Biblical Hebrew Forum

[ben.crick AT argonet.co.uk (Ben Crick)]

On Thu 10 Dec 98 (11:56:25 +0200), ronning AT ilink.nis.za wrote:
> Concerning Isaiah 65:1, the question is whether God was actually sought
> and found by the people in question, or did he "let himself be sought
> and found" but was not found because the people did not seek. Those
> assuming that 65:1 refers to the same people as in 65:2 like the
> "tolerative" translation, since 65:2 refers to rebellious people who are
> not going to "find" God.  Isa 58:2, however, says that Israel sought
> God "day by day," and Isa 58:9 says that God will not say "here I am"
> to Israel until they repent. Perhaps for this reason Paul (Rom 10:20)
> takes Isa 65:1 as refering to the Gentiles (to whom God says "here I
> am"); also because these people are "not called by my name" (Isa 65:1d)
> (which some versions repoint to "they did not call on my name."

 Thanks, Ronnie, for a most informative post. The point may be that YHWH
 is graciously answering the prayer of the prophet (Isa 63:15-64:12). His
 people have forgotten him, neglected him; yet he still permitted himself
 to spread out his arms to welcome and embrace them. But as you say, Paul
 quotes 65:1-2 LXX in Romans 10:20-21, referring v1 to the heathen, and v2
 to Israel: following on his application of Hosea 1:6,10 in Romans 9:25-26.
 So Paul expounds Isa 65:1 as pertaining to the Gentiles who are not Israel.
 Peter in 1 Peter 2:10 takes a similar line with the Hosea prophecy.

 But the "tolerative Niphals" understanding still makes sense. JA Motyer
 writes:
 "Many, if not most, commentators understand this verse as referring to
 rebel Israelites, apostates who have ceased in any real sense to
 acknowledge the Lord. However, the most natural understanding of the
 verbs in the first two lines is that when the Lord 'let myself be sought
 ... let myself be found' (tolerative niphals) things came to a successful
 conclusion, i.e. those to whom he presented himself responded by seeking
 and finding. Furthermore, the words /to a nation that did not call on my
 name/ could not at any point be used as a description of Israel, for there
 were always those who did call. Even if we take the words to mean 'they
 called but not sincerely' the accusation is still too sweeping, and, even
 if it were not, there is nothing in the Hebrew words or their order to
 justify inserting the vital thought of sincerity (cf 43:22). In addition,
 the translation /that did not call/ involves an alteration to the MT,
 which reads 'to a nation not called by my name' (see the RV). Plainly, the
 MT excludes a reference to Israel. The only merit, grammatically, in the
 proposal to understand a reference to apostate Israel is that verse 2 would
 continue the same subject. ...It must, however, be accorded real weight
 that... a reference here to Gentiles fits the pattern as a whole" (J Alec
 Motyer, /The Prophecy of Isaiah/, Inter-Varsity Press, 1993, page 523).

 "Not called by my name" is Lo'-QoRa' BiSh:MiY. A 3ms Pual Perfect. It has
 to be emended to Lo'-QoRe', Qal participle; or Lo'-QaRa', 3ms Qal Perfect,
 to yield "not calling upon my name". The LXX from an unpointed exemplar
 renders hOITINES OUK EKALESAN TO ONOMA MOU, giving some weight to the
 proposed emendation perhaps. But remember also that GoWY usually refers to
 the heathen nations; `aM is the preferred designation for God's people
 Israel. Especially as the Chaldeans, "that bitter and hasty nation GoWY",
 are in view in Habakkuk 1:6. Compare Hosea 1:10, `aMMiY and Lo'-`aMMiY.

 Yes, I'm for tolerative Niphals here. But, was not "Motty" my tutor in
 Bristol 35 years ago?

 ShaLoWM
 Ben
-- 
 Revd Ben Crick, BA CF
 <ben.crick AT argonet.co.uk>
 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK)
 http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm