The prophetic movement in Israel

Front matter

THE PROPHETIC MOVEMENT IN ISRAEL

ALBERT C. KNUDSON

Division -D o i o 0-b

Contents

CHAPTER PAGE

Concerning this Textbook 7

I. Prophecy as an Institution 11

Chapter I Prophecy As An Institution

Prophecy was a recognized institution in Israel. It was not simply an office to which a few persons were called; it was an established order, somewhat akin to that of the priesthood. The priests, prophets, and "wise men" formed in a sense the three learned professions of the ancient Hebrews. To them the people went for instruction and guidance both in public and private affairs (Jer. i8. i8; Ezek. 7. 26). All three classes also made important contributions to the literature of the Old Testament. They thus constituted the main channels through which God revealed himself to Israel. Each of these classes had its own field, and yet they stood in a certain relation to each other, so that to understand the one we need to know something about the other two. It will therefore help us in our study of the prophets and their distinctive character if a brief account is first given of the work of the "wise men'* and the priests.

"Wise men.*' — It was the function of the "wise men" to give counsel — to point out the best course to be followed in any particular case. Their "wis-

II dom" in the earlier period of Israel's history seems to have taken the form chiefly of cleverness or shrewdness (i Kings 3. 16-28; 10. i-io) ; in later times it appears for the most part as moral admonition given especially to the young (compare Prov. 1-8) . Whether the representatives of this movement were in any way organized, we do not know. They are first mentioned as a distinct class in Jer. 18. 18, but they no doubt existed much earlier as a more or less clearly defined group. They were not, however, a caste, as were the priests, nor did they form an order in the same sense as did the prophets. It was not birth nor a divine call that made a person a "wise man," or sage. The one requisite for admission to the class was natural ability, developed by education and experience; and this qualification might appear in any social group, in any tribe, and in either sex. It happens, for instance, that the first "wise man" mentioned in the Old Testament was a woman (2 Sam. 14. 1-24), and so also was the second (2 Sam. 20. 16-22). In general the class w^as no doubt made up of those of mature age, since only they, as a rule, had the requisite experience.

The outstanding representative of the class was Solomon, but there were other sages in Israel, of even greater significance in the field of literature, whose names have not come down to us, such as the author of the book of Job. It is this book and the book of Proverbs and that of Ecclesiastes which give us the best insight into the nature and the work of the *'wise men." From these books we learn that the "wise men," at least in the period after the Exile (b. c. 538-150), were primarily concerned with the problems of the home and the individual. In the nation as such and in sacrificial worship they seem not to have taken an active interest. The problems that appealed to them were the common problems of mankind as a whole. What they sought to do was to show men, and particularly the young, the best way of getting on in the world. Honesty, they urged, is the best policy. The profounder spirits among them naturally went deeper and discussed such perplexing questions as that of the divine Providence. In dealing with these topics the "wise men" made no claim to special inspiration. They accepted as a matter of course the ethical teaching of the prophets and applied it as best they could to the concrete cases brought before them. But for themselves they laid claim to no authority other than that to which their wisdom entitled them. They were in the best sense of the term the humanists of Israel.

Priests.— The priests figured much more prominently in Old Testament history than did the "wise men." Though, like the latter, they exercised their greatest influence in the postexilic period, they were from the time of Moses on the official representatives of the national religion and as such formed a potent factor in the life of the people. Their special province was the "law." To declare and interpret it was their primary task, as it was that of the "wise men" to give counsel. But the law among the Hebrews had a double character: it was both civil and ecclesiastical. It had to do with the administration of justice and also with the regulation of public worship. The result was that the priests had a twofold function — one judicial and the other sacrificial. Cases were brought before them for judgment, and they rendered decision according to the divine will as revealed to them by means of the priestly oracle (Exod. 22. 9; I Sam. 14. 18-20, 41, 42). In this field they shared their function with the elders or civil judges. But in the field of public worship their function was exclusive. Occasionally in earlier times and under special circumstances others than priests offered sacrifices (Judg. 6. 19-27; 13. 19-23; I Sam. 13. 8 ff.; 14. 33-35; 2 Sam. 6. 13, 17 f.) ; but the later written law confined this prerogative to the priests. In earlier times also men from different tribes occasionally were consecrated priests (Judg. 17. 5). But the written law limited the priesthood to the tribe of Levi and more particularly to the house of Aaron. It was birth that thus determined one's entrance into the priestly class and also one's station in it — whether one was to be a mere Levite, a servant of the priest, or a priest proper, or high priest.

In view of the hereditary character of their office the priests were naturally conservative. They were interested in maintaining the privileges of their own class. In view also of the external and formal character of their duties they naturally tended to lay stress upon the past, and they were no doubt sincerely convinced that the preservation of the ancient rites and customs was essential to the welfare of the community and state. Still, they were by no means immune to new influences. They graduallyresponded, as did the "wise men/' to the higher teaching of the prophets and sought, in a measure at least, to bring their law and practice into harmony with it. But on the whole they represented the traditional and nationalistic spirit.

The distinctive character of the prophet. — As "counsel" expressed the function of the "wise man," and "law" that of the priests, so "word" was used to designate the characteristic activity of the prophet. It was the mission of the prophet to communicate to Israel the divine word. It has been commonly assumed that the prophetic word referred necessarily to the future, and prophecy has consequently been identified with prediction. At first etymology seems to support this view. The latter part of the word

"^'prophecy" is derived from a Greek verb meaning "to speak," and the prefix "pro" usually means "before" or "beforehand," as in such words as "procession" and "progress." A prophet, therefore, would seem to be simply a foreteller. This, however, is a mistake. The prefix "pro" in "prophet" means "instead of," as in such a word as "pronoun." Just, then, as a pronoun is a word used instead of a noun, so a prophet was one who spoke in God's stead. That this was the Hebrew conception of a prophet is evident from Exod. 7. i, where Jehovah says to Moses that he is to be as God to Pharaoh, and Aaron his brother is to be his ^'prophet" — that is, his spokesman. No doubt the word of the prophet did often refer to the future, and no conception of prophecy would be adequate which omitted this factor. But the primary and distinctive element in prophecy was not prediction but mediation between God and man. What has given to Hebrew prophecy its extraordinary significance is the fact not that the prophets occasionally foretold future events, but that they revealed to men those great truths relative to the divine character and purpose which still form the basis and substance of our faith. So far as their work as a whole was concerned, they were preachers rather than predicters. It is this fact more than anything else which distinguishes the Hebrew prophets from heathen diviners. The latter fell into trances, had visions, and at times predicted future events. But their oracles were miscellaneous in character. They dealt for the most part with subjects of a secular and practical nature, such as the erection of houses, journeys, sicknesses, marriages, business enterprises, wars. There was in them no underlying unity of thought, no constructive religious teaching, no profound revelation of truth. They made their appeal primarily not to conscience but to curiosity. Hebrew prophecy, on the other hand, was based on definite principles. It was a rational institution. Its teaching was self-consistent, coherent, and constructive. It presented to the world — and did so for the first time — a unitary conception of things, a wonderful philosophy of life and history, which has made such a permanent and powerful appeal to the human heart and intellect as to carry with it the conviction that it came not from man but from God.

It is here also, in the fundamental and original character of their work, that the main difference between the prophets, on the one hand, and the priests and "wise men," on the other, is to be found. The priests and "wise men,** when left to themselves, were as a rule traditionalists. They handed on the coin of the past ; they did not mint new and significant ideas. Only as they responded to the creative thought of the prophets did they throw off their lethargy and refashion their inherited material. What is most important and permanent in their work was thus due to the inspiration of the prophets. It was the prophets who were the pioneers in God's progressive revelation of himself in Israel. It was they who, by the heave of their genius, time and again lifted the deadweight of tradition from off the shoulders of the nation and pushed the people on toward God. Without them life would have become stagnant and religion congealed into custom. It was they who broke up the icy surface of social and religious formalism and kept the stream of spiritual life flowing on to a larger and fuller day. To them we owe what is greatest and best in the Old Testament. The other writers — priests, "wise men," and psalmists — simply reflect the light of prophetic inspiration.

A further point to be noted with reference to prophecy is the fact that it was primarily social or national in character. The ''wise man," as we have seen, was interested chiefly in the individual. The priest had to do for the most part with ecclesiastical matters — with what we may call the church. The prophet, however, fixed his attention upon the nation. In ecclesiastical matters as such he had no interest, and the individual he apparently subordinated to the social group. At any rate, what he aimed at was not the conversion of individual souls

i8 so much as the transformation of society. He looked forward to a redeemed nation — a kingdom of God. This fact is one of special significance in view of the marked social interest of our own time. It connects the prophetic message with the peculiar needs of our own day and gives to it a great practical as well as historical importance.

It should also be added in this connection that it was not birth, as in the case of the priest, nor natural ability, as in the case of the "wise man," but a divine call that led to a person's induction into the prophetic office. Whenever and wherever the Spirit of God spoke to a man and gave him a message, there went with it the authority to assume the prophetic role. The prophetic order thus stood open to all. No human limitation was placed upon admission to it. And the question whether or not a person had actually received a divine call rested at the outset wholly with the man himself. The public later had certain tests it could apply, such as the character of a prophet's message and the fulfillment of his word. But these tests were often difficult of application; and individuals were no doubt not infrequently mistaken as to their own call. The result was that it was often an open question whether a man was. a true prophet or not. The final decision could only be rendered by history.

Rank and file of the prophetic order.^Thus far we have spoken of the entire prophetic movement as if it were a unit. But this was not the case. There were in it different elements or groups, three of w^hich at least need to be distinguished: first, the rank and file of the party; second, the preliterary prophets ; and, third, the literary prophets. The first of these represents more particularly the institutional side of the movement and hence may properly be taken up here for consideration. The last two, which have to do mainly with individual prophets, will be dealt with at some length in the next four chapters.

In a direct way the rank and file of the prophetic party made no important contribution to religious thought. They even embodied at times the spirit of reaction. But they nevertheless played a considerable part in the religious life of the people and, furthermore, furnished the soil out of which sprang the great prophetic individualities. The work of an Amos, Isaiah, or Jeremiah would have been impossible but for the tradition and psychological atmosphere created by the nameless prophets who served in the ranks. The earliest references we have to these prophets are in the time of Samuel in the eleventh century b. c. They appear also in the time of Nehemiah (6. 10-14) in the fifth century b. c. and probably had a continuous existence during the intervening centuries, so that they were active throughout the larger part at least of Old Testament history.

In I Sam. lo. 5-13 we read of a band of prophets moving apparently about the country, carrying musical instruments with them, and devoting themselves to an extravagant type of religious life. In i Sam. 19. 18-24 there is also reference to a similar company, and it is not improbable that such prophetic bands were a characteristic phenomenon of the time. What led to their appearance we do not know. As good a suggestion as any is that it was due to the intense feeling created by the subjection of the Israelites to the Philistines and the growing desire for independence. This feeling took a religious turn and resulted in the formation of bands of "inspired" men, who went through the country with the more or less definite purpose of stirring the people up to the point where they would be willing to make whatever sacrifice was necessary in order to throw off the yoke of the hated enemy. The prophetic movement was thus at the outset patriotic as well as religious. The excited demeanor to which it gave rise was evidently a striking characteristic of it, so much so that the verb "prophesy" came to be used in the sense of "rave" (i Sam. 18. 10). This characteristic may have caused the movement to be held in more or less of social disesteem, a situation that perhaps was reflected in the current proverb "Is Saul also among the prophets?" But whatever may have been their social status, and however crude their ideas of inspiration, these prophetic bands were possessed of an intense and consuming loyalty to their God and country— a loyalty that alone made possible the independence of the people and the establishment of the monarchy.

After the time of Samuel it was two centuries before the prophetic bands came again into prominence. What then stirred them to special activity, we do not know. It may have been the Syrian wars of the ninth century. They now appear in rather close connection with Elijah and Elisha and form apparently a quite numerous body. We read of four hundred in one instance (i Kings 22. 6) and of a hundred in another (i Kings 18. 13). They were at this time located in various places throughout the land, having become settled colonies. They were spoken of as "sons of the prophets," which simply meant that they formed guilds, or brotherhoods. They lived together in semimonastic fashion, having their meals in common. Marriage, however, was not forbidden (2 Kings 4. 1-7, 38-41). To some extent they no doubt supported themselves, but in large part they seem to have been dependent on the gifts of others (i Kings 14. 3; 2 Kings 5. 15; 8. 9 ft. ; Mic. 3.5). This must have left them with considerable leisure time, which they probably employed, as did the Christian monks, in cuUivating music and literature. Some portions of our Old Testament almost certainly came from these circles.

False prophets.— Communities living under such conditions were inevitably exposed to the danger of corruption. The desire for gain would lead some of the prophets to pervert their office to selfish ends ; and others, under the influence of their daily routine, would fall easily into formalism and professionalism. But even where these evils did not develop, there was danger that the prophets would be misled by their sincere and intense political or national interest. At the outset, as we have seen, prophecy was a patriotic as well as a religious movement. The two elements were fused together. But as the nation became more worldly and wicked, the two parted company, until finally it became necessary to choose between the national spirit, on the one hand, and the will of God, on the other. That this choice, however, had to be made, many of the prophets did not realize. They continued to identify the national hopes and wishes with the divine will. But this the more enlightened of their number could not do. For them the national ambition and the divine purpose stood opposed to each other, and thus there arose a cleavage in the prophetic ranks. We have a foreshadowing of this cleavage in the time of Micaiah (i Kings 22. 5 ff.)' but not until the writing prophets of the eighth century did it become prominent. From this time forward, however, the cleavage became a fixed division.

The nationalistic prophets were not necessarily insincere. They were rather self -deceived (Ezek. 14. 9; I Kings 22, 22). But the true prophets did not on that account denounce them and their message any the less severely. An ignorant conscientiousness may be quite as dangerous to a community as deliberate wickedness. Hence, in the early prophetic denunciations of the false prophets no distinction was made between those who were blinded by national zeal and those who divined for money. Both were put in the same category. Indeed, they were not always clearly distinguished from the other prophets. The prophets in general were often condemned as misleaders of the people and threatened with punishment. This fact might seem to imply that the prophetic order as a whole had become corrupt ; but such would be a mistaken conclusion. There were many true prophets in the rank and file of the party — men who were ready to seal with their blood their loyalty to the truth (2 Kings 9. 7; 21. 10-16; Jen 26. 20-23). There was thus a saving remnant in the institution, and this saving remnant must have been an important factor in making possible the work of the great prophets and in perpetuating their influence.

Name the three classes of intellectual leaders in ancient Israel and the contributions made by each to the Old Testament. Consult, if possible, an introduction to the Old Testament such as that by McFadyen, Creelman, Gray, Moore, or Driver.

What do we learn concerning the early "wise men" from i Kings 3. 16-18; 10. i-io; and 2 Sam. 14. 1-24; 20. 16-22?

The problems discussed in the book of Proverbs and the other "wisdom" books.

Who belonged to the class of "wise men," and by what authority did they speak ?

The double function of the ancient Hebrew priests.

Who belonged to the priestly class, and what different grades of priests were there?

Were the priests conservative or progressive? Why?

Contrast the function of the prophet with that of the "wise man" and priest.

What do we learn from Exod. 7. i as to the meaning of the word "prophet" ?

What was the fundamental distinction between the Hebrew prophet and the heathen diviner?

Distinguish between three different classes or groups of prophets.

What do we learn from i Sam. lo. 5-13 and 19. 18-24 concerning the prophetic bands in the time of Samuel ?

What do we learn from 2 Kings 2-10 concerning the ''sons of the prophets" in the time of Elijah and EHsha?

What special interest attaches to i Kings 22?

The Book of the Twelve Prophets, by George Adam Smith (Volume I, pages 11-30).

The Prophets of Israel, by C. H. Cornill (pages

The Hebrew Prophet, by L. W. Batten (pages i-

41, 73-137)-

Prophecy and the Prophets, by F. C. Eiselen (pages 14-34).

The Beacon Lights of Prophecy, by A. C. Knudson (pages i-io, 28-31, 36-50).

Chapter II

The prophets of note who appeared before the time of Amos (b. c. 750), are commonly classed together as the "preliterary" prophets. This simply means that they did not reduce their oracles to written form, or, if they did, that these written oracles have not come down to us. It does not mean that there was no literary activity during their time ; we know there was, and it is also probable, as we have already seen, that some of it was carried on in prophetic circles. But no collection of prophecies has come down to us from a date earlier than that of Amos. The prophets of that early period seem to have had no interest in handing on their utterances to subsequent generations. They were men of action, not authors, men who were apparently content with the immediate effect of their words and deeds. All that we know of them, consequently, is what is recorded in the historical books of the Old Testament, and the references to them there are for the most part brief and fragmentary.

There is some question as to exactly who should be included in the list of preliterary prophets. We find, for instance, Abraham spoken of as a prophet (Gen. 20. 7) ; so also were Moses (Deut. 34. 10) and Miriam (Exod. 15. 20). And it is not to be denied that there is a certain fitness in the use of the term in these cases, especially in those of Abraham and Moses. These men were in a true and important sense mediators between God and man. But it has been customary to assign to both of them a unique place in Israelitic history, and this custom it will be well to continue. From ancient times Moses has been distinguished from the prophets, and this distinction has a basis in fact. It was Moses who laid the foundation of the national religion. Whatever preliminary work may have been done by such a man as Abraham, it is evident that its influence had largely been dissipated by the time of the exodus. The Hebrews were then disorganized both politically and religiously. They did not form a nation nor did they have a distinctive religion. It was Moses who first awakened within them a national consciousness and established among them the worship of one God. These two achievements went together and were made possible by the marvelous deliverance from Egypt. In this act the Hebrews saw the gracious intervention of Jehovah in their behalf and in response vowed unto him their undying allegiance. So passionate did this allegiance become under the leadership of Moses and so intelligent was it in its purpose that it became the germ of the whole subsequent rehgious development in Israel.

What the later prophets did was not to create anything altogether new ; they simply put out at interest the pound they inherited from the past. It was Moses who was the creative source of Old Testament religion. He opened up the fountain from which the stream of prophecy flowed forth. He stands, therefore, apart from the other prophets. The latter it is best to regard as belonging to the period after his time. A further question has been raised — namely, whether the preliterary prophets ought not to be called *'seers" rather than "prophets." What the prophets of that time were, we know from what is recorded of the prophetic bands. They were ecstatics — men who by means of music or otherwise worked themselves up into a state of frenzy, losing self-control and even consciousness. A seer, on the other hand, was a man to whom the Deity, through vision or audition, revealed his hidden will. Such a man was held in honor in ancient Israel and was consulted by the people, as was Samuel (i Sam. 9. 6). In this connection there is an interesting annotation in i Sam. 9. 9. We there read : "Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, thus he said. Come, and let us go to the seer ; for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer." From this it would seem that in the opinion of the annotator Samuel in his own day was called a seer, not a prophet. What later was a function of the prophet was earlier a function of the seer. And such a development seems actually to have taken place. The characteristics and functions of the earHer prophets or ecstatics, on the one hand, and those of the seers, on the other, were gradually fused together in the later prophet. The latter thus combined the passionate intensity of the ecstatic with the clear vision of the seer. But while the early seers are to be distinguished from the members of the prophetic bands, there is no reason why the term "prophet" should not be used of both. "Prophet" in the Old Testament is a general term, applied to a person who at other times is designated not only a "seer" but a "man of God" ( i Sam. 9. 6; I Kings 17. 18), a "servant" of God or of Jehovah (i Chron. 6. 49; i Kings 18. 36; Isa. 20. 3), a "messenger" of Jehovah (Isa. 42. 19), an "interpreter" (Isa. 43. 2y), and a "watchman" (Ezek. 3. 17). All these terms expressed the same fundamental idea — that of a mediator by speech between man and God.

Deborah.— In the post-Mosaic period the first person spoken of as a prophet or prophetess was Deborah (Judg. 4. 4.). She lived about b. c. iioo or perhaps a little earlier. It was in the time of the Judges. Things were in an unsettled state. Anarchy was abroad in the land, and the conflict with the Canaanites was not yet at an end. Indeed, the latter were for the time being in the ascendant. The hold of the Israelites upon the country was threatened. The day of decision was drawing near. Deborah felt it. It came to her as a breath from above. The Spirit of God was upon her. She blew the bugle blast, summoning the tribes from near and far "to the help of Jehovah, to the help of Jehovah against the mighty.'* The response was varied. Some shirked. Gilead abode beyond Jordan, Dan remained in his ships, Asher sat beside his creeks^ and in Reuben there were great searchings of heart, but no action. Others, however, responded with alacrity to the prophetic call. Zebulun and Naphtali jeoparded their lives unto death upon the high places of the field. And the victory lay with the heroes, for theirs was a righteous cause. The very stars in their courses fought for them. A magnificent description of this conflict is given in the fifth chapter of Judges in a triumphal ode, which has been declared to be "the greatest war song of any age or nation" and has been described as "a work of genius and, therefore, a work of that highest art which is not studied and artificial, but spontaneous and inevitable." It is not improbable that this ode was written by Deborah herself, at any rate by a contemporary. It is thus one of the earliest literary monuments in the Old Testament. As such it is remarkable that it should speak of the adherents of Jehovah not as those who fear him but as those who love him. It is also worthy of note that in the first of the preliterary prophets we have a complete fusion of patriotic zeal and religious enthusiasm. For Deborah there was no conflict between the will of God and the nation's call to arms.

Samuel.—The second of the preliterary prophets was Samuel. His activity fell in the latter half of the eleventh century b. c, toward the close of the period of the judges and the beginning of the monarchy. Somewhat extended accounts of him are to be found in i Samuel, but it is not easy to gather from them an altogether consistent view of his personality and work. The one signal service he rendered was in connection with the introduction of the monarchy. The land of Canaan had in his day fallen in large part under the domination of the Philistines. The people of Israel were threatened with the loss of their political independence, and at that time this would have been a fatal blow to the integrity of their religion. It was therefore a grave crisis that confronted the nation. How to meet it was a question that must have weighed heavily on the more earnest minds. Samuel, the seer of Ramah, had no doubt pondered the subject long when it dawned upon him that the one hope lay in the union of the different tribes under a king. The thought came to him as a divine inspiration, just as the need of armed resistance to the Canaanites flashed upon the soul of Deborah. He consequently bided his time and, when Saul apparently by chance came to consult him about his father's lost asses, he recognized at once in the young man the chosen of Jehovah and secretly anointed him king ( i Sam. lo. i). Soon afterward Saul had an opportunity to justify the confidence reposed in him by the relief of Jabesh-gilead, and this was followed by his public crowning at Gilgal (i Sam. ii. 15). Later, however, a breach arose between Saul and Samuel. The personal ambitions of the king probably came into conflict with the ideals of the prophet. The result was that the prophet turned away from Saul and, according to i Sam. 16. 1-13, anointed David, the son of Jesse, king in his stead. Samuel thus stood in a direct relation to the kingship both of Saul and David.