Studies on the Spirit: The Flesh, the World, and the Devil (Study 25)

The Flesh, the World, and the Devil

Study 25: The FLesh (Part 5)

In the previous two studies (23 & 24), we examined Paul’s use of sa/rc (and the flesh-concept) in Galatians. Now we turn to his letter to the Romans, which further develops many of the same teachings and thematic emphases—with regard to sin and the law, and to the contrast/conflict between flesh and the Spirit.

Sa/rc in Romans (esp. chapters 7-8)

There are 26 occurrences of the noun sa/rc in Romans, more than half of which (16) are found in chapters 7-8. Of the occurrences elsewhere in the letter, only one (in 13:14, but cf. also 6:19) uses sa/rc in the decidedly negative sense so familiar from Paul’s writings (especially in Galatians, cf. the prior Studies 23 and 24). Before surveying briefly these 10 instances (outside of chaps. 7-8), it will be worth reviewing the three primary expressions involving the noun sa/rc:

    • pa=sa sa/rc (“all flesh”)—humanity, the common human condition
    • [e)n] sarki/ (“in [the] flesh”)—the physical being of a person
    • kata\ sa/rka (“according to [the] flesh”)—the creaturely limitations of a human being (esp. weakness and morality, but also sin), in contrast to God (and His Spirit).

Paul uses the first of these in 3:20: “Therefore, out of [i.e., by] works of (the) law, all flesh [pa=sa sa\rc] will not be made right in His sight…”. In English idiom, we would say “no flesh [i.e., no person] will be made right”. Though the usage of sa/rc here is general (and neutral), Paul is clearly referring to his teaching that humankind (“all flesh”) is in bondage under the power of sin; this is fundamental to the common human condition. Humans are also in bondage under the law (i.e., the regulations, etc., of the Torah). In Paul’s thought, the law and sin are closely connected, as the final statement in 3:20 makes clear (“…for through [the] law [comes] knowledge about sin”), and as he expounds throughout chapter 7 (see below).

The second expression ([e)n] sarki/, “in [the] flesh”) occurs in 2:28, while the third (kata\ sa/rka, “according to the flesh”) is used in 1:3; 4:1; 9:3, 5. In these references, both expressions simply refer (principally) to the common human condition. And yet, at the same time, Paul unquestionably alludes to the negative ethical-religious and theological-hamartiological aspects of the term. Let us survey these briefly:

    • 1:3—Here, at the beginning of the letter, Paul refers to the Son of God (Jesus Christ) having come to be born “out of (the) seed of David according to (the) flesh [kata\ sa/rka]”. By this is meant that the Son was born as a human being, within the lineage of David (thus fulfilling the role of the Davidic Messiah). The parallel with Gal 4:4 suggests that Paul understood Jesus’ mother to be of Davidic descent, whereas in the Gospel genealogies (Matt 1:1-18; Lk 3:23-38) the Davidic lineage comes through Joseph (and thus is legal, rather than biological). The same parallel with Gal 4:4 also implies that, in being born as an Israelite/Jew (from the line of David), Jesus came to be “under the law” (i.e., in bondage to it, bound by its regulations). As a human being, he was also “under sin” (i.e., humankind’s bondage under the power of sin), cf. Gal 3:13, 22f. He came under this bondage for the purpose of freeing humankind from it; cf. Rom 8:3; 2 Cor 5:21.
    • 2:28—A human being’s ethno-religious identity (as an Israelite/Jew) is described as being “in (the) flesh” (e)n sarki\), parallel/synonymous with e)n tw=| fanerw=| (i.e., in one’s outward/manifest appearance). This identity, of course, is tied to the binding requirements of the Torah, the principal one of which is circumcision—a requirement that is literally (and concretely) fulfilled in a person’s flesh.
    • 4:1—Here, at the beginning of the exposition involving Abraham (cf. Galatians 3-4, discussed in Study 23), Paul refers to Abraham as the “father” of Israelites/Jews “according to (the) flesh” (kata\ sa/rka); that is, they are his descendants in a biological (and ethno-religious) sense. This is contrasted with being spiritual descendants “according to the promise” (9:8, and cf. the context of 2:28).
      Less probable would be to take kata\ sa/rka as qualifying the verb, i.e., “Abraham found…according to the flesh”.
    • 9:3, 5—Similarly, Paul refers to other Israelites/Jews as his brothers and kin-relations (suggenh/$, plur.) “according to (the) flesh”. Verse 5 repeats the usage from 1:3, applying the same human ethno-religious identity to the person of Jesus Christ (cf. 15:8ff). In 11:14, Paul goes so far as to refer to Israelites/Jews simply as “my flesh”.

This leaves us with the references in 6:19 and 13:14, where the negative aspect of sa/rc comes more clearly into view. The former reference, which lays the groundwork for the usage in chapters 7-8, emphasizes the weakness (a)sqe/neia, “lack of strength”) of human nature (“the flesh”), having been subjected to the power of sin, whereby human beings regularly act as “slaves to uncleanness and to lawlessness”. In 13:14, Paul repeats the ethical emphasis from Galatians 5-6 (discussed in the previous study), referring to the impulses (e)piqumi/a, plur.) toward sin that still remain in the “flesh” of believers; even after having been freed from bondage to sin, there are vestigial impulses that remain, and we (as believers) must continue to grapple with these throughout our earthly lives.

Chapters 7 and 8

It is in chapters 7-8 that Paul develops the negative theological aspects of the sa/rc-concept, much as he did in Galatians. These chapters mark the climax of the probatio of Romans, which I have outlined as follows:

    • Rom 1:18-3:20: Announcement of God’s (impending) judgment, according to the Law (of God)
    • Rom 3:21-5:21: Announcement of God’s justice/righteousness (in Christ), apart from the Law (Torah)
    • Rom 6:1-7:25: Announcement of Freedom from the Law and Sin
    • Rom 8:1-39: Announcement of Life in the Spirit

Chapters 7-8 must be understood within this theological and rhetorical framework; here is a more detailed outline of chaps. 6-8:

    • Rom 6:1-7:25: Announcement of Freedom from the Law and Sin
      —6:1-14: Argument 1: Believers are dead to sin by participation in the death of Christ, along with an exhortation not to sin (vv. 12-14)
      —6:15-23: Argument 2: Believers are free from slavery to sin (and are now slaves of righteousness)
      —7:1-6: Argument 3: Believers are released from the bond of the Law (and sin): Illustration from the marriage bond
      —7:7-25: Theological excursus: The relationship between the Law and Sin
    • Rom 8:1-30: Announcement of Life in the Spirit (Exhortation)
      —8:1-11: The conflict (for believers) between the Spirit and the Flesh
      —8:12-17: Believers are sons (of God) and heirs (with Christ) through the Spirit
      —8:18-25: Believers have the hope of future glory (new creation) through the Spirit
      —8:26-30: Believers experience the work of salvation through the Spirit
    • Rom 8:31-39: Doxology: The Love of God (in Christ)

The occurrences of sa/rc are in the four central sections—7:1-6, 7:7-25, 8:1-11, and 8:12-17—relating both to the theme of freedom from sin (and the law) and that of believers’ new life in the Spirit. Let us explore how Paul expounds the flesh-concept in this regard.

The first reference is in 7:5, as Paul applies the illustration from marriage (vv. 1-3) to the situation of believers. As human beings, part of the old order of creation (and the old covenant), believers previously were “in the flesh” (e)n th=| sarki/). As noted above, this expression simply refers to the physical being of a person; and, yet, here Paul imbues it with a very specific connotative (and contextual) meaning: viz., the physical being of believer, prior to coming to faith in Christ—that is, when he/she was still under bondage to the power of sin (and also bound under the law). Paul clearly contrasts this past state (“when [o%te] we were in the flesh”, v. 5) with that of the present (“but now…”, v. 6). As believers, we were “made to cease working” (vb. katarge/w) from under the law; that is, we were set free from serving under it, even as we were set free from bondage to sin. Now, instead of simply being “in the flesh” (i.e., a human being of the old creation and old covenant), we live “in (the) newness of (the) Spirit” (e)n kaino/thti pneu/mato$)—as part of a new creation and under a new covenant.

As in Galatians (chaps. 3-4), Paul emphasizes the close connection between the law (i.e., the Torah regulations of the old covenant) and sin—the believer having been set free from both. Paul understood how controversial this aspect of his message was (particularly for Jewish believers); he sought to expound the matter in Galatians, but does so here (in Rom 7:7-25) in greater detail, as he begins: “What, then, shall we say? (Is) the law sin? Let it not come to be (so)!” (cf. Gal 3:19, “What, then, [was the purpose of] the law?”). This purpose is stated simply: “But I would not (have) known sin, if not through (the) law; for, indeed, I had not known the setting upon [e)piqumi/a] (sin), if (it were) not (that) the law says ‘You shall not set (your heart) upon [vb e)piqume/w] (it)!'”. As a citation from the Decalogue, it is customary to translate the verb e)piqume/w as “covet”; and yet, it is properly related to the noun (e)piqumi/a), regularly used by Paul (and other early Christians) as a designation for the impulse toward sin that resides in the flesh. It denotes a “motion/movement upon [i.e., toward]” something; insofar as it refers to an inward desire, directed by the heart/mind, it is proper to render the verb in English idiom as “set (one’s heart/mind) upon”.

In the remainder of the section (vv. 8-25), Paul further develops and expounds the principle established in v. 7, describing how it relates (and applies) to the life of a believer before he/she came into the new life of the Spirit. The noun sa/rc occurs in verse 18 and 25, at the close of the exposition. The statement in v. 18ff summarizes Paul’s anthropology (and psychology):

“For I have seen that there does not house [i.e., dwell] in me—that is, in my flesh—(any) good (thing); for, (though) the wishing (of it) may be laying along in me, the working out (of) the fine (thing is) not. For I do not do (the) good (thing) that I wish, but (rather, the) bad thing I do not wish, that (is what) I do!”

There has been a longstanding debate as to whether, or to what extent, Paul is speaking here as a believer. Because, as we have seen, Paul admits a similar kind of struggle for the believer against the impulse toward sin that resides in the flesh. However, the primary focus here is certainly on the condition of the believer before coming to faith in Christ; the human being, enslaved under the power of sin, is not able to fulfill the good things (viz., according to God’s law) that he might wish to achieve. The sense of frustration, in this regard, is expressed famously in verse 24: “…Who will rescue me from this body of death?” The answer comes in the concluding v. 25: “…(it is) through Yeshua (the) Anointed our Lord!” Prior to conversion, and even (to some extent) after becoming a believer, the individual is at odds with two opposing aspects of him/herself:

“So, then, I (my)self, on the one hand, with my mind (would) serve (the) law of God, but with the flesh (serve the) law of sin!”

Having been freed from this bondage to “the law of sin”, the believer in Christ experiences new life in the Spirit and is now able to live fully in accordance with the law of God. This is the theme that Paul develops in chapter 8. The noun sa/rc occurs 13 times in this chapter—half of all the occurrences (26) in Romans. The “flesh” (sa/rc) is repeatedly contrasted with the Spirit (pneu=ma), just as it was throughout Galatians (and especially in chap. 5, cf. the previous study). The triple-occurrence of sa/rc in verse 3 is significant in the way that it echoes the exposition (regarding the relationship between the law and sin) earlier in 7:7-25 (see above):

“For the law (being) without power, in that it was without strength through the flesh, God, (hav)ing sent His own Son in (the) likeness of flesh of sin, and over [i.e., concerning] sin, made judgment against sin in (the) flesh”.

Three distinct points are made, involving the term sa/rc:

    • The law was powerless to free humankind from bondage (to sin), its lack of strength being “through the flesh” (dia\ th=$ sarko/$, i.e., because of the flesh). I take this to mean, principally, that the law is part of the old order of creation (viz., the old covenant) in which human nature (“flesh”) is enslaved to the power of sin. However, much a person may wish to live in accordance with God’s law, the “flesh” makes it impossible.
    • God sent His Son to earth as a human being (i.e., “in the flesh”); this means that the Son had to come under the same bondage to sin as all other human beings. Paul expresses this by the curious expression “flesh of sin” (“in [the] likeness [o(moiw/mati] of flesh of sin”, cf. Phil 2:7). Though the incarnate Son entered into the human condition (which was in bondage to sin), he himself did not succumb to sin (as Paul makes clear in 2 Cor 5:21).
    • This was for the purpose of bringing judgment against (vb katakri/nw) sin “in the flesh” (e)n th=| sarki/). This judgment by God stripped sin of its ruling power, thus setting humankind free—a freedom that is realized by believers in Christ.

Paul clarifies and expounds the last point in verse 4: “…(so) that the right(ness) of the law might be fulfilled in us—the (one)s walking about not according to (the) flesh [kata\ sa/rka], but according to (the) Spirit [kata\ pneu=ma]”. In being set free from the power of sin, believers were also set free from the law (Torah) of the old covenant; as believers, we are now able to fulfill God’s law completely, not through observing the Torah requirements, but by living according to the Spirit.

The exposition continues in verses 5-6, echoing Paul’s earlier ethical teaching in Galatians (cf. the previous study):

“For the (one)s being [i.e., who are] according to (the) flesh (also) mind the (thing)s of the flesh; but the (one)s (who live) according to (the) Spirit (mind) the (thing)s of the Spirit. For the (inclination of the) mind of the flesh (is) death, but the mind of the Spirit (is) life and peace.”

Verses 7-8 frame this contrast in terms of opposition and conflict (cf. Gal 5:17):

“Therefore, the mind of the flesh (is in) hostility to(ward) God, for it is not in order under the law of God, for, indeed, it is not able (to be so)—indeed, the (one)s being in (the) flesh are not able to please God!”

Note how the expressions kata\ sa/rka (“according to [the] flesh”) and e)n sarki/ (“in [the] flesh”) are equivalent in this context—both refer to the human being who operates (i.e., thinks and acts) according to the old order of things, following the impulses toward sin (“in the flesh”). Such a person is without the Spirit (i.e., the unbeliever), or otherwise acts without heeding the Spirit’s guidance. Paul’s declaration in verse 9 defines the new nature and identity of the believer in Christ:

“But you are not in (the) flesh, but in (the) Spirit, if indeed (the) Spirit of God houses in you. But (then), if any(one) does not hold (the) Spirit of (the) Anointed, that (person) is not of him.”

Even though the believer is still a human being, he/she is no longer “in (the) flesh” (e)n sarki/)—at least, not in the special negative sense of the expression. Instead, the believer is part of a new creation, being “in (the) Spirit” (e)n pneu/mati). The person who remains “in (the) flesh” is the human being who has not (yet) received the Spirit of God (which is also the Spirit of Christ).

The final two occurrences of sa/rc are in verses 12-13:

“So then, brothers, we are (ones) who owe, (but) not to the flesh (so as) to live according to (the) flesh; for, if you live according to (the) flesh, you are about to die off, but if in (the) Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.”

This ethical exhortation (and warning) corresponds to those in the exhortatio (5:1-6:10) of Galatians (cf. the previous study). Since believers depend on the power and guidance of the Spirit in order to live according to God’s law, one must submit to that guidance, allowing oneself to be led by the Spirit and not by the impulses of the flesh.

In the next study, we will explore the flesh/sarc concept in the broader Pauline tradition—that is, in the later and/or pseudonymous letters of Ephesians (compared with Colossians) and the Pastorals (1-2 Timothy, Titus). We will consider how the use of sa/rc in these letters relates to the (earlier) usage in Galatians and Romans, etc.

October 9: Job 15:24-27

Job 15:20-27, continued
Verse 24

“(The) day of darkness will frighten him,
pressure and distress will overpower him,
like a king prepared for the attack!”

As discussed in the previous note, the MT of verse 23 is problematic and likely corrupt/flawed. This includes the probable mislocation of the words Ev#j) <oy (“day of darkness”), viz., at the end of v. 23 when they are better suited at the beginning of v. 24. This redivision of the verses, which is supported by the majority of modern commentators (e.g., Pope, Clines, Seow), is followed here. It requires that the two verbs in v. 24 be revocalized (from the MT): the first verb should be a singular form (Wht@u&b^y+) while the second should be a plural (Whp%q=t=T!). The paired (and near-synonymous) nouns rx^ and hq*oxm=, each denoting a tight/narrow condition or situation (in English idiom, a “tight spot”, viz., that presses on a person and creates stress, etc.) and translated “pressure” and “distress”, respectively, are the subject of the plural verb (of [q^T*, “be strong [against]”, i.e., “[over]power”).

According to this verse-division, v. 24 is a tricolon, which would depart from the couplet pattern of the speech; however, occasional tricola are not that unusual in the Dialogue. Still, it is conceivable that the third line represents a secondary gloss. In the Masoretic verse-division (and vocalization), v. 24 is an irregular couplet:

“Pressure and distress frighten him—
it overpowers him like a king ready for the attack!”

The meaning of the final word (rodyK!) is uncertain. It occurs only here in the Scriptures, and the connection with possible cognates remains unclear (summary according to Seow, p. 719; cf. HALOT, p. 472):

    • Syriac kdr, “to disturb”
    • Akkadian kadāru, “to be overbearing, arrogant, spirited”; related kadru (“aggressive”), kadrūtu (“aggressiveness”); see CAD, K, 30–33.
    • Arabic kadara, “to throw down,” but also “to disturb, afflict, distress” (in the VIII form “to dart, rush,” used of falcon swooping down on a prey, locusts, and animals); noun kadarun, “affliction, trouble”.

The ancient translations also differ considerably on how it is rendered; the Syriac (Peshitta) and Latin Vulgate are consistent in translating it as “battle”, while the Targums and the LXX show considerable variation. The context suggests a meaning such as “attack”.

Overall, the scenario from vv. 20-23 continues here (cf. the previous note), as the wicked person lives in fear and distress, imagining the worst that might come upon him, expecting the possibility of misfortune (i.e., loss of wealth and well-being), destruction, and death. And, indeed, these things will eventually come upon the wicked (as judgment from God), as the remainder of the exposition makes clear.

Verse 25

“For he stretched out his hand against (the) Mighty (One),
and against Šadday would presume to be strong!”

The punishment that the wicked fears, and which will fall upon him, comes as a result of the individual’s hostile and presumptuous opposition to God. The two characteristic actions described here are: (1) “stretching out his hand”, and (2) “being strong, acting with strength”. The latter is expressed by the verb rb^G` (“be strong”) in the Hitpael reflexive stem; the context suggests a meaning like “presume to be strong”. The preposition la# properly means “to(ward)”, but it can carry the oppositional sense of “against”, which is certainly appropriate here; cf. the earlier usage in v. 13.

There is a chiastic structure to this couplet, which I have preserved (according to the Hebrew word order) in my translation above:

    • “For he stretched out his hand
      • against (the) Mighty (One),
      • and against Šadday
    • he would presume to be strong”

I have transliterated the Divine name/title yD^v^ throughout the Dialogue; however, if the conventional translation of “Almighty” were used, it would provide an excellent parallel with la@ (“Mighty [One]”).

Verse 26

“He runs against Him with neck (straight),
in (the) thick rims of his protective (shield)!”

The military imagery introduced in v. 24, and suggested in v. 25, is utilized here to explain the boldness of the wicked person’s defiance of God. He runs against (lit. “toward”, la#) God “with a neck” (raW`x^B=). The meaning of the latter expression is uncertain. It could mean “with a (stiff) neck”, i.e., defiantly, but, as Seow (p. 720) notes, that idea is normally expressed differently (e.g., [r#u) hv@q=, cf. Exod 33:3, 5; 34:9; Deut 9:6, 13) elsewhere in the Scriptures. Another possibility, discussed (and favored) by Seow, is that the reference is to a neck-guard. However, I tend to think that the opposite is being described here; viz., the wicked person charges with his neck straight and unguarded because he trusts in the protective shield (/g@m*, lit. “place of protection”) that otherwise covers him. This shield has thick rims and/or domed protrubances (bG~ plur.) that would seem to provide a person with ample protection.
There may be an allusion here by Eliphaz to the idea that Job had been trusting that he would be protected by God (cf. this theme in the Prologue, 1:1ff, 9-11ff). This protection could lead to a certain presumptuousness and arrogance in a person, such as Eliphaz may be implying applies to Job.

Verse 27

“See—he (even) covers his face with his (own) fat,
and makes abundant fat (the cover) upon his loin(s)!”

The idea of a protective cover (in v. 26) is extended here to the habitual behavior of the wicked person—viz., he covers (vb hs*K*) himself with fat. This alludes to an indulgent lifestyle in the midst of peace and prosperity. On the one hand, it simply describes how the prosperous wicked person eats well and is healthy (and so can become fat); and the same time, it suggests a grossness of conduct (and character). Cf. Deut 32:15 (cp. 31:20); 73:4ff; 119:70a; Jer 5:28. A person who is “fat” is strong and healthy (and thus makes for an able warrior), cf. Judg 3:9; yet, as indicated by the references above, it can also suggest the negative characteristics of arrogance and pride, etc. The noun hm*yP! is quite rare, occurring only here in the Scriptures. The Arabic cognates faʾima and faʾama denote being “fat” (i.e., robust) in the sense of fullness and abundance, etc.; cf. also Akkadian piyāmu. I translate it here as “abundant fat”, in parallel with bl#j# in line 1.

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).
    • Those marked “Clines” are to David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20, Word Biblical Commentary [WBC] vol. 17 (1989).
    • Those marked “Pope” are to Marvin H. Pope, Job, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 15 (1965, 1973).

October 8: Job 15:20-23

Job 15:20-27

The second half of Eliphaz’ speech (vv. 20-35) presents an exposition of the orthodox principle that, contrary to some of the claims made by Job, God only punishes the wicked (and does so justly). Since Job appears to have been punished severely by God, he must have acted in a wicked and impious manner, and thus God’s punishment of him would be just.

This exposition can be divided into two main sections (or ‘stanzas’). In the first of these (vv. 20-27), the effect of God’s punishment on the wicked person is described; in the second (vv. 28-35), his ultimate fate is presented in more detail. This first ‘stanza’ is comprised of four shorter units (couplet-pairs) or strophes. The first of these couplet-pairs (or quatrains) covers vv. 20-23.

Verse 20

“All (the) days of (the) wicked, he himself is writhing,
even (the) count of years stored up for (the) fearsome!”

As mentioned above, vv. 20-27 describe the effect of God’s judgment on the wicked person, during his lifetime. In this initial couplet it is stated that during all of his life (“all the days”), the wicked person is writhing (vb lyj! I, Hitpolel participle)—that is, in pain and anguish, etc.; the verb lyj! is frequently in the context of a woman in labor. The focus is not on physical anguish, but on the tortured nature of the wicked person’s existence. The lack of any real or abiding security means that the wicked person lives in constant uncertainty and a degree of dread as to what might happen to him, even in times of prosperity and success. There is misfortune that could be waiting for him just around the corner.
The Targum reads the Hitpolel reflexive form as being of the verb llj (“defile, profane”), i.e., “All the days of the wicked, he is defiling himself”. By contrast, the Syriac (Peshitta) and the Greek version of Symmachus understand it as a form of llh (“praise”), i.e., the wicked is “praising himself”, boasting, exalting himself, etc. Cf. Seow, p. 716.

The simple expression “all the days” is matched in line 2 by the more complex phrase “(the) count of years (that) are stored away” (WnP=x=n] <yn]v* rP^s=m!); i.e., God has allotted a certain number of years for each human being. The substantive adjective Jyr!u* (“fearsome”) is used in parallel as a characteristic of the wicked; the adjective connotes the exertion of power (often with the use of violence) over others; cf. earlier in 6:23.

Verse 21

“A sound of frightful (thing)s (is) in his ears—
(even) in (his) fullness, a ravager may come to him!”

This second couplet further describes something of the “writhing” (v. 20) that the wicked person experiences throughout his life. It entails a measure of mental fear and anguish, imagining the worst that might come. The second line is best understood as reflecting, not (necessarily) an actual occurrence, but what the wicked person fears (and perhaps imagines) might happen.

The noun <olv* denotes “completion, fullness”, but with a wide range of connotative meaning, including “health, well-being, security, peace, prosperity”. The wicked person fears that, even in the midst of his “fullness”, a ravager (i.e., “[one] ravaging”, vb dd^v*, participle) might come upon him, destroying and taking away (i.e., stealing, plundering) all of his wealth and well-being. In Job’s case, such “ravaging” actually took place (1:13-19, 21; 2:7ff). Cf. the earlier use of dd^v* in 12:6; it is frequently used in the Prophetic judgment-oracles (esp. in Jeremiah).

I have translated <yd!j*P= in line 1 as an ordinary numeric plural, “frightening (thing)s”, i.e., things that cause fear (and trembling), terrors, etc.; cf. 18:1. However, it could be understood as an intensive plural, i.e., “a sound of great dread”, “a sound most frightening”, etc.

The object suffix on the verb aoB (“come”) in line 2 is datival, i.e., “come to him” or “come upon him”.

Verse 22

“He holds no firm (hope) of returning from (the) darkness,
and he himself (is) looking to (the) sword!”

The wicked also has a fear of death, since he has no sure hope of ever “returning” from the darkness (of death, i.e., Sheol), that is, of a substantive life after death. The extent to which the book of Job envisions such an afterlife for the righteous is disputed, and the matter will be discussed in future notes. For the majority of humankind—and, certainly, for the wicked—all that awaits for them after death is a shadowy existence in the netherwold (i.e., Sheol, the realm of the dead). The verb /m^a* means “be firm”, Hiphil “make firm”, which here means “have/hold a firm (hope)” in something.

The meaning of the second line is not entirely clear. The MT Qere has a passive participle, yWpx*, while the Kethib (wpx) could simply reflect an archaic spelling of the same (wp%x*), though Seow (p. 717) suggests that originally the text may have read as an infinitive absolute (opx*, or hp)x*). The verb hp*x* means “look out”; when it is followed by a preposition l (or la#) it means “look to(ward)”, i.e., toward something taking place, or toward doing something (to another person), cf. Psalm 37:32; Lam 4:7. A passive of this verb is problematic; it could mean something like “is watched”, “is spied out”, so as to bring destruction, etc., upon the person. In this regard, the meaning could be that the wicked is “marked out”, i.e., destined, for the sword; cf. Pope, p. 117; Horst, p. 218f; Clines, p. 342.
Dahood, in his “Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography VIII” (Biblica 51 [1970], pp. 391-404 [402]) renders the verb here as a 3rd person plural qatal/perfect form. He also revocalizes MT br#j* yl@a$ (“to [the] sword”) so that it becomes br#j) yl@a@ (“Mighty [one]s [i.e., gods] of desolation”); these “gods of desolation” are the ones who “watch” (Wpx*) the wicked closely. A few commentators (e.g., Fohrer, p. 262) would emend the text to a form of the verb /p^x* (“store up/away”), as in v. 20b; i.e., the wicked person is “stored up [i.e., kept in store] for the sword”. 

If the passive (participle) is understood in a reflexive sense, then the meaning would differ little from the verb as an infinitive. This seems to yield the best sense for the line as a whole: the wicked person, in his fear (of death), is himself “looking to (the) sword”. This could indicate a willingness on his part to make use of violence (cf. the characteristic of Jyru* in v. 20b, above); or, more probably, he anticipates the coming of the “sword” (violence, destruction, death) upon him.

Verse 23

“Being flung away as food for the vulture,
he knows that his <destruction> is fixed!”

The majority of modern commentators regard this couplet as textually corrupt (in the MT) and would emend it at several points. The arguments for doing so are strong indeed (see the discussion by Clines, pp. 342-3; Seow, pp. 718-9) and I have followed them:

    • First, the initial participle dd@n) (“fleeing away”) is read as a passive (Pual)  form, dD)n% (“being flung away”). The conjunction of a passive participle + pronoun aWh matches the syntax in v. 22b and also v. 20a (Hitpael reflexive form).
    • Secondly, the final word of the line, hya, is vocalized as hY`a^ (“vulture, kite”) rather than the MT interrogative hY@a^ (“where?”).
    • Third, in the second line, ody`B= (“in his hand”) is emended to odyP! (“his destruction”), as the letters b and p can be easily confused (in the paleo-Hebrew script), cf. Seow, p. 718. The noun dyP! refers to a person being “swallowed up” by death (cf. Ugaritic pd), i.e., being consumed, so as to be destroyed.
    • Finally, the last two words of v. 23 (in the Masoretic verse division), Ev#j) <oy (“[the] day of darkness”), are transferred to the beginning of v. 24 (to be discussed in the next note).

Althann (pp. 73-4*) is one of the few commentators who defends the MT of v. 23, though his defense is somewhat tepid and I do not find his arguments particularly convincing. Gordis (p. 163f) also supports the MT, as does van der Lugt (p. 184f). If maintained, it could be translated as follows:

“He himself flees (look)ing for food—(but) where (is it)?
He knows that firm(ly) at his hand (is the) day of darkness!”

Verse 23 could be describing the actual death of the wicked, though, as a continuation of vv. 20-22, it is perhaps better read in terms of the wicked fearfully imagining (or envisioning) the death that could await him. The verb /WK means “be firm”, and so there is a certain amount of conceptual wordplay with the use of /m^a* (similar meaning) in v. 22 (see above). The passive (Niphal) form here denotes “being (set) firm”; I have used the translation “fixed” since it fits the idea of a person’s fate (and death) being “fixed”.

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).
    • Those marked “Clines” are to David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20, Word Biblical Commentary [WBC] vol. 17 (1989).
    • Those marked “Pope” are to Marvin H. Pope, Job, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 15 (1965, 1973).
    • Those marked “Althann” are to Robert Althann, bwya Job, Biblia Hebraica Quinta, vol. 16 (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: 2024).
    • Those marked “Gordis” are to Robert Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Studies, Moreshet Series, Studies in Jewish History, Literature and Thought, vol. II (The Jewish Theological Seminary of America: 1978).
    • Those marked “Fohrer” are to Georg Fohrer, Das Buch Hiob, Kommentar zum Alten Testament XVI (Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn: 1963).
    • Those marked “Horst” are to Friedrich Horst, Hiob, Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament [BKAT] XVI/1 (Neukirchener Verlag: 1968).
    • Those marked “van der Lugt” are to Pieter van der Lugt, Rhetorical Criticism and the Poetry of the Book of Job, Oudtestamentische Studiën XXXII (Brill: 1995).

Wednesday Wisdom: Proverbs 14:12-18

Proverbs 14:12-18

This second proverb-grouping (vv. 12-18) in chapter 14 (see the previous study) consists of two smaller groupings—the first of which (vv. 12-14) coheres around the thematic motif of the “heart” (vv. 13-14, cf. also v. 10), while the second (15-18) is framed by the foolishness-term yt!P= (pl. <y]at*P=) and the contrasting adjective <Wru*. In other respects, this grouping is governed by the wise vs. foolish contrast in vv. 15-18, and the opening proverb contrasting the two paths (Er#D#)—viz., the right path of Wisdom vs. the crooked paths of folly and wickedness.

Verse 12

“There is a path (that is) straight before (the) face of a man,
but what follows by it (are) path(way)s of death!”

The foolish person may think that the path before him/her is right and “straight”, but it ultimately turns into crooked pathways (of wickedness) that lead to death. This path/walking idiom is a staple of the Wisdom tradition and occurs frequently in Proverbs, as we have seen (esp. in chapters 1-9); here the regular path-term Er#D# is used in both lines. Also frequent is the characterization of the right path (of Wisdom) as “straight” (rv*y`); by contrast, and implied here, the paths of folly and wickedness are crooked. There is one right path of Wisdom (sing. Er#D#), but the pathways of folly and wickedness are many (plur. <yk!r=D^). Another familiar point of emphasis (especially in the lectures and poems of chaps. 1-9) is that the path of Wisdom leads to life, while the paths of folly/wickedness lead to death—cf. 2:18-19; 3:16; 4:22-23; 5:5-6; 6:23; 7:27; 8:35; 9:6; 10:17; 12:28, etc.

The adjective rv*y` (“straight”), which clearly has a strong ethical-religious connotation in this context, is regularly used as a characteristic of the wise/righteous person (i.e., “upright”); cf. most recently in vv. 9, 11.

The idea that the path, mentioned in line 1, is “before” (yn@p=l!, lit., “to/before the face of”) a person here has two meanings: (i) it lies right in front of the person, and (ii) it has a certain appearance (or apparent character) in the sight/mind of the person. The latter aspect is primary. To a foolish person, the path that he/she is walking (or is about to walk) may appear to be right/straight, but in fact it is crooked, with numerous pathways that lead away from what is right. For close parallels, see 12:15a; 16:2a; 20:2a; 16:25 is identical to the saying in v. 12 here (for a detailed comparison, see Heim, Poetic Imagination, pp. 303-15). And, for the emphasis on self-understanding (and the possibility of self-delusion), cf. the sayings in vv. 8-10 (in the previous study).

Verse 13

“Even in laughter, (the) heart may feel pain,
and what follows (this) gladness (may be) grief.”

Verses 13-14 are connected by the thematic motif of the heart (bl@); the same motif also occurred in v. 10, which has led a number of commentators to identify vv. 10-14 as a proverb-grouping (cf. Heim, pp. 177ff). Here, the saying in v. 13 is clearly connected with the prior v. 12, by way of ‘catchword-bonding’, through the shared use of the word Ht*yr@j&a^w+ (“and/but what follows it”); the construct noun tyr!j&a^ is better expressed in English as “[the] end of” or “[the] last [part] of”.
This catchword-bonding argues against emending or redividing the MT, e.g., as hj*m=C!h^ tyr!j&a^w+ (cf. Fox, p. 577), “and what follows th(is) gladness”, even though it makes for smoother syntax and captures what the Hebrew is actually saying; see the note by Waltke, p. 578, cf. also Scherer, p. 142. Literally, the MT as it stands can be glossed as: “and what follows it, (this) gladness…”; for poetic concision, this is rendered above as “and what follows (this) gladness…”.

This seemingly obvious saying, based on simple observation and ordinary human experience, should be understood in connection with the message (and warning) of v. 12. Viz., a person may experience a measure of joy and gladness on the “path” that he/she is walking, but, if it is not the right/straight path of Wisdom, then such gladness is only illusory and fleeting (cf. Qoh 2:1-2), soon to be replaced by pain (vb ba^K*) and grief (hg`WT). The latter noun (from the verbal root hgy, “be concerned/worried” or “pained” over something) is quite rare, occurring just four times in the Scriptures (three of which are in Proverbs, cf. 10:1; 17:21, also Ps 119:28).

Verse 14

“From his (own) paths, (the one) turning back in heart is filled,
and (so also) from his deeds, (the) man (who is) good.”

The proverb in v. 14 combines the “heart” motif of v. 13 with the “path” (Er#D#) motif from v. 12; this serves as a strong argument for treating vv. 12-14 (rather than 10-14) as a distinct proverb-grouping (or sub-grouping). In this proverb, the wise/righteous and foolish/wicked are contrasted, but not at the point of the action/state (which is the same in both instances)—i.e., each person is satisfied (“filled”) by his/her own behavior. The one who turns away from what is right (i.e., the foolish/wicked person) is satisfied with that folly/wickedness, while the person who is good (i.e., the wise/righteous) is similarly satisfied with the path of wisdom/righteousness; cf. 1:31; 12:14; Isa 3:10. The nouns Er#D# (plur., “path[way]s”) and ll*u&m^ (plur., “deeds, actions”) here are parallel and essentially synonymous; there is a similar parallelism in Jer 17:10 (cf. Schipper, p. 474).
The MT reads wyl*u*m@W (“and from upon him[self]”), which, though it could be maintained (i.e., “and from him[self]” = “and from his own [behavior]”), should probably be emended to wyl*l*u&M^m!W (“and from his deeds/acts”), as recommended (or admitted) by a number of commentators (and which I have adopted); cf. Fox, p. 578; Waltke, p. 579, etc. It is easy to see how the second m and l, respectively, could have dropped out (by haplography).

The expression bl@ gWs (“[the one] turning back in/of heart”) is a bit unusual (cf. Ps 44:19[18]), but it follows the regular Wisdom-imagery of “turning” from the right/straight path (cf. above on v. 12). The verb gWs (I) means “turn back [from]”; in this context, it connotes turning back from the right path (of Wisdom) and going down crooked paths (of folly/wickedness) instead. It applies specifically here to the person’s heart—that is, one’s inward character, motivation, intention, etc.; this corresponds with a regular connotation of the verb, viz., to withdraw (from a friendship/bond), to be(come) disloyal. The verb occurs twice more in Proverbs (22:28; 23:10). Schipper (p. 474) translates the expression here as “one with a faithless heart”; cf. Plöger, p. 165; Meinhold, p. 234.

Verse 15

“(The) naive (person) gives firm (assent) to every word,
while (the) clever (one) looks closely at his (every) step.”

As mentioned above, the grouping of vv. 15-18 is framed by proverbs utilizing the foolishness-term yt!P#, referring to a person (usually young) who is naive and inexperienced. Such a person may be prone to foolishness, but it still capable of learning wisdom. Of the eighteen Scriptural occurrences, all but four are in Proverbs (cf. earlier in chaps. 1-9, 1:4, 22, 32; 7:7; 8:5; 9:4, 6, 16). The action of the yt!P# described here in line 1 seems to be positive—i.e., being willing to trust (vb /m^a*, “be firm”, Hiphil, “make firm”, here, “give firm [consent/assent]”)—but it actually reflects a naive (and foolish) gullibility, viz., one who is inclined to believe everything that he/she hears (“every word”). The implication is that this naive person will be drawn down harmful paths (of folly and wickedness) as the result of such trust (without discernment); cf. Schipper, p. 475; Meinhold, p. 236. By contrast, the wise person possesses understanding and discernment (/yB!, a regular characteristic of the wise). The verb (+ preposition l) should probably be rendered here in its fundamental meaning of “be clear, see/look clearly” (cf. in 23:1); that is, the wise person looks clearly/closely at every step (rv%a*) that he/she takes, and, as a result, will not be led down wayward paths of folly/wickedness. This use of the noun rv%a* is part of the related path/walking Wisdom-idiom, though here is the only such occurrence of the noun in Proverbs (but cf. Ps 17:5; 37:31; 40:3[2]; 44:19[18]; 73:2; Schipper, p. 475).

The adjective <Wru* (“clever, shrewd”), though it can carry a negative meaning (i.e., “crafty, scheming”), is always used in a positive sense (i.e., “intelligent, prudent”) in Proverbs; cf. earlier in v. 8; 12:16, 23; 13:16. Here it obviously signifies the opposite of yt!P#.

Verse 16

“A wise (person is one) fearing and turning away from evil,
while a fool (is) himself crossing over and feeling secure!”

At first glance, based on the customary rendering of the verb rb^u* (I/II) in the reflexive Hitpael stem (“become angry”), the two lines of this proverb seem oddly matched. However, the proper denotation of rb^u* is “go/cross over”, which here is clearly contrasted with the verb rWs (“turn aside/away [from]”). The wise person turns away from evil (and the path leading to it), while the foolish person crosses over onto that very path—and feels confident/secure (vb jf^B*) in doing so! Cf. a similar contrast in 22:3/27:12. The connotative association with anger presumably comes from the idea of an angry/emotional outburst (viz., that bursts out and crosses or runs over); this connotative meaning is almost certainly present here as well, given the conceptual connection between v. 16 and the following v. 17 (viz., the foolish person as one who is ‘short-tempered’).
Some would connect the verb jf^B* here with a separate root (II) that is cognate with Arabic baṭaḥa “fall prostrate” (i.e., down to the ground); HALOT, p. 120. At the very least, there could be some wordplay involved, since this meaning (i.e., “fall down”) would fit the context—viz., of a person crossing over onto the path(s) of wickedness, and thus falling as a result.

The wise/righteous person is, characteristically, one who fears God (cf. earlier in v. 2; also 1:7, 29; 2:5, et al.), and who thus also fears to become involved with anything wicked/evil—viz., anything that departs from the right path that He has set down for us to walk.

Verse 17

“(One who is) short of nostrils acts (in) a foolish way,
and a man of (wicked) schemes will be hated.”

As mentioned above, the connotative meaning of the verb rb^u* in v. 16b (Hitpael, “become angry”) is found here in the first line of v. 17 as well. In Hebrew idiom, the noun [a^ (“nose”, dual <y]P^a^, “nostrils”) often stands for “anger”; thus, to be “short of nostrils” means “quick to anger, short-tempered” (by contrast, one who is slow to anger is “long of nostrils”), cf. verse 29 (the parallel with v. 17 is discussed by Heim, Poetic Imagination, pp. 358-62). One can easily observe how a hot- or short-tempered person will often act in a foolish way.

The purpose of the couplet is to contrast one who acts impulsively (in a foolish manner), with the person who acts (wickedly) in a more intentional and purposeful manner; cf. Schipper, p. 476; Waltke, p. 596. The noun hM*z!m= denotes a “buzzing” in one’s heart/mind, i.e., thoughts and plans, etc., which a person then acts upon. It can be used in a positive (or neutral) as well as a negative sense; cf. the earlier occurrences in 1:4; 2:11; 3:21; 5:2; 8:12; 12:2. Here, the sense is clearly negative, referring to evil plans and schemes; for clarity and concision, the conventional translation of the plural as “schemes” is used.

The idea that the evil “schemer” will be hated alludes to the ultimate fate of the wicked. God certainly hates those who acts in such a way (and so will punish them), but the implication seems to be that they will be hated by other people as well. Based on observation and experience, this does not always follow, since one might cite numerous examples of evil ‘schemers’ who prosper and are loved/admired by the populace (at least for a time). However, as a basic principle and a religious-theological tenet, the claim still holds: the evil ‘schemer’ will come to be hated, by both God and men alike.

Verse 18

“(The) naive (one)s come to inherit foolishness,
but (the) clever (one)s are crowned with knowledge.”

The proverb in v. 18, like the earlier one in v. 15 (see above), utilizes the foolishness-term yt!P# (here, plural <y]at*P=), referring to those who are naive and inexperienced (and thus prone to foolishness). As such, they may be said to “inherit” (vb lj^n`, i.e., come to possess) a certain measure of foolishness. Yet, in the context of Proverbs, the young/naive person is capable of learning wisdom, thus turning away from (and shedding) his youthful folly. If, however, the young person persists in foolish ways, then he/she will come to “inherit” folly on a more permanent basis. By contrast, the wise person (i.e., who learns wisdom, through diligence and experience) inherits knowledge. For this contextual use of the verb lj^n`, cf. 3:35; 28:10; also Sir 10:11. As in v. 15, the adjective <Wru* (“clever, shrewd”), used in a positive sense (i.e., “intelligent, prudent”), is a characteristic of the wise person. For the “crown” (rtk) as a designation for the reward (and blessing from God) for the wise/righteous, see v. 24; 12:4; 16:31; 17:6; as these references indicate, the righteous are blessed in different ways in this life.

    • References above marked “Fox” are to Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 10-31, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 18B (Yale University Press: 2009). Those marked “Fox, Textual Commentary” are to idem, Proverbs: An Eclectic Edition with Introduction and Textual Commentary, The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition 1 (Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Press: 2015).
    • References marked “Waltke” are to Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 1–15, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Eerdmans: 2004).
    • References marked “Schipper” are to Bernd U. Schipper, Proverbs 1-15, Hermeneia Commentary Series (Fortress Press: 2010). See also his monograph on Proverbs 2: Hermeneutik der Tora: Studien zur Traditionsgeschichte von Prov 2 und zur Komposition von Prov 1-9, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 432 (Walter de Gruyter: 2012).
    • Those marked “Meinhold” are to Arndt Meinhold, Die Sprüche, Teil 1: Sprüche Kapitel 1-15, Zürcher Bibelkommentare, AT 16.1 (Theologische Verlag Zürich: 1991).
    • Those marked “Heim” are to Knut Martin Heim, Like Grapes of Gold Set in Silver: An Interpretation of Proverbial Clusters in Proverbs 10:1-22:16, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 273 (Walter de Gruyter: 2001); those marked “Heim, Poetic Imagination” are to idem, Poetic Imagination in Proverbs: Variant Repetitions and the Nature of Poetry, Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement 4 (Eisenbrauns: 2013).
    • Those marked “Scherer” are to Andreas Scherer, Das weise Wort und seine Wirkung: Eine Untersuchung zur Komposition und Redaktion von Proverbia 10,1-22,16, Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament [WMANT] 83 (Neukirchener Verlag: 1999).
    • Those marked “Plöger” are to Otto Plöger, Sprüche Salomos (Proverbia), Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament, XVII (Neukirchener Verlag: 1984).

October 6: Job 15:17-19

Job 15:7-19, continued
Verse 17

“I will show you (now)—(so) listen to me!—
and this (which) I have seen I will recount—”

As mentioned earlier, verse 17 belongs with vv. 7-10 as part of the core ‘stanza’ (five couplets, parallel with vv. 2-6). The intervening vv. 11-16 serve as an expository addition to the poetic framework (note how v. 17 naturally follows after v. 10); verses 18-19 (see below) represent a similar expansion. Except for the possibility of v. 19, these expansions likely are not secondary additions, but are original to the Dialogue as it was composed.

As part of his rebuke of Job, Eliphaz has aligned himself (and the other companions) with the ‘wisdom of the ancients’; they represent the well-established conventional wisdom (and religious orthodoxy), in contrast to (as they see it) the reckless and impious ‘bluster’ of Job. Having established himself as a representative of this ancient wisdom, Eliphaz now announces that he will declare some of it to Job and, in so doing, thus refute the claims made by Job (questioning or impugning God’s justice).

The verb hw`j* (I), “show, make known”, is relatively rare; apart from the four other occurrences in Job (32:6, 10, 17; 36:2), the only other Scriptural occurrence is in Ps 19:3[2], though the Aramaic cognate appears 15 times in Daniel (2:4, 6-7, et al.). The related noun hw`j&a^ (II, “demonstration, declaration”) occurs once in Job (13:17), and elsewhere only in Dan 5:12 (i.e., verbal noun, Aphel infinitive of hwj). Both verb and noun are thus considered to be Aramaisms and sign of a relatively late date of composition for the Dialogue; cf. Seow, p. 715. In any case, the use of this verbal root is part of a distinctive Joban vocabulary.

The verb hz`j* (“see, look at, behold”) can be used in the context of a revelatory visionary experience; cf. the vision recounted by Eliphaz in the earlier speech (4:12-16), which led to the Wisdom-declaration (4:17-19ff) that so closely resembles the teaching here in vv. 14-16 (see the previous note). The wording suggests that Eliphaz is presenting the exposition that follows in vv. 20ff as a similar visionary statement. If so, then Eliphaz’ teaching can claim both the authority of Wisdom tradition (viz., the wisdom of the ancients, v. 18f) and of the revelation that comes by way of visionary experience.

Verse 18

“that which wise men have put out in front,
and (which) their fathers did not conceal,”

If Eliphaz is claiming visionary authority for his teaching (in vv. 20ff), as suggested by the wording in v. 17, it also carries the traditional authority of the ancients—viz., it corresponds with the established wisdom from generations past, which the wise men of those earlier ages possessed, having been faithfully preserved and transmitted from one generation to the next, from fathers to their sons.

The verb dg~n` (Hiphil, “put in front”, i.e., declare, make known) is parallel with a negation of the verb dj^K* (Piel, “hide, conceal”)—viz., by making the wisdom known, they did not conceal it. The verbal root djk, particularly in the Syriac and Aramaic, can carry the connotation “be afraid of, be ashamed of, shy away from”. This same verbal pairing occurs elsewhere in the Scriptures—Josh 7:19; 1 Sam 3:18; 2 Sam 18:13; Isa 3:9; Jer 38:25; 50:2; cp. Ps 78:3-4; Seow, p. 716. See the similar thought expressed in 27:11; cf. also 8:8, and Sir 8:9 (Blommerde, p. 75).

In line 2, most commentators (e.g., Pope, Blommerde, Gordis, Clines, Seow) would detach the prefixed m (on <t*oba&, “fathers”) in the MT (i.e., “from their fathers”) and instead attach it as a sufformative (<-) to the prior verb (Wdj&k!), i.e., <Wdj&k!. It is thus explained as an enclitic <– suffix. The plural <t*oba& (“their fathers”) is best understood as parallel with <ym!k*j& (“wise men” or “wise [one]s”) in line 1. The Masoretic word division in line 2 does not make sense, unless the verb djk here has the sense of “be afraid of, be ashamed of” (cf. above)—i.e., the wise men were not afraid/ashamed of the wisdom taught by their fathers.

Verse 19

“to them, (to who)m alone was given the land—
and (one) turning aside did not cross in their midst!”

Though verse 19 syntactically represents a natural continuation of v. 18, a number of commentators would delete or bracket the verse as a secondary addition (cf. Pope, p. 116). While this is possible, the description in the couplet serves the rhetorical purpose of Eliphaz’ speech—namely, by suggesting that the ancients, with whose wisdom Eliphaz considers himself to be aligned, were particularly righteous and faithful/devoted to God. Something like an idyllic ‘golden age’, when wisdom and righteousness were stronger and more pervasive in society, would seem to be in view. The passive use of the verb /t^n` (“give”) is best understood as an instance of the ‘Divine passive’, with God as the implied actor. He gave (or promised) the land to the ancients (i.e., to wise and righteous men of the past, such as Abraham), as a blessing for their faithfulness (or in expectation of it).

There are two possible levels of meaning to the second line. The first is that, as part of the blessing provided by God, the land was protected from the harmful effects of foreign influence. At the same time, it would be indicative of the people’s general righteousness and faithfulness that they would keep themselves from being mixed up with such foreign influence. The adjective rz`, which (as a substantive) is typically translated “stranger” or “foreigner”, properly denotes one who has (or is) “turned aside”; this meaning can be understood in an ethical-religious sense, i.e., turned aside from what is right, away from true worship of God and from faithfulness to the covenant. This connotative meaning occurs frequently in the Israelite Wisdom tradition (cf. especially throughout Proverbs 1-9).

In the next note, we will turn to the second half of Eliphaz’ speech (vv. 20-35), a lengthy exposition on the conventional/orthodox tenet that God (rightly and justly) punishes the wicked. The implication, of course, is that, since Job seems to have been severely punished by God, it must have been due to some marked wickedness on his part. This, indeed, is the point (in refutation of Job’s arguments) that Eliphaz is making and expounding here in his speech.

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).
    • Those marked “Clines” are to David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20, Word Biblical Commentary [WBC] vol. 17 (1989).
    • Those marked “Pope” are to Marvin H. Pope, Job, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 15 (1965, 1973).
    • Those marked “Blommerde” are to Anton C. M. Blommerde, Northwest Semitic Grammar and Job, Biblica et Orientalia 22 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute: 1969).
    • Those marked “Gordis” are to Robert Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Studies, Moreshet Series, Studies in Jewish History, Literature and Thought, vol. II (The Jewish Theological Seminary of America: 1978).

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 29 (Part 2)

Psalm 29, continued

The Psalm is introduced, and the Introduction (vv. 1-2) discussed, in Part 1 of this study.

Hymn: Verses 3-9

The hymn of vv. 3-9 focuses on the voice (loq) of YHWH, in the context of a Storm-theophany—i.e., YHWH as manifest in the storm, being the presence and power behind it. YHWH’s “voice” is the thunder (cf. the discussion in Part 1). This is one of the clear points of similarity between YHWH and the Canaanite Storm-deity Haddu (called “Lord/Master”, or Baal). The thunder was similarly understood as Baal’s “voice”:

“And may he give his voice [ql] in the clouds,
May he flash to the earth lightning!”
(Baal Epic, Tablet IV [CAT/KTU 1.4], column v, lines 8-9)

“Baal opens a break in the clouds,
Baal gives vent to his holy voice [ql]
…
His [holy] voice [ql], the earth [sha]kes”
(Tablet IV [CAT/KTU 1.4], column v, lines 8-9; column vii, lines 27-31; cf, also Aqhat Tablet III [CAT/KTU 1.19], column i, line 46)

From roughly the same time period (14th century B.C.), in one of the Amarna letters (from Canaan), the Pharaoh is compared to Baal with the words: “…(he) gives forth his voice in the heavens like Haddu, and all the land is frightened at his voice” (EA 147.13-14); cf. Pardee, p. 167, and the discussion by Kloos, pp. 45-6.

The conflict between a strict worship of YHWH and a (syncretistic) worship of Baal-Haddu in ancient Israel was based, in part, on these similarities (viz., between Haddu and YHWH). It is quite possible that Psalm 29 served the rhetorical (polemical) purpose of emphasizing YHWH’s superiority over Canaanite Baal (note the eighteen occurrences of the Divine name [YHWH]; cf. Goldingay, p. 413). Fensham (p. 96) goes so far as to suggest that this Psalm could have been “intended as a missionary poem to make proselytes of Canaanites or as an evangelizing psalm to convert an apostate Israelite from a servant of Baal to a worshipper of YHWH”.

There is some difference of opinion among scholars as to the poetic structure and versing of the hymn—it is thought to consist of bicola (couplets), tricola, or some mixture of the two. The opening verse 3, as it stands in the MT, as well as the concluding verse 9, is clearly a tricolon (but see the note on v. 3 below); however, there is less certainty regarding the intervening vv. 4-8. The meter and parallelism in these verses would indicate a couplet pattern, which thus corresponds with the traditional verse division. However, there are problems: since verse 7 consists of just one line, and the transition between verse 8 and the concluding v. 9 is rather awkward. These difficulties are resolved (or alleviated) if one divides the hymn into tricola throughout (the fifteen lines being parsed as five tricola); there is then no longer the issue of a ‘missing’ line for v. 7, and the step-parallelism between v. 8b and v. 9a is matched by a similar occurrence earlier in the hymn (v. 5ab), thus producing a more consistent poetic-rhetorical style. Except for the irregular meter that results, the hymn is better served by a division into (five) tricola, as proposed by Pardee (pp. 154-5), and which I follow here. It is always possible that, in the earliest/original version of the hymn, there may have been a more consistent rhythm/meter present; cf. the proposed reconstruction by Cross (pp. 151-5), which I will be referencing a number of times in these notes.

The five tricola have a concentric-chiastic arrangement, which corresponds to certain thematic emphases in the hymn:

    • Strophe 1 (v. 3)—YHWH’s Divine majesty demonstrated by His control over the waters (in the heavenly realms)
      • Strophe 2 (v. 4-5a)—YHWH’s power and majesty as the storm strikes the land/earth (breaking the great cedars)
        • Strophe 3 (v. 5b-6)—The effect of the storm on the land (region of Lebanon/Siryon)
      • Strophe 4 (vv. 7-8)—YHWH’s power/presence as the storm strikes the land (causing the outback to whirl/writhe)
    • Strophe 5 (v. 9)—YHWH exercises His power and majesty over the earth/land (from his heavenly palace)

The article by J. F. Diehl, A. A. Diesel & A. Wagner (“Neue grammatische Erkenntnisse und ihre Bedeutung fur das Verständnis der Form und des Gehalts von Psalm xxix”, Vetus Testamentum [VT] 49 [1999], pp. 462-86) delineates a different concentric structure to the hymn, noting that the tricola of vv. 3 and 9 as well as the couplets (as they see it) of vv. 4-5 and 7-8 each begin with the expression hwhy loq (“[the] voice of YHWH”), while verse 6 does not. Verse 6, in their scheme, marks the centerpoint (mittelachse) of the hymn (and the Psalm), flanked by the couplets of vv. 4-5 / 7-8 and the tricola of vv. 3 & 9.

Verse 3

“(The) voice of YHWH (is) upon the waters—
the Mighty (One) of weight brings thunder—
YHWH (is firmly) upon (the) many waters!”

As noted above, the hymn in verses 3-9 describes the presence and power of YHWH in terms of a storm-theophany. The Sinai theophany, which was central to ancient Israelite religious thought and tradition, is similarly described as a storm-theophany (Exodus 19:16-20; 20:18-21), and the imagery is found in a number of Psalms and early poems as well, most notably in Psalm 18 (= 2 Sam 22), vv. 8-16, discussed in an earlier study (and to be given a more detailed exegesis in an upcoming study); cf. also 89:6-19; 97:1-6; 77:16-18; 104:2-7; 144:5-6; Deut 33:26-29, and other examples. The power of the storm—both in its life-giving and destructive aspects—indicates control over the ancient/primeval waters.

This is the first occurrence of the expression hwhy loq (“[the] voice of YHWH”) in the hymn; overall, it occurs seven times—four times in the first two strophes, three times in the last two—and this number is surely significant. While the expression refers principally to thunder (as the “voice” of YHWH, cf. above), it also stands for the Divine sovereignty and authority of YHWH, who (as King) commands the waters, and they obey Him. 

Many commentators view the second line (v. 3b) as a gloss/addition (cf. Spieckermann, pp. 166-7; Müller, p. 108; Loretz, pp. 158ff; Kloos, p. 38; earlier, Briggs, Gunkel, etc.), or as a line that has been misplaced from its proper location elsewhere in the hymn. For example, Kraus (p. 345) would transpose it the end of v. 7, while Vogt would make it part of v. 9; Mittmann (p. 191) and Auffret would combine it with v. 9c (or 9bc) and v. 10, while earlier K. Fullerton (“The Strophe in Hebrew Poetry and Psalm 29”, JBL 48 [1929], pp. 274-90 [287]) suggested combining v. 3b with v. 7 and v. 9c to form a final tricolon. Cross (p. 153) retains the line as part of verse 3, but curiously reorders the lines, making 3b the opening line of the tricolon. If this line were to be omitted from v. 3, then there is no longer any question of a tricolon; rather, v. 3 becomes a couplet (bicolon) with a simple parallelism:

“(The) voice of YHWH (is) upon the waters—
YHWH (is firmly) upon (the) many waters!”

If the line is omitted (as secondary), or even if it is transposed (to v. 7 or v. 9), then a stronger argument can be made for dividing the hymn entirely into couplets. As indicated above, I prefer to treat the hymn as being comprised of tricola, and see no compelling reason to omit or transpose the second line. Admittedly, in the context of the couplet, the central line has an explanatory purpose, making clear that the “voice” of YHWH that sounds upon/over the waters is to be identified with thunder (vb <u^r*, I Hiphil, “cause/bring/make thunder”); the root <ur is similarly paired with the noun loq (“voice”) in Ps 18:14[13] (2 Sam 22:14); 77:20[19]; 104:7; Job 37:4-5; 40:9; Isa 29:6 (cf. Avishur, p. 89).
Freedman (p. 247) suggests that the MT of verse 3 as it stands could be parsed as a longer couplet (with a 10:8 syllable count), so that the verse would read (according to my manner of translating): “(The) voice of YHWH, Mighty (One) of weight, (is) upon the waters, / YHWH brings thunder upon (the) many waters!”.

The expression “Mighty (One) of the weight” (i.e., “the Mighty [One] of weight”), dobK*h^ la@, echoes the opening of the Psalm (vv. 1-2, cf. Part 1) in which the noun dobK* (“weight”) similarly occurs (twice). The reference effectively identifies YHWH as the Creator and King of the universe, one who possesses supreme “weight” (i.e., power and majesty), and who thus is to be given all honor and reverence by other (created) beings. The expression itself occurs nowhere else in the Scriptures, but it is clearly similar (and largely synonymous) with “the King of weight” (dobK*h^ El#m#) in Ps 24:8, 10; cf. Avishur, p. 89.

To ancient peoples, the storm, both through its terrifying power and life-sustaining rainfall, was held in awe and wonder. The religious focus shifts to the deity who is manifest in the storm, and has control over it. When the Psalm states that the voice of YHWH was “upon” or “over” (lu^) the waters, it emphasizes God’s control over them; the preposition could also be understood in the sense of “against”, which would then contain an allusion to the cosmological conflict-motif. The specific qualifying expression “many waters” (<yB!r^ <y]m^) almost certainly alludes to this motif (cf. the article by H. G. May, “Some Cosmic Connotations of Mayim Rabbîm ‘Many Waters'”, Journal of Biblical Literature [JBL] 74 [1955], pp. 9-21; also Kloos, pp. 52-3). Here, the adjective br^ (“many, much”) signifies the vast quantity and extent of the waters, and also their power and greatness, while (at the same time) alluding to their turbulent and ‘chaotic’ nature.
Fensham (p. 90) correctly notes that the verb <u^r* (Hiphil), “thunder” can also be used for the roaring of the sea, since its fundamental meaning (cf. Ugaritic rgm) is more general (i.e., “make a loud/great noise”); thus, YHWH’s thundering (with His voice) counteracts the roaring of the waters, and so demonstrates His control and authority over them (and alludes to the time, at the beginning of creation, when He ‘subdued’ them). 

At the beginning of creation, the primeval waters existed as a great mass, dark and chaotic (cf. Gen 1:2); in creating “heaven and earth” (i.e., the ordered cosmos), YHWH ‘subdued’ and tamed these waters, establishing and exercising His control over them. There can be little doubt that we have a reference here to this cosmological myth of the conflict with the Sea, which occurs elsewhere in Old Testament poetry and is a component of the storm-theophany, as applied to YHWH (and, in Canaanite religious tradition, to Baal-Haddu). The context of creation may also entail a parallel with the traditional account in Genesis, where God’s presence (His breath/spirit) is “upon” the dark waters at the beginning of creation (1:2). The parallel between God’s breath and voice is obvious; in the Genesis account, the order of creation is established when He speaks (1:3ff).
In my view, it is highly unlikely that the “waters / many waters” here refers to the Mediterranean, as a number of commentators (e.g., Ginsberg, Freedman, Dahood, Cunchillos, Loretz) claim or suggest. Instead, the principal point of reference is cosmological (and cosmic), as I have indicated here; so also Pardee, p. 165, Kloos, pp. 53ff.

For other occurrences of this “many waters” motif, cf. Psalm 77:20[19]; 93:4; also (emphasizing the turbulent and chaotic character of the waters) 32:6; 144:7; Isa 17:13; Jer 51:55; Ezek 26:19. In later tradition, the vision of God on His (heavenly) throne incorporated the sound of “many waters” as an aural component of the vision (cf. Ezek 1:24; 43:2; Rev 1:15; 14:2, also 19:6).

The parallelism of “waters [<y]m^]” / “many waters [<yB!r^ <y]m^]” fits a pattern (x / x + y) that is attested in both biblical Hebrew and Canaanite (Ugaritic) poetry; the exact same parallel occurs in Num 24:7, and there is an important occurrence of the pattern in the Song of the Sea (Exod 15:4, i.e., “sea [<y`]” / “sea of reeds [[Ws <y^]”). Cf. Avishur, p. 89.

There is a clear metrical shift from the 4+4 couplets (quatrain) of vv. 1-2 (also vv. 10-11) to the 3-beat (3+3+3) tricolon here. However, this 3-beat meter is not used consistently throughout the remainder of the hymn; rather, the hymn’s meter is irregular.

Verse 4-5a

“(The) voice of YHWH (now) with power,
(the) voice of YHWH (now) with splendor—
(the) voice of YHWH (is) breaking apart (the) cedars!”

The second strophe is a metrically irregular (3+3+4) tricolon. For those who would divide the hymn (or at least vv. 4-8) into couplets, verse 4 represents a 3-beat couplet with repetitive (a|b // a|c) parallelism, which should be rendered with a different syntax:

“(The) voice of YHWH (comes) with power,
(the) voice of YHWH (comes) with splendor!”

The nouns j^K) (“power, might”) and rd*h* (“splendor, majesty”), as characteristics of YHWH’s voice, relate back to vv. 1-2 (cf. Part 1), where similar nouns—zu) (“strength”) and hr*d*h& (a feminine form of rd*h*)—represent fundamental characteristics of YHWH Himself. Thus, YHWH’s “voice” (especially as manifested in the thunderstorm) carries the same Divine power and majesty that YHWH possesses (as Creator and King of the universe). The third line makes clear that the power/majesty of YHWH’s voice is, indeed, made manifest by the thunder and lightning (and other natural phenomena) that strikes when a storm (from the heavens) comes upon the earth. The storm (with its thunder and lightning, rain and wind), is powerful enough to “break apart” (vb rb^v*) the great cedar-trees.

Along with Pardee (p. 161), I am inclined to view the use of the prepositional expressions jkb (“with power”) and rdhb (“with splendor”) as adverbial, i.e., “[comes/acts] with…”, rather than instances of the predicate b–essentiae (i.e., “[is] with…”. In the tricolon format, the third line provides the action, and so a verb does not need to be provided in translation for lines 1-2. I do, however, gloss the first two lines with “now”, emphasizing the suddenness and immediacy of the storm-theophany; the participle in the third line (rb@v), “[is] breaking apart”) reinforces this orientation of immediate present/ongoing action.
Dahood (p. 177) interprets the prefixed b in lines 1-2 as an emphasizing particle, providing an “exponential strengthening of the substantive”, so that lines read (in his translation): “The voice of Yahweh is strength itself, / The voice of Yahweh is very splendor”. 

Verse 5b-6

“So YHWH breaks apart the cedars of Lebanon—
He even makes Lebanon jump like a bull-calf,
and Siryon like (the) son of a wild bull!”

According to the tricolon-division of the hymn that I am following (see above), this central strophe has a 4+3+3 meter, which is the inverse of the 3+3+4 meter in vv. 4-5a. Admittedly, as previously noted (above), the meter becomes more regular when vv. 4-6 are parsed into couplets: 3+3 (v. 4), 4+4 (v. 5), and 3+3 (v. 6). However, the longer 4-beat lines can be explained within the tricolon-framework as representing the step- or staircase-parallelism at the juncture (v. 5ab) of the two tricola: i.e., “…breaking apart the cedars” / “…breaks apart the cedars of Lebanon” —where the parallelism reflects the same kind of x / x + y pattern noted above (for v. 3).

Verse 5a, as the climactic third line of the prior tricolon, dramatically describes the coming of the thunderstorm, in all of its majesty and destructive power. As it strikes the land, the surface of the earth, its power is felt. The specific example of the breaking apart of the great cedar-trees is used to demonstrate this. Now, here in the tricolon of vv. 5b-6, the example of the storm’s effect on the cedar trees is given geographic specificity—namely, the Lebanon mountains, and “Siryon” (/y)r=c!); the latter term could serve as a synonym for the Lebanon, but more probably it refers to the complementary Anti-Lebanon mountain range (which includes Hermon, cf. Deut 3:9; 4:48). The name /onb*l= (referring to the attribute of “whiteness”) presumably alludes to the snowy “white-capped” peaks of the mountains (i.e., the Lebanon range). For poetic concision, I have transliterated both /onb*l= and /y)r=c!.

The occurrence of these two place names together, in the central strophe of the hymn, would seem to emphasize the northern (i.e., north-Israelite and Syrian) orientation of the hymn (and the Psalm as a whole). The fact that the same names are paired on at least one occasion in the Ugaritic texts (Baal Epic Tablet IV [CAT/KTU 1.4], column vi, lines 18-21) has been used as an argument for the Canaanite origin of (or, at least, Canaanite influence on) Psalm 29; cf. the discussion by Avishur, pp. 46-8. However, in this instance, all that the Ugaritic evidence demonstrates is that the pairing of the names Lebanon/Siryon in poetic parallelism is well-established and traditional. More pertinent is the argument that the centrality of these geographic reference-points suggests a northern provenance for the Psalm (cf. Rendsberg, p. 35). Müller (pp. 115-20) uses the reference in support of his thesis that YHWH was originally a northern Storm-deity with features and attributes similar to those of Baal-Haddu.
The pairing of places names is also found in the Akkadian Gilgamesh Epic (Saria u Labnāna) and in the Esarhaddon inscriptions (sirara šad [la]bnāna); cf. Avishur, p. 95. /y)r=c! (Śiryôn) is likely preserved elsewhere in the Scriptures in the name ryn]c= (Śenîr), Song 4:8; Ezek 27:5.

YHWH’s presence in the powerful thunderstorm does more than just shatter the cedar trees, it makes the mountains (Lebanon/Siryon) where those very trees are (famously) located “leap/jump” (vb dq^r*, Hiphil)—suggesting both the frightening power of the thunder and its ‘quaking’ effect.
The final <– on the form <dyq!r=Y~w~, parsed by the Masoretes as a masculine plural object suffix (i.e., “and He makes them jump”), has been explained as an enclitic <– (first proposed by Ginsberg [1935]). Most scholars now accept this parsing, but it hardly follows that the preservation of an enclitic <– suffix here necessarily indicates a Phoenician (or even northern Israelite) provenance, though that is a possibility; cf. the discussion by Avishur, p. 48. The Masoretic identification of <– as a 3mp suffix naturally led the scribes to treat /onb*l= (Lebanon) in v. 6 as the first word of the following line: i.e., “He even makes them jump like a bull-calf, Lebanon and Siryon like (the) son of a wild bull!” However, this disrupts the rhythm and meter of the verse, particularly when it is considered part of the tricolon of v. 5b-6.

The final two strophes of the hymn (vv. 7-9), along with the conclusion of the Psalm (vv. 10-11), will be examined in Part 3 of this study.

    • References above marked “Dahood” are to Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Psalms I: 1-50, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 16 (1965).
    • Those marked “Craigie” are to Peter C. Craigie (and Marvin E. Tate), Psalms 1-50, Word Biblical Commentary [WBC], vol. 19, Second Edition (2004). Cf. also the articles “Psalm XXIX in the Hebrew Poetic Tradition”, Vetus Testamentum [VT] 22 (1972), pp. 143-51; and “Parallel Word Pairs in Ugaritic Poetry: a Critical Evaluation of Their Relevance for Psalm 29”, Ugarit-Forschungen [UF] 11 (1979), pp. 135-40.
    • Those marked “Goldingay” are to John Goldingay, Psalms, Volume 1: Psalms 1-41, Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms (Baker Academic: 2006).
    • Those marked “Kraus” are to Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 1-59, Continental Commentary series (Fortress Press: 1993). Translated by Hilton C. Oswald from Psalmen, 1. Teilband, Psalmen 1-59 (5th edition), Biblischer Kommentar series (Neukirchener Verlag: 1978). 
    • Those marked “Loretz” are to Oswald Loretz, Ugarit-Texte und Thronbesteignungspsalmen: Die Metamorphose des Regenspenders Baal-Jahwe, Ugaritisch-Biblische Literatur [UBL] 7 (1988). Psalm 29 is discussed in pp. 78-248, which represents a newer version of an earlier work, Psalm 29: Kanaanäische El- und Baaltraditionen in jüdischer Sicht, UBL 2 (1984).
    • Those marked “Cunchillos” are to J. L. Cunchillos, Estudio del Salmo 29, Institución San Jerónimo 6 (1976).
    • Those marked “Avishur” are to Yitzhak Avishur, Studies in Hebrew and Ugaritic Psalms (Magnes Press: 1994). Psalm 29 is discussed in pp. 39-110.
    • Those marked “Kloos” are to Carola Kloos, Yhwh’s Combat with the Sea: A Canaanite Tradition in the Religion of Ancient Israel (G.A. van Oorschot / Brill: 1986). Psalm 29 is discussed in pp. 15-24.
    • Those marked “Cross” are to Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Harvard University Press: 1973). Psalm 29 is discussed on pp. 151-7.
    • Those marked “Spieckermann” are to Hermann Spieckermann, Heilsgegenwart: Eine Theologie der Psalmen, Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 148 (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 1989). Psalm 29 in discussed on pp. 165-79.
    • Those marked “Fensham” are to F. C. Fensham, “Psalm 29 and Ugarit”, Ou-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika 6 (1963), pp. 84-99.
    • Those marked “Freedman” are to David Noel Freedman (and C. Franke Hyland), “Psalm 29: A Structural Analysis”, Harvard Theological Review [HTR] 66 (1973), pp. 237-56.
    • Those marked “Mittmann” are to Siegfried Mittmann, “Komposition und Redaktion von Psalm XXIX”, Vetus Testamentum [VT] 28 (1978), pp. 172-94.
    • Those marked “Pardee” are to Dennis Pardee, “On Psalm 29: Structure and Meaning”, in The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception, eds. Peter W. Flint & Patrick D. Miller, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 99 (Brill: 2005), pp. 153-83.
    • Those marked “Müller” are to Reinhard Müller, Jahwe als Wettergott: Studien zur althebräischen Kultlyrik anhand ausgewählter Psalmen, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 387 (De Gruyter: 2008). Psalm 29 is discussed on pp. 103-32. Cf. also the same author’s essay (in English), “The Origins of YHWH in Light of the Earliest Psalms”, in The Origins of Yahwism, eds. Jürgen van Oorschot & Markus Witte, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 484 (De Gruyter: 2019), pp. 207-38.
    • Translations of the Ugaritic texts are from Simon B. Parker, ed., Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, SBL Writings from the Ancient World Series, vol. 9 (Scholars Press: 1997).

October 3: Job 15:14-16

Job 15:7-19, continued

The second strophe (vv. 14-16) of the expository poem (vv. 11-16) has a Wisdom orientation (compare the religious orientation of the first strophe, vv. 11-13, discussed in the previous note). In this regard, Eliphaz’ words resemble those of Job in 14:1-3, though they are even closer (in teaching and sentiment) to his own statements in the first speech (4:17-19); cf. also 25:4-6 (Bildad).

Verse 14

“What (is) a human, that he could be clean,
or that he could be right, (one) born of woman?”

Eliphaz’ question echoes the one made earlier in 4:17 [note], utilizing the general noun vona$ (“human”, or collective “humankind, humanity”) and the verb qd^x* (“be right[eous]”); the idea of being clean/pure is also present, though in 4:17 the verb was rh^f* while here it is hk^z` (cf. the byform Ek^z` in v. 15; 9:30; 25:5, and the adjective Ez~ in 8:6; 11:4; 16:17; 33:9). The designation of a created (mortal) human being as one “born of a woman” (hV*a! dWly+) echoes Job’s wording in 14:1 (cf. also by Bildad in 25:4). Ultimately, no human being can be considered pure or right(eous), particularly when compared with God. Job seems to have suggested much the same himself in 14:4.

The question “What is man…?” (or “What is a human…?”) is quite appropriate for introducing a Wisdom-discourse. As in 7:17 [note], there may be a specific allusion to Psalm 8:5[4] (cf. 144:3).

The chiastic structure of the couplet is indicated in my translation (above), as I have preserved the Hebrew word order:

    • “…a human
      • that [yK!] he could be clean
      • and that [yk!w+] he could be right
    • (one) born of a woman”
Verse 15

“See, (if) in His holy (one)s He holds no firm (trust),
and (if the) heavens are not clean in His eyes—”

Much the same point was made by Eliphaz in 4:18 [note]; indeed, the first line here is nearly identical with 4:18a, except that “His holy (one)s” (wyv*d)q=) is used instead of “His servants” (wyd*b*u&). In the second line, the focus is on the “heavens”, while in 4:18b it is the heavenly beings (viz., the “messengers”, or ‘angels’); cf. the parallel in 25:5 (“and the stars are not clean in His eyes”). The verb Ek^z` (cf. hk^z` in v. 14), “be clean/pure”, is qualified by the expression “in His [i.e., God’s] eyes”. Thus, it is not a matter of humankind being unclean or unrighteous per se, but in relation (and comparison) to God. This theological aspect of the Wisdom theme touches upon the religious orientation of the first stanza (i.e., the human being’s relationship to God).

The Kethib of the MT seems to have a singular form (wvdqb); however, this should probably be vocalized as a plural, wv*d)q=B!, thus being equivalent to the plural (with full/plene spelling) of the Qere (wyv*d)q=B!). Cf. Seow, p. 715.

Verse 16

“then, surely, how abhorrent and corrupt (is)
(the) man drinking (his) crookedness like water!”

Again, this declaration resembles the one made earlier by Eliphaz (see the note on 4:19):

“then surely (it is so for those) dwelling in houses of clay,
(those) for whom their foundation (lies) in the dust…!”

The main difference is that, in the earlier reference, Eliphaz was referring to the general impurity of human beings (as mortal beings subject to corruption and decay, in the material/physiological sense). Here, by contrast, it is moral (ethical-religious) corruption that is in view—with a particular focus on those who are wicked (who “drink crookedness [hl*w+u^] like water”). All created human beings may have a inclination toward wickedness, but not all pursue this inclination headlong. The righteous/pious ones, those who heed God (and His word), who would be faithful/loyal to the covenant with Him, they seek to avoid sin, and they certainly do not actively pursue wicked/perverse ways. In the second half of his speech (vv. 20ff), Eliphaz expounds the fate of the wicked, how God (rightly and justly) punishes them. Verse 16b here anticipates the exposition that follows.

The exact meaning of the verb jla in line 1 is uncertain, as the only other Scriptural occurrence is in Ps 14:3 (par 53:4[3]), and the proposed cognates (Arabic ʾalaḫa [VIII]; Akkadian alāḫu; HALOT, p. 54) are questionable; cf. Seow, p. 715. In Ps 14:3, it is used parallel with rWs (“turn away/aside”), and here with the noun hl*w+u^ (“crookedness”); the additional pairing with bu^T* (“be[come] abhorrent”) suggests that a meaning like “be corrupt, perverse” is probably close to the mark. Both bu^T* and jl^a* are expressed as passive (Niphal) verbal adjectives (participles)—i.e., “being abhorrent”, “being corrupt” —representing fundamental characteristics of the wicked.

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).

October 2: Job 15:11-13

Job 15:7-19, continued

In the poetic structure of vv. 7-19, verses 11-16 serve as an expository poem, set within the stanza-framework of vv. 7-10, 17 (cf. Nõmmik, pp. 34ff). The poem, which itself consists of two strophes (vv. 11-13, 14-16), expounds upon Eliphaz’ rebuke of Job. Eliphaz seeks to clarify and illustrate the folly of Job’s reckless words (viz., his complaint in chaps. 12-14). The first strophe has a religious orientation, the second a Wisdom orientation.

Verse 11

“Are (they too) little for you, (the) sighs of (the) Mightiest,
and a word (that would speak) gently with you?”

As mentioned previously, these rhetorical questions (note the prefixed interrogative h at the beginning of the couplet) tend to open the sections of the Dialogue speeches (esp. here in chap. 15), governing the rhetorical and poetical structure. As I noted above, the first strophe (vv. 11-13) of this expository poem has a religious orientation, viz., dealing with the human being’s relationship to God. Eliphaz’ question implies that Job, with his reckless and impious words, has rejected the comfort and consolation that God might have shown to him (in the midst of his suffering). In the first line, the idea of God showing comfort is expressed in terms of breathing—the noun <Wjn+T^ (from the verbal root <jn)—viz., a “sigh” or “gasp” as an indication of deep emotion; this verbal root carries a strong connotation of “comfort, consolation”. The feminine plural form tomj%n+T^ is rare and occurs only in the book of Job (cf. 21:2).

In the second line, the focus is on speech—i.e., a word of comfort and encouragement. The noun fa^ (I) means “gentleness”, and the expression with the prefixed preposition l means “to (act with) gentleness”, i.e., “deal gently (with)”, whereby fal (here fa^l*) came to function as an adverb (“gently”); cf. also 2 Sam 18:5; Isa 8:6.

The preposition /m! in the first line is used in the comparative sense (“[more] than”), so that the phrase ;M=m! fu^m= means “little(r) than you”; in English, this is best rendered as “too little for you”. In terms of the Hebrew word order, there is a chiastic structure to this couplet:

    • “(too) little for you [;M=m! fu^m=]
      • (the) sighs of
        • (the) Mightiest [la@, i.e., God]
      • and a word (speaking)
    • gently with you [EM*u! fa^l*]”

In this regard, note the parallelistic alliteration between the elements fu^m= (me‘aṭ) and fal (normally vocalized fa^l=, le’aṭ). The vocalization fa^l* is due to the stress on the final syllable; cf. Seow, p. 713. The LXX understands fal to be an adverb meaning “surpassing(ly)” (i.e., exceedingly) while treating la as an adverb meaning “greatly”; the juxtaposition “greatly, exceedingly” probably means something like “with surpassing greatness”. 

Verse 12

“(For) what does your heart take you (away),
and (for) what do your eyes flutter about,”

Syntactically, Eliphaz’ follow-up question continues into verse 13 (see below). The interrogative hm* (“what…?”) is used here in the sense of “why…?”, i.e., “(for) what (reason)…?”. The verb jq^l* (“take”) with the noun bl@ (“heart”) as the subject is quite rare, occurring only here in the Scriptures. In Hos 4:11, bl@ functions as the object of the verb (“take [away] the heart”), and a few commentators (Tur-Sinai [p. 249f], Pope [p. 112], and Blommerde [p. 73]; cf. Clines, p. 342) would read it so here as well, i.e., “What takes your heart (from) you?” The parallelism of the couplet does, however, favor bl@ as the subject. In English, we would say “…carry you (away)” (i.e., cause you to act recklessly, etc.)—this more accurately reflects bl@ with the verb ac*n` (“take up, lift, carry”), which also happens to be the more common idiom in the Scriptures (Exod 35:21, 26; 36:2; 2 Kgs 14:10; 2 Chron 25:19); cf. Seow, p. 713, who also cites the cognate parallel in the Akkadian Gilgamesh epic (libbūka nāšīka, “your heart carries you away”). Almost certainly, the meaning is much the same when the verb jq^l* (“take [away]”) is used, as here.

The verb <z^r* in the second line occurs only here in the Hebrew Scriptures, and its meaning is quite uncertain (cf. the discussion by Grabbe, pp. 66-7). Most commentators assume that it is a variant (by metathesis) of zm^r*, common in Aramaic and later Hebrew, which denotes a waving/nodding of the hands or head that is intended to convey meaning or intent through gesture/gesticulation. Applied to the eyes, zmr would presumably refer to winking or purposeful moving of the eyes. The Targum and Syriac translations so render the verb here. Some manuscripts of the MT likewise read the verb zmr here in the text (/Wzm=r=y]), but this may represent a scribal ‘correction’ for the otherwise obscure <zr. Cognates for <zr are generally lacking; there is a verb razama in Arabic, but it is not clear how it might relate to the use of <zr here. Tur-Sinai (p. 250), followed by Pope (p. 116) and Clines (p. 342), favor the meaning “dwindle away, become weak” (signifying the failure of one’s eyesight). More plausible is the meaning adopted by Seow (p. 714), “be still, be firm”, so that the sense is “fix one’s eyes”, i.e., “stare”; the translations of the LXX (“lay your eyes upon”) and the Vulgate (“have astonished eyes”) may support this meaning. Ultimately, it seems preferable to adopt a meaning for <zr that follows zmr, so that the reference is to a person’s eyes “moving about” wildly; the translation “flash” or “flare” would be suitable, or possibly “flutter about” (the rendering I have chosen).

Verse 13

“that you would turn your spirit toward (the) Mighty (One),
and send forth (such) utterances from your mouth?”

According to Eliphaz, Job’s wild-eyed recklessness (v. 12) has caused him to utter harsh and impious words against God. I have translated the preposition la# in line 1 as “toward”, but in context it should probably be “against”. Retaining the more common “to(ward)” captures the irony which, I think, is intended by the poet (and by Eliphaz as the speaker). The same holds for the noun j^Wr (“spirit”), which (for clarity) many translators render as “anger” (cf. Prov 16:32; 25:28; 29:11); again, this loses the sense of irony. Eliphaz claims that Job turns his “spirit toward God”, which could be understood as the action of a pious or righteous person; here, however, the reference is to Job’s wild and reckless (and, according to Eliphaz, impious) “spirit”, which he has directed toward (i.e., against) God. As is clear from the second line, this ‘attack’ on God has been made through words (i.e., speech); again, the plural of hL*m! (“word, utterance’), a distinctively Joban term, is used. The same parallelism of “breath” / “words” occurred in verse 11 (cf. above).

My literal translation “toward (the) Mighty (One)”, in this instance, unfortunately obscures completely the terseness (and alliteration) of the Hebrew (la@ la#, ’el ’ēl); the more conventional “to God” would better capture the rhythm of the Hebrew. 

The second strophe (vv. 14-16) of this expository poem will be examined in the next note.

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).
    • Those marked “Clines” are to David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20, Word Biblical Commentary [WBC] vol. 17 (1989).
    • Those marked “Pope” are to Marvin H. Pope, Job, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 15 (1965, 1973).
    • Those marked “Blommerde” are to Anton C. M. Blommerde, Northwest Semitic Grammar and Job, Biblica et Orientalia 22 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute: 1969).
    • Those marked “Tur-Sinai” are to N. H. Tur-Sinai, The Book of Job: A New Commentary (Kiryath Sepher: 1957).
    • Those marked “Grabbe” are to Lester L. Grabbe, Comparative Philology and the Text of Job: A Study in Methodology, Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Dissertation Series 34 (Scholars Press: 1977).
    • Those marked “Nõmmik” are to Urmas Nõmmik, Die Freundesreden des Ursprünglichen Hiobdialogs: Eine Form- und Traditiongeschichtliche Studie, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 410 (De Gruyter: 2010).

Wednesday Wisdom: Proverbs 14:1-11

Chapter 14

To the extent that one may delineate distinct proverb-groupings in chapter 14, the following are to be considered: (1) vv. 1-11, (2) vv. 12-18 (which itself consists of two smaller groupings, vv. 12-14 and 15-18), (3) vv. 19-27, (4) vv. 28-35; cf. Schipper, p. 464. These groupings are defined more by their framing proverbs than by specific thematic or motivic emphases that cohere within each group.

Proverbs 14:1-11

This first grouping is framed by two proverbs (vv. 1 and 11) that involve the image of building (and maintaining) a house (ty]B^), cf. 12:7. The house-motif was used a number of times in the lectures and poems of chapters 1-9, particularly the image of the house that belongs to (and was built by) Wisdom and Folly, respectively—cf. 2:18; 5:8 (and 10); 7:8, 27; 9:1, 14. Since Wisdom and Folly are each personified as a woman, the image is that of a woman who builds and maintains her house (see below on v. 1).

There is relatively little else that binds together the proverbs of vv. 2-10, beyond the customary contrast between the wise and foolish (and/or the righteous and wicked) person. The introduction of the heart-motif in v. 10 anticipates the same motif in vv. 13-14; for this reason, many commentators (e.g., Heim, Schipper) treat vv. 10-14 as a distinct proverb-grouping, and this is entirely feasible.

Verse 1

“(The woman of) wisdom builds (up) her house,
but (the) foolish, with her (own) hands, tears it down.”

The overall sense of this proverb is quite clear, as a way of contrasting both the character/conduct and the fate of the wise and foolish, respectively (cf. verse 11; 11:29; 12:7; 15:25, etc.). However, the wording of the first line is awkward and highly problematic, both in terms of the redundant expression “(the) wise (one)s [fem.] of women” and the disagreement between the plural adjective+noun (<yv!n` tomk=j^) and the singular form of the verb hn`B* (“build”, ht*n+B*, “she builds”, or “she has built”). It seems likely that the noun <yv!n` (“women”) represents a secondary addition to the proverb, either because: (a) the author/editor misunderstood the singular sense (i.e., “wisdom”) of the plural twmkj, or (b) the intent was to clarify that twmkj was a true plural (“wise ones” [fem.], i.e., “wise women”).

Earlier, in 1:20 and 9:1 (cf. also 24:7; Ps 49:4[3]), a plural form of the feminine noun hm*k=j*, i.e., tomk=j*, functions as a singular, perhaps to be identified as an intensive plural (i.e., “most wise one”, as a designation for Wisdom personified); cf. the note on 1:20. Given the obvious parallel with 9:1 (cf. also 24:3), it may well be that the same plural form of the noun is being used here (in which case the vocalization should be tomk=j*); a clear and concise couplet is thus produced:

“Wisdom builds (up) her house,
but Folly tears it down with her (own) hands.”

Fox (p. 572; cf. Textual Commentary, p. 215) is among the commentators who advocates eliminating <yv!n` (as a secondary addition) and revocalizing twmkj; there is much to be said for this approach to the text.

On the other hand, <yv!n` might have been added for the express purpose of making clear that twmkj here differs from in 9:1, being a true plural (of the adjective <k*j*, “wise”) and meaning “wise women”, “women who are wise”. If so, then the singular form of the following verb could be explained in the manner suggested by Waltke (p. 576): “(As for the) wise of women, she builds her house”, or “…each (one) builds her house”.

In order to capture both possible lines of interpretation, I have translated v. 1a as “(The woman of) wisdom builds (up) her house”.

Verse 2

“(The man) walking in his straightness fears YHWH,
while (the one) crooked in his paths despises Him!”

The familiar path/walking idiom is again utilized here, along with the related motif of walking on a straight vs. crooked path. The use of the noun rv#y) (“straightness, that which is straight”) refers to the fundamental character of the individual (“his straightness”), which is demonstrated by the way that he walks—viz., according to the straight path of God/Wisdom. Such a person is wise, and, consequently is one who “fears YHWH” (cf. 1:7, etc.); the literal expression is hwhy ar@y+, “(one) fearing YHWH”, “fearer of YHWH”. By contrast, the foolish/wicked person is “crooked” and walks (i.e., acts/behaves) in a crooked manner, going down crooked paths that deviate from the straight/right path of Wisdom. This aspect of crookedness is expressed through a number of different words; here a verbal adjective (participle) of the verb zWl (“be crooked”) is used (cf. 2:15; 3:32), which can carry the contextual meaning of “turn aside, go astray”. The opposite of fearing YHWH (i.e., revering and honoring Him) is to treat Him with contempt (vb hz`B*).

It would perhaps be better to treat “(the one) fearing YHWH” and “(the one) despising Him” as the subject of each line (cf. Waltke, p. 576). However, this is rather awkward to translate into English. An approximation of the first line would be: “(He who) fears YHWH (is the one) walking in his straightness”. The suffixed noun orv=y`B= could conceivably mean “in His [i.e., God’s] straightness”, i.e., according to His righteousness and the straight path laid out by Him.

Given the possibility that women, specifically, are in view in v. 1 (see above), I have translated the masculine participle here as “(the man) walking” rather than generic “(the one) walking”.

Verse 3

“In (the) mouth of a fool (is) a branch of haughtiness,
but (the) lips of (the) wise (one)s guard them (well).”

As we have seen, numerous proverbs in the Collection utilize the mouth idiom (including lips, tongue, etc.), emphasizing the importance of how a person speaks, and how one’s speech reflects his/her fundamental character (viz., as wise/righteous vs. foolish/wicked).

The comparative predicate in the first line, “a branch [rf#j)] of haughtiness [hw`a&G^]” is a bit peculiar. The noun rf#j), in the sense of a “branch” (cf. Isa 11:1), presumably designates that which ‘comes forth’ out of a person’s mouth, but it may also allude to the punishment that may come as a result (i.e., being beaten with a rod, cf. the cognate denominative verb in Aramaic and Syriac). The noun hw`a&G^ essentially denotes a “high-mindedness” (verbal root hag, “be high”), i.e., “haughtiness” (arrogance, pride, etc.); cf. 29:3. There could well be some word-play here with the root hwg (and the noun wG@, “back”), particularly given the reference in 10:13 of “a rod [fb#v#] for (the) back [wG@] of (the one) lacking heart [i.e., lacking sense]”.

The verb rm^v* (“guard”, along with the parallel/synonymous rx^n`, “keep watch [over]”) occurs frequently in Proverbs, referring to the characteristic action of the wise/righteous person (who guards the teachings of Wisdom, and thus also guards his/her own life), but also to the Divine blessing/benefit that Wisdom brings (i.e., Divine protection over the righteous). Cf. earlier in 2:8, 11, 20; 3:26; 4:4, 6, 21; 5:2; 6:22, 24; 7:1-2, 5; 8:32, 34; 10:17; 13:3, 18.
The unusual form <r@Wmv=T! may be a scribal error (metathesis) for the suffixed plural <Wrm=v=T!; cf. Fox, p. 573; Meinhold, p. 229; Schipper, p. 462, etc.

Verse 4

“With there being no cattle, (the) grain-bin (is) clean,
but (there are) many (harvest)s coming with (the) might of an ox.”

Within the context of the proverb-grouping, this is a curious practical adage, seemingly banal in its surface meaning—viz., to the effect that the absence of cattle results in little grain for the farmer, while the presence of strong cattle (oxen) to work the land will facilitate a good yield. The double-meaning wordplay in the first line probably helps to explain the proverb’s inclusion—that is, as an illustration of the damaging consequences of foolish perceptions. The rare noun sWba@ is a loan-word (cf. Job 39:9; Isa 1:3), referring to a bin for holding/storing grain (cf. Akkadian ab’su), but also, specifically, to the stable and feeding-trough for animals (such as cattle). The word rB* could denote the noun rB^ (III, “grain”) and/or the adjective rB^ (II, “clean”); the latter can mean “empty”, but it can also be used in the ethical-religious sense of “pure”. The foolish person may think that there is value in a clean stable, not realizing that the absence of oxen means that no grain can be produced (as “income”, i.e., the “coming in” of the harvest); the feeding-trough that is empty of grain means that the storage bins will also be empty. Alternately, the foolish person may think that a trough full of grain is a good thing, failing to realize that it is only full because there are no cattle to eat the grain, which means that there are no oxen to do the work of producing grain for the household.

Note the chiastic alliteration at the joining of the lines: br*w+ rB* (bār werāb); cf. Schipper, p. 468.

Verse 5

“A witness of (complete) firmness will not tell a lie.
while a witness of falsehood blows out (many) lies!”

An important example of a person’s speech (v. 3) is his/her conduct as a witness (du@), giving testimony in a wide range of situations; cf. verse 25; 13:17; 19:5, 9; 20:6; 21:8. The nouns /Wma@ (“firmness”, in the connotative sense of “faithfulness, trustworthiness, truthfulness”) and rq#v# (“falsehood”) reflect the fundamental character of the righteous and wicked person, respectively. This character is manifested by their regular/habitual behavior, include how they behave as a witness. The righteous person who is “firm” (i.e., reliable, trustworthy) will not tell a lie; by contrast, the wicked person, who is characteristically “false”, will spout many a lie. The verb jWP can mean (I, “blow/breathe out”) but also (II, “act as a witness”, cf. Ugaritic ypḥ); there is almost certainly some double-meaning wordplay here, as also in the earlier 6:19 (the first line of which closely resembles line 2 here).

The plural form of /Wma@, <yn]Wma$, could mean “(of) firm words/ways”, i.e., a person who is firm (trustworthy/reliable) in his words and actions; it can also be understood as an intensive or comprehensive plural, i.e., “completely firm”, that is, someone who is completely reliable, totally trustworthy—characteristic of the righteous person. Cf. 13:17; 20:6.

There is a chiastic structure to the couplet (also noted by other commentators, e.g., Meinhold, p. 232; Waltke, p. 586; Schipper, p. 469):

    • “A witness of firmness
      • will not tell a lie,
      • but blows out lies
    • a witness of falsehood”
Verse 6

“A scoffer may seek wisdom, but there is none (for him),
while knowledge for a discerning (man) is a small (matter)!”

The foolish/wicked person may, in his/her own way, seek after wisdom, but there is none to be found. This is expressed by the negative particle of absence/non-existence, /y]a^. As elsewhere in Proverbs (cf. 1:22; 3:34; 9:7-8; 13:1), the verbal root Jyl! (“boast, scoff, mock”, Jl@) designates the foolish person who, through his/her neglect or rejection of Wisdom, is proceeding down paths of wickedness. To the extent that such a person may seek out wisdom—likely not for the right or noble reasons—it will not be found, no matter how hard one searches (cf. 24:7; also 17:16, where it is suggested that a fool might try to buy wisdom). By contrast, it is easy for a wise person (characterized by understanding and discernment, vb /yB!) to find wisdom and knowledge (cf. 15:14; 17:24, etc.). The verb ll^q* means “be small/little/light”; it often carries a strong negative connotation (e.g., to “make light” of something, treat disparagingly, etc.), but here the sense is neutral, i.e., “is a small/easy (matter)”.

The LXX gives a more orthodox ethical rendering of this proverb: “(If) you seek wisdom alongside bad (men) [i.e., the wicked], you will not find (it)…”; cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 216.

Verse 7

“Go from in front of a man (who is) a fool,
when you have not known lips of knowledge!”

This proverb combines the mouth– and knowledge-motifs from vv. 3 and 6 (see above), emphasizing that a foolish person will be known by his speech (cf. 12:23; Qoh 10:3). The contrast between the wise and foolish person is expressed rather differently here; instead of the usual parallelistic contrast, we find described a (potential) relationship between the two. The proverb is framed as a warning (imperative of the verb El^h*, “walk, go”), telling the wise person (i.e., the one who would heed the teachings of wisdom) to “walk/go away from (being) in front of [i.e., facing]” a foolish man. To be “in front of” (dg#n# + the preposition l=) a person means having a certain relationship with him/her, or, at least, an encounter of some significance (and duration).

The prefixed preposition /m! (-m) on dg#n# means “from in front of”, which suggests movement away from being in front of (i.e., facing) a person (cf. Psalms 38:12[11]). The only other occurrence of dg#N#m! + l= is in Judges 20:34 (cf. also Numbers 2:2), where the preposition l properly means “to(ward)”—that is, moving from a position in front toward the person, indicating opposition and an act of hostility. Some commentators (e.g., Ringgren, Heim [p. 174]) would adopt such a sense here as well, so that the proverb urges the person to oppose a fool. More generally, the approach to the fool might be for the purpose of conversing with him, whereupon one will come to realize the man’s foolishness (cf. Toy [p. 284], Plöger [p. 167], and others). Fox (p. 574f) adopts much the same view, translating the command as “Go before…”. Most commentators, however, accept the more natural meaning—viz., that the individual is urged to go away from having any dealings with (i.e., in front of, facing) a foolish man, once the man’s foolishness is made known (by his speech). Cf. the comments by Scherer (p. 141), Fuhs (p. 221), Schipper (p. 470), etc. The idea of the foolish man’s lack of knowledge being made known is expressed through a negation of the verb: “when you have not known lips of knowledge”, i.e., when you realize that he does not possess lips of knowledge.

The LXX has a very different version of this proverb, though it tends to support the interpretation of the first line as advocating opposition to the foolish man: “All (thing)s are in opposition [e)nanti/a] to a man without sense, but wise lips (are) weapons of sensibility”; cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 216f.

Verse 8

“(The) wisdom of (the) clever (is) to understand his path,
while (the) thoughtlessness of (the) foolish (is) deceit.”

In this proverb, apparently, the contrast between the wise and foolish person is described in terms of self-understanding. The wise person is able to have/gain understanding regarding “his path” (i.e., his regular behavior/conduct)—that is, he understands how and why he acts. By contrast, the foolish person, who is characterized fundamentally by deceit (hm*r=m!, cf. the use of rq#v# [“falsehood”] in v. 5), ends up deceiving himself as well. Such a person may convince himself that he is acting in a right and sensible manner, but this it not the case; rather, he acts thoughtlessly, often bringing harm and damage, both to others and to himself.
The “deceit” of the foolish/wicked person certainly involves deceiving others (cf. Meinhold, p. 233; Fuhs, p. 229), but, in this instance, self-deceit seems to be more in view (cf. Plöger, p. 170; Fox, p. 575). Clearly, the parallelism of the couplet is better served if self-deception is the main point of reference; however, the general and somewhat ambiguous wording allows for both aspects of meaning to be present (cf. Waltke, p. 589; Schipper, p. 471).

As throughout Proverbs, the adjective <Wru* (“clever, shrewd”), while elsewhere often having a negative meaning (i.e., “crafty, cunning, scheme”), is viewed positively as a characteristic of the wise/understanding person.

Verse 9

“(The one who is) truly foolish scoffs at (his own) guilt,
but among (the) straight (there is God’s) pleasure!”

The wise/righteous and foolish/wicked are again contrasted, using the regular terms lyw]a$ (“fool, foolish [one]”) and rv*y* (“straight”, cf. verse 2, above). Both are in the plural here, except, in line 1 there is a disagreement between the plural subject and the singular form of the verb (Jyl!y`, “he scoffs/mocks”); for a similar disagreement, cf. on verse 1 (above). Waltke (p. 578) translates in a partitive manner, i.e., “(As for) fools, (each one) scoffs…”. I am inclined to translate the plural form (<yl!w]a$) here as an intensive or comprehensive plural—viz., “(one who is) truly foolish”; cf. above on the plural <yn]Wma$ in verse 5. The disagreement goes away if one treats <v*a* (“guilt”) as the subject of the verb (i.e., “Guilt scoffs at [the] foolish [one]s”, cf. Schipper, p. 471f), but this seems most unlikely.
Fox (p. 575f; cf. Textual Commentary, p. 217f) considers the first line in the MT to be “meaningless” and takes the rather drastic step of suggesting a conjectural emendation based (in part) on the LXX (“[The] houses of [those] crossing over the law will owe [i.e., require] cleansing”). His emended text reads: <v*a* <yx!l@ yl@h(a*B=, “In (the) tents of scoffers (there is) guilt”. It is an appealing proposal, not least because it produces a framing occurrence of the house-motif (i.e., “tents”, LXX oi)ki/ai, “houses”) here in v. 9 (cf. verse 1, and v. 11 below), which then allows for a more secure delineation of vv. 1-9 as a distinct proverb-grouping. A few fragments of chapter 14 survive in the Qumran manuscript 4QProvb; what little is preserved supports the MT, but unfortunately nothing of verse 9 (nor verse 1 for that matter, cf. above) survives, so it can provide no help toward establishing or confirming the text.

In light of the previous v. 8 (see above), the guilt that the foolish person scoffs at should be understood as his own. This implies that the foolish person has committed sin or has otherwise violated the covenant (viz., the Torah regulations); not only does he neglect the guilt that comes from such actions, he scoffs at it, demonstrating that he is already well on the pathway to wickedness. By contrast, the righteous (who are also wise) experience God’s pleasure (/oxr*, cf. 8:35; 11:27; 12:2, 22), because they do what is pleasing to Him (10:32; 11:1, 20). It is to be inferred that any guilt they acquire (through sin, etc.) is dealt with in the proper manner, through repentance and according to the ritual means of cleansing/atonement laid out in the Torah.

Verse 10

“(One’s) heart (alone) knows (the) bitterness of his soul,
and a stranger does not mix with his gladness (either).”

This particular proverb has a general (anthropological-psychological) orientation, and does not directly utilize the wise/righteous vs. foolish/wicked contrast. However, there may be an allusion to this contrast in the second line with the use of the adjective rz`, which, though it is customarily translated “strange(r)”, properly denotes one who has (or is) “turned aside”. In the ethical-religious context of the path/walking idiom in Proverbs (esp. in chapters 1-9), rz` refers to a (foolish/wicked) person who has “turned aside” from the right/straight path of Wisdom. If the proverb as a whole is addressed to the wise/righteous (or, at least, to the one who would learn Wisdom), then the second line may serve as a subtle warning not to share joy/gladness with a foolish/wicked person (cf. verse 7, above).

This proverb continues the theme of self-understanding and awareness that was introduced in verse 8 (and continued in v. 9). The heart of the wise person understands its emotions and its experience of both bitterness and gladness (cf. 12:25)—the reasons for it, etc. A mark of wisdom and prudence is to keep the details of such things, as they are experienced in the innermost ‘heart’, to oneself. One should be cautious about revealing one’s heart, even to another wise person; cf. the saying from the Egyptian Instruction of Khasheshonqi (cited by Schipper, p. 472): “If you become the companion of a wise man whose heart you do not know, do not open your heart to him” (14, x + 8; cf. Lichtheim, III.170).

The LXX of verse 10 is peculiar, probably as the result of trying to make sense of the Hebrew syntax: “(As for the) sensible heart of a man, his soul is sad, but when it/he is of a good mind, it/he is not mixed up with arrogance”; cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 218.

Verse 11

“(The) house of (the) wicked shall be destroyed,
but (the) tent of (the) straight shall (ever) flourish!”

The house-motif here creates an inclusio with verse 1 that frames the sayings in vv. 1-9 as a distinct proverb-grouping. In that earlier proverb, the image was of building-up vs. tearing-down a house, emphasizing the role of a person’s conduct in that process. Here, the focus is on the ultimate fate of the righteous and wicked ones, respectively, implying punishment by God (for the wicked), and blessing (for the righteous); cf. 3:33; 15:25. The verb dm^v* has the basic meaning “destroy”, sometimes in the specific context of the extermination of a people or family line. For the verb jr^P* (“blossom”, i.e., flourish) in this context of Divine blessings on a person’s house and his family/descendants, cf. 11:28; also Ps 72:7; 92:13-14 [12-13]. On the righteous as a flourishing tree, cf. 11:30, also Psalm 1:3, etc.
The nouns ty]B^ (“house”) and lh#a) (“tent”) are essentially synonymous, though Fox (p. 576; cf. Ehrlich, Randglossen) raises the possibility of a distinction—i.e., the modest “tent” of the righteous in contrast to the more lavish “house” of the wicked.

As in vv. 2 and 9, the adjective rv*y` (“straight”) is used to designate the righteous. Both rv*y` and the contrasting uv*r* (“wicked”) are in the plural.

    • References above marked “Fox” are to Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 10-31, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 18B (Yale University Press: 2009). Those marked “Fox, Textual Commentary” are to idem, Proverbs: An Eclectic Edition with Introduction and Textual Commentary, The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition 1 (Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Press: 2015).
    • References marked “Waltke” are to Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 1–15, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Eerdmans: 2004).
    • References marked “Schipper” are to Bernd U. Schipper, Proverbs 1-15, Hermeneia Commentary Series (Fortress Press: 2010). See also his monograph on Proverbs 2: Hermeneutik der Tora: Studien zur Traditionsgeschichte von Prov 2 und zur Komposition von Prov 1-9, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 432 (Walter de Gruyter: 2012).
    • Those marked “Meinhold” are to Arndt Meinhold, Die Sprüche, Teil 1: Sprüche Kapitel 1-15, Zürcher Bibelkommentare, AT 16.1 (Theologische Verlag Zürich: 1991).
    • Those marked “Fuhs” are to Hans Ferdinand Fuhs, Das Buch der Sprichwörter: Ein Kommentar, Forschung zur Bibel 95 (Echter-Verlag: 2001).
    • Those marked “Heim” are to Knut Martin Heim, Like Grapes of Gold Set in Silver: An Interpretation of Proverbial Clusters in Proverbs 10:1-22:16, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 273 (Walter de Gruyter: 2001); those marked “Heim, Poetic Imagination” are to idem, Poetic Imagination in Proverbs: Variant Repetitions and the Nature of Poetry, Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement 4 (Eisenbrauns: 2013).
    • Those marked “Scherer” are to Andreas Scherer, Das weise Wort und seine Wirkung: Eine Untersuchung zur Komposition und Redaktion von Proverbia 10,1-22,16, Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament [WMANT] 83 (Neukirchener Verlag: 1999).
    • Those marked “Plöger” are to Otto Plöger, Sprüche Salomos (Proverbia), Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament, XVII (Neukirchener Verlag: 1984).
    • Those marked “Toy” are to Crawford Howell Toy, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Proverbs, International Critical Commentary [ICC] (1989).
    • Those marked “Lichtheim, III” are to Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Volume III: The Late Period (University of California Press: 1980).

September 29: Job 15:7-10

Job 15:7-19

The core of the second section (of the first half of the chap. 15 speech) may be viewed as a ‘stanza’ consisting of five couplets, just as in the prior vv. 2-6. It is comprised of two short strophes (vv. 7-8, 9-10) along with an additional couplet (v. 17). In this part of Eliphaz’ rebuke, he focuses on Job’s disregard of established conventional wisdom (and the religious orthodoxy that such wisdom reflects). A key tenet of this conventional wisdom is expounded in the second half of the speech (vv. 20-35)—namely, that God justly punishes the wicked. According to Eliphaz, Job has been flouting this wisdom, since he has argued that God has punished him (severely) even though he is guilty of no wickedness or wrongdoing.

Verse 7

“Is it (as the) first (hu)man (that) you are born,
or before (the) high (hill)s were you writhed (out)?”

Since (according to Eliphaz) Job has been flouting conventional wisdom, perhaps he has access to some special wisdom or insight that allows him to do so. That is the taunting thrust of the rhetorical question laid out here in v. 7. See the note on vv. 2-3 regarding the use of such rhetorical questions as a structuring principal for the poetry of the Dialogue-speeches.

It is possible that there is an allusion here to the ‘birth’ of Wisdom itself (see Prov 8:25, and cp. Ps 90:2), and to the Divine status/nature of Wisdom. Arguably, the first human being also would have been privy to special communication and revelation from God Himself (cf. Gen 2-3); this special status of the primeval man, in its religious-mythological aspect, seems to inform Ezek 28:11-19 (cf. Clines, p. 349). The ancient pedigree of wisdom is an important aspect of Wisdom tradition, in which the wisdom of the ancients (cf. 38:21) was especially valued; in the following vv. 9-10 (see below), Eliphaz accuses Job of disregarding the established wisdom of the ancients/elders.

The verb lyj! (I, “twist, turn”, cf. lWj) is used in its regular contextual meaning of “writhe” (i.e., the writhing of a woman in labor). The passive Polal form (cf. the parallel Niphal of the verb dl^y`, i.e., “you were born”, in line 1) here literally means “you were writhed/twisted (out)” —that is, given birth through the “writhing” of the mother.

Verse 8

“Is it in (the) circle of (the) Mightiest (that) you hear,
and do you take to yourself (alone this) wisdom?”

Even if Job does not have the special status of the first man (or of Wisdom itself), perhaps he still has access to unique revelation vouchsafed to him by God. This is the caustic suggestion made by Eliphaz’ in his follow-up question. The noun dos denotes a confidential gathering of people, i.e., an “(intimate) circle” —that is, a special number of close confidants with whom God might discuss Divine matters. The verb ur^G` (“take down, take away”) was used earlier in verse 4 (see the previous note), but in a rather different context. Here it refers to the possibility of a person “taking away” (for himself) information from a gathering of God’s confidants (cf. Jer 23:18). The information would be special wisdom which (according to Eliphaz’ taunting question) Job alone possesses (or claims to possess).

I translate the yiqtol/imperfect verb forms in terms of regular/habitual action (i.e., present tense), even though they might (also) have a past-tense point of reference (cf. the yiqtol form in v. 7a). The point of the rhetorical question would be the same, whether Eliphaz’ is implying that Job might receive regular/recurring revelations from God or a single revelation in times past.

Verse 9

“What have you come to know (that) we do not know?
Do you have understanding, and it is not with us?”

This next question by Eliphaz echoes Job’s own words earlier in 12:3; 13:2, implying that Job must think he possesses wisdom and understanding that others (namely, the companions) do not.

Verse 10

“Even (the) gray-haired, even (the) aged (one is) with us—
(of) considerably (more) days than your (own) father!”

As mentioned above, the ancient pedigree of wisdom was particularly valued—that is, wisdom possessed by the ancients and passed down (preserved) from one generation to the next (cf. 8:8-9), and by elders to the younger members of society. On the more general notion that the aged (tend to) possess greater wisdom, and thus should be given respect/deference, cf. 12:12; 32:6-7.
The first term in line 1 is a verbal adjective (participle) of byc!, denoting “being (or having become) gray(-haired)”; it is parallel with the adjective vyv!y` (“aged, old”).

Many commentators (e.g., Duhm, Gray, Pope; cf. Clines, p. 351) believe that Eliphaz is referring to himself. This is possible, but hardly necessary for an adequate interpretation of the couplet. The main point is that Eliphaz and his companions, as representatives of the established conventional wisdom (and religious orthodoxy), have the ancient/elders on their side (“with us”). The jab made in the final line brings this out: these elders have more age and experience (and thus, wisdom) than Job’s own father—so they certainly possess more wisdom, collectively, than Job himself!
Seow (p. 712) thinks that the “gray-haired and aged (one)” is a collective reference, alluding to the collective wisdom of the ancients, viz., the established conventional wisdom of which the companions act as representatives. I tend to agree with this explanation.

Following the two strophes of this section, we find an expository poem (vv. 10-16), which also consists of two strophes, dealing with the familiar Wisdom theme(s) of the limitations (weakness, etc.) and mortality of the human condition. We will examine this poem in the next note.

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).
    • Those marked “Clines” are to David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20, Word Biblical Commentary [WBC] vol. 17 (1989).