Matrimonial Canopies of the End Times

Isaiah 4:2-6 is a vision of the redeemed and renewed Israel. V. 5, in particular, is very evocative:

Then the Lord will create over the whole site of Mount Zion and over its places of assembly a cloud by day and smoke and the shining of a flaming fire by night. Indeed over all the glory there will be a canopy. It will serve as a pavilion, a shade by day from the heat, and a refuge and a shelter from the storm and rain. (NRSV)

Mary brought up an excellent question: In Jewish wedding tradition the matrimonial couple are covered by a canopy. Is Isaiah using the same word? Alec Motyer's exhaustive commentary on Isaiah provides the answer:

There is also [in this passage] a consummation of the covenant: over all the glory will be a canopy. Canopy (huppa) always denotes the 'marriage chamber' (Ps 19:6; Joel 2:16). The glory here is either the Messiah (see v. 2) lovingly joined to his bride-people or the whole glorious Zion with its holy people (3) joined in the consummation of love with the Lord under the overshadowing tokens of his presence. (For the covenant of marriage cf. 49:17-18; 54:1-13; Jer 2:2-3; 31:31-34; Hos 2:14-20.)

We discussed whether 4:2-5, which is clearly anticipating an eschatological fulfillment, has a second, prior fulfillment in the new covenant and the Church. The return of YHWH to Zion was partially fulfilled in the inauguration of the kingdom of God by Jesus' ministry, but we know that kingdom waits for consummation at the second coming. (Just as Jesus healed many, but even more await restoration.)

Similarly, the wedding language here called to mind that used by Jesus, suggesting that we see now only a shadow of the future joy the church will experience with the bridegroom. A far more glorious future awaits.

Will the Real Isaiah Please Stand Up?

The second Holy Huddle of Fall 2008 was the start of our Isaiah studies. We did a survey of Isaiah, including authorship issues, and then discussed chapter one--which got us onto the topic of how confession can transform a vague sense of guilt into a life-giving warning from God.

A word about the authorship issue. Since the 1800's interpreters have wrestled with the question of why chs. 1-39 differ in style and context from 40+ (often 40-55 and 56-66, actually). And the canonical answer these days is that there was more than one writer of Isaiah, with an editor who gathered the material under one name. (Canonical, I should say, at mainline seminaries. Since IVP's books all argue for a single author, it's possible that's the evangelical theory of choice.)

While this may be the canonical theory, it has some difficulties. The greatest of these may be that chs. 40-55, which contain the prophecy of Cyrus, also speak in great detail about how predictive prophecy shows God's sovereignty. Surely an ex-post-facto prophecy dressed up like the real thing would never have been attached by any editor to the great scroll of Isaiah?

So here's a theory which never gets any air time: Let's say there are two Isaiahs, one who wrote 1-39 and the other 45-66. (You may choose to add on another Isaiahs if 56-66 bothers you.) But now imagine that Isaiah #2 lived during the exile, knew about Cyrus, but prophesied before 535 and the return from exile. Now 40-55 is coherent, predictive prophecy isn't abandoned a priori, yet you don't have Isaiah prophesying to Hezekiah's subjects about the Babylonian exile. (Not to say this is impossible, but it's unusual--why send a prophet to talk to a people in crisis about another crisis more than a century away?) And there's no problem with inspiration of Scripture--after all, two Isaiahs can be just as inspired as one.

This theory isn't invulnerable. As Barry Webb points out in his IVP commentary, it would be odd for (arguably) the greatest OT prophet, the author of Isaiah 40-55 (which includes the Servant Songs), to remain anonymous.(*) And, frankly, this theory will please neither camp: Those who deny predictive prophecy will dismiss it, while those more conservative will be hungry for the whole enchilada of single authorship. Still, I think it offers a solution which makes more sense than either the standard source-critical theory, or the single-Isaiah thesis.

By the way, if you think the title of this post refers to Slim Shady, I'm going to guess you weren't alive when Jimmy Carter was president!

(*) I am setting aside my second-favorite theory, that like the skit from Monty Python in which everyone's named Bruce, perhaps this scroll is a collection of prophecies by people named Isaiah.

[The image is The Tree of Jesse, a Flemish painting (ink on parchment) from the 16th century, referring to Isaiah's prophecy about the root of Jesse. In the tree's branches are OT kings, with the Messiah and Mary at the apex. Thank goodness for that sheet.]

A crackpot theory about the soul

(The following has no bearing on any Holy Huddle discussions present or future. I am posting it because I would enjoy hearing thoughts and opinions. -Tim)

We think of the soul as some spiritual entity associated with each person. I wonder if the soul really is just God's memory of us. When we die, God remembers us precisely as we are, down to the location of each atom, each thought, each scar, each hope, and when the day of resurrection comes it's not like God dumps out his Big Box of Souls who have been waiting since the first person ever died--rather, God, in his total knowledge of us, recalls our image and endows it with a new body of his creation.

Theologians talk about the problem of the "intermediate state"--i.e., where folks go after death but before the final day. In this paradigm, we all wait in God's memory our recreation. And if that seems fleeting or transitory, it is after all, a divine memory.

The benefit of this theory is that it does away with the conundrums associated with brain death--like, in a brain-dead individual, has the soul left the body? Well, if the soul is really God's knowledge of us, then the state of the body becomes less important.

It also addresses a another problem: We know that our minds/souls change as our bodies change. For instance, the injuries and changes of middle age can have an effect: The disappointment, anger, or even hope associated with them leave a mark not just on our physical bodies, but our souls as well.

If the soul is some strange spiritual entity which hovers inside our bodies but in another dimension, then we have to ask how they interact. But if the soul is really just God's knowledge of us, the problem vanishes.

From this standpoint, the idea that damnation is God's saying "I never knew you" is particularly apt.

(The accompanying image is snagged from a google image search.)

Election, the Humanity of Jesus, and Possible Worlds

In 1986 (as I was graduating from high school) Prof. Robert Hann published one of the most lucid discussions of election you will ever read. This paper delves into the Reformed understanding of election, but using the machinery of Alvin Plantinga's many-worlds formalism. He does this using, as a sort of test case, Jesus' own election.

I had never thought of Jesus' election as a test bed for understanding the doctrine of election, and found it a very interesting discussion. And I think the many-worlds interpretation does a nice job of retaining the free will both of God and of humanity. What do you think? Add your thoughts ideas--any at all--as comments to this post!

Heresies, Adversaries and Biblical Priorities

Hello and welcome to the inaugural post of The Holy Huddle blog!

The purpose of the blog is to give members of The Holy Huddle small group a venue for ongoing discussion. Each discussion will have a post; simply add your comments to the latest post to join in.

The first post concerns the discussion based on Craig Blomberg's article The New Testament Definition of Heresy (Or When Do Jesus and the Apostles Really Get Mad?). In our discussion we first looked at the parables to get a feel for what sorts of issues/actions were most roundly condemned or warned against by Jesus. (Mary rightly pointed out that separating beliefs from actions may be artificial, as one leads to another.) Then we considered a summary of NT heresies from the article, as well as a list of the things which currently get the American church "het-up". Finally, we tried to assemble our own lists, and think about the criteria we might use to order them--in an effort to reflect Biblical priorities.

We covered various possible additions to our lists. It helped to ask the question: If you were choosing a church, what criteria would rule a church our? Besides the obvious Trinitarian issues, we added:

• they must have a high view of scripture
• do they walk the walk? I.e., to what degree does this church resemble the culture?
• do they show mercy to the needy, both in and out of church?
  

We considered ranking items on the list by whether they impacted salvation.

What would you add? How would you prioritize your list?