Isaiah 17: 13 Rebuke them

[Chris Watts]

לְאֻמִּ֗ים כִּשְׁא֞וֹן מַ֤יִם רַבִּים֙ יִשָּׁא֔וּן וְגָ֥עַר בּ֖וֹ

When I read this verse I immediately saw the 3rd Common Singular pronoun suffix attached to the preposition and translated as 'him' or 'it'. I fully understand the temptation to use the context here and supply both 'God' and 'them'. But I feel this is not very wise.

Genesis 37:10 is the only other occurrence I could find where this preopositon בּ֖ is used with the 3 common singular pronoun suffix after this verb.

In view of the apparaant absence of fluidity that it may procure, why should the text be changed just to suit our appetite for common sense? Should not the text stay as : He rebuked him, or He shall rebuke him? Both the 'Him' and the 'He' is yet to be understood?


chris watts

[ducky]

Hi Chris,

Didn't understand so much all of your questions.
But anyway...

1. The גער+ב appears many times in the bible.

2. The בו in the singular can be addressed to the המון as they were titles in the previous verse.
Or to the שאון at the beginning of that verse.
Also, Notice that this word גער comes a lot with the "sea" (and we see that this verse compares the people to many waters.

For example:
Nahum 1:4 גּוֹעֵר בַּיָּם וַיַּבְּשֵׁהוּ
Psalms 106:9 וַיִּגְעַר בְּיַם סוּף וַיֶּחֱרָב
2Sam 22:16 (also Psa. 18:16) וַיֵּרָאוּ אֲפִקֵי יָם יִגָּלוּ מֹסְדוֹת תֵּבֵל בְּגַעֲרַת י״י מִנִּשְׁמַת רוּחַ אַפּוֹ
Isa. 50:2 בְּגַעֲרָתִי אַחֲרִיב יָם

Plus the other word נס in verse like:
Psa. 114:3 יָּם רָאָה וַיָּנֹס
Psa. 104:7 מִן גַּעֲרָתְךָ יְנוּסוּן (both roots here).

[Chris Watts]

Hi Chris,

Didn't understand so much all of your questions.
But anyway...
1. The גער+ב appears many times in the bible.

Hi David,

Yes, you are right it does appear many times in scripture, BUT, only one other place will you find this verb followed by the preposition and its pronoun suffix as I quoted above. My question is really, why use the singular form if it is supposed to be plural? The fact that the peoples and seas are synonyms did not escape me, but then why not write בהם? In many many prophetic utterances not only are we left with no doubt at all about God being the subject and agent of things, even moreso do we read 'God' multiple times in a single paragraph so to speak, as if we are to be left in no doubt at all that it indeed is God performing the action, but here we are left only with a supposition, there is no certainty that God is rebuking the peoples, we are left wondering not only by the pronoun suffix, but by a vague possibility that God is intended as the subject? It is easy to justify 'God' and 'Them' are intended in this short verse, but is it really ? Verse 7 and 8 do not sound to me like the usual situation as in other chapters where God is clearly bringing disaster because of Jacob's departure from the Lord. Then verse 12 certainly does not feel like a continuation of verse 11.

What hits me is not that the hebrew is vague, but that when the whole chapter is read it then makes the vagueness of that hebrew clause with the preposition and pronoun suffix somewhat questionable.

chris watts

[ducky]

do you mean גער + בו?
It is also not rare in the bible.

I don't really follow your words.
Do you ask why the text in this part refers to the enemy in a singular way and not in a plural way?

[Chris Watts]

do you mean גער + בו?
It is also not rare in the bible.

I don't really follow your words.
Do you ask why the text in this part refers to the enemy in a singular way and not in a plural way?

Hi David,

There are only 14 scriptures with this verb.

There are only 2 scriptures where you have this verb plus the preposition with its third common singular pronominal suffix added. Isaiah 17:3 and Genesis 37:10.

Some of them have different pronominal suffixes added and some are simply the preposition prefixed to a word etc.

What I said was that only TWO have the 3rd Pronominal suffix in 3rd person singular.

Yes, this is my question, why have the singular if you are referring to the plural? Not only this by the way, but verse 14 one would have expected to have begun in the plural as well, but no, it begins with the verb in the singuar which is agreeing with the previous clause?

Chris watts

[ducky]

Hi Chris,

I see two different questions in your post and I don't see the link between them.

Anyway, You are right that the גער+בו appears only twice.
(by the way, if you talk about the 3rd person singular, then you forgot Ruth 2:16 which is 3rd person feminine)

But anyway, there is no difference between the בו that you saw and the בירמיהו in Jer. 29:27 or the בים in Nahum 1:4.

I don't get your point here. Please tell me what is the problem with this.
(I really don't understand you).

***
As for singular and plural...
There are cases in the Bible when the text starts with singular and turns into plural and vice verse.
It can be played.
And in this case, is not even an extreme case, since "a group of people" can be used as a singular or as a plural.
In this case, he compares the people to water as the big sea that comes and threatens to wash everything, and so it is easy for the text to turn into singular form and use words that describe a known figure of God push the sea back and the sea retreats. (and this "picture" was probably a known "picture").

[Jason Hare]

It's like saying that there's a substantive difference between "I hit the ball" and "I hit it" or "I love my mother" and "I love her." What difference does it make if it is בילד or בו? Pronouns simply replace nouns for purposes of linguistic conservation and to reduce monotony. Can you imagine having to make the subject and object of a sentence overt in every expression?

"I talked to my mother yesterday. My mother lives in Missouri, but my mother and I get to speak quite frequently because of the wonders of modern technology. Yesterday, I sent my mother some gifts from Amazon.com in honor of my mother's birthday. The gifts arrived quickly, since I delivered the gifts with Prime, which allows for speedy delivery within the United States. My mother appreciated the gifts, and I wished my mother a happy birthday."

That is clunky and terrible. Would it make the verbs somehow other if I replaced "my mother" with "she" and "her" at several spots or if I substituted "them" for "the gifts" in other places?

Similarly in Hebrew. If it says גער בו or גער ביוסף, what is the difference? Do you think it significant that בו is used? If so, why?

[Chris Watts]

That is clunky and terrible. Would it make the verbs somehow other if I replaced "my mother" with "she" and "her" at several spots or if I substituted "them" for "the gifts" in other places?

Similarly in Hebrew. If it says גער בו or גער ביוסף, what is the difference? Do you think it significant that בו is used? If so, why?

Dear Jason, did you write this at the end of an exhausting day? Well, don't worry, I am not going to wait till Tishri 1st to forgive you

Firstly - It is funny that in my comment above I even Pre-empted this thought before you wrote it. There are plenty of times when clunkiness seems to be used and an over-emphasis on God doing the judging is often used in scripture. Give me a day and I will quote some passgaes, but I just want to get this response off quickly.

Secondly - here was what I asked above: " My question is really, why use the singular form if it is supposed to be plural? The fact that the peoples and seas are synonyms did not escape me, but then why not write בהם? In many many prophetic utterances not only are we left with no doubt at all about God being the subject and agent of things, even moreso do we read 'God' multiple times in a single paragraph so to speak, as if we are to be left in no doubt at all that it indeed is God performing the action, but here we are left only with a supposition, there is no certainty that God is rebuking the peoples, we are left wondering not only by the pronoun suffix, but by a vague possibility that God is intended as the subject? It is easy to justify 'God' and 'Them' are intended in this short verse, but is it really ? Verse 7 and 8 do not sound to me like the usual situation as in other chapters where God is clearly bringing disaster because of Jacob's departure from the Lord. Then verse 12 certainly does not feel like a continuation of verse 11."

To put it more succinctly, it is the Absence of 'God' and 'Them' in this clause that caught my attention. In other words, as you would often so often find in scripture, for example, "....and God rebuked them..." or rather in order to leave absolutely no doubt at all in our minds, "...God rebuked the peoples, or God rebuked the roaring or the waves or whatever..." But NO, we are left with a hebrew clause that begs us to ask WHO is rebuking WHAT/WHOM. As I said earlier, all commentators and hebraists say that this is GOD rebuking the NATIONS that are attacking, I am asking, "Can you be so sure about this? Especially given the context of Ch 17 as a whole.

Chris watts

[ducky]

Hi Chris,

Just now I think I understand your point.
Do you ask why the word גער doesn't come with its subject (God)?
And why there is a switch from plural to singular?

As for the switch, I think that what I said before can be satisfying (at least for me)
1. A switch like that happens a few times in the bible.
(I can search for examples but I guess that through time we'll see it, and I hope I'll remember to add it to this thread).
2. One can say that there is no real switch. Because literally, the singular addresses the word שאון in its verse or the word המון in the previous one.
3. The fact that both word גער and נס appear together, make me think that the switch is made for the idiom of "sea" (which I guess was very popular), and so, while doing that, the verbs naturally changed for that idiom.
(I don't know if "idiom" is the word - I mean like a phrase, or an image).


As for why the גער comes without its subject.
I don't really know - I can only guess that it was obvious, and I can also go back to that Idiom of the sea and guess that this idiom was like a pattern that its subject "is no need for introduction".

**
Personally, I think it is about the Idiom.
I mean, when I read it, this image/idiom popped up automatically, and I didn't even notice that the גער stands without a subject (I just read it without a question in my mind).

[Chris Watts]

Hallo David,

I absolutely agree with your all your comments David. I have also seen a singular refer to a plural once or twice and just passed it off. However, in this particular case, where the context of ch 17 is involved and the following points:

וְגָ֥עַר בּ֖וֹ וְנָ֣ס מִמֶּרְחָ֑ק

1. We have a string of perfects in 3rd Singular, not plural.

2. The whole of verse 12 and 13 apart from one noun contains a string of Plurals

3. I can not believe that (as you quoted above, these words: the singular addresses the word שאון in its verse or the word המון in the previous one..) that the pronoun is pointing back to the word "Rushing" then one has to say God is rebuking/de-railing the plans of the roaring and the rushing rather than referring to the peoples themselves.

I get that someties plurals and singulars switch and pronoun suffixes switch, I get also that one need not fuss over this. But I seriously believe that something else must be intended here other than what it, at first glance, appears to be. Firstly this is not a judgement upon Israel, yes there is a rebuke, but there is no judgement going on here, secondly, verse 14 is taken to mean when Sennecherib stood probably on Olivet or Scopus in the time of Hezekiah and his army destroyed overnight, but I disagree with this, though it would require a new post to elaborate. So it is not just the Hebrew grammar, the whole context of ch 17 brings this clause into question. I think at the moment anyway. And no commentator seems to have tackled it other than a short gloss over it being Assyria - and that seems improbable as well.

Anyway, you don't have to respond, we can end the discussion, there is no disagrreement here with anything you said above, thankyou for your input and comments David.

Chris watts