Theology 7372, Fall 2009

We have spoken in class several times about the call of Isaiah – a call to a ministry of frustration, to a people who do not hear or see.  This has led to discussions about our own callings.  Do we follow God for extrinsic or intrinsic reasons?  What about when our people fail to see and hear?  I would now like to broaden the discussion to the people themselves.  Is it a foregone conclusion that the people to whom Isaiah is called will fail to hear him?  If so, why?  Is it because God has somehow predestined their response?  The following blog will explore these questions.  The passage at hand reads thus:

And he said, “Go, and say to this people:

“‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand;keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’  Make the heart of this people dull,
and their ears heavy,
and blind their eyes;
lest they see with their eyes,
and hear with their ears,
and understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed.” (Isaiah 6:9-10, ESV)

As I read the above text, I can’t help but note the sarcasm in God’s tone.  After all, he is basically giving Isaiah the text for his first sermon: tell the people, “Keep hearing, but do not understand.  Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.”  This could be read as a divine mandate from God to the people, but this such a reading seems a bit ridiculous (why call a prophet to command people to be obstinate?).  Instead, it seems more plausible that God is supplying Isaiah with a prophetic message for the people that is to delivered by means of sarcasm and hyperbole.  If we were to recast these words in a more positive and straightforward light, they might read like this: “You have opportunity to hear, yet you do not understand.  You have opportunity to see, but you do not perceive.  Quit it!”  Far from being a prophetic oracle, I would argue that the first part of this message is actually based on Israel’s track record.  Despite having the law, despite having the prophets, the people have gone in wrong directions.  In this sense, they have indeed heard and seen without understanding or perceiving.  This message to the people is not a fatalistic command; it is a hyperbolic statement meant to jar them from their complacency.

But what about the rest of the passage?  Notice what God tells Isaiah to do: make the people’s hearts dull (literally fat), ears heavy, and eyes blind.  Once again, this may be read in a fatalistic since – Isaiah is God’s instrument to harden the people’s hearts.  But in reality, how can a preacher make people dull?  Is there something intrinsic to Isaiah’s message or style that will bring about such a result?  Or could it be that God is once again employing sarcasm, once again referencing their attitude in the past?  In effect, he would here be saying, “I’m sending you to preach, but it won’t do any good.  The more you preach the more they’ll tune you out.”  Therefore, Isaiah will make their hearts fat, their ears heavy, and their eyes blind, because he is faithful in preaching an ignored message.  He will over and over give the people a chance to hear the truth about themselves, thereby making their hearts fat and ears heavy, but they will not listen.  Indeed, the people will indite themselves by failing to heed his word.

Then come the last phrases, which sound a lot like God is sending Isaiah for the specific purpose that the people should not repent.  This can once again be read fatalistically, but it can also once again be read sarcastically.  Let’s take a moment to think about this.  Does God really need to send a prophet to ensure the people’s lack of repentance?  They are already headed in the wrong direction.  Are they really in danger of repenting in their current state.  It would seem that the “desired effect” would come about just fine without Isaiah’s ministry.  Then why send Isaiah?  The same reason for sending the other prophets – to pronounce judgment on the people and encourage them to get right with God.  Yet the people will not heed this message, as is proven by their track record.  They will therefore refuse healing not because of anything intrinsic to Isaiah’s message, but rather because of their rejection of that message.  God once again employs sarcasm to highlight the deficiency of the people.  In the end, we might paraphrase God as saying something like this:

Preach to the people, but they won’t listen.  Preach until you’re blue in the face, but they will reject you.  And as they do, they will become more and more dull.  Preach even though the people’s obstinance will keep them from being healed.

All  of this seems to me to be a kind of commentary on Israel’s response to the prophets.  Instead of being converted, they become more set in their ways and dull.  In this passage, sarcasm is used to get this message across – God sends Isaiah to turn the people, but they will ultimately reject his message, thereby forfeiting a chance for healing.  The point is not that God is purposefully making the people dull.  The point is that they already are dull and that even sending a prophet won’t change this state of affairs.  He will preach to convert them, but in fact the exact opposite will come about.  They will reject him and in doing so will call judgment down on themselves.  In all of this, God offers a commentary on the state of affairs into which he is sending Isaiah, and things aren’t good.

Maybe I’m too frightened of fatalism in the above argument, but I’ve tried to offer a viable alternative.  In the end, I don’t see the sense in sending a prophet to make a dull people duller.  I do, however, see a realism that understands that even sending a prophet very well might not ignite the needed repentance.  And I see frustrated sarcasm being employed to paint this state of affairs in stark terms.  In the use of such sarcastic language, the irony is caught – God is sending a prophet to turn the people, but they will give the opposite response.

This aspect of Jeremiah was very interesting to me.  At the beginning of the Book of Jeremiah he sees a staff and a caldron.   I was very confused by this vision or if it is a vision or not.  While reading a few articles on this subject i found a scholar who believes that it was not a vision.  He thinks that during Jeremiah’s calling, he was in the temple.  When God told him to look before him, he saw a staff and a caldron which were objects that he argues could be in the temple.

This idea seem to make sense to me.  Also the idea that all his vision were not fiction but based on reality.  If Jeremiah saw the staff of Aaron then the idea that he was supposed to lead the Israelites would be obvious.

These are just different way to understand visions of prophets

Upon further contemplation, and urging from Dr. Reid, I have thought more about the Exodus 1-19 passage in light of my current work situation – working with children in displaced home due to abuse. I think for me, this passage becomes even more relevant for the people of today’s churches to read and understand.  So often we hear the same cry – not only from children, but also adults suffering under the unemployment rate, joblessness, and economic disparity.  How do we as Christians answer this call?  What do we say when they ask these hard questions? For me, this is harder than one might think.  It’s not easy looking someone in the eye and telling them that God has a purpose in their life and that He works for the good.  Do I even believe that?  We must come to a better understanding of God’s past to understand his future in our lives.  As we will see, God was working for the good.  We have to cling to that.  It’s what we do.