Ezekiel's Temple

Tova Ganzel's article here seeks to root Ezekiel's temple vision in Babylonian temples and practices. While I am a bit skeptical in the linkage, the whole of the article seems to provide good evidence that Ezekiel's vision expected an actual temple. For example Ganzel notes that Ezekiel describes "in elaborate detail the measurements of its gates and passages: sixty-three verses are devoted to the gates, courts, and the wall surrounding the temple." She later adds, "By focusing on structural and ritual features that would safeguard the sanctity of the temple compound, Ezekiel works to ensure that the Divine Presence will remain there for eternity—a clear response to the Babylonian destruction of the First Temple in 586 B.C.E."

I have long argued that any attempt to get away from the idea of a literal temple has to resort to a number of interpretive gymnastics. While one can debate the need for, the merits of, and the problems with, a literal future temple, the starting place for those discussions should be acknowledging that Ezekiel envisioned a physical temple.

Walton on Isaiah 61:10–62:5

I wouldn't agree with everything here but Steve Walton has provided slides on his presentation of Isaiah 61:10–62:5 here.

Comparing Biblical and ANE Prophetic Practices

Joel Thomas has a brief but helpful overview here.

True and False Prophets: Jeremiah Versus Hananiah

James Diamond has an interesting discussion of how Jewish tradition has understood true versus false prophets in light of Jeremiah 27–28. Some explanations are more convincing than others and Maimonides approach seems outright strange.In any case, you can check it out here.

Obadiah and the Three Sins of Edom

Clint Archer looks here at the three sins that Edom was guilty of according to the book of Obadiah.

Old Testament Prophecy as a Puzzle

I am not the first one to use the analogy of a puzzle in regards to Old Testament prophecy. Interpreters have remarked on how it is like a puzzle with missing pieces (due to the progress of revelation) or how one is putting the pieces together without the benefit of a picture on the box. But I was recently struck by how a puzzle might help to illustrate Zechariah 9. Consider the picture below picturing the first three Star Wars movies. Various scenes from all three movies are arranged into one picture. Just by looking at the picture, one would be hard pressed to know that significant time had passed between the various scenes or their exact order unless one were already familiar with the Star Wars' trilogy. In a similar way, it seems to me that Zechariah  9–14 presents an eschatological picture of Israel's redemption and restoration through the juxtaposition of various events related to the overall picture. Seen this way, one can understand how vignettes of Alexander's conquests, the Maccabean Revolt, and the First and Second Advents, etc. can form a collage of Zechariah's overall eschatological picture.

 

Teaching Messianic Prophecies

Cameron Cole discusses why we should teach messianic prophecies to teenagers here. I think that we should teach them to any-agers for the same reason.

Are Dreams and Visions Describing the Same Phenomena?

Laura Quick doesn't think so.

The tendency of many standard reference works to equate dreams with visions (Bergmann, Ottoson, and Botterweck 1973: 427) is a reflection of the indistinct line of demarcation between these phenomena in the biblical account: it is not always clear whether a dream or a vision is taking place. This is particularly true when visionary experience is detailed to have occurred during the night (e.g., Gen. 46.2; Job 4.13; 20.8; 33.15; Isa. 29.7; Dan. 2.19; 7.2, 7, 13; Mic. 3.6), and consequently some scholars have tended to treat these ‘night visions’ as ‘dreams’, even without textual support. Yet the equation of dreams with prophetic visions is actually quite rare in the Hebrew Bible, occurring only three times in the prose of the MT (Num. 12.6-8; Jer. 23.25-28; Dan. 7.1). At the lexical level, the terminological categorization of these revelatory experiences indicates a distinction in perception and classification by the biblical writers: the terminology is always carefully distinct. To ignore this classificatory schema is to make assertions about the phenomenological content of such experiences, a largely redundant endeavour. In particular, it is observable that while visions as a source of revelation are usually ascribed to prophets (Jepsen 1973), dreams are ‘not ascribed to prophets except in denigration’ (Miller 1990: 401). (The earlier distinction posited by Ehrlich [1953], according to which visions are clearwhereas dreams are always confused, can no longer be maintained.) ("Dream Accounts in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Jewish Literature," in Currents in Biblical Research 17 [2018]: 10-11).

I have tended to view dreams as visions as basically different vehicles of revelation but had not given much thought as to any qualitative differences between them. This article might suggest that I need to think a little more carefully about that.

Three Horizons of Old Testament Prophecy

Christianity Today has an article here by Christopher J. H. Wright on what he identifies as the three horizons of Old Testament prophecy.

Getting Inside the Brain of a Prophet

The Atlantic has an interesting article and interview with James Kugel here concerning his most recent book, The Great Shift: Encountering God in Biblical Times. The book apparently tries to understand how prophets might have received their revelations by looking at socio-cultural perceptions of self and neuro-scientific research.

Daniel 9:24-27

Kyle Dillon has an excellent post here on the "Seventy Week" prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27. He has summarized and organized quite a bit of material.

The Temple in Daniel 9:24-27

Michael Vlach has a good  post here on the three phases of the Jerusalem temple in Daniel 9:24-27.

Dr. William Barrick on the Prophets in the Life of the Believer

William Barrick has an eight part series entitled, “Prophets in the Life of a Believer.” The series was also translated into Russian. You can access the free video here.

Review of Understanding Prophecy

Alan S. Bandy and Benjamin L. Merkle, Understanding Prophecy: A Biblical-Theological Approach (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2015). Alan Bandy is assistant professor of New Testament at Oklahoma Baptist University, and Benjamin Merkle is professor of New Testament and Greek at Southeaster Baptist Theological Seminary. The former is a historical premillennialist and the latter an amillennialist (p. 9).
 

Understanding Prophecy consists of ten chapters, a conclusion, and two appendices. The first three chapters are introductory in nature and address the keys to understanding prophecy, defining prophecy, and most importantly for the authors’ perspective is the role of biblical theology in understanding prophecy or as the subtitle of the book states, a biblical-theological approach. The next three chapters, 4-6, examine Old Testament prophecies which are placed into three categories: unconditional, conditional, and fulfilled prophecy. Chapters 7–10 addresses New Testament prophecies under two major categories: prophecies related to the first coming of Messiah and the return of the Messiah (this category is further sub-divided into prophecies in the Gospels and Acts, the Epistles, and Revelation). Finally there is a brief five-page conclusion and two appendices on (1) the meaning of “all Israel” in Rom 11:26 and (2) the meaning of the millennium. 

 Overall, there is much to commend this book. It is clear and fairly thorough in content. The goal of the book is clearly stated, namely, “to give readers a framework of how to interpret any passage in the context of the Bible” (p. 9). Its tone is irenic and its treatment of differing positions generally fair. (Although this reviewer differs in a number of ways from the authors’ positions, I did not sense that my views were treated inequitably or uncharitably.) One can also appreciate the theologically conservative stance taken towards the inspiration of prophecy in particular (“it is divine revelation, p. 17) and Scripture in general (p. 64). 

My main issue with the book is that although I could affirm much of the first three chapters that deal with prolegomena, I am unconvinced that the authors’ general approach is the best way to make sense of prophecy, especially of the Old Testament. To see most of the Old Testament prophetic corpus as either being fulfilled historically before the First Advent (e.g., see the treatment of Isa 13 and Ezek 32, p. 99-101) or in the First Advent (see esp. chp. 5) seems to flatten or neuter the language of the texts. I remain unconvinced, at least with the examples at hand, that the distinction between literal and literalistically works. While the latter might be accused of over-specificity, the former might be guilty of oversimplifying the language of the text. It seems possible that one might play the literalistic card as a way of avoiding the details of a prophetic oracle that one might find embarrassing or inconsistent with one’s theological position. The authors’ treatment of Ezekiel’s temple might illustrate this (pp. 121–22). I was surprised that there was not more distinction made over the millennial issue. I wonder what kingdom, if not the kingdom prophesied in the Old Testament, the historical premillennialist Bandy has in mind. This reviewer also differed with a number of the authors’ interpretations of New Testament prophecies, most notably in Revelation, but it is the Old Testament treatment that is most problematic. 

This work could also enhance its usefulness by including a bibliography and at least a Scripture index and perhaps an author index.

Ultimately, Understanding Prophecy lays out a way of understanding prophecy but probably not the best way of understanding prophecy. Thanks to Kregel for providing the free copy used in this review.

A Visualization of Daniel 11:1-12:3

My friend, Steven Anderson, has a helpful visualization of Daniel 11:1-12:3 available for free here (follow the links). Anyone who has studied this chapter knows how difficult it can be to unpack all that is going on. Do note that this visualization does not identify the various rulers but is solely trying to trace the flow of the actual text.

Daniel 9:24-27 among the Interpreters

My Digital Seminary is running a series of question and answer posts on Daniel 9:24-27 (the well-known "Seventy-Week Prophecy") with various Bible scholars. I am not sure how many participants they will ultimately have, but here are those who have been posted so far.

Introduction
Thomas Ice
Robert Chisholm
Peter Gentry
Wendy Widder
Dale Ralph Davis

Vern Poythress' Proposal Related to the Human Authors of Scripture

Vern Poythress makes a provocative and interesting suggestion regarding the human authors of Scripture in an article that appears in the most recent Journal of the Evangelical Society. Here are the first four paragraphs introducing the article.

How important is it for biblical interpreters to focus on the human author and his intention? For many books of the Bible, we know little or nothing about the human author, except what we might tentatively infer from the text itself. We who are inerrantists say that we believe that Scripture has a divine author, and that we have come to know him. What gains are there in focusing on the human author whom we do not know?

People might list several benefits: (1) focus on the historical and social environment, as a context for the text; (2) reckoning with human capacity, the characteristics of human linguistic communication, and the limitations of human understanding; (3) reckoning on limited canon available at the time; (4) reckoning on the structural coherence of a single biblical book, written by a single human author.

All of these are indeed valuable benefits. But a robust conception of divine authorship and divine purpose leads to exactly the same benefits. In addition, focusing on the divine author leads to fewer interpretive problems, because problems are generated by what we do not know about an author.

We will use Zeph 1:2–3 to illustrate the difficulties. In the process, it may seem at times as if we are multiplying the uncertainties about human intentionality. But I believe we can have confidence on the other side of the uncertainties." Poythress goes on to conclude the following. “My concluding advice with respect to the focus on an isolated human author is that we give it up. Period. There is no gain to it, and much loss. We who are scholars work on the intentions of human authors as if this focus will give us answers. But we are living an illusion. Instead, let us seek God. If we do so, we will get more spiritual health, because we are encountering God seriously. We will get more accuracy, because we can settle many interpretive questions concerning authorial intention. We will get more candor, because we can give up concealing from ourselves that in most cases we do not know anything about the human author except what we infer from the text, and that many such inferences are questionable.”

My take

Poythress raises interpretive problems related to the relatively scant information regarding many, if not most, of the human authors of Scripture. And it is probably true that many interpreters pay little if any attention to the divine Author. But I am not sure that Poythress’ proposal is the way forward. My concerns are threefold. First, the attribution authorship, as in Zephaniah, is part of the inspired text. Simply put, God apparently wanted us to know that Zephaniah was the author. For me, that suggests that we should strive to understand how and why the authorial attribution might be important. If jots and tittles are important surely the name of a prophet might be as well. Second, while focusing on the divine Author is commendable, I wonder whether we can assume to know His intentions any more than we know the human author’s. Or in other words, the same ambiguities that dog the human author might also apply to the divine Author as well. Third, I get the feeling that many of the issues raised by Poythress are not so much related to ignorance concerning the human author but of how prophecy should be interpreted and how it functions in general.

In sum, I found the article to be thought-provoking but remain unpersuaded. If you have read the article, please feel free to leave you feedback in the comments section.

Vern Poythress, “Dispensing with Merely Human Meaning: Gains and Losses from Focusing on the Human Author, Illustrated by Zephaniah 1:2–3,” JETS 57 (2014): 481, 499.

Reasons for Preaching Predictive Prophecy

Mark Snoeberger has a good post on the advantages of preaching predictive prophecy here. In short he supplies four reasons. Make sure you use the link to read the entire post with explanations related to each point.

• Preaching predictive prophecy keeps the present in proper perspective. 

• Preaching predictive prophecy keeps our affections properly aligned. 

• Preaching predictive prophecy keeps the climax of history in view.

• Preaching predictive prophecy keeps the mission of the church intact. 

I would add one further point. About a quarter of the Bible consists of prophetic passages. If one is to preach the whole counsel of Scripture, you simply cannot ignore prophetic texts.

Does a Futurist Interpretation of Revelation Rob the Book of Its Original Revelance?

Recently, I have been reading through a commentary on Revelation. The author implies that a futurist reading of Revelation would rob the book of its relevance to the original audience. This is a fairly common argument. But is this valid?

I think not. If it were so, then there could be no far future prophecies in the Bible, because all books in the Bible had a contemporary audience. Using this argument, no passage in the Old Testament could prophesy of the First or Second Advent since both would have been far future to the original audience! Such an argument seems to confuse a futurist reading with a futurist application. Let me illustrate. Suppose 1,000 years from now, an archaeologist discovers a book dated to the early twenty-first century. The book apparently made certain predictions about some phenomena called “global warming.” Would the archaeologist be correct in assuming that the book could not have been referring to far future events because it would then not have had any contemporary relevance?

In the Bible, predictive prophecy with near or far fulfillment, always has relevance to the original audience. Indeed, it is the scoffer who denies contemporary relevance in the midst of apparent delayed fulfillment (see 2 Peter 3:1-13). So while there might be good reasons for rejecting a futurist reading of Revelation, this is not one of them.

Jesus' Prediction of the Fall of Jerusalem

Jimmy Akin has a nice post defending the idea that Jesus could predict the fall of Jerusalem here. Akin is largely correct here, but the reason that many in biblical studies who reject Jesus' prediction do so because of an a priori rejection of the possibility of predictive prophecy in general.