Wordplay in the Eighth-Century Prophets

By Robert B. Chisholm Jr.

[Assistant Professor of Semitics and Old Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary]

A variety of literary and rhetorical devices fill the writings of the Old Testament prophets, lending vividness and emotion to their powerful messages. Through these devices the prophets often expressed their theological themes. One of the most common techniques they employed was wordplay.

Wordplay can be based on repetition, various meanings expressed by an individual word (polysemy), identity in sound between two or more words (homonymy), or similarity in sound between two or more words (paronomasia).

Various systems for the classification of wordplay have been proposed.[1] In this study the following categories will be used (though this list is not intended to be exhaustive or definitive by any means).

1. Wordplay involving a single word

a. repeated in the same semantic sense

b. repeated with a different sense (explicit polysemantic wordplay)[2]

c. used once with two senses implied (implicit polysemantic wordplay)[3]

2. Wordplay involving two or more words

a. identical in sound (homonymy)

b. similar in sound (paronomasia), including similarity in consonants (alliteration) and/or vowels (assonance).

In this study each of these categories is illustrated, drawing examples from the eighth-century prophets Isaiah, Hosea, Amos, and Micah. In each of the examples recognition of the wordplay contributes to a fuller exegetical and theological understanding of the passage and thereby enhances interpretation of the prophetic message. Through such examples the reader, whose concerns may be more exegetical than artistic, should recognize that identifying wordplay can be more than just an exercise in aesthetic appreciation of the biblical literature. At times it proves to be crucial to understanding the full import of the prophetic message.

Wordplay Involving a Single Word

Repetition Of A Single Word In The Same Sense

An example of wordplay involving repetition of a single word used in the same sense appears in Hosea 8:3, 5. According to verse 3, Israel had rejected (zānaḥ) what is good by breaking her covenant with God (v. 1) and turning to idolatry (v. 4). Consequently the Lord rejected (zānaḥ)[4] Samaria’s calf idol (v. 5), which would be broken to bits when judgment fell (v. 6). The wordplay brings out the correspondence between the divine response and the sin that prompted it.

Amos 5:10, 15, and 21 provide another example of this type of wordplay. According to verse 10, the sinners addressed by Amos hated (śāneʾû) anyone who attempted to stand up for truth and justice in the courts. In verse 15 the prophet exhorted these same individuals to “hate” (śinʾû) evil. The repetition serves to contrast the sinners’ actual attitude with God’s ideal. In verse 21 God declared that He “hates” (śānēʾt̠î) the sinners’ religious feasts. The repetition of the verb śānēʾ, “to hate,” draws attention to the correspondence between the divine response and the sin that prompted it. The sinners hated/rejected social justice; so God in turn hated/rejected their hypocritical religion, which was a false substitute for ethical living.

Repetition Of A Single Word In A Different Sense

Wordplay can sometimes involve the repetition of a word in a different sense. A well-known example occurs in Isaiah 1:19–20. The Lord promised that obedience to His ethical demands (cf. vv. 16–17) would bring blessing in the form of agricultural prosperity (v. 19). The people would eat (tô̄kēlû) the good things of the land. However, rejection of Yahweh’s demands would result in judgment (v. 20). In this case unrepentant sinners would be destroyed (lit. “eaten,” teʾukkelu) by the sword (symbolic of enemy invasion and military might). The use of ʾākal in two distinct senses (“eat”/ “destroy”) highlights the contrast between the promise and the threat, a contrast which corresponds to the opposite responses hypothesized in the protases of verses 19–20 .

Another example of this type of wordplay is found in Isaiah 32:9, 11, and 18. In verses 9 and 11 the Lord addressed the “complacent” (šaʾănannôt̠ ) women of Jerusalem who “feel secure” (bô̄t̠̣eḥôt̠) and announced that judgment was imminent. However, the tone of the message changes in verse 15, where the restoration following judgment is portrayed. When God restores His people, they will live “undisturbed” (šaʾănannôt̠, v. 18; note also mib̠t̠̣aḥîm earlier in the verse) in the land. The repetition of šaʾănannôt̠ in the senses “complacent”/”undisturbed” (as well as the repetition of the root bt̠̣ḥ) highlights the contrast between the sinful condition of the people in Isaiah’s time and the future situation to be created by the Lord. True security comes only from Him.

Wordplay involving repetition is not limited to individual speech units. Sometimes it can be observed over wider contexts, attesting to the unity of the prophetic message as a whole. For example in Hosea 7:13 the Lord accused His people of having “strayed” (nād̠ed̠û ) from Him. In Hosea 9:17, where the theme of disobedience appears again, the Lord warned that Israel would become wanderers (nô̄d̠ed̠îm) among the nations. The repetition of nād̠ad̠, used in slightly different senses (“stray” or “wander off/from” in 7:13; “wander about” in 9:17), brings out the appropriate nature of Israel’s punishment. Since Israel was so determined to wander from the Lord, He would make wandering their way of life.

Another example from Hosea highlights the reversal of God’s judgment in the final salvation of Israel. In Hosea 13:7 the Lord compared Himself, in His role as Israel’s Judge, to a vicious predator which “lurks” (NIV)/”lies in wait” (NASB) (ʾāšûr) for unsuspecting prey passing by. In the conclusion to the prophecy, which stresses the Lord’s future restoration and blessing of His people, this same verb reappears. Now the Lord declared His intention to “care for” (waʾăšûrennû, from šûr) His people and protect them (14:9; Eng. v. 8). The vicious leopard has become the beneficent protector. The reversal in the Lord’s attitude toward His people is highlighted by the repetition of the verb šûr.

Use Of A Single Word With Two Senses Implied

Wordplay sometimes involves a word being used once with two senses being implied. For example in Micah 4:11 the nations assemble (neʾesp̄û) for battle against Jerusalem in anticipation of a great victory. Little do they know that the Lord has actually gathered them like grain to the threshing floor so that Zion might “thresh” them (vv. 12–13). From the nations’ perspective they are “massed” for battle.[5] However, verses 12–13 suggest another sense for ʾāsap̄. From God’s perspective the nations have been harvested or heaped up for threshing/destruction.[6] The double entendre here serves to contrast the nations’ limited perception with God’s sovereign purpose.

Amos 3:12 provides another example of implicit polysemantic wordplay. The covenant rebels addressed by Amos were anticipating a great deliverance by the Lord (cf. 5:18). One of Amos’ major themes was that this expectation would not be realized. Because of Israel’s sin, the Lord’s “day” would be one of judgment, not salvation (5:19–20). This background is essential to understanding the use of the verb nạ̄al in 3:12. This word frequently refers to deliverance from enemies (including death), appearing in this sense in accounts of Israel’s salvation history (Gen 32:12, Eng. v. 11; 32:31, Eng. v. 30; Exod 12:27; 18:8, 10; 1 Sam 17:37) and in its hymnic tradition (Pss. 18:1, Eng. title; 33:19; 56:14, Eng. v. 13; 86:13). It was this kind of deliverance Amos’ generation anticipated. However, in Amos 3:12 the Lord made it clear that Israel’s “deliverance” would in reality be only a “snatching away,” comparable to a shepherd’s salvaging bits and pieces of a devoured sheep from a ferocious predator. Nāṣal, used here in its basic sense of “snatch away,” has the force of “salvage,” while at the same time reminding one of the unrealized ideal of genuine salvation. Once again wordplay is used for purposes of contrast and irony.[7]

Wordplay Involving Two or More Words

Homonymy

Micah 2:5, 10 provides an example of homonymic wordplay. According to verse 5, the sinful real estate entrepreneurs, having been dispossessed of their holdings by the Lord (cf. v. 4), would have no representative in the future distribution of the land in the time of restoration. More specifically, they would have no one “to divide the land by lot” (mašlîk ḥeb̠el beḡôrāl, v. 5, lit. “one casting a measuring-cord by lot”). In verse 10 these oppressors are urged to flee from their present land holdings because the land they had accumulated was contaminated by a destructive illness (t̠̣ômʾăe62k̠ t̠eḥabbēl weḥeb̠el nimrạ̄, v. 10, lit. “uncleanness which brings destruction, even irreversible destruction”), which is probably a reference to their sins, which make judgment imminent. The word translated “destruction” in verse 10 (ḥeb̠el, from the verb ḥāb̠al, “to destroy”) is a homonym of ḥeb̠el, “measuring-cord” (used in v. 5). The point of the wordplay is unfulfilled ambition and appropriate punishment. The sinners would receive the opposite of what they so fervently tried to acquire. They desperately wanted land (cf. vv. 1–2). However, there would be no “measuring-cord” (ḥeb̠el, symbolizing landed property) for them; they would have a different type of ḥeb̠el (i.e., destruction), which would make continued existence on the land they presently possessed impossible.

Paronomasia

Probably the most common type of wordplay used by the prophets is paronomasia, which is based on the similarity in sound between certain words. For example in the parabolic song of the vineyard (Isa 5:1–7) the Lord denounced sinful Judah for failing to meet His ethical demands. He required justice (cf. mišp̄āt̠̣ and ̣ed̠āqăe62k̠ in v. 7), which corresponds to the good grapes of verses 2 and 4. Instead He witnessed only bloodshed (miśp̄āḥ), v. 7)[8] and cries of distress (̣eʿāqăe62k̠, v. 7), corresponding to the bad grapes mentioned in the preceding context. Instead of promoting social justice, the men of Judah had oppressed the poor. This perversion of the divine standard is highlighted by the very words employed to describe it. Just as mišpāḥ and ̣eʿāqăe62k̠ are semantically significant phonological alterations of mišp̄āt̠̣ and ̣ed̠āqăe62k̠, respectively (note the identical vowel patterns which are retained, even when some of the consonants are changed), so Judah’s treatment of the poor was an ethically significant alteration (in this case “perversion” is preferable because of the moral connotation) of God’s requirements.

In Isaiah 24:17–18 the inescapability of the coming judgment is emphasized. Paronomasia is employed to highlight this fact and to stress the unified character of the instruments of judgment, designated here as “terror” (paḥad̠), “pit” (paḥat̠), and “snare” (pāḥ) (note the repetition of the p/ḥ combination). These three will act in concert to make escape impossible. Their similar sounding names draw attention to their relationship as “allies” against the sinful inhabitants of the earth.

In the covenant lawsuit of Micah 6 the Lord used paronomasia to contrast His people’s warped perception of reality with His own correct assessment of their situation. They were apparently complaining that the Lord had “burdened” them (ûmăe62k̠ helʾēt̠îkā, “How have I burdened you,” v. 3). In denying the charge, the Lord pointed out that He had actually delivered, not burdened, them (heʿĕlit̠îkā mēʾerẹ mịrayim, “I brought you up out of Egypt,” v. 4).

Combinations of the Preceding Types

Often a passage will combine several types of wordplay. For example in Micah 2:1–5, a judgment speech against those who oppress the poor, the prophet employed repetition and paronomasia to emphasize the theme of poetic justice. A woe oracle is announced over those who plan (ḥô̄šeb̠ê, v. 1) evil (rāʿ, v. 1) schemes to rob the poor of their landed property. They take away the fields (śād̠ôt̠, v. 2) of the poor and carry off (nāśāʾû, v. 2) their possessions. In the announcement of judgment against these oppressors (vv. 3–5), the Lord proclaimed that He was planning (ḥô̄šēb̠, v. 3) a calamity (rāʿăe62k̠, v. 3; cf. rāʿ in v. 1) against them. In the day of judgment they would be forced to watch helplessly as their conquerors parceled out their fields (śād̠ênû, v. 4) to others. At that time the enemy would ridicule (lit. “lift up a taunt song over”; cf. esp. yiśśā, v. 4, with nāśāʾû, v. 2) them. In the taunt song, the words of which are recorded in verse 4b, the mockers quoted the words of the mourning rich, who lamented that they were “utterly ruined” (šad̠ôd̠ nešʾddʿnû, Qal infinitive absolute + Niphal perfect, from šād̠ad̠, v. 4; note the similarity in sound to śād̠ôt̠, “fields,” used in v. 2).

As noted above, the various forms of wordplay include repetition of a word in the same sense (ḥāšab̠ and śād̠eh), repetition of a word in a different sense (rāʿ/rāʿăe62k̠ in the senses of “moral evil” and “calamity,” and nāśāʾ, in the senses of “carry off/steal” and “sing”), and paronomasia (involving šād̠ad̠ and śād̠eh). Poetic justice clearly emerges as the central theme of the oracle. The rich, who oppressed their fellow citizens, would be judged appropriately. The Lord would scheme against the schemers and would repay evil with evil. Those who stole the fields of the poor were about to learn how their victims felt by experiencing the loss of their own fields. Those who lifted up the possessions of others would have a taunt song lifted up over them. The very words of that song (specifically those words containing sibilants and dentals) would be a stark reminder of their unjust acts.[9]

In Isaiah 1:4–7 repetition (of zûr, “be a stranger”) and homonymic wordplay contribute to the theme of poetic justice. In verse 4 the Israelites are accused of rejecting the Lord. The phrase nāzô̄rû ʾāḥôr, “they are estranged backward,” describes their departure from the Lord. In verse 7 the same word (zûr) appears twice (in participial form), referring to the foreign armies that had already overrun the land of Judah. The repetition of zûr emphasizes the close relationship between sin and punishment. The people had treated the Lord as a “stranger,” and so, appropriately, their judgment involved “strangers.” In verse 6 the homonymic zô̄rû is used in a description of a badly beaten body (representing Judah here). Judah had been severely battered by the Lord’s judgments and was covered, as it were, with sores that had not received medical attention. These wounds had not been “cleansed” (i.e., “pressed out,” lô̄ʾ zô̄rû), bandaged, or soothed with oil. Because of its similarity in sound to zûr, “be a stranger” (used in vv. 4 and 7), zûr, “press down,”[10] contributes to the theme of poetic justice by drawing one’s attention to the correspondence between sin and punishment.

The Prophet Amos was also a master at combining several types of wordplay to emphasize the theme of poetic justice. In 6:1–7 he employed repetition (of the root rʾš and the word serûḥîm, “sprawled out”) and paronomasia to demonstrate that the arrogant leaders of Samaria would be justly and appropriately punished by the Lord. In verse 1 these leaders are referred to as the “notable men of the foremost (rēʾšît̠) nation.” According to verse 6, these individuals used the “finest (rēʾšît̠) lotions” to anoint their bodies. Appropriately they would be first (rô̄ʾš, v. 7) in line when the roll call of exiles was given! In that day those who loved to “lounge” (seruḥîm, v. 4) on their couches would find that their “lounging” (seruḥîm, v. 7) had come to an end. The verb translated “will end” (sār, v. 7) sounds like seruḥîm, further highlighting the correspondence between sin and punishment.[11]

Conclusion

While wordplay has numerous functions,[12] its most exegetically significant uses are to indicate correspondence and contrast (or reversal). The prophets frequently used wordplay to bring out the relationship between events that on the surface might seem unrelated or only loosely connected. This is especially true with respect to the themes of sin and judgment. The prophets used wordplay to draw attention to the appropriate or poetic nature of divine justice. A word used in the accusatory section of a prophetic message to describe the sin of an offender is repeated, or matched by a similar sounding word, in the accompanying announcement of judgment on that sin, impressing one with the fact that the punishment announced by God fits the crime committed.

The prophets also employed wordplay to draw contrasts between two or more phenomena. The precise nature of the contrast varies from context to context, as the examples cited in this article illustrate. Theologically speaking, wordplay often highlights the sharp distinction between the divine and human perspectives. God’s erring people fell short of His holy standard (Amos 5:10, 15) and failed to evaluate properly His sovereign actions (Micah 6:3–4). Consequently they failed to achieve their own ambitions (Amos 3:12; Micah 2:5, 10). In spite of His people’s sin, which brings harsh divine judgment, God still promised to restore Israel and reverse their situation, a fact highlighted by wordplay (Hos 13:7; 14:9, Eng. v. 8; and Isa 32:9, 11, 18). In this way one gains insight into the gracious character of divine salvation. The same God who appropriately judges sin promises to reverse completely the effects of that judgment.

Notes

1. See Wilfred G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 26 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), p. 238, as well as the sources cited there.
2. For a discussion of explicit and implicit polysemantic wordplay, see Stephen Ullmann, Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1977), pp. 188-89.
3. Ibid.
4. God is the implied subject of the third masculine singular verb form in the Masoretic text (cf. NASB). Since God is speaking in the context, some prefer to read an imperatival form (zénaḥ), which is presupposed by the Septuagint, Aquila, and Theodotion (cf. NIV). This reading, while preserving the wordplay with verse 3, demands a different force for it, namely, the people should have experienced a re-versal in their attitude, demonstrating the same antipathy for their idols as they had for what is good. However, the reading of the Masoretic text, though the more difficult one, is not impossible. Elsewhere in Hosea third person references to God occur in divine speeches rather frequently (cf. 1:7; 4:6, 10, 12; 8:13–14). Another possibility is to emend to a first person form (cf. the apparatus of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) or repoint it as an infinitive absolute functioning as a finite verb (cf. Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Hosea, The Anchor Bible [Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1980], p. 494).
5. The translation is that of Leslie C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), p. 334.
6. The verb ʾāsap̱ is used elsewhere in harvesting/threshing contexts (cf. Exod 23:10, 16; Lev 23:39; 25:3, 20; Deut 11:14; 16:13; 28:38; Job 39:12; Isa 17:5; Jer 40:10, 12). Note also the use of the related noun, ʾōsep̱ in Micah 7:1.
7. For further discussion of the wordplay here, see Hans Walter Wolff, Joel and Amos (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), pp. 197-98; James Luther Mays, Amos (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), p. 67; and Gerhard Hasel, The Remnant, Andrews University Monographs, Studies in Religion, 5, 3d ed. (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1980), pp. 180-81.
8. This is the meaning given in Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907), p. 705. They relate the word to the root spḥ, an s/ś interchange being proposed. Walter Baumgartner offers the meaning “lawbreaking” (Rechtsbruch), deriving the word from the root pśḥ (a metathesis of p/s being proposed for miśpāḥ). See his Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, 3 vols. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967–83), p. 606.
9. For further discussion of the poetic justice theme in these verses, see Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Sin and Judgment in the Prophets, Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series, 27 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), pp. 29-31.
10. So Brown, Driver, and Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, pp. 266-67. Baumgartner takes the root as zrr, rather than zwr. (Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, p. 272). In this case the root would still be virtually homonymic to zûr, “be a stranger.”
11. For further discussion of the relationship between wordplay and the theme of poetic justice in this passage, see Miller, Sin and Judgment in the Prophets, p. 23.
12. For a list of these, see Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques, pp. 245-46.

Sovereignty of God and Prayer Steven Lawson

Structure, Style, and the Prophetic Message: An Analysis of Isaiah 5:8-30

By Robert B. Chisholm Jr.

[Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., Assistant Professor of Semitics and Old Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary]

In her final, unforgettable adventure in Wonderland, Alice appeared as a witness at the trial of an unfortunate knave accused of stealing the queen’s tarts. After listening to the White Rabbit present some cryptic, nonsensical verses as evidence against the defendant, Alice in exasperation challenged the jurors, “If any one of them can explain it, I’ll give him sixpence. I don’t believe there’s an atom of meaning in it.” In moments of absolute honesty every would-be interpreter of the Old Testament prophets, when confronted by their all-too-often impenetrable messages, has uttered words very similar to those of Alice.

Why are these prophetic messages so difficult to comprehend? Often the reason is the major barrier the interpreter faces, the immense distance (chronological, geographical, cultural, and linguistic) that separates him from the prophetic author. Due to modern advances in textual criticism, philology, and archaeology, however, one is often able to cross the expanse. Yet even when this long, arduous journey is successfully completed, problems sometimes remain. Frequently the prophetic message defies attempts to discern its organizing principle(s) and summarize its theological theme(s). On occasion the prophet’s words seem to be a disorganized collection of unrelated themes.To make matters worse, the prophets did not always express their ideas in straightforward, propositional statements. In fact their highly poetic, impassioned style frustrates efforts to theologize their messages.

Fortunately the situation is not as bleak as it seems. As the recent trend toward literary study of the Bible gains impetus,[1] significant breakthroughs in the understanding of Scripture are taking place. In particular, studies in the prophets are revealing that the prophetic messages are organized in a highly artistic manner. The force of the messages and their theological themes are linked to and at times veiled within their structure and style. As more is learned about the literary structures and rhetorical devices employed by the prophets, understanding of and appreciation for their profound messages grow. Even in texts whose organization and meaning have been reasonably clear for some time, this new emphasis is bringing greater precision and sophistication to interpretation.

The Method

Many scholars call this study of structure and style rhetorical criticism. However, proponents of this approach have yet to achieve unanimity in defining the discipline and outlining its method.[2] For some, rhetorical criticism is a rather loosely defined, all-encompassing analysis of a text’s structure(s) and stylistic devices.[3] Others propose a more restricted definition and apply the categories of classical rhetoric to the biblical text.[4] Despite these differences in approach, it is possible to arrive at a basic working definition of biblical rhetorical criticism. Understanding “rhetoric” as “the art of speaking or writing effectively,” one may define rhetorical criticism as “the study of a speaker’s/author’s communicative technique.” Rhetorical criticism studies the dynamics of the author’s/speaker’s relationship to his audience via his message. It examines how the author/speaker has organized (structure) and expressed (style) his message in order to achieve maximum effectiveness in light of his purpose.

Some might object to applying the term “rhetoric” to the biblical message for at least two reasons. First, the word frequently has negative connotations in today’s culture. “Rhetoric” makes one think of campaign speeches and political demagoguery. Second, “rhetoric” is usually associated with oral presentations. Since the Bible is a collection of writings in book form, the term “rhetoric” seems inapplicable.

Both of these objections are invalid. While the term does have a specialized meaning that conveys a negative idea, it can also carry the more general, neutral sense defined above. Also the term may be applied legitimately to written texts.[5] Even more importantly, one must recognize that the Bible, in the context in which it originated, was primarily intended to be read aloud. Before the invention of printing, it was impossible for copies of texts to be widely distributed. Consequently public readings of texts were the normal means of dissemination. One presupposes that texts would be composed with this form of communication in mind. This built-in oral orientation should leave no doubt that the biblical texts are valid objects of rhetorical analysis.[6]

Biblical rhetorical criticism has built on the foundation of form criticism. Despite the great value of form criticism,[7] especially in its identification of typical structural patterns in biblical texts, it has proven inadequate. Many have become dissatisfied with its inflexibility, overemphasis on the typical, and tendency to fragmentize texts.[8] Rhetorical criticism moves “beyond” form criticism in that it gives attention to a text’s individuality and unique structural elements and focuses on the unity of the text in its present form. Its concern for stylistic devices takes it far beyond the scope of form criticism.

This brief study employs rhetorical criticism in analyzing Isaiah 5:8–30.[9] The purposes are (a) to illustrate the types of observations a rhetorical approach might include and (b) to demonstrate the benefits of such an approach to the interpretive-theological process. The study is intended to be illustrative and provocative, not exhaustive or methodologically definitive. A thorough rhetorical study of the passage would need to include an application of classical categories and a detailed treatment of figures of speech, both of which are beyond the scope of this study.

Isaiah 5:8-30: Audience and Purpose

The rhetorical situation or context of Isaiah 5:8–30 must first be determined. Several factors complicate this task. While the broad outlines of Isaiah’s time are known, it is impossible to date this particular message precisely. The internal evidence of the prophecy indicates that Isaiah’s purpose was to convince the sinful people of Judah that divine judgment was both necessary and certain. There appears to be no intent to motivate repentance. The prophet’s role was to condemn sin and announce divine vengeance. An examination of Isaiah’s commission at the time of his call (Isa 6:9–13) supports this conclusion.

One cannot limit the scope of Isaiah’s message, however, to the sinful audience addressed in the prophecy or to the context in which it was initially proclaimed. A righteous remnant also became recipients of the message (cf. Isa 3:10; 6:13b). For them the message was a reminder of the Lord’s demand for covenant fidelity and a motivation to continued faithfulness (cf. 8:11–17). The prophecy’s heavy emphasis on divine justice possibly even encouraged this group. If evildoers were punished in an appropriate manner, then the righteous could expect an appropriate reward from the divine Judge (cf. 3:10–11). The remnant would have interpreted the coming judgment as the first stage in the divine program of renewal and restoration (cf. 1:21–31).

Once the prophecy is viewed in the larger context of chapters 1–12, the major theme of which is restoration through judgment, this positive emphasis is apparent as well. In this canonical context Isaiah 5:8–30 became a warning to all who heard or read it that only the faithful would participate in the Golden Age to come.[10]

The Structure of Isaiah 5:8-30

Form Criticism

One is immediately struck by the sixfold use of הוֹי (translated “woe” in the NIV and NASB) in verses 8–22. Its repetition suggests its function as a structural device. Most commentators, following this lead, have divided verses 8–24 into six individual units, each introduced by הוֹי.11 Form critics, who have isolated the הוֹי (or “woe”) oracle as a distinct prophetic speech form with a specific Sitz im Leben, usually support this arrangement.[12]

From a form-critical standpoint this outline is acceptable but inadequate. A more basic formal pattern, the judgment speech, into which the הוֹי pattern fits, is discernible. Westermann has shown that the prophetic הוֹי oracle is a subcategory or variant of the judgment speech.[13] The basic components of the judgment speech are an accusation and an announcement of judgment.[14] In the הוֹי type, the vocative of address following the interjection often contains, at least in part, the accusation. As will be seen, הוֹי itself suggests impending doom, but often a more developed announcement will appear.

At first glance verses 8–30 fit incompletely into the judgment speech pattern. Only the first, second, and sixth woe oracles follow the accusation-announcement scheme.[15] The pattern appears to break down in verses 18–21. Woes 3–5 (vv. 18–19, 20, 21) are only accusatory; in each case no announcement of judgment intervenes before the following הוֹי oracle. Form critics explain this inconsistency in various ways. For example, Clements maintains that the expected announcements have fallen out in the course of transmission.[16] Kaiser, on the other hand, regards the announcements attached to the other woes as later additions.[17]

Once certain rhetorical features are recognized in verses 18–30, the apparent breakdown in the judgment speech pattern can be explained without resorting to such explanations. If one combines woes 3–6 (vv. 18–23), they constitute a lengthy accusation, to which verses 24–30 (v. 24b being an exception) form the concluding announcement. The clustering of woes with no intervening announcements has the rhetorical effect of heightening the accusatory tone of the section. The sequence of four הוֹי pronouncements delivered in rapid succession leaves one overwhelmed by and thoroughly convinced of the people’s guilt. Thus rhetorical design led the author to depart from the usual formal pattern involving הוֹי. Nevertheless the typical judgment speech pattern was preserved.

This heightening or intensifying effect actually characterizes the entire passage as illustrated by the following form-critical outline of verses 8–30 :

Section	Woe(s)	Accusation	Announcement
I	1	v. 8	vv. 9–10
II	2	vv. 11–12	vv. 13–17
III	3-6	vv. 18–23, 24b	vv. 24a, 25–30

The accusations increase in length from 2 lines of Hebrew text in I (following the arrangement in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia) to 4 (in II) to 10 (III). Likewise, the announcements of judgment increase in length from 3 lines (I) to 7 (II) to 15 (III). Consequently the three major sections as a whole increase from 5 lines (I) to 11 (II) to 25 (III). Through this snowballing effect the reader/listener becomes increasingly impressed by two facts: The people are indeed guilty, and their judgment is certainly impending.

“Beyond” Form Criticism

The form-critical approach utilized above, even though supplemented by rhetorical considerations, fails to reflect all the structural artistry of Isaiah 5:8–30. A more thorough rhetorical analysis yields the following outline, which fits into the form-critical framework presented above, but also reflects a chiastic pattern within the larger unit:”[18]

(I)	A	Accusation: social injustice (v. 8)
	*	Announcement of judgment (vv. 9–10)
(II)		B	Accusation: carousing (vv. 11–12a)
			C	Accusation: failure to recognize Lord’s work (v. 12b)
	*	Announcement of judgment (vv. 13–17)
(III)			C’	Accusation: failure to recognize Lord’s work (vv. 18–21)
		B’	Accusation: carousing (v. 22)
	A’	Accusation: social injustice (v. 23)
	*	Announcement of judgment (vv. 24–30)

The outline reflects the chiastic arrangement of the individual elements in the three accusatory sections.[19] Two related examples of social injustice are condemned in verses 8 and 23. The condemnation of accumulation of properties (v. 8) is not a general criticism of real estate endeavor. Rather, economic exploitation (cf. Mic 2:1–2), though under the guise of pseudolegality, is in view. As Kaiser states, greedy landowners were “taking advantage of the distress of small farmers and craftsmen which may have been caused by sickness, crop-failure, inflation, or excessive taxation,” He explains, “Such people would be offered a loan; and if they were unable to pay it back at a later date, their movable possessions would be pawned, their children would be taken in payment and thus be made slaves, and finally their house and land would be seized.”[20] This self-seeking and cruel practice reduced a large segment of the population to a level of inescapable poverty and represented a blatant practical denial of the covenantal principle that the Lord alone owns the land (cf. Lev 25:23).[21] The legal corruption described in Isaiah 5:23 was one of the means whereby these wealthy individuals accomplished their purposes.[22]

Verses 11–12a and 22 contain accusations against those who lived only to carouse. From sunrise to sunset their time was spent in revelry. This group included the wealthy upper crust referred to in verse 8. They had both the time and the means to sustain such a lifestyle (cf. Amos 4:1; 6:1–7).

Insensitivity to the Lord’s purposes is condemned in Isaiah 5:12b, 18–21. The references to the Lord’s “work” in verses 12 and 19 (מַעֲשֶׂה—probably the impending judgment He had threatened through His prophet: cf 10:12; 28:21–22) tie the two sections together. The arrogant (5:21) perverters of all proper ethical standards (vv. 18, 20) failed to recognize the Lord’s approaching “work” (v. 12b). In fact in mockery they urged Him to bring it to pass quickly (v. 19).

A closer examination of the substructure of verses 11–17 reveals two more chiastic patterns. In verses 11–12 carousing and insensitivity to the Lord’s work are condemned, respectively. In the announcement of judgment in verse 13 these are taken up in reverse order. Insensitivity would be punished by exile (v. 13a) and the carousers would die, appropriately, of hunger and thirst (v. 13b).[23] The chiasmus can be outlined as follows:

A Carousing condemned (vv. 11–12a)

B Insensitivity condemned (v. 12b)

B’ Insensitivity punished (v. 13a)

A’ Carousing punished (v. 13b)

The judgment announcement in verse 13 is expanded in verses 14–17.[24] The carousers besides dying of hunger and thirst, would themselves become the main course at another banquet—Sheol’s.[25] Death, personified as a devouring enemy, was about to open its mouth wide and swallow up the revelers (v. 14).[26] At that time proud men would be abased (v. 15) as the Lord exalted Himself (v. 16). Thematically verses 15–16 present two sides of the same coin, a fact highlighted by the repetition of the root גבה (cf. גְבֹהִים in v. 15 and וַיֵּגְבַּה in v. 16). The “eating” motif, used in verse 14, reappears in verse 17. Following the disappearance of the carousers, only sheep[27] would be left to graze on the ruins of the wealthy.[28] Once more a chiastic arrangement is apparent:

A Sheol eats the sinners (v. 14)

B The self-exalting sinners are humbled (v. 15)

B’ God exalts Himself (v. 16)

A’ Sheep eat on the ruins of the sinners’ dwellings (v. 17)

The placement of verses 15–16 in the middle of this chiasmus is significant. The theme expressed in these verses is the dominant one for verses 8–30, namely, that the sovereign Lord was about to exalt Himself through His just judgment of arrogant rebels against His covenant. The announcement of judgment (vv. 13–17), which provides the context for verses 15–16, is the second of three in verses 8–30 and is therefore central to the overall structure of the passage. Thus the central place of verses 15–16 in the structure of this particular announcement highlights their thematic centrality in the passage. This is an example of form contributing in a significant way to the force and emphasis of the prophetic message.

The structure and function of verses 24–30 require special attention. Verse 24a contains an announcement of judgment (cf. the introductory לָן) complementing the accusation of verses 18–23. However, in verse 24b there is a movement back to accusation (cf. introductory כִּי). One gets the impression that verse 24b is designed to summarize and conclude the preceding message by clearly identifying the essence of Israel’s sin (breach of covenant). Consequently verses 25–30 seem to be a rather awkward appendix or addition. Indeed many commentators regard verses 25–30 as a misplaced intrusion that really belongs with 9:8–21.[29] However, the matter is not this simple. Once again rhetorical considerations prove to be instructive.

The expansion of the announcement of judgment in 5:25–30 has an important rhetorical function in the development of the message. It was simply impossible for Isaiah to terminate his message with a reference to Judah’s sin (v. 24b). Throughout the preceding context the movement has been from sin to judgment. The prophet emphasized that Judah’s sin demanded and would receive appropriate punishment. A return to the reason for judgment (v. 24b) also required a return to the announcement of that judgment. The nature of the accusation in verse 24b, by which the essence of Judah’s sin is exposed, demands an announcement of judgment that is commensurate with the transgression. The detailed and terrifying picture drawn in verses 25–30 satisfies this demand.

Also the brief announcement of verse 24a fails to bring to an appropriate conclusion the developing intensity that the prophet has created, especially through his heaping of the woes in verses 18–23. Something more is needed, a fact to which the text itself testifies in verse 25b. The expansion of the judgment announcement in verses 25–30 brings the developing pattern of the preceding verses to a powerful cuhnination. These final verses demonstrate beyond all doubt that justice would indeed be carried out in a most tangible way on the violators of the covenant.

Stylistic Devices in Isaiah 5:8-30

Irony and Poetic Justice

The prophet employed several stylistic devices that contribute to the effectiveness of his message. Particularly prominent is his use of irony to express the theme of poetic justice.

Irony is present in each of the accusation-announcement cycles. Verses 9–10 describe the judgment about to come on the rich landowners of verse 8. Appropriately those who added “house to house” would see those same houses destroyed and left uninhabited. The fields they accumulated would yield only a fraction of their potential.[30] According to verse 13, the carousers described in verses 11–12 would die, ironically, of hunger and thirst. Even more appropriately, they were to become the main course at Sheol’s banquet (v. 14), with only sheep being left to inhabit the banqueting halls (now in ruins) the carousers once frequented (v. 17). Verses 26–30 describe in vivid detail how the “warriors” of verse 22 (note גִּבּוֹרֵים and אַנְי־חַיֵּל ) whose skill was solely in the area of mixing drinks, would be overwhelmed by true warriors, armed with all the destructive implements of warfare.

In this third cycle (vv. 18–30) word repetition contributes powerfully to the theme of poetic justice. In verse 19 the proud rebels challenge the Lord to hasten His work (cf. יְמַר) They mockingly called for the plan of the Lord to come (cf. וְתָבוֹאָץ). According to verses 24–30 this work of judgment would indeed come hurriedly, in the form of the mighty Assyrian army. Appropriately the same roots employed in verse 19 are used in verse 26 to describe the Assyrians’ swift approach (cf. מְרָה קַל יָבוֹאּ ). The proud rebels would get just what they scoffingly requested.[31]

Another example of word-play involves the use of חֹשֶׁךְ, “darkness,” and אוֹר, “light,” in verses 20 and 30. In the former verse the rebels’ perversion of moral and ethical standards is compared to turning darkness into light and light into darkness. Darkness and light correspond to evil and good mentioned in the preceding line. According to verse 30 the “darkness” produced by the clouds of judgment would sweep over the sinners’ land, blotting out the “light” (cf. esp. וָָאוֹר חָשַׁךְ). While חֹשֶׁךְ and אוֹר are used in different senses in verses 20 and 30, the repetition of the words is essential to the overriding theme of the judgment announcement, namely, that the coming judgment would be appropriate for the crime committed. Those who had brought “darkness” to the moral/ethical realm would find their sphere of sinful activity “darkened” by God’s judgment.

הוֹי and an Approaching Funeral

By addressing the Judean sinners with הוֹי, the prophet compared them, by implication, to a dead man. While the background of the woe oracle has been debated by form critics, it is likely that it originated in the funeral lament.[32] In several passages הוֹי introduces a mourning cry. For example the old prophet lamented the death of the Judean man of God with the words הוֹי אָחִי, “Oh, my brother” (1 Kings 13:30).[33] Thus when the prophets prefaced their judgment speeches with הוֹי, they were suggesting that the sinners’ demise was so certain that their death could be lamented proleptically.[34] Rhetorically this would have been a powerful device.[35] The prophet was figuratively acting out their funeral before their very eyes, reminding them in the process of the reasons for and manner of their death.

A Word Picture of the Assyrian Army

A vivid, detailed description, or word-picture,[36] of the invading Assyrian army (vv. 26–30) brings this prophecy to a powerful, terrifying climax. The fact that the campaign originated with the Lord (v. 26a; cf. 7:18–20) spells doom for Judah. The foreignness of the enemy (5:26a) creates an ominous atmosphere,[37] especially in light of the covenant curse of Deuteronomy 28:49, to which the prophet may have been alluding.[38] The army’s approach is swift and unswerving (Isa 5:26b–27). Its seemingly superhuman warriors (v. 27a) never rest (v. 27b). They are prepared for battle and equipped with the best of weapons (v. 28a). The Assyrians’ horses gallop along without injury, while their chariots race toward their objective (v. 28b).[39] The invaders are comparable to a vicious, roaring lion that allows its prey no escape (v. 29). The deafening Assyrian roar is accompanied by the descent of the dark clouds of judgment (v. 30).

This preview of the forthcoming Assyrian invasion is immensely effective from a rhetorical standpoint. Invincible armies, roaring uncaged lions (cf. Amos 3:8), and ominous storm clouds are inherently fear-provoking. Also Isaiah’s audience was certainly familiar with Assyria’s military might, if not by firsthand experience, then by oral accounts of earlier or contemporary campaigns against neighboring states.[40]

The language used in Isaiah 5:29–30 resembles that employed by Assyrian kings contemporary with Isaiah to describe their military prowess and accomplishments. The comparison to lions was quite common. For example Sargon described his valor as follows, “In the anger of my heart I mustered the masses of Assur’s troops and, raging like a lion, I set my face to conquer those lands.”[41] The references to roaring (vv. 29–30) may allude to the king’s powerful battle cry, a motif that appears as well in Assyrian battle accounts. Sennacherib recalled, “I raised my voice, rumbling like a storm. Like Adad I roared.”[42] On the other hand, Clements suggests that the roaring metaphor “makes allusion to the general noise and din of an army.”[43] Sargon described a siege as follows: “Over that city I made the loud noise of my army resound like Adad, and the inhabitants…his people, the old men and old women, went up on the roofs of their houses and wept bitterly.”[44] The darkness motif (v. 30b) may allude to the invading forces sweeping over the land. Sargon described an invasion in similar terms: “As with a dense cloud of the night, I covered that province, and all of its great cities.”[45]

Of what significance are these points of contact between Isaiah’s description and that of the Assyrians? Since the motifs are conventional in nature and widespread, in both biblical and other ancient Near Eastern literature, the similarity may be purely coincidental. In this case, both Isaiah and the authors of the Assyrian annals drew on a common stock of conventional ancient Near Eastern warrior imagery. However, it is possible that Isaiah was familiar with Assyrian propaganda and purposely described the Assyrian army in Assyrian terms.[46] If the Judean populace, at least to some extent, was also aware of this propaganda, the rhetorical effect of Isaiah’s description would have been greatly enhanced.

Conclusion

A form critical and rhetorical approach to the structure of Isaiah 5:8–30 enables one to move beyond a simplistic outline of the text (based on the succession of “woes”) and reveals several overlapping structures that testify to the author’s literary and rhetorical artistry. The overall structure of the message contributes to its rhetorical force and highlights its central theme (cf. vv. 15–16). Several literary devices enhance the power of the message and emphasize its themes. Especially noteworthy is the use of irony and word repetition to express the theme of poetic justice. In this way one gains greater insight into the character of the coming judgment and of the Judge Himself.

Notes

1. See Leland Ryken, How to Read the Bible as Literature (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), esp. pp. 11-32.
2. Studies dealing with the definition and method of biblical rhetorical criticism include among others the following: James Muilenburg, “Form Criticism and Beyond,” Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969): 1-18; David Greenwood, “Rhetorical Criticism and Formgeschichte: Some Methodological Considerations,” Journal of Biblical Literature 89 (1970): 418-26; Martin Kessler, “A Methodological Setting for Rhetorical Criticism,” Semitics 4 (1974): 22-36; and his “An Introduction to Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible: Prolegomena,” Semitics 7 (1980): 1-27; Isaac M. Kikawada, “Some Proposals for the Definition of Rhetorical Criticism,” Semitics 5 (1977): 67-91; Yehoshua Gitay, Prophecy and Persuasion (Bonn: Linguistica Biblica, 1981), esp. pp. 34-49; George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1984), esp. pp. 3-38; and N. J. Tromp, “Amos 5:1–17: Towards a Stylistic and Rhetorical Analysis,” Oudtestamentische Studiën 23 (1984): 56-84.
3. Such an approach is illustrated by the work of Muilenburg and his followers. Muilenburg in describing rhetorical criticism stated, “What I am interested in, above all, is in understanding the nature of Hebrew literary composition, in exhibiting the structural patterns that are employed for the fashioning of a literary unit…and in discerning the many and varied devices by which the predications are formulated and ordered into a unified whole” (“Form Criticism and Beyond,” p. 8). Several studies by his followers are collected in Jared J. Jackson and Martin Kessler, eds., Rhetorical Criticism: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg (Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1974).
4. For examples of such studies see the works of Gitay, Kennedy, and Tromp mentioned in note 2. For a brief comparison of the two basic approaches mentioned here, see Gitay, Prophecy and Persuasion, p. 27.
5. Gitay, Prophecy and Persuasion, p. 45.
6. On the subject of the oral character of ancient texts, see Yehoshua Gitay, “Deutero-Isaiah: Oral or Written?” Journal of Biblical Literature 99 (1980): 190-97; H. van Dyke Parunak, “Some Axioms for Literary Architecture,” Semitics 8 (1982): 2-4; Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism, pp. 5-6.
7. See Herbert M. Wolf, “Implications of Form Criticism for Old Testament Studies,” Bibliotheca Sacra 127 (1970): 299-307.
8. See the critiques offered by Muilenburg, “Form Criticism and Beyond,” pp. 1-7; Greenwood, “Rhetorical Criticism and Formgeschichte: Some Methodological Considerations,” pp. 418-26; and Rolf Knierim, “Old Testament Form Criticism Reconsidered,” Interpretation 27 (1973): 435-68.
9. The limits proposed are well defined. Verses 8–30 are clearly structurally distinct from the preceding “song of the vineyard” (5:1–7) and the following call narrative (chap. 6).
10. On this positive, persuasive goal of chapters 1–12 as a whole, see Yehoshua Gitay, “Isaiah and His Audience,” Prooftexts 3 (1983): 223-30.
11. For example, see Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1965, 1969, 1972), 1:205–6; Hans Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12 , Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament, 2d ed. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1980), pp. 181-82; Ronald E. Clements, Isaiah 1–39 , New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980), pp. 60-66; Otto Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12 , Old Testament Library, 2d ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983), pp. 96-109. Isaiah 10:1–4, also introduced by הוֹי, is often combined with 5:8–24 to produce a series of seven woes. At the same time, 5:25–30 is frequently combined with 9:8–21 (Heb, vv. 7–20) because of the refrain in 5:25b, which appears as well in 9:12, 17, 21. Finally, several verses within 5:8–24 are considered to be later interpolations, though commentators often disagree on which are to be so labeled. As stated later in this article, a rhetorical analysis of the passage makes these conclusions, based on the methods of form and redaction criticism, highly suspect.
12. The literature on woe oracles is quite extensive, including among others: Claus Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech (London: Lutterworth Press, 1967), pp. 190-94; Erhard Gerstenberger, “The Woe-Oracles of the Prophets,” Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962): 249-63; Richard J. Clifford, “The Use of Hôy in the Prophets,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28 (1966): 458-64; James G. Williams, “The Alas-Oracles of the Eighth Century Prophets,” Hebrew Union College Annual 38 (1967): 75-91; Waldemar Janzen, Mourning Cry and Woe Oracle (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1972); Ronald E. Clements, “The Form and Character of Prophetic Woe Oracles,” Semitics 8 (1982): 17-29.
13. Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, p. 190.
14. Ibid., pp. 142-61, 169–87.
15. Verse 8, introduced by הוֹי, is an accusation against the wealthy Judean landowners, while judgment on this same group is announced in verses 9–10. In verses 11–12 another accusation appears, while verses 13–17 contain the accompanying announcement of judgment (note לָן, “therefore,” at the beginning of v. 13). In the sixth oracle verses 22–23 are accusatory; in verse 24a (introduced by לָן) judgment is announced.
16. Clements, Isaiah 1–39 , pp. 64-65.
17. Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12 , pp. 96-109.
18. Parunak points out “that more than one pattern may be active simultaneously in a passage” (“Some Axioms for Literary Architecture.” p. 10). He adds that these alternate patterns may be concurrent with or embedded in another (pp. 10-12). Parunak also points out that chiasmus is one of the basic structural patterns in oral literature (pp. 7-10; see also his “Oral Typesetting: Some Uses of Biblical Structure,” Biblica 62 [1981]: 153-68).
19. Kaiser speaks of a “circular composition” in the arrangement of woes, though he sees 10:1–2, which in his scheme is the seventh in the list, as corresponding to 5:8. He notes that both are concerned with “transgressors of the law.” He sees this same theme in verse 23, which he places after verse 20, making it fourth in the list (Isaiah 1–12 , pp. 96-97). The chiasmus is apparent as the text stands; one need not rearrange verses or import passages from other chapters as Kaiser has done.
20. Ibid., p. 100. The incident recorded in 1 Kings 21, though occurring at an earlier date (9th century B.C.) and in a different place (the Northern Kingdom), provides a vivid illustration of how these “land deals” may have worked. For a detailed study of the socio-economic setting of Isaiah 5:8–10, see Eryl Davies, Prophecy and Ethics (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), pp. 65-89.
21. Cf. Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12 , p. 100. On the importance of the Lord’s ownership of the land to Old Testament thought, see Christopher J. H. Wright, An Eye for an Eye (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1983), pp. 46-62.
22. On the relationship between the judicial system and socio-economic exploitation in ancient Israel, see Davies, Prophecy and Ethics, pp. 90-112.
23. In verse 13 the scope expands to include the entire nation (cf. “My people”), though the nobility (the focus of attention in vv. 8–12) may still be singled out for special consideration (cf. כְבוֹדוֹ, “its [the nations] glory,” which possibly refers to the upper crust of society in contrast to its masses, to which הֲמוֹנוֹ probably refers here).
24. The word, הִרְחִיבָה is a prophetic perfect, followed up by two perfects (with waw consecutive) carrying a specific future nuance. Cf. E. Kautzsch, ed., Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 2d English ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910), p. 333 (sec. 112s). In verses 15–16 the yiqṭōl forms (with waw consecutive) also have a future sense (note the imperfect תִּשְׁפַּלְנָה in v. 15b; cf p. 329, sec. 111w). With וְרָעוּ (perfect with waw consecutive) in verse 17 the author returns to the pattern of verse 14 .
25. The carousers are not specifically identified as the subject in verse 14b, but הֲָדָרָץ, “its [prob. Jerusalem’s] splendor,” probably alludes to them (note the contrasting הֲמוֹנָץ, “its teeming masses,” which follows). The words שְׁאוֹנָץ, “its uproar,” and עָז, “the one who exults,” probably refer to the revelry described in verses 11–12 (cf. the use of both roots in 24:8, where drunken revelry is clearly in view).
26. For this same picture of death as having a voracious appetite, see Proverbs 30:15–16 and Habakkuk 2:5. The background for the imagery can be found in Canaanite myth, where deified Death is pictured as one who opens his mouth wide to swallow his hapless victims. See J. C. L. Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 2d ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T Clark, 1978), pp. 68-69, for a particularly illustrative text in this regard.
27. The Masoretic Text has גָּרִים, a participle, “resident aliens,” in verse 17b (cf. NASB, “strangers”). This reading would make sense contextually since the גֵּרִים are often mentioned as oppressed elements in society. The picture is that of the oppressed outliving their oppressors. However, tighter parallelism is achieved (cf. כְבָשִׂים, “lambs,” in v. 17a) if the word is גְּדָיִים, “kids” (this word occurs twice in the construct…., but note the absolute form in 1 Sam 10:3).
28. This writer understands חִים,”fatlings,”as a genitive of possession following the construct חָרְבוֹת, “ruins” (which is an adverbial accusative of location here). Attested elsewhere only in Psalm 66:15, חַ is used of sacrificial animals. Here it is apparently a derogatory reference to the well-fed, rich carousers (cf. Amos 4:1 for similar imagery) who, ironically, are devoured by Sheol as if they were sacrificial animals.
29. See note 11.
30. On the theme of appropriate punishment in these verses, see Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Sin and Judgment in the Prophets (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), pp. 42-43.
31. On the irony inherent in their arrogant words, see Edwin M. Good, Irony in the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965), pp. 119-20.
32. For some of the literature on the woe oracles, see note l2. Among the proposed backgrounds for the oracle are popular wisdom (Gerstenberger), curse formulae (Westermann), and mourning rites (Clifford, Williams, Janzen).
33. Also see Jeremiah 22:18; 34:5; Amos 5:16.
34. This need not imply that the prophet experienced psychological sorrow over the impending death of the sinners. Ritual mourning was an accepted practice in the biblical world, even to the point that professionals were hired. On this point Clifford writes, “When the prophet hears of impending disaster from Yahweh, he utters a ritual hôy in automatic lament, a cry borrowed from the funeral customs of his milieu. The prophet need not feel a psychological drive, but only an ‘ontological’ one—the situation demands it” (“The Use of Hôy in the Prophets,” p. 464).
35. Cf. Williams, “The Alas-Oracles of the Eighth Century Prophets,” p. 86.
36. The technical term for this device is hupotuposis (E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible [1898; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1968], pp. 444-45).
37. Cf. Wildberger, Jesaja 1–12 , pp. 223-24.
38. Note the appearance of the phrases רָחֹק and מִקְה הָאָרֶחּ in both Deuteronomy 28:49 and Isaiah 5:26.
39. The description is, of course, hyperbolic, but also quite realistic in many respects, as a comparison with Assyrian sculpture (which has its hyperbolic elements as well) indicates. On the sculptural evidence, see Julian Reade, “The Neo-Assyrian Court and Army: Evidence from the Sculptures,” Iraq 34 (1972): 87-112.
40. Public awareness of Assyrian military power and practice would have steadily increased from around 743 B.C. due to increased Assyrian military involvement in the west during the last half of the 8th century B.C. The precise date of origin for Isaiah 5:8–30 is not known. Even if originally proclaimed early in Isaiah’s career, it was probably repeated and/or recalled periodically. The description in verses 26–30 would have been especially effective in conjunction with or after Tiglath-pileser’s campaign against Damascus and Samaria (ca. 734–32), which reduced the latter to a puppet state, the conquest of Samaria (722), Sargon’s Ashdod campaign of 712, and Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah (701).
41. Daniel D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, 2 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1926–27), 2:27 (par. 56).
42. Ibid., 2:126 (par. 253).
43. Clements, Isaiah 1–39 , p. 70.
44. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, 2:94 (par.171).
45. Ibid., 2:89 (par. 163). Cf. Sennacherib’s description of the invading Elamite army (2:126, par. 252): “Like the onset of the locust swarms of the springtime they kept steadily coming on against me to offer battle. With the dust of their feet covering the wide heavens, like a mighty storm with (its) masses of dense clouds, they drew up in battle array.”
46. Peter Machinist explores this possibility in “Assyria and Its Image in the First Isaiah,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 103 (1983): 719-37. He concludes that Assyrian propaganda did influence Isaiah’s view of Assyria, though he recognizes that general ancient Near Eastern use may account for similarities (note esp. his reservations with respect to the “lion” imagery of Isa 5:29, pp. 728-29). He discusses possible ways in which Judeans like Isaiah could have become aware of Assyrian propaganda (pp. 728-34).

Walking in Holiness - Nate Busenitz

How to Witness to a Hostile Culture - David Hegg

The Final Judgment - Steve Lawson

Steven Lawson | Genuine Faith and its Fruit | Truth In Love 2021 | Sessi...