The World View of Second Isaiah - June, 1977
A friend has asked me to put this essay online. It harks back to 1977 when I was a 30 year old theological student at Queen's University. Although I did not know it at the time, it marked the peak of my involvement in Christianity. I was in training to be a Minister (Pastor) in the United Church of Canada. A few months later I was back to work as a computer geek, having been politely shown to the door by the Church establishment. But that's another story.
See Dr. Robert Sapolsky for a later view of the "psychology" of Second Isaiah
See Dr. Robert Sapolsky for a later view of the "psychology" of Second Isaiah
The World View of Second Isaiah
What is a holy book? Too often, it seems, this question is brushed aside as a matter not proper for a critical study of the book. Just as hopeless is the approach that ignores the holiness of the book and studies it as one might approach, say the Illiad.
Being a relatively new Christian, I have not been drilled my whole life long with any particular view of Scripture. I do not hold that a book is holy just because it appears in the Bible. Quite the reverse: a book appears in the Bible because it was generally considered to be holy. But what is holiness?
It seems to me that holiness is subjective. It is in the eye of the beholder. For example, the Koran lacks the kind of gripping fascination that I find in may books in the Bible. To a Muslim, I imagine the situation would be reversed. This is not to say that holiness is purely subjective. I would rather say that holiness is apparent only to those who have the background to perceive it.
In this essay, I will try to bring out those aspects of Isaiah 40-55 (called simply "Isaiah" for the rest of this essay) that account for the great impact the book has had on me personally. In doing this, I will often be called upon to reflect on my own background. My task is to build a bridge, however flimsy, between the world-view of Isaiah and my own. This will lea me to consider points of contact that may appear strange at first, but long months of struggle have convinced me that we must reach with all our being and not just our intellect. The scholar pretends to be the one who never sings, never weeps, never hopes. It is it any wonder that the Isaiah he exhumes for us, embalmed in sober prose, has lost his ability to catch our imagination? This would not be so serious, were it not for the fact that it is just this ability that accounts for the continuing importance of the book.
[Note: the original reader of this essay would be very familiar with Isaiah 40-55. A lot of what's coming will make more sense if you take a look. Scholarly opinion is that 40-55 were written by a different person than the rest of the book, a point that is not central to what I had to say here]
Isaiah's Theology
Isaiah makes numerous statements about God, man and the relationship between the two. It is therefor tempting to construct a "theology" of Isaiah. There are, however, serious pitfalls to this understanding.
Firstly, there is the danger of failing to distinguish between "serous opinions", lyric imagery and mythical language. Isaiah did not write all one one level, and to fail to note the distinctions is to abandon all hope of understanding Isaiah's thinking.
Secondly, to construct a theology of Isaiah is to invite comparison between, say, the theology of Isaiah an the theology of Karl Barth. Nothing could be more misleading. Isaiah was not a theologian: he was a prophet. Nor would he have recognized the modern boundaries of theology: indeed the very subject itself is a later invention. Prosaic, systematic, dogmatic, objective statements about the nature and activities of God are not to be found in the ancient world before the Christian era. "A formal statement of his theology in modern terms therefore defies both the ecstatic feelings of the poet and the literary guise in which it is set forth" [1].
Thirdly, we must be careful to note the theology implicit in the book -- the theology underlying the writing but seldom, if ever, mentined. The most remarkable example of this is that, for the bulk of the book, it is Yahweh [God], not Isaiah, who speaks.
For these reasons, I make little attempt to construct a theology of Isaiah. Instead, I aim at an understanding of Isaiah's total experience of the world. I compare him not to modern theologians, but to modern songwriters, poets and myth makers.
Isaiah's Experience of God
Dan Hill
Many poets and songwriters are mystified to explain the source of their own inspiration. The songs and poems seem to "just come". It is not surprising that the Greeks believed that artistic inspiration was a gift of the Muses. Is this how Isaiah would have viewed his own gift? If he did see poetry as a gift from above, he would certainly have taken Yahweh for the giver.
Isaiah's confidence in the accuracy of his predictions (41:22, 42:9, 43:9, 44:7-8 etc.) would seem to rule out any theory that we are dealing with simple literary device, as we seem to be in Job 38-41.
Many other possibilities remain, including:
The distinction between poetic imagery and myth is an important one. For example, when Isaiah says "All flesh is grass" (40:2), he is clearly speaking metaphorically. He intends to contrast the "word of God", which remains forever with the transitory nature of man, something he does again in 40:24. On the other hand, in 40:21-22, he speaks of God living "above the circle of the Earth". This is not simply poetic imagery: it is a reference to the mythical picture of the sky as a dome [above which] God lives. Other examples are not so clear. Consider the statement "God measures the water of the sea in the hollow of his hand" (40:12). Does God have a hand? Is God very big? It is by no means clear that Isaiah is speaking metaphorically, although we would be if we used such language. Of course it might be objected that the real "theological" point in the passage is not the size and location of Yahweh but the fact that he created the Universe. But this is an artificial distinction. We cannot split off features of the myth that we don't like and retain those we do.
This "Procrustean bed" approach to myth asserts that the Bible "really means" what "we" believe today - the rest is figurative language. For example, the Genesis account of creation doesn't "really" mean that the Universe was created in six days. "Days" is a metaphor for a very long period of time. By refusing to admit the presence of myth, this method cannot hope to understand the material it deals with.
Myth is a symbolic story or complex of stories --some fact and some fantasy -- that is frequently told by being acted out in a ritual. For various reasons humans regard myth as expressing the inner meaning of the Universe and human life [6]. To ask if Isaiah "really believed" that God is a huge man that lives above the dome of the sky is as irrelevant as asking of Davie Crocket really wore a coon skin cap or if Santa Claus is really fat. The "truth" of the myth lies in the role it plays
[missing page here, sorry]
Are we then to throw the myth away? There were once many scholars (Rudolf Bultman [8] for one) who thought that such an enterprise was both possible and necessary. However, many are now questioning the assumption that "modern man" cannot take myth seriously [9]. IN fact, this "modern man" himself is coming to be regarded as mythical. One of the main points in this essay is that our culture is just as deeply immersed in mythical thinking as Isaiah's.
It also appears that the kerygma will not survive separation from the myth. What is left after the demythologizing operation is stone dead. Who can sing the praises of the Ground of All Being? Who can direct anguished prayers to his "Ultimate Concern"? This lifelessness results from a lack of appreciation for the function of the myth being studied. The myth is a living thing and if it is sick (as some myths definitely are) it requires the services of a skilled surgeon and not those of a mechanic. Let us look at one of these mythical creatures who, despite his long stay in John Robinson's garage [10] is still full of life ...
There is no denying that Isaiah depicts God in frankly anthropomorphic terms. Even when phrases that appear metaphorical (such as the "arms" of Yahweh) are eliminated, a hard core of mythical language remains. Yahweh ... he made the stars (40:26). He created the boundaries of the Earth (40:28). His big hands have been noted above.
Yahweh's anthropomorphic emotions are even more impressive than his anthropomorphic acts and physique. Yahweh "groans like a woman in labour" (42:14), feels anger (54:8), takes pity on Israel (54:8, 10). In fact the whole tone of Isaiah is that of a loving, compassionate God who has taken pity on Israel. One cannot read the book without being seduced into a personal relationship with Yahweh and making the intended response: one of security, hopefulness, awe and trust.
Some would discredit such ideas as being an insult to the "modern intelligence" (an attribute of the "modern man" mentioned above). Yahweh is to be banished from his home in the heavens and take up residence in the depths of human experience or (in very close quarters) "between man and man" [12]. His might acts of creation are to be dissolved into the slow, invisible workings of evolution. Demythologizers are much less concerned to dispense with the anthropomorphic emotions, but when the operation is over, they are conspicuously absent. For example, can one really picture the "Ground of All Being" feeling compassion?
Yahweh is very much alive outside the world of the academic theologians. Cockburn's song (above) is only one of many that expresses the ancient myth in new and vivid imagery. When confronted by the awesome mystery of the origin of the Universe, even the scientist is not immune ...
Knowledge of the immensity of the Universe provokes the same sense of profound insecurity in our times as it did in the time of Cyrus and Isaiah. The "Ground of All Being" starts to grow fingers...
Even when conventional ideas of God have retreated from the scene, an essentially personal deity remains. Who doesn't speak of Nature's Way or Lady Luck? Even that intrepid enemy of the fundamentalists, Blind Chance, is nothing but a deformed offspring of Lady Luck. He is not to be found anywhere else except in his mythical battle with the Creator God. He is not to be confused with his younger, sighted brother, Evolution.
It seems to go against the grain for man (modern or otherwise) to perceive the Universe as solely an object. He must enter into a relationship with his environment which is, to some extent at least, a relationship between personalities (An I-thou relationship). This profound need for an anthropomorphic God forms the very basis of Christian theology. Even though it does violence to reason, there is something immensely comforting in the thought that the creator of the Universe is none other than the man, Jesus of Nazareth. We will have more ot say about Jesus below, but first, let us examine Isaiah's view of history.
The Times Are A-Changing
Do not cling to the events of the past
or dwell on what happened long ago
Watch for the new thing I am going to do
It is happening already -- you can see it now
- Isaiah 43:18-19
The Lord Says
"Listen, you deaf people:
Look closely, you are blind! ...
- Isaiah 41:18
Come gather round people wherever you roam
And admit that the waters around you have grown
And accept that soon you'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth saving
Then you better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a changing
Bob Dylan [14]
The times were indeed changing in America of the sixties. America's youth were dying on the battlefields of Vietnam, the protesters in Alabama and the marches on the University campuses. Race riots in Harlem, Watts, Newark and Detroit left whole blocks in ruins. John Kennedy was gunned down in the street. And over it all hung the threat of total nuclear destruction. America's response to this crumbling of the foundations was a frantic search for an appropriate myth.
Supporters of the war blew the dust off the myth that had seen American through the last war: the Fight for Freedom. The dreaded Red Peril received new life. Opponents of the war were fond of the Struggle of the Oppressed Masses. Sale of American flags boomed.
Among the young, those graduates of America's High Schools of Mythology, the response was clear -cut and, for our purposes, remarkable. There was a stampede back to an idealized past. They invented a new style of music called "Folk" and donned frontier clothes. Many fled "back to the and" (soon to return).
The times were changing in Isaiah's time too, and the response was the same. In spite of the admonition noted above not to cling to the events of the past, Isaiah sponsored a return to monotheism, a rejection of idols and a renewed faith in Yahweh, the God of Jacob.
But, like the folk revival of the sixties, this was no sterile clinging to past traditions. Isaiah breathed new life into the old myths and put them to dramatic new use. Isaiah had a vision of the future.
The New Jerusalem
The Lord says
"O Jerusalem, you suffering, helpless city
with no one to comfort you
I will rebuild your foundations with precious stones
I will build your towers with rubies
your gates with stones that glow like fire
and the wall around you with jewels
- Isaiah 54:11-12
Space: the final frontier
These are the voyages of the Star Ship Enterprise
Its five-year mission:
To explore strange new worlds
To seek out new life, new civilizations
To boldly go where no man has gone before
Theme from Star Trek
An eschatological myth is one that interprets the present in terms of the future. Effective eschatological myths sweep up and re-shape other myths, especially historical myths. The new myth is seen as a reenactment or fulfillment of these [older] myths.
The Star Ship Enterprise is an example of popular American eschatology. There are many others. The Nuclear Armageddon believers of the sixties have mostly been absorbed into the "If-Pollution-Doesn't-Get-Us-Something-Else-Will (called IPDGUSEW below) Movements based on reinterpretation of Jewish and/or Christian eschatology (overlapping with IDGUSEW) still abound, much to the bewilderment of sober theologians. I have chosen the Enterprise for a close look because it shares with Isaiah's eschatology what other American eschatologis lack: it is hopeful, worldly and incredibly rich in reinterpreted current myth.
The theme (quoted above) is obviously a dramatic recasting of the Frontier Days myth that serves most Americans for history. But this is not the only myth to be found aboard the Star Ship Enterprise. The bridge is the good old American Melting Pot: there is a Scots engineering officer and a Russian weapons (?) officer. There is even a non-human (Vulcan) Science Officer to ensure us that the old melting pot is big enough to swallow the entire Universe. The Modern Man (American Standard Version) is too big to be stuffed into one body. He is incarnated in the three main characters: Mr. Spock, who is logical, "Bones" who is all heart and Captain Kirk who is the upholder of All that American Stands For (freedom, honesty, generosity, cleverness, bravery, loyalty, sexiness etc.).Of course all members of the crew are young, single and good-looking.
The episodes have one theme only: any problem, no matter how weird or unprecedented, can be overcome by All That America Stands For. As Science Fiction, Star Trek was terrible. As a study in American mythology, it is priceless.
It is fun to identify myths with popular culture, but a sober reminder is called for. To a very large extent (one might say as much as possible) human history is determined by myth. The real Enterprise, like the real Jerusalem, was a very modest affair compared to the mythical one, but neither would have existed were it not for their mythical counterpart. To use a more chilling example: Hitler's Reich did not last the hoped-for 1,000 years but seven years was long enough!
This last example and the three stars of the Enterprise remind us of an important role in the eschatological drama: that of the Superman.
The Superman
All we like sheep have gone astray
We have turned every one to his own way
And the Lord has laid on him
The iniquity of us all
- Isaiah 53:6
And just as all people were made sinners as the result of the disobedience of one man, in the same way they will all be put right with God as a result of the obedience of one man
- Romans 5:19
It's a small step for me, but it's a giant leap for mankind
- First [intended] words from the moon, Neil Armstrong, 1969
The Servant of the Lord in Isaiah is the mythical embodiment of All That Israel Stands For. He is filled with the spirit of Yahweh (42:11) and given power (42:6). Distant lands await his teaching (42:4) and he will bring justice to the nations (42:1). He will not lose hope or courage (42:4). He eagerly awaits the teaching of the Lord and has not turned away from Him (50:4-5). He was despised and rejected (53:3), enduring without complaint (53:7) the punishment due to others.
Scholars are prone to interpret the "Servant Passages" as poetic biography, saying that the Servant is "really" some historical figure predating Isaiah, such as Moses, Uzziah, Hezekiah, Josiah, Jehoiachain, Zerubbabel, the first Isaiah or Jeremiah [15]. Muilenberg [16] comes closest to the truth when he says the Servant is Israel. But this does not rule out theories that would base the portrait on some figure in Israel's past -- in fact, such a method would be most natural. However, Isaiah makes this individual the embodiment of the True Israel.
Amateurs tend to interpret the Servant passages with some preconceived notion of their own personal Messiah as the one spoken of (say, Jesus or Baha'u'lla). The passages are taken to be miraculous predictions of the life of their candidate. The mythical nature of the portrait is overlooked. But the amateurs are on to something overlooked by the scholars. There is a powerful psychological need to identify with heroes [17]. It is possible that, in Jesus, this identification was so strong that he actually became the Servant, just as Neil Armstrong announced himself to be the embodiment of the Hopes of Mankind, New American Standard version. It should also be noted that this personal identification, though necessary, is not sufficient. The would-be Messiah must be born into a society that is fervently expecting him. Born into a culture on fire with living myth, the hero becomes the Myth-Made-Man.
Conclusion
I am now in a position to advance an hypothesis in answer to the question I started with: What is a Holy Book?
We are all Myth-Made-Men [18]. We search until we find a myth that will sweep us up and carry us away in its currents. Insofar as this involvement is is less than total, it is unsatisfactory. To put it another way, as long as the myth is seen objectively, like Isaiah's idols (40:19-20 etc.) it is powerless. The myth has us in its grip when it involves us personally and subjectively.
I was a teen-ager in the sixties, a "folk" singer and an avit Science Fiction fan. A true believer in the "Modern Man". I scorned the humanities in favour of high technology: Math, Chemistry, Physics and Computer Science.
I am still a "folk" singer and a Science Fiction fan, but I have become very disillusioned with "Modern Man". In his place stands Jesus Christ and the conviction (myth viewed from the inside) that the basic nature of man has remained unchanged since he swung down from the trees.
Isaiah works his magic on me in two ways. Firstly he involves me personally in an I-Thou relationship and invites me to experience God in the way he did: as the all-enveloping Muse - what the mystics call "God Consciousness".
Secondly, by speaking of God as a mighty man who has great pity and concern for His people, he invokes a powerful archetype [19]. I seem to be one of those people who cannot live without an anthropomorphic God.
I have attempted to fathom the impact of Isaiah on his own time by comparing the myths he hused to those in the air in the America of the sixties. Since this analysis has been fairly objective, it attempts to explain (though not explain away) the impact of Isaiah on others, not on me.
We cannot escape mythical involvement, but we can and must chose our myths responsibly. To me, in the America of the 70's, it makes more sense to be swept up in the myths of the "Judeo-Christian Tradition" (American Standard version) than to be tossed about aimlessly by the myths underlying the beer commercials, the hit songs and the 11 o'clock news.
For these reasons, I make little attempt to construct a theology of Isaiah. Instead, I aim at an understanding of Isaiah's total experience of the world. I compare him not to modern theologians, but to modern songwriters, poets and myth makers.
Isaiah's Experience of God
The seed of music within me
has bloomed into a flower
and though it claims to set me free
I'm lost within its power
Dan Hill
Many poets and songwriters are mystified to explain the source of their own inspiration. The songs and poems seem to "just come". It is not surprising that the Greeks believed that artistic inspiration was a gift of the Muses. Is this how Isaiah would have viewed his own gift? If he did see poetry as a gift from above, he would certainly have taken Yahweh for the giver.
Isaiah's confidence in the accuracy of his predictions (41:22, 42:9, 43:9, 44:7-8 etc.) would seem to rule out any theory that we are dealing with simple literary device, as we seem to be in Job 38-41.
Many other possibilities remain, including:
- A variety of ecstatic prophecy, or possession by Yahweh, in which the normal personality is replaced by that of the deity [3];
- Interpretation of dreams, either those of the prophet himself or someone else;
- A "re-casting" or reinterpretation of authoritative doctrines regarded as having the authority of Yahweh behind them;
- Visions, like those reported in Isaiah 6;
- Statements issued under a once-given authority or commissioning, given in a dream, vision or possibly at the hands of first Isaiah.
I would be fascinated to learn just how Isaiah came to believe (if he did believe) that what he said and wrote was the word of God. Indeed, to me, nothing is more important to that what Isaiah would have seen to be his personal experience of God. Unfortunately, such intimate knowledge of the prophet is probably beyond our grasp.
One important observation can be made. We speak a lot these days of the "I-thou" relationship between God and man. The prophets point to an even more intimate experience of God as "I".
Myth and Metaphor
Progress in understanding scripture may in fact be said to be proportionate very largely to the extent to which its symbolic character is recognized [4]Isaiah was a poet, and appreciation of his writing requires and understanding his use of figurative language. Myth also plays an important role in his writing. We must not, however, make the mistake in assuming that Isaiah was so lost in mythical thinking that he was incapable of objective reasoning. His denunciation of idols (40:19-20, 44:9-20, 46:6-7) is based solely on a strategy of speaking plainly about the details of their construction, although he could easily have appealed to the traditional abhorance of idols.This is a fairly isolated example, however. In most of the book we are dealing with poetic imagery and myth.
The distinction between poetic imagery and myth is an important one. For example, when Isaiah says "All flesh is grass" (40:2), he is clearly speaking metaphorically. He intends to contrast the "word of God", which remains forever with the transitory nature of man, something he does again in 40:24. On the other hand, in 40:21-22, he speaks of God living "above the circle of the Earth". This is not simply poetic imagery: it is a reference to the mythical picture of the sky as a dome [above which] God lives. Other examples are not so clear. Consider the statement "God measures the water of the sea in the hollow of his hand" (40:12). Does God have a hand? Is God very big? It is by no means clear that Isaiah is speaking metaphorically, although we would be if we used such language. Of course it might be objected that the real "theological" point in the passage is not the size and location of Yahweh but the fact that he created the Universe. But this is an artificial distinction. We cannot split off features of the myth that we don't like and retain those we do.
This "Procrustean bed" approach to myth asserts that the Bible "really means" what "we" believe today - the rest is figurative language. For example, the Genesis account of creation doesn't "really" mean that the Universe was created in six days. "Days" is a metaphor for a very long period of time. By refusing to admit the presence of myth, this method cannot hope to understand the material it deals with.
Myth is a symbolic story or complex of stories --some fact and some fantasy -- that is frequently told by being acted out in a ritual. For various reasons humans regard myth as expressing the inner meaning of the Universe and human life [6]. To ask if Isaiah "really believed" that God is a huge man that lives above the dome of the sky is as irrelevant as asking of Davie Crocket really wore a coon skin cap or if Santa Claus is really fat. The "truth" of the myth lies in the role it plays
[missing page here, sorry]
[Congregation]
You make the clouds your chariot riding on the wings of the wind
you make the elements your messenger
fire and flame your servants
[Choir]
Bess the lord, O my soul
[Congregation]These [prayer book] lines are taken from Psalm 104 and obviously reflect the same mythical language that is found in much of Isaiah. Are we to assume that the [modern] recitation of ancient phrases such as these necessarily implies literal assent? Are we to assume that those who love these phrases literally believe them? Must we assume that there must have once been someone who did? I think not.
You set the world on its foundations ..
Are we then to throw the myth away? There were once many scholars (Rudolf Bultman [8] for one) who thought that such an enterprise was both possible and necessary. However, many are now questioning the assumption that "modern man" cannot take myth seriously [9]. IN fact, this "modern man" himself is coming to be regarded as mythical. One of the main points in this essay is that our culture is just as deeply immersed in mythical thinking as Isaiah's.
It also appears that the kerygma will not survive separation from the myth. What is left after the demythologizing operation is stone dead. Who can sing the praises of the Ground of All Being? Who can direct anguished prayers to his "Ultimate Concern"? This lifelessness results from a lack of appreciation for the function of the myth being studied. The myth is a living thing and if it is sick (as some myths definitely are) it requires the services of a skilled surgeon and not those of a mechanic. Let us look at one of these mythical creatures who, despite his long stay in John Robinson's garage [10] is still full of life ...
Lord of the starfields
Ancient of Days
Universe Maker
Here's a song in your praise
Wings of the storm cloud
Beginning and end
You make my heart leap
Like a banner in the wind
O love that fires the sun
Keep me burning.
Lord of the starfields
Sower of life,
Heaven and earth are
Full of your light
Voice of the nova
Smile of the dew
All of our yearning
Only comes home to you
O love that fires the sun
keep me burning
Bruce Cockburn
There is no denying that Isaiah depicts God in frankly anthropomorphic terms. Even when phrases that appear metaphorical (such as the "arms" of Yahweh) are eliminated, a hard core of mythical language remains. Yahweh ... he made the stars (40:26). He created the boundaries of the Earth (40:28). His big hands have been noted above.
Yahweh's anthropomorphic emotions are even more impressive than his anthropomorphic acts and physique. Yahweh "groans like a woman in labour" (42:14), feels anger (54:8), takes pity on Israel (54:8, 10). In fact the whole tone of Isaiah is that of a loving, compassionate God who has taken pity on Israel. One cannot read the book without being seduced into a personal relationship with Yahweh and making the intended response: one of security, hopefulness, awe and trust.
Some would discredit such ideas as being an insult to the "modern intelligence" (an attribute of the "modern man" mentioned above). Yahweh is to be banished from his home in the heavens and take up residence in the depths of human experience or (in very close quarters) "between man and man" [12]. His might acts of creation are to be dissolved into the slow, invisible workings of evolution. Demythologizers are much less concerned to dispense with the anthropomorphic emotions, but when the operation is over, they are conspicuously absent. For example, can one really picture the "Ground of All Being" feeling compassion?
Yahweh is very much alive outside the world of the academic theologians. Cockburn's song (above) is only one of many that expresses the ancient myth in new and vivid imagery. When confronted by the awesome mystery of the origin of the Universe, even the scientist is not immune ...
... At some stage, an event or series of events must have occured in this diffuse gas which determined that the Universe was launched on a career of expansion and not contraction. ... Jeans spoke in terms o the "finger of God agitating the ether" ...[13]
Knowledge of the immensity of the Universe provokes the same sense of profound insecurity in our times as it did in the time of Cyrus and Isaiah. The "Ground of All Being" starts to grow fingers...
Even when conventional ideas of God have retreated from the scene, an essentially personal deity remains. Who doesn't speak of Nature's Way or Lady Luck? Even that intrepid enemy of the fundamentalists, Blind Chance, is nothing but a deformed offspring of Lady Luck. He is not to be found anywhere else except in his mythical battle with the Creator God. He is not to be confused with his younger, sighted brother, Evolution.
It seems to go against the grain for man (modern or otherwise) to perceive the Universe as solely an object. He must enter into a relationship with his environment which is, to some extent at least, a relationship between personalities (An I-thou relationship). This profound need for an anthropomorphic God forms the very basis of Christian theology. Even though it does violence to reason, there is something immensely comforting in the thought that the creator of the Universe is none other than the man, Jesus of Nazareth. We will have more ot say about Jesus below, but first, let us examine Isaiah's view of history.
The Times Are A-Changing
Do not cling to the events of the past
or dwell on what happened long ago
Watch for the new thing I am going to do
It is happening already -- you can see it now
- Isaiah 43:18-19
The Lord Says
"Listen, you deaf people:
Look closely, you are blind! ...
- Isaiah 41:18
Come gather round people wherever you roam
And admit that the waters around you have grown
And accept that soon you'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth saving
Then you better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a changing
Bob Dylan [14]
The times were indeed changing in America of the sixties. America's youth were dying on the battlefields of Vietnam, the protesters in Alabama and the marches on the University campuses. Race riots in Harlem, Watts, Newark and Detroit left whole blocks in ruins. John Kennedy was gunned down in the street. And over it all hung the threat of total nuclear destruction. America's response to this crumbling of the foundations was a frantic search for an appropriate myth.
Supporters of the war blew the dust off the myth that had seen American through the last war: the Fight for Freedom. The dreaded Red Peril received new life. Opponents of the war were fond of the Struggle of the Oppressed Masses. Sale of American flags boomed.
Among the young, those graduates of America's High Schools of Mythology, the response was clear -cut and, for our purposes, remarkable. There was a stampede back to an idealized past. They invented a new style of music called "Folk" and donned frontier clothes. Many fled "back to the and" (soon to return).
The times were changing in Isaiah's time too, and the response was the same. In spite of the admonition noted above not to cling to the events of the past, Isaiah sponsored a return to monotheism, a rejection of idols and a renewed faith in Yahweh, the God of Jacob.
But, like the folk revival of the sixties, this was no sterile clinging to past traditions. Isaiah breathed new life into the old myths and put them to dramatic new use. Isaiah had a vision of the future.
The New Jerusalem
The Lord says
"O Jerusalem, you suffering, helpless city
with no one to comfort you
I will rebuild your foundations with precious stones
I will build your towers with rubies
your gates with stones that glow like fire
and the wall around you with jewels
- Isaiah 54:11-12
Space: the final frontier
These are the voyages of the Star Ship Enterprise
Its five-year mission:
To explore strange new worlds
To seek out new life, new civilizations
To boldly go where no man has gone before
Theme from Star Trek
An eschatological myth is one that interprets the present in terms of the future. Effective eschatological myths sweep up and re-shape other myths, especially historical myths. The new myth is seen as a reenactment or fulfillment of these [older] myths.
The Star Ship Enterprise is an example of popular American eschatology. There are many others. The Nuclear Armageddon believers of the sixties have mostly been absorbed into the "If-Pollution-Doesn't-Get-Us-Something-Else-Will (called IPDGUSEW below) Movements based on reinterpretation of Jewish and/or Christian eschatology (overlapping with IDGUSEW) still abound, much to the bewilderment of sober theologians. I have chosen the Enterprise for a close look because it shares with Isaiah's eschatology what other American eschatologis lack: it is hopeful, worldly and incredibly rich in reinterpreted current myth.
The theme (quoted above) is obviously a dramatic recasting of the Frontier Days myth that serves most Americans for history. But this is not the only myth to be found aboard the Star Ship Enterprise. The bridge is the good old American Melting Pot: there is a Scots engineering officer and a Russian weapons (?) officer. There is even a non-human (Vulcan) Science Officer to ensure us that the old melting pot is big enough to swallow the entire Universe. The Modern Man (American Standard Version) is too big to be stuffed into one body. He is incarnated in the three main characters: Mr. Spock, who is logical, "Bones" who is all heart and Captain Kirk who is the upholder of All that American Stands For (freedom, honesty, generosity, cleverness, bravery, loyalty, sexiness etc.).Of course all members of the crew are young, single and good-looking.
The episodes have one theme only: any problem, no matter how weird or unprecedented, can be overcome by All That America Stands For. As Science Fiction, Star Trek was terrible. As a study in American mythology, it is priceless.
It is fun to identify myths with popular culture, but a sober reminder is called for. To a very large extent (one might say as much as possible) human history is determined by myth. The real Enterprise, like the real Jerusalem, was a very modest affair compared to the mythical one, but neither would have existed were it not for their mythical counterpart. To use a more chilling example: Hitler's Reich did not last the hoped-for 1,000 years but seven years was long enough!
This last example and the three stars of the Enterprise remind us of an important role in the eschatological drama: that of the Superman.
The Superman
All we like sheep have gone astray
We have turned every one to his own way
And the Lord has laid on him
The iniquity of us all
- Isaiah 53:6
And just as all people were made sinners as the result of the disobedience of one man, in the same way they will all be put right with God as a result of the obedience of one man
- Romans 5:19
It's a small step for me, but it's a giant leap for mankind
- First [intended] words from the moon, Neil Armstrong, 1969
The Servant of the Lord in Isaiah is the mythical embodiment of All That Israel Stands For. He is filled with the spirit of Yahweh (42:11) and given power (42:6). Distant lands await his teaching (42:4) and he will bring justice to the nations (42:1). He will not lose hope or courage (42:4). He eagerly awaits the teaching of the Lord and has not turned away from Him (50:4-5). He was despised and rejected (53:3), enduring without complaint (53:7) the punishment due to others.
Scholars are prone to interpret the "Servant Passages" as poetic biography, saying that the Servant is "really" some historical figure predating Isaiah, such as Moses, Uzziah, Hezekiah, Josiah, Jehoiachain, Zerubbabel, the first Isaiah or Jeremiah [15]. Muilenberg [16] comes closest to the truth when he says the Servant is Israel. But this does not rule out theories that would base the portrait on some figure in Israel's past -- in fact, such a method would be most natural. However, Isaiah makes this individual the embodiment of the True Israel.
Amateurs tend to interpret the Servant passages with some preconceived notion of their own personal Messiah as the one spoken of (say, Jesus or Baha'u'lla). The passages are taken to be miraculous predictions of the life of their candidate. The mythical nature of the portrait is overlooked. But the amateurs are on to something overlooked by the scholars. There is a powerful psychological need to identify with heroes [17]. It is possible that, in Jesus, this identification was so strong that he actually became the Servant, just as Neil Armstrong announced himself to be the embodiment of the Hopes of Mankind, New American Standard version. It should also be noted that this personal identification, though necessary, is not sufficient. The would-be Messiah must be born into a society that is fervently expecting him. Born into a culture on fire with living myth, the hero becomes the Myth-Made-Man.
Conclusion
I am now in a position to advance an hypothesis in answer to the question I started with: What is a Holy Book?
We are all Myth-Made-Men [18]. We search until we find a myth that will sweep us up and carry us away in its currents. Insofar as this involvement is is less than total, it is unsatisfactory. To put it another way, as long as the myth is seen objectively, like Isaiah's idols (40:19-20 etc.) it is powerless. The myth has us in its grip when it involves us personally and subjectively.
I was a teen-ager in the sixties, a "folk" singer and an avit Science Fiction fan. A true believer in the "Modern Man". I scorned the humanities in favour of high technology: Math, Chemistry, Physics and Computer Science.
I am still a "folk" singer and a Science Fiction fan, but I have become very disillusioned with "Modern Man". In his place stands Jesus Christ and the conviction (myth viewed from the inside) that the basic nature of man has remained unchanged since he swung down from the trees.
Isaiah works his magic on me in two ways. Firstly he involves me personally in an I-Thou relationship and invites me to experience God in the way he did: as the all-enveloping Muse - what the mystics call "God Consciousness".
Secondly, by speaking of God as a mighty man who has great pity and concern for His people, he invokes a powerful archetype [19]. I seem to be one of those people who cannot live without an anthropomorphic God.
I have attempted to fathom the impact of Isaiah on his own time by comparing the myths he hused to those in the air in the America of the sixties. Since this analysis has been fairly objective, it attempts to explain (though not explain away) the impact of Isaiah on others, not on me.
We cannot escape mythical involvement, but we can and must chose our myths responsibly. To me, in the America of the 70's, it makes more sense to be swept up in the myths of the "Judeo-Christian Tradition" (American Standard version) than to be tossed about aimlessly by the myths underlying the beer commercials, the hit songs and the 11 o'clock news.
Can you expand on the I-Thou relationship? This seems to be the nuts of your thesis but it would come together nicely if this was clarified. Is this Yahweh and us or the myth and us?
ReplyDeleteI-Thou is a term used to describe a *personal* relationship. "Thou" means "you". It's the idea that an individual can have a direct conversation, a relationship, with the Creator of the Universe. It *is* the nuts of the thesis the possibility of a personal relationship with Jesus is central to Christianity and Yahweh speaks directly to individuals throughout the Old Testament.
Delete