j it, and more especially to look at the revelation as in instead of out of time. The result is a comparative failure; but. this failure is softened by the divine inti- mation that the time is not yet. The two questions, What did the prophet understand by this prophecy V and What was the meaning of this prophecy? are some- what different in the ultimate estimation of every one who believes that "the Holy Ghost spake by the prophets," or who considers it possible that he did so
J speak. It is on this principle rather than as it is ex- plained by Dr. M-Caul {Aids to Faith') that the proph-
! ecy of Hosea xi, 1 is to be interpreted. Hosea, we may
! well believe, understood in his own words no more than a reference to the historical fact that the children of Israel came out of Egypt. But Hosea was not the au- thor of the prophecy — he was the instrument by which it was promulgated. The Holy Spirit intended some- thing further, and what this something was he informs
j us by the evangelist Matthew (Matt, ii, 15). The two facts of the Israelites being led out of Egypt and of Christ's return from Egypt appear to Prof. Jowett so distinct that the reference by Matthew to the prophet is to him inexplicable except on the hypothesis of a mistake on the part of the evangelist (see Jowett, Essay on the Interpretation of Scripture). A deeper insight. into Scripture shows that, "the Jewish people them- selves, their history, their ritual, their government, all
| present one grand prophecy of the future Redeemer"
1 (Lee, p. 107). Consequently " Israel" is one of Xhc forms naturally taken in the prophetic vision by the idea "Messiah? It does not follow from the above, how- ever, that, the prophets had no intelligent comprehen- sion of their ordinary vaticinations. These, so far at least as the primary reference is concerned, were plain to their own mind, although the future and full signifi- cance was of necessity dim and imperfectly apprehended. Time, in the order of providence, is God's own best ex- pounder of prophecy.
While the prophets were under the influence of in- spiration, the scenery might produce deep, absorbing, or elevated emotion, which would sometimes greatly affect their physical svstem (Gen. xv. 12; Numb, xxiv, 16 ; Dan. x, 8; Ezek. i, 28 ; Kev. i, 17). Still they had an intelligent consciousness of what they were describ- ing; they retained their distinct mental faculties; they did not litter frantic ravings like the prophets of Baal. Undoubtedly, as the prophecies are a revelation from God, the prophets well understood, at least in a general way, the predictions they uttered; but they did not necessarily testify or know anything respecting the time
PROPHET
648
PROPHET
when the events predicted should happen (Dan. xii. k, 'J; 1 Put. i. lo 12). Occasionally even this was revealed to them (Jer. ii, 10). The symbols which were often exhibited to the prophets they described as they came before them in succession, and in some instances they were subsequently favored with a more full and partic- ular explanation of the scenery which passed before them (Ezek. xxxvii, 11). Though the prophetic office rally permanent, ii need not, and should not, ised thai at 'ill ti<net and on all occasions the prophets spoke and acted under the special aid and guidance of the Holy Spirit. So much was not true of even the apostles "I Christ, It is enough that at all due times, and in appropriate circumstances, they were specially guided and aided by the Spirit of God. Nor i- ii necessary to assume that all the prophets were en- dowed with miraculous powers. Such was not the ease even with Christian prophets I 1 Cur. xii, 10). Sec lx-
bpib \ i -ion.
VI. Form and Peculiarities of th Prophetic Utter- ances.—1. Verbal Modes of Delivery. — Usually the prophets promulgated their \ i-i. ms and announcements in public places before the congregated people. Still some portions of the prophetic books, as the entire sec- end part of Isaiah and the description of the new Tem- ple (Ezek. xl-xlviii), probably were never communi- cated orally. In other cases the prophetic addresses first delivered orally were next, when committed to writing, revised and improved. Especially the hooks of the lesser prophets consist, for the greater part, not of separate predictions, independent of each other, but form, as they now are. a whole that is. they eh-e the quintessence of the prophetic labors of their authors. In this case ii is certain that the authors themselves caused the collection to be made. But it is so likewise in some cases where their books really consist of single declara- tions, and in others it is at Least highly probable, fur- ther particulars concerning the manner in which pro- phetic rolls were collected and published we have only respecting Jeremiah, who, being in prison, called I!a- ruch "to write from his mouth his predictions, and to read them in the ears of the people" (Jer. xxxviii, 4- 14). There is evidence that the later prophets sedu- lously read the writings of the earlier, and that a pro- phetic i';i i existed before the present was formed.
The predictions of Jeremiah throughout rest on the writings of earlier prophets, as Kuper has established (in his Jen mias Librorum Sacrorum lnt< rpn s atque I 'in- dex, Berlin, 1837). Zechariah explicitly alludes to writ- ings of former prophets; "to the words which the Lord has spoken to earlier prophets, when Jerusalem was in- habited and in prosperity" (Zech. i. I: \ ii. 7. 12). In all probability we have complete those predictions which were committed to writing; at least the proofs which Kwald gives (p. hi sip) for his opinion, of prophecies having been lost, do not stand trial. The words '<as the Lord hath said," in Joel ii. 32, refer to the pre- dictions of Joel himself. In [sa. ii and Mic. iv nothing is introduced li a lost prophetic roll, hut Isaiah bor- rows from Micah. Hosea alludes (viii. 12), not to some unknown work, but to the Pentateuch. In [sa. xv and \\i the propbel repeats, not another's prediction, hut his own, previously delivered, to which he adds a sup- plement. Obadiah and Jeremiah do not avail them- selves of the written address of a former prophet, hut Jeremiah makes the prophecy of Obadiah the ground- work of his own. The opinion thai in Isa. lvi, 10 ; Ivii, II, then- was inserted, unaltered, a Ion- remnanl of an older roll is founded on erroneous views respecting the time of its composition. The same hoi, is good of Isa. xxiv, where Kwald would find remnants of several older mils. The very circumstance that in the prophets there nowhere occurs a tenable ground for maintaining that they referred to rolls losl and unknown to us, hul that they often allude to writings which we know and pos- sess. ,],ail\ proves that there is no reason for supposing, with Ewald, that & great number ol prophetic composi-