The First Imperative of Isaiah 8:9

Hebrew is a language of picturesque imagery and vivid story-telling. It lacks the precise, formulaic logical exactness of Greek grammar, but more than makes up for this deficiency in its unique ability to paint brilliant pictures, and speak to the very soul of the reader. These characteristics have an important impact on the way we go about the task of addressing exegetical questions in the Old Testament scriptures. Questions of New Testament interpretation demand a minute tracing out of every logical step, by means of the participial structuring of the sentence, the placement of logical connectors, and so on. This process is very natural to the adept western mind, and it is no co-incidence that there are, as a rule, more outstanding New Testament exegetes than truly outstanding Old Testament exegetes in the western world.

This is not to say that Old Testament exegesis lacks the need for precision: it is just that the sort of precision required follows largely different lines. The Old Testament exegete must be peculiarly sensitive in at least two areas, before he may reasonably suggest an interpretation of exegetically complex Hebrew passages: he must have a keen feel for the slightest morphological changes demanded by the various tri-literal stems; and he must have an equally sensitive feel for the overall balance and harmony of the passage in question – particularly when he is dealing with poetry. Hebrew grammar is quite simple; but the vastly more complex Hebrew morphology is the non-negotiable indicator of this simple grammar; and when morphology is mishandled, questions of grammar are rendered impossible to answer correctly. This is why a masoretic-like attentiveness to the slightest details of stress and pronunciation is a necessary quality for the Old Testament exegete. To illustrate the foregoing principles, let’s examine the case of Isaiah 8:9.

The structure of this poetic verse is quite simple; and yet the first imperative (ro’u) has been taken in an astonishing variety of ways. Translations such as “Associate yourselves/gather together,” “Lift up the war-cry,” “Do your worst,” and “Be broken” have all been suggested. What is at the root of this lack of agreement? The first problem is that, being a weak (or possibly doubly-weak) verb, the tri-literal stem is not immediately obvious. Is it the pual from “r’h,” a stem meaning “to associate,” “to be friends with,” and hence, “be associated!”? Is it from “ru’,” and hence a command to “raise a (war) cry,” “shout out”? Or is it rather from the stem “r”,”? If the latter, we are faced with another decision: is the force derived from the primary meaning of the stem, and hence a command to “be bad,” “do evil,” or, adapting the command to its context, “do your worst”? Or is it from the second meaning of the stem, “to break”? And if so, is it legitimate to take the meaning as passive in sense (“be broken”), when the qal imperative rather than an imperative from a passive stem is employed?

This is where minute attention to morphology comes in: a quick search reveals that the imperative forms of the stem “ru’”, as for instance, in Numbers 10:7, do not correspond to the morphology in Isaiah 8:9. Similarly, the usages of the verb “r’h,” (of which there are some seven examples in the OT, e.g. Proverbs 18:24) all seem to be qal, hithpael, or piel, and there is no hint of a tendency to morph in the precise manner of the suggested pual form in Isaiah 8:9. The typical lack of pual imperatives as a general rule, however, makes it difficult to suggest a precise morphology for the case in question. However, when we look at our third stem, “r”,” we are immediately struck with the morphological appropriateness of the form in question. The expected second person masculine plural of the qal imperative of a double ‘ayin verb is, for example, “sobbu” (from the stem “sbb”). Apart from the doubling of the middle consonant, which is impossible since the middle consonant of the verb in question is a guttural, and hence cannot be doubled, this is exactly the form that we meet with in Isaiah 8:9.

Now, tentatively taking “r”” as the stem of the first imperative in Isaiah 8:9, we have to deal with the question, must the meaning be “do evil,” or is the second sense of the stem appropriate? Obviously, it can only be appropriate if it is permissible to take the passive sense, “be broken”. So what may we gather of the poetic balance of the verse that would enable us to make a qualified judgment on this point?

In poetic parallel with this verb is the verb “chtt”. Many translations have rendered this verb, “be dismayed”; however, that meaning is derived from the more fundamental meaning “to be shattered”. This point opens up for us a beautiful poetic parallel, if we take the first imperative to be indicative of the second meaning of the stem “r””. The second imperative of the poetic structure is also a double ‘ayin verb. As such, it has precisely the same form as the first imperative, except for the middle consonant which does permit doubling (“chottu”). And furthermore, it has a very similar meaning, “shatter!” which, lacking a direct object, is employed in an intransitive sense (hence, “be shattered,” or, figuratively, “be dismayed”) – and this intransitive meaning is indicated by a qal stem. All of this accords well with our suggested meaning of “ro’u”: “break!” (intransitively used, and so, “be broken!”). This stem and meaning, then, is both the most morphologically justifiable and the most poetically balanced and appropriate. Our final reading must be the following:

Be broken, O peoples, be shattered indeed!
And give ear all you far places of the earth:
Gird yourselves [for war], but be shattered!
Gird yourselves [for war], but be shattered!

One Response to “The First Imperative of Isaiah 8:9”

  1. pitchford says:
    April 23, 2007 at 10:29 pm

    Erratum: In the process of copying and pasting, it seems as if some of my ayin sigla were inverted, and appear to be aleph sigla. I did not use the siglum for aleph at any point in the paper, so anytime the siglum ‘ appears, regardless of its orientation, it is intended to signify a Hebrew ayin.

Leave a Reply