גַּ֣ם בָּעֵ֤ת הַהִיא֙ אָמַ֣רְתִּי לָעָ֔ם אִ֣ישׁ וְנַעֲר֔וֹ יָלִ֖ינוּ בְּת֣וֹךְ יְרוּשָׁלָ֑͏ִם וְהָֽיוּ־לָ֧נוּ הַלַּ֛יְלָה מִשְׁמָ֖ר וְהַיּ֥וֹם מְלָאכָֽה׃
I further said to the people at that time, “Each of you, along
with his servant, should lodge in Jerusalem, that we may use the night to stand guard and the day to work.”
(The above rendering is 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, by employing a situation-oriented construal as outlined in this introduction, pp. 11–16.)
The referring expression in question is אִישׁ, used in a distributive construction (to express the desired manner of action), with the action being distributed across the group that is labeled as הָעָם.
In view here are the stereotypical heads of households. (In the ancient Near East—sometimes called Southwest Asia—the institution of corporate households was universal and hierarchical, as documented by social scientists such as David Schloen and Paula McNutt. Hence for the ancient audience, the social prominence and authority of those householders was a part of everyday experience. Cognitively, they were highly accessible. Hence the vague label הָעָם was sufficient to point to them.)
Gender is not at issue, because (given the nature of the building project and its militia aspect) it goes without saying that women are not in view unless otherwise noted (as in 3:12).
As for rendering into English, the NJPS rendering “Let every man with his servant lodge in Jerusalem” nowadays sounds startingly odd: aren’t those servants adult males, too? The revised rendering removes the overemphasis on gender and expresses the distribution in a more idiomatic manner. Thus it makes the depicted situation comprehensible to the English reader.