Like the means for the divine self-communication, the mediators and messengers of that saving revelation have been and remain indefi-nitely various. In the whole history of God’s self-communication, both inside and outside the Jewish-Christian story, certain individuals enjoy uncommon (religious) experiences or else display an uncommon capacity to discern, interpret, and express the experiences they share with others. Either way they play a special role in communicating the divine revelation and salvation. Whether institutionalized (e.g. as kings and priests) or non-institutionalized (e.g. as prophets), these individuals prove themselves to be chosen channels through which people at large experience God’s self-communication. In this sense there is no absolute equality in the human experience of God. Hence part of our answer to the question ‘How did/does the divine self-communication occur?’ must consist in pointing to the role and variety of mediators and messengers.
Such mediators people the pages of the Old and New Testament:
Abraham and Sarah, Moses, the prophets, Mary of Nazareth, the apostles, and the supreme case, Jesus himself (see 1 Tim. 2: 5). The history of Christianity (and of other religions) shows a constant line of men and women whose special gifts enabled them to convey God’s saving words to others: saints, founders of religious movements, prophetic figures, outstanding church leaders, and the rest. Nor should we pass over the innumerable lesser mediators: from Chris-tian parents in Korea to catechists in Africa, from parish priests in California to the Little Sisters of Jesus in Papua New Guinea. Later
16 This theme of sufficient but not overwhelming light characterizes the Pense´es of Pascal; see the trans. by A. J. Krailsheimer (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1988), nos. 394, 427, 429, and 461.
g e n e r a l a n d s p e c i a l r e v e l a t i o n j 83
I will examine the roles of some of these mediators: in particular, Jesus and his apostles. Here let me dwell on one group, the Old Testament prophets, who served as intermediaries between God and the people.
Even a cursory glance at Old Testament prophecy reveals its rich diversity: from the early prophets like Deborah (Judg. 4: 4–16; 5: 1, 12),17 Elisha, and Elijah, through such classic prophets as Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah, down to the post-exilic prophets like Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. On occasion Abraham (Gen. 20: 7; see Ps.
105: 15) and David (Acts 2: 29–31) were called prophets. Moses was deemed to be the founder of Israelite prophecy and even its pinnacle (Deut. 18: 15–20; 34: 10–12). The name of prophet belonged also to the non-Israelite Balaam (Num. 22–4) and to bands who used music and dancing to enter into a state of ecstatic exaltation and induce divine utterances (1 Sam. 10: 5–7; 19: 20–4; 1 Kgs. 22: 10, 12). Prophetic elements also showed up in the life and work of Nazirites like Samuel.
The Old Testament record of prophets and prophetic experiences exhibits a remarkable diversity.
In one way or another, prophets were called to interpret and make known the divine mind and will. God was specially present to the point of even identifying with what they said or did. Their personal judgement and human words became endowed with divine author-ity. In the Old Testament the expression ‘the word of God’ occurs 247 times, and in 225 of those cases we deal with a prophetic word.18
The story of the prophets matches point after point from the account of experience provided in Chapter 3 above. Let us dwell on five such points. First, Amos records the intense immediacy of his call;
it was something that suddenly and directly came to him, even though he lacked any expected training and preparation. God abruptly acted and swept Amos into a new existence. The shep-herd-turned-prophet explained to the priest of Bethel: ‘I am no prophet nor a prophet’s son; but I am a herdsman and a dresser of sycamore trees, and the Lord took me from following the flock. The
17 The Hebrew Bible names three other women as prophetesses: Miriam (Exod. 15: 20), Huldah (2 Kgs. 22: 14), and Noadiah (Neh. 6: 14).
18 On prophecy, see R. E. Clements, Old Testament Prophecy: From Oracles to Canon (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1996); H. B. Huffmon et al.
‘Prophecy’, ABD v. 477–502; W. Klein et al., TRE xxvii. 473–517; Preuss, Old Testament Theology, ii. 67–9; E. Zenger et al., Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag, 1995), 293–436.
84 j general and special revelation
Lord said to me, “Go, prophesy to my people Israel”’ (Amos 7: 14–15;
see 3: 8). Amos and other classical prophets did not take the initiative in actively seeking a prophetic career. They experienced a call coming to them from God, who unexpectedly overwhelmed them. As Jere-miah’s complaints vividly illustrate, at times prophets followed their call with deep reluctance (see e.g. Jer. 20: 7–9). If the prophetic experiences exemplified the immediacy of a direct and deep encoun-ter with God, the role of the prophets, at least initially, was passive rather than active. They reacted only after God had acted upon them.
Second, the life of the prophets was revealed in their initial experi-ence. It disclosed what their life was and was to be. If God’s call took Amos’ life in a new direction, this proved even more startlingly true of Jeremiah. His whole life, and not just some months of it, coincided with his prophetic vocation and experience.
Third, the prophetic experience comes across as a multi-levelled affair affecting the entire existence of the subject and involving a broad range of spiritual and physical powers. While frenzy characterized the early bands of prophets and admittedly could be, in principle, a medium for communicating genuine revelation, it is not a fully human form for conveying God’s saving message and becomes less prominent as time went by. To be sure, we meet an unusual psycho-logical intensity, even abnormality, in Ezekiel’s visions, ecstasy, shak-ing, dumbness, and possible temporary paralysis (e.g. 3: 22–7; 4: 4–8;
24: 27; 33: 22). However, the classical prophets normally do not mediate the divine message through ecstasy, dreams, or other such states, but by consciously using their various powers. They look, listen, answer, and deliver a message. Thus Isaiah’s vision in the temple ends: ‘I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for me?” Then I said: “Here am I! Send me.”
And he said, “Go, and say to this people: ‘Hear and hear, but do not understand’” (Isa. 6: 8–9). Jeremiah provides another such case, when the Lord first questions him about the things he sees before communicating the divine intentions (Jer. 1: 11, 13; see Amos 8: 1–2).
Here and elsewhere, prophecy presents itself as a complex experience involving the whole person and a full range of human powers.
Fourth, like other experiences, the prophetic experience does not exist in general. Usually the prophetic writings, even if these intro-ductions or ‘superscriptions’ come from later editing, make this point by specifying the particular date and place of their origin. The g e n e r a l a n d s p e c i a l r e v e l a t i o n j 85
last chapter cited the opening words of Amos and the vision in the temple recounted by Isaiah; both passages highlight the particularity of their experiences. Jeremiah likewise indicates the specific setting in which the word of the Lord came to him: ‘in the days of Josiah the son of Amon, king of Judah, in the thirteenth year of his reign. It came also in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, and until the end of the eleventh year of Zedekiah, the son of Josiah, king of Judah, until the captivity of Jerusalem in the fifth month’
(Jer. 1: 2–3). For all his abnormality, Ezekiel also provides details as to the date and place of his prophetic experience (1: 1–3). Such experience is nothing if not concrete. It happens at particular times, in particular places, and to particular persons who must convey this or that message to specific audiences.
Fifth, the previous chapter’s analysis of human experience observed how it is discerned, interpreted, and communicated. The Nicene Creed (‘the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets’) reminds us that the prophets were primarily speakers. Jeremiah seems to have used Baruch as his secretary (Jer. 36: 1–32). Normally it was left to followers of the prophets and others to collect, edit, arrange, and expand the prophetic oracles before publishing them in written form.
The prophets themselves proclaimed the divine word, announcing God’s saving intentions and denouncing human failure. They also expressed their prophetic message through symbolic gestures. Thus Isaiah acted out a threatening future by going around naked and barefoot for three years like a prisoner-of-war (Isa. 20: 2–4). Jeremiah carried a yoke on his shoulders (Jer. 27: 1–2) as a sign of the yoke of Babylon imposed by God on Judah and her neighbours (Jer. 21:
1–10; 32: 3–5). Jeremiah also remained unmarried and childless to suggest the grim prospects that awaited Jewish parents and their children (Jer. 16: 1–9). Hosea may have entered an unhappy marriage as a means for communicating his word from the Lord (Hos. 1: 2–9).
As well as expressing some message, these symbolic gestures also mysteriously helped to bring about what they represented. The prophets shared in the dynamic role of God’s revealing word, which effects what it signifies.
A later chapter will take up the theme of inspiration. To anticipate matters, we can state that the special divine self-communication to the prophets meant that they were inspired to speak and act, but not—in general—to write. The inspiration to write down their prophetic 86 j general and special revelation
utterances belonged rather to those who came after them. The same conclusion emerges from the picturesque descriptions that Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel gave of their vocations: they were all called to speak. The lips of Isaiah were consecrated for that mission (Isa. 6: 6–7), while Jeremiah received the word of the Lord in his mouth (Jer. 1: 9).
Ezekiel, admittedly, had to eat a scroll that was to fill his stomach (Ezek. 2: 8–3: 3). This detail suggests writing. Yet even in his case the predominant theme remained speaking (e.g. Ezek. 2: 4, 7; 3: 1, 4).
Much of what I have drawn from the prophets and other material that has appeared in this chapter may well have raised for many readers the bothersome question: do we really know that these things happened? Can we be sure, for instance, that the experiences of the prophets, now well over two thousand years ago, authentically derived from God and that they did inwardly hear communications from God? Reflection on the prophetic experience offers at least seven reasons for being positive but cautious about our conclusions.