The terms “true” and “false,” as applied to the prophets of the Old Testament, serve to distinguish those whom the Bible approves from those whom it does not approve. To the people of Old Testament times, this was not a question of merely academic interest, but one of vital importance; for these prophets were their contemporaries, to whom they had to look for practical guidance in political and spiritual matters. They could not, as some champions of inspiration in these days might, dismiss the significance of discerning true prophecy from false prophecy. True and false prophets abounded not only in antiquity, in both the Old Testament (OT) and New Testament (NT), within and without the people of God, but also in later times.
Nevertheless, it is important to note that the term “false prophet” is not rooted in Hebrew biblical tradition but first came to be associated with the Septuagint (LXX) tradition of “pseudoprophetes.” This distinction is crucial because, otherwise, there is a confusion of identification since the same word, “nabi,” is used to depict different concepts in the Masoretic Text (MT). Despite this, the following points should be noted in the understanding of the concept of the identity and functions of “true and false” prophets.
Firstly, true prophets were those who genuinely conveyed the messages of God, often validated by the fulfillment of their prophecies and their alignment with the established covenantal teachings. They were seen as mouthpieces of divine will, providing guidance that was both spiritually and politically relevant to the people. Their messages often called for repentance, adherence to the law, and faithfulness to God.
On the other hand, false prophets were those who claimed to speak for God but whose messages were not divinely inspired. These individuals often led people astray with prophecies that contradicted the established teachings or failed to come to pass. They might have been motivated by personal gain, political influence, or other non-divine inspirations. The presence of false prophets posed a significant threat to the community, as they could lead people away from true worship and obedience to God.
In summary, the distinction between true and false prophets in the Old Testament was a matter of great significance, impacting the spiritual and political life of the community. Understanding this distinction involves recognizing the historical and textual nuances, such as the introduction of the term “false prophet” in the LXX tradition and the consistent use of “nabi” in the MT. This understanding helps in appreciating the critical role prophets played in guiding the people according to divine will and the dangers posed by those who falsely claimed such authority.
Distinguishing True and False Prophets in Ancient Israel
In ancient Israel, distinguishing between true and false prophets presented a significant challenge. This complexity is evident in the narratives and critiques found within the Old Testament, particularly during the era of the classical prophets. The following analysis delves into the nature of prophetic authenticity, the problematic elements of ecstatic prophetic experiences, and the ethical conduct of prophets, supported by direct biblical quotations.
The Problem of Prophetic Authenticity
The Israelites often found it difficult to differentiate between true and false prophets, as both appeared similar in their roles and pronouncements. This ambiguity is underscored in several Old Testament passages where prophets err in their judgment, confusing their personal desires with the divine word.
Isaiah critiques the prophets’ misguided behavior: “These also reel with wine and stagger with strong drink; the priest and the prophet reel with strong drink, they are confused with wine, they stagger with strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in giving judgment” (Isaiah 28:7, RSV). Similarly, Jeremiah speaks against false prophecies: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land” (Jeremiah 23:5, RSV), contrasting the true prophetic message with the false assurances given by others.
Ecstatic Prophetic Experience
Possession of the ecstatic prophetic “spirit” was not a reliable indicator of a prophet’s authenticity. Ecstatic experiences were common, yet they did not guarantee the truthfulness of the prophetic message. Most classical prophets do not exhibit signs of ecstatic behavior, suggesting that authentic prophecy did not necessarily require such experiences.
Contradictory Prophetic Messages
The issue becomes even more problematic when prophets deliver contradictory messages. This is particularly evident in narratives where two prophets claim divine authority but present opposing oracles.
A prominent example is found in 1 Kings 22, where Micaiah and the prophets of Ahab present conflicting prophecies. Another significant instance is in Jeremiah 28, where Jeremiah confronts Hananiah. Hananiah declares, “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 Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon took away from this place and carried to Babylon” (Jeremiah 28:2-3, RSV). Jeremiah responds with skepticism, asserting that Hananiah’s message is not from Yahweh, and predicts Hananiah’s death as a sign of his false prophecy: “Listen, Hananiah, the Lord has not sent you, and you have made this people trust in a lie. Therefore thus says the Lord: Behold, I will remove you from the face of the earth. This year you shall die, because you have uttered rebellion against the Lord” (Jeremiah 28:15-16, RSV).
Ethical Conduct of Prophets
The Old Testament frequently accuses prophets, often in conjunction with priests, of moral and social crimes, suggesting a deep-seated corruption within the prophetic and priestly classes. This corruption is seen as an impediment to Yahweh’s will and a cause of societal decay.
Jeremiah explicitly condemns the prophets and priests: “Both prophet and priest are ungodly; even in my house I have found their wickedness, says the Lord” (Jeremiah 23:11, RSV). Isaiah similarly denounces their behavior: “These also reel with wine and stagger with strong drink; the priest and the prophet reel with strong drink, they are confused with wine, they stagger with strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in giving judgment” (Isaiah 28:7, RSV).
YHWH’s Use of Both Yahweistic and Non-Yahweistic Prophets
The complexity of distinguishing true from false prophets is heightened by YHWH’s use of both Yahweistic and non-Yahweistic prophets. This broad deployment underscores that prophecy’s effectiveness is not necessarily tied to the prophet’s identity or religious background but to the audience’s reception of the message. The core issue is the content of the message rather than the person of the prophet.
A pertinent example is found in the story of Balaam. Despite being a non-Yahweistic prophet, Balaam’s oracles in Numbers 22-24 were regarded as true prophecies from Yahweh. Balaam declares, “How can I curse whom God has not cursed? How can I denounce whom the Lord has not denounced?” (Numbers 23:8, RSV). This acknowledgment of Yahweh’s sovereignty highlights the validity of Balaam’s prophecy. However, biblical tradition also condemns Balaam, associating him with enemies of God and Israel: “They killed Balaam the son of Beor with the sword” (Numbers 31:8, RSV). Additional texts further vilify him: “Balaam also, the son of Beor, the one who practiced divination, was killed by the people of Israel among the rest of their slain” (Joshua 13:22, RSV), and in the New Testament, Balaam is depicted as a corrupt figure (2 Peter 2:15, Jude 11, Revelation 2:14). This dual perspective illustrates the difficulty in evaluating the authenticity of a prophet based solely on their identity or broader reputation.
The Prophecy of Non-Yahweistic Prophets as True
The narrative surrounding Balaam illustrates that a non-Yahweistic prophet’s message can be considered true within the Israelite tradition, despite the prophet’s general negative portrayal. Balaam’s oracles, while recognized as divinely inspired, coexisted with a tradition that ultimately labeled him an enemy. This dichotomy presents a significant challenge in distinguishing true prophecy. The oracles of Balaam in Numbers 22-24 include profound blessings for Israel, such as: “The oracle of Balaam the son of Beor, the oracle of the man whose eye is opened, the oracle of him who hears the words of God, who sees the vision of the Almighty, falling down, but having his eyes uncovered” (Numbers 24:3-4, RSV). These statements were treasured as true, yet Balaam’s association with opposition to God’s people remained a prominent theme in later scriptures.
Inconsistency of Prophecies from the Same Prophet
Further complicating the differentiation between true and false prophets is the possibility of inconsistency within the same prophet. A single prophet might deliver both true and false prophecies, contingent upon the influence of the Spirit of God at any given time. This transient nature of prophetic inspiration implies that prophecy is not a permanent state but a temporary endowment.
Deuteronomy 13:2-6 provides a stringent criterion for true prophecy, emphasizing adherence to Yahweh’s covenant over mere fulfillment of predictions: “If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams” (Deuteronomy 13:2-3, RSV). This passage suggests that even accurate predictions can be misleading if they lead to apostasy.
In contrast, Deuteronomy 18:21-22 offers a simpler test for identifying false prophets based on the non-fulfillment of their predictions: “And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?’ — when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him” (Deuteronomy 18:21-22, RSV). However, this test alone is insufficient, as it does not account for the moral and spiritual implications highlighted in Deuteronomy 13.
YHWH as the Cause of False Prophecy
Biblical tradition also reflects the notion that the possession of the Spirit of Yahweh is not a guarantee of true prophecy. In some instances, the activity of false prophets was seen as willed by YHWH to test the faithfulness of His people. This concept is vividly illustrated in 1 Kings 22:19-23, where a lying spirit is sent by YHWH to entice King Ahab: “And the Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said one thing, and another said another. Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, saying, ‘I will entice him.’ And the Lord said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.’ Now therefore behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the Lord has spoken evil concerning you” (1 Kings 22:20-23, RSV).
Jeremiah also reflects this notion when he laments the deception brought upon the people through false prophets: “Ah, Lord God, surely thou hast utterly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, ‘It shall be well with you’; whereas the sword has reached their very life” (Jeremiah 4:10, RSV). This acknowledgment of divine involvement in false prophecy presents a profound challenge in discerning the true prophetic voice, as it implies that even misleading messages may serve a divine purpose.
False Prophets as Sycophants
Many false prophets were sycophants who operated within the king’s court, telling the king and his officials what they wanted to hear to maintain their favor and secure material benefits. These prophets would deliver favorable prophecies that assured their patrons of divine blessings and did not challenge their conscience or actions. An example of this can be seen in the prophets who assured King Ahab of victory, contrasting the lone voice of Micaiah who predicted disaster (1 Kings 22:5-28). These court prophets often conflated the nation’s political and social desires with divine will, reinforcing nationalistic pride rather than genuinely seeking YHWH’s guidance.
The Fulfillment of Prophecy Not the Criterion for True Prophecy
The fulfillment of prophecy, while significant, was not an infallible criterion for determining true prophecy. Deuteronomy 13:2-6 indicates that even a fulfilled prophecy could lead people astray if it advocated for the worship of other gods: “If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams” (Deuteronomy 13:2-3, RSV).
True prophecy often went unfulfilled or took longer to materialize, sometimes even discouraging the prophet. Jeremiah expresses such frustration: “O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived; thou art stronger than I, and thou hast prevailed. I have become a laughingstock all the day; every one mocks me” (Jeremiah 20:7, RSV). Similarly, the prophet Hananiah predicted the end of the Babylonian exile within two years and the restoration of Jeconiah, a message that contradicted Jeremiah’s longer timeline of seventy years (Jeremiah 28:1-4, RSV). Jeremiah’s rebuttal was rooted in his conviction of his divine message’s truth, despite the popularity and hopeful nature of Hananiah’s prophecy.
Conclusion
In summary, the difficulty in distinguishing true from false prophets in ancient Israel stemmed from several factors: YHWH’s use of diverse prophetic voices, the occurrence of valid prophecies from non-Yahweistic prophets like Balaam, the inconsistency of prophetic messages from the same individual, divine orchestration of false prophecy as a test of faithfulness, and the sycophantic nature of many false prophets within the king’s court. These complexities required the Israelites to exercise careful discernment, balancing the fulfillment of predictions with adherence to Yahweh’s covenant and moral directives. The biblical texts underscore the necessity of evaluating the content and ethical implications of prophetic messages, recognizing the transient and variable nature of divine inspiration.
