Leonard Goppelt wrote a gem of a commentary on 1 Peter. I’ve been studying it as I prepare to exhort on the amazingly redemptively-historical 1 Pet 1:10-12. Here is a typical quote from Goppelt on the text:
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?
The history of biblical studies has seen a number of different approaches to the prophetical books. In this post, I provide a brief survey of various critical approaches along with a few names of key figures.
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. Read the rest of this entry »
Richard Pratt introduces an interesting topic in prophetical studies. The idea may actually be unsettling to some. Pratt examines historical contingencies and their relationship to biblical prophecy. In his study, Pratt identifies three types of OT prophecy: Read the rest of this entry »
Daniel 9:20-27 is one of those passages that gets the covenantal/dispensational fires going. It seemed discussions would constantly find their way to this passage back when I was having regular discussions with dispensationalists. I happened to be reading Meredith G. Kline’s “The Covenant of the Seventieth Week” recently and thought I would pass this quotation along. Understand that Kline is arguing for a very close relationship between Gabriel’s prophecy in verses 20-27 and Daniel’s prayer in verses 1-19. As such, the debated verses focus directly on Messiah and his work in providing an eschatological fulfillment to Daniel’s prayer. Read the rest of this entry »
Recently, Christopher Fantuzzo, lecturer in Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary delivered a candidating lecture on Isaiah 59:21 and its position in the book. The passage is as follows.
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.”
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. Read the rest of this entry »
In issue 103 (1984) of the Journal of Biblical Literature, Bruce Malchow shared a few interesting thoughts on the identity of “the messenger of the covenant” in Malachi 3:1. I plan to share my own thoughts on the verse in future posts, but I will begin with an observation on Malchow’s notion of redaction in Malachi. Some scholars thing “Malachi” is a generic name lifted from 3:1. It simply means “my messenger” in Hebrew. I for one, take Malachi to be written entirely by a man named Malachi. This reflects the tendency of a prophet’s life to mirror his message (Jeremiah, Ezekiel, et al). Read the rest of this entry »
O. Palmer Robertson (affectionately called OPR by our good friend, Bishop NT Batzig) provides a helpful set of criteria for distinguishing between true and false prophets in his book The Christ of the Prophets. First, the true prophet always comes in the name of the Lord. If he does not prophesy in the name of YHWH, the one true God, he is to be considered a false prophet (Deut 13:1-3a).
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.
Scholars often divide the words of the prophet into two categories. First, the prophet forth-tells. By forthtelling, the prophet applies the divine Word to the hearers’ current situation. The prophet calls people to account for their current actions and speaks to various of the day.
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.
