10/23/14

From Jim McGuiggan.... Toy castles and Naked prophets


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.]