Israel's Last Prophet: Jesus and the Jewish Leaders in Matthew 23

The Motif of the Rejection of the Prophets

Part One explains the motif of the rejection of the prophets in the context of the deuteronomistic theology of the Hebrew Bible. The motif is traced from the Hebrew Bible through subsequent Jewish literature, including the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, the Qumran sectarian literature, Josephus, and the New Testament. This survey provides a foundation for Part Two, which focuses on the motif in Matthew.

1

Introduction to the Motif: The Rejection of the Prophets and the Deuteronomistic Perspective

The phrase rejection of the prophets describes Israel’s negative response to the messengers whom God sends to the nation to remind it of its obligations to the Torah. Instead of listening to these messengers and turning back to God in renewed covenantal relationship, Israel all too often refuses to believe the prophets and at times goes so far as to violently reject them. Ultimately, such rejection reaches the point of no return, and there is no remedy. God sends Assyria and Babylon to destroy, respectively, the northern and southern kingdoms, and Israel ceases to exist as a political entity. This motif of prophetic rejection is part of the story of Israel from what has been called the Deuteronomistic theological perspective:[1] Israel prospered or suffered in relation to its obedience or its disobedience to the law. As went Israel’s covenantal loyalty, so went its national prosperity (cf. Jth. 5:17–19; 11Q19–20 [Temple Scroll] 59:2–20).

The rejection of the prophets presumes their linkage in general to the Torah of Moses, and in particular to the blessings and curses of the book of Deuteronomy. In modern scholarship, the Deuteronomistic approach to the biblical narrative of Israel’s history may be traced to Martin Noth’s Deuteronomistic History, which focused on Deuteronomy to 2 Kings as a single work that stressed Israel’s disobedience as the reason for the destruction of the Davidic monarchy and the exile to Babylon. Despite Israel’s recalcitrance, God patiently sent them messenger after messenger who pleaded with them to repent. But Israel did not listen and in some cases went so far as to wreak violence on God’s messengers. In Noth’s understanding of Deuteronomism, there was no hope for Israel in this situation, but others such as H. W. Wolff saw in the biblical texts the possibility of deliverance if Israel repented.[2]

This study is primarily directed toward situations where the rejection of the prophets escalated into violence. Previous works, mostly in German, have addressed this theme, but a fresh study is appropriate, given recent advances in the study of Second Temple Judaism. O. Steck’s 1967 study of the violent fate (gewaltsame Geschick) of the prophets is the most recent comprehensive discussion of the matter.[3] Previous treatments included works by H. J. Schoeps, O. Michel, and A. Schlatter.[4]

According to Steck, the Deuteronomistic narrative of the history of Israel takes on a characteristic structure (deuteronomistische Geschichtsbild) that can be summarized as follows:

Israel’s history is portrayed as one of habitual disobedience.

God patiently sent Israel prophet after prophet to urge them to repent.

Israel rejected these prophets, often killing them.

Thus God punished Israel through the Assyrians and Babylonians.

But God promises restoration to exiled Israel and judgment on Israel’s enemies if Israel will repent.[5]

Steck believed that the earliest tradition of this structure was found in Neh. 9:26–30. Priestly editors perpetuated the tradition into the Second Temple period, with such success that almost all of the Jewish writings from the late Second Temple period contain the motif.[6]

New Testament scholars have attempted to demonstrate the linkage of Deuteronomistic motifs in general and of the rejection of the prophets in particular with the story of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. J. Kloppenborg notes the influence of Deuteronomism on the theology of Q.[7] The 2002 meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature Q section featured three papers that applied Steck’s thought to the theology of Q.[8] M. Knowles’s work on Jeremiah in Matthew includes a discussion of the rejected prophet motif.[9] D. Moessner attempts to demonstrate that Luke’s travel narrative is constructed to present Jesus as a rejected prophet who is similar to Moses.[10] J. McWhirter argues that the rejected prophet motif is prominent in Luke–Acts. In her view Luke uses the motif as an apologetic that demonstrates the reliability of Luke’s account (Luke 1:4) by aligning the ministries of Jesus and the apostles with key prophetic figures from the Hebrew Bible, demonstrating that opposition to God’s prophetic message is actually part of God’s historic plan.[11]

According to M. McAffee, the warnings of the book of Hebrews against apostasy are best understood as flowing from the blessing and curse format of covenant loyalty/disloyalty in Deuteronomistic thinking. Among the helpful insights of McAffee’s study are the linkage of the ground drinking the rain phraseology of Heb. 6:7 to Deut. 11:11 and the good word of Heb. 6:5 to Josh. 21:45; 23:14–15 and 1 Kgs. 8:56.[12]

Penitential prayer based on a Deuteronomistic worldview is another area of ongoing research that is relevant to this study. R. A. Werline probes the impact of penitential prayer on New Testament theology in general and on the putative Gospels source Q in particular.[13] He argues that the early followers of Jesus did not see themselves as Christians so much as penitent Jews who were calling their own people to follow them in a previously existing religious model. That model is penitential theology, as expressed in prayer, which developed from such biblical texts as Deuteronomy 4, Deuteronomy 30, Nehemiah 9, and Daniel 9, and flourished in the ministry of John the Baptist. John the Baptist and Jesus, among others in Second Temple Judaism, viewed themselves as standing in the line of beleaguered Jewish prophets sent by God to challenge Israel’s lack of loyalty to the covenant.

The Rejection of the Prophets in Ancient Literature

The notion that Israel has rejected its prophets is found in the Hebrew Bible, in Jewish literature of the Second Temple period, in the New Testament, and in subsequent Jewish and Christian literature. Chapter 2 will survey relevant texts and summarize the evidence that demonstrates how widespread the motif is.

The survey found in chapter 2 will show that there are three interwoven aspects of the prophetic rejection motif. The first (1) is the Deuteronomistic formulation of Israel’s relationship to God. In this formulation Israel’s national prosperity depends on its obedience to the law of Moses. Moses the archetypal prophet and lawgiver is succeeded by other prophets who continue to call on Israel to obey the law. Deuteronomism sets out the covenantal foundation and context for the role of Israel’s prophets and Israel’s accountability to prophetic warnings. The second aspect of the motif (2) is simple unbelief leading to passive resistance to the covenantal urgings of the prophets. Such passive resistance is found in the worsening of idolatrous worship and disobedience to the law as the divided monarchy declines. The third aspect of the motif (3) is prophetic rejection proper, animosity leading to the active persecution of the prophets, taking the forms of threats, imprisonment, physical harm, and even murder.

These three aspects of the motif of prophetic rejection are found throughout the Hebrew Bible, Jewish literature of the Second Temple period, and the New Testament. The motif is found in the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings. The Torah sets out the basic Deuteronomistic interpretation of Israel’s history (1) and takes note of instances of Israel’s unbelief and rebellion against Moses (2). The Prophets, both former and latter, allude to Deuteronomism (1) and speak of occasions of both unbelief (2) and persecution (3). The Writings allude to Deuteronomism (1) and occasions of unbelief (2), but contain the most egregious examples of the persecution of the prophets (3).

Jewish literature of the Second Temple period contains instances of all three aspects of the rejected prophet motif. Although generalizations are risky, it seems that the three aspects of the motif are found in a sort of pyramid pattern. This is to say that references to Deuteronomism (1) are most numerous, references to unbelief (2) are numerous, and references to persecution (3) are least numerous, although hardly rare.

The New Testament references to the motif are roughly the reverse of the pattern found in Second Temple literature. This is to say that the New Testament stresses the persecution of the prophets (3) more than the unbelief (2) from which the persecution flowed, or the Deuteronomistic interpretation of Israel’s history (1). This prevalence of references to persecution (3) would seem to be due to the nascent church’s viewing itself as a remnant called out by the prophetic ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus. This remnant mindset is not altogether unlike that of the Qumran community. The crucifixion of Jesus as well as subsequent Jewish resistance to the message of Jesus’ followers is understood against the Deuteronomistic scheme.

The Importance of the Rejection of the Prophets for Matthew

Broadly stated, the appearance of the rejected prophet motif in Matthew is important because Matthew is viewed by many if not most scholars as the most Jewish of the Gospels. Matthew’s emphasis on Jesus as the fulfillment of the law and prophets (e.g., Matt. 5:17) cannot be missed. Thus it would not be surprising that Jesus is portrayed not only as fulfilling individual prophetic texts but also as fulfilling the recurring textual motif of prophetic rejection.

It is well known that Matthew’s Gospel was of great importance to the early church. There are more patristic commentaries on Matthew and patristic allusions to Matthew than to any other Gospel.[14] This was evidently due to the church’s belief in the apostolic authorship of this Gospel as well as to this Gospel’s unique portrayal of the teaching of Jesus. Matthew’s influence through the centuries remained strong, due in large part to the emphasis on Matthew in church lectionaries. In recent centuries Matthew’s impact has declined somewhat due to the emphasis on Mark in critical scholarship. Despite this, Matthew’s Gospel is still prominent in the life of the church, and its portrayal of the conflict between Jesus and the religious leaders is still influential. Such Matthean texts as 21:43; 23:1–39; and 27:25 are regularly cited as instances of clear religious anti-Judaism, if not blatant examples of antisemitism as ethnic hatred.[15]

The Thesis and Procedure of this Study

For the reasons just cited (and perhaps others), a thorough study of Matt. 23:32 in light of the rejected prophet motif is warranted. This study argues that Matthew’s narrative presents Jesus as the ultimate rejected prophet and Jesus’ disciples as a remnant community of persecuted prophets. This understanding places the severe polemical language of Matthew 23 into an intramural Jewish context where different voices contend for the mantle of authentic biblical religion during turbulent times. If this is the case, the dominant supersessionist understanding of Matthew 23 in the history of Christian exegesis is blatantly mistaken. The approach to Matthew 23 advocated here holds greater promise for Jewish-Christian relations.

The argument of this study proceeds centripetally toward the central text, Matt. 23:32. Part 1 sets the stage, beginning with scholarly discussion of the broad biblical theme of Deuteronomism, the biblical context in which the rejected prophet motif is found. Chapter 2 surveys the rejected prophet motif in the Bible and Second Temple literature. Chapter 3 sketches the motif in the New Testament generally.

Part 2 details how the motif is portrayed in Matthew. Chapter 4 narrows the focus and increases the detail as Matthew’s understanding of the Bible is presented. Chapters 5 and 6 show how Matthew presents John the Baptist and Jesus as the penultimate and ultimate rejected prophets. Chapter 7 argues that Matthew portrays Jesus’ disciples as an ongoing community of rejected prophets. Chapter 8 makes the case that the parable of the tenant farmers in Matthew 21 utilizes the rejected prophet motif to present Jesus’ disciples as new fruitful leaders for Israel. Chapter 9 deals with the notorious ‘blood libel" text, Matt. 27:25, concluding that this text is rightly understood as the rash words of a mob incited by the religious leaders. The text in no way inculpates the Jewish people for the death of Jesus.

Part 3 narrows the focus to Matthew 23. Chapter 10 provides an introduction to Matthew 23, addressing its place in the contextual flow of Matthew as narrative, its genre as prophetic critique, its putative synoptic relations, and three relatively recent major studies. Chapter 11 presents an exegetical commentary on Matthew 23, laying the foundation for the discussion of Matt. 23:32, the central passage of this study. Chapter 12 discusses the text of Matt. 23:32, the genre of the ironic imperative πληρώσατε, and how Matthew’s characteristic emphasis on biblical fulfillment informs the passage. Matthew presents Jesus as the ultimate rejected prophet, and Jesus’ disciples as a persecuted eschatological remnant identified with him and in continuity with the persecuted biblical prophets.

The conclusion summarizes the research and its implications for understanding Matthew and for Jewish-Christian relations.

M. Noth, Deuteronomistic History (Sheffield: JSOT, 1980). Among the voluminous literature on this topic, see G. von Rad, The Deuteronomic Theology of History in I and II Kings, in G. von Rad, The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (London: Oliver & Boyd, 1966), 205–21; Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972; repr., Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992); A. F. Campbell and M. A. O’Brien, Unfolding the Deuteronomistic History (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000); A. De Puy et al., eds., Israel Constructs Its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research, JSOTSup 306 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000); Raymond F. Person, The Deuteronomistic School: History, Social Setting, and Literature (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2002). For a critique, see L. Schearing and S. McKenzie, eds., Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism, JSOTSup 268 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999). ↵

H. W. Wolff, Das Kerygma des deuteronomischen Geschichtswerk, Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 73 (1961): 171–86; ET, The Kerygma of the Deuteronomistic Historical Work, in The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975), 83–100. I will support Wolff’s view rather than Noth’s in this study. ↵

O. H. Steck, Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung des deuteronomischen Geschichtsbildes im Alten Testament, Spätjudentum und Urchristentum, WMANT 23 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967). P. Hoffmann critiques Steck’s thesis in Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle (Munster: Aschendorff, 1972), 162–71. ↵

H. J. Schoeps, Die jüdischen Prophetenmorde (Uppsala: Wretman, 1943); O. Michel, Prophet und Märtyrer (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1932); and A. Schlatter, Die Märtyrer and den Anfangen der Kirche (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1915). ↵

Steck, Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten, 184–86; cf. 62–64, 122–24. Cf. M. Knowles, Jeremiah in Matthew’s Gospel: The Rejected-Prophet Motif in Matthean Redaction, JSNTSup 68 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1993), 101–2; and A. Jacobson, The Literary Unity of Q, JBL 101 (1982): 383–88. Jacobson argues that the Christian community that produced the synoptic sayings source Q viewed itself in continuity with the rejected prophets of the Hebrew Bible. But recently Schniedewind’s yet-unpublished 2002 SBL Q Section paper (Deuteronomy and Its Legacy in Second Temple Judaism) questions Steck’s reasoning and denies that the theology of Q is Deuteronomistic. ↵

Steck, Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten, 189. ↵

J. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 101–3. ↵

W. Schniedewind, Deuteronomy and Its Legacy in Second Temple Judaism; A. Jacobson, Q and the Deuteronomistic Tradition; and J. Verheyden, The Killing of the Prophets in Q and the Deuteronomistic Tradition. Evidently these papers are to be published in a volume edited by C. Heil. ↵

Knowles, Jeremiah in Matthew’s Gospel, 97–161. ↵

David P. Moessner, Lord of the Banquet: The Literary and Theological Significance of the Lukan Travel Narrative (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1989). ↵

J. McWhirter, Rejected Prophets: Jesus and His Witnesses in Luke-Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2013). See especially 9–19. McWhirter cites the work of L. T. Johnson and D. Tiede, among others, as influential in her own approach. ↵

M. McAffee, Covenant and the Warnings of Hebrews: The Blessing and the Curse, JETS 57 (2014): 537–53. ↵

R. Werline, The Impact of the Penitential Prayer Tradition on New Testament Theology, in M. A. Boda et al., eds., Seeking the Favor of God, vol. 3, The Impact of Penitential Prayer beyond Second Temple Judaism (Atlanta: SBL, 2008), 149–83. Previous volumes in this series from the same editors include vol. 1, The Origins of Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 2006); and vol. 2, The Development of Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism (Atlanta: SBL, 2006). In a related volume R. Werline surveys the development of penitential prayer, in Penitential Prayer in Second Temple Judaism: The Development of a Religious Institution (Atlanta: SBL, 1998). ↵

E. Massaux, The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature before Saint Irenaeus, trans. N. Belval and S. Hecht, 3 vols. (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1990–93). ↵

Among the vast literature on Christian antisemitism, see on Matthew in particular I. Broer, Antijudaism in Matthew’s Gospel, Theology Digest 43 (1996): 335–38; F. Burnett, Exposing the Anti-Jewish Ideology of Matthew’s Implied Author: The Characterization of God as Father, Semeia 59 (1992): 155–92; K. W. Clark, The Gentile Bias in Matthew, JBL 66 (1947): 165–72; M. J. Cook, Interpreting ‘Pro-Jewish’ Passages in Matthew, HUCA 54 (1983): 135–46; W. R. Farmer, ed., Anti-Judaism and the Gospels (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999); J. Fitzmyer, Anti-Semitism and the Cry of ‘All the People’ (Mt 27:25), Theological Studies 26 (1965): 667–71; D. Flusser, Two Anti-Jewish Montages in Matthew, Immanuel 5 (1975): 37–45; T. F. Glasson, Anti-Pharisaism in St. Matthew, JQR 51 (1960–61): 316–20; R. Hummel, Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im Matthäusevangelium, 2nd ed., Beiträge zur Evangelischen Theologie 33 (Munich: Kaiser, 1966); J. D. Kingsbury, The Developing Conflict between Jesus and the Jewish Leaders in Matthew’s Gospel: A Literary-Critical Study, CBQ 49 (1987): 57–73; S. Légasse, L’antijudaïsme dans l’Évangile selon Matthieu, in L’Évangile selon Matthieu: Rédaction et Théologie, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 29 (Gembloux, Belgium: Duculot, 1972), 417–28; D. Levenson, Anti-Judaism in the Gospel of Matthew?, paper presented at the International Symposium on the Interpretation of the Bible as a Force for Social Change, October 2001, http://www.fsu.edu/~religion/faculty/documents/anti-judaism.pdf; U. Luz, Der Antijudaismus im Matthaüsevangelium als historisches und theologisches Problem: Ein Skizze, Evangelische Theologie 53 (1993): 310–27; D. Marguerat, Le Nouveau Testament est-il anti-juif? L’example de Matthieu et du livres des Actes, Revue théologique de Louvain 26 (1995): 145–64; S. McKnight, A Loyal Critic: Matthew’s Polemic with Judaism in Theological Perspective, in C. Evans and D. Hagner, eds., Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity: Issues of Polemic and Faith (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 55–79; K. Pantle-Schieber, Anmerkungen zur Auseinandersetzung von und Judentum im Matthäusevangelium, ZNW 80 (1989): 145–62; D. Patte, Anti-Semitism in the New Testament: Confronting the Dark Side of Paul’s and Matthew’s Teaching, Chicago Theological Seminary Register 78 (1988): 31–52; J. T. Pawlikowski, Christian-Jewish Dialogue and Matthew, The Bible Today 27 (1989): 356–62; B. Przybylski, The Setting of Matthean Anti-Judaism, in P. Richardson and O. Granskou, eds., Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity (Waterloo, ON: Laurier, 1988), 1:181–200; E. A. Russell, ‘Anti-Semitism’ in the Gospel of Matthew, IBS 8 (1986): 183–96; A. Saldarini, Delegitimation of Leaders in Matthew 23, CBQ 54 (1992): 659–80; idem, Understanding Matthew’s Vitriol, Bible Review 13, no. 2 (1997): 32–39, 45; A. Sand, Die Polemik gegen ‘gesetzlosigkeit’ im Evangelium nach Matthaüs und bei Paul, BZ 14 (1970): 112–25; S. Sandmel, Anti-Semitism in the New Testament? (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978); R. H. Smith, Matthew 27:25: The Hardest Verse in Matthew’s Gospel, Currents in Theology and Mission 17 (1990): 421–28; G. N. Stanton, The Gospel of Matthew and Judaism, BJRL 66 (1984): 264–84; H.-F. Weiss, Noch einmal: Zur frage eines Antijudaismus bzw. Antipharisäismus im Matthäusevangelium, Zeitschrift für Neues Testament 4 (2001): 37–41. ↵

2

The Rejection of the Prophets in

Jewish Literature

Three elements of the rejected prophet motif gradually become clear in the following survey. First, the Deuteronomistic understanding of Israel’s history is the underlying Weltanschauung by which prophetic ministry is interpreted. Second, Israel’s negative response to the prophets often involved only the failure to heed the prophetic admonitions. Yet all too often the nonviolent rejection on the part of some was accompanied by a third element, the active persecution of God’s messengers on the part of others. For lack of a better scheme, texts from the Hebrew Bible will be presented in canonical order from the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings.[1]

The Torah

Examples of the rejection of the prophets may be found in the Torah. These include Deuteronomistic texts in which prophetic rejection is implicit in warnings about disobedience to the covenant. The other type of evidence for the motif involves disrespect for Moses, the prototypical prophet (Deut. 18:15–18).

Genesis

Although the Mosaic covenantal context is lacking, certain aspects of the Abraham and Joseph stories may have at least some bearing on the matter of the rejection of the prophets. During Abraham’s sojourn in Gerar (Gen. 20), he represents his wife as his sister because he believes another man will kill him in order to have her. Abimelech’s innocent interest in Sarah is judged by God, who states that Abraham is his prophet (Gen. 20:7). Abimelech then lavishes gifts on Abraham, whose intercession wards off the barrenness of Abimelech’s household. A similar incident occurs with Isaac later in the story (Gen. 26:6–11), and both stories are evidently in the mind of the psalmist, who styles Abraham and Isaac as God’s prophets who must not be harmed (Ps. 105:15). Perhaps these rather uncomplimentary stories that portray the dishonesty of Abraham and Isaac were nonetheless viewed as anticipating God’s concern for the safety of his prophets under the law of Moses.[2]

In biblical times dreams were regarded as a means of divine revelation, and Joseph’s dreams do in fact augur things to come, despite his brothers’ understandable misgivings (Gen. 37:1–11). Those misgivings later lead Joseph’s brothers to sell him into slavery (Gen. 37:18–28). Righteous Joseph is unjustly imprisoned by his master, Potiphar, but in prison he continues to prosper (Gen. 39:21–23). Joseph is enabled to interpret the cupbearer’s and the baker’s dreams correctly (Genesis 40). He later does the same for Pharaoh himself, and is appointed Pharaoh’s second in command (Gen. 41:14–45). Pharaoh realizes that Joseph is favored with a divine spirit (Gen. 41:38). Thus the Joseph story presents Joseph as a righteous agent of divine revelation who is nevertheless rejected by his own brothers. In this light the Joseph story somewhat resembles the motif of prophetic rejection in the rest of the Torah.

An expression found in Gen. 15:16 is also relevant for this study. This text describes the iniquity of the Amorites as not yet complete (לֹא־שָׁלֵם עֲוֹן הָאֱמֹרִי עַד־הֵנָּה). The lack of fullness of the Amorites’ sin explains why Abraham did not immediately inherit the land.[3] Abraham is told that his descendants will be oppressed strangers in a foreign land until the fourth generation. Then God will judge their (Egyptian) oppressors as well as the occupants of the land of Canaan, whose sins will have reached an intolerable level. This notion of sin reaching a critical mass of ripeness that merits God’s harvest of judgment is found in Matt. 23:32 as well as other texts.[4]

Exodus

Moses is treated disrespectfully by two Israelites, albeit before he is called by God to lead the nation out of Egypt (Exod. 2:14–15). When God does call him, Moses fears rejection (Exod. 4:1). Soon after God frees Israel from Pharaoh, the people grumble against Moses in the desert because there is no water (Exod. 15:24). Later, a similar complaint arises over the lack of food (Exod. 16:2), and the people disregard Moses’s prohibition against gathering manna on the Sabbath. Lack of water again leads to a notable crisis, which is resolved when Moses is instructed to strike a rock with his staff to produce water (Exod. 17:1–7). It is significant that this rebellion against Moses is portrayed as testing God (Exod. 17:7). This incident perhaps anticipates Israel’s return to idol worship at the very time Moses is receiving the Torah from Sinai (Exod. 32:1, 23). The people’s comment that they do not know what has become of Moses does little to excuse this blatant instance of rejecting the spokesman of God.

Leviticus

Nadab and Abihu’s presumptuous offering of strange fire before God amounts to rejection of Moses, who had given Israel commands as to the proper manner in which to come before the Lord (Lev. 10:1–7). God calls Israel to obedience as a prerequisite for confirmation of the covenant (Lev. 26:1–13), but disobeying God’s commandments and breaking his covenant will result in Israel’s demise (Lev. 26:14–33). Nevertheless, even if Israel rejects God’s covenant and experiences the consequences about which the prophets warn, God will remember the covenant and end their rejection if they repent (Lev. 26:40–45).

Numbers

Numbers 11–12 contains three instances of complaints against God and/or Moses. In 11:1–3 fire from God consumes certain ones whose complaints are not identified, yet Moses’s intercession limits this outbreak of God’s anger. In 11:4–35 the people’s complaint that they have no meat (cf. Exod. 16:2) brings Moses to realize that he cannot deal with the nation on his own, and seventy elders are enlisted to help him. But the people’s lust for meat causes them to pile up the quail that God brings to them, and once again God strikes many down. Evidently this is due to their lack of obedience to God and God’s messenger, Moses. The congregation’s refusal at Kadesh to go into the land is clearly portrayed as rebellion against God, and by implication against his messenger Moses (13:17–14:10). Moses’s intercession saves the people from immediate judgment, but God promises that the rebels will die while wandering in the wilderness (14:11–38). Here Moses, Joshua, and Caleb become a remnant of sorts (14:28–30). The rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram against Moses and Aaron (16:11) is yet another instance of Israel’s rejection of God’s representatives. Despite the intercession of Moses and Aaron (16:22), God’s anger destroys the three men, along with their families and possessions, as well as 250 of their associates who are offering incense in disobedience to God’s law (16:1–35). But on the very next day, Moses is once again blamed, this time for the death of all those who rebelled with Korah. God’s anger again breaks out, and 14,700 Israelites die, despite Moses’s and Aaron’s efforts to atone for their sin.

Lack of water creates yet another rebellion against Moses when Israel traverses the Wilderness of Zin. Despite Moses’s and Aaron’s disobedience to God (20:8–12, 24), once again God uses Moses to provide the needed water. This uprising against Moses (20:4–5) is interpreted as contention against God (20:13). Another rebellion against God and Moses occurs as Israel circumvents Edom. Once again lack of water and food is the problem, but this time when God punishes the people they realize their sin and ask Moses to intercede for them with God (21:4–9). The rest of the book of Numbers adds little to what has already been noted. Israel’s defection from the covenant in the incident with Baal-Peor is swiftly dealt with, and no rebellion against Moses occurs (Numbers 25). Moses’s sin in the wilderness of Zin is recalled (27:12–14; cf. 20:8–12, 24; 32:51), and this prepares the reader for Moses’s succession by Joshua (27:18–23). Thus Joshua becomes a quasi-prophet like Moses (cf. Deut. 18:15–19; 34:9–12). A final pericope in Numbers bearing on this topic narrates the desire of Reuben and Gad to remain in Gilead and not to cross over into the land west of the Jordan River (Numbers 32). Moses fears that this amounts to recapitulation of the rebellion at Kadesh, but it turns out that this is not at all the case.

Deuteronomy

One who has already read Numbers finds the incident of rebellion at Kadesh rehearsed in the early chapters of Deuteronomy. God clearly calls Israel to enter the land (Deut. 1:6), but Israel responds in unbelief and fear (1:29–32). This turns to a presumptive attempt to go into the land, this time in disobedience to God’s prohibition (1:41–46). Deuteronomy 4 contains a clear statement of the Deuteronomistic principle that obedience to God will lead to prosperity, while disobedience will inevitably bring adversity. Similar statements of blessing for obedience and curse for disobedience recur many times in Deuteronomy.[5] But even after disobedience brings judgment, God promises to remember his covenant with Israel if they will sincerely repent (4:25–31; 30:1–10; 31:16–21, 26–29; 32:5, 36; Josh. 24:19–27).

Deuteronomy 18:15–19 is probably the most significant passage in the Torah on the prophetic office. God forbids his people to listen to the various revelatory or divinatory practitioners from the surrounding nations (Deuteronomy 13; 18:9–14). Instead Israel is commanded to listen to Moses and to an unnamed prophet like Moses whom God will raise up after Moses (18:15–19). D. C. Allison has gleaned four views of this text from the history of interpretation:[6]

(1) Perhaps the majority of interpreters have judged Deut. 18:15 to be speaking distributively of a series of prophets or generically about the prophetic office.[7] The linkage of my servant Moses[8] and my servants the prophets[9] in 2 Kgs. 21:8, 10 (cf. Dan. 9:5–6, 10) tends to support the view. Scholars have called attention to the similarities of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel to Moses.[10] These succeeding prophets echo the Mosaic covenant and call Israel to renewed obedience.

(2) W. A. Meeks’s view is similar to (1) above but takes Deut. 18:15 as speaking of a series of prophetic rulers or kings, such as Joshua, Samuel, and Jeremiah.[11] Evidence for Joshua as Moses’s successor is strong,[12] but Meeks’s category of prophet-king is doubtful.[13] Be that as it may, views (1) and (2) are both modern scholarly attempts to interpret Deuteronomy 18 in its own historical context, while views (3) and (4) are ancient interpretations that arose during the Greco-Roman period.

(3) Certain Qumran texts speak of an eschatological individual prophet who will accompany the Aaronic and Davidic messiahs.[14] This understanding seems to be similar to that of John 1:20–21, 25; 7:40–41, where the prophet is ostensibly different from the Messiah.

(4) In another New Testament passage (Acts 3:17–26), and arguably certain other Second Temple texts, the prophet is the Messiah. Some of these Second Temple texts speak of the eschatological return of Moses himself.[15]

In any event, whether the prophet like Moses in Deut. 18:15 is understood generically or individually, the matter of consequence to this study is Israel’s strict accountability to this prophet who will speak God’s words in God’s name just as Moses did (18:15, 18–19). Israel will not ignore this prophet without grave consequences.

A note on Deut. 34:9–12 is warranted here in light of the future prophets like Moses who are promised in Deut. 18:15 (cf. 18:18). As Moses passes off the scene and Joshua succeeds him, Moses’s uniqueness is emphasized. Indeed, Deut. 34:9 affirms that never again did there arise in Israel a prophet like Moses (jps). Yet the discrepancy between these texts is only superficial. Moses is viewed as the unique archetypal prophet, yet his successors are viewed as derivatives of his message and power, just as Joshua is said to have the spirit of wisdom because Moses laid his hands on him. By heeding Joshua, Israel did as God had commanded Moses (Deut. 34:9). As explained more fully in the next section of this study, Joshua will be successful to the extent that he follows Moses’s Torah (Josh. 1:8). Moses is unique in that God singles him out (jps) for unparalleled access to his presence and for epochal works of power (Deut. 34:11–12). Yet Israel will also be accountable to later prophets like Moses (Deut. 18:14–18), of whom Joshua is evidently the first. Moses’s act of laying his hands on Joshua imparts to Joshua a sort of imprimatur that endorses him as Moses’s successor, one who will function just like Moses did. The book of Joshua portrays him as experiencing God’s presence as Moses did (Josh. 1:5) and as being obeyed as Moses was (Josh. 1:17). Moses’s prophetic role and power were unique, but his successors were like Moses in speaking for God by reiterating the law he originally received.

Summary

There is no example of violent treatment of the prophets in the Torah unless Joseph’s treatment by his brothers is adduced. Nevertheless, Israel’s periodic rebellion against God and Moses, coupled with the repeated pairing of blessing and cursing language, sets the scene for the coming days of prosperity and adversity as the biblical narrative proceeds. We have laid the foundation for the Deuteronomistic interpretation of Israel’s history. Israel’s periodic infidelity will continue and will be exacerbated by violent treatment of the very messengers sent to them by God to warn them of the consequences of their actions.

The Former Prophets

The outworking of Deuteronomism continues in the former prophets. More often than not resistance to the prophets is passive or nonviolent, but active persecution of God’s messengers is found in 1–2 Kings.

Joshua

I suggested in the last section that Joshua may be implicated in Deut. 18:15–19. Be that as it may, Deut. 34:9–12 clearly sets up Joshua as Moses’s successor. Although Moses was uniquely endowed with God’s power, Joshua’s own endowment was due to Moses’s laying his hands on him. Thus when one reads the book of Joshua one repeatedly encounters comparisons between Joshua and Moses and concludes that Joshua is a quasi-Mosaic prophet.[16] Through Joshua the law and promises of God previously mediated by Moses begin to be realized in the land of promise. Joshua also experiences, as did Moses, periodic opposition and defection from God’s law (Josh. 7; 17:13–18; 18:3). At the end of his life Joshua admonishes Israel in language that clearly echoes the Deuteronomistic themes first enunciated by Moses (Josh. 23:6–16; 24:14–15). He also acknowledges that sin and defection will mar Israel’s future (24:19–20).

Judges

As is well known, the book of Judges presents a cyclical view of Israel’s history in which apostasy brings divine judgment, which induces Israel to repent. In response God provides a leader who delivers Israel, and there is prosperity until the cycle repeats itself (Judg. 1:11–23; 3:5–11, 12; 4:1; 6:1; 8:33; 10:6; 13:1). This is frequently attributed to the absence of a king, which permitted individuals to disobey God and the law (Judg. 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25). Israel’s obedience is viewed as incomplete in that the Canaanites are not completely driven out (Judg. 1:19–2:5). The reason is generational: after the generation of Joshua and Caleb expired, the next generation did not acknowledge God and his mighty works for Israel (Judg. 2:6–10). The ongoing Canaanite presence functions as a divine test in which Israel’s obedience to God is continuously in jeopardy (2:20–3:4).

Although there are no clear instances of violent treatment of God’s messengers in Judges, Israel’s obedience to the law of God is at best iterative, not habitual or customary. In Deuteronomistic language, Israel is more cursed than blessed during these days. The message of the angel of the Lord and that of an unnamed prophet are the same: despite all that God has done for Israel, you have not obeyed my voice (Judg. 2:2; 6:10). God’s sending the prophet of Judg. 6:7–10 is significant, both in terms of Deut. 18:15–19 and in light of developments yet to be narrated.

1–2 Samuel

Israel’s incomplete obedience continues in 1–2 Samuel. Eli’s disobedience is confronted by a man of God who promises that judgment will come on the corrupt priesthood of Eli’s two sons (1 Sam. 2:22–36).[17] Samuel is confirmed as God’s prophet even as Israel is defeated by the Philistines, who are evidently sent by God in judgment on Eli’s corruption (1 Sam. 3:20­–4:11). Samuel’s early ministry is described in clear Deuteronomistic language: if Israel turns from false Gods and serves only the true God, they will be delivered from their Philistine oppressors (1 Sam. 7:3). This proves to be true in days to come, yet as Samuel grows old, his sons, like Eli’s before him, do not obey the Lord. Thus a king is needed to rule Israel (1 Sam. 8:1–9), and Samuel anoints Saul (2 Sam. 9:1–10:8). Near the end of his ministry Samuel calls on Israel to be faithful to God, reminding them of their early leaders Moses and Aaron (1 Sam. 12:6).[18] Saul’s incomplete obedience leads to Samuel rejecting Saul and anointing David as king (1 Sam. 15:10–16:13). David also has times of disobedience to God, and is confronted by the prophet Nathan for his egregious sin with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 12). In 1–2 Samuel overall there is no instance of a prophet being persecuted. In this corpus the prophets Samuel (1 Sam. 3:20), Nathan (2 Sam. 7:2; 12:1), and Gad (1 Sam. 22:5; 2 Sam. 24:11) are prominent in calling Israel’s leaders to be faithful to the Torah in keeping with the Deuteronomistic theme.

1–2 Kings

In 1–2 Kings the Deuteronomistic theme continues to be prominent, but more noteworthy are some of the first instances of active persecution of the prophets in the Bible. Various prophets speak out for God and the law, including Ahijah (1 Kgs. 11:29–40; 12:15; 14:1–18; cf. 2 Chron. 9:29), Shemaiah (1 Kgs. 12:22–24), Jehu (1 Kgs. 16:7), Elijah (1 Kgs. 17:1–19:21; 21:17–29; 2 Kgs. 1:1–2:18; 9:36), Elisha (1 Kgs. 19:15–21; 2 Kgs. 2:1–25; 3:4–20; 4:1–9:13; 13:14–21), Micaiah (1 Kgs. 22:5–40; cf. 2 Chron. 18:4–34), Jonah (2 Kgs. 14:25), Isaiah (2 Kgs. 19:1–20:21; cf. 2 Chron. 26:22; 32:20, 32), Huldah (2 Kgs. 22:14–23:30; cf. 2 Chron. 34:22), and certain unnamed prophets (1 Kgs. 13:1–34; cf. 2 Kgs. 23:16–18;[19] 1 Kgs. 20:13–43). These messengers for God are opposed by several false prophets, who attempt to turn Israel from God’s law, often with much success (1 Kgs. 13:11-32; 18:19–22; 22:6; 2 Kgs. 10:18–28; 23:18). Overall in 1–2 Kings the ministry of the prophets is directed primarily to the kings of Israel and Judah. Ahijah and an unnamed prophet confront Jeroboam; Shemaiah confronts Rehoboam; Jehu confronts Baasha; Elijah and Elisha confront Ahab; Micaiah confronts Jehoshaphat; and Huldah confronts Josiah. The far-reaching trajectory of the persecution of the prophets begins in earnest here as Ahab attempts to kill Elijah and Elisha and succeeds in killing other prophets of God (1 Kgs. 18:4, 13; 19:10, 14; 21:15, 21, 25; 2 Kgs. 9:7; cf. Rom. 11:1–4). Jeroboam’s attempt to arrest an unnamed prophet is thwarted by divine intervention (1 Kings 13), and Jehoram wants to kill Elisha (2 Kings 6).

Summary

The books of the former prophets maintain the Deuteronomistic themes of the Torah while noting the antagonism of certain kings to the prophetic call for loyalty to the Torah. It is especially noteworthy that in 1–2 Kings for the first time antagonism to God’s prophets escalates to the level of active persecution and murder. The demise of the northern kingdom is directly tied to its turning a deaf ear to God’s prophets (1 Kgs. 17:7–18, 23; cf. 2 Kgs. 18:9–12). This lack of repentance brings on Israel the covenantal curses of the book of Deuteronomy. The same obduracy prevailed later in the southern kingdom (2 Kgs. 21:10–15). Manasseh’s shedding of innocent blood likely included mistreatment of God’s prophets (2 Kgs. 21:16). Josiah’s reforms at the urging of the prophetess Huldah were prompted by renewed obedience to the Torah (2 Kgs. 22-23). Josiah’s sons Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim did not follow their father’s example, leading to the shedding of more innocent blood. God’s response to this was to send many enemies against Judah, just as the prophets had predicted (2 Kgs. 24:1–6). Judah’s end, like Israel’s, was due not only to its refusal to listen to the prophets but also to its active persecution of the prophets.

The Latter Prophets

In the latter prophets one finds prophetic oracles that reiterate Deuteronomistic themes as well as specific examples of the rejection and persecution of the prophets.

Isaiah

Isaiah clearly and repeatedly points out that God’s displeasure with Israel is due to its rejection of the law (e.g., Isa. 5:24;[20] 42:24; 48:18–19; 65:2–7). This rejection goes so far as to forbid the prophets from prophesying (30:9–17). In this situation God removes prophets and other righteous individuals from the land (Isa. 3:2–3; cf. 29:9–12). This results in a lack of genuine knowledge of God and the prevalence of false prophets and diviners (Isa. 5:13; 9:15; 28:7; 47:12–15). Evidently such individuals are among the leaders of Judah who devour God’s vineyard (3:14; cf. 5:1–7). Isaiah himself is warned that his own ministry will be rejected (Isa. 6:9–13), yet there is no clear record in the book of him suffering active persecution.[21]

Jeremiah

Jeremiah’s prophecies encompass the time when the Deuteronomistic consequences of Israel’s disobedience to the law come to their sad climax: the southern kingdom is conquered by the Babylonians and the first temple is destroyed. A new covenant is needed, because Israel did not keep the first one (Jer. 31:32) despite God’s ongoing care for them. The now-familiar Deuteronomistic theme recurs regularly in the book.[22] During these waning days of the southern kingdom, Israel tends to listen to false prophets, who prophesy lies and commit all manner of transgressions.[23] The coming judgment will catch Israel’s leaders, including such prophets, by surprise (Jer. 4:9). Despite all this, God will yet raise up genuine leaders for the nation and bless it in its land.[24]

Jeremiah has a great deal to say about the rejection and persecution of the prophets. Several of Jeremiah’s oracles state that God has been sending prophets to Israel since the exodus, but Israel has not listened to them (7:25–26; 11:7–8; 25:3–7; 26:4–6; 29:19; 35:12–17; 44:1–6). Israel has not accepted God’s chastening but has responded to it by devouring God’s prophets by the sword (Jer. 2:30). The prophets are portrayed as persecuted messengers of judgment on Israel. For example, after prophesying against Jerusalem, Uriah flees to Egypt. But Jehoiakim has him hunted down, returned to Jerusalem, and executed (Jer. 26:20–23). Jeremiah himself is subjected to rejection, death threats, beatings, stocks, trial, and imprisonment. He avoids death only by the good offices of Ahikam son of Shaphan (Jer. 11:18–23; 18:18; 20:1–11; 26:7–24; 32:2–5; 36:11–26; 37:2, 11–21; 38:1–16; 43:1–6). It is clear that Jeremiah makes the strongest case in the Bible to this point for Israel’s rejection of the prophets. Scholars have noted many affinities between Jeremiah’s portrayal and that of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew.[25] A late midrash (Pesiq. Rab. 26:1/2) attributes words to Jeremiah that are quite consistent with Matthew 23: What prophet ever came before them whom they did not seek to kill?

Ezekiel

At the outset of this book, Ezekiel’s ministry is portrayed in continuity with previous rejected prophets of Israel (Ezek. 2:1–3:11; cf. 33:33). Israel is a rebellious people that has not listened to God previously.[26] Neither will Israel listen to Ezekiel, yet he must deliver God’s message fearlessly, even if he is tied with ropes (Ezek. 3:25). Israel will indeed listen to his message, but as they would listen to beautiful music, not as to a message from God that calls on them to amend their lives (Ezek. 33:32–33). As did the prophets before him, Ezekiel must contend with false prophets whose message of peace and prosperity clashes with his own (Ezek. 7:26; 13:1–16; 21:29; 22:25, 28). In spite of this rebellion, the impending judgment will leave a faithful remnant that will acknowledge God.[27] Overall, Ezekiel’s visions and prophecies cohere with the Deuteronomistic and rejected prophets motifs, but these matters are not emphasized to the extent that they are in Jeremiah.

The Scroll of the Twelve

When we turn from the Major Prophets to the Scroll of the Twelve, we continue to find now-familiar themes. The Deuteronomistic interpretation of Israel’s troubles is still prevalent in Hosea (1:2–9; 3:1–4; 4:1–10; 8:1–14). God has sent prophets to Israel ever since its days in Egypt (Hosea 12:9–14). Hosea vividly describes the prophetic rebuke of Israel’s sin as an axe chopping wood into pieces (Hosea 6:5).[28] But it appears that the circumstances were different in Hosea’s day: the prophets were impotent, if not apostate (Hosea 4:5; 9:7). Nevertheless, Hosea promises a day when Israel will be restored to God’s favor (Hosea 1:10–11; 2:14–23; 3:5; 11:8–11; 14:4–7). Although Hosea’s stress on Israel’s apostasy implies that Israel has rejected God’s prophets, there is no specific stress on this motif in the book.

Amos speaks of God’s judgment on Judah and Israel in connection with God’s judgment on the nations that surround Israel (Amos 2:4–8). Judah’s and Israel’s transgressions are every bit as heinous as the sins of those nations; indeed, all the more so because of God’s ongoing care for his people, which included the raising up of Nazirites and prophets (Amos 2:11). Israel prohibited the prophets from speaking, but later lamented the absence of a revelatory message from the Lord (Amos 8:11–12). Nevertheless, Amos affirms that he cannot refrain from declaring the counsel of God that has been revealed to him (Amos 3:7–8). Amos’s strictures against the altar at Bethel occasioned opposition to his ministry by Amaziah, the priest at Bethel, who attempted to bring King Jeroboam against Amos (Amos 7:10–17). Amos was undeterred by this opposition. Despite the prevalence of sin during Amos’s ministry, the book closes with a promise of better days in which a faithful remnant will be restored to prosperity in the land (Amos 9:10–15).

Micah speaks out against the sin of the northern and southern kingdoms (Mic. 1:1). In continuity with the Deuteronomistic pattern, Micah decries sin and threatens God’s judgment (1:2–18; 2:8–9; 3:1–12; 6:9–16). At this time there were false prophets who did not denounce Israel’s sins but mouthed whatever message would bring them prosperity (Mic. 3:5, 11; cf. 2:11). In contrast to these prophets with no word from God, Micah powerfully confronts the social injustice of his day and warns of calamity to come (Mic. 3:8–12). Like other prophets, Micah tempers the message of doom with the good news that there will come a time when God will restore a faithful remnant to prosperity in the land (Mic. 4:1–8; 5:2–4; 7:14–20). There is no clear mention of the rejection of the prophets in Micah, but 3:6–11 may refer to true prophets being forbidden to speak (3:6) in contrast with false prophets who are welcomed whatever their message (3:11).

At the outset of Zechariah the prophet succinctly recounts the basic themes of the Deuteronomistic interpretation of Israel’s history. The exile was due to Israel’s disobedience of the law and disregarding the warnings of the former prophets (1:2–6). This theme is restated in Zech. 7:4–14 (cf. 8:9,