OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECY DEFINED

The term is applied to those books called the Prophets, beginning with Isaiah and ending with Malachi. There are some prophecies found in the other books of the Old Testament, and in some of these Prophets there occur historical narratives. In the Hebrew Scriptures most of the books that we call Historical are called Prophets. The name was probably given to them because they were regarded as the work of members of the prophetic class.

The word “prophet” means one who speaks for another, and it is well explained by the directions given to Moses with reference to Aaron’s relation to him. (Exod. 7:1, 2.) What Moses wished to say to the people he was to speak to Aaron, and the latter, as a prophet, was to speak it to the people.

The very common idea that a prophet was one who foretold, is inadequate. It is true that we find prediction in prophecy, but it is in reality only a relatively small part of prophecy. In some of the prophets there is scarcely any prediction.

Prophecy as we find it in the Old Testament may be defined as special messages given by God to special men to be delivered to the people at particular times.

Some things that we find in the Prophets are also found in other of the Old Testament books. Some of the work of the prophets may be common to the work of the modern Christian preacher. But in its essential features Old Testament Prophecy is unique.

In elaborating the above definition it is to be noted:

1. The prophets were specially chosen men. It was evidently expedient that any word from God to the people must be given through particular men, and not directly to the people in mass. While the message was intended for all, it had to be given through some. No charge of partiality can be based upon this method, as all alike could receive the message.

During much of the history of the Israelites there was among them a class of men called “prophets” who at times, at least, lived in communities more or less separated from the rest of the people, and whose chief purpose seems to have been to maintain in Israel a knowledge of Jehovah, and to secure continued loyalty to him. Not all of these men performed the distinctive functions of “prophets.” But nearly all of those prophets whose writings we have belonged to this class. They were chosen by God to deliver messages from him.

The kings of Israel, especially those of the line of David, ascended the throne by right of birth, not by a special divine commission. Likewise the priests, belonging to the other of the three divinely appointed institutions, engaged in the priestly work because of descent from Aaron. But a prophet entered upon the work of speaking for God only if he was specially commissioned to do so.

Usually the prophets furnish no evidence by which others could be assured that their claim that God had directed them to speak was true except the evidence furnished by the character of their messages. At times the fulfilment of a prediction was relied upon as a final test of authority. But such was not always available. Convincing proof was found when the message of a prophet was in harmony with the character of God as already revealed, and with his truth as already delivered. In most cases we do not know how the prophet knew he was called. He was conscious of the fact that his words were the words of Jehovah. This divine authority for the messages was the constant claim of the prophets, and this claim was not denied by the people, except when the message condemned too severely their conduct or was in conflict with their hopes.

The men thus chosen were fit for their work because of their natural endowments, their environments, and their experiences. They were not of equal mental ability, nor were they alike in their surroundings and experiences. These differences may account in large part for the differences that we find in prophecies they have left on record. But their messages did not originate either in themselves or in their surroundings. The style of Isaiah differs from that of Jeremiah; that of Hosea, from that of Haggai. Each of these with his characteristic style was chosen by God for his individual work. That which is specially to be noted is that these prophets did not undertake their work because they were prompted by the needs of the people, nor because they were conscious of having the ability to speak, but because God commanded them to speak. Their words were with divine authority.

2. These messengers received from God special messages to be delivered to the people on particular occasions. What they had to say was not what they had thought out for themselves. It was not merely the result of their own experience or observation. It may be that sometimes they were made to see the full significance of what they were commanded to speak by the experiences through which they had passed, or by realizing the depths to which their people were sunken in sin. Yet what they uttered was specially given them for the occasion.

To be thus special it was not necessary that the message be original with the prophet who then delivered it. The substance of it may have been used before. Sometimes the thought of a prophet is practically identical with that of a former prophet. Sometimes its meaning did not go beyond what was already current in prophetic teaching. The truth they were to speak on any occasion need not be new. It did not matter how many times that special truth had been uttered before, if it had been used at all; it did not matter whether the facts they were to proclaim were already known to others, or were revealed to them by God at the time of their mission; what they spoke at any time was specially commanded them by Jehovah who sent them. Thus their words were always claimed to be what Jehovah had spoken to them.

In a number of instances we find parallel passages in the prophets. Thus Isaiah 2:2-5 is the same as Micah 4:1-5, except a few slight verbal changes. Whether one of these quoted from the other, or both from some unknown source, or whether each is original, does not in the least affect the value of the message of either of them. Each was to deliver that message at that time. Another case of parallel thought is found in Obadiah and Jeremiah 49:7-22. In this instance the arrangement of the thought is not the same in the two prophets.

The prophets delivered messages only occasionally. They were not engaged in this work all the time. In some cases, as that of Amos, it seems they had but one or two messages to deliver, and then returned to their usual occupation. At times, several years passed without any word from God being given to the prophet, if we may judge from what is left on record. This is especially clear in the case of Isaiah.

3. The methods by which the word of God was communicated to the prophets were not always the same. The dream and vision seem to have been common methods, and may be regarded as of a lower order. In contrast with these God said he would speak with Moses “mouth to mouth” (Num. 12:6-8). The term “vision” is used at times in a sense wider than an ecstatic condition. It is so used in the title to the book of Isaiah, and applies to the entire contents of his prophecies, most of which must have been received by the prophet in ways other than in a vision in the ordinary sense.

Because dreams usually have no special significance, it does not follow that God did not give thoughts to these prophets at times by means of dreams. It is difficult to know just what was the mental state of a prophet when he had a vision. In case of either dream or vision the prophet knew that God had spoken to him, and the divine authority of his message must be admitted.

Most of the ideas of the prophets they probably received when their minds were in a specially exalted state, though otherwise in a normal condition. How the Holy Spirit conveyed thoughts to the mind of the prophet directly, without the medium of the physical senses, we cannot explain. Neither can we explain how a thought passes by means of the sense of hearing to the consciousness of a man in ordinary conversation. But we cannot deny the fact in the one case any more than in the other.

We may the more readily admit the claims of the prophets that God had thus spoken to them, while we would doubt such a claim in our own day, because the prophets belonged to that period of teaching when God was revealing to men his will, which period came to an end in the culminating work of Jesus Christ. Such teaching is no longer needed. It was needed then. (See 1 Cor. 10:11; Heb. 1:1, 2.)