Isaiah 56:1-8 and the redefining of the restoration Judean community

Biblical Theology Bulletin, Summer, 2000 by Clinton E. Hammock

These two subdivisions are the topics of latter sections of this paper on the eunuch and on the foreigner. Throughout these sections we will see how the pairing of the eunuch with the foreigner reveals tension in the Judean community between the socialization of children and the control of the land. Before discussing these I will give a brief description of the contents of Isaiah 56:1-8.

In the final section of this paper I consider how Isaiah 56:1-8 attempted to redefine the community's boundaries by redefining the definition of the Judean upon more expansive and egalitarian grounds. This was to be done by reorienting the boundaries of the community based on Sabbath observance and ethical behavior. I also discuss how Isaiah 56:1-8 resolves the land/children tension in the Judean community. In the conclusion I suggest that the boundary lines of the Judean community proposed in Isaiah 56:1-8 were eventually rejected by the restoration community, and how the promise to Abraham of land and children was finally settled.

History of the Restoration and the Defining of the Judean and the "People of the Land"

Major issues are behind the polarization of the Judeans and the "people of the land." The first migration of the Judeans back to Palestine was probably quite limited in numbers. There were several migrations of Judeans from Babylon from 538 BCE through the time of Ezra (Miller & Hayes: 447). The first people who returned probably included political appointees who were to restore the land to a tax-paying province, priests who would restore the cult, speculators looking for available land, and pious Judeans who saw their return as a religious duty (Matthews & Moyer: 210-11). They were confronted by several problems with the population that was not exiled, such as Judeans and non-Judeans who practiced Canaanite and other foreign cults along with their Yahwism, and disputes arose with them over the rebuilding of the temple (Whybray: 40-41). This is because the reconstruction of the temple would give control of the temple cult to the priests and Levites returning from exile (Watts: 200). They were opposed by the "people of the land," who were not taken into exile, who claimed political control over the land, and who had taken over residences in the land (Matthews & Moyer: 211). Thus conflicts between the Judeans and the "people of the land" also reflect economic conflicts over property tights that were taken over by those not exiled (Miller & Hayes: 458-59).

Religiously, most of the returnees were probably strict Yahwists who adhered to the exclusive nationalism of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic law. This would have translated into a strict separation between the Judeans and the "people of the land" (Miller & Hayes: 458). Strict rituals, and ritual purity as developed in the Holiness code (Lev 17-26), guided the worship of the restoration period, and allowed the priests to consolidate their religious control over the people (Matthews: 183-85). Furthermore, the priests and priestly groups may have wanted to identify themselves with ancient and important priestly families in order to legitimize their standing in restoration society. They adopted genealogical traditions, modified them, and used them to legitimatize their organization of the cult and the cult's personnel (Laato: 77-78). For a person to participate in the religious life of the returnee community, that person had to demonstrate a pure Judean lineage (Mathews: 188). The Judeans were in a better position to construct a lineage, because most of the returnees were descendants of priestly families and the Judean aristocracy.