What does it mean to call evil good and good evil (Isaiah 5:20)?

The third woe (verse 18) is uttered against those who sin openly, violently, in defiance of God. The fourth is against men of a subtler type, who overturn all the foundations of right and wrong. Accepting their ideas and teachings the multitude become confused and perverted, condemning what is good and applauding what is evil; truly a terrible state of things.

So the prophet is led to bring home the charge against them in two specific ways. First, there were those who sought to make God to be, so to speak, a partner in their evil, as though He approved of it, treating as good that which was evil. This is a religious trick, not uncommon, we fear, in our day. All too many would claim they are serving God and pleasing Him in practising things wholly astray from His truth. The priests and people, that Malachi addressed, were religious folk, and this is an evil specially seen in the religious sphere.

183 Another character still is lack of discernment in good and evil. Satan brings about transgression and hardening of the conscience; his desire is always to darken the intelligence, as the desire of the Christian should be always more and more to judge according to God. It was the prayer of the apostle that the Colossians (chap. 1:9) should be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding. So Ephesians 1:17. It is what distinguishes from those of whom it is here said, "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! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!" (v. 20, 21).

(2) But while they had taken away the key of real knowledge, it was in perfect accord with this that they should be zealots of their own false knowledge, and eager to gain proselytes to it. Perfectly accordant, too, it was that they should, in the condition in which they were, have proselytes that would go beyond themselves. Calling the light darkness they naturally called the darkness light, and as light would propagate it. The second woe, therefore, follows the first in easily intelligible order.*

Ver. 15. Another mark of their condition. They want to break down all distinctions. "Call the proud happy," class them all together, and make them all alike. That is the judgment of a heart not in communion with God. They "put darkness for light, and light for darkness."

The self-respect of a man will often keep him from loose company, but he will not allow that his Creator has any partiality for the pure in heart, more than for the abominable. Man hates the good and loves the evil, and in spite of his self-respect, his actions prove his preference for the latter; but he has a conscience which approves the good that he hates, and condemns the evil that he loves; and yet if both are alike to God, what right have I, who am His creature, to make any distinction? Good is evil, and evil good; right is wrong, and wrong right; filthiness is purity, and purity filthiness; this must be so if everything is alike to God.

But to this it may be replied, that the ear tries words, as the mouth tastes meat; and I admit that in Job 12:11 the analogy is not only admissible but intended. But supposing the health of the judge is in a bad condition, and thus his taste is perverted; he may desire food that is unwholesome, he may call bitter sweet, and sweet bitter; he may call evil good, and good evil. What then? Where is his ability to judge? He may turn to his neighbour to decide on his behalf. But supposing everyone he knew was suffering from the same malady, no one could render him the slightest assistance.

The selfsame principle expressly applies to sins far less gross. Our thoughts and reasonings are to be discarded on the one hand; and on the other God's authority to be recognised and conclusive. Scripture too is plain that, important as is right judgment of moral evil, the truth is yet more momentous; and this both because to slight and oppose it offends against the Giver, and it ruins those who thus err, whilst they have a fair appearance, instead of shocking men like immorality or unrighteousness.

The wise men of the world have here again no remedy. The water will readily produce frogs for them also; all their disquisitions tend, as they did in Egypt, to hallow the frog, though they may have too much of it. The gods of the heathen were largely just men's lusts and passions deified; and to do them honor, they indulged them. But to call evil good cannot make it so; and to harden the conscience cannot satisfy the heart.

The danger to which this spiritual inertness exposed them was such as to justify the strongest language of expostulation and reproof. Apostasy from Christ was a step more easy and natural to a Jewish than to a Gentile believer. The way was always open and inviting to them as men, to return to those associations which only the power of God's kingdom had enabled them to renounce. When heavenly realities became inoperative in their souls, the visible image was before them still and near was the danger of their giving it the homage of their souls. If there were not an habitual exercise of their spiritual senses (verse 14), their power of discernment would not long remain. They would call evil good, and good evil. For the ignorance which flows from spiritual negligence brings its own punishment of apathetic dulness on the once clear mind, and robs the spirit of its power to detect and baffle the wily methods of the devil.