Isaiah 31:4

[Jason Hare]

Show me where צבא means "to gather people/forces together," in a transitive sense. I don't see that. This is where not knowing the difference between qal and hiphil causes problems.

[Chris Watts]

Show me where צבא means "to gather people/forces together," in a transitive sense. I don't see that. This is where not knowing the difference between qal and hiphil causes problems.

Hallo Jason,

Ok, simply put, in a walnut shell, there are no qal verbs of this לִצְבֹּ֥א used in a transitive way that mean 'to assemble'. I found however two cases of Qal used intransitively: 1 Sam 2:22 and Exodus 38:8, and no doubt there are a few more where the word means an assembly or assembled. In discussing the verb I am ignoring the hundreds of places where צְבֹּ֥א is translated into English as 'going to war' when it is clearly a noun, where it should be translated as Men 'of War' for example, also happens with the word הַמִּלְחָמָ֗ה. Also where it means a service or performance in relation to the Levitical side of things.


Now then, points I noted:

1. There are hundreds of going to fight verses where the verb יִלָּחֵ֣ם is employed. Compare this to only Five places where לִצְבֹּ֥א is used and notice where three of them are: two in 29:7 and one in 31:4. Then two more in Zech 14:12 and Isaiah 19:2.

2. There are only two Hiphils in scripture : 2 Kings 25:19 and Jeremiah 52:25 which is a repetition anyway, so there is only one hiphil essentially meaning 'the host' the scribe who recorded things about the army I presume?

3. I believe there is a good reason why צְבֹּ֥א might be chosen over מִּלְחָמָ֗ה and maybe instead of men of war going to physically fight abattle to kill, they are simply a mixture of ordinary non-combatants and maybe military men thrown in to threaten as well, and these non-combatants prepared and willing and desiring to fight with words and taunts and accusations and lies, a gathering is not meant I agree, but there is an implicit reference to a gathering of multitudes because waging war is not always about drawing a sword or firing a gun is it.

4. It is improbable and highly unlikely that עַל goes with יֵרֵד֙ based on the fact that לִצְבֹּ֥א as far as I can tell, Always always is used in relation to this preposition. Also the Qal of this verb 'to fight' has never been used in the sense of 'to fight for'. It is always, to go out against.

My conclusion is this: Verse 4 implies the Lord comes down to fight by assembling a gathering against Jerusalem. In defending it He will keep it from being destroyed and He will deliver it from the enemy within, in delivering it He will pass over it keeping it protected (as in Pesach) and continue to preserve it during the ongoing conflict beyond its walls and city limits. The ongoing conflict is implied by the parable of the Lion in verse 4 so there is a hostile army involved. Isaiah Ch 29:3 implies the Lord gathering against Jerusalem as well, to deliver it. And I believe that there is a strong possible connection between ch 29 and ch 31 of Isaiah.

Now I have discussed the hebrew and grammar the best that I can, but the object is to understand the mesaage. And prophecy is history fortold. The grammar and the words used are very distinctly and very uniquely put. That is why I asked questions. It begged questions to be asked.

Chris watts

[Jason Hare]

You've just spun my head around. I don't know where to begin, so I think I'll bow out of this one. Maybe David is interested in picking it up.

[ducky]

Hi Jason and Chris,

I didn't read the whole thread So I'll just give m opinion of how I read this verse.

The combination of לצבא על is used for saying "going to war versus someone".
Also, it is expected to be linked to a plural subject because basically, its meaning is about gathering or colliding.
And for example, root אסף with the same meaning is often related to going to war.
Only that the לצבא על was narrowed to that meaning.

So Up until now, there are two problems:
1. If לצבא על is to wage war - so it doesn't fit the spirit of the text. It cannot be read as if God wage war on Jerusalem.
2. לצבא is linked to plural, but God is one.

Therefore, some see this verse as written in a short way. As if it says that God would come down on those that want לצבא על=wage war Jerusalem.

And on the first look, it fits. After all, in Isaiah, the enemy is titled already twice in the same manner.
29:7 הֲמוֹן כׇּל הַגּוֹיִם הַצֹּבְאִים עַל אֲרִיאֵל
29:8 כֵּן יִהְיֶה הֲמוֹן כׇּל הַגּוֹיִם הַצֹּבְאִים עַל הַר צִיּוֹן
So according to this view, it seems that there are still titled like that, and it means that God would fight those people who want to wage war against Jerusalem.

But personally, I don't see it like that.
And that is because of the Analogy of the lion.
In the analogy, the lion does not attack, but he just protects his prey.

Usually, when there are these kinds of characters of a shepherd, a lion, and a prey, we see the shepherd as good, the lion as bad, and the prey as the victim.
But here, the view should be just on the "picture".
The picture is of a lion that sits on his prey, and doesn't afraid of the shepherds who threaten him.
And so the act of God which is compared to the lion should be the same.
And so, just as the lion sits (let's say: settle himself) on his prey and doesn't bother himself from his threatening surroundings, so is God comes down on Jerusalem and settle himself, while not bothering all of the threatening armies that want to take Jerusalem from his hands.

This is what I think this means.

And so, the לצבא על, in this case, would not be waging war. But something as setting himself, Or setting an army.
Not a real army of men, but He is the army. And that is why he is called here צבאות. So this attitude of צבאות as battling would become a practical thing as he set himself to protect Jerusalem, like the lion who sits on his prey and doesn't feel a thing about the others.