Author: henry

Isaiah 31:4-5 has presented a rather substantial exegetical, critical, and even translation problem to a number of commentators. The difficulty can be illustrated by comparing the translation of this verse in the REB:

This is what the LORD has said to me:
As a lion or a young lion growls over its prey
when the shepherds are called out in force,
and it is not scared at their shouting
or daunted by their clamour,
so the LORD of Hosts will come down to do battle
on the heights of Mount Zion. (emphasis mine)

Now compare the NJPS:

For thus the LORD has said to me:
As a lion–a great beast–
Growls over its prey
And, when the shepherds gather
In force against him,
Is not dismayed by their cries
Nor cowed by their noise–
So the LORD of Hosts will descend to make war
Against the mount and the hill of Zion. (emphasis mine)

The problem here is with the question of whether the phrase “litsbo’ al” should be translated as “fight against” or “fight on.” I’m not going to deal with this problem in detail here, as I’m more interested in the relationship of this passage to the general theme of these chapters and of the remainder of Isaiah. The more common translation of that phrase would be “fight against” but that has presented an interpretational problem, because verse 5, immediately following, has YHWH fighting for Jerusalem and protecting it. So why would there be such an intense contrast between two adjacent verses falling within the same prophetic oracle?

For some details on the past critical solutions to this problem, including some claims of interpolation and various efforts to smooth the interpretation, see Childs, Isaiah (OTL, 2001), pp. 232-234. Childs nicely examines the problems both of translation and interpretation, and my comments rest on the foundation he laid there.

Though I’m leaving the detailed discussion of critical issues to Childs, I do need to point to some of the exegetical signals that we have in the passage itself. Note that the oracle begins with a “woe” for those who rely on human means rather than on the Holy One of Israel, and particular those who rely on horses. God has brought misfortune (v. 2) and the horses on which the people rely will be broken. Helper and helped (one can hear the sarcasm in that!) will both perish together.

What is the reason for the enemy’s success? I believe this is what verse 4 tells us. Helper and helped will fall because YHWH is fighting against them.

Now we turn to verse 5, and we see YHWH shielding Jerusalem. I’m not sure why it is that Biblical interpreters, and specifically those who use critical methodologies have such a hard time with abrupt changes of direction and with material that can be reconciled only with some difficulty. The vast majority of the prophetic literature that we have is characterized by shifts in person, in topic, in attitude, and sometimes even in temporal horizon. Where is that pure, organized, easy to comprehend prophetic oracle against which one should compare the disorganized ones? Such an example is quite rare.

In this case, though the shift is abrupt, it’s symmetrical. In fact, you can create a fairly decent chiasm. I’m not sure this is an intentional literary device, or simply an accident of the message itself and of the historical situation (see below), but let me outline it nonetheless:

The a – a’ portion leaves a bit to be desired, but I think it works generally. The contrast that gives so many interpreters trouble is between 4 and 5. What is the prophet doing moving from opposition to Jerusalem to support for it in such a short space? I commented earlier on a similar tension in chapter 27, in which we have the punishment of Jerusalem combined with the punishment of the instruments of that punishment. We also have the expression there (27:4-5) of God’s desire for a decisive stand on the part of his vineyard. I would suggest that this theme of tension between judgment and deliverance is constant throughout Isaiah.

Further, that theme of judgment is presented forcefully in historical terms in chapters 36-37. We often teach and preach that story as one of deliverance for Jerusalem, and certainly Jerusalem is delivered. Yet one could also preach it as the story of the devastation of the rest of Judah before Jerusalem was delivered. If I could revive my chiasm for a moment (Isaiah 36-37):

The literary structure is not the same, of course, but the data is all there. In fact, I think the oracle of chapter 31 can easily be seen as tailored for the events of chapters 36-37. In that event in the reign of Hezekiah, God expresses his prophetic word in a series of historical events. While trusting on human power, Judah falls, except for Jerusalem, to the foreign power. In depending on God, Judah is redeemed.

Now if we can broaden our horizon just a bit, consider a similar theme in Isaiah as a whole. Often students complain about the first 35 chapters of Isaiah which have only a few moments of positive message. The historical scene in chapters 36-39 provides a nice historical hinge, but then Isaiah 40-66 continues on a much more positive note. Indeed the early chapters do have oracles of promise, and the later ones have oracles of judgment, but the tone is substantially different. I would suggest, however, that we have just such a split in the entire book as we have between 31:4 and 31:5, and between the two parts of the story of Sennacherib’s invasion.

In the end, the “prophetic voice” of the experience of the invasion in the time of Hezekiah was not heard, as is illustrated by the story of chapters 38-39 where, after another deliverance, Hezekiah is focused on his own wealth and power, and not on the deliverance provided by God. Thus we had to have another hinge, as the people go into exile in 586 BCE, again finding the support of Egypt unavailing, and do not return to that dependence on God until after the exile.