Command Ye Me - Interrogative or Declarative?

[victoryword]

I am trying to do a study of Isaiah 45:11. The King James represents it the way that many over the centuries have interpretted to imply "authoritative prayer" or (humbly) commanding God (declarative):

Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me.

On the other hand, the NIV and other versions seem to present it as God becoming indignant with people; sort of a "how dare you question ME" type of statement (Interrogative):

"This is what the LORD says-
the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker:
Concerning things to come,
do you question me about my children,
or give me orders about the work of my hands?

Ten (or more) years ago while preparing a series on prayer that I was going to preach, I considered using Isa. 45:11 and just decided to check it out in a different translation other than the KJV. I believe that it was the RSV. When I saw how differently it was rendered from the KJV I decided that perhaps this would not be a good "prooftext" for my message on prayer. So I chucked it and nevr thought about the verse, and even dismissed it when reading books by others who used the verse.

My interest in this verse came again only recently as I was reading some E. M. Bounds stuff. Has anyone studied the Hebrew on this? I am interested in your thoughts. Is it a declarative statement, inviting us to prayer and (humbly) commanding God, or is it interrogative, questioning a bunch of upstarts who dare to question God's sovereign ways?

What do you guys think?

 

[Jim B]

The first time I ever heard this scripture was in the mid-60s when A. A. Allen used to it tell his follwers that we could command healing, deliverance, prosperity, etc. from God. God had, in fact, given us permission to command what we wanted from Him. It seemed heretical then and it still does so today. I am no Hebrew scholar (I can’t even read it), but here are some other translations of the text:

Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me. KJV

This is what the LORD, the Creator and Holy One of Israel, says: "Do you question what I do? Do you give me orders about the work of my hands? NLT

This is what the LORD says- the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker: Concerning things to come, do you question me about my children, or give me orders about the work of my hands? NIV

Thus says the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker: Would you question Me about things to come concerning My children, and concerning the work of My hands [would you] command Me? AMP

Is this declarative or interrogative? Modern translations indicate that it is interrogative, even rhetorical. There can only be one answer to Jehovah's question, "Do you give Me orders?"

\o/

 

[Godzman]

It comes down to who are we to question the Lord, who do we think we are by doing that.

 

[flyfishing]

I believe God is the boss and i do well to follow his orders..

 

[victoryword]

Jim B.,

Allen may have went a little too far in his understanding of this verse. However, I have read scores of classic authors and commentators use it in a declarative way: F. B. Meyer, Charles Spurgeon, Watchman Nee, A. T. Pierson, The Unknown Christian, F. E. Marsh, John Gill, A. B. Simpson, E. M. Bounds, Matthew Henry, Albert Barnes and others I could name. As a matter of fact, Barnes defends the declarative position against those who see it as interrogative.

I could, of course present several translations that actually translate Isa. 45:11 as declarative. I won't do that at this point due to time. But I do understand your point. However, one of the NIV translators admits that the passage can be seen as either/or:

From the Pamphlet Accuracy Defined and Illustrated: An NIV Translator Answers Your Questions

Why does the NIV have an interrogative senetence here when the KJV has a declarative one

While the Hebrew could be translated as either a statement or a question, it is probably better in view of verses 1-10 to take it as a question. Understood that way, the Lord is rebuking people for questioning His sovereign ways and his dealings with his children, particularly through Cyrus the Great, the King of Persia. This seems to be the view favored by the context.
​

So even an NIV translator believes that it can be one way or the other, though he feels that the context supports the NIV. However, Barnes disputes that, believing that context supports declarative. I suppose it all depnds on how one views the context in light of God's mercy and condenscension.

Here is a "woodenly" translation from the Hebrew from another forum in which I asked this question:

Dear Victorywood,

I have studied Hebrew and am presently doing Hebrew exegesis classes. Here is my woodenly literal translation of Isaiah 45:11:

Thus says the Lord, the Holy One of Israel and the one who formed him: Ask [Qal imperative] me of things to come concerning my sons, and you will command [Pi`el imperfect] me concerning the work of my hands.

It is the proper sense of the verbs (the Qal imperative of sha'al ("Ask") and the Pi`el imperfect of tsavah "charge, command, order") that are the crucial factor in relation to your question. The KJV has understood the second verb (the imperfect) as being in a coordinate relationship with the first imperative (see Kelley pp. 215 for the imperative + imperfect coordinate relationship), and therefore has treated it as functioning as an imperative also, even though it is really an imperfect. The flaw with this is that in an imperative + imperfect coordinate relationship, the imperfect should be prefixed with the vav conjunction (see examples in Kelley). However, in Isaiah 45:11 it is not so prefixed. The problem with the NIV reading, is that there is no he-interrogative, which normally, though not invariably, introduces a question (see pp. 94 in Kelley). You take your pick - remember that Hebrew is very flexible in terms of grammar i.e. the rules are often broken.

Reference: P.H. Kelley, "Biblical Hebrew: An introductory grammar".

I thought this was interesting so far. I still plan to look more into this as I am yet undecided.

 

[hal]

Generally speaking, I see no reason to "command" God.

On the other hand, I find no place in Scripture where Jesus asked the Heavenly Father to heal someone. He usually spoke to the condition, declared it done, commanded it to leave, etc.

He told the disciples they could, in His name, do what He did. name.
Twenty-seven years of experience has proven to me that I can command healing to take place, just as He did.

 

[Jim B]

Generally speaking, I see no reason to "command" God.

On the other hand, I find no place in Scripture where Jesus asked the Heavenly Father to heal someone. He usually spoke to the condition, declared it done, commanded it to leave, etc.

He told the disciples they could, in His name, do what He did. name.
Twenty-seven years of experience has proven to me that I can command healing to take place, just as He did.

Hal, I learned years ago at a John Wimber conference that no where in the Gospels or Acts did Jesus or believers ever “pray” for the sick (check it out yourself) - at least not like we normally see it done - but did exactly as you said, declared it a done deal. We are instructed to pray for the sick in only one place, James 5, and that for a particular reason. If Jesus prayed for the sick He did it before He was actually engaged in the encounter – when he departed to solitary places, went on a mountain to pray, etc.

Thanks for this insight.

\o/

 

[victoryword]

If one were to understand Isaiah 45:11 as "commanding God" (humbly of course) then this could be seen as metaphorical as in speaking directly to a SITUATION to be changed. This is seen in the case of Joshua exercising God-given authority:

Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel. (Joshua 10:12-14)
​

The TEV translates verse 14 this way: "Never before, and never since, has there been a day like it, when the Lord obeyed a human being. The Lord fought on Israel's side!" If you have trouble with that translation (I can already here the cries of "heresy") then perhaps the GW might present a milder version: "Never before or after this day was there anything like it. The LORD did what a man told him to do, because the LORD fought for Israel." But if you want REAL heresy, Eugene Peterson's, The Message, really gives us some: "There's never been a day like that before or since - God took orders from a human voice! Truly, God fought for Israel."

You can see from the inference in Joshua 10 three things:
1. Joshua is said to spoken to God.
2. Joshua is said to have COMMANDED the sun and moon to stand still
3. The Lord is said to have obeyed Joshua (or taken an order from him, or listened to him).

However, we can see that it was the sun and moon Joshua commanded and that is what obeyed him, but the Lord has it recorded as though he was the one who did what Joshua said. Isn't this the picture we get in Mark 11:22-24 in connection to prayer and speaking to the mountain?

Is it possible that when we have a relationship with God in which we are submissive and obedient to Him that He would invite us to command Him to do some things? It would be one thing if we presumptuously did this, but what if we were invited to do this as submissive and obedient children?

Just some thoughts.

 

[Jim B]

If one were to understand Isaiah 45:11 as "commanding God" (humbly of course) then this could be seen as metaphorical as in speaking directly to a SITUATION to be changed. This is seen in the case of Joshua exercising God-given authority:

Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel. (Joshua 10:12-14)
​

The TEV translates verse 14 this way: "Never before, and never since, has there been a day like it, when the Lord obeyed a human being. The Lord fought on Israel's side!" If you have trouble with that translation (I can already here the cries of "heresy") then perhaps the GW might present a milder version: "Never before or after this day was there anything like it. The LORD did what a man told him to do, because the LORD fought for Israel." But if you want REAL heresy, Eugene Peterson's, The Message, really gives us some: "There's never been a day like that before or since - God took orders from a human voice! Truly, God fought for Israel."

You can see from the inference in Joshua 10 three things:
1. Joshua is said to spoken to God.
2. Joshua is said to have COMMANDED the sun and moon to stand still
3. The Lord is said to have obeyed Joshua (or taken an order from him, or listened to him).

However, we can see that it was the sun and moon Joshua commanded and that is what obeyed him, but the Lord has it recorded as though he was the one who did what Joshua said. Isn't this the picture we get in Mark 11:22-24 in connection to prayer and speaking to the mountain?

Is it possible that when we have a relationship with God in which we are submissive and obedient to Him that He would invite us to command Him to do some things? It would be one thing if we presumptuously did this, but what if we were invited to do this as submissive and obedient children?

Just some thoughts.

I am impressed at your scholarship, v. I am still uncomfortable with the idea that an ant like me can command the Almighty, even if the Almight gives me permission. I tend to take the position of most modern translations (NIV notwithstanding) that God is asking a rhetorical question with only one obvious answer.

\o/

 

[victoryword]

Believe me Jim, I am not dogmatically advocating the declarative statement, at least not yet. It seems that so much evidence points to both and both sides have produced some good arguments for their position. However, I am intrigued with the study and attempt to understand this.