P
ROPHECY HAS BECOME ALMOST A FAD TODAY,THE SBBJECT OF INNUMERABLESERMONS, books and even entire ministries (such as Jack van Impe and Hal Lindsay). Un- fortunately there is widespread misunderstanding about the nature and purpose of biblical prophecy; my purpose here is not just to correct these erroneous views but to enhance the value and power of biblical prophecy for today. Prophecy was predominant not only in the latter part of the Old Testament period but in the New Testament age as well. It is interesting that the writing prophets ministered for only three centuries (from the eighth to the fifth centuries B.C.) and yet spawned some of the most powerful works in Scripture. Only the New Testament age (just one century long!) can rival it for intensity and dynamic production-and that latter age also rightly can be called “prophetic.”Mickelsen’has recognized the difficulty of the hermeneutical task regarding prophecy, calli
m6
for “an approach that will read nothing into prophecy that is not there, that will ke’ lear all that the prophet said or wrote to his own people, and that will make the correctly interpreted message of the prophet relevant to our own times. That is no small task” (1963:280). There are many issues to be considered in fulfilling this task, such as the nature of the prophetic office, the origin and forms of the prophetic message, the types of prophetic literature and principles for interpreting prophecy.
The Nature of the Prophetic Role
Before we can interpret prophetic passages we must understand how and why a prophet functioned as he did. Each prophetic message grew out of the call and role of the prophet in the society of his day. As all recognize today, the prophet was a “forth-teller” before he was a “foreteller,” and the true purpose of the latter was to assist and strengthen the former.
1. The Call of a Prophet. The prophet’s call may come via a supernatural revelatory experience, as in the cases of Isaiah (6:1-13) or Jeremiah (1:2-10); it may also occur by natural means, as when Elijah threw his mantle over Elisha (1 Kings 19: 19-21), signifying the transfer of authority and power, and may involve anointing (1 Kings 19:16). Unlike the priest or the king, the prophet never took his “office” indirectly through inheritance
/i 206 The Htrmeneutical Spiral Prophecy 207
but always directly as a result of the divine will. The significance of the call is always the same: The prophet is no longer in control of his own destiny but belongs completely to Yahweh. He does not speak for himself and may not even want to utter the message (see Jer 20:7-18) but he is under the constraint of Yahweh, called to deliver the divine message to the people.
God often used a symbolic action to drive home this truth to the prophet. Isaiah was given a burning coal to place on his lips, which signified the purifying of his message (Is 6:7), and Ezekiel was told to eat a scroll that tasted “like honey in its sweetness” (Ezek 3:3), signifying the joy of delivering God’s words. The major stress, however, is the direct involvement of God and the revelatory nature of the prophet’s message. Two Old Tes- tament genres depend upon a sense of direct divine revelation: the Torah (the Law or legal portions of the Pentateuch) and the prophets. These are the only Old Testament genres with so direct a sense of authority. The issue of authority is an important one in hermeneutics (see p. 12), and the prophets provide the crucial interpretation for such discussions. The prophet was “filled with the Spirit of God” (Joel 2:28; Is 61: 1; 2 Chron 15: 1; 20:14; 24:20; Ezek 2:2). This sense of divine inspiration was the basis of prophetic authority.1
2. The Complex Role of the Prophet. The prophet’s role was complex and multifaceted.
Primarily he was a messenger from God sent to call the people back to their covenant relationship with Yahweh. Petersen challenges the designations “office” and “charisma”
for the role of a prophet (1981:9-15). The two concepts often have been contrasted, as if an office is institutional and charisma is anti-institutional. Petersen argues that the prophets played a role rather than filled an office. He is essentially correct, for we have little evidence for institutionalization among Israel’s prophets (unlike her neighbors, such as the Philistines). Jewish prophets were individualists like Elijah or Jeremiah; they were called by God directly and belonged to no “institution.” In one sense they were “char- ismatic,” for they were filled by the Spirit of God-the impetus came from God rather than from them. They had no control over their role but simply followed God’s direc- tions.
Some scholars have posited prophetic guilds, based upon the common meal of the prophets in 2 Kings 4:38-41 and the references to groups of prophets (“sons of the prophets,” found seven times between 1 Kings 20 and 2 Kings 9).2 Others have even theorized a prophetic “school,” based somewhat upon the erroneous translation of “the second quarter” of Jerusalem as “college” in the King James Version (2 Kings 22:14;
2 Chron 34:22). However, there is too little evidence for either a guild or a school.
Certainly, prophets could associate themselves with such groups on occasion (as Samuel in 1 Sam 10; 19 or Elisha in 2 Kings 4-6), but these were temporary rather than permanent. The groups of prophets do not play a major role in the biblical text; they were probably pious men who wanted to serve Yahweh and aid the prophets. They were assistants rather than fellow members of a guild. We have no evidence that the actual prophets belonged to such or even came from such groups.
The terminology for prophet is varied, ranging from “seer” @‘e/r) to “prophet” (nibi’
or @zeh) or “man of God” (‘ii”l6him). These are not used to distinguish separate aspects of the prophetic role but rather are terms used at different periods or in different places.
All refer to the central function of the prophet as God’s mouthpiece. Petersen (1981) distinguishes several roles, centering upon two specific aspects: the “peripheral prophet,”
an itinerant holy man who stands outside the societal structures and proclaims Yahweh (such as Elijah, Elisha); and the “central morality prophet” who legitimates and strength- ens the basic mores of Yahwistic society as he calls the people back to God (Isaiah, Amos). However, this is too reductionistic and I personally doubt if we can make such a distinction between the ministries of Elijah and Amos, for instance. Many others have differentiated between oral and writing prophets, but the latter certainly had an oral ministry, and Amos’s denunciation of corporate injustice in Israel does not differ rad- ically from Elijah’s condemnation of Ahab’s court.
As Clements says, “We can discern recognizable similarities between the very earliest prophets mentioned in the Old Testament, such as Balsam, as well as those who appear in connection with Saul and David, and the later canonical prophets both in their activity and in the characteristics of their preaching” (1975:3). It is better, I believe, to see dif- ferences of ministry or message as dependent not on types of prophet but rather upon the exigencies of the moment, that is upon the religious-social sins of the particular society. Therefore, we will discuss the roles of the prophets as a single class rather than artificially divide them into different types of prophet.
a. Receiving and communicating revelation from God was their major purpose. Here we can differentiate oral from writing prophets. Grudem (1982:9-10) believes that the prophetic message had two aspects of authority: an authority ‘of actual words (in which the prophet claims to be revealing the actual words of God) and an authority of general content (in which the prophet claimed that the ideas were from God but not the actual words). Both prophetic ministries were revelatory and Yahweh was equally involved in both. At the same time the writing prophets had a canonical function not seen in the latter. We must remember that of the scores of prophets chosen by God, only sixteen were led to collect and publish their proclamations in written form, The oral prophets are known more for their deeds than for their actual messages. Of course, some of the writing prophets (such as Daniel, Jonah) also are known for their deeds as well as their words. However, many of the writing prophets (such as Obadiah) chronicle their preach- ing rather than place their message in a historical setting. For these books, the modern reader has the difficult task of understanding the message without the historical situation behind it. We will return to this later.
It is popular in many circles today to make the prophets revolutionaries or at least urban social reformers. This is not the case, however. While they decried the social sins of their contemporaries, they did not do so as an end in itself but rather as particular instances of their true message, the religious apostasy of the nation. They were not social workers but primarily were preachers, God’s ambassadors representing him before a nation that had turned from his ways. They delivered not their own messages but Yah- weh’s, and their introductory formulas (“Thus says the Lord,” “The Lord said to me”) demonstrate their consciousness that they were entirely vehicles for the divine message. _
208 The Hermsneulical Spiral
b. Reformation rather than innovation defines the basic purpose of the prophets (see Wood 1979:73-74). It was common in the past (Wellhausen, Scott, Whitley) to view the prophets as playing a formative role in the evolution of Israel’s religion, in fact to make them the formulators of ethical monotheism. Most recent scholars, however, recognize the paucity of evidence for such a view. The prophets did not develop a new message but rather applied the truths of the past to the nation’s current situation. Theirs was a ministry of confrontation rather than of creation. They were not innovative theologians but rather revivalists, seeking to bring the people back to Yahweh and the traditional truths of the Jewish faith. For instance, the prophets did not construct the doctrine of messianic hope; that was already present from Mosaic times (Deut 1818). They elabo- rated it, adding further details, but hardly created messianism ex nihilo.
c. The preservation of tradition was therefore an important concomitant in the pro- phetic ministry. We can see this not only in the prophetic cry for Israel to return to her ancestral worship of Yahweh but also jn the literary dependence of later prophets upon the accepted statements of the Torah and of earlier prophets, such as Ezekiel’s use of Jeremiah, Jeremiah’s use of Isaiah, and Hosea or Isaiah’s use of Amos (see the discussion in Fishbane 1985292-317). Part of their task was to “pass on” the “received” tradition (compare 1 Cor 153; 2 Tim 2:2).
I am not ignoring the individual contribution of the prophetic movement to the He- brew religion.. Rather, I am redressing the exaggerated emphasis upon this contribution on the part of many critical scholars. The call of Israel to a new awareness of temple and cult (ritual worship) in Ezekiel was not a new message, but it introduced a new era in postexilic Israel. Clements demonstrates the interaction between traditional or cultic elements and individualistic or dynamic features in the most personal of the prophetic experiences, the call of God.3 Studies of the calls of Isaiah (chap. 6) and Jeremiah (chap.
1) have shown that both scenes had recognizable cultic traits. In other words, the dis- tinctive calls were set in a traditional background that linked the prophetic role with the past and not just with the present and future.
The connection of the prophets to the cultic religion of Israel has been widely debated (see the excellent summary in Smith 1986b:992-93). In the past, critical scholars (such as Wellhausen) posited a radical opposition between prophet and priest on the basis of such passages as Isaiah l:lO-15; Jeremiah 6:20; 7:22-23; Amos 521-25; Hosea 6:6; Micah 6:6-8. Yet this ignored the many passages that showed a connection between prophet and tabernacle or temple (such as 1 Sam 3:1-21; 9:6-24; 2 Sam 7:4-17; Amos 7:10-17; Jer 2:26;
5:31; 8:10), and as a result others (such as Mowinckel) went to the other extreme and viewed the prophets as temple officials. Most today fall between these two, recognizing that the prophets acknowledged the centrality of temple and cultus but called for reform.
The prophets functioned within the established religion but sought to excise the irreli- gious and unethical practices that predominated, to call both the people and the priests back to the ancient truths.
The basic message is elucidated in 2 Kings 17:13-14, which explains why the northern kingdom was sent into exile:
The Lord warned Israel and Judah through all his prophets and seers: “Turn from
Prophecy 209
your evil ways. Observe my commands and decrees, in accordance with the entire Law that I commanded your fathers to obey and that 1 delivered to you through my servants the prophets.” But they would not listen and were as stiff-necked as their fathers, who did not trust in the Lord their God.
The stress on the ancestral religion as well as the designation of Moses and leaders of the past as “prophets” illustrates the place of tradition in the prophetic message.
d. We must also note the centrality of the covenant and Torah. Fee and Stuart (1981:151-52) call the prophets “covenant enforcement mediators,“4 which refers to the presence in the prophets of blessings (positive enforcement; compare Lev 26:1-13; Deut 4:32-40; 28:1-14) and curses or judgment (negative enforcement; compare Lev 26:14-39;
Deut 4: 15-28; 28: 15-32:42) attached to the covenant and Torah from the times of Abra- ham and Moses. Following the model of Sinai, the prophets warned the people of the dangers attached to neglecting the commandments.
Fee and Stuart summarize the biblical material into six general categories of blessings (life, health, prosperity, agricultural abundance, respect and safety), and ten types of punishment (death, disease, drought, dearth, danger, destruction, defeat, deportation, destitution and disgrace). The prophetic proclamation centered upon these categories and would accent one or another depending upon the situation. The “messianic” promise of such passages as Amos 9:11-15 centers upon prosperity (w. ll-12), agricultural abun- dance (v. 14) and safety (v. 15); and the curses of Nahum 3:1-7 relate danger (v. 2), destruction and death (v, 3), disgrace and destitution (vv. 5-7). The specific stress on the covenant is seen first in Hosea 6:7; 8: 1, which condemned Israel for “transgressing the covenant.n Jeremiah elaborated this into a full-fledged covenant theology, beginning with its strict requirements (11:6-7), which Judah had broken (11:8-10). Since the covenant was necessary as a guarantor of Yahweh’s mercy (14:21) and since the old covenant was inadequate (31:32), Yahweh would establish a new and better covenant (31:31-34).
The place of Torah and cult is more difficult. There are seeming contradictory em- phases: some passages seem to make ritual worship a necessary element of the prophetic religion (the prophets at the high place in 1 Sam 10, the centrality of the altar in the Mount Carmel battle between Elijah and the priests of Baal in 1 Kings 18). Samuel was reared and called by God to his prophetic ministry at Shiloh (1 Sam 3), and Nathan was consulted when David wished to build the Temple (2 Sain 7). Yet at the same time several passages deride sacrificial worship, stating that Yahweh would have no part in it (such as Hos 6:6; Amos 5:21-23; Mic 6:6-8; Is l:ll-14; Jer 6:20; 7:21-23). Amos, for example, cut himself off from the established religion of the priests (see 7: 14).
Scholars have been found on both sides of the issue, some arguing that the prophets were merely extensions of the priestly order (Mowinckel, Eissfeldt), others that they were
* antisanctuary and anticult (most believe this is because in its early stages the prophetic movement followed Canaanite practices; see Robertson Smith). However, neither posi- tion is correct, and most today seek a more balanced perspective (Smith 1986b:992-93;
Sawyer 1987:19-22). The prophets were not reacting against the Jewish system but rather rejected the apostasy and false religious practices of Israel and Judah. The prophets were protectors of Torah and cult and condemned Israel’s worship because it was impure.
c
2 1 0 The H8rmensulical Spiral Prophecy
3. The Characteristics of False Prophets. Understanding the characteristics of false prophets provides a perspective for the true purposes of the prophetic “office.” Further, the characteristics are hermeneutically relevant because they tell us what the true prophets rejected. The presence of conflict between prophetic groups is rarely disputed. At the earliest stage Micaiah inveighed against the 400 prophets for predicting success in battle (1 Kings 22:19-23), and Hosea derided the false prophets for causing the people to
“stumble” (45). As might be expected, the presence of pseudoprophets increased as the divided kingdom moved toward the exile. Jeremiah has the strongest series of denunci- ations (6:13-14; 8:10-11; 14:14; 23:10-22) with Ezekiel close behind (2:14; 4:13; 13:1-23).
Many have spoken of “criteria” for identifying false prophets, but Crenshaw correctly challenges this, pointing out that too many questions are unanswered (1971:13-14). Does mere lack of fulfillment identify a prophet as false? Does an erroneous assessment of the situation turn a true prophet into a false one? Could a prophet move back and forth between true and false (see 1 Kings 13)? There was no actual criterion that could at all times distinguish true from false. However, there were “signs,” or “marks,” that pointed to a true or false prophet, and these could be applied in specific concrete situations to enable the people to distinguish them (see Crenshaw 1975:49-661; Tan 1974:78-82; Wood 1979:109-l 12; Smith 1986a:985-86).
a. Divination was often employed by false prophets (Jer 14:14; Mic 3:7; Ezek 12:24).
This was expressly forbidden in Deuteronomy 18:9-14, but the techniques were impres- sive (passing through fire, interpreting omens, dealing with false spirits or the dead).
Pagan prophets used them constantly.
b. Fulfillment of the prophecy is mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:22, and Micaiah uses this to test his message against his opponents (1 Kings 22:28). Isaiah (30:8), Jeremiah (28:9) and Ezekiel (33:33) stressed this criterion, and we cannot deny its importance in the biblical period. Of course, it is notoriously difficult to use, and is not applicable in the case of messianic or long-term prophecies, nor in terms of the conditional nature of many prophecies (see pp. 213-14). However, this is not quite valid as a criticism of the test, for the prophets only used it of concrete or short-term prophecies. While this test was limited, it still had validity in certain instances.
c. The desire to please clearly marked the false prophet. These individuals told the people what they wanted to hear rather than what Yahweh said. The true prophet, on the other hand, delivered God’s message at the proper time and to the proper place, no matter what the consequences. Then as well as today the issue was whether one wished to be accepted by the people or ti, serve God. The true prophet was unswerving in his God-orientation, even if it meant his life! False prophets would say whatever could reap the greatest benefits for themselves. Jeremiah stated this most poignantly in the statement quoted in Lincoln’s Gettysburg address (“saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace,”
8:ll; compare 14:13; 23:17; Ezek 13:lO). Micah (3:5) charges his opponents with crying
“peace” when paid sufficiently but prophesying “war” when given no remuneration. The false prophets were often guilty of practicing only for self-aggrandizement rather than out of a sense of ministry (Mic 3: 11). Such men were not willing to suffer persecution for the truth of their message, as was Jeremiah (38:1-23) or Micaiah (1 Kings 22:27-28).
211 Rather, they desired popularity and the good life and so prophesied accordingly.
d. The revelatory nature of the prophecy was a crucial sign of its authenticity. The form (trance, vision, dream) was not as critical as the nature of the message. If the prophet drew people away from God to serve other gods (Deut 13: l-3) or failed to convict the people of their need for repentance, the message clearly did not come from God. The sense of a divine call was essential (see Amos 7:14-15; Mic 3:8); Jeremiah challenged Hananiah’s call as an essential part of his denunciation of the latter (Jer 28: 15).
e. Continuity between the message and the Torah or other true prophecies was another essential. If the prophecy contradicted the traditions it was unacceptable. On the other hand, if it was in. keeping with such accepted truths it was valid. The elders of the land affirmed Jeremiah’s prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem on the ground that it paralleled the prophecy of Micah, which led to the repentance of Hezekiah (Jer 26:17-19).
f. Authentication by a miracle was not a true criterion, for false prophets could du- plicate acts of power (Ex 7:11-12, 22; compare Mk 13:22; 2 Thess 2:9). However, the prophets employed it as a sign at times. Elijah and Elisha, in particular, demonstrated this (for example, the Mount Carmel test between Elijah and the prophets of Baal, 1 Kings 18).
g. The moral character of the prophet was another sign of the validity of his message.
False prophets are charged with lying (Jer 8: 10; 14:14), drunkenness (Is 28:7), immorality (Jer 23:14), stealing prophetic oracles (Jer 23:16), treachery (Zeph 3:4) and even of per- secuting other prophets (1 Kings 22:24; Jer 26:7-9). Of course this also was not a perfect test. As Smith points out, Hosea’s marriage to a prostitute would have appeared ques- tionable, and neither Jeremiah (38:14-28) nor Elisha (2 Kings 8:7-15) were always com- pletely truthful (1986a:985). Nevertheless, this test was usually valid; even Jesus recog- nized its basic validity (Mt 7: 17-20).
h. Discernment by Spirit-led men is seen in the incident where Jehoshaphat asks for a “prophet of the Lord” after the false prophets have spoken (1 Kings 22:7) and is emphasized especially in the New Testament (see Jn 10:4-5; 1 Cor 2: 14). In 1 Corinthians 14:29, 32, the prophets will be judged by other prophets, for “the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets,” and in 1 John 4:l the believer is to “test the spirits to see if they come from God.” In the final analysis all agree that only Spirit-led individuals can discern clearly whether a prophet or preacher is truly sent from God.
The Nature of the Prophetic Messa(a
Much of what was said in the previous section applies also to the message of the prophets, for we cannot separate role from proclamation. However, several issues still need to be discussed, and these relate directly to the message itself. The basic misunderstanding regarding the prophetic literature of the Old Testament is that it relates primarily to the future. It is common to think that “prediction” is almost the definition of prophecy.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Peisker notes that neither the Hebrew nor the Greek word lends itself to a future orientation (1978:74-84). Nubi’ has both an active and a passive side: passively, the prophet is filled with the Spirit and receives God’s message;
actively, he interprets or proclaims God’s message to others. The passive side may have *