Abstract
In this article, we examine Isaiah 5:1–7, the ‘Song of the Vineyard’, using collective trauma theory as an interpretive lens. The analysis reveals how this prophetic poem articulates and processes shared traumatic experiences within the community. Building on contemporary trauma theory and its application to biblical literature, the current research contends that Isaiah’s vineyard metaphor functions as a trauma narrative, exposing both the collective wounds and social implications of Judah’s broken covenant relationship.
Contribution: Through trauma-informed analysis, the study interprets the text while considering its historical context and provides methodological frameworks for incorporating collective trauma theory into biblical scholarship.
Keywords: Song of the Vineyard; vineyard metaphor; collective trauma; trauma theory; book of Isaiah.
Introduction
The book of Isaiah can draw its readers into the darkest valleys of destruction as well as elevate them to the peak of the highest mountain with its promises of salvation. The pendulum of irony swings between despair and hope.1 The first part of the book of Isaiah (Chapters 1–39) is full of oracles hammering its audience with several images of corruption and warnings of imminent doom, but some passages promise hope and restoration to the book’s listeners. The prophet’s oracles2 offered a reality check on the Isaianic interpretative community, reflecting on the significance of his words for subsequent generations.3
Isaiah 5:1–7 opens a new subsection of the book of Isaiah, as Chapter 4 concludes the introductory oracles (see e.g. Berges 2012:74; Brueggemann 1998:45; McConville 2023:82; Seitz 1993:46–47; Tull 2010:119; Williamson 2006:324). Whereas Isaiah 1:2–2:5 introduces the reader to the book of Isaiah as a whole, Chapters 2:6–4:6 expose the enormous contradiction which existed between what Israel was called to be, and how they were living. In Chapter 5, the reader is confronted with the current condition and reality in which Israel finds itself (Oswalt 1986:150–151). This poem (5:1–7) is regarded as the introduction to Chapter 5 (see e.g. Bartelt 2024:84; Beuken 2003:6–7; Williamson 2006:325, 2018:1), which consists of a group of redacted texts4 that can be compared to an intricately woven tapestry. This striking poem immediately sets the tone of failure, rejection, and judgement and the details thereof unfold in the subsequent verses (Oswalt 1986:151; see also Nielsen 2003:26). The remaining Chapter 5 contains a series of ‘woe sayings’ followed by the proclamation of judgement (5:8–24, 25–30) (Beuken 2003:145; Brueggemann 1998:45; McConville 2023:82; Williamson 2006:345). These seven verses – which are also called the ‘Song of the Vineyard’ – immediately appeal to the audience’s attention as the people are confronted by a series of shocking statements which concurrently transfer them to the realm of emotion and imagination (McConville 2023:83; Tull 2010:119).
Childs (2001:45) states that this “song” [שִׁירָה]5 relates to (my) beloved one and/or friend [שִׁירַ֥ת דּוֹדִ֖י] concerning their vineyard [לְכַרְמ֑וֹ] and is sung by another person. Therefore, it cannot be designated as a love song, as sometimes indicated. As Beuken (2003:140) notes, in the preaching of the historical prophet, the accusation, directed against the entire elite and upper classes6 of Judah and Jerusalem, together with the announcement of destruction, was undoubtedly the main point made here. In the Isaianic tradition and in the redaction of the book of Isaiah, this point became a retrospective on the disaster, namely destruction and exile that befell all of Israel (the tribes of the northern and southern kingdoms) because of their apostasy from Yahweh [YHWH]. Therefore, we can understand the vineyard owner’s dismaying question: ‘Why, when I expected [it] to produce good grapes, did it produce stinking grapes?’7 (v. 4) (Beuken 2003:140).
This perspective is supported by Kaiser (1983:93–94)8 when he states that this text could be seen as theologically retrospective. Resultantly, this text answers the questions of the people about their loss of freedom as well as the collapse of the Davidic kingdom. The guilt of the elite and the upper classes, and not YHWH’s powerlessness, should be blamed for the disaster which had struck the nation.9 This perspective is already established in Chapter 1,10 in which the elite of the city are blamed for the lack of justice and righteousness prevalent in the city (e.g. v. 20ff.) (see also Brueggemann 1998:45; Eck 2020:163; Groenewald 2017:71–85). In this regard, Eck (2020:163) emphasises that Isaiah 1 offers hope for restoration, for example in verses 16–17 and 18–20, presenting the opportunity for repentance and a renewed covenant relationship with YHWH, while emphasising the urgency of seizing this final opportunity. In contrast, the remaining social-critical passages throughout Isaiah verses 1–12 proclaim inevitable judgement, as doom cannot be prevented anymore.
The ‘Song of the Vineyard’ in Isaiah 5:1–7 is a rich prophetic text that articulates divine disappointment11 and communal failure. When interpreted through the frameworks of trauma theory, it becomes evident that the text is deeply rooted in the collective trauma of ancient Judah. When analysed through the interdisciplinary lens of trauma studies, the passage reveals deep insights into the collective trauma12 of the community facing divine judgement, systemic collapse, and ecological disaster.
Collective and individual traumas differ in their scope and social implications. Collective trauma is a cataclysmic event that shatters the basic fabric of society. Besides the horrific loss of life, which triggers collective trauma, the latter is also a crisis of meaning. Jeffrey Alexander’s sociological approach emphasises that traumatic experiences become collectively traumatic through cultural processes that involve meaning-making, representation, and social reconstruction.13 The text of Isaiah 5:1–7 can be read as a reflection of collective trauma, revealing the disorientation and existential rupture faced by the people of Judah. The text’s structure, imagery and emotional trajectory mirror patterns identified in collective trauma narratives, suggesting the role of Isaiah’s vineyard metaphor14 as both artistic expressions, especially trauma processing of communal wounding and subliminal collective bleeding. Collective trauma is therefore a result of adversity and suffering that is shared by a collective group and community. This shared suffering creates communal triggers that shape ongoing social and cultural interactions.15
For biblical communities, collective trauma often manifests as a response to experiences of conquest, exile, persecution, and covenant violation. Texts emerging from traumatic contexts often exhibit characteristics such as fragmentation, repetition, disruption of the experience of time and the struggle to articulate the unspeakable.16
The collective trauma in Isaiah 5:1–7 display and present with the following collective trauma markers in the text: There is a case to be made for a fractured covenant and identity through the metaphorical image of the vineyard’s failure to produce good fruit that symbolises the breakdown of covenantal identity. In trauma studies, this corresponds to the fragmentation of meaning that communities experience in the aftermath of systemic collapse (Balaev 2008:162; Eyerman 2013:46). The dissonance between divine care and human response mirrors the internal struggle to reconcile a community’s suffering.
The people of Judah become collective witnesses to disaster through the vineyard owner’s judgement in verses 5–6. Here, vivid images of hedges being removed, walls breaking and ceasing rain evoke ecological disaster as a metaphor for divine judgement.17 This imagery resonates with the experience of environmental degradation and social dislocation, common themes in disaster studies.18 For the audience of Judah, such imagery would have evoked memories of war, exile and famine, which is typical of the collective trauma that shaped their communal view.
Collective trauma is evident in the disrupted moral fabric, of which moral intent forms a cornerstone. The cohesion shatters and collective trauma is experienced and lived at the time of moral injury.19 The ‘wild grapes’ (or stinking grapes)20 represent the community’s moral failure, thereby creating a collective sense of guilt and shame. The contrast between YHWH’s expectations (justice and righteousness) and the community’s reality (bloodshed and cries) reflects this moral dissonance.
The destruction of the vineyard conjures images of societal collapse, likely reflecting the trauma experienced by Judah during foreign invasions and exile. Such events shatter the social fabric, displacing communities and eroding cultural and religious identity. In this allegory, the vineyard’s ruin represents a microcosm of collective suffering.21
Trauma studies often highlight the need to acknowledge and render justice to facilitate healing. Isaiah’s critique serves as a communal reflection for Judah to confront their failures.22 The emphasis on justice aligns with restorative principles, suggesting that healing is possible through systemic change and covenant renewal, setting the scene for hope and resilience. Isaiah’s song reframes trauma as an opportunity for reflection and transformation. The metaphor of pruning and replanting suggests that communal suffering, while devastating, can lead to renewal if justice and righteousness are restored. This aligns with Judith Herman’s (2015:133–247) model of recovery, which underlines the necessity to rebuild communal trust and cultural dynamics. This phenomenon manifests in trauma markers such as shared narratives of suffering, loss of trust in protective structures, fragmentation of social cohesion and the transmission of traumatic memory across generations.
Isaiah 5:1–7 – An introduction
In their imagination, readers find themselves among a crowd of people in a square or a street in Jerusalem. Amid this crowd is a singer who suddenly announces that he will sing a song, and the crowd becomes silent and listens attentively to his song (Kaiser 1983:90). In this poem, we hear about the great hopes God had for his people as well as his disappointment with his people. God’s covenant with his people stands in the background as we read of the failure of the vineyard (Everson 2019:22). In its different parts, this poem establishes the guilt of Israel and Judah, and this forms a solid foundation for the announcements of judgement against them which follow (Sweeney 1996:123).
The ‘Song of the Vineyard’ is one of the most often-analysed texts in the book of Isaiah (Nielsen 2009:88). This is because this text is one of the poetic masterpieces of the Hebrew Bible; it is a well-crafted poem and an example of the outstanding literary and rhetorical art of the authors of the book of Isaiah (Bartelt 2024:336; Kaiser 1983:90). In this regard Couey (2015) infers that this text is an:
[E]xample of a poem with a high concentration of enjambed lines … In this poem, the prophet employs various literary techniques to create and then frustrate particular audience expectations, artistically mimicking the divine frustration that the poem seeks to communicate. The enjambed lines further this rhetorical strategy, as the line breaks thwart the reader or hearer’s expectations by creating misleading provisional meanings and delaying completion. In short, enjambment in Isaianic poems creates variation not only in the form of couplets but also in the dynamics of their movement. (p. 95)
The genre of this passage remains an ongoing debate in scholarship.23 Despite numerous proposals regarding the genre of this passage, we adhere to Williamson’s (2006:328) proposal,24 which argues that an appreciation of the rhetoric of the passage is more important than being too concerned about the genre of the passage. As the passage unfolds, it turns out that one is more than once surprised, ‘that all is not as it at first appears, and it is this, indeed, which makes the whole so effective’. The explanation given in verse 7 reveals its message, namely that the vineyard is falling into ruin and the identity of the vineyard, and by implication its owner, is revealed to the audience’s discomfort (Friesen 2009:53; Landy 2023:80; Tull 2010:119; Williamson 2006:328).
Berges (2025:62) opines that the ‘Song of the Vineyard’ does not accuse the people as a whole, but it functions as a prophetic criticism of the upper classes, who, ‘with royal support, convert parts of the cultivation of the fields to lucrative but very investment-intensive viticulture’. This poem criticises the elite of society, as they know how to earn a lot of money through appropriate cultivation, and yet their vineyard does not produce the fruits of righteousness but instead produces bloodshed and cries of distress.25 The text employs agricultural metaphors (see Stulac 2019:390–412) to elaborate the relationship between YHWH, Judah and Israel, ultimately revealing profound collective trauma within these communities as can be seen from the cry for help from the oppressed (Is 5:7).
Isaiah 5:1–226
The poem begins with a singer speaking (singing) a song on behalf of his friend, and in this song, he expresses the disappointment that comes with unrequited love. Isaiah employs an extended vineyard metaphor to persuade his audience that it was not the friend’s fault when the friend’s beloved did not respond positively to his love (Roberts 2015:71; see also Junker 1959:260). Isaiah 5:1 marks the first instance in the book of Isaiah where the prophet uses first-person speech that can be distinguished from the first-person speech of God, which we have seen so far (Seitz 1993:48). In verse 1, the prophet seeks the audience’s permission to perform a song dedicated to his friend. The song’s opening describes a vineyard situated on a fruitful hill [בְּקֶ֥רֶן בֶּן־שָֽׁמֶן], which should be translated as ‘a horn a son of oil’ (Oswalt 1986:149). This ‘fruitful hill’ represents the ideal location for cultivating high-quality grapes. While the song focuses on the friend’s vineyard, neither the friend nor the vineyard receives a specific name (Friesen 2009:53).
The second verse brings the song to a close, thus providing a fuller account of the preparations and culminating in disappointment over the inexplicably poor harvest (Is 5:2) (Oswalt 1986:153; Roberts 2015:71). The preparatory work involved removing stones from the land. This likely refers not to every stone, but primarily to those who would impede the growth of healthy vines [עֲנָבִ֖ים]. The vines planted were of the finest quality, demonstrating that no cost was spared to guarantee a bountiful harvest. The construction of a watchtower provided additional security against potential thieves or wandering animals (Friesen 2009:53; see also Childs 2001:45; Roberts 2015:71).
Having completed all the above preparations, the vine grower anticipated the vineyard to produce an abundance of (good) grapes [עֲנָבִ֖ים], but instead, to his great disappointment, the vineyard only produced a harvest of stinking27 grapes [בְּאֻשִֽׁים] (Roberts 2015:71). The reader’s initial impression is therefore one of earnest dedication from a committed vine grower who invested considerable effort in establishing a productive vineyard, only to receive no harvest that would justify the work with satisfaction. This moment of shock concludes verse 2, when it becomes evident that all the labour and careful preparation went in vain (Friesen 2009:54).
In this regard, McConville (2023:85) states as follows: ‘But the picture hastens to its laconic and shocking finish in two Hebrew words that dash all hopes of success: “but it yielded rotten grapes!”’ [וַיַּ֥עַשׂ בְּאֻשִֽׁים]. This concurs with Avrahami (2017:347), who argues that בְּאֻשִֽׁים should be translated as ‘to carry a bad smell’ and therefore:
[B]ecause of its etymology and the way the root is used elsewhere, evokes in the song’s audience the feelings they associate with a stench, then it generates an immediate negative appraisal of the vineyard; it foreshadows the negative judgement spelled out in the explanation of the parable by evoking disgust in the audience. (p. 351)
Already in the opening verses, a subtle threat of possible trauma is evident within an assumed world of security and meaning, creating a pre-traumatic state of anticipation (Janoff-Bulman 1992:3–25, 49–69).28 The detailed description of the beloved’s care for the vineyard through digging, clearing stones, planting choice vines, building a watchtower, cutting a winepress, all function as a trauma narrative’s typical idealisation of the ‘before’ state. This idealisation serves as a reference point for what was lost and a foundation for meaning-making.29 The collective trauma begins to emerge in the final line of verse 2 and this disappointment represents the initial rupture in the assumptive world. In a traumatic moment, expectations based on care and covenant become shattered.
The disjunction between effort and result parallels collective disillusionment and failure to meet (divine) expectations that is a common feature in exilic or post-exilic traumatic reflection (see also Garber 2015; Kelle 2025; Verde 2025). The failure of the vineyard to bear good fruit becomes a symbol of communal dysfunction and the breakdown of covenantal reciprocity. The contrast between expectation and reality creates a traumatic dissonance when good grapes are expected, but bad grapes are received. This space of expectation versus reality creates tangible emotional disruption that underlines the collective traumatic experience, evoking the imminent traumatic collapse.
Isaiah 5:3–4
Seitz (1993:48) makes the important observation that the power of the ‘song’ partly relies on the surprising shift from the prophetic persona (‘Let me sing for my beloved’ – Is 5:1) to that of the divine persona, which we encounter in verse 3. In this verse the prophet no longer speaks of his friend in the third person, but the friend now speaks through the prophet in the first person (Roberts 2015:71; see also Bartelt 2024:343; Eck 2020:160; McConville 2023:85). At first, the prophet announces that he will sing a song for his beloved friend, but then that friend speaks directly (‘judge between me and my vineyard’ – Is 5:3)30; the friend being YHWH, which will, however, only be revealed in verse 7.
This brief moment when the prophet acts as divine spokesperson in all probability played an important role in placing the start of Isaiah’s career before Uzziah’s death, as indicated in the book’s superscription (Is 1:1), rather than beginning with his prophetic ‘call’ during the reign of Ahaz, as described in the following chapter (Is 6).31 It implies that in the way the book is currently structured, Isaiah is presented as already functioning as a prophet here in Chapter 5, speaking on behalf of his ‘beloved’ (YHWH), before Uzziah’s death and before his formal commissioning in Chapter 6 (Seitz 1993:48).32
Verses 3 and 4 maintain the first-person narrative style, but the inclusion of imperative language directed at the audience (v. 3) and references to ‘my vineyard’ reveal that the owner (YHWH) now speaks directly.33 In this verse (v. 3) the owner calls upon the people of Jerusalem and Judah to render their verdict on the circumstances, requesting that the inhabitants pass judgement on the situation (Sweeney 1996:124; see also Fretheim 2014:55; Friesen 2009:54; Williamson 2006:339). Verse 4 presents two rhetorical questions that validate the owner’s appropriate care of the vineyard: the first question (v. 4a) inquires what additional measures could have been taken, while the second (v. 4b) questions why the owner should have anticipated bitter fruit (Sweeney 1996:124).
The song appears harmless because it implores the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judah for a decision (Friesen 2009:54). The anticipated response from the people would be that the vineyard deserves destruction. This creates a second impression for the reader: the affectionate bond between the beloved and his vineyard has deteriorated.34 The vine grower specifically lodges a grievance that his vineyard has disappointed him. Could the vine grower be held responsible for the harvest of wild grapes? Certainly not! (Friesen 2009:54).
The direct address to the audience serves multiple functions in trauma processing. It creates a community of witnesses which becomes a necessity for collective trauma recovery. The beloved’s appeal for judgement transforms the audience from passive listeners to active participants in meaning-making.35 Through ensuring audience participation in the divine lament,36 the text reflects internal fragmentation and self-accusation that are typical markers of collective trauma. This connotes that the community, especially its elite, must deal with its responsibility and the disintegration of moral coherence. The tone of disorientation is intensified as the people are asked to stand in judgement over what is essentially themselves. The rhetorical questions reflect the characteristic trauma, confusion and search for connectedness that is typical behaviour after trauma is experienced. After subliminal blows and communal trauma events, their understanding of reality is shattered.
Isaiah 5:5–6
These verses tell us what the vineyard owner’s next course of action involves, namely removing the protective barriers around the vineyard rather than destroying it outright, allowing wild animals to invade the space (Is 5:5). This leads to the vineyard reverting to its untamed, natural condition (Friesen 2009:54). In the book of Isaiah periods of calamity and disaster can be characterised as times when briers (or: thorns) and thistles [שָׁמִ֖יר וָשָׁ֑יִת] will overwhelm the vineyard (see also Is 7:23; 27:4; 32:1337). On the other hand, seasons of prosperity are marked by the transformation of barren wilderness into fertile orchards, with these orchards eventually growing to rival the vastness and majesty of great forests in both their breadth and height (Nielsen 2009:79).
This text appears to celebrate human cultivation, specifically the art of viticulture (Friesen 2009:54). One might wonder whether this passage condemns the natural order, as symbolised by the neglected vineyard. However, the book of Isaiah does not generally hold a negative perspective on the natural world. The prophet’s primary concern here is using the vineyard metaphor to illustrate his central message about the vineyard’s identity, the grower’s role, and the quality of the fruit produced. The vineyard owner’s declaration in Isaiah 5:6 describes how the land will return to its wild state, where resilient plants like thorns and thistles, which require no human care, will dominate. The owner then delivers a final decisive action through withholding rain from the vineyard. This represents both the ultimate failure of the agricultural endeavour and demonstrates the beloved’s authority over natural forces (Friesen 2009:54).
Here, the collective trauma turns from existential to physical experience. The trauma is not merely observed but becomes an embodied trauma reality. The beloved has a traumatic response where the normal patterns of protection and care are radically changed. The systematic dismantling of protective structures (hedge and wall – v. 5) signifies the exposure of the community to violence and devastation. It shows how collective trauma strips away social safety nets and cultural resources. This is a metaphorical preview and peri-trauma of invasion, exile and communal disintegration. The imagery evokes warfare and social collapse, which are, until now, dominant experiences in Judah’s collective traumatic memory. The divine act of removing protection topples the relationship into turmoil. It is scary to comprehend, but here YHWH becomes both the protector and destroyer. This break in the relationship deepens the traumatic ambiguity.
Isaiah 5:7
The last verse 5:7 brings sudden clarity as the prophet’s voice returns to reveal the true identities behind the metaphor (Is 5:7) (Friesen 2009:55; see also Eck 2016:21; Poe Hays 2016:743). The vineyard owner is the Lord (YHWH) of hosts [יְהוָ֤ה צְבָאוֹת֙], while the vineyard – i.e. ‘the planting of his delight’38 [נְטַ֖ע שַׁעֲשׁוּעָ֑יו] – represents the house of Israel and the people of Judah. Yet this revelation goes beyond mere identification – it exposes the fundamental nature of the relationship because justice and righteousness are inherent attributes of YHWH.39
The most important thing is the expectation that God’s people would reflect His justice and righteousness in their conduct (Friesen 2009:55). This approach creates an obvious parallel with passages such as 2 Samuel 12:1–10, where the prophet Nathan’s parable of the ewe lamb provides a comparable example with its equally crushing declaration, ‘you are the man!’ (2 Sm 12:7) (Blenkinsopp 2000:206; Seitz 1993:47; Williamson 2006:328; Yee 1981:38–39). In the 2 Samuel account, Nathan presents the parable to King David whose response exposes his culpability (Friesen 2009:53). Likewise, this Isaianic passage would lead the audience to the inevitable conclusion: ‘This refers to us! We are that people!’ (Fretheim 2014:56).
The people of Judah and Jerusalem mirrored the actions of those who commit violence and oppression. This leads to the reader’s third realisation: YHWH’s profound disappointment with His people.40 This disappointment finds expression in the wordplay that concludes verse 7, contrasting justice ([מִשְׁפָּט] mišpat) with bloodshed ([מִשְׂפָּח] mišpaḥ), and righteousness ([צְדָקָה] ṣedaqah) with cries of distress ([צְעָקָה]ṣe’aqah) (Friesen 2009:55).41
Isaiah 5:1–7 thus focuses on YHWH’s unfulfilled expectations regarding Judah and Jerusalem. This is clear as divine frustration appears three times in this poem – twice through metaphorical language (vv. 2c, 4b) and once more directly in the climactic final statement (v. 7b) (Williams 1985:459). The poem’s concluding line presents a reason for Judah’s condemnation: the good grapes represent social justice and righteousness, while the rotten or stinking grapes with their bad smell (see Landy 2005:153) symbolise the violence and the cry of the oppressed.42 Judah’s elite and ruling class had produced precisely the opposite of what YHWH anticipated.43
This final message becomes unforgettable through its powerful wordplay, compressed expression, interwoven parallelism and its function as an interpretation of a line already repeated twice in the poem (vv. 2c, 4b) (Williams 1985:459).
Through this poem, Isaiah expresses his solidarity with YHWH as it portrays the broken relationship between YHWH, Judah and Israel (Heschel 2001:106–108; see also Eck 2016:17). In this vineyard song, the prophet speaks initially in his own voice (vv. 1–2), then as God’s spokesperson (vv. 3–4, 5–6), and finally returns to his perspective (v. 7). This poem reveals the prophet’s personal devotion to YHWH, whom he calls ‘my friend’ and for whom he performs ‘a love song about His vineyard’. The song mentions YHWH’s disappointment and indignation, and He feels wounded at the prospect of abandoning the vineyard that had brought Him joy and in which He had invested such hope and attention. The vineyard was established to inculcate righteousness and justice. Instead, it yielded violence, bloodshed and injustice, which caused YHWH to be extremely disappointed in this vineyard. The prophet’s compassion focuses on God, whose careful tending of the vineyard had proven fruitless. God’s grief, rather than the people’s impending disaster, forms the central theme of this song (Heschel 2001:106–108).
Once again, we see that the collective trauma is not merely observed, but it becomes a reality. This break in the relationship deepens the traumatic ambiguity. The concluding verse underlines the ambiguity as it reveals the trauma marker’s significance as a moral injury that displays the deep violation of shared ethical expectations. A communal, shocked realisation of guilt, broken covenant and mostly, irrevocable loss is the outcome of this break resulting from the collective trauma.
Conclusion
Isaiah 5:1–7, known as the ‘Song of the Vineyard’, stands as a literary masterwork. The prophet performs a song about his friend’s unsuccessful efforts to cultivate quality grapes in his vineyard. As the narrative unfolds, readers discover that YHWH owns the vineyard and that His people, who have produced bitter and stinking fruit, represent the vineyard itself.
This article employed collective trauma theory as an interpretive approach to analyse the ‘Song of the Vineyard’. The investigation reveals how this prophetic passage comprehends and addresses traumatic experiences within the community. Building upon contemporary theories in trauma scholarship and their application to biblical literature, the current research contends that Isaiah’s vineyard imagery functions as a trauma narrative that exposes both the collective wounds and social consequences of Judah’s failed relationship with YHWH. Overall, the analysis presents a trauma-informed examination of the passage while providing methodological guidance for incorporating collective trauma theory into biblical hermeneutics, with attention to the text’s historical context.
Acknowledgements
Competing interests
The authors, Elizabeth Esterhuizen and Alphonso Groenewald, declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
CRediT authorship contribution
Elizabeth Esterhuizen: Conceptualisation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Alphonso Groenewald: Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. All authors reviewed the article, contributed to the discussion of results, approved the final version for submission and publication, and take responsibility for the integrity of its findings.
Ethical considerations
This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.
References
Abernethy, A., 2018, ‘The ruined Vineyard Motif in Isaiah 1–39: Insights from cognitive linguistics’, Biblica 99(3), 334–350.
Abrutyn, S., 2024, ‘The roots of social trauma: Collective, cultural pain and its consequences’, Society and Mental Health 14(3), 240–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/21568693231213088
Alexander, J.C., 2004, ‘Toward a theory of cultural trauma’, in J.C. Alexander, R. Eyerman, B. Giesen, N.J. Smelser & P. Sztompka (eds.), Cultural trauma and collective identity, pp. 1–30, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Alexander, J.C., 2013, Trauma: A social theory, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Avrahami, Y., 2017, ‘Foul grapes: Figurative smells and the message of the Song of the Vineyard (Isa 5:1–7)’, Vetus Testamentum 67(3), 341–356. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685330-12341285
Balaev, M., 2008, ‘Trends in literary trauma theory’, Mosaic 41(2), 149–166.
Bartelt, A.H., 2024, Isaiah 1–12, Concordia Publishing House, Saint Louis, MO.
Berges, U., 2012, The Book of Isaiah. Its composition and final form, transl. M.C. Lind, Sheffield Phoenix Press, Sheffield.
Berges, U., 2025, Justice and righteousness in the Old Testament. Reflecting on slavery in the Hebrew Bible, De Gruyter, Berlin.
Beuken, W.A.M., 2003, Jesaja 1–12, transl. U.F. Berges, Herder, Freiburg i.Br.
Blenkinsopp, J., 2000, Isaiah 1–39: A new translation with introduction and commentary, 1st edn., Doubleday, New York, NY.
Brueggemann, W., 1998, Isaiah 1–39, Westminster John Knox, Louisville, KY.
Chaney, M.L., 2017, Peasants, prophets, political economy: The Hebrew Bible and social analysis, Cascade Books, Eugene, OR.
Childs, B.S., 2001, Isaiah, Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, KY.
Couey, J.B., 2015, Reading the poetry of First Isaiah: The most perfect model of the prophetic poetry, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Dobbs-Allsopp, F.W., 2018, ‘Isaiah’s love song: A reading of Isaiah 5:1–7’, in E.T. James & J.B. Couey (eds.), Biblical poetry and the art of close reading, pp. 149–166, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Eck, J., 2016, ‘Isaiah’s song of the unfruitful Vineyard (Isa 5.1–7) and the biblical concept of justice and righteousness’, in M. Trajkovic & J. van Loon (eds.), Faith and reason: An interdisciplinary construction of human rights, West-östliche Denkwege 25, pp. 15–31, Academia-Verlag, Sankt Augustin.
Eck, J., 2020, ‘The song of the unfruitful Vineyard (Isa 5:1–7): Its position in the Book of Isaiah and its reception in late layers of Isaiah and the twelve’, in R.J. Bautch, J. Eck & B.M. Zapff (eds.), Isaiah and the twelve: Parallels, similarities and differences, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 527, pp. 159–183, De Gruyter, Berlin.
Esterhuizen, E., 2016, ‘A study of the tension between despair and hope in Isaiah 7 and 8 from a perspective of trauma and posttraumatic growth’, PhD thesis, Unisa, Pretoria.
Esterhuizen, E. & Groenewald, A., 2021, ‘“And it shall come to pass on that day, the Lord will whistle for the fly which is at the end of the water channels of Egypt, and for the bee which is in the land of Assyria” (Is 7:18): Traumatic impact of the Covid-19 virus as a lens to read Isaiah 7:18–25’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 77(3), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v77i3.6333
Esterhuizen, E. & Groenewald, A., 2023, ‘The tension between experiences of nothingness and hope in the metaphorical meaning of the names of the children (Isaiah 7–8) from a perspective of generational imprinted trauma and resilience’, Old Testament Essays 36(3), 683–708. https://doi.org/10.17159/2312-3621/2023/v36n3a8
Esterhuizen, E. & Groenewald, A., (in press), ‘Trauma and resilience in biblical texts, prophetic literature and in the Book Isaiah’, in U. Berges (ed.), In search of the unity of the Book of Isaiah, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, Peeters, Leuven.
Everson, A.J., 2019, The vision of the Prophet Isaiah. Hope in a war-weary world – A commentary, Wipf & Stock, Eugene, OR.
Eyerman, R., 2013, ‘Social theory and trauma’, Acta Sociologica 56(1), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699312461035
Fretheim, T.E., 2014, ‘What kind of God is portrayed in Isaiah 5:1–7?’, in M. Zehnder (ed.), New studies in the Book of Isaiah: Essays in Honor of Hallvard Hagelia, Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and its Contexts 21, pp. 53–67, Gorgias Press, Piscataway, NJ.
Friesen, I., 2009, Isaiah, Herald Press, Scottdale, PA.
Garber, D.G., 2015, ‘Trauma theory and biblical studies’, Currents in Biblical Research 14(1), 24–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476993X14561176
Grey, J.N., 2018, ‘Isaiah 5: A prophetic critique of conomic proportion’, Verbum et Ecclesia 39(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.4102/ve.v39i1.1845
Groenewald, A., 2016, ‘The transformation of the city of Zion: From decadence to justice and prophetic hope (Is. 1:1–2:5)’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 72(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v72i1.3568
Groenewald, A., 2017, ‘The role and function of Ṣedaqa and Torah in the introduction to the book of Isaiah (1.1–2.5)’, in S. Gillmayr-Bucher & M. Hausl (eds.), Sedaqa and Torah in postexilic discourse, LHB/OTS 640, pp. 71–85, Bloomsbury T&T Clark, London.
Herman, J.L., 2015, Trauma and recovery: The aftermath of violence from domestic abuse to political terror, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Heschel, A.J., 2001, The prophets, Harper-Collins, New York, NY.
Irsigler, H., 1997, ‘Speech acts and intention in the “Song of the Vineyard” Isaiah 5:1–7’, Old Testament Essays 10(1), 39–68.
Janoff-Bulman, R., 1992, Shattered assumptions. Towards a new psychology of trauma, Free Press, New York, NY.
Junker, H., 1959, ‘Die literarische Art von Is 5,1–7’ [The literary style of Is 5:1–7], Biblica 40(2), 259–266.
Kaiser, O., 1983, Isaiah 1–12: A commentary, transl. J. Bowden, Translated from the 5th German edition, 1981, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Kelle, B.E., 2025, ‘Is Hosea also among the traumatized? The Book of Hosea and trauma hermeneutics’, Journal of Biblical Literature 144(1), 63–83. https://doi.org/10.15699/jbl.1441.2025.4
Landy, F., 2005, ‘The parable of the Vineyard (Isaiah 5:1–7), or what is a love song doing among the prophets?’, Studies in Religion 34(2), 147–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/000842980503400201
Landy, F., 2023, Poetry, catastrophe, and hope in the vision of Isaiah, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
McConville, J.G., 2023, Isaiah, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI.
Nielsen, K., 2003, ‘“From oracles to canon” – And the role of metaphor’, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 17(1), 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/09018320308941
Nielsen, K., 2009, There is hope for a tree: The tree as metaphor in Isaiah, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.
Olanisebe, S.O., 2015, ‘The justice of God in his anger: A narrative analysis of Isaiah 5:1–7 and its implications for socio-economic and security challenges in Nigeria’, Old Testament essays 28(2), 481–496. https://doi.org/10.17159/2312-3621/2015/V28N2A14
Oswalt, J.N., 1986, The Book of Isaiah. Chapters 1–39, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Poe Hays, R.W., 2016, ‘Sing me a parable of Zion: Isaiah’s Vineyard (5:1–7) and its relation to the “Daughter Zion” tradition’, Journal of Biblical Literature 135(4), 743–761. https://doi.org/10.1353/jbl.2016.0046
Poe Hays, R.W., 2023, ‘Love, marriage, and a delayed harvest: Isaiah 61 as the reversal of the Song of the Vineyard (5:1–7)’, Journal of Biblical Literature 142(3), 451–469. https://doi.org/10.15699/jbl.1423.2023.5
Prinsloo, W.S., 1979, ‘Isaiah 5:1–7: A synchronic approach’, OTWSA (Old Testament Essays) 22/23, 183–197.
Roberts, J.J.M., 2015, First Isaiah: A commentary, Fortress, Minneapolis, MN.
Seitz, C.R., 1993, Isaiah 1–39, John Knox Press, Louisville, KY.
Sheppard, G.T., 1982, ‘More on Isaiah 5:1–7 as a juridical parable’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44(1), 45–47.
Sherman, T.M., 2023, Plant metaphors in prophetic condemnations of Israel and Judah, SBL Press, Atlanta, GA.
Stulac, D.J.D., 2019, ‘Charting new paths in modern-critical exegesis: An Agrarian-rhetorical analysis of Isaiah 5’, Biblical Interpretation 27(3), 390–412. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685152-00273P05
Stulman, L. & Kim, H.C.P., 2010, You are my people: An introduction to prophetic literature, Abingdon, Nashville, TN.
Sweeney, M.A., 1996, Isaiah 1–39 with an introduction to prophetic literature, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Tull, P.K., 2010, Isaiah 1–39, Smyth & Helwys, Macon, GA.
Verde, D., 2025, ‘Reading the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament in the light of trauma studies: Overview of scholarly research and critical reflections for future inquiry’, Rivista Biblica 73(1), 61–105.
Von Rad, G., 1975, Old Testament theology. Volume two: The theology of Israel’s prophetic tradition, SCM Press, London.
Watts, J.D.W., 2005, Isaiah 1–33, Revised edn., Thomas Nelson, Nashville, TN.
Wildberger, H., 1991, Isaiah 1–12, transl. T.H. Trapp, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, MN.
Williams, G.R., 1985, ‘Frustrated expectations in Isaiah V 1–7: A literary interpretation’, Vetus Testamentum 35(4), 459–465. https://doi.org/10.2307/1517761
Williamson, H.G.M., 1994, The book called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s role in composition and redaction, Clarendon, Oxford.
Williamson, H.G.M., 2006, A critical and exegetical commentary on Isaiah 1–27. Volume 1. Commentary on Isaiah 1–5, T & T Clark, London.
Williamson, H.G.M., 2018, A critical and exegetical commentary on Isaiah 1–27. Volume 2. Commentary on Isaiah 6–12, Bloomsbury T&T Clark, London.
Willis, J.T., 1977, ‘The genre of Isaiah 5:1–7’, Journal of Biblical Literature 96(3), 337–362. https://doi.org/10.2307/3266189
Yee, G.A., 1981, ‘A form-critical study of Isaiah 5:1–7 as a song and a juridical parable’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43(1), 30–40.
Footnotes
1. See the thesis of Esterhuizen (2016). In this regard Poe Hays (2016:743) refers to the ‘dramatic narrative arc of the anticipated destruction, traumatic exile, and glorious restoration of Jerusalem and its inhabitants presented in the biblical book of Isaiah …’.
2. See Esterhuizen and Groenewald (2023:684–686) for a description of our understanding of ‘prophet’, ‘prophetic figure’, ‘prophetic roles’, and ‘prophetic book’.
3. Regarding the ‘subsequent generations’ Stulman and Kim (2010:28) infer as follows: ‘They unrolled, read, reread, and rolled them again, hearing and reflecting on their meaning for subsequent generations: messages concerning God’s word to nations, empires, and institutions; messages concerning justice and injustice, suffering and humiliation, survival and glimpses of hope and faith; messages that called multiple audiences to “participate imaginatively in the Isaianic symbolic world in order to be transformed profoundly by that prophetic book”’.
4. We acknowledge the historical complexity of these texts, especially their complicated historical growth. In this contribution we will not necessarily focus on their historical growth, but we will refer to historical insights when necessary for our argumentation. See Williamson (1994:1–16) for an overview of the theories regarding the redaction and composition of the book of Isaiah.
5. Poe Hays (2023:455) indicates the uniqueness of this song as follows: ‘The vivid garden imagery in the Song of the Vineyard (Is 5:1–7), coupled with the pathos of the vineyard owner’s rhetoric, contributes to a damning message about the future God’s wayward people can expect. While this text is by no means the only example of garden imagery in Isaiah, its combination here with love-song associations is distinctive within the book’.
6. Berges (2025:62) infers as follows: ‘Not the people as a whole and certainly not the farmers threatened by debt slavery are the addressees of the parable of the vineyard (Is 5:3, 7), but the elite, who know full well that they can earn a great deal of money through appropriate cultivation’. See also Grey (2018:3).
7. See Sherman (2023:102) for the translation.
8. See also Friesen (2009:52) who infers as follows: ‘The prophet draws attention to the causes of the exile. On the one hand these causes include a combination of wrong worship and general disregard of the Lord’s deeds among the people. On the other hand, they include the continuing practice of social injustice, which violates the covenant. Drawing attention to the causes of the exile serves to emphasize the theme of judgment as purification’.
9. This perspective is already an important perspective in Chapter 1 (v. 20ff.) where the elite of the city is blamed for the lack of justice and righteousness prevalent in the city.
10. Isaiah 1:1–2:5 is regarded as the introduction to the whole of the book of Isaiah (Groenewald 2016:2; see also Blenkinsopp 2000:181; Poe Hays 2016:745).
11. Wildberger (1991:187) Infers in this regard: ‘Yahweh is no “impetuous lover” who tries to overpower the beloved like a whirlwind, but rather one who patiently surrounds her with care and continuously tries to show new evidence of his affection. It is an image which, in the end, gives clear insight into Yahweh’s relationship with his people, as well as what God himself is really like. At the same time, it points out the completely preposterous nature of Israel’s relationship with God; they were unthankful toward their Lord, and most clearly that resulted in the deep, deep disappointment of the God who had loved them and given himself so completely in his care for them. Yahweh suffers immensely because his gracious reaching out to his people had not met with the type of response which he had anticipated. Therefore, Isaiah is not too audacious when he uses the parable of the disappointed, unsuccessful lover, Yahweh’.
12. Esterhuizen and Groenewald (in press) give an overview of ‘collective trauma’ from both a psychological as well as sociological perspective for biblical scholars.
13. Alexander (2004:10) also alludes that ‘for traumas to emerge at the level of collectively, social crises must become cultural crises’. See also Alexander (2013:6–30).
14. Sherman (2023:91) indicates that ‘of the five vineyard metaphors in the prophetic corpus, four occur in prophetic condemnations: Isa 1:4–9; 3:13–15; 5:1–7; and Jer 12:7–13’.
15. Abrutyn (2024:240–256) postulates that collective trauma always bears the risk for communities to suffer new and devastating blows to add to their suffering.
16. See e.g. the work of Garber (2015:24–44).
17. See also Stulac (2019:405) who infers as follows: ‘By the same measure, the inhabitants’ failure to produce anything but ‘stinking-weeds’ in response to YHWH’s proper action constitutes an outrageous violation of the agro-ecological order’.
18. Olanisebe (2015:487, 489, 494) argues that the people of Judah’s squandering of resources resulted in catastrophic outcomes directly attributable to their actions.
19. Esterhuizen and Groenewald (2021:2, 4–5) writes that shattered expectations reflect in collective trauma where unfulfilled hopes and societal devastation leads to disillusionment.
20. Sherman (2023:116) also supports the translation of בְּאֻשִׁים as ‘stinking grapes’.
21. See also Abernethy (2018:346) who infers as follows: ‘The ruined vineyard motif in Isaiah 1–39 evokes a context of military invasion … Thus, the ruined vineyard motif in Isaiah 1–39 has the capacity to signify devastating ruptures within family, judgment against the elite, the absence of joy, and upheaval amidst conquest by invading nations’.
22. Eck (2016:28) states that ‘… the Song of the Vineyard (Is 5.1–7) confronts the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judah with a metaphoric story that presents Israel’s history as a complete failure because it turned YHWH’s gift of best conditions for justice and righteousness into evil and reckless violence. The fate awaiting this pernicious vineyard is destruction (Is 5.5–6)’.
23. This is not an extensive list, and we only mention some scholars who have discussed the genre of this poem (see e.g. Beuken 2003:134; Irsigler 1997:56; Landy 2005:147–164; Oswalt 1986:151; Poe Hays 2016:746–749; Prinsloo 1979:183–184; Roberts 2015:71; Sheppard 1982:45–47; Sweeney 1996:126–127; Tull 2010:119; Watts 2005:84; Williamson 2006:327–328; Willis 1977:337–362; Yee 1981:30–40).
24. In this regard he furthermore remarks as follows: ‘Finally, as far as genre properly speaking is concerned, the main discussion has been whether parable is appropriate or whether the passage should be classified rather as an allegory … The principal objection to the designation as parable has been the view that a parable should have only one moral, whereas the present passage is open to more than one application and its goal or intention is not a moral … Conversely, in an allegory each element of the story represents something in the real world, but there is no suggestion that each of the vineyard owner’s actions in 1b-2 is meant to be interpreted as descriptive of Israel’s past history …’ (Williamson 2006:328).
25. Prinsloo (1979:191–192) infers as follows: ‘Having examined every aspect – synchronic and diachronic, formal and semantic – the nearest we can get to establishing a Gattung is to say that it is a prophetic judgment oracle. To enhance the efficacy and impact of this oracle the author makes use of a parable and standard motifs’.
26. See Avrahami (2017:344), Eck (2020:162), Sherman (2023:101), Oswalt (1986:152) for this text’s division.
27. See Sherman (2023:102) for this translation.
28. Janoff-Bulman’s theory posits that traumatic experiences can alter an individual’s or communities’ worldview, that can lead to distress and trauma.
29. See also Stulman and Kim (2010:1–23) for a discussion of the prophets as ‘meaning-making literature for communities under siege’.
30. According to Williamson (2006:327) there are two small genres included in this passage: (1) a song (vv. 1b-2), and (2) a lawsuit (vv. 3–6). See also Irsigler (1997:56).
31. See also Eck (2020:160–161) who infers that ‘quite unexpectedly, the prophet turns out to represent the voice of a different person here, namely that of his dear friend who owns the vineyard. He seems to represent him authentically and with full authority as he speaks on his behalf in first person singular. Here, the question arises by what authority he does this. This refers to the next chapter, Isa 6, where the question is answered by Isaiah’s prophetic vocation’.
32. Brueggemann (1998:58) indeed also supports this interpretation when he infers as follows: ‘On the other hand, if one reckons with the highly stylized character of the text, one may consider that the chapter concerns not its impact upon the person of the prophet who is here authorized, but its impact upon the prophetic book. That is, the narrative account seeks to claim that the prophetic book – understood as utterance from a divinely called and appointed prophet – can claim continuing “prophetic authority” from on high, long after the prophetic personality has departed the historical scene. In a canonical approach to the book of Isaiah, this unit makes a claim that its utterance is indeed divinely authorized, for the authorization pertains not only to the immediate utterance of verses 9–13, but also to the entire text of Isaiah in which this specific account is embedded. Thus, we may look past the authorization of the prophet (which is indeed evident) to the authorization of the book that continues to speak authoritatively to the faithful for the coming generations of the community that heeds the text. The prophetic word and the prophetic book that continue to haunt us are derived from and witness to the intention of God’s own purposes for the world’.
33. Fretheim (2014:54) depicts this as follows: ‘the words of the prophet and God are here woven into each other’.
34. See also Brueggemann (1998:47), who states as follows: ‘The ardour is spent; the vineyard has failed; the relationship is in deep jeopardy, for the owner has given up on the vineyard’.
35. In this article Poe Hays (2016:743–762) writes that Isaiah 5:1–7 conveys meaning through its parabolic structure, blending song and legal elements.
36. See Dobbs-Allsopp (2018:158): ‘The second mention of failed expectation even mimes the traditional “why” of lament: “why (מַדּוּעַ – maddûaʿ) had I waited to make grapes, / but it made rotten grapes?” (v. 4).’ Compare also Fretheim (2014:63–66).
37. Isaiah 32:13 though uses the following Hebrew for ‘briers (or: thorns) and thistles’: ק֥וֹץ שָׁמִ֖י.
38. Berges (2012:420) who indicates parallels between the two phrase ‘planting of his delight’ in 5:7 and ‘planting of YHWH’ [מַטַּ֥ע יְהוָ֖ה] in 61:3b. See also Poe Hays (2023:465).
39. Cf. Leviticus 19:9–18; Deuteronomy 10:12–22; 32:4; Psalms 33:4–5; 72:1; 89:14; 97:2; 99:4; 145:17. See also Berges (2025).
40. Fretheim (2014:61). See also Von Rad (1975:151), who states as follows: ‘the divine disappointment … is shown with particular clarity in Is. v.1–7 … The poem is short: but consider the detailed description of the man’s painstaking work in his vineyard – work which proved completely fruitless’.
41. Eck (2016:29) infers that ‘the metaphor of the vineyard and its grapes illustrates that מִשְׁפָּט “justice” and צְדָקָה “righteousness” are comparable to a delicate and valuable fruit that does not grow in the wild but requires a fruitful place, a specific climate and intense care. It is thus dependent on the efforts of a skilful vineyard owner and winegrower’.
42. Fretheim (2014:55–56) states as follows: ‘God expected justice, especially on behalf of the disadvantaged members of society. Instead, there has been bloodshed – abusive social policies and practices that bleed the poor to a certain death’.
43. See Chaney (2017:174) who infers as follows: ‘Those trapped into self-condemnation by the parable were the ruling elites of Judah and Israel, led by the two dynastic houses and their sitting dynasts, not the general populations of Jerusalem, Judah, and Israel’.
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
