3<\/strong>. foolish prophets<\/em> ] The word, not used again by Ezekiel, is rather a moral term, meaning destitute of that wisdom the beginning of which is the fear of the Lord (Psa 13:1<\/span>). Jeremiah charges the prophets of his day with shameful vices, “They commit adultery with their neighbours’ wives” (Jer 29:23<\/span>; cf. Jer 23:14<\/span>, and pass<\/em>.); but, without supposing that all the “false” prophets were so bad, it characterized them in general that they were superficial men in a moral sense. Their notions of religion and life were not high or strict, and hence they saw nothing in the condition of the people or the state calling for the judgment of God, and prophesied “peace.” This was what distinguished them from Jeremiah and other prophets whom we call “true.” Micah says in opposition to them: “I am full of power by the spirit of the Lord to declare unto Jacob his transgression and to Israel his sin” (ch. Eze 3:8<\/span>); and Jeremiah goes so far as to declare it to be the mark of a true prophet that he threatens judgment upon the nation (Jer 28:8-9<\/span>). A true prophet is one by whom the Lord speaks, and a “false” prophet (the expression is not used in the Old Testament, though the prophets are said to speak “falsely”) is one by whom he does not speak. This is true: but the converse has also its truth the Lord did not speak by these prophets because they were “false” (1Ki 22:6<\/span> seq<\/em>.). There is a spirit of false prophecy as well as a spirit of true prophecy. The spirit of true prophecy is the spirit of the theocracy and of the religion of Jehovah, the spirit that comprehends its principles, sympathises with its lofty morality, understands its aims, and therefore can perceive the true means to be used for fulfilling them. The spirit of false prophecy is the untheocratic spirit, which, even when speaking in the name of Jehovah, has not entered with any profoundness into the nature and aims of his kingdom, and consequently misapprehends the means needful to further it. In his encounters with the prophets of his day Jeremiah opposes them in three spheres: that of policy; that of morals; and that of personal experience. In policy the genuine prophets had some fixed principles, all arising out of the idea that the kingdom of the Lord was not a kingdom of this world. Hence they opposed military preparation (Psa 20:7<\/span>), riding on horses and building of fenced cities (Hos 14:3<\/span>; Mic 5:10-11<\/span>; Isa 31:1<\/span>), and counselled trust in Jehovah (Isa 7:9<\/span>; Isa 10:20-21<\/span>; Isa 17:7<\/span>; Isa 30:15<\/span>). These prophets were moving forward (often unconsciously) towards that conception of the kingdom of God which has been realized in the “Church;” and external providence was shaping the history of the nation on lines parallel to this conception, which eventually received form by the destruction of the state and the reduction of the people to be a mere religious community. The false prophets, on the other hand, desired their country to be a military power among the powers around, they advocated alliances with the Eastern empires and with Egypt, and relied on their national strength (Amo 6:13<\/span>). Again, the true prophets had a stringent personal and state morality (see above). In their view the true cause of the destruction of the state was its immoralities. But the false prophets had no such deep moral convictions, and seeing nothing unwonted or alarming in the condition of things, prophesied of “peace.” They were not necessarily irreligious men, but their religion had no truer insight into the nature of the God of Israel than that of the common people (Amo 5:18<\/span>); hence they pointed to the Temple as the house of the Lord, which he must protect; while Jeremiah told them that they had made it “a cave of robbers,” in which they thought themselves safe after committing their crimes, and threatened it with the fate of Shiloh (Jeremiah 7, 26<\/span>). And finally Jeremiah expresses his conviction that the prophets whom he opposed did not stand in the same relation to the Lord as he did; they had not his experiences of the word of the Lord, into whose counsel (Amo 3:7<\/span>) they had not been admitted, and they were without that fellowship of mind with the mind of Jehovah which was the true source of prophecy (Jeremiah 23<\/span> pass<\/em>.). Hence he satirizes their pretended supernatural “dreams,” and charges them from conscious want of any true prophetic word with “stealing” words from one another. Cf. Eze 13:6-7<\/em><\/span> and ch. 14.<\/p>\n their own spirit<\/em> ] The term is used in opposition to the “spirit” of the Lord which inspired the true prophet, who is called “a man of the spirit” (Hos 9:7<\/span>). As distinct from heart “spirit” is rather the force or power moving the prophet. In early times the prophets were the subjects of considerable excitation; and looking on them thus powerfully affected men recognised the influence of the spirit of God upon them.<\/p>\n and have seen nothing<\/em> ] Rather: and (go after) that which they have not seen.<\/strong> They did not see, though no doubt they thought they saw. They were self-deceived.<\/p>\n That follow … nothing – <\/B>Better in the margin. A true prophet (like Ezekiel) spoke the word of the Lord, and declared what he had seen in the visions of God. These pretenders are stigmatized in scorn prophets out of their own hearts, seers of what they have not seen.<\/P><\/p>\n They shall be doubly miserable, suffering with the deceived, and suffering by the enraged, when their lies are detected. <\/P> Foolish prophets; either in a moral sense, i. e. wicked; or in a literal sense, unwise. It is both foolishly wicked and imprudent to pretend revelations, and yet have none from God. <\/P> Their own spirit; in contradistinction to the Spirit of God, the true Spirit of prophecy, they strongly fancy what they would have, and then presumptuously prophesy that it shall come to pass. <\/P> Have seen nothing; God hath showed them no vision, nothing of all they pretend to is from God. <\/P> <\/p>\n 3. foolish<\/B>though vaunting asthough exclusively possessing “wisdom” (1Co1:19-21<\/span>); the fear of God being the only beginning of wisdom (Ps111:10<\/span>). <\/P> their own spirit<\/B>insteadof the Spirit of God. A threefold distinction lay between the falseand the true prophets: (1) The source of their messages respectively;of the false, “their own hearts”; of the true, an objectpresented to the spiritual sense (named from the noblest of thesenses, a seeing<\/I>) by the Spirit of God as from without, notproduced by their own natural powers of reflection. The word, thebody of the thought, presented itself not audibly to the naturalsense, but directly to the spirit of the prophet; and so theperception of it is properly called a seeing,<\/I> he perceivingthat which thereafter forms itself in his soul as the cover of theexternal word [DELITZSCH];hence the peculiar expression, “seeing the word of God”(Isa 2:1<\/span>; Isa 13:1<\/span>;Amo 1:1<\/span>; Mic 1:1<\/span>).(2) The point aimed at; the false “walking after their ownspirit”; the true, after the Spirit of God. (3) The result; thefalse saw nothing, but spake as if they had seen; the true had avision, not subjective, but objectively real [FAIRBAIRN].A refutation of those who set the inward<\/I> word above theobjective,<\/I> and represent the Bible as flowing subjectivelyfrom the inner light of its writers, not from the revelation of theHoly Ghost from without. “They are impatient to get possessionof the kernel without its fostering shellthey would have Christwithout the Bible” [BENGEL].<\/P><\/p>\n Thus saith the Lord God, woe unto the foolish prophets<\/strong>,…. The false prophets, as the Targum; who are foolish, as all are who are not sent of God, and furnished by him with wisdom and knowledge, and who prophesy out of their own hearts; for what else but folly can proceed from thence? this must be a great mortification to these prophets to be called foolish, when they reckoned themselves wise men, being vainly puffed up in their fleshly minds, and were accounted so by others; but what is wisdom with men is foolishness with God:<\/p>\n that follow their own spirit<\/strong>; or “walk after it” c; and not the Spirit of God, who leads into all truth; they pretended to a spirit of prophecy, but it was their own spirit and the dictates of it they followed, and not the Spirit of the Lord; and therefore it is no wonder that they prophesied false things, and led the people wrong; as all such teachers do, who give way to their own fancies and imaginations, and forsake the word of God, and do not implore the assistance and teachings of the blessed Spirit:<\/p>\n and have seen nothing<\/strong>; no vision, as the Syriac version renders it; they pretended to have revelations of things future from the Lord, but they had none; what they saw were vain visions and lying divinations, and were as nothing, and worse than nothing; yea, they said what they never saw.<\/p>\n c “qui ambulant post spiritm suum”: Pagninus, Calvin, Cocceius, Starckius.<\/p>\n Woe to, the foolish or disgraceful prophets נבל, nebel, signifies “a vile person,” “a castaway,” just as נבלה, nebeleh, means “foulness,” “crime,” “wickedness,” although נבל, nebel, is oftener taken for folly, and I willingly embrace this sense as it is generally received. He calls false prophets foolish, because they doubtless fiercely insulted the true servants of God — just like upstarts puffed up with wonderful self-conceit; for the devil, who reigns in them, is the father of pride: hence they carry themselves haughtily, arrogate all things to themselves, and wish to be thought angels come down from heaven. And when Paul speaks of human fictions, he grants them the form of wisdom. (Col 2:23<\/span>.) Hence there is no doubt that these pretenders of whom Ezekiel speaks were held in great esteem, and so, when swollen with bombast, they puffed forth surprising wisdom; but meanwhile the Holy Spirit shortly pronounces them fools: for whatever pleases the world under the mask of wisdom, we know to be mere folly before God. <\/p>\n Now he adds, who walk after their own spirit, without seeing any thing: that is, when no vision has been given them. Ezekiel explains himself more clearly, or rather the Spirit who spoke through him. As, therefore, he has lately condemned all who prophesy out of their own mind or heart, — for the noun “heart” is here used for “intellect,” as in other places, — as, therefore, the Spirit has lately condemned all such, so he says that those who walk after their own spirit wickedly abuse the prophetic office. He here alludes to the prophetic gift when he speaks of “spirit.” For, because they might object that false prophets did not speak from their own heart, but had secret revelations, he concedes to them the use of the word “spirit” by a rhetorical figure, (2) and thus refutes their boasting, as if Ezekiel had said that those fictitious revelations are mere fancies: they have indeed something in them more than common, but still they are fanatics. This then is the sense of the word “spirit.” Meanwhile there is no doubt that he repeats what he lately saw, and the contrast removes all doubt. Without seeing any thing, says he: thus vision is opposed to the human heart and spirit; but what is vision but a supernatural gift? When, therefore, God raises his servants above the capacity of human ability, and makes them discern what no mortal power can bestow, that is a vision; and if a vision is removed, nothing will remain but the spirit or heart of man. Hence those who cannot really show that their utterance is evidently inspired, shall be compelled to confess that they speak of their own minds. It follows — <\/p>\n (2) Calvin uses the Greek word καταχρηστικῶς, meaning in rhetoric the use of a word in a sense different from its natural one. Catachresis is the grammatical term, implying the use of terms in their “non-natural” sense. The French has “ neantmoins que ce soit improprentent.” <\/p>\n (3) Foolish prophets.<\/strong>They were certainly foolish who undertook to forge the name of the Omniscient, as it were, to utterances of their own devising. Folly according to the use of the word in the Old Testament, was not merely an intellectual failing, but was always associated with moral obliquity. (See Psa. 14:1<\/span>, and Proverbs throughout.) The last clause of the verse is better expressed in the margin: these prophets were. seers of that which they have not seen.<\/p>\n 3<\/strong>. <\/strong> Foolish prophets <\/strong> The “fool,” in Scripture language, is the impious man. Many of these false prophets were grossly immoral (Jer 23:14<\/span>; Jer 29:23<\/span>), and none of them had the appreciation of the heinousness of sin and the certainty of God’s wrath falling upon an unrepentant people, which is so characteristic of the writings of the true prophets. Lacking the fear of the Lord, which is the beginning of wisdom, the policy which they advocated was almost invariably wrong. They posed as patriots, and friends of Jerusalem and the temple, advocating war and such political alliances as they believed to be for the temporal interests of the nation; not having the foresight to perceive that the laxity of morals and impurity of worship were being increased by such affiliations and that the real danger to the nation lay not in its lack of military power, but in its lack of spirituality and faith in God. <\/p>\n Follow their own spirit <\/strong> The true prophet is the “man of the spirit” (Hos 9:7<\/span>), who receives his message from God (Jer 23:16<\/span>); but the spirit which controls the false prophet is from within, and not from above. <\/p>\n And have seen nothing <\/strong> Literally, that which they have not seen. <\/em> They saw no vision of God, though they pretended to see and may even have imagined that they saw.<\/p>\n Eze 13:3<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>And have seen nothing<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> Who give their own imaginations for true prophesies, and pretend to have visions, when they never had any. <\/p>\n Eze 13:3 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing!<\/p>\n Ver. 3. Woe unto the foolish prophets.<\/strong> ] Wise enough they were in their generation – and so are the foxes, whereto they are compared Eze 13:4 – but in the things of God, silly simples, blinder than moles. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n That follow their own spirit.<\/strong> ] Aud their own fancies, acted and abused by that great lying spirit. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n And have seen nothing.<\/strong> ] Nothing from God, though they thought and pretended they had seen something. All was but lies; Jer 27:10 dreams; Jer 23:32 things of naught. Eze 22:28 As Antipheron Orietes in Aristotle thought that everywhere he saw his own shape and picture going before him; so here. Now a woe is denounced against these; vae<\/em> woe, is a little word, but very comprehensive, as there is often much poison in little drops.<\/p>\n the Lord GOD. Hebrew Adonai Jehovah. See note on Eze 2:4. foolish. Hebrew. nabel. See note on Pro 1:7. <\/p>\n their own spirit. Not the Holy Spirit. <\/p>\n spirit. Hebrew. roach. App-9. <\/p>\n Woe: Eze 13:18, Eze 34:2, Jer 23:1, Mat 23:13-29, Luk 11:42-47, Luk 11:52, 1Co 9:16 <\/p>\n foolish: Pro 15:2, Pro 15:14, Lam 2:14, Hos 9:7, Zec 11:15, Mat 23:16-26, Luk 11:40, 1Ti 6:4, 2Ti 3:9 <\/p>\n follow: Heb. walk after <\/p>\n have seen nothing: or, things which they have not seen, Eze 13:6, Eze 13:7, Jer 23:28-32 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Deu 13:1 – a prophet 2Ch 18:5 – Go up Jer 23:16 – a vision Jer 28:15 – The Lord Eze 13:2 – prophesy out of Eze 16:23 – woe Mic 2:11 – a man Zep 3:4 – light Zec 11:17 – Woe Col 2:18 – intruding 2Pe 2:1 – there were<\/p>\n Eze 13:3. Having seen nothing means they had not received any vision from the Lord, but were devising theIR own foolish predictions.<\/p>\n Thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing! 3. foolish prophets ] The word, not used again by Ezekiel, is rather a moral term, meaning destitute of that wisdom the beginning of which is the fear of the Lord (Psa 13:1). Jeremiah charges the … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ezekiel 13:3”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-20722","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20722","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20722"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20722\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20722"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20722"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20722"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"