Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Isaiah 66:3
He that killeth an ox [is as if] he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, [as if] he cut off a dog’s neck; he that offereth an oblation, [as if he offered] swine’s blood; he that burneth incense, [as if] he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.
3. The first part of the verse runs literally thus: “The slaughterer of the ox, a slayer of a man; the sacrificer of the sheep, a breaker of a dog’s neck; the offerer of an oblation, swine’s blood; the maker of a memorial of incense, one that blesseth vanity (i.e. an idol)”; four legitimate sacrificial acts being bracketed with four detestable idolatrous rites. The first member of each pair is probably to be taken as subj., the second as pred., of a sentence. But this leaves open a choice between two interpretations. ( a) That the legal sacrificial action is as hateful in the sight of God as the idolatrous rite, so long as it is performed by unspiritual worshippers. ( b) That he who does the first series of actions does also the second, i.e. combines the service of Jehovah with the most hateful idolatries. It is extremely difficult to decide which is the true sense. The words “as if” in E.V. are of course supplied by the translators, but the rendering is a perfectly fair one. The one fact that favours the second explanation ( b) is that the latter part of the verse speaks of those who “delight in their abominations.” Unless there be a complete break in the middle of the verse, which is unlikely, this would seem to imply that the abominations enumerated were actually practised by certain persons, who at the same time claimed to be worshippers of Jehovah. Cf. Isa 66:17, Isa 65:3-5, Isa 57:3-9.
as if he slew a man ] The reference may be either to murder merely or to human sacrifice; most probably the latter, since every other member of the sentence expresses a religious act. That human sacrifice was actually perpetrated by those spoken of may be safely inferred from ch. Isa 57:5.
breaketh a dog’s neck ] “This sacrifice seems to be alluded to as a Punic rite in Justin xviii. 1. 10, where we read that Darius sent a message to the Carthaginians forbidding them to sacrifice human victims and to eat the flesh of dogs: in the connexion a religious meal must be understood.” (W. R. Smith, Rel. of the Semites 2 , p. 291.) The whole paragraph should be consulted for other important references to the sacredness of the dog amongst the Semites. See also the note in Cheyne’s Commentary.
he that offereth an oblation (see on ch. Isa 1:13) ( offereth) swine’s blood ] See on ch. Isa 65:4.
burneth incense ] R.V. marg. maketh a memorial of incense. The Hebr. verb ( hizkr) is connected with ’azkrh, the technical name of the part of the meal offering which had to be burned with incense on the altar (cf. Lev 2:2; Lev 24:7).
blesseth an idol ] Lit. “vanity,” but the rendering rightly expresses the sense; cf. ch. Isa 41:29.
Yea, they have chosen &c. ] These clauses form the protasis to ( Isa 66:4. Render: As they have chosen ( Isa 66:4) so will I choose &c.
I also will choose ] with the same shade of meaning as in Isa 66:3 (“will find satisfaction in”). “The Orientals are fond of such antitheses” (Gesenius).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man – Lowth and Noyes render this, He that slayeth an ox, killeth a man. This is a literal translation of the Hebrew. Jerome renders it, He who sacrifices an ox is as if (quasi) he slew a man. The Septuagint, in a very free translation – such as is common in their version of Isaiah – render it, The wicked man who sacrifices a calf, is as he who kills a dog; and he who offers to me fine flour, it is as the blood of swine. Lowth supposes the sense to be, that the most flagitious crimes were united with hypocrisy, and that they who were guilty of the most extreme acts of wickedness at the same time affected great strictness in the performance of all the external duties of religion. An instance of this, he says, is referred to by Ezekiel, where he says, When they had slain their children to their idols, then they came the same day into my sanctuary to profane it Eze 23:39.
There can be no doubt that such offences were often committed by those who were very strict and zealous in their religious services (compare Isa 1:11-14, with Isa 66:21-23. But the generality of interpreters have supposed that a different sense was to be affixed to this passage. According to their views, the particles as if are to be supplied; and the sense is, not that the mere killing of an ox is as sinful in the sight of God as deliberate murder, but that he who did it in the circumstances, and with the spirit referred to, evinced a spirit as odious in his sight as though he had slain a man. So the Septuagint, Vulgate, Chaldee, Symmachus, and Theodotion, Junius, and Tremellius, Grotius, and Rosenmuller, understand it. There is probably an allusion to the fact that human victims were offered by the pagan; and the sense is, that the sacrifices here referred to were no more acceptable in the sight of God than they were.
The prophet here refers, probably, first, to the spirit with which this was done. Their sacrifices were offered with a temper of mind as offensive to God as if a man had been slain, and they had been guilty of murder. They were proud, vain, and hypocritical. They had forgotten the true nature and design of sacrifice, and such worship could not but be an abhorrence in the sight of God. Secondly, It may also be implied here, that the period was coming when all sacrifices would be unacceptable to God. When the Messiah should have come; when he should have made by one offering a sufficent atonement for the sins of the whole world; then all bloody sacrifices would be needless, and would be offensive in the sight of God. The sacrifice of an ox would be no more acceptable than the sacrifice of a man; and all offerings with a view to propitiate the divine favor, or that implied that there was a deficiency in the merit of the one great atoning sacrifice, would be odious to God.
He that sacrificeth a lamb – Margin, Kid The Hebrew word ( s’eh) may refer to one of a flock, either of sheep or goats Gen 22:7-8; Gen 30:32. Where the species is to be distinguished, it is usually specified, as, e. g., Deu 14:4, ves’eh zzym s’eh ks’abym (one of the sheep and one of the goats). Both were used in sacrifice.
As if he cut off a dogs neck – That is, as if he had cut off a dogs neck for sacrifice. To offer a dog in sacrifice would have been abominable in the view of a Jew. Even the price for which he was sold was not permitted to be brought into the house of God for a vow (Deu 23:18; compare 1Sa 17:43; 1Sa 24:14). The dog was held in veneration by many of the pagan, and was even offered in sacrifice; and it was, doubtless, partly in view of this fact, and especially of the fact that such veneration was shown for it in Egypt, that it was an object of such detestation among the Jews. Thus Juvenal, Sat. xiv. says:
Oppida tota canem venerantur, nemo Dianam.
Every city worships the dog; none worship Diana. Diodorus (B. i.) says, Certain animals the Egyptians greatly venerate ( sebontai), not only when alive, but when they are dead, as cats, ichneumons, mice, and dogs. Herodotus says also of the Egyptians, In some cities, when a cat dies all the inhabitants cut off their eyebrows; when a dog dies, they shave the whole body and the head. In Samothracia there was a cave in which dogs were sacrificed to Hecate. Plutarch says, that all the Greeks sacrificed the dog. The fact that dogs were offered in sacrifice by the pagan is abundantly proved by Bochart (Hieroz. i. 2. 56). No kind of sacrifice could have been regarded with higher detestation by a pious Jew. But God here says, that the spirit with which they sacrificed a goat or a lamb was as hateful in his sight as would be the sacrifice of a dog: or that the time would come when, the great sacrifice for sin having been made, and the necessity for all other sacrifice having ceased, the offering of a lamb or a goat for the expiation of sin would be as offensive to him as would be the sacrifice of a dog.
He that offereth an oblation – On the word rendered here oblation ( minchah). See the notes at Isa 1:13.
As if he offered swines blood – The sacrifice of a hog was an abomination in the sight of the Hebrews (see the notes at Isa 65:4). Yet here it is said that the offering of the minchah, in the spirit in which they would do it, was as offensive to God as would be the pouring out of the blood of the swine on the altar, Nothing could more emphatically express the detestation of God for the spirit with which they would make their offerings, or the fact that the time would come when all such modes of worship would be offensive in his sight.
He that burneth incense – See the word incense explained in the notes at Isa 1:13. The margin here is, Maketh a memorial of. Such is the usual meaning of the word used here ( zakar), meaning to remember, and in Hiphil to cause to remember, or to make a memorial. Such is its meaning here. incense was burned as a memorial or a remembrance-offering; that is, to keep up the remembrance of God on the earth by public worship (see the notes at Isa 62:6).
As if he blessed an idol – The spirit with which incense would be offered would be as offensive as idolatry. The sentiment in all this is, that the most regular and formal acts of worship where the heart is lacking, may be as offensive to God as the worst forms of crime, or the most gross and debasing idolatry. Such a spirit often characterized the Jewish people, and eminently prevailed at the time when the temple of Herod was nearly completed, and when the Saviour was about to appear.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Isa 66:3
He that killeth an ox
Worship and wickedness
Our prophet affirms, that the sacrifices offered by the wicked and hypocritical among the Jews, being attended with enormous crimes and profane rites, and not presented with pure hearts, according to the Divine appointment, were an abomination to the Lord.
They intermixed impious ceremonies and odious superstitions with the sacrifices which they offered to the Most High. (R. Macculloch.)
Hateful sacrifices
The first part of the verse runs literally thus: The slaughterer of the ox, a slayer of a man; the sacrificer of the sheep, a breaker of a dogs neck; the offerer of an oblation, swines blood; the maker of a memorial of incense, one that blesseth vanity (i.e an idol); four legitimate sacrificial acts being bracketed with four detestable idolatrous rites. The first member of each pair is probably to be taken as subject, the second as predicate, of a sentence. But this leaves open a choice between two interpretations.
1. That the legal sacrificial action is as hateful in the sight of God as the idolatrous rite, so long as it is performed by unspiritual worshippers.
2. That he who does the first series of actions does also the second, i.e combines the service of Jehovah with the most hateful idolatries. It is extremely difficult to decide which is the true sense. The words as if in
E.V. are, of course, supplied by the translators, but the rendering is aperfectly fair one. The one fact that favours the second explanation is that the latter part of the verse speaks of those who delight in their abominations. Unless there be a complete break in the middle of the verse, which is unlikely, this would seem to imply that the abominations enumerated were actually practised by certain persons, who at the same time claimed to be worshippers of Jehovah (cf Isa 66:17, Isa 65:3-5; Isa 57:3-9). (Prof. J. Skinner, D. D.)
Unacceptable sacrifices
I regard Vitringas exposition as the most exact, profound and satisfactory. He agrees with Gesenius in making the text the general doctrine that sacrifice is hateful in the sight of God if offered in a wicked spirit, but with a special reference to those who still adhered to the old sacrifices after the great Sacrifice for sin was come and had been offered once for all. Thus understood, this verse extends to sacrifices that which the foregoing verse said of the temple, after the change of dispensation. (J. A. Alexander.)
As if he slew a man
The reference may be either to murder merely or to human sacrifice; most probably the latter, since every other member of the sentence expresses a religious act. That human sacrifice was actually perpetrated by those spoken of may be safely inferred from Isa 57:5.(Prof. J. Skinner, D. D.)
As if he cut off (breaketh) a dogs neck
This sacrifice . . . seems . . . to be alluded to as a Punic rite in Justin 18. I. 10, where we read that Darius sent a message to the Carthaginians forbidding them to sacrifice human victims and to eat the flesh of dogs. In the connection a religious meal must be understood. (W. Robertson Smith.)
Formal worship
I. ITS FEATURES.
II. ITS OFFENSIVENESS TO GOD.
III. ITS UTTER WORTHLESSNESS. (Homiletic Commentary.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 3. He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man – “He that slayeth an ox killeth a man”] These are instances of wickedness joined with hypocrisy; of the most flagitious crimes committed by those who at the same time affected great strictness in the performance of all the external services of religion. God, by the Prophet Ezekiel, upbraids the Jews with the same practices: “When they had slain their children to their idols, then they came the same day into my sanctuary to profane it,” Eze 23:39. Of the same kind was the hypocrisy of the Pharisees in our Saviour’s time: “who devoured widows’ houses, and for a pretence made long prayers,” Mt 23:14.
The generality of interpreters, by departing from the literal rendering of the text, have totally lost the true sense of it, and have substituted in its place what makes no good sense at all; for it is not easy to show how, in any circumstances, sacrifice and murder, the presenting of legal offerings and idolatrous worship, can possibly be of the same account in the sight of God.
He that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine’s blood – “That maketh an oblation offereth swine’s blood”] A word here likewise, necessary to complete the sense, is perhaps irrecoverably lost out of the text. The Vulgate and Chaldee add the word offereth, to make out the sense; not, as I imagine, from any different reading, (for the word wanted seems to have been lost before the time of the oldest of them, as the Septuagint had it not in their copy,) but from mere necessity.
Le Clerc thinks that maaleh is to be repeated from the beginning of this member; but that is not the case in the parallel members, which have another and a different verb in the second place, ” dam, sic Versiones; putarem tamen legendum participium aliquod, et quidem zabach, cum sequatur cheth, nisi jam praecesserat.” – SECKER. Houbigant supplies achal, eateth. After all, I think the most probable word is that which the Chaldee and Vulgate seem to have designed to represent; that is, makrib, offereth.
In their abominations.] ubeshikkutseyhem, “and in their abominations;” two copies of the Machazor, and one of Kennicott’s MSS. have ubegilluleyhem, “and in their idols.” So the Vulgate and Syriac.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Solomon, Pro 15:8, gives us a short but full commentary on the whole verse, The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord. He that killeth an ox, that is, for sacrifice, as it is expounded by the next words, he that sacrificeth a lamb. The comparisons show Gods detestation of ceremonial performances from men of wicked hearts and lives. He that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol: from hence it is plain that the prophet is not here reflecting upon idolatrous worship, but formal worship; for to say, he that burneth incense to an idol is as he that blesseth an idol, is but to say, he that blesseth an idol blesseth an idol; but upon those who in a formality worshipped the true God, and by acts which he had appointed, such were offering sacrifices, oblation, incense. God by the prophet declares that these mens services were no more acceptable to him than murder, idolatry, or the most horrid profanation of his name. Such would cutting off a dogs neck for sacrifice have been, or offering swines blood; so little do ritual performances, though instituted by God himself, please God, when they are but mere formalities, as they always are when those that perform them live as they list, lewd and loose lives, and think to save themselves by their prayers, like the whore, Pro 7:14,15; not only sinning by human frailty, but taking pleasure in their sins, Pro 15:26. To offer a sacrifice with a heart resolved (when it is offered) to go on in sinful courses, is to offer it with an evil mind. This is a dreadful text to those persons who will murder, and steal, and swear, and curse, and lie, and commit adultery, and then come and stand before God in his house, which is called by his name, that is, come to serve him in acts of worship, Lev 10:3; see Psa 50:16-18; Isa 1:11-14; Jer 7:9,10; Mt 7:21-23; Joh 4:24; 1Ti 4:8.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
3. God loathes even thesacrifices of the wicked (Isa 1:11;Pro 15:8; Pro 28:9).
is as ifLOWTHnot so well omits these words: “He that killeth an ox (presentlyafter) murders a man” (as in Eze23:39). But the omission in the Hebrew of “is asif”increases the force of the comparison. Humanvictims were often offered by the heathen.
dog’s neckanabomination according to the Jewish law (De23:18); perhaps made so, because dogs were venerated in Egypt. Hedoes not honor this abomination by using the word “sacrifice,”but uses the degrading term, “cut off a dog’s neck”(Exo 13:13; Exo 34:20).Dogs as unclean are associated with swine (Mat 7:6;2Pe 2:22).
oblationunbloody: inantithesis to “swine’s blood” (Isa65:4).
burnethHebrew,“he who offereth as a memorial oblation” (Le2:2).
they have chosenopposedto the two first clauses of Isa66:4: “as they have chosen their own ways, &c.,so I will choose their delusions.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
He that killeth an ox, is as if he slew a man,…. Not that killed the ox of his neighbour, which, according to law, he was to pay for; or that killed one for food, which was lawful to be done; but that slew one, and offered it as a sacrifice; not blamed because blind or lame, or had any blemish in it, and so unfit for sacrifice; or because not rightly offered, under a due sense of sin, and with repentance for it, and faith in Christ; but because all sacrifices of this kind are now abolished in Gospel times, to which this prophecy belongs; Christ the great sacrifice being offered up; and therefore to offer sacrifice, which, notwithstanding the unbelieving Jews continued daily, till it was made to cease by the destruction of their temple, was a great offence to God; it was as grievous to him as offering their children to Moloch; or as the murder of a man; and was indeed a trampling under foot the Son of God, and accounting his blood and sacrifice as nothing, which was highly displeasing to God:
he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog’s neck; the lamb for the daily sacrifice, morning and evening, or the passover lamb, or any other: this now is no more acceptable to God, than if a dog, a very impure creature, was slain, his head cut off, and offered on the altar; which was so abominable to the Lord, that the price of one might not be brought into his house, De 23:18:
he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine’s blood; the meat offering, made of fine flour, on which oil was poured, and frankincense put, Le 2:1, however rightly composed it might be, and offered according to law, yet now of no more esteem with God than blood, which was forbidden by the same law; nay, than the blood of swine, which creature itself, according to the ceremonial law, was unclean, and might not be eaten, and much less be offered up, and still less its blood, Le 11:7:
and he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol; or that “remembers incense” p; that offers it as a memorial of mercies, and by way of thankfulness for them, as if he gave thanks to an idol, which is nothing, and vanity and vexation in the world; sacrifices of such kind, be they what they will, are reckoned no other than as idolatry and will worship:
yea, they have chosen their own ways: which were evil, and opposite to the ways of God, especially to the way of salvation by Christ; they gave heed to the traditions of the elders; continued the service of the ceremonial law; and set up their own righteousness, in opposition to the doctrines, ordinances, sacrifice, and righteousness of Christ:
and their soul delighteth in their abominations: things which were abominable unto God; as were their traditions, which were preferred to the word of God, and by which they made it void; and their sacrifices being offered up contrary to his will, and with a wicked mind; and their righteousness being imperfect, and trusted in, to the neglect and contempt of the righteousness of his Son.
p , , Sept.; “qui recordatur thuris”, V. L. Calvin, Vatablus; “memorans thus”, Montanus.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
3. He that killeth an ox, as if he slew a man. There are two clauses in this verse. In the former, Isaiah plainly declares that all the sacrifices of his nation are of no value in the sight of God, but are held by him in abomination; in the latter, he describes the dreadful corruption by which they mingled the ceremonies of the Gentiles with the sacrifices of the Law, and in this way corrupted and perverted everything. The greater part of commentators think that these words repeal the sacrifices of the Law, but this is a mistake; for Isaiah, in this passage, treats of the same subject of which he had formerly treated in the first and fifty-eighth chapters, and does not absolutely condemn sacrifices, but rather the blemishes and corruptions of them, because the Jews thought that God was satisfied with a deceitful and empty appearance, and at the same time cared not about the true fear of God and a pure conscience. He does not speak, therefore, of the thing itself, but censures men who abused sacrifices; because this was as much as to offer to God the shell of an empty nut. In a word, no sacrifices are acceptable to God but those which proceed from a pure heart and an upright will.
Yet it is probable that the Prophet alludes to the sacrifices of the Gentiles, which were shocking and monstrous; for they killed men, or buried them alive. Neither the Romans, (who reckoned themselves to be more religious than other nations,) nor even the Jews, abstained from this crime. Nay more, ( κακόζηλοι) wicked imitators polluted themselves by many child-murders, thinking that they followed their father Abraham. Isaiah says that, “when they kill an ox, they do the same thing as if they slew a man;” (219) and thus he shews that the Jews, though they had a religion which was peculiar and which God had appointed, yet were in no respect better than the Gentiles, among whom everything was polluted and profane, and were not more highly approved by God; because the name of God is profaned by hypocrisy of religion not less than by corrupted and false worship. How necessary this admonition was, we have formerly seen; for, while the Jews were convicted of all crimes, yet, so long as they concealed themselves under this shadow, they thought that they were safe. Justly therefore does the Prophet meet them by saying, that they gain nothing more by their attempts to appease God than if they sought to offer sacrifices from the abominable sacrileges of the Gentiles.
And truly they have chosen their own ways. There are two interpretations of this passage; for the antecedent to the pronoun may either be the Gentiles or the Jews; that is, either that the Jews mingled and entangled themselves with the wicked ceremonies of the Gentiles, or that they followed their own inventions. The former exposition would not be inappropriate, were it not that it is unnatural, because the word “Gentiles” has not been formerly expressed. It was the most aggravated part of the wickedness of the Jews, that they not only abused the pure worship of God, but likewise, through their contempt of the Law, defiled the temple and every other place by wicked and abominable superstitions. They built altars on high places, planted and reared groves, took delight in games and public entertainments, and copied everything else that was appointed by public authority for the purpose of corrupting the hearts of men. Thus there was produced among them a confused medley of superstitions, such as we now behold in Popery, in which we see various patches sewed together, taken out of every kind of superstitions, not only heathen and Jewish, but likewise such as have been recently contrived by Satan, that he might more easily, and with greater plausibility, impose on the world. These and similar practices the Prophet would justly pronounce to be doubly worthy of condemnation, because, while they boast of the name of God, and make profession of his worship, still they are not ashamed to stain and pollute that worship by the sacrileges of idolatrous nations.
The other interpretation is not obscure, and is equally appropriate, that the Jews were devoted to their own inventions, and followed their own abominations, He affirms that they do not worship God sincerely, who despise him according to their own caprice, not only because they are full of avarice, hatred, ambition, dishonesty, cruelty, and extortion, but because they corrupt the worship of God by their own contrivances. Although the pronoun refers to the Jews, yet the Prophet condemns all superstitions which they had borrowed from the heathen nations. Consequently, there is little difference between the two interpretations; for he merely teaches that, because they have insolently and rebelliously shaken off the yoke of God, because wickedness openly prevails among them, everything that proceeds from them is polluted and detestable. Streams that bring down dirty and offensive matter from a muddy and polluted fountain cannot be clean or pure. Choice and desire reveal their obstinacy more clearly; that is, because, knowingly and willingly, they despised God’s commandments, and devoted their heart to everything that was opposed to them, as if they wished intentionally to disdain everything that proceeded from God, that they might obey their depraved lust.
(219) “ Qu’ en sacrifiant un boeuf, e’est autant que s’ils coupoyent la gorge a un homme.” “That, in sacrificing an ox, it is the same as if they were cutting a man’s throat.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(3) He that killeth an ox . . .The truth of the previous verse is emphasised by iteration, each clause presenting a distinct illustration of it. Chapter Isa. 65:3-11 had pointed to tendencies, not yet extinct, which led to open apostasy. Now the prophet declares that there may be as real an apostasy beneath an orthodox creed and an irreproachable ritual. Each act of the hypocrites worship is as an idolatrous abomination.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
3. But as to men of undevout character, who do not seek God with broken hearts hearts crushed under a sense of sin their sacrifices are an offence to Jehovah and a curse to themselves.
He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man Here follow three other similar propositions, having for their subjects things required in religious offerings under the ritual law: all together, they are the ox, the lamb, the oblation, and offering of incense. Things offset against these are utterly forbidden by the law, being in themselves abominable. They are the human sacrifice, the blood of swine, the breaking the neck of a dog, and blessing an idol all of which call for what in themselves raise the divine horror, instead of the divine compassion. And they of the undevout Jews are herein said to sacrifice what is equivalent to these abominations when they formally attempt to sacrifice at all. In spirit they are gross idolaters, (see Isa 1:11-14,) and the conclusion seems to be, that it is time a ritual institution, abused like this, should be abolished for ever. It has ever helped the humble and penitent worshipper of Jehovah, though he needs it no more since the world’s Great Sacrifice has come, and covers all his sins. But the undevout ones worship only in the letter the spirit of the law they trample under foot, and thereby they profane the Almighty Saviour.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
In Contrast Are Those Whose Offerings and Sacrifices Are Merely Formal And Debased And Not From The Heart ( Isa 66:3-5 ).
Isa 66:3
“He who kills an ox is as he who slays a man,
He who sacrifices a lamb as he who breaks a dogs neck,
He who offers an oblation as he who offers swine’s blood,
He who burns frankincense as he who blesses an idol,
Yes, they have chosen their own ways,
And their inner being delights in their abomination.”
This is where we began in Isa 1:10-17. There are those who are very religious, but whose religion is formal with no heart in it. They are not humble and contrite, but proud of their religious activity, while thinking that once they have indulged in it they can then indulge in whatever they want. It is but a religious exercise. They honour Him with their lips, draw near to Him with their mouths, but their hearts are far from Him.
Thus when they slay an ox God sees it simply as murder, when they sacrifice a lamb it means nothing more to Him than the breaking of a dog’s neck (compare Isa 1:11). This was the lowest possible event, for even the price of a dog could not be brought to Yahweh (Deu 23:18), stressing the total unacceptability of such an offering as this, which He did not even regard as an offering but as an insult. A dog, like an ass (Exo 13:13), would be killed by breaking its neck because it could not be offered as a sacrifice.
This is followed by likening their actions to two further abominations, swine’s blood and idolatry. When they offer an oblation it is as if they were offering swine’s blood, an abomination to God. When they burn frankincense it is as if they offered it to other gods, it is an abomination to Him (compare Isa 1:13). So they are guilty of murder, of bringing a dog into the temple and breaking its neck before Yahweh, of offering swine’s blood and of blessing an idol.
This indicates that their worship is not only formal but is abominable, because it is carried on without genuine worship amid the paraphernalia used for the worship of the hosts of heaven and other false gods (Eze 8:5-18 brings this out equally vividly). Perhaps today we should consider the paraphernalia that we introduce into worship services, and ask ourselves whether it is really assisting worship, or whether it is actually taking our minds way from God.
That is why God wants nothing of their ritual because it is all formal and syncretistic, and not from the heart. It is carried out as a matter of course, and to try to ‘influence’ God’s favour, and not because it comes from deeply penitent hearts which seek fellowship with Him.
This is demonstrated by the fact that while they do it they go in their own ways (see Isa 53:6) and their very soul delights in this mockery which pretends to be worship. This could be seen as quite acceptable to false gods who have no interest in morality, indeed in anything, but not to the living God. Yet even though it is an abomination to God they themselves are very satisfied with it, and with themselves, demonstrating what they really are and that they really do deserve judgment.
Isa 66:4
“I also will choose the harsh way they are treated (the due reward for their deeds),
And will bring their fears on them,
Because when I called, none answered,
When I spoke they did not hear.
But they did what was evil in my eyes,
And chose that in which I did not delight.
So because they have cut Him off in their hearts God will select their punishment and bring on them what they have feared. Their ritual was designed to somehow, by manipulation, make Yahweh act to deal with their fears, but He will instead bring what they feared on them. He will respond in accordance with the lack of genuineness in their worship.
Note the semi-parallel in Isa 65:12 which ends in the same way. But there it is ‘I will destine you to the sword’ rather than ‘I will choose the harsh way they are treated’, for there they had been following Destiny, and therefore their destiny is described, while here they are insulting Yahweh by formalism and He therefore describes His personal punishment.
And the reason is because they have not listened to His call or His words through Isaiah and through other prophets. They have not listened and they have not responded. Their hearts are too hardened. Rather they have continued in sinful ways, and have chosen to do things which Yahweh did not enjoy and which gave Him no delight (compare Isa 65:12 where it is related to fortune telling and idolatry).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Isa 66:3. He that killeth an ox, &c. God here shews, that the external ritual worship offered to him by hypocrites and wicked persons, void of faith and holiness, was no more estimable in his sight, than the material temple above spoken of; but that he was as much offended by the ritual worship of the impure, as by the most grievous crimes perpetrated against the immediate commands of the law, and particularly under the new oeconomy, after the promulgation of the law of liberty, and the perfect and true sacrifice offered by his Son, to expiate the sins of the world. The sentence may be supplied, He who killeth an ox, [with the dispositions above mentioned] is [esteemed guilty of as great a crime in the sight of God] as he who killeth a man. As if he cut off a dog’s neck, means, in order to sacrifice it. This animal was held in the greatest abhorrence by the Jews; insomuch, that the very price of a dog was forbidden to be brought into the house of the Lord. See Deu 23:18. As if he blessed an idol, means, as if he hououred an idol with gifts and presents. See Vitringa.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
I should apprehend that by the killing of an ox, here spoken of, is not simply meant the act of killing the beast, but with an eye to sacrifice. And if I do this in the idea of an offering, I do thereby set at nought the great sacrifice of the Lord Jesus; and this would be what the Apostle calls crucifying him afresh, and putting him to an open shame. There is an uncommon degree of expression in those words, as if he slew a man; meaning the man Christ Jesus. Whoever looks to sacrifices, since the sacrifice of the Lord
Jesus Christ, by way of acceptance, doth to all intents and purposes virtually declare that he fears Christ’s sacrifice was not all-sufficient, and therefore he adds this by way of making up the deficiency. And such, by the way it may be observed, is, more or less, the danger of mingling anything of our own with the perfect offering body of Jesus Christ, which was offered once for all.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Isa 66:3 He that killeth an ox [is as if] he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, [as if] he cut off a dog’s neck; he that offereth an oblation, [as if he offered] swine’s blood; he that burneth incense, [as if] he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.
Ver. 3. He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man. ] Unless, together with his ox, he kill his corruptions, and lay fast hold upon Christ (who himself was sacrificed for us, 1Co 5:7 ) by a lively faith. Heathens sacrificed men to Saturn; dogs also, and swine, and other unclean creatures, to their other dunghill deities. Mass priests do the like by their cruelty, hypocrisy, idolatry, impudence, luxury: their prayers, therefore, fastings, penances, pilgrimages, &c., are not accepted.
He that sacrificeth a lamb.
As if he cut off a dog’s neck.] Heb., As if he necked a dog, a that is, decolled him, beheaded him for sacrifice: this was absolutely forbidden. Deu 23:18 The Athenians also suffered not a dog to enter into their tower dedicated to Minerva, for his heat in venery and ill savour, saith Plutarch. b
He that offereth an oblation.
Is as if he offered swine’s blood.] Blood was not to be offered at all in an oblation or meat offering, but meal, oil, wine; Lev 2:1-16 much less swine’s blood. See Lev 11:7 .
He that burneth incense.
Is as if he blessed an idol,
Yea, they have chosen their own ways.
a Excerebraret. – Vulg.
b Plut., E .
c Bernard.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Isa 66:3-6
3But he who kills an ox is like one who slays a man;
He who sacrifices a lamb is like the one who breaks a dog’s neck;
He who offers a grain offering is like one who offers swine’s blood;
He who burns incense is like the one who blesses an idol.
As they have chosen their own ways,
And their soul delights in their abominations,
4So I will choose their punishments
And will bring on them what they dread.
Because I called, but no one answered;
I spoke, but they did not listen.
And they did evil in My sight
And chose that in which I did not delight.
5Hear the word of the LORD, you who tremble at His word:
Your brothers who hate you, who exclude you for My name’s sake,
Have said, ‘Let the LORD be glorified, that we may see your joy.’
But they will be put to shame.
6A voice of uproar from the city, a voice from the temple,
The voice of the LORD who is rendering recompense to His enemies.
Isa 66:3-4 This shows that ritual alone is not satisfactory (cf. Isa 29:13; Jeremiah 7), but combined with ritual must be a humble and repentant heart. That which we do over and over again tends to become common, but in the area of faith, our motive is the key (cf. Isa 66:2).
Isa 66:3 And their soul delights in their abominations This refers to various pagan worship rites (cf. Isa 65:4; Isa 65:7; Isa 65:11). They loved and chose (BDB 103, KB 119, used three times in Isa 66:3-4) sin (cf. Isa 1:4; Isa 57:17; Isa 65:2; Isa 66:18; Psa 81:11-12)!
Isa 66:4
NASBpunishments
NKJVdelusions
NRSV, JPSOAmock
TEVdisaster
NJBmaking fools of them
REBa willful course
The word (BDB 760, KB 1768) is found only here and Isa 3:4. KB suggests
1. acts of mischief (done by a child from the root, (BDB 760) for Isa 3:4
2. ill treatment here
The NET Bible gets a meaning from (BDB 760), deal severely.
And will bring on them what they dread Oh my! What a terrible curse from God (cf. Pro 1:27; Pro 10:24)!
Because I called, but no one answered Here again is the repetition of the theme (cf. Isa 41:28; Isa 50:2; Isa 65:12).
Isa 66:5 There is a distress and tension even within the people of God (cf. Rom 9:6-8). The persecution of the prophets by fellow Jews is a good example of this (cf. Mat 5:10-12; Mat 10:22). Many horrible things have been done by religious people in God’s name!
Notice how the true people of God should respond to persecution – joy (BDB 970, cf. Isa 51:11; Isa 55:12; Isa 61:7; note Isa 66:10 which has several other words synonymous with joy.
1. be glad – BDB 162
2. rejoice – BDB 965 (twice)
3. also Qal IMPERATIVE of joy (BDB 970)
There are three commands in Isa 66:5.
1. Hear the word of the LORD – Qal IMPERATIVE, BDB 1033, KB 1570
2. Let the LORD be glorified – Qal IMPERFECT, BDB 457, KB 455, used in a JUSSIVE sense (the LXX translates it as PASSIVE)
3. That we may see your joy – Qal IMPERECT, BDB 906, KB 157, used in a COHORTATIVE sense
Isa 66:6 There has been much discussion among commentators about how this verse relates to the context. Some say it is an unknown historical event, while others say it is related directly to Isa 66:5, which shows the judgment of prideful, unbelieving Jews.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
cut off = breaketh.
oblation = gift, or meal offering. Hebrew. minchah.
swine’s blood. Reference to Pentateuch (Deu 14:8. Lev 11:7). Compare Isa 65:4.
burneth incense = maketh a memorial of frankincense. Reference to Pentateuch (Lev 2:2). App-92.
chosen. See note on Isa 1:29.
their soul = they. Note the Introversion beginning with the last clause of Isa 66:3, and including Isa 66:4,
They delight, &c.
I also will choose, &c.
When I called, &c.
When I spake, &c.
They chose, &c.
I delighted not.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
killeth: Isa 1:11-15, Pro 15:8, Pro 21:27, Amo 5:21, Amo 5:22
lamb: or, kid
cut: Deu 23:18
as if he offered: Isa 66:17, Isa 65:3, Isa 65:4, Deu 14:8
burneth: Heb. maketh a memorial of, Lev 2:2
they have: Isa 65:12, Jdg 5:8, Jdg 10:14
Reciprocal: Lev 7:18 – an abomination Lev 11:7 – swine Lev 17:4 – he hath Lev 19:7 – abominable Lev 26:31 – I will not smell Jos 4:7 – memorial Jdg 11:31 – and I will Jdg 11:39 – did with Jdg 17:3 – I had wholly Jdg 17:13 – General 1Sa 13:9 – he offered Psa 16:4 – drink Psa 40:6 – Sacrifice Psa 109:7 – and let Ecc 5:1 – give Isa 1:13 – incense Isa 28:20 – the bed Isa 29:1 – kill Isa 43:23 – honoured Isa 57:6 – Should Isa 57:12 – General Jer 6:20 – To what Eze 20:39 – but Hos 5:6 – they Hos 9:4 – neither Mal 2:12 – and him Mat 8:30 – an Mar 5:11 – herd Luk 8:32 – there an Heb 10:4 – not Rev 17:4 – abominations
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Isa 66:3. He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man Without this humble and devout temper of mind, killing an ox for a burnt-offering is no more acceptable to God than if a man offered his son in sacrifice to Moloch. God here shows that the external ritual worship, offered to him by hypocrites and wicked persons, void of faith and virtue, was no more estimable in his sight than the material temple above spoken of; but that he was as much offended by the ritual worship of the impure, as by the most grievous crimes perpetrated against the immediate commands of the law, and particularly under the new economy, after the promulgation of the law of liberty, and the perfect and true sacrifice offered by Christ to expiate the sins of the world. The declaration is most important, but will not be understood unless by those who are well acquainted with the interior part of religion. See Vitringa. Solomon, it may be observed, gives (Pro 15:8) a short but full commentary on the whole verse: The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord. He that sacrificeth a lamb as if he cut off a dogs neck Namely, in order to sacrifice it. This animal was held in the greatest abhorrence by the Jews, insomuch that the very price of a dog was forbidden to be brought into the house of the Lord, Deu 23:18. The comparison shows Gods detestation of ceremonial performances from persons destitute of true piety. He that offereth, &c., as if he offered swines blood Which, being one of the principal sacrifices which the heathen offered to their idols, was in a particular manner abominable to God. He that burneth incense as if he blessed an idol As if he honoured an idol with gifts and presents. From hence it is plain that the prophet is not here reflecting upon idolatrous worship, but formal worship; for to say, He that burneth incense to an idol is as he that blesseth an idol, would be only to say, He that blesseth an idol, blesseth an idol; that is, it would be saying nothing. But he is reflecting upon those who, in a formal way, and not in spirit and in truth, worshipped the true God, and by acts which he had appointed. God, by the prophet, declares that these mens services were no more acceptable to him than murder, idolatry, or the most horrid profanation of his name. Yea, they have chosen their own ways They live as they list; they persist in their wicked practices, and yet expect to recommend themselves to my favour by their ceremonial observances. And their soul delighteth in their abominations Taking pleasure in their sins, and showing their contempt of my authority and enmity to my holiness, as much as their fathers did when they were mad upon their idols.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
66:3 He that killeth an ox [is as if] he {d} slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, [as if] he cut off a dog’s neck; he that offereth an oblation, [as if he offered] swine’s blood; he that burneth incense, [as if] he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.
(d) Because the Jews thought themselves holy by offering their sacrifices, and in the mean season had neither faith or repentance, God shows that he no less detests these ceremonies than he does the sacrifices of the heathen, who offered men, dogs and swine to their idols, which things were expressly forbidden in the law.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The person who relies on ritual to satisfy God is repulsive to Him. The Lord regards the slaying of sacrifices by such a person as no better than murder. There is no difference to Him between the sacrifice of an acceptable lamb or an unclean dog when a person relies on ritual. A grain offering can be as abominable to Him as offering a swine’s blood. Burning incense with such an attitude is just pagan worship (cf. Isa 43:23-24; Jer 7:21-22; Amo 5:21-25; Mic 6:6-8; Mal 1:10; Mat 23:27).
"The most sacred exercises of true God-given religion are like the worst of sins when they are divorced from humility of spirit." [Note: Grogan, p. 352.]
Such worshippers chose to worship God as they pleased rather than as He pleased, so He would deal with them as He pleased, not as they pleased. He would do this because they proved unresponsive to His words and insensitive to His desires.