posted 01-03-2003 01:16 PM            

quote:

---

The Shape of Biblical Language. Chiasmus in the Scriptures and Beyond (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 1994)

A detailed introduction to “chiasmus,” a form of literary parallelism used frequently throughout both Testaments, as well as other ancient and modern literary works. Includes index.

(“Illuminating. A bonanza for exegetes and translators...Serious students of chiasmic structures in the Old Testament and especially in the New Testament will find Breck’s work a treasure.”—Peter Ellis, Fordham University)
ISBN 0-88141-139-6 392pp US $18.95

---

"Chiasmus" is just one form. I'm sure that Obadiah can give you something with the various forms used in the Psalms.

posted 01-03-2003 10:10 PM               

Here are a few titles you might find helpful:

The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism by Adele Berlin

The Art of Biblical Poetry by Robert Alter

Interpreting Hebrew Poetry by David L. Petersen

Reading Biblical Poetry: An Introduction by J. Fokkelman

The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History by James Kugel

Studies in Israelite Poetry and Wisdom by Patrick W. Skehan

Berlin is probably the standard work. Kugel and Alter are two of my favorite authors. I haven't perused Petersen's book, but the series of which it is a part is generally good. Fokkelman is new, I haven't seen it, but it sounds like the most introductory (and least assuming of a knowledge of Hebrew) in the bunch. Skehan wrote the Anchor Bible volume on Ben Sira.

Hebrew poetry is somewhat less regular and not as easy to analyze according to rules and such than other ancient poetic traditions (such as Greek and Latin). There are principles, though, that are helpful in the process of interpreting it. Any particular goal you have in mind?

posted 01-05-2003 03:12 PM               

I have both a primary and a secondary goal. I know you probably won't agree with everything I'm thinking. I will explain it here, and I would appreciate any feedback you can give me. If there are other books that you think would be helpful, please tell me. I am also interested in any thoughts you have.

My primary goal has to do with the prophecy about Tyre. You may remember that I have explored the poetic nature of that prophecy. Eze 26 is not poetry, but I think there is a sense in which it is poetic prose. I don't know much about Hebrew poetry so it's hard for me to know how much poetic influence there is in the chapter. I want to learn more so I can both evaluate how much poetic influence there is and evaluate the ways in which it might affect the interpretation of the passage. I am not just trying to find an excuse to read the prophecy the way I want to read it. I do want the truth. If there is something to my ideas, I want to know that. But I also want to know if I am totally off base.

I have a general concern about the way the open view treats prophecy. It seems that the open view reads prophecy in the same way it reads a historical account. That probably sounds strange because the open view always says that prophecy is not prewritten history. When I say that it reads prophecy like a historical account, I'm talking about the style of writing. Historical accounts are lists of facts, and their purpose is to reveal who did what and when they did it. Prophecy is not like that. Prophecy's purpose was to call an erring people back to God and to reveal God's attitude toward Israel's sins and the sins of the nations and to reveal God and His character. It is very picturesque, and there are a lot of details that weren't meant to be understood through a reading of the passage (Dan 12:4, 9-10; I Pet 1:10-12). I don't want to take too much liberty with the text. I believe in a very literal interpretation of Scripture, but I also believe that we are mistaken when we expect prophecy to be the kind of straightforward account that history is. No one would dream of reading a poem in the same way they read prose. Now prophecy is not poetry, but it does have a literary style. I believe we do need to take the literary style into account as we interpret Scripture.

I'll give a few examples. I don't know your position on Isa 7:14-16. I know that it has been used to prove that not all prophecy will be fulfilled, but I believe that comes from a too straightforward reading of the passage. God promised that a baby would be born as a sign that Israel would go into captivity (Isa 7:8). The Messiah was to be the Savior of both Judah and Israel. Since the Messiah was to save Israel, He could not be the sign that Israel was going into captivity. Interpreting Isa 7:14-16 in that way makes the whole passage absurd. The only explanation I see is that in prophecy some verses can have two meanings. Isa 7:14 was both a promise of the birth of Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz and a promise of Christ's birth.

Isa 61:1-3 appears as if it is all one thought and will happen all at one time. But God had the mystery planned since the beginning of the world (Rom 16:25; Eph 3:9). God must have known that He would not fulfill all of Isa 61:1-3 at the same time, but He did not make the break discernable in the prophecy.

Another prophecy I find interesting is Eze 28:11-19. It is a lamentation for the king of Tyre, but it is also an account of Satan's fall.

So there are verses that have two meanings, there are times when prophecy does not show a break in time, and there are times prophecies describe two things at the same time, one being a commentary on the other. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I've gotten the impression that the open view downplays those possibilities and treats prophecy as if it was supposed to be a straightforward account.

As you can see, my question is broader than just the poetic influence on prophecy. I am also interested in all of the other characteristics of the prophetic literary style. My one hesitation is that a lot of the books that deal with literary style in the Bible come from a liberal theological perspective. I believe that literary style does affect interpretation, but I am still committed to a literal hermeneutic. So I'm trying to sort the pieces out.

Why did I ask specifically about poetry? I have another interest in Hebrew poetry, and that's where my secondary goal comes in.

I've admitted to some of this before, and you have probably figured some of it out on your own. I have an analytical side, but I also have an artsy side. I love music and art and literature. I know more about music than art and literature because I run out of time for studying everything. When I do have time to read literature, I get more enjoyment from the beauty of expression – the imagery, similes, foreshadowing, word plays, etc. – than I do from the plot. I am unbelievably thankful that God did not write the Bible as a list of facts. As I see the beauty of expression in His word, I recognize how much God is a God of beauty. His beauty touches me at a deeper and more personal level than intellectual reasoning ever could. Some of the times I love God the most are those times when I see His beauty through His word. I know that there is a whole lot of beauty in God's word that I don't see, and I want to learn more so I can recognize it and grow in my love for God.

In His love,
Abbie

posted 01-05-2003 09:08 PM               

The suggested volumes on biblical poetry will be helpful, but not entirely on target, I don’t think. Prophecy is somewhat its own genre (or genres). It varies from historical prose (Isaiah 37-39, most of Jonah) through what you’ve called poetic prose (which would include most of Ezekiel) and stuff that’s pretty much poetry (most of Isaiah 40-66) all the way to outright poetry (Habakkuk 3). The Ezekiel material is not as straightforward as, say, Judges (ask any Hebrew student who’s mastered Judges and is struggling with Ezekiel), but not as formally poetic as a lot of the Isaiah material. Such elements as parallelism inform the prophets, but are usually less exact than in Psalms and such.

On the open view and prophecy: I agree with your observation about prophecy being dissimilar from historical narrative, but infer the opposite conclusion. I think that prophecy is less ‘historical’ precisely because it deals with open-ended events with variable fulfillments. A history is definite. So-and-so did such-and-such at a particular time in a particular place. It’s closed. There’s no variation. Prophecy, on the other hand, is written more loosely because it’s not pre-written history. The details are not locked in. God reserves the right to fulfill it as He sees fit in light of developments which intervene between the prophecy and its realization.

I would also put a disclaimer on your differentiation between the purpose of historical material and prophecy. I believe that both genres are moralistic and designed to elicit a response as much as to inform. In fact, that’s one of the primary differences between ‘history’ as we moderns view it (an objective and dispassionate relating of events, at least theoretically) and the historical material in the Bible and other ancient literature. Interestingly, the bulk of the ‘historical’ books in the Tanakh are found in the section called ‘prophets’.

You say that you don’t know my position on Isaiah 7. Well, that makes two of us! I’m currently working through my overall take on Messianic prophecy and New Testament Midrash. I don’t think Isaiah 7:14 promises that the Messiah (in the full NT sense of the term, Messiah with a capital M) will come in the days of Ahaz. The giving of the sign in this text is not conditional upon Ahaz’ response. Ahaz has already given his (negative) response, which God counters to the effect that He’s going to do what He’s going to do regardless of Ahaz.

As to the notion of dual fulfillment: I guess my problem with that is that it still harks back to the pre-written history idea. If all the details aren’t covered in a fulfillment episode, that must mean there’s yet another fulfillment to come which will take care of the hanging details. One example is Isaiah’s prophecy of the permanent destruction of Damascus: “Damascus will cease being a city,” he says (17:1). One might reasonably expect this prophecy to be fulfilled in the years immediately following the prophecy, since that’s what would be relevant to Isaiah’s listeners. But, since Damascus is still a functioning city -- the oldest continually inhabited city in the world, I believe -- some 2,700 years later, the pre-written history view of prophecy needs a ‘dual fulfillment’ in which the city of Damascus is permanently destroyed sometime in the future (whose relevance to Isaiah’s listeners is nil).

I sympathize with your concern over books dealing with Scripture as literature. It’s unfortunate that so few people who recognize Scripture as the word of God are interested in viewing it in any terms other than as if the entire book simply dropped out of heaven one day, with no regard for linguistic, historical or cultural context. I would advise you to pursue such study, ever watchful of its effect on your heart. I often compare my own study in this regard with Qohelet’s lament, “for in much wisdom is much grief” (1:18).

posted 01-06-2003 01:29 PM               

Thank you for your input. I always enjoy what you have to say and benefit from it.

I have a few thoughts that I want to post for you. I might get them posted in the next day or so, but I'm not sure. This week is going to be busy, and I have been fighting colds for over a month now which leaves me a little low on steam. So if my response to your post is a little delayed, that's why. God bless you!

posted 01-07-2003 06:04 PM               

quote:

---

On the open view and prophecy: I agree with your observation about prophecy being dissimilar from historical narrative, but infer the opposite conclusion. I think that prophecy is less ‘historical’ precisely because it deals with open-ended events with variable fulfillments.

---

Break of Time in Prophecy

I used the example of Isa 61:1-3 in my last post. Since God had the mystery planned, He must have known that He would not fulfill all of Isa 61:1-3 at the same time. Therefore, the timetable of prophecies is not clear even when God knows what He is going to do. He knows that there will be a break in the middle of Isa 61:2 and doesn't give any indication of that in the prophecy.

Consequently, when there is a break of time in the fulfillment of a prophecy, it doesn't prove the open view. God could have known that He would make the break just like He knew it in Isa 61. If you believe the open view, you might conclude that God changed His mind; but the prophecy doesn't prove the open view.

Literary Styles and Emphasis on Details

quote:

---

I would also put a disclaimer on your differentiation between the purpose of historical material and prophecy. I believe that both genres are moralistic and designed to elicit a response as much as to inform.

---

I should also say that I was using history as an illustration. I worded the illustration in a way that I thought would get my point across, the point that some literary styles are meant to make details clear and other styles are not as concerned with the details and accomplish their purpose through other methods. I described historical accounts as lists of facts, but I actually don't see them that way. I love history. It's like a real, live drama to me. I think it's horrible that kids get the idea in school that history is just a bunch of dates. I believe my point still holds even though my illustration wasn't totally accurate. If you disagree, let me know.

Dual Fulfillment

quote:

---

As to the notion of dual fulfillment: I guess my problem with that is that it still harks back to the pre-written history idea. If all the details aren’t covered in a fulfillment episode, that must mean there’s yet another fulfillment to come which will take care of the hanging details.

---

1. We agree that Isa 7:14 was not a promise that the Messiah would come in Ahaz's time, but Matt 1:22-23 says that Jesus was the fulfillment of that prophecy. I can't remember if you've told me what you believe Matthew meant when he said certain prophecies were fulfilled. I think Bob has suggested that "fulfilled" means something like "illustrated." (I'm sorry, Bob. That still doesn't make sense to me. If you want to try to explain it again, you are welcome to. I just don't get it.) If you've told me what you think and I've forgotten, I'm sorry. I try not to make you explain the same thing too many times, but I do forget things. Here is the reason I don't agree with the "illustrated" idea:

The beginning of Matthew is full of quotations of prophecies (Matt 2:5-6, 15, 17-18, 23; 3:3). What would be the purpose of saying that all those prophecies were illustrated? But if the prophecies were meant to be fulfilled in Christ, there would be a purpose in quoting them. The gospel of Matthew shows that Christ was Israel's promised King. Showing how the prophecies were fulfilled demonstrates that Christ was the Promised One.

Also, the prophecy that comes right after Matt 1:22-23 is the one in Matt 2:5-6. It is the one that states that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem. The wise men and the chief priests and scribes would not have looked at what Micah said unless they thought the prophecy would happen the way it was written. They used the prophecy as a map to help find Jesus. One would tend to read all of the quotations in the same sense. If Matt 2:5-6 was intended to be fulfilled in Christ, one would think that Matt 1:22-23 was intended to be fulfilled in Christ. It doesn't have to be that way; but when you have that many quotations in close succession, they tend to be used in the same way.

So, I believe the prophecies were meant to be fulfilled in Christ because that gives a purpose for quoting them in Matthew and it also gives unity to the succession of quotations.

2. I don't believe that it was an afterthought that made God say that Christ fulfilled the prophecy in Isa 7:14. God's death in human form was the only way God could have redeemed men. In Gethsemane, Christ pleaded with God to let the cup pass from Him if it was at all possible. It wasn't possible. It was through the virgin birth that Jesus Christ was both God and man. So I would think that God had the virgin birth and Christ's substitutionary death in mind as soon as He knew He would have to redeem mankind. Plus, way back in Gen 3:15, God showed that Christ would be the seed of the woman. From Isa 53, it is clear that God had a physical death in mind as the means of redeeming men.

My point is that I don't think God gave the Isa 7:14 prophecy and then later realized that it perfectly described Christ's birth. God would have known back when He gave the prophecy that it was going to perfectly describe Christ's birth.

3. I feel guilty every time I use your words to prove a point I know you don't agree with. I guess I'll say this anyway, and you can tell me if I'm misapplying your words. In a discussion of Matt 16:18, you said:

quote:

---

Discussion on this text focuses on determining which identification of the rock is correct, and which then is incorrect. This approach reflects the tendency in Hellenistic thought (or Western thought generally) to identify one understanding as true and any alternative as false. Hebrew thought (or Eastern thought generally) is not so much a dichotomy. From the Jewish perspective, a particular text of Scripture is not limited to a single significance, but may yield many complementary meanings. This is illustrated by a famous midrash on Jeremiah 22:29.

---

In summary, we agree that Isa 7:14 does not mean that the Messiah was to come in Ahaz's time; but Matt 1:22-23 says that Christ fulfilled the prophecy. God must have known when He spoke through Isaiah, that the prophecy would describe Christ's birth. And it would be in keeping with Hebrew thought to allow for two meanings in the prophecy. Therefore, even if you do not believe in pre-written history, there is good reason to believe that a prophecy can have a dual fulfillment.

Conclusion

We see time breaks and dual fulfillment in places where God knew what He was going to do. There are literary styles that don't put as much emphasis on details. If what I've said here is correct, I would think that even an open theist would have to allow for those possibilities. We might differ in how often we rely on those literary techniques, but I believe that there is strong evidence for their existence.

quote:

---

I sympathize with your concern over books dealing with Scripture as literature. It’s unfortunate that so few people who recognize Scripture as the word of God are interested in viewing it in any terms other than as if the entire book simply dropped out of heaven one day, with no regard for linguistic, historical or cultural context. I would advise you to pursue such study, ever watchful of its effect on your heart. I often compare my own study in this regard with Qohelet’s lament, “for in much wisdom is much grief” (1:18).

---

In my Savior's love,
Abbie

posted 01-11-2003 02:40 AM               

Can prophecy be used to prove the open view?

I’m no sure if ‘prove’ is the right term, but I certainly believe that the nature of biblical prophecy supports openness. The example I gave earlier, of Isaiah’s prophecy against Damascus, is a case in point.

On Isaiah 61

I don’t know that I’ve ever thought that an interim within a prophetic fulfillment proves the open view. It’s entirely possible that God would string together in a prophecy events whose fulfillments are not meant to be concurrent or consecutive. As I read Isaiah 61, I believe that the fulfillment of this text could have been at least roughly consecutive if Israel had received Yeshua as their Messiah. But I wouldn’t cite the disconnected fulfillment as proof that the realization evinces a disparity with the intent.

Did God know prior to the coming of Christ that Israel would reject Him? I believe He anticipated their rejection (from their past track record, this wouldn’t have been difficult). What’s important to me here, though, is what I call the ‘good faith’ principle. God knows long before it’s all said and done that not all people will receive His salvation. Yet, for me it’s theologically imperative that God can in good faith present the gospel to all; genuinely desiring, while realistically anticipating otherwise, that every last one receive it. For me, it has to be theoretically possible that Israel will accept Messiah when He is presented to them, even if that’s realistically as likely as a tropical monsoon in Antarctica.

On the mystery

Well, once again you’ve touched on a subject I’m rethinking. (Seems like these days that’s most any subject.) I’m wrestling with what constitutes ‘the mystery’ (and ‘the mysteries of God’) in Paul. I certainly agree, though, that the mystery of the joint body is active in the mind of God as He issues the prophecy of Isaiah 61. Again, though, I don’t know that all the details of the timing and such are necessarily set.

On history

As I re-read your previous posts, I’m still not quite sure what your point is about the literary differences between narrative and prophecy. (Sorry, sometimes I’m a bit obtuse.) I think your point is that open theologians miss the forest of prophecy’s grandeur and grace for the trees of prophecy’s event details. That when we say, “Aha! This detail didn’t come true to the letter!” we’re missing the point. (Example: will you guys stop jumping all over the forty days and see that the purpose of Jonah’s prophecy was not to inform Nineveh of the timetable of their destruction but to induce them to repent?) Well, I can’t speak for anyone else, but the reason I focus on ticky-tack details in discussions of prophecy is that I’m speaking in response to the Josh McDowell pre-written history (PWH) idea that prophecy proves that the Bible is God’s word because every little detail in the fulfillment corresponds precisely to every little detail in the prophecy, thus demonstrating that only the all-foreknowing God could have written the Bible. That’s not my emphasis as I read the awesome material in the books of the prophets, nor was it their emphasis in the writing of those books. That’s one of the pitfalls of apologetics. For example, you can get so focused on dispensational differences that you miss out on most of the beauty and spiritual value of Scripture because you’re so busy concentrating on what it isn’t saying, or how it doesn’t apply, to our dispensation.

On dual fulfillment

I like what you said about dual fulfillment of a prophecy and midrash. (Partly because it’s gratifying that someone of your intelligence appreciates my input enough to quote it back to me, but more so because I think it’s a well-reasoned point.) I’m open to the idea of a prophecy having multiple fulfillments; I just don’t like it when it’s used as a crutch for unfulfilled details.

As to the overall meaning of ‘fulfilled’ in the NT... yet another issue I’m wrestling with. I tend to read the NT, especially its use of the Tanakh, rabbinically. The Micah text quoted in Matthew 2 seems like a pretty straightforward prophecy of the future (dare I say, ‘prediction’?) I’m not sure there’s much of any other way to read it (the Jewish response is that Micah refers not to Messiah’s birthplace but to His Davidic origins and that the NT is inconsistent on Yeshua’s coming from Bethlehem). In contrast, look at Matthew’s citation of Hosea 11:1. The Hosea text is clearly a historical reference to the Exodus. Matthew’s adaptation of it as a Messianic prophecy is thoroughly in the rabbinic mode. The question is whether God originally inspired Hosea to write the prophecy as he does (it certainly could have been worded differently) because it was His plan all along that Christ should travel and to and return from Egypt or whether God simply inspires Matthew to take advantage of the parallel for didactic purposes. In any event, the difference in the nature of the original texts, I believe, obviates the need to see them in the same vein as you’ve argued.

I don’t think either that the Messianic implications of Isaiah 7:14 can be viewed as secondary. The way the text is written, the specific choice of words, etc., argues against the immediate birth of Isaiah’s son as the primary focus of the text. I’ve always found it interesting, both before and since I’ve adopted a theology of openness, how Messianic prophecy seems to jump out of its context sometimes.

posted 01-21-2003 12:28 AM               

Mat 2:14,15 When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt, 15 and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called My Son”.

God warned Joseph, and he obeyed. They left Bethlehem and went to Egypt. Why? Was Jesus sent to Egypt so the prophecy would be fulfilled? The prophecy was, “Out of Egypt I called My Son”. This was a reference to Hos 11:1, which is not a prophecy that was fulfilled here. That’s why I believe much of prophecy is not pre-written history. Hosea wrote this passage about God calling Israel out of Egypt into the wilderness. Matthew’s prophecy, “Out of Egypt I called My Son”, was only an illustration of a vaguely similar event that happened to Israel. Hosea wrote about Israel’s deliverance. Matthew applied it to the call of the Messiah out of Egypt. This is one of the most blatantly unfulfilled prophecies in God’s word if we press the literal meaning of the word fulfilled. It is important for us to see, because God has no problem with it not being what we want it to be, if we translate it, “fulfilled.”

Another event was said to be the fulfillment of a prophecy by Jeremiah. According to The Bible Knowledge Commentary, his statement (Jer. 31:15) referred initially to the weeping of the nation as a result of the death of children at the time of the Babylonian Captivity (586 B.C.). But, Matthew applied it to Herod and Bethlehem. Therefore, this is another alleged prophecy that is stated in Mat 2:16-18: “Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the wise men, was exceedingly angry; and he sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the wise men. 17 Then was fulfilled (Or is it, “illustrated”?) what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying: 18 ‘A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.’”

I believe we can understand these prophecies if we realize that they could be viewed as illustrating an event. Many of the OT prophecies are like these. It’s just that these are so obvious. In another sense, after studying many OT prophecies, I have found that there are many warning prophecies that are conditional and will never be fulfilled.

In Christ,
Bob