p. 1To build a house and to carry it on are two different things. They are the different things represented by the works respectively of Moses and the prophets. Both are works of God, but differing vastly in character and calibre. It is said to be one of the works of God by Christ that he will “plant the heavens and lay the foundations of the earth” (Isaiah li. 16). This, in the language of figure, is what God did by Moses for the nation of Israel at the beginning. Whereas before the time of Moses Israel was a mere race sojourning in an alien land, in subjection to the laws of Egypt, after him Israel was a nation having defined and established institutions of their own, and dwelling in a country which they had subjugated and which they were able to defend.
The prophets had nothing to do with establishing this great work. The work once done was done for ever. No one could come after Moses in the doing of it. It was a maxim of the constitution, “Thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish aught therefrom,” and to this day it remains unaltered as it came from the hands of Moses. The system of things established by Moses p. 2 has been destroyed, and the “prophet like unto Moses” will “restore again,” “restitute,” and “regenerate” the thing destroyed.
But so far as setting it up in the first instance was concerned, Moses alone was the “mediator of the first covenant.” As such, he had direct dealings with God such as none who came after him except Christ: “There arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD (Yahweh) knew face to face” (Deut. xxxiv. 10).
The ministry of the prophets, though equally divine, was not in the same exalted and intimate form. God Himself defined the difference during the Aaron and Miriam revolt: “If there be a prophet among you, I, the Lord, will make myself known unto him in a vision and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently and not in dark speeches, and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold” (Num. xii. 6-8). So also in His message by Hosea, which supplies us with the name of this series of articles: “I have spoken by the prophets: I have multiplied visions and used similitudes by the ministry of the prophets” (Hos. xii. 10).
The prophets succeeded the work of Moses—(which included that of Joshua). Their mission was to keep Israel faithful to the law delivered by Moses, and not to give a new law or amend the old. They were in a very different position from a succession of natural writers improving upon each others’ ideas. They were simple messengers of God, as God Himself declared to Jeremiah: “Since the day that your fathers came out of the land of Egypt unto this day, I have sent unto you all my servants the prophets, daily rising up early and sending them. Yet they hearkened not unto me nor inclined their ear. . . . This is a nation that obeyeth not the voice of the Lord their God” (Jer. vii. 25).
This is their character as defined in the summary of their work which appears at the end of the Chronicles; and is illustrated by Christ himself in several of the parables he uttered. “The Lord God of their fathers sent to them by his messengers, rising up betimes and sending: because he had compassion on his people and on his dwelling place. But they mocked the p. 3 messengers of God and despised his words and misused his prophets until the wrath of the Lord arose against his people till there was no remedy” (2 Chron. xxxvi. 15).
Christ’s illustration will be remembered: “There was a certain householder which planted a vineyard and hedged it round about and digged a winepress in it and built a tower and let it out to husbandmen and went into a far country. And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen that he might receive the fruits of it. And the husbandmen took his servants and beat one and killed another and stoned another,” &c. (Matt. xxi. 33).
But though the work of the prophets was secondary by comparison with that of Moses, and though it was primarily directed to the condition of Israel while in their land, yet we should err greatly were we to give to their writings that unimportant and neglected place which they occupy in the general practice of Christendom. Those writings are as much the product of inspiration and as reliably communicative of the divine mind as any of the words directly addressed to Moses. The evidence of this it is simply impossible to miss in any ordinarily attentive reading of the New Testament. Jesus, for example, always conjoins Moses and the prophets as co-ordinate authorities:
“They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them” (Luke xvi. 29). “Think not that I am come to destroy the law and the prophets. I am not come to destroy but to fulfil” (Matt. v. 17). “Beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. . . . All things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses and in the prophets and in the psalms concerning me” (Luke xxiv. 27, 44).
It will be found upon examination that the prophets are included in all Christ’s general allusions to “the Scriptures” as a thing unbreakable. They are included in Paul’s general allegation that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim. iii. 15). They are the specific subject of Peter’s declaration, that they are “more sure than the apostolic testimony,” if that were possible; that they are a light in a dark place, and that they “came not by the will of p. 4 man, but holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. i. 19, 21).
See also their constant casual recognition as the standard and fountain of Gospel truth:
“The Gospel of God which he had promised before by the prophets in the holy Scripture” (Rom. i. 2). “By the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith” (chap. xvi. 26), “Saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come” (Acts xxvi. 22). “Persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses and out of the prophets, from morning till evening” (xxviii. 23).
There are numerous allusions of the same sort throughout the New Testament. Those we have quoted are conclusive. They are clinched by the statement of the angel to John in the island of Patmos: “The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (Rev. xix. 10).
The work of the prophets took various forms during the long interval lying between their entrance into the land under Joshua, and the re-building of the temple on their return from Babylon. When the prophets are spoken of, most people think of the books of the prophets forming the last part of the Bible from Isaiah to Malachi, whereas the writers of these books form only a part—and a comparatively modern part—of the order of men by whom God spoke to Israel. That order of men goes back to the very beginning, and embraces many who did not write books and some whose books have not been preserved. Their primary work was not to write books, but to deliver oral expostulations from God to Israel, to bring the nation back to harmony with Himself. If this is kept in mind, there will be none of the quandary that some appear to experience on the subject of unwritten books and lost books—people who seem to think that a prophet’s work was a failure if he did not leave something for the Bible; and still more if he wrote something that has been lost.
They have not realised that the prophet’s primary work was the work of his own living presence in Israel, and that in the case of the preserved writings, their preservation is something over and above the natural work of their lives—a present of God’s providence to p. 5 succeeding generations—for which succeeding generations have not been thankful enough. These remarks will be found verified upon a careful perusal of the history of Israel as contained in the Scriptures. The books that are preserved are sufficient for the work to be afterwards accomplished by their means. If we had not had the others, we should only have had books agreeing with those we have, as those we have agree with one another.
Another point that cannot be too strongly recognised, is that the utterances of these prophets, whether oral or written, are not to be classed with human efforts in authorship or rhetoric in any category. The modern literary habit of referring to them as “the ancient Hebrew bards” is intended to put the prophets on a level with human writers, which means either that the prophets were not inspired, or that human poets are. Either view is a lie of the first rank, as a study of the case will show.
When the prophets were sent, it was to speak God’s words, and not their own. Ezekiel’s case may be taken as illustrative of the rest: “Son of man, get thee unto the house of Israel, and speak with MY WORDS unto them. . . . I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore, hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. . . . Then the Spirit entered into me, and set me upon my feet, and spake to me, and said unto me: “Go, shut thyself within thy house. And I will make thy tongue cleave to the roof of thy mouth, that thou shalt be dumb. . . . But when I speak with thee, I will open thy mouth; and thou shalt say unto them, THUS SAITH THE LORD GOD” (Ezek. iii. 4, 17, 24-26).
So Jeremiah: “Whatsoever I command thee, thou shalt speak. Be not afraid of their faces, for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the Lord. Then the Lord put forth his hand and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Behold I have put MY WORDS in thy mouth” (Jer. i. 7-9).
So Isaiah’s book opens: “Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth, for the Lord hath spoken. I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me. . . . Moreover, the Lord spake unto me,” &c. (Isaiah i. 2: viii. 1).
So also with “the minor prophets,” of which Amos may be taken as an example: “I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet’s son; p. 6 but I was an herdman, and a gatherer of sycamore fruit. And the Lord took me as I followed the flock; and the Lord said unto me: Go, prophesy unto my people Israel” (Amos vii. 14).
In harmony with these elementary facts has to be noted this singular and distinguished peculiarity of the writings of the prophets throughout, that they constantly employ this introduction to what they have to say from time to time: “Thus saith the Lord,” or “Thus speaketh the Lord God of Israel.” Take Jer. xxx. as an instance, chosen at random. The phrase occurs many hundreds of times. What other writing on earth is like this?
That this is no merely Hebrew way of expressing personal authorship, but the expression of a literal operation of divine authorship outside of and extra to Hebrew faculty, is shown many times by incidents showing the operation to be beyond human control. Let three suffice:
Jeremiah, finding the utterance of the divine messages a cause of contempt and hatred among the people towards himself, resolved to suppress them: “Then, I said, I will not make mention of him, nor speak any more in his name.” Could he stop it then? On the contrary: “But his word was in my heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I was weary with forbearing and could not stay.”
The case of Balaam shows the same thing in another way. He was sent to Balak, King of Moab, to deliver a prophecy concerning Israel, who, having just emerged from the wilderness, were encamped on his borders. His instructions were: “Only the word that I shall speak unto thee, that thou shalt speak. . . . And Balaam said unto Balak, Lo I am come unto thee: have I now any power at all to say anything? The word that God putteth in my mouth, that I shall speak” (Num. xxii. 35, 38).
The opening of the mouth of Balaam’s ass is an example another way: “The Lord opened the mouth of the ass.” The critics cannot suggest any explanation here on the score of idiomatic description: so they clean deny the record, in spite of its endorsement by Peter (2 Pet. ii. 16), of whom Jesus said, “He that heareth you heareth me.” This is mere literary rowdyism which is not made anything different by the patronage of the wise of this world who aim p. 7 by hook or by crook above all things to get rid of the authority of the Bible.
Another illustration in a different line of things is found in the history of Elisha. The Shunamite woman went to him in grief at the loss of her son. “And when she came to the man of God to the hill, she caught him by the feet: but Gehazi (his servant) came near to thrust her away. And the man of God said, Let her alone for her soul is vexed within her, and the Lord hath hid it from me and hath not told me” (2 Kings iv. 27). In other cases Elisha was able to “tell the King of Israel the words which the King of Syria spoke in his bedchamber” (vi. 12). Here was a limitation of the discernment of the prophets expressly attributable to the divine will. If it had been a natural gift, it would have always acted. See also the expression concerning the days of Samuel’s childhood: “In those days, there was no open vision” (1 Sam. iii. 1). This could never have occurred if the open vision had been subject to human will.
The same reflection is forced home upon us by the notorious fact that for 1,800 years (since Israel’s dispersion), there has been neither prophet, prophecy, nor vision among them. If the prophetic gift were normal to the human temperament, there would have been no interruption to the prophetic succession.
How immeasurably is this consideration strengthened by the fact that this suspension of revelation was foretold: “The children of Israel shall abide many days without a sacrifice and without . . . an ephod and without teraphim” (Hos. iii. 4). “We see not our signs . . . there is no longer any prophet” (Psa. lxxiv. 9). “I will hide my face from the house of Jacob” (Deut. xxxii. 20; Isaiah viii. 17). “Night shall be unto you that ye shall not have a vision: it shall be dark unto you that ye shall not divine: the sun shall go down over the prophets, and the day shall be dark unto them. Then the seers shall be ashamed . . . for there is no answer from God” (Micah iii. 6). “Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will send a famine in the land—not a famine of bread nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the word of the Lord. They shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east: they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord and shall not find” (Amos viii. 11). p. 8 “But there were false prophets also among the people” (2 Pet. ii. 1). Some people use this as an argument against the true. In reality it establishes the true. It is according to human nature everywhere to imitate the genuine. The very occurrence of the phrase “false prophets” is a proof that there were true prophets. But then, say the objectors, how are we to know the one from the other? The question is provided for in the Scriptures. “When the word of the prophet shall come to pass, then shall the prophet be known that the Lord hath truly sent him” (Jer. xxviii. 9). Here is a test that cannot fail. It applies triumphantly to the true prophets. They have foretold the future in a hundred matters, and in nothing has their word failed. Now, as man has no knowledge of the future, the only explanation of their having truthfully foretold it, is the fact of God having spoken to them.
The false prophets had had no communication from God. As God says: “I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran. I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied . . . they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart” (Jer. xxiii. 21, 26). “They speak a vision of their own heart, not out of the mouth of the Lord” (verse 16). Again, “They prophesy a lie in my name” (xxvii. 15). Again, “Woe unto the foolish prophets that follow their own spirit and have SEEN NOTHING . . . saying, The Lord saith, and the Lord hath not sent them.”
They were to be practically confuted thus: “Thus saith the Lord concerning the prophets that prophesy in my name and I have sent them not, yet they say, Sword and famine shall not be in this land,—BY SWORD AND FAMINE SHALL THOSE PROPHETS BE CONSUMED, and the people to whom they prophesy shall be cast out in the streets of Jerusalem because of the famine and the sword, and they shall have none to bury them, them, their wives nor their sons nor their daughters: for I will pour their wickedness upon them” (Jer. xiv. 15-16).
The character and the policy of the false prophets distinguished them entirely from the true. Whereas the work of the true prophets was one prolonged protest against Israel’s disobedience of the divine law and threatening of dire consequences, bringing upon them the ill-will of the people—(see for example, Jer. xxvi. 1-15), the false p. 9 prophets tried to ingratiate themselves with the people by flattering them and assuring them that all was well: “They say still unto them that despise me, The Lord hath said, Ye shall have peace: and they say unto every one that walketh after the imagination of his own heart, No evil shall come upon you” (Jer. xxiii. 17).
James puts forward the true prophets as “an example of suffering affliction and of patience” (Jas. v. 10). And Paul says of them, “They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword; they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented. Of whom the world was not worthy: they wandered in deserts and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth” (Heb. xi. 37-38).
There is therefore a complete answer to those who ask how we are to distinguish between the false prophets and the true. We know the true because all their words have come to pass in the dispersion and affliction of Israel, and in the evolution of Gentile power in the earth (Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome and her subdivisions). We know them in another and very conclusive way. The Scriptures of the true prophets have been preserved, though the nation that preserved them was the destroyer of the true prophets themselves. There is no trace of the false prophets preserved except in the condemnations of them that occur in the true. And these Scriptures so preserved have received the direct attestation of the resurrected Jesus as the word of the living God.
But though the prophets were true prophets of the future, they were not fortune tellers or conjurers. Israel did not apply to them for knowledge of private affairs. The course of private affairs was sometimes predicted in the course of their work, as when Abijah told Jeroboam’s wife that her sick son would not get better (1 Kings xiv. 12-13), or Elijah told Ahab of the bloody ending of Ahab and his wife because of their murder of Naboth (1 Kings xxi. 19), or Isaiah informed Hezekiah of his recovery and the lengthening of his days (Isaiah xxxviii. 4).
But in all such instances, it will be found that the incidents of private life when prophetically illuminated by the light of inspiration, were ingredients in a public situation of affairs in which God was speaking for the guidance of His people, and were p. 10 never the subject of treatment for private behoof, as in the case of witches, familiar-spiritists, sorcerers and soothsayers, and other kinds of impostors.
Still less, were they made the occasion of extorting fees as in the case of various heathen practitioners. The two things were as far removed as light and darkness, both in character and treatment. The prophets were “the messengers of the Lord of Hosts,” whose messages were delivered “without money and without price.” They were examples of righteousness to Israel and the appointed heirs of life eternal, as Jesus recognises. The empirics and pretenders of all kinds, who professed magical powers and knowledge of the occult (a class who abounded among the neighbouring nations), are denounced throughout the prophets as evil men, whom Israel were not only forbidden to follow or consult, but commanded by the law of Moses to destroy.