Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Biblical Criticism

  • Finding the Tomb of Jesus

    A documentary to be shown on the Discovery Channel purports to have discovered the tomb and the ossuary of Jesus (CNN story here).

    I’m amazed that something like this would be called a “documentary” since there is next to no possibility of sufficient evidence for such a claim. The sad thing is that archeological claims, when popularized, rarely resemble anything a trained archeologist would actually say. Archeology is not about searching for a specific person’s remains or some specific artifact, Indiana Jones movies notwithstanding.

    This is not, however, solely a province of opponents of Christianity. When archeological discoveries have even the slightest relationship to the Biblical text, Christians will portray them as new “proofs” of the accuracy of the Bible. Inevitably they do no such thing, but each side contributes to this attitude of proving or disproving. Then of course others make discoveries that disprove Christianity, but later these prove to be no such thing either.

    Scientific historical study doesn’t work this way. The point is not to prove or disprove an entire collection of documents, such as the Bible, but rather to determine historicity point by point and create a most probable reconstruction of historical events. That process involves a great deal of nuance, and a willingness to admit ignorance in many cases, or tentative conclusions in many others.

    Both the statements “archeology proves the Bible” and “archeology disproves the Bible” are silly. The Bible is not a single source from the historical point of view, and sources are not proven or disproven, rather, individual elements of a story will be determined to be more or less probable.

  • A Short Note on the REB of Isaiah 38:21-22

    The REB is one of my favorite versions, and indeed for personal reading is my favorite. Nonetheless it has one feature that often makes me mildly uncomfortable, its tendency to move texts around with a minimum of textual evidence. Even in cases in which I find the balance of internal evidence favorable to such a move, doing so without any manuscript evidence at all makes me a bit uncomfortable as part of a translation.

    A good example of this is found in Isaiah 38, in which the REB moves verses 21 and 22 from the end of the chapter and places them prior to verse 8, reading 1-7, 21, 22, 8-20. Now before you have an excessively negative reaction, there are some reasons for this move.

    • This chapter of Isaiah parallels 2 Kings 20:1-11, and the new order is in accord with the order in that chapter. There are strong verbal parallels that suggest either that one was copied from the other, or that both came from the same source.
    • Placing the healing together with the promise seems logical in context.
    • The REB provides a note and marks the verses by numbers so you can reconstruct the original chapter.

    But I still have a problem for this one. The REB note is cryptic: “Cp. 2 Kgs. 20:1-11” and the added note in my Oxford Study Bible doesn’t help that much more: “The Revised English Bible has moved these verses from the end of hte chapter to their more logical place in the narrative.” But there are two questions, first whether one can impose a logic on the text without evidence of disruption, and second whether the new order is, in fact, any more logical. As the chapter appears in all manuscripts, We have the sicknesses, the report of a short prayer, the promise of healing, a longer prayer of thanksgiving that retells the story, then the act of healing. Especially if one regards the longer prayer as an addition from a different source, I could easily see how a compiler would produce the existing order. It makes good enough sense, though having something written after his healing appear in the text before the healing may offend our sense of chronology. One should note, however, that included in the prayer is the narrative of what happened and of Hezekiah’s prayer itself.

    Even further, we need to consider issues of composition, and ask the question of how the chapter came together as it is. The narrative in 2 Kings 20:1-11 is more complete (except for the thanksgiving prayer), and well ordered. I don’t think that only on the basis of looking at the two texts we can be certain of the order of composition. It looks to me offhand as though both were brought together from the same source material for different purposes. Obviously this entry is not a study of the composition history (I would recommend Childs, Isaiah, pp. 282-283 for a brief discussion, noting that Childs also sees 21-22 as logically following verse 7.) Nonetheless, I would suggest that the purpose of composition of this chapter is different from that of Kings, and there is a good possibility that the redactor wished to have the chapter end on the note of “going up to the house of the Lord” just before discussing the visit of Merodach-baladan.

    In any case, unless one can posit a scribal error, such questions go back to source and redaction criticism, rather than textual criticism. There doesn’t seem to be any basis for suggesting a simple scribal error. Even if one believes that a later redactor inserted verses 21-22 at the end of the chapter, one would still have to deal with whatever logic caused that redactor to place the text where it is. Further, if one cannot see the logic in terms of this chapter, even better logic would be produced by bracketing it as unoriginal.

    All of those options would be acceptable in a commentary or a scholarly study. In a translation, I’m concerned with this type of change based on the level of evidence available.

  • Genesis 9: A New World

    Genesis 9 looks at the beginnings of life and society after the flood. It can be of interest in a number of ways, because along with parts of chapter 8 it supports the Noahide laws, and is the foundation for blood being forbidden to eat blood (Acts 15:20, which does not quote this, but must be based on it). The question of how much the world has changed following the destruction of everyone not in the ark must have been a serious worry for Noah and his family, and thus our narrator proceeds to correct that problem.

    For those interested in theodicy, this is an indication that the view represented in the Pentateuch is that the world was definitely harmed by the advent of sin, though it shows a progression of destruction rather than an instant fall. Following the flood, animals are said to fear humans. Whether this is something completely new, the story does not say, but it is at least a new level of fear, doubtless connected with the fact that animals are now offered for food. Note that there is no clean/unclean distinction provided for the world in general. That was specifically part of the covenant of Israel. It is important to note that in the debates in the early church, certain elements of the Christian faith were trying to force rules on gentile Christians that Jews would not require of them (See Acts 15 and Galatians, especially).

    As I have done in my previous entries on Genesis I will identify the sources as generally understood in source theory. In this chapter we have only P (priestly) and J (Yahwist) material, and there is a small disagreement on what is what. Verses 1-7 are identified as P by Speiser, but as J by von Rad. Noth also identifies 9:1-17 as a block by P. All agree that 18-27 is J, while 28-29 is again P. I will use blue text for P, red text for J and leave the disputed section in black. That will allow you to read a connected narrative in any source as much as possible.

    Again, the translation is as fresh as this afternoon, and should be considered a draft. Hopefully I’ll get back to checking it more thoroughly some day.

    (1)Then God blessed Noah and his sons, and told them, “Be fruitful, and multiple, and fill the earth. (2) The animals, birds, and everything that moves on the ground, along with the fish will be in awe of you and afraid of you. I have placed them under your authority. (3) Every living creature that moves will be your food. Like the plants and herbs I have given you all of them. (4) Yet you shall not eat the flesh with its life, that is, its blood. (5) Their blood and their lives I will demand from your hand, from every living thing I’ll demand it. And from humans I will also demand from each one the life of another human. (6) The blood of one sheds human blood shall be shed by human beings, because human beings were made in God’s image. (7) As for you, be fruitful and multiply, and move out across the land and multiply in it.”

    This is a very interesting text for several reasons.

    1. Animals are held responsible for killing
    2. People are not allowed the lifeblood, even of animals, something that would later be held to require expiation (Leviticus 17:11)
    3. While God forbids the killing, he requires humanity to enforce it–by killing
    4. Humanity’s blessing and sovereignty survive unimpaired, as does God’s image, given as the reason for forbidding murder.

    I would note that the strong connection to later Levitical law tends to support holding 1-7 as priestly (P) in origin.

    (8) God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, (9) “Look, I myself am establishing my covenant with you and your descendants after you, (10) and with every living creature that is with you, with the birds, and the animals, and with all the living creatures of the earth with you, from all those who went out of the ark, all the living creatures of the earth. (11) and I will establish my covenant with you, and all flesh will never again be cut off by the waters of the flood. There will never again be another flood to destroy the earth.

    The possibility of a rerun could be expected to be the greatest concern to everyone, so God makes a covenant that he will not destroy all living things again by a flood. All the living creatures are included in this covenant.

    (12) And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I am placing between me and you, and between all living creatures with you for eternal generations. (13) I place my bow in the cloud, and it will be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. (14) And when I bring clouds over the earth, then you will see the bow in the cloud. (15) And I will remember my covenant that is between me and you, and with all the living creatures, and with all flesh, and the waters of the flood will not come again to destroy the earth. (16) When my bow is in the cloud, I will see it, and I will remember the eternal covenant between God and every living creature, with all flesh that is on the earth. (17) And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth.”

    The question of reminder comes up. I would simply note that God is always portrayed in the Bible as much more involved with human activity and in the course of human history than many theologians are comfortable with. In theologies, God is generally much more respectable than he is in scripture. Here he allows one to believe that he requires a reminder, though the text doesn’t say he does. The text simply tells us that he will remember when he sees the rainbow, and makes no comment on what he does otherwise. I’m regularly impressed with how much less concerned with God’s reputation the Bible writers are than are modern theologians.

    (18) Now these are the sons of Noah who went out of the ark: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And Ham was the father of Canaan. (19) These three were the sons of Noah, and from them people spread over all the earth.

    (20) Noah became a tiller of the soil, and he planted a vineyard. (21) He drank some of its wine, and he became drunk, and he was naked in the middle of his tent. (22) And Ham, father of Canaan saw his father naked, and he reported it to his two brothers outside. (23) And Shem and Japheth took a robe, and they placed it on their two backs, and they went backwords, and they covered their father’s nakedness, but their faces were to the rear, and they didn’t see their father’s nakedness.(24) Noah woke up from his wine, and he knew what his younger son had done to him. (25) And he said, “Canaan is cursed. He will be a slave of slaves to his brothers.” (26) And he said, “Blessed is YHWH God of Shem, and Canaan will be his slave. (26) God will make Japheth’s territory spacious, and he will live in Shem’s tents, and Canaan will be his slave.”

    This is a difficult passage. One solution is textual. Some have suggested omitting “Ham, the father of” so that the whole episode would relate to Canaan, rather than Ham, but that would also cause some havoc with the logic of the rest of the story. The key (see Kidner, Genesis, p. 103-104) may be in seeing that major sin as an unfilial, disrespectful act on Canaan’s part. Since he sinned in terms of his family responsibilities, it is his family, via his youngest son, that is cursed. This sounds quite unfair to modern ears, but multi-generational curses were not unknown in the Bible.

    (28) And after the flood Noah lived 350 years. (29) And Noah’s full life was 950 years, and he died.

    The priestly (P) source is, as always, concerned with numbers and genealogies. Noah, however, was the last of the very long lived patriarchs. From here they begin to deteriorate as well.

  • Value of the Historical-Critical Method

    I’ve written a number of posts on the historical-critical method previously on this blog (category, listing 28 posts). It is one of the areas on which I can properly be described as unabashedly liberal. I fully embraced the critical approach to Bible study as the starting point, and as the best approach to ascertaining the historical meaning of the text. This doesn’t prevent me, of course, from looking at other means when dealing with application or other community or personal meanings. In fact, the historical-critical method is solely aimed at getting at historical meanings, and quite properly so.

    There are a number of imbalances that are possible. Specialists in particular methodologies will often overemphasize one approach over another, such as when form critics find oral elements all over the place, even in places where an oral stage most likely never existed. Another imbalance occurs when one assumes that having studied the history of a text, one understands the meaning of the text itself. Some critical commentaries leave this impression; having sorted out the background, the foreground gets little attention. Enter canonical criticism, which places its focus squarely on the canonical form of the text, and even further on the way in which that text fits into the current canon of scripture. It is important to realize that this is also a historical stage of the text, complete with a sitz im leben (I abuse the term slightly) of its own and a reason for its existence.

    Brevard Childs was a great advocate of canonical criticism. I’m currently using his commentary on Isaiah in my own devotional reading of Isaiah, and I have found him quite enlightening. I’ve written considerable on Isaiah here and also on my Participatory Bible Study Blog.

    In his introduction to chapters 28-35 he makes a couple of comments on the historical study that are worth underlining:

    As I have indicated before, I find this method of simply juxtaposing three reconstructed layers from different ages inadequate as an interpretive solution because it does not address the effect of this shaping on the text as a whole. One is left only with fragments arranged in historical sequence. [emphasis mine] p. 199-200

    And again:

    While I do not question the legitimacy of attempting to recover the history of the growth of the Isaianic corpus as a whole, much of the recent research remains futile, in my judgment, when it assigns the key to the interpretation to various theoretical reconstructions. The crucial exegetical question remains, regardless of how deeply one probes behind the present text, whether one can in the end discern any element of coherence in the rendering of the chapters in their final form. [emphasis mine] p. 200

    I think these paragraphs make a key point: One has to be skeptical of one’s own reconstructions, and one needs to discover what it may have been that resulted in the text we have. It made sense to someone somewhere. For example, by identifying two sources in Genesis 1 & 2, have we resolved anything? It may explain some apparently contradictory elements, but then we have to ask just why it was that anyone thought the two went together.

    I must emphasize that I reject the approach as well of those who believe that skepticism of the critical work results necessarily in a return to the traditional default. If I am skeptical of some of the divisions of sources in the pentateuch, that doesn’t mean that I automatically accept unity of authorship. There are good reasons to be skeptical of that as well.

    In fact, I can summarize this by saying that there are good reasons to be skeptical, especially of one’s own work!

  • Isaiah 27: Accomplishing Redemption

    I’ve been at this series on Isaiah 24-27 for some months now. It’s taken so long mostly because I’ve been working at it slowly as I have time, and not because my series is that in-depth. The thing that has struck me in studying the passages for this series is the richness of the material. The amount of material I find that ends up only as an entry in my notes or an underlined passage in one of my reference sources is quite astonishing. In this chapter I will cite a few translations that in themselves provide creative suggestions for translation difficulties in this passage.

    I would suggest reading this chapter in several translations and trying to follow the logic through the chapter. Very often we don’t in Isaiah, because in many of these poetic passages it is hard to make sense of what’s going on in context. But I would suggest that there is a context, that the combination of the verses and passages is not accidental, but because of the literary style of the text, and the fact that so much is written in poetry it’s simply difficult to follow that logic.

    The basic logic that I see in this text is the move from a people who are not definitely on any side. They might be faithful to their God and then again they might not. We have almost a precursor to the concept of the remnant as presented in 2nd Isaiah (chapters 40-55), in which only a small portion of the people are faithful, and the whole is to be reduced to that remnant who then bring restoration.

    This theme occurs often in apocalyptic literature. The good guys and the bad guys have to be separated and clearly distinguished. As a result it is very, very right that God destroys the bad guys, and it is also imperative that God avenge the good guys. This theme has guided my translation in a couple of places. Theology should follow translation rather than precede it, but translation is impossible without sense, and if you compare several different translations of this chapter you will see quite a difference in the sense that is portrayed. A sparse Hebrew text leaves us to fill in the holes based on our understanding, and that is not an easy task.

    Places where this passage is quoted in the New Testament are indicated by red text and allusions are indicated in blue text with the reference in {braces}.

    (1) On that day —
    YHWH will take vengeance with his sword,
    harsh, great, powerful,
    On Leviathan the slithering snake,
    On Leviathan the slimy snake.
    He will kill the sea-dragon.

    The critical thing to note about this portion of the text is that its use of Leviathan and “sea-dragon” or “sea-serpent” indicates that we’re talking in the language of creation-myth, and thus also in the language of eschatology. In scripture God’s creative power is also his authority and power to destroy and to recreate. By starting out to state that the sea-dragon will be killed on that day, the writer tells us the setting is eschatological.

    I take this indication as definitive. I believe there is enough indication that the chapter is a unity. True, it is made up of individual elements from various sources, but they have been combined into a unified whole. By opening the next section with the same phrase “on that day” the writer tells us that the pleasant vineyard and the slaying of Leviathan are tied together. This means that the vineyard, the abandoned city, and YHWH’s actions as told in verses 12 & 13 should all also have an eschatological setting.

    (2) On that day —
    “There’s a pleasant vineyard,”
    Sing for it!
    (3) “I YHWH watch over it.
    I water it as needed.
    Lest harm come to it,
    I watch it day and night.
    (4) I have no anger.
    Oh that I had thistles and thorns,
    I would come against it in battle,
    And burn it all together.
    (5) Or instead it could seize my protection,
    It could make peace with me.
    It could make peace with me!
    (6) In coming days Jacob will put down roots,
    Israel will blossom and bloom,
    And will fill the face of the earth with fruit.

    There are several questions in this passage. Are the thistles and thorns a defensive wall? Are they part of the vineyard? Is YHWH attacking the enemies of the vineyard, or is he threatening to attack the vineyard?

    In my view, the eschatological sense, and also the parallels with the vineyard of Isaiah 5 indicate that the thistles and thorns are themselves part of the vineyard. YHWH wishes that his vineyard was either one thing or another. This calls to mind Revelation 3:15, and God wishing that the people of Laodicea were either hot or cold. In this case, he wishes that he either faced thistles and thorns, against which he could vent his wrath, or that on the other hand his vineyard would make peace with him. God’s anger is spent, but he still does not have the desired result.

    Notice, on the other hand, the NCV translation of this passage:

    I am not angry.
    If anyone builds a wall of thornbushes in war,
    I will march to it and burn it.
    But if anyone comes to me for safety
    and wants to make peace with me,
    he should come and make peace with me.”

    That is taking the thornbushes in quite a different sense than I have, and I have some difficulty comprehending how “I am not angry” fits in with the rest of the passage. This is simply one of many options. The NCV translation can certainly be justified linguistically. I’m just not certain it can be fitted properly into the context. On the other hand, some might accuse me of bending the evidence in order to fit a patter with my own translation.

    Again compare the JPS Tanakh:

    There is no anger in Me:
    If one offers Me thorns and thistles,
    I will march to battle against him,
    And set all of them on fire. –Isaiah 27:4

    That’s a third option, and there are more. I’m not going to try to exhaust the options either here or in the abandoned city. There are simply too many.

    (7) Has he been struck with the same blows
    as the one who struck him?
    Has he been slain in the same way
    as the one who slew him?
    (8) With measured acts you contended as you sent her away,
    Speaking harshly like the east wind.
    (9) So in this way only will Jacob’s guilt be purged,
    In this will all the results of his sin be turned aside. {Romans 11:27b, LXX}
    When all the stones of the altar are shattered like limestone,
    When sacred poles and incense altars no longer stand.

    Reformation is the only way in which things in Judah can be made right. Forgiveness is tied to repentance, and repentance means changing one’s life. God has exercised judgment on his people. He has now exercised judgment against those who oppressed Israel. But after all has been said and done, the only thing that will result in a new people is for them to turn from their idols and to become totally God’s possession.

    (10) For the fortified city stands alone,
    An emptied pasture,
    Abandoned like the wilderness.
    Oxen graze there.
    They lie down and eat her branches.
    (11) When her cuttings are dry and break off,
    Women come and light them on fire.
    Because it is not an understanding people,
    So their maker will not have compassion,
    The one who formed them will show no mercy.

    The key issue in this passage is whether this is Jerusalem or the “other city” that stands against it, Babylon in apocalyptic imagery. I believe this is the opposing city. The dominant expression about Israel in this entire chapter is hope, though there is the desire for repentance and for them to become fully reconciled to their God. The other city is the one that will be completely destroyed. In later apocalyptic, of course, that “other” city would be portrayed receiving a much more explicit judgment.

    (12) It will happen on that day —
    YHWH will beat out the people like grain, {Matthew 3:12}
    from the Euphrates to the brook of Egypt.
    And you will be gleaned one by one, Israelites!
    (13) It will happen on that day —
    The great shofar will be blown,
    and those who are lost in the land of Asshur,
    and those who are scattered in the land of Egypt
    will come and worship YHWH,
    on the Holy Mountain in Jerusalem. {Matthew 24:31}

    Verses 12 and 13 to me confirm the remainder of my interpretation of the chapter. Compare verse 12 to the preaching of John the Baptist in Matthew 3:12, separating wheat from chaff, so that the wheat can be saved and the chaff burned. Besides the scattering, however, there is an ingathering, as people are brought from all corners of the earth to return to God’s people in their home.

    As I see it, and as I have translated it, Isaiah 27 serves as a “little apocalypse” portraying the world at its end, when God is stepping in to do judgment.

  • Does Gordon Fee Discard Part of the Bible?

    In the third part of his interview series, Adrian Warnock makes the following comment in asking a question of Dr. Wayne Grudem:

    I was impressed by your compassion and fairness in the introduction of your new book expressed towards your egalitarian colleagues who you mention by name.

    At a later point, talking about Dr. Gordon Fee, Wayne Grudem says:

    I doubt that people understand the full implications of a move like Gordon Fee’s in his commentary on 1 Corinthians when he basically says that 1 Corinthians 14:33

  • Textual Critism on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

    I’ve posted something on this over on my Threads blog, titled Does Gordon Fee Discard Part of the Bible?. That post is a response to part of a interview with Wayne Grudem by Adrian Warnock.

    I think it will be of interest to readers of this blog for the textual criticism aspects, though less so for the controversial theological aspects.

  • Reflecting on the Flood

    In a previous post I commented on the two flood stories, so instead of covering each and every point of the flood story again here, I’d like to reflect just a bit on the story of the flood. I’ll resume my verse by verse commentary toward the end of Genesis 8.

    The flood story is a very troubling story to many people. Those who regard it as a historical account have to deal with the complete absence of evidence that any such event ever happened though see below on just what the flood involved. I comment on the various views on the meaning of Genesis 1-11 here.

    But it’s not merely as a historical event that the flood story troubles many people. If one is to take the story seriously in any sense, it presents us with the picture of God deciding to wipe out everyone alive. God is sorry that he created humanity, and so will wipe them all out at once. Noah and his family will be the sole survivors. This one is almost more troubling as a myth than as history.

    (more…)

  • Isaiah 26: Praise and Lament in Trouble

    Update: I forgot to tag the places the New Testament quotes (none in this case) or alludes to this passage.

    In my series on Biblical criticism I discussed the division of Isaiah 24-27 into various segments and discussing their form. In that article I suggested taking Isaiah 26 as a unity even though it would be the longest single segment in Isaiah 24-27.

    Other commentators suggest dividing the chapter after verse 6 into a song of praise while verses 7-21 are a community lament. I see the two parts of the chapter as inextricably tangled together. Isaiah 24-27 appears to be a confused portrayal of the end times, but it is intentionally confused–what appears confused to us is intentional.

    Our desire as Christians is to get a roadmap, to find out how to avoid trouble, and how to come out fine in the end without too much fuss and bother. But “fuss and bother” is a characteristic of final events. You have a time of conflict in which there will be moments of triumph and joy, and moments when one needs to hide.

    18Woe to those who are anxious for the day of YHWH,
    Why do you want the day of YHWH?
    It’s a day of darkness and not light!
    19It’s as though someone flees from a lion,
    but a bear meets him,
    so he goes into his house,
    leans his hand on the wall,
    and a snake bites him!
    20Is the day of YHWH not darkness rather than light?
    Is it not gloom without any gleam of light?

    –Amos 5:18-20

    This rather negative view contrasts with the joy that is expected on the day of the Lord, the day when God comes to redeem, but also to avenge. There are two reasons for this mixed description. First, the day of the Lord is joy for those who are ready and waiting, but not so joyful for those who are not. Second, the end does not come in any scriptural description without some conflict and trouble. This is not the place to go into any detail on pre-trib vs. post-trib arguments, but I think this passage hints at a situation in which the good spent some tense times along with the bad. It is certainly not a “proof passage” on this point; it simply hints on a less precisely laid out final time of conflict.

    Translation and Notes

    1In that day this song will be sung in the land of Judah.
    We have a strong city,
    Salvation set in walls and outworks!
    2Open the gates!
    So a righteous nation may enter,
    One that keeps justice.
    3The mind that depends,
    You will keep totally peaceful,
    Because he trusts in you.[Philippians 4:7]
    4Trust in YHWH forever,
    For in YH YHWH is an eternal rock.
    5For he has humbled the inhabitants of a lofty place,
    An inaccessible city.
    He will overthrow it,
    He will cast it down to the ground.
    He will make it reach the dust.
    6Feet will trample it,
    The feet of the humble,
    The steps of the poor.

    This is the song of praise, but in leads into the destruction of evil, which in turn leads into the lament of the following verses. The lament in turn ends on what, from God’s people’s point of view at least, is another high point.

    Some commentators have been concerned that the great city has already been destroyed in chapter 25, but that is part of the lack of clear chronological sense of Isaiah 24-27. The intent is to portray the time of conflict, and the feelings of God’s people, both positive and negative during that time.

    7The way of the righteous is level.
    You prepare for them a straight path.
    8Indeed in the path of your justice
    We wait for you YHWH,
    Your name and for your reputation,
    is our deepest desire.
    9My soul longs for you in the night,
    My spirit within me keeps watch for you,
    Because just as your judgments hold sway in the land,
    So do the inhabitants of the earth learn righteousness.

    Here again is the key to the day of the Lord. God asserts his rule and his justice. For some people that’s a good thing, for others, it is not so good. God’s true people wait anxiously for God’s justice, even though there may be great trouble along the way.

    10When the wicked receive grace,
    The don’t learn righteousness.
    In a land of upright people he acts unjustly,
    And has no fear of YHWH’s majesty.
    11YHWH, though your had is lifted up,
    They don’t see it.
    Let them see your zeal for your people,
    And be ashamed.
    Let the fire of your anger consume them. [Hebrews 10:27]

    There is a certain emotional conflict about the end times in that while many are being saved, God’s people know that others will be destroyed. God’s people have cried out for justice throughout history. There is the essential tension between God not wanting anyone to perish, and God’s unwillingness to allow sin to persist.

    The apparent absence of God’s judgment gives sinners permission to carry on whatever they’re doing.

    12YHWH will accomplish deliverance for us,
    Indeed all our accomplishments are things you have done!

    This is a tremendous statement of the gospel message. We really have done nothing. Even what we appear to have done is God’s activity in us.

    13YHWH our God,
    Other lords besides you have ruled us,
    Still we praise your name.

    I like this little note of repentance. “We’ve run away Lord, but we’re back. You’re the only one who matters.”

    14Being dead, they cannot live;
    Being shades, they cannot rise;
    Therefore you punished them,
         destroyed them,
         eliminated all memory of them.

    My translation is a bit different from what you will find in most versions based on Waltke-O’Connor’s grammar. It seemed strange to be talking about the dead in this verse and how they cannot rise when we have an affirmation of resurrection at the end of the chapter. What this verse actually refers to is those “other lords” who have ruled Israel. They are actually dead, unable to do anything. God has wiped them out.

    15You have added to the nation, YHWH.
    You have added to the nation.
    You have been glorified.
    You have expanded the borders of the land.

    Note the turn to a description of God’s blessing.

    16In trouble they called to you, YHWH.
    They poured out their prayer as you corrected them.
    17Like a pregnant woman who comes near to giving birth,
    She writhes, she cries out in her pains, [John 16:21]
    Thus were we from before you, YHWH.
    18We were pregnant, we writhed,
    But we gave birth to wind.
    We have not brought forth salvation on earth,
    Nor have the inhabitants of the world fallen.

    And here is another statement of God’s grace. Every human effort has failed, has accomplished nothing. They are like giving birth to wind. Yet when God steps in there is salvation.

    19Your dead will live,
    My corpses will rise.
    Wake up and sing!
    Those who dwell in the dust.
    Like drops of light is your dew,
    And the earth will bring forth the shades. [Ephesians 5:14]
    20Come my people! Enter your chambers!
    Close your doors after you.
    Hide for just a moment,
    until wrath passes over.
    21For look! YHWH is going out from his place,
    To repay the iniquity of the land’s inhabitants on it.
    The land will reveal its blood,
    And will no longer conceal its slain.

    We end with two affirmations: 1) God will bring new life, an early affirmation of the resurrection, and 2) The land is going to reveal the iniquity that has been done in it, allowing final justice.

    On the first point there has been some debate about whether this resurrection refers merely to the restoration of the nation or whether there is a resurrection of the dead involved. I believe the latter, largely because of the contrast to the dead gods/lords who will never rise again.

    On the second, note that the sacrificial system had many cases in which a sacrifice was to be offered when someone realized their guilt. The things that are concealed must be revealed so that justice can be done, whether for atonement or for punishment.

  • Isaiah 25: Protection in the Midst of Trouble

    This is a long delayed continuation of my series on Isaiah 24-27, an early apocalypse. To get the background, look back at my entry on Isaiah 24 and possibly even follow the links there to my material on this topic on Threads from Henry’s Web.

    For those who may not want to follow the links back, let me summarize. Isaiah 24-27 is a section of Isaiah dealing with some variety of eschatological events. Its language is rooted in the judgment that Isaiah has proclaimed on Israel and Judah, but it looks beyond that. Many interpreters regard it as confused and disorderly, but it is actually similar to later apocalyptic literature in that regard. It gives word pictures of various places and attitudes as God’s judgment falls on the land, but also as God’s people are delivered.

    I like to apply the metaphor of the theme ride to this, such as I use in my study guide to Revelation. Think of yourself as riding on something like Disney’s “Pirates of the Caribbean” ride. You will pass through various scenes of the pillaging of a town by pirates, but it is not a sequential presentation. You may find various elements portrayed simultaneously that might have happened sequentially. Isaiah 25 is much like that.

    (more…)