The Possibility of Contemporary Prophetic Acts

From Jeremiah to Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Bush

• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781630871116
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

Is it possible to speak of prophets and prophetic activity in today's world? If so, who determines whether the prophetic acts are authentic? Is this role, formerly filled by faith communities, now being done within the secular community? Randall Bush explores these questions from biblical, theological, and historical perspectives, looking at examples from the prophet Jeremiah, the writings of Paul Tillich, and the modern civil rights movement work of Rosa Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. This compelling discussion touches on issues as old as scripture and as current as today's news headlines, and the topic remains as relevant now as it ever was for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

1

Understanding Prophetic Activity

The Prophetic Role

When biblical scholars, theologians, and ethicists have sought to describe the nature of prophetic activity, much of their source material has been drawn from the Scriptures and historical documents of the early church. But a different perspective on this area of inquiry emerges when it is asked whether prophetic activity occurs in our contemporary world. Are there persons today whose actions and proclamations can be considered analogous to that of the prophetic figures of the canonical Scriptures?

From the narrow perspective of biblical studies, the common reply to the previous question can be summarized as follows: Although many figures included in Scripture are associated with prophetic activity, the rise and decline of prophecy itself roughly coincides with the rise and decline of the Israelite monarchy.1 If scholars close out the period of prophetic activity around the fourth to sixth centuries BCE, that would rule out the possibility of such figures appearing in modern times. Yet from the broader perspective of theological ethics, something more than this common reply needs to be voiced on this subject.

To begin formulating an adequate response to the question at hand, one starting point is to establish working definitions of both prophetic figures and prophetic activity. Within the canon of the Hebrew Scripture, prophets can be grouped into four general categories: pre-monarchic, early monarchic, classic monarchic, and post-exilic prophets. First, there are five pre-monarchic figures identified as prophets. They include Abraham, Aaron, Miriam, Moses, and Deborah. Moses is given the highest credentials by the Deuteronomic author, who says in the closing paragraph of that specific biblical book, “Never since has there arisen a prophet in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face” (Deut 34:10). Second, there are six early monarchic prophets, all of whom were active from the eleventh to ninth centuries BCE. This group includes Samuel, Nathan, Ahijah, Elijah, Micaiah, and Elisha. Third, the largest category of prophets includes the figures associated with the period of classical prophetic activity, such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Hosea, Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, and Habakkuk. Each of these has a collection of prophetic writings attributed to them and included in the canon. However, a significant decline occurs in recorded prophetic activity during the post-exilic period beginning in the late sixth century BCE. The fourth category includes biblical figures associated with the period following the 538 BCE decree of Cyrus II, such as Second Isaiah, Haggai, Zechariah, Third Isaiah, Joel, and Malachi. Also included in this group are the apocalyptic, post-exilic writings associated with Daniel.

Although all these figures are identified as prophets, the Hebrew vocabulary varies when making this designation. There are four words or phrases used in the Hebrew Scriptures as titles for prophetic figures, yet three members of this linguistic group appear relatively infrequently. The first word is ro’eh and it appears in 1 Samuel 9, 1 Chronicles 9, 26 and 29, 2 Chronicles 16, and Isaiah 28 and 30. The term comes from the root “to see” and is commonly translated as “seer.” It was used in reference to urban figures, like Samuel or Hanani, identified as prophetic resources for a particular community. But based on a comment found in 1 Samuel 9:9, calling prophets “seers” was an archaism, which the scriptural editor retained for seemingly historical reasons. The second term for prophet is the phrase ‘is (ha) ‘elohim, translated as “man of God.” This occurs much more frequently than ro’eh, and is used primarily as an appellative. Examples include “Moses the man of God” (Deut 33:1; Josh 14:6; Ps 90:1), “David the man of God” (2 Chr 8:14; Neh 12:24, 36), and “Shemaiah the man of God” (2 Chr 11:2). The phrase’s strongest connection is to the stories associated with Elijah and Elisha. And since it is not used in relation to the later prophetic figures, it appears to be a phrase restricted to earlier descriptions of prophets as itinerant holy men.

The Hebrew words associated with a classic understanding of prophetism are chozeh and nabî’. The former term is found a total of nineteen times in 2 Samuel, 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, and the prophetic books of Isaiah, Amos, and Micah, while the latter term appears over 400 times throughout the historical and prophetic Hebrew Scriptures. David Petersen, in his book The Role of Israel’s Prophets, argues that these titles are not fully interchangeable, suggesting that chozeh is appropriate for Judahite figures and nabî’ is used for Israelite figures. However, Petersen does suggest that the two terms are synonyms for the role assigned to “morality prophets.” These are people intimately tied to the key institutions of their society, who regularly define or sanction standards of public morality.2 What does seem clear from the Hebrew scriptural witness is that one dominant term (nabî’) used throughout the primary source material can be appropriately chosen as the basis for further elaboration on the roles associated with prophetic activity.

Although the root meaning of the word nabî’ cannot be precisely determined, good hypotheses link it to Akkadian and Arabic words meaning “to call” or “to announce.” Those verbs, however, can be interpreted in either a passive or an active sense. The prophet can be seen as one called, placing the emphasis on the divine sending forth of the nabî’, or the prophet can be seen as the one who announces on behalf of the deity, placing the emphasis on the prophetic role as proclaimer and “forth-teller” of the divine word. While both interpretations can be substantiated with biblical examples, the case will be made that the latter, more active meaning fits better with the classic understanding of prophets and with the subsequent usage of the Hellenistic New Testament Greek translation (prophetes), which means “one who speaks for another.”

In determining whether the role of the nabî’ is to be considered an active or a passive role, it is important to note that a wide range of conclusions exists with the scholarly community that has examined this topic. J. Lindblom has called true prophets “mouthpieces of Yahweh” and visionaries who serve as passive channels for streams of divine revelation. Robert R. Wilson calls them “intermediaries between the human and divine worlds.” Joseph Blenkinsopp suggests that prophets understood their role as being called upon to relay messages or commands verbatim, although at times they might add their own words of explication. Claus Westermann also considers prophetic speech as a “messenger’s speech,” an indirect revelation of God that follows different forms depending on whether it is a message of exhortation or judgment. Burke Long builds upon this definition by describing a prophet as a “religious specialist who works in contact with the divine reality, and who brings forth for [the] public direct or indirect messages through which others gain access to, and benefits from, the supranatural world.” Lastly, Abraham Heschel carves out a position at the opposite end of the spectrum from Lindblom, being quite adamant that the “prophet is a person, not a microphone” whose task it is to convey a divine view while being a point of view. He insists that prophets not only convey; they reveal. Heschel argues that prophets speak from the perspective of God, but always as it is perceived from the perspective of their own situation.

Despite this nuances present in this range of scholarly positions, the majority acknowledge that prophetic intermediaries are active participants when communicating their messages, both in terms of how they present what has been revealed to them and how they offer additional words of their own for clarification and elaboration. Further evidence of this can be seen by examining the prophetic use of so-called “messenger formulas.” These are stylistic patterns found in many descriptions of prophetic oracles. It occurs when the primary message delivered by the nabî’ is set apart by the phrase “Thus says Yahweh.”3 Lindblom divides these messenger formulas into several categories, including royal proclamations (“thus says Yahweh”), rhetorical formulas (“hear the word of Yahweh”), and revelation formulas (“thus has Yahweh said to me”). However the work of two other scholars on this topic merits special attention.

Claus Westermann has broken down the pattern of prophetic speech into three main parts: the commissioning, the transmission, and the delivery.4 In this tripartite structure, a distinction is made between the initial conversation (between the one sending and the one sent) and the subsequent conversation (between the one sent and the message recipient). Messenger formulas usually appear twice—once in the initial verbalization of the message and later in the repetition of the message to its intended audience. What is important to note is how Westermann clearly acknowledges that prophetic speech is “a personal event to which speaking as well as hearing belongs; a kind of happening that moves from one person (the one speaking) to another (the one hearing).”

Westermann’s insight is significant because some descriptions of prophetic speech have suggested that this genre only involves two actors, for example, the Lord and the Lord’s appointed messenger. According to this particular view, the messenger’s task is clearly a passive one, namely, to open his or her own soul for divine revelations, which would later be imparted verbatim to others. In this model, the prophet is simply a microphone amplifying divine words of salvation or judgment. How the prophet actually shapes the message in order to facilitate its being heard by the intended audience is not considered a significant factor. But through Westermann’s analysis, the presence of two distinctive conversations within most prophetic speeches is more fully acknowledged. Now it is necessary to give a third actor equal billing in this dialogue, for along with the one commissioning (e.g., Yahweh) and the one being commissioned (e.g., Isaiah), there is also the one for whom the entire prophetic process is set in motion. This is the intended audience, which might be an individual or an entire nation. Because of Westermann’s insight, it is now critical that the question “Who is being addressed?” be included in any analysis of prophetic speech.

A second voice to add to this discussion comes from Gerhard von Rad, who has made important distinctions when considering the precise form of the prophet’s message.5 To begin with, von Rad distinguishes between divine words repeated by a prophet and the prophet’s own words spo...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Chapter 1: Understanding Prophetic Activity
• Chapter 2: Understanding Prophetic Acts
• Chapter 3: Paul Tillich and the Ongoing Possibility of Prophetism
• Chapter 4: The Modern Prophetic Acts of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr.
• Chapter 5: Concluding Remarks
• Bibliography