Basic principles of the Old Testament priesthood and prophecy

Prophets and priests occupied a very special, prominent position not only in the religious and cultic, but also in the civil and social life of Old Testament Jewry. The latter, of course, because the life of the Jewish people, like other peoples of ancient times, in all its spheres was almost equally imbued with religious principles. Prophecy and priesthood are at the very center of Old Testament revealed religion; in these two institutions its entire essence and its most typical features are expressed. At the same time, in the historical life of Old Testament Israel, prophets and priests appear as very prominent figures. Therefore, the priesthood and prophecy can be viewed in two ways. The subject of consideration, firstly, can be their historical activities and the historical development of the institutions themselves. One can consider and set forth how at different times the prophets and priests together, in full harmony with each other, served for the benefit and good of the Old Testament religion and biblical Israel; how in other times the priesthood deviated from its direct purpose and how then the prophets began to confirm not only the people, but also the priests in faith and obedience to Jehovah. Such a chronological-pragmatic point of view on the subject of reasoning is possible. But no less interesting and, perhaps, no less important is the clarification of the fundamental foundations of the Old Testament priesthood and prophecy, the clarification of their fundamental relationship as two parallel and simultaneously existing institutions. It should be noted that in such works on biblical history and bibliology in general, the historical and pragmatic side of prophecy and priesthood, as well as all other Old Testament religious and civil institutions, is predominantly developed; The authors touch upon the principled side as if only in passing and hardly illuminate the entire historical activity of prophecy and the priesthood from the perspective of their general principles. Even the articles in various encyclopedias devoted to prophecy and the priesthood prefer to speak only of their external organization and the gradual historical evolution of the forms, leaving aside the principles underlying all these forms. The proposed discussion is aimed at clarifying precisely the fundamental foundations of the Old Testament priesthood and prophecy. The historical activity of individual representatives of one and the other institution can only provide us with material for judging the principles of the institution itself; it can only illustrate and confirm fundamentally logical definitions. The historical gradualism of the development of institutions in solving our task must also fade into the background; The forms of institutions changed, but their principles remained unchanged 1 . Religion, according to the philological explanation of Lactantius, is the union of God and people. In relation to the Old Testament religion, such a definition can be accepted with very great convenience. The meaning of religio (from religare) can be transferred to the Hebrew berith, “covenant” (from bara). The Old Testament religion is precisely the covenant of Jehovah with the ancestors of Israel and with the people of Israel themselves. Israel and Jehovah, as two contracting parties, enter into an alliance with each other, imposing certain mutual obligations on both parties. Persons occupying a prominent position in this union - priests and prophets - can be thought of as mediators between the two parties to the union: between God and His chosen people. The most general principle of all religious hierarchical institutions is precisely the principle of mediation. But, explaining in more detail the principles of the Old Testament priesthood and prophecy, we will see that their particular principles, although within the framework of a general fundamental definition, are very different, sometimes almost to the point of opposites. The general character of the principle side of the biblical priesthood and prophecy can be determined from just one philological analysis of Hebrew terms and their use in the Bible. There is no doubt and indisputable that philological analysis of terms cannot always characterize the historical reality of phenomena, but, as we will see, philological analysis of terms relating to the biblical priesthood and prophecy gives results that are completely consistent with the data of the biblical text itself and biblical history. The term for the priesthood in the Bible is kohen. There is a corresponding verb in Arabic - kahana. The general meaning of the common Semitic root kahan is: “to stand, to stand directly against something or someone.” The related verb kun, corresponding to the Arabic kana, which also means “to stand, to stand in general,” has a similar meaning. This meaning of the verbs kahan and kun makes it possible for the participial form kohen to give the meaning: “standing in front, coming” - when applied to a religious and cult institution, it can, of course, only mean “standing in front of the people and standing before God.” The participial form kohen itself is used in the books of the Old Testament in application not only to Jewish priests, but also to pagan priests. Kohen are called the priest of Heliopolis (see: Gen. 41:45, 50), the priest of Midian (see: Exod. 2:16, 3:1), the priests of Dagon (see: 1 Sam. 5:5, 6:2). Consequently, kohen, according to biblical usage, does not necessarily mean a Jewish priest and does not have any specifically Jewish connotations. There is a completely identical noun in Arabic - kahan. According to the Arabic interpretation given by Gesenius in his Hebrew and Aramaic Dictionary, kahan means one who carries out one's affairs and works in one's interests. In the Bible, the word kohen always retains its meaning - “coming, standing in front” 2. A philological analysis of the word kohen, which means priests in the Bible, starting from Melchizedek, gives grounds to introduce two characteristic features into the concept of priesthood: 1) representation before God on behalf of the people, mediation in a religious union on the part of the people, and 2) establishment, establishment. A more detailed definition of the principles of the Old Testament priesthood, of course, can be given from a consideration of the data of the biblical text. At the center of all Old Testament religion is sacrifice. It should be noted that sacrifice, arising from the inner needs of the person himself, constitutes mainly the subjective human side of religion. The Old Testament priesthood stands in the most inextricable connection with sacrifice, and for this reason alone we can say that the priest making the sacrifice is a representative on the part of man in his religious union with God. The Bible gives very few examples when a person, according to his inner needs, makes a sacrifice. The Bible gives such an example at the very beginning of the existence of the earth and man, when Cain brought a gift to the Lord from the fruits of the earth (Gen. 4:3), and Abel brought from the firstlings of his flock and from their fat (Gen. 4:4). Obviously, according to the Bible, initially a person, having an inner need to make a sacrifice, offered it himself. But such, so to speak, “self-representation” in the matter of religion was only at the very beginning. Very soon special people are singled out to make sacrifices; not all people make sacrifices themselves; from an individual private matter, the victim becomes a more or less general matter. The sacrifice is made mainly by the elders in the family or clan. So, Noah makes a sacrifice, obviously on behalf of his entire family (see: Gen. 8:20), since after the sacrifice the Lord blesses Noah and his sons (Gen. 9:1); Job makes a sacrifice for his sons (see: Job 1:5). In these cases, one represents (kohen) many. The circle of persons represented by one sacrificer expanded more and more and reached the volume of a tribe; civil unity coincides with religious-cult unity; the civil representative of the people, at the same time, is also their religious representative. Thus, Melchizedek was the king of Salem and at the same time a priest of the Most High God (Gen. 14:18). However, in the religious life of the Jewish people, as it is presented in the Bible, there was almost no last stage in the development of the priesthood. In the book of Genesis, the Jewish people appear before us only as the family of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who successively were the religious representatives of their families and were priests, although on special occasions individual members of the families also made sacrifices. The Book of Exodus presents the Jews as a whole people, who, within a very short time after their exodus from Egypt, had, at least de jure, a priesthood of a special type. One can only point to Moses, who combined in his person primacy in civil and religious relations, but the personality of Moses in the history of the Jewish people is a special person, and the time and circumstances of his life and activity are also completely exceptional. At the very beginning of the history of the Jews as a people, their priesthood was organized. However, the exclusive designation of certain persons for religious and cult functions in mosaicism was carried out more in theory and legislation than in practice; The Bible presents very many cases when a sacrifice was made by a person who was not at all involved in the priesthood, but, in any case, theoretically, the Old Testament establishes a monopoly, so to speak, of the priesthood. The idea of ​​a necessary mediator in religious relations with God, a special designated representative, could quite naturally arise from the psychological consciousness of Old Testament man. The psychology of sinful consciousness is such that it forces a person to imagine the Divine only as strict and punishing. To appear before the face of such a God in person has always been considered scary and even unsafe. The Bible very clearly shows us the emergence among the people of the consciousness that they need a special representative who would save the people from direct relations with the Divine and who alone would enter into direct relations with Jehovah. So, after the Sinai legislation, when Jehovah showed all His formidable and terrible power (see: Exodus 19:16-19), the people, who saw thunder and flames, and the sound of a trumpet, and a smoking mountain, retreated and stood in the distance, and then they said to Moses: speak to us, and we will listen, but so that God does not speak to us, lest we die... And all the people stood afar off, and Moses entered the darkness where God is (Ex. 20:18–19, 21). This idea about the impossibility of every ordinary person approaching the Lord is very decisively expressed in the book of Exodus and on behalf of God Himself. The Lord said to Moses: Let not the priests and the people rush to ascend to the Lord, lest the Lord strike them (Exodus 19:24), and even to Moses Jehovah said: You cannot see My face, because man cannot see Me and live (Exodus 33:20). Who will dare to approach Me on his own? - says the Lord (Jer. 30:21). The consciousness of the impossibility of having direct communication with the Divine has always lived among the Jewish people. When the Angel who appeared to Gideon miraculously destroyed the proposed sacrifice and just as miraculously disappeared from Gideon’s eyes, Gideon saw that it was the Angel of the Lord, and Gideon said: Alas for me, Sovereign Lord! because I saw the Angel of the Lord face to face (Judges 6:22; see: Isa. 6:5). Such consciousness serves as the internal psychological basis of the institution of the priesthood, and such consciousness in the Bible and in Jewry in general over time appeared more and more sharply, sometimes even as if in excess. In the first pages of the Bible, God is presented as walking in paradise; He talks to people face to face. Then unfortunate circumstances forced Adam and his wife to hide from the face of the Lord God among the trees of paradise (Gen. 3:8); A Cherub and a flaming sword was placed between God and people (Gen. 3:24). Further, God Himself says that a person must necessarily die if he sees the face of God; finally, the Jews avoid using the name of God, which God Himself called Himself to Moses at Horeb - an artificial tetragram is created: iod†ge†vav†ge, which is unknown how they read it and under which the true name of God is forever buried: our reading “Jehovah” or the Western “Yahweh” - after all, only guesses. Later, even the tetragram is depicted symbolically, with three letters “iod” arranged in a triangle, and the like. So God moved away from man! Although the entire Jewish people, as a chosen people, as the property of Jehovah, was a priestly, holy people - kodecsch in the sense of being distinguished (see: Exod. 19:5-6; Num. 16:3 etc.) - but in reality they did not correspond to their purpose of being the people of God. The chosen people throughout their history have only proven that the power of God is made perfect in weakness (2 Cor. 12:9). The entire people were unworthy of direct communication with God (see: Exodus 19:21–25). Therefore, from the Jewish tribes, the tribe of Levi was chosen, which was religiously placed ahead of the entire people. The Bible, speaking about the establishment of the Levitical priesthood, clearly notes that the priests must stand before God, and stand precisely on behalf of the people. The Lord said to Moses: Take... Aaron your brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, so that he may be a priest to Me (Ex. 28:1) - precisely from among the people. Priests are the people’s deputies, their representatives in the religious relationship between God and people. The Lord your God chose Aaron from all your tribes to stand before the Lord your God, to serve and to bless the name of the Lord God, he and his sons all the days (Deut. 18:5). In religious terms, the Levitical priesthood stood ahead of the people and facilitated their relationship with God (see: Ex. 28:38; Lev. 10:17, 21:8; Num. 1:53, 8:19, 16:5, 17:5, 18:23). The priesthood is for the favor of the Lord towards the Jewish people (see: Ex. 28:38); The Levites and priests performed services for the children of Israel... so that the children of Israel would not be defeated when the children of Israel approached the sanctuary (Numbers 8:19). On behalf of God, the priests give blessings to the people (see: Lev. 9:22–24; Num. 6:22–27 etc.). The entire Jewish people are called the kingdom of priests (Ex. 19:6; see: Isa. 61:6), a people of priests. One might think that he was such not for himself, but for other peoples. Just as the priest stood between God and man, so the Jewish people, according to the idea of ​​​​God's chosenness, stood between God and the pagan peoples. The principle of representation in the concept of priesthood is preserved here. As can be seen from the ritual of slaughtering the Passover lamb, everyone slaughtered it themselves (hence the expression zevach pasah, “to slaughter the Passover”, famous: “to eat the Passover”), and the Jews said that on the day of Passover everyone is a priest, that is, they do without the mediation of priests, they themselves directly (albeit with some restrictions) approach God, and the rest of the time their representative and deputy is a priest (kohen). Thus, priests were mediators between God and the people. The intermediaries come from the people. In saying this, we do not want to leave without due attention the well-established Levitical priesthood, which is constantly emphasized in the books of the Old Testament. The books of the Old Testament never say that priests were appointed by the people themselves, for example, by election. On the contrary, on behalf of God it is always said: I have chosen them (see: Ex. 28:1; Deut. 18:5; Sir. 45:20, etc.). This divine choice and divine establishment of the Levitical priesthood, according to the Bible, is undoubted, and this will be discussed further. But it is necessary to note that the priesthood always retains its character of popular representation in the matter of religion. In the Bible, by the way, there is a typical expression: Behold, Amariah is the high priest over you in all the work of the Lord, and Zebadiah... in all the work of the king (2 Chronicles 19:11; cf. v. 8). The religious side of life, “the work of the Lord,” had its representatives just as all other sides had theirs. Only one tribe of Israel was called to the priesthood - Levi, [in particular] - the descendants of Aaron. From a fundamental point of view, according to the Bible, several characteristic points can be noted in the election of one tribe. In fact, why did God choose only one tribe and specifically the tribe of Levi for the religious representation of Israel? The Bible gives this explanation for this fact. The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn who open the womb from among the children of Israel; they will replace them; ...for all the firstborn are Mine; On the day that I struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, I sanctified to myself all the firstborn of Israel (Numbers 3:11-13). When they counted all the Levites, their number - 22 thousand (see: Numbers 3:14-39) - turned out to almost coincide with the number of firstborn males, of whom there were 22,273 (see: Numbers 3:40-43). The replacement easily took place, and for the surplus of firstborns of 273 people, a ransom of 5 shekels was taken (see: Numbers 3, 44–51). In this biblical explanation of the election of the tribe of Levi, one can see that in the Bible the connection between the new order, the new principle of election and the old one has been preserved. Previously, the natural representative in the cult was the eldest in the clan; Afterwards, a special tribe was determined from among the Jews, but it was determined precisely in place of the firstborn, who were exempted from serving at the tabernacle. The reform of the priesthood carried out by Moses, as can be seen from the instructions of the 3rd chapter of the book of Numbers, concerned only sacred persons, and the principle of the priesthood remained the same, which is, as it were, especially noted. As formerly the ancestor or firstborn was the natural representative of his family, so now the same representative is the priest of the tribe of Levi; the priest acts as an artificial representative in place of the former natural representative. But when establishing the Levitical priesthood, one cannot fail to note its distinctive features. According to some biblical data, the very election of the tribe of Levi was based on some features of this tribe, and features of ethical properties. In the consciousness of the Jew of later times, this ethical point appears quite clearly. Sirach says that the Lord exalted Aaron, his brother, holy like Moses (Sir. 45:7). From among all the Levites, the descendants of Aaron were called to the priesthood, perhaps due to the special ethical properties of their ancestor. In any case, the law requires special qualities from the priesthood that would even distinguish it from the outside and make it an ethical representative instead of a natural-clan representative. The Law of Moses does not tolerate any physical defects in a priest (see: Lev. 21:17–23); special requirements are placed on the wife and, in general, on the priest’s family (see: Lev. 21:7–9). The circle of persons of the dead who can be touched by desecration and for whom a priest can have mourning is limited (see: Lev. 21:1–6). In relation to the high priest, all these requirements are increased (see: Lev. 21:10–14). All these requirements constitute a feature of the Levitical priesthood, and all of them distinguish the priest from other people ethically, in the sense of stricter Levitical purity; after all, the concept of Levitical purity in the Old Testament sometimes coincides with the concept of holiness. The indicated ethical representation, which formed the basis of the Levitical priesthood, places the priesthood at a higher level of development, compared with that level when the basis of the priesthood was family-tribal representation. The same elevation of the priesthood is indicated by the newly established consecration with the pouring of oil and putting on special clothes (see: Lev. 8:1-30). But still the principle of representation remains in the Levitical priesthood. Under Sinai, in the words of Metropolitan Philaret, there was only a “majestic renewal of the priesthood.” This update did not change the basic principle; some individuals were replaced by others, but the new individuals remained the same representatives of the people, its advanced members in the religious and cult sense. Other biblical data characterize the Old Testament institution of the priesthood also with the features of representation specifically on the part of the people. Thus, biblical data is never attributed to the priesthood of religious creativity. The activity of the priesthood is to protect this law, its dissemination and the implementation of religious institutions. The priests taught the people the law, but they taught precisely this law. The priests had to teach the children of Israel all the statutes that the Lord had spoken (already spoken) to them through Moses (see: Lev. 10:11). Azariah says to Uzziah when he entered the church of the Lord to burn incense on the incense altar: It is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense for the Lord; this is the work of the priests, the sons of Aaron, ordained to burn incense (2 Chron. 26:16, 18). An everlasting covenant was made to Aaron and to his seed throughout the days of heaven, that they should serve the Lord and together perform sacred acts and bless His people in His name; He chose him from all the living to offer sacrifice, incense and fragrance to the Lord in memory of propitiation for his people; He gave him His commandments and authority in judicial decrees, to teach Jacob revelations and to instruct Israel in His law (Sir. 45:19–21). The law of truth... is in their mouth. The lips of the priest must keep knowledge, and the law is sought from his mouth, because he is the messenger (malah) of the Lord of hosts (Mal. 2:6–7). Thus says the Lord of hosts: ask the priests about the law (Hag. 2:11). The prophet Ezekiel reproaches the priests because they desecrate the law given by God, do not separate the holy from the unholy and do not indicate the difference between clean and unclean, and have closed their mouths from the Sabbath (Ezek. 22:26; cf. 44:23). The same prophet repeats many of the laws of Moses, which priests must especially preserve and carefully implement both in their own and in the people’s lives (see: Ezek. 45:9–25, 46:5–20; cf.: Lev. 19:19, 27, 21:1, 5, 7, 13, 14, 17:15, 22:8, 23:4, etc.). In the historical life of the Jewish people, priests often act as teachers of the law. But it is characteristic of the Old Testament priesthood that the priests act as preachers of the already given law. For the first time, the law is proclaimed directly from God, not through priests, but through other persons; the priests then distribute the finished law (see: Lev. 10:11); The preaching of an Old Testament priest is only preaching the law, reading the law, preaching from someone else’s notebook. There is, however, a small group of facts when a priest or high priest communicates the will of God, directly revealed to him by God. We mean all that revelation or proclamation of the will of God, which was received through the Urim and Thummim. The Urim and Thummim are something completely incomprehensible and dark in the sphere of the Old Testament priesthood. The type and meaning of the Urim and Thummim cannot be clearly and definitely presented, and representatives of science refuse this task 3 . According to the Bible, the Urim and Thummim were placed on the breastplate of judgment (see: Exodus 28:30; Lev. 8:8), together called the judgment of the children of Israel (see: Exodus 28:30), but “what the Urim and Thummim were, how the Lord proclaimed His will through them - this, despite all attempts, remains and threatens to remain completely unsolved forever” (Maibaum). One might think that Urim and Thummim were one of the types of religious cult fortune telling, questioning the Divine. The story of David is especially characteristic in this regard. When Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech, ran to David in Keilah, he brought with him the ephod. When David learned that Saul had planned evil against him, he said to the priest Abiathar: Bring the ephod of the Lord (1 Samuel 23:6, 9). As can be concluded from what follows (see: vv. 10–12), David himself asks the Lord, of course, through the ephod, and he himself receives an answer through the Urim and Thummim. Revelation is, as it were, tied to the subject. In the Bible we see many times that this or that revelation is given through the Urim and Thummim (see: Judges 1:1, 20:18, 23, 27–28, 21:2; 1 Samuel 14:36–37, 22:10, 13, 23:2, 4, 6, 9, 28:6, 15, 30:7; 2 Samuel 2:1, 5:19, 23). According to Maibaum, questioning through the ephod was practiced in cases of special importance. Revelation through the Urim and Thummim in the Bible is called along with other types of revelation - in a dream, in a vision, through the prophets. So, Saul asked the Lord; but the Lord did not answer him either in a dream, or through the Urim, or through the prophets (1 Sam. 28:6; see also: 15). Thus, the Bible, speaking of the breastplate of judgment with the Urim and Thummim, places the high priest in direct relation to the Godhead, Who gives him some new revelations. But this fact does not in any way contradict the position we have expressed that the priesthood did not have religious creativity, that religious creativity was not the own sphere of the priesthood. All those biblical passages that speak of the priest receiving revelations through the Urim and Thummim do not give reason to assume that the priest received a revelation in the strict sense of religion. Revelation through the Urim and Thummim answered the urgent needs of the time, requests of a practical nature, and these answers do not have eternally valuable religious content. The children of Israel asked the Lord, saying: Which of us will go first against the Canaanites to fight with them? And the Lord said: Judah will go (Judges 1:1–2; cf. 20:18). They also asked whether to enter into battle with Benjamin (see: Judges 20:23, 28). Saul asked the Lord: Shall I go after the Philistines? (1 Samuel 14:37). David asked the same thing (see: 1 Sam. 23:2, 4, 10–12). In general, according to the data that is in the Bible, the Urim and Thummim can be considered a kind of Jewish oracle, parallel to the classical oracles. The cases and reasons for questioning through the Urim and Thummim and through the oracles are completely parallel. But from a fundamental point of view, one more remark must be made. In the religious union of the Divine and people, the initiative, of course, must belong to the Divine, the strongest, absolute side. Religious revelation must therefore be at the initiative of the Divine; but the revelation through the Urim and Thummim, whatever its content, was it genetically at the initiative of the Divine? - No. Through the Urim and Thummim, man questioned God; the initiative here is human. The deity is the passive side, not the active one. He will, - the Bible says about Joshua, - turn to Eleazar the priest and ask him about the decision, through the Urim before the Lord (Numbers 27:21). Revelation through the Urim and Thummim cannot be called a religious revelation in the full sense; it is only the answer of the Divine, similar to the answer of an oracle, to the practical question of interested people. Thus, the existence of the Urim and Thummim does not in the least change the fundamental aspect of the priesthood. The priesthood is only the advanced part in religious life of the people who have entered into a covenant with God. But in accordance with the very essence of the Old Testament religion, the Old Testament priesthood receives another very significant feature in the Bible. The Old Testament religion is, first of all, a religion of sacrifice. The sacrifice in relation to God had a propitiatory meaning, and in relation to man - it cleansed him of sins, ritually making amends for them in symbolic punishment, the extermination of him (man) in the person of an animal replacing him (the idea of ​​vicariance). Therefore, the sacrificing priest cleanses the sinner from his sin by slaying his deputy (vicar). The sacrifice for sin most clearly expresses the essence of the Old Testament religion, and the Bible, when it comes to this sacrifice, says quite positively that it is the priest who cleanses from sin. The first step of the newly established Levitical priesthood was a sacrifice for sin (see: Lev. 9:7). In the book of Leviticus, after the presentation of each individual case of a sin offering or trespass offering, it is repeated: And so the priest will atone for him, and it will be forgiven him, that is, the whole people (Lev. 4:20), or an individual (see: Lev. 4:26, 31, 35, 5:6, 10, 13, 18, 6:7, 14:19, 31, 15:30, etc.). There was a day when the priesthood acted in the religious and cult life of the people precisely as an institution for the cleansing of sins, this is the day of cleansing, when the high priest cleansed himself and his house (see: Lev. 16:11), and the sanctuary from the uncleanness of the children of Israel and from their crimes, in all their sins (Lev. 16:16), finally, placing sins on the goat chosen by lot (see: Lev. 16:8, 10), confessed over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel... and all their sins (Lev. 16:21). “On this tenth day of the seventh month God commanded to cleanse you, to make you clean from all your sins, so that you would be clean before the Lord. The priest had to cleanse” (see: Lev. 16:24, 30, 32–34). On this day, once a year, the high priest entered the Holy of Holies not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins of ignorance of the people (Heb. 9:7). This aspect of the Old Testament priesthood is revealed in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The entire Old Testament priesthood stood in the closest connection with the sins of the people, fed on the sins of the people (Hos. 4:8), cleansing them in sacrifice. According to the Bible, the priesthood is a Divine institution appointed for the cleansing of sins. But even in this case, the priest is still standing ahead of the people in their long-term symbolic self-satisfaction of their religious conscience. The priest is one who stands (kohen) and repeatedly offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins (Heb. 10:11). The same principle of representation in the religious satisfaction of conscience underlies all the complex, according to the Bible, external purity and various purifications, where we also see the priest acting. The priest judges leprosy and cleanses the leper (see: Lev. 13:1–32), judges leprosy at home and cleanses it (see: Lev. 14:34–56), etc. Since, for all its activities, the priesthood remained a religious institution on the part of people and for human purposes, it is quite natural that the Levitical priesthood received the full organization necessary for earthly service. Even many of the details of the external organization of the priesthood are defined in the books of the law. Everything that was added to the external organization of the priesthood subsequently was caused by special circumstances: the construction of the church, the multiplication of priests and Levites, and the entire addition consisted of almost establishing the order of service (see: 1 Chron. 24:1-19; 2 Chron. 31:2, etc.). In general, the priesthood is an institution with a strictly and detailed external organization. We should not be concerned in this case with the form of this organization, but we state the fact of its existence, because it proves that from its principle side the priesthood was - if religion is a union between Heaven and earth - an institution on the earth's side. The external life of the Levitical priesthood was also organized. Thus, the special content of the priesthood was determined: partly permanent - tithes, firstfruits, partly random - various parts of the sacrifices. The priesthood is one of the earthly human institutions, and therefore, like any state or public position, according to the Old Testament view, it is paid. In short, the Levitical priesthood was on salary. The number of biblical passages that speak of the maintenance of Levites and priests is very large, and we do not need to cite them. But characteristically, some places seem to emphasize that the maintenance of the Levites and priests was in the full sense payment for the correction of the position. And he commanded, it is said about Hezekiah, that the people living in Jerusalem should give certain things to the priests and Levites, so that they would be zealous in the law of the Lord (2 Chronicles 31:4). Here a completely everyday point of view is applied, according to which an increase in salary should encourage more zealous performance of the position. As one would expect on the basis of Jewish theocratism, the priesthood, in addition to its special religious and cult duties, also performed other positions of a state and public nature. Thus, the priests judged (see: Deut. 17:8–12), participated in the division of the land (see: Josh. 19:51), and sometimes took an active part in various coups d’etat, such as the high priest Jehoiada during the accession of Joash (see: 2 Kings 11:4–12; 2 Chronicles 23:1–21). However, the influence on the political and state life of the people depended on the circumstances and on the personal authority of the representatives of the Old Testament hierarchy. Joash did what was right in the sight of the Lord... until the priest Jehoiada instructed him (2 Kings 12:2). The best representatives of the priesthood, with their personal authority, restored such a relationship between various aspects of national life, in which the religious principle takes precedence. On the contrary, if the representatives of the priesthood were unsatisfactory, then the religious side of people's life retreated to second place, and the principle of the state came forward. It must be admitted that in the Bible we more often encounter illustrations of the second point. We constantly see that state power disposes of the priesthood (see: 1 Chron. 24:1-19; 2 Chron. 19:8, 29:4 ff. 31:2, 4). The priests meekly obey the illegal orders of government authorities (see: 2 Chronicles 36:10–16). Under the most powerful representatives of state power, during the heyday of Jewish Caesarism, the priesthood turns into a public office along with all others. When the heads of various aspects of government under Solomon are listed, then along with scribes, scriptwriters, military commanders, courtiers, tax chiefs and provisions masters, Zadok and Abiathar, the priests, are also named (see: 1 Kings 4:2-19). The priesthood is flesh of flesh and bone of the bone of its people; it is the advanced part of the people in religious terms, but a part inextricably linked with the whole people. In the historical life of the Jewish people, we can observe many times how the priesthood itself deviated from the law, sharing the lack of its time. Together with the kings or in subordination to the kings, the priests pursue dynastic and hierarchical goals, leaving, as it were, the will and piety of some of the people; sometimes the moral and religious beliefs of the people wavered. The priesthood itself served its time more than time forced one to serve itself, it followed the flow of time more than it directed this very flow along the channel of the law, which the priesthood had to do according to its duty. In a word, the priesthood did not always stand at the height of its calling and completely merge with the life of the people. Often, therefore, the prophets threaten the priests with judgment (see: Hos. 5:1) and denounce their low fall. Fornication, wine and drink took possession of the heart of the priesthood (Hos. 4:11), it deviated from the covenants and statutes of God (see: Mal. 3:7), the priests robbed God (see: Mal. 3:8). The priests, according to the prophets, face the same fate together with the people: what happens to the people will happen to the priest (Isa. 24:2; Hos. 4:9). All the above facts and biblical judgments illustrate the principle of the Levitical priesthood that we have established. The Levitical priesthood represented the people in a religious covenant with God, cleansed it from sins through the sacrificial cult and was supposed to, by teaching the people this law, preserve the people's life on the paths of the law. The priesthood was specifically assigned to correct the cult, and the whole meaning, all the beauty of the Old Testament cult was united in the consciousness of the Old Testament Jew with the face of the priest, standing in front of the people and expressing the people's religion with his personality. And the tenderly enthusiastic description of Simon, the son of Onias, the great priest, by a pious Jew of later times becomes understandable. How majestic he (Simon) was among the people when he came out of the curtain of the church! Like the morning star among the clouds, like the full moon in days, like the sun shining over the church of the Most High, and like the rainbow shining in the majestic clouds, like the color of roses in spring days, like lilies by the springs of water, like a branch of Lebanon in summer days, like fire with incense in a censer, like a forged golden vessel adorned with all kinds of precious stones, like an olive tree with fruit, and like a towering cypress to the clouds. When he took on magnificent clothing and was clothed in all majestic adornment, then, as he ascended to the holy altar, he illuminated the circumference of the sanctuary with splendor. Also, when he received the sacrificial parts from the hands of the priests, standing by the fire of the altar, there was a crown of brothers around him, like cedar branches in Lebanon, and they surrounded him like date branches, and all the sons of Aaron in their glory, and the offering to the Lord in their hands before the whole congregation of Israel (Sir. 50:5-15). In the above poetic words, the Jew praises his religious representative, who carries out in the face of his people and on their behalf all the beauty of the Old Testament cult. It is not the Jew himself who performs the cult, but only observes how the religious representative of the people, the priest, performs it on behalf of the people. Old Testament prophecy was the greatest phenomenon of the Old Testament religion, the main nerve of the religious life of the people. The Jewish religion is the religion of the prophets. Prophets are the greatest and highest personalities of the Old Testament. Even representatives of extremely negative views on the facts of biblical history bow before them. Those who in the entire Bible see nothing but the natural and natural, although they see in the prophets only political “opposition,” still consider the prophets to be outstanding personalities, heroes of the spirit. The books of the Old Testament, most of which were written by prophets, provide very rich material for a precise definition of the principles of prophecy. These principles, even more than the principles of the priesthood, can be determined from a philological analysis of the terms by which the prophets are called in the Bible. There are three such terms: nabi, ro'e and hoze. The most common and most typical term is undoubtedly "nabi"; the terms ro'e and hoze highlight more the intimate side of the personal life and personal experiences of the prophet, while nabi defines the prophet in his historical and religious life and activities. 4 Nabi therefore denotes a person who, being himself taught, passes on what he has been taught actively and consciously to others. Such word production completely preserves the active character in the meaning of nabi, and the very process of formation of nabi from naba, a verbal noun with an active meaning from a verb with a passive meaning, clarifies those two different moments, of which in the first the prophet is a receptive, passive person, and in the second he is a transmitting, active person. 5 Therefore, the bl. Jerome calls the prophets teachers of the people (doctores). When explaining the active meaning of the word nabi, it is not customary to pass by the most typical place - Ex. 7:1–2. The Lord spoke to Moses, who refused the embassy, ​​citing his tongue-tiedness: I have made you God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother will be your prophet; You will tell him everything that I command you, and Aaron your brother will speak to Pharaoh. Here the word nabi means one who conveys the words of one person to another. On another occasion the Lord spoke about Aaron: I know that he can speak... and he will speak for you (Moses) to the people; so he will be your mouth (Ex. 4:14, 16). It is obvious that "prophet" (Ex. 7:1) corresponds to "mouth" (Ex. 4:16). Aaron was the “mouth” of Moses, as can be seen from Ex. 4:30. The prophet Jeremiah also calls himself the mouth of Jehovah (see: Jeremiah 15:19). The corresponding meaning is retained by the philological equivalent of nabi in Greek – prof'thj. Profhthj can be philologically interpreted as composed of prТ - for and fhm... - I say. According to this interpretation, prof'thj would mean speaking for someone. A prophet, therefore, is one who proclaims to people what God reveals to him. In this sense, and blzh. Augustine calls the prophets the spokesmen of the words of God to people who could not or were unworthy to hear God Himself. It should be noted that in the Bible there are prophets of Baal (nebi'ej habaal) and prophets of Ashtoreth (nebi'ej haaschera) (see: 1 Kings 18:25, 29, 40, 19:1; 2 Kings 10:19), but there is also a special term for designating pagan prophets - kosemim (see: Deut. 18:10, 14; 1 Samuel 6:2, etc.) from the verb kasam - to conjure; Jewish prophets of Jehovah are never called kosemim. This is the Old Testament terminology of the prophets. With sufficient clarity it highlights the fact that, on the one hand, the prophet received something in a special state from God, and on the other hand, he communicated this received to people. The very general principle of prophecy is therefore very different from that of the priesthood. If the priesthood mediated between God and man and was the representative on the part of man, then prophecy was the organ of revelation on the part of God, through which God always proclaimed His will. Sometimes in the Bible patriarchs are also called prophets, for example, Abraham (see: Gen. 20:7), but this, of course, is because at that time the revelation was almost exclusively for the patriarchs. The patriarchs themselves were their own priests, that is, religious representatives, and they themselves were their own prophets, entering into direct communication with God and receiving special revelations and commands from Him. In general, when we are talking about the most ancient times of Jewish history, the times before the Sinai legislation, the name “prophet” is taken in a broader sense and means anyone who receives any revelation from God. Since the time of the Sinai legislation, the title “prophet” has already been applied to special persons (see: Numbers 11:25, 29). Persons from the priests are not called prophets, even if they experienced the ordinary action of the Holy Spirit (see: 2 Chron. 24:20). There is a hint in the Bible that from this time the prophets themselves appeared (see: Num. 12:6), but mainly since the time of Samuel, only extraordinary messengers of God, awarded with the special gift of the Holy Spirit and a special revelation of the will of God to communicate it to people, are called prophets. The Bible notes that around the time of Samuel there was some change in the concept of a prophet. When telling the story of how Saul and his servant went to Samuel to find out where they could look for the missing donkeys, the following remark is inserted in the Bible. Previously, in Israel, when someone went to ask God, they said this: “let’s go to the seer (‘ad – haro’e)”; for the one who is now called a prophet (nabi) was formerly called a seer (haro'e) (1 Sam. 9:9). Samuel himself is also called a seer (see: 1 Samuel 9:11–12, 18–19). Representatives of the evolutionary-rationalist view of the history of the Jewish people draw too many conclusions from the above remark. It is usually assumed that before Samuel, all those persons who are called by the term “prophet” were engaged in fortune-telling, completely consistent with the mantle of other peoples. These persons were called ro'im. Samuel made a radical reform in prophecy, and after him the prophets, abandoning fortune-telling, began to pronounce inspired speeches, engage in theology, chronicling, etc. According to the new activity of the prophets, they received a new name nebi'im. Deuteronomy, where nabi is used, is, of course, considered a later work. But it is permissible to think that all these conclusions are too decisive. The change in terms, of course, also indicates a change in the phenomena they designate. In the history of prophecy some development can be noted around the time of Samuel, but the change of terms hardly gives grounds for supposing such a radical change as is described, for example, by Maibaum or Wellhausen. As we have already noted when analyzing the terms, the terms ro'e and nabi do not have meanings that exclude each other. Ro'e fully corresponds to nabi in its passive sense, and therefore the replacement of terms noted in the 1st book of Samuel (1 Samuel 9:9) does not indicate a fundamental change in the institution, but perhaps only the ordinary historical evolution of its external forms. Historical circumstances contributed to the fact that previously prophecy was more an internal experience than an external social activity. Without a doubt, the time of the judges was a rather dark period in Old Testament history: it was, as it were, a reaction after a religious upsurge. After all, wasn’t the time of Moses’ life and activity a time of unprecedented religious upsurge, if, at the word of the Divine Messenger, an entire tribe leaves Egypt, goes to an unknown country, wanders through the desert for several decades, receives a law, a religious structure? The exit of the Jews from Egypt is reminiscent of how an entire parish in Ibsen's drama follows the religious enthusiast Brand, leaves its village and goes to an unknown destination. Moses carried out his work to the end, but the reaction was bound to come, although not as deadly quickly as in the not entirely clear and almost pointless Brand case. The reaction came when the tribe settled in the promised land. The institution of prophecy in the time of the judges was still in its infancy. The Prophet, perhaps, was then, as they sometimes say, a “spirit-bearing man,” and the people, in the simplicity of their hearts, did not consider it reprehensible to go to him to consult about their everyday affairs, even about where to look for missing donkeys. But with the onset of the period of the kings, when the life of the people took on a different, more intense form, prophecy appeared with its external activity, and therefore the term “nabi”, which is more in line with reality in its active meaning, came into use. Therefore, we would venture to assert that the principle of prophecy did not change under Samuel and that prophecy was fundamentally the same throughout biblical history from Moses to Malachi. Throughout Jewish history, a prophet in the Bible is described precisely as a representative or messenger of God. The priest approached the altar either at the request of the law, or at the desire of individuals, but the prophet begins his work at the direct command of God. The Lord raises up a prophet. The Bible uses a special term to denote a prophetic message, namely the hyphilic form of the verb knm (see: Deut. 18:15, 18; Am. 2:11; Jer. 6:17, 29:15; cf.: Judges 2:16, 18, 3:9, 15). When The Lord spoke to Manasseh through His servants the prophets (2 Kings 21:10, 24:2). The Lord sent prophets to turn to God those who had forgotten God (see: 2 Chronicles 24:19), He sent a prophet as a messenger of His wrath against Amaziah (see: 2 Chronicles 25:15). In general, the Lord sent His messengers to the Jews from early morning, because He had compassion on His people and His dwelling (2 Chronicles 36:15). Sometimes they listened to the prophet precisely as one sent by the Lord (see: Hag. 1:12). A prophet is sometimes called a man of God (see: 1 Kings 2:27, 9:6; 2 Kings 4:42, 6:6, 9, 8:7; 2 Chronicles 25:7, 9), a prophet of Jehovah (see: 4 Kings 3:11), and also an Angel of the Lord (see: Judges 2:1–4; Mal. 3:1). All these names emphasize precisely the fact that the prophet in a religious union was a representative of God. Therefore, the prophecy depended only on the will of God and was not connected either with origin from a certain tribe, such as the priesthood, or with gender, or with age. Neither human choice nor hierarchical and civil advantages gave the right to prophecy; such a right was given only by Divine election. That is why in the history of the Jewish people we see prophets from different tribes and classes of the people, and prophecy itself did not form a special class. The Levites were prophets (see: 2 Chronicles 20:14), and the priests (see: Jer. 1:1), and the children of the high priest (see: 2 Chronicles 24:20), there were also farmers and shepherds who had previously collected sycamore trees (see: Am. 1:1, 7:14). There are also prophetesses in the Bible (nebi'a - see: Exodus 15:20; 2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chronicles 34:22; Nehemiah 6:14; Judges 4:4). Women were not completely excluded from prophecy, however, the prophetesses in the Old Testament are rare exceptions. Three prophetesses are considered: Miriam (see: Exodus 15:20), Deborah (see: Judges 4:4) and Huldama (see: 2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chronicles 34:22). But in Seder Olam, along with 48 prophets, 7 prophetesses are named; In addition to the three named, there are also Sarah, Anna, Abichail and Esther 6. Anna is recognized as a prophetess in the New Testament Christian Church. Regarding the origin of the prophets, the Bible only notes that the prophets were from the Jews; a non-Jewish prophet is excluded from true prophecy, Moses says to the people: God will raise up prophets from among you, from your brothers (Deut. 18:15; see: 18:18). But the influence of the prophets often extended far beyond the borders of the Jewish nation. And other nations were not neglected and abandoned by God, and for these nations the Jewish prophets were messengers of God. The prophets act in a wider arena than Palestine, their speeches and deeds do not have in mind the benefit of Israel alone; the prophets also spread supernatural revelation outside the true Church 7 . In the prophets we find speeches concerning almost all countries and peoples of the East: Babylon (see: Isa. 13:1–14; Jer. 50:1–51, 64); Moab (see: Isa. 15:1–9, 16:6–14; Jer. 27:3, 48:1–47; Am. 2:1–3); Damascus (see: Isa. 17:1–18:7; Jer. 49:23–27); Egypt (see: Is. 19:1–25; Jer. 46:2–24; Ezek. 29:2–16, 19, 30:4–26, 31:2–18, 32:2–32); Tire (see: Isa. 23; Ezek. 27:2–36, 28:2–10, 12–19); Sidon (see: Ezek. 28:21–24); Edomites (see: Jer. 27:3, 49:7–22; Ezek. 35:2–15; Obd. 1:1–21); Philistines (see: Jer. 47:1–7); Ammonites (see: Jer. 49:1–6; Am. 1:13); Kidar and the kingdoms of Asher (see: Jer. 49:28–33); Elam (see: Jer. 49:34–39); Chaldeans (see: Jer. 50:1–51, 64); Ethiopia, Lydia and Libya (see: Ezek. 30:4–26); the lands of Magog, the princes of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal (see: Ezek. 38:2–23, 39:1–15); Nineveh (see: Jonah 3:1–9; Nahum. 1:1–3, 19), many cities and nations are touched by the speeches of the prophets Zephaniah (see: Zeph. 2:4–15), Zechariah (see: Zechariah 9:1–10) and Daniel. The above list, although incomplete, sufficiently proves that prophecies about other countries and for other peoples were not random and exceptional phenomena; no, these prophecies are an essential element of the activities of the prophetic institute. Yes, and God Himself tells Jeremiah that He made him a prophet not for the people, but for the nations (see: Jer. 1:5). And this fact, in turn, confirms our position that prophecy, as it appears in the books of the Old Testament, was the representation of God on earth. The priesthood was a religious-popular representation, and it was strictly national. The supra-nationality of the Old Testament priesthood and the entire cult law in general in the Bible is expressed only in the form of wishes for future times (see: 1 Kings 8:41–43; Isaiah 60:3–14, 62:2 etc.). Prophecy, as an organ of the Divine, was supernational, just as God Himself was supernational. As a representative of God, the prophet began his activity not according to any traditional dedication, like a priest, but according to a special calling of God each time. Before this calling, the prophet was an ordinary person, did not know the voice of the Lord, and the word of the Lord was not revealed to him, as the Bible says about Samuel (see: 1 Samuel 3:7). But the Omniscient God had already predestined man for prophetic service. Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you came out of the womb, I sanctified you, God spoke to Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:5; cf. Isaiah 49:1). At a certain point in time, God called a prophet to the work of ministry. The books of the prophets describe such callings of some prophets. Calling is not presented in the Bible as violence; on the contrary, sometimes the prophet himself says in advance: Here I am, send me (Isa. 6:8), sometimes he agrees after some hesitation, refusals and admonitions from God, as was the case with the calling of Moses (see: Exodus 3:11–4, 17) and Jeremiah (see: Jeremiah 1:6–9), admonitions, sometimes confirmed by miracles (see: Exodus 4:2–9, 14). Finally, the calling is accomplished by some external sign - by touching the lips of the prophet with coal from the altar (see: Isa. 6:6) or with the hand (see: Jer. 1:9), eating a scroll (see: Ezek. 3:1-3) and so on. In prophetic callings, from a fundamental point of view, it should also be noted that God says: I send (see: Ex. 3:12; 2 Sam. 12:1; Is. 6:8–9; Jer. 1:10, 26:5, 35:15, 44:4; Ezek. 2:3, 3:4–6). Everything we have indicated also characterizes prophecy as Divine representation. Since his calling, the prophet seemed to change. He was in direct communication with God, in a relationship that is possible for a person only in a special ecstatic state. We do not need to enter into a psychological analysis of the ecstatic state of the prophets. We will only note how the Bible judges him. According to the Bible, a person felt as if the hand of the Lord lay on him (see: 4 Kings 3:15; Ezek. 1:3; Dan. 10:10), sometimes even strongly (see: Ezek. 3:14), the prophet felt that some powerful spirit seemed to be entering into him (see: Ezek. 2:2, 3:24; Is. 61:1). There is no reason to think that the personal life and consciousness of the prophet were suppressed by Divine influence (Genstenberg); on the contrary, very many biblical data indicate that inspiration from God strengthened (see: Jer. 1:18–19; Is. 49:1–2, 44:26, 50:4; Ezek. 2:2, 3:8–9, 24) the sometimes weakened and wavering prophet (see: Dan. 10:8; Ezek. 3:14). God Himself every morning... awakens the ear of the prophet so that he listens like the disciples (Isa. 50:4). To perceive these suggestions, a special moral sensitivity and receptivity was needed, a special quality of temperament. God sometimes revealed His will to the prophets in a dream (see: Num. 12:6, 22:20; Deut. 13:1; 2 Kings 7:4; Jer. 23:25–32, 27:9; Zech. 10:2. Also here: Gen. 15:12, 28:12, 46:2); Such revelations did not happen only to the prophets (see: Gen. 20:3, 6, 31:24, 37:5, 41:1; Judges 7:13; 1 Kings 3:5; Joel. 3:1; Job 33:15). This is how Eliphaz the Temanite describes this direct action of the Divine on the soul. A word came to me secretly, and my ear received something from it. In the midst of thinking about night visions, when sleep comes over people, horror and trembling seized me and shook all my bones. And the spirit passed over me; my hair stood on end... a quiet breath, and I hear a voice (Job 4:12–16). But in other cases, the action of the Divine was more intense, apparently even violating the will of the prophet. The persecutions and insults that Jeremiah endured (about them see: Jer. 20:1-2, 26:7-9, 11-24, 32:2, etc.) were so painful that he cried out: Cursed is the day on which I was born! May the day on which my mother gave birth to me not be blessed! Cursed is the man who brought the news to my father and said: “You have a son,” and thereby made him very happy (Jer. 20:14–15; cf. Jer. 15:10, 20:16–18). But the power of God attracted him, and he could not stop his activities. You drew me, Lord, says the prophet, and I am drawn; You are stronger than me - and you prevailed, and every day I am in ridicule, everyone mocks me. For as soon as I begin to speak, I scream about violence, I cry out about ruin... And I thought: “I will not remind of Him and I will no longer speak in His name”; but it was in my heart, as it were, a burning fire, shut up in my bones, and I grew weary, holding it, and could not (Jer. 20:7-9). Thus the Lord drew the prophet, as if forcing him to receive revelations. The initiative in prophetic revelations obviously belonged to God, and this circumstance fundamentally characterizes the essence of prophecy. Above we talked about the mysterious Urim and Thummim, through which the priests received revelations. But revelation through the Urim and Thummim characterizes the principle side of the priesthood, completely contrary to the principles of prophecy; during those revelations, the initiative was human. Through the Urim and Thummim people asked God, and through the prophets God spoke to people. However, there are several facts in the Bible that indicate that they also asked God through the prophets, asking the prophet for a vision (see: Ezek. 7:26). Thus, Jehoshaphat says: Is there not a prophet of the Lord here, that we may inquire of the Lord through him (2 Kings 3:11; cf. 2 Kings 8:8). We have already mentioned the case when the prophet Samuel was asked about donkeys. The cases where God was questioned through the prophet can be looked upon as actual abuse due to ignorance. Jehoshaphat, surrounded by false predictors, could look at the prophet as a similar predictor. The prophets satisfied the requirement to inquire of God. Every greatest person pays tribute to the shortcomings of time and environment. It is remarkable that when Elisha was called to Jehoshaphat, the prophet said: Call me the harpist. And when the harpist played the harp, then the hand of the Lord touched Elisha (2 Kings 3:15). It can be assumed that in this case the prophet does what is required and expected of him. Of course, he may have had a special purpose and wanted to take advantage of the opportunity. But in general, there are very few cases when the Lord was questioned through the prophets, and all of them represent some deviations from the principle under the influence of circumstances. The Bible nowhere says that they will ask about the Urim and Thummim (see: Numbers 27:21). According to the principle of prophecy, it is God who speaks through the prophet when He desires it, and not when He is questioned. Prayer for the people is more consistent with the principles of prophecy than asking the people. We see prayer many times in the history of the prophets (see: Ex. 32:30–32; Isa. 37:2–7; Jer. 37:3, 42:2–6); sometimes they turned to the prophets to pray, for example, Zedekiah turned through Jehuhal to Jeremiah (see: Jer. 37:3). Thus, the prophet was precisely God's messenger, he said what and when God commanded him to say. The prophet was the mouth of the Lord (see: Jer. 15:19) and proclaimed the word of God. It is impossible to count how many times it is said about the prophets that they proclaimed precisely the word of God; in one book of the prophet Jeremiah this expression appears up to 48 times. Therefore, we must accept the position that prophecy fundamentally includes religious creativity. The priest himself is guided by the letter of the law and teaches others the word of the law; the prophet is guided by the will of God, by special revelations and communicates the word of God to others. The priest is the representative of the law; a prophet is a representative of the word of God. These two concepts do not coincide not only in the Old Testament, but always and everywhere. The relation of prophecy to the law can best clarify the fundamental relationship between prophecy and the priesthood. The law is the point that both the priesthood and prophecy touch in their fundamental aspects, and therefore the attitude towards the law of both institutions is especially clearly affected by their mutual relationship. Several points may be noted in relation to prophecy and the law. First of all, the law itself appears in the Bible as given from God precisely through prophecy and through it. A thought runs through the entire Old Testament, briefly expressed in the book of the Wisdom of Solomon: The wisdom of God ordered the affairs of them (the Jews) by the hand of the holy prophet (Wisdom 11:1). In general, the Jewish legislator Moses in the Bible is called a prophet in the highest sense of the word. Moses is like some ideal type of prophet. Although it is noted that Israel no longer had a prophet like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face (Deut. 34:10), but prophets are always likened to Moses. Moses himself said to the people: The Lord your God will raise up for you from among you, from among your brothers, like me (Deut. 18:15), and Jehovah Himself said to Moses: I will raise up for them a Prophet from among their brothers, like you, and I will put My words in His mouth, and He will tell them everything that I command Him (Deut. 18:18). Usually these two passages of Deuteronomy are considered messianic, but, in any case, the immediate meaning of these expressions is historical, relating to the entire prophecy, and the features indicated in this place can be applied to each prophet (Krieg). God promises the Jews to raise up the leaders they need, like Moses. Thus, the Bible looks upon subsequent prophecy as continuing the work of Moses, as continuing the legislation. A true prophet is destined for the same activity as Moses: prophetic activity is a creative, legislative activity, and in the Hebrew Bible we see the books of the law and the prophetic ones side by side. The Law and the Prophets (thora ve nebi'im) - this is the Old Testament Divine revelation. The law outlined all the activities of the Jewish people. The priests had to teach everyone the law, who in turn had to fulfill very many things concerning their law. The law was given for this purpose, so that it could be fulfilled by the people and priests. During his lifetime, the teacher of the law Moses himself very strictly monitored the fulfillment of this law, sometimes to the smallest detail (see: Lev. 10:16–18), and urged the people not to forget the law (see: Deut. 29:2–30). We see the same thing in the activity of later prophecy. The priesthood itself was very unstable in the law. The priests stumbled from strong drinks, were defeated by wine, went mad from strong drink (see: Isa. 28:1); they did not say: “Where is the Lord?”, and the teachers of the law did not know God, the shepherds fell away from Him (Jer. 2:8). They heal the wounds of the people frivolously, saying: “Peace! peace!”, but there is no peace. Are they ashamed when they do abominations? no, they are not at all ashamed and do not blush (Jer. 6:14–15, 8:11–12). The law about Levitical uncleanness, about the Sabbath (see: Ezek. 22:26), about firstfruits and tithes was forgotten; the priests robbed God (see: Mal. 3:8), desecrated holy things and generally violated the law (see: Zeph. 3:4). And the law itself was turned into a lie by the wicked reed of the scribes, as always and everywhere (see: Jer. 8:8). The people forgot their religion and turned to foreign cults. In the history of the religious life of the people, a phenomenon appeared, in the history of religion known as syncretism or theocracy, and in political life alliances with pagan peoples began to take place. The prophets constantly fought against such and such apostasy from God and the law given by Him, constantly protecting the people from forgetting the law; they were the guards of the house of Israel. Through the prophet the Lord brought Israel out of Egypt, and through the prophet He protected it (Hos. 12:13). The prophets denounce every deviation from the law, general and particular. The prophet denounces Benadar, who spared the accursed (see: 1 Kings 20:35–43). Elijah denounces King Ahaziah, who sent to ask Beelzebub, the deity of Ekron (see: 2 Kings 1: 2–4). Elijah was destined for reproof in his times (Sir. 48:10), he was like fire, and his word burned like a lamp (Sir. 48:1). Jeremiah was set up with a fortified city and a pillar of iron and a wall of brass... against the kings of Judah, against its princes, against its priests and against the people of the land (Jeremiah 1:18). The Prophet justified his appointment. He denounces idolatry, reminds of the covenant (see: Jer. 12:2–8), advocates for keeping the Sabbath (see: Jer. 17:21–27), preaches to the priests and elders in the valley of the sons of Hinnom (see: Jer. 19:1–13) and in the courtyard of the house of the Lord (see: Jer. 19:14–15). The prophet proclaims woe to those who go to Egypt for help (Isa. 31:1). The prophets proclaim grief to the shepherds of the people (see: Jer. 23:1-2), call them to judgment with God (see: Ex. 5:3; Ezek. 34:2-31; Mic. 6:1-2; Hos. 5:1) because they have devastated the vineyard of God (see: Is. 3:14; Jer. 2:9), threaten them with the curse of God, if they do not apply their hearts to what they hear (see: Mal. 2:1–2). Ezekiel almost literally repeats some laws, apparently thoroughly forgotten by the priests (see: Ezekiel 44:9–46). If the prophets denounce the priests, threaten them with judgment and condemnation, then it is obvious that prophecy is the highest institution, which was, as it were, a constant auditor or controller, monitoring the fulfillment of the law. The people lived according to the law and in this life were led by the priesthood, but sometimes both the people and the priesthood deviated from the paths of the law. Then God admonished the people through His representatives - the prophets. These earthly representatives of Jehovah, naturally, were superior to the people's representatives - the priests; initiative and leadership in the religious covenant must belong to God. God gave the law; He also excites people to fulfill this law, excites him with exhortations and threats. Just as the law was given through prophecy, so through prophecy God made sure that the people fulfilled this law for their own good. In this regard, the activity of the prophets was brought to a perfect end by the incarnate Son of God, in whose work the ancient dogmatists highlighted, among other things, the prophetic ministry. But the relation of prophecy to the law was not limited to the maintenance of the law. The law set forth the standard for the relationship between God and Israel. The sublime religious and moral truths in the law were given in an external form accessible to the people’s understanding. The law developed a purely external formalism. This legal formalism was served by the priesthood. But legal formalism was supposed to serve only as a means for educating the people and their internal renewal. It was necessary to clarify the spirit of all legal formality and ritual, to indicate the spirit of the legal letter, the internal truth in external form. The true meaning of the law could not quickly and immediately become the property of the people; The education of the people and the clarification in their consciousness of the inner meaning of the law could only go slowly and gradually, but they had to go. Prophecy served this high purpose of the law. The purpose of prophecy was to develop the religious and moral consciousness of the people in connection with the law (see: Deut. 12:2–4) through the gradual revelation of the pure truths of the law. The task of prophecy in relation to a people who already had a law and, in one way or another, fulfilled it, was moral and pedagogical; it consisted “in religious and moral education, in reviving the dead formalism of the law and revealing its spiritual meaning as applied to the circumstances of people’s life. Old Testament prophecy was the spirit that animated legal formalism” (Verzhbolovich) 8. In their inner understanding of the law, the prophets rose to almost New Testament concepts. The prophets were also in this respect the predecessors of Christ, who Himself came precisely to fulfill the law (see: Matt. 5:17), to show its idea, intention, to bring it to its full end. The moral interpretation of the law by the prophets reveals high moral concepts in this law. The prophet Isaiah takes up arms against the prevailing nomism: Everything is commandment upon commandment, line upon line, here a little and there a little (Isa. 28:10, 13). The prophet is also outraged by the exclusively external worship of God, according to which the people approach God, but their hearts are far from God (see: Isa. 29:13). Why do I need your multitude of sacrifices? says the Lord. I am satisfied with the burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fattened cattle, and I do not want the blood of bulls and lambs and goats. ...Who demands of you that you trample My courts ( Isa. 1:11–12 )? Is it possible to please the Lord with thousands of rams or countless streams of oil (Mic. 6:7)? God wants mercy, not sacrifice, and knowledge of God more than burnt offerings (Hos. 6:6). Therefore, the prophets speak of another, higher, sacrifice to God. Oh man! It has been told to you what is good and what the Lord requires of you: to act justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God (Mic. 6:8). Learn to do good, seek justice, save the oppressed, defend the orphan, stand up for the widow (Isa. 1:17); carry out fair judgment and show mercy and compassion every one to his brother - el ahiv (Zech. 7:9; but ah (brother) is the same here - ben-ab or ben-em, that is, the son of the father or the son of the mother?). Instead of streams of oil, let judgment roll down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream ( Amos 5:24 ). The concept of kadosch in the sense of Levitical impurity receives the highest ethical meaning from the prophets. Wash yourself, make yourself clean; remove your evil deeds from before my eyes; stop doing evil (Isa. 1:16). Sometimes the prophets understand purity and holiness in a completely evangelical sense. Thus, Zechariah says: Do not think evil against one another in your hearts (Zechariah 7:10; cf. Matthew 5:39). The prophets attach an equally high meaning to fasting, exactly the same as that given to it by the famous Lenten stichera and composed of prophetic expressions 9 . When they asked the priests whether to fast, the prophet Zechariah said on behalf of God: Did you fast for Me? Is it for me? And when you eat and when you drink, are you not eating for yourself, are you not drinking for yourself? Didn't the Lord proclaim the same words through the previous prophets? (Zechariah 7:5–7). What exactly did the Lord proclaim through the previous prophets? Behold, you fast for quarrels and strife... Is this the fast that I have chosen?.. This is the fast that I have chosen: loose the chains of unrighteousness, untie the bonds of the yoke, and set the oppressed free, and break every yoke; divide your bread with the hungry, and bring the wandering poor into your home; When you see a naked person, clothe him, and do not hide from your half-blood. Then your light will open like the dawn, and your healing will quickly increase, and your righteousness will go before you, and the glory of the Lord will follow you (Isa. 58:4-8). Thus, in the mouths of the prophets, the dry bones of the law received not only flesh and sinews, but also spirit. The prophets tried to put this spirit in place of nomism and the severity of the law; they proclaim woe to those who make unjust laws and write cruel judgments (Isa. 10:1). In such a spiritualization of the law lay mainly the religious creativity of the prophets. The priest had to fulfill the law as it was written; no more is required of him, but the prophet understands the spirit and intent of the law. If the priest was a teacher of the people, then the prophet could be a teacher of the priesthood. The prophets did not limit themselves only to teaching and preaching; They organized life around themselves on purely religious principles. Zealots of the faith gathered around the prophets, and the prophets guided their lives. We mean the so-called prophetic schools. When using this term, one should not forget the remarks of Metropolitan Philaret that it was invented by the Germans, who believe that there is nothing better than their universities. Speaking about prophetic schools, we should completely abandon modern ideas about school. The prophetic schools, called the hosts of the prophets (see: 1 Kings 10:5, 10, 19:19–24) and the sons of the prophets (see: 2 Kings 4:1, etc.), can only be represented as religious educational institutions that had a sort of monastic routine for common life 10 . The activity of the prophets in relation to these prophetic schools can be represented as follows. People of pious disposition, zealots of the law, gathered around the prophets and formed a closer circle of disciples. In this circle the members led a special religious life. The Prophet stood at the head of these hosts, supervised religious education and upbringing, and was always himself a wise mentor in religious and moral life. The prophets gathered around them the best part of the people, and the sons of the prophets could be mentors to others, the religious and moral support of their time. By gathering religious people around themselves and developing them in a religious and moral direction, the prophets achieved the fact that some of the sons of the prophets themselves received revelations and could be assistants to the prophets in their ministry. The Bible has preserved one incident when Elisha the prophet called one of the sons of the prophets and said to him: Gird up your loins, and take this vessel of oil in your hand, and go to Ramoth-gilead... Anoint Jehu, the son of Jehoshaphat, the son of Nashesh... to be king over Israel (2 Kings 9:1-3). Thus, the prophets not only themselves were the pillars of their time, but they also gathered around them people of good will. Therefore, the prophets were Israel's chariot and cavalry. When Elisha died, Joac king of Israel came to him and wept over him and said, “My father!” my father! the chariot of Israel and his cavalry! (2 Kings 13:14). And the twelve prophets - may their bones flourish from their place!.. saved Jacob with faithful hope (Sir. 49:12). Such was the activity of the Divine messengers-prophets. They always stood at the height of their position and calling. The people fell, the priests also fell, but the prophets were always the spiritual leaders of the people; their voice always and invariably rang out like thunder, and forced people to come to their senses and correct themselves. People who retreated from God often wanted to see in the prophet only a funny singer with a pleasant voice (see: Ezek. 33:32), they wanted to hear only what lulled their dormant conscience. If any prophet predicted peace, then only he was recognized as a prophet (Jer. 28:9). The prophets were required not to prophesy the truth, but to speak only flattering things: Get out of the way, turn away from the path; remove the Holy One of Israel from our sight (Isa. 30:10–11). Such demands were combined with threats, for example, the men from Anathoth said: Do not prophesy in the name of the Lord, lest you die at our hands (Jer. 11:21). Shemaiah the Nehelamite wrote to Jerusalem: Why don’t you forbid Jeremiah of Anathoth to prophesy among you (Jer. 29:25–32). The prophets were persecuted. Paschor, the son of Emmer, a priest, who was also an overseer in the house of the Lord... struck... Jeremiah... and put him in the stock (mahpechel - 2 Chron. 16:10), which was at the upper gate of Benjamin (Jer. 20:1-2); Zedekiah imprisoned the same prophet in the courtyard of the guard (see: Jer. 32:2); The priests and prophets and all the people, after one speech from Jeremiah, grabbed him and said: You must die! - they demanded a death sentence for the prophet (see: Jer. 26:7–11). The life of the prophet was difficult (see: Jer. 20:14–15), but nothing forced the prophet to change his calling; he was always like fire, and his word always burned like a lamp (Sir. 48:1). Priests, as we have already noted, were often completely subordinate to state power and participated in the political struggle of dynasties and parties. This is not what the prophecy imagined. Prophecy was only involved in the struggle between good and evil. About prophecy in general, we can say what Sirach says about the prophet Elisha: He did not tremble before the prince... nothing prevailed against him (Sir. 48:13–14), as well as what the Lord says about Jeremiah: They will fight against you, but they will not prevail over you (Jer. 1:19). It follows from the very concept of prophecy that someone who is not worthy of it cannot be called a prophet. The names “false prophet” or “unworthy prophet” are completely incomprehensible. A false prophet is a contradictio in adjecto; a false one, therefore, is not a prophet, not sent by God, and if a prophet allows himself to be deceived and speaks a word as I, the Lord, would have taught this prophet, then I will stretch out My hand against him and destroy him from My people Israel, said Jehovah (Ezek. 14:9). A false prophet is not a prophet, he is unworthy of his name and title, he is an impostor, a deceiver, an imitation. That is why the Bible gives its signs by which an imitation can be distinguished from a real prophecy. There are two such signs: 1) the prophecy of a false prophet is not fulfilled, and 2) he speaks on behalf of other gods. Both of these signs must be present together: a true prophet must speak on behalf of Jehovah, and his prophecy must be fulfilled. “How do we know a word that the Lord did not speak?” If a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, but the word does not come true and is not fulfilled, then it was not the Lord who spoke this word, but the prophet who spoke this out of his boldness, do not be afraid of him (Deut. 18:21-22). The Lord nullifies the sign of false prophets and reveals the madness of magicians... confirms the word of His servant and brings into fulfillment the saying of His messengers (Isa. 44:25-26). This criterion was generally used (see: Isa. 5:19; Jer. 17:15, 28:9; Ezek. 12:22, 33:33). Whatever he says comes true - this is a clear sign of the truth of the prophet (see: 1 Samuel 3:19, 9:6). The prophets themselves indicated that their prophecies were coming true (see: 1 Kings 22:28; Zech. 1:6; cf. John 10:37–38, 15:24). A true prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah alone: ​​whoever speaks in the name of other gods is not a prophet, even if his word accidentally came true. If a prophet presents you with a sign or a miracle, and that sign or miracle comes true, but if he also says: “Let us go after other gods whom you do not know, and let us serve them,” then do not listen to the words of this prophet (Deut. 13:1-3), put such a prophet to death (Deut. 18:20), for what have chaff to do with pure grain? (Jer. 13:28). As can be seen from these signs, a prophecy can only be true, the rest is only a self-proclaimed imitation that should be exposed. A priest remains a priest, even if he is unworthy of his title; he becomes a priest by his very birth from a descendant of Aaron. A prophet, if he is unworthy, is no longer a prophet; No one can take upon himself prophecy, but only a special one “called from God.” In conclusion, let us summarize everything that has been said about the principles of the Old Testament priesthood and prophecy. The priest is the people's representative and representative in religious life; prophet - Divine messenger and leader of the people. The priest is the executor of the law, and through prophecy God establishes this law and spiritualizes it. Religious creativity belongs to prophecy, and the priesthood experiences the results of this creativity together with the people. If we pay attention to the relationship between prophecy and the priesthood, then we cannot consider one institution as an addition to the other; we cannot look at prophecy as one, far from the first, of the hierarchical degrees. No, prophecy and the priesthood are independent and separate institutions, each with its own principles. The following brief definition of the fundamental relationship between the priesthood and prophecy suggests itself: the priesthood is the bearer and personification of religious life; prophecy is the bearer of religious ideals. Ideals are heavenly, but life is always earthly. Ideals are always far ahead of everyday life; everyday life always lags behind ideals. But ideals can only be realized through everyday life; Without ideals, life cannot develop. When ideals fly away from the earth, then all life freezes, then God leaves or forgets the earth. The Bible considers deprivation of prophecy to be such a punishment from God for the earth. For the sins of the people, the prophets are not granted visions (Lamentations 2:9). About those times when visions and prophecy are sealed (see: Dan. 9:24), the prophets speak of times of punishment - such times when God turns away His face (see: Ezek. 7:22): Trouble will follow trouble... and they will ask the prophet for a vision, and there will be no... advice from the elders... I will do, says the Lord, with them in their ways, and in their judgments. judge them (Ezek. 7:26–27). The time when there is no prophet, although there is a priesthood, is a dark time, then people are left without heavenly guidance, which the priesthood also needs. And that is why the psalm says: Why, O God, has He cast us away forever? Thy anger is kindled against the sheep of Thy pasture?... Our signs... we do not see, there is no longer a prophet, and there is no one with us who would know how long this will happen (Ps. 74:1, 9). And there was great tribulation in Israel, such as had not been seen since the time when the prophet was not seen among them (1 Mac. 9:27). We consider it necessary to say a few words about the nature of the proposed argument. It is based on the tacit assumption that the Bible is a source that is equally valuable in all parts. Therefore, we completely leave aside textual criticism and polemics with the rationalistic views of representatives of modern biblical hypercriticism, such as Stade, Wellhausen, Lippert (Allgemeine Geschichite des Priesterthums V. A. II.), Maybaum (Die Entwickelung des altisrdelilischen Priesterthums. Breslau, 1880; Die Entwickelung des isrdelitischen Prophetenthums. Berlin, 1883) and under. The proposed discussion is written mainly from the Bible. The Bible, symphonies, concordances and Jewish dictionaries are our main tools. Principled discussions of prophecy and the priesthood are scattered throughout various works. An indication of the literature on prophecy can be found in the dissertation of M. Verzhbolovich “Prophetic ministry in the ten-tribe kingdom of Israel” (Kyiv, 1891). About the priesthood - in the dissertation of priest. Georgiy Titov “The history of the priesthood and Levitism of the Old Testament Church, from the beginning of their establishment under Moses to the founding of the Church of Christ, and their relationship to the pagan priesthood” (Tiflis, 1878, pp. 5–13). The journal controversy surrounding this dissertation also has fundamental content. See articles: priest. G. Titov. On the question of the Old Testament priesthood and Leviticality. - Wanderer. 1879. July-August. pp. 184–189. Prof. F. G. Eleonsky. About the Old Testament priesthood. – Christian reading. 1879. T. 2. P. 606–638; and “Final explanations on the question of the Old Testament priesthood” - article by priest. Titov with explanatory notes under the line of prof. Eleonsky (Christian reading. 1880. T. 2. P. 453–530). More recently, several more articles have appeared on prophecy and the priesthood. These are: Prof. A. I. Pokrovsky. Old Testament prophetism as the main typical feature of the biblical history of Israel. – Theological Bulletin. 1908. T. 1. P. 764–793; and a separate brochure (Sergiev Posad, 1908). The latest literature on the subject is also listed here (Theological Bulletin, pp. 767–769). However, the article itself gives mainly a historical description of prophetism, depicting “the historical evolution of Old Testament prophetism” (Ibid. pp. 769–770). The fundamental content of the original articles by Prof. MM. Tareev “The Old Testament Kingdom and Prophecy” (Christian. 1907. Vol. 3. pp. 529–561). The same is true in the Complete Works. "The Life and Teachings of Christ." Part 2. Sergiev Posad, 1908. pp. 81–109 (about prophecy) and “The Old Testament priesthood” (Ibid. pp. 64–74). This should also include the articles by E. A. Vorontsov “Revelation in the Prophets and Revelation in Christ” (Faith and Reason. 1908. Vol. 1. P. 28–44) and “The views of the Old Testament prophets on shepherding and their assessment of the shortcomings of the contemporary pastoral (Levitical) ministry” (Faith and Reason. 1908. Vol. 1. P. 579–593 and 723–739. T. 2. pp. 17–34). However, by citing this literature, we still abdicate the obligation to present and criticize anyone’s views. We will set forth only, or almost only, what we have found in the Bible; We will not skimp on biblical quotations, and we will keep all the others to ourselves, as being of little use to the reader. The Hebrew Targum in some places, like Gen. 41, 45; Ps. 109, 4 (You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek), etc. conveys kohen through rabba-status emphatiens from rav - which, as used especially in the book of the prophet Daniel, means a nobleman, the first in the state, ravprinceps (see: Dan. 4:33, 5:1, 3, 6:17, etc.). The meaning of the word kohen is especially clear where it is used to refer not to priests, but to other persons. So, in 2 Samuel. 8, 18 the sons of David are called kohanim, but the parallel place is 1 Chr. 18, 17 names the sons of David first at the court harischonim, plural. number from rischon, denoting the first in time, in rank, in dignity. The priests are called kohanim, therefore, as the first in religious terms, standing in front. S. Maybaum. Die Entwickelung des israelitischen Prophetenthums. S. 24–25; in general about the Urim and Thummim. Ibid. S. 24–28. Maybaum also points out some literature about the Urim and Thummim. Ibid. S. 25. Epiphanius. Panarius. 1. Ro'e is a participle of the verb ra'a, which means to see at all. In a closer religious sense, ga'a is used in relation to that direct perception of the Divine, which is called the sight of the Divine. Ra'a is used in the Old Testament whenever it is said that man cannot see God (see: Is. 6:5; Exod. 33:21ff.), and also when it talks about some cases where people saw the back of Jehovah (see: Exod. 33:23). So Hagar says: I saw the trace (ra’iti) of the one who saw me. And Hagar called the source be’er lahaj ro’i (see: Gen. 16, 13–14). Finally, ga'a is used in connection with visions and revelations (see: Isa. 30:10), which is why mar'a means vision. The participial form ro'e designates a prophet as a person who receives revelations and has visions. Ro'e characterizes the subjective side of prophecy, the internal relationship of the prophet to God, but this term does not define the relationship of the prophet to people, the external side of prophecy. Another term “hoze”, less often used than all the others, also highlights the more internal state of the prophet, and the term hoze defines the external expression of his internal state in a very original way. The verb haza means: 1) to see in a dream and 2) to speak in a dream, to rave. The corresponding Arabic verb haza (having two styles) means exactly the same thing. In its philological meaning, haza can only mean the lowest form of both prophetic communication and prophetic perception. Sometimes in the Bible hoze is used in this sense. Isaiah describes in the darkest colors the unworthy guards of Israel who have a penchant for alcoholic beverages (see: Is. 56:12). These are the ones Isaiah calls, by the way, hozim - dreaming, raving. LXX translates nupniastmena, Aquila – fantasТmena, Symmachus – Рramatista…, glorified: dreaming on the bed. The term hoze compares prophetic perception with a dream, and the external expression of what is perceived is with delirium. But, one might say, the special name for a prophet in the books of the Old Testament is “nabi”, and this term characterizes the concept itself more than others. The word nabi comes from the uncommon verbal root naba (aleph at the end). According to the general Semitic meaning (the corresponding Arabic verb naba), this combination of sounds (nun + bet + aleph) means an obsessive forced action of some object on the vision, and in relation to the organ of hearing, this word characterizes speech that is pronounced with some kind of necessity for both the speaker and the listener, sometimes meaning speech that is inarticulate under the influence of internal reasons (glossolalia). To explain the meaning of naba, we can use the common verb naba (with “ain” at the end), which means to quickly flow out, pour out, burst forth. In the latter sense, "naba" is used in relation to sources of water; Thus, the source of wisdom is called a flowing stream (nahal nobea - Proverbs 18:4). In the form of gifil, naba means primarily “to pour out the spirit” (see: Proverbs 1:23) and especially the words: so the mouth of fools spews out (nabia’) foolishness and evil (Proverbs 15:2, 28). In general, in relation to words, naba means - to pronounce, to proclaim (see: Ps. 119: 171, 144: 7). In addition, another connotation of its meaning follows from the biblical use of naba, namely, the use of this verb in Ps. 18:3, 77:2, 144:7 gives it the meaning of teaching, instructing. The same meaning is noted by the use of the active form hyfil. There are several other related verbs in Hebrew. These are nabab (Arabic nabba), naba (at the end of “ge”), nub, some Hebraists also put na’am in the row. All these verbs have one common meaning - to pour out with a key, to pour out. Some of these verbs are used to denote human speech, such as nub in Proverbs. 10, 31. What has been said can be summarized as follows: naba and related verbs mean an inspired, heightened state of a person, as a result of which he pours out quick, inspired speech. The first point - an increase in the general state of mind is especially marked by the form hithpal from naba, which in the Bible means - to go mad, to be furious, to be inspired, according to the Greek ma...nesqai (cf.: 1 Cor. 14, 23). Saul was raging (hitnabbe) when he was attacked by an evil spirit (see: 1 Samuel 18:10). Therefore, in the noun nabi it is necessary to distinguish its passive meaning; passive is the very state of being inspired. The verb naba, as already noted, has, among other things, the meaning of “to teach,” hence the passive meaning nabi—taught. Indeed, in the Bible, prophets are sometimes called disciples - limmud (see: Isa. 8, 16; 50, 4). The Greek profiteo also has the same passive meaning, which Greek writers sometimes use to denote an echo heard, for example, in caves. One should not, however, exaggerate the passive meaning of the Hebrew nabi, as some do, overestimating the meaning of the form hitpael - hitnabbe and giving the verb naba itself the meaning - “to be frantic”; about true prophets hitnabbe is used in the Bible only three times (see: Jer. 29:26–27, 26:20; Ezek. 37:10). And the very form hitnabbe is interpreted by some in the active sense - “to be a prophet” (Konig, Dillmann). The Bible also makes very clear the active meaning of the word nabi. This word is used to mean a person who speaks with animation, so that the meaning of nabi approaches the meaning of our word “orator” (see: Am. 3, 8; Ezek. 11, 13). The passive meaning “taught” is opposed to the active meaning “teacher”. From the passive participle “learned”, even in the Russian language, the verbal noun “scientist” was developed, which also has an active meaning. In the sense of an interpreter who teaches or explains something to others, nabi is used, for example, in Deut. 13, 2. F. Vladimirsky. The state of the prophet's soul at the revelation of the Holy Spirit. Kharkov, 1902. P. 18, 39–40. A. P. Lopukhin. Biblical history in the light of the latest research and discoveries. T. 2. St. Petersburg, 1890. P. 693, etc. Real-Encyclopedie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche / Herausgeg. von Herzog. 2-te Aufl. Bd. 12. S. 284. Prof. speaks about this side of Old Testament prophecy. S. S. Glagolev. Supernatural revelation and natural knowledge of God are outside the true Church. Kharkov, 1900. P. 105, 76 et seq. See in detail in the article: The attitude of the prophets to the ritual law of Moses. – Readings at the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment. 1889. I. S. 217–257. Stichera 1 on the poem, ch. 3rd: “Let us fast with a pleasant fast, pleasing to the Lord: true fasting is alienation of evil, abstinence of the tongue, putting aside rage, lusts of excommunication, speaking, lying and perjury; these impoverishments, fasting is true and favorable.” – Approx. ed. For details, see: Vladimir Troitsky. Old Testament prophetic schools. - Faith and reason. 1908. No. 18. P. 727–740; No. 19. P. 9–20; No. 20. pp. 188–201. You might be interested in: