EXEGESIS OF ISAIAH 10:20-23
by
Matthew W. Neal
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for OT 755, Exegesis in Isaiah The Master’s Seminary Sun Valley, California July, 2005
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...... 1
Author ...... 2 Date ...... 3 Unity and Structure ...... 6
EXEGESIS ...... 8
10:20 ...... 8 10:21 ...... 15 10:22 ...... 20 10:23 ...... 24
CONCLUSION ...... 26
APPENDIX 1 – ASSYRIA IN THE LAST HALF OF THE EIGHTH CENTURY B. C...... 28
APPENDIX 2 – ADDITIONAL STRUCTURAL OBSERVATIONS ON ISAIAH 10:5-34 ..... 29
APPENDIX 3 – TRANSLATION AND OUTLINE OF ISAIAH 10:20-23 ...... 30
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 31
INTRODUCTION
In my third campaign I went against the Hittite-land. . . . I seated on the royal throne . . . I imposed upon him . . . I tore away . . . I set over the people . . . I imposed upon him . . . I besieged, I conquered, I carried off their spoil. . . . I fought with them and brought about their defeat. . . . I besieged, I captured and took away their spoil. . . .I drew near . . . I brought out of Jerusalem, I set him on the royal throne . . . I besieged and took . . . I brought away from them . . . [Hezekiah] I shut up in Jerusalem . . . Earthworks I threw up against him . . . I cut off from his land . . . I gave them . . . I diminished his land. 1
These are the words of Sennacherib, king of Assyria, recounting his campaign against Syria-
Palestine near the end of the eighth century B.C. It is not difficult to detect a thread of arrogance
running through this description. In fact, knowledge of his arrogance is not limited to those
reading his annals, for Isaiah, son of Amoz, a contemporary of Sennacherib, spoke of “the
arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his hauhtiness” (Isa 10:12). 2
God had used this wicked king to discipline his own covenant people who were themselves guilty of treachery (10:5-6). Yet, because he did honor God in this task but rather took glory for himself (10:7-11, 13-14), God would chastise him as well (10:12, 15-19). The result would be a bleak picture: Both the people of God and their enemies devastated in judgment. No one would be standing on that day. Out of this devastation, though, the people of
God would arise, few in number, but strong in faith. The reality (and hope) of but a small
remnant being saved from God’s judgment via Assyria is the theme of Isaiah 10:20-23.
1 Daniel David Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia , 2 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1927), 119-20.
2 Unless indicated otherwise, all biblical quotations in English are from the NAS.
1
2
Author
Who is the author of Isaiah 10:20-23? For many, it is certainly not Isaiah, son of Amoz. 3
Several reasons are given for this belief, none of which are strong: (1) The phrase aWhh; ~AYB; hy"h'w> betrays a later hand. 4 (2) Isaiah uses the name bWvy" ra"v. only negatively, whereas the author of
10:20-23 gives it a positive connotation. 5 (3) laer"f.yI vAdq. is always used independently by Isaiah,
never merely as an epithet. 6 (4) Isaiah does not allow “fine poems to dribble out in prose
conclusions.” 7 (5) Terms from Isaiah are reused but given different meanings. 8 Several other
reasons have been given, but the scope of this paper does not allow for more to be discussed.
3 Robert P. Carroll, “Inner Tradition Shifts in Meaning in Isaiah 1-11,” ET 89 (1978): 302; R. E. Clements, Isaiah 1-39 , New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1980), 114-15; George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah: I-XXVII , International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1912), 203; Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 1 – 12: A Commentary , translated by Thomas H. Trapp (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1991), 435-36.
4 Clements, Isaiah , 115; Wildberger, Isaiah , 436. How unwarranted it seems to the present author to argue that this phrase alone guarantees a redactional addition. See exegesis of Isa 10:20 below for a more reasonable alternative.
5 Wildberger, Isaiah , 436. However, neither of these two assertions is entirely true. On the one hand, the significance of bWvy" ra"v. in Isa 7:3 is inexplicit (further, many commentators note the likelihood of a positive or dual emphasis there). On the other hand, the author of 10:20- 23 certainly brings out the negative connotations of the remnant idea in 10:22-23.
6 Ibid. See Isa 30:15, however. Wildberger’s explanation of this text is unconvincing.
7 Gray, Isaiah , 203. Gerhard F. Hasel, The Remnant (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 1974), 321-22, notes the weakness of this argument.
8 Carroll, “Shifts,” 302; see also Sheldon H. Blank, “The Current Misinterpretation of Isaiah’s She’ar Yashub ,” JBL 67 (1948): 211-15. Yet, the use of wordplay by the prophets is an established practice. Surely this is not a reason to postulate a new author.
3
There are, on the other hand, several positive reasons for viewing Isaiah as the author of
10:20-23. Kissane details some of these in his commentary on the passage. 9 Hasel adds additional reasons in his treatment on the subject.10 Perhaps the strongest argument for Isaianic authorship, however, is the unity and structure of the passage, a point discussed below.
Date
The date to which the prophecy in 10:20-23 corresponds is just as important and just as debated as the authorship of this section. For those who see Isaiah as the author of this section, the date is determined by examining the larger context. 11
One opinion is that the prophecy relates to Sargon II. 12 Such an identification works well in 10:9, for Sargon indeed fought against several of these cities (720, 717 B.C.). However, it is not clear that Sargon ever went to Jerusalem (10:11-12, 24, 33-34). Though he does call himself the “subduer of the land of Judah” at one place, this was likely by tribute, not warfare (713 B.C.).
9 Edward J. Kissane, The Book of Isaiah , 2 vols (Dublin: The Richview Press, 1941), 1:130-31. Kissane gives following: (1) Similarity in form and idea to other Isaianic sections, (2) the familiar Isaianic doctrine of the remnant, and (3) characteristic Isaianic vocabulary.
10 Hasel, Remnant , 331. Hasel includes as characteristically Isaianic features: (1) The pairing together of salvation and judgment, (2) the terminology and movement of thought, (3) the dual emphasis of “remnant,” (4) the historical details of the passage, (5) the emphasis on faith.
11 See Appendix 1 for a table of important dates in this discussion. For those who see a new author in this section, the Josianic (e.g., Clements, Isaiah , 114-15) or post-exilic (e.g., Hans Wildberger, “ rav ,” TLOT , 3:1290-91) eras are postulated.
12 E.g., T. K. Cheyne, The Prophecies of Isaiah . 2 vols. (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, & Co., 1889), 67-69.
4
Another view is given by Hitchcock.13 He links the passage to the preceding context— that of Ahaz and the Syro-Ephraimite coalition—and argues for a date of 734 B.C. Tigleth-
Pileser III is thus the Assyrian mentioned in 10:5-11, and the city list in 10:9 again matches the emperor’s history quite well. However, this proposal fails for the same reason as before:
Tiglath-Pileser III never came against Jerusalem. A further weakness is that 10:11 seems to speak of Samaria’s demise in the past tense,14 yet Samaria was not disturbed by Assyria (other than by paying tribute) until 722 B.C. (or 733 B.C. at the earliest).
The most plausible solution is to view the Assyrian King of Isaiah 10 as Sennacherib.
The besetting weakness of this view is Sennacherib’s lack of connection with the cities of 10:9.15
Scott answers this objection by suggesting that “the conquests of his predecessors are subsumed in those of the latest king.” 16 Yet, the difficulty may not be as significant as it seems, for
Sennacherib’s Rabshakeh attributes at least three of the cities to his master: “Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad? Where are the gods of Sepharvaim? And when have they delivered
Samaria from my hand?” (36:19; cf. 37:13; 2 Kings 18:34).
13 George S. Hitchcock, The First Twelve Chapters of Isaiah: A New Translation and Commentary (London: Burns & Oates, 1912), 144.
14 Contra J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 114.
15 See Trevor Craigen, “The Validity of an Eschatological Assyrian” (unpublished M. Div. thesis, Grace Theological Seminary, 1978), 23.
16 R. B. Y. Scott and G. G. D. Kilpatrick, “The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1-39,” Interpreter’s Bible , 12 vols. (New York: Abingdon Press, 1956), 241.
5
The strength of this view is that Sennacherib fits the prophecy in many other ways (Table
1),17 especially in his being “the first Assyrian king to attack Judah and lay siege to Jerusalem.” 18
Since the prophecy of chapter 10 relates to Judah (see exegesis below), he is the most likely
candidate. The date would thus be some time between 705 - 701 B.C., after Hezekiah’s rebellion
against his dominion but before his incursion into the land of Judah (again, see exegesis below).
Table 1. Sennacherib and Isaiah 10:5-34 19 10:6 Sennacherib claims that he gained lofty amounts of booty and plunder from his campaign in Judah (p. 120) 10:9-11 The Rabshakeh’s speech shows Sennacherib thinks this way (36:18-20) 10:12 Compare wyn"y[e ~Wr (10:12) with ^yn 17 One difficulty not listed in Table 1 is that Isa 36:10 seems to indicate that Sennacherib knew he was commissioned by Yahweh, whereas 10:7 may imply ignorance. On the other hand, chapter 10 may be explained with Paul’s words, “For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God” (Rom 1:21). Another difficulty is the march sequence of 10:28-32, but the scope of this paper does not allow for treating such a difficult problem as that one. 18 William C. Gwaltney, Jr., “Assyrians,” in Peoples of the Old Testament World , edited by Alfred J. Hoerth, Gerald L. Mattingly, and Edwin M. Yamauchi (Cambridge, Eng.: The Lutterworth Press, 1994), 94-95. 19 All parenthetical page references are to Luckenbill, Records . 6 Unity and Structure The structure of Isaiah’s prophecy against Assyria seems quite intentional. Thus, it is surprising that any scholars would postulate a patchwork of pericopes made by multiple authors. The unity that such structuring demonstrates should instead argue for the authorship of the entire section by Isaiah. That individual units may be demarcated in the text does not mean there have been multiple hands involved; rather, it means the writer has clearly expressed his message. 20 The beginning of the prophecy (10:5) is marked with yAh , setting the stage for an oracle of judgment against Assyria. For the next seven verses (5-11), the Lord presents the evidence as to why Assyria should be judged. Verse 12 begins with hy"h'w>, marking the beginning of another section. 21 In this section (12-15), Yahweh interprets the evidence that he has presented. He demonstrates that Sennacherib’s attitude demonstrates arrogance that is totally unfounded. What follows (16-34) is the actual description of judgment: Yahweh has shown the facts, explained the facts, and is ready to give His response to the facts. And, as Table 2 demonstrates, His response to the facts again shows intentional structuring. 22 20 As the following discussion will demonstrate, the features which help conservative scholars outline the text often serve as the evidence that more critical scholars use to dissect the text. 21 There is near unanimity among critical scholars that verse 12 is not original. This is primarily because it is a prose line in the midst of poetry (5-11, 13-19). Yet, the switch to prose, like the introductory element hy"h'w>, demonstrates that a new section is beginning (see v. 20 where another new section begins with hy"h'w> and a switch to prose, although this will not impress critical scholars, since they see 10:20ff as an addition as well!). 22 Cf. Motyer, Isaiah , 115. Hitchcock, Isaiah , 142-66, also seems to recognize this arrangement of the text but does not detail what causes him to divide the text as he does. 7 Table 2. Structure of Isaiah 10:16-34 Section Begins With Deals With Message 16-19 !kel' Assyria Assyria’s glory and power will be brought low 20-23 aWhh; ~AYB; hy"h'w> Judah God will not destroy completely, but there will be a tremendous destruction 24-26 !kel' Judah Don’t fear! There will be a tremendous destruction, But God will not destroy completely 27-34 aWhh; ~AYB; hy"h'w> Assyria Assyria’s glory and power will be brought low To bolster the case for this outline and to demonstrate how such observations might help in exegesis, note also Isaiah’s references to Yahweh: tAab'c. hw"hy> (A 1 below) occurs in 16, 23, 24, 26, and 33, and laer"f.yI vAdq. occurs in 20 (A2 below). Other debated references include laer"f.yI-rAa and AvAdq.W in 17 (B1 below), rABGI lae in 21 (B2 below), and ryDIa; in 34 (B3 below). Putting these on a diagram which shows the “seams” of the above units is revealing: A1 B1 A2 B2 A1 A1 A1 B3 16 19 20 23 24 26 27 34 Note that all but one of the clear references (A) to Yahweh all occur on the “seams.”23 This data not only serves to strengthen the outline presented above, but it may be used to help determine whether the debated references (B) likely refer to Yahweh or not. Thus, an initial guess would be that laer"f.yI-rAa (17), AvAdq.W (17), and rABGI lae (21) 24 would not, though ryDIa; (34) would. 23 Note that verse 33 is possibly another seam in the structure, though. For more details, see Appendix B, item #3. 24 See the exegesis on Isaiah 10:21 below for the conclusion concerning whether or not this phrase is a reference to Yahweh. 8 EXEGESIS In Isaiah 1-39, Yahweh is presenting the case for Judah to trust in Him. Chapter 10 fits within the so-called “Book of Immanuel (7-12)” and prophesies in further detail the king of Assyria’s incursion into Immanuel’s land (8:8). 25 Judah has been warned of this invasion; it appears now that it is on the way! Thus, 10:5-11 pictures the king as on his way to Jerusalem. 10:12-15 demonstrates God’s view of his proud march. Then, 10:16-34 outlines what the result of his incursion would be. According to 10:16-19, it would eventually result in the decimation of much of Assyria’s force and the humiliation of her glory. But, what would be the result for Judah? This question is answered by Isaiah 10:20-23. 10:20 aWhªh; ~AYæB; Ÿhy"åh'w>. This is an extremely important phrase. With this phrase, the prophet accomplishes several things: (1) He demonstrates that a new unit is beginning (see above). (2) He establishes the temporal setting of the new unit. 26 This much is clear. However, what is not immediately clear perhaps is what time frame is being set by the author. In what day? 25 Note that Isaiah 8:8 says that “the strong and abundant waters of the Euphrates” (v. 7) would “sweep on into Judah” and “overflow ( @j:v') and pass through.” Similarly, the destruction prophesied in 10:22 is “overflowing ( @jEAv ) with righteousness.” The spreading out of wings and filling the breadth of the land speaks of Sennacherib’s success throughout much of Judah (10:22- 23); the reaching to the neck speaks of Sennacherib’s coming all the way to Jerusalem but going no farther (10:20-21). 26 G. W. Grogan, “Isaiah,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Corporation, 1986), 39, asserts that the phrase is used as the “OT technical term for the Day of the Lord.” However, this seems to invest too much meaning into the term. Rather, the phrase serves to set a given event in the time frame (whether synchronic or subsequent) of a 9 Some consider the day to be the time of Christ’s coming. Alexander mentions this view and gives several supports. 27 Another view considers the “day” as the far future “last day,” when the ultimate Immanuel brings an end to hostile powers and saves the remnant of His followers. 28 Yet, both of these views fail to consider what is most important in the formula Ÿhy"åh'w> aWhªh; ~AYæB;, the time frame of the previous event. In this case, it is the humiliation and decimation of the king of Assyria (15-19) after he has come to Jerusalem (5-12). Thus, “that day” must primarily speak of the time of Sennacherib’s army’s defeat outside Jerusalem in 701 B.C.29 bqoê[]y:bqoê[]y:----tyBe(tyBe( tj;äylep.W ‘laer"f.yI ra"Üv.. ra"v. is undoubtedly the key word in Isaiah 10:20-23. It is repeated four times in the four verses. The word essentially means “that which is left over” or “remainder.” Whether what is left be great or small in comparison to the original is not required by the term, though the OT consistently uses it to refer to a small portion. 30 previous one (cf. Craigen, “Eschatological Assyrian,” 52-54). “It is not to be interpreted in an eschatological sense; it seeks to do no more than date this message to the same time as the preceding section” (Wildberger, Isaiah , 436). Though the latter is indeed true, it is possible that the prophecy of Isaiah will indeed take an eschatological sense as well. See footnote 29. 27 Joseph Addison Alexander, Commentary on Isaiah , 2 vols. in 1 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel, 1992), 236. (1) True reliance upon God is a promise of the new dispensation; (2) the usual setting of “that day” is the Messianic era; (3) Israel did continue to rely on foreign aid throughout OT history; (4) Paul references vv. 22-23 and ties it to the first century. 28 Craigen, “Eschatological Assyrian,” 61, 68. This view obviously accords well with a Messianic interpretation of Isaiah 7:14. 29 Exegesis will demonstrate, however, that the prophetical nature of this passage causes its perspective at times to go beyond the historical setting alone and speak of a future age as well. 30 E. W. Heaton, “The Root rav and the Doctrine of the Remnant,” JTS ns 3 (Apr 1952): 28. 10 Interestingly, verse 20 is not the first use of the word in Isaiah 10. Rather, just one verse earlier, Assyria’s decimation is described thus: “And the rest [ra"v.W ] of the trees of his forest will be so small in number that a child could write them down” (10:19). This repetition makes for a smooth transition from Assyria’s judgment (10:16-19) to Judah’s judgment (10:20-23). More importantly, though, it appears that Isaiah is making an intentional link back beyond 10:19 to his earlier confrontation with Ahaz and the presentation of his son, bWvy" ra"v.. That this is so is made obvious on two accounts: (1) The verses which follow have the entire phrase bWvy" ra"v., “A remnant will return.” (2) Isaiah bypasses the more common term for remnant, tyrIaev., in favor of the one which matches his son’s name. 31 Isaiah’s pairing of ra"v. with tj;äylep.W demonstrates that what is in view here is a small group which has escaped from judgment. 32 Yet, what group is in view? Though the position of this paper has already been made clear, 33 it is worth interacting with a common view held by several excellent exegetes.34 Proponents of this view argue that Isaiah means to specify members of northern Israel by bqoê[]y:-tyBe( tj;äylep.W ‘laer"f.yI ra"Üv.. Watts warns, “Vv 20-23 expressly speak of 31 Ibid., 36. 32 Craigen, “Eschatological Assyrian,” 55. 33 Just in case it has not, the view of the present author is that the “remnant” are those followers of Yahweh and Hezekiah in Jerusalem who were spared the wrath of Sennacherib by Yahweh’s divine intervention in 701 B.C. 34 E.g., Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., Handbook on the Prophets (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2002), 42; Clements, Isaiah , 115; Motyer, Isaiah , 117; John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1- 33 , WBC (Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1985), 153. 11 Israel/Jacob, i.e., Northern Israel, while vv 24-27 speak to Jerusalem. Commentators have often created confusion by ignoring this distinction.” 35 The remnant is thus those of the northern kingdom who would “renew their trust in and allegiance to the Lord, their true king.” 36 Different views exist regarding who these escapees had previously “depended on” (![EV'hil.). Some think Syria is here implied, with the Israelite party in view being that of Pekah (who depended on Rezin). Others think Assyria is implied, with Hoshea being in view. 37 There are numerous problems with this view, though. To begin, neither of the two proposed associations work: In the case of the Syrian proposal, one must remember that the one being depended on is also the one who had struck them (WhKem;). Yet, Rezin of Syria was not the one who stuck northern Israel. In the case of the Assyrian proposal, one must admit that Israelite (i.e., northern) dependence on Assyria is certainly not in the context of Isaiah 7-12. Quite the opposite is true, in fact. 38 35 Watts, Isaiah , 153. 36 Chisholm, Jr., Handbook , 42. 37 Hoshea’s relationship to Assyria is described by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., A History of Israel (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998), 363: “Tiglath-Pileser III somehow had the Israelites overthrow Kng Pekah (2 Kings 15:30), with the result that Tiglath- Pileser recognized Hoshea in his stead. According to the Assyrian annals, the people ‘overthrew their king Pekah and I placed Hoshea as king over them.’ Second Kings 15:30 placed the responsibility for that overthrow of Pekah on Hoshea’s head, but it is clear that a pro-Assyrian party was in charge once again.” 38 How the view of the present author succeeds where these two fail will be discussed in the exegesis of the term WhKem; below. 12 A second problem with this view is that it inappropriately assumes that the references laer"f.yI and bqo[]y: must point to the northern kingdom. 39 Yet, this is not the case whatsoever. For instance, Micah uses both of these terms three times in chapter 3 of his prophecy (3:1, 8, 9). Immediately afterwards, he identifies his audience as those who “build Zion with bloodshed And Jerusalem with violent injustice” (3:10). This is obviously speaking of Judahites. Isaiah may use the two terms to speak of northern Israel at times (e.g., 9:8), yet this is not always the case (e.g., 14:1; 27:6; 41:8; etc.). The terms are synonymous references to the patriarch Jacob, the son of Isaac, and thus they are applicable to either the northern or the southern kingdom. One cannot decide who is being spoken of based on the terms alone; rather, one must always examine the context. A final problem with the view that sees the remnant as consisting of those from the northern kingdom is that it ignores the connection between ra"v. in Isaiah 10:20-23 and the name of Isaiah’s son in 7:3. bWvy" ra"v. was a sign to the southern kingdom, not the north. So, when Isaiah declares that bWvy" ra"v. in 10:21, it makes most sense to regard his promise as one in reference to the northern kingdom. 40 39 This assumption is evident in the warning of Watts above (footnote 35). 40 Contra Motyer, Isaiah , 117. Nevertheless, given that Isaiah does at times refer to the nation without distinction using “Israel” and “Jacob,” it is possible that he has in view the desolation of Judah in 701 B.C., but in looking beyond that event, he sees a remnant that consists of those from both the northern and southern kingdoms. After all, Paul doesn’t seem to see a division in the remnant (Rom 9:27-28). 13 WhKe_m;WhKe_m;----l[;l[; ![EßV'hil.. A similar phrase is found in Isaiah 9:13, and thus this serves as yet another reference back into the “Book of Immanuel.” In that earlier case, however, the one who struck was God Himself! In this case, the one who strikes is Assyria. For many, this reference to one striking presents a problem. Wildberger comments, If this comes from Isaiah, who might be the hkm (the one who smote), upon whom Israel had leaned? Duhm points out the problem in this way: ‘Ahaz relied upon Assyria (II Kings 16) but was not attacked; Hezekiah, on the other hand, was attacked, but he did not rely upon Assyria.’41 This is often considered an insurmountable problem for those who see Isaiah 10 as referring to Hezekiah and Sennacherib. Some thus abandon the view, while others go to great lengths to explain the dilemma away. 42 Yet, a very simple explanation is available: If the verse is viewed along national lines instead of individual ones, no dilemma exists. 43 The dependence which is in view is thus Ahaz’s alliance with Assyria during the crisis of the Syro-Ephraimite war (2 Kgs 16:7). The striking which is in view is Sennacherib’s devastation of Judah before surrounding Jerusalem in 701 B.C. After God’s miraculous deliverance, the remnant of Judah (Hezekiah and his followers) would not continue to depend on Assyria as their predecessors had done. 41 Wildberger, Isaiah , 435. 42 Gray, Isaiah , 203, for instance, finds it necessary to postulate an error in the text in order to solve the dilemma: The writer is “oblivious of the chronology of Isaiah’s age.” 43 E.g., Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah , NICOT (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1965), 369: “[The] genius of the Mesopotamian power, not any particular ruler, is one that would afflict the people of God.” 14 ![;ªv.nIw>. Based on the context and flow of thought, it is apparent that the conjunction here should be given an adversative nuance. They won’t continue to depend on him who struck them; rather , they will depend on Yahweh. 44 laeÞr"f.yI vAdïq.. Isaiah loves to refer to Yahweh in this way. 45 According to Chisholm, the term emphasizes Yahweh’s sovereignty. 46 God’s holiness can be seen in the present context in comparison to the “holy one of Assyria,” Sennacherib. 47 Sennacherib may exalt himself above God (10:13-14), yet in reality God’s holiness means He is separate from humanity and above it, in the same way that a workman is separate from his tools and above it (10:15). Similarly, Sennacherib strikes Judah out of pride and sordid gain (10:7), but Yahweh’s holiness means that when He strikes His people (cf. 9:13), He does it for their good (10:20-21; cf. 1:25-28). tm,(a/B,. The akward position of this prepositional phrase at the very end of the sentence has caused some to excise it. Yet, it is likely in this position for emphasis. 48 The idea is that the remnant will depend on God with sincerity and consistency. The present writer wonders if a 44 Alexander, Isaiah , 236. 45 Of the twenty-two times Yahweh is referred to in this manner, nineteen are from Isaiah’s prophecy. Importantly, the uses are spread out between 1-39 and 40-66. This is a strong argument for the overall unity of the prophecy as a whole, especially since almost no other biblical writers uses the eponym at all. 46 Chisholm, Handbook , 42. 47 Though Sennacherib does not refer to himself in these exact terms, note that he does call himself by similar titles. See Luckenbill, Records , 115. 48 Wildberger, Isaiah , 434. 15 play on Isaiah 7:12 is being made. There, Ahaz feigned dependence on Yahweh when in reality he was determined to call to Assyria for help. 10:21 bWvßy" ra"ïv.. As mentioned, ra"ïv. is the key word in this passage. It is used four times in just four verses. ra"ïv. is used in two different ways: In laer"f.yI ra"v. (20) and bqo[]y: ra"v. (21), the issue is identification. It answers the question, who is the group that remains? In bWvßy" ra"ïv. (21, 22), the issue is action. It answers the question, what does the group that remains do? bWvßy" ra"ïv. is thus an important key for the passage: It highlights the key positive message of the prophecy, there will be a return! 49 bWvßy" ra"ïv. is significant for another reason already mentioned. Namely, it harkens the reader back to Isaiah 7, where Isaiah confronted Ahaz along with his son, bWvßy" ra"ïv.. Commentators frequently take time at this point to try and unlock the mystery of that son’s name. In chapter 7, no explanation is given for his name, nor for why Isaiah takes him along to meet Ahaz. Yet in the present context, more data is available for determining what is in view with the name. So, what is meant by his name? Some exegetes argue that the name was entirely negative in chapter 7 but that by chapter 10 it has come to be used in a negative light (see v. 22). 50 Others consider it to have been both 49 See below regarding what this “return” signifies. 50 E.g., Carroll, “Shifts,” 301. Carroll argues for an new author in chapter 10 based on this change. 16 positive and negative in chapter 7, 51 while others say it would be one or the other based on Ahaz’s choice. 52 Certainly in chapter 10 it is hard to argue that the phrase is either entirely negative or entirely positive. On the one hand, it stands in contrast to the negative assessment of Assyria’s remains in v. 19, and thus a positive connotation is defensible.53 On the other hand, 10:22-23 seems to be focusing on the idea of the diminutiveness of those that remain, and thus a negative connation seems to exist. 54 Because of this duality, and because the idea of salvation through discipline is so strong in Isaiah, it seems best to consider the name bWvßy" ra"ïv. as having both positive and negative connotations inherent within it. 55 51 E.g., John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1 – 39 , NICOT (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1986), 199. 52 Otto Kaiser, Isaiah 1-12: A Commentary , OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 91. 53 See also the clearly positive use in Isa 37:32. 54 The emphatic place of “remnant” in the phrase bWvßy" ra"ïv. also demonstrates that the small size of the remnant is being highlighted. Cf. Oswalt, Isaiah , NICOT, 199; Wildberger, Isaiah , 437. 55 Oswalt, Isaiah , NICOT, 199, does a good job of defending this view. Chisholm, Handbook , 42, has an unique and novel view concerning how bWvßy" ra"ïv. could have been a positive sign to Ahaz: Whereas most commentators see it as a promise to him that there would be survivors left in his warfare with Syria and Ephraim (e.g., Oswalt), Chisholm suggests that ra"ïv.. bWvßy" would have meant to Ahaz that only a few of his enemies would return if he would only trust in the Lord. 17 bWvßy". A brief comment should be made regarding the action of the remnant. What does it mean for them to “return?” 56 Those who see the remnant as being made up of northern Israelites give the term its common connotation of physically returning: That is, a small group of northern Israelites who have endured the wrath of Assyria will return back to Judah and to Yahweh. 57 Another possibility is to detach the returning from a specific event: Alexander writes, It really means those who should survived God’s judgments threatened in this prophecy, not merely the Assyrian invasion or the Babylonish exile, but the whole series of remarkable events, by which the history of the chosen people would be marked, including the destruction and dispersion of the nations by the romans. . . . The return here spoken of is one that was to take place at various times and in various circumstances. 58 While this view is perhaps helpful in explaining how Paul uses Isaiah 10:20-23 in Romans 9:27- 28 (see below), it is not helpful in that it doesn’t sufficiently attach itself to the local context. The “returning” spoke of in the name bWvßy" ra"ïv. should be viewed in opposition to the dependence on Assryia in 10:20. It is a repentance in which a person comes back to trust fully in Yahweh after relying previously on other people. 59 It is parallel in the present context to depending truly on Yahweh (see Appendix 3, Outline). Judah had forsaken Yahweh by 56 Interestingly, the LXX translates it differently within the two verses: In verse 21 it is translated with e;stai , whereas in verse 22 it is translated with swqh,setai . 57 So Chisholm, Handbook , 42-43. Note that some emphasize the spiritual emphasis at the same time: It will be return in repentance: Motyer, Isaiah , 117; Watts, Isaiah , 154. 58 Alexander, Isaiah , 236-37. 59 A good example of the opposite (though bWv is not used here) would be Israel’s request for a king in 1 Sam 8. A good example which is closely parallel is Hosea 3:5, where northern Israel is seen as returning ( Wbvuy") to Yahweh and “David their king.” 18 consorting with other world powers (i.e., Assyria). God would discipline her for this severely, yet a remnant would survive, and that remnant would “come back” in faithfulness to Yahweh. rAB*GI laeÞ. This is an extremely important phrase which in 9:5 speaks of the future, just ruler who will deliver Israel from her enemies. It is well known that many scholars reject the traditional rendering of “mighty God” since the person pictured in chapter 9 is obviously a human ruler. 60 In this chapter, though, it is not clear whether the phrase refers back to that ruler 61 or rather to Yahweh. 62 Chisholm argues that the Davidic king is not in the context of chapter 10. 63 However, this is not a valid argument, for the Davidic king is in the context simply because of the position of Isaiah 10 in between Isaiah 9 and 11. Further, it is the Davidic king to whom the people must 60 In this paper, the focus will not be on the appropriate translation. This is something that would normally come in a commentary in 9:5-6, not 10:20-23. Instead, this section will focus on whether it is Yahweh or the Davidic ruler who is in focus here as the one to whom the remnant returns. For further information on the appropriate translation, see John D. Davis, “The Child Whose Name is Wonderful,” in Biblical and Theological Studies (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912), 91-108; S. J. McClellan, “‘El Gibbor,’” CBQ 6/3 (July 1944): 276-88; Moyter, Isaiah , 104-5; Franz Delitzsch, Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 1:252-3; Gray, Isaiah , 172-174; Young, Isaiah , 335-338. 61 So Clements, Isaiah , 115; Motyer, Isaiah , 117; Young, Isaiah , 369. 62 So Chisholm, Handbook , 42; Cheyne, Isaiah , 73; Hitchcock, Isaiah , 153; Wildberger, Isaiah , 437. 63 Chisholm, Handbook , 42. 19 turn so that they may no longer rely on Assyria. 64 He is the one who will safely lead the people through the judgment to come. Chisholm also argues that the reference to the “Holy One of Israel” in the previous verse means that rABGI lae is likely a reference to Yahweh, since dual titles for God at times appear paired together in other OT passages. 65 However, as an examination of the structure above revealed, Isaiah’s practice would seem to indicate that a reference to Yahweh in the middle of this prophetical unit would be unlikely. Further, that rABGI lae was used so recently (9:5, to which the present prophecy is connected 66 ) of the Davidic king would also mitigate against the possibility of it being used for Yahweh here. Cheyne maintains that it must speak of Yahweh since it is Yahweh alone who works throughout this passage. 67 However, as the historical outworking of this prophecy revealed (Isa 36-37), Yahweh works through the Davidic king to preserve alive the remnant. This will be true of future groups as well who trust in the ultimate Messianic King. 64 This was true in the historical outworking of 701 B.C. (cf. Isa 37:21), and it will be true of those few who survive future judgments by relying on the Messiah. 65 Ibid. 66 Note, for example, “rod and staff” (9:3; 10:5, 15), “striking” (9:12; 10:20), “burdensome yoke” (9:3, 20:27). Blank, “Current Misinterpretation,” 257. 67 Cheyne, Isaiah , 73. 20 One last argument is given by Wildberger. 68 He contends that such a view does not make proper sense of bWvßy" (“return”), since in this case it would be a turning to the glorious ruler and not a re turning. However, bWv used in the sense of “repent” makes perfect sense in the context of people who had previously relied on someone other than Yahweh and then turned back to His anointed ruler. 10:22 Since all objections to the view that rABGI lae speaks of the Davidic king may be answered, since the structure of Isaiah 10:20-23 argues against a reference to Yahweh, and since there are strong connections between Isaiah 9 and 10, it is best to view rABGI lae as referring to the ultimate Davidic king to come. Such a reference to this ideal ruler in the midst of a historical prophecy involving Hezekiah and Sennacherib has profound implications, especially when one finds Paul quoting 10:22-23 in Romans 9:27-28. What appears to be taking place is that the OT event contemporaneous to Isaiah is taking on proportions in the prophecy that go beyond the scope of the historical event. 69 Thus, while the text has direct reference to 701 B.C. and Sennacherib’s confrontation with Hezekiah, Isaiah, because he is a prophet (cf. Acts 2:30), speaks words which go beyond the historical event and apply to the life and ministry of the Messiah. 70 68 Wildberger, Isaiah , 437. 69 As mentioned, there may also be a hint of this in the phrase bqoê[]y:-tyBe( tj;äylep.W ‘laer"f.yI ra"Üv., for Isaiah often uses “Israel/Jacob” to speak of the nation as a whole and not just the northern or southern kingdom. 70 Unfortunately, the topic of the NT use of the OT is beyond the scope of this paper. 21 ~ai yKiä. These two particles are joined together in order to give the following clause a concessive nuance. 71 The syntax is as follows: A parallel example is thus Amos 5:22:72 “Even though ( ~ai yKiä) you offer up ( Wl[]T;) to Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings, I will not accept them ( hc,_r>a, al{å).” It is likely, however, that the phrase should also be given an adversative sense, not because of the terms themselves, but rather because of the context. Verse 22 seems to introduce the negative aspect of the remnant idea. Yes, a remnant will be spared the judgment of Assyria (20-21). But, that remnant will be diminutive in size (22-23)! 73 Thus, Isaiah 10:22 would be translated: “But though ( ~ai yKiä) your people, O Israel, be ( hy<ùh.yI) like the sand of the sea, only a remnant from within it shall return (bWvåy"). ^ÜM.[;. Alexander understands this to refer to the entire nation without regard to tribal or territorial division. 74 The local context argues against this since it is specifically Hezekiah and Judah who is in view, but the idea of the prophecy broadening out and referring to the future Messianic Age makes this a distinct possibility. After all, it doesn’t seem as though Paul sees any distinctions within Israel as he uses the term. 71 GKC §160a; Gibson §121a. 72 This example is taken from Motyer, Isaiah , 117. 73 Note the possible chiasm in Appendix 2, item #2. 74 Alexander, Isaiah , 237. 22 ‘laer"f.yI‘laer"f.yI. The LXX (and Paul, who follows it) translate this in the genitive case. 75 The genitive is, of course, not a possibility for the MT since a pronominal suffix appears at the end of the previous word. Instead, it appears to be in the vocative case and thus should be rendered, “But though your people, O Israel , be like . . .” ~Y"ëh; lAxåK.. The “sand of the sea” harkens back to the important promise of numerical growth found both within the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen 22:17; 32:12) and the Mosaic Covenant (Lev 26:9). In this case, though, it is not a promise of blessing but rather a warning against the idea that judgment wouldn’t come because of God’s promise. 76 As Grogan explains, The reader has been prepared for this reminder of the promise by the name Jacob in vv. 20-21. The promise, true as it was, could and sometimes did induce complacency (cf. Matt 3:9-10; John 8:33-40), for Satan takes even the Scriptures God gave for man’s blessing and interprets them to serve his purposes of error and damnation (cf. Matt 4:6; 2 Peter 3:15-16). 77 Isaiah, in this sense, seems to anticipate the argument of Paul in Romans 9:27-28. AB+AB+AB+. This is the partitive use of the preposition B..78 Another example of this usage may be found in 2 Kings 9:35 (“they found no more of her [Hb'] than…”). 79 Alexander helps the English student to understand this use when he compares it to the common saying “one in ten.” 80 75 Alexander (Ibid.) states that the LXX puts it in the nominative case and uses it appositionally, but this does not appear to be a correct statement. 76 Oswalt, Isaiah , NICOT, 271. 77 Grogan, “Isaiah,” 84. 78 Blank, “Current Misinterpretation,” 257; Wildberger, Isaiah , 434. 23 hq")d"c. @jEïAv #Wrßx' !AyðL'Ki. The Masoretic accents link the first two words together and the last two words together. In regard to the first two, it appears that the first (!AyðL'Ki)81 is acting as a noun while the second (#Wrßx') is acting as an adjective. A passive participle commonly follows a noun in order to modify it attributively. In this case, the relationship is best brought out by using a relative clause: A destruction which has been decreed. 82 In regard to the second two, it appears that the normally intransitive verb “overflow” (@jEïAv )83 is being used transitively with the second word ( hq")d"c.)84 describing what is flowing over. 85 It would thus be translated, “overflowing with righteousness.” 79 This example was taken from Hitchcock, Isaiah , 156. His example of Zech 11:8 may not be valid, for it is likely a simple use of B. meaning “with.” 80 Alexander, Isaiah , 237. 81 The only other occurrence of this word is found in Deuteronomy 28:65 to describe the exiles whose have a quivering heart, a languishing soul, and !Ayðl.ki eyes. The parallel term hl'Þk' in helps to establish the meaning here as destruction. 82 “A decreed destruction” doesn’t sound quite as good in English. 83 This verb is used of invading armies in general (Dan 11:22) and of Assyria’s army in particular (Isa 8:8; 10:22; 28:2, 15, 17-18; 30:28) (Motyer, Isaiah , 117). Gwaltney, “Assyrians,” 78: “Assyria straddled the upper Tigris and its major tributaries, the Greater (Upper) Zab and the Lesser (Lower) Zab, and was thus at their mercy in flood time.” 84 There is a debate as to whether this term means “vindication/judgment” (so Blank, “Current Misinterpretation,” 187; Clements, Isaiah , 115) or “justice/rightness” (so Gray, Isaiah , 204; Motyer, Isaiah , 117). Gray comments well: “[I]t [the judgment] will give overflowing proof of Yahweh’s righteousness (cp. 1:27 5:16) by working deliverance of the elect, and accomplishing ‘the annihilation already decisively determined’ (28:22), of the wicked, whether Israelite or heathen (cp. 59:15f-21).” 24 One must also determine how all of these go together. So far the pieces are: “A destruction which has been decreed overflowing with righteousness.” Somewhere a verb must be inserted! The final participle could function as the verb: “A destruction which has been decreed will be overflowing (or, will soon overflow) in righteousness.” But, it makes better sense contextually to insert a copula in each of the two pairs, so that this second half of verse 22 explains why only a remnant will be left: “ There will be a destruction which has been decreed; it will be overflowing in righteousness.” This understanding of the clause also fits with the thought of verse 23. 10:23 yKiîyKiîyKiî. The reason why this verse is introduced with yki is not immediately obvious. Motyer suggests, “An initial ‘For’ makes this verse explanatory of the consummation/judgment theme. It comes about not by human will (e.g., the imperialist Assyrian Empire) nor by chance or the mechanical operation of historical forces but by divine decree.”86 Though this is undoubtedly true, this is what was already explained at the end of verse 22. Thus, it seems better to take this use of yki as emphatic:87 “Indeed , there will be a destruction…” 85 This is an example of a normally intransitive verb of fullness or want taking an accusative to specify what is full or lacking. GKC §117z; Davidson, §73R2. 86 Motyer, Isaiah , 117-18. 87 Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), §39.3.4e (hereafter IBHS ). 25 hc'_r"x/n “Indeed, there will be a destruction; it is determined.” 91 hf,Þ[o. Delitzsch is correct in identifying this as an example of future instans ,92 for though the particle hNEïhi is not present (and it doesn’t have to be), several features in the context heighten the feeling of immanency: (1) The emphatic yki at the beginning of the verse; (2) the repeated references to the judgment being determined; (3) the historical situation in which the prophecy was given: Sennacherib’s soon advancement upon Judah and Jerusalem (cf. v. 12). #r happen #r universal one (“throughout the earth”)? One’s first thought is that it is speaking of a local 88 Craigen, “Eschatological Assyrian,” 60; Watts, Isaiah , 152; Young, Isaiah , 370. 89 Waltke and O’Connor, IBHS , 691. 90 One speaks of destruction, one speaks of something being decreed or decided. 91 As another possible prophetic expansion of the local, historical context, note that this phrase is picked up in Daniel 9:27 (cf. 11:36) in the prophecy of the seventy weeks. The same phrase is also used in Isaiah 28:22. 92 F. Delitzsch, Isaiah , translated by James Martin, vol. 7 in Commentary on the Old Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1866; reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.: 2001), 177. 26 judgment. 93 After all, this fits the historical context perfectly: The judgment of Sennacherib took place throughout the land of Judah. Yet, one is reminiscent of other portions of this prophecy which broaden out beyond the scope of the local context and speak concerning a future age. It is possible that this is in affect here as well. 94 A similar phrase ( #r (a section which seems to be speaking of the Messiah’s future reign), and in that case it parallels ~yMiÞ[;b'(.95 Further, it has already been noted that the judgment language itself is picked up in later prophecy, 96 and thus it is possible that the extent of judgment expressed in #r relative to the historical context of the prophecy but has room for a more monumental scope in its prophetical outlook. CONCLUSION After Hezekiah’s revolt against Assyria around 705 B. C., Sennacherib marched from Ninevah to Judah in order to punish his rebellion. The prophecy of Isaiah 10:20-23 was given in response to this movement so that those who trusted in Yahweh might know the extent to which Sennacherib would be successful. The answer: He would be very successful (22-23)! He would bring tremendous destruction. Yet, he would not be completely successful. God would not 93 Wildberger, Isaiah , 438, argues that this is how the phrase is used in 28:22. Arnold Fruchtenbaum, “Israelology: Part 4 of 6,” CTSJ 6/1 (Jan 2000): 52, disagrees. 94 The translators of the Septuagint apparently viewed it this way, for they translated the phrase evn th/| oivkoume,nh| o[lh|. 95 Hitchcock, Isaiah , 155. 96 See footnote 91. 27 allow him to destroy the entire nation (nor the Davidic line!); instead, He would preserve a remnant in Jerusalem so that from that select few one day a multitude could grow (20-21; cf. 37:32). Why did Yahweh want His people to know this? So that they might not fear (24) but rather trust Him for deliverance. This was the importance of Isaiah 10:20-23 for Hezekiah and those who followed him. Yet, the passage at several points seems to have a prophetical outlook that goes beyond the situation at the end of the 8 th century B.C. Paul, at least, finds relevance in the prophecy for the situation in the 1 st century A.D., for he quotes this prophecy in Romans 9:27-28 to explain his present day circumstances. What this means for the present author’s hermeneutical framework is yet to be determined; what it does mean is that some prophecies which clearly have reference to historical events can nevertheless cast a shadow (or full light?) on events yet to come. APPENDIX 1 – ASSYRIA IN THE LAST HALF OF THE EIGHTH CENTURY B. C. 97 745 Tiglath-Pileser III becomes King of Assyria 743 Tiglath-Pileser III subdues Arpad in North Syria Rezin of Damascus, Hiram of Tyre, and Carchemish all pay tribute These cities rebel, however, after Tiglath-Pileser III departs 740 Arpad again falls to Tiglath-Pileser III Syria and north Phoenicia rebel while Tiglath-Pileser III is occupied elsewhere 738 Tiglath-Pileser III’s first time into Syria Calno falls along with 19 districts of Hamath (south of Calno) Rezin of Damascus, Hiram of Tyre, and Menahem of Israel all pay tribute Judah not mentioned as paying tribute Tiglath-Pileser III begins policy of deportation. 735 Syro-Ephramite coalition rebels against Assyria and Judah 734 Tiglath-Pileser III conquers Coastal Plain all the way down to Egypt 733 Tiglath-Pileser III conquers northern Galilee 732 Tiglath-Pileser III conquers Damascus, Rezin slain Ammon, Moab, Edom, Ashkelon, and even Judah all pay tribute 729 Hezekiah begins coregency with Ahaz 727 Tiglath-Pileser III dies, his son, Shalmaneser V, becomes King of Assyria King Elulaeus of Tyre and Hoshea of Israel rebel but are quickly forced to pay tribute Ahaz does not rebel against the new king 724 Hoshea of Israel rebels again, trusting So, king of Egypt 722 Shalmaneser V conquers Samaria but dies shortly after Sargon II (not Shalmaneser’s son!) becomes king of Assyria 720 Sargon II puts down revolt in Levant by Hamath, Arpad, and those remaining in Samaria 717 Sargon II destroys Carchemish 713 Ashdod rebels, along with Judah, Edom, Moab, and Egypt Ashdod, Egypt defeated; Judah, Edom, and Moab quickly pay tribute 705 Sargon II dies, Sennacherib becomes King of Assyria Hezekiah rebels against Assyria 701 Sennacherib conquers much of Judah but is thwarted at Jerusalem 689 [Some scholars posit a second campaign by Sennacherib against Judah] 97 This table was developed using the following sources: Yohanan Aharoni, Michael Avi-Yonah, Anson F. Rainey, and Ze’ev Safrai, The Carta Bible Atlas , 4 th ed (Jerusalem: Carta, 1968); Craigen, “Eschatological Assyrian,” 4-37; Gwaltney, “Assyrians;” 90-97; Hitchcock, Isaiah , 89-91, 144; Kaiser, Jr., A History of Israel , 367-83; Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., “The Promise of Isaiah 7:14 and the Single-Meaning Hermeneutic,” EJ 6 (Fall 1988): 55-70; Kissane, Isaiah , 1:127-31; Edwin Yamauchi, The Stones and the Scriptures (Philadelphia: L. B. Lippincott Company, 1972), 71-83. 28 APPENDIX 2 – ADDITIONAL STRUCTURAL OBSERVATIONS ON ISAIAH 10:5-34 Item #1: Isaiah 10:15-19 appears to be structured as a chiasm: 10:15 – “Is the axe…chops…saw…wields…wood” 10:16a – “…will send a wasting disease among his stout warriors” 10:16b – “And under his glory a fire will be kindled like a burning flame” 10:17 10:18a – “And He will destroy the glory of his forest” 10:18b – “And it will be as when a sick man wastes away.” 10:19 – “And the rest of the trees of his forest…” Some of the links are not incredibly strong, with 15 and 19 being the weakest. It is difficult to know whether to include 15 in this section. In the paper, the section is given as 16-19. But, if you do it this way, 19 hangs off by itself. This may be ok, though, for 19 may be a transition into the remnant of Israel idea (NAS translates rest, but word is “remnant” as in 20-23). Item #2: The structure of the prose 10:20-23 is not near as neat as that of the poetic 10:16-19 (or 15-19). However, it is possible that the prose 10:20-27 is arranged in at least a thematic chiasm. 10:20-21 – Good news: Salvation is coming for the remnant 10:22-23 – Bad news: It is only going to be a small number who is saved! 10:24a – My people, do not be afraid! 10:24b-25a – Bad news: Assyria will strike you because I am angry with you! 10:25b-26 – Good news: I will turn my anger from you to Assyria! Item #3: Footnote 23 suggests that verses 33-34 may be another unit in the structure of Isaiah’s prophecy against Assyria. These verses certainly seem to go well with 27-32, yet there are several indicators which make one wonder if they are rather a separate unit: (1) A reference to Yahweh is found in verse 33 (once again, see footnote 23). (2) The two verses seem like they could introduce chapter 11 (trees are felled, but out of a stump grows…). (3) Verse 32 seems to form an inclusion with verse 12 (see Zion/Jerusalem). What this appears to be is another example in Isaiah where a transitional passage acts as both a conclusion to a previous section and an introduction to the next. 29 APPENDIX 3 – TRANSLATION AND OUTLINE OF ISAIAH 10:20-23 Translation: [20] At that time, the remnant of Israel and the survivors of the house of Jacob will no longer continue to depend on the one who stuck them. Rather, they will depend on Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel—they will truly depend on Him . [21] The remnant will return—the remnant of Jacob will return to the mighty God. [22] But though your people, O Israel, be like the sand of the sea, only a remnant from within it shall return. There will be a destruction which has been decreed, and it will be overflowing in righteous judgment. [23] Indeed, there will be a destruction; it is determined: The Lord, Yahweh of Hosts, is about to do it in the midst of the land. Outline: At that time, the remnant of Israel and the survivors of the house of Jacob will no longer continue to depend on the one who stuck them. Rather, they will depend on Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel they will truly depend on Him The remnant will return the remnant of Jacob will return to the mighty God. But though your people, O Israel, be like the sand of the sea only a remnant from within it shall return There will be a destruction which has been decreed, and it will be overflowing in righteous judgment For there will be a destruction; it is determined. The Lord, Yahweh of hosts Is about to do it in the midst of the land. 30 BIBLIOGRAPHY Aharoni, Yohanan, Michael Avi-Yonah, Anson F. Rainey, and Ze’ev Safrai. The Carta Bible Atlas , 4 th ed. Jerusalem: Carta, 1968. Alexander, Joseph Addison. Commentary on Isaiah . 2 volumes complete in 1. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 1992. Archer, Jr., Gleason L. “Isaiah.” In Wycliffe Bible Commentary . Chicago: Moody Press, 1962. Battle, Jr., John A. “Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9:25-26.” Grace Theological Journal 2/1 (Spring 1981): 115-29. Blank, Sheldon H. “The Current Misinterpretation of Isaiah’s She’ar Yashub .” Journal of Biblical Literature 67 (1948): 211-15. Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 1-39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary . Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Brackett, James Kristian. “Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9-11.” Unpublished Th. M. thesis, The Master’s Seminary, 1998. Carroll, Robert P. “Inner Tradition Shifts in Meaning in Isaiah 1-11.” Expository Times 89 (1978): 301-304. Cheyne, T. K. The Prophecies of Isaiah . 2 vols. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, & Co., 1889. Chisholm, Jr., Robert B. Handbook on the Prophets . Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2002. Christensen, D. L. “The March of Conquest in Isaiah X 27c – 34.” Vetus Testamentum 26/4 (Oct 1976): 385-99. Clements, R. E. Isaiah 1-39 . New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980. ______. “ ra;v'.” In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament . Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry. Translated by Douglas W. Stott, 14:272-86. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2004. Cowley, A. E. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar . Edited by E. Kautzsch. Revised by A. E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910. Craigen, Trevor. “The Validity of an Eschatological Assyrian.” Unpublished M. Div. thesis, Grace Theological Seminary, 1978. 31 32 Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans . 2 Vols. International Critical Commentary. London: T & T Clark 1979. Davidson, A. B. Hebrew Syntax . 3rd edition. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1894. Delitzsch, F. Isaiah . Translated by James Martin. Vol. 7 in Commentary on the Old Testament . Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1866. Reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.: 2001. Friedländer, M. Commentary of Ibn Ezra on Isaiah . New York: Philipp Feldheim, Inc., 1873. Fruchtenbaum, Arnold. “Israelology: Part 4 of 6.” Chafer Theological Seminary Journal 6/1 (Jan 2000): 39-62. Geyer, John B. “2 Kings XVIII 14-16 and the Annals of Sennacherib.” Vetus Testamentum 21/5 (Dec 1971): 604-606. Gibson, J. C. L. Davidson’s Introductory Hebrew Syntax . 4 th edition. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994. Goldingay, John. Isaiah . New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2001. Good, Edwin M. Irony in the Old Testament . Sheffield, Eng.: The Almond Press, 1981. Gray, George Buchanan. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah: I-XXVII . International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1912. Grogan, G. W. “Isaiah.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary . Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Corporation, 1986. Gwaltney, Jr., William C. “Assyrians.” In Peoples of the Old Testament World , edited by Alfred J. Hoerth, Gerald L. Mattingly, and Edwin M. Yamauchi, 77-106. Cambridge, Eng.: The Lutterworth Press, 1994. Hasel, Gerhard F. The Remnant: The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah . Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 1974. Heaton, E. W. “The Root rav and the Doctrine of the Remnant.” Journal of Theological Studies ns 3 (Apr 1952): 27-39. Hitchcock, George S. The First Twelve Chapters of Isaiah: A New Translation and Commentary . London: Burns & Oates, 1912. Jenkins, A. K. “Hezekiah’s Fourteenth Year: A New Interpretation of 2 Kings xviii 13-xix 37.” Vetus Testamentum 26/3 (July 1976): 284-98. 33 Kaiser, Otto. Isaiah 1-12: A Commentary . Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972. Kaiser, Jr., Walter C. A History of Israel . Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998. ______. “The Promise of Isaiah 7:14 and the Single-Meaning Hermeneutic.” Evangelical Journal 6 (Fall 1988): 55-70. Kissane, Edward J. The Book of Isaiah . 2 vols. Dublin: The Richview Press, 1941. Leupold, H. C. Exposition of Isaiah: Volume I: Chapters 1-39 . Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1968. Luckenbill, Daniel David. Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia . 2 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1927. McClellan, S. J. “‘El Gibbor.’” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 6/3 (July 1944): 276-88. Motyer, J. Alec. The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary . Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans . 2 vols. in 1. Grand Rapids, Mich.: 1968. Oswalt, John N. Isaiah . NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2003. ______. The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1 – 39 . New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986. Payne, J. Barton. “The Effect of Sennacherib’s Anticipated Destruction in Isaianic Prophecy.” Westminster Theological Journal 34/1 (Nov 1971): 22-38. Scott, R. B. Y. and G. G. D. Kilpatrick. “The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1-39.” Interpreter’s Bible . 12 vols. New York: Abingdon Press, 1956. Seitz, Christopher R. Isaiah 1-39 . Interpretation. Louisville, Ky.: John Knox Press, 1993. Waltke, Bruce K. and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax . Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Watts, John D. W. Isaiah 1-33 . Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1985. Wildberger, Hans. Isaiah 1 – 12: A Commentary . Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1991. 34 ______. “ rav .” In Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament , 3 vols. Translated by Mark E. Biddle, 3:1284-92. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997. Yamauchi, Edwin. The Stones and the Scriptures . Philadelphia: L. B. Lippincott Company, 1972. Young, Edward J. The Book of Isaiah . New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1965.