Studio Theologica 35 (1981) pp. 137-144
If Your Sins Are Like Scarlet... (Isaiah 1:18)
John Goldingay (i) ... they shall become as white as snow
Since the LXX, exegetical tradition has usually taken the apodosis of this conditional clause to refer to the grace and mercy of God, which can cleanse the most stained person.1 But a formidable set of objections assails this interpretation.
(a)	It ill fits the general message of Isaiah.2 Wildberger3 comments that
if this is the right translation of the verse, it cannot have come from
Isaiah! We should, of course, be wary of finally denying an interpre-
tation simply on the grounds that it makes Isaiah say something unique4.
Indeed, Hos 11:8-9 would parallel a statement of God's mercy here.
But such a statement in Hosea fits its context in a way that the common
interpretation of Isa 1:18 does not. Indeed, the statement from eighth
century prophecy that deserves setting alongside this verse is rather
Amos 3:2; Gray comments (p. 29), 'That Yahweh is Israel's God does
not make Him more lenient to Israel's sin ...: scarlet sins He will treat as
scarlet, not as white'. Burney notes that the God of Isaiah does cleanse
the sinner (see Isa 6:7).5 But the exception proves the rule, for there the
sinner cleansed is one who is already repentant. In Isa 1:18-20, refe-
rence to repentance comes only after this statement (see w 19—20).
(b)	It ill fits the first chapter of Isaiah. This chapter as a whole
challenges the people of Judah regarding their attitude to Yahweh.
He is their Father, but they do not obey him as sons should, and they
are consequently experiencing his chastisement (w 2-9). They assidu-
ously observe the requirements of worship, but not those of justice;
consequently Yahweh rejects them and they must change their ways
(w 10-17). Because of their wickedness Yahweh plans a further act of
judgement in order to restore justice and faithfulness in Zion (w 21-
31). There is, then, a coherence about the chapter's overall drift, even
though the units in the chapter are probably of separate origin from
each other. Thus, while the final verses make explicit that Yahweh
still has a positive purpose for Judah, this positive purpose can only
be  realized  when  her  people  come  to  take  his moral priorities

John Goldingay
more seriously. A reminder of his forgiving mercy and love in v 18, then, would threaten to undo the message of the chapter as a whole. The belief that they can count on his mercy and love might be regarded as the fundamental error of which they need urgent disabusing. One might, perhaps, maintain that a collector added here a non-Isaianic promise of forgiveness in an inappropriate context. Gray6 mentions this as a theoretical possibility,7 but other possibilities seem worth exploring before we accept such a conclusion. 
  (c) It ill fits the challenge to enter upon a discussion or argument in v. 18a. The verb niwwākeḥah may have a technical forensic meaning, or may be a less specific challenge to sort something out. In either case, it presupposes different ways of looking at a question in the minds of Yahweh and his hearers; Yahweh is challenging them to accept something that they do not. But if he is declaring that his forgiveness is available, he is affirming something that Judah already accepts. As Duhm points out8, if Yahweh is going to forgive them, there is nothing to dispute about9.
  (d) It ill fits the challenge of w 19-2010. This is vividly illustrated in Raitt’s analysis of 'The prophetic summons to repentance'; Raitt notes that vv 19-20 fits the structure of these, but v 18 does not and has to be deemed a 'liturgical expansion'11. In practice, interpreters who take v. 18b as a promise of grace commonly interpret it in the light of vv 19-20. The promise of forgiveness is thus taken to be implicitly conditional on the subsequent demand for repentance12. But this interpretation is open to several objections. There is no hint in v 18 itself that an apparently unqualified offer of mercy is actually to be fundamentally qualified. And the qualification is such as to remove the depth of the promise of mercy. The mercy of Hos 11:8-9 (or of the gospel in the NT, with which Isa 1:18 is often aligned) operates solely because of God’s grace. Conditional grace is not in the same sense grace. Further, once v 18 and vv 19-20 are put alongside each other, their parallelism of structure (the conditional clauses) would naturally suggest some kind of parallelism of thought13, rather than that vv 19-20 retrospectively qualify the statements in v 18. 
  These difficulties have long been noted, and an alternative interpretation is

(ii) …shall they become as white as snow ?
This translation goes back at least to J.D. Michaelis14 and it is taken up by Wellhausen15, Fohrer16, the Zurich Bible, and the Good News Bible margin.

 
139
Isaiah 1:18
It is certainly the case that in Hebrew, as in other languages, a sentence without an explicit interrogative can nevertheless be a question: this would be indicated orally by the tone of voice. But grammarians who refer to this usage17 do not give this passage as an example18. The chief objection to it is grammatical: it is very doubtful whether this particular clause can legitimately be taken as an example of this usage. In a study of 'The omission of the interrogative particle', H.G. Mitchell concluded (pp. 128-129) that most examples of this idiom are not real questions but expressions of incredulity, irony, sarcasm, or repugnance, expressing the peculiar feelings aroused by the statement. Mitchell does not take Isa 1:18 to be an instance of the phenomenon.
This example would be particularly distinctive in that it has the form of a condition, and G.F. Burney examined it in this connection in a note in JTS 1910. He suggested that there is no clear case in the OT of such an implicit question in the apodosis of a condition; this effect is achieved in Hebrew by co-ordinating statements with a waw - though even in such cases it is probably best to translate the second clause as an ironical statement rather than an explicit question. Further, as Dietrich points out19, it is even less likely that the apodoses of the conditional clauses in v 18 are questions (though not explicitly identified as such), when the further set of conditional clauses in vv 19-20 are certainly statements.
It seems doubtful, then, whether it is legitimate to translate the sentence interrogatively, and none of the English versions do so (except GNB mg, noted above). But some of the discussion referred to above may suggest a further alternative which conveys a similar meaning.
(iii) . .. they may become as white as snow
The NEB translates the phrase in this way, suggesting a more hesitant affirmation than is implied by the use of the future tense, and probably implying the interpretation which makes the offer of mercy dependent on the repentance described in vv 19-2020, whose difficulties we have noted already. Other commentators, perhaps recognizing the objections to translating the verse interrogatively, suggest that the clause might be an ironical statement, of similar content to an explicit question.21 Yet if Judah believed that God readily forgave sin (as the polemic of vv 10-17 implies), could they have been expected to catch the irony? Furthermore, does the figure used here (sins being made white) naturally suggest a reference to forgiveness ? Gray declares that such a

10

Goldingqy

Isaiah 1:18

141

sage would be unparalleled in the Old Testament.22 Certainly in vv 6-17 the image of the washing of blood from the hands refers to moral transformation, and v 18 would be naturally interpreted in a similar way. This fact also puts a query by Hoffmann's suggestion23 that v 18b refers to Isaiah's opponents' belief that their sin can be made white as snow, while w 19-20 constitute Isaiah's own assertion that full salvation depends on obedience. Further, Hoffmann's suggestion stems from the conviction that vv 18b and 19-20 must represent alternative views in order to constitute an argument (v 18a)24, and this itself seems questionable. The alternative to v 18 may be only implicit.
If Isaiah's image refers to moral transformation, however, this suggests a fourth interpretative possibility.
(iv) ... they must become as white as snow
It is natural, then, to infer that the verse does not refer to God's mercy at all - whether affirmatively or interrogatively or ironically. It rather constitutes a demand for a change of way of life. Translations of this kind are suggested by Duhm, Marti, Procksch, Lescow, and Kissane. But Procksch25 takes the expression as a cultic metaphor26 and Kissane27 explains it as referring to the blotting out of sins by repentance, so that both seem to be thinking still in terms of finding forgiveness - which Procksch regards as impossible, Kissane as possible. Duhm28, followed by Marti29, does refer the passage to a change in way of life, but he takes it as an ironic challenge: 'though your sins are scarlet, let them be white - turn yourselves into innocent lambs'. Duhm assumes that Isaiah implies that such a transformation is impossible - the challenge is not really meant. Lescow30 takes it as a real challenge, but regards it as non-Isaianic.
Yet Isaiah issues such a challenge in a straightforward, non-ironic way in w 16-17, and it seems the natural interpretation to take v 18 to be of very similar meaning to the preceding verses. What was imperative there is expressed in the jussive here. The problem of the verses is not Judah's need of forgiveness but her need to change her way of life. She has blood on her hands and needs to cleanse them (w 15, 16) - that is, she needs to turn from murder and oppression and seek justice (vv 16-17). Yahweh is going to confront her (v 18a) with hisinsistence: these blood-red sins must be replaced by purity of behaviour 18b). If that happens, she can experience blessing rather than judgement (vv 19-20). This interpretation seems to be open to none of the objections that

assail others. It naturally fits the context of the message of Isaiah and of the drift of Isaiah 1. It follows naturally from v 18a and leads naturally into vv 19-20 (since v 18b says 'If a, then b'; w 19-20 say, 'if b, then c, whereas if not b, then not c'). It takes the clause in a way that is grammatically natural and interprets the image in the way that corresponds to its significance in w 15-16. Wildberger's comments on vv 16-17 (p. 46) apply exactly to v 18 also: there now follows not a sentence of death nor an offer of unconditional grace but a sober concrete invitation to a way of life. Isaiah speaks of cleansing, but his words do not take their meaning from the speech world of the cult; they constitute a demand for ethical renewal.
(v) A hermeneutical reflection
It was originally out of an interest in the contemporary application of this passage that I came to examine again its contextual meaning. But where does this examination leave me? I am convinced that I now perceive the passage's correct interpretation. But I do not fool myself that all commentators henceforth will follow me. The church (and Judaism for that matter) will not be able to speak with one voice out of this text.
On the other hand, it may be that Christians (and Jews) can agree on two matters. The first is that offering God's mercy to his people, questioning its availability, affirming it ironically, and declaring God's demand that his people amend their lives if they want to experience his blessing, are all biblical things to do. Indeed, all of them would find a place somewhere in the book of Isaiah. The second is that circumstances decide which is appropriate in a situation. Is the people of God fearful and unsure of God's love? God addresses that need by declaring his grace and mercy. Is she, on the contrary, only too assured of his presence and commitment to her ? God questions that confidence in case it be presumptuous. Is she, indeed characterized by unfaithfulness to him ? In that situation, God challenges her to change her ways.
In his article on hermeneutics in IDBSup3i, J.A. Sanders points out how Abraham's entering into his inheritance despite his being only one man is appealed to both in Ezek 33:34 and in Isa 51:23 as grounds for confidence that the exiles can have the same experience. But in Ezekiel 33 the argument (which was also that of Jeremiah's prophetic opponent Hananiah) is disallowed, while in Isaiah 51 it is supported. Sanders comments, 'the difference was context' - false confidence at the beginning of the exile, false doubt at (what the prophet knew to be)

John Goldingqy
end of the exile. 'Eva Osswald, following Martin Buber, has put it succinctly: "The true prophet must be able to distinguish whether a historical hour stands under the wrath or the love of God" >32. So must any interpreter of scripture.
   I do not like the idea that texts are of inherently uncertain meaning or can have various meanings read into them by the interpreter in light of his context. But I dislike even more the notion of offering mercy to the presumptuous or of denying it to the downcast, neither of which prospects Isaiah would relish. And I would settle for agreeing that the exegesis of Isa 1:18 remains uncertain, but its possible applications are fairly clear when we understand our own context. If we are overcome by the awareness of guilt, and despair of ever finding cleansing, Isaiah's words may bring release. But if we are not aware of guilt at all, they place a query over whether God's grace is ours, and if we are easy-going about our sin, they challenge us to change our lives.
NOTES
(Authors cited from the references given after the notes)
1.	See, for instance, Luther 19-20; Calvin 69; Eichrodt 33; Kaiser 17.
2. See e.g. Scott 175.
3.  52.
4. cp. Jones 320.
5. 437.
6. 28-29.
7. V'ermeylen 58-63 suggests that the passage is Deuteronomic.
8. 32.
9. cp. Wildberger 52.
10. cp. Wildberger 52.
11. 39.
12. cp. Kaiser 17-18.
13. See Dietrich 123.
14. Acc. to Wildberger 52, who accepts it himself.
15. 417.
16. [esaja 38; ZAW 1962, 262-263.
17. GK 150a; Joiion 16la; Davidson 121.
18. Davidson 22e excludes it.
19. 123.
20. So Mauchline 55; Nielsen 316; cp. Ewald 123, 127.
21. Scott 175; Bright 423d.
22. 29.
23. 98-99.
24. 37, cp. Fohrer, ZAW 1962, 262-263.
25. 36.
26. cp. Ps 51:1-2 (MT 3-4, 9).
27. 13.

143
Isaiah 1:18
28	32.
29	15.
30	371-372.
31	404-405.
32	Sanders 405.
REFERENCES
P. Auvray, Isaïe 1-39 (SB; Paris: Gabalda, 1972).
K. Budde, 'Zu Jesaja 1-5' [i], ZAW 49 (1931) 16-40.
C. F. Burney, 'The Interpretation of Isaiah i 18'; JTS 11 (1910) 433-438.
J. Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah Vol. I (ET Edinburgh:   Calvin Translation Society, 1850; reprinted Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958). 
A. B. Davidson, Hebrew Syntax (Edinburgh: Clark, 21896).
F.	Delitzsch, The Prophecies of Isaiah (ET reprinted Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975)
W. Dietrich, Jesaja und die Politik (BEvT 74: Miinchen: Kaiser, 1976).
B. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia (HKAT III. i); Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1892, 41922). W. Eichrodt, Der Heilige in Israel: Jesaja 1-12 (Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments
17, I; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1960). 
G. H. A. von Ewald, Commentary on the Prophets of the Old Testament II (ET London:
Williams and Norgate, 1876)
G.	Fohrer, Das Buch Jesaja 1. Band (Ziircher Bibelkommentare; Zürich: Zwingli,
21966) (referred to as Jesaja). 
G. Fohrer, 'Jesaja I als Zusammenfassung der Verkiindigung Jesajas', ZA W 74 (1962)
251-268; reprinted in Studien zur alttestamentlichen Prophetic (1949-1965) (BZAW
99; Berlin: Topelmann, 1967) 148-166 (referred to as ZAW 1962). 
GKC (Oxford: Clarendon, 21910, 1966). 
H. W.  Hoffmann,  Die Intention der Verkiindigung Jesajas (BZAW 136; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1974). 
D. R. Jones, 'Exposition of Isaiah Chapter One Verses Eighteen to Twenty', SJT 19 (1966) 319-327.
P. Joiion, Grammaire de I'Hébreu Biblique (Rome: FBI, 21947). 
O. Kaiser, Isaiah 1-12: A Commentary (Old Testament Library; ET London: SCM
1972).
E. J. Kissane, The Book of Isaiah Vol. I (Dublin: Browne and Nolan, 1941,21960). 
T. Lescow, 'Der dreistufige Tora', ZAW 82 (1970) 362-379. 
M. Luther, Lectures on Isaiah Chapters 1-39 (ET Luther's Works 16; St. Louis: Con-
cordia, 1969), 
K. Marti, Das Buch Jesaja (Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament X;
Tubingen: Mohr, 1900). 
J. Mauchline, Isaiah 1-39: Introduction and Commentary (Torch Bible Commentaries;
London: SCM. 1962). 
H. G. Mitchell, 'The Omission of the Interrogative Particle', in Old Testament and Semitic Studies in Memory of William Rainey Harper I (Chicago: University Press, 1908) 115-129.
K. Nielsen, 'Das Bild des Gerichts (rib-pattern) in Jes. i-xii', VT 29 (1979) 309-324.
O. Procksch, Jesaia I   (KAT IX; Leipzig:  Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung,
1930). 
T.M. Raitt, 'The Prophetic Summons to Repentance', ZAW83 (1971) 30-49.

144

John Goldingay

L. G. Rignell, 'Isaiah Chapter One', ST 11 (1957) 140-158.
E. Robertson, 'Isaiah Chapter i', ZAW 52 (1934) 231-236.
J. A. Sanders, 'Hermeneutics', IDBSup 402-407.
J. Schoneveld, 'Jesaia i 18-20', VT 13 (1963) 342-344.
R. B. Y. Scott, 'The Book of Isaiah Chapters 1-39: Introduction and Exegesis', IB V (Nashville: Abingdon, 1956) 149-381.
J. Vermeylen, Du Prophete Isaïe à I'Apocalyptique I (EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1977). 
J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (ET reprinted Gloucester,
Mass: P. Smith, 1973). 
H Wildberger, Jesaja I. Teilband (BKAT X/1; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag,
1972).