There are so many pretenders, predicting peace and prosperity, offering cheerful words, adding strength to self-reliance, while the prophet predicts disaster, pestilence, agony, and destruction. People need exhortations to courage, endurance, confidence, fighting spirit, but Jeremiah proclaims: You are about to die if you do not have a change of heart and cease being callous to the world of God.41
For you shall go to all to whom I send you,
and you shall speak whatever I command you . . .
Now I have put my words in your mouth.
see, today I appoint you over nations and over kingdoms,
to pluck up and to pull down,
to destroy and to overthrow,
to build and to plant.42
Despite the somewhat common notion today of some who would willingly and casually take on the mantle of prophet and under this guise make pronouncements, often reflecting their personal ideologies, the Hebrew prophet was not one to flaunt being a prophet; not one to seek the role of prophet, not one who seemed enamored with the very idea of being a prophet. Rather, the Hebrew prophet is something of a solitary figure without the structural support that others might have, and we have no indication that the prophet returns to a family, to a place of belonging. Instead, solitude is his companion, as he seems to alienate all others. Heschel underlines the drama and pain of such calling in his rendering and commentary on Jeremiah’s encapsulation of his call:
Oh, LORD, you have seduced me,
and I am seduced;
you have raped me
and I am overcome.43
Typically, this verse is translated in a way that seeks to capture more of a “PG” rating while the text itself is graphic and more of an “R” rating. In diluting the drama and radicalism of the prophet’s confession, most modern translations have in fact done a terrible disservice under the guise of propriety.
The words used by Jeremiah to describe the impact of God upon his life are identical with the terms for seduction and rape in the legal terminology of the Bible. The call to be a prophet is more than an invitation. It is first of all a feeling of being enticed, or acquiescence or willing surrender. But this winsome feeling is only one aspect of the experience. The other aspect is a sense of being ravished or carried away by violence, or yielding to overpowering force against one’s own will. The prophet feels both the attraction and the coercion of God, the appeal and the pressure, the charm and the stress. He is conscious of both voluntary identification and forced capitulation.44
Facing the Text
The prophets’ message must not be relegated to a place of historical reminiscence, but instead must be deeply embedded into the fabric of what is pronounced and preached today. In many respects those who dare to proclaim the prophetic word today, and it is daring in the deepest sense, must know that what they are doing is in fact walking in the already challenging steps of the ancient prophets. If anything, the choice is as stark today as it was in ancient Israel. Even as wealth, power, and social and judicial inequities abound in our society and those who embody these realities as the dominant reality cast them as hegemonic, the prophetic world establishes a different hegemony. A creational hegemony reiterates and confirms that all persons are created equal, and it is the way that relationships are to be lived out. As with the Hebrew prophets, this kind of message comes with tangible risks. Yet it cannot be relegated to a mere option among many. It is the alternative. We are reminded that carrying the mantle of prophet does not mean that one escapes the vagaries and dangers of those with power to cause harm and use violence. No prophet is beyond such; Elijah being a prime example. The very interpretation of the biblical text suffers from a kind of division between those who have had for a long period of time unchallenged positions of privileged power of interpretation that seek to distance oneself or even disconnect from the text, and the circumstances and challenges, and those persons who have made a point of employing new methods of interpretations that bring a personal engagement where the text is not viewed merely as a historical artifact. With the emergence of a number of voices in the latter category, no longer is it possible to simply conclude that what lies behind the text is of principal value. Historical criticism thus has for a long time served to obscure, perhaps even conceal, the radicalism of the prophetic text.45
Eric Hirsch has argued, “Valid interpretation is always governed by a valid inference about genre . . . Every disagreement about an interpretation is usually a disagreement about genre.”46 While there is truth to Hirsch’s perspective, it is of a particular truth and may very well apply more to the area of scholarship, where it more likely reflects the differences between scholars and those who pursue the historical, cultural and Sitz im Leben of texts. However, by and large, the differences in interpretation lie more often in what readers bring to the texts and the ideologies that are either defended or promoted. One must be aware of three constant realities: the voice of the text, the methods used to interpret the text, and the voice of the one who reads the text. Each interpreter/reader is shaped by what he/she hears and the trajectories of the text. Moreover not all of the voices will form a kind of synchronicity—in fact there is likely to be dissonance and much of this has to do with who we are and what we bring to the text. What this tells us in part is that the message of the text is not monolithic and unilateral. Each of us brings a particular truth to the text that we read and we hear. When someone says, as some do, that they read the text “objectively” and they simply speak to what the text says, they are being either disingenuous, and aware of it, or unaware that they bring a point of view. The most basic truth in the interpretive endeavor is that we bring who we are to the text. This is neither an unwelcome nor a naïve thing; it is simply the way it is. The challenge is not to refrain and seek to refrain from bringing who we are to the text, but rather to be self aware and ensure that neither our voice nor the voice of the text is silenced. That is the challenge we face and it is one that is often dismissed ironically by those who do use their voices to shape the message of the text.
Stephen Fowl argues that one only has to observe the many and varied ways in which texts are read to elicit particular perspectives to conclude that texts in and of themselves do not have ideologies, but those who read them do.47 Fowl’s argument does have merit to the degree that often it is the case that one is able to dominate a text with one’s ideological voice to the point that the text itself is forced to fit what the interpreter intends. This is neither new nor unique, for everyone who reads a text brings who he or she is to the text. Yet, this is not the entire truth for the text also has a voice, and within the text lies a worldview, and perspective that were brought into the text itself.
When we think of the various methodologies, including the well established archaeological and literary methods that are used in biblical studies, we are reminded that all, each in its own way, begin with certain presuppositions and assumptions. In the case of social scientific methods, the role is somewhat more challenging in arriving at conclusions, and one of the challenges is not to draw conclusions as if they are historically based. The social scientific criticism invites an examination of the socio-cultural aspects of the text or texts under exegesis, and in so doing provides insights into the world of the writers and the intended audience. Perhaps under ideal circumstances one would be able to discover such contexts and environments in some detail, but even if one is not able to do so fully, the method should serve to widen the angle, and add to the already well established methodologies that are used. Social scientific approach like other approaches is an important guide in the navigation of the sometimes murky and difficult waters of interpretation though in itself it does not establish indisputable evidence of a historical nature. It could be that cultural-evolutionary theory will also provide insight in the lingering and important question of identity. While we may not know the identity of the oppressors that the Hebrew prophets addressed, one should not necessarily conclude that the criticisms are generic,
