Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: prophecy

  • Psalm 95 and 81: Interrupting Praise with Prophecy?

    A few days ago I blogged about Psalm 95 and how I felt that Matthew Henry had missed the emphasis. I’ve mentioned before that my current devotional exercise is to read the lectionary texts for coming Sundays starting two weeks ahead until the Sunday in question. Thus I’m continually reading two sets of lectionary texts. These tend to lead me to various interesting sources of study.

    Today, I read Psalm 95 from my New Interpreter’s Study Bible, which has an interesting note. On Psalm 95:8, the point at which the Psalm turns the corner from praise into a call for repentance, there is this note:

    . . . In the very midst of Israel’s worship, it seems, prophets would occasionally interrupt the proceedings and call the people to repentance and amendment of life.

    On consideration of just Psalm 95, I didn’t find that very convincing. I felt (and to some extent still feel) that the combination of praise and a willingness to listen and obey went well together in a context of worship. However, if one reads Psalm 81, to which reference is made earlier in the same note, there is an even more abrupt transition between praise and the call to repentance. There the praise seems almost to be only an introduction to the meat of the Psalm, which is strong admonition.]

    I find this an interesting concept, considering that obedience is scripturally placed above various acts of worship, 1 Samuel 15:22-23 being a good example. Obedience is seen in scripture as an act of worship. I have only seen this sort of thing rarely in modern charismatic worship. Most congregations would regard such a prophetic word as an unseemly interruption of the flow of the service of praise. I have even heard pastors express a strong preference for “words from the Lord” that are positive over those that involve rebuke. I think if one were to survey prophetic words in scripture, one would find that the balance is precisely the opposite.

    In addition, of course, one wonders just how one is to get one’s desired balance of positive and negative words from the Lord. If they are, indeed, from the Lord, one would assume he would set the balance!

  • Speaking from God – 2 Peter 1:16-21

    This passage in 2 Peter is one of the most commonly cited in discussions of Biblical inspiration, along with 2 Timothy 3:16, Hebrews 4:12 and Psalm 12:6. One of the interesting things that I notice about them all is that they are often used as though they obviously say something that, on closer examination, they don’t actually say.

    In fact, they are quoted in support of just about every view of inspiration that there is, and frequently supporters of one view or another simply quote these passages and then look expectantly at you, expecting you to acknowledge that the text completely states their doctrine. But no single text does, and it would be difficult for one to do so by itself. Even more, however, we need to look at how prophecy functioned in practice in scripture when we want to work out the details, rather than looking for doctrinal statements and then assuming that it works according to our interpretation of those statements.

    That general statement of method, of course, requires further discussion, and I do discuss the method extensively in my book When People Speak for God. Here, I simply want to look at this text from that point of view. The key question here is what does Peter (or the pseudonymous author of 2 Peter, if it was not written by the apostle himself) wish to convey? In other words, why is he talking about prophecy here? We can see rather immediately that his point is not to expound a doctrine of prophecy, but what is he doing?

    As an aside, let me note that the authorship of 2 Peter would be problematic under the doctrine of inerrancy. I have left the possibility that this is a pseudonymous letter rather than written by the apostle himself, yet if one holds the doctrine of inerrancy, this very passage would be in error, since it relies on the notion of eyewitnesses, and specifically an eyewitness who was on the mount of transfiguration. No person other than Peter, amongst potential authors of the book, suits that text.

    The key here is the reliability of the prophetic word in general, but more specifically about Jesus Christ. To restate this in a slightly less convoluted way, Peter is saying that he saw the prophecies about the coming Messiah fulfilled before his very eyes in Jesus. In particular, I believe, he’s invoking Exodus 24 and the image of Moses on the mountain as the type which met its antitype in the transfiguration. Because of this reliable connection, established by eyewitness testimony–that of the writer–the readers do well to pay attention to the prophetic word as it comes through those apostles and their successors.

    There are two subtexts to this. First, scripture does not come by human will. Second, scripture is not the result of, or the property of individual speakers of interpreters. I think these are critical things for us to notice today. One of the things I emphasize in my method of Bible study is sharing, and sharing in turn simply means that you do your Bible study in community. There is, of course, always a tension between one’s individual opinions and the community, but as long as there is contact, there is an additional measure of safety. The individual who goes off in a corner and feels unable to, or is unwilling to express his views is in much graver danger of error.

    To back this up a bit, here is my draft translation and notes. You will, of course, want to read other translations and compare. When one is expressing a particular interpretation of a passage, one is more vulnerable than usual to translating according to the interpretation. (Greek transliteration throughout is very loose as I’m not depending on grammatical details.)

    16It was not by relying on cleverly contrived tales that we told you about the power and the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. We witnessed his majesty with our own eyes.

    The key word in this passage is epoptes, referring to an eyewitness in this case. It occurs only here in the New Testament, though it does occur in the LXX a number of times. The term can also refer to an initiate (which might cover the apostle Paul) or to an overseer, though the latter two meanings do not fit the context here. Megaleiotes, used here for “majesty” can refer to things varying from grand to sublime or a combination thereof.

    The combined idea is that those who preached the message had seen the real thing with their own eyes, being allowed to watch Jesus through his ministry.

    17He received glory and honor from God the Father, and a voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved son. I’m well pleased with him.” 18And we heard this very voice coming from heaven, when we were with him on the holy mountain.

    That there was a voice is not quite the focus. That those who preached had heard the voice–that’s the key. They heard God affirm Jesus as His Son.

    19Now we have a more secure prophetic word, and you would do well to attend to it as a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns, and the morning star rises in your hearts.

    The security does not exist in isolation. It is intended to make the believers hold on until the appearance of Christ.

    20Knowing this first, that no prophecy in scripture came as a matter for private understanding.

    “Understanding” could be, and often is translated as “interpretation.” Between verses 20 and 21 scripture is clearly declared outside of realm of the individual and personal, and placed as part of a community operating in the will of God.

    21For no prophecy came by human will, but carried forward by the Holy Spirit human beings spoke [a message] from God. — 2 Peter 1:16-21

    People regularly use this passage to imply some form of verbal dictation, but the Greek simply says “spoke from God” and we must supply the object–what is being spoken. I would argue that the correct object is the message, the more sure word of Jesus come in the flesh and affirmed by God in fulfillment of scripture. This makes no comment on whether words are verbally dictated. A better place to discover the method at that level of detail is to look at actual scriptures. There we will find words that seem to be almost totally the creation of the writer, and also words that are the very words of God.

    Thus people are apparently carried along by the Holy Spirit in many different ways, not just a single one.

  • Another Interesting Lectionary Omission

    Since I’ve been attending a lectionary discussion group during Wednesday lunch, and therefore spending more time on the lectionary texts, I’ve been interested in the way the texts are selected. For this coming Sunday, Epiphany, one of the texts is Isaiah 60:1-6. “Now what could possibly be interesting about that?” you might ask.

    I’m glad you asked! In this case what’s interesting is the cut-off point. In general, this is a prophecy of restoration, given to Israel during the time of the exile, or perhaps afterward. (It would fall in trito-Isaiah, assuming one accepts that division.) More specifically it is a prophecy of Israel becoming a religious center, and other nations supporting them.

    I found it interesting that the Learning Bible (CEV), in its note on Isaiah 60:7 specifically says that the temple referenced there is the rebuilt temple, dedicated about 515 B.C. This suggests that in the view of those interpreters this passage was fulfilled with the restoration of Jerusalem and the temple following the Babylonian exile. Yet a brief reading of the chapter suggests there are a number of things which were not fulfilled at that time, such as the sun no longer being their light (verse 19) but YHWH serving that function (cf. Revelation 21:23-24), all its people being righteous (v. 21), to name just a couple. I note also that the Jewish Study Bible refers this to a future age when God will rule the nation directly.

    So again why do I find the cutoff at verse 6 interesting? Well, in that verse we have a reference to the continuation of the sacrificial services of the temple, something that most Christian interpreters do not include in any future age. Quoting from the JPS Tanakh:

    All the flocks of Kedar shall be assembled for you,
    The rams of Nebaioth shall serve your needs;
    They shall be welcome offerings on My altar,
    And I will add glory to My glorious House.

    Now Christian interpreters are not unaware of these texts, but many people in the pews are, and thus when they start studying eschatological prophecies they can become very confused.

    Let me make a couple of quick observations. First, Christian eschatology, insofar as it works from the prophecies of Hebrew scripture has divided prophecies between a first and second coming of Jesus. No such division is known here in the text. Salvation from sin and salvation from physical oppression are closely intertwined.

    Second, while both Ezekiel and Isaiah speak of a future time when the temple will be restored and sacrifices will be offered, Christian interpreters find that very hard to fit into any prophetic scheme. There are those who believe there will be a period of sacrifice in a restored temple during the time of the tribulation. I won’t go into the details of how this is supported from the text here. Suffice it to say that it can get complicated quite quickly. But in general, Christian theology has a problem with restored sacrifices seen in a positive sense, since the sacrificial system is commonly seen as unnecessary following the death of Jesus.

    One has to wonder whether the compilers of the Revised Common Lectionary didn’t want to avoid having these questions raised by a reading of verse 7 on Epiphany.

  • 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.

  • Isaiah 31:4-5 and Prophetic Revelation through History

    Isaiah 31:4-5 has presented a rather substantial exegetical, critical, and even translation problem to a number of commentators. The difficulty can be illustrated by comparing the translation of this verse in the REB:

    This is what the LORD has said to me:
    As a lion or a young lion growls over its prey
    when the shepherds are called out in force,
    and it is not scared at their shouting
    or daunted by their clamour,
    so the LORD of Hosts will come down to do battle
    on the heights of Mount Zion. (emphasis mine)

    Now compare the NJPS:

    For thus the LORD has said to me:
    As a lion–a great beast–
    Growls over its prey
    And, when the shepherds gather
    In force against him,
    Is not dismayed by their cries
    Nor cowed by their noise–
    So the LORD of Hosts will descend to make war
    Against the mount and the hill of Zion. (emphasis mine)

    The problem here is with the question of whether the phrase “litsbo’ al” should be translated as “fight against” or “fight on.” I’m not going to deal with this problem in detail here, as I’m more interested in the relationship of this passage to the general theme of these chapters and of the remainder of Isaiah. The more common translation of that phrase would be “fight against” but that has presented an interpretational problem, because verse 5, immediately following, has YHWH fighting for Jerusalem and protecting it. So why would there be such an intense contrast between two adjacent verses falling within the same prophetic oracle?

    For some details on the past critical solutions to this problem, including some claims of interpolation and various efforts to smooth the interpretation, see Childs, Isaiah (OTL, 2001), pp. 232-234. Childs nicely examines the problems both of translation and interpretation, and my comments rest on the foundation he laid there.

    Though I’m leaving the detailed discussion of critical issues to Childs, I do need to point to some of the exegetical signals that we have in the passage itself. Note that the oracle begins with a “woe” for those who rely on human means rather than on the Holy One of Israel, and particular those who rely on horses. God has brought misfortune (v. 2) and the horses on which the people rely will be broken. Helper and helped (one can hear the sarcasm in that!) will both perish together.

    What is the reason for the enemy’s success? I believe this is what verse 4 tells us. Helper and helped will fall because YHWH is fighting against them.

    Now we turn to verse 5, and we see YHWH shielding Jerusalem. I’m not sure why it is that Biblical interpreters, and specifically those who use critical methodologies have such a hard time with abrupt changes of direction and with material that can be reconciled only with some difficulty. The vast majority of the prophetic literature that we have is characterized by shifts in person, in topic, in attitude, and sometimes even in temporal horizon. Where is that pure, organized, easy to comprehend prophetic oracle against which one should compare the disorganized ones? Such an example is quite rare.

    In this case, though the shift is abrupt, it’s symmetrical. In fact, you can create a fairly decent chiasm. I’m not sure this is an intentional literary device, or simply an accident of the message itself and of the historical situation (see below), but let me outline it nonetheless:

    a Woe to those who rely on human means (1)
    b God’s power is decisive over such means (2-3)
    c1 God fights – against Jerusalem
    c2 God fights – for Jerusalem
    b’ God’s power is decisive, reject foreign gods (6-7)
    a’ Woe to the Assyrians/will be destroyed/divine means (8-9)

    The a – a’ portion leaves a bit to be desired, but I think it works generally. The contrast that gives so many interpreters trouble is between 4 and 5. What is the prophet doing moving from opposition to Jerusalem to support for it in such a short space? I commented earlier on a similar tension in chapter 27, in which we have the punishment of Jerusalem combined with the punishment of the instruments of that punishment. We also have the expression there (27:4-5) of God’s desire for a decisive stand on the part of his vineyard. I would suggest that this theme of tension between judgment and deliverance is constant throughout Isaiah.

    Further, that theme of judgment is presented forcefully in historical terms in chapters 36-37. We often teach and preach that story as one of deliverance for Jerusalem, and certainly Jerusalem is delivered. Yet one could also preach it as the story of the devastation of the rest of Judah before Jerusalem was delivered. If I could revive my chiasm for a moment (Isaiah 36-37):

    a Woe put into practice on Judah, people rely on Egypt
    b God’s power is decisive over such means, Rabshakeh reviles and belittles God
    c1 God fights – against Jerusalem, all of Judah devastated
    c2 God fights – for Jerusalem, after Hezekiah prays and puts trust in him
    b’ God’s power is decisive, reject foreign gods Assyrians totally routed
    a’ Woe to the Assyrians/will be destroyed/divine means, after Sennacherib returns to Assyria

    The literary structure is not the same, of course, but the data is all there. In fact, I think the oracle of chapter 31 can easily be seen as tailored for the events of chapters 36-37. In that event in the reign of Hezekiah, God expresses his prophetic word in a series of historical events. While trusting on human power, Judah falls, except for Jerusalem, to the foreign power. In depending on God, Judah is redeemed.

    Now if we can broaden our horizon just a bit, consider a similar theme in Isaiah as a whole. Often students complain about the first 35 chapters of Isaiah which have only a few moments of positive message. The historical scene in chapters 36-39 provides a nice historical hinge, but then Isaiah 40-66 continues on a much more positive note. Indeed the early chapters do have oracles of promise, and the later ones have oracles of judgment, but the tone is substantially different. I would suggest, however, that we have just such a split in the entire book as we have between 31:4 and 31:5, and between the two parts of the story of Sennacherib’s invasion.

    In the end, the “prophetic voice” of the experience of the invasion in the time of Hezekiah was not heard, as is illustrated by the story of chapters 38-39 where, after another deliverance, Hezekiah is focused on his own wealth and power, and not on the deliverance provided by God. Thus we had to have another hinge, as the people go into exile in 586 BCE, again finding the support of Egypt unavailing, and do not return to that dependence on God until after the exile.

  • 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.

  • The Impact of Context

    The other day I was reading an article on the practice of prophetic ministry–I’m not going to say where; it was in print and not on the web–in which the author claimed that a prophet does not have to get it right. In fact, he said, a person with the gift of prophecy may get it wrong early in their career as they are “practicing.” The reason I’m not concerned with the specific source here is that I’ve heard this a number of times amongst those involved in the modern prophetic movement.

    Before I go on, let me note that I do believe that all the gifts of the Holy Spirit continue to the present. I don’t, in principle, have any problem with someone exercising the gift of prophecy today. I write a bit more about this in the pamphlet Spiritual Gifts: Prophecy. But I do think that the modern prophecy movement has become very careless with the concept of “the word of God” and runs a serious risk of driving people from the church.

    (more…)

  • God’s Nature in the Natural World – Take 1

    Study Guide Q2: How much of God’s nature and will can be determined from nature? How do the natural and moral laws of God differ?

    This question spans this less and the next, which is about God as creator. I suggest doing it as I’m doing it here and taking a look first from the point of view of God’s direct or “special” revelation, and then looking at it again after looking at God as creator, and what this might mean about the physical world. Applicable additional reading is Psalm 33 and Romans 1-3. Genesis 1-2 & 6-9 provide more advanced background.

    This question is not a primary concern of the book of Hebrews. The reason I suggest studying it at this point is simply to round out one’s doctrine of divine communication. I think that too frequently we look simply at a doctrine of scripture, or of prophetic utterance, and not at the overall view of how God communicates with people.

    The author of Hebrews is focussed on God’s communication specifically through prophets. He does see this as happening in small portions at different times and in different ways. He also clearly sees the communication via the events of history and the testimony of individuals in the long history of God’s relationship with Israel (see especially Hebrews 11). His focus is on showing the superiority of the revelation though Jesus due to the superiority of the messenger. But just what is the actual superiority of the message?

    One exercise I suggest is taking each major topic and then re-reading the book of Hebrews with that topic and its major questions in mind. This means that if one completes all 13 lessons of the study guide, one will have read the book of Hebrews a minimum of 13 times during the course of that study. This may seem like a lot of reading to many people, but the book is actually only a few pages, and you will benefit from such study.

    But the revelation through prophets and even the revelation through Jesus Christ is not the whole of God’s revelation. Paul tells us: “For [God’s] invisible attributes, his unending power and divinity, have been understood and seen since the creation of the world” (Romans 1:20). I would suggest that this is a neglected text. Just how much can one learn simply from the creation without the benefit of direct revelation. Paul seems to think this revelation is sufficient that there is no excuse for missing the essentials of this revelation. Thus apparently one can derive from God’s created things sufficient to be in favor with God, i.e. presumably for salvation, and this is clear enough that one cannot be excused for failing to understand. I don’t think we give enough weight to the implications of this passage in Romans.

    But Paul continues later:

    12 All who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all. — Romans 2:12-16

    This passage makes several additional points. First, according to verses 15 & 16, this knowledge is sufficient for one to take into judgment, and God may find the person acceptable. Second, there is an interesting possible allusion to the law written on the heart (Jeremiah 31:33), a characteristic of the Messianic age. Third, it is apparent that one can follow the law instinctively.

    The further passages on the creation emphasize that the creation, the physical universe, results from God’s word, from God’s will and command. This suggests that we can learn a great deal about God simply from the way he has constructed the universe. I would suggest that Christians ignore this aspect of God’s revelation too frequently. I discuss one aspect of this in my post Evolution, Theology, and Respect.

    Let me suggest not conclusions, but questions:

    1. What can we learn about God from nature?
    2. What is the role of the Holy Spirit when we receive revelation?
    3. Does the Holy Spirit always enlighten the mind of one who honestly seeks knowledge (a broadened prevenient grace)?
    4. How does the revelation of God in the natural world interact with direct or special revelation?

  • Why Doesn’t God Speak Directly?

    Note: I strongly recommend that if you are taking my class in Hebrews, or who are following my study guide through the book answer the study guide questions before reading this entry. The purpose of the thought questions is to provide an opportunity to think. These are just some of my own thoughts on the question.

    Q#2: Why does God use prophets rather than speaking to everyone?

    The actual genesis of this question was in a small study group I was leading several years ago. Part of the group program was that we would take however much time the members wanted to and work through the meaning of each passage as long as the group cared to do so. This led to some rather lengthy arguments, and often to nitpicking the meaning. (You should only use this kind of approach in a study group if everyone truly wants to do it.) In one such session we were debating some passages in Revelation, and one of the members finally gave in to frustration and said, “Why can’t God just write all this out in the sky clearly, so that we would know beyond any doubt what it meant?”

    Now that’s not the same question I’m asking, but it’s related. We’re starting the study of Hebrews, and the key passage for this first lesson is Hebrews 1:1-4. God has spoken at various times and in various ways through the prophets. Now, in the last days, he has spoken by means of his Son. But you and I still have to listen to God speak to someone else. We don’t see a physical Jesus or hear him preach. Instead we read reports of what he said to other people 2,000 years ago. We don’t even get to listen to the author of Hebrews; indeed, we can’t seem to agree on who he (or some say she) is. So again we’re hearing him speak to other people, and we are kind of eavesdropping. Why doesn’t God make it clearer? Why doesn’t it speak directly to me?

    It’s not just speaking directly, though. It’s the clarity that’s important. If God would just make the message personal, we would not have to consider just what the principles are, and how to apply them to our own lives–we’d know!

    Personally I believe that God does speak to each person directly, but clarity is another matter. In doing prayer ministry, one reason people will ask me to pray with them is that they believe they have heard from God, but they’re not sure that it is God, or they’re not sure just how to put it into practice.

    This is not a question that we can resolve in a single blog entry, but it’s a good question to think about. Let me make some suggestions to think about, and then also provide links to some other things I have written on the same subject.

    1. God wants us to learn to think. We often treasure the work of the prophets, and we like the results of the wisdom writers, but are we willing to do the work that goes behind wisdom? Hebrews 5:14 tell us: “14Solid food is for the mature, for those who through practice have exercised their understanding to distinguish good and evil.” God may well want us to practice our own judgment and discernment and grow in wisdom.
    2. God wants us to hear from him in a community. Any one of us can go wildly astray on our own, but when we have accountability to brothers and sisters, at a minimum we have to consider the response of those close to us to what we say. Even writing this blog entry has made me give new consideration to this particular question.
    3. God wants to leave us free to make unpressured decisions. This is hard for some of us to understand, because we think we want to know and do precisely what God commands. But if God made himself too obvious, we might feel pressured just by his obvious presence, sort of like having the boss breathing down our neck.
    4. Those who actually listen to God are rare. It’s possible that God is speaking a great deal more than we are hearing, and that the prophets are the ones who listen more. If this one sounds good to you, make sure to consider the idea of the prophetic call Ezekiel 1 or Isaiah 6, for example, in this connection. Is it possible God calls many, and only a few hear and report the situation?

    Now let me provide a few links to material on this topic.

    For inspiration and testing claims that someone is speaking for God read my series that starts with The One Ended Crod. In addition, the Participatory Study Series pamphlets What is the Word of God?, The Authority of the Bible, and Spiritual Gifts: Prophecy.

    On the possibility that God prefers freedom to security and certainty, see my entry Evolution, Theology, and Respect.