of Liverpool warns a Prime Minister that calamity is imminent in his city because of the way in which local government is being exercised, he acts like a prophet insisting that nightmares be faced, without necessarily prescribing what is the detailed nature of the political action that needs to be taken.205 Is this really how the Bible presents prophetic ministry? To be fair, Goldingay elsewhere combines this interpretational activity with access to Yahweh’s council: “[Prophets are] people 203 John Goldingay, Models for Scripture (Toronto: Clements Publishing, 2004), 368. Goldingay, Models for Scripture, 368 (emphasis mine). 205 Goldingay, Models for Scripture, 369. 204 DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 78 who recognize the time in which they live. They are able to do so if they recognize the truth about their people and because they take part in those meetings [of Yahweh’s council].”206 It is not obvious, nor is it explained by Goldingay, how this theological insight and access to Yahweh’s council function together in order to create prophetic oracles. According to my observations, there is a tendency to emphasize the theological work of the prophet in the explanation of particular biblical passages. As Moberly illustrates, even the council of Yahweh can be “reduced” to a personal relationship. If this is the case, the prophet could be depicted as an inspired interpreter of Yahweh’s doings in his historical context.207 I note a tension in biblical studies between those two poles of knowledge: theological reflection and revelation. Both are affirmed in evangelicalism, but, in my opinion, the human aspect is emphasized at the expense of the divine activity. Prophets tend to be reduced to preachers, to people with great insight. This is a complex issue that needs further investigation. To illustrate the emphasis on the prophet as a theologian and interpreter, while retaining the traditional category of a prophet as a receiver of divine revelation, I would like to offer a second example. In a paper concerning prophetic discernment, Paul Gallagher summarizes the difference between Jeremiah and Hananiah as a matter of theological discernment: [T]he error of Hananiah’s message lies in its detachment from the history of salvation and specifically from the recent history of the guilt of the nation before God. Thus Hananiah’s declaration of an imminent deliverance from Babylon is not a declaration of God’s power at all but a restriction of God, a bold limitation of God to the wishes of the people. In seizing on the past deeds of God, Hananiah cannot recognize the profound transformation of the covenant by God at this historical hour. By contrast, the message of Jeremiah reflects a profound insight into the 206 Goldingay, The Theology of Jeremiah, 116. This interpretative task in relation with the historical context can also be illustrated by Sanders: “By hermeneutics is meant the ancient theological mode, as well as literary technique, by which that application was made by the prophet, true or false, that is, how he read his ‘texts’ and ‘contexts’ and how he related them” Sanders, “Hermeneutics in True,” 22 (emphasis his). From Sanders, see also James A. Sanders, “Hermeneutics,” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume, ed. Keith Crim (Nashville, Abingdon, 1962), 402-7; ¾¾¾, “Jeremiah and the Future,” 133-44. 207 DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 79 dynamics of the covenant and the new course it is taking in light of the failures of the people in their loyalty to the God of Sinai.208 In this formulation, the distinction between Hananiah and Jeremiah is not found in the origin of their message, but in their theological interpretation of God’s ways in their time. Jeremiah is credited with a “profound insight” while Hananiah’s “error” lies in “its detachment from the history of salvation,” his message reflecting the fact that he “cannot recognize the profound transformation of the covenant by God at this historical hour.” Along these lines, Gallagher claims, “Although the encounter with Hananiah is brief, it suffices to show a real contrast in the theologies of Jeremiah and Hananiah.”209 In other words, what distinguishes both prophets is their theology. However, Gallagher also contends for a “traditional” view of prophetic activity, whereby Jeremiah proclaims words from Yahweh, and not his own theological reflections. Indeed, commenting on Jeremiah’s silence after Hananiah broke his yoke and repeated his word of reassurance, Gallagher offers the following explanation: Jeremiah’s silence reinforces his credentials as a true prophet. An immediate response from Jeremiah would place him in the company of the false prophets who only speak from out of their own minds (23:16, 26), who prophesy without being sent (23:21, 32; 28:15). The false prophets act on their own initiative. Jeremiah only speaks prophetically when a word of God has been put on his lips. In 42:7, Jeremiah waits ten days for an answer to a specific question.210 In my understanding, there are two conflicting views in Gallagher’s paper. On the one hand, Jeremiah is categorized as a true prophet because he was able to recognize the time in which he was living. He was a better theologian and interpreter than Hananiah. On the other hand, he is a true prophet because he received a revelation from God, when “a word of God has been put on his lips.” Even if this is only an apparent contradiction, Gallagher does not seem to 208 Gallagher, “Discerning True and False Prophecy,” 3 (emphasis mine). Gallagher, “Discerning True and False Prophecy,” 6. 210 Gallagher, “Discerning True and False Prophecy,” 9-10. 209 DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 80 be aware of these two conflicting views, as he does not try to reconcile them. Nor does he offer an explanation regarding how Jeremiah is seen to be delivering a word from Yahweh, while also manifesting his own superior theological interpretation. I am not saying that both cannot be true, but I believe that an explanation should be offered. It seems to me that the issue is serious and not recognized in the literature.211 Gallagher is not the only one who compartmentalizes prophetic activity. For instance, Lundbom’s view that Jeremiah is indebted to the prophet Hosea also pictures Yahweh’s spokesman as an interpreter. Neither does Lundbom explain how this interpretive activity functions and interacts with the idea of Yahweh putting his words in the mouth of the prophet. No matter if the influence of Hosea on Jeremiah is considered to be conscious or unconscious, it implies interpretative and theological reflection impacting a prophetic speech. How does that work with Jeremiah’s picture of God giving him the words to speak? Again, I believe that not enough attention has been given to these questions. More research should be pursued regarding how Jeremiah can be both proclaiming a word received from Yahweh and demonstrating theological skills. How does that function? Is it a good understanding of prophetic activity? I will conclude this discussion on the idea of borrowed texts in prophetic literature with some conclusions and suggestions. Some Conclusions and Suggestions First, it seems to me that some of these questions are studied in isolation from one another. This separation probably reflects the common fragmentation of systematic theology and biblical studies. For the present case, I believe that implications for systematic theology are not 211 At least not in what I have been able to consult for my research. But even if some have discussed this issue, it is in my opinion understudied. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 81 sufficiently explored. Secondly, I have focused my study on the oracular form of prophetic activity. My interest is primarily with the initial phenomenon of prophets proclaiming messages to their first audience. Although I am working with the canonical book of Jeremiah, my approach has been mostly with the initial phenomenon of prophetic activity, like the one narrated in the Hananiah conflict. I have not fully explored the idea of a written book with redactional activity. Doing so would open new possibilities and questions as well. For instance, if one is to acknowledge the dependency on other prophetic books in Jeremiah, should it be attributed to the historical Jeremiah, later scribal additions, or both? At this point, I am trying to argue that whatever position one takes, it should be defensible from the theological outlook of the book of Jeremiah. Differently put, if one’s proposition for the redactional activity contradicts the message and theology of the book of Jeremiah, one should seriously consider refining it. Thirdly, I believe the prophets to be also theologians and poets. I believe that God used their intellectual capacities in the shaping of the prophetic message. However, I believe that too much weight has been put on the human agency in prophetic models. I would like to suggest that the tension between the prophet as both interpreter and receiver of divine words is related to the question of dual authorship in Scripture. While the question of the origin of the message points directly to the divine author, the delivery of the message incorporates the human speaker in the process. Although some questions will always remain, I would like to argue that the discussion should take place in the light of the idea of dual authorship. For instance, I am intrigued by the idea of developing a prophetic model of inspiration in relation with the speech-act theory. Furthermore, one avenue that I have not yet seen explored in the literature is the possibility of verbal parallels originating from the understanding that Yahweh is the author of all DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 82 of Scripture.212 Indeed, to what extent could the parallels be explained by the doctrine of dual authorship? If God inspired two prophetic texts, is it so surprising that both prophets proclaimed a similar message? I believe that the more one emphasizes human agency in the writing of Scripture, the more the prophetic model will focus on theological interpretation and will seek explanations that involve natural human processes. Thus, the more God’s agency in the forming of Scripture is considered to be subtle and “behind the scenes,” the more likely will verbal parallels be explained by human mechanisms. On the contrary, the more one regards God’s involvement in prophetic activity is to be direct—audible, for instance—the more will verbal parallels be explained in terms of the divine author being ultimately responsible for them. It will result in unsurprising and even expected verbal parallels between Yahweh’s messengers. Again, this discussion illustrates the complexity of studying verbal parallels in prophetic speeches. I believe it also leads to questions on the nature of prophetic inspiration and revelation. I will now briefly explore the idea of biblical revelation from the perspective of the prophetic activity found in the book of Jeremiah. I will not approach the question from a systematic theological perspective, but from a biblical theological one. Prophetic Revelation There is a verse in the book of Amos that echoes Jeremiah’s perspective on prophetic revelation. It captures well the essential aspects of the prophet’s stance before God. I will introduce the discussion on prophetic revelation with a short overview of this passage and then move to a reflection on the results for prophetic models when the biblical idea of revelation is given a new meaning. Thus, Amos 3:7 claims: Surely the Lord GOD does nothing, 212 I would be very surprised if no one has ever explored this option, but I must confess that I did not come across any discussion on this interpretation. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 83 without revealing his secret213 to his servants the prophets. The Hebrew word for secret (‫ )סוֹד‬is the same one used for the council (‫ )סוֹד‬of Yahweh in Jeremiah 23:18. It carries the idea of secret, but usually in the context of an inner circle, of a group discussion. The secret is a shared one. It does not carry the idea of a private secret, kept from everyone. This is evidenced by the three definitions given in HALOT: “confidential discussion,” “secret, scheme (as consequence or result of a discussion)” and “circle of confidants,” with the example of the “council of the holy ones (angels).”214 This relational aspect is also attested in the TLOT: “for sôd [‫ ]סוֹד‬primarily means assemblies of various kinds” and “it refers to the narrow circle of people who meet.”215 Amos emphasizes this shared information concept by insisting that Yahweh does nothing without revealing his secret to his prophets. The act of revealing something to someone else implies this relational aspect. Such communication takes place in an intimate relationship. This I have emphasized in the discussion on the council of Yahweh above. However, as I have mentioned, participation in the private assembly implies the divulging or revealing of God’s plans to the prophet. The Hebrew word in Amos 3:7 for “reveal” is ‫גלה‬ (ἀποκαλύπτω in the LXX). The Hebrew term signifies two basic ideas: it can mean to uncover, to reveal; and it can also convey the idea of going away (e.g., into captivity or to emigrate).216 In the context of Amos 3:7, the first meaning is clearly intended. HALOT even gives this passage as an example of the idea of revealing a secret (in the Qal stem).217 In the book of Jeremiah, the word is 213 214 The NASB95 has “secret counsel” and the NET Bible has “plan.” Ludwig Koehler et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994– 2000), 745. 215 Jenni and Westermann, TLOT, 794. Hans-Jürgen Zobel, “‫ָגָּלה‬,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, trans. John T. Willis, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 478. 217 Ludwig Koehler et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994– 2000), 191. 216 DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 84 usually used in the second sense (e.g., Jer.1:3; 13:19; 27:20; 29:1, etc.), but the idea of revealing something to someone is present throughout. The council of Yahweh is an obvious example, but the idea of revealing something is also implied in the numerous passages where Yahweh speaks to Jeremiah with a direct command, even though the word ‫ גלה‬is not used (e.g., Jer. 2:1, 4; 7:1-3; 18:1-5; 26:1-2). Jeremiah 22:1 is a good example: “Thus says the LORD: Go down to the house of the king of Judah, and speak there this word.” The picture it presents is one in which God speaks to Jeremiah and gives him instruction as to what to say it.218 The idea of revealing the secret plans of Yahweh to his servant, the prophet Jeremiah, is also manifested in passages where the future is predicted. The famous prophecy about the seventy years of captivity is a good illustration: 10 For thus says the LORD: Only when Babylon’s seventy years are completed will I visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place. 11 For surely I know the plans I have for you, says the LORD, plans for your welfare and not for harm, to give you a future with hope. 12 Then when you call upon me and come and pray to me, I will hear you. 13 When you search for me, you will find me; if you seek me with all your heart, 14 I will let you find me, says the LORD, and I will restore your fortunes and gather you from all the nations and all the places where I have driven you, says the LORD, and I will bring you back to the place from which I sent you into exile (Jer. 29:10-14). Taken at face value, these verses contain a revelation from Yahweh to Jeremiah about his plans for Israel. Not only does God announce that Babylon’s grip on the exiled Israelites will last seventy years, but he also reveals that they will eventually call upon his name (v. 12). He knows that they will search for him (v. 13). Furthermore, Yahweh reveals to his prophet that he has plans for Israel. God makes plans. He forms projects and he reveals them to his servants. 218 The well-known passage where Yahweh asks Jeremiah to write down on a scroll all the words that he spoke to him against Israel, Judah and the nations (Jer. 36:1-2) is also a good example. The text has also important implications for the written form of Jeremiah’s oracles, but a discussion of this topic would drive me outside the scope of this research. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 85 The importance of these passages for the study of prophetic discernment in the book of Jeremiah is found in the light they bring to the idea that messages are revealed to the prophets. The prophets do not creatively produce them. The origin of a message is not the prophet’s own mind. Yahweh reveals the message to the prophet. Thus, a prophetic model that does not seriously incorporate the idea of a divine revelation runs counter to the prophetic model found in books like Jeremiah and Amos. According to these books, true prophets receive their messages from God. This is how Jeremiah and Amos understand prophecy. Whether one agrees that this view represents what actually happens or not (holding a critical stance towards the text), I believe one cannot avoid the conclusion that the redactors of prophetic books in Scripture held this position. They believed that Yahweh spoke to prophets and revealed to them his plans. The prophets interacted with Yahweh and gained supernatural knowledge of things otherwise impossible to attain. According to the book of Jeremiah, true prophets experienced a special kind of revelation.219 Unsurprisingly, numerous scholars in the last centuries have challenged the classically formulated perspective on prophecy. For instance, when God has been deprived of his foreknowledge (or the prophet’s access to it), predictive prophecies have been reinterpreted as “after the fact” oracles. Thus, they are presented as though they were uttered before the event, when they were actually proclaimed after the fact. This is a classic reinterpretation of biblical prophecies. Again, this view is not surprising from scholars not working from a confessional stance. However, I would like to argue that this kind of reinterpretation takes place within confessional circles, even in evangelical ones. I believe this phenomenon commonly takes place, 219 That is not to say that prophets did not play a role in shaping the prophetic message. The human agency in the formation of Scripture should be recognized, but not to the detriment of the divine one. I am mostly interested of depicting what the biblical authors and redactors have put forward in their writings. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 86 without sufficient reflection on the implications for the biblical doctrine of revelation. I will now briefly explore this topic in order to draw attention to the dangers that the incorporation of some critical conclusions bring to a biblical view of prophecy. Critical Views in Evangelical Circles I would like to argue that an important factor in the incorporation of critical views in evangelical circles is the adoption of a modern worldview. Moreover, it results in a redefinition of biblical revelation and inspiration, different from what has traditionally been held within orthodox circles. I observe a tendency in biblical studies to explain away supernatural activities in Scripture, even in evangelical circles. This tendency is well expressed in the illuminating article written in 1961 by Langdon Gilkey entitled “Cosmology, Ontology, and the Travail of Biblical Language.”220 In this contribution, Gilkey critiques the way language is used in the biblical theology movement found in the neo-orthodoxy of his times and the confusion it creates. To some extent, I believe his observations can also be applied to the evangelical movement. In this work, Gilkey explores not only the question of language in theological discourse, but also the conflict between ancient and modern cosmological worldviews. One conclusion he draws is that neo-orthodoxy is in a confusing situation because the way of doing theology by those who have that perspective “is half liberal and modern, on the one hand, and half biblical and orthodox, on the other, i.e., its world view or cosmology is modern, while its theological language is biblical and orthodox.”221 In other words, although biblical language is used, the 220 Langdon Gilkey, “Cosmology, Ontology, and the Travail of Biblical Language,” The Journal of Religion 41, no. 3 (1961): 194–205. 221 Gilkey, “Cosmology, Ontology,” 194 (emphasis mine). Neo-orthodoxy can be defined as “An early twentieth-century Protestant movement (involving, among others, Karl Barth, Emil Brunner and Reinhold and H. Richard Niebuhr) borne out of a sense that Protestant liberalism had illegitimately accomodated [sic] the gospel to modern science and culture, and in the process had lost the classical focus on the transcendence of God as well as the Word of God. In this situation neo-orthodox thinkers promoted a return to the basic principles of Reformation theology and the early church (especially the primacy of DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 87 theology it expresses is significantly different from what is meant within orthodox theological circles and by people in biblical times.222 To explain the problem, Gilkey uses the traditional and orthodox category of special revelation, which Gilkey indicates is often rendered in a more popular way as the “mighty acts of God.”223 Orthodox theology has always seen in the Bible a God who acted in history and spoke words that were actually heard and recorded by humans. Gilkey suggests that the problem began with “the liberal repudiation of orthodoxy.”224 Indeed, “liberalism reinterpreted the concept of revelation: God’s acts ceased to be special, particular, and concerned with phenomenal reality.”225 Instead, God’s activity became reduced to the world of natural order, miracles became impossible and religious experience became subjective, located in the experience of the religious leader who possessed the spiritual insight to discover them. According to Gilkey, neo-orthodoxy reacted strongly to this subjective approach to revelation.226 In his article, Gilkey uses semantic Scripture, human depravity and God’s work in Christ) as the basis for proclaiming the gospel in the contemporary context, while taking seriously the Enlightenment critique of orthodoxy and rejecting Protestant scholasticism. Neoorthodox theologians often used a dialectical approach, which sought theological insight through the juxtaposing of seemingly opposing formulations held together as paradoxically true (e.g., humans are fallen and depraved, yet free and accountable before God).” Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999), 82-83. Liberalism can be defined as “a movement in nineteenth- and twentieth-century Protestant circles that builds from the assumption that Christianity is reconcilable with the positive human aspirations, including the quest for autonomy. Liberalism desires to adapt religion to modern thought and culture. Consequently, it views divine love as realized primarily, if not totally, in love of one’s neighbor and the kingdom of God as a present reality found especially within an ethically transformed society. One of the significant early liberal theologians was Albrecht Ritschl.” Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling, Pocket Dictionary, 72. 222 What Gilkey identifies as “biblical and orthodox” is the traditional formulations as represented in the great creeds and the plain meaning of the biblical texts, taken at face value. It is also useful to note here that his goal is not to change what neo-orthodox theologians believe, but to point at the problems created by the language they use. The problem for him is not the shift in theological content (what is believed), but the lack of adjustment in theological discourse (the language used to communicate what is now believed). 223 Gilkey, “Cosmology, Ontology,” 194. 224 Gilkey, “Cosmology, Ontology,” 194. 225 Gilkey, “Cosmology, Ontology,” 195. 226 “For them, revelation was not a subjective human creation but an objective divine activity; God was not an inference from religious experience but he who acts in special events. And Hebrew religion was not the result of human religious genius or insight into the consistent continuity of God’s activity; rather, biblical religion was the response of faith to and the recital of the ‘mighty acts of God.’” Gilkey, “Cosmology, Ontology,” 195. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 88 categories to explain what is occurring. He first classifies the orthodox and biblical understanding of theological language as univocal.227 That is to say that the Bible and orthodox theology use words like “act” or “speak” literally. Thus, when Scripture says that God spoke to Moses or Jeremiah, God actually spoke to them, like humans do. Gilkey identifies himself with theologians for whom this way of reading Scripture is to be avoided: “We deny this univocal understanding of theological words. To us, theological verbs such as ‘to act,’ ‘to work,’ ‘to do,’ ‘to speak,’ ‘to reveal,’ etc., have no longer the literal meaning of observable actions in space and time or of voices in the air. The denial of wonders and voices has thus shifted our theological language from the univocal to the analogical.”228 The problem, for Gilkey, is that many have not realized they no longer use the biblical language univocally, but rather analogically. The problem is not theological, but linguistic. The biblical vocabulary is maintained, but the theological content has changed. In summary, the confusion Gilkey identifies is the result of a change of worldview, while maintaining a biblical vocabulary, without a clear theological framework and justification. Modern and Ancient Worldview: A Confrontation It is now widely recognized that there are various incompatibilities between the modern and postmodern worldviews and the ancient worldview(s) represented in the Bible. This is well illustrated by Gilkey’s article. He recognizes that theologians like him, adhering to a modern worldview, have difficulties accepting miraculous accounts in the Bible. There is a clear confrontation between two contradicting worldviews. 227 228 Gilkey, “Cosmology, Ontology,” 196. Gilkey, “Cosmology, Ontology,” 196. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 89 In evangelicalism, some scholars are attempting to bridge the gap between the two worldviews. Indeed, “progressive evangelicals” have worked out theological frameworks that take seriously critical biblical scholarship (with its modern worldview) and traditional orthodoxy. However, they face the same problems that Gilkey has identified in the neo-orthodox movement.229 Peter Enns and Kenton Sparks are two good examples of this approach.230 Simply put, Sparks is arguing for a believing critical biblical scholarship. His proposition is an effort to maintain biblical faith and a modern worldview, which is actually very close to the stance of the neo-orthodoxy evaluated by Gilkey.231 They both face the same difficulties. For instance, although Sparks recognizes “decent historical evidence” for the resurrection of Jesus Christ,232 the exodus event is questioned.233 229 James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary, preface to Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture, James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary, eds., (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2012), 20. By critical biblical scholarship they refer to the critical and “skeptical mood toward much of the history of the Bible” (19). What they describe corresponds to the naturalistic worldview Gilkey experienced. 230 E.g., Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, Second Edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015); Kenton Sparks, God’s Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic 2008). 231 Thomas H. McCall, “Theological Interpretation and Critical Biblical Scholarship,” in Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture, ed., James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2012), 47. 232 McCall, “Theological Interpretation,” 47. 233 The complexity of this issue and the relationship between worldviews and historical studies would merit more exploration. Why is it that the exodus and the resurrection events are treated differently? According to McCall, Sparks claims that there is more historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ than the Exodus and Passover events. Indeed, the case is probably more solid for the resurrection, but his appreciation of the exodus event is based on critical studies. He considers this research to be valid. But what are the assumptions and what worldview lies behind these studies? It is a modern one, where miracles do not occur, where God does not act nor does he speak. These studies do not take seriously the biblical accounts. Hoffmeier observes a double standard in critical scholarship, which is well summarized in his quotation of William Dever: “How is it that the biblical texts are always approached with postmodernism’s typical ‘hermeneutic of suspicion,’ but the non-biblical texts are taken at face value? It seems that the Bible is automatically held guilty unless proven innocent.” In James K. Hoffmeier, “Why a Historical Exodus Is Essential for Theology,” in Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? A Critical Appraisal of Modern and Postmodern Approaches to Scripture, eds., James K. Hoffmeier and Dennis R. Magary (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2012), 110. Consequently, even though Sparks does not personally reject the biblical account based on a naturalist anti-supernatural assumption (he is open to the supernatural), the studies he relies on in his rejection of it do have these naturalist assumptions. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 90 The adoption of a modern worldview like progressive evangelicalism is doing has important implications for the question of revelation in prophetic studies. Indeed, as I have argued above, one basic idea in prophetism is the reception of a revelation from God. However, since the idea of a supernatural revelation is seen as unacceptable from a modern worldview standpoint, the definition of revelation and prophetic inspiration is often revised and made more acceptable. The biblical worldview is thus set aside in favour of a modern one. Gilkey on Special Revelation I have discussed above the emphasis that some put on seeing prophets as interpreters of previous revelations and applying them to their own context.234 It is possible to see God as a hidden force guiding and inspiring the prophets behind the scenes, and understanding the prophets, on the surface, as theologians trying to figure out the plans of God, expressing themselves like modern preachers, interpreting past revelations and applying them to their context. Then over time people recognize who was right in their interpretation of God’s will. I believe that such a view denies the supernatural and the clarity of the revelation depicted in Scripture. It reinterprets it with modern eyes and it should be considered with caution. Gilkey’s article is useful to further our reflection on this conception of prophets as interpreters. Since prophets are by definition receivers of divine revelation,235 a problem emerges when every passage that claims some direct revelation from God—even in the Pentateuch—is 234 While some allow the combination of both an interpretive activity and a revelatory act of God, the interpretive part is often emphasised and like I mentioned, there is often inconsistencies in the application of this model in its application to the interpretation of biblical texts. 235 Here, I adopt the basic definition given by Bloesch of the older Christian tradition: “revelation is the divine disclosure of information concerning the nature of God and his will and purpose for the world.” See Donald G. Bloesch, Holy Scripture: Revelation, Inspiration & Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994), 46– 47. Noteworthy, after his short presentation of the traditional definition of revelation, Bloesch follows with multiple examples of new definitions from liberal and neo-orthodox theologians like Schleiermacher, Trueblood, Rahner, Pannenberg and Brunner. His presentation is a good illustration of the shift Gilkey expressed in theological discourse. In neo-orthodoxy (and liberalism), some biblical words are given new meanings. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 91 explained away by a natural cause, which is what Gilkey claims neo-orthodoxy and liberalism do. Indeed, it destroys the very foundation of prophetic activity as presented in Scripture. First, it denies prophets the access to the divine council and to any form of special revelation. Thus, they are left as interpreters of divine activity. In this, they could be compared with modern preachers applying the biblical text (previous revelation) to their own context. Second, when special revelation is negated, even the interpretative task is made impossible. Indeed, if not only prophets like Jeremiah are denied special revelation, but Moses too—and foundational events like the Exodus236 are questioned as well—the resulting religion can hardly be anything other than a naturalistic one.237 How can faith be established if there is no originating revelation, if there is no original self-revelation from God? How can prophets be interpreters of previous revelations if God has never revealed himself? Conversely, if one accepts that God spoke to Moses and revealed himself by mighty acts like the exodus, why should one be so hesitant to understand Jeremiah literally when he claims that Yahweh spoke to him? Conclusion 236 Special revelation can occur not only through speech, but also through acts. Special revelation could be construed as anything God says and does outside the natural order. Divine providence can be attached trough ordinary events, but it is hard (impossible?) to know objectively God’s special involvement in these cases. Divine revelation also happens in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, but it should be treated as different means of revelation. What applies to speech, act or incarnation does not necessarily apply to all. 237 Gilkey’s words are valuable: “A similar problem arises when we ask what is meant by ‘revelation’ in a modern mighty acts theology. The correlation of ordinary event and faith response is basic for contemporary theology: no event, we say, becomes revelatory (i.e., is known to be revelatory) unless faith sees in it the work of God. Now this correlation of ordinary event with discerning faith is intelligible enough once the covenant relation between God and his people has been established: then God is already known, faith has already arisen, and so God’s work can be seen by faith in the outwardly ordinary events of Hebrew existence. But can the rule that revelatory events are only discerned by faith be equally applied to the event in which faith takes its origin? Can it, in other words, provide a theological understanding of originating revelation, that is, of God’s original self-manifestation to man, in which man does not discern an already known God but in which God reveals himself to men who know nothing of him? Certainly it is logical to contend that faith cannot be presupposed in the event which purportedly effects the origination of faith.” Gilkey, “Cosmology, Ontology,” 201. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 92 In this chapter, I have addressed a key text for the question prophetic discernment that deals specifically with the origin of a legitimate prophetic proclamation. I have looked at Jeremiah 23:16-22 and was able to draw some conclusions concerning the origin of biblical prophecy as it is expressed in the book of Jeremiah. I have observed that the false prophets are accused by Yahweh of proclaiming a message originating from their own hearts. They do not speak words from Yahweh. They have not stood in Yahweh’s council and thus received a message from him. Otherwise, they would have proclaimed a message of repentance to the sinful people of Judah instead of a message of comfort. A relationship appears to exist between the origin of the message and the content of the message. Although it might sometimes be difficult to identify a false prophet (or prophecy), as I have argued in chapter 2, the evaluation of the content of the message is a key element in the discernment of prophets. The content of the message can be a way to get access to the personal experience and hidden part of the prophetic activity. What the analysis of Jeremiah 23:18-22 points out is that a true prophet proclaims a message received from Yahweh. Again, although the audience does not have access to this privileged information, it is necessary to affirm this principle in the construction of a prophetic model, because the prophet can otherwise be simply depicted as a mere interpreter and theologian.238 I have dealt with this idea and the emphasis on the human activity in the writing of Scripture when I have explored the topic of verbal parallels in prophetic materials. The literature is filled with affirmations that prophets borrowed oracles from other prophets. As I have demonstrated, this type of affirmation has important implications for the understanding of prophetic ministry. I have argued that prophetic studies in general have not thought through the implications of this claim of a borrowed text in the light of Jeremiah’s description of prophetic 238 I am arguing for a prophetic model that takes seriously both scholarly studies on prophetism and biblical texts. My observation is that the biblical voice is not heard adequately. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 93 ministry. It seems to me that the book of Jeremiah indicates clearly that the messages proclaimed come directly from Yahweh. Jeremiah presents his oracles as original proclamations coming directly from Yahweh. Not enough has been said to present a coherent synthesis between Jeremiah’s claims and scholarly observations regarding prophetic borrowing. Verbal parallels do exist, but instead of focusing on how to identify them and how to determine the direction of borrowing and the theological perspective of the book’s redactors, more attention should be given (at least in evangelical circles) to finding an explanation for these parallels in connection with the book’s own understanding of the prophetic phenomenon. I concluded this section by suggesting that the doctrine of dual authorship could prove fruitful in this reflection. Finally, my studies have led me to consider the question of prophetic revelation more seriously. After a short discussion of Amos 3:7, I have considered various ways used by the book of Jeremiah to indicate that Yahweh reveals his plans to his servants the prophets. First, the council of Yahweh directly points to this concept of revealing something in the context of a group discussion. Secondly, there are also numerous passages in which Yahweh is described speaking to Jeremiah in a direct command. Based on how the text reports those conversations, it seems clear that Yahweh is the originator of the message and the one who determines not only the content, but also where and to whom the message should be proclaimed. Thirdly, the idea of revealing secret plans is also evident in passages where the future is predicted. Yahweh is pictured in Jeremiah as a God who forms plans and reveals them to his prophets. The famous prophecy about the seventy years of captivity is illustrative. I have also looked at the idea of revelation in relationship with the adoption of a modern worldview. I have used Gilkey’s article to illustrate the challenge of preserving both the biblical and the modern worldviews. I have argued that some element of the latter must be abandoned in order to retain a truly biblical understanding of revelation and prophecy DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 94 DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 95 Chapter 4: The Evaluation of a Prophet The evaluation of the authenticity of a prophet is a complex issue. Although I have already suggested some criteria for distinguishing between true and false prophets, my studies thus far has focused on defining what characterizes true and false prophets. In this chapter, I will present a list of criteria based on my research conducted thus far, organizing them under two headings: hidden criteria and visible criteria. I will explain each criterion and offer responses to some challenges found in the literature about them. Inevitably, I will need to be selective in my interaction with the literature. I have decided to focus my attention on certain critical approaches related to the book of Jeremiah, but I will also consider other biblical material and studies as well. Hidden Criteria There are three criteria for prophetic discernment that I have explored in this study and that could be classified as hidden criteria: 1) true prophets are called by God; 2) the message of true prophets comes from Yahweh and not the prophets’ own minds; and 3) true prophets have stood in Yahweh’s council. I will briefly discuss each criterion, its limits and consider some objections that have been offered in the literature on its validity. Called by God Jeremiah’s own experience points to an inaugural experience in which Yahweh calls the young man (‫ ) ַ֖נַﬠר‬to the prophetic ministry (Jer. 1:4-10). Although Jeremiah is not the only one for DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 96 whom a call narrative is given,239 I have noted that Scripture does not provide one for every true prophet. I believe this fact illustrates well the hiddenness of this criterion¾and the relative importance of each prophet.240 Fundamentally, the call is a personal experience. It involves an encounter between God and the person who will become a prophet.241 One should therefore not be surprised by the lack of human witnesses in these narratives. While this criterion may be difficult to assess, it nevertheless represents an important aspect of the prophetic ministry. One does not choose this path on one’s own initiative. God calls and people answer. This criterion has been recognized in the literature. For instance, Willem A. VanGemeren includes the call in his list of Deuteronomic criteria for discerning true prophets.242 It has already been noted that, since this calling is not observable by others, the criterion is difficult to use in the assessment of a prophet. For James L. Crenshaw, it renders this criterion invalid: “In actual fact, this conviction of having been called is outside the area of historical investigation, so that the inadequacy of such a criterion is readily seen.”243 In my opinion, the limits of this criterion should be acknowledged, but it should be preserved when considering 239 See for instance the call narrative for Isaiah (Isa. 6 :1-13) and Moses (Exod. 3:1-4:17). Unsurprisingly, Scripture tends to offer a call narrative for prophets for whom biographical data is provided (e.g., Moses), while no such narrative accompanies prophets for whom no or limited biographical material is given (e.g., Nahum, Habakkuk). There is no rule, but a “natural” tendency. When more personal information is given about a prophet, how he became one is naturally more often included. 241 The case of Elisha is interesting. In his “call narrative,” God does not speak directly to Elisha, but God calls him to his service through the intermediary prophet Elijah (1 Kings 19:15-21). Even at the key moment when Elisha takes the place of Elijah, although he witnesses a supernatural event, he is not directly addressed by Yahweh. His experience does not resemble Jeremiah’s or Isaiah’s call narratives (2 Kings 2:1-14). 242 VanGemeren, “Prophets, the Freedom of God,” 80. The prophet’s call is not always dealt with in the literature within the question of criteria for distinguishing true from false prophets. Most of the time the acknowledgment of the necessity for a true prophet to have been called and mandated is done in the context of studies in prophetism. E.g., Sheldon H. Blank, Of a Truth the Lord Hath Sent Me: An Inquiry into the Source of the Prophet’s Authority (Cincinnati, OH: The Hebrew Union College Press, 1955), 7-8; R.E. Clements, Prophecy and Covenant, Studies in Biblical Theology 43 (London, England: SCM, 1965), 24-25, 38; ¾¾¾, Prophecy and Tradition, Growing Points in Theology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975), 38-40; Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, 60; James A. Sanders, “Jeremiah and the Future of Theological Scholarship,” Andover Newton Quarterly 13, no. 2 (1972): 13637; Edward J Young, My Servants the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), 127-28. 243 Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, 60. 240 DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 97 who/what a prophet is. This is why I have kept this criterion, but have classified it as a hidden one. Sent with a Message from God A central component of what makes someone a prophet is the concept of being sent by Yahweh with a message from him. This idea is undoubtedly present in the book of Jeremiah. First, Jeremiah’s call narrative clearly indicates that the prophet will be sent with a message from Yahweh: “[Y]ou shall go to all to whom I send you, and you shall speak whatever I command you” (Jer. 1:7). The “sending with a message” is central to Jeremiah’s call and establishment as a prophet. A prophet is a messenger from God. Secondly, the accusation against the false prophets of speaking words originating in their own minds and of not being sent recurs in the book of Jeremiah. For instance, Jer. 14:13-15 indicates that some prophets speak in Yahweh’s name but they have not been sent by him and they prophesy lies: Then I said: “Ah, Lord GOD! Here are the prophets saying to them, ‘You shall not see the sword, nor shall you have famine, but I will give you true peace in this place.’” And the LORD said to me: The prophets are prophesying lies in my name; I did not send them, nor did I command them or speak to them. They are prophesying to you a lying vision, worthless divination, and the deceit of their own minds. Therefore thus says the LORD concerning the prophets who prophesy in my name though I did not send them, and who say, “Sword and famine shall not come on this land”: By sword and famine those prophets shall be consumed. This accusation is also present in Jer. 23:9-40, for which I have offered an analysis of key verses. Indeed, the word of Yahweh in Jer. 23:16 is simply this: “They speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD.” Moreover, Yahweh declares: “I did not send the prophets, yet they ran; I did not speak to them, yet they prophesied.” This accusation constitutes a key element distinguishing true and false prophets. Genuine prophets have heard the word of Yahweh and have been sent by him with a message. Johannes DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 98 Lindblom rightly claims that “[t]he principal charge against these [false] prophets was that they had not been sent by Yahweh.”244 The prophet shall not speak in God’s name if he does not receive a message from him. Prophets are not to proclaim words originating in their own minds and pass them off as Yahweh’s. According to Scripture, the sentence for such deceit is the death penalty: “[A]ny prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, or who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded the prophet to speak—that prophet shall die” (Deut. 18:20). As is the case with the previous criterion, since the reception of the message and the sending of the prophet occur in a realm outside historical investigation, the limits of this criterion are obvious. However, I maintain that it should be preserved in a description of what constitutes a true prophet. For instance, keeping this criterion in mind works against a depiction of prophets as mere interpreters of God’s will and action in this world. It reminds theologians that true biblical prophets are not to be regarded as equivalent to modern preachers, but as recipients of the word of God.245 Thus, although it is not observable per se, it nevertheless constitutes a legitimate criterion for defining true prophets. For all these reasons, I have included it as one of the hidden criteria. Has Stood in Yahweh’s Council The last criterion I have developed in my study that belongs to the hidden category is the access that true prophets have to the heavenly council. According to Scripture, true prophets have stood in Yahweh’s council. In Jeremiah, this is seen primarily in chapter 23, where false prophets 244 Johannes Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963), 212. Although God may still be said to “speak” today through various agencies like preaching, circumstances, or godly friend’s counsels, these should not be considered as direct equivalent. Differently put, although there are some similarities, portrayals of biblical prophets should not be based on modern preachers. 245 DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 99 are said not to have stood in Yahweh’s council. Only implicitly is Jeremiah affirmed to have stood in that council, but that claim is evident. The logic of the accusation against the false prophets demands that Jeremiah has stood in Yahweh’s council. The most important aspect to which this criterion draws attention is that a prophet has experienced a personal encounter with Yahweh. It refers to some kind of secret discussion or meeting to which the prophet is invited. It is not clear if the prophet partakes in the conversation or simply witnesses it. As is the case with the other hidden criteria, once again its applicability for prophetic discernment is limited. The only witness who can tell of these meetings is the prophet himself/herself. Since false prophets are said to lie about receiving messages from God, by itself this criterion is very limited. I would like to reiterate that these hidden criteria serve primarily to define the nature of a prophet. They are useful in the understanding they bring about how Scripture defines true prophetism. I would like to argue that the following visible criteria must be used in the light of these hidden ones, as visible signs of what is hidden. Thus, these visible criteria will offer applicable ways to assess whether a prophet is genuine or not. Visible Criteria The main thrust of my argument in this thesis is that valid criteria for distinguishing between true and false prophets do exist. While the previous hidden criteria are harder to apply to prophetic discernment, I believe the following criteria offer a solid foundation for an audience trying to discern between two conflicting prophetic claims. There are four criteria for prophetic discernment that I have explored in this study that could be classified as visible criteria: 1) true prophets are godly; 2) their message is aligned with the rest of Scripture; 3) their message is aligned with the historical context; 4) the word of the prophet is fulfilled. More objections have DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 100 been raised in the literature regarding those criteria than the hidden ones. I will answer some of them in order to defend their validity. Personal Godliness One important accusation that the book of Jeremiah makes against the false prophets is that of ungodliness. Jer. 23:9-40 is particularly clear about the corruption of the false prophets and their influence on the people of Israel. As I mentioned in chapter 1, the rest of the book of Jeremiah focuses on the messages of the false prophet and how they are deceiving the people. However, I also argued that the general sinful description of Judah in the book can be applied to these illegitimate spokesmen as well. Thus, one way to identify a false prophet, according to the book of Jeremiah, is to analyze the moral character of the prophet. In Jeremiah’s time, it seems that the general disposition of the false prophets was such that, as a group, they could be described as being ungodly, wicked, adulterers and liars (Jer. 23:9-15). Considering other accusations directed towards the people of Israel¾with which the prophets can be associated¾this list can be expanded to include social injustices like the oppression of the alien, the orphan and the widow, as well as crimes like theft and murder (Jer. 7:5-9). Lindblom describes them as “godless, immoral, and criminal personalities.”246 I have already noted that this criterion might not be applicable to every false prophet. Indeed, while a lack of godliness might be characteristic of most false prophets in Jeremiah’s time, it does not mean that every false prophet is morally corrupt in every way depicted in this book. I have already pointed out that Hananiah is not rebuked by Jeremiah because of his moral character. While this does not guarantee his godliness, chances are that if he were guilty of sins comparable to the ones denounced elsewhere in the book, either Jeremiah’s personal response to 246 Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel, 211. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 101 the prophet or Yahweh’s words addressed to him would probably have included something about it¾considering the importance of moral character in the rest of the book. However, nothing is said about his character. It seems safe to assume that it was not a problem in his case. To reiterate, not all false prophets were ungodly.247 Does this invalidate the criterion? Is the criterion thereby rendered useless, because it cannot in every case differentiate true from false prophets? Such a claim has been made by scholars like James L. Crenshaw. In his book entitled Prophetic Conflict,248 he includes a section with the heading “The Lack of a Valid Criterion” that lays out his argument in explaining the decline of the prophetic movement. In this section, he covers various traditional criteria for distinguishing between true and false prophets and explains why they are, in his view, invalid. It will not be necessary here to answer each of his arguments, but a proper interaction with his idea is appropriate. My response to his argument against the validity of the moral criterion will expose one main presupposition he has that I find faulty. In my opinion, this presupposition affects his view regarding all criteria for determining the authenticity of true prophets. After noting that the immoral conduct depicted by Jeremiah is not found in every one of the “so-called prophets,” Crenshaw concludes that “this standard is not capable of use in all cases.”249 This is the first part of his argument for the invalidity of the criterion. The second part is “the fact that even the true prophets were on occasion guilty of what must be considered immoral behavior.”250 The accusation is developed through various examples. The first one is Hosea’s marriage to a prostitute. After summarizing the various interpretations about this unusual 247 Of course, one could legitimately charge them all of liars, since they speak falsely in Yahweh’s name. Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict. 249 Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, 57. 250 Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, 57. 248 DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 102 marriage, Crenshaw concludes that Hosea’s action is “offensive to one’s moral sensitivity.”251 Yes, it is not a standard marriage, but the book makes it clear that Hosea’s conduct demonstrates love and forgiveness, not morally questionable choices. His argument that Hosea was lacking in his moral conduct is at best weak. The same could be said about a second, and shorter example concerning Isaiah. First, he suggests that there might be something problematic about Isaiah’s sexual relations with “the prophetess” (Isa. 8:3). According to Crenshaw, the text does not require this prophetess to be his wife, as it is usually understood.252 Again, this is not a demonstration of Isaiah’s flawed moral conduct. It is a possibility, though not demanded by the text. Secondly, Crenshaw also points out that “Isaiah is also said to have wandered around Judah almost naked, conduct that was quite offensive to the eighth century Israelite (20:2).”253 As in the case of Hosea, the accusation against Isaiah is that of being offensive.254 I contend that being offensive is not the same as Jeremiah’s accusations against the people and the prophets. One should not equate “being offensive” with ungodliness and moral corruptness, especially when the said conduct is demanded by God. Crenshaw then turns to the prophet Jeremiah himself, and this time the accusation is more direct and severe. Crenshaw considers that “Jeremiah was guilty of what must be described as ‘immoral’ conduct.”255 His first attack on Jeremiah’s conduct is about the lie the prophet told upon the king’s request to his officials in Jer. 38:14-28. A look at the narrative does indeed reveal that Jeremiah lied, since he did not tell the officials what he really discussed with the king, and instead told them that he asked the king not to be sent back into the house of Jonathan. However, 251 Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, 58. Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, 58. 253 Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, 58-59. 254 One should also consider the episode of David’s perceived immodesty when he brought the ark to Jerusalem and was despised for it by Michal. Although she was offended by David’s actions, the text supports the king’s devotion to Yahweh. 255 Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, 59. 252 DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 103 Crenshaw does not deal seriously with the biblical text and the portrait it gives of the prophet. Yet, others too have suggested that this lie invalidates the moral criterion. I would like to turn here to Moberly’s response to the accusation. In his book, Prophecy and Discernment, Moberly offers a valuable response that I will reproduce here. In an excursus, Moberly answers Robert Carroll¾who is following Crenshaw¾who accuses Jeremiah of immorality due to this lie. After a short summary of the narrative, Moberly comments: Indeed, Jeremiah told a lie. However, the situation is readily recognizable as the kind of difficult situation in which people often find themselves, in which there is no entirely satisfactory course of action – if Jeremiah did not lie to the officials, he would have had to ignore not only the royal instructions (which could be represented as disobedient to legitimate authority and so in some way morally questionable) but also the feelings and fears of a weak man who was clearly afraid of his powerbroking officials. To find fault with this at all is surely astonishing. I suppose that one might conceivably argue that Carroll displays a Kantian concern for truthtelling as a categorical imperative; but the criticism more naturally suggests a smallminded moralism which I am sure Carroll would have been the first to denounce if he had encountered it in any other context. Carroll not only finds fault but implicitly suggests that Jeremiah’s minor lie to the officials is somehow comparable to the systematically self-serving use of language that elsewhere is designated sheqer.256 In short, Moberly suggests that Carroll’s interpretation (and implicitly that of Crenshaw) is too simplistic. It does not consider the complexity of the situation. It is unfair on the basis of this episode to conclude that Jeremiah is a liar like those whom he accuses. In order to gain a wider perspective on this question, there is another biblical narrative that I would like to read alongside the one that concerns the lie of Jeremiah. This narrative is found in Exod. 1:15-22, and it tells of the defiance by the midwives of Pharaoh’s order to kill the newborn Hebrew males: 257 256 Moberly, Prophecy and Discernment, 92 (emphasis mine). I could also have analyzed the narrative of Micaiah in 1 Kings 22. In this encounter between the prophet, the two kings and the “false” prophets, Micaiah reveals that “the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets” (1 Kings 22:23). I have instead chosen to take a look at the Exodus passage in order to gain a different perspective. The conclusion would have been very similar. For a discussion on the prophetic conflict in 1 Kings 22 see: Simon J. De Vries, Prophet Against Prophet: The Role of the Micaiah Narrative (I Kings 22) in the Development of Early Prophetic Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978). 257 DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 104 15 The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah, 16 “When you act as midwives to the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstool, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, she shall live.” 17 But the midwives feared God; they did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but they let the boys live. 18 So the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this, and allowed the boys to live?” 19 The midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them.” 20 So God dealt well with the midwives; and the people multiplied and became very strong. 21 And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families. 22 Then Pharaoh commanded all his people, “Every boy that is born to the Hebrews you shall throw into the Nile, but you shall let every girl live.” Understandably, this passage has created some unease on the part of biblical commentators. For instance, Brevard S. Childs comments that “[t]he response of the midwives is so clever as to have convinced not only Pharaoh, but a number of modern commentators who accept its veracity on face value.”258 Without entering into a thorough analysis of the passage, it seems to me that the best interpretation for the text is that the midwives did lie to Pharaoh. The text plainly indicates that their fear of God led them to obey God and disobey Pharaoh’s command. It seems that this choice led them to lie to Pharaoh. No matter how one puts it, even if it could be demonstrated that they did indeed tell Pharaoh the truth about some situations that they had encountered, one must at least reckon that they deceived him. There is no escape. In my view, their deception also included a lie. This situation has clear theological implications. One way to put it is by asking with Douglas K. Stuart: “Was it a lie that God then rewarded (v. 20)?”259 Stuart then argues that there are ways to read the midwives’ answer as true. Not only do I disagree with his interpretation, but I also disagree with his question. What is rewarded is not the lie, but their fear of God. Duane A. 258 Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary, ed. Peter Ackroyd et al., The Old Testament Library (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2004), 17. For such a tentative of construing the midwives answer as true, see Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus, vol. 2, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006), 80–82. 259 Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus, vol. 2, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006), 80. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 105 Garrett rightfully comments that “God did not reward them for lying to Pharaoh but for preserving the lives of Hebrew babies.”260 Still, one could legitimately point to the fact that the midwives could have told the truth (if indeed they did lie) to Pharaoh and accept the consequences of their defiant act. The best answer to this objection is probably that, by doing so, they would have jeopardized the yet unborn male children. In order to continue to protect them, their subterfuge needed to remain secret.261 Yet, as Garrett adds, “it is completely wrong to conclude that the Bible says that lying is acceptable.262 Biblical readers are not to conclude that lying is trivial.263 I believe that reading the Exodus passage in parallel with the moral dilemma Jeremiah experienced is helpful. Although nothing is directly said about Yahweh’s opinion about Jeremiah’s lie, the Exodus passage does claim God’s approval of the midwives. These two situations are different, but God’s blessing on the midwives indicates that one should avoid a 260 Duane A. Garrett, A Commentary on Exodus: Commentary, Kregel Exegetical Library (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2014), 162. 261 I would like to argue that “lying” is part of the larger category of “deception.” In this category, one can find multiple examples in Scripture of divinely approved deceptions. For instance, the attack on Ai in Jos. 8:1-29 rely on an ambush instigated by Yahweh (Jos. 8:2). This military tactic was based on a deception where the people of Ai were laid to believe Israel was fleeing. However, it was not the case. It was a deceptive trick. Another example is the directive from Yahweh to Moses that he asks Pharaoh for a three days’ journey into the wilderness (Exod. 3:18), when what was planned was actually a full liberation from slavery and Egypt. Although some have suggested that Exod. 3:18 is rather predictive, I agree with Garrett that Moses’ request for a three days’ journey is a divine directive. Garrett, A Commentary on Exodus, 239. If this is the case, Yahweh is asking Moses to lie to Pharaoh. Again, these texts invite biblical interpreter not to consider too simplistically the morality of a lie. A clear negative example of lying, which falls in line with the ninth commandment (Exod. 20:16; “false witness”) is found in 1 Kings 21:1-16. In this narrative, the king Ahab is helped by his queen Jezebel to kill Naboth to gain property of his vineyard. In order to do so, Jezebel forces the elders and the nobles to bring two scoundrel that falsely witnessed against Naboth. This lie and deceptive plan was highly displeasing to Yahweh (1 Kings 21:1724). One way to distinguish and explain these different examples is to evaluate them in the light of the concept justice. The deceptive plans and words from Yahweh did not lead to an injustice, whereas Jezebel’s plan was a clear case of injustice. Obviously, this question is a complex one and has various ethical implications. My goal is not to offer a definitive position on the question, but to illustrate the complexity of the matter. 262 Garrett, A Commentary on Exodus, 163. 263 One should also keep in mind Paul’s exhortation in Romans 14:1-15:7. I believe that one should take into consideration the personal convictions in the evaluation of what constitute a sin. For instance, if one is convinced that no situation permits a Christian to lie¾even to protect one’s own life or another’s¾I believe this person commits a sin against its own conscience if they lie. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 106 simplistic view of morality. Life is complicated and God is the perfect judge. In this fallen world, complex situations arise, and Yahweh should not be viewed as mechanically and rigidly applying laws. Moberly’s comment convincingly illustrates the complexity of Jeremiah’s situation. Moreover, Jeremiah’s lie could hardly be construed as an act of injustice nor did it bring harm to anyone. On the contrary, his lie not only protected his own life, but also the king’s interests. In conclusion, building a case against Jeremiah based on his lie is not building on a solid foundation. It would be a case based on a simplistic view of morality. I must also briefly consider two other attacks that Crenshaw launches against Jeremiah’s moral character. First, Crenshaw reproaches Jeremiah for his imprecatory words in Jer. 17:18 and 18:21.264 I would simply answer that words of imprecation, like the ones found in the Psalms (e.g., Pss. 28, 137) are far from clear examples of immorality. The fact that Crenshaw points to these texts is probably more indicative of his modern sensibilities. The judgment of the wicked is a common theme in Scripture, and more importantly, it is part of the divine plan. The comments from Allen P. Ross about the applicability to Christians of Psalm 137 is worth noting: “And so when we pray, ‘thy kingdom come, thy will be done,’ we are actually praying for the Lord to come and destroy the wicked.”265 Thus, the second attack from Crenshaw finds no better grounding. Secondly, Crenshaw writes: “It may be observed that Jeremiah’s accusation that false prophets steal oracles overlooks the obvious dependence of his own message upon Micah.”266 I have already discussed the idea of textual borrowing by true prophets in chapter 3. I will not repeat the full discussion here. There are nevertheless some observations I would like to make. 264 Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, 59. Allen P. Ross, A Commentary on the Psalms (90–150): Commentary, vol. 3, Kregel Exegetical Library (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2016), 796. 266 Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, 59. 265 DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 107 On the one hand, I would like to restate that intertextuality in the prophetic books is a more complex phenomenon than what can be observed elsewhere in Scripture.267 On the other hand, even if one postulates that Jeremiah borrowed texts from other prophets, it would represent a small portion of his prophetic production.268 What Jeremiah accuses the false prophets of doing is to proclaim oracles from other prophets, while they have not received any prophetic oracles personally. Again, Crenshaw’s argument implicitly puts Jeremiah on the same level as these false prophets. Only if one understands Jeremiah and these prophets as phenomenologically the same, can Crenshaw’s argument stand. In other words, only if Jeremiah did not receive any direct revelation from Yahweh can he be accused of hypocrisy¾and thus of immoral conduct. And even so, one could argue that Jeremiah proclaimed at least some original oracles (even if they were the product of his own imagination). Once again, Crenshaw’s arguments against the moral conduct of Jeremiah are not convincing. Earlier, I have said in response to some of Crenshaw’s arguments against the validity of the moral criterion that I consider his main presupposition to be faulty. Thus, having looked at some examples pertaining to the moral criterion, I would like to suggest that Crenshaw presupposes that for a criterion to be valid it must be applicable in all instances. For example, since Hananiah is not characterized by immorality, the moral criterion is not valid. A similar statement is made by Crenshaw about a different criterion. He concludes his evaluation of the fulfillment criterion with the following: “It nonetheless is a fact that prediction in the narrow sense occupies a minor role in ancient prophecy. As a consequence, any valid criterion of true 267 For instance, the idea that Paul quoted a text from Isaiah (and others) to explain the Gospel does not have the same impact on the doctrine of revelation than suggesting Jeremiah quoted (or borrowed) an oracle from Micah. Paul does not write in a way that let the readers think he received the words quoted directly from God. However, when Jeremiah speaks as having received a word directly from Yahweh, to suggest that he in fact borrowed it from Micah has much more important consequences. My goal here is to point to the complexity of the issue. 268 Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20, 65. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 108 prophecy would have to apply to the total prophetic word and not to a peripheral element.”269 For Crenshaw, a criterion needs to apply to all prophetic words. Why? Crenshaw does not explain this necessity. It is a presupposition that he has and he imposes it on the issue of distinguishing true prophets from false ones. I would like to offer an illustration to demonstrate the problem of Crenshaw’s presupposition. There are various ways that a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill can be detected. Not all imitations have the same flaws. Some might have the right ink, but not the right paper, and vice versa. There are many ways in which a twenty-dollar bill can be shown to be fraudulent. To fall into the category of “false,” the imitation does not need to be faulty in every possible way. It takes only one way. The image can even be pushed further by positing a perfectly reproduced bill, having all the external and visible properties of an authentic twenty-dollar bill, but not having been issued from the right government authorities. Its origin would then expose its “falsehood.” While exterior signs (visible criteria) would not be sufficient to identify the bill as being false (thus pointing to the limits of the criteria), the bill would still be false. It would still fail to meet the requirement of an authentic bill, since it has not been rightly issued (invisible criteria). Similarly, there are various ways to detect false prophets. One does not need to fail every criterion to be declared a false prophet. Only one can be sufficient. Consequently, a criterion does not need to be applicable to every false prophet in order to be valid. 269 Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, 52. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 109 Non-Profit Ministry In the discussion about the personal morality of prophets, I have also mentioned a passage in Micah that points to a tendency in false prophets to prophesy for money (Mic. 3:5).270 A prophet’s relationship with money can be an important element for evaluating his/her truthfulness. The absence of a correlation between the message proclaimed and a reward can be a great indicator of the prophet’s integrity. True prophets are often seen in Scripture as proclaiming an unpopular message while the false prophets tend to proclaim agreeable things. This last observation has led many to suggest that a true prophet proclaims words of judgment while false ones proclaim words of peace. I have instead contended in chapter 2 that the appropriateness of the message depends upon the historical context. I shall return to this criterion below. For now, I would like to underline the fact that a true prophet does not prophesy for his own benefit, but in obedience to Yahweh. Jeremiah’s lamentations are illustrative of his disinterested prophetic ministry. He was not prophesying for his own advancement. On the contrary, his prophetic ministry created multiple difficulties and perils for his own life. One of Jesus’ comments about false prophets is worth remembering: “Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets” (Luke 6:26). Jesus also said: “Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matt. 5:12). It should be remembered that these two statements are general affirmations that are not meant to apply to every situation. Exceptions occurred. For instance, the prophet Nathan seems to have been able to live peacefully during King David’s reign. He did have to rebuke his king, but there is no mention of him being persecuted, and there is no reason to believe that he ever was. However, in most cases, the true 270 separately. Although this aspect is treated under the moral criterion, I believe it is worth dealing with this criterion DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 110 prophets were often disliked by the people. This general statement reinforces the idea that a true prophet does not seek his own interests, but often represents the voice of God calling his people to repentance. Doing so is naturally unpopular.271 There is another example from church history that I would like to recount here. It demonstrates continuity in the struggles by prophets and teachers to maintain integrity and to avoid the temptation of enriching themselves. Here is a portion from the Didache: CHAP. XI.—CONCERNING TEACHERS, APOSTLES, AND PROPHETS. 1 Whosoever, therefore, cometh and teacheth you all these things that have been said before, receive him. 2 But if the teacher himself turn and teach another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not; but if he teach so as to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord. 3 But concerning the apostles and prophets, according to the decree of the Gospel, thus do. 4 Let every apostle that cometh to you be received as the Lord. 5 But he shall not remain except one day; but if there be need, also the next; but if he remain three days, he is a false prophet. 6 And when the apostle goeth away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodgeth; but if he ask money, he is a false prophet. 7 And every prophet that speaketh in the Spirit ye shall neither try nor judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven. 8 But not every one that speaketh in the Spirit is a prophet; but only if he hold the ways of the Lord. Therefore from their ways shall the false prophet and the prophet be known. 9 And every prophet who ordereth a meal in the Spirit eateth not from it, except indeed he be a false prophet; 10 and every prophet who teacheth the truth, if he do not what he teacheth, is a false prophet. 11 And every prophet, proved true, working unto the mystery of the Church in the world, yet not teaching others to do what he himself doeth, shall not be judged among you, for with God he hath his judgment; for so did also the ancient prophets. But whoever saith in the Spirit, Give me money, or something else, ye shall not listen to him; but if he saith to you to give for others’ sake who are in need, let no one judge him.272 271 As I mentioned in the Introduction, VanGemeren incorporates into his analysis of true and false prophets the concepts of Realpolitik and vox populi. His general conclusion is that false prophets tend to proclaim messages that are pleasing to the people and also tend to be affected by politic forces. Their message is thus conditioned by popular and politic forces. The true prophet often proclaims a message that is unpopular with both the people and the leaders, because these are usually disobeying God’s commandments. Willem A. VanGemeren, Interpreting the Prophetic Word: An Introduction to the Prophetic Literature of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 26. 272 Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., “The Lord’s Teaching through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations,” in Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries: Lactantius, Venantius, Asterius, Victorinus, Dionysius, Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions, Homily, and Liturgies, vol. 7, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 380–381 (italics original). DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 111 There are two main criteria that can be extracted from this text for the discernment of false prophets. First, they teach (prophesy) for money. It is repeated several times, with different examples. If the itinerant teacher asks to stay three days, he is trying to take advantage of his host. He is therefore a false prophet. If he asks for money, he is a false prophet. Secondly, the false prophet will be recognized by his work and moral conduct. Even if he preaches the truth, if the prophet does not do what he teaches, he is a false prophet. Those two criteria follow the biblical material and, more specifically, what I have presented thus far in regard to Jeremiah. Although it takes place in a different time and context, this portion of the Didache is an excellent historical witness to the reality found in Scripture. It seems like some sins are present in every generation.273 Alignment with Scripture In line with the discussion in chapter 2 above, I contend that the message of a prophet must be aligned with the rest of Scripture in order to be true. The evaluation of this alignment would then serve as a criterion for discriminating between various prophetic utterances. There are two angles from which I will consider this criterion: the alignment with the Torah and the theological foundation of the prophetic message. 273 I would also like to mention a contemporary denunciation and association of false teachers with money. The hip-hop artist Shai Linne recorded a song titled “Fal$e Teacher$” in which he denounces the Gospel of Prosperity and directly name various preachers, labeling them as false teachers. For instance, he says about some teachers on a certain TV channel: “The pastors speak bogus statements, financially motivated.” According to Linne, these false teachers go as far as “encouraging the love of money.” Linne references in his song the following biblical texts: Matt. 7:16; Jude 3; 2 Peter 2:1-3 and 1 Tim. 6:9-10. Lyrics of the song can be found, as well as a short video by the artist introducing the song and his motivation for writing it, at the following online: https://genius.com/Shailinne-fal-e-teacher-lyrics, accessed January 31, 2022. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 112 Alignment with the Torah In chapter 2, I have demonstrated that the message Jeremiah proclaims is closely associated with the Torah. The book of Jeremiah exhibits evidence of the influence of the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures. The continuity between these two sections of the biblical canon indicates that the prophet’s message must be analyzed in the light of the Pentateuch. The message of the prophet must be aligned with the rest of Scripture, but especially the Torah. When the Pentateuch is seen as the foundation for Israelite faith, this requirement is rather unsurprising. The basic idea can be found in Deut. 13:1-11. Verses 1-3 envisage the coming of prophets whose omens or portents would come true, but who would also incite the people to follow gods other than Yahweh. In this case, Moses clearly indicates that Israel shall not listen to those prophets, but shall serve only Yahweh. What lies behind Moses’ words is a criterion for distinguishing between true and false prophets. The prophet’s message must be aligned with the commandments of Yahweh found in the Torah (Deut. 13:4). Verses 6-11 build on the case of these prophets to include anyone who “secretly entices you” (Deut. 13:6) to worship other gods. In both cases, they are said to have committed a capital offence. In this passage, I would argue that, although reference is made to God’s commandments, the observance of the law can be encapsulated in the exclusive worship of Yahweh, who brought Israel out of the land of Egypt (Deut. 13:5, 10). The close association between the two is not exclusive to this passage. For instance, the shema in Deut. 6:4-6 also combines the exclusive worship of Yahweh with the keeping of his commandments. Therefore, it is only natural that the law of Moses finds itself at home in a prophet’s oracles. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 113 One could also build a case with Moses’ prophetic model. Indeed, Moses has often been identified as the prophet par excellence.274 Moses as the “law-giver” cannot be separated from Moses the prophet. While they are not to be regarded as synonyms, it should be acknowledged that Moses gave the law to Israel because he was a prophet. Indeed, it is as Yahweh’s spokesman that Moses received the law, and then passed it on to Israel. Moreover, as a prophet, Moses was not only a law-giver, but also a law-enforcer. Moses mediated the law to Israel and ministered to her so that she would keep Yahweh’s words. Similarly, prophets like Jeremiah were to continue Moses’ prophetic activity of reinforcing the keeping of Yahweh’s commandments by Israel.275 Therefore, if a prophet’s message was not aligned with the Torah, he should be recognized as a false prophet. There are, however, some challenges that I would like to recognize. For instance, the alignment between a prophet’s word and the Torah is not always easy to discern. On the one hand, one must recognize that God himself is sometimes flexible regarding certain commandments. One could think of the approval of the marriage between Ruth the Moabitess and Boaz, leading to her inclusion in Israel and the Davidic lineage, despite the fact that marriage with other nations was prohibited by Yahweh (Deut. 7:1-6). However, even a superficial analysis will indicate that the reason behind the prohibition is to prevent the corruption of Israel’s worship of Yahweh alone (Deut. 7:4). When Ruth chooses Yahweh as her God, there is no longer a need for the interdiction. 274 Moberly, Prophecy and Discernment, 4; Joseph Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel, Revised and Enlarged (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 135. On the importance of Moses as a prophet, see also Stephen B. Chapman, The Law and the Prophets: A Study in Old Testament Canon Formation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020),122-124; Christopher R. Seitz, “The Prophet Moses and the Canonical Shape of Jeremiah,” Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 101, no. 1 (1989): 3–27; and VanGemeren, Interpreting the Prophetic Word, 28-32. 275 See Gordon D. Fee and Douglas K. Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, Fourth edition (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2014), 187-211; Peter Gentry, How to Read and Understand the Biblical Prophets (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 15-30. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 114 Also, one could think about the progressive nature of revelation and the complication it brings to the evaluation of the alignment. As Edward Schnittjer states, “The concept implies that revelation is not static nor comprehensive but what God has been pleased to provide at various points in his dynamic relationship with his people. Truth does not change, but it has not been granted all at once. The principle of progressive revelation leads interpreters to expect that in later Scriptures God may say more.”276 VanGemeren also notes that “[t]he prophetic message is also progressive.”277 What this means for the prophetic criterion of alignment with the Torah is that it allows for new revelations, not only repetition of what is already found in the Pentateuch. The audience must therefore deal with more complex messages that not only repeat and reaffirm what is found in the Pentateuch but those who hear the words of the prophets must also evaluate how new messages are aligned with unfolding redemptive history. In my view, progressive revelation complicates the application of the criterion, but certainly does not nullify it. Not all prophetic messages bring new revelation, and when they do the progressive aspect of revelation generally allows for an evaluation and recognition of a trajectory. Theological Framework In the literature on prophetic discernment, true prophets are often distinguished from false prophets based on their different theological frameworks. In consequence, a portrait of the theology of each group is sometimes offered. A prophetic message can thus be analyzed and be associated with either true or false prophets. As such, a theological framework could serve as a 276 277 Schnittjer, Old Testament Use, 898–899. VanGemeren, Interpreting the Prophetic Word, 46 (emphasis his). DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 115 criterion to discriminate between true and false prophets.278 For instance, James A. Sanders observed in 1977 that: Every study of true and false prophecy since Quell has attempted, more or less seriously, to discern the theology of the false prophets. But for the most part scholars have so far seemed satisfied to give such theologies labels: royal theology (Jacob), establishment theology (Bright), Zionist theology (van der Woude), vox populi (Crenshaw), fanatical patriotism and political ideology (Buber), all somehow voiced at the wrong historical moment.279 Likewise, 37 years later, Gallagher asserts that “although the encounter with Hananiah is brief, it suffices to show a real contrast in the theologies of Jeremiah and Hananiah.”280 This statement is representative of Gallagher’s enterprise in this article, which is to identify the theology of Jeremiah and contrast it with Hananiah’s. These theological perspectives become the distinguishing criteria between true and false prophets.281 Similarly, it has been argued that true prophets prophesy words of disaster and false prophets announces peace. Crenshaw observes that “it has become almost a commonplace that the great prophets predicted doom, whereas the false prophets promised peace to the people of God.”282 Crenshaw then rightly challenges the validity of such a criterion. One of his arguments is that “the preserved prophecies of true prophets contain words of weal and woe almost side by side.”283 This observation alone should be enough to demonstrate that the criterion is based on a 278 I have chosen to deal with the question of theological framework under the rubric of the alignment with Scripture because, as I will discuss, the theological framework is a construction based on previous revelation. As such, the theology of any prophet must be aligned with the rest of Scripture. 279 James F. Sanders, “Hermeneutics in True and False Prophecy,” in Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology, ed. Burke O. Long and George W. Coats (Phillipsburg, NJ: Fortress, 1977), 30. 280 Gallagher, “Discerning True and False Prophecy,” 6. 281 Yet, Gallagher argues that “There are no rationally available criteria for determining false prophets and there cannot be, for the discerning of the spirits does not happen in the intellectual realm, but, biblically speaking, in the recognition of God, which in the Old Testament conception is epitomized in the dynamic covenant with God.” Gallagher, “Discerning True and False Prophecy,” 14. However, his whole article serves as a way to distinguish between them. My understanding is that he believes no ultimate, and single, criterion exists, such that one could unmistakably discern between true and false prophets. To this, I would agree. There is a need for multiple criteria. 282 Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, 52. 283 Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, 53. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 116 superficial and selective reading of the biblical material. While this criterion is usually associated with the message of the prophet rather than the theological framework category, I believe the latter is more exact. The discrimination is made upon different theologies, not the message by itself. Furthermore, the Bible does offer a sustained theological understanding of God’s ways with humankind and his creation. This is why, for instance, one can build a theology of the Old Testament.284 Therefore, one could analyze the theology at work behind a prophetic proclamation and evaluate its conformity to previous revelations given by Yahweh. The greater challenge for the use of this criterion is possibly found in the multiplicity of interpretations and models for a correct theological framework. While some proclamations might be easy to assess, others will inevitably prove more difficult. Again, this complexity does not invalidate the criterion, it simply indicates that prudence must be exercised in its usage. However, this criterion does not mean that the prophet is a mere interpreter. Understanding that a theological framework is embedded in each prophetic message does not mean that the message comes solely from the theological mind of the prophet. This uniformity of a theological framework is rather achieved by the active hand of God, inspiring his various servants the prophets. 284 Many Old Testament theologies have been written, e.g., Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2012); Brevard S Childs, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986); Stephen G. Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible (Leicester, England : Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2003); Paul R. House, Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity, 1998); Walter C. Kaiser Jr. Jr, Toward an Old Testament Theology, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991); R. W. L Moberly, Old Testament Theology: Reading the Hebrew Bible as Christian Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2015); Bruce K. Waltke and Charles Yu, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007). DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 117 Alignment with the Historical Context In chapter 2, I demonstrated the importance of the alignment between the message of the prophet and the historical context. An obvious example is the necessity for a prophet to call the people of God to repentance when their spiritual state is dire. When the people have breached their covenant with God, prophets will not be sent from Yahweh with a message of peace. Thus, an analysis of the spiritual state of the people and a comparison with the prophet’s message offer a tangible way for the audience to discern between true and false prophets. A case could be made to consider this relationship under the heading of a theological framework. Indeed, as seen above, the distinction between a prophecy of weal and one of woe can be thought of in the context of theological frameworks. However, once one recognizes that a true prophet can bring words of disaster and words of blessing, one must also realize that attention must be paid to the historical context in order to determine the validity of the prophetic utterance. Indeed, the message by itself is sometimes insufficient. One must evaluate the message in context. The alignment with the historical context criterion is this next step in the evaluation of a prophetic claim. In my study, I have also concluded that the evaluation of prophetic declarations must take into consideration the purpose of the oracle, its fulfillment, and its conditionality. For instance, if the purpose of an oracle is to call sinners to repentance, it should not be surprising if the judgment announced by the prophet is not fulfilled when the people repent. Sometimes, the oracle takes the form of a declaration and seems unconditional. However, its conditionality is often implied. I have given the example of Jonah’s prophetic claim. His oracle is unconditional in form, but conditional in nature. It might sound definitive, but Jonah knew that if the Ninevites repented, they would avoid the impending disaster. I have not encountered much in the literature to challenge the association of the historical context with the message. However, critiques of the DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 118 fulfillment criterion have been offered. I will now turn to this other criterion, answering some of the critiques and commenting on its applicability for prophetic discernment. Fulfillment of the Word I have already mentioned that Crenshaw considers the fulfillment criterion to be invalid because of its lack of applicability to the majority of since most prophetic utterances are nonpredictive. In his view, if a criterion does not apply to the “total prophetic word,” it is invalid.285 Although this constitutes his fundamental attack on the criterion, it is not the only one. Crenshaw also identifies the conditional nature of prophecy as a complicating factor. While I agree that the criterion requires more care and wisdom than one might expect, it does not invalidate the criterion because the conditions for the fulfillment of the prophecy can be evaluated. For instance, the accomplishment of Jonah’s prophecy depended on the response of the people in Nineveh. If they had not repented and the city had not been destroyed, Jonah could have been viewed as a false prophet. Thus, conditionality requires more careful attention but does not invalidate the fulfillment criterion. A third particularity of prophetic oracles that Crenshaw identifies to invalidate the fulfillment criterion is its predominantly general nature. What he means is that prophetic oracles “speak in vague terms of war, pestilence, famine, the peril from the North, the sword, and so forth.”286 This vagueness makes it difficult to evaluate the actual fulfillment or non-fulfillment of many prophetic oracles. Again, this represents a difficulty, not an impossibility. For instance, even though a prediction of war would not indicate the aggressor (thus being vague), the coming of an invader could still be viewed as a fulfillment of that 285 286 Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, 52. Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, 50. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 119 prophecy.287 Nor does it completely invalidate the criterion. It will be more easily applicable in some cases than others. These observations represent limits to the criterion. These should indeed be recognized and inform how one uses the criterion, but they do not invalidate it altogether. A more serious challenge to the fulfillment criterion is the proposition that many prophecies of the canonical prophets were not fulfilled. Crenshaw offers various examples, and I believe that careful attention should be given to each one.288 I would argue that the validity of this criticism must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Only after the proper analysis of each passage can the accusation be refuted. Unfortunately, I do not have the space here to interpret each one. I will nevertheless briefly discuss three examples mentioned by Crenshaw that are found in the book of Jeremiah.289 The first example that Crenshaw offers as a non-fulfilled prophecy is found in Jeremiah 3:15ff. He accuses Jeremiah of predicting that Judah and Israel would reunite while asserting that they never did. The key verse for his remark is Jer. 3:18: “In those days the house of Judah shall join the house of Israel, and together they shall come from the land of the north to the land that I gave your ancestors for a heritage.” Two elements in this passage seem to militate against one another. Explaining them will help understand the passage and assess Crenshaw’s claim. On the one hand, the expression “in those days” seems to indicate that the oracle points to an eschatological time, to “messianic times coming in the future.”290 For instance, the same 287 Or imagine that a prophet predicted to a king that someone close to him would soon die and his son died the very next day, would the vagueness about the victim nullify the possibility of evaluating the validity of the prophecy? No. If his son died ten days or three months later, then one would need to evaluate if ten days or three months still correspond to “soon.” In that case, the evaluation would be more complicated. Similarly, what qualifies as “close” would need to be evaluated if someone else were to die that does not automatically fall into the category. Depending on how and when the prophecy is realized, the evaluation of the fulfillment can be easy of difficult. Thus, the fact that the evaluation can be complex does not automatically invalidate the criterion. 288 Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, 51n. 289 These examples are not developed by Crenshaw, but simply enumerated. 290 Kaiser Jr. and Rata, Walking the Ancient Paths, 71. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 120 expression is found in Jer. 31:29 and 33:15, within a section of Jeremiah that contains rich eschatological and messianic overtones. On the other hand, the promise that Judah and Israel shall come from “the land of the north” seems rather to indicate a more proximate timeline, since most invaders during the Babylonians and Assyrian periods came from the north. It is a more concrete time reference than “in those days.” The reference to the north is probably what has led Crenshaw to conclude that the prophecy was supposed to be fulfilled by the return of the deported. However, I believe that this is a too narrow reading of the text. It does not take into account other occurrences of this expression in this passage and their strong messianic connotations. The expression “in those days” is also used in verse 16, introducing the promise that the ark of the covenant shall not be mentioned anymore, followed by the announcement that “at that time” all nations shall gather “to the presence of the Lord in Jerusalem, and they shall no longer stubbornly follow their own evil will” (Jer. 3:17). Undoubtedly, this prediction had not come to pass either when the exiles first came back. Thus, Crenshaw seems to have been surprisingly selective in his accusation. Why did he not include these other unaccomplished prophecies? Did he borrow the list from someone else without much consideration and textual analysis? If he included them, one could argue that his case would have been even more convincing, having more unfulfilled promises. However, I would like to argue that including them would have not helped his case because they point to a messianic time and set the accomplishment to a later time than when the first returned from captivity. Indeed, the whole context indicates that Jeremiah’s prophecy of a united Judah and Israel has¾like the other promises¾not yet been accomplished, at least not before the coming of the Messiah. Indeed, the theme of restoration for both Judah and Israel is found in other passages of Jeremiah where the expression “in those days” is also used. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 121 For instance, Jeremiah 31 includes both Judah and Israel in the new covenant picture (e.g., Jer. 31:1, 7, 21, 23, 27, 31). Moreover, the oracles in Jer. 31 also mention the “coming out from the north” (Jer. 31:8). That is to say, the idea of having a reunited Israel is an eschatological hope that is found in multiple places in Jeremiah. If this is the case, Crenshaw’s accusation of nonfulfillment fails because his presupposition of the time when the prophecy was to be accomplished is erroneous.291 The second example of non-fulfillment Crenshaw offers is the prophecy “that Hophra of Egypt would be given into the hand of his enemies (Jer. 44:30).”292 This oracle was a sign for the Judeans who went to Egypt after the disaster that Yahweh brought upon them for their idolatry. The fall of the Pharaoh Hophra was to serve as a sign for the Judeans. I must say that I am surprised by Crenshaw’s contention. It is generally agreed in the literature that Hophra was given into the hands of his enemies. For a description of the historical events, one can even consult Herodotus.293 For instance, William Holladay suggests that while Jeremiah had Nebuchadrezzar in mind as the enemies that he mentioned, “this Pharaoh, whom Herodotus called Apries … began his reign in 589/588 (compare 37:5) and ruled until 569, when he lost power to his general Amasis … but the prophecy is so shaped that Hophra’s ultimate fate conforms to it.”294 Thus, Holladay regards this prediction to have come to pass. Moreover, William McKane considers that “[t]he most reasonable interpretation of this is that the sign is in fact a vaticinium ex eventu 291 I would also argue that eschatological language uses images known by the first audience to speak about things that might look different when accomplished. For instance, when the idea of peace over war is envisioned, the weapons of war are always those of the prophet’s time (e.g., Mic. 4:3). Does it mean that no eschatological word has ever been given in Scripture for times when wars are fought with guns? This question of language, eschatology and metaphor is too complicated to be exposed here in details, but one should keep it in mind in the interpretation of predictive oracles. They are spoken and written using the prophet’s context and imagery. The language used should not lead interpreters in thinking that they do not concern times and accomplishments that will look different from what was written. 292 Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, 51n. 293 Herodotus, The Histories 2.161-163, 169. 294 Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 304–305. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 122 (Duhm, Cornill, Rudolph?, Hyatt, Nicholson).”295 While I disagree with his conclusion that this oracle is a prediction “after the event,” his proposition certainly militates against the idea of a non-fulfilled prophecy. Moreover, while Holladay and McKane both wrote their commentaries after Crenshaw published his volume, John Bright had already interpreted this prophecy as being fulfilled before Crenshaw wrote his book.296 Why then Crenshaw thinks it was not fulfilled? Again, he only lists those “unaccomplished” prophecies, without any demonstration. Crenshaw’s third example from Jeremiah is “that Judah would return to Palestine after seventy years (Jer. 29:10).”297 This third example is more complex, because various interpretations have been given for these seventy years. I do not have the space here to summarize the various interpretations of that passage, but I will simply cite some comments by Lundbom about Jer. 25:11, where the same seventy years are mentioned: “The 70 years here and in 29:10 refer not to the length of Judah’s exile or to ‘Jerusalem’s desolations’ but to Babylon’s tenure as a world power (Duhm). … The number 70 is stereotyped, thus no more than an approximation. If it corresponds to anything, it is the conventional description of a full life-span (Ps 90:10). … As far as Babylon’s tenure as a world power is concerned, 70 years turned out to be a good approximation.”298 Lundbom’s comment may not represent the definitive interpretation of those seventy years, but they at least illustrate that Crenshaw’s contention regarding a nonfulfilled prediction is, at most, weak, since it can arguably be suggested that the prophecy was indeed accomplished. In conclusion, the accusation of unfulfilled prophecies in the book of Jeremiah should not lead one to reject the biblical criterion of fulfillment. As I mentioned earlier, a more thorough 295 McKane, Jeremiah: Volume II, 1082. Bright, Jeremiah, 264. 297 Crenshaw, Prophetic Conflict, 51n. 298 Lundbom, Jeremiah 21-36, 249. 296 DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 123 investigation of every claim regarding unfulfilled predictions in the Bible should be pursued in order to refute the critiques about the use of the criterion, but I believe that my initial investigation of Jeremiah demonstrates that those accusations are arguably based on a superficial reading of the biblical text. Historical investigation seems rather to corroborate with the biblical accounts. Conclusion In this chapter, I have presented and defended a list of criteria for distinguishing true from false prophets. My contention is that, when these criteria are taken together, they offer a valid and reliable way to distinguish between true from false prophets. No criterion is sufficient by itself, but taken together, I believe they provide a sure way to make such judgments. This could be called the principle of synergy. Although a more complete investigation would be required to respond to other criticisms of these criteria, my study has demonstrated that a case can be made in favour of their validity. I have focused my attention on Crenshaw’s objections, but I believe they are representative of the objections of many other scholars.299 On the basis of my study, I have concluded that his objections to some of these criteria are unconvincing. Moreover, I have argued that a key problem with Crenshaw’s position is his presupposition that a criterion must apply to all prophetic utterances to be valid. Contra Crenshaw, I have suggested that to be valid, a criterion must not be decisive for each prophet and prophecy. For instance, it is not because Hananiah seems to be a godly person that it necessarily means that he is a true prophet. Also, it does not invalidate the criterion that, in this particular case, it is not sufficient. Each criterion is a tool that must be used appropriately. 299 For instance, see Marvin A. Sweeney, “The Truth in True and False Prophecy,” in Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature, Forschungen Zum Alten Testament 45 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 78-93. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 124 It is my contention that the appropriate use of these criteria is analogous to the responsible employment of hermeneutical principles when interpreting a text. Not all principles are useful for every text. They are a set of tools that need to be utilized judiciously. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 125 Conclusion In this study, I have endeavoured to study the book of Jeremiah in search of criteria for discriminating between true and false prophets. My investigation led me to develop a clearer understanding of what constitutes true prophets, in order to distinguish them from false ones. Although there are other texts in Scripture that address this issue, Jeremiah plays an important role in the Hebrew canon for the identification of true and false prophets. Indeed, Jeremiah’s historical context and conflicts with contradicting prophets led Yahweh to proclaim numerous oracles by his servant to the people of Judah and Israel. Varied voices spoke in Yahweh’s name and they often proclaimed conflicting messages. Thus, Yahweh repeatedly spoke by his servant Jeremiah in order to denounce these false prophets and discourage the people from listening to them. These conflicts led to various relevant passages for building a list of criteria for distinguishing between true and false prophets. An important step for my project has been to define true and false prophets. It is my contention that a good definition of both true and false prophets is key for the production of a list of discriminating criteria. In this final chapter, I will summarize key findings for the definition of both types of prophets. I will then briefly present the criteria I have extracted from the book of Jeremiah. Although I have already offered some reflections about their limits, I will offer a short recapitulation of their limits; accompanied by a reformulation of the principle of synergy. Next, I will offer some thoughts and recommendations on their use outside the Old Testament. Finally, I will suggest some ideas for further developments on the issue of prophetic discernment. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 126 The Person of the Prophet The first particularity of a true prophet was found in the opening chapter of the book of Jeremiah. I believe it to be meaningful that the book begins with Jeremiah’s call as a prophet. It announces that the oracles contained in this book are not the result of Jeremiah’s own personal initiative. On the contrary, the young man resisted God’s call to be his prophet (Jer. 1:6). This component of what constitutes a true prophet is important because it indicates that Yahweh is the originator of the prophet’s ministry. Thus, it is impossible to proclaim oneself a prophet of Yahweh. One must be called by Yahweh himself. The second characteristic of true prophets is that they are godly people. This element is particularly visible in the book of Jeremiah in the description of the false prophets. Not much is said about Jeremiah’s own godliness, but the false prophets are clearly accused of ungodliness and wickedness. This accusation is clearly made in Jer. 23:9-15, where the false prophets are depicted as evildoers, idolaters, adulterers and liars. I have also argued that this list can be expanded to include other sins denounced in the rest of the book. Indeed, Jer. 23:14 accuses the prophets of strengthening the hands of evildoers instead of turning them away from their sins (Jer. 23:22). Thus, it seems safe to assume that they also committed and participated in the same crimes. Consequently, an analysis of the book of Jeremiah can also associate the false prophets with social injustices and the transgression of divine commandments, such as the interdiction of theft, murder, adultery and false testimony (Jer. 7:5-9). It seems safe to argue that true prophets like Jeremiah are not guilty of these sins. If this is the accusation against Jeremiah’s opponents, it would be logical that Jeremiah could not be associated with them in committing the same crimes. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 127 The Content of the Prophet’s Message My study on the message of the prophets in the book of Jeremiah has shown a close association between the message of the prophet and the Mosaic covenant. Prophetic proclamations are not offered in a void. They are set in the context of a covenant, of an existing relationship between Yahweh and his people. Therefore, there is an expected continuity between the message of the prophet and the Mosaic covenant. This is exactly what is found in the book of Jeremiah. Most of the Ten Commandments are referred to by the prophet in his oracles (only the fifth is missing). What God called a sin in Moses’ times is still a sin in Jeremiah’s time. The relationship between the land and Israel’s spiritual state described in the Pentateuch is also echoed in Jeremiah. There is a stark alignment between the book of Jeremiah and the Torah. Moreover, warnings found in the Pentateuch against disobedience to the covenant should be met in authentic prophetic proclamations. This observation leads to another characteristic of true prophets: their message is aligned with the historical context, including the spiritual state of the audience. In short, a true prophet will call sinners to repentance. However, this alignment also includes the proclamation of blessings and words of comfort to God fearers. My study of the conflict between Jeremiah and Hananiah as a case study served various purposes, among which is the demonstration that Hananiah’s “falseness” could be identified in the message he proclaimed. Indeed, although he seems to have been a godly man, the fact that he prophesied peace to a sinful nation instead of calling it to repentance was a visible sign that he was not sent by Yahweh. There was a misalignment between his message and the historical context. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 128 The Origin of the Prophet’s Message In chapter 3, I have argued that the message a true prophet proclaims does not come from his own mind but from Yahweh. My conclusions were mainly drawn from an analysis of Jer. 23:16-22. This passage is key for understanding the difference between true and false prophets. In a nutshell, what distinguishes them is the origin of their message. Although this characteristic of true prophetism can be quite simple to formulate, there are complex issues associated with it. I have dealt with some of them. Jer. 23:16-22 also refers to the council of Yahweh, indicating that only true prophets have stood in that assembly. As my study indicates, there are several theories regarding the members and nature of this assembly. While some see in the biblical references to this assembly a vestige of an older polytheistic stage of Israelite religion, some consider it to be metaphorical. I have not yet come to a comprehensive conclusion about the council of Yahweh. However, I believe it should be considered that Jeremiah refers to a personal experience where he received a revelation from God. I have also offered some reflections on the question of verbal parallels in the prophetic literature. My goal has not been to offer a thorough analysis of the issue, but to indicate some important implications this question has on prophesy. For instance, the idea that a prophet borrowed an oracle from another prophet runs against the general depiction of prophets receiving their message directly from Yahweh. Moreover, Jeremiah reproached false prophets for stealing the word from another. I believe this question needs more attention and study. I concluded my analysis of the origin of the prophet’s message with a reflection on the question of prophetic revelation. I have argued that the book of Jeremiah presents the prophetic message as the result of a revelation. The prophet is not pictured as a theologian interpreting DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 129 God’s will for his own time. On the contrary, the book of Jeremiah indicates that Yahweh reveals his plans to the prophets. Not only does the council of Yahweh points to this concept of revelation, but the various passages where Yahweh speaks directly to Jeremiah signal that Jeremiah received his message from his God. I have also argued that the adoption of a modern worldview that denies the doctrine of special revelation leads to a destruction of the biblical understanding of prophecy. Without special revelation, a prophet cannot even be an interpreter because there is no divine revelation to interpret. Without revelation, there is no word of God ¾as Jeremiah claims¾but only words of men. Criteria for Prophetic Discernment During my study presented in chapters 2–4, I have identified key elements for building a list of criteria for prophetic discernment. However, it is in chapter 4 that I have summarized and explained each of the criteria I found in the book of Jeremiah. There are seven criteria that I extracted from the prophetic book. I could certainly have found more or organized them differently. I nevertheless believe that they offer a good picture of what is found in Jeremiah. I have presented them under two categories: hidden and visible criteria. The hidden criteria deal more directly with the nature of a prophet. Like the name indicates, they are more difficult (possibly even impossible) for the audience to assess, but they still are necessary criteria of what constitutes a true prophet. First, a prophet must be called by God to the office. All true prophets are called by God. Second, true prophets are sent by Yahweh with a message. This second criterion is similar to the first one but emphasizes the message. Not only does a prophet need to be called by Yahweh, but he must be sent with a message from him. Third, a true prophet stood in Yahweh’s council. Again, this criterion is closely connected with DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 130 the first two, but it emphasizes the special access prophets have to Yahweh. They are given access to secrets and God’s plans for his people and the world. Furthermore, there are four visible criteria that I presented in my study, constituting criteria number 4 through 7. The fourth criterion is the personal godliness of the prophet. A true prophet lives in accordance with Yahweh’s commandments. He is a re-enforcer of the law, and he lives by its instructions. This godliness also includes the idea that a true prophet does not prophesy for personal gain. Fifth, a true prophet’s proclamations are aligned with the nascent Hebrew Scriptures. For this criterion, I argued that a prophet’s message needs to be aligned with the Torah, but that the idea of progressive revelation must also be taken into account in the evaluation of a prophetic utterance. What I mean is that God did not reveal everything through Moses, but that new revelations are given as Yahweh unfolds his redemption plan in history. Thus, one should expect new revelations from prophets, not only mere repetitions of past revelations. The alignment is not with a fixed past, but with an unfolding trajectory rooted in the past and oriented towards the future. This alignment with the Scripture also includes the cohesion of the prophet’s message with the theological framework construed by the Canon. Six, the prophet’s oracle must be evaluated in accordance with its alignment with the historical context of the audience. The right message must be proclaimed in the right context. The seventh and last criterion is the fulfilment of the prophet’s word. A form of this criterion is found in Jeremiah’s own discussion with Hananiah (Jer. 28:9) and should be retained, even if it needs to be completed by the rest of Scripture and carefully used. Indeed, the conditionality of numerous prophecies makes this criterion more complicated to use than one could expect, but it does not invalidate it. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 131 Limits and the Principle of Synergy In this study, although I have considered texts of Scripture outside the book of Jeremiah, I have nevertheless focused my attention on this particular book. The results of my studies are necessarily influenced by this focus. Other criteria might have been added to the list if the scope of the study was larger. Still, my contention is that the book of Jeremiah is a key text for the question of prophetic discernment and the results are applicable to the rest of Scripture. I have already noted that each criterion is somewhat limited by itself, given the fact that they cannot discriminate every false prophet of Scripture. For instance, I have noted that the prophet Hananiah does not seem to be identifiable as a false prophet on the basis of immoral conduct. Another criterion must be considered for declaring Hananiah a false prophet. In his case, the criteria of alignment with the historical context could have led the people to identify him as proclaiming words of his own mind. Consequently, the evaluation of a prophet must be made by using all criteria conjointly. This working together of the various criteria is what I would call the principle of synergy. No criterion is sufficient by itself to unmask every false prophet.300 It does not mean that they are not valid or useful. I have argued that the idea of validity must be defined differently than what some, like Crenshaw, have presupposed. In order to be valid, a criterion does not need to be able to incriminate every false prophet. Each criterion must be used like a tool in a toolbox or various filters scanning for errors. If a prophet can pass each test, then there is a high chance that he is a true prophet. Again, doubts might still be present after the evaluation, but it does not mean that the criteria are useless. Similarly, various principles of interpretations are offered by scholars to 300 Even so, it might come situations where only new revelations can reveal the falseness of a prophet. In the case of Hananiah, Yahweh revealed the truth to Jeremiah about him, before the fulfillment criterion could be used. In this case, it seems that Yahweh did not want the people to wait for another two years before Hananiah’s message be declared false. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 132 exegete biblical texts. These principles should not be declared invalid because different opinions about the interpretation of a particular text are still possible after their utilization. They are still useful and valid. Their limitations should be recognized, but should not be discarded for this reason. I contend that the same attitude should be adopted toward criteria for prophetic discrimination. Applications Outside the Old Testament The context of application for these criteria is more naturally Jeremiah’s own situation. However, correspondences and continuity with other eras in the history of Israel would suggest that they also apply to the whole period of the Old Testament, starting with Moses and ending with the last prophet.301 The question is then to determine if these criteria are also applicable outside the scope of the Old Testament. By looking at the New Testament books, I would suggest that although the outlook is different from Jeremiah’s time, there is certainly some continuity. For instance, I have already noted the continuity of the moral character criterion with Jesus’s warning against false prophets in Matt. 7:15-20.302 However, the coming of the new covenant also brought an element of discontinuity. As noted by Moberly, “[T]he New Testament writers characteristically transform the Old Testament criteria into a pattern that is both Christ-centred and cruciform.”303 Jesus thus 301 Other prophets are mentioned before Moses in the book of Genesis, but I would argue with VanGemeren that Moses should be seen as the “fountainhead” of the prophets (VanGemeren, Interpreting the Prophetic Word, 28). Moreover, some criteria are based on the Torah given by Moses. It thus makes more sense to start the prophetic period with Moses. Malachi is probably the last prophet of Israel. However, redactional activity and pseudepigraphy makes this evaluation more complicate. For a history of the prophets in Israel, see Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel. 302 The place of the Old Testament in Jesus’s preaching also indicates that the criterion of alignment with the Scripture remains in the New Testament era. Matt. 5:17-20 is a key text learn about Jesus’s view of the Old Testament. First, those words of Jesus indicate that the law and the prophets are still valid during his time on Earth. Moreover, they are somewhat reminiscent of Moses’s words in Deut. 13:1-11. One must teach others to observe the law. Second, they also include the moral criterion in Jesus’s call to observe the commandments. 303 Moberly, Prophecy and Discernment, 151 (emphasis his). DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 133 becomes a new component in the evaluation of a prophet’s message. I believe that every criterion I have presented is still valid in the New Testament, but they would probably need to be reformulated or complemented by a thorough analysis of the New Testament.304 One should also note the correspondence between the prophets and the apostles, particularly as givers of new revelations.305 As for the question continuity of the prophetic activity beyond the apostolic period, it is more complicated. Part of the issue concerns the nature of prophecy. For instance, if one reduces prophetic activity to preaching, then one will presumably consider that there is continuity. However, if one includes direct revelations from God, as I have argued in this study, answering this question is more complicated. Various positions exist on the question. The evaluation of the continuity of the prophetic activity after the New Testament time is beyond the scope of this thesis. However, I would argue that the same principles, at least the visible criteria, should be applied to someone posing as a prophet. For instance, the criterion of personal godliness is still relevant, especially in the relationship with money the criterion establishes. 304 Moberly’s chapters on John and Paul in his Prophecy and Discernment are a great place to start for a study on prophetic discernment in the New Testament. Moberly, “John: God’s incarnate love as the key to discernment” and “Paul: cruciformity and the discernment of apostolic authenticity,” in Prophecy and Discernment. 305 There has been a significant number of publications on the relationship between the prophets and the apostles. In addition to Moberly, see also: Jeffrey W. Aernie, Is Paul also among the Prophets? An Examination of the Relationship between Paul and the Old Testament Prophetic Tradition in 2 Corinthians, LNTS 467 (London: T & T Clark, 2012); Hetty Lalleman, “Paul’s Self-Understanding in the Light of Jeremiah: A Case Study into the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament,” in A God of Faithfulness: Essays in Honour of J. Gordon McConville on His 60th Birthday, ed. Jamie A Grant, Alison Lo, and Gordon J Wenham (London: T & T Clark, 2013); Karl Olav Sandnes, “Prophet-Like Apostle: A Note on the ‘Radical New Perspective’ in Pauline Studies,” Biblica 96, no. 4 (2015): 550–64; Roger Stronstad, “The Rebirth of Prophecy: Trajectories from Moses to Jesus and His Followers,” Journal of Biblical and Pneumatological Research 5 (2013): 3–28. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 134 Further Developments The study of the prophetic phenomenon and the criteria for distinguishing between true and false prophets would certainly benefit from more research. Following my study presented in this thesis, I would like to offer some ideas for further developments. On Criteria for Prophetic Discernment An obvious way to develop this study would be to look for other criteria in the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures, and then in the New Testament. I expect that further research would help refine my criteria and add some new ones. By including the New Testament, I would also expect that changes occurred in the passage to the new covenant. The element of continuitydiscontinuity present within the Old Testament is probably greater given the fuller trajectory of progressive revelation, and the longer development of the prophetic tradition. Furthermore, an evaluation of more critiques on the validity of prophetic discernment would certainly be beneficial. There is especially one criterion that needs more attention, it is the fulfilment criteria. I have responded to Crenshaw’s attacks on three texts from Jeremiah, but there are many more elsewhere in Scripture. A study of each case would be much useful. Additionally, such a study will probably help refine the idea of prophetic fulfilment. More attention could be given to the element of conditionality and unconditionality. How does one determine whether a prophecy is conditional or determined? Does the answer reside in the form, language and style of the prophecy? Are all messianic prophecies determined? On Prophecy This study also led me to investigate the nature of prophecy. I believe that I have touched on some questions that would benefit from further research. The idea of prophetic inspiration and revelation is complex and needs further attention. For instance, how should the presence of verbal DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 135 parallels within the prophetic literature be explained in light of the doctrine of revelation? I have argued that the question is more complex than it is sometimes assumed. There are some implications that need further study. Also, if the apostle Paul is to be depicted as a prophet who wrote letters, should he be set forth as a model for writing prophets? Should he be construed as a model for explaining prophetic inspiration in Old Testament prophets? Are they different? Are they two types of inspiration? What does it mean when the prophets said: “The Word of Yahweh came to me”? Finally, I believe that this study on prophetic discernment in the book of Jeremiah reminds us that there are still many things that we do not know about prophecy in Ancient Israel. We are outsiders looking from a distance at a phenomenon that took place long ago. Yet, the resulting texts are still relevant to us. The words of Yahweh given by Jeremiah are still alive. May we give them the attention they deserve! DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 136 Bibliography Achtemeier, Elizabeth. Minor Prophets. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2012. Aernie, Jeffrey W. Is Paul Also among the Prophets? An Examination of the Relationship Between Paul and the Old Testament Prophetic Tradition in 2 Corinthians. LNTS 467. London: T & T Clark, 2012. Allen, Leslie C. Jeremiah: A Commentary. TOTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2008. Beale, G. K. Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012. ———. We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008. Beale, G. K., and D. A. Carson, eds. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Beasley-Murray, George R. John, Volume 36: Revised Edition. Edited by Bruce M Metzger, David Allen Hubbard, and Glenn W Barker. Dallas, TX: Word, Incorporated, 2015. Blank, Sheldon H. Of a Truth the Lord Hath Sent Me: An Inquiry into the Source of the Prophet’s Authority. Cincinnati, OH: The Hebrew Union College Press, 1955. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. A History of Prophecy in Israel. Revised and Enlarged. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Bloesch, Donald G. Holy Scripture: Revelation, Inspiration & Interpretation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006. Bowling, Andrew. “1071 ‫ָלַבב‬.” In Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, edited by R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, 466–67. Chicago: Moody, 1999. Brenneman, J.E. “True and False Prophecy.” In Dictionary of the Old Testament: Prophets, edited by Mark J. Boda and Gordon J. McConville, 781–88. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 137 Bright, John. Jeremiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. 2nd Edition. The Anchor Bible 21. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965. Brueggemann, Walter. A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. ———. Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2012. Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Prophet Jeremiah and the Lamentations. Vol. 4. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010. Carroll, Robert P. “A Non-Cogent Argument in Jeremiah’s Oracles against the Prophets.” Studia Theologica 30, no. 1 (1976): 43–51. ¾¾¾. When Prophecy Failed: Cognitive Dissonances in the Prophetic Traditions of the Old Testament. New York: Seabury, 1979. ¾¾¾ From Chaos to Covenant: Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah. New York: Crossroad, 1981. Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Leicester, England: InterVarsity, 1991. Carson, D. A., and H. G. M. Williamson, eds. It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Chapman, Stephen B. The Law and the Prophets: A Study in Old Testament Canon Formation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020. Childs, Brevard S. Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. ¾¾¾. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. TOTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974. Clements, R.E. Prophecy and Covenant. Studies in Biblical Theology 43. London: SCM, 1965. ———. Prophecy and Tradition. Growing Points in Theology. Atlanta: John Knox, 1975. Craigie, Peter C, Page H. Kelley, and Joel F. Drinkard. Jeremiah 1-25. Word Biblical Commentary 26. Dallas, TX: Word, Incorporated, 1991. Crenshaw, James L. Prophetic Conflict: Its Effect upon Israelite Religion. 1971. Reprint, Atlanta: SBL, 2007. Culver, Robert D. “1277 ‫ָנָבא‬.” In Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, edited by R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, 544–45. Chicago: Moody, 1999. De Jong, Matthijs J. “The Fallacy of ‘True and False’ in Prophecy Illustrated by Jer 28:8-9.” The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 12 (October 21, 2012): 1–29. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 138 De Vries, Simon J. Prophet Against Prophet: The Role of the Micaiah Narrative (I Kings 22) in the Development of Early Prophetic Tradition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. Duhm, D. Bernhard. Das Buch Jeremia. Kurzer Hand-Commentar Zum Alten Testament. Tübingen and Leipzig: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1901. Durham, John I. Exodus. Edited by Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker, John D. W. Watts, and James W. Watts. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014. Enns, Peter. Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. Second Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015. Fee, Gordon D., and Douglas K. Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. Fourth edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014. Fishbane, Michael A. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. Fox, Michael V. Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther. Columbia: University of South Carolina, 1991. Gallagher, Paul. “Discerning True and False Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah.” The Asia Journal of Theology 28, no. 1 (2014): 3–15. Garrett, Duane A. A Commentary on Exodus. Kregel Exegetical Library. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2014. Gentry, Peter. How to Read and Understand the Biblical Prophets. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017. Gilkey, Langdon B. “Cosmology, Ontology, and the Travail of Biblical Language.” The Journal of Religion 41, no. 3 (1961): 194–205. Girdlestone, Robert Baker. The Grammar of Prophecy: An Attempt to Discover the Method Underlying the Prophetic Scriptures. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1901. Goldingay, John. Models for Scripture. Toronto: Clements Publishing, 2004. ———. The Theology of Jeremiah: The Book, the Man, the Message. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2021. Grenz, Stanley, David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling. Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999. Guyette, Fred. “The Genre of the Call Narrative: Beyond Habel’s Model.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 43, no. 1 (2015): 54–58. Habel, Normal C. “Form and Significance of the Call Narratives.” Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 77, no. 3 (1965): 297–323. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 139 Handy, Lowell K. Among the Host of Heaven: The Syro-Palestinian Pantheon as Bureaucracy. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994. ———. “Dissenting Deities or Obedient Angels: Divine Hierarchies in Ugarit and the Bible.” Biblical Research 35 (1989): 18–35. Harris, R. Laird. “2292 ‫ָשַׂרף‬.” In Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, edited by R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, 884. Chicago: Moody, 1999. Hays, Richard B. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. Heiser, Michael S. “Divine Council.” In Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings, edited by Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns, 112–16. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008. ———. “Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism?: Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 18, no. 1 (2008): 1–30. ———. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2015. Heschel, Abraham J. The Prophets. 1962. Reprint, New York: Perennial, 2001. Hibbard, J. Todd. “True and False Prophecy: Jeremiah’s Revision of Deuteronomy.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 35, no. 3 (March 2011): 339–58. Holladay, William Lee. “Background of Jeremiah’s Self-Understanding: Moses, Samuel, and Psalm 22.” Journal of Biblical Literature 83, no. 2 (1964): 153–64. ———. Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1-25. Edited by Paul D. Hanson. Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. ———. Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 26-52. Edited by Paul D. Hanson. Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989. Hölscher, Gustav. Die Profeten : Untersuchungen zur Religionsgeschichte Israels. Leipzig, Germany: J.C. Hinrichs, 1914. House, Paul R. Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998. Huey, F. B. Jeremiah, Lamentations. Vol. 16. The New American Commentary. Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1993. Kaiser Jr., Walter C. “False Prophet.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 242–43. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 140 Kaiser Jr., Walter C., Jr. Toward an Old Testament Theology. Annotated edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991. Kaiser Jr., Walter C., and Tiberius Rata. Walking the Ancient Paths: A Commentary on Jeremiah. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2019. Kee, Min Suc. “The Heavenly Council and Its Type-Scene.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 31, no. 3 (March 2007): 259–73. Kingsbury, Edwin C. “The Prophets and the Council of Yahweh.” Journal of Biblical Literature 83, no. 3 (September 1964): 279–86. Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, M. E. J. Richardson, and Johann Jakob Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994–2000. Kutsch, E. “‫ְבּ ִרית‬.” In Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, edited by Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, 256–66. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997. Lalleman, Hetty. Jeremiah and Lamentations: An Introduction and Commentary. Edited by David G. Firth. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries 21. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013. ———. “Paul’s Self-Understanding in the Light of Jeremiah: A Case Study into the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament.” In A God of Faithfulness: Essays in Honour of J. Gordon McConville on His 60th Birthday, edited by Jamie A Grant, Alison Lo, and Gordon J Wenham, 96–111. London: T & T Clark, 2013. Lindblom, Johannes. Prophecy in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963. Lints, Richard. Identity and Idolatry: The Image of God and Its Inversion. NSBT 36. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2015. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 1-20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible 21A. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. ———. Jeremiah 21-36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible 21B. New York: Doubleday, 2008. Manahan, Ronald E. “A Theology of Pseudoprophets: A Study in Jeremiah.” Grace Theological Journal 1 (1980): 77–96. Marshall, J. W. “Decalogue.” In Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, edited by T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker, 171–82. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2003. McConville, “‫( ְבּ ִרית‬berît).” In New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, edited by Willem VanGemeren, 1:747-54. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 141 McKane, William. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah: Volume I, Introduction and Commentary on Jeremiah 1-25. 2 vols. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark International, 1986. ———. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah: Volume II, Introduction and Commentary on Jeremiah 26-52. 2 vols. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark International, 1986. Moberly, R. W. L. Old Testament Theology: Reading the Hebrew Bible as Christian Scripture. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2015. ———. Prophecy and Discernment. Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. ¾¾¾. The God of the Old Testament: Encountering the Divine in Christian Scripture. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020. Mowinckel, Sigmund. The Spirit and the Word: Prophecy and Tradition in Ancient Israel. Fortress Classics in Biblical Studies. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2002. ¾¾¾. “‘The Spirit’ and the ‘Word’ in the Pre-Exilic Reforming Prophets,” Journal of Biblical Literature 53 (1934): 199–227. Moyise, Steve. The Old Testament in the New: An Introduction. Second Edition, Revised and Expanded. T & T Clark Approaches to Biblical Studies. London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2015. Overholt, Thomas W. “Jeremiah 27-29: The Question of False Prophecy.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 35, no. 3 (1967): 241–49. Phinney, D. N. “Call/Commission Narratives.” In Dictionary of the Old Testament: Prophets, edited by Mark J. Boda and Gordon J. McConville, 65–71. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012. Porter, Stanley E., ed. Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament. McMaster New Testament Studies. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Rad, Gerhard von. Old Testament Theology. Vol. 2. 2 vols. New York: Harper & Row, 1965. ———. The Message of the Prophets. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Rogers, J. S. “Jehohanan (Person).” In The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman, 3:660–61. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Ross, Allen P. A Commentary on the Psalms. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2016. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 142 Sanders, James A. “Jeremiah and the Future of Theological Scholarship.” Andover Newton Quarterly 13, no. 2 (1972): 133–45. Sanders, James F. “Hermeneutics in True and False Prophecy.” In Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion and Theology, edited by Burke O. Long and George W. Coats, 21–41. Phillipsburg, NJ: Fortress, 1977. Sandnes, Karl Olav. “Prophet-Like Apostle: A Note on the ‘Radical New Perspective’ in Pauline Studies.” Biblica 96, no. 4 (2015): 550–64. Schnittjer, Gary Edward. Old Testament Use of Old Testament: A Book-by-Book Guide. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2021. Schultz, Richard L. The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets. JSOT 180. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Schultz, S. J. “Jehoiachin.” In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised, edited by Geoffrey W Bromiley, 2:975–76. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979–1988. Seitz, Christopher R. “The Prophet Moses and the Canonical Shape of Jeremiah.” Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 101, no. 1 (1989): 3–27. Smith, Gary V. “Prophecy, False.” In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised, edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 3:984–86. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988–1979. Smith, Mark S. “Divine Travel as a Token of Divine Rank.” Ugarit Forschungen 16 (1984): 359. ———. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Smith, W. Robertson. The Old Testament in the Jewish Church: A Course of Lectures on Biblical Criticism. Second Edition Revised and much Enlarged. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1895. Sparks, Kenton L. God’s Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. Stanley, Christopher D. Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004. Stronstad, Roger. “The Rebirth of Prophecy: Trajectories from Moses to Jesus and His Followers.” Journal of Biblical and Pneumatological Research 5 (2013): 3–28. Stuart, Douglas K. Exodus. The New American Commentary, vol. 2. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2006. Sweeney, Marvin A. Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature. Forschungen Zum Alten Testament 45. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 143 Thompson, J. A. The Book of Jeremiah. NICOT, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Van Der Woude, A. S. “Micah in Dispute With the Pseudo-Prophets.” Vetus Testamentum 19, no. 2 (1969): 244–60. VanGemeren, Willem A. Interpreting the Prophetic Word: An Introduction to the Prophetic Literature of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. ———. “Prophets, the Freedom of God, and Hermeneutics.” The Westminster Theological Journal 52, no. 1 (1990): 79–99. Wagner, J. Ross. Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul in Concert in the Letter to the Romans. Boston: Brill, 2003. Waltke, Bruce K., and Charles Yu. An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007. Walton, John H. Genesis. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001. ———. Job: From Biblical Text ... to Contemporary Life. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012. Werblowsky, R. J. Zwi. “Stealing the Word.” Vetus Testamentum 6, no. 1 (1956): 105–6. Westermann, Claus. Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech. Cambridge: Lutterworth, 1991. Young, Edward J. My Servants the Prophets. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952. Youngblood, Kevin J. Jonah: A Discourse Analysis of the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Daniel I Block. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament 28. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015. Zobel, Hans-Jürgen. “‫ָגָּלה‬.” In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Translated by John T. Willis, 2:476–88. Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1977. DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS IN JEREMIAH 144 Curriculum Vitae From 1999 to 2004, I studied in fine arts, graduating with a Bachelor of Arts from Université du Québec À Montréal (Quebec). I then pursued a master’s Graduate Diploma in Ergonomic Intervention with the same University, graduating in 2006. In the meanwhile, I started a BTh. in pastoral studies with SEMBEQ (Séminaire Baptiste Évangélique du Québec). Studying part time, I eventually finished this program in 2016. In 2017, I began a Master of Theological Studies with ACTS in Old Testament. In 2014, I joined SEMBEQ as Registrar and I am now serving as Vice-Dean. Throughout the years, I have been implicated in various areas, such as teaching, development of curricula and courses, students’ orientation, and numerous administrative tasks. I have developed a series of small group studies surveying the Old Testament and two survey courses of the Old Testament that I regularly teach at SEMBEQ. I have been blessed with the mentoring and coaching of more experienced teachers and administrators at SEMBEQ, accompanying me in every challenge I faced. I am also serving on the editorial board on the new theological journal from SEMBEQ that was launched in 2020. I wrote an article in 2021: “Analyse de l’utilisation de l’Ancien Testament dans Romains 4 : une défense de l’interprétation apostolique des Écritures.” Beginning in 2015, I have also been assisting with the development and mentoring of various students in SEMBEQ’s competency-based programs, operated by Northwest Seminary and College.