RB. 2006 .T. 113-4 (pp. 506.528) ISAIAH 66:1-4: CONDEMNATION OF TEMPLE AND SACRIFICE OR CONTRAST BETWEEN THE ARROGANT AND THE HUMBLE? BY Anne E. GARDNER Director of Religion and Spirituality Studies, History Programme, La Trobe University, Bunvoora, Vie 3086. AUSTRALIA A.Gardner@lauobe.edu.au Summary Through a recognition of the allusions Ieaiah makes to earlier Biblical texts, this paper demonstrates that Isa 66:1 does not condemn the Temple, rather hints that, if it is to be a place of rest for God, the worshippers must keep his covenant. Isa 662 indicates a person who places their whole trust in God, who may be suffering hecause of it, but will be justified ultimately. The people in Isa 66:3 are the oppo- site. When the purpose of cach sacrifice is considered, the four statements of the MT and 1QIsa’, can be understood as a condemnation of hypocrisy, not sacrifice. ‘The future for wrong doers is outlined in Isa 66:4. In sum, Isa 66:1-4 outlines the attitude and behaviour that Ged requires/ does not require irom his worshipping community. SoMMAIRE Par ses allusions a autres textes bibliques, on sapercoit qu’Ts 66, 1-4 ne condamne pas le temple. Ce dernier, s'il doit étre le lieu de la présence de Dieu, implique que les fideéles gardent son alliance. Is 66, 2 désigne quelqu'un qui place toute sa confiance en Dieu, et qui pourrait en soutffrir, mais sera finalement justifié. Les gens de Is 66, 3 sont lopposé. En considérant le but de chaque sacrifice, lesISATAH 66:1-4: CONDEMNATION OR CONTRAST 507 quatre affirmations du TM et de 1Qlsa', peuvent étre comprises comme une condamnation de l'hypocrisie, ot non du sccrifice. Liavenir de coux qui font le mal est souligné en Is 66, 4. En résumé, Is 66, 1-4 souligne lattitude et le comporte- ment que Dieu exige ou récuse de la communauté de ses fidéles Isa 66:1-4 has been the subject of much controversy concerned with whether the four verses cohere', how verses 1 and 3, in particular, should be understood and whether the Temple and sacrifice are being condemned. The present paper will explore these issues. Scholars have increasingly recognized that the later chapters of Isaiah make allusions to earlier chapters’. Further, connections have been made by some scholars between Isaiah and other Biblical works’. "P. A. SNITH, Rhetoric and Redaction in Trito-Isaiah: The Structure, Growth and Author ship of Isaiah 56-66 (Leiden: B.J. Brill, 1995) has a good list of views. E. CLEMENTS, “Beyond Tradition History: Deutoro-loaianie Development of First Isaiah's Themes” JSOT 31 (1985) 95-113) and R. Rentoonrr, “Zur Komposition des Buches ‘Jesaja” VT34 (1984) 295-322) who claim a redactional unity for Iseiah, have both asserted that there are close links between the various parts of Isaiah, with Isaiah 40-55 being pivotal. E. W. Contup, Reading Isaiah (Minneapolis, Fortress, 1991) 30) teats Traiah as 2 whole, reeognizing repetition in the various parts of the book. As he points out though, “repetition is always repetition with a difference. Variation in the recurrence of repeated elements in the fext, suggests movement and progression”, Such movement has been, seen by HG. N. WitizaMsow, “From One Degree of Glory to Another’: Themes and Theology in Tbaiah” in Ba. Edward Ball, Jn Search of Wisdom, Essays in Old Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honour of Ronald E.Clements (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, ¢-1999) 174 195 see especially 177, 194) to yield information concerning the relative dates of the pas- sages studied. The question of dating aside. the approach approximates to the way in which the ancient litener/reader would have understood Iesish (ef, DM. Cann, “Reading lesish from Beginning (Isaiah 1) to End (saiah 65-66): Multiple Modern Possibilities” in Eds. RR, Melugin & MA. Sweeney, New Fisions of Isaiah (JSOT Supp. Series 214; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996, 188-218, especially 193-197) for an excellent summary of the differences between the ancient and modern reader of texts). "The approach of D. SOMMER, “Allusions and Illusions: The Unity of the Book of lesiah Light of Deuterv-Issiah’s Use of Prophetic Tradition” in Eds. RF. Melugin & M.A. Sweeney, New Visions of Iaizh (JSOT Supp. Series 214; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) in his thematic analysis of Isaiah 40-66 showed the presence of themes and vocabulary from Joremiah in grester quantity than thote from Isaiah 1-39; R. D. Weuts, “‘Ioaiah’ as an Exponent of Torah: Isaiah 56:1'8” in Bus. R. F. Melugin & M. A. Sweeney, New Visions of Isaiah (SOT Supp. Series 214; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) 140-55) shows links between Ise 56-66 and legal texts in “P” implicitly positing that “P” or ite forenanner was in existence at the time of the writing of these lsaianic chapters. E. SEHM- SsponF, “Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte von Jesaja 56-66" Teil 1 ZAW 84 (1972), 526-7) and, to a lesser extent, P. A. Smith, Rhetoric and Redaction (1995) show that Deutercnomy is the background to a number of Isaianic verses. Links between passages in the Pralms and Isaiah have also been noted by scholars (ef. PT. WILLEY, Remember the Farmer Things: The Recollection of Previous Tests in Second Isaiah, S.B.L. Dise. Series 161; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997).508 ANNE E. GARDNER Isa 66: 1-4, in particular, resonate with allusions to earlier texts, some to other parts of Isaiah and some to different Biblical works. A number have been noted, in passing, by scholars and the more important ones will be repeated here and amplified, where necessary. Hitherto unno- ticed references will also be outlined. An awareness of the texts to which Isa 66:1-4 allude brings a resolution to the question of their unity and their attitude to Temple and sacrifice. Isaiah 66:1 Thus says Yahweh: “The heavens are my throne And the earth is my footstool. Where is this house you are building for me And where is this place of my rest?” The image of God on his throne in heaven draws attention to his King- ship over the whole created realm while the image of the earth as his footstool illustrates the lowly nature of the earth and its concerns, implying a contrast between Cod’s Lordship and any human authority. This contrast is heightened with the question, “Where is this house you are building/repairing! for me and where is this place of my rest?” Some scholars’ have. pointed out it is possible to take the reference to the house (the Temple) as an allusion to 1 Kys 8:27 and 2 Sam 7:5, but “m3 can be uted for “repair” cf, Jud 21:23; 2 Chron 33:16. As our knowledge of the post- cxilic period is patchy, it is impossible to date the pericope on the basis of 23 as the ma rity of commentators have attempted to do. Previous views associated with 722 are (in order of Judacan chronology) 1. anattempt o prevent s rebuilding of the Temple during the Exile period ef. J. D. Suan, istry and Theslogy in Second Isaiah: A Conmentaryon baiah 3840-06 (Phladeiphi ‘Westminster Press, 1965) 285 2. The pasoage datee from 520 B.CE. and is an attempt to 4) prevent the involvement of the am-haaretz ef. K. Buicea, Die Einkeit Thitojesaia (BWANT 45; Stuttgart: Kolhammer,1928) 105, 107 ») contradict the necessity for a Temple as urged by Haggai cf. C. WESTERMANN, Isaiah 40- 66: A Commentary (rans. D.MLC. Stalker from Das Buch Jesaia, 40-56 DATD 19; Cat- tingen: Vandeahoeck & Ruprecht, 1966; Old Testament Library, London: SCM, 1969) 413; PD. Haasox The Daten of dpoaiypic, The Hsia and Secologieal Ront of Jewish Apocalyptic Eschatology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976) 173-74 ‘) make an enquiry as to why the Temple hat not been rebuilt f, N. H. Swarms, “Isaiah 40-66: A Study of the Teaching of Second Isaiah and its Consequences” in H.M. Orlinsky 4 NH, Smaith, Studies on the Second Part of Isaiah (VT Supp. 14; Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1967) 135-204, see especially 241. °B. J. Kisssant, The Book of liaiah, Voll (Dublin: Browne & Nolan, 1943) 321: J.A. Morven, The Prophecy of Isaiah: Introduction and Commentary (Downer's Crove, I= nois: InterVarsity Press, 1993) 533.ISAIAH 66:1-4: CONDEMNATION OR CONTRAST 509 there has been little expansion of the thought associated with these verses Isa 66:1 is an echo of 1 Kgs 8:27 where Solomon says, “Will God truly dwell on earth? Behold the heavens and the heavens of heavens cannot contain you. How much less this house which I have built.” 2 Sam 7:57 is part of the message which God sent to David through the prophet Nathan. There God asks, “Pill you build me a house to duvell in?” going on to point out that since the time of the Exodus from Egypt he had not been confined to a permanent structure but had, with the tent or tabernacle, moved around freely with his people. Again an assertion that a “house”, although acceptable in theory, was not necessary as a dwelling place for God. Taken together the two allusions posit that humans cannot contain God in a “house”. God is groater than the ‘Temple, greater than the earth, greater than the heavens. The ‘Temple is only of relative significance in the grand scheme of things and in the relationship between God and people, as 66:2-3 will make clear. The second question God poses in Isa 66:1 is “Where is this place of my rest?” “Place” and “rest” do not occur together elsewhere in Isaiah. However “place” (07%) accurs twice in Isa 60:13 whose context is the glorious Zion of the future to which the nations will flock (ef. Isa 66:23). In the same verse (Isa 60:13), Cod states he will make “the place of my feet (937) glorious” linking with the opening statement of Isa 66:1. It is noticeable too that the “house (1'2)” of Isa 66:1 appears in Isa 60:7 as an epithet for the Temple. Allusion to Isaiah 60 by Isa 66:1 is probable then for it repeats three words used in connection with the Temple. However “my resting place” does not appear in Isaiah 60. It is likely to have been drawn from Psalm 132 where both “place (01pr)” and “my resting place (rn2a)” appear’. “B. ScunaM, The Opponents of Third Isaiah: Reconstructing the Cultie History of the Restoration (JSOT Sapp. Series 193; Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1995) 164-65 expands upon 1 Kgs.8:27 (but does not mention 2 Sam 7:5) and comes to a similar conclu- sion about its implication as the one reached in the present paper. "2 Samuel 7 has further contacts with Isaiah 66, for as the “name” and the “ be made permanent in Isa 66:22, so they are in 3 Samuel 7 although there “name” and David's “seed” (2 Sam 7:12) which are to be in perpetuity. The implication then is that God's kingship is being contrasted in Isa 66:1 with human kingship and David'sname and seed contrasted/incorporated in Isa 66:22 with those of the new community “IDM. Warts, sateh 24-66 (Word Bibl Comenentary Waco: Word Book 1987) 355 sees an allusion (o Ps 132:8 but Ps 132:14 is closer.510 ANNE E, GARDNER ‘There the Psalmist asks God to remember David with all his afflictions (v.1) and how he refused to sleep “until (he) found a place (612) for Yahweh” (v.5). God is urged, “Arise to your resting place” (7nn17) (v.8). It avows that God will not overturn his promise to David (v.11) if his children keep God’s covenant. Yahweh has chosen Zion (v.13) stating, “This is my resting place (M123) forever” (v.14). There he (God) will satisfy the poor with bread (v.15), clothe her priests with salvation and her pious ones (3°7°ON) will shout for joy (v.16). There God will cause a horn to spring forth for David (v.17) and his (David's) enemies will be clothed with shame (v.18). It is noticeable in this psalm, which coheres ‘in so many ways with the theme of Isaiah 65 and 66, that David as an individual is portrayed as utterly dedicated to the service of God’. Beuken" posits that Isa 66:1 is dependant upon 1 Chron. 28:2-3 and David, or one like him, is being rejected as a ‘Temple builder, because he is a man of blood. However the references to Psalm 132 contradict such an assertion. Further Chronicles is generally thought to postdate Isaiah 66 and so the dependence, if there is any, is likely to be the other way round. What are the implications of these allusions to Isa 60:13 and Ps 132:5, 8, 14 for an understanding of Isa 66:1? Isa 60:13 patently belongs to an earlier way of thinking than Isaiah 66 for, although both chapters direct their attention to the glorious Zion of the future, there is no division of the people of Israel into the wicked and the righteous as ther in Isaiah 66". In both Isaiah 60 and 66 a Temple is to be the centre of the new community: Isa 66:20-21 picture returned exiles floc~ king to “my holy mountain of Jerusalem” and cereal offerings being taken to “the house of the Yahweh.” Some of the returnees will be priests and Levites!’, This glorious picture of the future of the Temple in the later verses of Isaiah 66 makes it most unlikely that Isa 66:1 is * Such a portrayal recurs in allusions made by Isa 66:3. '°W. BEUKEN, “Does ‘Trito-Lsaiah Reject the Temple? An Intertextual Inquiry” in Ed. S. Draisma, Intertextuality in Biblical Writings (Kampen, JH. Kok, 1989) 56. P.A. Smith, Rhetoric and Redaction, 183, 185-86 asserts thet passages in Trito-Issiah, which evidence the division of Jews into those who were faithful to God and those who were not were written later. He designates the latter group as TI 2 "For a discussion of the identity of those who will be Pricats and levites in ‘A.B. Ganonex, “The Nat 66:21 et. of the New Heavens and New Earth in Isaiah 66:22”, ABR 50 (2002) 10-27. A. ROFE, “Isaiah 66:1-4: Judaean Sects in the Persian Feriod as viewed by ‘Trito-lsaiah” in A. Kort & S. Morschauser (eds. Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel hery (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1985) 208 refers to Isa 65:11 and 66:20 in eupport of Isaiah not forsaking the cult.ISAIAH 661-4: CONDEMNATION OR CONTRAST sil condemning the institution of the Temple per se." The references to Psalm 132 in Isa 66:1 introduce further elements into the picture. David's self-deprivation when he was concerned with providing Cod with a place, a resting place, anticipates the humility of the one upon whom God will look favourably in Isa 66:2. Further, the condition of keeping God's covenant links also with what is predicated in Isa 66:2" (and the contrary in Isa 66:3). Allusions to the right relationship to Cod, in the context of his Temple, are to be found in Psalm 132. In conclusion to Isa 66:1, it does not condemn the Temple rather puts it into perspective in relation to God’s omnipresence. Further, it hints that if the Temple is to be a place of rest for God, the people who worship there must live in accordance with his covenant. Isaiah 66:2 For all these things my hand has made and so all these things came to be Ta this man Twill look To him that is poor and of a stricken spirit And who irembles at my word. ‘The hint in Isa 66:1 of the kind of people who are acceptable to God becomes explicit in Isa 66:2. Isa 66:2a “For all these things my hand has made, and so all these things came to be” continues the assertion of God’s kingship and underlines his role as creator. The use of the verb TDD (made) is not only reminiscent of the second creation story which begins in Gen 2:4b but foreshadows Isa 66:22 where Cod will make new heavens and a new earth. It also recalls two earlier Isaianic passages where the verb is used of God making heaven and/or earth (Isa 37:16; 45:12). Isa 37:16 forms part of Hezekiah’s confession of God as sole creator and Lord and is followed by a plea for God's help against Sennacherib “that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you are the lord, oven you only” (37:20). Isa 45:12 prefaces God's announcement of Cyrus whom he has “raised up in righteousness” to carry out his work. This could link with the righteous ones of the nations who will be gathered to Zion later in Isaiah 66". It is interesting that in Isa 66:1-2 allusions have been made 1 the commentary on lea 66:3 below fora discussion of the place of saerifice/ritnal P required of David's offspring, but the application is wider than that . Gardner, “The 10-27, copocially 19-21, whore it later verses of Isaiah 66. of the New Heavens and New Earth in Isaiah 66:22", shown that there aze ceveral allusions to Isaiah 45 in the512 ANNE E. GARDNER to four individuals/monarchs: David, Solomon, Hezekiah and Cyrus, each of whom, in the passages referred to, is pictured as subservient to God. The message thereby conveyed is that national leaders, in the time period referred to by Isa 66:1-2, would do well to emulate such kings. God, as creator, does not need anything, his Lordship and power are total: human power, wealth and status do not impress him. What does, is the person whose reliance upon God is complete. This is expressed in Isa 66:2b when Cod says, “10 this man I will look (C2), to him that is poor (9) and of a stricken spirit (1-732) ‘and who trembles (70) at my word ("23).” ‘There are two occasions in the Psalms when the verb 023 (look) is used of God looking down from heaven, both of which cohere contextually with Isaiah 66. The first is Ps 33:13 “Yahweh looks down (0°31) from heaven” verse 18 continues, “Behold, the eye of Yahweh is towards those who fear him aand towards those who hope in his mercy” ‘The second is Ps 102:20(19) “For he has looked doun from the height of his sanctuary {from the heavens Yahweh has looked down (0°31) towards the earth” Yahweh does this, in words reminiscent of other passages in Isaiah », 21(20) “to hear the sighing of the prisoner (of. Isa 49:9; 61:1) 10 loose the children of death (of sa 51:14) v. 2221) 50 that they might declare the name of the Lord in Zion and his praises in Jerusalem (¢f. Isa 65:18) 2. 23(22) When the peoples are gathered together and the kingdoms to serve Yahweh.” (ef. Isa 66:23) Psalm 102 is entitled “A prayer of an “20” providing a further link with Isa 66:2 which says that God looks upon the “poor” (2%) and the “contrite in spirit” (117-193), and those who tremble at Cod’s word (731 2y THN). The nature of the individual who is said to be “W in earlier Isaianic passages can be defined as one who has suffered because of war or exile (10:30; 14:32; 49: 51:21; 54:11) or as one who lives in poverty (3:14,15; 10:2; 3: '; 58:7). Those afflicted by war or exile (usually the whole nation) are shown compassion byISAIAH 66:1-4: CONDEMNATION OR CONTRAST 513 God and are promised restitution and, sometimes, sulfering to be inflicted upon their oppressors (14:29-32; 49:9-13; 51:22-23; 54:11- 17). Those who live in poverty have their situation exacerbated by the villainy of the wicked who take advantage of their helplessness. One passage which mentions the "2 is not as casy to categorise: this is 26:6- 7 where the state of being “I (poor) and needy is linked with right- eousness (p"73)". This developed meaning of "1 is likely to have come about from an observation of the spiritual attitude of those who lived in poverty ~ their only help was God”. “W in this sense appears frequently in the Psalms”, a number of which have several contacts with Isaiah 66", Psalm 102 has already been mentioned, but it is worth expanding upon it as it draws an evocative picture of the state of the Psalmist who is 12, thus illuminating the concept. H, WiLDRERGER, Isaiah 13-27 A Commentary (Trans. by Thomas H. Trapp from the German original Jesaja, Kapitel 13-27, Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 1978; Min- neapolis: Fortress, 1997) 548, 558 assigns w. 6 & 7 to different sections as do W. BRUEGGE- MANN, Isaiah 1-39 (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox, 1998) 201 and O. KAISER, : ‘ginal Der Prophet Jesaja/ Kap. 1-39, DATD 18; Gattingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973; Eng. Ed. London: S.C. M, 1974) 205, 208 but J. D. W. Watts, saiah 1-33, 340 assigns both verses toa pilgr image song. "They occar in 2 context which looks forward to a future time when “the righteous nation which keeps truth enters in” i.e. into a strong city in Judah where salvation ie pointed for ite walls and bulwarks (26:1-2) and where the inhabitant trusta in God totally (26:3). The former inhabitants whe dwell on high and the city have been brought low (26:5) allowing even the feet of the poor and needy to tread it down (26:6). The conveyor of this ‘message avows that he and others have waited for God “for when your judgements are in the ‘earth, the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness” (26:8-9) "39 in this passage clearly incorporates spiritual dimension. “This background helps to clarify the discrepancy between Luke 6:20 and Mth 5:3, j; 19{18]; 10:12; 14:6; 16:28[27]; 22:25[24]; 34:76]; 68:11[10]: £69:30{20] etc. It is interesting that many of these Pralms are aseribed/ dedicated to David. For references to Biblical pascages dealing with David in Isa 66:1-4 ch. the commentary on (66:1 and 66:3 in the present paper. ® Pealm 9 wich pictures God as King and righteous judge (v.54 ef sa 66:1) asserts that “he does not forget the ery of the poor...” (v-13{12)), “nor will the expectation of the poor porish forever” (¥-19[18)). By contrac, itis stated of Cod ...you have destroyed the wicked, you have blotted out their name forever” (w6[5] ef. Ina 66:16-17, 24 alo Tea 65:15). Pealin 137, which pictures the wicked casting down the poor and the needy (v.14), also gives the ‘assurance that the wicked, the enemies of Yahweh. will he destroyed. “They shall consume away (v20) (for the destruction of the wicked ef. also Ps. 37:28, 38) - a scenario which resembles Isa 66:24, at least in terms of the means of destruction. Psalm 37 has further contacts with Isaiah 66 for it asserts that the ‘seed of the righteous person will be blessed (26) and that “the righteous will inherit the land and dwell in it forever” Some other psalms, which mention the poor in terms of God's approbation, slso refer to a “seed” (Pas 31{30}; 25:12-13; 69:36-37[35-36]. Pralm 102 ie worth looking atin some detail ait has ‘@ number of contacts with Isaiah 65-66 (Ps 102:5[4] ef, Isa 40:6-8; Ps 102:21(20) cf. IsaS14 ANNE E. GARDNER The Psalmist, in his extreme distress, calls upon God to listen to him and answer him. He has forgotten w eat because of anxiety and his enemies reproach him continually (cf. Isa 66:5) as God appears to have abandoned him (Ps 102:2-12 [1-11], 24-25 [23-24]). Nevertheless the Psalmist still praises God and appeals to him to have mercy on Zion (Ps 102:13-23 [12-22], 26[25] cf. Isa 64-10-12: 65:18-19) so that people may praise God there. He is certain that God is eternal and that the offepring of Cod’s servants will continue even though the heavens and the earth will perish (Ps 102:27-29 [26-28] cf. Isa 65:17; 66:22). ‘The Psalmist then throws himself entirely on God's mercy. He is sure that God is the cause of his affliction yet is still humble before him. Not only is the Psalmist ~z7 but he says in verse 5[4] “my heart is smitten (7277) like grass and withered”. The verbal root of “smitten” is the same as that of the adjective 712) (stricken) used in Isa 66:2 to describe the spirit (117) of the one to whom God looks. The actual expression “stricken of spirit” (T7-732) does not occur elsewhere”, although Watts refers to Ps 34:19[18] and Isa 57:15 as possible backgrounds to it. Psalm 34 is ascribed to David and represents him as blessing the Lord at all times and encouraging others to do the same. He asserts that just as God is against those who do evil (v.17[16]), Yahweh is close to the broken hearted And he will save the crushed of spirit (17RD) Isa 57:15 reads, “For thus says one who is high and lified up (we 09) dwelling to eternity and his name is holy, ‘L dwell in a high and holy place with one who has a crushed and fallen spirit (1 2aW1 RIT) to revive the spirit of the fallen and to revive the spirit of the crushed!” 42:2) It is announced as a prayer to the “30 who is overcome (102:I[title); It asserts in ¥.17[16] that Yahweh has built up Zion; in v-18[17] “A people will be created who will praise Yahweh” “to declare the name of Yahweh in Zion end praise him in Jerusalem” (1.22[21) i Isa 65:18-19) “when the peoples are gatheres and the kingdoms to serve the Tord” (.23[22) ef sn 6618)"the children of your servant will cortinue and theirsced be established before you" (v.29 [28] ef. len 66:2: "nD occurs only in 2 Sam 4:45 9:3 where itis combined with o*30 with the meaning “smitten of feet” ie. lame, However X22 which is linguistically and has much the same meaning as 7123 appears with 17 in Prov 15:13; 17:22; 18:14. “By sorrow of heart, the spirit is broken” (Prov 15:13); “a broken spirit dries up the heart” (Prov 17:22) “a broken spirit who can beat?” (Prov 18:14). * LD.W. Watts, Isaiah 34-66, 355.ISATAH 661-4: CONDEMNATION OR CONTRAST sis As with Ps 34:19[18], the adjective 837 appears here, rather than the 7) of Isa 66:2. Psalm 51:18-19[16-17] can be added as another pos- sible background to MY7723 in Isa 66:2. It is quoted here with the pre- vious verse. Pe 51:18{16] “You delight not in sacrifice that I should give it You have no pleasure in burnt offering 19[17] The sacrifices of God are o broken spirit (n7awh m1) A broken and contrite heart (1271 130772) 0 God, you will not despise” ‘These words are spoken by the Psalmist, purportedly David, who throws himself upon God's mercy and begs to be cleansed from his sin (Ps S131), He pleads that God not cast him away from his presence (Ps 51:12[11]). What God really wants, he knows, are a broken spirit and a broken and contrite heart rather than sacrificial offerings. Never- theless, in the final verses of the Psalm, the Psalmist appeals to God to do good in Zion and to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and then God can delight “in the sacrifices of righteousness, in burnt offering and whole burnt offering” (Ps 51:20-21[18-19]). This suggests that sacrificial offe- rings are acceptable, but only when an individual is in right relation- ship with God. The delineation of the place of the Temple and sacrifice in Isaiah which will be given below in connection with Isa 66:3, will posit that the same attitude prevails there. Ps 51:19[17] as background to the phrase M1712) in Isa 66:2 seems remarkably apt contextually. However the verbal root used by Isaiah does not appear. Rather, Ps 51:19[17] employs the niphal participle of 127 for “contrite” i.e. like Ps 34:19[18] and Isa 57:15 it uses a different root to Isa 66:2. It may be that all three passages (Ps 34:19[18]; Isa 57:15; Ps 51:19{17)) contibute to an understanding of the expression M7712) of Isa 66:2 and were in the author’s mind. The three verbal roots used, 71397, 831 and 7D) are all similar in meaning and can be used of physical or metaphorical “crushing”, Nevertheless, as one of the possible back- ground passages occurs in Isaiah itself, it is worthy of further explora- tion. If the similarity of expression between Isa 57:15 and Isa 66:2 is intentional then what reason could there be for the change in verbal root? It may be that [sa 66:2 is alluding to Isa 57:15 but, at the same time, alluding also to another text. In Isa 52:13 it is said of God’s servant that he is “high and lifted up” (N21 077). If this phrase is read in the light of Isa 57:15 where God is “high and lifted up” (XW210)), it means that the servant is in a similar place to God. This servant is des- cribed five verses further on as having been thought of as “stricken,516 ANNEE. GARDNER smitten of God (Q71X 73a) and afflicted” (Isa 53:4). 90 is the hophal of the verb 731, the same verb which is used in an adjectival sense in Isa 66:2. Isa 53:5 (the very next verse) uses NIT (crushed) of the servant, exhibiting another link between the servant and the figure in Isa 57:15, The one who is of a “stricken spirit” then in Isa 66:2, if the expression is read in the light of Iea 57:15 and Isa 53:4, is Cod’s servant whose undeserved suffering will be overturned and is assured of a place next to God. In view of the grammatical singular being used in Isa 66:2 and its allusions to the individuals of Isa 57:15 and Isa 53:4, it would be possible to understand [sa 66:2 in terms of one individual and this may have been done at a later time®. However, in its present context, the singular in Isa 66:2 should be taken as collective, as representative of a type of person”. Isa 66:2 continues in its description of the one to whom God looks by defining the person as someone who “trembles” (Tn) at God's word. In earlier chapters of Isaiah the related verb is used to indicate people/towns/nations trembling because of the actions of God. Here in Isa 66:2 the person who truly fears God, trembles even at his word. The similarity of this expression with Ezra 9:4; 10:3 was noted by Wester- mann”. Upon checking these verses it was found that the former has “tremble at my words” (pl) and the latter “tremble at the commandment of our God”. As such, they are likely to be referring to the torah in some form, The Isaianic expression probably has the same import. This is Isa 57:15 asserts that an individual would help to revive others who were similarly crushed and Isa 53:11 says that God's “righteous servant will justify many and he will bear their iniquities” This combination of texis may shed light on the origins of Christian Mes- sianic thought, especially as the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 can be linked to one of David's line through 53:2[1] where he is described as “a root out of dry ground” (cf the use cof “root” (UW) in [sa 11:1,10 where it is applied to one from Jesse), Further, 17 “X31 appeared in Ps 34:19{18), a Psalm acribed to David also uses the singular to indicate a type af person. srmann, Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary, 415; RIN. WinrarAv, Isaiah 49-66 (New Century Bible; London, Oliphants, 1975) 261 point to the occurrence of the expression “tremble at my word” in Ezra 9:4; 10:3, ™ J, BLENKINSOFP, Ezro-Nekemiah: A Commentary (Old Testament Library: Philadelphia, Westmninster Press, 1988) 152-87 has a discussion of the Torah known to Ezra. It is clear from the allusions to Deuteronomy in Isaiah 65 that the author of the latter knew something akin to the canonical Deuteronomy. For such allusions cf. E. Sehmsdorf, “Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte von Jesaja 55-66", 517-62; P.A. Smith, Rheforic and Redaction in ‘Trito-Isaiah,143, 146, A. GARDNER, “Ecojustice or Anthropological Justice?” in Ed. Norman ©. Hebel, The Earth Story in the Psalms and the Prophets (Earth Bible Series 4; Sheffield, Sheffield’ Academic Fress, 2001) 204-18,ISAIAH 661-4: CONDEMNATION OR CONTRAST S17 recognised by Blenkinsopp” who concludes that, as 711 is a rare root, there is likely to have been a connection between the 0771 of Ezra and Isaiah’, In conclusion to Isa 66:2, it outlines the characteristics of the person upon whom God looks favourably. Each aspect indicates a person who places their whole trust in God and who may be suffering because of it. ‘They are assured however that they have not been forgotten and will be justified ultimately. Isaiah 66:3 Isa 66:3 introduces the kind of person upon whom God does not look favourably. There has been much scholarly discussion as to whether it is a condemnation of sacrifice per se and also as to the exact meaning of the four different statements and to whom they refer. In reality these areas are interrelated for the way in which the statements are understood has implications for the status of sacrifice. Many English translations, following the LXX, which is supported by 1QIsa’, introduce “like”, where the MT and 1QIsa® have nothing e.g. He who kills an ox is like (2) he who kills a man (LXX and 1QIsa') instead of He who kills an ox is he who kills a man (MT and 1Qlsa*) ‘The introduction of > (like) renders the second part of each sentence as a simile whereas without 2 the sentence can, but need not necessarily, be taken in a literal sense. The weight of manuscript evidence is divided, nevertheless there are some scholars who prefer the MT and 1QIsa’ reading. This obviates the need to take Isa 66:3 as a condemna- tion of sacrificial worship, allowing it to be read as a condemnation of syncretistic practices”. * J, Buenkinsorr, “The ‘Servants of the Lord’ i Isaiah: Profile of a Pietistic Group in the eayan Epoct locedings of the ih Bilin! Asian 7 (1983) 1-23 expel 7 ™B. Schramm, The Opponents of Third Isaiah, 169 uses Blenkinsopp's work to demons- trate that Duh vas correct to see Trto-laish as standing inline with Ezra ™ The mention in Isa 66:3 of “dog” and “swine” have suggested the syncretisticinterpre- tation. Robertson Samir, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (3 ed.; London: A.8C. Black, 1927) 218, 290%. drew attention to the sacred nature of the pig among some tations J. MULENHUR, “The Book a lsiahin IDB, vol (New York: Abingon, 1050) 762 points out that according to Justin (History of the orld XIX, 1,10) Darius forbade the Car- thaginians to eat dogs or to sacrifice humans. J.M. SaS0ON, “Isaiah LXVI3-4a” 726 (1976),518 ANNE E. GARDNER In order to come to an understanding of the four condemnatory sen- tences of Isa 66:3, a scarch of the Hebrew Bible was undertaken to see if it sheds any light upon the meaning of the abominable acts. It does, with some surprising results. All the kinds of sacrifices which are mentioned in the first part of each sentence in Isa 66:3 are acceptable in theory to God in other Biblical passages. The one exception is Isa 1:11-13 where not only does each kind of so-called legitimate offering/sacrifice appear, which is mentioned in Isa 66:3 (although the vocabulary differs"), but also each one specifically rejected. “Lam full of the burne offerings of sheep (@x™>)” (Isa 1:11) “T delight (*88N) not in the blood of bullocks (2°78)” (Isa 1:11) “Bring no more meal offerings of vanity (Nv Tn)” (Isa 1:13) “Incense (970) is an abomination (7-799) to me” (Isa. 1:13) In Isa 115-16 Cod calls the people to “cease from evil; learn to do well, seek judgement, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow” There is no concluding statement suggesting that if all these things were done, God would find the above sacrifices/offerings accep- table. The other Isaianic passage where God talks about a further ritual practice which was deemed elsewhere to be a legitimate one, is Isa 58:3-7. There, the normative fast accompanied by the bowing of the head and the spreading of sackcloth and ashes is rejected in favour of behaviour which eschews wickedness, helps the oppressed, feeds the hungry and clothes the naked. Again, no mention of the conventional fast being acceptable if moral rectitude prevailed. The silence of the text on the latter point both in Isa 1:11f and Isa 58:3f can be read in one of two ways: either sacrifice and ritual were unacceptable to God under any circumstance or, only acceptable, in a secondary and relati- vely marginal way, if ethical practice was in accord with God's desires. 199-207 points to Hittite and Hurrian sacrificial practices which inchided the swine and, amongst the Hitites, dogs. Among scholars who accept the MT reading a cretitic interpretation are PA. Smith, Rhetoric and Redaction, 156-57; C. Westermann, Isaiah 40-60: A Commentary, 414; EJ. Kissane, The Book of Isaiah, Voll, 322; RN, Whybray, Isaiah 40-66, 271, Whybray also refers to Volz, Muilenburg, Snaith, Bonnard and Schoors at amongst those who incline to the interpretation of syncretiem. E.W. Conrad, Reading Isaiah, 96-97 profers the MT reading, but thinks that some people who practised justice. It should be pointed out, however, that there is no suggestion anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible ofthe ritual killing of dogs and, although Tsa 65:4; 66:17 talk of eating swine’s flesh, the offering of swine’s blood is not attested. "The only word used of a sacrifice/offoring in common between Isa 1:11-13 ard Isa 66:3 is imap (meal offering). 757 (delight) is also used in both texts.ISAIAH 56:1-4: CONDEMNATION OR CONTRAST 519 Commentators are divided on the issue.” Isa 56:2-7 however make it dear that “burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted upon my altar” (Isa 56:7). This is so when they are made by those who “hold fast to my covenant” (Isa 56:4,7) and when individuals “love the name of Yahweh” and are his “servants” (Isa 56:6) and keep their “hand from doing evil” (Isa 56:2). Twice in Isa 56:7 the Temple is referred to as “a house of prayer”, suggesting that genuine humility and subservience to Cod were of paramount importance. It may be argued that Isaiah 56 predates Isaiah 66 and as such cannot be used to interpret the latter chapter, but with such a clear statement one would expect it to be refuted if the author of Isa 66:3 was presenting a total rejection of sacri- fice. Further, as will be shown below, the concluding section of Isa 66:3 makes linguistic allusions to both Iea 56:4 and Isa 58:5-6 indicating that the author of Isa 66:3 was aware of them. A passage which sup- ports the acceptability of sacrifices/offerings to God is Isa 43:23. There, three of the sacrifices/offerings which are specified in Isa 66:3 appear, with the same vocabulary being used. The context concerns the won- derfal acts that God is about to perform in rescuing his people from Babylon and returning them to their homeland. By contrast the people have done nothing for God: “You have not brought me the sheep (110) of your burnt offerings nor honoured me with your sacrifices Thave not made you (0 serve with a meal offering (ava) nor wearied you with frankincense (17272) but you have made me to serve with your sins, ‘you have wearied me with your iniquities” God then promises « new beginning when Jacob and Israel declare their need for him (Isa 44:5). The implication of Isa 43:23 is that sacrifices would have been acceptable to God, indeed a way of honouring him. Instead, the people dishonoured him with their sins, Because of the repetition of the voca- bulary of Isa 43:23 in Isa 66:3 it is likely that the latter text is delibe- rately recalling the former one. Now the people are carrying out the prescribed sacrifices but, as will be seen later, they have not ceased from sinning The majority of scholars incline to the second viewpoint, as far as both Isa 1:31; 58:3¢ Wildberger, aiah Commentary, 51, points out that Isa 1:1 If does not refer at all to any value in cultic piety. thus linking with the silence of the text noted above. He also has a good discussion about Biblical attitudes to cultic practices vis-i-vis fide lity to God, 51-52.$20 ANNE E. GARDNER ‘The survey of passages elsewhere in Isaiah which relate to sacri- fice /offerings /ritual is now complete. It indicates that behaviour was more important than sacrifice but nevertheless with the right attitude in place, sacrifice was a way of honouring God. This suggests that the MT is to be preferred. Isa 66:3, which alludes to Isa 43:23 through its repetition of three of the sacrifices/offerings listed there, presents a picture of people outwardly honouring God with their sacrificial ritual, but at the same time committing sinful acts. These are people upon whom God does not look favourably and upon whom he will “bring their fears” (66:4).2 There have been attempts to arrive at an understanding of the MT through grammatical manipulation: Sasson takes the first part of each sentence as a past tense and the second as a present e.g. “he who slaughtered an ox, would now kill a man” i.e. suggesting pagan rites. However this goes beyond the grammatical structure of the text. Rofé* takes the first part of each sentence as indicative of the identity of the perpetrator. Those who performed sacrifices were priests therefore “he who slaughters an ox” is a priest. The sccond part indicates what he actually does e.g. “kills a man”. In this reading it is the priests alone who are involved in pagan ritual, Rofé’s reading is within the bounds of grammatical possibility. Whether it is correct or not will be commented on below. The Four Statements of Isa 66:3 ‘The first reads, He who slaugiters an ox (vier UNYW) is one killing « man “WW appears three times elsewhere in Isaiah (1:3; 7:25: 32:20) but none of these occurences is apposite for the present instance, nor are any in conjunction with DNvW (slaughter). The participle form vn " Westermann, Isciah 40-66, 413 suggests that the period of Exile in Babylon “when. thete was no Temple and hence no strife highlighted the importance of God's word and Ted the author of Isa 66:1-4 to oppose a way of thinking which believed that the new Temple ‘was paramount for salvation ~ a view evidenced in Hag 2:19”. This is a possibility, but the pre-enilic prophets Amos and Hosea also emphasised the importance of ethical behaviour and criticised reliance upon sacrifice (Am 4:4-5; Hos 6:6) “LM, SASOON, “Isaiah LXVI:3-4a" 7 26 (1976) 199: “A. ROE, “Isaiah 66:1-4: Judaean Sects in the Persian Period as viewed by Trito-Isaiah” in A. Kort & S. Morschauser (ods.), Biblical and Related Studies Presenied to Samuel Kory (Winona Lake: Bisenbreuns, 1985) 205-17,ISAIAH 661-4: CONDEMNATION OR CONTRAST S21 occurs also in Isa 57:5, and the kel infinitive of OnU in Isa 22:13, but again there are no clear links with Isa 66:3. Beyond Isaiah, On is used frequently with reference to ritual slaughter and that would seem to be the meaning here because of all the other sacrifices/offerings which occur in the following three lines*. Isa 66:3 says that “One slaughtering an ox is one killing a man” identifying the two acts as being performed by the same person ie. one who performs his ritual obligations, but not his ethical ones. ‘The second sentence of Isa 66:3 reads, He that sacrifices a lamb is one who breaks a dog's neck Again the sacrifice of a lamb was a legitimate one. Breaking dog's neck was not. As noted above, some commentators think that syncre- tistic worship is indicated here with the mention of a dog. However, upon checking the Biblical occurrences of dog (273) it was found that a number of them refer, not to an animal, but to a person who is being described in a derogatory manner. Isa 56:10,11 personify Israel's leaders in this way. Deut 23:18 calls a sodomite “a dog”. In 1 Sam 17:43 Goliath asks David, “Am Ta dog that you come to me with staves?” the inference being that Goliath is not being given the respect due to him as a warrior. After killing Goliath, David cut off his (ie. Goliath, the dog’) head (1 Sam 17:51). Two further stories about David employ the word “dog”. These are particularly instructive for understanding the implications of the phrase in Isa 66:3. In 1 Samuel 24 David was being hunted by Saul, “fier whom is the King of lorael come out? After whorn, ore you chasing! “fier a dend dog. After a flea? (1Sam 24:15[14)) This sarcastic question implies that David was not worth Saul troubling himself about. The following words of David are of crucial importance: “Yahweh will be the one to judge He will decide between me and you He will see and will take up my cause And he will deliver me from your hands’. Ibis also used for mass murder eg. 2 Kgs 10:7.14 . » Slaughtering an ox was a legitimate sacrifice, according to the Priestly Code, but in Lev 17h it is made very elear thot the act of slaughter was murder. It is acceptable only if the slain animal is offered to God.$22 ANNE E. GARDNER A similar scenario is evident in 2 Samuel 16 where the image of deca- pitation appears, which of course involves breaking the neck. David is cursed by Shimei of Saul’s family who accuses David of being “a man of blood” (2 Sam 16:7, 8). Abishai said to David, “Why should this dead dog eurse my lord, the King? Let me go over I proy you and take off his head.” (2 Sam 16:9) David refuses, accepting that Shimei believed he was acting under God’s orders. He leaves God to decide the cause between him (David) and Shimei. If these passages are accepted as the background to Isa 66:3 it means that “one who kills a man” and “one who breaks a dog’s neck” are parallel. Both refer to the killing of @ human being. Even though a “dog” may be a person who has been judged by others to be worthless/a troublemaker/ an enemy, their life belongs to God. It is up to God to decide whether they should live or dic. Such an interpretation resolves scholarly misgivings as to whether Isa 66:1-2 coheres with Isa 66:3-4. ‘Those who were “iY and 117-72) in Isa 66:2 were found to place their trust totally in God. David, after refusing to kill Saul or Shimei (break a dog’s neck), publicly announced his absolute confidence in God, ascribing the role of Judge to him. ‘The third clause of Isa 66:3 reads, he that offers a meal offering (m3) (is one who offers) swine’s blood (Y¥C7) The swine was an animal prohibited for food (Lev 11:7; Deut 14:8). It was unclean, even to touch its carcasse was forbidden (Deut 14:8), therefore to offer any part of it was unthinkable. Is 1:1] says, with God speaking, “I delight not in the blood of bullocks” i.e. the blood of a clean animal. How much less then would God delight in the blood of an unclean animal. Scholars frequently make reference, when interpreting Isa 66:3, to Isa 65:4 and Isa 66:17 where people eat the flesh of swine. These verses may have some relevance in that swine were acceptable sacrifices to other gods”. This would imply that idolatry ” CE. foomote 24,ISAIAH 66:1-4: CONDEMNATION OR CONTRAST 523 was the sin with which a meal offering was being linked. This provides a parallel with the fourth sentence of Isa 66:3 which reads, He who makes a memorial (2%) of frankincense (1129) is he who blesses an idol/vanityliniquity (8) Once more the unexpected has happened. Making a memorial in the context of Isaiah is usually to God, or, as the “29 of Isa 26:8 state: to your name and your memorial is the desire of our soul Instead of blessings associated with Yahweh, the individual in Isa 66:3° blesses }}8 which indicates “vanity” or “iniquity”. Isa 66:3 seems to be the only place where the translation “idol” is given for 7. However, ‘DN appears on a number of other occasions in Isaiah and an explora- tion of its meaning is in order. Isa 41:29 has it in association with people, whose idols are “wind and chaos” but it is the only occasion in Isaiah where there is an association between }1X and idols. The majo- rity of the appearences of }WS are in connection with moral iniquity. Isa 10:1 is particularly vehement about its association with the perversion of the rights of the defenceless people in society. A promise of destruc tion for such people appears in verse 4. Isa 59:4-7 has 7 three times, with verse 7 linking it with the shedding of innocent blood. Verse 18 brings the promise of God’s vengeance”. It is noticeable that Isa 10:1-2 and Isa 59:4-7 rail against the very sins which are condemned in Isa 1:15,17, verses which follow God’s declaration of his hatred for sacri- fices/offerings and link with ways in which the “poor” (1) (cf. Isa 66:2) were found to be oppressed. ))8 then indicates a blatant disregard for God’s commandments, both as far as the treatment of others is concerned (Isa 10:1-2; 59:4-7) and in terms of idolatrous worship (Isa 41:29). As such, })¥ provides an effective drawing together of all the sins indicated in the earlier three sentences of Isa 66:3. One aspect of the four contradictory sentences of Isa 66:3, which has not been considered by scholars, is the purpose for which legitimate sacrifices/offerings were made, According to Lev 4:10; 9:4, 18 sheep " Verse 9 continues, “When your judgements are jn the earth, the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness”. ‘phrase is redolent of Isa 65:16 where “he who blesses himself elf in the God of amen”. » The verb “bless” (172) of Isa 66:3 appears here twice. “amen” has been leit untrans- lated deliberately. The LXX has “truth” but in A. E. Gardner, “Ecojustice or Anthropological Justice: Of the New Heavens and the New Earth in Isaiah 65:17 20¢ 18: epecaly 210-11, itis argued that the ‘amen of the MT should be retained: © Isa 29:20, 31:2 also promise destruction for such people.524 ANNE E. GARDNER and/or oxen were regularly offered in atonement for unwitting sins. In those passages the word for ox (118) is the same as in Isa 66:3 but the word for sheep differs, with 5° being employed rather than the 7 of Isa 66:3. However Lev 5:7 specifies that if a person does not have suf- ficient means to offer a sheep (71), then two turtle doves or pigeons will suffice. It is likely then in the first two contradictory sentences of Isa 66:3 that Isaiah is saying in picturesque language, God hates those who make atonement for unwitting sins when they know they are guilty of having committed a witting sin such as murder! A meal offering (7INya), which appears in the third sentence of Isa 66:3, can also be a peace offering for an unwitting sin. However it is linked, through the parallelism demonstrated above, with frankincense (1225), the memorial (P2¥2) made in the fourth sentence of Isa 66:3. Frankincense is expressly forbidden when making a peace offering (Lev 5:11). In order to understand the nature of the present sacrifice it is necessary to turn to another text. This is Lev 2:1-3, which contains three of the words used in the third and fourth sentences of Isa 66:3, and couples a meal offering and frankincense. These are used together when an oblation is made*: Then anyone offers an oblation of a meal offering (ema) to Yahweh. . the priest shall burn the remoial (nmom) thereof on the altar... he shall put frankincense (122) on itis the most holy of the offerings "of Yaoeh made by fie. ‘The third and fourth sentences of Isa 66:3 are then a way of saying, You make the holiest of all possible offerings in thanksgiving for what I, Yahweh, have done, then you honour other godsidishonour me with pig's blood and worship idols/commit iniquitous acts! ‘An awareness of the purpose of the sacrifices elucidates the meaning of the phrases that have puzzled scholars for so long: what is being condemned is hypocrisy, not sacrificial worship. It also makes sense of the MT reading as it stands. Rofé’s" reading of the priests as wrong doers is likely to be an oversimplification: anyone who offers/makes a “A meal offering can aleo he a peace offering for an unwitting sin, however frankincense i gpm lebih wen eng esc fering (Ler §:11) 6, kaiah 66: + 209-10, Rofé, 211-17, points to Ezra, Nehemiah ang Nalach wo ara gut the Jesu etablahment Heoee a clone parallel wih ‘Trito-Isaiah’s ce ah, as an official ofthe Persian government was able to do something about the compleints in practical terms. The extablishment in Jerusalem however consisted of lay people as well as priests.ISAIAH 66:1-4: CONDEMNATION OR CONTRAST 525 sacrifice/offering and then sins against God is guilty. Rofé’s argument that the priests cary out every sacrifice, therefore they are the ones indicted, is surely not valid: just because they are the people who actually perform a sacrifice does not mean that every impulse towards sacrifice originates with them®. ‘The concluding section of Isa 66:3 reads, They have chosen (r3) their ways (G21) their soul delights (7X90) in their abominations (AAP) This patently refers to those people whose practices are unacceptable to God. An exploration of the previous Isaianic occurrences of the key words (indicated by the inclusion of the hebrew) illustrates the mis- deeds of such people. 12 (choose) appears a number of times in Isaiah, three times in contexts which also use PDN (Isa 56:4; 58:5,6; 65:12). 1. Isa 56:4, which appeared in a passage referred to above in the dis- cussion about sacrifice, offers a contrast to Isa 66:3 for it concerns those with whom God is pleased. They are people (eunuchs) who keep the sabbath and God’s covenant. Clearly their physical disability is an insi- gnificant matter: what is important is that they obey God’s will and show due reverence to him. 2. Isa 58:5, in a passage also referred to above in the discussion about sacrifice, represents God as saying, “Is this the fast that I have chosen...” with the outer ritual of fasting being compared to the inner fast of Isa 58:6, “Is this not the fast I have chosen? To loose the bonds of wickedness...?” Isa 58:13-14 continue, linking also with Isa 56:4 cited above, Ifyou turn away your foot from the sabbath from doing your pleasure (79M) on my holy day ‘and call the sabbath «a delight the holy of Yahweh, honourable and honour it, not doing your own ways ({37) not finding your oun pleasure (7s3n)*" not speaking your own words then you will delight yourself in the Lord... © Smith, Rhetoric and Redaction, 157 also thinks that ordinary worshippers, rather than priests, may be being referred to. yon also appears in Isa 1:1] which questions whether Yahweh has “great delight” in sacrifices. “Ise 583 accuses those who fast of seeking their own pleasure.526 ANNE E, GARDNER Its of note that D271 (ways), which occurs in Isa 66:3 appears also in Isa 58:13. 3. Isa 65:12, which condemns those who worship Gad and Meni (Isa 65:11), says, in God's words, “I will destine" you to the sword ‘and you shall bow down to the slaughter {for when I called you did not answer ‘when I spoke you did net hear but you did what was evil in my eyes and chose (ON) what Tid no delight in (BN)" Such people were characterised in Isa 65:2 as “a rebellious people, who walk in a way (77) that is not good, after their own thoughts” Isa 65:2, which links with Isa 66:3 through the use of 773 and PDN, anticipates Isa 66:4 b and c where Isa 65:2 b and c reappear in full, ‘These three passages (Isa 56:4; 58:5-6,13; 65:12) highlight that what. God delights in are people who honour him by keeping his sabbath and his covenant. They do what He requires, not what their own personal wishes dictate. One last word from Isa 66:3 remains to be discussed. This is “abomi- nations” (Q°x17U) which does not appear elsewhere in Isaiah. The related noun 7pW occurs in Isa 66:17 where clearly it refers to an unclean creature, as it appears in the middle of a list of two such beasts ie. swine and mouse. A perusal of the occurrences of O°S17U elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible shows that its application can be to unclean food- stuffs cf. Jer 16:8; Zech 9:7. Other occurrences which give some content to the word show that its application was wider than food: Jer 13:27 associates “abominations” with sins of a sexual nature while Ezek 20:7 has “abominations” in parallel with “idols”® Further, Smith” claims “C, Westermann, Isaiah 40-66, 405; EJ. Kissane, The Book of Isaiah, Vol. IT, 310; RN, Whybray, Isaiah 40-66, 273 say that Gad was a Syrian god worshipped over a wide area. He was known from pre-exilic times. Meni, also a god of fate, was perhaps link ‘Arabian goddess Manat. Kissane suggests that the references to these dé y ‘symbolic’ and indicated people who took the easy path. This would link with the fact that both names are prefixed by the definite article, probably to indicate a personification of their qualities. 0. EissFELpT, The Old Testament: An Introduction (trans. by P. Ackroyd from the 3 Cerman edition published by J.C.B. Mohr, Tabingen; Oxford: Blackwell, 1966) 345 says that Fortune and Chance were important in the Hellenistic period. {RB (esting i pay on Men “The repetition of Isa 65:2 b and c in Isa 66:4 is well recognised by scholars. © Other occurrences of the word are not in a context which elucidates its meaning. » Rhetoric and Redoction, 158.ISATAH 6611-4: CONDEMNATION OR CONTRAST 527 that Jer 7:30 uses p7PU to refer to both idolatry and sins of a social nature which are outlined in Jer 7:9-10. Similarly, D°¥17U in Isa 66:3 could include all the sins specified in the second part of each of the four previous Isaianic statements. Covenant breaking in various ways then is indicated by those who have chosen their own ways in the concluding section of Isa 66:3. Isaiah 66:4 Isa 66:4a reads, “1 also will choose their wantonness (oA">>YN) and ill bring their fears (ann20) upon them” ‘As those people in Isa 66:3 “chose their own ways” so God “will choose their wantonness” (a7"¥9yn)*. OMmn appears elsewhere only in Ps 34:5(4), the psalm which contained the expression “contrite of spirit” (N17-821)*. There the Psalmist says, I sought the Lord and he answered me and delivered me from all my fears (7138) ‘The Peal is concerned with an individual who displays characteristics which are the opposite of those of the people indicated in Isa 66:3-4. The latter did not seek God. They did not answer him when he called. The full weight of their fears will be brought upon them as a conse- ence. Isa 66:4 b and c are a repeat of Isa 65:2 b and c as noted earlier. " pybthum appears elsewhere only in Isa 3:4 where it is parallel with “youths”. As a punichment Cod says,"I will give youths to be their princes ‘IM will rule cver them” Erbibun in Isa 3:4 is often translated as “babes” but what is likely to be indicated is the lack ‘of knowledge and experience of youths and hence immature ways, for the previous verses, say that God will take away from Judah and Jerusalem, “the mighty man, the man of war, the prophet, the diviner, the elder and the captain of fifty, the honourable man, the counsellor, the cunning charmer and the skillful enchanter” i. all the people of knowledge and expe- rience. F. Brown, S.R. Daivex and C.A. Buccs, A Hebrew ond English Lexicon of the Old ‘Testament (Oxford, mn Press, 1972) 760 translate O’I70N as “wantonness/caprice” ‘This teems appropriate in both Iau 8 and 6b 8 As does faa 57:15,528 ANNE E. GARDNER Conclusions This concludes the analysis of Isa 66:1-4 in terms of its interpreta- tion through allusions to earlier Isaianic passages and, where necessary, other Biblical works. It illustrates that Isa 66:1-4 is a coherent unit: verses 1-2 are alluded to in verses 3-4 and vice versa. The way in which the author has interwoven his references to earlier Isaianic passages and other Biblical texts is skillful. ‘The analysis of Isa 66:1-4 has not yielded a definite date for the per- icope, but it has shown that there is no absolute condemnation of ‘Temple worship or sacrifice. What is important to God is obedience to him typified by humility. The arrogant person, who pays no respect to God in his relations with others or in purity of worship, does not have his slate wiped clean by performing legitimate sacrifices. It is interes~ ting that David plays such a prominent role in the allusions made by Isa 66:1-3. It indicates a glorification of him for he is presented as the pro- totype of “the humble”. Itis clear that two groups were present in the Judaism of the day (at least according to the author) — the arrogant and the humble. It is equally clear that the arrogant were in a more powerful position for in Isa 66:5 they hate and cast out the humble, ‘The rest of the chapter assures the humble that they will be vindicated by Cod and become the nucleus of the new community (Isa 66:22) whereas the arrogant will perish (Isa 66:17,24).