Prophecy

Prophecy, or revelation is sure knowledge revealed by God to man. A prophet is one who interprets the revelations of God to those who are unable to attain to sure knowledge of the matters revealed, and therefore can only apprehend them by simple faith.

Prophecy, or revelation, is certain knowledge revealed by God to human beings. A prophet explains God's revelations to people who cannot gain certain knowledge of the matters revealed. As a result, those people can understand these matters only through simple faith.

The Hebrew word for prophet is "nabi,"¹ i.e. speaker or interpreter, but in Scripture its meaning is restricted to interpreter of God, as we may learn from Exodus vii:1, where God says to Moses, "See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet;" implying that, since in interpreting Moses' words to Pharaoh, Aaron acted the part of a prophet, Moses would be to Pharaoh as a god, or in the attitude of a god.

The Hebrew word for prophet is "nabi,"¹ meaning speaker or interpreter. But in Scripture, the word means only an interpreter of God. We can learn this from Exodus 7:1, where God says to Moses, "See, I have made you a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet." This means that Aaron acted as a prophet by interpreting Moses' words to Pharaoh. Moses would therefore be like a god to Pharaoh, or would stand in the position of a god.

Prophets I will treat of in the next chapter, and at present consider prophecy.

I will discuss prophets in the next chapter. For now, I will consider prophecy.

Now it is evident, from the definition above given, that prophecy really includes ordinary knowledge; for the knowledge which we acquire by our natural faculties depends on knowledge of God and His eternal laws; but ordinary knowledge is common to all men as men, and rests on foundations which all share, whereas the multitude always strains after rarities and exceptions, and thinks little of the gifts of nature; so that, when prophecy is talked of, ordinary knowledge is not supposed to be included. Nevertheless it has as much right as any other to be called Divine, for God's nature, in so far as we share therein, and God's laws, dictate it to us; nor does it suffer from that to which we give the preeminence, except in so far as the latter transcends its limits and cannot be accounted for by natural laws taken in themselves. In respect to the certainty it involves, and the source from which it is derived, i.e. God, ordinary knowledge is no whit inferior to prophetic, unless indeed we believe, or rather dream, that the prophets had human bodies but superhuman minds, and therefore that their sensations and consciousness were entirely different from our own.

The definition given above clearly shows that prophecy actually includes ordinary knowledge. For the knowledge we gain through our natural abilities depends on knowledge of God and his eternal laws. But ordinary knowledge is shared by all human beings and rests on foundations common to everyone. Yet most people always seek out rarities and exceptions, and place little value on nature's gifts. So when people speak of prophecy, they do not usually include ordinary knowledge. Nevertheless, ordinary knowledge has as much right as any other kind to be called divine. For God's nature, insofar as we share in it, and God's laws give us this knowledge. Nor is ordinary knowledge inferior to the knowledge we rank above it, except in one respect. The latter goes beyond the limits of ordinary knowledge and cannot be explained by natural laws alone. In its certainty and its source, namely God, ordinary knowledge is in no way inferior to prophetic knowledge. Unless, of course, we believe, or rather dream, that the prophets had human bodies but superhuman minds. If so, their sensations and consciousness would have been entirely different from our own.

But, although ordinary knowledge is Divine, its professors cannot be called prophets², for they teach what the rest of mankind could perceive and apprehend, not merely by simple faith, but as surely and honourably as themselves.

But although ordinary knowledge is divine, those who teach it cannot be called prophets². For they teach what everyone else could perceive and understand, not merely accept on faith. Others could understand these things just as certainly and honorably as the teachers themselves.

Seeing then that our mind subjectively contains in itself and partakes of the nature of God, and solely from this cause is enabled to form notions explaining natural phenomena and inculcating morality, it follows that we may rightly assert the nature of the human mind (in so far as it is thus conceived) to be a primary cause of Divine revelation. All that we clearly and distinctly understand is dictated to us, as I have just pointed out, by the idea and nature of God; not indeed through words, but in a way far more excellent and agreeing perfectly with the nature of the mind, as all who have enjoyed intellectual certainty will doubtless attest. Here, however, my chief purpose is to speak of matters having reference to Scripture, so these few words on the light of reason will suffice.

Our mind contains within itself and shares in the nature of God. Only because of this can the mind form ideas that explain natural phenomena and teach morality. So we may rightly call the nature of the human mind a primary cause of Divine revelation. This holds insofar as we understand the mind in the way just described. As I have just pointed out, the idea and nature of God dictate everything we understand clearly and distinctly. God communicates this understanding not through words, but in a far better way, perfectly suited to the mind’s nature. All who have experienced intellectual certainty will doubtless confirm this. Here, however, my main purpose is to discuss matters relating to Scripture. So these few words about the light of reason will be enough.

I will now pass on to, and treat more fully, the other ways and means by which God makes revelations to mankind, both of that which transcends ordinary knowledge, and of that within its scope; for there is no reason why God should not employ other means to communicate what we know already by the power of reason.

I will now discuss more fully the other ways God reveals things to humanity. These revelations concern both what lies beyond ordinary knowledge and what falls within its reach. For there is no reason why God should not use other means to communicate what we already know through reason.

Our conclusions on the subject must be drawn solely from Scripture; for what can we affirm about matters transcending our knowledge except what is told us by the words or writings of prophets? And since there are, so far as I know, no prophets now alive, we have no alternative but to read the books of prophets departed, taking care the while not to reason from metaphor or to ascribe anything to our authors which they do not themselves distinctly state. I must further premise that the Jews never make any mention or account of secondary, or particular causes, but in a spirit of religion, piety, and what is commonly called godliness, refer all things directly to the Deity. For instance if they make money by a transaction, they say God gave it to them; if they desire anything, they say God has disposed their hearts towards it; if they think anything, they say God told them. Hence we must not suppose that everything is prophecy or revelation which is described in Scripture as told by God to anyone, but only such things as are expressly announced as prophecy or revelation, or are plainly pointed to as such by the context.

We must draw our conclusions on this subject from Scripture alone. For what can we say about matters beyond our knowledge, except what prophets tell us in speech or writing? As far as I know, no prophets are alive today. So we have no choice but to read the books of prophets who have died. As we read, we must take care not to draw conclusions from metaphors. Nor should we attribute anything to these authors that they do not clearly state themselves. I must first add that the Jews never mention or take account of secondary or particular causes. Instead, out of religion, piety, and what is commonly called godliness, they attribute everything directly to God. For example, if they make money from a transaction, they say God gave them the money. If they desire something, they say God has turned their hearts toward it. If they think something, they say God told them. So we must not assume that everything Scripture describes as something God told someone is prophecy or revelation. We should count only what Scripture explicitly calls prophecy or revelation, or what the context clearly identifies as such.

A perusal of the sacred books will show us that all God's revelations to the prophets were made through words or appearances, or a combination of the two. These words and appearances were of two kinds; 1.- real when external to the mind of the prophet who heard or saw them, 2.- imaginary when the imagination of the prophet was in a state which led him distinctly to suppose that he heard or saw them.

Reading the sacred books shows that all God's revelations to the prophets came through words, appearances, or both. These words and appearances were of two kinds: 1. Real, when they existed outside the mind of the prophet who heard or saw them. 2. Imaginary, when the prophet's imagination led him to believe clearly that he heard or saw them.

With a real voice God revealed to Moses the laws which He wished to be transmitted to the Hebrews, as we may see from Exodus xxv:22, where God says, "And there I will meet with thee and I will commune with thee from the mercy seat which is between the Cherubim." Some sort of real voice must necessarily have been employed, for Moses found God ready to commune with him at any time. This, as I shall shortly show, is the only instance of a real voice.

God used a real voice to reveal to Moses the laws he wanted passed on to the Hebrews. We can see this in Exodus 25:22, where God says, "I will meet with you there. I will speak with you from the mercy seat between the Cherubim." Some kind of real voice must have been used, because Moses found God ready to speak with him at any time. As I will show shortly, this is the only instance of a real voice.

We might, perhaps, suppose that the voice with which God called Samuel was real, for in 1 Sam. iii:21, we read, "And the Lord appeared again in Shiloh, for the Lord revealed Himself to Samuel in Shiloh by the word of the Lord;" implying that the appearance of the Lord consisted in His making Himself known to Samuel through a voice; in other words, that Samuel heard the Lord speaking. But we are compelled to distinguish between the prophecies of Moses and those of other prophets, and therefore must decide that this voice was imaginary, a conclusion further supported by the voice's resemblance to the voice of Eli, which Samuel was in the habit of hearing, and therefore might easily imagine; when thrice called by the Lord, Samuel supposed it to have been Eli.

We might, perhaps, suppose that the voice God used to call Samuel was real. For in 1 Sam. iii:21, we read, "And the Lord appeared again in Shiloh, for the Lord revealed Himself to Samuel in Shiloh by the word of the Lord;" This implies that the Lord appeared by making himself known to Samuel through a voice. In other words, Samuel heard the Lord speaking. But we must distinguish between the prophecies of Moses and those of other prophets. We must therefore conclude that Samuel imagined the voice. The voice's resemblance to Eli's voice further supports this conclusion. Samuel was used to hearing Eli's voice and therefore could easily imagine it. When the Lord called Samuel three times, Samuel thought Eli was calling him.

The voice which Abimelech heard was imaginary, for it is written, Gen. xx:6, "And God said unto him in a dream." So that the will of God was manifest to him, not in waking, but only in sleep, that is, when the imagination is most active and uncontrolled. Some of the Jews believe that the actual words of the Decalogue were not spoken by God, but that the Israelites heard a noise only, without any distinct words, and during its continuance apprehended the Ten Commandments by pure intuition; to this opinion I myself once inclined, seeing that the words of the Decalogue in Exodus are different from the words of the Decalogue in Deuteronomy, for the discrepancy seemed to imply (since God only spoke once) that the Ten Commandments were not intended to convey the actual words of the Lord, but only His meaning. However, unless we would do violence to Scripture, we must certainly admit that the Israelites heard a real voice, for Scripture expressly says, Deut. v:4, "God spake with you face to face," i.e. as two men ordinarily interchange ideas through the instrumentality of their two bodies; and therefore it seems more consonant with Holy Writ to suppose that God really did create a voice of some kind with which the Decalogue was revealed. The discrepancy of the two versions is treated of in Chap. VIII.

The voice Abimelech heard was imaginary, for Genesis 20:6 says, "And God said unto him in a dream." So God’s will was revealed to Abimelech only in sleep, not while he was awake. During sleep, the imagination is most active and uncontrolled. Some Jews believe that God did not speak the actual words of the Decalogue, or Ten Commandments. Instead, the Israelites heard only a noise, without distinct words. While the noise continued, they understood the Ten Commandments through pure intuition. I once leaned toward this view myself, because the Decalogue’s wording in Exodus differs from its wording in Deuteronomy. Since God spoke only once, the difference seemed to suggest something about the purpose of the Ten Commandments. They were intended to convey only God’s meaning, not his actual words. However, unless we are willing to distort Scripture, we must certainly accept that the Israelites heard a real voice. For Scripture explicitly says in Deuteronomy 5:4, "God spake with you face to face." This means that God communicated as two people ordinarily exchange ideas through their bodies. So it seems more consistent with Scripture to suppose that God really created some kind of voice to reveal the Decalogue. The difference between the two versions is discussed in Chapter VIII.

Yet not even thus is all difficulty removed, for it seems scarcely reasonable to affirm that a created thing, depending on God in the same manner as other created things, would be able to express or explain the nature of God either verbally or really by means of its individual organism: for instance, by declaring in the first person, "I am the Lord your God."

Yet even this does not remove all the difficulties. A created thing depends on God in the same way as other created things. So it seems hardly reasonable to claim that a created thing could express or explain God's nature through its own physical structure, either in words or in reality. For example, it might declare in the first person, "I am the Lord your God."

Certainly when anyone says with his mouth, "I understand," we do not attribute the understanding to the mouth, but to the mind of the speaker; yet this is because the mouth is the natural organ of a man speaking, and the hearer, knowing what understanding is, easily comprehends, by a comparison with himself, that the speaker's mind is meant; but if we knew nothing of God beyond the mere name and wished to commune with Him, and be assured of His existence, I fail to see how our wish would be satisfied by the declaration of a created thing (depending on God neither more nor less than ourselves), "I am the Lord." If God contorted the lips of Moses, or, I will not say Moses, but some beast, till they pronounced the words, "I am the Lord," should we apprehend the Lord's existence therefrom?

Certainly, when someone says aloud, "I understand," we attribute understanding to the speaker's mind, not the mouth. But we do so because the mouth is a person's natural organ of speech. The listener also knows what understanding is. By comparing the speaker with themselves, the listener easily recognizes that the speaker means their mind. But suppose we knew nothing of God beyond his name and wanted to communicate with him and be sure he exists. I fail to see how a created thing's declaration, "I am the Lord," would satisfy our wish. Such a thing depends on God neither more nor less than we do. Suppose God twisted Moses' lips until they spoke the words, "I am the Lord." Or rather, let us say not Moses' lips, but those of some beast. Would those words allow us to recognize that the Lord exists?

Scripture seems clearly to point to the belief that God spoke Himself, having descended from heaven to Mount Sinai for the purpose - and not only that the Israelites heard Him speaking, but that their chief men beheld Him (Ex:xxiv.) Further the law of Moses, which might neither be added to nor curtailed, and which was set up as a national standard of right, nowhere prescribed the belief that God is without body, or even without form or figure, but only ordained that the Jews should believe in His existence and worship Him alone: it forbade them to invent or fashion any likeness of the Deity, but this was to insure purity of service; because, never having seen God, they could not by means of images recall the likeness of God, but only the likeness of some created thing which might thus gradually take the place of God as the object of their adoration. Nevertheless, the Bible clearly implies that God has a form, and that Moses when he heard God speaking was permitted to behold it, or at least its hinder parts.

Scripture seems clearly to suggest that God himself spoke, having descended from heaven to Mount Sinai for that purpose. It also suggests that the Israelites heard him speak and that their leaders saw him (Ex:xxiv.). Furthermore, nothing could be added to or removed from the law of Moses, the national standard of right conduct. Yet this law nowhere required belief that God has no body, or even that he has no form or shape. It required only that the Jews believe in his existence and worship him alone. The law forbade them to invent or make any image of God, but only to keep their worship pure. Because they had never seen God, images could not remind them of his appearance. Instead, images could represent only some created thing, which might gradually replace God as the object of their worship. Nevertheless, the Bible clearly implies that God has a form. It also implies that Moses, when he heard God speak, was allowed to see that form, or at least its back.

Doubtless some mystery lurks in this question which we will discuss more fully below. For the present I will call attention to the passages in Scripture indicating the means by which God has revealed His laws to man.

Some mystery undoubtedly lies behind this question. We will discuss the question more fully below. For now, I will highlight passages in Scripture showing how God has revealed his laws to human beings.

Revelation may be through figures only, as in I Chron:xxii., where God displays his anger to David by means of an angel bearing a sword, and also in the story of Balaam.

Revelation may come through images alone, as in I Chronicles 22. There, God shows his anger to David through an angel carrying a sword. The story of Balaam is another example.

Maimonides and others do indeed maintain that these and every other instance of angelic apparitions (e.g. to Manoah and to Abraham offering up Isaac) occurred during sleep, for that no one with his eyes open ever could see an angel, but this is mere nonsense. The sole object of such commentators seems to be to extort from Scripture confirmations of Aristotelian quibbles and their own inventions, a proceeding which I regard as the acme of absurdity.

Maimonides and others do indeed claim that these and all other appearances of angels occurred during sleep. Examples include the appearances to Manoah and to Abraham as he offered up Isaac. Their reason is that no one with open eyes could ever see an angel. But this is pure nonsense. Such commentators seem intent only on forcing Scripture to support Aristotle’s quibbles and their own inventions. I regard this approach as the height of absurdity.

In figures, not real but existing only in the prophet's imagination, God revealed to Joseph his future lordship, and in words and figures He revealed to Joshua that He would fight for the Hebrews, causing to appear an angel, as it were the Captain of the Lord's host, bearing a sword, and by this means communicating verbally. The forsaking of Israel by Providence was portrayed to Isaiah by a vision of the Lord, the thrice Holy, sitting on a very lofty throne, and the Hebrews, stained with the mire of their sins, sunk as it were in uncleanness, and thus as far as possible distant from God. The wretchedness of the people at the time was thus revealed, while future calamities were foretold in words. I could cite from Holy Writ many similar examples, but I think they are sufficiently well known already.

God revealed Joseph's future rule to him through images that were not real but existed only in the prophet's imagination. Through words and images, God revealed to Joshua that he would fight for the Hebrews. God made an angel appear, bearing a sword, as though the angel were the Captain of the Lord's army. Through this angel, God communicated in words. A vision showed Isaiah that Providence had abandoned Israel. Isaiah saw the Lord, the thrice Holy, sitting on a very high throne. The Hebrews were stained with the filth of their sins, as though sunk in uncleanness. They were thus as far from God as possible. This vision revealed the people's misery at the time, while words foretold future disasters. I could give many similar examples from Scripture, but I think these examples are already well known enough.

However, we get a still more clear confirmation of our position in Num xii:6,7, as follows: "If there be any prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision" (i.e. by appearances and signs, for God says of the prophecy of Moses that it was a vision without signs), "and will speak unto him in a dream" (i.e. not with actual words and an actual voice). "My servant Moses is not so; with him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches, and the similitude of the Lord he shall behold," i.e. looking on me as a friend and not afraid, he speaks with me (cf. Ex xxxiii:17).

However, Numbers 12:6,7 confirms our position even more clearly: "If there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, will reveal myself to him in a vision" (that is, through appearances and signs. For God says that Moses received a vision without signs), "and will speak to him in a dream" (that is, not with actual words and an actual voice). "My servant Moses is different. With him I will speak mouth to mouth, clearly and not in riddles, and he will see the Lord’s likeness." That is, Moses looks on me as a friend, without fear, and speaks with me (see Exodus 33:17).

This makes it indisputable that the other prophets did not hear a real voice, and we gather as much from Deut. xxxiv:10: "And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses whom the Lord knew face to face," which must mean that the Lord spoke with none other; for not even Moses saw the Lord's face. These are the only media of communication between God and man which I find mentioned in Scripture, and therefore the only ones which may be supposed or invented. We may be able quite to comprehend that God can communicate immediately with man, for without the intervention of bodily means He communicates to our minds His essence; still, a man who can by pure intuition comprehend ideas which are neither contained in nor deducible from the foundations of our natural knowledge, must necessarily possess a mind far superior to those of his fellow men, nor do I believe that any have been so endowed save Christ. To Him the ordinances of God leading men to salvation were revealed directly without words or visions, so that God manifested Himself to the Apostles through the mind of Christ as He formerly did to Moses through the supernatural voice. In this sense the voice of Christ, like the voice which Moses heard, may be called the voice of God, and it may be said that the wisdom of God (i.e. wisdom more than human) took upon itself in Christ human nature, and that Christ was the way of salvation. I must at this juncture declare that those doctrines which certain churches put forward concerning Christ, I neither affirm nor deny, for I freely confess that I do not understand them. What I have just stated I gather from Scripture, where I never read that God appeared to Christ, or spoke to Christ, but that God was revealed to the Apostles through Christ; that Christ was the Way of Life, and that the old law was given through an angel, and not immediately by God; whence it follows that if Moses spoke with God face to face as a man speaks with his friend (i.e. by means of their two bodies) Christ communed with God mind to mind.

This makes it indisputable that the other prophets did not hear an actual voice. We can draw the same conclusion from Deuteronomy 34:10: "And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses whom the Lord knew face to face," This must mean that the Lord spoke with no one else, since not even Moses saw the Lord's face. These are the only ways of communicating between God and human beings that I find mentioned in Scripture. They are therefore the only ones we may suppose or invent. We may fully understand that God can communicate directly with human beings. For God communicates his essence to our minds without using any physical means. Still, suppose someone could grasp certain ideas through pure intuition, without reasoning. Suppose those ideas were neither contained in nor deducible from the foundations of our natural knowledge. Such a person must necessarily have a mind far superior to those of other people. I do not believe anyone except Christ has had such a mind. God's commands leading people to salvation were revealed to Christ directly, without words or visions. So God revealed himself to the Apostles through Christ's mind, just as he previously revealed himself to Moses through a supernatural voice. In this sense, Christ's voice, like the voice Moses heard, may be called God's voice. We may also say that God's wisdom took on human nature in Christ, and that Christ was the way of salvation. By God's wisdom, I mean wisdom beyond human wisdom. At this point, I must state that I neither affirm nor deny certain churches' doctrines about Christ. I freely admit that I do not understand those doctrines. What I have just stated comes from Scripture. I never read there that God appeared to Christ or spoke to Christ. Instead, I read that God was revealed to the Apostles through Christ, and that Christ was the Way of Life. I also read that the old law was given through an angel, not directly by God. The following conclusion therefore follows. If Moses spoke with God face to face, as someone speaks with a friend (through their two bodies), Christ communicated with God mind to mind.

Thus we may conclude that no one except Christ received the revelations of God without the aid of imagination, whether in words or vision. Therefore the power of prophecy implies not a peculiarly perfect mind, but a peculiarly vivid imagination, as I will show more clearly in the next chapter. We will now inquire what is meant in the Bible by the Spirit of God breathed into the prophets, or by the prophets speaking with the Spirit of God; to that end we must determine the exact signification of the Hebrew word ruagh, commonly translated spirit.

So we may conclude that no one except Christ received revelations from God without imagination, through either words or visions. Therefore, the power of prophecy implies not an especially perfect mind, but an especially vivid imagination. I will show this more clearly in the next chapter. We will now examine what the Bible means by the Spirit of God being breathed into the prophets. We will also examine what it means for the prophets to speak with the Spirit of God. To do so, we must establish the exact meaning of the Hebrew word ruagh, usually translated as spirit.

The word ruagh literally means a wind, e.g. the south wind, but it is frequently employed in other derivative significations. It is used as equivalent to,

The word ruagh literally means a wind, for example, the south wind. But the word often has other, related meanings. Ruagh is used to mean:

(1.) Breath: "Neither is there any spirit in his mouth," Ps. cxxxv:17.

(1.) Breath: "Nor is there any breath in his mouth," Psalm 135:17.

(2.) Life, or breathing: "And his spirit returned to him" 1 Sam. xxx:12; i.e. he breathed again.

(2.) Life, or breathing: "And his spirit returned to him" (1 Sam. 30:12). This means he breathed again.

(3.) Courage and strength: "Neither did there remain any more spirit in any man," Josh. ii:11; "And the spirit entered into me, and made me stand on my feet," Ezek. ii:2.

(3.) Courage and strength: "No man had any spirit left," Josh. ii:11. "And the spirit entered me and made me stand on my feet," Ezek. ii:2.

(4.) Virtue and fitness: "Days should speak, and multitudes of years should teach wisdom; but there is a spirit in man," Job xxxii:7; i.e. wisdom is not always found among old men for I now discover that it depends on individual virtue and capacity. So, "A man in whom is the Spirit," Numbers xxvii:18.

(4.) Virtue and ability: "Age should speak, and many years should teach wisdom. But there is a spirit in man," Job 32:7. This means wisdom is not always found among old men, for I now see that wisdom depends on individual virtue and ability. Similarly, "A man in whom is the Spirit," Numbers 27:18.

(5.) Habit of mind: "Because he had another spirit with him," Numbers xiv:24; i.e. another habit of mind. "Behold I will pour out My Spirit unto you," Prov. i:23.

(5.) Mindset: "Because he had a different spirit in him," Numbers 14:24. This means a different mindset. "Look, I will pour out my Spirit on you," Proverbs 1:23.

From the meaning of disposition we get -

From the meaning of disposition, we get:

(7.) Passions and faculties. A lofty spirit means pride, a lowly spirit humility, an evil spirit hatred and melancholy. So, too, the expressions spirits of jealousy, fornication, wisdom, counsel, bravery, stand for a jealous, lascivious, wise, prudent, or brave mind (for we Hebrews use substantives in preference to adjectives), or these various qualities.

(7.) Emotions and abilities. A lofty spirit means pride, a lowly spirit means humility, and an evil spirit means hatred and sadness. Similarly, spirits of jealousy, fornication, wisdom, counsel, and bravery mean a jealous, lustful, wise, prudent, or brave mind. (For we Hebrews prefer nouns to adjectives.) These expressions can also mean the qualities themselves.

(8.) The mind itself, or the life: "Yea, they have all one spirit," Eccles. iii:19 "The spirit shall return to God Who gave it."

(8.) The mind itself, or life: "Yes, they all have one spirit," Eccles. iii:19. "The spirit will return to God who gave it."

(9.) The quarters of the world (from the winds which blow thence), or even the side of anything turned towards a particular quarter - Ezek. xxxvii:9; xlii:16, 17, 18, 19, &c.

(9.) The points of the compass (named after the winds that blow from those directions). Or even the side of anything facing a particular compass point. See Ezek. 37:9, 42:16, 17, 18, 19, etc.

I have already alluded to the way in which things are referred to God, and said to be of God.

I have already mentioned how things are attributed to God and said to be of God.

(1.) As belonging to His nature, and being, as it were, part of Him; e.g. the power of God, the eyes of God.

(1.) As belonging to his nature and being, in a sense, part of him. For example, the power of God, the eyes of God.

(2.) As under His dominion, and depending on His pleasure; thus the heavens are called the heavens of the Lord, as being His chariot and habitation. So Nebuchadnezzar is called the servant of God, Assyria the scourge of God, &c.

(2.) As being under his rule and dependent on his will. Thus the heavens are called the heavens of the Lord because they are his chariot and home. Similarly, Nebuchadnezzar is called the servant of God, Assyria the scourge of God, and so on.

(3.) As dedicated to Him, e.g. the Temple of God, a Nazarene of God, the Bread of God.

(3.) As dedicated to God, for example, the Temple of God, a Nazarene of God, the Bread of God.

(4.) As revealed through the prophets and not through our natural faculties. In this sense the Mosaic law is called the law of God.

(4.) As revealed through the prophets, not through our natural abilities. In this sense, the Mosaic law is called the law of God.

Similarly, if the Jews were at a loss to understand any phenomenon, or were ignorant of its cause, they referred it to God. Thus a storm was termed the chiding of God, thunder and lightning the arrows of God, for it was thought that God kept the winds confined in caves, His treasuries; thus differing merely in name from the Greek wind-god Eolus. In like manner miracles were called works of God, as being especially marvellous; though in reality, of course, all natural events are the works of God, and take place solely by His power. The Psalmist calls the miracles in Egypt the works of God, because the Hebrews found in them a way of safety which they had not looked for, and therefore especially marvelled at.

Similarly, if the Jews could not understand a phenomenon or did not know its cause, they attributed it to God. Thus, a storm was called God's rebuke, and thunder and lightning were called God's arrows. For people thought that God kept the winds locked in caves, which were his storehouses. In this respect, God differed only in name from the Greek wind-god Eolus. Likewise, miracles were called works of God because they were especially astonishing. Though, of course, all natural events are actually works of God and happen solely through his power. The Psalmist calls the miracles in Egypt works of God because the Hebrews found an unexpected escape through those miracles. Because this escape was unexpected, the Hebrews were especially amazed.

As, then, unusual natural phenomena are called works of God, and trees of unusual size are called trees of God, we cannot wonder that very strong and tall men, though impious robbers and whoremongers, are in Genesis called sons of God.

Unusual natural events are called works of God, and unusually large trees are called trees of God. So we should not be surprised that Genesis calls very strong, tall men sons of God, though they were godless robbers who frequented prostitutes.

This reference of things wonderful to God was not peculiar to the Jews.

The Jews were not the only people who attributed extraordinary things to God.

Pharaoh, on hearing the interpretation of his dream, exclaimed that the mind of the gods was in Joseph. Nebuchadnezzar told Daniel that he possessed the mind of the holy gods; so also in Latin anything well made is often said to be wrought with Divine hands, which is equivalent to the Hebrew phrase, wrought with the hand of God.

When Pharaoh heard the interpretation of his dream, he exclaimed that the mind of the gods was in Joseph. Nebuchadnezzar told Daniel that Daniel had the mind of the holy gods. Similarly, in Latin, anything well made is often said to be made by divine hands. This means the same as the Hebrew phrase, made by the hand of God.

We can now very easily understand and explain those passages of Scripture which speak of the Spirit of God. In some places the expression merely means a very strong, dry, and deadly wind, as in Isaiah xl:7, "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth, because the Spirit of the Lord bloweth upon it." Similarly in Gen. i:2: "The Spirit of the Lord moved over the face of the waters." At other times it is used as equivalent to a high courage, thus the spirit of Gideon and of Samson is called the Spirit of the Lord, as being very bold, and prepared for any emergency. Any unusual virtue or power is called the Spirit or Virtue of the Lord, Ex. xxxi:3: "I will fill him (Bezaleel) with the Spirit of the Lord," i.e., as the Bible itself explains, with talent above man's usual endowment. So Isa. xi:2: "And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him," is explained afterwards in the text to mean the spirit of wisdom and understanding, of counsel and might.

We can now very easily understand and explain the passages of Scripture that speak of the Spirit of God. In some places, the expression simply means a very strong, dry, and deadly wind. For example, Isaiah 40:7 says, "The grass withers, the flower fades, because the Spirit of the Lord blows upon it." Similarly, Genesis 1:2 says, "The Spirit of the Lord moved over the surface of the waters." At other times, the expression means great courage. Thus, the spirit of Gideon and of Samson is called the Spirit of the Lord. Their spirit was very bold and ready for any emergency. Any unusual ability or power is called the Spirit or Power of the Lord. Exodus 31:3 says, "I will fill him (Bezaleel) with the Spirit of the Lord." As the Bible itself explains, this means talent beyond what people usually possess. Likewise, Isaiah 11:2 says, "And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him." The text later explains that this means the spirit of wisdom and understanding, of counsel and might.

The melancholy of Saul is called the melancholy of the Lord, or a very deep melancholy, the persons who applied the term showing that they understood by it nothing supernatural, in that they sent for a musician to assuage it by harp-playing. Again, the "Spirit of the Lord" is used as equivalent to the mind of man, for instance, Job xxvii:3: "And the Spirit of the Lord in my nostrils," the allusion being to Gen. ii:7: "And God breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life." Ezekiel also, prophesying to the dead, says (xxvii:14), "And I will give to you My Spirit, and ye shall live;" i.e. I will restore you to life. In Job xxxiv:14, we read: "If He gather unto Himself His Spirit and breath;" in Gen. vi:3: "My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh," i.e. since man acts on the dictates of his body, and not the spirit which I gave him to discern the good, I will let him alone. So, too, Ps. li:12: "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me; cast me not away from Thy presence, and take not Thy Holy Spirit from me." It was supposed that sin originated only from the body, and that good impulses come from the mind; therefore the Psalmist invokes the aid of God against the bodily appetites, but prays that the spirit which the Lord, the Holy One, had given him might be renewed. Again, inasmuch as the Bible, in concession to popular ignorance, describes God as having a mind, a heart, emotions - nay, even a body and breath - the expression Spirit of the Lord is used for God's mind, disposition, emotion, strength, or breath. Thus, Isa. xl:13: "Who hath disposed the Spirit of the Lord?" i.e. who, save Himself, hath caused the mind of the Lord to will anything,? and Isa. lxiii:10: "But they rebelled, and vexed the Holy Spirit."

Saul's melancholy is called the melancholy of the Lord, meaning a very deep melancholy. Those who used this term showed that they understood nothing supernatural by it. They sent for a musician to soothe Saul's melancholy by playing the harp. Again, the "Spirit of the Lord" is used to mean the human mind. For example, Job xxvii:3 says: "And the Spirit of the Lord in my nostrils." This refers to Gen. ii:7: "And God breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life." Ezekiel, too, prophesies to the dead, saying (xxvii:14): "And I will give you my Spirit, and you shall live." This means, I will restore you to life. In Job xxxiv:14, we read: "If he gathers to himself his Spirit and breath." In Gen. vi:3, we read: "My Spirit shall not always struggle with man, for he too is flesh." This means, since man follows his body's commands rather than the spirit I gave him to recognize good, I will leave him alone. Similarly, Ps. li:12 says: "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. Do not cast me away from your presence, and do not take your Holy Spirit from me." People believed that sin came only from the body, while good impulses came from the mind. The Psalmist therefore calls on God for help against bodily appetites. But he also prays for the renewal of the spirit given to him by the Lord, the Holy One. Again, the Bible accommodates popular ignorance by describing God as having a mind, a heart, and emotions. It even describes him as having a body and breath. Accordingly, the expression Spirit of the Lord means God's mind, disposition, emotion, strength, or breath. Thus, Isa. xl:13 asks: "Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord?" This means, who but God himself has caused the Lord's mind to will anything? And Isa. lxiii:10 says: "But they rebelled and distressed the Holy Spirit."

The phrase comes to be used of the law of Moses, which in a sense expounds God's will, Is. lxiii. 11, "Where is He that put His Holy Spirit within him?" meaning, as we clearly gather from the context, the law of Moses. Nehemiah, speaking of the giving of the law, says, i:20, "Thou gavest also thy good Spirit to instruct them." This is referred to in Deut. iv:6, "This is your wisdom and understanding," and in Ps. cxliii:10, "Thy good Spirit will lead me into the land of uprightness." The Spirit of the Lord may mean the breath of the Lord, for breath, no less than a mind, a heart, and a body are attributed to God in Scripture, as in Ps. xxxiii:6. Hence it gets to mean the power, strength, or faculty of God, as in Job xxxiii:4, "The Spirit of the Lord made me," i.e. the power, or, if you prefer, the decree of the Lord. So the Psalmist in poetic language declares, xxxiii:6, "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth," i.e. by a mandate issued, as it were, in one breath. Also Ps. cxxxix:7, "Whither shall I go from Thy Spirit, or whither shall I flee from Thy presence?" i.e. whither shall I go so as to be beyond Thy power and Thy presence?

The phrase is also used for the law of Moses, which in a sense explains God's will. Isaiah 63:11 asks, "Where is he who put his Holy Spirit within him?" As the context clearly shows, this means the law of Moses. Speaking of the giving of the law, Nehemiah says in 1:20, "You also gave your good Spirit to instruct them." Deuteronomy 4:6 refers to this: "This is your wisdom and understanding." So does Psalm 143:10: "Your good Spirit will lead me into the land of uprightness." The Spirit of the Lord may mean the breath of the Lord. Scripture attributes breath to God, just as it attributes a mind, a heart, and a body, as in Psalm 33:6. So the phrase comes to mean God's power, strength, or ability. For example, Job 33:4 says, "The Spirit of the Lord made me." This means the Lord's power or, if you prefer, the Lord's decree. Similarly, the Psalmist declares in poetic language in Psalm 33:6, "The heavens were made by the word of the Lord, and all their host by the breath of his mouth." This means by a command issued, as it were, in a single breath. Psalm 139:7 also asks, "Where shall I go from your Spirit, or where shall I flee from your presence?" This means, where shall I go to be beyond your power and your presence?

Lastly, the Spirit of the Lord is used in Scripture to express the emotions of God, e.g. His kindness and mercy, Micah ii:7, "Is the Spirit [i.e. the mercy] of the Lord straitened? Are these cruelties His doings?" Zech. iv:6, "Not by might or by power, but My Spirit [i.e. mercy], saith the Lord of hosts." The twelfth verse of the seventh chapter of the same prophet must, I think, be interpreted in like manner: "Yea, they made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words which the Lord of hosts hath sent in His Spirit [i.e. in His mercy] by the former prophets." So also Haggai ii:5: "So My Spirit remaineth among you: fear not."

Finally, Scripture uses the Spirit of the Lord to express God’s emotions, such as his kindness and mercy. Micah 2:7 says, "Is the Spirit [that is, the mercy] of the Lord limited? Are these cruelties his work?" Zech. 4:6 says, "Not by might or by power, but by my Spirit [that is, mercy], says the Lord of hosts." I think Zechariah 7:12 must be understood in the same way: "Yes, they made their hearts as hard as diamond, so they would not hear the law. Nor would they hear the words the Lord of hosts sent through the earlier prophets in his Spirit [that is, in his mercy]." Likewise, Haggai 2:5 says: "So my Spirit remains among you: do not be afraid."

The passage in Isaiah xlviii:16, "And now the Lord and His Spirit hath sent me," may be taken to refer to God's mercy or His revealed law; for the prophet says, "From the beginning" (i.e. from the time when I first came to you, to preach God's anger and His sentence forth against you) "I spoke not in secret; from the time that it was, there am I," and now I am sent by the mercy of God as a joyful messenger to preach your restoration. Or we may understand him to mean by the revealed law that he had before come to warn them by the command of the law (Levit. xix:17) in the same manner under the same conditions as Moses had warned them, that now, like Moses, he ends by preaching their restoration. But the first explanation seems to me the best.

The passage in Isaiah 48:16, "And now the Lord and his Spirit have sent me," may refer to God's mercy or his revealed law. For the prophet says, "From the beginning" (meaning when I first came to preach God's anger and judgment against you). He continues, "I did not speak in secret. From the time it happened, I was there." Now God's mercy sends me as a joyful messenger to announce your restoration. Or we may understand the prophet as referring to the revealed law. He had previously come to warn them as the law commanded (Leviticus 19:17). He warned them in the same way and under the same conditions as Moses had. Now, like Moses, he ends by announcing their restoration. But the first explanation seems best to me.

Returning, then, to the main object of our discussion, we find that the Scriptural phrases, "The Spirit of the Lord was upon a prophet," "The Lord breathed His Spirit into men," "Men were filled with the Spirit of God, with the Holy Spirit," &c., are quite clear to us, and mean that prophets were endowed with a peculiar and extraordinary power, and devoted themselves to piety with especial constancy³; that thus they perceived the mind or the thought of God, for we have shown that God's Spirit signifies in Hebrew God's mind or thought, and that the law which shows His mind and thought is called His Spirit; hence that the imagination of the prophets, inasmuch as through it were revealed the decrees of God, may equally be called the mind of God, and the prophets be said to have possessed the mind of God. On our minds also the mind of God and His eternal thoughts are impressed; but this being the same for all men is less taken into account, especially by the Hebrews, who claimed a pre-eminence, and despised other men and other men's knowledge.

Returning to our main subject, we can now clearly understand these phrases from Scripture: "The Spirit of the Lord was upon a prophet," "The Lord breathed His Spirit into men," "Men were filled with the Spirit of God, with the Holy Spirit," and so on. These phrases mean that prophets had a special and extraordinary power and devoted themselves to piety with exceptional constancy³. Through this power and devotion, the prophets perceived God's mind or thought. For we have shown that, in Hebrew, God's Spirit means God's mind or thought. The law that reveals his mind and thought is also called his Spirit. So the prophets' imagination may likewise be called God's mind, insofar as God's decrees were revealed through that imagination. And the prophets may be said to have possessed God's mind. God's mind and his eternal thoughts are also imprinted on our minds. But because this is the same for all people, it receives less attention, especially among the Hebrews. They claimed superiority and despised other people and their knowledge.

Lastly, the prophets were said to possess the Spirit of God because men knew not the cause of prophetic knowledge, and in their wonder referred it with other marvels directly to the Deity, styling it Divine knowledge.

Finally, prophets were said to possess the Spirit of God because people did not know what caused prophetic knowledge. In their wonder, people attributed prophetic knowledge, like other marvels, directly to God and called it divine knowledge.

We need no longer scruple to affirm that the prophets only perceived God's revelation by the aid of imagination, that is, by words and figures either real or imaginary. We find no other means mentioned in Scripture, and therefore must not invent any. As to the particular law of Nature by which the communications took place, I confess my ignorance. I might, indeed, say as others do, that they took place by the power of God; but this would be mere trifling, and no better than explaining some unique specimen by a transcendental term. Everything takes place by the power of God. Nature herself is the power of God under another name, and our ignorance of the power of God is co-extensive with our ignorance of Nature. It is absolute folly, therefore, to ascribe an event to the power of God when we know not its natural cause, which is the power of God.

We can now say without hesitation that the prophets perceived God's revelation only through imagination. That is, they perceived it through words and images, either real or imaginary. Scripture mentions no other means, so we must not invent any. As for the particular law of Nature that governed these communications, I admit I do not know it. I could indeed say, as others do, that these communications took place through God's power. But that would be empty talk, no better than explaining a unique specimen with a term beyond natural understanding. Everything happens through God's power. Nature herself is God's power under another name. Our ignorance of God's power extends exactly as far as our ignorance of Nature. So it is utterly foolish to attribute an event to God's power when we do not know its natural cause. That natural cause is itself God's power.

However, we are not now inquiring into the causes of prophetic knowledge. We are only attempting, as I have said, to examine the Scriptural documents, and to draw our conclusions from them as from ultimate natural facts; the causes of the documents do not concern us.

However, we are not now investigating the causes of prophetic knowledge. As I have said, we are only trying to examine the Scriptural documents and draw conclusions from them. We treat these documents as basic facts of nature. The causes behind the documents do not concern us.

As the prophets perceived the revelations of God by the aid of imagination, they could indisputably perceive much that is beyond the boundary of the intellect, for many more ideas can be constructed from words and figures than from the principles and notions on which the whole fabric of reasoned knowledge is reared.

Because the prophets perceived God's revelations through imagination, they could undoubtedly perceive much beyond the limits of the intellect. For words and images can produce far more ideas than the principles and concepts underlying all reasoned knowledge can.

Thus we have a clue to the fact that the prophets perceived nearly everything in parables and allegories, and clothed spiritual truths in bodily forms, for such is the usual method of imagination. We need no longer wonder that Scripture and the prophets speak so strangely and obscurely of God's Spirit or Mind (cf. Numbers xi:17, 1 Kings xxii:21, &c.), that the Lord was seen by Micah as sitting, by Daniel as an old man clothed in white, by Ezekiel as a fire, that the Holy Spirit appeared to those with Christ as a descending dove, to the apostles as fiery tongues, to Paul on his conversion as a great light. All these expressions are plainly in harmony with the current ideas of God and spirits.

This gives us a clue to why the prophets perceived nearly everything through parables and allegories. They gave spiritual truths physical forms because imagination usually works this way. We need no longer wonder why Scripture and the prophets speak so strangely and obscurely about God's Spirit or Mind. Examples appear in Numbers 11:17, 1 Kings 22:21, and elsewhere. Nor need we wonder why Micah saw the Lord seated, while Daniel saw him as an old man dressed in white. Ezekiel saw him as fire. The Holy Spirit appeared to those with Christ as a dove descending, and to the apostles as tongues of fire. To Paul, at his conversion, the Holy Spirit appeared as a great light. All these descriptions clearly reflect the ideas about God and spirits common at the time.

Inasmuch as imagination is fleeting and inconstant, we find that the power of prophecy did not remain with a prophet for long, nor manifest itself frequently, but was very rare; manifesting itself only in a few men, and in them not often.

Because imagination is fleeting and unstable, we find that a prophet’s power of prophecy did not last long. Nor did prophecy occur frequently. It was very rare, appearing in only a few people, and even in them, not often.

We must necessarily inquire how the prophets became assured of the truth of what they perceived by imagination, and not by sure mental laws; but our investigation must be confined to Scripture, for the subject is one on which we cannot acquire certain knowledge, and which we cannot explain by the immediate causes. Scripture teaching about the assurance of prophets I will treat of in the next chapter.

We must ask how the prophets became certain that what they perceived through imagination was true. Their perceptions did not come through reliable laws of the mind. But we must limit our investigation to Scripture, because we cannot gain certain knowledge of this subject. Nor can we explain it through its direct causes. In the next chapter, I will discuss what Scripture teaches about the prophets’ certainty.