Credo
15 Sep 2025
Jeremiah 23.23-29
The exile was a watershed in Israel’s history. But it did not come suddenly or unexpectedly. The collapse of three important institutions preceded it. These were institutions that provided stability and direction for the nation. They were represented by the king, the priest and the prophet (Jer 2:8). Perhaps for some of us, the collapse of the prophetic institution is the most surprising. Weren’t prophets the people who had a special line to God, so to speak? Weren’t they the ones through whom God spoke in sundry times and in diverse manners to the nation? Surely, when they embarked on this vocation, they wouldn’t be thinking of earthly pursuits, would they? How then they did become corrupt?
Jeremiah must have been equally surprised as he was himself a prophet. True, the prophetic institution was not an unmitigated disaster. In God’s good providence, there were some who remained faithful. But since a considerable section is devoted to this topic, it means that the problem was critical and the faithful ones, few.
Although we grimace as we read this ancient text, it is necessary for us to stare at it and ponder. Despite palpable changes in human society over many millennia, the human heart remains pretty much the same. If so, we may now ask, ‘What precious lessons may we learn, especially when we are preparing ourselves to fill a role that is like the prophet’s?’ Such lessons can be mined from the text’s description of three types of prophets: the mad, the bad and the trusty.
1.The Mad
The term ‘prophets’ does not appear in verses 23-24 but since these verses are enveloped by those that do, we have good grounds to think that prophets are in view. Three rhetorical questions are asked and they call to mind forgotten truths. The first is baffling: ‘Am I a God at hand and not a God far away?’ It suggests that these prophets had forgotten that God was far away. This is baffling because most human beings struggle with doubt over the nearness of God. ‘God is far’ seems to be the default belief. If you don’t believe me, just recall the many statements we use for encouraging people: ‘God is with you’, ‘May your eyes be opened to the fact that God is near you’ and the like. We don’t say, ‘May you realise that God is far away.’ Why then was God reminding the prophets that he was the God who was far away? Did they need such a reminder? Mad they must be, or so you think, if they needed such a reminder. And right you are, but probably not in the way you think. Let me explain.
Scholars suggest that the word ‘far’ denotes ontological distance or the transcendence of God. The point is that God is utterly holy and is therefore not subjected to our control or agenda. Transcendence means we can’t make God in our own image or use him to realise our own goals. It is this the prophets had forgotten. The Almighty God had become for them an all-righty God, a miracle vending machine or an AI (Alien Intelligence) device such that if they pressed the right button, or said the right words, they would get what they wanted. We are familiar with the following: ‘Hey Siri, can you plan for me a holiday in Japan?’ For Siri – the magic word – our prophets substituted God’s holy name. The emphasis on ontological distance is therefore meant to bring us back to our senses. God is not at our beck and call. To think such is surely madness.
There may be another way of understanding the descriptor ‘far’, construing it now in terms of spatial distance. Let me elaborate. It is a human tendency to associate God with special or holy places. In such places, we follow the script and play the good Christian. But when we leave these places, we revert to our dominant state. Some wives will tell you how their husbands are just like that. Indeed, the behavioural reversion may start as soon as they get behind the wheel. And sadly, you will be familiar with tales of Christian businessmen falling into sin during overseas business trips. The usual explanation is that in such foreign places they were anonymous and falling into sin became easier. The anonymity thus described is connected with being far away from people or places that knew them. The word ‘far’, then, captures such popular attitudes, often unspoken and unexamined. We think God is like WIFI, the farther away from a holy node, the weaker his presence.
Notably, treating the word ‘far’ in a spatial manner dovetails nicely with the next two rhetorical questions because they speak of the immensity of God or his omnipresence. The three rhetorical questions may then be seen as making one point: there is no place where God is absent so that the prophets may safely sin (cf. Jer 7:4). If God is omnipresent, surely the attention they give to God in the Temple must go beyond its walls to the world outside.
However we construe the word ‘far’, the lesson is clear. To believe that God is near but to reject the notion that God is also far is a form of theological madness. To hold to both beliefs but act as though everything revolves around us, or we may sin safely in some places, is also a form of theological madness.
2.The Bad
Verses 25-27 illustrate what I mean by the bad. The text is straightforward and easily understood. To help us appreciate its contours better, we shall examine the motive, the method and the success of the bad.
Their motive is indicated in verse 27: they would like to see the nation forget God’s name for Baal’s. We know this was their motive because of the Hebrew participle haḥōševîm, which indicates their devising a scheme. But why would the text specifically mention God’s name as the target? Name-theology will shed light. This is a multi-faceted concept in the OT but we have time only for a quick summary: God’s name is indicative of his person and programme. What this means is that when the prophets attempted to induce forgetfulness over God’s name, they were not questioning the existence of YHWH but seeking instead to morph his character and covenant to conform to that typified by Baal. If this is correct, it means God’s name was used to promote agendas or plans that were antithetical to God himself. We can now hear alarm bells ring. Atheism is not preached in the churches of Singapore but is it possible that idolatry is being proclaimed in God’s name? We invoke the Father but are we calling for a different god?
Developing the point further, we may also surmise that personal interests were at work. Perhaps Baalism offered many rewards that traditional Yahwism would not. Perhaps Baalism was also the religion sponsored by the reigning monarch. The favour of kings and the promise of riches are always hard to resist.
Dreams were their method. To be sure, God sometimes communicates through dreams. However, they must always be subservient to the revealed word because they could be easily manufactured or misunderstood. And to be sure again, people love to hear dreams. A sermon that is faithful to the text may lull many to sleep but a narrated dream from beyond enthrals us, regardless of the content. And that’s what these prophets had. But that’s all these prophets had! As they did not have the backing of the Word or the covenant, they resorted to numinous mysteries. No lay person would dare challenge such mysteries because the prophets communicated them. Lies might then be easily spread.
But why were these lying prophets successful? This is an important question that needs asking. Sadly, the answer exposes the tragedy of our human race. There are bad prophets because we want them, sometimes without realising it. Let me explain. People desire dreams more than the written Word of God. Why? Dreams are rare but the Bible can be bought anywhere and read anytime. Dreams put us in touch with the supernatural, giving us a sense that we are special. We often complain that our pastors do not dream dreams or see visions. Seldom do we complain that those who dream or see visions are not pastoral. Why? More dreams mean a fuller church; more teaching means an emptier church. Moreover, religion is treated as means to meeting our aspirations, by helping us connect with divine blessings or high net-worth networks. People get tired easily of the Deuteronomistic perspective on life. They far prefer the Dow Jones perspective, of course, baptised with Christian terminology. We may then say that these prophets read their market well and gave their clientele what it wanted but sneaked in their lies at the same time. Given such a scenario, it is clear the nation was hurtling towards collapse, unless a market correction came but would it ever come?
3.The Trusty
We come finally to a different group of prophets, the trusty ones. They are like a breath of fresh air amid rot. God singled them out and exhorted them with these words: ‘let him who has my word speak my word faithfully’ (v. 28). The repetition of the 1st person possessive pronoun makes the expression somewhat inelegant but it is necessary. For after all, the raison d’être of the prophet is to speak for God. And if it is for God, it must be God’s word and not the prophet’s word. The purveyors of dreams were speaking their own word but using God’s name to legitimate it. In contrast, the trusty prophets must speak God’s word faithfully, not deviating from its truth, regardless of how it might be received. Yes, the word of God is not for sale, as one famous theologian once put it. Nor is it for paring down to suit our taste.
We should also note that these prophets were trusty because they understood what the word of God really is. The least that can be said about the word is that not only does it nourish our souls, but it is also powerful and effectual. It is like a fire that consumes the dross of human vanity or the hammer that shatters the rock of human schemes. It is not lame, to use the language of the younger generation. So, while dreams may be popular, it is only God’s word that is the solution. Hence, those who rely on his word are not being silly because there is nothing like it in our world. Nothing, absolutely nothing, can stand in its way. The bad prophet who deviates from the word is therefore also incomprehensibly mad.
4.Conclusion
What was written for Israel in the past is also meant for us today. The passage serves therefore as a mirror. Are we the mad, the bad or the trusty? This question becomes urgent because the warning signs are present today. Churches that attract the masses are also churches that scare the faithful. Pulpits no longer thunder but tranquilise, lulling our conscience into a deathly slumber. If ever the guilty conscience rears its head, we whack it vehemently, sternly shouting, ‘Bad! Bad! Bad!’ but forget the Spirit is also given to convict the world, including us, of sin. Gone are the days when our detractors despise our doctrine but respect our conduct. Now, they despise both. If the God who exiled his people is the same God today, Christianity cannot proceed along this same corrupt path. Certainly, it may not make sense to speak of the exile of the Church but something equally drastic may be on the cards. If this proves true, it is because many who were called to prophesy became either mad or bad, but not trusty. Lord, have mercy. Amen.
Dr Tan Kim Huat is Chen Su Lan Professor of New Testament at Trinity Theological College (Singapore) and Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Association for Theological Education in Southeast Asia.