Isaiah 31:4

[Chris Watts]

כִּ֣י כֹ֣ה אָֽמַר־יְהוָ֣ה ׀ אֵלַ֡י כַּאֲשֶׁ֣ר יֶהְגֶּה֩ הָאַרְיֵ֨ה וְהַכְּפִ֜יר עַל־טַרְפּ֗וֹ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִקָּרֵ֤א עָלָיו֙ מְלֹ֣א רֹעִ֔ים מִקּוֹלָם֙ לֹ֣א יֵחָ֔ת וּמֵֽהֲמוֹנָ֖ם לֹ֣א יַֽעֲנֶ֑ה כֵּ֗ן יֵרֵד֙ יְהוָ֣ה צְבָא֔וֹת לִצְבֹּ֥א עַל־הַר־צִיּ֖וֹן וְעַל־גִּבְעָתָֽהּ

Before I say anything I have to admit that I am confused by the abrupt change from Egypt to Assyria in this passage. Leaving this I must continue....

The Translation seemed so straight forward when I read it in English: The enemy threatens Jerusalem, a simile is introduced, they are like a lion, God comes down and scares them away. But reading the hebrew this can not be what is meant, especially in light of the following verses 5 to 9. Firstly what I notice is that there is no destruction of the enemy at all, they run, they retreat, no one is killed, so this has nothing to do with the threat against Hezekiah since the Assyrians there were destroyed. Also, how can one compare the Assyrians to Shepherds? Not possible.

Secondly, the phrase : כֵּ֗ן יֵרֵד֙ יְהוָ֣ה צְבָא֔וֹת I believe should not be "So" becuase in my ears this sounds like a continutaion from the previous clause confirming the simile that God is the Lion, but I noticed an ATNAH in the word before יַֽעֲנֶ֑ה כֵּ֗ן and so I translated this "So" as : ...therefore, as a result of this, because they are not afraid of the shepherds, the Lord will come down...and will be not be "Fighting" for Jerusalem but instead, as the hebrew appears to show, will be "Defending"Jerusalem against the enemy that is holding it as a prey..

Thirdly: I am a bit surprised over the translation of the word עַל as "For" in the two times it is used. Firstly, this word really means : against - above - on - about and similar adverbial renderings, and to top it off (no pun intended) is it not funny that the following descriptive verses of HOW God will defend Jerusasalem is about Birds hovering, flying, the Lord coming down and passing over it (from above). I think the עַל is quite pertinent.

I am not aware of any instance where God says He will defend Jerusalem by going over it, it is always the case that God simply fights for, or defends ground level so to speak. So I am intrigued by the specificity of the hebrew that is chosen to describe these events especially within the context of the following verse to the end of the chapter.

So I would appreciate comments from the more skillful amongst you to pick my theory to pieces.

Chris watts

[kwrandolph]

כִּ֣י כֹ֣ה אָֽמַר־יְהוָ֣ה ׀ אֵלַ֡י כַּאֲשֶׁ֣ר יֶהְגֶּה֩ הָאַרְיֵ֨ה וְהַכְּפִ֜יר עַל־טַרְפּ֗וֹ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִקָּרֵ֤א עָלָיו֙ מְלֹ֣א רֹעִ֔ים מִקּוֹלָם֙ לֹ֣א יֵחָ֔ת וּמֵֽהֲמוֹנָ֖ם לֹ֣א יַֽעֲנֶ֑ה כֵּ֗ן יֵרֵד֙ יְהוָ֣ה צְבָא֔וֹת לִצְבֹּ֥א עַל־הַר־צִיּ֖וֹן וְעַל־גִּבְעָתָֽהּ

Before I say anything I have to admit that I am confused by the abrupt change from Egypt to Assyria in this passage. Leaving this I must contu=inue....
Chris watts

Instead of jumping into the middle of the passage, should you not go to the beginning where the subject is identified? Verse one refers to the people going to Egypt for military help against the Assyria, therefore both Egypt and Assyria are objects, not subjects, of the passage.

The main purpose of the chapter is that Egypt won’t save from Assyria, rather God is the one who can save.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

The whole chapter (for context):

1 ה֣וֹי הַיֹּֽרְדִ֤ים מִצְרַ֨יִם֙ לְעֶזְרָ֔ה עַל־סוּסִ֖ים יִשָּׁעֵ֑נוּ וַיִּבְטְח֨וּ עַל־רֶ֜כֶב כִּ֣י רָ֗ב וְעַ֤ל פָּֽרָשִׁים֙ כִּֽי־עָצְמ֣וּ מְאֹ֔ד וְלֹ֤א שָׁעוּ֙ עַל־קְד֣וֹשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וְאֶת־יְהוָ֖ה לֹ֥א דָרָֽשׁוּ׃ 2 וְגַם־ה֤וּא חָכָם֙ וַיָּ֣בֵא רָ֔ע וְאֶת־דְּבָרָ֖יו לֹ֣א הֵסִ֑יר וְקָם֙ עַל־בֵּ֣ית מְרֵעִ֔ים וְעַל־עֶזְרַ֖ת פֹּ֥עֲלֵי אָֽוֶן׃ 3 וּמִצְרַ֤יִם אָדָם֙ וְֽלֹא־אֵ֔ל וְסֽוּסֵיהֶ֥ם בָּשָׂ֖ר וְלֹא־ר֑וּחַ וַֽיהוָ֞ה יַטֶּ֣ה יָד֗וֹ וְכָשַׁ֤ל עוֹזֵר֙ וְנָפַ֣ל עָזֻ֔ר וְיַחְדָּ֖ו כֻּלָּ֥ם יִכְלָיֽוּן׃ 4 כִּ֣י כֹ֣ה אָֽמַר־יְהוָ֣ה ׀ אֵלַ֡י כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֣ר יֶהְגֶּה֩ הָֽאַרְיֵ֨ה וְהַכְּפִ֜יר עַל־טַרְפּ֗וֹ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִקָּרֵ֤א עָלָיו֙ מְלֹ֣א רֹעִ֔ים מִקּוֹלָם֙ לֹ֣א יֵחָ֔ת וּמֵֽהֲמוֹנָ֖ם לֹ֣א יַֽעֲנֶ֑ה כֵּ֗ן יֵרֵד֙ יְהוָ֣ה צְבָא֔וֹת לִצְבֹּ֥א עַל־הַר־צִיּ֖וֹן וְעַל־גִּבְעָתָֽהּ׃ 5 כְּצִפֳּרִ֣ים עָפ֔וֹת כֵּ֗ן יָגֵ֛ן יְהוָ֥ה צְבָא֖וֹת עַל־יְרֽוּשָׁלִָ֑ם גָּנ֥וֹן וְהִצִּ֖יל פָּסֹ֥חַ וְהִמְלִֽיט׃ 6 שׁ֗וּבוּ לַֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר הֶעְמִ֥יקוּ סָרָ֖ה בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ 7 כִּ֚י בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֔וּא יִמְאָס֗וּן אִ֚ישׁ אֱלִילֵ֣י כַסְפּ֔וֹ וֶֽאֱלִילֵ֖י זְהָב֑וֹ אֲשֶׁ֨ר עָשׂ֥וּ לָכֶ֛ם יְדֵיכֶ֖ם חֵֽטְא׃ 8 וְנָפַ֤ל אַשּׁוּר֙ בְּחֶ֣רֶב לֹא־אִ֔ישׁ וְחֶ֥רֶב לֹֽא־אָדָ֖ם תֹּֽאכְלֶ֑נּוּ וְנָ֥ס לוֹ֙ מִפְּנֵי־חֶ֔רֶב וּבַֽחוּרָ֖יו לָמַ֥ס יִֽהְיֽוּ׃ 9 וְסַלְעוֹ֙ מִמָּג֣וֹר יַֽעֲב֔וֹר וְחַתּ֥וּ מִנֵּ֖ס שָׂרָ֑יו נְאֻם־יְהוָ֗ה אֲשֶׁר־א֥וּר לוֹ֙ בְּצִיּ֔וֹן וְתַנּ֥וּר ל֖וֹ בִּירֽוּשָׁלִָֽם׃

[Jason Hare]

The main purpose of the chapter is that Egypt won’t save from Assyria, rather God is the one who can save.

This is true.

It isn't as if the text turns from Egypt as an adversary to Assyria as an adversary. Rather, it has only Assyria in mind as the troubler of Judah, and Egypt is one that some thought they needed to seek out for protection. But, the text says that both those who seek help from Egypt and those who might give such help would both fall—and the help of the people would come only from God, who doesn't fear those who come against Jerusalem and cannot be frightened off even by a great number.

The word עַל in verse 4 doesn't have the significance that you're attaching to it. It is used for verbs of watching and protecting before the object. So, לִשְׁמֹר עַל means "to watch over" or simply "to keep," and לִגְנֹן עַל and לִצְבֹּא עַל in this passage have the same meaning. You should not take the preposition here to mean something like מִלְּמַ֫עְלָה "from above" even with the simile bringing birds into the picture.

Yes, לִצְבֹּא עַל would normally mean "to go to war against" or "to fight against," but we see in verse 5 that God is definitely there to defend Jerusalem, not to cause its downfall.

[Chris Watts]

Karl, Jason, apologies that it has taken so long for me to respond to your comments. I have been so busy with research in the hope that I could provide suitable answers purely from a grammatical and language standpoint but this is not possible due to my limited knowledge of hebrew in comparison to this forum. I would fail miserably to present a case.

May I be permitted to say that the phrasing of my question should have been more carefully formulated. Karl, I did read the first verses, in fact I have been busy with chapters 29 to 31 for many weeks now. My initial sentence was about the abrupt change from Egypt to Assyria because at the time of writing I had in mind other scriptures about Assyria which clearly did not fit what Sennecherib did at Jerusalem in 720 BC, despite the historical context of the Prophet's time.

Jason you are right absolutely, however my reading of chapters 29 to 31 plus other portions of scripture have led me to conclude that there is something more going on here than what happened in the 8th century BC. Since this is not a theological forum nor a debate forum I will refrain. Suffice it to say that the lamed can be taken either way common sense and context being of course the guiding principle, however it is for good reason that ambiguity can provide us with both the historical fact at the time and with prophetic utterance for yet a future fulfillment.

KInd Regards
Chris watts

[Chris Watts]

I am bringing up this topic again because, quite by accident, I stumbled upon Brevard S. Childs commentary on Isaiah 31, published in 2001. I really could not believe my fortune when I started reading his comments on verses 4 and 5. He is saying everything I was questioning and confirming what I have been led to doubt in myself but now find that I am actually on the right path. I have reproduced in part his comments on verse 4 and 5.

Brevard Childs writes (the italics are mine) :

The main problem turns on the relation of Verse 4 to Verse 5 which appears to reverse God's relation to Jerusalem. The attempts of commentators to resolve this problem are numerous and fall into different categories.

The traditional interpretation translates the verb in a positive fashion, to fight for, and sees the action in V 5 and V 4 as the same - protective. The difficulty of this interpretation is that the Hebrew verb with its preposition is used in a negative sense, "to fight against" (cf Num 31:7, Isa 29:7, Zech 14:12). Moreover the image of an attacking lion seems out of place as a protective symbol, even if the stress falls on the lion's tenacity (cf Hos 5:14, Isa 5:29, Nah 2:12).....the oracle in ch 29 against Ariel shares exactly the same pattern. God attacks Jerusalem and then a reversal in verse 6 of chapter 29. Again in Isa 30:13 and a reversal in verse 18.

Chris watts

[Chris Watts]

Yes, לִצְבֹּא עַל would normally mean "to go to war against" or "to fight against," but we see in verse 5 that God is definitely there to defend Jerusalem, not to cause its downfall.

Jason, it takes me much longer to notice things hence the late posts. My qustion for you Jason is simple:

1. Can you really justify changing the common usage of an expression AND altering its grammar based solely upon human logic? That is to say, that the next verse then becomes your authority for altering standard hebrew grammar and basic textual usage?

2. I decided to look up the word צְבֹּא, I had taken it for granted that it meant going to war, this was a mistake I should have looked it up and then I would have seen that only a handful of times is this word used for war. Its main usage seems to be 'a gathering' it has a different emphasis than 'MiLCHaMah' (forgive my transliteration), this meaning war and fighting. But while TSeVa can pre-empt the idea of a battle, it does not necessarily mean that, as I have discovered in Leviticus and elswhere where it refers to a gathering of women, priests etc. Especially in the term, The Lord of Hosts, once again a gathering.

My conclusion therefore is this:
The Lord descends to fight upon mount Zion and its hill. But I believe there is a double entendres in the word עַל, it also means 'against' and this fits in well with history as far as I am concerned, for the enemy is not Jerusalem, but the occupiers.

I am challenging the translation that says: The Lord fights forJerusalem in verse 4, this is an unjustifiable translation and does damage to the text and the prophetic nature of this passage. And simply that translators wish to see verse 5 as the defining interpretation of what has just gone before and cannot accept what appears at first glance to involve a contradiction.


Chris watts

[Jason Hare]

Chris,

I want to encourage you to invest more time in just reading Hebrew. What you're doing is not how you should topple the work of competent translators. It seems like you're trying to tear apart the verse without having the proper tools (knowledge) at your disposal. Hebrew is more than what you get from a simple dictionary. It's a full language that requires reading comprehension.

In this specific case, HALOT has this comment (I've added clarification so that you can understand what the remarks are saying):

[According to Wildberger's Bible commentary, in Isaiah] 31:4... עַל belongs to ירד and not to צבא...

In other words, we should read עַל as part of the phrase
     כֵּ֗ן יֵרֵד֙ יְהוָ֣ה צְבָאֹ֔ות... עַל־הַר־צִיֹּ֖ון וְעַל־גִּבְעָתָֽהּ׃
     Thus shall Yahweh of hosts come down... upon Mt. Sinai and upon its hill.
The verb לִצְבֹּא means "to fight" without any indication of what or whom he will fight. We obviously get the meaning from the context, which tells us in the next verse that God is defending Jerusalem and fighting in her favor. I don't know why you would disparage using context for interpretation as "human logic." That's just dismissive and silly. All meaning is always determined from context, not from wishful thinking.

[Jason Hare]

Can you really justify changing the common usage of an expression AND altering its grammar based solely upon human logic?

Does "human logic" mean "common sense and context"? This phrase generally causes me consternation, as it's used to act like we have anything other than human logic or human wisdom. We are humans. That's the only sense we have. I mean, are you claiming that by using outdated dictionaries and hunches you are using some kind of super-human logic, reasoning, or wisdom? Why do you say "solely upon human logic"? Is this phrase intended to make me doubt my own mind because I'm only human? Does it shield you from calling your own thoughts into question because they are somehow beyond human or inspired? Why use this phrase?

[Chris Watts]

Hallo Jason, Jason, I concur absolutely with what you have written. I agree with you in your comments about how the scriptures should be read. However there is an irony here when you say: ".... I don't know why you would disparage using context for interpretation as "human logic." That's just dismissive and silly. All meaning is always determined from context...." It is the context of all three chapters 29,30 and 31 that got me thinking more carefully and critically about what the hebrew was saying. I did not just pick the verse and start tearing it apart. I had already noticed apparant contradictions in these chapters and the parable with the lion in verse 4 of ch 30 was bothering me for a long time - due to the context and the very unusual manner of God describing his protection against the sudden use of birds flying - defending - passing over - delivering -preserving. This is context: it is an unusual and very explicit description of an historical event Hence I go back and review the hebrew - I started to delve more into the grammar and sought comparative uses of the hebrew in other areas of scripture. Then low and behold I stumbled accross Brevard Child's comments. Is this not context as well?

The basic foundation is also that ch29 is most certainly not Sennecherib and neither can ch30 be either, I have studied meticulously the history of many of the invasions of Jerusalem. Prophetic scripture is History in the prophet's day but also can be history yet years ahead. So I study history. This also is context.

So this is my conclusion: There are conjunctive accents that pull together in this manner: First we read "So the Lord of Hosts will come down" (here is a disjunctive accent, zaquef qaton, before we get to 'to fight'), then we read "to fight/to gather upon and against the hill of zion" etc. These last words have conjunctive accents two merechas I believe). Wildberger like others resolves the contradiction by insisting on the word 'Upon' by aligning it with 'YeReD' but I say there is a double entendres here. History speaks otherwise and I can not ignore Brevard Chld's comments.

Chris watts