Skip to main content

Isaiah chapter 6: Problem and solution

Last Sunday, I got convicted by my own sermon. :)
I preached at MEPC’s quarterly bi-lingual meeting, on Isaiah chapter 6 (I’m doing a series on Isaiah for the rest of this year). One thing really struck me. Well, actually lots of things struck me – the Bible tends to do that – but one thing in particular.
In most of his book, the prophet Isaiah speaks against God’s people. He tells them they’re rebels & God’s angry with them and he’s going to judge them. Most of the time, Isaiah does not see himself as the problem. He sees himself as part of the solution.
But not in chapter 6! Listen to what Isaiah says in verse 5:
“Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty.”
Here, Isaiah sees himself as part of the problem. The people have unclean lips – Isaiah has unclean lips – so he is just like them!
I’m sure if we compared Isaiah with the rest of the people he lived with, Isaiah would have been a good, upright, moral man. But in the light of God’s holiness, none of that mattered. God’s holiness lit up Isaiah’s filth – the filth of his own rebellion against God, his own rejection of God – just like the people. And so he is just as much in need of atonement – which he receives in verses 6-7 – as the rest of them.
As a professional preacher and Bible teacher, I can subconsciously distance myself from the people I am speaking to. I could end up talking to them rather than with them. But I can’t do that, if I remember my status before the most holy God! Before him, we’re all the same – rebels, in need of his merciful atonement in Christ.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The different distractions of secularity and spirituality

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent 'vibe shift' away from radical atheism back towards an openness to the supernatural. I don't think this new spirituality is necessarily an openness to the unique claims of Christ. It will more probably replace one set of commonly-accepted misunderstandings about Jesus with another.  Under radical atheism, people dismissed the Biblical claims about Jesus' resurrection because they 'knew' that it was impossible. Jesus hadn't really died. He just passed out (after being beaten and whipped and crucified) and then woke up in the tomb (and rolled away the stone himself and overcame several guards). Or the disciples hallucinated that they saw him (even though Jewish beliefs of the time didn't expect one person to rise possessing eternal life himself; they expected a general resurrection at the end of time - see John 11:24 ). Or something else.  The so-called 'explanations' of Jesus' non-resurrectio...

A better understanding of nonbelief

The Nones Project is an ongoing study into the belief systems of people who call themselves non-religious. A few weeks ago one of the project leaders,  Ryan Burge  of Washington University,  posted some really interesting preliminary results  on his Substack.  1. We've probably heard of people who are spiritual but not religious (SBNRs). SBNRs were "the largest group of nones" in the sample. They believe in the supernatural realm but not necessarily in "a God." They are "deeply skeptical of religion but highly interested in spirituality," therefore individualistic and anti-institutional.  2. But this study differentiated SBNRs from people they called Nones In Name Only, NiNos. They different to SBNRs by being religious about their spiritual. They believe not just in the supernatural but in "God." And they tend to engage in traditional communal religious practices while SBNRs practice individualised eclectic bespoke spiritual practices. The s...

Barfights in the public square

Everything in the public square seems to be increasingly conflicted. We seem to be operating with less and less shared values. It feels like we're less and less sure of what holds us together as a 'society.' A retreat into 'tribes' both drives this social fragmentation and is a result of it.  Post-modern scepticism towards metanarratives, which has now become culturally normal, significantly contributes to this fragmentation. If we no longer believe that objective truth, independent of our individual or tribal perspectives, exists, we will no longer believe we can appeal to that objective reality as common ground for debate. All we will do is exert power to magnify ourselves and punish those who disagree with us.  Because we believe that our cause is right, we will always think of ourselves as the victim of other people's aggression. Therefore, as Stephen McAlpine says, we will always think we're punching "up." We'll valorise ourselves as the ...