Second Isaiah as a point of inter-faith unity.

[nativeastral]

hi

Wow, OK I am seeing a whole lot of history being tossed into a salad...I mean Alexander was about 300 years before Octavian, and I thought Octavian became Augustus something like 25 years before "Jesus' birth." ("In January of 27 BC, the Senate gave Octavian the new titles of Augustus and Princeps.[112]," - Augustus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) I haven't read a lot of Joseph Campbell, but I am familiar a bit with his "hero in the myth" concept. So this idea of "great reversal" towards monotheism is foreign to me. Would you expand on this?

-----> yes the 'mare nostrum' and hinterlands must have been quite a salad which as you agree later in your post antecedents stretch back to influence. the date 9AD was the battle of Teutoburg and cessation of expansion. Romans were brought in to explain the common 'son of god' concept.

---> 'Paul to Galatians speaks of God as sending His son 'in the fullness of time'. History can connect this text with fact of a worldwide movement of religious change that began at time of Alexander the great d.323BC reaching high water mark about time Jesus was born' [P.Hughes,'popular history of the Catholic Church'] see also A. Harnack 'mission and expansion of Christianity,Judaism its diffusion and limits' , F.F.Bruce 'the spreading flame' [concerning importance of 'servant' to christianity].

---> l meant to also add that the Romans had a sacrificial king Rex Nemorensis, who was always a slave, who had to slay the previous consecrated priest.
Sacred king - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---> The term the great reversal may have come from the many pages of this site Virtual Religion Index but looking up joseph here Joseph Campbell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia brought me here Axial Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediawhich explains it well though it is the 6th century BC seen as the beginning of a different mode of understanding, the time of Pythagoras,Buddha,Zarathustra and Judaic prophets with emphasis on the individual will and the world/body as delusion/prison and quest for release. The mystery cults all had initiation into a rebirth, why l mentioned pre-millenium fever in 1st post.


"On January 1, 42 BC, the Senate recognised Caesar as a divinity of the Roman state, Divus Iulius. Octavian was able to further his cause by emphasizing the fact that he was Divi filius, "Son of God".[60]" - Augustus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . I understand this in principle, John Dominic Crossan brought this to light in a recent lecture I was privileged to attend, as to how the term "Son of G-d" held a specific meaning referencing the Roman authority, and how *if* that term were indeed applied to Jesus during his lifetime it would certainly be cause for considerable disquiet on the part of the Roman governing authority. It would effectively be a challenge to the government, a call for revolution. Which would only expedite the execution of Jesus on political grounds.



Ah, yes! The Septuigint. My apologies, I forgot about it for the moment. Someone else brought the element of Stoicism into the conversation elsewhere when we got to the point of Pagan-Jewish mishmash. I invite you to take a look and contribute: http://www.interfaith.org/forum/rome-in-transition-8875.html

--------> l wrote elsewhere how stoicism mysteriously disappeared with marcus aurelius 180AD, signifying the end of greek rational philosophy.The stoics had the concepts of passion [anquish or sufferring passively] and apatheia [apathy in the ancient sense of objective/clear judgement]. They
took their own life as an act of control of their own destiny. The early Christians took on many stoical virtues; why l mentioned Tarsus as its source.

I realize any historical study cannot seriously limit itself without risking losing the gist of what is actually happening, which is why a study that focuses on a point in time as I attempted with the Rome in transition thread must of necessity begin some hundreds of years before and even continue a few hundred years after in order to come to any real semblence of what was actually taking place (rather than taking the establishment propaganda on faith).


That "accomodation" between Greek and Jewish thought is no mystery, as you pointed to the Septuigint as evidence. But Pagan accomodation into Judaism goes back even further...the Babylonian Talmud. In some degree I think this may have been a survival response as the Jewish ruling authority evaporated over time from Israel.

----> I was ignorant of Jewish history till l studied it, they were always between the north/south powers [ptolemies/seleucids], and fought amongst themselves incessantly brother to brother, father to son even late as sacrifice. The Hasmonean Alexander [therefore Greek allegiance] had 800 rebels [pharisees] crucified after the battle of Shechem [Samaria]. No wonder apocalyptic ideas came to the fore.The half jewish 'ruler' Herod killed 3 of his sons and the other 3 divided up the kingdom after his death 4BC. There were many revolts once it became a province in 6AD, corruption increasing nationalism and resurrection hopes started in 2 Macabees 7:14,23
l read somewhere [dont ask for a ref please!] that it was common for one Jewish sect to believe that all Jews from another sect were religiously dead.



I know a little of the Dead Sea Scrolls, its been awhile but I am familiar with the War scroll. I realize the Essenes were very strident ascetics, but I still don't see the connection with suffering. Are you suggesting that deliberate separation is somehow suffering? Because I don't get that read at all from that text.

----> why l mentioned the Essenes whose duality undoubtedly is Zarathustrian [info on this from the virtual index somewhere and also henry Chadwick 'the early Church' pg 14]; in a way yes, they withdrew from the temple as a form of protest obviously and lived a very frugal life, only some were zealots who carried arms involved in the jewish war of 66-70Ad.

more info on the 'suffering servant' here Book of Isaiah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . My post was purely a gathering together of concepts and beliefs prevalent at the time.

 

[Sancho]

Stay focused, my friends, stay focused. Thanks, though, for your thoughtful posts. Juantoo3, if I didn't want to stay focused on Isaiah I'd express how strongly I believe that the life and teachings of Jesus do not need the crutch or the heavy hand of any state or state sanctioned resurrection theology as back-up. The lives and teachings of Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., to name but two, have transcendence more powerful than that of "just another wise man out to save the world". And, no doubt, both of these great figures would adamantly say that the transcendence of Jesus' teachings far outstrips their own.
On another note, I like what you had to say to Avi about the interfaith family.
Nativeastral: I like your perspectives.
Avi, though it would be another sidetrack, when you get a chance, would you mind giving us a few details about these real world interfaith discussions you've been attending? I'm curious.

Moving on to the theme of a new covenant, Jeremiah announces it in 31:31-34.

31 "The time is coming," declares the LORD,
"when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,"
declares the LORD.
33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD.
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,"
declares the LORD.
"For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."

Attempting to understand the covenant and the developments of it, I am finding, is key to understanding biblical thought in general. In "The living world of the Old Testament," Bernhard W. Anderson outlines the developments of the covenant from Noah --"The promise: God will not let the earth revert to chaos" --to Abraham --"The promise: God will be with Israel and give Canaan as an inheritance" --to Moses --"The sacred charter of the people Israel." Then the early prophets offer subtle reinterpretations of the covenant relationship. Hosea, especially, emphasizes the word "hesed," which Anderson says, "is a covenant word that refers to the faithfulness or loyal love that binds two parties together in covenant."

For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice,
the knowledge of God, rather than a burnt offering,
-Hosea 6:6

So there is a movement from words written in stone to words written in hearts. To the time of Jeremiah it is only Judaic hearts that are meant. With Deutero-Isaiah, the covenant is extended from Israel to all of humanity. Israel's story can be seen as the history of God teaching the world how to have a relationship with him through the history of his relationship with Israel. First a people is chosen, then prophets come along who have had God's words revealed to them, then all of those chosen people are given the gift and responsibility of having those words and that relationship in their souls, then all of humanity is given the gift and responsibility of having those words and that relationship in their souls.

A concise way in which I have come to understand the covenant relationship is: if you recognize and love God's presence, then God's presence is with you.
This is influenced by learning that God's name, Yahweh, means, "He Who will be there, He Who will be present," (Martin Buber, "The Prophetic Faith," 28). This is another important theme in Isaiah 40-55 which I want to return to later.

I'm also wondering if anyone has any insight to share on the connection of the covenant to the notions of the holy spirit and to logos.

 

[nativeastral]

hi sancho,
hesed is the sephira associated with the planet jupiter in the tree of life [greatness, mercy, justice, obedience to higher principles], 'is inner emotion, the quality of devotion observed in a lifetimes work, the depth experienced perhaps in one love affair, or the sense of feeling touched on in a profound religious moment' [Z'ev ben shimon halevi 'tree of life'].

l would recommend reading Philo of Alexandria's take on the Logos; he was a hellenized jewish philosopher largely forgotten by both jews and christians but influenced especially the latter. He lived 20BC-50AD and sought to harmonize greek philosophy and Judaism and based his hermeneutics twofold-literally and allegorically. Interestingly he makes no mention of Jesus which l find surprising since he led an embassy to Rome in 40AD on behalf of the Alexandrian jews.
yu can get info here on him Resource Pages for Biblical Studies, main page

 

[juantoo3]

Sancho, thanks for the reminder, and great addition. I'll have to look a little deeper.

Nativeastral, thank you for a great looking reference site, I bookmarked it.

 

[iBrian]

I dunno. Seems I have heard repeatedly from various Protestant sources how Jesus fulfilled this and that from the Old Testament (Psalms 22 leaps to mind)...and let us not lose sight that Jesus was in fact a Jew.

Kinda difficult to model one's execution on scripture, no?

My reading of Christian literature makes a big point that different Gospel writers are writing for different audiences, and therefore trying to focus on different points.

Matthew is always pointed out as specifically written for the Jews, with the suggestion that most claims of Messianic fulfilment are underlined in his Gospel.

However, a non-Christian approach might even suggest that the text is being used in propagandist way, meaning that certain events may not have happened, and yet were written in to add colour and meaning to the narrative.

It's quite obvious that there is a major struggle with Christianity - even a paradox - in play, in that Jesus is claimed to be God in human form, and yet there is also a very concerted effort to prove the human aspects full Jewish credentials.

When you read other ancient literature, it's quite plain that each writer has an agenda and they are happy to repeat rumour or add their own inventions in order to support their bias.

The Roman writer Tacitus is an easy one to draw on - he ascribes miracles to Roman Emporers to justify their legitimacy - a feature of ancient writing that is hard not to read in the Gospels as being a perfectly common device, but ultimately fictional.

Additionally, among the Greek writers such as Herodotus it seems quite clear that certain prophecies are used as a device to underline a point being made by the writer.

And yet the Gospels are presumed to have been written by men and yet be perfect and incorruptible, yet still analysis suggests that there have been key additions and edits to some of these.

The end of Mark is probably the most infamous, as early versions of the text finish at the death on the cross, yet later versions have a resurrection account added on.

So it would be easy to presume that any historical Jesus figure did not fulfil specific prophecies from the OT, but that later writers did add these in. At the time is was seen as perfectly acceptable for writers to add fictional details to their narrative, as there was little interest in objectivity, simply that the essence of the message be maintained - and that anything that could be made up and added in to support that message was seen as normal.

The more amazing thing would be to presume that the Gospels and other canonised texts were somehow immune from the ordinary indulgences of common storytelling devices of the time - which I guess is what it's seen as a matter of faith otherwise.

 

[Postmaster]

Interesting Brian. I can certainly see an important spiritual message in the bible and that a man called Jesus caused a religious movement which has had a direct and indirect effect on society till today, I'm just curious as to how far the fabrication goes and if it’s at all possible that Jesus was completely made up?

 

[juantoo3]

Matthew is always pointed out as specifically written for the Jews, with the suggestion that most claims of Messianic fulfilment are underlined in his Gospel.

You highlight some very interesting things to consider, Brian, and I don't want to veer too far astray...although the subject could easily command a thread of its own. While Matthew is generally considered to have been written to the Jews, Mark is generally considered to have been written to the Romans and Luke is generally considered to have been written to the Greeks...and as synoptic Gospels they share a great deal of storyline.

I would have to do a bit of research to see if my thoughts here bear any merit, but I am thinking it a bit strange to use appeal to Jewish mythos when addressing a Greek or particularly a Roman audience...unless there is some degree of weight to the claims. When considering the rest of the cosmopolitan Greco-Roman world, the Jews and all associated with them rated about as high as red-headed step-children when it came to credibility and "appeal-power."

All the more amazing that a backwater Jewish carpenter *** radical rabbi should become a rallying point for Roman civilization some 300 years later.

Now I return us to our regularly scheduled discussion...

 

[Avi]

I sense that the anonymity offered by the internet along with such human foibles as mischief and a certain argumentative need to be correct tinge a great deal of our discussions.

I agree with you here.

I suppose it comes down to what niche is being served...were our "customer" base solely those religiously indoctrinated and educated intellectuals, then I would expect our discussions to have a decidedly different flair and flavor...one that frankly would be a bit too rich for my daily consumption.

You have a good point here. Balance is important. And a sense of humor is always great.

For some of us, this place is our fellowship, our outreach, our "church" in a loose sense of the word. As much as I admire the philosophical musings of intellectual discussions, I wouldn't trade that for the sense of community we share here.

Thanks Juantoo, I am glad to hear this.

 

[iBrian]

You highlight some very interesting things to consider, Brian, and I don't want to veer too far astray...although the subject could easily command a thread of its own. While Matthew is generally considered to have been written to the Jews, Mark is generally considered to have been written to the Romans and Luke is generally considered to have been written to the Greeks...and as synoptic Gospels they share a great deal of storyline.

I would have to do a bit of research to see if my thoughts here bear any merit, but I am thinking it a bit strange to use appeal to Jewish mythos when addressing a Greek or particularly a Roman audience...unless there is some degree of weight to the claims. When considering the rest of the cosmopolitan Greco-Roman world, the Jews and all associated with them rated about as high as red-headed step-children when it came to credibility and "appeal-power."

All the more amazing that a backwater Jewish carpenter *** radical rabbi should become a rallying point for Roman civilization some 300 years later.

Now I return us to our regularly scheduled discussion...

No worries - I'll try not to derail.

However, it is worth considering that early Christianity was effectively a Jewish sect, so it was important to try and address Jewish concerns - it isn't until Paul comes along a few decades later that the sect turns away from Judaism to the Gentiles.

 

[Sancho]

I don't mean to be a thread tyrant. And at the moment I'm not sure what I want to say about Isaiah, though I know I want to get to the passages that emphasize that God is with us. I'll get to it later, there's plenty of time.
As for some of the comments about Jesus, part of my interest in the old testament is to understand the texts that Jesus would have studied and loved. Reading texts written after Jesus lived --and that includes Paul and the other early church shapers --to understand him doesn't really make sense to me. Trying to piece together the influences that meant most to him, rather, is what seems to me to be most worth while. Understanding the whole second temple period is important not just for understanding Jesus and the development of Judaism and Christianity, but also for understanding how western culture has been shaped by that period. Understanding the Babylonian exile is key to understanding the second temple period.
So if anyone has comments about these periods --especially how Isaiah influenced them --or anything else, please feel free.

 

[Avi]

Avi, though it would be another sidetrack, when you get a chance, would you mind giving us a few details about these real world interfaith discussions you've been attending? I'm curious.

Hi Sancho, I am back from my travels and I would like to continue discussion of this interesting thread.

But to answer your question, I live in a small western city and have participated in a series of interfaith discussions over the last six months. It was these live discussions which led me to look for an interfaith forum on the web when I noticed this website.

I can tell you that the live interfaith meetings have been informative, interesting, polite and rather energizing. We started out with a single meeting where individuals from the different faiths spoke about the importance of faith in their lives. This was followed by a series of lectures given by religions leaders about their religions with open discussion and questions. I met people from our local peace movement as well. When I first started attending I thought: what impact can these meetings have ? Now I believe they are something of a model for how we could improve our conditions. If they could be put into practice on a large scale there might be some hope of peace. I guess that is what experiments are for.

 

[Avi]

Sancho, I had some additional thoughts about Second Isaiah, but I will return to those shortly.

Your interpretation of Jeremiah 31 has some very image provoking description. I am not too familiar with ideas of holy spirit and logos.

Moving on to the theme of a new covenant, Jeremiah announces it in 31:31-34.

Attempting to understand the covenant and the developments of it, I am finding, is key to understanding biblical thought in general. In "The living world of the Old Testament," Bernhard W. Anderson outlines the developments of the covenant from Noah --"The promise: God will not let the earth revert to chaos" --to Abraham --"The promise: God will be with Israel and give Canaan as an inheritance" --to Moses --"The sacred charter of the people Israel." Then the early prophets offer subtle reinterpretations of the covenant relationship. Hosea, especially, emphasizes the word "hesed," which Anderson says, "is a covenant word that refers to the faithfulness or loyal love that binds two parties together in covenant."
So there is a movement from words written in stone to words written in hearts. To the time of Jeremiah it is only Judaic hearts that are meant. With Deutero-Isaiah, the covenant is extended from Israel to all of humanity. Israel's story can be seen as the history of God teaching the world how to have a relationship with him through the history of his relationship with Israel. First a people is chosen, then prophets come along who have had God's words revealed to them, then all of those chosen people are given the gift and responsibility of having those words and that relationship in their souls, then all of humanity is given the gift and responsibility of having those words and that relationship in their souls.

A concise way in which I have come to understand the covenant relationship is: if you recognize and love God's presence, then God's presence is with you.
This is influenced by learning that God's name, Yahweh, means, "He Who will be there, He Who will be present," (Martin Buber, "The Prophetic Faith," 28). This is another important theme in Isaiah 40-55 which I want to return to later.

I'm also wondering if anyone has any insight to share on the connection of the covenant to the notions of the holy spirit and to logos.

Regarding Jeremiah 31:31-34, I would like to return to the JPS commentary:

"The new covenant has been interpreted by Christians as prophecy of the new covenant through Jesus (New Testament means new covenant), but here it refers to the restoration of Israel after the Babylonian exile and the reconstruction of the Temple. According to this passage, it is not the content of the new covenant which will be different, but how it is learned."

However, it is not clear from this passage or the scripture how the new covenant is learned. It is a powerful message though, of what follows historically.

In Jeremiah 31: 33-34 G-d places the Teaching, ie., the Torah, in the inmost being or heart of the people so that the covenant cannot be broken again. This idea is developed in later Lurianic kabbalah, which maintains that all persons have a divine spark within. Since it is so inscribed, there will be no need for Torah to be taught.

Again, very abstract concepts here. I can see why you chose this section. This looks like a portal to mysticism.

In Jeremiah 31: 35-36 This oracle draws upon G-d’s role as creator to promise that Israel’s covenant assures its existence as a nation for the duration of all creation.

This section is rather poetic in nature. The sea is stirred up into roaring waves. Strong images prevail.

Jeremiah 31: 40 The Valley of Corpses and Ashes would refer to the Valley of Ben-Hinnom on the southwest side of the city where child sacrifice was practiced. The Wadi Kidron defines the eastern border of the biblical city of Jerusalem. The Horse Gate is located on the southeast corner. As the site of the Temple, the city is holy to the Lord, never to be destroyed again.

Again, very visual images for me. I have to agree this is remarkable description from Haftorah.

 

[Sancho]

Yes this new covenant is a perplexing thought indeed. It is as if humans were made in one way to a certain time, then all of a sudden they are made differently, with this divine spark within --with the covenant, torah, within. To modern ways of thinking it seems nonsensical. But then, from the perspective of evolution, is it not plausible? I am not particularly fond of reconciling theology and science --they are different approaches to reality --but maybe it is worth considering that through evolution G-d brings to life more of this divine spark within us.

Northrop Frye, in one of his books on the influence the bible has had on western culture, "The Great Code," offers some words on the individualizing of the law that relate to my understanding of the new covenant.

The conception of wisdom in the Bible, as we see most clearly in some of the psalms, starts with the individualizing of the law, with allowing the law, in its human and moral aspect, to permeate and inform all one's personal life. Law is general: wisdom begins in interpreting and commenting on the law, and applying it to specific and variable situations. (121)

The way I understand this is to discover the laws that govern one's own life through connecting with this divine spark within and through studying scriptures to be better able to understand the nature of this divine spark and the laws it teaches.

Another book, which I was reading this afternoon, by Walter Brueggermann, "Hopeful Imagination, Prophetic Voices in Exile," interprets Isaiah 40-55 as organized around three main metaphors: exile, Babylon, and homecoming. He emphasizes the need to recognize that theses poems need to be understood in the context of speaking to a people who had lost their home and needed to make sense of their situation, but Brueggermann also says that the metaphors can be applied to any time and place.

The new orientation wrought by poetry out of memory through liturgy consists in rereading reality through three metaphors:
Exile is a sense of not belonging, of being in an environment hostile to the values of this community and its vocation. Exile is practiced among those who refuse to accept and be assimilated in the new situation. Psalm 137 is a passionate resolve not to be assimilated. The poetry of 2 Isaiah in turn is a summons away from such assimilation.
Babylon refers to a concentration of power and value which is dominant and which is finally hostile to the covenant faith of this community. The empire regularly seeks to domesticate such a community with a special vocation and characteristically ends in oppression.
Homecoming is a dramatic decision to break with imperial rationality and to embrace a place called home where covenantal values have currency and credibility.
The juxtaposition of exile, Babylon, and homecoming means that this poetry of 2 Isaiah is not aimed simply at geographical, spatial possibility but at a relational, covenantal reality. The poetry permits a very different reading of social reality, opening up quite new social possibilities. The poetry evokes the sense that the world can be organized differently. Only a poet could make available such a drastically subversive conviction and invitation. (107-108)

This reading is very pertinent to our current global situation. Here's another passage.

The poetry of 2 Isaiah dreams of homecoming and begins to nullify Babylonian definitions of reality.
The parables of Jesus initiate dreams of homecoming and begin to subvert the oppressive social institutions and presuppositions of his day.
The oracles of Martin Luther King, Jr., dance about Stone Mountain and begin to cause trembling in the racist structures of the day.
All three of these poetic acts are models of liberated, liberating speech that stands in sharp contrast to our conventional domesticated speech. We mostly are scribes maintaining the order of the day. We mostly are appreciated by and paid by people who like it the way it is, who do not sense our exile and resist discerning it, who do not yearn for homecoming because we have fooled ourselves into thinking this present arrangement is our home. (98-99)

Gospel and reggae music use these three metaphors of exile, Babylon, and homecoming (Jerusalem, Zion) in similar ways. Many other great works of art also use these metaphors in powerful ways.

To bring my comments on the new covenant together with these comments, the divine spark within is what we can think of as home. Worldly life --living the way the powers that be say we should --can be thought of as Babylon. All those who recognize a spiritual reality but have to live in a world that is controled by corrupt forces are living in exile. The way home is to turn inwards to this divine spark within --to the individualized laws that govern each of our lives.

 

[Sancho]

Here is the climax, the last chapter of Isaiah 40-55. It is an invitation home, an invitation to faith. It is also very pertinent to the current global situation.

Isaiah 55

Invitation to the Thirsty

1 "Come, all you who are thirsty,
come to the waters;
and you who have no money,
come, buy and eat!
Come, buy wine and milk
without money and without cost. 2 Why spend money on what is not bread,
and your labor on what does not satisfy?
Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good,
and your soul will delight in the richest of fare.
3 Give ear and come to me;
hear me, that your soul may live.
I will make an everlasting covenant with you,
my faithful love promised to David.
4 See, I have made him a witness to the peoples,
a leader and commander of the peoples.
5 Surely you will summon nations you know not,
and nations that do not know you will hasten to you,
because of the LORD your God,
the Holy One of Israel,
for he has endowed you with splendor."
6 Seek the LORD while he may be found;
call on him while he is near.
7 Let the wicked forsake his way
and the evil man his thoughts.
Let him turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him,
and to our God, for he will freely pardon.
8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the LORD.
9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
10 As the rain and the snow
come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
12 You will go out in joy
and be led forth in peace;
the mountains and hills
will burst into song before you,
and all the trees of the field
will clap their hands.
13 Instead of the thornbush will grow the pine tree,
and instead of briers the myrtle will grow.
This will be for the LORD's renown,
for an everlasting sign,
which will not be destroyed."

The personification of the hills and trees is a characteristic poetic flourish which I love.

Notice the way this chapter narrows in from addressing everyone to saying what each individual must do. All of us are offered sustenance. This is the price:

"Give ear and come to me; hear me, that your soul may live. I will make an everlasting covenant with you,"

This is linked with the blindness and deafness theme which threads throughout these chapters. A way to interpret this theme is as commenting on perception styles. Perception styles, of course, are ways of looking out of one's eyes, of seeing. Recognizing G-d's presence is a perception style. Seeing beauty is a perception style. Seeing others as objects of one's own pleasure is a perception style. Seeing fellow human beings as embodiments of divinity is a perception style. Faith and perception are intertwined activities. I think it is worth considering the blindness/ deafness theme as having something to say on how to perceive. Faith is not just looking inwards but also looking outwards from the point of view which one arrives at when connecting with the divine spark, when recognizing G-d's presence. Faith definitely has nothing to do with blindly accepting doctrines! That, I strongly believe, is not the kind of blindness that is encouraged. Perhaps, though, some passages could be condemning that kind of blindness. Part of why I'm fascinated by the blindness/ deafness theme is that some passages encourage it while others condemn it. A variety of interpretations appear to be intended.

Water is another recurring theme, mostly as a potent image for making people who feel like parched fields hope to become vibrant gardens. In this chapter water is offered to the thirsty. As 55:3 indicates, the refreshment offered is equated with the covenant. Then after a passage on how G-d's ways are higher than our way, the heavens higher than the earth, rain falls from these heavens. Again we have the narrowing in from the infinitely broad heavens to the individuality of drops of rain. Then in a wonderfully appropriate metaphor, these drops of rain, which as water have already been equated with the covenant, fall from a heaven that is equated with G-d's ways . . .

watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,

And then this rain is further equated . . .

so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

So water is poetically equated with the covenant and G-d's word, and said to fulfill G-d's ways. In this I see evidence of a conception of the covenant that involves a unique relationship between each individual and the divine, with laws being given one drop at a time, specific to each time place and person. Faith is a matter of choosing to be nourished by these waters rather than spending

money on what is not bread,
and your labor on what does not satisfy?

 

[Avi]

Sancho,

What version of the Bible are you quoting, is it KJV ?

Also, I am sensing what might be different perspective. Are you reading and interpreting from within a New Testament context ? You have not mentioned this, but I have this sense.

This might be an interesting issue from an interfaith perspective.

I will go back and look at the blindness and deafness theme and the water theme, I have not thought much about these yet.

 

[Sancho]

Hi Avi,

For Isa. 55, I quoted from the New International version. I've been cutting and pasting from Biblegateway.com, which has a simple interface for checking different translations. At home I normally do read the KJV. The poetry of Isaiah 40-55 tends to come through with great force in this version, but at times the meaning is less clear than in other versions, and many people are often put off by the archaic language. I wish I could read the original Hebrew.

You are right to sense an unusual context in my interpretations. It's neither particularly Judaic or Christian. My reading is informed by my life: what I've read, experienced, and thought. That is the context. As you noted before, it is from the perspective of someone who has been trying to develop as an artist that I look at these texts. Perception is something that I've thought about a lot, and so in the blindness/deafness theme I see a toehold for developing those thoughts. Also the individualizing of the law is something I've been thinking about a lot over the past couple years. This has been influenced by my studies of Isaiah, and by various other experiences that have influenced the way I approach Isaiah.

One of the aspects of Judaism that I like is that continual re-interpretation is encouraged. Or at least that is the impression I have gotten --you could tell me if this is correct or not. I think this is very important for living religion. Lay people should be encouraged to find meaning for themselves in all the world's scriptures. It is definitely important to have well informed guides, as rabbis are meant to be, but each individual needs to weave together their own network of meaning.

In "Universe of the mind, a semiotic theory of culture," Yuri Lotman has this to say about how texts continue to generate new meaning.

For a text, like a grain of wheat which contains within itself the program of its own development, is not something given once and for all and never changing. The inner and as yet unfinalized determinacy of its structure provides a resevoir of dynamism when influenced by contacts with new contexts. (18)

And yes, this, I believe, certainly is fertile ground for interfaith discussions. Particulary the passage in Isa. 55:5 about nations that know you not will hasten on to you. It could be said that Christianinty and Islam have fulfilled this. It could still be an ongoing process. And much more could be said about it.

 

[Sancho]

Helping the hopeless understand what it means to have hope is a difficult task. In Isaiah 40-55 the approach taken is to convince these people who had lost their homes and were enduring the sufferings of refugee life that their god was in control of not only their fate --but also the fate of the whole world --and was putting them through a time of suffering for their own good.

Isaiah 54 (New International Version)
7 "For a brief moment I abandoned you,
but with deep compassion I will bring you back.
8 In a surge of anger
I hid my face from you for a moment,
but with everlasting kindness
I will have compassion on you,"
says the LORD your Redeemer.
9 "To me this is like the days of Noah,
when I swore that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth.
So now I have sworn not to be angry with you,
never to rebuke you again.
10 Though the mountains be shaken
and the hills be removed,
yet my unfailing love for you will not be shaken
nor my covenant of peace be removed,"
says the LORD, who has compassion on you.
11 "O afflicted city, lashed by storms and not comforted,
I will build you with stones of turquoise,
your foundations with sapphires.
12 I will make your battlements of rubies,
your gates of sparkling jewels,
and all your walls of precious stones.
13 All your sons will be taught by the LORD,
and great will be your children's peace.
14 In righteousness you will be established:
Tyranny will be far from you;
you will have nothing to fear.
Terror will be far removed;
it will not come near you.
15 If anyone does attack you, it will not be my doing;
whoever attacks you will surrender to you.
16 "See, it is I who created the blacksmith
who fans the coals into flame
and forges a weapon fit for its work.
And it is I who have created the destroyer to work havoc;
17 no weapon forged against you will prevail,
and you will refute every tongue that accuses you.
This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD,
and this is their vindication from me,"
declares the LORD.

The fear would have been that since Israel had been conquered, Israel's god also was conquered, and this rock which they had founded themselves on was unstable, unreliable. Deutero-Isaiah tells them just the opposite. He expands the territory of Yahweh's jurisdiction from Israel to the whole world. The Noah reference brings in a legend of Yahweh's power to drown the whole world but the one person who honors the covenant. Again this poet links infinite powers to finite details, with the above image of the blacksmith, who has been forged by Yahweh, forging weapons.

Hope is manifested through saying that this sole God of all the earth has a established a covenant with these people who feel defeated. It is not a matter of saying that if you go through this time of suffering you will be rewarded. It is more like saying that if you put your hope, your faith, in Yahweh, whatever fate you have is the best one for you. It is a matter of saying, everything works together for the good of them that love the Lord.

 

[Avi]

Hi Avi,


You are right to sense an unusual context in my interpretations. It's neither particularly Judaic or Christian. My reading is informed by my life: what I've read, experienced, and thought. That is the context. As you noted before, it is from the perspective of someone who has been trying to develop as an artist that I look at these texts. Perception is something that I've thought about a lot, and so in the blindness/deafness theme I see a toehold for developing those thoughts. Also the individualizing of the law is something I've been thinking about a lot over the past couple years. This has been influenced by my studies of Isaiah, and by various other experiences that have influenced the way I approach Isaiah.

I think that is a great approach Sancho. I was going to come back to reading this section, but the Psalm 22 thread just caught my eye too, so I will take a look at that one too.

 

[Avi]

Sancho, I also agree with you that the law, and I like the term that you used "individualizing the law", is a really important notion. On of the other threads we were discussing stereotypes. And it was mentioned that Jewish stereotypes often involve money and related issues. But I really think what Judiasm embodies more than anything else is analysis and deep respect for the law, as represented in Torah, Haftoran and then further analyzed in Talmud. This is where the real scholarly activity is.

 

[Avi]

One of the aspects of Judaism that I like is that continual re-interpretation is encouraged. Or at least that is the impression I have gotten --you could tell me if this is correct or not. I think this is very important for living religion. Lay people should be encouraged to find meaning for themselves in all the world's scriptures. It is definitely important to have well informed guides, as rabbis are meant to be, but each individual needs to weave together their own network of meaning.

Sancho, yes, I do agree with you. I have participated in Talmud study the past two years, and analysis, re-analysis and deep analysis are the characteristics that stand out the most. I agree with the idea of "living religion". But on the other hand, I am a Reform Jew, and my ideas are substantially different from Orthodox and even Conservative Jews. But I believe religion has to mean something, and it should be something good, in our lives.