Adapted from The Shape of Isaiah: A Covenant-Literary Analysis

The prophetic texts are the most difficult parts of the Bible to understand. And when it comes to baffling the reader, they are no respecter of persons, perplexing with their Delphic wiles even the studied scholars.

It has been said that one third of the Bible is prophecy. This claim is tough to verify, but if we include all of the Old Testament prophets along with the prophetic portions of the New Testament (especially the utterly notorious Book of Revelation), a huge percentage of the Word of God is bewildering at worst and a bit obscure at best. Even when we are able to interpret it in general terms, the author’s choice of imagery and his arrangement of the content remains a riddle. 

The problem is so serious that we have not even figured out why the prophets are so opaque. The good thing is that the answer to the riddle is, quite literally, not serious at all. If we had to boil that answer down to a single sentence, it would be that when we read the prophets, we do not get their jokes!

That statement sounds disrespectful, even blasphemous, when we first hear it, but once the role of the prophet is fully understood, it becomes clear that this is precisely the reason why so much of their work goes over our heads.

However, there is some good news. Because these passages employ exactly the same devices used by movies, novels, TV shows, and, of course, comedians, we already have the skills we need to understand them. All we need is somebody to show us how to “plug in” these skills as we read. And it really is “plug and play.” After a little practice, our eyes are opened, and we are “in on the jokes.”

Office

One reason why it is tricky to identify how much of the Bible is prophecy is because that depends on how we define it. If prophecy were simply the act of predicting the future, then that would exclude a lot of what the prophets had to say. Much of their writing is a condemnation of people who are sinning against God and against each other.

The truth is that the role of the prophets included both of these elements because they were, in modern parlance, God’s “repo men.” Just as agents come to your door to repossess whatever goods you agreed to pay for if you have failed to keep up with the payments, everything they did was done in the context of legal covenants that were made between God and Man.

Perhaps the most obvious example, although we do not realize it, is the destruction and plundering of Egypt in the Book of Exodus. Under the supervision of Joseph, who was under the inspiration of God, Egypt became extremely wealthy and powerful. As the famine increased in severity, Joseph sold the grain that had been wisely stored, and he gathered the money for Pharaoh. 

When the starving people ran out of money, he sold them grain in exchange for their livestock. Then, when they ran out of livestock, he took possession of their land and made them servants of his master. They served him gratefully, knowing that their lives had been saved, and Pharaoh took a fifth of everything these lands produced.

These events near the end of Genesis are the context for the beginning of Exodus. Whereas Joseph did not put the priests under tribute but gave them an allowance (much like the Levites under the Law), the Hebrews who were recognized as a priestly people by Joseph’s Pharaoh were now the slaves of the Egyptians. This situation was also a potential reversal of the prophecy of Noah concerning the future of his sons. The Egyptians were descended from Ham (Genesis 10:6; Psalm 105:23; 106:22), whose sons via Canaan were condemned to be servants to their brothers. Canaan’s land had now been promised to Israel, but they were enslaved by Shem’s “brother.”

The Lord had blessed Egypt because He shows no partiality when it comes to good and evil (Romans 2:9—11). But now that Egypt had forgotten Joseph’s God, his God sent Moses and Aaron to repossess all of the good things that He had given to them at Joseph’s hand. The fertility of the land and the womb was destroyed by the plagues, and the glory of its silver, gold, and raiments was given to the Israelites as plunder.

Likewise, when the nation of Israel finally came to take possession of the Promised Land, the use of the sword was not unjust. The nations of Canaan had been warned by Abraham that their inheritance would be given to these sons of Shem. Melchizedek submitted to this decree and endorsed Abraham as a spiritual “son.” But Melchizedek’s eventual successor, Adonizedek, went to war against Israel and was destroyed.

The reason that “all flesh”as well as all the plunder in the city of Jericho was devoted to God (herem) was because this vengeance was His. And the Lord had made it clear that if Israel sinned in the same way as the Canaanites, they would suffer the same fate. Again, He would show no partiality.

Context

The warnings in the Law of Moses are the context of the biblical prophets whom God sent to Israel as repo men. While God always held the Gentile nations accountable for their sins, the nation that He had set apart to teach them was subject to stricter judgment and its rulers even more so (James 3:1; Psalm 82). If Israel would not be blessed by God to teach the nations of God’s goodness, then Israel would be cursed by God as an example of His severity (Romans 11:22). 

When Israel not only appropriated the gods and practices of the heathen but became worse than those whom they had supplanted, the blessings of Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 would be repossessed and replaced with their curses.

Despite ignorant claims to the contrary, the God of the Bible is not temperamental, racist, or murderous. Every judgment is based on a previously dispensed accountability. Every covenant brings with it not only accountability but also an opportunity for mercy. We see this in the judgment of Adam who, thanks to the very first shedding of atoning blood to provide tunics of animal skin (“atonement” literally means “covering”), did not die on the day that he sinned. Cain was also spared the immediate consequences of murdering his brother. The alleged “genocide” of the Canaanites was an outpouring of judgment upon those who had centuries earlier rejected the testimony of Abraham, and the Lord later judged Israel in the same way for the same sins. As with Adam, Cain, and the entire antediluvian world, God was long-suffering with Israel, waiting until the righteous had “filled up” their sufferings and the wicked had “filled up” their sins. Just as the enduring prophetic witness of Noah left mankind without excuse, the witness of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel not only delayed the ultimate “cutting off” of Israel’s kings but also vindicated the character of God as both just and merciful before all nations.

The language of covenant accountability is found in all the prophets, and they are often misunderstood because they are not read in the light of the blessings and curses of the Mosaic Covenant. For instance, Elisha set bears upon the children of the people of Bethel, home to one of Jeroboam’s calf idols, not because he was personally affronted by their insults but because he was an administrator of the covenant. They disrespected him because they were idolaters. In the light of Leviticus 26:21-22, Elisha’s apparent capriciousness is revealed to be not only a just recompense upon covenant breakers but also a warning of greater calamities to come.

The Law and the Prophets are thus as inseparable as Moses and Elijah. This is because, in very basic terms, the Law says, “Do not!” and the Prophet says, “Look what you did!” Like the two dowels on a Hebrew scroll, these legal “bookends” served as the two witnesses required by the Law for a judgment to be made (Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15).

This is why Jesus said (via the mouth of Abraham in Luke 16:29) that the Jewish rulers were without excuse. Having not only the Law but also the Prophets, they knew that Yahweh had previously brought Gentile invaders against Israel, just as He warned their ancestors through Moses.

So when we read in Revelation about “two witnesses” with the powers of Moses (over the waters below) and Elijah (over the waters above), we should not be puzzled. Although the literal prophets appeared at Jesus’ transfiguration, their legal authority—the “Do not!” and the “Look what you did!”—was combined in the Son of God as “the testimony of Jesus.” That means that these two “accusers” are a symbolic representation of the legal testimony of the Church against Jerusalem, the city that had killed her prophets in the past and was doing it again. Blaspheming the Spirit is not unforgiveable because it is the worst sin but because it is the last sin—the rejection of the warnings of God’s “repo men” by those who harden their hearts like Pharaoh (Matthew 12:31–32; Hebrews 3:8).

The Book of Revelation is the culmination of the apostolic “lawsuit” against Jerusalem and its Temple which is why it reprises so much of the imagery from the prophets. While this is obvious, what is not so obvious is that this was also the practice of those prophets themselves who drew their imagery from the Books of Moses.

What this means is that the prophets’ original audiences would have understood the allusions to the earlier “bookend.” In the case of Isaiah, the Law is one dowel, the Prophet is the other, and the Davidic king stands between them, as Jesus did on the mount of transfiguration. The question is, will the king be condemned by the corroborated testimony of these two witnesses, or will he receive their authority, an anointing from heaven upon his faithful obedience which results in a judicial and practical “Solomonic” wisdom that astounds the nations?

The authority that was delegated to Jesus is now His to delegate, even in matters of church discipline. In Matthew 18:15–20, He alludes to the need for a minimum of two or three witnesses in His threefold process of calling an apostate to account in the court of God on earth. The faithful saints now have the power of “Do not!” and “Look what you did!”

Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them (Matthew 18:19–20).

Symbolism

With the covenant context explained, the prophets’ use of imagery from the Law in their legal cases against those who have broken it makes perfect sense. Many of us are unfamiliar with their source material, so we do not understand the references. This means that even the imagery that is not actually presented as irony functions in the same way as a joke. Peter Leithart writes,

I have found it useful to think about hermeneutics by considering how jokes mean what they mean. Jokes mean “intertextually,” that is, only in relation to presupposed texts and discourses and cultural practices that are present in the joke only as a “trace.” Shrek is a great example; nothing in the film is funny if you don’t know fairy tales, nursery rhymes, popular culture, previous films, pop music, and so on. If you don’t have access to these prior “discourses,” you simply miss the intended meaning of the film’s authors.

The analogy between jokes and texts-in-general has some other important implications:

1. It highlights the limitations of hermeneutical method, particularly if hermeneutical method is developed along the lines of a “scientific” model. Humor is notoriously difficult to analyze, and it suffers from the ironic fate of losing its raison d’être through analysis; an analyzed joke is no longer a joke. “Getting it” is not an output that comes at the end of a set of technical operations. Good biblical interpretation in particular depends on wide knowledge of the Bible and on having the knack for bringing the right texts into connection with each other so that each can catalyze the other.
2. This analysis thus properly places emphasis on the character of the interpreter. If hermeneutics is a science, then it is possible to train interpreters in the proper methods and techniques, and this can occur without much if any attention to the character of the interpreter. But what do you say about someone who is tone deaf to humor? Are there techniques for developing a sense of humor? An interpreter who doesn’t “get it” might improve with wider knowledge and by imitating the example of a good interpreter. But something like a conversion needs to take place. To lack a sense of humor is not an intellectual vice; it is a symptom of a contracted soul. And so is bad, unimaginative interpretation.
3. Finally, this paradigm gives us a way to characterize the experience of good interpretation. On the side of the interpreter, the experience of arriving at a satisfying interpretation is an experience of intellectual release and satisfaction, like the experience of hearing a good joke. An interpreter might literally laugh when he arrives at a satisfying interpretation (I have). The same goes for the one who reads or receives the interpretation. The nearly audible “click” as pieces fall into place is very similar to the sudden joy of hearing a well-timed joke. The glad “aha” evoked by a good interpretation is even a criterion (not the only one) of a good interpretation.¹

The historical-grammatical method has fallen short because, although it is helpful as far as it goes, it simply does not have the bandwidth to cope with the virtual “theoscape” of the biblical text. God has given us a multimedia presentation and the modern academy is tuned in for Morse code. 

Without a “typological eye,” the reason for the inclusion of certain details and statements cannot be discerned, so most of what is implicitly communicated sounds to the untrained ear like background noise. The exegete can have all the data at his fingertips and yet be unable to make much sense of it. 

Subtlety is lost on the scientific mind because it lacks the hermeneutical equivalent of a good sense of humor…Modern hermeneutics has often aspired to a kind of scientific objectivity in interpretation, one that goes along with the obsession with method. If interpretation is a scientific or quasi-scientific enterprise, it does not depend on any character development or religious commitment in the interpreter…If interpretation is more like getting a joke than it is like dissecting a frog, then only certain kinds of people will be good interpreters.²

However, while it is encouraging to see biblical typology coming back into fashion, it is also discouraging to see hints of the same sorts of errors and abuses that caused it to fall out of favor in the first place.

---

Michael Bull is a graphic designer in the Blue Mountains west of Sydney in Australia, and author, most recently, of A Lodge for Owls: Raw Theological Twitter. He blogs at Bible Matrix.

---

NOTES

1. Peter J. Leithart, “Interpretation and Jokes,” Theopolis Institute, April 2, 2005. ↩︎
2. Peter J. Leithart, Deep Exegesis: The Mystery of Reading Scripture (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009), 139. ↩︎