1-2절) 아브라함은 이제 네게브 땅으로 옮겨가서 가데스와 술 사이의 그랄에 거류하였다. 그곳에서 아브라함은 자신의 아내 사라를 자기 누이라고 하였고 이에 그랄 왕 아비멜렉이 사람을 보내어 사라를 데려갔다.
자기를 모르는 낯선 장소였기에 아브라함은 그곳의 사람들에게 자신의 아내를 누이라고 말할 수 있었다. 본문은 왜 이런 속임수를 쓰는지 말하고 있지 않지만 독자들은 이미 12장에서 아브라함이 바로왕에게 자신의 아내 사라를 누이라고 칭한적이 있다는 사실을 알고 있다. 이는 자신을 알지 못하는 새로운 곳에서, 하나님을 알지 못하는 이들이 아리따운 자신의 아내로 인해서 자신을 해할까봐 두려워서 속임수를 쓰는 것이다.
아비멜렉은 '내 아버지는 왕이다'라는 의미로 당시 왕을 칭하는 호칭으로 사용되었다. 26장에서도 똑같은 이름이 언급된다.
애굽에서 바로를 속였던 일이 아브라함에게 자손의 약속(12:1-3)이 처음으로 주어진 직후의 일이었다면 이번 사건은 아브라함에게 마지막으로 주어진 자손 약속(18:10) 이후의 일이다.
당시 사라의 나이는 90세였다. 이미 폐경기가 지난 여인이 아비멜렉의 눈에 들어 성적인 대상으로 보였다는 것은 참으로 놀라운 일이다. 90세의 나이에도 사라가 젊음을 유지했던 것인지 아니면 아브라함의 부를 취하기 위해서 정략적으로 그의 여동생과 관계를 맺으려고 했던 것인지는 분명하지 않다.
3-6절) 하나님께서 아비멜렉의 꿈에 나타나셔서 그에게 말씀하셨다. 네가 취하려고 데려간 여자는 남편이 있는 여자로 그녀를 취하면 죽을 것이다라고 경고하셨다. 이에 아비멜렉은 두려워하며 그 여인을 가까이 하지 아니하였다고 말하며 자신을 멸하지 말것을 구한다. 아브라함 그가 나에게 그녀를 자신의 누이라고 했고 사라 그녀도 자신에게 아브라함은 자신의 오라비라고 하였기에 자신은 전혀 몰랐으며 자신은 죄가 없음을 항변한다. 이에 하나님께서 다시 꿈을 통해서 네가 모르고 한 일이기에 너에게 이 경고를 하여 범죄하지 않도록 한 것이다라고 말씀하셨다.
하나님께서 이렇게 아비멜렉을 막으신 것은 아비멜렉으로 하여금 범죄하지 않도록 하시기 위해서뿐만 아니라 이후 21장에서 사라가 아들을 낳게 되는데 만약 아비멜렉과의 성적인 관계를 가졌다면 그 아들이 약속의 자녀가 될 수 없기 때문이다. 본문은 애써서 12:10-20절과는 다르게 사라와 아비멜렉사이에 성적인 관계가 없었다는 사실을 강조한다. 왜냐하면 사라가 낳게될 아들의 아버지가 아비멜렉일 가능성을 철저하게 차단하기 위함이다. 이처럼 하나님께서는 중요한 순간에 꿈을 통해서 역사하신다. 본문은 구약에서 처음으로 꿈을 통해서 인간들과 소통하시는 이야기를 다룬다.
하나님께서는 지금 아비멜렉에게 간음죄를 묻고 계신 것이다. 이스라엘 뿐만 아니라 고대 근동의 여러 문화권에서 간음은 심각한 범죄로 범죄자를 사형에까지 처할 수 있었다. 그러나 헷 족속 법전은 범죄자가 간음할 당시 여자가 결혼한 사실을 몰랐다는 것을 증명할 수 있으면 무죄로 처리하는 예외규정을 두고 있으며 아비멜렉의 주장도 이러한 논리를 바탕으로 한 것이다.
7절) 하나님께서는 아비멜렉에게 그 여인을 돌려보낼 것을 명하신다. 또한 성경에서 처음으로 아브라함이 선지자라고 직접 말씀하신다. 선지자는 하나님의 말씀을 대언하는 사람으로 그가 기도하면 네가 살게 될 것이지만 그 사람의 아내를 돌려보내지 않으면 다 죽을 것이다라고 말씀하셨다.
아브라함은 앞서 18장에서 소돔의 멸망을 막기 위해서 중재를 한 바 있다. 또한 아브라함의 기도로 롯의 가족은 구원을 받게 된다. 이러한 아브라함의 행동을 근거로 해서 하나님께서는 그를 선지자라고 그에게 기도를 요청하라고 말씀하신다.
선지자, '나비'라는 표현은 여기서 처음 사용된다. 선지자는 신 19:19-20
-
3. Theological considerations. Our point of departure is the theologically significant distinction made in Deut 18:19–20 between: (a) prophets who speak in the Lord’s name; (b) prophets who dare to speak a message in God’s name when he did not command them to do so; and (c) prophets who speak in the name of other gods. We will discuss these categories of prophets in the following order: the prophets who speak in the name of other gods, the true prophets, and the so-called false prophets.
-
(a) Prophets associated with heathen cult. (i) Prophets and prophecy in the Umwelt. In the ANE and the adjacent Hellenistic world, a variety of phenomena is found, especially in the so-called Mari letters, that can be compared with prophets and prophecy in the OT. We think it is sufficient to indicate a number of titles that were used for the so-called prophets in the ANE. In a few documents found at Ebla, the title nabîʾutum occurs, which is the nearest to the Heb. נָבִיא. Other titles with a broadly speaking similar meaning are barû, seer, maḫḫû(m) (in Mari texts muḫḫû(m)), an ecstatic, and āpilu(m), respondent, one who answers. The G equivalent is προφήτης (#4737), lit. one who foretells, but in its common usage προφήτης (#4737) indicates any person who has something to say in public (cf J. Lindblom, 1963, 26–29).
-
(ii) Heathen practices referred to in the OT. References to heathen practices of soothsaying and sorcery, i.e., of mantic and magic, are summarized in Deut 18:10–11, 14: “Let no one be found among you who makes his son or daughter pass through fire, no augur (קֹסֵם; #7877) or soothsayer (מְעוֹנֵן, #6726) or diviner (מְנַחֵשׁ; #5727) or sorcerer (מְכַשֵּׁף; #4175), no one who casts spells (חֹבֵר חָבֶר; #2042) or traffics with ghosts (שֹׁאֵל אוֹב; #200) and spirits (יִדְּעֹנִי; #3362), and no necromancer (דֹּרֵשׁ אֶל־הַמֵּתִים).… These nations whose place you are taking listen to soothsayers (מְעֹנְנִים) and augurs (קֹסֵם; #7876), but the Lord your God does not permit you to do this” (REB). A clear indication of what was practiced among the nations is also found in Jer 27:9. The prophet admonishes the envoys of the kings of Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, and Sidon, telling them: “Therefore do not listen to your prophets (נָבִיא), your diviners (קֹסֵם), your women dreamers (חֲלוֹם; #2706), your soothsayers (עֹנֵן), and your sorcerers (כַּשָּׁף; #4177), who keep on saying to you that you will not become subject to the king of Babylon” (REB). References to heathen practices are also found in Josh 13:22; Judg 9:37; 1 Sam 6:2; 2 Kgs 10:19; Jer 2:8; 29:8; Dan 5:7, etc. (For mantic phenomena, see קָסַם, practice divination, #7876.)
-
(iii) Israel forbidden to engage in these practices. These practices were clearly forbidden for Israel. No one was permitted to join the nations in performing acts of mantic and magic (Deut 18:10, 14). This prohibition is endorsed in Lev 19:26–28, 31; 20:6, 27, etc.
-
(iv) Heathen practices performed by Israel. The distinction between religio licita and illicita is applicable to this aspect of Israel’s religion. Contrary to God’s command, Israelites indulged throughout their history in performing heathen practices of soothsaying and sorcery. Saul had to banish from the land all who trafficked with ghosts and spirits (1 Sam 28:3). Jezebel kept up her obscene idol worship and monstrous sorceries (2 Kgs 9:22). One of the reasons for northern Israel’s disaster and exile was that they practiced augury and divination (17:17). Manasseh blatantly ignored God’s explicit command: “He made his son pass through the fire, he practiced soothsaying and divination, and dealt with ghosts and spirits” (21:6, REB). King Josiah got rid of all who called up ghosts and spirits (23:24). This religio illicita was also reflected in texts like Isa 2:6; 3:1–3; 8:19–20; 44:25; Jer 14:14; Ezek 12:24; 13:6; Mic 5:12; Zech 10:2, etc.
-
(b) The true prophets of the Lord. (i) The problem of the beginning. In answering the question when prophecy started, we will have to distinguish between the historical and the official beginning of prophecy.
-
Historically, prophecy as a communication between God and humanity dates back to the very beginning of human history. According to Christ the blood of all the prophets that was shed since the foundation of the world includes that of Abel (Luke 11:51). Jude 14 mentioned Enoch as someone who “prophesied” against the sinners of his time. Noah acted as a prophet when he took good heed of the divine warning about the unseen future (Heb 11:7). In the OT reference is made to a prophet in various contexts and with different functions: Abraham was called a prophet on account of his intercession (Gen 20:7; cf. Ps 105:12–15); Aaron was the speaker on behalf of God and of Moses (Exod 7:1; cf. 4:16); Miriam received the title of prophetess (Exod 15:20) because of her song when the Israelites crossed the Red Sea; Moses, the mediator of the Law, the leader of his people, was also a prophet (Num 12:1–8; Deut 18:15, 18; 34:10; Hos 12:13), etc. (see Moses, #5407).
-
Officially, the institution of the office of a prophet coincides with the institution of Israel as covenant people of God at Sinai. This is clearly affirmed by Deut 18:16–20, in connection with 5:23–33, and is attested to by Amos 2:9–11 and Jer 7:25. Moses, although being more than a prophet, is to be regarded as the model, the paradigm, of the prophetic office. This is not contradicted by the notion, adopted by later Judaism and in the NT (cf Acts 3:24; 13:20; Heb 11:32), that prophecy really started with Samuel. Both traditions are valid.
-
(ii) Individual prophets and prophetesses. The Jews counted forty-eight prophets and seven prophetesses, the latter being Sarah, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Abigail, Huldah, and Esther (Talmud-tract Megillah).
-
The role and function of the individual prophets, apart from the so-called writing prophets, must be evaluated on different levels. Some of them acted on occasion as prophets without being prophets themselves, e.g., Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Solomon, Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun (cf. 1 Chron 25:1). Eldad, Medad, and the seventy elders (Num 11:24–29), and Saul (1 Sam 10:6–10; 19:18–24) were prompted by the Spirit to behave as prophets on single occasions (Num 11:25; cf. 1 Sam 10:6; 19:23). Six prophets were anonymous (Judg 6:7–10; 1 Kgs 13 and 20; 2 Kgs 9:1–10). The generally accepted distinction between “acting” and “writing” prophets is, however, arbitrary. There are a number of individual prophets whose writings are mentioned by the Chronicler as part of his literary sources. He mentions in this regard the books of Samuel the seer, Nathan the prophet, Gad the seer (1 Chron 29:29–30); the prophecy of Ahijah of Shiloh; the visions of Iddo (2 Chron 9:29); the histories of Shemaiah the prophet and Iddo the seer (12:15), who was also called the prophet (13:22); the history of Jehu, son of Hanani, which is included in the annals of the kings of Israel (20:34); the vision of the prophet Isaiah (32:32); and generally the discourses of the seers (33:18–20). The fact that these literary sources were differently indicated, viz., as histories, prophecies, visions, and discourses, need not lead one to consider them as totally distinct. Their content is essentially historical, but then seen in the light of God’s intervention in Israel’s history.
-
Six individual prophets played a major role in Israel’s history and religion. They are Samuel, Gad, Nathan, Micaiah son of Imlah, Elijah, and Elisha. Samuel incorporated in his function the offices of judge, in both the military (1 Sam 11:12) and judicial (1 Sam 7:15–17) sense, of priest (7:9–10, cf 13:8–15), and of prophet (3:19–4:1; 9:6–10, etc.). We dismiss the view according to which the “history” of Samuel was clouded by theological interpretation to such a degree that nothing could be said for sure about the “historical” Samuel (contra J. Blenkinsopp, 65). Gad, the prophet, who was called “David’s seer” (2 Sam 24:11), occupied a prominent place in David’s entourage from the days of David’s flight before Saul (1 Sam 22:5), until the end of his reign, when he had to confront his king with God’s judgment because of his census (2 Sam 24:1–25; cf. 1 Chron 21:1–22:1). He, along with Nathan, was instrumental in reorganizing the temple music (cf. 2 Chron 29:25), while the events of King David’s reign from first to last were recorded in the books of Gad the seer (1 Chron 29:29). Nathan, the prophet and adviser of David, played a significant role on at least three occasions: when he had to reprimand the king because of his crimes with Uriah and his wife (2 Sam 11:1–12:23); when David asked his advice on his intention to build a temple for the Lord (2 Sam 7; cf. 1 Chron 17:1–27), and when he was instrumental in instituting Solomon as David’s successor (1 Kgs 1:8, 22–27). He assisted in organizing the temple music (2 Chron 29:25), and his writings on the events of King David’s reign (1 Chron 29:29), and those of Solomon (2 Chron 9:29), were part of the Chronicler’s literary sources. According to the rabbis, Nathan was David’s cousin. Micaiah son of Imlah (1 Kgs 22 = 2 Chron 18), Elijah the Tishbite from Tishbe in Gilead (1 Kgs 17–19; 21:17–29; 2 Kgs 1–2), and his successor, Elisha son of Shaphat of Abel Meholah (1 Kgs 19:16; 2 Kgs 2:1–18, etc.), played an important role in God’s confrontation with Ahab and the Baal cult.
-
A number of (minor) prophets worth mentioning are the prophet Ahijah from Shiloh (1 Kgs 11:29–39; 14; cf. 2 Chron 9:29), Iddo the seer (חֹזֶה, 2 Chron 9:29) and prophet (13:22; cf. 12:15); the seer (הָרֹאֶה) Hanani (16:7–10), and his son, the prophet Jehu (1 Kgs 16:1–7); the prophet Azariah son of Oded, upon whom the Spirit of God came (2 Chron 15:1–8)—his words to King Asa were indicated as “prophecy” (נְבוּאָה, v. 8); Shemaiah the man of God (1 Kgs 12:22; 2 Chron 11:2); Jahaziel son of Zechariah, upon whom the Spirit of the Lord came (2 Chron 20:14–17), he being a Levite, a member of the singers guild of Asaph; Eliezer son of Dodavahu, who denounced Jehoshaphat with a “prophecy” (20:37); Zechariah son of Jehoiada the priest, who proclaimed God’s judgment on King Joash and paid with his life (24:17–22; cf. Luke 11:51); Oded, “a prophet of the Lord,” who told the victorious northern Israelite army to release the Judaean captives in the Syro-Ephraimite war, which they did (2 Chron 28:9–15); and Uriah son of Shemaiah, the last known martyr-prophet (Jer 26:20–23)—this prophet is also mentioned in the Lachish letters. Five prophetesses are mentioned: Miriam (Exod 15:20), Deborah (Judg 4:3–5), Huldah (2 Kgs 22:14–20; cf. 2 Chron 34:22–28), Noadiah (Neh 6:14), and the anonymous wife of Isaiah (Isa 8:3). Noadiah was one of Nehemiah’s adversaries who tried to intimidate him, and thus belongs to the category of false prophets. The same applies to the women of Israel “who prophesied out of their own imagination” (Ezek 13:17–21). Prophetic activities among women were part of the religious and cultural heritage of the ANE, including the Hellenistic world.
-
To sum up:
-
• All the individual prophets, with the exception of Jahaziel, are indicated with the customary titles נָבִיא / נְבִיאָה, רֹאֶה / חֹזֶה, and “men of God.”
-
• The descent and social status of these prophets and prophetesses are generally unknown. Nathan was a grandchild of the Egyptian servant named Jarka (cf. 1 Chron 2:34–36 with 1 Kgs 4:5); Jahaziel was a member of Asaph’s levitical choir, and Zechariah was a son of the priest Jehoiada. Hanani and Jehu were father and son, the only instance of such a family relationship between two prophets.
-
• In all instances, the above-named prophets acted as such, conveying God’s revelation to specific persons. A classical definition of a prophecy was given by Micaiah son of Imla when he responded to the suggestion of the king’s messenger to agree with the unanimously favorable answer of the king’s prophets: “As sure as the Lord lives, I can tell him only what the Lord tells me” (1 Kgs 22:14; cf. 2 Chron 18:13).
-
• An important aspect of nearly all the prophets (with the inclusion of some prophetesses) is that they addressed their messages to the kings concerned, just as it was done in the Mari letters.
-
• The content of these messages was generally judgment and punishment, with a few exceptions, viz., the prophecy of Nathan to David with its messianic perspective (2 Sam 7; cf. ch. 23), and that of Jahaziel, who told King Jehoshaphat and the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem: “Do not be afraid or discouraged because of the vast army. For the battle is not yours, but God’s” (2 Chron 20:15).
-
• The prophets Gad and Nathan contributed to the reorganizing of the temple music.
-
• The activities of the prophets were not without risks: Hanani and Micaiah son of Imla were imprisoned, and both Zechariah son of Jehoiada and Uriah son of Shemaiah lost their lives.
-
• An important aspect of the experiences of some of these prophets was that the Spirit of the Lord came upon them: Azariah son of Oded, Jahaziel son of Zechariah, and Zechariah son of Jehoiada.
-
(iii) Groups of prophets. Two groups of prophets, referred to by the plural נְבִיאִים, belong to the category of true prophets. Other groups are either associated with the heathen cult (1 Kgs 18; 2 Kgs 10) or are false prophets (1 Kgs 22 = 2 Chron 18).
-
It is necessary to distinguish between the individual prophets conceived of as a separate group of “officials” within the realm of Israel’s religion on the one hand, and mainly two categories of group prophets, who formed separate monastic communities, on the other hand. Regarding the first category, Scripture refers to them both in bonam and in malam partem (cf. for bonam partem, see Num 11:29; 2 Kgs 17:13; 21:10; 2 Chron 20:20; 24:19; Ps 105:15; Jer 7:25; 35:15; Hos 6:5; Amos 3:7, etc.; for malam partem, see Isa 9:13–14; 28:7; 29:10, and nearly passim in Jer and Ezek).
-
The group prophets, on the other hand, can be divided into two segments: the group of prophets in the interim period between the Judges and the kingship in Israel, and those in the days of Elijah and Elisha.
-
The intimate relationship between the group of prophets mentioned in 1 Sam 10 and 19 is expressed by two Heb. words: חֶ֤בֶל נְבִיאִים, band or company of prophets (10:5), and לַהֲקַ֤ת הַנְּבִיאִים, the venerable community of the prophets (19:20; cf. W. L. Holladay). They had their own living quarters, referred to as Naioth, meaning pasturage, abode, residence (19:18–22). Characteristic of their behavior was their exuberance and enthusiasm. According to 1 Sam 10 their prophetic activities were accompanied by musical instruments, which were especially fit for enhancing rhythmical movements (cf. 18:10; Exod 15:20; 2 Kgs 3:15; for contrast, see 1 Sam 19). Their prophetic actions were indicated twice by the ni. form of the vb. (10:11; 19:20) and ten times by the hitp. (10:5, 6, 10, 13; 18:10; 19:20, 21 (bis), 23, 24), with no apparent distinction in meaning (cf. 19:20). The rendering of these vbs. with “shouting and dancing” (Good News Bible) or with “prophetic rapture/frenzy” (REB) seems rather semantically overloaded! They simply acted or behaved as prophets (cf. NIV).
-
The actions of Saul, and eventually of his messengers, were inspired (Heb. צָלַח, be strong, effective, powerful [with עַל, on s.o.]) by the Spirit of the Lord (1 Sam 10:6, 10; 19:20, 23). The content of their “prophecies” (10:5) must be conceived of in relationship with Saul’s anointment as king (ch. 9–10): It consists of short prophetic utterances, with accompanying gestures and music, which received special emphasis because it was in the neighborhood of a Philistine camp (10:4). Saul’s participation in the prophetic activities caused bewilderment among the onlookers (10:11–12), but was in itself an indication that the kingship in Israel was intimately related to the prophetic legitimation. According to 19:20 the company of prophets was acting or speaking (ni.) as prophets, while Samuel (lit.) was standing as one who is in charge of them. Samuel, therefore, was their leader, their “choirmaster,” a remark with theological significance: These prophets acted in consort with Samuel and may therefore not be associated with heathen cult or prototypes.
-
The second category of group prophets is consistently indicated as בְּנֵי־הַנְּבִיאִים, sons of the prophets, in the sense of a “Prophetengenossenschaft,” a community of prophets (1 Kgs 20:35; 2 Kgs 2:3, 5, 7, 15; 4:1, 38; 5:22; 6:1; 9:1; Amos 7:14). Several groups of them were found in Gilgal, Bethel, and Jericho. They were married, had children, and lived in their own quarters. According to 2 Kgs 4 and 6 they were poor. With the exception of 1 Kgs 20:35–43, the narratives about the sons of the prophets involved Elisha as their leader and teacher. This is especially evident in 2 Kgs 4:38 and 6:1, where it is stated that the prophets “met with” Elisha. The vb. יָשַׁב has the double meaning of “sit” and “dwell.” In 4:38 the intention clearly is to indicate that the prophets were in the habit (part.) of sitting at Elisha’s feet, which implies that he taught them. In 6:1 the prophets complained that the place where they usually (part.) dwelt/sat “before” Elisha had become too cramped. As Elisha was not located in one place but traveled extensively, this expression of dwelling/sitting before him could only mean the place where Elisha occasionally taught them.
-
In these “seminaries” the subject matter could not have been to teach the prophets how to become a prophet, how to receive the revelation of God, because the content of their messages as prophets could not be learned, but could only be received. Elisha, therefore, could have taught them the history of God’s revelation, the moral issues implied by the תּוֹרָה, and, perhaps, pastoral care. With a few exceptions it is not clear whether the sons of the prophets ever fulfilled the function of a prophet. The exceptions are the narratives of two individual sons of the prophets, who acted “by the word of the Lord” (1 Kgs 20:35; cf. 2 Kgs 9:1–13). The unfavorable comment by Jehu’s generals that the son of the prophets was “a madman” (Heb. הַמְשֻׁגָּע, 9:11) was unwarranted, because the act of anointing a person to become a king was well established in Israel’s history (1 Sam 10:1; 16:12–13; 1 Kgs 1:39, etc.). In not one of the narratives about the sons of the prophets did they act or behave like ecstatics or as “madmen.” The fact that Amos denied that he belonged to the community of בְּנֵי־הַנְּבִיאִים (Amos 7:10–17) suggests a degeneration of the moral standards of these prophets, especially to elevate their dire material needs by prophesying for bread. The phenomenon of prophetic figures, like Samuel and Elisha, surrounded by groups of prophets is also found with Isa (Isa 8:16–20) and Jer (Baruch), and especially with the Great Prophet, Jesus Christ (Matt 4:18–21, etc.).
-
(iv) The “writing” prophets. The prophetic title נָבִיא occurs 156× in the books of the writing prophets, especially in Jer (95×) and Ezek (17×), and the vb. in its hitp. mode 7×, and as ni. 80×, again mostly in Jer and Ezek, both 35× (cf. Jeremias, 8). The question is whether the writing prophets before Jeremiah considered themselves to be נְבִיאִים. According to Jeremias, this is not sure (14, with reference to A. H. J. Gunneweg, Mündliche und schriftliche Tradition der vorexilischen Prophetenbücher, 1959, 98–106). This issue, however, can only be solved when the term prophet is seen in the context of the controversy between prophet and prophet, between true and false prophets. The writing prophets’ apparent attack on the prophetic institution is, in fact, a rejection of the surrogate form of this institution, not on the institution itself. In trying to solve this problem, we must not easily resort to the exegetical practice to eliminate passages as secondary because we deem them to be out of context.
-
Amos, the oldest writing prophet, is a test case in this regard. His rejection of Amaziah’s accusation that he was a “seer,” who prophesied for a living (Amos 7:12), must be viewed against the apparent degeneration of the group prophets (cf. Mic 3:5, 11). Amos categorically denied that he belonged to this class of prophets. In fact, he was not an acting prophet from his life’s beginning. His occupation was to be a herdsman and fig-grower (Amos 7:14). But this is not to deny the fact that he was acting and speaking as a prophet now! The Lord took him as he was following his flock and said to him, “Go, prophesy to my people Israel” (7:15). There was no doubt whatsoever in Amos’ mind that he was acting and speaking as a true prophet of the Lord. That is why he could continue: “Now then, hear the word of the Lord” (7:16, 17). Amos’s view of himself as a true prophet is endorsed by 2:11–12 and especially by 3:7: “Surely the sovereign Lord does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets.” There is no need to deem these passages as secondary. (See Amos)
-
Hosea identifies himself with the prophets through whom God cut his people to pieces and slaughtered them with his words (Hos 6:5), through whom he declared his mind (12:10 [11]), and by whom he brought Israel up from Egypt (12:14 bis). In the eyes of his adversaries Hosea acted as a fool (9:7), but this was because of their sins. To the contrary, God appointed him to be a watchman (צֹפֶה) for Ephraim (9:8), as a true member of the “Oppositionsgemeinschaft” (Wolff, Ges. Stud., 233, quoted by Jeremias, 14). God’s quarrel with the priests included the (false) prophets (4:4–5). (See Hosea: Theology)
-
Isaiah is identified as נָבִיא only in the historical section of his book (Isa 37:2, cf. v. 6; 38:1, cf. v. 4; 39:3, cf. v. 5). In a few other passages God’s judgment on Jerusalem and Judah included the (false) prophets (3:2; 9:14; 28:7; 29:10). Isaiah did not necessarily regard himself as a “seer” (contra Jeremias, 15), although he referred to a “vision” (חָזוֹן), which he “saw” (חָזָה, 1:1). In 2:1 this vision is identified with הַדָּבָר, the word or message that he “saw” (חָזָה). In 37:6; 38:4; and 39:5 it was the word of the Lord that came to him and on which he had to mediate. In 8:3 his wife was called הַנְּבִיאָה, the prophetess. (See Isaiah: Theology)
-
Micah conveyed the words of the Lord in judgment on the (false) prophets (Mic 3:5–6, 11).
-
Jeremiah was very conscious of the fact that he was called to be a prophet (Jer 1:5; 19:14; 26:12), and this awareness was endorsed throughout his book inasmuch as he was identified, especially in the narrative passages of his book, as הַנָּבִיא, the prophet (31×, cf. 20:2; 25:5, 6, etc.). He considered himself to be a member of a series of true prophets (28:8; cf. 2:30; 5:13; 26:16–19). The title נָבִיא occurs 95× in his book, and the vb. in hitp. 5× and in ni. 35× (cf. Jeremias, 8, 15). (See Jeremiah: Theology)
-
Ezekiel also knew himself to be a נָבִיא. His calling came while he was lying prostrate on the ground because of the dazzling light that showed the presence of the Lord: “Mortal man, I am sending you to the people of Israel … whether those rebels listen to you or not, they will know that a prophet has been among them” (Ezek 1:28–2:5; cf. 22:1; 33:33, Good News Bible). The title נָבִיא, especially in the pl., occurs 17× and refers mainly to the false prophets (cf. chs. 13 and 14; also 22:25 [so MT, the LXX has “princes,” cf. NIV, 28]). Ezekiel’s commission by the Lord to speak as a prophet was described in terms of a stereotyped formula: the ni. impv. with the prepositions אֶל (6:2; 21:2 [conj. אֶל]; 21:7; 36:1; 37:9) or עַל (4:7; 11:4, etc.), or with the perfect consecutive of אָמַר, prophesy and say (21:28 [33]; 30:2; 34:2, etc.). The hitp. is used only twice (13:17 and 37:10), especially in 37:10 without distinction. (See Ezekiel)
-
The title נָבִיא occurs altogether 21× in the books of Hab (2×), Zeph (1×), Hag (5×), Zech (12×), and Mal (1×). The ni. of the vb. occurs only in Zech (3×). In three books the title is part of the heading, which is generally (but unjustly?) considered to be secondary (cf. Hab, Hag, Zech). Haggai’s prophetic office and function as a prophet were well attested. He was called “the prophet” in seven out of eleven occurrences of his name in the Bible (cf. Hag 1:1, 3, 12; 2:1, 10; Ezra 5:1; 6:14). As “the Lord’s messenger” (Hag 1:13; cf. Mal 1:8), he is represented in his book as an authoritative instrument of the word of God (cf. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi, 1987, 3, 51). The same applies to the prophet Zechariah (Zech 1:1, 7), whose commission was to remind the people of what God had done and had said through earlier prophets (1:4–6; 7:7, 12; 8:9). He also addressed people who unjustly claimed to be prophets (13:2–5). According to Zephaniah Jerusalem’s sin was essentially due to its officials, prophets, and priests (Zeph 3:1–5): The prophets were irresponsible and treacherous (v. 4). Malachi’s only reference is to the prophet Elijah (Mal 3:23 [4:5]).
-
(v) The message of the writing prophets. In assessing the content of the prophets’ message, we must, as point of departure, consider both the vertical and the horizontal dimensions of that message. The prophets were first and foremost preachers of God’s word (דָּבָר, Jer 18:18; 27:18) and revelation (חָזוֹן, Isa 1:1; 2:1; Ezek 7:26). This word “came” to them (Jer 1:2, 4; 2:1, etc.), is within them (Hab 2:1), is spoken to them by the Lord (Jer 46:13), which again enables them to speak in the name of the Lord (Deut 18:20), or else that the Lord spoke through them (Jer 37:2; cf. Hag 1:1, 3, etc.). The Lord himself fulfills his word. He is watching to see that his words come true (Jer 1:12); what he says will be done (Ezek 12:25, 28); he guarantees the fulfillment of the prophets’ words (Ezek 33:33; Dan 9:24); this word will not fail to do whatever he planned for it (Isa 55:10–11; cf. Jeremias, 18). The initiative of this mediating of the word was sometimes taken by the prophets, inasmuch as they acted in prayer and supplication on behalf of the people, but generally it was taken by the Lord himself. The specific indication that the word of the Lord “came” to the prophets emphasizes the objective and real character of this formula of revelation; the word did not originate in their mind, but occurred, manifested itself, and thus was received and communicated by the prophets (cf. Verhoef, Haggai and Malachi, 45; Jeremias, 18).
-
The horizontal dimension of the prophets’ messages is that they were communicated within the religious, historical, and cultural context of their times (cf. Jeremias, 21). These messages were spoken on account of and with the eye to the concrete circumstances and conditions of both Israel and the nations. In relation to history, the prophets’ message embraced past, present, and future. The future dimension was in the nature of a warning, where the future was linked with the present situation of the hearer. We agree with Peisker (79) that it was not a prediction, whereas in soothsaying, the attention is taken away from the present to a point in the future, foretelling what will happen in days to come. The themes of the prophets’ message embrace the whole spectrum of God’s revelation through word and deed, but focused especially on four spheres of life: the religious-ethical, the socioeconomical, the political (both internal and external), and the eschatological. In all these spheres the prophets both proclaimed God’s judgment and announced his salvation (cf. Jeremias, 20–22). Peisker rightly summarized the evidence concerning the prophets: “The Old Testament prophet is a proclaimer of the word, called by God to warn, exhort, comfort, teach and counsel, bound to God alone and thus enjoying a freedom that is unique” (79).
-
(vi) Daniel (→), which forms part of the Writings in the HB, is considered to be an example of Jewish apocalyptic (→). The latter is distinguished from prophecy by its otherworldliness; according to W. Baumgartner, by “its pseudonymity, eschatological impatience and exact calculations about the last things, the range and fantasy of its visions, concern for world history and a cosmic horizon, numerical symbolism and esoteric language, doctrines of angels and hope of the afterlife” (“Ein Vierteljahrhundert Danielforschung,” TRu 11, 1939, 136–37, quoted by Peisker, 80). Although apocalyptic and prophecy differ from one another, they both share the essential bond with revelation and the element of future expectation. Prophecy is like an airplane taking off from the runway of history and soaring into the eschatological future, while apocalyptic is like a plane bursting forth from the tempestuous skies to land on a grotesquely defined future tarmac. The rabbis rightly saw in apocalyptic the legitimate successor of prophecy (Seder ʿolam Rabbah 30).
-
(vii) The cessation of prophecy is suggested by Ps 74:9 (cf. Lam 2:9, 20) and endorsed by 1 Macc 9:27 (cf. 4:46; 14:41), but prophecy itself is honored and fulfilled in the realities of the NT (Heb 1:1, cf. Matt 1:22; 2:15, 23; 13:35; 21:4, etc., and Peisker with extensive literature).
-
(c) False prophets. A false prophet in the OT is a contra-prophet in a double sense: The source of his “inspiration” is a surrogate revelation, and he and the true prophet are continuously and actively involved in a confrontation with one another. The history of both categories of prophets is implicitly and actually intertwined and may be described as from the beginning of God’s history of revelation. In a certain sense we could consider the devil as the first false prophet, and the first act in the drama of false prophecy is his part in the disobedience of humanity (Gen 3; cf. John 8:44). The first explicit reference to and warning against false prophets is Deut 13:1–5 and 18:20, and the high tide of the activities of false prophets is referred to in 1 Kgs 22 = 2 Chron 18, and especially in the books of Jer, Ezek, and Mic. Jeremiah, for instance, refers to them in fourteen out of fifty-two chs. of his book (Jer 2; 4; 5; 6; 8; 14; 18; 23:9–40; 26; 27:9–16; 28; 29; 32). False prophets were especially active in the decades prior to the destruction of city and temple in 587 B.C. According to Lam they were responsible for the country’s disaster: “The visions of your prophets were false and worthless; they did not expose your sin to ward off your captivity” (Lam 2:14; cf. 4:13). The false prophets must be evaluated on two levels: first in the light of Scripture, and second, according to the perceptions of the ordinary people.
-
(i) The verdict of Scripture is unequivocally negative: They dare to speak a message in the name of the Lord when he did not command them to do so (Deut 18:20). The key words in describing their activities are שָׁוְא, worthless, in vain, deceit (cf. Ezek 12:24; 13:6, 7, 8, 9, 23; 22:28), כָּזָב, lie, falsehood (cf. 13:6, 7, 8, 9, 19; 22:28), and טָעָה (hi.), lead astray (13:10). The Lord did not send them (Deut 18:20; Jer 14:14; 23:21, 32; 28:15; Ezek 13:6, etc.); they provide their own inspiration and invent their own visions (Ezek 13:3); they are making the people believe a lie (Jer 28:15; 29:31); they are hiding the people’s sins like men covering a wall with whitewash (Ezek 22:28; cf. 13:10–15); they are telling their dreams that are full of lies (Jer 23:32); they are irresponsible and treacherous (Zeph 3:4); the people are deceived by prophets who promise peace to those who pay them (Mic 3:5; cf. Ezek 13:19); their moral behavior is disgraceful: they are so drunk that they stagger (Isa 28:7); they and the priests are godless; they have committed evil in the temple itself (Jer 23:11); the sins of Jerusalem’s prophets are even worse than those of Samaria: they commit adultery and tell lies; they help people to do wrong, so that no one stops doing what is evil (Jer 23:14). The Lord surely will punish these prophets: he will make them stumble and fall (Jer 23:12). None of them has ever known the Lord’s secret thoughts. “The storm of the Lord will burst out in wrath, a whirlwind swirling down on the heads of the wicked” (Jer 23:19). He is about to punish those prophets who have false visions and make misleading predictions (Ezek 13:9). In the eschatological future the Lord will purify the descendants of David and the people of Jerusalem from their sin and idolatry, and that includes his getting rid of anyone who falsely claims to be a prophet (Zech 13:1–6).
-
(ii) From the people’s point of view it was nearly impossible to distinguish between true and false prophets. This is true for several reasons. First, the term “false” prophets, which occurs in the LXX (i.e., Jer 6:13; 23:7, 8, 11, etc.) and the NT (cf. Matt 7:15; 24:11, 24; Mark 13:22; Luke 6:26; Acts 13:6; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1; Rev 16:13; 19:20; 20:10), does not occur in the OT. The titles referring to these prophets are generally the same as that of the true prophets: נָבִיא and חֹזֶה, and occasionally קֹסֵם (cf. Mic 3:7).
-
Second, formally, there is hardly any difference in the roles and functions of the two categories of prophets:
-
• both acted and spoke as prophets (1 Kgs 22:10, 12; Jer 28:2, 11; Ezek 13:2, etc.);
-
• both received the “revelation” by means of visions and dreams;
-
• both appealed to the Spirit of God as source of their inspiration (cf. 1 Kgs 22:11);
-
• both endorsed their messages by performing symbolic acts (1 Kgs 22:11; Jer 28);
-
• Scripture even allows for the possibility that the false prophets’ promises of a miracle or a wonder may come true (Deut 13:1–5; Ezek 13:6);
-
• even the accusation of moral misbehavior could also be leveled at the true prophets (cf. 2 Kgs 9:11–12; Jer 29:26–27; Hos 9:7);
-
• the assumption that the false prophets were ecstatics, like the Baal prophets (1 Kgs 18; cf. 2 Kgs 10:18–31), is generally unfounded. Some of them could have acted like ecstatics (cf. Zech 13:6), but this was certainly not a common practice.
-
Third, Scripture itself poses as norm for distinguishing between true and false prophets the fulfillment of the prophecies (Deut 18:20–22; Jer 28:9; Ezek 13:6; 33:33). This criterion, however, is valid only when the people could experience the fact of the fulfillment, as in the case of Ahab’s death (1 Kgs 22:29–40 = 2 Chron 18:28–34) and that of Hananiah (Jer 28:17). In most cases the fulfillment occurs at a much later stage and is, therefore, inappropriate as a norm of distinction.
-
Fourth, an important characteristic for discerning the truth of a prophecy is to compare it with the terms of the Torah (cf. Deut 13:1–5; Isa 8:19–20; Jer 6:16) and with the pronouncements of earlier prophets (Jer 26:18; 28:8; Zech 1:4; 7:7, etc.). Even this mark of distinction has its analogy in the practice of the false prophets, “who steal from one another words supposed from [the Lord]” (Jer 23:30).
-
Fifth, the unescapable dilemma for the people was to distinguish between the theological content of Israel’s faith and its application in the day of God’s judgment. The announcement of שָׁלוֹם for the people could be theologically justified in terms of Israel’s covenant theology: “Is not the Lord among us? No disaster will come upon us” (Mic 3:11; cf. 2:7, 12–13; Jer 23:16–17, 25; 28:1–4, 11; Ezek 13:10, 16; Amos 2:9–16; 3:2; 5:18–20). For the people themselves the announcements of the false prophets were gospel truth: “[You are] lying to my people, who listen to lies” (Ezek 13:19; cf. 13:10, 16; Jer 6:14; 8:11; 23:17; Mic 2:7; 3:5–8, 11; Luke 6:26). The people, indeed, did not like the prophecies of the true prophets (Isa 28:9, 10; Jer 26:9; 29:24–28; Hos 9:8; Amos 7:12, 16; Mic 2:6–11; 3:5).
-
Finally, the Exile (→) was a calamity of total proportions for the little nation, but especially for the false prophets. Their optimistic hopes and theological securities were dashed. Only Zech referred to them, but in an eschatological and negative context: The Lord will get rid of anyone who claims to be a (false) prophet (Zech 13:2). The NT warns against them frequently (Matt 7:15; 24:11, 24; Mark 13:22; Luke 6:26; Acts 13:6; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1; cf. Rev 16:13; 19:20; 20:10).
-
-
ANE Ancient Near East(ern)
-
ANE Ancient Near East(ern)
-
REB Revised English Bible
-
REB Revised English Bible
-
REB Revised English Bible
-
viz. namely
-
ANE Ancient Near East(ern)
-
viz. namely
-
ni. niphal
-
hitp. hitpael
-
REB Revised English Bible
-
NIV New International Version
-
s.o. someone (in lexical definition)
-
ni. niphal
-
hitp. hitpael
-
ni. niphal
-
hitp. hitpael
-
ni. niphal
-
MT Masoretic text
-
LXX Septuagint
-
NIV New International Version
-
ni. niphal
-
impv. imperative
-
conj. conjecture
-
hitp. hitpael
-
ni. niphal
-
HB Hebrew Bible
-
TRu Theologische Rundschau
-
hi. hiphil
-
LXX Septuagint
-
Willem VanGemeren, ed., New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), 1068–1078.
8-10절) 아비멜렉은 그날 아침 일찍 자기의 집안의 모든 종들을 불러서 이 여인이 남편이 있는 여인임을 말해준다. 또한 하나님께서 꿈을 통해서 자기에게 말씀하신 내용을 이야기했을 것이다. 이에 그들이 심히 두려워하였다. 또한 아비멜렉은 아브라함을 불러서 네가 왜 자신의 아내를 누이라고 속여서 내와 내 나라가 큰 죄를 짓게 하였느냐라고 나무란다. 그러면서 무슨 이유로 이렇게 행하였는지를 묻는다.
본문에서 말하는 큰 죄는 특히 성적인 범죄를 지칭하는데 사용되는 말이다.
11-13절) 아브라함은 이곳 그랄의 사람들은 하나님을 두려워함이 없기 때문에 자신의 아내로 인해서 자신을 죽일까 두려웠다라고 말한다. 하지만 이것은 그랄 사람들의 종교심을 잘못 평가한 것이었다. 5, 8, 16절을 보면 아비멜렉이나 그랄 사람들이 하나님의 말씀을 듣고 두려워하며 온전한 마음과 깨끗한 손을 가지고 있으며 수치를 당하지 않기 위해서 노력하는 이들임을 알 수 있다. 뿐만 아니라 아브라함은 여전히 하나님에 대한 부족한 신뢰를 드러내고 있다. 그러면서 아브라함은 다시금 그녀가 나의 이복 누이이기에 아내이면서 동시에 누이인 것이 맞다라고 말한다. 하지만 이런 설명은 아브라함이 자신의 아내를 누이라고 속인 일을 정당화 할 수는 없다. 아브라함은 창 12, 20장에서 자신을 모르는 사람들 속에서 자신의 아내 사라를 자기의 누이라고 속이는 방법을 사용했었다. 하지만 이러한 방법은 성공적이지 않았다. 그러나 하나님은 아브라함의 믿음 없음으로 인해서 생긴 이러한 위기 상황가운데 직접적으로 개입하셔서 아브라함과 사라를 보호하심으로 당신의 약속이 이루어지도록 역사하신다.
14-16절) 이에 아비멜렉은 양과 소와 종들을 이끌어와서 아브라함에게 주고 그의 아내 사라도 돌려보내주었다. 또한 아브라함에게 네 눈앞에 펼쳐진 땅중에 네가 보기에 좋은곳을 취하여 거주하라고 말하고 또한 사라에게 은 천개를 네 오라비에게 주어서 너와 함께 한 여러 사람앞에서 너의 수치를 가리라고 말한다.
도리어 속임수를 쓰는 아브라함과 대조적으로 아비멜렉은 매우 관대함으로 이들을 대우한다. 이를 통해 아비멜렉은 자신이 하나님을 두려워하고 있음을, 사라에게 절대 손을 대지 않았음을 공개적으로 밝히고 있는 것이다.
17-18절) 이에 아브라함이 하나님께 기도하자 하나님께서 아비멜렉과 그의 아내와 여종의 태를 여심으로 그들로 하여금 출산하도록 하셨다.
하나님께서는 아브라함을 선지자라고 하셨고 그가 기도하면 들으심을 분명하게 보여주고 있다. 하지만 우리가 기억할 것은 아브라함의 기도 자체에 힘이 있는 것이 아니라 아브라함이 기도하자 하나님이 그 기도를 들으시고 역사하셨다라는 것이다. 간혹 목회자들이 자신들의 기도에 능력이 있다라고 착각한다. 하지만 목회자 자신의 기도에 능력이 있는 것이 아니라 우리가 온전히 하나님의 뜻에 합한 기도를 드릴때 하나님께서 그 기도를 들으시고 응답하신 다는 사실을 기억해야 한다.
이 이야기는 소돔과 고모라 사건 (18-19장)과도 여러 가지 공통점을 지니고 있다. 이 이야기들은 낯선 공동체에 나그네로 머물던 사람들(롯과 아브라함)에 관한 것들이다(cf. 19:9; 20: 1). 두 사건에서 모두 여자들이 위협을 받는다. 롯은 딸들을 부랑배들에게 넘겨주려 했다. 아브라함은 아내를아비벨렉에게 넘겨주었다. 여자들이 위협을 받는 이유는 남자들을 보호하기 위해서였다. 룻은 딸들을 부랑배들에게 넘겨주어 자기의 집을 찾은 남자 손님들을 보호하려 했고, 아브라함은 아내를 여동생으로 속임으로써 자신을 보호하려 했다. 이 이야기들에서 하나님의 심판이 중요한 주제로 부상한다. 소돔과 고모라는 하나님의 심판을 받아 멸망했다. 아비멜렉의 집안은 아브라함 때문에 하나님의 심판을 받아 아이를 생산하지 못하는 고통을 겪었다. 너무 억울했던 아비벨렉은 이 일로 인해 그를 해하려는 하나님께 항변했다. 이 두사건은 공통적인 이슈를 제시하고 있다: ‘하나님께서 무고한 사람들을 죄인을 멸하듯이 멸하실 것인가?’ 아브라함은 두 이야기에서 중보자 역할을 한다(18:23-33; 20:17).
그런데 이 두이야기의 결정적인 차이는 소돔과 고모라는 심판을 당했고 아비멜렉은 은혜를 입었다는 것이다.
