OK now we move to another servant hymn.I was reviewing Paul Hanson commentary in the Interpretation series and still find it good. Again I tend to see the servant as a representative image for Israel, so that vitiates the individual v. collectivity argument.
1) It is a remarkable thing to think that other peoples/nations should listen to words coming from a corner of the world.
2)Notice that the imagery is non-violent in militant terms. So a sword is a word.I have deep respect for the peace movement, but I sometimes wonder if the fear of any sounding remotely militant makes sense? I grasp that words can hurt and their creative force, but they still do not kill. I suppose I still don;t get how censoring language promotes action.
3) I tend to see glory as the presence of God, but then I get tripped up with god being glorified in Israel. how do you think that works?
4)Notice tha t the servant is frustrated and tired, but a sense of being on the side of God keeps the work going.
5) When honor is stripped from the servant it comes from God's call.I wonder if we should use this as a baptismal badge of identity and strength more often?
6) In the midst of trouble, it is not enough for the call to Israel but globally. Israel is the impetus for a worldwide reach. How do you try to work with the notion of being a light to the nations. Surely this image had impact on American missionary activity and even our national self-concept to a degree.
7) I am intrigued by the v.7 linkage of Redeemer and Holy One.
8)Still, the downtrodden don;t remain so in this passage but will be recognized by other powers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment