Below are my comments on this passage. I have listed the comments by verse as a way of indicating more specifically when these thoughts came to mind. (Oftentimes, these observations were applicable to more than one verse in the passage.) This is not meant to be a commentary!
Verse 1
כֹּֽה־אָמַ֤ר יְהוָה֙
This is the third occasion of YHWH speaking in Deut-Isa, but in my opinion, this is the most direct set up for a pronouncement thus far.
The creating/forming language seems to stress Israel's obligation to God in return for his creating/forming them. This language seems odd, more reminiscent of the creation accounts than the formation of Israel as a people. Why does the text use this language? Does this language suggest that Israel would not exist (!) without God's initial action? Or does it merely reflect God's prospering the people of Israel? Strange! (Compare verse 7.)
Verse 2
Are the flames and water(s) in this verse metaphorical or indicative of something concrete in Israel's (putative) past? When I first translated this, I translated the futures in a future sense, and the perfects with a past sense, but I am by all means open to other possibilities. Is this passing over/through a (supposedly) future event or a reference to past events?
Verse 3
How does this sort of redemption work? What does it mean to give Cush or Saba in exchange for Israel? How would the mechanics of such an exchange work? (Despite my "mechanical" question, I'm trying to understand the imagery.) Does this exchange refer to "captivity" (or something like it)?
Verse 4
וְאֶתֵּ֤ן אָדָם֙ תַּחְתֶּ֔יךָ
The second word of this phrase, which I translate "humankind," seems as though it should be plural (Koehler-Baumgartner, ad loc.).
Verses 5 and 6
The directional phrases of this verse (and the following verse) suggest that the vision of the "bringing in" that the prophet envisions here is much more encompassing than Babylon. This depends in part on where the speaker is speaking from, which is perhaps still up for grabs in terms of the historical construction we are contriving (I don't mean this pejoratively) in class.
Verse 11
The speaker emphatically (I, I . . . ) identifies him- (its?-) self. Why? Is there confusion regarding who the speaker is? Or is this a way of proclaiming that YHWH is the highest (or only [!]) god?
Verse 12
YHWH identifies himself as (an?) אֵֽל.
Verse 14
Is this what it means to have a nation take the place of Israel? What does this say about the nature of redemption for Deut-Isa?
Verse 16
How many different Hebrew words are there for way/path?!
Verse 18
Why not remember/mention the former things?
Verse 21
If YHWH has created these people for himself, what does this mean about the other peoples? Are they created for other gods? Or are they not created but rather just exist?
CONCLUSION
I am still taken aback by the creation language concerning Israel, in part because I do not understand why the text would attempt to make such a move. Does this language extend beyond the normal calling language because the audience this text was addressed to may have no longer considered themselves "called"? Or did YHWH no longer exist for them? Thus the author pushed the obligation of Israel to YHWH back to the creation of this people rather than the covenant made with them? I don't know the answer to these questions, but I would love to hear your thoughts!
ADDENDUM
I (following Blenkinsopp) don't see a need to understand the "former things" in verse 18 as merely those things that have preceded "Deut-Isa." Having said this, I'm not really sure what "the former things" refers to. I'm not sure what the text is saying here, so I would like to explore this more in class.
The prophet(s) of Deut-Isa is certainly different from what I know of other major (and minor) prophets, as Weinfeld points out. The prophet of Deut-Isa may well resemble other ANE prophets. This is an interesting possibility, although I don't wish to make too much of it. I'm sure there is more to it than I know, but I feel at the moment like the ANE background is a bit of a "parellelomania" game. My question is, where does it get me to discover that the prophet may have been part of an ANE prophetic tradition rather than merely an Israelite tradition? I'm sure there is a good answer, but I'm having difficulty finding it at the moment.
Justin
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Justin,
ReplyDeleteI'm intrigued along with you with the use of creation language. I view the use of that language as making YHWH stronger. Tied with the rebuilding language in the pericope, we see how YHWH is source of creation and the redeemer of creation. For some reason I think of my mother when she was upset with me--"I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it!" Fortunately my mother's thoughts haven't been biblical, yet anyway.
Pastorally, I see it critical to be reminded of the strength and creative power of God. I'll admit, I'm somewhat overwhelmed with the Hebrew, but I hope to get some insight in our class setting. Thank you for your thoughts!
Travis K.W.
Hey, Justin. This is the 2nd time I've tried to post a response to you. For whatever reason, my responses don't seem to be "taking." So, I'll try once more:
ReplyDeleteI was interested in your comment about v. 21: If YHWH has created these people for himself, what does this mean about the other peoples? Are they created for other gods? Or are they not created but rather just exist?
I posed similar questions about YHWH's offering Egypt, Ethiopia, and Seba for ransom. This verse (3) implies that these people are YHWH's to do with as s/he pleases, and they are contrasted with Israel, who is precious in YHWH's sight, who was "created for [YHWH's] glory." It makes me uncomfortable, which is often true when conversation focuses on Israel's favored status. But here, the implication seems to have to do not only with covenantal relationship but with the whole notion of creation, and it's puzzling.
Your conclusion is also provocative. You ask, "Does this language extend beyond the normal calling language because the audience this text was addressed to may have no longer considered themselves 'called'?" I wondered in my now-vanished response to someone (April, maybe?) that this language felt to me as if it were meant to spark a genetic or communal memory to a people who had, indeed, forgotten "the former things" that YHWH had done. I hope we get to talk about this in class.
See you tomorrow--
Katie