Last week’s machshava post discussed how we can test the authenticity of a prophet when changing human behavior can alter the outcome of predictions. Yona’s prediction about Ninveh does not come true because the people of Ninveh repent, not because he fabricated the prophecy. Rambam states that such variations do not occur regarding prophecies of divine largess. Since positive prophecies remain locked in, they can be used to test a prospective prophet.
We can offer a two pronged critique of Rambam. Logically, should not changing behavior affect divine governance in both directions. If God predicts a positive result, and then the proposed recipients turn evil, must God still provide for them? Secondly, explicit verses in Yirmiyahu seem to rebut Rambam’s approach:
At one instant I may speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up and to break down and to destroy it; but if that nation turn from their evil, because of which I have spoken against it, I repent of the evil that I thought to do to it. And at one instant I may speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; but if it do evil in My sight, that it hearken not to My voice, then I repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit it (Yirmiyahu 18:7-10)
The prophet equates the two scenarios. Just as repentance can move God to change a prediction, so can a turn to vice. R. David Kimchi (Radak) attempts to reconcile Rambam’s theory with these verses. He contends that, when proposed beneficiaries turn bad, God first fulfills His positive prediction and then “repents of the good” and brings punishment. While we certainly value defending Rambam, we can safely say that Radak’s reading is somewhat forced.
What are alternative means for testing a prophet? R. Chasadi Crescas (Or Hashem 2:4:2) suggests that a prophet’s first prophetic messages must occur so that the people can judge his or her authenticity. Once a prophet establishes his or her status, the predictions become subject to people’s changing behaviors. As Abravanel’s critique points out (commentary on Devarim 18), a prophet’s first predictions may fail to realize absolute justice since they remain impervious to the fluctuations of human righteousness. Presumably, R. Chasdai would answer that this is a necessary concession to enable us to establish true prophecy.
Abravanel offers another possibility. Perhaps God establishes a prophet’s authenticity by informing him of predictions unrelated to reward and punishment. As an example, he cites Shmuel’s knowledge of the whereabouts of Shaul’s family’s donkeys. Apparently, this information is not significant enough to be subject to divine allocation of reward and punishment. While this approach resolves tensions regarding divine justice, it may suffer from the weakness of attributing to God prophecies about trivial matters.
In addition to the above methods, another factor helps us test the prophet – the content of the prophecy. Rambam teaches (Yesodei haTorah 9: 3-5) that when a prophet attempts to permanently cancel a mitzva, we immediately recognize a falsehood. If a prophet attempts to even temporarily allow idolatry, we identify fabrication. Beyond miracles and predictions, we have one highly significant test. Do the words of the prophet ring true to Torah?
More
Recent Comments
July 26, 2010 (5:53) Insights in Pirkei Avot: Eating to Live Rabbi Blau: I recall reading somewhere that th...
July 18, 2010 (9:51) Halacha Yomit: Introduction to the Three Weeks Engagements are considered a business arrangeme...
July 16, 2010 (6:56) Halacha Yomit: Introduction to the Three Weeks I know someone who got engaged yesterday in Ame...
July 11, 2010 (4:26) The Mission of Orthodoxy Project, No. 24: Where Does the Mission Take Us? Rabbi, An excellent series - I am really enj...