Christadelphian EJournal of Biblical Interpretation

The Servant in Isaiah

ejbi — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:00:54 +0000

Schaolrs do not situate the Servant in an 8c. context. If we do so, the identity of the Servant is given as either Hezekiah (Whittaker, Thirtle) or Immanuel (Wordsworth). The evidence for Hezekiah is mainly in Isaiah 53. So the question is: is there more than one servant?

Immanuel

ejbi — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 19:58:28 +0000

It seems clear that Immanuel is not Hezekiah because of the Assyrian Chronology. It is more likely that he is Isaiah’s son. One of the signs (Isa 8:18) given to him.

The Identity of Immanuel

ejbi — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 20:47:43 +0000

A common scholarly proposal is that this person is a son of Isaiah. Another idea is that he is Hezekiah. The problem with the Hezekiah suggestion is that Hezekiah is about 6 years old at the time of the prophecy. The problem with the son of Isaiah proposal is that he is not part of the royal house. A commentator can duck the question by restricting the prophecy to Christ, but Wordsworth suggests that Immanuel is the Anonymous Conqueror of Isaiah 59/63.

German Scholarship and Joel

ejbi — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:37:28 +0000

In his 2001 commentary, Barton says (7) “In a scholarly discipline so dominated by German scholarship as Old Testament Studies, it is interesting to note that both major theories about the origins of Joel go back to a work in French”. This is interesting and not just for what it states; Barton here expresses the feeling that OLd Testament Studies is still dominated by German Scholarship. There is truth in this insofar as monographs and commentaries have a “history of scholarship” to wade through which is in the main German – “the classics”. Some are translated into English. However, in terms of living scholars working and writing today, it is English language scholarship that dominates, and this has come about as a result of the literary turn in Old Testament scholarship.

Prophetic Framework for the Bestowal of the Spirit

ejbi — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 11:23:51 +0000

The bestowal of the Spirit in the 1c. is set within a prophetic framework taken from (at least) Joel, Isaiah and Ezekiel. This framework is Israel focused and for their “last days”. There is nothing in the prophetic framework that suggests an enduring bestowal of the Spirit for the last 2000 years. Christian churches therefore make a structural mistake when they affirm the ongoing bestowal of the Spirit in these days. They assume that everything in the NT writings about the Spirit is relevant today and fail to see that much of the language is bound in time to that era. In short, the NT writers expect readers of whatever age to know the Prophets and how to position their writings in a prophetic framework. Neglect of the OT has led to massive error in this area of doctrine comparable to the error of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Declarative Writing

ejbi — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 11:09:44 +0000

I was reading the Febuary 2009 issue of the main ecclesial magazine and an article on Headcoverings. It struck me that the style of writing was declarative rather than discursive. It didn’t argue a case, discuss a case, review options, cite other views, use footnotes very much: it just declared its case. The style was: “this is how you should behave”. It got me thinking – does the ecclesial magazine have to be declarative to achieve its aims? I should add I agreed with the conclusion of the said article although it got Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 11 wrong.

Dating Obadiah

ejbi — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:29:56 +0000

Obadiah is an undated prophet – there are no kings noted in its superscription. The modern consensus is that the book is exilic/post-exilic and that it castigates Edom for their participation in the sack of Jerusalem in 587 (Barton, 120-123). How does this view answer the following: a) there was deliverance in Zion (v. 17); b) the Judahites were to possess the surrounding territories (v. 19). When was there deliverance in Zion after 587 or when were Judahites to possess the surrounding lands after 587? If Obadiah’s words were relevant to his audience – what was the expected imminent fulfilment? Do scholars need to return to older commentary views on the date of Obadiah and give weight to its position among the 8c. prophets?

Dating Joel

ejbi — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:04:58 +0000

The consensus in commentaries is that Joel is a post-exilic book, although Crenshaw [p. 28]admits that dating the book is an exercise in futility because of the hypothetical nature of the task. It seems that commentaries adopt a “me too” mentality and are only comfortable nuancing the consensus. There is nothing in Joel that requires a post-exilic date and its position in the MT order of the 12 would suggest it is an 8c. work despite the arguments of scholars like Sweeny, Allen and Barton. The quality of this evidence for its date should take precedence over internal “evidence” for a post-exilic date.

Dividing Joel

ejbi — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:11:46 +0000

Commentators like to divide Joel into two halves. I haven’t found a successful scheme yet. Commentaries nevertheless have useful insights in their sections on Joel’s structure. D R Jones in his Torch Bible Commentary series commentary sees the correct emphasis in Joel 2:18 in its “past” tense – this has been placed to one side by more academic commentaries such as that of Allen. The change in “tense” between v. 17 and v. 18 is sharp and it marks vv. 18-20 as an oracle unit. Translations like the KJV, RSV and NASB don’t respect this change either and get the text wrong – I propose…

And the Lord was jealous for his land, and he did pity his people. Yea, the Lord did answer and say unto his people, Behold, I am sending you corn, and wine, and oil, and ye shall be satisfied therewith: and I will no more make you a reproach among the heathen: and (w) I will remove far off from you the northerner, and will drive him into a land barren and desolate, with his face toward the east sea, and his hinder part toward the utmost sea, and his stink shall come up, and his ill savour shall come up, because he hath done great things. Joel 2:18-20 (KJV revised)

This change in tense separates vv. 18-19 from vv. 15-17 as it presupposes God’s response to the people’s lament: they heeded the call of the prophet (recorded in vv. 15-17) and cried to Yahweh for mercy and God responded. The tense also separates vv. 18-20 from vv. 21-27 as a statement of what God said unto his people.

Identity of Satan

ejbi — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 22:34:28 +0000

The recent Testimony issue has some correspondence on the identity of “the Satan” in Job. I wonder if it is possible to clearly discuss this question without bringing anachronistic ideas to the table? If we first set Job in an historical context – say the late seventh century – then we should ask: what ideas are possible at that time? If we get the historical context wrong, then we may bring later Christian ideas to the text and go wrong. So, what if “the Satan” is a title for “the adversary” in a drama that is to be acted on stage? What person does the human actor portray? Intertextual links with Zecharaiah would indicate the role is one of an angel administering the affairs of God’s people. Isn’t it time to lay other ideas to rest?