10
INTERPRETIVE VIEWPOINT IN
OLD TESTAMENT ISRAEL
Let us now reflect on how grammatical-historical interpretation will proceed when applied to the OT in general and to OT prophecy in particular. Grammatical-historical interpretation in its narrowest focus asks what human authors meant by what they wrote. But it is not mere psychological speculation about "what was going on in the author's mind." It does not make unfounded guesses that the author somehow "must have meant this" even though the intended audience would have no clue. Rather, grammatical-historical interpretation disciplines itself to pay attention to what the author actually expressed. It could also be characterized as being concerned with what the author's intended readers would be justified in understanding the text to mean. The latter formulation in terms of readers has the advantage that it forces us to avoid speculation about the author's mind, and confine ourselves to what the author actually wrote. However, human readers are not infallible. In particular, we are not concerned simply with any meaning that some reader may subjectively read into the text. We want to know what meaning readers are justified in reading out.
Whichever way we formulate the matter, grammatical-historical interpretation deals with what a passage says against the background of its original time and culture, bearing in mind the purposes of the human author.
31. Actual interpretations by pre-Christian audiences
Grammatical-historical interpretation, then, focuses on the time when the book was written. But we cannot definitively settle an issue over the interpretation of (say) Micah by simply appealing to what Israelites in Micah's time understood Micah to mean. Some of them might be mistaken, through sin or hardness. Moreover, most of the time we do not even have very much information about Israelite understanding of OT passages when they were written. It is hard to know what Feinberg means when he says (1980, 46):
How those [many previously listed] portions were understood in Old Testament times, one need not be informed; it is a matter of common knowledge and open to the careful investigation of all. They were taken only and solely as literal.
Of course, from the OT's own record of some responses to oral divine words, and occasionally responses to written words, one can tell something about how the respondents understood them. For instance, what happened when God gave commands? Those who responded with immediate straightforward obedience showed that they understood the commands to have a straightforward meaning. Perhaps the obedient Israelites interpreted God's commands flatly. But perhaps they saw additional implications or allusions beyond the straightforward response. There is often nothing to prove the matter one way or the other, unless we assume that all Israelites were more or less prone to flat interpretation.
The most elaborate evidence we have of general audience interpretation in pre-Christian times comes from the intertestamental period. Does Feinberg have this in mind? Probably not. At any rate, it would not support his conclusions. The hermeneutical responses were quite varied. Some individual interpretations were flat. Some were produced by highly worked-up imaginations. One has only to look at Philo Judaeus or the Qumran community or Jewish apocalyptic to see that (see, for example, Philo, Legum allegoriarum; 1QpHab, 1QpMic; 1 Enoch; Longenecker 1975, 19-50; Patte 1975).
32. Israel's hope
Now let us turn to the question, not of actual interpretation by OT audiences, but justified or warranted interpretation. What did the human author actually express in an OT text? What was the original audience justified or warranted in understanding from OT texts? What was expressed in prophetic texts in particular?
I maintain that several factors in Israel's understanding of itself and its understanding of God should have led to an understanding of prophecy which was not flat. At times, of course, particular prophetic texts would have been understood as mainly or wholly nonmetaphorical predictions. But in other cases Israel's own attitude should have been one of open-ended expectation. Israel was to expect fulfillment of some predictive prophecy, without knowing in exactly what way the prediction would be fulfilled. They would not know exactly to what extent a metaphorical expression of the truth was at work.
A simple illustration of this occurs in Isa 40:4-5,
Every valley shall be raised up, every mountain and hill made low; the rough ground shall become level, the rugged places a plain. And the glory of the LORD will be revealed, and all mankind together will see it. For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.
Nothing in the immediate or the remote context absolutely constrains the original reader to understand the prediction of vs. 4 as anything else than a description of topographical changes (changes in the shape of the surface of the ground). A flat interpretation would therefore say that topographical changes are in view. An interpretation in the original historical context based on the principle "literal if possible" would say the same thing. But the situation is more complicated than flat interpretation understands. True, Israelites are not forced to see this as anything more than or anything other than topographical changes. But neither are they forced to maintain that there must be such changes, or that this is the main point.
For one thing, the immediate context, like much of Isaiah 40-66, is suggesting the theme of a second exodus (see, for example, Isa 43:16-21, 51:9-11, 52:12, 63:7-19). The way through the wilderness (vs. 3) is language describing a way from captivity (earlier Egypt; now Babylon) to the promised land. The language of topographical changes may, then, be a metaphorical expression to indicate the completeness of the preparation involved when God himself comes in the midst of his people.
Secondly, Isa 2:1-18 has already used similar language about leveling processes to indicate the exaltation of God and the humiliation of human pride. The Scofield Reference Bible remarks on Isa 2:2, "A mountain, in Scripture symbolism, means a kingdom (Dan. 2.35; Rev. 13.1, with Rev. 17.9-11)." Scofield's remark is certainly not flat interpretation. Nor is it strictly grammatical-historical interpretation, since it relies on passages of the Bible not yet written at the time that Isaiah was written. Yet, to the sensitive (not the flat) reader of Isa 2:12-18, the main point concerns pride and humility, honor and dishonor, exaltation and humiliation, not topographical changes.
Now let us go back to Isa 40:3-5. Isa 40:3-5 by its choice of metaphorical language gives us something less "exact" than a prosaic, chronicle-like description of the future. But it gains something in ability to weave together the themes of human pride being brought low, the second exodus, and the cosmic scope of God's final redemption. The godly Israelite reader would know the main point. The Lord will come in a spectacular second exodus, dealing with the pride of man. Whether there are topographical changes, and how far this second exodus will correspond to the first, the passage does not say clearly. This expression of hope will be filled out and become more specific when fulfillment actually takes place. For instance, we know more clearly, in the light of the fulfillment with John the Baptist, that repentance was one primary aspect of the Lord's dealing with the pride of man as alluded to in Isa 40:4.
Now let us return to the general question of interpreting prophecy. OT prophecies for the "latter days" do not find their center in the people of Israel pure and simple. Nor is their center in the transformation of the land of Palestine, pure and simple. Rather, the deepest roots of their expectations are found in the coming of the Lord. "In the desert prepare the way for the LORD" (Isa 40:3). "And the glory of the LORD will be revealed" (Isa 40:5). "Say to the towns of Judah, 'Here is your God!'" (40:9). "See, the Sovereign LORD comes with power, and his arm rules for him" (40:10). "[The messengers] say to Zion, 'Your God reigns!'" (52:7). One could multiply passages. The coming of God, the appearing of God in his glory, cannot but imply transformation of the people of God. As at the exodus and Sinai, so in the future, the coming of God means both judgment and salvation. And the coming of God implies transformation of the land, because wherever the Lord appears becomes holy ground (cf. Exod 3:5). No wonder, then, that prophecy speaks so much about the people of God and transformations of their land. These things are not isolated from the coming of God. The spectacular transformations of created things exhibit and reflect the overwhelmingly great character of God himself and his revelation of himself in the latter days.
But if the transformations of people and land are determined in their character by the coming of God himself, God is still the deepest center of prophetic expectation. Can an Israelite predict in detail what the coming of God will mean? Well, it does not mean flat interpretation. It means an interpretation over which God himself is the ultimate interpreter. Even Moses saw only "the back parts" of God. To have God revealed in full glory to the whole world (Isa 40:5) means something so spectacular that the Israelite should be reserved about what is metaphorical, and what way it is metaphorical.
33. Israel as a kingdom of priests
Israel's self-understanding, in particular, would have affected the way in which they read prophecies about the future of Israel. How was Israel supposed to understand itself? Israel as a nation and a people was told by God that its own center of gravity was not in simple biological or ethnic bounds but in its relationship to God. Israel was a people marked out as distinct by bearing the name of God (Num 6:24-27) and by God's dwelling in their midst (Num 14:14). The whole nation was to be "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Exod 19:6). As priests, they were to serve God in holiness (Lev 19:2) and perform a special prominent role bringing the knowledge of God to all the other nations of the world (Gen 12:3; Deut 4:6-8).
How, then, was Israel supposed to understand its own priestly role? It was to do so by observing the very concrete model given to it in the Aaronic priesthood. The Aaronic priests (and subordinately the Levites) were, of course, priests in a very special sense. Israel as a whole did not have the same status as did the descendents of Aaron. It is true that the whole community was holy, in a lower sense of holiness (Exod 31:13). But that did not justify Korah's attempt to level the distinction between priests and people (Numbers 16-17). The Aaronic priests were holy in a unique sense. Yet, precisely in their uniqueness, the Aaronic priests set before the people a model for what they all were to be on a less intensive level.
Aaron, then, was a model for Israel. But Aaron himself was modeled after something still deeper. The instructions for the tabernacle were to "make them according to the pattern shown you on the mountain" (Exod 25:40). The tabernacle was a holy place, made after the pattern of the supremely holy dwelling place of God, heaven (1 Kgs 8:27,30,34,36,39). The ministry of the tabernacle also was presumably modeled after heavenly ministry. One recalls the ministry of the angels who are continually in the presence of God, and of Moses with whom God spoke "face to face" (Num 12:8). Aaron, of course, could not stand before God in his own person. He had to have special holy clothing, or else he would die (Exod 28:38,43). Moreover, several of the items and arrangements of the clothing corresponded at least vaguely to the tabernacle itself. The blue, the gold, the rings, the plate marked, "Holy to the Lord," were all reminiscent of aspects of the tabernacle (cf. Kline 1980, 42-47). Aaron the priest was modeled after a heavenly pattern.
Thus the full pattern for Israel's priesthood has levels of depth. Israel as a whole was priest; Aaron was priest; in God's heavenly original there was the ultimate priesthood. We may diagram it as in diagram 10.1.
Israel's existence as a kingdom of priests therefore possessed symbolic significance. This does not at all mean that Israel's priesthood was "merely" symbolic or "merely" something of illustrative or pedagogical value. It was not "merely" an illusion, reflecting the "real" priestly reality in heaven. No, it was substantial, it was "real"--on the level that the Israelites could take it, and on the level appropriate to the preliminary character of God's deliverance and his revelation at this point. The true God, not merely a surrogate for God, was really present with Israel. And his presence meant their consecration as priests. Yet God was not present in the way and with the intensity that he is present at the coming of Jesus Christ. His presence with Israel was preliminary and "shadowy" in comparison to that.
The latter days mentioned in the prophets are that broad eschatological era when the glory of God is revealed on earth (Isa 40:5, 60:2-3, Zech 2:5). The glory of God was formerly confined to heaven, and subordinately appeared in order to fill the holy and holies in the tabernacle and the temple. But eschatologically God will come to earth in his majesty. In those days the heavenly reality with supersede the earthly symbolic reflection. The heavenly original will fill and transform what was shadow. Hence those days imply a revision also in Aaronic priesthood (Ps 110:4), and by implication a revision of the law, which is bound up with the priesthood (Heb 7:12). But more than that, they imply a revision in the existence of Israel itself, since Israel itself is constituted as a kingdom of priests (cf. Isa 66:18-24). Since the existence of Israel itself has symbolic and heavenly overtones from the beginning, the fulfillment of prophecy encompasses these same overtones. The eschatological time is the time when the symbolic overtones in the very nature of Israel itself are transformed into reality.
Consider now what this meant for Israel's perception of the nature of the land of Palestine. The land belonged to God (Lev 25:23). It was not to be desecrated by unclean practices (Deut 21:23, Lev 20:22-24). In an extended sense, the land itself was holy, the dwelling place of God. As a holy land, it was modeled after God's rule over his heavenly dwelling. But it also illustrated what God would do to all the earth in the latter days. God's kingdom would come to earth as it was (in OT times ) in heaven. The land of Palestine was also analogous to Eden (Isa 51:3). It pointed back to what Adam failed to do. Adam's dominion over Eden (the starting point for rule over the whole earth) was ruined by the fall. Israel was granted dominion over a "new Eden." This dominion over Palestine in turn anticipated the full dominion that was to be restored by the "seed of the woman," one born to be the "last Adam" (1 Cor 15:45).
All this means that it is a violation of grammatical-historical interpretation to read prophecy flat. It is even a violation to read Israel's history flat. The history of Israel has some symbolic overtones derived from the symbolic dimension in Israel's own existence as kingdom of priests. But eschatological prophecy is the point at which these symbolic overtones are bound to be emphasized and come out into the open, since that is the time of transition from the preliminary to the final.
These symbolic overtones include almost everything that has in the past been classified as typology, and more besides. In fact, Israel's existence was so saturated with incipient typology that it is hard for us, who live in the light of the fulfillment, to appreciate the Israelite situation. In a certain sense, it is impossible. We cannot forget what we have learned of Christ. But I would say this: Israel could on the one hand know much through a dim sense of symbolic overtones. And simultaneously it could know little because the shadows did not provide all the depth and the richness which the reality provides. A good deal would be known tacitly rather than by explicit, rationally articulated means.1
Now one more point should be observed about the eschatological expectations of OT Israel. The "latter days," but not before, is the decisive time when the heavenly reality of God in his glory comes to earth. Therefore, prophetic predictions with regard to the near future have a character distinct from predictions about the "latter days." In the near future, the organized political and social community of Israel continues in more or less a straight line. Predictions, even when they use symbolic and allusive language, can expect to find fulfillment on the symbolic level on which Israel then exists. But fulfillment in the "latter days" (eschatological fulfillment in the broad sense of eschatology) is a different matter. There the symbol is superseded by the reality, and hence straight-line reckoning about fulfillments is no longer possible. Pre-eschatological prophetic fulfillments have a hermeneutically different character than do eschatological fulfillments.
As a simple example we may take the prophecy of Mal 3:3-4. Malachi prophesies that at a future point the sons of Levi will present right offerings, acceptable to the Lord. If the time in view were pre-eschatological, it would be natural to assume that this restoration would simply be a restoration of right worship along the lines laid out by Leviticus. But the context of Mal 3:1-2, even without the use of the special phrase "latter days," appears to be a context of overwhelming judgement and overwhelming coming of God. It is the context of the "latter days." In that case, it is not so certain that the form of the "offerings" can be expected to remain absolutely the same. Will continual bloody sacrifices still be offered, or (possibly) will offerings be confined to the offerings of praise and compassion (in analogy with Heb 13:15, Phil 4:18, Rom 12:1, 15:16)? The nature of continual offerings might be changed when a final, definitive sacrifice for purification has taken place (Mal 3:2, 4:1-3; cf. Heb 10:1-3).
Some dispensationalists, of course, think on the basis of Ezekiel 44-46 that bloody sacrifices will be renewed in the millennium. We will not take up the questions about Ezekiel, because that would involve more interpretive disputes. The point is this. For almost any prophetic passage touching on the "latter days," one can claim that it has a perfectly "straight-line," "obvious" kind of fulfillment in the millennium. One can do this. But is that necessarily a genuine implication of the passage in every case? The question is whether the Old Testament hearer was obliged to say, "This passage must be fulfilled in the most obvious way."
As a second example, consider the prophecies of Jeremiah. Jeremiah's predictions of disaster in the immediate future (e.g. Jer 24:1-10), and restoration after exile (e.g. Jer 29:10-14), are fulfilled in a straightforward manner. However, Jeremiah also looks toward more distant vistas. Jeremiah speaks of a more climactic fulfillment, when the whole Mosaic order will be superseded by a covenant of more power, intimacy, and effectiveness, the new covenant (Jer 31:31-34). It is obvious that Jeremiah here touches on eschatological realities. In this case, interpreting the fulfillment is not as straightforward a matter.
Once again, as we might expect, there are modern disagreements about the passage. Some would see fulfillment as relating exclusively to Jews in the millennium. But is there a possible alternative? Without denying that there may be a millennial fulfillment, can we say that there is fulfillment in the New Testament era?
When Jesus comes, the "latter days" are inaugurated. In particular, Jesus at his death inaugurates the new covenant by his blood (Matt 26:28 and parallels). There is a textual problem about whether the word "new" occurs in any of the accounts of the Last Supper. But the connection is there in any case, because of the mention of covenant, the forgiveness of sins (cf. Jer 31:34), and the parallel with the inauguration of the Mosaic covenant (cf. Jer 31:32). Christians celebrate their participation in this covenant by partaking of the Lord's Supper (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24-26). It is difficult to escape the conclusion that all Christians, whether or not they are biologically and socially Jews, are participants in the new covenant (cf. Heb 10:11-22). Because Christ is an Israelite, and Christians are in union with Christ, Christians partake of the benefits promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah. Who is the new covenant made with? It is made with Israel and Judah. Hence it is made with Christians by virtue of Christ the Israelite. Thus one might say that Israel and Judah themselves undergo a transformation at the first coming of Christ, because Christ is the final, supremely faithful Israelite. Around him all true Israel gathers.
Now, many dispensationalists do not fully agree with me in the interpretation of Jeremiah's promise of the new covenant. I do not propose to argue the matter in detail. The important question at this point is not about a specific passage but about principle, a principle of prophetic interpretation. I claim that there is sound, solid grammatical-historical ground for interpreting eschatological fulfillments of prophecy on a different basis than pre-eschatological fulfillments. The Israelites of Jeremiah's day should have absorbed (albeit often unconsciously) the earthshaking transformational character of the eschatological coming of God. It is therefore a move away from grammatical-historical interpretation to insist that (say) the "house of Israel" and "house of Judah" of Jer 31:31 must with dogmatic certainty be interpreted in the most prosaic biological sense, a sense that an Israelite might be likely to apply as a rule of thumb in short-term prediction.
What I am calling for, then, is an increased sense for the fact that, in the original (grammatical-historical) context, eschatologically-oriented prophecy has built into it extra potential. With respect to eschatology, people in the OT were not in the same position as they were for short-range prophecy. Eschatological prophecy had an open-ended suggestiveness. The exact manner of fulfillment frequently could not be pinned down until the fulfillment came.
34. Israel as vassal of the great king
Similarly conclusions could also be obtained by considering Israel as the servant of the king. God himself was the king over Israel (Deut 33:5, 1 Sam 8:7). Israel was the special "kingdom" of priests over which he ruled by his law (Exod 19:6). The covenant that God made with Israel is analogous to the suzerainty treaties that Hittite kings made with their vassals (cf. Kline 1963; 1972). Now the fabric of Israel's existence and self-understanding was in fact constructed from the texture of God's covenant with Israel and Israel's servant relation to God the king. The earthly, human king of Israel was to be a reflection of divine justice and divine rule (Deut 17:14-20, 1 Sam 8:7). He was like a son of God the great king (2 Sam 7:14). As such, he also anticipated the final king and Son (Ps 2:7).
In this connection, eschatology or the "latter days" is nothing other than the time when God exerts his kingly power in a climactic way for the salvation of his servant and the establishment of justice in the land (Isa 52:7). God will become king over all the earth (Zech 14:9). The arm of his power will be exerted as awesomely as at the exodus from Egypt (Isa 40:10). This manifestation of God's kingship sweeps up within it the human Davidic kingship. God will be shepherd of his people; and David will be shepherd (Ezek 34:11,23-24). The action of the one is the action of the other. "The house of David will be like God" (Zech 12:8). In fact, David's son will be "Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" (Isa 9:6).
Thus God's kingship over Israel undergoes decisive transformation and full realization in the eschatological time. Israel's relation to its human kings in the line of David also changes. Israel itself changes, because it is constituted by its servant relation to the king. In the eschatological time, Israel the servant becomes mysteriously identified as the one true servant who will bring God's salvation, and hence his rule, not only to the tribes of Israel but to all the earth (Isa 49:3,6; cf. Acts 13:47). Israel is the people of the king, and the holy land is the land of the king's rule. Both pass from symbol to reality in the time of the coming of God's reign.
35. Israel as recipient of prophetic words: the genre of true prophecy
Finally, similar conclusions can be reached by considering Israel's understanding of the nature and mode of prophecy. In Israel's existence all the prophecies of the prophets were intended to be read against the background of the ministry of Moses. The prophets were spokesmen for the Lord. Moses himself stood as a supreme example of a spokesman for the Lord. Through Moses the Lord also gave some specific instructions to Israel concerning the reception of later prophecy, particularly in Num 12:6-8, Deut 13:1-5, and Deut 18:14-22. Israel was to test prophets by their adherence to worshipping the Lord alone, and by the failure or success of predictions. Both of these presupposed a basic intelligibility to their messages or at least large sections of their messages. On the other hand, Num 12:6-8 clearly subordinated the prophets to Moses. Moses surpassed prophets not only in the foundational quality of his role and his message, but in the mode of revelation. With Moses God spoke "face to face" (12:8), in contrast to a more distant or indirect mode of appearance in visions or dreams (12:6). To Moses God spoke "clearly," in contrast to speaking "in riddles." Moses "sees the form of the Lord."
Moses was therefore elevated above the prophets by the degree of closeness that he enjoyed to God. He was closer to the inner reality of God's heavenly presence. The phrases "face to face" and "seeing the form of the Lord" both characterize Moses's experience as one of strikingly direct and intimate encounter. Yet we know that these apparently strong and absolute expressions are themselves to be understood relatively. Even Moses, in the deepest sense, could only see the "back" of God (Exod 33:23), and that only in a climactic experience of his life.
But if the expressions of Num 12:8 are relative, it is easier to understand that the experiences of divine presence by later prophets were in turn relative to those of Moses. Isaiah (Isa 6:1-8), Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1, etc.), and Daniel (Dan 7:9-10) saw revelations of the glory of the Lord, revelations of impressive and intensive character. Yet even these experiences were to be subordinated to that of Moses, in view of Num 12:6-8.
The clarity and directness of the prophetic message correlates with the clarity and directness of the prophet's relation to God's heavenly presence. To Moses God spoke "clearly and not in riddles" (Num 12:8). By implication, prophets subordinate to Moses spoke in a more riddle-like form characterizing a dream or vision (12:6). Of course, God is not giving here a narrow, technically precise characterization of the genre of all later prophetic revelation. Some of it came in dreams or visions (Zech 10:2, Dan 7:1, 8:1, etc.), but much was not explicitly in this form. Rather, in Num 12:6-8 God is giving at least a broad, over-arching characterization of ease of interpretation.
Even a superficial reckoning with Num 12:6-8 therefore confronts some of the classic dispensationalists with serious problems. One thinks of Scofield's dictum to the effect that historical Scriptures often have a "spiritual significance," but that in prophetic Scriptures one finds "absolute literalness" (1907, 45-46). Scofield comes dangerously close to actually reversing the order of Num 12:6-8. And Num 12:6-8 is, after all, one of the few explicit statements in the whole Bible on the mode and relative literalness of prophecy!
The challenge of Num 12:6-8, however, is deeper than this. For Num 12:6-8, taken in a larger context, brings up again the question of the relation of heavenly reality to earthly symbol. Israel was on earth. Since the fall, they have been separated from God's presence. God's "face," God's glory, the reality of God himself in all his attributes, was the center and heart-beat of heaven. What was the relation between Israel on earth and this ultimate center? Exod 33:23 and Num 12:6-8 both stress the indirectness and mediated quality of Israel's access to this ultimate reality. In Moses's time Moses himself served as mediator (cf. Deut 18:16, Exod 20:18-21). The prophets were mediators after the pattern of Moses, though in certain respects inferior to him. Insofar as a prophet was subordinate, Israel might expect that the prophet's message itself would have a veiled or symbolic character. Once again, the eschaton is the time of unveiling: unveiling for the nations (Isa 25:7, Isa 40:5), but also unveiling for Israel (Jer 31:33-34, contrasting with, say, Isa 6:9-10).
Until the time of the eschaton, Israel's own existence was ordered by the structures of Mosaic legislation. Hence, short-term prophetic predictions conforming to the structures of Moses might be expected to find more "direct" or straight-line fulfillment. The fulfillment is bound to change character when a final prophet arises, one even greater than Moses (Acts 3:22-23).
The above considerations on the nature of prophecy and the mode of prophetic revelation therefore tally with conclusions that Israel could have reached by reflection on its existence as a kingdom of priests and as vassal of the great King.