Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for January, 2017

Among the reasons for the notoriety that attaches to the Book of Isaiah figures its introduction of ‘Emmanuel’ (Hebrew: עמנו אל) as a name.

As with everything in this massive biblical work, it happens enigmatically. The more famous attachment of the name to a child yet to be born is preceded by the word’s appearance in a context of warfare, threat, and deliverance. No one would yet think of a child.

Because this people has refused the waters of Shiloah that flow gently, and rejoice over Rezin and the son of Remaliah,therefore, behold, the Lord is bringing up against them the waters of the River, mighty and many, the king of Assyria and all his glory. And it will rise over all its channels and go over all its banks, and it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass on, reaching even to the neck, and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel. (Isaiah 8:6–8 ESV)

Violent, surging Assyria rises almost to the point of drowning vulnerable, flailing, ever-conspiratorial Judah. Its waters flood even to the neck, leaving no corner of the land untouched. Although there is one other interpretation that makes ‘Immanuel’ itself/himself the owner of ‘outspread wings’, the most common readings understand ‘O Immanuel’ as something of an exclamation. Either the outspreading wings of Assyria ‘will fill the bread of your land, O Immanuel’, where Immanuel is the lord of the violated land. Or ‘Emmanuel’ is a stand-alone cry of desperation: ‘… and (Assyria’s) outspread wings will fill the breadth of your (that is, Judah’s) land. O, Immanuel!’

In either case, ‘God with us’ remains an odd and puzzling expression that elicits the reader’s thoughtful curiosity about just what is going on here.

The text requests only the slightest pause before racing on to its second use of Emmanuel as a something close to a name. Again, children are neither seen nor heard.

Be broken, you peoples, and be shattered; give ear, all you far countries; strap on your armor and be shattered; strap on your armor and be shattered. Take counsel together, but it will come to nothing; speak a word, but it will not stand, for God is with us. (Isaiah 8:9–10 ESV)

The doomed collusion of two of Judah’s near neighbors (Syria and Ephraim, 7.5-7) is heard here by way of echo. Although ‘you peoples’ and ‘all you far countries’ likely includes also Assyria and even other nations, it begins closer to home with Judah’s plotting neighbors Syria and Ephraim.

Judahite desperation in the face of the Assyrian onslaught a few verses earlier now fades before a confident message of defeat to nations that would dare come against her. If ‘Emmanuel’ functioned as a quasi-name in verse 8, its mystery is drawn out still further here, where the word provides the reason for which Judah will not fall to the dark designs of well-armed peoples and nations.

‘Emmanuel’—whatever at this point the odd juxtaposition Hebrew עמנו (‘with us’) and אל (‘God’) can mean—will not allow the final destruction of his land and his people.

But where are the children?

Read Full Post »

The sad descriptions of YHWH’s people in their darkest moments serve to illuminate what YHWH wants for and from those people when health is restored.

The text of the Bible’s Book of Isaiah probes at matters of knowing and understanding, sometimes from the dark side of its absence, at others from the side of health and blessing.

In the book’s programmatic first chapter, Judah/Israel is contrasted with farm animals when it comes to knowing and understanding.

The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master’s crib, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand. (Isaiah 1:3 ESV)

Mere habit, the raw animal instinct for having physical needs met, is enough for ox and donkey to claim the advantage over what Isaiah describes as a willfully imperceptive people. The Hebrew words at play are ידע and בין. If the reader will tolerate a cheap pun, Isaiah will make hay with these words as the book presses his argument forward.

Isaiah underscores the extremity of Judah’s imperception by choosing not to attach the expected direct object to each of these verbs. It is not that they do not know this, not understand that. Tragically, they neither know nor understand at all.

In the book’s unique ordering of events, the infamous prophetic commissioning of the prophet does not occur until certain things have first been placed on record. In chapter six, finally, Isaiah meets ‘the King’ in a temple vision. He is, he says, undone by the sight. Soon the severe mercy of Isaiah’s prophetic calling takes shape. It must have seemed all severity and no mercy.

And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?’ Then I said, ‘Here I am! Send me.’ And he said, ‘Go, and say to this people: “Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.”’ (Isaiah 6:8–9 ESV)

The book will soon make clear that this savage scraping of the barrel’s perceptive bottom has redemptive ends. Israel will re-learn to see, to hear, to know, to understand. First, though, she must be led to the awful extreme of her self-chosen logic. She must experience the blunt force of true blindness, of genuine deafness.

The words again are ידע and ביןtheir order reversed this time. Israel/Judah must stop knowing and seeing so that she can—in time and by way of the Lord’s mercy and justice—learn again how to know, how to understand.

One can imagine a people where such knowledge and understanding lie at character’s core. A community in which seeing and hearing produce their full perceptive fruit by leading their subjects to deeply accurate and empathetic engagement with each other and with their world.

How the heart longs to belong to such a people, to stand in its middle—surrounded by the wise, the just, the merry—with knowledge and understanding.

Read Full Post »

If a book like the biblical Isaiah can rightly be considered inexhaustible, the claim pivots in part upon the sheer poetic nuance of its language.

The book’s third chapter fiercely denounces a leaderless people. Those who have not abdicated entirely the burden of leadership govern like children. Indeed the line after line of severe dissection of Judah’s body politic is almost too much to bear in the wake of a cartoonish electoral season when childishness became a political virtue.

Yet in contrast the prophet himself sustains a very adult command of his language.

Two conventional verbs come into play in the twelfth verse. I have italicized and underlined them, and italicized the words immediately surrounding.

My people—infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, your guides mislead you and they have swallowed up the course of your paths. (Isaiah 3:12 ESV)

English translators, when they note the lyrical play, are forced by their target language to drop it from their hands. But a brief foray into the Hebrew text is a tool for recovery.

The verb here rendered guides is given the form of a noun. It is the Hebrew אשרa word that certainly does mean guide. But that meaning is only derivative. The action at its heart is a making straight, a keeping true, a straightening out. This is what guides are meant to do. They conduct those they lead along a course that leads them to a destination they’d be hard pressed to find on their own, efficiently and without detour. In the essence of things, they are path-straighteners. Isaiah notes their presence here, among a surrounding thicket of hapless leaders.

Yet these ‘guides’ do precisely that which one hires a guide in order to avoid. They make Judah wander. They put the people on a wrong course. They lead them astray.

Hebrew תעה is a conventional and therefore familiar word for this kind of action. You might expect it of a trickster, of a bandit well prepared in ambush, even of one’s wily enemy. But never of a guide.

Never of a path-straightener.

Isaiah returns to this very theme in the book’s ninth chapter.

… for those who guide this people have been leading them astray, and those who are guided by them are swallowed up. (Isaiah 9:16 ESV)

It is in these quiet juxtapositions of two conventional words that Isaiah’s rhetoric achieves its incomparable and enduring force. Presumably, it is here too that a remnant in Judah heard a persuasive voice and took measures to repent, to return, to come back onto a track that promised future instead of ashes. It is here in the small turn of a phrase, in the knowing juxtaposition of two common words to express an uncommon truth, that the book manifests some of the beauty that explains its survival, indeed its inexhaustible appeal.

Read Full Post »

The prophets poke at the sanctimony that assumes material blessing is YHWH’s endorsement. To be rich is to be good, people too easily assume. Isaiah, among others of his peers, will have none of this moral non sequitur.

For you have rejected your people, the house of Jacob, because they are full of things from the east and of fortune-tellers like the Philistines, and they strike hands with the children of foreigners. Their land is filled with silver and gold, and there is no end to their treasures; their land is filled with horses, and there is no end to their chariots. Their land is filled with idols; they bow down to the work of their hands, to what their own fingers have made. (Isaiah 2:6–8 ESV)

The irony—with Isaiah, there is always irony—pivots upon the Hebrew verb מלא, ‘to be full’. The prophet peppers his denunciation of false religion with this verb as though there’s no tomorrow.

The first and the last of the italicized מלא-phrases point to the lazy amplitude of their religion. Their very piety is an act of wandering, their religiosity a rejection of the exclusive Israelite God who has named himself to be unlike all others. The middle two italicized phrases refer to their wealth.

They are not good, because rich. They are, at the same time, very bad and very rich.

Idolatry, for the prophets, is not open-mindedness, not sophistication, not the cologne of the worldly-wise. It is treason, rebellion, the spiritual equivalent of getting stupidly hot and horny with a neighbor’s hungry wife. There is nothing good in it.

It is possible to gild it with gold, to ornament it with silver. Yet it remains the pathway to a world of eventual hurt.

Riches, declares the text, are not God’s endorsement. Sometimes wealth is just wealth, the shiny trinkets of the doomed.

Read Full Post »

To read Peter FitzSimon’s Gallipoli is to realize how great an evening it would be to have the man in front of a crackling fire in your living room, telling a good tale.

For it is the telling of a tale that FitzSimon promises us, a tale of how Australia ‘became a nation’ in the wrenching experiencing of bleeding for the British Empire on the hills of the Turkish coast.

519n8gv6zalFitzSimons puts a lot of himself in this story, not always a promising approach for a history writer. Yet this manages to illuminate rather than obscure the Gallipoli narrative. The author’s full-disclosure explanation of how his own understanding of the battle has changed gives the non-Australian reader a glimpse into the various ways in which that antiopodean nation itself has moved through various stages of engagement with one of its defining moments.

There is little to nothing good to say about a battle of this ferocity, one that concluded with surviving Anzac forces withdrawing to the sea under cover of darkness. But one can at least tell the awful story well. FitzSimons manages to write in—to speak in, for the reader can almost hear his voice—Australian, not a generic academic English.

The result is winsome, savage, feisty (for what is an Australian without a little feist?), and accessible. One emerges from reading this book made wiser not only about the flawed execution of what might otherwise have represented a victorious thrust by the Allied forces into the belly of the Turkish ‘sick man of Europe’, but also more intelligent about how Australian soldiers fought for the mother country’s Empire but died for Australia.

FitzSimons recognizes that many have told the Gallipoli story before him. His contribution is to write, one hundred years on, for Australians and friends of Australians like this reader, several generations hence, when a bit of cool reflection can both enrich and temper our understanding of the passions, ambitions, stupidities, and grit that produced Gallipoli.

A century is long enough for a certain empathy with the enemy of one’s forebears to develop in a way that does not trivialize the complex developments that led a country to war on a land whose name they barely knew. FitzSimons ably captures the privilege of this retrospective distance, not least by recording a recent re-encounter of Turkish and Anzac veterans on this very savage and sacred soil, and by resurrecting Mustafa Kemal’s generous words, penned in 1934:

Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives … You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side now here in this country of ours … you, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.

Has it really been a century?

Peter FitzSimon’s fine and well-researched retelling makes it seem just yesterday.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts