tohu vabohu

Rob Bell and the New Testament Concept of "Forever"

2011-04-08T16:53:00.000-07:00

There are numerous reviews of Rob Bell’s Love Wins in print and on the blogosphere, and my purpose here is not to review the work or even to engage many of the larger issues in the book. I would simply like to address Rob Bell’s understanding of the NT idea of “forever” and “eternal life” that is expressed in the book and in public interviews he has given since the book’s publication (http://video.foxnews.com/v/4624628/love-wins-sparks-religious-debate). I am interested in this discussion in part because I teach biblical languages (Hebrew) and have read many student word studies that have arrived at some rather unusual conclusions. I am more concerned with this particular discussion because I believe that Bell has seriously misrepresented the biblical data on eternity in a way that results in a defective view of both heaven and hell. Bell’s basic premise is that the aion words refer to an intensity of experience rather than to something that is eternal and never-ending in nature. In line with his comments in the interview linked above, Bell states in the book, "We saw earlier how aion refers to a period of time with a beginning and an end. Another meaning of aion is a bit more complex and nuanced, because it refers to a particular intensity of experience that transcends time.” He then illustrates this usage of the word by noting how we refer to a boring class that takes “forever” or how we say that “time flies” when we are in love. He adds: "Whether an experience is pleasurable or painful, in the extreme moments of life what we encounter is time dragging and flying, slowing down and speeding up. That's what aion refers to - a particularly intense experience. Aion is often translated as "eternal" in English, which is an altogether different word from "forever" (see pp. 57-58 of the book for these quotes).

Bell’s analysis of “forever” fails to properly distinguish between the words aion and aionios, which are different words with different meanings. The noun aion refers to an age that has a beginning and an end, while the adjective aionios refers to something that is forever and never-ending. Aion is frequently used in the NT to refer to this present age or world (cf. Luke 1:70; Rom 12:2; 1 Cor 1:20; 2:6, 8; 3:18; 2 Cor 4:4; Gal 1:4; Eph 2:2; 6:12; 1 Tim 6:17;2 Tim 4:10) or to the ages of human history (cf. Eph 3:9; Col 1:26; Titus 2:12: Heb 1:2). While the basic meaning of aion may be “age,” the expressions eis ton aiona (singular) or eis tous aionas (plural) clearly signify something that lasts for as long as time endures (eternal). This idea is strengthened by the expression eis tous aionas ton aionon, which describes the endless future as a perpetual succession of shorter ages. Bell is certainly correct that the idea of eternity stands outside of time, but the concept of permanently enduring time is the only way to express what is eternal from our present perspective within time. The way in which Paul uses the expression “from the ages” (apo ton aionon) in Colossians 1:26 and Ephesians 3:9 to refer to God’s eternal purposes before time began (and we have a similar use of the adjective aionios in Rom 16:25) supports the idea that there can be unending ages that extend eternally into the future.

Both the noun aion and the adjective aionios are used to describe God’s eternal nature and existence. The writer of Hebrews uses the noun aion when declaring that Jesus Christ is the same “yesterday, today, and forever (eis ton aiona)” (Heb 13:8), making reference to past, present, and future. The adjective aionios is used to describe the “eternal” God (Rom 16:26), and the “eternal” Spirit (Heb 9:14). 1 Timothy 6:16 speaks of God’s “eternal” power, while also making reference to his immortality. Jesus Christ himself is the “eternal life” (1 Jn 1:2; 5:20), and the believer’s life is unending because it is in Christ and has Christ as its source (1 Jn 5:11). The noun aion is used to describe the duration of God’s eternal kingdom (Heb 1:8; Jude 25) and of the reign of Jesus as Messiah (Luke 1:33). It is also used to refer to the enduring glory, blessing, and honor that belongs to God, which must be eternal in light of his eternal nature (cf. Rom 1:25; 9:5; 2 Cor 11:31; Gal 1:5; Eph 3:21; Phil 4:20; 1 Tim 1:17; Heb 13:21).

Both the noun aion and the adjective aionios are also used with reference to the everlasting life offered to those who are followers of Christ. The adjective aionios is used with this way in passages that include Matt 19:16; 25:46; Mark 10:17, 30; Luke 16:9; 18:30; John 3:15, 16, 36; 5:24, 39; 6:27, 40, 47, 54, 68; 10:28; 12:25, 50; 17:2-3; Acts 13:46, 48; Rom 16:26; 2 Cor 5:1; Gal 6:8; 1 Thess 6:12; 1 Tim 6:19; 2 Tim 1:2; Titus 3:7. In Romans 2:7 and 1 Timothy 1:16, aionios life is also connected to the word “immortality” (aphtarsian—the same term used to describe the “incorruptible” body of the glorified believer in 1 Cor 15:42, 50, 53 and the immortality of the believer in 2 Tim 1:10 due to the fact that Christ has “abolished death”). The never-ending nature of aionios life is clearly present in 2 Corinthians 4:18 where Paul contrasts the unseen things that are aiovios with the seen things of this world that are “temporary” or “transient” (proskairos). Paul then goes on to discuss in 2 Corinthians 5:1-4 the eternal (aionios) body that the believer receives when the mortal and earthly body is destroyed by death.

When the noun aion is used as the measure of this life given to those who believe in Jesus, it is often specifically set in contrast to the type of life that is ended by death (John 6:51, 58; 8:51-52; 10:28; 11:26). In John 6, Jesus promises bread that is superior to the bread eaten by the fathers that did not prevent them from dying in the wilderness. In John 8, there is the promise that the followers of Jesus will not experience death, and this reality is set in contrast to the death of Abraham. In John 10:28 and 11:26, the promise of eternal life means that one will never die. In John 12:34, the crowd asks how the Messiah can die if he is to remain eis ton aiona. They clearly understood that a life lasting eis ton aiona has no ending.

Bell is right to emphasize that the believer presently enjoys everlasting life and that the new life in Christ has a distinctive quality in the here and now (John 10:10; 17:2-3). Traditional forms of evangelism in some Christian traditions have certainly overemphasized the idea of going to heaven when we die as the primary issue of salvation. However, “eternal life” in the New Testament refers to both a quality and quantity of life, and the aion words themselves specifically highlight the durative nature of the life given to the believer in Christ. Bell states that “heaven is not forever in the way that we think of forever, as a uniform measurement of time, like days and years, marching endlessly into the future” (p. 58). No one would want to describe eternity in such a pedantic manner, but Bell’s understanding fails to reckon with the strong biblical emphasis on the unending nature of everlasting life. In contrast to Bell’s selective and one-sided explanation, Joachim Guhrt has provided a much more accurate and balanced understanding of the NT perspective on everlasting life:

John understands eternal life in relation to Christ through faith, love and in keeping the commands of Christ (Jn 3:15 f. , 36; 4:14, 36; 5:24, 39; 6:27, 40, 47, 54, 68; 10:28; 12:25, 50; 17:2 f.). The word 'eternal' here indicates a definite quality: it is a different life from the old existence typified by hate, lack of love, sin, pain and death. Eternal life does not therefore just begin in the future, it is already the possession of those who have entered upon fellowship with Christ. Thus, Jn. 3:15 speaks of having eternal life in the present. But there is also a temporal sense, so that eternal (aionios) indicates the quantity of this life: because it belongs to Christ, who himself is the Life (Jn. 14:6), it has no end. It will not even cease at death (Jn. 8:51; 11:25 5).

Bell argues that when the rich man asks Jesus what he must do to get “everlasting life,” he is asking how he could enter into kingdom living in this present life rather than inquiring about where he would go when he died. However, Bell is insisting that the rich man is asking about either this life or the next one when it seems rather obvious that he is asking about both this life and the next. Guhrt explains, “From the book of Daniel onwards ‘eternal life’ is an expression of the long-for eschatological blessings of salvation, life in the age to come (cf. Dan. 12:2).” This eternal life is associated with the resurrection from the dead and the coming kingdom of God (cf. Matt 25:34; 1 Cor 6:9-10), and there is a good bit of discussion in Second Temple Judaism as to what this afterlife was like. The NT speaks of this present age (Gal 1:4) and the age that is to come (cf. Eph 1:21; 2:7). We particularly see the never-ending nature of the age to come in passages where the adjective “everlasting” (aionios) is used to describe the coming future age (aion) (Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30). The eternal nature of this future age contrasts with the present age that is passing away (1 Jn 2:17).

I would like to conclude this discussion by looking at the twelve uses of the expression “forever and ever” (eis tous aionas ton aionon) in the book of Revelation. In eight of its uses, the expression refers to God’s eternal existence (Rev 4:9, 10; 10:6), to the eternal glory and honor that God is worthy of (Rev 1:6; 5:13; 7:12), and to the unending duration of Christ’s kingdom rule (Rev 11:15). The same expression is used to refer to the eternal life and reign of the saints with Christ in Revelation 22:5 and to the torment of the wicked and Satan in the lake of fire in Revelation 14:11 and 20:10. It is also used metaphorically to refer to the smoke from the city of Babylon going up forever in Revelation 19:3, but there is no clear reason in light of overall biblical teaching why this metaphorical use of forever should be applied to persons in the lake of fire. In Matthew 25:46, the adjective aionios describes both the eternal life of the righteous and the eternal punishment of the wicked, and Jesus presents these two ideas as parallel concepts. The aion words alone certainly do not resolve all of the issues regarding the nature of hell and eternal punishment, but the usage of these words in the NT is in line with traditional Christian teaching. Bell’s overemphasis on the this-worldly side of salvation and his suggestion of the possibility of a second chance beyond this life for those condemned to hell are both inconsistent with the NT concepts of eternal life and everlasting punishment as unending realities.

Wealth and Poverty and the Uniqueness of the Mosaic Law

2010-09-23T14:30:00.000-07:00

Comparison of the Mosaic Law in the Hebrew Bible to other ancient Near Eastern law codes demonstrates many parallels and similarities. In his book Inspiration and Incarnation, Peter Enns comments: “But when you look at the specific laws, the degree of similarity is obvious. . . . biblical laws and ancient Near Eastern law codes cover very similar situations in similar wording: false accusations, stealing, stolen property, kidnapping, treatment of slaves, livestock, land, loans, marriage and divorce, children, and so on. It is no exaggeration to say that anyone familiar with ancient Near Eastern law codes, reading biblical law for the first time, although likely taking note of elements peculiar to the Israelites, would no doubt recognize it as ‘another ancient Near Eastern law code.’” The case law concerning a goring ox in Exodus 21:28 bears a striking similarity to the provision found in the Laws of Eshnunna (53): “If an ox gores another ox and thus causes its death, the two ox-owners shall divide the value of the living ox and the carcass of the dead ox.”

Despite these similarities, David L. Baker’s recent work Tight Fists or Open Hands: Wealth and Poverty in Old Testament Law, also documents how the Mosaic Law is distinctively different from these other law codes in its views on wealth, property, and treatment of the poor. Regarding social and economic issues, Baker writes that the differences between the Mosaic Law and these other law codes “far outnumber the similarities.” Baker’s topic is quite relevant at a time when Christians are both reawakening to their social responsibilities and being told to flee from churches that promote social justice. Much of this confusion can be directly attributed to the church’s failure to develop a coherent theology of wealth and to absorb the ethic of the Old Testament law. In the concluding chapter of his book, Baker highlights these ten unique features and concerns of the Mosaic Law.

1.The penalties for infringing property rights in the Bible are much more humane than elsewhere, and never involve mutilation, beating, or death. The same rules apply to all as well, and punishment does not depend on the status of the thief or the victim.

See Exod 22:1-4; 23:9; Lev 19:15; 24:22

Compare with other ancient Near Eastern law codes that often punish various forms of theft or dishonest practices with death or mutilation of some form:

Middle Assyrian Law (§ A3) If a man is either ill or dead, and his wife should steal something from his house and give it either to a man, or to a woman, or to anyone else, they shall kill the man’s wife as well as the receivers

Middle Assyrian Law (§ A4) If … a slave … should receive something from a man’s wife, they shall cut off the slave’s … nose and ears; they shall restore the stolen goods, the man shall cut off his wife’s ears… (the punishment for a man who steal is much more lenient and generally consists of a beating and restitution).

Code of Hammurabi (§ 25) If a fire breaks out in a man’s house, and a man who came to help put it out covets the household furnishings belonging to the householder, and takes household furnishings belonging to the householder, that man shall be cast into that very fire.

Code of Hammurabi (§ 108) If a tapster should refuse to accept grain for the price of beer but accepts [only] silver measured by the large weight, thereby reducing the value of beer in relation to the value of grain, they shall charge and convict that tapster and they shall cast her into the water.

2.With regard to laws on owner liability for animals and buildings, Mesopotamian laws deal with the economic aspect and provide compensation for the victim’s family, while biblical law is concerned primarily with bloodguilt because of the inestimable value of human life.

See Exod 21:28-29

3.According to OT law, ancestral land is God’s gift to his chosen people and allocated equitably to each of them. Old Babylonian and Middle Assyrian law assert that the land belongs to the king.

See Leviticus 25:23-24

4.In the OT law, chattel slavery is limited to non-Israelites, and the laws provide significant protection for slaves. Fugitive slaves are to be given asylum, and slaves are entitled to holidays. In other ANE law codes, slaves are subject to property law, which focuses on the rights of the slave owners over their property.

See Exod 21:20-21, 26-27; Lev 25:44-46; Deut 23:15-16

5.There are several distinctive features of OT law concerning semi-slaves. Temporary slaves are given the option of becoming permanent members of the household at the end of their service. Bonded labor for a limited term was another way of paying off debts and was actually a realistic possibility because of the OT policy of interest-free loans. High interest rates in other cultures meant that the worker was only covering interest payments and would likely remain in lifelong bondage. Biblical law also provides a measure of protection to concubines that entitles them to some of the rights of a wife or daughter, and this kindness toward concubines contrasts with their utilitarian treatment in Mesopotamia.

See Exod 21:2-6; Deut 15:13-18; Exod 21:7-11; Deut 21:10-14

6.The protection of vulnerable people is considered the divine will and a royal responsibility throughout the ANE. However, OT law is more concerned ensure that widows and orphans are not abused or exploited in law courts or financial dealings. They also benefit from the laws on gleaning, triennial tithes, and celebrations that promote generosity toward the needy. OT law also reflects a concern for ethnic minorities within the covenant community not found in other ANE law collections.

See Exod 22:22-24; Deut 24:17-18

7.Biblical law has distinctive emphases in relation to just lawsuits. The principle of impartiality may have been assumed elsewhere, but it is only explicitly stated in the OT.

See Exod 20:16; 22:21; 23:8-9; Lev 19:15, 33-34; 24:22; Deut 16:18-20; 17:16; 19:15; 24:17-18; 27:19

8.The idea that agricultural produce is God’s gift to his people, to be shared with all is another OT distinctive. This is reflected in specific ways in the laws of the sabbatical year, the triennial tithe, and ‘scrumping.’ The biblical laws on gleaning and scrumping have no parallel elsewhere. In other parts of the ANE, fallowing takes place for agricultural reasons, and tithes are paid to the temple or place, but neither of these practices is designed as social welfare.

See Exod 23:10-11; Lev 25:1-7, 18-25; 19:9-10; Deut 14:28-29; 24:19-22; 26:12-13

9.There is a significant contrast between the laws of the ANE and the OT on the subject of loans. Mesopotamian law is concerned with standardizing rates of interest, whereas Israelite law forbids interest on loans to fellow-members of the covenant community, especially the poor. While all the laws assume the principle of security for loans, the OT is more concerned with the needs of the poor who borrow than the rights of the rich who lend. A pledge is allowed as long as it does not cause hardship to the borrower, but since the poor are unlikely to have very little that they do not need, the law virtually eliminates security in practice. The OT laws do not even contemplate the possibility of the surrender of a family member or ancestral land as a pledge, practices which are common in other ANE laws.

See Exod 22:25; Lev 25:35-38; Deut 15:7-8; 23:19-20

10.The OT laws on terms and conditions for employment are unparalleled in the other law collection. The concept of Sabbath is unique in the ANE, especially in its emphasis that regular rest and recreation is a fundamental right for all—including slaves, resident aliens, and even livestock. The same emphasis is also reflected with several other biblical festivals. No other ANE law specifically legislates for holidays. The laws on wages in other ANE law codes are designed primarily to protect the rights of employers; biblical laws are more concerned with the right of employees to prompt payment for their work.

See Exod 20:8-11; 23:12; Lev 19:19; Deut 5:12-15; Deut 12:12, 18; 16:14; 24:14-15

Recognizing these distinctive features enhances our appreciation and respect for the Mosaic Law as sacred Scripture. It also serves as a reminder that Christian pastors have a responsibility to give a greater place to the teaching of the Mosaic Law in our pulpits. Remembering that the God of the Old Testament commanded his people “to be open-handed toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in the land” (Deut 15:11) will do much to correct our blindness toward our social responsibilities and to motivate us to practice the pure religion of looking after those in need (James 1:27).

The Cleansing of Isaiah and the Purging of Israel (Isaiah 6 and the Theology of Isaiah)

2010-07-02T08:01:00.000-07:00

In preparation for a seminar I’ll be teaching on the theology of the Old Testament prophets, I’ve spent some time over the past few weeks reflecting on the message of the book of Isaiah. I’ve been reminded of the centrality of the story of Isaiah’s call in Isaiah 6 and how the prophet’s initial encounter with God impacted all of his ministry and message. Isaiah 6 is more than just Isaiah’s call as a prophet; in many ways, this passage presents the drama of the book of Isaiah in condensed form. God cleanses Isaiah to proclaim his message to Israel so that Israel might be cleansed to proclaim God’s glory to the nations. John Oswalt explains: “If the people of ‘unclean lips’ (6:5) can have the same experience that he, the “man of unclean lips” had, then the dilemma Isaiah sees in Israel, and which he expresses in chapters 1-5, can be solved. That dilemma is: How can the present corrupt, rebellious Israel (expressed in Judah), defying God’s instruction, ever become the promised, clean obedient Israel from whom all the nations will learn instruction.” (Isaiah, NIVAC, 125)

Yahweh is Holy and Israel is Not

Isaiah sees a vision of Yahweh as the thrice-holy God, and this image leaves a deep impression on his entire ministry. The title “Holy One of Israel” becomes one of the prophet’s favorite designations for God (this title appears 26 times in Isaiah and only 5 times in the rest of the OT). Yahweh is holy, but the problem is that Israel, his people are not. In the presence of this holy God, Isaiah becomes aware of his own sinfulness—he is a man of unclean lips. Being in the presence of a holy God as a sinful human is a dangerous thing, and Isaiah sees himself under a sentence of death (“Woe is me”). Rather than God’s presence providing comfort, the smoke and thunder bring terror—on an everyday visit to the Jerusalem Temple, the God of Sinai revealed himself in a powerful and frightening theophany. Even the “seraphim” (lit. “burning ones”) who serve in Yahweh’s presence inspire terror (the word is used elsewhere in the OT to refer to poisonous snakes; see Num 21:6; Deut 8:15; Isa 14:29; 30:6).

Israel is also a sinful people, and their empty worship makes it dangerous for them to enter into Yahweh’s presence (Isa 1:15-18). Yahweh hates their empty prayers and rituals. They are rebellious children who have spurned the Holy One of Israel (Isa 1:2-4). They are a worthless vineyard that has failed to produce the fruit that Yahweh has desired and demanded from them (Isa 5:1-7). Like Isaiah, they are particularly corrupted in their speech, “a people of unclean lips.” Rather than proclaiming God’s holiness, they declare their own sinfulness:

For Jerusalem has stumbled, and Judah has fallen, because their speech and their deeds are against the LORD, defying his glorious presence. For the look on their faces bears witness against them; they proclaim their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! For they have brought evil on themselves. (Isa 3:8-9)

With their words, they defy God to punish them for their sinful behavior:

Woe to those who draw iniquity with cords of falsehood, who draw sin as with cart ropes, who say: "Let him be quick, let him speed his work that we may see it; let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw near, and let it come, that we may know it!" Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! (Isa 5:18-20)

The Cleansing of Isaiah and the Purging of Israel

Isaiah’s unclean lips render him unfit to speak as Yahweh’s messenger, and so a seraph must come with a burning coal to purge and cauterize his lips so that he can respond to Yahweh’s call (Isa 6:6-8). It is only after his cleansing that Isaiah can say, “Here am I! Send me.” Israel was commissioned as a nation to be God’s servant (Isa 41:8-9; 44:1-2; 45:4; 48:20), but its sins also prevented the nation from fulfilling its mission of declaring and reflecting God’s glory to the nations—Israel became a deaf and blind servant (Isa 42:18-22). Because of their sin, Israel cannot be God’s witnesses or declare his praise (cf. Isa 43:10, 21-22) and like Isaiah stands in need of cleansing so that it can fulfill its role as God’s servant. Isaiah immediately recognized his sinfulness while in the presence of Yahweh and instantly received cleansing and purging from Yahweh. Israel’s cleansing will not come so easily because the nation is blind and deaf toward the prophet’s calls to repentance and warnings of judgment (Isa 6:9-10). Yahweh can only cleanse his people through a severe judgment that purges away their dross and corruption (Isa 1:25-31). Israel’s obstinance is such that its judgment requires that its cities be left waste and without inhabitant (Isa 6:11-13).

The purging of Israel in the book of Isaiah is reflected through the transformation of Zion, with the city representing the nation as a whole. Barry Webb has stated that Zion’s transformation “is the key to both the formal and thematic structure of the book of Isaiah.” The Zion of Isaiah’s day had become a city of bloodshed, but Yahweh’s judgment would one day transform the city into a shining beacon of righteousness (Isa 1:21-26). The city that was left like “a hut in a melon field” (Isa 1:8) would one day be exalted as the highest mountain on earth (Isa 2:1-4). Because of God’s grace, the unfaithful harlot (Isa 1:21) would become a pure and holy bride (Isa 62:4). Yahweh would take back Daughter Zion, the wife he sent away with a certificate of divorce, and the barren city would be so filled with inhabitants that her walls could not contain them (Isa 49:14-18; 50:1; 54:1-8; 62:5; 66:6-11).

In the first stage of judgment, God sent the Assyrians as the rod of his anger (Isa 10:5), and Israel as a people was left bloodied and bruised with most of its cities burned with fire (Isa 1:5-8). Israel was left with only a few survivors (Isa 1:9), and even the tenth that remained would be subjected to a further burning (Isa 6:13). When King Hezekiah turned to the Lord for deliverance, Yahweh delivered Jerusalem from the Assyrians (Isa 36-37), but the purging was incomplete. Once the crisis was past, Judah returned to its sinful ways and refuseed to acknowledge Yahweh as its deliverer (Isa 22:1-14—esp. vv. 12-14). And so, the judgment that began with the invasion Assyrian invasion would continue with the exile to Babylon (Isa 39:5-7). Yahweh sent the Babylonian exile as a double punishment for Israel’s sins (Isa 40:2). As the exile came to an end, Yahweh was prepared to blot out Israel’s sin (Isa 43:25) and to wipe them out like a cloud (Isa 44:22). The goal of Yahweh’s judgment of his people all along was restoration, not destruction. With his judgment completed, he would act to remove the blindness that has characterized his failed servant (cf. Isa 29:9-10, 18; 35:5; 42:18-20; 48:8).

Because of Israel’s failure and inability to perform its role as the national servant, Yahweh ultimately completed the work of purging by raising up an individual servant. The individual servant was identified with Israel (49:3) and yet also had a ministry of restoring Israel to all that God intended her to be (Isa 49:6). While Israel was guilty before God and suffering for its own sins (Isa 48:4, 18; 50:1), the individual servant was absolutely faithful to God (Isa 50:4-9) and his suffering on behalf of the sins of others was ultimately what would restore Israel to God (Isa 53:4-6, 10-12). The restorative function of the individual servant’s work is reflected in that every use of the term “servant” after chapter 53 appears in the plural (Isa 54:17; 63:17; 65:8, 9, 13, 14, 15; 66:14). Because of the servant’s work, the Lord’s continual protection and blessing would be the “heritage” of Israel as his “servants” (Isa 54:17).

Like the prophet, the people of Israel would experience restoration and forgiveness when they were willing to acknowledge and confess their sins (Isa 59:12-14; 64:5-9). The people would ultimately come to the same recognition as the prophet on the day that he saw Yahweh in his glory, “We have all become like one who is unclean” (Isa 64:6). The seraph purged Isaiah’s lips, and Yahweh would also act in grace to remove sin from Israel. Yahweh promised that he would heal Israel’s sin (Isa 57:17-18) and when Israel lacked even the ability to return to him, Yahweh would act alone as warrior to rescue his people from their sin (Isa 59:15-20). Yahweh would complete his work of salvation by pouring out his Spirit on Israel so that the people would not return to their sinful ways (Isa 59:21).

Unfortunately, the blessings of Yahweh’s deliverance and the work of the servant would not extend to all of Israel. When returning from exile, Israel would persist in its sins of social injustice (Isa 58:1-14; 59:3-9, 14-15) and pagan worship (Isa 57:3-8; 65:1-7; 66:17) The prophet distinguished between those in Israel who would be Yahweh’s “servants” and those that would persist in their sinful ways and remain under his judgment. For those who disobey, being in the presence of Yahweh would remain a dangerous thing (Isa 66:1-4). Prior to the coming of the eschatological kingdom (“new heavens and earth”), the Lord will carry out a final purging judgment of Israel so that only those who are truly his “servants” will remain (65:8-16; 66: 15-16, 24).

The Proclaiming of Yahweh’s Glory to the Nations

In his initial vision, Isaiah saw that the glory of Yahweh filled the earth (Isa 6:3), and the agenda of his ministry became that Israel and ultimately all peoples would recognize the glory of Yahweh. More than any other book in the Old Testament, the book of Isaiah highlights the participation of the nations in God’s future kingdom, because the blessings of God’s glory were too great to belong to Israel alone.

It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it, and many peoples shall come, and say: "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths." For out of Zion shall go the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore. (Isa 2:2-4)

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar to the LORD at its border. It will be a sign and a witness to the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt. When they cry to the LORD because of oppressors, he will send them a savior and defender, and deliver them. And the LORD will make himself known to the Egyptians, and the Egyptians will know the LORD in that day and worship with sacrifice and offering, and they will make vows to the LORD and perform them. And the LORD will strike Egypt, striking and healing, and they will return to the LORD, and he will listen to their pleas for mercy and heal them. In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and Assyria will come into Egypt, and Egypt into Assyria, and the Egyptians will worship with the Assyrians. In that day Israel will be the third with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, whom the LORD of hosts has blessed, saying, "Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel my inheritance." (Isa 19:19-25)

"Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: 'To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.' (Isa 45:22-23)

Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the LORD has risen upon you. For behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and thick darkness the peoples; but the LORD will arise upon you, and his glory will be seen upon you. And nations shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising. (Isa 60:1-3)

As the restored servant of Yahweh, Israel would become a light to the nations (Isa 49:6), and the book of Isaiah concludes with the survivors of Israel going out to the nations to “declare the glory of the Lord” so that the nations might come to Zion and worship (Isa 66:18-21):

For I know their works and their thoughts, and the time is coming to gather all nations and tongues. And they shall come and shall see my glory, and I will set a sign among them. And from them I will send survivors to the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, who draw the bow, to Tubal and Javan, to the coastlands afar off, that have not heard my fame or seen my glory. And they shall declare my glory among the nations. And they shall bring all your brothers from all the nations as an offering to the LORD, on horses and in chariots and in litters and on mules and on dromedaries, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, says the LORD, just as the Israelites bring their grain offering in a clean vessel to the house of the LORD. And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the LORD.

What God did for Isaiah in his call as prophet is ultimately what he would do for all of Israel. The cleansing of Isaiah so that he might fulfill his mission as Yahweh’s spokesman prefigured how Yahweh would cleans Israel through purging judgment so that Israel might fulfill its role as Yahweh’s servant by proclaiming his glory throughout the earth.

Where Exactly is "Babylon the Great?"

2010-06-28T06:13:00.000-07:00

In recent years, prophecy writers often comment on how the rebuilding of the ancient city of Babylon is a fulfillment of biblical prophecy and a sign of the end times in part because of the prophecies concerning the fall of Babylon the Great in Revelation 17-18 (http://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/28/bible-skeptics-take-note-babylon-is-being-rebuilt-just-as-prophesied/ ). However, the contrasts developed between Babylon and the New Jerusalem in Revelation 17-22 suggest that Babylon is more a theological symbol than a specific geographical location. In his book From Eden to the New Jerusalem, T. Desmond Alexander (p. 176) has noted several specific contrasts between the New Jerusalem vs. Babylon in the closing chapters of Revelation:

1. The chaste bride and wife of the Lord (Rev 21:2, 9) vs. the great harlot (Rev 17:2)
2. Nations walking by her light (Rev 21:24) vs. the corruption and deception of the nations (Rev 17:2; 18:3, 23; 19:2)
3. Glory of nations brought to her (Rev 21:26) vs. luxurious wealth extorted from the nations (Rev 18:12-17)
4. Uncleanness, abomination, and falsehood excluded (Rev 21:27) vs. impurities, abominations, and deception as prominent features (Rev 17:4-5; 18:23).
5. The association with life and healing (Rev 22:1-2) vs. the association with the blood of slaughter (Rev 17:6; 18:24)
6. The water of life and tree of life for the healing of the nations (Rev 21:6; 22:1-2) vs. the wine which makes the nations drunk (Rev 14:8; 17;2; 18:3)
7. The call to enter (Rev 22:14) vs. the call to leave and come out (Rev 18:4)
As Alexander explains, Babylon represents the world in rebellion against God. In the Old Testament, Babylon is the locale where humans unite in their defiance against God by building a city and tower (Gen 11:1-9).

Babylon is the prime example of a tyrannical empire that opposes God and oppresses the people of God (Ps 137; Isa 13-14; Jer 50-51):

“Whereas the New Jerusalem lies in the future and will be a city built by God, Babylon already exists. It is here and now, for it is the great human city built by people who live in defiance of God. As we shall see, the book of Revlation presents us with an important choice. We have to choose between being a citizen of this world’s godless Babylon or a citizen of God’s future New Jerusalem.”

“The Babylon of Revelation is often taken to be a cipher for Rome, the greatest ‘city’ in the first century AD. There is no doubt that Rome is included within the image of Babylon. However, Babylon as a symbol should not be restricted to the capital of the Roman Empire, because it represents and embodies what human beings strive after when separated from God, Babylon is the antithesis of the city that God himself desires to construct upon the earth.” (p. 181)

“In Revelation, the city of Babylon symbolizes humanity’s obsession with wealth and power, which become a substitute for knowing God. History witnesses to the ongoing existence of Babylon, as one nation after another has used its power to grow rich at the expense of others. We live in a world where economic power dominates national and international politics.” (pp. 182-83)

James L . Resseguie, in his recent The Revelation of John: A Narrative Commentary, also recognizes the contrast between Babylon and the new Jerusalem and provides a similar understanding of what Babylon symbolizes and represents in Revelation (p. 35):

"Two cities . . . are symbolic: Babylon and the new Jerusalem. The new Jerusalem is the ideal city, the city of God, the new promised land (21:1-22:5). The other symbolic city, Babylon, is the satanic parody of Jerusalem. Babylon looks like Rome with its seven mountains (17:9); claims to divinity (‘blasphemous names,” 17:3) are plastered over its throne, the scarlet beast. Yet Babylon is more than the imperial city. It is ‘Babylon,’ the ancient city of Israel’s exile and alienation (see Ps 137). It is ‘Sodom,” a symbol of wickedness (Rev 11:8; cf. Gen 19:1-25; Deut 29:22-23; Isaiah 1:9-15; 3:9; Jer 23:14-15), and ‘Egypt’,’ the place of slavery and alienation (Rev 11:8; cf. Exod 5:1-21; Joel 3:19). It is the tower of Babel rising to the heavens staking a claim to be God. Babylon is the archetypal city of this world that seeks to deify itself and to rule supreme. Rome fits the bill--and so does any and every place that makes claims that belong to God alone."

"Babylon and Jerusalem represent the two choices of the Apocalypse. Babylon, the city of this world, the place of exile and alienation for Christians, is the spiritual capital for those who are earthbound, whose point of view is from below (that is, from this world). The earthbound includes not only those outside the church but also those within. Babylon is where the 'inhabitants of the world' dwell and the followers of the beast make their home. Yet Babylon is not only the home of the earth's inhabitants; it is also where Christians live, although it cannot be called their home. In John's world, Christians are exiled to Babylon. Thus, John calls Christians to come out of Babylon in 18:4 and not take part in her sins. Although it is impossible to leave Babylon physically, Christians can leave Babylon figuratively by resisting its norms, values, and believes and by following the Lamb to the new promised land, the new Jersualem.”

We also see a contrast between two cities in Isaiah’s Little Apocalypse (Isa 24-27), a section portraying God’s eschatological judgment of the nations and salvation of his people. The inhabitants of Jerusalem will rejoice in God’s deliverance (Isa 26:1-3; 27:13), and peoples from all nations will gather for a banquet in celebration of the removal of death itself (Isa 25:6-10). In contrast to Jerusalem is the desolate city of the proud that has become a heap and a ruin because of God’s devastating judgment (Isa 24:10-12; 25:1-2, 12; 27:10). Rather than indicating a specific place here, the city stands for the whole world and represents all of the cities of the earth that stand in opposition to God and his rule over them. John Oswalt explains the significance of the city imagery: “The city offers wealth, glamour, excitement, pleasure, intrigue, and power—all the things that humans are prone to sell their souls for. But as mighty and alluring as the city of earth is, a day of harvest is coming when all the fruit will be stripped off and nothing will be left of all the riches that earthlings thought were their own.”

Similarly, the end-time empire in Revelation 17-18 encompasses something much larger than a geographical location and reminds us that the nations of the world are in rebellion against God. Like Rome in the first-century, nations today embody the spirit of Babylon. The danger of restricting “Babylon the Great” to a particular geographical location is that it leads us to ignore the ways in which our nation and culture reflect Babylonian beliefs and values that are contrary to God’s kingdom agenda. One of the prominent features of Babylon the Great is its great wealth (Rev 17:4; 18:11-13), and so the American dream of prosperity and success is the modern reflection of an ancient idolatry. Rather than satisfying our curiosity about end-times events, biblical prophecy is designed to change the way we believe and behave. Rather than giving us a geography lesson, the end-time scenario of the book of Revelation is another reminder to “seek first the kingdom of God” and to “flee Babylon” by refusing to buy into the lies of the prevailing culture around us.

Some Thoughts on Preaching Christ from the Old Testament

2010-06-15T10:10:00.000-07:00

When teaching or preaching the Old Testament as Christians, we have a responsibility to bring Christ into every sermon. Spurgeon explained his preaching method by saying, “I take my text and make a beeline to the cross.” Christian pastors or teachers often bring Christ into the OT in some rather strange ways (allegory, excessive typology, etc.) and not every OT passage is about Christ. Our job is not to make Christ magically appear in every OT text, but we also have not really done our job as preachers unless we explain how Christ relates to every message we preach from the OT. Bringing Christ into the passage is especially a challenge when we preach the OT prophets. It’s easy to see Christ in the “messianic prophecies” like Isaiah 9, 11, 53, 61, etc., but what about Isaiah’s judgment speeches, his calls for justice, or his oracles against the nations?

In exploring how we preach Christ-centered sermons from the OT, Bryan Chappell has explained that the OT points to Christ in four specific ways. First, the OT predicts about Christ (we could look at OT messianic prophecies, messianic psalms, etc). Second, the OT prepares for Christ. OT persons, events, and individuals provide a bridge to Christ (the sacrifices pointing to the need for an ultimate payment for sin and the temple system pointing to God’s ultimate presence with his people in the person of Jesus). The OT also points to dead-ends where Christ becomes the solution and ultimate answer (the failed leadership of Israel; Israel’s inability to keep the law and its other covenantal failures). Third, the OT is a reflection of Christ—God’s calls for love, justice, and his holiness find their perfect reflection in Christ. God’s redemption of Israel from bondage in Egypt or the deliverance of Israel form the Babylonian exile reflect God’s deliverance of his people from sin in Christ. Fourth, the OT points to the results of Christ’s coming and work (the salvation portrayals and announcements of the OT in passages like Isaiah 2:2-4 and 4:2-5 would fit into this category—and thus are not just things that will be true in the future kingdom but are also things that have at least become partial realities in the present in light of the first coming of Christ).

Preaching and teaching Christ from the prophets is more than just throwing in a correlating NT passage as a footnote to your lesson. Many times in the prophets, the text will present a problem; our job is not just to diagnose how that problem infects our lives, churches, or culture but also to show how Christ is the answer to that problem. For example, Isaiah 5:8-30 documents the problems of Judah’s oppression, selfishness, pursuit of pleasure—teaching this passage requires more than just showing how we struggle with these same sins in the present; Christian preaching and teaching must also show how the cross and knowing Christ provide the antidote to this type of living. If we fail to do this, we really are doing nothing more than moralizing about the text. We’re like a doctor who diagnoses a disease but then offers to healing prescription for the malady. We are preaching the law but offering no grace.

Chappell made the point in his message that the only reason sin has any power in our lives is that we love it. Our job as Christian teachers and preachers then is to help people love Christ more than they love sin and to point to the grace of Christ that helps them to break sinful patterns in our lives. The people of the OT followed idols and so do we because we love those things more than we love the Lord. It’s easy to simply use the prophets to catalog and condemn the idols in our lives; the real task is to show people how much Christ has loved them and to produce love for Christ that will ultimately transform the human heart.

Solomon in Kings: Good History and a Great Story

2010-02-23T11:16:00.001-08:00

My previous blog dealt with the historicity of the biblical account of the meeting between Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. We saw that there are credible reasons for looking at 1-2 Kings in the OT as reliable history. In this blog, I'd like to look at another feature of the stories of Solomon in 1 Kings. They are not only reliable history but also highly creative and artistic literature. Robert Chisholm (Interpreting the Historical Books) has observed that rather than "a dry record of bare facts about what happened in the past," the OT historical books contain "exciting and fascinating stories" of a highly literary nature that "read more like a historical novel complete with plot structure and character development" (p. 21). These stories "are historically accthat co urate," but also we should also recognize that they possess "an aesthetic, literary dimension that contributes to their theological development and purpose" (p. 26). The Bible is about real people and real events, but the artistry of biblical narrative rivals the best forms of historical fiction.

The story of Solomon in 1 Kings 1-11 reflects the creativity of biblical narrative. The writer extols the great accomplishments of Solomon but at the same time undermines praise of Solomon with subtle indicators that Solomon's accomplishments weren't so great after all. We could say that the narrator his damning Solomon with lavish praise. An excellent study by J. Daniel Hays ("Has the Narrator Come to Praise Solomon or Bury Him? Narrative Subtlety in 1 Kings 1-11") brings out these aspects of the story. The story of Solomon highlights his successes in chapters 1-10 and relegates the story of his failure and apostasy to chapter 11, but there are numerous ways that the narrator suggests that even Solomon's successes foreshadow his failures. In a sense, the time of Solomon's reign was the best of times for Israel, the time when Israel was closest to being a true empire, but those best of times were also the worst of times. Solomon was truly a "great" king, but mostly he was "great" at not following the Lord.

It is certainly significant that Solomon's greatest accomplishments involve the accumulation of wealth (1 Kgs 10:14), horses and chariots (1 Kgs 10:26), and women (1 Kgs 11:1), the three things specifically forbidden of the Israelite king in Deuteronomy 17:14-20. In his prayer at the dedication of the Temple in 1 Kings 8, Solomon makes 59 specific references to the book of Deuteronomy. He obviously knew its teachings very well, but he ignored the central thing that Deuteronomy had to say to him as Israel's ruler. Solomon was a wise man who collected proverbs and songs, but he was also a foolish man who collected wives and concubines.

There is something troubling about Solomon's rule from the very beginning. Unlike with Saul and David, there is no indication that the Lord specifically chose Solomon to be the ruler over Israel. David, Nathan, Zadok, Bathsheba, Benaiah, Adonijah, Joab, Abiathar, Abishag are all involved in the intrigues and politics of violence and sex that ultimately place Solomon on the throne, but the missing character in all of this is Yahweh himself. The prophet Nathan speaks but not on behalf of Yahweh. The Lord is obviously involved in the process that leads to Solomon's accession to the throne, but it is never explicitly stated that Yahweh chose him for the job.

Nothing could be more positive that Solomon recognition of his need for God's help at the beginning of his reign (1 Kings 3:1-15), and it is certainly praiseworthy that he chooses the attribute of wisdom over riches and wealth. In requesting wisdom from God, Solomon literally requests that God give him a "hearing heart" (Heb. leb + shema`) so that he might know the difference between "good" (Heb. tob) and "evil" (Heb. ra`) (1 Kgs 3:9). This request is exactly what the king should ask for, but the larger story of Solomon seems to stress that Solomon's commitment to this quality was rather half-hearted. The story begins with Solomon "loving" Yahweh (1 Kgs 3:1), but it ends with him "loving" foreign women (1 Kgs 11:1). The word "heart" appears three times in 1 Kings 11:4 to speak of Solomon's defection away from the Lord, and Solomon fails by doing what is "evil" (ra`) in the eyes of the Lord (1 Kgs 11:6). Solomon's prayer at first blush appears to be an act of great piety, but in fact, Yahweh's answer to this prayer highlights more the culpability of Solomon's failure and apostasy. God gave Solomon everything he needed to be a great ruler, but Solomon was ultimately more interested in other things, the trappings of wealth and power that he appears to eschew at the beginning of his reign. Solomon's apostasy was more a gradual decline than the moral equivalent of falling off a cliff.

Solomon's resolution of the dispute between the two women over who was the mother of the living child in 1 Kings 3:16-28 is a prime example of Solomon's wisdom and his concern for justice. However, there is something wrong about the fact that both of these women are prostitutes. Prostitution was an "abomination" in God's eyes (cf. Deut 23:18), and yet these women brazenly enter the king's presence without fear of retribution. It suggests something of the moral decay that becomes evident in Solomon's own life. The metaphorical use of prostitution (Hebrew zanah) elsewhere in the OT also suggests that this scene foreshadows the religious apostasy that Solomon himself will later create because of his worship of foreign gods.

1 Kings 4-5 narrates Solomon's administrative and organizational accomplishments in which he establishes a powerful royal bureaucracy, but the irony is that Solomon has become precisely the type of king that Samuel had warned the people about when they had first asked for a king in 1 Samuel 8. Solomon establishes an empire, but conscripts large numbers of the people into his army and work forces. The royal bureaucracy demands exorbitant provisions of food that must come from the land and labor of the people (1 Kgs 4:7, 23). Even though the people enjoy food, drink, and security (1 Kgs 4:20, 25), it comes at the cost of heavy taxation (1 Kgs 4:22-23; 1 Kgs 4:27-28).

Solomon's great accomplishment was building the temple, but even that accomplishment is tainted. There is no mention that Solomon ever pays the workers who labored to construct the Temple, in contrast to Josiah's later action when he commissions repairs on the temple (see 2 Kgs 22:3-7). The reference to the exodus in 1 Kings 6:1 in the context of forced labor makes Solomon appear like the Pharaoh in oppressing the Israelites to build this great house of worship for the Lord. The Temple is an impressive structure, and Solomon seems to exult in the fact that he is the one who has built the temple (cf. 1 Kgs 8:13, 20, 27, 43-44, 48). Solomon takes seven years to build the Temple, but 13 years to build his own house (1 Kgs 6:38-7:1). Throughout the rest of Kings, Solomon's great Temple is going to be systematically dismantled because of the apostasy of king and people (see 1 Kgs 14:26; 2 Kgs 16:17; 2 Kgs 18:16; 2 Kgs 25:9, 13-17).

The visit of the Queen of Sheba to recognize and honor Solomon perhaps represents the pinnacle of Solomon's international acclaim. This scene represents in some sense what God designed for Israel when he chose them to be a "holy nation" and "kingdom of priests." Israel was to mediate God's blessing to all other nations, and God designed that the nations would come to inquire of Israel concerning their God when they saw the great blessing that God bestowed on Israel for obedience to his covenant commands. However, when the Queen of Sheba sees the splendor of Solomon's palace, she comments only about the happiness that his reign brings upon those who live in the palace with him (1 Kgs 10:8). Her ironic comment about "justice and righteousness" in 1 Kings 10:9 perhaps implies that those qualities have disappeared from Israel during Solomon's reign.

Helping people to see the artistry of biblical narratives is one of the ways that we can help the Old Testament to come alive for modern audience. Biblical illiteracy is one of the serious problems in our churches today, and even people who know these stories may have never deeply reflected on their meaning and significance for their lives. The artistry of biblical stories ultimately point us to their theological message and their relevance for Christian living today. Even before Solomon's great apostasy in chapter 11, there are evidences of moral failure and spiritual neglect. And Solomon's life continues to remind us of the great differences that often exist between human achievement and success in the eyes of God.

If you would like to see further development of these features of the story of Solomon, please see J. Daniel Hays, "Has the Narrator Come to Praise Solomon or Bury Him? Narrative Subtlety in 1 Kings 1-11" Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 28 (2003): 149-174.

The Queen of Sheba and the Historicity of the Books of Kings

2010-02-20T08:23:00.001-08:00

I read an interesting discussion of the story of the Queen of Sheba (see 1 Kings 10) this week in Jens Braun Kofoed's 2005 work Text and History: Historiography and the Study of the Biblical Text. Kofoed notes some of the rather fanciful legends that exist about the Queen of Sheba in Arabia, Persia, Ethiopia, and Israel. Arabian folklore and the Qur'an relate stories about the queen (named Bilquis or Balkis) that involve magic carpets, talking birds, and the magical transfer of the queen's throne from Sheba to Solomon's palace. In one legend, a hoopoe bird tells Solomon about Balkis and then delivers a message to the queen that Solomon will destroy her people if she does not come to visit him. In another, the queen has a foot shaped like an ass's foot that is transformed into a human foot the moment she stepped on Solomon's glass floor. Solomon invents a depilatory that removes goat hair from the queen's legs in another tale. A Jewish legend recounts that the queen sent Solomon six thousand boys and girls all born the same hour, the same day, the same month and same year, all of equal size and dressed in identical purple garments. Islamic legends portray the queen as marrying Solomon, abandoning her gods, and converting to faith in the God of Israel. In the Ethiopic national epic, Kebra Negast, the queen's name is Makeda. She became queen at the age of 15 and later travels to visit King Solomon in Jerusalem. While she is there, Solomon dazzles her with his wisdom and also tricks her into having sexual relations. The queen conceives and gives birth to a son named Menelik. When he is old enough, Menelik travels to Jerusalem to meet his father. Solomon commanded that the firstborn sons of the priests and elders of Israel accompany Menelik on his journey back home. However, Menelik and Azariah, the son of the high priest, stole the Ark of the Covenant from the Temple and took it with them on the trip, making Aksum the New Jerusalem and Ethiopia the New Israel. You can read more about these legends and tales about the Queen of Sheba at http://www.windweaver.com/sheba/Shebahome.htm

It was common for scholars in the 19^th and 20^th centuries to also dismiss the biblical account of the Queen of Sheba's visit to Solomon as legendary propaganda designed to praise the greatness of Solomon's wisdom and piety. However, extra-biblical evidence has actually served to enhance at the very least the historical plausibility of this story. Though many of the legends connect this queen to ancient Ethiopia, she more likely resided in the country of Saba, in southwest Arabia (present-day Yemen). Studies by Kenneth Kitchen have demonstrated that the kingdom of Saba was well-established by the tenth-century B.C. and engaged in a lucrative caravan trade. The "incense route" extended from Saba to the Levant and across to Mesopotamia. The inscriptions of Ashurbanipal II and Tikulti-Ninurta II from the 9^th century BC refer to these Assyrian kings collected tribute at Hindanu, a main outlet along this caravan road, and an 8^th century record documents how a caravan with at least two hundred camels coming from Saba was plundered at this site. Kofoed concludes: "It is highly likely, therefore, that by 1000 B.C.E. camel caravans occasionally traveled the 1,400 miles up the 'Incense Road' and along the Red Sea to Israel, bringing with them the highly prized goods of Saba." All of this adds credibility to the biblical account that a queen from Saba could and would have visited Solomon for diplomatic purposes in this time period.

Even more significantly, the final form of Kings was not written until at least the middle of the exile in the 6^th century (note the last event recorded in 2 Kings 25:27-30), and Kofoed notes that many scholars believe that the author of Kings wrote in the Hellenistic or Persian times. If so, it is all the more remarkable that the writer(s) of the material in Kings got it right when they placed trade relations between Saba and Israel in the 10^th century. It was either "just a lucky stab" or more likely that the biblical writers had access to reliable historical sources and traditions from the time of Solomon's reign. Kofoed notes other places where the writer of Kings got it right in regard to specific details about historical events that are confirmed by outside sources like the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions and the Babylonian Chronicle. This evidence that the writer of Kings used reliable sources in compiling his history means that "a basic trust in his historical information, therefore, is heuristically defensible and commendable—not only when we can check the information elsewhere, but generally." The minimalists have tended to view the biblical portrayal of the Davidic-Solomonic empire as a literary fiction, but here is another example of how solid and credible evidence does not require or support that conclusion.

The Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary

2010-02-07T20:03:00.001-08:00

The 5 volumes of the recently-released Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary for the Old Testament is a wonderful reference tool that I would highly recommend to anyone involved in studying and teaching the Old Testament. Understanding the historical background and cultural context of a biblical passage is an important aspect of good exegesis. I often hear people defend their understanding of a passage as "the most natural reading of a text," but often without realizing that the meanings that we assign to text from our setting and context may not be the same as that of the biblical writer and his original audience. I have included some examples of the types of information found in this commentary from the two volumes dealing with the Old Testament prophets. I hope these examples will demonstrate how the careful and informed use of background information can help us to arrive at a better understanding of the difficult imagery and speech forms found in the Old Testament prophets.

Yahweh's Promise to "Swallow" Death in Isaiah 25:7-8

This image of Yahweh swallowing death serves as polemic against the conception of "Death" as a deity in other ancient Near Eastern religions. David Baker comments:

Death (mwt) was a god, and there is evidence of its personification in the ancient Near East as well (Ps 49:14). In Akkadian literature, death (mutu) eats people, since one person says, "He took me out of the mouth of death." The Canaanite god Mot devours others voraciously, including his fellow god, Baal, the god of fertility. Of him it says, "Baal will enter his innards (lit. 'liver'); he will enter his mouth like a shriveled olive." This devouring is a cyclical event, happening in the fall, which leads to the "death" of winter. In the spring Baal is released from the netherworld. For Isaiah the tables will be turned; death rather than devouring, will be devoured by Israel's god."

This background information helps the Isaiah passage come to life. The prophet is promising both the destruction of death (see the connection of these two ideas in Isaiah 26:12-19). The pagan worldview was essentially a hopeless one where death wins and swallows up everything in its path. One Canaanite text pictures Mot the god of death with one lip to the earth and one to the heavens. The Old Testament counters this dark reality with the promise that Yahweh will ultimately overcome death's power—the great swallower will be swallowed up. Paul references this passage from Isaiah when he taunts death at the end of 1 Corinthians 15 in celebration of the Christian hope that comes through the resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor 15:54-56).

Ezekiel 38: The Identity of Gog of the land of Magog

Ezekiel 38 portrays the future defeat of a powerful army led by Gog from the land of Magog that will invade and attack the land of Israel. The identity of this army has been a subject of speculation throughout church history. The army and/or its leader has been variously identified as the Goths (4^th cent), Arabs (7^th cent), the Mongol hordes (13^th cent), the Pope or the Turks (17^th cent), Russia (20^th cent), and an Islamic-coalition of nations. Several features of the passage when seen from its ancient Near Eastern background would argue against trying to identify the army with specific peoples or nations. The name Gog for the leader of this coalition seems to derive from Gyges, the name of the king of Lydia in Asia Minor (668-631 B.C.). This king is mentioned in several Assyrian inscriptions and had a legendary reputation of brutality. Thus, this king from the time of Ezekiel becomes representative of the future leader of the coalition that will invade Israel. I would see Daniel using a similar convention when he compares the future Antichrist to Antiochus Epiphanes IV in Daniel 11 and John when he draws a parallel between Nero and Antichrist in John 13. There is no indication that Gyges ever actually attacked the land of Israel. The seven nations that are part of Gog's coalition are real nations mentioned as trading partners of Tyre (Ezekiel 26) or recorded in the Table of Nations in Genesis 10 (cf. Gen 10:2). These seven nations represent peoples that surround Israel from all points of the compass. Meschech, Tubal, Gomer, and Beth-Togarmah represent the northern extreme of the world known to Israel, while Persia, Cush, and Put represent the eastern and southern extreme. The correct interpretation of the passage is to recognize these seven nations as representative of peoples from all the nations what will join in the future attack on Isarel and not to identify these seven ancient peoples with the specific geopolitical entities that occupy the same territories today. This international coalition will be led by a Gog-like figure, but not necessarily a leader who originates from the same geographical location as Gyges of Lydia.

Daniel Bodi's commentary in the ZIBBC notes a parallel between Ezekiel 38 and the Old Babylonian Cuthean Legend that was popular in the Neo-Assyrian period. In this text, an invading horde from the north (and specifically Anatolia) is set apart by the gods. The army goes out on a long march of plunder and devastation and is led by several prices under the supreme command of one of them. The leader of the army is identified by a historical royal name but without any specific connection to actual historical events associated with that ruler. Thus, Ezekiel is using a literary convention to portray an actual prophetic event—the eschatological assault on Israel by the nations (for other descriptions of an eschatological battle, see Mic 5:5-9; Zeph 3:8-9; Zech 12:1-9; Zech 14:1-5; Zech 14:1-5, 12-15; Rev 16; Rev 19 ) but is not giving a detailed list of the actual nations in the attack—they are merely representative of the unidentified army of the future.

Bodi points to one other feature that would seem to indicate the representative nature of the enemy portrayed in Ezekiel 38. The name Magog for the land of Gog is perhaps an atbash, a type of ancient code, for the nation of Babylon. In this atbash, each letter of the Hebrew alphabet is replaced by the preceding one and thus, the letters m-g-g if read backward thus render b-b-l (or Babel, Babylon). It would have been dangerous for Ezekiel when prophesying in Babylon to have directly mentioned Babylon by name, but this code is perhaps a way of portraying the future invasion of the nations against Israel as a reversal of the Babylonian exile. We see similar atbash code names for Babylon in Jeremiah 25:11 and 51:1. Babylon will once again at some time in the distant future lead a powerful army against Israel, but God will use this invasion to destroy Babylon and those that oppress and oppose his people. We see Babylon as the leader of the forces against God and his people in Revelation 13-18 as well, and again, the intent is not to identify Babylon as the geographical location of the nation that opposes God but to use Babylon as representative of the peoples from all nations who stand against God and his purposes.

The purpose of prophetic revelation is not to give us specific and minute details about the future in order to satisfy our curiosity but rather to give us the big picture of God's plans for the future in a way that ultimately assures us of the triumph of God and his people over all opposition. Understanding the ancient context of Ezekiel's vision helps us to better understand the original intent and design of this passage.

The "sun turning to darkness and the moon to blood" in Joel 2:28-32

In this passage, the Lord promises to pour out his Spirit in the last days and also promises that the "sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood" (2:31). This astral phenomena is connected to blood, fire, and smoke on the earth in 2:30. We have another example of how ancient Near Eastern background helps us to understand this imagery and to avoid reading in a literalistic manner that violates the likely intended meaning of the original author. Mark Chavalas explains:

This passage is no doubt describing an eclipse, which was usually considered an evil omen in Mesopotamian society, often bringing disaster, specifically to the nation or the king. In fact, Mesopotamian kings sometimes "abdicated" their throne and had another "sit on the throne" until the eclipse (and bad omen) was over. In effect, it was hoped that the substitute king, not the true king, would thus endure the hardships associated with the eclipse.

Celestial observations were especially important to the kings of the Neo-Assyrian empires, and solar eclipses were particularly viewed as a good omen for the king and a bad one for his enemies. Even the time and color of the eclipse were important to the meaning and significance of the omen. One text specifies that the eclipse indicated a coming locust plague if it was red on the west side and rode the south wind. If the eclipse occurred on the 28^th day of Iyyar, the king would have a long and prosperous reign.

Thus, the meaning of the Joel prophecy seems clear. The prophet promises that the last days will be a time of great blessing as Yahweh pours out his spirit so that all of his people will dream dreams and see visions. However, this eschatological blessing will be accompanied by a time of catastrophic time of judgment on Yahweh's enemies in which celestial signs reflect the doom that is to come upon the earth. We see this idea in the New Testament fulfillment of this passage. Peter views the pouring out of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost as the fulfillment of the promise in Joel 2 (cf. Acts 2:17-21), but this blessing is also accompanied by catastrophic judgment. The cataclysmic language of Joel 2 also appears to refer to the even greater and more intense eschatological judgment that will befall the earth in connection with the second coming of Christ (see Matt 24:29; Rev 6:12-14; 8:14).

Isaiah’s New Creation and the Gospel

2010-02-06T09:28:00.001-08:00

We were privileged to have Dr. Darrell Bock, Research Professor of New Testament and Professor for Spiritual Development and Culture at Dallas Seminary, as a visiting lecturer at Liberty University this past week. In his lecture to the seminary students and faculty, Bock discussed the issues surrounding the New Perspectives on Paul and particularly the debate over justification between N.T. Wright and John Piper. In agreement with Wright, Bock argued that justification is primarily a legal and forensic term where the believer is declared to be "righteous" in God's law court, in contrast to Piper's view that justification involves the moral imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer. Bock believes that the moral imputation of righteousness has more to do with sanctification and the Spirit's work in the life of the believer than the act of justification itself. Bock also stated that he believed the weakness of Wright's position in the debate is that he has not properly developed the role of the Spirit in the working out of salvation. More important than the critique of Wright and Piper was Bock's discussion of the nature of the Gospel itself. Bock stressed that we have diminished the gospel message by reducing salvation to a transaction that delivers us from the death penalty of sin and the punishment of hell. In Bock's words, "what jazzed Paul about the Gospel" is the promise that God has accepted us by his grace and that graces changes us into a new creation, indwelled and empowered by the Spirit to reflect Christ in the way that we live our lives (cf. Rom 1:16; 2 Cor 5:16-20). More than simply saving us from hell, the Gospel is that we have new life in Christ.

Paul's use of new creation imagery from the Old Testament reflects the radical nature of this new life given to us in Christ. The Old Testament prophets often present the kingdom era as a time of restoration for Israel. God would restore Israel to their land so that they would enjoy the covenant promises under the rule of a righteous Davidic king (Messiah). At other times, the prophets' view of the future transcends the present order and envisions nothing less than the creation of new heavens and new earth. We find one such vision in Isaiah 65:17-25:

For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind. But be glad and rejoice forever in that which I create; for behold, I create Jerusalem to be a joy, and her people to be a gladness. I will rejoice in Jerusalem and be glad in my people; no more shall be heard in it the sound of weeping and the cry of distress. No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not fill out his days, for the young man shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed They shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. They shall not build and another inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat; for like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be, and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labor in vain or bear children for calamity,for they shall be the offspring of the blessed of the LORD, and their descendants with them. Before they call I will answer; while they are yet speaking I will hear. The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain," says the LORD.

We see echoes of this new creation imagery throughout the book of Isaiah (cf. Isa 32:14-18; Isa 41:18-19; Isa 55:12-13; Isa 66:22-23). Nothing could more stress the transformative power of the Gospel than Paul's use of the imagery of New Creation to describe for us what God has done for us in Christ. In his New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ, Thomas Schreiner reflects in several places on the fact that the new creation promised in Isaiah has dawned in Christ.

Those who are in Christ Jesus are now a new creation (2 Cor 5:17). …. The new creation is tied to the promise of "the new self" (Eph 4:24), and this new person represents what believers are in Christ instead of what they are in Adam (Rom 5:12-19; 1 Cor 15:21-22). Believers are a new creation in Christ Jesus and created by God to do good works (Eph 2:10). The 'new creation' language fits with the theme that believers have been regenerated, which is the work of the eschatological Spirit (cf. Titus 3:5) [cf. Isa 44:3; Ezek 11:18-19; Ezek 36:26-27; Joel 2:28] (p. 31).

Because believers are in Christ, they are a new creation (2 Cor 5:17; cf. Eph 2:10) and "sons of God" (Gal 3:26), and they enjoy the blessings of Abraham (Gal 3:14). In other words, being in Christ is an eschatological reality, signifying that God's covenantal promises are theirs. Because of believers' union with Christ, there is "no condemnation" (Rom 8:1), and they are sanctified (1 Cor 1:2). By virtue of union with Christ believers enjoy the righteousness of God (2 Cor 5:21; cf. Phil 3:9). They have been freed from the power of sin and death because they are united with Christ (1 Cor 1:4), so that they are complete in Christ (Col 2:10) (pp. 316-17).

The new creation is not merely personal and individual but also corporate because God has created a new humanity where the distinction between Jew and Gentile is done away in the body of Christ (cf. Gal 6:15; Eph 2:11-15). In reading the New Testament, we see that Isaiah's promise of a new creation is in fact a "pattern prophecy" fulfilled in successive stages. The new age has arrived (Gal 1:4), but overlaps with the present evil age and is awaiting a final consummation. Schreiner again explains: "Christians live in, so to speak, the 'twilight zone' for they have experienced the saving power of the age to come, and yet they still reside in the present evil age. Even now, Jesus reigns, but the consummation of his rule and the destruction of every enemy has not yet occurred (Eph 1:21; 1 Cor 15:26-28)." (pp. 98-99). The new creation has arrived, but believers await their full redemption from sin and death. The creation itself groans in anticipation of its own redemption (Rom 8:19-22) that will come at the climax of redemptive history when the new Jerusalem comes down out of heaven (Rev 21:1-4).

I appreciated Dr. Bock's reminder of the real message of the Gospel and our tendency to make it something far less than it really is. Salvation is more than a transaction, and the Gospel is an invitation to live the new life that God has made possible through our becoming a new creation in Christ. It is impossible to truly believe this message about Jesus and not be changed. Even more importantly, the theme of new creation reminds us of the cosmic significance of the Gospel and that the message of Christ crucified, buried, and risen again is the only real hope for our fallen world.

John Walton and The Lost World of Genesis 1

2010-01-17T22:01:00.001-08:00

One of the benefits of Christmas break is the opportunity to catch up on some reading, and yes, I do feel sympathy for students who have little or no time to read they would like rather than what their professors have assigned. I had the opportunity this past week to complete John Walton's new book, The Lost World of Genesis One. The purpose of this essay is not to critically review or to endorse Walton's interpretation but merely to summarize some of the key concepts for those who are interested in the conversation (and controversy) that the book has generated.

Walton uses 18 propositions to develop two key ideas. First, Genesis 1 is an ancient document reflecting an ancient cosmology and that modern scientific theories about the origins of the universe, whether they be creationism or evolution, should not be read into the text. Second, Genesis 1 is not describing the material creation of the universe but rather is an account of the functional origins of the world. More specifically, the world is given its functions as God's temple, where God has taken up residence and from where he rules the cosmos.

Walton would have the reader see that much of the modern debate over Genesis 1 concerning how God created the world or the age of the earth is an attempt to use Genesis to answer questions that are foreign to the text itself. Genesis 1 "does not attempt to describe cosmology in modern terms or address modern questions. The Israelites received no revelation to update or modify their 'scientific' understanding of the cosmos." Like other ancient peoples, they understood the sky to be a material substance able to support the residence of the deity and to hold back the waters above the earth. They viewed the earth as resting on pillars. God revealed truth through the creation account, but the purpose of the creation account was not to give ancient Israel advanced cosmological understanding. Genesis 1 was not designed to address how God's creative activity relates to the natural world or the natural processes that stand behind creation.

All of these are modern issues imposed on the text and not the issue in the culture of the ancient world. We cannot expect the text to address them, nor can we configure the information of the text to force it to comply with the questions we long to have answered. We must take the text on its own terms—it is not written to us. Much to our dismay then, we will find that the text is impervious to many of the questions that consume us in today's dialogues. (p. 21)

As we begin our study of Genesis 1 then, we must be aware of the danger that lurks when we impose our own cultural ideas on the text without thinking. The Bible's message must not be subjected to cultural imperialism. Its message transcends the culture in which it originated, but the form in which the message was imbedded was fully permeated by the ancient culture." … we must respect the integrity of the author by refraining from replacing his message with our own. (p .21)

We should not worry about the question of 'truth' with regard to the Bible's use of Old World science. As we mentioned before, some scientific framework needs to be adopted, and all scientific frameworks are dynamic and subject to change. Adoption of the framework of the target audience is most logical. The Old World science found in the Bible would not be considered 'wrong' or 'false' as much as it would just offer a different perspective from a different vantage point. (p. 61)

God did not give Israel a revised cosmic geography—he revealed his Creator role through the cosmic geography that they had because the shape of the material world did not matter. (pp. 61-62)

Concordist interpretations attempt to read details of physics, biology, geology, and so on into the biblical text. This is a repudiation of reading the text at face value. Such interpretation does not represent in any way what the biblical author would have intended or what the audience would have understood. Instead it gives modern meaning to ancient words." (pp. 104-05)

The theology of Genesis 1 is built around the idea that the cosmos serves as God's temple. Walton demonstrates how the ancient Near Eastern concepts of the temple as a microcosm of creation and the cosmos as a temple are reflected in the Hebrew Bible (cf. Isa 66:1-2; 1 Kgs 8:27). The glory of the Lord that fills the earth (Isa 6:3) is also the glory that takes up residence at the sanctuary in Israel (cf. Exod 40:34). Various objects in the temple and tabernacle represent various aspects of creation (1 Kgs 7:23-26—the basin as sea; 1 Kgs 7:15-22—the bronze pillars; the veil separating the heavens and earth). The Garden of Eden represents a temple (cf. the waters flowing through Eden in Gen 2:13-14 and the waters that flow from the temple in Ezek 47:1-12; Ps 46:4; Zech 14:8; Rev 22:1-2). For further development of the cosmic symbolism, I would also recommend chapter 2 of G. K. Beale's work, The Temple and the Church's Mission.

Genesis 1 can now be seen as a creation account focusing on the cosmos as a temple. It is describing the creation of the cosmic temple with all its functions and God dwelling in its midst. This is what makes day seven so significant, because without God taking up his dwelling in its midst, the (cosmic) temple does not exist. The most central truth to the creation account is that this world is a place for God's presence. (pp. 84-85)

The idea of the cosmos as a temple has profound implications. "Once we turn our thinking away from 'natural world' to 'cosmic temple' our perspective about the world around us is revolutionized." We are no longer able to look at the world from a secular perspective. All of live is sacred and lived in God's presence. Even the most mundane activities of life become acts of worship. God's presence is "the defining element of existence." We also have a sacred responsibility to protect and take care of the earth.

The cosmos as temple also impacts Walton's understanding of the significance of the seven days in Genesis 1. The number seven is pervasive in temple accounts from the ancient world, and thus the seven-day structure of Genesis 1 is related to the idea of temple building and inauguration ceremonies for a temple. The seven days of Genesis 1 thus have no bearing on the age of the universe (whether read as literal days or long eons of time):

… it is evident that the nature of the days takes on a much less significant role than has normally been the case in the views that focus on material creation, in that they no longer have any connection to the material age of the earth." (p. 91)

… the seven days are not given as the period of the time over which the material cosmos came into existence, but the period of time devoted to the inauguration of the functions of the cosmic temple, and perhaps also its annual reenactment. It is not the material phase of temple construction that represents the creation of the temple; it is the inauguration of the functions and the entrance of the presence of of God to take up his rest that creates the temple. Genesis 1 focuses on the creation of the (cosmic) temple, not the material phase of that preparation." (p. 92)

If the seven days refer to the seven days of cosmic temple inauguration, days that concern origins of functions not material, then the seven days and Genesis 1 as a whole have nothing to contribute to the discussion of the age of the earth. This is not a conclusion designed to accommodate science—it was drawn from an analysis and interpretation of the biblical text of Genesis in its ancient environment. The point not that the biblical text therefore supports an old earth, but simply that there is no biblical position on the age of the earth. If it were turn out that the earth is young, so be it. But most people seek to defend a young-earth view do so because they believe that the Bible obligates them to such a defense. I admire the fact that believers are willing to take unpopular positions and investigate all sorts of alternatives in an attempt to defend the reputation of the biblical text. But, if the biblical text does not demand a young earth there would be little impetus or evidence to support such a position. (p. 95)

Walton's intent in this work is to allow the text of Genesis to speak for itself on its own terms. He writes, "The interpretation set forth in this book arose out of my desire to fully understand the biblical text." His purpose is not to argue for evolution or any other particular view of how God created the material world, though Walton is certainly open to evolutionary thought in ways that will be uncomfortable to many conservative Christians.

According to the interpretation offered in this book, the Bible does not tell us [how the world was created] , so we are left to figure it out as best we can with the intellectual capacity and other tools that God gave us. But the material world was created by him. (p. 169)

I am not suggesting a wholesale adoption of evolution, merely suggesting that neither Genesis 1 specifically not biblical theology in general give us any reason to reject it as a model as long as we see God as involved at every level and remain aware of our theological convictions." (p. 137)

Evolution represents the current scientific consensus to explain the many observations that have been made in paleontology, genetics, zoology, biochemistry, ecology and so on. The question is how much of what is involved in biological evolution runs counter to what I understand to be biblical claims and theological reality. In the interpretation of the text that I have offered, very little found in evolutionary theory would be objectionable, though certainly some of the metaphysical claims of evolution remain unacceptable. (p. 170)

Walton seems open to the idea that Adam and Eve could be understood "corporately as the first humans, not a single original human pair" (p. 139), but his explanation of how this could reconcile with Romans 5 and the Adam/Christ headship issue is not clear. Fossil homo specimens would be part of the prefunctional cosmos and would not be viewed neither as human in the image of God nor as moral beings responsible before God. Death existed prior to the Fall (and was thus potentially part of the evolutionary process), and the only consequence of the Fall was that death was passed on to human beings (cf. Rom 5:12). Walton briefly discusses the issue of origins in public education, arguing that Christians should focus on demanding that metaphysical naturalism, a matter of belief rather than science, not be bundled together with the teaching of evolution," rather than trying to promote the teaching of young-earth creationism or Intelligent Design in the classroom (p. 165).

Whether one agrees with Walton's interpretation or not, his caution we must not allow modern agendas attached to the issues of origins to prevent us from hearing the theological message of Genesis 1 is an important reminder. From an apologetics standpoint, Walton's work also helps us to see that defending a theistic worldview is far more important than defending a particular view on how God might have created the material world.

Why Israel Means Israel, Part 3

2010-01-16T09:13:00.001-08:00

The two previous blogs on this topic have set forth the biblical support for the belief that there is a future for the people and nation of Israel. I would like to address one final topic related to this issue—how does the future Israel promised in the Bible relate to the present nation of Israel? I believe it is clear from Scripture that we must be careful to distinguish between the restored Israel of the Bible and the modern state of Israel that exists today. The secular state of Israel today does not meet the criteria for the restored people promised in Scripture. Israel's restoration is conditioned upon national repentance and recognition of Jesus as Messiah (cf. Deut 30:1-5; Zech 12:10-14; Acts 3:19-22). The Lord's new covenant blessings for Israel include empowerment for Israel to fully obey the Lord's commands so that they will never again forfeit the Promised Land (Deut 30:6-9; Jer 31:31-34; Ezek 36:26-29). The ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict demonstrates how far present conditions fall short of the future envisioned by Ezekiel where the Jews will share their land with sojourners and treat them as "native-born children of Israel" (Ezek 47:22). Stanley Ellisen comments: "Judged on biblical grounds, the nation today does not pass divine muster. The promise of the land is directly tied to the nation's response to Messiah. Though her international right to the land can be well defended, her divine right by covenant has only sentiment in its favor." The prophetic promises concerning the restoration of Israel will only become reality when Israel has returned to the Lord and recognized her Messiah. Israel's divine right to retain the Promised Land and to enjoy the blessings of the land hinges on her obedience to the Lord.

And yet, while we do not know the future and what will happen to modern Israel, the formation of Israel as a nation would seem to be the beginning of her ultimate restoration. Merrill comments: "If the present nation of Israel isn't the nation to come, it's the foundation for it. The account of the valley of dry bones in Ezekiel 37 describes Jews who are alive physically but not spiritually. The text says they will come to life as a miraculous act of God. We've got the bones—we just need the Spirit." The prophecy against Gog in Ezekiel 38 envisions a powerful army of seven nations attacking Israel in the last days ("the latter years") when Israel is dwelling securely in the land (cf. Ezek 38:8-11). However, the prophet Zechariah also envisions this assault of the nations as a purging judgment on the people of Israel themselves (Zech 12:2; Zech 14:2). We also see the idea of the purging of Israel in the land as preparation for the coming of Christ in Matthew 24:15-22. The fulfillment of these prophecies requires a physical return of Israel to the Lord prior to Israel's full and complete restoration to the Lord. Thus, the return of Israel to the land in 1948 has potentially set the stage for the fulfillment of what is envisioned by the OT prophets in the last days.

We can only say "potentially," because we do not know the future and the specifics of how God will ultimately restore his people. Church history reflects the poor track record of Christians who have tried to predict the future with their Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other. No one could have predicted the history of the Jewish people over the past 2000 years, and we engage in fruitless speculation when we go beyond what Scripture unfolds for us about the future. At the same time, the endurance and preservation of the Jewish people is confirmation of God's faithfulness and testimony to the fact that Israel has a role to play in the consummation of salvation history. A number of years ago, novelist Walker Percy explained that he was Catholic in large part because of how God's preservation of the Jewish people. Percy wrote:

Why does no one find it remarkable that in most world cities today there are Jews but no one single Hittite even though the Hittites had a great flourishing civilization while the Jews nearby were a weak and obscure people? When one meets a Jew in New York or New Orleans or Paris or Melbourne, it is remarkable that no one considers the event remarkable. What are they doing here? But it is even more remarkable to wonder, if there are Jews here, why are there not Hittites here? Where are the Hittites? Show me one Hittite in New York City.

The continuation of the Jewish people and the presence of the modern state are a major reason why biblical scholarship has more and more questioned the idea of supercessionism and come to realize that God has a future for Israel and that the promises to Israel are not merely to be read in a figurative and spiritual manner.

Recognition that God has a future for Israel does not mean that we endorse every action of the nation of Israel today. Mark Bailey, the president of Dallas Theological Seminary, observes that we have often allowed our theological discussion of the place of Israel in Scripture to be "hijacked by the contemporary political conflicts in the Middle East." Any form of political militancy either for or against Israel is incompatible with the Christian faith and the ethic of Scripture.

Recognition of God's special purposes for Israel should also not lead us to look down upon Arabs as our enemies. Christians have a responsibility to be peacemakers and to help to overcome the prejudices that equate Arab peoples with militant forms of Islam. In his book, Arabs in the Shadow of Israel, Dr. Tony Maalouf reminds us that the Bible has special promises of blessing for Ishmael and his descendants. God preserves the life of Hagar and Ishmael in one of the most touching scenes in all of the Old Testament (cf. Gen 21:14-19). Ishmael was circumcised as a member of the covenant community (Gen 17:25-26) and was also extended specific national blessings in addition to the ones given to Isaac and his descendants (cf. Gen 21:13, 18). The divine pronouncement that Ishmael would be "a wild donkey of a man" and that "his hand will be against everyone" (Gen 16:12) is not intended as a curse or insult. It does not characterize Ishmael's offspring as rebellious and violent but rather testifies to their strength and independence as desert-dwellers and nomads. The imagery is not markedly different from the way that Jacob portrays his own sons when blessing them at the end of his life (cf. Gen 49:13, 17-19). In the future kingdom of God, Isaiah envisions the descendants of Ishmael (Midian, Sheba, Kedar, Nebaioth) coming to Jerusalem to bring tribute to the Lord (cf. Isa 60:1-9). Maalouf writes:

The same God who predicted a shining of Messiah's glory over a faithful remnant of the Jews (Isa 60:1-3) foreordained the drawing of the Arab faithful remnant to the glory of salvation light (60:5-7). God's visitation of Jerusalem in messianic times cannot be separated from his visitation of his people among the Arabian tribes of Midian and Sheba (60:6) or the Christian worship of Ishmael's children (60:7). Removing unwarranted biases against Arabs, which neither the Bible nor history sustains, would play a healing role in the Middle East conflict. It would also create a better attitude for dialogue between the antagonists."

Beginning with God's promise to Abraham, God's special relationship with Israel carries forward until the final act of salvation history, but God's plan was always one of inclusion. The blessing of Abraham's physical descendants was to be the instrument for the blessing of all peoples. The Old Testament promises that Israel's restoration and renewal will bring about the salvation of the Gentiles (Isa 19:19-25; Isa 49:6), and the New Testament completes the picture by demonstrating how the salvation of the Gentiles through the preaching of the gospel will prompt the restoration of Israel (Rom 11:25-26). Failure to understand God's abiding purposes for Israel ultimately diminishes the grand design of salvation history.

Why Israel Means Israel, Part 2

2009-12-28T14:25:00.001-08:00

In the first blog on "Why Israel Means Israel," I looked at the many OT promises concerning the restoration of Israel (e.g. Amos 9:11-15; Jer 33:6-12; Ezek 36:24-32) as the starting point for the belief that the Bible teaches a future for the people of Israel. However, many theologians would argue that the national and land promises to Israel in the OT are fulfilled figuratively and spiritually through the church in the New Testament and that the church has completely and for all time replaced Israel. In his essay, "The Kingdom Promises as Spiritual," Bruce Waltke argues that the prophets "represented the new under the imagery of the old." The national promises to Israel in the Old Testament are merely typological of Christ and the church in the New Testament. The earthly Jerusalem of the Old Testament merely anticipates the heavenly Mount Zion of the New Testament (cf. Gal 4:26; Heb 12:22), and the type becomes obsolete when replaced by the antitype. The spiritual kingdom of the New Testament replaces the earthly and physical kingdom of the Old. Waltke argues that "not one clear NT passage mentions the restoration of Israel as a political nation or predicts an earthly reign of Christ before his final appearing."

In response, I would agree with Waltke's perspective at a number of points. The NT teaches that the church in a very real sense has replaced Israel as the people of God. By appointing twelve disciples corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel, it appears that Jesus is symbolically reconstituting a new Israel, and the church that Jesus forms has become the new covenant community (cf. Matt 18:16-18). The apostles apply the names, titles, and roles of Israel to the church (cf. Gal 6:16; Phil 3:3; 1 Pet 2:9). In addition, the distinction between Jew and Gentile is completely removed in Christ (Gal 3:28; Eph 2:11-22), and all who believe in Christ are part of the spiritual seed of Abraham (Gal 3:29).

Waltke is also correct that the last days and kingdom era promised by the OT prophets was inaugurated with the first coming of Christ and his death, resurrection, and ascension to the right hand of the Father. At the synagogue in Galilee, Jesus announced that he was the herald of God's eschatological salvation promised by Isaiah (cf. Luke 4:18-19; Isa 61:1-3). On the day of Pentecost, Peter explained that the pouring out of the Spirit was the fulfillment of what Joel had promised for Israel in the last days (cf. Acts 2:14-21; Joel 2:28-32). At the Last Supper, Jesus informed his disciples that the cup represented the blood which brought into effect the new covenant (Luke 22:20). Quotations of the new covenant prophecy from Jeremiah 31 in the book of Hebrews clearly demonstrate that the church inherits and presently enjoys the blessings originally given to the house of Israel and Judah (cf. Jer 31:31-34; Heb 8:8-13; 10:15-17). The NT perspective is that we are already living in the last days promised by the OT prophets (cf. Heb 1:2; 1 John 2:18).

I would also agree that the NT writers often read the OT typologically because of their conviction that persons, events, and institutions pointed forward to spiritual realities in the NT. The NT writers often employ typology as a means for reading OT prophecy. Matthew, for example, applies OT prophecies to Christ in a typological way to draw a comparison or analogy between the experiences of Israel in the OT and the life of Jesus (cf. Matt 1:22-23 and Isa 7:14; Matt 2:15 and Hos 11:1; Matt 2:18 and Jer 31:15).

It is also true that later prophecies often modify, revise, or expand earlier prophecies. We see this even in the Old Testament itself. Jeremiah prophesies that Israel will return from exile in Babylon after 70 years (Jer 25:11-12; 29:10), but Daniel later clarifies Israel's full restoration will not occur until after seventy weeks of seven years (Dan 9:24-27). The OT prophets viewed the future kingdom primarily in terms of Israel's past and present—there would be a return to the glories of the Davidic-Solomonic empire and Israel would enjoy great blessing and prosperity in the Promised Land. The spiritual blessings of the NT certainly expand and transcend these earlier promises. The OT prophets looked forward to a restored Jerusalem and a new temple; the NT ultimately promises a New Jerusalem where the whole earth becomes the dwelling place of God and there is no need for a temple (Rev 21-22). God promised Abraham that his descendants through Isaac would possess the land that extended from "the river of Egypt to the Euphrates" (Gen 15:18); Jesus promises his followers that they would inherit the entire earth (Matt 5:5).

In spite of these areas of agreement, Waltke's view that the promises concerning Israel's restoration are merely typological and figurative of spiritual realities in the NT is not the best way to understand how these prophecies are fulfilled. As noted in the previous blog on this topic, the promise of Israel's restoration as a people and nation are grounded in eternal covenants that God has obligated himself to fulfill by sworn oaths. These promises cannot be reduced to mere typologies of what God had designed for the church. Rather than arguing that the promises concerning Israel in the OT must be fulfilled by either Israel or the church, I would see the NT teaching to be that these promises are fulfilled by both the church (now) and Israel (not yet).

Despite the fact that the church inherits and enjoys the spiritual blessings promised to Israel in the OT, the NT continues to affirm that God's specific purposes for the people of Israel remain a critical component in the working out of salvation history. As David Lowery has stated, Israel is a "people both first and last in the plan of salvation." Jesus came to earth in order to accomplish the long-anticipated and promised deliverance of the people of Israel (cf. Luke 1:74-78), and he focused his public ministry on "the lost sheep of Israel" (Matt 10:6; 15:24). Paul's strategy was to take the gospel to "the Jew first" (Rom 1:16; cf. Acts 13:5, 14; 14:1; 17:1, 10, etc.). As Lowery explain, Paul's methodology was "more than a practical strategy" and reflects "Paul's understanding both of the historical priority of the people of Israel in God's plan of salvation and also the importance of preaching the gospel to Jews until God's plan is completed." Paul teaches in Romans 11:26 that the climax of God's plan will be the salvation of "all Israel." Just like the prophet Zechariah in the OT, Paul anticipates a national repentance and turning to God on the part of Israel (cf. Zech 12:10-13).

Romans 9-11 is clearly the most definitive passage on the future of Israel in the New Testament, but theologians continue to dispute the meaning of "all Israel." N. T. Wright argues that "all Israel" refers to the Jews and Gentiles being now saved (vv. 5-6, 11-12) who form the people of God and that Paul has thus redefined the term "Israel." However, the view that "all Israel" refers to the present church does not fit with the consistent use of Israel to refer to national, ethnic Israel (Paul's "brethren" and "kinsmen according to the flesh") throughout Romans 9-11. Equating "all Israel" with the church in 11:26 is particularly difficult in light of the immediately preceding reference to the "hardening of Israel" in v. 25. Witherington observes, "Paul gives no hints or qualifiers to lead the listener to think that Israel means something different here in v. 26 than it meant in v. 25." Moo also argues that Paul using the term "Israel" to refer to the predominantly Gentile church is incompatible with the "polemical purpose" of Romans 11 where Paul is warning Gentile believers not to "boast over the branches" and believe that they have completely usurped Israel's place in God's economy (11:17-24). Moo writes, "For Paul in this context to call the church 'Israel' would be to fuel the fire of Gentiles' arrogance by giving them grounds to brag that 'we are the true Israel.'" Even Waltke and a growing number of Reformed/covenant theologians who reject premillennialism recognize that "Israel" in Romans 9-11 cannot be simply equated with the church. Waltke views Romans 11:26 as pointing to the future salvation of a remnant from "ethnic Israel," but rejects the idea that this restoration involves the reconstitution of Israel as a nation in the Promised Land during a millennial kingdom.

In Romans 11, Paul explains both the "now" and "not yet" aspects of Israel's restoration. The present unbelief of Israel does not abrogate God's covenant promises to Israel but does result in Israel's restoration being carried out in two stages. At present, God is saving a remnant of Jews who like Paul become a part of the predominantly Gentile church through faith in Christ (Rom 11:1-2, 5-6). The present hardening of Israel is only temporary "until the full number of Gentiles has come in," and then God will graft Israel back into the olive tree so that "all Israel will be saved" (Rom 11:25-26). Seifrid comments, "The final act in the drama of redemption is not the formation of a church that consists largely of Gentiles, but the creation of salvation for the people of Israel."

There are two distinct groups who make up "all Israel" in Romans 9-11—the "elect" remnant in Rom 11:6 and the "rest" of Israel (Rom 11:7) that is hardened in unbelief. Paul's explanation of how Israel will be saved does not just focus on the inclusion of currently believing Jews but also on the transformation of the corporate unbelief of the "rest." The root "hardened" describes corporate Israel and provides an inclusio for Paul's discussion of Israel's present unbelief (verbal pwro,w in v. 7, and nominal pw,rwsij in v. 25). However, their present "transgression" will be turned into "fullness" (v. 12) and their current "rejection" into "acceptance" (v. 15). These branches that have been "broken off" will be regrafted into their own olive tree (vv. 19-24). The term "fullness" (plh,rwma) as used by Paul with reference to Israel in verse 12 and the Gentiles in verse 25 provides confirmation that verse 26 is looking forward to a restoration of national or corporate Israel. If the "fullness" of the Gentiles in verse 25 refers to the Gentiles who have and will be saved, then the "fullness" of "all Israel" in verse 26 also involves "the adding of the now-unbelieving Jews to the believing ones to make a full complement." Thus, if "all Israel" is taken as a reference to all of Israel's elect believers, then it must include those Jews who will turn to the Lord as part of this national conversion in the end times.

While Romans 11:26 promises a national turning of Israel to the Lord for salvation, "all Israel" does not mean that every Jew without exception will be saved. As Witherington notes, the term "all Israel" is a corporate term for the nation (cf. 1 Sam 7:5, 25; 1 Kgs 12:1; 2 Chron 12:1; Dan 9:11; Jub 50:9; Test Lev 17:5; M. Sanhedrin 10:1) and refers specifically to those Jews who will make up the future remnant. The timing of this salvation of Israel would appear to be the second coming of Christ. The references to the future resurrection "from the dead" (v. 15) and the entrance of "the fullness of the Gentiles" (v. 25) point to the eschaton. As Moo explains, "the current partial hardening of Israel will be reversed when all the elect Gentiles have been saved; and it is unlikely that Paul would think salvation would be closed to Gentiles before the end." The use of the future tense for the verbs "will be grafted in v. 24 and "will be saved" in v. 26 also points in the direction of an eschatological fulfillment. Paul bases his confidence of Israel's future restoration in a combined quotation of Isaiah 59:20-21 and 27:9. The original reference to the coming of the Redeemer in Isaiah 59:20 speaks of Yahweh coming to deliver his people from exile, but here most likely refers to the second coming of Christ.

As noted in the first blog, the ultimate issue in this discussion of the future of Israel is God's faithfulness to his word and his covenant promises (cf. Exod 34:6-7; Num 23:19; Mal 3:7-10). It is significant that emphasis on God's covenant faithfulness frames Paul's discussion of the future of Israel in Romans 9-11. In chapter 9, Paul begins by providing the reminder that the covenants essential to the outworking of God's plan of salvation history belong to Israel (9:4). After affirming that God will save "all Israel" in 11:26, Paul asserts in verse 29 that the "gifts and calling of God are irrevocable." Paul's confidence in Israel's salvation is founded upon the "covenant" referred to in Isaiah 59:20-21, in which God promises to remove Israel's sin and to make a "covenant" with his people. This covenant involves God permanently placing his Spirit and word within his people. God will ultimately act unilaterally to overcome Israel's unbelief and disobedience. God's dealings with Israel reflect his faithfulness to promises made long ago, his sovereign power to overcome human unbelief, and his infinite wisdom in using Israel to extend his salvation to the nations and then in turn using the salvation of the Gentiles to bring his people back to himself. As Paul exclaims, "Oh the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God. How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways" (Rom 11:33).

Why Israel Means Israel, Part 1

2009-12-20T14:18:00.001-08:00

One of the questions that continues to divide Christians is whether there is a future for national Israel as the people of God. By Israel, I am not referring to the present state of Israel established in 1948 (another question entirely) but rather to the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The view of replacement theology (or supersessionism) is that the church has replaced Israel and that the promises given to Israel in the Old Testament are fulfilled exclusively in the church. In a series of blogs, I would like to address the issue of "why Israel means Israel" and the reasons why a future for national Israel is an important component of Christian eschatology (the doctrine of last things).

I believe there is a future for national Israel's in God's plan first and foremost because the promise of Israel's future restoration is one of the major themes in the Old Testament prophets. The prophets assure that Israel's return from exile will usher in a kingdom era in which Israel will permanently enjoy peace and prosperity in the Promised Land. Israel's historical return from their exile in Babylon do not completely fulfill God's promises to Israel, because the prophetic vision is that Israel will forever enjoy the covenant blessings in their land. The three passages that follow reflect the restoration theology characteristic of the Old Testament prophets.

Amos 9:11-15 "In that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen and repair its breaches, and raise up its ruins and rebuild it as in the days of old, ¹² that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my name,"declares the LORD who does this. ¹³ "Behold, the days are coming," declares the LORD, "when the plowman shall overtake the reaper and the treader of grapes him who sows the seed; the mountains shall drip sweet wine, and all the hills shall flow with it. ¹⁴ I will restore the fortunes of my people Israel, and they shall rebuild the ruined cities and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and drink their wine, and they shall make gardens and eat their fruit. ¹⁵ I will plant them on their land, and they shall never again be uprooted out of the land that I have given them," says the LORD your God.

Ezekiel 36: 24-32 "I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land. ²⁵ I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. ²⁶ And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. ²⁷ And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. ²⁸ You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God. ²⁹ And I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. And I will summon the grain and make it abundant and lay no famine upon you. ³⁰ I will make the fruit of the tree and the increase of the field abundant, that you may never again suffer the disgrace of famine among the nations. ³¹ Then you will remember your evil ways, and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves for your iniquities and your abominations. ³² It is not for your sake that I will act, declares the Lord GOD; let that be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel."

Jeremiah 33:6-12 "Behold, I will bring to it health and healing, and I will heal them and reveal to them abundance of prosperity and security. ⁷ I will restore the fortunes of Judah and the fortunes of Israel, and rebuild them as they were at first. ⁸ I will cleanse them from all the guilt of their sin against me, and I will forgive all the guilt of their sin and rebellion against me. ⁹ And this city¹shall be to me a name of joy, a praise and a glory before all the nations of the earth who shall hear of all the good that I do for them. They shall fear and tremble because of all the good and all the prosperity I provide for it. ¹⁰ "Thus says the LORD: In this place of which you say, 'It is a waste without man or beast,' in the cities of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem that are desolate, without man or inhabitant or beast, there shall be heard again ¹¹ the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the voices of those who sing, as they bring thank offerings to the house of the LORD: "' Give thanks to the LORD of hosts, for the LORD is good, for his steadfast love endures forever!' For I will restore the fortunes of the land as at first, says the LORD. ¹² "Thus says the LORD of hosts: In this place that is waste, without man or beast, and in all of its cities, there shall again be habitations of shepherds resting their flocks."

Other prophetic passages reflecting this promise of Israel's restoration include Isaiah 54:4-8; Jeremiah 31:23-25; Hosea 14:4-7; and Zephaniah 3:14-17.

As previously stated, these promises were fulfilled in part when Israel returned from the Babylonian exile in 538 B.C. However, there are two reasons why the return from exile did not exhaust the prophetic promises concerning the restoration of Israel. First, the return from exile hardly fulfilled all that Yahweh had promised for Israel's future. As Routledge notes, post-exilic Israel came to realize that "the return was not as glorious as the people expected. It did not result in the establishment of God's kingdom, and, from the way old sins quickly re-emerged, it was clear that the crisis of the exile had not brought about the hoped-for inward renewal." Second, the post-exilic prophets continue to look forward to a future restoration of Israel even after Israel is back in the land. For example, the prophet Zechariah anticipates a future renewal of Israel that includes the following:

Zech 9:9-10 a future king who will bring peace to the nations
Zech 10:6-12 a return of Israel to the land after a future scattering among the nations
Zech 12:10-13 Israel's repentance and return to the Lord
Zech 13:1-6 the cleansing of Israel from its past sins
Zech 12:1-9/ Zech 14:15 the deliverance of Israel from a future enemy that will attack Jerusalem and take away half its citizens into exile

The return of Israel from the Babylonian exile is merely the prelude to the great and final renewal that God has in store for Israel in the future.

The next blog on this topic will explore in more detail the view of replacement theology that these promises of Israel's restoration are fulfilled exclusively in the church. However, there are two primary reasons why we should continue to read the Old Testament prophets as guaranteeing a restoration of the people and nation of Israel that has not yet occurred. The first reason for a literal understanding of the promises concerning Israel is that the basic function of prophetic prediction was to speak of actual events that were anticipated realities in space and time. Prediction was only a small component of the prophetic message, but when the prophets did speak of the future, there was a basic expectation that the prophets' predictions would come to pass. As Richard Hess notes in his essay, "The Future Written in the Past," prophecy was not unique to Israel, and it was understood throughout the ancient Near East that prophets referred to actual events with words that anticipated literal fulfillments. When an Assyrian prophet delivered a prophecy that a king would have a prosperous reign or defeat his enemies in battle, it was expected that the prophet's words would come to pass as he had spoken. In Israel, the key test of a true prophet was whether or not his predictions came to pass (cf. Deut 18:21-22). The belief that the prophets' promises concerning Israel are fulfilled only at a figurative and spiritual level is fundamentally inconsistent with the basic expectations associated with prophetic language in Israel and the ancient Near East at large. Hess comments, "The prophecies of the Old Testament are best interpreted in a manner that would agree with a one-to-one historical correspondence. Those who listened to the prophets and who read their words would not have instantly assumed a metaphor when the future was being described."

At the same time, the prophets often used highly figurative, stereotypical, and idealized language when speaking of Israel's future restoration and the kingdom era of "the last days." The prophets promised that Mount Zion would be exalted above all the mountains of the earth, that the sun would turn to blood, that the trees would clap their hands, and that the lion and the lamb would lie down together. The prophet Isaiah spoke of the restoration of Jerusalem as the creation of "new heavens and a new earth" (Isa 65:17-19), recalling an Akkadian prophecy that the reign of a new Babylonian king would necessitate the redrawing of the plans for heaven and earth. D. Brent Sandy, in his work Plowshares and Pruning Hooks: Rethinking the Language of Biblical Prophecy and Apocalyptic, demonstrates the high degree of metaphorical language in the prophets and provides a primer on how to read prophecy as figurative language. One of the common faults of many popular treatments of biblical prophecy is an insistence on woodenly literalistic readings of the prophets and forced harmonizations of the prophets' vision of the future with contemporary events. However, even with their use of highly metaphorical language, the prophets were still speaking of real events. For all of these reasons, the safest reading of the prophets is to read them at face value.

The second reason for a literal understanding of the prophets' promises concerning Israel is that these prophets are grounded in specific covenant promises made to the people of Israel. God promised descendants, land, and blessing to Abraham (cf. Gen 12:1-3; Gen 15:12-18) and specifically promised that Abraham's physical descendants would possess the Promised Land forever (Gen 13:15). When Abraham demonstrated his faith in God's promises by his willingness to sacrifice his promised son Isaac, God swore by himself a binding oath to Abraham guaranteeing the fulfillment of these covenant promises (Gen 22:15-18). Similarly, the Lord promises and swears an oath to establish the dynasty of David forever (2 Sam 7:12-16). Jeremiah prophesies a new covenant that will bring about Israel's restoration in which Yahweh writes his laws on Israel's heart so that they will never disobey him again (Jer 31:31-34), and the prophet assures that Yahweh's covenant with Israel will endure for as long as the sun and the moon (Jer 31:35-37; cf. Jer 33:23-26). Reformed theologians who deny that God has a future for Israel place themselves in the strange position of arguing that Israel's unbelief can in some way thwart God's sovereign decrees and oaths.

The real issues in this debate over the future of Israel are the reliability of God's promises and the faithfulness of God to the covenant he has made with his people Israel. When Paul reminds us in Romans 8:38-39 that nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ, he immediately demonstrates the reliability of God's love by pointing to his continued faithfulness to Israel in Romans 9-11. If God keeps his covenant promises to Israel, and he does, then we can also have confidence that he will keep his promises to us.

“Too Good to Be True”: A Sermon on Isaiah 40-55

2009-12-18T18:51:00.001-08:00

I think one of the ways we can effectively preach the Old Testament is covering large blocks of material in some of the larger books that we could not realistically preach verse-by-verse in our churches. I offer an example of such a sermon below. I have taken one of the major sections of the book of Isaiah and attempted to faithfully reflect the message and major themes of this section for the people of Israel and for us today as God's people. The section begins with God's announcement of release from exile and forgiveness of sins (Isa 40:1-11) and it concludes with a call for Israel to act upon God's gracious offer of restoration (Isa 55:1-7). The primary purpose of this section is to give those living in exile reasons to believe in God's promise of restoration and forgiveness. This section helps us as Christians to reflect on why we can believe God's promises when in reality they seem too good to be true.

Introduction

How many of you believe it when you receive those emails that say: "The prince of Nigeria needs you to send him $500 so that he can recover the $20 million that was stolen from him and promises to share half of his fortune with you?" How many of you believe it when you get the phone call telling you that you've won an all-expenses paid vacation to Hawaii and they only need your social security and VISA number to process your prize?"

In 1957, the BBC aired a three-minute report on the Swiss spaghetti harvest beside Lake Lugano as an April Fool's joke, and there were people all over Great Britain who called in to find out where they could get their own spaghetti trees. None of us wants to be the gullible person who buys the spaghetti tree. We are trained to think, "If it's too good to be true, then…..

After preaching a relentless message of judgment where the prophet Isaiah announced that God was going to destroy his people and send them away into Babylonian exile, Isaiah's ministry reaches a turning point in chapter 40 where God commissions the prophet to preach a new message. Instead of preaching gloom and doom, God tells the prophet to comfort, to speak tenderly, and to announce good news. The good news is that after God sends his people away into exile, he is also going to act in a powerful way to bring them home.

The problem is that many people would hear this message and say exactly what we say, "If it's too good to be true, then…." Defeated nations did not come back from exile—they disappeared, they were assimilated, and they were forgotten. And yet, somehow and some way, God says, "I am going to deliver Israel from her exile and bring her back to her homeland."

The Bible is filled with promises that seem too good to be true. "I will never leave or abandon you." If you confess your sin, he is faithful and just to forgive." "All things work together for good." My grace is sufficient for the struggles in your life." It's easy to say: "Great promises; I wish I could know they are true. I wish I could believe them, but if it's too good to be true….God understands our doubts and our struggles to believe. As Isaiah speaks for God, he not only tells us what God promises; he tells us how and why we can believe in those promises. When you think that God's promises are too good to be true, here are the unchanging things about God and his promises that you need to remember.

First, we need to clearly understand the nature of God's promise to his people in Isaiah 40:

God's Incredible Promise

Isaiah 40 intertwines two incredible promises. The Lord first of all extends to his people the promise of freedom. God promises that he is going to bring them back from their exile. Israel and Judah sinned against the Lord for more than 800 years and God finally drove them out of the Promised Land and sent them away to Babylon as punishment for their sins.

Isa 40:2—"Speak tenderly to Jerusalem and tell her that her hard service (or her time of warfare) is over." This was the most comforting message God could give. The time of warfare was over and the time of serving on the chain gang in a foreign land was about to come to an end.

Isa 40:10-11—God is going to be a powerful warrior who rescues and delivers his people from captivity and he is also going to be like a shepherd who carries his lambs in his arms and brings them back to their resting place. In chapter 48, the Lord tells Israel, "Leave Babylon and flee from the Babylonians" (Isa 48:20) because this section of Isaiah is all about God's people going home.

The exile was the greatest theological crisis in the Old Testament, not just because it made Israel homesick, but because home was their Promised Land and home was where they met with God at the Jerusalem temple. The exile would cause them to say: "What has happened to our homeland? Has God terminated his covenant with us?" But, God gives them home by promising that he will bring them home even before he even sends them away. The punishment hasn't even started, and God is already assuring his people that the punishment won't last forever.

The Lord also extends to his people the promise of forgiveness. The greatest promise in Isaiah 40 is not that God is going to bring his people home; the even greater promise is that God is ready to forgive the 800 years of sin that has caused the exile in the first place. Verse 2 once again says: "her sin has been paid for" and "she has received from the LORD's hand double for all her sins." The Lord is finished with punishing his people (that time is over). They have received a double punishment for their sins, and now God is ready to forgive.

The promise of forgiveness was so incredible that the people could hardly believe what their ears were hearing. The prophet had to repeat this message of forgiveness over and over so that it would really sink in. The word of the Lord in Isaiah 43:25- "I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins." Isn't it great to know that the one thing that the God of the universe chooses to have selective memory loss about is my sin. This message really is too good to be true, and so God says it again: "I have blotted out your transgressions like a cloud and your sins like mist; return to me, for I have redeemed you" (Isa 44:22). They had wearied God with hundreds of years of sin and rebellion, but God was willing to forgive them. And when God forgives, our sin is like a mist and a vapor that disappears into thin air.

Forgiveness is an unbelievable, unexpected gift any time we receive it. I was driving home late one night on 460-West and didn't remember the place in Appomattox where the speed limit quickly drops from 70 to 45 until I saw the flashing blue lights in my rear view mirror. For some reason, the state trooper took pity on me and said, "The next time you drive through here, try to do it a little more slowly." I drove home like a free man whose life sentence had been commuted, but God's forgiveness doesn't just cover one act or one transgression. It covers our past, our present, and our future—it's comprehensive. It doesn't matter how much sin you bring to the cross; when you leave the cross, your sin is blotted out and it disappears like a vapor.

All of this brings us back to our initial problem—the Bible is filled with great promises, but how can I know that they are true and trustworthy? "God forgives me—are you kidding? I can't even forgive myself." When Isaiah announced this promise of freedom and forgiveness, that's exactly how the people responded to him. The prophet announces: "God is going to bring us home and God is going to forgive us—sure, yeah right. Is the prince of Nigeria ready to send me my million dollars? Would you like my credit card and social security number now?"

Notice Isaiah's strategy when he proclaims this promise. His first message in chapter 40 gives the promise, and then for the next 16 chapters, he explains why the people can believe that the promise is true. He speaks to people who believe that God's promises are too good to be true, and he gives them reasons to believe. We can't look at everything he says in these chapters, but I want to give you three simple things you can absolutely hold on to when you think that God's promises are too good to be true.

The Reasons to Believe God's Promises

God's promises are sure because of his unchanging love

We get an idea of how the exiles responded to God's promises of freedom and forgiveness in chapter 40, verse 27: "My way is hidden from the Lord; my right is disregarded by my God." "God doesn't care about us. If he did we wouldn't be prisoners in this foreign country." And then they basically say the same thing in 49:14 "Zion said, 'The Lord has forsaken me, the Lord has forgotten me.'" They thought, "Out of sight, out of mind." God has forgotten about us. And let's be honest. When we're going through tough times, we often feel the same way.

But, notice how God responds to their complaint: "Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne?" (Isa 49:15) Not likely that a mother is going to forget, but even if she somehow could, God can't forget or turn his back on his people. After talking about mothers and their love, the Lord then uses an image for his love that is going to disturb every mother here: "See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are ever before me." I'm not sure if we're ready for this or not, but the picture here is of the Lord having a tattoo on the palms of his hands. On one palm, it says "Zion" and on the other palm, there's a picture of Zion's walls" (the good news—at least it's not "Mother" and "barbed wire"). What does it mean that God has a Zion tattoo? God has inscribed Zion on his palms, because he is forever committed to his people. The first thing that God sees, the first thing that God thinks about, the thing that dominates the thoughts of the God of the universe is the people that he loves. It's us. God loves us way too much to pass out empty promises. The Lord reminds us of the same thing in Isaiah 54:10-"'For the mountains may be removed, but my steadfast love shall not depart from you, and my covenant of peace shall not be removed,' says the Lord, who has compassion on you."

Back in the spring, the Lynchburg paper had a story about a young guy from New York named Jeff who brought his girlfriend Laurel to Charlottesville for a concert and to ask her to marry him. Charlottesville was his hometown, and he wanted everything about the proposal to be just right He took her out for breakfast at the Downtown Mall and then they walked outside over to the "Free Speech Monument," where you can write anything you want. Jeff had written a quote from their favorite song and then the question, "Will you marry me, Jeff?" Jeff got down on one knee, and there was even a place for Laurel to check "yes" or "no." When Laurel saw those written words, she didn't think that her friends were trying to punk her or that some guy named Jeff was trying to stalk her. She trusted the words because she knew Jeff and she knew Jeff's heart. We can trust God's promises because we know his heart, we know his love. There is nothing we could do to cause God to love us more and there is nothing we could do to make God love us less. God's unending love means that there are no expiration dates on his promises. God will never make a promise to us that he fails to bring to completion.

God's promises are sure because of his unlimited power .

Isaiah 40 and the chapters that follow focus on God as Creator in order to say: "Remember the power of the God who is making these promises to you." When we are struggling to believe because of the greatness of God's promises, then we need to remember the greatness of the God who makes those promises to us. There is an amazing picture of God in Isaiah 40:12. God creates the world like a Master Craftsman sitting at his work bench. He pours the waters of the oceans into the palm of his hand. He measures off the heavens with the span of his fingers, and he weighs the dust of the continents on his scales to make sure he has done it just right.

When Israel was in exile, they thought about all of the problems and the obstacles standing in their way. Their situation seemed hopeless. They thought about the power of their enemy. Babylon was the most powerful nation in the world. Nebuchadnezzar had marched down on Jerusalem, destroyed the temple, and taken the people away into captivity. The city of Babylon was like a fortress. Herodotus said that its walls were a hundred foot high and wide enough in places for two chariots to race side-by-side.

And so God says to them: "Here's what I think about the power of the Babylonians?"

Isaiah 40:6—All flesh is grass; and all its beauty is like the flower of the field. The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of the Lord stands forever." The power of the Babylonians is fleeting; my power is forever.

Isaiah 40:15—the nations are like a drop in the bucket and like dust on the scale; 40:17—all nations are as nothing before me; 40:22—God sits above the circle of the earth's horizon as the sovereign , creator, king of the universe and the people below him look like grasshoppers. The Lord says, "You look up at the Babylonians and see giants. I look down at the Babylonians and see grasshoppers."

I can make all kinds of promises to my kids, but those promises are only as good as my ability and capacity to carry out those promises. We serve a God with unlimited power, so there's nothing that can stand in the way of the fulfillment of his promises. John Piper reminds us that you might have seen a good visual demonstration of the difference between the power of man and the power of God if you went to the beach this summer. The little rectangular or circular body of water at your hotel was man's swimming pool. The other body of water at the end of the sand was God's swimming pool. There's the difference. We live in culture that worships man's accomplishments. We believe that scientists, politicians, and physicians are going to solve our problems. We are fixated with celebrities, athletes, and movie stars. But, in the process of magnifying men, we have ended up minimizing God. We have brought God down to our level and forgotten his unlimited power. Isaiah says: "The God who made these promises to you is the God who created the heavens and the earth."

God's promises are sure because of his track record of doing the impossible

Isaiah 40-55 closes with a call for the exiles to believe the great promise that God has made to them. "Give ear and come to me; hear me, that your soul may live…. (Isa 55:3). However, the promises of freedom and forgiveness seem so great that they are still struggling to believe. And so, the Lord reminds them of one final thing they need to hear—the Lord has a track record of doing the impossible.

Throughout this section, the rescue of the exiles is pictured as a second Exodus—what God has done in the past, he is getting ready to do once again in the future. Back in chapter 40, the Lord gives a command to prepare a way in the desert because he is going to lead his people through the wilderness just like he did when he rescued the slaves from Egypt (Isa 40:3). In Isaiah 43:2, the Lord promises that he will be with his people when they pass through the waters, and the rivers will not overwhelm them. Figuratively speaking, the Lord is going to take Israel through the waters just like he did at the Red Sea. The future is going to be just like the past. When you're struggling to trust God in the present, it always helps to remember what God has done for you in the past. Think it through and ask if there has ever been a time when God or one of his promises has failed. Has there even been a time when God was not there for you?

Here in chapter 55, the prophet reminds us that God's ways seem strange to us because his ways are not our ways (Isa 55:8-9). God had this really strange-sounding plan for getting his people out of Babylon. When I think of a great rescue operation, I think of something like the Raid on Entebbe. The Israeli commandos stormed the airport, yelled "get down" in Hebrew and shot everybody that didn't. That's how you rescue hostages—go in guns blazing. But, listen to the Lord's strategy for rescuing Israel out of exile. See if you would want to bank your life on this plan. God says, "Stage one of my plan is that I am going to send a foreign king named Cyrus. He is going to conquer Babylon and send my people home. The exiles say: "Sure, a foreign king is going to help us and be our deliverer. Why would a pagan, idol-worshipping king trying to build his own empire want to help us? Great plan, God." If you think stage one is strange, it gets even better in stage two. Stage two is that God is going to use a suffering servant to save his people. He is going to be hated, rejected by his own people, and put to death (Isa 50, 53). The exiles again had to hear this and say, "We need a deliverer stronger than our enemies and you're sending us this suffering servant. How can someone who is so weak that he cannot deliver himself become the instrument of our deliverance?" The Lord answers: "This suffering servant is going to pay for the sins of my people and bring them back to me."

There's the plan—foreign king and suffering servant. There have been endless replays of the last play of the 2007 football game between Trinity College and Millsaps. Trinity needed to go 61 yards, and so they used a very ordinary, conventional play to win the game—they executed a 10 yard pass with 15 laterals and scored a touchdown to win the game. It was an amazing play, but no coach in his right mind would draw up a play like that. Here in the book of Isaiah, you can see the Lord calling the play, and he tells his prophet, "Here's how we're going to win the game—we're going to run the foreign king and the suffering servant."

The plan worked exactly as God designed. 150 years after Isaiah, Cyrus came, defeated the Babylonians, and sent the Jews back home. 700 years after Isaiah, Jesus Christ was the suffering servant who died on the cross to save his people from their spiritual exile; who died to pay the penalty for our sins that we could not pay for ourselves. If God can work out that plan, then God can work out the seemingly impossible situations in your life as well. Every day, God is asking someone here to trust him for something that seems absolutely impossible. When you're that someone, it's great to know that our God has a track record of doing the impossible.

CONCLUSION
Have you ever noticed it's easy to talk about trusting God when it's someone else's problem and hard to practice when it's yours. God's promises often seem too good to be true, but we have real reasons to trust in those promises. You can trust God's promises because they are an expression of his unchanging love. You can trust God's promises because they are backed by his unlimited power. And you can trust God's promises because he specializes in doing the impossible.

"It's About Following, Not Finding" (Nehemiah and the Will of God)

2009-12-06T20:21:00.000-08:00

The following is something a little different from my other blogs. The following is a sermon manuscript on the difficult topic of knowing the will of God, looking at this topic from the life of Nehemiah. The sermon looks at several passages and episodes from Nehemiah's life in attempting to help us better understand how we can know the will of God for our lives.

Introduction

The question I have probably been asked more than any other as a professor and a pastor is “How can I know God’s will for my life.” I want to suggest that the story of Nehemiah provides some important lessons for us when it comes to knowing God’s will. Why Nehemiah? Number one, there’s no question that Nehemiah had a clear sense of God’s direction for his life—God had called him to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem destroyed in the Babylonian invasion. Number two, Nehemiah is a lot like us in how he came to know God’s will. He didn’t see a burning bush like Moses or a Macedonian man like Paul. He didn’t become a wall builder by seeing a glowing presence over Home Depot or having an ecstatic experience watching Extreme Makeover City Edition. If Nehemiah could know the will of God, then perhaps we can as well.

If you are serious about knowing God’s will, then it’s important to begin with an understanding of how God leads us. We learn from Nehemiah that knowing God’s will is more about following than it is about finding.

How God Leads

Nehemiah teaches us that God leads his people in three specific ways.

God leads us by precept (Neh 1:5-9)

God leads us into His will by the instructions and commands that He communicates in His Word. Nehemiah’s prayer of confession demonstrates that God’s Word was his guidebook for living. Nehemiah is broken because he and his people have not followed the will of God that was clearly revealed in the commands of God. The exile had happened to Israel in the first place because of hundreds of years of not following God’s commandments. God’s word also informed Nehemiah that there was hope for Israel’s restoration and that God would forgive and bless his people if they turned back to him.

During the time that he has been suffering with ALS, Ed Dobson made the decision that he was going to attempt to live a year of his life just like Jesus lived. Doing research for that, he read through the Gospels repeatedly and he has talked about the profound effect that reading God’s Word over and over again has had on his life (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3J6R6jAVB0). There are no short-cuts in the process—we can’t know the will of God without serious and sustained reflection on the Word of God. In his own life, Nehemiah had reflected so deeply on the Torah that God’s words became his own words when he confessed his sins and prayed for God to bless his people. He didn’t just claim God’s promises; he also submitted to his requirements. He placed his life under the authority of Scripture.

When Nehemiah came back to Jerusalem, he also understood that living by God’s Word was more important than rebuilding a wall. After the wall is rebuilt, there’s a worship service in Nehemiah 8 (Neh 8:2-8) where Ezra reads and explains the law of God for six straight hours. And believe it or not, no one complained about the length of the service or got angry about missing the kickoff. Ezra read the law, explained its meaning, and applied its principles. And it says the people listened attentively as he taught them. You can’t know the will of God treating the Bible like a magic book, getting your verse of the day off of Twitter or letting your Bible fall open and pointing your finger at a passage. It takes serious and sustained reflection, and it’s worth the effort because that’s how we learn to live the kind of life that pleases God in every way.

We also learn from Nehemiah that God leads us by providence (Neh 2:1-6).

Providence means that God directs and controls the circumstances in our lives. Providence is what Romans 8:28 is talking about when it says that “all things work together for those that love God.” The circumstances that come into our lives are not random accidents but instead are part of God’s overarching, individual plan for my life.

We can clearly see God’s providence in leading Nehemiah to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. It was the hand of God that had made Nehemiah the cupbearer to Artaxerxes, the King of Persia. Do you think it was an accident that a God-fearing Jew had the ear of the king? Was it an accident at other times that Joseph was the vizier in Egypt, that Daniel was in the court of Babylon, or that Esther was the Queen of Persia?

Nehemiah has to trust God’s providence when he goes before the king in chapter 2 and asks permission to go to Jerusalem. It wasn’t even kosher to show a sad expression in the king’s presence. So, when the king asks, “What do you want?” Nehemiah breathes up a prayer for help. He prays, and God’s providence takes over. The king not only gave him permission; he gave him the money, materials, and manpower to get the job done. God pulls the strings of the king’s heart and works out His providential plan for Nehemiah’s life.

God leads us by personal desires (Neh 2:11-12)

When Nehemiah hears of the broken-down condition of Jerusalem more than 140 years after the exile, he has a desire to do something for the city that God had chosen as his dwelling place. When Nehemiah is responsive to God’s leading, he receives further directions. As a politician, Nehemiah did something very surprising when he got to Jerusalem--he didn’t call a press conference or take a video crew to tape his fact-finding mission. He went out alone in the middle of the night to inspect the walls. One reason for this secret inspection was that he wanted to map out a strategy before he announced his mission. But Nehemiah also went out in the middle of the night to listen to God and to confirm that God was the one leading him to rebuild the walls.

There’s a phrase that jumps out at me in verse 12. Nehemiah says, “I told no one what God had put in my heart.” When God leads by personal direction, it doesn’t necessarily mean that we hear voices or see visions, but it does mean that God has the power to prompt our hearts.

In The Purpose Driven Church, Rick Warren tells the story of how God led him to plant Saddleback Community Church. After doing extensive research with census data and praying over a map, Warren became convinced that God was leading him to plant a church in Orange County, California. Following God’s leading, he wrote a letter to the Southern Baptist Director of Missions expressing his interest in planting a church. At the same time he was writing his letter, the mission’s director was writing a letter to Warren asking him to consider Orange County.

It won’t happen with every decision that you make, but there will be times when God will communicate just as personally to your own heart. The work of the Holy Spirit is in part to prompt us in personal ways when we read the Bible. When Dietrich Bonheoffer was lecturing in America in 1939, he read Paul’s words to Timothy, “Do you best to come to me before winter” (2 Tim 4:21) and became convinced that God was leading him to go back to Germany and take a stand against the Nazis. The Spirit and the Word work together because the Bible is a living book.

It appears that there are two extremes when it comes to the question of personal guidance. One extreme denies it. There are examples of God personally leading and directing people throughout the Bible, so I find it difficult to believe that God lost his voice in the first-century or that he has stopped leading us in personal ways simply because the canon of Scripture is closed and complete. In Acts 13, God directed the leaders of the church at Antioch to send out missionaries after they had prayed and fasted. Does God respond to our prayers and our earnest seeking of him in lesser ways?

The other extreme is people who believe that God is like a third-base coach who gives signs and confirmations for every important decision we have to make. God may or may not give you a confirmation, and he will ask you at times to act in faith even when the details are sketchy and unclear. Reading signs from God often becomes a way of just confirming what I wanted to do in the first place. “I’m going to give up because I’m discouraged and it looks like God is closing the door.” Maybe what God wants is for you to be faithful in a difficult place or situation. What if Nehemiah had decided that God was “closing the doors” when the enemies of Judah opposed him and tried to use military force to stop the rebuilding of the walls. What if he had said, “This is hard—I feel God leading me to go back to the palace?” It’s amazing how often Christians are led by God to take the job or ministry that involves making more money. Is that an “open door” from God or is it just what looks good to me?

Several years ago, there was a TV show called Early Edition, where a regular guy named Gary Hobson mysteriously received the Chicago Sun Times newspaper the day before it was published. He knew what was going to happen every day the day before it happened, and then tried to live accordingly. There are Christians who seem to think that God has promised to deliver that kind of newspaper to their front door. God’s leading becomes a form of insider trading—“God, I’ll follow you if you give me advance information on how all of this is going to work out.” God promises to lead us through life, but he has never promised to give us a pre-flight itinerary. Faith means that you may have to act without God mapping out every detail of your future. God promises to give us wisdom if we ask for it (James 1:5), but he has never promised to act as your divine Garmin and to give you a directional indicator every time you come to a fork in the road of life.

God prompts our hearts and leads us in personal ways, but God’s leading is never an excuse for acting irresponsibly. Some people believe that “God told me to do this” means that I have a blank check to do whatever I want. Even when God prompted his heart, Nehemiah had to pray, to petition the king, to plan, to raise the money, and to take his fact-finding ride in the middle of the night. When we are making life-changing decisions, we have to invest the same kind of thought and prayer. We may have to seek the wise counsel of ten different people and persistently pray for God to give us his wisdom. “God told me to do it” is only the beginning of the process; it’s never the end.

Clearing Up the Confusion

When you understand how God leads, it helps to clear the fog that surrounds the mystery of God’s will. Some of the strangest notions that Christians have are related to this idea of finding and knowing God’s will. When I was in college, one of the guys in our dorm approached a girl and said that God had told him they were supposed to get married. She was wise enough to say that she would get back to him when God told her the same thing. Some have an idea about God’s will that goes something like this. I hear a missionary from China speak at church and have the fleeting thought that God is calling me to be a missionary. I try to forget about it, but on the way home, my wife suggests that we go out for the lunch, and out of the blue she says, “Let’s get Chinese.” I turn on the TV when I get home and there’s a documentary on the Discovery Channel about the Great Wall of China. I get a birthday present from my kids later in the week and on the bottom it says, “Made in China.” All of a sudden, I’m starting to think that God really is calling me to China. But, if God’s will is central to our lives, does the Lord really want us to find His will by searching for hidden clues like we’re out on a scavenger hunt?

Understanding how God leads shows us that God’s will is something that I follow, not something that I need to find. Bruce Waltke (Finding God’s Will: A Pagan Notion?) even suggests that the whole notion of “finding God’s will” is more pagan than biblical. The pagans read everything from the stars to sheep livers trying to discover the will of their gods. Instead of calling us to find God’s will, Scripture commands us to follow God’s will—His revealed moral will. Ephesians 5:18 tells us that it is God’s will for us to be filled with the Spirit and to live our lives under his influence and control. 1 Thessalonians 4:3 says that God’s will is for us to avoid sexual immorality and to live a pure life. That issue is a simple act of obedience that is more important to God than what you do for a living. 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18 informs us that living in God’s will involves being prayerful, joyful, and thankful in all circumstances. We worry about whether God wants us to sell our house and move to Texas; God’s concern is whether we’re thankful and content where we are. God tells us his will; it isn’t something that we have to find through some mysterious process.

Understanding how God leads shows us that God’s will is something that frees us, not something that confines us. Some Christians talk about finding the “perfect will of God for their lives,” and they imagine something like a dot in the center of a circle (for a critique of this view, see Garry Friesen’s Decision Making and the Will of God). The perfect will of God means living in the right city, in the right house, doing the one job, and going to the one church that God has picked out for me. The problem is in knowing how to get all of those things right. It becomes paralyzing to think that I might make one bad decision and ruin the “perfect” will of God for my life.

The Bible teaches that God has a plan for our lives and “works all things for good.” But, that plan is God’s job, not mine. The will of God as it concerns me is to obey his precepts, trust his providence, and respond to His personal direction. Instead of being a dot in the circle, God’s will is more like a box. The Bible gives us clear direction about what’s right for us and what’s wrong for us—what’s inside the box and what’s outside the box. God has painted the out-of-bounds lines very clearly. When we are living inside the boundaries, then God gives us the freedom to prayerfully choose between equally viable options when it comes to education, vocation, and other aspects of our personal lives.

The Choice to Follow

For Nehemiah, the important thing about God’s will wasn’t whether he was a cupbearer or a wallbuilder. For us, the real issue is not if you’re married or single, or if you’re a missionary in China or a truck driver in Virginia. The important question is whether you have committed to follow God, His Word, and His plan for your life. When you make that choice, all the other choices fall into place. Even when my choices aren’t perfect, God honors the choices that I prayerfully make. Augustine said that we can “love God and do as we please.” The psalmist says, “Delight yourself in the Lord and He will give you the desires of your heart.” The great thing about ministry is that there isn’t one formulaic way that you have to serve God. You take small steps of obedience; you get involved in people’s lives, and you have to hold on because God begins to lead you in ways that you could never have imagined. Can you imagine what it was like for Nehemiah to have this dream of rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem and then to see that dream come to life in 52 days?

How great would it be for God to do the same thing in your life and to make those impossible-seeming desires of the heart become a reality? The question then becomes how far are you willing to follow? The desires of your heart will never happen by accident. Nehemiah would have never seen the desires of his heart if he would have just maintained the status quo and stayed in his comfortable position in the palace. When Nehemiah came to Jerusalem, the enemies of Judah did everything they could to stop Nehemiah from rebuilding the walls. Even more than Nehemiah, Jesus was fully committed to doing the will of the Father and it led him to the cross to die for our sins. The desires of your heart will never become a reality unless you’re willing to follow all the way.

God wants us to learn that living in his will is the right place to be and the right way to live. It all begins with a choice to follow.

The Temple in the New Testament

2009-12-05T12:25:00.000-08:00

In his work From Eden to the New Jerusalem, T. Desmond Alexander explores how the beginning of the Bible (the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2-3) is related to the end of the Bible (the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21-22). God’s original design was for Adam and Eve to extend the boundaries of Eden throughout the earth. The rebellion of Adam and Eve separated them from God, but the meta-story of the Bible focuses on God’s attempt to redeem fallen humanity, and the New Jerusalem will ultimately restore what was lost at Eden. Throughout the Bible, God is at work to restore his presence through the Tabernacle and the Temple in the OT, and through the Incarnation and the Church in the NT. The OT temple is symbolic of the full presence of God that redeemed humanity will enjoy in a perfect way in the New Jerusalem of eternity.

In two previous blogs, I have reflected on Ezekiel’s vision of a new temple in Ezekiel 40-48 and the reasons for believing that a literal temple and an earthly millennial kingdom are part of God’s future plans. At the same time, the NT clearly teaches that the temple where God dwelled in the OT era is replaced in the NT by a fuller and more direct enjoyment of the presence of God because of the coming of Christ. This blog will focus on the NT theme of the replacement of the temple and the Bible’s incredible promise of God’s presence in our lives.

The Temple Replaced by Christ

Ezekiel’s prophecy of a new temple is transcended first and foremost by the incarnation of Jesus Christ, who brings heaven to earth in a far greater way than the dwelling of a deity in an architectural structure. Jesus is “God with us” (Matt 1:23) and is thus the “one greater than the temple” (Matt 12:8). The Transfiguration accounts found in all of the Synoptic Gospels reveal that the glory of God is now associated with the person of Jesus apart from the edifice of the temple (cf. Matt 17:1-3; Mark 9:2-13; Luke 9:28-36). With his authority to provide direct and immediate forgiveness of sins (cf. Matt 9:2-5; Mark 2:5-9; Luke 5:20-23; 7:47-49), Jesus supersedes and ultimately renders obsolete the sacrificial system associated with the temple and the Old Testament economy. At the Last Supper, Jesus pointed to the bread and wine symbolic of his death “as more acceptable to God than regular sacrifice” (Matt 26:26-28; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19-20).

The idea of Jesus as the replacement of the temple runs throughout the New Testament and is especially pronounced in the Gospels of Mark and John. In Mark, the motif of Jesus’ replacement of the temple provides an ironic twist to the account of Jesus’ crucifixion. Jesus is condemned to death in part because of the false accusations that he had threatened to destroy the temple (Mark 14:57-58). Though the accusation was false, the reference to the building of a new temple in “three days” demonstrates that Jesus’ resurrection would in fact bring about the symbolic destruction of the temple (cf. Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34). When Jesus is on the cross, passersby mock him for his warning that the temple would be destroyed at the very time he is fulfilling this prophecy (Mark 15:29-30). The rending of the temple veil from top to bottom (Mark 15:38) is the heavenly pronouncement that access to God via the temple and its sacrificial rituals is no longer in effect. In fact, one should likely view the inclusio provided by the “rending” (schizo) of the heavens at the baptism of Jesus in Mark 1:10 and this “rending” of the temple veil at his death as a statement of how the incarnation of Jesus brought about the obsolescence of the ancient Near Eastern constructs of temple and sacred space as the vehicle of God communicating his presence to and among his people.

In the Gospel of John, Jesus’ cleansing of the temple and the accompanying statements concerning the rebuilding of the temple in connection with the “three days” of his resurrection are placed at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. This teaching appears in close proximity to the statements in John 1 that the glory of God “tabernacles” in the person of Jesus (John 1:14, 18), and that Jesus is now the intermediary between heaven and earth (John 1:50-51). Jesus informs the Samaritan woman that true worship no longer centers around the temple sites of Jerusalem and Gerazim and must be offered to God in spirit and in truth (John 4:20-24). When Jesus invites the thirsty to come to him and to drink on the last day of the Feast of Tabernalces (John 7:37-39), he is identifying himself as the source of the “streams of living waters” that the prophets Ezekiel and Zechariah promised would flow out of the new Zion and temple (cf. Ezek 47:1-12; Zech 14:1-8). What was promised concerning Jerusalem and the temple in the Old Testament is fulfilled in Christ in the New Testament.

The Church as the Temple of God

Ezekiel’s prophecy of the future temple is also transcended by the experience of the unmediated presence of God by the Christian community through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The church has now become the “living temple” of God, and the service and godly lives of believers takes the place of the temple cult (cf. Rom 12:1; 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19-20; 2 Cor 6:14-7:1; Eph 2:19-22; 1 Pet 2:4-9; Rev 1:6; 5:10). Using tabernacle typology, the writer of Hebrews explains that believers have this access to God because Christ has entered into the heavenly sanctuary with his blood as the perfect sacrifice for sin (Heb 9:23-28; 10:1-22). Rowland explains, “The cross becomes the moment when unmediated access to God becomes a possibility.” Christ provides a connection to the divine presence that enables believers to follow him into the Holy of Holies (Heb 10:19-22), to presently enjoy the “heavenly Jerusalem” (Heb 12:22-24), and to anticipate by faith the heavenly city that awaits them at the end of their earthly pilgrimage (Heb 11:13-16). Rowland further explains, “What is above, in heaven, is what is to come and is what will be revealed in the end time; but what is to come is now already revealed . . . and to which the recipients of the Letter to the Hebrews have access.”

The New Jerusalem and No Need for the Temple

The prophets’ promise of a new temple is ultimately transcended by the New Testament promise of the fullness of God’s presence that is to be experienced in the eschatological age. In the new heavens and the new earth, there will be no need for a temple because God’s presence will fill everything (Rev 21:22). There are two interesting features of the New Jerusalem portrayed by John in Revelation 21-22. First, the city is a perfect golden cube (Rev 21:16), recalling the square dimensions of the Holy of Holies where God’s presence dwelled in the Old Testament (cf. 1 Kgs 6:20). Second, the New Jerusalem is immense in size, measuring to roughly 1,380 miles (12,000 stadia) on each side (length, breadth, and height). As Beale notes, these proportions convey that the new heaven and earth is completely dominated by the garden-like city of Jerusalem (Rev 21:1-3, 10-22:3). There are no “forests, rivers, mountains, streams, valleys, and the many other features of a fertile worldwide new creation,” but instead there is only “an arboreal city temple.” In other words, the whole world will become a temple, and all peoples will enjoy the unfiltered experience of God’s glorious “face” as he rules from his throne (Rev 22:4-5). The New Jerusalem will be a new Eden where humanity once again has the unlimited access to God that was lost in the fall (Rev 22:1-3; cf. Gen 3:8-10, 23-24). The temple symbolism of the Bible ultimately points to the reality of “a huge worldwide sanctuary in which God’s presence would dwell in every part of the cosmos.”

Some Concluding Thoughts

While I believe that Ezekiel 40-48 is picturing a literal temple, the symbol of temple points to something far greater than a building. The temple is a reminder that God desires to be in relationship with fallen sinners and that the best part of our salvation is knowing God and enjoying him forever. The symbol of temple points to what we now enjoy in Christ and what we will enjoy forever in the New Jerusalem. We celebrate the same thing at Christmas—the great promise that “God is with us.”

Future Temple and Future Kingdom

2009-12-04T21:22:00.000-08:00

In a previous post, I argued that the most natural reading of Ezekiel 40-48 is that this passage prophesies a future literal temple. Blomberg states, “The biggest obstacle to rejecting a literal “third” temple is the exquisitely and seemingly superfluous detail of Ezek 40-48 if all this is fulfilled fully in the new-Jerusalem community of the redeemed in the new heavens and earth.” The OT prophets as a whole have a consistent view of the eschatological future, in which they anticipate that: 1) Israel would return from its exile and dispersion; 2) an ideal Davidic king would rise to power; 3) Jerusalem and its temple would be rebuilt as a center of worship; and 4) the nations would come to Jerusalem in submission to Israel’s God. Revelation 20 affirms an intermediate kingdom between the second coming of Revelation 19 and the New Jerusalem of Revelation 21-22, but this passage and the NT as a whole offers very little description of this future kingdom. The OT prophets are our best source of information for the detailed specifics concerning this kingdom, and Ezekiel’s future temple is one of those significant details.

The NT in places confirms the Israel-focused, earthly kingdom promised by the OT prophets. Paul asserts that there will be a future restoration of national/ethnic Israel in connection with the second coming (Rom 11:25-27) and bases this promise on the unchanging nature of the Lord’s covenant promises to Israel (cf. Rom 9:3-5; 11:28-29). Paul believes that the eschatological promises of the prophets remain intact and retain their eschatological meaning. Jesus envisions Jerusalem being trampled until the times of the Gentiles reach their conclusion (Luke 21:24) and promises his disciples that they will share in the future eschatological banquet and join with the twelve tribes of Israel in administering his kingdom rule (Luke 22:30). When the disciples ask Jesus prior to his ascension if he is about to restore the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6-7), Jesus does not deny a future kingdom for Israel but simply states that it is not for the disciples to know the timing of the restoration. The roots for “time” (chronos) and “restoration” (apokathistemi; aposkatastasis) reappear in Acts 3:20-21 when Peter makes reference to “the times of refreshing” and “the restoring of all things.” Peter looks forward to Israel’s restoration but informs his hearers that this time of eschatological blessing will only come when Israel recognizes Jesus as its Messiah.

Robert Saucy appears to provide a good rule of thumb regarding how to read the kingdom promises found in the OT prophets: “The lack of detail about the Old Testament prophecies in the New Testament does not necessarily mean they are invalid or superseded. To the contrary, the situation of the early church suggests that we should consider the prophecies valid unless there is explicit teaching to the contrary.” Jesus and the NT writers are still looking forward to the fulfillment of the kingdom promises found in the OT and anticipate a kingdom that is essentially the same as what is found in the OT prophets. The future temple is an important component of those prophecies.

One of the problems with the idea of a future sacrifice is that the prophets speak of there also being sacrifices offered there (Ezek 40:38-43; 42:13-14). These offerings actually “make atonement” for sin, and the Davidic prince (the Messiah?) even offers a sin offering for himself and the people (Ezek 45:22). Chisholm reminds us that Ezekiel’s vision of the future temple has been contextualized for the prophet’s sixth-century audience:

He describes the reconciliation of God and his people in terms that would be meaningful to this audience. They would naturally conceive of such reconciliation as involving the rebuilding of the temple, the reinstitution of the sacrificial system, the renewal of the Davidic dynasty, and the return and reunification of the twelve exiled tribes. Since the fulfillment of the vision transcends these culturally conditioned boundaries, we should probably view it as idealized to some extent and look for an essential, rather than an exact fulfillment of many of its features.

Thus, one can see a future temple in Jerusalem in the millennial kingdom without there necessarily being animal sacrifices as in the OT era. The people of Ezekiel’s day could not imagine proper worship of God without sacrifices, but a return to animal sacrifice in the millennial kingdom would represent a strange salvation-historical regression in light of the perfection and finality of Christ’s sacrifice for sin (cf. Heb 9:11-15, 23-28; 10:5-14). I. Howard Marshall comments: “The material sacrifices . . . are understood as temporary pointers to the death of Jesus. They provide categories for understanding it, but in doing so they render themselves obsolete.”

Ultimately, Ezekiel 40-48 and the vision of the new temple anticipates much more than simply a new and improved version of a physical structure like that of Solomon’s temple. The opening and closing of Ezekiel’s vision in 40:2 and 48:35 indicate that God’s presence will cover all of Jerusalem and not just the holy of holies in the temple. Similarly, Jeremiah 3:16-18 states that there will be no ark of the covenant in the future Jerusalem and that all of the city will become Yahweh’s throne. The city itself becomes the temple, and the presence of extends beyond any type of sacred building. Isaiah promises that the cloud and smoke of Yahweh’s presence will cover “all of Mount Zion” (Isa 4:5-6). In a very real sense, the Old Testament promise the presence of God for all peoples on earth in a way that far transcends anything associated with the temple as an architectural structure. As Beale observes, the promise that the temple will become a “house of prayer” for the nations (Isa 56:7) presents a “universal purpose” that “will make the localized temple obsolete.” In the “new heavens and new earth” of Isaiah 65-66, only the entire creation will be able to fully house God’s saving presence as he openly dwells among the righteous (66:2, 12-14, 20-23; cf. 57:15). More than a new temple, Isaiah is anticipating a new Eden where God’s presence extends throughout the earth (Isa 51:3-8). The presence of Yahweh will be so direct and pervasive that there will no longer be a need for the sun and moon to provide light (Isa 60:19-20). Ultimately, Revelation 21:22 promises that a temple will not be needed in the New Jerusalem because of God’s direct presence with his people. The temple, both past and future, points to the restoration of perfect fellowship with God that was lost because of Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden. One final blog on this topic will explore how the concept of temple is developed in the NT.

Isaiah 6: Isaiah's Cleansing and the Burning Coal

2009-10-07T19:20:00.000-07:00

A friend asked me recently why Isaiah in the sixth chapter of the book of Isaiah has his sin taken away after being touched by a burning coal, yet the Bible says in Leviticus 17:11 that the blood of a sacrifice was needed for forgiveness of sins. It is important to remember that the sacrificial system only provided a partial solution for the problem of Israel’s sin. The sacrifices provided cleansing and forgiveness for sins done “unintentionally” (Lev 4:2, 13, 22, 27; 5:15, 18). The Hebrew term for “unintentionally” is shegugah, and it probably means sins done out of ignorance or human weakness. Whatever it means, it’s clear that the sacrifices did not provide a perfect solution to Israel’s sin problem. The sacrifices offered for the nation on the Day of Atonement were for Israel’s “rebellion” and provided cleansing for all of the other sins not covered by the individual sacrifices (Lev 16:16) so that Israel could live in God’s presence for another year. An Israelite was truly forgiven when offering the sacrifice with a repentant spirit, but the forgiveness needed for a personal relationship with God went even deeper than the sacrifices. As an observant Jew worshipping God at the temple when he has his vision, Isaiah would likely have offered any sacrifice necessary for him to have the purification required to enter into the presence of God, but he needed something more.

In order to be God’s prophet, Isaiah needs a deeper cleansing than what is offered through the sacrificial system. He is aware of deep-seated personal corruption, reflected in the fact that he is “man of unclean lips.” The cleansing provided by the seraphim touching his lips with the burning coal represents a fuller and complete cleansing than is what is provided by the cleansing/forgiveness associated with the individual sacrifices. God’s grace and forgiveness are not exclusively tied to the sacrifices—i.e. forgiveness could be extended without the specific act of sacrifice. When David confesses his sin of adultery and murder, Nathan the prophet announces that God has forgiven him (2 Sam 12:13-15). God’s free choice to forgive was the only way David could be forgiven because there was no sacrifice that David could have offered for the defiant sins of adultery and murder (cf. Psalm 51:16-17). Similarly, Isaiah needs a more thorough personal cleansing than what could be offered through the sacrificial system. God provided this cleansing for the prophet and would have done the same for the nation as a whole if they had repented and turned from their sinful ways.

The New Temple in the OT Prophets: Literal or Figurative

2009-09-27T15:04:00.000-07:00

The restoration of Jerusalem and the temple as the center of worship for all peoples is a central feature of the eschatological vision of the Old Testament prophets.

Isaiah 2:2-4 It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it, and many peoples shall come, and say: "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths." For out of Zion shall go the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.

Isaiah 56:6-7 And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD, and to be his servants, everyone who keeps the Sabbath and does not profane it, and holds fast my covenant -these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples."

Zechariah 8:20-23 "Thus says the LORD of hosts: Peoples shall yet come, even the inhabitants of many cities. The inhabitants of one city shall go to another, saying, 'Let us go at once to entreat the favor of the LORD and to seek the LORD of hosts; I myself am going.' Many peoples and strong nations shall come to seek the LORD of hosts in Jerusalem and to entreat the favor of the LORD. Thus says the LORD of hosts: In those days ten men from the nations of every tongue shall take hold of the robe of a Jew, saying, 'Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.'"

Zechariah 14:16-19 Then everyone who survives of all the nations that have come against Jerusalem shall go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Booths. And if any of the families of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, there will be no rain on them. And if the family of Egypt does not go up and present themselves, then on them there shall be no rain; there shall be the plague with which the LORD afflicts the nations that do not go up to keep the Feast of Booths. This shall be the punishment to Egypt and the punishment to all the nations that do not go up to keep the Feast of Booths.

Ezekiel 40-48 offers an extended vision of the future temple, but interpreters continue to debate whether the passage should be interpreted literally or figuratively. In his commentary on Ezekiel in the NICOT, Daniel Block adopts an idealized view of the vision that sees Ezekiel’s temple pointing to the restored relationship between the Lord and his people and the fact that Yahweh will take up permanent residence among his people rather than the building of a physical temple. In support of this interpretation, Block points to symbolic, ideal, and non-literal elements in the description of the temple and the nation of Israel in Ezek 40-48:

1. the dimensions of the temple and the temple mount in 42:15-20 are roughly equivalent to the ancient city of Jerusalem from the second temple period.

2. the city forms a perfect square with three gates on each side for the entrance of the 12 tribes (48:16)

3. the emphasis on the twelve tribes reverses the loss of the tribes in history

4. the territorial allotments for the Israelite tribes run in straight lines from east to west without consideration of the geographical peculiarities of the land

5. the dimensions of the city are given with recurring multiples of five and twenty-five

6. the only recorded dimensions are horizontal

7. the water flowing out from the temple in ch. 47 becomes deeper as it flows out of Jerusalem without tributaries, and the fresh water of this river transforms the salinity of the Dead Sea.

Block concludes: “All in all Ezekiel’s scheme appears highly contrived, casting doubt on any interpretation that expects a literal fulfillment of his plan.” (p. 502)

There is no question that there are idealized elements in Ezekiel 40-48 and that Ezekiel’s prophecy envisions far more than the building of a physical temple. However, Richard Hess’ recent essay, “The Future Written in the Past: The Old Testament and the Millennium” (in A Case for Historical Premillennialism), in my opinion provides a more compelling argument for the view that Ezekiel is prophesying a literal future temple. He makes four key points:

1. Prophets appeared in the ancient Near East outside of Israel, and their prophecies clearly refer to specific events and literal persons and places. For example, the neo-Assyrian prophets speak of the future destruction of the Elamites, an enemy nation. There is no doubt that the people who spoke and heard them would have expected a literal fulfillment.

2. The description of the temple in Ezek 40-43 is quite detailed and calls to mind other passages in the OT that describe the construction of an actual sanctuary. There is the tabernacle description and construction in Exodus 25-40, and similar passages dealing with Solomon’s temple in 1 Kings 6-8 and 2 Chronicles 2-7. Hess notes, “Indeed, of all the temple descriptions in the OT, Ezekiel’s description is the most detailed in terms of measurements and specifics of the rooms.” Since these other passages deal with real buildings, we would expect the same in Ezek 40-43.

3. The book of Ezekiel is built around Ezekiel’s 3 visions of God, and the vision of 40-48 provides the mirror image of the vision found in Ezek 8-11. In Ezek 8-11, the glory of the Lord departs Jerusalem because of the sin and idolatry of the people. The prophet Ezekiel, who was in Babylon, clearly wishes to convey that he saw a vision of the real temple in its last days before its destruction by the Babylonians. If this first vision is realistic, then it seems most likely that the vision of the new temple and the glory of the Lord returning to Jerusalem (Ezek 43:1-9) should be read in the same way.

4. Various specifics of temple architecture found only in Ezek 40ff are found in the Persian-period temple on Mount Gerazim, in Josephus’ description of the second temple, in the area of the Herodian temple mount, and in the future temple envisioned in various writings of the DSS. Throughout the Second Temple period, there was an understanding among the Samaritans, mainstream Jews, and the Qumran community that the Ezekiel prophecy referred to an actual physical temple.

If a literal temple is in view, then the question arises as to when this prophecy was fulfilled. Was it the second temple built by Zerubbabel in the post-exilic period that was expanded and remodeled by Herod at the beginning of the NT era? Hess correctly observes that this temple could hardly match what is envisioned in Ezekiel’s prophecy: “It is clear that the pure and magnificent temple of Ezekiel was not fulfilled by the construction of the second temple, whether we consider the one constructed immediately after the return from exile or the one that Herod the Great began building and that was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. Herod built a temple that could perhaps be compared to the one in Ezekiel in terms of its splendor but hardly in terms of its purity” (p. 34) Additionally, the Book of Revelation clarifies that there will not be a temple in the New Jerusalem because God and the Lamb will be the temple in that eternal city (Rev 21:22). Taken together, these details suggest that the construction of the temple envisioned by Ezekiel “must take place sometime in the future before the appearance of the new heavens and the new earth” (p. 34). This future time best fits with the millennial era when the kingdom of God comes to earth in fulfillment of the promises made by the Old Testament prophets (cf. Rev 20:1-10).

The various issues associated with the fulfillment of the temple promise in the prophets will be addressed in future blogs, but we will begin with the starting point that Ezekiel’s prophecy most naturally infers that a literal future temple is part of God’s plan for the eschatological future. When Jesus cleansed the temple at the end of his earthly ministry, he reminded the people of the words of Isaiah 56:7—“Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations?’” (Mark 11:17). Jesus had announced that the kingdom of God promised by the Old Testament prophets had arrived in its inaugural form (Mark 1:14-15). In quoting Isaiah 56:7, Jesus endorsed the idea of the temple playing a vital role in the eschatological kingdom as a place of worship for all nations. However, Jesus denounced the present temple and warned of its impending destruction, because even though the kingdom had broken into human history through his coming as Messiah, the temple was not fulfilling its divinely-appointed function.

Literary Features in Jonah (Jonah 1:1-6)

2009-09-08T10:23:00.000-07:00

I’m teaching Hebrew syntax/exegesis this semester, and our class is working through the books of Jonah and Ruth. I will be making some brief posts on features of the Hebrew text of the passages we work through in class (primarily literary and rhetorical features). Many of these comments are not original to me but are things that I have particularly gleaned from Robert Chisholm’s A Workbook for Intermediate Hebrew and Phyllis Trible’s Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah. I find that paying attention to these types of literary features from the original languages has two major benefits for teaching the biblical text. First, these literary features often provide clues regarding the key theological emphases of the text. Second, an understanding of the poetics of the biblical text helps us to be more creative and vivid in our own retelling of the passage.

Verse 2:
The two imperatives “get up” (קומ) (qum) “go” (לך) (lek) joined without the conjunction convey the urgency and seriousness of the Lord’s command to Jonah. Prophets do not have the option of accepting or rejecting the Lord’s call to deliver his word. In other passages where the Lord commands a prophet to “get up and go,” the prophet’s compliance simply mirrors the Lord’s command (“he got up and went”; cf. Num 22:20-21; 1 Kgs 17:9). Jonah “gets up” (קומ) (qum), not to obey but rather to flee away from what God is commanding him to do. As Chisholm states, “Jonah is the anti-prophet.”

Verse 3:
Repetition often highlights what is important to the biblical writer. The place name “Tarshish” appears 3 times—it is in exactly the opposite direction of where the Lord is commanding Jonah to go. The phrase “from the presence of the Lord” also appears twice in this verse. Here’s Jonah’s real motivation—he believes that getting on a ship and going to Tarshish will help him to escape the Lord’s presence. The book of Jonah is characterized by Jonah making theologically precise confessions that he completely ignores in the way that he acts. In verse 9, Jonah confesses that he worships the Lord, who made the sea and the dry land—if that’s the case, then how does he think he can escape from God’s presence by getting on a ship?

The verb yarad (ירד) (“to go down”) is also prominent in Jonah 1. Jonah “went down” to Joppa and then “went down” into the ship (v. 3). He will later “go down” into the inward parts of the ship (v. 5). The conceptual idea of “going down” continues when Jonah is thrown into the sea in ch. 1 and then descends to the point of Sheol itself in ch. 2. This idea of downward progression is an effective way of demonstrating the consequences of Jonah’s disobedience—sin leads downward to death.

Verse 4:
In the Hebrew text, weyhwh is the first word of the verse. A waw + a non-verbal form at the beginning of a sentence/clause indicates disjunction and here there is a contrast between Jonah’s actions and the Lord’s response. There are clear consequences to Jonah’s choices, and the Lord ultimately acts to accomplish his original intent of getting Jonah to Nineveh.

The name “Yahweh” is the last word of v. 3 and the first word of v. 4, indicating that Jonah was not successful in his attempt to evade the Lord. Jonah attempts to flee from the Lord, but the Lord merely “hurls” a storm in Jonah’s direction to make his presence immediately felt. The verb “to hurl” (טול) (tul) is prominent in chapter 1 (vv. 4, 5, 12, 15). Yahweh is sovereign in that he controls the forces of nature and is able to “hurl” a storm. The human characters in this drama merely act in response to Yahweh’s sovereign power—the sailors “hurl” the cargo into the sea (v. 5), Jonah tells the sailors to “hurl” him into the sea (v. 12), and the sailors comply and “hurl” Jonah overboard (v. 15).

The repetition of the adjective gadol (גדול) in v. 4 reflects the ferocity and intensity of the storm—there was a gadol (“mighty”) wind and a gadol (“violent”) storm. The figurative description of the ship in this verse helps to make this same point. The Hebrew literally reads “even the ship thought it was going to break up.” The ship itself is personified and given human thought so as to portray the sheer terror of this storm. If the ship itself was afraid of breaking up, imagine the fright of the sailors on the ship. The Hebrew involves a sound play (השבה להשבר) hishebah lehishaber for emphasis and a form of onomatopoeia (where the sound of the verb “to break” imitates its meaning). With the sound play, the reader can practically hear the ship about to shatter into pieces. The imagery is even more impressive when we consider the type of seafaring vessel in view. King and Stager (Life in Biblical Israel, 179-81) provide photos of two 8th-century B.C. Phoenician ships (shipwrecked) that each carried cargoes of wine in excess of 12 tons. A storm threatening to destroy a similar-type ship headed for Tarshish was certainly a violent storm.

Verse 5:
This verse makes a vivid contrast between the pagan sailors and Jonah, the prophet of God. The first half of the verse describes the activity of the sailors, and the second half (introduced by the disjunctive we + Jonah) depicts the inactivity of the prophet. Three verbs are associated with the sailors (they feared, they cried out, and they hurled) and three with Jonah (he went down, he laid down, and he slept). While the pagan sailors are sensitive to the working of God and respond with prayer, Jonah is oblivious and sleeps on. The irony of pagans being more spiritually aware than the Lord’s prophet continues throughout this chapter and carries over into Jonah’s interaction with the Ninevites in chapter 3. The prophet states in v. 9 that he “fears” (ירא) (yara’) the Lord, but it is the sailors here who “fear” (ירא) (yara’) the storm that is sent by the Lord.

Verse 6:
There is further irony as the pagan captain has to confront the man of God and urge him to pray to his god. Rather than the prophet instructing the captain, the captain informs the prophet of the theological truth that God may respond to their prayers and deliver them from danger. It is further ironic that these are the first human words spoken in the book, because God’s willingness to spare from judgment and death is the very truth that Jonah resists and is the ultimate reason for his refusal to obey and go to Nineveh (cf. 4:2-3). The captain instructs Jonah to “get up and call” (קום קרא)(qum qera), echoing the Lord’s earlier command for Jonah to “get up [and] call” (קום ... קרא) (qum qera) to the city of Nineveh. The prophet has tried to run away from God’s presence and calling, but has been unsuccessful in doing either. God has made his presence felt in a very real way through the storm, and now Jonah hears the divine commission once again in the words of the captain. However, Jonah will continue to attempt to evade God’s calling, even to the point of telling the sailors on the ship to throw him overboard. He ultimately would rather die than do what God has commanded him.

TO BE CONTINUED

Psalm 46, Chaos, and the Cross

2009-09-04T12:11:00.000-07:00

Psalm 46 is a song of trust celebrating God’s protective presence with his people in Zion. By its very structure, the song highlights that God’s presence is the source of the believer’s security. It opens with the confession that God is a “refuge” and “very present help” for his people in times of trouble, and the refrain, “Yahweh of armies is with us; the God of Jacob is our fortress” appears at the middle (v. 7) and end (v. 11) of the psalm.

Psalm 46 makes two audacious claims concerning God’s ability to protect those who trust in him. The first is that God provides security for his people in the midst of a catastrophic storm on the scale of the Noahic flood (vv. 2-3). The earth trembles, the mountains “tumble” (מוט) (mot) into the sea, and the raging waters “roar” (המה) (hamah) and “foam” (חמר) (chamar). The malevolent forces of chaos threaten to destroy the earth and humanity in the process. Gerald Wilson writes, “The radical confidence of the psalmist is exhibited in the ability to stand without fear in the face of what constitutes a threat of uncreation” (Psalms: 1, NIVAC, 716). Even in the midst of worldwide tsunami, God provides a protective presence for his people.

After focusing on natural disasters, the psalmist turns to catastrophes of the man-made variety. God not only protects his people from the storm, but he also delivers Zion from the hostile armies that assault the city and seek its destruction (vv. 4-7). The violence of verses 2-3 contrasts with the peaceful calm of verses 4-5. Zion is a place of security even as the earth is falling apart. The mountains of the earth may “tumble” (מוט) (mot), but Zion is “not moved” (בל-תמוט)(bal-tamut). The peaceful river of God’s presence (represented by the Gihon spring in Jerusalem) may seem insignificant by appearance, but it is in fact more powerful than all of the threatening seas. The waters that flow from God’s presence are a source of blessing and joy.

Like the raging seas, the enemy nations also “roar” (המה) (hamah) and “foam” (חמר) (chamar) against Zion. These hostile armies are a human embodiment of the forces of chaos as they threaten Jerusalem and its inhabitants (cf. Jer 4:23 where the prophet hyperbolically warns that the assault of the Babylonian army on Judah will return the earth to a state of chaos and darkness). Even under attack, Zion is secure because the armies of the earth are nothing compared to the “Lord of armies.” The Lord dispatches these enemies with only his voice, which has the power to melt the earth. As previously with the raging waters, the whole world threatens to dissolve, while the tiny hill-fortress of Zion is safe and secure.

The Lord’s deliverance of Jerusalem from the Assyrian army in 701 B.C. provides a historical example of what Psalm 46 envisions (see 2 Kgs 18-19; Isa 36-37). The Assyrian king, Sennacherib, demanded the unconditional surrender of Jerusalem, warning that the Lord would be no more effective in protecting his people than the gods of other conquered peoples. When Hezekiah turned to the Lord in faith, the prophet Isaiah promised that the Assyrian army would not enter or even fire an arrow into the city. The angel of the Lord miraculously destroyed the Assyrian army in the middle of the night, putting an end to the threat against Jerusalem.

The final stanza in verses 8-11 is the difficult part of this psalm because it is the point of personal application. The psalmist invites all worshippers to share his radical faith and to “be still” and recognize the greatness of the God in whom they have trusted. There is once again a contrast between the swirling, surging violence of the first half of the psalm and the peaceful quietness of those who trust the Lord in the second half. The Lord is worthy of trust because he will one day silence the forces of chaos and bring an end to warfare and violence on the earth. If God is able to protect his people in the greatest natural and man-made disasters imaginable, then he is able to give security to us, no matter what circumstances or situations we are facing in our lives.

The subjugation of the sea and the defeat of the waters of chaos are common images for the Lord’s sovereignty in the Old Testament. The Canaanites believed that Baal had risen to kingship over the gods by his defeat of Yam (Sea) and Nahar (River). In defeating the unruly waters, Baal had also slain the sea monster, Leviathan (Lotan). The Old Testament writers use this imagery for the polemical purpose of asserting that it is Yahweh who rules as king and not Baal. Yahweh subjugated the sea at creation by putting the waters in their place and establishing their proper boundaries (Job 38:8-11; Pss 65:5-7; 74:12-17; 89:9-13; 93:3-4; 104:6-9). Yahweh further demonstrated his power over chaos by using the sea to deliver the Israelites and to destroy the Egyptians at the exodus (Exod 14; Pss 77:16-19; 114:1-5). Egypt is Leviathan (Ps 74:17), Rahab (Ps 87:4; Isa 30:7), and the “dragon” (Ezek 29:3-5).

The Old Testament also promises God’s eschatological victory over Israel’s enemies as the ultimate and final victory over the sea and the forces of chaos (Isa 27:1; 51:9-10). Daniel 7 portrays this cosmic drama unfolding throughout human history as successive empires arise out of the sea and culminate in a hideous beast that is finally destroyed when the Ancient of Days confers an eternal kingdom upon the Son of Man and the saints of the Most High. Jon D. Levenson (Creation and the Persistence of Evil) explains that the motif of Yahweh subjugating the sea is an important component of Old Testament theodicy. God controls evil from the time of creation, but evil is not eliminated or removed until the eschatological future.

The tenacious faith that God’s presence would bring real and permanent peace to Zion pervades and even extends beyond the Hebrew Bible. N. T. Wright (The New Testament and the People of God, 247) comments:

Again and again in the Pentateuch, the psalms, the prophets, and the subsequent writings which derive from them, the claim is made that the creator of the entire universe has chosen to live uniquely on a small ridge called Mount Zion, near the eastern edge of the Judean hill-country. The sheer absurdity of this claim … is staggering. The fact that [more powerful nations] had made explicit mockery of the idea did not shake this conviction, but only intensified it.

The problem is that the beauty of the poetry in Psalm 46 often bears little correspondence to the ugliness of the real world. This confidence in Zion’s security and the larger Old Testament hope of the final dissolution of evil is a noble sentiment, but is it really anything more than wishful thinking? The Bible explains that the fall of Jerusalem to enemy armies in 586 BC and 70 AD was the result of disobedience and unbelief, but the righteous and wicked suffered together. There were other inexplicable defeats when Israel was not guilty of national infidelity (Ps 44:9-22). As an old man, David asserted that he had never seen the righteous lacking bread (Ps 37:25), but one suspects that David may have needed to get away from the palace and the temple a little more often. The holy city of Jerusalem seems no closer to enjoying lasting peace today than it did in the days of the Babylonians and the Romans. The surging waters of the Indonesian tsunami and Hurricane Katrina swept away the godly and the ungodly. The brutal murders of two Christian college students this past week here in Lynchburg are a stark reminder of the pervasiveness of evil and seem to mock the psalmist’s confidence in the Lord’s protection.

What keeps us from throwing away our confidence in the final victory over evil is the historical reality of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus took our sins and absorbed the violence of the cross so that the endless cycle of evil and death could be broken. The motif of God’s conflict with the sea offers another demonstration of how Jesus completes and fulfills what is promised and anticipated in the Old Testament. Revelation 12 reminds us Christ came to engage the dragon (Satan) in a cosmic battle that lasts until the end of time. In his miracle of calming the sea (cf. Matt 8:23-27), Jesus announced that the eschatological kingdom of God was breaking into human history and that the days when death and evil would rule over the earth were numbered. In subjugating the sea, Jesus acted with the power and authority of Yahweh himself. As Schreiner (New Testament Theology, 181) observes, the miracle of Jesus walking on the water “hearkens back to Yahweh who walks upon the sea” (cf. Matt 14:25; Mark 6:48; Job 9:8 LXX; Hab 3:15). The conflict between Christ and Satan reaches a climax at the cross. The darkness and earthquake accompanying the death of Jesus recall the cosmos-shaking storm in Psalm 46 (cf. Matt 27:45-53) and symbolize the destruction of the powers of evil carried out even as Satan unleashes the full torrent of his hatred. The ultimate irony is that Jesus triumphs as the Divine Warrior by sacrificing his own life and then overcoming death through his resurrection:

And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him (Col 2:13-15)

Longman and Reid (God is a Warrior, 150) comment that Christ’s triumph is “not the victory of a more powerful being over less powerful beings (as if it were a cosmic struggle of strength against strength in which salvation was achieved by a tour de force); it is the victory of holy, righteous, and creative love over the destructive forces of evil.” The decisive victory is won, but we are continually reminded of the powerful grip that death and evil still hold over the earth. The conflict between God and evil will only intensify until the final beast that rises out of the sea and Satan himself, the great dragon, are ultimately destroyed (Rev 13:1; 19:19-21; 20:7-10). The biblical promise is that there will be no more sea in the new heaven and the new earth of the eternal future, no more of the rebellion, violence and death that has infected the old earth we live in now. Even in the darkest of times, Christ is our refuge and our source of hope. He gives substance to the Old Testament’s lofty aspirations for the peace of Zion, and the final promise of Scripture is that God will eternally extend that peace to all of creation when heaven and earth meet in the New Jerusalem (Rev 21-22).

Paul, the Mosaic Law, and Christian Convictions

2009-08-25T12:37:00.000-07:00

Reading from Michael Bird’s brief Introducing Paul: The Man, His Mission, and His Message reminded me of just how difficult the problem of the continuing relevance of the Old Testament law was for the early church. Bird (p. 150) summarizes the four major perspectives on the law reflected in the early church:

• Jewish Christians and Gentile converts who insisted on full observance of the Mosaic law, including circumcision.
• Jewish Christians and Gentile converts who did not insist on circumcision, but did require converts to keep some Jewish observances.
• Jewish Christians and Gentile converts who did not insist on circumcision or adherence to the Jewish food laws.
• Jewish Christians and Gentile converts who did not insist on circumcision, adherence to the Jewish food laws or Jewish cults and feasts.

The incredible thing about the early church may not be as much that they survived intense persecution from the outside as that they survived each other and were able to overcome the Jew/Gentile divide from within the church. Paul’s instructions on how mixed congregations were to handle their conflicting convictions concerning the Mosaic Law serve as a model for how Christians today can continue to worship and serve together in unity even when disagreeing over secondary matters of conscience or conviction.

Paul taught that believers in Jesus were no longer “under the law” (Rom 6:14-15; 7:1-6). The coming of Christ and the arrival of the eschatological age of salvation had brought epochal changes with regard to the role and function of the Mosaic law. Believers were no longer under law in that: 1) Christ had delivered them from the curse of disobedience to the law (Gal 3:10-14); 2) the 613 stipulations of the Mosaic law were no longer the regulating code for the covenant between God and his people (cf. 2 Cor 3; Gal 3:19-24; 4:4-5); 3) the boundary marking behaviors separating Jews from Gentiles (circumcision, diet, Sabbath) were rendered obsolete by the formation of Jews and Gentiles into one people (Gal 5:6; 6:15); and 4) Christ, rather than the law, had become the “goal” or focal point of God’s revelation (Rom 10:4). However, the Mosaic law itself had not become obsolete. As the eternal word of God, the law continued to fulfill its roles of exposing human sinfulness and providing a moral guide for those who live under “the law of Christ.”

The arrival of this new era of salvation history meant that the Mosaic law was not to be imposed upon Gentile believers and that Gentiles were not required to become Torah-observant Jews in order to become full members in the new covenant community. The apostles and leaders clearly articulated this principle at the Jerusalem Council when members of the circumcision party were insistent on circumcision and Torah observance as conditions for the full inclusion of Gentiles in the church:

And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." (Acts 15:7-11)

Paul’s rebuke of Peter at Antioch when Peter withdrew from eating with Gentile believers because of peer pressure from Jews belonging to “the circumcision party” reflects the importance of this insistence that Torah observance was not to be imposed on Gentile followers of Christ:

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?" (Gal 2:11-14)

By withdrawing from table fellowship with Gentile believers, Peter was implying that these Gentiles did not have equal standing in the new covenant community and that they were second-class citizens unless they became fully Torah-observant. Paul confronted Peter for his hypocrisy, reminding his fellow-apostle that such behavior was inconsistent with the gospel message of justification through faith in Christ. The insistence that Gentiles did not have to become Jews in order to become Christians is what enabled Christianity to become a fully international movement. If the apostolic teaching had imposed Torah observance on Gentile believers, then Christianity would have become just another form of Jewish proselytism.

Paul’s instructions that Torah was not to be imposed on Gentiles in the church did not mean that Jewish believers were required to abandon their Jewish customs and practices. For reasons of culture, conscience, and testimony, the majority of Jewish believers likely continued to practice a Torah-observant lifestyle. Bird writes, “We should note that while Paul defended the right of Gentiles to be free from the forcible imposition of the law upon them, he did not demand that Jewish Christians give up all observance of the law” (p. 151). John McRay concurs: “I would suggest that no consideration of Paul’s teaching on the law can be deemed satisfactory if it does not recognize that he had one view of the law for a Jew and another for a Gentile.” (Paul: His Life and Teaching, p. 367). Mark Nanos, in his article “The Myth of the ‘Law-Free’ Paul Standing Between Christians and Jews,” makes a strong case for the idea that Paul continued for the most part to live a Torah-observant life even after his conversion to the Christian faith. In 1 Corinthians 7:17-24, Paul encourages believers to remain in the condition to which they were called (7:20), suggesting that Jewish Christian should continue with the customs they have practiced in the past. The book of Acts offers several examples of Paul’s practice of Torah: in 18:18, he cuts his hair in order to complete a (Nazirite?) vow; in 21:21-26, he performs rites of purification to counter the charge that he is encouraging fellow-Jews to abandon the law; and in 24:17-19, Paul recounts how he had been arrested when presenting alms and offerings at the Jerusalem temple. Paul also reminds the Corinthians of how he “became as a Jew in order to win Jesus” (1 Cor 9:19-23).

Jew-Gentile fellowship in the early church was made possible because two different convictions on Torah observance were allowed to peacefully coexist. Gentile Christians were given the freedom to not practice Torah observance, while Jewish believers were given the freedom to continue to practice many aspects of their former lifestyle. This same allowance for believers to practice their own convictions, while respecting those of others, carried over into other secondary issues of conscience. We learn from 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14-15 that the areas of major controversy in the early church revolved around food and fellowship. 1 Corinthians 8 informs us that some Christians believed that it was acceptable to eat meat that had been offered to idols; some did not. In Romans 14:1-15:7, there are some Christians who believe it is permissible to eat meat and drink wine and others who do not. There are some who observe the Jewish holy days and some who do not. In working through these issues, Paul allows believers to arrive at their own convictions. It is acceptable to do something or not do something that is morally neutral, and one is not better than the other. Bird comments: “Note that Paul does not argue for an uniform view of meat, drink and Sabbath observances, but recognizes the freedom of individuals to decide such matters for themselves. This is born out of the conviction that what unites Christians is infinitely stronger than anything that might tear them apart” (p. 153).

Christian love does not require that I surrender my personal convictions, but it does demand that I allow other believers the same freedom to live by their convictions, even when theirs are different from mine. Paul reminds us that if we are truly practicing Christian love, then the spiritual well-being of others will take priority over my personal convictions:

One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's.(Rom 14:5-8)

For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding (Rom 14:17-19)

Bird (p. 154) offers these summarizing principles from Romans 14-15 and 1 Corinthians 8 on how Christians today should deal with issues of conscience and conviction:

• Learn to differentiate between areas of conviction and areas of command
• Don’t major on minor doctrines
• Withhold judgment where the gospel is not threatened
• Exercise your convictions to build others up, not to tear them down
• Do not exchange freedom in Christ for slavery to human tradition
• At all time act in love and fulfill the law of Christ.

Through the Spirit’s enablement, the fledgling church experienced remarkable harmony under the most difficult of circumstances as Jews and Gentiles came together to form the body of Christ. Paul’s willingness to set aside his own past prejudices concerning the standing of Gentiles before God is in itself a powerful testimony to the transformative power of the gospel message. When we constantly hear of secondary issues that divide Christians or that keep them from working together in fulfillment of the church’s mission, It seems a shame that we are not doing a better job of living out this reality in the American church 2,000 years later.

David & Jonathan: Best Friends Forever or Something More

2009-08-17T16:41:00.000-07:00

The newly released Sex and the Jews, a series of essays collected by Nathan Abrams, re-circulates the idea that David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers and that the lack of censure from the narrator suggests that the Bible at least in some places has a more enlightened and tolerant view of sexual behavior than its later (and more repressed) interpreters. It is understandable how reading the story of David and Jonathan with modern eyes might lead to such a conclusion. The text states that Jonathan “loved” David and that his soul “was joined” to David’s (1 Sam 18:1), appearing to echo the intimacy reflected in the “one flesh” relationship between the husband and the wife in Genesis 2:24. In one of their final times together, the two men kissed one another in a highly emotional scene (1 Sam 20:43), and David later eulogized his dead friend by declaring that Jonathan’s love was more special to him than the love of women (2 Sam 1:26).

Robert A. J. Gagnon’s The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics is one of the best exegetical and historical defenses of the traditional view that the Bible is unanimous in its witness that same-sex intercourse is sinful. Through a careful analysis of the David-Jonathan narratives and their ancient Near Eastern setting, Gagnon (pp. 146-57) offers seven convincing reasons as to why we should not view David and Jonathan as having a homosexual relationship.

1. The term “love” (אהב) (’ahav) has a broad range of meaning, and the large majority of the uses of this root in the Hebrew Bible do not refer to sexual or romantic love. In this context alone, the term refers to Israel’s “love” for David as a military hero because of his victory over Goliath (1 Sam 18:1), to Jonathan’s love for David (1 Sam 18:1, 3; 20:17; 2 Sam 1:26—though note that there is never a clear reciprocal statement that David “loved” Jonathan), to Michal’s romantic love/attraction to David (1 Sam 18:20, 28), to the esteem of Saul’s servants for David (1 Sam 18:22) and to the love and esteem enjoyed by Saul and Jonathan because of their heroic lives (2 Sam 1:23).

2. The term “love” is common terminology for loyalty between covenant partners in ancient Near Eastern treaties, and this nuance of the term relates to the promises and oaths that David and Jonathan made to one another (note their oaths to each other and the use of the term חסד (hesed) in 1 Sam 20:8, 14, 15). Kings expressing love for one another in ancient treaties were obviously not wanting to hold hands or go steady but were merely affirming their commitment to the covenant stipulations:

--King Hiram of Tyre is David’s “lover” (or “friend”) in 1 Kgs 5:1

--Note the use of the terms “love/hate” for those who are loyal/disloyal to David in 2 Sam 19:6-7

--Future vassals of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal were instructed: “You must love [him] as yourself.”

--Tursatta, the king of Mitanni says to the Egyptian Pharaoh: “My lord, just as I love the king my lord, so (do) the king of Nuhasse, the king of Ni’i….”

The covenantal commitment between David and Jonathan is the key component in the biblical portrayal of their friendship. Jonathan extended total loyalty to David and was willing to give up his position as royal heir to the throne on David’s behalf. In their first encounter, Jonathan makes a covenant with David and hands over to David his robe, sword, armor, bow, and belt as a symbol of royal investiture (cf. 1 Sam 17: 51, 54; 2 Kgs 11:10; and the significance of the “robe” as a symbol of political power in 1 Sam 15:27-28). Jonathan lives up to the covenant agreement by twice warning David of Saul’s plots to put David to death (1 Sam 19:1; 20:35-42), the second time in connection with the renewal of covenant loyalties between David and Jonathan (1 Sam 20:8, 13-17, 42). In turn, David makes a covenant promise to Jonathan that he would show hesed to Jonathan and his descendants for all time (1 Sam 20:14-17), a promise David later kept by providing for Mephebisheth, Jonathan’s crippled son (2 Sam 9). In their final meeting together, David and Jonathan once again affirm their covenant commitments before the Lord, and Jonathan acknowledges that David will become the ruler over Israel (1 Sam 23:16-18).

Politics in ancient Israel was a bloody and violent affair. Abimelech killed 70 of his brothers in an attempt to become Israel’s king (Judg 9:5), and Jonathan’s father wanted David dead because of the threat that David posed to the family’s dynasty. When David died, there was a bloody dispute over the right to succession in his own family (1 Kgs 2). During the time of the divided monarchy, 8 of the 19 kings of the Northern Kingdom were either murdered, assassinated, or committed suicide as a result of various forms of political intrigue. Jonathan’s act of surrendering the right of succession to a friend outside of his family was an incredible act of selfless devotion, and this unheard of magnanimity is what leads David to proclaim that Jonathan’s love for him surpassed that of women. Gagnon (pp. 152-53) comments: “Jonathan’s repeated display of (non-sexual) kindness to David at a time when Jonathan was in a position of power, selflessly risking his own life and certainly his own kingdom surpassed anything David had ever known from a committed erotic relationship with a woman.”

3. The expression that Jonathan’s “soul (נפש) (nephesh) was “united” (קשר) (qashar) to David (1 Sam 18:2) also describes the deep love of Jacob for his son Benjamin in Genesis 44:30-31, where it is clear that nothing sexual is intended by this expression.

4. The verb חפץ (haphets) used to describe Jonathan’s feelings toward David in 1 Samuel 19:1 is used by Saul himself to express his own pretended affections for David in 1 Sam 18:22.

5. The kissing of David and Jonathan in 1 Samuel 20:41 is not erotic in nature but rather an expression of deep emotion by two friends who recognize that they may never see each other again. In the OT, the verb “to kiss” (נשק) (nashaq) carries no sexual connotation in 24 of its 27 uses. The term refers to kisses between relatives 15 times, and there is nothing erotic in the kisses between unrelated males in the four other contexts where they occur (cf. 1 Sam 10:1; 2 Sam 15:5; 19:40; 20:8). This farewell scene where David and Jonathan are overcome with emotion recalls the episodes in Genesis where Joseph weeps and kisses when he reveals himself to his brothers in 45:5 and where he weeps and kisses his dead father in 50:1. Even in Middle Eastern cultures today, it is not uncommon for men to kiss, hold hands, or have physical contact in a non-sexual way that is strange or uncomfortable for Western males.

6. David’s heterosexual vigor (cf. 1 Sam 18:17-29; 25:39-43; 2 Sam 3:2-5, 13-16; 5:13-16; 11) and Jonathan’s marriage (1 Sam 20:42; 2 Sam 9) do not preclude the possibility of a homosexual relationship between the two, but would seem to raise further doubts concerning the likelihood of such a relationship. David’s strong attraction to women is a major source of his problems.

7. The narrator never states that David and Jonathan had sexual relations, and the terms “to lie with” (שכב) (shakav) or “to know” (ידע) (yada‘) do not appear in the text. Of course, one could argue that the narrator has tried to suppress the true nature of the relationship between David and Saul, but Gagnon rightly questions why a narrator trying to suppress the relationship would focus so much on the closeness of their relationship. He writes that there is no “indication that the narrators were in the slightest bit concerned about a possible homosexual misunderstanding. Indeed, far from censoring, the narrators did their best to play up the relationship between Jonathan and David. The more covenants and the greater the emotional bond between these two, the merrier. Why were the narrators unconcerned about a hint of homosexual scandal? The answer is obvious: nothing in the stories raised any suspicion that David and Jonathan were homosexually involved with one another. ” (pp. 154-155)

The point here is not that David having a homosexual relationship with Jonathan would have precluded God from using David as a great leader or that such behavior would have been a worse form of sin than the actions surrounding his adultery with Bathsheba that brought great ruin to his kingdom and heartache to his family. God extends his grace to both heterosexual and homosexual sinners and delights in using individuals despite their character flaws and moral failings. The point is simply that the biblical text does not portray David and Jonathan as lovers. To suggest otherwise is poor exegesis and a desperate attempt to use the Bible to validate homosexual behavior. For seminary students and those preparing for a ministry of preaching and teaching the Scriptures, this issue is another reminder of the importance of knowing biblical languages and remaining committed to grammatical-historical exegesis in an age of reader-centered hermeneutics. The message of the text, and not our personal agendas or what we want the text to say, must remain our primary concern.

The Missionary God of the Old Testament

2009-08-03T06:18:00.000-07:00

Christopher J. H. Wright’s book The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative is one of my favorite theological works because it provides a biblical basis for missionary endeavor by tracing the theme of mission through the whole of Scripture. Many Christians mistakenly think that missions began with the Great Commission (Matt 28:19) or in Jesus’ final words to the apostles before his ascension (Acts 1:8) and fail to see that the Old Testament itself is a missionary book. In fact, Wright describes the Bible itself as a “missional phenomenon” in that it is “the product of and witness to the ultimate mission of God.” Of all the books of the Old Testament, Isaiah more than any other highlights the theme of God’s missionary concern for the nations and the promise of Gentile inclusion in the blessings of salvation. Tying Isaiah into the larger story of the Old Testament, the prophet anticipates the fulfillment of the original promise of the Abrahamic covenant that all the families of the earth would be blessed through Abraham and his descendants (Gen 12:3).

As with much of the book of Isaiah, this emphasis arises out of Isaiah’s initial vision of Yahweh in Isaiah 6. Isaiah sees that the glory of the Lord fills the earth (6:3), and it thus becomes incumbent that the nations know this God and give him the glory that he is due. The following passages illustrate the recurring theme of Yahweh’s salvation extending to the nations in the book of Isaiah:

Isaiah 2:2-4
It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it, and many peoples shall come, and say: "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths." For out of Zion shall go the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.

Isaiah 25:6-8
On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. And he will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death forever; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the LORD has spoken.

Isaiah 42:6
"I am the LORD; I have called you in righteousness; I will take you by the hand and keep you; I will give you as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations,

Isaiah 49:6

It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel; I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.

Isaiah 52:10
The LORD has bared his holy arm before the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.

Isaiah 56:3-8
Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD say, "The LORD will surely separate me from his people"; and let not the eunuch say, "Behold, I am a dry tree." For thus says the LORD: "To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. "And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD, and to be his servants, everyone who keeps the Sabbath and does not profane it, and holds fast my covenant - these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples." The Lord GOD, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, declares, "I will gather yet others to him besides those already gathered."

Isaiah 60:1-3
Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the LORD has risen upon you. For behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and thick darkness the peoples; but the LORD will arise upon you, and his glory will be seen upon you. And nations shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising.

The most amazing of all these Isaianic passages focusing on the inclusion of the nations is Isaiah 19:19-25. Wright describes this passage as “one of the most breathtaking pronouncements of any prophet, and certainly one of the most missiologically significant texts in all of the Old Testament” (p. 491). The passage looks forward to the eschatological kingdom as a time when Israel, Egypt, and Assyria will be the three peoples of God. Isaiah includes Israel’s representative enemy from the past (Egypt) and Israel’s primary enemy from the present (Assyria) among the future people of God. After a terrible time of judgment, Egypt will experience a national conversion, in which they speak Hebrew (“the language of Canaan”) and give their loyalties and worship to Yahweh as the true God (vv. 19-21). After once again striking Egypt with plagues, Yahweh will reverse the exodus story by this time intervening to save Egypt (v. 22). Like Israel, Egypt will become the recipient of the Lord’s mercy and salvation.

After this remarkable promise concerning Egypt’s future, the prophet goes even further in bringing the hated Assyrians into the sphere of the Lord’s salvation and blessing (vv. 23-25). In Isaiah's day, Israel was gripped in the vice of the superpowers Egypt and Assyria, but there will one day be a highway from Egypt to Assyria and through Israel facilitating travelers coming to worship Yahweh. The Assyrian war machine had wreaked havoc on the nations, but in the future kingdom, Assyria will be with Egypt and Israel a source of “blessing” to the whole earth. Wright comments on what this passage ultimately envisions: “The scattering oppressors become the ingathered worshippers. History is inverted in this eschatological transformation. The enemies of God and Israel will be at peace with Israel and with each other.” (p. 492).

Isaiah 19 is in fact pointing to something even greater than the salvation of just Egypt and Assyria. Wright explains that the prophet uses Egypt and Assyria “in a representational way; that is they stand for a wider inclusion of other nations, not just the specifically named nations.” (p. 492). In his Handbook on the Prophets, Robert Chisholm offers a similar explanation of the significance of Egypt and Assyrian in exploring how this prophecy will be fulfilled. The prophecy transcends its era and the vision of two powers from the ancient world of the Old Testament become “archetypes of the powerful, warring kingdoms of the earth that would one day lay down their weapons and acknowledge the Lord as the one true God.” (p. 59). This prophecy in Isaiah 19 is thus anticipating the vision of Revelation 5:9-10 where people from every tribe, tongue, and language group will belong to the throng of worshippers bowing down before the Lamb of God.

We may not be able to hear with modern ears how radical these promises concerning Egypt and Assyria would have sounded to Isaiah’s original audiences. However, Jacob Neusner (“Repentance in Judaism,” 60-61) notes how a statement from the Jewish Talmud (b. Gittin 57b) has effectively captured the extreme nature of God’s love for Israel’s enemies: “Grandsons of Haman [from the story of Esther] studied Torah in Bene Beraq. Grandsons of Sisera [from Judges 4-5] taught children in Jerusalem. Grandsons of Sennacherib [the king of Assyria who attacked Jerusalem in 701 B.C.E.] taught Torah in public. And who were they? Shemaiah and Abtalion [who were the teachers of Hillel and Shammai].” Offering a modern equivalent, Neusner states that “to understand the power of this statement, we only have to say, ‘Hitler’s grandson teaches Torah in a yeshiva of Bene Baraq,’ or ‘Eichmann’s grandson sits in a Jerusalem yeshiva, reciting prayers and psalms and learning Talmud.’”

We see a similar expression of God’s radical love for the nations and his enemies in Isaiah 19. Every time I read this passage, I am reminded of the wideness of God’s mercy, his willingness to include all who genuinely turn to him for salvation, particularly those I would want to exclude.

The Old Testament and the Problem of Divine Sovereignty/Human Freedom

2009-07-29T12:39:00.000-07:00

Craig Blomberg’s recent reflection “Why I Am a Calminian” provides a helpful reminder of the very real tension in the Scriptures between divine sovereignty and human freedom:

There are countless passages throughout Scripture that, seemingly paradoxically, affirm at one and the same time God’s sovereignty and human freedom (with accountability). Philippians 2:12-13 commands us to work out our salvation in fear and trembling, but only because God is the one at work in us to do his good pleasure. Isaiah 10:5-13 finds God using Assyria as an instrument to punishment faithless Israel but then promising to turn around and punish Assyria because of her evil motives in conquering God’s people.

But perhaps the text that says it best of all is the first one in the canonical sequence, Genesis 50:20. Joseph has been reunited with his brothers, but now that their father is dead they fear that Joseph may at last exact vengeance on them. Joseph allays their fears by explaining that he understands that God had different, good purposes in mind with their action of selling him into slavery in Egypt, even though their purposes were evil. Two separate agents, two separate wills, at cross purposes with each other, neither described as logically or chronologically prior to the other. Neither is said to cause the other; they occur simultaneously.

This tension is at work throughout the Old Testament. In line with Reformation theology, the Old Testament affirms divine sovereignty and grace as the basis of God’s election. The recurring motif of God choosing the younger over the elder in the book of Genesis reflects that God’s selection of individuals stands apart from human measurements of value and worth. Noah is righteous because he finds favor in the eyes of the Lord and not vice-versa (Gen 6:8-9). God chose Abraham despite the fact that the patriarch came from a long line of idol worshippers (Josh 24:3). Paul explains that behavior did not factor into God’s election of Jacob over Esau for inclusion in the line of blessing (Rom 9:11-12). He does not tell us, “God made his choice because Jacob the deceiver was at least better than Esau the reprobate.” Divine grace and love is also the only explanation for the election of Israel as God’s “holy nation” and “treasured possession” (Deut 4:37; 7:7-8; 9:4-5).

We also learn from the Old Testament prophets of God’s sovereign work in salvation. The Lord promises through Isaiah that “a Redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who turn from transgression” (Isa 59:20). The reality, though, is that such a turning will only occur when the Lord overrides the human disposition to sin and unilaterally writes his law on the heart of his people through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Isa 32:15; 59:21; Jer 31:31-34; Ezek 36:24-27). Then, and only then, will Israel’s cyclical history of disobedience come to an end. God’s sovereign work will guarantee Israel’s perpetual obedience so that there will never again be the need for more punishment or another exile (cf. Isa 33:20-24; 60:18-21; Jer 32:38-41; Ezek 36:28-30).

The other side, however, is that the Reformed view of divine sovereignty and its all-determining God does not appear to satisfactorily explain the interaction between God and man in space and time and how God’s choices are contingent upon human actions. The theological principle of God’s willingness to alter his intentions based on human response is summarized in Jeremiah 18:7-10:

If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.

As Longman explains, the point here is, “If those announced for judgment repent or those who are established sin, then all bets are off.” One of God’s intrinsic qualities is his willingness to change his mind or to alter his intended actions (Deut 9:13-14; Ps 106:23; Joel 2:13-14; Jon 4:2). Of course, there are instances where God has decreed and refuses to deter from his intended plan (cf. Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29; Ps 110:4; Jer 4:28), but such occasions occur far less often in the OT than those where God is willing to change. The intercession of Moses (Exod 32:14) convinces the Lord not to carry out his intended destruction of the rebellious Israelites. Peter Enns writes, “It certainly seems that Moses, through argument and pleading, has been able to get God to alter his plans. To put it in plain English, Moses gets God to change his mind. There is really no other way to read this, and we should not try to avoid it.” The prayers of Amos in response to two separate visions portraying God’s imminent destruction of his people are similarly effective (Amos 7:1-6). Abraham negotiates more favorable terms for the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18:22-33), and Hezekiah successfully petitions for a 15-year extension to his life after the Lord has announced that he is about to die (2 Kgs 20:1-10; Isa 38:1-8). The repentance of Hezekiah and Judah postpones Micah’s announcement of the destruction of Jerusalem (Jer 26:17-19; cf. Mic 3:12), and the repentance of the citizens of Nineveh similarly reverses Jonah’s announcement of the impending destruction of that city (Jon 3:1, 10).

Human response (the repentance of the king of Tyre?) is perhaps the reason why Ezekiel’s original prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar’s total destruction of Tyre (Ezek 26:1-14) is later altered by the divine promise that Nebuchadnezzar would be given Egypt instead as recompense for his 13 years of frustration in the incomplete conquest of Tyre (Ezek 29:17-20). Israel’s fearful response when the king of Moab sacrifices his son on the city walls appears to turn Elisha’s prophecy of total victory into a disappointing retreat (2 Kgs 3:19, 27-28).

Reformed theologians are certainly correct in calling attention to the narratival perspectives of the Old Testament and the use of accommodation and figurative language when the Bible speaks of God “changing his mind.” God changing his mind obviously does not mean the same as when contingencies force us to alter our plans on how we will spend the afternoon. Open Theism has read too much into this language in its denial of God’s omniscient foreknowledge (cf. 1 Sam 23:6-12, where God not only knows the future, but the outcome of a hypothetical event involving free human choices), but there is the equal danger of reading too little into this imagery as well. More than simply the language of appearance, the idea of God “relenting” expresses the extent to which God has entered into real relationships with his creatures. We are forced to reckon with a God who is both inside and outside of time and with the reality that there are things that will or will not happen in our world based upon our choices and decisions. The sovereign God has allowed for there to be flexibility in his decrees.

We clearly see the tension between divine sovereignty and human freedom in the story of the plagues and the hardening of the Pharaoh’s heart in the book of Exodus. At first glance, we might feel sorry for the Pharaoh, as he unknowingly plays the role of marionette, compelled to bring about the destruction of his own kingdom for the enhancement of Yahweh’s glory. And yet, in his response to Aaron’s rod becoming a snake and six of the first seven plagues, it is Pharaoh who hardens his own heart (cf. Exod 7:13, 22; 8:15, 19, 32; 9:7, 34). The divine sentence of hardening only comes as the appropriate punishment for the Pharaoh’s willful unbelief in the final plagues and the drowning of the Egyptian army in the sea (cf. Exod 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 17). The statements that Yahweh will harden the Pharaoh’s heart at the beginning of this process (cf. Exod 4:21; 7:3) are an expression that Yahweh’s purposes will ultimately prevail in this struggle but not that he dictates or determines the Pharaoh’s responses.

The idea of an all-determining God is especially problematic when considering the divine-human interplay as God uses the Assyrian and Babylonian armies as his instruments of judgment against Israel and Judah (Isa 10:5-6; Jer 21:3-7; 25:8-11; 27:6-7) but then punishes these nations for how they exceed his intentions (Isa 10:7-19; Jer 25:12-14; 50:29-32; 51:6-8). God will “hand over” Jerusalem to the Babylonians, but he appears to be hands-off in how the Babylonian army executes their siege and conquest. The Babylonians go beyond Yahweh’s explicit intentions, and Yahweh is “grieved” (nacham) over the disaster that befalls his people (Jer 42:10). This paradox is perplexing, and yet, as Mark Biddle has suggested, the prophets’ perspective on God’s involvement with these pagan armies provides a way forward in understanding and speaking of God’s continuing involvement in a sinful world. God was at work in the events of 9/11 and is at work in the Gaza Strip or on the streets of Baghdad despite the violent acts and injustices that he does not directly determine.

Biddle writes, “While God is perhaps the most powerful actor on the stage, the play is, to a degree, an improvisation. Whether by choice or necessity, God does not script every dialogue nor direct every gesture. Instead, God becomes involved in genuine relationships. The other actors are free to act as they will. . . . . God responds within the limitations established by the choices of God's partners.” God’s sovereignty is such that he controls all things without necessarily orchestrating every detail. His providence at times takes the form of the micromanaging the smallest details, like the trajectory of the enemy arrow that finds its way between the chinks of King Ahab’s armor in fulfillment of the prophetic word (1 Kgs 22:34). But, there are many other times when God’s providence takes the form of a more indirect or even laissez faire control. God allows the suffering of Job within prescribed boundaries, but it is the job of the Satan to determine the form and sequence of Job’s afflictions. Using the analogy of the Divine Chess Master, God controls the game not by directing every movement of the individual pieces but by controlling the outcome and winning the game no matter how the pieces might move. The ultimate triumph of God’s purposes without direct determination of every contingency only heightens the greatness of his wisdom and sovereignty.

Biddle again comments, “History is the dance between God and humanity—neither partner alone defines its movement. History is, therefore, often herky-jerky, complex, messy.” Only a truly sovereign and omniscient God could accomplish his purposes in such a world. The Bible is a messy book in its stubborn refusal to resolve the irreconcilable tensions between divine sovereignty and human freedom. Rather than forcing the Bible into our own ideological confines, we are better to live with the tensions and to allow the biblical text to speak for itself.

The Violent God of the Old Testament

2009-07-15T22:02:00.000-07:00

One of the ways that Christians today must “earnestly contend for the faith” is by defending the goodness and justice of the God of the Old Testament. In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins has described the God of the OT as “arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” The God of the OT commands the extermination of the Canaanites, puts Uzzah to death for touching the ark of the covenant, and responds to Elisha’s curse by having a bear maul 42 young boys who have dared to insult the follically-challenged prophet. Because of passages in the prophets where Yahweh punishes his unfaithful wife Israel with public exposure and degradation, feminist critics have depicted God as an abusive husband or a violent predator, the Divine Rapist.

Jeremiah 13:25-27: This is your lot, the portion I have measured out to you, declares the LORD, because you have forgotten me and trusted in lies. 26 I myself will lift up your skirts over your face, and your shame will be seen. 27 I have seen your abominations, your adulteries and neighings, your lewd whorings, on the hills in the field. Woe to you, O Jerusalem! How long will it be before you are made clean?"

Ezekiel 16:35-40: "Therefore, O prostitute, hear the word of the LORD: 36 Thus says the Lord GOD, Because your lust was poured out and your nakedness uncovered in your whorings with your lovers, and with all your abominable idols, and because of the blood of your children that you gave to them, 37 therefore, behold, I will gather all your lovers with whom you took pleasure, all those you loved and all those you hated. I will gather them against you from every side and will uncover your nakedness to them, that they may see all your nakedness. 38 And I will judge you as women who commit adultery and shed blood are judged, and bring upon you the blood of wrath and jealousy. 39 And I will give you into their hands, and they shall throw down your vaulted chamber and break down your lofty places. They shall strip you of your clothes and take your beautiful jewels and leave you naked and bare. 40 They shall bring up a crowd against you, and they shall stone you and cut you to pieces with their swords.

Hosea 2:10: Now I will uncover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers, and no one shall rescue her out of my hand.

The Lord threatens the same type of judgment for the Assyrian inhabitants of Nineveh:

Nahum 3:5-7: Behold, I am against you, declares the LORD of hosts, and will lift up your skirts over your face; and I will make nations look at your nakedness and kingdoms at your shame. 6 I will throw filth at you and treat you with contempt and make you a spectacle. 7 And all who look at you will shrink from you and say, Wasted is Nineveh; who will grieve for her? Where shall I seek comforters for you?

Even taking Israel’s gross idolatry or Assyria’s violent brutality into consideration, the imagery in these passages is shocking and disturbing. How can we love and trust a God who inflicts this type of violence? Should we reject these passages as depicting a God inconsistent with the loving God of the New Testament?

As strange as it may sound, these violent images are an expression of divine mercy. The prophets generally announced to Israel and Judah what would happen if they did not change their ways. Unless God said otherwise, the die was not cast, and the fate of the people was not set in stone. The shocking imagery of the degraded woman was designed to motivate repentance so that the people might avoid the reality of what the metaphor depicted. If the people of Judah (especially the male leaders), in light of their understanding of these realities, can see themselves as the vulnerable woman about to suffer siege, rape, public exposure, and the loss of husband and children, then perhaps they will be motivated to change. While the prophet Nahum appears to speak of the unavoidable degradation of Daughter Nineveh, God had even sent the reluctant Jonah to warn the Assyrians that judgment was coming. The horrible destruction that befell Nineveh stands as a perpetual warning to all peoples who follow in her violent ways.

In her article, “Feminist Hermeneutics and Evangelical Concerns,” Robin Parry provides the helpful reminder that any biblical text only speaks authoritatively to the church when read in light of the larger canon of Scripture: “Classical Christian views of the Bible have seen divine authority mediated through the canon as a whole rather than its individual parts in isolation.” She adds that biblical texts “when incorporated within the canon, the way in which they are normative is modified by interactions with fellow texts. Thus any part of the Bible can only function normatively for the Church when seen within the context of the whole. Clearly, as the canon has grown and the plot line has moved on, the way in which different text function normatively changes.”

Canonical perspectives from both the OT and NT must inform a proper Christian reading of passages like Jeremiah 13:25-27. This terrible punishment is mandated by God, but executed by a foreign army (13:20-22). The prophets in general view Yahweh as the instigator and leader of the armies who attack Israel and Judah (cf. Isa 10:5-6; Jer 4:5-6; 21:3-7), but at the same time, hold these armies accountable for the manner in which they go beyond Yahweh’s intent to punish through their excessive violence and cruelty (Isa 10:7; Jer 50:11-13; Hab 2:15-17; Obad 15-16). The OT writers are generally not concerned to distinguish between God’s direct and indirect causation of events but are clear in affirming that Yahweh is not morally responsible or liable for the actions of sinful, wicked humans.

The prophets employ the metaphor of the ravaged woman for rhetorical impact, not as a prescript for the treatment of women. The OT reveals Yahweh as a God who has a special concern for oppressed and needy women (cf. Gen 21:14-19; Deut 10:18; Ps 146:9). Deuteronomic law limited Israel in its normal practice of warfare from acts of violence against non-combatants (Deut 20:13-15). A captive woman taken in battle was to be treated with dignity (Deut 21:10-14). In his judgment oracles against the nations surrounding Israel, the prophet Amos condemns the nations for their atrocities against each other (not just Israel) in war, particularly their abuse of women (cf. Amos 1:3, 6, 9-10, 13; 2:1). Nations who practice brutality will receive just recompense for their actions, the message behind the portrayal of Nineveh as a ravaged woman in Nahum 3:5-7 (cf. Nah 2:7-13; Hab 2:6-20). The lament and protest language of the OT and Yahweh’s own grief over the destruction of His people are testimony to the injustices of warfare and reflect the fact that the brutality of warfare is evidence of a world broken by sin (cf. Pss 44; 83; Lam 2:1-22; Jer 8:5; 9:7). The OT anticipates the future day of eschatological salvation on this earth when warfare and brutality will no longer exist (cf. Isa 2:1-4).

The female imagery in the prophets is ultimately restorative and testimony to Yahweh’s covenant faithfulness. The God who punishes His wayward wife is also the God who will forgive and restore her (Isa 50:1; 54:1-8; Ezek 16:60-63; Hos 2:14-15). Yahweh loves Israel with an “everlasting love” (Jer 31:2) and cannot bear to give up his wife (Hos 11:8), even when subjecting her to the worst forms of judgment. Jeremiah’s opening messages of judgment condemn Judah as a prostitute able to give lessons to the worst of women (Jer 2:20, 27; 3:6-11), but his message of hope is that Yahweh will restore “virgin Israel” to a place of glory and honor (31:4). Jeremiah envisions the future restoration as a time when “a woman will surround a man” (Jer 31:22; the JPS translates: “a woman will court a man”). Leslie Allen understands this verse to mean that the woman Isarel “would be empowered to show initiative as covenant partner.” She will be able to freely love and embrace Yahweh her husband.

The NT revelation of the person of God provides further canonical perspective on these OT texts portraying divine violence against female victims. As the incarnate Son, Jesus demonstrates the fullness of the Father’s love and his intense desire “to seek and to save the lost.” The extension of grace and forgiveness toward sinful women in the ministry of Jesus (cf. Luke 7:37-50; John 4:7-30; 8:3-11) complements the OT picture of Yahweh’s restoration of Daughter Zion and trumps the metaphor of the woman ravaged by divine judgment. In the incarnation, Jesus assumes the role of Divine Warrior, but wages war against spiritual (Satanic) rather than human enemies and emerges victorious in this conflict through his own suffering and death (cf. Col 2:13-15). Rather than the guilty woman being exposed and pelted with filth, Jesus endures the violence, abuse, and shame of the cross as he suffers for sinners. The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ have inaugurated the new creation and transformed the gender relations reflected in the fallen order of ancient Israel’s patriarchy and androcentrism (Gal 3:28). The death of Jesus has propitiated divine wrath in a way (1 Jn 2:2) that has transformed God’s disposition toward humanity and delayed judgment so that sinners might repent and be spared from the final judgment.

Ultimately, the OT images of God’s judgment as the violent treatment of women are a reminder of the incarnational nature of Scripture. Incarnated in human form, God’s word did not fall out of the sky but met specific peoples and cultures where they lived. The portrayal of divine judgment as the corporal punishment of an adulterous wife or the violence inflicted upon women in war is a cultural and time-conditioned image, but yet even this fading image of the old order reflects the abiding truth of Yahweh’s righteous anger toward human sinfulness. The OT prophets remind us of the inconvenient truth that our God is a “consuming fire,” and we ignore this truth at our own peril.