PROPHECY,
PROPHETS
Jeremiah
was
very
bold
in
reproacliing
tlie
Most
High
with
having
given
him
an
impossible
task,
and
as
having
apparently
tailed
to
fulfil
His
own
promises
(IS'").
A
careful
study
of
all
the
phenomena
would
go
to
show
that
whilst
supernatural
power
and
operation
were
taken
for
granted,
the
workings
of
the
prophetic
mind
under
inspiration
were
not
very
different
from
some
of
the
highest
experiences
of
saints
in
aU
ages,
the
Divine
and
human
elements
being
blended
in
varying
proportions.
The
fact
of
inspiration,
rather
than
its
mode,
is
the
important
feature
in
the
Bible
narratives,
A
similar
answer
must
be
given
to
the
question
whether
the
prophets
understood
their
own
prophecies.
For
the
most
part
they
understood
them
very
well,
and
expressed
themselves
with
remarkable
clearness
and
vigour.
What
they
often
did
not
understand,
and
could
not
be
expected
to
understand,
was
the
full
bear-ing
of
their
words
upon
contingent
events
and
their
application
to
conditions
as
yet
in
the
far
future.
In
1
P
l'"
we
are
told
that
they
searched
diligently
'
what
time
or
what
manner
of
time
the
Spirit
of
Christ
which
was
in
them
did
point
unto,'
perhaps
with
special
reference
to
Dn
8'*,
That
is,
it
was
not
given
them
to
discern
at
what
epoch,
or
under
what
circumstances,
the
fulfilment
of
their
words
should
come
to
pass.
But
the
declaration
of
moral
principles
required
no
such
elucidation,
and
the
prophets
were
the
first
to
recognize
that
the
fulfilment
of
their
words
depended
on
the
way
in
which
they
were
received.
For
the
work
of
the
prophet
was
not
to
mouth
out
oracles,
mystic
sayings
obscure
to
the
mind
of
the
speaker
and
enigmatical
to
the
hearers,
like
the
utterances
of
Delphi
or
Dodona.
The
root
idea
of
prophecy
is
revelation,
not
mystery-
mongering
—
'Surely
the
Lord
God
will
do
nothing,
but
he
revealeth
his
secret
unto
his
servants
the
proph-ets'
(Am
3»).
Deeper
and
more
important
questions
concerning
the
nature
of
prophetic
inspiration
gather
round
the
existence
of
'
false
prophets)'
—
this
term
does
not
occur
in
the
Hebrew
text
—
the
line
of
distinction
between
the
true
and
the
false,
and
the
tests
which
should
separate
the
two
in
practice.
The
subject
is
greatly
complicated
to
the
modern
mind
when
we
read
in
Dt
13
that
a
prophet
might
be
utterly
mistaken,
that
a
lying
spirit
might
come
from
the
Lord
(1
K
22^2),
that
tests
of
genuineness
were
necessary,
and
that
God
might
mislead
the
very
prophets
themselves,
destroying
the
people
through
the
agency
of
a
deceptive
vision
(Ezk
13").
These
are
no
doubt
exceptional
expressions,
a
sharp
contrast
being
usually
drawn
between
genuine
and
spurious
prophecies,
as
those
which
come
from
God,
and
those
which
come
from
the
prophet's
own
heart
(Jer
23").
Professed
prophets
might
be
treacherous
(Zeph
3<),
just
as
the
priests
might
profane
the
sanctuary
and
do
violence
to
the
law.
The
fact
that
Divine
gifts
may
be
abused
does
not
interfere
with
their
signifi-cance
when
rightly
used.
But
wherein
lay
the
distinc-tion
between
true
and
false?
If
the
prophets
were
connected
with
idolatrous
worship
(1
K
18),
or
devoted
to
other
gods
{Dt
13='),
their
departure
from
the
truth
Is
obvious.
Also
if
high
prophetic
gifts
were
perverted
for
purposes
of
selfish
advancement,
or
a
part
were
deliberately
assumed
to
deceive
(Zee
13'),
Or
ofBce
were
desired
merely
for
a
livelihood
(Mic
3'),
the
case
is
clear.
But
might
the
prophets
themselves
be
deceived,
and
how
were
the
people
to
distinguish
between
the
true
and
the
false?
Ostensibly
both
classes
had
the
same
ends
in
view
—
the
honour
of
Jehovah
and
the
prosperity
of
the
nation.
But
some
put
religious
principle
nrat
and
taught
that
pros-perity
would
follow
obedience;
others,
blinded
by
false
ideas
of
national
advantage,
thought
they
were
doing
God
service
by
promoting
a
pohoy
which
seemed
likely
to
lead
to
the
aggrandizement
of
His
people.
The
same
difference
has
often
been
observed
in
the
Christian
(Dhurch
between
a
true
religious
leader
and
a
mere
eoolesiastio,
honestly
per-suaded
that
whatever
advances
'
the
Church
'
must
be
for
PROPHECY,
PROPHETS
the
Divine
glory,
but
who,
none
the
less,
perverts
the
truth
by
setting
the
means
above
the
end.
Lower
ideas
of
God,
of
morality,
and
of
true
national
prosperity
lay
at
the
root
of
the
utterances
of
the
false
prophets.
The
main
distinction
between
them
and
the
true
messengeis
of
God
was
a
moral
and
spiritual
one,
and
discrimination
was
possible
only
by
trying
each
on
its
own
merits.
But
certain
testa
are
suggested.
Sometimes
(a)
a
sign
or
wonder
was
wrought
in
attestation
(Dt
IS^-
2),
but
even
this
was
not
conclusive,
and
the
true
prophets
seldom
relied
upon
this
evidence.
Again,
(6)
in
Dt
18^"-
fulfilment
of
prediction
is
adduced
as
a
test.
Clearly
that
could
not
be
applied
at
once,
and
it
would
rather
be
useful
afterwards
to
students
of
the
national
history
than
to
kings
or
people
about
to
enter
on
a
battle
or
an
alliance.
But
(c)
the
people
were
expected
to
use
their
moral
and
spiritual
insight
and
distinguish
the
issues
set
before
them,
as
a
man
has
to
judge
for
himself
in
questions
of
conscience.
In
the
case
of
Hananiah
(Jer
28),
an
example
is
given
of
two
lines
of
national
policy
presented
by
two
leading
prophets,
and
the
process
of
judging
between
the
true
and
the
false
was
a
part
of
the
education
through
which
Israel
was
called
to
pass,
and
in
which
unfortunately
it
often
failed.
The
difficulty
of
this
process
of
discrimination
was
often
light-ened
(d)
by
watching
the
career
of
the
prophets,
as
to
how
far
their
character
bore
out
their
professions,
what
motives
actuated
them
—
whether
crooked
policy,
immediate
expedi-ency,
or
high
self-denying
principle
—
and
thus
in
the
cen-turies
before
Christ,
as
afterwards,
one
of
the
beat
criteria
was,
'by
their
fruits
ye
shall
know
them.'
One
other
point
remains.
To
what
does
the
term
'
inspiration
'
apply
—
the
men
or
their
writings?
What
relation
do
the
books
that
have
come
down
to
us
bear
to
the
originally
spoken
words
of
the
prophets?
The
answer
is
that
in
the
first
instance
it
ia
the
man
who
is
inspired,
not
the
book.
In
the
case
of
the
Hebrew
prophet
especially,
the
very
nature
of
the
influence
at
work
impelled
him
to
immediate
utterance,
and
if
he
was
inspired
at
all,
the
word
is
most
applicable
at
this
stage.
In
many
instances
the
prophet
went
as
it
were
from
the
very
presence
of
God
to
perform
his
errand
and
utter
winged
words
which
have
come
down
to
us
as
delivered,
white-hot
from
the
very
furnace
of
Divine
prompting.
But
in
other
cases
the
record
was
not
written
till
long
after
the
original
utterance;
only
a
summary
of
the
addresses
delivered
was
handed
down.
The
literary
element
predominates
in
the
composition,
and
a
finish
is
given
to
its
phraseology
which
does
not
belong
to
the
spoken
word.
A
full
account
of
the
process
is
given
in
one
case
(Jer
36*),
where
we
are
told
that
the
prophecies
delivered
through
21
years
were
carefully
written
out
with
the
aid
of
a
secretary,
the
transcription
taking
some
months
to
accomplish.
The
document
thus
prepared
was
handed
to
the
king
and
destroyed
by
hun
in
anger
at
its
contents,
whereupon
another
record
was
made
with
considerable
additions.
Probably
a
similar
process
was
usual
in
the
case
of
the
literary
prophets.
The
utterances
called
forth
by
a
crisis
could
not
be
prepared
beforehand;
sometimes,
as
in
Malachi,
the
prophet
would
be
interrupted
by
objections
from
the
people,
to
which
he
must
reply
on
the
spur
of
the
moment,
and
open
conflicts
were
not
infrequent.
But
the
words
in
which
the
substance
of
many
utterances
was
embodied
were
carefully
chosen
and
were
of
more
abiding
Import.
The
process
of
selection
and
transcription,
as
well
as
the
original
out-pouring
of
the
message,
was
under
the
guidance
of
the
Divine
Spirit,
who
actuated
the
prophet
in
all
he
said
or
did.
That
the
work
of
collecting
the
prophetic
utterances
was
not
always
carefully
done
is
clear
from
the
state
of
the
text
in
some
of
the
books
that
have
come
down
to
us,
e.g.,
the
serious
differences
between
the
Hebrew
and
the
LXX
in
Jeremiah.
Also
it
should
be
noted
that
the
utterances
of
different
authors
were
often
blended
under
one
well-known
name:
e.g.,
under
'
Isaiah'
many
prophecies
extending
over
a
long
period
have
been
gathered;
the
Book
of
Zechariah
is
certainly
com-posite,
and
indications
of
additions,
editorial
notes,
and
modifications
are
numerous.
But
the
God
who
inspired
