Wednesday, June 7, 2023

Eric Nels Ortlund on Isaiah 29:1-8

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)