The Isaiah passage is part of an argumentative prayer.
Text study for Isaiah 64:1-9
Lectionary text for Advent 1, Nov. 27, 2011
Have you seen the billboards beside the interstates that purport to be messages from God?
I’m on the road a lot and I see a lot of those signs; they always make me laugh and sometimes they make me think.
I saw one in east Tennessee that went like this:
DON’T MAKE ME COME DOWN THERE! — GOD.
The writer of our text from Isaiah would like that, I think. Though it is likely that he would be thinking, WHY DON’T YOU COME ON DOWN ALREADY, WHAT’S KEEPING YOU?
This text is part of a lament, an argumentative prayer, in which the prophet struggles with God over the fact that God has not been heard from in a while and things aren’t going so well for God’s people in the midst of God’s absence.
The NRSV (and the RSV and the KJV) translates Isaiah 64:1 as something of a sighing request:
“Oh, that you would tear open the heavens and come down.”
The Revised English Bible frames it as a question and makes the prophet’s complaint much clearer:
“Why do you not tear asunder the heavens and come down?”
The first part of our text has a tone of wondering and smoldering anger that God has left and abandoned the people.
This accusatory theme barely lets up in verses 5 through 7 where, although the prophet admits that the people have sinned, turned from God and are in trouble because of it, he also lays the blame for this sinfulness squarely in God’s lap for having gone away and left them to their own devices.
It’s like the old Mark Twain joke about the man who killed his parents and then pleaded for mercy from the court because he was an orphan.
A change in tone
Then, at the beginning of verse 8, one word changes the tone and the meaning of the entire text.
“Yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter, we are all the work of your hand.”
The Hebrew here is variously translated “yet,” “but,” “however,” “nevertheless.”
After making a serious and passionate case that things are really, really, bad and that God is, honestly, just as much to blame as the folk; the prophet speaks a word of hope and promise: “Yet, you are our Father.”
This word of hope and promise is rooted in an awareness of the mighty acts of God that have come before and in trust that God will act again.
The season of Advent
Advent is the season of “yet,” of “but,” of “however,” of “nevertheless.”
Advent is a time when we stare into the face of the present data of the world’s sorry state and dare to believe that God still cares and God still plans to do something about it.
Advent is a time when we wrestle with and confess the reality that we in the church all too often live out of a practical atheism, in which we say with our lips that we believe in God, but we say with our lives that we really believe, really put our trust, in armies, governments and savings accounts.
Advent is a time when we wait for the Lord to come, and while we wait, we seek to become people who gladly do right, who remember God and God’s ways.
Advent is a time when we do, indeed, wait for God to come down here, but it is not a fearful waiting, for it is promised that when God comes, our iniquity, our sin, our sorrow will be remembered no more.
Amen, come Lord Jesus.
Talkback:
- What does it mean to be “clay in the hands of the potter?”
- What are you waiting for this Advent?
Delmer Chilton is an assistant to the bishop of the Southeastern Synod of the ELCA, with responsibility for eastern and central Tennessee, northern Alabama and northern Georgia. Ordained in 1977, he has served parishes in North Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee.
You might also want to read:
Beginning by looking at the end
Which way are you flowing?
New perceptions in congregations
It feels like you're leaving us hanging. If our trust is in governments, armies and savings accounts, what is really going to happen when God comes down here and finds that to be the case?
And what does God do about this problem? After an encounter with God in Christ, can our trust stay in those things? How are our lives different as a result of what God has done for us?
Perhaps it is time to not only put Christ back in Christmas, but more importantly put Christ back in Christian. Where our faith is not found in bank accounts, armies and governments, our faith is lived out in the systems we as a collective people support. If indeed our trust is in the God of Grace and mercy, then perhaps we also need to work for more just systems that care for the least lost and lonely. It is not putting your faith in these earthly things, but it is living out your faith in the here and now. It is putting Christ back in Christian.
Perhaps there's no such thing as a 'just system'. All of these systems-- armies, government, economics-- are systems of death for us sinners. We can't help but to participate in them, but those systems cannot bring life. What is needed is an entirely new system-- the reign of God. That's not a tool for building the perfect society; God's presence is sufficient even when we're caught up in these systems of death. We can bring this new life to bear regardless of the system we're caught up in, and participating more in those systems is not the same thing.
We are called to walk out in a broken world with systems we know full well are not perfect. God does not condemn such systems but speaks of intent and how they are used. God is in the government law and when law is used justly by its Spirit and intent then systems tend to work because it is in the reign of God which is the now. Is it fully here yet? No but because of faith it breaks through quite often. Faith is the central point and key not the law. The law shows us our sin so hopefully we curb etc. etc. It is faith in our daily lives, in our work, when fighting the system, when speaking out that makes the difference. With faith you are handing it over to God.
As we are reminded in
Genesis 50:20 when Joseph speaks to his brothers
You intended to harm me, but God intended it all for good. He brought me to this position so I could save the lives of many people.
God does use evil for good. It matters not if the system is just. What matters is our faith and what we do in reponse with the gifts, or talents bestowed upon us. Unjust decision, unjust system is not to be used as an excuse for apathy or inaction. It is the motivation to call upon God and to have faith as so many of our biblical ancestors showed us and that great cloud of witness since.
Put in such a situation or confrontation causes a crises of faith either in an individual or a group. We are to doubt, have anxiety, wrestle with and question it. From Ester 4:14 we learn when she is talking to her uncle.
"And who knows but that you have come to your royal position for such a time as this?”
When all is said in done we are to have faith no matter what at the time it looks like to us. God will be there whether you call His name or not or believe or not. He can and does make unbelievers do His work.
The writer of the article did not leave us hanging---God did--- to move us to faith and to remember His grace is sufficient as He so often reminded Paul in the midst of unjustness.
Thank God for Advent that leaves us waiting and hanging and abandoning us for a small period of time. Making us reflect on who is in charge of it all, and allowing us the opportunity to have faith and turn it over to God.
I feel better now :)
Mary,
I agree with much of what you say, though I think it is a little jumbled. You cite Joseph as God using evil for good. Luther writes about a similar thing in Against the Turks where he says that the Turks are conquering Europe by God's will and that it is the rod of God's anger that has given them such military success. Nor do I disagree with you that God is in the government, even when it is bad, and using it as a system to inflict death on sinners. God working through sinners is not automatically a good thing for us. The Law used justly means my end, because justice is me getting what I deserve.
I agree that faith receives God's new way of doing things, but that's not what matters most. What matters most is what God has done for us in Christ. The receiving of that does reorder our lives, and it does bring new ways to dealing with things. Fishermen become fishers of people. The blind see, the deaf hear and the lame walk. It's not inaction or apathy but a way that is not of this world. A lot of people do work for social justice because of their encounter with Christ. Done in faith, that's okay. But social justice is not a 'you gotta' for Christ-trusters. There are other ways in which faith can be expressed.
I believe in what God has done for us in Christ is central. But when culture, and history has taken people another path then a more broad view is in order. We have the example of Peter who was Jewish to the core being instructed by God to eat food forbidden to him. Peter had to follow God and go against the normal order of things in his religious sphere. We have Paul traveling the Gentile world and dealing with issues such as circumcision or not, gods and the unknown God, and dealing with tradition and culture, Jewish and otherwise. Paul had to discern carefully what God wanted and it was not the norm. The billboards are a great example of a different way that moves toward love.
We are called to minister to all people and among other christians or societies influenced heavily by Christianity that is not a problem to stand on that as the central core. Many biblical examples as the apostles went out among the people show how using the tool of faith, of knowing that no matter what--Christ is in the law; in the faith no matter what name it is called--- helped them reach people that if they stood on the traditional phrasing would have alienated them and lost them to Christ. We do have that in this world unfortunately.
Because of our tendency to be warrior Christians (Crusades or I will force this down your throat my way) our own history calls us to look at the other ways of faith expressed to minister to all. I agree there are other faith expressions and God gives us many tools to use to spread the Good News. When words fail, when scripture will not be heard, when tradition gets in the way then all we are left with is faith, prayer and trust like Abraham. It may not be us that does it but as Luther and you stated it may be the Turks or another. Every person has their gifts that God determines their usage. Every denomination has their gifts to add to the Body of Christ. Every faith has their gifts that are from God as well. God is not fair-- ever. He loves us despite our foolishness. Forgives us even at the last minute. Sometimes uses others not of our way or faith to make His point. Sometimes He steps back and lets us have our way to our detriment. We are in agreement about much. It is simply I have a broader view. The places and the people even in a Christian society that refuse to hear it the normal way must be approached differently and the language you use to give the Good News must be different and put in a way that they will understand including youth. Milk before meat always. I believe in places where Christianity is not predominant there is the hidden Christ among the faithful of that place and as Paul did can be brought forth and eventually named for Him with their history, culture and identity in tact. It is the thing I ponder about during Advent. What if our ways and traditions are preventing ministry and the Good News? How can it all be moved so that LOVE which is always Christ becomes central? I agree it was not law that saved humanity the day He was crucified, but Love. I believe Jesus died of a broken heart. Advent makes us look at all this. Having a service with a different feel and purpose on a different day opens the door to other possibilities. Thank God it happens during the holiday season to help center us and look for Christ in all things and ways.
Mary,
I think the question of 'how do we explain the Good News in the context of any given culture' is a very important one, and I do agree that there is no one-size-fits-all. The biggest danger we face in trying to answer this question, though, is that we will change the Good News and something important will be lost in the translation.
One problem is that the Gospel-- that God forgives us our sins on account of Christ's death and resurrection alone and only-- is an inherently narrow view. There's no room for extras and there's no other way. Understanding this narrow view in different cultures is certainly possible (and Scripture shows us how Paul did it for Greek culture), but I don't think it's quite properly ever a 'broad view'. There were still competing gospels in Greek culture. The Gospel was not sugar-coated for the Greeks (see esp "For Jews desire signs and Greeks wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" (1 Cor 1:22-23). Paul did not add any extras nor did he suggest Christ be identified with any of the existing Greek gods, or even identified as an abstract "love".
Jesus was a concrete person, who came into this world and was murdered by us. This most of all, we don't dare sweep under the rug. This wasn't the metaphorical suffering of a sad God, this was someone who was killed. Sin is an ugly thing, and that's what God is dealing with in Christ. We have to keep our focus on that, or everything becomes blurry and we can't see how God has dealt with the problem of our sin.
Thanks. What if because of past focus on using the image of Christ and His suffering in a way that did not offer the Gospel but was used as a tool of intimidation? Years later after history has been written and time has passed and the feelings have built up against that image not because it was not true ( I agree with all you said up there) but because of misuse. If one offers that now because of history it puts a stumbling block in the way. It is not acceptable to use the approach of love? the approach of "the Word" or the approach of the lamb? All metaphorical terms to describe nearly the indescrible. Yes Jesus was human, Jesus was also divine hence the other terms. I would rather take the chance and lose a bit in translation than never be able to start the conversation at all because of an insistence in the beginning of a particular set of phrasing that I know full well will offend until a foundation is laid in love. My faith journey did not begin with my parents telling me Jesus suffered and died on the cross. I would not have understood. Instead by acts of grace and kindness, by stories of faith of my grandparents, ancestors, and parents, plus stories chosen at my level of understanding from the scripture--mostly about love, kindness, sometimes heroes-told to me. By countless stories in contemporary times without the emphasis of the murder on the cross but descriptions of faith. It was well up into my teenage years before I truly begin to understand what that really meant. So a process happens. We cannot use that way of teaching and passing on faith on to others? When the time so comes then move into the murder on the cross. If one had told me daily about the murder on the cross and not the rest emphasized I doubt I would be in church today.I would rather err on the side of love because love covers a multitude of sins, errors and slight mistranslations. Besides I never witness all correctly, or write it all correctly or even understand all correctly--I have faith that by trusting and sharing and loving freely that whatever I get wrong I trust God can use or will gently help me manage that or will send someone else to fill in the gaps I cannot. If I worry all the time about making sure I say a statement or a point, I will miss the opportunity to witness to someone about the Good News. I'd rather be wrong and witness than be right theologically and miss the chance. That is my opinion. I will take it to the altar later today. Thanks for the great deep and meaningful conversation.