Isaiah 5:20 · Bible study
Isaiah 5:20 Commentary: The Woe of Moral Inversion
Hebrew · 10 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Explore what it means to call evil good and good evil. Isaiah 5:20's woe against moral inversion and its relevance for today.
Research Summary
- Meaning: A woe against those who deliberately invert moral categories, calling evil good and good evil.
- Key words: hoy (woe), amar (say), sim (put/make), tov/ra (good/evil), or/choshekh (light/darkness), mar/matoq (bitter/sweet).
- Main debate: Whether the woe targets judges specifically or is a general indictment of moral perversion; most commentators see a broad application.
- Theological theme: God’s holiness as the objective standard of good and evil, and the judgment that follows when that standard is rejected.
- Best use: A call to moral clarity in personal ethics, church teaching, and cultural engagement.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who turn darkness to light and light to darkness, who replace bitter with sweet and sweet with bitter.
WEB World English Bible 2000
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
KJV King James Version 1769
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
ASV American Standard Version 1901
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
Woe to those saying to evil `good,' And to good `evil,' Putting darkness for light, and light for darkness, Putting bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.
Darby Darby Bible 1890
Woe unto them who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
¡ Ay de los que á lo malo dicen bueno, y á lo bueno malo; que hacen de la luz tinieblas, y de las tinieblas luz; que ponen lo amargo por dulce, y lo dulce por amargo!
Ai dos que chamam o mal de bem, e o bem de mal; que trocam as trevas pela luz, e a luz pelas trevas; e trocam o amargo pelo doce, e o doce pelo amargo!
Malheur à ceux qui appellent le mal bien, et le bien mal,
Weh denen, die Böses gut und Gutes böse heißen, die aus Finsternis Licht und aus Licht Finsternis machen, die aus sauer süß und aus süß sauer machen!
Wee dengenen, die het kwade goed heten, en het goede kwaad; die duisternis tot licht stellen, en het licht tot duisternis; die het bittere tot zoet stellen, en het zoete tot bitterheid!
Guai a quelli che chiaman bene il male, e male il bene, che mutan le tenebre in luce e la luce in tenebre, che mutan l’amaro in dolce e il dolce in amaro!
Biada tym, którzy nazywają złe dobrem a dobre złem; którzy pokładają ciemność za świetłość, a światłość za ciemność; którzy pokładają gorzkość za słodkość, a słodkość za gorzkość!
Горе тем, которые зло называют добром, и добро - злом, тьму почитают светом, и свет - тьмою, горькое почитают сладким, и сладкое - горьким!
禍哉！那些稱 惡 為善，稱善 為惡，以 暗 為光，以光 為暗，以 苦 為甜，以甜 為苦的人。
Cursed are those who give the name of good to evil, and of evil to what is good: who make light dark, and dark light: who make bitter sweet, and sweet bitter!
Verse in Context
Original Language (Biblical Hebrew)
Old Testament · Biblical Hebrew · Isaiah 5:20
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators agree that Isaiah 5:20 rebukes a deliberate confusion of moral categories. Barnes calls it “perverting and confounding the distinctions of morality and religion.” Calvin notes the key grammatical feature: the preposition ל (lamed) attached to “evil” and “good” means they say of evil, “it is good,” indicating a willful declaration rather than mere ignorance. Gill expands the scope: this includes false prophets, corrupt judges, and anyone who excuses sin while condemning righteousness. Keil and Delitzsch explain that the three pairs, evil/good, darkness/light, bitter/sweet, are not redundant; each highlights a different aspect: evil’s hostility to God, its dark nature, and its ultimate bitterness. The woe falls not on the ignorant but on those who “overthrow all distinction between good and evil” (Calvin).
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- General moral inversion: The broader context (v.24) focuses on rejecting God's law, and the three pairs are universal metaphors for ethical confusion.
- Specifically judicial corruption: Verse 23 immediately follows this woe and condemns judges who acquit the guilty for a bribe, suggesting a legal setting.
- Against false prophets and religious leaders: Gill and the Targum see this as targeting those who endorse wickedness and condemn the righteous, which fits the later critique of Israel's spiritual guides.
What is clear: God condemns the deliberate reversal of moral categories, whether in individual hearts, the courtroom, or the pulpit.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Primary audience | The woe is part of Isaiah's indictment against the leadership of Judah in the 8th century BC. | Some interpreters see a narrower focus on corrupt judges (based on v.23). Others see a broader reference to the entire aristocracy who had abandoned moral discernment. |
| Nature of the sin | It is a deliberate perversion of moral categories, not an innocent mistake. | Calvin and Barnes emphasize it as a conscious, willful inversion. Gill adds that it may include those who are self-deceived, having so immersed themselves in sin that they truly believe evil is good. |
| Application to the New Testament | The verse is often applied to the Pharisees and religious leaders who preferred human traditions over God's commands. | Gill explicitly applies it to the Pharisees. Other commentators see it as a more universal warning against any form of moral relativism, including in the church today. |
| Relationship to the other woes | This is the fourth of six woes in Isaiah 5, and it connects thematically to the surrounding condemnations of injustice and arrogance. | Some see it as directly linked to the preceding woe against mockers (v.18-19) and the following woe against self-wisdom (v.21), while others treat it as a standalone indictment. |
Historical & Cultural Context
Isaiah 5 is a courtroom indictment against Judah’s leadership. Six “woe” oracles, each beginning with the Hebrew hoy (a cry of mourning and judgment), target specific sins of the upper classes: land-grabbing (v.8), drunken revelry (v.11-12), defiant mocking of God’s work (v.18-19), and here, the fourth woe, a moral inversion that rejects the very categories of good and evil. The Cambridge Bible notes that the prophet “sets before us a vivid picture of a debased aristocracy, in whom public virtue has been eaten out by avarice and sensuality.” The surrounding context makes clear that these people “have rejected the law of Yahweh of Armies, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel” (v.24). Their sin is not accidental but flows from a heart that has cast off God’s authority.
Culturally, light and darkness were everyday metaphors for truth and error, life and death. Bitter and sweet described not just taste but the experienced consequences of actions, sin promised pleasure but delivered pain (see Jer 2:19). By putting darkness for light, these leaders were not merely confused; they were actively redefining reality to suit their appetites. Poole observes that “they lived as if they were of this opinion; their presumption and security showed their desperate contempt of God.” The woe is therefore a call to recognize that God alone defines good and evil, and that a society which inverts those definitions invites His judgment.
Textual Notes
The consulted sources note no significant textual variants for Isaiah 5:20. The Hebrew text is stable, and the parallels among the three pairs are consistent across ancient witnesses.
Reception History
This verse has been a touchstone for Christian ethical teaching across traditions. Early church writers cited it to warn against redefining sin in order to accommodate pagan practices. During the Reformation, both Catholic and Protestant expositors used Isaiah 5:20 to condemn what they saw as corruptions in doctrine and morality. In modern times, the verse is frequently invoked in sermons on moral relativism, calling believers to hold fast to the objective moral order revealed in Scripture. Though its cultural context is ancient, its warning against calling good evil and evil good has proven timeless.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- The nature of moral inversion, Calling evil good is not a simple mistake but a deliberate reversal. The Hebrew participle אֹמְרִים (omrim, “those who say”) suggests an ongoing habit of speech and thought. Isaiah’s three parallel pairs (evil/good, darkness/light, bitter/sweet) show that this inversion touches every dimension of ethics: what we name, what we see, and what we taste.
- The root cause: rejection of God’s law, Verse 24 traces these sins to their source: “they have rejected the law of Yahweh.” When a person or culture no longer acknowledges God as the standard, they begin to redefine good and evil to fit their desires.
- The consequence: God’s judgment, The woe is not an empty threat. The surrounding oracles lead to a vision of national destruction (v.24-30). Inverting moral order is not only offensive to God; it unravels the fabric of society.
Five-point outline
- “Call evil good”, Excusing sin, redefining wickedness as acceptable. Examples: calling greed “ambition,” adultery “following your heart,” or lying “strategic communication.”
- “Call good evil”, Slandering righteousness, labeling integrity as naivety or self-righteousness.
- “Put darkness for light”, Rejecting truth and embracing deception, claiming error as wisdom.
- “Put bitter for sweet”, Choosing sin that promises pleasure but delivers pain, while rejecting the true sweetness of following God (Ps 119:103).
- God’s response, The woe comes with a promise of exposure and judgment, yet also a call to repentance.
Illustration hooks
- A workplace where dishonesty is called “smart business” and honest reporting is called “troublemaking.”
- Social media algorithms that reward outrage and label measured speech as “out of touch.”
- A family where a member’s destructive behavior is defended as “just being themselves” while the person who confronts it is blamed.
Questions your congregation is asking
- How can I spot when I am beginning to call evil good in my own life?
- What does it look like to hold to God’s moral standards when the culture around me reverses them?
- Is there a difference between calling evil good out of ignorance versus doing it deliberately, and how does that affect our response?
Leading a Discussion
Isaiah 5:20 is a sharp warning against moral confusion. In a world where labels are often swapped for convenience, this verse calls us back to God’s unchanging definition of good and evil. As you discuss, watch for places where you might be tempted to rename sin or dismiss righteousness.
Discussion questions
- Read Isaiah 5:20 aloud. What stands out to you about the three pairs of contrasts?
- Why do you think the prophet uses darkness/light and bitter/sweet in addition to evil/good? What do those images add?
- Calvin notes that the Hebrew says “of evil, it is good.” What difference does it make that this is a deliberate saying, not just an accidental slip?
- In what areas of modern life do you see people calling evil good or good evil? Give specific examples without naming individuals.
- How can good people drift into this kind of moral inversion? What steps lead a person from knowing the truth to redefining it?
- What safeguards can we build into our lives and our church community to keep from twisting moral categories?
- How does the rest of Isaiah 5 (especially verses 24-25) shape the hope or warning for those caught in this sin?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Job 17:12 | They change the night into day, saying ‘The light is near’ in the presence of darkness. |
| Proverbs 17:15 | He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to Yahweh. |
| Amos 5:7 | You who turn justice to wormwood, and cast down righteousness to the earth! |
| Malachi 2:17 | You have wearied Yahweh with your words. Yet you say, ‘How have we wearied him?’ In that you say, ‘Everyone who does evil is good in Yahweh’s sight, and he delights in them;’ or ‘Where is the God of justice?’ |
| Malachi 3:15 | Now we call the proud happy; yes, those who work wickedness are built up; yes, they tempt God, and escape.’ |
| Matthew 6:22 | “The lamp of the body is the eye. If therefore your eye is sound, your whole body will be full of light. |
| Matthew 6:23 | But if your eye is evil, your whole body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! |
| Matthew 15:3 | He answered them, “Why do you also disobey the commandment of God because of your tradition? |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
10 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes focuses on the sin of deliberately confusing moral and religious distinctions — calling evil good and good evil. He explains that the metaphors of darkness for light and bitter for sweet carry an added layer: sin itself is bitter, bringing painful consequences, while virtue is sweet and brings pleasure.
Calvin's Commentaries Reformed 1564
Calvin argues that the rebuke is not limited to judges but applies to all who lack the fear of God. Such people use clever arguments to excuse their own sins and slander what is good. Their insolence lies in trying to overturn the very distinction between good and evil.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
This sixth woe targets the debased aristocracy of Judah, specifically the judges who sit on the bench drunk. These men pride themselves on mixing and tasting fine spiced wine, yet in court they are useless: they acquit the guilty and condemn the innocent. Drunkenness, the commentator notes, is the parent of judicial injustice.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva Note condemns those who deliberately invert God's moral order—calling evil good and good evil, dark light and light dark. This is not confusion but willful reversal, a direct assault on the Creator's distinction between right and wrong.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill applies this woe to the Scribes and Pharisees, who willfully called evil good and good evil by elevating human traditions above God's law and the Gospel. He stresses this was not ignorance but a deliberate choice against light, preferring darkness and error over the sweet doctrines of grace.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB identifies the root of this woe as a darkened moral perception that can no longer distinguish right from wrong. Sin, he notes, may seem sweet for a time but is actually bitter, while true religion is genuinely sweet. The deception lies in confusing the two.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil-Delitzsch distinguishes this woe from the previous one, which targeted mockers of sacred history. Here the offense is a complete inversion of moral first principles. They note that darkness and light, bitter and sweet are not mere synonyms for evil and good but describe each principle's inherent nature and its inevitable inner effects.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange stresses the bitter irony: the prophet begins with a joyful love song about a fruitful vineyard, but the hearer is gradually led to a crushing disappointment. The joyful tone is a deliberate setup, and the vineyard turns out to be Israel itself, which produced wild grapes of injustice instead of righteousness.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry observes that these sinners do not drift into sin but actively bind themselves to it, first with flimsy excuses and then with stronger, more deliberate ties. Their boldness grows until they mock God and invert moral values, which only provokes His unceasing judgment.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley identifies people who blur the moral distinction between good and evil by justifying wicked persons and actions while condemning piety and the righteous. For him, this reversal of moral judgment is the essence of the error he addresses.