Deut. 18:15-22, Prophecy as an Institution

I have shared with you from my notes from OT classes in Biola.  I now want to take five posts to share from the “Study Outline and Notes” from my OT professor at Denver Seminary.  To my knowledge these were never published by Dr. Edwards.  He touches on some things we have not dealt with in our Introduction to the Prophets. References to “Young” are to E. J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament. 

* * * * *

The study of the OT prophets is basically a study of the writing prophets.  It must be recognized, however, that there is a long tradition of prophetic activity before the writing prophets appear in Israel.  That tradition must be seen as the foundation of the activity producing a permanent record and an impressive theological development of the nation’s religious leaders.

At the outset of our study a few days must be devoted to a review of the origin of prophecy and to its early days.  It was in those days that the institution received the characteristics which would eventually make it the controlling factor in the religious life of God’s ancient people and pave the way for the presentation and identification of the Messiah in the NT.

That the prophets must be regarded as an institution to be found early in God’s plans is born out by the very special emphasis placed upon the prophet by Moses in Deut. 18, by the roles these men filled from Moses to Amos, and by the recognition given them in Jeremiah 18:18.  There the nobles under Jehoiakim took violent exception to Jeremiah’s prediction that the nation would go into captivity at the hands of the Babylonians: “Then they said, ‘Come, let us make plots against Jeremiah, for the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet. Come, let us smite him with the tongue, and let us not heed any of his words.’”

The passage does us the service of recognizing the three established branches of Israel’s religious life.  Those branches consisted of law, counsel, and word as supported by priest, sage and prophet.  Each had his own function and responsibility.  The priest served the people according to all the requirements and obligations of the law.  The sage counselled the people in the ways of godliness in the attempt to establish a life of righteousness at the individual level, and the prophet ministered the Word of God to the people.

Apparently the institution of prophecy was so well established that the nobles under Zedekiah could neither deny it or brush it aside.  Their only out was to persecute the prophet.  The passage, therefore, recognizes the status of the prophet.  He stands alongside the priest and sage to share Israel’s ministry with them.  He does not replace them or appear only when they fail.  He has a ministry which is distinctly his own.  He stands related to the Word of God.  As Young indicates in his treatment of the Deuteronomy passage (18:18), the law was not sufficient for the life of Canaan.  The people needed more, more in the way of guidance, direction, and warning (prohibition).  The law had provided instruction, requirements and standards, but the people would need daily instruction, encouragement, and understanding.

Prophecy, therefore, was an institution in its own right.  During the times of apostasy and religious degeneration the prophet did stand to call the nation back to God and to publicly denounce the guilty, be he priest, elder or king, but he did not replace the defector.  He exercised his own role as voice of God and guardian of the theocracy.