Theology for the Masses

Last time we looked at Isaiah 53:11 and saw that through the resurrection of the Suffering Servant he became the Righteous One. And through this one, who is now the Righteous One, the many are justified. Now how does this provide a background for the Pauline doctrine and formulation of justification? That is the question we turn to here in the next few posts. First is the book of Acts, specifically Paul’s statements. Up first is Acts 13:37-39. continue reading…

A Davidic king was promised (by pre-exilic prophets such as Isaiah and Micah). It would seem that when I AM brought Israel back to her land that this king would come. But Judah came back to Judea and no king arose. Instead, the promise of a Davidic king was restated (by prophets like Zechariah). Yet no king came. A question does arise in the silence, will I AM keep his word? He brought back Judah from exile as promised, not to mention the millennia during which I AM promised and then fulfilled that promise. But century upon century passes without a king. Will I AM bring his king? continue reading…

It didn’t work. Shalom, “peace,” did not return to I AM’s creation through the community of Israel. The laws, the sacrificial system, the priesthood, and the kings all failed to bring Israel back to shalom. Yet here is an interesting fact, some people saw that shalom was gone. Psalm 72 is a prayer either by King Solomon or for King Solomon for the king to bring back shalom. He prayed to I AM that the king would reign in righteousness and justice and fairness. The Psalmist wanted the king to liberate the oppressed and to extend forth godliness in his kingdom. This return to a place where peace will extend from sea to sea, from coast land to coast land, and the land will be at peace. This is a prayer for I AM to move the king to guide the people back to shalom, but not just the people of Israel but to extend Israel universally. This prayer concludes with the Psalmist’s faith in I AM to answer this prayer. Through his prophets, I AM does promise to raise up a king who will deliver the people from the chaos and destruction that happened when I AM cursed the created order with the removal of shalom. continue reading…

Because of the length of this post, I decided to break it into two smaller ones rather than one long one. So please see “To Fulfill What Was Spoken By The LORD 1/2″ to catch up here. I am just going to launch right into the second part of my look at how Jesus’ flight to Egypt fulfills what was spoken by Yahweh in Hosea 11:1. continue reading…

This Christmas, as I reflect on the incarnation narrative in Matthew 2 I find myself guilty of something I didn’t realize: I blindly accepted the prophecies Matthew says Jesus fulfilled as verbal-predictive prophecy concerning Jesus. Sure I didn’t think that they were going to say “Jesus, a.k.a. Yahweh Elohim, born from a woman who has never engaged in sexual activity from the town of Nazareth in Bethlehem during a census ordered by the Roman government when Augustus Caesar was in power.” I always just accepted that the prophecies here were about Jesus. Granted it has been a while since I realized that the “Immanuel” passage was a bit more complex to see how it gets to Jesus but texts like Hosea 11:1 and Jeremiah 31:5 I never really let it sink in. But recently it hit me that I had never tried to work out how these Old Covenant prophecies point the way to Christ given their literary and historical and theological settings. Today I want to just go through Hosea 11:1 and how Jesus going to Egypt is fulfillment of what Yahweh had said through the prophet. continue reading…

Magneto, after skewering Xavier in Ultimate Origins 5.  No relation to the post, I just thought it was a cool pic.

Conservative scholars and practitioners have a lot invested in biblical prophecy.  For them it is a great confirmation that the Bible was divinely inspired.  After all, if your God tells you what is going to happen in 30 or 200 years, and it happens, then that can only bolster your claims. 

For many scholars and practitioners [1] if a text is written ex eventu, then the implication is that the text is somehow less inspired.  After all, you can’t really make the appeal to prophecy then, now can you? 

For this reason, when it comes to the dating of texts such as Daniel, Jeremiah, and Mark, conservative scholars are beholden to forcing the texts to be written before the events in the prophecies. [2]     Ironically, this approach actually neuters the text they are wanting to save.

You have to remember that just about all ancient texts are propaganda.  I don’t mean that in a negative sense, only that these texts are being written for a specific purpose – to influence people to buy into their message.  Nothing, not even so-called “histories” are just reporting the facts, ma’am.  Prophecies are huge in terms of their rhetorical effects.  As Mark Goodacre puts it, “The prediction only gains traction because the reader is saying, ‘Hey, yes! I know what that’s about!’”  It is a powerful argument in favor of the text in the reader’s eyes.  The writers of the text know this and skillfully employ the use of fulfilled prophecy to this end.

Now, lets assume that the text is written down and disseminated before the event in question happens.  The once powerful effect of prophecy loses its power.  Now, in the reader’s eye, doubt is summoned and laid over the text.  Here, our imaginary reader says to herself, “Man, Jesus is saying that the temple is going to be destroyed, but… just look at it!  It is still standing!”  Prophecies only gain rhetorical power after they are fulfilled.  Thus, in forcing the writers to pen unfulfilled prophecies, scholars deny the texts their original power over the reader.

Now, notice what I am not saying.  In no way does this assume that the writers are inserting fake prophecies onto their characters.  From a position of faith, I believe that Jesus, Jeremiah, Daniel and others uttered their prophecies beforehand.  However, this is a different question than when the texts were written.  And when we are dating texts, we need to let the evidence speak louder than our theological preconceptions which may or may not be artificial.  If we date from a position of theological comfort, then we need to reevaluate our methods.

For more reading on this topic, see NTWong’s Scholarly dating of Daniel to After the ‘Prophecies’ were ‘Fulfilled’ and Mark Goodacre’s Dating Sacred Texts on the Basis of Fulfilled Prophecy. 

1. at least ones I have heard in lectures at Central Christian College of the Bible and others in person and in print [↩]
2. And really, as a person of faith, this is attractive, even if I think it prejudices this theological implication over other more concrete forms of evidence. [↩]