My own grasp of revelation—as I’ve already laid it out—is that some people are able to have contact with a higher realm and receive inspiration which they personally feel as unusual, from a higher dimension, and filled with energy. This makes the inspiration notable, indeed a singular experience. It will be interpreted as authoritative. Now I want to go beyond that. It also seems to me that the inspiration conveys a value—but that that value is not specifically spelled out. Rather, it is a feeling of exaltation, a meaning but without sharp detail. Therefore it needs a certain kind of reduction to the conceptual level. It will require interpretation, particularly if it is to be conveyed to others. The interpretation is by the recipient—but it will be filtered through that person’s consciousness, knowledge, concerns, and circumstances. By way of example, I want to look at the concept of a chosen people as laid out in the Old Testament, most explicitly in Exodus and then in Deuteronomy.
The recipient is Moses, and the initial instance is the prophet’s mystical experience of a burning bush in which an “angel of the Lord” (initially) appears; but in the same passage this angel is the referred to as “the Lord.” Here the Lord refers to “my people,” meaning the Jews, and speaks of leading these people from Egypt to “a land flowing with milk and honey.” Later, after the great tribulations of the Exodus, on Mount Sinai, Moses hears God say to him:
Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. [Exodus 19:5-6]We encounter the word “chosen” in Deuteronomy, used my Moses in addressing the people of Israel. The passage is:
For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth. [Deuteronomy 14:2]Now I will stipulate that Moses had a mystical experience—possibly two, one by the burning bush and another on Mount Sinai. The question I would raise is this: Was the inspiration that reached him as specific as the scriptures record it or was it, rather, an authoritative feeling of value which energized a man who was, already, deeply concerned with the state of suffering of his people? The inspiration he received ultimately led to his rise to the leadership of his folk. But was that portion of his revelation by which the Ultimate Being selected one tribe as its people, as its peculiar treasure, as those chosen to be a people “unto himself” and “above all the nations”—was that content specifically in the inspiration? Or was that an interpretation?
To doubt that Moses had an experience is to suggest that he was a thoroughly cynical and ambitious would-be leader who invented an experience in order to influence others. That suggestion I reject for multiple reasons. For one, I doubt that such a man would have achieved what Moses did in fact achieve. At the same time, I have serious doubts imagining that the Ultimate Being would choose a people in the manner here depicted. I would also doubt that God intervenes in his creation in the manner in which Moses revelation would have it.
This, of course, is also the demarcation line between the believer and the unbeliever. If there are only these two possibilities, I am an unbeliever. But I think there is a third way, and I choose to understand the facts before us in another way. It is that we have access to guidance from a higher realm, but that guidance reaches us in such a form that we ourselves must interpret its meaning, in detail, based on what we know and understand. Therefore it is possible to value revelation at one level and to critique it on another: namely on the level of interpretation. Exactly the same rules apply, it seems to me, to the lowest forms of inspiration, such as intuitions. These also carry a feeling of authority, but it is always sensible to test them rationally. Conversely, our reasonings should also have the nod of intuition.
I seem to remember that in his Revival, al-Ghazali proposes that revelation requires two parties. His view was that some people are born prophets—they have a sort of extra prophetic sense—but something had to be revealed for them to perceive—that is, only some people have ears to hear God speak, and of these God only ever actually speaks to very few. I always found this view suggestive (though not in ways that al-Ghazali would have approved of)—it implies both that some people exist who have the potential, the sensitivity, to receive revelation, but never do; and that those who do receive revelation do so through a sense, which like the other senses does not necessarily understand all that it perceives.
ReplyDeleteAnalogously one could imagine a man of the ancient world whisked by a time machine into our time, having the chance to observe only for a day or day, and then reporting back to his people what he had seen. All his reports are truthful, yet he cannot necessarily express them without misleading those who hear. He reports "gigantic silver birds that carry hundreds of men in their bellies"; every word is true, but neither he nor his hearers are equipped to understand what is meant by it.