וַיִּקְצְפ֨וּ עָלָ֜יו שָׂרֵ֣י פְלִשְׁתִּ֗ים וַיֹּ֣אמְרוּ לוֹ֩ שָׂרֵ֨י פְלִשְׁתִּ֜ים הָשֵׁ֣ב אֶת־הָאִ֗ישׁ וְיָשֹׁב֙ אֶל־מְקוֹמוֹ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר הִפְקַדְתּ֣וֹ שָׁ֔ם וְלֹא־יֵרֵ֤ד עִמָּ֙נוּ֙ בַּמִּלְחָמָ֔ה וְלֹא־יִֽהְיֶה־לָּ֥נוּ לְשָׂטָ֖ן בַּמִּלְחָמָ֑ה וּבַמֶּ֗ה יִתְרַצֶּ֥ה זֶה֙ אֶל־אֲדֹנָ֔יו הֲל֕וֹא בְּרָאשֵׁ֖י הָאֲנָשִׁ֥ים הָהֵֽם׃
But the Philistine officers were angry with him; and the Philistine officers said to him, “Send the man back; let him go back to the place you assigned him. He shall not march down with us to the battle, or else he may become our adversary in battle. For with what could that fellow appease his master if not with the heads of those involved?
(The above rendering comes from the RJPS translation, an adaptation of the NJPS translation. Before accounting for this rendering, I will analyze the plain sense of the Hebrew term containing אִישׁ—in this case, its plural form אֲנָשִׁים—by employing a situation-oriented construal as outlined in this document, pp. 11–16.)
The speaker on behalf of the officers has been describing an unacceptable situation as such. He now refers to his cohort in terms of that situation. This is a classic discourse function of the situating noun. (The referents’ masculine gender is inferable from the military context; it is not at issue.)
As for rendering into English, the NJPS ‘these men’ nowadays tends to be construed as a sortal noun phrase, which puts undue emphasis on the referents’ masculinity—and reduces the effectiveness of the discourse function. In contrast, the revised rendering regards the referent in terms of the situation, as salient participants.