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.