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

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

Isaiah 56:1-8 makes purity irrelevant. By declaring the observance of Sabbath and ethical behavior as the only requirements to be a Judean, this passage nullifies purity as a marker of community membership. It allows the willing eunuch to be absorbed into the cult and the community. Isaiah 56:1-8's emphasis on Sabbath observance is a way of showing loyalty to Yahweh that is not dependent on purity. This affirmation of the eunuch would give him good standing in the community, determine his acceptable cult status, and give him access to property ownership (Blenkinsopp 1988: 95). Even so, this does not resolve the problem of his childlessness.

The boundary between the eunuch and the community is an internal line drawn between the faithful and the traitor. There is no good reason to consider the eunuch to be a foreigner. As Isaiah 56:1-8 indicates, it is his lack of reproductive ability that is the reason for his exclusion. The eunuch is an outcast from the Judeans, and seen as a traitor to the future of his own people because of his inability to reproduce. He is a "dry tree," and for all practical purposes an infertile woman. The eunuch is thus barred from wife and family. According to Westermann (313), God reversed his own decision by a divine oracle, bestowed a blessing so that the eunuch received a name, and canceled the old regulation. The promise made to the eunuch is cast in the framework of the traditional hope for children with the assumption that a person's name will survive in the community through offspring (Wells: 148-49). The name that the eunuch receives will function in the same way as children. For the eunuch a life without offspring is a life without blessing (this is the same issue for Abraham in Genesis 15:2). God's blessing cannot be given to a man who cannot have children, and who is thus barred from worship as well. Japhet (78) argues that God's promise is that the eunuch will receive a share in the community and the right to belong. He is included by name regardless of whether or not he has children. The eunuch, who was unable to reproduce, and thus was not able to guarantee the continuation of his name through his children, could be joined to God and allowed as a worshiper in the temple through his obedience, regardless of his state of purity. In the temple his name could be continually remembered as one of the faithful.

We can perceive behind this promise to the eunuch arguments over the traditional belief that children were one of God's blessings, along with access to the land. God's promise to Abraham included both a multitude of children and land for these offspring to occupy. A eunuch, with no children to inherit property, would not be allowed access to property ownership, because he could not be the head of a household. By being admitted as a full member of the community he can then be legally allowed to hold property (Blenkinsopp 1983: 3). I am not aware of any legal solution to this problem of inheritance. It hardly matters anyway, since in the end the eunuch was not admitted to full standing in the temple community.