May 26, 2009
Isaiah 53:13–53:12 Response
I believe this is my favorite passage from Second Isaiah. Now that I’ve stated this, I have to translate this initial emotional response into a rational explanation. So here goes. One, this section has a beauty of poetry and metaphor:
He was cut off from the land of the living (Is. 53:8b).
He was led like a lamb to the slaughter (Is. 53:7).
His grave was located with the wicked (53:9).
Two, there is a pathos in the character of the servant – he an outsider, shunned, afflicted:
He was despised, shunned by people,
a man who suffered, no stranger to sickness,
like one from whom people turn their gaze (53:3).
Yes this person suffered and took the punishment for our (is this the reader? The Israeli community, humanity) sins: “He was despised, and we held him of no account. Yet it was he who bore the burden of our sufferings” (Is 53:3b-4a). Thus, this is a heroic figure. Since I’ve been reading and using Gregory Riley for another class this semester, I again use his thesis to identify the servant as somewhat fitting the model of the Greco-Roman hero - someone with extraordinary gifts and talents who suffers unjustly but in the end triumphs over injustice and ordeal through stoic acceptance of fate.
Finally, the third factor which makes this section emotionally and poetically powerful is the comfort gained by the audience/the reader through the sacrificial actions of the servant:
On him was laid the chastisement that made us whole;
we found healing because of his wounds” (Is 53:5b).
All these factors – the pathos of the servant’s suffering and alienation, the beauty of the metaphors, the comfort to the reader/audience and similar to the former, the audiences implication in this suffering – contribute to the poetic and literary power of the text. There is also, similar to the beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount, an inversion of expectations, or in other words, an unexpected juxtaposition of opposing concepts and images:
he will be highly honored, raised up, and greatly exalted.
Just as many were appalled at him,
so will he astonish many nations (52:13b-15a).
He was abused, yet he was submissive (53:7);
we found healing because of his wounds (53:5b).
Therefore, I allot his portion with the great;
with the powerful he will share the spoil,
since he poured out his life blood to death
and was numbered among transgressors (53:12).
Aside from the poetry and the pathos, we move to the question, what does this passage mean, who is this suffering servant? Obviously, from a Christian perspective, and in accordance with this week’s readings, it is Jesus. From the perspective of the audience for whom this was written – post-exilic or post-captivity Jews, we might propose Cyrus but does Cyrus fit here? – “so marred was his appearance beyond human semblance, his form beyond human likeness” (52:14b).
These lines are a puzzle to this reader, but again, this adds to the appeal of the passage – it adds mystery. Could this be Isaiah the prophet or Israel itself. Clearly, this will be a topic for class discussion. It’s beyond my capability to offer an answer.
Finally, perhaps this passage, which seems to encompass tragedy, pathos, the existential nature and injustice of existence, cannot be completely explained. The purpose of art and poetry, according to some theorists, is to point to the mysteries and the sublimities that cannot be articulated or described otherwise.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Monday, May 11, 2009
Isaiah 45:9-19
Well, obviously, the title provided by Blenkinsopp – “God cannot be called to account for choosing Cyrus” – cannot be ignored. This, and the fact that Cyrus is referred to directly in the previous 45:1-8, leave no doubt that this section is about Yahveh’s selection of Cyrus for Israel’s liberation and salvation.
It is reasonable to assume that the exiles of those who remained in Israel would question why Yahveh would choose Cyrus, a Persian, as Israel’s liberator, in fact, as “his anointed one” (45:1). That an argument needs to be made to explain it itself indicates it must have been questioned. After all, all of Israel’s previous saviors/liberators/founders were internal: Abraham, Moses, David, etc. (Disregarding Sigmund Freud’s theory that Moses was an Egyptian). Why would Yahveh choose a foreigner as Israel’s heroic liberator, as his anointed one?
The answer seems to be, however, that it is not for Abraham’s or Jacob’s children to question. You don’t ask the creator of the earth and humanity his reasons.
Section 45:14-17 contains similar themes and troupes ob served in other sections of 2nd Isaiah: other nations or peoples will be slaves of Israel, (highlighting Israel’s special status, or emphasizing the reversal of its fortunes?)(45:16); while followers of Yahveh will not be “shamed nor disgraced forever and ever” (45:17).
This reader found the last section (45:18-19), the most provocative, maybe because the language is poetic or because the meaning is mysterious. The interesting language starts in 18b – speaking of the earth, the narrator states: “He did not create it an empty void but formed it to be inhabited.” Later in 19, Yahveh himself is quoted:
“I did not speak in secret,
somewhere in the dark realm.
I did not say to Jacob’s descendants,
‘Seek me in the empty void.
I, Yahveh, speak what is right';
I declare what is truthful.”
The above is Blenkinsopp’s translation and he titles verses 45:14-19 “The God Who Hides Himself,” referring particularly, it appears, to line 15: “You are in truth the God who hides himself.” My Tanakh translates this last section somewhat differently, using “wasteland” instead of “void” and “land of darkness” instead of “dark realm.” The “void” language is more mysterious (perhaps because of our modern sensibility), but even with “wasteland” substituted for “void,” the passage is still provocative.
Verse 19 seems to contradict or at least contrast the statement in 15: “You are in truth, the Almighty, who hides himself” (Tanakh version of 15). Does 15, followed subsequently with the derision of idol worshipers, refer to the fact that Yahveh does not appear as an idol – does this make him invisible – or to Yahveh’s “death,” his disappearance during the exile, or both?
So, although Yahveh “hides himself” (15), he does “not speak in secret,” he “did not create an empty void” or “wasteland.” Though he is hidden, he still makes himself known through his creation, his actions and what he creates is a land to be inhabited. This all seems meant to give credence to the idea that what Yahveh speaks “is right. I declare what is truthful” (19b).
I do not think I have this part adequately interpreted but I look forward to the class discussion – I think there’s a number of things here which will be interesting to discuss.
It is reasonable to assume that the exiles of those who remained in Israel would question why Yahveh would choose Cyrus, a Persian, as Israel’s liberator, in fact, as “his anointed one” (45:1). That an argument needs to be made to explain it itself indicates it must have been questioned. After all, all of Israel’s previous saviors/liberators/founders were internal: Abraham, Moses, David, etc. (Disregarding Sigmund Freud’s theory that Moses was an Egyptian). Why would Yahveh choose a foreigner as Israel’s heroic liberator, as his anointed one?
The answer seems to be, however, that it is not for Abraham’s or Jacob’s children to question. You don’t ask the creator of the earth and humanity his reasons.
Section 45:14-17 contains similar themes and troupes ob served in other sections of 2nd Isaiah: other nations or peoples will be slaves of Israel, (highlighting Israel’s special status, or emphasizing the reversal of its fortunes?)(45:16); while followers of Yahveh will not be “shamed nor disgraced forever and ever” (45:17).
This reader found the last section (45:18-19), the most provocative, maybe because the language is poetic or because the meaning is mysterious. The interesting language starts in 18b – speaking of the earth, the narrator states: “He did not create it an empty void but formed it to be inhabited.” Later in 19, Yahveh himself is quoted:
“I did not speak in secret,
somewhere in the dark realm.
I did not say to Jacob’s descendants,
‘Seek me in the empty void.
I, Yahveh, speak what is right';
I declare what is truthful.”
The above is Blenkinsopp’s translation and he titles verses 45:14-19 “The God Who Hides Himself,” referring particularly, it appears, to line 15: “You are in truth the God who hides himself.” My Tanakh translates this last section somewhat differently, using “wasteland” instead of “void” and “land of darkness” instead of “dark realm.” The “void” language is more mysterious (perhaps because of our modern sensibility), but even with “wasteland” substituted for “void,” the passage is still provocative.
Verse 19 seems to contradict or at least contrast the statement in 15: “You are in truth, the Almighty, who hides himself” (Tanakh version of 15). Does 15, followed subsequently with the derision of idol worshipers, refer to the fact that Yahveh does not appear as an idol – does this make him invisible – or to Yahveh’s “death,” his disappearance during the exile, or both?
So, although Yahveh “hides himself” (15), he does “not speak in secret,” he “did not create an empty void” or “wasteland.” Though he is hidden, he still makes himself known through his creation, his actions and what he creates is a land to be inhabited. This all seems meant to give credence to the idea that what Yahveh speaks “is right. I declare what is truthful” (19b).
I do not think I have this part adequately interpreted but I look forward to the class discussion – I think there’s a number of things here which will be interesting to discuss.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Isaiah 42:1-9, 18-25
To this reader, it is not clear if the servant in the opening verses is Israel or perhaps Cyrus. I’m not sure if we’ve discussed the idea of two “servants,” both Israel and Cyrus, and how they relate to each other in their different roles as God’s servants. The repeated references using the male pronoun “he” and “him” without a designation of Jacob or Israel indicates – to this reader – that this is Cyrus and not Israel. In fact, as the passage progresses, the implication seems to be that Cyrus is God’s enlightened servant and Israel is Yahveh’s beaten down, disobedient servant (kind of like Cyrus’ dumb-a-s kid brother – excuse my irreverence).
The broken reed and smoldering wick which “he will not crush” and “he will not extinguish,” respectively, refers perhaps to Israel, damaged and beaten as a consequence of the exile. “He” would appear to be Cyrus. Therefore, Cyrus will have sympathy for the wounded Israel and will treat her justly.
If so, it is Cyrus who will establish “a justly order for the nations” (repeated in 42:1 & 42:3) and a “just order on the earth” (42:4). This seems to match the historical events. After all, at this time, Persia, under Cyrus, ruled the area; Israel had not and would not be returning to independence. Therefore, it’s sensible that Cyrus/Persia would need to set up “a just order for the nations.”
The pronoun used by Yahveh, the apparent speaker, changes to the 3rd person in 42:5-9, but the language is similar to that of 45:1, which is explicitly about Cyrus:
This is what Yahveh says about his anointed one, Cyrus:
“I have grasped him by the right hand,
to beat down nations before him.”
Compare this to 42:6:
“I Yahveh, have summoned you in righteousness,
I have grasped you by the hand;
I preserve you and present you
as a covenant for the people,
a light unto the nations;
Usually, “a light unto the nations” would refer to Israel. Designating Cyrus in this way seems very unusual. I'm not familiar enough about the Hebrew Bible to declare it unprecedented.
Section 42:18-25 returns to the male second-person but the servant referred to here is no longer Cyrus, but Israel, the downtrodden, disobedient servant. There seems to be a correlation or a referring back to the blind and imprisoned mentioned in 42:7-9. Those referenced thus in 7-9 are explicitly referred to as Israel, the blind, deaf, downtrodden and imprisoned servant in 18-22.
The last section of this text has an ironic turn with Yahveh following his lament of Israel’s situation with his declaration that he is the responsible party:
Who delivered Jacob to the despoiler,
Israel to the plunderers?
Was it not Yahveh, against whom they have sinned?
They were unwilling to follow his guidance
and heed his teaching (42:24).
As explained in the passage, it was because of Israel's intransigence that these calamities occured. This does precede Yahweh's announcement of Israel’s redemption in the next chapter, 43, so this stinging indictment is followed shortly by forgiveness.
Overall, I found this passage lacking somewhat in power, in poetry, compared to most of the other passages we have reviewed previously. I think it lacks some of the more interesting imagery of other chapters. Perhaps I just need a couple of shots of wheatgrass.
The broken reed and smoldering wick which “he will not crush” and “he will not extinguish,” respectively, refers perhaps to Israel, damaged and beaten as a consequence of the exile. “He” would appear to be Cyrus. Therefore, Cyrus will have sympathy for the wounded Israel and will treat her justly.
If so, it is Cyrus who will establish “a justly order for the nations” (repeated in 42:1 & 42:3) and a “just order on the earth” (42:4). This seems to match the historical events. After all, at this time, Persia, under Cyrus, ruled the area; Israel had not and would not be returning to independence. Therefore, it’s sensible that Cyrus/Persia would need to set up “a just order for the nations.”
The pronoun used by Yahveh, the apparent speaker, changes to the 3rd person in 42:5-9, but the language is similar to that of 45:1, which is explicitly about Cyrus:
This is what Yahveh says about his anointed one, Cyrus:
“I have grasped him by the right hand,
to beat down nations before him.”
Compare this to 42:6:
“I Yahveh, have summoned you in righteousness,
I have grasped you by the hand;
I preserve you and present you
as a covenant for the people,
a light unto the nations;
Usually, “a light unto the nations” would refer to Israel. Designating Cyrus in this way seems very unusual. I'm not familiar enough about the Hebrew Bible to declare it unprecedented.
Section 42:18-25 returns to the male second-person but the servant referred to here is no longer Cyrus, but Israel, the downtrodden, disobedient servant. There seems to be a correlation or a referring back to the blind and imprisoned mentioned in 42:7-9. Those referenced thus in 7-9 are explicitly referred to as Israel, the blind, deaf, downtrodden and imprisoned servant in 18-22.
The last section of this text has an ironic turn with Yahveh following his lament of Israel’s situation with his declaration that he is the responsible party:
Who delivered Jacob to the despoiler,
Israel to the plunderers?
Was it not Yahveh, against whom they have sinned?
They were unwilling to follow his guidance
and heed his teaching (42:24).
As explained in the passage, it was because of Israel's intransigence that these calamities occured. This does precede Yahweh's announcement of Israel’s redemption in the next chapter, 43, so this stinging indictment is followed shortly by forgiveness.
Overall, I found this passage lacking somewhat in power, in poetry, compared to most of the other passages we have reviewed previously. I think it lacks some of the more interesting imagery of other chapters. Perhaps I just need a couple of shots of wheatgrass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)