You are on page 1of 8

Frustrated Expectations in Isaiah V 1-7: A Literary Interpretation Author(s): Gary Roye Williams Source: Vetus Testamentum, Vol.

35, Fasc. 4 (Oct., 1985), pp. 459-465 Published by: BRILL Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1517761 Accessed: 11/09/2008 11:56
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Vetus Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

Vetus Testamentum XXXV,

4 (1985)

FRUSTRATED EXPECTATIONS IN ISAIAH V 1-7: A LITERARY INTERPRETATION


by

GARY ROYE WILLIAMS


Guatemala City

There can be little doubt that the main message of Isa. v 1-7 deals with God's frustrated expectations concerning Judah. The divine frustration is thrice repeated in the passage, twice metaphorically (vv. 2c, 4b) and then more plainly in the final climactic line (v. 7b). However, insufficient attention has been paid to a literary device used by the author to underscore the message of Yahweh's frustration, a literary device which also contributes to some of the major exegetical problems of the pericope. As we move through the passage, again and again we are led to expectations which are shortly proven to be false. These false expectations force us to reinterpret the passage repeatedly. Thus our frustration in the interpretative process enables us to identify ourselves with Yahweh's frustration.' This article attempts to trace this process of interpretative frustration through the pericope. The opening phrase of the passage, "I will sing to my beloved" must be understood initially as the introduction to (ds'irdnadlididO), a joyful song2 in praise of3 the poet's good friend.4 The following
It must be admitted that these false expectations do not mislead us completely when we read Isa. v. 1-7 in its canonical context. The surrounding chapters predispose us to expect some sort of condemnation of God's people in this passage. However, when the poem existed as an independent entity, the deception would have been felt strongly indeed. 2 The verb sir and related nominal forms almost always refer to expressions of praise or joy. The noteworthy exception is the use of sira in Deut. xxxi and xxxii, on which see below. 3 This is the natural initial interpretation, for elsewhere in the Bible when the verb sir is followed by the preposition le and a noun, the noun always designates the one who is to be praised by the song. Cf. e.g. the passages that have 'dsirdle (Ex. xv 1; Judg. v 3; Pss. xiii 6, xxvii 6, civ 33, cxliv 9). 4 The noun yddid may have some sexual connotation in Jer. xi 15; Ps. xlv 1. However, these passages are difficult to interpret. Where the meaning ofyddid is clear, there is no erotic connotation (Deut. xxxiii 12; Pss. lx 7, cviii 7, cxxvii 2).

460

GARY ROYE WILLIAMS

sirat dodi is then interpreted as "a song in praise of5 my intimate friend".6 The final phrase of the line is probably to be taken as "concerning his vineyard". However, the juxtaposition of dod and kerem, terms used in ancient love poetry to designate the lovers,7 suggests that the vineyard here is to be understood not literally but rather as a figure for the female lover. This understanding of lekarmo,coupled with the use of dodi in love poetry,8 produces the first interpretative frustration, a fairly minor one. It now appears that the minstrel is singing the female's role, in which case she is the logical subject of dsira, andyedidi and dodi refer not to the poet's friend but to her beloved. Thus v. la, having suffered one reinterpretation, introduces the pericope as a female's joyous song in praise of her lover. That the purpose of the song is to praise the beloved seems to be confirmed in the following lines. The description of the location of the vineyard and of the care that it received from the husbandman (vv. lb-2b) implies a matrimonial relationship in which the husband admirably provided for his wife. The expectation of grapes (v. 2c), perhaps a symbol of children, was fully justified, and the final word
5 For this use of the construct relationship, see sir ha'delohm, 1 Chr. xvi 42; sir yahweh, 2 Chr. vii 6; cf. also Pss. xlii 9, cxxxvii 4; 2 Chr. xxix 27. 6 The translation "intimate friend" retains some of the ambiguity of the Hebrew dod. It is true that in the Bible ddd usually means either "uncle" or "beloved (in an erotic sense)". However, that dod can also mean "friend" is supported by the following considerations: (1) dodim means "friends" in Cant. v 1 (although there is also a play on the more common meaning of the plural form, "love"); (2) dd as used in the Ugaritic onomasticon must mean "beloved" in a non-erotic sense (cf. J. Sanmartin-Ascaso, dod, TWAT 2 (1977), col. 156, E. tr. TDOT 3 (1978), p. 147, who cites the hypocoristic names Da-da, [Bin-] Da-de4-ya, Da-di-ya; Da-di-ni; Du-du-nu); (3) Akkadian dddu(m) is used in many contexts which demand the meaning "beloved" in a non-erotic sense (cols. 154-6, E. tr., pp. 143-6); (4) if dod is used in the Bible in theophoric or hypocoristic names, then in those names it must mean "beloved" in a non-erotic sense; cf. col. 160, E. tr., p. 151, where Sanmartin-Ascaso suggests that dod is a theophorous element in the names doday [1 Chr. xxvii 4], dodo [Judg. x 1; 2 Sam. xxiii 24; 1 Chr. xi 12, 26; 2 Sam. xiii 9, qere], dodihut[2 Chr. xx 37, but note the textual problem], and eelddd, 'lidad [Num. xi 26, xxxiv 21] ). 7 The vineyard, the garden and the field are used as metaphors for love making and the female sexual partner in Cant. i 6, 14, ii 15, iv 12-v 1, vi 2, vii 12, 13, viii 11-13. For similar examples from Egyptian and Akkadian literature, cf. J. T. Willis, "The Genre of Isaiah 5:1-7", JBL 96 (1977), pp. 345-6; H. Wildberger, Jesaja 1-12 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1972), p. 169. For examples from Ugaritic literature, cf. Sanmartin-Ascaso, col. 156, E. tr., p. 147. 8 The form dodi is found twenty-six times in Canticles, always on the lips of the bride.

FRUSTRATED EXPECTATIONS IN ISAIAH V 1-7

461

of the verse, bezusim, "stinking grapes", perhaps representing illegitimate children, comes as a great surprise. One expects rather a synonym of Candbim,"grapes". The husband's expectations were frustrated, but so also are the interpreter's. A major reinterpretation of the song thus far is called for. It becomes immediately evident that this song is not the bride's, for she would hardly sing thus of her own failures. It begins to appear that the purpose of the song is not to praise the groom but to lay the foundation for a complaint against his wife. Consequently, in v. la yedldi and dodi must be reinterpreted as references to a close friend of the poet (a return to the original understanding); sirat dodi, as "a song composed by my intimate friend";9 and lididi, as "on behalf of my friend", or "in my friend's place". The final phrase, lekarmo, continues to be interpreted as "concerning his vineyard", i.e., "concerning his wife".10 In v. 3 matters seem to become clearer. The reinterpretations occasioned by the unexpected "stinking grapes" are basically confirmed. However, the first person suffixes in the phrase beni uben reveal that the karmi, "between me and my vineyard", matrimonial problems are not those of a friend, but the poet's own."l The friend is really the minstrel himself. He has been building a case as is done in the civil court,'2 and now he pleads with the Judahite audience to pass judgement on his wife. One supposes that the Judahites agree to the wife's guilt, for the poet proceeds to announce her punishment in v. 5. The removal of the hedge and/or wall 3 and the destruction of the vineyard through
9 For this use of the construct relationship, see sir kesilim, Eccles. vii 5; cf. also Amos v 23, viii 10; Ezek. xxvi 13. 10 Note that even after the reinterpretation the sexual meaning of keremappears to be the only likely one. This becomes clearer in v. 3, for one does not petition others to judge a literal vineyard. Moreover, even though dddi has been reinterpreted, the fact that it often has an erotic meaning contributes to the "feeling" that the vineyard should be understood sexually. 1 The common view is that the prophet speaks in the first person because he is so closely identified with his beloved. However, this interpretation becomes possible only after v. 7 has been heard or read. 12 For the view that Isa. v 1-4 has the form of an accusation which was delivered in a court dealing with civil law, cf. G. Fohrer, Das BuchJesaja I (Zurich/Stuttgart, 1966), pp. 75-7; Die Propheten des Alten Testaments. Band 1. Die Prophetendes 8. Jahrhunderts(Giitersloh, 1974), pp. 107-8; 0. Kaiser, Isaiah 1-12 (London, 1972), Jesaja. Kapitel 1-12 (G6ttingen, 1963), p. 46. p. 59, E. tr. of Der Prophet 13 The parallelism may be "impressionistic", in which case the metaphorical vineyard does not necessarily have both a hedge and a wall. Cf. F. M. Cross, "Prose and Poetry in the Mythic and Epic Texts from Ugarit", HTR 67 (1974), pp. 7-8.

462

GARY ROYE WILLIAMS

the grazing and trampling of animals suggest that the poet will cease to help his wife. More specifically, he will cease to protect her from those who might take advantage of her. The chaos in the vineyard (v. 6a) perhaps represents the problems which will engulf her. The curse of drought (v. 6b; cf. 2 Sam. i 21) may represent a curse of barrenness, the opposite of the wedding blessing of Gen. xxiv 60. However, further frustration awaits the interpreter in v. 7. Once the Judahites have agreed to the guilt and punishment of the adulteress, the real meaning of the song is revealed to them. The owner of the vineyard is neither the poet nor his (human) friend, but Yahweh. The solemn and metrically long title "Yahweh Sabaoth" creates suspense in anticipation of the identity of the vineyard, for if Yahweh is the husbandman, then the interpretation of the vineyard as the poet's wife has obviously been mistaken. The suspense is dispelled by the phrase "house of Israel". Or is it? That "the house of Israel" referred to the northern kingdom would have been clear to the residents of Judah.'4 Perhaps they were familiar with the use of vineyard imagery in Hosea and in Ps. lxxx to describe Israel. Perhaps they knew, too, that Hosea had compared the north to an adulteress. At any rate, they would surely have concurred that the rival kingdom had been like an unfaithful wife to Yahweh and deserved his punishment, which they may have seen on the horizon in the form of Assyrian aggression. However, the most unpleasant surprise of all is now ready to be revealed. The phrase "the men ofJudah" (v. 7) creates an expectation of antithetical parallelism. Israel was to be punished, but Judah would be blessed (cf. Hos. i 7, xii 1). However, the parallelism is synonymous. Suddenly the awful truth is revealed. The disappointing vineyard, the unfaithful wife, "the house of Israel"--all refer to Judah.15 The Song of the Vineyard has turned out to be a juridical parable, by means of which the poet has led Judah's citizens to condemn themselves.'6
14 Cf. G. A. Yee, "A Form-Critical Study of Isaiah 5:1-7 as a Song and a Juridical Parable", CBQ 43 (1981), pp. 37-8. 15 For the use of "house of Israel" to denoteJudah, cf. xiv 2, xlvi 3, lxiii 7; Mic. iii 9; Jer. ii 26, v 15; cf. also Isa. i 13, viii 14, 18, xiv 1, xxxi 6. 16 Cf. U. Simon, "The Poor Man's Ewe Lamb. An example of a Juridical Parable", Biblica 48 (1967), pp. 207-42; Yee, pp. 30-40. A clearer designation is "self-condemnation parable"; cf. A. Graffy, "The Literary Genre of Isaiah 5:1-7", Biblica 60 (1979), p. 408.

FRUSTRATED

EXPECTATIONS

IN ISAIAH V 1-7

463

The reason for Judah's condemnation is explained in the final line of the poem. Here one discovers that the good grapes symbolize social justice; and the stinking grapes, violence and oppression. Judah had produced the opposite of what God had expected. This concluding message is indelibly imprinted on the mind through the striking word play, the elliptical nature of the expression, the interlocking parallelism (within and between both cola) and the fact that the line interprets a line that essentially has been repeated twice in the poem already (vv. 2c, 4b). The song has ended, but the interpreter cannot yet rest from his labors. The final verse has revealed the true symbolic significance of the vineyard, the husbandman, and the good and bad grapes. However, an existentially important part of the parable, the vineyard's punishment, has not been interpreted. One cannot but wonder if the other details of the parable also have significance for Judah. Realizing that the first six verses of the pericope have been grossly misinterpreted, the exegete now feels compelled to think through them again. Thus, with the final cry of the oppressed (se'dqa) still ringing in his ears, the frustrated interpreter returns once more to the beginning of the poem. Now it is clear that the friend is Yahweh. He is indeed loved by the author, but not by Judah. The poet sings on Yahweh's behalf (lidid0) a song which Yahweh has composed (sirat dodi) because he is really Yahweh's prophet. The sira is not a joyful song of praise, but rather a song of judgement like Deut. xxxii.17 The vineyard, of course, represents Judah, but indirectly as well as directly; i.e., the vineyard itself is a symbol ofJudah, but so also is the wife whom the vineyard imagery evokes. The metaphor ofJudah as Yahweh's wife recalls the covenant that the Lord has made with his people (cf. Hos. i 9-ii 4; Ezek. xvi 8, 59-60; Mal. ii 14). The qerenben-admen, very fertile hill", (v. lb) is now perceived "a as a reference to the land of Canaan, flowing with milk and honey. The breaking up of the earth and the removal of stones (v. 2a) is the expulsion of the Canaanites (cf. Ps. lxxx 9-10). The planting of the choice vines (soreq)recalls the noble generation ofJoshua (cf. Jer. ii 21). These historical memories in turn suggest the historical prologue to a covenant lawsuit.18
17 Deut. xxxii is designated a sira in Deut. xxxi 19, 21, 22, 30, xxxii 44. Cf. Yee, pp. 31-3, 39-40. 18 Cf. H. B. Huffmon, "The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets", JBL 78 (1959), pp. 285-95.

464

GARY ROYE WILLIAMS

The parallel vocatives in v. 3 take on new significance now. Through them the prophet has carefully identified the judges who will condemn themselves. The change to the first person is now recognized as the common device in prophetic speech by which the prophet stresses that the message is not his own but God's. The removal of the wall or hedge (v. 5) implies that Judah will no and trampling longer enjoy divine protection. The devouring (bdaer) refer to enemy invasions,19 and the infinitive bdCeris (mirmas) on perceived as a doubleentendre the meanings "to graze" and "to or "to burn".20 The growth of the weeds resulting from destroy" discontinued hoeing (v. 6) suggests long-term desolation after military destruction (cf. i 7, vii 23-25, xxxii 12-14, xxxiv 13). A triple entendremay be detected in yizzamer: the vineyard will not be pruned; Judah will not be protected; and lying in ruins she will no "to help", was longer be praised in song.21 If the Aramaism addar, in use in Hebrew as early as the eighth century,22 a pun may even be perceived in lo"yeydder, will not be cultivated", "it will not be "it helped". The threat of military invasion and the imagery here used to convey that threat call to mind the covenant curses (cf. Lev. xxvi 16-17, 25, 31-36; Deut. xxviii 30, 33, 38-42). The curse of drought may also be regarded as a covenant curse (cf. Lev. xxvi 19; Deut. xxviii 23-24). These allusions to the covenant curses, the use of the husband-wife imagery, and the symbolic recital of the mighty acts of God (vv. lb-2) lead the interpreter to view the pericope as a sort of covenant lawsuit. The application of the title "house of Israel" to Judah is now more clearly understood. Judah is the historical continuation of that Israel to whom Yahweh gave the land of Canaan. She is the "favored plantation" (v. 7), for the blessings of vv. lb-2 were showered on her. Judah had sought to fulfill her obligations to Yahweh through observance of the cult (cf. i 11-17). She gave the appearance of
19 For the use of mirmas to refer to military invasions, cf. x 6, xxviii 18; Mic. vii 10; cf. also Jer. xii 10. 20 Concerning the various roots containing the consonants bcrand their uses, cf. H. Ringgren, bcr, TWAT (1973), cols. 727-31, E. tr. TDOT2 (1977), pp. 201-5. 21 For the various roots containing the consonants zmr and their uses, cf. C. Barth, zmr, TWAT2 (1977), cols. 603-12, esp. col. 604, E. tr. TDOT4 (1980), pp. 91-8, esp. p. 91. 22 In the Bible it is found only in the late book 1 Chronicles (xii 34, 39).

FRUSTRATED EXPECTATIONS IN ISAIAH V

1-7

465

fulfilling the Lord's expectations. The puns of v. 7b, though, suggest that appearances can be deceiving. Cultic compliance without social justice was in reality no closer to God's standards than was mispdh ("bloodshed") to mispdt ("justice") or seadqa("cry of the oppressed") to seddqa("righteousness"). Conclusion The Song of the Vineyard must be interpreted dynamically, i.e., as it is revealed bit by bit. Any attempt to interpret every part in the light of the whole, when the whole includes those parts which have not yet been heard or read, forces the exegete to choose between alternative interpretations, both (or all) of which may be valid at some stage of the unfolding comprehension of the pericope. Moreover, a static interpretation misses a key aspect of the poet's art. In the dynamic approach the interpreter's expectations are frustrated repeatedly. This hermeneutical frustration is a literary device which strengthens the main message of the song: Yahweh's frustrated expectations concerning Judah.

You might also like