Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

APPENDIX VI.

THE NATURE OF PROPHECY.

A deeper insight into the prophecies of the Old Testament concerning Christ, is contingent in many respects upon our knowledge of the nature of prophecy, and the state in which the prophets were, at the time of their prophesying.

Ever since the controversy with the Montanists, the opinion has almost universally prevailed in the Church, that the essential difference between the prophets of the Old Testament and the heathen soothsayers, was that the latter were in an ecstatic condition when their oracles were delivered, whereas the former prophesied in a state of perfect consciousness, and with a distinct comprehension of what they were saying.

The views held by the Montanists are given most concisely by Tertullian (adv. Marcionem iv. c. 22), "Defendimus in causa novae prophetiae, gratiae ecstasin, id est amentiam convenire. In spiritu enim homo constitutus, praesertim cum gloriam dei conspicit, vel cum per ipsum deum loquitur, necesse est excidat sensu, obumbratus scilicet virtute divina, de quo inter nos et Psychicos ("i.e.catholicos, adversarios Montani," Semler) quaestio est. Interim facile est amentiam Petri probare. Quomodo enim Moysen et Eliam cognovisset nisi in spiritu?

The orthodox view, on the other hand, was represented by Miltiades, who is said by Eusebius (Church-history, v. 17), to have written a book “ περὶ τοῦ μή δεῖν προφήτην ἐν ἐκστάσει λαλεῖν.” Origen says c. Celsum vii. c. 4), " εἰ δὲ Πυθία ἐξίσ ταται καὶ οὐκ ἐν ἑαυτῇ ἐστιν ὅτε μαντεύεται, ποδαπὸν νομιστέον πνεῦμα, τὸ σκότος καταχέον τοῦ νοῦ καὶ τῶν λογισμῶν;”). "How," says Basil (commentary on Isaiah, Prooem c. 5), "can the spirit of wisdom and knowledge deprive any one of his senses? The light cannot produce blindness, but, on the contrary, calls

out the natural power of vision." Epiphanius (adv. haeres. Montani c. 2), observes, “oσa yàp oi πρо‡ñτaɩ eipńкaoi μetà ὅσα προφῆται συνέσεως παρακολουθοῦντες ἐφθέγγοντο,” and in c. 3, sqq., he argues that the prophets always spoke “ ἐν ἐῤῥωμένῃ διανοίᾳ καὶ ἐν σώφρονι λογισμῷ καὶ οὐκ ἐν παραπληξία.” Jerome also writes in many passages to the same effect. Thus, for example, in the preface to Isaiah he says "neque vero, ut Montanus cum insanis feminis somniat, prophetae in ectsasi locuti sunt, ut nescierint quid loquerentur et, cum alios erudirent, ipsi ignorarent quid dicerent. Legimus et in alio Apostoli loco: spiritus prophetarum prophetis subjecti sunt." Again, in the preface to Nahum, "Non loquitur propheta év ékoтáσei, ut Montanus et Prisca Maximillaque delirant, sed quod prophetat, liber est visionis intelligentis universa quae loquitur;" and in the Prolog. in Habak.: "Adversum Montani dogma perversum intelligit quod videt, nec ut amens loquitur, nec in morem insanientium feminarum dat sine mente sonum. Unde et Apostolus jubet, ut si prophetantibus aliis, alii fuerit revelatum, taceant qui prius loquebantur. Et statim: non est enim, inquit, deus dissensionis sed pacis. Ex quo intelligitur, quum quis voluntate reticet, et alteri locum dat ad loquendum, posse et loqui et tacere quum velit. Qui autem in ecstasi, id est invitus loquitur, nec tacere nec loqui in sua potestate habet." Chrysostom, in the 29th

homily on the Epistles to the Corinthians, speaking of the difference between the heathen soothsayer and the true prophet, says: τοῦτο γὰρ μάντεως ἴδιον, τὸ ἐξεστηκέναι, τὸ ἀνάγκην ὑπομένειν, τὸ ὠθεῖσθαι, τὸ ἕλκεσθαι, τὸ σύρεσθαι, ὥσπερ μαινόμενον. Ὁ δὲ προφήτης οὐχ οὕτως, ἀλλὰ μετὰ διανοίας νηφούσης καὶ σωφρονούσης καταστάσεως καὶ εἰδὼς ἃ φθέγγεται, φησιν ἅπαντα· ὥστε καὶ πρὸ τῆς ἐκβάσεως καντεῦθεν γνώριζε τὸν μάντιν καὶ τὸν προφήτην. Modern theologians have for the most part followed in the steps of the Fathers.

The truth in this controversy lies in the middle. The orthodox theologians have allowed themselves to be carried too far by their opposition to a serious error. They contended with perfect justice against the amentia or unconsciousness attributed to the prophets, but they also denied their ecstacy, and thus lost sight of the distinguishing characteristic of the prophetic state.

That we are not to regard the prophets as entirely deprived of intelligent consciousness, may be seen from the passage, on which

stress has already been laid by the Fathers, "the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets" (1 Cor. xiv. 32), when taken in connection with the verse immediately preceding, “ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted." According to this, the prophets were not merely instruments in the hands of a superior power. They did not lose their self-possession. On the contrary, they knew what they said, and spoke with a full apprehension of the existing circumstances. At the same time we must not overlook the fact, that there was evidently something in the prophetic state, which might be cultivated to a disproportionate extent, and in this case would easily lead beyond the limits laid down by Paul. In the case of such as possessed the gift of "teaching" (didao kaλía), the rule laid down by the apostle would have been taken for granted, and there would have been no necessity for impressing it upon their minds.

But we have a still more decisive proof in 1 Cor. xiv., especially vers. 14, 15, and 19. The apostle here speaks of it as a defect in the gift of tongues, when compared with that of prophecy, that the πveûμa, which was common to both, operated in too violent and one-sided a manner in the case of the former, whereas in prophecy the ecstacy went hand in hand with the vous, or intelligent consciousness, from which it followed that prophecy was better adapted to influence others. As the under standing ceased to act, the utterance itself became unintelligible. The Montanistic amentia could not be more decidedly excluded, than it is by this passage.

The Fathers were also correct, in stating that the character of the prophetic utterances is directly opposed to anything like amentia, for, instead of showing anything like Montanistic confusion, they are universally characterised by clearness and precision of thought.

But there are also not less decisive proofs that the intelligent consciousness of the prophets was something secondary and superadded, and that when in the Spirit, they were in a state altogether distinct from their ordinary condition.1

The preparatory measures adopted by the prophet seem also

1 "As there are manifestations of the Spirit's life, which anticipate the reflective self-consciousness, so are there others which force the existing consciousness into the background."-Delitzsch, bibl. Psychol., p. 309.

to lead to this result. In 2 Kings iii. 15 Elisha says "but now bring me a minstrel. And it came to pass, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the Lord came upon him." The fact that the prophet prepares himself for prophesying by means of music, presupposes that there was an intimate connexion between (sacred) music and prophecy. This is also confirmed by 1 Sam. x. 5, "thou shalt meet a company of prophets coming down from the high place with a psaltery, and a tabret, and a pipe, and a harp before them," from which it is evident that in Samuel's time the sons of the prophets were in the habit of prophesying, with musical instruments as an accompaniment. A still further confirmation may be found in 1 Chr. xxv. 1, where Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun are called "prophets upon harps," &c. ;1 in ver. 2, where Asaph is represented as "prophesying" (2); and in ver. 5, where Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun, in their capacity as musicians, are called "the king's seers," the name which was usually applied to the prophets alone being thus transferred to them. All this leads to the conclusion, that there must have been an intimate connexion between truly sacred music and prophecy. The one feature, which is common to both, must be the elevation above the sphere of mere reflexion, which does not necessarily involve a complete suspension of the intelligent consciousness, but on the contrary may even assume the form of increased clearness of mind. "Music," says Novalis (Schriften ii. p. 359), "speaks a universal language, by which the spirit is set free, and for a moment finds itself at home."-It was not with music only that prophecy was associated, but according to 2 Chr. xxix. 30, it was also connected with poetry. Asaph, in his capacity of Psalmist, is there called, the seer, a term which is usually applied to the prophets alone. This connexion is also attested by the language of the prophets, which is very nearly allied to poetry,2 and the cha

1 Clericus makes the superficial and unsatisfactory remark, "the reason is to be found in the fact that the prophets were accustomed to sing the praises of God accompanied by such instruments as these.”

2 Many facts might be adduced to prove, that the effect of a state of ecstacy is to ennoble the speech. In an account sent by Pastor Kern in Hernhausen to the Prussian government in Halbertstadt, in the year 1738, he says, "after the Lord's supper had been received in a believing and cheerful frame of mind, the invalid fell into a state of torpor, and was

racter of which is scarcely intelligible, if the prophetic ecstacy be overlooked.

Cornelius a Lapide (on Ezek. i.) observes that the prophets frequently took up their abode by the side of a river, that the quiet and lovely scenery, and the gentle rippling of the stream, might refresh their minds and prepare them for their divine raptures. According to Ezek. i. 3, it was by the river Chebar that Ezekiel beheld the glorious vision of the Cherubim. That this was not a mere accident, but that the river was intimately connected with the prophecy, is apparent from Dan. x. 4, “in the four and twentieth day of the first month, as I was by the side of the great river, which is Hiddekel," when compared with chap. x. 1, 8, where Daniel is said to have seen a "great vision" there, which denoted "a great war." The great river, as the Hiddekel is so emphatically called, is evidently connected with the great vision. The appearance and the noise of the river prepared the way for the vision. That the river was closely connected with the prophecy (there is a connexion between the life of the spirit and the life of nature) is evident from chap. viii. 2, where Daniel is said to have been transported in the vision to the river of Ulai. Hence the locality noticed in chap. x. cannot have been altogether accidental or indifferent. According to Acts xvi. 13 ("we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made"), the Jewish place of

laid upon the straw under the impression that he was dead. When he at length awoke, he sent for the minister, and told him that he had had wonderful visions during his death-like sleep, that the whole of his past life, and all the sins which he had long since forgotten, had passed before him, and that after this he had heard delightful sounds, and had seen an indescribable splendour. The minister adds, that the sick man, who had previously been very weak, as soon as the torpor was over, appeared to be quite healthy and free from pain, and that his face had all the freshness of youth. This must I confess, that after his last trance his intellect had considerably improved. For he no longer spoke like a common man, or as he had done before, but his words were all forcible, emphatic, and telling, as if he had learned the art of oratory during the brief period of his insensibility.—I had previously been his teacher and comforter, but now the tables were turned. I was like a little child by the side of him, and listened to his words with admiration." Steinbeck says (p. 451), "Clairvoyants, who were accustomed to a dialect full of provincialisms when in their ordinary condition, have been known to speak in the purest style and with the most select expressions, when in this exalted state. As the features of the face assume a noble expression, so is the language also ennobled, and acquires a dignity, fervour, and meaning, of which it possessed nothing before

« ForrigeFortsæt »