Psalms are quoted no less than seventy times, and very frequently as being predictive.
(6.) The argument with the unbeliever does not ad- mit of being brought to an issue so concisely. Here it is necessary [1] to point out the existence of certain declarations as to future events, the probability of which was not discernible by human sagacity at the time that the declarations were made; [2] to show that certain events did afterwards take place corre- sponding with those declarations; [3] to show that a chance coincidence is not an adequate hypothesis on which to account for that correspondence. See Prophecy.
Dr. Davidson pronounces it as " now commonly ad- mitted that the essential part of Biblical prophecy does not lie in predicting contingent events, but in divining the essentially religious in the course of history. . . . In no prophecy can it be shown that the literal predict- ing of distant historical events is contained. ... In conformity with the analogy of prophecy generally, special predictions concerning Christ do not appear in the Old Testament." Dr. Davidson must mean that this is "now commonly admitted" by writers like him- self, who, following Eichhorn, resolve " the prophet's delineations of the future" into, "in essence, nothing but forebodings — efforts of the spiritual eye to bring up be- fore itself the distinct form of the future. The prevision of the prophet is intensified presentiment." Of course, if the powers of the prophets were simply "forebodings" and "presentiments" of the human spirit in "its pre- conscious region," they could not do more than make indefinite guesses about the future. But this is not the Jewish nor the Christian theory of prophecy. See Basil {In Esai. c. iii), Chrysostom {Horn, xxii, t. v, 137, ed. 1612), Clem. Alex. (Strom, lib. ii), Eusebius (Dem. Evang. v, 132, ed. 1544), and Justin Martyr {Dial, cum Tryph. p. 224, ed. 1636). See Suicer, s. v. 7rpo<pi]Tnc.
The view commonly taken of the prophets is, indeed, that they were mere predictors of future events; but this view is one-sided and too narrow ; though, on the other hand, we must beware of expanding too much the acceptation of the term prophet. Not to mention those who, like Hendewerk, in the introduction to his Commentary on the Prophet Isaiah, identify the notion of a prophet with that of an honest and pious man, yet we see from the above considerations that the conception of those is likewise too wide who place the essential feature of a prophet in his divine inspiration. That this does not meet the whole subject appears from Numb, xii, 6 sq.. where Moses, who enjoyed divine in- spiration in its highest grade, is represented as differing from those called prophets in a stricter sense, and as standing in contrast with them. Divine inspiration is only the general basis of the prophetic office, to which other elements must be added, especially the gift of that inspiration in a formal manner and for a specific pur- pose. This will become still more clear from the con- siderations adduced under the next heads.
IV. Test of the Prophetic Character. — As Moses had foretold, a host of false prophets arose in later times among the people, who promised prosperity without repentance, and preached the Gospel without the law; The writings of the prophets are full of complaints of the mischief done by these impostors. Jeremiah sig- nificantly calls them "prophets of the deceit of their own heart" — i. e. men who followed the suggestions of their own fancy in prophesying (Jer. xxiii, 26; comp. ver. 16, and ch. xiv, 14). All their practices prove the great influence which true prophetism had acquired among the people of Israel. But how were the people to distinguish between true and false prophets? This is decided partly by positive or negative criteria, and partly by certain general marks.
1. In the law concerning prophets (Deut. xviii, 20; comp. xiii, 7-9) the following enactments are con- tained :
(1.) The prophet who speaks in the name of other
PROPHET
C44
PPtOPHET
gods—\. e. professes to have his revelations from a god different from Jehovah -is to be considered as false, and to be punished capitally; and this even though his pre- dictions should come to pass.
(2.) The same punishment is to be inflicted on him who speaks in the name of the true God, but wkost pre- art not accomplished.
These enactments established a peculiar right of the prophets. Be who prophesied in the name of the true God was. even when he foretold calamity, entitled to be tolerated, until it happened that a prediction of his failed of accomplishment 1 1 <■ might then he impris- oned, but could not be put to death, as instanced in Jeremiah (xxvi, 8-16), who is apprehended anil ar- raigned, hut acquitted: "Then, said the princes and the people unto the priests and the prophets This man is net worthy to die. lor lie has spoken to us in the name of the Lord our God." Ahab is by false prophets en- couraged to attack Ramoth-gilead, hut Micaiah proph- esied him no good ; on which the kin-- becomes angry, and orders the prophet to he confined (1 Kings xxii, 1-27) : "Take Micaiah and put him in prison, and teed him with bread of affliction, and with water of afflic- tion, until I come in peace." Micaiah answers iver. 28 I, ■ I! thou return at, all in peace, the Lord has not spoken by me." Until the sate return of the king, Micaiah is to remain in prison; after that, he shall he put to death. The prophet agrees to it. and the king- goes up to Kamoth-gilead, but is slain in the battle.