Sheep and Goats

Category: Isaiah

  • Come Now and Let Us Reason Together

    “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD.” It was M.D. Craven’s favorite Bible quote. Or at least, he sure did use it a lot. I can hear him now. “Come now, and let us reason together,” he would say. It was sort of his mission statement as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. 

    It is not particularly a good rendering of Isaiah 1:18, but it’s how the King James Version of the Bible translates the verse. By the time I’d met Merrill, the New World Translation had been out for only a dozen years. Witnesses had previously used the King James Version in their personal study, meetings, and ministry. Merrill had stuck with what he knew. 

    The NWT much better conveys the thought, with it’s: “‘Come, now, and let us set matters straight between us,’ says Jehovah.” (‘LORD’ in all caps is always a fill-in for the divine name “Jehovah”—sometimes rendered “Yahweh” or something similar. It is the consonants that matter. The vowels are anyone’s guess.) “Set matters straight” is plainly what has to be done. The rest of Isaiah chapter 1 (and the preceding) makes that clear. It will not be just a matter of “reasoning.” Changes will have to be made. 

    “Though your sins are like scarlet, They will be made as white as snow; Though they are as red as crimson cloth, They will become like wool,” says the rest of verse 18, in any translation. For that to happen, Israelites must not just “reason.” They must “return to me [Jehovah] with all your hearts, With fasting and weeping and wailing.  Rip apart your hearts, and not your garments,” as Joel 2:12-13 puts it. It’s not an intellectual effort called for. It’s an effort of the heart. But if they made that effort, the rift between them would heal: Though their sins were like scarlet, they would be made white as snow.

    “Let us reason together” still prevails among Bible translations. Such is the influence of the KJV. I counted 24 translations at BibleGateway that do it that way. But more recent translations (the KJV is 400 years old!) are given to variants as “settling” (7), “discussing,” (5) or “talking things over.” (8) A few invite those Israelites to “argue” (5) and you get the impression that this is not an argument God is going to lose. Still, it is humble for him to phrase it that way, consistent with offering to “settle,” “talk things over,” or “discuss.” “Let us have it out,” says Byington, as though inviting those renegades to a barroom brawl. And NET ominously invites them to “consider your options.”

    It’s like how I would “consider my options” when Merrill himself would ask to borrow my car because his was in the shop. In normal circumstances, the answer would be “No way!” for he was a horrible driver. He had once been a good driver, presumably. In his working days, he’d driven the Bangor to Boston route for Greyhound Bus and, when asked what the M.D. stood for, he would reply, “Master Driver,” a title he would explain was “self-assumed.” But that was long ago. Unbeknownst to him, but painfully obvious to everyone else, his skills had slipped. “Forget about it!” is what I wanted to tell him.

    But he had been so good to me, taking me under his wing at a crucial time, that had he said: “Tom, I’d like to borrow your car and wrap it around a tree,” I would have still felt compelled to lend it to him. I “considered my options,” and then handed him the keys. Despite my misgivings, it always came back to me in one piece. 

    not like this

    ******  The bookstore

    Some kickback from those who preferred “reason” for Isaiah 1:18 sent me cracking the books, but not before offering a glib: 

    “Excuse me, sir, I’m taking a poll,” said a guy in sweats. I agreed, of course, and made ready to spout off opinions. “I’ll take that one,” he continued, and made off with the 10-foot pole behind me for his upcoming pole vault.

    Context is everything. Many words have multiple meanings & shades of meanings, even words spelled identically. Context indicates “set matters straight” works better.

    But then: One commentary (Grok) lists the key verb as “nivvakhah.” It has a judicial flavor. Primary meanings: to decide, judge, prove, rebuke, reprove, convince, arbitrate. In the times of King James, “reason” often carried that meaning, but today it just suggests an intellectual discussion. The upshot of the entire verse is that they will lose their case for sure, but God is offering terms to wipe that slate clean.

  • Reading Isaiah 2:1-11 at the Mid-Week Meeting

    If one is reading aloud the second chapter of Isaiah, it’s clear you have to put a long pause between verses 5 and 6. The thrust of the two is completely different:

    Verse 5:  “O house of Jacob, come, Let us walk in the light of Jehovah.”

    Verse 6:  “For you have forsaken your people, the house of Jacob.”

    Verse 5 belongs to the preceding verses of how “(2) In the final part of the days, the mountain of the house of Jehovah Will become firmly established . . . And to it all the nations will stream,” that (3 ) “many peoples will go and say: ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, To the house of the God of Jacob.  He will instruct us about his ways, And we will walk in his paths,’” that “law will go out of Zion, And the word of Jehovah out of Jerusalem,” who (4) “will render judgment among the nations And set matters straight respecting many peoples.  They will beat their swords into plowshares And their spears into pruning shears.  Nation will not lift up sword against nation, Nor will they learn war anymore.”  

    Who wouldn’t get excited about that? Isaiah sure does, so he appends his own plea: (5) “O house of Jacob, come, Let us walk in the light of Jehovah!”

    But the next verse is addressed to God, not to “the house of Jacob.” God has “forsaken [his] people.” A list of their offenses follow, culminating in (8): “Their land is filled with worthless gods. They bow down to the work of their own hands, To what their own fingers have made.”

    I would not likely have picked up on this need for a long pause had I not been assigned that Bible reading (Isaiah 2:1-11) at the mid-week meeting. But I was, and so I looked for other areas to emphasize. It’s not a sure thing, but all the same, I stomped rather hand on the “becomes” of verse 9:

    “So man bows down, he becomes low, And you cannot possibly pardon them.”

    I mean, to bow down, you must physically get low. But, given that final clause, “you cannot possibly pardon them,” it probably ought be read as though man also becomes spiritually low when he does that—he becomes low. Imagine: bowing down to “gods” that you yourself made!

    Idolatry is a consistent no-no in the Bible. Witness groups speaking to Muslims point this out fairly early. It generally comes as a surprise to them, since they are conditioned by churches, especially Catholic churches, into thinking that Christianity and idolatry are one and the same.

    “We are walking by faith, not by sight,” says 2 Corinthians 5:7. How is it not “walking by sight” if one feels best connected with God only if they are holding something, even something so ubiquitous as a cross? 

    It’s like when Israelites leaned on Aaron to cast that golden calf and then tried to pass it off as though God would be cool with it. “There is a festival to Jehovah tomorrow!” they announced. (Exodus 32:5) Sure, they knew the calf was not God; it just represented God. Surely God would be okay with that. He wasn’t.

    Neither is he shown that way in the last verses of the assigned reading: 

    “And you cannot possibly pardon them. (10) Enter into the rock and hide yourself in the dust Because of the terrifying presence of Jehovah And his majestic splendor.  (11) The haughty eyes of man will be brought low, And the arrogance of men will bow down.  Jehovah alone will be exalted in that day.”

    There are plenty of critics who will carry on about God being mean, so that his “presence” will be “terrifying.” Instead, I usually figure that he is giving a friendly heads-up. Take note of what gets him going and don’t do those things. It’s not that hard.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Why No Theological Terms in Watchtower Publications?

    ‘The author of a theodicy consents that his case be tried before the court of reason, and offers to represent the accused by refuting all the accusations of the planitiff.’ — Immanuel Kant. (1704-1804)*

    Is that why publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses never use the term theodicy—nor any other theological term? Why submit to trial in a kangaroo court run by rationists, replete with myriad ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ rules, some of which you suspect are specifically designed to ensure that ‘the accused’ is found ‘guilty?’

    Witness governing members look to those taking the lead in the first century, men they strive to emulate, men described in the Book of Acts (4:13) as “unlettered and ordinary.” They ask, ‘Would these ones know a theological term if it bit them in the rear end? Taking as self-evident that the answer is no, they say, ‘If it worked for them, it should work for us.’ They hold to the thought expressed by Paul to Timothy. “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

    If Scripture really has that effect, that of setting things straight and making the man of God fully competent, then aren’t theologians out of a job? Isn’t in their interests, therefore, to maintain that it doesn’t? They become like the agency head who insists ‘much work remains to be done.’ The moment he says that the work is done, he faces the unemployment line. Those above words of Paul are a threat to the theological machine. So, with regard to Scripture, the theologians make themselves a middleman. ‘It sets things straight’ when we say it does,’ they say. Thus, the Book of Job is not, per them, a record of a man who actually lived. It is the work of a writer presenting his theodicy, perhaps his evolving theodicy. Or, perhaps it is the work of multiple writers presenting multiple theodicies, of which you may take your pick or reject them all.

    The Jehovah’s Witness Governing Body will have none of it. ‘Try God’s ways in a human court, will they?’ they say. It is the other way around. You look into a mirror so as to adjust your skewed appearance. You don’t look into that mirror and wonder what is wrong with it for reflecting such an appearance. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, So my ways are higher than your ways And my thoughts than your thoughts,” are the words attributed to God at Isaiah 55:9. Should higher thoughts be tried in the courtroom of lower thoughts?

    Dr. James Hall is a theologian setting up such a courtroom. Introducing his Great Courses Lecture series, entitled, Philosophy of Religion, he says, “Let me assure you up front I’m not going to tell you what to think. The real purpose, the real goal of this course, is to encourage you to think, to push you to think and to help you organize your thinking equipment so that you can think more effectively.” Is it worrisome that five variations of ‘think’ are included in this mission statement? All of those thoughts, per Isaiah, will be ‘lower thoughts’—even though enhanced (or lowered still?) by embracing the modern critical thinking. Should such thoughts be the criteria for judging the higher ones?

    Exploring the merits of the ontological argument for God—a term that,  once again, you will never hear from Jehovah’s Witnesses, though possibly a Watchtower article somewhere quotes someone using it and the editors figured it was more trouble than it’s worth to pull it out, Dr Hall cites an earlier philosopher and churchman (Anselm of Lucca) who quoted Scripture: “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.” He then (incorrectly) repeats the phrase, apparently so his audience can mull it over: “The fool has said, ‘There is no God.’ (dropping the ‘in his heart’) Then, he contrasts ‘God’ and ‘no God.’ From there, he goes on to explore the attribute of ‘existence’ as opposed to non-existence. He holds aloft two identical books with identical attributes, attributes he describes at length, save for one: The one in his right hand “has a counterpart in reality.” The one in his left hand (which holds nothing) does not.

    About this time, the unkind reader may think of a certain internet profile which begins with an apology for “not having a PhD in whatever b******t your PhD is in.” Be that as it may, he or she may also note that the only point of significance is how the doctor, seemingly unaware, changed the underlying ‘fact’ of Psalm 14:1. Is the fool saying something in his heart the same as the fool saying it aloud? Or doesn’t the in his heart imply that he doesn’t say it aloud? Were there even people in that ancient Hebrew society who said there was no God? Isn’t the reference, in reality, to those who act as though there is no God—who think they lack accountability to God? You probably don’t want to use that scripture in calling atheists ‘fools’ because that is unlikely to be its intent. Whether they are or not is another matter, but this is not the verse to clinch it either way.

    This is the fellow you want running your rationalist courtroom, who passes over what is significant to quibble over word salads of existence and non-existence?  Who can be confident submitting their theodicy before a such a court that may even disbar the defense attorney for failing to take that nonsense seriously, who just wants to focus on what is meaningful? Why would anyone feel obliged to submit their case to it?

    *as cited in Kraeling, ‘The Book of the Ways of God,’ (1939) p243

    To be Continued (maybe)

    ******  The bookstore