We finished up the last three chapters of Isaiah this morning but I haven't done the homework in two weeks so I'm eight chapters behind. That's too bad because I felt that I was getting a handle on Isaiah and the effort required to keep up.
Anyway, one of the ladies quickly shared on Isaiah 64:6 (verse 5 in NAB) as she had read in a book by a Willow Creek pastor that the Hebrew expression has been euphemized in our English translations.1 So what else is new?
I have heard the literal expression before but, after the benefit of reading the better part of Second Isaiah, I pondered it more.
It's offensive, isn't it, that a natural female process would carry a negative connotation, even being equated with sin? But think of it another way: it signals a failure to conceive, a missed opportunity to create, a missed blessing almost certainly. And given all the imagery of birth and mothering - yes, I said "mothering" - in Isaiah (46:3 comes to mind), this verse can't simply be inspired misogyny.
And the other thing this verse isn't is a commentary on our "righteous deeds" in the estimation of a holy God. If the deeds aren't at least potentially righteous, then why even describe them as such before undercutting them? There must be such a thing as "righteous deeds" in order for particular instances to be disqualified ... by go-it-alone, human autonomy.
Plenty of verses speak of our inadequacy, so let's not try to make this one say more than it really does.
1 The HCSB has the literal word in a footnote.
1 comment:
Thanks for sharing. I had a feeling there had to be more to the use of `ed than "inspired misogyny" as you put it.
The analysis you share clears it up.
Post a Comment