+Z’ev

Today’s assigned readings:
Isaiah 62:1-5,10-12, Revelation 19:11-16, Matthew 1:18-25

For Tziyon’s sake I will not be silent, for Yerushalayim’s sake I will not rest, until her vindication shines out brightly and her salvation like a blazing torch. The nations will see your vindication and all kings your glory. Then you will be called by a new name which ADONAI himself will pronounce. You will be a glorious crown in the hand of ADONAI, a royal diadem held by your God. You will no longer be spoken of as ‘Azuvah [Abandoned] or your land be spoken of as ‘Sh’mamah [Desolate]; rather, you will be called Heftzi-Vah [My-Delight-Is-In-Her] and your land Be’ulah [Married]. For ADONAI delights in you, and your land will be married as a young man marries a young woman, your sons will marry you; as a bridegroom rejoices over the bride, your God will rejoice over you.
Isaiah 62:1-5

I got a phone call one day at the desk in the bookstore of the Episcopal Church Center (back when I worked there - circa 1990). I used to get all such phone calls when the caller had no idea where to go. They would bounce callers around “you’ve reached the wrong desk, let me transfer you.” This could happen several times until the caller gave up or got angry. I usually tried to find the answer to the question instead of transfer the call. This gave me something to do: plus I had some 40,000 theological titles sitting in front of me. I should be able to answer most things.

One day we got a call from a man who was very upset about the daily office lectionary. It seems that one of the passages in Romans is cut out of the cycle. He accused the Church Center of harbouring homosexuals in the liturgy office. I calmly indicated that the lectionary had been developed over time in the mid70s - not the early 90s (as it then was) and that it was done by General Convention. If he needed to complain he should contact the deputies of his diocese and ask them to put forward a liturgy resolution at the next convention.

This didn’t satisfy him and he rang off. Logic never really helps someone who would rather be complaining, I know. But the point he wanted to make was that by leaving out a few verses here and there, the Lectionary created a bias in the readings that wasn’t there in the text.

For these verses, I switched translations to the CJB, for two reasons: 1) it includes both the Hebrew and English of the various titles of Israel; and 2) it has a more-direct translation from Hebrew in a couple of places. For a direct translation from the Masoretic text, you can see it here. It’s pretty close to the CJB.

This is important because today is the feast of the Holy Name of Jesus, about which we learn:

On January 1st, we celebrate the Circumcision of Christ. Since we are more squeamish than our ancestors, modern calendars often list it as the feast of the Holy Name of Jesus, but the other emphasis is the older. Every Jewish boy was circumcised (and formally named) on the eighth day of his life, and so, one week after Christmas, we celebrate the occasion when Our Lord first shed His blood for us. It is a fit close for a week of martyrs, and reminds us that to suffer for Christ is to suffer with Him.

Back when this was called the Feast of the Circumcision, as it is still called in the Orthodox Church, the Holy Name was celebrated on another day. Contra the idea that “we are more squeamish than our ancestors”, today’s feast among Anglicans is named following the Roman Catholic’s Vatican 2. The Romans changed the name because they didn’t want to seem too pharisaical. Is the important action of this day Circumcision, or the Giving of the Name?

Following hard on the idea that the Church’s calendar is an Ikon, all the early celebrations of Jesus life (from Christmas until Holy Week) take place according to the Hebrew Calendar. Jesus was Circumcised, Mary was Purified - as per the Jewish Law. We can edit that out, like so many v erse of scripture, however. To edit these feasts to the “Holy Name” and the “Presentation” literally edits the Holy Family right out of their Jewish context. Admittedly, 2000 years along, they are nearly entirely removed from that context anyway.

I love this passage of Isaiah! In fact, I love the entire chapter. It’s very beautiful. Truth be told the second part of our quote, verses 10-12, makes no sense without the part that was skipped over. If you read it as quoted, Verses 1-5, 10-12 it sounds like “Rejoice Jerusalem, you shall not be desolate any longer: you salvation is coming to you with his reward!” The passage says “Pester God until he saves us… lo, he saves us! In the first way you might focus on the Holy Name. In fact, the Hebrew word “yeshua”, meaning “salvation” or “health” or “wealth”, shows up twice in the passage. Its inclusion is sometimes complicated when some translations render “salvation” with an upper-case S as if it were a person. The pronouns “him” and “he” then seemingly refer to “Salvation” instead of to “God”.

But if you edit the passage, leaving out verses 6-9, then clearly the reading points to God’s Salvation… rather than to the pestering of God to send salvation. Like the caller in the story we discover the meaning is more in the reading rather than in the writing.

In his book, Born to Kvetch, author Michael Wex is discussing the Jewish Oral Tradition (Talmud, Mishna, etc) that provides meaning for the writen text of the Tanakh. Without the Jewish oral tradition to guide our understanding, we’re not reading the same Bible - at all - as the Jews. As Wex puts it, reading Hebrew Bible without the Oral Tradition will lead “to Jesus on the Cross just as easily as to me at my Bar Mitzvah.”

We see why in today’s reading from Isaiah: edit out a few verses and capitalise an English word and suddenly, its about Jesus; but we also see why in the reading from Matthew where one line from Isaiah is quoted out of context.

I think the passage in today’s reading sounds lovely as it is. It needn’t be edited so that it makes “Christian” sense, does it?

Much Love,

Huw