E. The Reign of Hezekiah
2. An Earthquake and Its Aftermath (1:2-20)
J. Begrich, “Die priesterliche Tora,” BZAW 66(1936)63-88 = his GS (1964)232-60; W. T. Classen, “Linguistic Arguments and the Dating of Isaiah 1:4-9,” JNSL 3(1974)1-18; E. W.
Davies, Prophecy and Ethics: Isaiah and the Ethical Traditions of Israel (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1981)40-64; F. C.
Fensham, “Widow, Orphan, and the Poor in Ancient Near Eastern Legal and Wisdom Literature,” JNES 21(1962) 129-39;
G. Fohrer, “Jesaja 1 als Zusammenfassung der Verkiindi- gung Jesajas,” ZAW 74(1962)251-68; K. Fullerton, “The Rhythmical Analysis of Is 1, 10-20,” JBL 38(1919)53-63; Y.
Gitay, “Reflections on the Study of the Prophetic Discourse:
The Question of Isaiah I 2-20,” VT 33(1983)207-21;E.
Hammershaimb, “On the Ethics of the Old Testament Prophets,” SVT 7(1960)75-101 = his Some Aspects of Old Testament ‘Prophecy from Isaiah to Malachi (Copenhagen:
Rosenkilde og Bagger, 1966)63-90; H. B. Huffmon, “The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets,” JBL 78(1959)285-95; J.
Jensen, The Use of tora by Isaiah: His Debate with the Wisdom Tradition (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1973);
D. R. Jones, “Expositions of Isaiah 1,” SJT 17(1964)463-77;
18(1965)457-71; 19(1966)319-27; I. von Loewenclau, “Zur 69
Auslegung von Jesaja 1, 2-3,” EvTh 26(1966)294-308; A.
Mattioli, “Due schemi letterari negli oracoli d’introduzione al libro d’Isaia: Is. 1, 1-31,” RivB 14(1966)345-64; J. Milgrom,
“Concerning Jeremiah’s Repudiation of Sacrifice,” ZAW 89(1977)273-75 = his Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology (Leiden, Holland: E. J. Brill, 1983)119-21; S. Niditch, “The Composition of Isaiah 1,” Bib 61(1980)509-29; L. G. Rignell,
“Isaiah Chapter I: Some Exegetical Remarks with Special Reference to the Relationship Between the Text and the Book of Deuteronomy,” ST 11(1957)140-58; J. J. M. Roberts,
“Form, Syntax and Redaction in Isaiah 1:2-20,” PSB 3(1982)293-306; J. Schoneveld, “Jesaia I 18-20,” VT 13(1963)342-44; N. A. van Uchelen,” Isaiah I 9-Text and Context,” OTS 21(1981)154-63; J. T. Willis, “The First Pericope in the Book of, Isaiah,” VT 34(1984)63-77; Willis,
“An Important Passage for Determining the Historical Setting of a Prophetic Oracle-Isaiah 1.7-8,” ST 39(1985) 151-69.
The opening speech of Isaiah has as its background the devastating earthquake that struck Palestine during Uzziah’s reign (Amos 1:l; Zech. 14:5) and the cultic activities that were performed in the Jerusalem temple celebrating the city’s survival. Isaiah used the occasion to accuse the people of a lack of understanding and of misplaced devotion and to appeal to his audience for fidelity to Yahweh, for redirection of its devotion, for aid to the poor and suffering, and for a proper understanding of the correlation between obedience and reward. In interpreting the catastrophe that had wreaked havoc in the land, the prophet viewed the event as God’s judgment on the people.
In the speech, one finds the following elements:
(1) An accusation addressed to the people in an indirect form (2-3)
(2) Direct address, confronting the people with their condition (4-9)
(3) Divine instruction and divine admonition (10-17) (4) A divine invitation to proper understanding (18-20)
70
Isaiah’s Preaching and the lsaianic Narratives Isaiah 1:2-3
The speech opens not with a direct address to the people, but with an appeal to the heavens and earth to give attention.
The reason for such an approach was probably to attract a favorable initial response. The quotation of the divine oracle, spoken as a lamenting father about his wayward sons, would have evoked a sympathetic ear by referring to an issue of universal interest-parental problems with children. “Heav- ens” and “earth” are addressed, not because they play any special role, but because they represent disinterested and ever-present phenomena (for other similar addresses to heavens and earth, see Deut. 32:l; Mic. 6:1-2; Ps. 50:4).
Indirect address allows the audience to listen in, as if it were a third party, only subsequently to become the object of accusation in the application.
Accordineo Deuteronomy_ _21:11.121. bran obstinate son,_ -.__ _-..-. ._
such as Isaiah~d_escribes could be turned over to a city’sJ ___ ..,- . . . .“._-_ ._.
elders and stoned, a law probably intended more to instill. __-ll^-._- .._.._... . . . _... .,___ _” __ x -._- --.- --...
siblin~~~~di~ncetha.n__to.h_e. 13.rzp_kd_in actuality.
The people are compared unfavorably to animals; there- fore, Isaiah has Yahweh argue on the principle “if the lesser (in this case the dumber), then how much more the greater (the smarter).” The dumb ox knows its owner’s stable, and the ass knows the master’s crib-they are smart enough to show up for food and thus acknowledge their depen- dence-but Yahweh’s children are without such discipline or learning. Isaiah’s entire argument in this section was based on an appeal to common sense and to natural phenomena. At the same time, the use of the parent-child example was a way of drawing on a universal and emotional relationship.
Isaiah 1:4-9
In verse 4, the prophet moves toward direct second-person confrontation with his audience, but no second person verbs appear until verse 5 in the Hebrew text. Verse 4, no longer spoken as a divine oracle, is introduced by an attention getting particle (hoy), which here functions somewhat like our “hey.” Then follow four descriptive phrases and three
lsaiah
plural verbal forms that, although unsignified grammatical- ly, are to be read together.
Hey, 0 sinful nation,
people weighed-down with iniquity, wickedly acting offspring,
corruptly behaving children, who have forsaken Yahweh,
who have deserted the Holy One of Israel, who have turned back.
After this seven-fold stacatto sequence of epithets, which the audience probably increasingly recognized as applying to themselves even without a single second-person pronoun or verbal form, Isaiah shifts to direct address in verse 5. The people’s miserable plight is described, first in terms of
“medical diagnosis” (drawing on the condition of a severely punished son who has been harshly beaten) and, second, in terms of the direct consequences of the earthquake.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Would you continue to be beaten, would you go on being obstinate?
The whole head is suffering, and the whole heart is hurting;
from the sole of the foot to (the top of) the head, there is no health in it:
Bruises and blows and fresh wounds;
they are neither squeezed out nor bandaged up, nor soothed with oil.
Your country is ransacked, your cities burned with fire;
in your very presence your farmland is being devoured by trespassers;
and ransacked like something scavenged by trespassers.
And daughter-Zion is left like a lean-to in a vineyard, a shed in a cucumber patch,
like a city under surveillance.
If Yahweh of hosts had not left us a few survivors
we would have been like Sodom and become like Gomorrah!
Isaiah 1:5-9 This section (w. 4-9), unlike what precedes and follows, is not given as an oracle of Yahweh but as the prophet’s
Isaiah’s Preaching and the lsatanic Narratives
description of his people’s condition. One would have to assume that the prophet expected his hearers to connect his characterization of the people (v. 4) with their present condition, although verses 5-9 are intended as much to stress the desperation of the situation as to create a sense of guilt.
The descriptions and metaphors are emotion-filled and, in verse 9, the prophet empathizes with his listeners and places himself among the suffering survivors of the calamity.
A few particulars require comment. The sores and wounds referred to in verses 5-6~ can be seen as referring to the injuries people received in the earthquake but interpreted in terms of a parental beating. Verses 7-8 depict the earth- quake-devastated area. The countryside has been turned topsy-turvy; evidence of conflagration abounds; looters plunder; and the whole land looks like it has been ransacked by roving outsiders (v. 7; on zur, see Exod. 29:33; 30:33). Zion has survived but sits isolated amid the surrounding countryside (v. 8).
The comparison of the situation with that of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19) is here dependent only on the analogy of the two great natural disasters. Deuteronomy 29:22-23 and 32:23-33, like Isaiah 1:5-9, join together references about sickness, afflictions, various other disasters, and statements about Sodom and Gomorrah. To speak of Sodom and Gomorrah was to speak of the most disastrous of calamities.
Isaiah l:lO-17
In verse 10, Isaiah identifies his audience-both the leaders and the people-with the inhabitants of ancient Sodom and Gomorrah. His oratorical artistry can be seen in the juxtaposition of verses 9 and 10 and their use of the Sodom and Gomorrah motif. In verse 9, the prophet uses these two cities to illustrate the state of his audience and to allow the people to feel momentarily how bad off they are, how desperate their condition is, and how pitifully they stand there, in need of consolation, solace, and sympathy. In verse 10, he immediately pulls that protective blanket from the hearers and identifies them with the residents of ancient Sodom and Gomorrah, who everyone in his audience would have believed got what they deserved!
lsaiah Isaiah’s Preaching and the Isaianic Narratives
The text also piles up terms denoting times and occasions of worship. “New moon,” “sabbath,” “called assemblies,”
“time of preparation,” “new moons,” and “appointed feasts.” All are depicted, like the other acts of worship noted, as wearisome and burdensome to God.
This text (w. 11-15) is often read as if Isaiah were advocating a total repudiation of cultic worship. Verse 16 is then read as the demands of true devotion to God in lieu of temple worship. Such conclusions, however, are unwar- ranted by the text.
First of all, the condemned sacrifices all fall into the category of voluntary sacrifices, that is, those offered on the initiative of the worshipers (these are discussed in Leviticus l-3). The zebuh (or zebuh shelamim) was a well-being offering (translated as “peace offering” in the RSV), made when things were going well. These offerings were primarily eaten by the donors and were part of celebrative occasions involving conspicuous consumption at cultic meals (see Lev.
3; 7:11-18). The ‘oloth, or burnt offerings, were totally burned on the altar and were the means of expressing extravagance in one’s devotion or thanksgiving (see Lev. 1; 6:9-13). Minhah was a voluntary cereal offering (see Lev. 2; 6:14-18). Isaiah thus makes no reference to mandatory animal offerings that were demanded by God. The @$a (“sin offering” RSV), or purgation offering (Lev. 4; 6:24-30), and the ‘ashum (“guilt offering” RSV), or reparation offering, were required by God for purging the temple sancta of the contamination of sins and impurities and for making reparation to God for transgression on divine sancta. Isaiah certainly does not declare these two mandatory sacrifices abhorrent to God; in fact, he does not mention them.
Second, Isaiah here, as the prophets did frequently, engages in overstatement and exaggeration in order to make a point. The Judeans and Jerusalemites apparently were responding in only one way to their survival of the earthquake-by an outpouring of worship and sacrifice in thanksgiving to and celebration before God. Maybe they understood their good fortune as special divine protection rather than the earthquake as divine judgment. Isaiah protested against this, having Yahweh declare their volun-
75 The audience is now called to hear a message from God,
which is then “quoted” in verses 11-17. Two phrases, presumably employed synonymously, are used to denote what God says-“the word of Yahweh” and “the torah of our God.” Torah and word are identified, suggesting that torah may have had a more inclusive reference than our word law, which is usually used to translate torah (see below on 8:16).
The torah was especially associated with the priests and their rulings concerning sacrifices, purity, and uncleanness given in the name of God (see Hag. 2:11-13; Deut. 33:8-10; Lev.
10:8-11). Perhaps Isaiah is here imitating the priestly practice of giving verdicts, rulings, and instruction in the name of the Deity. (Could Isaiah himself have had priestly lineage or even been a priest?) What follows in verses 11-15 is a series of rulings about the people’s cultic worship and sacrificial services. Thus Isaiah is “giving torah” like the priests, but his torah is a series of rulings that is critical of the cultic practices he presently observed being performed.
A broad spectrum of cultic events and occasions, as well as a variety of sacrifices, is referred to in this section and all are denounced. Among the sacrifices noted are the zebuh (v. lla), the ‘oloth (v. llb), and the minhah (v. 13~). Other terms as- sociated with the disposition of animal offerings are jilt (which was burned on the altar), blood (ritually splattered on the altar), and incense (or perhaps more broadly, the sacrificial odors).
Other activities connected with worship are prayer and the associated spreading of the hands (v. 15). The last part of verse 13, which the RSV translates as “iniquity and solemn assembly,” should probably be read and translated “fasting (so the Greek texts) and time of ritual preparation” (see II Kings 10:20; Deut. 16:8; Lev. 23:36; Num. 29:35). In ancient times, rituals and routines were used to mark the move from normal time (everyday life) across the boundary to sacred time (worship occasions), and these included such things as fasting, washing one’s clothes, and abstinence from sex before attending worship (see Exod. 19:10-15). This seems to be what is referred to in the last part of verse 13. Such a reading makes better sense of the text than “iniquity and solemn assembly”; all references in verses 12-15 can then be seen as related to some aspect of worship. No one would ever have argued that iniquity and solemn assembly go together!
Isaiah’s Preaching and the lsaianic Narratives
responsible for acting on such ideals. To seek justice was probably a way of saying “try to establish in society the orders of life that should properly exist” (which, of course, presupposes a theological view of right order). To relieve oppression meant to act to correct cases of misjustice. The last couplet was a way of calling society to defend its powerless members. The fatherless (perhaps children of illegitimate and irregular parentage) had no claim to a heritage or status.
The widow had no right of inheritance (see Num. 27:8-11, where the widow is not even mentioned as a possible inheritor) nor frequently any male to defend her and to intervene on her behalf in a partriarchal and male-dominated culture.
Although Isaiah does not repudiate all cultic worship and animal offerings in this text, he does confront his contem- poraries with ethical and moral demands. Perhaps under the circumstances produced by the earthquake, in which homes had been ruined, lives lost, and possessions destroyed, Isaiah felt that the hour was at hand to call for the old charitable and legal ideals-a just order in society, and a helping, defending, hand for the powerless at the bottom levels of humanity. The times did not call for sacrifice but social service, not for prayer but repentance. If the devastating earthquake was God’s way of dealing with his people, his way of punishing a stubborn, I;ebellious child, then he certainly was not asking the community to continue as it had, except for the addition of a few more religious services.
tary religious rituals and festivals excessive, unnecessary, and representative of misplaced devotion.
Following the divine verdict (w. ll-15), one finds a series of divine admonitions or commands (w. 16-17). Verses 16-17 contain nine imperatives; the tenth appears in verses 18-20, which contain the third quotation of God employed by the prophet in this speech.
The first two demands call for changes in the hearers:
“wash yourselves, make yourselves clean.” This call for personal cleansing follows immediately on the description of the people as having their hands full of blood (v. 15; note how the prophet had earlier used the terms hands, in v. 12b [“who requires this from your hand”] and blood in 11~). Blood, in the last line of verse 15, a plural forrn, generally refers to violence. Bloody hands require cleansing. Further, biblical texts frequently describe sin as a pollutant or contaminant, as something dirty that stains and soils (note the cleansing and purging terminology in Psalm 51). If sin is pollution, then movement away from sin and wrongdoing can be expressed in terms of washing and cleansing. Probably, rituals in the temple in which innocence was claimed by a worshiper or declared by a priest could involve bathing or washing (see Ps. 26:6-7).
It is uncertain whether the prophet, in having God admonish the audience to “remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes,” was simply reiterating what was said previously or was adding a new dimension. Was “the evil of your doings” a reference to the abundance of the people’s religious services and sacrifices?
The couplet- “cease to do evil, learn to do good”-gives two sides of the same coin. If the choice of words was deliberate and expressive of some anthropological judgment, then this couplet would imply that doing evil is understood as almost a natural tendency, whereas to do the good is something that must be learned, something acquired.
The final four admonitions-“seek justice, relieve oppres- sion, defend the fatherless, plead for the widow”-appear as the ideals of ethical behavior throughout the ancient Near East and in slightly varying forms are embodied in diverse types of literature from the area. God himself (see Ps. 68:5) and the Hebrew kings especially (Ps. 72:4, 12-14) were
Isaiah l:lS-20
The final section of the speech (w. 18-20) contains the third quotation of divine address and extends to the audience an invitation and a promise.
18 “Come now, let’s get things straight,” says Yahweh,
“if your’sins are as scarlet, they can be as white as snow;
if they are as red as crimson, they can be as wool.
19 If you acquiesce and take heed, the good of the land you can 20 but if you disagree and are obstinate, you can be eaten by theeat:
sword,” because the mouth of Yahweh has spoken.
77
Isaiah
The meaning of these verses has been widely debated. Some interpret lines two and three of verse 18 as questions: “If your sins are as scarlet, shall they become white like snow?’
Others take the statements as sarcastic: “Though your sins are as scarlet, they can be (you know how to make yourselves) white as snow!” Our interpretation is based on the assumptions that;this text is an appeal for change and an offer of forgiveness; that it reflects a use of language related, perhaps, to the making of agreements, if not actual court terminology (see Lev. 1719); and that one should read the second and third lines of verse 18 as signifying ,something like, “if you admit (recognize) your sins are. . . .” Verse 19 promises that if the people admit they are sinners and take appropriate action (v. 16) then life in the land will return to normalVerse 20 counterpoises the opposite proposition: If the people do not agree, then not only will they not eat the good of the land, but also they shall themselves be eaten up.
3. JERUSALEM: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE