Judaism Notes 2020

FRS JUDAISM NOTES F6 BY ZINCON
TENENTS OF JUDAISM
COVENANT AND LAW
COVENANTS IN JUDAISM
This involves a mutual agreement entered into by two individuals, or by two
groups or an individual and a group. The effect was that peace prevailed
between the two parties involved.
In this case the covenant was between Yahweh (the name of the God of Israel
worshiped by the Jahwist prophets in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah in
antiquity-ancient times) and Israel.
Here Yahweh was understood to be actively at work with Israel to guide his
people in the path of truth and fidelity to the covenant.
To maintain mutual understanding between these two parties, Yahweh elected
the prophets as covenant mediators.
They officiated at sanctuaries-the sacred area of a church or temple around its
alter.
As God’s representatives, prophets would admonish, reprove, denounce
prevailing sins, threaten people with terror of divine judgement, call people to
repentance and proclaim Yahweh’s divine assurance.
Prophets would advise Israelites to put away foreign gods and worship Yahweh
alone.
They called upon Israel to face the most severe judgement of Yahweh upon them
for their sins and apostacy-the rejection of one’s religion or faith.
Prophets never claimed to be introducing anything new, they were reformers who
took their stand on the ground of Sinai.
Although their contributions were moral, ethical and theological, prophets
functioned as agents of social change.
They were absolutely against social injustice (unfairness) to the extent that
some scholars like K. Whitelam would want to argue that prophets were usually
from the social fringes (they were poor), they were spokespersons of the
deprived, the voice of the voiceless.
They were calling for interrelationship between justice, order, fertility and
prosperity. If the king failed to provide justice then the social, political and
ecological structure was believed to be thrown open to the ever present power of
chaos. It is this loyalty to God which stands behind the prophet’s denunciation of
Israel.
Elijah came on the scene when there was widespread apostacy and the majority
of people becoming strongly attached to foreign gods. There was an alarming
growth of social injustice, e.g. the killing of Naboth (1 Kings 21).
The whole structure of Israelite society was threatened by the harsh economic
1
kzingoni@gmail.com [07744468452]
system, hence Elijah and Elisha together with the prophetic guilds declared war
on the Omrides and became instrumental in bringing about their downfall.
Amos as a social reformer condemned socio- ethical practices which under the
Canaanite feudal system were regarded as ethical, e.g. dishonest trade practices,
luxurious lifestyle of the rich and oppression of the poor. They were sold for a pair
of shoes.
During the monarchical period kingship was seen in an ambivalent light, too
dangerous an institution to go unchecked by the tenets of covenant faith.
Prophets therefore intervened not because they had political ambitions, but they
were crying for interrelationship between justice and prosperity. In fact the
functioned as a conscience of people but not to dictate its politics. Political
success was only important to the prophets if it had to do with spiritual
goodness.
COVENANTS IN ISRAEL
What is a covenant?
A covenant is a binding agreement between two or more parties. Felix Just,
a covenant is ‘a formal agreement, contract, testament, or treaty between two
parties, with specific obligations on each side’.
The term covenant refers to the sacred agreement between God and a person or
a group of people.
Covenant is coming from the Hebrew word ‘berith’ translated as "treaty",
"pact", "agreement", "solemn promise", "obligation" or more familiarly as
"covenant"
Biblical covenants, refer to instances where God has entered into an
agreement with mankind that involves both promises and responsibilities for
each party.
There are two types of covenants, the conditional and unconditional.

Conditional: This is a bi-lateral agreement (involving both sides equally) between
two parties. If you do something, I will do something. One party promises to do
something if the other meets the defined conditions.
A conditional covenant is an agreement which includes the two parties
cementing the relationship
• Unconditional: This is a unilateral agreement (done by one side only/ affecting
one party only) between two parties. In this type of covenant, one party
unconditionally promises something without anything required from the other
party.
The unconditional covenant refers to the agreement of two parties whereby
only one has something to do whilst the other party nothing is
required.
The Bible speaks of seven different covenants, four of which (Abrahamic,
2
Palestinian, Mosaic, Davidic) God made with the nation of Israel.

Of those four, three are unconditional in nature; that is, regardless of Israel's
obedience or disobedience, God still will fulfil these covenants with Israel. One
of the covenants, the Mosaic Covenant, is conditional in nature. That is, this
covenant will bring either blessing or cursing depending on Israel's obedience
or disobedience.
Three of the covenants (Adamic, Noahic, New covenant) are made between God
and mankind in general, and are not to the nation of Israel.
Seven of the primary covenants in the Old Testament are the Adamic, Noahic,
Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, Palestinian and the New Covenant.
Characteristics of Covenants
Covenants`1 often promise specific benefits, rewards, or blessings for people
who keep the terms of the covenant;
but they also threaten sanctions, punishments, or curses for people who break
the terms of the covenant.
covenants need to be ratified/ authorised/ sunctioned formally, usually sealed
with blood, and thus often involve animal sacrifices;
the parties involved might be individuals, families, states, kings, or even God.
-the parties might be on the same level (two families, two kings) with mutual
obligations agreed upon freely or they might be on different levels (God and
humans; a large empire and a smaller nation) with the stronger party imposing the
conditions on the weaker party (obedience, taxes, tribute) in exchange for certain
benefits protection).
Categories of Covenants in the Old Testament
1. The Edenic Covernant
The Edenic covenant was made between Yahweh and Adam in which
Adam stood as a representative of the human race. Thus the actions of
Adam are attributed to the whole humanity.
The Edenic covenant was the first covenant that God made with man (Gen.
1:26-31; 2:16-17), and it was a conditional covenant with Adam in which
life and blessing or death and cursing were made to depend on the
faithfulness of Adam.
The Edenic covenant included giving Adam the responsibility of being
father of the human race, subduing the earth, having dominion over
animals, caring for the garden, and not eating of the tree of knowledge of
3
good and evil.

Because Adam and Eve failed and disobeyed by eating the forbidden fruit,
the penalty of death for disobedience was imposed.
Adam and Eve died spiritually immediately and needed to be born again in
order to be saved.
Later they also died physically.
Their sin plunged the whole human race into its pattern of sin and death.
The Adamic
The Adamic covenant was made with man after the Fall (Gen. 3:16-19).
This is an unconditional covenant in which God declares to man what his
lot in life will be because of his sin.
There is no appeal allowed, nor is any human responsibility involved.
The covenant as a whole provides important features which condition
human life from this point on. Included in the covenant is the fact that the
serpent used of Satan is cursed (Gen. 3:14
The promise of a Redeemer is given (Gen. 3:15), which promise is
ultimately fulfilled in Christ;
The place of women is detailed as being subject to multiplied conception, to
sorrow and pain in motherhood, and to the headship of man (Gen. 1:26-27;
25)
Man will henceforth earn his bread by the sweat of his brow (forehead) (cp.
Gen. 2:15 with 3:17-19); man's life will be one of sorrow and ultimate
death (Gen. 3:19; Eph. 2:5)
. To a large extent, man continues from this point on to operate under the
Adamic covenant.
The Adamic Covenant included the curses pronounced against mankind for the sin
of Adam and Eve, as well as God’s provision for that sin (Genesis 3:15).
2. Noahic Covenant (covenant with creation).
The Noahic covenant was made with 'Noah and his sons (Gen. 9:1-18), in which
Noah was the representative of both mankind and the creation.
This covenant, while repeating some of the features of the Adamic
4
covenant, introduced a new principle of human government as a means to

curb sin.
Like the Adamic covenant it was unconditional, and it revealed God's
purpose for the race subsequent to Noah.
Covenant conditions.
1. Prohibitions against murder and the consumption of blood (9:4-6).
2. Sanctity of human life, i.e., that “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man
shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.”
3. Following punishment through the flood God promised Noah not to destroy the
whole human race again with a universal flood.
Gen 9:11, “I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be
cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to
destroy the earth.”
3. The Lord made an everlasting covenant with Noah and his descendants,
establishing the rainbow as the sign of His promise (Gen. 9:1-17). Sign of the
covenant is the rainbow. As long as God still sends rainbows after a
storm, capital punishment will still be a part of God's law for the human race.
3. Abrahamic Covenant
God established the Abrahamic covenant in Genesis 12.1-3 and confirmed it
in Genesis 13.14-17; 15.1-21; 17.1-27; 22.17-18; 26.1-5; 28.10-17; 32.12; 48.3-
4; 50.24.
This covenant was a sovereign promise God made with Abraham. Its validity and
fulfilment depend wholly upon God’s sovereign faithfulness.
The elements of the Covenant were that God would make Abraham great, that he
and his seed would be a blessing to all mankind, that God would bless those who
blessed them and curse him that cursed him, that Abraham would have
innumerable offspring (physical and spiritual), and that God would give Abraham
and his offspring land– “from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river
Euphrates.”
God confirmed twice to Abraham the promises made to Abraham in Genesis 15
and 17.
The promises form three categories: a) Descendants (12:2; 15:5; 17:4-5; 22:17); b)
Land (12:7; 13:15; 15:18; 17:18) c) Blessing to the nations (12:3; 18:18; 22:18;
26:4; 28:14).
Abrahamic Covenant
Scripture
Promises and Provisions
God will make Abraham a
Genesis 12.2
great nation
God will bless Abraham Genesis 12.2; 22.17
God will make Abraham’s Genesis 12.2
5
name great
Genesis 12.2, 3; 22.18
blessing to the whole world
God will bless those who
bless Abraham and his Genesis 12.3
descendants 1
God will curse the one who
curses Abraham and his Genesis 12.3
descendants
Eternal land grant from the
river of Egypt to the Genesis 12.6-7; 13.14-15, 15.7, 17.7-8
Euphrates
God will give Abraham Genesis 15.5; 13.16; 17.2;
innumerable descendants 22.17
Genesis 17.4-6
father of many nations
God will establish this
Genesis 17.7
covenant forever
Circumcision was the sign
Genesis 17.10-14
of the covenant
Established through the line
Genesis 17.19-21;
of Isaac/Jacob, not Ishmael
Abraham’s seed will
Genesis 22.17
overcome its enemies
4. The Mosaic Covenant (Sinai Covenant)

Upon seeing the suffering of the children of Israel under Pharaoh’s bondage,
God remembered his covenant with Abraham.
The people cried out to the God of their forefathers. “And God heard their
groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and
Jacob. And God saw the people of Israel, and God knew their condition.” (Ex.
2:24).
After a series of ten plagues upon the land of Egypt, God brought the Israelites out
(Exo. 32:11).
Three months after leaving the land of Egypt, the children of Israel camped at
the base of Mount Sinai (Exo. 19:1). God promised to make a covenant with
the Israelites (Exo. 19:3-6). Before they even knew the conditions of thecontract,
the people agreed to abide by whatever God said (Exo. 19:8).
The covenant was mediated by Moses. This covenant was between God and the
people of Israel.
The Ten Commandments are the foundation of the covenant, but they are not the
entirety of it.
After giving the first ten commands, the people asked the Lord to speak no more
(Exo. 20:18-20).
Moses then drew near to the presence of God to hear the rest of the covenant
(Exo. 20:21). After receiving the Law, Moses spoke the words of the covenant
6
to all of the people, and the people agreed to obey (Exo. 24:4).
Moses then wrote the conditions of the covenant down, offered sacrifices to
God, and then sprinkled both the book and the people with blood to seal the
covenant (Exo. 24:8).
5. Palestinian or land Covenant

The Palestinian or Land covenant (Deuteronomy 9.1-29, 10.11, 11.8-12, 22-25, 29-
31, 12.1, 10-12, 20, 29, 30.1-10).
It reinforces the land aspect of the Abrahamic covenant and was sovereignly
established and eternal.
It specifies the geographical boundaries of the promised land of Canaan. God
promised to the nation of Israel the land from the river of Egypt to the
Euphrates river (Genesis 15.18).
6. Davidic Covenant
2 Sam 7 In response to David's expressed desire to build a temple for the Lord in
Jerusalem the Lord spoke through the prophet Nathan. God’s covenant with David
is also called the Royal Zion Theology or Ideology.
Covenant mediated by the court prophet Nathan and established everlasting
promises.
Key characters in the covenant promises are the city of Jerusalem, Solomon, King
David, and his descendants.
Promises: 1. David was not the one to build a temple,
2. the Lord would establish a house for David and3. his kingdom would last
forever (2 Sam. 7:12-17). God will establish forever David's "house"
= the royal dynasty through his descendants (7:11-16)
David's son (Solomon) will build God's "house" = the first temple of Jerusalem
(7:4-7, 13)
The "sign" of this covenant: the descendants of David (1Kings 1-3) and the temple
itself (1Kings 5-8)
7. The New Covenant

The new covenant prophesied in the Old Testament and to have its primary
fulfilment in the millennial kingdom is also an unconditional covenant (Jer.
31:31-33).
The new covenant is also termed the renewed covenant Jeh 31:1-34, Jeh
33:14-26.
Covenant predicted by prophet Jeremiah.
As described by Jeremiah, it is a covenant made "with the house of Israel,
7
and with the house of Judah" (v. 31).

It is a new covenant in contrast with the Mosaic covenant which was
broken by Israel (v. 32).
In the covenant God promises, "After those days, saith the LORD, I will
put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will
be their God, and they shall be my people (v. 33).
Because of this intimate and personal revelation of God and His will to His
people, it goes on in Jeremiah 31:34 to state, "And they shall teach no
more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying,
Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them
unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their
iniquity, and I will re member their sin no more."
This passage anticipates the ideal circumstances of the millennial kingdom
where Christ is to be reigning, and all will know the facts about Jesus
Christ. It will not be necessary, accordingly, for a person to evangelize his
neighbour, for the facts about the Lord will be universally known.
It will also be a period in which God will forgive Israel's sin and bless
them 2abundantly.
THE JEWISH LAW

The term ‘law’ is also understood as ‘statute’, ‘ordinances’ or ‘precepts’. The
Old Testament contain over six hundred commandments to Israel.
The four books which contain the laws: Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and
Deuteronomy.
These books, along with Genesis, were all written by Moses and are referred to as
"The Law." (They are also called the "Pentateuch" which means a volume
consisting of five books or sections.).
Two types of law are noted in the Hebrew law codes are Casuistic or Case Law
and Apodictic Law. These laws are given in detail on Ex 19-50.
Casuistic Laws
Casuistic, or case law, which contains a conditional statement and a type of
punishment to be meted out These are laws concerned with civil matters in
ancient Israel.
Case Laws have a three-tier structure namely the introductory formula that
begin with either, ‘if….’, ‘When….’, ‘Whenever….’ etc. Second, the narration
of the offence and then third the consequence/result.
8
The case laws were conditional or they were subjunctive in terms of mood (cause
and effect).
Casuistry is reasoning used to resolve moral problems
Case laws had striking similarities with surrounding ANE nations hence were
believed to have been borrowed from the surrounding nations.
They are recorded in a section called The Covenant Code (Book of the
Covenant):
Ex. 20:23—23:33. Many of these laws elaborate on the Decalogue or provide for
its interpretation in specific contexts.
Apodictic Laws
These ten apodictic laws are divided into two groups. The first four deal with the
people’s relationship with God. The last six address the relationship of the people
to one another.
Unlike case laws the apodictic laws have a two tier structure beginning with an
introductory formula, ‘Thou shall…’, then the narration of what is to be done or
what is forbidden.
In terms of mood they are imperative (not conditional, absolute instruction) and
they have divine sanction.
The apodictic laws are believed to be authentic or unique to Israel as they have no
parallels from the ANE.
Such commands are not designed for application in the court. Is killing in war
acceptable? (Some Bibles even translate Ex 20:13 "murder", though the Hebrew is
not specific about the kind of killing being forbidden.) What about accidental
killing?
Casuistic laws, which are more wordy and complex, are frequently organized in
topical groups. For example: Exodus 21:2-11 deals with the treatment of
servants, 21:18-32 with bodily injuries, and 22:1-15 with property losses.
Apodictic law, or "absolute law," gives laws in unconditional commands and
prohibitions. They issue absolute orders and allow no exceptions. For example,
the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:2-17; Deut. 5:6-21).
They can be negative in form: for example, Ex 20:13, “You shall not kill.”
They can also be positive in form e.g. Ex 20:12, “Honour your father and your
mother, that your days may be long in the land which the LORD your God gives
you.”
Apodictic 'law' does not seek to answer such questions - it is not focused on
application in a court, but declares a general principle.
ORIGINS OF PROPHECY IN ISRAEL

Definition of the prophecy.
According to B. W Anderson, the English word prophet comes from the Greek
word prophetes which literally means “one who speaks for another especially for
a deity.”
The corresponding Hebrew word nabi is apparently related to the Akkadian
9
verb nabu meaning to call, to announce, to name.

In view of this, prophets were regarded as persons through whom God speak
to the people.
They were called to be God’s spokesperson, they received the promise from
God’s “word” Jer 1:9. As would be discussed later, prophets in Israel used the
messenger style which was well known in the ancient times.
In line with this, Claus Westermann argues that, in Israel, prophets were God’s
Messengers. Prophets believed themselves to have been sent by Yahweh. “Go
and say to my people …” (Amos 1:1-3, Jer 2:1-3, Isaiah 45:11-13).
The nature of Israel religion was monotheistic worship of Yahweh and
Yahwism is believed to be a borrowed god from the Father in Law of Moses
Jethro and it was his Jethro’s religion.
It is problematic to know when exactly was the name first used with Abraham or
with Moses? If it started with the patriarchs , the problem is that God did not
introduced himself to them , thus one can say they were worshipping an unknown
god who later introduced himself to Moses.
For B.W Anderson, “the word Yahweh came from a Hebrew term YHWH refers
to a personally divine name of God.”
YHWH is also translated “I AM which connotes personal eternal and all
sufficient aspect of God’s nature and character.”(Ex 3:14). This verse shows that
the Hebrews were polytheist especially when the bible say “which god what is his
name”
It can be assumed that God introduced himself to the Hebrews through Moses
and not through the Patriarchs. It can also be assumed that the reason why God
did introduce himself as “I AM” means that he is an ever-present God as
suggested by Ex 3: 12. According to Hill and Walton “I AM in Greek is “ego eimi
ho on” to suggest that Yahweh is the only God of Israel.”
Israelite religion shared some of its things with other religions e.g. circumcision,
cult and prophecy.
Circumcision was probably borrowed from Phoenicia but it can be traced back to
(Gen 17) as an introjections (fore writing of what is to be borrowed) of the
borrowed rite. By tracing it to Abraham, it give it legitimacy.
Cult- the Israelites didn’t worship at cultic places before reached Canaan because
of that, it is believed that they borrowed cultic worship from the Canaanites.
The religion of Israel was manifested with 5 key pillars which are wisdom, Torah,
apocalypism, priesthood and prophecy. These 5 were interconnected and they
could not be separated from the other.
1) Torah/Sacred Law
This was the law of the instruction and was divided into two
The apodictic law

The apodictic law has been defined above as unconditional law stated in sharp
10
terse language.
Alt want suggests that absolute law seems to be more characteristically Israelite
and express the unconditional demands of the covenant and this type of law
goes back to the wilderness period.
Analyzing the laws, one would discover that the Decalogue, unlike the
ordinances of the casuatic type (Ex 21-23) does not necessarily presuppose an
agriculture society.
In its characteristic, apodictic law cast in the “thou shall” form of dialogue. It has
a Hebrew origin with participial word meaning one who does something and
concluded with a straightened verbal form which demands the death penalty
absolutely.
The Israelites did not live without the law either in the desert or in the period of
the settlement.
Apodictic laws unique to Israel (Exodus 20:1f and Deut 5) and were statutes
forced to people. They were directives from the deity through the prophets and
were unique to Israel.
They were given to prophets who where the mouthpiece of God.
Casualty law/curse laws
Casualty law/curse laws are strongly believed to have been borrowed from the
ANE because Israel was not an outstanding nation. They survived among other
nations which were more than them, more powerful, in economy and politics
nations which had their gods.
Casuatic law originated in an environment where each individual ordinance was
first formed orally as a result of a crucial legal decision in Israel and they gradually
grew together into a universally accepted customary law. There are debates as to
how the Israelite adopted this Canaanite law.
Alt suggests that the time of adoption must lie in the generations between the
entry and the foundation of the Israelite kingdom in Palestine when the Israelites
came into contact with the Canaanites.
Israel had no system of government but desired to live by a unified body of law.
That being as it may, the law had to be taken from outside and was not familiar.
to the confederate tribe in every detail. In so doing, the law was supposed to be
read out regularly and on certain intervals.
Casuatic law takes almost half of the Book of the Covenant. The distinctive
characteristic of the casuatic law is inevitably introduced by an objective
conditional clause beginning “if…throughout all those who are concerned in the
case under discussion are spoken in the third person.
According to L Meek Hammurabi brought together laws of his empire
representing various cultures, reduce them to a common language and make
them more or less oriental.
C.H.W John contents that “it has been calculated that one of 45 or possibly 55
11
judgments preserved in the Old Hebrew law, 35 have points of contact of the
Hammurabi Code the laws are several fold restrictions of fine and death penalty.
Some of the laws are verbatim for example both Hebrew and Hammurabi
promote morality, justice and the spirit of humanness. Punishments are the
same on chastity.
Kidnapping, personal injuries for both the debtor unable to
pay would be sold as a slave but must be released after a certain period.
Hammurabi 117 talks of six years cf (Ex 21:2). Meek further argues that the
goring ox was borrowed from the (Hammurabi 250 and 252) which says “if an ox
when it was walking along a street gore a seignior’s to death that case is subject
to claim. If a seignior’s ox was a goerer and …he shall pay one half mina of silver.”
(Ex 21:28-32) This is a literal adoption of the Hamurrabi code by Israel.
Meek argues that the type of marriage in which a woman continued to live in
her father’s house after her marriage was closely related to the erubu type of
marriage. The erubu type of marriage was practiced by the Assyrians and the
Babylonians.
There is some evidence of some Israelites who lived with their in-laws after
marriage. Examples are Moses, Jacob and Samson.
For L Boardt, the Babylonian laws were economic centered. This was necessity
by their large economy and customary use of money to pay for everything
Israelite laws reflect the still vibrant and proud sense of strict justice inherited
from a liberal background. It can be argued further that Israel did not take
everything.
There is no guarantee for that. Israelite uses future tense e.g. steals, kills while
the Hammurabi uses past tense e.g. stole. One might want to suggest that the
identity was through Canaanite culture but is not always the case.
2) Wisdom
Israelite religion was theocentric e.g. Job. However wisdom was borrowed from
Egypt and Babylon. Unlike other pillar of Israelite religion which is theocentric law,
Israelite religion was anthropocentric, it focuses on the problems faced by an
individual It had nothing with the heave e.g., it grapples with such issues like sin,
origin and its nature.
It tries to introduce the sufferings of the righteous question, the right of
retribution which some prophets advocate for.
It raises questions like what is life, life is not real and death is real. What is ral is
permanent.
Wisdom in Israel was borrowed in Egypt and Babylon especially the book of Job.
Job is also found in Babylon and has suffered the same. In Babylon, people
grappled with theodicy: why do the righteous suffer?
There was Satan in Babylon who was evil. For Israel ill-health is a curse from
God. Babylonians attributed this to the devil. It is this devil Gen and Job talks
12
about as Satan. Job was written about 520BCE the same time with Genesis which
is probably the last book to ne written.
Wisdom was communicated by the wise.
3) Apocalypsism
Does not feature prominently in the Old Testament. It is found in the book of
Daniel during the Inter- Testamental period.
It is not known whether apocalypism is before or after prophecy.
H.H Rolly argues that apocalypism is a child of prophecy. Scholars who believes
that same with Rolly shares that it is not a pillar of the OT for it has some NT
phenomenon
4) Priesthood
The OT is clear that the tribe of Aaron was responsible for forwarding priests.
These priests were later called Levites. Their responsibility was to preside over
sacrifices so that there was communication between Yahweh and Israel.
The office was inherited. Priests were not paid for their service. They survived
on charity from the members of the society that’s why in the book of Joshua they
were not allocated land.
The office became corrupt. It is upon the corrupt office that prophesy arose.
5) Prophecy
Prophecy in Israel is also believed to be a borrowed phenomenon. This is
evidence when dealing with extra biblical material and the archaeological
evidence.
God was believed to be universal and this is testified by the story of Abraham
and Abimelech, Balaam a Moabite was used as a vessel of Yahweh (Num 22).
If God used Abimelech and Balaam, it shows that prophecy was not unique in
Israel.
The other assumption was that, Israelite religion was borrowed and there is also
strong evidence that Yahweh was borrowed as previously discussed. This is
evidenced in ( Ex 18) where we are told that Jethro offered a sacrifice to God and
gave advice to Moses on issues of administration
Jethro was a Midianite where Moses met face to face with God in (Ex 3).
The God worshipped in Midian was El and Yahweh is called Elohim. From such
an assumption, Israel worshipped the borrowed.
Scholars support this by archaeology and extra-biblical material. However,
archaeological evidence is problematic because people with assumptions’ want to
validate their arguments by stretching it to reach the conclusion.
Sponsorship is also for such evidence whereby it is the view of the sponsor that
will be carried, thus the sponsor is justified.
In addition, archeological evidence is scant that why it can be stretched. It is not
uniform in its findings.
It is not as clear as the Bible is regarding prophecy. Like archaeological evidence,
13
the Bible has its problems especially in its presentation of the origins, nature and
developments of prophecy in Israel.
Information is not consistent to allow us come with a conclusion as to how and
why prophecy originate e.g. Samuel and Kings originally were believed to be one
scroll but later were divided into two but both believed to written by Samuel.
Today they appear to be one book. If they were written by one man, there should
be no contradiction. Later it was discovered that it was not Samuel who wrote
because Samuel died in I Sam 12.
M Noth concludes that 1 and 2 Samuel and 1and 2 Kings belongs to a
Deutronomistic School which also wrote Deuteronomy 4ff, Joshua and Judges.
The writers had the same idea.
The problems that we have are that both Samuel and Kings do not show how
prophecy originated.
In 1 Sam 9:9, it shows that there was an evolutionary change from the title of
the Seer to the Prophet.
This story is told by a redactor who lived during a period where a prophet was
no longer called a Seer.
In Hebrew: Seer is roeh and prophet is nabi.
2 Sam 24:11 has a different picture. It says the word of the LORD came to Gad,
David’s Seer which means which means the word Seer was also in use.
However, being a prophet does not mean a Seer, but this contradicts with 1 Sam
9:9.
The question one may ask is, why is there these inconsistencies? As we move to
the Canonical era which is far later than the discussed era, Amos is called a Seer
by Amaziah (Amos 7:10-14).
Amos in his presentation says “I am neither a prophet nor a prophet’s son” In
view of this, a prophet was either a Seer or a prophet’s son.
If this is the case, the bible is consistent.
While Gad was a Seer, his counterpart Nathan is always called a prophet ( 2 Sam
12:35) implying that a prophet and a Seer are different.
As we move to 1 and 2 Kings, we find almost a different picture from Samuel. 1
Kings 17:18, we a introduced to another title Ish-Elohim (Man of God) referring to
Elijah. The question is, is the prophet also a man of God?
In ( 1 Kings 18:20-22) Elijah is also referred as a prophet. It is not clear from the
Bible whether the two means the same.
The disciples of Elisha are called Sons of prophet implying that Elishs was a nabi
not a man of God.In (2 Kings 6:1ff), Elisha’s disciples are called sons of prophets.
With such inconsistencies we cannot wholly depend on the bible on the nature,
origins and the developments of prophecy in Israel.
The Bible presents a better picture unlike archaeological evidence.
Those scholars who use the bible use it as a basis and those who use
14
archaeological evidence use it to justify themselves.

Given this situation, we need to look into the origin of prophecy in and outside
Israel.
There are two theories:
a) Prophecy as a borrowed phenomenon and
b) Prophecy as a unique feature Israel.
THEORIES
a) Prophecy as borrowed: legend of Wen Amon, Zimri lim, Stelle of Zark.
b) Prophecy as unique feature of Israel.
PROBLEMS CONCERNING THE ORIGINS
1. We do not seem to have enough sources to allow us to reconstruct the history
of the phenomenon, and in particular we do not have extra biblical material with
which to compare and contrast the biblical material that we have. So the bible
remains our primary source.
2. The material that is present is not homogenous enough to allow us to make a
smooth reconstruction of the origins of Israelite prophecy.
3. We do not know whether the information we have about prophecy is not a
reflection of a changing situation in the life of Israel.
4. We are not sure whether the labels we have are not of self-understanding of
other groups. Sometimes we are given labels that do not tally with what we think
about ourselves. We carry labels given to us by the community and not the
original ones.
EXTRA BIBLICAL MATERIAL

In Egyptian texts there is a reference to priestly prophets but this title refers to a
servant of God. So these priestly prophets may not be prophets in the real sense
of the word. Cananite text from Mesopotamia, in particular the Ugarit text, there
is reference to prophet type figures who are diviners. In the bible for example
1Kings 18:19 there is reference to Baal and Asherah, but their exact character is
not known.
An overall Canaanite source either refers to divination or they are so vague that
no proper conclusion concerning the origins of prophecy can be drawn.
BIBLICAL SOURCES
Biblical sources are not homogenous in their presentation of prophecy. So it is still
difficult to arrive at a smooth origin of the phenomenon, for example two books
of Samuel the term prophet is used differently in different texts and often used
interchangeably with the term seer.
There are certain prophets who are referred to as prophets e.g. Nathan is always
referred to as a prophet, and some who are referred to as both prophet and seer,
15
for example Gad. According to 1 Samuel 9:9 the two terms do not mean one and
the same thing.
It appears the term prophet evolved from the term seer (Amos 7:14). However in
2 Samuel 24:11 Gad is referred as both seer and prophet. In the two books of
Kings Elijah was regarded as a prophet but sometimes he is regarded as the ‘man
of God’. Elisha is also given the title man of God in 2 Kings 4:7,9,16,21,27, but the
disciples who gather around him are referred to as the sons of the prophet, as if
to suggest that the man of God and the prophet are one and the same thing.
Amaziah referred to Amos as a seer but Amos rejects it and said he was not a
prophet as if to suggest a prophet and seer are one and the same thing.
With these fluctuations in meaning then who was a prophet, let alone how the
name originated?
The origins of prophecy is controversial. Various views and theories have been
brought forward of a sociological function, historical and philosophical nature.
Such theories are equally porus.
Basically there are two broad theories on the origins of prophecy:
1. Prophecy as a borrowed phenomenon
2. Prophecy as unique feature of Israel.
PROPHECY AS A BORROWED PHENOMENON/ ASSOCIATIONIST

THEORY
Scholars who subscribe to this view, for example J. Lindblom, use extra biblical
material from the Ancient Near East to show that there are certain similarities
which can be established between prophecy in Israel and Prophecy in the Ancient
Near East.
According to J. Bright the patriarchs borrowed the culture of the Mesopotamians.
If they could borrow the culture of the Mesopotamians what could stop them
from borrowing their religion? In support of this view J.Pederson argues that the
whole institution belong to Canaan and is closely related to Canaanite culture.
There is some substance in this theory because of the similarities between
Israelite and Ancient Near East prophecy.
Evidence in support of this:
1. The word prophet itself came from a foreign word nabi which is a Hebrew word
and hence is not of Israelite origin.
2. The covenant arrayed by Yahweh and the people through the prophets are like
the suzerain treaties of the Hitites.
3. Ecstacy which is regarded as one of the earliest form of prophecy in Israel; was
not for them only, for example Baal prophets at the contest at Mount Carmel
were ecstatic too. (Refer to the legend of Wen Amon)
4. Israelite prophets had clear court connections and some Ancient near East
prophets had connections with courts, for example Mantic and Mahhumm
16
prophets of the god Dagan in the time of Hammurabi, although they seem not to
have used the oracles as such.
5. Prophets as mouthpieces of deities. In the Mari text there was a Syrian god
Adad who used a prophet as his mouthpiece and the prophet claimed authority
over the king.
6. Prophetic guilds.
THE LEGEND OF WEN AMON

According to this legend, there was a certain man by the name Wen Amon from
Egypt who went to a certain centre in Phoenicia called Biblis looking for timber to
build a temple for his god, AmonRe.
On arrival Wen Amon forwarded his request to the prince but the prince ignored
him because he was busy offering sacrifices to his God. It was during this sacrificial
ceremony when a youth got into trance or ecstacy.
The youth in this state summoned the priest’s mission, and without making any
decision the prince granted Wen Amon’s request.
According to this school there is a sense in which the possessed youth can be
considered as a prophet. In other words the youth possessed three prophetic
traits:
1. Ecstacy
2. Ability to foretell (prediction)
3. Prophetic authority
So if we consider this youth as a prophet there is no way we can say this
phenomenon is unique to Israel.
THE LEGEND OD ZIMRI LIM FROM MARI TEXT

Mari was a cultic centre and Zimri lim was a legendary king of Mesopotamia. The
legend talks about a certain seer who went to Zimri lim with a message from god
Adad and the message was ‘Iam the god who made you king over Mesopotamia if
you obey me I will bless you, if you disobey I will punish you’. This seer is said to
have released this message in ecstacy.
SIMILARITIES
1. The title seer is also used to refer to Israelite prophet.
2. Being ecstatic
3. Prophetic oracle is similar to Israelite prophetic oracles and contents.
THE STELLE OF ZAKR

Zakr was a Syrian king. Stelle is an inscription on the rock. On the tablet there
seems to be an oracle or statement which was released when the Syrians were
about to be capturered. The king released the following words, ‘I lifted my hands
to Baal Shamayn and he answered me and spoke to me by means of visionaries…’.
17
Although it was not clear from the inscription on the rock, it appears these words
are a prophecy in response to the king’s prayer and the people who are referred
as visionaries could be regarded as prophets.
WEAKNESSES
1. It ignores the theological origins of prophecy that is the link between prophecy
and religion.
2. It ignores political factors behind the emergency of prophecy.
3. It assumes that we have clearly identified characteristics of prophecy which we
can use to define the phenomenon, in particular ecstacy is taken to be a major
prophetic feature, the problem is we do not have a clearly developed definition of
prophecy and in particular ecstacy was not a major feature of prophecy in Israel.
Rarely do we find Israelite prophets releasing their oracles in a state of ecstacy. If
at all ecstacy was a major feature of prophecy then it was a feature of earliest
prophets and tends to die out as we move to the classical period. Moreover
according to J. Linblom ecstacy cannot be borrowed as it is from a deity.
4. Prophecy in the Ancient Near East was divinatory in nature, while Israelite
prophets were not allowed means of gaining information used by other nations,
e.g. necromancy, sooth saying, e.t.c. Israelite prophets were commissioned by
God. They only prophesy in the name of Yahweh and their objective was to
ascertain the will of Yahweh regardless of personal wishes. Being independent of
the hearers was the badge of a true prophet, for example the story of Micaiah
when he was consulted by Ahab and Jehoshaphat.
These differences between prophecy in Ancient Near East and prophecy in Israel
led some scholars to argue that prophecy in Israel must have been unique to
Israel.
Basically these scholars pick certain unique features of Israelite prophecy and use
this to argue for their positions. However they do not agree on what is unique
about Israelite prophecy. Hence this broad theory can be split into sub- theories.
Abrahamic Theory
Prophecy is believed to have started with Abraham. This is mainly
supported in Genesis 20vs7 which states that ‘’Now restore the man’s
wife FOR HE IS A PROPHET, and he will pray for you ----‘’ Now
this supports the view that prophecy came into existence through
Abraham because God himself is the one who mentions Abraham
a prophet to Abmeleck who had marry his wife Sarah.
Hence if God is the one who declares Abraham a prophet of no doubt
this will clearly shows that Abraham is the first prophet because
Yahweh was responsible for selecting as well as sending out his
prophets.
18
Also the bible says ‘’And he will pray for you’’ Prophets were well
known as man of prayer for example Elijah. Abraham was involved in a
lot of prophetic duties for example he interceded for Sodom and
Gomorrah,
He was also the covenant mediator during the Abrahamic covenant
among others and as a result this shows that Abraham
was a first prophet since intercession and a covenant mediator which
are prophetic duties.
In essence this fights against every source of criticism on him a first
prophet.
Criticism of the theory.
A level calls for examination so here one is also permitted to look at
both sides of the coin , Yes of course the evidence provided above can
point out Abraham a first prophet but there are some loopholes of the
theory which can be out stated as well.
● To begin with the word Israel is controversial here
.it might mean two things which again calls for
epistemological debate
● The word might mean land as to the land of Israel, so if the word
Israel is ascribed to land then it becomes controversial to label
Abraham the first Israelite prophet because Abraham never stepped
into Israel as a settled nation and by so doing it becomes controversial
to label Abraham as the first prophet of the land of Israel.
According to BW Anderson the word Israel might also mean people as
to the people of Israel for example the Zimbabweans, so in this like
manner Abrahamic theory might hold \water since he is the patriarch
of Israel and it becomes unfair to talk of prophecy in Israel setting
aside
its ancestor Abraham.
TRADITIONAL THEORY
This theory argues that prophecy in Israel originated as a basic mechanism
through which YAHWEH communicated the meaning and demands of his
covenant with Israel.
Scholars who subscribe to this theory submits that prophets were messengers of
YAHWEH who were basically intermediaries or covenant mediators. This
submission is in the line with the meanings of some of the terms that are used to
19
refer to prophets.
According to W.B.ANDERSON “the English word prophet is derived from the Greek
word prophetes which can be translated to mean one who speaks for another
party, especially for the deity.” As observed above the Hebrew equivalent term
“nabi” can be translated literally to mean the one who communicates the divine
will, so the idea remains the same that prophet were messengers of god.
From critics like H.GRUNKEL, and C.WESTERMAN support this understanding.
They analysed the form of oracles and discovered that the oracles almost always
began with what they called the “messenger style”, thus says YAHWEH .
The implication is that, the prophets understood themselves as messengers of the
lord who communicated the meaning and demands of gods covenant with Israel.
This therefore means that prophecy was covenant specific, it could not be
understood outside the context of YAHWEH covenant with Israel.
This theory suggests that prophecy originated with Moses, particularly with the
Sinai Covenant. The critics of this theory does not recognize the existence of other
covenants in the OLD Testament like Genesis 15,Abraham.Those who subscribe to
this theory submit that it is with the Sinai Covenant that we begin to see God
entering into a Covenant with Israel as a nation.
Earlier than Moses, God had entered into covenants with individuals and not with
Israel as a nation. In this context, scholars who argue for this theory maintain that
the covenant was a unique feature of Israelite religion and it is in this light that
prophecy in Israel could be regarded as unique.
An analysis of this theory can lead to the conclusion that prophecy in Israel had
cultic origins; it originated within the religious institutions of Israel. The first
scholar to suggest this view was H.E Wald and it was later developed by G
Holscher who explicitly stated that, “prophets were inspired as cultic figures, who
were responsible for explaining the meaning and demands of the covenant.”
However, S Mowingel and A.R Johnston have most convincingly argued the theory
of cultic prophets in the ancient Israel.
According to them, “in early Israel, the difference between a priest and a prophet
was not very great since both responded to inquiries, offered instruction, and
performed sacramental functions.
Secondly, prophets are frequently closely related to the priests and the temple,
especially in Jerusalem for instance, Elijah, like the prophets of Baal, offers
sacrifices, [1Kings 18:20-40].
In this context, Mowingel observes that, “prophets associated with the sanctuary
served under the supervision and jurisdiction of the priests or with a status at
least as high as, if not actually higher than that of the priests.
Furthermore, Mowingel pointed to the divine speeches and oracles in the Psalms
as further as evidence of prophetic functions within the cult.
According to him, “the oracles were spoken to worshippers during rituals of
20
national or personal lament [Psalm 126; 60:8- 10, 91:14-16] and the coronation
of Davidic rulers and other royal occasions [Ps 2; 20; 21; 45; 89; 110; 132]”
Critique
The first problem with this sub-theory is that there were different types of
covenants within Israel.
The question, which arises, is that, which one of these covenants was associated
with the origins of prophecy?
This theory suggests that different prophets may have arisen in connection with
different covenant traditions within Israel.
For instance, prophets from the North probably originated in connection with and
were probably influenced by the Ephramite traditions while prophets from the
south were probably influenced by Judean prophetic traditions.
The second problem has to do with the assumption that the concept of covenant
was unique feature of Israelite religion.
This assumption has no strong base because there are striking similarities
between the mosaic covenant and similar Hittite treaties, like the suzerainty
treaty.
Furthermore, this theory is based upon some assumption, which may not be
historical.
For example, the historicity of the figure of Moses and thee exodus itself is not
archaeologically confirmed.
Finally, it is not explicitly clear that when prophets prophesied they always
communicated the meaning and demands of God’s covenant with Israel.
Prophets were messengers of Yahweh. Prophetes or nabi. The oracles begin with
a messenger style. “Thus says the Lord…..” Prophecy was covenant with Israel.
Prophecy originated with Moses at Mount Sinai.
However it is weak because there were other covenants before it. Gen. 9:12
Noah, Gen 15 Abraham.
Moses’ covenant is national thus he becomes the first prophet. Moses arose to
explain the demands of covenant.
THEOLOGICAL THEORY
According to B.W Anderson, prophecy originated in Israel as a basic mechanism
through which Yahweh communicated the meaning and his demands of the
covenant with Israel.
This is in line with the meaning of the two terms that were used to refer to
prophecy. The Greek word prophetess can be translated to mean one who
communicated the divine will. Israelite prophets regarded themselves messengers
of Yahweh. H. Gunkel and C. Westermann looked at the phenomenon of prophecy
from a form critical perspective and they analyse the form of prophetic utterances
21
and discover that these began with the ‘messenger style’, ‘Thus says the Lord…’
implying that their message was not from themselves but from an external force.
These oracles specifically dealt with the covenant relationship between Israel and
Yahweh.
So prophecy in Israel was covenant specific. Such a covenant relationship was a
unique feature of Israelite religion. This supports that Moses is the first prophet.
He is the representative of all prophets. (Deut 18:18).
PROBLEMS
1. There are some situations and there are some prophets without necessarily
talking about the covenant and similarly there are some circumstances where
certain Israelite figures talked about the covenant without prophesying, for
example Noah.
2. Some scholars like M. Noth challenged the view that Moses was the first
prophet on the grounds that all the verses which support Moses as a prophet are
anachronistic.
In fact for M.Noth later editors made Moses into a prophet yet he
was really a very good leader. However Von Rad observed that prophecy I Israel is
associated with the cult, leadership or both. This observation remains valid and
from then onwards we proceed in three directions, that prophecy has either cultic
or political origins or both.
CULTIC ORIGINS
The priestly theory is in support of Samuel as the first prophet as is proven in
1Samuel3. It states that prophecy is just an advancement of priesthood. Partly in
support of the above theory is the seership theory which states that prophecy
originated from seership and this isalso regarded as the evolutionary theory by M.
Noth.
This theory is mainly based on 1 Samuel 9:9. The implication of this verse is that
the office of a prophet evolved from that of a seer. There was a historical
development from the office of a seer to that of a prophet. The assumption is that
there should be a distinction between a prophet and a seer.
This theory is supported by semantics. A semantic analysis of the Hebrew terms
which are used to refer to a seer are roeh and hozer meaning one who is gifted
with the ability to foretell, whereas the Hebrew term for a prophet is nabi which
refer to a person who can do both foretelling and forth telling. Seers were
primarily divinatory in that their emphasis is in the future but prophets were
concerned with the present. If at all they refer to the future there was specific
reason to relate the future to the present.
WEAKNESSES
22
1. This theory is based on 1 Samuel 9:9 and the assumption is that Samuel was the
last judge and the first prophet, yet Genesis 20:7 refer to Abraham as a prophet
and Deut 18:18, Hosea 12:13 refer to Moses as the first and architect of prophecy.
Therefore we cannot assume that prophecy began with Samuel.
2. This theory assumes that there is a clear distinction between a seer and a
prophet, yet the two terms are used interchangeably, e.g. 2Samuel 24:11, Gad is
regarded as both a seer and a prophet. Amos in Amos 7:14 when he was
addressed as a seer he responded denying that he was a prophet nor a prophet’s
son, as if to suggest the two terms mean one and the same thing. However some
scholars try to distinguish a prophet and a seer.
The difference is that:

1. A seer was more or less associated with specific shrine while prophets were
itinerant.
2. A seer was more or less a priest in that he dealt with issues of the cult,
especially those elements that involve sacrifices.
3. A seer receives remuneration for a service, while a prophet receive gifts.
4. More often than not prophets clashed with kings and its rare to find seers
clashing with kings.
POLITICAL OR SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

It is based on sociological school of Mark Weber and Norman Gottwald. They
believe that prophecy has its origins in sociological tension, as a result of
commercialization which led to the creation of a social pyramid in Israel.
When Israel settled in Canaan there developed three social groups, the
aristocracy, the merchant and the commons (poor).
The commons were being exploited by the elite and as a result there was class
struggle in Israel.
From this class struggle emerged some charismatic figures especially among the
exploited class.
Such figures were prophets who became the champions of the poor.
They were the spokespersons of the deprived, the voice of the voiceless and were
supported by Yahweh. This theory is supported by the incident of Naboth and
Ahab in 1 Kings 21.
Amos also defended the poor. Such a theory is important as it considered
elements of economic xand social factors which influence the rise of prophecy.
The process of the Exodus and the settlement in Canaan can be explained in terms
of a political movement.in the light of this one can explain the origin of prophecy
in terms of the clash between two ideologies, Yahwism as the ideology of the
Hapiru and Baalism as the ideology of the ruling Canaanite class.
The prophets would be considered as the political commissars of the time who
helped to coin, shape and reshape the ideology of Yahwism and this involves a
mutual agreement entered into by two individuals, or by two groups or an
individual and a group. The effect was that peace prevailed between the two
23
parties involved.
In this case the covenant was between Yahweh and Israel. Here Yahweh was
understood to be actively at work with Israel to guide his people in the path of
truth and fidelity to the covenant. To maintain mutual understanding between
these two parties, Yahweh elected the prophets as covenant mediators.
They officiated at sanctuaries.
As God’s representatives, prophets would admonish, reprove, denounce
prevailing sins, threaten people with terror of divine judgement, call people to
repentance and proclaim Yahweh’s divine assurance.
Prophets would advise Israelites to put away foreign gods and worship Yahweh
alone.
They called upon Israel to face the most severe judgement of Yahweh upon them
for their sins and apostacy.
Prophets never claimed to be introducing anything new, they were reformers who
took their stand on the ground of Sinai.
Although their contributions were moral, ethical and theological, prophets
functioned as agents of social change.
They were absolutely against social injustice to the extent that some scholars like
K. Whitelam would want to argue that prophets were usually from the social
fringes (they were poor), they were spokespersons of the deprived, the voice of
the voiceless.
They were calling for interrelationship between justice, order, fertility and
prosperity. If the king failed to provide justice then the social, politlical and
ecological structure was believed to be thrown open to the ever present power of
chaos. It is this loyalty to God which stands behind the prophet’s denunciation of
Israel.
Elijah came on the scene when there was widespread apostacy and the majority
of people becoming strongly attached to foreign gods. There was an alarming
growth of social injustice, e.g. the killing of Naboth (1 Kings 21).
The whole structure of Israelite society was threatened by the harsh economic
system, hence Elijah and Elisha together with the prophetic guilds
declared war on the Omrides and became instrumental in bringing about their
downfall.
Amos as a social reformer condemned socio- ethical practices which under the
Canaanite feudal system were regarded as ethical, e.g. dishonest trade practices,
luxurious lifestyle of the rich and oppression of the poor. They were sold for a pair
of shoes.
During the monarchical period kingship was seen in an ambivalent light, too
dangerous an institution to go unchecked by the tenets of covenant faith.
Prophets therefore intervened not because they had political ambitions, but they
were crying for interrelationship between justice and prosperity. In fact the
functioned as a conscience of people but not to dictate its politics.
Political success was only important to the prophets if it had to do with spiritual
goodness.
1
PROPHECY HAS BOTH CULTIC AND POLITICAL ORIGINS
24
According to F.M Cross prophecy started with kingship and died together in exile. This is also
supported by M. Noth’s evolutionary theory which argued that prophecy evolved from
seership.
Prophecy originated as a class struggle or conflict of institutions that is cultic versus political
institution.
When the monarchy emerged there was proliferation of prophetic guilds who were situated
near the Philistine garrison to champion holy wars. In this regard prophecy emerged as a
religio- political stance to inspire nationalism and revolutionalism in Israelites as they were
faced with a war torn political event. Such political crisis needed religious interpreters to
give the divine will and inspire holly wars.
According to Harrelson the emergence of prophecy could be associated with institutional
conflict. He argued that Israel was a covenant community with covenant representatives
who mediated the divine will, for
example Moses and Joshua.
The rise of the monarchy seems to have given the kings the role of the covenant mediators
and yet the community wanted the presence of the freedom of Yahweh to declare his will.
As a result certain figures arose in a bid to check kingship usurpation of this religious duty.
This explains why Samuel charged Saul in 1 Samuel 13:13- 14. The king was not the official
spokesperson of the deity. Nathan refused David permission to build the temple and
promised him a dynastic rule that was to last forever (2 Samuel 7:1ff). so prophecy emerged
as a conflict between two ideologies, that of divine leadership represented by charismatic
office of the judges and that of prophetic office.
The fact that prophecy thrived during the monarchy and later died with it showed
interdependence of the two.
WEAKNESSES
The divine nature of prophecy was not well manifested. 1 Samuel 9:9 is ambiguous, word
seer and prophet are used interchangeably.
CONCLUSION
Condensed the whole information showed that to explain how prophecy originated in
Israelis synonymous to seeking a needle in a hay stack.
Biblical and extra biblical information is inadequate to solve this problem. Hence the origins
of prophecy in Israel remains veiled in obscurity. It leaves us on cross roads.
What is clear is that prophecy has to do with God and is generally linked to social, political,
religious and cultural crisis of the time. Hence J. Muilenburg concluded that prophecy came
with a particular word for a particular time.
REASONS FOR EMERGENCE OF PROPHECY

1. Need for intercession (Gen 20:7)
2. Need to interpret the misfortunes of Israel and explain the covenant and the
exodus event (Moses)
3. Need for ecstatics, that is charismatic defense and administration (Numbers
11:25).
4. Need to deal with Philistine aggression. Need to revive Israel’sreligion that is,
25
to combat idolatry. Need to institute and control the monarchy (Samuel).
SIMILARITIES BETWEEN PROPHECY IN ANCIENT NEAR EAST AND THAT OF

ZIMBABWE
1. the legend of Wen Amon and the issue of ecstacy. Zimbabwean prophets are
also ecstatic forthtellers and have prophetic authority.
2. Both are caught with the spirit of nationalism.
3. From the legend of Zimri lim a seer used the prophetic formula ‘Thus says the
lord’ which is also used by some Zimbabwean prophets for example some say
‘Zvanzi nashi Jehovha…’
4. From the stele of Zakr the issue of visions come out. Some Zimbabwean
prophets claim to see visions.
5. The concept of a seer can also be equated to the concept of (varatidzwa) in
some African independent churches.
6. Prophets in both Zimbabwe and the ANE is given by individuals wearing distinct
regalia (uniforms).
CALL OF ANCIENT NEAR EAST PROPHETS

A call narrative is the section of a prophetic book that records the call of a
prophet. A call was the mark of a true prophet in Israel and this is probably what
distinguished Israelite prophets from other prophet- type persons in the rest of
the Ancient Near East.
A call narrative almost always assumed a definite form or proceeded in definite
stages, namely:
1. Theophany- the deity either appears or he is heard and lets his mission known.
2. Resistance from the prophet
3. Pressure from the deity. This pressure takes two forms, namely force and
persuasion with signs.
4. Acceptance by a prophet
5. Commissioning of the prophet and assurance from the deity.
The call of Ancient Israelite prophets was a call to mediate the covenant between
Israel and Yahweh and therefore a prophet as a covenant mediator speaks to the
whole people of Israel and not specific individuals only.
See Bishau pages 45-47
SIMILARITIES WITH PROPHETS IN ZIMBABWE

1. Prophets in Zimbabwe also claim to have experienced theophanies. Clear
example is Johane Masowe, Johane Marange and Mwazha. Dreams or visions
feature in most accounts of the call
2. It seems most of them did not respond to their calls out of their own will. In a
way they resisted the call.
26
DIFFERENCES
1. THE FORM OF PRESSURE EXERTED ON PROPHETS IN Zimbabwe is slightly
different from that of Ancient Israelite prophets. Most accounts of prophetic
calls in Zimbabwe show that prophets in Zimbabwe began with strange illness
they could not iunterpret. Johane Masowe for example fell ill and was
transported into the heavenly realm. This is then interpreted as the call.
2. Commissioning is a call to address specific individuals especially in matters of
their illness. The call is almost a call to a healing ministry. Therefore it is not
immediately clear whether or not these prophets are covenant mediators.
3. Most call accounts of prophets in Zimbabwe, especially those from African
Independent churches resemble those of traditional healers more than those
of Ancient Israelite prophets
ROLES OF PROPHETS
MESSENGERS OF YAHWEH
The authority enjoyed by prophets among their people depended naturally on the
fact that they were bearers of the divine word.
They were commissioned by God and understood themselves as messengers of
Yahweh hence they used the prophetic formula ‘Thus says the Lord’.
Thus they were primarily spokespersons for God to his people, denouncing them
of their sins, pleasing with them to repent to God, encouraging them to follow the
will of God in all phases of their life.
Israelite prophets were spokespersons for monotheistic Yahwism. Key features of
Yahwism that formed the core of prophets are monotheistic, ethical and
judgemental dimensions of Yahwism that stood at the centre of the message of
each of the ancient Israelite prophets.
These three had no parallels in the ANE prophecy, i.e. they were essentially inique
and made Israelite prophecy unique.
The apodeitic law as exemplified in the Decalogue is the basis of monotheistic
Yahwism. ‘you shall have no other gods before me…’ (Exodus 20:3). The apodeitic
law is believed to be authentic to Israel. If prophets were spokespersons of
monotheistic Yahwism, then basically they interpreted the apodictic laws that
were at the centre of Yahwism which implies that the prophets spoke and
represented that which was unique to Israel.
However scholars like G. Fohrer argue that the apodictic rules of conduct were
not necessarily unique to Israel. But oneshould note that matters of religious
principle in the apodictic law had no parallel in the ANE. Prophets were primarily
spokespersons of these matters of religious principle that were uniquely Israelite
INTERCESSORS
This is somebody who pleads on behalf of people to Yahweh, e.g. Gen 20:7, Amos
7:1-6. The intercessory role is expressed in the tells of Elijah who helped one the
widows of Zarephath to discover in her house oil and milk to keep herself and her
son till the next good rains.
CULTIC FUNCTIONARIES
27
According to Von Rad supported by A. Johnson prophets were cultic office holders
though we cannot deny that prophets were somehow linked to the cultic pattern.
They were chief representatives of the heavenly council, divinely appointed to
proclaim the word of God to the people. They sought no royal or ecclesiastical
favours, since their lives were completely directed and decimated by the divine
suzerain.
COVENANT MEDIATORS (See notes above)

SOCIAL REFORMERS CALLING FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE.
Prophets were speaking on behalf of the less privileged in society and become the
mouthpieces of those who had no power to stand for their rights. In times of ill-
treatment
and injustice such prophets stood for the ordinary people who had no power to
confront leaders and kings in society, for example Elijah and Naboth, Nathan and
David.
The poor were deprived of land and wealth, widows, the fatherlessand the weak
could not protect themselves. Prophets directed their messages to leaders or
officials of institutions in society who had power and authority in the social life of
Judah and Israel. (1 Kings 21, Amos 5:7-10, Isaiah 1:21-26.
Issues of wealth, pursuit of it and possession of it were also addressed by
prophets because they were sources of corruption. Amos’ message- rich would
build hewn stone houses, large vineyard e.t.c. the most vulnerable in society were
oppressed like the widows and ophans that was violation of justice. Hence
message of judjement to the Israelites was a result of injustice
ADJUDICATE INTER-TRIBAL DISPUTES

Before the monarchy prophets would at tribal centres adjudicate inter-tribal
disputes. So the designation of a leader of the tribes in time of danger, officiate at
the ceremony of covenant.
Above all things the leader was there to maintain the categorical law of the
covenant in the life of the tribes.
POLITICAL ADVISORS
When kingship was established in Israel much of the responsibility of the former
covenant representatives was assumed by the king. However the king was not
permitted to become the official spokesperson of the deity. Therefore prophecy
was established to check and balance the powers of the kings. Prophets were
involved in anointing and dethroning of kings.
Whenever a king is enthroned and dethroned prophets are involved. Here
prophets are seen to be playing a leading role in the formation of the kingdom. So
at times prophets are regarded as revolutionaries.
For religious and social changes to be fully addressed there was need to remove
political leaders the argument being that religious and political practices which
were a breach to the Sinai covenant were being promoted by the political
leadership hence there was need to remove them to promote genuine reform
back to the stipulations of the Sinai covenant.
Thus it is not surprising to note that whenever a king is enthroned or dethroned, a
prophet is being involved e.g. Elisha anointed Jehu while the Omrides were still in
28
power and Jehu’s revolution lead to some religious and political change. However
it is interesting to note that prophets never headed any movement in Israel, to
replace the monarchy with another form of government that it might have been
thought to prefer.
This is true for there is no indication that the prophetic tradition ever possessed
either the taste or the talent for practical politics. Whenever prophecy intervened
in these matters, it was not for any other reason but for spiritual reasons.
They were not against monarchical regime, against decline of Israelite law and
custom, against encrochmates of the magnets, against apostasy and against
oppression of the humble class of Israel.
In fact they were against the institution of the kings which were failing to
adequately express loyalty to God. Politics and religion were interwoven leading
from the present into the future, e.g. Amos predicted doom because of people’s
disobedience.
According to Von Rad, prophecy in this case did not announce what would happen
but what according to God’s justice was inevitable, e.g. because of its sins
Jerusalem had to perish (Jer 7:13-20). This is not prediction either in the sense of
Soothsaying or as a result of some technical skills. This is the proclamation of the
acts of holy and righteous God who does not leave sins unpunished and yet shows
mercy to all who love him to keep his commandments (Exodus 20:5-6).
Prophets preached future disasters as well as salvation e.g. Amos 5:18-24,
because what they predicted was not a matter of change but rested at God’s
governance. The prophets could proclaim with matter of certainty, disaster as well
as salvation. Isaiah for instance gave his children names that epitomized his
message,
Spoil speed prey hastens, remnant shall return. Thus he showed that he had no
doubt about what would happen or that disaster will come at the appointed
times.
It is precisely this alliance of proclamation and prediction that is the hallmark of
a true prophet.
Previously prophecy was specifically prediction but with the classical prophets the
view has become prevalent that the
true function of a prophet was to become a teacher of ethical and religious truth.
However they never seized to be seers, their face is always turned to the future.
They stand in the council of Yahweh and it is what he is about to do that they
declare to men.
Their conviction is that the destruction of the nation is inevitable and they dwell
on the nature of Yahweh and on the moral decision of people to impress their
conviction on the nation (Amos 4:12).
28
EARLIEST FORMS/MANIFESTATIONS OF PROPHECY IN ISRAEL

FORMS APPROVED IN THE BIBLE
DREAMS
It is an event that is seen by an individual when he/she is asleep. God can visit a
person in a dream and speak with him, for example the prophetic call of Samuel
was made possible through dream (1 Samuel 3:1ff). In Deuteronomy 13:1ff ‘if a
29
prophet has arisen among you or a dreamer of dreams…’ clearly points to the
existence of this aspect in Ancient Israel.
It should be noted that dreams received by non-Israelites needed a Hebrew
interpreter, for example Joseph (Genesis 41:25-33) was called from prison to
interpret Pharaoh’s dream. Daniel also interpreted king Nebuchadnezzar’s dream
(Daniel 2:24-45).
LOTS (URIM AND THUMMIN)

These were cast to detect a guilty person. In Joshua 7:14-19 Joshua discovered by
lots the person who had offended God by taking spoils from the doomed city of
Jericho. Achan was caught and was stoned to death in the valley of Achor.
Lots were probably put in a basin and rapidly rotated.
The answer was given by a lot which leapt first this method was sometimes
divinatory, e.g. the usage of sacred stones (urim and thumin) in the Old
Testament. Urim and thummin were found inside an ephod. It seems
according to 1 Samuel 2:18 and 2 Samuel 6:14, the ephod was some kind of a
dress like an apron (as the word ‘girded’ may suggest).
However in 1 Samuel 23:6,9 and 30:7 an ephod was some kind of symbolic
vestment that was kept in a sanctuary and would be carried along by the priest or
prophet during military expeditions.
The urim and thummin were part of this vestment. The main purpose of this
practice is to determine the will of the deity or deities on what course of action to
take.
The objects were religiously symbolic. Use of sacred stones is found in 1 Samuel
14:41-43. Saul used these stones to detect the guilty action of Jonathan.
These objects can be compared to hakata (casting lots) in Zimbabwe.
These objects need someone who is a religious official.
The difference is that in Israel the ephod in which the lots are found was some
kind of dress whereas in Zimbabwe lots are either bones or dried tree bucks or
shells of snails or sea creatures or even stones.
Just like hakata urim and thummin (two sides of part of an ephod that were
marked differently) were used to determine or to manifest the divine will in terms
of yes or no, this one and not that one.
The symbolic nature and the fact that the ephod was kept at a sanctuary, it’s most
probableto have been a priestly object used to perform priestly duties.
However determining and interpreting the will of God were usually prophetic
functions. So lots in this case fall in the realm of a prophet.
VISION
It is an appearance seen by an individual which is inaccessible to everybody else.
The vision may be seen when one is in ecstacy. A person may see either symbol
which are interpreted or real experience. Items that may appear in a vision may
depend on the prophet’s personal background, for example if Isaiah was originally
a priest it is understandable that he experienced a vision in the temple.
If Amos was a farmer, the imagery drawn in his vision involves pests. Visions are
30
one of God’s methods of divine revelation (Numbers 12:6)
ECSTACY (see notes, B.W. Anderson page 250 and Bishau pgs 7-13)
FORBIDDEN METHODS OF PROPHECY/DIVINATORY PRACTICES

There is a strong condemnation of these forms in Deuteronomy 18:10 ‘There shall
not be found among you anyone who burns his son/ daughter as an offering,
anyone who practices divination, a soothsayer, an auger, or a sorcerer or a
medium, or wizard, or a necromancer…’.
Divination is a process of discovering the unknown or the future through
Supernatural means.
ASTROLOGY
It is the study of heavenly phenomenon, for example stars, moon, sun e.tc. this
method was common amongst the Babylonians as they were skilled in foretelling
the future from the movement of stars and planets. During the time of Jeremiah
he attacked bitterly the worship of the Queen of heaven (the mother goddess
(Jeremiah 7:18). This is also condemned in Deuteronomy 4:19.
NECROMANCY
It is the process of seeking guidance from the spirit of the dead. This method is
strongly condemned both in Levitical laws and in Deuteronomist writings, for
example in Leviticus 20:28 ‘if a person turns to medium and wizards playing the
harlot after them, I will set my face against that person and will cut him off from
among his people’. Though condemned this practice was still practiced in the
eighth century (Isaiah 8:19-20).
Necromancy includes two ideas:
1. Worship of ancestors
2. The dead being consulted to determine the future.
1Samuel 28:1ff Saulconsulted the witch of Endor to raise the spirit of Samuel who
was dead.
HEPASTROPHY
It is the process of divining from the liver of the sacrificed animal. Ezekiel 21:21 ‘For the king
of Babylon stands at the parting of the way, at the head of two ways to use divination he
shakes the arrows, he consult the teraphim, he looks at the liver’. It was only commonly
practiced among the Babylonians.
HYDROMANCY
This refers to the use of water or it is divination by water. It is alluded to in Joseph narratives
in genesis 44:5. ‘it is not from this that my Lord drinks, and by this that he divines…
RHABDOMANCY
This refers to the use of divining sticks or casting of arrows as in Ezekiel 21:21. The same
method is indirectly alluded to in Hosea 4:12 ‘My people inquire of a thing of wood and
their staff gives them oracles…’ a thing of wood could have been play with words which
might be a reference to divining rods or sticks.
31
RERAPHIM
The use of teraphim or household images was quite common among people of
Mesopotamia and Palestine. They were a sign of authority and land ownership
but were also used for the purpose of divining. This method is alluded in
Zechariah 10:2 ‘For the teraphim utters nonsense…’
DISCUSS THE EARLIEST FORMS OF PROPHECY IN ISRAEL AND OUTLINE THE

FUNCTIONS OF EARLY ISRAELITE PROPHETS.
HOW AND WHY PROPHETIC BOOKS WERE COMPILED AND PRESERVED
1. Small collections of the sayings of the prophet were made during the prophet’s
lifetime, by the prophet or his disciples. Message was the product of the
community and not individual. Sons of the prophets are known to also have
had a task of preserving prophetic traditions.
2. Transmission through a number of unidentified generations. Units of tradition
developed independently and circulated orally independently.
3. When sayings came to the attention of civic or religious authorities they must
have been widely reported, for example Amaziah the priest in charge at Bethel,
was able to quote a saying of Amos as grounds of extraditing him (Amos 7:11)
and his trial for treason.
4. In some cases sayings and stories would have circulated in groups of disciples
to be consigned to writing only when memories began to fade.
5. Utterances of professional prophets were probably preserved among the
temple and court records.
6. Later on the words were put together into small units of literature (periscopes)
following a number of criteria, for example if it had common subject matter or
tradition used the same catch words, for example ‘For three transgressions
and for four…’ or common theology, for example 2 Kings 2 where we have a
series of miracles.
7. Redactors later compiled periscopes into continuous narratives.
CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIMITIVE PROPHECY IN ISRAEL (PRE-CANONICAL

PROPHECY)
1. They operated in groups/bands/guilds.
2. They needed music in order for them to be turned into the prophetic mood
3. It was contagious in nature
4. Miracles were more pronounced during this period.
5. Their messages were not written down
6. Early prophets were seers or visionaries who had clairvoyant powers.
7. They were ecstatics
WHY WERE THEY COMPILED

1. Political disasters, for example the fall of Jerusalem and subsequent
deportation, seem to have provided a powerful stimulus to the preservation
of prophetic sayings. Probably the first compilation of prophetic material dates
back from this time.
32
2. To preserve prophetic material.

3. To record and deposit after disappointment as proof in the event of future
fulfilment of his/her prophecy.
4. So that the prophecy might benefit by providing lessons to future generations
(posterity).
5. To keep the prophetic tradition alive.
6. To maintain a reliable record of the prophetic literature.
‘PROPHETS SHOULD NOT BE SEEN AS AUTHORS AND POETS (H. GUNKEL) BUT AS
MESSENGERS OF Yahweh (J. ROSS)’. EVALUATE THESE TWO PERSPECTIVES ON
ISRAELITE PROPHETS.
AUTHORS
According to H. Gunkel prophets were authors in their own right who were
particularly poets because of the nature of their works and how they delivered
their message.
In their writing prophets used poetic devices, these include repetition, for example
linking (initial, cross and final linking), parallelism in the case of Hebrew poetry-
initial, final, synonymous and synthetic parallelism.
Apart from repetition prophets also play with words (paronomasia) and panning,
onomatopoeia and other poetic devices to this effect. The form of some oracles, for
example arrangement in stanzas may also be cited to demonstrate the same point..
WEAKNESSES
Arrangement into stanzas of prophetic oracles is a later development that cannot
be attributed to the prophets. Also, even at the point of delivering their message,
sometimes it was their secretaries who captured and wrote the words and these
were the people responsible for the artistic skills that went into writing of the
prophetic books and not the prophets themselves.
PROPHETS WERE MESSENGERS OF YAHWEH.

Prophets were messengers of Yahweh because of the nature of their task and also
how they delivered their message. This is primarily based on the definition of the
term Nabi as someone who speak on behalf of another. When applied to Israelite
prophecy a Nabi was a messenger of Yahweh who communicated the divine will.
The use of the messenger style or prophetic formula, ‘thus says the Lord…’ can be
used to support that they were messengers of Yahweh.
Prophets received calls from Yahweh. They were not men of self-appointed
ministries. The implication therefore is that the source of their authority was
Yahweh.
ECSTACY
According to B.W Anderson, ecstacy is an experience of being overcome with an
emotion so powerful that self control or reason may be suspended. It does not
arise from mere emotional rapture but from the spirit (ruah) of Yahweh which
falls upon a person. It takes control of the self and makes one an instrument of
divine will. In such a state unusual things happen, eg Elijah overtook the chariot of
Ahab (1 Kings 18), Saul stripped off clothes and lay naked (1 S amuel 19:19-24). It
33
transforms a prophet i.e made him another man (1 Samuel 10:6). It can be divided
into three categories:
1. Contagious i.e electric eg when Saul met a band of prophets on his way to
Gibeah and fall into esctacy.
2. Orgiastic eg Elijah overtook the chariot of Ahab from Mt Carmel to Jezreel.
3. Passive eg when Elisha visited Damascus, Hazel came to see him in order to
seek an oracle about Benhadad’s sickness and Elisha told him that he shall die.
Elisha then gazed and stared steadily at him and he burst into tears.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ECSTACY AND PROPHECY
Some scholars argue that the term prophet originated from the agitated behavior
of ecstatics.
According to Robinson no Hebrew prophet would venture to prophecy without an
initial experience of an extra- ordinary character, that is, ecstacy. It served as the
climate of prophecy. Certainly this condition was the medium of genuine religious
experience in which true conduct with God was achieved.
According to J. Lindblom ecstacy was physical evidence which showed that
someone has the spirit of Yahweh.
It gave prophets authority hence distinguished them from ordinary people, eg is
Saul among the prophets?’ it was normally induced by music and it had influence
in politics e.g Deborah led people in war and inspire them with music. Prophetic
guilds, for example those stationed near the Philistne garrison were functional in
the holy wars. Music was used to induce patriotism in people. The analogy of
other groups of Yahweh’s devotees such as the Rechabites are the prophetic
guilds.
Association of saul with the sons of the prophets after he had been set aside to
deliver Israel suggest that they were a religio- patriotic movement making use of
dervish techniques.
MODE OF OPERATION OF PROPHETIC GUILDS

1. The ecstatics lived in bands (groups) under the leadership of a father (ab) and
they were the sons of the prophet (bene hannebiim). The father’s spirit was
shared among the sons (Numbers 11,2Kings 2, 1 Sam 19:24). The function of
the chief prophet was to teach the sons the secrets of the prophetic office
while the sons supported and legitimized the authority of the father.
2. Ecstacy was induced by music (2 Kings 3:15)
3. Ecstatic/ frencied behavior.
4. Decentralization of community households for example some lived in Bethel,
Gilgal, Jericho (2 Kings 2:1-5)
5. Prophesied violently (1Kings 18:28)
6. Use symbolic acts to demonstrate (1 Kings 22)
7. They use slogan to refer to the leaders as chariot and its horsemen (2 Kings
13:12,14).
FUNCTIONS/ACTIVITIES OF PROPHETIC GUILDS

1. The ecstatics lived in bands (groups) under the leadership of a father (ab) and
they were the sons of the prophet (bene hannebiim).
The father’s spirit was shared among the sons (Numbers 11,2Kings 2, 1 Sam
34
19:24). The function of the chief prophet was to teach the sons the secrets of the
prophetic office while the sons supported and legitimized the authority of the
father.
Probably, prophecy like the office of the priest had to go through some form of
learning. So maybe the responsibility of the father was to authenticate that one
has undergone through all stages and therefore qualified as a prophet. The
assumption here is that if prophets used cultic objects, it simply meant that one
had to learn and prophecy is not something that comes spontaneously (2 Kings
4:38-41). So they were professionally trained and perhaps paid for a service, eg
Ahijah is being paid when he delivered the message of Jeroboam (1 Kings 14).
2. The father anointed and would send sons to anoint kings vindicating the
leadership of the anointed individual by bestowing upon them certain charisma (2
kings 9).
So they were messengers of the fathers who would at one point anoint kings.
3. The sonsin particular acted as political commissars and would gather at military
garrisons in a bid to boost the morale of the anointed kings and their soldiers as
they fight against their enemies. So they were functional during holy wars, eg
when Israel fought against the Philistines, the guilds were stationed near the
philistine garrison, probably to weaken the enemy by proclaiming their defeat in
advance as well as chanting war songs. So they function as a military band.
4. They were upholders of monotheism just like their fathers.
5. They were industrious that is they could cook, farm, gather food for
themselves.
6. They could also prophecy.
7. They also had cultic functions. They were experts at intercessory prayers. Some
of them acted as temple personnel.
COMPARE AND CONTRAST PROPHETIC BANDS IN ANCIENT ISRAEL AND SIMILAR

PHENOMENON IN AN AFRICAN INDEPENDENT CHURCH OF YOUR CHOICE IN
ZIMBABWE.
Zviratidzo (revelations) and its splinter groups Mabasa evapositori (acts of
apostles) and dhambuza.
SIMILARITIES
1. Secret place of meeting (mativi mana) a mysterious place.
2. The presence of a father who is the chief trainer and the surrounding disciples
who are apprentices.
3. Basic process of incubation that the graduates from there talk about, that
includes the secrets of healing and performing miracles.
4. Inducement of ecstacy through music and dance.
DIFFERENCES
Kind of recruits and their backgrounds are different.It seems apprentices in the
African independent churches are drawn from those candidates who initially were
possessed by spirits making demands upon them to be traditional healers and
through some mysterious process the spirit is cleansed and converted/ termed so
35
that these people can now be healers within the church.

Miracles performed almost always have to do with healing and their prophesy
always involves witch hunting. This is a marked difference with Ancient Israelite
prophetic bands.
HOW ECSTACY ORIGINATE IN ISRAEL

Ecstacy like prophecy is a borrowed phenomenon from the Ancient Near East. Its
ultimate origin is traced back to Thrace where it spread into Greece as a cult of
Dionysius and into Asia Minor and Syria.
It is likely Israel first becomes acquainted with ecstatic prophecy in Canaan where
it was connected with Baal religion.
Baal prophets imported it from Phoenicia. Probably Israelites borrowed ecstatic
prophecy from the Canaanites as it did so much else.
This is supported by the factthat there are similarities between Israelite ecstacy
and Ancient near East, eg the Mesha- stele found in Dibon in the Jordan region
dated in the ninth century.
The stele records a command relayed to king Mesha from the Moabite God
Kemish to attack a town called Nebo. The message was relayed by an ecstatic
figure eg the Elijah and Elisha narratives reveal a close conduct between Israel and
Canaanite cities and testify to the existence of a certain type of orgiastic prophecy
imported into Israel by Jezebel the wife of Ahab.
There are some similarities between 450 prophets of Baal and the sons of a
prophet associated with Elijah and Elisha. The Elijah- Elisha narratives reveal a
close contact between Israel and Phoenician cities and testify to the existence of a
certain type of orgiastic prophecy imported into Israel by Jezebel- the queen. The
Wen Amon incident is another example of 5-097xecstatic prophecy in the ancient
Near east similar to that of Israel. In the Mari text there are
reports about several communications from the deities eg Dagan, Adad to Zimri
lim.
These messages are reported to have been passed through ecstatic (Muhhum)
employed in a temple. The Mesha stele found in Dibon in the Jordan region that is
dated in the 9th century.
The stela records a command relayed to King Mesha from the MOABITE GOD
Kemish to attack a town called Nebo. The message was relayed by an ecstatic
figure. Some scholars like Blenkinsopp argue that there is huge material in the
Mari letters dealing with ecstatic intermediaries that characterize what must have
been a fairly standard pattern in the ANE urban centres with which Israel had ties.
In fact both ANE and Israelite ecstacy were stimulated by rhythm of music and
body movements ( 3:15).
Body is stimulated into hyper action. However scholars observed that Israelite
ecstacy was not just a mere emotional rapture but was from the spirit of Yahweh
(ruah).
Moreover rarely do we find Israelite prophets delivering their message in ecstacy.
Basing on the definition of ecstacy, that is, suspension of self-consciousness, some
scholars argue that there is a difficulty that arises with trying to understand
Israelite prophets solely as ecstatics because going by the definition
it would appear Israelite prophets were not ecstatic. They argue that Israelite
36
prophets never lost their consciousness. Texts cited to support the view that
Israelite prophets were ecstatics are not explicit eg Numbers 11:11-30 is said to
be anachronistic.
Moreover there is no equivalent Hebrew term for ecstacy. Though scholars may
accept that Israelite prophets were ecstatic it seems this phenomenon was
prevailing during early phases of prophecy and seems to be studiously avoided by
classical prophets. B.W Anderson argues that if prophecy was
borrowed what was borrowed was transformed to suit the Israelite environment.
ECSTACY AS AN ISRAELITE PHENOMENON

It appear for the first time in the reliable records of Israel in connection with the
election of Saul who instituted the prophetic guilds (1 Samuel 10:1, 1 Samuel
19:24).
These prophets are connected with political situation during the philistine
oppression of Israel.
The source of the ecstatic experience is the spirit of God. Samuel probably aligned
with them because of their
loyalty to Yahweh. However its likely that ecstatic prophets existed prior to
Samuel but they were taken for granded (1 Samuel 3:1).
Most scholars interpret Numbers 11:10-30, that is the incident of the ordination
of the 70 elders as marking the beginning of ecstatic prophecy in the wilderness.
In this case ecstacy originated within Israel and was God inspired.
Scholars like Blenkinsopp may argue that this passage appears to legitimize
ecstatic prophecy by deriving it from the spirit of Moses which itself had divine
origin.
Spirit transferred from Moses to the elders caused them to prophecy ecstatically.
However this view has been criticized by M. Noth. For him it is doubtful whether
this is an authentic episode from the Mosaic period.
In the judgement of many scholars this is anachronistic. Anachronism is the story
teller’s technique or description of the Mosaic period in terms of language or
experience of a later time. One can conclude that ecstacy is part and parcel of the
earliest forms of prophecy in Israel.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPHECY AND THE CULT

The relationship between prophet and priest and prophet and cultus is not clear.
At one time it was customary to find in Hebrew religion a tension between
prophet and priest or cult.9
At present it is more common to find scholars suggesting that prophets may have
been a part of the cultus, associated with priests in cultic ritual.
As we shall see, anti-cultic pronouncements of the eighth century prophets
appear to give support to the first hypothesis, but there is a considerable amount
of evidence to lend credence to the second.
The prophets encountered by Saul were from the shrine at Gibeath-elohim, "the
hill of the gods" (I Sam. 10:5). The prophet Samuel was trained by the priest Eli
and performed as a priest.
As we shall see, Ezekiel, the prophet, had priestly interests. Isaiah received his
37
summons to prophesy within the temple precincts.

Aubrey Johnson has proposed that prophets and priests worked side by side in
Yahweh shrines and in the Jerusalem temple, and he concludes that when the
prophets criticized, they stood within the cultus seeking to correct abuses. For
him prophecy formed a free but intimate cult association .
S. Mowinkel argues that prophecy was connected with the cult. scholars argue
that prophecy evolved from priesthood. The argument being that, because of the
inadequacy and corrupt tendencies of the priestly office as demonstrated by the
sons of Eli, the lack of the voice of the Lord during time of Eli necessitated
Samuel’s call.
Priests and Levites were considered to be gifted with the spirit of Yahweh. They
were consulted by the local people for the guidance of Yahweh. This function is
also applicable to the prophets, e.g. Samuel was consulted for the
lost ass, Ahijah is consulted by Jeroboam’s wife pertaining the illness of their child.
Prophetic guilds were linked to cultic centres. Gad is referred to as David’s seer.
Elisha is visited by a Shunamite woman at the cult. So there is an overlapping of
the functions of a seer, prophet and priest. Prophets were either permanently or
temporarily connected with sanctuaries.
FUNCTIONS
1. Giving oracles
2. Helping in battles and offering sacrifices
3. Interceding.
4. They were experts in prayer
5. Reception of revelation is always found around the cult
The role of the prophets as set forth in the prophetic writings is to proclaim Yahweh's word
or, as the term nabi implies, to act as Yahweh's spokesmen. During the past half century,
prophetic utterances have been subjected to form critical analysis, and it has been
demonstrated that oracular forms stem from cultic, legal, heraldic and other sociocultural
sources.
Some utterances, such as those of Amos, may be associated with festal occasions like the
New Year observance.
Judgment pronouncements reflect forms used in law court statements or in proclamations
by a royal messenger. Some salvation oracles employ patterns used in lamentation rituals or
in minstrelsy.
The results of form critical studies should not be used to anchor the prophets in any of the
groups from which they borrowed their literary forms, but rather to demonstrate the
versatility of the spokesmen for God who were capable of employing many well-known
literary patterns to communicate their message.
It is often pointed out that prophets demonstrate extensive knowledge of Hebrew
traditions.
This is true, but the prophets are not confined by past history. Woven through the prophetic
works are references to major themes of the salvation history of the nation: election or
choice of the people by God, the Exodus or the saving-preservation of the people, the
covenant bonds, the occupation of Canaan with divine help, and the Davidic line with its
messianic kingship overtones.
There were various means of determining the will of Yahweh at cultic centres. There are
also various types of oracles, e.g. judgement, assurance and salvation oracles. There are
38
places well known for oracle giving,e.g. Elisha and the Shunamite woman refer to the new
moon and Sabbath suggesting the time to receive an oracle.
So the function of the Old Testament prophets in association with the cult as an institution
is not in question. The real question has to do with the extend of the association
But, as we shall see, the prophets also turned away from traditions: Amos reversed the
popular concept of "Yahweh's day" and Jeremiah proposed a new covenant to replace the
old.
The prophets also challenged current practices. Cultic ritual, with its emphasis upon what a
man does in ritual, is played down, and moral themes, concerned with what a man is in
human associations, are emphasized.11
Thus, the prophets should not be universally categorized as anti-cultic preachers, as
upholders of past traditions, as predictors of the future or as moralists. They are best
recognized as charismatic personalities, men under the compulsion of an experience that
causes them to utter, despite opposition, challenge, mockery and imprisonment, the words
they believed to be Yahweh's words given to them, words representing Yahweh's will,
Yahweh's intentions, Yahweh's purposes, and Yahweh's action.
Their concern was with their own immediate present. If the understanding and
interpretation of that immediate present demanded recollections from the past or
indications of what the future might hold, then past and future were utilized. If the best and
most meaningful presentation called for dramatic enactment, utilizing legal or mourning or
folksong modes of utterance, then these forms were
used.
To resist the demands of God or to flee from their assigned role was impossible. One could
only respond to what Yahweh required and suffer the consequences in the conviction that
Yahweh would prove the utterance to be true.
How Yahweh's word came is not known. Rites of incubation, in which the individual slept in
a holy place and received a message in dreams or visions, were practiced in the Near East.
When Daniel (or Dan'el) in the Ugaritic story of Aqht desired a son, he spent seven days and
nights in the sanctuary until he received a revelation.12 Incubation rites were not unknown
to the Hebrews,13 but there is no clear evidence that prophetic messages were received
through this
technique.
Nevertheless visions were experienced, for Isaiah's prophetic summons came in a vision in
the temple area, and visionary patterns appear in the prophecies of Amos, Jeremiah, Ezekiel
and others.
Free association rites are known to have been utilized by seers.
The whole mind and personality of the seer is focused upon a single item, or problem; all
else is blanked out in what might best be described as a trance state. A train of thought is
begun leading to an answer to the problem or to an oracle.
There is, as we shall see, some indication that the prophets may have utilized some form of
this technique, acquiring oracles from concentration on a pot of boiling water (Jer. 1:13 f.)
or on a man testing a wall (Amos 7:7 f.).
Some prophetic oracles reflect personal experiences either social or introspective. Some of
Hosea's proclamations grew out of his unfortunate marriage and some of Jeremiah's out of
vilification by his countrymen. On the other hand, certain of Jeremiah's and Isaiah's
experiences were personal and inward, suggesting that they developed out of inward
listening or concentration that produced mental images, mental communication culminating
39
in what might be termed an "ineffable experience" (cf. Jer. 20:7- 9).

Perhaps it is best to generalize and describe prophetic experiences as many and varied. Lack
of detailed information in the Bible prevents, in the light of present knowledge, real
precision in analysis.
The clash between prophets and priests has been taken by some scholars to mean that they
are two distinct groups.
Prophets were not necessarily against the cult but its abuse. The two offices co-existed. Cult
was from the beginning, the tangible expression of the faith of Israel.
It was the rehearsal of God’s mighty deeds and his self -disclosure of the past.
Anti- cultic verses, e.g. Amos 5:3, Isaiah 1:11-12 are against formalization of exterior worship
when it had no corresponding interior dispositions.
Israel had come to believe that rituals and ceremony could atone for their sins. God rejects
the paraphernalia of external observance unless it is accompanied by social justice and
consideration for the underprivileged.
Prophets insisted that mere outward forms divorced from inward meaning and practices of
genuine purity are resented. God’s concern is with moral obedience and not prescribed
rules.
Examples to support this are 1 Samuel 15:22, Hosea 6:6, Amos 5:21-25, Isaiah 1:10-15,
Jeremiah 6:20, 7:22-23. Prophets were against the cult because it had become so much
institutionalized, their concern was that it had become devoid of sincerity. It had been
practiced by immoral people who were syncretic and apostate.
Yahwistic prophetism almost certainly remains in close rapport with the cult.
They sometimes spoke the language of the cult.
However it does not necessarily follow that the great Old Testament prophet was a cult or
guild prophet.
Prophets and priests were not so positively and constantly opposed as sometimes assumed.
It is significant that these figures were the most highly ranked in the tradition of Judaism.
Moses and Elijah had dual role of priest and prophet.
Moses was a Levite and Elijah conducted sacrifices. In fact prophets operated within the
established priesthood and ceremonial ritual established by Moses. Sacrifices were a means
of expressing obedience.
However prophets emphasized that sacrifices were not to be an end in themselves as Israel
thought, but they were a means to an end. Prophets were seen at cultic centres as experts
at intercessory prayers.
They were there to bring people’s petitions to God and communicate divine answers
indicating whether or not the sacrifice was accepted by God.
On special religious festivals such as covenant renewal they may have an important
announcement of the demands and promises of the covenant. Prophets were also court
advisors e.g. Nathan a court prophet sanctioned the rule of the Davidic dynasty.
METHODS USED BY PROPHETS TO DELIVER THEIR MESSAGES

SYMBOLIC ACTIONS
B.W Anderson defined symbolic actions as ‘acted out parables’. They were oracles
in a prophet’s book which were acted in real life. These oracles were connected to
the message to be delivered.
They disclose the message of Yahweh to the people and they emphasise the main
ideas of the message so that people can easily understand the message.
40
Quite a number of prophets gave their children symbolic names so that they may
be walking signs or placards to the people.
The prophet Moses gave his sons symbolic names; Gershom which reminds
Israelites that they were ‘Sojourners’ and ‘Eliezer’ which reminds them of
deliverance from Pharaoh (Exodus 18:3-4).
The prophet Hosea also gave his children symbolic names: Jezreel named in
connection with Jehu’s blood bath in the valley of Jezreel, Not pitied meaning
Yahweh’s patience was exhausted and finally Not my people showing that
Yahweh had dissolved the covenant between him and Israel. In fact the names of
Hosea’s children demonstrate the deterioration of the relationship between
Yahweh and Israel.
However God’s judgement was not his last word. After punishment these names
were reversed showing that Yahweh had reconciled with his people.
The prophet Isaiah also had named his children symbolic names so that they will
be visualaids.
He gave one of his sons the name Shear Jashub meaning ‘a remnant shall return’
after the Syro-Ephramite crisis.
He also gave his second son the name ‘Maher shalal hash baz’ meaning ‘the
speed spoil hastens’, pointing to the weakness of the coalition.
The only symbolic actions performed by the prophets. False prophets also
performed actions. The prophet Zedekiah the son of Chenaah made himself iron
horns symbolizing victory.
It was during a military campaign against Syria over the city of Ramoth Gilead.
Ahab the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the king
of Judah joined together against Syria and before they went for a war they
inquired of the Lord from the four hundred court prophets of Baal who belonged
to King Ahab. With one accord they promised these two kings, ‘go up for the Lord
will give it into the hand of the king’.
THE two kings were assured of victory, that is when Zedekiah proceeded to make
iron horns in a bid to induce belief in the two kings that surely the Lord
commanded or gave them this to be a false prophet when the two kings were
defeated by Syria and king Ahab died.
Hence the efficiency of this method was questionable chiefly because it was also
used by false prophets.
This method was a common method that Jeremiah used. Some of the symbolic
actions in the book of Jeremiah are:
1. The pot in the hands of a potter - a symbolic action which demonstrate that
Yahweh
was there to punish Israel as a corrective measure.
2. The broken pottery in the valley of Hinnom or Topeth which symbolize doom.
3. Jeremiah’s purchase of the land at Anathoth symbolizing restoration.
4. A yoke bar in the prophet’s neck which symbolize Babylonian exile and slavery.
Hananiah the false prophet broke his bars and assured the Judeans that the exile
period was not going to last for 70 years as prophesied by Jeremiah. He prophesied that it
was to last for two years. Jeremiah proceeded to make iron yoke bars in a bid to prove to his
audience the certainty of the impending catastrophe.
The accounts contain:
41
1. God’s instruction to perform the action.

2. A description of the action itself
3. An explanation of its meaning
4. They sometimes include a statement made to onlookers.
5. As in a vision emphasis in the text is not on the action but on the lesson conveyed by
the action- usually that God was going to act either against or on behalf of his people (Hosea
1:1-2)
SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS METHOD

1. Symbolic action acted as visual aids to the audience aid memory. They served not only to
represent and make evident a particular fact, but also to make this fact a reality.
2. They tease the mind into active thought. In fact they deny the hearers the attitude of a
spectator. So they were meant to arouse the emotions of fear or hope, according to
circumstances. Thus what was done powerfully reinforced what is said. Symbolic actions
represent, indicate, point to or demonstrate. Therefore they point beyond themselves to
something else. They served to represent to the bystanders an object, an occurrence, a
course of events which were of particular significance.
Therefore there is a connection with the total message of the prophet.
3. They were used to attract the attention of the people. They always had such a
structure as to evoke in the consciousness of the bystanders the fact which the
prophet had in mind.
4. They were meant to illustrate seriousness of the actions basing on the philosophy that
actions are more effective than words.
5. They express God’s intentions, e.g. destruction. They are symbolic ways in which God
intends to act towards his people.
6. It helped people to remember, see, judge and act. According to Lindblom prophets
frequently acted in unusual ways in order to derive home the oracles they uttered.
WEAKNESSES
1. Scholar by the name Edmund Sigmund view symbolic actions as signs of shear
madness and sign of exhibitionism. After a close analysis between Israelite prophets who
performed symbolic actions and his insane patience on the issue of behavior and he come to
conclude that symbolism is shear madness.
2. It was problematic because false prophets used this method.
SONGS (FUNERAL DIERGE)/ LAMENT
The prophet Amos in 5:2 sung a funeral song to the Israelites when he wanted to
prove his audience the inevitability of doom that he was pronouncing. This is a
funeral lament over Israel as if she were a corpse ready for burial. He saw Israel in
a coffin waiting for burial. Attached to the song is the issue of lament which
usually begins with a woe cry (woe…) Amos 5:18, 4:4-5, Isaiah 5:1ff. woe speech is
a pronouncement whose tone is deep and full of grief. It is introduced with catch
word, ‘Woe to you…’ (Amos 6:4-6)
PARABLES
Parables are comparisons which use story telling techniques and details drawn
42
from everyday life experiences in order to present religious truth in a way which
attracts the attention of the listener or reader by its vividness or strangeness and
thus provokes further reflection and appropriate action.
When prophet Nathan rebuked king David for his sins in seducing Uriah’s wife
Bathsheba and murdering him. Nathan used a parable of the richman who took a
poor man’s only lamb. The use of parables for sinners to condemn themselves is a
prophetic device (2 Samuel 12:1-14). David was made to condemn himself. David
was also caught out again in the same way by the wise woman of terkoa (2
Samuel 14:1-23). The same method was
used by the prophet Isaiah in 5:1ff, when he used the parable of the vineyard
where Judah
was considered as the chosen vine planted on fertile and well prepared land but
regardless of the efforts made to ensure a good harvest the field yielded wild
fruits.
The parable was given to express God’s love for Judah and also to justify
punishment that should be given to the Judeans. God’s love is shown by his care
in planting his vineyard.
He punishes it because it could not produce the fruit of obedience, hence
punishment was inevitable.
The prophet Jeremiah also employed the same method when he wanted to prove
to Judah that Yahweh was going to spoil the pride of Judah, in the parable of the
waist cloth (Jeremiah 13:1-11). In Jeremiah 18:1-17 he gave another parable of
the potter. In the
parable Jeremiah wanted to deliver the message that Yahweh was going to punish
the Judeans as a corrective measure. In his advice to Zedekiah and those who had
survived the first deportation he gave the parable of the good and the bad figs. In
the parable Jeremiah considered the exiles as good figs. (Jer 24:1-10)
SIGNIFICANCE
1. They were used as weapons of warfare in response to criticism of opponents.
2. To deny the hearers the attitude of a spectator. So they tease the mind into
active thought.
3. It is one of the varied ways through which prophets spoke about the sphere of
God’s kingly rule and power which demands obedience.
4. As a challenge to mythically built world
WEAKNESSES
The message could be interpreted differently by the audience. For example Nathan’s
parable to David, David did not know that the rich man in the story was referring to
him.
So the prophet’s message was not received as anticipated.
MIRACLES
Miracle is something that happens contrary to nature. It is an extra-ordinary event.
This method was used by prophets to show that the spirit of god was working
through them.
Prophets used this as a way of inducing belief in their audience that they were not
43
merely ordinary beings, but were being used as mouthpieces of Yahweh.

Deuteronomy 13:1-12 seem to suggest that miracles were one way people could use
to distinguish true from false prophets. ‘if a prophet has arisen among you, or a
dreamer of dreams or gives you a sign and what he tells you come to pass…’
The archetypal figure Moses performed quite a number of miracles:
1. Changing the rod into a serpent before Pharaoh.
2. Changing water into blood
3. Ten plagues
4. Struck waters of the Red Sea and parted
5. Provision of manna and quails
6. Make bitter water sweet
7. Struck the rock with his rod when they run out of water.
Elijah and Elisha were carbon copies of Moses. Elijah in his battle with Baalism
performed miracles.in 1 Kings 17:1ff he announced drought to prove that it was
Yahweh who provided rains and not Baal.
1. Elijah multiplied the food of the widow of Zarephath.
2. Called fire from heaven to consume sacrifice (1Kings 18:31ff)
3. Raised the widow of Zarephath’s son.
4. Struck the waters of Jordan and water parted
5. Killed 400 prophets of Baal single handedly
6. Taken to heaven by whirlwind
ELISHA
1. Healed Naaman the leper (2 Kings 5:1ff)
2. Raised the Shunamite woman’s son from the dead (2Kings 4:8-25)
3. Purified the water at Jericho (2 Kings 2:19-25)
4. Filled the trenches with water during the battle with the Moabites (2 Kings 3:4ff)
5. Floated the axe.
All the above were messages sent by means of miracles. They point to prophets as
messengers of Yahweh, revealing Yahweh’ compassion and since illness was linked
with evil these miracles were significant in the fight against evil.
RHETORIC QUESTIONS
These were questions which required no answer. They were there to provoke the
audience to ponder seriously about the prophet’s message. When prophets used this
method they wanted the audience to answer themselves.
Amos used this method quite often, for example Amos 9:7 ‘Are you not like the Ethiopeans
to me…’ Here Amos wanted the Israelites to notice that they were no longer coddled.
Yahweh had desacralized them because of their failure to comply with the covenant
stipulations. Amos 3 is full of these rhetoric questions. Jeremiah 13:223 also used this
method. ‘can the Ethiopean change his skin…’
WEAKNESSES
At times this method is rather confusing especially to the audience who had preconceived
understanding of God. For example, ‘Are you not like the Ethiopians…’. Israelites fail to
grasp this since they regarded themselves as sacred and unique nation not to be compared
with surrounding nations, worse still with their enemies.
44
LETTERS/ DELEGATION
At times prophets passed their responsibilities to their audience through disciples. This
method was convenient where the prophet was barred from talking to his audience direct.
For example during the reign of Jehoakim the prophet Jeremiah having been labelled a
public enemy and a traitor was banned from prophesying in the name of Lord. Jeremiah
dictated his oracles to his secretary Baruch whom he sent to Jehoakim with the scroll. He
instructed Baruch to read the scroll before the king.
Jeremiah also wrote a letter to the exiles in Jeremiah 29. In the letter he informed the exiles
that exilement was to last for 70 years in contrary to Hannaniah a false prophet who had
predicted that it was to last for two years.
WEAKNESSES
Though this method was effective, since a prophet could convey message to a distant
audience, this method had also some limitations in that there were certain areas which
needed emphasis and further explanations which might not have been heard or seen from
the message.
SERMON/ ORACULAR FORMULA

Prophets could use word of mouth to convey their messages to the audience. They normally
use messenger style or prophetic formula, ‘Thus says the Lord…’or ‘Hear this word that the
Lord had spoken…’ (Amos 1:3,6,9, 3:1).This was meant to convince their audience that the
message was not from their thinking but from the one who sent them.
They were claiming that their authority was from Yahweh.
Attached to this method is the issue of sermons where a prophet took advantage of a
gathering, say temple worshippers, e.g. Jeremiah 7 and 26 and deliver message to the
people.
WEAKNESSES
False prophets also claimed to have appointed by Yahweh and also use the
messenger style, e.g. Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah (1 Kings 22:11) and
Hannaniah (Jeremiah 28:2ff). So at times it was difficult to distinguish true and
false prophets since both were claiming to have been sent by Yahweh.
ALLEGORY
An allegory is considered as an imagery story whose details have a direct
application to a real life situation, that is, the characters in the story corresponds
with something else in a real life situation, e.g. Hosea’s matrimonial experience is
often interpreted as an allegory and not historical event.
It was actually an imaginary story which was given to visualize the relationship
that was between Israel and Yahweh.
IMAGERY/ METAPHORICAL LANGUAGE/ PICTORIAL LANGUAGE

It was a method used by prophets to deliver their message in pictorial form. A
prophet could select words which would create pictures to the minds of the
audience, e.g. Amos 3:12 where Amos pictured the useless remnant that was
going to be saved from the coming punishment as follows; ‘As a shepherd rescues
from the mouth of the lion two legs or a piece of an ear, so shall the people of
45
Israel who dwell in Samaria be rescued’

The prophet Hosea more often than not used metaphorical language and
comparisons especially when he was describing the sins of Israel.
To begin with his matrimonial experiences which is given as part and parcel of his
call narrative was meant to be comparable to Israel’s harlotry and infidelity.
According to Hosea 1:2, he was asked to take a wife of harlotry and have children
of harlotry chiefly because the Israelites had forsaken their Lord, going after other
gods.
In some instances he compared Israel to half-baked cake 7:11, stubborn heifer
4:16. Israel’s love is compared to a morning cloud and dew, 6:4.
Jeremiah call his audience not to deviate from their Lord just as the leopard does
not change its spots or an Ethiopian his skin.
TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS

CRITERIA USED TO DISTINGUISH TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS
Since around 2009, Zimbabwe has witnessed an unprecedented surge of Christian preachers
who call themselves prophets/esses.
Characteristically, these so-called prophets/esses claim to work miracles; especially miracles
that ‘contradict’ nature.
This has earned them multitudes of both admirers and critics. Interestingly, while admirers
and followers quote the Bible to endorse them as true prophets, critics and sceptics also cite
the same Bible to characterise them as false prophets.
The Bible does not have water-tight criteria to distinguish true from false prophets. In other
words, there is no distinction between a true and a false
prophet in the Bible because fundamentally they are both called prophets! The article
claims that the Bible is the source of confusion and not the solution to the debate regarding
the distinction between true and false in the contemporary world.
Zimbabwe has recently seen not only an increase in the number of Christian movements
that have so far radically transformed the Chris-tian landscape, but it has also seen an
eruption of a phenomenon of ‘prophets’ that perform ‘strange’ miracles. From 2009, names
that include, prophet Emmanuel Makandiwa and wife, prophetess Ruth of United Family
International Church, Uebert Angel and wife, prophetess Beverly, prophet Tavonga
Vutabwashe of Heartfelt International Minis-tries, prophet Passion Java and wife prophetess
Yasmin of Kingdom Embassy, prophet Adventure Mutepfa (Revival Centre World Ministry),
prophet
Oliver Chipunza and prophetess Makanyara (now late) of Apostolic Flame Ministries of
Zimbabwe, have made news headlines. In media terminology, stories about their exploits
could be regarded as the most trending. And their popularity is increasing by the day.
Generating much interest is their claim to perform ‘extra-ordinary’ miracles such as filling
pockets, wallets and hands of believers with bank notes and gold nuggets.
After prayer, followers open their eyes only to find their pockets and wallets full of money
and gold nuggets in their palms.
These prophets claim to heal any kind of sickness such cancer, HIV, AIDS and
even raise the dead.
In full view of their congregations, some have caused people to instantly stop smoking,
instantly lose weight up to 30kgs, and instantly grow full teeth that had long fallen.
46
They usually confound their congregations by telling them their house numbers, cell phone
numbers, Identity Numbers (IDs), car registration numbers and the colours of
undergarments their followers would be wearing. Other ‘extra ordinary’ miracles include
children being born only after three days or just hours of conception and increasing fuel in
cars instead of it getting used up as one drives.
They also specialise in making accurate predictions of events that will happen in the near
and distant future. In short, their miracles follow closely those performed by West African
Pentecostal prophets such as T.B. Joshua of Synagogue Church of All Nations, Pastor Chris
Ayakhilome of Christ Embassy (both of Nigeria) and Victor Kusi Boateng of Ghana who is
Makandiwa’s spiritual mentor, Godfa-ther.
All these miracles and the doctrine of prosperity which is the anchor of their preaching are
therefore not entirely unknown in Zimbabwe and in Africa at large. They have been heard
of; even in the history of Christianity such events and teachings are not new. In fact, in the
Bible, working miracles seems to be one of the preoccupations of Israelite prophets,
especially pre-classical ones.
For instance, Abraham prayed for Abimelech and was instantly healed (Gen.20:7), Moses
provided manna to hungry Israelites (Ex. 16:1ff), provided water out of the rock (Num.
20:11ff), at Zarephath Elijah miraculously increased flour and oil, in-stead of these
commodities being used up (1 Kgs. 17:9-16) and he raised the dead (1 Kgs. 17:17-12), Elisha
increased oil and one jar of oil filled several jars until there was no more empty jar (2 Kgs.
4:1ff). Jesus in the New Testament is also depicted as one who performed similar miracles.
Zimbabwean prophets have therefore sought to closely follow these great Old Testament
prophetic figures and Jesus.
Their interest is to re-live, to re-enact the biblical times.
In other words, they seek to dramatise what they read in the Bible. Thus Zimbabwe has
always been inundated with stories of miracle workers, who perform miracles similar to the
ones these great men of God performed, from time to time.
Prophets in African Initiated Churches and traditional healers are known to perform such
miracles.
Followers of Prophet E.H. Guti and wife prophetess Eunor of Zimbabwe Assemblies of God
Africa Forward in Faith (ZAOGA-FIF),
Andrew Wutawunashe and wife, prophetess Ruth of Family of God Church (FOG) and
Matthias and Mildred of Mat-thias and Mildred Church have also claimed that their leaders
perform such miracles. But the popularity of such individuals never reached that of
Makandiwa, Vutabwashe and Angel, who attract around 45 000 followers every Sunday
service.
This has never happened in the history of Christianity in Zimbabwe. People flock from as far
as Malawi, South Africa, Zambia, and Mozambique to be ‘ministered’ to by these prophets.
Some suspect that Makandiwa and Angel could be playing African magic acquired from
either Nigeria or Ghana where such priests are common and one from Ghana has confessed
that several pastors from across the globe including from Zimbabwe flock to him to get the
magic to perform such miracles as making money. The Ghanaian magician claims that he
makes ‘miracle money’ from nowhere.
Also, that the whole Zimbabwean society could concentrate on such individuals to the
extent that even politicians, technocrats, economists discussed and consulted them is
unprecedented in post-colonial Zimbabwe.
Therefore, what is new is the popularity of the performers of such miracles and the rich
47
pickings they get from these activities not the miracles. In other words, the Zimbabwean
society is abuzz with talk of their miraculous exploits.
The discussions range from scepticism, outright dis-missal of them as false prophets and
their miracles as magic to admiration.
At the centre of the arguments is the Bible. Those who dismiss them as false prophets
appeal to the Bible and those who absolutely believe them as true prophets also cite the
Bible. Such texts as Mark 16:17-18 which claim that ‘and these signs will accompany those
who believe... in my name they will drive out demons;...speak new tongues;.... they will pick
snakes with hands;...will drink poison (but) it will not hurt them at all; they will place their
hands on sick
people and they will get well’ and 1 Cor. 2:9, which says, ‘No eye has seen, no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived what God prepared for those who love him’ have often been cited
by the followers in defence of their leaders. Also quoted often is John 14:12 which has Jesus
promising disciples that, ‘anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing.
He will even greater things that these’.
For the followers of these prophets, these scriptures are being fulfilled in the ministries and
miracles performed by Vutabwashe, Makandiwa and Angel among others. The prophets at
the centre of the discussion also cite the Bible to show that they are indeed true prophets,
followers of Christ.
The main import of this article is to dismiss the criteria set in the Bible as not sacrosanct in
dealing with such a complex phenomenon as prophecy, let alone distinguishing true and
false prophets. Evidence shall be drawn especially from the Old Testament.
BACKGROUND TO THE “TRUE AND FALSE PROPHECY” DEBATE IN ANCIENT ISRAEL

The problems faced regarding the criteria to distinguish who is a true and who is a false
prophet is not a modern phenomenon.
It is maybe as old as the institution of prophecy itself.
The Old Testament bears evidence of a society similar to our own; a society grappling with
the determination of true from false prophecy. While in ancient Israel, the society was
provoked by the existence of conflicting messages from people who both claimed to be
prophets of God, in our contemporary society, the existence of men and women who
perform ‘extra-ordinary’ miracles seems to spark the debate more than conflicting
messages.
The clashes between Elijah and the 450 prophets of Baal (and 400 prophets of Asherah) at
Mt. Carmel (1Kgs 18: 16-40), that of Micaiah ben Imlah and Zedekiah (1 Kgs 22:24) and the
one between Jeremiah and Hananiah (Jer. 28) are convincing evidence not only to the fact
that in Israel conflicting theological convictions between prophets was the source of
contradictory messages but also that this ideological clash in most cases ended up in real
physical clashes/fist-fighting and death. Thus, prophetic conflict in Israel was not uncommon
and the
reasons for their clashes varied.
According to Robert Carroll, while prophetic conflict had been part and parcel of the
Israelite society maybe from as far back as its origins, the problem became acute towards
the end of the Judean Kingdom in the sixth century BCE.
As one prophet said one thing, another said the opposite.
This became confusing to the society until theologians of the era took it as their
responsibility to advise the society on the criteria to differentiate true and false prophets.
48
Unfortunately, some of these theologians were interested parties in that they were
prophets themselves.
As such, they premised themselves as true and condemned as false whoever had a contrary
theological or political
ideology to theirs.
While such prophets-cum theologians thought their criteria were objective and water-tight,
the suggested criteria, as we look back, are very biased and can hardly solve the debate
within our societies.
Be that as it may, this attempt at establishing criteria of authenticity of prophets in Israel is
captured in literature by Deuteronomist theologians/editors (Deut 3:1-5; 18:15-22),
Jeremiah (23:9-32) and Ezekiel (13).
However, rather than solving the debate as regards to who exactly was a true prophet and
who was a false one, the criteria set by the Deuteronomist theologians only provide very
important insights into the dilemma that befell the society of Judah in trying to fish out false
prophets from true prophets. And the same dilemma is on our societies. The criteria set by
the Deuteronomists (and in the entire Bible) cannot help us solve the debate.
While these criteria have been invoked as water-tight by some in our contemporary world,
(in Zimbabwe in particular) in the debate relating to numerous Pentecostal preachers who
are called prophets, the present article regards the criteria as having failed to really make a
distinction between true and false prophets.
CRITERIA SET IN THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY

The book of Deuteronomy offers maybe what could be the earliest and most comprehensive
attempt by the society at establishing criteria to determine authentic and inauthentic
prophets in Israel. For instance, in two separate but thematically related texts,
Deuteronomy provides some criteria that have been cited over the ages as important for
distinguishing true from false prophets, even in our midst.
The first criterion pro-posed was ‘speaking in the name
of Yahweh’. A true prophet was to speak in the name of Yahweh. This criterion assumes that
in Israel true prophets were messengers of Yahweh, hence were supposed to speak in his
name. And they were supposed to invite listeners to worship Yahweh alone.
Any prophet who spoke in the name of another god, or one who told the Israelite
community to worship other gods beside Yahweh was to be stoned to death (Deut 13:1-5).
In the contemporary world, and especially for the ordinary readers of the Bible, this
criterion is clear and has the capacity to flush out false prophets from true prophets.
However, the matter of determining whether a prophet is true or false is not that simple.
Prophecy as a phenomenon is very complex. The
main weakness of this criterion is that in ancient Israel, it only may have catered for the
difference between foreign prophets and Israelite prophets.
Indeed, prophets of Baal most likely spoke in the name of Baal and those of Yahweh spoke
in the name of Yahweh. What this means is that the criterion did not solve the problem
among Israelite prophets who all claimed to speak for Yahweh, yet they had contradictory
messages.
The same is true in our modern society. All individuals who claim to be prophets speak in
the name of God, even though their messages some-times are contradictory. Under such
circumstances, who could we call true and who is false?
49
THE CRITERION OF PREDICTION AND FULFILMENT

It was maybe due to the above weakness that Deuteronomists included another criterion
that had to be considered also in the determination of who is false and who is true; the
criterion of prediction and fulfilment (Deut 13:1-5; 18:21-22).
In this sense, Deuteronomy assumes that a true prophet must speak in the name of Yahweh
and the prediction must come to pass in the manner so predicted. From the point of view of
the Deuteronomist theologians, the criterion of speaking in the name of Yahweh was
supposed to be used simultaneously with that of prediction and fulfilment.
If a prophet spoke in the name of Yahweh and predicted something which comes to pass,
but goes ahead and calls upon the people to worship some
other gods besides Yahweh, such a prophet was to be stoned (Deut 13:1-2).
In the same manner, if he spoke in the name of Yahweh but the word was not fulfilled, such
a prophet was to be regarded as a false prophet, hence was supposed to be stoned to death
(Deut 13:5; 18:20).
With these criteria, maybe no contemporary man or woman who claims to be prophet
would be stoned.
They all would be attested as true, for most of their predictions have come
to pass. But at the same time, they would all be stoned, since some of their predictions have
not been fulfilled. As noted in the introduction, most (but obviously not all) of the
predictions by Zimbabwean prophets for example are accurate and come to pass as
predicted. In fact, in Zimbabwe, those in support of Vutabwashe, Makandiwa and Angel
believe that these individuals are true prophets because their predictions have come to
pass.
WEAKNESSES OF THE PREDICTION AND FULFILMENT CRITERION

Critiquing the two criteria proposed by the Deuteronomist theologians, Carroll is
apt when he observed that, ‘it was too oversimplified an approach to the complex
matter of prophecy’.
The criteria leave a lot of issues unattended to. Firstly, the criterion of prediction
and fulfilment of events only caters for prophets who make short-term
predictions, such as: tomorrow you will die, you will get money, or next week or
next year there will be drought, etc.
But, prophets who make long-term predictions were left ‘unjudged’ until such a
time predicted has lapsed. But some of these predictions took generations to be
fulfilled, hence caused a lot of anxiety in the society (Ezek 12:27). And by the time
the prediction was fulfilled, the concerned prophet may have died.
What this means is that, prophets who made long term predictions would die
false prophets.
In other words, they only could be taken as true prophets by later generations
who would have witnessed the fulfilment of their predictions.
But again, it depended on the memory of the people from one generation to
another; otherwise most of the predictions of these prophets would have been
forgotten.
The second weakness is that this criterion is self-contradictory. While according to
these theologians, a prediction was supposed to be fulfilled maybe in the
prophet’s life time, some of these Deuteronomist theologians included in their
history, long-term predictions; prophecies that were not to be fulfilled in the
50
immediate future or in their life-time.

For example, 1 Sam 2:31-36 predicts what is in the very distant future and not yet
conceivable. 1 Kings 13:2 also indicates that the prediction was made so many
years back and the society may have forgotten about it.
Another incident is that found in 2 Kings 13:15-19, where Elisha made a prediction
but died before the prediction was fulfilled (2 Kgs. 13:20).
Thus when we use the criterion of fulfilment of prediction, Elisha died a false
prophet. The same conclusion could be reached regarding Jeremiah. In Jeremiah
25:11-12 and 29:10, Jeremiah made a prediction that Judah would be released
from Babylonian slavery after seventy years.
Basing upon the criterion of fulfilment of prediction, Jeremiah would only be
proven as a true prophet after seventy years. And by that time Jeremiah and
most, if not all the people who were his audiences would have died. In short,
Jeremiah, according to this criterion, died a false prophet. The criterion has thus
the propensity to dismiss as false all the prophets we have always regarded as
true, such as Elisha, Jeremiah, Micah and Isaiah among others. Micah
(5:5) and Isaiah (10:5) for example, predicted that Jerusalem would be destroyed
by the Assyrians in the eighth century but Jerusalem was not destroyed by the
Assyrians in the eighth century.
It was destroyed instead by the Babylonians in 587, in the sixth century BCE.
According to this criterion, Micah and Isaiah are false prophets. A third weakness
associated with the Deuteronomist theologians’ criterion of prediction and
fulfilment of prophecy is that it makes prediction the sole function of prophets. Of
course prophets predicted and this is very pronounced in the Old Testament.
In 1 Sam. 10:5 for example, Samuel predicted that Saul would come across a
group of prophets, and it happened (1 Sam 10:10). In 1 Kings 11:26 Ahijah
predicted the break of the kingdom and Jeroboam would be king over the
northerners,
Israel and it happened (1 Kgs. 12:20). Ahijah predicted that Jeroboam’s ill son was
going to die and it happened (1 Kgs. 14:12, 17) exactly as predicted. But equating
prophecy with prediction is not always quite correct.
Prophets were first and foremost preachers, whose preaching was in-tended to
cause change of attitude and change of action from the audience. Herbert Bess is
therefore right when he observes that ‘certainly the (Israelite) prophet did predict
the future...but prediction (of the future) was not the larger part of prophecy; it
was as much the prophet’s responsibility to interpret correctly the past and the
present’.
In other words, what they predicted may be offset by the change of behaviour of
the people.
In fact, most of the great prophets of Israel always connected their predictions of
doom and gloom with hope and chance of repentance.
They always wanted people to repent so as to avoid consequences which they
predicted. The fourth most important weakness of the criterion of fulfilment of
prediction, as implied in Deuteronomy 13:1-5 especially is that even a false
prophet could by chance predict what could come to pass. In other words, there
was also a great chance that a prophet regarded as genuine might on occasion be
false and the so called false prophet might speak the truth (1 Kgs. 13:18).
51
This scenario was witnessed in many other instances in the history of Israel.
A prophet regarded as true would be deceived by God to prophesy falsehoods.
He, in other words, would be given a false revelation by God. 1 Kings 22 is the
classic example of di-vine deception; the fact that God could lie to true prophets
so as to achieve certain goals. In this case, King Ahab consulted 400 prophets on
whether he has to go for war or not.
They all encouraged him to go claiming that God was with the king to give him
victory (1 Kgs. 22:6).
Yet, the text is very clear that the 400 prophets had been lied to by God (1 Kgs.
22: 19-23).
This means, had it not been the lying spirit from God that entered these prophets,
they would have said the truth. In fact, it is clear that before this incident they
always told the truth; they were true prophets.
It also means after this incident they became false prophets or they became true
prophets again.
In other words, 1 Kings 22 makes a bold declaration that both a true prophet and
a false prophet were mediums of the same God! What is also coming out of this
text is that prophets are not responsible for their actions and speech.
Therefore, they can-not be held accountable since they are only agents in the
hand of God. This defeats Deut 13:5 which stipulates the death penalty to those
who prophesy falsehoods.
Why would they be killed when they were truth-fully serving God by lying? The
concepts of divine deception together with divine repentance pro-vide some of
the most likely avenues for understanding contradictions among Israelite
prophets and even prophets in our midst.
While the Israelite history shows that the divine (God) could deceive his prophets,
His repentance also left his messengers, the prophets in limbo. In so many
instances in the Bible we are told that God repented and did not do what he had
promised to do (cf. Amos 7:3,6,).
Although prophets were understood or understood themselves as social and
religious critics in order to bring about reform, divine repentance always left them
ex-posed as false prophets. The harsh tone
with which prophets reacted to their unfulfilled predictions indicates that they
were afraid of being labelled false prophets since the criterion of prediction and
fulfilment was in full force. For example, when the people of Nineveh repented
and turned away from their sinful ways,
Yahweh decided to spare them (Jo-nah 3:4). However Jonah could not have it.
Jonah is prepared to die than to live because people would call him a false
prophet (Jonah 4:3b).
And Jonah had suspicion already before he went to Nineveh that Yahweh would
not fulfil his words (Jonah 4:1,2).
This is why initially he fled to Tarshish (Jonah 1:3). The same frustration with
God’s deception or repentance is evident in Jeremiah 20:7-10.
If we apply the criterion of fulfilment of prediction, these prophets were false
prophets.
Thus the criterion is weak in that it does not leave room for both the divine and
the society to repent. In the light of divine deception and divine repentance, the
52
criterion of fulfilment of prediction as a mark of true prophecy is rendered void.

This becomes glaring when we consider 1 Kings 21:21-29.
We encounter Elijah predicting disaster on the house of Ahab and the death of his
wife Jezebel.
As a way to fulfil the prediction by Elijah, in 2 Kings 9:1-13 Jehu is anointed by a
son of a prophet who had been sent by prophet Elisha; that is, with divine
approval.
Elisha through the madman told Jehu to slaughter all the members of Ahab’s
family (2 Kgs 9:6), as had been predicted by Elijah earlier. And Jehu took the
commission seriously and exterminated the house of Jehu as directed by the Lord
(2 Kgs. 9:14-10:36).
On the basis of the criterion of fulfilment of prediction, Elijah was a true prophet
because his prediction was fulfilled. Yet in Hosea 1:4, a fellow Israelite prophet,
Hosea is given a word by God to condemn Jehu for doing exactly what God had
commanded through two great prophets, Elijah and Elisha, to massacre the house
of Ahab in the Jezreel valley! Which is which? Who received the word from God?
What this means is, a prophecy that was taken as true by an earlier generation
may be interpreted in bad light by later generations.
Or it means God changes his mind. While God thought what Ahab had done was
wrong, he later felt that what he had commanded was wrong and he repented.
But where does the repentance of God leave the prophets who were just used as
instruments? Who was a true prophet between Elijah, Elisha and Hosea? With this
set up, all were true prophets and all were false prophets! According to Todd
Hibbard, it was upon the weaknesses of the criterion of fulfilment of prediction
that Jeremiah developed other supporting criteria to be considered in
determining who is a true and who is a false prophet. The charges made by
Jeremiah against his opponents/other prophets that he
labelled false provide further criteria for distinguishing between prophets, but
they are however not without their own problems. The first of such criteria is
immorality, particularly sexual immorality (Jer 23:9-15). Thus, Jeremiah in
Jeremiah 23:9ff but especially in Jeremiah 26-29 revised Deuteronomy 13:1-5 and
Deuteronomy 18:18-20 which emphasise the criterion of fulfilment of prediction
as sine qua non of prophecy.
For Jeremiah, moral uprightness is to be considered as well.
THE CRITERION OF MORALITY

It is generally assumed that moral uprightness was expected of prophets if they
had to be considered authentic in the Israelite society.
Although it is not known exactly how prevalent this practice of sexual immorality
was among prophets, the accusation is a strong one suggesting that this may have
been a real cause for concern.
According to Jeremiah any prophet who is immoral is a false one.
True prophets must be morally upright. And this has influenced the way we judge
men and women in our midst who claim to be messengers of God.
Anyone who commits adultery or fornication is dismissed as a false prophet. And
anything he or she says is not taken seriously.
In Zimbabwe for instance, former Archbishop for Bulawayo diocese, Pius Ncube
53
commanded great respect as a prophet of God until in 2007 when he was

captured on surveillance camera committing adultery with a number of women.
Since then, the Zimbabwean society generally does not regard him as a man of
God anymore.
Be that as it may, the criterion can be dismissed as weak on the following
grounds. First, we have prophets in the Israelite society who lived morally
questionable lives; yet they are called true prophets and their words were
revered.
Hosea, for instance married a prostitute called Gomer, the daughter of Diblaim
(Hos. 1:2,3). And it is explicit in the Bible that she was a prostitute, an adulterous
woman.
Therefore, by marrying Gomer, Hosea committed an immoral act before the Lord.
It is not indicated in the Bible whether she stopped her immoral ways after
marriage or not. But taking cue from the divorce and remarriage (Hos. 2-3), she
continued her trade even after marriage. This suggests that Hosea lived an
adulterous life.
Yet, he was called a true prophet. Al-though it is possible that sexual immorality
was not understood in the ancient Israelite society in the same way as we do
today, Hosea’s marriage to Gomer, a prostitute (Hos. 1-3) would have been
condemned as immoral by his society (cf. Deut. 24: 2-4).
Thus, with this criterion, Ho-sea is a false prophet, yet all of the readers of the
Bible regard him as a true prophet.
Actually modern preachers often refer to his book and even to the marriage itself
as a very great lesson! In the same way, ac-cording to this criterion,
Isaiah’s sexual relations with a prophetess (Isa. 8:1-3) would have been
condemned.
Of course there are scholars who presume that this prophetess was his wife, but
there is no indication in the Bible that Isaiah was married to this woman he had
sexual relations with.
It is possible that she was just a prophetess, whether she was married or not we
do not know.
The matter becomes worse if she was married. That means, Isaiah would have
committed adultery. Second, on the basis of this criterion, Isaiah can be regarded
as false prophet because he walked naked for three years (Isa. 20:3).
Although he was dramatising the message of Yahweh, nakedness was considered
an immoral act unless one was mad. Besides, it was a shameful thing to be naked
throughout the biblical period (Gen. 3:7; 9:20ff; Rev. 3:18).
Also, Elisha’s cursing of the children was a horrendous act that resulted in the
death of forty two of them (2 Kgs 2:23-24).
This constitutes a very immoral act that can be equated to terrorist acts. More so,
the activities of Elijah and Elisha qualify them as mercenaries, yet they
are not regarded as false prophets.
They were associated more with bloodshed than life preservation. They caused
various bloodbaths in Israel (1 Kgs 18:40; 2 Kgs 1:9-12; 9:10) to the extent that
even later generations of prophets condemned their acts (Hos. 1:4).
Surely men of God should have been known for good than for massacres! Without
realising the weaknesses of his criterion of moral upright-ness, Jeremiah goes
54
further to set other subsidiary criteria of morality that he thought could be used
to differentiate true from false prophets.
According to him, since they were immoral, false prophets lie, deceive people and
steal oracles (Jer. 23:23-32) from true prophets; those prophets who have been in
God’s council.
Basically, specific elements in the charge were criticisms of the techniques used to
receive oracles by these prophets. They are accused of using dreams and
borrowing orstealing each other’s oracles. After stealing oracles, they would only
appeal to the messenger formula that was common with true prophets, ‘Thus
says Yahweh....’(Jer. 23:31), as if they were sent by God. Although this criterion is
quite attractive, it is fraught with weaknesses. In fact, all the criteria set forth in
Jer. 23:9-32 still leave a lot to be desired. For example, while Jeremiah positions
himself as morally upright, he can himself be dismissed as false. In Jer. 38:24-27,
he lied to protect King Zedekiah.
Various other prophets still would fall by the way
side. Micaiah ben Imlah also deceived King Ahab that he was going to win so he
should go up and put up a fight with Syria (1 Kgs. 22:16).
He only could tell the truth after some pestering; otherwise he was prepared to lie
so as to speak the same word with other prophets.
He had heeded advice from King Ahab’s messenger who told him not to speak
against the word of other prophets that the king had consulted earlier. With this
same criterion, Elisha would be dismissed for using deception against Ben-Hadad
(2 Kgs. 8:7-15).
After all, the accusation that other prophets of Jeremiah’s era were preaching lies
and deceit would only make sense if they deliberately chose to lie and deceive
people. Yet, it is clear from other biblical texts (Ezek 13; 14:1-11; Deut. 13:3) that
these people may have been honestly preaching what they without any doubt
considered to be truth. In other words, their
visions may have been false, but without realising it them-selves or without them
intentionally designing to preach falsehoods.
As we noted above with the 1 Kings 22 incident, a true prophet could be deceived
by God to lie.
According to Carroll, now if Yahweh used the false prophets or the idolaters to
deceive community and individuals, or if he tested the community by false
dreamers or prophets as is clear in Deut 13:3, in what way were Jeremiah and
Ezekiel right to claim that Yahweh had not sent the prophets who proclaimed
such false visions (Jer. 23:21; Ezek. 13:6)?
Indeed these prophets were sent by Yahweh. In fact, it could be Jeremiah and
Ezekiel who are liars.
Their belief that these prophets were not sent by Yahweh is a lie because as a
matter of fact these prophets were sent by Yahweh.
Further, Jeremiah’s attack on the use of dreams (Jer. 23:25-28) and the use of
other prophets’ oracles (Jer. 23:30) is very problematic.
The Bible has plenty of places where dreams are regarded as a legitimate way of
receiving oracles or inspiration from Yahweh. In other words, Yahweh in the
history of ancient Israel has on various occasions communicated his will through
dreams, (Gen 28:12-17; 40-41), (1 Kings 3:5- 15), Joel (2:28) and Daniel. Even in
55
Deut 13:1,3 there is an implication that dreams were a formal way of receiving
revelation from God. The same high regard for dreams as a method
in which the divine communicated to people existed across the ancient Near East
especially in Egypt, to the extent that what Joseph did in Genesis 40-41 by
interpreting dreams was not unknown.
The same is true in the New Testament. Dreams are not condemned. They are a
legitimate way of receiving inspiration from the divine world (Heb. 3:1).
To therefore claim that receiving messages through dreams is a mark of being a
false prophet is misplaced.
Jeremiah’s accusation that false prophets steal oracles from other prophets
actually backfires.
On the basis of this criterion, even Jeremiah himself would be dismissed as a false
prophet and a lot more prophets that we regard as true, such as Isaiah, Micah,
Amos and Joel, because these prophets have some of their oracles that are
identical, betraying the fact that they were stolen’ from one another. For
instance, Isa. 2:2-4 and Micah 4:1-3 are basically one and the same oracle given by
two different prophets apparently in the same context.
According to the criterion of Jeremiah, one prophet stole from another. So either
Isaiah was a false prophet or Micah, or even both were false prophets. The same
could be said about
Amos 1:2; Jer. 25:30 and Joel 3:16 which all use the same expression. These
shared elements can also be found in Isa. 10:27b-32 and Micah 1:10-15; Isa. 5:8-
10 and Micah 2:1-3, Jer. 49:7- 22 and Obad. 1-9.
So shall we dismiss these as false prophets? If we are to apply this criterion,
Jeremiah himself would be dismissed. For, in Jeremiah 26:17-18, Micah 3:12 is
cited almost verbatim, something that is very unusual.
This has prompted Hibbard to conclude that, ‘this is the only instance of a
prophetic book quoting from another by name any-where in the
Hebrew Bible’.
THE CRITERION OF PRO-STATUS-QUO VS. ANTI-STATUS-QUO

There are scholars who believe that in Israel a true prophet was one who always
opposed the ruling elite or the political establishment.
Anyone who agreed or served the political establishment was regarded as false. In
other words, in sociological terms, central prophets were all regarded as false
while peripheral prophets were true.
Bess set the matter this way, the great distinction between the messages of the
true prophets and those of the false was not in the manner of its delivery, but in
the content of the message itself.
The false prophets were the yes-men of their times, currying favour with the
56
political figures of the day and giving the messages that would justify the actions
of those politicians’.
In the history of Zimbabwe, and even across the globe, this criterion has been
applied, nevertheless quite selectively.
However, generally in post- colonial Zimbabwean (and African) politics, religious
leaders who op-pose the government are labelled as ‘prophetic’ meaning, true
prophets, while those who support government programmes and initiatives are
regarded as false prophets.
This is why in Zimbabwe, Makandiwa together with AICs prophets such as
Mwazha, Noah Taguta, Wimbo and other prominent Pentecostal preachers have
of late been accused of being false prophets.
They are accused of supporting the ruling party for participating in the Anti-
Sanctions rally in 2011.
On the contrary, pastors who always oppose ZANU PF and those who did not
participate are labelled as true prophets. In the Old Testament, the clash between
prophet Jeremiah and prophet Hananiah (Jer. 28) is cited often to demonstrate
the fact that true prophets opposed the narrative of the ruling class while false
prophets agree with them.
Thus, Jeremiah is presented as a true prophet for ‘contradicting’ the narrative of
the Judean political establishment while Hananiah is described as a false prophet
for ‘agreeing with the narrative’ of the Judean political leaders.
While it is true that Jeremiah and Hananiah differed in their interpretations of the
situation, their differences had nothing to do with either one being true and the
other being false.
According to R. R. Wilson, ancient Israelite theological traditions lie
behind both of these views. Jeremiah as a peripheral prophet (one not part of the
central religious establishment in Jerusalem) subscribed to the Deuteronomistic
school of thought that viewed the election of Jerusalem and the house of David as
conditional to obedience.
To sustain his argument Jeremiah could cite the example of Shiloh and Samaria
that were destroyed in 722 BCE by the Assyrians as punishment for disobedience
of the law of God (Jeremiah 7; 2 Kgs 17).
On the other hand, Hananiah, a central prophet (one who was part of the
Jerusalem’s religious establishment) appealed to the unconditional character of
the election of Jerusalem and the house of David (2 Sam 7; Psalm 132). And to
support this theological position Hananiah could cite the miraculous deliverance
of Jerusalem when Sennacherib invaded. Despite Israel’s
This in other words means both prophets were correct and their positions were
favourable among their constituencies.
There are people who believed Hananiah to be a true prophet while disregarding
Jeremiah as a false prophet. And the same applied to Jeremiah; among his
constituency, the Deuteronomists, he was a true prophet while Hananiah was a
false one.
The claim by Jeremiah that Hananiah was false is therefore not an objective one.
The above position becomes important, particularly when we scrutinise
Jeremiah’s encounter with Hananiah.
According to Carroll, what scholars fail to realise is that Jeremiah 27-29 is an
57
edited account most likely way after Hananiah’s prediction was disconfirmed. The
editors of Jeremiah worked from hindsight and from the premise that Jeremiah
was a true prophet and Hananiah was a false prophet.
But, even if we take the account as it is, we can still realise that fundamentally
both Hananiah and Jeremiah were correct.
From a theological perspective, they only interpreted Yahweh’s action in history
from different perspectives; which were not unknown in Israelite history.
Hananiah’s prediction that the 597 BCE deportees would be released after only
two years in exile was informed by a well-known Israelite theological notion of the
saviour Yahweh who would save his people soon after punishing them. On the
other hand, Jeremiah saw the deportation of 597 BCE as the be-ginning of many
other catastrophic scenarios to follow. This is why Jeremiah predicted seventy
years.
But essentially both realised that there was hope after exile and that message is
central. Finer details regarding when and how the end of exile would come about
depended on the theological perspective of the prophet. For instance, if someone
had predicted in 1980 that the World Trade Center of America would be attacked
in two years’ time on the 11th of September that prophecy would have been taken
as a true prophecy in 2001 when America was attacked! The argument is, the time
period is not important but the event is. So in other words, that Judah was going
to spend two years or seventy is not important but the event of release is.
After all, their predictions were dependent on their interpretation of very complex
subjects: international and domestic politics.
Even so, what modern readers of the Old Testament also do not take into
consideration is that this criterion is very subjective; it is based upon the
Deuteronomist theological conception of prophecy; thus cannot be applied
uniformly across different contexts. For example, according to Deuteronomist
theologians as evident in Jeremiah, true prophets are those prophets who
preached war and destruction of the nation and not hope (Jer. 28:8).
This is because most of the Deuteronomist theologians’ material was written after
the exile.
And in line with their criterion of fulfilment of prediction as a mark of true
prophecy, those who had predicted a lengthy exile were considered true while
those who had predicted imminent hope were considered false.
In this case, Jeremiah had spent the bigger part of his ministry preaching doom
and gloom for the nation which came to pass.
Any prophecy of hope was thus judged as a false prophecy after the exile had
taken long.
This is why prophets of hope are presented as serious threats to Jeremiah (Jer.
23:9ff) and accused of speaking from their own minds without having been sent
by Yahweh (Jer. 23:18,22).
What is clear though from Jeremiah 23 is that this is prophecy after the event! If
by one reason or the other, exile had been short, those who preached a lengthy
exile, including Jeremiah would have been labelled false prophets. In any case,
58
this criterion is difficult to apply uniformly throughout the Bible.

There are so many prophets in the Bible that are regarded as true yet they mixed
and mingled with the ruling elite.
Some, as in the case of Nathan and Gad, supported and even worked for the
ruling elite.
Their support for the ruling elite was not hidden. Following closely the concept of
Ancient Near Eastern royal theology, Nathan crafted the Davidic royal ideology (2
Sam. 7:2ff) which promised the house of David to rule for ever.
Any opposition to the house of David was effectively opposition to God. This was
unprecedented in the history of Israel.
Prophet Gad was known to be King David’s personal seer (2 Sam. 24:11). This
means Gad was first and foremost responsible to David, which makes him almost
a personal assistant of the king.
Another interesting example is Isaiah who believed in the politico-religious
ideologies of the ruling elite: the Davidic Royal Ideology, the Invincibility of
Jerusalem and the Temple theology, to the extent that he is believed by some
scholars to have been a foreign minister in King Ahaz’s government.
In fact, Mary Evans is of the opinion that Isaiah belonged to the royal family in
that tradition suggests that he was himself a cousin of Uzziah, (King Ahaz’s father)
and thus of royal blood.
She interprets 2 Chronicles 26:22 as implying that Isaiah was a trained writer-
historian employed as the royal recorder during the reign of Uzziah.
She therefore concluded that this is probably why Isaiah was well-educated,
familiar with the king’s court and a trust-ed advisor of King Hezekiah more than
any other prophet of his time.
Despite this link with politicians hence his own participation in politics, Isaiah was
never doubted as a true prophet in his community. Even today, most if not all the
readers of the Bible regard him as a true prophet.
Therefore, although these prophets cited above participated in politics,
supporting the rulers, they were never thought to be false prophets.
We often give them as great examples of servants of God. Yet, those among us
who participate in politics we condemn. Besides this, by regarding true prophets
as those who oppose the government, in the modern world, this criterion has the
danger of supporting insurgency, banditry, mercenary and rebellious activities. In
fact, all terrorists would be justified as true prophets!
THE CRITERION OF PROFESSIONALISM

In their search for criteria to establish authentic and inauthentic manifestation of
prophecy, theologians in the Israelite society must have come to the conclusion
that a true prophet is one who does not receive payment for his services.
The basis of this criterion lies in Micah 3:5, 11 which label those who prophesy for
hire as false prophets.
True prophets therefore took their ministry as a service not a profession. H. H.
Rowley notes that, false prophets on the contrary, instead of knowing the direct
constraint of the Spirit of God, were looking around for their oracles.
They were the mere members of the profession, not men of vocation’.
Because they took prophecy as a profession from which they got remuneration,
59
there is a great possibility that they made sure they pleased their clients. That
means they would sometimes alter the message of God.
Contrary to true prophets, professional prophets could for instance preach peace
where there was no peace.
This criterion is appealed to most in the contemporary world. In Zimbabwe, due
to the huge sums of money they collect from followers every time they meet,
Makandiwa, Vutabwashe, Angel among others are accused of being professional
prophets hence false.
It is estimated that Makandiwa collects more than
US$100 000.00 per service; of which he conducts more than five services a week.
African Initiated Church prophets have equally been accused of this
professionalism since their clients have to bring gifts, such as chicken, fresh milk,
eggs, bread among others each time they come
for consultation.
The major weakness of this criterion is that its claims are not based upon a
critical analysis on the situation obtaining on the ground in Israel.
There are several explicit examples of prominent prophets in the Old Testament
who received gifts or remuneration for their services. Of course, it is not clear if
they charged or not.
But the assumption we get from certain passages is that it was the expected
tradition for clients to bring gifts to prophets each time they consulted them.
Prophet Samuel, for instance received money for his services (1 Sam 9:2). The
impression in the text is that he always did so. In 1 Kings 14:3 also, Jeroboam’s
wife is instructed by her husband, Jeroboam to ‘take ten loaves of bread, some
cakes, and a jar of honey’ and go to Ahijah to inquire about their ill son’s fate.
Further, Nathan is almost employed by King David as a civil servant, yet he was
(and is still) regarded by many as a true prophet.
Biblical evidence shows that even until the classical era of prophecy, (the time
Micah ministered) prophets received payment for their services. In Amos 7:12,
Amaziah advises Amos to go back to the land of Judah and to earn his bread
there. This statement may indicate that payment of prophets for their services
was common.
There is no adequate evidence therefore to conclude that professionalism was a
mark of false prophecy in Israel.
Therefore, to dismiss Makandiwa or any other prophet for that matter as false on
the basis of Micah 3:5, 11 is unwarranted.
THE CRITERION OF ECSTASY

Since the publication of Duhm’s Die Theologie der Propheten in the last quarter of
the 19th Century which associated Israelite prophets with ecstasy,debate
surrounding the link started.
To begin with, Duhm’s hypothesis was well received and attracted a lot of
disciples, not only in Germany in the likes of H. Günkel, and Hölscher, but also in
Britain and America, with T.H Robinson and Robert Pfeiffer respectively.
For them ecstasy has been a hallmark of prophecy in Israel. Ecstasy manifests as
suspension of mental faculty to give room to the invasion by the spirit. It is this
external spirit that dictates either hyperactivity or extra-ordinary
60
passivity/inactivity. Hyperactivity relates to the display of extra-ordinary

capabilities and usually accompanied by uncontrollable raving. On the other
hand, one in ecstasy may display passivity, dullness or inactivity that is beyond
natural.
In short, ecstasy is similar to a condition that one who has been drugged finds
him/herself. From the moment of consumption, drugs take over the individual’s
mental and physical state.
In fact, Israelite prophets, including some canonical prophets according to these
scholars, were ecstatic as those prophets of Canaan and Asia Minor. Isaiah walked
around the streets of Jerusalem city naked and barefoot for three years (Isaiah
20:3) and Jeremiah wore a wooden yoke around his neck for some time (Jer. 27f).
Thus, like ANE ecstatic prophets, there is an assumption that these persons are
pictured as moving across the land from one place to another in wild groups,
chanting in loud voices (maybe accompanied with dance) and making ecstatic
inquiry for people upon request to do so.
The ability of such individuals to enter into ecstasy earned them re-spect and
endeared them to the people who interpreted ecstasy as posi-tive indication that
they were indeed sent by the divine. Equally, in our context, Pentecostal prophets
rely heavily on their capacity to make pre-dictions, speak in tongues, and perform
miracles such as making people fall on the ground and lie unconsciously to
authenticate their ministries.
Society is, however, divided over this.
Some believe that these are tricks of false prophets who want to claim legitimacy
while a majority of people follow these prophets precisely because of these
capabilities. For these prophets and their followers, the Old Testament provides
so many examples to justify their operations. It should be noted that these
differences in interpreting such abnormal behaviour within the prophetic
fraternity started even in ancient Israel.
We seem to see the existence of these two attitudes towards the ecstatic
phenomenon. Ecstatic behaviours among prophets are in some cases positively
viewed but in other cases, they are negatively construed.
Today, even scholars are equally divided. Some believe that it was part of Israelite
prophetic heritage while some deny such haste conclusions. For those who
believe that Israelite prophets were ecstatic, the basis of their hypothesis is
twofold.
First, Israel being a small nation in the bigger and more illustrious neighbours
must have been influenced in all fronts; political, economic and socio-cultural and
religious wise.
Therefore, Israelite prophecy was borrowed with all its features that included
ecstasy from the surrounding nations.
Secondly, the Bible has several passages that seem to confirm that indeed
Israelite prophets like their neighbours were ecstatic, that is, they lost
consciousness when the spirit of the Lord came upon them. In that state of
unconsciousness, they prophesied; they carried their prophetic duties.
Under the influence of the spirit or hand of God, for example, Elijah killed all the
450 prophets of Baal that fought him (1 Kgs. 18:20); he also ran with an extra
ordinary speed that he overtook a horse chariot (1 Kgs. 18:46).
61
As in the other nations surrounding Israel, it is assumed that music and

rhythmical dance were very important to induce invasion or possession by the
spirit of the deity (2 kgs. 3:15).
Other passages which have been subject of debate for many centuries now to
bolster the fact that Israelite prophets were ecstatic like their ANE counterparts
include, Num. 11: 25-29; 1 Sam. 10:1-13 and 1 Sam. 19:18-24.
Numbers 11:25-29 describes an event whereby Moses’ spirit was transferred and
distributed among seventy elders who began to prophesy ecstatically. The spirit of
the Lord was so powerful that even some two elders who were not present, Eldad
and Meldad for example, continued longer than others in this state of
unconsciousness. The same condition of ecstasy is witnessed when Saul met a
band of ecstatic prophets. As soon as Saul met the prophets, he began to
prophesy ecstatically like them for he was transformed into another man as
Samuel had predicted (1 Sam. 10:1-13).
He prophesied to the amazement of onlooker who exclaimed, ‘Is Saul among the
prophets!’. This reaction shows that Saul displayed some hyperactivity similar to
raving by ecstatic prophets. In another incident, Saul met a group of prophets at
Ramah and when he experienced the spirit of God, he fell into ecstasy like the
three groups he had sent before to find David.
All began to prophesy removing their clothes according to the dictates of the
spirit upon them.
King Saul lay naked the whole night under the influence of the spirit of God,
some-thing that no normal being could ordinarily do (1 Sam. 19:18-24)
except in a state of possession.
This is evidence that he was as good as dead, the whole night; a clear sign of
extra-ordinary passivity. And this behaviour of removing clothes (and cutting
oneself) may have been common among ecstatic prophets (cf. 1 Kgs. 18:18).
As we noted earlier, Isaiah also under the influence of the spirit of God preached
along the streets of Jerusalem naked for three years (Isa. 20:3). The fact that
these prophets behaved in these abnormal ways is probably why some Israelite
prophets were despised by their society hence called mad men (2 Kgs. 9:2,11;
Jer. 29:26; Hos. 9:7).
While there are evidently so many incidents in the Old Testament that seem to
confirm that ecstasy was part and parcel of Israelite prophecy, there are other
passages that prove the contrary.
These passages give credence to arguments against associating Israelite prophets
with ecstasy. Woods believes that ecstasy was not part and parcel of Israelite
prophecy. For him and others it was a foreign practice associated there-fore
with false prophets. However, Woods’, reasons for dismissal of the connotations
of ecstasy in the three main passages (Num. 11:25-29; 1 Sam. 10 and 19) are
devoid of any merit.
For him the Hebrew word interpreted in these passages as suggesting ecstasy is
similar to the term used to refer to praise in 1 Chronicles 25:1-3 where praising is
ascribed to the idea of prophesying.
In these passages, Woods suggests that they removed clothes to be flexible in
praise, since clothes hindered their movements in praise. Therefore, in these
passages to prophesy is to praise/preach not to be ecstatic.
62
This is very unconvincing.

Although in agreement with Woods that ecstasy was not a positive characteristic
of prophecy in Israel, Bess dismissed connotations of preaching or praising in
relation to these passages.
He argued, ‘it is difficult to see how prophesying in this contextcould be
preaching’.
But perhaps, the most convincing argument that Woods raises is that taking
ecstasy as a sine qua non characteristic of Israelite prophecy excludes so many
prophets we have known to be
true prophets. For in-stance, Moses is regarded as the standard of all prophets
(Deut. 18:15), yet he did not display any ecstatic behaviour.
Also, Joshua who succeeded Moses, although he is not formerly called nabi
/prophet, he was nevertheless practicing the prophetic role in that he was a
channel of communication between God and the Israelite community. He never
exhibited ecstatic behaviour.
The same is true with Deborah who is called prophetess (Jud.4:4); she, like Moses
and Joshua, did not display ecstatic tendencies. The same is true of Samuel,
himself a well-known prophet, yet he was not ecstatic. Even as we move through
history fur-ther, Woods argues that we find the same non-ecstatic manner of
prophecy with Nathan (2 Sam. 7:2; 12:25), Gad (2 Sam. 24:11), Ahijah (1 Kgs.
11:29; 14:2-18) and others, particularly most of the classical prophets. Shall we
then dismiss all these as false prophets because they were not ecstatic? This
criterion therefore is weak and cannot help us solve the debate regarding who is
true and who is a false prophet.
In other words, we cannot successfully use this criterion either to dismiss or to
authenticate the people who claim to be prophets in our midst.
THE CRITERION OF PROPHETIC CALL

As we move towards the conclusion of our discussion, it is important to indicate
that so far no criterion is without weaknesses.
It is clear even from the language used in the Old Testament that it was not
possible for the ancient Israelite theologians, let alone the ordinary people, to
separate true from false prophets.
What made the separation difficult is that externally one could not tell the
difference between true and false prophets since both maybe dressed, ate and
behaved the same.
This is why strangely the Hebrew Bible calls both prophets. According to S.
Herbert Bess, the fact that they were always accused of deceiving people shows
that it was not possible to distinguish them on the basis of external criteria.
For him therefore, one of the most distinguishing feature between true and false
prophets is that of call.
While both were called prophets, ‘one point of distinction among true prophets
must have been that sense of compulsion to prophesy’. And this compulsion
comes at the point of call.
True prophets seem to have been called against their wish, but the divine
overwhelmed them and compelled them to prophesy.
Moses, the standard of prophets (Deut. 18:15) was called and he resisted, but the
63
divine pressurised him until he accepted the call; then the divine commissioned
him (Exo. 4:15-7:1ff).
The Old Testament clearly attests this trend, as the call narratives of Jeremiah (Jer.
1:4, 20:7-8) and Isaiah (6:1ff) bear testimony.
According to Bess, even ‘Amos, Hosea and others experienced a definite call
which obligated them to speak out for God’.
Therefore, we could conclude that true prophets had definite calls but false
prophets did not have definite calls.
Several individuals among us also believe that anyone who claims to be a prophet
must be called.
It is because of this desire to be like Israelite prophets that most Pentecostal
prophets claim to have been called in the pattern of Old Testament prophets,
against their wish.
What this means is, with this criterion, not even one Pentecostal prophet in
Zimbabwe will be dismissed as false because all of them narrate how and when
they were called.
As indicated already, their call narratives are no different from Old Testament
prophets. Shall we then say all are true prophets? The matter is however not as
simple as this.
While it appears to have been standard that Israelite prophets had call accounts
detailing how and when they were called and the mission for which they were
called, not all Israelite prophets had calls. Elijah, Ahijah, Micaiah, Nathan and Gad
are clear examples.
We only meet them in the midst of their prophetic ministries. Yet, such prophets
were never doubted to be prophets in their communities on the basis that they
did not have call narratives.
CONCLUSION
After this long discussion, it is important to admit that the article has come to the conclusion
that ‘the analysis of the criteria for distinguishing the authentic prophet from the rest has
shown that they were too ambiguous to be helpful and that there is no such thing as an
external test by which to tell true prophecy from false, such as all reasonable per-sons may
safely apply’.
As such, there are no solid criteria to test or to enable us to determine who was and who
was not a genuine prophet, in Israel let alone in our contemporary society.
The Bible has not answered the question with certainty.
The long and short of it is that the criteria set by the Deuteronomist theologians in the Old
Testament were (as they are still now) inadequate to deal with a complex phenomenon
such as prophecy.
Therefore, appealing to the Bible in order to decipher who is true or false among
Zimbabwean Pentecostal preachers as is common today is a wild goose chase.
HOW SERIOUS A PROBLEM WERE FALSE PROPHETS IN ISRAEL

1. True prophets receive a call from Yahweh and had credentials to speak. In fact
their authority was derived from Yahweh while false prophets were men of self-
appointed ministries.
They had no word from Yahweh (Jeremiah 14:13, 23:21). So they caused a
lot of confusion for they called people to other gods (1 Kings 18).
64
They preached falsely thereby causing people to follow their own messages (Jer
5:12)
2. They used palatable language in order to gain a living from the people.
3. False prophets opposed true prophets and caused people to oppose and hate
them, e.g. Jeremiah was labelled a traitor because of Hananiah who predicted
that exilement was to last for only two years, yet Jeremiah predicted that it was to
last for 70 years.
Micaiah is also hated by the king because of the presence of the 400 prophets at
the king’s court. ‘I hate him for he never prophesy good concerning us but evil…’
(1 Kings 22:8)
4. False prophets placed no barrier between righteousness and sin. They prophesy
what people wanted to hear, prophesying peace where there was none .
According to Jeremiah they heal the wounds of the people lightly. The true
prophet had a message of judgement upon sin.
They did not overlook sin like false prophets. For exampleNathan announced
punishment on David for taking Bathsheba, Ahijah condemned
Jeroboam 1 for promoting apostacy in Israel and announced the end of his
dynasty.
Samuel’s message of doom to Eli’s house for wickedness, rejection of Saul for
disobedience. Elijah pronounced doom to befall Ahab after killing Naboth. Amos,
Hosea, Isaiah and Jeremiah pronounced doom to befall Israel and Judah for
committing apostacy.
6. False prophets were destroying yahwism, e.g. 1 Kings 18:21, Elijah questioned
the Israelites that, ‘How long will you go limping on two opinions…’ they caused
Israel to be stubborn and persecute true prophets.
7. False prophets caused the relationship between Yahweh and Israel to be
fractured and hence led to the breakdown of the covenant.
MOSES AS THE FOUNDER OF PROPHECY
MOSES AS A POLITICAL FIGURE
1. Liberator of the Israelites from the Egyptian bondage.
2. States craftsmen, that is, he is molding the loosely connected Israelite tribes into one
nation
3. Providing structures to maintain the unique role
4. Law giver
5. Military leader, e.g. organization of the army and military strategies to this effect, e.g. the
Amalekite battle.
The J source regarded Moses as a leader and is the earliest source.
MOSES AS A PROPHET
1. Archetypal figure e.g. he received a call.
2. Spoke to God face to face (Num 12:8)
3. Intercessor, mediator.
4. Prophetic law giver.
5. God’s mouthpiece.
6. Transference of his spirit.
7. Miracle working ability.
8. Established priesthood.
65
E and D sources regarded Moses as a prophets. According to M. Noth, later editors made
Moses into a prophet otherwise he was really a very good leader and his argument is based
on the fact that the J source which is the earliest source consider Moses as a leader who is
not a prophet.
So for him the word prophet on Moses is a literary invention. This is supported by the fact
that the texts which support Moses as a prophet are anachronistic,
hence the conclusion that the word prophet on Moses is an editorial insertion. In fact E and
D sources forced Moses into a prophet.
Considering Von Rad’s position that prophecy has to do with either leadership, cult or both,
we can safely regard Moses as a prophet.
According to Makenzie a prophet is a leader in spiritual sense. So prophecy and leadership
worked hand in glove. According to Holscher prophecy arise when there is need to redeem.
So it started when Moses was appointed to reclaim Israelites who were enslaved by the
Egyptians.
Moses was the decisive human personality in the period when the Hebrew emerged as a
distinct people with a unique faith.
Any attempt to reduce the authentic traditions concerning Moses to the one which
preserves the memory of his grave seems somewhat extreme.
It is no doubt true that subsequent generations tended to glorify Moses and often read back
into his age and ascribed to him laws, cultic practices and theological positions which could
only have developed later, but that he was the leader of Hebrews as they escaped from
Egypt and when the covenant was made at Sinai is entirely credible.
There must have been one gifted individual who interpreted the meaning of the exodus
event to his fellows as an act of God and then led them to establish a covenant with God.
That gifted individual was Moses.
According to Numbers 12:8 God spoke to Moses face to face and not in dark speeches.
What it implies is that Moses tops the hierarchy of prophets. Other prophets can be
regarded as lesser prophets because God speak with them in dark speeches, e.g. dreams,
visions e.t.c.
What it implies is that what lesser prophets said was an interpretation of Yahweh’s will
which may have been wrong if the intermediaries failed to interpret the dreams, visions or
vague speeches. With Moses however, this was not the case.
With Moses Yahweh communicated directly, implying that Moses’ prophecy could not be
wrong.
Therefore whenever the message of other prophets conflicted with that of Moses,
Moses’ message was to be preferred. Hence Moses could be regarded as the normative
prophet, the archetypal prophet who fixed the norm, the rule or standard by which all
subsequent prophetic teaching and behavior had to be judged.
Considering this one can argue that Moses is a prophet par-excellent and is the architect of
prophecy.
Deuteronomy 18:18 Moses is regarded as the model of prophecy and the founder of the
covenant and this covenant is binding on future prophets. Hence the view that prophets
were not innovators, they took their stand on Sinai traditions is valid.
According to B.W Anderson prophecy originated in Israel in association with a particular
tradition and experience. In particular prophecy in Israel is argued to have originated with
the Exodus experience and Moses is cited as the first prophet.
66
Though this is disputed by some scholars like M. Noth, the fact that Moses possess all
prophetic qualities, most scholars concluded that he is the paragon of normative prophecy.
MOSAIC PROPHETIC MOVEMENT AS A SECT

FEATURES OF A SECT
1. It starts as a protest against deprivation.
2. Rejects world view of establishment
3. Establish its own world view characterized by egalitarianism
4. Acceptance and the offer of love to those joining the sect.
5. Voluntary nature of the sect
6. Demand for commitment that is almost always sacrificial.
7. The Adventist nature of the cosmology of the sect based on a future world (country
flowing with milk and honey)
Samuel
Samuel, heard of God. The peculiar circumstances connected with his birth are
recorded in 1 Sam. 1:20.
Hannah, one of the two wives of Elkanah, who came up to Shiloh to worship
before the Lord, earnestly prayed to God that she might become the mother of a
son.
Her prayer was graciously granted; and after the child was weaned she brought
him to Shiloh nd consecrated him to the Lord as a perpetual Nazarite (1:23-2:11).
Here his bodily wants and training were attended to by the women who served in
the tabernacle, while Eli cared for his religious culture.
Thus, probably, twelve years of his life passed away. "The child Samuel grew on,
and was in favour both with the Lord, and also with men" (2:26; comp. Luke 2:52).
It was a time of great and growing degeneracy in Israel (Judg. 21:19-21; 1 Sam. 2:
12-17, 22).
The Philistines, who of late had greatly increased in number and in power, were
practically masters of the country, and kept the people in subjection (1 Sam. 10:5;
13:3).
At this time new communications from God began to be made to the pious child.
A mysterious voice came to him in the night season, calling him by name, and,
instructed by Eli, he answered, "Speak, Lord; for thy servant heareth."
The message that came from the Lord was one of woe and ruin
to Eli and his profligate sons.
Samuel told it all to Eli, whose only answer to the terrible denunciations (1 Sam.
3:11-18) was, "It is the Lord; let him do what seemeth him good", the
passive submission of a weak character, not, in his case, the expression of the
highest trust and faith.
The Lord revealed himself now in divers manners to Samuel, and his fame and his
influence increased throughout the land as of one divinely called to the
prophetical office. A new period in the history of the kingdom of God now
commenced.
The Philistine yoke was heavy, and the people, groaning under the wide-spread
oppression, suddenly rose in revolt, and "went out against the Philistines to
67
battle."
A fierce and disastrous battle was fought at Aphek, near to
Ebenezer (1 Sam. 4:1, 2). The Israelites were defeated, leaving 4,000 dead "in the
field."
The chiefs of the people thought to repair this great disaster by carrying with
them the ark of the covenant as the symbol of Jehovah's presence. They
accordingly, without consulting Samuel, fetched it out of Shiloh to the camp near
Aphek.
At the sight of the ark among them the people "shouted with a great shout, so
that the earth rang again." A second battle was fought, and again the Philistines
defeated the Israelites, stormed their camp, slew 30,000 men, and took the
sacred ark.
The tidings of this fatal battle was speedily conveyed to Shiloh; and so soon as the
aged Eli heard that the ark of God was taken, he fell backward from his seat at the
entrance of the sanctuary, and his neck brake, and he died.
The tabernacle with its furniture was probably, by the advice of Samuel, now
about twenty years of age, removed from Shiloh to some place of safety, and
finally to Nob, where it remained many years (21:1).
The Philistines followed up their advantage, and marched upon Shiloh, which they
plundered and destroyed (comp. Jer. 7:12; Ps. 78:59).
This was a great epoch in the history of Israel. For twenty years after this fatal
battle at Aphek the whole land lay under the oppression of the Philistines. During
all these dreary years
Samuel was a spiritual power in the land. From Ramah, his native place, where he
resided, his influence went forth on every side among the people.
With unwearied zeal he went up and down from place to place, reproving,
rebuking, and exhorting the people, endeavouring to awaken in them a sense of
their sinfulness, and to lead them to repentance.
His labours were so far successful that "all the house of Israel lamented after the
Lord." Samuel summoned the people to Mizpeh, one of the loftiest hills in Central
Palestine, where they fasted and prayed, and prepared themselves there, under
his direction, for a great war against the Philistines, who now marched their whole
force toward Mizpeh, in order to crush the Israelites once for
all.
At the intercession of Samuel God interposed in behalf of Israel. Samuel himself
was their leader, the only occasion in which he acted as a leader in war. The
Philistines were utterly routed.
They fled in terror before the army of Israel, and a great slaughter ensued. This
battle, fought probably about B.C. 1095, put an end to the forty years of Philistine
oppression.
In memory of this great deliverance, and in token of gratitude for the help
vouchsafed, Samuel set up a great stone in the battlefield, and called it
"Ebenezer," saying, "Hitherto hath the Lord helped us" (1 Sam. 7:1-12). This was
the spot where, twenty years before, the Israelites had suffered a great defeat,
when the ark of God was taken. This
victory over the Philistines was followed by a long period of peace for Israel (1
Sam. 7:13, 14), during which Samuel exercised the functions of judge, going "from
68
year to year in circuit" from his home in Ramah to Bethel, thence to Gilgal (not
that in the Jordan valley, but that which lay to the west of Ebal and Gerizim), and
returning by Mizpeh to Ramah.
He established regular services at Shiloh, where he built an altar; and at Ramah he
gathered a company of young men around him and established a school of the
prophets.
Schools of the prophets, thus originated, and afterwards established also at
Gibeah, Bethel, Gilgal, and Jericho, exercised an important influence on the
national character and history of the people in maintaining pure religion in the
midst of growing corruption.
They continued to the end of the Jewish commonwealth. Many years now passed,
during which Samuel exercised the functions of his judicial office, being the friend
and counsellor of the people in all matters of private and public interest. He was a
great statesman as well as a reformer, and all regarded him with veneration as
the "seer," the prophet of the Lord.
At the close of this period, when he was now an old man, the elders of Israel came
to him at Ramah (1 Sam. 8:4, 5, 19-22); and feeling how great was the danger to
which the nation was exposed from the misconduct of Samuel's sons, whom he
had invested with judicial functions as his assistants, and had placed at Beersheba
on the Philistine border, and also from a threatened invasion of the Ammonites,
they demanded that a king should be set over them.
This request was very displeasing to Samuel. He remonstrated with them, and
warned them of the consequences of such a step.
At length, however, referring the matter to God, he acceded to their desires, and
anointed Saul (q.v.) to be their king (11:15). Before retiring from public life he
convened an assembly of the people at Gilgal (ch. 12), and there solemnly
addressed them with reference to his own relation to them as judge and prophet.
The remainder of his life he spent in retirement at Ramah, only occasionally and in
special circumstances appearing again in public (1 Sam. 13, 15) with
communications from God to king Saul.
While mourning over the many evils which now fell upon the nation, he is
suddenly summoned (ch.16) to go to Bethlehem and anoint David, the son of
Jesse, as king over Israel instead of Saul.
After this little is known of him till the time of his death, which took place at
Ramah when he was probably about eighty years of age. "And all Israel gathered
themselves together, and lamented him, and buried him in his house at Ramah"
(25:1), not in the house itself, but in the court or garden of his house. (Comp. 2
Kings 21:18; 2 Chr. 33:20; 1 Kings 2:34; John 19:41.) Samuel's devotion to God,
and the special favour with which God regarded him, are referred to in Jer. 15:1
and Ps. 99:6.
Samuel was unique because he filled many roles, that is, prophet, seer, priest and
judge. He came during a period of radical change, from theocracy to anarchy and
finally the monarchy.
He was instrumental in furthering these changes. He was the greatest spiritual
leader since the time of Moses.
Under his spiritual guidance Israel moved from the tribal confederacy to the
monarchy.
69
Samuel anointed the first king of Israel (Saul). Samuel was more than a local seer,
he was also recognized of priestly authority in the city who officiate at sacrificial
rites
Some scholars argue that prophecy has priestly origins especially considering 1
Samuel 9:9.
The office of a seer was more or less the same as that of a priest. So because of
the inadequacy and corrupt tendencies of the priestly office as demonstrated by
the sons of Eli necessitated the call of Samuel. Samuel is the one who instituted
the prophetic guilds.
According to 1Samuel 3:1 prophecy existed prior to Samuel but its likely that they
were taken for granted. They never delivered any oracles.
SAMUEL AS A JUDGE
Samuel’s judgeship involves settling legal disputes. For the purpose he made an
annual circuit of the shrines of Bethel, Gilgal and Mizpah. 1 Samuel 7:15-17, his
judgeship also led to the triumph against the Philistines. Although he is said to
have established this not by military leadership but by prayer and sacrificial rites.
Samuel was also a military leader. He instituted the prophetic guilds. Although
they never delivered any oracles, the prophetic guilds boost the morale by
chanting war songs.
SAMUEL’S PRIESTLY DUTIES

1. Taking care of the sanctuary or specific cultic centre.
2. Teaching or preaching
3. Offering sacrifices
4. Acting as a seer who would be consulted on various issues and provide
guidance in areas where it was needed.
5. A controversial duty in this context of counsel was the use of lots (urim and
thumminal) during oracular consultation. Controversy surrounds whether this
should be classified as a prophetic or priestly duty.
PROPHETIC DUTIES
1. Interpreting the will of God to the people.
2. Providing counsel and guidance to the kings. Samuel was advisor to Saul and
when he breached the commandment of God he was dismissed. Samuel
appointed David to replace Saul.
3. Providing morale during times of war.
4. Anointing kings
5. Criticizing kings.
6. Interceding. Samuel was the intercessor between God and Israel when they
demanded a king. Samuel interceded and gave their appeal to God who in reply told
them the disadvantages of a king but later gave them Saul as king.
Samuel had an important role in Israel. 1Samuel 3:1 ‘Before the call of Samuel the word of
God was rare; after it divine revelations were frequent’. This implies that prophecy indeed
began with Samuel.
70
So the call of Samuel is significant in the growth and development of

prophecy.
According to F.M. Cross prophecy started with kingship and died together in
exile.
This is supported by M. Noth who propounded the evolutionary theory. For him
prophecy evolved from seership. 1 Samuel 9:9 is a key text to this discussion. Principally,
before the call of Samuel, the priest and, or seer used to receive visions and interpret the
word of God.
Prophecy evolved from seership because the corrupt tendencies of Elide

priesthood resulted in the loss of proper sight (vision).
It is as if the word of God became rare because of this corruption. Though the sons of Elihad
become corrupt, it seems Eli too was involved in this corruption for even though he was
aware of their corrupt tendencies he did not rebuke his sons.
Thus, the priestly office/ office of a seer, was perhaps no longer adequate to meet the needs
of the people.
Therefore the call of Samuel signalled the evolution of the prophetic office; an office that
could now meet the needs of the people and put in check the office of a priest. Once there
was the prophet Samuel, God began to speak again and divine revelation become frequent.
The general assumption is that there was no prophecy earlier than of this settlement in
Canaan. The rise of the monarchy seem to have given the kings the role of a judge. Prophecy
emerged in a bid to check kingship usurpation of this religious duty.
This explains why Samuel challenged king Saul, for example when he breached the law of
sacrifice and not obeying God’s commandment that he was supposed to destroy all
Amalekites. Prophecy arise so as to revive Israel’s religion.
However it should be noted that Samuel’s functions are not collectively recognizably
prophetic, in which case his influence on development of prophecy is questionable and
perhaps has been exaggerated through Samuel’s undeniable political influence.
Some even concluded that later editor made Samuel into a prophet otherwise he was just a
mere judge.
Samuel traditions comprise material from various sources and each source has a different
image and role of Samuel. So it seems final redactors or compilers of the material
suppressed the other images and roles of Samuel and projected the image and role of
Samuel as a prophet, which was consistent with the interests of this/ these final editors
(Deuteronomist historian).
THE PROPHET ELIJAH

Elijah’s first appearance in Kings is sudden and unexplained. He was a Tishbite from Gilead
east of Jordan an area less subject to the influence of Baal syncretism.
Of all the places cited in connection with the settlement of Israel in Canaan this place was
the least populated. In fact it was scarcely populated (J. Bright 1980). The Manasseh tribe
71
that settled there had very little cultural intercourse with Canaanite inhabitants there and
therefore managed to preserve and maintain the Sinai traditions without adulterations from
Canaanite religious practices.
Therefore, Elijah because he was conservative and was one of the most intolerant
of the prophets.
In fact he was fundamentalist when it comes to the Mosaic covenant. This

explains his outrage and vigorous campaign against Baalism.
His dressing and behaviour is comparable to certain people of Israel called Nazaretes whose
characteristics are:
1. Separating oneself for the service of Yahweh.
2. Were not supposed to take any wine nor strong drink
3. Are consecrated to the Lord.
4. Made vow
5. No razor to be used to shave their heads
6. Dedicated to Yahweh and holy throughout the period of separation.
7. Bound by other laws that were followed by I sraelites.
Circumstances to Elijah’s ministry are fairly clear:

1. Omri made Samaria his capital though this was one of the cities of Baal and had no
Yahweh sanctuary.
2. Owing to Omri’s alliance with neighboring nations,his son Ahab married Jezebel a
princess of Tyre. Since political alliances of the time involved a mutual recognition of
deities and since Jezebel was not one to take her privileges lightly, the priority of
Yahweh as Israel’s peculiar God was threatened. Jezebel brought the Phoenician form
of worship to Israel and also gave financial support to a large number of Baal prophets
and priests. In fact she was the patron of Baal worship.
When Elijah appear on the scene, Israelites in the rural areas still worship Yahweh but the
royal court and the upper classes in the city were whole hearted adherence of Baalism.
So Elijah came as a direct challenge to Baal as a rain giver.
In fact he was there to revive Israel’s conduct with God. It is Yahweh who gives and
withholds rain.
We are reminded of the words of Hosea a century later ‘she did not know that it was I who
gave her grain, and new wine and oil and multiplies for the silver and gold which they used
for Baal’ (Hosea 2:8).Elijah declared drought in the name of Yahweh and show that Yahweh
is the God of nature.
He controlled nature not in Palestine alone but also in Phoenicia. He wanted to prove God
as the sovereign and universal ruler.
CONTEST AT MOUNT CARMEL
The contest at Mount Carmel is regarded as the battle for supremacy. It shows the
nature of God as the provider and Israelites were supposed to save him with
heart, soul and strength.
Yahweh demanded his people to be loyal, faithful and obedient. The contest
72
prove that there was nothing like Baal because the prayers of the prophets were
not answered but Elijah’s sacrifice was consumed by fire. Elijah posed as a stricter
promoter of Yahwism in the face of polytheistic tendencies which was now part
and parcel of central cult.
Because of Baalism, Yahwism was threatened with extinction but Elijah was there
to revive the worship of Yahweh.
The contest itself dramatically demonstrated the impossibility of simultaneously
retaining Yahweh as a national deity and Ba'al as the fertilizing or life-sustaining
god, the activator of the land and therefore its rightful owner.
Elijah's point was that Yahweh was Israel's god, responsible for all aspects of
national well-being, including the bringing of fertilizing rain, and was, therefore,
owner of the land.
Arguments concerning the fire from heaven (which was
apparently lightning), suggestions that Elijah may have poured naphtha rather
than water on the altar, or allegations that someone assisted Elijah and secretly lit
the fire are fruitless and completely miss the thrust of the account.
The story symbolizes a power struggle, a point clearly made by Elijah: "If Yahweh
is God, follow him; but if Ba'al, then follow him" (I Kings 18:21).
For Elijah there was no choice: his name, which meant "Yahweh is my God,"
testified to his commitment.
The validity of his belief was demonstrated in the rain contest which discredited
the prophets and priests of Ba'al and Asherah. Elijah struck when he had the
advantage and a blood purge followed, provoking Jezebel to a threat of reprisal.
Other scholars argue that at Mount Carmel Elijah was involved in a rain making
ceremony.
This is because Elijah announced drought that was to last for three years. So it
seems the drama at Mount Carmel begin with the need for rain as there was
drought that was threatening the area.
However it should be noted that Canaanite religion basically was a fertility cult
where agrarian concerns were at the centre. Rain would therefore be one of
those signs that the deity who brought it down was the true deity.
Rain then prove that Yahweh had accepted Elijah’s sacrifice and he was the true
deity. Hence it is not surprising that the drama ends with a down
pour of rain.
The slaughter of the prophets of Baal was not an act of vengeance or fanaticism
but rather an application of the old amphyctonic law which imposes death penalty
to all apostates (Exodus 22:20, Deut 13:6-11).
PROPHETS IN ZIMBABWE AND RAIN MAKING CEREMONY
It is not immediately clear whether prophets in Zimbabwe are involved in rain
making ceremonies as these are officiated by traditional sacred practioners.
Indeed, some pastors now gather members to pray for the rain but these are not
rain making ceremonies in the traditional sense.
NABOTH’S VINEYARD
Elijah assures the duties of earlier prophets,e.g. Samuel, Nathan and Gad. They limit the
powers of the kings. Samuel rebuked Saul, Gad rebuked David for taking a census, Nathan
rebuked David for taking Uriah’s wife, and Elijah rebuked Ahab for taking Naboth’s vineyard.
73
In the Naboth incident the conflict is between two different conceptions of the law, that is
the Canaanite view that the king was accorded the arbitrary powers and by contrast the
typical Israelite view that every man with his possessions are not without respect of
persons, was under divine protection.
Elijah wanted to preserve the old order where the land belonged to God and should not be
sold. Land grabbing was unlawful.
Using her culture Jezebel ordered to take the estate of Naboth. She believed that the king
was appointed by God and hence accused Naboth for cursing God and hence was stoned to
death. This is why foreign marriages were forbidden.
SIGNIFICANCE OF JOURNEY TO MOUNT HOREB
Mount Horeb is central of prophecy. It is of archetypal importance because it is connected
with the election of Israel, covenant, salvation and the law of God. It shows that prophets
were not innovators but they demanded the return of Israel to the former covenant
allegiance to God.
So the journey show the link between prophecy and sacral law. Elijah as a covenant
mediator journeyed towards Israel’s source of faith. So it was a pilgrimage to the mountain
of Israel’s faith.
Elijah might have gone there out of fear of Jezebel and he needed security from Yahweh. So
he wanted to seek companionship from Yahweh since he was lonely.
The account of the flight to Mount Horeb is tailored to portray him as the second Moses
promised in Deuteronomy 18.
This shows the Deuteronomist’s redaction of an earlier Elohist story about Elijah. Similarities
can be drawn between Moses and Elijah in the accounts of their theophanies at the sacred
mountain. Elijah fasted 40 days 40 nights that he took to reach mount Horeb.
Similarly when Moses received the law he fasted forty days and forty nights (Exodus 24:18,
34:28). At mount Horeb Elijah found shelter in a cave (1Kings 19), probably the same cave
where Moses hid to protect himself from the glory of God (Exodus 32:22-23).
In his conversation with Yahweh Elijah complained that the people had forsaken
Yahweh’s covenant (1Kings 19).
His situation is similar to that of Moses who went to mount Horeb to receive the law and
returned to find that people had forsaken Yahweh and were worshipping a molten calf.
Besides both performed similar miracles. For instance, Moses struck the waters of Red sea
and Elijah did the same (2 Kings 2:8). Their theophanies are similar. So Elijah must have been
a second Moses.
He might have gone there to receive orders to anoint kings Hazael of Syria and Jehu of
Israel.
It might be regarded as a cleansing ritual after he had spilt a lot of blood, in an attempt to
exterminate the Baal prophets and resuscitate Yahwism.
As prophecy move from one period to another certain prophetic traits are
dropped and new traits are picked. On the mountain there is a transition from
primitive forms of theophany that is fire, wind, and earthquake to a more classical
74
form of audition (small voice).

The journey also showed that prophets were messengers of God and their
preaching was not from themselves but from the and task and be strengthened by
Yahweh. Elijah wanted to inform Yahweh how he had successfully championed
Yahwism.
ELIJAH’S STORIES AS LEGENDS

Some scholars argue that Elijah is a legendary figure. A legendary figure is
unbelievable, speculative and exaggerated. Some scholars concluded that Elijah is
nothing but a miracle worker. This is based on the fact that;
1. He run and overtook the chariot of Ahab
2. He did not see death
3. He single handedly killed the 400 prophets of Baal
4. He was fed by ravens
5. He travelled forty days and forty nights without food
6. He called fire to destroy two companies of fifty men.
7. He kept constant supply of meal and oil for the widow of Zarephath and raised
the widow’s son.
8. He divided river Jordan using his mantle
9. He was taken to heaven by whirlwind.
These stories seem to have been written using the Mosaic motif;
1. Moses went to mount Sinai and Elijah does the same
2. Moses separated the waters of Red sea and Elijah separated waters of Jordan
3. Moses kill the apostates and Elijah killed worshippers of Baal.
4. Moses nominated his successor Joshua and Elijah nominated Elisha.
5. No one knows the grave of both Moses and Elijah.
SIMILARITIES IN THEMES
1 according to the author of 1Kings Moses was a prototype of Elijah. Without
Moses prophecy would not have been born and without Elijah prophecy would
have died.
2 Prophecy originated with Moses and is considered as the ideal prophet.
Prophets who came after Moses introduced nothing new, they followed the
footsteps of Moses.
Hence prophets were not innovators, they took their stand on existing traditions.
3 Similarity may also imply that these stories may be a product of the same
redactor or the final compiler of the Elijah- Elisha narratives used the Mosaic
stories as a source.
4 Probably the person of Elijah is a literal creation to dramatise Moses. Such
coincidence could not be coincidental. Maybe the redactor twisted information
for it to be comparable with Moses.
ELISHAAS A SOCIAL WORKER
1. He made the bad water wholesome (2 Kings 2:19)

2. He fills the water trenches (2 Kings 3)
75
3. Helped the widow ofone of the sons of the prophet to repay her debt through the
multiplication of oil (2 Kings 4)
4. Helped the barren Shunnamite woman to conceive (2 kings 4:8)
5. He made poisonous pottage harmless (2 Kings 4:38)
6. HE HEALED Naaman the leper(2 Kings 5:1ff)
7. He multiplied bread of the first fruits and fresh ears of grain to feed many people
(2
kings 4:42-44)
8. He helped the manwho had lost a borrowed axe head by recovering it from the
water
(2 Kings 6)
9. He restored the Shunnamite woman’s son to life (2 Kings 4:18)
2. ELISHA AS A PROPHET
1. He performed miracles, for example parting of the Jordan waters (2 kings 2:14)
2. He was a forth teller, for example when he told Gehazi what he had done in his
absence (2 Kings 5:2)
3. He foretold the end of famine (2 Kings 7:1) and predicted the death of the death
of the Shunnamite’s son (2Kings4)
4. He anointed Jehu to be king
5. He had prophetic authority, for example when he cursed Gehazi for not being
faithful and when he cursed the young boys who jeered at him.
6. Elisha participated in the politics of his day when he opposed the foreign policy of
the Omrides
ELIJAH’S LINKS WITH PRE-CLASSICAL PROPHETS

1. Man of action/ miracle working ability like Moses and Elisha e.g. Exodus 4:7-11
2. Ecstatic prophecy- Elijah’s running before Ahab’s chariot (1 kings 18:46) indicates an
ecstatic feat. The 70 elders in the wilderness are believed to have prophesied
ecstatically after receiving a share of Moses’ spirit. When a ministrel played, Elisha
prophesied ecstatically. Samuel headed over a prophetic guild that presumably
prophesied ecstatically
3. Prophetic guilds of Samuel’s time continue to exist during the time of Elijah
4. Constant endeavour to recall people to the religion of Moses/ proclaiming Mosaic
standards of righteousness in the community.
5. God appearing/ answering Elijah by fire on two occasions (1 Kings 18:38, 2 Kings 1:10-
12) which seems to look back to the exhibition of God’s presence and judgement in
fire in the Exodugs narratives e.g. 13:21, 19:18, 24:17.
6. Anointing kings. Elijah anointed Jehu and Hazael through Elisha, Samuel anointed
David and Saul, and Nathan anointed Solomon.
ELIJAH AS THE FORUNNER OF CLASSICAL PROPHETS

A transitional bridge that gives birth to classical prophecy. Though he is from old school of
prophets, the pre-classical ones, his work laid the foundational stone on which classical
prophecy is built.
76
Special forms of theophany such as dreams, angels and miracles which were
central in the pre-canonical prophecy seem to be gradually paving way to new forms that
are experienced in canonical prophecy, e.g. auditions (Jeremiah 1:1, Isaiah 1:2, Amos 1:3).
A closer focus on Elijah’s message reveals that rather than addressing a specific individual,
the common practice in pre-classical prophecy, his message was addressed to the citizens as
a whole.
The advance of the Canaanite civilization coupled with the syncretism that followed
was the major focus of Elijah’s message.
His conviction that the Sinai covenant could not be

tampered with to accommodate religious tolerance and co-existence with Baalism, was
taken up with great zeal by Hosea.
Further it can be gleaned from the prophecy of Amos that his social justice message was
inspired by Elijah’s condemnation of the transition from the tribal confederacy to feudalism.
This transition promoted the spread of urban culture which resulted in the Israelites
forgetting the ethical demands of the sacred law and their traditions.
Feudalism created a class of wealthy land owners who mercilessly increased their holdings
by dispossessing the poor. In the period of Elijah prophets suffered persecution for
criticizing these changes.
Possibly, in Amos’ time prophets and Nazarenes tried to speak out against abuses of the
poor by the rich and were ruthlessly silenced (Amos 2:12).
If the contest at Mount Camel is to be understood in the of Elijah’s condemnation of Israel’s
treaty with Tyre, then Elijah did not support Israel’s foreign policy. This stance is taken up
further by Hosea and Isaiah who attacked Israel and Judah, respectively, for their foreign
alliances.
Prophets viewed foreign alliances as the sources of Israel’s worship of gods other
than Yahweh. For example Isaiah pleaded with Ahaz not to enter into foreign alliances or to
pay tribute to Assyria as this would result in accepting Assyrian gods into the temple.
In the account of the theophany of Elijah at mount Horeb, he was instructed to anoint
Hazael to be king of Syria and Elisha as the next Mosaic prophet. This set in motion a series
of events which would wipe out all Baal worshippers, leaving a remnant of seven thousand.
The concept of a remnant is interesting here because it link Elijah’s message with that of
canonical prophets who were convinced that although Yahweh would punish Israelites, a
remnant would remain.
Further, the fact that Elijah is sent to anoint Hazael as king of Syria, shows Yahweh as a
universal God. This theme is carried forward and refined by canonical prophets like Amos,
Isaiah and Jeremiah.
Therefore Elijah is portrayed as a true Mosaic prophets who stood firmly in the Sinai
traditions and opposed to any form of accommodation of Cananite culture and religious
practices.
His fanatical zeal for Yahwism saved the religion from extinction and this inspired prophets
of the canonical era like Amos (oracles against foreign nations), Hosea, Isaiah and Jeremiah.
However, as a person, Elijah can be viewed as a primitive and conservative traditional
77
Yahwist who fought a bitter war against the modernizing tendencies of culture and religion.
His religious fanaticism and intolerance was politically dangerous as this threatened the
political stability of the state which consisted of both Israelites and Cananites.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRE-CLASSICAL AND CLASSICAL PROPHETS

There is a debate concerning the criteria used to distinguish classical from pre-classical
prophets. However it could be uncritical to argue that classical prophets could not be
distinguished from their predecessors, the pre-classical prophets. Classical prophets
exemplify what is distinctive about Israelite prophets, that is, all that separate them from
ancient near east pattern.
1. ECSTACY
Ecstacy is a distinctive feature of pre-canonical prophets. It seems to be studiously avoided
as we move to the classical period. Jeremiah condemns ecstacy which was common during
his period. He never appeals to any possession of this prophetic spirit.
However other scholars argue that we can not differentiate between classical and pre-
classical prophecy solely on the basis of ecstacy. It is said that it was because they were
ecstatic that in spite of their bold speech, Amos and Jeremiah escaped with their lives.
According to Robinson classical prophets presents quite a different picture with regard to
the value attached to striking psychic phenomenon. Indeed on the whole, we have to
acknowledge a marked recession of the ecstatic element when compared with per-classical
prophets. Of full scale ecstatic mass hysteria there is no mention in the case of classical
prophets.
2. GROUP PROPHECY
Pre-classical prophets operated in groups while classical were characterized by
individualism.
They belonged to guilds or schools. Sons of the prophets lived together in communities
undera leader apparently known as their father. Elijah and Elisha were leaders of prophetic
communities at bethel, Gilgal and Jericho. Classical prophets over-emphasised the individual
prophetic genius and originality. They are capable of moving through life in majestic
solitude, even when this means, as it meant, e.g. for Hosea and Jeremiah, that the whole
existence is undated with the most terrible tragedy.
3. PROFESSIONALISM
During the pre-classical period prophecy was more of a profession in which they received
salaries. Classical prophets were not paid for a service. Pre-classical prophets were visited by
people to inquire of God. Not only common people but also kings and queens and high
officials went to the prophets to obtain oracles. Ahijah was consulted by the wife of
Jeroboam pertaining the illness of their son.
Classical prophets speak to the whole nation challenging popular but false values while
exhorting people to discover the covenant and to reverse their evil ways. However classical
prophets were also consulted on private matters, but in most cases they were concerned
with national issues
4. CULTIC ASSOCIATION
Pre-classical prophets as professionals were definitely linked to cults. All cult officials
received remuneration from the cult. So they are present at cultic centres on special days
for consultation (2 Kings 4:18-25 1 Samuel 10:5-8).
78
Classical prophets made a protest against the cult. Sacrifice had become a surrogate for
morality of the majority in Israel and strong words had to be spoken.
Classical prophets rejected the view that by offering sacrifices men might hope to conciliate
God’s favours.
5. COURT PROPHETS
Pre-classical prophets determine the will of Yahweh and gave divine sanction to the policies
of the state.
This fade away as we move to the classical period. There is face to face encounter between
prophets and kings. Nathan had David, Elijah had Ahab. From classical prophecy
however the controversy of God is with the nation and not simply with kings.
6. PREDICTION
Pre-classical prophets emphasized foretelling e.g.Ahijah predicted the death of Jeroboam’s
son. Elijah predicted drought. Though classical prophets turned to the future their emphasis
was on the present. The true function of a prophet was to be a teacher of ethical and
religious truth.
7. DISTINCTIVE MARKS OR CLOTHING
Bandage in the story in 1 Kings 10:35 may have covered a mark worn on the forehead. Elijah
had peculiar garments (2 Kings 1:18). These were probably used to distinguish themselves
from other prophets of the ancient near east.
CONCLUSION
There are limitations in the application of criteria. You cannot put these two types of
prophets in a water tight category because there are things which continue e.g. how they
receive their revelation, for example compare the call of Moses with that of Jeremiah and
Isaiah.
Behaviour is almost the same. Books were written during the exilic period or post exilic
period.
So there might have been an editorial process. It’s likely that group prophecy was no longer
fashionable and so the redactor wanted to show that the classical prophets were no longer
operating in groups.
Marriage in Judaism
The Torah provides very little guidance with regard to the procedures of a
marriage.
The method of finding a spouse, the form of the wedding ceremony, and
the nature of the marital relationship are all explained in the Talmud.
Acquiring a Spouse
Mishnah Kiddushin 1,1 specifies that a woman is acquired (i.e., to be a wife) in
three ways: through money, a contract, and sexual intercourse. Ordinarily, all
three of these conditions are satisfied, although only one is necessary to effect a
binding marriage.
Acquisition by money is normally satisfied by the wedding ring. It is important
to note that although money is one way of "acquiring" a wife, the woman is not
being bought and sold like a piece of property or a slave. This is obvious from
79
the fact that the amount of money involved is nominal (according to the
Mishnah, a perutah, a copper coin of the lowest denomination, was sufficient).
In addition, if the woman were being purchased like a piece of property, it
would be possible for the husband to resell her, and clearly it is not. Rather, the
wife's acceptance of the money is a symbolic way of demonstrating her
acceptance of the husband, just like acceptance of the contract or the sexual
intercourse.
To satisfy the requirements of acquisition by money, the ring must belong to the
groom. It cannot be borrowed, although it can be a gift from a relative. It must
be given to the wife irrevocably. In addition, the ring's value must be known to
the wife, so that there can be no claim that the husband deceived her into
marrying by misleading her as to its value.
In all cases, the Talmud specifies that a woman can be acquired only with her
consent, and not without it. Kiddushin 2a-b.
As part of the wedding ceremony, the husband gives the wife a ketubah. The
word "Ketubah" comes from the root Kaf-Tav-Bet, meaning writing. The
ketubah is also called the marriage contract. The ketubah spells out the
husband's obligations to the wife during marriage, conditions of inheritance
upon his death, and obligations regarding the support of children of the
marriage.
It also provides for the wife's support in the event of divorce. There are standard
conditions; however, additional conditions can be included by mutual
agreement.
Marriage agreements of this sort were commonplace in the ancient Semitic

world.
The ketubah has much in common with prenuptial agreements, which are
gaining popularity in the West. Such agreements were historically disfavored,
because it was believed that planning for divorce would encourage divorce, and
that people who considered the possibility of divorce should not be marrying.
Although one rabbi in the Talmud expresses a similar opinion, the majority
maintained that a ketubah discouraged divorce, by serving as a constant
reminder of the husband's substantial financial obligations if he divorced his
wife.
The ketubah is often a beautiful work of calligraphy, framed and displayed in
the home.
The Process of Marriage: Kiddushin and Nisuin

The process of marriage occurs in two distinct stages: kiddushin (commonly
translated as betrothal) and nisuin (full-fledged marriage). Kiddushin occurs
when the woman accepts the money, contract, or sexual relations offered by the
prospective husband. The word "kiddushin" comes from the root Qof-Dalet-
Shin, meaning sanctified. It reflects the sanctity of the marital relation.
80
However, the root word also connotes something that is set aside for a specific
(sacred) purpose, and the ritual of kiddushin sets aside the woman to be the wife
of a particular man and no other.
Kiddushin is far more binding than an engagement as the term is understood in
modern customs of the West. Once the kiddushin is completed, the woman is
legally the wife of the man.
The relationship created by kiddushin can only be dissolved by death or

divorce. However, the spouses do not live together at that time, and the mutual
obligations created by the marital relationship do not take effect until the nisuin
is complete.
The nisuin (from a word meaning elevation) completes the process of
marriage. The husband brings the wife into his home and they begin their
married life together.
In the past, the kiddushin and nisuin would routinely occur as much as a year
apart. During that time, the husband would prepare a home for the new
family.
There was always a risk that during this long period of separation, the
woman would discover that she wanted to marry another man, or the man would
disappear, leaving the woman in the awkward state of being married but without
a husband.
Today, the two ceremonies are normally performed together.

Because marriage under Jewish law is essentially a private contractual
agreement between a man and a woman, it does not require the presence of a
rabbi or any other religious official.
It is common, however, for rabbis to officiate, partly in imitation of the

Christian practice and partly because the presence of a religious or civil official
is required under Western civil law.
As you can see, it is very easy to make a marriage, so the rabbis instituted
severe punishments (usually flogging and compelled divorce) where marriage
was undertaken without proper planning and solemnity.
A Typical Wedding Ceremony
It is customary for the bride and groom not to see each other for a week
preceding the wedding. On the Shabbat of that week, it is customary among
Ashkenazic Jews for the groom to have an aliyah (the honor of reciting a
blessing over the Torah reading).
This aliyah is known as an ufruf. There are exuberant celebrations in the

synagogue at this time.
The day before the wedding, both the bride and the groom customarily fast.
81
Before the ceremony, the bride is veiled, in remembrance of the idea that
Rebecca veiled her face when she was first brought to Isaac to be his wife.
The ceremony itself lasts 20-30 minutes, and consists of the kiddushin and the
nisuin. For the kiddushin, the bride approaches and circles the groom.
Two blessings are recited over wine: one the standard blessing over wine and
the other regarding the commandments related to marriage.
The man then places the ring on the woman's finger and says "Be sanctified
(mekudeshet) to me with this ring in accordance with the law of Moses and
Israel".
After the kiddushin is complete, the ketubah is read aloud.
The nisuin then proceeds.
The bride and groom today typically stand beneath the "chuppah", a canopy
held up by four poles, symbolic of their dwelling together and of the husband's
bringing the wife into his home; the importance of the chuppah is so great that
the wedding ceremony is sometimes referred to as the chuppah. Jewish Law
does require, however, that the groom bring the bride into
the house where they will live (not under a mere symbol of it). The groom (or,
more typically, his agent or agents) recite seven blessings (sheva brakhos) in the
presence of a minyan (prayer quorum of 10 adult Jewish men). The essence of
each of the seven blessings is:
1. the standard blessing over wine.
2. ... who has created everything for his glory
3. ... who fashioned the Man
4. ... who fashioned the Man in His image
5. ... who gladdens Zion through her children
6. ... who gladdens groom and bride
7. ... who created joy and gladness . . . who gladdens the groom with the bride
The couple then drinks the wine.
The groom customarily smashes a glass (or a small symbolic piece of glass)
with his right foot, to symbolize the destruction of the Temple; the correct
original practice was to put a bit of ashes on the forehead where the tefillin are
placed, as is still practiced by many in Israel today. The destruction of usable
things is actually forbidden.
The couple then retires briefly to a completely private room, symbolic of the
groom bringing the wife into his home; the correct original practice was to go
immediately into the home where they will live and be alone there, which is
also still practiced by some in Israel today.
This is the most important part of the whole ceremony, and should not be done
merely symbolically.
82
This is followed by a festive meal, which is followed by a repetition of the

sheva brakhos. Exuberant music and dancing traditionally accompany the
ceremony and the reception.
The Marital Relationship
Marriage is vitally important in Judaism. Refraining from marriage is not
considered holy, as it is in some other religions.
On the contrary, it is considered unnatural. The Talmud says that an unmarried

man is constantly thinking of sin. The Talmud tells of a rabbi who was
introduced to a young unmarried rabbi. The older rabbi told the younger one not
to come into his presence again until he was married.
Marriage is not solely, or even primarily, for the purpose of procreation.
Traditional sources recognize that companionship, love, and intimacy
are the primary purposes of marriage, noting that woman was created in Genesis
2,18 because "it is not good for man to be alone", rather than because she was
necessary for procreation.
According to the Torah and the Talmud, a man is permitted to marry more than
one wife, but a woman cannot be married to more than one man at a
time.
Although polygyny was permitted, it was never common. Around

1000 C.E., Ashkenazic Jewry banned polygyny because of pressure from the
predominant Christian culture. It continued to be permitted for Sephardic Jews
in Islamic lands for many years. To the present day, Yemenite and Ethiopian
Jews continue to practice polygyny; however, the modern state of Israel
ordinarily allows only one wife, unless you come to Israel with more than one
wife, in which case you can keep the wives you have but you cannot marry new
ones.
A husband is responsible for providing his wife with food, clothing, and sexual
relations (Exodus 21,10), as well as anything else specified in the ketubah.
Marital sexual relations are the woman's right, not the man's. A man cannot
force his wife to engage in sexual relations with him, nor is he permitted to
abuse his wife in any way (a practice routinely permitted in Christian countries
until quite recently).
A married woman retains ownership of any property she brought to the
marriage, but the husband has the right to manage the property and to enjoy
profits from the property.
Prohibited Marriages and Illegitimate Children

The minimum age for marriage under Jewish law is 13 for boys, 12 for girls;
however, the kiddushin can take place before that, and often did in medieval
times. The Talmud recommends that parents marry off their children when they
reach puberty, but many Jewish communities delay marriage till the age 18, or
83
somewhere between 16 and 24, putting needless physical and mental strain on
Jewish youth and often causing them to sin.
The Torah sets forth a list of prohibited relations. Such marriages are never
valid.
A man cannot marry certain close blood relatives, the ex-wives of certain
close blood relatives, a woman who has not been validly divorced from her
previous husband, the daughter or granddaughter of his ex-wife, or the sister of
his ex-wife during the ex-wife's life time. For a complete list, see 613 Mitzvot
(Commandments).
The offspring of such marriages are mamzerim (bastards, illegitimate), and
subject to a variety of restrictions; however it is important to note that only the
offspring of these incestuous or forbidden marriages are mamzerim. Children
born out of wedlock are not mamzerim in Jewish law and bear no stigma, unless
the marriage would have been prohibited for the reasons above. Children of a
married man and a woman who is not his wife are not mamzerim (because the
marriage between the parents would not have been prohibited), although
children of a married woman and a man who is not her husband are mamzerim
(because she could not have married him).
There are other classes of marriages that are not permitted, but that are valid if
they occur and that do not make the children mamzerim. The marriage of
minors, of a Jew to a non-Jew, and of a kohein to the prohibited classes of
women discussed below fall into this category.
A kohein is not permitted to marry a divorcee, a convert, a promiscuous woman,
a woman who is the offspring of a forbidden marriage to a kohein, or a woman
who is the widow of a man who died childless but who has been released from
the obligation to marry her husband's brother.
A kohein who marries such a woman is disqualified from his duties as a kohein,
as are all the offspring of that marriage.
Divorce
Jewish Attitude Toward Divorce
Judaism recognized the concept of "no-fault" divorce thousands of years
ago. Judaism has always accepted divorce as a fact of life, albeit an unfortunate
one. Judaism generally maintains that it is better for a couple to divorce than to
remain together in a state of constant bitterness and strife.
Under Jewish law, a man can divorce a woman for any reason or no
reason. The Talmud specifically says that a man can divorce a woman because
she spoiled his dinner or simply because he finds another woman more
attractive, and the woman's consent to the divorce is not required. In fact,
Jewish law requires divorce in some circumstances: when the wife commits a
84
sexual transgression, a man must divorce her, even if he is inclined to forgive

her.
This does not mean that Judaism takes divorce lightly. Many aspects of Jewish
law discourage divorce. The procedural details involved in arranging a divorce
are complex and exacting. Except in certain cases of misconduct by the wife, a
man who divorces his wife is required to pay her substantial sums of money, as
specified in the ketubah (marriage contract). In addition, Jewish law prohibits a
man from remarrying his ex-wife after she has married another
man. Kohanim cannot marry divorcees at all.
The Process of Obtaining a Divorce
According to the Torah, divorce is accomplished simply by writing a bill of
divorce, handing it to the wife, and sending her away.
To prevent husbands from divorcing their wives recklessly or without proper

consideration, the rabbis created complex rules regarding the process of writing
the document, delivery, and acceptance. A competent rabbinical authority
should be consulted for any divorce.
The document in question is referred to in the Talmud as a sefer k'ritut (scroll of
cutting off), but it is more commonly known today as a get. The get is not
phrased in negative terms. The traditional text does not emphasize the
breakdown of the relationship, nor does it specify the reason for the divorce;
rather, it states that the woman is now free to marry another man.
It is not necessary for a husband to personally hand the get to the wife.
If it is not possible or desirable for the couple to meet, a messenger may be

appointed to deliver the get.
It is important to note that a civil divorce is not sufficient to dissolve a Jewish
marriage.
As far as Jewish law is concerned, a couple remains married until the

woman receives the get.
This has been a significant problem: many liberal Jews have a religiously valid
marriage, yet do not obtain a religiously valid divorce.
If the woman remarries after such a procedure, her second marriage is

considered an adulterous one, and her children are considered mamzerim
(illegitimate children that are almost completely barred from normal marriage;
see Deuteronomy 23,3 and note that "bastard" is not properly the word here, as
it matters not if the child's parents are legally married or not).
Inequality of the Sexes

The position of husband and wife with regard to divorce is not an equal
one.
85
According to the Torah, only the husband can initiate a divorce, and the wife
cannot prevent him from divorcing her. Later "rabbinical" authorities in Europe
tried to take steps to ease the harshness of these rules by prohibiting a man from
divorcing a woman without her consent, but the Torah remains as it was.
A rabbinical court can, however, compel a husband to divorce his wife under
certain circumstances: when he is physically repulsive because of some medical
condition or other characteristic, or when he violates or neglects his marital
obligations (food, clothing, and sexual intercourse).
A grave problem arises, however, if a man disappears or deserts his wife, or is
presumed dead but there is insufficient proof of death.
Divorce can only be initiated by the man; thus, if the husband cannot be found,
he cannot be compelled to divorce the wife and she cannot marry another man.
A woman in this situation is referred to as an "agunah" (literally, anchored). The
rabbis have agonized over this problem, balancing the need to allow the woman
to remarry with the risk of an adulterous marriage (mentioned at the end of the
previous section) if the husband reappeared. No definitive solution to this
problem exists.
To prevent this problem to some extent, it is customary in many places for a
man to give his wife a conditional get whenever he goes off to war, so that if he
never comes home and his body is not found, his wife does not become agunah.
SUMMARY
What is marriage?
- The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man
and woman for life.
- A marriage is regarded as a holy covenant between the bride and groom hence it
is sacrosanct.
Background of marriage
- It is evident from Bible history that monogamy was the original law of marriage.
- It seems to have been the practice from the beginning for fathers to select wives
for their sons (Gen_24:3; Gen_38:6).
- Sometimes also proposals were initiated by the father of the maiden (Exo_2:21).
- The brothers of the maiden were also sometimes consulted (Gen_24:51;
Gen_34:11), but her own consent was not required. The young man was bound to
give a price to the father of the maiden (Gen_31:15; Gen_34:12; Exo_22:16,
Exo_22:17; 1Sa_18:23, 1Sa_18:25; Rth_4:10; Hos_3:2) On these patriarchal
customs the Mosaic law made no change.
Nature of Marriage in Judaism

- Marriage is vitally important in Judaism. Refraining from marriage is not
considered holy. On the contrary, it is considered unnatural. The Talmud says that
an unmarried man is constantly thinking of sin.
- The minimum age for marriage under Jewish law is 13 for boys, 12 for girls.
- Traditional sources recognize that companionship, love and intimacy are the
86
primary purposes of marriage, noting that woman was created in Gen. 2:18 because
"it is not good for man to be alone," rather than because she was necessary for
procreation.
- According to the Torah and the Talmud, a man was permitted to marry more than
one wife, but a woman could not marry more than one man. Although polygyny
was permitted, it was never common.
- A married woman retains ownership of any property she brought to the marriage,
but the husband has the right to manage the property and to enjoy profits from the
property.
Dating and Relationship

- Judaism teaches that in dating, one should look for a person with good character,
humility, a desire to grow, and warmth. Additionally, there should be mutual
attraction.
- In Judaism, dating & relationships are the path toward the goal of love and
marriage.
Defining who you are and avoiding touching during dating help the process.
The process of marriage

- The process of marriage occurs in two distinct stages: ‘kiddushin’ (commonly
translated as betrothal) and ‘nisuin’ (full-fledged marriage).
- Kiddushin occurs when the woman accepts the money, contract or sexual
relations offered by the prospective husband. The word "kiddushin" means
"sanctified." It reflects the sanctity of the marital relation.
- However, the root word also connotes something that is set aside for a specific
(sacred) purpose, and the ritual of kiddushin sets aside the woman to be the wife of
a particular man and no other.
- Kiddushin is far more binding than an engagement as we understand the term in modern
English. Once kiddushin is complete, the woman is legally the wife of the man. The
relationship created by kiddushin can only be dissolved by death or divorce.
- However, the spouses do not live together at the time of the kiddushin, and the mutual
obligations created by the marital relationship do not take effect until the nisuin is
complete.
The Nisuin (elevation)
- The nisuin (from a word meaning "elevation") completes the process of marriage. The
husband brings the wife into his home and they begin their married life together.
- In the past, the kiddushin and nisuin would routinely occur as much as a year apart.
During that time, the husband would prepare a home for the new family.
- There was always a risk that during this long period of separation, the woman would
discover that she wanted to marry another man, or the man would disappear, leaving
the woman in the awkward state of being married but without a husband. Today, the
two ceremonies are normally performed together.
Celebrating a Jewish Wedding
- The husband signs a ‘ketubah’ (marriage contract) promising to cherish and care for his
wife. The ketubah is also called the marriage contract. The marriage contract (ketubah)
is drawn up and witnessed by two Jews neither of whom may be related to the bride or
groom. The ketubah spells out the husband's obligations to the wife during marriage,
conditions of inheritance upon his death, and obligations regarding the support of
children of the marriage.
- The ketubah also provides for the wife's support in the event of divorce. There are
87
standard conditions; however, additional conditions can be included by mutual

agreement. The majority maintained that a ketubah discouraged divorce, by serving as
a constant reminder of the husband's substantial financial obligations if he divorced his
wife.
- At the wedding canopy (chuppah), many have the custom that the bride circles the
groom seven times.
Wedding celebrations
- It is customary for the bride and groom not to see each other for a week preceding the
wedding. The day before the wedding, both the bride and the groom fast.
- Before the ceremony, the bride is veiled, in remembrance of the fact that Rebecca veiled
her face when she was first brought to Isaac to be his wife.
- Subsequently, the groom gives his bride a ring, a glass is broken, and then the dancing
and celebrations begin. The ceremony itself lasts 20-30 minutes, and consists of the
kiddushin and the nisuin.
- For the kiddushin, the bride approaches and circles the groom. Two blessings are recited
over wine: one the standard blessing over wine and the other regarding the
commandments related to marriage. The man then places the ring on woman's finger
and says "Be sanctified to me with this ring in accordance with the law of Moses and
Israel."
- After the kiddushin is complete, the ketubah is read aloud.
- The nisuin then proceeds. The bride and groom stand beneath the chuppah, a canopy
held up by four poles, symbolic of their dwelling together and of the husband's bringing
the wife into his home.
- The importance of the chuppah is so great that the wedding ceremony is sometimes
referred to as the chuppah. The bride and groom recite seven blessings in the presence of a
minyan (prayer quorum of 10 adult Jewish men). The essence of each of the seven
blessings is:
1. ... who has created everything for his glory
2. ... who fashioned the Man
3. ... who fashioned the Man in His image ...
4. ... who gladdens Zion through her children
5. ... who gladdens groom and bride
6. ... who created joy and gladness ... who gladdens the groom with the bride
7. and the standard prayer over wine.
- The couple then drinks the wine. The groom smashes a glass (or a small symbolic piece
of glass) with his right foot, to symbolize the destruction of the Temple.
- The couple then retires briefly to a completely private room, symbolic of the groom
bringing the wife into his home.
- This is followed by a festive meal, which is followed by a repetition of the sheva
brakhos. Exuberant music and dancing traditionally accompany the ceremony and the
reception.
DEATH AND RELATED BELIEFS IN JUDAISM

OBJECTIVES
Explain how death is perceived in Judaism.
Compare perceptions of death in in other religions.
Concept of Death
In Judaism, death is not a tragedy, even when it occurs early in life or through
unfortunate circumstances. Death is a natural process. Death has a meaning and it’s all part of
God's plan.
88
In Judaism they share a firm belief in an afterlife, a world to come, where those who have
lived a worthy life will be rewarded.
Judaism views this life as a corridor that leads to another existence. The belief in an
afterlife – where a person is judged and where the soul continues to flourish – is a
cornerstone of Jewish thought.
Mourning practices in Judaism are extensive, but they are not an expression of fear or
distaste for death. Jewish practices relating to death and mourning have two purposes: to
show respect for the dead and to comfort the living who will miss the decease (respect &
honour the mourner).
Death and Burial Practices

Burial requirements for Jews are quite specific:
1. As soon as possible following death and through to burial, the body should be guarded by
somebody of the same gender who is Jewish;
2. With rare exceptions (such as the Sabbath, certain religious holidays or awaiting arrival of
dignitaries), burial must be accomplished by sundown of the following day. Burial must take
place as soon as possible following death. To delay burial is permissible only for the honour
of the deceased, such as awaiting the arrival of close relatives from distant points or if the
Sabbath or a holy day intervenes.
3. The body must be properly washed and dressed in prescribed burial attire by Jewish
community members who are certified in those procedures, and other Jews cannot touch the
body;
4. A plain wooden coffin held together with wooden pegs (i.e. no nails/screws) must be used;
5. Burial must be in Jewish owned ground (e.g. a Jewish cemetery);
6. The burial service has its own specific liturgy and procedures that must be conducted by
somebody who is Jewish and qualified to perform them, preferably a rabbi; and
7. Personal behaviour in the room of the deceased should be consonant with the highest
degree of respect.
8. Generally, the best way to handle the death of somebody who is actually Jewish
is to immediately contact a Jewish chaplain or local synagogue.
9. Cremation is forbidden.
10. Caring for the dead, preparing them for burial, watching over them, and
participating in the burial are all important religious tasks.
11. Tearing a garment is the religiously proper way to express grief for the dead.
Pre-Burial & Burial Rituals in Judaism

1. Rending of the Garments ("Keriah"). First-degree relatives (i.e., the children,
siblings, spouse and parents of the deceased) are obligated to express their pain and
sorrow by tearing their clothes over their hearts. This is usually done at the
beginning of the funeral service.
2. Body Cleansing (‘Taharah’). This is a ritual cleansing process in which the
body is cleaned and groomed, and water is ritually poured over it. The cleansing is
an acknowledgement of the life which once resided in the body. The body of the
deceased is ritually purified in preparation for this next phase of its existence. After
the purification, the deceased is dressed in special
white clothes (called tachrichim), signifying purity and holiness.
3. The Eulogy ("Hesped") involves: a) speaking of the good that the deceased
was and did, so we should feel the extent of our loss) "let the living take to heart"
89
(Ecclesiastes 7:2)—the lessons we should learn from the deceased and emulate
in our lives. These words may be spoken by the officiating rabbi and/or anyone
who knew the person.
4. Escorting the Deceased ("Lavayah") - Traditionally the coffin or bier was
carried on the shoulders all the way to the cemetery. The family and community
would follow in a procession to accord honor and comfort to the deceased.
The Hebrew word levayah also indicates "joining" and "bonding." Both the living
and the deceased remain bonded living souls despite death. By participating in
the levayah Jewish people provide comfort to the soul as it undergoes the very
difficult transition from one life to
another.
5. The Chevra Kadisha (Holy Society). Every Jewish community has a Chevra
Kadishah i.e., "Holy Society" of dedicated men and women who are committed to
ensuring that every Jew who passes on is accorded a proper Jewish burial. The
preparation and interment (burial) of the body should be entrusted to the local
Chevra Kadishah. They will conduct the Taharah (cleansing of the body), dress
the deceased in the tachrichim, and otherwise ensure that the burial is conducted in
accordance with Jewish tradition.
6. Jewish Burial ("Kevurah"). A Jew should be buried only among fellow
Jews, in a Jewish cemetery. Jewish tradition regards it as a matter of great
importance that only fellow Jews should handle the body of a deceased Jew, carry
or wheel the coffin, place the coffin in the earth and fill in the grave.
The body is returned to the earth that is its source. This is the Jewish final act of caring, and it
is considered a great mitzvah to physically participate in the burial. Ideally, the whole grave
should be filled in, by hand, by fellow Jews. Where this is not possible, at least the coffin
should be completely covered with earth.
Jewish Phases of Mourning or Mourning Rites
There are five stages to the mourning process:
1) Aninut, pre-burial mourning.
2-3) Shivah, a seven-day period following the burial; within the Shivah, the first three days
are characterized by a more intense degree of mourning.
4) Shloshim, the 30-day mourning period.
5) The First Year (observed only by the children of the deceased).
Who Mourns:
The laws of mourning described below mainly applies to the first seven close relatives of the
deceased: son or daughter, brother or sister, father or mother, and spouse (husband or wife).
The other relatives and friends form the more outer circle of mourning, offer support and
comfort to the primary mourners.
Jewish mourning practices can be broken into several periods of decreasing intensity.
These mourning periods allow the full expression of grief, while discouraging excesses of
grief and allowing the mourner to gradually return to a normal life.
1. Initial Expression (Keriyah)
When a close relative (parent, sibling, spouse or child) first hears of the death of a
relative, it is traditional to express the initial grief by tearing one's clothing. The tear is made
over the heart if the deceased is a parent, or over the right side of the chest for other relatives.
This tearing of the clothing is referred to as keriyah (i.e. "tearing"). The mourner recites the
blessing describing God as "the true Judge," an acceptance of God's taking of the life of a
relative.
2. Aninut (Intense grief and mourning):
The first, most intense period of mourning is the period between the death and the
90
burial. This period, called aninut, is characterized by a distressing paralyzing grief.

During this period, the closest relatives are mainly concerned with the funeral and burial
arrangements such that they are absolved (excused) by Torah law from the observance of all
mitzvot requiring action (praying, sacrifices etc.). During this time, the mourners are exempt
from all positive commandments ("thou shalts"), because the preparations take first priority.
This period usually lasts a day or two; Judaism requires prompt burial.
At this point it is not allowed to comfort the mourner during the time that his
deceased is not yet buried. It is because the grief is too intense for any effort at
consolation.
It is a time to simply be with the mourner and offer practical assistance, rather than
words of consolation. It is a time of silence, not words.
During this aninut period, the family should be left alone and allowed the full
expression of grief. Condolence calls or visits should not be made during this time.
3. The Shivah (comfort and consolation)
The next period of mourning is known as shivah (seven, because it lasts seven
days). Shivah is observed by parents, children, spouses and siblings of the
deceased, preferably all together in the deceased's home.
Shiva begins on the day of burial and continues until the morning of the
seventh day after burial.
The distinguishing feature of the Shivah is that the mourners take an almost
complete break from the routines and involvements of everyday life to focus
exclusively on the memory of the departed and the manner in which they will
honour him or her in their lives, and receive consolation from their extended
family, friends, and the community.
The basic practices of the Shivah are as follows:
a. Condolence Meal (se’udat havra’ah): When the mourners arrive home from
the cemetery following the burial, they are given a special meal of condolence
traditionally, ring shaped bread and hard-boiled eggs, whose round shape is
symbolic of the cycle of life.
After the burial, a close relative, near neighbour or friend prepares the first meal
for the mourners, the meal of condolence. The meal is for the family only, not for
visitors. After this time, condolence calls are permitted.
b. The House of Mourning (Shivah week): For the entire week of the Shivah, the
mourners remain in the house of mourning, and their relatives, friends and
members of the community come to fulfil the mitzvah of consoling the mourner
and participate in prayers,
Torah study, the giving of charity and other mitzvot performed in the merit of the
departed.
A mourner recites a special prayer called Kaddish at every daily service for a
period of 11 months. Kaddish is recited only in the presence of a quorum of 10
Jewish males over the age of 13.
It is best to do shivah in the home of the deceased, so that the prayers and good
deeds performed in his or her merit take place in his or her "place" and
environment.
c. Working and Conducting Business: One of the most fundamental laws of
Jewish mourning (over three thousand years old, and later recorded by the prophet
Ezekiel), is the prohibition of working and doing business during Shivah.
d. Consoling the Bereaved (making a "Shivah Call"): It is a great mitzvah to
console the bereaved. This is done by visiting the mourner in the house of
91
mourning during Shivah, talking about the life and deeds of the person being
mourned, participating in the prayers and other activities done in merit of the
departed, or simply being there for the mourner.
Before leaving, the visitors extend the traditional words of consolation to the
mourners: "May God comfort you, together with all mourners of Zion and
Jerusalem."
Mourners are there to be supportive, to visit, to listen, but not to place a burden by
expecting false joy and plastic smiles from the bereaved. No mourner should, God
forbid, feel obliged to put on a "nice face" for others.
d. Daily Minyan. A minyan (prayer quorum/group) should gather for the three
daily prayers in the house of mourning, so that the mourners can participate in a
communal prayer service and recite the Kaddish. A Torah Scroll should be
borrowed, for use on days on which the Torah is read. If no minyan can be
assembled, the mourners should leave the house of mourning to attend services
with the congregation.
e. Memorial Candles. Candles should be kindled in the house of mourning in
memory of the deceased, as attesting or testifying to the presence of the "candle of
G-d [that is] the soul of man" (Proverbs 20:27).
The candles are kindled upon returning from the cemetery and kept burning for the
entire seven-day period of Shiva.
According to the Kabbalah, five candles should be lit, representing the five levels
of the soul. (Special Shivah candles are usually provided by the funeral director.)
f. Covering the Mirrors. It is a time-honoured tradition to cover the mirrors and
pictures in the house of mourning from the moment of death to the end of Shivah.
While the custom is of uncertain origin, its practice is appropriate to the pattern of
mourning (see "Leather Shoes" below).
g. "Sitting" Shivah: It is an ancient Jewish tradition that mourners, during Shivah,
do not sit upon chairs of normal height, but rather on low stools.
h. Leather Shoes: The mourner forgoes the comfort of leather shoes during
Shivah. The less quality shoes of bereavement are symbolic of a disregard of
vanity and comfort in order to better to concentrate on the deeper meaning of life.
i. Grooming: The mourner does not shave or cut his hair, nor does he bathe or
shower for pleasure, during Shivah.
Laundering or wearing freshly laundered clothes is also proscribed (prohibited), as
is the acquisition or wearing of new clothes (if the only clothes available are soiled,
they may be washed).
The mourner wears the torn garment on which he or she performed the k'riah
throughout the Shivah.
j. Marital Relations: Mourners refrain from marital relations during Shivah.
k. Music or Entertainment: Mourners do not enjoy the sound of music, or any
other forms of amusement or entertainment.
l. Torah Study: The study of Torah is not permitted during Shivah, for it is
considered a source of profound delight. As the Bible itself expresses it, "The laws
of God are righteous and rejoice the heart." However, the mourner is permitted to
read the laws of mourning and study books on ethical behaviour and other parts of
Torah that are of a non-joyous nature.
m. Shabbat: During Shabbat (Sabbath), all public displays of mourning are
suspended.
Shortly before the holy day begins, the mourners bathe and put on their Shabbat
clothes.
92
On Shabbat, they may also leave the house of mourning to attend services and
recite the Kaddish in the synagogue.
n. "Getting Up" from the Shivah. Shivah ends on the morning of the seventh day
after burial (with the day of the burial counting as the first day), immediately
following the morning service. Those present extend condolences, and the
mourners rise from their week of mourning to resume the normalcy of everyday
life.
D. The Sheloshim (30 day) and the First Year:
Even as the mourner resumes his or her everyday routine after the Shivah, certain
mourning practices, such as not purchasing or wearing new clothes, cutting one's
hair, enjoying music or other form of entertainment, and participating in joyous
events (weddings, etc.), are continued for a period of thirty days (beginning from
the day of the burial).
In the case of a person mourning the passing of a parent, these mourning practices
extend for a full year. (Regarding the cutting of the hair, the law provides for the
principle of "social reproach." This means that those in mourning for a parent may
cut their hair after 30 days at the first instance of even mild reproach or criticism
by friends or neighbours. Immediately after this social reproach, the mourner is
permitted to take a haircut.)
E. Death Anniversary (Yahrzeit). Yahrzeit refers to the anniversary of the day
of death according to the Jewish calendar. Loved ones light a special memorial
candle on the eve of the Yahrzeit, to burn undisturbed for 24 hours. These candles
are available from appropriate vendors. Yahrzeit candles can be lit only in the
Chapel area, not in the housing units.
It is a day set aside to contemplate the quality and lifestyle of the deceased, and to
attempt to emulate the deceased’s finer qualities.
Yahrzeit is particularly suited for personal fasting, giving charity, performing acts
of kindness, praying, and studying Torah. It may be observed for any relative or
friend, although the observance is meant primarily for parents.
CONCEPT OF HEALTH AND WELL-BEING IN JUDAISM

Traditional Jewish thought suggests that we must keep our bodies well for the sake
of spiritual pursuits and in order to fulfill mitzvot, commandments.
Various practices outlined in the Torah, Maimonides and Talmud that have
health advantages. Jewish dietary laws are not laid down as health laws, but
religious laws, even though many of them have a role in illness prevention.
The one commentator who provided more advice on these matters than any
other was Maimonides, also known as The Rambam (1135-1204). The Rambam's
fourth chapter is devoted almost entirely to health issues. The Torah enjoins us to
care for our health, then the Rambam elaborates on what he considers a healthy
lifestyle.
Maimonides said 800 years ago in the Mishna Torah that one should only eat
until one's stomach is three quarters full. Eating to excess, and high cholesterol
foods are unhealthy regardless of whether they are kosher or not.
Rambam's recommendations;
[1] Having a healthy and whole body is integral to Divine service. It is impossible
to understand or know anything (about the Creator) when one is sick, one must stay
93
far from things which destroy the body and familiarise himself to things which
preserve one's health.
One should eat only when he is hungry and drink only when he's thirsty. He also
should not delay urination or defecation i.e. 'he should not delay his holes') even
one minute.
Rather, whenever one needs to urinate or defecate, he should go immediately.
[2] One should not eat until his stomach is full but should rather eat around a
quarter less than his fill.
One should not drink water during his meal, but only a little mixed with wine. And
when his food begins to be digested in his innards (intestines) he should drink that
which he needs.
And one should not drink excessively even when his food is digested. One should
not eat until he checks himself well that he doesn't need the
bathroom.
One should not eat until he has first walked before his meal until his body begins to
warm.
Alternatively, he should do work or tire himself in some other way. The rule of the
matter is that one should exert (or 'afflict') his body and tire himself the entire
morning until his body begins to warm.
He should then relax a little until he recovers and then eat. If he bathes in warm water after
his exertion, that is good. He should then wait a little and eat.
[3] Whenever a person eats he should sit in his place or lean on his left [side]. The
Talmud considered it essential that people lean on their left side rather than their right in
order to ensure their food would go down the correct passageway.
A person should not walk, ride, exert himself, shake/agitate his body, or stroll until his food is
consumed. Anyone who strolls or exerts himself after his meal [risks] bringing upon himself
serious illness.
[4] A day and night together lasts 24 hours. It is sufficient that a person sleeps one third of
that time, which is eight hours. It should be at the end of the night so that there will be from
the beginning of his sleep till sunrise eight hours. One will then be found to rise from his bed
before sunrise.
[5] A person should not sleep on his front ('face') or his back ('the back of his neck'), but
rather on his side, at the start of the night on his left side and at the end on his right.
He should not sleep right after eating, but should wait three or four hours. One should not
sleep during the day.
[6] Foods which loosen the bowels, such as grapes, figs, berries, pears, melons, the
insides of gourds and the insides of cucumbers, one should eat at the start of his meal.
He should not mix them with his food, but should wait a bit till they leave his upper stomach
and then eat his food. And foods which tighten the bowels e.g. apples, one should eat right
after his meal. He should not consume them in too large quantities.
[7] If a person wants to eat chicken and meat together, he should eat the chicken first.
Likewise regarding eggs and chicken, he should eat the eggs first. Meat of small
animals (sheep and goat) and large animals (cattle): he should eat the small animals
first. One should always begin with the lighter food and finish with the heavier.
[8] In the summer a person should eat cold foods, should not spice his food too heavily (lit.,
'should not increase [his intake of] spices'), and should consume vinegar. During the rainy
season a person should eat hot foods, increase his [intake of] spices, and eat a little mustard.
Causes of illness in Judaism
94
Sickness was a result of evil spirits attacks. Psalm 91 mentions ‘plague’ and
‘pestilence’ attacking victims, Leviticus 16 describes Azalel as a desert demon to
whom the high priest annually sends the sins of Israel on the Feast of Yom Kippur.
or that God sent sickness as a punishment Ps 39:10-11.
A person must refrain from actions that cause illness and instead work on
leading a healthy life. Thus, excessive drinking, smoking, the abuse of drugs, or the
eating of harmful foods are forbidden. A Jew must aggressively pursue medical
treatment when ill.
Drinking Contaminated Water - In public health, it was forbidden to drink
water which flowed through a filthy place.
Consuming wrong kinds of food - Jefferson posits that among Jews there are
three categories of food namely, kosher, that is, permitted food; trefah, that is,
forbidden foods and kashrut, that is, foods not eaten at all. It is the responsibility of
a Jewish housewife to safeguard the religious purity of the home and to make sure
that the food eaten is Kosher (clean according to Jewish dietary laws).
Contaminated food - Jews were also directed to prepare foods that were fresh
and clean, and not to live in a town where there were no vegetable gardens.
Unhygienic practices - Cleanliness, bathing, proper nutrition and isolation of
infected patients was advised.
The Talmudists recognized that unhygienic conditions, dampness and
insufficient sunshine were major factors contributing to illness.
Eating of unripened fruit was also declared a health hazard.
The Rambam even dealt with the matter of constipation and holding back
bowel movement, a practice which he considered unhealthy.
Kashrut: Jewish Dietary Laws
Kashrut is the body of Jewish law dealing with what foods we can and cannot eat
and how those foods must be prepared and eaten. "Kashrut" comes from the
Hebrew root Kaf-Shin-Resh, meaning fit, proper or correct. It is the same root as
the more commonly known word "kosher," which describes food that meets these
standards. The word "kosher" can also be used, and often is used, to describe ritual
2. Of the animals that may be eaten, the birds and mammals must be killed in
accordance with Jewish law.
3. All blood must be drained from the meat or broiled out of it before it is
eaten.
4. Certain parts of permitted animals may not be eaten.
5. Meat (the flesh of birds and mammals) cannot be eaten with dairy. Fish, objects
that are made in accordance with Jewish law and are fit for ritual use.
General Rules
Although the details of kashrut are extensive, the laws all derive from a few fairly
simple, straightforward rules:
1. Certain animals may not be eaten at all. This restriction includes the flesh,
organs, eggs and milk of the forbidden animals. eggs, fruits, vegetables and grains
can be eaten with either meat or dairy.
(According to some views, fish may not be eaten with meat).
6. Utensils that have come into contact with meat may not be used with dairy,
and vice versa. Utensils that have come into contact with non-kosher food
may not be used with kosher food. This applies only where the contact occurred
95
while the food was hot.

7. Grape products made by non-Jews may not be eaten.
What Foods Are Kosher?
■ All fresh vegetables and fruits are kosher.
■ Only meats derived from split-hoofed and cud-chewing animals qualify. In
effect, this excludes beasts of prey, swine, insects, rodents, and reptiles.
■ Among fish and seafood, only those with fins and scales are kosher. This
eliminates shellfish – lobsters, shrimp, oysters, clams, mussels, scallops, etc.
■ Birds designated by the Torah as kosher are chicken, turkey, and ducks.
■ Birds of prey, such as eagles, vultures, falcons, hawks, and owls, are forbidden.
■ Insects are forbidden. It is traditional to examine fresh fruits and vegetables for
insects before serving.
Healing
For wounds and external sores, they had many useful remedies which
including the famed balm of Gilead that Jeremiah mentions in his oracles Jeh 8:22.
For most of the illnesses, one might get help from a doctor, but the primary
source of healing would be God. Doctors were accepted in Judaism but the
ultimate power over life, sickness, and death lies in the hands of Yahweh.
The Psalms are filled with reference to the suffering of the individual who
seeks God’s healing Ps 32, 38, 88, 99 and the prayer of Hezekiah in Isaiah 38.
They resorted to prayer, begging God for mercy and healing e.g. Abraham
Gen 20, Moses prayed for Miriam Nu 12, Elisha and Naaman 2Kings 5.
Old age was seen as a time of failing strength with loss of eyesight, inability to
eat, and growing weaknesses.
SICKNESS AND HEALING

Judaism believes that matters of illness and healing are interconnected to the body,
mind and the spirit.
Types of diseases common in the Jewish Community, fevers of several kinds,
dysentery, leprosy, intestinal worms, plague, nervous diseases such as paralysis
and epilepsy, insanity, ophthalmia, and skin diseases are among the commonest
and will be described under their several names.
Scabs and boils
Sickness as result of physical injury e.g. 1 kings 1;2
Sore disease attacking the knees and legs Dt 28;35.
Headaches or sunstroke disease such as the one which affected the widows’
son in the days of Elisha 2 Kings 4:19
Bites and stings of poisonous reptiles Numbers 21;6
Disease of the intestines or bowels 2 Ch_21:18, 2Ch_21:19,
Sickness as a curse for disobeying the law of God given to Moses, Dt 28:58ff
Plague of leprosy was sent from God according to the Levitical Code of
priesthood Lev 14:33ff
Diseases sent from god as judgements Ps 107:17, Isa 3;17 David’s child
2Sa_12:15, upon Gehazi 2Ki_5:27, Upon Jeroboam 2Ch_13:20, Upon Jehoram
2Ch_21:12-19,
Upon Uzziah, 2Ch_26:17-20
Threatened as judgments, Lev_26:16; Deu_7:15; Deu_28:22; Deu_28:27-
28; Deu_28:35; Deu_29:22
96
To the pious Jew at all times God was the healer (Deu_32:39):
Healing of: From God
Exo_15:26; Exo_23:25; Deu_7:15; 2Ch_16:12; Psa_103:3; Psa_107:20
In answer to prayer: Of Hezekiah
2Ki_20:1-11; Isa_38:1-8, prayer of David Psa_21:4; Psa_116:3-8
Physicians employed for
2Ch_16:12; Jer_8:22;
Use of ointment Isa 1:6, Jer 8;22, 2 Kx 20;7
Being cheerful Prov 17:22,
WOMEN IN JUDAISM
Status of women in Judaism
The role of women in Judaism is determined by the Hebrew Bible, the Oral Law
(the corpus of rabbinic literature), by custom, and by non-religious cultural
factors. Although the Hebrew Bible and rabbinic literature mention various female
role models, religious law treats women differently in various circumstances.
The Old Testament presents both negative and positive images of women.
Negative Presentation of Women

J. R. Wegner asserts that in the study of Jewish writings, “we discover a system in
which woman's cultural image, social function and legal status combine to
perpetuate patriarchal norms that had already governed Jewish and surrounding
cultures for many centuries”.
The Old Testament Jewish writings portray a negative attitude towards woman.
Relatively few women are mentioned in the Bible by name and role, suggesting
that they were rarely in the forefront of public life.
1. Women as Temptresses (Gen 3) - The story of the fall of humankind in
Genesis 3 records that Eve, the wife of Adam and the first woman on earth, is the
temptress and originator of evil in the world. Eve is viewed as the one who
brings sin into the world, but Adam, who is equally guilty of disobeying the
command which he receives directly from God, is never blamed for the fall of
humankind and subsequent evils in the world. Eve is the source of all evils, the
originator of sin in the world.
This negative understanding of the woman, particularly Eve, is presented in the
words of some prominent male scholars. The presentation of Eve as temptress
reflects the anti-female bias of Israelite men, including the Old Testament writers.
2. Women as harlots – a negative sexist language portrays women as ‘harlots’ or
‘concubines’
Proverbs 1-9. R.L Huni states that, the Hebrew terms for harlotry (zenuth) and
harlot (zonah) only refer to females. There is no male term for harlot in Hebrew.
This shows the negative male attitude towards female sexuality. “Harlotry” cannot
be played by women alone without men, but men are never described as harlots.
Women alone cannot commit adultery without men.
Hosea a man of God married Gomer a harlot but he is presented in a positive sense
unlike Gomer (Hosea 1-3).
3. Solomon is portrayed having 700 wives and 300 concubines but was never
blamed. Rather it’s the wives who are portrayed in a negative sense and given the
blame for turning away the heart of Solomon from the true God.
4. The Uncleanliness of Motherhood and Menstrual taboo - the disqualification
97
of female persons from sacred activities at cultic centres stamps women as a

separate and cultically inferior entity.
women’s regular menstrual periods are regarded as `unclean’ rather than a
blessing. Their `unclean period’ lasts for seven days and everything they touch
becomes unclean; women remain ‘unclean’ until they are purified (Lev 12:2, Lev
12:5, Lev.15:19ff).
5. Bareness as a curse - Even when a woman is unfortunate to become barren, she
is considered as cursed by God. Sarah one of the great matriarch was barren such
that she was scorned by her maidservant Gen 11:30, Isaac had to intercede for
Rebekah for the Lord to remove the curse of barrenness Gen 25:21. Gen. 29:31 -
30:24 among the wives of Jacob,
Rachel the sister to Leah was also barren. See the story of Hannah and Peninnah 1
Samuel 1-2.
6. The case laws in the Pentateuch also treats barrenness as a curse from God Ex
23:26 and Dt 7:14. The barren man is not held in low esteem in the Jewish society.
7. Low status of woman as a sexual chattel. The Jewish women were treated as
chattels that is a form of property that can be transferred, inherited and assigned a
price.
- The Jewish Mishnah divides women into two opposing categories: 1. dependent
and 2. autonomous. Each of these classes, in turn, breaks down into three
subclasses defined by who has control of the women's sexual and reproductive
function.
- Dependant women include, the minor daughter, wife and levirate widow. Each
woman is legally controlled by the man who owns the sole right to use or profit
from her biological function: her father, husband, or brother-in-law as the case may
be.
- Autonomous women: these are emancipated (i.e., adult unmarried) daughter,
divorcee, and regular widow. (In their legal entitlements and obligations, these
three subgroups form
mirror images of their dependent counterparts.)
- For example, the above status is illustrated in cases involving the control of a
woman's sexual and reproductive function. Thus, a minor daughter's marriage
is arranged by her, while an adult daughter negotiates her own. Penalties for the
rape of a minor accrue to her father, but if she is of full age they go to the woman
herself. These distinctions reflect the fact that the minor daughter's biological
function is the legal property of her father while that of an adult daughter belongs
to herself alone. As for wife and divorcee, here too the rules follow ownership of
sexuality.
- A woman's biological function is an economic asset, as a witness of the
formalities for transferring women from one man to another. An Israelite father
technically sells his daughter's virginity for bride-price, although by Mishnaic
times it had become customary to assign the bride-price (Exodus 22: 16ff) to the
bride herself as part of her marriage deed.
- Authority over children - “The man may place his son under the Nazirite vow,
but the woman may not impose the Nazirite vow upon her son ... the man may sell
his daughter, but the woman may not sell her daughter; the man may betroth his
daughter, but the woman may not betroth her daughter.”
- A wife forfeits her marriage settlement if she violates Jewish law or custom, for
instance, by breaking the rules of menstrual separation or by being a "loudmouth"
whose voice can be heard by her neighbours when she speaks inside her house.
98
- The biblical law permits a suspicious husband to divorce his wife without actual
witnesses to her adultery (Numbers 5: 11-31). If he divorces her on suspicion, the
Mishnah requires two witnesses to state that he had warned her to stay away from
the suspected lover otherwise, she retains her right to collect her marriage
settlement, because (like any other Israelite) she may not be deprived of her
property without due process (Deuteronomy 19: 15).
- Laws governing the ‘chained woman’ – the husband’s exclusive ownership of a
wife's sexuality informs the laws governing the "chained woman" whose husband
either has disappeared without trace or refuses to issue her a get (divorce decree). If
such a woman "remarries" without proof of widowhood or divorce, she suffers
huge legal penalties (losing all her rights in the first, genuine marriage as well as
the second one). These penalties apply even where the woman is innocent of moral
wrong.
- Woman’s virginity - Laws concerning the loss of female virginity have no male
equivalent.
The status of a dependant woman

- Divorce cases – the Jewish man has all the leverage to divorce a woman. The
Mishnaic law gives the wife no corresponding power to divorce her husband (a
severe disadvantage that wreaks social havoc for Jewish women to this day).
- The levirate widow, who figures as chattel in the automatic inheritance of her
sexual function by her late husband's brother, has no option unless this man
chooses to release her.
- Property inheritance laws - Women generally did not own property except in
the rare case of inheriting land from a father who didn't bear sons. Even "in such
cases, women would be required to remarry within the tribe so as not to reduce its
land holdings.
- Public prayer meetings - According to John Bowker (theologian), traditionally,
Jewish "men and women pray separately. This goes back to ancient times when
women could go only as far as the second court of the Temple."[4] The reason for
this is so that the men do not gaze at the women (which in itself can be a sin) and
get distracted from their prayers.
- 7. Women in the Talmud - the Talmud also has many negative things to say about
women. Various rabbis at various times describe women as lazy, jealous, vain and
gluttonous, prone to gossip and particularly prone to the occult and witchcraft.
Men are repeatedly advised against associating with women, although this is usually because
of man's lust as it is because of any shortcoming in women. It is worth noting that the Talmud
also has negative things to say about men, frequently describing men as particularly prone to
lust and forbidden sexual desires.
Positive attitudes towards women in Judaism

- One scholar notes that, the role of women in traditional Judaism has been grossly
misrepresented and misunderstood. The position of women is not nearly as lowly as many
modern people think.
- However, despite low status of a woman as a sexual chattel, a Jewish woman has far
higher status in all other aspects of Mishnaic private law. Thus, a wife participates in a
reciprocal arrangement of matrimonial entitlements and obligations, performing specified
household chores and producing a requisite amount of cloth in return for maintenance at a
prescribed standard that befits her social class. The catalogue of spouses' conjugal rights and
duties treats intercourse as primarily the wife's right and the husband's duty.
99
- Property transfer - Another interesting rule preserves the wife's title to property she brings
to the marriage and even her power of sale (though this requires her husband's consent,
because of his legal right to the earnings of her property). Likewise, a husband cannot sell his
wife's property without her consent.
- A wife can appoint agents to transact her business and can act as her husband's agent to
sell his goods.
- She even possesses a right of action against the husband, for she can petition the court to
compel a divorce for specified infringements of her rights. True, the husband alone can
execute the divorce; but the court will endorse draconian measures to secure his compliance.
- Women depended on men economically - men had specific obligations they were required
to perform for their wives. These included the provision of clothing, food, and sexual
relations to their wives.
- Outstanding roles of women in the bible - the Old Testament presents quite a number of
stories of women who stand as role models for the rest of women in society. The Matriarchs
such as Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah, Miriam the prophetess,
Deborah the Judge, Huldah the prophetess, Abigail, who married David, Rahab,
and Esther. In the Biblical account, these women did not meet with opposition for
their positions and public presence.
- According to traditional Judaism, women are endowed with a greater degree of
intellect and reasoning ability (intuition, understanding, intelligence) than men.
The rabbis inferred this from the fact that woman was "built" (Gen. 2:22) rather
than "formed" (Gen. 2:7). It has been said that the matriarchs (Sarah, Rebecca,
Rachel and Leah) were superior to the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) in
prophesy.
- Women did not participate in the idolatry regarding the Golden Calf during the
Exodus period.
1. Role and Status of Miriam
Miriam means ‘prophetess’ or ‘lady’; the name points to Miriam as the sister of the
tribal leader. Miriam saved her brother Moses, Exodus 2:1-10. This well-known
story shows that the survival of the leader of the Exodus, Moses, depended on the
courage and ingenuity of one young woman, his sister Miriam.
The song of Miriam, Exodus 15:20-21 is one of the oldest poetic songs in the Old
Testament. It is an example of a literary material devoted to celebrating military
victories with triumphal poems.
Miriam’s death, Numbers 20:1-2. Miriam died in a waterless place in the
wilderness, but God subsequently caused water to appear there.
2. Deborah - Deborah means a ‘bee’ in Hebrew. It may also mean ‘spirited or
fiery woman’. When attacked, as her story illustrates, she could sting like a bee.
Deborah, a judge of Israel, summoned Barak (Judges 4:1-11, 5:1-18). When war
and oppression come, Deborah acted as a leader of the people. She chose the ablest
military general and told him what he must do.
Deborah is the only woman judge mentioned in the Book of Judges. The people of
her time had no difficulty in accepting her as a judge. The Song of Deborah
(Judges 5) sums up all her victory as the judge of Israel at that time.
Deborah stands out from them for her wisdom, courage and faith in God in
comparison to other male judges.
3. Esther - Esther’s Jewish name is derived from the name of a tree ‘myrtle’ whose
leaves only release some fragrance when they are crushed.
It was only when her people were in danger that her true heroism was unleashed.
100
The story of Esther can be summed up with the following: Vashti was banished,
and Esther became Queen (Esther 1 & 2).
Queen Vashti refused to obey the orders of her husband King Ahasuerus, so he
divorced her and sought a new queen. This new queen was to be the most beautiful
woman in the land.
A young Jewish girl, Esther, was chosen. Her uncle, Mordecai, overheard a plot
against the king, and warned him through Esther.
Esther saved Mordecai from Haman (Esther 3-8:14). Mordecai offended a high
court official, who decided to kill not only Mordecai but all the Jews in the Persian
Empire. Esther pleaded with the king at two banquets she gave. Mordecai was
saved from death, and Haman was punished.
Esther saved the Jewish people of Persia (Esther 8:15-Esther 10).
4. Public religious roles - Women also had a role in ritual life. Women (as well as
men) were required to make a pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem once a year
(men each of the three main festivals if they could) and offer the Passover sacrifice.
They would also do so on special occasions in their lives such as giving a todah
("thanksgiving") offering after childbirth.
Hence, they participated in many of the major public religious roles that non-
Levitical men could, though less often and on a somewhat smaller.
5. respect given to parents in the law - The Ten Commandments require respect
for both mother and father. Note that the father comes first in Ex. 20:12, but the
mother comes first in Lev. 19:3, and many traditional sources point out that this
reversal is intended to show that both parents are equally entitled to honor and
reverence.
6. Jewish rabbis and status of their wives - Many rabbis over the centuries have
been known to consult their wives on matters of Jewish law relating to the woman's
role, such as laws of kashrut and women's cycles. The wife of a rabbi is referred to
as a rebbetzin, practically a title of her own, which should give some idea of her
significance in Jewish life.
7. The Proverbs model woman - Women had the right to buy, sell, and own
property, and make their own contracts, rights which women in Western countries
(including America) did not have until about 100 years ago. In fact, Proverbs
31:10-31, which is read at Jewish weddings, speaks repeatedly of business acumen
(skill or ability) as a trait to be prized in women (v. 11, 13, 16, and 18 especially)
8. Women education - Women are discouraged from pursuing higher education or
religious pursuits, but this seems to be primarily because women who engage in
such pursuits might neglect their primary duties as wives and mothers.
The rabbis are not concerned that women are not spiritual enough; rather, they are
concerned that women might become too spiritually devoted.
5. The autonomous woman's legal status and level of personhood differs from
that of the dependent woman in that she controls every aspect of anything she
finds, unlike the minor daughter or wife, who must turn it over to father or
husband.
While a minor daughter's earnings accrue to her father and those of a wife to her,
an adult daughter may keep whatever she makes.
- The autonomous woman can buy and sell without an obstacle, for no man has a
claim on her property.
- Her vows are not subject to revocation (reversal) by any man. She can bring suit
for damages or for the return of her marriage portion upon widowhood or, for the
101
right to sell part of her marriage portion still in the hands of her husband's heirs, or
for maintenance pending collection of her settlement.
- Despite the rule that women are incompetent as witnesses, the autonomous
woman can even testify to her right to the bride-price of virgins when arranging her
marriage or when recovering her marriage settlement on termination of the
marriage.
- A woman is deemed as competent as a man to swear certain business-related
oaths.
- The most significant power of the autonomous woman is her control over her
sexual reproductive function, which belongs to no man and hence is hers to bestow.
This control enables her to negotiate (either personally or through her selected
agent) with the suitor of her choice.
- For the same reason, the Mishnah points out that a jealous husband cannot
complain of his wife's sexual conduct before betrothal or after divorce, since this
gives him no grounds for putting her to the ordeal nor can he restrict the future
sexual relations of his divorcee.
- As for the autonomous woman, on whom no man has a legal claim, nothing can
ever justify treating her as a legal chattel so long as she chooses to remain
unattached.
- However, despite the above freedoms enjoyed by the autonomous woman in the
private areas., the Rules governing women in public domain are patriarchal in
nature.
- The Mishnah systematically exclude women from the intellectual and spiritual
forums of Mishnaic culture.
Women are exempted from the recitation of specified prayers and the
disqualification of women from leadership roles by applying a rule that persons not
bound by a particular law cannot validly perform it on behalf of persons who are so
obligated.
- Further prohibitions against women, include 1. objections to women's studying
Torah at all and by male fears of female sexuality both as a cause of cultic
pollution and as a distraction from men's serious business of serving God, 2.
women are ultimately barred from leadership roles in synagogue, study house
and courthouse,
3. The Mishnah even prohibits the formation of women's fellowship, thereby
preventing women from engaging together in Torah study. These laws deprive
women of the most intellectually and spiritually rewarding practices of traditional
Judaism.
- Marriage and sexual rights - Women have the right to be consulted with regard
to their marriage. Marital sex is regarded as the woman's right, and not the man's.
Men do not have the right to beat or mistreat their wives.
- Rape cases - In cases of rape, in Judaism a woman is generally presumed not to
have consented to the intercourse, even if she enjoyed it, even if she consented
after the sexual act began and declined a rescue! Traditional Judaism recognizes
that forced sexual relations within the context of marriage are rape and are not
permitted.
- In traditional Judaism, the primary role of a woman is as wife and mother,
keeper of the household.
However, Judaism has great respect for the importance of that role and the spiritual
influence that the woman has over her family.
The Talmud says that when a pious man marries a wicked woman, the man
102
becomes wicked, but when a wicked man marries a pious woman, the man
becomes pious.
- Women and positive commandments - Women are exempted from all positive
commandments ("thou shalts" as opposed to "thou shalt nots") that are time-related
(that is, commandments that must be performed at a specific time of the day or
year), because the woman's duties as wife and mother are so important that they
cannot be postponed to fulfil a commandment. For example a woman cannot be
expected to just drop a crying baby when the time comes to perform a
commandment.
LAND TENURE IN JUDAISM/JUDAISM AND THE LAND QUESTION
The land of Israel is central to Judaism. Land tenure in Judaism refer to the
laws governing ownership and occupation of land.
The idea of Jewish land tenure backdates to the Abrahamic covenant. God’s
covenant with Abraham includes a promise that Abraham’s descendants will
inherit the area from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates. Nonetheless, Israel’s
tenancy in the Land is conditional. the story of Abraham begins when God tells
him to leave his homeland, promising Abraham and his descendants a new home in
the land of Canaan. (Gen. 12).
This is the land now known as Israel, named after Abraham's grandson, whose
descendants are the Jewish people.
The land is often referred to as the Promised Land because of God's repeated
promise (Gen. 12:7, 13:15, 15:18, 17:8) to give the land to the descendants of
Abraham.
The land is described repeatedly in the Torah as a good land and "a land flowing
with milk and honey" (e.g., Ex. 3:8)
M.J.L Staff purports that, The Land is a gift to the Israelites with the provision
that they live up to certain moral and religious standards (Leviticus 18:26). Exile is
threatened if these conditions are not met (Leviticus 26:32).
Summary of the land tenure system in Judaism

Ultimately, the land belonged to Yahweh (Leviticus 25:23) but was owned and
managed by different families within various tribes. God’s ownership of the land
comes to the forefront in the assignment of the sacred dues (taxes) and in the land-
rest regulations (laws).
Every Israelite is required to bring to Yahweh the first-fruits of the harvest and
the tithe of all his produce or income. Voluntary offerings also are required.
Of special interest are the land-rest laws, which are unique to Israel. Every
seventh year and every fiftieth year the Israelites are to allow their land to lie
fallow; and the poor, the strangers, and the animals are to be allowed to eat
whatever voluntary cops appear.
The seventh year is the Sabbath year and the fiftieth the year of jubilee.
Land, once possessed, was regarded as the family heritage, and to be passed
from one generation to the next.
The land could be sold, but not ‘permanently’.
The seller could always redeem or buy back the land he sold Lev 25:23-24.
103
All land not redeemed went back to the original owner at the Jubilee. Land is
to be returned to the person, or his rightful heirs or family, that originally possessed
the land. Lev. 25:10, 13-17, 28, 31, 33-34.
Thus the land was not really sold but rather only leased for a time-the longest
term would be fifty years.
The price of the land sold or lease of land would be according to the number of
years left until the Jubilee.
No taxes appear to have been levied against land. Such taxes could possibly
dispossess a man of his land or inheritance.
The law of God emphasizes restitution for trespasses or damages done to
one's land or crops (Exod. 22:5). If one caused a fire which destroyed another's
property, he must make full restitution for it (Exod. 22:6).
If one becomes poor and is unable to redeem his land, a kinsman of his may
redeem for him what he had sold. Lev. 25:25; Ruth 4:3-4; Jer. 32:7.
If one has no means by which to pay the purchaser of his property the
redemption money, then what was sold shall remain in the hand of him who bought
it until the Year of Jubilee. Lev. 25:28.
Transfer of land to be by signed through a deed in the presence of witnesses.
Jer. 32:8- 12.
Deeds to land are to be preserved as a record. Jer. 32:14.
Silver used to buy land. Gen. 23:13-16; Josh. 24:32; Jer. 32:9.
Do not to remove established landmarks and boundaries. Deut 19:14; Deut
27:17; Job 24:2 Prov. 22:28; Prov. 23:10.
You should take appropriate precautions of any dangerous situation on your
land which might cause damage or injury to other persons or their property.Exod.
21:33-34; Deut 22:8.
Restitution is required for damage done to one's land or crops. Exod. 22:5-6.
Land ownership among the Jewish people

Though the Israelites will reside in the Land, God retains ownership. This is
highlighted in the many agricultural laws commanded to the Israelites in the Torah
e.g.
1. The requirement to leave the corner of one’s field for the poor (pe’ah),
abstain from eating the fruits of a new tree (orlah), and;
2. let the land lie fallow every seventh year (shemitta)–among other similar
laws–all stress God’s right to divvy out produce as God sees fit.
3. Additionally, all sales and transfers of land were revoked in the Jubilee
year, a rule that emphasized that only God has the power to distribute the
Land permanently.
Transference of ownership
As expressed theoretically in the Jewish law of the Old Testament, the only
transference of property in ancient Israel should be through inheritance. Every
Israelite family was allocated a plot of land at the original apportionment, as
epressed in the time of Moses and Joshua (Nm. 26:52–54, 33:54; Jos. 13–22).
It was believed that this ancestral piece of land should remain, if not in the family's
possession, then at least in the possession of the clan.
Thus there really should be no sale of land. Theological justification for this point
of view is given in Leviticus : "But the land must not be sold beyond reclaim, for
the land is Mine; you are but strangers resident with Me" (Lv. 25:23).RSV
104
Quotation.
This view regards God as owner of all property and the Israelites as only temporary
tenants who may not buy or sell land.
The duty of redemption and the institution of the Jubilee year (for both, see below)
tend to corroborate this point of view, as does the complete absence in the Bible of
laws concerning the renting of property.
Sale of land
The violation of the Hebrew law on land tenure was evident in monarchical times
(as can be gathered from Naboth's response to Ahab in 1 Kings 21:3). It is argued
that the very emergence of the monarchy and the growth of the cities led to societal
changes as far as land ownership was concerned.
Because of debt, many small farmers were forced to sell their farms to a new
landed aristocracy.
The situation became so serious that by the time of the eighth century the old
Israelite society based on the small farmer had been destroyed.
This was the situation that attracted the opposition of the prophets who denounced
the various forms of injustice, oppression and land-grabbing practices of the new
aristocracy.
Add RSV Text, For example, Isaiah complains, "Ah, those who add house to house
and join field to field, till there is room for none but you to dwell in the land!" (Is.
5:8). Similarly, Micah condemns those who "covet fields, and seize them; houses
and they take them away. They defraud men of their homes, and people of their
land" (Mi. 2:2).
Contracts of sale of land

The Bible records a number of property transactions, including Jacob's purchase of
land at Shechem (Gn. 33:18–20), David's purchase of the threshing floor from
Araunah (2 Sm. 24:24), Omri's purchase of the hill of Samaria, site of his future
capital, from Shemer (1 Kgs. 16:24), and Boaz's purchase of a field from Naomi
(Ru. 4:9).
Two transactions are recorded in detail: when Abraham purchases the Cave of
Machpelah (Gn. 23:3–20) and when Jeremiah, fulfilling his duty as near kinsman,
redeems (purchases) the land in Anathoth from his impoverished cousin Hanamel
(Jer. 32:6–15).
Redemption of Hereditary Land and the Jubilee Year

In accordance with the principle, expressed above, of the inalienability of land, a
person's patrimony should ideally never be sold.
However, should a man, due to economic straits, have to sell his land, then the law
provides relief for its retrieval in two ways. First, the debtors nearest family
member is given the option of first refusal to the property (redemption).
Second, in the absence of a family redeemer, the property ultimately reverts back
to the debtor in the Jubilee year.
Redemption of land
Among the Israelites, the redemption of property from poverty stricken or poor
family members was regarded as both a moral obligation and as form of social
responsibility. (Lv. 25:25–34).
105
Two examples in the Bible of family members redeeming property (already

mentioned) are Jeremiah redeeming his cousin's field at Anathoth (Jer. 32:6–9) and
Boaz redeeming the field belonging to Naomi (Ru. 4:1–10).
Note that in these cases the land is not restored to the poor kinsman but becomes
the property of the redeemers.
However, under the laws of the Jubilee, the land is restored back to the original
owner.
In both cases, the clan is protected from the alienation (loss) of the i.e. total loss of
the land property.
The law of Jubilee

The law of the Jubilee year is set out in Leviticus 25. It contains three regulations
concerning property;
1. Anybody who is forced to sell ancestral lands may reclaim them every fiftieth
year, pointing to the principle that land cannot be permanently sold (Lv. 25:10,
25:13, 25:28).
2. Because land cannot be permanently sold, what can be sold is the equivalent
value of expected crop yields (Lv. 25:15–16).
As a result every sale of land becomes a kind of lease for a number of years before
the next Jubilee.
3. Town houses, other than those belonging to Levites, are not subject to the
Jubilee law. If they are not redeemed within one year of purchase, then the
seller can never reclaim them (Lv. 25:29–30).
Rights of Inheritance
The norm in ancient Israel was that a man's land property was inherited by his
sons, the firstborn receiving a double share (Dt. 21:15–17). In the event that a man
had no sons, the line of inheritance was transferred through a scale of family
members: from daughters to brothers to uncles and, ultimately, to the nearest
kinsman of the deceased (Nm. 27:8–11).
Rights of daughters to land ownership

According to Numbers 27:1–11, daughters originally were not eligible to inherit
any part of the family estate. Only after the case of the daughters of Zelophehad
was provision made for daughters to inherit on a limited basis: They could inherit
providing the deceased had no sons (Nm. 27:8) and they married within the clan, so
that the patrimony would not be transferred to another tribe (Nm. 36:6–9).
Rights of widows
As already indicated, the line of inheritance in Numbers makes no provision for the
widow, not even for the right of her husband's property.
This omission is usually
explained by the fact that it was passed on to the eldest son, who receives a large
share of the estate, to provide for his mother and the unmarried female members of
the family. It is also pointed out that widows, although not specifically mentioned
in the line of inheritance, were provided with some degree of protection in the laws
concerning the levirate.
The laws of the levirate state that should a man die without leaving a son, the
106
brother of the deceased must marry the widow.

The first child of this marriage is to be considered the heir of the deceased (Dt.
25:6).
By this device, the estate of the deceased would be preserved, because his
inheritance would pass to the child.
However, there are indications that these laws were not widely observed (e.g., in
the story of Judah and Tamar; see Gn. 38), and the penalties for non-observance
were insignificant (Dt. 25:7–10, Ru. 4:7–8).
CANONICAL PROPHETS
THE PROPHETIC BOOK OF AMOS

Introduction
Amos was an 8th century prophet who prophesied during the reigns of Jeroboam II. King of
Israel and Uzziah King of Judah.
He is believed to have written the prophetic book since it bears his name. The prophet
begins his message by attacking foreign nations and then Israel.
In these oracles Amos clearly shows the sovereignty of God over the nations. He condemns
the nation for the sins committed against humanity.
By the end of this unit you should be able to:

 explain the political and economic reasons giving rise to Israel’s prosperity.
 describe the social and religious conditions which emerged as a result of prosperity.
 discuss the identity (place of origin) and profession of Amos.
 explain why Amos became unpopular with the people of his time.
107
 explain why scholars doubt the authenticity of Amos 9v11-15.
 identify the major themes contained in the message of the prophet Amos.
Historical Background to the Books of Amos

In order to understand the message of Amos, the key factor is the reign of Jeroboam II which
lasted up to 746BC.
The Age of Jeroboam II
According to Anderson (1958) the age of Jeroboam II was the one which had economic
prosperity.
Again, Israel’s position improved internally. The political and economic conditions
obtaining gave rise this prosperity which is also known as the golden age.
During this time in history, Israel’s enemies were weak and that gave her a chance to build
her economy politically,
1. Assyria, a major power was busy with internal problems in her empire.
2. Syria, the major enemy of Israel was destroyed by Assyria and was very weak.
3. Judah (Southern Kingdom of Israel) attacked Israel (Northern Kingdom) and

was defeated and became a vassal of Israel. The Israelite Kingdom during
Jeroboam II extended greatly. sIt extended Northwards as far as Hamath and
Southwards as far as Arabah (2Kings 14v23-25) Apart from the political
situation creating room for prosperity there is also the economic aspects.
During Jeroboam II’s reign, Israel established trade conducts with Phoenician merchants.
The commercial activity of Phoenicians was at its Zenith/peak in the Mediterranean worlds.
Bright (1972) states that Israel became rich by controlling trade routes and levies on goods
passing to and from the Mediterranean through Israelite territory, tolls from caravans and
Israel also shared in the profits from the exchange of goods and services.
As if this was not enough, the conquest of the trans-Jordan put Jeroboam II in control of
trade routes from Syria and the commercial highway from Arabia and Samaria became the
centre of trade and a powerful merchant class arose in Samaria.
Douglas (1980) has it that though Jeroboam II had built up a lucrative trade which gave birth
to the emergence of a powerful merchant class in Samaria, there was however an uneven
distribution of wealth and the peasants suffered greatly. The above described situation
ushered Israel into the golden age and this time we find Amos and Hosea entering into the
prophetic scene.
1. Discuss the political and economic reasons which gave rise to the golden age
during Jeroboam II’s reign in Israel.
108
2. Social classes and religious pervasiveness emerged in Israel due to prosperity.

Discuss.
3. How does the social and economic conditions which obtained in Israel due to
prosperity fully explain the Zimbabwe situation today? Give five points.
Amos- Background and superscription

The background has two things
a) Where Amos came from and
b) His occupation
These 2 are important in that they help us understand his message.

Identity and Place of Origin of Amos
The book of Amos is believed to have been written by Amos as said and in Amos (1v1).
He prophesied during the time when Uzziah was the king of Judah and when jeroboam II was
the King of Israel.
According to Hayes (1977) the prophet Amos came from Tekoa. But where was Tekoa
located? Scholars differ on this one. Some scholars concur that Tekoa was located 12
miles South of Jerusalem in the hills overlooking Judea in the wilderness that people believe
John the Baptist grew into manhood. The above position therefore suggests that Amos came
from the south or the Judean Tekoa.
Another view is that Tekoa was located in the North and thus making Amos a Northerner. It
is strongly argued that if Amos was from the South, why did he decide to prophecy in the
North?
What is known about real prophets is that each prophet prophesied in his place of origin, for
example Isaiah was from the south (Judah) and he prophesied in the south and Hosea was
from the north and his prophecy was confined to the north.
May be that is why Amaziah the priest of Bethel clashed with Amos since that was unheard
of say for one from the South to prophecy in the North and vice versa.
Despite the sharp and strong arguments about the location of Tekoa some scholars say there
is a great possibility in Amos being a Northerner.
However the general consensus among many scholars is that Tekoa was in the South and that
Amos was a Southerner whose prophetic ministry was confined to Israel in the Northern a
deviation from the normal practice by the prophets of his day and age.
Profession of the Prophets
The other complication with Amos has to do with his profession after his call. The
superscription in Amos 1v1 tells us that Amos was a shepherd or was from among the
109
shepherds (noqedim/nokedim) of Tekoa. So the quick conclusion we get is that Amos was a
shepherd from Tekoa.
The wilderness life trained Amos to endure hardships.
Tending sheep was work done by poor peasants/farmworkers. From the Jewish point of
view being a shepherd was the lowest denigration done by poor people.
His manner of life provided him with images that he reproduced in his oracles.The text says
he was tending sheep when God called him.
He was a very humble and simple man from a poor agriculture sector in Judah yet he
preached in the northern Kingdom.
The north was economically advanced due to merchant capitalism. It was his attack on
Israel that made him unpopular, hence it goes without saying that Amos’ message was
incompatible to the circumstances of his day.
There is however several problems associated with the idea that he was also a shepherd. If
so why it is not stated clearly.
Again, was he a shepherd in the sense that he had his own flock or took care of some day’s
flock.
The other problem is that in Amos 7v14-15, Amos does not identify himself explicitly as a
shepherd but as a herdsman and a dresser of sycamore trees.
By herdsman Amos was suggesting that he was looking after cattle and a dressers of
sycamore trees means that he looked after sycamore trees by giving them a mulch and
pruning or it means one with a skill of grafting trees or that Amos was a pitcher of sycamore
fruits.
All this shows that it’s not immediately clear as to which profession Amos did during his day.
Be that as it may, Hayes comes to our rescue here:
For him Amos is being described as from among the noqedim of Tekoa (1v1) and as a
herdsman and a dresser of sycamore trees (7v14). The only other person described as a
noqek/noked in the Bible was Mesha of Moab as stated in 2 Kings 3v4. The Hebrew term
noked is translated as sheep breeder. So Amos is believed to have owned flocks of sheep.
The general conclusion about Amos is therefore that he could have been a mixed farmer that
is keeping some herds of animals and dressing sycamore trees. Scholars however differ on
the issue of sycamore trees. For some sycamore trees could not grow on land which is
above 2800 feet at sea level and Judean Tekoa was above this.
Amos could have has a plantation of trees but not in Judean Tekoa. What it means therefore
is that he could have done that on low grounds where these trees could thrive.
So it might be that Amos could have owned some estates where sycamore trees were planted
on a commercial scale, if that was the case. Amos could have been a tycoon and a man of
high social status considering the fact that he was a sheep breeder and a plantation owner.
110
Even though it is agreed that Amos was a sheep breeder and a plantation owner there is still a
problem with this.
There is information that Amos could have been a cultic figure who looked after either
temple cattle or sheep or even both.
Though the possibility of him being a sheep breeder is not being out ruled here, it might
however be argued that the sheep he bred were for cultic purposes.
It is also most probable that the animals he kept were cultic animals and that he was just a
seer as he is addressed by Amaziah.
This position strongly suggests that Amos and all the animals he was in charge of were not
his but for the temple and its purposes.
Coming also to the issue of sycamore trees, he was only a dresser or a keeper of these and not
necessarily an owner.
Amos profession is what some can call a current hot potato given that scholars are divided on
his profession. Some say he was a mere shepherd, a herdsman and a keeper of sycamore
trees.
Hayes and the others say he was a sheep breeder and a grafter of sycamores. This suggested
that he was an elite. But if he was a shepherd and a grafter and of tress he was then a
peasant.
In conclusion on whether Amos was poor or rich, it depends on how one takes it. What is
important is taking a position and be able to substantiate it.
1. Amos was either from north or south? Discuss
2. A shepherd, herdsman and a dresser of sycamore tress. Is this a correct

designation of the prophet Amos? give reasons for your answer.
Social and Economic Conditions Born Due to the Prosperity of the Time
Social classes began to emerge in Israel due to prosperity.
Amos speaks of silver coaches, beds of ivory, winter and summer houses of
hewn/curved/axed stone, ivory towers and drunkards. Amos was disgusted (3v15, 4v1, 6v4).
Amos also attacks the oppressive women of Samaria and likens them to cows of Bashan.
They are accused of the ruthless exploitation of the poor and their continual desire for more
wealth and luxury spurs them to encourage their husbands to do more evil.
“Who oppress the poor, who crush the needy, who say to their husbands, bring wine, let us
drink!” (Amos 4:1)
Anderson (1958) explains that despite prosperity an oppressive social pyramid grew up with
the royal sycophants and the merchant class at the top and the majority of people who were
peasants at the bottom. The privileged classes prospered highly from trade and continued to
111
spend the newly found riches on improving their own living standards and neglected the
peasant class which was the backbone of Samaria’s economy. (3v10, 12, 15,6v4)
Peasants were the beast of burden and poverty stricken.
For Alington (1952) there was therefore a high level of oppression and cruelty directed
towards the poor by the rich.
To make clear the above point there is information that the rich sold “the righteous for
silver and the needy for a pair of shoes:, they “trample/crush the heads of the poor into
the dust of the earth...” (2v6-7),
they “oppress the poor and crush the needy” (5v10-11)
that “they store up violence and robbery in their palaces” (3v10)
the economic tyrants also sanctioned corrupt courts and the judges were venal/bribable or
corruptable and the poor had no redress, Justice however went to the highest bidder
(2v6, 8v6).
Douglas also has it that during drought (4v7-9) the poor had recourse only to the money
lender (5v11, 8v4-6) to whom he was compelled to mortgage both his land and his person.
Bribery (5v10) and falsification of weights and measures (8v5) were ways of bargaining.
Highway robbery, rape and murder were scandals committed against humanity.
Priests were also involved in shrewd/ smart methods of obtaining money. Homes were also
broken due to a high rate of infidelity e.g. Hosea wife.
Religious Conditions of the Time
Social conditions in Samaria affected the religious habits of the people. It is argued that
religion was not being neglected but perverted/ deviant or corrupt.
The great national religious shrines were thronged with worshippers and rituals done (4v4,
5v21-24) but Yahwism in its pure form was no longer being maintained.
Baalism was now rooted in the Northern Kingdom. Holy women as they were called were
kept at centres to satisfy the lust of men (temple prostitution).
Also, graven images were dedicated to gods and goddesses. The golden bull was still being
worshipped at Bethel. Despite the golden age in Israel and Judah, the society was rotten.
Structures Outline of the Book
The book is divided into major divisions as follows
a) Chapter 1:1-2 Introduction or Superscription
b) Chapter1:3 – 2:3 – Oracles against foreign nations
c) Chapter 2:4-6 –Oracles against Israel
- Hear this word, people of Israel – chapter 3
112
- Hear this word, cows of Bashan – chapter 4
- Hear this word, house of Israel – chapter 5v1 – 17
- Woe to those anxious for the day of the Lord – chapter 5:18 – 27
- Woe to those at easy in Zion – chapter 6
d) Chapter 7:1-9, 9:9 – Vision of judgement and a few oracles
- Vision 1 – The plague of locusts – 7v1-3
- Vision 2 – The devouring fire – 7v4-6
- Vision 3 – The Lords plumbline – 7v7-9
- The Amos – Amaziah conflict – 7v10-17
- The basket of summer fruit – 8v1-3 (Vision 4)
- Prophetic interaction oracles of judgement 8v4-14
- Vision 5 – the Lord standing at the altar – 9v1-4
e) The Sovereignty of God, restoration and epilogue – 9v5-15
General Character of His Message

Amos came into the prophetic scene in 760BC.
He was not a prophet by training, neither was he a prophet’s son but God called him to be a
prophet while following his sheep.
Amos spoke largely in the accents of doom.
However, it would be incorrect and unfair to characterize the whole message as one of doom
since there is a promise of the remnant or restoration. His message and understanding of
God conflicted with that of his contemporaries
Amos’ Message
Amos’ message can be understood much more adequately in the light of the socio-economic
and political conditions of Palestine during his time.
Amos walked through the streets of Bethel and was horrified at what he saw.
In the market places traders cheated with short weights and measures. They gave wrong
change to those who could not count and check it by themselves.
Money lenders charged high rates of interest (usury system) and children were sold to pay
debts.
Corruption emerged in both the commercial and civil life of Israel.
The poor were exploited as cheap labour and were generally oppressed.
113
Bribery in courts was the order of the day.

There was a lot of social injustice which included the grabbing of land from the poor and
making them landless. The bulk of Amos’ message is directed to people living in such
conditions and the target groups of his message are largely within Israel and these include:
- Merchants
- The judiciary
- Priests
- Kings or the ruling class
Amos was a prophet who received his divine call while herding his flock.
The call might have been in the form of visions as described in 7v1ff and 8v1ff.
Boldly without fear Amos spoke out and people thronged round him. Before Amos attacks
the target groups he starts attacking foreign nations and not only Israel.
Hayes however suggests that Amos did that to show that the whole universe was under
Yahweh’s judgement and he also wanted to prove what can be referred to as the universal
sovereignty of Yahweh. The foreign nations are judged for the atrocities committed during
some wars which they had fought. So they were being punished for war crimes.
In Israel and perhaps in the Ancient Near East (ANE) there were 2 types of wars, that is
personal wars which were prompted by selfish reasons and these were not sanctioned by God.
The other type of war was the holy war sanctioned by God. In both wars there were certain
things that were forbidden and the forbidden things formed the international code of Ethics,
for example in any battle, women, children and the disabled were placed at the back since
innocent people would be killed.
Again, when attacking a city it was not allowed to attack it from all the four corners. One
side was to be left so that those who wanted to escape would do so.
Pregnant women were not allowed to be attacked as well. The foreign nations broke the
international code of ethic and committed crime and stood to be judged and punished and the
punishment was binding.
There is a formula or a typical speech form which Amos uses, that is “for three
transgression and four.....”. The messenger style could have been employed to show
Yahweh’s seriousness on the issue of judgement. People cheered as Amos cried that God
would punish Syria, Ammon, Tyre and Moab.
A shiver of surprise however shook the richly dresses people when they heard that Israel was
not exempted from the punishment to come. But how could this be? It was here that Amos
made himself unpopular.
They kept the law and made their sacrifices in the temple.
114
The rich were accused of selling the righteous for silver and the poor for a pair of shoes.
They were also accused of silencing prophets who were telling them that what they were
doing was wrong (2v6, 11, 12).
During Amos’ emergences slavery was practised in other nearby countries.
So why would Yahweh accuse Israel of this act when other countries were involved in this
act. Even judges took brides.
It was no secret, but no accusation was pronounced among them, to hear only of Israel. To
them it was incredible. Amos never comes open as to how Israel would be destroyed. It is
thought that the Assyrians would be his agents.
The Idea of Election: Amos 3
Amos reverses the popular idea of the consequences of Israel being a chosen people in 3v2
Israel was a chosen nation, “You only have I known of all the families of the earth.....”
Israel had been given a special responsibility to illustrate Godliness to other nation.
She was to set a standard that God wanted of all people on earth.
The Israelites were ignorant of the fact that the idea of election meant greater responsibility.
Israel had entered into a covenant relationship with Yahweh, but the nation had rejected the
responsibilities of the covenant.
The Israelites were however mistaken in that they believed that special responsibility meant
exemption from punishment.
On the contrary, special responsibility meant greater punishment. Amos was here
conflicting with the popular view that the idea of election meant exemption from punishment
for Israel.
The prophet’s Authority to Speak 3v8
The section is made up of a series of rhetorical questions with a cause and effect relationship.
If the climax is at verse 6 then the conclusion is that it is Yahweh who brings the misfortune
of a city.
If the climax is at verse 8 the prophet speaks because God has given him the message.
Amos uses the figure of a lion so frequently (1v2, 3v4, 12). It might be that he viewed God
as strong and mighty as a lion.
Some critics’ say that Amos as a shepherd, lions were a common sight. This proves the fact
that the prophet’s background had a great effect on the manner and presentation of the
message.
The Fall of Samaria 3v9-11
The prophet invites the nations of Assyria and Egypt to come and witness the wickedness in
the city which would result in severe destruction.
It looks like warfare would destroy Samaria but the prophet is not clear as to which country
would destroy Samaria but the probability points to Assyria.
115
Women of Samaria Amos 4

Chapter 4 is a description of pompous and lazy women who survived on other people’s sweat
especially the poor.
The women of Basham were accused of oppressing the poor and crushing the needy.
They overruled or encouraged their husbands in a wicked waste of money in strong drink and
other luxuries. In a way they encourage the exploitation of the poor.
Those who could not pay the depts had their vineyards impounded.
The usury system was expanded. All this was done to fulfil the needs of the lazy women.
Amos referred to those lazy women as cows of Bashan.
Bashan was a very fertile valley on which a special breed of cattle was fattened. Their sin
was that of / dishonestywickedness.
After rebuking the women whom he referred to, as cows of Bashan, Amos ironically invites
people to come to Bethel and Gilgal to offer sacrifices.
The activities were mechanical, devoid of spiritual commitment. Instead of pleasing
Yahweh their worship became a spiritual bore to Yahweh.
Amos explains how Israel was reluctant to repent amidst Yahweh’s warning signs. The
warning signs are as follows:
a) Cleanliness of teeth – referring to lack of food or a situation of famine or drought
due to erratic rain (4v6-7).
b) Population pressure – this was an overcrowding for resources as a result of God

sending rain in one city and not sending it to another.
c) Crop diseases and locust which demolished the planted crops
d) Pestilence/an epidemic resulting in human death and wars
- There is also an announcement of the total destruction of cities and this speaks of
God’s judgment.
In his message also, Amos pronounces an elegy or a funeral dirge over Israel. For Amos,
Israel’s fall is complete and irreparable and cannot be avoided.
In Amos 5v2 Israel is personified as a virgin. This means that Israel’s religion was once
good just like a woman in her virginity. Israel’s religion was now bad due to religious
accommodation of Baals.
So because of these loopholes in religion Israel stood condemned. The solution which the
prophet saw was repentance manifesting itself in the establishment of justice is the main
theme in Amos.
The Day of the Lord: 5V18f
116
The nation looked forward to this day as being one on which God would vindicate his people
and elevate them above the nations and destroy their enemies.
Again, basing on (3v2) which talks of divine election Israelites looked to a day when God
would bless Israel while the unchosen would suffer punishment.
So for Israel it was a day of joy and jubilation. Amos however held an opposite view
regarding this day and he saw no reason why the Israelite anticipated the coming of this day.
For Amos the day of the Lord would be a day of national defeat and destruction, darkness
instead of light, and gloom instead of hope.
The prophet emphasized that the defeat would be inescapable (5v19-20). The idea that a
man is run after by a lion and a bear meets him and he goes into his house and a serpent bites
him explains that there is no way of escape.
So according to Amos the day of the Lord would never come whilst there was slavery and
cruelty to the poor.
Israel thought that its tithes, gifts and sacrifices would save them, but only to be told that their
temple sacrifices were not enough.
Yahweh was portrayed saying “I hate and despise your feast days. Though you offer me
sacrifices of animals I will not accept them, but let justice roll down like waters....” (5v21-
24).
Amos attack on rulers
Chapter 6 is an attack on prosperity and extravagance. Amos pronounces doom to the rulers
who were relaxed and comfortable at Mt Zion.
They are condemned for a false security in God. Evidence of wealth include:
a) Ivory beds
b) Winter and summer houses
c) Invasion of fine music.
The Kings (rulers) unlike the earlier ones, those of Amos’ time were indifferent to the needs
of the poor. Earlier King’s had the zeal to improve the conditions of the poor but the Kings
of Amos time had no zeal to improve the conditions of the poor people.
The rich were however relaxed while the poor were building. The rich were however relaxed
while the poor were suffering.
Their sin was one of pride based on belonging to the first of the nations, gluttony and
artificial music and music and misuse of wealth which was acquired through exploitative
means.
The result of such sin was total destruction. This was so because the Jews had done what
was impossible and logically undone, for example the rhetorical question asked by the
prophet, “do horses run upon rocks” and the answer is no.
117
The Israelite had turned justice into wormwood or poison and that meant that they would not
go unpunished.
1. Amos message was incompatible with the people of this day. Discuss
2. “Yahweh was the God of the nations”. How far did Amos demonstrate this in his
messages?
3. Amos was jealous about the prosperity of the rich. How far true is this statement?
Visions of Judgement: 7v1 – 9v1ff

In the visions the prophet describes the downfall of Israel. The prophet saw 5 visions of
judgement and the vision are as follows:
a) Vision of locust – 7v1-3
b) Vision of fire – 7v4-6
c) Vision of the plumbline – 7v7-9
d) The basket of summer fruit – 8v1-3
e) Smiting of the altar – 9v1-10
A) Vision of locust
In this vision Amos saw locust devastating the land (7v1-3). The eating of crops by the
locust may mean famine. The locust ate the crops and grass.
People could die due to lack of food and the shortage of grass would be dangerous for
without grass the Kings’ horse would die and this implied defeat in warfare.
B) Vision of a consuming fire
This could have been literal or physical fire. Some scholars think that fire is a symbol of
God’s judgement. So fire represents god destroying Israel by fire.
C) Vision of the plumbline
A plumbline is a building tool or instrument used to measure the straightness, of things

especially walls. When the building is crooked, the builder destroys the wall and start
building it up again.
God had gone through Israel’s religion to measure faithfulness to see if she held fast to the
promises and laws of God. Israel was however found faithless and corrupt.
So just like a crooked wall Israel needed destruction and reconstruction later.
118
God relented in the first two visions but did not on the third one and, a question can be asked
why? It could be that Amos had stopped interceding for the house of Israel or that because
of many sins God could no longer spare them.
Amos Amaziah Conflict: 7v10-11
Amos was charged by Amaziah the priest of Bethel of misleading the nation and conspiring
against the King.
The chapter serves to illustrate that prophecy and priesthood were complimentary. In
another way prophecy and priesthood were at loggerheads.
It might be that Amos’ message pointed out the corruption by priest that he was stooped and
told to go back to the land Judah.
Priests are accused of preoccupying themselves with rituals, thus turning religion into formal
religion. It seems according to Amos these formal rituals were meaningless unless they
address real problems affecting society.
So Amos is not against songs sung, feast or even the offering but he is against practicing all
this at the expense of the real problems affecting society.
Amaziah mistook Amos as a professinal prophet – doing it for business purposes.

Amos however replied that he was no prophet nor a prophet’s son neither, either did he attend
any prophetic schools or college but got his training by following his sheep and had been sent
by Yahweh himself to prophesy to the people of Israel and that he had come to Amos then
pronounced adeadly curse upon the household of Amaziah.
The wife of Amaziah was to become a harlot in the city, his sons and daughters would be
killed by the sword and Amaziah was to doe in a foreign land and that Israel would go into
exile.
Vision of the basket of summer fruit: Amos 8
Amos saw in a vision a basket of summer fruit. The fruit was over ripe, representing Israel’s
readiness for destruction. The summer fruit also represented the lovely outside appearance
of Israel’s religion yet rotten at heart.
Vision about the destruction of the altar: Amos 9
The picture is one destruction, capitals had become places of corruption and destruction could
not be avoided.
However verses 11-15 of chapter 9 give Israel a ray of hope. God promises to build the
fallen cities of Israel.
The last verses are not consistent with the tone of destruction in the previous chapters, they
talk about hope and restoration is also found in the same book.
119
Anderson and Forrester (1977) however concur that the hopeful prophesies with their Judean
interests in 9v11-15 are apparently regarded as being later additions to the book or
interpolations.
1. Amos was prophet of doom. How far do you agree with this statement?
2. Scholars doubt the authenticity of Amos 9v11-15 Discuss.
3. Identify and explain the meaning of each of the 5 visions of judgement.
4. Explain the meaning of each of the 5 visions of judgement.
5. Prophecy and priesthood did not see eye to eye. What is your assessment of this
statement?
Major Themes Found on the Message of Amos

1) Injustice
Amos’ message is largely directed not at individuals, but at nations. His message is a
judgment speech against Israel and the surrounding nations.
However, what makes the message unique is that Israel has never heard such a message
before: God is going to bring an end upon His people Israel.
Amos is not sent to merely expose the rebellious sin – like Nathan was sent to expose King
David’s sin and call him to repentance – but to tell them that they were going to be wiped out.
Achtemeier writes “Amos is a prophet of total judgment, announcing the death of the
northern kingdom. He is not a social reformer but an exposer of rebellion against God. He is
not a humanitarian but a herald of God’s coming action.” (Amos 8:2)
Amos condemned the rich for perpetrating injustices against the poor.
The rich were not being nice to the poor but cruel.
The prophet Amos has it that the rich “turn aside the needy in the gate from the right”,
“oppress the poor and crush the needy”, “take a bride” and “abhor him that speaketh
uprightly’.
The information given above shows that the poor were being exploited by the rich and they
also used false trading balances and bribed judges who could then make determinations in
courts in their favour.
It was also surprising to find out that there was also the selling of people into virtual slavery.
The rich were accused of selling the righteous for silver and the poor for s pair of shoes. the
women of Samaria whom Amos likens to cows of Bashan had grown sleek and fat from the
labor of the poor people.
The prophet Amos therefore condemned the injustice and the wealth gamed through
exploitative means. Amos 5v24 goes, “let justice roll down like water...” Amos was for
justice and not vice versa.
120
The covenant people of God who were to be set apart are now no different to the surrounding
nations. They were no longer seen by God as holy.“Are you not like the people of Ethiopia
to Me, O children of Israel?” (Amos 9:7)
2) Divine election and responsibility

Israel was a chosen nation. Amos 3v2 reads, “you only have I known of all the families of
the earth......” Thus is an acknowledgement by Amos that God had chosen Israel.
After being chosen Israel was given a special responsibility to illustrate guidelines to other
nations so Yahweh and his people worked hard made a covenant and has walked together.
But with time Israel broke the covenant responsibilities. The Israelite believed that a special
privilege meant exemption from punished.
Amos however printed out that divine election does not mean exemption from punishment,
but that violation of the divine law deserved exact retribution.
3) The day of the Lord
The Jews strongly believed in election. For them, one day the whole world would come to an
end and that God would bless Israel and elevate them above the nations and destroy their
enemies, so to the Israelites the days of the Lord was a day of victory and happiness.
Amos however told them that the day as the Lord would bring destruction to Israel. There
was nothing to celebrate for with regards to the day of the Lord
4) Universalism
In his book the prophet Amos also pursues the theme of the Universal sovereignty of
Yahweh.
Amos can be regarded as an international prophet. His prophecy was not only limited to
Israel but to other nations as well.
Apart from Israel Amos directed him prophecy to other nation such as Damascus, gaza, Tyre,
edom, Ammon and Judah.
These nations breached the international code of ethics or code of law and were to be judged
for the atrocities committed during some wars fought. God was punishing them for war
crimes.
5) Doom and destruction
Amos message dwelt very much on doom and destruction.
The doom was largely directed towards Israel, God’s elect and her highbous as well. His
prophetic formulas for three transgressions and for four. I will not revoke my punishment’
show the extend at which God was determined to destroy Israel.
The destruction was irrevocable given that she has failed to illustrate godliness to other nation
and setting the standard that God wanted for all the people on earth.
121
To cement his view on destruction the prophet talks of the fires nations were to receive of
destruction and there was no way Israel would escape the looming destruction.
6) Hope and restoration
Apart from the destruction that Amos dwelled much on say in 9v1-10, the prophet also talks
of hope for Israel. In 9v11-15 there is a lot of hope for Israel.
His message quickly changes from that of destruction to hope and restoration. Israel was
going to be restored to her former position and glory by God.
The verses however found in chapters 9v11-15 are not however consistent in it’s tone of
doom and destruction which is abundantly clear in the book.
Such a digression by the prophet led some scholars to suggest that the verses 11-15 of chapter
9 are not part and parcel of the whole book and that some redactor might have included the
verses to Amos work. Be that as it may, to say that Amos work dwelled on doom and
destruction alone would be an unfair assentation on the prophet given the hope and
restoration which also feature in his book and message.
1. Discuss any 3 themes contained in the book of Amos.
2. Amos dwelled much on hope and restoration in his book. How far do you agree
with this assessment?
3. Does today’s church have prophets of Amos nature and calibre: Give reasons to
your answer
Summary
A thorough scrutiny of the book of Amos strongly shows that the prophet spoke largely in the
tone of doom.
He started his prophetic ministry by condemning foreign nations which he summoned one
after another to the judgement bar of Yahweh to answer for the atrocities committed during
the war.
The prophet also lambasted Israel for the injustices committed against the poor by the rich
who got wealth through exploitative means.
The golden age ushered in by Jeroboam II also brought classes that are the rich and the
peasants who were poor.
The merchants, judiciary, priest and the ruling class were all condemned for injustice.
The rich and the Priests who strongly believed in the idea of election and the day of joy and
happiness. Amos however held a different view on election and the expected day of the
Lord hence the talk of vision the of judgement.
122
The prophet gave a list of calamities as warnings from God aimed at inducing repentance but
the warning went unheeded.
Although Amos dwelled much on judgement and destruction he however wound up his
message by talking about hope and restoration.
This led some scholars to doubt the authenticity of Amos 9v11-15 and this hope was based on
repentance
HOSEA
Introduction
Hosea the 8th century prophet is one of those prophets who presented his prophecy in a much
more dramatic way. He uses symbolism and imagery to put across a message of the
relationship between Yahweh and Israel. These symbols and images are presented in a
language that is strange and foreign to the culture of Israel.
Objectives
 relate the problems associated with the background of Hosea.
 analyse the culture at play during Hosea’s time.
 discuss the message of Hosea in light of his marriage relationship
The Book of Hosea

Historical background
Hosea was a prophet who operated at almost the same time with Amos.
We are told his prophetic ministry was carried in the Northern Kingdom.
The book of Hosea has extremely little help to give us about the prophet himself. (Von Rad
1965; 138) we are told he was the son of Beeri and that he lived and worked during the
calamitous last years of the Northern Kingdom up to about the time of the capture of Samaria
by the Assyrians (721).
We know as little about his home as we do of the place where he made his appearance, or of
any conflicts in which he may have been engaged or of other personal circumstances.
It has been assumed with some probability that he was closely connected with the Levitical
movement in the Northern Kingdom, which, like the prophetic one, had been pushed aside in
the general Canaanisation; both reforming groups fostered and preserved the old traditions of
Yahweh (Wolf 1956; 83).
123
Hosea is the only “writing prophet” of the Northern Kingdom. During his time the North
was experiencing the disintegration of patriarchal Yahwism in the Canaanite fertility cult and
the peculiar political and governmental system which existed there.
Israel had been seduced into practicing Baalism at the expense of Israelite religion and
culture.
Hosea addresses these issues in the form of a marriage relationship represented by his
marriage to a prostitute named Gomer.
In other words, Hosea protested against the political religious situation and the foreign policy
of Israel as well as the social setting within the societal practices of Israel.
The Structure of the Book
The book falls into two parts Chapter 1-3 are concerned with the prophet’s marriage and the
message he derived from it.
The variation between first person ‘I’ and third person ‘he’ style shows that these chapters
were not originally a single, continuous account. Chapter 4-14 are a mixed bag of oracle,
mostly oracle of judgement (Mckeating, 1971; 9)
The Religious Situation
The prophet Hosea’s protest seemed to have been mainly against the religious life of Israel
which was the basis for all her existence as God’s chosen people.
The protest can best be found in his preaching which is characterized by personal emotions,
anger, love, disappointment and distaste.
His preaching is backed by the extensive use of Israelite historical traditions (12:3-4) which
refer to the patriarch Jacob. Yahweh is Israel’s God from the land of Egypt “Hosea 12:10)
and (13:4) by the prophet Moses Yahweh brought Israel up from Egypt (12:14), but the
people proved unfaithful even before reaching the promised land (9:10) (Von Rad 1965).
Once there, they refused and failed to recognize the true source of success ascribing to Baal,
the local god (11:1-2).
His marriage symbolism seemed to have portrayed the whole process of Israel’s
unfaithfulness as the letter was seen as having gone and abandoned Yahweh like a faithless
wife who has run after her lovers. In this marriage symbolism Hosea again portrayed a
complete subverted relationship of Israel to Yahweh and used symbolized names of his
children born of it to announce the message of protest against Israel. The symbolism of
marriage again gives the key note for practically all the message characteristics of Hosea in
his protest against Israel’s disloyalty and her approaching danger (Greenspahin 1982; 407).
Von Rad (1965) argued that Hosea was the first prophet to describe Israel’s submersion in the
Canaanite nature religion as ‘harlotry’.
However although Yahweh’s reaction to this sexual aspect of the nature religion was
particularly sensitive this was not the only reason which brought the prophet on the scene as
an agent of protest, he was also prompted by what Von Rad (1965) calls Israel’s general
124
breach of faith and her violation of the first and also second commandments. (Hosea 4:20;
17:8:4:13:2).
The sin of Israel was that, she was convinced that it was the Baals whom she had to render
gratituites for these blessings, yet it was Yahweh who was her divine providence from time
immemorial.
1. Using the information above discuss the historical background of Hosea.

2. How does the historical situation of Hosea help us understand Israel’s failure to follow Yahweh?
The Book of Hosea

To understand the book you have to understand the marriage. The marriage of Hosea to
Gomer is presented in chapter 1-3.
Reasons for studying the marriage have to do with the queer words that surround the
marriage. When the Lord first spoke to Hosea, ‘Go take yourself a wife of harlotry……’
these are strange words – wife of harlotry and children of harlotry. The prophet consented to
the command to marry such a wife.
Again the names of the children born to the prophet are rather queer.
The first child was named Jezreel. This was the name of a familiar city in Israel, the name of
a valley where Naboth had been killed and Jehu perpetrated the genocide there.
Not pited was the name of Hosea’s second child whilst the third was named not my people.
These strange names seem to be overloaded with facts, hence scholars surveyed around them
to expose the mystery around them (Mckeating 1971).
After the prophet divorced the woman, he felt like taking her back even if she was harlotry
i.e. even if she had not changed. Scholars say these three constitute the main problem of the
book.
History of Research
From the research given by scholars, they argue that Hosea 1-3 should be considered as a
unity because it has one theme, the marriage of Hosea.
They then look at the marriage. Chapter 1 and 3 demonstrate apparent differences chapter 1 is
biographical, someone is reporting what Hosea did whilst chapter 3 is auto biographical
Hosea is narrating his own experiences. 1:2 tells the command to go and marry a wife of
harlotry and have children of harlotry. 3:1 is another command, “and the lord said to me, go
and…” this explained why in 3:2 “so I brought her for….” Is the narrator referring to the
same Gomer? Chapter 3 is silent of Gomer, it is not mentioned that this particular woman
was Gomer.
According to Forher (1986) there are two different women. Chapter 1, the situation is
gloomy. Hosea does not seen to have hope in her behavioural conduct. In the first chapter
125
(woman), Gomer, the message is judgement chapter 2, there is hope that things will change.
For Fohrer (1986), judgement and hope are irreconcilable things.
Rudolf on the other hand thinks that we are not declining with real people.
This for him is not supposed to be taken literary because basing on the culture of Israel; no
man would take such a woman, more as a prophet.
According to Rudolf, the story is not real experience but a mere allegory or a vision that the
medium is witnessing or a symbol.
He dismisses that there was ever a Hosea who displayed such characteristics. What is
important is the message in the story (Kerygma).
Critique
However, the problem with this approach is that we need to interpret the meanings of the
names Gomer, Hosea and the children of harlotry.
Eissfelt and Wolf (1969) suggest a different approach from that given by Fohrer (1986).
They argue that, if we want to do justice to the story, we cannot go by Fohrer.
By introducing a second woman we destroy the sequence. They refuted the allegorical matter
and said this is a historical experience on the part of Hosea.
It is not an imaginary story, i.e. some men can marry harlots. The woman is the same in
chapter 1 and 3. The narrator did not mention her name in chapter 3 because he had already
done so and the audience knows the woman in question.
Possible Explanations
Gomer might not have been a prostitute (Wolf 1969).
Gomer represents what every woman in Palestine might have been experiencing i.e. cultic
ritual.
Women of marriageable age would go to perform a ritual at the fertility cult.
This would ensure that the women was fertile and also linked with Baalism, ensuring the
fertility of the land, animals etc.
So this might have been an assimilation of the Baal rituals practiced in the name of Yahweh.
Probably Hosea and Gomer practised this ritual for. Wolf (1969), we are not talking here of
the literal prostitution but ritual prostitution.
Klaus Koch (1983) has this to say, if one reads the book of Hosea it is not so much harlotry
that attracts us but that the prophet is denied the luxuries of life.
Hosea for goes personal happiness for the good of the people. Nothing of him was private.
It was public knowledge that he was married to a harlot and had children of harlotry, so
Hosea did this in the name of Yahweh for the good of his people (society) in order to put a
message across.
126
This is not unique because prophecy had this aspect to it, that they had to deprive themselves
to put across certain messages to the society.
1. Identify the queer words that Hosea used to describe the relationship between Yahweh and
Israel.
2. Using the allegorical interpretation given by Rudolf of the marriage chapters 1-3 of Hosea,
justify the assertion that there was never a Hosea who lived displaying such characteristics.
The Division of the Book

There are two major divisions.
After the superscription Hosea 1:1
1:2-3:5, marriage of Hosea / Introduction.
4-1, mixed oracles. Others had found that the book can also be divided in the form of oracle.
a) 4 : 1 – 11 : 7, Judgement oracle
b) 4: 8 - 11, salvation oracle
c) 12: 1 – 14: 1, judgement oracle.
14: 2 - 9, salvation oracles.
The salvation we find in Hosea is the shift from judgement to salvation oracles throughout
the book in terms of content, the book of Hosea is not as organised as the book of Amos.
One has to struggle to identify what the prophet is saying. One way of looking at it is to
identify the target of Hosea and the theme. Who are the audience and what good is Hosea
targeting?
In chapter 5: 1 -7, Hosea seems to be targeting the rulers of the nation (Members of the royal
family) and chapter 4:1- 5:7 seems to target the cultic issues. Chapters 3; 5: 8 -7:16, internal
and international political problems.
Factors that can Help in Interpreting Hosea
History – we need to understand the history in four parts. The first period Hosea appeared,
Israel was experiencing prosperity and peace Hosea 4:4 – 5:7.
Syrio Ephramite war : Hosea ministered when there was this conflict and palace intrigues
The collapse of Samaria 722BC, Hosea 5:8,9:9
The struggle between Canaanite culture and Israelite culture. Ever since the time of Omri,
attempts have been made to bring foreign culture into Israel through a process of
acculturation. By the time of Hosea it can be seen that the identity of Israel was in crisis.
These moves by the kings of Israel of late were beginning to be felt. This was clearly
expressed in its religion. A few years Elijah had declared a jihard and Hosea is coming up
with a different thing altogether.
Language
127
Of all the prophets of the 8th century, Hosea uses very strange language to express the
relationship between God and men.
He uses the word marriage for infidelity, husband for God and wife for Israel.
The frequency which he uses this is unfounded. The language is rich in metaphors,
imaginary etc. Is he a poet? Some scholars think that in Hosea we are forced to believe that
prophets are poets; therefore you need to use poetic language to interpret his book (Heschel
1962).
Harlotry
To Hosea it simply means syncretism. It could also mean reliance on human ingenuity
(achievements) than God (Hosea 8:14). It also mean engaging in literal prostitution (Hosea
4:10) (4:14). Adultery/harlotry also means being unfaithful to the covenant relationship
between Israel and Yahweh.
What could have influenced Hosea?
It appears Hosea had been influenced by a process of acculturation.
The relation between Israel and Yahweh was that of a father and son and not husband and
wife. Others say Hosea had been influenced by cultic activities of Baal language to describe
the activity of Yahweh.
1. Explain the meaning of the following words as they are used by Hosea:
i. Harlotry
ii. Marriage
iii. Husband
iv. Adultery
Messages
We can never reconstruct the historical circumstances of Hosea’s private/personal life.
Some people think that the book tells us of all Hosea’s personal experiences, but however the
information we have is not enough.
The information is as a result of same composite process from the hands of the disciples of
the prophet. So the message is not from the prophet himself but from his disciples and
reactional activities.
The message has to do with Hosea’s understanding of the present and future. The book is
trying to interpret the history from exodus to exile.
According to Hosea, this history is characterised by unfaithfulness. The deliverance of Israel
from Egypt was as a result of Yahweh love.
The granting of the land was also an act of mercy on the part of Yahweh. By the time Israel
settled in Palestine, it was seduced by Canaanite agricultural festivals and the monarchy.
The love between Yahweh and Israel (2:1ff) is that of husband and wife. The two
institutions led Israel astray and Yahweh is going to punish Israel symbolised by a return to
128
Egypt and a return to the wilderness.By a return to Egypt, this means Israel is going into
forced labour and a life of deprivation.
Wilderness was time of trials, Israel’s patience was stretched. Wilderness is also a place of
punishment and a place of renewal because in the wildness it is where Israel went into
covenant with Yahweh.
They were to return into Egypt and the Wilderness because Israel was living an adulterous
life. Hosea is of the opinion that the history of Israel starts with the Exodus and not the
patriarchs.
He talks of Jacob is a sign of greedy and Ephraim a sign of foolishness.
For Hosea, it is necessary to go into exile to put Israel into sense. The old dispensation of
Israel is characterised by faithless and only when she comes out of wilderness where she will
be faithful.
c. The question of worship, worship of Israel is characterised by:
Israel’s acknowledgment of foreign deities.
The use of plastic images.
How are these Manifested?
The sacrificial activities including the feast of Israel are not addressing the God Yahweh but
they address the agricultural need of the society.
She thought that if she gives Baal the first fruits, Baal will then give her the fruits of the land
in “quid pro quo”. Agricultural produce seems to have seduced Israel to worship Baal.
The priests have failed (9:1-3) to serve the duties of Yahweh Chapter 6:1-6 Hosea condemns
everything associated with ritual sacrifice and in that he upholds the love of God.
Hosea think you should rank these sacrifices as second to the knowledge of God as in Amos
5:21-24, 8th century prophets are against the ritual type of worship. Worship has become
very hypocritical.
d. Kingship as an institution Hosea 7:3-7,8:13). There is conspiracy, madder; promotion of
idolatry, Hosea is not in favour of Kingship (9:9, 10:9). 9:9 they have deprivated themselves
as in the time of Givia 10:9 from the time of Givia you have sinned oh Israel.
Is Hosea suggesting that Kingship was an illegitimate institution which should be done away
with? He is castigating the monarchic tradition in the North but not the South? Is he
rejecting Kingship altogether?
Judgment and Redemption
These are attempts to win back Gomer (Israel) before the judgement time. He creates a court
atmosphere and witnesses to help bring back Gomer Hosea 2:2.
The children are called to be part of the court to hear what is levelled against their mother.
Hosea talks of an ultimatum/warning (Hosea 2:2) of putting away harlotry.
129
Hosea imagines taking his wife into quarantine segregation (isolation). (Hosea 2:45) after all
this has been done; Hosea makes a cry of despair when he found that the wife did not change.
Hosea talks of alluring Gomer into the desert and being alone then talk it over as a last appeal
5:4; 7:2. When all these attempts had failed he divorced her. In Hosea 11 from verse 8
“How can I give up oh Israel”.
There is the repentance of Yahweh, i.e. divine passion instead of executing punishment.
Yahweh is overwhelmed by passion.
The writer imagines Yahweh as a human being who had anger and passion. He uses words
to address Yahweh’s anger by mentioning the cities of the valley Gen 19. Instead of
contemplating that judgement he invited Gomer back. Chapter 11 helps us to understand the
mystery of love between Yahweh and Israel.
The relationship of Yahweh and Israel has got obligation because of the use of marriage
because of love and faithfulness.
Hosea emphasise the relationship between Israel and Yahweh as covenant relationship. It is
not unilateral because of his use of the word marriage.
There are obligations to both parties of the covenant. Israel has decided to become
unfaithful to the covenant and has attributed to idolatry and syncretism to the extent of not
acknowledging Yahweh as her God.
Because of her infidelity, Yahweh is going to punish Israel and this is expressed in the names
of Hosea`s children, ie, Jezreel, not pitted and Not my people.
This leads to time of separation and later reunion. The reunion is not out of Gomer’s
repentance, but in Hosea’s love.
1. How valid is the view that the marriage of Hosea in Chapter 1-3 influenced his prophetic
ministry?
2. Compare and contrast the Canaanite culture and the Israelite culture as presented by
Hosea.
Summary
The book of Hosea was written around 8th century, more or less at the same time with Amos
in the Northern Kingdom.
Hosea used his personal life experience to put across a message to the people of Israel. The
first three chapters talk about his marriage.
The language which he uses to describe this marriage is quite strange and foreign to Israel’s
culture Hosea could have been influenced by a process of acculturation.
However his messages revolve around his marriage and have to do with his understanding of
the present and future. For Hosea Israel’s history starts with the exodus to exile and it is
characterised by unfaithfulness
130
PROPHETIC BOOK OF ISAIAH

Introduction
Although the book has 66 chapters not all of them are attributed to the 8 th century Isaiah.
Only the first 39 chapters are believed to have come from the original prophet.
Objectives

 describe the background of the prophet Isaiah.
 give an account of the circumstances surrounding his call to prophecy.
 give the central message of Isaiah in his three prophetic ministries.
 compare and contrast the prophetic message of Isaiah to those of other prophets
you have studied so far.
Historical Background to Isaiah’s Ministry

Isaiah’s ministry lasted from about 740 to about 700 B.C.E. Whereas Amos and Hosea
prophesied in Samaria in the North, Isaiah and Micah prophesied in Judah in the South at
almost the same time. Isaiah intervened in many political and social crises that the Southern
Kingdom underwent during his long prophetic ministry.
Isaiah’s prophetic ministry should be understood against the background of the rise of
Assyria as a super power.
Assyria’s attempts to conquer the Syria-Palestine territory started during the times of
Ashurnasirpal II (884-859 BCE) and Shalmanezzar III (858-824 BCE).
These efforts did not bear fruits. It was during the reign of Tiglath-pileser III (745-727 BCE)
that the Assyrian expansionist policy resumed in 745 BCE. Tiglath-pileser III was a typical
imperialist. He employed three major tactics to instill fear in the conquered states. First, was
the military conquest of the state.
Each conquered state was made to pay tribute to Assyria and to provide auxiliary forces when
the need arose.
The second tactic concerned those states that would show signs of unfaithfulness. The vassal
kings of such a state were removed and replaced by puppet kings.
Such conquered states were then regarded as Assyrian provinces. The third tactic involved
deportation. This often happened to those states that rebelled against Assyrian rule.
The vassal king and members of the upper class of that state were deported to Assyria. The
state would be declared an Assyrian province and a governor was appointed directly by the
Assyrian king.
131
Assyria’s expansionist policies had a direct effect on Israel and Judah. The call of Isaiah to
prophecy actually coincided with the rise of Tiglath-pileser to power. Isaah had to address
major political crises caused by Assyrian expansion.
The Person of Isaiah
Like most of the Old Testament prophets, very little is known of Isaiah’s biography this is
because the prophetic books were not focused on the persons of the prophets but rather on
their messages.
The little known of Isaiah, however, is that he was the son of Amoz (not Amos the prophet!).
Isaiah was married to a prophetess (nebiah).
It is not clear whether she had a prophetic role herself or she was called after the profession
of her husband in the sense we refer to the mayor’s wife as the mayoress. they had two sons
who were given symbolic names.
The first one was named Sher-jashub meaning a remnant shall return (7:3).
The second one was Maher-shalal-hashbaz meaning destruction quickens (8:3). Isaiah was a
resident of Jerusalem, an urbanite.
This accounts for the urban metaphors he used in his message. It probably also explains why
he never believed that the city of Jerusalem would ever fall into the hands of the enemy.
He must have belonged to an elite family as evidenced by his easy access to the king (7:1 ff;
37:1 ff).
The Call of Isaiah
Isaiah tells us that he received his call in the year king Uzziah/Azariah died (about 742 BCE).
His call was a response to a voice he heard in a vision in the temple. Whether this marked the
initial call of Isaiah is debated.
Basing on the fact that this account comes only in chapter 6, some scholars have suggested
that, this vision came later after Isaiah had already been called to prophecy (Hayes 1973:179).
Because the description of the vision suits a coronation ritual (the occasion of the swearing
in of the king), Isaiah could have received this vision during the coronation of Jotham,
Uzziah’s son and successor. Some scholars believe that it was through this vision that Isaiah
was called to be a prophet.
The fact that the account is given in chapter 6 and not chapter 1 only testifies that prophetic
books do not present the messages of the prophets in chronological order.
While he was witnessing the coronation of Jotham, Isaiah saw Yahweh high and lifted up
with the skirt of his robe filling the temple.
Surrounding his throne were the seraphims each with six wings. Ancient people believed that
a deity had attendants at his sanctuary.
These were the seraphims and it was believed that they were strange figures which were half
human and half animal (Anderson 1993:325).
132
The term seraph means to burn and therefore seraphims are the burning ones. Their six wings
were symbolic and the symbolism tells us of the characteristics of Yahweh.
With one pair they flew to carry out tasks appointed to them by Yahweh, with the second pair
they covered their faces from the blinding glory of Yahweh and with the third pair they
covered their feet (used to refer to nakedness) from the holiness of Yahweh.
The characteristics of God implied by the use of the wings are therefore that Yahweh
appoints tasks, is glorious and is holy.
As the seraphims declared God’s holiness, Isaiah realized how unclean he and his
contemporaries were before Yahweh.
He therefore confessed and following his confession, one of the seraphims then cleansed him
with a glowing charcoal from the altar.
Isaiah is therefore prepared for his prophetic career and when Yahweh, speaking on behalf of
the whole heavenly council, asks, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Isaiah is
ready to volunteer.
He is therefore commissioned as God’s spokesperson to preach but a message which would
make people unrepentant.
But why then was he sent to the people if the message would not make a difference?, you
may ask. One way to understand why -is to realize that prophetic books were written
sometimes after the ministry of the prophet.
The writer is writing after the ministry of Isaiah and is aware that his message did not turn
people back to God. As God knows everything before it happens, according to Jewish belief,
the writer says from the beginning God told Isaiah that his message would harden the hearts
of the people thus spelling doom for them. But the prophet believed all hope was not lost as
he prophesied of the stump that would remain.
Whether or not Isaiah was experiencing the coronation of Jotham when he received this
vision and call will never be known.
However, it is more likely that he had in mind the coronation of a king when he received the
vision. With the vision following the death of Uzziah, it is clear that Isaiah’s call was
associated with the crisis that followed the death of the king.
The king was a very important figure in the life of ancient Israel. He was considered
Yahweh’s representative on earth and through him,
Yahweh’s blessings were believed to flow to the people. Uzziah was a strong king and now
that he was being succeeded by his weak son, the people of Jerusalem including Isaiah were
worried. It is in this context that Isaiah saw Yahweh as the King.
His vision shows that he considered Yahweh to be the king par excellence and that people
were not supposed to put their trust in the Davidic king but in Yahweh who is not only the
king of Israel but of the whole universe.
1. How are the following rituals reflected in the call of Isaiah in Chapter 6:
133
Coronation, liturgy/worship and prophetic call?

2. In what way is the call of Isaiah a representation of his message?
The First Prophetic Ministry of Isaiah

Some scholars think that Isaiah’s vision in chapter 6 was not his initial call to prophecy.
Such scholars would like to think that Isaiah began his prophetic work during the time of king
Uzziah.
If he did then it is during this time that he made his first prophetic ministry. Some are of the
opinion that the temple vision marked his initial call but as a student of the Old Testament
one is free to take his/her own position depending on the reasons you put forward.
This early ministry must have been carried out before the outbreak of the Syro-Ephraimite
crisis (734-722) that led to what is considered to be Isaiah’s second ministry.
Most of the messages Isaiah gave during his first ministry are in chapters 1-5 and deal mainly
with social issues. Soggin (1987) argues that 1:4-9, for example, describes the situation in
Jerusalem during or a little after Sennacherib’s invasion in 701.
Be that as it may, in his first ministry Isaiah addressed the socio-economic factors in Judah
that put the poor at the mercy of the rich.
Isaiah’s message shows that many people were rich in silver and gold, had horses and
chariots (2:7), wore fine garments and jewelry (3:18-23), and had houses and other properties
(5:8).
But just as it was in Israel of Amos’ time, they oppressed the widows, the orphans and the
poor (1:17; 3:14-15).
Whereas the poor went hungry, the rich indulged themselves to excess food and wine (5:22).
There was also no justice as corrupt judges took up bribes (5:23).
Many thought that the riches they were enjoying were signs of God’s favour to Judah and so
religion was thriving. Isaiah, however, described this as empty religion (1:11, 13; 5:7). Yes,
God had looked after Judah as a farmer takes care of his/her vineyard.
But instead of bearing good fruit, Judah had yielded inedible[uneatable or bad] wild fruits
(5:1-7). Isaiah also said Judah had behaved like a rebellious child, more stupid than an ox
(1:2-3) and so had to be judged (2:12-22; 3:16-4:1).
The Second Prophetic Ministry of Isaiah
In his second and third prophetic ministries Isaiah focused on the political crises of his days.
In this second ministry Isaiah addressed the Syro-Ephraimite (Israelite) crisis. Chapters 7 and
8 contain his message during this crisis.
134
The Syro-Ephraimite crisis should be understood in the context of Assyria expansion as

explained above. About 734 B.C.E., Rezin, king of Damascus and Pekah, king of Israel
attempted to rally all kingdoms of Syro-Palestine into an anti- Assyrian coalition.
The two kings decided to force Judah into the coalition. Ahaz was terror-stricken and
according to 2 Kings 16:3, he even burned his son as an offering in the Valley of Hinnom.
This did not help as the anti-Assyrian coalition continued advancing towards Judah.
In such a situation, he had three alternatives: to join the anti-Assyrian coalition, to appeal for
help from Assyria or to remain neutral. It was probably with such thoughts in mind that he
went to inspect the city’s water supply in anticipation of a siege.
It is at this point that Isaiah, accompanied by his son, Shear-jashub, approached him. Do you
still remember the meaning of the son’s name?
Isaiah’s message to the terror-stricken king was very simple. He chose the third alternative:
neutrality. Ahaz was to remain neutral trusting God in everything.
Describing Rezin and Pekah as “two smouldering stumps of firebrand,” Isaiah predicted that
the two kings were going to be defeated by Assyria.
As B. W. Anderson (1993:330) puts it, Isaiah, “viewed the crisis in a wider and deeper
perspective than that of mere diplomacy and fortifications. For beyond the political schemes
of nations was the sovereign activity of God, whose purpose shapes the course of events.”
The presence of the child, Shear-jashub was a sign that a remnant would remain. But despite
his words and the presence of the sign child, Ahaz could not believe Isaiah’s simple message
of faith.
To help Ahaz believe, Isaiah asked him to ask God for a sign (7:10-17).
Responding in a pious fashion, Ahaz responded that one was not supposed to test God (Hayes
1973:182). But despite this refusal, Isaiah went on to tell Ahaz that God was going to give the
house of David a sign. . One form of signs one always come across with are road signs. They
give one direction.
In the same way, among the Israelites a sign “was meant to make visible, to confirm
dramatically the truth and power of Yahweh’s word spoken by a prophet” (Anderson
1993:331).
The sign that God was to give to Ahaz was the birth of a child to be named Immanuel,
Hebrew for ‘God is with us.’ The text of this sign (7:14) has received different interpretations
with Christians finding in this text the prediction of the birth of Jesus by the virgin Mary. But
one should remember that Isaiah was addressing an immediate crisis, the Syro-Ephraimite
crisis.
The child was a sign in that before he was able to choose between wrong and good, the Syro-
Ephraimite coalition would have been defeated by Assyria.After giving the above sign to
Ahaz and the Davidic family, Isaiah went on to give another sign to the citizens of Jerusalem
(8:1-4).
135
He gave this sign in two ways. First, he wrote on a large tablet, “Maher-shala-hash-baz”
meaning destruction quickens. This was witnessed by two people. This message was then
displayed, probably with the prophet’s explanation, in the public.
Second, when his wife gave birth to his second son, he named him, Maher-shalal-hash-baz.
Like his brother Shear-jashub, Maher-shalal-hash-baz was also a sign child in that before he
was able to mumble the first words for father and mother, the Syro-Ephraimite coalition
would have been plundered by Assyria.
But Isaiah’s words and signs, all fell on deaf ears. Instead of putting his trust and confidence
in Yahweh as Isaiah had told him, Ahaz chose to align with Assyria.
The following biblical texts tell us what followed this decision. Read them and write in
your note book, the events that followed Ahaz’s choice of Assyrian protection: 2 Kings 16,
15:29/Isa. 9:1, 2 Chronicles 28:16-27.
Ahaz’s action was to Isaiah the final sign of his lack of faith. He described this as a rejection
of the soft waters of Shiloah in choice of the mighty waters of the Euphrates (8:5-8).
Shiloah was a small canal which carried water from the Spring of Gihon to a pool in
Jerusalem. For Isaiah its soft flow was a symbol of confidence in Yahweh as opposed to the
mightiness of Assyria (Anderson 1993:335) which Isaiah compared to the mightiness of the
waters of the Ephrates River.
With his counsel rejected, Isaiah withdrew from the public and concentrated on working with
a prophetic community (8:11ff). It is probably during this time that his oracles were written
down.
Although he was away from the public, Isaiah’s prophecy came to pass when in 732 B.C.E.
and 722 B.C.E Syria and Israel respectively were destroyed by Assyria.
Isaiah only emerged in the public again to address the third political crisis of his ministry.
This marked the beginning of his third prophetic ministry.
1. Discuss the central message of Isaiah during his second ministry. Why do you think
this message was difficult for Ahaz to accept?
2. In your groups, discuss how Isaiah made use of symbols in his prophetic ministry?
The Third Prophetic Ministry of Isaiah

Like the second ministry, Isaiah’s third prophetic ministry was also prompted by political
developments in Judah.
It is only in light of these political developments that his message during this ministry can be
understood. With the death of Ahaz and Hezekiah’s accession to power in 715 B.C.E., Isaiah
probably thought the new king would listen to him.
136
It is also possible (although Isaiah does not mention it) that Isaiah came back to public
ministry following Hezekiah’s religious reforms (2 Kings 18:4).
These religious reforms, in a world where religion and politics could not be easily separated,
had political overtones. B.W. Anderson (1993: 341-342) puts it thus, “Hezekiah’s
purification of worship, including no doubt the removal of Assyrian cult objects from the
Temple, was a stimulus to Judean nationalism, for he was virtually declaring independence
from the Assyrian domination and throwing his weight behind the revolutionary spirit of the
day.”
He also secured Jerusalem’s perennial water problems by constructing, through boring the
rock, the tunnel of Siloam from the Spring of Gihon to the pool of Siloam in Jerusalem (2
Kings 20:20). Between 713 and 711 B.C.E.
Hezekiah made a clear revolt against Assyria by joining a coalition of Ashdod, Edom and
Mob in an effort to overthrow Assyria (Isa. 14:28-32).
Some of the coalition members even suggested bringing Egypt into the anti-Assyrian
coalition. It is at this point that Isaiah approached Hezekiah with a prophetic advice.
He advised him against seeking Egyptian help and against an open revolt to Assyria (Isa. 20).
In support of his word, Isaiah performed an astounding symbolic act.
Despite Israel’s association of nudity with shame and guilty, Isaiah went about naked and
bare foot for a period of three years (20:2-4).
This was a sign that Egypt would be taken captive by Assyria. Just as in the first political
crisis, Isaiah’s message to Hezekiah was a call to trust God and not to trust Egypt (30:1-2,
31:3). Possibly because of Isaiah’s counsel, Hezekiah ceased to participate in the revolt.
But another temptation for Hezekiah to revolt against Assyria came again in 705 when the
Assyrian king, Sargon, died.
His death was followed by revolutions throughout the Assyrian empire. Hezekiah was
tempted to join the revolutions.
He even received embassies from the Babylonian king Merodach-baladan (2 Kings 10:12/Isa.
39:1-8) who was leading the revolutions.
Hezekiah even fought a Philistine king who did not want to join the revolution (2 Kings
18:8). Again Isaiah had to approach him with a prophetic counsel.
His message during this time is found in Isa. 28-33. Again he advised Hezekiah to stay out of
the revolution. As J. H. Hayes (1973:186) puts it, Isaiah called for a “policy of pacifism and
political nonalignment.” Hezekiah was to trust in God not in human establishments (Isa.
30:15).
Isaiah’s message was influenced by his understanding of the sovereignty of God. For him,
God was in control of all the affairs of the world even using Assyria as his rod of anger (10:5-
6).
137
He denounced trust in human alliances (28:18, 31:1-3) and declared doom over Judah’s lack
of trust in the Holy One of Israel. Trust in Yahweh therefore marked the centre of Isaiah’s
message throughout his ministry. But even Hezekiah did not give heed to the prophet’s word.
True to Isaiah’s word that trust in Egypt was worthless, in 701 B.C.E., the Assyrian king,
Sennacherib, defeated Egypt and all the anti-Assyrian Palestinian states. Judah was attacked
and a number of its fortified cities were destroyed (Isa. 10:28-31, 2 Kings 18:13).
Jerusalem was cut from all outside help and in the words of Sennacherib, it was shut up like a
bird in a cage (Hayes 1973:188).
During the siege Isaiah confronted Hezekiah telling him not to capitulate. Although he
believed Assyria was a rod of Yahweh’s anger, he felt it had now overstepped its limits and
God would not allow her to defeat Judah (Isa. 31:8-9).
Isaiah’s message here was strongly influenced by his understanding of the city of
Jerusalem/Zion and the house of David in the divine plan.
This is clear in the Zion and Davidic royal ideologies. It is not clear whether these ideologies
in Isaiah came from Isaiah the 8th century prophet or are from later Deuteronomistic editors.
Be that as it may, the Zion theology underlined Jerusalem as the city of God (Isa. 14:12),
home to the Ark of the covenant and the place of the Temple where Isaiah had received the
vision (Isa. 6:1ff).
In the book of Isaiah, the prophet talks of the coming Davidic ruler (9:2-7; 11:1-9). Since
Jerusalem was also the city of David, this future coming of the king meant Jerusalem was not
going to be destroyed.
Thus for Isaiah, although Judah was going to be destroyed, a remnant would remain and upon
it, Yahweh was going to build a new Jerusalem.
Again true to Isaiah’s word, Jerusalem was delivered from Sennacherib’s siege. The
circumstances that led to this deliverance are shrouded in ministry as the Bible itself gives
more than one explanation.
One account says the Assyrian army left after Sennacherib heard a rumour back home (2
Kings 19:7) while the other mentions the annihilation of the army by an angel of God (2
Kings 19:36-37). Isaiah’s word came true as Jerusalem was delivered.
1. Explain how Isaiah’s third ministry proves that Isaiah was an international
prophet.
2. ‘Isaiah’s message shows that he had an attachment with Jerusalem.’ Do you

agree?
Summary
One have learnt about the prophetic ministry of Isaiah from the time of his call to the time of
the deliverance of Jerusalem from Assyrian siege. The ministry of Isaiah was divided into
three prophetic periods. Each of these periods, was marked by certain social or political
138
circumstances. It is these circumstances that Isaiah had to address. His message, as J. R.

Beasley et al (1991:207) notes, can be summarized into four themes: the sovereignty of
Yahweh as the Holy One, The judgement of God that would come upon the people of Judah
for their rebellion against God’s sovereignty and righteousness, the need to trust in God and
the faith in the Zion-Davidic traditions.
PROPHETIC BOOK OF JEREMIAH

Introduction
One will learn about the person and call of Jeremiah, the historical background of his
ministry, the phases of his ministry and the challenges he faced as a prophet. Try to compare
his ministry with those of other prophets you have studied so far as this will help you get a
full picture of the place of prophecy in ancient Israel and Judah.
Objectives
By the end of this unit, you should be able to:
 describe the background of the prophet Jeremiah.
 give an account of the call of Isaiah to prophecy.
 present the message of Jeremiah in his three prophetic ministries.
 explain why Jeremiah is described as ‘the suffering’ prophet
 compare and contrast the prophetic ministry of Jeremiah with those of other
prophets you have studied so far.
Historical Background to Jeremiah’s Ministry

As you may remember from the previous unit, when Isaiah’s ministry came to an end,
Assyria was still the super power.
The call of Jeremiah to prophecy, however, coincided with the crumbling down of Assyrian
power. Traditionally three historical periods are distinguished in Jeremiah’s life and ministry.
First, was the time of the crumbling down of Assyrian power when Judah was under King
Josiah. Jeremiah began his ministry in the 13th year of this king (Jer. 1:2, 25:3), probably
around 625 B.C.E. Josiah took advantage of the defeat of Assyria by the Babylonians and the
Egyptians to declare independence from Assyria and to introduce radical religious reforms.
This first ministry lasted up to the time of the death of Josiah in a battle with the Babylonians
in about 609 B.C.E.
The second historical period was the period of the reign of Jehoiakim, from about 609 to 598
B.C.E. During this time all the religious reforms that had been made by Josiah collapsed and
139
Judah shifted alliances between Egypt and Babylon remaining a vassal and reeling under
heavy tribute.
The third and final period of Jeremiah’s prophetic career took place between 597 and 586
B.C.E. when Judah was finally ruined by the Babylonians.
The oracles of Jeremiah therefore have to be understood in the light of these three historical
periods. Jeremiah had to address Judah during these periods of political turbulence, informing
her of what God’s advice was.
The Person and Call of Jeremiah
The book of Jeremiah contains some substantial information about the person of Jeremiah.
He was born into a family of priests to the north of Jerusalem at a place called Anathoth.
Scholars have, however, suggested that he was descended from the priestly family of
Abiathar, banished to Anathoth by Solomon for supporting Adonijah (1 Kings 2:26).
There is no information concerning his date of birth but an intelligent guess can be made by
considering the year in which he was called.
He tells us that he was called in the 13th year of Josiah (about 625 B.C.E.). At his call,
Jeremiah tells us that he was young, probably a boy or a young man.
This points to the middle of the 7 th century (about 650 B.C.E.) as the time when he was born.
Although he started his ministry in the 13th year of Josiah’s reign, at his call God told him that
he had set him aside from his mother’s womb (1:5).
Jeremiah’s rejection of his call (citing his age as the reason) fit well within Hebrew Bible
prophetic call narratives. This rejection can be compared to Isaiah’s. Do you remember the
excuse Isaiah gave? It also compares well to Moses’ excuse (Num.11-14).
From the beginning of his call, Jeremiah was told that he was going to speak a message of
doom (1:10). Two visions confirmed that God was watching and brewing trouble for Judah.
Because of the nature of his vocation, Jeremiah was destined to face trouble in his career.
We hear of conspiracies against him (11:19ff, 18:18ff). He is brought before the court on
charges of blasphemy (7:1ff, 26:1ff) and is ever hunted by his enemies who are prepared to
kill him. Thus Jeremiah is sometimes described as a suffering prophet.
He identified closely with his prophecy than any other prophet before and after him. He was a
very emotional man and as B. W. Anderson (1993:392) says, “The wound of his people cut
deeply into his heart, prompting him to mix with his prophecies of doom outcries of agony
and grief.”
He cried out to God in the language of individual laments which were used in temple worship
(11:18-12:6, 15:10-21, 17:14-18, 18:18-23, 20:7-13, 20:15-18).
He was a lonely man, without wife and children.
The Structure of the Book
suggested by L. Boadt (1984: 361-362):
140
Chapters 1-25:Oracles against Judah and Jerusalem during the reigns of Josiah (1-6),
Jehoiakim (7-20) and Zedekiah (21-25).
Chapters 26-36: Stories about the prophet Jeremiah and oracles of hope for Israel during the
times of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah.
Chapters 37-45: Stories of Jeremiah’s last days. These are stories of his so-called confessions.
Modern scholars (for example Beasley et al (1991:216), prefer to call then complaints not
confessions).
Chapters 46-51: Oracles against foreign nations.
Chapter 52: A historical appendix describing the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.E. probably
taken from 2 Kings 25.
The material in these chapters was probably from different sources. Some materials are in
poetic/lyrical/rhythmical form while others are in prose/ text/style.
The poetic sections (found mainly in chapters 1-25 and 46-51) were probably from Jeremiah
himself, the biographical section (25-46) was probably written by Jeremiah’s secretary,
Baruch (36:4) with the rest of the material coming from the Deutronomistic editors.
The Deuteronomistic editor(s) is believed to be the editor of the historical books from Joshua
to 2 Kings with Deuteronomy 12-26 serving as the introduction. The editor was influenced by
the view that Jerusalem was the city of God to stand forever and that as the city of David, all
worship was to be centralized there. He also believed that the destiny of Israel was dependent
on her attitude towards the commandments of Yahweh with obedience bringing blessings and
disobedience bringing curses.
1. In your note book, give an account of Jeremiah.
2.Try to find out further information concerning Deuteronomistic history/theology and
write this in your note book. You will find the books refereed for further reading useful.
The First Prophetic Ministry of Jeremiah

Jeremiah’s first ministry must have been undertaken during the reign of Josiah.
During this ministry Jeremiah addressed the syncretism of Judah and warned people of
destruction from the north.
He saw syncretism in Judah’s practice of Baalism in form of worship “upon every high and
under very green tree” (2:20-37).
Like a camel on heat, the people were going after idols (2:23-24) even calling a piece of
wood ‘father’ (2:27-28, 10:3-5).
He accused Judah of adultery, as she left God to go after foreign nations like Assyria and
Egypt (2:17-18). Adultery and fornication were quite widespread (5:7-8).
For this reason Jeremiah pronounced that Yahweh was preparing evil for Judah.
141
An enemy was to come from the north to destroy her (4:5-31).

At his call, Jeremiah had also seen, in a vision, trouble coming out from the north. Scholars
have spent time and effort trying to establish who this enemy from the north was. Although
we will never be certain, the general consensus is that Jeremiah was referring to Babylon.
This was the time when Babylon was entering the world stage as a super power and
threatening to march over little nations like Judah.
Jeremiah’s message of doom was accompanied by signs of doom. Two such signs are
recorded: the spoilt/ substandard/poor linen cloth (13:1-11) showing that Yahweh was going
to spoil Judah’s pride and the broken clay flask (19) which symbolized that Yahweh was
going to break Israel into pieces.
Because of his message of doom, Jeremiah was during this ministry, seized, flogged and put
in stocks for a night by Pashhur the priest (20:1-6).
Although Jeremiah pronounced doom, all hope was not lost for him.
He believed that if people could repent, they were going to be spared from the impending
catastrophe. Mixed with Jeremiah’s message of doom is therefore a call for repentance (3:22,
4:1, 7:3, 8:5, 18:8).
Like a piece of ruined clay in the hands of a skilled potter, Judah could still be remade if she
repented (18:4-6).
To help them repent, Jeremiah even reminds the people of their faith during the exodus and
God’s care for them during that time. Repentance is therefore a key theological term in
Jeremiah’s message during his first ministry. To repent is to turn away from, and in
Jeremiah’s use of the term, repentance means to come back to the covenant relationship with
Yahweh.
1. Read all the symbolic actions of Jeremiah found in Chapters 1 – 20 and explain
how these show the prophet’s blending of doom and hope.
2. In what is Jeremiah’s view of Jerusalem different from that of Isaiah?
The Second Prophetic Ministry of Jeremiah

Sometime during the reign of Josiah, Jeremiah disappeared from public ministry. Scholars
have suggested that this may have been prompted by Josiah’s reforms (Beasley et al
1991:215).
Beginning around 627 B.C.E. Josiah inaugurated a series of religious reformations which
were meant to revitalize the Yahwist religion.
According to 2 Chronicles 34:3, he began his reforms by removing all traces of Canaanite
and Assyrian influences in the Jewish religion.
Josiah’s reforms were given a boost by the discovery of a law book believed to be the early
version of Deuteronomy in 622 B.C.E. during the repair of the temple.
142
On the basis of this book which was given divine authentication by the prophets, the priests
and scribes (2 Kings 22), he made various reforms.
In a world where politics and religion went hand in arm, Josiah’s reformations had strong
political undertones. He destroyed all local shrines and centralized worship in Jerusalem, he
redeployed all priests to the Jerusalem cult and even took advantage of the decline of
Assyrian political power to expand his kingdom northwards into Israel.
He also transformed the family festival of the Passover into a pilgrim festival to be observed
in the city of Jerusalem.
It is probably these reforms that made Jeremiah to feel no need to speak the word of Yahweh.
Either he was disappointed that the reforms were artificial and did not address the
fundamental issues of morality or things were going on well religiously and so he found no
need for a prophetic word.
Jeremiah came back to a second prophetic ministry on the heels of a major political
development.
In 609 Josiah met his death at the battle of Megiddo as he tried to stop the Egyptian advance
towards Judah under Pharaoh Necho (2 Kings 23:28-30).
This saw the disintegration of the Judean kingdom. The Egyptians asserted their authority
over Judah by deposing Jehoahaz and appointing Jehoiakim followed by the exile of
Jehoahaz to Egypt.
But soon the Egyptians would be defeated by the Babylonians who finally destroyed the city
of Jerusalem carrying thousands into exile in 586 B.C.E.
It was probably during the coronation of Jehoiakim or soon after that Jeremiah gave what has
come to be called the temple sermon. We have two accounts of this sermon, in chapters 7 and
26.
In the sermon Jeremiah denounced the Judeans’ confidence in the temple describing the
temple as a den of robbers.
Based on the Davidic covenant theology, the people were confident that Jerusalem, as the
residence of God, was never going to be destroyed. And history had proved them right.
During the time of Isaiah, Jerusalem was miraculously spared from Assyrian destruction!
The people therefore remained confident that Jerusalem would never fall despite the
Babylonian advance.
Jeremiah, however, said just as Shiloh was destroyed during the time of Samuel, Jerusalem
was also going to be destroyed. Jeremiah’s words infuriated people and he was arrested and
almost put death.
Jeremiah actually had a cat and mouse relationship with Jehoiakim. He saw in Jehoiakim, the
exact opposite of his father, Josiah (Jer. 22:13-19).
He was cruel, selfish and indulgent as he introduced forced labour and shed much blood. He
even wanted to kill Jeremiah.
143
For all this Jeremiah did not give up denouncing him. He even predicted that the king was
going to die a shameful death like that of a donkey.
Banished from appearing in public, Jeremiah dictated his message to his secretary Baruch and
asked him to read it in public (Jer. 36). One therefore find here a shift from oral to written
proclamation.
In the scroll Jeremiah reiterated that Jerusalem was going to be destroyed by the Babylonians.
When the people heard the harsh words of the scroll they took the book to the king who had
the audacity to shred the scroll into pieces and setting them on fire. But hiding from the
Jehoiakim’s wrath, Jeremiah had to dictate another, even expanded, scroll.
In his second ministry, Jeremiah was no longer talking of impending disaster in general
terms, he now made definite predictions accompanied by prophetic symbolism.
At one time he walked around in Jerusalem with a yoke as a sign that the Judeans were going
to suffer slavery under Babylon.
Like Isaiah before him, he saw Babylon as an instrument of Yahweh and that rebellion
against her was tantamount to rebellion against Yahweh himself.
Towards the end of Jehoiakim’s reign therefore, Jeremiah encouraged Jehoiakim to throw his
weight behind Babylon. Soon his words came true when in 598 B.C.E., the new Babylonian
king, Nebuchadnessar advanced towards Judah.
He besieged Jerusalem and during the last month of the siege Jehoiakim died (2 Kings
24;6ff). The city finally fell and the elite and the royal family were deported to Babylon.
Jehoiachin, who had replaced Jehoiakim, was replaced by Matthaniah whose name was
changed to Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:17ff). It is during Zedekiah’s reign that Jeremiah had his
last ministry.
1. Politicians today call for a separation between religion and politics. Using the
message of Jeremiah during his second ministry, discuss whether or not it is
possible to make such a distinction.
2. There views that Jeremiah was more of a sell-out rather than a pacifist.In which
class would put him? Give reasons.
The Third Prophetic Ministry of Jeremiah

Be that as it may, at least some of the material in chapters 27-29, 32-34 and 37-39 talk about
Jeremiah’s ministry during the reign of Zedekiah.
In short, Jeremiah’s message during this time was that Babylon was going to overrun Judah
and therefore there was no need for Judah to resist Babylon.
For this message Jeremiah faced opposition from both political and prophetic groups who
accused him of being a traitor.
144
Chapters 27-28 tell us that one popular prophet called Hananiah publicly challenged
Jeremiah. Hananiah’s message echoed that of Isaiah as he preached the permanency of the
city of Jerusalem.
When he saw Jeremiah putting on the wooden yoke as a sign of Judean slavery under
Babylon, he took and broke it as a sign that the Jews would not be enslaved.
Hananiah even retorted that Babylonian rule would come to an end in two years and that
those already in prison would soon come back.
But Jeremiah insisted that it was folly to resist Nebuchadnessar. He even described him as a
servant of Yahweh (25:9, 27:6, 43:10) in the same way that Isaiah had described Assyria.
He also wrote a letter to the exiles (29) exhorting them to settle in the new country, plant and
build without an expectation of a speedy return.
Thus for the popular prophets, Jeremiah’s words were treasonable. He described Zedekiah
and the contemporaries as bad figs and the exiles as the good figs (24).
For this, priests and even his countrymen from Anathoth joined in attacking him as a traitor
(11:21-23, 12:6).
He was even accused of communicating with the enemy. He therefore suffered several
imprisonments at one time in an empty water cistern where he was likely to die were it not
for the king who helped him in secret (37-39).
It was probably during these imprisonments that he made the ‘confessions’. It is also
probably during these times that Jeremiah saw what lay beyond the doom that was befalling
his people.
Thus he also made prophecies of renewal and restoration. In a section of the book that has
come to be known as “The little Book of Comfort” (30-33) (Anderson 1993:419), Jeremiah is
said to have bought a piece of land from his relation in Anathoth as a sign that there was a
future beyond the exile. In this little hook of hope, Jeremiah also foretold the formation of a
new community under a new covenant.
In 588 B.C.E. Nebuchadnessar besieged the city of Jerusalem for the second time. During the
siege, Jeremiah encouraged Zedekiah to surrender to the Babylonians (38:17-23).
He spent the last days before the final capture of Jerusalem as a prisoner. When the
Babylonians finally captured the city, they freed him allowing him to choose whether he
wanted to remain in Jerusalem or to go to Babylon.
They even gave him a living allowance (39:11-14) possibly for the role he had played in
encouraging people to surrender to Babylon.
Although he chose to remain in Judah he was eventually taken to Egyptian exile where he
probably died.
1. Really what was a prophet in ancient Israel? Answer this question using the
ministry of Jeremiah especially discussing whether or not there is a difference
between a prophet and a politician
145
2. The fall of Jerusalem presented a crisis in the minds of the Israelites. Why do you
think this was the case?
Summary
It was pointed out that Jeremiah m ainly tackled political issues of his time. This made him
more of a politician than a prophet. Because he spoke mainly from the perspective of Judah’s
enemies, Jeremiah was accused of lack of patriotism. For this he suffered many arrests and
public ridicule.
146
147
148
149
150

Judaism Notes 2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Judaism Notes 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FRS JUDAISM NOTES F6 BY ZINCON

COVENANT AND LAW

There are two types of covenants, the conditional and unconditional.

The Bible speaks of seven different covenants, four of which (Abrahamic,

Palestinian, Mosaic, Davidic) God made with the nation of Israel.

Categories of Covenants in the Old Testament

1. The Edenic Covernant

good and evil.

2. Noahic Covenant (covenant with creation).

covenant, introduced a new principle of human government as a means to

4. The Mosaic Covenant (Sinai Covenant)

5. Palestinian or land Covenant

7. The New Covenant

and with the house of Judah" (v. 31).

THE JEWISH LAW

ORIGINS OF PROPHECY IN ISRAEL

verb nabu meaning to call, to announce, to name.

The apodictic law

archaeological evidence use it to justify themselves.

EXTRA BIBLICAL MATERIAL

PROPHECY AS A BORROWED PHENOMENON/ ASSOCIATIONIST

THE LEGEND OF WEN AMON

THE LEGEND OD ZIMRI LIM FROM MARI TEXT

THE STELLE OF ZAKR

The difference is that:

POLITICAL OR SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

REASONS FOR EMERGENCE OF PROPHECY

to combat idolatry. Need to institute and control the monarchy (Samuel).

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN PROPHECY IN ANCIENT NEAR EAST AND THAT OF

CALL OF ANCIENT NEAR EAST PROPHETS

SIMILARITIES WITH PROPHETS IN ZIMBABWE

COVENANT MEDIATORS (See notes above)

ADJUDICATE INTER-TRIBAL DISPUTES

EARLIEST FORMS/MANIFESTATIONS OF PROPHECY IN ISRAEL

LOTS (URIM AND THUMMIN)

one of God’s methods of divine revelation (Numbers 12:6)

FORBIDDEN METHODS OF PROPHECY/DIVINATORY PRACTICES

DISCUSS THE EARLIEST FORMS OF PROPHECY IN ISRAEL AND OUTLINE THE

CHARACTERISTICS OF PRIMITIVE PROPHECY IN ISRAEL (PRE-CANONICAL

WHY WERE THEY COMPILED

2. To preserve prophetic material.

PROPHETS WERE MESSENGERS OF YAHWEH.

MODE OF OPERATION OF PROPHETIC GUILDS

FUNCTIONS/ACTIVITIES OF PROPHETIC GUILDS

COMPARE AND CONTRAST PROPHETIC BANDS IN ANCIENT ISRAEL AND SIMILAR

that these people can now be healers within the church.

HOW ECSTACY ORIGINATE IN ISRAEL

ECSTACY AS AN ISRAELITE PHENOMENON

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROPHECY AND THE CULT

summons to prophesy within the temple precincts.

in what might be termed an "ineffable experience" (cf. Jer. 20:7- 9).

METHODS USED BY PROPHETS TO DELIVER THEIR MESSAGES

1. God’s instruction to perform the action.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS METHOD

SONGS (FUNERAL DIERGE)/ LAMENT

merely ordinary beings, but were being used as mouthpieces of Yahweh.

SERMON/ ORACULAR FORMULA

IMAGERY/ METAPHORICAL LANGUAGE/ PICTORIAL LANGUAGE

Israel who dwell in Samaria be rescued’

TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS

BACKGROUND TO THE “TRUE AND FALSE PROPHECY” DEBATE IN ANCIENT ISRAEL

CRITERIA SET IN THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY

THE CRITERION OF PREDICTION AND FULFILMENT