[reaction to OYB’s readings for Sep. 9-11]
Second Corinthians continues to be pretty mundane. Paul is asking for money and bashing the advocates of competing points of view about the nature of Christ’s message. Interesting evidence that, at least when Paul was writing, there was no orthodoxy–although, we obviously only get to read about the winning view in the canonized scriptures.
Isaiah, on the other hand, is letting the people of Judah know that things are about to get really, really terrible. But, they should not lose hope because despite how angry God is with them, he will eventually redeem them. Consider these descriptions of days to come from chapters 3:
6 A man will seize one of his brothers
in his father’s house, and say,
“You have a cloak, you be our leader;
take charge of this heap of ruins!”
7 But in that day he will cry out,
“I have no remedy.
I have no food or clothing in my house;
do not make me the leader of the people.”
And in chapter 4 how the wealthy women of Zion will act once they get theirs:
In that day seven women
will take hold of one man
and say, “We will eat our own food
and provide our own clothes;
only let us be called by your name.
Take away our disgrace!”
So, I read these as illustrations of how bad it will be. I don’t think Isaiah was predicting a specific event as much as he was relating a mood of how things would be. I’m not suggesting a re-interpretation, I’m suggesting that’s what Isaiah intended. What about Isaiah 9, which will include some familiar lines. Should this passage be read differently? If they are predictions, did Jesus satisfy them? Does anyone else think that they have heard this scripture read with several verses conveniently deleted, perhaps so it fits in the pageant better?
2 replies on “Day 82 (O Immanuel!)”
Does anyone else think that they have heard this scripture read with several verses conveniently deleted, perhaps so it fits in the pageant better?
I have a huge discomfort with the whole pre-millennial dispensationalist version of evangelicalism for exactly this reason. It's like they took the most enigmatic book, Revelation, and then patched it together with essentially random verses, almost random single *words* at times in other books, and then come up with their interpretation of that wierd patchwork as if it's a single-threaded narrative. And while that's dishonest and just plain stupid on its own, they then have the unmitigated gall to call what they've done "literalism". They make Orwell proud.
What you said.