Isaiah's broken pot--and the scholar's unintended help

“…on the day of the great slaughter

when the strongholds fall.” –Isaiah 30:25b

This verse, this fragment of a verse, comes near the end of chapter 30, and  follows immediately upon a vision of security and comfort, of abundance and peace—an almost Eden-like vision—and that placement caught my attention so I went searching for some guidance from footnotes and commentaries, trying to find out what the scholars had to say.  And here is what I learned.

First: scholars speak of the fragmentary nature of the book of Isaiah. They even speak of three different Isaiahs: first (ch. 1-39), second (40-55) and third Isaiah (56-66) writing over a period of hundreds of years. This fragmentariness is emphasized in my Catholic Study Bible (Oxford 2007) by referring to the chapters as “a collection of collections” (RG 205).  The implication being that over hundreds of years followers of Isaiah were gathering pieces of manuscripts and sayings and scraps of sayings and only much later someone(s) began organizing them into a book as best they could. But, in no way are we to imagine that the book is even meant to be a cohesive whole. It should be read as a kind of library of sayings—almost a crazy quilt of sayings attributed to or connected to the prophet. But, definitely not an unadulterated vision from a single individual named, Isaiah.  

As evidence of this theory scholars offer the surprising awkwardness of this phrase (and others like it). The sudden abrupt change of tone from peace and comfort to slaughter and destruction is, in this theory, a sign of that fragmentary structure.  The Jerome Biblical Commentary calls this “day of destruction” passage a “surprising thought” which appears to belong somewhere else (JBC 279.16:52c).  Okay. Maybe so.

Second: Another thought about this particular “fragment” is that the abrupt change of tone is intentional.  They interpret the phrase as referring not to Israel’s destruction, but the slaughter of Israel’s enemies (in particular, the Assyrians). Read this way, the verse seems to explain why Israel will experience abundance and tranquility: because her enemies will be destroyed!  Okay. I can see how that might make sense.

Third: But… my concern is not the same as the scholar’s. My concern is with God's word, the text that God has given us, not with the text a human hand, community, culture created (or intended).  As a reader of faith, my concern is with the Bible we have, not the one that we might have had.  The creation of the Bible, possible sources, fragmentary verses, questions of translation and alternative manuscripts, etc, Yes! Those are appropriate scholarly concerns worthy of all their efforts.  And if they shed light on the meaning of difficult passages –or even complicate our understanding of easier passages, that is all good. And deserving of their work.  I don’t want to demean that.  As people of faith we want the best and most accurate translations and annotations we can get, as tools to help us understand God’s word. God’s meaning. These can be useful tools for opening the eyes of faith to the eternal truths living in His word.  And I think that is what happened for me as I contemplated this “surprising thought.”  

I want to show how a brief note to an obscure fragment of a pieced together verse in the midst of a massive and difficult and sometimes quite obscure text, opened my eyes and ears to a truth planted there by an author eye has not seen and a voice ear has not heard… so to speak.

Because the fragment stood out, because it didn’t seem to make, it caught my attention.  Because of that, I went in search of commentary to help me understand.  And because of that, I stumbled upon a footnote that questioned whether the fragment even belonged where it is in Isaiah.  But, because it is there, and seems slightly out of place, it caught my attention. 

Let me step back for a moment and say, my first instinct was to question not the text, but the footnote. My initial instinct was to challenge the so-called experts: The emperor has no clothes! so to speak. These so-called experts with all their degrees and studies and training… Who are they to tell me how to read the Bible?!  

Yet, because of the note, I went back and reread the whole chapter. This time paying extra attention to the imagery of the verses leading up to that “day of destruction.”  In search of clues, I even got out a different translation to see if that would help. And reading the passage with new eyes, through this different translation, I discovered this:

“He will shatter it like an earthenware pot, ruthlessly

knocking it to pieces… not one shard can be found

with which to take up fire from the hearth or

scoop water from the storage-well.” (Isaiah 30:14)

Clearly there is something here that reminds us of that “day of destruction” imagery. And this is part of a prophetic statement about Israel’s disloyalty that starts in verse 12. It calls to mind her rejection of the “Holy One of Israel,” and tells of how Israel’s sin will become a breach in her security, a “bulge at the top of a wall which suddenly and all-at-once comes crashing down” (30:13b), and rereading all of this I thought: Yes! This image, this language, it prefigures that destruction, even that falling stronghold.  This seemed to me clear evidence that this “surprising thought” which “may be displaced from another section” (JBC 279.16:52) might not be as as surprising and displaced as it seems.

In fact: where else could it belong? Rereading the whole chapter, because of the scholar’s note, I could see with fresh eyes the movement of the chapter: from warnings to prophecies to testaments against Israel and her ill-advised alliance with Egypt to promises of mercy and guidance, forbearance and forgiveness, of rain and abundance of crops and flowing streams on every hill top then abruptly back to a vision of “great slaughter” and falling strongholds that echoes God’s earlier promise to shatter like a clay pot our walls of security (our battlements) so completely that we won’t even be able to find a piece large enough to carry a hot coal or scoop up a tiny drink of water.

It is as if God (or the prophet) were lulling us into a false sense of security –like the one we get from our earthly alliances (our wealth, our position, our reputation, etc)—only to shatter it by reminding us that God’s grace is not comfortable.  It does not come cheaply. It is not easy. All God asks is… Everything.  Take up your cross and follow Him to the Mountain of the Lord where streams flow and the bread is abundant, rich and nourishing (cf.30:23) where even the oxen and donkey eat sorrel by the shovel full.

Letting go of my ego, my pride, my sin isn’t easy.  Those are my security blankets. My battlements, my stronghold, so to speak. Letting them go makes me feel vulnerable. My walls are broken, my tower has fallen, my defenses are breached, shattered even.  Which may be exactly where God wants us. For, in that moment of vulnerability and brokenness, God assures us He will be right there with us, sharing with us the “bread of suffering, the waters of distress…” (cf. 30:20).  And He will no longer hide Himself from us, but we will see Him with our own eyes, and hear His voice guiding us:

“This is the way; walk in it…” (30:21b)

And so, in the end, I am left to wonder not what this verse meant to the ancient writer, not what it was intended to say by the later scholars who created the book of Isaiah, and not whether it applies to Israel or to Assyria or any other enemies... In this broken shard, this tiny fragment, I hear a word that speaks to me. A voice that says on the day of destruction, when my tower has fallen, God will be with me. And I begin to wonder, is it possible that only in our brokenness, only when our walls are breached and our towers and battlements shattered, only in our hour of weakness and vulnerability can we actually begin to hear the that was always there, always calling to us those merciful, compassionate words of loving guidance:

“This is the way; walk in it.”

Calling us to come climb the Lord’s mountain of love, where water flows free and the earth abundant in her gifts; climb the Lord's mountain and walk with Him in the beautiful garden.

Maybe that isn’t exactly what the scholars are seeking as they gather their footnotes, but thanks to their notes, (and God’s grace) it is what I hear. And I needed to take a moment to thank them for their help in opening my ears.

Proverbs and the seduction of the fantasy life

“Why be seduced, my son, by someone else’s wife,
and fondle the breast of a woman who belongs to another?”
–Proverbs 5: 20

Before I leave the book of Proverbs, I wanted to take a moment to address this passage, that seems (on the one hand) to be advice for a young husband.  Of course, there is much value in such advice.  How many marriages are broken up by a husband who keeps looking for something more, as if his wife were just some kind of relationship place-holder, a kind of security blanket that can be replaced when a newer or “better” version comes along.

When I first read this passage, I was a little stunned that it was in the Bible.  The boldness of it, the matter of fact sensuality, the image of lust:  fondle the breast of a woman who belongs to another.  It gets right to the point.  I was also struck by what it reveals about men.  I had harbored a theory that perhaps our cultural obsession with women’s anatomy (in advertisements and movies, etc) was nurtured by the pornography industry that became so ubiquitous in the 60’s & 70’s (i.e. Playboy, Penthouse, even Esquire and Cosmopolitan, etc).  These publications with their nude or nearly nude pictures were treated as serious magazines by many people[1].  And so common place and accepted that at our house they were often sitting out on the coffee table[2].

 But clearly, this isn’t totally Hugh Heffner’s fault.  It has probably always been this way.  That is not an excuse, just an acknowledgment of possible fact.

Another thought: There is something Hellish in this vision of desire: of seeking pleasure in something that doesn’t belong to us.  It is a vision of desire that can never be fully satisfied.  It is a vision of hungering for something that we can never have.  It’s right there in the words: why fondle the breast of a woman who belongs to another?  She isn’t yours. She can never be yours. And in the end, it isn’t the fondling that we actually want. It’s the belonging! What we really want is to have someone who is ours. Not because we own them or possess them, but because they give themselves to us.  In the end, we want to belong. We want to be connected.  We want to give ourselves and be accepted, not as property, but as gift.

And (for me that speaks to what is actually wrong with pornography. It isn’t about giving, it’s about taking.  And it isn’t even about taking what is real. It’s about taking something that doesn’t actually exist, it’s a fantasy of filling our hunger with imaginary bread!  It promises a fantasy of connection, without the risk of relationship –without the obligations of belonging. On occasion, I have heard that absence of risk and obligation presented as a positive aspect. But, risk free isn’t reality; to truly fill that void within us that seeks intimacy requires risk.  That is part of what makes it so fulfilling. We risk everything, reveal everything and are still accepted; still belong.  That is the affirmation we are all seeking. That we are loved not for who we want to be or could be, but for who we are.

In essence, pornography is a cheap picture of a cheeseburger and a milk shake offered in place of food to a starving man.  It is a kind of Trojan Horse: a fantasy promise of pleasure and satisfaction that is secretly designed to only stir up more appetite. Think of it this way: it is like handing a man dying of thirst, a cool glass of water that is secretly filled with salt.

In essence, I hear in this message not only a warning against lust, but a warning against coveting. Against stirring up my own appetite for what belongs to another. It is a warning against fondling, even in my imagination, the treasures, the joys, the reputation, of another. And a call to reconsider the gifts, the treasures, the joys that I have been given. To find my calling, my place, my sense of belonging not in some fantasy, but in the actual gifts and opportunities that have been given to me. 

Part of that gift may even include the blessing of something that looks like a cross, and the opportunity to take it up, hold it close, and bear it humbly and with love.  In other words: Why be seduced by someone else’s life… Wake up and live your own.

---

[1] Heck, in 1976, President Carter was famously interviewed by Playboy Magazine. 

[2] Recently, while clearing out my Mom’s apartment, I discovered a suitcase full of old family pictures and mementos. At the bottom of the suitcase, beneath all the family memories was an old copy of Cosmo wrapped in a plastic bag. When I took it out, I noticed the headline: First Male Centerfold! (FYI: the center-fold was a picture of Burt Reynolds. And, as awkward as this is to say, it was a very well-worn copy. MOM!!)

Obedience and blindness

Mass Reading

22 December 2019

“…the obedience of faith…”

--Romans 1:5

I am still thinking about the Mass readings (Isaiah, Romans & Matthew) from last Sunday (Dec 22) the last Sunday before Christmas. Something about these readings, has lingered with me these past few days, haunted this beginning of the Christmas season. Arising from these three distinct strands, is a harmony of meaning that feels best expressed by Paul’s phrase:  the obedience of faith, from the beginning of his Letter to the Romans. In our contemporary culture, obedience is often seen in a negative light. Too often, it is linked with the word “blind” (as in blind obedience or blind faith), to imply an irrational belief or behavior, even a blindness to common sense. But what if the obedience of faith isn’t about “blindness,” but about having our eyes opened? What if the obedience of faith is a way to open our eyes to the wonders of grace? The possibility of miracles happening, even today, even to us, even in our everyday lives?

The first reading was from Isaiah 7:10-14. It was the story of King Ahaz being offered a sign from God, anything he asks for, “…whether from the depths of Sheol or the heights of Heaven…” But Ahaz refuses the offer. In fact, he seems frightened by it. “I will not ask!  I will not tempt the Lord.” (7:12), he replies. Which isn’t a ridiculous response; on some level it seems quite appropriate.  In Deuteronomy 6:16, Israel is specifically warned against putting God to the test:  

“Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God…”

But obviously, that isn’t what is going on here. God is extending the offer, and Ahaz is avoiding it. He closes his eyes to the possibility of God actually speaking to him through the prophet. Instead of opening his eyes to the possibility, he hides behind the law.  He uses obedience to the Law, to protect himself. Through obedience to the Law, he protects himself from the inherent risk involved in obedience to God, the vulnerability of submitting himself fully to God.

In contrast, we have the Gospel reading (Matthew 1:18-24) telling us about Joseph, the righteous man, who turns away from the Law in order to obey God.  As opposed to Ahaz—the corrupt king who uses the law to his own benefit—Joseph is a man who observes the law with compassion.  We are told that when he finds out his new bride is already pregnant, he is “unwilling to expose her to shame,” and intends to “divorce her quietly;” (1:19) acting within the law, but not hiding behind it with righteous indignation, only following it with compassion for Mary and her situation, which –according to Deuteronomy 22:23—might have called for her to be stoned outside the city gates. And yet, when Joseph hears a command from heaven that seems crazy, seems to flaunt the Law, probably goes against everything he has been taught, he listens, and follows God’s command.  To the world around him, Joseph must look like a fool.  He is what the medievals would call a cuckold. But Joseph accepts that risk, that vulnerability, that public shame even, and instead of being obedient to the Law, is obedient to God (the author of the Law). Joseph's obedience is the obedience of faith, not fear. It is an obedience that fills the heart with joy, with hope, with courage; an obedience that opens our hearts, our minds, our souls, our eyes!! to possibilities beyond our imagining,

That is what I hear in these readings. A call to an obedience that opens our lives and the world to the possibility of miracles! It is an obedience that will be a sign to others, a witness to the world that “God is with us.” 

And the sign will be: an innocent baby lying in a manger, rejected by the world, yet offering Himself for our salvation.   

Believe, not with "blind faith" but with your eyes opened by faith; do not be blinded by fear. Instead, be brave. Be bold. Be kind. Be compassionate. Be generous.

Be obedient--with the obedience of faith.