The Questions
1. Is there “salvation outside the church?”
2. What can we say about God by looking around us? At nature? At other human beings?
3. How should the less theological, more historical, sections of the Bible be taken? Is it right to make the theological/historical distinction?
4. The “Acts of the Apostles” is about the early Christian church, should the cannon be re-opened as to fill in details about the middle, late Christian church?
5. Should spiritual leaders be celibate? Why? Why not? Should they be both male and female? Why? Why not?
6. Is scripture a discussion or a lecture?
7. Why is God?
Thursday, February 17, 2005
A quote
Freedom of speech makes it much easier to spot the idiots.
- Jay Lessig, quoted in the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web.
- Jay Lessig, quoted in the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
This may be the last blog
My computer is dying, so this may be the last blog post you get, at least for a while.
Peace,
Chris
Peace,
Chris
Another valentines day come and gone
Ended up going to "Lovefest" last night at Kyla Coy's house. Basicly a bunch of single people (actually two couples crashed the thing, of course we were using Kyla's house so I suppose you can't say she and Joe crashed it as such) hung out and watched "HAROLD AND MAUDE" a movie about a suicidal 20 something who ends up falling in love with an 80 something holocaust survivor.
Odd that.
Here is a valentines comic for the day.
Peace,
Chris
Odd that.
Here is a valentines comic for the day.
Peace,
Chris
Sunday, February 13, 2005
The Sermon
We desert people
Chris Halverson
This Wednesday, this Ash Wednesday we entered the Season of Lent, and so we now enter into the desert, the wilderness. The scattered brush looms large over us like twisted and grasping hands. The craggy cliffs and sand worn slopes peer at us like giant disfigured faces. In the day we cry out for a drink of water, only to find dry sand. At nights the wind howls and bites into us, gnawing into our marrow. The jackals snap their grisly teeth and the desert owls howl a mournful, hopeless, wail. It is like a moonscape, always cloudless. We can see the sun set in the West, even as the moon rises in the East, and we can truly see that we are but dust blown about in the cosmos.
Look, two lone figures stumble into the desert before us, hiding their shameful faces, they are the first exiles, the first people to come to the desert. Adam is torn from Eve, and Eve from Adam. The one flesh has found enmity with itself, and with all of creation. Wife and husband blame each other for their choices, for their sin. They blame the snake for their choices, for their sin. They are exiled from all of creation. And so these two fall away from the garden and come out to this place, shame turning to horror. We are in the desert.
And look, there, there is Cain, hands bloodied, gleaming in the moonlight. Shame sticks to him. He is a fugitive, a wanderer. We are in the desert.
And look, Abraham and Sarah go out from Ur, leaving the safety, the security, the ease of the Chaldes. We are in the desert.
And look, Hagar and Ishmael wander through the heat, abandoned mother abandons child to the elements. We are in the desert.
And look, Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, with the Hebrew slaves, come out of Egypt, into the desert. They grumble and complain. They create calf-idols as perches for non-existent gods even as the Great I AM provides for them, and leads them. Even the wise Moses gets impatient and is banished from the Promised Land. We are in the desert.
And look, there, there are the Northern Tribes, scattered by Assyrian might. They are caught up in the desert wind, and disappear into the heat. We are in the desert.
And look, the Exiles, lead off by mighty Babylon, cower in terror as they contemplate their fate. They are forced to leave their family behind, forced to leave their land behind, forced to leave, in chains. We are in the desert.
Even as we call out the prayer of Jesus, “Lead us not into temptation,” we are lead by the Spirit into this desert, this temptation. Yet, look up there, Jesus too is here. Jesus too was lead into temptation by the Father, and he too is here in the desert, with us.
God forces us here, to this desert, with Jesus, tempted by the Tempter himself, for good reason. In our temptations, in our trials, in the pains and sufferings of this life, we can do nothing except cling to our hope in God. Our family will fail us, our friends will fail us, our ideologies will fail us, our own bodies will fail us; out here in the desert only God will not fail us. It is said that during forty years of wandering in the desert the Hebrews had nothing, God provided everything, their sandals didn’t wear out, God provided food from heaven, and made drinking water gush up from the ground.
In this desert of Temptation the question is begged, the answer asked for, and we are forced to take a stand. The desert sand strips us of our pretensions and heming and hawing and maybes. We have no choice except to stand firm before the power of Sin, Death, and the Devil, and say, as Martin Luther said, "Hie stehe ich; ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir. Amen," that is, “Here I stand, I can do no other. God help me. Amen.”
Today Jesus is confronted by the Devil. Is this not the temptation of Eve and Adam? Their temptation, “led to condemnation for all,” and yet, through Jesus’ standing up to the Devil and the resistance of temptation, “the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many.” Jesus is standing against original sin itself. On this Lenten evening He is beginning a salvific wave that culminates in His Easter resurrection, rippling through all things, destroying the hold of Sin upon this world, that this desert may be watered and become Eden.
The Tempter says, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” If you will remember Jesus does end up doing miracles with bread, he feeds the five thousand. The difference, though, between the feeding of the five thousand and what Jesus is tempted to do now is that here in the Wilderness Jesus would be feeding himself. That would be selfishness, and greed. Jesus stands for a radical other centered love; “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven” and, “Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.” This is the Jesus who we follow. Who we seek to emulate. We don’t proclaim Satan’s plaything, shoveling gobs of bread down his gullet, but the Son of God.
The Tempter takes Jesus to the center of the temple, where the people and the pious could see him, and says, “If you are the Son of God throw yourself down.” He wants a haughty Jesus, arrogantly floating into Jerusalem with the wailing of a thousand angels, and a prideful swagger to his step. He wants a Jesus who can be turned into a spectacle for the people, a toy for the crowd, that will leave the people in awe, then be thrown away when he ceases to amuse. But instead Jesus says unfashionable things that make him hated. He does not yield to the will of the crowd, but says to God “your will be done.” This is the Jesus we follow. Who we seek to emulate. We don’t proclaim a Christ of popularity, but the Son of God.
The Tempter shows Jesus the Empires, the kingdoms, the powers and principalities, the political machines of all the earth and says, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” Satan wants Jesus to be a Messiah of this world, offering him raw, unadulterated power. This power itself is an idol, believing that somehow we have transcended dust and now rule our own fate, that we are our own god. In standing up against Satan Jesus is standing against Idolatry and Power. Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, not a war-horse, he saved his people not by becoming Rambo and storming Rome, but by suffering and death. Jesus says, “if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Jesus stands for humility, even humiliation, even to death. This is the Jesus we follow. Who we seek to emulate. Not a powerful politician promising dreams and schemes, but the Son of God.
Look though, Jesus does more than stand against Satan, he also stands for God. The Spirit of God has already proclaimed him Son; the Son of God has nothing to prove to Satan. He refuses to be defined by the measures of Satan. Each time that serpentine tongue slithers and speaks Jesus has a response. “One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” “Do not put the LORD your God to the test.” And “Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.” Every response goes back to God. In every temptation we face may we do the same, go back to God.
Here in the desert, relationships are broken, pains are suffered, lives are lost, and we can do nothing except cling to God. Yet, that is the hope, the Good News of Jesus Christ. Though we be bedraggled, tempted, banished sinners crawling through the desert, God has done a new thing in the Death and Resurrection of Jesus, and we have found a transcendent oasis.
In this desert, this Lent, with the whole people of God from every time and place, from Eden to the Exile, let us be stripped bare to the foundations of our faith. Toss away Greed, Power, Idols, Spectacle, and cling only to God. Make straight the path into the desert, through the desert, always to God.
I hate to say it, but I feel like my ideas got a bit disorganized, but I think this is pretty much the sermon I'm going to preach in the morning. I feel like I am leaning too much on Rhetorical tricks.
Good night, and Peace,
Chris
Chris Halverson
This Wednesday, this Ash Wednesday we entered the Season of Lent, and so we now enter into the desert, the wilderness. The scattered brush looms large over us like twisted and grasping hands. The craggy cliffs and sand worn slopes peer at us like giant disfigured faces. In the day we cry out for a drink of water, only to find dry sand. At nights the wind howls and bites into us, gnawing into our marrow. The jackals snap their grisly teeth and the desert owls howl a mournful, hopeless, wail. It is like a moonscape, always cloudless. We can see the sun set in the West, even as the moon rises in the East, and we can truly see that we are but dust blown about in the cosmos.
Look, two lone figures stumble into the desert before us, hiding their shameful faces, they are the first exiles, the first people to come to the desert. Adam is torn from Eve, and Eve from Adam. The one flesh has found enmity with itself, and with all of creation. Wife and husband blame each other for their choices, for their sin. They blame the snake for their choices, for their sin. They are exiled from all of creation. And so these two fall away from the garden and come out to this place, shame turning to horror. We are in the desert.
And look, there, there is Cain, hands bloodied, gleaming in the moonlight. Shame sticks to him. He is a fugitive, a wanderer. We are in the desert.
And look, Abraham and Sarah go out from Ur, leaving the safety, the security, the ease of the Chaldes. We are in the desert.
And look, Hagar and Ishmael wander through the heat, abandoned mother abandons child to the elements. We are in the desert.
And look, Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, with the Hebrew slaves, come out of Egypt, into the desert. They grumble and complain. They create calf-idols as perches for non-existent gods even as the Great I AM provides for them, and leads them. Even the wise Moses gets impatient and is banished from the Promised Land. We are in the desert.
And look, there, there are the Northern Tribes, scattered by Assyrian might. They are caught up in the desert wind, and disappear into the heat. We are in the desert.
And look, the Exiles, lead off by mighty Babylon, cower in terror as they contemplate their fate. They are forced to leave their family behind, forced to leave their land behind, forced to leave, in chains. We are in the desert.
Even as we call out the prayer of Jesus, “Lead us not into temptation,” we are lead by the Spirit into this desert, this temptation. Yet, look up there, Jesus too is here. Jesus too was lead into temptation by the Father, and he too is here in the desert, with us.
God forces us here, to this desert, with Jesus, tempted by the Tempter himself, for good reason. In our temptations, in our trials, in the pains and sufferings of this life, we can do nothing except cling to our hope in God. Our family will fail us, our friends will fail us, our ideologies will fail us, our own bodies will fail us; out here in the desert only God will not fail us. It is said that during forty years of wandering in the desert the Hebrews had nothing, God provided everything, their sandals didn’t wear out, God provided food from heaven, and made drinking water gush up from the ground.
In this desert of Temptation the question is begged, the answer asked for, and we are forced to take a stand. The desert sand strips us of our pretensions and heming and hawing and maybes. We have no choice except to stand firm before the power of Sin, Death, and the Devil, and say, as Martin Luther said, "Hie stehe ich; ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir. Amen," that is, “Here I stand, I can do no other. God help me. Amen.”
Today Jesus is confronted by the Devil. Is this not the temptation of Eve and Adam? Their temptation, “led to condemnation for all,” and yet, through Jesus’ standing up to the Devil and the resistance of temptation, “the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many.” Jesus is standing against original sin itself. On this Lenten evening He is beginning a salvific wave that culminates in His Easter resurrection, rippling through all things, destroying the hold of Sin upon this world, that this desert may be watered and become Eden.
The Tempter says, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” If you will remember Jesus does end up doing miracles with bread, he feeds the five thousand. The difference, though, between the feeding of the five thousand and what Jesus is tempted to do now is that here in the Wilderness Jesus would be feeding himself. That would be selfishness, and greed. Jesus stands for a radical other centered love; “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven” and, “Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.” This is the Jesus who we follow. Who we seek to emulate. We don’t proclaim Satan’s plaything, shoveling gobs of bread down his gullet, but the Son of God.
The Tempter takes Jesus to the center of the temple, where the people and the pious could see him, and says, “If you are the Son of God throw yourself down.” He wants a haughty Jesus, arrogantly floating into Jerusalem with the wailing of a thousand angels, and a prideful swagger to his step. He wants a Jesus who can be turned into a spectacle for the people, a toy for the crowd, that will leave the people in awe, then be thrown away when he ceases to amuse. But instead Jesus says unfashionable things that make him hated. He does not yield to the will of the crowd, but says to God “your will be done.” This is the Jesus we follow. Who we seek to emulate. We don’t proclaim a Christ of popularity, but the Son of God.
The Tempter shows Jesus the Empires, the kingdoms, the powers and principalities, the political machines of all the earth and says, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” Satan wants Jesus to be a Messiah of this world, offering him raw, unadulterated power. This power itself is an idol, believing that somehow we have transcended dust and now rule our own fate, that we are our own god. In standing up against Satan Jesus is standing against Idolatry and Power. Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, not a war-horse, he saved his people not by becoming Rambo and storming Rome, but by suffering and death. Jesus says, “if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Jesus stands for humility, even humiliation, even to death. This is the Jesus we follow. Who we seek to emulate. Not a powerful politician promising dreams and schemes, but the Son of God.
Look though, Jesus does more than stand against Satan, he also stands for God. The Spirit of God has already proclaimed him Son; the Son of God has nothing to prove to Satan. He refuses to be defined by the measures of Satan. Each time that serpentine tongue slithers and speaks Jesus has a response. “One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” “Do not put the LORD your God to the test.” And “Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.” Every response goes back to God. In every temptation we face may we do the same, go back to God.
Here in the desert, relationships are broken, pains are suffered, lives are lost, and we can do nothing except cling to God. Yet, that is the hope, the Good News of Jesus Christ. Though we be bedraggled, tempted, banished sinners crawling through the desert, God has done a new thing in the Death and Resurrection of Jesus, and we have found a transcendent oasis.
In this desert, this Lent, with the whole people of God from every time and place, from Eden to the Exile, let us be stripped bare to the foundations of our faith. Toss away Greed, Power, Idols, Spectacle, and cling only to God. Make straight the path into the desert, through the desert, always to God.
I hate to say it, but I feel like my ideas got a bit disorganized, but I think this is pretty much the sermon I'm going to preach in the morning. I feel like I am leaning too much on Rhetorical tricks.
Good night, and Peace,
Chris
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Lent, and Lutheran Politics
For Lent I am fasting from noon Wednesday (when I got ashed at Central) until Thursday noon every week. This is going on hour 21 and I'm holding out quite well, occasional hunger pains, but followed by it being okay for extended peroids of time.
A little Lutheran politics. Our good LCMS friend has a slight problem with the Bush Budget. Talk to your congress-person for her sake.
Peace,
Chris
A little Lutheran politics. Our good LCMS friend has a slight problem with the Bush Budget. Talk to your congress-person for her sake.
Peace,
Chris
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
my paper
The one I finished this morning at 4:30.
A new Sinai, not Cyrus’ Dike
Isaiah 43:14-21 (NRSV)
14.Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: For your sake I will send to Babylon and break down all the bars, and the shouting of the Chaldeans will be turned to lamentation. 15. I am the Lord, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King. 16.Thus says the Lord, who makes a way in the sea, a path in the mighty waters, 17. who brings out chariot and horse, army and warrior; they lie down, they cannot rise, they are extinguished, quenched like a wick: 18.Do not remember the former things, or consider the things of old. 19.I am about to do a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it? I will make a way in the wilderness and rivers in the desert. 20.The wild animals will honor me, the jackals and the ostriches; for I give water in the wilderness, rivers in the desert, to give drink to my chosen people, 21.the people whom I formed for myself so that they might declare my praise.
Prophecy and Apocalypse
Chris Halverson
2-8-05
In George AF Knight’s commentary on Deutero-Isaiah he claims Isaiah 43:16 refers to Cyrus’ army diverting the main stream of the Euphrates. This was done so his troops could enter into the city by way of the drained riverbed, which ran between the impregnable walls of Babylon. An alternative understanding of this verse is that Deutero-Isaiah is referring to God taking care of His people in the Sinai during the Exodus event, thus setting up a paradigm for “a new thing,” that He intended to do. To answer the question of which of these two interpretations are correct, the contexts of Deutero-Isaiah the man and Deutero-Isaiah (from now on called Second-Isaiah to stem confusion) the text must be consulted.
Most scholars believe Second-Isaiah “originated nearly whole in Babylon in the late exilic period.” Blenkinsopp feels placing Deutero-Isaiah in Babylon is not necessary, but he is in the minority. A more specific date for Deutero-Isaiah’s writing (as the Exile spans half a decade) would be between 550-540 BCE, with a strong likelihood of being in 540 BCE. Second-Isaiah can be dated quite accurately because Cyrus came onto the scene in 550 BCE by deposing Astyages, and had captured Babylon by 539 BCE. Since Deutero-Isaiah wrote about Cyrus, but does not directly refer to the capture of Babylon, scholars tend to think Second-Isaiah had to have been written between the above two dates. If George Knight’s interpretation is right though, Deutero-Isaiah wrote after 539 BCE.
On the local level several events lead up to, and presumably shaped, Deutero-Isaiah’s writing. Three waves of the richest five percent of Judahites were deported to Babylon. These Judahites settling in Nippur, making up 8% of it’s population. Many of them dealt with being transplanted by syncretizing with Babylonian religion. The temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 586, the same year King Zedekiah was deposed and the second wave of Judahites went into exile. On a more international level the Babylonians went through several kings; Nebuchadnezzar, Amel-Marduk, Nargal-sharezer, Labashi-Marduk, and then Nabonidus, who angered his people by championing the moon god Sin’s temple in Harran, and not performing his duty at new year festivals and who reigned during Babylon’s decline. Then, as noted above, from 550 BCE forward a “new era” dawned, “heralded by the conquests of Cyrus of Persia.”
There are a few things that can be supposed when trying to figure out who Deutero-Isaiah was. It is assumed that Deutero-Isaiah was one of the elite exiles in Babylon, meaning this anonymous author was relatively rich, the crème le crème siphoned out of Judah. With the break down of traditional Jewish societal structure the authority of prophets was in question, so Deutero-Isaiah had to rely on his power to persuade, not his role as prophet. “The exodus,” as Fishbane notes via Willey, dominated, “the prophetic consciousness of Deutero-Isaiah.” He may even have seen himself as a Moses figure.
There are several peoples, places, and geographic features, mentioned in Isaiah 43:14-21 that need to be expounded upon. The Chaldeans in verse 14 are the same people as the Babylonians. The bars broken down in verse 14 are “the woodenor metal crosspieces that held gates shut; to break them was to open the gates, allowing Israel to leave Babylon. God’s ability to control the waters in verse 16 is thought to be a proof that even though sea power was a major asset in Deutero-Isaiah’s time God could conquer that too. The way in the wilderness in verse 19 is pertaining to the impassable desert between Babylon and Jerusalem that Deutero-Isaiah wanted his people to pass through. The Arabs controlled this strip of land.
With the historical, social, and geographic context of Deutero-Isaiah out of the way it is time to touch the literary context of Second-Isaiah. According to Watts, Isaiah 43:14-15 is a salvation speech, and verses 16-21 are a closing argument to a “trail in the heavenly judgment hall,” which started in chapter 42:13. Watts sees this trial as a state of state the union type address, where, “the purpose is to convince and vindicate policy.” The policy is that of rousing Cyrus to bring freedom to God’s people. Petersen and Baltzer demur. Petersen sees verses 16-21 as a promise of salvation. Baltzer, on the other hand, sees verses 16-21 as an “independent textual unit,” because it starts off with “Thus says the Lord,” which is an introductory formula. Yet Watts can easily co-opt both Petersen and Baltzer by claiming “Thus says the Lord,” introduces the closing argument about the Lord’s salvation of His people.
Within these eight verses are two prominent features; they allude to the Exodus event (not to mention that they are also surrounded by allusions to the Exodus) and God’s position as creator is noticeable. Verses 16 and 17 evoke images of Exodus chapters 14 and 15, with God making a way, a path, through the waters for his people, and then when Pharaoh goes with his chariots, horses, armies, and warriors, into this path they are all extinguished. Further, this Exodus motif is quite constant throughout Second-Isaiah. In fact in chapter 52:11-12 Deutero-Isaiah goes so far as to tell the exiles to “go without haste… and to take none of the Babylonian spoils,” a reverse of the Exodus yes, but an acute reference to it as well. Still further, chapter 43:14-21 is flanked by subtle references to God revealing his name to Moses; in 43:11 God says, “I, I am the LORD,” and in 43:25 “I, I am He.” God proclaims Himself creator in verse 15, and that He formed his people in verse 21. To understand the type of creation Deutero-Isaiah is thinking of the modern scientific worldview must be thrown off. The type of creation he is talking about is, writes Blenkinsopp, a transformation brought about “in history, especially the history of Israel.” During the Exodus, the “former things” in verse 18, God created Israel by defeating pharaoh’s armies and Sea. The “new thing” of verse 19, happening during the Exile, is God destroying Babylon and the power of Desert.
Now that the contexts of Deutero-Isaiah, and Second-Isaiah have been expounded upon the two dueling interpretations of 43:14-21 can be examined. If the first interpretation, espoused by George AF Knight is correct then the passage must be read as follows.
Verse 14 appears to be about God sending someone other than Cyrus to Babylon, since God’s allowing Cyrus to capture Babylon happened in the past in verses 16 and17. Another possibility is that only Cyrus’ army has entered Babylon through the river entrance, and they are awaiting Cyrus to come. This latter interpretation could make a certain amount of sense, as Cyrus, not his army, would be the one with the authority to “break down all the bars” thus allowing the Judahites to return home. Verses 16-17 is where Knight’s line of reasoning really begins to break down. If it is accepted, as he writes, that “Cyrus then lays a route,… a path, through the waters of the Euphrates,” then it is puzzling as to who’s chariot, horse, army, and warrior are being brought out. Is it Cyrus’ men? Nabonidus’ men? The most logical thought is that Nabonidus and his followers are escaping from Babylon through the mucky riverbed path. In verse 18 this assault and capture of Babylon through “a path” are called “things of old.” Would the Judahites, with a history traced to Moses, to Abraham, to Adam, think of the recent assault on Babylon as an “old” thing? Most likely not. Finishing up Knight’s sequence of events after Cyrus arrives in Babylon, as predicted in verse 14, God’s “new thing” finally happens. Cyrus releases the Judahites and they go through the wilderness with water to spare and the desert animals greeting them.
An alternative to Knight’s version of events would go something like this. Verses 14 and 15 are a prediction that God will send Cyrus to Babylon along with his armies, break down the bars of Babylon, and cause the Chaldeans to weep. Then the story shifts to a time sort of like the Exile, the Exodus. The Judaites remember how God lead them out of Egypt through the Red Sea and then drowned Pharaoh like a wick. In verses 18-19 Deutero-Isaiah is suggesting believing in a past event, the Exodus, is not the same as believing in a present salvation, that God was working through Cyrus. Verses 19-21 close much the same in this interpretation as in the previous one, with the Judahites making their way through a watered desert from Babylon to their homeland Judah.
There are a few main things that separate the first theory from the second. Firstly, there is dating. Knight’s timeline would necessitate a dating of 539 BCE or later for Second-Isaiah, as Babylon had already fallen by the time Deutero-Isaiah wrote these verses. With the second timeline the more accepted dating of 540 BCE stays in tact. Secondly, the allusions to the Exodus are either convoluted with the destruction of Babylon, or a remembrance of how God saved his people and intended to do so again. There is an overall Exodus motif throughout Second-Isaiah, and to take an obvious reference to the drowning of Pharaoh and his army, as an event in the days of Deutero-Isaiah is to not read the text figuratively enough. Thirdly, there is the question as to why an event happening right before Second-Isaiah was written would be considered an old thing. Lastly, the second interpretation in general feels less forced.
It seems Knight found an interesting historical fact about the destruction of Babylon and decided to plug it into Second-Isaiah. With a little creativity it works out to an extent, but a more traditional reading still makes more sense. Isaiah 43:14-21 is not about Cyrus coming to collect an already conquered Babylon and the recollection of a recent destruction worked by diverting a river with a dike. It is about an imminent Cyrus, a remembrance of God’s saving actions with Moses, and about how a new thing, similar to the Exodus, is coming.
A new Sinai, not Cyrus’ Dike
Isaiah 43:14-21 (NRSV)
14.Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: For your sake I will send to Babylon and break down all the bars, and the shouting of the Chaldeans will be turned to lamentation. 15. I am the Lord, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King. 16.Thus says the Lord, who makes a way in the sea, a path in the mighty waters, 17. who brings out chariot and horse, army and warrior; they lie down, they cannot rise, they are extinguished, quenched like a wick: 18.Do not remember the former things, or consider the things of old. 19.I am about to do a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it? I will make a way in the wilderness and rivers in the desert. 20.The wild animals will honor me, the jackals and the ostriches; for I give water in the wilderness, rivers in the desert, to give drink to my chosen people, 21.the people whom I formed for myself so that they might declare my praise.
Prophecy and Apocalypse
Chris Halverson
2-8-05
In George AF Knight’s commentary on Deutero-Isaiah he claims Isaiah 43:16 refers to Cyrus’ army diverting the main stream of the Euphrates. This was done so his troops could enter into the city by way of the drained riverbed, which ran between the impregnable walls of Babylon. An alternative understanding of this verse is that Deutero-Isaiah is referring to God taking care of His people in the Sinai during the Exodus event, thus setting up a paradigm for “a new thing,” that He intended to do. To answer the question of which of these two interpretations are correct, the contexts of Deutero-Isaiah the man and Deutero-Isaiah (from now on called Second-Isaiah to stem confusion) the text must be consulted.
Most scholars believe Second-Isaiah “originated nearly whole in Babylon in the late exilic period.” Blenkinsopp feels placing Deutero-Isaiah in Babylon is not necessary, but he is in the minority. A more specific date for Deutero-Isaiah’s writing (as the Exile spans half a decade) would be between 550-540 BCE, with a strong likelihood of being in 540 BCE. Second-Isaiah can be dated quite accurately because Cyrus came onto the scene in 550 BCE by deposing Astyages, and had captured Babylon by 539 BCE. Since Deutero-Isaiah wrote about Cyrus, but does not directly refer to the capture of Babylon, scholars tend to think Second-Isaiah had to have been written between the above two dates. If George Knight’s interpretation is right though, Deutero-Isaiah wrote after 539 BCE.
On the local level several events lead up to, and presumably shaped, Deutero-Isaiah’s writing. Three waves of the richest five percent of Judahites were deported to Babylon. These Judahites settling in Nippur, making up 8% of it’s population. Many of them dealt with being transplanted by syncretizing with Babylonian religion. The temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 586, the same year King Zedekiah was deposed and the second wave of Judahites went into exile. On a more international level the Babylonians went through several kings; Nebuchadnezzar, Amel-Marduk, Nargal-sharezer, Labashi-Marduk, and then Nabonidus, who angered his people by championing the moon god Sin’s temple in Harran, and not performing his duty at new year festivals and who reigned during Babylon’s decline. Then, as noted above, from 550 BCE forward a “new era” dawned, “heralded by the conquests of Cyrus of Persia.”
There are a few things that can be supposed when trying to figure out who Deutero-Isaiah was. It is assumed that Deutero-Isaiah was one of the elite exiles in Babylon, meaning this anonymous author was relatively rich, the crème le crème siphoned out of Judah. With the break down of traditional Jewish societal structure the authority of prophets was in question, so Deutero-Isaiah had to rely on his power to persuade, not his role as prophet. “The exodus,” as Fishbane notes via Willey, dominated, “the prophetic consciousness of Deutero-Isaiah.” He may even have seen himself as a Moses figure.
There are several peoples, places, and geographic features, mentioned in Isaiah 43:14-21 that need to be expounded upon. The Chaldeans in verse 14 are the same people as the Babylonians. The bars broken down in verse 14 are “the woodenor metal crosspieces that held gates shut; to break them was to open the gates, allowing Israel to leave Babylon. God’s ability to control the waters in verse 16 is thought to be a proof that even though sea power was a major asset in Deutero-Isaiah’s time God could conquer that too. The way in the wilderness in verse 19 is pertaining to the impassable desert between Babylon and Jerusalem that Deutero-Isaiah wanted his people to pass through. The Arabs controlled this strip of land.
With the historical, social, and geographic context of Deutero-Isaiah out of the way it is time to touch the literary context of Second-Isaiah. According to Watts, Isaiah 43:14-15 is a salvation speech, and verses 16-21 are a closing argument to a “trail in the heavenly judgment hall,” which started in chapter 42:13. Watts sees this trial as a state of state the union type address, where, “the purpose is to convince and vindicate policy.” The policy is that of rousing Cyrus to bring freedom to God’s people. Petersen and Baltzer demur. Petersen sees verses 16-21 as a promise of salvation. Baltzer, on the other hand, sees verses 16-21 as an “independent textual unit,” because it starts off with “Thus says the Lord,” which is an introductory formula. Yet Watts can easily co-opt both Petersen and Baltzer by claiming “Thus says the Lord,” introduces the closing argument about the Lord’s salvation of His people.
Within these eight verses are two prominent features; they allude to the Exodus event (not to mention that they are also surrounded by allusions to the Exodus) and God’s position as creator is noticeable. Verses 16 and 17 evoke images of Exodus chapters 14 and 15, with God making a way, a path, through the waters for his people, and then when Pharaoh goes with his chariots, horses, armies, and warriors, into this path they are all extinguished. Further, this Exodus motif is quite constant throughout Second-Isaiah. In fact in chapter 52:11-12 Deutero-Isaiah goes so far as to tell the exiles to “go without haste… and to take none of the Babylonian spoils,” a reverse of the Exodus yes, but an acute reference to it as well. Still further, chapter 43:14-21 is flanked by subtle references to God revealing his name to Moses; in 43:11 God says, “I, I am the LORD,” and in 43:25 “I, I am He.” God proclaims Himself creator in verse 15, and that He formed his people in verse 21. To understand the type of creation Deutero-Isaiah is thinking of the modern scientific worldview must be thrown off. The type of creation he is talking about is, writes Blenkinsopp, a transformation brought about “in history, especially the history of Israel.” During the Exodus, the “former things” in verse 18, God created Israel by defeating pharaoh’s armies and Sea. The “new thing” of verse 19, happening during the Exile, is God destroying Babylon and the power of Desert.
Now that the contexts of Deutero-Isaiah, and Second-Isaiah have been expounded upon the two dueling interpretations of 43:14-21 can be examined. If the first interpretation, espoused by George AF Knight is correct then the passage must be read as follows.
Verse 14 appears to be about God sending someone other than Cyrus to Babylon, since God’s allowing Cyrus to capture Babylon happened in the past in verses 16 and17. Another possibility is that only Cyrus’ army has entered Babylon through the river entrance, and they are awaiting Cyrus to come. This latter interpretation could make a certain amount of sense, as Cyrus, not his army, would be the one with the authority to “break down all the bars” thus allowing the Judahites to return home. Verses 16-17 is where Knight’s line of reasoning really begins to break down. If it is accepted, as he writes, that “Cyrus then lays a route,… a path, through the waters of the Euphrates,” then it is puzzling as to who’s chariot, horse, army, and warrior are being brought out. Is it Cyrus’ men? Nabonidus’ men? The most logical thought is that Nabonidus and his followers are escaping from Babylon through the mucky riverbed path. In verse 18 this assault and capture of Babylon through “a path” are called “things of old.” Would the Judahites, with a history traced to Moses, to Abraham, to Adam, think of the recent assault on Babylon as an “old” thing? Most likely not. Finishing up Knight’s sequence of events after Cyrus arrives in Babylon, as predicted in verse 14, God’s “new thing” finally happens. Cyrus releases the Judahites and they go through the wilderness with water to spare and the desert animals greeting them.
An alternative to Knight’s version of events would go something like this. Verses 14 and 15 are a prediction that God will send Cyrus to Babylon along with his armies, break down the bars of Babylon, and cause the Chaldeans to weep. Then the story shifts to a time sort of like the Exile, the Exodus. The Judaites remember how God lead them out of Egypt through the Red Sea and then drowned Pharaoh like a wick. In verses 18-19 Deutero-Isaiah is suggesting believing in a past event, the Exodus, is not the same as believing in a present salvation, that God was working through Cyrus. Verses 19-21 close much the same in this interpretation as in the previous one, with the Judahites making their way through a watered desert from Babylon to their homeland Judah.
There are a few main things that separate the first theory from the second. Firstly, there is dating. Knight’s timeline would necessitate a dating of 539 BCE or later for Second-Isaiah, as Babylon had already fallen by the time Deutero-Isaiah wrote these verses. With the second timeline the more accepted dating of 540 BCE stays in tact. Secondly, the allusions to the Exodus are either convoluted with the destruction of Babylon, or a remembrance of how God saved his people and intended to do so again. There is an overall Exodus motif throughout Second-Isaiah, and to take an obvious reference to the drowning of Pharaoh and his army, as an event in the days of Deutero-Isaiah is to not read the text figuratively enough. Thirdly, there is the question as to why an event happening right before Second-Isaiah was written would be considered an old thing. Lastly, the second interpretation in general feels less forced.
It seems Knight found an interesting historical fact about the destruction of Babylon and decided to plug it into Second-Isaiah. With a little creativity it works out to an extent, but a more traditional reading still makes more sense. Isaiah 43:14-21 is not about Cyrus coming to collect an already conquered Babylon and the recollection of a recent destruction worked by diverting a river with a dike. It is about an imminent Cyrus, a remembrance of God’s saving actions with Moses, and about how a new thing, similar to the Exodus, is coming.
Pulled an all nighter writing for Prophecy and Apocolypse
Not fun, fell asleep at 4:30AM, got up 6:30AM to re-read paper, correct things etc. Yuck. Need to spend time more wisely next time two big papers and 300 pages of reading come up.
Peace,
Chris
Peace,
Chris
Monday, February 07, 2005
I have a six page paper due in the morning
I've reseached it, and I turned this blasted machine on to write it up. Somehow I found this quiz online.
Peace,
Chris
 | You scored as Verbal/Linguistic. You have highly developed auditory skills, enjoy reading and writing and telling stories, and are good at getting your point across. You learn best by saying and hearing words. People like you include poets, authors, speakers, attorneys, politicians, lecturers and teachers.
The Rogers Indicator of Multiple Intelligences created with QuizFarm.com |
Peace,
Chris
Sunday, February 06, 2005
I'm a conservation Christian
Remember the parable of the girls at the wedding? Those that used up their lamp oil already were not let into the banquet, only those who conserved did.
Peace,
Chris
Peace,
Chris
Friday, February 04, 2005
Saw Hotel Rwanda again!
Still REALLY powerful. The topic is just SO dreadfully important, especially with Darfur going on. Hotel Rwanda has now been widely released! Go see it.
Peace,
Chris
Peace,
Chris
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Check it out, religious studies group stuff
Here is the calender for the religious studies group here at the U of O.
Peace and good night,
Chris
Peace and good night,
Chris
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Wyoming is number 1!!! Oh, wait that's bad
It's stuff like this that makes me not miss home too much.
State tops suicide list
By Becky Orr
rep6@wyomingnews.com
Published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle
CHEYENNE - Wyoming's suicide rate now is the highest in the United States.
Statistics from the American Association of Suicidology show that in 2002, 105 people in Wyoming took their own lives. The state has a rate of 21 deaths by suicide per 100,000 people.
The 2002 data is the most recent available.
"We need to do something about that," Dave Smith of Laramie said. "We don't want to be Number 1."
State tops suicide list
By Becky Orr
rep6@wyomingnews.com
Published in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle
CHEYENNE - Wyoming's suicide rate now is the highest in the United States.
Statistics from the American Association of Suicidology show that in 2002, 105 people in Wyoming took their own lives. The state has a rate of 21 deaths by suicide per 100,000 people.
The 2002 data is the most recent available.
"We need to do something about that," Dave Smith of Laramie said. "We don't want to be Number 1."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)