Deuteronomy 18.14-22 speaks of the
prophet and the criteria for establishing that a certain individual was or was
not a genuine prophet. It was the fulfilment, the actualization of the
prophetic word that allowed the community to recognize and affirm a prophet’s bona
fides and mission, and perhaps to take seriously what has been said. In
Haggai’s case, while he advocated the rebuilding of the Temple, there was an
issue with his being regarded as a ‘genuine’ prophet unless it could be
established that his promises about shaking the nations to have them release
their treasures for the Temple’s glorification were realized. We do not have a
record of this happening during the four years it took to rebuild the Temple.
For the prophets, there was always a practical difficulty in their being
recognized as ‘true’ prophets—the audience had to wait many years before any
evidence of ‘fulfilment’ was available—all were potentially false prophets
until events or outcomes proved otherwise, and they then could be affirmed
retroactively as genuine. Analyzing and explaining past or current situations
was one thing; making promised about the future was quite another.
Were Haggai’s promises to his
audiences regarding the Temple/treasury giving them a false hope? Or were the
audiences aware that what Haggai said was typical of prophetic exaggerated
speech and so interpreted accordingly? Postponing or projecting Haggai’s
promises into some distant future, as some modern readers are wont to do, and
suggesting some distant fulfilment may seem to minimize the problem of
seemingly unfulfilled prophecies; but one might ask whether it is the ‘promise’
component of prophetic oracles that is their primary purpose or function?
Surely the major goal of any prophetic message was to challenge contemporary society
as to its manner of living, one that reflected its relationship with God,
whether that challenge came allegedly from a divine source or from personal
insights. Promises made using hyperbole may have given hope and encouraged an
audience to expect a different future, but the hyperbole itself was a literary
device that should not be read as literal fact. (Graham S. Ogden, Obadiah
and Haggai [Readings: A New Biblical Commentary; Sheffield: Sheffield
Phoenix Press, 2022], 123-24)
[E]vidence for the inner or personal element
in prophetic challenges to the community is seen in that Haggai already knew
well the answers to the questions about clean and unclean matters he was told
to seek from the priests (2.10-13); these issues that dominated much of Israel’s
religious life were well understood by the community and did not require divine
prodding for Haggai to gain the information or clarification he was ordered to
request. Any understanding one might apply to the phrase ‘the word of the Lord’
as a prophet’s one and only source of his message needs to consider it more
carefully in light of the prophet’s own insights and opinions, the personally
eld values that drove his mission.
When it came to making promises to
their audiences, prophets frequently restored to exaggeration to hyperbole, to
speak of a new set of circumstances that awaited those who would heed the
warnings given. The promises may have encouraged and given hope, but more often
than not, what they promised—defeat of all enemies, riches pouring in from the
nations acknowledging Israel’s God, peace for evermore-as did the promises of
Haggai, raises problems when they were not fulfilled in the manner spoken of
(see Deut. 18.22). Attributing these unfulfilled promises to God’s revelation inevitably
leads to questioning whether the promises were actually from God. Many
prophetic promises are better regarded as arising from within the prophet’s own
concerns, as much more an expression of his deep personal hope and longing for
the immediate future. That they were rarely, if ever, so fulfilled was the
reality.
As for the future orientation of the
prophetic word, the exaggerated language adopted and the failure of so many
promises to be realized has led some readers to retain a literal reading of the
words but then to project them into a distant future, to expand their compass beyond
the prophet’s immediate audience, and beyond anything that might have been in
the mind of the individual prophet. Such a reading strategy depends on a
preconceived view of the prophetic word that is not generic to the time and
culture. The prophetic word was addressed to the prophet’s contemporary
audience, its time frame more immediate. What was the point in a prophet
speaking on 520 BCE to his immediate audience if his message is actually about
events hundreds of years into the future, long after their passing? Projecting
prophetic statements and promises into the distant future because not seen to
be realized immediately reverses the way in which the Jewish tradition read its
Scriptures; it reads texts backward. The later rabbis searched their texts to
link their present to their past, re-reading even the most indirect references
found there in a way that tied their present to the past and enlightened their
‘now’; it was a reading strategy called midrash. This reverse reading
has nothing to do with later ‘fulfilment’ but everything to do with affirming a
subsequent generation’s valued links with its past. (Graham S. Ogden, Obadiah
and Haggai [Readings: A New Biblical Commentary; Sheffield: Sheffield
Phoenix Press, 2022], 48-49)
