Toy castles and Naked prophets
The Hebrew writer's insight
Bearing in mind what the Hebrew writer said, that God spoke in various ways through the prophets (1:1) it makes no sense to homogenise their methods. I don't hear it said anymore though I'm sure someone somewhere is still saying it: "Prophecy is simply pre-written history." This was never true.
What we should expect
We should expect there to be some constants in the
teaching of the prophets. Constants such as: whatever changes we should
hear that God doesn't change and that he remains faithful to his
commitments. Or: whatever he changes he will not withdraw his call for
holiness and righteousness. Or: when God is done all wrongs will be
righted because his overarching purposes cannot be thwarted. These kinds
of truths we should expect (and get) in the prophets but in the course
of working with such truths they will receive and proclaim their message
is varied ways.
Some of the various ways
Ezekiel will build model forts and attack them from
behind an iron baking-griddle or dig a hole in the wall of his house and
go in and out blindfolded. Isaiah will walk about virtually naked (or
completely so) for an extended period of time and Jeremiah will perform
"skits" with wooden ox-yokes. God's prophet sometimes acts the part of
someone under God's judgement; as Isaiah did in Isaiah 20 when he
represented the captive people of Egypt, led away by Assyria. Zechariah
will represent the collection of wicked shepherds who are to feel God's
chastisement (Zechariah 11:15-17).
We need to notice that prophets don't always speak of judgement or blessing and vindication in simple prose;
their speech as well as their behaviour is sometimes startling. They
will speak of the earth staggering like a drunken man trying to find his
way home or they'll speak of an entire country becoming a lake of fire
that never stops burning or they'll say that that same land at the same time will be a wilderness where wild animals live, raising their families.
How many ways can a prophet say that the enemies of God
and his people are to be overcome? I'm not sure, but I know at least
two. One is to speak of God crushing them and the other is by saying
that they become worshipers of the true God. That is less fantastic but
just as startling; nevertheless Isaiah 19:24-25; 66:18-23 and Zechariah
9:6-7; 14:16-21 speak that way.
Literal or figurative, that's the question
How can we tell when some of what the prophets said is
to be literally fulfilled and some of it is not? Well, it isn't always
easy but some of it can't be literally fulfilled or human
existence would cease altogether and some of it we know was literally
fulfilled because we're told it was (Isaiah 7:14, for example). That's
the easy part. It's the mass of other material that isn't interpreted
for us that requires patient and prayerful work on our part. Certainly,
one of the things we must do is to work with texts in light of God's
overarching purpose for humanity and his creation. This won't provide
all the answers we seek but it will offer us some solid parameters
within which to work with prophecy. But this means we would have to have
a clear understanding of "God's overarching purpose for humanity and
his creation" which we will use as a guide in our interpreting the
prophets. These two areas of reflection will shape each other. Our view
of God's ultimate purpose and how he has developed salvation history
will affect how we understand the prophets and how we understand the
prophets will help to shape our view of God's ultimate purpose and his
development of salvation history.
Interpreting in light of the big picture
If we believe that the book of Hebrews teaches that the
Sinai covenant is gone—permanently—swallowed up in the person and work
of Jesus, how will that affect our understanding of Ezekiel's rebuilding
of the temple, the restoration of animals sacrifices for atonement,
circumcision as essential to fellowship, a Levitical priesthood and all
that is involved in such a restoration? Click
We could say, and I think we should say, that Ezekiel is describing
Israel's glorious future in terms that were current and meaningful to
Israel. I would say that the measurements given in Ezekiel could not be
literally followed and in addition to that, a literal restoration of
Ezekiel 34—48 would conflict with the NT teaching. Whether that's true
or false it would lead me to decide for or against a literal
understanding of Ezekiel 34—48.
If we believe—as I do—that God's purpose in Jesus is to
redeem the creation itself, along with humans, then we'd understand the
texts that speak of the removal of the curse from the earth as
foretelling something that is actually going to happen. Click
I'm making the point that our understanding of prophecy is and should
be affected by our grasp of the big picture but I don't mean to suggest
that we'll always get the details right.
When there are no clear historical clues
It's common knowledge that knowing the historical
circumstances surrounding a remark helps us to understand the remark.
The reverse is also true. Harry goes to his friend's door, he hears a
child sobbing and he hears his friend shouting, "If you do that again
I'll split your skull with this hatchet!" The door finally opens,
Harry's distraught friend shows him the sobbing child and the bad bite
mark on his hand where the dog (now cowering in the corner) bit him.
He'd been shouting at the dog and not the child.
Often there are no clear historical guidelines. That is,
the speaker and his listeners know what's going on but we don't. We
search around and try to find a setting which throws some light on what
the writer had in mind. This is how we should proceed because it helps
us to understand what the writer/speaker meant to say. What we think the
writer's purpose is makes all the difference to how we go about
interpreting him and applying the truth he tells.
If we think Moses meant to describe literally how God
created the world we read Genesis 1 in one way. If we think he wanted to
expose the idolatrous faith of Egypt from which Israel just came and
the idolatrous faith of Canaanites to where they were now going then we
read it in a different way (see Leviticus 18:1-3). Near Eastern
religions saw the elements as gods that the supreme deity (say, Marduk,
as in the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation story) had to
overcome. Moses' record in Genesis 1—whatever else it has in view
certainly insists that there was one true God and these elements were
his creation and not his enemies, they were not gods to be feared or worshiped. [I wish only
to make the point that what we take to be a writer's purpose will
affect how we understand him and it will affect how we use what he
writes.]
Zechariah 1—8 has clear historical settings and because
this is so we have guidelines within which to understand the visions
there. Zechariah 9—14 is not like that (though the difference between
the two blocks of text can certainly be overstated) so it's more
difficult to know why the prophet said what he said. [I wish
only to make the point that without contextual guidelines our grasp of
what the writers is getting at is more difficult and that in turns means
we should not be over-anxious to settle for a given understanding of
what he has said.]
When a prophet gives us historical notice that he's
dealing with a particular nation or time then we're well armed to do a
good search (Isaiah 34 or Nahum would illustrate). But often they speak
in such general terms that we're left without good reason to think he's
speaking of a particular occasion or time. Where that's the case it
might be best for us to settle for the prophet's "general truth".
I think we see that in texts like Zech 14 and
Isaiah 66. In such cases, the word a prophet gives from God is a word of
assurance that judgement/blessing is certain. Those judged are the
enemies (whoever they turn out to be) and those blessed are God's
servants (whoever they turn out to be). Readers are then left free to
see and apply that truth as it relates to their time and place. The
reader must, of course, allow the biblical text to shape his use of the
text.
Even when there are clear historical clues
Isaiah 29:13 has Isaiah's peers in mind at a critical
moment in their history but Jesus in Matthew 15:7-9 says Isaiah speaks
of his (Jesus') peers. In doing this Jesus teaches us that there is a
continuity in God's dealings with us; his condemnation of the leaders in
Isaiah's day is equally true of the leaders in Jesus' day and so the
Isaiah text as truly relates to Jesus day as it did in the 8th century BC.
This helps explain some of those texts where a NT writer
claims a text is fulfilled in his day or that occurrence when it seems
to have a specific historical point in the OT. Let me repeat: the spirit
and drift of the OT text must be (and in the NT it is) treated with
integrity. It simply isn't good enough to lift a text out of the OT and
give it a meaning that is completely out of character.
[All this needs development.]
No comments:
Post a Comment