Discerning False Prophecy: The Story of Ahab and the Lying Spirit

While the Hebrew Bible speaks of prophets speaking falsely, it never actually uses the term “false prophet.” In contrast, the LXX, especially in Jeremiah, often translates נביא in such contexts as ψευδοπροφήτης, “false prophet.” See Jeremiah 6:13, 33[=26]:7, 8, 11, 16, 34[=27]:9, 36[=29]:1, 8. See also Zechariah 13:2. (The brackets refer to the chapter number in the MT when it differs from that of the LXX.)

See discussion in Jonathan Stökl, “Can There Be Another Prophet Like Moses?” TheTorah (2017); idem, “Ancient Israelite Divination: Urim ve-Tummim, Ephod, and Prophecy,” TheTorah (2018).

His name first appears in this story only in v. 20.

See I Will Utter Riddles From Ancient Times: Riddles and Dream Riddles in Biblical Narratives (Heb) (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2005) pp.98-99. This is highly reminiscent of the famous story in Herodotus (bk 1) about Croesus king of Lydia, who asks the Delphic oracle whether or not he should attack Persia. Having received the answer, “If you attack Persia, a great empire will fall,” Croesus interprets it incorrectly to mean Persia will fall, as opposed to his own great kingdom, and loses all.

On one level, the question posed to the prophets here is purely political or strategic. Ahab wants to go to war, and he is looking for a yes-or-no answer from the prophets. For the classical rabbis, and likewise for nearly all of the Jewish exegetical tradition until the modern period, biblical narratives are not about history or politics, but about God and God’s relationship with the Israelites. Prophetic communications, therefore, should not be examined strictly through the lens of what we in the modern period consider political, but rather, as the contemporary biblical scholar Walter Bruggemann put it, any affirmation of a political decision “in light of Yahweh’s will is a theological datum.” See Walter Bruggemann, A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming (Grand Rapids, Mic.: Eerdman’s, 1998), 243.

A related point is made by Suzanne Last Stone, Professor at Yeshiva University’s Cardozo School of Law, who writes: “The true prophet does not function merely as a mechanism for transmitting God’s words; rather, the prophetic relationship is dialogic.” See “Between Truth and Trust: The False Prophet as Self-Deceiver?” Hebraic Political Studies 4:4 (2009), 337–366 [p. 355].

Rabbinic literature adds a further category of false prophecies, namely, quoting other prophets’ words as one’s own, which they accuse Hananiah ben Azur of doing. See Sifrei Deuteronomy 177, b. Sanhedrin 89a; Moses Maimonides Guides of the Perplexed 2:40 (p. 383 in the Pines edition); idem, Mishneh Torah, Book of Knowledge, “Laws of Idolatry,” 5:8. Notably, this category has been picked up among contemporary biblical scholars such as Sheldon Blank, who writes that fraudulent prophets are “dealers in used oracles” who “give out as their own the prophetic revelation in question and adorn themselves with it.” See Sheldon Blank, Of a Truth the Lord Hath Sent Me: An Inquiry into the Source of the Prophet's Authority, Goldenson Lecture 1955 (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1955), 9. See also, Martin Buber, “False Prophets,” in Israel and the World: Essays in a Time of Crisis (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1997; repr. of, New York: Schocken Books, 1948), 113–119 [p. 114].

Zedekiah’s prophecy may even be offering a subtle wordplay here. The term for wild ox, ראם, used in Deuteronomy 33:17 has assonance with the name of Ahab’s enemy here, ארם.

See Simon John DeVries, Prophet Against Prophet (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1978), 43.

See also, Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, 2.40, p. 383.

As God says to Aaron and Miriam in Numbers 12:8, prophetic visions are riddles (חידות), and their meaning needs to be decoded. In Maimonides’ words, prophetic visions often take the form of parables “whose purpose it is to imitate certain notions.” Guide of the Perplexed, 2.43, p.392. For more on Maimonides’ concept of prophecy see Haim Kreisel, “What Is Prophecy?” TheTorah (2015).

The classical rabbis in fact derived their rules of judicial procedure from this very scenario, requiring adversarial camps comprising those who advocate acquittal and those who argue for conviction, so that all issues can be canvassed. See y. Sanhedrin 1:1-18a and Rashi who cites Midrash Tanhuma Exodus 18 to this effect.

Notably, the description of Solomon in Chronicles comes close to making such an equation:

^{דברי הימים א כט:כג} וַיֵּשֶׁב שְׁלֹמֹה עַל כִּסֵּא יְ־הוָה לְמֶלֶךְ תַּחַת דָּוִיד אָבִיו...

^{1 Chron 29:23} Solomon successfully took over the throne of YHWH as king instead of his father David,

Might this indicate a move from king as God’s terrestrial representative to king as divine sovereign?

Editor’s note: For an archaeologically based discussion of this story, see Norma Franklin, “The Story of Naboth’s Vineyard and the Ancient Winery in Jezreel,” TheTorah (2017).

^[15] The Covenant Collection in Exodus as well juxtaposes the two crimes of political and theological cursing:

^{שמות כב:כז} אֱלֹהִים לֹא תְקַלֵּל וְנָשִׂיא בְעַמְּךָ לֹא תָאֹר.

^{Exod 22:27} You shall not revile God, nor put a curse upon a chieftain among your people.

In explaining the rabbinic interpretation, Nahmanides comments on this verse (ad loc.):

והנה הזהיר על המלך העליון יתברך ועל המולך בארץ.

This is a prohibition against [blaspheming] the heavenly king, may He be blessed, and against [blaspheming] a terrestrial king.

Even so, Jezebel’s fusing of the two into one judicial proceeding reflects a strategic melding of God and king in Ahab’s own personage.

The text reads:

^{דברים יג:ב} כִּי יָקוּם בְּקִרְבְּךָ נָבִיא אוֹ חֹלֵם חֲלוֹם וְנָתַן אֵלֶיךָ אוֹת אוֹ מוֹפֵת. ^יג:ג וּבָא הָאוֹת וְהַמּוֹפֵת אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר אֵלֶיךָ לֵאמֹר נֵלְכָה אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא יְדַעְתָּם וְנָעָבְדֵם. ^יג:ד לֹא תִשְׁמַע אֶל דִּבְרֵי הַנָּבִיא הַהוּא אוֹ אֶל חוֹלֵם הַחֲלוֹם הַהוּא כִּי מְנַסֶּה יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֶתְכֶם לָדַעַת הֲיִשְׁכֶם אֹהֲבִים אֶת יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם בְּכָל לְבַבְכֶם וּבְכָל נַפְשְׁכֶם.

^{Deut 13:2} If there appears among you a prophet or a dream diviner and he gives you a sign or a portent, ^13:3 and the sign or portent that he named to you comes true saying, “Let us follow and worship another god—whom you have not experienced, ^13:4 do not heed the words of that prophet or that dream diviner. For YHWH your God is testing you to see whether you really love YHWH your God with all your heart and soul.

For more on this, see Martin Lockshin, “Can a False Prophet Perform Miracles?” TheTorah (2018).

^{ישעיה ו:ט} וַיֹּאמֶר לֵךְ וְאָמַרְתָּ לָעָם הַזֶּה שִׁמְעוּ שָׁמוֹעַ וְאַל תָּבִינוּ וּרְאוּ רָאוֹ וְאַל תֵּדָעוּ. ^ו:י הַשְׁמֵן לֵב הָעָם הַזֶּה וְאָזְנָיו הַכְבֵּד וְעֵינָיו הָשַׁע פֶּן יִרְאֶה בְעֵינָיו וּבְאָזְנָיו יִשְׁמָע וּלְבָבוֹ יָבִין וָשָׁב וְרָפָא לוֹ. ^ו:יא וָאֹמַר עַד מָתַי אֲדֹנָי וַיֹּאמֶר עַד אֲשֶׁר אִם שָׁאוּ עָרִים מֵאֵין יוֹשֵׁב וּבָתִּים מֵאֵין אָדָם וְהָאֲדָמָה תִּשָּׁאֶה שְׁמָמָה.

^{Isa 6:9} And He said, “Go, say to that people: ‘Hear, indeed, but do not understand; See, indeed, but do not grasp.’ 10 Dull that people's mind, Stop its ears, And seal its eyes — Lest, seeing with its eyes And hearing with its ears, It also grasp with its mind, And repent and save itself.” ^6:11 I asked: “How long, my Lord?” And He replied: “Till towns lie waste without inhabitants And houses without people, And the ground lies waste and desolate…”

Editor’s note: For a discussion of this text, see Marvin A. Sweeney, “When the God of Justice Goes Rogue,” TheTorah (2016).

In English, you can be “enticed” to do something positive.

The related noun, peti, is used of a fool in Proverbs and other biblical texts.

The connection between the two stories has been noted by modern literary scholars as well. See R. W. Moberly’s appreciation of the proximity of the two passages:

[I]f one allows the placement of this story next to the preceding story of Naboth's vineyard to bear upon its interpretation, then the reader will be less inclined to see territorial responsibility as the prime royal motive. Thus, the king may implicitly be abusing the royal prerogative in lightly sacrificing peace and greedily undertaking war.

R. W. Moberly, “Does God Lie to His Prophets? The Story of Micaiah ben Imlah as a Test Case,” HTR 96:1 (2003): 1–23 [p. 4].

Maimonides’ didactic references to Ahab’s character and crimes in his legal code singles out Ahab’s travesty vis-a-vis Naboth as paradigmatic of all theft that begins in the very basest of human desire and ends in the most pernicious of crimes (Mishneh Torah, “Book of Damages,” Laws of Theft and Lost Property, 1:11). Maimonides further cites the midrash of the “spirit of Naboth” to identify Ahab as emblematic of the danger of the crime of murder (Mishneh Torah, “Book of Damages,” Laws of Murder 4:9). Maimonides traces an escalating immoral chain of causation initiated by desire and ultimately ending in murder. That chain conjures its positive mirror image in the reverse direction, ascending from diligence and cleanliness to piety, and peaking at ‘holy inspiration’ (ruach haqodesh), which Maimonides equates elsewhere with prophecy. In other words, Ahab’s moral choices led him precisely to a point that is the polar opposite of prophecy, a state that posed an impenetrable barrier to even comprehending prophetic messages.

This is also reminiscent of the “perversion” committed by false prophecies (dibber sarah).