Difference between revisions of "Prophecy"

<p> PROPHET, PROPHECY. </p> <p> Christ is the great prophet of his church. John calls him, and very properly so, the Lord God of the prophets, (&nbsp;Revelation 22:6) And the apostle Paul draws a line of everlasting distinction between him and all his servants when, in the opening of his [[Epistle]] to the Hebrews, he saith, "God, who at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, and by whom he made the world?" (&nbsp;Hebrews 1:1-2) </p> <p> [[Concerning]] the Spirit of prophecy, the Holy Ghost hath taught the church that prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (&nbsp;2 Peter 1:21) A plain proof of the agency of the Holy Ghost in the old church, as hath been manifested in a more open display, since the ascension of Christ, under the new. But between Jesus and his servants an everlasting difference marks their different characters as prophets. The servants of the Lord who ministered to the church in his name as prophets, had the gifts and anointings of the Holy Ghost; but this, it should seem, not always, but as occasion required. Hence we read that the Spirit of the Lord came upon them; to every one was given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. But to Christ himself the anointings were always. "He, saith John, whom God hath sent, speaketh the words of God, for God giveth not to the Spirit by measure unto him: in him dwelt all the fulness of the [[Godhead]] bodily." The influences of the Holy Ghost were never in any mere man, yea, even the highest prophet, but as water in a vessel; but in Christ, he himself was the fountain, in whom was all fulness. So that between the highest servant and the master there was this everlasting and essential difference. Moses, the man of God, of whom we are told, "there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom [[Jehovah]] knew face to face," (&nbsp;Deuteronomy 34:10) yet of this great man the Holy Ghost tells the church by Paul, though "he was faithful in all the Lord's house as a servant"—yet of Christ he bears witness that he was "as a Son over his own house." (&nbsp;Hebrews 3:1-6) And so again of John the Baptist, who came in the Spirit and power of Elias, and by the lip of truth itself was declared to be "the greatest prophet born among women;" yet when compared to Christ, his Lord, he was but a voice, which witnessed to Jesus and then died away, the "very latchet of whose shoes he was not worthy to stoop down and unloose." (&nbsp;Matthew 11:11; &nbsp;John 1:23-27) </p> <p> Concerning the prophets of the Old Testament, they were sometimes called seers; but before the drays of Samuel we do not meet with the name. (See &nbsp;1 Samuel 9:9) Hence afterwards we read of Gad, David's seer, &nbsp;1 Chronicles 21:9. So again Heman, the king's seer, &nbsp;1 Chronicles 25:5. The difference, it should seem, between the prophet and the seer lay in this, the prophets were inspired persons, to predict to the church the will of JEHOVAH either by word of mouth, or writing; the seer committed to writing the records of the church. Hence we read concerning the acts of Manasseh, that they were written among the sayings of the Seers, (&nbsp;2 Chronicles 33:19) </p> <p> It were unnecessary to remark, what every reader of the Bible is supposed to know, that we have recorded, from the grace of God the Holy Spirit, the writings of four of what, by way of distinction, are called the greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; and the Writings of the twelve of lesser prophets, as they are named, Hoses, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. I do not apprehend that these distinctions of greater and lesser prophets is given to them from the most distant idea that the writings of the lesser prophets are less important than those of the greater, but wholly on account of their bulk. All are alike given by inspiration of God, and all alike give witness to Jesus; for "the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy." (&nbsp;Revelation 19:10) </p> <p> I have elsewhere, in my Poor Man's [[Commentary]] on the Bible, when giving a statement of the order of the books of Scripture, marked down (and I hope with tolerable accuracy.) the particular date in which each of those holy men of old ministered in the church. I rather, therefore, refer to that statement, which the reader will find immediately after the title-page and preface, than swell the balk of these sheets with reciting it again. It will be sufficient in this place to observe, that all these servants of God ministered in their day and generation to one and the same cause, namely, to bring forward the church's attention to the coming of Christ; and when the Holy Ghost was pleased to suspend their ministry, it was only done by way of causing the minds of the faithful to pause over their sacred records, and to wait by faith and hope to behold the fulfilment of their prophecies in the advent of Jesus. From the close of Malachi's prophecy to the opening of the mouth of Zacharias, (&nbsp;Luke 1:67) there passed an intervening period of near three hundred and fifty years; but this dark season only indicated a brighter day that was coming on. The evening of the prophets only testified the approach of the morning of the evangelists. The day-dawn and the day-star were hastening to arise, when Jesus the Son of Righteousness, should appear, to go down no more, but to be the everlasting light of his people, their God, and their glory! </p>

<p> The foretelling of future events, by inspiration from God. It is very different from a sagacious and happy conjecture as to futurity, and from a vague and equivocal oracle, without any certain meaning. A true prophecy can come only from God; and is the highest proof of the divine origin of the message of which it is a part. A true prophecy may be known by these marks; being announced at a suitable time before the event it foretells; having a particular and exact agreement with that event; being such as no human sagacity or foresight could produce; and being delivered by one claiming to be under the inspiration of the Almighty. Many of the prophecies of Scripture foretold events ages before they occurredevents of which there was then no apparent probability, and the occurrence of which depended on innumerable contingencies, involving the history of things and the volitions of persons not then in existence; and yet these predictions were fulfilled at the time and place and in the manner prophesied. Such were the predictions respecting the coming and crucifixion of the Messiah, the dispersion and preservation of the Jews, etc. </p> <p> The Scripture prophecies are a scheme of vast extent, the very earliest predictions reaching down to the end of the world's history a scheme gradually and harmoniously developed from age to age, and by many different persons, some of them not fully apprehending, and "searching diligently what the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify," &nbsp;1 Peter 1:11 , the whole manifestly the work of Jehovah, and marvelous in our eyes. A degree of obscurity rests on the prophetic writings, which patient and prayerful study alone can dispel; while those that are yet unfulfilled must await the coming of the events, which will make all at length clear. Many predictions relating primarily to events and deliverance's near at hand, were also designed of God as sure prophecies of yet more illustrious events in the future. For example, the general subject of the predictions in &nbsp;Matthew 24:1-51 is the coming of Christ, to judge his foes and deliver his friends. In penning a sketch of this subject, Matthew imitates a painter depicting from an eminence the landscape before him: the tower of the village church in the near foreground, and the mountain peak in the dim and remote horizon, rise side by side on his canvas. So in painting the coming of Christ, Matthew sketches first some features of his coming in the destruction of Jerusalem to occur within forty years, and in the next verse some distinctive features of his second coming at the end of the world; yet both belong to the same general view. Respecting the New Testament phrase, "This was done that it might be fulfilled," etc., see FULFILLED. For other meanings of "prophecy," see PROPHETS. </p>

<p> Under this head we propose to treat of certain general aspects of the subject of permanent interest, reserving for the head of [[Prophet]] what relates more personally to the organs or media of true prophecy, as found in the Bible. In doing so we combine the Biblical elements with the best results of modern criticism and discussion. </p> <p> '''I.''' ''Design Of Prophecy. —'' In this respect we would define prophecy as "God's communication to the Church, to be her light and comfort in time of trouble and perplexity." Vitringa defines it as "a prediction of some contingent circumstance or event in the future received by immediate or direct revelation." Dr. Pye Smith speaks of it "as a declaration made by a creature under the inspiration and commission of the omniscient God relating to an event or series of events, which have not taken place at the time the prophecy is uttered, and which could not have been certainly foreknown by any science or wisdom of man." Other writers say, "Prophecy is nothing but the history of events before they come to pass." Dean Magee dissents from this popular but erroneous view. In a lecture on the uses of prophecy he defines a prophet as "the religious teacher of his age, whose aim is the religious education of those whom he addresses." To have received a call and message direct from God, and to deliver it, is the essence of prophetism. The Jewish lawgiver in delivering moral and ceremonial precepts received from God, and our blessed Lord in the [[Sermon]] on the Mount, were prophets just as much as when they predicted the future of Israel (M'Caul, Aids to Faith). As a reaction from the general body of writers on prophecy, who exalt the predictive and neglect the moral element of God's communication to man, there have arisen in Germany, and to some extent in our own land, writers who speak exclusively of the moral stream of light flowing through prophecy, and deny altogether its predictive character. Both errors will be avoided by bearing in mind that the word of prophecy was profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction, to the first recipients of the message, as well as for succeeding ages. </p> <p> The usual view of prophecy as anticipated history virtually excludes from the roll the great Prophet who was its theme and author, Moses his distinguished prototype, John the [[Baptist]] his eminent forerunner, Elijah, Samuel, under the old covenant, as well as the apostles and prophets under the new. According to this view, prophecy is virtually limited to what the Spirit saith unto the churches in the four hundred years between Hosea and Malachi. and by the beloved John, the writer of the Apocalypse. But if we agree to regard the prophet as the forthteller, possessing the munus praedicandi — rather than the foreteller, possessing only the munus praedicendi — we see at once how the very highest place is assigned to our Lord and to Moses; how John the Baptist was more than a prophet, as he stood within the actual dawn of the day of Christ, and as a religious teacher did really more for the religious training of those whom he addressed than any of the prophets of the old covenant. We see, too, how naturally and clearly the earlier prophets were subordinate to Moses, so that the test of their commission was conformity to the lawgiver; and how appropriately the term is applied to the apostles of our Lord and Saviour, as charged by Christ with the whole ordering and establishing of the Church in its institutions, government, and progress. In fact, students of prophecy perpetually use the word in a non-natural sense. Hence the variety and discordancy of their interpretations. Our attention must be rigidly fixed on the natural and proper sense of the terms, if we would gain any satisfactory results. </p> <p> In all communications from God to man two elements may be traced, the moral and the predictive. Neither element must be pressed or insisted on, so as to depress and exclude the other. Yet the moral element is the fundamental, to which the predictive is always subsidiary. The moral element occupies the highest place in the communications made by our Lord, by Moses, by the apostles; the predictive element prevails in those who had the more ordinary gifts, as all their announcements appealed to the revelations made by Moses and by Christ. The testimony of Jesus as the author, and the testimony borne to Jesus as the theme, is the spirit of prophecy. According to this view prophecy is always didactic; the moral element is fundamental, the predictive is entirely subsidiary. All who bore testimony to Jesus before his incarnation were preachers of righteousness, and all who testify that Jesus is come in the flesh exercise the prophetical function. </p> <p> '''II.''' ''Value Of Prophecy As Evidence Of The Truth Of Revelation. —'' Davison'','' in his ''Discourses On Prophecy,'' fixes a "Criterion of Prophecy," and in accordance with it he describes "the condition is which would confer cogency of evidence on single examples of prophecy" in the following manner: first, "the known promulgation of the prophecy prior to the event; secondly, the clear and palpable fulfilment of it; lastly, the nature of the event itself — if, when the prediction of it was given, it lay remote from human view, and was such as could not be foreseen by any supposable effort of reason, or be deduced upon principles of calculation derived from probability and experience" (''Disc.'' 8:378). Applying his test, the learned writer finds that the establishment of the Christian religion and the person of its [[Founder]] were predicted when neither reason nor experience could have anticipated them; and that the predictions respecting them have been clearly fulfilled in history. Here, then, is an adequate proof of an inspired prescience in the prophets who predicted these things. He applies his test to the prophecies recorded of the Jewish people, and their actual state, to the prediction of the great apostasy and to the actual state of corrupted Christianity, and finally to the prophecies relating to Nineveh, Babylon, Tyre, Egypt, the Ishmaelites, and the Four Empires, and to the events which have befallen them; and in each of these cases he finds proof of the existence of the predictive element in the prophets. </p> <p> In the book of Kings we find Micaiah, the son of Imlah, uttering a challenge, by which his predictive powers were to be judged. He had pronounced, by the word of the Lord, that [[Ahab]] should fall at RamothGilead. Ahab, in return, commanded him to be shut up in prison until he came back in peace. "And [[Micaiah]] said, If thou return at all in peace" (that is, if the event do not verify my words), "the Lord hath not spoken by me" (that is, I am no prophet capable of predicting the future) (&nbsp;1 Kings 22:28). The test is sound as a negative test, and so it is laid down in the law (&nbsp;Deuteronomy 18:22); but as a positive test it would not be sufficient. Ahab's death at [[Ramoth-Gilead]] did not prove Micaiah's predictive powers, though his escape would have disproved them. But here we must notice a very important difference between single prophecies and a series of prophecy. The fulfilment of a single prophecy does not prove the prophetical power of the prophet, but the fulfillment of a long series of prophecies by a series or number of events does in itself constitute a proof that the prophecies were intended to predict the events, and, consequently, that predictive power resided in the prophet or prophets. We may see this in the so far parallel cases of satirical writings. </p> <p> We know for certain that [[Aristophanes]] refers to Cleon, Pericles, Nicias (and we should be equally sure of it were his satire more concealed than it is), simply from the fact of a number of satirical hits converging together on the object of his satire. One, two, or three strokes might be intended for more persons than one, but the addition of each stroke makes the aim more apparent; and when we have a sufficient number before us, we can no longer possibly doubt his design. The same may be said of fables, and still more of allegories. The fact of a complicated lock being opened by a key shows that the lock and key were meant for each other. Now the Messianic picture drawn by the prophets as a body contains at least as many traits as these: That salvation should come through the family of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, David; that at the time of the final absorption of the Jewish power, [[Shiloh]] (the tranquilizer) should gather the nations under his rule; that there should be a great Prophet, typified by Moses; a King descended from David; a [[Priest]] forever, typified by Melchizedek; that there should be born into the world a child to be called [[Mighty]] God, [[Eternal]] Father, Prince of Peace; that there should be a Righteous [[Servant]] of God on whom the Lord would lay the iniquity of all; that [[Messiah]] the Prince should be cut off, but not for himself; that an everlasting kingdom should be given by the [[Ancient]] of Days to one like the Son of man. It seems impossible to harmonize so many apparent contradictions. Nevertheless, it is an undoubted fact that at the time seemingly pointed out by one or more of these predictions there was born into the world a child of the house of David, and therefore of the family of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah, who claimed to be the object of these and other predictions; who is acknowledged as Prophet, Priest, and King, as Mighty God and yet as God's Righteous Servant who bears the iniquity of all; who was cut off, and whose death is acknowledged not to have been for his own, but for others' good: who has instituted a spiritual kingdom on earth, which kingdom is of a nature to continue forever, if there is any continuance beyond this world and this life; and in whose doings and sufferings on earth a number of specific predictions were minutely fulfilled. Then we may say that we have here a series of prophecies which are so applicable to the person and earthly life of Jesus Christ as to be thereby shown to have been designed to apply to him. If they were designed to apply to him, prophetical prediction is proved. </p> <p> Objections have been urged: </p> <p> '''(a.)''' ''Vagueness. —'' It has been said that the prophecies are too darkly and vaguely worded to be proved predictive by the events which they are alleged to foretell. This objection is stated with clearness and force by Ammon. He says, "Such simple sentences as the following: Israel has not to expect a king, but a teacher; this teacher will be born at [[Bethlehem]] during the reign of Herod; he will lay down his life under Tiberius, in attestation of the truth of his religion; through the destruction of Jerusalem, and the complete extinction of the Jewish state, he will spread his doctrine in every quarter of the world-a few sentences like these, expressed in plain historical prose, would not only bear the character of true predictions, but, when once their genuineness was proved, they would be of incomparably greater worth to us than all the oracles of the Old Test. taken together" (Christology, p. 12). But to this it might be answered, and has been in effect answered by Hengstenberg: </p> <p> '''1.''' That God never forces men to believe, but that there is such a union of definiteness and vagueness in the prophecies as to enable those who are willing to discover the truth, while the willfully blind are not forcibly constrained to see it. </p> <p> '''2.''' That, had the prophecies been couched in the form of direct declarations, their fulfilment would have thereby been rendered impossible, or, at least, capable of frustration. </p> <p> '''3.''' That the effect of prophecy (e.g. with reference to the time of the Messiah's coming) would have been far less beneficial to believers, as being less adapted to keep them in a state of constant expectation. </p> <p> '''4.''' That the Messiah of Revelation could not be so clearly portrayed in his varied character as God and Man, as Prophet, Priest, and King, if he had been the mere "teacher" which is all that [[Ammon]] acknowledges him to be. </p> <p> '''5.''' That the state of the prophets, at the time of receiving the divine revelation, was (as we shall presently show) such as necessarily to make their predictions fragmentary, figurative, and abstracted from the relations of time. </p> <p> '''6.''' That some portions of the prophecies were intended to be of double application, and some portions to be understood only on their fulfilment (comp. &nbsp;John 14:29; &nbsp;Ezekiel 36:33). </p> <p> '''(b.)''' ''Obscurity Of A Part Or Parts Of A Prophecy [[Otherwise]] Clear. —'' The objection drawn from "the unintelligibleness of one part of a prophecy, as invalidating the proof of foresight arising from the evident completion of those parts which are understood" is akin to that drawn from the vagueness of the whole of it. It may be answered with the same arguments, to which we may add the consideration urged by [[Butler]] that it is, for the argument in hand, the same as if the parts not understood were written in cipher, or not written at all: "Suppose a writing, partly in cipher and partly in plain words at length; and that in the part one understood there appeared mention of several known facts — it would never come into any man's thought to imagine that, if he understood the whole, perhaps he might find that these facts were not in reality known by the writer" (Analogy, pt. 2, ch. 7). Furthermore, if it be true that prophecies relating to the first coming of the Messiah refer also to his second coming, some part of those prophecies must necessarily be as yet not fully understood. </p> <p> It would appear from these considerations that Davison's second "condition," above quoted, "the clear and palpable fulfilment of the prophecy," should be so far modified as to take into account the necessary difficulty. more or less great, in recognizing the fulfilment of a prophecy which results from the necessary vagueness and obscurity of the prophecy itself. </p> <p> '''(c.)''' ''Application Of' The Several Prophecies To A Mor'' e ''Immediate Subject.'' — It has been the task of many Biblical critics to examine the different passages which are alleged to be predictions of Christ, and to show that they were delivered in reference to some person or thing contemporary with, or shortly subsequent to, the time of the writer. The conclusion is then drawn, sometimes scornfully, sometimes as an inference not to be resisted, that the passages in question have nothing to do with the Messiah. We have here to distinguish carefully between the conclusion proved and the corollary drawn from it. Let it be granted that it may be proved of all the predictions of the Messiah (it certainly may be proved of many) that they primarily apply to some historical and present fact: in that case a certain law, under which God vouchsafes his prophetical revelations, is discovered; but there is no semblance of disproof of the further Messianic interpretation of the passages under consideration. That some such law does exist has been argued at length by Mr. Davison. He believes, however, that "it obtains only in some of the more distinguished monuments of prophecy," such as the prophecies founded on, and having primary reference to, the kingdom of David, the restoration of the Jews, the destruction of Jerusalem (On Prophecy, disc. 5). Dr. [[Lee]] thinks that Davison "exhibits too great reserve in the application of this important principle" (On Inspiration, lect. 4). He considers it to be of universal application; and upon it he founds the doctrine of the "double sense of prophecy," according to which a prediction is fulfilled in two or even more distinct but analogous subjects: first in type, then in antitype; and after that perhaps awaits a still further and more complete fulfilment. This view of the fulfilment of prophecy seems necessary for the explanation of our Lord's prediction on the Mount, relating at once to the fall of Jerusalem and to the end of the Christian dispensation. It is on this principle that Pearson writes: "Many are the prophecies which concern him, many the promises which are made of him; but yet some of them very obscure... [[Wheresoever]] he is spoken of as the anointed, it may well be first understood of some other person; except one place in Daniel, where Messiah is foretold ‘ to be cut off'" (On the Creed, art. 2). </p> <p> Whether it can be proved by an investigation of Holy Scripture that this relation between divine announcements for the future and certain present events does so exist as to constitute a law, and whether, if the law is proved to exist, it is of universal or only of partial application, we do not pause to determine. But it is manifest that the existence of a primary sense cannot exclude the possibility of a secondary sense. The question, therefore, really is, whether the prophecies are applicable to Christ: if they are so applicable, the previous application of each of them to some historical event would not invalidate the proof that they were designed as a whole to find their full completion in him. Nay, even if it could be shown that the prophets had in their thoughts nothing beyond the primary completion of their words (a thing which we at present leave undetermined), no inference could thence be drawn against their secondary application; for such an inference would assume what no believer in inspiration will grant — viz. that the prophets are the sole authors of their prophecies. The rule Nihil in scripto quod non pius in scriptore is sound; but the question is, who is to be regarded as the true author of the prophecies-the human instrument or the divine author? See Hengstenberg, Christology, appendix 6:p. 433. (See [[Double]] Sense). </p> <p> '''(d.)''' ''Miraculous Character. —'' It is probable that this lies at the root of the many and various efforts made to disprove the predictive power of the prophets. There is no question that if miracles are, either physically or morally, impossible, then prediction is impossible; and those passages which have ever been accounted predictive must be explained away as being vague, as being obscure, as applying only to something in the writer's lifetime, or on some other hypothesis. This is only saying that belief in prediction is not compatible with the theory of atheism, or with the philosophy which rejects the overruling providence of a Personal God. See Maitland, Argument from Prophecy (Lond. 1877); Row, Bampton Lecture for 1877, p. 219. (See [[Miracle]]). </p> <p> For a copious list of treatises on Scripture prophecy in general, see Darling, Cyclopoedia Bibliographica, col. 1785 sq.; and Malcolm, Theological Index, s.v. Comp. Kurtz, Gesch. d. Alten Bundes, ii, 513 sq.; Hardwick, Christ and other Masters, vol. i, ch. 3, esp. p. 135 sq.; Smith, (Bampton Lecture) On Prophecy (Bost. 1870, 12mo); Brit. and For. Ev. Rev. 1863. art. 8; Bibl. Repos. p. 11, 138, 217; Westm. Rev. Jan. 1868, p. 106; Kitto, Journ. of Sac. Lit. 30:1 sq., April, 1853, p. 35; Aids to Faith, essay 3; E Rsgl. Rev. 8:181; Fisher, The Beginninigs of Christianity, p. 8, et al.; Stanley, Lectures on the Jewish Church, 1st series, lect. 17-20; Fairbairn, Prophecy [[Viewed]] in respect to its Distinctive Nature, its [[Special]] Function, and [[Proper]] [[Interpretation]] (Edinb. 1856); and for the vast field of German literature on the subject, see Keil, Introd. to the Old Test. (ibid. 1869), i, 265 sq. </p>

<p> Prophecy. The principal considerations involved in this important subject may be arranged under the following heads:— </p> <p> I. The nature of Prophecy, and its position in the economy of the Old Testament.—Divine inspiration is only the general basis of the prophetic office, to which two more elements must be added— </p> <p> 1. [[Inspiration]] was imparted to the prophets in a peculiar form. This appears decisively from , etc. which states it as characteristic of the prophet, that he obtained divine inspiration in visions and dreams, consequently in a state different from that in which inspirations were conveyed to Moses and the apostles. </p> <p> 2. [[Generally]] speaking, everyone was a prophet to whom God communicated His mind in this peculiar manner. When the [[Mosaic]] economy had been established, a new element was added; the prophetic gift was after that time regularly connected with the prophetic office, so that the latter came to form part of the idea of a prophet. [[Speaking]] of office, we do not of course mean one conferred by men, but by God; the mission to Israel, with which the certainty of a continued, not temporary, grant of the donum propheticum was connected. </p> <p> That the Lord would send such prophets was promised to the people by Moses, who by a special law secured them authority and safety. As His ordinary servants and teachers, God appointed the Priests: the characteristic mark which distinguished the prophets from them was inspiration; and this explains the circumstance that, in times of great moral and religious corruption, when the ordinary means no longer sufficed to reclaim the people, the number of prophets increased. The regular religious instruction of the people was no part of the business of the prophets; their proper duty was only to rouse and excite. In this point, however, there was a difference between the kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Judah. In the latter the agency of the prophets was only subsidiary to that of the regular servants of God, the priests and the Levites. But in the former the prophets were the regular servants of God, for the priesthood there had no divine sanction, and was corrupt in its very source. With the office of the prophets therefore all stood or fell, and hence they were required to do many things besides what the original conception of the office of a prophet implied. </p> <p> In their labors, as respected their own times, the prophets were strictly bound to the Mosaic law, and not allowed to add to it or to diminish ought from it; what was said in this respect to the whole people applied also to them. We find, therefore, prophecy always takes its ground on the Mosaic law, to which it refers, from which it derives its sanction, and with which it is fully impressed and saturated. They were indeed commissioned to foretell days when a new covenant will be made with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah . But for their own times they never once dreamed of altering any, even the minutest and least essential precept, even as to its form; how much less as to its spirit, which even the Lord himself declares to be immutable and eternal. </p> <p> As to prophecy in its circumscribed sense, or the foretelling of future events by the prophets, some expositors would explain all predictions of special events; while others assert that no prediction contains anything but general promises or threatening, and that the prophets knew nothing of the particular manner in which their predictions might be realized. Both these classes deviate from the correct view of prophecy; the former resort often to the most arbitrary interpretations, and the latter are opposed by a mass of facts against which they are unable successfully to contend. </p> <p> Some interpreters, misunderstanding passages like; , have asserted that all prophecies were conditional; and have even maintained that their revocability distinguished the true predictions from soothsaying. But beyond all doubt, when the prophet denounces the divine judgments, he proceeds on the assumption that the people will not repent, an assumption which he knows from God to be true. Were the people to repent, the prediction would fail; but because they will not, it is uttered absolutely. It does not follow however, that the prophet's warnings and exhortations are useless. These serve 'for a witness against them;' and besides, amid the ruin of the mass, individuals might be saved. Viewing prophecies as conditional predictions nullifies them. </p> <p> The sphere of action of the prophets was limited to Israel. Many predictions of the Old Testament concern, indeed, the events of foreign nations, but they are always uttered and written with reference to Israel, and the prophets thought not of publishing them among the heathens themselves. </p> <p> II. Duration of the Prophetic office.—Although we meet with cases of prophesying as early as the age of the patriarchs, still the roots of prophetism among Israel are properly fixed in the Mosaic economy. The main business of Moses was not that of a prophet, but he was occasionally commissioned to foretell what was to befall Israel in the latter days, and he instilled into the congregation of Israel those truths which form the foundation of prophecy, and thus prepared the ground from which it could spring up. In the age of the Judges, prophecy, though existing only in scattered instances, exerted a powerful influence. From this time to the Babylonian exile, there happened hardly any important event in which the prophets did not appear as performing the leading part. About a hundred years after the return from the Babylonian exile, the prophetic profession ceased. The Jewish tradition uniformly states that Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi were the last prophets. </p> <p> III. [[Manner]] of Life of the Prophets.—The prophets went about poorly and coarsely dressed , not as a mere piece of asceticism, but that their very apparel might teach what the people ought to do. Generally the prophets were not anxious of attracting notice by ostentatious display; nor did they seek worldly wealth, most of them living in poverty and even want . Insult, persecution, imprisonment, and death, were often the reward of their godly life. Repudiated by the world in which they were aliens, they typified the life of Him whose appearance they announced, and whose spirit dwelt in them. The prophets addressed the people of both kingdoms: they were not confined to particular places, but prophesied where it was required. For this reason they were most numerous in capital towns, especially in Jerusalem, where they generally spoke in the temple. Sometimes their advice was asked, and then their prophecies take the form of answers to questions submitted to them (Isaiah 37, Ezekiel 20, Zechariah 7). But much more frequently they felt themselves inwardly moved to address the people without their advice having been asked, and they were not afraid to stand forward in places where their appearance, perhaps, produced indignation and terror. Whatever lay within or around the sphere of religion and morals, formed the object of their care. Priests, princes, kings, all must hear them—must, however reluctantly, allow them to perform their calling as long as they spoke in the name of the true God, and as long as the result did not disprove their pretensions to be the servants of the invisible King of Israel . There were institutions for training prophets; the senior members instructed a number of pupils and directed them. These schools had been first established by Samuel ; and at a later time there were such institutions in different places, as [[Bethel]] and [[Gilgal]] (;; ). The pupils of the prophets lived in fellowship united, and were called 'sons of the prophets;' while the senior or experienced prophets were considered as their spiritual parents, and were styled fathers (comp.; ). Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha, are mentioned as principals of such institutions. From them the Lord generally chose his instruments. Amos relates of himself , as a thing uncommon, that he had been trained in no school of prophets, but was a herdsman, when the Lord took him to prophesy unto the people of Israel. At the same time, this example shows that the bestowal of prophetic gifts was not limited to the schools of the prophets. Women also might come forward as prophetesses, as instanced in Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah, though such cases are of comparatively rare occurrence. We should also observe, that only as regards the kingdom of Israel we have express accounts of the continuance of the schools of prophets. What is recorded of them is not directly applicable to the kingdom of Judah, especially since, as stated above, prophecy had in it an essentially different position. We cannot assume that the organization and regulations of the schools of the prophets in the kingdom of Judah should have been as settled and established as in the kingdom of Israel. The prophets of the kingdom of Israel stood in a hostile position to the priests. These points of difference in the situation of the prophets of the two kingdoms must not be lost sight of; and we further add, that prophecy in the kingdom of Israel was much more connected with extraordinary events than in the kingdom of Judah: the history of the latter offers no prophetical deeds equaling those of [[Elijah]] and Elisha. </p> <p> IV. Symbolic Actions of the Prophets.—In the midst of the prophetic declarations symbolic actions are often mentioned, which the prophets had to perform. The opinions of interpreters on these are divided. Some assert that they always, at least generally, were really done; others assert that they had existence only in the mind of the prophets, and formed part of their visions. The latter view, which was espoused by Calvin, is probably the correct one. Some of the symbolic actions prescribed to the prophets could not have been performed by them (;; ); others are inconsistent with decorum . These are therefore to be regarded as internal, not external facts. </p> <p> V. Criteria by which True and False [[Prophets]] were distinguished.—As Moses had foretold, a host of false prophets arose in later times among the people, who promised prosperity without repentance, and preached the Gospel without the law. But how were the people to distinguish true and false prophets? In the law concerning prophets (; comp. 13:7-9), the following enactments are contained. </p> <p> The prophet who speaks in the name of other Gods is to be considered as false, and to be punished capitally. </p> <p> The same punishment is to be inflicted on him who speaks in the name of the true God, but whose predictions are not accomplished. </p> <p> From the above two criteria of a true prophet, flows the third, that his addresses must be in strict accordance with the law. </p> <p> In the above is also founded the fourth criterion, that a true prophet must not promise prosperity without repentance; and that he is a false prophet, 'of the deceit of his own heart,' who does not reprove the sins of the people, and who does not inculcate on them the doctrines of divine justice and retribution. </p> <p> In addition to these negative criteria, there were positive ones to procure authority to true prophets. First of all, it must be assumed that the prophets themselves received, along with the divine revelations, assurance that these were really divine. Now, when the prophets themselves were convinced of their divine mission, they could in various ways prove it to others, whom they were called on to enlighten. </p> <p> To those who had any sense of truth, the Spirit of God gave evidence that the prophecies were divinely inspired. </p> <p> The prophets themselves utter their firm conviction that they act and speak by divine authority, not of their own accord. Their pious life bore testimony to their being worthy of a nearer communion with God, and defended them from the suspicion of intentional deception; their sobriety of mind distinguished them from all fanatics, and defended them from the suspicion of self-delusion; their fortitude in suffering for truth proved that they had their commission from no human authority. </p> <p> Part of the predictions of the prophets referred to proximate events, and their accomplishment was divine evidence of their divine origin (See; , sq.;;; Ezekiel 24). Whoever had been once favored with such a testimonial, his authority was established for his whole life. </p> <p> Sometimes the divine mission of the prophets was also proved by miracles, but this occurred only at important crises, when the existence of the kingdom of Israel was in jeopardy, as in the age of Elijah and Elisha. </p> <p> VI. Promulgation of the Prophetic Declarations.—Usually the prophets promulgated their visions in public places before the congregated people. Still some portions of the prophetic books, as the entire second part of Isaiah and the description of the new temple (Ezekiel 40-48), probably were never communicated orally. In other cases the prophetic addresses, first delivered orally, were next, when committed to writing, revised and improved. Especially the books of the lesser prophets consist, for the greater part, not of separate predictions, independent of each other, but form, as they now are, a whole, that is, give the quintessence of the prophetic labors of their authors. There is evidence to prove that the later prophets sedulously read the writings of the earlier, and that a prophetic canon existed before the present was formed. Zechariah explicitly alludes to writings of former prophets; 'to the words which the Lord has spoken to earlier prophets, when Jerusalem was inhabited and in prosperity' (;; ). In consequence of the prophets being considered as organs of God, much care was bestowed on the preservation of their publications. Ewald himself, though he thinks that a great, number of prophetic compositions has been lost, cannot refrain from observing (p. 56), 'We have in a clear proof of the exact knowledge which the better classes of the people had of all that had, a hundred years before, happened to a prophet, of his words, misfortunes, and accidents.' </p> <p> The collectors of the [[Canon]] arranged the prophets chronologically, but considered the whole of the twelve lesser prophets as one work, which they placed after Jeremiah and Ezekiel, inasmuch as the three last lesser prophets lived later than they. The collection of the lesser prophets themselves was again chronologically disposed; still Hosea is, on account of the extent of his work, allowed precedence before those lesser prophets, who, generally, were his contemporaries, and also before those who flourished at a somewhat earlier period. </p>