Based on its
appearances in the Danielic context, we may define רָז as secret information
that only the deity knows, but which he voluntarily reveals to chosen
individuals. Given the sematic components of secrecy and revelation, there is
warrant to see significant semantic overlap between רָז and סוֹד. (Alan Lenzi, Secrecy
and the Gods: Secret Knowledge in Ancient Mesopotamia and Biblical Israel [State
Archives of Assyria Studies 19; The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project; Helsinki:
Institute for Asian and African Studies, University of Helsinki, 2008], 309)
According to the only other biblical occurrences of rāz (“secret”), in the book of Daniel
(2:18–19, 27–30, 47; 4:6), this Persian loanword in Aramaic connotes
information known only to God but revealed by God to chosen intermediaries,
generally in a context of prayer, fasting, visions, and converse with angels.
Implicit in this process is a God-endowed interpretative skill, the interpretandum being of many different
kinds—a dream in the head of a mad king, ghostly writing that appears on a
wall, or a prophetic text such as Jeremiah’s prediction of seventy years’
exile. In the present context, then (perhaps as read and understood by an
anonymous glossator with an apocalyptic mindset) the seer would be claiming to
know by divine inspiration the true meaning of what is transpiring and that the
people celebrating liturgically are also, though unaware of it, under the
judgment described in the following stanza, which takes over where 1–13 left
off. We are reminded somewhat of the critical attitude to worship in 66:1–4 and
the judgment pronounced on the “brethren” who oppose those who tremble at God’s
word in 66:5. The reason for the seer’s refusal to join in the general
religious euphoria is that he believes the celebrants to be unfaithful and has
therefore presumably concluded that their liturgy is disingenuous or at least
misguided. In a manner somewhat reminiscent of incantations or curses, the key
verbal stem bgd, connoting
infidelity, is repeated five times in v 16. It occurs elsewhere predominantly
in the context of marital or familial rather than political relations (e.g. Jer
3:8, 11, 20; 12:6; Hos 5:7; Mal 2:10–11, 14–16), and its occurrence here was no
doubt suggested by the “grim vision” about the betrayal of the treacherous one
in the anti-Babylonian poem, where the same word occurs four times (21:2 cf.
also 33:1). (Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1-39: A New
Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB 39; New Haven: Yale
University Press, 2008], 355-56)
