Introduction to the Prophets: Part One
Many of us
probably grew up learning that the Old Testament prophets pointed to the coming
of Christ. This is a Christian perspective—a “looking back” at the Old
Testament and applying it to Christ. For example we say that the Immanuel of
Isaiah referred to Jesus Christ.
In our class we
will suspend this way of thinking, even for a while. The prophets were
responding to their different social, cultural and historical contexts. They
did not have in mind Jesus Christ who was to come many centuries after them. So
when we look at the mention of Immanuel in Isaiah we can ask who exactly was
this Immanuel for the prophet himself and
not for us Christians doing a “looking back”. We may say that we think and
believe that Isaiah was referring to Christ. We say that. But what does Isaiah
say? Of course we can still do a “Christian interpretation” of Isaiah’s
Immanuel, but let us put that between brackets for the moment.
The Jewish
tradition distinguishes two subsections in the Prophets. There is the
subsection on the “first prophets” and the subsection on the “last prophets”.
The “first prophets” is what we now call as the “historical books” (from Joshua
to 2Kings). The “last prophets” comprise what we now call as the books of the
prophets. These books “authored” by the prophets are even classified as “major”
and “minor” prophets. Put simply, “major” means “plenty of pages” and “minor
means “few pages”.
The “sentinel on the lookout”
Prophets said
that they had a vocation, a “calling”. They were to relay to the people the
word of God; they were “spokespersons” of God. Let us be more precise.
First of all we
need to realize that prophetism was existing in the Near-East region. It was a
practice among the different nations there. The neighboring nations also had
their own individuals who were considered “prophets”. It was common in the
Near-East region to have individuals and groups speaking on behalf of the
divinities. There are records of prophetic functions in Egypt and in the area
of Mesopotamia. Persons were asked, mostly by kings, to interpret the mind of a
god and see what that god can say about the protection and security of nations.
The people of
Israel were very much part of the region so they too had prophets. We see this
in David who was accompanied by a prophet named Gad (see 1Sam22/5 and 23/2 and
23/6-12).
Early evidences
show that prophets were usually found in groups. There were assemblies of men.
(See Nm11/24-30; see Am2/11. See 1Sam10/6-13). They were at times given names,
like “sons of prophets” (see 1Kg20/35; 2Kg2/3ff etc.) Samuel himself was
associated with a group (see 1Sam19/20ff.) Elijah and Elisha were associated
with groups (see 2Kg3/15).
Prophets were
attached to sanctuaries and courts of kings (see 2Sam7/1 12/1 24/11; 1Kg1/8
22/6ff. 2Kg3/11 Neh6/7 etc. See also
Am.7/10). They would fall into ecstasy and trances, at times even appearing
like mad men (see 1Sam10/6; 2Kg9/11, etc). We, as modern people, might be
uneasy with this but ecstasy was not unusual in the ancient times of the
Near-East and the nation of the Hebrews.
Scholars will
note that although the society and culture of the people of Israel shared
common features with other Near East nations there was something unique and
original that emerged in the prophetic function within Israel.
What was new?
Well, prophets of Israel spoke “for” God within the framework of the Covenant.
Recall your semester on the Introduction to the Old Testament where this topic
of Covenant was covered.
What exactly was
this “job description” of prophecy in the Hebrew nation?
Prophets were
called (by God) to be on the “lookiout” (Asurmendi). Prophets were fully
inserted in their social contexts. They were on the “lookout” for what was
happening both within and outside the nation. They were “sentinels”.
Take the example
of Ezekiel. He considered himself a sentinel looking out (see Ez.33/7).
Prophets had their eyes on the other
nations. Prophets had to be vigilant about what
the other nations can and will do to the people of Israel. As we will later
see, there were the big empires constantly threatening the nation—Assyria,
Babylon, Persia and Egypt. Prophets were vigilant about the relationships the
nation had to do with these big empires. Again Ezekiel himself said that the
Lord God gave him the task to be on the lookout for what happens if a foreign
sword came against the people. The sentinel—or prophet— “should blow the
trumpet to warn the people” (Ez.33/3). Jeremiah himself was told to be on the
lookout for the moves of the Babylonians. Jeremiah was then told, “But you,
prepare yourself; stand up and tell them all that I command you” (Jer1/17). of Israel were critical of the people even to
the point of judging them. Prophets became something like the “social
conscience” of the people. They sensed the consequences of people’s behavior.
Now, prophets
were sentinels with their eyes on external nations. But they were also on the
lookout for what was happening within their
societies. Prophets questioned many of the social practices that were unjust.
They tried to deepen people’s faith in God even if it meant speaking in harsh
terms. Prophets reacted to specific moments of their societies. They were persons
of their social times. Again, Ezekiel said that he was made “sentinel” on the
lookout. The Lord God told him, “I have appointed you as a sentinel for the
house of Israel; when you hear a word from my mouth, you must warn them for me….
you warn the wicked to turn from their ways” (Ez.33/7 and 9).
There is one
curious element in the “job description” of prophets. If they were to be
sentinels and lookouts for foreign nations and interior social injustices, they were also on the lookout for what God
will do. It was never easy for prophets to speak for God and relay God’s
word to the people. Jeremiah was not so thrilled about his calling. The Lord
God was too strong for him; the Lord God prevailed over him. Consequently,
however, Jeremiah became an object of laughter because people started to mock
him. The task of prophecy brought him “reproach and derision all day long”.
Jeremiah was terrorized on every side. (See Jer. 20/7-18).
Prophets were to
relay the word of God to people. But at times they could not fully understand
what God was really saying. So they had to be on the lookout for God’s own
message. A good example here is Habakkuk.
Habakkuk felt
sick because he did not comprehend God. He was told that the injustices in his
own society will be corrected and the unjust will be punished. The Lord God
promised that the wicked and unjust will be punished. How? The Chaldeans, (i.e.,
Babylonians) will come to crush the nation. Habakkuk was ready to accept this.
But he was so sickly worried because he could not understand why the Lord God
would employ very wicked Babylonians to do the punishment. If many people of
Judah were “bad guys”, how much more were the Babylonians? Habakkuk literally
complained to the Lord God.
So what did
Habakkuk do? He stood as a sentinel, looking out and waiting for God to reply.
“I will stand at my guard post, and station myself upon the rampart; I will
keep watch to see what he will say to me, and what answer he will give to my
complaint” (Hab.2/1).
Let us summarize
all that. Prophets were sentinels on the lookout for what foreign nations will
do, for what their own societies do and for what the Lod himself will say and
do. As we read some of the prophets the details will be more clear.
Denounce and Announce
Prophets were on
the lookout; they were sentinels. But they did not just sit down waiting for
something to happen. As sentinels they denounced and announced. They were also
very passionate about their vocation up to the point that they were willing to
be unpopular even in front of social authorities. This is one feature of “true
prophets” as opposed to “false prophets”. False prophets were speaking to
please others, especially kings. True prophets were centered on the word of God
and not on how people will “like” or “unlike” the message. We will say more
about the distinctions between “true” and “false” prophets later.
So prophets did
not have to be cordial. They were courageous enough to denounce. They were so
critical “to the max”, so to speak. Maybe for people a little bit of cheating
and small injustices were tolerated. The prophets could never stomach a single
injustice. They were so radically critical. They were rough and adamant. They
were direct and not beating around the bush.
Hence they
disturbed people. They were not exactly very pleasant personalities. They
disturbed especially the unjust and wicked. We will see, for example, how Amos
denounced the injustices of the people of Israel to the point that he was told
to go away. A priest close to the King, sent Amos away. “Off with you…flee”
said the priest. “Never again prophesy in Bethel; for it is the king’s
sanctuary and a royal temple” (Am.7/13). Jeremiah was kidnapped and thrown into
a muddy pit.
As prophets
denounced, they also announced. Their announcements were so unthinkable and
unexpected. The example of Nahum is interesting. He announced something that
people never quite thought of happening. At that time Assyria was the powerful
empire and the people of Judah were eventually linked with the Assyrians.
(Imagine that today “the big empire” is the USA and so many people are linked
to the Americans—commercially and culturally.) Nahum announced the collapse of
Assyria. The Lord God will come against Assyria, the Lord God will consume the
Assyrian chariots, the threats of the empire will come to an end. “Your preying
on the land I will bring to an end, the cry of your lionesses will be heard no
more” (Na2/14). Imagine then how the people of Judah, especially those who were
already dependent on links with Assyria, will resist the prophet Nahum.
Introduction
to the Prophets: Part Two
Idolatry
But we might ask
why call the prophets to be sentinels, why denounce and announce? What exactly
were they struggling against? If prophets saw themselves as called by God it
was because there was a big gap between God and people. The Covenant was not
longer really respected. Something intervened between the heart of God and the
heart of the people. Thus we see the problem of idolatry.
We are used to
think of idolatry as adoring other gods, following other gods and making
statues about them. This can be correct but it needs more precision. Idolatry
is a complex phenomenon that requires us to give more space for discussion.
Just to introduce us to the topic we can say that idolatry is what blocks the
communion of our hearts with the heart of God. For the prophets it meant the
“sacralisation” of social realities (Asurmendi). Power, money, unjust practices
and other divinities become “absolute” for society. God sealed a covenant of
liberation and authentic living with the nation but people would rather turn to
something else and make that their god. So idolatry is a turning away from God
and his Covenant and becoming an unjust nation.
Usually when we
read the prophets we might separate injustice from cultic adoration of others
gods as if they were two distinct issues that prophets dealt with. But as we
will see in a moment, even injustice is a form of idolatry. So for the purpose
of organizing our future discussions, we can lump together cult and injustice
by stating that they are both forms of idolatry.
(See Wenin).
If we want to
study idolatry in the struggles of the prophets we can look into the other
books of the Old Testament first. Let us review our memories about the book of
Genesis. In Gen.2/16-17 we read that God had given an order, a command. “You
are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of
knowledge of good and evil” (Gen.2/16-17).
This order is
found in the Adam and Eve story. The story says that human is given a
responsibility: to work and to keep the garden. The human is in relationship
with God, with nature and with oneself. Part one of the order tells the human
to enjoy the garden. Have fun with the creation of the Lord God. Go ahead “eat
from any of the trees of the garden”. Feel free to eat any.
This first part
of the command awakens desire to eat from any tree. Yet, God puts a limit. Go
ahead and eat from any tree but not from a specific tree which is “the tree of
knowledge of good and evil”. The human can eat all, but not from that tree. So
yes, the human can eat so much…but not all. What does this imply? It implies a
“lack”; accept that there is a lack. It
implies a limit; accept that there is a
limit. Say no to the unlimited quality of desire! If the human does not do
this, if the human cannot say no to the unlimited tendency of desire, the human
will die!
God’s order,
Gen.2/16-17, teaches the human to have in confidence in the presence of the
other. Confidence presupposes putting oneself in the hands of the other. You
and I, we both discover—we “adventure” with one another as we move on in life. Life,
in relationship, becomes a life of “adventure”. It is a matter of “blooming”.
Just imagine if
we do not feel the need to grow and explore life. Imagine if we think we are so
completed. How can we say that we “bloom”? We do not bloom, we get stuck. To
bloom we need to accept a “lack”, a “limitation”. We do not know all, we do not
control all. We need to accept an “unknown”. We need to trust each other in
confidence. We adventure together. We need each other and we need to listen to
God’s order, “we may but…”
For the culture
of the Hebrews death would mean more than just physical death. For us we might
think of physical death. The heart stops beating. Lungs stop inhaling and
exhaling. Our ecg goes flat. Dead! Dead! Dead! It is quite biological. But for
the region—semitic region—death signifies the relational aspect of the human
person.
The human being
is woven for relationship. From birth to death the human is filled with
relationships. Even before one is born, relationships were already taking
place. (Well, what did mama and papa do?) Death is really more of the end of relationships. We are finished,
you and I. We are separate; we are individuals (or groups) “alone”. There are
no more other people in life. Other people may be present but who they are,
what they are, how they really live does not matter. Starting with this,
anything that threatens relationships is “murderous”. The threat does not allow
the human to live! So let us look at the command of God. The human may eat of
all…but there is a limit. Just think: not limits to my desire. This spells
death! We can say that the Genesis account is a description of the human
condition. The human is a creature of desires but to be happy the desires must be regulated.
Now we can
appreciate why God has given the command a limitation. The first part of the
command is “you may” and the second part of the command, “but…”. Do what you
want, whatever it is that you want. Go ahead, “you may”. But do not take the road of death. A Biblical way of identifying unbridled desire
is “coveting”. You may desire but do not covet. To covet is to pervert desire.
A perverted desire is a desire that refuses to be educated—to have a sense of
limits, knowing the good from the bad. To covet is to make an absolute of one’s
desire. From start to end it is my desire
and I will say how it will go. There are no respected limits.
Well, we cannot
go into a more detailed discussion of this part of Genesis precisely because
our class is on the prophets. The notion of the tree of “good and evil” itself
requires a long discussion which we cannot do here. We take this detour to help
us understand the notion of idolatry. So let us take some elements of the Adam
and Eve story to help us in what we are seeking.
God gives that
prohibition of coveting in view of relationships. The human is a creature of
desires and desires must be regulated, piloted, properly expressed with a lot
of responsibility. Why? The reason is because the human is not a solitary
creature. The human is a relational creature—with nature, with fellow humans,
with oneself and with God. This explains why the next verse (after 16 and 17)
is a verse that says that it is not good
for the human to be alone. Desires are alright but once the human covets,
relationships fall apart. The human behaves as if he or she is “all alone”;
that others do not matter.
There is one
character in the story that has a crucial role. This is the serpent. Again we
have no occasion now to make a detailed discussion on this figure in the story.
It is sufficient for us to note that this serpent introduces coveting in the
story. The description made about the serpent tells us that the serpent makes a
claim to know everything about God including
God’s secret. There is no more “lack” in the serpent; the serpent behaves
like a “complete” creature. This already is a feature of coveting where there is
nothing else to know and nothing else to understand. There is no need to grow
and explore further. This is a complete self-contained creature. This serpent
will then transmit to the human the same characteristic. How?
For one thing,
the serpent gives them an image of God who is coveting too. It is a God with a
secret and does not want to share. It is a competitive God in competition with the human. This is a powerful God who does not
want to limit his own power. This God wants to have an exclusive possession of
his own power. He is the "boss".
Now the human
must equal this God in the process of competition. The human, says the serpent,
has the right to access full knowledge too and
be equal to God. It is really a competition between the human and God. Therefore it is best that this God be out of the picture of human desires. If
it is to be a matter of competition then the exclusion of the other is part of
the strategy. One cannot rely on the word of God but one can rely on the word
of the serpent. The human cannot trust God but can trust the serpent.
How does idolatry
come in? Now we can add to say that relying
on the word of the serpent is idolatry. The serpent says that God is a
secretive and competitive God and the human can be equal by winning in the
competition against God. How then can the human compete? Eat the prohibited
fruit. What does eating this fruit do?
We know the
story. After eating the fruit the human has started to be “alone”. The human
lets desires go unbridled. Adam is “alone”, Eve is “alone”, Cain is “alone”,
the people in the Noah’s story are “alone”, the builders of the Babel tower are
“alone”. Each one is enclosed in desires that refuse to be educated, desires
that refuse to grow from ignorance, desires that are pictured as absolute,
complete and with nothing lacking. This is coveting. It is a desiring that is
so totalizing and absolute it recognizes no limit. Cain, for example, can now
kill his brother. This is what the serpent’s word has offered.
Now, let us move
to the Exodus story. There we see Moses who led the people out of Egypt—out of
slavery. The Hebrews had to “live again”, so to speak. It meant, for example,
crossing the Red Sea and spending so much difficult times in the desert. To be
a new people and a new nation the Hebrews had to be born into a new life of
freedom and responsibility. It was not easy. The temptation was to return to
slavery. It was quite difficult for the Hebrews to place God in the heart of
freedom and responsibility. The Lord God was a liberating God who brought the
people out of slavery. God established a Covenant with the people and in that
Covenant were stipulations that guided the people to live together
authentically and to avoid falling back into slavery.
In the Covenant
was the presentation of the Decalogue, or the Ten commandments. (There are two
version, the Exodus version and the Deuteronomy version. We cannot discuss the
reason for this but if we read them closely we see them to be very similar.)
Structurally the Decalogue starts with the notion of liberation and ends with
the prohibition to covet. God has set
the people free from slavery—this is liberation. Do not repeat slavery and do
not let it happen in society. Avoid coveting. Now that the Hebrews are to enter
the land, they should have the proper norms that will allow them to stay
liberated and not enslaving. Regulate desires as the people will live in the
land and there are Ten Commandments to guide them.
The Decalogue tells
the people to “look out” for two tendencies: the disfiguration of God and the
dehumanization of social relationships. This is a re-echo of the Genesis story.
The serpent represents the disfiguration of God and the refusal to accept the
validity of God’s order. This is an idolatry: trust the serpent and not God. As
a consequence to disfiguring God and refusing God’s command the people may then
start dehumanizing their relationships. Note then the two elements: God is
disfigured, society becomes a mess. These two are constant in the denunciation
of the prophets. If God is set aside, injustice starts to reign. If society
wants justice, it must rely on God and the word of God. To rely on the serpent’s
word is to pervert God’s word and this is, precisely, idolatry.
Now, the middle
portion of the Decalogue is about the Sabbath. The Sabbath is so important for exercising
properly all the other commandments. Now, in the Sabbath we know that on the
seventh day (of creation) God rested. This is a picture of a gentle God—contrary
to the powerful and secretive God. The powerful and secretive God, as told by
the serpent, has no room for others. This God is “alone”. Now the God who rests
on the seventh day is a God who gives room for others. He is a God who puts a
brake on his power and mastery, takes a rest so that the whole created world
may “be what it is”. The Sabbath is God’s respect and reverence for the created
world. God takes a rest and ceases to be always the boss. God has desires and
he shows mastery over his desires. He
regulates his power by his Sabbath distance from the created world.
This may sound
abstract, so here is an aid. Imagine if your formator is always beside you, day
in and day out. Your formator always checks on you and tells you what to do all
the time…even how to think. A more effective formator is someone who can give
room and space—a “Sabbath distance” to help you adventure and bloom.
If the Decalogue
places theSabbath in the center, it is also a way of saying that the Hebrew
people should be “in the likeness of God” by taking “Sabbath distances”,
respecting the alterity of each one. Without this Sabbath distance, injustice
will emerge. How does idolatry come in? Idolatry is making an absolute of being
“alone” and making an absolute of our own powers. It is a “sacralisation” of social realities
(Asurmendi). If a society has no space for Sabbath, then what is that society
making an absolute of? Money? Power? Politics? Are these not so “sacred” for
many people? They are “idols”.
A very rapid
survey of the narratives in the Pentateuch will show how crucial this Sabbath
distance is. Look at the stories, Abraham-Isaac, Isaac-Rebecca, Jacob-Rachel. A
typical template is in each story. There is always a “lack” thrown in. Abraham,
for example, was beginning to be master over Isaac. The sacrifice up the
mountain is depicting that Abraham must accept a lack; he must learn to
renounce his full ownership of his son. Abraham must accept a “lack”, a “distance”
to allow Isaac to be truly in the flow of God’s plan. If Abraham continued to
hold Isaac and if he continued to think that Isaac was completely and
absolutely his, Abraham falls into idolatry.
So let go of
Isaac. Accept Isaac as a gift and not as a property. You may have him as son, but
he is not your ownership. If the Abraham-Isaac story did not have the sacrifice
put in, then that same form of ownership, the absence of distance and lack. This
theme of “you may…but” is a thread in all the Bible.
So in the Exodus
story the people are given the law to refuse slavery and live in justice. God
even helps the people to hold on this this attitude of the Sabbath distance. “They
shall make a sanctuary for me so I may dwell in their midst” (Ex25/8). The sanctuary
is for the people to constantly see that they cannot make an absolute of their
desires. There must be space for “lack”. Not everything can be clogged by
social realities. Let God be that empty space whose presence will educate the
people—guide the desires of people. Let God be in the midst—the God who took a
Sabbath distance, the gentle God who respected the alterity of the created
world. Be in the likeness of this God who
is present in your midst. Oppose whatever may come between the people’s
hearts and the heart of God. Oppose idolatry.
The story of the
molten golden calf is a clear example of idolatry. Moses was up the mountain.
The people were so afraid of their fate, their leader was up there and they did
not know what was happening to him. Neither had they a sense of God who,
previously was present. So what did the people do? They told Aaron to “make a
god who will be our leader” (Ex32/1). Even before Aaron could name this calf,
the people declared that it was the Lord God liberator from Egypt. People
wanted a divinity and they themselves gave it an identity. It was a human
product, the work of human hands. This is a disfiguration of God. The people
can then cling on to this representation—a golden calf—to assure themselves that
all will be ok.
So through the
golden calf what happens is that the people self-adores. This is no longer the Lord
God but the god that the people want. This is a first step to creating a social
world based on the norms—orders and commands—of a divinity created and
fashioned by human hands. It is now a slippery slope. This new divinity can
thus allow people to make an absolute of themselves, their desires and their
injustices. See how it is idolatry!
Again to the prophets
When we read and
study some prophets we can be guided by this notion of idolatry. We should
remember that it is not just about adoring other gods and statues of other religions.
On the deeper level idolatry is about how society ceases to respect the word of
God, ceases to be in the likeness of God and makes an absolute of their social
realities. Money. Power. Prestige. It is not simply a disfiguration of God but
a dehumanization of society. Prophets will denounce this!
