Are there true prophets today? Who gets to speak in the name of the most sacred - and earn the people’s trust?
Halfway through the Book of Words the problem of prophecy and succession is heard loud and clear. Who will follow Moses as the visionary liberator and leader of the people? Who, like him, communicates with the Divine to deliver guidance, warnings, teachings, and visions?
In today’s chapter Moses addresses the challenge with a peculiar proposition. He reminds the people that they themselves asked for an intermediary - back at Sinai they implored Moses to be the one to enter the fire and communicate with God. Such solutions will persist, he promises. In v. 15 he assures us that other prophets will rise from among them, just like him. But how will we know how’s a true prophet? Someone must have asked because Moses then outlines the two disqualifying factors: A false prophet will claim to speak in the name of other gods than YHWH, or will quote YHWH falsely, offering lies.
But how will we know what’s true or false, the people wonder, and Moses echoes their question and replies:
“ And should you ask yourselves, “How can we know that the prophecy was not spoken by YHWH? If the prophet speaks in the name of YHWH and the prophecy does not come true, that prophecy was not spoken by YHWH; the prophet has uttered it presumptuously: do not stand in dread of him.”
That seems complicated. This authentication of prophetic predictions as a way to demonstrate the truth or falsehood of a prophecy is not how other forms of prophecy will show up in the Bible, with very little bandwidth for “wait and see” patience. How long must we wait until the prophet is verified?
In the ancient world the very function of seers and prophets was often to guide the ruler with immediate, time sensitive predictions that will help them make their minds on big decisions like waging a war. This model shows up often in the future books of the Bible. Take Jonah, for instance, the reluctant prophet who will visit us again this Yom Kippur: His prophecy of doom delivered to Nineveh does NOT manifest - because they actually heed the warning and repent. So does that disqualify him from being called a true prophet?
The model presented here seems to be very different from the reality in the rest of biblical literature. What’s the agenda?
“Once we read Deuteronomy as a separate treatment of prophecy, not necessarily meant to be read together with other biblical treatments, a different answer presents itself: Deuteronomy is not interested in classical prophecy, only Mosaic prophecy...Thus, the “prediction test” is really only relevant to Moses-like prophecy; it is an invention of Deuteronomy and does not exist in other biblical books...Although Deut 18:18 describes the future arrival of a “prophet like Moses,” it is actually doing everything possible to make this impossible. Considering the centrality of Moses’ role as law-giver, and the Deuteronomic warning that no expansion or contraction of the Deuteronomic Law Collection is permissible, Deuteronomy could not have really envisioned another Moses arriving on the scene. Even if it stops short of saying that no other Moses-like prophet could ever arise in Israel, this is what the legislation seems aimed at accomplishing.
..Deuteronomy’s position has the advantage of basing itself on prophetic religion, claiming that its laws were transmitted by God, but at the same time, relegating this kind of prophecy to the distant past. By making further Mosaic prophecy virtually impossible, Deuteronomy does not have to deal with the potentially chaotic effects of “actual prophets” on ongoing religious life or the possibility that some later prophet will overturn the laws and teachings it records in the name of the greatest of all prophets, Moses.”
Like many founders of religions, whether they existed or were created by their subsequent followers’ eager minds, Moses leaves behind a complex legacy of succession. Yes, he will be replaced, but actually - not.
It’s telling that the title he will be most known by in later generations is Moshe Rabbenu - Moses our Rabbi. There may not be many legit prophets out there today channeling YHWH - but there are plenty of rabbis, searing sermons in hand, taking on the mantle. True or false? Success or failure? That’s a different set of questions that indeed only future generations get to claim. We - rabbis, teachers, listeners and followers are still instructed to access the internal verification system, also often mentioned through the Book of Words: Listen to your heart.
Image: Moses, Prophet and Law Giver by @AriRoussifmoff
Below the Bible Belt: 929 chapters, 42 months, daily reflections: Join Rabbi Amichai’s 3+ years interactive online quest to question, queer + re-read between the lines of the entire Hebrew Bible, with daily reflections, weekly videos and monthly learning sessions. January 2022-July 2025
This is from a book by Moses Buttenweiser, my father's Bible teacher at HUC about a century ago.
“When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.” (Deut. 18:22 KJV)Dt 18:22 puzzled me for a long time. For one thing it seems to reverse the idea in DT 13:4 that a navi who accurately predicts might also be offering a false message. (You must use your head when listening to a prophet.) For another, the likes of Amós and Y’shatyahu predicted the future only in the sense of warning. They certainly did not want their words to come true. The solution I found in a book from my father’s collection by his teacher, Moses Buttenweisser. Below are pages (28f) that convinced me from his The Prophets of Israel, 1913. He is explaining here the trial of Yirm’yahu in Jer 29 for his Temple sermon in Jer 7. Essential to his understanding is that Dt 18:22 read: "When a navi speaks in the name of Yahh something that should not and shall not be, it is that which Yahh did not say.”(for a parallel idiom, cf Gen 34:7: Yirm'yahu has a lot of trouble with those he calls false prophets. But was tried and convicted of being a false prophet after claiming that the Temple would be destroyed, which, of course, came to pass. It must be pointed out that I have found this interpretation no where else. And a further challenge to me: the presumption here that Deuteronomy dates from the late 7th century BCE rather than the late 6th century tine of Ezra.
(3.) The report about Urijah's fate (Jer 26:20ff) is followed up by v. 24 : "But Ahikam b. Shafan protected Jeremiah so that he was not delivered up to the people to be put to death." The only inference possible from this plain, unequivocal statement is that Jeremiah had been condemned to death, and that he would have been executed had not Ahikam interfered. Duhm's attempt to reconcile this verse with v. 161 may passed over. Verse 24 cannot possibly be reconciled with v. 16, for the latter, as the text now reads, states that Jeremiah was acquitted by the Sarim and the people constituting the court, while the former states in plain words that, without the protecting hand of Ahikam, Jeremiah would have been handed over to the people for execution (in accordance with the law and custom in cases of this category; cf. Deut. XIII, 10, XVII, 7, also Lev XXIV, 14, 16, Num. XV, 35f-).
(4.) One cannot but ask, 'What new fact did Jeremiah present to the Sarim and the people by his assertion that he was sent by YHVH to prophesy as he did?' Was not every word that he uttered in his sermon spoken in the name of YHWH? Why then did not his sermon arouse fear and trembling in the people and cause them to bow to the divine authority by which he spoke, instead of inciting them to demand no less emphatically than the priests and prophets that he be put to death? In truth, that Jeremiah's persistent claim to divine authority could not possibly have had any such weight with the people as v. 16 would seem to imply, is shown clearly by v.9, in which the frenzied people ask Jeremiah, "Why didst thou prophesy in the name of YWVH, this Temple shall become like Shilo, and this city shall be devastated, shall become destitute of inhabitants?" It is obvious that the words, b'shem jawae "in the name of YHVH," are the real point in this question. The fact that the prophecy was uttered in the name of YHWH clearly formed an incriminating circumstance. Note the similar significant addition of b'shem jawae in the ultimatum of the priests of Anathoth mentioned by Jeremiah in XI, 21 "Thou shalt not prophesy in the name of YHWH (b'shem jawae), that thou die not at our hand." In fact, that in all such cases it was not the prophesying per se which constituted the real offense, but the prophesying in the name of YHWH, is evident from the explicit proviso in the Deuteronomic law, Deut. XVIII, 15-22.
Strange to say, this law has always been interpreted as if it were written from the point of view of the lit erary prophets, that is, as if the literary prophets' standard of true and false prophets were at the basis of it. (Cf, e.g. Driver, Deuteronomy, ICC
Obviously, however, there is a radical error in such an interpretation. The authority of the literary prophets from Amos to Jeremiah was never recognized by the exponents of the official religion of their age. If not constantly persecuted, as was Jeremiah, or forbidden speech and expelled from the country, as was Amos, the literary prophets were invariably met with scorn and derision, often even with hostility (cf. Hos. IX, 7f., Is . XXVIII, 9f., XXX , 10f.). On the other hand, their opponents, whom they denounced as false prophets, were regarded by their contemporaries as the true mouthpieces of YHWH, the authoritative interpreters of his will.
This is from a book by Moses Buttenweiser, my father's Bible teacher at HUC about a century ago.
“When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.” (Deut. 18:22 KJV)Dt 18:22 puzzled me for a long time. For one thing it seems to reverse the idea in DT 13:4 that a navi who accurately predicts might also be offering a false message. (You must use your head when listening to a prophet.) For another, the likes of Amós and Y’shatyahu predicted the future only in the sense of warning. They certainly did not want their words to come true. The solution I found in a book from my father’s collection by his teacher, Moses Buttenweisser. Below are pages (28f) that convinced me from his The Prophets of Israel, 1913. He is explaining here the trial of Yirm’yahu in Jer 29 for his Temple sermon in Jer 7. Essential to his understanding is that Dt 18:22 read: "When a navi speaks in the name of Yahh something that should not and shall not be, it is that which Yahh did not say.”(for a parallel idiom, cf Gen 34:7: Yirm'yahu has a lot of trouble with those he calls false prophets. But was tried and convicted of being a false prophet after claiming that the Temple would be destroyed, which, of course, came to pass. It must be pointed out that I have found this interpretation no where else. And a further challenge to me: the presumption here that Deuteronomy dates from the late 7th century BCE rather than the late 6th century tine of Ezra.
(3.) The report about Urijah's fate (Jer 26:20ff) is followed up by v. 24 : "But Ahikam b. Shafan protected Jeremiah so that he was not delivered up to the people to be put to death." The only inference possible from this plain, unequivocal statement is that Jeremiah had been condemned to death, and that he would have been executed had not Ahikam interfered. Duhm's attempt to reconcile this verse with v. 161 may passed over. Verse 24 cannot possibly be reconciled with v. 16, for the latter, as the text now reads, states that Jeremiah was acquitted by the Sarim and the people constituting the court, while the former states in plain words that, without the protecting hand of Ahikam, Jeremiah would have been handed over to the people for execution (in accordance with the law and custom in cases of this category; cf. Deut. XIII, 10, XVII, 7, also Lev XXIV, 14, 16, Num. XV, 35f-).
(4.) One cannot but ask, 'What new fact did Jeremiah present to the Sarim and the people by his assertion that he was sent by YHVH to prophesy as he did?' Was not every word that he uttered in his sermon spoken in the name of YHWH? Why then did not his sermon arouse fear and trembling in the people and cause them to bow to the divine authority by which he spoke, instead of inciting them to demand no less emphatically than the priests and prophets that he be put to death? In truth, that Jeremiah's persistent claim to divine authority could not possibly have had any such weight with the people as v. 16 would seem to imply, is shown clearly by v.9, in which the frenzied people ask Jeremiah, "Why didst thou prophesy in the name of YWVH, this Temple shall become like Shilo, and this city shall be devastated, shall become destitute of inhabitants?" It is obvious that the words, b'shem jawae "in the name of YHVH," are the real point in this question. The fact that the prophecy was uttered in the name of YHWH clearly formed an incriminating circumstance. Note the similar significant addition of b'shem jawae in the ultimatum of the priests of Anathoth mentioned by Jeremiah in XI, 21 "Thou shalt not prophesy in the name of YHWH (b'shem jawae), that thou die not at our hand." In fact, that in all such cases it was not the prophesying per se which constituted the real offense, but the prophesying in the name of YHWH, is evident from the explicit proviso in the Deuteronomic law, Deut. XVIII, 15-22.
Strange to say, this law has always been interpreted as if it were written from the point of view of the lit erary prophets, that is, as if the literary prophets' standard of true and false prophets were at the basis of it. (Cf, e.g. Driver, Deuteronomy, ICC
Obviously, however, there is a radical error in such an interpretation. The authority of the literary prophets from Amos to Jeremiah was never recognized by the exponents of the official religion of their age. If not constantly persecuted, as was Jeremiah, or forbidden speech and expelled from the country, as was Amos, the literary prophets were invariably met with scorn and derision, often even with hostility (cf. Hos. IX, 7f., Is . XXVIII, 9f., XXX , 10f.). On the other hand, their opponents, whom they denounced as false prophets, were regarded by their contemporaries as the true mouthpieces of YHWH, the authoritative interpreters of his will.