Marriage and the Bible - Part 28 - The Major Prophets and Marriage Imagery

In the prophets there is no real changes in the rules of marriage although some things are reemphasized. In the major prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel) some marriage imagery is used to illustrate the relationship God has with his people.


Isaiah 54 has some sharp marriage imagery where God talks to Israel calling her a forsaken wife but then he has restored her. Chapter 50 talks of divorce but saying that there is no certificate of divorce barring his way to his servant.


Jeremiah is far more in your face. Over and over he likens Judah and Israel to unfaithful wives who have become whores to foreign gods. This is particularly seen in Jeremiah chapter 3. He uses it again at the end of chapter 31 where he says he would create a new covenant unlike the first one - one in which he would change them to be faithful.


If Jeremiah was harsh, Ezekiel is off the chain. Chapter 16 of Ezekiel is completely about how God's two wives were not only unfaithful and whores but how they went out of their way to outdo the other nations in their harlotry. God even uses the death of Ezekiel's own wife as a sign of what is about to happen to the nation of Judah if they do not turn from this (Chapter 24).


Daniel does not invoke this imagery at all but does mention the whole wives/concubines issue.


In looking at all the imagery of the major prophets regarding marriage the one thing that is emphasized is faithfulness. God uses the image of what is supposed to be the hallmark of any marriage and then shows how Judah and Israel both have been like unfaithful wives. None of the major prophets will compare though to the singular image of Hosea.


Next: Hosea's Marriage

The Book of Revelation -- Part 4 -- The Powerful Vision of Christ.

Oddly enough I think the vision of Christ that is found in chapter 1 verses 9-20 have interpretive significance but not in the fact they closely resemble the ones in Daniel. To take this book by itself the vision stands as a very interesting revelation of Christ. John is in the Spirit on the Lord's Day and he hears a powerful voice when he turns around he sees Christ:

1. Christ is powerful in word
2. Christ's appearance in radiant, powerful and central.
3. Christ is commanding and sovereign
4. Christ is light with no darkness at all
5. Christ is in the middle of the churches in question

When Jesus speaks of himself he adds:
1. He is the first and the last
2. He is the beginning and the end.
3. He is the living one
4. He was dead
5. He is alive forevermore
6. He holds the keys of hades

What really though should stick in our mind is the fact that Jesus interprets two symbols for us in this vision: the stars are the messengers and the lamp stands are the churches. What I am pointing out to us here is when the book gives us the meaning of a symbol then we do not have to speculate or guess we need to just accept it.

I am usually not given to overly emotional interpretations but this vision of Christ is so powerful I quake in my own boots and I was not there. Throughout the book of Revelation this is ultimately the vision of Christ we get -- the worthy powerful one who bring all things right. Christ who controls eternal life and death. This is the vision we need to keep as we look at all the others. Its power dominates all else. We should quake as we turn the pages that follow.

Next: The Need of the Seven Churches for this Book

The Book of Revelation -- Part 3 -- The Seven Churches -- Key to Interpretation?

In know most people who have studied the book of Revelation usually consider the seven churches as significant, but I have never heard them referred to s the key to understanding the book by anyone. Usually that distinction belongs to the book of Daniel. But I wonder how much we consider the fact that the Book of Revelation was addressed to them and its significance. In Verse 1:4 and chapters two and three as well as the symbolism found in John's vision of Christ the seven is always in reference to the seven churches of Asia. This is how the book starts, as a message from Christs own lips to them, the primary recipients of this letter.

There are many theories:
1. Each church represents a different age of the church before the end: 1) It was certainly was never looked at like this when the letter was first penned. 2) the fact is the order of the churches follows geography from the cost to the interior. 3) Why is it that those who support this theory always think we are in the Laodecea period. No one theorizes that we have time yet and may be in the Philadelphia period. Odd. 4) The text does not say this 5) I am really getting sick of Western time lines always being superimposed on the Bible, as an open theist I don't believe that God is mapping the future in a timeline with Revelation it may be something else altogether --- REJECTED.
2. The churches are not important to understanding the prophecies of the book, once the future stuff is started in chapter four they have no bearing. 1) Why them then why not just address the book to the church in general. 2) Seems odd to just mention them and then forget they are the ones who originally had to understand the book and it is specifically addressed to them -- REJECTED.
3. Other theories include a mix of the above but no one asks the question's about the seven churches from this light -- what did they understand the book of Revelation to be?

My theory is that if can try to piece together what these churches would have understood we would have more proper understanding of Revelation. The problem is some of these churches we have information on and others we do not. There are seven keys here that may unlock the book if only we had more information.

One thing is for sure, that one key aspect in Biblical interpretation is to ask how the original hearers would have understood it but modern interpreters seem to forget this principle them the moment they get to chapter 4 verse 1. I think this may be a terrible mistake and who these people where and what they understood needs to be considered at every turn to get a proper interpretation.

Next: The Powerful Vision of Christ

The Book of Revelation -- Is it really what we think it is?

My thoughts on the book of Revelation have always been cloudy and the only thing I think John Calvin did that was truly smart was he never wrote a commentary on it. Perhaps a lesson to the rest of us, but here I go making a series of posts on the subject of Revelation. I remember sitting in Sunday School as a teen when they taught about the end times (eschatology is the technical term) and asking the question of -- what if everyone is wrong? It is not an inconceivable option and as I went through my education I realized a few things:

1. The doctrine of the Rapture as most evangelicals have come to know it has only been around since the 19th century.

2. The doctrine of the Great Tribulation hinges on a single passage in Daniel that could be interpreted as fulfilled already in the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD. See Daniel 9:24-27 for details.

3. The seven year tribulation timeline that is superimposed on the book of Revelation has its origins in both western thoughts of time and is only a recent phenom as it also has its origins in the 19th century.

4. "Seven" is put against many things in Revelation -- horns, trumpets, vials, seals, etc. One thing it is not put against is 'years'. Yep, for all the talk about a seven year tribulation, there is never a time in the Bible where the concept of a seven year time period and a great tribulation are linked.

5. Now, I also have different ideas on how the God of the Bible relates to time (aka as open theism) and I am wondering how that might affect my interpretation of the book of Revelation? I also wonder if all I had was the book of Revelation, how would I interpret it without referencing other books of the Bible?

So discarding the one wise thing John Calvin did (hey, I have already discarded everything else he did, so I might as well throw the last thing out), here I go into the wonderful world of Revelation and the great effort in this series, which may take a quite a while, is to let the book speak for itself. Onward and Upward.

Engaging God's Problem -- Disagreements with Chapter Seven

Bart Ehrman's God's Problem considers the 'end of the world' answer to the problem of evil. I have a few disagreements with Bart about this although the chapter does have some problems:

1. He plugs some social issues again -- malaria and water issues around the world. Both could be dealt with by humans but were going to blame God.

2. I disagree with Bart's assessment of origin of the apocalyptic view in Scripture. The fact is that it occurs in the writings of Solomon in Ecclesiastes as well as David's psalms and the idea of judgment occurs in Job as well.

3. When people assess that the Jewish people failed to keep the covenant and thus received punishment for not keeping the covenant it is not anti-Semitic. Did not the prophets and Jesus (all Jews) say the same. If Christians simple say the sames things Jews say about themselves how are they anti-Semitic. Jesus pointed this out further in his own when he called the religious leaders self-righteous -Is Jesus anti-Semitic

4. He has some interesting theories about the date of Daniel -- that Daniel is written in Aramaic is proof of a later date for Daniel after the fact of all the predictions of course. The fact is if Daniel is educated by the Babylonians his language would a have been changed into Aramaic along with the rest of the Jews seeing Aramaic is the result of Babylonian influence.

5. Because he does all this his version of apocalyptic views is assume that God has relinquished control for now and will bring things back to right in the end -- The apocalyptic view does not have god out of control at anytime.

Next: Agreements with Chapter Eight