Thomas Aquinas Commentary Isaiah 1:10-13

"Hear the word of Jehovah, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. What unto me is the multitude of your sacrifices? saith Jehovah: I have had enough of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to trample my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; new moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies,- I cannot away with iniquity and the solemn meeting." — Isaiah 1:10-13 (ASV)

1. Hear the word of the Lord. Here the prophet provides the remedy for their punishment.

   First, he calls them together to hear.

   Second, he dismisses their useless remedy, where it says, to what purpose?

   Third, he applies sound counsel, where it says, wash yourselves, be clean (Isaiah 1:16).

   He first calls the great, saying, hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom; and second, the lowly, where it says, people of Gomorrah. Amen I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city (Matthew 10:15).

   But why does he invite those of high rank to hear and those of low rank to receive? Because things that are heard by those of high rank are easily received by those of low rank.

   Furthermore, since God leaves a remnant for them, why does he compare them to Sodom and Gomorrah? To this, it must be said that he makes this comparison regarding the incorrigible for two reasons:

   1. First, because of the similarity of their sin, as stated below: and they have adhered to strange children (Isaiah 2:6).
   2. Second, because of its public nature, as stated below: they have proclaimed abroad their sin as Sodom, and they have not hid it (Isaiah 3:9).

   And while there were five cities, he nevertheless compares them chiefly to Sodom and Gomorrah, because they were the most prominent among the others. For this reason, he also compares their princes to the inhabitants of Sodom, because that city was a metropolis, as is evident from Genesis 14. It is the duty of princes to hear the word of the Lord and to impose the law on the people; therefore, he invites the princes to hear the word and the people to receive the law.

2. To what purpose? Here he shows the uselessness of the remedy they were applying. He addresses this first, concerning the offering of sacrifices; second, concerning the celebration of feasts, where it says, the new moons (Isaiah 1:13); and third, concerning their prayers to God, where it says, and when you stretch forth your hands (Isaiah 1:15).

   Concerning the first point, he does two things: first, he rejects the sacrifice of living things; second, he rejects the sacrifice of inanimate things, where it says, incense is an abomination to me (Isaiah 1:13).

   In the sacrifices of animals, there was one that was allotted entirely to the worship of God, such as the holocaust, which means “all burnt”—from olon, meaning “all,” and cauma, meaning “fire” (Leviticus 1). The fat was all offered in sacrifice (Leviticus 3:3), and the blood was all poured out (Leviticus 17:6).

   There were certain sacrifices, however, that were allotted partly to the worship of God and partly for the use of the ministers, such as the sin offering, except when it was for the sin of a priest or for the whole community (Leviticus 4:3).

   There were also other sacrifices from which something was offered for the worship of God, something for the use of the ministers, and something for the one who offered, as in the peace offerings, which were offered for thanksgiving or for well-being (Leviticus 4).

   Next, these three types are addressed in three parts.

3. First, he rejects the sacrifices distributed in three parts, namely, the peace offerings.

   He begins with the rejection, saying, to what purpose ... to me, that is, for what reason do you offer me the multitude of your victims, as if they were not already mine? They are called victims, either because the animal is led bound (vinctum) to the priest, or because it is offered for a victory (victoria) that was won or is to be won.

   Next, he gives the reason for the rejection, saying, I am full. This is either because of weariness, since the offerings were not good—but to Cain and his offerings he had no respect (Genesis 4:5)—or because of His dominion: all the beasts of the woods are mine: the cattle on the hills, and the oxen (Psalms 50:10).

4. Second, he rejects the sacrifices that were offered wholly to God.

   First, he states the rejection of these three animals;I.e., sheep, cattle, and goats. and he mentions only three because the sacrifices from the herd were made only from these. Holocausts were also made from turtledoves and young doves, but these were due to poverty, as is evident from Leviticus 1 and 4 and many other passages. Furthermore, their use was not universal in all sacrifices, since peace offerings were not offered from them.

   Next, he sets out the reason for the rejection, where it says, when you came to appear before me, who required these things at your hands, that you should walk in my courts? It is as if to say, “You offend me more by walking in my courts and polluting them than your holocaust would please me; thus I do not accept this communion.” Burnt offering and sin offering you did not require (Psalms 40:6); I did not speak to your fathers, and I did not command them, in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning the matter of burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this thing I commanded them, saying: listen to my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people (Jeremiah 7:22–23).

5. Third, he rejects the sacrifices that were owed to God and the priest, saying: offer sacrifice no more. Shall the holy flesh take away from you your crimes, in which you have boasted? (Jeremiah 11:15); and: what shall I offer to the Lord that is worthy? ... Shall I offer holocausts to him, and calves of a year old? Can the Lord be appeased with thousands of rams, or with many thousands of fat he-goats? (Micah 6:6–7).

6. Incense. Here he rejects offerings of inanimate things, for all of which he uses incense as the example because, among all of them, it was more worthy, as thymiama (Exodus 30:35), and more common, like frankincense, which was set out and added to any such offering, and burned whole to God. As it says below: he that remembers frankincense, as if he should bless an idol (Isaiah 66:3).

7. An objection may be raised here from the Gloss, which says that God never loved their sacrifices, although He commanded that they be made: and the Lord smelled a sweet savor; and he said: I will no more curse the earth for the sake of man (Genesis 8:21).

   To this, it must be said that in any sacrifice, there is something to be considered on the part of the one offering and something on the part of the thing offered.

   On the part of the thing offered, our sacrifices please God in themselves, but the sacrifices of the ancients did not. This is because something is said to be pleasing or loved in itself if it has in itself a quality from which it can be loved, such as a virtuous good. But something that is loved only for its relation to another is not said to be loved in itself; for instance, being cut or burned is said to be loved insofar as it is related to the goal of health. Our sacrifices, however, contain in themselves the grace of sanctification, according to which they are accepted by God. But the sacraments or sacrifices of the ancients were only signs of these, and therefore they were not loved in themselves.

   On the part of the one offering, however, both our sacrifices and theirs could be accepted because of the offerer's devotion.

8. Therefore, four periods can be distinguished.

   1. The first is the period before the written law and the idolatry of Israel. At that time, the ancient sacrifices made by the holy patriarchs were pleasing both because of the devotion of the one offering and because of the meaning of the thing offered.
   2. The second is the period under the written law. At that time, after their idolatry, something was added that made the sacrifices displeasing in themselves, for it was not proper that God should be pleased and the devil worshiped at the same time. On the other hand, an advantage was added on the part of the one offering, so that sacrifice could be a remedy against idolatry for a people who were prone to it. Hence, nothing was commanded concerning sacrifices before the making of the idol, and this is how the passage from Jeremiah cited above is understood.
   3. The third period was under the prophets, when, because of the sins of the people, the sacrifices were no longer pleasing on the part of the one offering, but only insofar as they were signs. Consequently, they did not please God but offended Him more.
   4. The fourth is the period under grace, when their use is now totally abolished, because with the coming of the reality, the figure has ceased.