Its Discipline by J. O. Corliss

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jun 1, 1911

Its Discipline

By J. O. Corliss

Tracings of the Prophetic Gift — No. 4

Its Discipline

J. O. CORLISS

Another distinctive difference between priests and prophets was that of their warrant of authority. Priests, and even kings, were required to be consecrated to their work by the imposition of hands, before entering fully upon their appointed tasks. The same is required of elders and deacons in New Testament discipline. But so intimate was the relation between the prophets and their divine call that no outward nor formal consecration was required. There appears no account in the Old Testament of a prophet being anointed for his calling. The nearest step toward this was the command for Elijah to anoint Elisha to be prophet in his stead. 1 Kings 19:16. The record does not state that any more was done toward this than that Elijah, in passing by the place where Elisha was plowing in the field, threw his mantle upon the newly called prophet. Verse 19. The prophetic call, it seems, was therefore dependent upon the inward movement of the Spirit of God. In other words, the prophetic office depended entirely on the personal relation of the prophet to his divine Instructor.

There were two (some might say three) ways through which the prophet received his instruction. The first was through visions, which gave to the one receiving them the title of “seer.” Although not calling himself by this Old Testament title, the apostle Paul, in communicating the Lord’s will to the church, strengthens his teaching by the significant appeal: “Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?” 1 Cor. 9:1. See also Acts 9:3, 17; 18:9; 2 Cor. 12:1-4. These visions were at times presented in images, which conveyed lofty conceptions of the divine nature. See Isa. 6:1; Eze. 1:15, 27, 28; 1 Kings 19:11, 12.

To Moses, who ranked higher than the ordinary prophet, God talked “mouth to mouth,” apparently; that is, with but a dimming veil of cloud between them. This seems to have been more than a mere vision impressed by the Spirit; it appears to have been an actual, direct conversation. Other prophets were to be enlightened through visions and dreams. Num. 12:6. As before said, visions were experiences wherein the prophet was given exalted views of Jehovah’s being, and these were received in the prophet’s waking hours as well as in the quiet of nocturnal darkness. Dan. 10:4-7; 7:1, 2.

Often in dreams of the night, God opened to prophets the future of both nations and individuals. In the case of the latter, existing hidden motives were revealed, so that the prophet might speak accurately concerning the moral standing of the person who was the object of reproof. This was the case in Daniel’s message to the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 2:28, 29; 4:13, 18), and also in Nathan’s reproof to David, the king of Israel. 2 Sam. 12:9-12.

Another method by which prophets received “the word of the Lord,” seems to have been through a divine instinct conferred upon the prophet’s own intellect. In such cases there is no recorded appearance of an external form, or of an audible voice; and so the message given was expressed in the natural, characteristic mode of speech of the prophet.

This peculiarity is quite marked in the quiet decisions of Samuel, when choosing from among the sons of Jesse a future king of Israel. From the account of this incident one sees how suddenly the prophet’s mind was changed after his first impression of the oldest son’s fitness for the position. 1 Sam. 16:6, 7. The prophet in that case first judged the matter from a human standpoint; but a divine impression immediately interposed, and brought a sudden change of decision, probably to the consternation of the father of the rejected first-born, whose education and the traditions of whose race had prepared him to expect the oldest son to receive the greatest good in store for the family.

This same close connection between the divine mind and the personality of the prophetic messenger is recognized in the utterances of the great Prophet of all prophets — Jesus Christ himself. In the language of another: “In him the divine is so closely united with the human that the passage from the one to the other is imperceptible.” He himself is “the Word” of the living God. He ever speaks that which he knows, and testifies that which he has seen. John 3:11. Yet he freely acknowledges that the words he speaks are not merely his, but the Father’s. John 12:49.

It is also clear that this means of communication between God and man was designed to be perpetuated throughout the gospel age. Indeed, the Saviour said that for him to leave the earth would be an advantage to his people, because then the Comforter would come to them. John 16:7. The perpetual presence of this Intercessor was to be the medium of intercourse between heaven and earth, to teach the way of life, and to bring to men’s minds all the things before spoken by the Lord himself. John 14:16, 26. It was thus to guide men into all truth, and also to show them “things to come.” John 16:13.

The prophetic office was not at first confined to any particular class or calling of men. Some, as Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Samuel, and John the Baptist, were priests (see Jer. 1:1; Eze. 1:3; 1 Sam. 1:24; Luke 7:27, 28); David and Saul were kings; Amos was a herdsman (Amos 1:1); and Elijah was a Tishbite nomad. 1 Kings 17:1. Women as well as men were called to fill the position. Among these are mentioned Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Anna, and the four daughters of Philip. Without doubt the wide dissemination of this gift was to destroy the caste spirit, to which the Hebrews, in common with all Eastern tribes, were predisposed. From the history of Israel, it is clear that God chose whomsoever he would honor with the prophetic gift, from among those who would consecrate every power to divine leading, without regard to birth or family name. Num. 11:29. The counsel of God was confined to no tribe, family, sex, nor station in life. It was as freely given to Miriam and Deborah as to Barak and Samuel; to the tribes of Judah and Ephraim as to Levi; in the land of Tekoa and Gilead as well as at Carmel; and in Nazareth as well as in Jerusalem.

The calls to this highly exalted station came to men under various circumstances. To Samuel the voice of God was heard amid the silence of night, while in the priestly quarters at Shiloh. To Elisha the commission was given when he was plowing in the field. Amos was called from his lowly occupation of herdsman and wild-fig collector at Tekoa. Whenever the Lord called, the ready answer was: “Speak, Lord; for thy servant heareth.” 1 Sam. 3:9.

Through the medium of the prophetic gift a true theocracy, or God-government, was designed to be perpetually maintained on earth. Through this means, God and Christ were to manifest themselves to all who keep the heavenly law, which is the copy of the divine mind. John 14:21-23. Moses was made the head of that ancient theocracy, and was made a prophet to stand above every other prophet of Old Testament times. Num. 12:6-8. His countenance was relighted over and over again by the divine illumination, in order that men might fear to talk against his utterances, because to do so would be at their peril. As he stood at the head of that prophetic era, so God was to raise up another prophet like himself, from among the people. “Unto him,” said Moses, “ye shall hearken.” Deut. 18:15. Peter, like Moses, maintained that this divinely predicted prophet was none other than the Lord Jesus Christ. Acts 3:20-22. To be just what was predicted of him, Christ must therefore be the Prophet over all other prophets in the New Testament dispensation. His voice is that which is to be heard through those who

are led by, or through, his Spirit; for the spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus. The admonition of the apostle, “Despise not prophesyings,” is as worthy of consideration now as when it was first given. Review, Cal.