In early times men everywhere felt the nearness of tlie supernatural ; the Divine, with its mani- festations, was all about them. Those who seemed or who professed themselves to be inspired were accepted as being so (cf. the reception given to Ehud by the king of Moab, Jg S-"'-). The spirit of the time was not critical ; it was reverent, or, as we might now say, credulous. In the first conflict which we read of between true and false prophecy (1 K 22) the 400 prophets of Ahab were false and Micaiah true, but Mieaiah did not consider tlie pre- tensions to inspiration of his opponent Zedekiah to be false. He was inspired, but it was by a lying spirit from the Lord (1 K22"--^). This lying spirit was put by J" in the mouth of the prophets of Ahab tliat they might entice him to liis destruc- tion. The explanation given by Ezekiel (Ezk 13. 14) is similar : J" deceives the prophet that He may destroy him and his dupes alike (14^). But J"'s deception of the prophets in order to destroy them and those who consult them is in punish- ment of previous evil (1 K 22', Ezk 14>-", 2 S 24'). A profounder conception of tlie ethical nature of J", and a dislike to regard Him as the author of evil (cf. 2 S 24' with 1 Ch 21'), combined perliaps with a more critical juilgmcnt of their contem- poraries, led others to a dillerent explanation. To .Jeremiah the false prophet is not inspired by a lying spirit from J", lie is not insjiired at all. He s|)eaks out of his own heart, and has not been sent (Jer 23'«-2i- »■=«). Micah goes further and auiilyzes the prophet's motives : he sjieaks wliat men wish to hear (2", cf. Is SO'""), and for iiitpicsted ends — ' When they have something to chew with their teetli they cry, Peace ; hut wlioso putteth not into their mouth, they preach war against him ' (3°). And the priest Amaziah (Am 7") .seems to iiave formed his idea of the prophets aa a whole from this cla3.s.
There are several kinds of false prophecy of little interest except as casting light on the re.
FKOPIIECY AX]J PROPHETS
PROPHECY AXD PROPHETS 117
ligious condition of the people, e.g. prophecy by other gods than J', a thing perhaps not very preva- lent in the prophetic age ; and prophecy as a professional means of gaining a living. Tliere were persons who assumed the Imiry mantle and atlected proplietic plira'^eology, ne'i'nn J", 'saith J"' (cf. Jer 23" yiu'dmH ne'iim, Ezk 13'-'), apparently for the sake of bread (Mic 3°). It was customary to bring presents to the seers and prophets in ancient times when people consulted them (1 S 9', 1 K 14^ 2 K 8"- ; cf. Wu 22'), and the practice not unnaturally led to deterioration in the prophetic class. But in '■elation to the question of the ' pro- phetic mind.' Me only 'false' propliecy of interest is tliat w hicli we see among prophets all professedly and alike prophets of J". Men who alike regarded prophetic truth as something revealed by J" in the heart, are found not infrequently to give forth as the word of J" conflicting judgments. They advised contrary steps in a political emergency, or tliey predicted diverse issues in regard to some enterprise on which they were consulted. Ahab's 400 said, • Go up to Hamoth-gUead, for J" shall deliver it into the hand of the king ' ; but Micaiah said, ' I saw all Israel scattered upon the mountains' (1 K 22"- "). Jer. predicted that the Chaldjvan suprem- acy would last 70 years, while Hananiah prophesied tliat in two years' time the exiles would return, with Jehoiachin at their head (Jer 28). To us now, with our ideas of the prophet, and looking back to liim aa a great isolated and almost miraculous personage, divinely accredited, two things seem Burprising, Jirst, tliat any one should supiiose him- self a true prophet of J" who was not ; and, second, that the people failed to discriminate between the true and the false. As to the first point, it is very ditlicult to discover on what plane of religious attainment those called false prophets .stood, and what kind of consciousness they had. Evidently, they had lofty conceptions of J" in some of lii? attributes. These were perhaps more His natural attributes, such as His power, than those of His moral being. It is here perhaps that the point of ditl'erence lies— J" was not to them absolutely or greatly a moral being. He was a natural force, and His operation in a way magical : they thought His mere presence in the temple guaranteed its inviola- bility. They were Jehovists, but J" was to them greatly a symbol of nationality, and they were fervid nationalists. Such feelings coloured their outlook into tlie future, making them the optimists that they were, always crying, I'eace and .Safety ! Further, in whatever way the true jjrophet was Msured that he spoke the word of J", the evidence was internal. He had the witness in him.self. It was a con.sciousness, something positive, but not negative. The person who wanted it had no con- sciousness of the want. The ca.se is similar to, if not identical with, what is still familiar in religious experience. As to the second point, the people's failure to