Isaiah – Chapter 26
"If the wicked are shown grace,
they don't seem to get it.
In the land of right living, they persist in wrong living,
blind to the splendor of God." Isaiah 26:10
Bless me, O Internet, for I have not blogged; it's been 9 months since my last confession.
Just kidding (well, about everything but the fact that it's been 9 months since I last made an entry into my Isaiah project). Life happens so fast, doesn't it? Anyway, I'm going to try and pick up where I left off, because I believe there's value in finishing what you started ("People with their minds set on you, you keep completely whole, steady on their feet, because they keep at it and don't quit." Isaiah 26:3).
When I first read Isaiah 26, I jotted down the following thought in my journal: "Grace, wasted on the wicked?", and I was confused. Who else needs grace but the wicked? Looking back, I'm surprised at how temporarily black-and-white I was.
This passage uses the word "wicked" in a way that infers a counterpart ("the righteous"). Would grace ever need to be shown to the righteous? Well, if the righteous actually exist, I suppose they'd need grace as much as the next guy...
"...all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23
The book of Proverbs is chock full of references to wise people enjoying or appreciating correction, which means there's need for correction, even in the lives of those who are most enlightened. Need for correction = need for grace.
So, being counted as wicked or righteous obviously has nothing to do with marks on your record. The people Isaiah is talking about are no more guilty than anyone else. What they are is stubborn and unrepentant, and when he says that they don't seem to "get" grace, it seems to me he's suggesting that the gauge for "getting" grace is change. See, "in kindness, (God) takes us firmly by the hand and leads us into a radical life-change" (Romans 2:4), but if we're not willing to go down that road with Him, then all the mercy in the world will leave us in the same place; dead in our transgressions (Ephesians 2:5).
The 18th chapter of Matthew is full of good news for people who've screwed up time and time again. Like, when Peter asks Jesus "How many times do I forgive a brother or sister who hurts me? Seven?", and Jesus answers "Seven! Hardly. Try seventy times seven". God knows that we are a messed-up people, and that perfection is only at the very edge of our grasp due to His grace.
"The path of right-living people is level. The Leveler evens the road for the right-living." Isaiah 26:7
The path is only level because Someone goes ahead and makes it that way. Perhaps, then, the fundamental difference between the wicked and the righteous is a simple understanding of the source of righteousness. Let's no longer "persist in wrong living". Let's no longer be "blind to the splendor of God". Let's lose our ignorance and find our lives.
Isaiah — Chapter 25
"God, you are my God. I celebrate you. I praise you...
Here you've reduced the city to rubble,
the strong city to a pile of stones...
Superpowers will see it and honor you,
brutal oppressors bow in worshipful reverence.
They'll see that you take care of the poor..." Isaiah 25: 1-4
At first glance, these statements seemed disconnected to me:
a) God destroyed a city.
b) People will see that He looks out for the poor.
After reading through it a few times, though, it seems that the second remark is a result of the first. I don't quite understand how "a" leads to "b", though. I've been sitting here trying to think of a city in the Bible that was destroyed primarily because of it's treatment of the lower class, or even how such a catastrophe could possibly raise awareness of the conditions of the working man, and I'm coming up blank on all accounts (if anyone knows, please hit me up). It almost sounds a little revolutionary, doesn't it? Not like "moving in a circular fashion", but almost "take up arms against your oppressor" -ish. Overthrowing a financial oppressor, bringing them into submission, and elevating the cause of the lowest class. I'd think Marx and Engels would be pleased, don't you?
I went search-engine happy and stumbled on a song by an obnoxiously punked band called "Reagan Youth". The song is called "Jesus Was A Communist". Here are the lyrics:
Jesus was a communist
Jesus was a pacifist
Jesus was a communist
Jesus didn't like the rich
First of all, let me say that I don't believe Jesus was a communist, though he may have shared some views with them (or vice-versa). Second, my understanding is that pacifism isn't one of the tenets of communism, seeing as how nearly every time communists get power it's by force. Third (as if a third is needed), I'd say that "Jesus didn't like the rich" is overstatement, at the least. All that to say, this song is probably wrong.
But it's interesting, isn't it? Did the earthly Jesus actually have a preferred socio-economic platform? If we're to believe the majority of Americans, he was a capitalist through and through. Would that really fit his MO? Who knows? Who cares?
Okay, I care a little. But only because I'm a curious guy. The Bible answers the BIG questions. But sometimes, the Bible raises little itty-bitty questions that you just know you're not gonna be able to answer anytime soon. Like the Nephilim, for example. You know, in Genesis 6 when it says that the "sons of God" mated with human women and produced these titanic children? What in the heck is that all about??? I don't know, and it doesn't matter. You know what they say; curiosity killed the cat.
But the cat died happy.
The only certain truth I was able to walk away with in this passage was summed up in Isaiah's first 5 words.
God, You are my God.
Isaiah — Chapter 24
"Earth is polluted by its very own people,
who have broken its laws,
Disrupted its order,
violated the sacred and eternal covenant.
Therefore a curse, like a cancer,
ravages the earth." Isaiah 24: 5-6
I feel the need to remind you (and myself) that these passages I quote are always from The Message version of the Bible, unless otherwise noted. If you don't know what that means, check out this link:
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=65&lang=2
To paraphrase the paraphrase, essentially, the author of The Message went to the Greek or Hebrew or whichever original language the particular text was written in, and instead of trying to translate all the words verbatim, he tried to translate the meaning. So he took colloquialisms and adapted words which don't carry the intended meaning when literally translated and substituted them with modern equivalents. There's a fair amount of discussion in the world of biblical scholarship about whether or not this is a good idea. I don't know...but I like it. It helps me to see the Bible afresh. Maybe I'll switch back to the King James, after I get accustomed to this.
This preamble is merely to point out that, in the original text, the word "polluted" was probably not used. I don't think they had much issue with pollution back then. But it conveys a strong meaning to us in the here and now, doesn't it?
A little less than a year ago, I stared out a 19th floor window in the Bentley Hotel, Manhattan. Taxi cabs were the size of sleeping pills and watching the people run around, well, it made me sleepy. They all looked so busy and tired. The trash on the streets was as plentiful as sand on the beach. The whole scene was like a huge ant farm. I wasn't in the best of moods that day, and I remember thinking that people were like bacteria, or more like a virus that was infecting the earth. A cancer. A curse. The above passage reminds me of that day.
Some think that people are inherently good. Others tote the yin/yang theory. Personally, I think people are amazing things, with a capacity to imagine and create for good and ill that is unparalleled. Whether or not you believe in literal original sin, though, the average person has to see we are all stunted, either on a personal or societal level. Humanity and our whole planet can be healthy, but it's not. They're both being attacked at a molecular level. Call it cancer, a virus, bacteria, bad genes, bad guacamole...whatever. The bottom line is that, in general, we're like "an olive tree shaken clean of its olives, a grapevine picked clean of its grapes" (Isaiah 24: 13).
Wow. What a downer.
The good news is that there is hope. Tons of it, actually. One day, the cancer-code will be totally cracked. Most viruses are easily cured these days, and bacteria can be quashed with some polysporin and alcohol. Al Gore's working on the whole "pollution" thing. These similes, for the most part, have answers. And so does the object being compared: our humanity. What is the answer? Any guesses? Anyone???
------------------------------------------------->
Hey, as an aside, do you think perhaps Isaiah ever grew weary of being Mr Doom 'n Gloom? Check out verse 16:
"That's all well and good for somebody,
but all I can see is doom, doom, and more doom."
Or, enjoy the poetic rendition from the New International Version:
"I waste away, I waste away!
Woe to me!
The treacherous betray!
With treachery the treacherous betray!"
Yeah, probably. Here's to positivity!
Isaiah — Chapter 23
"Everything (Tyre) gets, all the money she takes in, will be turned over to God. It will not be put in banks. Her profits will be put to the use of God-Aware, God-Serving-People, providing plenty of food and the best of clothing." Isaiah 23: 18
Apparently, Tyre was an economic whore, sleeping around Wall Street style, and God didn't care much for that.
When I was younger, one of my favorite bands was a trio by the name of "Pray For Rain" (shortened to "PFR" after a BushX-type lawsuit threat). They were a Christian band that, at times, sounded so much like The Beatles that they could have been threatened with a second lawsuit in the opinions of many. I never really listened to The Beatles back then, but it's clear that PFR did. Now, I knew a lot of people in those days (and in these days) who were okay with me listening to PFR but not to The Beatles. Or, as another example, it would be cool for me to listen to DC Talk but not to a secular artist like, say, Run DMC. I always thought that was crazy. If you're brewing coffee with sewer water, I ain't drinking the coffee. Somewhere along the way, someone was misjudging something.
You know what? The above statement is a tangent that is unfortunately not totally pertinent to the passage in question. My apologies. Let's get back on track...
St. Augustine made an interesting point in his defense of using rhetoric in the presentation of the Gospel. It's often quoted as the concept of "Egyptian Gold", and it's lifted from the 12th chapter of Exodus when the Israelites are fleeing Egypt and they take a whack of gold and silver from the Egyptians on the way. The argument is that this wealth was probably at one point dedicated to a false god, or in the service of a godless nation, at least. There were probably even little idols in the mix. But God told them to take this stuff, 'cause they were gonna need it. It didn't matter who owned it or what it was for. They were just things. Things are only as good or as bad as their current use or as the people using them.
Hmm...I'm having a hard-go at connecting all the dots here. One more try...
His eye is one the sparrow?
Okay.
Bottomline: God provides for our needs, but don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Rather, don't look any gift in the past. After all, "The earth is God's, and everything in it." (I Corinthians 10: 26)
Isaiah — Chapter 22
"'On that Day I'll replace Shebna. I will call my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah...I'll give him your authority...I'll give him the key of the Davidic heritage. He'll have the run of the place—open any door and keep it open, lock any door and keep it locked. I'll pound him like a nail into a solid wall. He'll secure the Davidic tradition. Everything will hang on him...And then the Day will come...when that nail will come loose and fall out, break loose from that solid wall—and everything hanging on it will go with it.' That's what will happen. God says so." Isaiah 22: 20-25
While I was first reading through this passage, I remember thinking "Wow, that Shebna guy really screwed up. Thank goodness for Eliakim; he'll get the job done." But when I got to the end of the passage, I remember thinking "Wow, I really don't get God."
I mean, Eliakim was supposed to be the answer to most of Israel's leadership problems. He was gonna replace corruption and pride with nobility and humility, and he was gonna "secure the Davidic tradition". If that's the case, why was God then going to allow him to "come loose and fall out" so that "everything hanging" on him will fall too? Isaiah said that God would pound him "like a nail into a solid wall". I imagine that wouldn't have felt too good, having God sledgehammer you into gyprock or cement of society, but you'd think it'd be fairly effective, wouldn't you? I just didn't get it.
I'm still not sure that I have gotten it, but my perspective has changed slightly. He's only human. Not God, but the other guy, Eliakim. I'm sure that God drove him far into the political and social bedrock of the day, and I'm sure that a lot of weight rested on his head for a long time, but eventually, Eliakim had to die. Die or screw up or retire, or some combination thereof. See, everything that involves humans can only be temporary, because we're all temporary. So while we're unaware of the details that wiggled this nail loose from the wall, there could be a few dozen at least that don't implicate God as faithless.
Life is short. So are finishing nails.
-------------------------------------------------->
At this point I'd be tempted to throw in an "eat, drink, and be merry" straight out of Ecclesiastes (one of my favorite books, to be sure), but I've found a divergent take on the quote in this chapter suggesting that this enjoyment of life can't come at the cost of avoiding God's truth but must be coupled with embracing it, instead (v 12-14). Still, enjoy yourself. Just keep in mind the source of all pleasure.