Month: July 2023

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 77 (Part 2)

Psalm 77, continued

PART 2: Verses 12-21 [11-20]

Strophe 4: Verses 11-13
Verse 11 [10]

“And I said ‘My sickness—(is) it (due to)
(the) changing right hand of (the) Highest?'”

Thematically, verse 11 [10] belongs to the first half of the Psalm (on which, cf. the previous study); however, poetically, according to the five-strophe arrangement (proposed by B. Weber, and followed by Hossfeld-Zenger [pp. 273-6]), it can be counted as the first couplet of the fourth strophe (vv. 11-13).

It is possible to treat verse 11 as either another question (continuing those of the previous strophe), or as a declarative statement by the Psalmist. The context (though not necessarily the syntax) suggests another fearful question, and that is how I translate it above.

The root hlj (I) denotes being weak or sick. The Psalmist describes how he became worn-out physically during his night-time vigil (strophe 2, vv. 5-7), during which time he has meditated and prayed fervently to God—with apparently no answer given (strophe 3, vv. 8-10). The moment is also characterized as a “day of distress” (v. 3) for the Psalmist; this can refer to individual suffering, but it is likely that the protagonist also is meant to represent the people as a whole. Thus, the “sickness” he feels also refers to the condition of the people (of Israel/Judah), perhaps alluding to an Exilic setting.

The “right hand” (/ym!y`) is an idiom for strength and power—and, particularly, the ability to act. When applied to YHWH, it typically connotes His ability to save His people from danger and distress; cf. especially in the Song of the Sea (Exod 15:6, 12), and similarly in Deut 33:2; note the usage in the Psalms (17:7; 18:36[35]; 20:7[6]; 44:4[3]; 60:7[5]; 78:54, etc. Probably the event at the Reed Sea is being alluded to specifically (cf. below on vv. 17-20).

The Psalmist’s fear is that YHWH’s strong right hand has “changed” (verbal noun from the root hn`v* I). This verb can sometimes connote “growing old”, with the associated attributes of weakness and withering, etc. If God has chosen (for some reason) not to act, that is one thing, but what if He is now unable to deliver His people? This is the unspoken question among the people, spurred by fear, frustration, and despair.

Verse 12 [11]

“I call to mind (the) dealings of YH(WH);
indeed, I bring to mind your wonders from before.”

The Psalmist responds to the question of fear in v. 11—which, again, thematically marks the climax of the first part of the Psalm—with a hymn of praise to YHWH. The shift from speaking of YHWH (line 1), to addressing Him directly (line 2), is transitional, and makes somewhat more sense when v. 11 is read as the beginning of a strophe. The repetition of the verb rk^z` (“bring to mind, remember”) serves this transition; the verb occurred earlier in vv. 4, 7 (cf. the previous study), being something of keyword for the Psalm. The Kethib has a Hiphil (causative) form in line 1, while the Qere ‘corrects’ this as a Qal imperfect (to match the form in line 1); the Kethib reading is to be preferred as the more difficult, and thus more likely to have been modified by scribes. The Hiphil stem is appropriate for the Psalmist, who, through his composition, will cause YHWH’s deeds to be remembered; however, it also fits the dramatic scene, as the composer wishes to spur God to action by making Him remember what He has done for His people in the past.

The noun ll*u&m^ (from the root llu I), denotes a person’s dealing (i.e., how he deals) with another; specifically it refers here to how YHWH has dealt with His people (and their adversaries) in the past. In particular, the Psalmist has in mind the wonderful deeds (“wonder[s]”, collectively al#P#) God has performed—i.e., miracles, such as the event at the Reed Sea, by which He rescued and brought victory for His people. The word Hy` here is typically understood as the shorthand for the Divine name hwhy (YHWH, i.e., YH or Yah); however, Dahood (II, p. 229) would read it as a superlative (suffixed) element, Hy`-, attached to the noun (i.e., “[your] magnificent deeds”).

The expression <d#Q#m!, as in verse 6, indicates that the Psalmist is referring to things YHWH has done in the past—lit., “from (times) before”.

Verse 13 [12]

“So will I make mention of all your deeds,
and will compose on all your dealings.”

I treat the initial w-conjunction as emphatic (“so, indeed”), building upon the prior couplet. The verb hg`h* properly means something like “mutter”, even though it can be understood specifically as uttering something internally, within one’s heart/mind (i.e., “meditate”). The line is often translated that way here (“I meditate on your deeds”); however, the context suggests that the Psalmist is about to speak. I have rendered the verb loosely as “make mention”, building upon the idea of the Psalmist bringing God’s actions to mind (vb rk^z`) in the prior couplet.

The verb j^yc! in the second line can similarly be used both of audible communication and of something that one goes over in the heart/mind. The latter is probably more common, but here I think that audible communication is intended. In any case, the meaning of “going over” a set of words or facts is primary, and would also be appropriate for the Psalmist’s act of composing; I have translated the verb loosely above as “compose”. I.e., the Psalmist expresses here his intention (fulfilled in vv. 17-20) to compose a poem on YHWH’s mighty deeds from times past.

The supplemental character of this couplet is indicated by its shortened meter (3+2, or 2+2).

Strophe 5: Verses 14-16
Verse 14 [13]

“O Mightiest, your path (is) in the holy (place)—
who (is) a mighty (one) great like (the) Mightiest?”

Dahood (II, p. 230) is probably correct in understanding the noun Er#D# (“path[way]”) in the sense of “domain, dominion” (cp. in Ps 1:1 [I, p. 2])—i.e., the territory where the sovereign treads (ird) as representing his domain. YHWH’s domain (as King) is in the “holy (place)”, that is, the heavens high above; the noun vd#q) specifically refers to God’s dwelling—i.e., His holy palace, represented on earth by the Temple-shrine and its sanctuary. In Near Eastern cosmological tradition (cf. below), the Creator/Sovereign dwells on a great mountain that reaches up into the highest heaven.

The second line demonstrates the basic problem with translating both la@ (E~l) and <yh!ýa$ (E_lœhîm) equally (and flatly) as “God”. Here it results in a translation (“Who [is] a god great like God?”) that Dahood (II, p. 230) rightly calls “insipid”. This all changes, however, when one properly retains the distinction between the old singular form la@ (“Mighty [one]”) and the plural <yh!ýa$ (“Mighty [ones]”), treating the latter as an intensive/superlative (or comprehensive) plural (“Mightiest [One]”). Now, the character of the line as a confession of Israelite (Yahwistic) monotheism becomes clear: “Who (is) a mighty (one) [i.e. a god] (who is great) like (the) Mightiest [i.e., our God El-Yahweh]?”

Verse 15 [14]

“You, the Mighty (One) doing wonder(s),
you make known your strength among the peoples!”

Indeed, YHWH is the only true God (Mighty [One], la@), Creator and Sovereign of the universe, unsurpassed in greatness and strength. For poetic concision, I have translated the perfect verb form in the second line “you make known,” but it should properly be rendered “you have made known”. By the wonders YHWH has performed on behalf of His people (in the past), he has made known His strength (zu)) among all the surrounding peoples. The use of a participle (hc@u), “doing”) in the first line indicates that the performance of “wonders” is part of YHWH’s character; He is able to do such things on a regular basis, so there is no reason why He cannot can act again, now, and perform wonders once more on behalf of His people.

Verse 16 [15]

“You redeemed, with your arm, your people,
(the) sons of Ya’aqob and Yôsep.”
Selah

The wondrous deeds performed by YHWH in the past served to redeem (vb la^G`) the Israelite people, freeing them from servitude to a foreign nation (e.g., Egypt). Indeed, the Exodus from Egypt is primarily in view, with the specific mention of the “sons of Jacob and Joseph” —i.e., the Israelites who came out of Egypt. This reference sets the stage for the poem in vv. 17-20, with its echoes of the Song of the Sea (Exod 15), alluding to the event at the Reed Sea.

Cosmological Poem: Verses 17-20

This brief poem (or portion of a poem) has been inserted into the fabric of the Psalm. It is presented as the work of the Psalmist, but it may represent an older poem, with similarities in theme and structure to the ancient Song of the Sea (or Song of Moses, Exod 15); cf. also Habakkuk 3:10ff. Of course, the Psalmist could simply have written a poem in an archaic style, imitating older poems (like the Song of the Sea or Psalm 18, 29, etc).

This poem has a three-beat (3+3+3) tricolon format, while the rest of the Psalm tends to follow a bicolon (couplet) pattern. The poem’s emphasis is cosmological, referring to the subduing of the primeval waters by YHWH (on which, cf. my article in the Ancient Parallels feature on this site). As in the Song of the Sea, this cosmological motif is applied to the history of Israel—esp. to the Exodus and the event at the Reed Sea. YHWH demonstrates his control over the waters, by separating the waters of the Sea, and allowing His people to cross over and escape from Egypt.

Verse 17 [16]

“The waters saw you, O Mightiest,
the waters saw you and swirled—
even (the) depths shook (with fear)!”

These lines allude to YHWH’s subduing of the primeval waters at the beginning of Creation (Gen 1:2); on this cosmological mythic theme, applied to El-Yawheh in ancient Hebrew poetry, cf. my aforementioned article (“Conflict with the Sea in Ancient Near Eastern Myth”). The primary reference here, however, is to the control and power YHWH has over the waters. The waters themselves recognize this power, and acknowledge YHWH as their Lord, responding with fear at the sight of Him. The verb lWj in the second line has a double meaning; fundamentally, it means that the waters “swirled”, but the verb can also connote “twisting” or “writhing” (i.e., in anguish, etc), which would be more fitting to the theme of the waters showing fear. Cf. Psalm 114:3 and Hab 3:10.

Verse 18 [17]

“(The) dark clouds poured forth waters,
(the) fine clouds gave (forth your) voice—
and your arrows went back and forth.”

The theme of YHWH’s control over the waters continues here, shifting the focus to the rain that comes down out of the clouds, accompanied by the phenomena of the storm: thunder (line 2) and lightning (line 3). The Near Eastern storm-theophany is applied to El-YHWH with some frequency in ancient Hebrew poetry (including a number of Psalms, e.g. 18); the similarities with Canaanite Baal-Haddu in this regard helps to explain the fierce ‘rivalry’ between YHWH and Baal, at the religious level, in early Israelite history.

Thunder is frequently denoted by the word loq (“voice”)—i.e., as the “voice” of God; similarly, bolts of lightning are depicted as God’s “arrows” being shot back and forth. The ancient storm-theophany typically has a militaristic context, and especially so when applied to El-YHWH in the Old Testament. To some extent, as noted above, this motif of God as a warrior reflects the cosmological myth of the Creator defeating (subduing) the chaotic primeval waters, and thus allowing an ordered universe (capable of sustaining life) to be established.

The third line of this tricolon, like that of v. 17, begins with the particle [a^, a primitive adverbial/conjunctive particle with emphatic force (“[so] also, even”); it is typically used in poetry, or in comparable poetic/ritual forms.

Verse 19 [18]

“(The) voice of your thunder in the rolling (cloud)s,
(your) lightning-flashes light up (the) world,
(and so) the earth shakes and quakes!”

The power of the storm, and thus of the storm theophany (as applied to YHWH), is vividly expressed in this third tricolon. Here the “voice” (loq) of YHWH (v. 18) is explicitly identified as thunder (<u^r^). Earlier, it was stated that the waters shook in fear at the sight of YHWH; now the entire earth below shakes/quakes in fear at the awesome power of YHWH that is expressed through the rainstorm.

Verse 20 [19]

“On the sea, <Mightiest,> (is) your path,
and your passage-ways on mighty waters,
and (yet) your heel(print)s are not seen!”

The expression of YHWH’s power/control over the waters culminates here with the idea of his treading upon (B=) the waters. The preposition B= could also be rendered “in”, and this meaning is probably intended, at least secondarily, as an allusion to the Exodus event at the Reed Sea, when God led His people “through” (i.e., in) the waters of the Sea. However, it would seem that the principal reference here is to YHWH’s dominion over the waters, illustrated by the path(way)s he walks over/upon them. Yet, in spite of this anthropomorphic imagery, God leaves no “heel-marks” (i.e., footprints) in the surface of the water. His presence is invisible; we can only see the effects of His powerful presence and the control he has over the universe (esp. the rain and storm).

The first line (of the MT) has only two words/beats, in utter contrast to the rest of the poem. It thus seems relatively certain that something has dropped out, and a word is missing. The simplest solution is to propose that an occurrence of <yh!l)a$ (“Mightiest [One],” i.e., God) has somehow been omitted.

For more on the use of the noun Er#D# (“path[way]”), in the sense of “domain, dominion”, see the note on verse 14 above.

Conclusion: Verse 21 [20]

“May you lead, like the flock, your people,
by (the) hand of Moshe and Aharon!”

The Psalm concludes with this 3+3 couplet, returning to the regular meter of the composition. In a sense, the couplet follows upon verse 16, resuming the line of thought from strophe 5 (cf. above), after the intervening poem of vv. 17-20. If the verb form is read as a typical indicative perfect, then the couplet simply concludes the recitation of YHWH’s past action on behalf of His people—i.e., “You led your people like a flock…”. However, given the prayer-lament emphasis of the Psalm as a whole, a precative perfect seems more fitting as a conclusion (as Dahood, II, p. 233, suggests). That is, the Psalmist states his heartfelt wish for what YHWH will do, expressing it in terms of something that has already happened. A more literal (but very cumbersome) translation would thus be: “(O, that) you (would) have led your people (again) like a flock…!”.

The wish is that YHWH will lead his people out of bondage/distress, just as He did in the time of the Exodus (“by the hand of Moses and Aaron”). This suggests an Exilic setting for the Psalm—viz., God will lead His people out of the (Assyrian/Babylonian) Exile, essentially repeating what He did in the Exodus from Egypt. This is an important theme, for example, in the Deutero-Isaian poems, where the idea of a new Moses also seems to be implied. This Moses-symbolism, accompanied by an application of the prophecy in Deut 18:15-19, helped shaped the eschatological expectation of the “Prophet-like-Moses” who is to come. For more on the Messianic Prophet figure-types, cf. Parts 2 and 3 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”.

References marked “Dahood, I” and “Dahood, II” above are to, respectively, Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Psalms I: 1-50, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 16 (1965), and Psalms II: 51-100, vol. 17 (1968).
Those marked “Hossfeld-Zenger” are to Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51-100, translated from the German by Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia Commentary series (Fortress Press: 2005).

Spiritualism and the Opponents in 1 John (Pt 2)

Having summarized (in Part 1) my understanding of the evidence regarding both the opponents in 1-2 John and of the Johannine spiritualism, I will now attempt to bring together the results of my analysis, synthesizing it, to see in what ways the opponents (and the conflict surrounding them) may relate to this spiritualism.

Spiritualism and the Opponents: Synthesizing the Evidence

I will present three specific lines of interpretation, expounding and arguing them as far as the evidence may allow:

    1. The priority of the Spirit in teaching/guiding believers
    2. The abiding presence of Jesus through the Spirit, and
    3. Spiritualistic aspects of the Johannine Christology (i.e., regarding the person of Christ)
1. The Priority of the Spirit in Teaching/Guiding Believers

The key evidence for this particular aspect of Johannine spiritualism is: (a) the Paraclete-sayings in the Gospel (14:16-17, 25-26; 15:26-27; 16:7b-15), and (b) the xri=sma-statements in 1 Jn 2:20, 27. These statements emphasize the role of the Spirit in teaching and guiding believers. This role is suggested by the very title “Spirit of truth” (Jn 14:17; 15:26; 16:12; 1 Jn 4:6, cf. also 5:6), obviously implying the truthfulness of the Spirit’s teaching and witness, but even more particularly by the promises in 14:26 and 16:13:

    • “that (one) [i.e. the Spirit/Paraclete] will teach you all (thing)s”
    • “when that (one) should come…he will lead you on the way in all truth”

In 1 John 2:20f, 27, the “anointing” (xri=sma) that abides/remains in the believer functions in much the same way:

“…you hold (the) anointing from the Holy (One), and you have seen [i.e. known] all (thing)s” (v. 20)
“…the anointing that you received from Him remains in you, and you do not have (any) need that any(one) should teach you…the anointing teaches you about all (thing)s” (v. 27)

The term xri=sma (“anointing”) here is best understood as a reference to the abiding presence of the Spirit, as I discuss in the article on this passage.

The opponents almost certainly shared this Johannine belief with the author of 1 John (and with the Community at large). If so, then it is fair to assume that the opponents, who would have regarded themselves as true believers, understood that they possessed God’s Spirit, and that the Spirit was the primary (and sufficient) source for Divine teaching and instruction. Moreover, they presumably believed also that Jesus (the Son) was himself teaching them through the Spirit (see esp. Jn 16:12-15).

On this basis, with the presumption that the Spirit of Truth (and Jesus through the Spirit) would not (and could not) teach them anything false, the opponents likely regarded their Christology, their understanding of Jesus Christ, to be true, confirmed by the internal witness of the Spirit.

The problem, then, for the Johannine Community, which apparently was experiencing a significant Christological division, was how to reconcile two contrasting (and opposing) views of Jesus with the one Spirit of truth. Significantly, the author does not deny the primacy of the Spirit as the guiding (and authoritative) source of truth, though this might have been useful as a way of combating the opponents. Instead of relying, for example, upon a personal apostolic authority (the noun a)po/stolo$ is essentially absent from the Johannine writings [cf. Jn 13:16]), the author seems to maintain the priority of the abiding (internal) presence of the Spirit, which is available to all believers. I tend to take seriously the author’s statements in 2:20, 27 as representing fundamental declarations of Johannine belief, doubtless understood as a fulfillment of the ‘new covenant’ prophecy in Jer 31:31-34 (vv. 33-34). The same focus on the (internal) witness of the Spirit is found in 3:24 [par 4:13], 4:4, and 5:6-8.

How, then, does the author combat the opponents? He does this two ways. First, in addressing his readers, he effectively treats them as true believers, assuming that they will thus be in agreement with the Community (of true believers)—with whom he also identifies himself. The underlying assumption, thus, is that, as true believers, the readers can trust that the indwelling Spirit will convince them of the truth, and that they will accept the Christology of the author (as representing the view of the Community), rather than that of the opponents.

Along with this rhetorical strategy, the author adds the implicit test that the witness of the Spirit will affirm, and will not contradict, the established witness of the historical (Gospel) tradition—regarding the person and work of Jesus. The author introduces this theme at the very beginning of his treatise, in the prologue (1:1-4), and it continues to run as an underlying thread throughout. In particular, the reality (and significance) of Jesus’ earthly life (as a human being) is emphasized—especially his sacrificial death (i.e., his “blood”, 1:7; 5:6-8, cf. Jn 6:53-56; 19:30). I have previously noted how the opponents combated by Ignatius of Antioch (see esp. his letter to the Smyrneans) seem to have similarly denied/devalued Jesus’ death, and how they resemble the Johannine opponents in certain respects.

Ultimately, the author summarizes the Gospel tradition by way of a trio of Christological confessional statements—in 2:22-23; 4:2-3 [par 2 Jn 7]; 5:5-6f—which he presents as a litmus test to distinguish between the true believers and the opponents.

2. The Abiding Presence of Jesus through the Spirit

A fundamental component of the Johannine theology is that Jesus (God’s Son) abides/remains (vb me/nw) in and among believers through the Spirit. God the Father, present in the Son, also abides in believers (and believers in Him)—cf. 1 Jn 3:24; 4:13, etc. Thus, even after his departure/return to the Father (in heaven), Jesus continues to remain with believers, teaching and guiding them. This is the principal message of the Gospel Paraclete-sayings (14:16-17, 25-26; 15:26-27; 16:7b-15), and it can be inferred from the other Spirit-references in the Gospel as well.

As I discuss above, there is little reason to doubt that the opponents shared this Johannine belief with the author of 1 John (along with the wider Community). This may help to explain how they might come to devalue or relativize the significance of Jesus’ earthly life and ministry. After all, if he continues to remain with believers, continuing to teach and guide, then why should one place such importance on the things he said and did during the short span of his earthly ministry. Moreover, is not his presence in the Spirit greater that his limited presence in the flesh, as a matter of principle (cf. Jn 4:24; 6:63), far surpassing it in importance?

Again, the author does not in any way deny the fundamental Johannine belief—viz., of the Son’s abiding presence through the Spirit. However, as discussed above, he very much gives emphasis to Jesus’ earthly life (and death) as a human being. The idea of Jesus’ coming “in the flesh” (4:2f; 2 Jn 7) clearly refers to his life and existence as a (real) human being. Whether or not the opponents’ Christology was docetic, they do seem at least to have denied (or devalued) the significance of Jesus’ earthly life. Their denial, according to the author, was focused principally upon Jesus’ human death (“blood”)—its reality and/or importance. In my view, as I have discussed (cf. the article and supplemental notes), the confessional statement in 5:5-6ff informs the earlier ones in 4:2-3 and 2:22-23. In other words, the opponents’ false Christology (according to the author) was rooted in their understanding of his death.

One can see how a strongly spiritualistic view of Jesus (cf below) might tend to avoid emphasizing his death. After all, if “the flesh is not useful (for) anything” (Jn 6:63), how could this not include a person’s death in the flesh? By contrast, the author gives particular emphasis to Jesus’ death, especially in 5:6-8. This passage toward the end of the treatise is matched by the earlier reference in 1:7ff (cf. the earlier note), focusing on the cleansing power of Jesus’ blood. The implication is that this life-giving (and preserving/restoring) power is communicated to the believer through the Spirit. This idea is brought out more directly, it seems, by two passages in the Gospel: (1) the eucharistic language in 6:51-58, read in light of the statement of v. 63; and (2) the allusion to Jesus’ giving of the Spirit in 19:30 (also v. 34) at the moment of his death.

3. Spiritualistic Aspects of the Johannine Christology

It is reasonable to posit that the opponents’ view of Jesus Christ is rooted in the wider Johannine Christology, and represents a particular variation, or development, of it. As such, it is worth considering if there are any spiritualistic aspects of this Christology which may, in some respect, inform the opponents’ view. Here three lines of exploration will be considered briefly:

    1. Pre-existence Christology
    2. The Priority of the Spirit in the Gospel Narrative
    3. Jesus’ Role in the Outpouring of the Spirit
a. Pre-existence Christology

If, as would seem to be the case, the Gospel of John is representative of the Christology of the Johannine churches (when the Letters were written), then this was a pre-existence Christology—that is, characterized by a fundamental belief that identified Jesus Christ as the eternal (and pre-existent) Son of God, existing as such even prior to his earthly life. Once such a Christology had taken root throughout the Community, it created certain difficulties for the understanding of Jesus’ earthly life (as a human being). In particular, it became hard to explain Jesus’ death—indeed, how could the eternal Son of God die like any other ordinary human being?

Two relatively influential Christological trends—which are attested throughout the second and third centuries, but which likely originated sometime near the end of the first century—the Docetic and the Separatist, offered different explanations to navigate around this problem. In the various forms of the Docetic view, Jesus Christ only seemed (or appeared, vb doke/w) to be human, and thus only seemed to suffer an ordinary human death. Alternately, according to the Separationist view, the Divine Son/Christ and the man Jesus were two separate entities, who were joined together at the baptism and then separated at the moment of his death; this can be represented by the coming and departure of the Spirit, respectively (cf. Jn 1:26, 33; 19:30, [34]). Based on the evidence from the Ignatian letters (cf. throughout Smyrneans, also Trallians 10, etc), it is quite possible that the Johannine opponents held a rudimentary docetic view of Jesus, though a separationist view would accord better with the Johannine Gospel itself (cf. below).

The consequences of a pre-existence Christology to the Johannine spiritualism may be even more fundamental. One practical result of this Christology is to shift the focus from Jesus’ human nature to his Divine nature as Spirit (Jn 4:24); the Son receives the fullness of the Father’s Spirit (3:34-35). This is not simply the product of Jesus’ resurrection/exaltation (cp. 1 Cor 15:45; 6:17), it is intrinsic to his eternal identity as the Son (and he returns to it after the resurrection, Jn 17:1-5, etc). Thus the essential spiritual nature of Jesus may be seen as an important component of the Johannine Christology, even though (admittedly) this aspect is not particularly developed in the writings. It would, however, imply that the presence of Jesus (in believers) through the Spirit is the principal way that believers understand and experience him. The Gospel record of Jesus’ limited earthly life (and death), by comparison, could be seen as of only secondary importance. Possibly the opponents’ denial of Jesus Christ “having come in the flesh” is rooted in this basic Christological preference for Jesus as Spirit, rather than as flesh (cf. Jn 6:63).

b. The Priority of the Spirit in the Gospel Narrative

References to the Spirit frame the Johannine Gospel narrative, with the Spirit coming upon Jesus at the beginning of his ministry (1:32-34), and then being released (by Jesus) at the end (19:30, [34]; 20:22). The emphasis on Jesus ‘baptizing’ people in the Spirit (i.e., living water [cf. 4:10-15; 7:37-39], instead of with ordinary water), following the tradition of the Baptist’s saying (1:26, 33; cp. Mark 1:8 par), is a theme that dominates chapters 1-3. The statements about being born of the Spirit (instead of an ordinary human birth [out of ordinary water]) in 3:3-8 (cp. 1:12-13) is part of this thematic development. In the following Discourses of chaps. 4-8, the idea of Jesus giving the Spirit—through the idiom of giving living water/bread—also features as an important theme (cf. 4:10-15, 32ff; 6:35ff, 48ff, 51-58, 63; 7:37-39). Finally, the promise of the Spirit, as the abiding presence of Jesus the Son (and God the Father) with believers, is central to the Last Discourse (particularly in the Paraclete-sayings, 14:16-17, 25-26; 15:26-27; 16:7b-15), and is also alluded to in the chap. 17 Prayer-Discourse.

All of these theological (and Christological) points of reference strongly suggest that believers experience the presence and power of Jesus Christ (the Son of God) primarily, and directly, through the indwelling Spirit. This spiritual primacy of believers’ relationship with God (the Father, and Jesus the Son) is an essential component of Christian spiritualism. It would very much seem to reflect the understanding of the Spirit within the Johannine Community, and likely was influential in shaping the views of the opponents as well.

c. Jesus’ Role in the Outpouring of the Spirit

The Gospel references related to Jesus’ giving the Spirit are documented in section (b.) above, including the idiom of baptizing people in/with the Spirit and the motif of living water—both of which involve the image of pouring out water. There can be no doubt as to the eschatological significance of this imagery, drawn as it is from Old Testament (Prophetic) tradition regarding the pouring out of God’s Spirit upon His people in the New Age of Israel’s restoration (see the passages cited, with links to detailed notes, in the Introduction to this series). The end-time outpouring of the Spirit upon God’s people (believers) is ushered in by the work of Jesus the Anointed One (Messiah/Christ), culminating in his death, resurrection, and exaltation.

The Johannine churches shared this basic belief with all other early Christians. However, the particular emphasis on the Spirit—and on Jesus giving the Spirit to believers—has a special prominence in the Johannine tradition (and its Gospel, cf. above). It may be said that, for most Johannine Christians, the primary role of Jesus—and the purpose of his incarnate mission on earth—was as the giver of God’s Spirit to His people. Though Jesus (the Son) possessed the fullness of God the Father’s Spirit (cf. above), his giving of the Spirit to believers was made possible only after the fulfillment of his earthly mission—culminating in his sacrificial death. This would seem to be expressed clearly enough in the Gospel, and yet the opponents apparently did not recognize the significance of Jesus’ death in this regard. Even if they acknowledged the reality of his human death, they may have denied its importance (and salvific power).

How does this relate to Johannine spiritualism? It is possible that the opponents held that the Spirit was communicated to believers by Jesus apart from his death. This is one way of understanding the significance of the author’s distinction between Jesus’ coming “in/through water” and “in/through blood” (1 Jn 5:6ff). If “water” here refers to Jesus’ baptism, then this was the moment when the Spirit came upon Jesus. Typically early Christians saw a believer’s baptism as the moment when, similarly, the believer received the Spirit (from Jesus). Thus, it is the baptism that holds the significance for receiving the Spirit, not Jesus’ death (“blood”). Again, it is possible that this way of thinking informed, to some extent, the opponents’ view. I am more inclined to think that “in/through water” refers rather to Jesus’ birth as a human being (and “in/through blood” to his death), but I will admit that the water-baptism connection represents a plausible interpretation that must be seriously considered.

Some final thoughts regarding the opponents, and their relation to Johannine spiritualism, will be given in the conclusion to the studies (in this series) on the Johannine writings.

Spiritualism and the Opponents in 1 John (Pt 1)

Having discussed the Johannine ‘opponents’ targeted by the author in 1-2 John, throughout these recent notes and articles, it is now time to consider the possible relationship of these opponents to the Johannine spiritualism, such as it may be discerned in the Johannine writings. It will be helpful first (here in Part 1) to summarize both the views of the opponents and the spiritualistic tendencies of the Johannine Christians (as evidenced by the Gospel and First Letter). Then the data will be applied and synthesized (Part 2), to see what conclusions we might draw.

For a more detailed examination and appraisal of the evidence referenced below, consult the various notes and articles, some of which are cited (with links) below.

The Opponents

In this context, the term “opponents” refers to certain Johannine Christians, whom the author of 1 and 2 John opposes, and whom he regards as false believers. He certainly considers them to be in opposition to the truth—and even to God Himself—calling them by the term a)nti/xristo$ (“against the Anointed”, i.e. antichrist), see 1 Jn 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 Jn 7. Through their false view of Jesus Christ, they effectively deny the Son of God, thus denying the God the Father as well (1 Jn 2:22-23).

What we can reasonably know (and reconstruct) about the opponents is summarized by the following points. The information comes entirely from the author(s) of 1 and 2 John, and must be judged as having been presented from the standpoint of a hostile witness. Here is what I believe can be established regarding the opponents:

    • The author has in mind a single and distinct group of Christians.
    • They are/were part of the wider Johannine Community—that is, the congregations within which the Gospel and Letters of John were produced and distributed. This involves a (loose) network of churches over a geographical area; if the traditional location turns out to be correct, this is the region of Asia (Minor), centered around Ephesus.
    • The author treats this group as having separated from the main Community (1 Jn 2:19; cf. also 4:1). This is often regarded as a genuine secession and schism within the Johannine churches—the first such recorded in Church History.
    • It is likely that the opponents were engaged in their own missionary activity, spreading their views and beliefs throughout the network of Johannine congregations, presumably with the hope of converting other believers to their cause (cf. 1 Jn 2:26; 4:1ff; 2 Jn 7ff).
    • The author certainly regarded this missionary work as a dangerous rival to his own, urging his readers (in 2 Jn 8-11) not to support or give hospitality to the opponents; it is likely that the opponents did much the same, responding in a similar manner.
    • The author’s chief objection to the opponents involves their Christology, their view of the person of Jesus Christ, which the author references in 2:18-27; 4:1-6; 5:5-12, and 2 Jn 7ff.
    • The opponents almost certainly affirmed the fundamental Johannine confession (Jn 11:27; 20:31, etc)—viz., that Jesus is the Anointed One (Christ) and Son of God—in spite of the author’s polemical presentation of the matter. However, it is possible that they denied (the importance of) Jesus’ specific identity as the Jewish Messiah (cf. the supplemental notes on 1 Jn 2:22-23).
    • The opponents seem to have denied (or downplayed) the significance of Jesus’ earthly life as a human being. This may have centered on a rudimentary docetic Christology, effectively denying the incarnation of the Son/Logos of God and the reality of his human/earthly life (“in the flesh”); however, the extent of the opponents’ docetism (if such it may be called) remains unclear.
    • What the opponents principally denied (or downplayed) was the reality (and significance) of Jesus’ death. They may have accepted his birth as a human being (i.e., coming “in/through water”), but not his death (“in/through blood”). Alternately, “in/through water” could allude to Jesus’ baptism, focusing on his receiving of the Spirit from God.
    • The emphasis on the reality of Jesus’ sacrificial death would seem to be confirmed by the letters of Ignatius of Antioch (esp. to the Smyrneans); the opponents he combats resemble, in certain respects, the opponents in 1-2 John. The Ignatian ‘docetic’ opponents avoided partaking in the Lord’s Supper rite, apparently considering it to be of little or no importance. Cf. my discussion of the Ignatian evidence in an earlier note, and in the supplemental study on 1 Jn 4:2-3.
    • The author accuses the opponents of failing/refusing to show proper love to other believers (and thus violating the second branch of the great dual-command [1 Jn 3:23]). Their main crime, in this regard, simply involves their departure from the Community (2:19); however, based on 3:16-18, it is possible that the author also considered the opponents to have been neglectful of the material needs of other believers.
    • The claims of Christian sinlessness, which the author refutes in 1:7-2:2 (1:8, 10), may reflect the view of the opponents. If so, it can be difficult to discern the difference between their claims and the author’s own declarations regarding the ‘sinlessness’ of believers (cf. 3:9; 5:18). Cf. my recent discussion on this question.
Spiritualism

The evidence for spiritualism (or spiritualistic tendencies) in the Johannine writings has been discussed and analyzed extensively in the articles of this series. Here I will merely summarize the key results of this analysis.

The Johannine view of the Spirit, on the whole, represent a distinct development of the early Christian understanding. The first-century Christian view, in turn, was rooted in Old Testament tradition—particularly the Spirit references in the later (exilic and post-exilic) Prophetic books. For a list of the key references, with links to detailed notes, see the Introduction to this series. Two aspects of this Prophetic tradition are especially significant, presented in terms of two distinct (but related) ideas which characterize the New Age of Israel’s restoration:

    • God’s Spirit will come upon all of His people, rather than upon specially chosen/gifted individuals alone.
    • Through the abiding presence of the Spirit, God’s Law (Torah) will be written within each person, on the heart/mind; this will ensure that all people will faithfully fulfill the covenant and never again violate God’s Instruction. For this reason, essentially there is no longer any need for a written Torah (since is now ‘written on the heart’), nor for anyone to teach the people about the Torah (and how to observe it).

These are key principles that inform early Christian spiritualism, such as it can be discerned in the New Testament. The principles are applied to the person of Jesus Christ, identified as the Anointed One (Messiah) of the end-time. Through his presence and work on earth (culminating in his death, resurrection, and exaltation), Jesus has ushered in the New Age, in which God’s holy Spirit is poured out on His people (believers), in fulfillment of the Spirit-prophecies.

The Johannine spiritualism, it would seem, was shaped primarily by the Johannine Christology. Of the numerous distinctive points of emphasis, I would isolate three that are fundamental:

    • Jesus’ identity as the Son of God, with his unique relationship to God the Father; while this is common to the broader early Christology, it receives particular emphasis, reflecting a definite theological development, in the Johannine writings. Part of this development involves the shift to a pre-existence Christology, emphasizing Jesus’ existence as God’s Son (in heaven) even prior to his life on earth (see esp. the Gospel Prologue [1:1-18]).
    • Jesus (the Son) continues to remain with believers even after his return to the Father in heaven. His abiding presence (expressed primarily by the use of the verb me/nw) is realized for believers through the Spirit. The Johannine theological expression of this belief (and the basis for it) is best seen in the Paraclete-sayings of Jesus in the Gospel Last Discourse (cf. the detailed notes on 14:16-17, 26-27; 15:26-27; 16:7b-11, and 12-15).
    • Believers are regarded as the offspring (te/kna) or children of God; their/our relationship with God the Father is thus parallel with, and a continuation of, Jesus’ own relationship as God’s eternal Son. The main Johannine idiom used to express this dynamic is the verb of becoming (genna/w), in the specific sense of coming to be born, along with the preposition e)k (“out of, from”); sometimes the preposition alone is used, with the verb implied. This ‘birth’ for believers occurs through the Spirit, as is clear from the famous statements by Jesus in Jn 3:5-8.

All three of these points help to emphasize the priority of the Spirit, in a way that is distinctive to Johannine Christianity. In addition to the Paraclete-sayings, and the statements on being born of the Spirit in 3:5-8 (part of the Nicodemus Discourse), there are two other key passages in the Gospel which are indicative of spiritualism:

    • The Samaritan Woman Discourse (4:1-42), especially to the “living water” statements by Jesus in vv. 10-15, which, based on the parallel in 7:37-39, were certainly understood by the Gospel writer as referring to the Spirit. In addition, we find the statements in vv. 23-24, with their strong emphasis on the priority of the Spirit (cf. the earlier article).
    • The Bread of Life Discourse (6:22-59), which is followed by an exchange, between Jesus and his disciples (vv. 60-71), that includes the spiritualistic declaration of v. 63.

In both Discourses, Jesus speaks of his giving living water/bread for people to drink/eat. In each instance, the context clearly indicates the spiritual nature of what Jesus offers. In the case of the Bread of Life Discourse, it is himself that he offers, alluding to his own presence in believers, and the spiritual nature of this presence (i.e., through the Spirit). This is especially telling, considering the strong eucharistic language in vv. 51-58; a reading of vv. 51-58, in context, and in light of v. 63 (cf. the earlier article), suggests a spiritual interpretation of the Lord’s Supper rite. A non-sacramental understanding of the Supper tradition is very much characteristic of Christian spiritualism. I discuss this possibility of such spiritualistic tendencies, in regard to public worship and the sacraments, for the Johannine Community in an earlier note.

In First John, the Spirit is not explicitly mentioned (by the word pneu=ma) until 3:24, but the central (and climactic) position of this reference (cf. also 4:13) is most significant. It occurs at the very end of the central section of 1 John (2:28-3:24), dealing with the nature of the true believer (in contrast to the false believer, i.e., the opponents). The identity of the true believer is realized, and confirmed, by the abiding presence of the Spirit. Moreover, the three key Johannine points of emphasis, outlined above, can be found running (abundantly) all through the author’s work.

The other important references to the Spirit are found in the three trust-sections—2:18-27; 4:1-6; 5:5-12—that is, the sections dealing with the first branch of the great dual-command, the two-fold duty (e)ntolh/) required of all believers (3:23). The true believer has genuine (and correct) trust/faith in Jesus as the Anointed One and Son of God, while false believers (i.e., the opponents) do not. In all three of these passages it is stated (or indicated) that the internal presence of the Spirit confirms the true view of Jesus Christ held by the true believer. This is most explicit in 5:6-8, but is also alluded to in 2:20-21ff, 27 and 4:2, 4ff. The references in 2:20f and 27, in particular, seem to be reflective of Johannine spiritualism, emphasizing the priority (and sufficiency) of the Spirit, as a source of knowledge and teaching (and religious authority) for the believer. For more on this point, and on the interpretation of the noun xri=sma (“anointing”) as a reference to the Spirit, cf. the article on 2:18-27.

In Part 2, I will attempt to bring together the evidence assembled above, synthesizing the results, to see how the Johannine Spiritualism may relate, specifically, to the views of the opponents, and to the way that the author (of 1-2 John) addresses them.

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 77 (Part 1)

Psalm 77

Dead Sea MSS: 4QPse (v. 1); 11QPsb (vv. 18-21 [17-20])

This Psalm has a definite two-part structure. The first half (vv. 2-11) is a lament, in which the Psalmist makes his suffering and distress known to YHWH. In the second half (vv. 12-21), the author/protagonist shifts to praise of God, focusing on the mighty deeds performed by YHWH (on behalf of His people) in times past. This emphasis, found in a fair number of Psalms, has two functions, at the literary level: (1) it is intended to spur God to act in a similar way in the present, and (2) it provides comfort and encouragement to the people, so that they might trust that once again YHWH will exercise His power on their behalf.

It is possible to outline a more detailed structure to the composition. See, in particular, the analysis by Beat Weber (Psalm 77 und sein Umfeld: Eine poetologische Studie [1995]), followed by Hossfeld-Zenger (pp. 273-6), which divides the Psalm into five strophes, with vv. 17-20 representing an older/archaic (cosmological) poem that has been included within the final strophe. I will be noting these divisions below. The turning point of the structure, in any case, is the difficult and ambiguous verse 11.

Metrically, the Psalm follows a 3-beat (3+3) couplet format, which two exceptions: (a) the irregular meter at the beginning (vv. 2-3), and (b) the tricolon format of the cosmological poem in vv. 17-20.

As with all of Pss 73–83, this musical composition (romz+m!) is attributed to (and/or associated with) Asaph (cf. the earlier study on Ps 50). The term /Wtydy+ (or /WtWdy+), which also occurs in the heading to Pss 39 and 62 (cf. the earlier study), is apparently associated with the figure of Yedutun, a priestly (Levitical) musician who served in the Tent/Temple during the reigns of David and Solomon. His descendants continued the line of tradition, and the term here may designate a specific musical style.

PART 1: Verses 2-11 [1-10]

Strophe 1: Verses 2-4
Verse 2 [1]

“My voice to (the) Mightiest—so I cry out;
my voice to (the) Mightiest—so may He give ear to me.”

The lament portion of the Psalm begins with an irregular (3+4) couplet, that may express, poetically, the burden felt by the protagonist. Many commentators and translators would add a verb to fill out the initial phrase in each line—i.e., “my voice (goes out) to the Mightiest”; however, I feel a precise literal rendering (“my voice to the Mightiest”) helps convey a sense of the urgency that the Psalmist feels. My translation treats the w-conjunction as emphatic, giving dramatic effect to each line. The Psalmist’s focus in his prayer (and plea) to YHWH is that God will hear (and answer) him.

Verse 3 [2]

“In (the) day of my distress, I search (for) my Lord;
my hand poured forth in the night,
and did not grow numb,
(yet) my soul refuses to be comforted.”

The meter of this verse is highly irregular; an initial 4-beat line is (apparently) followed by a 3+2+3 tricolon. Kraus (p. 113) suggests that the word hl*y+l^ (“at night”) should be eliminated, as overloading the line; this would lead to a more consistent (4+4+3 tricolon) structure for the verse. However, the day/night contrast is fitting, even though “in the day (of)” here has the more general sense of “in the time when…”. Lines 2-4 expound the Psalmist’s statement from line 1—i.e., how he “searches for” God in the time of his distress. This searching (vb vr^D*) extends all through the night. The idiom of the Psalmist’s hand (“my hand”) being “poured out” (vb rg~D*) may seem a bit odd; probably here “hand” (dy`) simply connotes “strength” —that is, the Psalmist pours out his plea to YHWH with all of the strength he has at his disposal (i.e., in his “hand”). He keeps this up all through the night, and does not slacken (lit. “grow numb,” vb gWP); even so, his soul gains no comfort from his effort.

For a very different way of explaining these lines, cf. Dahood, II, p. 225-6.

Verse 4 [3]

“I set my mind to (the) Mightiest, and I groan;
I go over it (in my mind), and my spirit grows weak.”
Selah

This 3-beat (3+3) couplet establishes the metrical pattern for the remainder of the Psalm (vv. 4-16, 21). It develops the idea of the Psalmist “pouring out” all the strength he has in him. He purposely “sets his mind” on YHWH, praying intently to Him. The verb rk^z` is usually translated “remember”, but should properly be understood in its broader meaning of mental activity, i.e., putting one’s mind to something. The verb j^yc! has a comparable meaning, but with the more intensive (and iterative) sense of “going over” something in one’s mind (repeatedly). The idea of the Psalmist’s soul finding no comfort is here paralleled by his spirit becoming weak (vb [f^u* III). For all of his devotion to God, the protagonist feels no ease or help coming from YHWH in his time of distress.

The Selah-pause marker after verse 4 supports the view that vv. 2-4 represent a distinct strophe, or unit, within the Psalm (cf. the introduction above).

Strophe 2: Verses 5-7
Verse 5 [4]

“Watching takes hold of my eyes;
I am thrust (about) and cannot speak.”

The theme from vv. 3-4 (cf. above) of the Psalmist’s restless night continues here. The MT vocalizes the initial word tzja as a second person verbal form (T*z+j^a*, “you take hold [of]”), which, while appropriate to the thematic context of the Psalmist praying to God, is out of place here in the first half of the Psalm. I tentatively follow Dahood (II, p. 227) in reading it as a passive participle, referring to the “watching” (plur.) that “takes hold” of the Psalmist’s eyes. This is probably a roundabout of saying that he cannot sleep; but the root rmv also can indicate an intentional night-time vigil (i.e., “keeping watch”). The feminine noun hr*m%v= occurs only here in the OT, and is typically translated (somewhat dubiously) as “eyelid”.

The verb <u^P* may be denominative from the noun <u^P^ (“foot, step,” cf. Dahood, II, 227). In all the other occurrences (Gen 41:8; Judg 13:25; Dan 2:1, 3), it is used in reference to a person’s “spirit” (j^Wr) being troubled or disturbed; in the Daniel references, the person is unable to sleep, which is presumably the same situation being alluded to here. In this light, Dahood would understand the verb rbd as deriving from the root denoting being back/behind, rather than the one denoting “speak”. He notes the cognate tadabara in Ethiopic (“to lie on one’s  back”), and understands the same meaning here—viz., “I cannot lie down”.

Verse 6 [5]

“I think on (the) days from (times) before,
(the) years of distant (time)s I bring to mind.”

The parallelism of the couplet, along with metrical concerns, would seem to require that the first word of MT verse 7 (hr*K=z+a#, “I bring to mind”) be included with v. 6. The same verb occurred in v. 4 (cf. above). The protagonist is specifically putting his mind on the “days before” and the “distant years” past; this establishes the context that will dominate the second half of the Psalm—viz., the mighty deeds performed by YHWH, on behalf of His people, in times past.

Verse 7 [6]

“(I play) my strings in the night with my heart;
I go over (it), and my spirit searches (it) through.”

By including the first word of MT verse 7 as part of v. 6 (cf. above), both verses now yield consistent 3-beat couplets. Again, the theme of the Psalmist’s restless night-time vigil, from vv. 3-4, is continued here, utilizing some of the same basic imagery, including the verb j^yc! (denoting going over something in one’s mind), and the verb cp^j* (parallel with vr^D*, meaning “search out”). As is fitting for the Psalmist, his meditation takes on a musical form—playing a song on the harp or lyre with his heart. The MT reads a suffixed noun (“my string[s]”, or “my stringed-music”); Dahood would parse this as a form of the related verb (“play/pluck [on strings]”), but the meaning is essentially the same, in either case.

There is no Selah-pause marker in the MT at the end of this strophe, to match those following vv. 4 and 10.

Strophe 3: Verses 8-10
Verse 8 [7]

“Will my Lord reject (us) into (the) distant (future),
and not continue to show (us) favor any more?”

Here, the context established in verse 6, alluding to the mighty deeds performed by YHWH (on behalf of His people) in times past, comes to a point with this pained and almost despairing question. Compare the opening of Psalm 74 (cf. the earlier study). This parallel may indicate an exilic setting here for Psalm 77 as well. In any case, the Psalmist’s personal distress is representative of the suffering of the people (collectively). It may even indicate that the fervent prayer and meditation of his night-time vigil is focused on the deliverance of God’s people as a whole. This is certainly the focus that dominates the second half of the Psalm.

The verb jn~z` (“reject, repel”) occurs relatively frequently in the Psalms (10 of the 20 OT occurrences), e.g., 43:2; 44:10, 24; 60:3, 12; 74:1, being a natural part of the vocabulary in the Psalms of lament. Here it is contrasted with the verb hx*r* (“be pleased [with], show favor [to]”).

Verse 9 [8]

“Has His kindness gone away to (the) end?
Has (the) showing (of it) ceased for cycle and cycle?”

The meter of this couplet is slightly irregular (3+4), as in verse 2 (cf. above), and may be an expression, in poetic terms, of the burden felt by the Psalmist. The noun ds#j# (“goodness, kindness”) is a fundamental term, used frequently in the Psalms, where it almost always connotes the idea of faithfulness and loyalty (to the covenant).

In the second line, I treat the noun rm#a) in relation to the rudimentary meaning of the root rma (“show”), rather the more common and conventional meaning “say”, though the latter is certainly possible here—i.e., referring to YHWH’s communication (speaking) with His people. Yet, I do think that the principal idea here is how YHWH shows His goodness/loyalty to His people through mighty and wondrous acts.

I typically render the noun roD according to the fundamental meaning “circle, cycle”; though here it could be understood in its more conventional sense of an “age” (i.e. cycle of time) or “generation” (the people living in a particular age/cycle). Here the temporal aspect (cycle of time) is primary.

Verse 10 [9]

“Has (the) Mighty (One) forgotten (how) to show favor,
or has He gathered up all His love in (His) anger?”
Selah

In the concluding question to this strophe, the Psalmist raises two possibilities: (a) God has forgotten how to show favor (/n~j*, parallel to hx*r* in v. 8), or (b) He has simply gathered together all of his love (toward His people) and anger has taken its place. The noun <j^r^ refers to a deep-seated feeling of love toward another, manifested by caring compassion (like that of a mother for her child). The plural is comprehensive of this loving care and compassion. It is contrasted with the noun [a^, in the general sense of “anger” (i.e. the emotion), rather the more concrete physical idiom of the smoking/flaring of nostrils or the burning of one’s face.

Thematically, verse 11 [10] belongs to the first half of the Psalm; however, poetically, according to the proposed strophic structure, it can be counted as the first couplet of the fourth strophe (vv. 11-13), which I will discuss in the next study (Part 2).

It is possible to treat verse 11 as either another question (continuing those of the previous strophe), or as a declarative statement by the Psalmist. The context (though not necessarily the syntax) suggests another fearful question:

“And I said ‘My sickness—(is) it (due to)
(the) changing right hand of (the) Highest?'”

This will be discussed further in the notes to Strophe 4, in the next study.

References marked “Dahood, I” and “Dahood, II” above are to, respectively, Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Psalms I: 1-50, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 16 (1965), and Psalms II: 51-100, vol. 17 (1968).
Those marked “Kraus” are to Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalmen, 2. Teilband, Psalmen 60-150, 5th ed., Biblischer Kommentar series (Neukirchener Verlag: 1978); English translation in Psalms 60-150, A Continental Commentary (Fortress Press: 1993).
Those marked “Hossfeld-Zenger” are to Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51-100, translated from the German by Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia Commentary series (Fortress Press: 2005).

July 19: 1 John 5:21

1 John 5:21

As we come to the close of these notes and articles on 1 John—related to the current series “Spiritualism and the New Testament” (see the most recent article) —it is worth considering the author’s closing words in verse 21:

“Dear offspring, you must guard yourselves from the (false) images.”

This short injunction, with the author apparently warning his readers against ‘idols’ (lit. “images”), has long puzzled commentators. It seems like an afterthought, without any clear connection with the preceding sections. On the surface, of course, it is the kind of traditional-religious instruction that early Christians would have commonly given, particularly for those (non-Jewish) believers living in the midst of a thoroughly polytheistic Greco-Roman culture.

The term ei&dwlon (“[visual] appearance,” i.e., something that can be seen, an “image”) is rather rare in the New Testament (11 occurrences), used most frequently by Paul in his letters (7 times). It reflects the monotheistic tradition of the Old Testament, which, especially in the anti-polytheistic polemic of the Prophetic writings, tended to treat the deities worshiped by the surrounding peoples as having no real existence beyond the images used to represent them. Thus “images” (ei&dwla) came to serve as a short-hand designation, among Jews and Christians, for all false/foreign deities other than the one true God (El-YHWH).

The danger to early Christians posed by Greco-Roman polytheism is seen clearly in the apostolic letter (Acts 15:22-29ff), sent to believers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, which included an instruction to avoid anything (spec. food/meat) that had been offered to “images” (vv. 20, 29; cf. 7:41). Paul treats the subject more extensively (without any reference to the Acts 15 letter) in 1 Corinthians 8-10 (the word ei&dwlon occurs in 8:4, 7; 10:19; cp. Rev 9:20). As an apostolic missionary to non-Jews in the Greco-Roman world, many of the Christian converts Paul would have encountered came out of a thoroughly polytheistic environment (cf. 1 Thess 1:9; 1 Cor 12:2). Worship of false/foreign deities (‘idols’) was seen as fundamentally incompatible with the new Christian religious identity (2 Cor 6:16), a mindset shared by Israelites and Jews as well (Rom 2:22). Cf. Paul’s penetrating early Christian appraisal of the nature (and origin) of polytheistic ‘idolatry’ in Rom 1:18-32.

What are we to make of the author’s warning against idols at the end of 1 John? Is it simply an example of conventional Christian ethical-religious instruction that the author has tacked on to the end of his treatise? Or is there something more involved? Commentators are somewhat divided on this point, but one’s interpretation of 5:21 tends to be colored by the prominence accorded to the conflict (with the opponents) in 1 John—is it just one among a number of issues and points of instruction offered by the author, or is it the central concern that governs the entire work?

The answer to this question likely will determine how one explains 5:21. There are two main lines of interpretation which can be labeled:

    • The ethical-religious explanation, and
    • The polemical explanation
Ethical-Religious

According to this view, the warning in 5:21 is a piece of conventional religious instruction, along the lines of the other New Testament references (in Paul and Acts; cf. also Rev 9:20)—i.e. warning Johannine Christians to guard themselves against the idolatrous polytheism of the Greco-Roman world. A simple and straightforward reading of the language in 5:21 would tend to support this view. Moreover, while there is relatively little traditional ethical-religious instruction in 1 John, it is not entirely absent from the author’s work (e.g., 2:15-17; 4:17-18). Every other instance of the word ei&dwlon in the New Testament refers, more or less generally, to the idea of a pagan/polytheistic false deity (represented by its “image”).

Polemic

A second, alternative, line of interpretation explains the author’s warning as part of the overall polemic against his opponents (i.e., the “antichrists” of 2:18-27; 4:1-6 [cf. also 2 Jn 7-11]). It seems proper to work under the assumption that, within the context of author’s central theme—that of a contrast between true and false believers—the opponents clearly are intended to represent the false believers. Primarily because of their false/erroneous view of Jesus Christ (referenced in the three trust-sections [2:18-27; 4:1-6; 5:5-12], and also 2 Jn 7ff), the opponents are regarded by the author as false believers (and deceiving false prophets)— “antichrists” of the end-time.

Since the opponents’ view of Christ is false, by which they effectively deny God’s Son, their view of God (the Father) is also false. By espousing a false deity, the opponents are thus no different from non-believers, and even pagan (polytheistic) idolators. This would be the logic of the author, according to his polemic.

We see a comparable example of polemical exaggeration by the author in 3:11-15, where he compares the opponents’ lack of love with Cain’s murder of his brother. In terms of the opponents’ violation of the command/duty to love one’s fellow believers, the author gives no indication of any immoral, oppressive, or violent behavior on their part. The only specific information he alludes to, in vv. 16-18, could be taken to mean that the author considers the opponents to have been neglectful in caring for the material needs of other believers. Beyond this, the worst one might say of the opponents, is that they may have followed the author’s example in 2 Jn 10-11, refusing to show hospitality to their own Johannine ‘opponents’.

The real demonstration of the opponents’ failure to show love simply involves their separation (according to the author) from the other Johannine Christians. Yet this violation of the second branch of the dual-command (3:23) is enough for the author to equate the opponents’ behavior with murder. Given this harsh polemical distortion, it would not be at all surprising if the author were to have equated the opponents’ violation of the first part of the dual command (i.e., trust in Jesus Christ) with idolatry. Clearly, their false view of Jesus (as the Son of God) would be tantamount to a false view of God the Father (El-YHWH), which (as noted above) would make them little different from polytheistic idolators.

Conclusion

Which line of interpretation for 5:21 is most likely to be correct? I suspect that this may be yet another example of Johannine double-meaning. The author may well have both ways of understanding his words—traditional ethical-religious and also polemical (against the opponents)—in mind. On the one hand, the readers can take the injunction at face value, remembering the importance of “guarding themselves” from the idolatrous polytheistic culture around them.

On the other hand, the author, throughout his work, has been warning his readers against the false views and teaching of the opponents—teaching which can lead them astray from the truth, with potentially dire consequences (2:18ff, 26f; 4:1-6). Such false teaching, characteristic of the “antichrists” and false prophets of the end-time, carries the same evil and seductive influence as the demonically-inspired “images” of paganism. Compare, for example, the way false (Christian) teaching is associated with pagan idolatry in the book of Revelation (2:14-15, 20ff).

A final possibility to consider, in light of the examples from the book of Revelation (above), is that the opponents might have downplayed the need to avoid things (i.e., food) that had been sacrificed to “images”, perhaps thinking, as some Christians at Corinth apparently did, that, since the deities represented by the images have no real existence, the images themselves cannot have any harmful effect on believers. This would be typical, in certain respects, of the spiritualistic tendencies that seem to have been characteristic of the Johannine churches; and the opponents may represent a more extreme example of such tendencies. However, if they were actually indifferent regarding the ‘things sacrificed to idols’, I would expect the author to deal with the issue more directly (like Paul and the author of Revelation), rather than in such a cursory fashion at the end of his work.

‘Idols’ (i.e., false/foreign deities) are to be contrasted with the one true God (v. 20; Jn 17:3). There is a similar contrast in 1 John between true and false belief—and the Christians who exhibit such belief (the opponents representing the false believers). I think it probable that the author is at least alluding again to the conflict involving the opponents here at the end of his treatise, expressing his exhortation in traditional ethical-religious language. This is all the more likely, given the precedent (attested in Jewish writings of the period) for speaking of ‘idols’ in a figurative sense—i.e., in reference to sins or evil inclinations of the heart (see e.g., Testament of Reuben 4:5-6; 1QS 2:10-11ff; 1QH 4.9-11ff; CD 20:8-10); cf. Brown, p. 628; von Wahlde [3], p. 207-8.

References above marked “Brown” are to Raymond E. Brown, S.S., The Epistles of John, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 30 (1982).
Those marked “von Wahlde [3]” are to Urban C. von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John, Volume 3: Commentary on the Three Johannine Letters, Eerdmans Critical Commentary series (Eerdmans: 2010).

 

July 18: 1 John 5:20 (cont.)

1 John 5:20, continued

“And we have seen that the Son of God is here, and (that) he has given to us dia/noia, (so) that we might know the (One who is) true, and (that) we are in the (One who is) true, in His Son Yeshua (the) Anointed—this is the true God and Life of the Age(s) [i.e. eternal life].”

The middle two clauses of verse 20 (b) were discussed in the previous note, and the first two clauses (a) in the note prior; we now turn to the final two clauses (c).

Verse 20c:
    • “in His Son Yeshua (the) Anointed—
      this is the true God and Life of the Age(s) [i.e. eternal life].”

The first phrase here in v. 20c (the fifth clause, or phrase, of the verse), is epexegetical—that is, it explains or qualifies the previous statement: “we are in the (One who is) true”. This theological statement (cf. the discussion in the previous note) means that believers are “in” (e)n) God the Father (“the [One who is] true”). Elsewhere in the Johannine writings, this idea of being “in” God is expressed more fully by the use of the verb me/nw (“remain, abide”).

This is a fundamental Johannine theological idiom, which occurs in 1 John some 20 times. It is used to express the idea of the believer abiding in God (2:6, 10, 28; 3:6), or of God abiding in the believer (2:14; 3:9, 15, 17; 4:12), or both (2:24, 27; 3:24; 4:13, 15-16). Sometimes the idiom is expressed specifically in terms of the word/life/light/love, etc., of God, rather than God Himself, but these are simply specifications of the general theological principle, drawing upon particular attributes or characteristics related to the dynamic of the relationship between God and the believer.

The use of the verb of being (ei)mi) can substitute for the verb me/nw, whereby the union between the believer and God takes on a more essential quality, emphasizing its reality (or lack thereof) in the present. For the usage (ei)mi + e)n) in 1 John, cf. 1:8, 10; 2:4-5, 8, etc. The verb of being is used here in v. 20c: “we are [e)sme/n] in [e)n] (Him)”.

A central element of the Johannine theology is that God the Father abides in the believer (and the believer in God) through the presence of His Son (Jesus). And this quite clearly expressed by the author here; the statements (4&5) are parallel, with one building upon (and explaining) the other:

    • “we are in the One who is true [i.e. God the Father]” (because) =>
      • “(we are) in His Son Jesus Christ”

The Son makes the Father known to believers (cf. statements 1-3, v. 20ab), and is the means by which they/we are united with Him, coming to abide/remain “in Him”.

Verse 20 concludes with a final statement (6) that summarizes the entire Johannine theology:

“this is the true God and eternal Life”
ou!to/$ e)stin o( a)lhqino\$ qeo\$ kai\ zwh\ ai)w/nio$

There is debate as to the specific force of the initial demonstrative pronoun ou!to$ (“this,” or “this one”). Commentators are divided as to whether the pronoun refers to God the Father or Jesus the Son. Given that Jesus (“His Son Yeshua…”) is the nearest antecedent, it would seem most natural that ou!to$ refers to him. However, as Brown (p. 625) notes, the pronoun can sometimes refer to an earlier subject; and there is a clear (Johannine) example of this in 2 John 7:

“(For it is) that many who lead (people) astray [pla/noi] have come into the world, the (one)s not giving account as one (of) [i.e. confessing/acknowledging] Yeshua (the) Anointed (as) coming in (the) flesh—this (one) [ou!to$] is the (one) leading (people) astray and the (one) against the Anointed [i.e. antichrist].”

Even though Yeshua is the noun preceding the demonstrative pronoun, the pronoun clearly refers back to the false believer(s), called [oi(] pla/noi (“[the one]s going/leading astray”). This grammatical parallel suggests that the demonstrative pronoun here in v. 20c refers back to God the Father, rather than Jesus. The use of the expression “the true God” (o( a)lhqino\$ qeo/$) would seem to confirm this (cp. Jer 10:10; 2 Chron 15:3; 1 Thess 1:9). Beyond this, the parallel declaration in the Gospel (17:3) is decisive:

“And this [au%th] is eternal Life: that they would know you, the only true God, and the (one) whom you sent forth, Yeshua (the) Anointed.”

In the literary context of chap. 17, Jesus is addressing God the Father, referring to Him (El-YHWH), in traditional Israelite-Jewish religious terms, as “the only true God”. Almost certainly, then, the expression “the true God” here in v. 20c likewise refers to God the Father.

However, the close parallel in thought and vocabulary between v. 20c and Jn 17:3 is instructive, in that it suggests that the author has a dual reference in mind. In other words, the demonstrative pronoun (“this”) refers to God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. The Father is the primary point of reference, but He, as the Father, cannot be separated from His Son. Indeed, the two are inseparable, especially given the Johannine theological principle (discussed above) that believers experience the God the Father through His Son.

If God the Father is the primary referent for the expression “the true God”, then it is the Son of God (Jesus) who is primarily being referred to by the expression “[the] Life of the Age(s) [i.e. eternal Life]” (zwh\ ai)w/nio$). Even though God the Father is the ultimate source of life (cf. Jn 5:26; 6:57; 12:50, etc), the Father gives this life to the Son, who, in turn, is able to give it to believers (4:14; 5:39-40; 6:27, 33, 51ff, 63; 10:28; 17:2). Life is predicated of the Son as an essential attribute (Jn 1:4; 6:48; 11:25; 14:6), and believers come to possess (“hold,” vb e&xw) this life through trust in Jesus (Jn 3:15-16, 36; 5:24; 6:40, 47; 8:12; 11:25; 20:31).

In 1 John, the author ties the possession of this eternal life, as a defining characteristic of the true believer, specifically to the fulfillment of the great dual-command (or two-fold duty [e)ntolh/]) as stated in 3:23: genuine trust in Jesus Christ (as the Son of God), and love for one’s fellow believers (according to Jesus’ own example). True believers fulfill this e)ntolh/, while false believers (like the opponents) disregard and violate it. Their false view of Jesus Christ (as the author sees it) means that they do not truly trust in him, and thus cannot hold eternal life in themselves.

The author establishes this logic at the very beginning of his work (1:1-2), and the references to “life” (zwh/) throughout the rest of 1 John (2:25; 3:14-15; 5:11-13ff) follow this same line of argument. In 5:11-13, at the close of the third and (final) section (5:5-12) dealing with trust in Jesus (in opposition to the false view of Christ held by the “antichrist” opponents), the author clearly and emphatically restates the Johannine definition of eternal life as the result of trust in Jesus. Through this trust, believers are united with God’s Son, coming to abide/remain in him; as noted above, it is through the presence of the Son that we, as believers, abide in the Father (and He in us).

Ultimately, our union with the Son is realized through the presence of the Spirit, though that particular theological point is only stated implicitly here in v. 20 (cf. the previous notes on 20a and 20b). The Spirit is the foremost of the things which the Son receives from the Father (cf. Jn 3:34-35), and which he then gives to believers. The association between the Spirit and the Life of God is so close as to almost be synonymous (cf. Jn 3:5-8ff; 4:10-15 [7:37-39]; 6:63). As the author of 1 John makes clear (3:24; 4:13), the presence of the Spirit is the ultimate evidence that we, as believers, abide/remain in God and thus possess eternal life.

References above marked “Brown” are to Raymond E. Brown, S.S., The Epistles of John, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 30 (1982).

July 17: 1 John 5:20 (cont.)

1 John 5:20, continued

“And we have seen that the Son of God is here, and (that) he has given to us dia/noia, (so) that we might know the (One who is) true, and (that) we are in the (One who is) true, in His Son Yeshua (the) Anointed—this is the true God and Life of the Age(s) [i.e. eternal life].”

The first two clauses of verse 20 (a) were discussed in the previous note; we now turn to the next two clauses (b).

Verse 20b:
    • “(so) that we might know the (One who is) true,
      and (that) we are in the (One who is) true,”

The i%na-clause, which I believe covers both statements of v. 20b, expresses the purpose (and expected result) of the understanding (dia/noia) that the Son, in his abiding presence (through the Spirit), gives to believers. The i%na conjunction thus is to be rendered “so that…”.

In the first statement here (clause three), the expressed purpose for the dia/noia that the Son gives is so that (i%na)…

“we [i.e. believers] might know [ginw/skwmen] the (One who is) true [to\n a)lhqino/n]”

The substantive adjective (with the article), o( a)lhqino/$, is a title for God the Father. The theme of truth is fundamental for the Johannine writings:

    • the noun a)lh/qeia occurs 25 times in the Gospel and 20 in the Letters (45 out of 109 NT occurrences)
    • the adjective a)lhqh/$ occurs 14 times in the Gospel and 3 times in the Letters (17 out of 26 NT occurrences)
    • the adjective a)lhqino/$ occurs 9 times in the Gospel and 4 in 1 John (13 out of 28 NT occurrences); if we count (as Johannine) the 10 occurrences of a)lhqino/$ in the book of Revelation, then all but five of the NT occurrences are in the Johannine writings, making it very much a distinctive keyword.

Drawing upon Old Testament tradition (e.g., Psalm 18:30; 19:9; 25:5; 43:3; 86:11; 119:142, 160; Prov 30:5; Isa 45:19; 65:16; Jer 10:10, etc), truth is viewed as a fundamental attribute of God—for this use of the adjective a)lhqino/$ (and a)lhqh/$), cf. Jn 3:33; 7:28; 8:26; 17:3 (cf. also 4:23; 5:32). Somewhat more commonly, in the Johannine writings, it is applied to Jesus—as the “true light” (Jn 1:9; 1 Jn 2:8), the “true bread from heaven” (6:32, cp. v. 55), and the “true vine” (15:1); cf. also 7:18; 8:16. It is used of believers (as true worshipers of God) in Jn 4:23 (cp. 18:37).

In addition to being an attribute of God, reflecting His nature and character, the adjective “true” also reflects the Israelite religious tradition of El-YHWH as the (only) true God (e.g., Jer 10:10; 2 Chron 15:3). With regard to this monotheistic orientation (and polemic), as inherited by early Christians, cf. here the author’s closing warning against ‘idols’ in verse 21.

The statement in clause three encapsulates the Johannine theology, expressed more fully in the Gospel (17:3):

“And this is the Life of the Age(s) [i.e. eternal life]: that they would know you, the only true God, and the (one) whom you sent forth, Yeshua (the) Anointed.”

The i%na-clause (in bold above) is virtually identical with the clause here in v. 20.

As noted above, in the Johannine writings, truth is an essential attribute of Jesus, God’s Son. It is expressed by way of essential predication (by Jesus Himself) in Jn 14:6: “I am…the truth” —one of the famous “I am” (e)gw\ ei)mi) declarations by Jesus in the Gospel; cf. also 1:14, 17. However, it is equally associated with the Spirit—including the specific title “Spirit of truth” (Jn 14:17; 15:26; 16:13; 1 Jn 4:6); cf. also Jn 4:23-24. The idea that the Spirit will lead/guide believers in the way of “all truth” (Jn 16:13), teaching them the truth, is present also in 1 John (2:21, 27), and is reflective of a Johannine spiritualism. In 1:6-8 and 2 Jn 2, 4; 3 Jn 3-4, 12, truth seems to be identified with the abiding presence of the Spirit; similarly, being “of the truth” (belonging to it, and ‘born’ of it), 3:19 (cf. Jn 18:37), is comparable to (and largely synonymous with) the Johannine idea of believers being born “of the Spirit” (Jn 3:5-8). Truth is an essential predicate of the Spirit, just as it is of Jesus:

    • Jesus: “I am…the truth” (Jn 14:6)
    • “the Spirit is the truth” (1 Jn 5:6; cp. with Pilate’s question in Jn 18:38)

This brings us to the fourth clause, which I regard as being governed by the same i%na purpose-clause:

“(so that we might know that) we are in the (One who is) true”

This is another fundamental Johannine theological belief—viz., that believers abide in God the Father, in union with Him. This union takes place through the Son (Jesus), which, in turn, is realized through the presence of the Spirit. This is the idea expressed here, in shorthand form. The presence of the Son (through the Spirit) makes the Father known to us, and allows us to abide/remain in Him. It also gives us the knowledge that we abide in Him (and He in us)—a point expressed more clearly by the author in 3:24—

“…and in this we know that He remains in us—out of [i.e. from] the Spirit which He gave to us”

and similarly in 4:13:

“In this we know that we remain in Him, and He in us: (in) that He has given of His Spirit to us.”

In the next daily note, we will examine the last two clauses of verse 20.

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 76

Psalm 76

Dead Sea MSS: 4QPse (vv. 10-12 [9-11])

The central portion of this Psalm (vv. 5-10) is a hymn to YHWH. It is framed by a theological opening (vv. 2-4) and religious-ethical closing (vv. 11-13). In this instance, the Selah (hl*s#) pause-marker (following verses 4 and 10) is a structural indicator for the Psalm.

As with all of Pss 73–83, this composition is attributed to (and/or associated with) Asaph (cf. the earlier study on Ps 50). Like Ps 75 (cf. the previous study), this Psalm is also designated a “song” (ryv!). The precise significance of this term in the Psalm headings is not entirely clear. In some instances, it may indicate a poem that is sung to an existing melody, rather than being an original musical composition (romz+m!); but that would not seem to be the case here. For Ps 76 (and particularly, the central portion), ryv! may relate to it as a hymn—to be sung by people in the Temple precincts, or in a comparable worship setting. According to the heading, it is to be performed on stringed instruments (tonyg]n+).

The meter of the Psalm is slightly irregular, but a 3-beat (3+3) couplet format dominates.

OPEnING: Verses 2-4 [1-3]

Verse 2

“(The) Mightiest is known in Yehudah,
(and) in Yisrael His name (is) great.”

The Niphal form of the verb ud^y` in the first line should perhaps be understood in a reflexive (“makes Himself known”) rather than a passive (“is known”) sense. As I have discussed frequently, in ancient Near Eastern thought, a person’s name represents and embodies the person. This is very much true in a religious context, in reference to a deity’s name. Cf. the introduction to the series “And you shall call His Name…”.

Presumably, the Psalmist has in mind the great deeds performed by YHWH, throughout the history of Israel/Judah (during the Exodus, et al), as preserved in tradition. The people are reminded of what God has done in the past, raising the possibility that He may once again act on behalf of His people.

Verse 3 [2]

“And there came to be in Šalem His lair,
and His place of cover in ‚iyyôn.”

The historical traditions (of the Exodus and Conquest, etc) are related to the establishment of YHWH’s dwelling place in Jerusalem (here, Salem)—especially the ancient fortified hilltop location (i.e., mount Zion) which served as the site of the Temple. The noun hn`oum= in the second line has the general meaning of “dwelling place”, but often in the specific sense of the covered/concealed dwelling of animals (i.e., den, lair, etc). The parallel noun Es)/hK*s% has the same meaning—viz., that of a concealed dwelling-place (lair) in the wild, best envisioned as a thicket of branches, etc. The imagery suggests the motif of YHWH as a powerful animal (one that hunts prey, cf. below); the ruling figure of a lion is most fitting (as a royal symbol, cf. Gen 49:9; 1 Kings 10:19-20; Mic 5:8; Ezek 19:2ff; Rev 5:5-6). On the image of the lion laying in wait (in its lair/thicket) to pounce on its prey, cf. Job 38:40; elsewhere in the Psalms, this motif is applied to the predatory behavior of the wicked (7:2; 10:9; 17:12; 57:4, etc).

The meter of this verse is 3+2.

Verse 4 [3]

“There He broke (with) His bolts (the) bow,
shield and sword, and (all weapons of) war.”
Selah

The idea in this verse is clear: from His dwelling in Jerusalem, YHWH waged war on behalf of His people, subduing their enemies. Of possible historical incidents that could be referenced, one thinks of the dramatic defeat of the Assyrian army, in their attempted siege of Jerusalem, in 701 B.C. (cf. 2 Kings 18:13-19:37). The motif of YHWH as a warrior is relatively frequent in the Psalms.

The noun [v#r# appears to be an archaic term in Hebrew, occurring only in poetry. The fundamental meaning is of a fiery shaft or dart (Job 5:7; Song 8:6), typically used as a weapon. Probably a lightning-bolt is meant here (cf. Ps 78:48), though in Deut 32:24 and Hab 3:5 it alludes to the ‘burning’ that comes from pestilent disease or plague. In any case, here the “fiery darts” are is best seen as a weapon wielded by YHWH, not his human enemies; cf. the explanation by Dahood (II, p. 218).

The noun hm*j*l=m! (“war, battle”) in the second line is comprehensive, and a poetic shorthand for “weapons of war”. YHWH, wielding his fiery bolts from Mount Zion, shatters all the weapons of His people’s enemies. It is this Divine power, that is able to save and deliver Israel/Judah, which the Psalmist calls on in the hymn that follows.

The Hymn: Verses 5-11 [4-10]

Verse 5 [4]

“Shining (bright) you (are), (and) majestic—
from (the) mountains of tearing, they have become prey!”

Apparently the LXX translates ar*on (“being feared”, i.e. to be feared, fearful; cf. in v. 8), rather than MT roan` (“being light, luminous”), and some commentators (e.g., Kraus, p. 108) readily follow the LXX. The participle ar*on certainly would fit the imagery of the couplet, alluding (as in v. 3 [2], cf. above) to YHWH as a fierce and regal lion. It may be, however, that the Psalmist is here combining the two motifs from vv. 3-4—YHWH as a ferocious lion, and as a heavenly warrior wielding the lightning-bolt. The shining, luminous grandeur of YHWH, in line 1 of the MT for v. 5, follows nicely on the motif of His fiery bolts in v. 4.

The second line (in the MT) has the expression “from (the) mountains of tearing (prey)”. If correct (cp. the LXX, “from [the] eternal mountains”), the expression is presumably a poetic shorthand, meaning something like, “from the mountains where you tear your prey”. For a different way of reading the line, cf. Dahood, II, p. 219.

In my view, the first word of v. 6 is better taken with the second line of v. 5 here. The verb ll^v* II (“[take] plunder”) here properly referred to a predatory animal (i.e., lion) taking its prey. The enemies of Israel/Judah become the lion’s prey.

Verse 6 [5]

“(The one)s mighty of heart have slumbered (in) their sleep;
(of) all (the) men of strength, no(ne) can find their hands.”

The defeat of the human enemies of YHWH is described in terms of weakness and feebleness. The mighty and brave ones have dozed off, falling asleep, and the strong ones are no longer able to function effectively with their hands (to wield weapons, etc). If the noun [v#r# in v. 4 refers to pestilence and disease (cf. above), then the imagery here in v. 6 could be meant to depict soldiers succumbing to illness. Sending disease is one of the deadliest and most effective ‘weapons’ God can use.

Verse 7 [6]

“From your rebuke, O Mighty (One) of Ya’aqob,
both rider and horse are lain fast asleep!”

Whether struck by YHWH’s lightning-bolts, or by the fiery darts of disease, it is by His command, rebuking (rug) the enemy, that they fall. Even the powerful cavalry (and chariot) units of the armies are waylaid by God and “put to sleep” (vb <d^r*), i.e., they are left unconscious and/or lifeless. Cf. the famous tradition of Pharaoh’s chariots perishing in the event at the Reed Sea (Exod 14:17-18, 23ff, 28; 15:1, 4).

Verse 8 [7]

“You (are the one) to be feared—you!
Indeed, who can stand before your face,
from the moment your anger (comes)?”

The participle ar*on (Niphal of ar^y`, “be afraid, fear”), “being feared” (i.e., to be feared, fearful [one]), also seems to have been read by the LXX in v. 5 (cf. above). The reason YHWH is to be feared is that no human being is able to stand before His face when He is angry. The noun [a^ can be understood, fundamentally, in the concrete anthropomorphic (or zoomorphic) sense of burning/flaring nostrils—i.e., as a sign of anger. Searing steam, smoke, or fire coming from the ‘nostrils’ is the terrifying evidence of the anger emanating from God’s ‘face’, which is able to destroy and obliterate the wicked.

Verse 9 [8]

“From (the) heavens you made (the) decision to be heard—
(the) earth was afraid and became still,”

Here the imagery shifts to the more conventional religious motif of God as Judge, delivering the judgment (on humankind) from heaven. The noun /yD! properly refers to the decision rendered by the judge. The entire earth—i.e., all humankind—stands silent, in fear, as YHWH delivers His verdict. The verb um^v* (“hear”) in the Hiphil literally means “make [one] hear, cause to be heard”.

Even though YHWH may have His ‘dwelling-place’ on earth, with His people, on Mt Zion, His true dwelling is in the heavens.

Verse 10 [9]

“in (your) standing up for the judgment, O Mightiest,
to save all (the) lowly (one)s of (the) earth.”
Selah

Syntactically, verse 10 continues the thought of v. 9. YHWH, the Judge, stands up to deliver the verdict, the sentence of judgment against humankind. This judgment means salvation (vb uv^y`, Hiphil) for the <yw]n+u^. The adjective wn`u*, along with the related (and more common) yn]u*, refers to a condition of low(li)ness. This condition can be the result (negatively) of oppression/affliction (i.e., being pressed down), or (positively) from a meek and humble mindset. Both aspects of meaning are characteristic of the righteous, and equally inform the usage of yn]u* (29 times) and wn`u* (12 times) in the Psalms.

God’s Judgment brings salvation for the righteous ones among His people—and, it would seem, from among the other nations as well.

Closing: Verses 11-13 [10-12]

Verse 11 [10]

“Indeed, (the) burning of man shall throw you (praise);
and (the) remainder of (the) burning, you shall put around you!”

This couplet has proven difficult for commentators to interpret. The chief cause of the difficulty, it seems, lies with the construct expression “(the) burning (anger) of man” (<d*a* tm^j&). The question is whether this is a subjective (i.e., human anger) or objective (anger against humans) genitive. The context of the Judgment, at the end of the hymn (vv. 9-10, cf. above), strongly suggests the latter. On the other hand, the theme of the hostility of human beings toward God is also present in the hymn. The idea may be that, even those people who were burning with rage against YHWH will be forced to submit and give praise/homage to Him.

I tend to think that the principal thought, expressed somewhat awkwardly by the Psalmist, is that, in judging humankind, directing His burning anger against them (see esp. verse 8, above), His action is praiseworthy (and the righteous who see it will praise Him).

What remains after the exercise of His burning anger, YHWH will put around Himself (vb rg~j*). This could refer to what is left of the wicked (and their lives) after they are consumed, or to the righteous as the remnant of humankind; the latter seems much more fitting to the context of the Psalm here. The circle of the righteous, in the blessed afterlife, dwelling with God, is probably in view. In the communal worship setting (cf. verses 12-13), the circle of the devout/faithful ones anticipates this eschatological scene.

Verse 12 [11]

“Make your vows, and complete (them), to YHWH your Mighty (One);
let all (those) around Him bring along gift(s) to the fearsome (One)!”

The second line of v. 12 draws upon the earlier Judgment scene in vv. 9-10 (and continuing in v. 11), suggesting the image of submissive vassals paying homage to YHWH (as King). The rare noun yv^, of uncertain derivation, occurs only here and in Ps 68:30; Isa 18:7; the context indicates that yv^ is a collective term, referring to gifts brought in homage to a ruler.

However, as I commented above (on v. 11), the scene here has shifted—from the wicked who face God’s Judgment, to the righteous who will remain after the Judgment. The image of vassals bringing gifts to the King refers to the righteous, who give the praise and worship that is due to God. This is done, for example, by faithfully completing (vb <l^v*) what one has vowed to do for God. The verb rd^n` hardly occurs in the Psalms, but the idea of a devout person fulfilling a vow (rd#n#) to YHWH is found prominently in a number of Psalms, usually at the conclusion, but occasionally at the beginning (cf. 22:26 [25]; 50:14; 56:13 [12]; 61:6 [5], 9 [8]; 65:2 [1]; 66:13; 116:14, 18). The vow traditionally involves a sacrificial offering; however, in the context of the Psalms, not surprisingly, this is sometimes understood specifically in terms of an offering of praise and music to God.

This couplet is irregular, with an elongated 4-beat (4+4) meter.

Verse 13 [12]

“He takes away (the) spirit of (the one)s in front—
fearsome He is to (the) kings of (the) earth!”

The high-spirit of “the ones in front” (<yd!yg]n+), i.e., leaders and other prominent people in the world, is contrasted with the “lowly ones” (as a characteristic of the righteous) who are saved by YHWH’s judgment (v. 10, cf. above). As for the powerful and influential people (by human standards), if they are not destroyed by God’s judgment, then they are diminished in spirit. The precise meaning of the verb rx^B* is difficult to determine; if there is not more than one rxb root, then it has an extremely wide semantic range. Probably the primary meaning here is “take away, reduce”, which would be confirmed by the LXX translation with the verb a)faire/w.

The concluding declaration reaffirms the theme of YHWH’s fearsomeness—i.e., that He is to be feared, using the same Niphal participle (ar*on) as in v. 8 (and also v. 5, according to the LXX).

References marked “Dahood, I” and “Dahood, II” above are to, respectively, Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Psalms I: 1-50, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 16 (1965), and Psalms II: 51-100, vol. 17 (1968).
Those marked “Kraus” are to Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalmen, 2. Teilband, Psalmen 60-150, 5th ed., Biblischer Kommentar series (Neukirchener Verlag: 1978); English translation in Psalms 60-150, A Continental Commentary (Fortress Press: 1993).

July 14: 1 John 5:20

1 John 5:20

The author closes the section 5:13-20 with the last of three successive declarations that each begin with oi&damen (“we have seen [that]…”, i.e., “we know…”); cf. the previous notes on vv. 18 and 19. These statements reflect the author’s declaration of his intent and purpose for writing in v. 13 (cp. Jn 20:31). Verse 20 serves an effective summary of the Johannine theology:

“And we have seen that the Son of God is here, and (that) he has given to us dia/noia, (so) that we might know the (One who is) true, and (that) we are in the (One who is) true, in His Son Yeshua (the) Anointed—this is the true God and Life of the Age(s) [i.e. eternal life].”

This relatively long theological statement is comprised of six clauses or phrases. It may be helpful to look at these, two at a time, dividing the verse into three parts (a-c).

Verse 20a:
    • “And we have seen that the Son of God is here,
      and (that) he has given to us dia/noia,”

The first clause, beginning (like vv. 18 and 19) with the verb form oi&damen (“we have seen”), emphasizes again the unity and solidarity between the author and his readers, representing (together) members of the Community of true believers (cf. the previous note). The three oi&damen-statements may be compared:

    • “We have seen that the (one) having come to be (born) out of God does not sin…” (v. 18)
    • “We have seen that we are of God…” (v. 19)
    • “We have seen that the Son of God is here…” (v. 20)

The identity of believers as those born of God (v. 19), and thus protected from sin (v. 18), is realized through the abiding presence of Jesus Christ (God’s Son). The verb h%kw here in v. 20 could be understood in terms of Jesus having come here—viz., as a reference either to the incarnation and/or to the coming of the Spirit. However, I think that the present tense of the verb (h%kei, lit. “comes here”) properly reflects the idea of the Son being present here, in and among believers—that is, his abiding presence through the Spirit (cf. Jn 14:17ff, etc).

The second, following clause in v. 20a is:

“he has given to us dia/noia“

The subject (“he”), based on the first clause, must be the Son of God—i.e., Jesus Christ as the Son of God. The Son, through his abiding presence in believers, gives to them dia/noia. The noun dia/noia is a bit difficult to translate literally into English, and I have left it untranslated above. Fundamentally, it denotes the ability (and/or the process) of thinking things through (vb dianoe/omai, dia/ + noe/w mid.). For lack of a better option, the noun can be translated generally in English as understanding— “he has given to us understanding”.

According to the Johannine theology, as expressed principally in the Gospel Discourses, the Father gives to the Son, and the Son, in turn, gives to believers (see esp. Jn 3:34-35; 5:21; 6:27, 32ff, 57; 10:28-29; 17:8-9ff). The noun dia/noia is not mentioned elsewhere as one of the things that is given (indeed, the word occurs only here in the Johannine writings); however, the idea that the Son (Jesus) gives knowledge and understanding to believers is present at a number of points (e.g., 8:32; 10:38; 14:4ff; 16:30; 18:37). In particular, Jesus, as the Son, makes the Father known—cf. 8:19, 28f, 38ff; 10:14-15, 38; 12:50; 14:6-7ff, 20ff; 15:15; 17:3, 6-8ff, 26. And is certainly the principal focus of the understanding (dia/noia) the Son gives to believers, here in v. 20a—viz., the ability to understand about God the Father, the True God.

This understanding comes as the Son is present here, in and among believers. Based on the famous Paraclete-sayings in the Gospel Last Discourse, and confirmed here by the author in 1 John, we must regard this understanding (dia/noia) to be the product of the Spirit teaching believers “all things” (Jn 14:26; 15:26; 16:12-13ff; 1 Jn 2:20, 27). The teaching ministry of the Son, making the Father known to us, continues through the abiding presence of the Spirit. A particularly important point, however, for the author of 1 John, is that this continued teaching (through the Spirit) does not—and will not—contradict the historical tradition (in the Gospel) of the teaching of Jesus when he was present on earth (in the past) with his disciples. In an upcoming article, I will be exploring how the spiritualism of the Johannine Community may have been realized differently, by the author and the opponents [in 1-2 John], respectively.

In the next daily note, we will look at the next two clauses, in v. 20b.

July 13: 1 John 5:16-19 (8)

1 John 5:19

“We have seen that we are of [e)k] God, and (that) the whole world lies in the evil.”

The section 5:13-20 concludes with a series of three exhortative declarations (vv. 18, 19, 20) that each begin with the verb form oi&damen (“we have seen”). The verbal usage reflects the sense of unity and solidarity that the author wishes to establish, between himself and his readers, as members together (“we”) of the Community of true believers. The translation “we have seen” is a literal rendering of oi&damen; however, the verb ei&dw can also mean “know,” being essentially interchangeable with ginw/skw. In English idiom, for the context here, oi&damen would be translated simply as “we know…”.

This use of oi&damen (also in v. 15 [twice]) reflects the author’s declaration of his intent (and purpose of writing) in v. 13, at the beginning of the section:

“These (thing)s I have written to you, that you might have seen [ei)dh=te, i.e. might know] that you hold (the) Life of the Age(s) [i.e. eternal life], to (you) the (one)s trusting in the name of the Son of God.” (cp. the end of the Gospel, 20:31)

It is also appropriate that the author effectively concludes his work emphasizing the fundamental theme of the contrast between true and false believers. This juxtaposition is part of a wider Johannine theme, contrasting believers with the world (o( ko/smo$). The negative sense of the noun ko/smo$ (“world-order, world”), as referring to the domain of darkness and evil (in which human beings are enmeshed) that is opposed to God, is distinctly Johannine, and the word tends to have this meaning throughout the Johannine writings. The contrastive relationship, between believers and the world, comes to be a dominant theme in the Gospel Last Discourse (chaps. 14-16), along with the Prayer-Discourse of chap. 17 (where ko/smo$ occurs 18 times, vv. 5-6, 9, 11, 13-16, 18, 21, 23-25). The usage in 1 John fully reflects the Johannine theological idiom—2:15-17; 3:1, 13; 4:1, 3-5; 5:4-5; only in 2:2; 3:17 is the more neutral sense of ko/smo$ emphasized (i.e., as the inhabited world of human beings), while both meanings are at work in 4:1, 3, 9, 14, 17.

Believers belong to God (as His offspring), while non-believers (and false believers) belong to the world (as children of the Devil [the “chief of this world”, Jn 12:31; 14:30; 16:11]). That is the contrast being emphasized again here at the close of 1 John. On false believers (spec. the opponents in 1-2 John) as children of the Devil, see 3:8, 10; cp. Jn 8:41 (in the context of vv. 38-47).

Here in v. 19, the idea of believers as the offspring (te/kna) of God is expressed by the preposition e)k (“out of”), in the expression e)k tou= qeou= (“out of [i.e. from] God”), as a shorthand for the phrase “having come to be (born) [vb genna/w] out of God”. For this distinctive Johannine idiom in 1 John, cf. 2:29; 3:8-10; 4:4-7; 5:1, 4, 18; also 2:16ff, 21; 3:12, 19; 4:1-3; in the Gospel, cf. 1:13; 3:5-8, 31; 8:23, 41ff; also 15:19; 17:6, 14-16; 18:36, 37.

The idea that true believers belong to God, and not to the world, is seen most clearly in 4:4-6:

“You are of [e)k] God, (dear) offspring, and have been victorious (over) them [i.e. the ‘antichrists’, vv. 1-3], (in) that [i.e. because] the (One who is) in you is greater than the (one who is) in the world.” (v. 4)

As I have discussed, the expression “the (one) in you” (o( e)n u(mi=n) is best understood as a reference to the Spirit. God the Father is present, in and among believers, through His Son, and the Son abides in believers through the presence of the Spirit. By contrast, “the (one) in the world” (o( e)n tw=| ko/smw|) refers to the evil spirit of antichrist (v. 3) that is opposed to the holy Spirit of God. In v. 6, the evil spirit is called “the spirit of going/leading astray [pla/nh]”, in opposition to the “Spirit of truth [a)lh/qeia]”.

If the true believer (“you”) is described in v. 4, it is the false believer (“they”) who is referenced in v. 5:

“They are of [e)k] the world; through this [i.e. for this reason] they speak out of [e)k, i.e. from] the world, and the world hears them.”

In v. 6 (as here in 5:18-20), the author includes himself, together with his readers (“we”), as being among the true believers:

“We are of [e)k] God; the (one) knowing God hears us, (but) the (one) who is not of [e)k] God does not hear us.”

As noted above, this same language of belonging (using the preposition e)k), contrasting believers and the world, can be found in John 17—esp. verses 14-16, which are quite close in thought with what the author is saying here in 5:18-19 (cf. the previous note).

In v. 19a, the author repeats his declaration from 4:6: “we are of [e)k] God”. The implication, as in the references cited above, is that the author and his readers, correspondingly, are not “of [e)k] the world”. However, here the author states this in more general terms, by referring to the nature and condition of the world:

“…and the whole world lies in the evil”
kai\ o( ko/smo$ o%lo$ e)n tw=| ponhrw=| kei=tai

As in v. 18, as well as 2:13-14, 3:12 [1], and Jn 17:15, the substantive adjective ponhro/$ (“evil”), as a masculine noun with the article (o( ponhro/$, “the evil”), is best understood in a personal sense (i.e. “the evil one”), as a reference to the Satan/Devil. If so, then v. 19b needs to be translated something like:

“…and the whole world lies in (the hand of) the Evil (One)”

That the world, dominated as it is by darkness and evil, is under the control of the Devil (“Evil One”) is confirmed by the expression “the chief/ruler [a&rxwn] of this world” in Jn 12:31; 14:30; 16:11. Because believers do not belong to the world, they/we are not under the power of the Evil One. Indeed, through trust in Jesus, believers have obtained victory over the world (2:13-14; 5:4-5). The victory achieved by Jesus Christ, through his sacrificial death (and exaltation)—cf. 3:8; Jn 12:31; 16:11, 33—is communicated to believers, in union with him, through the presence of the Spirit (4:4).

For this reason, the sin and evil of the world cannot touch the true believer (v. 18; cf. Jn 17:15). Even if we, as believers, may occasionally sin, through confession and forgiveness we are cleansed of all sin, with the result that the (eternal) life we possess from God is preserved/restored (1:7-2:2; 5:16).

In the next daily note, we will turn to examine briefly the author’s concluding statement in verse 20.