The bizarre actions demanded of several prophets took place only in prophetic visions. They were meant to serve as analogies, and not intended to be active public displays.
Maintaining prophetic standards and reputation – These sources find it unfathomable that Hashem would command His prophets to act in ways which would cause others to view them as unstable or mad. If a prophet walks around naked, marries a prostitute, or lies on his side for months on end, how can he earn the respect of the people and have his rebukes to be heard?
Commanding a transgression? Rambam is further bothered by commands which appear to entail transgressing Biblical commands (such as Yechezkel's shaving of his hair and beard).1 As Hashem could easily have a prophet relay whatever message He wants through permitted deeds, it is illogical to assume that He would command someone to perform a prohibited action.
Burdensome actions – Rambam does not limit his position to commands which might result in shaming the prophet, suggesting that even actions which might only burden a prophet took place in a vision and not in reality. Thus, he claims that Yirmeyahu did not travel hundreds of kilometers to Bavel to hide his girdle in the Perat; this, too, took place only in a vision.2
Variation of this approach – According to Targum Yonatan, it is possible that many of the more bizarre symbolic actions3 commanded by Hashem might have only been relayed as a parable, and the prophet never saw himself performing such actions even in a dream.
No mention of vision – These sources are not bothered by the fact that none of the relevant texts share that the event discussed was just in a dream, assuming that most prophets (besides Moshe) received their prophecies via a vision4 and not while awake.5 In addition, once it is recognized that a chapter speaks of a prophetic dream, it can be assumed that all events described therein similarly took place in the vision and not in reality.6
"וַיַּעַשׂ כֵּן" – Ibn Ezra and Rambam claim that even the fact that a chapter might relay that the "prophet did as told" (see Yeshayahu 20:2 and Hoshea 1:3 ) does not refute this approach.7 These words merely mean that the prophet saw himself fulfilling the prophecy in his dream.8
Yechezkel's questioning – Yechezkel's expressing concerns about eating impure food and Hashem's resulting chnage of command, present a difficulty for this position. If everything was in a vision and meant only as an analogy, why incorporate such a conversation?
Intended audience – If the symbolic actions were not performed publicly, it is unclear for whom they were intended. This position could suggest any of the following:
The prophet – It is possible that Hashem wished for the prophet himself to internalize Hashem's messages, for only then would he be able to effectively relay them to the people in his own manner.9 Alternatively, certain messages were not even intended to be relayed further and held import only for the prophet.
The nation – The messages were relayed as analogies to the nation, but without the accompanying visuals (the deeds of the prophet). Though verbal parables would seem to have much less impact on an audience than symbolic actions, the honor of the prophet precludes the latter.10 In cases where the audience is a foreign nation, it is possible that verbal analogies were preferred, since any symbolic action would have reached them only via hearsay regardless.
Future generations –
Efficacy of prophecy
Symbolic Action
Hashem's commands were actively fulfilled, despite the embarrassment or pain they might have caused the prophet. This position subdivides regarding whether or not the commands should be reinterpreted so as to mitigate the difficulties that a literal understanding would pose for the prophet.
Literal Fulfillment
Hashem's commands are understood literally, without an attempt to soften the directives or make life easier for the prophet.
Prophetic trials – The Rid maintains that prophets are initiated into prophecy with the understanding that their lives will be filled with trials and tribulations. The fact that a command might entail suffering pain or humiliation is part of the prophetic package.
Maintaining prophetic standards and reputation – Rid does not address how a prophet's engaging in bizarre behavior would impact his reputation and how it might affect how future prophecies were heard. It is possible that people were used to their prophets performing symbolic actions and recognized them as such. And, even if at first they found the prophet's behavior odd, once the actions were explained, they accepted it as part of the prophet's job.
Commanding a transgression?
Non-literal Fulfillment
Many of Hashem's commands are reinterpreted, easing their fulfillment and making them accord more with the standards of behavior expected of a prophet.
Any bizarre command which the narrator states was fulfilled by the prophet must be interpreted as having been fulfilled literally and not in a dream. Those commands whose fulfillment is not explicit might have been given only in a prophetic vision.
The various cases – Abarbanel distinguishes between three types of cases:
Where the text explicitly states that something occurred in a vision, such as Yechezkel being taken "בְּמַרְאוֹת אֱלֹהִים" to Yerushalayim (8:3), the prophecy and all actions mentioned therein can be assumed to be have taken place only in a prophetic dream.
Where the text explicitly states that a prophetic command was fulfilled, such as Yeshayahu's walking naked and Hoshea's taking a prostitute in marriage, one must assume that the action happened literally.
In cases where the text is silent, neither mentioning a vision nor an active deed, such as the commands that Yechezkel shave his hair, lie on his side, or eat bread baked in dung, one can take either option.
Loyalty to the simple meaning of the text – Abarbanel is motivated by a desire to stay true to the simple meaning of the text. He questions how someone can arbitrarily decide that the narrator's statement, "and he did so" was only within a dream?
Bizarre actions and prophetic standards – Abarbanel argues that the degree of "absurdity" of a commanded action should play no role in determining whether or not it was merely a vision. It is not for the reader to decide what is "strange" or whether or not they are comfortable with Hashem's commands.