VA^^rVO

•icaEJE-waniviEissinnf-

FROM THE LIBRARY
OF
JOHN PUNNETT PETERS
YALE 1873

THE HEBREW PROPHET

THE
HEBREW PROPHET

LORING W. BATTEN, Ph.D., S.T.D.
RECTOR OF ST. MARK'S CHURCH, NEW YORK
SOMETIME PROFESSOR OF THE OLD TESTAMENT LANGUAGES
AND LITERATURE IN THE
PHILADELPHIA DIVINITY SCHOOL

NEW YORK
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
i9°5

First Published in 1905

PREFACE
" T T cannot be too often repeated," says Professor
1 Ottley in his Bampton Lectures, " that prophecy
is the dominant and distinctive element in Israel's
religion." That is true of Israel's religion at its
best ; for the highest expression of religion in Israel
is found in the writings of the prophets. In other
places we find ethical and theological ideas which
require to be explained as due to the natural state
of things in a primitive condition of religion. But
in the prophets we rarely find statements which do
not stand good to-day. Indeed, the woes of the
prophets were chiefly due to the fact that they were
advanced too far beyond their time. The prophetic
religion always soared far above the popular religion ;
hence the antagonism which the great seers always
had to face. A people, like an individual, can never
be known until seen at their best. To see the
best in the religious life of the people of Israel,
therefore, we must study the prophets.
But the Hebrew prophet was not a mere teacher
of religion in the narrower sense. God created the

vi PREFACE
body as well as the soul, the world and all that
grows thereon as well as spirits. God is the author
of vegetable and animal as truly as of spiritual life.
God is concerned that man should not only love
Him with heart, mind, and soul, but also that he
should love his neighbour as himself. Therefore
God's interest in man and in the world is broad
indeed. Not a sparrow falls to the ground without
our Father.
The prophet was in a measure cognisant of that
great truth, which has been too much ignored by
the Christian world, absorbed in the notion that
God's only concern was to get men into heaven,
or to damn them in hell. Hence the prophet was
a statesman, a sociologist, a political economist, as
well as a theologian and a moralist : hence that
broad interest of the prophet in all the affairs of
men. It is not to be overlooked, however, that prophecy
in the person of Isaiah is a very different institution
from what it was in the person of Samuel. The
Old Testament writers, or the final editors of those
writings, and still more their modern interpreters,
have done much to confuse the development which is
so marked a characteristic of prophecy. I have tried
to show something of the course of this progress, or
at least to tell my story in such a way as to make
evident the development. Still, I have not been

PREFACE

vn

satisfied to indulge in such a radical handling of the
sources as some writers have done. For I have
followed the principle that the statements of the
Bible are to be accepted, certainly until we see con
vincing reasons to the contrary.
The reader will note that there is a certain amount
of repetition, which my method of treatment has
rendered necessary. Some few passages, like the
story of Micaiah, and Amaziah's attempt to silence
Amos, illustrate a number of points in prophecy, and
so I have not hesitated to use them a second or even
a third time. But I have endeavoured to limit the
repetition to the material, and not allow it to extend
to the treatment also. The quotations from the Holy
Scriptures are occasionally from the Revised Versions,
English or American ; but, as a rule, I have preferred
to make my own translations.
In conclusion, I should like to say that I have
expended a large amount of labour on this volume,
and yet I only hope that its perusal may give to the
reader the same great pleasure which its writing has
given to the author.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I
PAGE
The Popular Conception of the Prophet . . i

CHAPTER II
Revelation to the Prophet . . . . 17
CHAPTER III
The Prophetic Institution . . . . 27
CHAPTER IV
The Sons of the Prophets . . . 42
CHAPTER V
The Prophet's Call . . . 73
CHAPTER VI
The Prophet's Credentials . . . . 105
CHAPTER VII
The Writings of the Prophets . -138

x CONTENTS
CHAPTER VIII
The Prophet's Relation to the State page
I. Before Amos . . . . 161
CHAPTER IX
The Prophet's Relation to the State
II. Amos to Isaiah . . . . 197
CHAPTER X
The Prophet's Relation to the State
III. Jeremiah to Zechariah . . 239
CHAPTER XI
The Prophet's Relation to the Church
I. The Early Period . . . . 271
CHAPTER XII
The Prophet's Relation to the Church
II. Isaiah to Joel . ... 290
CHAPTER XIII
The Prophet's Vision . . .317
Additional Notes . . -331
Index of Subjects . ... 346
Index of Scripture Passages . . . 349

THE
HEBREW PROPHET

CHAPTER I
THE POPULAR CONCEPTION OF THE
PROPHET
KNOWLEDGE in its completest form is the
result of observation and interpretation, and
therefore the combined product of science and philo
sophy. Great reputations are justly attained either
by the discovery of new facts, or by the new inter
pretation of facts already known. The man of
science is pre-eminently the man of observation, and
he is ever on the search for new facts. Some scientists,
indeed, scarcely ever get beyond the gathering of data.
Others have little interest in a work dealing so much
with petty minutiae ; they prefer to give their minds
to the penetration of the meaning of the facts dis
covered by others. But the best scientist works
along both lines : he discovers a fact hidden from a
gaze less keen than his own, and then places his fact
in relation to other facts, so as to grasp its signifi
cance. Indeed, his perception of the meaning of
B

2 THE HEBREW PROPHET
things is a large element in his ability to discover
them. The philosopher is the interpreter, and yet he is
not merely a reasoner. He must also possess a
wide and accurate knowledge of facts. The more
comprehensive this knowledge, the more likely he is
to be true in his reasoning. But he does not become
a philosopher until he begins to interpret. His busi
ness is to tell the meaning of phenomena. The well-
rounded man must be more or less expert in both
observation and interpretation. He may at times
use one faculty, at other times the other. The
philosopher must occasionally be a scientist, and the
moment the scientist begins to draw inferences from
his observed facts he becomes in turn a philosopher.
The Hebrew prophet was a man of God, but he
was also both a scientist and a philosopher ; hence
he was popularly regarded as pre-eminently a man
of knowledge. We look upon the finished product
of prophecy at its highest stage of development, that
is, in the works of such prophets as Amos or Isaiah,
and we call the prophet pre-eminently a teacher of
righteousness. But the primitive Hebrew did not set
value upon the seer on account of his knowledge
of right and wrong, nor of his personally high
character, but on account of his knowledge of
mysteries which it greatly concerned man to under
stand, and which yet were hidden from the eyes of all
but few.
Man could not be an intelligent being without
perceiving that his life was strangely surrounded by
mysteries. Questions such as these began to be

POPULAR CONCEPTION 3
asked with great insistence. Whence came the
world and the life which is upon it? What are the
sun and moon and stars? Why does it rain or
blow ? Where is the object that was lost and cannot
be found ? What will be the outcome of any par
ticular undertaking ? Shall one recover from a sick
ness, or die ? There has ever been a passion on the
part of man to try to penetrate the mystery which
shuts in his life, and there probably always will be.
The answer to these and innumerable similar ques
tions has always been persistently sought. The
Hebrew looked to the prophet as the one raised up
of God to solve the problems with which his life
brought him face to face.
A sharp line of distinction has been drawn between
the natural and the supernatural. It is a curious fact
that this line has been persistently cherished both by
scientists on the one side and by theologians on the
other. The scientist has been contented to confine
himself within the boundaries of the natural, and has
become so distrustful of the knowledge of the super
natural claimed by theologians, that he has become
sceptical in that sphere, and has been wont to label it
unknown and unknowable.1 The fatal mistake of
the theologian was the admission of the line of demar
cation. But such a mistake was not made by the
Hebrew prophet. He was readily credited with
power to perceive facts in the supernatural realm as
1 Lately there has been a gratifying change in the attitude of scientists
towards religious questions. They have learned that their so-called
natural realm does not embrace the whole of life, and they have
admitted it with characteristic frankness.

4 THE HEBREW PROPHET
well as to grasp the hidden meaning of the natural.
The prophet believed that all his powers were given
of God, and he never troubled himself to label them
as human or superhuman. His knowledge was
trustworthy because given of God, and he was not
concerned with the question whether it was a direct
revelation or the Divine awakening of his natural
powers. The sooner we get back to the prophet's
position, the better for our religion.
Taking the supernatural out of the Bible is a pro
cess much feared in modern days ; but the prophet
would scarcely have understood the alarm. One
person holds it as his opinion that Elisha found the
axe which had fallen into the water by the miracle of
making the iron to swim ; another believes that he
recovered it by feeling for it on the bottom with the
stick which he had taken pains to cut. The latter
view would be still accounted a dangerous error by
some ; but to the Hebrew one method was as much
the work of the man of God as the other. The
sacred writer has left the story *• so that either of the
above views is a possible interpretation. The historian
recorded the facts, but stated no opinion.
The prophet was the man who had eyes to see and
ears to hear. For every such person there is a world
of knowledge undreamed of by duller souls.2 The
ability to see and hear was not looked upon by either
the one who possessed it, or by those who honoured
1 2 Kings vi. 6.
2 This is what our Lord meant when He said to His disciples,
"Blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear"
(Matt. xiii. 16).

POPULAR CONCEPTION 5
its possession in others, as a natural gift, in the sense
of being common to all men. It was a distinctive
mark of an office, and a direct gift of God. The
prophet saw because God opened his eyes ; he heard
because God opened his ears. Yet the endowment
of the prophet with knowledge was similar to the
endowment of the judge with judgment, or the
warrior with courage and skill. All these gifts came
from the same source ; God revealed His secrets to
the prophet, gave wisdom to the judge, and " taught
the hero's hands to war, and his fingers to fight." 1
Some illustrations will best show the popular con
ception of the prophet, and the kind of knowledge
which he possessed, or was thought to possess.
Whenever one desired information about a matter
beyond his own ken, he was wont to go to the
prophet, because of his belief that nothing was too
hard for his powers. An article might be lost; but
it was still in existence, and might be recovered if
one knew where to look. God always knew, and
though His knowledge was not directly available by
the loser, it was indirectly available, because the
prophet was possessed of the mind of God.
Kish's asses had strayed,2 and he followed the
usual course of sending someone to hunt for them.
A three days' search failed to trace the lost animals.
Saul was about to give up and return home, thinking
he had spent enough time in the search. But Saul's
servant reminded him that they were near Ramah,3
where dwelt Samuel the seer. Finding they had
a suitable fee, they went to the city to inquire of the
1 Ps. cxliv. 1. " I Sam. ix. 3 See additional note (i).

6 THE HEBREW PROPHET
man of God. They applied to him, not because they
deemed it possible that he had seen the asses, or had
been told their whereabouts by one who had seen
them, but because of their conviction that there was
no limit to the seer's knowledge. They were not
mistaken ; for Samuel told them directly that the
asses had been found.
Another illustration is afforded by the New Testa
ment. Jesus was eating in the house of Simon the
Pharisee.1 A prostitute came in and anointed the
feet of Jesus. She was a stranger to Him, but
Simon knew her, or at all events knew her character.
The Pharisee sees in the incident a test of his
guest, which he at first believes Him unable to meet.
" This man, if he were a prophet," thus Simon spake
within himself, " would have perceived who and what
manner of woman this is which toucheth him, that
she is a sinner."2 Whether a woman of this kind
was as easily recognisable then as now I do not
know. But the Pharisee argues that if Jesus were a
prophet, He would be able to discern the woman's
true character with Divine insight, and would have
spurned her from His presence. Her reputation
might be concealed from the ordinary man, but not
from a prophet.
By the exercise of his peculiar gifts the prophet
was able to penetrate artificial disguises which would
easily enough deceive another. Jeroboam was
greatly concerned to know the issue of the sickness
with which his child was laid low.3 He dare not
1 Luke vii. 36 ff. 2 Luke vii. 39.
3 1 Kings xiv. 1 ff.

POPULAR CONCEPTION 7
himself face the prophet whose counsel he had
flagrantly disregarded, so he sent his wife to ask
Ahijah's prognosis. The king seems to have felt
apprehension of the prophet's insight, and to have
blindly striven against it; though he knew that
Ahijah was blind, he bade his wife disguise herself.
Man is prone to deceive himself when he can deceive
no one else. As the queen approached the threshold,
however, her true personality was perceived by the
prophet, blind though he was, and he greeted her
accordingly : " Come in, wife of Jeroboam ; why
feignest thyself to be a stranger ? " x As if there
might be a misapprehension as to the source of this
insight, the historian tells us expressly that Jahveh
advised the prophet of the queen's coming in dis
guise. But that is only the writer's way of telling us
that the prophet's knowledge was due to a divinely
given perception.
The mysteries of the past were as open to the
prophet as those of the present. The first Hebrews
to tell of the origin of the world were not scientists,
but prophets — a fact which should never be dis
regarded by the interpreter. The nicest illustration
of the prophet's knowledge of the past is found in
the New Testament. Jesus was speaking with the
Samaritan woman at the well of Sychar,2 and in
cidentally laid bare the dark facts of her past life.
As soon as she heard this story, which she assumed
that He could know in no ordinary way, she ex
claimed, " Sir, I perceive that Thou art a prophet," 3
1 1 Kings xiv. 6. 2 John iv. 5 ff.
3 John iv. 19.

8 THE HEBREW PROPHET
and adroitly shifted the subject of conversation. The
ability which Jesus had shown of relating accurately
the events of her career, His knowledge of which she
regarded as supernatural, was proof positive that He
was possessed of the prophetic gift. The insistence
upon this point is shown by her comment to her
townspeople : " Come, see a man, who told me all
things that ever I did." x
But the greatest mystery of life lies in the future.
We may know a good deal of the past and present ;
but the future is a blank. We should be largely
controlled in our plans for the days to come if we
could know what the outcome of those plans will
be. Sometimes men embark in an undertaking with
the surest indications of failure, as in hopeless wars.
And yet there is a supporting hope in the feeling
that however preponderant the chances are against
success, it is always possible that a favourable issue
will follow a bold action. It is generally recog
nised that success in life depends to a considerable
degree upon a right forecast of the future. The
question with a publisher, for example, cannot be
wholly the merits of the manuscript in his hands, but
must be largely the probability that the reading pub
lic will buy the book. The most far-sighted man in
any calling has the greatest assurance of success.
Virtually all theists believe that God knows the
future. Indeed, we may go further and say that the
belief is general that God not only knows, but also
controls the future. In fact, the belief in God's fore
knowledge comes from the belief that the future
1 John iv. 29.

POPULAR CONCEPTION 9
course of events is in His hands to shape as He will.
The Hebrews believed that the Divine guiding of
events was more or less arbitrary, and that He might
easily be induced to change the course of the world
in one way or another. The idea that God might
stay the course of the sun and moon that His servant
might have adequate time to chastise his enemies
was no stumbling-block to the faithful Israelite.
Was it possible for man to learn the secret pur
poses of God ? For knowledge of the future would
depend upon penetrating the counsels of the Most
High. That knowledge would be of incalculable
value to the people of God, if it were attainable.
Now it is perfectly clear that the prophets and people
alike believed that certain men were given that highly
coveted knowledge. A few instances will make this
clear. Jahveh purposed to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah
because of their wickedness. But the blow should
not fall without warning. So Jahveh said, " Shall
I hide from Abraham what I am about to do ? since
Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty
nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be
blessed in him."1 The belief that Abraham was
righteous, known of God, designated as the founder
of a great nation, a prophet, led to the conviction
that God apprised him of His intention to destroy
the cities of the plain.
The broadest statement of this idea is found in an
utterance of Amos. This prophet was explaining
why he had abandoned his herd and his sycamore
1 Gen. xviii. 17 f.

10 THE HEBREW PROPHET
trees to fill for a time the office of seer. He was
prophesying because he could not help himself.
Jahveh had revealed to him His intention to bring
punishment upon the Northern Kingdom. To know
the mind of God necessitated action in accordance
with that knowledge. The specific case of Amos is
explained by the general principle : " The Lord
Jahveh will take no action except He disclose His
purpose to His servants the prophets."1
Attached to every court was a prophet, or com
pany of prophets. Thus Gad is called " David's
seer."2 The office of such prophets, at least from
the king's point of view, was not primarily to teach
him right and wrong, though they usually did
earnestly strive to that end ; but their value to the
king was conceived to be the knowledge of God's
purposes which they possessed, especially their
information about the future. Sometimes the
prophet takes the initiative and tells the king the
course of action which will lead to success and
honour. Thus Deborah tells Barak that "Jahveh
will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman."3 But
often the king consulted the prophet before embark
ing on an important undertaking. The illustrations
of this function of the prophet are very numerous, and
they show the firm conviction that the prophets did
know the mind of God. Two examples will suffice.
David became discontented because, while he had
built a house for himself, sumptuous for the times,
the sacred ark of Jahveh was still sheltered in a
1 Amos iii. 7. See additional note (2). s 1 Chron. xxi. 9.
3 Judges iv. 9.

POPULAR CONCEPTION u
tent. The time seemed to have come when the
symbol of the Divine presence, which had been
necessarily carried about from place to place while
the people had no fixed centre, should now be finally
located at the newly established capital, and should
be appropriately housed. But the king would not
think of undertaking such a great and revolutionary
project without assurance that his purpose would
harmonise with the will of God, and that he would
consequently be enabled to carry it to completion.
To learn this he goes to His prophet. At first
Nathan approved the plan, but was led afterwards to
change his counsel, and say that God did not ap
prove of the king's purpose, but that the building of
the temple should be left for David's son.1
Ahab grieved over the loss of Ramoth-gilead,
which had been wrested from his kingdom. A
patriotic people always mourn the loss of territory,
and lament the fate of their compatriots when they
are attached to a foreign rule. This is especially the
case if a section is annexed by a people deemed
inferior. Ahab felt that his kingdom had suffered
loss, and that the Ramoth-gileadites had suffered loss
by their annexation to a people of another and
inferior religion. He believed the time auspicious
to recover the lost city. Especially did the plan
augur success by reason of the alliance with Jehosha
phat,2 the king of Judah, and the agreement of the
latter to join in the campaign. But it was manifestly
1 2 Sam. vii. On this passage, see further in chapter xiii.
2 Jehoshaphat was really the vassal of Ahab. See further in
chapter iv.

12 THE HEBREW PROPHET
desirable to know in advance whether the expedition
would end in success or failure. That was known to
God, and was believed to be ascertainable by man ;
therefore Jehoshaphat, who was a God-fearing man,
notwithstanding his unholy alliance with Ahab, said
to the king of Israel, " Inquire first, I pray thee, for
the word of Jahveh."1 A difference of opinion de
veloped between the royal company of prophets and
Micaiah, of which I shall have more to say later, but
Ahab preferred the counsel most in accord with his
own wishes, and therefore set out on a campaign
which proved disastrous, the king being killed and
the allied armies completely routed. The forecast
of Micaiah was proved fully correct.
The prophet not only knew the facts which were
hidden from other men, but he also was judged to
know the meaning of facts ; for there are things
plain enough as facts, but mysterious in meaning.
He not only had powers of observation unknown
to others, but he was possessed also of a philosophy
more than human. Thus the prophet was required
for the interpretation of any unusual event, in
explicable to the ordinary human mind. To the
God-fearing Hebrew there were no accidents in the
government of the world. God held every natural
force in His easy control. Extraordinary events
were not the result of Divine caprice, but had a
meaning and a purpose. It was necessary to dis
cern this meaning and purpose, that the people might
turn the event to their good, or at least keep it from
doing harm.
1 I Kings xxii. 5.

POPULAR CONCEPTION 13
In the days before the monarchy, the Israelites
were mightily oppressed by the Philistines. Every
attempt to break their fetters resulted in riveting
them the tighter. The question was inevitably
asked why the people whom God had rescued from
bondage in Egypt should be enslaved again in Pales
tine. The fact was plain enough, but the meaning
of the fact was a mystery. Then Samuel the young
seer came forward with the key to the problem.
The sins of the people caused their misfortunes. If
they would hope to win a victory, they must be able
to engage in the fight under Jahveh's almighty pro
tection.1 This great boon could only be had on the
condition of righteousness. The people followed
Samuel's advice to put away the heathen worship in
which they had freely indulged, and then they de
feated their dreaded foe at the battle of Ebenezer.2
The mysterious fact might be a natural phen
omenon. In post-exilic days there was a great
drought and a visitation of locusts. The pastures
were burned up ; the streams were dry ; swarm after
swarm of the dread locusts swept over the land,
destroying everything that was green. Why did
God use His people so ill ? How did it happen that
Jahveh made Israel a reproach to his neighbours?
These are questions which only a prophet is com
petent to answer, and Joel attempts to penetrate the
meaning of these things in the book which bears his
name. There was a current belief that the prophet not
only could know the future, but could also control
1 1 Sam. vii. 3. 2 1 Sam. vii. 1 1 f.

14 THE HEBREW PROPHET
its issues. It would be of little use to foresee
coming events unless in some way the knowledge
could be turned to advantage, so that evil might
be averted and good assured. Joseph interprets
Pharaoh's dream as a prediction of the seven years
of plenty followed by seven years of famine.1 The
seer not only comprehends the portent of the dream,
but he also sees how this knowledge may be turned
to good account, though the preparation for the
future requires no supernatural wisdom.
The prophet usually does not share the popular
belief that he can control the coming events by
virtue of any knowledge or power peculiar to him.
Balak, the king of Moab, sent far away for Balaam
the prophet,2 not because he wished to know what
the future relations between Moab and Israel would
be, for he can himself see that clearly enough ; but
he summons the prophet because of his belief that
he had power so to wither Israel by a curse that the
invading nation would be powerless for harm.
Balaam strenuously insisted from first to last that
he had no power to change the purpose of God, and
that no inducement would persuade him to pretend
to a power he did not possess. " If Balak should
give me his house full of silver and gold I could not
go beyond the word of Jahveh my God."8 The
prophet was no fatalist ; but he knew that the future
1 Gen. xii.
" Paton gives plausible reasons for identifying Balaam with Bela
the son of Beor, a king of Edom, mentioned in Genesis xxxvi. 32. See
his Syria and Palestine, p. 152 f. Does this mean that Balaam the
king was invited to bring more effective succour to Moab than curses ?
* Num. xxii. 18.

POPULAR CONCEPTION 15
was in God's hands, and that to change the future,
one must change the purpose of God, and that could
be done only by changing the conditions which con
strained Him to act for the weal or woe of the
nation. There may be apparent exceptions, but they will
not bear the test of a careful examination. The case
of Elisha in the wilderness of Edom, for example,1
is not an exception to the principle just stated, as
a hasty glance will suffice to show. The allied
armies are on the point of perishing for lack of
water. The king of Israel does no more than be
wail his unhappy fate and cast reproach upon God.
Perhaps he had already tried the resources of his
hundreds of subservient prophets and found no com
fort. Jehoshaphat asked for a prophet of Jahveh,
believing that by his aid the armies might be extri
cated from their perilous position. Elisha is sum
moned, and indignantly declares that Jahveh would
not regard the danger of the Hebrews except for the
presence of the pious king Jehoshaphat. The
minstrel is called upon to play, and under this
stimulus the prophet predicts that the trenches
which he orders to be made shall be filled with
water ; and it happens in accordance with his pre
diction. But Elisha does not really pretend to a
power by which he could fill the trenches with life-
saving water, but only declares the purpose of
Jahveh to save the king of Judah. The seer could
learn what God's purpose was, but his foresight had
no effect upon its accomplishment, except as it
1 2 Kings iii.

16 THE HEBREW PROPHET
influenced man so to act as to make serviceable the
favourable disposition of God.
I have gone into the common conception of a
prophet fully, because of the general belief now that
the primary function of the prophet was to teach the
people to do the will of God. That the great
prophets were teachers of righteousness is beyond
question. That God sent them into the world for
that purpose is told again and again in the Bible,
and is not to be doubted for a moment. But I am
speaking of the conception of the prophets as it was
among their contemporaries. The people looked
upon the prophets as men possessed of superhuman
powers, and especially of superhuman knowledge,
and it was this ability to know the otherwise un
knowable which gave them their position in the
nation.

CHAPTER II
REVELATION TO THE PROPHET
FROM the eighth to the fourth century B.C. the
prophet was a conspicuous figure in Hebrew
life. By the eighth century the office was fully
developed and perfectly understood. But it did not
attain its exalted station without a long preliminary
course of growth. We must trace the growth from
the primitive beginning, and see how it came to reach
its peculiar influence and power.
It may be noted here that the prophet was not
a figure peculiar to Israel, and unknown to other
nations. In ancient times every nation had its
prophets, and there were many features common to
them all. And, for that matter, every nation has
its prophets still. The Hebrew prophet was differ
entiated from other prophets in many respects, and
yet was similar to those of other peoples.1 When
Balak, the king of Moab, desired the services of a
seer, he sent to the Euphrates for Balaam.2 Balaam
certainly was not a Hebrew, yet his story is told in
the Hebrew Scriptures without any intimation that
1 See Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, p. 18 (ed. 1886). The lowest
forms of Hebrew prophecy were most akin to that of other peoples.
Other nations had few Isaiahs, but Balaams were found among them
all. a Num. xxii.
C 17

18 THE HEBREW PROPHET
it is the record of an alien. Balaam prophesies by
Jahveh, but he would have been the last one whose
services Balak would have desired, had the king
supposed him in any way affiliated with Israel.
Among the Hebrews, however, prophecy was de
veloped to a point which it never reached in any
other nation, and our concern now is to follow the
course of that development.
We have already seen that the prophet was re
garded as essentially one possessed of knowledge
which could only come from God. The path of the
development of Hebrew prophecy is roughly marked
by the manner in which God's will was revealed.
We find that revelation coming to man in theo-
phanies, dreams, visions, ecstatic states, and in direct
spiritual enlightenment.
In the most primitive conception of God, He is
represented as coming to earth and speaking to man
face to face. God walks in the garden in the cool of
the day and calls for the hiding man and woman.1
God speaks to Noah to warn him of the coming
flood.2 So God spoke to Abraham, and to other
patriarchs. Jacob named a place Peniel, because
there he had met God face to face.3 Moses was the
last to whom God spoke in this way. In his case
the direct revelation is looked upon as an unusual
mark of Divine favour : " Jahveh spoke unto Moses
face to face, as a man speaks to his friend " ; * "a
prophet has not yet risen in Israel like Moses, whom
Jahveh knew face to face." 5
1 Gen. iii. 8, 9. 2 Gen. vi. 13. 3 Gen. xxxii. 30.
1 Exod. xxxiii. n». s Deut. xxxiv. 10.

REVELATION TO THE PROPHET 19
In the larger number of theophanies, Jahveh Him
self does not appear, but sends an angel to carry
His message to man. The angel of Jahveh found
Hagar in the wilderness, and sent her back to submit
to her mistress.1 An angel meets Balaam on his
way to Balak and warns him not to go beyond the
word of Jahveh.2 Frequently there is a confusion in
the story, the messenger being called at one moment
an angel, at another Jahveh Himself. God directly
commands Abraham to offer his son ; but at the
altar it is an angel who bids him stay his hand.3 In
the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
we read that three men came to Abraham ; then that
Jahveh Himself asks why Sarah laughed ; then that
two angels visit Lot to get him out of the doomed
city.4 In the story of Gideon we are told that the
angel of Jahveh came to arouse the hero to drive out
the oppressing Midianites ; a few verses further on
we read that Jahveh turned to him and directed him
to deliver His people.5 In the old stories it is the
usual thing to identify the angel or messenger of
Jahveh with Jahveh Himself.6 To these writers there
was no essential difference between Jahveh and His
messengers. One would scarcely claim to-day that these stories
are to be taken as strict records of fact. It is alto
gether unbelievable that God ever walked upon the
earth or spoke to any person, as one man speaks to
another. The higher truth was finally stated in the
1 Gen. xvi. 7 ff. s Num. xxii. 35. 3 Gen. xxii. 1-11.
4 Gen. xviii. 1-13 ; xix. 1. 5 Judges vi. 11-14.
6 Moore's "Judges," in International Critical Commentary, p. 183.

20 THE HEBREW PROPHET
Gospel : " No man hath seen God at any time." 1
But we need not on that account discredit the narra
tives altogether. It is certainly historical that Gideon
led his people against the Midianites ; but it is clear
that while the inspiration to lift up his hand against
the oppressor came from God, the message from God
did not come by word of mouth. There are state
ments in many good historical narratives, whether
ancient or modern, sacred or profane, which indicate
the writer's opinions rather than actual occurrences.
The careful student must learn to distinguish opinions
from facts, and not to reject facts because he cannot
accept the opinions with which they are accompanied ;
nor, on the other hand, must he feel bound to believe
the opinions because stated in connexion with trust
worthy facts.
Rightly understood, these stories are peculiarly
serviceable for the purpose we have in view. What
ever we may hold, the earliest writers of Israel
certainly believed that God spoke face to face with
man, and this primitive conception of Divine revela
tion is what I wish to show. With the advance in
religious culture, we hear no more of appearances of
Jahveh. But the belief in the appearance of angels
as the messengers of God persisted even through
New Testament times, and was held by the early
Christians as steadfastly as by the early Hebrews.
Very little need be said here about revelation by
dreams. Yet the dream has a distinct place in a
treatment of the method of prophetic revelation.
From Deuteronomy xiii. i, it appears that the
1 John i. 1 8 ; see also the same idea stated by Jesus in John vi. 46.

REVELATION TO THE PROPHET 21
dreamer of dreams was looked upon even as the
prophet, as a person to whom the will of God might
be revealed. The patriarchal stories are full of
dreams, which the patriarchs showed a notable
ability to interpret. At the Egyptian court there
were wise men, one of whose functions was the
interpretation of dreams. Joseph's skill as a dream
interpreter gave him his exalted place in the land of
Pharaoh,1 to which greatness his own early dreams
of the sheaves 2 had already pointed. The dream is
used but little by the later and great prophets,
though persisted in by the sons of the prophets.
Like the speaking with tongues in New Testa
ment times, the revelation by dreams seems to have
been discredited by abuse. Jeremiah says that the
lying prophets were going about with the cant
phrase, " I have dreamed, I have dreamed." 3
It is a matter of interest that in the Hexateuch
revelation by dreams is characteristic of the so-called
Elohist, and the stories of God's speaking directly to
men of the Jahvist. These two methods of revela
tion may therefore represent not so much stages of
actual development as the different points of view
among the early sacred writers. Still it is plain that
the Jahvist generally gives the more primitive con
ceptions of religion.
The dream belongs to the primitive age of Hebrew
life, while the vision, which Delitzsch4 rightly calls
a higher step in revelation, is found chiefly in a later
period. The vision begins when the dream leaves
1 Gen. xii. 2 Gen. xxxvii. s Jer. xxiii. 25.
4 Commentary on Genesis ii. , p. 3.

22 THE HEBREW PROPHET
off. But the two are not altogether mutually ex
clusive, for the dream plays a prominent part in
Daniel, and even has a place in the New Testament ;
Joseph was warned in a dream to flee to Egypt.1
The vision is mentioned on the other hand in con
nexion with Abram2 and Jacob.3 There is not
always a strict differentiation, for Samuel's revelation
in the night was by a dream, yet it is called a vision.
The frequent expression, " visions of the night,"
probably refers generally to dreams. But the vision
is found in connexion with prophecy at its highest
stage of development. In fact, the term " vision '' is
from the same root as " seer," 4 the old name for
prophet. The dream belongs to any individual to
whom God's revelation might come ; the vision is
limited for the most part to the prophetic order.
Vision is used frequently as a technical name for
the prophetic revelation,5 or for a particular message,
as the announcement to Samuel of the fall of Eli's
house.6 Even the greatest of the prophets received
his call in a vision.7 The vision is found in several
cases in the New Testament. Zacharias saw a vision
in the temple when the birth of John Baptist was
announced.8 Visions were the means of revelation
to Ananias, Cornelius, Peter.9 Paul himself calls
the appearance of Jesus on the way to Damascus
a vision.10 A characteristic of the early revelations, especially
1 Matt. ii. 13. 2 Gen. xv. 1. 3 lb., xlvi. 2.
4 Or more accurately, one of the Hebrew terms for "seer," T\\T\.
5 Isa. i. I ; Obad. I ; Nahum i. 1.
6 1 Sam. iii. 15. ? Isa. vi. » Luke i. 22.
9 Acts ix. 10 ; x. 3, 17. to Acts xxvi "Ig

REVELATION TO THE PROPHET 23
by theophanies and dreams, is that they were given
for the sake of the individual who received them.
The Lord speaks to Noah that he may save himself
in the ark. Joseph's dreams foreshadow his own
brilliant career. In the more highly developed forms
of revelation, God's will is disclosed through the
prophet for the sake of the people, not for himself.
In many cases, in fact, the giving of God's message
involves great peril to the messenger ; but God's
concern was to save the people, even though His
instruments were destroyed in the process.
The ecstatic state is another way in which the
Divine knowledge was supposed to be conveyed to
man. The case of Balaam is the classical example.
The history, it is true, contains no express allusion to
such an ecstasy. But there are some decisive hints.
Balaam's first attempt to curse Israel resulted in
forecasting the nation's great numerical strength.
Balak thought that the prophet was unduly influenced
by the sight of the whole Israelite camp ; he there
fore took him to a place whence he could see but a
small part of the people. This influence is most
simply explained on the supposition that Balaam
uttered his oracles while in a state of frenzy. More
over, the prophet seems not to have known in advance
what his utterances would be ; they were, in fact,
quite contrary to what he desired. In one of the
oracles we have allusions to " the visions of the
Almighty" seen by the seer.1 Then the prophet is
described as " falling down, and having his eyes
open." Altogether it is plain that he was in that
1 Num. xxiv. 4.

24 THE HEBREW PROPHET
state of ecstasy which was regarded as a favourable
condition for prophesying among all nations of the
world. When Elisha was called upon to rescue the armies
from their perilous position in Edom, and he desired
to seek counsel of Jahveh, he calls for a minstrel, at
whose playing it would be possible for him to reach
that exalted state in which a revelation was most
likely to come. That is clearly the meaning of the
statement, " And it was as the minstrel played, that
the hand of Jahveh came upon him."1 This is the
condition of the prophets of Baal, leaping and gash
ing themselves with knives as they cried, " O Baal,
hear us ! " 2 and also of king Saul when in his frenzy
he lay down naked all day and all night.3
The Hebrews were themselves well aware of a
higher form of revelation than that by dreams or
ecstatic visions. They always looked back to Moses
as one possessed of God's revelation in its highest
form, and he is set in sharp contrast to the ordinary
prophets of the time : " If there be a prophet among
you, I will make Myself known unto him in a vision.
I will speak with him in a dream. My servant
Moses is not so . . . with him I will speak mouth to
mouth." *
The knowledge given to Moses is distinguished by
its clearness and definiteness as contrasted with the
obscurer dreams and visions. To some prophets
1 2 Kings iii. 15. 2 1 Kings xviii. 28. 3 1 Sam. xix. 24.
4 Num. xii. 6 ff. The text is corrupt in this passage, but the
corruption does not affect the general sense as rendered above. For
emendations, see Dillmann in loc. ; and Gray, Numbers, p. 124 ff.

REVELATION TO THE PROPHET 25
God revealed His will directly ; not when they were
asleep, or worked up to a state of ecstasy, but when
they were most self-possessed. This highest phase
has been called direct spiritual enlightenment.
Spiritual enlightenment is the common method of
revelation to the great prophets of the golden age of
Israel's religious development. To Amos, Isaiah, and
the others of their kind, God did not appear as a
bodily presence, nor did He send them vague dreams
to perplex the mind. Occasionally they saw strange
visions, which they interpreted as conveying a Divine
message to the people. But generally God put His
Spirit into their hearts, and thus they were endowed
with a knowledge of the Divine will which gave them
a strength of conviction otherwise impossible.
It has sometimes been supposed that the various
phases of prophecy show a gradual decline in the
manner of revelation. Modern criticism has enabled
us to estimate the primitive traditions at their true
value, and to see that there was a steady progress
upward rather than downward. It was possible for
Isaiah to know the mind of God more fully than
Deborah or Samuel, because he lived in a more en
lightened age, and knew better than to consult the
dead on behalf of the living.1 The men of the
prophetic period had learned that the clearest Divine
knowledge comes directly to the soul, and not through
the medium of dreams or portents.
It should, however, be borne in mind that we are
not to question the genuineness of a revelation by
dream or theophany because of its medium. Men
1 Isa. viii. 19.

26 THE HEBREW PROPHET
believed that God spoke to them face to face or in
other primitive ways. God has always been wont to
reveal Himself to man in whatever ways man was
able to understand. But in the lower form the possi
bility of error is so great that every instance must
be judged on its merits. Primitive man generally
believed that the dream was an objective reality. To
dream of hearing God speak was actually to hear
Him. To see God in a vision was to see Him really.1
Abraham was firmly convinced that God com
manded him at first to sacrifice Isaac and then to
substitute the ram. We see in the whole story the
Divine teaching of the great lesson so clearly taught
by a late prophet that the fruit of one's body was no
expiation for the sin of one's soul.2
The message which a man read in his dream or
vision was not always just what God intended ; still
it was often a groping after the truth which pointed
the way to a higher conception.
The progressive character of the revelatory methods
is perceptible from the seer's ability to command them.
One can have but little control over his dreams.
Visions may be largely self-induced. The aid of a
minstrel or dancing or singing will generally bring
on the ecstatic state, at least to the person practised
in the art. The direct spiritual enlightenment is
always available for one who has eyes to see and ears
to hear. Balaam must sleep over the problem in
volved in Balak's request ; Isaiah could answer his
problems immediately.
1 See article " Dream," in Hastings' Bible Dictionary.
2 Micah vi. 7. See Newman Smyth, Christian Ethics, p. 161.

CHAPTER III
THE PROPHETIC INSTITUTION
WE turn now to the development of Hebrew
prophecy as an institution. The institution
is not, however, uniform and simple, but varied and
complex. We shall best be able to cover the ground
by dividing the prophets into two classes. In one
class we include Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Amos,
Hosea, Isaiah, and, in fact, the whole line of great
men who lived and prophesied as independent in
dividuals. The other class is composed of the so-
called " sons of the prophets," whose operations were
conducted in companies, and who belonged to a fixed
order. This latter class will be reserved for con
sideration in the next chapter.
When we speak of the prophets we usually mean
the men of the first class, and they are indeed men
worthy of the distinction ' accorded by the name.
They were men pre-eminent in their day, and held a
high place among the great men of Israel. They
maintained their greatness because they were free
and independent, preserving their individuality to the
utmost. We rarely find them working together.
Even when they belonged to the same time and
place, they co-operate so little that it is not easy to
determine their relation. Isaiah and Micah, for ex-
27

28 THE HEBREW PROPHET
ample, prophesied to the people of Judah at the
same period. It is frequently assumed that Micah
was a disciple of his greater contemporary. But
there is no sure warrant for this assumption. These
men worked always as individuals, never as members
of an institution. Nevertheless, the great prophets
had so much in common that we may for convenience
speak of them as an order. The history of this order
may readily be traced from its lowly origin to a
position of great influence and power, and then again
through a stage of decline to its final disappearance.
If we read the Old Testament in the traditional
way, prophecy seems to go backward rather than
forward. That conception is not to be pronounced
a priori impossible, but is nevertheless untenable,
because it is contrary to historic facts. To those
facts we now turn. Moses stands as a great figure
at the very beginning of Hebrew history; and in
later ages he was deemed the first and the greatest
prophet. Many centuries after his time it was de
clared that "no prophet like Moses had since risen
in Israel."1 Nothing higher could be said even of
the Messianic prophet than that he would be like
Moses : " A prophet from thy midst, of thy brethren,
like unto me, shall Jahveh thy God raise up for
thee."2 St. Peter quoted this prophecy as fulfilled
in Jesus Christ.3 But was the greatest prophet at
the beginning?
Modern criticism has enabled us to read the early
history of Israel in a truer light than was formerly
1 Deut. xxxiv. 10. » Deut. xviii. 15.
3 Acts iii. 22.

THE PROPHETIC INSTITUTION 29
possible. Some scholars have, indeed, gone to ex
tremes in recasting the early history ; nevertheless,
some reconstruction is inevitable. The work of
Moses is now known to be very different from what
our fathers supposed. A vast amount of tradition
has gathered about his great name. But sound
critical opinion rather confirms the greatness of the
famous refugee who, under the guidance of Jahveh,
led his people out of the land of Egypt, and who did
so much to place the institutions of Israel on a solid
foundation. Moses may loosely be called a prophet,1
but his chief functions were not prophetic. He was
careful to provide a successor, but he chose a man
qualified for military leadership, as the times de
manded, rather than for prophetic guidance. Moses
is called a prophet only in the later writers. Even
in the priestly writing, Aaron is appointed to be
Moses's prophet ;2 but the word as there used means
no more than spokesman or mouthpiece. Therefore
prophecy can scarcely be said to have begun with
the great law-giver.
The Hebrews came to believe in the course of
time that prophecy was as old as the world.
Zacharias sang in his Benedictus —
" As He spake by the mouth of His holy prophets
Which have been since the world began."3
St. Peter uses the same words in his speech in
Solomon's porch.4 Long before the time of the
apostle, Hebrew writers had applied the term
1 Art. ' ' Prophetic Literature," Encyc. Bibl.
2 Exod. vii. i. 3 Luke i. 70. * Acts iii. 21.

30 THE HEBREW PROPHET
prophet to their heroes, even to Abraham ;x but
they were certainly speaking from the point of view
of their own day, not from the condition of the
time of Abraham. St. Peter showed that he was
possessed of an idea of the prophetic institution
which was more in accord with the records of his
people. In the address already cited he says, " All the
prophets from Samuel and them that followed after,
as many as have spoken, they also told of these
days."2 Samuel, not Moses, is deemed the founder
of the prophetic order. This suggestion is worthy
of most careful consideration. Samuel was not only
a conspicuous figure in early Israel, but he was also
the first prophet of whom we have any adequate
knowledge. The books of Samuel are composite, some of the
documents being very old, others belonging to a
period long after the time of Samuel. In one of the
earliest documents we find an old gloss, which
nevertheless proves to be an important and trust
worthy archaeological note : " Formerly in Israel, the
man who went to inquire of God, said thus : Come
and let us go to the seer : for he that is now called
the prophet was formerly called the seer."3 It is
quite impossible to determine when this gloss was
written. Whenever it was, prophet was the current
name for the man of God, and seer had gone out of
common use. But the writer positively identifies the
familiar office of the prophet with the obsolete office
of the seer. There may have been certain changes
1 Gen. xx. 7. 2 Acts iii. 24.
3 1 Sam. ix. 9. See additional note (3).

THE PROPHETIC INSTITUTION 31
in the office as it developed, but to this writer the
prophets were the successors of the seers. Let us
see if his statement may be verified.
The term prophet is applied to Abraham,1 Moses,2
Aaron,3 Eldad and Medad,4 Miriam,5 and to Samuel.6
There is no evidence, though, that the name was in
use in the days of those to whom it is given. All
of the writings in which this term is used are later
than Samuel.
There are two Hebrew words for seer — kozeh and
ro'eh. The former is never applied to Samuel ; the
latter is rarely applied to anyone else.7
The first occurrence of seer is in 1 Samuel ix. 9,
and the term is applied to many later persons. In
1 Chronicles xxix. 29, we find all three terms for
prophet applied to different men : " Samuel the seer
{ro'eh), Nathan the prophet, and Gad the seer"
{kozeh). In Isaiah xxx. 10, the two words for seer
are applied to different classes : " that say to the
seers (ro'im) see not, and to the prophets8 (kozim),
prophesy not unto us right things." Amos is called
a seer by the priest Amaziah. The same term is
generally applied to the earlier men of God, and
broadly speaking, the gloss states the matter cor
rectly. It is certain that " prophet " persisted, while
" seer " dropped out of common use.
1 Gen. xx. 7. 2 Deut. xxxiv. 10. 3 Exod. vii. I.
4 Num. xi. 26 ff. 5 Exod. xv. 20. ¦ 1 Sam. iii. 20.
7 The only exception is Hanani (2 Chron. xvi. 7). In 2 Samuel
xv. 27, the word is applied to Zadok, according to the English transla
tion ; but that rendering is clearly wrong, and the text is certainly
corrupt. See proposed emendation in Budde, Biicher Samuel, in he.
8 This is the only place in the English versions where fyozeh is
rendered prophet. That is because we have no other word for seer.

32 THE HEBREW PROPHET
This stage in the history of Hebrew prophecy
gives us a starting-point from which we may trace
our way forward with certainty. For Samuel's age
and all later times we have good historical sources,
even if sometimes the information is meagre. For
the period before Samuel we have but scanty in
formation, and the sources need to be carefully
sifted in order to make sure that the writer does
not ascribe to the early days conditions existing
in his own, but unknown to the age of which he
writes. We still speak of the stationary East, and
assume that what is seen there to-day has always
been so. Many historical writers, like the Chronicler,
fell into the same fallacy. Institutions with which
they were familiar were so permanent that they
seemed always to have been, and the historians
jumped to the conclusion that they had always
existed. It was a natural mistake for one living in
the prophetic age, himself endowed with the pro
phetic spirit, to infer that prophets had existed from
the beginning.
The age of Samuel marks a great transition in the
development of Hebrew life in the broadest sense.
A more settled order was brought in by his adminis
tration. Before his day was over the monarchy was
securely established, so that it survived to the exile.
The people took up permanent abodes and occupa
tions. The days of wandering were giving place to
a period of settled life and fixed occupation. The
popular desire for a king shows the growing sense
among the people that a more centralised rule was
necessary. The new condition of the prophetic life

THE PROPHETIC INSTITUTION 33
was a part of a general movement touching the
whole life of the people. The rising against the
Philistines, which was largely due to prophetic insti
gation, made a new era possible.
Before the time of Samuel, prophecy was at most
occasional and crude. The description in 1 Samuel
iii. 1, " The word of Jahveh was precious in those
days ; there was no widespread vision," l was equally
applicable, so far as we know, to any previous period.
Priest and prophet were not sharply differentiated.
Samuel himself exercised the functions of both offices,
and probably many of his predecessors had held the
same double office. The judges exercised prophetic
as well as political powers. The fact that " all Israel
from Dan even to Beersheba knew that Samuel was
established to be a prophet of Jahveh,"2 shows that
a new order of things existed, and yet that the
prophet was not an unknown figure. Whatever in
formation the early Hebrews may have had, however,
we are forced to the conclusion that they have passed
on very little knowledge of those early times to us.
There are some hints of those who may be called
1 This verse has perplexed the commentators. Smith says: "The
qualifying word ('widespread') may mean public or widespread, but
there is reason to suppose that the original reading is lost " (Int. Crit.
Com., in loc). The passage, however, yields a good sense: "The
word of Jahveh was weighty [i.e. influential] in those days, because
there was no general vision." In the writer's time, seers were numerous
and visions were multiplied ; but their counsel was not followed. In
the days of Samuel, seers were unusual, and their words had great in
fluence. Men had particular visions of import to themselves ; but -
prophecies conducive to the general welfare were almost unknown.
The new phase of prophecy is the appearance of a man of God
whose messages are given for the good of the people.
2 1 Sam. iii. 20.

34 THE HEBREW PROPHET
prophets. Deborah is called a prophetess,1 or, in the
older version of the story,2 "a mother in Israel."
We only know of her arousing the people to war
against the invading Canaanites. But as the younger
version of the story says that she "judged Israel at
that time," 3 it is very likely that her office was per
manent. Barton4 calls attention to the fact that
Deborah sat under the sacred palm, and that the
proximity to the tree helped her inspiration. But
Moore6 holds that iv. 5 is added by a later editor, and
that we should emend the text of verse 4, and render,
"delivered Israel at that time," referring to this
particular event. The name " mother in Israel," as
commonly interpreted, implies a permanent place of
influence ; but as this term occurs elsewhere only
in 2 Samuel xx. 19, where it means a city, it has
been held that a town is meant here.6 Whether her
functions were only for the time or not, Deborah's
act was regarded as inspired of God, and she was
therefore looked upon as a prophetess.
It is said that Jahveh sent a prophet (whose name
is not given) to the Israelites to reproach them for
disobedience.7 Likewise "a man of God" was sent
to Eli8 to declare the downfall of his house and to
give the reason therefor.9
From such instances it is possible that there were
1 Judges iv. 4. 2 Judges v. 7. 3 Judges iv. 4.
4 A Sketch of Semitic Origins, p. 89.
6 "Judges," Int. Crit. Com., p. 113; Nowack, in loc.
6 See Moore on v. 7. ' Judges vi. 8. 8 1 Sam. ii. 27.
8 Stade says : "These anonymous men of God are everywhere the
creations of later redactors" (Geschichte, i. 182 n). Such an opinion
may not be altogether disregarded.

THE PROPHETIC INSTITUTION 35
prophets in early Israel of whom no mention is
made. But so far as we know, there was no man in
those days whose whole life was given to the pro
phetic office. Judges, priests, and others now and
again received messages from God, and were accord
ingly called prophets. Amos bears striking testimony
to the fact that prophecy had a real place in the ages
preceding his own : " I raised up of your sons for
prophets, and of your young men for Nazirites";1 but
his words may apply to persons already known to us.
I am well aware of the difference between the
view of Samuel's prophetic work, set forth above,
and that of Budde,2 and other writers.
Budde divides the books of Samuel into the older
and later narratives. Such a division is essential to
the right reading of the history. But Budde accepts
the statements of the older sources and generally
discredits the rest. We are much indebted to this
accomplished scholar for his valuable contributions
to the early history ; but it seems to me more reason
able to credit the later sources except in so far as they
contradict the statements of the earlier, or describe
conditions inconsistent with them. The earliest
history is most likely to be accurate, but is not
necessarily so. 1 Samuel vii., for example, describing
the efforts of the Israelites to throw off the oppres
sive Philistine bondage under Samuel's leadership,
belongs to the late sources ; therefore Budde rejects
it. But there seems to be no good reason why
Samuel may not have persuaded the people to try
1 Amos ii. II.
See his Religion of Israel to the Exile, p. 93 ff.

36 THE HEBREW PROPHET
to drive out their foe, even if his success was limited.
The partial failure of this attempt would explain
Samuel's next move, which was to make a more
stable combination of the tribal forces under the
head of a Benjamite king.
According to the older source, which Budde seems
to accept, " Samuel is only a priest and seer of the
old type in an Ephraimite country town." He finds
confirmation of Samuel's obscurity in the fact that a
person like Saul had not heard of him. But Saul's
servant knew his reputation as a seer, as well as his
place of residence. Budde looks upon Saul as the
prophet of his age rather than Samuel. Of this more
will be said in the next chapter. But there seems to
me to be ample justification for the view widely held
by Hebrew writers that Samuel was a prophet, and
that of no mean order.
After Samuel's time there is scarcely a period
during which there was not one or more choice spirits
called of God who gave up their lives to the inter
pretation of the Divine will for the sake of their fellow-
men.1 There was an idea more or less prevalent that the
office was to be continuous. Elijah was commanded
to set up kings in both Syria and Israel, "and to
anoint to be prophet in his place Elisha, the son
of Shaphat of Abel-meholah." 2 Not every prophet
after this time, however, exercised his office per-
1 Here again I am constrained to depart from Budde's opinion.
He distrusts the Elijah stories, and has no confidence in what is said
of occasional prophets in the early part of the Davidic dynasty (op. cit.,
p. 102). 2 I Kings xix. 16.

THE PROPHETIC INSTITUTION 37
manently. Even Amos, the first of the literary
prophets, was called to prophesy to Israel for a brief
time, and then probably returned to his herd. There
may have been other instances of the same kind.
But most of the prophets were called to a life office,
and were not permitted to lay down their work, even
when they grew weary of their task. Jeremiah had
been called upon to say so much of woe that he
resolved to speak no more in the name of Jahveh.
But Jahveh would not have it so. The message was
in the prophet's soul, and would be spoken even if it
must burn its way out.1 Jonah was unwilling to say
a word in Nineveh that might lead the hated enemies
of Israel to repentance and pardon. But his story is
told to show that God's will cannot be balked by •
His prophets.
There were many prophets in Israel between
Samuel and Amos whose writings have not come
down to us, if, indeed, their prophecies were ever put
into writing at all, but about whose work we have
considerable information in the historic books.
Among these may be mentioned such conspicuous
examples as Nathan, Gad, Ahijah,2 Elijah, Elisha,
Micaiah, Ahaziah.
Their functions were in part much like those of
1 Jer. xx. 9.
2 It is an interesting fact that there is no mention of a prophet
during Solomon's reign. Nathan anoints him king, and Ahijah
inspires Jeroboam to wrest a large part of the kingdom from Reho-
boam, Solomon's son. But there is no record of a prophetic utterance
or act between these two. Solomon saw visions himself, and was not
the kind of man to invite or even tolerate interference from any
quarter.

38 THE HEBREW PROPHET
the later prophets, except that they seem to have
striven more to lead the court in the right way than
to teach the people. That inference is certainly
deducible from the records, but inasmuch as the
historians are concerned chiefly with the history of
the kings, they would naturally tell only so much of
the prophet's story as served their purpose. The
history of Isaiah in 2 Kings xviii.-xx. tells us nothing
of the prophet's character as a great teacher of the
people, but only of his office as a prophet of the
court. The golden age of Hebrew prophecy begins with
Amos about the middle of the eighth century and
extends down to the exile. Ezekiel, whose life and
work were in the land of captivity, already shows the
beginning of a decline. He employs symbols very
largely, and depends upon the pen as well as the
voice. Moreover, his life was far removed from the
stirring scenes which gave the prophet his great
opportunity. In the great unknown prophet or
prophets, to whom we owe Isaiah xl.-lxvi., we find
again, and for the last time, a prophetic voice which
is not shorn of its power. Joel, Haggai, Zechariah,
Malachi, and others whose anonymous work has
been embedded in the writings of older prophets,
contain some passages of great power, but, as a rule,
these are decidedly inferior to their great predecessors
of the Assyrian age.
After Malachi the voice of prophecy is silent until
revived in John Baptist. For much of this period, it
is true, we must argue from silence ; but for the
Maccabean age we have ample assurance that there

THE PROPHETIC INSTITUTION 39
was no prophet. The defiled altar was torn down,
but what to do with the profaned stones was a grave
problem. The people finally shelved it by laying the
stones in the mountain "until there should come
a prophet to give an answer concerning them."1
The knowledge required could only come from God.
There were priests at hand, but knowledge of the
Divine will was not given to them. The question
was one for a prophet, but the prophet was lacking.
As it is pathetically put in one of the Psalms of the
period : —
" Our signs we see not, nor is there prophet ;
With us is not one that knows how long."2
In this dark age, however, there was the hope that
prophetic voices would again be heard in the land.
In the gloomy days of the early exile, a poet bewails
the fact that though prophets exist, there is no vision
from the Lord ; 3 yet visions came in due season.
So now, though there was not even a prophet in
Judah, there was the assuring hope that God would
send again these chosen counsellors. The Jews and
priests were ready to acknowledge Simon, the brother
of Judas Maccabaeus, as leader and high priest, with
the stipulation that he was to hold the chief place
only until God sent them a faithful prophet.4 Little
did those people realise how long their hope for the
reappearance of prophecy would be deferred. This
incident marks the final transfer of power from the
hands of the prophets to those of the priests, a subject
of which I shall have more to say hereafter.
1 1 Mace. iv. 46. 2 Ps. lxxiv. 9.
3 Lam. ii. 9. 4 I Mace. xiv. 41.

40 THE HEBREW PROPHET
There is another class of men who may barely be
called prophets, whom we may mention for the sake
of completeness. These are the authors of the
pseudepigraphic prophecies, such as the Assumption
of Moses, the Book of Enoch, the Wisdom of
Solomon. The study of the written Word had
taken the place of the fresh utterance from the
prophet's mouth. The great names of the past
were highly venerated. If a real prophet had risen,
he would scarcely have been able to get a fair hear
ing. His words would have been measured, not by
the standard of truth, but by their agreement with
the written Law. That basis of judgment made
the thorny path of John Baptist, of our Lord Him
self, of Paul and other apostles, as well as many a
Christian minister of later ages.
This esteem of the written Law, which is dis
played somewhat wearisomely in Psalm cxix., as
against the living Word, must be given full weight,
or we shall do injustice to the unknown authors of
apocryphal books. Schiirer expresses but a part of
the truth when he says that these men "had no
longer the courage to confront their contemporaries
with the proud claim to have their words listened to
as the words of God Himself, but who rather seemed
to think it necessary to conceal themselves under
the guise of someone or other of the acknowledged
authorities of the olden time."1 It is true that a
prophet should boldly declare his message, whether
the people will bear or forbear ; but we cannot
blame these men very severely that they elected to
1 Jewish People, div. ii. vol. iii. p. 45.

THE PROPHETIC INSTITUTION 41
put forth their message in a form which would most
surely get it a prompt hearing, especially as there
were then no literary ethics to bar their way. We
should rather rejoice that in such way as they could,
men were still striving to keep religion a vital factor
in Jewish life. For that was the essential task of
the prophetic institution.

CHAPTER IV
THE SONS OF THE PROPHETS
IN the time of Samuel a new institution arose
in connexion with prophecy which deserves a
further study than has been given to it by any
writer. Various scholars have touched the subject
incidentally, but an exhaustive treatment is still a
desideratum. Budde seems to me to have missed
the point by regarding these guilds as the real
prophets of the early time, and then to lose sight of
them entirely. I cannot treat the subject here as
fully as is desirable, but shall attempt to gather the
essential facts and present them in a convenient
form. Samuel directed the newly anointed Saul to return
to his home, and said that on his way he would see
certain signs, among which would be "a band of
prophets, coming down from the high place with
a psaltery and a timbrel, and a pipe, and a harp,
before them ; and they will be prophesying."1 It is
evident that this band was a company exercising
a corporate rather than an individual office. Whence
did they arise ? And what were their functions ?
This is the first mention of such a body in the
1 I Sam. a. 5. It should be noted that this passage belongs to
the oldest part of the narrative in the books of Samuel.
42

THE SONS OF THE PROPHETS 43
Old Testament, and there is nowhere a statement to
explain their origin. As Samuel was the leader of
such a company,1 it has been frequently assumed that
he was the founder of the order.2
In the absence of further information, this origin
can only be assumed as probable. It is perfectly
possible that such bands were in existence even long
before,3 though we know nothing about them. In
that case Samuel would have associated with this
order, just as Elisha did at a later time.
But while we have no certain information as to
the origin of these prophets, which is comparable to
1 I Sam. xix. 20. Literally, "And Samuel standing appointed
over them." The two participles are, as Driver says (Heb. Text of
Samuel), ' ' peculiar and suspicious. " H. P. Smith rejects ' ' standing " ;
the verse would then read, "And he saw the band of prophets, and
Samuel appointed over them." Paton says, "It is safe to infer that
he organised the ecstatics into communities, and thus made their
influence more effective" (Syria and Pal., p. 173). It is clear that
Samuel was the official head of this company. Kraetzschmar holds
that Samuel is confused with the guild by a very late writer who no
longer understood the distinction between the "seer" and the pro
phetic bands (Prophet und Seher im alien Israel, p. 23).
2 See, for example, Schultz, O. T. Theology, i. 240 f. So Ottley
says, " It is significant that Samuel's distinctive work was the regula
tion and organisation of prophetism" (Bamp. Led., p. 270).
3 Budde argues that the order was new, since the prophets were
looked upon in 1 Samuel x. 10 ff as something noteworthy, and were
regarded with a certain distrust (Biicher Samuel, p. 68). The elders
appointed by Moses are said to have prophesied as a body when they
were clothed with the Spirit (Num. xi. 25). Such ravings as the sons
of the prophets indulged in may be intended. Kraetzschmar, on the other
hand, holds that those prophets are of Canaanitish origin, and ex
plains the hostility to them on that ground. As there were prophets
of some sort among all the Semitic peoples, the Hebrews may have
been influenced by their neighbours. But it is doubtful if the institution
was taken over ready-made. At all events, there is not sufficient
evidence for that view.

44 THE HEBREW PROPHET
the order of the Nazirites,1 we have ground for
plausible conjectures. It is not certain that Amos
refers to the order when he says, " I raised up of
your sons for prophets," but it is highly probable.
That would show that the order had been established
long before his day, and, in spite of its degradation,
was regarded as a Divine institution.2 To Amos it
would seem perfectly possible that the institution
may have been divinely founded, even though its
present representatives were so unworthy.
It was the custom of every great prophet to gather
disciples about him. Thus Elijah had Elisha as a
personal attendant ; the latter had Gehazi, as well as
others of the prophetic order. Isaiah had disciples,3
Jeremiah had Baruch;4 John the Baptist gathered
disciples about him, and so did our Lord. Moreover,
the familiarity of the Jews with this custom is un
mistakably shown by the wrath of the Pharisees
because " Jesus was making and baptising more dis
ciples than John." 5 Samuel himself had begun his
career as a disciple of Eli.
The most natural name for such a disciple,
following good Hebrew usage, would be a son of the
prophet. Elisha calls his master " father." 6 Samuel
probably gathered many such disciples and trained
them for special duties. It would be inconvenient to
1 See Amos ii. n.
2 A fact which counts against the Canaanitish origin.
3 Isa. viii. 16.
4 Though perhaps he was rather secretary than disciple. Still he
read prophecies of his master to the people, and probably wrote most
of the biography of Jeremiah.
6 John iv. I. » 2 Kings ii. 12.

THE SONS OF THE PROPHETS 45
take such a large company with him as he went
about to sacrifice at the various shrines which were
scattered through the country; therefore he would
have a body at each place, and thus it would happen
that " sons of the prophet " would be found in many
different parts of the land.
Budde makes Saul rather than Samuel the head of
the prophets;1 but I think without sufficient reason.
Saul only catches the frenzy when under the influence
of the prophetic band. What befell him had happened
to the messengers sent by him.2 It is true that " the
Spirit of God rushed upon Saul when he heard these
words [telling the plight of Jabesh-gilead], and his
anger was kindled fiercely."3 But this is said also
of Samson,4 of David,6 and represents the common
Hebrew idea that any person doing a great act was
moved by the spirit of God. That moving does not
constitute a prophet. If Saul had been conceived as
a prophet his visit to the witch of En-dor would be
unaccountable. Paton supposes these prophets to have come into
being at the time of the Philistine invasion ; Samuel's
work was to organise these ecstatics into communi
ties, so as to make their influence more effective.6
While Samuel was the head of such orders, I believe
it necessary to distinguish sharply between the rank
and file on the one hand, and such leaders as Samuel
and Elisha on the other. There is no evidence that
Samuel led them in their violent religious exer-
1 Religion of Israel, p. 95. 2 1 Sam. xix. 18 ff.
3 I Sam. xi. 6. * Judges xiv. 6. 5 1 Sam. xvi. 13.
6 Early History of Syria and Palestine, p. 173.

46 THE HEBREW PROPHET
cises,1 and I believe that he was not in the habit of
doing so. Macdonald concludes that inasmuch as the
learned theologian al-Ghazzali took part in the wild
dervish exercises, there would be no difficulty in sup
posing that Samuel should take part in the prophetic
ecstasy.2 But al-Ghazzali joined the Sufis in order
to stimulate his own religious life. Samuel organised
the prophets to quicken the religion and patriotism
of the people.
If Samuel gathered a band of disciples at each of
the shrines he was wont to visit, then we have at
hand the explanation of two facts in connexion with
these prophets. In the first place, we find them in
the earliest days always attached to a sanctuary.
Saul met the band of prophets coming down from
the high place, a technical term* for a local shrine.
Samuel was at the head of a company of prophets
at Ramah, which was his home, and at which place
he had built an altar.3 We know that such bands
were stationed at Bethel4 and at Jericho.5
Then, again, it is perfectly certain that the sons of
the prophets were to be intimately associated with
the priests.6 Samuel went about the country exer
cising the functions of judge, prophet, and priest.
But he established the monarchy to take the place
1 Unless we regard I Sam. xix. 20 as such evidence. Budde says
correctly that Samuel sharply distinguishes himself from the prophetic
hordes (Biicher Samuel, p. 139). Kraetzschmar says that ro'eh (seer)
was applied to Samuel to distinguish him from the nebi'im (prophets).
2 J.A.O.S., xx. 93. a j Sam vii I?
4 2 Kings ii. 3. s 2 Kings ii. 5.
6 "Shall the priest and prophet be slain in the sanctuary of the
Lord?" (Lam. ii. 20).

THE SONS OF THE PROPHETS 47
of the judge, and the order of prophets with functions
distinct from the priests. After this time the con
nexion between the priest and the higher prophets
became less and less close. Most of the great
prophets either were not priests1 at all or rarely
exercised the priestly office. The members of the
prophetic guilds, on the other hand, while never
serving as priests, maintained a close connexion with
the priesthood.2
Elijah, too, offered sacrifices. The prophets were
apparently important figures at religious festivals.
There is a story of Elisha, which has a distinctly
archaic flavour, and which shows that the people
were accustomed to go to him at the sacred seasons.
When the Shunamite, whose son had died, proposed
to go at once to the man of God, her husband asked
her : " Why art thou going to him to-day ? It is
neither new moon nor Sabbath."3
Isaiah, and others of his order, class priests and
prophets together in their denunciations.4 These two
classes joined in the persecution of Jeremiah.6 But
the clearest connexion is shown in Jeremiah v. 31 :
" the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear
rule at their hands";6 that is, the power of the priest
hood was maintained by the false oracles of lying
1 Jeremiah and Ezekiel are the only ones who belonged to the
priestly order.
2 See W. Robertson Smith, Prophets, p. 85. This author holds
that at Jerusalem the prophets were subject to the priesthood (ii.,
p. 389). Jer. v. 31 does not support his opinion. On this passage see
further in text.
3 2 Kings iv. 23. 4 Isa. xxviii. 7 ; Zeph. iii. 4 ; Jer. passim.
6 Jer. xxvi. ; cf. xviii. 18. 6 Additional note (4).

48 THE HEBREW PROPHET
prophets.1 In post-exilic days the people sent to the
priests and prophets to learn whether they shall keep
up a certain fast day, as if uncertain which class
should answer this question.2
The office of the sons of the prophets is more
easily determined than their origin. A company
was coming down from the high place, where they
had taken part in some ceremony. Musical instru
ments were played by those who went before them,
while they were prophesying.8 This prophesying
does not mean the uttering of oracles, or the pro
claiming of religious truth, but was probably some
thing like the incoherent cries one may hear at a
primitive revival. The frenzy of the Baal prophets,
described in i Kings xviii. 28, was simply an ex
aggerated form of that which was wont to seize the
sons of the prophets at a time of great religious
excitement. Like all such forms of religious excite
ment, this prophesying was contagious. When the
messengers of Saul came to Ramah to take David,
Samuel protected him by having the company
prophesy in the presence of the messengers, so that
they caught the spirit and began to prophesy like
wise. Three sets of messengers were in turn in
capacitated for their errand by the wild frenzy
induced by prophetic contagion. Then Saul came
himself, but he caught the spirit, and exceeded all
others in the wildness of his frenzy. So great was his
1 Cf. Jer. vi. 13 ; viii. 10. 2 Zech. vii.
3 So the prophets of David were said to prophesy, stimulated by the
music of harps, psalteries, and cymbals (1 Chron. xxv. 1). The music
was designed to induce the ecstatic state.

THE SONS OF THE PROPHETS

49

excitement that he tore off his clothes ; and so great
was the resulting exhaustion that he lay down there
naked all that day and all that night.1 H. P. Smith
therefore scarcely exaggerates when he says that
" we have here a company of dervishes2 engaged in
their religious exercises," and explains the proverb,
" Is Saul also among the prophets ? " as a mark of
surprise that the son of a well-to-do man should be
found in a company not highly esteemed.3
Some scholars hold that the sons of the prophets
arose from political conditions, and their chief pur
pose therefore was patriotic. Day calls them "ardent
patriots."4 Paton speaks of them as "bands of re
ligious devotees traversing the land, awakening
the patriotism of the people."5 Budde says, "The
prophets appear as second saviours and new founders
of Israel's nationality and religion."6 Winckler
regards the prophets as political agitators.7 Kraetzsch
mar, to whose pamphlet on Prophet und Seher im
alten Israel I gladly confess my indebtedness, regards
1 I Sam. xix. 1 8 ff. This passage is comparatively late, and is
regarded as another attempt to explain the proverb, " Is Saul among
the prophets ? " Such a proverb would be applied to many occasions.
However late the narrative is, it is perfectly possible that just such
an event took place. Budde distrusts the story altogether. At all
events it represents a correct idea of the habits of the prophetic guilds.
The older story (i Sam. x. io) represents Saul as catching the con
tagion in the same way. See also Encyc. Bibl., col. 3857.
2 In fact the study of the life of Mohammedan dervishes gives the
fullest light for an adequate knowledge of the methods of the sons of
the prophets.
3 Inter. Crit. Com., pp. 68, 71.
4 Social Life of the Hebrews, p. 60.
5 Syria and Palestine, p. 173. " Religion of Israel, p. 88.
7 K.A.T.3, 171.
E

SO THE HEBREW PROPHET
these prophets as enthusiasts for the old conditions
of political and religious life. He thinks that Saul's
meeting the prophets was no accident, but a carefully
devised plan by which these enthusiasts might arouse
his patriotic and religious spirit. I am persuaded
that Schultz states the matter more correctly: he
holds that the aim of these prophets was religious,
not political.1 They were at the beginning organised
as firm adherents of the national God. Their
patriotism was merely such as was involved in their
religion. But the fact of the matter is that we know
but little of the motive of the sons of the prophets.
As early as the days of Saul the bands of prophets
were consulted for advice. Saul was driven to go to
the witch of En-dor because " Jahveh did not answer
him by dreams, by Urim, or by the prophets."2 It is
plain that the prophets here are the guilds, who in
their ecstatic state were supposed to reveal the will
of God.
W. Robertson Smith3 says that Elijah had little
to do with the "sons of the prophets." That is
apparently true of the later period of his life, but not
of the earlier. Elijah fled from the north when
Jezebel's persecution became so severe that prophets
were no longer safe in bodies. The reason he gives
for abandoning his field is that he only was left of
the faithful, and his life was in imminent danger.4
The prophets whose slaughter he laments were com
panies with which he had been associated. It is not
likely that there were other conspicuous individual
1 O.T. Theol, i. 242. 2 1 Sam. xxviii. 6.
3 Prophets, p. 85. * 1 Kings xix. 10.

THE SONS OF THE PROPHETS 51
prophets who became victims of Jezebel's wrath. In
the great sacrifice on Mount Carmel, Elijah says with
a tone of bitter regret that while there are four
hundred and fifty prophets of Baal, he was obliged to
stand alone as the representative of Jahveh,1 for his
fellows had all been slain. Obadiah regards his act
in saving a hundred of the " sons of the prophets "
from the royal persecution as a deed sure to win
favour from Elijah.2 If the great prophet had had
nothing to do with the guilds, Obadiah would scarcely
have made such a plea. The rescue of a hundred of
these prophets incidentally shows how numerous
these guilds had become.
Elisha certainly stood in close relation to the
prophetic guilds. He was connected with them as a
sort of father superior. Whether this was an
inheritance from his great predecessor or not we
cannot tell positively. But we have found reason to
believe that all the conspicuous prophets of the early
days were the heads of the guilds. Elisha, according
to the story told in 2 Kings ii., had especial reason to
look with favour upon them, because he had seen
evidence of their power in the prediction made by
company after company that his master would be
taken from his head. On the other hand, these
prophets recognised that the leadership of Elijah
had fallen to him.3 This incident confirms our belief
in Elijah's connexion with the guilds. Elisha him
self had probably belonged to the order of prophets,
and was closer to Elijah than the rest because of
1 I Kings xviii. 22. 2 I Kings xviii. 13.
3 2 Kings ii. 15 ; cf. v. 14.

52 THE HEBREW PROPHET
personal superiority. That Elisha was the head of
the guilds is abundantly testified. He felt called
upon to feed these prophets in a time of dearth,1 and
to put himself at their head when they proposed to
build larger quarters.2 When Elisha resolved to
anoint Jehu king of Israel, it was a member of this
order who not only carried the message to the cap
tain, but who was delegated actually to anoint the
new king.3 The distressed wife of one of these
prophets turns naturally to Elisha for succour.4
Delegations from these guilds were wont to come to
Elisha for counsel.5
But such a relation between a true prophet and
this order did not persist. In Elisha's own time we
find a condition of affairs very different from what
we should suspect from his history alone. Micaiah
the son of Imlah may have begun his career as one
of the nebi'im (sons of the prophets) ; but, if so, he
soon severed his connexion completely. The atti
tude of this prophet requires fuller exposition.
In the Syrian wars Ramoth-gilead had been
wrested from the Israelites, and Ben-hadad had not
kept his promise to restore it.6 Ahab resolved to
take it by force. Jehoshaphat the king of Judah and
vassal of Ahab7 agreed to Ahab's proposal for a joint
expedition. But Jehoshaphat was unwilling to enter
1 2 Kings iv. 38 f. 2 2 Kings vi. 1. 3 2 Kings ix.
4 2 Kings iv. 1. B 2 Kings v. 22.
6 I Kings xx. 34. Or it may be, as Paton holds (Syria and Palestine,
p. 208), that Ahab had lost Ramoth-gilead in a war two years before,
i.e. in 855 B.C.
7 That Jehoshaphat was actually in vassalage to the king of Israel is
shown conclusively by Paton, op. tit., p. 204.

THE SONS OF THE PROPHETS 53
upon a campaign without assurance of the favourable
disposition of Jahveh. Ahab therefore summoned his
four hundred prophets. This band knew what
answer the king expected. He was one who was
willing to consult Jahveh, provided Jahveh would
answer in conformity with his own purposes. He
had trained his prophets to their business, which was
to comprehend the royal rather than the Divine
will. They drew their inspiration, not from heaven,
but from the throne. They answered with a
unanimity readily comprehensible to us : " Go up,
that the Lord may deliver it into the hand of the
king." 1
But Jehoshaphat was not satisfied. He knew that
these were accredited prophets. That they prophesied
by Jahveh, and not by Baal, is expressly stated by
Micaiah himself.2 Nevertheless, the king of Judah
saw plainly that they were merely echoing the wishes
of his ally. Insincerity is ever difficult to disguise.
Doubtless these subservient seers bowed too low in
their ardour to interpret the royal will as the com
mand of God. Therefore Jehoshaphat asks if there
is not another prophet of Jahveh by whom the Divine
will may be ascertained. The king of Judah assumed
that all the prophets who would unscrupulously bow
to the will of Ahab were already marshalled in im
posing array. Any prophet not in that company
testified by his absence that he was of another spirit.
1 I Kings xxii. 6. The parallel passage, 2 Chron. xviii. 5, has
"God" here instead of "the Lord," not instead of "Jahveh," as er
roneously stated in Hastings' Bible Dictionary (art. " Micaiah"). Kittel,
it is true, supposes "Jahveh" to be the original text (Konige, 172).
2 I Kings xxii. 23.

54 THE HEBREW PROPHET
And so it proved. The only other prophet, at least
of Jahveh, was Micaiah the son of Imlah, who was
probably in prison at the time.1 But he was un
popular with the king, because he prophesied evil
and not good.2 What a witness Ahab was against
himself! The only prophet in the land who dared
to tell the truth could never predict good for the
king, but only evil. Micaiah was urged to confirm
the forecast of the others, but replied, like the true
man that he was, "what Jahveh saith to me, that
will I speak." At first he repeated the words of the
other prophets, but with such scornful irony that
even Ahab was not deceived.
Schultz seems to misunderstand this passage
entirely. He says that Micaiah "had at first, in
accordance with the Divine will, to say what was
untrue, because he was aware that God intended to
beguile the king."3 When pressed for a frank
answer, Micaiah shows his hand, not only predicting
disaster to Israel, but adding that God Himself had
laid a snare for the wicked Ahab by inspiring His
prophets to deceive him.4
1 Josephus says that Ahab had already put Micaiah in prison,
because he had predicted that he would be defeated and slain by the
king of Syria (Antiquities, viii. xv. 4). The first part of this state
ment appears to be correct. Ahab directs that Micaiah be sent back
to Amon, the city officer, implying that he had previously been in his
custody. But the reason given can scarcely be right. It looks as if
Josephus had taken Micaiah's present prediction as a reason for a
previous imprisonment.
2 1 Kings xxii. 8. 3 O.T. Theol, i. p. 257.
4 Budde infers from this statement a higher opinion of these prophets
than mine; for he says they were deceived by Jahveh. Such an
idea was by no means repugnant to the Hebrews, as we may see

THE SONS OF THE PROPHETS 55
I have dwelt here at some length upon this striking
story, although it has been already referred to, be
cause it is the first case of a solitary prophet taking
issue with the company of prophets. Later this con
dition becomes the rule. No great and true prophet
after this time ever had much sympathy with the
sons of the prophets. The attitude of Micaiah is the
attitude of all the rest, and for the same essential
reason : that these prophets did not seek to follow
the counsels of God, but of men, and no one can
ever be a true prophet and do that. A part of the
evidence of the hostility of the great prophets towards
these guilds must be reserved for a later chapter, but
enough is introduced here to show the true condi
tion of things. There is so much material that but
a small proportion can be used.
First, however, we may note that the beginning of
the decline of the sons of the prophets can be un
mistakably traced to the persecution of Jezebel.
That wretched woman was bent upon introducing
her own religion into the nation of Israel. She
brought a great company of the prophets of Baal
to Samaria. Every prophet of Jahveh was obliged
to change his god, seek uncertain shelter in hiding,
or die.1 All the best and bravest gave up their lives,
from Deut. xiii. 3 and Ezek. xiv. 9. But, however possible for
Micaiah to conceive of Jahveh sending one of the host of heaven to be
a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahab's prophets, such a. conception
is impossible from the Christian point of view. Jesus said the devil
was " a liar, and the father thereof" (John viii. 44). It is significant
that a snare assigned to Jahveh in an early writer (2 Sam. xxiv. 1) is
by the late Chronicler ascribed to Satan (1 Chron. xxi. 1).
1 I Kings xviii. 13.

56 THE HEBREW PROPHET
or were scattered in flight.1 Those who remained
bowed the knee not so much to Baal as to the royal
authority. They were a selected list of weaklings
who were ready to prophesy by any god, and to give
any answer required by the king. The order seems
never to have recovered from this blow. The blood
of the martyrs may have been the seed of the Chris
tian Church, as Tertullian said, but it was the ruin
of this particular institution of the Jewish Church.
They doubtless served a good purpose in the early
days, though their office was a humble one ; but the
prophet who values peace above truth has always in
the end met the same doom. That course may lead
to a great popularity for a season, but it cannot
endure the searching test of time.
Budde seems to think that the sons of the prophets
were never held high in the popular esteem. He
interprets that puzzling question, " And who is their
father?"2 to mean that "no one knows to whom
they belong : they are stray vagabonds without name
or pedigree."3 H. P. Smith is unable to get a satis
factory reading, and takes refuge in the usual method
of supposing the text corrupt.4 Schultz notices that
the Greek reads, " who is his father ? " i.e. Saul's. He
understands the question to be an inquiry concern
ing the one who had taught Saul to prophesy, as
the sons of the prophets had been taught by their
father or chief. Driver calls this rendering easier,
but weak. At all events, it is more intelligible than
1 See additional note (5). 2 1 Sam. x. 12.
3 Religion of Israel, p. 94. So Kraetzschmar, Prophet und Seher,
p. 10. 4 Int. Crit. Com., in loc.

THE SONS OF THE PROPHETS 57
the Hebrew. Whether Budde's interpretation is right
or not, it is very probable that the people never had
a good opinion of these prophets.1 But let us see
how they were regarded by the prophets whose
works have been approved by time, and whose life
record shows that they were endued of the Spirit of
God. When Amos was commanded by Amaziah to leave
Bethel, he set the example which has been followed
by true prophets in all ages ; that is, he explained
why he was prophesying at Bethel, and declared why
he could not obey the high priest's order. In his
apologia he says, " I am not a prophet, nor am I a
son of a prophet . . . Jahveh took me from the flock,
and Jahveh said unto me, Go prophesy unto My
people Israel."2 By prophet and son of a prophet,
Amos means the same thing, the professional order.
He does not belong to that order ; he is speaking by
Divine command, not by royal sanction. Therefore
he cannot heed the interdiction. The implication is
plain that the members of that order were subservient
to the king's pleasure. There is a note of indigna
tion in Amos' words, as if he said, " Am I one of
these cringing prophets, that you expect me to dis
regard the expressed will of God, because my speech
is not agreeable to the king ? "
Except in this case, the great prophets do not
call these men " sons of the prophets," but simply
1 Jehu's fellows ask, "Why did this crazy fellow come to thee?"
And Jehu replies, " You know the man, and his talk " (2 Kings ix. 11).
There is no attempt to disguise the contempt for the prophet ; yet he
led them to revolution. 2 Amos vii. 14 f.

58 THE HEBREW PROPHET
prophets. They do not discriminate in terms. They
call the prophets, whom God has raised up in all ages
to guide His people, and those who were leading
them in wrong paths, by the same name. The Greek
version applies the term " false prophet " to Hananiah,
but the term is not found in the Hebrew Old Testa
ment anywhere. And yet it is easy to tell when the
great prophets are speaking of the order. In the
cases cited below, it is clear that the sons of
the prophets are meant. The scholars who have
written on this subject generally do not regard these
prophets as members of the guilds. They regard the
sons of the prophets as existing only in the earlier
period. Nothing .seems to me more certain than the
fact that the nebVim denounced by all the writing
prophets were members of the guilds established by
Samuel, and that this order existed all through Old
Testament history. It was not a mere temporary
institution, but persisted to the end of the Old Testa
ment era.
The professional prophet was not to be depended
upon. He did not rise above his fellows, he did not
see clearly when others failed ; but when the people
stumbled in the day, the prophet would stumble with
them in the night.1 The holy city was disobedient
and all classes shared in the wrong ; " princes, judges
and priests have been no support, and her prophets
are boasters and traitors." 2 These prophets are un
trustworthy ; they do not speak the word of God, but
teach vanity, and speak a vision of their own heart.3
1 Hosea iv. 5. 2 Zeph. iii. 4.
3 Jer. xiv. 14, xxiii. 16 ; Ezek. xiii. 3.

THE SONS OF THE PROPHETS 59
They even steal a message, "each one from his
fellow." 1 They have given way to the most deadly
formality ; they are careful to preface their prophecies
with the accepted introduction : " oracle of Jahveh " ;
but that form is no guarantee of the genuineness of
the message to which it is prefixed, and in fact has
been so abused that the prophets are forbidden any
more to use the familiar term.2
These prophets have misled the people and have
become a potent cause of the decay and downfall of
the nation. They have supposed that they could
lightly heal the wounds of Judah by the false cry of
peace when there was no peace.3 The poet, looking
back and reviewing the causes which led to the ruin
over which he laments, sees how the prophets have
added to the trouble : " Thy prophets have seen for
thee false and foolish visions ; and they have not
uncovered thine iniquity, to bring back thy captivity,
but have seen for thee false oracles and causes of
banishment." i
Not only were they not sent by Jahveh, but on the
contrary, He utterly repudiates them : " They say
' oracle of Jahveh ' ; but Jahveh hath not sent them :
yet they look for the fulfilling of their word." 5 "I
did not send these prophets, yet they ran : I did not
speak to them, yet they prophesied." 6
1 Jer. xxiii. 30. Clerical plagiarism appears to be an old sin.
Strange that any Christian minister should justify a. grossly immoral
practice condemned by a Hebrew prophet. We may take courage from
the belief that the practice of stealing sermons and sermon material is
growing less.
2 Jer. xxiii. 34 ff. 3 Jer. viii. 11, xiv. 13 ; Ezek. xiii. 10.
4 Lam. ii. 14 ; cf. iv. 13. 5 Ezek. xiii. 6. 8 Jer. xxiii. 21.

6b THE HEBREW PROPHET
The picture of the moral character of these prophets
is a very dark one, but nothing shows better the high
moral ideals of the great prophets than their convic
tion of the hopeless inconsistency between Divine
insight and personal vice. One of the prophets' sins
was their inordinate greed. Micah says, " They bite
with their teeth, and cry peace, and whoever does not
put into their mouths, against him do they declare
war." 1 Ezekiel makes the same charge against female
prophets.2 If there could be any doubt about the
understanding of his homely figure, Micah removes
all question by saying plainly, " The prophets divine
for money."3 Ezekiel says that the prophets have
conspired together, and the object of the conspiracy
is clear : " they devour men ; they take treasure and
wealth ; they make her widows many." 4
Isaiah looks out with divinely given insight chiefly
upon the conditions in Judah and Jerusalem, but his
broad vision is too wide to be narrowly restricted in
its range, and he adds pictures of conditions in the
north. One of the gross vices of Samaria is drunken
ness. It is not merely the poor labouring man who
is addicted to this vice ; for " these also reel with
wine, and stagger with strong drink ; the priest and
the prophet reel with strong drink, they are swallowed
up of wine, they stagger with strong drink ; they reel
in the vision, they totter in giving decisions."6 These
unworthy ministers of God are not even sober when
performing the duties of their sacred offices. The
prophet shows further the disgusting spectacle of
1 Micah iii. 5. a Ezek. xiii. 17 ff. 3 Micah iii. 11.
4 Ezek. xxii. 25. 6 Isa. xxviii. 7.

THE SONS OF THE PROPHETS 61
their orgies : " all tables are full of vomit and
filthiness, so that there is no place clean."1
One vice begets another. The low conception
of their sacred office placed these prophets in em
barrassing positions. But they were true to their
base standard. One of the commonest sins charged
against them is one of the blackest, lying. Isaiah
says the prophet that teacheth lies is the tail which
Jahveh will ruthlessly cut off.2 Whatever one may
think about the words which, in the prophetic utter
ances, are attributed to God Himself, one may surely
claim this much without opening distracting contro
versy : what the prophet ascribes directly to God is
judged to be the weightiest truth. Then we shall be
prepared for carefully considered words when we find
this preface to Jeremiah's message : " Jahveh said
unto me " ; and listen to what Jahveh says : " The
prophets are prophesying lies in My name . . . they
prophesy unto you a lying vision ... a thing of
nought, the deceit of their own heart."3 All lying is
immoral. There are not many lies which are really
very white. But some are blacker than others ; and
a lie told in the holy name of God is the blackest of
all. Jeremiah has more to say about the sins of these
prophets than any other. The conditions in his time
were such as to make the man who was filthy more
filthy still. After the hopes raised by Josiah's re
forms passed away, the king and court and people
no longer sought righteousness and truth, but were
1 Isa. xxviii. 8. 2 Isa. ix. 15.
3 Jer. xiv. 14 ; cf. xxvii. 14-16 ; Ezek. xiii. 8.

62 THE HEBREW PROPHET
ever ready to be fed on false hopes of security and
peace. They asked of the prophet only that he
would give them a cheerful message. There was no
constraint laid upon the weak prophets by the great
power of public opinion. Anything would be for
given except speaking the truth to people who
would not hear. The sins we have mentioned,
many and serious as they are, do not exhaust the
catalogue. "In the prophets of Jerusalem I have
seen a horrible thing : they commit adultery, and
walk in lies : and they strengthen the hands of evil
doers so that none returns from his wickedness."1
This faithful yet persecuted prophet does not always
shelter himself behind general statements. He
makes this specific charge against Zedekiah and
Ahab, two captive prophets in Babylon, who were
doing great harm by their lies : " They have wrought
folly in Israel, and they have committed adultery
with their neighbours' wives, and have spoken words
in My name falsely."2 His opinion of these prophets,
and his advice about them, are gathered up in a
sentence : " For every man that is mad, and maketh
himself a prophet, thou shouldst put them in the
stocks and in shackles."3
In the period of the exile and of the restoration
we hear comparatively little of the sons of the
prophets. Schultz says the prophetic guilds had
ceased already in the Assyrian age;4 but in this I
am sure the learned author is greatly mistaken.
There is enough to show that they were in existence
1 Jer. xxiii. 14. s Jer. xxix. 23.
3 Jer. xxix. 26. » O.T. Theol, i. 221.

THE SONS OF THE PROPHETS 63
still, and that the leopard had not changed his spots.
In a part of the book of Zechariah, which probably
belongs to a date about 300 B.C.,1 we have a fine
Messianic passage giving a picture of the new
golden age. The chief marks of that day will be
the total extinction of the many causes of Israel's
degradation. Idols will be swept away, but that
will not remove the greatest evils. Jahveh's work
will be unsparing : " The prophets and the unclean
spirit I will drive out of the land."2 No one else is
so severe as this unknown prophet from the late
days of Israel. The time will come, he says, when
if any man venture to prophesy,3 even his father and
mother will put him to death. A man would boast
then, as Amos did, of being a humble labourer rather
than a prophet.4 This passage shows the odium
which had come to be attached to an order which, in
its best day, never reached anything very high, and
at its lowest sank into the deepest pits. G. A. Smith
says strongly but truly, "The prophets had become
mere professional and mercenary oracle-mongers
abjured to the point of death by their own ashamed
and weary relatives."5 Though no prophets are
named in the catalogue of returning exiles, there
were prophets at Jerusalem in the time of Nehemiah.6
1 G. A. Smith, Book of the Twelve Prophets, ii. 401.
2 Zech. xiii. 2. Toy says, ' ' The writer feels himself to be apart from
the prophetic herd, whose inspiration he connects with an unclean
spirit" (Judaism and Christianity, p. 54). Yet Toy seems to make no
real distinction between the writer and the prophets he denounces.
3 Manifestly he did not mean such prophesying as he himself was
doing. 4 Zech. xiii. 3 ff.
5 Twelve Prophets, ii. 484. 6 Neh. vi. 14.

64 THE HEBREW PROPHET
What the governor says about them shows that they
were the same kind as those denounced in Zechariah.
Of the functions of these prophets very little needs
to be added. Originally they seem to have been
attendants of their chief, probably going through
their exciting exercises to induce the ecstatic state.
Elisha calls for a minstrel,1 apparently because such
a body was not with the invading armies. They were
sent out on special missions by their chief.2 In very
few cases did they act on their own initiative. One
of them disguised himself to rebuke Ahab for letting
his chance slip to end the Syrian wars when Ben-
hadad was in his power.3 It is true that Josephus
identifies this prophet with Micaiah the son of
Imlah;4 and Patrick, in Hastings' Bible Dictionary,
pronounces this identification not unlikely. It has
not a shred of evidence to stand upon.
As time went on it was natural that they should
exercise more and more the general functions of a
true prophet, especially when they were cut off from
the leadership of great men, and made subservient
to the royal will. A similar thing happened in the
early Apostolic Church. Deacons were appointed
to serve tables, that the greater Apostles might be
set free to preach the Gospel. But as the order was
broken and scattered by persecution we find, as we
might expect, these deacons exercising the functions
of baptising and preaching.
The numerous membership of the prophetic guilds
raises the question of livelihood. Were the prophets
1 2 Kings iii. 15. 2 2 Kings iv. 29 ; ix. 1 ff.
3 I Kings xx. 35 ff. * Antiquities, viii. xiv. 5.

THE SONS OF THE PROPHETS 65
obliged to provide for themselves, or were there
emoluments of office to maintain them? The in
formation available enables us to answer these
questions very definitely.
Elisha first appears plowing in his father's field.1
As there were twelve yoke of oxen at work, his
family must have had considerable means. It is not
surprising, therefore, to hear of him living in his own
house at Samaria ; 2 and he probably provided
largely for his own support. Not entirely so, how
ever, for we read of his eating frequently at the table
of the rich Shunamite, who built a special room for
his accommodation.3 So Elijah in a time of dearth
was fed by a widow of Zarephath.4 A man of Baal-
shalisha brought Elisha the first-fruits for himself
and the sons of the prophets who were with him.6
This story has been preserved because of a miracle
connected with it : one hundred prophets were fed
on the twenty barley loaves and a few ears of corn.
There were probably many other instances of gifts
of food to the prophets of which we hear nothing.
A large part of the living came from alms.
The prophets' fees were a considerable source of
revenue. The fee paid to Samuel for telling where
the lost asses were,6 shows the general custom of
paying the seers for their services. Balak's messengers
carried a fee to Balaam.7 Naaman expected to
make a handsome payment for the cure of his
1 I Kings xix. 19. 2 2 Kings vi. 32. 3 2 Kings iv. 8, 10.
4 1 Kings xvii. 8 ff. 6 2 Kings iv. 42 ff.
6 I Sam. ix. 8 ; one-fourth of a silver shekel, about sixteen cents.
7 Num. xxii. 7.
F

66 THE HEBREW PROPHET
leprosy.1 Gehazi, the servant of Elisha, evidently
thought his master reckless in throwing away such
an opportunity, and he tried to replenish the treasury
secretly. The Syrian understood the plea that un
expected visitors who were prophets made an im
perative demand. A gift for a prophet was plainly
a common thing. When Ben-hadad sent Hazael to
consult Elisha, he naturally directed him to take a
fee in his hand.2 There is no intimation that the
prophet declined the very large payment.
The rapacity of the prophets increased in the
course of time. Micah refers to their habit of wag
ing war on those who did not provide them with
food.3 Ezekiel finds both men and women guilty
of a similar fault.4 The second Isaiah finds the
same condition in his time.6 These prophets had
apparently reached the conclusion that the world
owed them a living. Schultz sees in these cases
evidence that "some took to prophesying just for
the sake of a livelihood." 6 The mercenary spirit did
not die out until the order became extinct. Nehemiah
discovered that God had not sent Shemaiah with a
prophetic warning, but that the prophet had been
hired by Tobiah and Sanballat to utter in the name
of God a message which ;his employers furnished.7
This custom of taking fees was doubtless rejected by
the great prophets, as Cheyne suggests,8 because it
had become an abuse. But in the earlier days it was
1 2 Kings v. 15. 2 2 Kings viii. 8.
J Micah iii. 5, 11. 4 Ezek. xiii. 19; xxii. 25.
0 Isa. lvi. 10 f. • O.T. Theol., i. 261.
7 Neh. vi. 12. » Commentary on Isaiah, ii. 68.

THE SONS OF THE PROPHETS 67
expected that a prophet should obtain his living by
his office ; so Amaziah tells Amos " to flee to Judah
and there eat bread and there prophesy." x
We are told of a largie company of prophets who
were fed at Jezebel's table.2 These were Syrian
prophets imported by the queen, who would have
fared ill if left to the support of the people. It can
scarcely be doubtful, however, that the company of
prophets who were ever ready to utter oracles in
harmony with Ahab's will were supported by the
royal bounty. They respected the hand that fed
them. Obadiah, Ahab's house-steward, fed one
hundred prophets while they were hiding in a cave
at a time of persecution.
The prophets were not always amply furnished
with the necessaries of life. The widow of one of
them comes to Elisha in great distress.3 When the
guild needed larger quarters they were obliged to
build it with their own hands, even being constrained
to borrow the necessary tools.4 At a period of
famine the sons of the prophets went out to gather
herbs that they might have food.5 Schultz quotes
this passage as proof that the prophets engaged in
agriculture ; 6 it is rather proof of their ignorance of
rural arts, as one of them unwittingly gathered
poisoned herbs, and put them in the boiling pot, and
so nearly killed the whole band.
To sum up in a word. The maintenance of the
1 Amos vii. 12 ; that is, Amos was to eat the bread earned by his
exercise of the prophetic office. Amos tells with satisfaction that he
had maintained himself by tending the herd and dressing trees.
2 1 Kings xviii. 19. 3 2 Kings iv. 1. 4 2 Kings vi. 1 ff.
5 2 Kings iv. 38 ff. 6 O.T. TheoL, i. 241 f.

68 THE HEBREW PROPHET
prophets came from their private means and personal
efforts ; from the royal bounty; from fees for counsel ;
and from the alms of the people. On the whole, the
last two sources were those upon which they chiefly
relied. The dependence of these prophets was un
doubtedly one of the causes of their degradation.
They looked for support to the people for whom
they prophesied. People will pay for good news,
not for bad. Naaman was carrying his fee back to
Syria when he left Elisha in indignation. After he
was cured of his leprosy he went back to the prophet
eager to bestow a rich reward. The great prophets
did not receive fees, and so far as we know were not
supported by the people in any way. Their in
dependence enabled them to stick to the truth with
out undue temptation. Jeremiah, we know, was a
man of such ample means that he was able to buy
land and pay cash for it.1
It remains to say a few words about the dress of
the prophets. The kindred order of the Nazirites
wore their hair long, perhaps as a special mark of
their order. The priests wore a distinctive dress.
Did the sons of the prophets have any outward mark
by which they could be distinguished ? Our informa
tion is slight, and yet considerable light may be
drawn from it. It seems to have been the custom of
the higher prophets to wear a peculiar mantle as a
sign of their office. When the witch of En-dor de
scribed Samuel she said, "An old man cometh up;
and he is covered with a robe."2 This was enough to
enable Saul to recognise Samuel, without mention
1 Jer. xxxii. 9. 2 1 Sam. xxviii. 14.

THE SONS OF THE PROPHETS 69
of the rent made in the robe by his own hands.1
This was probably an unusually large garment in
which a man could completely wrap himself.2 When
Ahijah went out to meet Jeroboam he was clad in a
new garment. The rending of the prophetic mantle
was symbolic of the rending of the kingdom from
Rehoboam, as the rending of Samuel's had been
before.3 Elijah wore a similar mantle. When Ahab
learns that the person met by his messengers was
" a man with a garment of hair, and girt with a girdle
of leather about his loins," he said at once, " It is
Elijah the Tishbite."4 Elijah was commanded to
anoint Elisha as his successor in the prophetic office.
To execute this order he cast his mantle upon Elisha
as the latter was plowing in the field ; for to be
clothed with the prophetic robe was to be called to
the prophetic office ; and Elisha readily recognised
the significance of this act.5 The prophetic vestment
was a symbol of the prophet's miraculous powers.
Elijah used his mantle to clear a way through the
waters of the Jordan,6 and his successor, to whom the
mantle had fallen, used it in the same way.7 Before
Elisha put on the garment of his predecessor we are
told that " he seized his garments and tore them into
two pieces."8 From this statement we are told in
Hastings' Bible Dictionary, i. 693, that Elisha wore
the clothing common to other men. The fact seems
1 I Sam. xv. 27.
2 In spite of this statement, Kraetzschmar, who holds that Samuel
was a seer, and not a nabi, contends that the seers did not wear the
prophetic mantle. 3 I Kings xi. 29 f ; cf. 1 Sam. xv. 27 f.
4 2 Kings i. 8. 6 I Kings xix. 16 ff.
6 2 Kings ii. 8. 7 2 Kings ii. 14. 8 2 Kings ii. 12.

;o THE HEBREW PROPHET
to be that he tore off his own garment1 and dis
carded it,2 that he might put on the robe of Elijah,
and so appear in the garb of the great leader.
The peculiar garment had become a mark of the
prophet's position. When Isaiah was commanded to
loose the sackcloth from his loins, and assume the
scanty garb of a captive,3 the sackcloth is the hairy
garment of the prophet. In the work of destruction
all ranks would be reduced to slavery. The girdle
which Jeremiah wore, whose rotting by the Eu
phrates is a symbolic prophecy, implies that he too
wore the large prophetic mantle which was fastened
at the waist by a girdle.4 John Baptist was clothed
as a prophet, wearing the raiment of camel's hair
fastened at the loins by a leather girdle.5
Jastrow, in his interesting article on " The Tearing
of Garments as a Symbol of Mourning,"6 holds a very
different notion of the prophet's dress. He says,
" The example of Saul shows that stripping off the
garments was an act preliminary to prophesying, and
hence even at a later age the prophet's garb is
characterised as more primitive than the ordinary
fashions of the day. It is clearly because prophesying
is a religious act that nakedness is associated with
it." 7 And again, " From the passage Isaiah xx. 2-4,
it appears that the prophet's ordinary clothes con
sisted merely of a loin-cloth and sandals, and from
1 This is not excluded by the fact that the rending of the garment
was a mark of sorrow.
2 Jastrow argues that the language here used means a tearing of
the garments off the body (J.A.O.S., xxi. 24).
3 Isa. xx. 2. 4 Jer. xiv. B Matt. iii. 4 ; Mark i. 6.
oj.A.O.S., xxi. 23 ff. 7 lb. , p. 35.

THE SONS OF THE PROPHETS 71
other testimony we know that the dress of the
seers was of a much simpler character than that
worn by other persons."1
I cannot follow Jastrow's reasoning. As the
prophet became heated in his frenzy, he would
naturally cast aside his large outer garment, just as
the countryman may throw off his coat to dance.
I agree with Cheyne that " sackcloth " in Isaiah xx.
2 refers to the haircloth which the prophets adopted
as their habitual dress. The expression to gird sack
cloth implies that it was worn as an outer garment.
It is good Hebrew usage to call one " naked " who
had laid aside the outer garment. Jastrow is carried
away by his thesis that in religious practices there is
a tendency to revert to the primitive customs.
Kraetzschmar holds that the nebi'im wore the hairy
mantle, but that the seers (ro'im) had no distinctive
dress. He draws too sharp a line between the seers
and the prophets. The statement in 2 Samuel xxiv.
11, "the prophet Gad, David's seer," would imply that
the former term denoted the general office, and the
latter the particular function, as we might say "the
priest A. B., rector of St. James' Church."
Did the sons of the prophets also wear a distinctive
dress ? From our meagre information and from the
probabilities of the case, we infer that they did.2 A
New Testament writer expresses the accepted Jewish
idea when he says that the prophets " went about in
sheepskins, in goatskins." 3 When one of these went
1 lb., P. 31.
2 The dervishes still wear a cloak of camel's hair (Stanley, Sinai
and Pal., p. 381). 3 Heb. xi. 37.

72 THE HEBREW PROPHET
out to meet Ahab he " disguised himself with a cover
ing over his eyes."1 As soon as the covering was
removed the king " recognised him that he was one
of the prophets."2 This cannot mean that the king
recognised his face because of personal acquaintance ;
the statement is explicit that Ahab perceived that he
was one of the prophets. Some mark of a prophet
had been covered to effect a disguise.3 The disguise
may have been partly effected by laying aside the
prophetic cloak. Whatever may have been the case
when the members of this order occupied a humble
and subordinate place, it is more than probable that
they clothed themselves in the peculiar prophetic
dress when they assumed the complete prophetic
functions. In Zechariah we are told that in the new
era " the prophets shall be ashamed of their vision ;
neither shall they wear a hairy mantle to deceive."4
It is probable that in Zechariah xi. 3, we should read
" their [the shepherds'] prophetic garment is de
stroyed" for "their glory is spoiled," the howling
shepherds being no other than these useless prophets.
It seems to be highly probable that this dress was
common to all prophets, and was universally re
garded as a mark of their office, just as now the
cassock vest is a garment peculiar to the clergy.
1 I Kings xx. 38. s 1 Kings xx. 41.
3 Kittel argues from this passage that the prophets were recognis
able by some mark on the face, in the region of the eyes. Kraetzsch
mar holds that the prophets wore a hairy mantle and also made scars
in their foreheads, after the manner of the Beduin tribes. To disguise
himself this prophet simply covered his face with a. cloth in order to
conceal the scars. This view affords a good explanation of this
passage, but lacks other support in O.T. See additional note (6).
4 Zech. xiii. 4.

CHAPTER V
THE PROPHET'S CALL
NOTHING is more striking in the phenomena
of prophecy than the absolute confidence with
which the message is spoken. The reason of this is
not far to seek, for the Holy Ghost spoke by the
prophets. If the prophet were expressing merely
his own opinions, the positiveness of his tone would
not be altogether inexplicable. Any man who has
deep convictions is apt to speak them with a confi
dence bordering on assurance. But the peculiarly
strong confidence of the prophet had a different and
deeper basis. He was, indeed, a man of strong con
victions, but above that he was fully persuaded that
he spoke the mind of his God. Consequently there
is no doubt, no hesitation, no uncertainty. He is
authorised to preface his message with the formula
"Thus saith the Lord," and therefore feels that his
words cannot be gainsaid.
It was not given to every Hebrew to know or to
declare the will of God. The ability and right to do
that was the direct gift of God Himself. He selected
out of the mass of men those to whom His purposes
were so revealed that they spoke with conviction
and authority. In other words, the prophet believed
himself to be divinely called to his office. He held
73

74 THE HEBREW PROPHET
that without that call no one had a right to exercise
the prophetic function. Those who did so otherwise
were mere pretenders or visionaries who spoke the
vanity of their own hearts. Sometimes, indeed, the
true prophets were unwilling to believe that any man
could say insincerely "thus saith the Lord." Yet
they knew the message so introduced to be false and
misleading. The only explanation was that God
Himself had deceived the prophet.1 Sometimes the
error of the seers is attributed to the inspiration of
false gods.2
The most certainly genuine call, however, could
have evidential value chiefly for the one who experi
enced it. In the usual tests of prophecy, as we shall
see in a subsequent chapter,3 the call has no place.
For it is a personal experience, and its nature varies
with the personality. It is therefore impossible to
set up a standard by which its genuineness can be
predetermined. This rule applies to modern as well
as ancient prophets ; hence no minister should ever
be asked for evidence of his call other than may be
read in his ministry; and no Christian should ever
be asked to expose his deepest spiritual experiences
to a curious audience.
Yet the Hebrew prophets have generally them
selves told the story of their call. There is, however,
a vast difference between a voluntary revelation of a
deep personal experience for the sake of one's
fellows, and an enforced exposure which could have
no proper meaning to one's auditors, for they sit as
1 See, for example, I Kings xxii. 22 ; Ezek. xiv. 9.
2 Jer. ii. 8. » See chap. vi.

THE PROPHET'S CALL 75
judges rather than as disciples. The prophet would
have scorned to betray the secret of his soul before
a body sitting to pass judgment on the genuineness
of his vision. God had spoken to him, and should
any mortal pretend to control one who had heard
the Divine voice? But when in the course of his
ministry, the story of his call could lend weight to
his words, and so persuade those who were doubtful
of God's revelation, then the prophet would not hold
back even the dearest secret of his heart.
Such autobiographical revelations should be read
with reverence and sympathy. We may study them
for our profit, but not to satisfy an idle curiosity
May God give us the humble spirit of a learner as
we venture to seek the explanation of those scenes
in which the Divine voice called to their office the
holy men of old !
How shall we pursue this investigation, the diffi
culty of which is patent ? The surest way is to take
a few .instances and study them inductively. We
shall attain the clearest conception of the call by
a study of concrete cases. From this study we shall
be able to gather the broad principles in a brief
summary. There will be no danger of mistake if we begin
with the first of the great prophets, the herdman of
Tekoa. Of the early life of the prophets before
Amos we know little, and cannot always tell how
they were led to their sacred office.1 They either
1 Samuel, like Moses, is said to have been called directly ; Elisha
was summoned by the prophet he was to succeed, though it is said that
Elijah was divinely commanded to appoint Elisha his successor.

76 THE HEBREW PROPHET
found no occasion to relate personal history; or
as they did not themselves write, the story was
not preserved by those who have given us such
meagre biographical information as we have. Of
the sons of the prophets nothing is to be said, be
cause their call consisted in admission to an order.
They were not looked to for high service, nor re
garded by posterity as channels of revelation. They
were probably received into the order by the father,
or chief, and had no such direct Divine summons to
office as had those great men who really contributed
to the knowledge of God.
Amos reveals something of his call upon two
different occasions. One of his allusions throws
light upon the other, and though less significant as a
source of information, must nevertheless be carefully
considered. The call of Amos is particularly interest
ing, because he was not summoned to a lifelong
service, but only to the delivery of a special message.
All that we know of his prophetic career occupies
but a few days. It is, of course, not impossible that
Amos may have been known as a seer to his fellows
at Tekoa even while he was a herdman ; but it is
highly improbable.1
By a variety of figures Amos prepares the way for
the account of his personal revelation. There is
nothing accidental in his leaving his flock in the
wilderness of Judah to prophesy in Bethel. If two
persons walk together, it is obvious that they meet
1 Kraetzschmar says, however, "It was not for the first time that
Amos had in this way appeared openly, but heretofore he had been
let alone" (Prophet und Seher im alten Israel, p. i).

THE PROPHET'S CALL 77
by appointment. If the lion roars, it is plain that he
has taken his prey. If a bird is snared, it is evident
that someone has set a trap. If a trumpet is blown
as an alarm of war, it is not necessary to hunt
further for the cause of the people's terror. If a
man prophesies in the name of Jahveh, the inference
is plain that Jahveh has spoken to him.1 No man
can truly preach unless the word has been given him
from his God. On the other hand, if God has
spoken to a human soul, and revealed things which
vitally concern the weal or woe of the nation, it is
impossible for that man to hold his peace. As
Emerson put it, " the seer must be a sayer." Amos
only began to speak when silence was no longer
possible. Amos speaks more distinctly, however, when
Amaziah interrupts his preaching, and bids him go
back to Judah, if he must needs prophesy, for Bethel
was a royal sanctuary, and the king would not
permit such heavy words to be declaimed there.
Then Amos tells the priest that he is not prophesy
ing because prophecy is his trade and he must needs
exercise it ; on the contrary, he was a herdman and
dresser of sycamore trees ; but Jahveh took him from
the flock and bade him prophesy. Nor was it a
roving commission which was entrusted to him.
Jahveh said, " Go, prophesy unto My people Israel."2
That command could not be obeyed by exercising
the office of a seer among the villagers of Tekoa, nor
by adopting the priest's suggestion to prophesy in
Judah. The Divine commission made Israel his
1 Amos iii. 3-8. 2 Amos vii. 15.

78 THE HEBREW PROPHET
objective, and it was to Israel that Amos spoke, and
would continue to speak, in spite of the power of
both priest and king.
The prophet's declaration, superficially considered,
is simple enough. God directed him to prophesy to
Israel, and he did as he was bid. But must we be
content with the statement which lies on the surface ?
May we not seek to penetrate further into the
mystery, so that we may more fully comprehend the
prophet's call to his great mission ?
We believe still in the Divine call. More than
ever before are we convinced that every true life
is a vocation. The physician is divinely called to
lengthen and ease the physical life ; the lawyer, the
merchant, the manufacturer, the writer, the carpenter,
and the shoemaker, if they be true men, are appointed
of God to their several callings. Especially is woman
called of God, whether, as is so common in these
days, she stands as the competitor of man in nearly
every occupation of life, or whether she fills her old
and highest place as the light of a home, and the
bearer and best counsellor of children. We believe
also that men are called to be prophets to-day as
well as in the time of Jeroboam II. ; and sometimes
we think the voice of the true prophet was never
more urgently needed. Was the call of Amos
different in kind from all these other calls, or at
most only in a degree? Did God once give men
a specific summons infinitely clearer than any man
knows to-day ? Were the prophets of old absolutely
safeguarded against mistaking their vocation, while
men of to-day are honestly doubtful whether the

THE PROPHET'S CALL 79
" P. C," which a man said he saw in a vision, stands
for " preach Christ " or " plow corn " ? Or can those
ancient calls be only rightly explained in terms of
modern thought ?
A man to-day, however conscientious and devout,
may be in the gravest doubt of the nature of his call.
A young man thinks of the ministry and various
other occupations. He desires to live an upright
and a useful life. He is ready to become a minister,
a merchant, or a blacksmith, if he can be assured
that his mission is surely one or another. He is
persuaded that no office is low if it comes by Divine
appointment ; but how can he be sure what is God's
purpose for him ? He may have a decided preference
for a certain calling ; but can he be sure that his
preference is also God's ? Or a young minister may
be equipped for his career, and in most heartbreaking
uncertainty where to prophesy. He is offered many
places by men : the rector of a city parish offers him
an assistantship ; a vestry elects him to a rectorate ;
he is urged to go to the mission field. He knows
that in any of these places opportunity will not be
lacking for any talent he may possess ; he is ready
not to choose, but to be chosen. Among the dis
crepant calls of men, where is he to find the Divine
voice, which never gives a roving commission, and
which never perplexes by sending two calls at once ?
In such cases we cannot depend upon hearing the
objective voice of God, telling us to go prophesy to
Israel. It seems, therefore, as if the Hebrew prophets
had a great advantage over their poor modern
successors. But was it really so ? Did they hear

80 THE HEBREW PROPHET
a voice which is no longer audible even to the most
devoutly inclined ear? Or were they constrained
to undergo the same confusing experience as our
selves, and leave us the record not of the grave
problem, but only of its clear and final solution ?
Amos was absolutely convinced that he was called
of God to prophesy to Israel. Nothing could have
shaken his faith in his vocation. We do certainly
believe that he was not mistaken. However strange
the course of our interpretation of this call may seem,
we wish to keep this as our guiding principle : Amos
was really called of God.
Yet we shall fail to reach the psychological ex
planation of that call if we do not bear in mind the
fact that we are dealing with a foreign people and
a distant time. The religious language of the eighth
century before Christ is not the same as the religious
language of the twentieth century after Christ ; and
the Hebrews did not speak the English tongue, nor
did they think English thoughts. To understand the
facts of the earlier life of the Orientals we must
translate their speech into the language of the later
life of the Occidentals. The failure to do that has
led to confusion and error in the past, and will do
so again in the present unless we are on our guard.
As I have before intimated, Amos gives us a hint,
in Oriental language, indeed, which may lead us to
understand the truth. He said he must prophesy
because God had spoken ; in plain terms, he means
that he perceived a condition of things to which his
Israelite neighbours were blind. This herdman was
a man quite beyond the ordinary. He had eyes to

THE PROPHET'S CALL 81
see, and he saw. His contemporaries were rejoicing
in a peaceful period, and were quite blind to the
political movements which indicated that the present
happy situation could not last long. Amos beheld
a nation revelling riotously in a prosperous day, and
laying up no stores against the troubled night which
was pressing near. The insight was the call of
God ; God showed him the true condition : that dis
closure was a command to warn those who were in
peril. The herdman was, moreover, deeply religious and
conspicuously moral. He had watched the course
of the world's history and had reflected upon God's
government. He was persuaded that all the world-
movements were in the hands of Jahveh. He rose
above his times in that conception. Jahveh had,
indeed, brought Israel out of Egypt, but His part in
the great movements did not stop with that. Logically
it could not stop with that, and Amos was as relent
less in following conclusions to their end as Calvin.
If Jahveh could bring a nation from Egypt, He was
more than a mere national God ; for that fact pre
supposes a control of Egypt as well as of Israel.
Therefore it was His hand also that brought the
Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir.
And it was His hand that would bring the Assyrians
upon Israel.
There was another great idea which God breathed
into the soul of this Tekoan seer : the basis of the
Divine judgments was ethical, not racial. This simple
herdman rose entirely above the notion, so common
even in much later ages, that God looked toward His
G

82 THE HEBREW PROPHET
people as a parent looks who is blinded by blood-
relationship, and so will defend an abandoned son in
his wantonness. The people might still believe that
Jahveh would protect His own, and fight their battles
against any foreign people, whether Israel was faithful
or not. Amos had no such idea. Damascus would
be punished because of its barbarous cruelty, Gaza
because of its indulgence in an inhuman slave trade,
and other nations for similar offences against sound
morality. Israel also was steeped in wrong. This
people had sold the righteous for silver and the needy
for a pair of shoes ; they had made the Nazirites
drunk in violation of their vows ; they had silenced
the voice of those who were ordained of God to
speak. Punishment was just as certain for Israel as
for Damascus, aye, more certain ; for their superior
relation to Jahveh, and greater knowledge of His
holy ways, aggravated their offence. Damascus
might plead ignorance, but Israel had sinned against
the light.
This, then, in a word, is the picture seen by the
keen eye of the prophet of Tekoa : a nation steeped
in all manner of vice, utterly disregardful of the
sword hanging over their head, and not a voice raised
to show them their peril, and so to turn them from
their sin. Amos saw all this plainly. Many a day
must he have reflected upon the unhappy condition
of Israel Could not a voice sound the alarm so that
the nation would turn from their sin ? There was no
such voice in all the nation. What the people were
doing to avert the Divine punishment was useless.
They were attempting to pacify a God inflamed by

THE PROPHET'S CALL 83
righteous wrath with sacrifices and sacred song. They
offered bullocks in place of obedience, the fat of rams
in place of hearkening. This seer could hear the
cry from Heaven, "Take thou away from Me the
noise of thy songs . . . and let justice roll down as
waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream." 1
What a moment it must have been to Amos when
the question first forced its way to recognition:
" Why do you not warn Israel ? " It was easy for
him to object : " I am no prophet, or prophet's son ;
I have no commission to speak in God's name." But
the rejoinder was inevitable : "Your assumed impedi
ment is really an important qualification. The mem
bers of the prophetic order are at a disadvantage.
They do not see as you do, because they look too
much with professional eyes. They are bound up
with the State, so that frankness would lead to a per
secution which they are not strong enough to face.
You are free and brave, and you understand."
Over and over again, by day and by night, such
thoughts must have ^troubled the soul of the seer,
until the truth flashed upon him which ended inward
discussion and led to obedient action. He came to
see that just as Jahveh leads a nation from Egypt, or
sends the Assyrians to chastise Damascus, so was the
Divine voice calling him to preach. The difficulties
and dangers were as plain as before ; but they no
longer constituted an obstacle. The prophet per
ceived that when God gives a man insight, the gift is
not for selfish enjoyment, but for use. In his clear
perception of the perilous situation and sore need of
1 Amos v. 23 f.

84 THE HEBREW PROPHET
Israel, he saw the call of God : ". Jahveh God hath
spoken ; who can but prophesy ? " 1
Such an interpretation of Amos's call as I have
given may still be unwelcome to some, because, as it
seems to them, it is one of the countless ways in
which modern critics are taking the supernatural out
of the Bible. I must say frankly that in this study
I am searching primarily for truth, and not for
welcome truth, or harmless truth, or truth qualified in
any way whatsoever. Truth ought always to be
welcome; it certainly is not only harmless, but is
the most helpful of all things. Yet I should be quite
devoid of a sympathetic spirit if I did not desire so
to present what I believe to be true that my presenta
tion shall edify faith rather than destroy it.
That God should pronounce in objective audible
words in the Hebrew tongue, " Go prophesy to
Israel," is regarded as supernatural. There is an
element of the miraculous in it, and it is an
apologetic support for faith. That God should have
inspired Amos in some such way as I have indicated
is natural, and therefore apologetically worthless.
The prophet becomes only an enlightened man, and
1 Amos iii. 8. Wellhausen gives an entirely different turn to this
passage. He emends the text and interprets thus : ' ' The Lord Jahveh
speaks (through the prophets) ; who shall not tremble?" (Die kleinen
Propheten, p. 75. ) I can only say here that there is no warrant for the
emendation except that it completes a parallelism ; and that I agree
with G. A. Smith that thus to alter the text is "to blunt the point of
the argument." Amos at this point is referring to the voice of Jahveh
which he heard, not what the people heard. Wellhausen is influenced
by his desire to establish the fact that the word of Jahveh and the
message of the prophets are not distinguishable. His text is followed
by Nowack, but rejected by Marti.

THE PROPHET'S CALL 85
down he tumbles from the high pedestal upon which
a portion of the Protestant world has placed him.
But facts are stubborn things. In the one case there
is consistency with all that we know of God's dealings
with man, which is not by precept, but by inspiration.
This method is likewise consistent with our highest
conception of God, a Spirit guiding the world upward
by spiritual influences upon souls kindred to Himself.
And God is "the same yesterday, and to-day, and for
ever."1 But why did not the prophet tell us plainly what-
happened, instead of misleading us by doubtful
words? The difficulty is with our understanding
rather than with Amos's statement. I suppose that
every Israelite to whom he spoke in Bethel under
stood exactly what the prophet meant. Those
people were accustomed to the direct ascription to
God of what we call natural forces. The thunder
was the voice of God just as truly as the still whisper
in the soul. Then again this preacher had no time
and no occasion to tell the whole story of the process
by which his conclusion was reached, but only to
state the final truth. In conclusion, let me say, and
say as strongly as possible, that the man who does
not see the agency of God in the call of Amos,
supposing my interpretation right, must have a faith
sorely in need of props ; for how otherwise can he
possibly believe in the agency of God in the affairs
of men to-day?
How different was the call of Hosea, a native
Israelite, who put on the prophetic mantle shortly
1 Heb. xiii. 8.

86 THE HEBREW PROPHET
after Amos was permitted to lay it aside. God leads
many men by many paths. O that men could see
when God is leading, that they might follow as Amos
and Hosea did ! Amos was led to prophesy by
reason of divinely given insight ; Hosea was directed
to the same task by domestic affliction of the sorest
kind which can come to an upright soul.
The sad facts of Hosea's life, so far as he has dis
closed them to us, are briefly these. He married
a woman whom he tenderly loved. Gomer the
daughter of Diblaim bore the prophet two sons and
a daughter,1 whose symbolic names2 show that already
God's hand was at work upon this choice spirit
While these children were still young, came the
heart-breaking discovery to the loving husband that
his wife was unfaithful. So abandoned did she be
come that she left Hosea's home and indulged in
riotous living with her paramours, until the inevitable
end was reached by her sale into slavery.
Nothing would have been easier for Hosea than to
have written a divorce, and closed his house and heart
against his faithless spouse for ever. But real love can
not always be eradicated by a bill of divorce. In spite
of her wantonness, Hosea loved the wife of his youth.
He bought her back from the bondage into which
she had fallen, and put her under restraint ; if that
1 G. A. Smith holds that Jezreel alone was Hosea's child, and that
therefore Gomer's infidelity began soon after marriage. In the case of
Jezreel it is said that Gomer " conceived and bore him a son " (Hosea
i. 3). This ' ' him " is lacking in the account of the birth of the other
children. But the omission may be accidental, or at least not so full of
meaning as Smith supposes.
2 Jezreel, Lo-ruhamah (uncompassionated), and Lo-'ammi (not my
people) ; see Hosea i. 3-9.

THE PROPHET'S CALL 87
did not turn her heart back to her husband, at least
it made indulgence in her favourite vice impossible.
Space will not permit a discussion of the strife over
the interpretation of this story, nor is it necessary for
my purpose. The reader will find ample treatment
in the recent commentaries and other books on the
prophets. For myself, I can only say that I agree on
the one hand with those who deem it impossible for
God to demand of a keenly affectionate soul that he
should take a prostitute to his bosom, and on the
other hand with those who cannot be satisfied with
the idea that this story is an allegory, but insist that
it is the real record of the prophet's life.1
As I have indicated above, Gomer's unfaithfulness
developed after her marriage.
The command "Go, take thee a prostitute wife"2
is an instance common enough in prophecy, of inter
preting an early experience in the light of later know
ledge. It does not necessarily imply that Gomer was
bad when Hosea married her, though many have held
that strange view.
The explanation of the prophet's persistent efforts
1 There are in the main three interpretations of this story, (i) That
it is wholly allegorical. Hosea invents it to describe the infidelity of
Israel. But as G. A. Smith says, it "would be strange for Hosea to tell
such a record of his wife if false, or, if he was unmarried, about himself. "
(2) That it is wholly literal. God, indeed, lays heavy burdens upon
His servants, but we should require greater evidence than we have to
believe that He demanded that a pure man should take a foul woman to
his breast. (3) That the experience is real, but to be interpreted with
discretion. The main point is that Gomer was pure, or thought to be
pure by Hosea, and fell into wrong after marriage. This view has
rapidly gained acceptance since its convincing presentation by W.
Robertson Smith in his Prophets of Israel.
2 Hosea i. 2.

88 THE HEBREW PROPHET
to reclaim his fallen wife, and the proof that she had
been a pure bride, are to be found in his inextinguish
able love for her. Hosea might have taken a prosti
tute to wife at the Divine command, but no power in
earth or heaven could have kindled such a love as he
felt for Gomer, if the object of it had been already
a fallen woman. Love in many cases proves unable
to endure any very great strain. A father loves a son
until the boy goes badly astray, and then the once fond
parent turns him out of doors without compunction.
A man and woman really seem to be a loving pair
during courtship and honeymoon. Soon afterwards
they may face each other in a divorce court with the
most implacable hatred. But there are some natures
in which love takes a deeper root, and can never be
eradicated. A mother often tenderly loves a son who
breaks her heart. A wife may continue to love a
man, in spite of everything on his part to destroy her
affection. Such a love as Hosea's is beyond question
uncommon, but is by no means so impossible a feat
as to be explicable only as fiction.
What has this essay on love to do with Hosea's
call ? Much every way. Hosea must have struggled
many a time with those troublesome questions which
arise in afflicted souls : Why does my God whom I
devotedly serve suffer my lot to be so rough ? Why
is my heart, so full of a pure passion, denied a worthy
object ? Why am I unable to tear out this passion
from my soul, and allow the profligate to meet the
doom she so richly deserves ?
Then some day the explanation came to Hosea
with the fearful force with which great truths break

THE PROPHET'S CALL 89
into human souls. This hard life of mine is history
in miniature of God's relation to this nation. Jahveh
loved Israel in her youth, and brought her from
Egypt to be His own people. How sadly Israel has
requited this love. She has played the harlot with
Baals, and has fallen into every manner of sin. Will
Jahveh cast her off as utterly abandoned and worth
less, and let her meet her just doom ? No ; Jahveh
will punish His unfaithful spouse, but He loves her
in spite of her infidelity, and will reclaim her, and
take her back purified into His bosom.1
Having grasped that truth, it is easy to see that
he must preach it to the people. "Jahveh hath
spoken ; who can but prophesy ? " The burden of
Hosea's message is drawn from his own unhappy
life. The very bitterness of his own estate opened
his eyes to the great facts about God and Israel. If
only Gomer could see the matter as Hosea saw it !
If only Israel could see the matter as God saw it !
Hosea sees it as God sees it, and God's mission for
him is to make Israel's eyes like his own.
In the opening of his eyes he discovers the provi
dence in his own affairs. The prophet looks back
upon his life, which had first explained a portion of
God's life, and now in the light of that truth about
God he understands what before had been so mys
terious in his own sufferings. In realising God's
1 Long afterward a prophet greater than Hosea draws a brief
picture of Jahveh's patient endurance of His unfaithful bride. ' ' Where
is the bill of your mother's divorcement, wherewith I have put her
away?" (Isa. I. i). This implies, of course, that Jahveh had not put
her away. The unknown prophet of the exile evidently was familiar
with Hosea.

90 THE HEBREW PROPHET
pain he came to understand his own. God had used
his afflictions to open his eyes. The rod was laid
upon his back, that out of his very pain should come
the inspiration to a life and work in harmony with
the plans of God.1 God had called Hosea to prophesy,
as He calls all men, from the day of his birth ; but
the prophet did not hear the call at first. He had
other purposes in life. He married and begot children,
and started at least in his own way. The prophetic
office in the time of Hosea had even less attraction
for an ambitious and capable man than the ministry
has in our day. But God's voice is not always
silenced with a first refusal. The child Samuel may
at first mistake the voice of God for that of Eli ; but
every time he lies down to resume his broken sleep
the voice sounds again, and will sound until it is
answered, or an answer made impossible. So the
call was ever pressing upon the heart of Hosea, and
when personal misery brought him low, in the quiet
reflection which comes with great sorrow, the voice
was heard and heeded.
God's hand reaches out for all kinds of men.
Elisha was taken from the plow, Amos from the
herd, Jeremiah and Ezekiel from the priesthood,
Matthew from the tax office, the sons of Zebedee
from the fishing boats, Zephaniah probably from the
royal palace.2 But among them all, high and low,
1 In Hosea i. 2 we read : " The beginning of Jahveh's speaking by
Hosea : Jahveh said to Hosea, Go, take to thee a prostitute wife." In
the light of his bitter experience the prophet sees that the whole course
of his life was providentially leading to the present climax.
2 Zephaniah was probably the great-great-grandson of King Heze-
kiah (see Zeph. i. I, and A. B. Davidson in Camb. Bible).

THE PROPHET'S CALL 91
God never laid His hand upon a more accomplished
man than Isaiah the son of Amoz.
Isaiah appears to have been highly educated, like
St. Paul ; but his training was not so narrow and
partisan as Paul's. He was a man of such diversified
talents that, education was inevitable. Wherever
there is a genuine thirst for knowledge, means to
satisfy it are certain to be found. God selects
choice spirits for His greatest service, even though
they are often found in humble stations. God looks
at the heart and requires fitness for the task in hand.
At the time Uzziah died Jerusalem was a cultured city.
Court and people had grown out of the crude condi
tions of earlier days, and had made long strides towards
a high civilisation. The man who could get the ear
of this people must be one whose culture and natural
abilities would at once mark him as a leader among
men. There was probably no one in Jerusalem who
more exactly met the requirements than Isaiah the
son of Amoz ; and to him God's finger beckoned.
The story of his call to the prophetic office is found
in the sixth chapter of his prophecies, rather than in
the first, as we might expect. This order is signifi
cant. It is plain that the prophet originally had no
intention of revealing that inward personal struggle,
the outcome of which was his complete yielding to
the Divine will. Only when the time came that the
publishing of his personal relation to God might add
force to the words spoken by His command was he
constrained to lay bare that scene in the temple
which determined finally the course of his life. We
will read his story in his own words.

92 THE HEBREW PROPHET
" In the year, that king Uzziah died : at that time I
saw the Lord seated upon a lofty and exalted throne,
and His train filled the temple. Seraphim were
standing above Him, each with six wings : with two
he covered his face, with two he covered his feet,
and two he used for flight. One cried to the other
and said : Holy, holy, holy, is Jahveh Sabaoth: His
glory fills the whole earth. The foundations of the
thresholds shook with the noise of the one crying,
and the house was filled with smoke.
" And I said, Woe unto me : I am undone ; for I
am a man unclean of lips, and dwell among a people
unclean of lips, and yet my eyes have looked upon
King Jahveh Sabaoth. Then one of the seraphim
flew unto me, holding in his hand a hot stone which
he had taken from the altar with tongs. He touched
my mouth and said : Lo, this has touched thy lips, so
that thy iniquity is removed and thy uncleanness is
absolved. " Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying :
Whom shall I send, and who will go for us ? And I
spoke : Behold me, send me. And He said, Go, and
say to this people, Hear with the ear, but do not
comprehend, and see with the eye, but do not gain
knowledge." 1
But one might well ask us, as Philip asked the
Ethiopian proselyte, " Understandest thou what thou
readest ? " Isaiah was an ancient Oriental, and spoke
the language of his time and of his people. His
thoughts were not like ours, and his way of stating
things was by no means modern. From a literal
1 Isa. vi. 1-9.

THE PROPHET'S CALL 93
understanding of this story the conclusion has been
drawn that the whole problem of Isaiah's life was
raised and settled in the few moments he spent in
the temple, during which he actually saw with human
eye the God of Israel. But such an inference is quite
unnatural, and is highly improbable.
Isaiah had seen the necessity of a voice lifted up in
the cause of righteousness. Many times the thought
must have forced itself upon him, that he was him
self the man to whom Jahveh pointed as the fit
leader in a movement to guide the State and people
according to Divine principles. But there was a
serious objection, the same which has been felt by
every right-minded man who is called to a holy
office — that is, personal unfitness. Not only did he
dwell among a people whose lips were unclean, but
unhappily his own were in the same condition. What
ever else it ought to be, the mouth which proclaims
God's message to the world should be clean. How
was he, conscious of a beam in his own eye, to have
the clear vision necessary to remove the mote from
his brothers' eyes ?
But God's call is inexorable. Nothing more surely
marks the Divine voice in a great soul than its per
sistence. Isaiah might have stilled the voice by
absolutely disregarding and defying it. But he was
a true man, of devout spirit, and was at least ready to
listen. He went to the temple, as apparently was
his custom when in perplexity, that he might, in that
sacred place, pour out his soul to Jahveh. The hand
of God pursues him in the sanctuary. As he prays
he sees a vision with that inner eye which is some-

94 THE HEBREW PROPHET
times more truthful in its sight than the outward eye.
The sight of God fills him with the terror which
it inspired in every Hebrew. How could sinful eyes
look upon the holy God without peril ? The personal
disqualification which had long stood in the way of
obedience is put now in the specific form of the
unclean lips. God meets the objection by sending
a seraph to remove the taint. The effect reaches
further than the lips. The prophet's hearing also
has been made acute by the purification. God needs
but to touch one part and man is every whit clean.1
Isaiah hears again the Lord calling for a volunteer :
" Whom shall I send ? " The obstacle which had
hindered him so long has been swept away. Peace
has come to the perplexed soul. Duty is clear now,
and there is the impulse to follow it at any cost.
" Here am I, send me." The uncertainty of weeks,
and perhaps of months, is all gone. Isaiah comes
from the temple with his life's work settled. How
ever resolutely he had stood against former calls to
the prophetic office, he succumbs completely now,
and henceforth gives himself to the proclaiming of
God's message to the world.
That this call was supernatural in the true sense of
being Divine, is as unquestionable to me as it was to
its object. But that its manner of operation was not
essentially different from thousands of other calls is a
truth too important to be lightly thrust aside. God
has been calling men to His service all through the
ages. Doubtless there is a personal appropriateness
in the form of every call. Nevertheless God is the
1 John xiii. 10.

THE PROPHET'S CALL 95
same in all ages ; man is man in all ages ; and the
Divine influence upon the soul is substantially the
same. We can have no purpose to lower Isaiah's
call. On the contrary, I believe the right explanation
raises it. It is a greater thing that God keeps every
planet in its place than that He should disarrange
the system by the temporary stopping of one of
them. The speaking of God to every soul that
listens is vastly more supernatural, to use a too
hackneyed term, than the speaking only to a soul
now and then. The important thing about such
a call is its reality. It is a bad condition for a man
to be a blacksmith whom God calls to be a carpenter ;
it is much worse to be a prophet contrary to the
Divine will. Isaiah's call was real. It led him to his
true life, and for forty years he was the leading figure
in the Jewish Church, if not in the Jewish State.
This chapter is growing apace in spite of my efforts
to be brief. But room must be made for an account
of the summons of one other prophet, one of the
most interesting of all the men of God of the olden
time, a man whose whole life was a martyrdom, who
saw all his efforts apparently come to naught, who
watched the State decline and then go to ruin, and
who was conscious of the degradation of the popular
religion — Jeremiah of Anathoth.
Jeremiah was a priest, and seemingly derived his
support from the revenues of an order which he did
not hesitate to expose with vigour. Whether he
exercised the priestly office in his younger days we
do not know. But we do know that God had more
important business for him than killing animals or

96 THE HEBREW PROPHET
laying fire upon the sacred altar. This prophet has
told us of his call, and we turn first of all to his own
story. In the thirteenth year of the reign of Josiah
(B.C. 626) " the word of Jahveh came to me thus :
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and
before thou earnest from the womb, I sanctified thee ;
a prophet to the nations I have made thee.
" Then I said, Alas, Lord Jahveh : Lo, I have no
ability in speaking ; for I am but a youth.
" But Jahveh said unto me, Do not say, I am but a
youth : for to all that I send thee, thou shalt go ; and
all that I command thee thou shalt speak. Have no
fear because of them : for I shall be with thee to
deliver thee : utterance of Jahveh.
" Then Jahveh put forth His hand and touched my
mouth ; and Jahveh said unto me, Lo, I have put
My words in thy mouth. See, I have appointed thee
this day over the nations and over the kingdoms, to
pluck up and to destroy, to tear down and to root
out, to build and to plant."1
We find here unusually full information about the
young priest's struggle before he was willing to lay
aside the ephod for the hairy mantle. Jeremiah was
as much a fatalist as the average Oriental. God's
summons to him was no sudden impulse. Before he
was born he was destined of Jahveh to this high but
dangerous office. The young priest seemed to feel
the hand of destiny upon him, but the present im
pulse to begin prophesying seemed to him prema
ture. He was but a youth, which may mean that he
1 Jer. i. 4-10.

THE PROPHET'S CALL 97
was still too young, or that he as yet had risen to but
a subordinate position in the priestly order ; or it
may very likely include both objections. When he
attains riper years and has reached a more prominent
position in his order, then he can begin more auspi
ciously the almost impossible task assigned to him.
That objection would have validity if God sent
a prophet into the world, and then abandoned him to
his fate, as He was once supposed to have created
a world, and, when it was once set going, had with
drawn His hand for ever. But the prophet's con
nexion with God was constant. God's words would
ever be placed in his mouth, and he had but to let
them come out. Such statements as this have been
misunderstood by men unconscious of the Oriental
manner of speech, and who have taken the words too
literally. Interpreted in that way they lay a fine
foundation for a strict doctrine of verbal inspiration.
But we have no ground to take them in that way.
Jeremiah himself has supplied the corrective for that
slavish literalism. Years later he compares the mes
sage of God to a fire in his bones. He had reached
the determination to quit his unwelcome office with
its dreary messages of woe. It was easy to form that
resolution, but it was not so easy to extinguish that
fire in the bones, that is, the Divine impulse to speak
out the truth bravely, whether the truth would kindle
hope or plunge into despair.
Jeremiah's call is not limited to the kingdom of
Judah. On the contrary, he is established as a
prophet to the nations and kingdoms of the world.
In his day the truth was well established that Jahveh
H

98 THE HEBREW PROPHET
was no mere national God. The whole world was
subject to His will. The prophet could have no
narrower interest than his God; therefore while
primarily concerned with the fate of his own people,
Jeremiah's interest was world-wide-.
Jeremiah had been born in the reign of Manasseh.
In those days the man who prophesied took his life
in his hand. The soldier's office was less hazardous
than the prophet's, for the soldier's enemies were all
in his front. Conditions became more peaceful
under the youthful Josiah, but Jeremiah knew that
Josiah could not live for ever, and the story of his
call appears not to have been written till its author
had experienced the bitterness of persecution, and
thus his account is influenced by his later hardships.
Jahveh guaranteed not only that Jeremiah should
never lack a true message,1 but also that he should
not want efficient protection. However severe the an
tagonism to the truth should become, the Divine hand
retains its power, and will not fail him at the crises.
Finally, Jeremiah is warned in advance that the
character of his ministry will be destructive. The
constructive process would not be entirely over
looked, and yet we find four strong words of destruc
tion and but two of construction.2 This indicates
1 Cheyne interprets the statement "I have put My words in thy
mouth " thus : " I promise never to leave thee in uncertainty as to thy
message ; I will guide and overrule the natural promptings of thy heart
and intellect as that thou shalt convey the only true conception of My
will which the language can express or the people of Israel compre
hend" (Jeremiah, his Life and Times, p. 5).
2 "To pluck up and to destroy, to tear down and to root out, to
build and to plant " (i. 10).

THE PROPHET'S CALL 99
correctly the kind of work this prophet was ever
called upon to perform. He must always warn his
people that the inevitable disaster of the fall of
Jerusalem was drawing nearer and nearer.
There is one feature of Ezekiel's call which makes
it distinct from all others, and which is therefore
especially worthy of note. The command was
given : " Open thy mouth, and eat what I give thee."
The result follows : " And when I looked, lo, a hand
was stretched forth unto me ; and, lo, in it was a
book-roll ; and he spread it before me : and it was
written within and without. . . . And he said unto
me, Son of man, eat what thou findest : eat this roll,
and go speak unto the house of Israel."1
The peculiar feature here is that Ezekiel's inspira
tion was to come from a book. There was a written
standard to which he was to conform. The prophet
was no longer a free creator under the influence of
the Spirit, but was guided by a previous revelation
which is received as authoritative. Jeremiah indeed
had been sent about the country to preach the newly
discovered book of Deuteronomy,2 but Ezekiel is
commanded to eat a book containing the message he
is to preach.
It is true that we must guard against taking too
literally the bold figures of this prophet. We are
not to understand that there was actually a body of
written doctrine placed in his hands to which he
swore conformity. That sort of shackles is a more
modern invention, coming to the Church, I suppose,
through the example of the State. But it does
1 Ezek. ii. 8b-iii. I. 2 Jer. xi. 1-8. See additional note (7).

ioo THE HEBREW PROPHET
mean that in Ezekiel's day we have reached the era
of sacred books which have an authority for the
people. The inaugural vision must reveal to the
prophet in what manner the word of the Lord is to
come to him, and in Ezekiel's case it came in the
form of a written message. We have truly now
reached the age of the literary prophet, for it is not
unlikely that many of Ezekiel's messages were
originally issued in written form. Toy says very
aptly, " the eating of a book indicates a literary
conception of prophecy different from that of the
preceding prophets, but in accordance with the
literary growth of the nation." x
But little needs to be added to our study to sum
marise the chief results. Yet these points may well
be brought together here.
I. The prophet came to his office from the highest
motives. He believed that he was expressly called
to his ministry by the voice of God, a voice which he
dare not disregard. He was no seeker after high
station. Whether the prophet's mantle seemed
better or worse than his own, he made the exchange
not to please himself, but to please God. The man
ner of acquiring office betrays itself in its administra
tion. He who uses a public office, ecclesiastical or
political, as the means to gratify ambition for station,
or as a source of revenue, can never be the true
servant of God or man. The prophets held an office
to which they were led by a will other than their
own, a condition plainly written in the history of
their official lives.
1 Ezekiel, in Polychrome Bible, p. 97.

THE PROPHET'S CALL 101
2. The call was due to the Spirit of God acting
upon the heart of man, not to an external voice,
audible only to the outward ear. This idea underlies
the statements of the prophets, and is clearly the
only interpretation which can be satisfactory. We
could not hold God responsible for every utterance
even of His holiest prophets. There is no way to
avoid that responsibility if we put a literal construc
tion upon the introductory formula " Thus saith
Jahveh." The right to use that depends upon a
sufficiently clear conception of God to know what
He would say. The one who knows the life and
heart of Jesus Christ may well solve his problems by
asking what Jesus would do in like circumstances.
The spiritually minded prophet, living in constant
communion with God, and grasping the principles by
which God came to govern the world, could rightly
preface his utterances with his " Thus saith Jahveh."
It is fair to assume that the call to the office came in
the same way as the messages which the office
involved. 3. None the less the call was real, the inspiration
was real, the revelation was real. Spiritual influences
are just as real as physical. The voice in the heart is
just as real as the voice in the ear, though its inter
pretation requires a more delicate understanding. No
one would assert that any Hebrew prophet knew the
mind of God perfectly ; but partial knowledge is still
knowledge. The prophet was obliged to translate the
inspiration which affected his soul into speech which
might affect the souls of his fellows. That he always
translated with absolute accuracy cannot be main-

102 THE HEBREW PROPHET
tained ; that he had a real message to translate is
not to be doubted. There may have been prophets
who mistakenly felt that they were divinely called.
Hananiah may have been as certain of his call as
Jeremiah. Mistakes were surely possible on the part
of those for whom a later age could find no other
name than false prophets. But on the part of others
no mistake was made. The final test of prophecy
was stated by Jesus to be the fruits of the office.
We may apply that test to every canonical prophet,
and then rejoice in the assured result that not one
was mistaken in his belief that he was called of God.
4. The call was irresistible. So far as we know, or
can conjecture from what knowledge we have, every
great Hebrew prophet entered upon office reluctantly.
The reluctance was not due to a disinclination to serve
God or man, but to a deep sense of personal unfitness
for such high office. For a long time some of them
withstood the invitation, even as St. Paul stood
against the goad which was driving him Christward ;
but God is patient and persistent, and in the end all
objections were overcome.
It may indeed be true that God called to prophecy
many a worthy Hebrew who either never came to
feel the call sufficiently or whose scruples could not
be removed. This is a matter of opinion, however,
and we can never know the facts. We do know,
though, that in the case of those prophets who made
prophecy great, the call was so persistent and im
perative that their resistance was broken down.
5. The call demanded of the prophet a surrender
to the will of God. A Divine message would be

THE PROPHET'S CALL 103
given him not always welcome to the people ; not
always welcome to the prophet ; but he must be true
to his inspiration, at whatever sacrifice to himself.
The prophets were often told that their words would
fall on unwilling ears; that opposition would even
take an active form ; but that they must boldly
rebuke vice, however ardent the people might be in
their efforts to silence the jarring remonstrance. The
note of the true prophet was his faithfulness to his
guidance. The unfailing mark of those who were
called false prophets as early as the Christian era was
their yielding to the demand of men at the sacrifice
of Divine truth. There were too many prophets then
as now who kept the ear groundward. There is a
species of modern prophet, happily somewhat rare,
who seems to think that the more he antagonises
men the more certainly he is pleasing to God. Such
prophets may have existed in Israel, but we do not
know them. He who exaggerates the demands of
God is as unfaithful as he who minimises them.
Happily men are quite likely in all ages to listen
to the voice of the true and wise prophet even if
they do not always follow his counsel.
6. The call explains the secret of the prophet's
power. When God really sends a man out into the
world to proclaim His will, that man must exercise a
great influence, for God has put a mighty force in his
hands. However unwilling the people may be to
hear or do, still the prophet is endowed with the
power of God. The prophets were strong, because
they were true ; they were brave for the same reason.
Loyalty to the deepest convictions of their souls,

104 THE HEBREW PROPHET
loyalty to the truth which God had put in their hearts,
made them the commanding figures they were, and
set them high in the world's esteem, in spite of a life
of suffering, and often a death of martyrdom.
7. Finally, there was no road to the office of
prophet except that of the Divine call. Sanday says
very truly, "We never hear of a prophet volunteer
ing for his mission. It is laid upon them as a
necessity from which they struggle to escape in vain." 1
Probably nothing struck Jeremiah more keenly than
the charge which Shemaiah made that he was a
prophet by his own appointment ; 2 for it was a base
injustice touching a vital matter. Nothing shows the
high ideal of our own ministry more forcibly than the
question in the ordinal, " Do you think in your heart,
that you are truly called, according to the will of our
Lord Jesus Christ ... to the Order and Ministry of
the Priesthood ? " No one can be a prophet without
the express call of God in this age any more than in
the days of the Hebrew dispensation.
Note. — It is interesting to see that in the suggestive book
of the late Dr. A. B. Davidson, The Called of God, there are
included among those who received the call of God : Abraham,
Jacob, Moses, Saul, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, John the Baptist,
Nicodemus, Zacchseus, the Rich Young Ruler, and Thomas.
A long period of time is covered in this list, many classes of
men are selected, vastly different results were attained : not all
of those were called to be prophets, but every call was real.
1 Bampton Lectures, p. 150. 2 Jer. xxix. 27.

CHAPTER VI
THE PROPHET'S CREDENTIALS
TO accomplish the Divine end of prophecy there
must be not only a man who will speak, but
also people who will listen. We have considered in
the preceding chapter the conditions which led the
man to speak. In this chapter we shall take up the
terms upon which the people would listen. Doubtless
there would be many factors in determining that
result, but only one is of primary importance for us,
namely, the assurance that the man was duly qualified
to speak in the name of God.
If a preacher could convince the people that he was
really a prophet, that he actually had a message which
God wished conveyed to man, there would be no
difficulty in securing a hearing in any age of the
world.1 Is it possible for the people to be certain that
a particular man speaks the mind of God ? If it is,
by what means is that assurance to be given ? In
other words, what are the prophet's credentials ?
This is no idle inquiry, but is often a burning ques
tion. There were thousands of Jews in the time of
1 This truth was understood by Zechariah : " In those days, ten men
from all the foreign tongues shall seize the skirt of a man who is a Jew,
saying, We will go with you ; for we have heard that God is with you "
(viii. 23). 105

106 THE HEBREW PROPHET
our Lord who would have received Jesus gladly and
would have followed Him even to the Cross, if they
had been fully convinced that He was the Messiah
promised of God. But how could they know ? Their
rulers pronounced Jesus a misleading impostor; what
evidence was available for them in the face of this
decree ?
The story of Micaiah, already discussed,1 affords a
good concrete instance, and is a case where the
problem was serious. The prophets of Ahab cried
with absolute unanimity, " Go up and prosper." The
solitary voice of Micaiah said, " Go up to your ruin."
Ahab had the best of reasons for distrusting the
counsel of his obsequious seers ; but if he had been
persuaded that Micaiah knew the truth, is it likely
that he would have set out upon an expedition certain
to result in disaster? And even if Ahab had been
ready to take such a risk, would the godly Jehosha
phat have been willing to fly directly in the face of
Providence, if he had been assured that Micaiah spoke
the truth ? Then there was a larger body interested
in that expedition than the two kings. Thousands
in the armies knew that they were going to certain
triumph or to danger and death, as the one prophet
or the other rightly foresaw the issue of the campaign.
Could they tell positively which was right? If they
had known that the son of Imlah spoke the truth, and
the others a subservient lie, would there not have
been such wholesale desertions as to render the
campaign impossible for lack of troops ?
Another example of the grave nature of the problem
1 I Kings xxii. ; see also above, p. 52 ff.

THE PROPHET'S CREDENTIALS 107
is afforded by the conflict between Jeremiah and
Hananiah. The latter is called the prophet1 just as
Jeremiah is, but his message is absolutely contradic
tory to Jeremiah's. He throws down the glove in
the most public manner. In the temple, before the
priests and all the people, he addresses Jeremiah :
"Thus saith Jahveh Sabaoth the God of Israel: I
will break the yoke of the king of Babylon.2 Within
two years I will bring back to this place all the
vessels of the house of Jahveh which Nebuchadrezzar
the king of Babylon has taken from this place and
carried to Babylon. And Jeconiah, the son of Jehoia
kim, the king of Judah, and all the captivity of Judah
who went to Babylon, will I bring back to this place,
saith Jahveh : for I will break the yoke of the king of
Babylon."3 The occasion of Hananiah's positive declaration is
found in chapter xxvii. Jeremiah had put a yoke on
his neck, and was wearing it as a symbol of sub
mission ; he had declared that safety could be found
only in yielding to a superior force ; that not only
would the vessels already carried off not be brought
back, but that there was serious danger that the few
remaining in the temple might share the fate of their
fellows ; that the prophets who declared that the
1 Jer. xxviii. I. The difficulty was solved in Greek versions and
Targums by altering the text and inserting "false " before "prophet."
2 Jer. xxviii. 2, A.V., and R.V. "I have broken"; but the verb
is the so-called prophetic perfect, which should be translated by a
future tense.
3 Jer. xxviii. 2-4. The Greek versions have a much simpler text,
omitting much that is redundant, and that weakens the force of
Hananiah's terse statement.

108 THE HEBREW PROPHET
exile would soon be over spoke lies in the name of
the Lord. Further, Jeremiah had already declared
that Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) would die in exile.1
In the face of this utterance Hananiah stepped
forward with his positive declaration, and followed it
up by breaking the yoke which Jeremiah was wear
ing, and using his very violence as a symbol, says:
" Thus saith Jahveh : even thus within two years will
I break the yoke of Nebuchadrezzar the king of
Babylon, from the necks of all the nations." 2
Here was a direct issue, one prophet flatly contra
dicting another. How were the people to know
which was right ? Were there any means by which
they might determine positively which counsel to
follow? It was manifestly an important question;
for one way led to the downfall of the nation, the
other to its preservation.
We may at once dispose of the notion that the
question could be settled by official authority; for
both of these men, as the Hebrew scriptures testify,
were accredited as prophets ; one was as much en
titled to speak in the name of Jahveh as the other, so
far as official sanction was concerned. It follows,
therefore, that official garb was not a sufficient
guarantee that he who wore it was loyal to the truth
of God, a fact unhappily evident in all ages.
We may also see that Jeremiah, a great and loyal
prophet of God, who suffered more for the cause
1 Jer. xxii. 26.
2 Jer. xxviii. II. The ground of Hananiah's confidence is supposed
to be his knowledge that help had been promised by Egypt. It is
certain that Zedekiah had joined an alliance against Babylon.

THE PROPHET'S CREDENTIALS 109
God had put in his heart than any other Hebrew
prophet, had no signal to give the people as absolute
proof that his words were true and his opponent's
false. At first the poor prophet can only offer the
plea, and we are constrained to admit that it is a
feeble plea, that the prophet who predicted disaster
was more likely to be right than the prophet who
predicted peace. And even after he had taken time
for reflection, he could only replace on his neck the
broken bars of wood with bars of iron, and pro
nounce the doom of death upon Hananiah. I said
" the poor prophet " : I said it advisedly. For think
of the pain and humiliation of one conscious of. the
truth, on seeing his truth set at naught by a lie.
And think of the anguish of a soul ready to die for
the welfare of his people as he sees them ready to
follow a false leader who will speedily conduct them
to a terrible doom.
I think no prophet could be unmindful of the
force of the question we are considering. He must,
of course, be assured himself that he has authority
to speak in God's name, and that as a consequence
what he says is true. But however important the
truth is in itself, its end is to be received and followed
by the people. The truth that we should not hate
our enemies, but love them, is beautiful and im
portant written on the face of the heavens, but
beyond question more beautiful and more important
written in the lives of men. Jesus got a hearing
with the people because He spoke as one with
authority. The properly accredited prophet will be
listened to as no other. It is vital to the prophet's

no THE HEBREW PROPHET
full accomplishment of his mission, that his position
as a prophet be recognised.
It might seem as if the call would settle that
problem for the people as well as the prophet. When
Amaziah broke in upon Amos and tried to send him
from Bethel, was not the prophet's only answer the
story of his call ? And did he not then proceed with
his mission, without let or hindrance from priest or
king? Did not the prophets tell the people how
they were called of God as a reason why their
oracles should be heard and their counsel followed ?
The call was the best possible evidence for the
prophet, but was of little service to the people. For
that is the very thing to be attested. The very words
" thus saith the Lord " are a claim to have been
called of God, but the call is not evidence of the
claim. Moreover, the prophets do not use the call
so much in evidence of their true inspiration as in
explanation of their exercise of office. Amos could
scarcely hope to satisfy Amaziah by the statement
that Jahveh constrained him to do what he was
doing ; but it did serve as an adequate reason for his
refusal to obey the mandate of the king.
I think every prophet must have felt this difficulty,
even though not all have expressed it. But we find
the matter clearly set forth in the oldest version of
the call of Moses. Moses was perfectly satisfied that
God summoned him to the great task of Israel's
rescue. Whatever doubts he may have had on that
score had been removed. But before he could bring
Israel out of Egypt he must persuade them that the
plan for their escape was no scheme of his own, but

THE PROPHET'S CREDENTIALS in
the purpose of the God of their fathers. So we read,
"And Moses answered and said : But behold, they
will not believe me, nor listen to my plea ; but they
will say, Jahveh hath not appeared to thee." x Moses
sees that there is no use going down to Egypt until
he can answer that objection. The solution given to
Moses introduces us to the commonest of all the
credentials of the prophet. "And Jahveh said unto
him, What is that in thy hand ? And he answered,
A rod. And He said, Cast it to the ground. When he
cast it to the ground, it became a serpent, and Moses
ran away from it. And Jahveh said unto Moses,
Put forth thy hand, and take it by the tail. And he
put forth his hand, and seized it, and it became a
rod in his hand."2
By his ability to turn the rod into a serpent, and
such a serpent as would frighten a man who had
lived forty years in the wilderness, and the serpent
back into a rod, Moses would establish his claim to
speak in Jahveh's name. It may seem as if there is
but slight connexion between turning a rod into a
serpent, and knowledge of the will of God ; but it
was simple enough from the Hebrew point of view.
The changing of the rod into the serpent was super
natural, that is, a manifestation of an extraordinary
force due directly to God. The man who could
exercise the Divine power in one manifestation
could do it also in others. If God enabled a man to
work signs, there was nothing He would withhold
from him. The sign, therefore, or as it is often less
accurately called, the miracle, was regarded as the
1 Exod. iv. I. 2 Exod. iv. 2-4.

112 THE HEBREW PROPHET
most convincing evidence of the power of God in
man, and that verdict held true for all ages of Hebrew
history. When Moses went to the Egyptian court to de
mand the release of the Hebrew people, he had no
hope of persuading Pharaoh to comply except by
proving to him that the demand would be backed up
by such a display of Divine power as no king would
dare withstand. 1 The story of the plagues is the
story of a series of signs by which Moses sought to
demonstrate to Pharaoh his own endowment with the
power of God.
" All Israel, from Dan to Beersheba," so we read in
I Samuel iii. 20, " knew that Samuel was established
as a prophet of Jahveh." How did they know it?
We are told that " Jahveh was with Samuel, and let
none of his words fall to the ground." 2 That might
mean that Jahveh fulfilled all of Samuel's sayings,
but it admits of a larger interpretation, that what
ever Samuel said or did was upheld by Jahveh. That
statement suggests that there was undoubtedly a
popular misconception of the relations between God
and His prophet. The truth is, of course, that God
will sustain His prophet just as long as he is true to
his Divine guidance, and not a moment longer. If
the salt loses its savour it is fit for no place but the
dunghill. Christ promised that the gates of hell
should not prevail against His Church. The pledge
will hold so long as the Church is Christ's, i.e. true to
1 Moses's rod was made the symbol of his wonder-working power
before Pharaoh as well as before the Israelites (see e.g. Exod. iv. 17).
2 I Sam. iii. 19.

THE PROPHET'S CREDENTIALS 113
His purpose ; but if the Church shall ever cease to
be Christ's, His sheltering arm will be withdrawn in
a moment. But the mass of the Hebrews did not have so re
fined a conception. Their idea was that when God
set a man up as a prophet, the prophet might do or
say what he pleased, and God was bound to sustain
him. In other words, the powers placed in the
hands of a prophet were unconditional. Because
Jahveh was with Samuel, none of his words were
allowed to fall to the ground.
Samuel did not hesitate to make use of his mira
culous power to convince the people that his words
were true. This appears in one of the two stories of
the establishment of the kingdom,1 in which Samuel
is represented as wholly adverse to the new order.
He must convince the people of their error, and he
does it by a sign. At his call Jahveh sent a thunder
storm at the time of the wheat harvest. Nothing
could be less miraculous in America than a thunder
storm at harvest-time, but in Palestine it was almost
as unusual as a snowstorm in July,2 and naturally
produced a great effect upon the people, persuading
them that the Lord did indeed uphold the words
of His prophet, and that their wickedness was very
great. Elijah stakes upon the issue of a sign the right of
Jahveh's claim to be the God of Israel. At Carmel
1 For a fuller discussion of these accounts, see the author's Old
Testament from the Modern Point of View, p. 168 ff.
2 " As snow in summer, and as rain in harvest, so honour is not
seemly for a fool" (Prov. xxvi. i).
I

114 THE HEBREW PROPHET
he summoned the whole mass of Baal's prophets to
offer a sacrifice to their God while he offered one
to Jahveh. Both parties were to lay the dressed
victim on the wood, but not to put fire underneath.
Then the challenge is boldly given : " And do ye call
upon the name of your god, and I will call on the
name of Jahveh ; and it shall be that the god who
answers by fire, he is God indeed." L In spite of the
twelve barrels of water which were poured over
Elijah's pyre, his prayer was heard, and the fire
descended and consumed the sacrifice and the wood,
and even the stones of which the altar was made, as
well as the water in the trench. We need not
trouble ourselves in this connexion with the question
of the historicity of this story. We are chiefly con
cerned with Hebrew ideas, and whether this story
is based on fact or fiction, it is clear that the Hebrews
believed such things to be possible. Elijah was
supposed to substantiate his message that Jahveh
alone was the God of Israel by a stupendous sign, the
force of which no one could resist.
It is a striking fact that the moment we reach the
canonical prophets, and these were the great prophets,
the sign occupies an inconspicuous place. Most of
them, so far as we know, never wrought signs at all.
Amos had a fine chance for the display of that kind
of evidence when Amaziah attempted to silence him,
but he made no appeal to other than spiritual power.
Jeremiah had a splendid opportunity to crush his
false opponent by a display of power which could
only come direct from Heaven. He does, indeed,
1 I Kings xviii. 24.

THE PROPHET'S CREDENTIALS 115
declare that Hananiah would die for his sins within
the year, but that event was too long delayed to be
effective as a sign.
Yet the sign does play a part in the prophetic
career of the greatest of the great prophets. Isaiah
wished to turn Ahaz from his fatal policy of an
alliance with Assyria, which meant the degradation
of Judah to a vassal state. The prophet declared
that such succour was unnecessary ; for the Syro-
Ephraimitish coalition, which was the cause of Ahaz's
terror, had no endurance, and would soon burn out
what vitality it had. He offered proof that what he
said was the word of God : " Ask thee a sign from
Jahveh thy God, deep as sheol or high as heaven." x
No matter how hard the sign might be to work,
whether it was centred in the depths of earth or the
heights of heaven, the prophet declared his readiness
to stake his counsel upon its successful accomplish
ment. When Ahaz, with mock piety in his voice,
refused the sign that was offered, that is, when it was
clear that Ahaz refused to listen to God, being bent
upon his own mad policy, then Isaiah gave him a
sign, not, though, of the safety of Judah ; for Ahaz's
disobedience changed the issue of the future, and the
child Immanuel was in one respect a sign of the dis
aster which the king's error would bring upon Judah.
When Hezekiah was seized with so severe an ill
ness that the prophet declared that he would die,2 the
1 Isa. vii. 11.
2 This incident need occasion no question of prophetic infallibility.
The prophets were not infallible ; and in any case there is no warrant
for supposing that Isaiah meant any more than to pronounce an opinion
based upon Hezekiah's symptoms. From the fact that he treated the

116 THE HEBREW PROPHET
king prayed earnestly against death, and his prayer
was heard. Isaiah was then sent to him with the
message that he would yet live fifteen years. The
prophet was not delivering an opinion of his own, but
pronouncing the word of God. To prove this word
he offers a sign that the shadow on the king's step-
clock should go forward or backward ten degrees.1
The king said that it would go forward itself; that
would be no sign ; let it go backward ten degrees.
And backward it is said to have gone in answer to
Isaiah's prayer to Jahveh.2
Hezekiah demanded a sign which at the same time
would be a miracle ; otherwise he could not see that
it would prove anything. But the sign was by no
means always miraculous. In the late prophets the
term is generally applied to natural events. Thus
when Isaiah goes naked and barefoot, his conduct is
a sign to Judah.3 Though not miraculous, his slave's
king for his ailment, Isaiah may have been a sort of practitioner in the
art of healing. It would then not be the first case in which a patient
has disproved the physician's prediction of death.
1 I have followed the fuller version in 2 Kings xx. In Isa. xxxviii. the
story is briefer, and the king is not offered a choice. The prophet
declares that the shadow on the dial will go back ten degrees, and it
does so ; but there is no mention of the prophet's prayer. This version
has the appearance of greater originality than that in Kings.
2 This miracle presents a serious difficulty, which has been strangely
dealt with by those bound to maintain the literal integrity of the Bible.
The sign would naturally involve a backward course of the earth on its
axis, and would be a degree more unnatural than Joshua's stopping of
the sun. To regard the transaction as a juggler's trick, as many con
servative commentators do, may be in harmony with Oriental habits,
but it scarcely throws light on the ways of God. It is very likely that
this story is based upon a fact which has been so obscured by successive
narrators that the original statement is no longer recoverable.
3 Isa. xx.

THE PROPHET'S CREDENTIALS 117
dress was a token or symbol of coming events. Jere
miah and Ezekiel use the natural sign frequently,
and the miracle not at all. There is no record of a
miracle worked by either of these great men. In fact,
as we shall see shortly, the miraculous sign had
already fallen into disrepute among the great men.
But evidence is not lacking that the mass of the
people never ceased to look for the sign as evidence
of a man's authority to wear the prophet's mantle.
In the pathetic description of the fallen condition of
Israel in Maccabean days we find this : —
" Our signs we see not, nor is there prophet ;
With us is not one that knows how long."1
The lack of signs and the lack of a prophet are
virtually one and the same.
It is so well known as to need only mention that
the Jews constantly demanded a sign of Jesus as proof
that He spoke with Divine authority. Even when
He was hanging on the Cross, the cry was raised that
His persecutors were ready to accept Him as the
Messiah if He would give them a convincing sign by
descending from the Cross. In spite of this feeling
that Jesus had wrought no adequate sign, it is beyond
question that many were persuaded by virtue of
the miracles He had performed. Nicodemus states
the matter from the point of view of the upper
classes, for he was well educated both in head and
heart : " No man can do these signs that Thou doest,
except God be with him."2 The masses looked at
the matter in the same way : " He hath done all
1 Ps. lxxiv. 9. See p. 39. 3 John iii. 2.

118 THE HEBREW PROPHET
things well : He maketh even the deaf to hear, and
the dumb to speak."1
Yet the ability to do a sign, however marvellous it
might be, did not always serve as decisive proof.
Many wonders were done in Egypt, even bearing
hard upon the people, before Pharaoh released the
Israelites from bondage. Ahaz in effect told Isaiah
that he would not accept his counsel even if he did
support it by a sign high as heaven or deep as sheol.
The Sanhedrim made an exhaustive investigation of
Jesus' cure of a case of congenital blindness, and
rendered it as their final opinion that, while they
could not deny the cure, the healer was a sinner.2 So
His casting out demons was attributed to alliance with
Beelzebub the chief of demons.
The sign was unsatisfactory for another reason :
its performance was not restricted to the men of God.
Moses ran against this difficulty at the very start
He and Aaron went before Pharaoh, and as evidence
of their Divine mission turned the divining rod into a
serpent. But the king calls in his magicians, and
every one of them turns his rod into a serpent by the
secret art.3 It is scarcely reasonable to suppose that
Moses in this particular case exercised a power
different from that of the Egyptian magicians. If
that conclusion is sound, then we are almost startled
by the suggestion that the signs are due to a magic
art, still much in vogue in the East as a part of the
religious vocation,4 and in the West as an easy means
1 Mark vii. 37. 2 John ix. 3 Exod. vii. 8 ff.
4 The most wonderful of the feats performed in India are the work
of men belonging to religious orders.

i 1

THE PROPHET'S CREDENTIALS 119
of securing a competent livelihood.1 The understand
ing of the true nature of most of the signs is not
improbably the explanation of the disrepute into
which they fell.
The people are, however, not left to inference, but
are expressly warned against signs and wonders as
proof of the authority of one who essays to speak in
the name of their God : " If a prophet or a dreamer
appear in thy midst, and give thee a sign or wonder,
and the sign or wonder came to pass, which he spake
when he said, Let us go after other gods, ... ye shall
not listen to the words of that prophet or that
dreamer, but Jahveh is testing you to find out
whether you are loving Jahveh."2 The writer does
not deny the signality of the wonders ; but he asserts
that they prove something very different from what
their performers suppose. The signs are to prove the
strength of Israel's faith, not the authority of the
prophet's utterance. The sign can do its Divine
work, only if the people disregard its apparent
leading. The teaching and practice of Jesus are the decisive
blows against the apologetic value of signs. The
temptations which He endured were in substance
merely the settlement of the problem in His own
ministry whether He was to depend upon signs or
not. The answer was clear, and His course con
sistent with the settlement reached at the beginning.
In every case He refused to give a sign as proof of
His authority ; He lamented the popular craving for
1 e.g. the healing by Christian scientists.
2 Deut. xiii. 2-4.

120 THE HEBREW PROPHET
miracles;1 and gave this express warning to His
disciples : " There shall arise false Christs and false
prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders ;
so as to lead astray if possible, even the elect."2 The
true voice of God could not be hazarded on the issue
of a sign. So it is testified of the forerunner of the
Christ, "John indeed did no sign."3
In view of these facts, it is singular that the miracle
has played such an important r61e in the Christian
apologetics of the past, and to a certain extent of
the present. Someone has said that the remarkable
growth of Christian science is the measure of the
credulity of the people. It may be more truly said
that it is a measure of the persistence of the belief in
the apologetic value of signs. The healer removes the
ache, and the cure is a sign of the Divine authority of
the whole system. It would be quite as reasonable
to set up Mr. Kellar's wonderful exploits as evidence
that the moon is made of green cheese. The logical
difficulty with the sign is the lack of connexion
between the proof and the thing to be proved. One
may be able to relieve a toothache by mental pro
cesses ; but he does not thereby establish the medley
of philosophy and religion as set forth by Mrs. Eddy.
One may turn his rod into a serpent, and that does
prove him possessed of a mysterious power, but it
does not demonstrate that God wishes Pharaoh to
release his most valuable slaves. The miracles of
1 As a good example we may cite John iv. 48 ; Jesus says to the
nobleman who sought succour for his son, " Except ye see signs and
wonders, ye will in no wise believe."
8 Matt. xxiv. 24 ; cf. Mark xiii. 22. 3 John x. 41.

THE PROPHET'S CREDENTIALS 121
Jesus differ from most of the signs, in that they were
inextricably bound up with His method of work, and
were never meaningless wonders performed to impress
the people. Their evidential value is to be found,
not in the similarity to other signs, but in their
difference from them.1
The sign, which was the most decisive proof of the
Divine authority of the prophet in the early days,
came to be regarded as wholly unreliable evidence
by thoughtful men. What took its place in apolo
getics? If the sign was no proof, what was valid
evidence for or against the claim of a seer ?
A kind of evidence which developed late in Israel,
and which has persisted down to the present time, is
the fulfilment of predictive prophecy. Prediction is
but a minor element in the highest order of prophecy.
In time past the place of prediction was so unduly
magnified2 that it is not surprising that recent writers
have almost ignored its existence. But the truth is
in neither extreme. The power to forecast the future
was one of the leading qualifications of the early
fortune-telling seers ; 3 and though prediction occupied
a less prominent place in the later prophecy, we may
1 The miracles of Elisha are most like those of the great Master.
They were wrought for a beneficent end, not to astonish the people.
For example, we may take the rescue of the axe, if indeed that is a
miracle. The prophet who lost it had no money ; the axe was borrowed,
and was very valuable. The poor prophet was in a serious difficulty,
from which the chief extricates him.
2 Justin Martyr's definition of a prophet makes him essentially »
forecaster : ' ' There were among the Jews certain men who were
prophets of God, through whom the prophetic spirit published before
hand things that were to come to pass ere ever they happened " (First
Apologia, c. xxxi. ). 3 See chap. i. p. 8 ff.

122 THE HEBREW PROPHET
yet see its supreme importance by recalling the fact
that all Messianic prophecy is of necessity predictive.
Messianic prophecy is looked at very differently
to-day from what it was even a few years ago. The
specific predictions of Christ, which our fathers be
lieved they had found in vast quantity in the Old
Testament, have not been able to bear the test of the
microscopic examination of modern scientific methods.
But the most radical scholar affirms with great positive-
ness the supreme importance of Messianic prophecy.
But our concern now is not Messianic prophecy, but
the fulfilment of predictive prophecy as a source of
evidence. We find that this occupies a considerable
place in the Old Testament, and a still larger place
in the New Testament.
In its earliest form the appeal to fulfilment and
the sign border on each other very closely. Thus in
Samuel's calling of the thunderstorm, already re
ferred to,1 there may be almost as much proof in the
fulfilment of the prophet's prediction that a thunder
storm would come as in the thunderstorm itself.
Micaiah stakes his mission as a true prophet of
Jahveh upon the fulfilment of his prediction of
disaster; the prophet's reply to the king's order to
put him in prison until he returned in peace was,
"If thou ever return at all in safety, Jahveh has sent
no message by me."2
Jeremiah alluded to this test of prophecy when he
was confronted by Hananiah : " the prophet who
predicts peace : when the word of the prophet is ful
filled, then will he know the prophet whom Jahveh
1 See above, p. 113. 2 1 Kings xxii. 28.

THE PROPHET'S CREDENTIALS 123
has truly sent."1 The proof of the Divine mission
is to be found in fulfilment of the prophet's words.
The prophets of old foretold war, evil, and pestilence.
The presence of these evils proves the inspiration of
those who predicted them. If the peace which
Hananiah so confidently predicts shall actually come,
it will be adequate proof that Jahveh truly speaks by
him. There is no reason to doubt that Zedekiah's
growing feeling in favour of Jeremiah's counsel, as the
final catastrophe grew near, was due to his observation
that the course of events was following with painful
closeness the forecasts of the persecuted prophet.
Jeremiah had long before preached to the people
the contents of a law book which gave a rule to
determine the true prophet from the false. The
problem is put in the question : " If thou say in thy
heart, How shall we know the word which Jahveh has
not spoken ? " Then the answer is given : " What
ever the prophet speaks in the name of Jahveh, and
it occurs not, nor comes true, that is the word which
Jahveh has not spoken." 2 The final test of prophecy
is its fulfilment. Briggs places a wider interpretation
on this passage than it will bear.3 What he says about
the test of prophecy is true, but it does not follow from
this passage. The one test here given is fulfilment.
Ezekiel found quite early in his career as a prophet
a widespread scepticism based upon the non-fulfil
ment of prophecy. It had come to be a proverb in
the land of Israel that "the days grow long, and
every vision fails." * The prophets had long declared
1 Jer. xxviii. 9. 2 Deut. xviii. 21 f.
3 Mess. Proph., p. 23 f. 4 Ezek. xii. 22.

124 THE HEBREW PROPHET
that disaster was near at hand. As the days went
by and nothing happened, the people lost confidence
in the prophetic forecast. Ezekiel himself does not
dispute the conclusion, but he does reject the prem
ises. He declares that the present generation will
see the downfall of Jerusalem, and so have the proof
of prophetic authority and power. Ezekiel in Baby
lonia, like Jeremiah in Jerusalem, gained repute as a
prophet as the approaching disaster became only too
plain to his fellow-exiles.1
In Deutero-Isaiah we find the most use of this
kind of evidence. The appeal to fulfilment is there
much more frequent than anywhere else in the Old
Testament. The long sojourn in a foreign land, and
the inevitable weakening of old religious ties, made a
new apologetic necessary. The prophet of the exile
seeks it in the right place. The character of Jahveh
as Creator of the world, as the providential director
of the affairs of men, was the ground upon which he
based his hope. Jahveh is made to challenge the
idols of Babylon : —
" Bring forward your suit, saith Jahveh ;
Produce your idols, says Jacob's king.
Let them draw near and announce to us what shall happen.
The former events how they were foretold, do ye an
nounce, that we may reflect upon them :
Or else the future events do ye declare to us, that we
may work their issue ;
Announce the things that are to come hereafter, that
we may know that ye are gods." 2
1 See especially Ezek. xxxiii. 33.
2 Isa. xii. 21 f. Cheyne's translation. See also xiii. 9 ; xliii. 8 ff. ;
xliv. 7 f.

THE PROPHET'S CREDENTIALS 125
Jahveh's power to forecast the future — a power the
prophet denies to the Babylonian gods — is a strong
argument for Israel's return to the worship of the
God of their fathers.
In a subsequent passage the fulfilment of prophecy
is looked at from another side. Among the acts
of Israel's God the prophet specifies : " Fulfilling the
word of His servants1 and the counsel of His
messengers He confirms."2
This statement is peculiarly interesting, because
it opens up a field of inquiry somewhat akin to that
suggested by the statement that Jahveh let none
of Samuel's words fall to the ground.3
Literally this passage implies that Jahveh fulfils
what the prophets said because they said it. We are
reminded of the famous declaration of Elijah : " There
shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according
to my word." 4 Is it true that Jahveh delegated to a
prophet a power to speak or act according to his own
discretion, and that Jahveh is bound to support the
act or deed? Was that idea prevalent among the
prophets ? Did they believe themselves clothed with
so great a power ?
These questions raise a large subject. We cannot
follow it out in all directions, but will look at the
matter in a simple way. First, we may say confi
dently that God never delegated to any man a Divine
power to use as he willed. Naturally I do not wish to
1 I follow Dillmann and Cheyne in reading the plural. The sense and
parallelism with " messengers " require this. The servants were the
whole body of the prophets, not a particular one.
2 Isa. xliv. 26. 3 See above, p. 112. 4 I Kings xvii. 1.

126 THE HEBREW PROPHET
be taken too literally. I suppose we are all possessed
with Divine power after a sort, and we may certainly
use it as we will. But we are dealing here with
the extraordinary power of the prophet. The prophet
was a man of God, not because God was bound to
do the prophet's will, but because the prophet was
bound to do God's will. That Jesus was greater
than any prophet, we might know from the stress
He lays upon the complete surrender of His will
to God's.1
It is not so sure, however, that the prophets them
selves always understood the limitation of their
powers. Amos, indeed, comprehended it, and stated
the truth finely : " The Lord Jahveh will take no
action except He disclose His purpose to His servants
the prophets."2 Such a passage as that in Isaiah,
quoted above,3 may be interpreted as a free expres
sion of the same truth. The idea in the prophet's
mind may be that Jahveh confirms the words of His
servants, for the very reason that the word of the
servants was the word of the Master. It is quite
probable that the distinction is one that would not
occur to a prophet. His word and Jahveh's word
were so completely one that, in his mind, a distinction
of cause and effect could hardly exist.
In these cases the fulfilment refers to the predic
tions of prophets who had foretold both the exile
and the restoration. This seer discerns the end of the
1 It is true that Jesus acknowledges a power to do that which is
forbidden by a moral constraint. He had power to call angels to
His succour, yet it would not be right for Him to do so (Matt. xxvi.
53 f-)- 2 Amos iii. 7. 3 See p. 124.

THE PROPHET'S CREDENTIALS 127
enforced sojourn in Babylon, and so declares the end
as foreseen and foretold. But he had begun his
declarations of the fall of Babylon and the release
of the Jews long before it happened.1
The prophet therefore, like Jeremiah and Ezekiel
before him, was soon able to appeal to the fulfilment
of his own words, not as proof of his own foresight
and sagacity, but of Jahveh's unbounded knowledge
and power. Isaiah xlviii. is a review of the situation
of the exiles just after Cyrus had taken Babylon.
The prophet naturally sounds the note of triumph
because Jahveh's word is fulfilled, and with this proof
he would inspire the sceptical exiles with a clearer
faith. I quote a single passage : —
" I have declared the former things from of old :
yea, they went forth out of My mouth, and I showed
them : suddenly I did them, and they came to pass." 2
In fact, the very object of Jahveh in foretelling what
should come was the kindling of a stronger faith :
" Because I knew that thou art obstinate, and thy
neck is an iron sinew, and thy brow brass ; therefore
have I declared it to thee from of old ; before it came
to pass I showed it thee ; lest thou shouldst say, Mine
idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my
molten image, hath commanded them." 3 It was not
enough that Jahveh should restore exiled Israel ; the
mere act, however glorious, might be attributed to
the images ; but when the act was at the same time
the fulfilment of prediction uttered long before, then
1 Several years ago I dealt with this subject in a paper on the
Historical Movement Traceable in Isaiah xl.-lxvi. Andover Review,
August, 1888. 2 Isa. xlviii. 3. 3 Isa. xlviii. 4 f.

128 THE HEBREW PROPHET
the forecaster had strong proof that he who foresaw
was also he who fulfilled.
The problem of the restoration is just now a vexed
one among Biblical scholars. There is a rapidly
growing belief that there was, properly speaking, no
restoration at all, so far as the exiles were concerned :
that to the extent that Jerusalem was rebuilt, it was
the work of those Jews who had never left Palestine.
It falls to me to take up this difficult problem in
another place;1 it only concerns me here to say
that if any of the exiles returned to Judah, and it is
difficult to believe otherwise, their faith in their God
was largely rekindled by the argument from the fulfil
ment of prophecy. Whatever final value the argument
may have in apologetics, there can be no doubt that
it has served its purpose in its day.
But, after all, the evidence from fulfilment was in
greatest vogue in the Apostolic age. Jesus did, indeed,
appeal to this argument,2 but only rarely. To the
Apostles, whose field of labour was the race of Israel,
it was the chief and most effective argument. The
Jews believed that there was a great body of predic
tive prophecy in their Scriptures ; they believed that
it would be fulfilled to the very letter ; 3 the test of
the Messiah would be His correspondence to prophecy.
It is clear then that to convince a Jew that Jesus
was the Christ, it was necessary to show that the
life of Jesus was in accord with Messianic prophecy.
1 " Ezra and Nehemiah," International Critical Commentary. (In
preparation.) 2 "The scriptures must be fulfilled" (Mark xiv. 49).
3 e.g. The determination of the birthplace of the Messiah (Matt. ii.
4 ff).

THE PROPHET'S CREDENTIALS 129
Thus we understand the oft-recurring phrase in St.
Matthew's Gospel, which was surely written for
Jewish readers, "that it might be fulfilled," as if
Jesus ordered His life according to the predictions
of the prophecy of old.
Certain Jews beyond the Jordan found testimony
both to John and to Jesus in the fulfilment of the
former's predictions. Though John did no sign and
therefore lacked one of the commonest credentials
of a prophet, yet " all things whatsoever John spake
of this man (Jesus) have come true." J
Much stress was laid upon this argument in
Christian apologetics until quite recent times.2 In
the present day apologists make little appeal to this
argument, for the larger and more accurate know
ledge of the Bible has greatly impaired its value.
We are now constrained to admit that much of the
predictive prophecy never has been fulfilled, and
probably never will be fulfilled. And that is not all.
It has frequently happened that the actual event
was radically different from the prediction. Naturally
we cannot base the inspiration of the prophet upon
his power to foresee the future, if at any time his
foresight proves incorrect. God's foreknowledge is
accurate : and if a man partook of God's foresight
his must needs be accurate too.
It may seem that the failure of correspondence
between prediction and fulfilment has more than a
negative force. It certainly fails to prove the inspira
tion of the prophets ; but does it not also prove that
they were not inspired ? The negro who recently
1 John x. 41. 2 See Bruce's Apologetics.

130 THE HEBREW PROPHET
predicted a tidal wave which would destroy an
important resort on the American sea-coast had quite
a following until the day came for fulfilment. As the
sea obstinately refused to roll in at the appointed
time, it was agreed, even among those who had been
deluded, that the prophet was a fraud. Is a similar
judgment to be pronounced upon Jeremiah because
some of his predictions still await fulfilment ? Or do
the Apostles lose credit because they declared that
Jesus would return to earth in their day ?
We must lay aside any consideration of time ; that
is, mere delay in fulfilment is not to be reckoned
against the foretellers. The nearer one comprehends
the mind of God, the less arbitrary are distinctions of
time and place. One day is as a thousand years, and
a thousand years as one day.1 If a prophecy is
reasonably fulfilled in other respects, the time question
need never disturb us. This consideration helps a
little in removing the difficulty; but it must be
frankly admitted that it does not go far. We are
forced to admit that a true prophet may be an
indifferent forecaster, or else deny that there ever was
a true prophet.
The prophets were sent to Israel to save the
nation, not to play the role of soothsayers and to
withdraw the veil of the future to satisfy a morbid
curiosity. It is but occasionally that they venture
predictions at all, and then chiefly as expressions of
their sublime faith in God. It is clear that the
faulty interpretation of the prophets has been
1 See Phillips Brooks' sermon on "The Shortness of Time" ; and
Briggs' Messianic Prophecy, p. 52 ff.

THE PROPHET'S CREDENTIALS 131
responsible for no little of the mischief. They have
been made to predict where they did not predict at
all,1 and they have been made to foretell details
which were quite foreign to their minds.2 The
prophet was led to see that the conditions in
Israel would produce certain results whether of weal
or woe. They declare what those results will be,
hoping thereby to restrain Israel from the vice which
will result in evil, or to arouse them to the virtue
which will issue in good. They were not trying so
much to disclose in detail what the future would be,
as to kindle enthusiasm for a sober, righteous, and
godly life. They dressed up their picture of the
future so as to make it impressive for the present.
They are therefore scarcely to be held responsible
for a failure in accuracy. They were not realists, but
idealists of the boldest sort. A novelist is condemned
by a realistic critic because a character he has por
trayed is not true to life. But what does that matter
if the character is interesting and instructive ?
Moreover, as already suggested, much of the pre
diction was conditional 3 upon Israel's conduct. The
brightness or darkness of the future, which the
1 e.g. when St. Matthew quotes "Out of Egypt have I called My
son" from Hosea xi. I, where it is a mere historical statement without
allusion to the future at all.
2 In the Bethlehem prophecy already alluded to, it was no part of
the prophet's purpose to foretell where Jesus Christ should be born
(see Micah v. 2).
8 Conditional prophecy is * big subject in itself. Jonah was un
willing to announce the destruction of Nineveh because he felt sure
that the Ninevites would repent, and then God would not fulfil his
prediction. He knew that the issue of his forecast depended upon the
conduct of the people whose destruction he announced.

132 THE HEBREW PROPHET
prophet graphically depicts, is dependent upon the
life of the people. Many a glorious prediction
remains unfulfilled because the nation was too un
worthy, and some fearful disasters announced by the
prophets failed to appear, because Israel repented.
Finally, it must be noted that inspiration and in
fallibility are by no means the same. A prophet
might have his whole soul charged with the Spirit of
God without becoming thereby possessed of a know
ledge of the future, which God has wisely kept ex
clusively within His own ken.
Prophecy urgently demands a more immediate
test than fulfilment affords. To take the problem of
Zedekiah and his court, already quoted,1 it is plain
that the test of fulfilment could not be determined
for two years. If Hananiah was right, however, it
was essential that the whole power of the nation
should be marshalled for a defensive war ; if, on the
other hand, Jeremiah was right, then the people must
beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears
into pruning-hooks. Jeremiah's prediction could not
be fulfilled if Hananiah's advice was taken, nor could
the latter's hopeful outlook be realised if Jeremiah's
tame policy was followed. It was a matter of life or
death for the nation as they adopted one course or the
other ; it was evidently then a question of great
moment, whose credentials were valid.
In the passage of Deuteronomy quoted above2
there is a suggestion of a test which is less definite
than signs or fulfilment, but nevertheless reaches a
much higher truth. The writer's argument may be
1 See p. 107 f. 2 Deut. xiii. ; see p. 1 19.

THE PROPHET'S CREDENTIALS 133
plainly stated. Under no circumstances are you to
worship other gods than Jahveh. No matter how
cunningly you may be counselled, no matter by what
miracles your seducers may support their plea, it
is a fundamental obligation that you be loyal to
Jahveh. A prophet may arise able to work the most
wonderful signs, but if he urges you to depart from
Jahveh, he is a false and mischievous prophet, and is
to meet the penalty of death.
There is therefore a moral standard to which the
prophet must conform, and the value of his prophecy
was to be measured by that standard. A prophet
who advises the people to do wrong is a false prophet,
even if he is able to work miracles. Whatever value
the sign might have as evidence, it must always give
way to the higher test, conformity to the truth.
Hananiah made a great hit before the people by
breaking the symbol of submission upon his adver
sary's neck ; Jeremiah put an iron yoke in place of
the wooden one to show that truth could not be dis
posed of so summarily. In that very controversy
Jeremiah seems to have groped, even though some
what blindly, after that highest standard of prophecy.
His point was that the people had reason to believe
his message, all the more because it foreboded an
evil time. If the people had paused to analyse,
instead of madly seizing at straws in conformity with
their desires, they might have seen many reasons to
urge the accuracy of Jeremiah's forecast. He had
prophesied already for several years, and had shown
that he could not be swerved by persecution. The
political outlook was all in favour of Jeremiah. The

134 THE HEBREW PROPHET
impotence of an alliance of small jealous nations
against the great power of Babylon, and the futility
of dependence upon Egyptian aid, had been shown
again and again in history. However difficult the
problem appeared to Zedekiah's court, it is plain
now, and was plain then, on which side was the lover
of truth and its upholder at whatever personal peril.
Jesus develops this idea, and has given us in a few
sayings the final credentials which we may ask of
any prophet, and by which we may determine the
validity of any prophetic utterance. " Beware of the
false prophets," He said, showing that He had this
very problem in mind, " which come to you in sheep's
clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By
their fruits ye shall know them. . . . Every good tree
bringeth forth good fruit ; but the corrupt tree bringeth
forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil
fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit
. . . Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them."1
One might be unable to distinguish the grape-vine
from the thorn-bush, but every man knows the
difference between grapes and thorns, and the fruit
determines the vine which bears it. If grapes are
borne, then the plant is a grape-vine, and no miracle
could prove it a thorn-bush. If the produce was
thorns, then no sign, high as heaven or deep as
sheol, could prove that the plant which bore it was a
grape-vine. That was the principle of His answer to
His troubled forerunner. He staked the Baptist's
faith upon the fruit of the tree. " Go your way and
tell John the things which ye do hear and see : the
1 Matt. vii. 15 ff.

THE PROPHET'S CREDENTIALS 135
blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the
lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead
are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached
to them. And blessed is he, whosoever shall find
none occasion of stumbling in Me."1
Yet this test is not devoid of difficulty. It cannot
always be of immediate application ; man is im
patient to pull up the tares at once, and finds it hard
to wait until the harvest days clearly reveal the
difference between the wheat and the weeds. Occa
sionally it is important to have the knowledge at
once, though more often than we realise it is the
path of wisdom to allow full liberty to the suspected
prophet. The fuller chance he has to bear fruit, the
sooner his real character will be revealed. The world
rids itself of false prophets quickly, when once their
falseness is convincingly shown. The Church would
have freed herself from heretical prophets more com
pletely if, instead of putting them in jail, she had
hired a hall for them.
Jesus offers another test, however, which is of im
mediate application. It was given for the benefit of
those who were perplexed about their relations to
Him. Was He a good man, as some declared, or
did He deceive the people, as others alleged ? Should
one follow His word loyally, or join those who were
already beginning to hound Him to death ?2
To those who were thus troubled, Jesus offers
1 Matt. xi. 4 ff.
2 A wiser course than the latter was indeed open, as suggested later
by Gamaliel about the Apostles (Acts v. 34 ff.). But to the average
Jew there were but two sides, for God or against Him, and the choice
could not wait.

136 THE HEBREW PROPHET
this help : " If any man willeth to do His will, he
shall know of the teaching, whether it be of God, or
whether I speak from Myself."1
Here is a test of prophecy which lies wholly in the
hearer. There is a quality in him, provided his heart
is in the right place, which makes him a capable
judge of the Divine in another. There is a truth in
his own heart which answers to the truth in another's
heart. To be a judge of the truth, it is a prerequisite
that one be a lover of the truth.
These two tests of Jesus are the final ones. The
latter we are in need of applying all the time. This
would have saved Ahab from the terrible death to
which he was led by heeding the false voice of his
subservient seers ; it would have saved Ahaz from
his costly alliance with Assyria ; it would have saved
Zedekiah from the fatal policy which he adopted as
the result of the specious counsels of Hananiah.
Every one of these kings desired to do his own will,
and would have had his God confirm that, even as
many a Christian's version of the Lord's Prayer
would properly be "my will be done on earth as
God's is done in heaven."
The first test, that of the fruits, has been relent
lessly applied, and has separated the Hananiahs
from the Jeremiahs. As early as the making of the
Greek version the fruits were known, and Hananiah
and others of his ilk were called by a name which
their contemporaries could scarcely give them — false
prophets. Every prophet of the present must know
that he must face both tests. If he is a true prophet
1 John vii. 17.

THE PROPHET'S CREDENTIALS 137
he will know it himself, and need have no fear of the
derisive cries which may beset him ; for in the end
even the world will judge him by his fruits. Many
a prophet has been denounced in his day as a
bramble-bush who, when the test of the harvest could
be applied, was shown to be the choicest vine, because
he had brought forth the choicest fruit.1
1 See Isa. Hii.

CHAPTER VII
THE WRITINGS OF THE PROPHETS
FOR the knowledge of the prophets who pre
ceded Amos, we are limited to such information
as we find incorporated in the history of Israel and
Judah. The historians chose such portions of pro
phetic biography as were most serviceable in throwing
light upon the religious history of the people. The
excerpts, usually mere fragments, fail to satisfy one
who would gladly know more of such men as Nathan,
Gad, Iddo, Ahijah, Shemaiah, and Micaiah. The
selected portions are apparently taken bodily from
lives of the prophets. These lives, however, are not
autobiographies ; the prophets did not write their
own histories. Yet there is evidence that these early
seers used the pen as well as the voice.
The Chronicler names as sources of his information
a long list of prophetic histories. We find the follow
ing so mentioned : the Words of Samuel the Seer,
the Words of Nathan the Prophet, the Words of Gad
the Seer ; x the Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, the
Vision of Iddo the Seer ; 2 the Words of Shemaiah
the Prophet and Iddo the Seer ; 3 A Midrash of the
Prophet Iddo ; 4 the Words of Jehu the son of
Hanani ; 5 the Acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah the
1 I Chron. xxix. 29. a 2 Chron. ix. 29. 3 2 Chron. xii. 15.
4 2 Chron. xiii. 22. 6 2 Chron. xx. 34.
138

WRITINGS OF THE PROPHETS 139
son of Amoz the prophet;1 the Words of the
Seers.2 According to these statements, nearly all
of the prophets known to us were historians. By
" the Words of Samuel," the Chronicler means writing
of Samuel. It is expressly said that Isaiah wrote
the chronicles of Uzziah.
It is true that the Chronicler's authority is not
very highly esteemed. The opinion prevails widely
among scholars that all the above-quoted sources are,
as a matter of fact, one and the same, and that a
Midrash or annotated edition of the history of Israel
and Judah.3 The sections in which a certain prophet
figured were called by his name, and finally assigned
to his authorship. It would therefore follow that the
above-named prophets were, as a matter of fact,
merely figures in the history, and not authors of
history. On the other hand, it is beyond question that the
authors of all Hebrew history were prophets. The
books from Joshua to Kings were called by the
Hebrews the Former Prophets ; this naming may be
a critical blunder, as Kittel supposes, but there is
a good deal of sober truth in it, nevertheless, for the
history everywhere bears the prophetic imprint. The
motive is nowhere historical, but everywhere religious.
The books were composed with a distinct moral
1 2 Chron. xxvi. 22.
2 2 Chron. xxxiii. 19. I follow LXX. reading D'Trin instead of a
proper name Hozai ; so Benzinger, Kuenen, and most others.
3 But if we follow LXX., as Benzinger does, in I Chron. xxxii. 32,
reading "and in the books of the kings," etc., then some of the prophecies
were surely distinct writings. See further, Kittel, Hist., ii. 223 ff. ;
Driver, L.O.T.e, 529 f. ; Kuenen, Einleitung, i. ii. 155 ff ; Benzin
ger, Biicher der Chronik, *.. ff.

140 THE HEBREW PROPHET
purpose. The authors cared little about the detailed
facts of history, but much about the religious lessons
of the same. The life of the people of the past was
significant for the life of the people of the present.
It was perfectly natural, therefore, that the defence
of St. Stephen the martyr should be a review of
Jewish history.
Now it is by no means improbable that the
prophets in their addresses were wont to tell historic
stories to reinforce their teaching. In fact, we know
that such appeals to the past were not uncommon.
The prophets were the educated men ; they knew the
history of their people. They may themselves have
never gone beyond the oral description of particular
events. Their historical stories may have been put
in written form by others. But some prophets cer
tainly wrote the history of their nation, and it may
well be that those known to us did an important part
of this work. The Chronicler, therefore, may have
preserved a true tradition, though inexact in his
explicit statements. His professed extracts from
prophetic writings show the post-exilic language ; he
therefore does not quote from original sources. My
point is that from the Chronicler's witness, we may
reasonably hold that these were prophetic historical
writings, even though he does not take literal ex
tracts from them.
Further, the Chronicler informs us that Elijah sent
a letter to Jehoram the king of Judah. The letter
was a prophecy, reproaching the king for his evil
courses, and predicting disaster to king and people.1
1 2 Chron. xxi. 12 ff.

WRITINGS OF THE PROPHETS 141
However it may be with the earliest seers, certain
it is that for Amos and those who followed him,
we are on sure ground. For them we are not
limited to second-hand information, but have the
original sources ; not, indeed, a history of their times,
but something far better, a record of the very words
of these messengers of God. In this connexion
certain questions inevitably force themselves upon us.
Whence came these records? Does the descriptive
term "writing prophets" correctly represent the facts?
Did these men with their own hands record their
utterances ? or did some other hand gather up such
fragments as were available? Again, did the prophets
write out in advance what they would say? or did
they depend upon the memory, writing out each
utterance after its delivery ? And if this last be the
case, did they write exactly what they had said ? or
were they influenced by that inevitable human ten
dency to improve or modify an address in the course
of reproduction? Finally, what was the object of
writing ? Did their knowledge of the future constrain
them to rescue their oral sayings for the sake of pos
terity, and for the making of holy writ ? Had they
literary ambitions ? Or did they write, as they spoke,
with an immediate object? and was that the moral
and spiritual upbuilding of the men of their day and
generation ?
Some of these questions are not peculiar to the
Old Testament. When as a lad I was reading the
orations of Cicero against Catiline, I supposed at first
that I was reading speeches which the great Roman
orator had written in advance, and then read to his

142 THE HEBREW PROPHET
auditors. But I came across passages which were
due to the attitude of Catiline during the delivery of
the speech. Cicero could not have anticipated that
quailing of his victim. Then I began to ask most of
the questions catalogued above, and especially this :
if Cicero or a secretary wrote the speeches from
memory, how do we know that we have his ipsissima
verba ? For stenographers existed neither in ancient
Rome nor in ancient Israel.1 Similar questions con
front us in the New Testament. We have there what
purport to be the words of Jesus. Now our Lord did
not write Himself. The record of His sayings is due
to His disciples, in the broad sense of that term.
The words of Jesus differ very much as reported by
St. John and by the other Evangelists. Are we quite
sure that we have His exact words ? Manifestly not,
though we are loath to admit such an unwelcome
truth ; for the same parable or saying frequently
exists in variant forms in different gospels. Some
modern scholars have been making an effort to re
cover the exact words of Jesus by a retranslation into
Aramaic,2 the native tongue of our Lord. Their efforts
have not been very kindly received, perhaps because
Christians dread to see this question fairly opened.
Such an apprehension is groundless. We may have
our confidence shaken in the possession of our Lord's
exact words; but the conviction will be persistent
that we are in no doubt about His teaching.
Our concern now, however, is not the greatest of
all teachers, but those men of the nation of Jesus
1 See additional note (8).
2 See, e.g. Briggs, Gen. Introd., and works on New Test.

WRITINGS OF THE PROPHETS 143
who preceded Him, and gave to the world such lesser
light as God had been able to bestow upon them. To
answer the inevitable questions, we have some direct
and valuable evidence and some suggestive hints.
From a careful study of these we ought to be able to
draw some fairly accurate conclusions, though we
may not find a detailed answer to every question
raised above.
A word of warning may well be interposed here.
We always need to be careful not to confuse facts and
conclusions from the facts. There has been too much
of that mixture in Biblical studies both by the
harmonisers of the past and the radicals of the
present. One is bound to interpret, he is of little
use as a teacher otherwise ; but he is an unsafe guide
unless it is easy to see when he is arraying indisput
able facts, and when he is stating his inferences.
Facts are better on the whole, though interpretation is
more interesting. In the work before us we will first
of all present some facts which no one can gainsay.
In the fourth year of Jehoiakim, king of Judah,
605 B.C., and therefore twenty-one years after Jeremiah
had begun to preach, the prophet by Divine command
dictated to Baruch, who served as his secretary, the
prophecies he had delivered in the course of his
ministry. The object of gathering a written collec
tion of his utterances is stated in these words : " It
may be that the house of Judah will hear all the evil
which I purpose to do unto them ; that they may
return every man from his evil way ; that I may for
give their iniquity and their sin." 1
1 Jer. xxxvi. 3 ; cf. also ver. 7.

144 THE HEBREW PROPHET
The laborious task occupied Jeremiah and his scribe
a year or more ; x we may be sure that it was a big
year's work.
Then Baruch read the whole collection of prophe
cies — the first book of the kind known to us in
Hebrew history — first to the people assembled to
keep a special fast, and later to the king's officers
who had been told of the bold step of the persecuted
prophet. These men felt that they must tell the
king, first giving the authors of the dangerous
oracles time to hide. The king seemed to think, like
the Church of Rome with its Index expurgatorius,
that unwelcome words may be wiped out by fire.
The roll was burnt ; but the prophet was left, and he
immediately set to work to replace the lost book ; and
added to the new edition many prophecies of similar
import. Such are the salient facts told in Jeremiah xxxvi.,
a notable chapter and valuable for many reasons. It
appears that Jeremiah had been preaching for some
twenty years without any thought of recording his
addresses. What led him to adopt a new course?
To say that God commanded it solves the problem
only to raise it in another form : Why did God so
command ?
Jeremiah himself gives a reason for Baruch's
reading the prophecies to the people rather than
himself : " I am restrained ; I am unable to enter the
house of Jahveh." 2 What was the restraint ? The
1 The command was given in the fourth year, the finished book was
read in the ninth month of the fifth year (Jer. xxxvi. I, 9). Therefore
the time intervening was from ten to twenty months.
2 Jer. xxxvi. 5.

WRITINGS OF THE PROPHETS 145
word I have rendered "restrained" may mean im
prisoned ; but that sense is inapplicable here ; the
princes advised Baruch that he and his master had
better seek a secure hiding-place as promptly as
possible. If Jeremiah were already in jail, he could
seek no shelter from the king's wrath. The re
straint might be due to a vow or to "a ceremonial
impurity," as W. Robertson Smith holds;1 but
that sense is weak in this place. Jeremiah was
scarcely the man, priest though he was, to be kept
from his real duty by petty questions of ritual.
The restraint might be, and I believe was, the
danger to which the prophet would be exposed
the moment he appeared in public. The king's ire
had been so aroused that Jeremiah could only speak
in public at the peril of his life. If he had come for
ward again with one of his to the king treasonable
utterances, it would certainly have been his last
message. He was ready to lay down his life for his
God ; but at that time it would be a useless and
untimely sacrifice.2 Still the enforced silence galled
him now as much as the enforced speaking at another
time. In his dilemma the thought came to him that
the pen was mightier than the sword. The works
of Micah, and of other prophets doubtless, existed
already in written form.3 Here was an idea destined
to be so important in his work that Jeremiah easily,
1 Religion of the Semites, p. 436 f. ; so Duhm, " Jeremia," in he.
2 But a short time before this the priests and prophets had tried to
secure his execution ; the temple would not be a very safe place for the
delivery of such prophecies as he had written. The issue of events
showed his wisdom. See also chap. x.
3 Jer. xxvi. 18.
L

146 THE HEBREW PROPHET
and I believe rightly, traces its origin to the inbreath
ing spirit of God. Jehoiakim might silence the voice,
but the pen would make a record which would tell
its tale even if the author paid the penalty with his
life. So it appears that the true interpretation of
these words gives us not only the reason why Baruch
was reader as well as penman, but also why God
commanded the prophet to write.
Jeremiah's object in writing, however, is not a
matter of doubtful disputation. He had no thought
of literary fame, no knowledge of the sacred writings
in which in the providence of God his words would
find no inconspicuous place ; he was concerned with
the immediate and pressing problems of his own
day. If he could turn the present inhabitants of
Judah from their sinful ways, God could be trusted
to raise up other men for dealing with the problems
which lay beyond his horizon.
Writing was a rare accomplishment in Jeremiah's
time.1 Whether he could handle the pen himself or
not, we do not know, and need not care. We are told
that he did not write himself, and beyond that we
must be content to remain in ignorance.
We know that these prophecies were not written
until after their delivery, and many of them very
long after their delivery. Any man could gather up
a summary of his teaching during past years from
memory, if he were a true prophet, zealous for truth ;
but no man could recall the very words he had used
1 In enlightened countries now, nearly every person can read and
write. In Israel, writing was a profession, known and practised by
comparatively few.

WRITINGS OF THE PROPHETS 147
in his addresses. To suppose that Jeremiah wrote
verbatim in the year 605 what he had said in the
year 626 and the years intervening, puts a burden
upon inspiration which is an unnecessary stumbling-
block. The Holy Spirit stirs men to their work, but
does not do it for them. We are therefore constrained
to infer that Jeremiah reproduced such of his utter
ances as abided in his memory and were adapted to
his present object, in their original substance, but in
such form and language as would make them most
powerful in their present task. His interest was not
archaeological, but spiritual.
What we know of Jeremiah's writing gives us the
key to the writing of the other prophets. There is
evidence in abundance that they, too, did not write
in advance. To say nothing of the a priori improb
ability of an ancient prophet standing before the
people with a manuscript or a tablet in his hand, or
repeating, like a parrot, words already written and
learned by heart, there is much direct and conclusive
evidence. There are many cases in which they,
like Cicero, adapted what they had to say to the
conditions under which they were speaking. A few
cases will make this point clear.
Amaziah broke in upon Amos while he was
relating a series of visions. The prophet turned
upon him with an apologia pro vita sua, and a pre
diction concerning the priest which he could scarcely
have thought of before, and certainly could not record
until after its delivery. Isaiah bids Ahaz ask a great
sign which he holds himself ready to give upon the
spot, and when the king declines his offer the prophet

148 THE HEBREW PROPHET
pours forth ex tempore the wonderful Immanuel
prophecy,1 which has been such a stumbling-block to
commentators. Isaiah quotes a wonderfully bright
prophecy of Zion's glory, apparently intending it as
the text of a hopeful address. But seeing the
actual conditions of the people before him, he is
turned from his purpose, and pours forth a severe
indictment of the faithless and wicked nation.2
Jeremiah preached his sermon on the temple, a
sermon which brought so much trouble to him, be
cause he heard the people crying " the temple of
Jahveh," putting a misplaced trust in God's interest
in a sacred place.3 Watching the potter one day at
work with his wheel, he was led to declare that God's
work in the world was like the potter's in the clay.4
When he spent a night in the stocks, Passhur did
not furnish him with writing materials, nevertheless
Jeremiah was ready in the morning with a prophecy
of ominous portent to his persecutor.5 He was ever
prepared to answer on the spot questions which were
brought to him from the king.6 His discourse upon
the Rechabites hung upon their refusal to take the
wine which he offered them in the presence of the
people.7 When the elders of Israel came to consult the
prophet Ezekiel, in exile in Babylonia, he was always
able to give them a message at once.8 His fine
Messianic prophecy of the resurrection of the nation
was occasioned by the despondent cry of the exiles :

1 Isa. vii.

2 Isa.ii.

3 Jer. vii.

4 Jer. xviii.

6 Jer. xx.

6 e.g. Jer. xxi.

7 Jer. xxxv.

5 e.g. Ezek. xiv..

XX.

WRITINGS OF THE PROPHETS 149
" Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost ; we
are clean cut off."1 The beautiful passage in which a
prophet states the requirements of God in a manner
never excelled, was due to the anxious inquiries of
people who desired to know the will of God.2
Haggai's prophecies are largely conversational.
He urges the people to set about the rebuilding of
the temple. He presses the timeliness of the project
because they excuse delay by saying, " The time has
not come for Jahveh's house to be built." 3 The dis
paraging remarks about the new temple lead him
to declare that the glory of this house will yet exceed
anything which had been known before.4 The ques
tions he asked the priests in the presence of the
people and their answers provided him with sugges
tions for a prophecy.5 Malachi, hearing the people
ask, " Wherein has God shown His love ? " and
"Wherein have we polluted Thee?"6 finds in the
answer the message of God to the people. Joel's
great Messianic utterance, one of the finest in Holy
Writ, was prompted by the magnificent spectacle of
the great mass of the people, under the lead of the
priests, pouring out their supplications for the exhibi
tion of God's mercy.7
The prophet was a man of his times : he was a
man promptly to meet emergencies as they arose.
He could not be bound down by a cut-and-dried
form, but must be quick to seize a chance, and to
drive home every advantage he could gain. The
1 Ezek. xxxvii. II. 2 Micah vi. 1-8. ' Hag. i. 2.
4 Hag. ii. 3 ff. ° Hag. ii. 12 ff. 6 Mai. i. 2, 7.
7 Joel ii. 18 ff.

150 THE HEBREW PROPHET
prophets were orators rather than essayists. It must
not be inferred, however, that the prophets had the
fixed habit of speaking as the Spirit gave them
utterance. No modern preacher who loves to trust
to ex tempore inspiration can find warrant for his
indolent habit in the example of the prophets.
If they knew how to turn the chance feelings or
expressions of their hearers to good account, there
is also sufficient testimony to the care with which
they usually prepared their messages.
Perhaps the best evidence of all, paradoxical as it
may seem, is the very readiness to speak God's word
as the moment required. Our Lord counselled His
disciples to make no preparation beforehand for their
defence when they were brought to trial for His sake.
The Spirit would not fail at a critical time the man
who had been living in the Spirit always. The
nation which is ready for sudden war is the one
which has not been idle in time of peace. The man
who is best prepared to speak unexpectedly is the
one who loses no opportunity to keep the mind full.
The prophets were men whose hearts were turned
toward God. Their minds- were ever bent to compre
hend something of the mystery of life. They were
earnest in their efforts to solve the problems of
God's dealings with His people. They were there
fore ready with a message from God when it was
needed. The prophets say nothing about specific prepara
tion for particular prophecies. Who would think of
incorporating into a sermon or speech the method of
its preparation ? In a book it is permissible for an

WRITINGS OF THE PROPHETS 151
author to make revelations from the workshop ; no
such preface is tolerable in a speech. If the dis
course does not tell its own story, the hearers will
not accept any other evidence. Now the prophecies
have the internal witness to careful work. The
literary form, the coherence of thought, the fine
choice of words, all proclaim the painstaking labour
of a conscientious student. No one could easily
believe that Isaiah's Song of the Vineyard,1 or Amos's
Arraignment of the Seven Nations,2 were impromptu
efforts. There is information which, when rightly under
stood, has a direct bearing on this subject. How
often in the prophets we read that God told His mes
sengers to do a certain act, to speak certain words,
and then that the messenger did as he was bid.
There is more in such cases than a useless and
wearying tautology. For example, God directs
Elijah to go meet Ahab in the vineyard of Naboth
fitly to pronounce his doom on the land obtained by
blood and theft.3 He sends Isaiah and his son to
meet Ahab on the spot where the king is studying
the problem of water supply, telling him in advance
what he is to say.4 He tells Jeremiah to carry his
girdle to the Euphrates, and to let it decay there.6
He warns Ezekiel that his wife is to die, but bids
him abstain from every external mark of grief.6
What is the meaning of such directions ? We can
no longer hold that the prophet was a mere machine,
just doing literally as he was bid, without any active
1 Isa. v. 2 Amos i., ii. 3 I Kings xxi. 17 ff.
4 Isa. vii. s Jer. xiii. 6 Ezek. xxiv. 15 ff.

152 THE HEBREW PROPHET
intelligence of his own. Samuel could not have
been carrying out Divine orders literally when he
told the people that he had come to Bethlehem to
offer a sacrifice, when as a matter of fact he had
come to inaugurate a revolution against the house of
the reigning king. It is easy to believe that Samuel
thought that God so counselled him : it is impossible
to believe that God actually did so. Moreover, if
the prophets were but the mechanical mouthpieces of
God, higher critics would have been constrained to
give over their attempts at analysis on the basis of
literary style.
Yet these directions are not without meaning. The
prophet believed that God controlled all of his life,
not a small part merely. There was to him no dis
tinction between sacred and profane. There was no
division of his life into a part which was God's
business, and a part which was his own. His whole
life belonged to God, and was guided by God. When
therefore he had adopted a certain course of action
after due consideration, or went forth to speak a
certain message after careful preparation, there was
only one way to state the fact to be true to his own
conception, and to be understood of the people, and
that is just the way he does state the fact that God
told him to do so. Would that every prophet of the
Lord Jesus Christ were so to prepare for his work by
hard study, earnest meditation, and fervent prayer,
that he could feel deeply as he went forth to give the
results to the world, that his Master was but sending
him on an errand ! Then indeed he might realise the
high privilege of the service of God. Then he might

WRITINGS OF THE PROPHETS 153
comprehend in all its fulness what Jesus meant by
placing servantship above mastership.
But the previous preparation of the prophets was
not accomplished by the pen, and we are now con
cerned with their writing. Whatever writing they
did certainly followed the delivery of their prophecies.
The chief exception, if indeed there be any, is
Ezekiel. Some scholars hold that Ezekiel was dis
tinctively the literary prophet, in that his prophecies
appeared first in written form. The upholders of
this view make little attempt to support it by
tangible evidence. It is, in fact, the sort of thing
about which one easily forms an opinion from broad
general considerations, which it is not easy to prove
or disprove by detailed evidence. It does not seem
worth while to turn aside and take up this question
fully. But if I were to do so, I am persuaded that we
should conclude that much of Ezekiel was certainly
not written in advance of delivery, and that, with the
possible exception of chapters xl.-xlviii., there is no
evidence that any of his prophecies were originally
issued in written form.
The belief that prophecies were written long after
delivery is the only reasonable explanation of a fact
which we notice again and again, namely, the presence
of historical allusions of different periods. Historical
allusion is the easiest and most exact means of deter
mining the date of any writing. But it often happens
that we find along with clear historical evidence of a
certain date, certain references to a much later time.
Such a condition may be explained in three ways.
1. By assigning the prophecies to the later date.

154 THE HEBREW PROPHET
2. By supposing that an editor had interpolated the
later references to which he found the text applicable.
3. By holding that the prophets themselves coloured
their earlier addresses by allusions to the conditions
which were present at the time of writing.
Possibly all three of these methods must be used
in the interpretation of prophecy. But that the last
is one to which the student must often turn is, I
believe, plain to the discerning eye. It seems quite
unlikely that the story of Isaiah's call,1 or Jeremiah's,2
could have been written as it stands at the time the
call was given. There is so much in each story
which a prophet could only learn by experience, that
we are forced to believe that the record of the call
was made as the explanation of that experience.
There is a long passage in Jeremiah 3 which seems to
belong to the Scythian invasion. Many allusions
there have no other such natural fitness as to the
wild hordes which swept over the country and
seriously threatened Judah. Yet there seem to be
equally clear references to a condition belonging to a
time some years subsequent.4 The difficulty is easily
removed in this case : for we know that Jeremiah
did not write until 605 B.C. ; he was not concerned
with an exact reproduction of what he had said
years before ; he wanted a lesson for the present.
God had turned back the terrible tide of barbarians,
and He could turn back the hosts of Babylon. Jere
miah would naturally adapt his early utterance so
as to make it forceful for the present.
1 Isa. vi. ' Jer. i. 3 Jer. ii.— vi.
4 See further, Driver's Introd.6, p. 252 f., and the references there.

WRITINGS OF THE PROPHETS 155
That we have most prophecies in an edition later
than the delivery, or in substance merely, is undeni
ably a loss ; but the loss is more apparent to the
literary than to the religious interest. The moment
an author issues a new edition of a book, the value
of the old editions becomes little. The student of
the Hebrew language finds it difficult and expensive
to keep up with the new editions of grammars, lexi
cons, commentaries, etc. The latest is almost invari
ably the most valuable ; for the final judgment of an
author is preferred to superseded opinions. The
same principle applies to the prophets. The written
issue of their prophecies bears the stamp of their
ripest judgment. If we had Jeremiah's prophecies
about the Scythians in their original form, doubtless
they would be of greater historical value than the
existing collection ; but we should not have the final
judgment of the prophet. If the prophets in reduc
ing their utterances to writing improved the form,
that is wholly a gain. Jeremiah was the author of
his prophecies in written form. Baruch is careful to
tell most explicitly that he wrote them from the
mouth of the prophet : the scribe was a mere amanu
ensis.1 It is highly probable that this was the case with
the other prophets as well. We have a good test of
this in the case of Isaiah. Some of the prophets we
know only from history ; others we know only from
1 Duhm. is doubtless in the main right in ascribing the historical
parts of Jeremiah to Baruch, though he goes pretty far at times. Jere
miah probably dictated the prophecies, and Baruch himself wrote the
historical settings.

156 THE HEBREW PROPHET
their own works. Isaiah we know from both. Chap
ters xxxvi-xxxix. are incorporated bodily in his
book from history, because the history deals so much
with the prophet, and the bringing together of all
sacred books into a single volume was not dreamed
of in the days of Isaiah. In these historical sections
we find many of Isaiah's utterances reported. They
have usually a genuine ring. They are worthy of
the great prophet, and are fit expressions of his
power. But in style they differ considerably from
the prophecies in his book. Though coming from
the same lips, they are the record of a different pen.
The historian — not the compiler of Kings, but the
original author whose work he embodies — wrote
Isaiah's words from memory. He knew in substance
the great sayings of Isaiah at these critical moments.
But the words of Isaiah are coloured by passing
through his mind, so that while the thoughts are
clearly Isaianic, the literary form is not. This differ
ence is most naturally explained by the supposition
that the prophecies of Isaiah, as found in his book,
are the product of his own hand.
The prophecies bear the earmarks of oral discourse.
They are never transformed to the form of religious
essays. They have this witness to the fidelity of their
reproduction. They are invariably in the form of
direct address. This fact of itself means little, for
many histories contain manufactured speeches given
in the form of direct address. In Samuel and Kings
the prophets are usually quoted in direct address.
But there is a great difference between the invented
and the genuine. In reading a prophecy we feel the

WRITINGS OF THE PROPHETS 157
audience present. Either the authors were literary
artists of the highest order, or the words are a faithful
reproduction of a message from the prophet's lips.
They bear the mark of the former so plainly that we
can easily believe, on this ground alone, that they
were not written out in advance of delivery. They
often bear the imprint of the circumstances of their
delivery. By their own hand, or by the office of a
scribe, shortly after delivery in some cases, long after
in others, the messages of the prophets were put in
written form.
The purpose so clearly stated by Jeremiah, as
quoted above, is the purpose of God, and it does
not vary in different cases. The written word was
to serve the same purpose as the oral word. When
writing was once in vogue, the prophet could enlarge
his ministry by the use of the pen. A prophet of
the Christian dispensation began to write with the
same object, though his writing was not intended as
a reproduction of his speeches. St. Paul was a rest
less traveller ; as soon as a fair foundation was laid
in one place, he was eager to carry the Gospel to a
new field. But there were quick departures from his
standard. He could not always be going back to
correct and confirm. But he could write, and the
wonderful collection of his Epistles bears witness to
St. Paul's desire to extend the area of his apostleship
as widely as possible.
Occasionally the purpose of writing pointed to the
future, though generally the prophet was concerned
with the pressing needs of the hour. The wonderful
timeliness of his utterances is one of the most marked

158 THE HEBREW PROPHET
traits of the Hebrew prophet. But his outlook was,
nevertheless, broad; in fact, his farsightedness was
a great source of power for his work of the moment.
He can best prescribe the duty for to-day who knows
what to-morrow will be. No statesman can be truly
great who does not see the inevitable issue of present
conditions and handle them with reference to the
future. There were times when the prophets seemed
ready to drop consideration of the hopeless present,
buried in gloom, and to turn their eyes to the glorious
future in which they steadfastly believed, and in
which every child of God must believe. Sometimes
their writing had reference to that remote future.
Jeremiah wrote his glowing picture of the future x
in the tenth year of Zedekiah, 587 B.C. He was at
the time a prisoner in the court of the guard : 2 it
was the darkest period of Hebrew history; for the
fall of the holy city was so certain and so near that
the prophet ceases to regard it, and looks beyond to
a new day. Jeremiah was commanded to write in a
book all the words that God had spoken to him.3
The words to be written were these fine Messianic
chapters which had come from this time of national
anguish. The purpose of reducing to writing is
clearly stated : " For lo, the days are coming, saith
Jahveh, when I will bring back the captivity of My
people Israel and Judah ; and I will restore them to
the land which I gave to their fathers." 4 The written
words were to be preserved and read as an evi
dence of God's gracious purpose to restore the nation,
1 Jer. xxx.-xxxiii. 2 Jer. xxxii. 2.
3 Jer. xxx. 2. 4 Jer. xxx. 3.

WRITINGS OF THE PROPHETS 159
which was now speeding to destruction. Through
the dark days of exile and humiliation the bright
words of the prophet would serve to cheer the spirits
of the depressed, and bid them look hopefully for
better times.
Habakkuk also was commanded to take up the
pen : " Write the vision and engrave it upon tablets,
that he may run who reads it ; for the vision is for a
set time, and it hastens to the end ; and it shall not
lie." 1 The reason seems to be similar to Jeremiah's.
The condition described by the prophet, the over
throw of the wicked power of Babylon, was near,
but not present. Yet it would surely come, and the
prediction of its coming was to console the people
suffering in the interim.
Isaiah was commanded to write a brief prophecy
on a tablet ; it was this : maker shalal hash baz,
" swift the spoil, speedy the prey." 2 The words were
a prediction of the overthrow of the combined powers
of Damascus and Samaria, before which Judah was
quailing, and the fear of which drove Ahaz to the
disastrous alliance with Assyria. Isaiah seems to
have set up the tablet in the presence of witnesses,
as a testimony for the future day, when the develop
ment of time should establish the truth of his words.
So Isaiah wrote for the future to prove the useless-
ness of the reliance upon Egypt. The command to
him was, " Now go, write it upon a tablet before
them, and upon a book inscribe it, that it may be for
a future day, for a witness for ever." 3
Our conclusions, then, about the writing prophets
1 Hab. ii. 2 f. 2 Isa. viii. 3. 3 Isa. xxx. 8.

160 THE HEBREW PROPHET
agree with what we should on general principles deem
most probable. These prophets wrote or dictated
their own prophecies sometimes shortly after delivery,
sometimes long after.1 They are not verbatim reports
of speeches as delivered, but are sometimes modified ) )
to suit the purpose of their issue in written form.
These conclusions will fit the case of many of the
prophecies preserved in the Hebrew Scriptures. They
may not apply to all cases. Sometimes there seems
to be a condition best explained by supposing that
a prophecy has been either recorded from the un
certain memory of one who heard it, or revised by a
less skilful and faithful hand than the author. A
critical discrimination is always essential in our study.
But we are safe in assuming that the genuine pro
ductions of the writing prophets are peculiarly trust
worthy as sources of information for our use. In
turning to them we are dealing with authorities of
the highest order. 1 See additional note (9).

CHAPTER VIII
THE PROPHET'S RELATION TO THE
STATE
I. BEFORE AMOS
THE civil ruler among the ancient Semites was
in many respects a despot of the most arbitrary
kind. His rule was based on the doctrine of the
Divine right of kings, and he at least was convinced
that the king could do no wrong. Nevertheless his
practice was considerably influenced by the fact that
he was intensely religious, even though his religion
may seem to us, in the case of some of the kings,
of the grossest type. Believing in the gods, he felt
that success in his career depended upon their good
pleasure. Hence he strove always to keep in favour
with them, so that every enterprise might be under
taken under their favourable auspices. To that end
it was necessary to know the mind of the gods, for
that information was equivalent to the knowledge of
the ways of success and failure.
There were many means employed to determine
the will of the gods : dreams, divination, magic,
soothsaying, sorcery, witchcraft, all had their place.
Among many of the ancient Semitic peoples the
method of ascertaining the Divine will never rose
M 161

162 THE HEBREW PROPHET
above divination. In the sixth century before Christ,
Nebuchadrezzar still decides by arrows and the
convulsions of the slain animal's liver, whether the
gods would have him take the road to Rabbah or
Jerusalem.1 Among the Hebrews all the primitive methods
were in use at various periods. Jonathan decided to
attack the Philistine garrison because, according to
his prearranged sign, they said, " Come up to us,"
instead of " Tarry until we come to you." 2 Shortly
afterwards Saul, desiring to know whether it was
a favourable time to attack, summoned the priest to
divine with the ephod.3 In the same way David
learned, first, that he should attack the Philistines
who were besieging Keilah, and later, that he
must abandon Keilah to escape treachery.4 In
his great distress, when he was hard pressed by the
Philistines, Saul failed to get a satisfactory answer
1 Ezek. xxi. 18 ff. See also art. " Soothsayer," by Whitehouse, in
Hastings' Bible Dictionary.
2 I Sam. xiv. 9f.
3 I Sam. xiv. i8ff. The Hebrew text reads, "bring hither the ark
of God." The best Greek versions read, "bring hither the ephod."
There seems to be no question but that the latter is right. The ark
was not used for divination, the ephod was. Ahijah was present in the
camp of Saul "wearing an ephod" (i Sam. xiv. 3). Later on David
used the same words to Abiathar, "bring hither the ephod" (ib.
xxiii. 9 ; cf. also xxx. 7, and Driver's Notes on the Hebrew text of
Samuel, p. 83 f.). The change in the Hebrew text was accidental ;
the words for ark and ephod are much alike ; after this error came in,
"of God" was added as a necessary explanation.
4 I Sam. xxiii. This instance is particularly instructive because we
find a detailed conversation between David and Jahveh, but conducted
through the ephod. David asked his questions, and the oracular yes or
no was given in reply. The true explanation of the earlier part of the
story (vers. 1-5), where the ephod is not mentioned, is thus supplied.

RELATION TO THE STATE 163
from any other source, and so resorted to necro
mancy.1 But the Hebrews did not always depend upon the
dark arts for determining the moment which was
auspicious by the favour of God. Comparatively
early in their career they learned a better and higher
way. The counsel of God came to them, not through
the uncertainties of dreams and divination, but
through the voice of the living prophets. Thus the
Hebrew prophet in his relation to the State was
accorded a position of tremendous power, and was
given a chance for the religious enlightenment of the
people. The attitude of Nebuchadrezzar, following
the falling of the arrows and the movements of a
liver, is not unlike that of David moving to the
attack at the rustling of the mulberry trees ; but it
is very different from Hezekiah, stoutly resisting the
assaults of Sennacherib under the influence of the
confident cry of a great prophet : " The virgin
daughter of Zion hath despised thee, and laughed
thee to scorn ; the daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken
her head at thee."2
At first the man was nothing apart from his
apparatus. Abiathar the priest would have been
little esteemed by David without the sacred ephod.
Moses could do nothing without his divining rod.
The early seers may have used some similar primitive
methods of learning the will of God. Samuel the
seer may have determined that the asses were found
1 1 Sam. xxviii. An unusual procedure, but not unknown at a
much later age, as we learn from Isa. viii. 19.
2 Isa. xxxvii. 22.

164 THE HEBREW PROPHET
by the art of soothsaying.1 But in the development
of" prophecy the man came into direct communion
with God, and all apparatus was laid aside.2 With
the appearance of great men, the belief grew among
the people that Jahveh spoke directly to His prophets.3
The Hebrew kings and counsellors might, if they
would, have a more certain assurance that they were
walking in the way of God than the dark arts per
mitted. When the kings looked to the seers for
guidance from on high, these became inevitably great
figures in the State. To fill his place the prophet
must be not only a man of God, but a statesman as
well. For he was no blind medium, but an intelli
gent transmitter of the Divine counsel. He was a
man of his times, looking about him with clear sight,
knowing not only the political movements of his day,
but their significance for the time and for the future.
So it happened that the prophet cannot be under
stood apart from his connexion with the State.4 We
1 The use of apparatus would be maintained after it had ceased to
be a guide to the seer, because of its impressive effect upon the people.
Sir Henry Rawlinson had learned as well where to look for a com
memoration tablet in a Babylonian building as we should for a corner
stone. Excavating at Birs, he reached the point where he expected
the cylinder. Before removing the last bricks he adjusted a prismatic
compass on the wall, then removed the brick and picked out the
cylinder. The Arabs thought the compass a wonderful instrument,
and attributed the find to magic. (See Hilprecht, Explorations in
Bible Lands, p. 183 f.)
2 The use of symbols, such as Jeremiah's yoke, was a survival of the
old customs. 3 Amos iii. 7.
4 " From the days of Samuel onwards we find the prophets standing
in the closest relations to the political circumstances of their times. . . .
They made it their business to watch the course of national affairs in
general, and specially to control and judge the conduct of the reigning
monarch and his counsellors " (Ottley, Bamp. Led. , p. 279).

RELATION TO THE STATE 165
shall trace that relation in its historical development.
To this end we must go back to the early days and
review the history of prophecy from the political
point of view. We shall thus see how the early seer
worked for the State's welfare ; confessedly, though,
our information is at times pretty scanty.
Ehud, the left-handed Benjamite, was not a prophet,
but a shrewd warrior, such as the times called for
when his tribe was oppressed by Eglon, the king of
Moab. Ehud was delegated to carry the tribute to
the suzerain, and resolved to make use of the oppor
tunity to rid his people of the tyrant. It was easy
to get a private audience with the king by pretend
ing that he had a secret message, for mankind ever
loves a secret. But as he desired the fat king to
stand, that he might aim the blow more effectively,
he accomplished his purpose by saying that his
message was from God.1 Though Ehud was a
foreigner from the Moabite's point of view, his pre
tension to have a message from God to deliver
sufficed to gain the attention of the king, and to
bring him to his feet. This incident shows the
esteem in which any man was held who claimed to
have a message from heaven. Ehud the Hebrew
was able positively to count upon the Moabite king's
welcome to one assuming to bear a Divine com
mission. The tolerance of kings towards prophets has often
been noted. A raving dervish may gain admission
to a despotic Oriental court when an important am
bassador would be debarred. Among the Israelites
1 Judges iii. 20.

166 THE HEBREW PROPHET
it is generally assumed that the prophet had a free
hand, and not only dared, but was permitted, a
freedom of speech which would have been quickly
punished in another. Often his hand was free.
That was ever the ideal. Zedekiah is charged with
great wrong because he did not humble himself be
fore Jeremiah.1 But it is easy to exaggerate this
tolerance ; for conditions varied greatly at different
times. There are many cases showing the clearest
intolerance towards the prophets. The king of
Israel lent his aid to the priest in an effort to dismiss
from the kingdom the first of the literary prophets.
There is a long story of repression and persecution,
which shows that the prophet who opposed the royal
policy did so at the risk of liberty and life. The
details of this story will be brought out in the course
of our study.
Among the very earliest writings preserved by the
Hebrews is the Song of Deborah.2 This ancient
poem affords a striking picture of the prophetic
influence in early Israel. The northern tribes had
been sorely beset by Sisera, and there was no one to
gather an effective force in opposition until Deborah
arose a mother in Israel, and inspired Barak to rally
the people and lead them in a fierce assault against
the foe. The prophetess did not wait for someone
to seek her counsel, but, acting under a Divine im
pulse of patriotism, herself took the initial steps
which led to the expulsion of the enemy.
That position of leadership was ever maintained
by the prophets. They were never passive instru-
1 2 Chron. xxxvi. 12. 2 judges v#

RELATION TO THE STATE 167
ments of divination to say yes or no, when the
springs were touched by an inquiring hand, but were
active in arousing the people to their God-given
opportunities. Thus the great seer of Ephraim is
introduced to us in the oldest story of the establish
ment of the kingdom.1 Samuel sees the disadvant
age of Israel in their tribal jealousy and disorgan
isation.2 The time has gone by when heroic leaders
may be expected as occasion requires. The people
had seen enough of the evil of a state of anarchy
to enable Samuel to count upon their acceptance of
the new institution if it is presented to them at a
fitting moment. The young giant who comes to the
seer to inquire about the strayed asses has all the
marks of the kind of leader the people of that age
would be likely to follow ; and therefore upon the
head of the son of Kish the anointing oil is poured.
If Samuel had occupied the commanding position
ascribed to him in the later narratives of the Book
of Samuel, nothing more than this anointing would
have been necessary to have finally established the
kingdom. But as Samuel appears to have been at
all events at the start a seer of Ephraim, with little
more than local repute,3 the pouring of oil upon a
man's head would command little heed from the
people at large. Therefore Saul must demonstrate
1 I Sam. ix.
2 This is a vastly more probable explanation of the origin of the
kingdom than the other version of the story (i Sam. viii., xii.), ac
cording to which Samuel grudgingly yielded to a popular demand.
3 Whatever may be the fact in regard to Samuel's position, the
above is assuredly the view of the writer of the early story of the
founding of the kingdom.

168 THE HEBREW PROPHET
his leadership by watching his opportunity, by follow
ing the seer's counsel to " do as occasion shall serve." x
The prophet's part was to make choice of a fit person
to serve in the high office of king ; the king's part
was to demonstrate the fitness of that choice when
the occasion arose. The seer wisely contents himself
with a general direction ; Saul finds the opportunity
himself when he hears of the dire stress of Jabesh-
gilead. It is often erroneously assumed, on the basis
of the later stories, that Samuel was the real
authority in the kingdom, and Saul but a figure-head
carrying out his instructions. This conception is
far from the truth ; for later we read that Jonathan,
of his own initiative, determined by signs, and Saul
by the ephod, when to attack the enemy. Samuel
as a matter of fact occupied an inconspicuous posi
tion in the monarchy which he had inspired.
According to the Book of Samuel, the prophet not
only set up a king, but he also put him down, when
his services were not deemed sufficiently pleasing to
Jahveh. The critical problems in these sources are
pretty difficult. But they must be faced. Between
those who reject everything except the oldest narra
tive and those who accept the whole as equally
authoritative in all parts, smoothing out the incon
sistencies with greater skill than success, there may
not be much choice. The practice of considering
every statement impossible, because found in a late
source, is reprehensible; that of accepting every
statement because it is found in Holy Scripture is
impossible. Every statement ought to be judged on
1 i Sam. x. 7.

RELATION TO THE STATE 169
its own merits. It seems scarcely likely, however,
that Saul was deposed from the throne for offering
a sacrifice before the priest-prophet appeared ; x and
this story is inconsistent with another ground for
Saul's rejection, namely, his failure to exterminate
the Amalekites.2 The latter story is much more in
accord with the ideas of the times, and probably
gives the real cause of Samuel's disaffection.3
What part Samuel had in the revolution by which
David reached the throne, it is not easy to say. The
information is not always consistent, and the most
specific is the latest and least trustworthy.4 But it
is highly probable that there is this much of historic
truth back of these stories, that David was prompted
by the seer of Ephraim to overthrow the house of
Saul, and to set up his own dynasty in its place.
It is interesting to note that in all the later sources
of the Book of Samuel, the place of the prophet is
much more conspicuous than in the early sources.
Looked at from the point of view of the later times,
it was inconceivable that Samuel had been other than
the power behind the throne directing the king in all
his ways. We find the same tendency in the history
of David's reign. In the latest source the power of
the prophet appears to be greatest. The story of the
king's consultation with Nathan about the building
of the temple is one of the latest additions to the
narrative.5 The most despotic king, according to
1 I Sam. xiii. 8 ff. 2 I Sam. xv. 3 See additional note (10).
4 i.e. I Sam. xvi. I-13. Budde has so poor an opinion of this section
that he regards it as a midrash, taken from the same source quoted by
the Chronicler (Biicher Samuel, p. 114).
5 2 Sam. vii

170 THE HEBREW PROPHET
that story, dare not carry out a project long cherished
in his heart without the sanction of the prophet. If
we question this story we must do so, however, not
merely on the ground of lateness of source, but
chiefly upon the improbability that a man like David
would brook such interference.
David seems to have had little to do with the
prophets. According to the oldest sources, his in
quiries of God were apparently made through the
priest and ephod, which had served him so well in
the days of his conflict with Saul.1 In the list of
his officers2 we find two priests, but no prophet.
When the king was obliged to flee on account of
Absalom's rebellion, Zadok the priest was with him,
but there is no mention of a prophet. Hushai the
councillor was relied upon for advice, and was
deliberately counselled to aid the fugitive king by
deceiving the usurper. According to Chronicles,
when the elders of Israel came to Hebron to make
David king, they acted "according to the word of
Jahveh by the hand of Samuel";3 but that assertion
sounds like a harmonistic effort of the Chronicler.
It is in agreement with the later conceptions.
Still we find even in these oldest sources that the
prophets do sometimes appear on the scene and
speak with the utmost freedom, even though their
mission was to rebuke a king. Nathan's severe
censure of David for the high-handed crimes by which
Bath-sheba became his wife, reveals an early picture
of the true prophet's high courage, and his solid
1 2 Sam. ii. I ; v. 19 ; xxi. 1. '2 2 Sam. viii. 16-18.
3 1 Chron. xi. 3.

RELATION TO THE STATE 171
moral principles. That the State may be strong, it
must be pure. A dissolute, unscrupulous monarch
is intolerable to Jahveh, and the prophet, full of the
spirit of Jahveh, cannot hesitate to lay bare the king's
sins, and to declare the punishment which will inevit
ably follow.1
Another prophet, who is called a royal seer, was the
divinely appointed means of conveying to the king
the choice of punishments offered him in expiation of
his sin in taking a census.2 This story is not free
from difficulty for the interpreter. But we may easily
separate it into certain historic facts on the one side,
and the theological interpretation of those facts on
the other. The facts seem to be that for military
purposes David ordered a census of the whole people ;
and that this census was followed by a dreadful
pestilence. In accordance with the ideas of the times,
the pestilence could only be explained as a punish
ment for sin, as indeed all pestilences are, though un
happily the right sin is not always discovered. But
the writer of this old story makes the prophet Gad
the messenger to the offending king, and the agent
by whose advice the stay of the plague is accom
plished. 1 H. P. Smith is doubtful about this narrative. ' ' There is nothing
unreasonable in supposing that the early narrative was content with
pointing out that the anger of Jahveh was evidenced by the death of the
child. A later writer was not satisfied with this, but felt that there
must be a specific rebuke by a direct revelation " (Sam., p. 322). The
question is whether there is anything unreasonable in the narrative as
it stands. That there may be some later embellishments in the story is
possible ; that a whole section has been added from an untrustworthy
source is not very likely.
2 2 Sam. xxiv.

172 THE HEBREW PROPHET
It would be unreasonable to suppose that these
two notices tell us the whole history of prophecy in
relation to the reign of David. They are rather to be
regarded as evidence that, apart from the sons of the
prophets as bodies, there were conspicuous individual
prophets, who watched the course of " the king after
God's own heart," and though not called in counsel
in affairs of state, were yet quick to appear of their
own motion, when they perceived the king to be fall
ing from the ways of their God.
If we look over such history as we have of the op
pressive reign of Solomon the great, we are struck at
once with the absence of any mention of prophets.
In the list of his officers1 we find priests, but neither
seer nor prophet. There is no record of Solomon's
ever consulting a seer, or being sharply called to ac
count by a prophet. In fact, Solomon was not a man
to take censure from anybody. All the knowledge
we have of him points to a man of self-sufficiency.
Wisdom came to him directly from God, so it was
believed, and he felt no dependence upon a mediating
officer. At the same time Solomon could not have for
gotten that he owed his office to the shrewdness of a
prophet. Nathan seems to have been the first to
penetrate the treacherous purposes of Adonijah, and
the first to suggest a means to counteract the effects
of David's inactivity and rapidly waning popularity.
The prophet was concerned to secure the succession
of the heir-apparent as determined by royal authority.
Yet the actual anointing was done by Zadok the
i Kings iv. ff.

RELATION TO THE STATE 173
priest, not by Nathan the prophet.1 It is highly
probable that Nathan lived through a part of Solo
mon's reign, but he could have had no conspicuous
place in the royal councils.
There is good indirect evidence that Solomon did
not look kindly upon prophetic meddling with his
great affairs ; this we find in the history of Ahijah the
Shilonite. Ahijah saw the evil consequences of an
attempt, such as Solomon had made, to maintain a
splendid Oriental court in a nation as small and
poor as Israel. In the heir-apparent the seer could
perceive no signs of improvement. The only course,
therefore, was a revolt and a secession of the northern
tribes from the united kingdom, and the establish
ment of a royal line of their own. This dangerous
business was executed in the wild mountain land,2
where the seer would not be under the observation of
royal spies.
It was a prophet, therefore, who inspired the greatest
rebellion in Hebrew history. The part of the prophet
in such movements was to pick out the man for the
occasion, and to set him at the arduous and perilous
work of revolution. While Solomon lived, the prophet
dare not interfere with the evils which he deprecated,
nor did he venture to stir up revolt. Under the feebler
rule of Solomon's son, revolution became possible.
1 So we are expressly told in i Kings i. 39. David commands
Zadok and Nathan to anoint Solomon king (ver. 34), and Jonathan
reported to the conspirators that Zadok and Nathan had anointed him
(ver. 45). Nathan may have had some part in the function, but
Zadok was evidently the chief.
2 1 Kings xi. 29. The rendering of the English versions, "field,"
conveys quite a wrong impression.

174 THE HEBREW PROPHET
Another prophet played an important role in this
revolution. Rehoboam was as conceited as arrogant,
and vainly supposed that he could bring back his
revolted subjects by force of arms. A protracted
attempt to do so would have resulted in great loss
of property and life, and probably in the entire
destruction of the Davidic kingdom. Rehoboam
gathered a great army, but was halted in his purpose
by Shemaiah, the man of God, who persuaded the
king that the division of the kingdom was of God.1
It would have been useless to try to stay the king's
hand by predicting failure; but the plea that the
rebellion he purposed to suppress was of Divine order
ing proved effective.
How exactly reversed are conditions now ! A
government will be very much influenced by prob
abilities of success or failure, but very little effort will
be made to learn the will of God. It may indeed be
urged that we have no longer a prophet to announce
authoritatively, " thus saith the Lord." But we have
a surer means than an Ahijah or a Shemaiah had for
determining the will of God. For the party which is
in the right is that which God looks upon with favour,
and not the party with the heaviest battalions; though
1 I Kings xii. 21 ff. Kittel says this narrative is a later addition,
and sounds like a friendly excuse for Rehoboam's inaction and in
difference (Hist., ii. 211, 246). He regards it as a post-exilic midrash
after the manner of the Chronicler (Konigsbiicher, 106). It is true that
Rehoboam kept up a sort of border war for a long time ; it is so ex
pressly stated in 1 Kings xiv. 30 ; but it may be that this passage,
however late, contains a bit of true history, namely, that the king re
frained from a great war by prophetic advice. The border war he
could not control, even if he had cared to stop it.

RELATION TO THE STATE 175
it is unhappily not always the case in war that right
makes might.
Whatever Shemaiah's position at court was, he
evidently wielded a great influence in the affairs
of state. It was no light task to turn back a king
when his forces were already mustered for war. The
prophet appears once again in the character of a
state counsellor, though in a matter more distinctly
religious. In the fifth year of Rehoboam's reign
Judah was invaded by Shishak, the king of Egypt.
To the king and princes wondering at the havoc
wrought in Jahveh's land, the prophet gives the easy
explanation : " Thus saith Jahveh : you have aban
doned Me, and therefore have I abandoned you in
the hand of Shishak." x
Again Rehoboam accepted the counsel of the man
of God, and as a consequence of his humility, a com
forting message was given to him : " They have
humbled themselves : I will not destroy them, but I
will shortly make them an escaped remnant, and My
anger shall not be poured upon Jerusalem by the
hand of Shishak. Yet they shall become servants to
him, that they may know My service, and the service
of the kingdoms of the lands."2
The plain meaning of this advice in modern terms
seems to be this. The feeble Judean army had no
chance against the vastly superior Egyptian force.
1 2 Chron. xii. 5. There is no mention of Shemaiah's appearance
in the brief story in I Kings xiv. 25 ff. While we must admit that
the Chronicler's unsupported testimony must be cautiously scrutinised,
it nevertheless seems uncritical to reject it en masse. He had no
especial predilection in favour of the prophets.
2 2 Chron. xii. 7 f.

176 THE HEBREW PROPHET
To resist such a power meant destruction. The only
wise course for the weaker side was submission for a
time, not vain resistance, which would only aggravate
the trouble. Shemaiah, the man of God, was the
one who saw the course of safety, and who was able
to pilot the frail State of Judah through the troubled
waters. We know little more of prophetic activity in the
State for a long time. The Chronicler tells us that
Azariah the son of Obed tried to keep Asa in the
straight path by reminding him that Jahveh's favour
was conditional upon good behaviour.1 About the
same time Jehu the son of Hanani sharply rebuked
Baasha, the third king of Israel, and declared that his
rule would fall to the ground because of the sins he
had committed.2 It is highly probable3 that this same
seer played an active part in the overthrow of the
discredited dynasty of Jeroboam, and the passing of
the reins to the powerful hand of Omri.
The disastrous war between Amaziah of Judah and
Joash of Israel was brought about, according to the
Chronicler, by partly following and partly ignoring
the advice of a prophet. The king of Judah hired
Israelitish mercenaries to aid him in a campaign
against Edom. A man of God advised against this
accession so strongly that Amaziah sent the Israelites
back as a consequence. While the Judeans were
plundering Edom, the returning Israelites seized the
opportunity to find redress in looting the Judeans.
1 2 Chron. xv. iff. = i Kings xvi. I ff.
3 Some such activity seems to be implied in the language of I Kings
xvi. 2-7 ; cf. also xv. 29, xiv. 14.

RELATION TO THE STATE 177
Amaziah was reproved by the prophets, according to
the story, because he worshipped the captured deities
of Edom ; but probably the real ground of the rebuke
was the king's proposal to exact vengeance from
Israel. Then we come to a case of conflict between
prophet and king. The king asked the seer, " Have
we made thee of the king's counsel ? " and follows his
question with a grave threat, " forbear : why shouldst
thou be smitten?" Though we are told that the
prophet heeded the threat, he did so with the real
spirit of the prophets, which was to bid defiance
to any other authority than God's : " I know that
God has determined to destroy thee because thou
hast done this, and hast not hearkened unto my
counsel." x
We must go back a little now to a time when the
prophet was a prominent figure in the State, to the
time of Elijah and Elisha. Conditions at this period
were very bad from the point of view of a prophet of
Jahveh. The dynasty of Omri was anything but
faithful to Jahveh's ways. The kings were no longer
amenable to prophetic counsel, and the seers were
constrained to sit constantly on the opposition bench.
This was a time, too, when the king was intolerant of
what seemed to him as prophetic interference with
affairs of state. Like others in civil authority whose
life is not above reproach, he would insist that the
pulpit keep close to a narrow range of religion and
let business and politics alone. In spite of intoler
ance and persecution, however, the great prophets
had their say, and, like true watchmen, did not let
1 2 Chron. xxv. 1-16.

178 THE HEBREW PROPHET
Israel rush on to its doom without lifting up their
voice in warning.
It is only possible to state briefly some of the
prophet's acts, selecting those which are most im
portant for our subject. While it is true that con
siderable legendary matter has become imbedded in
the stories of Elijah, and more still in those of Elisha,
there is yet an abundance of good historical material.
This is particularly the case in such parts of the
stories as are serviceable for our present purpose.
Though not trustworthy in all details, this narrative
doubtless gives the position of the prophet correctly.
Elijah comes on the scene very abruptly in
I Kings xvii., declaring to Ahab that there shall be
neither dew nor rain except at his word. Apparently
the compiler chose from the history of Elijah such
events as threw most light on the history of Israel.
Certain it seems, doubtless as a result of this method
of selection, that Elijah's chief concern is the State.
The welfare of the State in the mind of the prophet
depended upon its faithfulness to Jahveh. Con
sequently the prophet, fired with a religious zeal
rarely excelled in history, gave his life so far as we
know to an effort to stay the evil tendency towards
the introduction of a religion foreign to that upon
which the Hebrew nation was founded, and vastly
inferior as a moral power.
The prophet's declaration that there would be
neither dew nor rain except at his word did not arise
from a mere arbitrary desire to display power or to
inflict suffering, but was the initial step in his pro
gramme to awaken the people to a sense of their

RELATION TO THE STATE 179
infidelity. When the king and people, feeling the
heavy hand of God, humbled themselves penitently,
then the dew and rain would fall again as a token of
Jahveh's gracious forgiveness.
The result was quite contrary to the prophet's
purpose and hope. Jezebel had perhaps already
been striving to make Baal the national God. She
was as shrewd as she was unscrupulous, and saw her
opportunity in the drought which followed Elijah's
prediction. She could easily persuade the man who
had quite yielded to her dominating influence, that
the way to break the drought was to break the man
who was responsible for it, and along with him the
whole body of his followers. Consequently we find
Elijah in hiding and the king doing everything in his
power to find him ; while the king's officer Obadiah
had concealed some of the persecuted prophets, and
was secretly maintaining them in a cave. There
were probably many hundred other prophets, how
ever, who found neither protector nor hiding-place,
but were ruthlessly slain. The prophets at this
period, working for the welfare of the State, were
violently opposed and persecuted by the king.
The great sacrifice on Mount Carmel, so finely
described in 1 Kings xviii., was largely an appeal to
the people on the part of the prophet. The king
had shown no disposition to interpret correctly the
hand of God in the history of his own times. The
court of last resort is the people, and this appeal may
succeed even under the most despotic government.
The true conception of this great effort only appears
when we realise that Elijah's purpose was neither the

180 THE HEBREW PROPHET
working of a miracle nor the exhibition of prophetic
power, but the saving of the people of God. He
seemed to accomplish his object. The immediate
result of the complete failure of the Baal prophets to
meet the hard conditions imposed, and his own
triumphant success, was that the people cried those
words sweeter than any music to Elijah's ears, " Jah
veh, He is God ; Jahveh, He is God."
Elijah was quick to see and take his chances. Mild
treatment was not fitted for such rough times. A
decisive blow must be struck while the iron was hot.
Baal must taste some of Jezebel's own medicine.
The prophet who had just emerged from hiding, and
was still in danger of his life, the king probably being
present, assumes high governmental powers in the
name of his God, and orders the immediate execution
of the whole body of the prophets of Baal.
The result of the slaughter of these prophets was
the awful oath of Jezebel to take Elijah's life. Once
more he fled, no longer to a refuge near by, but out
of the kingdom, far away to the wilderness of Judah,
where he yields to despair and prays for the very
thing which would surely have come without petition
to heaven had he remained within Jezebel's reach.
Notwithstanding the great manifestation of Jahveh's
power and the mark of His favour, at the overthrow
of the prophets of Baal, in the fall of copious rains,
the evil influence of the queen was dominant, and
the people quickly followed the lead of their sovereign.
The great work was all undone in a moment. What
was the use struggling against such fearful odds?
The usefulness of the prophet had gone. " Let it now

RELATION TO THE STATE 181
suffice, O Jahveh," he cries in the bitterness of his
soul, " take away my life ; for I succeed no better
than my fathers." 1
But Elijah reckoned without a comprehension of
God's perseverance in a forlorn hope. Not easily
does God abandon His purpose to save His people.
When one means fails it is displaced by another,
but the gracious purpose of God has never wavered
from the time of Eve's disobedience to this day.
Ahab was a hopeless failure, but a king is too frail
to stand long as an obstacle in the way of God's
good purposes towards His people. Kings rise and
fall, but the redemptive work of God goes on for
ever. From his very despair comes the light, not in
the tempest nor the earthquake, but in the clear plan
formulated in his own mind, which he rightly sees to
be the inspiration of heaven : " Do thou anoint
Hazael to be king of Aram ; and Jehu the son of
Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king of Israel ; and
Elisha, the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah, shalt
thou anoint as prophet to succeed thee." 2
To strip this incident of its Oriental and prophetic
colouring and to state the event in modern terms is
not impossible, nor does it lead us away from the
truth. Elijah had tried, as it seemed to him, every
means to bring the people back to God, but he was
always thwarted by the court. In the course of his
disconsolate meditations in the desert a new sugges
tion comes to him to strike higher than the deluded
prophets who felt constrained to do as they were bid,
and to reach the throne itself. Revolutions in two
1 i Kings xix. 4. 2 1 Kings xix. 15 f.

1 82 THE HEBREW PROPHET
States were required, and the appointment and train
ing of one worthy to follow his own footsteps, that
the great task might not flag for lack of inspired
suggestions and unwearying oversight. This new
programme seemed to the disheartened refugee like
a fresh voice from heaven ; and who dare say that he
was mistaken? The task now entered upon was
difficult and dangerous, and many years elapsed
before it was brought to completion. However
favoured of heaven, the leaven must do its work in
its own tedious way, for God is not wont to send
twelve legions of angels to the succour of His travail
ing servants.
The relations of Syria and Israel were so close
and, at the same time, so hostile, that the fortunes and
peace of Israel depended no little upon the con
ditions in Damascus. When the revolution referred
to above was finally effected at the instigation of
Elisha, the change then boded no good to Israel.
Whether the long delay defeated the purpose, or
Elijah was mistaken in his man, we cannot say. But
Elisha, though loyally carrying out the instructions
of his master, saw at the time of his anointing that
Hazael would be a serious danger to Israel.1
It seemed, too, that the bloody times could only be
changed by a man who would be as unscrupulous in
1 2 Kings viii. 12. This narrative is not from the same hand as
the instructions to Elijah in I Kings xix. 15 f., and some writers hold
that there is no connexion between the two. It seems to me reason
able to believe that Elijah was unable to effect the revolution and
transmitted the unfinished task to his successor ; just as David turned
over to Solomon the avenging of his own wrongs, because he had been
unable to redress them himself.

RELATION TO THE STATE 183
shedding blood for Jahveh as Ahab and Jezebel had
been in shedding it for Baal. Jehu had already a
reputation which indicated that he was the man to
meet the situation. It is significant of the man's
character that he was recognised at a distance by his
furious driving of his chariot.1
It was essential that there should be a champion
of Jahveh in the times of stress which were sure to
come. Elijah was growing old. He could not endure
the strain much longer, even if he did not fall a prey
to the persistent seeking for his life. As we shall
presently see, the milder-tempered Elisha was well
adapted to the work.
Meanwhile, Ahab played right into the hands of the
one whom, for better reasons than he yet knew, he
called his enemy. So far Elijah had fallen foul
of Ahab on account of his departure from true
worship. Now he lights upon him for a flagrant
offence in morals. The prophet is guided to Ahab,
and finds him red-handed with the murder of Naboth.
The seer's clear moral sense is not confused because
Ahab could plead, as an extenuation of the crime,
that Jezebel had been the author of the ingenious
plan, and that a regularly constituted court had
pronounced the death sentence upon one convicted
of blasphemy. The king coveted the land of
Naboth, and sat stupidly by while his more clever
queen executed the black plot. But Ahab was the
real culprit, and the prophet seizes the chance fear
lessly to pronounce his doom : " Hast thou killed, and
also taken possession? In the place where dogs
1 2 Kings ix. 20.

184 THE HEBREW PROPHET
licked the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick thy
blood." l
It is refreshing to find in this time, when the great
prophet's ardent desire to serve the State brought
him into constant conflict with the powers that be,
that other prophets found themselves able to give
comfort and aid to Ahab in the campaigns against
the Syrians. The king of Israel was roused to
resistance by the insulting and humiliating terms
which Ben-hadad proposed. A prophet, whose name
is unknown, but whom the compiler may have
assumed to be Elijah, declared that Ahab would con
quer, and advised him how to set the battle in array.2
In another campaign, a man of God, stung by the
reproach that Jahveh was a god of the hills but not
of the valleys, foretells to Ahab another great victory.3
But not for long could a man with a grain of wisdom
approve the course of this king. Ahab was proud
of his triumph, and gladly spared Ben-hadad, trusting
foolishly to a treaty, which the Syrian would be ready
enough to break when the opportunity should come.4
The prophet declared that Ahab's life and the life of
his people would pay the penalty of his ill-advised
clemency. It is not strange that the petulant king
returned to his house heavy and displeased.5
1 I Kings xxi. 19. 2 1 Kings xx. 13 ft 3 1 Kings xx. 28.
4 Paton suggests that Ahab's aim was to preserve Damascus as a
buffer-state between himself and the Assyrians (Syria and Palestitu,
p. 208). 6 1 Kings xx. 42 f. This chapter does not belong to the Elijah
narrative, and was incorporated by the compiler of Kings from some
other source. In its main features it appears to be a good historical
narrative, though worked over by later revisers. The source is quite
different from the Elijah story, for unknown prophets— or in chapter xxii.,

RELATION TO THE STATE 185
So much has been already said of the interesting
story of Micaiah,1 that it is only necessary to refer
to it here as a good instance of the bitter hostility of
the State towards the honest prophet. The king
demands subserviency of the prophets as well as of
his courtiers. The latter, however, are kindly dis
posed towards Micaiah, and urge him to feign agree
ment with Ahab's favourites. But the son of Imlah
knows that the prophet of Jahveh can fulfil his duty
to the State only by the strictest adherence to the
truth. Not even the threats of the king, nor the
blows of his fellow-seers, could move him to say
other than what God revealed.
Once again, and that after Ahab's death, does
Elijah appear to pronounce judgment upon the king.
Ahaziah, being severely wounded by a fall, and having
the ardent desire which possesses every mortal under
like conditions to know the outcome, is said to have
sent messengers to inquire his fate of Baal-zebub, the
god of Ekron. That act was quite sufficient to arouse
the zealous prophet of Jahveh ; so we learn that Elijah
sees in the event the working out of God's doom
upon the house of Omri.2
In spite of the unfortunate prominence of legendary
matter3 in the fragments of the history of Elisha, it
Micaiah — take the place of Elijah. Kuenen supposes the prophet to be
introduced in the later tradition that Israel's rescue should appear to be
the work of God (Biicher des A. T., p. 79). l 1 Kings xxii.
2 2 Kings i. This narrative shows the marks of later hands, but is
probably a true account of the fate of Ahab's son and successor.
3 2 Kings viii. 4 f. gives a good hint how these stories grew. Gehazi
is engaged in telling the king the wonderful deeds of his master. Still,
the very circulation of these stories is convincing proof that Elisha had
been a man possessed of remarkable powers.

1 86 THE HEBREW PROPHET
is not difficult to gather some significant facts which
show this prophet's attitude towards the State.
Elisha had followed the allied kings in their in
vasion of Moab, strange to say, without the know
ledge of either of them. It is easy to divine his
purpose. However hostile he showed himself to the
king of Israel,1 he was not hostile to the nation
which God had planted in Canaan. Moreover, he
looked upon Jehoshaphat as a real follower of Jahveh,
and so worthy of his consideration. The king had
an equally good opinion of Elisha. When in answer
to his inquiring whether a prophet of Jahveh was
with the host, he was told by a servant of his royal
brother that Elisha was there, he exclaimed, "The
word of Jahveh is with him."2 He was found in the
camp when the invaders were likely to perish for
lack of water, and was able to save the armies.3
Elisha followed the principle that he could wield
1 Jehoran or Joram, the younger brother and successor of Ahaziah.
His name is not given in the narrative.
2 2 Kings iii. 12.
3 2 Kings iii. 13 ff. It is interesting to note that in spite of Elisha's
prediction that Jahveh would deliver the Moabites into the hands of
the Hebrews, the invaders fled precipitately (2 Kings iii. 18, 27).
Elisha's forecast might easily have been verified ; for at first the
Hebrews carried everything before them, and brought the Moabites to
their last stand in Kir-hareseth. Here the king of Moab tried in vain
to cut his way out ; then, in desperation at his failure, he offered his
eldest son as a human sacrifice, burning him on the wall in plain sight
of the besiegers. According to the ideas of the times, no god could
resist so frantic an appeal. Panic seized the Hebrews. No prophet
could stay their flight ; for they felt that they were in sore danger of a
fierce visitation of Chemosh, whose land they had violated. Whatever
effect the offering may have had upon Chemosh, there is no question
of its effect upon the Hebrews. The famous Moabite Stone com
memorates this victory.

RELATION TO THE STATE 187
most influence over the king by keeping on good
terms with him. Except in the above instance, we
find this prophet in friendly relation with his sover
eign. There was a Shunamite who had provided a
lodging -place for the prophet in his wanderings.
Elisha desires to reward her, and asks her, "Wouldest
thou be spoken for to the king, or to the captain of
the host?"1 We cannot look upon this question as
an empty boast, but must regard it as evidence that
the prophet's recommendation had great weight with
the king and his officers.
There is further evidence of this influence in the
release of the captured Syrians.2 Beneath the story,
elaborated as it is with legend, we may trace the fact
that by some stroke of good fortune, so unexpected
as to seem miraculous, a band of Syrians was cap
tured by the Israelites. The king would not imitate
the lenient policy of his forebear, but proposed to rid
himself of so many of his deadly foes by their
butchery in cold blood. Such murder was abhorrent
to the prophet, and the time had not yet come when
prisoners of war could be kept honourably, therefore
the only course was their release. Elisha's counsel
must have been highly valued indeed that the king
at his word allowed the hated Syrians to walk un
harmed from Samaria.3 The impression which
Elisha had produced upon the king is again revealed
in his calling Gehazi before him after Elisha's death,
1 2 Kings iv. 13. 2 2 Kings vi. 8 ff.
3 The Chronicler tells us (2 Chron. xxviii. 9 ff.) that Pekah was
induced to release 200,000 Judean prisoners captured in the Syro-
Ephraimitish war.

188 THE HEBREW PROPHET
and listening to the wonders wrought by the seer in
the course of his lifetime.1
This fact that Elisha stood close to the king is not
contradicted by the other fact that at one time the
king vowed to take his life. It appears that the king
would have surrendered to Syria, but that by Elisha's
urgent advice he decides to stand a siege, a clear
evidence of the prophet's power over him. When
he learnt of the ghastly condition to which the
people were reduced, two mothers coolly entering
into a compact to cook and eat their babes, he swore
that Elisha's head should not remain upon his
shoulders another day.2 The king was resolved to
surrender on the best terms he could make. He
could scarcely carry out this resolution in the face of
the prophet whom he regarded as responsible for the
suffering, and whom he yet dared not openly resist ;
therefore in the heat of his anger he determines to
take the prophet's life. Very likely he would have
carried out this purpose but for the timely raising
of the siege.
It is easy to see that Elisha had won his influence
with the king, not only by the display of his remark
able powers, but still more by the aid he gave the
State at most opportune moments. He had saved
the army in the deserts of Edom, as we have already
seen, in spite of his declared unwillingness to serve
the unfaithful king of Israel. He healed Naaman of
his leprosy, moved no little by the king's terror lest
his inability to aid his enemy and virtual over-lord
should be made a casus belli} He checkmated the
1 2 Kings viii. 4. 2 2 Kings vi. 31. 3 2 j^g,. v

RELATION TO THE STATE 189
cunning of the Syrians when they tried to fall upon
Israel unawares, by discovering their lurking-places,
and reporting them to his king.1
Elisha promptly carried out one part of his master's
programme, the revolution by which Hazael succeeded
Ben-hadad. Whether or not he foresaw that the new
king, the moment he heard that the hand of destiny
was upon him, would foully murder his sovereign
lying sick in bed, we do not know. There are very
obscure parts of this story as it has survived in
2 Kings viii. 7 ff. The prophet seems to be uncertain
in his vision, so that he sends word to Ben-hadad,
" Thou shalt surely recover," 2 at the same time add
ing, " howbeit Jahveh showed me that he shall surely
die." Elisha perceived that the king's sickness was not
mortal, and sends him a message accordingly. He
perceived also that the king's days were few, and
that Hazael would succeed him. Probably he did
not know that a cold-blooded murder would be the
harmoniser of his seemingly contradictory visions.
But the house of Ahab, contrary to the declared
1 2 Kings vi. 8 ff. It is unnecessary to infer from this fact that God
directly revealed the whereabouts of the Syrians to his servants, or, on
the other hand, to reject the story on a priori grounds of impossibility.
Elisha was the head of one or more bands of prophets. They were
fleet of foot and hardy, and knew every nook of the wild lands, where
they often had to take refuge. They would make ideal scouts, and
were probably the direct source of the prophet's knowledge. Some of
the Syrians had an exaggerated idea of the prophet's powers of divina
tion ; see 2 Kings vi. 12.
2 The Hebrew text reads, "Thou shalt not recover." The margin
gives the reading I have followed. The kethibh, or written text, seems
to be due to an ancient harmonistic tendency.

190 THE HEBREW PROPHET
will of God, still sat upon the throne of Israel, and
the old sin of disloyalty to Jahveh still cropped out.
Among the generals in the army of Israel there was
one heroic in battle, fierce in disposition, and zealous
for the God of Israel, Jehu the son of Nimshi.
Jehoram had been wounded in the attack on Ramoth-
gilead, which he was trying to wrest from Hazael,
the new ruler of Syria, and had been obliged to
retire to Jezreel to convalesce. The time was oppor
tune, and Elisha was quick to see and seize the
chance. Accordingly he sent one of the sons of the
prophets to bid Jehu seize the throne.1 So this
prophet virtually ends his career, so far as we know
it, by inspiring the bloodiest revolution in Hebrew
history. I say " so far as we know it " advisedly, for
if the Bible chronology is correct, our ignorance of
Elisha's full career is tremendous. For there is yet
a story of his efforts to save the State, which is placed
in the reign of Joash, Jehu's grandson. If the date
is right, Elisha must have lived at least a century.
King Joash, so we read, came to the aged prophet,
now lying on his death-bed, and wept, crying the
very words which had fallen from Elisha's lips many
years before when his master was taken from his
head, " My father, my father, Israel's chariot and its
horsemen."2 Just as Elisha had looked upon Elijah's
loss as the taking away of the main prop of a feeble
nation, so the king, looking upon the pallid face of
the dying seer, perceives the loss of one who was so
much the mainstay of Israel that he called him its
chariot and horseman. This is a fine tribute to the
1 2 Kings ix. 2 2 Kings xiii. 14 ; Gf. ib. ii. 12.

RELATION TO THE STATE 191
marvellous career of the man of God from the lips
of the king, and there is a fine exhibition of the
warm love of his country, which age and the hand of
death could not tear from the prophet's bosom.
Once more he tries to inspire the weak scion of the
fierce Jehu with courage and perseverance to with
stand to the utmost the constant encroachment of
Syria ; for so must we interpret the obscure incident
of the bow and arrows. But the king smites three
times and then his feeble hand is stayed — a clear sign,
which stirs the passions of the prophet, exhausted
in body and patience, that such a king can never
rescue his State from the perils besetting it.
But this chapter need not close in such gloom for
Israel. Joash's son, Jeroboam II., was of sturdier
fibre than his father, and his lot was cast in more
auspicious times. Syria discovered an enemy in its
rear which so fully occupied its attention, that resist
ance to Assyria instead of advance upon Israel be
came the enforced policy. Jeroboam was aroused to
put forth his energy, to make full use of the critical
state of Syria's affairs, by the hopeful and inspiriting
prophecies of Jonah the son of Amittai,1 a prophet
who is otherwise unknown to us, unless indeed he is
the original of that prophet whose brief career was
used as a basis for the beautiful and edifying stories
gathered much later in the little book of Jonah. The
statement in the passage cited above that Jeroboam
enlarged the borders of Israel according to the word
of Jahveh which He spoke by Jonah the prophet,
means simply that Jonah's insight first detected the
1 2 Kings xiv. 25.

192 THE HEBREW PROPHET
favourable opportunity, and that the prophet directed
the king in his operations.
I have told the story in detail of the activity of
the early prophets in the affairs of State. It is
desirable now to try to gather up the results in brief.
i. We note that after the division of the kingdom
the prophets appear in Israel rather than Judah.
We cannot infer that there were no prophets in the
southern kingdom, but only that we have no know
ledge of them. Except in so far as Judah was con
cerned in the affairs of Israel, and for much of this
time Judah was the vassal of Israel — its history
during the early period is almost a blank page. The
Chronicler was evidently impressed with this defect,
and tried to remedy it, but he was too far removed
from original sources to accomplish much. Jehosha-
phat's insistent demand for the counsel of a prophet
of Jahveh implies that he was accustomed to this aid.
2. The good of the State was the chief concern of
these prophets. It is true that their powers, like
those of the seers who preceded them, were often at
the service of individuals. But that was only an
incident in the day's work. It is clear, from a study
of such sources as we have, that the purpose of the
prophet's life was the growth of the chosen people in
religious and political power. It is true again that we
have no full history of the private lives of these
prophets, and that a larger knowledge might modify
our conclusion. The compiler of Kings was not
concerned with prophetic biography, but with
national history. Nevertheless, in choosing passages
to illumine his history, he fortunately embodied

RELATION TO THE STATE 193
whole sections instead of retelling the story in his
own way. The selected passages enable us to form a
fair idea of the prophet's life as a whole, and
strengthen our conviction that the early seer was a
patriot and statesman rather than a religious
dreamer. 3. The prophets were radicals, not conservatives.
They were wont to find the most congenial place
upon the opposition bench. The policy of the court
was not such as to win the approval of these morally
heroic men. They never hesitated to administer
justly deserved reproof, nor to predict boldly when
they perceived that disaster would be the inevitable
consequence of national folly.
4. They were so radical that they were participes
criminis in all the revolutions of the period.1 They
did not wait to follow successful movements towards
rebellion, but were instigators and leaders. This
statement requires somewhat fuller illustration.
We have seen that the great rebellion of the
northern kingdom was initiated by the words of
Ahijah in the willing ears of Jeroboam ; and that that
of Jehu was instigated by Elisha. There is also
good evidence that Baasha received the first sugges
tion of rebellion from a prophet. Jehu the son of
Hanani reproaches this successful revolutionist thus
in the name of Jahveh : " Since I lifted thee up from
the dust, and placed thee as prince over My people
Israel, and thou hast walked in the way of Jeroboam,
1 Nathan was a staunch loyalist at the time of Adonijah's rebellion ;
but no good purpose was likely to be attained at that time by the dis
placing of a Solomon by an Adonijah,
0

194 THE HEBREW PROPHET
and hast made My people sin, behold, I will utterly
sweep away Baasha and his house."1 Then it is said
that as soon as he became king, Baasha smote all the
house of Jeroboam, "according to the word of
Jahveh which He spake by the mouth of Ahijah the
Shilonite."2 And Ahijah had said to Jeroboam's
wife that " Jahveh would raise Him up a king over
Israel who would cut off the house of Jeroboam."3
Whence it is plain that if Ahijah or some successor
did not whisper rebellion in Baasha's ear, there were
yet oracles which would persuade the would-be king
that he might head a righteous revolt.
The prophecy of Jehu not only confirms the im
pression that Baasha was instigated by the prophets,
but that his house would in turn be overthrown by
the same power. Jehu declares that the dynasty of
Baasha will go down as it had come up. The
various attempts to fulfil this prophecy by Zimri and
Tibni, and the successful achievement of Omri, the
general of the army, were surely influenced by this
prophecy, if they were not the direct consequence of
the suggestions of the prophets.
Finally, it was declared of Jehu, the overthrower of
the great house of Omri, that his dynasty should
survive for four generations.4 This was promised
because he had done well in his wholesale slaughter
of the Baal worshippers, an opinion not shared by
the prophet Hosea ; but it is not difficult to believe
that the real occasion of the prophecy was a revolu
tion against this bloody house with which Hosea
1 I Kings xvi. 2 f. s i Kings xv. 29.
3 I Kings xiv. 14. 4 2 Kings x. 30 ; xv. 12.

RELATION TO THE STATE 195
may have had something to do. Even in post-
exilic days it was charged that Nehemiah was aiming
at the kingdom by the aid of prophets who were
inspired by him.1
I have indicated here and there the distrust on the
part of recent scholars of the accuracy of the narra
tives in which the various prophets appear as a con
spicuous figure. Most of these sections are regarded
as late insertions because of the apparently legendary
character of the stories. There is neither space for a
lengthy critical discussion here, nor is this a fit place
for it. But while it is clear that these scholars are
not without some ground for their contention, their
conclusions seem to me to be too sweeping. One
may be doubtful of the story that Elijah restored a
youth to life; but it is a long step from this to a
general distrust of Elijah's fight for the true God.
Greater discrimination is needed in our judgment.
The stories may be stripped of the marvellous
element, due to the accretions of later ages, and
there is enough left to show that in those early days
the prophets were a great power in the affairs of the
nation, and that they always used their power for
good. Our study has now carried us down to the period
of the literary prophets, who began with Amos, and
whom for convenience sake I have sometimes called
the great prophets. They were more enlightened
than their predecessors ; they lived in more en
lightened days ; but I am not sure that, all things
considered, they were really greater men. The early
1 Neh. vi. 7.

196 THE HEBREW PROPHET
seers have suffered because their own words have
perished, and because the story of their works has
often come to us in a form much modified by a later
age, which looked upon the most marvellous works
as the greatest. If we may trust the Chronicler,
there still survived in his days writings such as these.
The words of Samuel the seer, of the prophet
Nathan, of Gad the seer, of Ahijah the Shilonite,
of Iddo the seer, of the prophet Shemaiah, of the
prophet Jehu, the words of the seers,1 these were
all sources to which the Chronicler refers for further
information. They were histories, not of the seers
written by others, but of the nation written by the
seers. If this information is correct, Amos was by no
means the first literary prophet, and, moreover, the
national interest of the seers was so strong that they
wrote, not the words which they had spoken, but the
history of the times in which they lived.
Nevertheless, we cannot fill the great blank in the
lives of these prophets by conjecture. As we know
them, the prophets from Amos to Ezekiel are the
great prophets, and to the rich field of their writings
we gladly turn ; but to do so we will begin a fresh
chapter. 1 See above, p. 138 f.

CHAPTER IX
THE PROPHET'S RELATION TO THE
STATE
II. AMOS TO ISAIAH
THE centre of interest is still the Northern
Kingdom.1 The bloody revolutions which pre
vailed so long in that land had weakened the
strength of the nation very seriously; but at the
period with which we have now to deal the dynasty
of Jehu was coming to its end, and that at a time
when a rather better ruler than usual occupied the
throne, and one who had the further advantage of
a longer administration than his predecessors. We
cannot overestimate the importance of a long period
of comparative peace for a nation which had been
constantly beset by wars from without and revolu
tions from within. For the nearly half-century of
the reign of Jeroboam II. Israel was quite free from
both evils. The dynasty of Jehu had held the
throne now to the fourth generation, so that for a
century there was no rebellion. The persistent
enemy of Israel, Syria, was fully occupied in a vain
attempt to keep back the tide which the Assyrian
1 See additional note (n).
197

198 THE HEBREW PROPHET
Empire was rolling up on the east.1 Such was the
political condition of Israel when the seer of Tekoa
appeared in the streets of Bethel.
Amos has little to say about the State as such.
His mission was to go preach to God's people
Israel. The moral condition of the nation was his
chief concern. He made no attempt to shape the
political policy of the State. Whether he regarded
Jeroboam's statecraft as wise or foolish, we have no
means of knowing. But Amos is quick to disavow
any right of the State to shape his course. Though
Amaziah was a priest, his injunction against the
preaching of Amos was not issued in the name of
the Church, but in the name of the State. His
complaint to Jeroboam was that the seer conspired
against the king and predicted the captivity of
the people. The reason he urges against Amos is
that Bethel is a king's sanctuary and a royal house.
The prophet, however, holds a commission from
his God with which the State has no right to
interfere. Amos consequently holds that the prophet
has a free hand as against the State, and his practice
was consistent with that theory. Fearlessly, there
fore, he declared that the nation of Israel was
rushing to its doom, and that the royal house would
be involved in that destruction.2 And he does a
more perilous thing than that. He not only predicts
1 " Damascus was too crippled with her wars with Assyria to hold
them [Judah and Israel] in subjection, and Assyria was too weak to
collect tribute from the Palestinian States. The result was that both
Judah and Israel enjoyed a brief season of unparalleled prosperity "
(Paton, Syria and Palestine, p. 225).
2 Amos v. 27 ; vi. 7, 14 ; vii. 9, 17.

RELATION TO THE STATE 199
the downfall of the nation, but he insists that the
cause of the overthrow is the gross immorality of
the people. That is indeed, from first to last, the
burden of his preaching. His fundamental theology
is that God will punish the wicked. Israel is wicked
above almost all other people ; therefore their punish
ment will be swift and sure. In the Assyrians, whose
attack on Syria was giving to Israel a day of peace,1
which they greatly misunderstood, Amos sees the rod
which Jahveh would lay upon the back of Israel.
Little as Amos has to say about the State, it is
clear that his whole interest is to save that State
from the perils to which it is exposed. Assyria may
be handicapped for a time, but it will speedily
recover its power. Damascus will go down before
its increasing blows, and then what can Israel do,
exposed directly to this great empire ? Amos is
not a soldier, but a prophet. He has no suggestions
to make about fortifications and armaments. But
he does know that the nation's strength is being
sapped by the licentiousness of the rich and the
hard lot of the poor masses. Israel can be strong
enough to face the coming storm only by winning
the favour of God, and that is not obtainable by
offering sacrifices, nor by merely keeping Sabbaths,
but by doing justice every one to his neighbour.
God's help would not be given in a miracle. No
uplifting of a prophet's hands would stay the hostile
hosts.2 But if God's principles were applied in the
1 It is by no means unlikely, as G. A. Smith suggests (Twelve
Prophets, i. p. 66), that Jeroboam II. obtained his exemption from
attack by the payment of tribute. Certainly that had been the custom
of his predecessors. 2 Exod. xvii. n f.

200 THE HEBREW PROPHET
daily life of the people, then the nation would be
strong. God would be on the side of the heavy
battalions, because national strength meant national
righteousness. If we may accept the Messianic passage with
which the prophecy of Amos closes1 as genuine,
then we see that the divided condition of Israel was
regarded by Amos as at best an evil to be endured
for a time ; for in the Messianic age the tabernacle
of David, which had fallen in the revolt of Jero
boam I., would be raised up again, and the Hebrew
race would be reunited under a royal house of God's
own choosing.
Hosea's prophetic career extended over a much
longer period than that of Amos, and Hosea was a
native of Israel.2 It may have been the voice of the
Judean seer which aroused in him a consciousness of
the need of an interpreter of the Divine will. Amos
saw the danger to Israel while it was still far off;
but Hosea lived long enough to see that the doom
of Samaria was very near.3
1 Amos ix. 1 1 ff. The arguments for and against the authenticity of
this passage are ably stated by G. A. Smith ( Twelve Prophets, i. chap. x.).
He regards the verses as an addition made long after Amos. This
position is generally accepted. It seems to me not impossible that
Amos may have expressed the hope for the restoration of unity to
the nation under the Davidic dynasty, and that a later hand worked
over the passage and added to it the further hopes of his own day.
2 G. A. Smith says he was probably a priest ; but there is little
evidence to support that view.
3 It may be noted that Hosea i.-iii. probably belongs to the time of
Jeroboam II., and iv.-xiv. to the decade following, so that the actual
prophecies of Hosea end some ten years before the fall of Samaria.
See G. A. Smith, Twelve Prophets, i. p. 216 ff. ; Kuenen, Einl., ii. 312.
The title to Hosea's book extends his work to the reign of Hezekiah ;

RELATION TO THE STATE 201
Hosea did not hesitate to hold the king respon
sible for his wrongs. The royal house as well as the
priests would find a judgment lodged against them,1
because they had been a snare at Mizpah and a net
spread upon Tabor. Hosea does not scruple to
expose the princes who had indulged in drunken
excesses " on the day of the king," 2 that is, on the
day of his coronation, or on his birthday.3 The
prophet was not slow to call the king to account ;
for the seer understood and followed the will of God,
and God was the real sovereign of the nation, the
king being at best but a vicegerent. All the national
movements were subject to Divine control. In fact,
the existence of the nation depended upon the will
of God, who had called His Son out of Egypt while
He was still a child.4
Hosea therefore held that no king had a right to
sit upon the throne except by Divine appointment.
Yet he found kings in Israel who had no such right
to rule : " They have set up kings, but not by Me ;
they have made princes, and I knew it not." 5 This
statement raises some large questions : Does Hosea
refer here to the whole line of Israelitish kings ? That
is, does he contend that only the Davidic dynasty is
approved of God ? And was the revolt of Jeroboam,
but the mention of the Judean kings there can scarcely be original.
Dr. Peters places some of the prophecies of Hosea in the time of
Hoshea, apparently to explain the reference to Egypt ; and chapters
x. and xiv. he places even after the fall of Samaria (Scriptures Hebrew
and Christian, p. 425 ff.). It is difficult to think that Hosea's career
extended so far.
1 Hosea v. 1. Reading as R.V. margin ; G. A. Smith renders
forcibly "on you is the sentence." a Hosea vii. 5.
3 See Matt. xiv. 6. 4 Hosea xi. 1. 5 Hosea viii. 4.

202 THE HEBREW PROPHET
and the subsequent revolts, though supported by
prophets, the sin of schism ? Or does the prophet
allude here to some particular kings of Israel ? We
shall seek for Hosea's answer to these questions.
It is certain that Hosea did not look with favour
upon the reigning house of Jehu ; for he names one
of his children Jezreel, because in a little while God
would avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of
Jehu, and cause the kingdom of the house of Israel
to cease.1 In the better days yet to come, Hosea,
like Amos, looks for a reunion of the two kingdoms
under one head,2 and that of the line of David.3
Hosea never finds anything good to say of the
rulers of Israel. In the bitter days yet to befall the
State the people will be disillusioned, and will deny
their king, and confess his impotence.4 That the
prophet says, in the name of Jahveh, " I give thee a
king in My anger, and take him away in My wrath," 5
implies no more than an explanation of the fact
that kings were suffered to rule in Israel, though
contrary to God's will.
In endeavouring to learn exactly what Hosea's
attitude towards his own government was, there are
some facts which we may state as certain. The house
of Jehu, though established by a rebellion instigated
by Elisha,6 had proved a failure in the essentials of
1 Hosea i. 4. 2 Hosea i. 11. 3 Hosea iii. 5.
4 Hosea x. 3 ; cf. xiii. 10. 3 Hosea xiii. 11.
6 Kent says that "the details of the narrative suggest that this
[Elisha's action] was only the launching of a conspiracy previously
arranged" (Hist., ii. 66). Our information is very scanty, but while
the narrative will admit such a situation, it does not seem to me to
suggest it.

RELATION TO THE STATE 203
a divinely ordered line of kings. Jehu shed so much
blood, and that the best in the land, to insure his
possession of the throne, that the nation was seriously
weakened as a consequence. This assassination of
the innocent was a crime in Hosea's eyes for which
God would hold the house of the criminal to strict
account. Then, again, Jehu paid tribute1 to Shal-
manezer II., the king of Assyria, in 842 B.C. There
could have been but one purpose in this payment,
namely, to secure the powerful aid of Assyria for his
newly won throne. That method of dependence
upon foreign aid instead of upon the God of Israel
was also wholly repugnant to Hosea. Though
Jeroboam II.'s reign was a period of peace and
prosperity, Hosea could see that it was in spite of
the king rather than because of him ; for it was due
to the Assyrian pressure upon Syria, Israel's in
veterate foe. The moral rottenness of the times
impaired the power of the nation to take full ad
vantage of the breathing spell.
Again, it is to be noted that the greater part of
Hosea's prophesying belongs to the years of dis
astrous anarchy following the death of Jeroboam 1 1.,
about 743 B.C. In the twenty years from this date
to the fall of Samaria there were six different kings
upon the throne of Israel, and four of them reached
that station as the result of a revolution. Under
such conditions it is not surprising that the prophet
1 Thus Jehu doubly weakened the nation by slaying its citizens
and by imposing heavy taxes to meet his obligations to Assyria. To
a clear-minded prophet such administration was not a mark of Divine
guidance.

204 THE HEBREW PROPHET
spoke slightingly of the royal house, and expected
little towards the redemption of the nation from
kings who sat on a throne to which they had no
claim other than the sharpness of their swords or the
support of a foreign power. Most scholars rightly
hold that Hosea's references to the king are to be
explained by virtue of these conditions, and are not
due to his condemnation of the great revolt of Jero
boam the son of Nebat.
On the other hand, W. Robertson Smith1 and
Cheyne,2 while admitting this special reference, still
hold that Hosea believed that the Divine right of
kings only existed in the house of David. My own
opinion coincides with theirs. Hosea did not believe
in the Davidic line as a matter of theory, but as a
matter of practice. Whatever good may have been
possible from the great schism, very little had been
realised. The kingdom of Israel, which had been the
principal state in Palestine, had decayed until now it
was but a petty power.
But Hosea held to two fundamental principles
which greatly influenced his political position. It
was to him vital that the nation should be faithful to
Jahveh, and as a consequence that it should be one.
Robertson Smith does not exaggerate when he says,
"To Hosea the unity of Israel is a thing of pro
found significance. . . . The unity of Israel and the
unity of God are the basis of his whole doctrine of
religion as a personal bond of love and fidelity."3
These ideals could not be realised under such con-
1 Prophets of Israel, p. 1 84. 2 Hosea in Camb. Bib., p. 82.
3 Op. cit., p. 186 f.

RELATION TO THE STATE 205
ditions as prevailed in Israel. There had never been
stability in the government. From first to last,
revolution had been the order of the day. In a
period of a little more than two hundred years there
were nine dynasties, each new house the result of a
sanguinary revolution. Then, again, the worship of
Baal, or of some other foreign god, was ever prevalent.
In Judah, on the other hand, the house of David
persisted uninterruptedly from the founder to the fall
of Jerusalem. While there was much apostasy in
Judah, there was never a time when Jahveh was not
worshipped there, and that worship ever had the
support of the crown. It is on these grounds that
this prophet could see no hope for Israel except by
reunion with Judah, involving a reallegiance to the
house of David. A stable government and an un
swerving devotion to Jahveh were essential to the
national life, so Hosea thought ; and history had
shown that those were not attainable under the
anarchistic condition into which the North had
fallen. Hosea's confidence in the collapse of Samaria
shows not only his Divine insight, but also his know
ledge of human nature — if indeed these are not
essentially the same thing.1 There was no sign that
the one way of salvation was discerned by the people,
still less by the puppet kings, greedy of power, and
dearly loving shame.2 The nation would not see its
way, necessarily a path of humility, and follow it
until it had tasted to the last dregs the cup of
schismatic folly. Instead of turning to its natural
1 See John ii. 24 f. 2 Hosea iv. 18.

206 THE HEBREW PROPHET
ally, at one time the monarchy vainly sought to
purchase stability by subserviency to Assyria ; 1 at
another time, when the Assyrian allegiance appeared
to be approaching the inevitable result of annexa
tion, relief was sought from Egypt.2 The prophet
opposed both courses ; for God had no desire to save
Israel by either Assyrian or Egyptian help, but only
by their turning with sincere penitence to God their
Father and to David their king.
If Hosea was a sincere loyalist and believed that
the final peace of Israel was to be found in the unity
of the whole seed of Abraham, his patriotic senti
ments did not blind him to the fact that the moral
condition of Judah was by no means answerable to
their high calling. A number of references to Judah3
show that the sister kingdom was guilty like Israel,
and should be punished accordingly. These declara
tions of the prophet seem strange to many scholars
in view of his loyalty to the house of David. Hence
Stade, Wellhausen, Cornill, and others have con
cluded that all the Judah passages are interpolations.
The critical scholars have here done exactly what
the conservatives are often justly blamed for doing,
modifying the text to harmonise with preconceived
ideas. There is no prophet who would have been
less at pains for logical consistency than Hosea.
Moreover, we cannot omit the references to Judah
without a perceptible mutilation of the text. Hosea's
1 Hosea v. 13 ; vii. 8, 11 ; viii. 9 ; *. 6 ; xi. 5 ; xiv. 3.
2 Hosea vii. II ; ix. 6; xii. I.
3 Hosea i. 7 ; iv. 15 ; v. 5 ff., 10 ff. ; vi. 4, 11 ; viii. 14 ; x. n ;
xi. 12; xii. 2.

RELATION TO THE STATE 207
prophecies are much disjointed at best, but the indis
criminate excision of these passages adds to the
confusion. The truth is that Hosea believed in
established order, and that belief made him a loyalist
without blinding his eyes to facts. One may be an
ardent believer in an established Church without
closing his eyes to its shortcomings.
There are other passages in which Hosea speaks
more favourably of Judah. " I will have mercy upon
the house of Judah, and will save them by Jahveh
their God, and will not save them by bow, neither
by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen."1
Kuenen pronounces this " the one really doubtful
passage " among the Judah references.2 G. A. Smith
is more pronounced : " it is so obviously intrusive in
a prophecy dealing only with Israel, and it so clearly
reflects the deliverance of Judah from Sennacherib
in 701, that we cannot hold it for anything but an
insertion of a date subsequent to that deliverance,
and introduced by a pious Jew to signalise Judah's
fate in contrast with Israel's."3 The English versions
render a doubtful passage in Hosea xi. 12, "But
Judah ruleth yet with God, and is faithful with the
Holy One." Cheyne renders, "Judah is yet way
ward towards God, and towards the faithful Holy
One."4 G. A. Smith says, "Something is written
about Judah, but the text is too obscure for transla
tion";5 but he adds that "an adverse statement is
required by the parallel clauses." Nothing better
1 Hosea i. 7. * Einl., ii. 323.
3 Twelve Prophets, i. 213. 4 Camb. Bib. in he.
5 Twelve Prophets, i. 301.

208 THE HEBREW PROPHET
can be made out of the Hebrew text than Cheyne's
rendering ; no satisfactory emendation has yet been
proposed ; the passage is therefore too uncertain to
weigh much in an argument. There is one other
expression favourable to Judah : " Though thou,
Israel, play the harlot, yet let not Judah offend."1
G. A. Smith regards this verse and the following
doubtful because " Hosea nowhere else makes any
distinction between Ephraim and Judah," and on
other grounds as well.2 Kuenen looks upon the verb
DB>k "offend" as characteristic of Hosea, it being
used also in Hosea v. 1 5 ; x. 2 ; xii. 1 ; xiv. 1 ; " the
wish expressed with reference to Judah," he says,
"fits exactly Hosea's favourable sentiments towards
the sister kingdom." 3 The passage can scarcely be
regarded as above suspicion ; but the hope expressed
that Judah would not fall hopelessly into the parti
cular vice of idolatry which characterised Ephraim,
seems to me perfectly harmonious with Hosea's
position. I have gone into this part of Hosea's teaching
with considerable fulness, because of its importance,
and the difficulties involved. We have seen what
the prophet's attitude towards the State was ; and
now we naturally desire to know what was the State's
attitude towards the prophet ; for his utterances
could have been considered nothing less than high
treason. It must be confessed that Hosea's book
throws no direct light on the matter. But indirectly
we may be able to get some information.
1 Hosea iv. 15. 2 Twelve Prophets, i. 224.
3 Ein/., ii. 323.

RELATION TO THE STATE 209
The period of Hosea's most active prophesying
was the unsettled decade between Jeroboam II. and
Pekah. There is nothing which can be even a
remote reference to the attempt of Pekah to coerce
Judah into the alliance against Assyria. The voice
which had been so insistent against the moral wrongs
and political blunders is silent just when these reach
their climax. Silence under such conditions could
scarcely be voluntary. In the period of constant
revolution the upstart kings were too busy maintain
ing their short-lived reigns by the hunting down of
political rivals to trouble themselves about the utter
ances of a comparatively obscure prophet. But with
the accession of Pekah conditions were changed.
He desired an alliance with Judah, not, however, by
resigning his throne in favour of the legitimate
dynasty of David, but by overthrowing that house,
and imposing a foreign king 1 on the throne.
At the beginning of Pekah's reign 2 Israel seemed
to take a new lease of life. Allied with other Pales
tinian powers, Pekah was able to keep his throne
secure at home while waging war upon Judah. A
prophet who upheld the most sweeping claims of the
Davidic house was not likely to be viewed with favour
at such a time as this. It is not improbable that the
1 The son of Tabeel, probably a Syrian (Isa. vii. 6). Winckler
identifies him with Rezon (K.A.T?, 135). If this is correct, Syria
and Judah were to be united under one sceptre.
2 Pekah's reign is given as twenty years in 2 Kings xv. 27 ; but the
inscriptions show that this is far too long. According to the best light
available now, this king ruled not more than three years. Menahem
paid tribute to Assyria in 738, and Pekah was overthrown and Hoshea
put in his place in 734,
P

210 THE HEBREW PROPHET
State, in the person of the rebel king, was respon
sible for the silence of the prophet's voice. If this
inference is correct, Hosea must be enrolled among
the martyrs ; for his spirit was not one that would
yield to mere threats.
The book of Micah presents serious critical diffi
culties to the student. The matter is not helped by
the great divergence of opinion of the best scholars.
Nowack holds1 that only chapters i. 2— ii. 11, iii., and
probably iv. 9 f. 14, v. 9-13 are from Micah. On the
other hand, several recent writers, especially Wilde-
boer, Von Ryssel, Elhorst, who have written at length
upon this book, defend the genuineness of the whole.2
Driver and G. A. Smith accept as genuine a much
larger portion than most other scholars. For my
purpose, however, it is not necessary to enter into
these questions ; for, as a rule, the few passages which
show Micah's relation to the State are undoubtedly
authentic. Micah evidently regarded the prophet as the
divinely appointed guardian of the State. Conse
quently he was fearless to rebuke those who were
wrong, no matter what their power or position might
be. In iii. 1-4, he reproves " the heads of Jacob and
rulers of the house of Israel," 3 for they loved evil and
hated good, and did not scruple to wax fat by op
pressing the people. The rulers made use of their
1 Art. " Micah," Hastings' Bible Dictionary.
2 See G. A. Smith, Twelve Prophets, i. 358 ff. , for a good summary
of the critical opinions.
3 That Micah means the terms Jacob and Israel at least to include
Judah is certain from iii. gf., where it is said that these same rulers
build up Zion with blood.

RELATION TO THE STATE 211
official position to heap up wealth for themselves — a
condition of things still widely prevalent in spite of
the innumerable prophets who have raised their voice
in protest. But Micah believed in a just God, and
therefore he looked upon punishment as certain. In
the distress which would come upon these oppressors
they would cry to Jahveh for deliverance ; but Jah
veh's ears would be closed to such unworthy suppli
ants. Those who fed upon their neighbours, and
only thought of God when their neighbours proposed
to feed upon them, would find that they had sown
the wind and would reap the whirlwind.
Micah has more to say of these same high officers
of State. " They build up Zion with blood and Jeru
salem with iniquity." * They were all led by purely
mercenary motives : " The heads thereof judge for
reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the
prophets thereof divine for money." 2 It is vain for
such to lean upon Jahveh and say, " Is not Jahveh in
our midst ? Therefore no evil shall befall us." Such
leaders as these could not avert the punishment which
God would inflict upon the unrighteous. Officers of
this character would prove of no avail in the hour of
peril. Even the king would not serve as a support
for the tottering State. The prophet looks to the
future and sees the distress coming upon the city :
" Now why dost thou cry out aloud ? " he asks. " Is
there no king3 in thee, is thy counsellor perished,
1 Micah iii. 10. 2 Micah iii. II.
3 Many suppose the "king" to refer to Jahveh. This is necessarily
the explanation of those who assign this section to a later date than
Micah. That interpretation gives to the whole passage a sense widely
different from that above.

212 THE HEBREW PROPHET
that pangs have taken hold of thee as of a woman
in travail?"1 The king would not even have the
semblance of saving the State. Jahveh alone would
do that after the king and counsellor had been cast
away, and the people made to feel the bitterness of
exile.2 However frankly Micah spoke his mind, the king
did not attempt to restrain his speech. No prophet
was ever plainer than Micah when he said, "Zion
shall be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem become
heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high
places of the forest."3 There is nothing in Micah's
own book to show how the land bore his words;
but there is testimony of the highest order in Jere
miah. Here we learn that Hezekiah and the people
of Judah not only did not think of putting the
prophet to death, but, on the contrary, they feared
Jahveh and entreated His favour, so that Jahveh
repented of the evil He had pronounced upon them.4
It was the heeding of Micah's preaching on the
part of the king which postponed the woe that
the prophet had foretold. In the reign of Hezekiah,
who for other reasons is justly called a good king,
we find a time of tolerance such as the prophets
rarely enjoyed in other periods of Hebrew history.
Of all the prophets whom God raised up among
the Hebrew people, the greatest statesman was Isaiah
the son of Amoz. He was concerned, as every true
man of God must be concerned, with all vital in
terests of his people. But he gave himself unceas-
1 Micah iv. 9. ! Micah iv. 10.
3 Micah iii. 12. 4 Jer. xxvi. 17 ff.

RELATION TO THE STATE 213
ingly to the great problem of saving the State, which
in his long life faced many critical situations. It is
unnecessary — indeed, it is well-nigh impossible within
my limits — to bring out every detail of his work for
the State. But a few conspicuous instances will show
his position.
Isaiah held fast to a few cardinal principles which
served as a good guide at all critical junctures. He
believed that Judah was under the protection of an
all mighty and all holy God. The peace and safety
of the State depended therefore on fidelity to Him
and confidence in Him. Political devices, such as were
commonly resorted to by all peoples in all ages,
would in the long run work only harm to a feeble
folk like the Judeans. Zion would be invulnerable,
not by reason of her good armies, nor by member
ship in a foreign alliance, but by independence of
every power of earth, and by sole reliance upon
Jahveh of hosts.
Consequently we find him standing in direct
opposition to king Ahaz at the time of the Syro-
Ephraimitish war. His position in that trying time
shows both his steadfast adherence to his funda
mental doctrine and his political insight.
Razon1 of Damascus and Pekah of Israel were
organising a league to resist the Assyrian advance
west of the Euphrates. They believed that by a con
solidation of interests they could throw off the
domination of that great power and successfully
1 Rezin, the Biblical form of the name, is an easily understood error
for Rezon or Razon. The Greek texts have Paow or Pao-ow, agreeing
with Assyrian Rasunnu. See K.A. T.s, iii. 55.

214 THE HEBREW PROPHET
resist a reforging of their chains. They seem to have
invited Ahaz along with other kings to join their
league, but Ahaz refused. Judah was too consider
able a power to leave in their rear, and they made
the capital mistake of attempting to force her into
the alliance, proposing to dethrone Ahaz and set up
a foreign king who would serve the allied interests.1
The war dragged along for a considerable time, and
at first, naturally enough, Judah suffered severely. It
is true that our knowledge of the war is very limited,2
but when we are told that " his heart and the heart
of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake
with the wind," 3 it means a good deal.
Ahaz was not indifferent to the danger, but his
method of meeting it was certain to bring him face
to face with a still graver peril later on. He made an
1 Sayce supposes that Pekah was anxious to overthrow the Davidic
dynasty and rule over all Israel ; the forcing of Judah into the alliance
was of the nature of an appeal to the patriotic sentiments of the people
(H.C.M., p. 401). The Syrians and Israelites were quite free at this
time (735 B.C.) to make elaborate preparations for war, because the
annals of Tiglath-Pileser show that he was busily engaged in a campaign
in the North.
2 Besides this reference in Isaiah, we have the accounts of the war
in 2 Kings xv. 37, xvi. 5-9 ; 2 Chron. xxviii. 5-18. Hostilities
apparently began in the closing part of Jotham's reign (2 Kings xv. 37).
Chronicles says nothing of an alliance against Judah, but says that
Jahveh sent Syria against Ahaz, and that "he was delivered into the
hand of the king of Israel." We read that Pekah slew 120,000 Judeans
in one day, "because they had forsaken Jahveh," and took 200,000
prisoners, who were released, however, at the solicitation of Oded the
prophet. This story can scarcely be reconciled with the reference in
Isaiah ; but there may be a germ of historical truth, as Winckler
suggests, especially in the representation of the overwhelming defeat of
the Judeans, which we may place in the early stages of the war.
3 Isa. vii. 2.

RELATION TO THE STATE 215
alliance directly with the common enemy.1 By pay
ing tribute to Assyria he expected to secure so
vigorous an attack on the North that both Syria and
Ephraim would find occupation for their arms in
self-defence. It was this alliance with Assyria that
Isaiah tried so hard to prevent, though his efforts
were unhappily in vain. He tried to persuade the
king that he exaggerated the danger. The message
with which Jahveh sent him to meet the king in the
highway by the fuller's field 2 was one of confidence :
" Be wary and keep thyself calm ; fear not, neither
let thy heart be faint, because of these two fag-ends
of smoking fire brands." 3 The allied powers, seem
ingly mighty as they are, have reached the end of
their strength. They are burnt out like smoking
brands, and can never again be fanned into effective
flame. Therefore the prophet could pronounce with
great positiveness his oracle of God : " Thus saith
the Lord Jahveh, it shall not stand, neither shall it
come to pass." 4
Ahaz would not believe, therefore he would not be
established.5 Declining to believe, the king failed to
take the steps whereby establishment was possible, and
on the contrary took the steps by which it was made
impossible. In vain did the prophet plead that Ahaz
should ask the message to be confirmed by a sign.
The king was too confident of the success of his own

1 2 Kings xvi. 7-9 ; 2 Chron. xxviii. 16-20.
2 Ahaz was expecting the siege which is mentioned in Isa. vii.
2 Kings xvi. 5, and was looking after the water supply.
3 Isa. vii. 4 ; for the most part, Cheyne's rendering in Poly. Bib.
4 Isa. vii. 7. s Isa. vii. 9.

216 THE HEBREW PROPHET
schemes to be willing to modify them to suit a plan
of God. On account of this fatal policy God would
give a child as a sign of two things, one the confirm
ing of the prophet's word : " Before the child shall
know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land
whose two kings thou dreadest shall be forsaken";1
the other to point out the ominous outlook for Judah :
" Jahveh will bring upon thee, and upon thy people,
and upon thy father's house, days that have not come
from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah —
even the king of Assyria." 2 Judah will suffer the
worst fate which has befallen her since the great
schism which left her an isolated and petty folk.
And that disaster will be the direct consequence of
Ahaz's efforts to save the State. Isaiah could see
that Assyria needed no urging from Judah to coerce
her rebellious subjects, and that Ahaz's offering of
tribute would excite the cupidity of that empire, so
that it would never rest until it had drained Judah's
resources to the utmost.
Isaiah was powerless to do more than advise, and
Ahaz was willing enough that the prophet should
give counsel as long as he could shape the policy of
the State to suit his will. The king did not interfere
with the prophet's freedom of speech, even though he
repudiated his advice. Ahaz lived long enough to
see that the prophet was right ; Assyria easily put
down the coalition and reduced the northern peoples
1 Isa. vii. 1 6.
2 Cheyne regards this whole verse as a gloss, and the closing words
"the king of Assyria" as a gloss to a gloss. Whether added by a
later hand or not, the king of Assyria is rightly named as the source of
danger.

RELATION TO THE STATE 217
to a more complete subjection than before.1 Judah,
too, became a vassal state,2 and the annual tribute
became not only a burden, but a constant source of
danger. For the people then, as well as later, were
sure to become restless under a system of tribute to
Cassar, and the cessation of payment at any time
would bring about an Assyrian invasion. From this
act of Ahaz dates the long series of troubles which
Judah suffered at the hands of the empire of the
Euphrates. It is but natural to conjecture what would have
been the fate of Judah if Isaiah's advice had been
scrupulously followed. It is easy to see the disastrous
consequences of disregarding the prophet's vision, and,
while knowledge fails, I think it not impossible to
estimate the results had better counsels prevailed.
For Judah had these two leading sources of safety,
always good in perilous times for the individual
or the nation, isolation and obscurity. It is always
true that "death loves a shining mark," and Judah was
not very brilliant among the nations of the world at
that time. By her course of action she removed
these protections. Otherwise it seems clear that she
might, at all events, have escaped Assyrian greed,
and certainly have persisted much longer than she
did. It is impossible to ignore a radically different view
of the history of this period, which may be found
1 See K.A.T?, p. 55 f., 264 f. According to Tiglath-pileser's
annals, only the city of Samaria was left to Pekah.
3 The Chronicler says, " Tiglath-pilneser king of Assyria came
unto him, and distressed him, and strengthened him not " (2 Chron.
xxviii. 20).

218 THE HEBREW PROPHET
briefly stated by Winckler.1 Judah had long been
the vassal of Israel, and so indirectly was under
Assyria. When Israel resolved to throw off the
yoke in conjunction with Syria, Judah was forced
to choose between rebellion against Israelite sove
reignty and direct alliance with Assyria. Ahaz saw
that the allies would be crushed as soon as Tiglath-
pileser appeared on the scene, and he elected to be
on the side of the heavy battalions. He had hopes
that, as a reward for his fidelity, the ancient dominions
of the house of David might be restored to him.
This interpretation of the history sets Ahaz's action
in quite a different light. If that were the condition
of things, Ahaz's choice would have been pre
eminently wise, and Isaiah's attitude quite inex
plicable. For it is plain that Isaiah condemned
the policy of Ahaz.2 There seems to be no sufficient
evidence for Winckler's statement : " The relation of
Judah to Israel had finally become that of a vassal,"
though it is true that Israel had at times held domina
tion over the sister kingdom.
In taking up Isaiah's political activity during the
reign of Hezekiah, we are confronted with such wide
difference of expert opinion that we feel some sym
pathy with the old demand of conservatism, that the
critics should agree among themselves before they
attempt to convert others to their belief. Hezekiah's
accession is placed all the way from 728 to 714 B.C.,3
1 K.A.T.\ p. 265 f.
2 Not his refusal to ally with Israel, but his overtures to Assyria ;
Isaiah wanted to preserve the status quo.
3 The earliest date is based on 2 Kings xviii. 10, where it is said
that Samaria was taken in the sixth year of Hezekiah. As Samaria

RELATION TO THE STATE 219
and the embassy of Merodach-baladan is by some
put as early as 720 B.C., by others as late as 701 B.C.
The divergent views of competent scholars in this
case, however, are not due to any vagaries of
opinion on their part, but to the uncertainty of the
data, and we must admit that the chronology of the
period is an unsolved problem. Our study will not
be seriously affected, however, by ignorance as to the
date of the particular events in the life of the prophet
which we shall consider.
The Chronicler tells us expressly that Hezekiah's
reformation began in the first month of his first year.1
In 2 Kings also the reform is placed at the beginning
of his reign.2 In Jeremiah xxvi. 18 f. the reform of
Hezekiah is traced to the influence of Micah. The
prophecy of Micah certainly belongs to the time
before the fall of Samaria, so that, according to the
earliest Biblical evidence, Hezekiah reached the
throne before 722, and his reformation belongs to
the early days of his reign. The Chronicler describes
the reforms at great length, and makes them chiefly
of a ritual character. According to Kings, he " re
moved the high places, brake the pillars, and cut
down the Asherah ; and he brake in pieces the
brazen serpent that Moses had made."3
Discredit has been placed upon this story by
fell in 722, Hezekiah would have come to the throne in 728 or 727.
2 Kings xviii. 13 places the invasion of Sennacherib, which belongs to
the year 701 B.C., in Hezekiah's fourteenth year, hence his accession
would be placed 715 or 714. Kittel follows Dillmann in placing
Hezekiah's succession at 719.
1 2 Chron. xxix. 3. 2 2 Kings xviii. 4.
3 2 Kings xviii. 4.

220 THE HEBREW PROPHET
various scholars, some questioning the reformation
altogether, others placing it as late as the invasion of
Sennacherib. But there is good reason for holding
that the Biblical account is in the main correct.
Hezekiah differed radically from his father Ahaz, in
that he was a faithful worshipper of Jahveh. What
more natural than that upon his coronation he
should sweep away the corruptions which Ahaz had
introduced in the temple worship? The details in
Chronicles are not to be pressed, and even the brief
record in Kings may be far from accurate, but there
is every reason to hold that Hezekiah began his rule
with just such a repentance of the evils which he
found as the elders of Jehoiakim's time attributed
to him. Someone has said that there is scarcely an
event in the Old Testament better attested than
Hezekiah's reformation. The testimony of Jeremiah
xxvi. 1 8 f. cannot be disregarded.
But is Isaiah's influence not traceable in Heze
kiah's reform ?1, Was it wholly due to Micah, as we
should infer from the statement in Jeremiah? It
would be very strange if the country prophet led the
king to amend the royal ways and the prophet of
the court produced no effect at all. For Isaiah had
been active for more than ten years when Hezekiah
ascended the throne.2 In the early prophecies of
Isaiah there is no such specific utterance with which
to connect the reform as in Micah iii. 12. Moreover,
1 Kent says that the religious reformation under Hezekiah was one
of the fruits of the influence of the prophetic party under Isaiah's
leadership (History, ii. p. 157).
2 Isaiah's call was in 740 or 738; Hezekiah's accession, 728
to 714.

RELATION TO THE STATE 221
if the reform actually took the line indicated by the
historians, it would command little interest from the
great prophet, who felt that the breaking down of
Asherahs was but a feeble attempt at obedience to
the will of God. At the same time Hezekiah must
have been familiar with the ringing utterances of the
seer who had long been a conspicuous figure in
Jerusalem, and his resolve to follow the counsel of
the God of his people must have been largely due to
Isaiah. Isaiah may have inspired the reformation,
even though it did not follow a course which could '
command his approval.
Isaiah's influence seems to have been potent
enough to save Judah from disaster at the time of
Sargon's invasion in 711 B.C., a' memorable event
which now claims our attention. Yet it is somewhat
difficult to draw the limits of Isaiah's work in
connexion with this Assyrian king. A few years
ago Sargon was quite unknown, save for a mention
in Isaiah xx. Since the discovery of his own account
of the attack upon Ashdod, there has been a tendency
to connect many of Isaiah's Assyrian prophecies
with this invasion. There are some things, however,
which are. clear. Hezekiah had fallen heir to an
annual tribute to the Assyrian king. Some of the
states of Canaan proposed to throw off the yoke, and
Hezekiah was doubtless urged to cast in his fortunes
with them. Isaiah laboured to prevent this suicidal
course. His chief object seems to have been to show
the vanity of the expected aid from Egypt. He
stripped himself of his prophetic robes,1 and went
1 See p. 70.

222 THE HEBREW PROPHET
about for three years in the garb of a captive,1 as
a sign of the humiliation which Assyria would inflict
upon Egypt.2 This bold step of the prophet did not
apparently preserve the absolute loyalty of Hezekiah,
for he seems to have stopped the payment of tribute.
But it did apparently restrain him from any active
part in the rebellion, so that Judah suffered no con
sequences other than the resumption of the tribute
money. The Egyptians had doubtless inspired this revolt.
The pacification of Canaan by the Assyrians was
always a menace to them, and they were ever sowing
seeds of rebellion. Hezekiah was certainly involved
to a certain extent, for Sargon mentions Philistia,
Judah, Edom, and Moab along with Ashdod.3 But
when the Assyrian general, the Tartan, or Turtan,
appeared,4 the allies seem to have left Ashdod to its
fate. It seems clear that Hezekiah took no part
in the actual struggle, much as he may have hoped
from its outcome, though he had probably stopped
the payment of his annual tribute. It was doubtless
Isaiah's influence which kept the king quiet. For
the prophet saw the hopelessness of a contest with
Sargon, and the untrustworthiness of the Egyptian
promise. He seems to have regarded the case as
very serious though. Enormous pressure must have
been exerted to bring Hezekiah into the struggle.
Isaiah adopted a bold course to counteract the
1 From this statement and from the varying Assyrian records
Winckler draws the conclusion that the revolt lasted three years
(HT.A.T.o, p. 65).
2 Isa. xx. 3 K.A.T?, p. 70. 4 Isa. xx. 1.

RELATION TO THE STATE 223
anti-Assyrian influence. During the three years1
of the revolt he went about the streets of Jerusalem
" naked and barefoot "2 i.e. in the garb of a captive
slave, as a sign of the fate that would befall Egypt3
and Ethiopia at the hand of the power against which
they had stirred up revolt.
The wisdom of the prophet's course was shown
from the completeness of Sargon's suppression of
the uprising, and the reward of his unpleasant
personal sacrifice — for the dress of a slave must have
been a disagreeable garb for one of his standing
— was found in his saving Judah from an actual
invasion, with all its accompanying disasters.
The embassy of Merodach-baladan4 will next en
gage our attention. In the Biblical sources we have
the record in 2 Kings xx. 12-21, and the parallel
passage in Isaiah xxxix. We have also some further
1 Sargon's annals place the invasion in the eleventh year of his reign
(711 B.C.); the fragments of a clay prism date it in the ninth year.
Winckler explains the discrepancy by supposing the latter to be the
date at which the revolt began and the former its ending (K.A. T.s,
p. 69 f.). This agrees exactly with Isaiah's three years.
2 Isa. xx. 3.
3 Winckler holds that Isaiah's reference is not to the empires
of the Nile, but to a Musri and Kush in Western Arabia. Many similar
references are explained in the same way. Rogers says that his
"suggestions concerning Musri are exceedingly fruitful, and many are
undoubtedly correct, but he has carried the matter too far in attempting
to eliminate Egypt almost entirely and to supplant it with Musri"
(Hist, of Babylonia and Assyria, ii. p. 144 n.). Winckler's views may
be found in K.A. T.3, p. 70 f. Hommel seems to have made the same
suggestion independently ; see Hilprecht's Explorations in Bible Lands,
p. 743; cf. Hommel's art. "Assyria," Hastings' Bib. Diet.
4 In 2 Kings xx. 12 the name is given as Berodach-baladan.
Isa. xxxix. I has the correct form, as shown by the inscriptions, in
which the name is Marduk-abal-iddina.

224 THE HEBREW PROPHET
light from Assyrian sources. From these we learn
that this prince took possession of Southern Baby
lonia, and in 721 B.C. was proclaimed king of
Babylon. Babylonia had been an Assyrian province,
and Sargon was not likely to lose it without a bitter
struggle. But his first battle was unsuccessful, for
Merodach-baladan was supported by a number of
allies, especially the Elamites and Aramaeans. In
710, however, after the suppression of the uprisings
in the West and North, some of which the usurper
may have helped to instigate, Sargon turned south
ward and completely routed his enemy and regained
complete control of Babylon.
In 702, when Sargon had been succeeded by
Sennacherib, Babylonia was once more loosened
from its Assyrian control, and the clever Chaldean
came forth again from the southern marshes and set
himself up as king. In order to maintain his posi
tion, it was essential that he keep the Assyrian king
busily employed elsewhere. To do this it was only
necessary to stir up rebellion among the many
peoples over whom the Assyrian ruled, and who
were ever zealous for a blow to regain their lost
freedom. On this occasion Merodach-baladan's rule
was short, for Sennacherib ignored for the time the
uprising in the West, and turned his army towards
Babylon. His success was quick and complete.
After a rule of but nine months,1 the Chaldean was
finally overthrown.2
The embassy to Hezekiah would fit in very well
1 Or six months according to Winckler.
3 See Rogers, Hist, of Babyl. and Assyr., ii. pp. 152 ff, 187 ff.

RELATION TO THE STATE 225
with any of these periods. Winckler places it in
720 B.C.,1 Sayce fixes it at 711 B.C.,2 while Rogers
and others date it in 702. The book of Kings
places this embassy after the invasion of Sennacherib,
701 B.C. But it also says that Hezekiah lived fifteen
years after his sickness, in connexion with which
Merodach-baladan sent the embassy ; this would
carry his reign down to 686 B.C. To say nothing
of the uncertainty of the numbers in the text, we
are in doubt about the limits of Hezekiah's reign.
On the whole, the last-named date, 702 B.C., seems
the most probable.3
The only ostensible purpose of the embassy was
to congratulate Hezekiah upon his recovery from
sickness. But apparently the king was apprised of
the real purpose of the visit. For the mere con
gratulations would offer no excuse for his exhibit of
his military resources. We are told that " Hezekiah
hearkened unto them,4 and showed them all the
house of his precious things, the silver, and the gold,
and the spices, and the precious oil, and the house of
his armour, and all that was found in his treasures :
there was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion,
that Hezekiah showed them not."5 From this display
1 K.A. T.3, 72, 270 f.
2 H.C.M., 424 ff; Hastings' Bible Did., iii. 347.
3 The most serious objection to this date is the shortness of Mero-
dach-baladan's reign at that time, but nine months at most. If 702 is
the correct date, the embassy must have gone back to a defeated and
deposed monarch.
4 So Isa. xxxix. 2 ; this is undpubtedly the correct text, and has the
support of the Greek versions. The difference in Hebrew is only that
of a single letter.
5 2 Kings xx. 13.
Q

226 THE HEBREW PROPHET
it is plain that the real object of the king was to
show the envoys that he would be no mean ally in
case of war.
How Isaiah's suspicions were aroused we cannot
tell. It would be impossible to keep the presence
of these strangers a secret, but Hezekiah seems to
have tried to conceal their real purpose. There is
a foreboding sternness in the prophet's questions :
" What said these men ? and from whence came they
unto thee? What have they seen in thy house?"
Hezekiah answers all the questions but the first ; that
matter he regards as his secret. But it was not
really essential to the keen prophet ; he knows the
state of affairs in Babylon, and he knows that
Merodach-baladan would not trouble himself about
a Judean king's sickness or recovery. He perceives
that the king has virtually allied himself with this
distant power, and would revolt against his suzerain,
and he hastens to point out the disastrous con
sequences of Hezekiah's folly: "The days come,
that all that is in thy house, and that which thy
fathers have laid up in store unto this day, shall be
carried to Babylon." 1
Isaiah's prediction has received many interpreta
tions. By some it is regarded as a clear vision of what
actually took place more than a century later, when
the last treasures were taken to Babylon. But that
would make the prophecy meaningless to Hezekiah.
Moreover, Isaiah also says, " Of thy sons that shall
issue from thee, whom thou shalt beget, shall they take
away : and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the
1 2 Kings xx. 17.

RELATION TO THE STATE 227
king of Babylon." J This is too specific to refer to
Hezekiah's remote descendants. Then, further, the
prophecy is aimed at the king's folly in meditating
rebellion, whereas the older view would make the
display of his treasures to a greedy potentate a sin.
Again, the prediction is explained as a vaticinium
ex eventu? But it seems to me unlikely that the
prediction was wholly manufactured to agree with
the historic facts, though it might easily be that the
form was modified in conformity with the event.
Isaiah may have named Assyria, and the historian
who wrote this part of his life changed the name to
Babylon.3 In all ages and among all peoples the death of an
absolute monarch has been a matter of great moment
to his subjects, whether native or foreign. If the
deceased king had been a successful conqueror, there
was always the hope that his successor might prove
more feeble, and so the vassal states be able to regain
their freedom. Sargon had shown himself an able
general, and had made good the claims of his pre
decessors to a great empire. Much of it was held
together, however, simply by the might of his brawny
arms. Consequently, when the great conqueror died,
in 705, exultant hopes were raised among the sub
jugated peoples that they would be strong enough to
1 Isa. xxxix. 7.
2 Seee.g. art. "Hezekiah," Hastings' Bible Did. , ii. 378.
3 There is another possible explanation. Babylon was subject to
Assyria. Transported captives were sent frequently to the colonies, and
Isaiah may have expected Sennacherib to send the prisoners to Baby
lonia. But it is only by misunderstanding prophecy that one can press
literally a prophetic prediction.

228 THE HEBREW PROPHET
throw off the yoke. It is perfectly possible that
Isaiah xiv. 28-32 shows the great expectations of the
Philistines at this crisis, and the prophet's assurance
that their hopes would soon be dashed to the
ground.1 However that may be, it is certain that Sennacherib
ascended the throne to find himself confronted with
rebellion in many of the remoter parts of his empire.
Probably as being the least important, he neglected
the West for a few years and addressed himself to the
graver problems in other parts of his wide realm.
The nations of the West took advantage of the
absence of the Assyrian armies, and combined in a
seemingly formidable revolt. Padi, the king of Ekron,
appears to have been the only one to remain loyal,
and he was dethroned and sent to Hezekiah as a
prisoner. That fact, coupled with the embassy of
Merodach-baladan, would indicate that Hezekiah was
the recognised head of the revolting allies. Egypt
also contributed to the spirit of rebellion by lavish
promises of aid. Against this reliance upon the
empire of the Nile, the great prophet set his face like
a flint. He was utterly opposed to the rebellion ; for
he knew that the Assyrians had not lost their power,
that an attempt to throw off the yoke would only
fasten it tighter, and that no real aid could be
expected from the Nile. In chapters xxx., xxxi.
of his book we have a record of his zealous efforts
1 The serpent's tooth would be Sargon, and the fiery flying serpent
would be Sennacherib, his successor. Driver inclines to this view
£\°VT ' P;u2I3l". ^heyne accePts the date of the title ("the year
that King Ahaz died"), and refers both expressions to Sargon (Poly
chrome Bible, p. 149). 6 v '

RELATION TO THE STATE 229
to preserve the fidelity of Judah to the power which
held her in subjection.
"Woe to the rebellious children," he cries in
Jahveh's name, " that take counsel, but not of Me :
and that make a league, but not of My Spirit, that
they may add sin to sin ; that set out to go down
into Egypt, and have not asked at My mouth; to
strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh,
and to take refuge in the shadow of Egypt ! There
fore shall the strength of Pharaoh be your shame,
and the refuge in the shadow of Egypt your con
fusion."1 The anti-Assyrian party was very strong at this
period. The Hebrews were ever galled by a foreign
domination, which seemed to fly in the face of the
Divine promises to their forefathers, and the appeal
to a religious and patriotic sentiment never gained
adherents more easily than in the days of Hezekiah.
The revolters were so sure of their position that they
attempted to silence opposition. This was the only
time when Isaiah was constrained to cry out against
the attempt to put down the truth by violent means.
The lying children said to the seers, " See not," and
to the prophets, " prophesy not unto us right things,
speak unto us smooth things," i.e. those which will
arouse no opposition,2 the invariable resource of those
who are persistently in the wrong.
Isaiah held that the revolt against Assyria was
rebellion against the Lord, because it was contrary
to His will; not that Jahveh was indifferent to the
national distress, for He would save His people
1 Isa. xxx. 1-3. 2 Isa. xxx. 10.

230 THE HEBREW PROPHET
in His own way and in His own time. The saving
of the nation could not be accomplished by "the
Egyptians, who are men, and not God ; and their
horses flesh, and not spirit," and who shall stumble
in their helping even as those helped shall fall, when
Jahveh shall stretch out His mighty hand.1 For that
hand will be stretched out and the Assyrian will
struggle in vain against it: "as birds hovering, so
will Jahveh of hosts protect Jerusalem : He will pro
tect and deliver it, He will pass over and preserve
it. . . . The Assyrian shall fall by the sword, not of
a man ; and the sword, not of men, shall devour
him. . . . His rock shall pass away by reason of
terror, and his princes shall be dismayed at the
ensign, saith Jahveh, whose fire is in Zion, and His
furnace in Jerusalem."2
The movement against Assyria was popular among
the people, was more than countenanced by the king,
and naturally enrolled among its supporters some
of the chief officers of the State. There was one,
however, whose support was for some reason so
obnoxious to Isaiah that he for once, and once only,
indulges in personal denunciation. He made a
vigorous attack upon Shebna, though the latter
occupied a commanding position in the king's house
hold. This position was that of steward or treasurer
over the house.3 He was a foreigner apparently, but
1 Isa. xxxi. 3. 2 Isa. xxxi. 5-9.
3 This office had become an important one; it may have been
originally a minor domestic place, but in royal households such offices
increase their powers. Shebna was an important figure, and evidently
possessed much wealth. See further art. "Shebna," Hastings' Bible
Did.

RELATION TO THE STATE 231
was taking up permanent citizenship in Judah, and
even building for himself, as was the custom of the
great, a tomb in which his body should lie.1
Shebna's policy and influence were so odious in
Isaiah's eyes, that his language against him is very
strong : " Jahveh, like a strong man, will hurl thee
away violently : yea He will wrap thee up closely.
He will surely wind thee round and round, and toss
thee like a ball into a large country ; there shalt thou
die, and there shall be the chariots of thy glory, thou
shame2 of thy lord's house."3
Isaiah did not rest with denunciation or predic
tions of disaster, but set to work to secure Shebna's
removal from office. The fact that he was able to
accomplish his object and to name Shebna's successor
indicates that our prophet was speaking with intimate
knowledge of the purposes of the court, though
doubtless his own influence had contributed largely
to the minister's downfall. Surely there is more than
an ordinary prophetic declaration in the threat :
" I will thrust thee from thine office ; and from thy
station shalt thou be pulled down. ... I will call My
servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah : and I will
clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with
thy girdle, and I will commit thy authority into his
hand."4 A short time afterwards Eliakim the son of
Hilkiah held the office of steward of the king's house-
1 Isa. xxii. 16. For similar cases see 2 Sam. xviii. 18 ; 2 Chron.
xvi. 14 ; Matt, xxvii. 60.
2 From this term it may be that Shebna was open to attack on the
side of moral character as well as political policy.
3 Isa. xxii. 17 f. * Isa. xxii. 19-21.

232 THE* HEBREW PROPHET
hold.1 Isaiah not only opposed the policy of
rebellion against Assyria and alliance with Egypt,
but he used his power for the overthrow of a chief
minister and apparently chose his successor. His
influence therefore was very powerful in spite of his
belonging to the opposition.
The question has been raised as to whether the
prophet's victory was real or only apparent. It is
clear that Eliakim succeeded Shebna as governor of
the palace. What became of Shebna ? Was Isaiah's
prediction fulfilled that he would be cast out into
another foreign land and die there? Along with
Eliakim, when he was sent to treat with the Assyrian
envoys, was Shebna the secretary?2 It is generally
assumed that this is the same Shebna whom Isaiah
had driven from office, and the degradation is ex
plained by asserting that the new post was a less
important one.3 But we know so little concerning
these offices that we can scarcely be very positive
about their relative consequence. Moreover, the as
signment to a less important office is not the same
punishment as exile and death, and so would not be
any real fulfilment of Isaiah's prediction. But it
seems to me perfectly possible that there was more
than one Shebna at Jerusalem. In any case, we
cannot pronounce the prophecy unfulfilled even if the
same Shebna holds high office in 701. Hezekiah
1 2 Kings xviii. 18. 3 2 Kings xviii. 18.
3 So Cheyne, Poly. Bib., p. 159; Driver, L.O.T.*, p. 218;
Dillmann, Jesaia,6 in he. Kittel says very truly that we have no
ground for asserting that the office of scribe was lower than that of
house steward (Kbnigsbiicher, p. 282).

RELATION TO THE STATE 233
must have looked with favour upon this servile
creature. Yet he dare not wholly disregard the
prophet's attacks. But after Shebna's removal from
office, and the consequent quieting of the clamour,
the king could easily appoint him to another post.
Isaiah's desires may have thus been thwarted for the
time, but Shebna was not dead yet. Even though he
may have held the post of secretary in 701, it does
not follow that he ever occupied the tomb which had
been so much concern to him. Stevenson's sugges
tion 1 that Isaiah's language was only intended as a
special case of warning, " He putteth down the mighty
from their seat," offers, I think, one of the less
satisfactory solutions. We know that Shebna was
degraded from office at the prophet's instigation ; we
do not know what became of him afterwards ; but
Isaiah certainly accomplished his main purpose,
even if all of his predictions were not literally
fulfilled. Perhaps we should remember that a Hebrew pro
phet's "shall" is often equivalent to the modern
"ought." Isaiah would thus mean that the shame
less minister ought to be exiled and die in disgrace.
That might be said of many men to-day who dis
grace the high offices they hold. It is easy to cry
out that they ought to be removed, and even we hear
that they shall be relegated to other spheres ; but
many such hopes and predictions are ever unfulfilled.
Isaiah had stood strenuously against the attempt
to overthrow the Assyrian supremacy. He had
opposed all Babylonian, Egyptian, and Palestinian
1 Hastings' Bible Did., art. "Shebna."

234 THE HEBREW PROPHET
alliances. He believed that Judah should be faithful
to the oath of allegiance which she had taken,1 and
he knew that Assyria was strong enough to exact
obedience. In the early part of Sennacherib's in
vasion, the prophet was probably quiet. He saw and
the people could see the abundant fulfilling of his
warnings. Hezekiah was too shrewd to need a seer
to cry in exultation, " I told you so."
For the Assyrian king was everywhere victorious
when at last he invaded the West in 701 B.C. A
single great leader always has an advantage over a
coalition. The Assyrian knew how to press that
advantage, and succeeded in breaking up the alliance
so as to deal with the rebellious peoples in detail.
With his first success several states, fearing the
vengeance of the king and wishing to avoid the
destruction of property incident to an invasion, and
being quite hopeless of successful resistance, were
prompt to sue for peace and make such terms as
they could get. Hezekiah was one of the kings who
apparently felt that he had gone too far to retreat,
or who felt that he could resist long enough at
least to secure better terms by treaty than by sur
render. The Egyptian forces had been driven back ;
Ekron had paid a severe penalty for its deposition of
Padi, an Assyrian appointee. The armies then in
vaded Judah. Both the Bible2 and the inscriptions3
1 This was not a mere principle of statecraft : an oath taken in the
name of Jahveh could not be lightly broken, even though the bond was
galling. 2 2 Kings xviii. f. =Isa. xxxvi. f.
3 An English translation of these interesting inscriptions by Rogers
may be found in Records of the Past, New Series, vol. vi.

RELATION TO THE STATE 235
tell the disastrous story. Forty-six1 fortified cities
were taken and annexed to other provinces. Jerusa
lem might hold out a long time, but resistance was
not likely to restore the lost territory. Judah could
not afford to be shorn of its towns ; hence the king
was constrained to send an embassy to Sennacherib
at Lachish to make a treaty of peace. His message
was humble enough in tone : " I have offended ;
return from me : that which thou puttest on me will
I bear."2 The Assyrian imposed a fine of three
hundred talents of silver3 and thirty of gold, which
Hezekiah raised only by emptying both the royal
and the sacred treasuries, and by stripping off the
golden ornaments of the temple.
Still Sennacherib was not satisfied. He seems to
have thought that Jerusalem was now so weakened
and discouraged that it would offer no further resist
ance, and that he could wreak his vengeance upon
its people as he had upon Ekron. The king sent his
lieutenants with a great army to demand the sur
render of the city. Hezekiah was in a sore strait.
The great army before the city, the bold challenge of
the Assyrians, the appeal to the people against the
king, all tended to make his situation desperate. In
his distress he turns to the very one whose counsel
he had so long disregarded, Isaiah the prophet.
Covered with sackcloth, Eliakim, Shebna, and the
1 This number is given by Sennacherib. The Bible says the king of
Assyria took "all the fortified cities of Judah" (2 Kings xviii. 13).
2 2 Kings xviii. 14.
3 The Assyrian inscription says eight hundred talents of silver. It
is generally supposed that three hundred talents Hebrew are equivalent
to eight hundred Assyrian. See K.A. T.3, p. 342.

236 THE HEBREW PROPHET
elders of the priests are sent to the prophet to ask
his intercession for the poor remnant of Israel.
Isaiah's words were full of encouragement to the
perplexed king : " Be not afraid of the words that
thou hast heard, wherewith the servants of the king
of Assyria have blasphemed Me. Behold, I will put
a spirit in him, and he shall hear tidings, and shall
return to his own land." x Rabshakeh returned to his
master, whom he found at Libnah, Lachish having
fallen in the meantime, and reported Hezekiah's
refusal to surrender. As Tirhakah was advancing
with an Ethiopian army, Sennacherib was not in
a position to invest Jerusalem. He therefore made
another effort to secure a peaceful surrender by
sending a threatening letter to Hezekiah. The king
took this epistle to the temple and spread it out
as if he would have Jahveh read the taunts of the
blasphemous enemy. The answer of Jahveh came
from the mouth of the prophet. It was God's
own defiance of the perjured blasphemer: "The
virgin daughter of Zion hath despised thee and
laughed thee to scorn : the daughter of Jerusalem
hath shaken her head at thee. . . . Because of thy
raging against Me, and because thine arrogancy
is come up into Mine ears, therefore will I put My
hook into thy nose, and My bridle in thy lips,
and 1 will turn thee back by the way by which thou
earnest. . . . Thus saith Jahveh concerning the
king of Assyria, he shall not come into this city,
nor shoot an arrow there, neither shall he come
before it with shield, nor cast up a mound against
1 2 Kings xix. 6 f.

RELATION TO THE STATE 237
it. By the way that he came, by the same shall
he return, and he shall not come into this city,
saith Jahveh. For I will defend this city to save
it, for Mine own sake, and for My servant David's
sake."1 There can be no doubt that Isaiah's expecta
tions about the collapse of Sennacherib's forces
were fully realised. The Biblical accounts state
that the angel of Jahveh went forth in the night
and slew one hundred and eighty-five thousand men
in the Assyrian camp; that Sennacherib returned
to Nineveh, and was there assassinated by his sons
while he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch
his god.2
It ought to be plain that this story is not to be
interpreted literally, as it is in Byron's well-known
poem, " The Destruction of Sennacherib," and by
some of the Biblical scholars, such as Rawlinson.
The Hebrews ignored secondary causes, ascribing
every event directly to God. The historian speaks
indifferently of the punishment of David as a pesti
lence and as the direct work of the angel of Jahveh.3
Herodotus preserves a tradition4 that at Pelusium
field-mice ate the bowstrings of the Assyrians.
But field-mice are a symbol of pestilence. If a
disastrous plague broke out in the Assyrian camp,
such as has demoralised many an army, that would
satisfy both the Biblical story and Herodotus' tradi
tion. Jerome accepted this interpretation.
1 2 Kings xix. 21, 28, 32-34.
2 Isa. xxxvii. 36 ff. ; 2 Kings xix. 35 ff.
3 2 Sam. xxiv. 15 ff. 4 ii. 141.

238 THE HEBREW PROPHET
Winckler ignores this disaster altogether, assert
ing that Sennacherib was constrained to raise the
siege of Jerusalem and hasten back to the East
because of an invasion of Chaldeans and Elamites.1
The Egyptians and the Hebrews alike claimed
that they were saved from the Assyrians by Divine
intervention. The fact is that Sennacherib re
treated, leaving both Jerusalem and Egypt un
subdued. Isaiah was justified in his confidence,
and must have appeared to the people the real
deliverer of the people of God. They could not
doubt that Jahveh had opened his eyes to see the
future doom of the enemy of Judah and the blas
phemer of God.
Just at this moment of his popularity we must
leave this great prophet, who had laboured for forty
years for the State, whose wise policy would have
made a vastly different reading of history had it
been faithfully followed. Even as it happened he
was triumphant in the end, and Judah had still a
possibility of recovery, a possibility which, as we
shall see, she recklessly threw away. Whether Isaiah
continued his prophetic activity or retired in the
zenith of popularity we do not know. There is no
prophecy of his which we can surely date after this
time. The tradition preserved in the Mishna, that
he was slain by Manasseh ; or that in the Ascension
of Isaiah, that he was sawn asunder, may be based
on facts, but we have no good historic testimony as
to his fate. 1 K.A.T.3, 80.

CHAPTER X
THE PROPHET'S RELATION TO THE
STATE
III. JEREMIAH TO ZECHARIAH
THREE-QUARTERS of a century elapsed
between the close of Isaiah's career and the
beginning of Jeremiah's. Our knowledge of that
period is very slight, and the little we know does not
make an attractive picture. So far as our information
goes, prophecy was silent. But we may easily infer
the actual conditions. The prophets who saw visions
according to the pleasure of the ruling kings were
doubtless numerous, but their worthless effusions
have found no record. Those who saw according to
the visions of God were put to silence, even though
the tomb alone could stop their mouths. We read
that " Manasseh shed innocent blood very much, till
he had filled Jerusalem from one end to the other."1
Doubtless the faithful prophets furnished their full
quota of martyrs.2 We can easily comprehend from
this condition the fact that the prophets as a class in
1 2 Kings xxi. 1 6.
2 See Jer. ii. 30. It is by no means impossible that Isaiah was
a victim of Manasseh's bloody sword (see chap. ix.). Even Herod
dared not put John to death openly, because the people esteemed him
a prophet (Matt. xiv. 5 ; cf. xxi. 26, 46). Manasseh did not heed the
natural protection which belonged to the office of prophet.
239

240 THE HEBREW PROPHET
Jeremiah's time were leagued with the priests in
subserviency to the civil power, and the further fact
that Jeremiah assumed the prophetic office with
great reluctance, and stood to his task only from an
overwhelming conviction that it was God's will. The
seer who proposed to see straight and tell what he
saw was engaging in an extra hazardous task.
Yet Jeremiah began to prophesy in the peaceful
days of Josiah, when the power of the State was on
the side of righteousness and truth. He might well
rejoice in that day, for it did not last long, and the
rest of the prophet's life was strenuous and stormy.
What part our prophet played in Josiah's reforma
tion it is not easy to say. If we could be sure of the
accuracy of such passages as Jeremiah xi. 1-8 and
xvii. 19 ff, we should know that Jeremiah was an
enthusiastic supporter of the king's efforts. Both of
these passages are rejected by Duhm and others, and
not without some reason. There is the most con
vincing evidence that Jeremiah took little interest in
Josiah's reforms. For when the book of the law
was found, and the puzzled king in doubt as to his
course of action, he sought counsel of the otherwise un
known prophetess Huldah,1 rather than of the already
well-established seer of Anathoth. The choice of
Huldah is not explained by her being the wife of a
temple officer ("the keeper of the wardrobe"), nor by
Kittel's suggestion that Jeremiah was "still relatively
young, and only later attained greater authority."2
1 2 Kings xxii. 14. The office was freely open to women ; as
Huldah had a husband, marriage was no impediment.
2 Die Biicher der Konige, 1 900, p. 299.

RELATION TO THE STATE 241
Jeremiah may have uttered his earliest oracles in
Anathoth, as Duhm supposes ; but the world is quick
to hear a fresh voice, and after five years of prophesy
ing this seer could scarcely be unknown.
Josiah's reform was largely external and destructive.
Such methods as he adopted were necessary doubt
less; but a young prophet, inspired with great ethical
ideals, longing passionately for purity in the State,
would naturally not be greatly interested in the
smashing of images.1
In his earliest utterances Jeremiah reveals a clear
idea of a state policy which was necessary, not merely
for the welfare, but for the existence, of the nation.
Israel was destined of God to be high among the
peoples of the earth, not a servant, nor a home-born
slave. Why, then, had he become a prey over whom
the young lions roared? The answer was that he
had forsaken Jahveh his God, and was at one moment
consorting with Egypt, at another with Assyria.2
Judah might have profited by the example of its
sister kingdom, whose sins had brought it to de
struction.8 Notwithstanding the ruin of Israel and
the low estate of Judah, the prophet in the eager
years of his youth looked for a new national unity —
Israel and Judah walking together in the land which
God had given to their fathers.4
1 Yet Jeremiah had a high opinion of the general beneficence of
Josiah's reign ; see Jer. xxii. 15 f.
2 Jer. ii. 14 ff. " * Jer. iii. 6 ff.
4 Jer. iii. 18. The last two passages are rejected by Duhm. They
are, however, explicable on the generally received theory that these
passages, belonging originally to the Scythian invasion, were adapted to
conditions of a later time.

242 THE HEBREW PROPHET
Jeremiah's chief concern was the State as such.
In his call he was set over nations and over kingdoms,
not over individuals.1 The grave peril of Judah was
the subject of one of his inaugural visions, and his
mission was to seek to avert the impending calamity.2
The ground of his contention with the priests and
prophets was not directly their deadly formal religion,
but their blindness to the true interests of the State.8
The ideas of our prophet about the State may be
easily gathered from his arraignment of the various
kings in whose reigns his lot was cast. The oracle
concerning Jehoahaz affords us little light, but the
contrast pointed out between the shameless Jehoiakim
and his righteous father shows clearly what a king
should be. Jehoiakim had ruled by harsh measures :
he had followed the bad example of Solomon in his
employment of forced labour ; he had devoted his
time to the building of palaces ; he was addicted to
covetousness, oppression, violence, and even murder.
In God's kingdom no man could rule by such means.
The result of his administration was that on the day
of his death he would not be lamented as a king, but
would "be buried with the burial of an ass, drawn
and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem."4
These words are very bold, if we follow Duhm in
placing them at the beginning of the king's reign,
even though we agree with him that the last part
was added after the burning of the roll. But the judg
ment was just, and the true prophet of God has only
one measure for his words, not expediency, but truth.
1 Jer. i. 10. » Jer. i. 13 ff.
s Jer. viii. 8-12. * Jer. xxii. 13 ff.

RELATION TO THE STATE 243
The judgment of Coniah,1 or Jehoiachin, who
reigned but three months before he was deposed by
the Babylonian king2 and Zedekiah put in his place,
is equally severe. His fate is portrayed in the darkest
colours, and it is quite inconceivable that Jeremiah
could have expected anything good from his rule.
He represents this king as utterly repugnant to
Jahveh, and such repugnance could only be due
to the king's failure to inaugurate his reign in
righteousness. It was inevitable that Jeremiah should come into
conflict with the State. Men are not generally
tolerant of plain speaking about their vices. During
the main part of his prophetic life, Jeremiah was
persecuted by State and Church alike. We shall
follow him through some of those perilous days,
when, with his life in his hand, he was leading a
forlorn hope.
Jeremiah early found, like a much greater Seer
of a later age, that "a prophet was not without
honour save in his own country." The first attempt
upon his life was made by his fellow-townsmen of
Anathoth. They were incensed at his bold rebukes,
and had no notion of stopping with such half-way
measures as a mere command to cease from pro
phesying. Their plan was to "destroy the tree with
the fruit thereof."3 In some way, so notable as to
be regarded by him as a special providence, the
prophet had been apprised of the murderous plot,
1 Jer. xxii. 24-30.
* Babylonia is now the great empire of the East, Assyria having
fallen. 3 Jer. xi. 18 ff.

244 THE HEBREW PROPHET
and was able to avoid the danger, probably by a
hasty flight to Jerusalem.1 We can easily under
stand, even if we cannot approve, the hope he ex
presses : " I shall see Thy vengeance upon them."2
Early in the reign of Jehoiakim (609-598 B.C.),
Jeremiah felt the hand of the religious leaders of
the nation, and, strange to say, the civil power now
saved him from their hands. This story, which we
find in chapter xxvi., will come before us again in
another chapter, but needs to be referred to here
for the sake of completeness. The case against the
prophet was his declaration that the temple would
be destroyed,8 which was to the Jews blasphemy,4
a capital offence, and one of the charges brought
against our Lord. The prosecutors were the priests
and prophets and some of the people whom they
had stirred up ; the judges were the princes of Judah ;
Jeremiah was his own counsel. His defence was
simply that the words he spoke were not his, but
God's, and that they might do with him as they saw
fit ; but that if they took his life, they would bring
innocent blood upon their own heads.5
Help came to Jeremiah from two unexpected
quarters. First, the elders cited the case of Micah,
who in the days of Hezekiah had prophesied similarly,
and whose dire threats stirred up the king and people,
not to shed the innocent blood of a servant of God,
1 Jeremiah probably prophesied first in Anathoth ; this plot may
belong therefore to the very beginning of his career. The date is,
however, quite uncertain. Cheyne places it after the death of Josiah
(Jeremiah, his Life and Times, p. 107 f. ).
2 Jer. xi. 20. 3 See Jer. xxvi. 6 f. ; and cf. vii. 4 ff.
4 Cf. 1 Mace. vii. 34-38. ¦ Jer. xxvi. 12 ff.

RELATION TO THE STATE 245
but to amend their ways and so avert the threatened
calamity.1 Secondly, we are told almost parenthetic
ally that " the hand of Ahikam,2 the son of Shaphan,
was with Jeremiah, that they should not give him
into the hand of the people to put him to death."3
How much Jeremiah owed to the powerful inter
vention of Ahikam is shown by the fate of Uriah, a
fellow-prophet. He was emboldened by Jeremiah's
acquittal to speak in a similar strain. The king and
princes even sent to Egypt, where he had fled for
asylum, brought him back and put him to death.4
The prophet who had no friends at court lost his
life, but his blood was not shed in vain, for it is ever
true that "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of
the Church."
In the fourth year of Jehoiakim, Jeremiah was
saved from the royal displeasure, not by a powerful
friend at court, though that help seems not to have
been lacking, but by hiding. Baruch wrote at
Jeremiah's dictation a resume of the prophecies pre
viously delivered. A year later, when the people
were drawn to Jerusalem in great numbers to keep
a fast, Baruch read the words of Jeremiah to the
1 Jer. xxvi. 17 ff.
2 Ahikam was a member of the deputation sent out by Josiah to
inquire of Huldah about the newly discovered law (2 Kings xxii. 12) ;
he was the father of Gedaliah, the royal governor of Judah after the
capture of Jerusalem, to whose care Jeremiah was committed by the
king of Babylon (Jer. xxxix. 14 ; xl. 5 ff. ).
3 Jer. xxvi. 24.
4 Jer. xxvi. 20-23. Uriah could not have been brought back with
out the consent of the Egyptian Government ; this extradition shows
that Jehoiakim was disposed to lean on Egypt as a protection against
Babylon (see K.A.T.3, p. 278).

246 THE HEBREW PROPHET
assembled people. Among the auditors of Baruch
was Micaiah the son of Gemariah, and nephew of
Ahikam, mentioned above.
Gemariah was evidently well disposed towards
Jeremiah, even as his brother Ahikam had been.
Not improbably he despatched his son Micaiah to
the princes ; for he saw that there was trouble for the
author of the words that he had heard. Baruch was
brought before the princes that they too might hear
the book which was so full of omen. When they had
heard the words of the book, they were frightened,
and resolved to report the matter to the king.
Just what this book contained we do not know,1
for it was burned by the king. That the second
edition contained the same words is very likely ; but
we do not know positively that the alarming message
has survived. But we shall not go astray in our
inference that this book contained words of ominous
import to the State : for that only would explain the
alarm of the princes and their resolve to report the
matter to the king. 2 They did not tell Jehoiakim
because they wanted to get Jeremiah into trouble,3
1 The character of the book is disclosed by the incidental quotation
in Jer. xxxvi. 29 : " Thus saith Jahveh, Thou hast burned this roll,
saying, Why hast thou written therein saying, The king of Babylon
shall certainly come and destroy this land and shall cause to cease
from thence man and beast ? " Duhm makes merry with this passage,
which he attributes to a stupid editor. But why ?
' See also Duhm in he.
3 The English rendering, they "said unto Baruch, We shall surely
tell the king of all these words," gives a wrong impression : with the
Greek text we must drop out " unto Baruch." The last clause may
be rendered, "We shall have to tell the king of all these words."
The Greek text gives a better reading for the whole verse : " And it

RELATION TO THE STATE 247
but because they wanted this king, like Hezekiah
and Josiah, to take such steps as would avert the
threatening danger, and so let the book accomplish
its purpose.
That the nobles were free from animosity towards
the author and at the same time doubtful about
the repentant spirit of the slayer of Uriah, is clear
from their counsel that Baruch and Jeremiah should
seek shelter from the king's anticipated wrath by
hiding. The nobles apparently tried to break the news to
the king gently. They did not carry the roll with
them, but left it in the care of the scribe, not, I
think, because they feared Jehoiakim would tear it in
pieces, as Duhm suggests, but for the reason indi
cated : they probably hoped he would accept their
statement of its contents. But they misjudged their
man. He promptly sent Jehudi to fetch the roll and
read it in his presence. Three or four pages showed
the king what was coming ; and his mind was made
up quickly. As the book was unrolled, piece after
piece was cut off and thrown into the brazier to burn.
The king did this in spite of the efforts of some of
his ministers to stay his impious hand.1
The king answered the threat of the prophet by
burning his prophecies and by a vain effort to arrest
was when they had heard all these words, they took counsel one
with another, and said, We must make all these words known to the
king." 1 These men may have been moved by friendship for Jeremiah ;
but it is more likely that they were influenced by the possible danger
of treating so despitefully the sacred words of a man of God. Such
oracles were generally received with veneration and respect.

248 THE HEBREW PROPHET
both prophet and scribe.1 He had decided on a
policy of his own, and he would brook no interfer
ence from prophet or prince. The prophet had an
answer ready for the king : " He shall have none to sit
upon the throne of David : and his dead body shall
be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night
to the cold."2 Then Jeremiah set to work at once
to replace the prophecies which had been destroyed,
and to the restored book he added many words of
similar import.3 The issue was fairly drawn. Never
again while Judah stood would a true prophet be
free to utter the message of Jahveh without taking his
life in his hand. For this time the prophet escaped ;
but his conflict with the governing power was soon to
grow more intense.
Jehoiakim's reign came to an inglorious end in 598.
He had rebelled against Babylon, but death spared
him the bitter consequences of his folly, and reserved
them for his son and successor, Coniah or Jehoiachin,
who ruled but three months. There is one prophecy
which belongs apparently to this period, and which
shows how hopeless were the affairs of Judah.4
Nehushta, the king's mother, seems to have had a
large share in the government ; and the prophecy is
addressed to her as well as to her hapless son. The
prophet warns them that there is no glory now in
1 Jer. xxxvi. 23-26. 2 Jer. xxxvi. 30.
3 Jer. xxxvi. 32b.
4 Jer. xiii. 18 f. Duhm assigns this prophecy to the reign of Jehoia
kim, on the ground that the unhappy short rule of Jehoiachin gave no
occasion to Jeremiah to give a warning against pride. The reason
does not seem to be very convincing, even though the conclusion may
be right.

RELATION TO THE STATE 249
the crown of Judah, because the power of the State
is broken, the land being overrun by hostile armies.
The false friends in whom the people have trusted
will now appear in their true light as enemies. There
is nothing for this reign better than failure and
disgrace. The king of Babylon had incited Judah's neigh
bours to wage guerilla war.1 Soon after the accession
of Jehoiachin a Babylonian army laid siege to Jerusa
lem. Either because of the hopelessness of his situa
tion, or because he thought he might save the city, the
king surrendered, and was taken to Babylon as
prisoner, with his mother, court officers, nobles,
warriors, craftsmen ; in fact, " none remained save the
poorest sort of the people of the land." 2
This -deportation had important consequences for
Jeremiah. The people who had befriended him
were carried away, and he was left to fight his battles
alone. We have seen that twice during the reign
of Jehoiakim, Jeremiah was saved by the kindly
offices of the nobility. This class had not abandoned
all hope of Divine intervention, and they had not
been ready to disregard wholly the admonitions of a
prophet whose messages bore unmistakable marks of
Divine inspiration. With the disappearance of these
people, Jeremiah lost his friends and supporters.
In the reign of Zedekiah, who was appointed Baby
lonian vassal by Nebuchadrezzar, there was no class
in the State to whom the prophet could look for
sympathy and support.
But Jeremiah did not give up the struggle to save
1 2 Kings xxiv. 2. 2 2 Kings xxiv. 14 ; cf. Jer. xxix. 2.

250 THE HEBREW PROPHET
his country because he was left to stand alone. Early
in the reign of Zedekiah embassies appeared at Jeru
salem from Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre and Sidon, to
make a league, whose purpose was to throw off the
yoke of Babylon. Jeremiah saw plainly how hope
less such a project was. At the critical moment
these states would not stand together, but would
abandon the league to serve their own interests.
And even if they had acted in concert, these com
bined powers were no match for Babylon. More
over, Jeremiah knew that the punishment for further
rebellion would be severe. Any attempt to get rid
of the Babylonian yoke would only fasten it the
tighter, and leave those who wore it less strength
to bear. Hence he sends yokes to all the ambassa
dors, and declares to them that peace and safety are
only possible as long as the vassalage is patiently
endured. The prophet wore a yoke upon his own
neck as a symbol of the submission which became
every true friend of the poor remnant of Judah.1 His
efforts seem to have been successful, for there was no
revolt in the early part of Zedekiah's reign, though it
is likely that some sort of a league was made, which
bore its disastrous fruit at a later day.
Those who had been carried to Babylon were rest
less, and were making those still in Judah restless by
the feeding of the false hopes of an early return.
Hananiah declared that within two years the exile
would be over,2 basing his prophecy not upon a
revelation from heaven, but upon secret knowledge
of promised aid from Egypt. To counteract this
1 Jer. xxvii. 2 Jer. xxviii. 3 f.

RELATION TO THE STATE 251
mischief Jeremiah wrote letters to the exiles in
Babylon,1 telling them to build houses and plant
vineyards, and to marry wives, and even to pray for
the welfare of the city under whose rule they were
constrained to live, for their sojourn there would not
be short, as the false prophets declared, but would
last for the rounded-out limits of a human life. One
Shemaiah was so incensed at this letter of Jere
miah's, that he wrote back urging his followers in
Jerusalem to lay hands on the prophet who was pro
claiming so depressing a message.
Acting under the instigation of Egypt, Zedekiah
was at last led into rebellion. Instead of the Egyptian
army, for which he hoped, the king beheld the re
appearance of the hosts of Babylon in Judah. The
obstacles which formerly had made the progress
towards Jerusalem slow had been for the most part
removed. There were few outlying cities to dispute
the course of the army. Such as there were had
long ago learned the advantage of discretion over
valour. The poor weak king who had disregarded
counsel when it would have done some good, eagerly
seeks it now that it is too late. The hope that Jah
veh might deal with Judah according to all His
wondrous works 2 was vain now. The world has
often before and since fed on that fatal delusion that
man may sin to the very brink of the pit, and then
demand of God salvation by a miracle. The result
is too often the scepticism which abandons all hope
with the cry " miracles do not happen."
The answer of the prophet is very crushing to the
1 Jer. xxix. 2 Jer. xxi. 2.

252 THE HEBREW PROPHET
king's hopes. Jahveh will even blunt the edge of the
poor arms wielded against the foe, for Jahveh is on
the side of the king's opponents. The people of the
city shall die of a great pestilence, and Zedekiah the
king, and those who survive the disasters of the siege,
will be carried away as prisoners.
The people of Judah were greatly elated by the
news of the approach of an Egyptian army. The
Babylonians knew that this rescuing force must be
crushed, and to do it easily and effectively, the siege
was raised temporarily, and the whole army marched
off to meet the new enemy. Zedekiah apparently
had great hopes that this was a permanent deliver
ance, that the Babylonians would return to the
siege no more. His inquiries of the prophet did
not encourage his hopes. Jeremiah declared that
Pharaoh's army would be driven back to Egypt, and
the Chaldeans would return to the investment of Jeru
salem, and capture it and destroy it. There were no
conditions now to invite another such experience as
the overthrow of Sennacherib.
During the early stages of the siege an incident
happened which tells very forcibly the true situation
in the city. Jeremiah's words were being fulfilled,
and he had for a short period a commanding in
fluence. He had insisted that the Babylonians could
not be turned back by the sword, nor the city saved
by Egyptian troops, but only by righteousness and
the fear of the Lord. He had induced the princes
and rich men to enter into a solemn covenant in the
temple of the Lord to release their Hebrew slaves,
which they had held, in defiance of the law, beyond

RELATION TO THE STATE 253
the limit of seven years.1 As soon as the siege was
raised, the people began to regret their rashness in
sacrificing property to appease an offended God. By
an act of the most high-handed tyranny the recently
freed slaves were again forced under the yoke. Never
does this prophet appear to finer advantage than in
his denunciation of the covenant breakers, while he
again assures the people of the return of the besiegers
and the utter destruction of the city.
Jeremiah's home was in Anathoth, a priestly city,
a short distance from Jerusalem, from which, as a
priest, he drew his living. During the siege he had
been cut off from his support, and now that the way
was open he starts out of the city to visit his home.
Those who were smarting from his rebukes, and
wished to silence his gloomy tongue, saw now their
opportunity. In vain had he been accused of
blasphemy ; for the court had not sustained the
charge. Now, however, he is arrested in the gate of
Benjamin on the ground of desertion. Irijah, the
captain who made the arrest, took his prisoner be
fore the angry princes, where he was ordered to be
chastised and put in the dungeon house, in which
place he remained for many days ; in fact, Jeremiah
remained in prison nearly all the time that was left
for the house of David. The princes, who had been
Jeremiah's friends, were in Babylon ; their successors
would not stand his frank utterances, and were con
stantly engaged in an effort to effect his destruction.
The king, too, though at times moved by fear to
heed the prophet's appeal for liberty, was strongly
1 Jer. xxxiv. 8 ff.

254 THE HEBREW PROPHET
influenced by his treasonable utterances, and so kept
him under restraint.1
Much as we admire the courage of Jeremiah, we
must admit that it is easy to censure his persecutors
unduly. For the prophet's counsel must at times
have been fairly maddening to the deluded patriots
who thought they might achieve the freedom of the
State. From the beginning of the invasion Jeremiah
counselled submission, and he constantly declared
that the city would be taken and destroyed. The
case of Judah was constantly pronounced hopeless :
that judgment weakened the hands of the defenders
seriously. But more than that, he actually advised
individuals to desert to the enemy. "Unto this
people thou shalt say, Thus saith Jahveh : Behold, I
set before you the way of life, and the way of death.
He that abideth in this city shall die by the sword,
and by the famine, and by the pestilence : but he
that goeth out, and passeth over to the Chaldeans
that besiege you, he shall live, and his life shall be
unto him for a prey. For I have set My face upon
this city for evil, and not for good, saith Jahveh : it
shall be given into the hand of the king of Babylon,
and he shall burn it with fire."2
We need not be surprised that the princes demanded
that the king put the prophet to death, on the ground
that he depressed the spirits of the men of war and
of all the people.3 Indeed, it is quite certain that
the princes were acting on something more than mere
apprehension. Unquestionably many soldiers had
1 See Jer. xxxii. 2 f. 2 Jer. xxi. 8-io.
3 Jer. xxxviii. 4.

RELATION TO THE STATE 255
already deserted the hopeless cause and made good
their escape to the hostile lines. Jeremiah must
have seemed to them no better than a Babylonian
partisan. In fact, Nebuchadrezzar took that view.
For when the city fell, he gave particular orders that
the prophet Jeremiah should be free to go to Babylon
or remain in Judah,1 evidently feeling that the seer
had aided materially in the conquest of the city.
Jeremiah produced so great an effect upon Zedekiah
that he shielded the prophet as best he could from
the princes who persistently clamoured for his blood,
and at one time declared that he was only kept from
taking the prophet's advice to surrender by his appre
hension that he would be abused by the Jews who
had already deserted to the enemy's standard.2
The issue showed that the prophet was right and
the princes wrong. The temper of a conqueror is
such that the more obstinate the resistance, the more
severe the punishment for rebellion. The pricks are
always sharpest to him who kicks against them. If
Zedekiah had surrendered, the city and temple would
not have been ruthlessly destroyed. And when the
king and his counsellors were hopelessly bent on
bringing about the destruction of the city, Jeremiah
still tried to save something from the wreck. He
was pained to see so many innocent people suffering
by the sword, famine, and pestilence. If the city was
doomed, some of the inhabitants might be saved ;
for God cares vastly more for people than for cities
and temples. To save them Jeremiah adopted the
course, so certain tO bring odium upon him, of advising
1 Jer. xxxix. II ff. ; xl. 2 ff. 2 Jer. xxxviii. 19.

256 THE HEBREW PROPHET
individuals to consult their personal interest and sur
render at discretion.
Space will not permit our tracing in detail the
career of the prophet in the dark days following the
fall of Jerusalem. He was at heart a true patriot,
and elected to share the trying life of the poor rem
nant left in Judah, a life which proved to be far
harder than that of the exiles. But the prophet
could accomplish very little; a mad fatuity seemed
to be in the blood of the Jewish people. Strife did
not cease, nor wisdom rule. Jeremiah was dragged
to Egypt finally by the small handful of zealots who
fled from the dread hand of Babylon. If he had
been left as free by his own people as he was by the
Babylonians, he would still have stood by the rapidly
decreasing number of poor Jews who clung to their
native soil ; and he might finally have gathered about
him a small community who would have set God's
will above personal fear and national prejudice. For
some Jews still stuck to Jewish soil, and seem never
to have been seriously molested. It may be said, by
the way, that recent criticism has credited the Jews
who never left Judah with the rebuilding of Jerusalem,
rather than the returning exiles, as has generally been
held. One more word and then we must leave this, the
most persecuted of all the prophets. His message
was generally a gloomy one. In fact, the skies were
so dark to his vision that he lays down the general
principle in his controversy with Hananiah that the
prophet who predicts evil is much more likely to be
justified by time than the prophet who predicts

RELATION TO THE STATE 257
good.1 Again, he himself became so weary of the
constant reiteration of evil tidings so unwelcome to
the people and so conducive to his unpopularity,
that at one time he resolved to quit the gloomy task,
and would, but for the fire in his bones, which, being
kindled of God, man could not extinguish.2 The
condition of the State and people was such that
no true-sighted seer could have descried any other
outlook than the dark one pictured by Jeremiah.
Nevertheless, there were moments when his supreme
faith in God made him hope for better things. The
great Messianic passage in chapters xxx.-xxxiii. is
full of assurance that the coming golden age of
Judah is not a dream. In the straitest days of the
siege he was constrained, though very much against
his will, to buy a piece of land then in the posses
sion of the enemy. Afterwards his eyes were opened
to see the meaning of his own transaction, that land
would again have value in Judah, and buying and
selling be resumed.3
Ezekiel, while still a young man, was carried
away among the captives of 598 and taken to the
river Chebar,4 a large canal in Southern Babylonia,
not far from Nippur, the site of the excavations
carried on by the University of Pennsylvania. So
1 Jer. xxviii. 7 ff.
2 Jer. xx. 7 ff. This is the sort of statement which makes the reader
feel sure that the prophet was inspired of God.
3 Jer. -xxxii.
4 The location of the Chebar has been definitely settled by Prof.
Hilprecht. See Babylonian Expedition of the University of Penn
sylvania, ix. pp. 27 f., 76 ; and his Explorations in Bible Lands,
p. 411 f. ; also Toy's Ezekiel (Poly. Bib.), p. 93.
S

258 THE HEBREW PROPHET
far as we know, Ezekiel's whole prophetic career
was spent in Babylonia. In the fifth year of his
captivity the visions of God first came to him, and
his greatest activity as a prophet lasted only during
the six years of Jerusalem's final throes.
Ezekiel, like Jeremiah, was both priest and prophet.
The priestly element was not so lost in the prophetic
as in the case of Jeremiah. Yet being in a strange
land, in which the Lord's songs could not be sung,
still less the sacred rites observed, there was no
occasion for him to exercise the office of priest.
Nor could he derive his support from the official
revenues as Jeremiah did ; for these were cut off in
the exile. During the first four years of his exile,
before he began to prophesy, he was very likely
engaged in earning his living. Later on he had a
house, and supported a wife, so that he was probably
successful in his efforts.
Though living in Babylonia among the exiles, the
interest of Ezekiel was centred chiefly in Jerusalem
among the remnant left there. His book throws
very little light upon the condition of the Jewish
captives, because his mind was always wandering
away to the holy city. He was kept well informed
of the progress of events in Judah, and took pains to
spread his knowledge among his fellow-exiles.
From the fact that he was so far away, and was
unknown as a prophet to the inhabitants of Jerusa
lem, he could exercise little influence upon the
course of events there. But communication between
the Chebar and Jerusalem seems to have been free
and prompt, surprisingly so, considering the time

RELATION TO THE STATE 259
and distance. We cannot explain Ezekiel's ac
quaintance with Judean affairs by any supernatural
agency. The stream of intelligence must have
flowed both ways, so that some of the Judeans must
have known of the utterances of this prophet of the
exile. But if Zedekiah, and still more the princes,
disregarded the persistent and powerful voice of
"Jeremiah poured into their very ears, they were not
likely to be much troubled by the distant echoes of
a voice hundreds of miles away. Nevertheless,
Ezekiel learned the hard lesson that the business
of the watchman is to watch and to warn, without
regard to the effect of his warning upon those for
whose sake he stands guard. If Judah met her
doom in spite of the prophet's voice, he was freed
of responsibility ; but if the seer did not declare the
disaster which he foresaw, then the blood of the
people would be required at his hand. So the faith
ful shepherd, far removed as he was from his flock,
steadily strove to keep them in the way of safety.
Ezekiel seems to have tried to impress upon his
fellow -exiles, as well as upon the inhabitants of
Judah, the fact that there was no hope of a speedy
return. This delusion needed to be shattered ; for it
would result in a hand-to-mouth existence among
the people, and in the suffering which is an inevitable
consequence of such a state. He does this by assert
ing most positively that not only will the exiles
not return, but, as a consequence of the downfall of
Jerusalem, they will be joined by those who now
vainly seek the independence of Judah. We find
Ezekiel's position fully stated in chapter vii., which

260 THE HEBREW PROPHET
Toy has entitled " The Doom of the Nation." But
Ezekiel was too true a prophet to content himself
with the cry of Jonah, " Within forty days this city
shall be destroyed." The cause of the impending
doom is fully stated, so that the people might turn
and repent and so avert the catastrophe. There is
no blind chance working against God's people. They
are preparing to reap the whirlwind because they
have sowed the wind. In the end the disaster comes
from the hand of their own Jahveh, not from Bel or
Nebo. Such a discouraging message as this would
certainly make Ezekiel unpopular among the exiles,
as it had made Jeremiah unpopular in Jerusalem.
But the exiles were abler men than the remnant in
Judah. They early saw tendencies which pointed
to the complete fulfilment of the dire predictions,
and the prophet was constantly sought for advice as
to the course of events. The moment the elders
came to him the prophet is lifted up in spirit,1 and
his mind is turned to the evil which he sees in
Jerusalem. There the prophet beholds an image of
a false god by the north door of the inner court of
the temple;2 a chamber in the temple where
Egyptian worship was carried on in secret, the
elders, and the son of Shaphan among them, joining
in the desecration ; 3 the women weeping for Tammuz
1 " He put forth the form of a hand, and took me by a lock of my
head; and the Spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven, and
brought me in the visions of God to Jerusalem " (Ezek. viii. 3); which,
being interpreted, is that the prophet enters the ecstatic state and sees
a vision, showing him, however, the true state of things in Jerusalem.
3 Ezek. viii. 3-5. s Ezek. viii. 10 11.

RELATION TO THE STATE 261
at the door of the north gateway ; x and at the very
door of the temple twenty-five men with their backs
to the house of Jahveh and worshipping the sun as it
rose in the east.2 There could be but one result of
such conditions, the final destruction of a sanctuary
so defiled that the holy God of Israel could no longer
abide there.
We know clearly from Ezekiel that there was a
war party in Jerusalem whom he accused of devising
iniquity and giving wicked counsel.3 In his vision
he sees twenty-five princes,4 who say that it is not
the time to build houses, but to buckle on the sword,
assuring the people that the naturally strong fortifi
cations would protect them, even as the caldron does
the meat.6
Against this party the prophet lifts up his voice
with strength. He paints in sombre colours the
picture which will result from this policy : " Ye have
multiplied your slain in this city, and ye have filled
the streets thereof with the killed. I will bring you
forth out of the midst thereof, and deliver you into
the hand of strangers, and will execute judgments on
you."6 The prophecy was made more portentous by
the fact that as Ezekiel was delivering his message
against this party, his words were fulfilled by the
1 Ezek. viii. 14. 2 Ezek. viii. 16. 3 Ezek. xi. 2.
4 Toy says it is uncertain whether these are the sun worshippers of
viii. 16 ; Davidson says they are not the same (Cambridge Bible
in he. ) ; but the latter is probably wrong. To persuade the people to
follow their mad advice the leaders must alienate them from the
influence of the prophets of Jahveh. They could do this in no way
more effectively than by leading them on to the worship of other
deities. B Ezek. xi. 3. ! Ezek. xi. 6 ff.

262 THE HEBREW PROPHET
slaughter of one of its leaders, Pelataiah the son of
Benaiah.1 Because Ezekiel sees these things in a
vision, we are not to infer that there is no reality.
The prophet is describing actual occurrences in
Jerusalem, and the vision is merely the form he
chooses for his message. Very likely he had already
heard of the death of Pelataiah, and takes this oppor
tunity to announce the fact. There are admitted
difficulties in any explanation, but the simplest is not
unlikely to be correct. It is unnecessary to call in
the aid of telepathy, miracle, or illusion. The death
of one of the war lords was an impressive warning
for those who leaned towards useless resistance, and
Ezekiel makes a dramatic and effective use of the
fact. The exiled prophet takes every opportunity to
impress upon his hearers the certainty of the ruin of
Judah. He collected the goods in his house, as if
going into exile, and at night, with a bandage on his
eyes, he carries the stuff away on his back,2 to the
astonishment of the confused exiles.3 The next day
the prophet explains the significance of his strange
actions. " The burden refers to the prince in
Jerusalem,4 and all the house of Israel. They shall
1 Ezek. xi. 13.
2 Toy says, " It is doubtful whether such acts as these were really
performed " (Ezek. in he. ). It does not seem to me doubtful. The
Orientals indulge freely in symbolic prophecy, and Ezekiel is especi
ally addicted to it. There would be no force in the prophecy without
the symbolic acts. 3 Ezek. xii. 3-7.
4 It is noteworthy that, except in vii. 27, which Toy explains rightly
as a scribal addition, Ezekiel calls Zedekiah prince, not king. The
exil looked upon Jehoiachin, living with them in captivity, as their
real sovereign.

RELATION TO THE STATE 263
go into exile. And the prince that is among them
shall bear upon his shoulder in the dark, and shall
go forth. He shall cover his face, because he shall
not see the land with his eyes.1 I will bring him to
Babylon, to the land of the Chaldeans ; yet shall he
not see it though he shall die there." 2
Ezekiel announces the fearful doom of Zedekiah
not as a mere fact, still less with any marks of pity ;
for he regards him as the victim of his own folly.
This is clearly shown in the fine allegory of the
Eagles and the Cedar of Lebanon.3 The prophet
shows here his acute ethical sense. One of the gravest
charges against Zedekiah is that he is a covenant
breaker, and God loves no false oath. Zedekiah
was set on the throne by the king of Babylon, to
whom he had sworn a solemn oath of fidelity in the
name of Jahveh. Yet he covenanted with Egypt
and violated his oath : " Shall he prosper ? Shall he
escape that doeth such things? Shall he break the
covenant and yet escape ? As I live, saith the Lord
Jahveh, surely in the place where the king dwelleth
that made him king, whose oath he despised, and
whose covenant he broke, even with him in the
midst of Babylon shall he die." 4 The oath to
Nebuchadrezzar, sworn in the name of Jahveh, was
Jahveh's oath, and He will punish the king as one
breaking faith not merely with a foreign tyrant, but
with God Himself.5

1 Zedekiah was brought before Nebuchadrezzar at Riblah, and his
eyes put out, after witnessing the slaughter of his sons (2 Kings xxv. 6 f. ).
2 Ezek. xii. 8-13 in part. s Ezek. xvii.
4 Ezek. xvii. 15 f. 6 Ezek. xvii. 19.

264 THE HEBREW PROPHET
Enough passages have been cited to show how
carefully Ezekiel watched the downward course of
the city of Jerusalem, and how gladly he would have
stopped it. But nations, like individuals, are held
strictly responsible for their acts. Zedekiah and his
deluded followers were not paying the penalty for
the sins of their forefathers, but of themselves. The
lower the estate of the nation politically, the lower it
became morally, and thus Divine intervention was
made impossible. The people must sink lower before
they could begin to rise. The devastation of Judah
must be complete before the process of restoration
could become possible.
Ezekiel looked for the complete ruin of the State,
but he never regarded the catastrophe as final. God
tore down and God would build up. The moment
Jerusalem is laid waste, Ezekiel loses all interest in
the ruins, and lets his mind soar freely in the distant
future when the rebuilding will have become an
accomplished fact. Up to the moment of the fall
of Jerusalem the prophet had been engaged in killing
false hopes. From that very day he began to kindle
real ones. The people who had been so blind to
their peril could see that much now. Before they
had exaggerated their power ; now they exaggerated
their helplessness. So it is always. The man who
can see things as they are has always the weary
burden of correcting the vision of those who can
only see things as they are not.
From the day when an escaped fugitive brought
tidings of Zion's waste,1 Ezekiel set his gaze to the
1 Ezek. xxiv. 26.

RELATION TO THE STATE 265
future. In fact, he had been warned by a terrible
blow that he was not to weep nor lament over the
ruin, but to set about its repair. The prophet's wife
died suddenly, and he was forbidden to indulge in
any of those extravagant marks of grief which char
acterise the Oriental.1 So the desolation of Judah was
not to be occasion for idle grief, but for zealous work.
And there was need of brave souls at the crisis.
They who could not believe in Zion's fall were com
pletely crushed by the unexpected fact. The despon
dency was so great that the hopeless exiles cried,
" Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost : we
are clean cut off." 2 Their cry of despair gave the
prophet his text for a sermon of hope. On their
words he builds his vision of the resurrection of the
dry bones. The dry bones with which the valley of
his vision is strewn come together, each one finding
its place in the frame to which it belongs ; sinews
grow upon them, and they are covered with flesh and
skin ; then the wind blows and brings the living
breath into the restored bodies. So will be the
history of the nation. The scattered fragments will
be collected from the remotest corners of the earth
and brought to the land of their fathers.3 And in
this resurrected people there will be neither division
nor discord, but union and strength. Judah and
Joseph will be welded into one people, just as the
prophet twines two sticks together so as to make one
stout staff. This people would be morally restored,
and would acknowledge the one sovereign of the
: Ezek. xxiv. 15 ff. 2 Ezek. xxxvii. 11.
3 Ezek. xxxvii. 12 ff.

266 THE HEBREW PROPHET
house of David. Jahveh would make a covenant
of peace with them, which would be an everlasting
covenant.1 We must move forward about half a century from
this glowing prophecy to its fulfilment in the days
of Haggai and Zechariah. The actual condition of
Jerusalem was very mean compared to the Messianic
pictures which had been painted long in advance. So
it often happens that the fulfilment of God's promises
seems very poor compared to the expectations raised ;
but that is generally due to man's inability to in
terpret his own time and his own experiences.
A number of modern scholars have thrown grave
doubt upon the return of the exiles as told in the
book of Ezra, holding that the Jews of the restora
tion were those who had always remained on Judean
soil. I shall hope to show in another place that there
is much truth in the history in Ezra, but that does
not concern us now. Our problem is to see the part
played by the prophets in the rebuilding of Judah
and Jerusalem. If we read the little books of Haggai
and of Zechariah, we can see that these prophets,
while far inferior to their great predecessors, yet had
the advantage of a more submissive people to deal
with, so that the influence of the prophets was para
mount. In the main the post-exilic seers undertook
an easier task than fell to the lot of their predecessors,
for it is vastly easier always to rouse people to build
a temple than to lay aside their sins. Haggai was
concerned almost wholly with the rebuilding of the
temple, feeling very rightly that the house of the
1 Ezek. xxxvii. 16 ff.

RELATION TO THE STATE 267
Lord was essential as a central rallying point for
the people. The reconstructed temple, which was,
so far as our records go, the fruit of Haggai's
prophetic activity, made possible the larger work of
Nehemiah. In the actual work priest and governor
worked shoulder to shoulder, but it was the voice
of the prophet which roused them to action.1 As
a reward for Zerubbabel's obedience, the prophet
declares that the governor is a signet and the chosen
of Jahveh.2
Zechariah's visions are for the most part sym
bolic of the new era about to dawn on Judah. First
we have the horsemen among the myrtle trees who
have come from a tour of the earth, and report that
" all the earth sitteth still, and is at rest." 3 The time
is propitious. There are no disturbing wars to pre
vent the peaceful development. The Jews need no
longer fear the harassing invasions of foreign armies.
Then there is greater hope because Jahveh is now on
the side of His people : " Cry thou, saying, I am
jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great
jealousy. I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies ;
My house shall be built in it, saith Jahveh of hosts,
and a line shall be stretched forth over Jerusalem.
My cities shall yet overflow with prosperity ; and
Jahveh shall yet comfort Zion, and shall yet choose
Jerusalem." 4
1 Hag. i. 12 ff. Ezra v. 2 says that the prophets of God helped the
temple builders. Siegfried, who supposes the prophets to be Haggai
and Zechariah, genders "supported " them. But the reference may be
to the sons of the prophets aiding in the actual labour.
2 Hag. ii. 23 ; cf. Ecclus. xlix. 11.
3 Zech. i. 11. 4 Zech. i. 14 ff.

268 THE HEBREW PROPHET
The vision of the man with a measuring line con
veys much the same message. The city would be
measured and found to be too small for the great
population which would gather in her borders. The
people would overflow the walls and yet be safe ; for
Jahveh Himself would be a wall of fire round about,
and so afford ample protection to the inhabitants.1
This large population would be due not only to the
natural increase, though that was a characteristic of
the new Jerusalem ; 2 but large additions would also
be made by the return of the exiles, who were now
free to depart, and whom the prophet exhorts to seek
the home of their fathers.3 Even strangers would
take up their abode in Jerusalem, an element of
national life and strength which the prophet cordially
welcomes.4 The vision of the golden candlestick with seven
burners was meant as a personal encouragement to
Zerubbabel. Mountains of difficulty stood in the way
of the governor. The desolate ruins, the sparse popu
lation, the poverty of the people, the lack of general
interest and enthusiasm, all combined to make the
outlook dark. Out of such materials it must have
seemed almost impossible to construct an empire in
any way worthy of the ancient glory of the house of
David. The prophet does not in the least attempt
to minimise the obstacles ; but rather to show how
they are to be overcome. The meaning of the vision
is that Zerubbabel is to look for success not to might
nor to power, but to the Spirit of the Lord.5 Just
1 Zech. ii. 1-5. 2 Psalms cxxvii., cxxviii.
3 Zech. ii. 6 ff. * Zech. ii. 11. » Zech. iv. 6 ff.

RELATION TO THE STATE 269
as the lamps are kept perpetually burning by the
flow of golden oil from the olive trees, so is the
governor to be always sustained in his mission by
the pervading presence of Jahveh's Spirit. And that
being the case, the prophet can confidently assert
that as Zerubbabel has begun the rebuilding of the
temple, so he shall accomplish its completion.
Finally, there is the splendid prophecy of the
golden age with which Zechariah's message ends.1
The conditions of life will be so propitious that men
will live to a ripe old age.2 The city will be so
secure that it will be full of boys and girls playing
freely in the streets.3 The fruitfulness of the land
shall not again be withheld, nor the heaven keep
back the dew and rain ; the present dearth shall be
followed by an era of plenty, so that Judah will be
a blessing to the whole earth.4 But the fame of
Jerusalem will not rest in its walls, nor in its dense
population, nor in its wealth, but in the power and
beneficence of its God. So great will Jahveh's
reputation become, and so eager are men to find
God — a fact for all ages and all peoples to grasp
and use — that every returning exile will find himself
beset by men of all nationalities, determined that he
shall guide them to Zion, because of the news that
God is there.
With this beautiful picture, which, alas ! has never
yet been fully realised, but which is ever ready for
a complete realisation wherever and whenever man
1 Zech. viii. ; ix.-xiv. belong to other authors.
2 Zech. viii. 4 ; cf. Psalm lv. 23.
8 Zech. viii. 5. 4 Zech. viii. 12 f.

270 THE HEBREW PROPHET
shall learn that God is the greatest power in a State,
and that the State may show the presence of God
in its institutions and in its people, I must bring to a
close the long study of the prophet's relation to the
State. It is interesting to note that the two eras when
the prophet's political influence was perhaps greatest
were the reign of Hezekiah, and the beginning of
the restoration ; that is, when Jerusalem was at the
height of its glory, and when its fortunes were at
the lowest ebb. But there was never a time when
the prophets were not solicitous in the national
interests, nor when they did not speak their mind
freely about political affairs.

CHAPTER XI
THE PROPHET'S RELATION TO THE
CHURCH
I. THE EARLY PERIOD
WHEN our Lord had a rebuke to administer,
He did it directly, plainly, and unmistakably.
Those who came in for the greatest share of His
censure were not, however, the poor, the ignorant,
and the sinful ; but the rich, the learned, the self-
righteous — the Scribes and Pharisees. For example,
we recall these words : " Ye witness to yourselves,
that ye are the sons of them that slew the prophets " ;
" O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killeth the prophets,
and stoneth them that are sent unto her."1 These
are surely hard words, and their severity is not lost
because we feel the tender pathos in the lament over
Jerusalem. How St. Luke loves to dwell upon the
persistence with which Jesus set His face steadily
towards Jerusalem on the last long journey from
Galilee ! and how clear the motive becomes to us, as
we recall the words spoken by the Master as He at
length drew near the city : " Howbeit I must go on
My way to-day and to-morrow and the day follow
ing : for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of
1 Matt, xxiii. 31, 37.
271

272 THE HEBREW PROPHET
Jerusalem." 1 The prophets who perished at Jerusalem
had had a hard time of it in this world, and in a
large degree the hardship of their lot was due to the
Church from which they might have expected
support and co-operation. For it was the fate of
the prophet to die in Jerusalem, and that means that
the Church would be the executioner.
The Epistle to the Hebrews tells us of the
triumphant faith of the prophets ; but it also tells
the story of their triumphant sufferings : " Others
had trial of mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover
of bonds and imprisonment : they were stoned, they
were sawn asunder, they were tempted, they were
slain with the sword : they went about in sheepskins,
in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, evil entreated
(of whom the world was not worthy), wandering in
deserts and mountains and caves, and the holes of
the earth."2 Those who found this world an easy
and pleasant road, Jesus differentiated from the
true man of God by a significant adjective : " Woe
unto you," He said to His disciples, " when all men
shall speak well of you ! for in the same manner did
their fathers to the false prophets." 3
The martyrs did not endure . their sufferings in
foreign lands, and at heathen hands ; indeed, they
were safest on strange soil ; for their blood was
shed in Jerusalem, and by their co-religionists. The
point of danger to them was not places like the
modern China or Turkey, where our missionaries
have in our day shown the old power of faith, but at
home and among their own people.
1 Luke xiii. 33 ; Addn. note (12). * Heb. xi. 36 ff. 3 Luke vi. 26

RELATION TO THE CHURCH 273
No suffering is so keen as that which comes from
those from whom we have a right to expect sym
pathy and help. How true a note is struck in the
Psalmist's cry : —
" For it is no enemy that reproaches me ;
Or I could have borne it :
Neither is it my hater that insults me ;
Or I would have hid from him :
But it is thou, a man mine equal,
My companion, and my familiar friend." J
If anything could justify the fierce imprecation
which follows (ver. 15), it is just that situation. The
hardest cross which Jesus had to bear was not the
one laid on His shoulders on the way to Calvary,
but the one eloquently described in those few words,
" Neither did His brethren believe on Him " ; and
the other implied in His pathetic question, " Will ye
also go away ? "
We have been so long accustomed to look upon
the great prophets of Israel as leaders of religion
that we are apt to forget the bitter opposition they
encountered in their day. They seem to us so truly
to have been men to whom their contemporaries
might well look up, that we quietly assume that the
hungry people gaped with open mouth, quick to
catch the crumbs of Divine counsel which fell from
their lips. The passages I have cited warn us to
look for a different story, and as a matter of fact
the Old Testament tells us a different story. And
it is to that story I now wish to call attention.
1 Psalm lv. 12 f.

274 THE HEBREW PROPHET
The prophets were opposed at times by the State,
at times by the Church, and at times by both. My
task now is to bring out the opposition between the
prophet and the Church ; for the relation was gener
ally one of opposition. I use the word " Church "
indeed in the loose sense, necessary in such a study
as this, of the organised or established religion of
the time. For the course of study sweeps over a
long period, in some parts of which the Church was
very different from what it was in other parts.
In our study of the sons of the prophets we have
seen reason to believe that the prophetic guilds 1 were
originally associated with sanctuaries, and therefore
in close contact with the priests. These prophetic
bodies seem to have remained faithful to the priest
hood and to ceremonial religion all through Hebrew
history. They were not only a part of the established
religious institution, but were in sympathy with it.
When we come to the great prophets who stand out
for living truth against dead tradition, we shall see
that these guilds were invariably on the side of the
priesthood and rigid institutionalism.
The earliest of the conspicuous and worthy
prophetic figures, such as Samuel, Nathan, and
Elijah, were in name and in fact priests as well
as prophets. Samuel began his career as an appren
tice in the sanctuary, and it was there he received
his first messages from God. Samuel was the head
of the Jewish Church in his day. But Samuel re
mained loyal to the high ethical standard which
belongs to prophecy. He would admit no lowering
1 See chap. iv.

RELATION TO THE CHURCH 275
of the ideal such as that "the end justifies the
means." The sharpest admonition is administered
to king Saul, because he thought that Jahveh would
willingly be propitiated for disobedience by the
offering of a splendid sacrifice : —
" Does Jahveh find pleasure in offerings and sacrifices
As in hearkening to the voice of Jahveh ?
Behold, to hearken is better than sacrifice,
And to give heed than the fat of rams." 1
Elijah was engaged for the greater part of his life
in a struggle to save the true Jewish Church from
pollution by the introduction of foreign idolatrous
elements. The prophetic guilds for the most part2
and the priesthood were subservient to the royal
power. They adopted the easiest and most profitable
course, ready to offer sacrifice to any god,3 or utter
oracles from any deity, so long as the king approved
and the devotees paid. Elijah's warfare against the
king was also a warfare against the corrupt Church
which he had set up in the Northern Kingdom. As
we have gone over that ground pretty fully, however,
it is unnecessary for us to traverse it again.
1 I Sam. xv. 22. The theology of this passage is regarded as too
advanced for the rude age of Samuel. H. P. Smith says, "The passage
is a summary of later Jewish theology" (Sam. in he). If we admit
the historic incident, then some such rebuke of Saul is appropriate.
2 But we must not forget that there were brave souls among them,
who died, and endured every kind of hardship, because they would not
repudiate Jahveh (l Kings xviii. 4). Yet Elijah alone was left with
courage and power to resist the introduction of the Baal-worship
(1 Kings xviii. 22 ; xix. 10).
3 Even in Judah at a much later day Urijah the priest did not
scruple to build a new altar according to the pattern sent by Ahaz from
Damascus (2 Kings xvi. 11).

276 THE HEBREW PROPHET
Other prophets of this early period raised their
protesting voice against the idolatrous tendencies.
There is one particularly interesting case, though
the prophet's name is unknown to us, and was even
unknown to his biographer.1 Jeroboam knew the
danger to political independence of religious sub
jection to a foreign power,2 but he took a bad way
to accomplish a good result. He set up bullock
images at Dan and Bethel, and commanded the
people to worship them.3 At first the cult was
apparently not very popular ; for the king could not
find priests willing to serve at his strange altars, and
was reduced to the necessity of consecrating to that
office any that were willing to do his will.4 It is
possible that the unpopularity may have been greatly
increased by the public denunciation, which we shall
now describe.
The king himself was standing by his new altar at
Bethel, in the act of burning incense to the bull
image of Jahveh, when a " man of God from Judah "
appeared on the scene, and addressed the altar thus :
"O altar, altar, thus saith Jahveh, Behold, a son
shall be born to the house of David, Josiah5 by
1 The story is found in I Kings xiii.
2 This was the real cause of the English Reformation.
3 i Kings xii. 26 ff.
4 I Kings xiii. 33 f.
6 The mention of this name and the prediction in which it is
imbedded (cf. 2 Kings xxiii. 15 ff.) show that in its present form this
narrative was written very long after the events. But there is an older
folk-story woven into the passage, and back of the written form are
actual occurrences such as I have suggested in the text. When the story
was first written down, the names of both prophets had already been
forgotten.

RELATION TO THE CHURCH 277
name; and upon thee he shall sacrifice the priests
of the high places who burn incense upon thee."1
Jeroboam stretched forth his hand to seize the bold
seer, but his arm was paralysed, and the ashes
poured from the altar, according to the sign given
by the man of God. At the king's plea and by the
prophet's intercession his hand was restored, but the
seer could not be induced to accept the royal hos
pitality proffered ; for he had been straitly charged
not to pause to eat or drink, nor to return the same
way he came.
Good would it have been for that seer if he had
obeyed his instructions. It was no evil spirit which
led him astray, but a fellow-seer who was more inter
ested in the kingdom of Samaria than in the King
dom of God. This aged prophet followed the man
of God, and persuaded him, by a story of an angel
message, that God charged him now to return to eat
bread. When the seer yielded to his aged brother,
he was greeted with a reproach for his disobedience
and a prediction of his disastrous end. The predic
tion was soon fulfilled, for after the feast the seer
started for Judah, and was devoured on his way by a
lion.2 It is easy to point the moral of this interesting old
story, and to divine the actual facts on which it is
based. The true prophet can never trust any vision
but his own. Yet it was very pleasant for the seer
to believe God had changed His orders, because
another and older prophet had said so, especially
as food and rest are always agreeable to the weary ;
1 I Kings xiii. 2. 2 I Kings xiii. 24.

278 THE HEBREW PROPHET
but unfortunately for him, God cares more for right
than for ease.
The strait command that the prophet should
neither tarry in Israel nor return as he went was
designed to insure his safety. His errand was peril
ous ; Jeroboam could be contrite enough till his hand
was restored, but would soon forget his punishment
in his determination to brook no interference with
his religious programme. Though himself unable to
allure the seer to peril, one of his prophets was more
successful, for there can be no doubt that the old
prophet deliberately set the fatal trap. The lion
which met the seer in the way was undoubtedly an
assassin who had been appointed to lie in wait. It is
to be said to the credit of the old prophet that his
subsequent actions show a sincere contrition for the
infamous part he had played.1
Even from the priesthood we find an occasional
voice lifted up against the prevailing religious cor
ruption. The Chronicler tells the story of the martyr
dom of Zechariah the son of Jehoida,2 the priest who
saved the house of David. The priest's recorded
words are few, but he said enough to show his under
standing of the times that there was much misfortune
because there was much sin. Short shrift was given
1 The bones of both these prophets were left undisturbed by Josiah
when he was fulfilling the prophecies of this man of God (2 Kings
xxiii. 17 f.). Whether his motive was veneration or superstition it is
not easy to say.
2 2 Chron. xxiv. 2 ff. It is a prevalent fashion to reject all un
supported stories of the Chronicler. It must be admitted that he has
a habit of putting events in the wrong place, and is prone to exaggerate ;
but some of his stories may be true for all that.

RELATION TO THE CHURCH 279
the priest ; he was stoned to death by the mob, the
king, whom the martyr's father had placed on the
throne, aiding or abetting the atrocity.
Naturally we shall find the most copious and in
teresting material for our study in the canonical
prophets. To them we now turn. When Amos
went to Bethel he could make no pretence that there
were no prophets in Samaria that he must needs go
from the furthest bounds of Judah, nor that there was
no religion in the Northern Kingdom. Prophets and
religion were there, and this is Amos's opinion of the
whole system : " Come to Bethel, and transgress ; to
Gilgal and transgress again ; and bring in your
sacrifices every morning, and your tithes every three
days ; and make a thank-offering of leavened bread,
and publish generous offerings,1 yea, make them
heard : for thus you love to do, O sons of Israel :
oracle of the Lord Jahveh."2 The worthlessness of
this sort of religious rites, performed with punctilious
fidelity, is shown by the prophet's oft-repeated cry
which follows immediately: "Ye have not returned
unto Me, oracle of Jahveh.'; Sacrifice was one thing,
approach to God another. The people had to learn
the great lesson which even the Christian world
isj slow to grasp, that God's earthly sanctuary and
God Himself are not necessarily the same. " Thus
saith Jahveh to the house of Israel, Seek Me and live :
but do not seek Bethel, nor enter Gilgal, nor pass
over to Beersheba" — though those were famous
1 Perhaps " liberalities," as G. A. Smith renders. The idea is the
advertising of their generous contributions to religion.
2 Amos iv. 4 f.

280 THE HEBREW PROPHET
sanctuaries, where the people had been long wont
to suppose that God was sure to meet them, and
which they deemed safe under His protection ; so the
prophet goes on to say, "for Gilgal shall surely
become an exile, and Bethel shall come to nought." x
The people observed the letter of the law, but were
blind to its spirit. There were people who cried,
" How long ere the new moon will be gone, that we
may sell corn? and the Sabbath, that we may set
forth wheat?"2 Is it surprising that the prophet
should cry out hotly against such religious practice
as this ? Can we doubt that Amos knew the mind
of God when he represented Jahveh as exclaiming :
" I hate, I scorn your feasts, and I delight not in
your sacred assemblies. If you offer Me your offer
ings of flesh and meal I will not favour them ;
neither will I regard your fat peace offerings. Take
away from Me the noise of thy songs, and let Me
not hear the melody of thy viols " ? 3
The question is ever raised about such passages,
whether the antagonism of the prophets is against
the ceremonial system as such, or only against the
abuse of it, which certainly was common enough.
It is neither possible nor necessary to discuss that
question at length here.4 It is certain that there was
pretty strenuous antagonism between the prophetic
and priestly systems. It is now generally conceded
that the great bulk of the so-called priestly legisla
tion was post-exilic ; but it is certain that priestly
1 Amos v. 4 f. 2 Amos viii. 5. 3 Amos v. 21 ff.
4 See the writer's Old Testament from the Modern Point of View,
p. 155 ff- W. R. Smith, O.T.J.C.\ lect. x.

RELATION TO THE CHURCH 281
institutions existed from very early times in Israel.
Samuel was both prophet and priest at the begin
ning, and Ezekiel was both at the end of the great
historic period of Israel. In the intervening time
the prophets set their face against the system, either
because they did not recognise it as of Divine origin,
or because it had lost its primitive ethical motive.
Amos seems to show clearly enough what he thought
about the origin of the system, for he asks, " Did you
bring Me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness
forty years, O house of Israel ? " 1 The period under
Moses was looked upon as the golden age of
God's favour to His chosen people.2 The Divine
grace was not bought by a prescribed measure of
sacrifice offered according to a minute ritual, for
Amos asserts that no sacrifices were offered in the
desert. Surely he could not believe that Moses
wrote the priestly laws of the Pentateuch3 at that
period. What God wants is shown clearly when the
prophet demands that "justice roll down as waters,
and righteousness as an everflowing stream."4
It is certain that the priests of Israel did not look
with favour upon the free speech of this untutored
prophet. Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, was troubled
with these utterances, and called in the royal
authority to silence the speaker. He interrupts the
humble preacher with persuasive sarcasm : " O seer,
1 Amos v. 25. 2 Amos ii. 10.
3 See also the passage of Jeremiah quoted below.
4 Amos v. 24. Ottley says very truly : " Some of them [the
prophets] appear to represent it [sacrifice] as a concession to spiritual
immaturity ; all of them speak of it as wholly subordinate to moral
obedience" (Bamp. Led., p. 230).

282 THE HEBREW PROPHET
come, flee thee away to the land of Judah, and there
eat bread, and there prophesy; but at Bethel do not
prophesy again, for it is a royal sanctuary, and it is
a royal house."1 The example for all prophets to
follow was set once for all by this first prophet2
whose words have been preserved. He begins with
an apologia : " I am not a prophet, nor am I one of
the sons of the prophets : but I am a herdman, and
a dresser of sycamore trees." He thus reminds
Amaziah that he did not belong to the order of
established prophets, possibly under a vow of obedi
ence to king or priest, but received his commission
in such a way that obedience to the priestly mandate,
even though supported by royal authority, was im
possible : " Jahveh took me from the flock, and
Jahveh said unto me, Go, prophesy unto My people
Israel."3 In other words, Amos was not pleading
his disadvantages in not having a prophet's educa
tion and position, but rather explaining his superior
position to the members of an institution who were
bound hand and foot. No prophet can ever wear
fetters. Amos was prophesying, not by virtue of a
commission sealed by human authority, but by the
direct call of God. He proclaims the unwelcome
truth, not because he likes contention and unpopu-
1 Amos vii. 12 f.
2 Yet we must not forget the words of Micaiah the son of Imlah,
when his friendly advisers asked him to confirm what the other
prophets had foretold : ' ' What Jahveh saith unto me that will I speak "
(1 Kings xxii. 14); nor the words of Balaam, anxious as he was to
win the rich prize offered by the king of Moab : " If Balak would
give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word
of Jahveh my God, to do less or more" (Num. xxii. 18).
3 Amos vii. 15. See further p. 57.

RELATION TO THE CHURCH 283
larity, but because he must obey God rather than men.
God had started him, God alone could stop him.
Now and then, all through the ages, Jewish and
Christian, there has arisen a great soul, who was
not mistaken in his belief, that however he was con
nected with man-controlled institutions, the real
source of his authority to speak was God Himself.
Such men have generally met fierce opposition in
their day, but they have never wavered in their work.
They are the men who have lifted religion from the
low plane to which it sometimes falls, and to whom
the Church owes a debt which it usually pays in
building their sepulchres. We may also confidently
believe that there are thousands of humbler men,
whose names are never known to but few, who are
rightly conscious of the same high calling, and are
equally faithful to their exalted trust.
Before we leave Amos, let us pause for a moment
to ask the result of the attempt to silence him. He
went right on with his preaching, forecasting a dire
ful future for the misguided priest who was unable,
because unwilling, to discern the voice of the Lord ;
he went right on with his denunciation of Israel's
sins ; he declared that so far from the temple's being
a talisman of safety, God would stand by the sacred
altar, and begin His work of destruction there ; and
at length finishing his message with some bright
pictures of a new Israel in a new age. Then, his
work done, we may surmise that he gladly returned
to the little village of Tekoa, on the confines of the
wilderness of Judah, and resumed the humble tasks
of following the flock and dressing sycamore trees.

284 THE HEBREW PROPHET
Hosea stands in marked contrast to Amos, as
already pointed out, in that he was called, not to
exercise a ministry temporarily, and then to lay it
down for all time, but to give his life to it.
Hosea seems never to have come into conflict with
the powers that be, political or ecclesiastical, in such
a way that they attempted to restrict his liberty of
prophesying, but that was not because he did not
give them abundant excuse. No man was ever more
strenuous in denouncing evil even when the cul
prits were high in ecclesiastical power; Priests and
prophets alike come in for a full share of stinging
rebukes. Let me venture to remind the reader that
the prophets of whom he speaks were not upstarts,
deluded by their aspirations for position, but were
supposed to have a juster claim to popular recogni
tion than he had.
He says to the priest, " Thou shalt stumble by day,
and the prophet also shall stumble with thee by
night."1 Again he exclaims, " The prophet is a fool,
and the man of the spirit is mad, because of the
multitude of their iniquity and the greatness of the
enmity. As for the prophet, a fowler's snare is in all
his ways, and enmity in the house of his God."2
These deceivers and time-servers stand in their true
bad light ; especially when contrasted with those who
had really believed God's word. God had "hewed
them [His people] by the prophets, and slain them
by the words of His mouth."3 Again God says, " I
have spoken unto the prophets, and I have multiplied
1 Hosea iv. 5. 2 Hosea ix. 7 f.
3 Hosea vi. 5.

RELATION TO THE CHURCH 285
visions; and by the hand of the prophets have I
used similitudes."1
The priests were even worse than the prophets.
"And it shall be, like people, like priest."2 No
wonder that the people were bad under such a priest
hood ; and the doom hanging over the people would
involve the priests as well. Those who were called a
"snare at Mizpah, and a net spread upon Tabor,"
were not only the masses, but the royal house and
the priests.3 For the priests do not stop short even
of the most open crime : " As bandits lying in wait,
so the company of priests murder on the road to
Shechem ; yea, they commit outrages."4
The religious rites performed by such priests and
such people will avail nothing : " They shall not pour
out wine unto Jahveh, neither shall they arrange
sacrifices for Him ; their bread shall be like the bread
of mourners."5 " Israel is a spreading vine : according
to the abundance of his fruit, he has increased his
altars." But what good is prosperity? for "their
heart is divided; surely they will be found guilty."6
But the sum of the whole matter is put in one of
those fine utterances which God now and then
breathes into the soul of man : " I desire mercy and
not sacrifice, and knowledge of God more than burnt
offerings."7 Amos and Hosea both prophesied in the Northern

1 Hosea xii. 10. 2 Hosea iv. 9.
3 Hosea v. 1. 4 Hosea vi. 9.
s Hosea ix. 4 ; making two slight but necessary emendations, after
G. A. Smith, Wellh., Kuenen, Marti.
6 Hosea x. 1 f. 7 Hosea vi. 6.

286 THE HEBREW PROPHET
Kingdom, where the religion of Jahveh was at a low
ebb. We turn now to Judah and to the prophets
whose life and work lay in that kingdom. We will
first glance for a moment at Micah, the rural contem
porary of Isaiah. He was familiar with those who
would suppress unpleasant truths, but he was un
moved by their opposition : " Prate not, thus they
prate : let none prate of these things ; revilings are
unceasing."1 The evil prophets took the lead in
trying to silence the honest and fearless voice. Sin
ful people soon weary of having their sins laid bare.
We occasionally yet hear a preference expressed for
preaching about the goodness of God, rather than of
the sins of men.
Micah had something to say about a class of
prophets who exist in every age, who make their
message conform to the standards of men, rather
than to the standards of God : " Thus saith Jahveh
about the prophets who lead My people astray ; who
snap their teeth and cry, Peace ; and whoso does not
give for their mouths, against him do they proclaim
war : therefore they shall have a visionless night, and
darkness too intense for divination ; and the sun
shall set upon the prophets, and the day shall be
black over them. And the seer shall be ashamed,
and the diviners confounded : they shall all cover
their lips, for there is no answer of God."2 Preachers
who care more for what goes into their mouths than
for what comes out are an abomination unto the
Lord at all times.
There is another passage in this little book which
1 Micah ii. 6, after G. A. Smith. 2 Micah iii. 5-7.

RELATION TO THE CHURCH 287
I will quote here, though there is doubt whether it
belongs to Micah or not.1
But to whatever period and to whatever man it is
. to be assigned, the ever-convincing internal evidence
assures us that it was breathed into a human soul by
the Spirit of the Lord. It points out unmistakably
the sharp contrast between the popular religion with
an appointed sacrifice to atone for every sin and the
high ethical religion most pleasing to God. The pas
sage represents a soul in a great struggle. A serious
problem has to be faced. A man has sinned. His
sin does not sit lightly upon him, but is seen in its
true light. The soul's peace is disturbed ; relations
with God are broken — what is to be done ? " Where
with shall I come before Jahveh ? Shall I bow
myself before the high God ? Shall I come before
Him with burnt offerings, and with calves of a year
old ? Will Jahveh be propitiated with thousands of
rams, or with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I
give my first-born for a guilt offering : the fruit of
my body for the sin of my soul ? " The questions
are asked with all the fervour of a soul in deep dis
tress, and yet in such a way as to show the various
popular methods of relief. He knows the things that
will not help ; but the prophet does not let him rest
in negations. The positive statement is clear, brief,
and ethically beautiful: "He hath showed thee, O
man, what is good ; and what doth Jahveh require of
1 Micah vi. 1-8. W. R. Smith long ago accepted Ewald's view
that Micah vi., vii. 1-6, belongs to the age of Manasseh ; he accepted
Wellhausen's conclusion that vii. 7-20 must be dated in the Babylonian
exile (Prophets, p. 439). G. A. Smith comes back to the conservative
position and ascribes the passages to Micah.

288 THE HEBREW PROPHET
thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk
humbly with thy God ? " 1
Not all prophecies are to be found in the prophets'
books. Some of the finest have come down in
poetic form. There are several anti-sacrificial Psalms,
whose authors were really seers. They show that the
spirit of the prophets manifested itself in many ways.2
" I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices ;
And thy burnt offerings are continually before Me.
I will take no bullock out of thy house,
Nor he-goat out of thy folds.
Will I eat the flesh of bulls,
Or drink the blood of goats ? " 3
"For Thou delightest not in sacrifice; else would I give it;
Thou hast no pleasure in burnt offering.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit ;
A broken and contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not
despise." 4
Before leaving Micah, I must point out the best
evidence that Micah produced a great effect on his age,
greater than we can estimate from his book alone. The
testimony of Jeremiah xxvi. 17-19 is of the first im
portance, and it shows us that the reforms of Hezekiah
were traced to the influence of Micah rather than to
Isaiah.5 Micah's declaration that Zion would be
1 Micah vi. 6-8.
2 Peters thinks that some passages in the prophets, e.g. Jer xx show
the influence of the Psalms ( The Old Testament and the Hew Scholar-
ship, p. 176 f.). Is it not rather the case that the Psalms show the
influence of the Prophets ?
3 Psalm 1. 8 f., 13. J psalm [;. l6 f
6 For Isaiah's part in the reform see chap.

x.

RELATION TO THE CHURCH 289
plowed as a field, Jerusalem become heaps, and the
mountain of the house as the high places of a forest,1
had produced a great impression. The king and
people took alarm, realising that the very centre of
their religion could only be saved by amended lives.
Therefore Hezekiah repented and instituted reforms.
Yet it is easy to overdo the matter of exalting Micah's
influence over Isaiah's. All that we learn elsewhere
would indicate that Micah's preaching was little known
in Jerusalem, while Isaiah's influence over Hezekiah
was very great. The citation of the elders is easily
explained by the similarity of subject. Jeremiah
was in the toils for predicting the fall of the temple
and city; but Micah had said the same thing and
was not charged with crime.
1 Micah iii. 12.

CHAPTER XII
THE PROPHET'S RELATION TO THE
CHURCH
II. ISAIAH TO JOEL
ONCE more we turn to the greatest of all the
prophets. Isaiah the son of Amoz was great
as a teacher of religious truth ; as we have seen, he
was also great as a statesman. Perhaps his statesman
ship was the most marked trait. He busied himself
perpetually with the affairs of the nation, and fre
quently was in conflict with the king and nobles. He
had much to say about the sins of the nation and
the holiness of the Lord ; but he had comparatively
little to say about priests and prophets. Isaiah seems
to have been brought up in the ordinances of the
Jewish religion : he was in the temple when he saw
the vision so graphically described by him, and which
finally overcame his reluctance to take up the pro
phetic office. He spent a long life of at least forty
years in that ministry.
Isaiah certainly was not unfriendly to the priests as
such ; for when he set up a tablet whose full meaning
should be clearly apparent at a future day, he chose
among the witnesses of his act "Uriah the priest."1
1 Isa. viii. 2.
290

RELATION TO THE CHURCH 291
The prophet also was looked upon as exercising a
proper mission in the world. When he declared that
Jahveh would take away from Judah and Jerusalem
those upon whom it rested, he enumerates the prophets
along with the elder, the judge, the man of war, as
being together those whose offices would be sorely
missed in the State.
But both priest and prophet are severely cen
sured when they are found indulging in drunken
revels, as if strong drink were the kind of spirit
by which the Lord stirred up His servants : " Priest
and prophet reel through strong drink ; they are
swallowed up of wine, they are gone astray through
strong drink ; they reel in vision, they stumble in
judgment." 1
As I have before suggested, Isaiah was brought up
under the pre-exilic sacrificial system, and may have
continued in that all his life. But when he saw that
the people were wont to depend upon sacrifices rather
than a clean moral life, then his denunciation breaks
out in strong words : " What is the multitude of your
sacrifices to Me? saith Jahveh : I am sated with burnt
offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts ; and in
the blood of bullocks and lambs and he-goats I take
no pleasure. When you come to see My face, who
required now at your hand to trample My courts?
[i.e. with animals for sacrifice.] Bring no more vain
oblations ; incense is an abomination unto Me ; new
moon and sabbath, the convoking of assemblies, —
I cannot endure ; it is iniquity, even the solemn
meeting. Your new moons and your appointed
1 Isa. xxviii. 7.

292 THE HEBREW PROPHET
feasts are loathsome, they are a burden unto Me,
which I am weary of bearing." J
The reason of God's displeasure at this formal,
soulless ritual is stated in a word : " Your hands are
full of blood." 2 Those deluded people fancied they
could wash out the deep stains in the blood of
bullocks, even as many evangelical Christians have
thought they could wash theirs out in the blood of
the Lamb. I think that Isaiah could never have sung
that once-common hymn : —
"There is a fountain filled with blood
Drawn from Emmanuel's veins :
And sinners plunged beneath that flood
Lose all their guilty stains."
What God demands is rightly seen and clearly
stated by the prophet : " Wash you, make you clean ;
put away the evil of your doings from before Mine
eyes ; cease to do evil, learn to do well ; seek justice,
relieve the oppressed, deal justly with the fatherless,
plead for the widow." 3 No sacrifice, no blood bath,
can ever take the place of earnest moral endeavour.
The prophet must take issue with his Church when he
saw it sinking to an unworthy conception of God,
as if His favours might be bought with blood.
One of the greatest dangers to the Church of God,
whether Jewish or Christian, is unreality. We can
not escape this grave peril by adopting a ritual, nor
by dispensing with ritual, but only by the most per
sistent and strenuous moral efforts. This danger was
present in Isaiah's day; it was one of the things
1 Isa. i. n-14. 2 Isa. i. 15. 3 Isa. i. 16 f.

RELATION TO THE CHURCH 293
which made wide the gulf between God and His
chosen people : " This people draw near Me, and
with their mouth and with their lips honour Me ;
but their heart is far from Me, and their fear of Me
is a commandment of men learned by rote."1
But there was another phase of the popular feeling
which was worse than unreality, worse than merely
formal sacrifices, and that was the attempt to force
the prophets either to keep silence, or to conform
their utterances to the wishes rather than the needs
of the people. God pity the prophet of any age who
must ask, not, What would the Lord have me say
to my people? but, What will my people receive
without offence? God pity the people who would
not gladly hear the Lord's truth, even though it
made them shake like reeds in the wind.
There were people demanding easy teaching in
Isaiah's time, and there were prophets who heeded
them ; but the son of Amoz was not among them.
" It is a rebellious people," he cried, " lying children ;
children unwilling to hear the teaching of Jahveh :
who say to the seers, See not ; and to the prophets,
Prophesy not unto us true things, speak unto us
smooth things, prophesy deceits."2
Messianic prophecy does not occupy the place it
once did in Christian thought, because we have not
yet adjusted ourselves fully to the new light. But
a Messianic life appeals to us more forcibly to-day
than ever before. Jeremiah, the humble priest of
Anathoth, lived a Messianic life, filled on the one side
with consecration to his Divine mission, and on the
1 Isa, xxix. 13. 2 Isa. xxx. 9 f.

294 THE HEBREW PROPHET
other with suffering due to the persecutions of those
who did not respect the feelings of a peculiarly
sensitive soul. In a bitter moment Jeremiah cried
out that he had been deceived j1 but he had no just
reason to feel so, for he had been warned at the start
of his prophetic career that he would encounter
serious though not fatal opposition : " They shall fight
against thee, but they shall not prevail against thee."2
The evil due to a great body of prophets more
concerned to please the people than to know the will
of God, was either greater in Jeremiah's day than in
any other time, or else he felt the degradation of the
prophetic office more keenly. For he has more to
say against these lying prophets than anyone else.
Sometimes he includes the priests in his condemna
tion : " A wonderful and horrible thing has come to
pass in the land ; the prophets prophesy falsely, and
the priests bear rule at their hand ;3 and My people
love it so."4 "From prophet even unto the priest
every one dealeth falsely. They have healed also the
hurt of My people lightly, saying, Peace, peace, but
there is no peace."5 Prophet and priest were leagued
for wrong, and the people eagerly grasped the com
forting delusion.
This was one of the serious difficulties which the
true prophet had to meet all the time. How could
he persuade the people to accept the truth when
other prophets were teaching falsehood? "Then
1 Jer. xx. 7. a Jer. i. 19.
3 That is, by their power. So the Chronicler assigns to the prophets
the regulation of priestly duties (2 Chron. xxix. 25 ; cf. Dan. ix. 10).
See additional note (4).
4 Jer. v. 30 f. s jer vi ,3 {

RELATION TO THE CHURCH 295
said I, Ah, Lord Jahveh ! lo, the prophets are saying
unto them, You shall not see sword, and there will
be no famine for you : but I will give you assured
peace in this place."1 The answer was sufficient for
Jeremiah — would that the people had seen its truth !
"Then Jahveh said to me, A lie the prophets are
prophesying in My name : I did not send them, nor
did I give them a command, nor did I even speak to
them : they prophesy unto you a lying vision, and
divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of
their own heart."2
In chapter xxiii. we find a severe indictment of
the deceivers of the people with the formal heading
" concerning the prophets." It is too long to quote,
but I will give the substance in as few words as
possible. The holy words of Jahveh are painful to
me ; for the people are deep in sin, and the prophet
and priest are alike profane, even carrying their
wickedness into the sacred temple. The prophets of
Baal led Israel to her doom, and the prophets of
Jerusalem are no better, for they commit adultery,
walk in lies, and strengthen the hands of evil-doers.
The people are warned not to listen to the mislead
ing words of their deceivers. They love to cry,
" Thus saith Jahveh," but Jahveh sent no message by
them ; they love to cry, " I have dreamed, I have
dreamed," but their false visions cause God's people
to forget His name. These prophets have no word
from God, and steal it every one from his neighbour
— clerical plagiarism, it seems, is as old as it is
abominable. The prophetic cry, " the burden of
' Jer. xiv. 13. 2 Jer. xiv. 14.

296 THE HEBREW PROPHET
Jahveh," has been so dragged down by their lying
visions, that Jahveh forbids its utterance any more.
At a critical hour in Judah's history, Jeremiah
stood before king Zedekiah. The king, though
owing his crown to the king of Babylon, vainly
thought that he was strong enough safely to violate
his oath of allegiance to Nebuchadrezzar. The host
of prophets, whose chief concern was the royal
favour, easily found messages to support his convic
tion. Jeremiah had no such delusion. He breaks in
on the conference engaged in planning a confeder
ated revolt, telling them that they must wear the
yoke of the king of Babylon. No confidence is to
be placed in the prophetic assurances, for they
prophesy lies ; they were not sent by the Lord.1
Jeremiah warns the priests too not to trust in those
deceiving voices which declare that the sacred vessels
of the temple should soon be brought from Babylon.
If they are true prophets, and have the ear of the
Lord, they had better spend their time in interceding
that the few vessels still left in the temple be not also
carried away.
Jeremiah lived to see the discomfiture of the time
serving prophets, and of those who had put their
trust in them. In the closing days of the national
life, when the capital city was invested by hostile
armies, and when the blindest could see that the
blow must fall soon, this prophet significantly asked
the king: "Where now are your prophets which
prophesied unto you, saying, The king of Babylon
shall not come against you, nor against the land ? "2
1 Jer. xxvii. » Jer. xxxvii. 19.

RELATION TO THE CHURCH 297
We must turn now to see what Jeremiah has to
say about the other great phase of the popular
religion, the sacrificial system. The Lord declares
that the people have rejected His law : " Why then
comes there to Me frankincense from Sheba, and the
sweet cane from a far country? Your burnt offer
ings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices pleasing
unto Me."1 Again the prophet says, "Add your
burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat ye flesh"
— Jahveh's part and your own you may eat, for it
is nothing but flesh. " I did not speak to your
fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I
brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning
burnt offerings or sacrifice."2 The sacrificial system
was neither ancient nor authoritative, and what
ever value it may have had was lost by reason
of the wickedness of the people : " When they fast,
I will not hear their cry ; and when they offer burnt
offering and oblation, I will not accept them."3 These
passages are quite enough to show that Jeremiah
did not believe that the priestly law was of Mosaic
origin, or that a holy and just God could be recon
ciled by sacrifice, which meant no more than so much
flesh and blood.
But an institution might be good without owning
Moses as its author. That Jeremiah was not an
image - breaker may be inferred from his remarks
about the Sabbath. He commands the people in
the name of his God to bear no burden on the
Sabbath day, nor to do any work, but to hallow the
1 Jer. vi. 20. 2 Jer. vii. 21 f.
3 Jer. xiv. 12.

298 THE HEBREW PROPHET
day as God had commanded.1 In other words, he
insisted upon the observance of the Decalogue. This
commandment seemed to Jeremiah fraught with
moral power, and therefore he endorsed it heartily.
Sacrifices were offered as a substitute for virtue, and
were therefore intolerable.
There was a popular superstition which gave the
people much comfort, affording another bubble for
this prophet to prick. The temple had become a
very sacred place, and even in the highest thought
it seemed that Jahveh was bound to it in some
mysterious way, so that misfortune to the temple
meant misfortune to God. This was an old super
stition in a new form. In the early days of Samuel,
when the people were hard pressed by the Philistines,
they thought that by taking the sacred ark into the
battle they could compel the presence of Jahveh, and
consequently His favourable intervention. Their eyes
should have been opened by the capture of the ark.
Jeremiah found those who cried " the temple of the
Lord, the temple of the Lord are these," and believed
that in that fact they found assurance of safety. No,
it will not be. It is vain for thieves and murderers
1 Jer. xvii. 19 ff. Duhm and others, as we might readily suppose,
look upon this passage as spurious, on the ground that it belongs to
the interests of the trito-Isaiah, Nehemiah, and their followers. Why
so? This law was published in Jeremiah's day, and opposed as he
was to the priestly system, he may have adhered to the Decalogue,
just as the Puritans struggled fiercely against sacerdotalism, but were
strict Sabbatarians. Jeremiah would probably take positions in the
enthusiasm of the days of reform which he would not follow up in later
days, when he was occupied with graver matters than the Sabbath.
The Church needs to learn that to-day there are weightier matters
than the observance of Sunday.

RELATION TO THE CHURCH 299
to come into the house which is called by God's
name, and say, " We are delivered." So far from the
sanctity of the temple saving the polluted people,
God would destroy this temple, even as He had
destroyed Shiloh long before.
More than any other prophet Jeremiah came into
conflict with the powers that be ; , for men are ever
intolerant when riding to their doom. In his time
there was, it is true, a ray of hope in the reformation
of Josiah, but the good effect of this effort was
destroyed by the king's untimely death. After his
day Judah's course to destruction was swift, both
morally and politically. It was a time when even the
leaders of the people were unwilling to hear rebukes,
when they wanted no man to show them a more
excellent way, and yet God would not let them
perish without sending " Moses and the prophets."
But the man who spoke brave words at such a time
and to such a people was sure to have a sad ex
perience, and to know the full measure of human
suffering. Jeremiah's remarks about the temple first kindled
the flame. The priests, prophets, and people laid hold
of him, saying, "Thou shalt surely die." Jeremiah
had spoken blasphemy in his speech about the
temple, and he was brought to trial on the same
charge which cost our dear Lord His life. It was
a capital offence, and the leaders of the Church were
hungry for blood. But the prophet's time had not
yet come, and he was acquitted by the powerful
intervention of Ahikam the son of Shaphan.1
1 Jer. xxvi. See further on this passage in chap. x.

300 THE HEBREW PROPHET
There was another plot of which we know but
little, and yet that little shows the source of the per
secution, and that at one period at least both prophet
and priest felt that their power was slipping away
on account of Jeremiah's teaching. Here is the
passage : " And they said, Come, let us devise devices
against Jeremiah ; for the law shall not perish from
the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word
from the prophet. Come, let us smite him with the
tongue, and let us not give heed to any of his words."1
Whatever the nature of this conspiracy, it was
certainly successful in drawing from Jeremiah some
fierce imprecations.2 We do not need to endorse
his savage curses, nor have we a right to forget that
he lived six centuries before Christ, and we in the
twentieth century after Christ.
One of the hardest of Jeremiah's trials came from
the hands of Pashhur the priest, and chief officer of
the temple. He was so incensed at the message of
woe that he seized Jeremiah and kept him all night
in the stocks. Did he break his spirit and silence
him by this punishment ? Let us see the situation :
Pashhur has released his prisoner in the morning,
and he stands before him stiff and sore in body,
but fierce and strong in spirit ; and these are his
words: "Not Pashhur has Jahveh called thy name,
but Magor-missabib (terror on every side) : for thus
saith Jahveh, Lo, I will make thee a terror to thyself,
and to all thy friends. By the sword of their foes
they shall fall in the sight of thine eyes. And thou,
Pashhur, and all that dwell in thy house, shall go to
1 Jer. xviii. 18. a Jer. xviii. 21 ff.

RELATION TO THE CHURCH 301
Babylon as captives and die there and be buried
there, thou and all thy friends to whom thou hast
prophesied falsely."1 The prophet and the Church
could not stand very close together in the face of
such conditions. We need scarcely be surprised,
however, that a reaction came when poor Jeremiah
was alone, and that he cried out that God had
deceived him : for he felt that there was no use stand
ing alone any more, as Church and State persistently
sought his life ; so he resolved to give up his sacred
office, and was only held to his duty by the Divine
fire in his bones which was bound to burn its way
out. Jeremiah had to learn by bitter experience the
truth of Emerson's words, " The seer must be a
sayer." In the fourth year of Zedekiah, but a few years
before the fall of Jerusalem, Hananiah openly
challenged Jeremiah, when they were both standing
before a company of priests and people, by crying :
" Thus saith Jahveh, I have broken the yoke of the
king of Babylon. Within two years will I bring
back to this place all the vessels of the house of
Jahveh which Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon
has taken from this place and carried to Babylon.
And Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim the king of
Judah and all the captives of Judah who were
carried to Babylon I will bring back to this place,
saith Jahveh ; for I will break the yoke of the king
of Babylon."2
Let us pause a moment to see the situation which
Jeremiah had to face. It is easy to say that Hananiah
1 Jer. xx. 3 ff. condensed. 2 Jer. xxviii. 2 ff.

302 THE HEBREW PROPHET
was a false prophet,1 to whom the people had no
right to listen. It is easy to say the same thing of
all the other prophets who stood against Jeremiah
and his like. It is easy to see now that they were
false prophets, because they did not speak God's
truth to the people. But a careful investigation
shows that they were not properly called false
prophets, and did not stand before the people as
wolves in .sheep's clothing. They were the members
of the established order,2 and so far had, perhaps,
a better claim upon the people's confidence than
Jeremiah himself. Notice that the chapter relating
this encounter is written in the first person, and is
therefore autobiographical ;3 yet Jeremiah himself ac
cords to his mistaken opponent the title of prophet.4
Jeremiah's answer is not very strong. He appears
to have been face to face with a situation too puzzling
for him to grapple with for the moment, perhaps by
reason of his surprise. "Amen," said Jeremiah to
1 The Septuagint text calls Hananiah a false prophet; rendering
XOJ in Jer. xxviii. I by >j/evdoirpotpjJTT)s. This represents the judgment
of a time long after Jeremiah. See also p. 106 ff.
2 See further in chap. iv.
3 Duhm follows Cornill in emending the text of Jer. xxviii. I by
striking out "OH, and rendering "and Hananiah said unto the priests
and to all the people in the house of Jahveh." The point he makes
is that Jeremiah is everywhere spoken of in the third person. But this
much emending would require more, for Tib means " in the presence
of," and this would have to be struck out in ver. I, and twice in
ver. 5. Moreover, the very point of the whole discussion is that
Hananiah was directly contradicting Jeremiah's plea to wear the yoke
of Babylon (Jer. xxvii.). The change of text is unnecessary has
no support in the versions, and impairs the force of the prophecy.
4 " Hananiali the son of Azzur, the prophet" (Jer. xxviii. 1). '

RELATION TO THE CHURCH 303
his antagonist, "may Jahveh do so; may Jahveh
confirm your words. You speak good news, and
I speak bad news. Look back and answer from
history which is likely to be the true forecast of this
people's fate." Hananiah broke the yoke which
Jeremiah was wearing on his neck as a symbol of
submission ; but a symbol and the thing symbolised
are not always the same. Nothing was easier than
to wrest the yoke from the prophet's neck ; nothing
was more impossible than the wresting of Judah
from the hand of Babylon. Jeremiah declared that
a yoke of iron would take the place of the yoke
of wood, and that Hananiah, who made the people
believe a lie, would atone for his sins by his death ;
" and Hananiah the prophet died in that year in the
seventh month,"1 two months after his bold predic
tion of peace.
We cannot follow Jeremiah through the even
bitterer sufferings yet in store for him. The priests
and prophets had tried in vain to accomplish his
destruction. When they gave it up, the State took
a hand, and then truly Jeremiah experienced living
martyrdom. But he survived to see his persecutors
prisoners in Babylonia, and the Church, which had
resisted the only power to save it, in hopeless decay.
The Church departed further and further from the
teaching of the great prophets, and so became the
deadly formal thing which Jesus found when He
came to earth.
Zephaniah, a contemporary of Jeremiah, saw
disaster threatening his land and people, and naturally
1 Jer. xxviii. 17.

304 THE HEBREW PROPHET
looked about to see what forces were at work which
might avert the calamity. Alas for the day! for
both State and Church were on the side of evil.
" Her princes in the midst of her are roaring lions ;
her judges are evening wolves ; they leave nothing
till the morrow. Her prophets are light and treacher
ous persons ; her priests have profaned the sanctuary,
they have done violence to the law."1 There could
be no harmonious co-operation between a prophet,
zealous for truth and righteousness, and a Church so
corrupt that even the leaders are not to be trusted.
Ezekiel was at heart much under the influence
of his priesthood ; we might call him a zealous high
Churchman ; but he never forgot, as an American
bishop has put it, to take a broad view from a
high standpoint. He was zealous for the law, for
the temple, and for all the Divine institutions of
religion. But he was not blind to the fact that the
Church as it was could hardly claim the favour of
a holy God, who always regarded the inward and
spiritual above the outward and visible.
This priest-prophet was enabled to learn a great
truth from that most effective of teachers, experience.
The attitude of many Jews in exile is expressed
in the pathetic inquiry : " How shall we sing Jahveh's
song in a foreign land ? "2 Without temple or altar 
and the law forbade an altar except at Jerusalem 
many exiles felt like David did,3 that they were
1 Zeph. iii. 3 f. * Psalm cxxxvii. 4.
3 When David was hiding in the hill of Hachilah, he complained
that " they had driven him out that he could not join himself with the
inheritance of Judah, saying, Go, serve other gods" (i Sam. xxvi 19)

RELATION TO THE CHURCH 305
separated from God. Probably Ezekiel felt so at first,
but the visions taught him that God's voice was
effective in Babylon as well as in Judah. O, that men
would learn (adapting Emerson slightly) that God not
merely was, but is ; that He not merely spoke, but
speaks. Ezekiel is led to see that God Himself
would be a sanctuary for a little while to all that
sought Him in the countries where they are come j1
as someone has put it, "God without the temple
is better than the temple without God."
God would bea living temple to those in exile,
but the temple in Jerusalem was barren of the
Divine presence, and so its consecration became null
and void. Thus Ezekiel explains a problem which
had puzzled many. The temple was so sacred to
Jahveh that His failure to defend it to the utmost
was inconceivable. To abandon the place called by
His name would be an inconceivable confession of
weakness. Hence the confidence of the people who
cried, " The temple of Jahveh is here," and regarded it
as a sure talisman of safety. Yes, said Ezekiel, your
major premises are all right. Jahveh is omnipotent.
Before Him all the armies of the world are but
pigmies. As long as the temple was the place where
Jahveh had caused His name to dwell, it was in
violable. But Jahveh has withdrawn from the sanc
tuary of Zion : " Then did the cherubim spread
Being outside of Jahveh's bounds, he could not worship his God. So
Naaman the Syrian felt that in order to worship Jahveh in Damascus
he must carry away a bit of the soil of Jahveh's land (2 Kings v. 17).
To this day there is a fondness for baptism with water carried from the
river Jordan.
1 Eiek. xi. 16.

306 THE HEBREW PROPHET
their wings, and the wheels were beside them ; and
the glory of the God of Israel was over them above.
And the glory of Jahveh rose from the midst of the
city, and stood on the mountain which is eastward of
the city."1 Jahveh abandons the wicked city to its
fate, for the temple has become unclean, and so is no
longer a fit habitation for Him ; and without Jahveh
the temple is of no avail.
Yet Ezekiel's feeling for the temple was so strong
that he could not but hold the impious hand lifted
against it as guilty. At the head of Amnion's sins
stands their blasphemous cry, "Aha," when the
sanctuary was profaned.2 So a later poet-prophet
prayed against Edom : —
" Remember, Jahveh, against the sons of Edom,
The day of Jerusalem,
Who were crying, Rase it, rase it [the temple]
Even to the foundation thereof." 3
God was driven away from His sanctuary, not by
Babylonian arms, but by the gross impurity of
His own chosen people. We have already seen4
how the leading men were engaged in idolatrous
worship in various forms in the sacred precincts.
Ezekiel does not mention any priests5 as participants,
but as they had acquiesced, whereas they should
have resisted even at the cost of their lives they
were adjudged guilty. The evil condition may be
come such that even the benign Son of Man must
» Ezek. xi. 22 f. 2Ezek. xxv. 3.
3 Psalm cxxxvn. 7. « See ch x3
The ' elders" mentioned (Ezek. viii. „) were civil officers

RELATION TO THE CHURCH 307
needs take a scourge to drive out those who were
defiling God's courts.
•- The work of destruction was committed to the six
mysterious beings, each with his slaughter weapon in
his hand,1 and from whose blows those only were
exempt upon whose forehead the scribe had placed
a mark. When they commenced operations this
significant command was given, " Begin at My sanc
tuary," 2 for there the most culpable would be found.
They were ordered to defile the house by filling the
courts with the slain.
Ezekiel knew that many of the woes of Jerusalem
were due to the misguiding voices of those who gave
messages in the name of Jahveh. He has a prophecy
against these deluding voices.3 They " speak out of
their own heart," that is, follow their own inclination.
They have been to Israel like foxes in the waste
places. They have made men hope for that which
would never come to pass. Women as well as men
were involved in this guilt. For handfuls of barley
and for pieces of bread (fees) they had profaned God
among the people, trying to save the worthless and
to destroy the good.4
The priests were equally at fault. They have done
violence to the law, and have profaned the holy
things, confusing the holy and the common, and
annulling the Sabbath law.5 Jerusalem would fall,
not because of her ecclesiastical institutions, but
because the wickedness of men would make them of
no effect.1 Ezek. ix. 2. 2 Ezek. ix. 6. 3 Ezek. xiii.
4 Ezek. xiii. 17 ff. B Ezek. xxii. 26.

308 THE HEBREW PROPHET
Ezekiel looked upon the Church as playing a great
r61e in the restoration which would come in the
future. In the new Jerusalem no prophet appears,
but the temple area occupies a large part of Jewish
territory, that is, the whole land would be sacred ; and
the priest holds a position superior even to that of
the prince.
There was a prophet whose name we do not know,
but whose works place him at the very forefront of
all the men of God in Hebrew history — the author
of Isaiah liii. Whether he lived in the exile, or in
the dark days in Jerusalem which followed the
restoration, it is not easy to say. Whether he is
depicting the fortunes of an individual or of the
nation of Israel is a moot question. I can only
venture my opinion that the experience so feelingly
described is that of a martyr for righteousness' sake,
and that the scene of his sufferings was on foreign soil.
The sufferer had been a prophet in the true sense ;
he had been a stout upholder of the religion of
Jahveh; and his steadfastness in that religion had
brought him into the toils. He was entirely un
supported by the men of his own race ; indeed, they
looked upon his tribulations as not only inflictions
from God, but as just punishments for his wrong.
Some of the people came to see their error. They
not only could admire the great fortitude of one who
went to the slaughter like a lamb, but they came to
see that the suffering endured was vicarious, the
innocent suffering for the guilty. It is not surprising
that after the Passion of our Lord, this passage took
an exalted place in Messianic prophecy.

RELATION TO THE CHURCH 309
But the number of those who saw their error must
have been small. There could have been no general
opening of the eyes of the Jewish Church even to a
single concrete fact like this. For if the Jews had
followed their prophets, in this and other cases, their
political history might have been much the same :
they might still have been in bondage to Egypt,
Philistia, Assyria, Babylon, and Rome ; but they
would not have crucified their Messiah. Only the
children of those who slew the prophets could have
led Jesus Christ to Calvary. The noble prophecy is
in truth a forecast as well as a history ; for without a
great change in sentiment, the race which could gloat
over this innocent victim would not scruple to take
the life of one greater than their father Abraham.
But the prophets had to learn not to fear man,
who could destroy only the body, but God, who
could destroy both body and soul. They were bound
to discover in due season that the world, or even the
Church, which should embody the highest stage of
religious enlightenment, does not welcome a voice
out of harmony with its institutions. Another pro
phet of the same period describes his own fate, and
shows thereby how his message was received by his
fellows : —
" The Lord Jahveh has given me the tongue of
disciples to know how to sustain the weary with a
word. He quickens by morning, by morning He
quickens in me the ear to hear as disciples. The
Lord Jahveh opened my ear, and I was not obstinate,
nor did I turn back [from the dangerous message].
I bent my back to those who smite, and my cheeks I

310 THE HEBREW PROPHET
turned to those who pluck the beard ; I turned not
my face from abuse and spitting. The Lord Jahveh
strengthens me; therefore I am not confounded,
therefore I set my face like flint, and know that I
shall not be confused." J
One might imagine that such a story comes from
an age when there was a regularly established in
quisition to suppress those who adhered to the true
message from God. The worst persecutions of the
Christians were not those inflicted by Jews or
Romans, but those devised by their brethren of the
same faith. No foreign punishment compared in
severity to the Spanish Inquisition. So the worst
afflictions of the Hebrew prophet came ever from
the Jewish Church.
In the post-exilic period the prophets stand in
close and friendly relation to the Church. The first
of them, Haggai, as we have already seen,2 was
chiefly concerned with the rebuilding of the temple.
We find in him a sad decline from the great spiritual
leaders who had preceded him ; for he seems to look
upon the temple as the talisman by whose instru
mentality peace and prosperity would come to the
new Israel. He explains the dearth and hardship
which characterised the early days of the restoration
as due to the neglect of the temple.3 The people
had sought each one his own welfare, but when
asked to join in the rebuilding of the house of the
Lord, had replied, " The time is not come."4 God
punished the people for their indifference by causing
1 Isa. 1. 4 ff- a See chap. x.
3 Hag; i. 5-1 1. « Hag. i. 2.

RELATION TO THE CHURCH 311
the heavens to withhold the dew and the earth its
fruit.1 Haggai had to appeal not only to the people, but
to the governor, and to the high-priest, Joshua. Even
the latter seems to have shown no zeal for the re
storation of the ritual until aroused by the prophet.2
After the foundation was laid, Haggai again reviews
the history of the times, explaining the dearth as a
Divine punishment ; but now that the work of recon
structing the temple is under way, he promises that
from that day forward God will bless the land with
plenty.3 Zechariah seems to have taken a prominent part
in the investiture of the high-priest Joshua. At least
Ewald's explanation of that somewhat mysterious
passage in chapter iii. seems to me still the most
probable. The priest had been constrained to exer
cise his functions in garments that were unsuitable to
the high office. The opposition was so vigorous that
the prophet presents the picture of Satan standing
against the priest. The people were seemingly as un
willing to contribute for ecclesiastical vestments as for
temple building. But the prophet triumphs and sees
the priest clothed in the rich apparel which belonged
to his office, and with a clean mitre upon his head.
Zechariah succeeded in persuading certain men
who had returned from exile, and who were appar
ently possessed of considerable means, to provide
gold and silver to make crowns for the high-priest.
In crowning Joshua, Zechariah even goes so far as to
declare that the priest finds in himself the fulfilment
1 Hag. i. 10. 2 Hag. i. 14. 8 Hag. ii. 10-19.

312 THE HEBREW PROPHET
of his Messianic prophecy;1 for he is the very
Branch who shall build the temple, and bear the
glory, and rule upon the throne. Ezekiel's prophecy
is fulfilled, and we have fairly established in this era
a form of government in which the civil power is
subordinate to the ecclesiastical. Alas! that no
Church, Jewish or Christian, has ever been able to
bear that supremacy. We may content ourselves
with the belief that the failure was due to its not
being of God, and that the law "he that exalted
himself shall be humbled" applies to Churches as
well as to individuals.
Priests and people alike recognise the prophet as
the oracle of God. A grave question arises as to
the observance of the fasts2 which had been kept
during the exile, as a mark of the humiliation of
that period and as a plea to Jahveh to bring back
the captivity of His people. Should those fasts be
still kept up, now that their appropriateness is no
longer apparent? The law threw no light on such
a question, and therefore the priests could give no
answer. They were bound now to the written law,
in which they were the recognised authorities.3 The
prophet, however, could deal with this new problem ;
for by him a new revelation could come. And
Zechariah rises to one of his highest levels in his
answer : the fasts kept in the exile were but selfish
1 Zech. vi. 9 ff. ; cf. iii. 8.
5 There were four of these fasts : that of the fourth month, marking
the capture of Jerusalem (Jer. xxxix. 2) ; of the fifth, marking its
destruction (2 Kings xxv. 8) ; of the seventh, marking the murder of
Gedaliah (Jer. xii.); and of the tenth, marking the beginning of the
siege of Jerusalem (2 Kings xxv. i). » Hag. ii. n ff.

RELATION TO THE CHURCH 313
rites rather than an honour to Jahveh ; J Jahveh still
prefers mercy to sacrifice; justice, kindness, com
passion are the traits demanded by Him ; 3 therefore
the fast days shall become the days of joy and glad
ness and cheerful feasts; indicative of the love of
truth and peace.3
"Malachi"4 is concerned about the kind of sacri
ficial offerings made by the priests. Between the
tribute from their flocks for the governor and for the
priests, the people doubtless felt themselves to be in
an evil case. There was no shading of the quality
of the governor's quota ; but as Jahveh's part went
to the priests, it was customary to offer inferior
animals. Against this the prophet lifts his voice in
vigorous protest : " O priests, that despise My name.
You offer polluted bread upon My altar. You say,
The table of Jahveh is contemptible. And when you
offer the blind for sacrifice, it is no evil ! and when
you offer the lame and the sick, it is no evil ! " 5 " You
say also, Behold, what a weariness it is! and you
have sniffed at it. . . . Cursed be the deceiver, who
hath in his flock a male, and makes a vow and
sacrifices unto the Lord a blemished thing."6 The
priesthood has become so corrupt that the prophet
must need hold up to the priests the proper observ
ance of the ritual laws.
Malachi has much to say besides against the
priests.7 He holds up the true ideal of the priest
hood : " The priest's lips should guard knowledge,
and they should seek the law from his mouth ; for
1 Zech. vii. 5 ff. 2 Zech. vii. 9. 3 Zech. viii. 19.
4 Additional note (13). ' Mai. i. 6 ff. « Mai. i. 13 ff. ' Mai. ii.

314 THE HEBREW PROPHET
he is the messenger of Jahveh of hosts."1 The
actual condition was very different : " You are turned
aside from the way; you have caused many to
stumble in the law; you have corrupted the
covenant of Levi."2
Malachi's idea of righteousness is the observance
of the ordinances.3 He does, indeed, say some
wholesome things against divorce.4 But one of his
great charges against the people is that they have
robbed God by failing to pay their quota of tithes
and offerings.5 Let the people bring the whole tithe
into the sacred storehouse, that there may be food
in the temple, and then God will make Judah a
bountiful land.6
Still more has prophecy lost its true note in Joel,
who was probably the latest of the canonical prophets.
Joel was more priest than prophet, so that when
famine swept over the land as a result of drought
and vast swarms of locusts, the remedy proposed is
to seek the favour of God by a great fast, at which
the priests standing between the porch and the altar
were to say this litany : " Spare Thy people, Jahveh,
and give not Thy heritage to reproach, that the
nations should rule over them : wherefore should they
say among the peoples, Where is their God ? " 7 The
blessings which God showered upon the land, by
driving away the great army of locusts and by pour
ing the rain from heaven, are traced to this supplica
tion of the priests.
1 Mai. ii. 7. 2 Mai. ii. 8. 3 Mai. iii. 7.
" Mai. ii. 14 ff. e Mai. iii. 8. • Mai. iii. 10.
7 Joel ii. 17 ; cf. Psalm xiii. 3, 10.

RELATION TO THE CHURCH 315
But Joel rises to a great height once, when he
points out the coming day on which God's Spirit
will be poured upon all flesh.1 The knowledge of
God's will shall not be limited to priest and prophet,
for the sons and daughters shall prophesy, the old
men shall dream dreams, the young men shall see
visions, and even upon the servants and handmaids
will God's Spirit be poured.
We see that the voice of prophecy was becoming
faint as the sun sets on the long day of Israel's great
religious fervour. The approach of the long night of
legalism was at hand. There were no great prophets
to avert the doom, and the Jewish Church sank into
that deadly state from which Jesus sought in vain
to arouse it.
The prophets never turned their back upon the
Church ; the Church turned its back upon them.
They never separated from the Church, nor would
they be driven out. They worked for the purifica
tion of the Church, but always from the inside. In
this they were followed by our Lord. He went to
Jerusalem to keep the feast, and went out of the
city only to go to Calvary. The Church finds much
opposition from outside, but criticism is always more
effective from inside. But those on the inside are
so apt to become dead and blind like those lying
prophets. The Church should be especially grateful
for every voice for betterment which comes from
within her bosom.
If the time shall ever come — it has never yet
been — when there shall be but one fold and one
1 Joel ii. 28 ff.

316 THE HEBREW PROPHET
Shepherd, there will not then necessarily be a perfect
Church ; but one great element in her power will be
that all the forces which make for Christian progress
and moral purity will come from within.
In the contest between the prophets and the
established religious order of their times, our sym
pathies are of course on the side of the prophets.
They were right and the Church was wrong. But
the lessons of all history warn us nevertheless to be
charitable in our judgment. In this enlightened age
the Church still occasionally lays violent hands upon
a prophet. The Church has no desire to crush truth ;
she aims to conserve it. The trouble is always due
to the inability to see what the truth actually is.
Despite opposition and persecution, the Church
was influenced by the prophets. The Church always
in a way heeds the voices of those she martyrs.
Jastrow thus gives a general estimate of that in
fluence : " The prophetical movement gave an ethical
flavour to the conception of the national deity . . .
resulted in the creation of an elaborate legal code,
in which all the rites of the religion and the functions
of the priesthood are brought into accord with the
principles of ethical monotheism as preached by the
prophets." 1 Though the Jewish Church fell far away
from the prophetic ideal, it was at all events the
better for the preaching of the prophets. In the
long run the prophet is bound to find his audience
and exert his influence. However hard people may
try to stop their ears, the voice of truth slowly
penetrates all obstructions.
1 The Study of Religion, p. 79.

CHAPTER XIII
THE PROPHET'S VISION
IN this closing chapter I propose to gather up
some points of interest which have not found
a place in the preceding discussion. To do this I
use the term " vision " in no technical and limited
sense, but to indicate rather the prophet's broad out
look upon the world, and also his conception of God.
His vision really included both things. The prophet
became a spokesman because he was first a man with
a vision. The gloss in i Samuel ix. 91 is correct in
one sense : it gives the true order of development.
Nabi probably means speaker ;2 roeh certainly means
" one who sees." In the course of the development
of prophecy there must have been men who saw
before there were men who said. So with the in
dividual : a man must be a seer before he can be a
prophet. Isaiah must have his vision in the temple
before he can face Ahaz at the conduit of the upper
pool.3 The true prophet felt that his power to see was the
1 " He that is now called the prophet was beforetime called the
seer " ; see further above, p. 30.
2 Opinion is divided whether nabi means a spokesman, as, e.g.,
Winckler maintains, or one who bubbles (under the influence of the
Spirit), as, e.g., Kraetzschmar maintains. See additional note (14).
3 Isa. vii. 3. 3'7

318 THE HEBREW PROPHET
gift of God. His eyes saw, because Jahveh had
opened them. His ears heard, because the Lord had
quickened them. Hence it was that he stood by his
vision even when it brought him persecution from
Church or State. Hence also his isolation ; for the
prophets were, as a rule, men distrusted by their con
temporaries. Rarely in all history has a great
prophet had a general following in his lifetime.
Jeremiah, Socrates, and Jesus Christ alike had the
experience which belongs to the order of prophets.
Man seems to dislike and distrust a vision keener
than his own.
The prophet was not only vouchsafed occasional
glimpses into the mysteries of heaven, but he felt
that he was accorded a full knowledge of the Divine
purposes ; in fact, his whole life seemed to be pos
sessed of the Spirit of God, and directed whitherso
ever God would. The old writer shows the prophetic
idea when he represents Jahveh as constrained to
reveal to Abraham His purpose to destroy Sodom
and Gomorrah.1 So Amos states the broad principle :
" Verily the Lord Jahveh will take no action except
He disclose His purpose to His servants the
prophets."2 The old seer Micaiah knew that the prophets who
were predicting a successful campaign for Ahab were
altogether wrong. He could not explain their error
as we can,3 but was constrained to give an interpreta-
1 Gen. xviii. 17 ff. The passage is assigned to J. (the Jahvist), the
oldest of the Pentateuchal sources, and the one most endowed with the
prophetic spirit.
2 Amos iii. 7. 3 This incident is fully treated on p. 52 ff.

THE PROPHET'S VISION 319
tion of their fault in accordance with his idea that the
prophets were entirely dominated by Jahveh. There
fore he describes his vision of the lying spirit which
had come down to pervert the vision of Ahab's
prophets,1 and so lead the king to disaster.
Shortly before the invasion of Sennacherib, Isaiah
is led to speak with astonishment of the blindness of
the people, because they could not see what was press
ing so near. Apparently there were no prophetic voices
lifted up to warn the people, a fact which required
explanation. The prophet interpreted the silence of
the seers in a way that shows his idea of the Divine
dominance of the prophets : " For Jahveh has poured
upon you a spirit of heavy slumber ; He has tightly
shut your eyes the prophets ; and He has covered your
heads the seers."2 The prophets do not see and the
seers do not hear ; the closing of the eyes and the
covering of the head, by which this condition is
brought about, are only explicable as coming from
God. The prophet can only speak as he is moved
of God, and can only keep silent as he is restrained
of God. Here, indeed, is a new and fruitful idea,
the inspiration of silence. Such inspiration surely is
as necessary as any other. It is sometimes easier
to act than to be quiet, easier to speak than to hold
one's peace. Our Blessed Lord was no whit less
conspicuously the Son of God when He "answered
not a word," than when He cried, " Woe unto you,
Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! "
A good illustration of the completeness of God's
1 Ezekiel held essentially the same idea ; see Ezek. xiv. 9.
2 Isa. xxix. 10.

320 THE HEBREW PROPHET
control over the prophets is shown in Ezekiel's dumb
ness. The prophet was told at the very beginning of
his ministry that God would make his tongue cleave
to his mouth, so that he would be dumb, and unable
to engage in the useless task of reproving the rebel
lious house of Israel.1 This dumbness was appointed
to last until the fall of Jerusalem,2 that is, for some
five years. Whether the prophet was unable to
speak during all that time may be doubtful ; cer
tainly we have prophecies from the period. But it
surely means that Ezekiel was not to prophesy
actively during that hopeless time, when it was clear
that neither the purpose of the people to sin nor
the purpose of God to punish could be changed.
And it means that God's control over His prophet
is absolute.On the other hand, the hard facts so plainly told in
the Bible have constrained men to abandon the un
fortunate doctrine of mechanical inspiration. The
notion of Athenagoras, "the Spirit making use of
them as a flute player breathes into a flute," 3 offers a
theory of prophecy inconsistent with the facts, and
unsatisfying to man's aspirations. Man rejoices to be
a servant of the Most High, but desires to consecrate
to that service all the faculties with which God has
endowed him. The facts which I shall proceed to
point out are not inconsistent, however, with the
statement in the Nicene Creed, "Who spake by
the prophets." Complete as God's control of the
seer was, he was never a mere machine operated by
1 Ezek. iii. 25 f. a Ezek. xxiv. 27.
3 A Plea for the Christians, chap. ix.

THE PROPHET'S VISION 321
Divine power. He was never constrained to lay aside
his natural intelligence.
The prophet did not always have immediately at
command a message which was surely the word of
God. Often he must labour and struggle to catch
the suggestion from on high. Jeremiah on one occa
sion waited ten days for the required answer ; and
they must have been days of mental and spiritual
travail. When the captains came to the prophet,
after the fall of Jerusalem and the murder of
Gedaliah, to know whether they should go to Egypt,
or take their chances against Nebuchadrezzar's wrath
by abiding in the land of Judah, Jeremiah sent them
away, and it was only after ten days' waiting that he
was satisfied to give them advice which he was sure
represented the mind of God.1
The prophet might give his oracle and then be led
to change it. Nathan at first counselled David to
carry out his purpose to build a temple for Jahveh ;
but after sleeping over the matter, he said positively
that David should not build the house, but that the
task should be reserved for the more peaceful times
of David's son.2 It cannot be supposed that God
changed His mind during the night. If Nathan's
final advice was right, then at first he spoke without
knowledge of the Divine will.3 Similarly Isaiah
1 Jer. xiii. 7. 2 2 Sam. vii. 1 ff.
3 No essential change is required in the interpretation above if one
holds with Budde that ver. 13 is a Deuteronomic interpolation, and
that the original passage knows nothing of the Solomonic temple
(Biicher Samuel, in he.). Nathan did first counsel David to build the
house, and then not to do so, even if he did not predict Solomon's
building. Y

322 THE HEBREW PROPHET
went to Hezekiah, lying apparently on his death-bed,
and advised him to set his house in order for he
would surely die; further, he prefaced his message
with the formula, " Thus saith Jahveh." x But before
the harbinger of evil had reached the middle of the
palace court 2 he was commanded to go back and bid
the king good cheer, for he would yet live fifteen
years.3 It is true that it might be said that it was
first God's intention that the king should die, and
then that the intention was changed by reason of
Hezekiah's prayer. To say nothing of the doubtful
ness of such an interpretation, it would remain the
fact that Isaiah was not possessed of the know
ledge which belonged to God. For God must have
known the whole story, whatever the outcome was
to be.
Elisha was puzzled to find that a calamity had
befallen the Shunamite whose hospitality he had
enjoyed, and " Jahveh had hid it from him, and had
not informed him." 4 He felt that there was some
thing strange that the child miraculously born to the
woman should have died without his knowledge. It
seemed wrong that the woman should come to him
in distress without his knowing the cause of her
1 2 Kings xx. i. = Isa. xxxviii. i.
2 The English versions follow written text and read ' ' city " instead
of "court" ; the qeri, or emended text, which I have followed, seems
to be right here (see Kittel, Kbnigsbucher, in he). Isaiah had not got
away from the palace before the new message was given to him.
3 2 Kings xx. 4 ff. The parallel in Isaiah xxxviii. omits the note of
time. The story seemingly was already a puzzle to the Chronicler ; for
he mentions the sickness and recovery of the king, but is silent about
the contradictory messages of the prophet.
* 2 Kings iv. 27.

THE PROPHET'S VISION 323
sorrow. The vision of the prophet was not broad
enough to comprehend all the events which happened
even in the narrow range of his own life.
Again the prophet shows his limitations in his
attempt to restore the child. God must be the source
of the rekindled life, and God is not dependent upon
any particular means. It would suffice, then, to ac
complish the resurrection by a simple process ; and
so Gehazi is sent with Elisha's staff and directed to
lay it upon the face of the child. The servant did
as he was bid ; but there was neither voice nor hear
ing, and the discomfited agent had to go back and
report, " The child is not awaked."
The mother, with the truer womanly instinct, had
little faith in the staff. She refused to leave the
seer's abode unless he accompanied her, and in
response to her importunity Elisha started to Shunem
to learn from Gehazi on the way how needful indeed
was his presence there. When he went to the
chamber, not with a talisman, but with personal
ministration, then "the flesh of the child waxed warm,"
and with renewed efforts, the eyes were opened, and
the living child was restored to his mother.
The word of a prophet, though uncontradicted by
him, was not necessarily final for all time. The vision
might stand for the moment, and yet not reach the
high plane of eternal truth. Jehu was not only
anointed by a prophet, acting under advice from
Elisha, but he was commanded to slay every male
child of the house of Ahab.1 Jahveh commended
Jehu, doubtless by the mouth of a prophet, for his
1 2 Kings ix. 8.

324 THE HEBREW PROPHET
zeal in making a holocaust of the Baal worshippers,
and for shedding the blood of the royal house.1 But
Hosea's vision came nearer to the truth of God
than Elisha's, and one of his sharpest censures is
directed against the bloodshed of the house of Jehu.2
God inspired Elisha, and the same God inspired
Hosea — at least, so I think — but they were not mere
flutes, helpless except as touched by the hand that
plays them. Hosea lived in a later day, and was
possessed of finer instincts than the plowman, and
so his vision comprehended a truth to which his less
enlightened brother was blind.
The perplexity of St. Peter at the vision which he
saw upon the housetop at Joppa 3 is illuminative of
the way in which God deals with all His prophets.
A suggestion is given which must be interpreted and
applied. An idea is breathed into the mind of the
seer, but the idea is a seed which must be converted
into fruit, and the husbandman will by no means be
relieved of his share in that labour. Habakkuk was
sorely puzzled by the facts which he saw — the great
heathen power of Babylon inflicting ruin on a nation
which, with all its shortcomings, was holier than its
assailants. His own efforts must help him to resolve
his doubts.
We ought not to think it strange that there was a
limitation set to the prophet's vision ; that he was
not able to forecast the future with detailed accuracy,4
1 2 Kings x. 30. 2 Hosea i. 4. 3 Acts x.
4 The non-fulfilment of many prophetic predictions is a certain fact
in the phenomena of prophecy ; but the subject is too large to be
adequately treated here. See, however, p. 121 ff.

THE PROPHET'S VISION 325
nor even to grasp always the range of events of his
own time. For Jesus taught a doctrine which sweeps
aside all the ideas which have so tenaciously clung
about the overloaded doctrine of inspiration. Jesus
declared that the humble fisher-folk of the Sea of
Galilee had a broader vision of heavenly things than
the greatest prophet of Hebrew history. "Many
prophets and righteous men desired to see the things
which ye see, and saw them not ; and to hear the
things which ye hear, and heard them not."1 The
prophets of Israel were greater men than the disciples
of Jesus ; but the vision of Jesus was infinitely
truer than that of the seers, and the humble disciples
were given some of the results of their Master's
insight. The errant vision of the seers unhappily extended
at times even to the moral sphere. Moses is reputed
to be the author of the Decalogue ; but he who
engraved upon the stone the words, " Thou shalt not
steal," counselled his people to plunder the Egyptians
on the eve of their departure from the land of
bondage. The sacred writer says that this counsel
was given by Moses at the express command of
God,2 and that Jahveh gave them favour in the eyes
of the Egyptians so as to further their evil project.3
Samuel was too much afraid of Saul openly to
anoint David as his rival claimant to the throne.
He had recourse to a subterfuge. He pretended that
he had come to Bethlehem merely to offer a sacrifice.
Under cover of that sacrifice he secretly anointed the
1 Matt. xiii. 17. 2 Exod. xi. 1 f.
3 Exod. xii. 36.

326 THE HEBREW PROPHET
youthful shepherd as the king of all Israel.1 One
may well say that that is no great evil, and indeed it
would not be a very great sin for even such a man as
Samuel to dissemble in order to save his life. But
we are told that Samuel's deception was due to the
command of God, and that brings the matter sharply
home as serious. What we might easily understand
and extenuate in Samuel, we can neither understand
nor extenuate in God. It is one of the gifts of
modern study that we can grasp the true situation.
The errant vision of the seer explains the whole
problem. That Samuel mistook his guidance, that
he attributed to God a plan devised in his own mind,
shows not only the solution of a moral difficulty in
the Bible, but also reveals the nature of the prophet's
vision. It is not always easy to be sure whether one
is seeing with one's own eyes or another's. The
prophets were not relieved of the perplexities and
dangers of life by virtue of their relation to God.
It is a strange thing that the gravest of such
errant visions is chargeable to Jeremiah. The poor
persecuted prophet had long been a prisoner ; Ebed-
melech, the Ethiopian eunuch, had just rescued him
from the miry pit. He was brought to the king for
consultation, and was given a glimpse of the king's
intentions, which Zedekiah did not care to have
known by his court. He therefore charged the
prophet not to disclose the interview, but, if ques
tioned, to pretend that he had only petitioned the
king not to send him back to the dungeon, where he
had nearly died. Jeremiah was promptly interro-
1 I Sam. xvi.

THE PROPHET'S VISION 327
gated by the princes, who were evidently suspicious
of the king's loyalty to the fast-sinking ship, and " he
told them according to all those words that the king
had commanded " ; and the historian, who was
probably Baruch, adds with an ill-concealed glee, " So
they left off speaking with him ; for the matter was
not perceived."1 It is true that there is this relief in
this passage : we are not told that Jeremiah's action
was counselled or approved of God. Probably
Baruch would not have ventured so far as that.
The prophets betray the limitations of their visions
again in the personal imprecations which now and
again disfigure the otherwise fair pages of their
writings. It seems to be the natural law that he
who suffered most was most bitter in his maledic
tions. Amos predicted a dark future for the priest
who essayed to stay the voice of Jahveh's seer ; his
wife would be a harlot, his children fall by the sword,
his land be confiscated, and he himself die in a foreign
land.2 Jeremiah was far from gentle in his wishes
for those who conspired against him and his mission :
"Deliver up their children to the famine, and give
them over to the power of the sword : and let their
wives become childless, and widows ; let their men be
slain of death, and their young men smitten of the
sword in battle."3 On other occasions, too, his fierce
wrath broke loose against his oppressors.
It is not difficult for us, who are men of like
passions with the prophets, to understand such
utterances; nor is it difficult for us to realise that
1 Jer. xxxviii. 14-28. 2 Amos vii. 17.
3 Jer. xviii. 21.

328 THE HEBREW PROPHET
they are hopelessly inconsistent with the teaching,
" Love your enemies, and pray for them that perse
cute you." Amos and Jeremiah had many true
visions, but their imprecations were never written in
their hearts by the Spirit of God.
A frank treatment of the Hebrew prophet de
mands that such limitations should be candidly
stated. But we should be careful not to exaggerate
the shortcomings of the prophets. The real cause for
wonder is not that there are such shortcomings, but
that they are so few. The general character of the
visions seen of the prophets is the highest attestation
that they were men moved by the Holy Ghost.
The character of the men agreed with the character
of their visions. The prophets stood out of the mass
of men not only by their lips, but also by their lives.
Isaiah saw that clean lips were a prerequisite to in
spired utterance.1 The seer can never be a rogue.
In the long run no man can have high visions and
lead a low life. There have been cases when men
came near to it, but there is always a lack somewhere.
Our Lord stated the eternally binding conditions in
the beatitudes : " Blessed are the pure in heart, for
they shall see God." God is not visible on any other
terms whatsoever.
Micah knew that he was full of power by the
Spirit of Jahveh, but that the herd of seers were shut
in darkness so that they had no vision. The evil
character of their lives explained their inability to
know what God's high purposes were. So Jeremiah,
in denouncing the bodies of prophets, always connects
1 See Isa. vi. 5 ff.

THE PROPHET'S VISION 329
their false visions with their base lives. Origen long
ago saw the truth of the matter, in this and other
points ; and I quote this brief extract : " In regard to
the prophets among the Jews, some of them were
wise even before they became divinely inspired pro
phets, while others became wise by the illumination
which their minds received when divinely inspired.
They were selected by Divine Providence to receive
the Divine Spirit, and to be the depositories of His
holy oracles, on the ground of their leading a life of
almost unapproachable excellence, intrepid, noble,
unmoved by danger or death. For reason teaches
that such ought to be the character of the prophets
of the Most High";1 and we may add, the record
shows that such was their character.
Our Lord stated the same truth in another way
when He gave warning against false prophets : " By
their fruits ye shall know them." And the fruit which
Jesus meant was not only of the lips, but of the life
as well. That our Lord meant moral fruits as well as
eloquence or orthodoxy is clearly shown by another
saying in the same passage : " Not every one that
saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the king
dom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of My
Father which is in heaven."2 To call Jesus " Lord "
is indeed well ; but alone it does not suffice. Many
may do that, and be barred from the Kingdom, a fate
which will never befall a simple soul who does the
will of God.
The Hebrew prophet was made what he was by
Divine inspiration and by moral character. Another
1 Against Celsus, chap. vii. 2 Matt vii. 21.

330 THE HEBREW PROPHET
factor contributed a share to his equipment. The
greatest of all was the best educated, for example.
But inspiration and character are the two essential
requirements. Prophets are needed in every age. The model
for all modern seers is found in the Bible. Then let
him who aspires to visions of God not forget the
fundamental condition, purity of heart. The more
perfect a man's mental fitness, the higher may be
his visions ; but no matter what his other acquire
ments are, his visions of God will be dependent upon
the cleanness of his life.

ADDITIONAL NOTES

(i) Ramah (p. 5)
SAUL'S servant said, " There is a man of God in
this city,"1 but the name of the city is not mentioned
here or elsewhere in the narrative. It is clear, however, that
the writer meant the city where Samuel resided permanently,
for on entering the city Saul asks the to him unknown Samuel,
"Tell me I pray where the seer's house is."2
The later narrative of the Books of Samuel always names
Ramah as Samuel's residence ; it was, in fact, his birthplace,
residence, and burial-place.3 It is plain that Ramathaim-
zophim4 is an error, and that we should probably read, " a man
of the Ramathites, a Zuphite."5
On the authority of this later narrative nearly all Biblical
scholars have identified the unnamed city of ix. 6 with Ramah.
Budde, however, contends that if the author had known the
name of the city he would have given it, and that the situation
of Ramah makes it inadmissible here.6 The author may not
have known the name of Samuel's city, but it does not follow
that even a later writer may not have been better informed. As
to the geographical situation, it must be admitted that the
journey of Saul and his servant' is not very clear to us.
The stages of the journey are given as Mt. Ephraim, Shali-
shah, Shaalim, land of the Benjamites, land of Zuph. At the
last-named place Saul resolved to turn back, lest his father
1 I Sam. ix. 6. 2 lb. v. 18.
3 I Sam. i. 19; ii. 11 ; vii. 17; viii. 4; xx. 34; xvi. 13; xix. 18 ff.;
xxv. I ; xxviii. 3.
4 1 Sam. i. 1. ° Budde, H. P. Smith.
6 Die Biicher Samuel, in he. 7 I Sam. ix. 4 f.
331

332 THE HEBREW PROPHET
should worry about the searchers more than the lost. It is
natural, therefore, that Zuph should mark the furthest point on
the journey. If that is the case, then the land of Benjamin
could not be the fourth stage in their course, but must have
been the first, for Benjamin was their home and starting-point.
Moreover, Saul would scarcely have said, " Let us go back, ' if
they were already returned to the vicinity of his home. Efforts
have been made to locate Shalishah and Shaalim, but so far no
convincing suggestion has appeared. The fact seems to be
that the text is in disorder, Benjamin and Ephraim having been
transposed. Changing the verbs to the plural, as the sense
requires, and as the LXX. reads, we then get the following :
" And they went through the land of Benjamin, and did not
find them ; and they went through the land of Shalishah, and did
not find them ; and they went through the land of Shaalim, and
they were not there ; and they went through Mt. Ephraim :
they had come into the land of Zuph, and Saul said to his
servant, who was with him, Come, let us go back." This makes
the journey intelligible as far as we know it, and brings the
searchers to a halt in the country of Samuel, for Zuph was in
Mt. Ephraim, or on its borders. Cheyne's proposal to read
Mizpah instead of Zuph1 gives us a city with which Samuel
was intimately associated, but the change is arbitrary and un
necessary. The emendation proposed has this further support : the
phrase, "they did not find them" (or an equivalent), occurs after
each place-name until we come to Mt. Ephraim and Zuph,
where it is lacking. The author here is concerned with the
return of the searchers, and evidently did not regard Mt.
Ephraim and Zuph as successive stages, but as essentially
identical. Ramah, too, was in the hill country of Ephraim, and
is very likely the place where Saul found Samuel.
(2) Amos iii. 7 (p. 10)
This passage has long been regarded as the classic instance
of the prophet's foreknowledge. Steiner long ago said, " These
1 " Zuph," Encyc. Bibl.

ADDITIONAL NOTES 333
words contain the justification of prophecy in general and of
Amos in particular." It has seemed to be significant that
this view of prophecy should be found in the first literary
prophet. In recent days, however, the authenticity of the passage has
been seriously questioned. All the arguments are summed up
by Marti : (1) It intolerably disturbs the connexion. (2) It is
of a different structure from 4-6, 8. (3) Its theological character
marks it as secondary. (4) "UD "secret," except in Genesis
xii. 6, is first found in Jeremiah, and Tid fhl (to reveal a secret)
is found elsewhere only in Proverbs. (5) "His servants the pro
phets " is a favourite expression of the Deuteronomist. Marti
quotes Lohr and Baumann in support of his theory that it is a
gloss added long after Amos.1
It must be frankly admitted that most of Marti's premises are
sound, but still I cannot accept his conclusion. Every writer
inserts explanatory clauses which necessarily disturb the
sequence of thought. We know that the idea that God fore
warned the prophets of His intentions was common in
Jeremiah's day, but it may have been held long before. The
whole Book of Amos is full of the idea. He was warning
Samaria because God had apprised him of impending disaster :
why should he not state the doctrine which underlies his
words ? The favourite expressions of the Deuteronomist, or of
any other writer, are not necessarily words coined by him.
The introductory "for" and the close connexion between
verses 6 and 8 are the real problems. Driver says of "for,"
"The reason, however, following not in v. 7, but in v. 8, to
which v. 7 is subordinate."2 Oort changes »3 to ro,3 and
Oetli transposes verses 7 and 8. Lohr transposes and gives this
order, 66, 6a, 8.4 We are somewhat distrustful of such solutions,
aiming to remove a difficulty, but not succeeding altogether. The
words in question, " The Lord Jahveh will take no action
except He disclose His purpose to His prophets," do not
1 Handbuch zum A.T., in he. ; cf. Davidson, Old Testament
Prophecy, pp. 18, 77, 97 ; Cornill, Prophets of Israel, p. 35.
2 Cambridge Bible, in he. 3 Theol. Tigd. xiv. 135.
4 Beihefte zur Z.A. T. W., iv.

334 THE HEBREW PROPHET
explain why Amos prophesies, that is reserved for verse 8, but
why the prophet knows what will happen. In verse 6 Amos is
trying to make the people see the signs that something will
happen, not by chance, but by Divine act : " Shall harm befall
a city, and Jahveh not do it ?" Verse 7 is a comment on those
last words, intentionally suspending the thought : Jahveh will
do something now, and I know what He will do, for Jahveh
discloses His purpose to His prophets. What follows this
becomes clear : my knowledge, and the source of my know
ledge, constrain me to speak : " The Lord Jahveh has spoken,
who can help prophesying ? "
In conclusion, it may be said that it is altogether out of the
question to change the last word to "trembling," as Well
hausen does, or, as the latest suggestion in Encyc. Bibl.,
p. 3870, to "feel pain" (aM*).

(3) 1 Samuel ix. 9 (p. 30)
Thenius1 has been followed by virtually all modern scholars
in pronouncing this verse a gloss, and pointing out that since it
explains the archaic word "seer," which is first used in verse 1 1, it
should follow verse 1 1 instead of verse 8. The editor, who intro
duced the gloss, however, was not so blind as it might seem, for in
spite of the explanation of " seer," the natural place for this
comment is where Saul and his servant resolved to go up to the
seer, not where they were asking for his house.
The verse is undoubtedly a gloss, but it must be remembered
that a gloss may be more valuable than an original text.
Cornill does not exaggerate when he calls this an " invaluable
explanatory remark."2 In the writer's time prophet was the
current word for the man of God, and seer had passed out of
use ; but the office was just the same. In Samuel's day
prophet means a member of the order described in chapter iv. ;
the independent individual was a seer. Nowack says truly that
"originally ro'eh and nabi had nothing to do with each
other." 1 Handbuch zum A. T., in he.
2 Prophets of Israel, p. 12.

ADDITIONAL NOTES 335
When did the term prophet displace the term seer ?
Kautzsch says that Amos1 speaks of the nebi'im in the most
honourable sense.2 Amaziah calls Amos a seer,3 but apparently
in contempt. Comparing Amos iii. 7 and vii. 14, where Amos
repudiates any connexion with the sons of the prophets, it
would seem as if seer had become an unwelcome term, and
that prophet was already applied indifferently to the higher or
lower order, as was customary in all later times. The gloss
may therefore belong somewhere near the time of Amos.

(4) Jeremiah v. 31 (p. 47)
The expression rendered "the priests bear rule at their
hands," is not devoid of difficulty. The LXX. translators
were evidently puzzled, but they render 4rcKpinj<rav rats xe^v
afouiv, which Workman understands to mean " clap their
hands." Most scholars render essentially as I have ; Graf,
" hand in hand with them," or, " under their discretion " :
Orelli, "on their side as their agents "-*-Hitzig, "come forward
according to their direction." Giesebrecht translates, "the
priests rule according to their own pleasure," and refers to
Pashhur's persecution of Jeremiah. Duhm departs furthest
from the general view, rendering, " the priests put (money) into
their pockets," following a rare meaning of nTI " scrape " ; so
Ges-Buhl. Graf refers to Jeremiah xxix. 24 ff., where we read that
Shemaiah a prophet sends a letter from Babylon to Zephaniah
saying that Jahveh had made him a priest instead of Jehoiada.
It may be doubtful whether the prophet is declaring a fact, or
making an appointment. If the latter, it would support the
interpretation of the passage which I have given. It must not
be forgotten either that the verse rendered as literally as pos
sible is, " the priests bear rule at their hands."
1 See iii. 7. 2 Hastings' Bib. Did., ext. vol., p. 672.
3 vii. 12.

336 THE HEBREW PROPHET

(5) Jezebel's Persecution (p. 56)
H. P. Smith holds that among the exaggerations of the
legendary accretions in the life of Elijah we may count the
assertion that Jezebel was an active persecutor of the religion
of Jahveh. He says that Ahab had four hundred court pro
phets, whom even Jehoshaphat did not suspect ; that Micaiah
does not doubt their inspiration from Jahveh ; and that Ahab
gave his children names compounded with Jahveh.1
That Elijah in his despair exaggerated the extent of the evil 2
is natural under the circumstances. In fact, verse 18 shows that
Elijah soon realised his exaggeration. Jehoshaphat may have
admitted that Ahab's prophets said, "thus saith Jahveh," but
he evidently placed no confidence in their oracles. Moreover,
Jehoshaphat asks, "is there not here besides a prophet of
Jahveh, that we may inquire of him ? " 3 The question implies
a distinction between Micaiah and the court prophets. Later
in the Moabite campaign, Jehoshaphat asks Jehoram, ""is there
not here a prophet of Jahveh?"4 The king's emphasis on
prophet of Jahveh seems to imply that there were other
•prophets at the Israelite court.
Jezebel may not be quite so black as she is painted, but still
the persistent tradition must be given full weight. Kittel is
probably near the truth when he suggests that the Elijah story
may originally have contained a section giving a detailed
history of Jezebel's persecution.5
(6) Distinguishing Marks of the Prophet (p. 72)
It is generally agreed that there were two distinguishing
marks of the prophet, the hair-mantle and some sign on the
forehead. In a note to Stade's edition of the Book of Kings,*
Haupt suggests a third mark, for he asserts that in order to
disguise himself the prophet must cover a peculiar tonsure and
1 O. T. Hist., 188 f. 2 j Kings xix ,4
3 1 Kings xxii. 7. * 2 Kings iii. 11.
s Kbnigsbiicher, p. 141 f. e Poly_ gjbfc

ADDITIONAL NOTES 337
the mark between the eyes. We have no evidence of such a
tonsure among the prophets.
We have given proof enough that the mantle was a character
istic garment. 1 Kings xx. 41 is sufficient evidence that there
was some mark : "he quickly removed the bandage from over his
eyes, and the king of Israel recognised him that he was one of
the prophets." The removal of the bandage revealed a mark
which identified the man with the prophets. A.V. by a
curious misunderstanding translates, "he hasted, and took the
ashes away from his face." Stade suggests that we may dis
cover the survival of this mark in Zechariah xiii. 6 : " and he
said unto him, What are these wounds between thy hands ? "
But " between thy hands " makes no sense. Lowe proposed to
interpret " on thy chest," but without warrant. Nowack gives
up the passage, suggesting that the text is corrupt ; evidently
he had not seen Stade's ingenious suggestion to insert ^V)
"fW and thus get "what are these wounds (or marks)
between thy eyes and upon thy hands?" This fits into the
context admirably : the prophet in shame would disavow his
office, only to be met by the question, whence then the pro
phetic stigmata between the eyes and on the hands ? This
proposal seems to have escaped G. A. Smith also.
What was the mark, and by what means was it covered up ?
Haupt insists that 1SN rendered "bandage," is an Assyrian
loan-word meaning helmet. The prophet put on a helmet,
which covered the tonsure, and the visor of which would con
ceal the mark between the eyes. Jastrow agrees that the
Assyrian word means helmet or headgear, but says the word
in our text means a sort of turban.1 Helmet is quite unsuitable
to the text : verse 38, " he disguised himself with an 'aphar
(bandage) upon his eyes," does not sound like putting a helmet
upon the head ; nor could we say " he quickly removed the
helmet ('aphar) from upon his eyes."2 Far more probable is the
interpretation that it was such a cloth as Orientals wind about
the head, and which could easily be wound over the eyes so as
to cover the mark. Cheyne says the sign was a survival of the
tribal mark which placed the Kenites under the protection of
1 J.A.O.S.,xx. 137. 2 v. 41.
Z

338 THE HEBREW PROPHET
their god Jahveh.1 Haupt asserts that the mark was tattooed
upon their forehead. He finds references to tattooing in Can
ticles v. 14.2 It is quite likely though that the mark was made
by cutting, a very frequent practice among the Semites, and
so was a scar. Zechariah xiii. 6, as amended by Stade, would
support this interpretation. Tattooing is forbidden in Leviticus
xix. 28. This mark was undoubtedly limited to the sons of the
prophets, and the old custom among them would yield only
slowly to a law against it.
(7) Jeremiah xi. 1-8 (p. 99)
This passage has been regarded as authentic by nearly all
scholars, including Giesebrecht and Cornill. Duhm has raised
the question of its originality, and Cheyne naturally follows him
in doubting its genuineness. They start from the belief that
Jeremiah took no interest in the newly discovered Book of
Deuteronomy. Cheyne refers to Jeremiah viii. 8, "the false
pen of the scribes has done it falsely," as showing the prophet's
antipathy to the law. It is to be noted that (1) the LXX. lacks
verses 7 and 8 of the passage, but they are not material ; and
(2) that Huldah was consulted as to the law's authority ; but
that does not prove that Jeremiah was out of sympathy with
the code. Hoffmann goes so far as to say that when Jeremiah
declared that God had not commanded sacrifices at Sinai,3 his
words are unmistakably aimed against the new law.4
On the other hand, Jeremiah's book is saturated with
Deuteronomic phrases, a partial list of which may be found
in Driver's Deuteronomy, p. xciii. Either Jeremiah had
absorbed the contents of the new law, or his book has been
recast by a Deuteronomic editor, the latter supposition being
entirely unnecessary. If we have a reference to the new law in
viii. 8, on equally good grounds we may find a similar reference,
with a vastly different purport, in xv. 16 : " Thy words were
found and I did eat them ; and they were pleasant to me, and
rejoiced my heart."
1 Encyc. Bibl.
2 See his Canticles, and Am. Jr. Sem. Lang., xviii. 231.
3 vii. 21 f. 4 Religionsgeschichtliche Vortrage, p. 25.

ADDITIONAL NOTES 339
(8) Ancient Shorthand Writing (p. 142)
It has been claimed now and then that shorthand writing was
known to many ancient peoples, but so far little evidence has
been offered to support the contention. Now, however, M.
Leon Goudallier asserts that the existence of shorthand among
the ancient Greeks and Romans is certain. I have not seen
M. Goudallier's original article in Cosmos, but only extracts
published in the Literary Digest.1 From these brief excerpts
it is difficult to verify the author's statements, or to form a con
clusion as to their value.
He claims to trace the art clearly from Tiro, a Roman slave
born in 103 B.C., who became Cicero's secretary, and who re
ported the famous speeches against Catiline, to which reference
was made on page 141 f.
I had supposed that stenography was distinctly a modern in
vention. However, if Cicero's orations, Paul of Samosata's
debates, Origen's and Chrysostom's sermons, Augustine's dis
courses, and the proceedings of the Council of Carthage,
were all stenographically reported, as M. Goudallier claims,
it would still be very unlikely that a reporter took down
the words of Amos or Isaiah, and it is certain that Baruch
did not write Jeremiah's prophecies at the time they were
delivered. (9) The Prophets' Writings (p. 160)
A distinction must be drawn between the prophetic books as
they have come down to us, and the original writings as they
left the hand of the author. It is firmly established that the
prophets from Amos onward put their messages into writing
themselves. But it is reasonably sure that we have no pro
phetic book in its original form. The prophets wrote, but they
did not collect and edit ; that task has been taken up by others,
and was accomplished long after the prophets' days. The
editors were not acute literary scholars, whose aim was to issue
an authorised edition of the authentic works of a great prophet.
1 Feb. 20, 1904.

340 THE HEBREW PROPHET
The editors were themselves deeply imbued with the prophetic
spirit ; but they lived in a day when deference was paid to the
written rather than to the spoken word. Therefore, their
concern was to collect messages of God which tended to moral
and spiritual rather than to literary edification. Consequently
they did not scruple to gather into the one Book of Isaiah pro
phecies from many hands, and covering at least two or three
hundred years. The contents of the prophecy, not its author
ship, determined its value to them. The speech, not the
speaker, should likewise be the measure of merit for us.

(10) Saul's Rejection by Samuel (p. 169)
Both accounts of Saul's rejection1 are rejected by H. P.
Smith.2 The former he calls " a construction of religious bias,"
the latter is passed by as thoroughly unhistorical, " a free re
construction and expansion of the former." In his latest
work3 Budde agrees with Smith, but holds that there may be
a fragment of history in xv. 4-9, the story of the Amalekite
war. The section in xiii. 8-15 has all the marks of an interpola
tion. As Nowack has pointed out, it interrupts the narrative,
and it places Saul at Gilgal, whereas verses 2 and 15 indicate
that he was at Michmash. The narrative does not admit a
change of position. The story makes Samuel's rejection of
the king an act of injustice, because Saul waited the appointed
time, and Saul did not appear. The other story4 does give a
good reason for Saul's rejection, according to the ideas of the
times. Samuel does seem to have changed his disposition
towards the king, and probably encouraged David in his efforts
to gain the throne. The prophet may have kept himself in the
background more than these later writers supposed, but his
hand may be apparent for all that.
1 I Sam. xiii. 8 ff. , and xv.
' O.T. History, pp. 120, 125; Samuel, in loc.
3 Biicher Samuel. 4 Chap. xv.

ADDITIONAL NOTES 341

(11) Cheyne's Jerahmeelite Theory (p. 197)
Cheyne has recently adopted the most revolutionary theory
of the Northern Kingdom which so far has entered the mind of
man. The whole life of Israel is transplanted to the Negeb, or
North Arabia. Some of the strange aberrations of this once
sound scholar are found in his recent Book of Psalms. The
application to the prophets is developed in the article "Pro
phetic Literature," Encyc. Bibl., and especially on Isaiah and
Jeremiah in his Critica Biblica, part i., 1903.
There was no prophet of the Northern Kingdom, and there
is no reference in prophecy to that land. Elijah, Elisha, Amos,
Hosea, Ezekiel, Joel, Obadiah, are from the Negeb ; and all pro
phets either come from that country or have it constantly in
view. The centre of interest is Jerahmeel, a place deserving
a fame hitherto denied it ; for it was the Mecca of all Hebrew
prophets, and the subject of the principal prophecies.
It is true that the prophetic and historical books give no
colour to Cheyne's theory, but the reason is not far to seek. Of
Nahum i. 1 he says, "This is one of a group of passages1 in
which the names of the North Arabian oppressors of the Jews
are cleverly obscured " ; and again, with a fine lack of a sense
of humour, " with a North Arabian background, many parts of
Ezekiel assume a different aspect. It is no easy task, however,
to undo the skilful work of an ancient editor . . . who suc
ceeded ... in well disguising the many striking references to
Missur, Jerahmeel, Geshur, and Saphon."
Cheyne was never turned from a task because it was not easy.
So he proceeds to undo the skilful work of an ancient editor
who, for undiscoverable reasons, endeavoured almost success
fully to eliminate Jerahmeel and the Negeb from the Old
Testament. We will cite a few specimens of Cheyne's work of
restoration. Amos belonged to the Negeb, for the Bethel of vii. 17 is
a Bethel in the Negeb heretofore unknown. That Bethel was
in the Negeb is easily proved. In 2 Kings xxiii. 25, Jericho,
1 Isa. xxxv. 8, Iii. I ; Joel iii. 4, 17.

342 THE HEBREW PROPHET
Bethel, Mt. Carmel, and Samaria appear to be near each other.
The text should be emended to read Rehoboth, Bethel, Mt.
Jerahmeel, and Shimron ; so Bethel is in the Negeb. Q.E.D.
Tekoa1 is a corruption of Jerahmeel, and "of the herdmen"
should be "a native of Harim or of Rekem." D713 is a
clear corruption of Jerahmeel. " From after the flock " should
be "Cusham -Jerahmeel" — the resemblance of the Hebrew
is about as close as the English. Hosea's wife was an Arabian,
since both Gomer and Diblaim are corruptions of Jerahmeel ;
therefore Hosea dwelt in the Jerahmeelite Negeb.
Nahum has been regarded as a simple problem, so far as
historical situation is concerned ; but that seeming simplicity is
due to the skilful editor. So Cheyne restores the original diffi
culties : " Underneath our present text it is possible to trace a
prophecy which related, not to Nineveh, but to the Jerahmeelite
capital. The key is i. I, where 71P73 is miswritten for
Jerahmeel." Joel is not a real name, but perhaps a corruption
of Jerahmeel; Pethuel (Joel's father) =Bethuel= an inhabitant
of Bethel, and so Joel belongs to the Negeb. Obadiah is not a
real name, but a late modification of an ethnic, probably vjtp,
the Arabian.
Jeremiah and Zephaniah do not prophesy against the
Scythians, for the new light shows that the invaders were
North Arabians ; the new light is emendation — Geshur and
Jerahmeel instead of Assyria and Nineveh. So the key to
Isaiah i. is Cheyne's discovery that the supposed Syro-
Ephraimitish war was really an irruption of Jerahmeelites. It
may be added that there is very little left of the Massoretic text
of Isaiah after Cheyne has emended to his taste.2
Isaiah xl.-lv. was composed in North Arabia. Ezekiel also
suffered imprisonment and prophesied in the same country.
The river Chebar3 should be the river of Jerahmeel, and Tel-
abib should be Tel-arab, mound of Arabia, or Tel-Jerahmeel.
The strongest evidence, however, he says, is in chapter 38 f.,
where Gog and Magog should be everywhere Jerahmeel.
It is needless to follow this theory any further. Because of
Cheyne's great name, this absurd fancy is likely to get a hearing
1 i. 1. 2 See his Crit. Bibl. 3 Cf. p. 257.

ADDITIONAL NOTES 343
which it ill deserves. There is not a particle of legitimate
evidence advanced in its favour. By the same method one
could prove that the home of prophecy was China or England,
since all that is needed is to change the names and words in the
text to suit the occasion. Less attention would be given here
to this imaginative extravagance, were it not that Cheyne
threatens us with fresh deluges of this sort of criticism.1 Such
sad mutilations of the Hebrew text and such perversions of
Hebrew history do serious harm to the interests of a rational
and sound criticism. Textual and historical criticism are the
necessary foundations of any valid Biblical study, but an attempt
to rewrite Hebrew history from pure imagination is objection
able in principle and barren in result.
(12) St. Luke xiii. 33 (p. 292)
Our Lord's meaning is not that some fate is drawing Him to
Jerusalem, but that a prophet could only die at the hands of the
Church. The peril to the outspoken man of God, in the olden
days, came often from the State ; for the State and Church
were closely identified. When the State became independent
it was no longer a menace to free religious speech. In the case
of our Lord it is significant that the one hand stretched out
to stay the mad passions of the frantic crowd stirred up by the
chief officers of the Jewish Church was that of the Roman
governor. Jerusalem, which should have been the centre, not
only of religious life, but also of religious liberty, was as a
matter of fact the centre of religious persecution, and the
principal place of martyrdom.(13) "Malachi "(p. 313)
It has long been surmised that Malachi is not a proper
name, and that we do not know the name of the prophet to
whom this book is due. Cheyne holds that Joel and Obadiah
likewise are not the names of prophets, since Joel may be an
error for Jerahmeel and Obadiah for Arabian.2 Cheyne further
1 See Crit. Bibl., introd. 2 See Note (11).

344 THE HEBREW PROPHET
suggests that Malachi is a corruption for Michael, the latter
not being the name of the prophet, but the general term for
any angel messenger.
" Malachi " is apparently taken into the heading from iii. I,
where it must be rendered "my messenger." On account of
the similarity of language Nowack thinks that the heading
to Malachi1 is from the same hand as the headings in
Zechariah ix. I and xii. i, all three beginning with the peculiar
phrase, "the oracle of the word of Jahveh unto Israel" ("unto
Israel " is lacking from our present text in ix. i). The LXX.
and the Targums did not read " Malachi " as a proper name,
the former rendering iyy^0" airrov. The editor did mean
Malachi as a proper name, however, for rendering "my
messenger" will not make good sense in the heading. The
Greek translators saw the difficulty and obviated by reading
"his messenger."

(14) Meaning of t{*32 (p. 217).
It may be safely asserted that while apparently every pos
sibility has been proposed, Biblical scholars are still at sea as
to the root meaning. Most writers connect with Assyrian
nabu, to call or name. Nebo (or Assyrian Nabu), whose name
is essentially the same word as nabi', is sometimes called a
prophet among the gods.2 Hoffmann proposed the meaning,
" one who utters his words in a loud and violent manner with
deep inhalations."3 He connects idea with the drivel sympto
matic of an epileptic fit. Cheyne thinks that the meaning
" speaker" is not in accordance with the earliest accounts of the
nebi'im, and suggests that the word is another form of inj
to effervesce or gush.4 Bewer connected with an Assyrian
N23 to tear away violently, therefore originally the prophet
was one carried away by a supernatural power. In Israel, he
1 i. I.
2 See Jastrow, Relig. of Baby I. and Assyr. p. 1 30.
3 Z.A.T. IV., 3, 88 ff ; so Kautzsch, Hastings' Bib. Did., ext. vol.,
p. 652.
4 Similarly, Davidson, Hastings' Bib. Diet., iv. p. 108,

ADDITIONAL NOTES 345
says, an insane man was believed to be possessed of super
natural powers.1 David's expulsion from Achish2 and the
demoniacal possession in the New Testament, do not support
his view.
Cornill discusses the word at length in his Prophets of Israel?
He says the word is not originally Hebrew, and we must there
fore go to the cognates. He dismisses the Assyrian equivalent
as lacking the essential point, which he finds in the Arabic,
where we get the sense " announcing " or " proclaiming." His
example, Aaron as the prophet of Moses,4 does not seem to me
a good instance of the primitive use, nor is there sufficient
basis in his derivation for his conclusion that Arabia is the
ancient home of Hebrew prophecy.
The oldest use of the word is in 1 Samuel x. 5 ff., where
" prophesying " certainly is applied to the excited singing and
dancing to the accompaniment of instrumental music. Saul
quickly succumbed to this influence, and, if we may in a
measure trust the later account,5 which is often regarded as a
later version of the old story in chapter x., anyone who came
under the spell was likely to catch the contagion.
1 Am. Jr. Sem. Lang., xviii. 120. 2 1 Sam. xxi. 10 ff.
3 p. 8 ff. 4 Exod. iv. 10 f. ; vii. I.
5 xix. 18 ff.

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

Abraham, 9
Ahab, II, 52, 106, 178 ff.
Ahaz, 115, 214
Ahijah, 7, 173
Ahikam, 245
Amaziah, 57, 77> 147. 176
Amos, 57
,, and the Church, 279 ff.
„ ,, State, 198 ff.
Azariah, 176
Balaam, 14, 17, 23
Barton, 34
Baruch, 143
Briggs, 123
Budde, 35, 54 ff., 56, 169, 321
Chebar, 257
„ addn. note (11), 341
Cheyne, 98
,, theory of prophecy, addn.
note (11), 341
Chronicler, 138
David, 170
,, house of, 204
Davidson, 104
Deborah, 34
,, song of, 166
Divination, 162
Dreams, 20
Duhm, 155, 241, 248, 298, 302
Ecstatic state, 23
Eglon, 165
Elijah, 113, 177, 178
Elisha, 15, 24, 65, 186, 322 f.

346

Ezekiel, 153, 320
,, call of, 99 f.
, , and the Church, 304 ff.
,, State, 257 ff.
False prophets, 58, 302
Fulfilment of prophecy, 121
Gemariah, 246
Gomer, 86
Habakkuk, 159
Haggai, 149, 310
Hananiah, 58, 107, 133, 301
Hastings' Bibh Dictionary, 69,
210, 227, 230
Hezekiah, 116, 226, 322
Hezekiah's accession, 218
„ reformation, 2 19
Hilprecht, 164, 257
Hosea, call of, 85 ff.
Huldah, 240
Inspiration of silence, 3 19
Isaiah, 156
,, call of, 91 ff.
„ and the Church, 290
,, ,, State, 212 ff.
Jastrow, 70
Jehoiachin, 243
Jehoshaphat, 11, 52
Jehu, 183, 190, 203, 323
Jerahmeel, addn. note (11), 341
Jeremiah, 61, 326
,, call of, 95 ff.
„ and the Church, 293 ff.
,, State, 239 ff.

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

347

Jeroboam, 6, 276
Jeroboam II., 191, 197
Jezebel, 179
„ persecution of, 55
„ addn. note (5), 336
Joash, 176, 190
Joel, 13, 314
Jonah, son of Amittai, 191
Josephus, 54
Joshua, 31 if.
Josiah's reformation, 240
Judah, 206
Kittel, 53, 72, 174, 232, 240
Kraetzschmar, 49 f. , 69, 71, 76
Malachi, 149, 313
"Malachi." Cf. Joel, addn. note
(13). 343
Manasseh, 239
Merodach-baladan, 223
Micah, book of, 210
„ and the State, 210 ff.
Micaiah, 52, 106, 185, 282, 318
Moabite Stone, 186
Moses, 24, 28, no
Musri, 223
Naaman, 65
Nabi', 317
, , meaning of, addn. note (14),
344
Naboth, 183
Nathan, 170, 172, 193, 321
Natural and supernatural, 3
Nehemiah, 195
Nowack, 210
Obadiah, 51
Omri, 177
Origen, 329
Ottley, v, 164, 281
Pashhur, 300
Paton, 184, 198
Paul, St., 157
Pekah, 209, 213

Peter, St., 324
Peters, 201, 288
Prophecies, pseudepigraphic, 40
Prophecy, conditional, 131
„ predictive, 129
Prophet ; his insight, 4 ff.
, , knowledge of past, 7 f.
„ ,, future, 8 ff.
„ controlofthefuture,i3ff.
, , mark on forehead, addn.
note (6), 336
, , as a revolutionist, 1 93 ff.
Prophet's dress, 68
,, fees, 65
„ living, 64
,, power, 103
Prophets of Ahab, 52 ff.
,, of Baal, 114, 180
„ and priests, 33, 280 ff.
Ramah, 5; addn. note (1), 331
Ramoth-gilead, II
Razon, 213
Rehoboam, 174
Restoration, 128
Rogers, 223 ff., 234
Roll, burning of, 247 f.
Samuel, 13, 167, 274
,, book of, 168
Sanday, 104
Sargon's invasion, 221
Saul, 5, 167
Sayce, 214, 225
Schultz, 54, 56, 62
Seer, 31
Sennacherib, 228, 234, 237
Shebna, 230
Shemaiah, 174
Shishak, 175
Shunamite, 322
Signs, in
Smith, G. A., 86, 199, 207
„ H. P., 33, 43>49> '71.257
,, W. Robertson, 145, 204,
287
Solomon, 37, 172
Spiritual enlightenment, 25

348 THE HEBREW PROPHET
Vision, 22, 317

Spiritual influences, 101
Stenography, 142
,. addn. note (8), 339
Syro-Ephraimitish War, 213
Tabeel, son of, 209
Temple, 305
Theophanies, 19
Toy, 261 f.
Uriah, 245

Wellhausen, 84
Winckler, 218, 223 ff.
Zechariah, 278, 311
Zedekiah, 251, 296
Zephaniah, 90, 303
Zerubbabel, 267 ff.

INDEX OF SCRIPTURE PASSAGES

PAGE

PAGE
Genesis xviii. 17 f.
9
I Kings
xii. 21 ff.
• 174
..
xiii.
. 276
Exodus vii. 8 ff.
. 118
..
xvi. 1 ff.
6
„ xi. if.
• 325
11
xvii. .
. 178
„ iv. 2-4
. in
..
xviii.
• 179
i>
xviii. 24
. 114
Numbers
xii. 6ff.
• 24
>>
xix. 15 f.
. 181
..
XX. .
. 184
Deuteronomy xiii. 2-4
. 119
>»
xx. 38, 41 .
• 72
..
XVUl. 21 f.
. 123
>>
xxii. .
. 106
i>
xxii. 5
12
Judges v.
.
. 166
n
xxii. 6
• 53
.. ?•
7 •
• 34
2 Kings
iii.
. 15
1 Samuel
iii. 1
¦ 33
>i
iii. I3ff.
. 186
».
iii. 19
112
11
iii. 15
. 24
>.
vii. .
• 35
11
iv. 27
. 322
.*
jx. 5. 9
• 30
11
iv. 38 ff.
. 67
>.
ix. 9
• 317
ii
vi. 6 .
4
..
ix. 9, addn. note
(3) 334
i»
vi. 8ff.
187, 189
..
x. 7
. 168
ii
vi. 31
. 188
.9
xv., addn. note (10) 340
i>
viii. 4f.
• l8J
).
XV. 22
. 275
11
viii. 7ff.
. 189
.)
xvi.
. 326
11
viii. 12
. 182
..
xix. 18 ff. .
• 49
n
ix.
. 190
J»
xix. 20
¦ 43
11
ix. 8.
• 323
..
xxiii.
. 162
>i
ix. n
• 57
.)
xxvi. 19
• 3°4
>i
ix. 20
• 183
..
xxviii. 14 .
. 68
11
xviii. 10
. 218
11
xviii. 13
. 219
2 Samue
vii.
11
11
xix. 6f.
. 236
.,
vii. 1 ff.
. 321
11
XX. .
. 116, 322
..
xxiv.
. 171
ij
xxiii. 1 5 ff
. 276
I Kings 1
• 39-
- 173
2 Chronicles xxv. 1-1
5 . 177
» xi- 29
• 173
11
xxxm. 1
9 • 139
349
3 So

THE HEBREW PROPHET

Psalms 1. 8 f. .
„ li. i6f.
,, lxxiv. 9
,, cxxxvii.
,, cxxxvii. 7
Proverbs xxvi. I
Isaiah i. 1 1-14
„ vi. 1-9
„ vi. 5ff.
„ vii. 4 .
„ vii. n .
„ vii. 16 .
„ viii. 2 .
• 1 viii. 3 .
,, xiv. 28-32
,, XX.
„ XX. I .
„ xxii. 16
,, xxviii. 7
,, xxix. 10
,, xxx. 8 .
„ xxx. 9f.
,, xii. 21 f.
,, xii v. 26
,, xlviii. 127
„ 1. I .
„ 1. 4ff •
„ liii.
Jeremiah i. 4-10
.• |i; 3°
,, iii. 6 ff.
,, iii. 18
ii v. 30f.
.. v. 31
,, v. 31, addn.
,, vii. 21 f.
, xi. l-8,addn,
,, xi. 18 ff.
,, xiii. i8f.
,, xvii. i9ff.
,, xviii. 21
„ xx. 3ff.
,, xx. 7ff.
,, xxi. 8-10

PAGE
13, 288
. 288
• 39
• 3°4
. 3°6
¦ "3
. 292
• 92
. 328
. 215
• "5
. 216
. 290
• 159
. 228
. 116
. 222
231
. 291
• 319
• 159
• 293
. 124
. 125
. 127
. 89
. 310
. 3°8
. 96
• 239
241
. 241
¦ 294
• 47
note (4) 335
• 297
note (7)338
• 243
. 248
. 298
• 327
• 3°i
• 257
• 254

Jeremiah xxii. 24-30 .
„ xxvi.
,, xxvi. 17 ff. .
,, xxvi. 17-19.
,, xxvi. 20-23 •
,, xxvii.
,, xxviii. 1
,, xxviii. 2ff. .
,, xxviii. 9
,, xxviii. 11
,, xxix.
,, xxxii.
,, xxx.-xxxiii.
,, xxxiv. 8 ff. .
, , xxxvi.
,, xxxvi. 5
,, xxxvi. 29 .
,, xxxvii. 19 .
,, xxxviii. 14-28
Ezekiel viii. 3
,, xi. 22 f.
„ xii. 3-7
„ xvii. .
,, xxiv. 15 ff.
,, xxxvii. I2ff.
Hosea i. — iii. .
11 i- 2
„ >• 3-9 •
,, vm. 4 .

• 243
. 299
. 212
. 288
¦ 245
. 296
107, 302
. 301
• 123
. 108
. 251
• 257
. 158
• 253
• 144
• 144
. 246
. 296
• 327
. 260
3°4. 3°6
. 262
. 263
. 265
. 265
. 200
87,90
. 86
. 201
. 284
. 207
• 3M
• 315
Amos ii. 1 1 . . .44
„ iii. 3-8. . .77
i> jii. 7 . 10, 126, 318
11 iii. 7, addn. note (2) . 332
.. in- 8 . . . 84
„ v. 21 ff. . 28o
11 vii. 12 . . .67
„ vii. 12 ff. , . 282
„ vii. 14 £ . . 57
.1 vii. 15 . , .77

¦ • ix. 7f-
„ xi. 12 .
Joel ii. 17
„ ii. 28 ff. .

INDEX OF SCRIPTURE PASSAGES 351

PAGE

PAGE

Amos vii. 17 .

• 327

Zechariah xiii. 2

. . 63

,, viii. 5 .

. 280

,, ix. 1 iff.
. 200
Malachi ii. 14 ff.
• 3'4
Micah iii. 1-4
. 210
St. Matthew vii. 21
• 329
» Hi- 5-7
. 286
„ iii. 12 .
212, 289
St. Luke i. 70
. 29
„ vi. 1-8
. 287
„ vii. 36 ff.
6
1. xiii. 33
. 272
Zephaniah iii. 3 f.
• 3°4
,, xiii., addn.
note (12) 343
Haggai i. 5-1 1
. 310
St. John iii. 2
. 117
,, ii. IO-19
• 3"
„ iv. 5ff.
7
iv. 48
. 120
Zechariah ii. 1-5
. 268
,, vii. 17
. 136
,, iv. 6ff.
. 268
,, x. 41
. 129
,, vi. gff.
. 312
,, vii. 5 ff.
• 3i3
Acts iii. 24 .
. 3°
11 viii.
. 269
» x.
• 324
„ viii. 23
. 105
.1 xl 3
• 72
Hebrews xi. 36 ff.
. 272
PLYMOUTH
WILLIAM BRKNDON AND SON, LIMITED
PRINTERS