What are post-colonial approaches?

R.S. Sugirtharajah, in his introduction to Voices from the Margin, defines a post-colonial reader as “the real and actual reader/hearer…these flesh-and-bone readers—minjung, dalits, indigenous people, male and female, professional and lay, standing within their own social location—oppressive, caste-ridden, patriarchal, multi-religious, and trying to make sense of their context and the texts” (3). This is also a Third World theology, from peoples who are from previously colonized areas, and who are now trying to break down the oppressive systems that still control aspects of their lives.

The hermeneutics a post-colonial interpreter utilizes will be different depending on his or her situation. For example, “a hermeneutics of liberation which is envisaged for an African women’s struggle will be at once a human, African and feminist hermeneutic of liberation” (Mosala, 173). Whatever forms of oppression in their lives, post-colonial interpreters will use theologies to struggle against them.

This approach is so open to addressing everyone’s struggle, and recognizing that each person will have a different experience and context out of which they read and interpret the Bible. This allows for richness in interpretations and more ways of discovering meaning from the Biblical text. I like this approach because of its “attempts to address the issues of struggle, marginality, and colonialism” (Sugirtharajah 1). Trying to break down systems of oppression, and allowing everyone a chance to use their lives as a way of interpreting scripture is inspiring and meaningful.

What are canonical approaches?

Canonical criticism is a faith-based approach. It involves the Bible as sacred scripture, which means that the Bible has special authority and a special role in the community of faith. These communities of faith try to think of the text as a whole, they do not fragment what they read. They see the voices in one part of the text as having meaning in another part. This means people who use the canonical approach cannot justify just throwing out a certain section of scripture because it may not agree with their situation. The Bible is the authority to hear and discern God’s will. If you throw out a part of it, then you could be stifling what God wants for your life.

Since the Bible has such authority for canonical approaches, it has special expectations. The Bible is to help with faith, to edify and/or correct a person’s way of living. Since the Bible is to aid in faith, then communities of faith are the best suited to interpret scripture.

This approach is more than just studying the Bible closely. It has to do with revelation, and trying to discern God’s will. “The dependence of Christian theology on the alleged revelation of God in Jesus Christ is the key to its close relationship with the Bible” (Barton 115). There are so many different ways God chooses to reveal Godself to us. This can include tradition, experience, creation, and also the Bible. They are all important ways of seeing God work in the world. The Bible should be the basis of the revelations though. In the case of the Reformations, Luther saw in the Bible that indulgences were nowhere to be found. He challenged the traditions of the church based on scripture. It was a new interpretation, through a canonical approach, based on the fact that the Bible is a sacred scripture, and as such, it can reveal God’s will for our lives, if only we listen.

What is Liberationist Theology?

Liberationist theologies come out of South America, mostly from poor communities. It grew out of Bible studies that base groups were having where they studied the Bible in-depth together. These communities that were intensely studying the Bible together noticed that Jesus cared about the liberation of the poor. They understood that God prefers the poor and will deliver them, as seen in the Exodus in the Old Testament. God reveals Godself through this act. This is how we know God. In George V. Pixley and Clodovis Boff’s essay, A Latin American Perspective: The Option for the Poor in the Old Testament, they state, “The Hebrews who came out of Egypt understood that their success had been due to Yahweh, their God, being with them….the clans gradually came to accept Yahweh as their God” (220). “Yahweh had presented himself as a God of the poor, promising their liberation” (226). God loves the poor and wants them to be free. These thoughts prompted the marginalized societies to become more conscious of their social situation. They became activists and became more politically involved.

Just as Womanist Theology grew out of Black Theology, so Mujerista grew out of Liberationist Theology. Latin American women saw themselves as being doubly oppressed. Mujerista grows out of a macho culture, where there is a definite separation between men and women, and their roles. Since these Latin American women were poor and females, society worked against them in two ways. These women work for justice and peace, not just for equality, but to change the oppressive society they live in. Personal and political ethics need to be combined. When they are separated, they breed oppression, which is what Liberationist theologies try to work against.

What is Womanist Theology?

Womanist Theology is a mixture of Black Theology and Feminist Theology. Since the African-American woman is always the ‘other’ in the Bible, they created a space to share their voice when reading and interpreting scripture. They cannot choose between their two identities, being Black and a woman; they need them both.

Womanist Theology treats everyone equally. There is no difference between races, gender, etc. Jesus died for every person, regardless of what color their skin is or whether they are a man or a woman. Community is a source of strength, and a very important aspect of Womanist Theology. Relying on woman’s wisdom and a mentor is also important. Delores S. Williams, in her essay Womanist Theology: Black Women’s Voices, says, “Black mothers have passed on wisdom for survival—in the white world, in the black community, and with men—for as long as anyone can remember” (78). Traditions of life are remembered in this manner.

Encounters with the Spirit are important in Womanist Theology. “The importance of this emphasis on the spirit is that it allows Christian womanist theologians, in their use of the Bible, to identify and reflect upon those biblical stories in which poor oppressed women had a special encounter with the divine emissaries of God, like the spirit” (Williams 85). This can affect their political action, and the manner in which they seek justice. The Spirit can be always with them, which places God with them also. God will make a way if there seems to be none.

Womanist Theology will always be changing and growing. As long as “black women come together and connect piece with piece” the “God-content” of Womanist Theology will continue to be created, until one day it will come together and “reflect the divine spirit that connects us all” (Williams 86).

What is Feminist Theology?

Feminist theology is concerned with restoring humanity to all peoples, not just women. “Feminist interpretation proceeds, however, on the assumption that all stand to gain by it, not just women” (Barton 82). It aims to resist the systems of patriarchy in the world, so that everyone can experience humanity fully, without being dominated by someone else. There is an attention to female perspectives, so people need to be open to looking at a view besides their own and the rest of society’s. “A feminist will seek change for the better in terms of justice for women, and this requires detailed, unremitting attention to women’s perspectives” (Barton 81).

An aspect of Feminist Theology is inclusive language for God. A reader cannot just use masculine images for God. Male and female were created in God’s image, so God has what we have deemed male and female characteristics. Some of the characteristics we have come from God, yet this does not make God male or female. “God is ultimately incomprehensible, it could be said that the mystery of the divine being positively demands a variety of names” (Barton 84). Just using one form or the other for describing God limits God in many ways.

Feminist Theology recognizes that the Bible was written by men, from the perspective of men, and mostly about men. This takes away a voice from about half of society. Women do not need to just follow these traditions and accept what they hear preached by men, if it contradicts other passages of the Bible. “Women as church may claim Jesus and the praxis of the earliest church as a prototype of their own history, open to future transformation” (Barton 89). Letters that were written to specific churches can give an idea of how to be a follower of Christ, but they are not legalistic. Jesus’ ministry involved women, and since following Jesus is central to what it means to be a Christian, then a Feminist Interpretation would follow Jesus’ example, and not necessarily the commands of a single man.

What is Black Theology?

Black Theology is part of the postconstructuralist and postmodern ways of interpreting the Bible. Since postmodernism is very pluralistic and anti-oppression, Black Theology now has a place and a voice to interpret the Bible. I think it is important to note though that even though it has a place because of postmodernism, the ideas are not very postmodern, at least in the respect that there is only black and white, and no room for multiple ideas.

James Cone illustrates Black Theology in his essay “God is Black.” Essentially, God is Black because God sides with the oppressed. God cannot side with both the oppressor and the oppressed. “Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God’s experience, or God is a God of racism” (Cone 105). There is not much room for salvation for the oppressor in Black Theology. If there was space for that, then the notion that God is a God of justice would be gone. How could God be trusted if God loved both sides equally?

Sometimes in Cone’s essay it is hard to distinguish Black from blackness, and White from whiteness. Black and White are skin tones, while blackness and whiteness are representative of the oppressed and the oppressor, respectively. Viewing his ideas as blackness and whiteness, I can agree more quickly, because I do not think that people should be oppressed, and I would put myself on the side of God and the oppressed rather than on the oppressor. If I view his ideas as Black and White, as skin tones, I realize that I have to face all the structures that are in place that I benefit from because I am white. I am not racist myself, but because of my skin color, I am contributing to oppression. Thinking of it this way, I do not like the idea that God is against the oppressor. These ideas butt heads with my own theology, that God is a God of love and mercy. I believe that God is just also, but I think love is at the core of God, and justice and mercy flow together.

Cone does not believe that a person can just help Blacks, and in doing so become on the side of God and the oppressed. “Those who want to know who God is and what God is doing must know who Black persons are and what they are doing. This does not mean lending a helping hand to the poor and unfortunate Blacks in society. It does not mean joining the war on poverty! Such acts are sin offerings that represent a white way of assuring themselves that they are basically ‘good’ persons” (Cone 106). As I understand it, a White person cannot give of their gifts, and share what they have from the benefits of the structures in place. They cannot even try to take down those structures. That it is only trying to prove to themselves that they are good people. Yet Cone says later that “to receive God’s revelation is to become Black with God by joining God in the work of liberation” (Cone 107). If we ask God to be a part of this new society, what God’s Kingdom is meant to look like, then we will join in the work of liberation, which I think means trying to take down the structures of racism. Yet Cone says Whites cannot do this because it will not be sincere or true. I think this is where the lines between blackness and whiteness and Black and White become dim.

Black Theology is a great voice for those who have not previously had a voice, but some of the ideas are very anti-postmodern in a postmodern society, so it can be hard to handle at times. To open up the category of the oppressed to more than just Blacks and the category of the oppressors to more than just White would be more applicable to our society today, even though the structures from this Black v. White society are still in place.

What is the importance of postmodernism?

Postmodernism is a new way of reading the Bible through a postconstructuralist lens. Some of the tenants of postmodernism are an awareness of pluralism, where there can be two elements of reality. There also isn’t one way to Truth. There can’t be any foundational belief because not everyone believes it. If everyone could agree on something, then it could be true. Postmodernism is inclusive and diverse, so there aims to be no oppression. Authority rests within the individual or the community.

There is usefulness in these ideas. This way of thinking could lead to a more peaceful world. If people accepted others’ interpretations of scripture, and agreed that both sides had some good in it, then that could create peace among people. Another positive of postmodernism is that people are more open-minded. There is more willingness to hear others’ ideas and opinions and learn from them rather than rejecting opposition right away. “Everybody’s point of view must be respected and acknowledged as equal to everybody else’s point of view” (Barton 61). Another reason why postmodern interpretations are good is that it gives people confidence in what they know even when others disagree. In order to have confidence, you have to know what you believe in, because if you don’t and someone challenges you, your foundation can be shaken, or even shattered. Postmodernism forces you to know your beliefs and be able to back them up, which I think is positive, because then you don’t have people who just accept what others are telling them without knowing exactly why they believe what they believe.

I think postmodernism, and postmodern ways of interpreting the Bible, are needed because it allows people to have a voice who have not had a chance before. It tries to tear down walls and open up interpretation to everyone. “The future will be a paradise of different readings with none privileged and all equally valid: the modernistic lion will lie down with the postmodernist lamb, the Marxist bear will eat straw with the capitalist goat, the pre/postmodernist fundamentalist sheep will safely trade biblical proof-texts with the modernist wolf and the ecclesiastical dove will dwell in peace with the academic serpent” (Barton 62).

What is Literary Criticism?

Literary criticism is a way of reading and interpreting the Bible by focusing on synchronic methods, which is evaluating the text as if it is a finished product. This can include looking at genre and rhetoric, among others. It is a way to find meaning within the text and try to see what it means as a literary work.

Genre is looked at in literary criticism. Whether the passage you are reading is a narrative or poetry, or some other genre, can affect how it is interpreted. With narrative criticism, one might try to “analyze the text with respect to thematic lines, plot, character development, point of view, or other appropriate features of narratives” (Gorman 196). By focusing on these key facts, one can discover many interesting things about the text. Unfortunately, sometimes these facts are not made applicable to the life of the church today, so it becomes just a story.

Rhetoric is another synchronic criticism. With this view, “texts exist to have an effect on the hearer/reader, and biblical writings exhibit ancient, modern, and universal rhetorical devices and forms” (Gorman 197). How is the text communicating, and is it communicating effectively? Depending on the form of rhetoric, different passages could have different meanings and effects on the reader. Because a text was written a certain way, was the author trying to communicate something different than is explicitly stated? Was this form effective or not?

Literary criticism is an overarching category that can include linguistic analysis also. This is focusing more on vocabulary, semantics, and grammar. Depending on how words are arranged and translated can have an effect on the meaning of a passage. This can go pretty in depth into linguistic analysis to figure out what words mean what and what their arrangement means. Again, these findings can be interesting, but sometimes are not applicable to life today. An interpreter can also get so wrapped up in these technicalities that he or she can miss the main message of the passage.

Importance of historical/critical methods

Historical/Critical methods of interpreting the text are important. In “Historical-critical approaches” in the book The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation, John Barton says, “the underlying motivation of ‘historical’ criticism is to free the text to speak” (pg. 17). By discovering the history behind the text and within the text, the reader can better understand the original intent of the passage. I think Barton describes an important aspect of historical criticism when he says, “where we do not know who wrote the text or what he or she meant by it, we may still be able to say that the text ‘could mean A’ or ‘could not mean B’ on the basis of our knowledge of the language in which the text was written” (pg. 17). By being able to eliminate certain interpretations, we can get closer to a good interpretation. I also think this is important because then people cannot abuse the text, and make it fit whatever they want it to say. If a person gives a certain text authority in their lives, then the text should speak to the person, and not necessarily the other way around.

William Swartley, in his article “Essays on Biblical Interpretation: Anabaptist-Mennonite Perspectives”, describes four reasons why historical criticism is essential. I will summarize his ideas. His first point is that the Bible stories happened in history, which can help us see the causes and effects of situations. For example, a reader could then notice themes of promise and fulfillment if they follow the historical context. His second point is that scripture is very diverse. We can become involved with the scriptures. To notice the main points, there may be some ideas that run counter to them, but these are all important. For example, Jesus took some Old Testament scripture and highlighted it for the people, while other passages he turned around. He applied what was necessary for his day. Swartley’s third point is a moral method that involves Jesus-based discernment. Jesus is the Way, and so we must check our interpretations with Jesus’ model for our lives and God’s will in our lives. Swartley’s final point is that we can bring our own thoughts to the reading for a fresh encounter with the text. This is like the two horizons. If we allow it, the text can change us.

Historical criticism can be very helpful when trying to interpret a text, as long as we allow the text to speak for itself. We can bring our own thoughts and experiences with us, and see how they interact together to form truths about God’s world.

Distantiation

J. Severino Croatto uses the term distantiation in his book Biblical Hermeneutics: toward a theory of reading as the production of meaning. He uses this term to mean the distance between two things, which results in ideas and language being lost.

Croatto mentions three occurrences of distantiation in the process of reading a text. These three distances are between language and speech, between speech and text, and between text and rereading.

The distances between language and speech happen when someone is trying to get a thought from their head into the spoken world. He says that the “badge” of this first distantiation is “the ‘closure’ of meaning. No temporal of spatial distance is involved, of course; the ‘distance’ is of the logical order” (pg. 16). The exact thoughts of the speaker will not be understood by the listener, since the speaker must put into a language or set of signs that the listener must interpret. The speaker will close meaning whenever they speak, while meaning is then opened up for the listener, which they have to interpret for themselves.

Another occurrence of distantiation is between speech and text. This text can either be oral or written. “A text is a ‘texture,’ etymologically, a web, in which the elements of language (words, sentences, literary units, and other elements) are organized according to structural functions that as such produce a meaning” (pg. 16). This is similar to the first distantiation, because as soon as ideas are written down, they are open to interpretation. Also with written texts, there can be hundreds of years between the author writing his or her thoughts and another person reading and interpreting that text. “The disappearance of the author of a text, the shift in addresses, changes in the life context engendering questions about the message—all these factors occasion a distantiation with respect to the first production of meaning, that of the act of discourse” (pg. 34).

The third hermeneutic distantiation occurs between text and rereading. Each time you reread a text, you will come to it with more knowledge than you did the previous time you read it. You will have a larger reservoir or meaning for the text. “The greater the distance, the more numerous will be the perspectives of a rereading of the text” (pg. 34).

These different distances within interpretations of text are important to realize. Whatever the author or speaker was trying to communicate may not match exactly with your interpretations. This is not a bad thing, but can create a richer understanding of a text.

Pre-understanding in Interpretation

Our pre-understanding plays a role in how we interpret biblical texts. Every person will bring some kind of personal idea or history to whatever they interact with in life. We all have experiences that shape how we view whatever else we come in contact with. The same goes for when we read the Bible. We will use what we know and have experienced to give us an idea of what the text is saying to us.

Anthony Thiselton in his essay “Biblical Studies and Theoretical Hermeneutics” from the book The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation describes pre-understanding as that “which we bring to the text in order to acquire a deeper understanding of it.” Just with a surface reading it is hard to look past any personal bias or tendency toward something that you would have. The natural reaction to learning new things, I believe, is to somehow connect it to your own life and experiences. So a person reading a biblical text will attach meaning to the text based on his or her past experiences. It helps us understand what we are reading.

Also, in referencing J.M. Chaldenius, Thiselton says, “all interpretations of the Bible depend on ‘viewpoint’.” If I read a passage of scripture, I will most likely interpret it within the context of a young, white, American female. A young man living in China will probably interpret the same passage very differently. Even a young, white, American female who lives in inner city Chicago will probably interpret the passage differently than me. We would all have a pre-conceived view of the world and how it works, so we would make our interpretations fit that view.

Pre-understanding plays a fairly big role in how we interpret biblical texts. It will affect our surface reading, and it probably would take some effort to try to remove those thoughts when trying to go deeper within the text, without a bias viewpoint.

What is the Bible?

In order for a text to have any authority, we have to give it authority in our lives. Some people could view romance novels as their bible, while the ‘Bible’ that I grew up reading consists of the Old Testament (without Apocrypha) plus the New Testament. What people view as a bible can be any readings that they base their life around and try to live accordingly. So many different writings with the title of ‘bible’ are not similar at all to the Old and New Testaments. For example, if you search any online bookstore, there will be different cooking bibles and guitar bibles, along with others. I think though that when most people refer to the Bible, they will be quoting similar scripture, but there is no guarantee.

‘The Bible’ is the name of the canon, and what is thought of as the Word of God, but I don’t think that God has stopped speaking to people, or has stopped inspiring people to write God’s words. I may view someone’s contemporary writings as having near the same authority as how I view the writings of Paul, depending on whether I believe the author is in line with my view of God and Jesus. The older texts have a wonderful context of being near the time when Christ lived, but having a modern author write in our context is valuable too, I believe. These are men and women who are following God, and who are trying to do God’s will, and share God’s words with everyone.

James Bowley in his book Introduction to Hebrew Bible talks about what we call The Bible as being more of a library than a book. There are so many different authors and writings that are compiled into our canon that to try to wrap it up into one ‘writing’ would be doing an injustice to it. There are also many different types of Bibles for different denominations and religions. Some versions might have a couple more books than the other one, but the majority of the writings will be the same.

A question this brings up then is what do we say when we quote scripture? Can we say, ‘The Bible says…’, or should it be, ‘The author of Deuteronomy says…’. But do we believe that all scripture is inspired by God, and therefore is all the Word of God? So can we just say, ‘God says in Matthew that…’? We also have to remember that not everyone gives every book we have in our Bible authority, and different people have different Bibles, so we need to be aware of this and be sensitive to what others believe and what they have canonized.

Perspectives on Bible Reading

I believe, that like most people, I have a hybrid of ways that I read and interpret the Bible. If I look at the Bible reading chart, my first impression is that I use mostly Reader-Response Reading when I read the Bible. I find it helpful when reading a passage to find some way to relate it to my life. I think that in this way the Bible is still speaking to people, and is still an active piece in our lives, rather than just something that was written thousands of years ago from which we can learn nothing. If it was just an historical piece of literature, what would be its purpose for us today?

I do like when it says that ‘Reader-Response interpretation can happen in groups of communities of readers’. I think there is a lot of value in reading and interpreting the Bible within a community. I could get really off base with my interpretation, and it will be checked by another person if we are interpreting as a group. God can speak to all of us in different ways, and God has given us all unique personalities, so we will all think a little differently, but we can learn a lot more that way also.

In the ‘Chart of Exegetical Methods’ I think that I would fall more into the existential methods of interpreting. I probably do mostly spiritual reading and embodiment or actualization. I think the Biblical text can be used as worship, and we can learn so much about how to live our lives from the Bible. I do not think that the Bible means much to us at all if we do not embody what it says. If we do not follow the teachings or live our lives as the Bible tells us to, then what authority have we given it?

By reading and interpreting the Bible in these different ways, I try to use what I read and apply it to my everyday life. I use the Bible to learn more about God and how God wants me to live.

Noncanonical Jewish Literature

It is important for Christians to be familiar with ancient Jewish literature that is not in our canon because I think we can learn a lot from those writings.

I believe our canon is arranged how God planned for it to be, but that should not limit other people from writing about their experiences, and sharing how God has affected their lives. We can learn a lot from reading these different pieces of literature, even if they are not in our canon. The writings can be a compliment to what we are already reading in our canon. These noncanonical writings can reiterate what our canon has already told us. It solidifies the truths for us.

People have not stopped learning about God or writing books about the revelations they have had about God’s character. God has not changed, but the situations and times that the readers of the canon have changed, and so it is nice to get all the different perspectives that are out there.

Just because a book is not part of our canon, it does not mean that we cannot learn something from it. For example, the book The Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren was and still is a very popular piece of literature. Its purpose is similar to that of the Bible: teach people how to lead Godly lives in the midst of the world they live in. Just as this book could help us in our walk with God, so can the ancient Jewish literature that is not part of our canon.

I think that reading these different texts gives us more credibility also when we are sharing our faith, because we are not just blindly following the Bible, and what we have laid before us, but we are testing it against similar writings and against itself. If the noncanonical books give us a different picture than what is in the Bible though, I believe we should trust our canon as the supreme literature.

Wisdom Literature

The books of Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes are all considered Wisdom Literature. Even though these books are grouped together under this category, they are a very diverse group of writings. What do they have in common then that makes them fall under Wisdom Literature?

All three of these books search for a wise way of going through life. They are all very universal, and not very nationalistic (focusing on just Israel). They prompt thinking on a deep level, and show that it is okay to take hard questions to God. They also focus on theodicy, which tries to make sense of a righteous and just God when while surrounded by the misery of this world.

In Proverbs, the way it says that wisdom can be obtained is by being in step with God’s ways. In Proverbs 1:7, it says, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.” Along with this, your life will be blessed if you keep God’s commandments. “My child, do not forget my teaching, but let your heart keep my commandments; for length of days and years of life and abundant welfare they will give you” (Proverbs 3:1-2). If you obtain wisdom by fearing the LORD and keeping God’s commandments, then your life will go well for you, according to the book of Proverbs.

In Job, God allows terrible things to happen to Job, who never, in the midst of his suffering, denies God. This book also shows a different way to gain wisdom. God says that Job is the most righteous man on the earth (Job 1:8). Job’s friends tell him that he must have done something wrong, and that is why he is being punished by God. In the end, Job’s friends are rebuked because they thought they were correct, and that they understood how God worked. Even though Job questions God, he is upheld above his friends because he knew that he just could not understand God (Job 42:7). The book of Job shows that it is better to question God and acknowledge that you do not understand God’s ways rather than think you know everything.

Ecclesiastes gives some advice on ways to live your life wisely. The author of the book says, “All is vanity” (Ecclesiastes 1:2). The word vanity is similar to vapor, or wind. Wisdom is something that we cannot grasp. We cannot understand everything, which is similar to what Job talks about. We should think about God, as it says in Ecclesiastes 7:13-14, “Consider the work of God; who can make straight what he has made crooked? In the day of prosperity be joyful, and in the day of adversity consider: God has made the one as well as the other, so that mortals may not find out anything that will come after them.” We as humans cannot know everything or control anything that happens on this earth, so why not just enjoy life as it is given to us? “So I commend enjoyment, for there is nothing better for people under the sun than to eat, and drink, and enjoy themselves, for this will go with them in their toil through the days of life that God gives them under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 8:15). Things in this life will come and go, but we can obtain happiness and wisdom by knowing this life is only temporary.

Even though these books are written in different styles and do not appear to have the same subject, they all can teach us a wise way to live our lives. If we fear the LORD, realize that we do not and cannot know everything, and know that some things are fleeting like the wind, then we should all be able to enjoy our lives to the fullest.

The Day of the LORD

Throughout the Book of the Twelve, the prophets mention the Day of the Lord numerous times. The interpretations they give for the Day of the Lord are different depending on the person’s relationship with God. For some, it will be a day of judgment and destruction, and for others it will be a day of joy and vindication.

In Zephaniah 1:7b, it says, “The LORD has prepared a sacrifice; he has consecrated those he has invited.” This shows that those who hope in God will not have a terrible time on that day. But the next verse, Zeph 1:8, says, “On the day of the LORD’s sacrifice I will punish the princes and the king’s sons and all those clad in foreign clothes.” This is a bad sign for anyone who is not on God’s side. Zephaniah has a fairly negative view of this day. “That day will be a day of wrath, a day of distress and anguish, a day of trouble and ruin, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and blackness” (Zeph 1:15). For the people that were hearing this prophesy, it would not be a comforting thing to think of. Zephaniah does give hope to the people when he says “Seek the LORD, all you humble of the land, you who do what he commands. Seek righteousness, seek humility; perhaps you will be sheltered on the day of the LORD’s anger” (Zeph 2:3). In order for the Day of the LORD to be an encouraging day, the people were told they needed to seek God first, or else they would be destroyed on that day.

Many of the other prophets offer similar views on what the Day of the LORD will be like. In Habakkuk 3:16, the prophet says “Yet I will wait patiently for the day of calamity to come on the nation invading us.” This shows that the prophet saw that day as a time when their enemies would be destroyed, which would save them, because they would no longer be attacked. Malachi has a similar view, where that day will be one of vindication for God’s people, and a day of judgment for their enemies. Malachi says, “Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble…But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings…Then you will trample down the wicked” (Malachi 4:1-3). Again, for the people who are not on God’s side, the Day of the LORD will be a terrible day, but for those who trust in God and follow God’s ways, that day will be one of hope. They will even help destroy their foes.

The prophets in the Book of the Twelve give different views on the Day of the LORD, but they are all very similar. That day will be a time when their enemies are destroyed, and the people are saved, but only if they follow God’s laws.

Book of the Twelve

Some scholars call the last twelve books of the Old Testament either the Book of the Twelve or the Minor Prophets. These books consist of Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

It is called the Book of the Twelve by some scholars because when these oracles were recorded onto scrolls, they were sometimes all grouped together because some are very short. It would be harder to keep track of a scroll that is only two columns, as opposed to a scroll that would have over 100 chapters as we call them today. Some scholars call these books the Minor Prophets. This comes from the division of the Latter Prophets into the Major and Minor Prophets. The Major prophets are Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. These are all longer oracles, hence why they are called major. Thus, the shorter books are called minor, in comparison with the three longer books. When someone hears the name Minor Prophets, it may give them the idea that these prophets are not as important compared to the Major Prophets, so this is why some scholars call it the Book of the Twelve.

I prefer to call the end of the Old Testament the Book of the Twelve, because it reminds me that they are all shorter oracles, but it does not give me the impression that they are less important, like calling them minor does for me. By calling it the Book of the Twelve, it also reminds me that these were all once written on a single scroll, and it helps me think of the original context of the verses, and that in fact they were not originally divided into chapter and verse. To me, it gives these writings more authority because they are seen as twelve individual prophets, who all had something to say about God and the Israelites.

Ezekiel

Ezekiel did all kinds of wild things that got people’s attention. He did things and he saw things that probably most people thought were crazy. He did them though, and I’m sure that it at least made the Israelites pay a little attention to him.

Ezekiel ate a scroll (Ezekiel 3), which was Ezekiel literally taking in the Word of God so that he could preach it. Ezekiel also made a miniature of Jerusalem, and then was bound up lying on his side for 390 days facing his replica of the city, and then he turned to his other side for 40 days and faced the city again. He was bearing the sins of Israel and Judah (Ezekiel 4).

Ezekiel saw cherubim that had four wheels, and were completely covered in eyes (Ezekiel 10). They departed with the glory of the LORD from the temple. Even reading this passage, it is hard for me to actually get a picture of what it would have looked like. It is a passage that seems completely unrealistic, and I cannot imagine what the Israelites would have thought of it when Ezekiel shared it with them.

He also prophesied and dry bones came alive (Ezekiel 37). He had a vision that he was in a valley full of dry bones, bones that had no life left in them. God told him to prophesy so the bones would live, and he did, and the bones connected to each other, and were covered in flesh, and became a large mass of people. These bones symbolized Israel, and how dead and devoid of hope they were, but how God was going to breathe life into them and bring them back to the promised land.

Ezekiel was really radical, and he stood out. It would be hard to take a person seriously who was that outrageous. Today, that person would most likely get institutionalized because of their “visions.” His messages were probably not the most comforting things to hear either, so it was probably easier to ignore him, and just say that he was crazy, rather than to realize he was speaking the truth of God’s word.

Deuteronomistic History

Why did the two kingdoms go into exile? I believe that the DH explains this to some extent. God made a covenant with Israel. The people did not hold up their end of the relationship. They did not obey God, so God did not protect them from their enemies. Deuteronomistic theology would explain this as blessings and curses. If the people did what was right, and obeyed God, then all would be well with them. If they disobeyed the law, then God would curse them, and things would not be good for the Israelites. The whole nation had gotten so perverse that God sent them out of the land. Even though the Israelites did not hold up their end of the covenant, God still did what God had promised. God had a responsibility. So did the Israelites, even though they did not follow through with it. If they did evil, then they would be punished. This was God’s end of the covenant, and God still chose to hold Godself accountable.

It just seems like the Israelites never learned. They would worship other gods, then, once in a great while, a good judge or king would come along, and they would denounce those other gods. Almost immediately though, they would go back to idol worship. It seems like God would put them out of the land God gave them, just so maybe they would turn back to God. This would maybe remind the Israelites that God was in control.

I understand the concept of Deuteronomistic theology in the context of the Israelites, but it seems like a hard thing to apply to our lives today. After Jesus came, a new covenant was formed. Forgiveness is a part of that. This means that even if/when we displease God, we will be forgiven if we ask. This is comforting, because we all mess up and disobey God at times. We luckily will not be exiled out of our homes because of it.

Samuel

Was it good for the Israelites to ask for a king? God already knew they would ask, and that God would appoint a king for them, so God gave the people rules for how to govern themselves. In this set of rules, God gave instructions for a king (Deut. 17). In 1 Samuel 8, the people ask for a king, and God gives them a warning of what a king will do, but they still demand one.

So is it wrong for them to ask? I can understand reasons why they would want a king. All the nations around them had kings, and they could probably see the positive side of having a king. They did not have many judges that followed God, which meant at times they had a fairly perverse nation. Yet, God chose the Israelites to be a set apart people. They were not supposed to be like the surrounding nations. Knowing all God did for them, by saving them from the Egyptians and helping them conquer their enemies, I would tend to think that they were wrong, and rude, to demand a king when they should have been pleased to have God as their king.

Yet, if the Israelites had not asked for a king, then David may have never become anything more than a shepherd boy. Jesus would not have descended from the royal line of David, because David would not have been royal. Our canon would be missing a lot of what it has today because David’s stories and writings would not be known. Judas was wrong to betray Jesus, but if he would not have done that, then Jesus would not have died on the cross, and we would not be saved. It had to happen. These things are part of God’s plan. The Israelites may have been acting ungratefully toward God, but they were fulfilling God’s plan and purpose.