| 4. Linguistic Exegesis The verse begins with ulai {אוּלַי | ʾû-lay} ‘perhaps’, introducing hopeful uncertainty. The qal imperfect yishma {יִשְׁמַע | yiš-ma‘} functions as protasis with Yahweh Elohecha {יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ | Yəhôwâ ʾĕ-lō-he-kā} as subject. The direct object marker et {אֵת | ʾêṯ} introduces kol divrei rav-shakeh {כָּל־דִּבְרֵי רַב־שָׁקֵה | kol dî-bre rav-šā-qê}, specifying the content expected to be heard. The relative clause asher shelacho melek-ashur adonav {אֲשֶׁר שְׁלָחוֹ מֶלֶךְ־אַשּׁוּר אֲדֹנָיו | ă-šer še-lā-ḥô mê-leḵ-’ă-šûr ’ă-ḏō-nāv} clarifies the Assyrian commission, while the infinitive lekharef Elohim khay {לְחָרֵף אֱלֹהִים חַי | le-ḥā-rêf ʾĕ-lō-hîm ḥay} conveys intent to blaspheme the living God. The vav-consecutive hiphil vehokhiakh {וְהוֹכִיחַ | wĕ-hō-ḵî-yaḥ} with badvarim asher shama {בַּדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר שָׁמַע | bad-də-vā-rîm ă-šer šā-ma‘} forms the apodosis, emphasizing divine response by rebuking the words. The final vav-consecutive venasata tefillah be’ad hasheerit hanimtzaah {וְנָשָׂאתָ תְפִלָּה בְּעַד הַשְּׁאֵרִית הַנִּמְצָאָה | wĕ-nā-sā-tā tə-pil-lā bə-’ād ha-še-’ē-rît han-nim-ṣā-’āh} functions as an intercessory imperative calling for prayer on behalf of the surviving remnant. English ordering preserves the Hebrew protasis–apodosis and relative clauses to highlight divine hearing and human petition. |