Prophecy enables the Church to understand the Christ-event preached to it as fulfillment, as eschatological salvation, and, therefore, to appropriate proclamation as gospel.

It makes the biblical-theological heart warm, doesn’t it?

Historical Criticism

Historical critics divide the prophetic writings into historical truths and metaphysical truths.  Historical critics begin with the presupposition that the Bible is just like any other book.  The following types of criticism can be considered subheadings under this larger heading.

Source Criticism

Source critics attempt to determine the various sources that were used by a redactor to collate the final form of the particular text. Critics of this variety will look at the textual features (vocabulary, themes, etc.) within a book in order to determine what potential sources may have been involved in its composition.

Key Figures

• J. S. Semler (1725-1791)
• Wilhelm de Wette (1780-1849)
• J. Wellhausen (1844-1914)
• Herder (1744-1803)
• Bernard Duhm (1847-1928)

Form Criticism

This type of criticism looks at the various forms of Biblical writing and attempts to trace them back to their respective periods of oral tradition.  In this sense it peeks behind the curtain to see the oral traditions behind the prophets.  This led to a fascination with ecstasy, dream, vision, and translocation.

Key Figures

• Gustav Holscher
• Herman Gunkel (1862-1932)
• K. Koch
• C. Westermann

Tradition-History

The tradition-history approach seeks to find specific literary or oral developments involved in bringing the text to its present form. Critics of this stripe focus on the various cultic centers and their activity in forming and shaping the final form of the text.

Key Figures

• Gerhard von Rad
• Michael Fishbane
• S. Mowinckel

Redaction Criticism

This has become the prevailing type of criticism as it can incorporate the insights of each of the preceding approaches.  Redaction criticism overlaps with form criticism’s and tradition-history criticism’s interest in the formation of the various books through oral tradition.

Rhetorical Criticism

This type of criticism analyzes types of discourse to determine how they work and what their particular function is.  Rhetorical critics saw the prophetical books as productions of poets.

Key Figures

• James Muilenburg (1896-1974)

–

This material has been adapted in large part from Chris Fantuzzo’s course notes for Prophetical Books at Westminster Theological Seminary.

1. Predictions Qualified by Conditions (e.g. Isa 1:19-20; Jer 22:4-5)
2. Predictions Qualified by Assurances (e.g. Jer 7:15-16; Amos 1:3, 6, 9, 13; 2:1, 4, 6)
3. Predictions Without Qualifications (e.g. Jonah 3:4, 10; 2 Chron 12:5-8)

He works through each type and demonstrates the various historical contingencies involved. The predictions under type one are clearly given in the form of a protasis/apodasis (if/then – but no brace or shorthand syntax, programmers).  Type two are predicated on God’s actions and faithfulness. This type of prophecy includes inevitable events, such as the judgment of certain nations and the victory of YHWH. Finally, the events predicted within type three had no accompanying qualifications and in the examples I have provided, the predicted events never actually occurred.  Pratt opens Jer 18:7-10 to show how an implicit set of qualifications may have been involved.  Pratt then summarizes his findings.

As we have seen, with rare exception, OT prophets did not speak of what had to be but of what might be. Even the few predictions that guaranteed fulfillment did not address their timing or manner of realization. Therefore, prophetic predictions were not designed to be buidling blocks of a futuristic scheme into which current events fit in particular ways. To approach biblical prophecies in this manner is to misuse them. (195)

Pratt then puts his observation into action with an interesting hermeneutical suggestion.

Our study suggests that we need a shift in hermeneutical orientation toward biblical prophecy.  Rather than involving ourselves in ceaseless debates over this or that eschatological scheme and how current history relates to it, we should approach biblical prophecies in ways that accord more with the role of intervening historical contingencies. (195)

This hermeneutical shift leads Pratt to two conclusions.  First, we should not look to biblical prophecy as statements about what must happen, but as announcements of what might be coming.  But second, we should not let the first point lead us to never contemplate our future.  But rather than speculating about the future or look to how current events might fit into this or that prophecy, we should “explore how actions today affect the future.” (196)  Pratt thinks this approach offers a different vector into passages such as Mark 9:1 “Some standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.”  Second Peter 3:9 God (“is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but to come to repentance”) may also explain Peter’s exhortation in 2 Pet 3:11-12.

I am uncertain as to how one might proceed to classify a prediction as either type two or type three. That may also be the greatest sticking point in the covenantal/dispensational debates. Regardless, Pratt’s proposal is certainly worth consideration.

–

Richard L. Pratt, Jr. “Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions” in The Way of Wisdom. Packer and Soderlund, eds. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000).

In the course of the climactic seventieth week, masiah nagid, the anointed priest-king, would make the covenant prevail both in renewal and in judgment. Cut off in death, Messiah would make priestly reconciliation for iniquity, so perfecting sacrifice forever and instituting the new covenant. Then exercising His royal heavenly rule over all the nations, Messiah in the midst of the seventieth week would send forces of destruction against the Jerusalem temple, so making the old ritual system cease and bringing the old covenant to its end.

–

Meredith G. Kline, “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week.” In The Law and the Prophets, John Skilton, ed. (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1974), 468.

21″And as for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the LORD: “My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children’s offspring,” says the LORD, “from this time forth and forevermore.”

Many critics argue (or simply assert) that Isa 59:21 is a later addition that doesn’t belong where it currently resides in the canon. Claus Westermann in his commentary on Isa 40-66 writes

Verse 21 diverges so much in both style and subject-matter from 59:1-10 that this cannot have been its original placing.  Practically all editors [Sic. critics] agree in this [p. 352].

In Westermnann’s judgment the verse is a fragment that should be in Isaiah 26, but he unfortunately does not provide a reason.  Likewise, Paul D. Hanson in his Dawn of Apocalyptic and Isaiah 40-66 skips over the verse entirely.  It isn’t even mentioned.  In my opinion, these approaches betray something deeply concerning regarding the approach to God’s Word.

Fantuzzo, however, presented an excellent case for leaving verse 21 just where it is.  At this time, I do not want to focus on the particular points of his argument opting instead to look at his methodology. In short, Fantuzzo argues that we should focus our interpretation on the text as it has been received because it provides a much better opportunity for letting the text speak for itself.  For him, a main feature of proper exegesis is recognizing that the parts of a text of Scripture exist in an ordered whole.  Hence, exegesis must begin by appealing to discourse features within the finished form of a book rather than beginning with a critical construct (a la tradition-history, form-criticism, rhetorical criticism, etc.).

He proceeded to start with Isa 59:21 by looking at its internal characteristics but then moved to the more immediate context of 58:1-59:20.  As he works through the textual and thematic linkages Fantuzzo concludes that Isa 59:21 is “a key verse for appreciating the total vision of the book of Isaiah and its contribution to Holy Scripture.”  The methodology is refreshing and I think quite helpful for preachers struggling to see the significance of Sunday’s passage.

To be faithful to the text in its final form, we must start with the immediate section, then progressively move our way out to the entire book.  We can then shift to the immediate canonical context on to the entire canon available at the time of the book’s writing.  Finally we must see our passage in the light of the entire canon.  If we do not treat the text in its relation to the ordered whole, we will not understand its import.  I find this to be a healthy alternative to critical approaches and one that does justice to a Vossian view of biblical theology.  Being faithful to God’s Word in one of its parts means being faithful to God’s Word as an organic whole.

–

Much of this material was adapted from Fantuzzo’s lecture and course handouts for his class Prophetical Books at Westminster Theological Seminary.

]]> http://historiasalutis.com/2009/12/12/an-ordered-approach-to-scripture/feed/ 6 http://historiasalutis.com/2009/12/07/expanding-biblical-and-theological-understanding-of-mal-31-4/ http://historiasalutis.com/2009/12/07/expanding-biblical-and-theological-understanding-of-mal-31-4/#comments Mon, 07 Dec 2009 13:30:38 +0000 Camden Bucey http://www.historiasalutis.com/?p=117 Read more→]]> Malachi 3:1-4 draws on several prominent prophetic themes. Many intertextual and motific connections can be identified within the prophets and the broader Old Testament canonical context, and these connections lay the foundation for the New Testament revelation regarding the identity of “my messenger” as well as for understanding the eschatological significance and function of “the lord” (notice the lower-case letters) and “the messenger of the covenant.”

Jesus identifies John the Baptist as both “my messenger” and Elijah from Mal 3:1 and 3:23, respectively (Matt 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 1:76; 7:27). However, Luke associates both Jesus and John with Elijah (Luke 1:17; 4:25; 7:11-17; cf. 7:27).¹ Space does not permit us to examine the intricacies of these passages, but we will agree with Jesus’ own words that John is Elijah insofar as Elijah prepared the way for Jesus. Jesus, however, carries on the prophetic and particularly miraculous, functions of Elijah throughout his earthly ministry.² YHWH’s activity in Mal 3:1-4 and 4:1 is picked up in the discussion of Jesus’ baptism in Matt 3:11 and throughout Luke-Acts. John the Baptist baptizes with a preparatory baptism of repentance, but one is coming who will baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire, alluding to the refining and purifying role of YHWH in Mal 3:3. Furthermore, fire imagery from Mal 3:1-4 is used throughout the New Testament with special influence upon the eschatological discussion of the new creation in 1 Pet.³

That being said, the overall canonical witness to the person of the Son of God is perhaps the most enlightening perspective on Mal 3:1-4. Given a two-person argument (which I have made elsewhere and hope to post soon), we may now nuance this view theologically. In Mal 3:1 we have three titles and what appears to be two figures as “the lord” is “the messenger of the covenant.” Given the covenantal context of Exod 23-24, that the Lord of the covenant is speaking and that the book of the covenant is being read in Exod 24:7, the “messenger of the Lord” in Exod 23:20, 23; 32:34 and 33:2 is most likely the “the messenger of the covenant” in Mal 3:1. If we follow Kline’s reading of these Exodus passages, Malachi’s “the messenger of the covenant” is then Jesus Christ, the one whom YHWH’s name is in (Exod 23:21) who is distinct from the Father, yet the same in substance and equal in glory and power. This Trinitarian understanding provides a helpful perspective on the tension between identifying and distinguishing YHWH and various messenger figures throughout Scripture. “The lord” of Mal 3:1 is perichoretically related to “the messenger of the covenant” of the same verse.

Malachi 3:1-4 is a very complex passage. It is not until the interpreter reads in light of the entire canon that the identities of each figure come to the fore. Complexities notwithstanding, the main point of Mal 3:1-4 is very clear: YHWH’s priests and people need to be purified. YHWH then sends the necessary provision for that purification to happen whether he accomplishes it through a mediating figure or whether he purifies his people directly. YHWH’s messenger will come to clear the way before him and eschatological blessing will be ushered in when he returns. The disappointment experienced by the people after their return from exile will not endure. A much greater, eschatological horizon will unfold and the people will experience greater blessings than had been known throughout Israel’s history. Soli Deo gloria

—

1. David M. Miller, “The Messenger, the Lord, and the Coming Judgement in the Reception History of Malachi 3,” New Testament Studies 53, no. 1 (2007): 2.

2. Verhoef suggests a “pyramid of forerunners” approach to the question of Elijah’s return, the pinnacle of which would be John the Baptist (cf. Gen 22:18 with Gal 3:16; Hos 11:1; with Matt 2:15, etc.). Pieter Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi (Grand Rapids Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1987), 288.

3. John Proctor, “Fire in God’s House: Influence of Malachi 3 in the NT,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 36, no. 1 (1993): 9-14.

Now, I can understand how many scholars take 4:4-5 and perhaps even all of chapter 4 (in the English) to be a later addition, but I remain unpersuaded. Many scholars, of course, see a redactor present throughout the entire book of Malachi, not simply at the end. These scholars usually attempt to solve the difficulties of chapter 3 by chalking it up to the work of a redactor. Verses 1-5 are confusing because they change voice from the first person, to the third and then back to the first person. Malchow writes:

Several scholars suggest that it is more likely that all or large parts of vv 1b-4 are a later addition to the text. It seems that this whole section is an addition. This explains why v 1a and v 5 are in the first person, and vv 1b-4 are in the third.  Also, v 5 continues the discussion of general evildoers begun in 2:17, while 3:2-4 deals with purifying the Levites. (Malchow, 253)

My question is Would a redactor really be this stupid? I’ve always struggled with these kinds of solutions. I recall writing middle school “research” papers and my classmates were much more skilled at plagiarizing the Encyclopedia Britannica than this redactor was at combining his sources. Junior high students can make their sources at least somewhat fit the rest of their paper. Would a literate Hebrew really not be able to know that his work is so shoddy? Does he not understand the difference between the first and third person? It seems reasonable to me that a literate Hebrew would have smoothed these sorts of things out if he thought it was worthwhile to redact in the first place. I realize my comments are not based on a very sophisticated understanding of redaction, but I think they are still worthy of consideration.

See Bruce V. Malchow, “The Messenger of the Covenant in Mal. 3:1,” JBL 103 (1984) 252-55.

We can nuance this a bit given our understanding of redemptive-history.  We would certainly say that a true prophet now comes in the name of Jesus Christ.  But we would also say that Jesus Christ is the true prophet and God does not reveal himself through human prophets as he did in the Old Testament.  We don’t encounter prophetism now under the new covenant as God’s people did during the Mosaic economy.

That being said, another criterion, and perhaps the first criterion most people would consider is that what the prophet speaks actually comes to pass.  If the prophet predicts an event and it doesn’t happen, that man is immediately to be considered a false prophet.  I am amazed at how many false prophets in our day this does not seem to apply to.  Benny Hinn, for instance, predicted that all homosexuals would be destroyed by fire no later than 1995.  To my recollection that didn’t happen.  Certainly the faithful consider him a false prophet, but many people still are held under his sway.

Although these two criteria are certainly helpful, we need to include a third in order to be comprehensive.  The prophet should only be regarded as true if what he speaks conforms with God’s previous revelations.  Even if a prophet satisfies criteria one and two, but does not conform to God’s previous revelations, he is to be considered a false prophet.  We can consider a scenario where a false prophet might come in the name of the Lord and by chance predict a future event.  But if his teaching contradicts God’s previous revelation, he is still a false prophet.  Robertson’s three-fold test is a good measure for these teachers.  Now go watch TBN and put it to use.

But secondly, the prophet foretells.  This perhaps is the more common understanding of what the prophet actually does: he tells the future.  The distinction can help us to understand the role of the prophet as the mediator between God and man.  God chose a single man to speak to his people on his behalf.  And as such, his word not only has present application for the people, but also involves telling the future of this people as a means of calling them to repentance and providing hope.  The distinction shows us the richness of God’s Word and his concern for his people throughout all of history.