The Gift of Prophecy

Hermeneutical and Theological Implications

As noted above, this brief survey identified a variety of parallels between the prophetic literature of the Bible and some nonbiblical texts of the ancient Near East. Such parallels, which consist in the use of similar phrases, motifs, or themes, call for a reflection on their implications for the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures. An unbalanced understanding of the relationship between the prophets and their ancient Near Eastern milieu may regard the prophetic message as either a mere reflection of ancient Near Eastern culture or an insulated heavenly product disconnected from its historical context. To avoid either extreme, it is necessary to develop an interpretative framework to explain such similarities and parallels, and to take seriously the inspiration, authority, and unity of the Scriptures. The following three considerations deal with the parallels noted above and suggest an interpretative framework. GOP 135.3

Common Experience

It stands to reason that some parallels belong to a pool of expressions and imagery the prophets shared with the larger context of the ancient Near East. In those cases the prophets may have used such expressions as part of their normal vocabulary without any intention of referring to texts or ideas of the neighboring nations. An example of such cases is the usage of certain terms and phrases attested in both Hebrew and Ugaritic. ⁷⁷ These stock expressions were by no means restricted to a single language, but were shared by the large group of Semitic languages. GOP 135.4

In some cases universal human experience may explain some similarities. Sharing a meal after victory, for example, would have obtained for any culture of the ancient Near East. Since the Israelites lived in that environment it would be natural for them to understand God’s eschatological victory as followed by a celebratory banquet. And as God revealed Himself to His people through the prophets, He allowed them to use language, metaphors, and cultural imagery of their day to convey universal truth. In some cases, however, the use of this motif may point to some rhetorical intention. GOP 135.5

Rhetorical Purpose

In other cases the prophet may have alluded to language and imagery of Assyrian royal propaganda in order to picture the devastating effects of the Assyrian invasion upon Judah. Since the contemporary audience must have known such diction, the rhetorical effect would contribute to making the message more emphatic. In other cases, the prophets may have alluded to such language with polemical intention, namely, in order to apply to the Lord what the foreign king claimed for himself. It is self-evident to the prophet that the might and glory that pagan kings claimed for themselves could only be true of the Lord. Therefore, Isaiah could use the language and imagery of Assyrian royal annals that speak about the glory of the Assyrian king to emphasize the glory of God. Since those kings portrayed themselves as lions and/or lion hunters, some prophets masterfully alluded to this imagery to frame their message. Hosea thus refers to the Lord as a lion coming against His people, which in context functions as an ironic reference to the Assyrian king who would act as an instrument of God’s judgment against the people. Although the Assyrian king would think of himself as the lion coming upon the prey, the prophet used that same diction to portray the Lord as the ultimate lion. GOP 136.1

It is instructive to note how Nahum used the lion motif in his message against Assyria. The prophet seems to be familiar with the self-portrayal of the Assyrian king as lion and courageous hunter and turned the king’s self-laudatory claims against the king himself. In such rhetorical usage of a foreign motif, the prophet communicated a striking theological truth. In effect, the claim to possess glory and power made by pagan kings could only be true of the Lord. Besides, as illustrated by Nahum, the “kings of Assyria claimed to be ‘lions,’ so God would punish them as ‘lions’—but not in the way that the Assyrians pictured themselves. They would indeed be like lions—not on the prowl, but as prey in a lion hunt!” ⁷⁸ This ironic reversal shows a striking display of “poetic justice.” ⁷⁹ Even when the imagery is used to communicate God’s judgment upon His own people, the intention of the imagery is to underscore God’s sovereignty. In spite of outward appearances, it is God who is in control of the events, and eventually He would intervene to destroy evil and put an end to suffering and sin. GOP 136.2

We note then that allusion or reference to nonbiblical documents or their underlying expressions and imagery does not endorse the theological claims of those selfsame documents, but rather turn their original claim on its head and communicates the truth in a more effective way. GOP 136.3

General Revelation

Some similarities may not be satisfactorily explained merely on the basis of common experience or rhetorical usage. In effect, some parallels may lie at the level of theological themes and concepts, such as covenant, temple, and kingship, which underlie significant segments of the prophetic literature (and the Bible). Theological concepts such as the controversy between good and evil, the war in heaven, also appear in some ancient Near Eastern texts. ⁸⁰ More specifically, as noted above, some texts express hope for an ideal king and world in ways that reverberate with messianic passages. A more striking parallel portrays the annihilation of the serpent and the demise of death in ways that recall the prophetic approach to these matters. GOP 137.1

Before suggesting an explanation for such similarities, one should keep in mind the abyssal differences between the prophetic view of reality and the perception of the world reflected in the nonbiblical texts. First, we note that the prophetic literature conceives of the theological themes just mentioned as a unified whole integrated by an underlying meta narrative—the controversy between good and evil— which gives coherence and meaning to the whole. In contrast, the literature of the ancient Near East is fragmentary, and the parallels mentioned above come from different cultures and locations. It is difficult to ascertain whether a single people (outside Israel), or a single body of literature (outside the Old Testament), would hold or contain at once all those themes as an integrated expression of religious belief. Second, the abyssal difference between the portrayal of God in the prophetic literature and the gods of the nonbiblical texts should not be minimized. For the biblical prophets, God was Creator and Redeemer, perfect, loving, and righteous. On the other hand, the deities portrayed in the extrabiblical literature were subject to the impersonal forces of the cosmos and are often depicted as capricious, emotionally unstable, unreliable, and oftentimes at odds with one another. ⁸¹ Thus, in spite of surface similarities in themes and motifs, the perception of God as reflected in both literatures, which lies at a much deeper level, conditioned the way in which these themes were understood in each culture or people. GOP 137.2

Having said this, we should consider the similarities and suggest an explanation for them. To begin, the possibility that extrabiblical texts drew from the biblical writings must be ruled out a priori because the latter mostly preceded the former. On the other hand, to say that the biblical authors—or the prophets, for that matter—simply borrowed their ideas from nonbiblical texts or traditions stands against a high view of Scripture and flies in the face of Scripture’s own claim to be God’s revelation. Thus we should advance two mutually complementary suggestions to explain the theological and thematic similarities mentioned above. GOP 137.3

First, some of these parallels may have arisen under divine supervision. As one author puts it: “In his sovereignty over history and the development of human cultures, he [God] has allowed a variety of parallels to arise between theological concepts and practices in the ancient Near East and their counterparts in the Bible.” ⁸² Thus, we may reasonably suggest that God directed human history in ways that certain truths would never be lost. Moreover, God may have guided certain institutions as they appeared in human history so that they could later be turned into effective means of communicating God’s saving purposes for the world. A case in point would be the covenant. Widely used in the ancient world to formalize a contract, alliance, or compromise among kings, peoples, and other individuals, the covenant became a suitable model to express the relationship between God and His people. In fact, long before the scholars brought to light the documents that attested the covenant as a formal institution in the ancient Near East, Ellen White made this telling comment in regard to God’s covenant with Abraham: “The Lord condescended to enter into a covenant with His servant, employing such forms as were customary among men for the ratification of a solemn engagement.” ⁸³ In addition to the covenant, something similar may be said of kingship. As a human institution, kingship had many flaws and more often than not it became an instrument of oppression and alienation. Thus some nonbiblical ancient texts express hope for the coming of an ideal king. However, in spite of its pitfalls, God used kingship as a metaphor or model to convey His own perfect and loving rulership over His people, even to announce through the prophets the coming of the ideal messianic king. Thus, it is reasonable to say that in spite of the devastating effects of sin on humans and their institutions God somehow allowed or directed the creation of some institutions to later typify significant aspects of the plan of salvation. GOP 137.4

Second, we should also consider the similarities mentioned in this study from a different, though complementary, perspective. Some parallels may be better explained by positing a common origin, especially certain thematic and structural correspondences such as ideas of a conflict between good and evil, the end of evil, and the resurrection. Certain core truths known to Adam and Eve and the patriarchs were passed on from generation to generation of God’s people until they were eventually recorded in the Scriptures. Moreover, the Scriptures themselves claim that certain truths were known to the patriarchs. For example, Enoch preached about the second coming of Christ (Jude 14), and Abraham knew about the heavenly city (Heb. 11:10). In the same vein Ellen White states: “To Adam were revealed future important events, from his expulsion from Eden to the Flood, and onward to the first advent of Christ upon the earth; His love for Adam and his posterity would lead the Son of God to condescend to take human nature, and thus elevate, through His own humiliation, all who would believe on Him.” ⁸⁴ It seems clear that some core truths were known to the human race since the Garden of Eden. And even those who rejected God’s sovereignty also preserved some glimpses of truth, though distorted by polytheism and idolatry. Therefore, some of the parallels noted above may be explained by the fact that the religion of Israel and that of the neighboring nations have a common origin, which goes back to the garden of Eden and the patriarchs. GOP 138.1

Thus, despite similarities and affinities with extrabiblical texts, the Bible, or the prophetic literature for that matter, remains unique in that it contains God’s revelation not distorted by human traditions. A crucial hermeneutical implication of this assertion is that Scripture stands as the normative criterion to evaluate theological claims of the extrabiblical texts (see 2 Tim. 3:16). And as regards the interpretation of Scripture, as much as the study of nonbiblical texts may illuminate certain aspects of the Bible. It is the Bible itself that provides the ultimate framework and criteria for its own interpretation. ⁸⁵ GOP 139.1