OT scholars steeped in the modern historical-critical method
are fond of saying of the prophets that they should be understood as “forthtellers," rather than “fore-tellers.” Though it is true that prophets bring “forth” God’s
Word, it also appears that such scholars desire to downplay the ability of the
prophet to predict or describe future events. So, when Isaiah mentions the
future Persian ruler Cyrus in Isaiah 45:1, the modern scholar is more likely to
suggest this as an ex eventu device
reflecting compositional authorship of Isaiah than to say that Isaiah “fore-told”
the rise of Cyrus. To suggest that Isaiah actually prophesied the suffering of
Christ in Isaiah 53 would, of course, be rejected out of hand.
I mention all this is to say that I was struck by a footnote
I read last week in Dale Ralph Davis’s 1
Kings: The Wisdom and the Folly (Christian Focus, 2002), while preparing to preach on 1 Kings 11. In his discussion of the prophet Ahijah’s encounter with
Jeroboam and his pronouncement of the Lord’s declaration that he would take ten
tribes from the house of David and give them to Jeroboam, leaving only one
tribe to David’s house (1 Kings 11:29-32).
Davis writes (p. 119, f.n. 13):
One often hears the
predictive element of biblical prophecy played down. Introductory lectures on
the prophets often stress that the biblical prophets were primarily forthtellers
rather than foretellers, perhaps due to a paranoia of encouraging
eschatological kooks. But the kooks will always be with us, so why justify
distorting the character of prophecy by our panic? Biblical prophecy is primarily
not tangentially predictive. Anyone who doesn’t think so should spend an
afternoon with Isaiah 40-48.
Davis is one of my favorite modern commentators on the OT
historical narrative. His commentaries on Joshua-2 Kings from Christian Focus
are great resources for preaching.
I appreciate Davis’s comments on the modern playing down of the “predictive
element” of the prophets. I’m not sure the motivation is to avoid encouraging “eschatological
kooks” but, more generally, to avoid supernatural interpretations for naturalistic
one.
JTR
No comments:
Post a Comment