02.06 - False Prophets

(6) False Prophets

There were false prophets mere imitators and simulators: men who made a false profession of being prophets, who assumed the prophet’s role, wore the prophet’s garb, used the prophet’s watchwords, pretended to speak in the name of God, and by the inspiration of the spirit of God, but who prophesied out of their own hearts, uttered their own thoughts, or prophesied in the name of false gods, and as moved by evil spirits. These were diviners and necromancers; men who “ taught for hire and divined for money.” Kuenen and Hitzig have insinuated that the prophets generally were of this class, and, as a whole, were morally bad. This cannot be. The very fact that the two classes are mentioned and contrasted, and that certain criteria were recognised by which to judge and distinguish them, and by which to determine the truth or falsity of their predictions, imply that both classes existed, and that there were both true and false prophets. The recognition of this fact is essential to an adequate understanding of Hebrew prophetism, It is also essential to distinguish between false prophets who were mere diviners and deceivers, and prophets who “spoke falsely,” for there were in this sense false prophets, or prophets who taught and predicted falsely, who were not mere heathen diviners, nor morally bad; but who by mistaken utterances and false predictions led the people astray, made them to err, and led them to trust in “ vain confidences.” As Montefiore, in his “Ilibbcrt Lecture,” has pointed out, “ There were wide gradations of character among them, from the hypocritical charlatan, to the honest if deluded enthusiast.” Some prophecies were “relatively false,” they were true in idea and purpose, but wrongly interpreted and applied. The interpretation and application were literal and mechanical, made without discernment, understanding, or consideration of their meaning, relation, and condition. The doctrine of the “ inviolability of Zion,” the security of the Holy City and Temple as the dwelling-place of Jehovah, was true both to tradition and fact; but literally and mechanically applied, and used without regard to intention and relation by prophet, priest, and people, proved a delusion and vain confidence. The people trusted to the security of their city and temple, and supposed God would defend these against all attacks of the invading armies, and they would be perfectly secure against the foe, whatever their manner of life and character, and so assured themselves of peace and security. Trusting to the prophet’s teaching of the “inviolability of Zion,” they said, “Peace, peace, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are these “; words which, however true in themselves, were under these circumstances “ lying words,” “vain confidences.”

Sometimes the prophet’s utterances were merely sceptfcal of Israel’s traditions and cherished beliefs in the righteousness and justice of God, rather than opposed to these truths, or teaching falsely in respect of them. It was so with regard to the problem of suffering in Israel. It was according to prophetic teaching and the cherished belief of Israel that righteousness and prosperity, sin and adversity went together, or were related to each other as cause and effect. When upon Josiah’s reformation the nation became more religious in practice and righteous in conduct, it was expected, according to this doctrine, it would enjoy peace and prosperity. Instead of this, righteous Judah suffers invasion, affliction, and loss; while Chaldea, cruel, haughty, and merciless, goes on from victory to victory, enjoying great triumph and success. This gave rise to the scepticism of Habakkuk and other of the Old Testament prophets, who questioned Israel’s cherished belief as to the righteous character of God, and the power of His goodness and truth; and they declared that “ righteous judgment had failed,” and justice had become “ maimed and helpless.” This scepticism was again the result of a too literal and mechanical application of the prophetic doctrine of the divine righteousness and its rewards, not discerning the relation of sin and suffering, or failing to understand how love and goodness have their chastisements, and that suffering may be vicarious as well as punitive. But while there were prophets who spoke falsely because of ignorance or doubt, there were “ false prophets” who were wicked and lying; who made themselves vile, and spoke presumptuously, and prophesied falsely. They inquired of strange gods, asked counsel of wood and stone, practised magical incantations and lying deceptions, and spoke rebellion and defection, and led the people astray. Sometimes a lying spirit was in the mouth of the prophet for the purpose of judgment and destruction. The prophet spoke words of flattery and deception, according to the wish and desire of those who sought unto him, and the people were placed under a delusion to believe a lie that their iniquity and idolatry might be punished. At other times the false prophet spoke falsely and in direct opposition to the teaching of the true prophet, as in the case of Ilananiah against Jeremiah. But the words of Ilananiah were lying words, and he fell the victim of his own vanity and falsity. The true prophet was God’s spokesman. He declared to the people the Word of the Lord, he proclaimed the message of God the truth which God had put into his heart and mouth to utter; but the false prophet spake out of the vanity of his own mind and from the deceit of his own heart. The utterance of the one was God-breathed and God-inspired; the utterance of the other was the reflection of his own mind, or the suggestion of an evil and lying spirit.