Article Information
|
Author:
Wilhelm J. Wessels1
Affiliation:
1Department of Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern Studies, University of South Africa, South Africa
Correspondence to:
Wilhelm Wessels
Email:
wessewj@unisa.ac.za
Postal address:
PO Box 392, Unisa 0003, South Africa
Dates:
Received: 24 Sept. 2010
Accepted: 05 Apr. 2011
Published: 26 Aug. 2011
How to cite this article:
Wessels, W.J., 2011,’”So they do not profit this people at all” (Jr 23:32). A critique of prophecy’, Verbum et Ecclesia
32(1), Art. #464, 8 pages.
doi:10.4102/ve.v32i1.464
Copyright Notice:
© 2011. The Authors. Licensee: AOSIS OpenJournals. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License.
ISSN: 1609-9982 (print)
ISSN: 2074-7705 (online)
|
|
|
‘So they do not profit this people at all’ (Jr 23:32). A critique of prophecy
|
In This Original Research...
|
Open Access
|
• Abstract
• An analysis of Jeremiah 23:25–32
• Discussion of the key words in Jeremiah 23:25–32
• [Lies or deception] [Please refer to PDF]
• [A dream] [Please refer to PDF]
• [In my name] [Please refer to PDF]
• [Says Yahweh] [Please refer to PDF]
• My people did not benefit: Preliminary conclusion
• Jeremiah 23:25–32 in its literary context of 23:9–40
• Conclusion
• References
• Footnotes
|
Jeremiah 23:9–40 is a section of the Bible that is dedicated to the
issue of true and false prophets. This section follows the cycle of the
kings in Jeremiah 21:1–23:8. Both these cycles form part of an
editorial unit 21:1–24:10. The kings and the prophets, along with the
priests constituted the leadership in Israelite society. The view
presented in 21:1–23:40 is that of a failed leadership and the result
was the
Babylonian exile. In this article the focus is on the prophets who are
regarded as false. Jeremiah 23:9–40 is a collection of oracles ascribed
to Jeremiah by tradition. In most instances the oracles are of a
general nature and lack contextual concreteness. The literary context
created by the
compilers of 21:1–23:40 is essential to the argument presented in this
article. According to Jeremiah 23:32 the false prophets ‘…
do not profit the people at all’ (New Revised Standard Version of the
Bible [NRSV]). The line of reasoning in this article will be that, as
religious leaders, prophets should benefit the people. In the context
of 21:1–23:40 they had failed to do this. If the prophets had been in
proper
communication with Yahweh, they would not have misled the people. From
the point of view of the collectors, most probably in an exilic
context, the message
is clear: the prophets have failed the people, the exile is a reality,
and there is no longer any room for false prophets. Jeremiah 23:25–32
makes
it clear that, if prophetic words do not profit Yahweh’s people, they
should be regarded as false and misleading.
The passage for discussion in this article is Jeremiah 23:25–32.
The very last sentence in this passage (v. 32) seems to be the
culminating point
of the complaint against the opposing prophets: ‘so they do not profit
this people at all’. The purpose of this article is to address this
issue of prophets benefiting the ordinary people. From this final
sentence one can conclude that one of the marks of a true prophet is
that ordinary people
should benefit from his performance as a prophet. The question will be,
‘What can a prophet contribute to society that will benefit the
people?’
If we ask this question in the current context, the highlighting of the
negative aspect of the prophets will guide us to what the expectation
of the writer
(prophet) was. Prophets, according to the classical definition of their
function, are supposed to communicate to people the messages they
receive from Yahweh
(Redditt 2008:6; cf. also Blenkinsopp 1996:28–30).1
In verse 28 of the passage under discussion Yahweh says: ‘… let the one
who
has my word speak my word faithfully’ (NRSV). The role of the prophets
is to act as channels of communication between Yahweh and the people.
Yahweh
sends his messages to his covenant people through the prophets he has
commissioned for this purpose.
An analysis of Jeremiah 23:25–32
|
|
The aforementioned passage2 forms a unit that should be distinguished from the previous section (23:23–24)2
that seems to
be a freestanding unit. Jeremiah 23:25–28a appears to be a polemic
against lying dreams, followed in 28b–29 by a section on Yahweh’s
powerful and true words and then judgement pronouncements on prophets
in 23:30–32 (Lundbom 2004:203; Craigie, Kelly & Drinkard 1991:348).3
Verse 25 commences with a first person singular verb, introducing the
concerns about prophets who are in the wrong. The first person singular
refers to
Yahweh who is making his dissatisfaction with how some of the prophets
acted known. The oracular nature of this passage (23:25–32) is
emphasised by
the frequent use of the affirmation formula (Jahwespruchformel according to Vetter 1976:2) says Yahweh
[Please refer to PDF]’. It is used no less than eight times in this passage.4
The first
person singular speaker continues to the end of the passage in verse
32. A new section commences in 23:33 with a direct speech sentence
addressing
the prophet Jeremiah.
Section 23:25–32 seems to consist of poetic verses in verses 28–29,
with 25–27 and 30–32 in prose. Some regard 23:28–29 as the
words of Jeremiah, with the prose sections as additions by a
traditionalist (belonging to the Deuteronomistic movement) in the
exilic period (cf. Nicholson
1970:102). However, the tendency to ascribe sections that do not seem
to fit, as in the aforementioned case, to editorial involvement is at
times the easy way
out. The passage in 23:25–32 shows some coherence with repetition of
key words and phrases and the progressive development of thought to the
climax in
23:32. An analysis of the passage under discussion reveals the
following aspects.
Yahweh addresses the prophets in verse 25. They claim to have had
dreams, but these are dismissed as prophesying lies
[Please refer to PDF] in Yahweh’s name. The key words are: ‘prophets’, ‘dreams’
and ‘lies’ [Please refer to PDF]. Verse 26 continues, again blaming the prophets for
lies and deceit. Verse 27
once more focuses on dreams as a means of distracting the people of
Judah from Yahweh. The dreams do the same thing that Baal did to their
ancestors–
they make them forget about Yahweh.5
The next verse, 23:28, again raises the issue of dreams. It seems that
real dreams, which are not fabrications of the prophets’ imaginations,
are
acceptable. An important aspect is brought into the discussion with the
‘false’ prophets, and that is the ‘word of Yahweh’. There
is a requirement for this word: it should be spoken faithfully [Please refer to PDF].
An interesting contrast is drawn between straw (chaff)
and grain (wheat). Straw has no substance whereas wheat is useful as
food (Fretheim 2002:339). The dreams these so-called prophets produce
are like straw,
whereas the ‘word of Yahweh’ is powerful and, like wheat, of great
value (cf. Thompson 1980:502; McKane 1986:593; Rudolph 1968:155). The
key
words in this verse are: ‘prophets’, ‘dreams’, ‘my word’ and ‘says
Yahweh’
[Please refer to PDF].
In Jeremiah 23:29 the theme of the ‘word of Yahweh’ continues. Two
rhetorical questions are asked with regard to the ‘words of Yahweh’.
The power of the word ‘Yahweh’ is emphasised by comparing it to fire
and to a hammer that breaks mountain rocks. The key words are: ‘words
of
Yahweh’ and [Please refer to PDF] [says Yahweh].
Verse 30 continues with the theme of Yahweh’s word. This verse is introduced by [Please refer to PDF]6 [therefore]
followed by a demonstrative particle ‘behold’ and [Please refer to PDF]
[says Yahweh]. The word used against the prophets is a word for ‘stealing’: stealing Yahweh’s words from each other. Key words are
therefore: ‘prophets’, ‘my words’ and [Please refer to PDF]
[says Yahweh].
In the next verse, verse 31, the sentence is introduced in the same way
as in verse 30 with a demonstrative particle ‘behold’ and
[Please refer to PDF] [says Yahweh], followed by an
accusation
against the prophets. They are under scrutiny for pretending to speak
what Yahweh declares, but it is their own tongues that speak.
Everything expressed in the previous verses culminates in verse 32.
In a sense, it is a summary of verses 23:25–31 (McKane 1986:595). The
sentence is
introduced in the same way as in verses 30 and 31 with the
demonstrative particle and the accusation against the prophets,7 but this time the
false speaking and the dreams are combined as ‘those who prophesy lying or false [Please refer to PDF] dreams’, followed
by [Please refer to PDF] [says Yahweh]. The sentence proceeds with a second mention
of the lies [Please refer to PDF] the prophets tell and the effect they have on the people. The key words are again:
‘prophet’, ‘dreams’,
‘lies’ [twice [Please refer to PDF],
[Please refer to PDF](repeated twice). An important phrase is used here to
emphasise the
real issue held against these lying prophets: ‘I did not send them or
appoint them’. This phrase is repeated in Jeremiah 14:14, 15; 23:21;
27:15 and 29:9. They are illegitimate prophets, Yahweh has not
commissioned them (cf. Dt 18:20).
The concluding sentence, ‘so they do not profit this people at
all’, which is the topic of this article, explains that these prophets
did
not profit or benefit the people of Judah at all. We find the verb
‘profit’ [לעי] in its hif’il
form five
times in the book of Jeremiah. In 2:8 and 2:11 the ‘non-profit of
people’ has to do with what gods or idols have to offer (cf. also Hab
2:18; Is 44:9 and 44:10). In Jeremiah 7:8 the people are blamed for
trusting in deceptive words – with devastating consequences. In this
passage
Jeremiah objects to the Royal or Zion ideology that deceived the people
into having a false sense of security. They cannot unconditionally
believe in
these symbols without disobeying the covenant requirements. By
listening to these deceptive messages, they will not benefit at all,
but will face
calamity. In this respect, 7:8 is similar to the deceptive dreams and
words of the false prophets. The people will definitely not benefit
from what
these prophets communicate; on the contrary, it will have a damaging
and corrupting effect on the people of Judah (cf. McKane 1986:595).8
The analysis has shown that verses 25 and 32 correspond directly and form an inclusio (Craigie et al.
1991:348). Verse 25 raises the issues of
the critique of prophets who tell lies or speak falsely in Yahweh’s
name and their claim to have had dreams. Jeremiah 23:26 continues with
the reference
to prophets prophesying lies. This verse refers to the ‘deception of
their hearts’. There is a close parallel to this verse in Jeremiah
14:14 which
refers to the ‘delusion or deceit of their hearts’, ‘they are
prophesying to you a lying vision, worthless divination, and the deceit
of their
own minds’ (NRSV). The context is important because
verse 14:13 explains that the deception emanating from these prophets
is to assure the
people of peace. They are under threat from the enemy but these
prophets refuse to see the reality and preach a false security (cf.
Overholt 1970:67).
Verse 27 focuses on dreams whereas verse 28 refers to both true
dreams and true words from Yahweh. Verses 28–30 emphasise the
importance of the word of
Yahweh, its truth and the power of his word. Verse 31 again shifts the
focus to the lie of pretending to speak what Yahweh has said. This
leads to the next
verse, the culminating verse (v. 32) or the summary of the passage
where prophets, dreams, lies, and commission as prophets all come
together. The victims
of the lies and deceit are the people of Judah who get nothing
constructive or beneficial out of the deal.
In the passage under discussion several key words and phrases
appear which highlight what the concern of Yahweh with the false
prophets is. One of these words
is the concept of deceit or falseness [Please refer to PDF]. Another key
word is the concept ‘the word’ of Yahweh.
A third concept repeated four times in the passage is the matter of
dreams. A fourth matter that needs mentioning is the reference to ‘my
name or
in my name’ and a fifth is the repetition of [Please refer to PDF] [says Yahweh].
The focus in this passage is on false communication by those who are
not commissioned to represent Yahweh. They claim their revelation is
through ‘dreams’.
Discussion of the key words in Jeremiah 23:25–32
|
|
Certain key words were mentioned in the earlier section of this
article. In this section of the article these words will be discussed.
[Lies or deception] [Please refer to PDF]
The first word that needs attention is the word ‘lies’ or ‘falseness’ [Please refer to PDF].9In
the current context it implies that some prophets are prophesying in
Yahweh’s name, but what they are conveying are lies. The means by which
they
claim to have received his word is dreams (23:25). Verse 26 makes it
clear that the deceit is in their ‘hearts’. It is their own thoughts
that
they speak; they are the source of the messages – not Yahweh. What they
communicate therefore is nothing less than lies and deceit. The passage
ends
in verse 32, saying that Yahweh is not in favour of these prophets
prophesying false dreams. Either the dreams did not occur or they are
pretending to have
had dreams. Therefore the content cannot be regarded as words from
Yahweh. These prophets spreading their false dreams are regarded as
reckless or irresponsible
for doing so. Because it is not the truth coming from Yahweh, it is
causing the people to stray, setting them on a wrong path. This is not
to the benefit of the
people because it leads them away from Yahweh. Verse 32 makes it
perfectly clear that the root of the problem lies in the fact that
these prophets were not
called to be Yahweh’s prophets. Inauthentic prophets can do nothing but
communicate inauthentic or false revelations (messages).
In verse 6:13 the word [Please refer to PDF] [lies or falseness]
is used in the context of the total depravity of the
Judean society. The priests’ and the prophets’ false conduct of
enriching themselves is an inextricable part of the corruption in
society
(also v. 8:10). Jeremiah 8:8 uses the term in connection with the
falsification of the law of Yahweh by the scribes. In 9:2 the word is
used in contrast
to the word ‘truth’ and depicts the state of unfaithfulness of the
people of Judah to their God. Jeremiah 9:4 uses the word in terms of
ordinary
Judeans speaking lies to each other in their communities. The term is
also used in 10:14 to indicate the folly of making and worshipping
false gods
(also in v. 16:19; 51:17). The word [Please refer to PDF] [lies] is used in
several places in the book of Jeremiah in contexts
similar to the one in chapter 23:9–40 that deal with conflict between
factions of prophets. Jeremiah 14:14 has the following to say:
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.(NRSV)
This verse comes from a context featuring the prophecy that
disasters such as drought and wars will take place, but this was
countered by opposing prophetic
groups as being untrue. The falseness of the messages of these
prophets, according to Jeremiah, lies in the fact that they prophesy
peace and prosperity.
Jeremiah knew that these false prophecies would have disastrous
consequences for ordinary Judeans.
The next group of texts focuses on the Babylonian exile. Jeremiah
regards the denial of the threat of the Babylonian exile as false
prophecy
(cf. 27:10, 14, 16). In 28:15 Jeremiah and the prophet Hananiah are in
conflict about the yoke of the Babylonian dominance. Jeremiah denounces
Hananiah’s prophecies to the Judeans as lies. In the same vein 29:21,
23 and 30 all deal with false words regarding the Babylonian exile
and the oppression of the people (Overholt 1970:92–96). The use of
[Please refer to PDF] [lies] in 37:14; 40:16
and 40:2 relates to people telling lies and not to prophesying lies.
It is important to take note of Overholt’s discussion of this term. He says, ‘the term
[Please refer to PDF] [lies] implies the operation of a destructive power, and this is peculiarly applicable to the social,
political, and religious situation in which the prophet worked’. In his discussion he refers to the correlative concept
[Please refer to PDF] [truth].
In a society such as the one in Judah, the concepts of justice and
truth presuppose a covenant
relationship (Overholt 1970:101–102). The presence of these concepts in
a society would testify to the fact that it is a healthy society.
A society where these matters were not functional would fall in the
category of [Please refer to PDF] [lies],
something,
as we have seen, was often the case according to Jeremiah. Overholt
(1970:103) believes that such a broken society can be characterised by
the term
[Please refer to PDF] [lies] which ‘points to the empty centre of the communal life’.
In the passage under discussion (Jr 23:25–32), we should take note of the use of [Please refer to PDF] [lies] which is
associated with the false prophets in contrast with the word [Please refer to PDF] [truth] which is associated with
‘Yahweh’s word’ (23:28). In terms of what Overholt has argued in this regard, the destructive force of [Please refer to PDF]
[lies]
should be countered by the powerful truth of ‘Yahweh’s word’. It is a
matter of chaff and wheat (23:28), as was mentioned
earlier. The false prophets are therefore not simply telling lies; they
are agents of a destructive force in the communal life of Judah. They
therefore do
not benefit the people of Judah.
From the overview that has been provided, it is clear that the word [Please refer to PDF] [lies]
is often used in the book of
Jeremiah to depict the conflict between Jeremiah and opposing prophets.
From the perspective of the collectors and editors of the Jeremiah
oracles it is
clear that the prophet Jeremiah is regarded as the true prophet and the
others as false prophets. These false prophets were those who supported
the Royal-temple
and Zion ideals – those who were giving religious backing to the rulers
and people in power to promote and sustain these ideals. Although the
oracles in
the cycle opposing the prophets (23:9–40) are vague and lack context,
it does not seem far-fetched to see the opponents of Jeremiah as those
who formed
part of the official governing structures. People such as Pashhur
(20:1–6) and Hananiah fall in this category of people opposing
Jeremiah.
[A dream] [Please refer to PDF]
In terms of the passage under discussion, the falseness
of prophets is expressed in terms of fake dreams. Dreams are mentioned
in Jeremiah
23:27, 28, 32; 27:9 and 29:8. In Jeremiah 23; however, dreams are not
seen in a positive light, but as fabrications of people’s minds.
Only in verse 28 is there a somewhat positive allusion to dreams; for
the rest, dreams are mentioned in the same breath as falseness or
deceit.
In Jeremiah 27:9 dreamers are rejected as people who carry false
messages about the yoke of the Babylonians over the people of Judah.
They are
mentioned amongst the following people:
You, therefore, must not listen to your prophets, your diviners,
your dreamers, your soothsayers, or your sorcerers, who are saying to
you, ‘You
shall not serve the king of Babylon’. (NRSV)
In a letter to the exiles in Babel (cf. 29:8), there is the same
rejection of dreams as in the previous case. In this context prophets
and diviners are
seen as those who deceive the people, as Yahweh has not appointed nor
sent them.
In the Ancient Near East, dreams were often regarded as authentic
ways of gaining access to the will of a deity and the revelation of his
or her word.
Dreams as a medium of communication are common in the Old Testament
(cf. Budd 1975:511–512). Some people regarded dreams as a legitimate
way of
conveying divine content (Huey 1993:218; cf. Job 33:14–18 and 1 Sm
28:6). At times they were associated with sanctuaries such as Bethel
(Gn 28:12ff – Ja),
Shiloh (1 Sm 3 – Samuel) and Gibeon (1 Ki 3:4–15 – Solomon). In most
instances, the meaning conveyed in dreams was obvious to the dreamer
(cf. Gn 20:3; 31:10–13 and 1 Ki 3:4–15). We, however also know of
instances where dreams had to be interpreted to the dreamer – as in the
cases of Joseph in Egypt (Gn 37 and following chapters) and Daniel for
the king of Babel (Dn 2:27–28).
Whereas dreams as such were not regarded negatively and were seen
as a means of divine revelation, the Jeremiah tradition as discussed
here is more cautious
about dreams. In the book of Zechariah (10:2) the prophet warns against
the emptiness of dreams. In Deuteronomy 13:2ff a stern warning is
issued against
prophets or dreamers who want to seduce the people by encouraging them
to follow other gods. Accusations against false prophets are seen as
serious and
Jeremiah’s accusations should be regarded in the same light. According
to Deuteronomy 18:20 falseness is punishable by death (Wilson
1995:244).
In a short article on dreams, Smith-Christopher (2000:356–357) has
shown that there was an early Hebrew ambivalence towards the
trustworthiness of
dreams. He agrees with the importance of dreams as shown in many
instances in the Old Testament but expresses the view that dreams ‘were
considered
among the least trustworthy forms of divining’ and should be seen as
belonging to the wider category of omens. He regards the prominence of
dreams as
the influence of the Hellenistic interest in dreams, which places it in
the later phases of development of the Old Testament (cf. Daniel).
Judging from the
Jeremiah 23:25–32 passage, Jeremiah seems to have been one of those who
doubted the trustworthiness of dreams.
Dreams should therefore be critically considered and both the
authenticity of the dreamer and the contents conveyed in a dream should
be questioned. The
outcome of dreams should also be viewed in a serious light. In the case
of the Jeremiah passages, the authenticity of the prophets was in
doubt. The prophet
in the cycle on the oracles that oppose the prophets therefore
questioned both the commission of the dreaming prophets and the content
of their dreams.
In a very enlightening discussion on prophets and dreams, Lester
Grabbe (1995:145–148) challenges the idea that dreams were an
unimportant means of divine
communication. He is probably correct in arguing that sentiments such
as the negativity towards prophetic dreams that we find in Jeremiah,
should be treated in
context and on merit rather than being generalised. He argues that, in
many instances, there is little if any difference between visions and
dreams (1995:147),
and he might be correct in his thinking. However, it is not
insignificant that there are so few references to dreams in allusions
to prophets in the Old Testament.
And, moreover, it is not insignificant that Jeremiah finds the false
prophets and their dreams problematic. There is a concentration of
references to this in
Jeremiah 23:25–32. In line with Grabbe’s argument that cases should be
treated on merit, one has to assume that Jeremiah or the speaker or
speakers
of the oracles in the cycle that is critical of the kings had a
specific issue with these prophets and their dreams. A consideration of
23:27 seems to indicate
that the effect of the dreams was to cause the people to forget Yahweh,
which was detrimental to people in a covenant relationship with him.
Perhaps Overholt
(1970:66–67) is correct when he says that the problem is not so much
with dreams themselves as a form of divine communication, as with the
content and
effect they had on the people of Jeremiah’s society (cf. also Fretheim
2002:338).
The view that Carroll (1986:472) promotes is that we should see the
contrast between ‘word of Yahweh’ and dreams as a difference in
ideological
position. The ideological view expressed in the text gives preference
to the prophetic word and shows disregard for dreams. He is of the
opinion that we should
not see the passage in 23:25–32 as setting another criterion (in
contrast to Weiser 1969:211) for true and false prophesy, but ‘… as the
output of an ideological conflict either between prophetic parties or
against prophets’ (Carroll 1986:474). This way – in his view – it can
help to avoid inconsistencies and contribute to the construction of the
tradition. If, however, the focus is not so much on the means of
delivery but on the
content and the effect of the prophetic revelation, then Carroll’s
ideological argument is no longer as forceful. The [Please refer to PDF]
[false or deceitful] content of communications of the ‘false’
prophets resulted in leading the people astray, created a false sense
of
security and hope and finally made them ‘forget’ and disregard Yahweh.
The outcome was disastrous and the Babylonian exile was the result.
Another factor – raised by Grabbe (1995:145–148) – to keep in mind
is the issue of dreams and divination. In a discussion of prophecy and
divination, Overholt (1989:145) includes dreams as part of the topic.
Smith-Christopher’s (2000:357) view that the broader category to which
dreams
belong is that of omens is in line with the thinking of Overholt. There
seem to be elements in the oracles opposing the prophets in Jeremiah,
which indicate
that we should take note of this view. Firstly, there is the almost
‘magic’ relationship between the impurity of the prophets – their sin
and
transgressions – and the devastating effect on the land (23:9–15).
Secondly the whole matter of appearing in the council of Yahweh (23:18,
22)
has a ring of mythology to it. If one adds dreams as a means of
divination (23:25–32) and all the indications are that there is an
underlying worldview
– not strange to Ancient Near Eastern thought – regarding divine
communication that we have to take into account.
[In my name] [Please refer to PDF]
In his critique Jeremiah accuses the false prophets of
speaking their lies in Yahweh’s name. To their audience they pretend it
is Yahweh’s
word they are delivering. The fact that they spoke in the name of
Yahweh disturbed Jeremiah. To do something in the name of Yahweh means
doing it on His
behalf, with His sanction.10 It is therefore a claim to
authenticity. This claim to authenticity is a major issue for Jeremiah
and the Jeremiah
tradition. It comes down to the question of the legitimacy of the
prophets, a matter of concern to Jeremiah, which the tradition wants to
rectify. History
has proved Jeremiah to be a true prophet. Jeremiah uses the term [Please refer to PDF]
[deception] to typify the false nature
of false prophets’ messages to the people of Judah.
[Says Yahweh] [Please refer to PDF]
Another aspect that needs attention is the frequent use of
[Please refer to PDF] [says Yahweh] in the passage in Jeremiah
23:25–32. Vetter
(1976:1–3) gives an overview of how the formula developed over time and
also acknowledges its frequent use in the book of Jeremiah.11
He calls its use by the Old Testament prophets a Jahwespruchformel and sees its function ‘zur Bekräftigung der im Prophetenwort
redenden ersten Person Gottes gebraucht’. About the repetitive use of the formula in 23:23–32 Jones says the following:
Jeremiah by this means affirms that the true prophet alone can use this
solemn expression. In his view the others dare not let it pass their
lips. In
contrast, their dreams, which they claimed to be divine communication
by means of the phrase [Please refer to PDF],
are but the figment of their scheming imaginations. (Jones 1992:312)
In Jeremiah 23:32 the main criterion for being a prophet of Yahweh is
that Yahweh commissions and appoints people to be prophets. In the
instance under discussion,
Jeremiah denies that these so-called false prophets were sent and
appointed by Yahweh.
To some of the prophets, we know from the prophetic tradition in
the Old Testament, mention of their calling was important. Examples are
Isaiah’s calling in
Isaiah 6 and others: Jeremiah 1, Amos 3:8, Micah 3:8 to name but a few.
This was necessary so that they could have divine sanction to function
and speak as prophets.
My people did not benefit: Preliminary conclusion
|
|
When looking at the oracle in 23:25–32 in the light of the critique
that the people do not benefit from these prophets, we can conclude the
following.
As stated before, it seems that the oracles in the cycle on the
prophets first existed separately, before they had been assembled to
form a collection. The
occasion for the oracle in 23:25–32 is not clear,12
but we can still deduce some ideas that are worth noting. The obvious
answer to the
question (What would benefit the people of Judah?) posed in verse 32
would be to receive the true words from Yahweh. What the people need to
hear from a prophet
are revelatory words from Yahweh. Jeremiah reluctantly concedes that
dreams might serve the purpose, but the general tone of the passage
suggests that he has
serious doubts about the effect of the dreams – even more so if the
dreams are either self-created fake dreams or dreams taken over from
somebody else.
These are judged to be lies that come from deceitful prophets. To
conclude, the people of Judah will only benefit from divine words
communicated by true prophets
sanctioned and appointed by Yahweh (cf. Carroll 1986:470).
The people do not benefit from these lies because they will not
reveal to them what Yahweh has to communicate regarding the way they
are living and decisions they
are making. The critique of these prophets is that they are false,
liars, pretenders – reckless and irresponsible people. They neither
have any commission
from Yahweh nor did he appoint them (cf. Schreiner 1981:142). The
people do not benefit from them because, in the first place, their
self-created dreams and words
of revelation will lead the people of Judah astray and, secondly, they
will cause them to forget the name of Yahweh. If the connection made
with 14:1–14 is
correct, then the assurance of peace should be regarded as part of the
deceitfulness of these prophets, because it has created a false sense
of security (cf.
Holladay 1986:644).
Jeremiah 23:25–32 in its literary context of 23:9–40
|
|
It is clear from the oracles in Jeremiah 23:9–40, as with the whole
tradition surrounding the prophets of the Old Testament that the
expectation of
prophets was to communicate or reveal what Yahweh had to say to his
covenant people. These communicators were said to have had to be
commissioned by Yahweh
to serve as prophets. They could not appoint themselves or authenticate
themselves. Yahweh had to send them (cf. 23:21) and to appoint them
(cf. 23:32).
Analysis of the book of Jeremiah clearly shows that the cycle of
oracles as a collection was purposefully assembled and structured. It
was probably performed
in order to address issues in the society of the collectors or editors
of the text, the nature of which is difficult for us to determine with
certainty. If
the thesis is correct that the two cycles in 21:1–24:10 are about
failed leadership, we should read 23:25–32 in terms of this idea.
The argument at the beginning of this article was that 23:25–32
should be treated as a separate unit. It was also indicated that some
scholars regard
23:23–24 as part of the passage 23:23–32. This is important within the
context of the cycle because 23:23 suggests that Yahweh is nearby and
not
far off (v. 23) and assures that he cannot be avoided (v. 24).
Commenting on this, Brueggemann (1998:213–214) says that the nearness
alludes to the temple
ideology, whereas the reference to distance points to his freedom and
sovereignty. The implication of this view is that Yahweh is distant
from the dominant
establishment theology and its advocates in the prophets opposing
Jeremiah. Brueggemann therefore regards 23:23–32 as a dispute between
two groups of
prophets promoting different theological traditions. He proceeds to
argue that the real issue therefore is a defense of Yahweh’s
sovereignty and freedom
and that the legitimacy of the false prophets is a secondary issue
(Breuggemann 1998:214–215). Brueggemann’s thesis is an interesting and
informative
interpretation of the true-and-false issue and brings the broader
theological perspective of the book of Jeremiah into play. However,
true as it may be, the
emphasis in the passage is on the lies, the deceit and illegitimacy of
these prophets who act without being commissioned to be prophets of
Yahweh.
The oracles in the cycle also make it clear that the prophets can
only speak what they have received from Yahweh. The stipulation is that
they should come into
the council of Yahweh (cf. 23:18, 22) to receive the words or messages
they had to convey to the people. Another means of receiving a message
was through a vision
[[Please refer to PDF] – cf. 23:16]. From the passage under
discussion, it seems that dreams were accepted as a means of receiving
revelations from Yahweh (23:28). A condition however is that a dream
should be authentic. It should not be a fabrication by a prophet (from
his own heart) or from somebody else under the pretence that it is
original.
The critique levelled at these ‘false’ prophets is focused on
authenticity, the opposite of lies or falseness [Please refer to PDF].
Part of this authenticity is for a prophet to be commissioned
(appointed and sent by Yahweh), to receive a message or revelation from
Yahweh himself (his council
or from a dream). In whatever mode or manner they receive their
message, if it is authentic, then it is the Word of Yahweh. The
requirement is that Yahweh’s
word should not be fabrications from a prophet’s own heart or from a
lying tongue. Jeremiah 23:9 speaks of Yahweh’s holy words and 23:29 of
his powerful
words. Furthermore, prophets should speak in the Name of Yahweh and in
no other god’s name. The prophets themselves should be loyal to Yahweh
and his covenant.
They should therefore live in obedience to Yahweh’s stipulations (cf.
23:9–15) and this, in turn, would set an example to the people of
Judah.
The aim of the oracle in 23:25–32 in the context of the cycle of
oracles against the prophets would then be to point out that these
prophets were self-appointed
with no sanction to prophesy in Yahweh’s name and that their
revelations were not regarded as true words from Yahweh (cf. Diamond
2003:576). Not even their
claims to have special revelations through dreams could prove them
legitimate. Their lies were part of the reason why the people of Judah
had landed up in exile
in Babel. The people followed their advice but were, in fact, led
astray.13 This view then entails the notion that the cycle was purposefully created,
probably by people in exile, reflecting on why they were dispersed and on what had gone ‘theologically’ wrong.14
Whilst the oracles in Jeremiah 23:9–40 were reflected on, two ways of
interpreting them were already being mentioned. One was to treat each
of these
oracles in the cycle separately as a stand-alone oracle. If they are
regarded as reflections of the time of Jeremiah, the prophet, as
presented
to us in the book of Jeremiah, then we should ask what the
prophet had in mind for his society. As freestanding oracles, they do
not offer much detail or reflect any specific context. They therefore
offer more general,
essentially negative, views on (the) prophets (cf. Carroll
1986:449–450). The second way of reading the separate oracles such as
23:25–32 is to
interpret them in terms of the literary contexts of 23:9–40 and even of
21:1–24:10. A third possibility is to follow the suggestion by
Smith-Christopher (2000:356–357) that dreams gained prominence in the
Hellenistic period and that the passage under discussion shows that
dreams are not a
reliable source of divine communication. History proves that the people
of Judah did not benefit when prophets offered the people dreams as the
word of Yahweh.
The growing interest in dreams in this period should therefore be
tempered and people should be cautious because, as has been shown, the
people of Judah did not
benefit from this preoccupation. If this idea is plausible, then,
23:25–32 is a warning against this tendency that was gaining
popularity.
All three options are possible ways of approaching the oracles that
opposed the false prophets, but the first two options seem less vague
than the third one at
this stage of the research results.
In the research on the book of Jeremiah, to speak of the prophet
Jeremiah as a historical figure seems problematic. It seems an extreme
view to regard
the prophet exclusively as a literary creation (cf. Carroll
1986:55–64), although we should take note of the fact that the picture
we have of the
prophet comes from the editors of the Old Testament books and the
tradition that preserved these written documents.15
Jeremiah is presented
as a Mosaic prophet in opposition to prophets who were part of the
Jerusalem contingent of government (cf. Wilson 1995:343–344). It is
likely, as
Wilson has indicated, that the oracles opposing the prophets are based
on theological differences, as well as on various social and political
associations.16 In this regard, the oracles of Jeremiah served the purpose of discrediting his opponents.
Those who shared Jeremiah’s convictions were probably the people who
collected and edited his oracles into a cycle. The catastrophe of the
exile
prompted some people to re-evaluate and represent some of the
traditions (Middlemas 2007:7). The fact that the exile became a reality
legitimized the
position and theology of Jeremiah (Berquist 1989:138). Those who were
responsible for preserving the Jeremiah oracles therefore held the
leadership
structures in Jerusalem responsible for failed leadership (cf. Diamond
2003:576).17
If they had acted in ways that benefited the people of
Judah, the exile could have been avoided. The cycle of oracles against
the false prophets vindicates Jeremiah’s position in tradition as the
true
prophet of Yahweh (cf. Berquist 1989:138). The divine word spoken by
the true prophet was triumphant over the dreams of the false prophets
(cf. Carroll
1986:479).
Berquist, J.L., 1989, ‘Prophetic legitimation in Jeremiah’, Vetus Testamentum 39(2), 129–139.
Blenkinsopp, J., 1995, Sage, priest, prophet. Religious and intellectual leadership in Ancient Israel, Westminster John Knox, Louisville, KY.
Blenkinsopp, J., 1996, A history of prophecy in Israel. Revised and enlarged, Westminster John Knox, Louisville, KY.
Brueggemann, W., 1998, A commentary on Jeremiah. Exile & homecoming, Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI.
Budd, P.J., 1975, ‘Dream’, in C. Brown (ed.), The new international dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 1, pp.
511–512, The Paternoster Press, Exeter.
Carroll, R.P., 1986, Jeremiah. A commentary, SCM (Old Testament Library), London.
Craigie, P.C., Kelly, P.H. & Drinkard Jr, J.F., 1991, Jeremiah 1–25, Word Books (Word Biblical Commentary), Dallas, TX.
Diamond, A.R.P., 2003, ‘Jeremiah’, in J.D.G. Dunn & J.W. Rogerson (eds.), Eerdmans commentary on the Bible, pp. 543–559,
Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Domeris, W.R., 1999, ‘When metaphor becomes myth: A
socio-linguistic reading of Jeremiah’, in A.R.P. Diamond, K.M. O’Connor
&
L. Stulman (eds.), Troubling Jeremiah, pp. 244–262, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.
Duhm, B., 1901, Das Buch Jeremiah [The Book of Jeremiah], JCB Mohr, Tübingen.
Fretheim, T.E., 2002, Jeremiah, Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Macon, GA.
Grabbe, L.L., 1995, Priests, prophets, diviners, sages. A socio-historical study of religious specialists in Ancient Israel,
Trinity Press International, Valley Forge, PA.
Holladay, W.L., 1986, Jeremiah 1. A commentary on the book of the prophet Jeremiah chapters 1–25, Fortress Press, Philadelphia.
Huey, F.B. Jr, 1993, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Broadman Press (The New American Commentary), Nashville, TN.
Jones, D.R., 1992, Jeremiah, Eerdmans (New Century Bible Commentary), Grand Rapids, MI.
Lemke, W.E., 1981, ‘The near and the distant god. A study of Jeremia 23:23–24 in its Biblical theological context’, JBL 100(4),
541–555.
Long, B.O., 1981, ‘Social dimensions of prophetic conflict’, Semeia, 21, 31–53.
Lundbom, J.R., 2004, Jeremiah 21–36. A new translation with introduction and commentary, Doubleday (The Anchor Bible), New York.
McKane, W., 1986, A critical and exegetical commentary on Jeremiah, T & T Clark (The International Critical
Commentary [ICC]), Edinburgh.
Middlemas, J., 2007, The templeless age: An introduction to the history, literature and theology of the “Exile”, Westminster
John Knox, Louisville, KY.
Nicholson, E.W., 1970, Preaching to the exiles. A study of the prose tradition in the book of Jeremiah, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Overholt, T.W., 1970, The threat of falsehood. A study in the theology of the book of Jeremiah, SCM, London.
Overholt, T.W., 1989, Channels of prophecy: The social dynamics of prophetic activity, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.
Redditt, P.L., 2008, Introduction to the prophets, Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI.
Rudolph, W., 1968, Jeremia. 3, J C B Mohr, verbesserte Aufl. Tübingen.
Schreiner, J., 1981, Jeremia 1–25,14, Echter Verlag (Die Neue Echter Bibel), Würzburg.
Sharp, C.J., 2003, Prophecy and ideology in Jeremiah. Struggles for authority in the Deutero-Jeremianic prose, T & T Clark, London.
Smith-Christopher, D.L., 2000, ‘Dreams’, in D.N. Freedman (ed.), Dictionary of the Bible, pp. 356–357, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Stulman, L., 2005, Jeremiah, Abingdon Press (Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries), Nashville, TN.
Thompson, J.A., 1980, The book of Jeremiah, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Vetter, D 1976. [Please refer to PDF] ne’um Ausspruch’ [saying], in E. Jenni& C. Westermann,
Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament [Theological Dictionary for the Old Testament], pp. 1–3,
Kaiser Verlag, München.
Wilson, R.R., 1995, ‘Interpreting Israel’s religion: An anthropological
perspective on the problem of false prophecy’, in R.P. Gordon (ed)
“The place is too small for us”: Israelite prophets in recent scholarship, pp. 343–344, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, IN.
Weiser, A., 1969, Das Buch Jeremiah [The book of Jeremiah], Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht (Alt Testament Deutch), Göttingen.
Werner, W., 1997, Das Buch Jeremia. Kapitel 1–25 [The book of Jeremiah. Chapters 1–25], Verlag Katholisches
Bibelwerk (Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar), Stuttgart.
|
|