PROPHETS AND PROPHECY. The great importance of the prophetic movement is evidenced by the occurrence of the word “prophet” over 300 times in the OT and over 100 times in the NT, along with many other terms that clearly refer to men performing the same function. Since the predictive aspect of prophecy has been so stressed in modern usage as almost to overshadow other phases of prophetic activity, it is particularly needful that Bible students seek to understand the full original purpose of the movement and its importance in Biblical revelation and in the divine plan.
I. Prophetism in general
A. Definition. Examination of the activities and writings of the prophets clarifies the OT prophetic task. The OT prophet acted as a mouthpiece for God, receiving a message from Him and proclaiming it in accordance with His commands. Since there is one God, a true prophet must necessarily be a prophet of this God. The word, however, might be used of one who pretended or actually believed that he was a mouthpiece of God or some other god.
Prophets and prophecy are designated in the OT by a number of different terms. For example, 1 Chronicles 29:29 uses three different words, רֹאֶה֒, H8014, נָבִיא, H5566, and חֹזֶה֒, H2602, to indicate men who performed the prophetic task. “For he who is now called a prophet (נָבִיא, H5566) was formerly called a seer (רֹאֶה֒, H8014)” (1 Sam 9:9). Elisha, one of the most typical of all prophets, is referred to as “the man of God” thirty-six times. (For discussion see IB below.)
Examination of the usages of the word “prophet” (נָבִיא, H5566) makes the definition certain. This becomes apparent not from the first occurrence of the word, but from the second. The first occurrence of the word gives little clue as to its meaning: Abimelech is told that Abraham is a prophet and will pray for him (Gen 20:7). This is the only time the word occurs in the Book of Genesis, and it yields little meaning of the term beyond that the prophet had an esp. close relationship to God and could pray effectively. The statement assumes that Abimelech had an idea what a prophet was.
Fuller light on the meaning of the word is evident from its second occurrence (Exod 7:1). Here is a repetition in somewhat fig. language of the idea expressed literally in Exodus 4:10-16, after Moses declared that his lack of eloquence would make it impossible for him to act as God’s representative before Pharaoh. God had said that He would appoint Moses’ brother Aaron, who was a good speaker, to accompany him. Moses could tell Aaron what to say, and Aaron would then relay it to Pharaoh. The Lord said, “he shall be a mouth for you, and you shall be to him as God” (Exod 4:16). This idea is summarized in the words, “And the Lord said to Moses, ‘See, I make you as God to Pharaoh: and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet’” (Exod 7:1). This passage indicates clearly that the word prophet means one who passes on a message from a god. This definition fits the usage of all of the various terms, and is particularly stressed in the following verses, among many others: Amos 3:8 “...the Lord God has spoken; who can but prophesy?”; Jeremiah 1:7, 17 “...for to all to whom I send you you shall go, and whatever I command you you shall speak....arise, and say to them everything that I command you....Do not be dismayed by them, lest I dismay you before them”; Ezekiel 3:4, “And he said to me, ‘Son of man, go, get you to the house of Israel, and speak with my words to them.”
The position of a prophet differed from that of a king or a priest, who generally received their positions through heredity. No one could ever be a prophet simply because his father was one. Kings, priests, and other officials might be appointed or elected by human instrumentality (cf. Judg 9:6; 11:5, 6; 1 Kings 2:35b; 12:20). No human individual or organization could enable a man to become a true prophet. The NT speaks of prophets as one of God’s gifts to His Church, along with evangelists and pastors (Eph 4:11). A church can ordain and install an evangelist or a pastor, but no one can become a prophet in the full meaning of the word unless God chooses to give him a message with orders to pass it on.
Sometimes a distinction has been made between the prophetic office and the prophetic gift. Such a distinction has no foundation in the Bible or in any other ancient writing. Strictly speaking, the work of a prophet is not the fulfilling of an office, but the performance of a function. It would appear that God on several occasions selected a man to give one or two messages and never again used him as His mouthpiece. On other occasions the Lord used a man as a prophet over a long period. The prophetic position is entirely a matter of relationship to God and cannot be enhanced or decreased by any human agency.
A great leader such as Moses or Samuel or David could also be a prophet. A priest such as Samuel or Ezekiel could also be a prophet. The name indicates a function rather than an office.
Rarely is the term “prophet” applied, either in the OT or in the NT, to an individual other than one who receives, or claims to receive messages directly from God. The word, however, is sometimes used in the pl. in a more extended sense. Thus in the time of general confusion and Philistine oppression toward the end of the period of the judges, when Samuel was the one individual who received God’s messages and passed them on to the people, those who sympathized with Samuel and went about singing God’s praises and trying to arouse patriotic fervor as well as religious feeling among the people were sometimes called prophets. The use of the word in this extended sense is mostly confined to the book of 1 Samuel, aside from the reference in 1 Kings 18:4, 13 to Obadiah having hid 100 prophets in a cave to protect them from the anger of Ahab. In the time of Elijah and Elisha, the people who wished to assist the prophets or to learn from them were described as “sons of the prophets” (see discussion under II D, Schools of prophets).
In the NT, as in the OT, a prophet was one who received his message directly from God. As the Bible neared completion and the existence of God’s written Word in its entirety made direct communication no longer necessary, it became possible to use the term in the extended sense of one who receives his message from God through the written Word and then passes it on to God’s people for “up-building and encouragement and consolation” (1 Cor 14:3).
The feminine “prophetess” is used in both Testaments for a woman who performed the prophetic function. In one instance, however, it may simply mean the wife of the prophet Isaiah (Isa 8:3). See Prophetess.
B. Hebrew terms
1. Terms for prophet. The most common Heb. term is נָבִיא, H5566, which occurs more than 300 times, nearly one-third of its occurrences being in the Book of Jeremiah. The feminine form, נְבִיאָה, H5567, is used several times, usually indicating a woman who performed the same task of receiving and passing on a divine message (cf. Judg 4:4-6; 2 Kings 22:14-20; 2 Chron 34:22-28).
There have been many guesses about the origin of this word. In the early part of the present cent. it was widely held that studying the etymology of a word was the best way to establish its meaning. Linguists now agree that etymologies can merely yield suggestions. The most reliable way to determine the meaning of a word in a particular language is through examination of its usage.
It was formerly assumed by students of Heb. that all Sem. nouns were derived from verbs, and the attempt was therefore made to find a verbal root from which נָבִיא, H5566, could have been derived. Many suggestions were made, none of which are well grounded. The most common was to derive it from a somewhat similar but not identical root, meaning “to gush.” From this some interpreters proposed that it meant one into whose mind the Lord poured ideas. Others thought it came from the idea of a man who poured out words at a rapid rate, and as evidence pointed to the few passages that might suggest that these prophets engaged in ecstatic activities (see IV H, Ecstasy and the prophet). Other attempts have been made to derive the word from a Heb. root or from one found in some other Sem. language, but no one has ever succeeded in producing sufficient evidence to establish any of these suggestions. Most scholars now recognize that not all Heb. nouns are derived from verbs, but that a considerable number of roots were originally nouns, from which verbs were derived. This would seem most certainly to be the case with נָבִיא, H5566. The noun is the original; the verb נָבָא, H5547, simply means “to perform the work of a נָבִיא, H5566.” The etymology of the word is unknown, but its usage makes absolutely clear the definition given above, that a prophet was one whom God used as His mouthpiece to pass on a message.
Another term applied to various prophets is the phrase “man of God,” which is used seventy-six times in the OT. Nearly half of these thirty-six refer to Elisha: fifteen relate to an unnamed prophet (1 Kings 13); the other twenty-five are widely scattered, being used seven times of Elijah, five times of Moses, four times of Samuel, three times of David, twice of Shemaiah, and five times of other unnamed representatives of God.
The additional terms occur as designations of a prophet. Both are participles of verbs of seeing. The less common of the two, רֹאֶה֒, H8014, is derived from the ordinary word “to see.” It is used a number of times with reference to Samuel, but only a few other times in the Scripture. It emphasized Samuel’s supposed ability to see present or future facts that were invisible to others.
The other participle חֹזֶה֒, H2602, is derived from a less common Heb. word for seeing, which perhaps emphasizes the idea of gazing or looking intently. This participle is used more often than רֹאֶה֒, H8014, to designate various prophets. Both participles frequently are tr. “seer.”
2. Verbs for prophesying. The most common word for “prophesy” is נָבָא, H5547. In most cases it represents the activity of receiving God’s message and passing it on. In some instances it indicates giving a message from some imagined supernatural being, or imitating the actions of a prophet.
The two words for seeing, רָאָה֒, H8011, and חָזָה, H2600, are used at times to indicate the reception of the prophet’s message. חָזָה, H2600, is used most often in this sense. In one v. (Isa 30:10) it is twice tr. “prophesy.”
3. Terms for the prophet’s message. Nouns derived from the two verbs for seeing are frequently used to indicate the prophetic vision: מַרְאָה֒, H5261, חָזוּת, H2607, חֶזְיﯴן, H2611, מַחֲזֶה, H4690, and מֶחֱזָה, H4691. The most frequent of these is חָזﯴן, H2606, which is used in this sense at least thirty-three times. נְבוּאָה, H5553, is three times translated “prophecy.” The noun מַשָּׂא֒, H5362, derived from נָשָׂא, H5951, “to lift up or carry,” is used twenty-seven times to indicate a prophetic message. It usually is tr. “burden,” but is rendered “prophecy” in the KJV (Prov 30:1; 31:1). Frequently, but not always, the message that it introduces emphasizes judgment or warning. Its use to represent prophecies (Isa 13:1; 14:28; 15:1; 17:1; 19:1; 21:1, 11, 13; 22:1 and 23:1) makes it easy to overlook the fact that it is used in the simple physical sense of “burden” (30:6; 46:1, 2).
C. Greek terms in the NT. The common term for prophet in the NT is προφήτης, G4737, which occurs 149 times, almost half the frequency of the word נָבִיא, H5566, in the entire OT. The related verb προφητεύω, G4736, “to prophesy,” occurs twenty-eight times in the NT. A related noun, προφητεία, G4735, is found nineteen times in the NT, tr. in the KJV fifteen times “prophecy,” three times “prophesying,” and once “(the gift of) prophecy.” It is evident that this latter term is used both for the prophet’s message itself and for the act of declaring it. Προφῆτις, “prophetess,” is used twice in the NT, once of Anna (Luke 2:36), and once (Rev 2:20) to designate one who was not truly a prophetess, but was so considered by her followers. The adjective προφητικός, G4738, occurs twice (Rom 16:26; 2 Pet 1:19). A number of other Gr. words are used of prophetic activity in the NT, most of them stressing the ability of the prophet to reveal matters known only to God or to predict the future.
D. The prophetic call. It sometimes is claimed that every prophet received a specific call from God to enter upon this task. According to this theory, every man who was used in the prophetic capacity had an experience at some time before he began his work that led him to believe that God had ordered him to devote his life to the work of being a prophet.
Such a theory is difficult to disprove, but it should not be accepted as proven without either (1) a definite statement to this effect in the Word of God, or (2) a sufficient amount of evidence that God always called a man in some specific way when He desired him to become a prophet. As the Bible nowhere says that every prophet received such a call, the only way to test the statement is to look for reports of individual experiences. Of course, no man could sincerely pass on a message from God unless God had commanded him to do so, but this is altogether different from giving a man a call to enter upon a continuing activity as a prophet.
Since a king, a great leader, or a priest also performed the function of a prophet if God commanded him to do so, the calling of a man to one of these positions must be distinguished from his being called to be a prophet. The Lord ordered Gideon to save Israel from the hand of the Midianites (Judg 6:14). The carrying out of this task involved the reception from God of instructions regarding its details, and Gideon to this extent acted as a true prophet (Judg 7:2ff.); his call, however, was not to be a prophet but to be a deliverer. David was anointed by Samuel as God’s choice eventually to succeed Saul as king (1 Sam 16), but there was as yet no intimation that God would use him as a prophet in connection with the writing of the Psalms (Acts 2:29, 30).
Moses, one of the very greatest of the prophets, was to his contemporaries primarily a leader. When God first appeared to him at the burning bush, He declared His intention of delivering the people from Egyp. bondage and said, “Come, I will send you to Pharaoh that you may bring forth my people, the sons of Israel, out of Egypt” (Exod 3:10). Two chs. are devoted to telling how the Lord insisted that Moses undertake this difficult mission, listing the many ways in which Moses tried to evade the task and showing how the Lord answered each of these objections. Moses repeatedly refused, but God insisted, and eventually Moses agreed most reluctantly to undertake the task of leading the Israelites out of Egypt.
One of Moses’ objections was that the Israelites would not believe him when he said the Lord had appeared to him. Thus there entered into the picture incidentally the fact that to be a deliverer, Moses must also become God’s recognized spokesman. His call was primarily a call to be a leader and a deliverer, and therefore can hardly be considered an example of a typical call to be a prophet, even though in the end his work as a prophet assumed outstanding importance.
The statement that every prophet received a specific call from God is hard to reconcile with the case of Elisha. When Elijah was at Sinai, God gave him the command: “when you arrive...Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abelmeholah you shall anoint to be prophet in your place.” There is no indication that he poured oil on Elisha’s head or even informed Elisha that God was calling him to be a prophet. When he passed the farm where Elisha was plowing, he simply threw his coat over Elisha (v. 19).
Elisha ran after him and said, “Let me kiss my father and my mother, and then I will follow you.” Elijah answered gruffly, “Go back again; for what have I done to you?” (v. 20). It is not stated how long a time Elisha accompanied Elijah, but his service would seem to have been mostly the doing of menial tasks, for he was known in later times as the man who “poured water on the hands of Elijah” (2 Kings 3:11). On the last day of Elijah’s life he gave every evidence of trying to keep Elisha from being present at his departure (2:2, 4, 6). When Elijah was about to be taken up to heaven he asked Elisha what present he would like to have. Elisha said he wanted a double portion of Elijah’s spirit (2:9). Since it was customary at that time that a man’s eldest son should receive a double portion of the inheritance, it is evident that Elisha was requesting to be Elijah’s successor. Elijah’s answer was: “You have asked a hard thing; yet, if you see me as I am being taken from you, it shall be so for you; but if you do not see me, it shall not be so” (2 Kings 2:10). After Elijah was taken up, Elisha looked for proof that he was actually Elijah’s successor. He found it through taking the mantle of Elijah that had fallen from him and striking the waters of the Jordan River with it, saying, “Where is the Lord, the God of Elijah?” (v. 14). When the waters parted for him as they had done for Elijah (v. 8) he knew that his request was granted. After a time, Elisha became recognized as God’s prophet and continued for a long period, but a specific call in the usual sense would be very hard to deduce from the description given.
Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel were called to the difficult task of declaring God’s message to hostile listeners. Under the circumstances it was crucial that each be given an inaugural experience or vision that would intensify his determination to be true to God and to continue to the end, no matter what opposition he would face. In each case there is a full record of a specific call. Because Isaiah’s call is recorded in ch. 6 instead of at the beginning of his prophecy, many interpreters have concluded that this was not an original call but rather a vision given at a later point in Isaiah’s career.
In this ch. Isaiah tells how he saw the Lord on a throne in the Temple, and immediately he was filled with agony because he realized his sin and unworthiness. One of the seraphim touched his lips with a live coal from the altar, representing that his iniquity had been taken away through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ to purify man from sin. Then he heard the Lord say, “Whom shall I send and who will go for us?” and answered, “Here am I! send me” (Isa 6:8). Isaiah’s general orders were then given (6:9-13), which must have been a heart-rending experience since his message was to be one of doom and punishment with comparatively little response. They included only a brief suggestion (at the end of v. 13) that a small remnant would carry on for God. This experience prepared him to stand fearlessly before the obstinate opposition of Ahaz, described in the following chapters.
The Lord declared to Jeremiah that even before his birth He had consecrated and appointed him to be “a prophet to the nations” (Jer 1:5), and told him that He would make him like a fortified city against the whole land, which would fight against him but would not prevail (vv. 18, 19).
Ezekiel lived among people who were bitter at heart and not inclined to listen to a message from God whom they thought had forsaken them. Ezekiel was given a vivid experience to drive home to his mind the realization of God’s power and majesty (Ezek 1-3). It was necessary to strengthen the determination of all three prophets, that they might remain true to God under very difficult circumstances.
Amos stated that as he followed the flocks God called him to prophesy to Israel (Amos 7:15). Of the many other prophets whose messages are included in the OT (aside from those mentioned above), hardly anything is described that could be considered as a specific call to the work of a prophet.
II. The prophetic activity
A. How the prophet received his message
1. The prophetic consciousness. The prophet was not simply a wise man who gave good advice. He received a message from God and proclaimed it. Yet he was never a mere automaton through whom God caused words to be uttered. He was a human being facing real situations. In his human capacity he made mistakes. Thus when David told Nathan that he had decided to build a temple, the prophet said, “Go, do all that is in your heart; for the Lord is with you” (2 Sam 7:3). That night God corrected Nathan, that it was not God’s will that David should build the Temple, but that it should be built by David’s son (vv. 4-16).
God ordered Samuel to go to Bethlehem and anoint one of Jesse’s sons, who would eventually replace Saul as king (1 Sam 16). As the prophet looked at the older sons in turn, he felt sure that the Lord’s anointed was before him, but the Lord told him that he was incorrect. Only after David was called in from the sheep pasture did Samuel know that the right son stood before him (vv. 6-13).
THE HEBREW PROPHETS
Adapted from The Unfolding Drama of Redemption by Scroggie. (c) 1953 by Pickering and Inglis, Ltd. Used by permission.
Thus a prophet might know a portion of the divine will but be completely incognizant of other portions. (Cf. 1 Cor 13:9. “For our knowledge is imperfect, and our prophecy is imperfect.”)
The Scripture records several dialogues between God and a prophet. When Elijah was at Sinai, ready to give way to utter discouragement, God spoke, reminding him of divine omnipotence and stressing His control over all the nations, but also indicating that Elijah had finished most of the work that God had given him to do, and that another man was to be prepared to succeed him (1 Kings 19:9-18).
When God directed Ezekiel to present a message in a certain way, Ezekiel objected, and God modified the directions to make it easier for the prophet to carry them out (Ezek 4:7-15).
The first two chs. of Habakkuk contain a dialogue between God and the prophet, in which Habakkuk states the problems that he faces and the Lord presents illuminating answers.
The prophet was not omniscient, and he was not an automaton. The Lord increased his understanding, but He also gave him commands and messages to be presented in exactly the form in which they were given. By various methods this was done: “God had of old spoken to our fathers at various times and in many ways by means of the prophets” (Heb 1:1, Berkeley Version).
2. The external voice. Samuel thought Eli had called him, when it was really God who spoke (1 Sam 3:3-9). This strongly suggests an audible voice that could have been understood by anyone in the vicinity. This may have been the way many of the prophetic messages were received.
3. The internal voice. In some instances, a prophet received a sudden direct message from God, but no audible divine voice was heard by others near the prophet. Thus 1 Kings 13 describes a situation where a prophet standing by the altar suddenly cried out to his companion, “Thus says the Lord,” and then proceeded to rebuke him (vv. 18-22); but there is no indication that God’s voice was heard by any other than this prophet.
Isaiah 7:3, 4 relates that the Lord said to Isaiah:
Go forth to meet Ahaz, you and Shear-jashub your son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool on the highway to the Fuller’s Field, and say to him, “Take heed, be quiet, do not fear, and do not let your heart be faint because of these two smoldering stumps of firebrands, at the fierce anger of Rezin and Syria and the son of Remaliah.”
After Isaiah met Ahaz and gave him God’s message, however, the king answered insincerely; and immediately Isaiah gave a second message that involved knowledge of facts that the prophet could hardly have known previously. This and other such cases indicate the revelation by means of an internal voice.
4. Opening the prophet’s eyes. A third way was the divine enabling of a prophet to see realities that were invisible to ordinary eyes. For example, after an angel of the Lord had forced Balaam’s ass to step out of the road, the Lord opened Balaam’s eyes so that he could see what had previously been invisible to him, though visible to the ass (Num 22:31). In another incident, when Elisha’s servant was terrified by the sight of the surrounding Syrian army, the prophet prayed that God would open his eyes. God answered his prayer and enabled the servant to see the hills around filled with horses and chariots of fire to protect the prophet (2 Kings 6:15-17).
5. A vision or imaginary picture. Ezekiel 37 describes a vision in which the prophet saw dry bones coming together and being covered with sinews and flesh, but not having life. Then the Lord told him to prophesy, commanding the wind to give life to the dead bodies. In the vision Ezekiel saw that “they lived, and stood upon their feet, an exceedingly great host” (v. 10). This and other visions gave Ezekiel specific revelations in pictorial form, which he could pass on to his listeners.
Ezekiel 40-48 describes in detail a future situation. This prob. was given to the prophet in the form of a vision, which he proceeded to describe in his own words; the Holy Spirit kept him from error in his description.
Micah 4:1-4 describes a future situation in which multitudes would come to the house of the Lord, the God of Jacob would rebuke strong nations afar off, and the people would sit in complete safety under their vines and fig trees. This may have been presented to the prophet in the form of a picture, which he then described in human terms. It is possible that God gave Isaiah the same vision, and that Isaiah described it in words very similar to those he had already heard Micah use, but introduced it with the statement: “The word which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem” (Isa 2:1), to indicate that he was not simply copying Micah, but had himself seen the same vision that Micah saw. The prophet Ezekiel says that he was transported in a vision from Chaldea to Jerusalem (Ezek 8:1-3). Later, the Spirit of God brought him back in a vision to Chaldea (11:24). Between these two statements he describes what he saw happening in Jerusalem. Part of what he saw may be a description of events that were occurring in Israel at that very time. A substantial part of what he saw, however, consisted of spiritual realities not visible to an ordinary eye (e.g., 9:1-4; 10:1-5; 11:22, 23).
A similar type of revelation may be involved in much of what John describes in Revelation.
6. Conclusion. God revealed Himself to the prophets in many ways. He used their personal observations and experiences as means of preparing them to understand His messages. It is, however, the clear and definite teaching of the OT that the prophets received their message from God, so that it was His message, not theirs. Often the words were given them by direct revelation. In all cases the words in those messages that God desired to be preserved for future ages were inspired of the Holy Spirit to keep them from every type of error.
Regardless of the method by which a particular message was given to the prophet, it might contain aspects of truth that he could not grasp or understand himself, but that later interpreters could discover by carefully examining his words and by comparing them with those of other prophets.
B. How the prophet gave his message
1. Brief oral statements and rejoinders. On various occasions a prophet was directed by God to confront a king or other leader and present to him a brief message either of rebuke, encouragement, or a specific order to be carried out. Thus Deborah gave a divine command to Barak (Judg 4:6, 7). An unnamed man of God rebuked Eli (1 Sam 2:27-36). Shemaiah, a man of God, told Rehoboam to stop fighting against Israel (2 Chron 11:3, 4). Jehu the son of Hanani pronounced doom on Baasha (1 Kings 16:7). Azariah, the son of Oded, encouraged Asa (2 Chron 15:1, 2). Jehu, the son of Hanani, rebuked Jehoshaphat (19:2, 3). Elijah suddenly appeared before Ahab, predicted a disastrous drought, and disappeared (1 Kings 17:1). After the judicial murder of Naboth, Elijah met Ahab and gave him a severe rebuke (21:17-24). Other similar incidents can be cited.
In addition to the brief oral statements, the prophets sometimes answered questions or made rejoinders, giving further divine messages. When, at a time of great national danger, an unnamed prophet promised Ahab victory over Syria (1 Kings 20:13), the king of Israel asked about the conduct of the battle, and the prophet went on to give God’s answer to the king’s questions. A little later, when a king of Israel’s aide declared impossible the almost unbelievable deliverance that Elisha had promised, the prophet proceded to depict the fate in store for that ungodly man (2 Kings 7:1, 2). When God directed Isaiah to deliver a message of hope to Ahaz (Isa 7:3-9) and Ahaz showed an attitude of contemptuous unbelief, the Lord gave the prophet a further message, one of coming judgment (v. 10-25).
The traditio-historical school of critics holds that all the work of the prophets consisted of short pithy statements that were remembered and enlarged and added to by their followers in subsequent generations. This, however, is in contradiction to the Scriptural record, which declared that the prophets also delivered many messages of considerable length.
2. Longer oral messages. An early instance, in Scripture, of long oral messages given by a prophet is found in the extended statements of the law that God gave Moses, which Moses passed on to the people (e.g., Exod 20:22-23:33). In Numbers, Balaam gave four long messages (Num 23:5-10, 16-24; 24:3-9, 15-24) declaring God’s favor upon Israel, after Balak had hired him to curse it. No long discourses have been preserved from Samuel or from Jonah, but this is no proof that they did not deliver any.
The books known as the “major” and “minor” prophets contain many long messages that were delivered orally.
3. Patriarchal blessing. A peculiar type of divine message occurs in the Book of Genesis, where certain patriarchs made declarations regarding the future of their descendants. Sometimes, a patriarch used language that implied he had some control over what would happen to his descendants. To draw such an inference from his words would be incorrect. In these instances recorded in the Bible, the patriarch was strictly guided by the divine Spirit and permitted to say only what was in accord with God’s plan for the future. Even though not explained in the Scripture, it is evident that sometimes at a particular crisis, such as approaching death the Lord allowed a patriarch to perceive the future of his descendants and to state what was ahead for them.
After the undescribed sin of Ham’s younger son, Canaan (Gen 9:22, 24), Noah declared a curse upon him, which was fulfilled in the subjugation of the Canaanites at the time of the Israelite conquest. At the same time, the patriarch was permitted a glimpse of the blessings that lay in store for some of the descendants of Shem and Japheth.
A similar instance of a prophetic blessing occurred when Isaac, old and nearly blind, thought death was approaching (27:2, 41). Although God revealed to the patriarchs many aspects of His plan, they were fallible human beings. Isaac knew that when Esau and Jacob were born God had declared that the older would serve the younger. Yet Isaac planned to change the situation by giving Esau the blessing that God intended for Jacob. Nonetheless, when Jacob stood before Isaac, God allowed him to glimpse the future of Jacob’s descendants and to give a true prediction of their predominance, even though Isaac himself thought he was blessing Esau. When Isaac learned his mistake he was greatly disappointed, but he recognized that nothing could be done to change it. God had overruled Isaac’s personal wishes.
When Esau returned, Isaac gave him a lesser blessing, telling what God then revealed to him about the future of Esau’s descendants.
Many years later, when Jacob thought his end was near, Joseph brought his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, to see their grandfather. Jacob declared that these two sons of Joseph would have a position among Jacob’s own sons as progenitors of tribes (Gen 48:5). Jacob, however, crossed his hands, to put the right hand on the younger son instead of on the older. When Joseph remonstrated, Jacob pointed out that the tribe descended from the younger brother would be the greater of the two (Gen 48:13-20).
The following ch. (Gen 49) relates Jacob’s blessing to his own sons. Although he named his individual sons, he had their descendants in mind.
4. Description of visions. On several occasions a considerable portion of a prophet’s message consisted of describing something he had seen in a vision. This was used effectively by Micaiah when he faced the wicked King Ahab and his counterfeit prophets. Micaiah presented a fig. picture of the fate that was ahead for Israel (1 Kings 11:7f.) and then depicted a visionary setting in the heavenly courts (vv. 19-23). Daniel described a series of visions, foretelling great future events (Dan 7-12). Ezekiel told how he was carried in a vision to Jerusalem where he witnessed various events, and later was brought back to Chaldea (Ezek 8-11). The last nine chapters of Ezekiel are a long description of a vision in which he saw the land of Israel at a future time. In another prophetic book, Zechariah, there is prob. more of this sort of prophecy than in any other of the OT prophetic books. The Apostle John had a marvelous vision, which he described in the Book of Revelation. There are only a few additional instances where the prophetic message consists in the description of a vision that the prophet had, though there may be some that are not identified as such.
5. Symbolic actions. More common than accounts of visions are descriptions of prophetic actions intended to drive home an important message. These “object lessons” should be clearly distinguished from the prophetic visions mentioned above. The prophet Ahijah tore a garment into twelve pieces and handed ten of them to Jeroboam, to illustrate that the kingdom of Solomon would be broken, and ten tribes given to Jeroboam (1 Kings 11:29, 30).
This was reminiscent of the incident when Saul laid hold of Samuel’s robe and accidentally tore it. Samuel immediately seized upon this as an illustration that Saul’s kingdom would be torn away from him and given “to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you” (1 Sam 15:27, 28). After Elisha, on his deathbed, had made Joash shoot “the Lord’s arrow of victory, the arrow of victory over Syria,” he ordered the king to smite the ground with some arrows. When the king did so but lackadaisically just three times, Elisha pointed out that Joash’s lack of enthusiasm in carrying out God’s command would result in partial rather than total victory over Syria (2 Kings 13:15-19).
To deliver a message unpalatable to their listeners, Jeremiah and Ezekiel made frequent use of symbolic acts to arouse the people’s curiosity and induce them to listen. Jeremiah was directed by the Lord to buy a linen waistcloth and wear it for a time, without putting it in water. Then he was told to “go to the Euphrates, and hide it there in a cleft of the rock.” After many days he was again instructed to go to Euphrates to dig up the waistcloth. The deterioration that had set in was used as a vivid sign of how the house of Israel, once so near the Lord, had ceased to be profitable to Him (Jer 13:1-11).
Jeremiah also went to the potter’s house and saw a clay vessel that had been marred in the hand of the potter and was therefore made over into something different. This he used to illustrate God’s sovereign power (18:1-10). On another occasion he broke an earthen flask at the valley of Hinnom and declared that God would similarly destroy Judah (19:1-13). One day he held up two baskets of figs, one full of very good figs and the other full of figs so bad that they could not be eaten (24:1-3). Pointing to the difference between the two he declared that the good figs were like the people who already had been taken into exile, and the bad ones like those still in Jerusalem.
Many of Jeremiah’s prophecies were uttered in Jerusalem during the interval between the first deportation and the final siege and destruction of the city. Consequently, he had the difficult task of persuading people, who were determined to believe that the Lord would deliver their land, that it was God’s will that their city would be destroyed and that they would be taken into captivity.
Ezekiel faced an even more hostile audience. The group of exiles among whom he lived were thoroughly convinced that Jerusalem would not be destroyed and were unwilling to listen to any contrary opinion. It was necessary for Ezekiel, like Jeremiah, to allow himself to be considered unpatriotic or even treasonable.
Under these circumstances Ezekiel made more extensive use of symbolic actions than Jeremiah did. When the people had become so irritated at his message that they refused to listen further, God told him no longer to reprove them (Ezek 3:26), but he was instead to make a picture of Jerusalem on a tile and pretend to lay siege against it (4:1-3). He was to lie on his left side a certain number of hours every day for 390 days, to illustrate the iniquity of the house of Israel, and then to lie on his right side forty days to illustrate the iniquity of the house of Judah (vv. 4-6). He was to measure out food and water to illustrate the scarcity of these items in a city under siege (vv. 9-11). Then he was commanded to cut off some of his hair and divide this hair into three parts of equal weight: one third he was directed to burn; another third to strike with a knife; and the third part, to scatter in the wind. This illustrated the coming threefold fate of the people in Jerusalem (5:1-4; 12). As the time for the siege was drawing near Ezekiel was ordered to dig a hole through the wall of his house and carry his household goods out through it, to illustrate the coming flight of the refugees from Jerusalem (12:1-16).
The use of symbolic acts was not limited to the true prophets. One of the “prophets” who tried to please Ahab by giving the messages the king desired to hear made horns of iron and said: “Thus says the Lord, ‘With these you shall push the Syrians, until they are destroyed’” (1 Kings 22:11). Similarly, after Jeremiah had put yoke-bars around his neck to illustrate the coming subjection of the nations to the king of Babylon (Jer 27:1-11), Hananiah, the son of Azur, who pretended to be a prophet, publicly took the yoke-bars off Jeremiah’s neck and broke them, declaring that God would free the nations from Nebuchadnezzar within two years (28:10, 11).
Some interpreters insist that most of the symbolic acts described in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel were merely visions. They say, for instance, that Isaiah could not actually have gone “naked and barefoot” for three years, because this would have been indecent; therefore, he must simply have had a vision in which he did so. They say also that Jeremiah could not possibly have taken his waistcloth all the distance to Euphrates to bury it and then return all that distance to dig it up. They say that Ezekiel could not actually have lain beside a tile for 390 days because it would have been impossible to lie still so long. A little reflection, however, will show that to consider these symbolic acts as merely visions would defeat their purpose, which was not to give the prophet a new understanding but to seize the attention of the people. To hear Isaiah say that in a vision he had walked naked and barefoot for three years would add little to the impact of his messages. To see the prophet actually walking around in a state of dress unbecoming of his station in life would arouse interest and lead people to inquire what it meant. It would have little effect for Jeremiah to say: “In a vision I buried a waistcloth for many days and then I dug it up and saw how deteriorated it was.” For him to hold before his hearers the actual waistcloth that they had seen him wear and to let them observe its deteriorated condition was effective for dramatizing his message. For Ezekiel to say that in a vision he had lain for 390 days facing a tile on which he had drawn a picture of Jerusalem would add nothing to the effect of his message. It would be dramatic if he were to lie in the public square a few hours each day, perhaps with a sign beside him saying “Day 1,” “Day 2,” “Day 3,” etc. People thinking of their homeland and longing to return, would quickly notice the similarity of the picture on the tile to the place they so wished to see again. Parents would point out its details to their children, and the children would ask why Ezekiel was lying there in that way. Thus attention would be attracted and curiosity aroused. When the Lord would again direct Ezekiel to present the message orally (Ezek 6:11) the people would be ready to listen.
Moreover, such arguments rest upon interpretations of the text that are hermeneutically unsound. It is recognized by many commentators (e.g., G. B. Gray in ICC and E. H. Plumptre in Ellicott) that the statement that Isaiah walked naked may well mean that he simply laid aside his outer garment. The command to Ezekiel to lie before the tile 390 days to represent the iniquity of Israel would not necessarily require that he lie there twenty-four hours at a time. A few hours each day would satisfy all the requirements of the symbolic act.
Some of the precise references to Babylon in the Book of Jeremiah and the fact that when Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem he seemed already to know about Jeremiah has led many interpreters to think that Jeremiah could well have made a visit to Babylon during the years of comparative peace. On such a trip he could have buried his waistcloth near a part of the river that is much nearer Jerusalem than Babylon itself, and then have dug it up on his return journey. Even this assumption is not necessary, for a number of interpreters suggest that the word פְּרָ֑ת, which ordinarily stands for the River Euphrates, might here designate a place not far from Jerusalem. In support of this they point out that in nearly all the instances where the term occurs in the OT it is used with the word “river” (including three instances in the Book of Jeremiah itself), but not in these four usages (Jer 13:4-7). To interpret these symbolic actions simply as visions is to destroy their effectiveness for conveying a message and to add nothing to their purpose so far as the prophets themselves were concerned. As noted above there are occasions mentioned in the OT where God gave the prophet a vision that he might describe to others, but the dramatic impact of messages through symbolic actions is in an entirely different category, and the two should not be confused.
Symbolic actions occur less frequently in the NT. One instance is Jesus’ command to the disciples that when they were not received in a city they should shake off its dust from their feet. Another symbolic action is Jesus’ washing the disciples’ feet. The use of bread and wine in the institution of the Lord’s Supper constitutes a symbolic action, for the vivid remembrance of the redemptive work of Christ.
C. The place of emotion in the work of a prophet. Many prophetic messages were addressed not merely to the head but also to the heart of the listeners. They abound in pictures calculated to arouse strong feelings of sorrow for sin, of gratitude to God, or of determination to follow the commands of God. No one could have such an influence upon his hearers without himself being emotionally moved. This is strikingly illustrated in the words of Samuel to Saul (1 Sam 15:22, 23; 28:18, 19), and in those of Elijah to Ahab (1 Kings 18:18; 21:19-21). When Elisha was asked to help the three kings in their desperate situation (2 Kings 3:10-15), he was so moved by his detestation of the wicked king Jehoram that it was necessary to call for a minstrel to quiet his spirit before he could listen to the voice of God. The NT calls Elijah “a man subject to like passions as we are” (James 5:17 KJV).
It is quite natural that there should be evidence of strong emotion on the part of the prophets and also of their hearers. This, however, is very different from saying that the prophet was compelled only by his feelings or that his message was produced exclusively by his emotions. It is quite common among critical interpreters in recent years to allege that most of the prophetic ideas were the result of their being in a state of “ecstasy” (see below under IV H).
D. Schools of prophets and sons of prophets. The term “school of the prophets” has come into wide use through a strange error. In his later years Samuel lived in a section of the town of Ramah called Naioth (1 Sam 19:18-20:1). The term literally means “habitation.” In later Jewish tradition it came to be thought that this represented a school where Samuel taught. Most interpreters now agree that it is only the name of a section of the town. The idea of a school of the prophets was further strengthened by another statement (2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chron 34:22), that Huldah the prophetess dwelt “in Jerusalem in the college.” The word that the KJV trs. have rendered “college” in this one place is מִשְׁנֶ֑ה, which is usually tr. “second” or “double.” It is never tr. “college” in any other occurrence in the Bible. Here it prob. refers to the second quarter of the city (see RSV).
There is no Biblical evidence that groups of men were ever trained to become prophets. God called the prophets as individuals. This was true of Moses, Samuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and in all other cases where there is record of such a call. The prophetic work was an individual activity, in which one man received a message from God and passed it on to God’s people. Only in an extended sense is the term “prophet” applied to groups of people.
Whereas there are occasional references to large groups of pretended prophets of false gods, such as the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:13); or to groups of men who falsely pretended to be prophets of the Lord (1 Kings 22:6; Jer 5:31; 14:14), none of these were real prophets in the Biblical sense of the term.
The word sometimes was loosely applied to individuals desiring to serve the Lord and therefore attaching themselves to men recognized as God’s prophets, to join them in religious activities. References to such men are rarely found in the prophetic books, but occasionally occur in the historical books. Thus in 1 Samuel 10 it is said that Saul met a company of prophets. 1 Samuel 19 tells of a group of men popularly called prophets, who met under Samuel’s direction (these two passages will be discussed further in IV H). Obadiah, the servant of Ahab, declared that he had saved the lives of “a hundred men of the Lord’s prophets” (1 Kings 18:13). Later, an unnamed prophet who brought Ahab a divine rebuke was recognized by Ahab as “one of the prophets” (20:41). In view of the great body of evidence of the unique and individual character of the prophet’s task, none of these passages prove that the term in its fullest sense can be applied to groups of men.
The term “sons of the prophets” occurs seven times in the OT (aside from the negative statement in Amos 7:14 where Amos declared that he had not been a prophet’s son). All these occurrences are found between 1 Kings 20 and 2 Kings 9. In Biblical use the term “son” means (1) male child, (2) descendant (cf. Matt 1:1, “Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham”), (3) member of a group, or (4) an apprentice or learner (cf. Prov 1:8; 2:1; 3:1, etc.).
The picture of the “sons of the prophets” in 2 Kings 2 is not a pleasant one. They are depicted as superstitious men with a complete lack of understanding of the nature of the divine work (v. 16). There is no evidence that Elijah ever looked upon them in any way other than with indifference and scorn. At first Elisha showed little interest in them (2 Kings 2:3, 5, 16-18), though later on he established friendly relations with them (chs. 4-6) and even, on one occasion, deputed one of them to do an important errand (9:1-10). From among these men, who doubtless had a sincere desire to serve the Lord, God might occasionally choose an individual to perform the prophetic function, but there is no evidence that this was often the case.
E. Cessation of OT prophecy. Until about 400 b.c., the prophetic movement was prominent in Israel. Time and again an individual came forward declaring the word of God, boldly facing political leaders and denouncing them for their sins, giving encouragement to God’s people, or announcing God’s will as to the next step to be taken. After about 400 b.c. no more prophets appeared. There was no declaration that prophecy was ending, nor did anyone realize that this had occurred. Only after a time did realization dawn upon the people. The book of 1 Maccabees, which is on the whole a sober history of events during the Jewish revolt against Antiochus Epiphanes, brings out clearly in three places the fact that it was felt that there then was no prophet in Israel and that this had been true for a considerable length of time (1 Macc 9:27). This situation, however, was not accepted as final (4:46; 14:41). When the Jews did not know what to do with the altar that had been desecrated by the Syrians, they showed their expectation of the coming of new prophets by deciding to keep it in a safe place until a prophet should appear and tell them what was God’s will in the matter (4:46). About a.d. 90, Josephus, discussing the beliefs of his people, said that at about the time of Artaxerxes of Persia “the exact succession of the prophets” had ceased (Jos. Apion, I. 8). Since that time, no individual has been