. . . at The Minor Prophet. Go and enjoy! (I apologize for being late linking to this one.)
Category: Uncategorized
-
Biblical Prophecy in a Nutshell
Part of my current devotional reading is currently in Isaiah. Today this included Isaiah 46:10 —
(10) I declare the end when it is just the beginning,
From ancient times, things that have not yet been done.
I say, “My plan will be established,
and I will do everything I desire.” — Isaiah 46:10 (my translation)Biblical prophecy is frequently looked upon as God sort of looking into his crystal ball and seeing what is going to happen. I’m not arguing that God doesn’t know what will happen, although the openness of God is an interesting study. But I do not believe that is the primary point of prophecy. Viewing prophecy as a form of divine crystal ball encourages us to look at it as a means of satisfying our curiosity and of providing us with security and control. If we know what is going to happen, we can prepare for it.
I have a friend who has a whole house generator and a safe room. In this hurricane-prone area, that’s not a bad idea. I’m not criticizing him for that. But what he has done is looked at the probabilities and protected himself against the dangers. It gives him a sense of safety and control. In hurricane season, that is certainly not a bad thing!
The first have of Isaiah 46:10 affirms God’s declaration of future events. But the second half states it more clearly for us, I think. Prophecy is not so much prediction are promise. It is a promise that God is going to do something in the future. Why can he make that prediction? Because he is the one who is going to make it come to pass. He is not passively looking at what humans do and saying, “Watch out folks, this is what’s coming up!” I might compare that to the hurricane forecaster. God is more like the parent who tells his misbehaving children, “Something you won’t like is coming up!” The forecaster sees the hurricane forming and warns of it in advance. The parent speaks of what he intends to do.
I think the latter gives us a better perspective. Why, for example, is Jonah’s prophecy unfulfilled? Because God’s word had already accomplished what it set out to accomplish. Why could Jerusalem be destroyed when God had promised David a descendant on his throne? Because David’s descendants had departed from God’s plan. Those two events challenge the simple prediction model; they are completely in accord with the promise model.
Note here that my point is not that predictive prophecy is impossible or that God’s knowledge is inadequate. Rather, I’m talking about the mechanism and purpose. God is the actor in prophecy.
In conclusion I’d like to quote [tag]Brevard Childs[/tag]. I’m reading his commentary as I work through Isaiah in Hebrew:
. . . Biblical prophecy is not simply a description of a coming historical event made in advance, shortly to be visible to all. Rather, Isaianic prophecy interprets the effects of God’s entrance into human history. It embraces a different dimension of reality, which only in part coheres with empirical history. The eschatological appeal of God’s rule involves a vision of divine intervention that indeed enters human history, but is not exhausted by any one moment. The quality of God’s salvific presence is not limited to one specific event in time and space, but embraces the whole of God’s announced purpose for creation, which moves toward consummation. . . . — Isaiah, p. 361-2
-
Time Compression in Eschatological Texts
I want to touch on something that I encounter in conversation fairly frequently. Why is it that Christian texts applied to the coming of Jesus and to the end-times come often in the same contexts in Hebrew scripture. A good example of this is Isaiah 60-66, in which we have a mixture of texts related in Christian thought to either of these events. Isaiah 61:1-3, for example, is related to the first coming, while 66:22 is related to the second coming in Revelation 21:1. These are merely a couple of examples.
I encountered a similar issue with Mark 13, in which a number of verses refer rather specifically to the destruction of Jerusalem, yet we slide into material that appears eschatological with very little warning. I would suggest that this ambiguity is why there is so much debate over the correct interpretation of this and closely related passages (Matthew 24, Luke 21, and the whole book of Revelation). Interpreters differ because the lines are not drawn with the sort of clarity we would like.
Today my devotional reading included a passage that I think illustrates this telescoping, so to speak, of multiple events. It seems to me that what happens in each instance is that there is an immediate scene of God’s action, either in judgment or salvation, and that the immediate event and God’s ultimate judgment/salvation are brought together. Perhaps there is a type/antitype involved, but I will explore that at another time. In any case they are combined, and the view seems to be much like one might get looking at a distance.
To illustrate this, let’s suppose that there are two clouds in the distance. In my imagination, I’m on the plains around Omaha, NE, where I used to watch for tornadoes. I see one in front of me, and another larger one behind that. The one that is further away may, in fact, be much larger and much more distant, but I have no perspective to give me the time. If I describe the scene, I might confuse the two looming storms–the closer, smaller one, and the larger one at an uncertain distance.
In Isaiah 45, the primary topic is the call of Cyrus to rescue Israel (45:1ff). There is no doubt about the reference of the prophecy, because Cyrus is mentioned by name and spoken of/to in recognizable terms. Cyrus has come, accomplished his mission, and gone. In verse 23, however, we’re told that every knee will bow to YHWH, and every tongue will swear by him. That is a passage that fits much better in the eschaton than it does in the time of Cyrus, a time in which we know that no such thing happened.
I suspect that God has very little interest in informing us about the details of the end times. We are naturally curious, and we want to protect ourselves by knowing the details and thus preparing in detail for them. But the purpose of prophecy has never been to provide that sort of information. Rather, such prophecy calls one to precisely the opposite of independence–total dependence on God.
-
Censored Lectionary – Psalm 79
I wrote a post today for my wife’s devotional list that refers to the boundary line between the [tag]lectionary[/tag] reading, Psalm 79:1-9 and the rest of the Psalm.
-
Notes on Mark 12:41-44
Translation and Notes
These notes relate to and expand on my podcast Seeing Stewardship as God Sees It.
41And he sat down by the treasury, and he was watching how the crowd threw money into the contribution box. And many rich people threw in lots!
Treasury . . . is apparently the hall named from the chest with a trumpet-shaped tube into which were dropped coins for the support of the temple worship; this was something like a church “poor box,” as these offerings were purely voluntary, and perhaps not in very large amounts–though the rich cast in much. H. J. Holtzmann has called this “the Peter’s pence of the Jews.” — IB on Exegesis on Mark 12:41
Mar 12:41 – He beheld how people cast money into the treasury – This treasury received the voluntary contributions of the worshippers who came up to the feast; which were given to buy wood for the altar, and other necessaries not provided for in any other way. — John Wesley
This was the sort of place one would want to go for show. There was no great benefit to be gained in terms of public opinion and reputation from doing the things that were mandatory, but voluntary gifts showed off one’s generosity to the greatest effect.
There are those who hold that the issue here was proportion—that the giving that God approves is giving that involves sacrifice. I don’t agree with that. I think the issue was one of dedication. The money brought by many rich donors was not dedicated to God, but rather was dedicated to building their reputation. They were not giving to support the temple. They were investing in their temporal well-being by being seen while giving. If someone rich had stepped up and given money for the purpose because of generosity, I’m sure he would have met with approval from Jesus.
If I’m right about this, why did Jesus pick someone who gave very little, but nonetheless a gift that was very large in proportion to her income? Jesus is, as usual trying to turn our perceptions around. We tend to measure the gift against the need that it will fill. For example, a gift might be added to the money collected for a building drive. But God is the supplier of all need. He’s more interested in the spiritual state of the person giving the gift than in its size, proportional or otherwise.
The widow was a person with nothing to gain, giving a freewill gift that showed she was trusting God for her provision. She was a good example of giving.
42Then one poor widow came and threw in two small copper coins about the equivalent of a penny. 43And he called his disciples to him and he said to them, “Truly I tell you that this poor widow has thrown in more than all of those who have thrown money into the contribution box.
Mar 12:43 – I say to you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all – See what judgement is cast on the most specious, outward actions by the Judge of all! And how acceptable to him is the smallest, which springs from self – denying love! — John Wesley
44For they all threw in from their abundance, but she gave everything she had from her lack, all of her living.”
I would be surprised if someone didn’t think this verse contradicted my comments on the preceding verse. But I believe that the giving of “all her living” was simply the indication of her trust in God and commitment to him. Everything she had was dedicated to God so there was nothing to be gained and nothing to be lost from this action.
-
Notes on Mark 12:34-40
Translation and Notes
The notes below relate to and expand my podcast Jesus Strikes Back.
35In response Jesus began to teach in the temple this way: “How is it that the scribes say that the Messiah is the son of David? 36David said by the Holy Spirit,
The Lord said to my lord
Sit at my right side,
Until I place your enemies
as a footstool under your feet.This is a hard saying for a modern exegete, because it seems not to follow any sustainable principles of Biblical exegesis. Psalm 110 is not all that likely to actually be composed by David and it was not likely in its original intent Messianic. But all of that is unimportant. What is important is that Jesus knew that his hearers accepted this as a Messianic passage, and based on their view of the passage it creates quite a problem.
The ancestor should be greater than the descendant in this case. David is the one who gives the name to the family. But here David is quoted as calling him Lord. How can this be?
Jesus was not denying that he was the son of David. He was, however, suggesting that he was more than that, more than the ancestor who had received the promise of a returning Messiah. He could indeed be both David’s son and his Lord. The theology of that would take some time to work out, but here it was in seed form.
37If David himself calls him ‘lord’ then where does he become David’s son?”
And the large crowd was listening to him with delight.
The crowd loved what Jesus was doing because they were described by these same important people whom Jesus was putting to flight. We often think that the most important thing about our presentation to other people is that we are right. But there is also the issue is whether we, personally, are believable. I think the crowds were drawn to Jesus partially because his life showed that he meant what he said. It also showed that he was connected to them. Thus they were receptive to what he had to say.
Too often a preacher or teacher presents a topic faithfully and accurately, but does not frame it in such a way that an audience can receive it.
38And as he was teaching he began to say, “Beware of the scribes who want to walk about in fancy robes and to receive greetings in the marketplaces
Mar 12:38 – Beware of the scribes – There was an absolute necessity for these repeated cautions. For, considering their inveterate prejudices against Christ, it could never be supposed the common people would receive the Gospel till these incorrigible blasphemers of it were brought to just disgrace. Yet he delayed speaking in this manner till a little before his passion, as knowing what effect it would quickly produce. Nor is this any precedent for us: we are not invested with the same authority. — John Wesley
John Wesley makes a good point. We are tempted to use this passage in two wrong ways. First, we see it as a license to criticize the Jews, because Jesus is hear criticizing the Jewish leadership. But we must remember that whatever Jesus said to other Jews, he said as a Jew. As gentiles, we don’t have the same freedom. Second, we see it as a license to judgment, something to which we are not called. We have to be sure to be constructive in our rebuking.
39 and the best seats in the synagogues and best places at feasts, 40 who eat up the households of widows and make a show of long prayers. These will receive the greater judgment.
This preoccupation with prominence is an inevitable result of the lack of any significant “inside.” The great sin of the scribes, and of all pushers to front seats, is a lack of love. The way of salvation is to be found in the acceptance of another and higher standard. Jesus proclaimed it again and again. The road to greatness is still the way of service. What would an edition of Who’s Who be like if it were published, not in Chicago or London, but in heaven? If it contained the names of the occupants, not of the chief seats of earth, but of the kingdom of God? A strange book, truly! It would be a “servants’” directory, as Jesus used that word “servant.” In the very next paragraph he awards an honored place in God’s Who’s Who to an unknown in Jerusalem, a widow who put a penny in the alms box. — IB Exposition on Mark 12:37-40
It’s interesting how many of us think we would like to be in leadership. Sometimes we then get into leadership and wonder why we ever wanted the position. They will receive the greater judgment is a warning to all of us. For me it always combines with James 3:1—not everyone should want to be a teacher! The point is that greater knowledge and greater authority bring greater responsibility. And when you abuse your greater responsibility you become subject to greater judgment.
This shouldn’t keep you from answering God’s call, but it should make you answer that call prayerfully and carefully.