A Commentary on Isaiah, Part 10: The Rod of My Anger

A Commentary on Isaiah, Part 10: The Rod of My Anger

In the last presentation of our commentary on Isaiah, titled A Child is Born, we had mainly sought first to rectify the understanding of the phrase “Galilee of the Gentiles”, or correctly, circuit of the nations, in prophecy, and to illustrate the reasons for its dual meaning, since within the greater context and scope of the prophecy of Isaiah it refers to something other than its later colloquial use in reference to the aliens who had come to dwell in and around Galilee during the intertestamental period, among whom portions of the people of ancient Judah who returned from the Babylonian captivity had later settled. It is in that later historical context in which the apostle Matthew had interpreted the passage in reference to Christ, which is appropriate for His time, however the phrase itself must have had another meaning in reference to the tribes of Naphtali and Zebulun, as Isaiah had presented it here.

So in the time of Isaiah, the prophecy at the beginning of chapter 9 could not have applied to the region of Galilee in the short term. That is because in Isaiah chapter 7, it is evident that at this time Pekah is king in Israel, and the prophecies in Isaiah chapters 7 and 8 had promised his removal in a very short time. So in the near vision, which is the immediate fulfillment of those prophecies, we read in 2 Kings chapter 15: “29 In the days of Pekah king of Israel came Tiglathpileser king of Assyria, and took Ijon, and Abelbethmaachah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali, and carried them captive to Assyria. 30 And Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned in his stead, in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziah.” As we have already discussed, in his own inscriptions Tiglathpileser had boasted of having set Hoshea on the throne of Israel himself.

So all of the Israelites of the land of Galilee went into captivity at this time, and therefore there were no Israelites left to receive any light, where the prophet had written “1 Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee [or the circuit] of the nations. 2 The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.” Israel, being taken into captivity, was entering into a long period of darkness which is described in the later chapters of Isaiah, where there are also further promises of this light. Evidently, the light affliction of Zebulun and Naphtali was in their own land, going into Assyrian captivity, but the more grievous affliction was in the way of the sea, and not in Galilee itself.

Yahshua Christ is described as the Light come into the world, in the Gospel of John especially, but also in other ways in the other New Testament scriptures. But the period of Israel’s captivity is a period during which the children of Israel would have no light, as it is summarized in Isaiah chapter 59: “9 Therefore is judgment far from us, neither doth justice overtake us: we wait for light, but behold obscurity; for brightness, but we walk in darkness. 10 We grope for the wall like the blind, and we grope as if we had no eyes: we stumble at noonday as in the night; we are in desolate places as dead men. 11 We roar all like bears, and mourn sore like doves: we look for judgment, but there is none; for salvation, but it is far off from us. 12 For our transgressions are multiplied before thee, and our sins testify against us: for our transgressions are with us; and as for our iniquities, we know them; 13 In transgressing and lying against the LORD, and departing away from our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood.” Following that there are promises of a future redemption from their darkness, and where Isaiah 9:2 is cited in Matthew chapter 4, it is a sign that their redeemer is come, but they were in captivity, and not in Galilee, so we read in verse 20 of that same chapter: “20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.”

So the historical context providing a meaning for the immediate fulfillment of the words in Isaiah chapter 9 verses 1 and 2, is different from the historical context in their application to Christ in the far vision fulfillment of the words, and that is also necessitated since although Christ had preached the gospel in the lands which had belonged to those tribes in the time of the Old Testament kingdom, Naphtali and Zebulun were far removed in captivity when He had done so. Yet the spread of the Gospel had brought the Light of His Words to Israel, wherever they had been in captivity. So even the citation as it was presented in Matthew has a greater fulfillment than that of his own immediate time.

The Light continues to emanate to this very day, wherever the Gospel is preached, and the light urges the people of Israel to repentance, even if the preachers neglect that most important element of His Word. While Christ is still the Light of the world, once He returns to destroy His enemies, as He has promised to do, as the last chapters of His Revelation are fulfilled there shall be no more darkness for the children of Israel, where we read of the city descended from Heaven, in Revelation chapter 22: “5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.”

But as for the Galilee of the time of Christ, not all of the people were of His sheep nor had they heard His voice. First, as it is recorded in Luke chapter 4, the people in the synagogue in Nazareth, in the very town in which He had been raised, had wanted to kill Him after He had preached to them, “29 And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.” Then later, as it is recorded in John chapter 6, the morning after Christ had fed a multitude in the wilderness at some unspecified location on the shores of the Sea of Galilee and He had departed, and the people had sought after Him in Tiberias and Capernaum and John had written that once they had found Him and inquired of Him, that “26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.” Then, after His Bread of Life discourse, we read that “66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” So this by itself could not have been the fulfillment of the Light of Isaiah 9:2, because the people of Galilee did not even see it once Christ had showed it to them.

Secondly, and just as significantly in relation to Christian revelation, in our last presentation we had endeavored to refute all of those commentators who disregard the Messianic significance of Isaiah 9:6 because, as they claim, the words are not found in the Septuagint. To make such a claim is to imagine that jews had changed their own Hebrew texts in favor of Christ being Yahweh in the flesh, something which they have always vehemently denied. However we demonstrated that the words do indeed belong in the Septuagint. They may not be found in the Codex Vaticanus, but where we read that “6… unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace”, the words are found in other ancient Greek manuscripts. In the Codex Alexandrinus, all of those words are present except the word for God, which is probably not a coincidence. But now we shall see that some men in ancient times read the word for God, and merely translated it in a different manner.

However, as we have already demonstrated, in the Codex Sinaiticus all of the words are present in a marginal note. According to the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, in the Introduction on page 48 of the 27th Edition, or on page 59 of the 28th Edition, it is explained that three correctors, or groups of correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus have been distinguished, who had, over the centuries, added the marginal notes which were meant to amend or repair the text in that codex. The first corrector is dated to the period of the 4th to 6th centuries, the second to around the 7th century, and the third to the 12th century. There are two differences in the assessments of these correctors between these two editions of Nestle-Aland. The 28th edition editors claim to be able to recognize more than one hand in each of the first two correctors, whereby it considers them to have been groups and not individual scribes, and it also recognizes some corrections which could not be identified with any particular group. The publications itself offer no further details, for which there are probably articles in academic journals. But it can safely be assumed that the 12th century correctors provided the marginal notes which appear in minuscule script, while the distinctions between the other groups seem to be arbitrary but may have been explained in journals. Most of the marginal notes, including the note for the verse in question here, are written in majuscule script, which is what we would call capital letters, and with no spaces between words. Here I only explain this in order to support the assertion that the marginal note correcting Isaiah 9:6 which is found in that codex establishes the text to have preceded the 7th century, and it was probably much earlier than that. In Greek writing, minuscule script has both capital and small letters, as we also employ in writing in modern times. This system was not developed until the 7th or 8th centuries AD, after the preceding development of New Roman Cursive writing over the prior centuries. Eventually European scribes settled on standard forms of letters, and in the 15th century the system was brought into printing.

While it is further evident in the Latin Vulgate that Jerome’s Hebrew or Aramaic manuscripts support the reading of Isaiah 9:6 as it is found in the Masoretic text, and while the Dead Sea Scrolls also support that reading, most significantly in reference to the Septuagint is the Hexapla of Origen, which we found had also supported that reading, as it is presented in the 1875 edition of Fredericus Field. But one thing I did not discuss are the alternate readings of Aquila of Sinope, Symmachus and Theodotion. All of these had made early translations of Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, and their versions had also been included in the Hexapla. These versions merit some further discussion, because they led me to understand why the word θεός is wanting in the Codex Alexandrinus.

Therefore, to repeat our translation of the text of the Hexapla for Isaiah 9:6 from Origen’s presentation of the Septuagint:

5 ὅτι παιδίον ἐγεννήθη ἡμῖν, υἱὸς καὶ ἐδόθη ἡμῖν, οὗ ἡ ἀρχὴ ἐγενήθη ἐπὶ τοῦ ὤμου αὐτοῦ, καὶ καλεῖται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Μεγάλης βουλῆς ἄγγελος θαυμαστὸς, σύμβουλος, θεὸς ἰσχυρὸς, ἐξουσιαστὴς, ἄρχων εἰρήνης, πατὴρ τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος· ἄξω γὰρ εἰρήνην ἐπὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας, εἰρήνην καὶ ὑγίειαν αὐτῷ.

5 To us a child is born, and to us a son is given, the authority is upon His shoulder, and His name is called Messenger of Great Counsel, Wonderful Advisor, Powerful God, Authority, Prince of Peace, Father of the Coming Age. For I shall bring peace upon the rulers, peace and health to Him.

As we shall discuss later, this passage when compared with the Hebrew has a word, ἐξουσιαστὴς, which is a Primacy or an Authority held by someone, which is not represented in the original language.

Now, from the Hexapla as the passage is attributed to Aquila of Sinope:

5 ὅτι παιδίον ἐγεννήθη ἡμῖν, υἱὸς ἐδόθη ἡμῖν· καὶ ἐγένετο τὸ μέτρον ἐπ᾿ ὤμου αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, θαυμαστὸς σύμβουλος, ἰσχυρὸς δυνατὸς, πατὴρ ἔτι, ἄρχων εἰρήνης.

5 To us a child is born, a son is given to us, the measure is come upon His shoulder, and His name is called Wonderful Advisor, Mighty, Powerful, Father Still, Prince of Peace.

The rendering of πατὴρ ἔτι, which is Father Still, or Still the Father, is quite strange.

Again, from the Hexapla as the passage is attributed to Symmachus:

5 νεανίας γὰρ ἐγεννήθη ἡμῖν, υἱὸς ἐδόθη ἡμῖν· καὶ ἔσται ἡ παιδεία ἐπὶ τοῦ ὤμου αὐτοῦ, καὶ κληθήσεται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, παραδοξασμός, βουλευτικός, ἰσχυρὸς, δυνατὸς, πατὴρ αἰῶνος, ἄρχων εἰρήνης.

5 To us a youth is born, a son is given to us, the instruction shall be upon His shoulder, and His name shall be called Wonderous, Able to Counsel, Mighty, Powerful, Father of the Age, Prince of Peace.

Finally, from the Hexapla as the passage is attributed to Theodotion, where only a minor difference is provided in the reading from the end of the verse:

5 … θαυμαστὸς, βουλεύων, ἰσχυρὸς δυνατὸς, πατὴρ αἰῶνος, ἄρχων εἰρήνης.

5 … Wonderful, Counsellor. Mighty Powerful, Father of the Age, Prince of Peace.

In all three of these versions, those of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, the Hebrew word אל or el (# 410), which is a god and which was often used to refer to either idols or to Yahweh God, is represented by the word δυνατὸς which in Greek is an adjective meaning to have power or to be mighty. However in the Codex Alexandrinus, the Greek word filling that same place is ἐξουσιαστὴς, which is a mighty one or one who has or holds authority. The Hebrew word אל or el may indeed be used in this manner in certain contexts, and not only of people but also of objects. For example, it is great in the phrase great mountains found in Psalm 36:6, where the alternative translation mountains of God does not fit the context, although that is the reading found in the Septuagint. Then it is goodly in the phrase goodly cedars found in Psalm 80:11, where the Septuagint has cedars of God. In other contexts, the word אל or el was used to describe men of rank or power, and should also sometimes be translated as judge, as the plural form was translated in the King James Version in 1 Samuel 2:25.

But to complicate matters, Origen’s presentation of the Septuagint and the correction from the margin of the Codex Sinaiticus have a word for God, θεὸς and the word ἐξουσιαστὴς, where it was possible that the same Hebrew word אל or el may have been translated twice, since there is no corresponding word in the Hebrew of the Masoretic Text for both θεὸς and ἐξουσιαστὴς. So if we sought to rectify the Septuagint of Origen’s time, or the correction in the Codex Sinaiticus, we would drop ἐξουσιαστὴς, and not θεὸς, because the passage certainly is speaking of God. However this has always been a point of contention with jews.

Aquila of Sinope had lived in the early 2nd century AD. Both Symmachus and Theodotion had lived in the late 2nd century AD. They were all Judaeans, or jews, although Symmachus may have been either an Ebionite Christian, which was a Judaean convert to Christianity, or a Samaritan who converted to Judaism. The first situation was explained by Eusebius and Jerome, and the second, which seems more plausible, by Epiphanius of Salamis, a 4th century Christian bishop and writer. The Ebionites were a Christian sect with jewish influences who had evidently denied the divinity of Christ. But if Symmachus was a Samaritan, then he was a contemporary of another noted Samaritan, Justin Martyr, and either way it is highly probably that he also suffered the influences of Judaism on his theology. So it does not surprise us that any of these men would understand the text of Isaiah 9:6 in a manner which is contrary to the understanding of Christians. Having such jewish influences, or being jews themselves, as all three of them very likely had been, they would be expected to read Isaiah 9:6 in the manner in which they had.

However other certain indicators assure us that this is indeed a messianic prophecy. Only Yahweh God Himself can be the Father of eternity, or the Father of an entire age, as most of these texts read. As Yahweh Himself had said in Deuteronomy chapter 32, “40 For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever.” Quite oddly, in Aquila’s copy it reads πατὴρ ἔτι, which is father still or still the father, and that makes no sense unless it describes a father who had always been the Father. Furthermore, only Yahweh God Himself can be the Prince of Peace, as He had professed in Isaiah chapter 45: “7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” Then in Isaiah chapter 57: “19 I create the fruit of the lips; Peace, peace to him that is far off, and to him that is near, saith the LORD; and I will heal him. 20 But the wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt. 21 There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.” So only God Himself has power over peace, and He distributes it to whomever He chooses.

In that context, it is certain beyond doubt that the Hebrew words אל גבור or el gibowr (#’s 410, 1368) are correctly translated as Mighty God, and that they were translated correctly as θεὸς ἰσχυρὸς, which may also be rendered as Mighty God, in the oldest Greek copy of the Septuagint which we have available today, that of the Hexapla of Origen, and also in the marginal correction to the Codex Sinaiticus. However, as we have already explained, the word ἐξουσιαστὴς, or Authority, in the same early Greek texts seems to have been a duplicate reading of the word for God, or the word גבור or gibowr which followed. But all of these versions which had translated the phrase אל גבור or el gibowr into two distinct words which are essentially synonyms, mighty and powerful as we have seen ἰσχυρὸς and δυνατὸς in all of the jewish translations found in the Hexapla, have also ignored the Hebrew grammar of the phrase.

This we read at a Hebrew grammar resource, called unfoldingWord, in an article for the Hebrew adjective: “In Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic, an attributive adjective almost always immediately follows the noun that it describes and has the same form in gender, number, and definiteness. Thus, if the noun is masculine, the adjective is also masculine. If the noun is singular, the adjective is also singular. If the noun is definite, the adjective is also definite; and so on.” These rules also hold for Greek, however in Greek an attributive adjective may either precede or follow a noun. The Hebrew word גבור or gibowr is an adjective, and here in the Hebrew it follows אל or el, which is a noun, and the two words meet all of the other criteria spelled out in this explanation of the use of the Hebrew adjective. So we would assert that if gibowr is an adjective following the noun el, then it must be modifying that noun, and therefore the word el, being a noun, must also be translated in that manner as god. The final proof of this is where the same phrase appears again in Isaiah chapter 10, and in the King James Version we read: “21 The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God.”

In the Hebrew of that verse there is a peculiar construction, אל־אל גבור, where the word el is repeated. So in Isaiah 10:21 the words of the prophet are identifying the אל גבור of Isaiah 9:6 as Yahweh God, and the King James Version translators should have rendered the end of the verse to read “… unto God -- the mighty God.” If the אל גבור of Isaiah 10:21 is Yahweh, then the אל גבור of Isaiah 9:6 is also Yahweh, with absolute certainty that cannot honestly be denied.

But in any event, only Yahweh God Himself can offer to man a government without end, as we read verse 7, where it continues to speak in reference to this Father of the Age and Prince of Peace: “Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.” This government was described as the throne of David, however both David and Solomon had recognized the fact that their throne had rightly belonged to Yahweh. So we read in 1 Chronicles chapter 29: “23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him.” Likewise David had written in the 45th Psalm: “ 6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.” In chapter 1 of his epistle to the Hebrews, Paul of Tarsus had cited this same verse in reference to Yahshua Christ.

Here I had thought to merely summarize the arguments which I had recently presented in Part 9 of this commentary, concerning verses 1 through 6 of Isaiah chapter 9. But when I began pondering that summary, so many realizations came to mind that now I have practically doubled my arguments. So now I can confidently assert that despite all of the opposition, verses 1 and 2 of this chapter are a messianic prophecy of the spread of the Gospel, and verse 6 is a messianic prophecy announcing the fact that Yahweh God Himself is the incarnate Messiah. The birth of the child Mahershalalhashbaz is only an incidental token fulfilling the sign which was given to Ahaz. However while the near vision prophecy was fulfilled in him, that is also a sign, that the far vision prophecy shall be fulfilled as it is stated in Isaiah 9:6-7. The near vision fulfillments of prophecy serve as an assurance that in the long term, once all of the conditions are met, the far vision shall also be fulfilled.

So with that, now we shall see that no man alive in Isaiah’s time could possibly fulfill that role assigned to the child here in verses 6 and 7, since as we commence with Isaiah chapter 9, for the near term the children of Israel are only being further assured of their coming punishment. As we shall see, while Yahweh God may have had mercy on Ahaz, He will nevertheless employ the rod of His anger upon both Israel and Judah, as we have already read here in several earlier prophecies in Isaiah:

8 The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel.

Of course, here the people of Israel and Judah may not accept what the prophet is about to say, or even what he had said, but when the light of God is illuminated in the world, that means that the Word of God has become manifest in the world. Whether the people accept it or not, the things which Yahweh has warned here concerning them are certain to come to pass. So the Word lighted upon Israel, regardless of whether or not Israel had acknowledged it, since unfortunately, men always seem to reject warnings of judgment. But here, it is indicated that they would have knowledge after it comes to pass:

9 And all the people shall know, even Ephraim and the inhabitant of Samaria, that say in the pride and stoutness of heart, 10 The bricks are fallen down, but we will build with hewn stones: the sycomores are cut down, but we will change them into cedars.

The people reject warnings of judgment, and then they even refuse to self-reflect, to consider the fact that when they suffer such evils, perhaps they should repent of the sins for which reason the judgment had come. This is why early Christians had borrowed the Greek word κρίσις into English to describe a state of being involved in a calamity or a threat. A crisis is “a time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger”, according to Oxford Languages, but it is originally a Greek word which means judgment.

Today we fail to learn even from the development of our own language. The supposed “build back better” slogan of the current United States’ president is a modern reflection of this same attitude, that in a fallen society which is overrun with aliens, rather than reflecting on the sins of the nation the people boast that they will replace the bricks with much more valuable hewn stone, and the sycamores, which in ancient Israel were fig-bearing fruit trees, with more robust cedars which were more highly valued for building. Using the same Hebrew word, the prophet Amos had described himself as “an herdman, and a gatherer of sycomore fruit” (Amos 7:14).

Here we are also informed, that it is their pride which has prevented the children of Israel from reflecting on their sins and repenting. The Build Back Better mantra is likewise a sign of a refusal to reflect and repent. So it seems that throughout the ages, pride has been the downfall of Sodomites and fornicators, and of course, there is nothing new under the sun. However Samaria would not be rebuilt, and neither will the sinful society of today.

11 Therefore the LORD shall set up the adversaries of Rezin against him, and join his enemies together;

Here the focus once again shifts back to the immediate, near vision fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah chapter 7 which had said “14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. 16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.”

There seems to be a wordplay in the text, since adversary is from the Hebrew word צרי or tsari (# 6862) and the name Rezin is nearly an anagram of that word, רצין or rezin so the spelling in the phrase “adversaries of Rezin”, צרי רצין seems to be a purposeful play on words, since there are several other ways to say adversary in Hebrew.

The text of the Septuagint has a slightly different version of this verse, where the king of Aram is not mentioned by name, which Brenton translated to read: “11 And God shall dash down them that rise up against him on mount Sion, and shall scatter his enemies”. Perhaps, through some scribal error, the word רצין or rezin was confused for ציון or zion, the name of the mountain in Jerusalem. However The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible supports the reading found in the Masoretic Text, as does the Latin Vulgate.

The pronoun in the phrase “against him” in this verse is not a reference to Rezin, so perhaps the scribal error which is evident in the Septuagint is actually reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Vulgate and the Masoretic text. That is because Rezin is the king of Syria, as Isaiah also stated in the opening verse and in subsequent verses of chapter 7, and here in the verse which follows it becomes evident that the pronoun must refer to Ephraim, who was mentioned in verse 9:

12 The Syrians before, and the Philistines behind; and they shall devour Israel with open mouth. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

Since Rezin was the king of Syria, it does seem that the correct reading in verse 11 must be Zion, and not Rezin, as it is found in the Septuagint, and that the error occurred in early versions of the Hebrew text.

Rather oddly, the Septuagint has Greeks here rather than Philistines, using the general term Ἕλλην which was used to describe any Greek-speaking person or tribe. But the words Philistine(s) or Philistim appear 285 times in the King James Version of the Bible, where in the Septuagint, the equivalent Greek word Φυλιστιιμ appears only 19 times. The word appears 8 times in the King James Apocrypha, but the Greek equivalent appears only 5 times in the Greek Septuagint books of the Apocrypha.

The apparent reason for this is that very often, the Septuagint translators had used colloquial terms to describe the other tribes of the Old Testament, so the word Canaanite is often represented by the Greek word Phoenician, which was not true during the golden age of Phoenicia where the Phoenicians were of Israel, but it was true in a geographical sense during the later Hellenistic period, and in Greek Phoenician was primarily a geographical term. So the use of contemporary names for ancient tribes by the Septuagint translators is a source of confusion. Usually, rather than Greeks in place of Philistines, the Septuagint has a plural form of the word ἀλλόφυλος, which is a generic term formed from a compounding of two words which simply means another tribe. The word ἀλλόφυλος appears 318 times in the Septuagint, most of them in place of the word for Philistines.

In reference to the Philistines, during and after the intertestamental period it is more accurate to call the tribes inhabiting the land formerly known as Philistia by the generic term οἱ ἀλλόφυλοι, or the other tribes, because they were no longer truly Philistines. As Yahweh had said in the words of the prophet Zechariah, in chapter 9: “6 And a bastard shall dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines.” Eventually, all of Philistia had been overrun with the Canaanite tribes, as well as the Edomites and Ishmaelites who had themselves intermingled with the Canaanites.

Here the Septuagint translators had also rendered a Hebrew verb, נטה׃ or natah (# 5186), which means to stretch out or extend in this context, with the Greek word ὑψηλός which is high or lofty, and therefore Brenton had metaphorically translated the word as exalted. Rather, Yahweh is saying that His hand is stretched out towards Israel, because in the time of their punishment they should return to Him.

Returning to the narrative here in Isaiah and the Rod of Yahweh’s anger:

When Tiglath Pileser III had overthrown both Pekah and Rezin, he had set his own kings over those nations, and once Hoshea had revolted from Assyria, it is evident that the new king of Syria did not join him, but remained faithful to the Assyrians until after the destruction of Samaria. When Sargon II came to power as the king of Assyria, Samaria had already been under siege for about two years, in the reign of his predecessor Shalmaneser V. Then upon his succession, Sargon II had recorded that he took Samaria in his first year as king of Assyria.

Having accomplished that, he left an inscription which stated “I besieged and conquered Samaria (Sa-me-ri-na), led away as booty 27,290 inhabitants of it. I formed from among them a contingent of 50 chariots and made remaining (inhabitants) assume their (social) positions. I installed over them an officer of mine and imposed upon them the tribute of the former king.” Apparently Damascus was under Assyrian rule when this happened, and would have been compelled to ally with Assyria when Samaria was destroyed. Only later is it apparent that Damascus rebelled, and also whoever had remained of Israel in Samaria, where he had left a record which states in part “In the second year of my rule, Ilubi'[di, from Hamath] … a large [army] he brought together at the town Qarqar and, [forgetting] the oaths [which they had sworn … ] the [cities of Arpad, Simirra], Damascus (Di-maš-[qa^ki]) and Samaria [revolted against me]…” [1]

From this it is also apparent that at least certain of the Philistines were under Assyrian rule as they had destroyed Samaria, but in another inscription made around the same time we read: “Iamani from Ashdod, afraid of my armed force (lit.: weapons), left his wife and children and fled to the frontier of M[usru] which belongs to Meluhha (i.e., Ethiopia) and hid (lit.: stayed) there like a thief. I installed an officer of mine as governor over his entire large country and its prosperous inhabitants, (thus) aggrandizing (again) the territory belonging to Ashur, the king of the gods.” [2] So more than one city of the Philistines were subject to Assyria, and must have assisted in the fall of Samaria, and once again we see that the Word of Yahweh here in Isaiah is true, and both Damascus and the Philistines were loyal to Assyria when the Assyrians destroyed Samaria.

Although the rod of Yahweh’s anger was fully manifest against against Israel at this point, now there is a lamentation concerning the people do not turn back to Him, realizing that their punishment was from Him:

13 For the people turneth not unto him that smiteth them, neither do they seek the LORD of hosts.

So now for failing to do that they shall be punished more severely, but this was already known as Yahweh had said in Isaiah chapter 7 that “within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people”:

14 Therefore the LORD will cut off from Israel head and tail, branch and rush, in one day. 15 The ancient and honourable, he is the head; and the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail. 16 For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed.

Although Isaiah did not characterize the leaders of the people as their shepherds, the later prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel had done so often. So in a later prophecy against Jerusalem, when it was finally about to be destroyed, we read in Jeremiah chapter 25: “33 And the slain of the LORD shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth: they shall not be lamented, neither gathered, nor buried; they shall be dung upon the ground. 34 Howl, ye shepherds, and cry; and wallow yourselves in the ashes, ye principal of the flock: for the days of your slaughter and of your dispersions are accomplished; and ye shall fall like a pleasant vessel. 35 And the shepherds shall have no way to flee, nor the principal of the flock to escape. 36 A voice of the cry of the shepherds, and an howling of the principal of the flock, shall be heard: for the LORD hath spoiled their pasture. 37 And the peaceable habitations are cut down because of the fierce anger of the LORD.” While every man is ultimately responsible for his own sin, which is evident, for example, in Ezekiel chapter 18, the leaders, or shepherds, are nevertheless held responsible when the entire nation goes astray.

Now, because the people had been led astray by their leaders:

17 Therefore the Lord shall have no joy in their young men, neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows: for every one is an hypocrite and an evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

The clause at the end of this verse, “For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still”, had first appeared in verse 12 and will appear twice more here and in the opening verses of chapter 10. It also appeared in Isaiah chapter 5 where we read in relation to the vineyard of Israel: “25 Therefore is the anger of the LORD kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their carcases were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.” However these are not new warnings in response to new sins. Rather, these are continued warnings of the consequences of sins which have already committed, and which are still ongoing, as the people are called to repentance, yet nobody hears the call.

But that too was assured by the Word of God, where we read in Isaiah chapter 6: “ 10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. 11 Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate, 12 And the LORD have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land.”

So all of these repeated warnings are not in vain. Rather, they serve as an example for us today, and for all time, that once Yahweh has judged a nation, He will not turn away from the judgment, but only calls the people to repentance in spite of the coming punishment so that collectively the people should learn the consequences of sin, and that sin alone is the reason for the consequences. From the beginning, in Deuteronomy chapters 27 and 28, the children of Israel were given the blessings of obedience, and the curses for disobedience, and they chose disobedience so it is imperative that they suffer those curses.

The consequences of sin continue:

18 For wickedness burneth as the fire: it shall devour the briers and thorns, and shall kindle in the thickets of the forest, and they shall mount up like the lifting up of smoke. 19 Through the wrath of the LORD of hosts is the land darkened, and the people shall be as the fuel of the fire: no man shall spare his brother. 20 And he shall snatch on the right hand, and be hungry; and he shall eat on the left hand, and they shall not be satisfied: they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm:

In the duress of their punishment, a man would evidently even snatch the food from the hand of his brother, and they would ultimately turn to eating themselves. The briers and thorns may well represent the Canaanites who in ancient times had not been driven from the lands inherited by the children of Israel. The Canaanites, having been bastards, were naturally wicked, as their descendants found chiefly among the jews and arabs are today, and for that reason Israel was commanded to drive them all out. So we read, in Numbers chapter 33: “55 But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell. 56 Moreover it shall come to pass, that I shall do unto you, as I thought to do unto them.” Now here in Isaiah, we see the beginning of the fulfillment of the words of that passage which state “56 Moreover it shall come to pass, that I shall do unto you, as I thought to do unto them.”

Therefore the tribes of Israel would also remain divided against one another:

21 Manasseh, Ephraim; and Ephraim, Manasseh: and they together shall be against Judah. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

In the Septuagint, which also has “of his own arm” at the end of verse 20, as Brenton had translated the verse, this verse is interpreted in that context, so it reads: “21 For Manasses shall eat the flesh of Ephraim, and Ephraim the flesh of Manasses; for they shall besiege Juda together.” However where the Septuagint and the King James Version have some verbs in the future tense here, other versions have a present or a past tense. So in the New American Standard Bible verse 20 is read to say: “20 And they slice off what is on the right hand but still are hungry, And they eat what is on the left hand but they are not satisfied; Each of them eats the flesh of his own arm.” But in The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible verse 20 is read in the past tense to say: “20 On the right hand, they snatched but remained hungry. On the left, they ate but were not satisfied. Everyone ate the flesh of his own arm.”

Then here in verse 21 the New American Standard Bible uses the present tense: “21 Manasseh devours Ephraim, and Ephraim Manasseh, And together they are against Judah. In spite of all this His anger does not turn away…” but the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible has a past tense once again: “21 Manasseh devoured Ephraim, and Ephraim Manasseh, and together they went against Judah….” Notes provided with the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible attest that the tenses of various of these verbs are explicit in some cases, and implicit in others, in one manuscript or another, and even in certain copies of Isaiah found among the scrolls, but not in others. However in the history of Israel as it is preserved in the historical books of Scripture, where in the divided kingdom Ephraim had indeed fought against Judah, there are no records of any such contention between Ephraim and Manasseh. Therefore, in comparison with the historical books of Scripture, the manuscripts having present and future tenses here are more likely to be correct.

It is evident in the subsequent history of Israel in captivity, who were known primarily as Kimmerians and Scythians, that they were indeed divided against one another, and that circumstance had persisted throughout history. So all the wars of history are actually a consequence of the Rod of Yahweh’s anger. But perhaps the briers and thorns in Israel, the Canaanites, were devoured by the fire, if they were not left behind by the Assyrians. At least many of them had remained as slaves from the days of Solomon, who put them in servitude. So having been slaves, they would be expected to have sided with the invading Assyrians. As Yahweh had promised in Amos chapter 9: “9 For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth.” That is also a reference to their captivity.

Here we shall commence with Isaiah chapter 10, where the reasons for the punishments of Israel continue:

Isaiah 10:1 Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed; 2 To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless!

These men who decree unrighteous decrees and prescribe grievousness can only be the leaders and judges of the land, and the decrees must be found in their legal judgments and ordinances. These are also among the leaders of the people who were condemned here in chapter 9. In the opening chapter of Isaiah, the people had been admonished to “17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow”, things in which they evidently continued to fail.

In the words of the contemporary prophet Micah, in chapter 2, there is a similar condemnation which reads: “8 Even of late my people is risen up as an enemy: ye pull off the robe with the garment from them that pass by securely as men averse from war. 9 The women of my people have ye cast out from their pleasant houses; from their children have ye taken away my glory for ever.” Evidently the children of Israel must have had a custom of stripping the garments from cowards, since here they are accused of stripping the garments of innocent passersby “as men averse from war.” The women whom they had cast out are evidently the widows for whom they are chastised for having made a prey, as their children have no man to protect them and their inheritances were being stolen. Even today, governments are wont to empty the houses of widows and deprive children of their inheritances. It is easy for tyrants to feed on the meek and the helpless.

There was no one to help the poor, the widows and the orphans, so in the day of their judgment there will be no one to help these men:

3 And what will ye do in the day of visitation, and in the desolation which shall come from far? to whom will ye flee for help? and where will ye leave your glory? 4 Without me they shall bow down under the prisoners, and they shall fall under the slain. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

Once again, even in His anger, amidst the coming punishment, Yahweh beckons the children of Israel to repent and turn to Him. Here in verse 4, the Septuagint represents the first sentence with only a short clause, a question extending the last clause in verse 3 and asking “… that ye may not fall into captivity?” While the corresponding verse in the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible more closely resembles the Masoretic Text, it nevertheless varies in its translation where, like the Septuagint, it has the opening sentence of the verse as a question extending verse 3 and reads “to keep from sinking down under those in fetters and falling under the slain?” Where the King James Version has “Without me”, those words seem to be a poor translation of the opening preposition of the sentence. The New American Standard Bible does well to translate the opening portion of the verse to read: “4 Nothing remains but to crouch among the captives or fall among the slain.” Yahweh is telling the children of Israel that they are either going to be taken into captivity, or slain on account of their sins.

Now He explicitly announces exactly how that shall be accomplished:

5 O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation. 6 I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.

The Septuagint has several variations in verse 6 which are worthy of note: “6 I will send my wrath against a sinful nation, and I will charge my people to take plunder and spoil, and to trample the cities, and to make them dust.” While the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible supports the reading of the Masoretic Text, in that translation and in that of the New American Standard Bible the word ungodly or godless stands in place of hypocritical. The Hebrew word, חנף or chaneph (# 2611)is defined in Strong’s original Concordance as impious, so hypocritical seems to be an innovation. Likewise, Gesenius defines the word as profane or impious [3], and while Brown, Driver, Briggs offers some metaphorical examples, there it is translated primarily as profane or godless [4]. Where Brenton has sinful, that also appears to have been an innovation, as the Greek of the Septuagint has ἄνομος, or lawless.

In any event, here Yahweh is warning the children of Israel that they shall indeed be trampled by the Assyrians, and that it is His doing, as the Assyrians are a mere implement in His hand since He placed His wrath as a staff in the hand of the Assyrian. So as it continues, it is made evident that the Assyrian did not understand that it was being used in this fashion by God:

7 Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so; but it is in his heart to destroy and cut off nations not a few.

The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible clarifies the meaning where it says “7 This is not what he intends nor is he aware of this; rather he intends to destroy and to cut off many nations.”

Evidently, the Assyrian had sought to conquer the world, but Yahweh raised him up to that conquest so that He could use them to punish the children of Israel, and to send them into captivity. So now the Assyrian is portrayed as having boasted about his elevation to such a hegemony:

8 For he saith, Are not my princes altogether kings? 9 Is not Calno as Carchemish? is not Hamath as Arpad? is not Samaria as Damascus?

These are evidently all of the places which the Assyrians have already conquered or destroyed, or that they were about to destroy, because the prophet often writes of things which are prophesied to happen as if they had already happened. Here Ahaz is king, and Samaria is not destroyed until the time of his son and successor Hezekiah, in the 6th year of his rule. So the prophet is speaking of something which has not yet happened as if it already had. The city Calno mentioned here is almost certainly the Calneh of Genesis chapter 10 (10:10), which was one of the cities in Akkad upon which the empire of Nimrod had been founded. Little is known of this city from archaeology, it was not mentioned in the surviving Assyrian inscriptions from this time, and it is not identified with any degree of certainty. Other candidates for identification with this Calno, but not the Calneh of Genesis, are found outside of Mesopotamia in the writings of various historians and commentators, but none of them are certain, and they are far less certain than associating Calno with Calneh, because Calneh is also mentioned in chapter 6 of the contemporary prophet Amos, along with Hamath, in a passage which is very similar in context to this passage in Isaiah: “2 Pass ye unto Calneh, and see; and from thence go ye to Hamath the great: then go down to Gath of the Philistines: be they better than these kingdoms? or their border greater than your border?”

Carchemish, the capital city of the Hittites, was made tribute to Assyrian king Ashurbanipal II in the first half of the 9th century BC. [5] In the 2nd year of the reign of Sargon II it was conquered and its inhabitants deported to Assyria, and Carchemish was repopulated with Assyrians. Arpad, a city of northern Syria close to Hamath, was besieged for three years by Tiglath Pileser III and conquered, whereafter it was made a province of Assyria. Hamath was to the west of Arpad, and is said to have fallen to the Assyrians six years later, or circa 732 BC. [6]

In Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, where the inscriptions of Sargon II are presented, there is a collection of inscriptions said to have been discovered on “broken prisms”, so they are evidently quite incomplete. One of them is translated to read: “(Property of Sargon, etc.) the subduer of the country Judah (la-u-du) which is far away, the uprooter of Hamath, the ruler of which—Iau'bidi—he captured personally.”

From a footnote for the inscription: “After his victory over Iau-bi'di at Qarqar, Sargon erected various stelae commemorating this event. One, found near Hama on the Orontes, is extant and has been published by F. Thureau-Dangin, La Stele d'Acharne, in RA, xxx (1933), 53 ff. The text is badly preserved and of little interest.”

The name Iaubi’di may be similar to Bedeiah, a name which means servant of Yahweh. As we had discussed in earlier portions of this commentary on Isaiah, Jeroboam II of Israel had regained Hamath for Israel, as it is recorded in 2 Kings chapter 14. Before that time, from the time of David and until the coming of the Assyrians, Hamath had been a subject state of Judah. Jeroboam II had also recovered Damascus for Israel, as it had also been subject to Judah, and Damascus and Israel were allies with Hamath in its wars against the Assyrians.

In the inscriptions of Shalmaneser III, who is said to have ruled Assyria from around 858 to 824 BC, we read that when he had sought to conquer Hamath, “I departed from Aleppo and approached the two towns of Irhuleni from Hamath (Amat). I captured the towns Adennu, Barga (and) Argana his royal residence. I removed from them his booty (as well as) his personal (lit.: of his palaces) possessions. I set his palaces afire. I departed from Argana and approached Karkara. I destroyed, tore down and burned down Karkara, his (text: my) royal residence. He brought along to help him 1,200 chariots, 1,200 cavalrymen, 20,000 foot soldiers of Adad-’idri (i.e. Hadadezer) of Damascus (Imērišu), 700 chariots, 700 cavalrymen, 10,000 foot soldiers of Irhuleni from Hamath, 2,000 chariots, 10,000 foot soldiers of Ahab, the Israelite (A-ha-ab-bu ^matSir-’i-la-a-a)…” [8] Against these and other confederates, Shalmaneser claimed victory, but Hamath was apparently not conquered until the time of Tiglath Pileser III, over a hundred years later. Once Hamath was taken, Damascus and Samaria were coming up on the obvious list of places to conquer.

With this it should not be a wonder, that a king of Hamath had a name such as Iau-bi'di, since he certainly may have been an Israelite. However this may not be the case, unless it is mere propaganda where he was called “an evil Hittite” in another inscription of Sargon II in which we read “Ia’-u-bi’di of Hamath, a camp-follower, with no claim to the throne, an evil Hittite, was plotting in his heart to become king of Hamath, and had caused the cities of Arpadda, Simirra, Damascus and Samaria to revolt against me, had unified them (literally, made them of one mouth) and prepared for battle.” [9] Since the Hittites were always considered evil in Assyrian inscriptions, this slander of Iau-bi'di may have been mere political propaganda.

Now there is a more ominous message for Judah, even in spite of the mercy which Yahweh had granted king Ahaz here in these chapters of Isaiah:

10 As my hand hath found the kingdoms of the idols, and whose graven images did excel them of Jerusalem and of Samaria; 11 Shall I not, as I have done unto Samaria and her idols, so do to Jerusalem and her idols?

In other words, Judah shall suffer the same fate at the hands of the Assyrians which Israel had suffered, and Judah did, in spite of the fact that Jerusalem itself was given a reprieve until the time of the coming of the Babylonians, about a hundred and thirty five years after the fall of Samaria. Most of Judah was destroyed, and the survivors taken into Assyrian captivity, in the days of Hezekiah, which is perhaps about another twenty years from this point in Isaiah. So the Assyrian certainly would be the rod of Yahweh’s anger, and the hope of a king who would sit on the throne of David and rule for the eternal ages and in peace must be far off in the future, since it was never intended to have been fulfilled in Isaiah’s time.

Here we shall pause our commentary on Isaiah chapter 10.

Footnotes:

1 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament 3rd edition, James Pritchard, editor, 1969, Harvard University Press, pp. 284-285.

2 ibid.

3 Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, translated by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, Baker Books, 1979, p. 101

4 The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Hendrickson Publishers, 2021, p. 338.

5 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, p. 275

6 Tiglath-pileser III, king of Assyria, University College London, https://www.ucl.ac.uk/sargon/essentials/kings/ tiglatpileseriii/, accessed October 18th, 2024.

7 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, p. 287

8 ibid.; pp. 278-279.

9 Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, Volume II, Historical Records of Assyria from Sargon II to the End, Daniel David Luckenbill, Ph.D. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1927, p. 27.