p. 5 | Its Loss a Calamity to the Jews by J. O. Corliss

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jul 13, 1911

Its Loss a Calamity to the Jews

By J. O. Corliss

Tracings of the Prophetic Gift—No. 10

Its Loss a Calamity to the Jews

J. O. CORLISS

THE prophetic books of the Bible are enumerated in the Jewish canon as of Joshua, Judges, the books of Samuel, the books of Kings, the three greater prophets (omitting, of course, the book of Daniel), and the twelve minor prophets. The rabbinical traditions reckon forty-eight prophets and seven prophetesses, while early Christian traditions give the number of prophets, including Daniel, as seventy-three, and the prophetesses as ten.

The prejudice on the part of the Jews against Daniel as a prophet is claimed to be based on historical inaccuracies in the book itself, for which they placed it in the list of apocryphal literature. Many and elaborate were the objections produced by these old-time “Higher Critics;” but upon careful study of these alleged difficulties, most of them, at least, seem to be based upon a lack of the general knowledge and purpose of the Scriptures. As these studies are more historical than polemical, it is not our purpose to notice these in detail. It is quite enough for the purpose of this observation, to state that as regards the name of the reputed author of that prophetic book, a contemporary prophet speaks familiarly of him as one well known, and refers to his life and character in a commendatory way. Eze. 14:14, 20; 28:3.

More than this, the prophetic words recorded in that book are quoted by the Lord Jesus, and made the basis of a most important discourse. Matt. 24:15-22. It has been affirmed that the name of Daniel found in this reference did not occur in some of the older manuscripts, but that does not in any way detract from the fact that the Saviour recognized Daniel as a genuine prophet, since he quoted the words of his prophecy, which are found in no other prophetic book of the Old Testament. Besides all this, history has long since corroborated the accuracy of the political predictions of the book in all their general aspects.

The very definite prediction of the time of the coming Messiah (chapter 9:25) might have been well received by the Jews at the Christian era, had not certain developments changed the attitude of that nation toward all prophetic utterances in general. Relying as they did on the promises that the “seed of the woman” should bruise the serpent’s head, that the “seed of Abraham” must inherit the land, and that the “Son of David” should reign forever on the throne of Israel, they eventually permitted their religious faith to embrace no more than political prosperity for themselves as a nation. Believing, too, that because of the national covenant promise of God to them through Moses (Ex. 19:5, 6), therefore they were yet a holy nation, they were ever ready to meet reproof with the emphatic words: “The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, are these.” Jer. 7:4.

Indeed, many of the earlier prophetic utterances seemed to extend no further. From the advent of Amos, however (or just prior to his time), a new school of prophets seems to have come to the front. The older class were more or less politically inclined, in their efforts to maintain the appearance of a theocracy as organized in the days of Moses. They were thus called to advise in matters of state policy, especially in those pertaining to war. They yielding to this worldly policy, the Lord did not prompt their words; their judgment became warped, and their counsel was in no way superior to that of the man of the world. Because of this they were more than likely to err, and so were very unreliable, at least as prophets. One instance will suffice to illustrate this thought. On a certain occasion we find four hundred prophets surrounding King Jehoshaphat, advising him to go out to Ramath-gilead to fight the king of Syria, with positive assurance of prosperity. Fearful that these prophets were deceiving him, the king called for Micaiah, who gave a contrary opinion. See 1 Kings 22.

Such experiences as these began to weaken the faith of Israel in general prophetic utterances; and somewhere between Elijah’s time and the days of Amos, they came to look upon prophecy with considerable doubt. But as before stated, a new class of prophets emerged from the darkness in an attempt to rescue the people from their semiskepticism. These were to stand out more fully as the typical organ of revelation, in that they were to share the secrets of the Almighty. Amos 3:7.

Prophets of this class were obliged to denounce those before them who had not been true to the prophetic calling. Thus one of them speaks as from God: “I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied.” This fact might have been overlooked had these false prophets spoken only what their observation might have suggested that they ought to say. Thus the Lord says of them, further: “But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings.” Jer. 23:21, 22. In contrast with these false prophets God thus presents those through whom he speaks: “Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces? Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that steal my words every one from his neighbor.” Verses 29-34.

This later school of prophets maintained a higher and truer view of Jehovah’s character than had those who immediately preceded them, which was but the renewal of the God-view by the human instrument. But by this time the popular faith was full of heathenish superstition, strangely blended with the higher ideas left as an inheritance from Moses, Samuel, and Elijah. This blinded their eyes to their great national sins, and so they rested in the belief that the permanency of their nation was well assured.

But the later prophets knew that the nation was thoroughly corrupt, and was on the very verge of disaster. The prophets were therefore impelled to make known God’s revelation of this fact, which called down upon them the wrath of the nation. Jer. 19:13; 26:8. Notwithstanding the cruel treatment accorded these men of God, they were constrained to say: “The Lord sent me to prophesy against this house and against this city all the words that ye have heard.” Jer. 26:12.

The people of Israel, it seems, supposed that they knew God, simply by their ideas of his creative and preserving power. But this was not enough, because it did not correspond with the prophetic thought, which was a concrete knowledge of the divine character; that

is, a knowledge of God as a person, rather than as an idea. This made the relation of God to his people a matter of personal faith, rather than a national relation. This was really the death-struggle of the idea of a national religion, and in it the people lost the battle by rejecting the testimony of God sent to them through his prophets.

As the voice of the prophets became less and less effective, the people were finally left without it. Since the people would not listen to its pleadings for reform, it was no longer necessary to continue it among them, and it was withdrawn. The result to Israel of such a step was clearly predicted in the following mournful strain, hundreds of years before it came: “We see not our signs: there is no more any prophet: neither is there among us any that knoweth how long.” Then, as though the distress of such a situation was more than could well be borne, the cry goes up: “O God, how long shall the adversary reproach? shall the enemy blaspheme thy name forever? Why withdrawest thou thy hand, even thy right hand? pluck it out of thy bosom.” Ps. 74:9-11.

But the die was cast, and the people were left to themselves as their course toward the prophets had indicated that they desired. After the extinction of the prophetic voice, the writings of the prophets were resorted to as a guide. But the trend of mind cultivated by that people for so long a time had disqualified them to receive these written prophecies in their simplicity, and so professional exponents of them were demanded. In response to this call, hundreds of experts were at hand, each to put his own interpretation upon the inspired word, and also to decide which writings were more important than others.

This state of affairs soon gave rise to many methods of interpretation, all of which, in some way, must be made to appear just. Amid these various constructions and differentials, the people became confused and bewildered, until many lost faith in God, and sought only temporary gain. Under the circumstances, but a faint attempt, at best, was made to continue as a religious nation; and yet in the four centuries between the last prophet of the Old Testament and the appearance of John the Baptist, crucial experiences caused the people to feel painfully the need of some Heaven-sent message of relief, such as their fathers had received in olden time. Uncomfortable as their situation was, they should have realized that they themselves had created it; but as they did not, there remained no remedy but to endure the tormenting ordeal. Had they only known in their day the things that belonged to their peace, their eyes would not have been so blinded to the signs of the coming Messiah. Luke 19:42.

Mountain View, Cal.