Discuss the criteria for distinguishing true from false prophecy.
With Brian Maregedze
For feedback email; bmaregedze@gmail.com
The above discursive question appeared in the June 2020 examinations under the Zimbabwe School Examination Council (ZIMSEC), Family & Religious Studies advanced levels. The response offered here appeals also to Divinity candidates although it is under FRS Judaism section. There are two sides to be critically discussed, that is, competing views on what constitute a true prophet if there is any and the complex challenges associated with such positions. Supporting views with Biblical evidence adds value to the responses. Key issues to discuss include professionalism, ecstasy, morality, nationalism, fulfilment, realism, and the call of a prophet. A balanced response allows one to attain higher grades.
Criterion of professionalism
The basis of this criterion lies in Micah 3:5, 11 which labels “those who prophesy for hire” as false. The major assumption for this criterion is that Israelite prophets did not charge for their services. This understanding seems to base on prophets as messengers of Yahweh, implying that they worked for Yahweh and the audiences were therefore not responsible for their upkeep. True prophets took their ministry as a service not a profession.
Further to this, H.H Rowley, notes that professionals work for a living and chances are that these people would prophesy to please their paymasters so as to guarantee themselves an appropriate living in society. It is, therefore, argued according to this criterion that professionals were false prophets as they prophesied to earn a living while the prophet sought to communicate divine will.
Critique
The major assumption of this criterion seems not to be based on critical analysis of the situation on the ground. There are explicit examples of men who are revered as true prophets who seem to have been professionals, receiving remuneration for their services. Samuel was paid for his services (1Sam 9) and Nathan was almost a professional, employed by the King. Nathan was a court prophet, which maybe in contemporary society be interpreted as a civil servant. Ahijah also was paid as evidenced on 1 Kings 24:1 when Jeroboam instructed his wife to take something for Ahijah. Amaziah advised Amos to ‘go back to the land of Judah and earn your bread there’ (Amos 7:12). Although various interpretations have been attached to such utterances, it is notable that contests over spaces of rendering their services were observable. These examples seem to imply that it was normal in Israel for prophets to be paid for their services hence not enough to lead to a conclusion that professionalism was a mark of false prophecy.
Criterion of Ecstasy (Jeremiah 29:26)
A critical analysis of the evidence sampled from the Ancient Near East (ANE) shows that ecstasy formed a pivotal element of prophet-type persons. On the basis of that finding, scholars concluded that it was also a mark of Israelite prophets. Philo in AD 50 (Jews in Alexandria) also believed Old Testament prophets were ecstatic. T.W Manson, however, notes that ecstasy was alien to Israelites religion.
It was a common phenomenon of the Baal religion of the Canaanites but was never revered in Israel. It is also observed by G. Von Rad that Israelite prophets were not ecstatic hence those who were ecstatic were to be regarded as false prophets. This criterion implies that prophets received and delivered their oracles while conscious and hence there was no need for them to have ecstatic experience.
Critique
This criterion falls to account for the fact that Samuel foretold Saul`s meeting with a band of ecstatic (1 Samuel 10:6). 1 Samuel 10 can be used to understand the extent to which the ordinary people viewed ecstasy. Soon after meeting with Samuel in 1 Samuel 9, a near future event is predicted by Samuel informing Saul that he would meet a band of prophets playing musical instruments. More notable, advised by Samuel to Saul being to do whatever the spirit takes to do. A question which was posited by the people, ‘Is Saul also among the prophets?’ Saul having been naked all day and all night gave insights to the ordinary on whether he was among the prophets.
The emissary of Elisha is called by Jehu’s fellow captains “a mad fellow” (11Kings 9:11), which seems to imply that he was an ecstatic who behaved like a madman. If these celebrated prophets were ecstatic in one way or the other, the criterion therefore does not do justice to this fact. It must be noted, however, that the criterion seems justified in questioning words uttered in ecstasy, in which case, the speaker cannot be held responsible for his/her actions.
Realists VS Nationalists
Some scholars have sought to distinguish between the two by noting that true prophets of Israel were realists, and blind nationalists were considered false. It is believed that realists or true prophets spoke on things happening on the ground and their message was conditioned by the environment within which they were operating and as such true prophets were independent of their hearers.
Blind nationalists refer to those prophets who even when staring death and destruction would continue to shout “peace” (Ezekiel 8:6). These were not worried so much with what was happening on the ground, they sought to demonstrate than practical considerations.
Critique
While it tackles some of the practical problems it should be noted that this criterion does not seem to consider the role of tradition in shaping one`s understanding of events, for example, Hananiah and Jeremiah, Isaiah etc. It appears that in Israel, prophets became divided on covenant lines. Some were pro-David, while others being on to the Mosaic covenant hence their viewpoints could have been diametrically opposed as to allow any meaningful concurrence between the two.
Moral uprightness
This criterion seems to tower above the others as it is based on the behaviour of the prophets. It is assumed that true prophets should lead morally exemplary lives. False prophets were characterized by their low morality, drunkenness, adulterers, evil doers or supported such evil doers. In essence, the personality of the prophets is given an important task in the line of duty for the said prophet. There was no room for contradictions between what the prophet said and how he led his life: One was supposed to be virtuous. Any prophet, therefore, whose message was contradicted by his conduct negatively was therefore assumed to be a false prophet.
Critique
This criterion seems to have gone a step further in this debate by attempting to place the different prophets within their rightful context. From this context we can identify acceptable norms and those which are unacceptable leading us to conclude that this is moral or immoral. This criterion does not come out clearly on the position of those who would have repented of their past deeds.
The prophet Hosea is one who presents acute problems to this criterion: he was considered a true prophet, yet he is believed to have married a harlot. How then does one reconcile his actions and his position as the messenger of Yahweh? Other criteria have been used beside the ones analysed already, yet it must be noted that the problem of the dichotomy, is far from over. These criteria cannot or can hardly stand on their own, hence, in an attempt at distinguishing these two groups there is need for cautious use of the discussed criteria. According to Lindblom ‘the false prophets had many characteristics similar to those of true prophets’ thereby rendering the criterion complex.
All in all, the criteria to distinguish true from false is not water-tight, but knowledge gaps do exist from the Bible as well as even in contemporary societies. The case is made complex by the fact that every criterion in the discussion has its own shortfalls. Religious studies authorities are still divided on the subject and it is worth revisiting the features which are vital in distinguishing true and false prophets in the quest for clarity. The other criteria are however left out deliberately to allow candidates to work on them in further readings/research.
Sources to consult
Madzokere N. and Machingura F. (2015). True and False Prophets/esses in the Light of Prophets/esses and Wonders in Zimbabwe, Journal of Critical Southern Studies, Volume 3, Winter.
Maregedze B. and Muronzi A, (2018). New Trends in Family & Religious Studies [Zimbabwean Indigenous Religion and Judaism], Edulight Books, Harare.
Overholt, T. (1967). Jeremiah 27-29: The Question of False Prophecy. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 35(3), 241-249. Retrieved October 24, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1461631
Walker, D. (1902). True and False Prophets in 1 Kings, Chap. 22. The Biblical World, 20(4), 272-277. Retrieved October 24, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3137398
With Brian Maregedze
ReplyDeleteFor feedback email; bmaregedze@gmail.com
The above discursive question appeared in the June 2020 examinations under the Zimbabwe School Examination Council (ZIMSEC), Family & Religious Studies advanced levels. The response offered here appeals also to Divinity candidates although it is under FRS Judaism section. There are two sides to be critically discussed, that is, competing views on what constitute a true prophet if there is any and the complex challenges associated with such positions. Supporting views with Biblical evidence adds value to the responses. Key issues to discuss include professionalism, ecstasy, morality, nationalism, fulfilment, realism, and the call of a prophet. A balanced response allows one to attain higher grades.