Prophetic Actions Without Explicit Divine Sanction/2
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
Prophetic Actions Without Explicit Divine Sanction
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
Commentators disagree regarding how much prophetic autonomy Hashem's messengers have. On one side of the spectrum, R. Saadia limits their authority, claiming that even when no Divine directive appears explicitly in the text, it can be assumed that a prophet is acting under Divine guidance. Miraculous wonders are prescribed by Hashem, not the prophet. R"Y Albo, in contrast, asserts that prophets have both the ability and responsibility to act on their own initiative and even to perform supernatural phenomena when called for. A prophet who waits to consult with Hashem when he can deal with a crisis on his own is sinful.
A middle position is charted by Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel. They claim that though Hashem fulfills the words of his prophets, allowing them to declare miracles on their own, such declarations should really be viewed as prayer. There is always a slight risk that Hashem will not accede to the request, and, as such, it is preferred that a prophet act only via Hashem's words. Practically, though, with the exception of Moshe, prophets are limited in that they do not always have access to Hashem's desires and thus have no choice but to act independently.
All Divinely Commanded
All of the miracles and deeds performed by a prophet are Divinely commanded. Even if Hashem's instructions are not explicitly mentioned, it can be assumed that they were communicated to the prophet before he acted.
Sources:Josephus, Yerushalmi, Vayikra Rabbah, R. Saadia Gaon, R. Yehuda ibn Balaam, Rashbam, Tosafot, Radak #2,1 Ramban #2,2 R. Yosef ibn Kaspi, Netziv
Prophetic autonomy – According to this approach, prophets do not have the power to change nature on their own. Thus, anytime a prophet decrees that a miracle is to occur, it must be assumed that Hashem shared this beforehand.3 It is possible to go even further and suggest that, even in the natural realm, prophets do not have the autonomy to make any significant decisions except with Divine guidance.4
Poetic license – Dunash. b. Labrat5 limits a prophet's autonomy even further, claiming that even the words used by a prophet are all chosen by Hashem.
Biblical cases – This position attempts to explain all cases where a prophet seems to be acting independently:
- Moshe's actions
- Ending plagues6 – According to this approach, despite the silence in the text, Moshe had been given permission beforehand to tell Paroh to set a time for the plague to end, and could thus expect that Hashem would indeed remove it at that time.7
- Promising meat – These sources could explain, as do R. Yosef Bekhor Shor and R. D"Z Hoffmann, that Hashem's command in Shemot 16:12, where He explicitly mentions meat, is achronological and actually preceded Moshe's announcement.8 Thus, Moshe did not on his own decree that Hashem would feed the people meat.9
- Incense test – Many of these sources10 understand Moshe's falling on his face after Korach's initial complaint as a sign of prophetic communication and suggest that at this juncture, Hashem told him how to proceed during the rebellion and directed him to propose the incense test. The test, thus, was not Moshe's own invention. Rashbam adds that Moshe's later words "בְּזֹאת תֵּדְעוּן כִּי י"י שְׁלָחַנִי לַעֲשׂוֹת אֵת כׇּל הַמַּעֲשִׂים הָאֵלֶּה"11 refer specifically to his hope that the nation will recognize that the test was devised by Hashem, and not himself.12
- Earth opening – Ramban maintains that Hashem hinted that the earth was to swallow the leaders when He said, "הֵעָלוּ מִסָּבִיב לְמִשְׁכַּן קֹרַח דָּתָן וַאֲבִירָם." So here, too, Moshe was not declaring a miracle on his own.13
- The petition of the 2 1/2 tribes – Ramban points to the tribes' words "אֵת אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר י"י אֶל עֲבָדֶיךָ כֵּן נַעֲשֶׂה" at the conclusion of the negotiations as proof that Moshe had not independently decided that they could settle the eastern bank.
- Yehoshua, Shemuel and Natan
- Yehoshua and the sun – These sources could explain that Yehoshua was not decreeing that the sun stand still, but rather praying to Hashem for aid, hoping that He would acquiesce to perform a miracle.14 However, the fact that he does so publicly, ("וַיֹּאמֶר לְעֵינֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל") is difficult for he could not be certain that Hashem would agree. Alternatively, this position might suggest that this was a unique case, as the verse itself suggests when it declares, "וְלֹא הָיָה כַּיּוֹם הַהוּא לְפָנָיו וְאַחֲרָיו לִשְׁמֹעַ י"י בְּקוֹל אִישׁ".
- Shemuel bringing rain – This approach would likely explain that, despite the text's silence, Shemuel had been told beforehand to bring rain as a sign for the people. He nonetheless prayed that the rain come, not because he doubted it, but to ensure that the people recognized that the rain was indeed coming from Hashem and not coincidental.
- Natan and the Mikdash – In this case, Natan clearly speaks against Hashem's wishes when he permits David to build the Mikdash, so it is impossible to suggest that Natan had been told previously what to say. This approach could suggest that Natan was not acting in the role of prophet when he responded to David, but only as a royal advisor.15
- Eliyahu and Elisha
- Declaration of drought and Contest on Mt. Carmel – Several sources16 point to Eliyahu's statement on Mt. Carmel that "הַיּוֹם יִוָּדַע כִּי... אֲנִי עַבְדֶּךָ [וּבִדְבָרְךָ] (ובדבריך) עָשִׂיתִי אֵת כׇּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה"17 as proof that Eliyahu's actions were all done at Hashem's behest.18 It is ambiguous, though, if the words "כׇּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה" refer just to the events on Mt. Carmel, or also to the initial declaration of drought. These sources would likely say that even if it refers only to the former, one can deduce from here that the rest of Eliyahu's miracles were also performed by the word of God.
- Eliyahu and the pitcher of flour – The text itself states that this miracle occurred by the word of Hashem: "כִּדְבַר י"י אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר בְּיַד אֵלִיָּהוּ".
- Eliyahu and officers of fifty – These sources might suggest that just as the text attests to the fact that an angel told Eliyahu not to kill the third officer and his men, Hashem had previously told him that He would release fire on the others.19
- Elisha's miracles20 – By two of Elisha's miracles (the sweetening of waters and giving of bread) the text allude to Hashem's having directed that the miracle would occur.21 This approach would suggest that, despite the silence in the text, the other miracles happened in the same manner.
Acting against the Torah – According to this approach, a prophet can only act against the Torah via Divine command. Thus, R. Simlai22 asserts that Eliyahu's building of the altar on Mt. Carmel in a period when private altars were banned is not problematic since, as Eliyahu points out, this was not his own decision, but rather that of Hashem: "בִדְבָרְךָ עָשִׂיתִי".
Why is Hashem's command not stated? As seen above, in several cases there is some allusion in the text to a command of Hashem, though this is not always explicit. In other cases, Hashem's role is totally absent. Ramban explains that it is the way of Tanakh to be brief in one place and lengthy in another. Instead of tediously repeating both a command and its fulfillment, sometimes the Torah brings one, sometimes the other, and sometimes both. However, the reasoning behind the choice of when to share each component is not always clear.23
"מֵקִים דְּבַר עַבְדּוֹ" – This verse, in context, says nothing about Hashem fulfilling the independent decrees of his prophets. Rather, it refers to Hashem keeping His own promises as expressed via the prophecies of His loyal messengers. Hashem is contrasting the speech of "imposters" ("בַּדִּים") and "diviners" ("קֹסְמִים"), whose words are not trustworthy, with that of His prophets, whose predictions are reliable precisely because they speak the word of God.24
"וְתִגְזַר אֹמֶר וְיָקׇם לָךְ" – These words of Elifaz to Iyyov are also unrelated to the concept of Hashem fulfilling the decrees of his prophets and simply mean that Hashem cares for the righteous and helps them succeed in their chosen paths.
Prophetic fallibility – Since a prophet has no autonomy to act on his own, there is no room to err.25
Speaking / Acting in Hashem's name when not directed – If a prophet cannot act on his own initiative at all, all the more so that he cannot speak or act in the name of Hashem if he did not receive any Divine communication. Thus, any place where a prophet attributes his words or deeds to Hashem's command, it must be assumed that he received Divine instructions, even if they are not found in the text. For a full discussion of this issue, see Invoking Hashem's Name Without Explicit Divine Sanction.
Moshe vs. other prophets – These sources do not distinguish between Moshe and other prophets with regards to the level of autonomy granted to each.
What's better: obedience or innovation? According to this approach, the greatness of a prophet lies in his strict obedience to the word of God. The fact that his autonomy is limited helps ensure that the Divine Hand and Word are recognized as such and not confused with that of the prophet.
Prophet's Own Initiative
A prophet is granted the ability by Hashem to act and perform wonders at his own discretion.
Prophetic autonomy – According to this position, a prophet has a significant degree of autonomy. He is able not only to determine his own course of action without Hashem's prior approval, but also to invoke supernatural means to do so:
- R. Yosef Albo explains that when someone has reached a certain level of righteousness and belief in Hashem,27 he is able to control nature through his speech.28 If a miracle is needed, not only need he not first seek Hashem's agreement to act, it is even preferable that he perform the deed on his own.29
- R. Avraham b. Shelomo suggests that a prophet can act on his own only because he is so in tune with Hashem's thoughts and will that he can intuit what Hashem would want done. As such, it is as if Hashem has communicated with him.
Poetic license – Just as a prophet can decide the best course of action needed to fulfill the larger mission sent to him by Hashem, the prophet is also allowed to choose the words he thinks will best get across Hashem's messages. He need not merely play back words recorded by Hashem, but has the freedom to create his own analogies and speeches.30
Acting against the Torah – This approach could agree with Tosafot, that, when necessary, a prophet is even allowed to decide on his own to act against a particular aspect of the Torah (הוראת שעה). As evidence, Tosafot point to Eliyahu who independently decides to sacrifice on an altar on Mt. Carmel despite the ban against private altars in his era.
Divine providence – Both R"Y Albo and Malbim connect a prophet's ability to act supernaturally with the concept of Divine providence. Since Hashem watches over the righteous, if their honor is at stake, Hashem will ensure that their words are fulfilled lest they be considered liars. Similarly, if they are in danger, they are even able to overturn nature to protect themselves.
"מֵקִים דְּבַר עַבְדּוֹ" and "וְתִגְזַר אֹמֶר וְיָקׇם לָךְ" – These two verses serve as proof that whatever a prophet decrees will be fulfilled by Hashem.
Biblical cases – As proof of their position, these sources point to the many cases in Tanakh where a prophet acts/ brings miracles without first consulting with Hashem. Moshe's decrees during Korach's rebellion, Yehoshua's stopping of the sun, Shemuel's bringing of rain, and many of Eliyahu and Elisha's miracles are all depicted as originating from them alone and are not prefaced by Divine commands.31
Why pray? If prophets can indeed perform supernatural phenomenon on their own, it is not clear why in several of the above cases32 the prophet felt the need to pray to Hashem so that He fulfill the decree. In certain instances, such as Moshe's ending of the plagues, Shemuel's bringing of rain, and Eliyahu's actions at Mt Carmel, it is possible that the point of the miracle was specifically to highlight Hashem's power. The prayer, then, is for the audience and not the prophet.
"וְלֹא הָיָה כַּיּוֹם הַהוּא לְפָנָיו וְאַחֲרָיו לִשְׁמֹעַ י"י בְּקוֹל אִישׁ" – This verse is problematic for this approach as it suggests that Yehoshua's deed was unique, and that it was the only case in which Hashem fulfilled the decree of a prophet. 33
"וּבִדְבָרְךָ עָשִׂיתִי אֵת כׇּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה" – Contrary to this approach, this verse suggests that Eliyahu was not acting on his own initiative, but rather via Divine command. These sources would respond that Eliyahu did not mean to say that he was acting literally by the word of God, but rather that all he did was according to the will of Hashem.34
Speaking / acting in Hashem's name when not directed – These sources divide on this issue:
- Seder Eliyahu Rabbah and Chizkuni35 assert that not only is a prophet able to act on his own, he is even able to attribute that action to Hashem.36 This fits with R. Avraham b. Shelomo's understanding of prophetic autonomy. If a prophet is simply intuiting Hashem's desires, then in effect every action he carries out is as if Divinely commanded, so there is no reason not to declare it in His name.
- Ramban, on the other hand, claims that whenever a prophet speaks in Hashem's name, we must assume that he is following orders. Though there is prophetic autonomy, that is not accompanied by a license to attribute one's own decisions to Hashem. See Invoking Hashem's Name Without Explicit Divine Sanction for more.
Prophetic fallibility
- No possibility of error – According to R. Avraham b. Shelomo, the only individuals who can independently bring miracles are those who are completely in line with Hashem's thoughts and desires. If so, it would seem that a prophet can not err or act against Hashem's wishes.
- Possibility of error – According to the other sources, however, it would seem that prophetic autonomy leaves room for a prophet to make mistakes. Moreover, it would also seem to allow a prophet to "force Hashem's hand" even against His will. See below that Abarbanel, in fact, suggests that Eliyahu acted against Hashem's desires and was therefore punished.
What's better: obedience or innovation? According to R"Y Albo, the best leaders are those who do not wait to consult with Hashem, but, when necessary, take the initiative to act on their own. The ability of a prophet to act independently is one of the fundamentals of belief, and a prophet who does not exercise that ability is sinful.37
Prophetic Prayer
When a prophet independently declares that a miracle is to happen, he is in effect praying that Hashem will fulfill his words and risks the possibility that Hashem will not accede to his request.
Sources: R. Yosef Kara, Ibn Ezra, Rambam, Radak #1,38 Avvat Nefesh, Ralbag,39 Akeidat Yitzchak, Abarbanel, Shadal, R. David Zvi Hoffmann
Prophetic autonomy – Prophets may act on their own and even decree supernatural phenomenon, trusting that Hashem will answer their prayers to perform miracles on their behalf. Though Hashem normally responds in the affirmative, acting independently must always be accompanied by a slight doubt and the possibility that a prayer will not be answered.
"מֵקִים דְּבַר עַבְדּוֹ" and "וְתִגְזַר אֹמֶר וְיָקׇם לָךְ" – These sources point to these verses and other similar ones40 to prove that generally Hashem does the bidding of the righteous, answering their prayers and fulfilling their wishes.
Biblical cases – The various cases in Tanakh where a prophet decrees a miracle without prior Divine command, and feels the need to pray to Hashem that his request be granted, provide support for this position.41 Though there are many instances where no prayer is mentioned, it can be assumed that either one was made, or that the prophet viewed his declaration not as a decree but as a request. 42
"וְלֹא הָיָה כַּיּוֹם הַהוּא לְפָנָיו וְאַחֲרָיו לִשְׁמֹעַ י"י בְּקוֹל אִישׁ" – Though this verse supports the idea that prophetic decrees should be viewed as prayers that Hashem is to answer, it is nonetheless difficult in that it suggests that Hashem's agreeing to Yehoshua's demand was a unique case.
"וּבִדְבָרְךָ עָשִׂיתִי אֵת כׇּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה"
- Radak explains that Eliyahu did not mean his words to be taken literally, as he really was acting without a Divine command. Rather, he was trying to express that if Hashem did his bidding, the people would know that Eliyahu's actions accorded with the Divine will and that whatever he declares, Hashem fulfills.
- Ralbag, instead, proposes that Eliyahu was referring to the fact that Hashem said that He would bring rain. Knowing that if rain came before the people repented, the entire drought would have been for nought, Eliyahu took it upon himself to do something to return the people to Hashem. His actions, thus, stemmed from Hashem's decision to end the drought.
Speaking / acting in Hashem's name when not directed – Most of these sources do not think that a prophet can act or speak by his own initiative but then attribute that decision to Hashem. If a prophet speaks in God's name, he must have either received explicit Divine communication,43 be interpreting an impartial or unclear directive, or applying Hashem's commands from one situation to another.44
Prophetic fallibility – According to this position, since prophets can act on their own, there is the possibility of error and a chance that Hashem might not bring the prophet's words to fruition. Abarbanel, however, claims that even when Hashem disagrees with a prophet, He might nonetheless fulfill their decrees. Thus, though Hashem was angry at Eliyahu's decisions to bring drought and make the altar on Mt. Carmel, He acquiesced since Eliyahu's intentions were positive. Nonetheless, he later punished Eliyahu by removing his ability to prophesy.45
Uniqueness of Moshe – Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel differentiate between the actions of Moshe and those of other prophets. While the vast majority of Moshe's actions were done via Divine command, other prophets often acted on their own, praying that Hashem would do their bidding. Moshe, who had a direct line with Hashem, and as such was constantly receiving Divine instructions, never had to rely on himself. Other prophets did not have this luxury, and, thus, of necessity needed to make independent decisions and pray that Hashem agree.46
What's better: obedience or innovation? According to Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel it is preferable to act only upon Divine command, and it was this ability that exalted Moshe above other prophets.47 Only because other prophets had no choice did they make independent decisions.
