As I have mentioned (here) I am participating in “Greek Isaiah in a Year” reading group. These are my notes from this week (10:1-29).
10:1—“Woe! to those inscribing evil inscriptions and writing troublesome writings”
(הוי החקקים חקקי־און ומכתבים עמל כתבו) in the MT becomes “Woe! To those writing evil, for writing evil writings” (οὐαὶ τοῖς γράφουσιν πονηρίαν, γράφοντες γὰρ πονηρίαν γράφουσιν) in the LXX. The parallelism of the MT seems impossible to retain in translation.
10:2—There seems to be a slight difference between πτωχῶν and πενήτων in the LXX (both could be translated something like “the poor”). Louw-Nida 57.50 places πενήτων as someone who is needy, but not as impoverished as πτωχῶν. In the MT we have דל and עני. The first seem to be the weak/exploited, while the second seem to be impoverished, but I may be over-generalizing. Obviously, the meanings are close enough for the parallelism to work.
10:4—The phrases “his anger has not turned away” (οὐκ ἀπεστράφη ὁ θυμός) “the hand is uplifted still” (ἔτι ἡ χεὶρ ὑψηλή) echoes 9:20. This exists in the MT as well
(בכל־זאת֙ לֹא־שׁב אפו ועוד ידו נטוי).
10:5—“Woe to the Assyrians!” is a heavy warning against the nation YHWH claims as an agent of his wrath.
10:6—The “heathen” nation (בגוי חנף֙) in the MT is the “lawless” nation (εἰς ἔθνος ἄνομον) in the LXX. The sound of the MT in v. 6a is fun: לשׁלל שׁלל֙ ולבז בז. The clay in the streets outside being trampled in the MT (מרמס כחמר חוצות) is a city trampled to dust in the LXX (τὰς πόλεις καὶ θεῖναι αὐτὰς εἰς κονιορτόν).
10:8—The MT sentence, “Because he will say, ‘Are not my princes all kings?’”
(כי יאמר הלֹא שׂרי יחדו מלכים) is a different message from the LXX, “If they say to him, ‘You are ruler alone.’” (καὶ ἐὰν εἴπωσιν αὐτῷ Σὺ μόνος εἶ ἄρχων).
10:9—The MT is quite different from the LXX:
MT:
הלֹא ככרכמישׁ כלנו אם־לֹא כארפד חמת אם־לֹא כדמשׂק שׁמרון׃
“Is not Calno like Carchemish, or Hamath like Arpad, or Samaria like Damascus?”
LXX:
καὶ ἐρεῖ Οὐκ ἔλαβον τὴν χώραν τὴν ἐπάνω Βαβυλῶνος καὶ Χαλαννη, οὗ ὁ πύργος ᾠκοδομήθη; καὶ ἔλαβον Ἀραβίαν καὶ Δαμασκὸν καὶ Σαμάρειαν
“And he said, ‘Did not they take the upper region of Babylone and Chalanne, where the tower was built?’ And they received Arabia and Damascus and Samaria.”
10:10—The MT is different from the LXX here as well:
MT:
כאשׁר מצאה ידי לממלכת האליל ופסיליהם מירושׁלם ומשׁמרון׃
“Just as my hand found the kingdom of idols and the idols from Jerusalem and Samaria.”
LXX:
“That this way I took in my hand, and all the rulers I will take. Wail, you graven images in Jerusalem and in Samaria.”
10:12—The LXX calls the ruler of Assyria “the great mind” (τὸν νοῦν τὸν μέγαν). In the MT YWHH will visit “the great fruit of the heart of the king of Assyria
(על־פרי־גדל לבב מלך־אשׁור). The second idiomatic expression about visiting the height of the glory of his eyes, or the glory of the height of his eyes, is more literal. This makes me wonder whether the idiomatic expression carried better into Greek than the first one.
10:16—Rhythmic ending to the verse: יקד יקד כיקוד אשׁ (“a kindler kindling like the kindle of a fire”). The LXX interprets the plump becoming lean (במשׁמניו רזון) as the honored being dishonored (τιμὴν ἀτιμίαν).
10:17—The MT’s “in one day” (ביום אחד) is given an eschatological feel with the LXX’s “in that day” (τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ).
10:18—MT and LXX have different endings. MT speaks of a sick man melting
(יכלה והיה כמסס נסס). LXX speaks of a man fleeing a burning flame (ὁ φεύγων ἀπὸ φλογὸς καιομένης).
10:20—Both the MT (ביום ההוא) and LXX (ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ) have eschatological sounding statements “in that day”. Of course, this doesn’t mean it has to have an eschatological message, as in the end of the world, but rather end of an epic, end of the era being mentioned. Interestingly, the “household of Jacob” (בית־יעקב) becomes the “saved of Jacob” (οἱ σωθέντες τοῦ Ιακωβ). YHWH (יהוה) = Theos (τὸν θεὸν). “The Holy One of Israel” is a title found in v. 17 and v. 20 (seems thematic).
10:22—The Abrahamic Covenant is echoed here as Israel is said to be as populated as the sand on the seashore (כחול הים), yet all that will return is a remnant. Some soteriological language found here that is used in the NT: σωθήσεται, δικαιοσύνῃ.
10:23—The title “Lord YHWH Sabaoth” (אדני יהוה צבאות) is minimalized into “God” (ὁ θεὸς). The “land” (הארץ) is though of as a place of dwelling (οἰκουμένῃ).
10:24—Exodus echoes here. God’s people, those who dwell in Zion, do not need to fear Assyria who lifts their rod and staff like Egypt did. This time אדני יהוה צבאות is translated κύριος σαβαωθ. The mood changes in the LXX. YHWH says not to fear Assyria, but he says he will bring a stroke upon them (πληγὴν γὰρ ἐγὼ ἐπάγω ἐπὶ σὲ) so that they can “behold the way of Egypt” (τοῦ ἰδεῖν ὁδὸν Αἰγύπτου).
10:25—YHWH plans on shifting his anger toward Assyria in MT. The LXX follows this message (with YHWH striking their “council”, τὴν βουλὴν, ala Ps. 1:1?).
10:26—Again, the title יהוה צבאות appears. The LXX does what it did in v.23, ὁ θεὸς. Interestingly, YHWH’s victory is compared to the slaughter of Midian and the rocks/cliff of Oreb and when YHWH lifted his rod over the sea against Egypt, yet Moses is the one who does this (see my post “Moses and YHWH at the Red Sea”). The LXX departs from this, speaking of the wrath of God being on the way toward Egypt (εἰς τὴν ὁδὸν τὴν κατʼ Αἴγυπτον).
10:27—Again, “in that day” language appears (ביום ההוא/ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ).
__________
See notes on:
the archives near Emmaus 
I’m enjoying these notes. Let me ask a completely unfounded SWAG-ish question please. You said “10:6—The “heathen” nation (בגוי חנף֙) in the MT is the “lawless” nation (εἰς ἔθνος ἄνομον) in the LXX.” I wonder if both reflect the mind of the translators/copyists, i.e., their times and who their intended audiences were. I wonder if the harsher MT might have “heathen” in the sense of not-Jewish since it was written by us, for us, and to define us, while the softer LXX might have “lawless” in the sense of Torah-less since we were essentially offering our Jewishness (proselytizing) to them?
Rick
I don’t think so. In English this may seem a tad less harsh, but that has to do with the use of these words in our language. Remember, the Hebrew word isn’t quite the same as my English translation, and the Hebrew word could have been translated a variety of ways in English, so the connotations were not the same. I think there may be something to seeing pagan identity primarily as people without the Law.
Its easy to get caught up on modern chapter/verse divisions of the modern bible, but recall that [Isaiah 10] is part of a larger prophecy about the to the House of David (that goes roughly from [Isa 7] through to [Isa 12]. [Isaiah 10] is specifically about how arrogant nations would come to punishment as a consequence of their interaction with the House of David. In [Luke 4:18-20] Jesus having hailed from the House of David quotes [Isa 58:6; 61:1-2] but this verse clarifies why Rome was destined to fall as a consequence of Rome’s interaction with Messiah, and the House of Judah (so it reveals the meaning of [Dan 2:35,45].
The context is that God has revealed to Isaiah what would happen to the House of Judah in [Isaiah 1 – Isaiah 6]. Now he’s specifically (and separately) addressing the House of David within the context of what would happen to the House of Judah (eventually moving onto the Babylon cycle in [Isaiah 13])
From [Isa 9:1-3] within this period of great darkness would be great blessings. The House of Judah would grow abundantly and would experience ‘the great light’ [Isa 9:2] also referenced in [Isa 10:17], messianic references to (re)grow the Kingdom of God. This same darkness, we see later in Isaiah [Chpt 13], is the Babylonian cycle consisting of ‘beast’ nations appointed to ‘curse’ Israel (and thus be cursed themselves as a consequence of God’s promise [Gen 12:3][Gen 27:29]). Daniel, in Babylon, wrote [Dan 8] about Media-Persia [vs 20], Greece [vs 21], and Rome [vs 23]. These are the four beast nations [vs 22] Daniel saw.
Interestingly, only Babylon affected the House of Judah [Eza 1:5] directly, who returned to Judea after 70 years [Jer 25:12] at which point the king of Babylon would be punished – however all four would punish the House of Israel; [Isa 10] is saying Assyria would also be punished like Babylon [Isa 10:12]. However Isaiah was also (apparently) seeing a time when Judah and Israel would be reunited (also described by Ezekiel in [Eze 37]), and then (at the destruction of the 4th Kingdom) would Judah, reunited with Israel (as a virgin) flee into the wilderness [Rev 12:6,14].
[Isa 10] is asking the House of David, what would it do [Isa 10:3] during these events (but hide amidst the prisoners [Isa 10:4]). New Testament scholars should immediately recognize the application of this reference as related to Jesus’ first public proclamation about his mission in [Luke 4:18].
As a side note, I have been often accused of having theories about (the House of) Israel and Judah, but like all of the prophets [Isaiah 10:10] also differentiates between the two (Jerusalem was the capital of the Kingdom of Judah, and Samaria was the capital of the Kingdom of Israel [1 Kings 13:32; 16:29]. (It is wide to keep good company – and seek to keep the same company as the prophets; if we don’t follow these 2 separate histories, how can we possibly hope to understand God’s prophecies which are verified by history?)
10:24 – indeed echoes of the Exodus, but is forward looking to the second Exodus so clearly mentioned in [Rev 12:6,14], the same exodus the exiles of the House of Israel were still in [1 Peter 1:1] (also known as the ‘sifting through the nations’).
the House of Israel, those who keep the covenant of Moses at Mt. Sinai are the strangers in Peter 1:1? The second verse then is incongruent or prophetic. Israel most certainly is the repository and beacon but has yet to accept Messiah.
the House of Israel, those who keep the covenant of Moses at Mt. Sinai are the strangers in Peter 1:1? The second verse then is incongruent or prophetic. Israel most certainly is the repository and beacon but has yet to accept Messiah.
bobdemy – incongruent? Hardly. Have you read much of Isaiah? Have you read [Isa 5:13]? I know of no other ‘elect (ἐκλεκτοῖς) exiles (παρεπίδημος)’ who were deposited in Greece by the Assyrian Empire (and where prophecies to do so).
[ESV 1 Peter 1:1] “To those who are elect exiles of *xathe dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia ..
I also assume you’ve done your homework and know the Greeks who lived in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia where not considered by the Greeks to be Greeks; they were assumed to be Assyrian (though they spoke Greek)?
I also assume you’ve read Daniel 8 which indicates the cycle of nations that the House of Israel would sift through (including Assyria, Greece, Rome)? Why then do you think incongruent with prophecy? (Either you don’t know history, or you don’t know prophecy ..)
The people Israel have not accepted Messiah and thus the dilemma was necessarily more acute in those early years for those of Israel who became Christians. The bible identifies Israel whereas the body of Christ is comprised of whosever will. History strains to order writers and locations for New Testament texts yet one may comfortably conclude 1Peter addresses churches established through the journeys of Paul. Members of those churches were few and strangers to the other inhabitants within the area of their residence. Prophecy attests to the true author of the book of human being that is the bible. The purpose for this world, the glory of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus. Israel is the repository and the vehicle chosen to prove the pronouncements of our Creator.
Bob, if its true Israelites did not come to faith in Christ, it makes liars of many, including Christ himself. I believe you’re simply assuming this to be true without having thought about it, and without having made an effort to see what the bible says about ..
Recognizing that while many Pharisees may not have come to faith in Christ, that doesn’t mean Israelites didn’t. (Who said all Pharisees were Israelites anyway? Many could have been Edomites).
What’s the bible say?
The OT prophets saw Israelites coming to faith in the Messiah [Hos 3:5][Isa 4:2][Jer 23:5]. It’s hard to argue with “He who scattered Israel will gather him, and will keep him as a shepherd keeps his flock.” [Jer 31:10], or:
[Micah 2:12] “I shall surely assemble all of you, O Jacob;
I shall gather the remnant of Israel;
I shall set them together
like sheep in a fold,
like a flock in its pasture,
a noisy multitude of men.”
Jesus saw Himself as fulfilling this role [Matt 15:24], and sent his disciples for this purpose [Matt 10:6].
Jesus predicted his own would receive him [John 10:3,27] referring his Israel flock ([Jer 23:2; 31:10][Amos 7:15])
Paul wrote to fellow Israelites, calling them brothers (using a word in Greek that only applied to kin & kith (ἀδελφός) [Rom 1:13][Rom 7:1,4][Rom 8:12][1 Cor 1:10] etc and constantly pointed out their common forefather Abraham [Rom 4:1,12]. He also showed clearly that those who followed Christ were Abraham’s offspring [Gal 3:29] as the OT prophets said they would be ([Jer 31:31][Heb 8:8]).
For me to claim Peter saw the elect exiles as Israelites all fits with OT prophets, Jesus own view of his proclaimed mission, and the views of Paul, which is why Peter goes on to cite Isaiah’s prophecy of Zion in vs 24-25 [Isa 40:6-8].
For your view to be correct, the OT prophets who saw Israel coming to faith would have to have been wrong, it would have had to be true Christ’s sheep didn’t hear this voice, and the apostles and Paul to have been mistaken. If that isn’t enough, if those dispersed in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia were indeed Greeks (rather than transplanted Assyrians), that makes Herodotus wrong about the Third Satrapy and the Leuco-Syrians.
As romantic as the idea is that God’s sheep have not yet heard His voice – it just does too much damage to Greek history, OT prophecy, the Word of Christ and his apostles for it to be a valid theology. (I’d rather go with the evidence than nice unfounded notions).
Most definitely there were sons and daughters of Israel who accepted Messiah, Jesus, Acts 2:41 for example. These believers are scant sparks attesting to the prophecies that will be fulfilled in a conflagration of joy when Israel recognizes and accepts Messiah. Mat 23:37. Luk 13:34, John 4:22-26, Rom 8:3, Gal 3:16-29
Israel is our Creator’s perspective of human being. Israel has yet to endure incredible suffering before they realize and accept their Messiah, Savior and God.
I’m glad you agree Israelites came to faith in their shepherd. Nearly all who the bible records as having found faith in Christ first were Judeans (or Israelites such as Benjaminites) so the evidence ‘His sheep heard his voice’ is overwhelming.
With respect to your comment ‘Israel is our Creator’s perspective of human being. Israel has yet to endure incredible suffering before they realize and accept their Messiah, Savior and God.‘ – I hope you recognize that this is un-biblical man-thinking. It is a form of replacement theology that denies Israel’s role a God’s bride. Here’s what the bible says:
Thus says YHWH, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— YHWH of hosts is his name: ‘If this fixed order departs from before me, declares YHWH, then shall the offspring of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever.’ Thus says YHWH: ‘If the heavens above can be measured,
and the foundations of the earth below can be explored, then I shall cast off all the offspring of Israel for all that they have done, declares YHWH.’ [Jer 31:35-37]
Forever is a very long time, and the ocean waves still roar, and the heaven’s haven’t yet been measured – and this clearly is not figurative. Also read [Psalm 147:20] which says:
“He has not dealt thus with any other nation …”. The idea of a ‘spiritual Israel’ is a counterfeit idea to make biblical passages fit a particular theology.
Here’s the rub though .. ‘you don’t get such a relationship with God by ignoring or rejecting Him. Logically this suggests 2 possibilities, either Israel doesn’t have a relationship with their shepherd (making Jeremiah and the writer of Psalm 147) liars, or Israel does have a relationship with God (because they didn’t reject Him when he came to them).
As difficult as it is, I go with the latter, because that is the way the evidence points. It takes moral courage (and strength) to have the ‘theology suit the evidence’, rather than to have the ‘evidence suit the theology’.
Rom 9:6 Israel will be before The Lord forever as promised to the fathers and recognized in prophecy. The promise is what remains to be realized.
Clearly I appreciate you citing [Rom 9:6].
The question is how do you understand it? I hope you recognize Paul is using to point out that people are CUT off due to non belief? Read the very next line:
“.. not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but ‘Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.’”
What does that mean? It means Isaac (as Abraham’s seed) inherited the Abrahamic promise; he was not cut off because of unbelief! The context here is that Ishmael was also Abraham’s seed, but did not inherit the promise made to Abraham though by blood, he had every right. Lack of Abrahamic faith by Ishmael cut him off.
This is not an argument against God’s promise to bless the seed of Abraham. It is an argument that God made this promise to all of his seed. Faith alone differentiated which ‘seed’ continued on in the promise, and which did.
You’re making it out as though [Rom 9:6] is voiding God’s promise to Abraham seed. That would be taking this verse completely out of context (I assume you recognize Isaac as the ‘child of the spirit’, and Ishmael as the ‘child of the flesh’ in [Rom 9:8] since Paul points out in the next verse the ‘child of the spirit’ came from Abrahams proper wife, while the ‘child of the flesh’ came from his slave).
If you doubt this, look at the argument about Jacob and Esau. Both were blood sons of Isaac. By your theory [Rom 9:6] is taking their covenant promise away giving it to non-Hebrews. Again the point is both could have inherited the Abrhamic promise by Issac (rightful heir) but Jacob, not Esau did.
[Rom 9:6] is speaking about the cutting off of the branches, not the grafting in of the branches.
It is necessary to consider what remains of all the races and nations of this world. There is the Bible, there is Israel. Israel is a type and is a physical entity. The Bible is a parable of humanity where Israel is both figurative and literal.
Num 14:12, Mat 3:9-10, Eze 37:4-6, 1Pe 4:6
Humans, all subject to death have a physical perspective. Our short lifetime narrows our focus to a personal journey. Short lives are more concerned with details than with whole or eternal considerations. This is the condition of this world for those who die.
Jhn 8:23, 18:36, Luk 12:30-32, Hbr 2:14-15, 1Pe 4:1-6, 1Cr 12:12-13
Prophecy has an understanding. Look to the 38th and 39th verse of Mat 23 and the 35th verse of Luke 13.
Rev 19:10, Mat 23:37-39. Luk 13:34-35
Why is it necessary? Because you don’t like that God elected Israel to be His servant? You’re twisting what the bible says to suit a theology you prefer. You keep asserting Israel is a ‘type’, but you have no biblical grounds for that assertion. It’s just a nice theology that’s been invented because people don’t accept God’s election. It not only imposes on the text what meaning feels nice to the reader, but it fails to take seriously what the bible actually says by obfuscating what is otherwise clear. It twists truth.
For example, Paul says “For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises.” [Rom 9:3-4]
If Israel is both actual thing and a type here? Is Paul meaning what he is saying or is he speaking in a double entendra, introducing a ‘spiritual Israel’? You would say ‘yes’. I’d say that’s bunk. If one believes the bible is true, one takes it’s words at face value. For God who is without shade or variation to say ‘He has dealt thusly with no other nation’, that means God’s promises and treatment of Israel is unique; no double entendra.
Therefore, God’s promise to Abraham and his seed is not figurative; only by twisting the words and the logic can such Babylonian foolishness be shown (as was attempted by twisting [Rom 9:6] to say something it didn’t). Actually the source of this thinking is Greek Platoism (which sees a world of ‘forms’) which heavily influence early Anti-Semetic church fathers who did everything in their power to de-inherit Israel in there theology.
Nevertheless, it’s unbiblical.
Biblically, God chose a people.
Gen 4:26, Gen 5:22, Gen 6:5-8, 6:22, Gen 7:21-23, Gen 12:1-3, Gen 18:19, Rom 4:3, Rom 4:16, Gal, 3:6, Jam 2:23, Rom 10:11-12, Exd 6:2-9
God made promises, God fed them, God protected them yet the people continue to err.
1Cr 10:11 The protracted evidences, the parable of the Bible is the insufficiency of the flesh. God is faithful, He is patient, His promises are sure for His honor. The critical element is, believe God.
The chosen people Israel are the repository, the time capsule. They have the honor of the physical lineage of the sacrificial lamb, Messiah yet it is the Spirit, not the flesh that is the lesson.
Rom 9:3-4 Paul, a Pharisee of Pharisees acknowledges the blessings of God unto Israel yet the lament is that they are blinded. Paul cannot decide for them. Paul must acknowledge the will of God. Paul proceeds with the Gospel of our Savior and God. Rom 11:25
Please pardon me for not separating verse numbers from my comments in the previous posting.
Biblically, God chose a people.
Gen 4:26, Gen 5:22, Gen 6:5-8, 6:22, Gen 7:21-23, Gen 12:1-3, Gen 18:19, Rom 4:3, Rom 4:16, Gal, 3:6, Jam 2:23, Rom 10:11-12, Exd 6:2-9
God made promises, God fed them, God protected them yet the people continue to err.
1Cr 10:11
The protracted evidences, the parable of the Bible is the insufficiency of the flesh. God is faithful, He is patient, His promises are sure for His honor. The critical element is, believe God.
The chosen people Israel are the repository, the time capsule. They have the honor of the physical lineage of the sacrificial lamb, Messiah yet it is the Spirit, not the flesh that is the lesson.
Rom 9:3-4
Paul, a Pharisee of Pharisees acknowledges the blessings of God unto Israel yet the lament is that they are blinded. Paul cannot decide for them. Paul must acknowledge the will of God. Paul proceeds with the Gospel of our Savior and God.
Rom 11:25