Divine Defence

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

Judaic prophecy, priesthood and the rabbinate 

Prophecy is the bedrock of revolution. It is the prophet who calls for a new method of life. It is the Abraham, Buddha and Jesus. It is a figure who attacks the tenants of society for a new way. Abraham attacked paganism, Buddha Hinduism and Jesus Judaism. Whether or not these figures attempted to begin their own religion is a moot point. Rather there new direction inspired a following. The prophet cultivates a new pathway that garners new troops under his influence. This version of the prophet is a man of god instructed to begin anew. He reclaims the sacred from the pitfalls of profanity. Cleansing the world with a profound message. 

The prophet emerges as guide for the nations. He is not always out to change a path but to aid a struggling people. He is no longer a wanderer preaching a path but one who actively judges the people. He is the rebuker. He isn’t an iconoclast who people follow. He doesn’t have a following but a maybe a pupil. He is disliked. He is ignored. He challenges authority. He challenges ideology. A former insider now turned outsider but he keeps coming back polemically attacking the wrongful ways. He doesn’t seek a new path but to renew the old. He is a rebel not a revolutionary. Isaiah and Jeremiah were fond members of the community till they reformed and rebelled against the status quo.

Moses is the transition between the Abraham revolutionary and the Jeremiah rebel. In the biblical narrative the mosaic paradigm carries on till the kingship. Until civilization is formally developed the prophet is the leader. He continues the duties of the founder yet isn’t seeking a new way. He is a guide via the divine message. Moses restarted the brand through his outsider mentality brought in to save the people. He saved the nation to a new path. The path was new and old at the same time. It was the same god and family with the same principles but a new paradigm. Moses rejuvenated the old ways of the forefathers but with a new refined relationship with the people. There were no longer a family with an ancestral deity but a nation with an imminent deity.  

Pre-monarchy the prophet is guided in the ways of God. His function is purely inspirational and instructive. He is an educator. Yet with the establishment of the monarchy, the prophet takes on a new role. The prophet is no longer in charge. He no longer commands the guidance. The monarchy leads the nation logistically and the priesthood religiously. The prophetic role evolves with the monarchy. Taking a backseat to instruction. The prophet is the divine defender. He is the check on the kingship. He is the divine defence against tyranny. He isn’t the polemical artist until corruption spreads. His role is political.

The priesthood grows and the monarchy extends its range. Inevitably, an evil king throws the country into disarray. The people are caught under the monarchical spell. They had desired the king and trusted him deeply. Yet he had been consumed by his power forgot the Lord and corrupted the people. Imposing his own ideology on them. Erasing God from the social fabric. A prophet comes from shadows. A man of the people inspired seeks clarity in the forest. Able to compose himself he returns after some time wiser and boldly exclaims the vision of old. A vision beyond monarchy. The monarchy threatened by the prophet attempts to rid him. He is a rebel the king bellows. The prophet shouts back at the heretical king. Each seeks to bring the people to his side. One seeks to trample the current system the other wishes to remain in power. The cycle continues for the next prophet-king matchup. 

The prophet in its reoccurring instalments provides the ultimatum to the people. Repent and return. He has been briefly successful but ultimately failed. The rebellious prophet concedes and the people continue their false ways into destruction. They brought their own demise. The prophet has failed. The monarchy isolated the prophet and turned him into a puppet of heresy. The monarchy controlled the priesthood and forwent any formal distinctions. The monarchy supplanted the priesthood as the powerhouse and never relinquished power until it was too late. The rebuilding began with leaders but slowly morphed back into monarchy. The priesthood claiming to own the tradition took the throne. 

The priesthood owning the monarchy persisted even after a foreign power controlled the region. The power was in the priesthood. The monarchy and priesthood vied for power during the monarchy. The priesthood was powerful in spiritual hounor and the monarchy accepted the idolatrous ways. Yet it did not have notable influence as the pope did over rulers in the Middle Ages. Instead the monarchy fuelled the idolatrous practice. It is only when a foreign ruler conquers the land that the priesthood as the beacon of tradition regains power. The priestly kings reverted back to their leadership role as priests instead of derided all together.

The priesthood is powerful subjecting its influence over the people. The saints of tradition are educating the people in a time of foreign rule. Yet the priesthood is out of control. A new group becomes more prominent. A successor to the prophet with the divine message without the divine call. They don’t claim to have to supernal powers but supernal knowledge. Their critique is the old tradition. The push oral mythos. Forgotten or wavered rituals that the priesthood has wrongfully regulated. They do not have written documents to authenticate but they have stories. They exit the study hall to educate. They mock the priesthood for their errors. Being a priest doesn’t make one’s actions correct. They berate the priesthood. Seeking to install their own trained priests. They follow their traditions with an iron fist. 

The scholar forges the new path for the people. Reminding them of the accurate practices. The divine word has spoken through study. It is no longer a preacher but a learner. A teacher instead of a preacher. This shift sends the studious scholar away from the comfort of the study hall. He cannot remain passive. He has a wealth of knowledge and knows the traditions. The scholar is a renowned figure in the community. Without a local monarch there is no local hero. The scholar is the solution to the people’s woes. Standing against the priest is the prophet and here it is the scholar. Yet unlike the submissive priesthood under the monarchy, under foreign rule, the priesthood breeches through. The scholar becomes the most important icon to resist the priestly power. 

The scholars emerged in a very different political atmosphere than the prophet. The prophet was the divinely appointed agent to wrestle with the king. A bold individual with protection that the priesthood wasn’t privy too. The priesthood kept to submission hoping to continue their legacy but at time falling prey to the monarchical enforcement. The prophet was a single outcast who pointed fingers from outside the frame. The foreign power compelled an individual battle. The scholar became the embodiment of the common folk. The goal of the scholar was to protect the commoners from an elitist priesthood. Without a friendly ruler the priesthood taunted its power. The scholar mended it. The scholar lived in a society without regal intrusion. Instead it was influence jogged up to the people finding their own representative. Either the aristocratic priesthood or blue collar scholars. 

The interesting dynamic is the influence of the scholar versus the prophet. The scholar was more successful than the prophet. The prophet was a political force standing against the monarch. The people followed the king and the prophet tried to sway them back yet unsuccessfully overall. The scholar didn’t preach for his way but instead encouraged learning. The scholar fortunately wasn’t matched up against regal influence in the same manner. Though the scholar promoted self-learning and personal growth that actively enabled anti-establishment feelings. Whether against the elitist monarch or priesthood, the people were knowledgeable and clever. They recognised the elitist rhetoric and defied it. They sought humanistic responses rather than top-down orders. The scholar flourished in an educated society while the prophet preached to ignoramuses. The prophet was at a steep disadvantage to convince the public.

The trajectory of prophetic engagement arrived to save the ailing priesthood. The monarch overpowered their will. If they didn’t listen or acted insufficiently they could lose their lives. They were chained to the system. Trying to continue their legacy in private. The prophet was a preacher who without accountability proclaimed his polemic. The prophet was necessary to the imperfect king. Yet this isn't necessary in a local king gone rogue. The foreign king seeks to insist his way which leads to civil rebellion. The local king may persuade society to do evil but a foreign king can’t since the people are sceptical of him and distrust him. The people left to their own devices have two choices do they trust the legacy priesthood. When the priesthood like the king becomes impure who is to stand against it? There is no divine call. The scholar does. He stands up from within the people are pushes back. The people do not accept this priesthood. 

Jewish history promotes the prophet to salvage the priesthood from the clutches of the monarch. The monarch in his power will seek more power. He will attempt to control the priesthood and cause shame to the country. The prophet chastises him for his insolence and inspire the people. Once the kingdom fell the foreign ruler wasn’t enticing so internally the people and the priesthood duked it out for legitimacy. The scholar showed the divine word against imperfect priests.