Questa conversazione è attualmente segnalata come "addormentata"—l'ultimo messaggio è più vecchio di 90 giorni. Puoi rianimarla postando una risposta.
1richardbsmith
Chapter 5 is full of powerful imagery, but it continues the themes common to Isaiah.
The chapter is divided into 3 distinct parts. First is the parable of the vineyard. This becomes a familiar image in scripture, but Isaiah's use is especially powerful, providing the effective punch line as a surprise ending.
In this imagery though is an idea of the limits of God's power, in that the vine owner did all he could but the vineyard still produced bad grapes. The only recourse is to destroy the vineyard.
Second, is a series of 5 woes addressed to various groups: greedy, self indulgent, sinful, self wise, corrupt. These are common targets of Isaiah.
Third is a poem that many think appropriately belongs to Isaiah 9.8-10.4.
The chapter is divided into 3 distinct parts. First is the parable of the vineyard. This becomes a familiar image in scripture, but Isaiah's use is especially powerful, providing the effective punch line as a surprise ending.
In this imagery though is an idea of the limits of God's power, in that the vine owner did all he could but the vineyard still produced bad grapes. The only recourse is to destroy the vineyard.
Second, is a series of 5 woes addressed to various groups: greedy, self indulgent, sinful, self wise, corrupt. These are common targets of Isaiah.
Third is a poem that many think appropriately belongs to Isaiah 9.8-10.4.
2richardbsmith
The first 7 verses in Chapter 5 are the song of the vineyard. Scholars explain that such didactic poems might have been composed in celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles, likely during Jotham's reign.
Isaiah used the poetic vehicle of a festival song, and maybe the opportunity of an actual festival celebration, to communicate what he saw as rottenness in society.
The poem's structure sets presents to the men of Judah a vineyard that has failed. The question is what to do with the vineyard that does not produce the proper fruit that was planted. When the judgment is given, Isaiah then announces the surprise that the vineyard is actually Judah and the rotten fruit, its citizens.
Scholars rightly point to the parable which Nathan tells David in 2 Samuel over the murder of Uri'ah.
Isaiah used the poetic vehicle of a festival song, and maybe the opportunity of an actual festival celebration, to communicate what he saw as rottenness in society.
The poem's structure sets presents to the men of Judah a vineyard that has failed. The question is what to do with the vineyard that does not produce the proper fruit that was planted. When the judgment is given, Isaiah then announces the surprise that the vineyard is actually Judah and the rotten fruit, its citizens.
Scholars rightly point to the parable which Nathan tells David in 2 Samuel over the murder of Uri'ah.
3richardbsmith
A couple thoughts on the language.
Verse 2 and 4 distinguish between "grapes" and "wild grapes". I have even read in places descriptions of the differences between grapes and wild grapes. This may be so, that the words point to cultivated versus wild grapes.
A plain reading though gives a little more nuanced meaning.
The first word is the plain word for grapes. The second word is from the verb to stink, to have an odor. It seems to be the plural passive participle - "stinking things". It may be that the word is used to describe a "poison berry", but there is another word for sour grapes.
With the word "stinking things" Isaiah is not describing, or not just describing, wild grapes. He is describing rottenness, and stench, from the vineyard. Or so it seems to me.
"Instead of wine producing grapes from the choice vines I planted the vineyard has produced rotten stinking fruit."
Verse 2 and 4 distinguish between "grapes" and "wild grapes". I have even read in places descriptions of the differences between grapes and wild grapes. This may be so, that the words point to cultivated versus wild grapes.
A plain reading though gives a little more nuanced meaning.
The first word is the plain word for grapes. The second word is from the verb to stink, to have an odor. It seems to be the plural passive participle - "stinking things". It may be that the word is used to describe a "poison berry", but there is another word for sour grapes.
With the word "stinking things" Isaiah is not describing, or not just describing, wild grapes. He is describing rottenness, and stench, from the vineyard. Or so it seems to me.
"Instead of wine producing grapes from the choice vines I planted the vineyard has produced rotten stinking fruit."
4richardbsmith
The last lines of the vineyard song, in verse 7, makes use of two very nice word plays.
The RSV translates the meaning:
"and he looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness, but behold a cry."
The JPS gives up a little of the meaning to retain something of the word play:
"And he hoped for justice, but behold injustice; for equity, but behold, iniquity."
The RSV translates the meaning:
"and he looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness, but behold a cry."
The JPS gives up a little of the meaning to retain something of the word play:
"And he hoped for justice, but behold injustice; for equity, but behold, iniquity."
5richardbsmith
There appears to be significant parts of the text that have been rearranged. Piecing the various sections together takes a good bit of effort.
Basically the sections are marked with repeated refrains.
The poem in Chapter 5.8-30 is characterized by the introductory "Woe to those" phrase - 5.8, 11,18,20,21, & 22. Some would emend the text to add additional "Woes". I might look at those verses separately.
Additionally there is a repeated refrain of "Therefore" (verses 13, 14, 23).
One point, the "Therefore" in 25 is different from the other three. Also in verse 25 is the refrain "For all this...". This refrain is used in 9.8 - 9.21. Interestingly 10.1 - 4 returns to the "Woe to those" refrain.
Just to add to the arrangement difficulties, verse 5.15-16 "Man is brought low" repeats the refrain from Chapter 2, verses 9, 11,&17. In the topic discussion for Chapter 2, the text arrangements questions of that chapter were discussed.
One finally thought is that verse 17 seems to finish the theme of 9-10. Some scholars consider 9-10 & 17 to be later additions.
Basically the sections are marked with repeated refrains.
The poem in Chapter 5.8-30 is characterized by the introductory "Woe to those" phrase - 5.8, 11,18,20,21, & 22. Some would emend the text to add additional "Woes". I might look at those verses separately.
Additionally there is a repeated refrain of "Therefore" (verses 13, 14, 23).
One point, the "Therefore" in 25 is different from the other three. Also in verse 25 is the refrain "For all this...". This refrain is used in 9.8 - 9.21. Interestingly 10.1 - 4 returns to the "Woe to those" refrain.
Just to add to the arrangement difficulties, verse 5.15-16 "Man is brought low" repeats the refrain from Chapter 2, verses 9, 11,&17. In the topic discussion for Chapter 2, the text arrangements questions of that chapter were discussed.
One finally thought is that verse 17 seems to finish the theme of 9-10. Some scholars consider 9-10 & 17 to be later additions.
6richardbsmith
The second half of Chapter 5, the Woe verses, form a complete poem. Among the verses there are insertions which seem to me to be from different poems, or possibly from the thoughts of the editors.
The inserted sections amplify and expand the thoughts developed in the main poem.
It will make for a lengthy comment, but it seemed best to separate the main poem which is done in the next comment.
The inserted sections amplify and expand the thoughts developed in the main poem.
It will make for a lengthy comment, but it seemed best to separate the main poem which is done in the next comment.
7richardbsmith
8. Woe, who add house on house and field on field they bring near until the end of place and you dwell alone.
11. Woe, who early in the morning seek drink, from after twilight wine inflames them.
18 Woe, who drag iniquity by cords of falsehood and as cords of a cart, sin.
19. (Woe) who say "Let him hasten, hurry his work so that we may see. Let it draw near and come, the intention of the Holy One of Israel, and we will know."
20. Woe, who say for the evil, good, and for the good, evil, who put dark for the light, and light for the dark, who puts bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
21. Woe, who are wise in their own eyes and before their own selves, perceiving.
22. Woe, who are great to drink wine, who are men of strength to mix drink.
23. (Woe) who justify the wrong because of a gift, and the righeousness of the righteous they remove from them.
10.1-2 Woe who decree guilty decrees and evil writings they write, to turn aside the cause of the oppressed, to take the justice of the poor of my people.
Including 10.1-2 with the main poem in the section of Chapter 5 is mentioned in #5. This is based on a number of considerations: the repeated refrain of "Woe", the fit of the ending versed from Chapter 6 with the verses from 9.8 to 9.21, the fit of 10.3-4 with chapter 9.
I have placed those verses here at the end. They of course could be placed in any position within the poem.
In verses 19 and 23 the text does not have the phrase translated as "woe", but is seems clear that "woe" is appropriate to the verses.
In the next few comments I will try to consider how the additions amplify and expand this main poem. It is like the editor added verses from well known pieces that came to his mind as allusions, developing the thoughts he had from reading the main poem.
I think it is powerful to read the Woes together, apart from the expanding additions.
ETA Please note that in the OP I referred to 5 woes. In this comment there are 9 woes. First the 5 woes were a miscount. There were 6. Most consider that "Woe" was part of verses 19 & 23. And I agree. Finally adding the Woe from 10.1.
11. Woe, who early in the morning seek drink, from after twilight wine inflames them.
18 Woe, who drag iniquity by cords of falsehood and as cords of a cart, sin.
19. (Woe) who say "Let him hasten, hurry his work so that we may see. Let it draw near and come, the intention of the Holy One of Israel, and we will know."
20. Woe, who say for the evil, good, and for the good, evil, who put dark for the light, and light for the dark, who puts bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
21. Woe, who are wise in their own eyes and before their own selves, perceiving.
22. Woe, who are great to drink wine, who are men of strength to mix drink.
23. (Woe) who justify the wrong because of a gift, and the righeousness of the righteous they remove from them.
10.1-2 Woe who decree guilty decrees and evil writings they write, to turn aside the cause of the oppressed, to take the justice of the poor of my people.
Including 10.1-2 with the main poem in the section of Chapter 5 is mentioned in #5. This is based on a number of considerations: the repeated refrain of "Woe", the fit of the ending versed from Chapter 6 with the verses from 9.8 to 9.21, the fit of 10.3-4 with chapter 9.
I have placed those verses here at the end. They of course could be placed in any position within the poem.
In verses 19 and 23 the text does not have the phrase translated as "woe", but is seems clear that "woe" is appropriate to the verses.
In the next few comments I will try to consider how the additions amplify and expand this main poem. It is like the editor added verses from well known pieces that came to his mind as allusions, developing the thoughts he had from reading the main poem.
I think it is powerful to read the Woes together, apart from the expanding additions.
ETA Please note that in the OP I referred to 5 woes. In this comment there are 9 woes. First the 5 woes were a miscount. There were 6. Most consider that "Woe" was part of verses 19 & 23. And I agree. Finally adding the Woe from 10.1.
8richardbsmith
The additions to the Woes remind me of the commentaries placed around the Misnah. I am not a scholar, so that comparison may not be accurate. It just seems right to make the point that adding to a text in the way of interpretation and expansion is a characteristically and traditional Jewish approach.
Here is a link to a copy of a Mishnah page. When the cursor hovers over parts of the text, popup windows explain which parts are commentary and which Mishnah.
This is how I envision this poem - with commentary added to the original verses to expand and to interpret. And I think of this approach as fully Jewish.
Here is a link to a copy of a Mishnah page. When the cursor hovers over parts of the text, popup windows explain which parts are commentary and which Mishnah.
This is how I envision this poem - with commentary added to the original verses to expand and to interpret. And I think of this approach as fully Jewish.
9richardbsmith
Looking at verses 9,10 in Chapter 5.
These seem to be additions from a different poem, inserted to interpret the first Woe.
The irony of these inserted verses is that those who would add house to house so that they live alone in they accumulated wealth, will now live alone in their desolation.
The root for desolation has been used several times in the first chapters. It carries the sense of frightful wilderness and desert. The frightful quality seems to be missed in translation generally.
The interpretive verses continue tha tht field will not produce - 10 acres for 1 bath; 1 homer of seed for an ephah of grain.
Many scholars would include verse 17 as part of the original poem with 9 & 10. If so, then verse 17 continues the thought that the desolated land is unproductive and the little that is produces goes not to the owner.
"Lambs graze as their own pasture, the ruins of fatlings strangers consume."
As now written, verse 17 is included with the varied interpretive verses of 12-17.
These seem to be additions from a different poem, inserted to interpret the first Woe.
The irony of these inserted verses is that those who would add house to house so that they live alone in they accumulated wealth, will now live alone in their desolation.
The root for desolation has been used several times in the first chapters. It carries the sense of frightful wilderness and desert. The frightful quality seems to be missed in translation generally.
The interpretive verses continue tha tht field will not produce - 10 acres for 1 bath; 1 homer of seed for an ephah of grain.
Many scholars would include verse 17 as part of the original poem with 9 & 10. If so, then verse 17 continues the thought that the desolated land is unproductive and the little that is produces goes not to the owner.
"Lambs graze as their own pasture, the ruins of fatlings strangers consume."
As now written, verse 17 is included with the varied interpretive verses of 12-17.
10geneg
Do you think the woes are inspired by God, or the result of keen observation of what went wrong and why? Of course it could be both as in God inspiring the Isaiah school to look in certain areas for the causes of past troubles.
11richardbsmith
Gene,
Interesting question. And not sure I have worked out my answer. My thoughts are that the Woe poem is from Jotham's reign, in which decline had begun perceptible to an insightful observer.
This assumption leads me to think the Woes are from Isaiah, and some of the inserted material later. It may be that some of the inserted material is from contemporary well known verse.
My thoughts are that Isaiah was a perceptive social critic, well informed in his faith and in his experience of Yahweh. I think his verses point to what he expects to happen, given the present course of society. That they are predictions, rather than retrospective.
Interesting question. And not sure I have worked out my answer. My thoughts are that the Woe poem is from Jotham's reign, in which decline had begun perceptible to an insightful observer.
This assumption leads me to think the Woes are from Isaiah, and some of the inserted material later. It may be that some of the inserted material is from contemporary well known verse.
My thoughts are that Isaiah was a perceptive social critic, well informed in his faith and in his experience of Yahweh. I think his verses point to what he expects to happen, given the present course of society. That they are predictions, rather than retrospective.
12itiswritten
re: ? do you think the woes are inspired by God, ...
Good question. However, since God is a good God, and, "woe" attributes are not part of His nature,
this area of text in question seems to point more towards being a parabolic interpretation.
Jesus often taught in parables. So, why not the prophet Isaiah?
Good question. However, since God is a good God, and, "woe" attributes are not part of His nature,
this area of text in question seems to point more towards being a parabolic interpretation.
Jesus often taught in parables. So, why not the prophet Isaiah?
13richardbsmith
So, why not the prophet Isaiah?
I think most here would think that Jesus took much from Isaiah, including the parable form, but there seems to be evidence in scripture of the presence of such attributes in the nature of God.
Jesus has his own list of woes.
I think most here would think that Jesus took much from Isaiah, including the parable form, but there seems to be evidence in scripture of the presence of such attributes in the nature of God.
Jesus has his own list of woes.
14richardbsmith
Verses 12-14 give dire illustrations of the woes for those who live for feasts of wine and music, and take no heed of Yahweh's working and deeds.
Exile, hunger, thirst.
Verse 13 and 14 are introduced with "therefore". Either the verses are original with verse 12 referring to the wine and feasts as the cause for the exile; or the verses are taken from a separate piece and joined with verse 12 to be inserted to interpret the second woe.
My thoughts are that verse 12 and verses 13 and 14 are two different pieces, with 13 and 14 being from a later period during the seige, or even later. The second woe mentions heavy drink and that is the connection with the drunk feasts that distract from the reflection on the work of Yahweh.
The juxtapositioning of the separate pieces puts blame for the seige or for the exile on the failure to know Yahweh because of drunken lifestyle and a failure to know Yahweh, and interprets the second woe.
Exile, hunger, thirst.
Verse 13 and 14 are introduced with "therefore". Either the verses are original with verse 12 referring to the wine and feasts as the cause for the exile; or the verses are taken from a separate piece and joined with verse 12 to be inserted to interpret the second woe.
My thoughts are that verse 12 and verses 13 and 14 are two different pieces, with 13 and 14 being from a later period during the seige, or even later. The second woe mentions heavy drink and that is the connection with the drunk feasts that distract from the reflection on the work of Yahweh.
The juxtapositioning of the separate pieces puts blame for the seige or for the exile on the failure to know Yahweh because of drunken lifestyle and a failure to know Yahweh, and interprets the second woe.
15richardbsmith
Verse 15 alludes back to 2.17 and 2.11, repeating the refrains of those poems. It seems intended to connect to the themes of Chapter 2, or perhaps to make a direct allusion to the original poems themselves.
Verse 16 reminds me of verse 1.27.
1.27
Zion will be saved by justice; Her repentant ones by righteousness.
5.16
And Yahweh Sabaoth is exalted by justice; and the Holy God is shown holy by righteousness.
Verse 16 reminds me of verse 1.27.
1.27
Zion will be saved by justice; Her repentant ones by righteousness.
5.16
And Yahweh Sabaoth is exalted by justice; and the Holy God is shown holy by righteousness.
16geneg
In #10, I was trying to get a feel for whether or not you think the Isaiah School was using keen observation of the past, comparing it to the present and making educated guesses about what was likely to happen in the future based on the current situation in light of similar past situations.
My vision of God is not of an entity (or not) sitting on high saying, "Oops! Someone's disobeying Me! Where's My punishment stick?" My vision is more that God has told us that if we act in certain ways, overall, things will work out. However, if we act in ways God tells us we should not, then for the most part things will fail and may fall apart completely. The consequences are contained within the nature of the sin, not external to it, as if it were dispensed directly and purposely by God.
My vision of God is not of an entity (or not) sitting on high saying, "Oops! Someone's disobeying Me! Where's My punishment stick?" My vision is more that God has told us that if we act in certain ways, overall, things will work out. However, if we act in ways God tells us we should not, then for the most part things will fail and may fall apart completely. The consequences are contained within the nature of the sin, not external to it, as if it were dispensed directly and purposely by God.
17richardbsmith
whether or not you think the Isaiah School was using keen observation of the past, comparing it to the present and making educated guesses about what was likely to happen in the future based on the current situation in light of similar past situations
Gene,
I am probably not qualified to speak to this, if I understand the question.
First I think that the woes in Chapter 5 are from Isaiah himself, during the time of Jotham's reign - sitll prosperous but social decline and economic disparity setting in, corruption resulting from the excess of wealth, before the serious foreign threats.
Looking back on the immediate history that Isaiah would know, the time of Uzziah was a time of unparalleled growth for Judah, at least since the drastic loss of wealth and territory after the kingdom split.
I am not sure that there was the requisite history for Isaiah to consider in comparison to his contermporary circumstances. Prior to Uzziah Judah had not really enjoyed great prosperity, not since Solomon. Israel, I think, had generally done a little better economically.
So I do not know that Isaiah was using history as the basis for his prophetic social criticism. I do think he based his social criticism on how he understood the Torah.
If some version of the documentary hypothesis is accepted, then Isaiah probably had the J document, perhaps the E document. He did not have the Deutronomical documents. Court histories that he might have know are not available to us, except as described in Kings and Chronocles.
It might be interesting to consider what Isaiah might have had available for reference - parts of Genesis, Exodus, perhaps some of Leviticus, Numbers.
My thoughts are that Isaiah was just perceptive of social injustice and it moved him to prophecy and to activism.
It would be a detailed study to consider how much of our OT scripture was available to Isaiah and what other sources nonextant might have given him a sense of history, and further how he might have been influenced. Even so, I think that the history of Judah did not provide much precedent for the social decay of wealth and economic disparity that was beginning to set in during Jotham's reign.
I think I will look for Pentateuch references as I continue through Isaiah. So far though, I think such references have been sparse, perhaps only the mentions of Sodom.
Gene,
I am probably not qualified to speak to this, if I understand the question.
First I think that the woes in Chapter 5 are from Isaiah himself, during the time of Jotham's reign - sitll prosperous but social decline and economic disparity setting in, corruption resulting from the excess of wealth, before the serious foreign threats.
Looking back on the immediate history that Isaiah would know, the time of Uzziah was a time of unparalleled growth for Judah, at least since the drastic loss of wealth and territory after the kingdom split.
I am not sure that there was the requisite history for Isaiah to consider in comparison to his contermporary circumstances. Prior to Uzziah Judah had not really enjoyed great prosperity, not since Solomon. Israel, I think, had generally done a little better economically.
So I do not know that Isaiah was using history as the basis for his prophetic social criticism. I do think he based his social criticism on how he understood the Torah.
If some version of the documentary hypothesis is accepted, then Isaiah probably had the J document, perhaps the E document. He did not have the Deutronomical documents. Court histories that he might have know are not available to us, except as described in Kings and Chronocles.
It might be interesting to consider what Isaiah might have had available for reference - parts of Genesis, Exodus, perhaps some of Leviticus, Numbers.
My thoughts are that Isaiah was just perceptive of social injustice and it moved him to prophecy and to activism.
It would be a detailed study to consider how much of our OT scripture was available to Isaiah and what other sources nonextant might have given him a sense of history, and further how he might have been influenced. Even so, I think that the history of Judah did not provide much precedent for the social decay of wealth and economic disparity that was beginning to set in during Jotham's reign.
I think I will look for Pentateuch references as I continue through Isaiah. So far though, I think such references have been sparse, perhaps only the mentions of Sodom.
18richardbsmith
I included verse 19 in the Woes, even though the word "Woe" is missing. The justification for that is in its similarity to the general structure of the other verses.
The verb is actually a participle, as is the case with every one of the other woe verses. In fact it happens to be the very same verb and particple in verse 20, although most translations do not render the verb with the same English.
See #7 - my rendering:
19. (Woe) who say "Let him hasten, hurry his work so that we may see. Let it draw near and come, the intention of the Holy One of Israel, and we will know."
20. Woe, who say for the evil, good, and for the good, evil, who put dark for the light, and light for the dark, who puts bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter
Verse 23 is also included with the woes, even though the word woe is missing, based on the main verb being a participle in a similar pattern as the other woes.
The verb is actually a participle, as is the case with every one of the other woe verses. In fact it happens to be the very same verb and particple in verse 20, although most translations do not render the verb with the same English.
See #7 - my rendering:
19. (Woe) who say "Let him hasten, hurry his work so that we may see. Let it draw near and come, the intention of the Holy One of Israel, and we will know."
20. Woe, who say for the evil, good, and for the good, evil, who put dark for the light, and light for the dark, who puts bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter
Verse 23 is also included with the woes, even though the word woe is missing, based on the main verb being a participle in a similar pattern as the other woes.
19richardbsmith
Verse 24 is another interpretive verse. The imagery is waste - hay, rot, dust - being consumed by fire and blown away. The devastation is described as sourced in the rejection of torah and the word of Yahweh.
The interpretive verses 13, 14, and 24 begin with "therefore", and in that repetition share a pattern that might indicate a unit.
Therefore exile and hunger
Therefore sheol swallows the revelry
Therefore consumed and blown away
Therefore suggests a consequence, which is the point, I think, geneg is making.
The interpretive verses 13, 14, and 24 begin with "therefore", and in that repetition share a pattern that might indicate a unit.
Therefore exile and hunger
Therefore sheol swallows the revelry
Therefore consumed and blown away
Therefore suggests a consequence, which is the point, I think, geneg is making.
20geneg
Richard what do you make of this (from #18):
"19. (Woe) who say "Let him hasten, hurry his work so that we may see. Let it draw near and come, the intention of the Holy One of Israel, and we will know."
Who is being spoken of here as "hastening, hurrying his work"? Who are those speaking this? What is the work?
When I read this I see a woe aimed at the pre-millenialists with whom Christianity is currently eat up. They are actively working to bring the end of times and the second coming ASAP according to their reading of prophecy. These things are centered around the restoration of the Temple (among other things) and this would, as things stand today, bring on a war in Israel which could be considered the Great Battle of Armageddon culminating with Jesus' second coming. This strikes me as putting God to the test. If we cause these things to happen, then You have to do what You said You would do. This strikes me as incredibly arrogant and dangerous with no guarantee that God will do anything other than watch us blow ourselves to Hell.
On the other question, when I refer to the Isaiah School, I am including Isaiah, as the founder, in that group. If I am wrong please let me know. In terms of not having Deuteronomy, Deuteronomy strikes me as a succinct restatement of the social portions of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. It places the social commandments in one easily referred to document. Isaiah could have based his message on the social teachings of the originals.
I see this country well into the same social territory that Isaiah must have seen Israel in his time. We have convinced ourselves that Markets are infallible (many Americans have an idolatrous belief in the power of markets) if allowed to function properly, that greed while not good is certainly worthy of reward, and that excessive power is desirable. Arrogance blinds us to the truth. All of these things are condemned in the Bible yet the greatest proponents of arrogance, power and greed in this country call themselves Christians. (See the C Street operation).
That's why I'm most interested in this exercise.
"19. (Woe) who say "Let him hasten, hurry his work so that we may see. Let it draw near and come, the intention of the Holy One of Israel, and we will know."
Who is being spoken of here as "hastening, hurrying his work"? Who are those speaking this? What is the work?
When I read this I see a woe aimed at the pre-millenialists with whom Christianity is currently eat up. They are actively working to bring the end of times and the second coming ASAP according to their reading of prophecy. These things are centered around the restoration of the Temple (among other things) and this would, as things stand today, bring on a war in Israel which could be considered the Great Battle of Armageddon culminating with Jesus' second coming. This strikes me as putting God to the test. If we cause these things to happen, then You have to do what You said You would do. This strikes me as incredibly arrogant and dangerous with no guarantee that God will do anything other than watch us blow ourselves to Hell.
On the other question, when I refer to the Isaiah School, I am including Isaiah, as the founder, in that group. If I am wrong please let me know. In terms of not having Deuteronomy, Deuteronomy strikes me as a succinct restatement of the social portions of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. It places the social commandments in one easily referred to document. Isaiah could have based his message on the social teachings of the originals.
I see this country well into the same social territory that Isaiah must have seen Israel in his time. We have convinced ourselves that Markets are infallible (many Americans have an idolatrous belief in the power of markets) if allowed to function properly, that greed while not good is certainly worthy of reward, and that excessive power is desirable. Arrogance blinds us to the truth. All of these things are condemned in the Bible yet the greatest proponents of arrogance, power and greed in this country call themselves Christians. (See the C Street operation).
That's why I'm most interested in this exercise.
21richardbsmith
Gene,
Wow. Your biggest mistake is thinking that I know anything about this. :)
Though I hope the group eventually attracts participants with strong backgrounds in the OT history, criticism and language.
As for my opinion on your points in #20, I really do not know about pre or post millenialism. It does seem difficult to make the case that this passage is aimed at anything Christian.
Christianity and the NT borrowed and interpreted Isaiah and other Hebrew scripture, as did the DSD folks, but I really believe that is looking backwards rather that Isaiah looking forward.
The distinction between Isaiah and his school may not be significant if you intended to group them together. In my mind the Isaiah school suggests later compositions, and subtle differences in theology that I hope to work through for myself as I continue this detailed study.
The point about Deutoronomy is a thought that came from your earlier comment, one I had not considered because I have tended to separate what I know about the documentary hypothesis from my study of Isaiah. Probably the two should be considered together, and I think I will try to work on that.
At some point, I would like to study the OT sources in a group discussion.
Woe 19 seems to me to be Isaiah representing a voice that doubts Yahweh's presence and power. It might remind me of the requests of Jesus for a sign. My assumption is that the worker is Yahweh and the work is justice and those speaking are doubters defying Torah in arrogance.
You are right on, in my opinion, with the perception that the woes, all of them, have application to modern society. Isaiah so far has seemed to be a very timely commentary.
I am very glad to have you interested in this study. Isaiah is such an important book for Christianity and I think for Second Temple Judaism.
Wow. Your biggest mistake is thinking that I know anything about this. :)
Though I hope the group eventually attracts participants with strong backgrounds in the OT history, criticism and language.
As for my opinion on your points in #20, I really do not know about pre or post millenialism. It does seem difficult to make the case that this passage is aimed at anything Christian.
Christianity and the NT borrowed and interpreted Isaiah and other Hebrew scripture, as did the DSD folks, but I really believe that is looking backwards rather that Isaiah looking forward.
The distinction between Isaiah and his school may not be significant if you intended to group them together. In my mind the Isaiah school suggests later compositions, and subtle differences in theology that I hope to work through for myself as I continue this detailed study.
The point about Deutoronomy is a thought that came from your earlier comment, one I had not considered because I have tended to separate what I know about the documentary hypothesis from my study of Isaiah. Probably the two should be considered together, and I think I will try to work on that.
At some point, I would like to study the OT sources in a group discussion.
Woe 19 seems to me to be Isaiah representing a voice that doubts Yahweh's presence and power. It might remind me of the requests of Jesus for a sign. My assumption is that the worker is Yahweh and the work is justice and those speaking are doubters defying Torah in arrogance.
You are right on, in my opinion, with the perception that the woes, all of them, have application to modern society. Isaiah so far has seemed to be a very timely commentary.
I am very glad to have you interested in this study. Isaiah is such an important book for Christianity and I think for Second Temple Judaism.
22geneg
From #21,
"As for my opinion on your points in #20, I really do not know about pre or post millenialism. It does seem difficult to make the case that this passage is aimed at anything Christian."
With Christ being 600 years in the future, I'm sure Isaiah was not speaking directly to Christianity. It's just that the pre-millenialists (The Left Behind books are the best place to go for an exposition of the pre-millenialist view that we must do specific, mostly pointless things (breed a totally pure, red heifer to be sacrificed at the reopening of the Temple in Jerusalem) or dangerous things like building the new Temple on top of the third holiest place in Islam, the Dome of the Rock and working to build Yaaretz Israel which includes parts of Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iran. Those people will not stand by while Israel expands all over them, simply because we say it's God's will and will cause Jesus to return. I know they believe in their souls they ARE doing God's will, but their leaders have taken the work of Darby, a possible road map to the end times ( dangerous enough in itself) to a blueprint for creating the conditions under which God says (as they read it) He will send His Son back. As Moses tells us, (I think, it may be God Himself) God will not be put to the test. It seems to me directly acting to force God's hand is arrogant, dangerous, and ultimately self-destructive. So when I see a woe attached to indictments of the speed with which God acts in the world, I get worried. God will not be put to the test.
People, in our relationship to the God of the Hebrews and Christ have a history of trying to manipulate God for their own beliefs or benefit and I think this is most foolish.
"As for my opinion on your points in #20, I really do not know about pre or post millenialism. It does seem difficult to make the case that this passage is aimed at anything Christian."
With Christ being 600 years in the future, I'm sure Isaiah was not speaking directly to Christianity. It's just that the pre-millenialists (The Left Behind books are the best place to go for an exposition of the pre-millenialist view that we must do specific, mostly pointless things (breed a totally pure, red heifer to be sacrificed at the reopening of the Temple in Jerusalem) or dangerous things like building the new Temple on top of the third holiest place in Islam, the Dome of the Rock and working to build Yaaretz Israel which includes parts of Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iran. Those people will not stand by while Israel expands all over them, simply because we say it's God's will and will cause Jesus to return. I know they believe in their souls they ARE doing God's will, but their leaders have taken the work of Darby, a possible road map to the end times ( dangerous enough in itself) to a blueprint for creating the conditions under which God says (as they read it) He will send His Son back. As Moses tells us, (I think, it may be God Himself) God will not be put to the test. It seems to me directly acting to force God's hand is arrogant, dangerous, and ultimately self-destructive. So when I see a woe attached to indictments of the speed with which God acts in the world, I get worried. God will not be put to the test.
People, in our relationship to the God of the Hebrews and Christ have a history of trying to manipulate God for their own beliefs or benefit and I think this is most foolish.
23richardbsmith
Gene,
I hope you did not take offense at the mention that I do not think any of the prophecies in Isaiah pointed to anything Christian. That is a point I sometimes make because some feel that the OT prophecies point directly to Christ in a very literal way, such as Emmanuel and the young woman about to give birth from Isaiah.
I do not think those were written to point to the future coming of the Messiah, and I do not think that they are to be read as prophecies of the end times. I think they are prophecies that speak to the then times, and have force today because the human condition has not changed.
I have not read any of the Left Behind books. I do think I own one as a gift, but alas it languishes unread.
It may be that I need to study up. Have you seen the thread in Happy Heathens in which myshelves mentions The Family. It is about about a supposed conservative Christian conspiracy to control political power through secretive manipulation.
I do not know how to take such ideas. Is there sufficient force in the extreme groups claiming Christianity to tip Middle East instability into an End Time Battle?
We have the New World Order, Tri Lateral Commission, Masons, liberal and conservative conspiracies. I have not read enough to speak to these theories, but my tendency is to discount that these organizations and movements can do much damage.
I agree fully though that people try to manipulate God and religion for their own goals and benefit.
It seems to me that there can be within religion a tendency for a group to shut itself up against the others. Such fosters dangerous group think and errors, even militancy.
Religion needs to be fully open and fully responsive to criticism from within and from without, and without the threat that the critic must overcome heresy charges. Religion is or should be in my opinion, about faith, growth, experience of the divine, and reaching out to others, not about control and power, but about giving of self to God and to brother.
I hope you did not take offense at the mention that I do not think any of the prophecies in Isaiah pointed to anything Christian. That is a point I sometimes make because some feel that the OT prophecies point directly to Christ in a very literal way, such as Emmanuel and the young woman about to give birth from Isaiah.
I do not think those were written to point to the future coming of the Messiah, and I do not think that they are to be read as prophecies of the end times. I think they are prophecies that speak to the then times, and have force today because the human condition has not changed.
I have not read any of the Left Behind books. I do think I own one as a gift, but alas it languishes unread.
It may be that I need to study up. Have you seen the thread in Happy Heathens in which myshelves mentions The Family. It is about about a supposed conservative Christian conspiracy to control political power through secretive manipulation.
I do not know how to take such ideas. Is there sufficient force in the extreme groups claiming Christianity to tip Middle East instability into an End Time Battle?
We have the New World Order, Tri Lateral Commission, Masons, liberal and conservative conspiracies. I have not read enough to speak to these theories, but my tendency is to discount that these organizations and movements can do much damage.
I agree fully though that people try to manipulate God and religion for their own goals and benefit.
It seems to me that there can be within religion a tendency for a group to shut itself up against the others. Such fosters dangerous group think and errors, even militancy.
Religion needs to be fully open and fully responsive to criticism from within and from without, and without the threat that the critic must overcome heresy charges. Religion is or should be in my opinion, about faith, growth, experience of the divine, and reaching out to others, not about control and power, but about giving of self to God and to brother.
24geneg
"I do not think those were written to point to the future coming of the Messiah, and I do not think that they are to be read as prophecies of the end times. I think they are prophecies that speak to the then times, and have force today because the human condition has not changed."
I've spent two posts trying to say what you said in two simple sentences.
The Family (no touchstone, is a book by Jeff Sharlot, don't confuse it with the other 100 touchstones for family out there) and the C Street project I mentioned are the same thing. It sounds like a conspiracy, but it is real. You should read up on it. They hold an entirely different view of Christianity than anything I've ever seen. God gives people enormous power and wealth, thus we should all be in awe of these powerful, wealthy people, and do their bidding, what with them being given all this wealth and power by God. It's the Christian version of if God likes you, he will make you wealthy and powerful. Most of the participants are either in government (or were), a couple of them are Senators, lobbying government on behalf of various organizations that kow-tow to power and wealth, or are out and out Fascists looking for a new Christian Nationalism. These people were, until a few months ago, as influential if not more so than the Neocons. Do I think they could stir up Armageddon? You bet your bippy I do!
I don't go to Happy Heathens. I'm not a heathen in the traditional sense of the word. Actually, I just don't have the time to add them to my already lengthy list of threads I keep up with.
Only time will tell whether these groups will be successful. The C Street House is occupied by a couple of Senators, a handful of Congressmen, lobbyists for various wealth and power lobbies and people who want to create an American Theocracy. I heartily recommend you read The Family. It will open your eyes to the fact that evil is alive and well and pushing a Christianist agenda. I know this sounds too much like conspiracy theory BS, but believe me it is not. It is Here. Now. And must be fought tooth and nail.
I've spent two posts trying to say what you said in two simple sentences.
The Family (no touchstone, is a book by Jeff Sharlot, don't confuse it with the other 100 touchstones for family out there) and the C Street project I mentioned are the same thing. It sounds like a conspiracy, but it is real. You should read up on it. They hold an entirely different view of Christianity than anything I've ever seen. God gives people enormous power and wealth, thus we should all be in awe of these powerful, wealthy people, and do their bidding, what with them being given all this wealth and power by God. It's the Christian version of if God likes you, he will make you wealthy and powerful. Most of the participants are either in government (or were), a couple of them are Senators, lobbying government on behalf of various organizations that kow-tow to power and wealth, or are out and out Fascists looking for a new Christian Nationalism. These people were, until a few months ago, as influential if not more so than the Neocons. Do I think they could stir up Armageddon? You bet your bippy I do!
I don't go to Happy Heathens. I'm not a heathen in the traditional sense of the word. Actually, I just don't have the time to add them to my already lengthy list of threads I keep up with.
Only time will tell whether these groups will be successful. The C Street House is occupied by a couple of Senators, a handful of Congressmen, lobbyists for various wealth and power lobbies and people who want to create an American Theocracy. I heartily recommend you read The Family. It will open your eyes to the fact that evil is alive and well and pushing a Christianist agenda. I know this sounds too much like conspiracy theory BS, but believe me it is not. It is Here. Now. And must be fought tooth and nail.
25richardbsmith
Gene,
I will look at the Sharlot book, thanks for the recommendation. The Heathen group will definitely keep you busy, but I have found the discussion and views to be challenging and informative.
Well worth the time.
Richard
I will look at the Sharlot book, thanks for the recommendation. The Heathen group will definitely keep you busy, but I have found the discussion and views to be challenging and informative.
Well worth the time.
Richard
26richardbsmith
The last section of Chapter 5, 25-30, fits with 9.8-10.4 both thematically and structurally. For my purposes, I will include them in the discussion of Chapter 9.
Just a couple thoughts on those verses.
They give a image of great terror from the "quick haste" of the "howling" army of Assyria. This reference must put the verses to a later period.
There is also a possible reference to an earthquake in verse25. For what it is worth 9.18 makes another possible reference to an earthquake.
The refrain that connects the verses structurally to Chapter 9 is particularly ominous:
"But for all this his anger does not go back; and yet his hand is outstretched."
Yahweh's vengeance remains after the earthquake has left corpses in the streets and will further call the Assyrian army who will seize its prey and not let go.
Just a couple thoughts on those verses.
They give a image of great terror from the "quick haste" of the "howling" army of Assyria. This reference must put the verses to a later period.
There is also a possible reference to an earthquake in verse25. For what it is worth 9.18 makes another possible reference to an earthquake.
The refrain that connects the verses structurally to Chapter 9 is particularly ominous:
"But for all this his anger does not go back; and yet his hand is outstretched."
Yahweh's vengeance remains after the earthquake has left corpses in the streets and will further call the Assyrian army who will seize its prey and not let go.
