I don’t know how popular the idea is anymore, but in the olden days in seminary, chs. 55-6 were called third Isaiah, as it seemed different from so called Second Is. that starts at ch. 40. It is considered post-exilic, but the rub was that the people thought life would be great, and it’s not. I think most people now see Is as a thoroughly composite piece through editorial hands where section seemed mixed throughout.
By the way, Patricia Tull has a series on thoughtful christian for Advent on the readings from the OT. Her erudition, writing style, and insight are highly recommended.
1) Many hold that we need to back up and read this as a continuation of a communal lament hat starts in ch. 63.
2) this is an instance of using the familial Father in the OT.
3) This can be read as saying the prayers are not forthcoming because God has been hidden. In other words, if god were more forthcoming, so would the prayers.
4) I really felt with the writer on 9/11. Why couldn’t the airplanes have moved? For that matter why not the Pentagon and the WTC? Why couldn’t the plane over Pennsylvania made a nice soft landing? Will we ever see the likes o the parting of the red Sea or the stopping of the Jordan again?:
Apocalyptic material is most alluring when we are at the end o our rope an we feel helpless to change things on our own.
5) What part of contemporary life would you like to see shaken to its core?
6) I am so struck by the sheer longing in this prayer. It does not want god to be present, to be near. it wants action.
7) It is also both plaintive and daring. It seems to say that look, you made us, so why act surprised when we act out.
8) In the Incarnation, it has been said, god meets us halfway.It fits this passage. Instead of us coming to god, the prayer wants God to come to us. It is an Advent prayer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment