_HANANIAH_
xxvii., xxviii.
"Hear now, Hananiah; Jehovah hath not sent thee, but thou makest
this people to trust in a lie."--JER. xxviii. 15.
The most conspicuous point at issue between Jeremiah and his opponents
was political rather than ecclesiastical. Jeremiah was anxious that
Zedekiah should keep faith with Nebuchadnezzar, and not involve Judah
in useless misery by another hopeless revolt. The prophets preached
the popular doctrine of an imminent Divine intervention to deliver
Judah from her oppressors. They devoted themselves to the easy task of
fanning patriotic enthusiasm, till the Jews were ready for any
enterprise, however reckless.
During the opening years of the new reign, Nebuchadnezzar's recent
capture of Jerusalem and the consequent wholesale deportation were
fresh in men's minds; fear of the Chaldeans together with the
influence of Jeremiah kept the government from any overt act of
rebellion. According to li. 59, the king even paid a visit to Babylon,
to do homage to his suzerain.
It was probably in the fourth year of his reign[121] that the
tributary Syrian states began to prepare for a united revolt against
Babylon. The Assyrian and Chaldean annals constantly mention such
combinations, which were formed and broken up and reformed with as
much ease and variety as patterns in a kaleidoscope. On the present
occasion the kings of Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, and Zidon sent their
ambassadors to Jerusalem to arrange with Zedekiah for concerted
action. But there were more important persons to deal with in that
city than Zedekiah. Doubtless the princes of Judah welcomed the
opportunity for a new revolt. But before the negotiations were very
far advanced, Jeremiah heard what was going on. By Divine command, he
made "bands and bars," _i.e._ yokes, for himself and for the
ambassadors of the allies, or possibly for them to carry home to their
masters. They received their answer, not from Zedekiah, but from the
true King of Israel, Jehovah Himself. They had come to solicit armed
assistance to deliver them from Babylon; they were sent back with
yokes to wear as a symbol of their entire and helpless subjection to
Nebuchadnezzar. This was the word of Jehovah:--
"The nation and the kingdom that will not put its neck beneath
the yoke of the king of Babylon,
That nation will I visit with sword and famine and pestilence
until I consume them by his hand."
The allied kings had been encouraged to revolt by oracles similar to
those uttered by the Jewish prophets in the name of Jehovah; but:--
"As for you, hearken not to your prophets, diviners, dreams,
soothsayers and sorcerers,
When they speak unto you, saying, Ye shall not serve the king
of Babylon.
They prophesy a lie unto you, to remove you far from your
land;
That I should drive you out, and that you should perish.
But the nation that shall bring their neck under the yoke of
the king of Babylon, and serve him,
That nation will I maintain in their own land (it is the
utterance of Jehovah), and they shall till it and
dwell in it."
When he had sent his message to the foreign envoys, Jeremiah addressed
an almost identical admonition to his own king. He bids him submit to
the Chaldean yoke, under the same penalties for disobedience--sword,
pestilence, and famine for himself and his people. He warns him also
against delusive promises of the prophets, especially in the matter of
the sacred vessels.
The popular doctrine of the inviolable sanctity of the Temple had
sustained a severe shock when Nebuchadnezzar carried off the sacred
vessels to Babylon. It was inconceivable that Jehovah would patiently
submit to so gross an indignity. In ancient days the Ark had plagued
its Philistine captors till they were only too thankful to be rid of
it. Later on a graphic narrative in the Book of Daniel told with what
swift vengeance God punished Belshazzar for his profane use of these
very vessels. So now patriotic prophets were convinced that the golden
candlestick, the bowls and chargers of gold and silver, would soon
return in triumph, like the Ark of old; and their return would be the
symbol of the final deliverance of Judah from Babylon. Naturally the
priests above all others would welcome such a prophecy, and would
industriously disseminate it. But Jeremiah "spake to the priests and
all this people, saying, Thus saith Jehovah:--
"Hearken not unto the words of your prophets, which prophesy
unto you,
Behold, the vessels of the house of Jehovah shall be brought
back from Babylon now speedily:
For they prophesy a lie unto you."
How could Jehovah grant triumphant deliverance to a carnally minded
people who would not understand His Revelation, and did not discern
any essential difference between Him and Moloch and Baal?
"Hearken not unto them; serve the king of Babylon and live.
Why should this city become a desolation?"
Possibly, however, even now, the Divine compassion might have spared
Jerusalem the agony and shame of her final siege and captivity. God
would not at once restore what was lost, but He might spare what was
still left. Jeremiah could not endorse the glowing promises of the
prophets, but he would unite with them to intercede for mercy upon the
remnant of Israel.
"If they are prophets and the word of Jehovah is with them,
Let them intercede with Jehovah Sabaoth, that the rest of the
vessels of the Temple, the Palace, and the City may
not go to Babylon."
The God of Israel was yet ready to welcome any beginning of true
repentance. Like the father of the Prodigal Son, He would meet His
people when they were on the way back to Him. Any stirring of filial
penitence would win an instant and gracious response.
We can scarcely suppose that this appeal by Jeremiah to his
brother-prophets was merely sarcastic and denunciatory. Passing
circumstances may have brought Jeremiah into friendly intercourse with
some of his opponents; personal contact may have begotten something
of mutual kindliness; and hence there arose a transient gleam of hope
that reconciliation and co-operation might still be possible. But it
was soon evident that the "patriotic" party would not renounce their
vain dreams; Judah must drink the cup of wrath to the dregs: the
pillars, the sea, the bases, the rest of the vessels left in Jerusalem
must also be carried to Babylon, and remain there till Jehovah should
visit the Jews and bring them back and restore them to their own land.
Thus did Jeremiah meet the attempt of the government to organise a
Syrian revolt against Babylon, and thus did he give the lie to the
promises of Divine blessing made by the prophets. In the face of his
utterances, it was difficult to maintain the popular enthusiasm
necessary to a successful revolt. In order to neutralise, if possible,
the impression made by Jeremiah, the government put forward one of
their prophetic supporters to deliver a counter-blast. The place and
the occasion were similar to those chosen by Jeremiah for his own
address to the people and for Baruch's reading of the roll--the court
of the Temple where the priests and "all the people" were assembled.
Jeremiah himself was there. Possibly it was a feast-day. The incident
came to be regarded as of special importance, and a distinct heading
is attached to it, specifying its exact date, "in the same year"--as
the incidents of the previous chapter--"in the beginning of the reign
of Zedekiah, in the fourth year, in the fifth month."
On such an occasion, Jeremiah's opponents would select as their
representative some striking personality, a man of high reputation for
ability and personal character. Such a man, apparently, they found in
Hananiah ben Azzur of Gibeon. Let us consider for a moment this
mouthpiece and champion of a great political and ecclesiastical party,
we might almost say of a National Government and a National Church. He
is never mentioned except in chapter xxviii., but what we read here is
sufficiently characteristic, and receives much light from the other
literature of the period. As Gibeon is assigned to the priests in
Joshua xxi. 17, it has been conjectured that, like Jeremiah himself,
Hananiah was a priest. The special stress laid on the sacred vessels
would be in accordance with this theory.
In our last chapter we expounded Jeremiah's description of his
prophetic contemporaries, as self-important and time-serving, guilty
of plagiarism and cant. Now from this dim, inarticulate crowd of
professional prophets, an individual steps for a moment into the light
of history and speaks with clearness and emphasis. Let us gaze at him,
and hear what he has to say.
If we could have been present at this scene immediately after a
careful study of chapter xxvii. even the appearance of Hananiah would
have caused us a shock of surprise--such as is sometimes experienced
by a devout student of Protestant literature on being introduced to a
live Jesuit, or by some budding secularist when he first makes the
personal acquaintance of a curate. We might possibly have discerned
something commonplace, some lack of depth and force in the man whose
faith was merely conventional; but we should have expected to read
"liar and hypocrite" in every line of his countenance, and we should
have seen nothing of the sort. Conscious of the enthusiastic support
of his fellow-countrymen and especially of his own order, charged--as
he believed--with a message of promise for Jerusalem, Hananiah's face
and bearing, as he came forward to address his sympathetic audience,
betrayed nothing unworthy of the high calling of a prophet. His words
had the true prophetic ring, he spoke with assured authority:--
"Thus saith Jehovah Sabaoth, the God of Israel,
I have broken the yoke of the king of Babylon."
His special object was to remove the unfavourable impression caused by
Jeremiah's contradiction of the promise concerning the sacred vessels.
Like Jeremiah, he meets this denial in the strongest and most
convincing fashion. He does not argue--he reiterates the promise in a
more definite form and with more emphatic asseveration. Like Jonah at
Nineveh, he ventures to fix an exact date in the immediate future for
the fulfilment of the prophecy. "Yet forty days," said Jonah, but the
next day he had to swallow his own words; and Hananiah's prophetic
chronology met with no better fate:--
"Within two full years will I bring again to this place all the
vessels of the Temple, that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon took away."
The full significance of this promise is shown by the further
addition:--
"And I will bring again to this place the king of Judah, Jeconiah ben
Jehoiakim, and all the captives of Judah that went to Babylon (it is
the utterance of Jehovah); for I will break the yoke of the king of
Babylon."
This bold challenge was promptly met:--
"The prophet Jeremiah said unto the prophet Hananiah before the
priests and all the people that stood in the Temple." Not "the true
prophet" and "the false prophet," not "the man of God" and "the
impostor," but simply "the prophet Jeremiah" and "the prophet
Hananiah." The audience discerned no obvious difference of status or
authority between the two--if anything the advantage lay with
Hananiah; they watched the scene as a modern churchman might regard a
discussion between ritualistic and evangelical bishops at a Church
Congress, only Hananiah was their ideal of a "good churchman." The
true parallel is not debates between atheists and the Christian
Evidence Society, or between missionaries and Brahmins, but
controversies like those between Arius and Athanasius, Jerome and
Rufinus, Cyril and Chrysostom.
These prophets, however, display a courtesy and self-restraint that
have, for the most part, been absent from Christian polemics.
"Jeremiah the prophet said, Amen: may Jehovah bring it to pass; may He
establish the words of thy prophecy, by bringing back again from Babylon
unto this place both the vessels of the Temple and all the captives."
With that entire sincerity which is the most consummate tact, Jeremiah
avows his sympathy with his opponents' patriotic aspirations, and
recognises that they were worthy of Hebrew prophets. But patriotic
aspirations were not a sufficient reason for claiming Divine authority
for a cheap optimism. Jeremiah's reflection upon the past had led him to
an entirely opposite philosophy of history. Behind Hananiah's words lay
the claim that the religious traditions of Israel and the teaching of
former prophets guaranteed the inviolability of the Temple and the Holy
City. Jeremiah appealed to their authority for his message of doom:--
"The ancient prophets who were our predecessors prophesied war and
calamity and pestilence against many countries and great kingdoms."
It was almost a mark of the true prophet that he should be the herald
of disaster. The prophetical books of the Old Testament Canon fully
confirm this startling and unwelcome statement. Their main burden is
the ruin and misery that await Israel and its neighbours. The
presumption therefore was in favour of the prophet of evil, and
against the prophet of good. Jeremiah does not, of course, deny that
there had been, and might yet be, prophets of good. Indeed every
prophet, he himself included, announced some Divine promise, but:--
"The prophet which prophesieth of peace shall be known as truly sent
of Jehovah when his prophecy is fulfilled."
It seemed a fair reply to Hananiah's challenge. His prophecy of the
return of the sacred vessels and the exiles within two years was
intended to encourage Judah and its allies to persist in their revolt.
They would be at once victorious, and recover all and more than all
which they had lost. Under such circumstances Jeremiah's criterion of
"prophecies of peace" was eminently practical. "You are promised these
blessings within two years: very well, do not run the terrible risks
of a rebellion; keep quiet and see if the two years bring the
fulfilment of this prophecy--it is not long to wait." Hananiah might
fairly have replied that this fulfilment depended on Judah's faith and
loyalty to the Divine promise; and their faith and loyalty would be
best shown by rebelling against their oppressors. Jehovah promised
Canaan to the Hebrews of the Exodus, but their carcasses mouldered in
the desert because they had not courage enough to attack formidable
enemies. "Let us not," Hananiah might have said, "imitate their
cowardice, and thus share alike their unbelief and its penalty."
Neither Jeremiah's premises nor his conclusions would commend his
words to the audience, and he probably weakened his position by
leaving the high ground of authority and descending to argument.
Hananiah at any rate did not follow his example: he adheres to his
former method, and reiterates with renewed emphasis the promise which
his adversary had contradicted. Following Jeremiah in his use of the
parable in action, so common with Hebrew prophets, he turned the
symbol of the yoke against its author. As Zedekiah ben Chenaanah made
him horns of iron and prophesied to Ahab and Jehoshaphat, "Thus saith
Jehovah, With these shalt thou push the Syrians until thou have
consumed them,"[122] so now Hananiah took the yoke off Jeremiah's neck
and broke it before the assembled people and said:--
"Thus saith Jehovah, Even so will I break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar
king of Babylon from the neck of all nations within two full years."
Naturally the promise is "for all nations"--not for Judah only, but
for the other allies.
"And the prophet Jeremiah went his way." For the moment Hananiah had
triumphed; he had had the last word, and Jeremiah was silenced. A public
debate before a partisan audience was not likely to issue in victory for
the truth. The situation may have even shaken his faith in himself and
his message; he may have been staggered for a moment by Hananiah's
apparent earnestness and conviction. He could not but remember that the
gloomy predictions of Isaiah's earlier ministry had been followed by the
glorious deliverance from Sennacherib. Possibly some similar sequel was
to follow his own denunciations. He betook himself anew to fellowship
with God, and awaited a fresh mandate from Jehovah.
"Then the word of Jehovah came unto Jeremiah, ... Go and tell
Hananiah: Thou hast broken wooden yokes; thou shalt make iron yokes in
their stead. For thus saith Jehovah Sabaoth, the God of Israel: I have
put a yoke of iron upon the necks of all these nations, that they may
serve Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon."[123]
We are not told how long Jeremiah had to wait for this new message, or
under what circumstances it was delivered to Hananiah. Its symbolism
is obvious. When Jeremiah sent the yokes to the ambassadors of the
allies and exhorted Zedekiah to bring his neck under the yoke of
Nebuchadnezzar, they were required to accept the comparatively
tolerable servitude of tributaries. Their impatience of this minor
evil would expose them to the iron yoke of ruin and captivity.
Thus the prophet of evil received new Divine assurance of the abiding
truth of his message and of the reality of his own inspiration. The
same revelation convinced him that his opponent was either an impostor
or woefully deluded:--
"Then said the prophet Jeremiah unto the prophet Hananiah, Hear now,
Hananiah; Jehovah hath not sent thee, but thou makest this people to
trust in a lie. Therefore thus saith Jehovah: I will cast thee away
from on the face of the earth; this year thou shalt die, because thou
hast preached rebellion against Jehovah."
By a judgment not unmixed with mercy, Hananiah was not left to be
convicted of error or imposture, when the "two full years" should have
elapsed, and his glowing promises be seen to utterly fail. He also was
"taken away from the evil to come."
"So Hananiah the prophet died in the same year in the seventh
month"--_i.e._ about two months after this incident. Such personal
judgments were most frequent in the case of kings, but were not
confined to them. Isaiah[124] left on record prophecies concerning the
appointment to the treasurership of Shebna and Eliakim; and elsewhere
Jeremiah himself pronounces the doom of Pashhur ben Immer, the
governor of the Temple; but the conclusion of this incident reminds us
most forcibly of the speedy execution of the apostolic sentence upon
Ananias and Sapphira.
The subjects of this and the preceding chapter raise some of the most
important questions as to authority in religion. On the one hand, on
the subjective side, how may a man be assured of the truth of his own
religious convictions; on the other hand, on the objective side, how
is the hearer to decide between conflicting claims on his faith and
obedience?
The former question is raised as to the personal convictions of the
two prophets. We have ventured to assume that, however erring and
culpable Hananiah may have been, he yet had an honest faith in his
own inspiration and in the truth of his own prophecies. The conscious
impostor, unhappily, is not unknown either in ancient or modern
Churches; but we should not look for edification from the study of
this branch of morbid spiritual pathology. There were doubtless Jewish
counterparts to "Mr. Sludge the Medium" and to the more subtle and
plausible "Bishop Blougram"; but Hananiah was of a different type. The
evident respect felt for him by the people, Jeremiah's almost
deferential courtesy and temporary hesitation as to his rival's Divine
mission, do not suggest deliberate hypocrisy. Hananiah's "lie" was a
falsehood in fact but not in intention. The Divine message "Jehovah
hath not sent thee" was felt by Jeremiah to be no mere exposure of
what Hananiah had known all along, but to be a revelation to his
adversary as well as to himself.
The sweeping condemnation of the prophets in chapter xxiii. does not
exclude the possibility of Hananiah's honesty, any more than our
Lord's denunciation of the Pharisees as "devourers of widows' houses"
necessarily includes Gamaliel. In critical times, upright, earnest men
do not always espouse what subsequent ages hold to have been the cause
of truth. Sir Thomas More and Erasmus remained in the communion which
Luther renounced: Hampden and Falkland found themselves in opposite
camps. If such men erred in their choice between right and wrong, we
may often feel anxious as to our own decisions. When we find ourselves
in opposition to earnest and devoted men, we may well pause to
consider which is Jeremiah and which Hananiah.
The point at issue between these two prophets was exceedingly simple
and practical--whether Jehovah approved of the proposed revolt and
would reward it with success. Theological questions were only
indirectly and remotely involved. Yet, in face of his opponent's
persistent asseverations, Jeremiah--perhaps the greatest of the
prophets--went his way in silence to obtain fresh Divine confirmation
of his message. And the man who hesitated was right.
Two lessons immediately follow, one as to practice, the other as to
principle. It often happens that earnest servants of God find
themselves at variance, not on simple practical questions, but on the
history and criticism of the remote past, or on abstruse points of
transcendental theology. Before any one ventures to denounce his
adversary as a teacher of deadly error, let him, like Jeremiah, seek,
in humble and prayerful submission to the Holy Spirit, a Divine
mandate for such denunciation.
But again Jeremiah was willing to reconsider his position, not merely
because he himself might have been mistaken, but because altered
circumstances might have opened the way for a change in God's
dealings. It was a bare possibility, but we have seen elsewhere that
Jeremiah represents God as willing to make a gracious response to the
first movement of compunction. Prophecy was the declaration of His
will, and that will was not arbitrary, but at every moment and at
every point exactly adapted to conditions with which it had to deal.
Its principles were unchangeable and eternal; but prophecy was chiefly
an application of these principles to existing circumstances. The true
prophet always realised that his words were for men as they were when
he addressed them. Any moment might bring a change which would
abrogate or modify the old teaching, and require and receive a new
message. Like Jonah, he might have to proclaim ruin one day and
deliverance the next. A physician, even after the most careful
diagnosis, may have to recognise unsuspected symptoms which lead him
to cancel his prescription and write a new one. The sickening and
healing of the soul involve changes equally unexpected. The Bible does
not teach that inspiration, any more than science, has only one
treatment for each and every spiritual condition and contingency. The
true prophet's message is always a word in season.
We turn next to the objective question: How is the hearer to decide
between conflicting claims on his faith and obedience? We say the right
was with Jeremiah; but how were the Jews to know that? They were
addressed by two prophets, or, as we might say, two accredited
ecclesiastics of the national Church; each with apparent earnestness and
sincerity claimed to speak in the name of Jehovah and of the ancient
faith of Israel, and each flatly contradicted the other on an immediate
practical question, on which hung their individual fortunes and the
destinies of their country. What were the Jews to do? Which were they to
believe? It is the standing difficulty of all appeals to external
authority. You inquire of this supposed divine oracle and there issues
from it a babel of discordant voices, and each demands that you shall
unhesitatingly submit to its dictates on peril of eternal damnation; and
some have the audacity to claim obedience, because their teaching is
"_quod semper_, _quod ubique_, _quod ab omnibus_."
One simple and practical test is indeed suggested--the prophet of evil
is more likely to be truly inspired than the prophet of good; but
Jeremiah naturally does not claim that this is an invariable test.
Nor can he have meant that you can always believe prophecies of evil
without any hesitation, but that you are to put no faith in promises
until they are fulfilled. Yet it is not difficult to discern the truth
underlying Jeremiah's words. The prophet whose words are unpalatable
to his hearers is more likely to have a true inspiration than the man
who kindles their fancy with glowing pictures of an imminent
millennium. The divine message to a congregation of country squires is
more likely to be an exhortation to be just to their tenants than a
sermon on the duty of the labourer to his betters. A true prophet
addressing an audience of working men would perhaps deal with the
abuses of trades unions rather than with the sins of capitalists.
But this principle, which is necessarily of limited application, does
not go far to solve the great question of authority in religion, on
which Jeremiah gives us no further help.
There is, however, one obvious moral. No system of external authority,
whatever pains may be taken to secure authentic legitimacy, can
altogether release the individual from the responsibility of private
judgment. Unreserved faith in the idea of a Catholic Church is quite
consistent with much hesitation between the Anglican, Roman, and Greek
communions; and the most devoted Catholic may be called upon to choose
between rival anti-popes.
Ultimately the inspired teacher is only discerned by the inspired
hearer; it is the answer of the conscience that authenticates the
divine message.
FOOTNOTES:
[121] The close connection between xxvii. and xxviii. shows that the
date in xxviii. 1, "the fourth year of Zedekiah," covers both
chapters. "Jehoiakim" in xxvii. 1 is a misreading for "Zedekiah": see
R.V. margin.
[122] 1 Kings xxii. 11.
[123] The rest of this verse has apparently been inserted from xxvii.
6 by a scribe. It is omitted by the LXX.
[124] xxii. 15-25.