One remarkable feature of Chronicles as compared with the book of Kings is
the greater interest shown by the former in the prophets of Judah. The
chronicler, by confining his attention to the southern kingdom, was
compelled to omit almost all reference to Elijah and Elisha, and thus
exclude from his work some of the most thrilling chapters in the history
of the prophets of Israel. Nevertheless the prophets as a whole play
almost as important a part in Chronicles as in the book of Kings.
Compensation is made for the omission of the two great northern prophets
by inserting accounts of several prophets whose messages were addressed to
the kings of Judah.
The chronicler’s interest in the prophets was very different from the
interest he took in the priests and Levites. The latter belonged to the
institutions of his own time, and formed his own immediate circle. In
dealing with their past, he was reconstructing the history of his own
order; he was able to illustrate and supplement from observation and
experience the information afforded by his sources.
But when the chronicler wrote, prophets had ceased to be a living
institution in Judah. The light that had shone so brightly in Isaiah and
Jeremiah burned feebly in Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, and then went
out. Not long after the chronicler’s time the failure of prophecy is
expressly recognised. The people whose synagogues have been burnt up
complain,—
“We see not our signs;
There is no more any prophet.”(288)
When Judas Maccabæus appointed certain priests to cleanse the Temple after
its pollution by the Syrians, they pulled down the altar of burnt
offerings because the heathen had defiled it, and laid up the stones in
the mountain of the Temple in a convenient place, until there should come
a prophet to show what should be done with them.(289) This failure of
prophecy was not merely brief and transient. It marked the disappearance
of the ancient order of prophets. A parallel case shows how the Jews had
become aware that the high-priest no longer possessed the special gifts
connected with the Urim and Thummim. When certain priests could not find
their genealogies, they were forbidden “to eat of the most holy things
till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim.”(290) We have no
record of any subsequent appearance of “a priest with Urim and with
Thummim” or of any prophet of the old order.
Thus the chronicler had never seen a prophet; his conception of the
personality and office of the prophet was entirely based upon ancient
literature, and he took no professional interest in the order. At the same
time he had no prejudice against them; they had no living successors to
compete for influence and endowments with the priests and Levites.
Possibly the Levites, as the chief religious teachers of the people,
claimed some sort of apostolic succession from the prophets; but there are
very slight grounds for any such theory. The chronicler’s information on
the whole subject was that of a scholar with a taste for antiquarian
research.
Let us briefly examine the part played by the prophets in the history of
Judah as given by Chronicles. We have first, as in the book of Kings, the
references to Nathan and Gad: they make known to David the will of Jehovah
as regards the building of the Temple and the punishment of David’s pride
in taking the census of Israel. David unhesitatingly accepts their
messages as the word of Jehovah. It is important to notice that when
Nathan is consulted about building the Temple he first answers, apparently
giving a mere private opinion, “Do all that is in thine heart, for God is
with thee”; but when “the word of God comes” to him, he retracts his
former judgment and forbids David to build the Temple. Here again the plan
of the chronicler’s work leads to an important omission: his silence as to
the murder of Uriah prevents him from giving the beautiful and instructive
account of the way in which Nathan rebuked the guilty king. Later
narratives exhibit other prophets in the act of rebuking most of the kings
of Judah, but none of these incidents are equally striking and pathetic.
At the end of the histories of David and of most of the later kings we
find notes which apparently indicate that, in the chronicler’s time, the
prophets were credited with having written the annals of the kings with
whom they were contemporary. In connection with Hezekiah’s reformation we
are incidentally told that Nathan and Gad were associated with David in
making arrangements for the music of the Temple: “He set the Levites in
the house of Jehovah, with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps,
according to the commandment of David and of Gad the king’s seer and
Nathan the prophet, for the commandment was of Jehovah by His
prophets.”(291)
In the account of Solomon’s reign, the chronicler omits the interview of
Ahijah the Shilonite with Jeroboam, but refers to it in the history of
Rehoboam. From this point, in accordance with his general plan, he omits
almost all missions of prophets to the northern kings.
In Rehoboam’s reign, we have recorded, as in the book of Kings, a message
from Jehovah by Shemaiah forbidding the king and his two tribes of Judah
and Benjamin to attempt to compel the northern tribes to return to their
allegiance to the house of David. Later on, when Shishak invaded Judah,
Shemaiah was commissioned to deliver to the king and princes the message,
“Thus saith Jehovah: Ye have forsaken Me; therefore have I also left you
in the hand of Shishak.”(292) But when they repented and humbled
themselves before Jehovah, Shemaiah announced to them the mitigation of
their punishment.
Asa’s reformation was due to the inspired exhortations of a prophet called
both Oded and Azariah the son of Oded. Later on Hanani the seer rebuked
the king for his alliance with Benhadad, king of Syria. “Then Asa was
wroth with the seer, and put him in the prison-house; for he was in a rage
with him because of this thing.”(293)
Jehoshaphat’s alliance with Ahab and his consequent visit to Samaria
enabled the chronicler to introduce from the book of Kings the striking
narrative of Micaiah the son of Imlah; but this alliance with Israel
earned for the king the rebukes of Jehu the son of Hanani the seer and
Eliezar the son of Dodavahu of Mareshah. However, on the occasion of the
Moabite and Ammonite invasion Jehoshaphat and his people received the
promise of Divine deliverance from “Jahaziel the son of Zechariah, the son
of Benaiah, the son of Jeiel, the son of Mattaniah the Levite, of the sons
of Asaph.”(294)
The punishment of the wicked king Jehoram was announced to him by a
“writing from Elijah the prophet.”(295) His son Ahaziah apparently
perished without any prophetic warning; but when Joash and his princes
forsook the house of Jehovah and served the Asherim and the idols, “He
sent prophets to them to bring them again to Jehovah,” among the rest
Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest. Joash turned a deaf ear to the
message, and put the prophet to death.(296)
When Amaziah bowed down before the gods of Edom and burned incense unto
them, Jehovah sent unto him a prophet whose name is not recorded. His
mission failed, like that of Zechariah the son of Jehoiada; and Amaziah,
like Joash, showed no respect for the person of the messenger of Jehovah.
In this case the prophet escaped with his life. He began to deliver his
message, but the king’s patience soon failed, and he said unto the
prophet, “Have we made thee of the king’s counsel? forbear; why shouldest
thou be smitten?” The prophet, we are told, “forbare”; but his forbearance
did not prevent his adding one brief and bitter sentence: “I know that God
hath determined to destroy thee, because thou hast done this and hast not
hearkened unto my counsel.”(297) Then apparently he departed in peace and
was not smitten.
We have now reached the period of the prophets whose writings are extant.
We learn from the headings of their works that Isaiah saw his “vision,”
and that the word of Jehovah came unto Hosea, in the days of Uzziah,
Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah; that the word of Jehovah came to Micah in the
days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah; and that Amos “saw” his “words” in the
days of Uzziah. But the chronicler makes no reference to any of these
prophets in connection with either Uzziah, Jotham, or Ahaz. Their writings
would have afforded the best possible materials for his history, yet he
entirely neglected them. In view of his anxiety to introduce into his
narrative all missions of prophets of which he found any record, we can
only suppose that he was so little interested in the prophetical writings
that he neither referred to them nor recollected their dates.
To Ahaz in Chronicles, in spite of all his manifold and persistent
idolatry, no prophet was sent. The absence of Divine warning marks his
extraordinary wickedness. In the book of Samuel the culmination of
Jehovah’s displeasure against Saul is shown by His refusal to answer him
either by dreams, by Urim, or by prophets. He sends no prophet to Ahaz,
because the wicked king of Judah is utterly reprobate. Prophecy, the token
of the Divine presence and favour, has abandoned a nation given over to
idolatry, and has even taken a temporary refuge in Samaria. Jerusalem was
no longer worthy to receive the Divine messages, and Oded was sent with
his words of warning and humane exhortation to the children of Ephraim.
There he met with a prompt and full obedience, in striking contrast to the
reception accorded by Joash and Amaziah to the prophets of Jehovah.
The chronicler’s history of the reign of Hezekiah further illustrates his
indifference to the prophets whose writings are extant. In the book of
Kings great prominence is given to Isaiah. In the account of Sennacherib’s
invasion his messages to Hezekiah are given at considerable length.(298)
He announces to the king his approaching death and Jehovah’s gracious
answers to Hezekiah’s prayer for a respite and his request for a sign.
When Hezekiah, in his pride of wealth, displayed his treasures to the
Babylonian ambassadors, Isaiah brought the message of Divine rebuke and
judgment. Chronicles characteristically devotes three long chapters to
ritual and Levites, and dismisses Isaiah in half a sentence: “And Hezekiah
the king and Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, prayed because of
this”—_i.e._, the threatening language of Sennacherib—“and cried to
Heaven.”(299) In the accounts of Hezekiah’s sickness and recovery and of
the Babylonian embassy the references to Isaiah are entirely omitted.
These omissions may be due to lack of space, so much of which had been
devoted to the Levites that there was none to spare for the prophet.
Indeed, at the very point where prophecy began to exercise a controlling
influence over the religion of Judah the chronicler’s interest in the
subject altogether flags. He tells us that Jehovah spake to Manasseh and
to his people, and refers to “the words of the seers that spake to him in
the name of Jehovah, the God of Israel”;(300) but he names no prophet and
does not record the terms of any Divine message. In the case of Manasseh
his sources may have failed him, but we have seen that in Hezekiah’s reign
he deliberately passes over most of the references to Isaiah.
The chroniclers narrative of Josiah’s reign adheres more closely to the
book of Kings. He reproduces the mission from the king to the prophetess
Huldah and her Divine message of present forbearance and future judgment.
The other prophet of this reign is the heathen king Pharaoh Necho, through
whose mouth the Divine warning is given to Josiah. Jeremiah is only
mentioned as lamenting over the last good king.(301) In the parallel text
of this passage in the apocryphal book of Esdras Pharaoh’s remonstrance is
given in a somewhat expanded form; but the editor of Esdras shrank from
making the heathen king the mouthpiece of Jehovah. While Chronicles tells
us that Josiah “hearkened not unto the words of Neco from the mouth of
God,” Esdras, glaringly inconsistent both with the context and the
history, tells us that he did not regard “the words of the prophet
Jeremiah spoken by the mouth of the Lord.”(302) This amended statement is
borrowed from the chronicler’s account of Zedekiah, who “humbled not
himself before Jeremiah the prophet, speaking from the mouth of Jehovah.”
But this king was not alone in his disobedience. As the inevitable ruin of
Jerusalem drew near, the whole nation, priests and people alike, sank
deeper and deeper in sin. In these last days, “where sin abounded, grace
did yet more abound.” Jehovah exhausted the resources of His mercy:
“Jehovah, the God of their fathers, sent to them by His messengers, rising
up early and sending, because He had compassion on His people and on His
dwelling-place.” It was all in vain: “They mocked the messengers of God,
and despised His words and scoffed at His prophets, until the wrath of
Jehovah arose against His people, till there was no remedy.” There are two
other references in the concluding paragraphs of Chronicles to the
prophecies of Jeremiah; but the history of prophecy in Judah closes with
this last great unavailing manifestation of prophetic activity.
Before considering the general idea of the prophet that may be collected
from the various notices in Chronicles, we may devote a little space to
the chronicler’s curious attitude towards our canonical prophets. For the
most part he simply follows the book of Kings in making no reference to
them; but his almost entire silence as to Isaiah suggests that his
imitation of his authority in other cases is deliberate and intentional,
especially as we find him inserting one or two references to Jeremiah not
taken from the book of Kings. The chronicler had much more opportunity of
using the canonical prophets than the author or authors of the book of
Kings. The latter wrote before Hebrew literature had been collected and
edited; but the chronicler had access to all the literature of the
monarchy, Captivity, and even later times. His numerous extracts from
almost the entire range of the Historical Books, together with the
Pentateuch and Psalms, show that his plan included the use of various
sources, and that he had both the means and ability to work out his plan.
He makes two references to Haggai and Zechariah,(303) so that if he
ignores Amos, Hosea, and Micah, and all but ignores Isaiah, we can only
conclude that he does so of set purpose. Hosea and Amos might be excluded
on account of their connection with the northern kingdom; possibly the
strictures of Isaiah and Micah on the priesthood and ritual made the
chronicler unwilling to give them special prominence. Such an attitude on
the part of a typical representative of the prevailing school of religious
thought has an important bearing on the textual and other criticism of the
early prophets. If they were neglected by the authorities of the Temple in
the interval between Ezra and the Maccabees, the possibility of late
additions and alterations is considerably increased.
Let us now turn to the picture of the prophets drawn for us by the
chronicler. Both prophet and priest are religious personages, otherwise
they differ widely in almost every particular; we cannot even speak of
them as both holding religious offices. The term “office” has to be almost
unjustifiably strained in order to apply it to the prophet, and to use it
thus without explanation would be misleading. The qualifications, status,
duties, and rewards of the priests are all fully prescribed by rigid and
elaborate rules; but the prophets were the children of the Spirit: “The
wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the voice thereof, but
knowest not whence it cometh and whither it goeth; so is every one that is
born of the Spirit.” The priest was bound to be a physically perfect male
of the house of Aaron; the prophet might be of any tribe and of either
sex. The warlike Deborah found a more peaceful successor in Josiah’s
counsellor Huldah, and among the degenerate prophets of Nehemiah’s time a
prophetess Noadiah(304) is specially mentioned. The priestly or Levitical
office did not exclude its holder from the prophetic vocation. The Levite
Jahaziel delivered the message of Jehovah to Jehoshaphat; and the prophet
Zechariah, whom Joash put to death, was the son of the high-priest
Jehoiada, and therefore himself a priest. Indeed, upon occasion the
prophetic gift was exercised by those whom we should scarcely call
prophets at all. Pharaoh Necho’s warning to Jehoshaphat is exactly
parallel to the prophetic exhortations addressed to other kings. In the
crisis of David’s fortunes at Ziklag, when Judah and Benjamin came out to
meet him with apparently doubtful intentions, their adhesion to the future
king was decided by a prophetic word given to the mighty warrior Amasai:
“Then the Spirit came upon Amasai, who was one of the thirty, and he said,
Thine are we, David, and on thy side, thou son of Jesse: peace, peace, be
unto thee, and peace be to thine helpers; for thy God helpeth thee.”(305)
In view of this wide distribution of the prophetic gift, we are not
surprised to find it frequently exercised by the pious kings. They receive
and communicate to the nation direct intimations of the Divine will. David
gives to Solomon and the people the instructions which God has given him
with regard to the Temple; God’s promises are personally addressed to
Solomon, without the intervention of either prophet or priest; Abijah
rebukes and exhorts Jeroboam and the Israelites very much as other
prophets address the wicked kings; the speeches of Hezekiah and Josiah
might equally well have been delivered by one of the prophets. David
indeed is expressly called a prophet by St. Peter(306); and though the
immediate reference is to the Psalms, the chronicler’s history both of
David and of other kings gives them a valid claim to rank as prophets.
The authority and status of the prophets rested on no official or material
conditions, such as hedged in the priestly office on every side.
Accordingly their ancestry, previous history, and social standing are
matters with which the historian has no concern. If the prophet happens
also to be a priest or Levite, the chronicler, of course, knows and
records his genealogy. It was essential that the genealogy of a priest
should be known, but there are no genealogies of the prophets; their order
was like that of Melchizedek, standing on the page of history “without
father, without mother, without genealogy”; they appear abruptly, with no
personal introduction, they deliver their message, and then disappear with
equal abruptness. Sometimes not even their names are given. They had the
one qualification compared with which birth and sex, rank and reputation,
were trivial and meaningless things. The living word of Jehovah was on
their lips; the power of His Spirit controlled their hearers; messenger
and message were alike their own credentials. The supreme religious
authority of the prophet testified to the subordinate and accidental
character of all rites and symbols. On the other hand, the combination of
priest and prophet in the same system proved the loftiest spirituality,
the most emphatic recognition of the direct communion of the soul with
God, to be consistent with an elaborate and rigid system of ritual. The
services and ministry of the Temple were like lamps whose flame showed
pale and dim when earth and heaven were lit up by the lightnings of
prophetic inspiration.
The gifts and functions of the prophets did not lend themselves to any
regular discipline or organisation; but we can roughly distinguish between
two classes of prophets. One class seem to have exercised their gifts more
systematically and continuously than others. Gad and Nathan, Isaiah and
Jeremiah, became practically the domestic chaplains and spiritual advisers
of David, Hezekiah, and the last kings of Judah. Others are only mentioned
as delivering a single message; their ministry seems to have been
occasional, perhaps confined to a single period of their lives. The Divine
Spirit was free to take the whole life or to take a part only; He was not
to be conditioned even by gifts of His own bestowal.
Human organisation naturally attempted to classify the possessors of the
prophetic gift, to set them apart as a regular order, perhaps even to
provide them with a suitable training, and, still more impossible task, to
select the proper recipients of the gift and to produce and foster the
prophetic inspiration. We read elsewhere of “schools of the prophets” and
“sons of the prophets.” The chronicler omits all reference to such
institutions or societies; he declines to assign them any place in the
prophetic succession in Israel. The gift of prophecy was absolutely
dependent on the Divine will, and could not be claimed as a necessary
appurtenance of the royal court at Jerusalem or a regular order in the
kingdom of Judah. The priests are included in the list of David’s
ministers, but not the prophets Gad and Nathan. Abijah mentions among the
special privileges of Judah “priests ministering unto Jehovah, even the
sons of Aaron and the Levites in their work”; it does not occur to him to
name prophets among the regular and permanent ministers of Jehovah.
The chronicler, in fact, does not recognise the professional prophet. The
fifty sons of the prophets that watched Elisha divide the waters in the
name of the God of Elijah were no more prophets for him than the four
hundred and fifty prophets of Baal and the four hundred prophets of the
Asherah that ate at Jezebel’s table. The true prophet, like Amos, need not
be either a prophet or the son of a prophet in the professional sense.
Long before the chronicler’s time the history and teaching of the great
prophets had clearly established the distinction between the professional
prophet, who was appointed by man or by himself, and the inspired
messenger, who received a direct commission from Jehovah.
In describing the prophet’s sole qualification we have also stated his
function. He was the messenger of Jehovah, and declared His will. The
priest in his ministrations represented Israel before God, and in a
measure represented God to Israel. The rites and ceremonies over which he
presided symbolised the permanent and unchanging features of man’s
religious experience and me eternal righteousness and mercy of Him who is
the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. From generation to generation
men received the good gifts of God, and brought the offerings of their
gratitude; they sinned against God and came to seek forgiveness; and the
house of Aaron met them generation after generation in the same priestly
robes, with the same rites, in the one Temple, in token of the unchanging
willingness of Jehovah to accept and forgive His children.
The prophet, too, represented God to man; his words were the words of God;
through him the Divine presence and the Divine Spirit exerted their
influence over the hearts and consciences of his hearers. But while the
priestly ministrations symbolised the fixity and permanence of God’s
eternal majesty, the prophets expressed the infinite variety of His Divine
nature and its continual adaptation to all the changes of human life. They
came to the individual and to the nation in each crisis of history with
the Divine message that enabled them to suit themselves to altered
circumstances, to grapple with new difficulties, and to solve new
problems. The priest and the prophet together set forth the great paradox
that the unchanging God is the source of all change.
“Lord God, by whom all change is wrought,
By whom new things to birth are brought,
In whom no change is known,
To Thee we rise, in Thee we rest;
We stay at home, we go in quest,
Still Thou art our abode:
The rapture swells, the wonder grows,
As full on us new life still flows
From our unchanging God.”
The prophetic utterances recorded by the chronicler illustrate the work of
the prophets in delivering the message that met the present needs of the
people. There is nothing in Chronicles to encourage the unspiritual notion
that the main object of prophecy was to give exact and detailed
information as to the remote future. There is prediction necessarily: it
was impossible to declare the will of God without stating the punishment
of sin and the victory of righteousness; but prediction is only part of
the declaration of God’s will. In Gad and Nathan prophecy appears as a
means of communication between the inquiring soul and God; it does not,
indeed, gratify curiosity, but rather gives guidance in perplexity and
distress. The later prophets constantly intervene to initiate reform or to
hinder the carrying out of an evil policy. Gad and Nathan lent their
authority to David’s organisation of the Temple music; Asa’s reform
originated in the exhortation of Oded the prophet; Jehoshaphat went out to
meet the Moabite and Ammonite invaders in response to the inspiriting
utterance of Jahaziel the Levite; Josiah consulted the prophetess Huldah
before carrying out his reformation; the chiefs of Ephraim sent back the
Jewish captives in obedience to another Oded. On the other hand, Shemaiah
prevented Rehoboam from fighting against Israel; Micaiah warned Ahab and
Jehoshaphat not to go up against Ramoth-gilead.
Often, however, the prophetic message gives the interpretation of history,
the Divine judgment upon conduct, with its sentence of punishment or
reward. Hanani the seer, for instance, comes to Asa to show him the real
value of his apparently satisfactory alliance with Benhadad, king of
Syria: “Because thou hast relied on the king of Syria, and hast not relied
on Jehovah thy God, therefore is the host of the king of Syria escaped out
of thine hand.... Herein thou hast done foolishly; for from henceforth
thou shalt have wars.” Jehoshaphat is told why his ships were broken:
“Because thou hast joined thyself with Ahaziah, Jehovah hath destroyed thy
works.” Thus the prophetic declaration of Divine judgment came to mean
almost exclusively rebuke and condemnation. The witness of a good
conscience may be left to speak for itself; God does not often need to
send a prophet to His obedient servants in order to signify His approval
of their righteous acts. But the censures of conscience need both the
stimulus of external suggestion and the support of external authority.
Upon the prophets was constantly laid the unwelcome task of rousing and
bracing the conscience for its stern duty. They became the heralds of
Divine wrath, the precursors of national misfortune. Often, too, the
warnings that should have saved the people were neglected or resented, and
thus became the occasion of new sin and severer punishment. We must not,
however, lay too much stress on this aspect of the prophets’ work. They
were no mere Cassandras, announcing inevitable ruin at the hands of a
blind destiny; they were not always, or even chiefly, the messengers of
coming doom. If they declared the wrath of God, they also vindicated His
justice; in the day of the Lord which they so often foretold, mercy and
grace tempered and at last overcame judgment. They taught, even in their
sternest utterances, the moral government of the world and the benevolent
purpose of its Ruler. These are man’s only hope, even in his sin and
suffering, the only ground for effort, and the only comfort in misfortune.
There are, however, one or two elements in the chronicler’s notices of the
prophets that scarcely harmonise with this general picture. The scanty
references of the books of Samuel and Kings to the “schools” and sons of
the prophets have suggested the theory that the prophets were the
guardians of national education, culture, and literature. The chronicler
expressly assigns the function to the Levites, and does not recognise that
the “schools of the prophets” had any permanent significance for the
religion of Israel, possibly because they chiefly appear in connection
with the northern kingdom. At the same time, we find this idea of the
literary character of the prophets in Chronicles in a new form. The
authorities referred to in the subscriptions to each reign bear the names
of the prophets who flourished during the reign. The primary significance
of the tradition followed by the chronicler is the supreme importance of
the prophet for his period; he, and not the king, gives it a distinctive
character. Therefore the prophet gives his name to his period, as the
consuls at Rome, the Archon Basileus at Athens, and the Assyrian priests
gave their own names to their year of office. Probably by the time
Chronicles was written the view had been adopted which we know prevailed
later on, and it was supposed that the prophets wrote the Historical Books
which bore their names. The ancient prophets had given the Divine
interpretation of the course of events and pronounced the Divine judgment
on history. The Historical Books were written for religious edification;
they contained a similar interpretation and judgment. The religious
instincts of later Judaism rightly classed them with the prophetic
Scriptures.
The striking contrast we have been able to trace between the priests and
the prophets in their qualifications and duties extends also to their
rewards. The book of Kings gives us glimpses of the way in which the
reverent gratitude of the people made some provision for the maintenance
of the prophets. We are all familiar with the hospitality of the
Shunammite, and we read how “a man from Baal-shalishah” brought
first-fruits to Elisha.(307) But the chronicler omits all such references
as being connected with the northern kingdom, and does not give us any
similar information as to the prophets of Judah. He is not usually
indifferent as to ways and means. He devotes some space to the revenues of
the kings of Judah, and delights to dwell on the sources of priestly
income. But it never seems to occur to him that the prophets have any
wants to be provided for. To use George Macdonald’s phrase, he is quite
content to leave them “on the lily and sparrow footing.” The priesthood
and the Levites must be richly endowed; the honour of Israel and of
Jehovah is concerned in their having cities, tithes, first-fruits, and
offerings. Prophets are sent to reproach the people when the priestly dues
are withheld; but for themselves the prophets might have said with St.
Paul, “We seek not yours, but you.” No one supposed that the authority and
dignity of the prophets needed to be supported by ecclesiastical status,
splendid robes, and great incomes. Spiritual force so manifestly resided
in them that they could afford to dispense with the most impressive
symbols of power and authority. On the other hand, they received an honour
that was never accorded to the priesthood: they suffered persecution for
the cause of Jehovah. Zechariah the son of Jehoiada was put to death, and
Micaiah the son of Imlah was imprisoned. We are never told that the priest
as priest suffered persecution. Ahaz closed the Temple, Manasseh set up an
idol in the house of God, but we do not read of either Ahaz or Manasseh
that they slew the priests of Jehovah. The teaching of the prophets was
direct and personal, and thus eminently calculated to excite resentment
and provoke persecution; the priestly services, however, did not at all
interfere with concurrent idolatry, and the priests were accustomed to
receive and execute the orders of the kings. There is nothing to suggest
that they sought to obtrude the worship of Jehovah upon unwilling
converts; and it is not improbable that some, at any rate, of the priests
allowed themselves to be made the tools of the wicked kings. On the eve of
the Captivity we read that “the chiefs of the priests and the people
trespassed very greatly after all the abominations of the heathen, and
they polluted the house of Jehovah.” No such disloyalty is recorded of the
prophets in Chronicles. The most splendid incomes cannot purchase loyalty.
It is still true that “the hireling fleeth because he is a hireling”;
men’s most passionate devotion is for the cause in which they have
suffered.
We have seen that the modern ministry presents certain parallels to the
ancient priesthood. Where are we to look for an analogue to the prophet?
If the minister be, in a sense, a priest when he leads the worship of the
people, is he also a prophet when he preaches to them? Preaching is
intended to be—perhaps we may venture to say that it mostly is—a
declaration of the will of God. Moreover, it is not the exposition of a
fixed and unchangeable ritual or even of a set of rigid theological
formulæ. The preacher, like the prophet, seeks to meet the demands for new
light that are made by constantly changing circumstances; he seeks to
adapt the eternal truth to the varying needs of individual lives. So far
he is a prophet, but the essential qualifications of the prophet are still
to be sought after. Isaiah and Jeremiah did not declare the word of
Jehovah as they had learnt it from a Bible or any other book, nor yet
according to the traditions of a school or the teaching of great
authorities; such declaration might be made by the scribes and rabbis in
later times. But the prophets of Chronicles received their message from
Jehovah Himself; while they mused upon the needs of the people, the fire
of inspiration burned within them; then they spoke. Moreover, like their
great antitype, they spoke with authority, and not as the scribes; their
words carried with them conviction even when they did not produce
obedience. The reality of men’s conviction of their Divine authority was
shown by the persecution to which they were subjected. Are these tokens of
the prophet also the notes of the Christian ministry of preaching?
Prophets were found among the house of Aaron and from the tribe of Levi,
but not every Levite or priest was a prophet. Every branch of the
Christian Church has numbered among its official ministers men who
delivered their message with an inspired conviction of its truth; in them
the power and presence of the Spirit have compelled a belief in their
authority to speak for God: this belief has received the twofold
attestation of hearts and consciences submitted to the Divine will on the
one hand or of bitter and rancorous hostility on the other. In every
Church we find the record of men who have spoken, “not in words which
man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth.” Such were Wyclif
and Latimer, Calvin and Luther, George Whitefield and the Wesleys; such,
too, were Moffat and Livingstone. Nor need we suppose that in the modern
Christian Church the gift of prophecy has been confined to men of
brilliant genius who have been conspicuously successful. In the sacred
canon Haggai and Obadiah stand side by side with Isaiah, Jeremiah, and
Ezekiel. The chronicler recognises the prophetic calling of men too
obscure to be mentioned by name. He whom God hath sent speaketh the words
of God, not necessarily the orator whom men crowd to hear and whose name
is recorded in history; and God giveth not the Spirit by measure. Many of
the least distinguished of His servants are truly His prophets, speaking,
by the conviction He has given them, a message which comes home with power
to some hearts at any rate, and is a savour of life unto life and of death
unto death. The seals of their ministry are to be found in redeemed and
purified lives, and also only too often in the bitter and vindictive
ill-will of those whom their faithfulness has offended.
We naturally expect to find that the official ministry affords the most
suitable sphere for the exercise of the gift of prophecy. Those who are
conscious of a Divine message will often seek the special opportunities
which the ministry affords. But our study of Chronicles reminds us that
the vocation of the prophet cannot be limited to any external
organisation; it was not confined to the official ministry of Israel; it
cannot be conditioned by recognition by bishops, presbyteries,
conferences, or Churches; it will often find its only external credential
in a gracious influence over individual lives. Nay, the prophet may have
his Divine vocation and be entirely rejected of men. In Chronicles we find
prophets, like Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, whose one Divine message is
received with scorn and defiance.
In practice, if not in theory, the Churches have long since recognised
that the prophetic gift is found outside any official ministry, and that
they may be taught the will of God by men and women of all ranks and
callings. They have provided opportunities for the free exercise of such
gifts in lay preaching, missions, Sunday-schools, meetings of all kinds.
We have here stumbled upon another modern controversy: the desirability of
women preaching. Chronicles mentions prophetesses as well as prophets; on
the other hand, there were no Jewish priestesses. The modern minister
combines some priestly duties with the opportunity, at least, of
exercising the gift of prophecy. The mention of only two or three
prophetesses in the Old Testament shows that the possession of the gift by
women was exceptional. These few instances, however, are sufficient to
prove that God did not in old times limit the gift to men; they suggest at
any rate the possibility of its being possessed by women now, and when
women have a Divine message the Church will not venture to quench the
Spirit. Of course the application of these broad principles would have to
be adapted to the circumstances of individual Churches. Huldah, for
instance, is not described as delivering any public address to the people;
the king sent his ministers to consult her in her own house. Whatever
hesitation may be felt about the public ministry of women, no one will
question their Divine commission to carry the messages of God to the
bedsides of the sick and the homes of the poor. Most of us have known
women to whom men have gone, as Josiah’s ministers went to Huldah, to
“inquire of the Lord.”
Another practical question, the payment of the ministers of religion, has
already been raised by the chronicler’s account of the revenues of the
priests. What more do we learn on the subject from his silence as to the
maintenance of the prophets? The silence is, of course, eloquent as to the
extent to which even a pious Levite may be preoccupied with his own
worldly interests and quite indifferent to other people’s; but it would
not have been possible if the idea of revenues and endowments for the
prophets had ever been very familiar to men’s minds. It has been said that
to-day the prophet sells his inspiration, but the gift of God can no more
be bought and sold with money now than in ancient Israel. The purely
spiritual character of true prophecy, its entire dependence on Divine
inspiration, makes it impossible to hire a prophet at a fixed salary
regulated by the quality and extent of his gifts. By the grace of God,
there is an intimate practical connection between the work of the official
ministry and the inspired declaration of the Divine will; and this
connection has its bearing upon the payment of ministers. Men’s gratitude
is stirred when they have received comfort and help through the spiritual
gifts of their minister, but in principle there is no connection between
the gift of prophecy and the payment of the ministry. A Church can
purchase the enjoyment of eloquence, learning, intellect, and industry; a
high character has a pecuniary value for ecclesiastical as well as for
commercial purposes. The prophet may be provided with leisure, society,
and literature so that the Divine message may be delivered in its most
attractive form; he may be installed in a large and well-appointed
building, so that he may have the best possible opportunity of delivering
his message; he will naturally receive a larger income when he surrenders
obscure and limited opportunities to minister in some more suitable
sphere. But when we have said all, it is still only the accessories that
have to do with payment, not the Divine gift of prophecy itself. When the
prophet’s message is not comforting, when his words grate upon the
theological and social prejudices of his hearers, especially when he is
invited to curse and is Divinely compelled to bless, there is no question
of payment for such ministry. It has been said of Christ, “For the minor
details necessary to secure respect, and obedience, and the enthusiasm of
the vulgar, for the tact, the finesse, the compromising faculty, the
judicious ostentation of successful politicians—for these arts He was not
prepared.”(308) Those who imitate their Master often share His reward.
The slight and accidental connection of the payment of ministers with
their prophetic gifts is further illustrated by the free exercise of such
gifts by men and women who have no ecclesiastical status and do not seek
any material reward. Here again any exact adoption of ancient methods is
impossible; we may accept from the chronicler the great principle that
loyal believers will make all adequate provision for the service and work
of Jehovah, and that they will be prepared to honour Him in the persons of
those whom they choose to represent them before Him, and also of those
whom they recognise as delivering to them His messages. On the other hand,
the prophet—and for our present purpose we may extend the term to the
humblest and least gifted Christian who in any way seeks to speak for
Christ—the prophet speaks by the impulse of the Spirit and from no meaner
motive.
With regard to the functions of the prophet, the Spirit is as entirely
free to dictate His own message as He is to choose His own messenger. The
chronicler’s prophets were concerned with foreign politics—alliances with
Syria and Assyria, wars with Egypt and Samaria—as well as with the ritual
of the Temple and the worship of Jehovah. They discerned a religious
significance in the purely secular matter of a census. Jehovah had His
purposes for the civil government and international policy of Israel as
well as for its creed and services. If we lay down the principle that
politics, whether local or national, are to be kept out of the pulpit, we
must either exclude from the official ministry all who possess any measure
of the prophetic gift, or else carefully stipulate that, if they be
conscious of any obligation to declare the Lord’s will in matters of
public righteousness, they shall find some more suitable place than the
Lord’s house and some more suitable time than the Lord’s day. When we
suggest that the prophet should mind his own business by confining himself
to questions of doctrine, worship, and the religious experiences of the
individual, we are in danger of denying God’s right to a voice in social
and national affairs.
Turning, however, to more directly ecclesiastical affairs, we have noted
that Asa’s reformation received its first impulse from the utterances of
the prophet Azariah or Oded, and also that one feature of the prophet’s
work is to provide for the fresh needs developed by changing
circumstances. A priesthood or any other official ministry is often
wanting in elasticity; it is necessarily attached to an established
organisation and trammelled by custom and tradition. The Holy Spirit in
all ages has commissioned prophets as the free agents in new movements in
the Divine government of the world. They may be ecclesiastics, like many
of the Reformers and like the Wesleys; but they are not dominated by the
official spirit. The initial impulse that moves such men is partly one of
recoil from their environment; and the environment in return casts them
out. Again, prophets may become ecclesiastics, like the tinker to whom
English-speaking Christians owe one of their great religious classics and
the cobbler who stirred up the Churches to missionary enthusiasm. Or they
may remain from beginning to end without official status in any Church,
like the apostle of the anti-slavery movement. In any case the impulse to
a larger, purer, and nobler standard of life than that consecrated by long
usage and ancient tradition does not come from the ecclesiastical official
because of his official training and experience; the living waters that go
out of Jerusalem in the day of the Lord are too wide, and deep, and strong
to flow in the narrow rock-hewn aqueducts of tradition: they make new
channels for themselves; and these channels are the men who do not demand
that the Spirit shall speak according to familiar formulæ and stereotyped
ideas, but are willing to be the prophets of strange and even uncongenial
truth. Or, to use the great metaphor of St. John’s Gospel, with such men,
both for themselves and for others, the water that the Lord gives them
becomes a well of water springing up unto eternal life.
But the chronicler’s picture of the work of the prophets has its darker
side. Few were privileged to give the signal for an immediate and happy
reformation. Most of the prophets were charged with messages of rebuke and
condemnation, so that they were ready to cry out with Jeremiah, “Woe is
me, my mother, that thou hast borne me, a man of strife and a man of
contention to the whole earth! I have not lent on usury, neither have men
lent to me on usury, yet every one of them doth curse me.”(309)
Perhaps even to-day the prophetic spirit often charges its possessors with
equally unwelcome duties. We trust that the Christian conscience is more
sensitive than that of ancient Israel, and that the Church is more ready
to profit by the warnings addressed to it; but the response to the sterner
teaching of the Spirit is not always accompanied by a kindly feeling
towards the teacher, and even where there is progress, the progress is
slow compared to the eager longing of the prophet for the spiritual growth
of his hearers. And yet the sequel of the chronicler’s history suggests
some relief to the gloomier side of the picture. Prophet after prophet
utters his unavailing and seemingly useless rebuke, and delivers his
announcement of coming ruin, and at last the ruin falls upon the nation.
But that is not the end. Before the chronicler wrote there had arisen a
restored Israel, purified from idolatry and delivered from many of its
former troubles. The Restoration was only rendered possible through the
continued testimony of the prophets to the Lord and His righteousness.
However barren of immediate results such testimony may seem to-day, it is
still the word of the Lord that cannot return unto Him void, but shall
accomplish that which He pleaseth and shall prosper in the thing whereto
He sent it.
The chronicler’s conception of the prophetic character of the historian,
whereby his narrative sets forth God’s win and interprets His purposes, is
not altogether popular at present. The teleological view of history is
somewhat at a discount. Yet the prophetic method, so to speak, of Carlyle
and Ruskin is largely historical; and even in so unlikely a quarter as the
works of George Eliot we can find an example of didactic history. _Romola_
is largely taken up with the story of Savonarola, told so as to bring out
its religious significance. But teleological history is sometimes a
failure even from the standpoint of the Christian student, because it
defeats its own ends. He who is bent on deducing lessons from history may
lay undue stress on part of its significance and obscure the rest. The
historian is perhaps most a prophet when he leaves history to speak for
itself. In this sense, we may venture to attribute a prophetic character
to purely scientific history; accurate and unbiassed narrative is the best
starting-point for the study of the religious significance of the course
of events.
In concluding our inquiry as to how far modern Church life is illustrated
by the work of the prophets, one is tempted to dwell for a moment on the
methods they did not use and the subjects not dealt with in their
utterances. This theme, however, scarcely belongs to the exposition of
Chronicles; it would be more appropriate to a complete examination of the
history and writings of the prophets. One point, however, may be noticed.
Their utterances in Chronicles lay less direct stress on moral
considerations than the writings of the canonical prophets, not because of
any indifference to morality, but because, seen in the distance of a
remote past, all other sins seemed to be summed up in faithlessness to
Jehovah. Perhaps we may see in this a suggestion of a final judgment of
history, which should be equally instructive to the religious man who has
any inclination to disparage morality and to the moral man who wishes to
ignore religion.
Our review and discussion of the varied references of Chronicles to the
prophets brings home to us with fresh force the keen interest felt in them
by the chronicler and the supreme importance he attached to their work.
The reverent homage of a Levite of the second Temple centuries after the
golden age of prophecy is an eloquent testimony to the unique position of
the prophets in Israel. His treatment of the subject shows that the lofty
ideal of their office and mission had lost nothing in the course of the
development of Judaism; his selection from the older material emphasises
the independence of the true prophet of any professional status or
consideration of material reward; his sense of the importance of the
prophets to the State and Church in Judah is an encouragement to those
“who look for redemption in Jerusalem,” and who trust the eternal promise
of God that in all times of His people’s need He “will raise up a prophet
from among their brethren, ... and I will put My words in his mouth, and
he shall speak unto them all that I shall command them.”(310) “The
memorial of the prophets was blessed, ... for they comforted Jacob, and
delivered them by assured hope.”(311) Many prophets of the Church have
also left a blessed memorial of comfort and deliverance, and God ever
renews this more than apostolic succession.