אך נביא אשר יזיד, But a prophet who sins, etc. Why did the Torah write the word אך at the beginning of verse 20? Why did the Torah add the word יזיד when speaking about a prophet who says things in God's name which he has not been told to say? It would have sufficed to write אשר ידבר. What does the Torah mean by writing that "you will ask in your heart how you could be expected to know what God had not said to the so-called prophet because it had not come true?⁠" Is it not obvious that if God had not said it to him there was nothing to come true in the first place? Why does the Torah change its syntax between verse 20 and verse 22 respectively? In verse 20 the Torah speaks of what the prophet would say בשמי, "in My name,⁠" whereas in verse 22 the Torah refers to God in the third person, i.e. אשר ידבר הנביא בשם השם "which the prophet will say in the name of the Lord?⁠" Furthermore, why does the Torah write הוא הדבר, "that is the thing" which God did not say to him, etc.? These two words are totally superfluous!

We may best understand what the Torah has in mind by recalling the incident involving a true prophet Michayuh and a number (400) of false prophets, notably Tzidkiyahu ben Kenaanah (compare Kings I chapter 22). This occurred during the reign of Yehoshaphat King of Yehudah and Achav King of Israel when the latter invited Yehoshaphat to join him in a war against the Syrians (Aramites) in order to recapture Yavesh Gilead [the equivalent of the Golan Heights in those days. Ed.]. Originally, all the prophets including Tzidkiyahu ben Kenaanah (who was only called in at the insistence of Yehoshaphat) prophesied success, urging the king to go to war. When Yehoshaphat who was uncomfortable in the company of 400 false prophets, all of whom appeared to be Achav's "yes-men" demanded to hear the opinion of a true prophet, one whom Achav had not invited, Michayuh was called, Achav had first demurred claiming that he always prophesied negatively for him and when Michayhu saw that the chief of the false prophets Tzidkiyahu boasted that Achav would succeed with the iron horns he displayed, he too wished the king success, using almost the same language as the other prophets. Yehoshaphat was still suspicious and upon consulting Michayuh again the latter revealed that he had seen a vision of all the Israelite soldiers fleeing into the hills, etc. He also explained that God in heaven had allowed Achav to be deliberately misled into going to war so that he would fall in battle. In my commentary on the Books of the Prophets I have dealt with the problem of why the true prophet Michayuh had originally prophesied success for Achav when he had wished him success in his forthcoming battle instead of warning him to desist. I explained that it was precisely this prophet who had been imbued with the spirit of Navot Hacarmeli whom Achav and Izzebel had arranged to become the victim of a judicial murder by framing him. Navot's spirit had complained in the heavens about his life not having been avenged. While Michayuh was thus temporarily under the spell of the spirit of Navot, he had made a comment which lured Achav into waging war. Shortly thereafter his own spirit took over and he revealed to Yehoshaphat in the presence of Achav what he had truly been shown. By that time Achav had good reason not to take him seriously since he had contradicted himself and discredited himself. There are numerous questions regarding the conduct of Michayuh, not the least of which is why he eventually tried to thwart God's plan to entrap Achav so that he could fall in battle. Why did he tell Achav about what he had seen in a vision thus encouraging Achav to save his life by not going to war?

The Torah in its wisdom foresaw events in the future, including what has been described in Kings I chapter 22 when a spirit would emanate from God deliberately deceiving the prophets. At such a time the prophets who would speak an untruth would not be culpable as they acted under divine compulsion. Therefore, when the Torah speaks of the penalty for a false prophet it had to make an exception for situations such as that involving Michayuh. This is the reason the Torah commences our verse with the restrictive word אך; in other words the Torah forewarns that there could be an exception to the applicability of the legislation it is about to reveal here. In order to make this point even clearer the Torah added the word אשר יזיד, i.e. when the prophet deliberately and with sinful intent speaks of things God has not said to him, only then is he guilty of the death penalty. By writing these two words, a prophet such as Michayhu is let off the hook, so to speak. It even follows that the other 400 prophets who had prophesied could not be executed as they had, after all, prophesied the same as had Michayhu. This leaves us with the question of why the Talmud Sanhedrin 89 claims that although Tzidkiyahu ben Kenaanah who had prophesied precisely the same as all the others was considered as having been guilty of a capital crime? The Talmud explains that Tzidkiyahu should have known that God never uses two prophets to announce the same message. Although, in that particular instance, another 400 "prophets" also prophesied what Tzidkiyahu and Michayuh had prophesied when they promised Achav success, all of them stopped prophesying when they had become aware that they had all said the same thing. This clued them in that the spirit of Navot or something else had possessed them. The only "prophet" who continued with the theme and who made a big to do about the symbol of the iron horns was Tzidkiyahu. By doing so he had incriminated himself under the heading of אשר יזיד לדבר דבר, "who says something with sinful intent.⁠"

In view of the above it is natural that generations following that of Moses would ask how they could be expected to distinguish between who is a true prophet relating what God had told him to say, and who has either fabricated a story or revealed something God had not authorised him to reveal? How would they know when a prophet had been possessed by a spirit analogous to that of Navot Hacarmeli in Kings I 22? Why should a prophet be put to death when we do not know what motivated him? In the case of the story involving Michayuh it is a fact that but for the first pronouncement of Michayuh all 400 prophets were guilty of death seeing they prophesied falsely, Achav being killed in the battle. Who would have known that all these prophets acted under compulsion by heavenly forces? Could the Torah i.e. God, who loves justice, take a chance that all these prophets would be put to death? The question put by the Torah in the mouth of future generations with the words וכי תאמר... איכה נדע הדבר אשר לא דברו השם "if you will say …how will we know the word which God has not said to him, etc.,⁠" includes both what God said to the prophet and what He said to the spirit of Navot by telling him to mislead Achav.

Our verse continues: אשר ידבר הנביא, "if the prophet relates his prophecy in the name of God etc., ולא יהיה הדבר, and the word (subject of the prophecy) will not come to pass, then you will know that the prophet spoke deliberately sinfully, and not because he had been misled by the spirit of someone such as Navot. The reason for this is that כי בזדון דברו הנביא, God would not have it said of Him that He gave the power of prophecy to a deliberate sinner. If such a so-called prophet was indeed possessed by the spirit of someone such as Navot it was only because he already planned to abuse the power of prophecy in the first place. הוא הדבר אשר לא רברו השם, "that is the word which God had not said to him.⁠" The Torah advises that non-occurrence of a favourable prophecy will be proof that whoever made such a prophecy did not make it in God's name; such a man was not misled by some spirit such as that of Navot or anything like it which caused him to prophesy. Concerning the last mentioned situation, the Torah adds כי בזדון דברו, "he said it with deliberate sinful intention. There could be another situation of which the Torah cannot tell you that the "prophet" acted with sinful intent although the prophecy was a lie, namely when the "prophet did not speak in the name of the Lord but in the name of a spirit such as the one of Navot Hacarmeli.

When you examine the text in the Book of Kings where the conduct of Michayuh is described you will find that when he spoke the first time (when he appeared to agree with the 400 "prophets") he never mentioned that he spoke in the name of God, he only wished him that God would make him successful. In fact it was Yehoshaphat who mentioned that he wanted to hear the word of God (Kings I 22,6). It is clear from verse 16 in that chapter that when Michayuh appeared to concur with the 400 prophets (without confirming that he spoke in the name of God) Achav himself noticed this and upraided him for not speaking in the name of God. [I have taken the liberty of changing the author's words here as I feel that the way I present it strengthens his argument still further. Ed.]

It is entirely possible that the words "in the name of the Lord,⁠" and the words: "I make you swear" in that verse do not form part of the same statement. If so, it is not surprising why Michayuh revealed God's secret (that Achav would fall in battle). If he said what he said without claiming to have said it in the name of God, God's name would not become associated with a lie. At any rate, seeing that Achav had not believed Michayuh's first glib assurance when he wished him success, there was never any danger that God's name would become discredited in Achav's eyes. [You will observe that already in verse 14 Michayuh was referring to what God would tell him (future), not to what God had already said to him. Ed.]