Isaiah 34 includes the phrase "day of vengeance" (the first of two such instances). This comment has nothing particularly biblical to say, unless the comic book people were inspired biblically, but there was a min-series called Day of Vengeance about six years back. It features the so-called Spirit of Vengeance otherwise known as the Spectre, who is said to be God's agent of wrath. When tethered to a human, he can be fairly rational. However, in such instances as Day of Vengeance, he can get a little smite-happy. Spectre was used very overtly in a religious sense in another comic, Kingdom Come. Comics have more of a religious connection than you might think. As reflected in the popular and critically acclaimed Michael Chabon book The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, Superman's creators, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster were a pair of Jewish boys (Superman, it may be said, is often seen as an allegory for Moses).
This chapter also includes the phrase, "none shall pass," which is also a line uttered by Sheldon Cooper in an episode of The Big Bang Theory. Sheldon's use might be said to be an homage to Gandalf uttering, "You shall not pass!" in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (Gandalf, it might be said, is a Jesus figure, although a little less blatantly than Aslan).
36 and 37 recap Hezekiah versus the threat of the Assyrians. Surprisingly that happens. Most of Isaiah is extrapolations of bad things coming to the Jews, and also some hopeful messages, and of course as far as Christians are concerned prophetic talk about the upcoming messiah that turns out to be Jesus, as well as some apocalyptic language that is later echoed in other such writings, including Revelation. But there's also some straight narrative in there.
37 also includes "the people of Eden, who were in Telassar," though not apparently a reference in anyway to the Eden of Genesis. It's just interesting to see Eden pop up as a name again.
39 makes it explicit, as I'd interpreted previously, that Hezekiah showing the Babylonians Judah's goods was all but an invitation to begin the latest and most famous (because of all the prophets) captivity era. Book of Isaiah, by the way, is not nearly as keen on Hezekiah as Sirach apparently is.
40: "A voice cries: 'In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord.'" This is something John the Baptist later evokes.
53 is the last of the classic prophetic passages concerning Isaiah's suffering servant, such as the line, "He was despised and rejected by men," which evokes Jesus's execution and the events surrounding it.
Showing posts with label Book of Isaiah. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Book of Isaiah. Show all posts
Saturday, January 18, 2014
Friday, January 17, 2014
Book of Isaiah 6-30
Book of Isaiah begins to really pick up with the sixth chapter. He becomes the latest biblical personality to say "Here I am!" to God, whom he meets here. God says Israel must be reduced to a stump. Back into smiting mode!
7 is the the Immanuel ("God is with us") prophecy.
9 contains famous prophetic words such as, "and his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." 11 contains more of that, such as, "There will come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse." If you take the two instances of "stump" very literally, you add up Jesus as the last of the true Jews, which gave birth to Christianity. Some more extrapolating I'll do here is that according to the Bible, the Jews were necessarily bad every time bad things happened to them. If they were in a bad position, it necessarily follows that they were being bad. I'm not saying these are actual correlations, but that this is what the Bible says, repeatedly. Going so far as the time of Jesus, when Jews were under the yoke of Romans, would it not follow that they were being bad, or that it would not be a bad thing to say Jews at that time were being bad, and that whatever the New Testament has to say about their involvement in the Crucifixion does not condemn all Jews but rather specifically Jews that by definition were being bad? Of course, by the same logic, you'd have to assume Jews were very bad indeed at the time of the Holocaust. And by that logic we can perhaps put aside the direct correlations of bad times and bad behavior. To be clear, I'm saying that the Holocaust is the most direct contradiction of biblical logic. I'm saying if you need a reason to not take everything in the Bible literally and not look like a very bad person yourself, that would be a good place to start, and most of us in the 21st century are hopefully willing to agree with that.
Good, so we'll move on.
14 includes the classic tale of the fall of Lucifer, "Day Star, son of Dawn." However, the rest of what Isaiah has to say about him certainly doesn't correlate with everything else we say about Satan now. So that's more of how things develop.
22: "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." This just happens to remind me of the movie 300, one of the many things Gerard Butler's Leonidas bellows: "Spartans! Ready your breakfast and eat hearty. For tonight, we dine in hell!"
In 27 Leviathan is described as a serpent. I think I'm not alone in always assuming the name referred to whales. Either way, hardly the first time something in the Bible is mistaken for one of those..."And he will slay the dragon that is in the sea." Dragon that's in the sea? I had no idea about that either!
In 30 both fire and brimstone are referenced in relation to punishment. And they both become staples of old-timey (and scary!) preachers from the 19th century...
7 is the the Immanuel ("God is with us") prophecy.
9 contains famous prophetic words such as, "and his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." 11 contains more of that, such as, "There will come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse." If you take the two instances of "stump" very literally, you add up Jesus as the last of the true Jews, which gave birth to Christianity. Some more extrapolating I'll do here is that according to the Bible, the Jews were necessarily bad every time bad things happened to them. If they were in a bad position, it necessarily follows that they were being bad. I'm not saying these are actual correlations, but that this is what the Bible says, repeatedly. Going so far as the time of Jesus, when Jews were under the yoke of Romans, would it not follow that they were being bad, or that it would not be a bad thing to say Jews at that time were being bad, and that whatever the New Testament has to say about their involvement in the Crucifixion does not condemn all Jews but rather specifically Jews that by definition were being bad? Of course, by the same logic, you'd have to assume Jews were very bad indeed at the time of the Holocaust. And by that logic we can perhaps put aside the direct correlations of bad times and bad behavior. To be clear, I'm saying that the Holocaust is the most direct contradiction of biblical logic. I'm saying if you need a reason to not take everything in the Bible literally and not look like a very bad person yourself, that would be a good place to start, and most of us in the 21st century are hopefully willing to agree with that.
Good, so we'll move on.
14 includes the classic tale of the fall of Lucifer, "Day Star, son of Dawn." However, the rest of what Isaiah has to say about him certainly doesn't correlate with everything else we say about Satan now. So that's more of how things develop.
22: "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." This just happens to remind me of the movie 300, one of the many things Gerard Butler's Leonidas bellows: "Spartans! Ready your breakfast and eat hearty. For tonight, we dine in hell!"
In 27 Leviathan is described as a serpent. I think I'm not alone in always assuming the name referred to whales. Either way, hardly the first time something in the Bible is mistaken for one of those..."And he will slay the dragon that is in the sea." Dragon that's in the sea? I had no idea about that either!
In 30 both fire and brimstone are referenced in relation to punishment. And they both become staples of old-timey (and scary!) preachers from the 19th century...
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Book of Sirach 21-51, Book of Isaiah 1-5
Sirach 25: "I would rather dwell with a lion and a dragon than dwell with an evil wife." As much as I would love to spin this around the thoughts on dragons at the time, I'll soon be talking about Sirach and women again..."From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die," for instance.
At some point, and perhaps it's owing to material that wasn't part of the original composition but not the fault of the original translator, Sirach's material really slips into the usual wisdom literature perspective and quality, losing its original spark, perhaps owing to someone expanding it to its current status as one of the longer Old Testament works.
31 and 32 speak better of wine than elsewhere is spoken of women. At this point, it's just clear that Old Testament folk were deep in the heart of the kind of marriage practice that was more about arrangements than love. The latter is said to be a relatively new invention. The former produced so much grief that I'd say it colored man's whole interpretation of woman. When you were marrying someone you didn't choose, there were no doubt going to be a lot (a lot) of bad matches. I don't suppose either party would be happy about it, but it would probably be the girl being sold, essentially, by her father who would be more resentful of the arrangement. And her unhappiness, or according to the bias of the man, unwillingness to just shut up and be happy, would paint her in a uniformly unflattering light. And thus, all women are bad. They are the "other." And must be warned about and considered the source, well, of all evil. Like Eve. And the reason a great man like Solomon was brought down. And such.
36: "...that there is no God but thee..." Apparently Sirach is not familiar with the oodles of biblical material that clearly states God is preeminent among...other gods. This may be the start of that particular whitewash...Although again, it's not like anyone attempted to delete the previous references. It just seems to be assumed, perhaps, that they refer to false idols of pagan neighbors.
38 and 39 go out of their way to explain why different classes should remain separate, because they will just never be able to understand each other.
43 is a summary of God, and includes the phrase, "He is the all." A sort of variation on "I Am Who Am," or omnipotence in so many words.
44 begins a litany of great biblical men, with some interesting selections:
At some point, and perhaps it's owing to material that wasn't part of the original composition but not the fault of the original translator, Sirach's material really slips into the usual wisdom literature perspective and quality, losing its original spark, perhaps owing to someone expanding it to its current status as one of the longer Old Testament works.
31 and 32 speak better of wine than elsewhere is spoken of women. At this point, it's just clear that Old Testament folk were deep in the heart of the kind of marriage practice that was more about arrangements than love. The latter is said to be a relatively new invention. The former produced so much grief that I'd say it colored man's whole interpretation of woman. When you were marrying someone you didn't choose, there were no doubt going to be a lot (a lot) of bad matches. I don't suppose either party would be happy about it, but it would probably be the girl being sold, essentially, by her father who would be more resentful of the arrangement. And her unhappiness, or according to the bias of the man, unwillingness to just shut up and be happy, would paint her in a uniformly unflattering light. And thus, all women are bad. They are the "other." And must be warned about and considered the source, well, of all evil. Like Eve. And the reason a great man like Solomon was brought down. And such.
36: "...that there is no God but thee..." Apparently Sirach is not familiar with the oodles of biblical material that clearly states God is preeminent among...other gods. This may be the start of that particular whitewash...Although again, it's not like anyone attempted to delete the previous references. It just seems to be assumed, perhaps, that they refer to false idols of pagan neighbors.
38 and 39 go out of their way to explain why different classes should remain separate, because they will just never be able to understand each other.
43 is a summary of God, and includes the phrase, "He is the all." A sort of variation on "I Am Who Am," or omnipotence in so many words.
44 begins a litany of great biblical men, with some interesting selections:
- Enoch ("example of repentance," otherwise not especially biblicly important)
- Noah ("taken in exchange," which certainly seems to make that story different)
- Abraham ("kept the law," which is also interesting, considering "the law" didn't really exist for another few generations, under Moses)
- Isaac
- Jacob
- Moses ("a man of mercy," except when he was smiting people even after God decided not to!)
- Aaron (gets an incredibly lengthy write-up, almost as if he's far more important than anyone else)
- Phinehas ("zealot in the fear of God")
- Joshua ("mighty in war")
- Samuel
- David
- Solomon
- Elijah
- Josiah
And a few other names referenced, although it's not always clear to what extent Sirach is actually endorsing them to the level comparable with the above list, Hezekiah for example. "No one like Enoch has been created on earth, for he was taken up from the earth. And no man like Joseph has been born, and his bones are cared for. Shem and Seth were honored among men, and Adam above every living being in the creation."
50 adds Simon to the list, perhaps on the same basis as Enoch.
Anyway, Sirach really seems to be a final summation of orthodox Jewish thought, perhaps the basis for its modern practice (you know, besides Moses) after a few notable deviations such as Book of Job and Ecclesiastes.
In the same way, Book of Isaiah might arguably called the beginning of a marked transition between the Old and New Testaments. I know, his prophecies are important to the times he lived in, but he also serves as one of the classic biblical voices pointing, according to Christian thought, toward Jesus. He seems to be saying in the early going that not only are the people corrupted, but God is actually tired of the old ways, which is to say preparing something new (which, by the way, even Christians don't understand). The fifth chapter even features a parable that reads very similar to the ones Jesus would later give, concerning a vineyard as a metaphor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)