Misc. notes, ezekiel
Hmmm this post might get me in trouble. If someone older and wiser wants to/can legitimately call me on it, that would be fine.
Christians, at least, mainstream American evangelical apologetics types, have always been fond of claiming that a major evidence of the reliability and authority of scriptures comes from fulfillment of prophecy. When you look at books like Daniel, who predict the various actions of countries so accurately that it's claimed authorship is too difficult a pill for liberal scholars to swallow, you can see why. But a lot of prophecies that are made aren't fulfilled in such a straight forward manner. I was reading through Ezekiel a little while ago, and have been reading through Isaiah more recently, and it seems, from reading some of the prophecies in these books, that we are pretty pick and choosy about the types of prophecies we brag about.
For example, Ezekiel's prediction of Nebuchadnezzar completely destroying Tyre. I've looked at a lot of apologetic "defenses" for the prophecy. But, I can't help but think that by the time the apologists are done with the passage, they've really, really, really messed with the natural reading of the text. This could just be an example of the poorness of the English language at conveying something written in another language, I might grant that. But if you just read chapter 26 you think "wow, Tyre is in trouble. Nebuchadnezzar is going to really kick their butts." Then, you read history books, actually you don't even need to do that, you read chapter 29, and you find out that he did no such thing. He beat up the mainland pretty bad, and got a submission declaration from Tyre, but he didn't destroy Tyre as bad as all that, and didn't come away with spoils. You can say the "He" in the previous verses is referring to Nebuchadnezzar and the transition to "they" is referring to, um, people not his army, but this seems a rather in-elegant solution to the problem.
There are several interesting reactions to this that are easily noticeable doing a search on the web. In addition to apologetics types trying to splice words and argue that Tyre was actually on the mainland at the time, you have quite a few people harping on this as a proof text for failed Biblical prophecy. "Ezekiel was wrong, so you all prophecy's bunk" etc. Pretty standard, unsurprising stuff.
What is most interesting is Ezekiel's own reaction to this: nothing. Herein lies the major problem for both the previously mentioned camps. In chapter 29 he admits quite cheerfully, or rather, un-hesitantly, that Nebuchadnezzar did not emerge victoriously from his attack on Tyre. He spends no time defending his prophecy of doom. In fact, I find it a little ironic that the apologists feel the need to defend his writings more than he indicates that he did.
But for the people who would like to claim that scripture is un-trustworthy based on this prophecy, this admission is also a major problem. If Ezekiel and the subsequent Jews who revered his prophecies as words from God, weren't worried about this "failed prophecy," then more than likely people who are using this as a major proof text for obviously failed prophecy are the ones who are reading it wrong. Or, to put it differently, if this be the obvious case of failed prophecy that it is claimed to be, it would not have been included in the canon - if Ezekiel was not speaking of God, then he was a liar. A liar does not report failed predictions. If I, not being a prophet, predicted a president's method of death and subsequently failed to see it come to pass, I would not include it in my prophecy compilation, toward the end of my life.
Ok, but step away from the whole Tyre thing. I've been reading through the prophets, sometimes blitzing sometimes plowing, but in many cases it seems like the way things are fulfilled is not always straight forward. If you look at many of the prophecies Matthew draws from to show how Christ was the fulfillment, and you actually go and read the prophecies he's quoting, in many cases the connection is not immediately apparent. Well, at least if not looking at it from a hind-sight perspective. Some of Isaiah's stuff, it's like "wow, that really fits." But if all I was given was the Psalms, I never would have thought that "they divided my clothes" would be referring to a Messiah.
Hmmm I can see I did not get as far as I wanted or write down what I was thinking with sufficient clarity but it is almost 2:00 AM and I've got a ways to walk to get home, so I'd better take of now. Maybe I'll follow this up later.
Christians, at least, mainstream American evangelical apologetics types, have always been fond of claiming that a major evidence of the reliability and authority of scriptures comes from fulfillment of prophecy. When you look at books like Daniel, who predict the various actions of countries so accurately that it's claimed authorship is too difficult a pill for liberal scholars to swallow, you can see why. But a lot of prophecies that are made aren't fulfilled in such a straight forward manner. I was reading through Ezekiel a little while ago, and have been reading through Isaiah more recently, and it seems, from reading some of the prophecies in these books, that we are pretty pick and choosy about the types of prophecies we brag about.
For example, Ezekiel's prediction of Nebuchadnezzar completely destroying Tyre. I've looked at a lot of apologetic "defenses" for the prophecy. But, I can't help but think that by the time the apologists are done with the passage, they've really, really, really messed with the natural reading of the text. This could just be an example of the poorness of the English language at conveying something written in another language, I might grant that. But if you just read chapter 26 you think "wow, Tyre is in trouble. Nebuchadnezzar is going to really kick their butts." Then, you read history books, actually you don't even need to do that, you read chapter 29, and you find out that he did no such thing. He beat up the mainland pretty bad, and got a submission declaration from Tyre, but he didn't destroy Tyre as bad as all that, and didn't come away with spoils. You can say the "He" in the previous verses is referring to Nebuchadnezzar and the transition to "they" is referring to, um, people not his army, but this seems a rather in-elegant solution to the problem.
There are several interesting reactions to this that are easily noticeable doing a search on the web. In addition to apologetics types trying to splice words and argue that Tyre was actually on the mainland at the time, you have quite a few people harping on this as a proof text for failed Biblical prophecy. "Ezekiel was wrong, so you all prophecy's bunk" etc. Pretty standard, unsurprising stuff.
What is most interesting is Ezekiel's own reaction to this: nothing. Herein lies the major problem for both the previously mentioned camps. In chapter 29 he admits quite cheerfully, or rather, un-hesitantly, that Nebuchadnezzar did not emerge victoriously from his attack on Tyre. He spends no time defending his prophecy of doom. In fact, I find it a little ironic that the apologists feel the need to defend his writings more than he indicates that he did.
But for the people who would like to claim that scripture is un-trustworthy based on this prophecy, this admission is also a major problem. If Ezekiel and the subsequent Jews who revered his prophecies as words from God, weren't worried about this "failed prophecy," then more than likely people who are using this as a major proof text for obviously failed prophecy are the ones who are reading it wrong. Or, to put it differently, if this be the obvious case of failed prophecy that it is claimed to be, it would not have been included in the canon - if Ezekiel was not speaking of God, then he was a liar. A liar does not report failed predictions. If I, not being a prophet, predicted a president's method of death and subsequently failed to see it come to pass, I would not include it in my prophecy compilation, toward the end of my life.
Ok, but step away from the whole Tyre thing. I've been reading through the prophets, sometimes blitzing sometimes plowing, but in many cases it seems like the way things are fulfilled is not always straight forward. If you look at many of the prophecies Matthew draws from to show how Christ was the fulfillment, and you actually go and read the prophecies he's quoting, in many cases the connection is not immediately apparent. Well, at least if not looking at it from a hind-sight perspective. Some of Isaiah's stuff, it's like "wow, that really fits." But if all I was given was the Psalms, I never would have thought that "they divided my clothes" would be referring to a Messiah.
Hmmm I can see I did not get as far as I wanted or write down what I was thinking with sufficient clarity but it is almost 2:00 AM and I've got a ways to walk to get home, so I'd better take of now. Maybe I'll follow this up later.
posted by tmm at
9:11 PM
6 Comments:
Tim: J. Barton Payne's text "Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy" has a non trivial section and Table on Ezekiel (p. 349-369) that you may find helpful. It also has several pages on Tyre. Let us know if it is not at the PSU library so we can send you our copy. (You might recall meeting Payne's son Peter in 2004 in Canada.) -- love dad
Tim,
I've thought and read about this section of scripture, since it seems to be a favorite proof text of skeptics. I agree with you that there is "some work" to read this and reconcile with historical fact. However, considering that this was written thousands of years ago, and nobody can exactly tell us the use of Hebrew then, I am okay with normal answers.
My 'resting place' is the idea that out of 1000s of pages of scripture, if this is the "best" that skeptics can do, I am hardly worried. While the various answers are not "completely airtight" they are "okay." Then we move to all the other section of prophecy.
You did ponder on why God is not clear in these things.
The answer is very straight forward and answered by our Lord: "Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them."
God has no desire to be obvious. Now this to me (and I think for you) does not seem to be fair. As a Calvinist, you wouldn't worry about being fair anyways. God is going to save whomever he chooses anyway.
However, as a Wesleyan, I am stuck with a greater issue. If God wishes all to be saved, why does hide himself? For me, the only answer is "God only shows enough to have freewill." God purposely does not give an airtight case simply because this would remove any doubt of God, thus it removes freewill.
If you really want to see if somebody is a speeder, you don't follow them with a cop car. Then all of my friends don't speed. You only see if they are a speeder when they think that the cop doesn't see them. People only have freewill to misbehave if they understand that their may be no God to catch them.
Unlce T,
Could it be at least in part "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Maybe part of why God doesn't want to be obvious is so we can have the glory of finding Him--to play hard to get as it were.
Tim,
I liked this post. I think the point "so you think Ezekiel was a liar. Then why didn't he hide his failure" is really good. And it's really true that we would have trouble seeing the fulfillment of the prophesies of Christ as Christ.
Matt
Dad - thanks, I will be spending much time in the library soon for literature, I'll look it up.
Uncle Ted, you lump me in the Calvanist camp so quickly. Just because I have great respect for many Calvanists, and and stand up for them in certain circles doesn't mean I necessarily catagorize myself as one. I see a strong tension in scripture between the way human choice and predestination are presented.
I referred to tweaking the natural reading of the text in the post, but the amount of tweaking that needs to go into re-reading 1 Timothy 2:4 to mean "all kinds of men" or "all men who are to be saved anyway" is several orders of magnitude greater. And you can't get away from reading scripture without concluding that we are responsibe for our actions, they have consequences, and we are commanded to choose. No one can come away from scripture without reading the word "predestined" or seeing God directly changing people's hearts. Or decide how the future will be, regardless of what we think about it.
Anway, I had never heard
"otherwise they might see with their eyes...." explained in this way and it was useful. The only other use of the verse I could recall was someone in highschool using it to justify the belief that God didn't want the Jews of Jesus' time saved. ... highschool - an interesting time.
Matt - thanks. I don't think Uncle Ted would disagree with you at all. It is interesting, I think the verse you quoted would apply more to people who are actively pursuing and desiring God. You never want someone to be too easy to get, and when you get them it would be so lame if they were 2d and uninteresting. In reality, God is neither...
Hi Tim,
See here: http://tinyurl.com/4zf42l
I think you are Arminianistic in your beliefs, and I've called you this already. The "you" was a corporate you, and not a Tim "you." I will admit, however, this was not clear at all in my writing.
However, remember that Arminianism and the Calvinist both believe in predestination and election. A belief in Freewill only means that God understand how you would respond to him in a freewill situation, then on this perfect knowledge of you, he guides every step to salvation or damnation.
Interestingly, from a practical standpoint, there is almost no difference in how God would guide you. The only difference is that under Calvin, God selects on the basis of what brings God the most glory.
Matt,
As normal, I like your insight very much. I agree that it our pleasure to find and enjoy God. I was only focusing on the side of the damned. I like your focus on on the side of the saved.
Thanks Uncle T
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home