A phrase sometimes used for heaven in popular Christian music is "Beulah land." Upon hearing a song sung a few weeks ago that used this term, I did a quick search for "Beulah" in the ESV on my Pocket PC. Imagine my surprise when the search returned no hits! Confused, I tried my search again in the King James and found Isaiah 62:4. I returned to the ESV to try to figure out what was wrong with a translation that would leave out "Beulah land"!
Again, speaking of the restoration of national Israel, God promises his people that they will no longer be called "Forsaken" (Hebrew, azubah), as in an unmarried and unloved woman. Instead, she would be called "My Delight is in Her" (Hebrew, hephzibah). Israel's land (key to these promises, as I noted in a previous post) would no longer be called "Desolate" (Hebrew, shemamah), but instead, it would be known as "Married" (Hebrew, beulah).
In other words, this verse points out with a dramatic comparison the coming judgment and future restoration of Israel and her land. Because of her sin, Israel was judged and "forsaken" by her God, and removed from her land, which God allowed to become desolate. Isaiah prophesies of a coming day of restoration when God would once again delight in his people and restore them to their land.
It is interesting that even the King James translates the second occurance of beulah as "married" ("thy land shall be married"). So why sing about "Beulah land" instead of heaven? I guess "heaven" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
You shall no more be termed Forsaken,
and your land shall no more be termed Desolate,
but you shall be called My Delight Is in Her,
and your land Married;
for the Lord delights in you,
and your land shall be married.
and your land shall no more be termed Desolate,
but you shall be called My Delight Is in Her,
and your land Married;
for the Lord delights in you,
and your land shall be married.
Again, speaking of the restoration of national Israel, God promises his people that they will no longer be called "Forsaken" (Hebrew, azubah), as in an unmarried and unloved woman. Instead, she would be called "My Delight is in Her" (Hebrew, hephzibah). Israel's land (key to these promises, as I noted in a previous post) would no longer be called "Desolate" (Hebrew, shemamah), but instead, it would be known as "Married" (Hebrew, beulah).
In other words, this verse points out with a dramatic comparison the coming judgment and future restoration of Israel and her land. Because of her sin, Israel was judged and "forsaken" by her God, and removed from her land, which God allowed to become desolate. Isaiah prophesies of a coming day of restoration when God would once again delight in his people and restore them to their land.
It is interesting that even the King James translates the second occurance of beulah as "married" ("thy land shall be married"). So why sing about "Beulah land" instead of heaven? I guess "heaven" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Comments
My point is not that poetic imagery is wrong. Rather, my point is that just because a phrase occurs in the Bible does not mean it is sacred. To use a "poetic image" in a way foreign to the Scripture is misleading.
To use a transliteration of a Hebrew word to apply to something foreign to the context is not simply using poetic imagery. If "Married Land" carried the same significance as beulah, then I would have no problem using it (I think the Hebrew word hallelujah is a word whose meaning we all know, for example).
I was genuinely surprised not to find the word "beulah" in my Bible. I thought it was a "Bible word." It's just a Hebrew word that was transliterated one time in the verse and translated another time. Nothing sacred about that.
Is the picture of our names being written on God's hands a wonderful reminder of our security in Christ? Sure it is. But is that what Scripture is talking about? No.
Does it "seem useful to use poetic images" in music? Sure, I guess so. But if we are going to use images directly from Scripture, why not use them in the same way Scripture does? That's my point.
But anyway, sorry for misunderstanding your point
The fact that you didn't even realize beulah meant something other than heaven makes my point perfectly. I'm all for "poetic language" and using biblical terminology in hymns and poetry. However, if we use those terms in ways that are completely devoid of their biblical significance, what is the profit?
But seriously, doesn't the Marriage Supper of the Lamb show that our eternal home with our Savior to be Beulah Land, the Place of Marriage? If so, I think the use of that imagery is perfectly appropriate. I think the problem you are seeing is that the rampant biblical illiteracy we face means that we no longer recognize these obscure allusions included in these songs.
By the way, I think this applies to your previous post, but my only concern there is that the name referred to by Isaiah is corporate, not individual. I have no problem seeing that the name of the people of God (and from where I stand in history, it includes both Jew and Gentile by faith in Christ) is written on the hands of the Savior (metaphorically to be sure, but literally in the scars...what powerful imagery), but it may be stretching it to think of it as my name personally. Though it does seem that individual names are written in the Book of Life, so I may be straining at a gnat here. Now there's an example of using a biblical phrase apart from its context.
And, from a guy raised in Buckeye Land (almost heaven), Go Bucks!
Thanks for the kind words, Wayne.