August 16: 1 Corinthians 1:10

1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16

In connection with to the current study series, in which I examine the use of the word musth/rion (“secret”) in the New Testament (esp. in the Pauline letters), I have decided to explore, in some detail, Paul’s discussion in 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16. This passage (and the wider division of 1:18-4:21) includes several of the key references where musth/rion is used (2:1, 7; 4:1), where it is central to the overall argument. This next series of daily notes will be looking at various phrases and expressions which Paul uses to develop his argument. The difficult and richly textured passage is, in my opinion, often poorly understood; and, as a result, the thrust of Paul’s line of argument in the letter, as well as the basic historical (and theological) context, is not always appreciated. It is hoped that these notes will shed some light on what is one of the more essential sections in the New Testament (outside of the Gospels).

To begin with, it is useful to consider the epistolary (and rhetorical) structure of 1 Corinthians (here I follow the outline provided by Witherington, pp. 75-77, with which I generally agree):

    • 1:1-3—The epistolary prescript, that is, the opening of the letter, which includes the initial greeting (vv. 1-2) and blessing (v. 3)
    • 1:4-9—The introduction to the letter (exordium), which, in many of Paul’s letters, functions primarily as a thanksgiving, offering thanks to God and praise for the faithfulness, etc., of the believers
      (in Corinth).
    • 1:10—This verse contains the basic proposition (propositio) or statement/thesis which will be addressed in the letter.
    • 1:11-17—The narratio, in which the basic ‘facts’ of the case are narrated; in Paul’s letters this often has an important (auto)biographical component. Verse 11 states the main reason or cause (causa) for his writing.
    • 1:1816:12—The bulk of the letter, which can be delineated several ways, is the probatio, or “proof”, whereby various arguments and illustrations are presented in support of the main proposition. Unlike the shorter letter to the Galatians (or even the larger letter to the Romans), 1 Corinthians does not have a tightly argued and balanced structure. Only the first section, 1:184:21, deals with the central proposition (1:10ff) directly. The remainder of the letter illustrates the point in principle, as Paul addresses specific issues of importance to the life and functioning of the congregations in Corinth.
    • 16:13-18—The peroratio, or close of the argument, with an exhortation to the hearers/readers. This relates primarily to vv. 13-14, with vv. 15-18 perhaps being more aligned with the conclusion (greeting) that follows.
    • 16:19-24—The epistolary postscript, or close to the letter, with final greeting(s) and blessing.

1 Corinthians 1:10

Here is the proposition (propositio) of 1 Corinthians from 1:10:

“I call you alongside, brothers, through the name of our Lord Yeshua (the) Anointed, that you all should give account (to) the same (thing), and (that) there should not be splits [i.e. divisions] in/among you, but (that) you should be fit (together completely) in the same mind and in the same (way of) knowing.”

Several points can be made:

The initial verb (parakalw=) functions as an exhortation (and injunction) to the believers whom he is addressing. Literally, it means “I call you alongside”, but in English idiom we might rather say “I call on you” (i.e. I urge you). The phrase “through the name of our Lord Yeshua (the) Anointed {Jesus Christ}” is important as it governs both what precedes and what follows:

    • Paul’s call to the Corinthians is done “through the name” of Jesus—i.e. in his role as (inspired) apostle
    • The Corinthians’ unity should take place “through the name” of Jesus—the essential identity of Christians being “in Christ”

In a concrete grammatical sense, by going “through” (dia/) the name of Jesus (“our Lord”, the basis of our religious identity), we see clearly the goal and idea of the unity of believers in Christ. Note the structure:

    • You should all (pa/nte$) give account to the same (thing)
      —there should not be splits in you
      —you should be fit (together completely)
    • in the same mind and in the same (way of) knowing

The three primary verbs all are subjunctive forms, indicating the wish of how things should be. The outer statement emphasizes that believers should say and think the same thing, marked by the adjectival (intensive) use of the personal pronoun au)to[$] (“he/it”), which is nearly impossible to render literally in English. I translate the verb le/gw in the (more literal) sense of “give (ac)count”—this can refer to any sort of speaking/saying, but it specifically relates to the Gospel message (i.e. the “account/word [lo/go$] of God”). As will become clear in Paul’s argument, unity in speech and thought is (to be) achieved fundamentally by focusing on the Gospel message. The emphasis on “mind” (nou=$) and “knowing” (gnw/mh) likewise foreshadows the line of argument running through 1:18-4:21 and throughout the letter. The ‘inner’ statement indicated above sets a clear contrast:

    • Negative: “there should not be [mh\ h@|] splits in you”
    • Positive: “you should be [h@te] fit (together completely)”

The word sxi/smata is typically translated “divisions”, but the contrast relates more to the idea of “splits” or “tears” (as in a garment), which is also a somewhat more literal rendering. These “splits” (which are discussed initially in vv. 11f), are set against the concept of believers being fit or joined (together), using the verb katarti/zw (an intensive compound of a)rti/zw). The perfect tense (perfect participle) of this verb is used, suggesting a situation or condition which has already taken place and continues in the present. Paul is essentially saying that the Corinthians ought to be acting as they truly are (in Christ)—united together, like a single untorn garment. Interestingly, the verb katarti/zw can also carry the sense of adjusting or repairing something (i.e. mending a garment), which certainly fits the context as well. Paul does not follow up particularly on this metaphor of the garment elsewhere in the letter; rather, he utilizes the images of the building/house and (human) body as symbols of unity.

The next note will look at the closing statement of the narratio (in v. 17), which leads into the section 1:18-2:16.

Above “Witherington” = Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Eerdmans: 1995)

“Secret” in Paul’s Letters: 1 Cor 2:1, 7 etc

Having discussed the expression “secret [musth/rion] of the kingdom of God” (Mark 4:11) in a recent trio of daily notes, I now turn to the use of the word musth/rion (myst¢¡rion) elsewhere in the New Testament. Most of the occurrences (21 of 28) come from the Pauline letters, and most notably in 1 Corinthians where it is found six times. I will briefly examine Paul’s use of the word in these passages.

1 Corinthians 2:1, 7; 4:1; 13:2; 14:2; 15:51

1 Cor 2:1, 7

The first two occurrences are especially instructive with regard to Paul’s understanding of the nature and character of the Gospel:

“And I, (in) coming toward you, brothers, did not come down (with) a superiority of word or wisdom, (in) bringing down as a message to you the secret [musth/rion] of God” (2:1)
NOTE: Many manuscripts read martu/rion (“witness”) instead of musth/rion (“secret”); the evidence is rather evenly divided, but probability slightly favors the reading musth/rion.

This “secret” is explained, by inference, in the verses which follow; Paul makes several important points:

    • The only knowledge he sought to convey (in his missionary work to the Corinthians) was that of the person of Jesus himself (the Anointed One, i.e. “Jesus Christ”), and, specifically the death of Jesus (on the stake, i.e. crucifixion)—verse 2.
    • His preaching was done with fear and weakness (verse 3)
    • He did not rely on persuasive speech or (human) wisdom, but on the Spirit and power of God (verse 4)
    • This was done so that the Corinthians’ trust in Christ would be based on the power of God, not Paul’s skill as a speaker (verse 5)

What does this tell us about the “secret of God”? This Paul begins to expound in verses 6-8:

“And (yet) we (do) speak wisdom in/among the (one)s (who are) complete—and (it is) a wisdom not of this Age, and not of the chief (ruler)s of this Age (who are now) made inactive—but (rather) we speak (the) wisdom of God in (a) secret [e)n musthr/w|] hidden away from (this Age), which God marked out before the Ages unto our honor/glory, (and) which none of the chief (ruler)s of this Age has known; for, if they knew (it), they would not have put the Lord of honor/glory to the stake!”

Again, a number of key points are made regarding this “secret”:

    • It is an expression or embodiment of the wisdom of God
    • It is different in nature and character from the (human/worldly) wisdom of this age (and those who exercise power in it)
    • It has been hidden from hearts and minds of people in the world until the present time (i.e. following the death and resurrection of Christ); on the important use of the verb (pro)ori/zw, cf. Acts 2:23; 4:28; 10:42; 17:31; Rom 1:4, and also Rom 8:29-30; Eph 1:5, 11
    • It has to do fundamentally with the person of Jesus and his identity (as the Anointed One)—which most of the people and their rulers did not understand or accept
    • It is tied to Jesus’ death (on the cross)

Two additional, fundamental themes develop, along these lines through the remainder of chapter 2:

    1. It was not possible for human beings to recognize or understand the secret of God until the work of Christ and the proclamation of the Gospel—prepared by God, in advance, for those who will come to faith. This is poignantly expressed by the citation of Isaiah 64:4 in verse 9. Note the use of the same triad—eyes-ears-heart—which also occurs in Isa 6:9-10 (cf. the discussion in the previous note):
      (a) “no eye has seen”—eyes smeared shut / not seeing
      (b) “no ear has heard”—ears made heavy / not hearing
      (c) “has not come upon the heart”—heart made thick / not discerning
    2. The secret of God is understood entirely through the Spirit of God (and Christ), the Holy Spirit (vv. 10-16)

1 Cor 4:1

“So, let a man count us (simply) as attendants of (the) Anointed (One) and ‘house-managers’ of the secrets of God”

This statement follows the discussion regarding divisions in the congregations, in which Paul seeks to downplay the importance of (apostolic) personalities—they are merely servants of Christ, workers on behalf of the Gospel. The declaration in 4:1 summarizes this fact. The derivation of the term u(pere/th$ (rendered above as “attendant”) is not entirely certain; it may mean something like “under-guide” or “under-boss”—that is, someone who works as an assistant under the main person guiding the work. The word oi)kono/mo$ (literally something like “house-manager”) is often translated “steward”, but this somewhat obscures the cultural context. The oi)kono/mo$, among the wealthier classes, who managed the house(hold) often would have been a trusted slave or servant. This fits with Paul’s tendency of referring to himself, along with his fellow ministers, as “slaves” (dou=loi) of Christ. The use of the plural “secrets” (musth/ria) may be general—recall the variant “secret(s) of the Kingdom” in Mark 4:11 par. If it is meant in a specific sense, it probably refers to the various early Christian (and Gospel) traditions passed down from Jesus and his disciples, along with things revealed to the Apostles (and their companions) by Christ and the Holy Spirit. These traditions would cover a wide range of teaching and instruction, as evidenced from Paul’s letters.

1 Cor 13:2

“…and if I hold (the ability) of foretelling [i.e. prophecy] and see [i.e. know] all secrets and all knowledge, and if I hold all the trust (in God) so as to set apart mountains, but I do not hold love, I am nothing.”

Here “secrets” (musth/ria) is used in a generic sense, one must assume, for any kind of special, hidden knowledge or revelation. However, it is possible that Paul also has the use of the plural from 4:1 in mind as well (cf. above). This would not be inconsistent—even if he means the “secrets” of Christ and the Gospel, these still would be subordinated to the principle of love. The “love-principle” (or “love commandment”) is central to early Christian thought and belief, attested in several different strands of tradition. It goes back, of course, to Jesus’ teaching as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 12:28-34; Matt 5:43-47; 7:12 etc, and pars), and, under that influence, came to be seen as a summation and encapsulation of the entire Law under Christ (James 2:8-13; Gal 5:13-14; 6:2; Rom 13:9-10, etc). Even the greatest of the spiritual gifts (cf. 1 Cor 12) pale beside the principle of Christian love—which might fairly be called the greatest “secret” of the Gospel.

1 Cor 14:2

“The one speaking in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God—for no one hears [i.e. understands], and he speaks secrets in (the) Spirit”

Here Paul uses the plural “secrets” in reference to the phenomenon of speaking in an (unknown/foreign) “tongue”. The wording used here in 1 Corinthians suggests that, unlike the references in the book of Acts, this does not so much mean a foreign language as a kind of special spiritual or prayer language. The hidden things (“secrets”) which are communicated through this language are tied to the work of the Spirit (cf. above on the discussion in 1 Cor 2:6-16).

1 Cor 15:51

“See, I relate a secret to you—we all will not be (left) sleeping, but we all will be made different…”

This is the culmination of the famous chapter on the resurrection in 1 Cor 15, beginning with the tradition of Jesus’ own resurrection (vv. 1-11), and an exposition of the promise that believers will be raised according to the same pattern, by way of our union with Christ (vv. 12-34). In verses 35-49, this argument is developed further and addresses the nature and character of the resurrection. Paul is probably the first—and one of the only—Christian writers to attempt something of an explanation of what actually happens in the resurrection: that the physical (dead) body is transformed into a spiritual entity, just as in the case of Jesus. The Adam-Christ parallel (also used, famously, in Romans 5:12-21) suggests a new kind of transformed humanity, or human nature, that comes about as a result of being raised in Christ. The statement in verse 51 follows upon the declaration in the prior verse 50:

“And this I declare, brothers: that flesh and blood is not able to receive the kingdom of God as (its) lot, and the decaying [i.e. mortal] does not receive the undecaying [i.e. immortal] as (its) lot.”

This is the immediate context of the “secret” of the resurrection in vv. 51ff—the moment at which believers enter/inherit the kingdom of God. This is vividly and dramatically described in verses 52-54a, climaxing with the (composite) Scripture citation (from Isa 25:8 and Hos 13:14). It is important to note the juxtaposition in vv. 50-51 of the “kingdom of God” (basilei/a [tou=] qeou=) and the “secret” (musth/rion), as these are precisely the components of the expression (“secret of the kingdom of God”) used by Jesus in Mark 4:11 par. In an earlier note, I discussed how this “secret” related to the death and resurrection of Jesus; here in 1 Corinthians, Paul extends this to the resurrection of all believers in our union with Christ. It is no coincidence that his entire line of argument in chapter 15 concludes with the words: “…through [dia/] our Lord Yeshua (the) Anointed {Jesus Christ}” (v. 57).

NOTE: The idea of “secrets” in Pauline usage certainly relates to special knowledge (cf. above on 1 Corinthians chap. 2), though always focused on the principal Gospel message of the death (and resurrection) of Jesus. However, the connection with knowledge (gnw=si$, gnœ¡sis) brings into view the difficult question of Gnosticism in relation to the New Testament and early Christianity. The views of Paul’s opponents in the letters, of certain believers at Corinth, and even of Paul himself, have variously been called “Gnostic” by commentators over the years. Much confusion surrounds the term. I have sought to clarify this, so far as I am able, in an article on Gnosticism which I have recently posted; it may be useful to consult it here, in light of Paul’s use of the word musth/rion.

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 6

Psalm 6

The superscription to this Psalm follows the common format we have seen for most of the Davidic compositions (romz+m!). As with Psalm 4, the note here is that it is to be played on stringed instrument(s) (the presumed meaning of hn`yg]n+). There is an additional musical instruction, tyn]ym!V=h^-lu^ (something like “upon the eight[h]”), the meaning of which remains uncertain. Possibly it indicates something akin to a musical key or mode, or perhaps a voice range (i.e. upper/lower, cf. 1 Chron 15:21); either way, it relates to a particular performing tradition. The same direction is given for Psalm 12.

The conceptual structure of the Psalm is as a petition or prayer to YHWH; I would outline it as follows:

    • Initial address/plea to YHWH (vv. 2-4 [1-3])
    • The basis/reason for the Psalmist’s prayer (vv. 5-8 [4-7])
      —Facing death: plea for rescue/deliverance (vv. 5-6)
      —The sign of his suffering: weeping/sorrow (vv. 7-8)
    • Declaration that YHWH has heard his petition (vv. 9-11 [8-10])

The Psalm generally utilizes a 3-beat (3+3) bicolon format throughout, though there are a few places where it alters or is inconsistent (mixed meter). As always, there are serious questions as to whether, or to what extent, the text as it has come down to us ought to be emended to achieve greater metrical consistency.

Verses 2-4 [1-3]

Here the Psalmist addresses YHWH, with these lines (3 bicola, 6 lines) forming the invocation and essential petition:

YHWH, do not judge me with your nostrils,
and do not punish me with your hot (breath)!
Show favor to me YHWH, for I am withering,
heal me YHWH, for my bones are made to tremble;
even my soul is made to tremble (in fear)!
And you, YHWH—until when (will you help)?

The first and third bicola both have 3-beat (3+3) lines; the dual occurrence of the divine name (hwhy, YHWH) in the second bicolon expands the meter to 4-beat (4+4) lines, which has led some commentators to suggest that either (or both) occurrences of the name perhaps should be omitted as secondary. However, the repeated use of the divine name (including twice in the second bicolon) conveys the desperation and despair of the Psalmist, and serves as an effective poetic device. The first two bicola make use of synonymous parallelism, and expresses two different aspects of the suffering the protagonist faces, apparently in the form of some kind of serious disease. In the first couplet, where the parallelism is precise, the idea is clearly expressed that this suffering is the result of YHWH’s anger, according to the basic ancient worldview (much less common today) that disease, etc, is often brought about by divine displeasure or anger. Transposing the Hebrew word order to match our English (left-to-right):

do not
with your nostril(s)
judge me
do not
with your hot (breath)
punish me

Both the nouns [a^ (lit. “nose, nostril”) and hm*j@ (“heat”) are common figurative ways of expressing the idea of anger. Presumably, the ancient idiom involves the image of a powerful animal (such as a bull) snorting out hot breath. The verbs jk^y` and rs^y`, here translated “judge…punish”, could also be rendered “rebuke…chasten” or “correct…discipline”, giving a much softer sense to the imagery. However, there can be no doubt of the severity involved—YHWH’s rebuke, even if it is meant to discipline or correct the Psalmist, still results in immense suffering.

There is similar parallelism in the second bicolon, the second line of which is picked up in the third bicolon—a kind of step-parallelism that leads to the climactic cry of the final line. The central bicolon of verse 3 [2], with the dual occurrence of the divine name, represents the actual petition of the Psalm, stated clearly, reinforced by synonymous parallelism:

Show favor to me YHWH, for I am withering,
heal me YHWH, for my bones are made to tremble

It is interesting to see how this poetic style allows for the intensity of the thought to build. In the first line, the Psalmist refers to himself generally, with the emphatic use of the pronoun “I” (yn]a*)—”I (am) withering [ll^m=a%]”. The root lma has the basic meaning of “be(come) weak”; the phrase could also be translated “I am exhausted“. The verb lh^B*, in the passive-reflexive, has the sense of “being terrified, frightened”, i.e. trembling with fear/terror. The step parallelism in the overlap of lines 4 and 5 is clear and striking; the Psalmist’s own person (“I”) is now divided into two comprehensive components: (1) his bodily strength (<x#u#, in the plural and usually translated “bones”), and (2) his soul (vp#n#), i.e. the life within his body. So severe is the Psalmist’s suffering that even his soul (his very life) trembles along with his body.

The final despairing question, the outcry of the Psalmist is terse and direct, and is aimed squarely at God: “And you, YHWH—until when [yt*m*-du^]?”. Readable English requires that the line be filled out, i.e. “until when (will you help)”, “how long (must I wait)”, etc.

Verses 5-8 [4-7]

As indicated in the outline above, the heart of the Psalm represents an exposition of the petition in verse 3, describing the suffering and despair of the Psalmist—i.e. the reason for his prayer, and the need for YHWH to act—from two points of view. The first involves the idea that the Psalmist, in his suffering (from disease?), is in danger of death. Above all else, death would separate him from the relationship with YHWH, who is the giver and preserver of life. This destruction of the covenant bond (through death) is emphasized in these lines:

Turn (to me), YHWH, take away my soul—
make me safe for the sake of your goodness!
For in death there is no memory of you;
in Sheol who gives out (praise) to you?

When the Psalmist asks YHWH to “take away” (vb. Jl^j*) his soul, this must understood in the sense of “pulling it away” from the point of death, or “snatching it away” from the jaws of death. The verb uv^y` in the Hiphil here expresses the other side of this deliverance—having pulled his soul away from death, YHWH is to “make it safe”, “bring it to safety”, i.e. saving/preserving it. Implicit in the expression “for the sake of your goodness” (;D#s=j^ /u^m^l=) is the idea of covenant loyalty between YHWH and His people, those who have themselves remained faithful to the covenant. In other words, it is a reminder of this bond and the responsibilities of YHWH to protect those loyal to him.

One must be cautious about reading two much into verse 6 regarding Israelite views of an afterlife (or lack thereof). However, generally in the Ancient Near East, the realm of death (i.e. where the dead reside, Job 30:23; Prov 5:5; 7:27, etc) was seen as a dark, shadowy place, and those who dwelt there had only a limited sort of existence. This is the basic idea expressed here in the Psalm. On the term loav= (š®°ôl, Sheol), which occurs here for the first time in the Psalter, I discuss the significance of it briefly in a supplemental article.

In the remaining two bicola (vv. 7-8), the imagery shifts to the sign of the Psalmist’s suffering, expressed in terms of weeping, crying, groaning, etc. The meter and organization of the Psalm as we have it suggests that the first two words of verse 7 represent a partial line, which, if correct as it stands, likely represents a point of transition from vv. 5-6:

I gasp (weary) with my groaning
in all (the) night my (place) of stretching swims,
with my teardrops I dissolve the frame of my (bed);
my eye is worn (away) from (this) agitation,
it is passing (away) with all (that is) pressing me.

Leaving out the initial two words, vv. 7-8 are a pair of 3+3 bicola, using synonymous parallelism to express the Psalmist’s suffering. The first bicolon makes for a bit of colorful hyperbole—he is weeping so much that his couch/bed is drowning (and dissolving!) in the sea of tears. This idiom, of weeping upon one’s bed, is known both in the Old Testament (Ps. 4:6; Gen 43:30) and Canaanite literature of the period (Kirta I, col. 1:28-30).

The second bicolon describes the effect of this weeping/sorrow on the Psalmist’s eyes (and his entire body) using two verbs, vv^u* and qt^u*, which produce a nice alliterative effect. The former verb has the basic meaning of being worn (or wasting) away; the latter verb the idea of passing away, here in the sense of growing old, approaching death, etc. Most likely there is a conceptual parallel between the prepositional phrases su^K^m! and yr*r=ox-lk*B=. The root suk carries the basic idea of something agitating, disturbing, provoking, etc; the common root rrx similarly of something tight, pressing in, creating stress, etc. Thus the phrases “from (this) agitation” and “with all (the thing)s pressing (on) me” would both refer to the suffering and distress experienced by the Psalmist. However, it should be noted that Dahood, in his commentary (p. 38), reads the second line differently, parsing MT lk as a verbal form (“complete, finish”) and understanding yrrx in the sense of “inner (organ)s” (cf. Akkadian ƒurru, Ugaritic ƒrrt). According to this interpretation, the bicolon would exhibit a different sort of parallelism, something like:

my eye is worn (away) from (this) agitation,
my heart [i.e. inner organ] is made old with wearying.

This reading, however, ignores both the formal parallelism of the line and the foreshadowing that would result between “the (thing)s pressing on me” and the oppressors/opponents mentioned in vv. 9ff.

Verses 9-11 [8-10]

The final 3 bicola form the conclusion to the Psalm, expressing the hope (and expectation) that YHWH will answer the Psalmist’s prayer, and heal/deliver him. The meter is mixed here, but could be made more consistent, to a 3+3 and/or 4+3 format with slight emendation. The sudden reference to “trouble-makers” and “enemies” seems rather out of place in the context of vv. 2-8, but may be an indication that the apparent setting of suffering due to physical disease should not be taken too concretely, but rather as a more general symbol of suffering and distress. There is also the very strong possibility—even likelihood—that the imprecation against the wicked is meant to demonstrate and confirm the Psalmist’s righteous loyalty to YHWH (for more on this, cf. the prior study on Psalm 5).

Turn (away) from me, all (you) making trouble!
for YHWH has heard the voice of my weeping—
YHWH has heard my (plea for His) favor,
YHWH (has) received my petition (to Him).
Let all (those) hostile (to) me find much disgrace and terror,
let them turn (away), finding disgrace and sudden (destruction)!

The language is difficult, and, to some extent, rather obscure. Given the metrical consistency and awkwardness, it is possible that the text is corrupt here at one or more points. In particular, the sense of the final bicolon (v. 11) is a bit unclear. Some commentators would omit the second Wbv)y@ (“let them find disgrace”) as a scribal duplication; however, in spite of the metrical tension, it gives an effective emphasis to the imprecation in these lines. The verb lhb was translated as “tremble (i.e. from fear/terror)” in vv. 3-4; here it seems better to render it in terms of the actual terror that the wicked will experience. It is possible that the verb bWv (“turn”, essentially synonymous with rWs in v. 9) in the final line could be understood as “return”, in the sense of humankind returning to the earth (i.e. the grave), as in Job 1:21; 30:23; 34:15; Eccl 3:20f; 12:7, etc (cf. Dahood, p. 39).

The final word is difficult, and may be intended to close the Psalm on a harsh and discordant note (as appropriate for the fate of the wicked). There are three different ugr roots attested in Hebrew, and the relationship between them is not entirely clear. Here ugr is usually understood as a noun (but with adverbial force) with the basic meaning “(in) a moment”, i.e. “suddenly, at once”. However, there appears to be a traditional association of ugr with death and destruction (e.g., Num 16:21; Job 21:13; 26:12; Psalm 73:19). Dahood (p. 39) goes so far as to see the noun ugr (ug^r#?) here as a synonym for the place of death itself (i.e. Sheol), based on formal parallels with Ps 9:18 [17] and 31:18 [17]:

“Let the wicked turn (away) [WbWvy`] into Sheol” [9:18]
“Let the wicked find disgrace [Wbv)y@], let them … into Sheol” [31:18]

I have tried to capture this close association between ugr and death/Sheol parenthetically in my translation above: “…finding disgrace and sudden (destruction)”.

References marked “Dahood” above are to Mitchell Dahood, S. J., Psalms I: 1-50, Anchor Bible [AB] Vol. 16 (1965).