"Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad for her, all you who love her; rejoice greatly with her, all you who mourn over her. For you will nurse and be satisfied at her comforting breasts; you will drink deeply and delight in her overflowing abundance." - Isaiah 66:10-11
Isaiah starts today's section by trying to convince God to come down and destroy Israel's enemies (way to be original Isaiah). At the same time he prays that God will not destroy the Israelites. Don't worry Isaiah, I'm sure God will keep up his double standard.
For the remainder of the chapter, God describes how he's going to create a new earth, and a new heaven. Are we to take this literally? Is God really going to create another globe? God then describes this new world. In this world, no babies will die young, and everyone will live to be over 100 years old, in fact they will live as long as trees. Also in this new world, wolves and lambs will feed together, lions will eat straw, and snakes will eat dust. I presume that God will magically give them the nutrition they need in their diet, considering lions can't eat straw and snakes certainly can't eat dust. But if he's giving them nutrition, then what's the point of eating at all?
God goes a bit off his rocker in the next chapter. He describes how he came to the Israelites without being asked. That's fine. But then he spends the few paragraphs saying that he hates people that offer him sacrifices. You hate sacrifices? Why did I have to read 3 full books of descriptions about how you want sacrifices if you really hate them? He then describes how he's going to kill anyone that doesn't follow him.
God then personifies Jerusalem as a woman again. He describes how Jerusalem will give birth to all of the Israelites painlessly. They will then nurse on her breasts. Whoa, God. Taking the metaphor a bit too far there. Will they also smack Jerusalem's ass in congratulations when she does something good?
Isaiah: In Review
For a book that's supposed to contain unequivocal prophecy about Jesus, I'm unimpressed. The comments about the messiah didn't really fit very well, and even if they had, they had 700 years to "come true". That's not even mentioning the possibility that someone could have read these "prophecies" and tried live their lives as prophesied, or that someone could have forged a character that seemed like this messiah. Surely there is something more unequivocal than this.
Other than these apparent prophecies, nothing of much interest happened. Mostly God going on and on about how he's the one we should worship, and his worshipers going on and on about how they worship him. I'm hoping for some more interesting stories out of the Old Testament (I know I at least have Jonah and the whale left).
Today's news story is about a University of California's Hastings College of Law campus group. Students in this group are required to sign a form that says they are Christians, and abide by Christian values.
This would not be a problem but for the fact that the club (The Christian Legal Society) is sponsored by the school, and therefore sponsored by the entire student body. In my opinion (and in the opinion of federal courts for the most part) this means that everyone should be able to be involved in every club on campus if they so desire. The person writing the Washington Post article seems to find this non-discrimination terrible:
But administrators told the CLS it would have to broaden membership requirements to allow for voting members and even officers who don't hold Christian principles. That is, leadership and voting privileges must be extended to agnostics and avowed atheists.Is there really a danger of an avowed atheist being elected president of a Christian club? I think they should be able to run. But are they going to win? Hell no.
The case is scheduled to be heard on Monday by the Supreme Court.
(via The Washington Post)