Eric Nels Ortlund provides the following translation of Isa 29:1-8:
“I
WILL DISTRESS ARIEL” (29.1-8)
1) Woe, Ariel, Ariel, city where David
encamped;
add year to year, let the feasts run on,
2) But I will distress Ariel, so that there will be mourning and
lamentation,
And she will be more to me like Ariel.
(3) I will encamp against you round about, I will besiege you
with tower,
I will raise siegeworks against you.
4) You will sink low, from the underworld you will speak, from
the dust your words will be low;
your voice like a ghost from the underworld will sound; from
the dust your words will chirp.
5) The multitude of your strangers will be like fine dust, the
multitude of terrible ones like blown chaff.
And it will be suddenly, in an instant--
6) by the Lord of Hosts you will be visited
in thunder, shaking, and a great roar; with storm, tempest, and
flame of devouring fire.
7) And as a dream, a vision of the night will be the
multitude of all the nations amassed against Ariel,
and all those fighting against her and her stronghold and those
distressing her.
8) It will be as when someone hungry dreams that he is eating,
but he awakes and his stomach is empty;
as when someone thirsty dreams that he is drinking,
but he awakes thirsty and his soul is frantic,
thus will be the multitude of nations
encamping against Mt. Zion. (Eric Nels Ortlund, Theophany and Chaoskampf: The Interpretation of
Theophanic Imagery in the Baal Epic, Isaiah, and the Twelve [Gorgias
Ugaritic Studies 5; Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2010], 153-54)
The
following is his exegesis of the passage:
As one might imagine, attempts to
recover various stages of the prehistory of this paradoxical passage are
numerous. When commentators turn to analyzing the text in its present form, however,
a two-part structure is often discerned in which an attack on Jerusalem is made
in vv. 1-4 or 1-5, while a sudden transition signaled by ְפֶ֥תַע פִּתְאֹֽם in
v. 5 leads to a miraculous deliverance of the city in vv. 5-8. G. C. I. Wong
has, however, challenged this common analysis, arguing that vv. 1-7 consistently
speak of doom for Jerusalem. Important considerations in his argument include
the fact that לְפֶתַע פִּתְאֹם is always an image for judgment, thus coloring
the otherwise ambiguous פקד with ominous overtones, as well as the fact that
the comparison with a dream in v. 7 would not imply the insubstantiality of
Jerusalem’s enemies, since dreams were of great significance in that culture.
On Wong’s reading, v. 8 is a later re-interpretation of v. 7, re-directing the
oracle in a more hopefully direction. Although Wong raises some helpful points,
his argument does not entirely convince, for, although YHWH’s consuming fire
does always act in judgment, the point of the passage is to make ambiguous as
to whom this fire is unleashed against (Jerusalem or those besieging it?).
Furthermore, the image of Jerusalem’s enemies as flying chaff in v. 5 unambiguously
implies their defeat. Despite these reservations about Wong’s analysis, however,
it will be helpful to keep the paradoxical nature of YHWH’s action in this
passage clearly in view, for an unambiguously positive outcome for Jerusalem in
this siege is only given in the final two verses.
With these comments in mind, the
common understanding of v. 5 may be supported so that the passage begins with a
more vague statement of YHWH’s distressing of Jerusalem (v. 2) which is then
specified as he directly lays siege to it (v. 3); the result of such action is
a deathly reduction of the city’s prayers, which are murmured as if by a ghost
(v. 4). Just as Jerusalem speaks from the dust, however, in v. 5 shows the city’s
enemies to be fine dust and passing chaff, clearly hinting at their defeat.
This hint of deliverance is followed immediately by a “cliffhanger” buildup in
the second half of v. 5 which explodes into YHWH’s visitation in thunder,
earthquake, storm and fire in v.6. In harmony with the rest of this passage, however,
the significance for Jerusalem of YHWH’s appearance is ambiguous until the
insubstantiality of the attackers is stated in vv. 7-8, where, by way of contrast
with vv. 1-3, YHWH is no longer working against his city through these
attackers. This passage thus gives expression to YHWH’s plans for Jerusalem in
a way which, although highly paradoxical, is quite in keeping with chs. 28033,
such that YHWH both judges and delivers his people in the same action. Both of
these actions are, in fact expressed in absolute terms, precluding any assumption
that YHWH only partially judges and then saves his people.
If the texture and progress of this
passage have been correctly understood, then the surprising use of the Chaoskampf
motif may be noted in the initial reversal of the Völkerkampf theme,
as YHWH joins the הֲמוֹן כָּל-הַגּוֹיִם in their attack on Jerusalem (vv. 2-3).
However strongly YHWH claims to be working through these attackers, however,
YHWH does not appear theophanically until v. 6, where his manner of appearance
is stated simply with תִּפָּקֵד in v. 6; the fronted prepositional phrase
underlines the totally unexpected nature of the visitation. As noted above, פקד
is ambiguous: YHWH is visiting his city—but to what end?
The imagery attending YHWH’s theophany
is, however, perhaps less ambiguous. At first glance, the second line of v. 6
seems overloaded, for not just one image is used to describe the manifestation of
YHWH’s presence, but five: thunder (רַ֥עַם), earthquake (בְרַ֖עַשׁ), a great
roaring (קֹ֣ול גָּדֹ֑ול), a storm (סוּפָה֙ וּסְעָרָ֔ה), and consuming fire (ְלַ֖הַב
אֵ֥שׁ אֹוכֵלָֽה). Any metaphorical understanding of the imagery of storm, fire
and earthquake is rendered problematic by the fact that more than a claim to
divine power is needed at this point in the text. This is the case because YHWH’s
visitation of v. 6 leads without interruption to the flight of the enemy in vv.
7-8. Without any intervening description of YHWH’s defeat of Zion’s besiegers,
the images of v. 6 cannot count as a metaphorical description which emphasizes
YHWH’s power as he intervenes, but must themselves describes that intervention as
YHWH battles with the weapons of the storm go. The cosmic symbolism of the Chaoskampf
should be given full weight in this passage. This is not to deny the use of
figurative language elsewhere in this passage (such as “dream” of vv. 7-8, the
enemies like chaff in v. 5, Jerusalem speaking like a ghost in v. 4). Such
images are clearly metaphorical in nature, and each contributes in an important
way to the meaning of the text. But attributing a metaphorical function to the
theophanic imagery of v. 6 causes the passage to collapse at its most crucial
juncture.
Three more clues suggest that the
images of theophanic storm warfare in v. 6 have been interwoven with the rest
in the passage in a way which recommends granting them an equal place within
the text’s mythic symbolic structure, rather than understanding them as
metaphors intended to illuminate some other aspect of the passage. It was noted
above that v. 6 appears overloaded in expression; it is almost as if image is
piled upon image, each intensifying the reality of divine presence. The juxtaposition
of this overloaded description with the dream-like insubstantiality of
Jerusalem’s attackers suggests that every aspect of traditional theophanic
imagery has been employed here in order to show YHWH’s utter defeat of
Jerusalem’s enemies, who are not said to flee (as in 17.12-14) but rather
immediately become as unreal as a vision in the night before the reality of the
divine presence. Second, there is a natural interplay between YHWH’s appearance
in the storm and the blown chaff to which the enemies are compared in v. 5.
Finally, there may also be an intended play on words in the thunder and great
noise (קֹ֣ול גָּדֹ֑ול) with which YHWH’s presence is manifested as over against
the ghostly whispering of Jerusalem’s קוֹל; if this is an intentional allusion,
it may imply that YHWH’s presence ends the terrifying humbling of the city or
counts as salvation from that state.
If the expression given to YHWH’s
appearance does contain clear implication of his victory against Jerusalem’s attackers,
however, it might still be wondered, as the contribution of this theophany in
its broader literary context is considered, whether or not the thunder,
earthquake, storm and flame which explode on the human scene are entirely good
for the city continuing in its useless festivals (29.1) and unwilling to listen
to the prophetic word (28.12). True, Jerusalem’s besiegers will be completely defeated;
but what of those for whom the prophetic word of trust is gibberish (28.12-13)
and are blind to YHWH’s strange work (29.14; cf. 6.9-10)? This spiritual
blindness to YHWH’s work amidst the various political upheavals of that time is
very much in the foreground of chs. 28035, just as is YHWH’s absolutely secure
dwelling place in Zion (note 28.16-17; 29.7-8; 30.19, 29; 31.4-5, 9; 33.17-24).
The particular approach taken to those two realities of instability and
security, however, now centers around Israel’s perception of YHWH’s strange
work (29.14) of simultaneous judgment on and deliverance of Jerusalem, so that
only for those who perceive the true nature of YHWH’s strange work will the
divine presence of salutary. In other words, the uncertainty regarding the
nature of YHWH’s “visitation” (פקד) is not, despite YHWH’s defeat of Zion’s
attackers in this passage, totally resolved. Note especially in this regard the
trembling of Zion’s sinners in 33.14 who are overwhelmed by the אֵ֥שׁ אֹוכֵלָֽה
in YHWH’s dwelling place. The exact expression given to the theophany of 29.6
thus appears intentionally constructed to imply the defeat of Jerusalem’s attackers,
but to defer the resolution of the issue of Israel’s blindness and their
enjoyment of any blessings resulting from that defeat until later chapters of
this section of the book. (Ibid., 154-58)
