Isaiah son of Amoz is considered to be the greatest of the writing prophets and is quoted in the
New Testament more than any other Old Testament prophet. His name means “Yahweh [the
Lord] saves.” Isaiah prophesied to the people of Jerusalem and Judah from about 740 B.C. to
700 B.C. and was a contemporary of the prophets Amos, Hosea, and Micah. Isaiah was a fierce
preacher of God’s Law, condemning the sin of idolatry. He was also a comforting proclaimer of
the Gospel, repeatedly emphasizing God’s grace and forgiveness. For this he is sometimes
called the “Evangelist of the Old Testament.” No prophet more clearly prophesied about the
coming Messiah and his saving kingdom. He foretold the Messiah’s miraculous birth (Is 7:14;
9:6), his endless reign (Is 2:1–5; 11:1–16), and his public ministry (Is 61:1–3), but most notably
his “Suffering Servant” role and atoning death (52:13—53:12). The apostle John’s description of
Isaiah, that Isaiah saw Jesus’ glory and spoke of him (John 12:41), is an apt summary of Isaiah’s
prophetic ministry. (LSB Project)
4 comments:
Fr. Weedon,
I find myself unconvinced of the place such a commemoration has for Western Rite Lutherans. I have not really studied the matter very deeply, though. If you see this comment, perhaps you could share your perspective on it. Thanks.
Latif
Dear Latif,
It is commemorated in the official service book of your Synod. If we are to be delivered of liturgical antinomianism, that's the route to go. As to why we should commemorate the OT saints, well, Lutheranism has always insisted that the patrimony of the entire Church is hers - not just the West - as we see for example in the Catalog of Testimonies. The West has long had a penchant for appropriating good ideas from the East...
Pax!
I didn't mean it to come across as though I were being critical of your parish practice in particular. Let me put it this way: such commemoration is found in the service book of our synod, as you say, but my concern is whether this ought to be the case. As you say, Occidental usage has indeed appropriated things Oriental (the other lung of the Church), but this strikes me as a sudden and slightly unnatural change for our tradition. To be clear, I am being condemning of neither you nor the Synod, just concerned and seeking understanding. Thanks Father.
Dear Latif,
Oh, I didn't take your words so at all. Just, as you say, questioning the wisdom of including it in LSB in the first place. If I may put it so, there are things in LSB that I do not particularly appreciate, but that is now irrelevant. The fact is that LSB is what it is, and I intend to let its rubrics govern my parish practice. Does that make any sense?
Post a Comment