ISAIAH 41:21-29

In comparing English translations of the Bible with one another, one factor is often ignored by readers: the line  spacing used to denote where new paragraphs end and begin. These simple indications can often have a great effect on how Scripture should be interpreted. As a random example, consider the above prophetic passage in the writings of Isaiah.

The first thing to note is that almost all translations or Bible commentators consider these nine verses to constitute a discrete section. However, half of them subdivide it into two smaller literary units: verses 21-24 and 25-29. This division of opinion is reflected below:

Isaiah 41:21-29: NEB, TEV, AB, Whybray, Oswalt, Payne, Kidner

Isaiah 41:21-24 + 41:25-29: RSV, NRSV, NIV, JB, The Message, The Living Bible, Wolf

The way in which the meaning is impacted by which of these two schemes one chooses is demonstrated by the following:

Representative of the first method of division is the analysis of Osborne, who first states: “The way the message [from God] was communicated to the prophet differed greatly depending on the situation.” One such form was the legal or trial oracles which “contain a summons to the divine trial court, a trial setting in which witnesses are called, leading to a stress on both the guilt of Israel or the nations and the judgment or sentence due.” As one such example, he cites the passage in question here, which “begins with the call of the pagan gods to trial, challenging them to assemble their evidence (vv. 21-23), followed by the charge that they are nothing (v. 24) and the witnesses who prove their guilt (vv. 25-28). Finally, the verdict is pronounced: 'they all are false...amount to nothing...wind and confusion' (v. 29).”

You can see from the above that Osborne treats the whole passage in a chronological manner. But this approach leads to several problems as he attempts to fit all of the received text into one “logical” package because of his preconceived, and often mistaken, notion that the Bible is largely written as we would compose a piece of writing today.

But if instead, one takes the second approach above, adopted by the majority of modern translations and paraphrases, then one looks at these verses in a whole new light. This group also feels that all of verses 21-29 constitute a unity, however a unity that is somehow also divided into two parts. The way in which that generally arises is that the two halves are parallel to one another in some literary manner.

With this new understanding, we can now look to see whether that is also the case here.

                                               The Literary Structure of Isaiah 41:21-29

    A. Set forth your case (v. 21)

                B. Tell us the future and former things (vv. 22-23a)

                            C. Do good or do harm (v. 23b)

                                        D. Your work is nothing (v. 24)

    A'. I have summoned one (v. 25a)

                           C'. He shall trample on rulers (25b)

                B'. Who else predicted it? (vv. 26-28)

                                        D'. Their works are nothing (v. 29)

Sections A and A'

In both these parallel sections, God summons another party. In A, that party consists of the false idols whereas it is Cyrus in A'. The correspondence is made more clear by translations such as The Message, which adds the word “God” (not in the Hebrew text) to A' to match the appearance of that word already in A. This is done in order make it abundantly clear that it is the LORD who is acting in both cases.

Another loose translation, Today's English Version, makes the same move.

Sections B and B'

These parallel units deal with the divine property of omniscience, possessing the knowledge of all past and future occurrences. O'Connell says, “As part of Yahweh's claim to incomparability among the gods (Isa 41:21-24, 26-29), he taunts other gods to do what only a true god could do, namely, reveal future events (41:22)” While I might take issue with O'Connell's identification of the particular verses expressing that idea, he does accurately capture the fact that omniscience is stressed twice in the text, not just once.

McKenzie says, “The gods are challenged either to relate the past or to disclose the future; they can do neither. In the collection of Israelite traditions available to Second Isaiah both history and prophecy were contained. No other nation had such a collection of historical memories, all centered upon the saving acts of God. No such recital existed. Nor could the gods produce documents to demonstrate their prophecy.”

Naude explains that the Hebrew root s'h in Isaiah 41:23 “expresses the feeling of loss of strength and courage. The vb. is used to substantiate the charge that the gods are incompetent: they cannot even interpret and predict events. As a result they do not have an effect on people and can dismay them or fill them with fear.”

Sections C and C'

These twinned sections zero in on another prime characteristic of the Deity: omnipotence. In C, God challenges the idols to do something outstanding that will get our attention, a challenge they are totally unable to meet. In stark contrast, God reveals that Cyrus, His “servant,” will truly do something outstanding in the future, something that will be bad for Babylon but good for Israel.

As Southwell puts it, “Like Isaiah (cf. 41:2,25), Habakkuk becomes sure that God is at work on the stage of international history, even in events that are not self-evidently desirable.”

Foulkes: “The root rms in 41:25 is “used to speak of human aggression, the trampling of enemies, but also of the powerful action of God in judgment.” Both concepts are combined here so that this verse, as its twin in 23b, relate ultimately to divine actions, not just human ones.

The challenge in Unit C for the gods to do good or evil may seem to be a strange one, but it is actually a Hebrew figure of speech called a merism. In a merism, opposites are cited to include everything in between as well. Thus, we might express the thought as “Don't just stand there. Do something, anything at all!”

Sections D and D'

But, the strongest clue that Osborne's linear analysis is faulty is seen in the fact that he labels v. 29 as the verdict on the false idols when, in fact, the practically same language is applied to them back in v. 24. Thus, there are two almost identical conclusions to the section, not just one.

And in a second example of how The Message strengthens the similarities between two verses, it renders both endings using identical wording: “sham gods, no-gods, fool-making gods.” This is a good demonstration of how a free paraphrase can sometimes depart considerably from a literal translation, but at the same time bring out the hidden meanings in the text better than a word-for-word equivalence.

But a paraphrase can also go way too far in departing from a literal translation. For example, The Living Bible renders v. 24 as “Anyone who chooses you needs to have his head examined.”

It is also interesting that a fairly literal translation such as the King James Version is occasionally more helpful than modern translations. Thus, it begins both verses here with the word “Behold!” to indicate the parallel nature of the two conclusions.

“Pagan gods also claimed to have performed great works, but their deeds are considered less than nothing (Isa 41:24)...” (Carpenter)

Summary

In conclusion, Wakely states, “The nominative somot (lit. powerful things or strengths), which is used of strong words or arguments, i.e. convincing proofs, occurs once (Isa 41.21)...The inability of the gods of the nations to show insights into past events or to indicate the course of future history or to intervene actively in history (vv. 22-24) exposes their nothingness.”

A Modest Proposal

In light of Figure 1, if I were to translate this passage into English so that the literary structure stands out even better, there is one very minor change I would make without departing from the literal text. There are several subordinate “so that” clauses in these verses, with the conjunction translated (or not translated at all) in various ways depending on the version in question. Thus, we have:

Translation      v. 22                  v. 23a                  v. 23b                  v. 26

KJV                 that, -----          that                      that                      that, that

RSV                that, that           that                      that                      that, that

NRSV             so that, that      that                       that                      so that

JB                    -----, and         and so                   so that                  so, so

NEB                that, that          then                      ----                       that, so that

The Message   so that, ---       ------                     ----                        so, ----

Of the above renderings, only RSV clearly shows the parallel relationship between the two appearances each of this conjunction in sections B and B'. But in addition, I would have changed the translation of the two words in v. 23 to something like “so that” and “so,” respectively, in order to make it clear that these two occurrences do not indicate