He that killeth an ox
Worship and wickedness
Our prophet affirms, that the sacrifices offered by the wicked and hypocritical among the Jews, being attended with enormous crimes and profane rites, and not presented with pure hearts, according to the Divine appointment, were an abomination to the Lord.
They intermixed impious ceremonies and odious superstitions with the sacrifices which they offered to the Most High. (R. Macculloch.)
Hateful sacrifices
The first part of the verse runs literally thus: “The slaughterer of the ox, a slayer of a man; the sacrificer of the sheep, a breaker of a dog’s neck; the offerer of an oblation, swine’s blood; the maker of a memorial of incense, one that blesseth vanity (i.e an idol);” four legitimate sacrificial acts being bracketed with four detestable idolatrous rites. The first member of each pair is probably to be taken as subject, the second as predicate, of a sentence. But this leaves open a choice between two interpretations.
1. That the legal sacrificial action is as hateful in the sight of God as the idolatrous rite, so long as it is performed by unspiritual worshippers.
2. That he who does the first series of actions does also the second, i.e combines the service of Jehovah with the most hateful idolatries. It is extremely difficult to decide which is the true sense. The words “as if” in
E.V. are, of course, supplied by the translators, but the rendering is aperfectly fair one. The one fact that favours the second explanation is that the latter part of the verse speaks of those who “delight in their abominations. Unless there be a complete break in the middle of the verse, which is unlikely, this would seem to imply that the abominations enumerated were actually practised by certain persons, who at the same time claimed to be worshippers of Jehovah (cf Isaiah 66:17, Isaiah 65:3-5; Isaiah 57:3-9). (Prof. J. Skinner, D. D.)
Unacceptable sacrifices
I regard Vitringa’s exposition as the most exact, profound and satisfactory. He agrees with Gesenius in making the text the general doctrine that sacrifice is hateful in the sight of God if offered in a wicked spirit, but with a special reference to those who still adhered to the old sacrifices after the great Sacrifice for sin was come and had been offered once for all. Thus understood, this verse extends to sacrifices that which the foregoing verse said of the temple, after the change of dispensation. (J. A. Alexander.)
As if he slew a man
The reference may be either to murder merely or to human sacrifice; most probably the latter, since every other member of the sentence expresses a religious act. That human sacrifice was actually perpetrated by those spoken of may be safely inferred from Isaiah 57:5.(Prof. J. Skinner, D. D.)
“As if he cut off (breaketh) a dog’s neck”
This sacrifice. .. seems. .. to be alluded to as a Punic rite in Justin 18. I. 10, where we read that Darius sent a message to the Carthaginians forbidding them to sacrifice human victims and to eat the flesh of dogs. In the connection a religious meal must be understood. (W. Robertson Smith.)
Formal worship
I. ITS FEATURES.
II. ITS OFFENSIVENESS TO GOD.
III. ITS UTTER WORTHLESSNESS. (Homiletic Commentary.)