Month: September 2024

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 114

Psalm 114

Dead Sea MSS: 4QPse (verse 5 [possibly]); 4QPso (verse 7)

This Psalm is somewhat unusual in its dramatic historical opening and the general lack of traditional hymnic elements throughout. However, its blending of mythological-cosmological motifs (dealing with YHWH as Creator and King of the universe) together with a celebration of YHWH’s role in Israelite history is typical of numerous Psalms that we have examined. Here, this is achieved through a tight thematic structure. The outer (first and fourth) strophes (vv. 1-2, 7-8) describe Israel’s exodus from Egypt as being the result of (and accompanied by) a great theophany (manifestation of YHWH); this is an historical narrative described in mythological terms. The inner (second and third) strophes (vv. 3-4, 5-6) reverse this dynamic: a cosmological-mythic narrative of YHWH’s work as Creator, establishing an ordered universe (over which He rules), is applied to formative events in Israel’s history—viz., the crossing of the Reed Sea and the Jordan river, respectively. Parallel to the establishment of the ordered cosmos, Israel is established as a nation.

In terms of the Hallel Psalm-cycle 113-118 (see the discussion in the previous study), this cosmological treatment of Israel’s history makes for a fitting complement to Psalm 113. Indeed, some scholars have suggested that these two Psalms originally formed a single composition (cf. the discussion by Hossfeld-Zenger, pp. 188-9, referencing a recent study by Markus Witte). The allusions to the Exodus are especially suitable to a Passover (or other festal) setting, and it is not at all surprising that Psalm 114 (and the Hallel cycle as a whole) came to be sung regularly as part of the celebration of the great pilgrimage festivals (and other holy days). Like Psalm 113, this Psalm has a simple strophic structure, which, along with the composition’s vivid language and imagery, makes it easy to remember and recite.

Opinions vary considerably regarding the dating of Psalm 114. The apparent connection with the traditions of Joshua 3-5 has led commentators such as F. M. Cross (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic [1973], pp. 138-9) and H-J. Kraus to attribute to it traditions associated with the pre-monarchic Gilgal shrine (though the Psalm as we have it need not be so old). The similarities with Psalm 29 might also plausibly situate it in the early Kingdom-period (perhaps 9th century, cf. Dahood, III, p. 134). The Judah/Israel dichotomy in verse 2 could indicate the time-frame of the Divided Kingdom; likewise, the emphasis on Judah (connected with the Jerusalem sanctuary) suggests a time after 721 A.D. There was a revival of cosmological mythic traditions, and with it a heady blending of myth and history, during the Exilic and early post-Exilic period, as evidenced, for example, by the Deutero-Isaian poems, the book of Ezekiel, as well as a number of the Psalms. Hossfeld-Zenger (p. 193) dates the Psalm to the post-Exilic period (fourth century B.C.). It remains a matter of speculation, but a time of composition in the late-Kingdom or Exilic period seems quite plausible, and as good a guess as any.

The Psalm is comprised of four rhythmically similar strophes, with each strophe containing two linked couplets. The first three strophes have a 3-beat (3+3) meter, while the fourth has an extended 4+3 meter.

Strophe 1: Verses 1-2

“In (the) going forth of Yisrael from Egypt,
(the) house of Ya‘aqob from a people of cruel tongue,
Yehudah came to be as His holy (place),
Yisrael (entirely as) His place of rule.”

The first line of the first couplet (v. 1) clearly refers to the Exodus, the formative event that marked the Israelite people’s ‘birth’ as a nation. The attributive verbal noun zu@l) in line 2 remains somewhat problematic. It is generally assumed to be related to the Late Hebrew noun zu^l^ (cf. zoul*; cp. Syriac le‘z¹; Jewish Aramaic az`oul*; Arabic vb la²aza), with the root zul meaning “speak strange/foreign words”. However, this root occurs nowhere else in the Scriptures, and zul here has been explained differently (by Dahood, III, p. 134) as the adjective zu^ (“strong”, esp. in the sense of “harsh, cruel”) prefixed by the preposition l= (as an emphatic particle). More probable is the explanation by Geller (pp. 191ff), that zul here means “foreign/strange speech”, but that the poet also intends a play on the word zu^—indicating that the Egyptians were both foreign and strong/cruel. Moreover, the root zul can connote the idea of “mocking” (cf. Geller, p. 192). I have captured these possible aspects or nuances of meaning with the translation “cruel tongue”.

The second couplet (v. 2) also has a certain dual-meaning, as Judah/Israel can refer to both the people and the land/territory. The use of the feminine noun form ht*y+h* (“she became”) suggests that the land of Judah is primarily intended; similarly, the noun hl*v*m=m# (also feminine) means “place of rule” (that is, an area over which one rules). However, the masculine noun vd#q) is more ambiguous—it could mean either “holy people” or “holy place”. The former would refer to the theophany and covenant at Sinai, at which time Israel was established as YHWH’s people and a “holy nation” (Exod 19:6). The latter would refer to the territory of Judah as a holy location, almost certainly in reference to Jerusalem as the site of the Temple sanctuary. This is in keeping with the ancient Exodus traditions (e.g., Exod 15:17), anticipating the conquest and settlement of the Promised Land.

The plural form of the noun hl*v*m=m# (i.e., literally “places of rule”) is a bit peculiar; it may be an instance of an intensive or comprehensive plural. This is essentially how I have rendered it— “entirely as His place of rule”. It is especially from Jerusalem (and the Temple sanctuary) that YHWH rules as King. In this regard, the Temple sanctuary functions as His throne. A royal theology is very much present here, as it is in many Psalms. It is here that the cosmological-mythic motifs, which dominate the remainder of the Psalm, are introduced (cf. below). In His work as Creator, YHWH, in establishing an ordered universe, also establishes His Kingship and Rule over it. In Canaanite mythic tradition, for example, Baal Haddu, after bringing order to the cosmos (by defeating the Sea [cf. below]), constructs his cosmic temple, from which he exercises rule over the cosmos. A similar cosmological framework is implicit here in Psalm 114, with the local setting of the Temple sanctuary representing the cosmic sanctuary (and taking the place of the earlier mountain locale [Sinai]).

There is a certain chiastic structure to the ethno-geographic terms used in vv. 1-2:

Israel | house of Jacob || Judah | Israel

For the expression “house of Jacob” as a traditional designation for the Israelite people, see Exod 19:3 (also Gen 46:27); it becomes more commonly used in Prophetic formulae (both of exhortation and judgment)—especially the book of Isaiah (2:5-6; 46:3; 48:1, etc).

Strophe 2: Verses 3-4

“The Sea saw, and fled (suddenly) away,
the Yarden turned around to (the) back!
The mountains leaped about like rams,
the high hills like sons of (the) flock!”

The principal point of reference in verse 3, like the prior vv. 1-2, is the historical event of the Exodus, followed by the conquest/settlement of the Land. The first line refers to the event at the Reed Sea (Exod 14-15), when the sea was driven back (by a wind from God) to allow the Israel people to cross over to freedom (Exod 14:21ff; 15:8; cf. Psalm 66:6; 78:13, 53; 106:9). The second line refers to a similar event at the crossing of the Jordan (Joshua 3), marking Israel’s entry into the Promised Land. However, this all is expressed here through allusions to cosmological myth, involving two related strands of tradition: (1) YHWH’s defeat/subduing of the the primeval waters (“the Sea”), by which He, as Creator, established an ordered cosmos, over which He exercises rule (as King); and (2) the language and imagery of storm-theophany, by which God, with His control over the waters (and the storm), makes his appearance, to which all of creation reacts with fear (and also joy). Both strands of tradition are found in numerous Psalms (and other early Hebrew poems); most notably, they are combined in Psalm 29, a composition that likely influenced the author of our Psalm. On the first line of tradition (viz., YHWH’s subduing of the Sea), cf. my earlier article “The Conflict with the Sea in Ancient Near Eastern Myth” (where other Scriptural examples are also provided).

Of special importance is the way that this mythic language/imagery is applied to the historical context of Israel’s establishment as a nation, paralleling the cosmic context of the establishment of the ordered universe (cf. 77:17[16]ff, and numerous other examples in the Psalms). YHWH rules over Israel (v. 2), just as He is King over the entire cosmos. His control over the waters is utilized on behalf of His people.

The imagery in verse 4 is derived primarily from Psalm 29:6, though the “leaping about” (vb dq^r*) of the mountains and hills is a basic component of the storm-theophany tradition (see above). When YHWH appears, manifesting Himself in the storm (i.e., wind, cloud, thunder, lightning/fire), all of creation shakes/quakes (e.g., Exod 19:18; Psalm 18:8[7]ff). The verb dq^r* can also indicate a joyful response (i.e., “dance about”). Possibly there is an allusion here to the idea that, with the subduing of the Sea, as YHWH exercises His control over the waters, the dry land of the earth (and esp. the mountains and hills) becomes visible, now able to grow and become fertile (note this thematic imagery in Ps 104:7-9ff; cf. Geller, pp. 185-7).

Strophe 3: Verses 5-6

“What to you, O Sea, that you flee away (so),
O Yarden, (that) you turn round to (the) back?
(What,) O mountains (that) you leap like rams,
(and you) high hills like sons of (the) flock?”

Verses 5-6 essentially repeat vv. 3-4, but in the form of a question: Why, O nature, do you react this way? The specific expression ;L=-hm^ (“What to you…?”) can be translated idiomatically in English as “What’s (wrong) with you?”. Verse 7 gives the answer.

Strophe 4: Verses 7-8

“From before (the) face of (the) Lord, writhe, O earth,
from before (the) face of (the) Mighty (One) of Ya‘aqob—
the (One) turning the rock (into) a pool of waters,
the flinty-rock into a spring of waters!”

The reaction of the natural world (in vv. 3-6) is caused by a theophany—the manifestation and presence of YHWH. When He appears, all of the cosmos writhes (“twists”, vb lWj)—as indeed it should, in the face of its Creator and King; compare the similar command in Psalm 96:9. The reference to YHWH as the God of Jacob brings this final strophe back around to the first (vv. 1-2), and to the historical traditions of the Exodus. Verse 8 alludes in particular to the tradition in Numbers 20:2-11 (vv. 10-11; cf. also Deut 8:15), a tradition which features in several other Psalms (e.g., 78:15, 20; 105:41; cp. 107:33-35). It reflects, in a different way, YHWH’s control over the waters (cf. above). In the event at the Reed Sea, the waters “fled” and the sea was turned into dry ground; here, in reverse, the dry/rocky ground becomes a pool (with a flowing spring) of water. The same juxtaposition occurs in Psalm 78:13-16; cf. also 107:29-35.

The y-! sufformative on the participle in v. 8a is similar to instances in 113:5-6 (see the discussion in the previous study); the same arguments regarding them presumably would apply here. Also unusual is the o– suffix on the noun /y`u=m^ (“spring”) in 8b. Dahood (III, p. 137) regards it as an archaic accusative ending; Joüon discusses (in his Grammar, §93r; cf. Allen, p. 139) such rare instances of a w– ending on construct nouns, likewise explaining them as vestiges of an accusative case-ending, but which (in the poetic context) are paragogic endings, serving a phonetic or rhythmic purpose.

The couplets in the final strophe have a 4+3 meter, in contrast to the 3+3 meter of the earlier strophes, though this is not entirely reflected by the presentation of my translation above.

      • References marked “Dahood, I”, “Dahood, II” and “Dahood, III” above are to, respectively, Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Psalms I: 1-50, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 16 (1965), Psalms II: 51-100, vol. 17 (1968), and Psalms III: 101-150, vol. 17A (1970).
      • References marked “Allen” are to Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101-150 (Revised edition), Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 21 (Zondervan: 2002/2014).
      • Those marked “Hossfeld-Zenger” are to Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101-150, translated by Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia Commentary Series (Fortress Press: 2011). Cf. also the study by Erich Zenger, “A Poetical Etiology of Israel: Psalm 114 against the Background of the Kingship-of-YHWH Psalms 29 and 96-98”, in Shai le-Sara Japhet: Studies in the Bible, its Exegesis and its Language, eds. Moshe Bar-Asher, Dalit Rom-Shilom, Emmanuel Tov, and Nili Wazana (Bialik Institute, Jerusalem: 2007), pp. 381-96 (English section).
      • Those marked “Geller” are to Stephen A. Geller, “The Language of Imagery in Psalm 114”, in Lingering Over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran, eds. Tzvi Abusch, John Huehnergard, and Piotr Steinkeller (Scholars Press: 1990), pp. 179-94.

 

September 27: 1 Corinthians 1:27-29

1 Corinthians 1:27-29

In verse 26 (see the previous note), Paul expands the wisdom-foolishness contrast to include the ideas of “power” (du/nami$, adj. dunato/$) and belonging to a noble or prominent family lineage (“good birth”, adj. eu)genh/$). These last two points of contrast, perhaps more than the first, are indicative of social status. Typically, the most important and influential people in “the world” are those with power or who belong to a prominent family. None of these things, however, have any relevance with regard to being “called” (and chosen, “gathered out”) by God as a believer in Christ. Indeed, God is just as likely—and perhaps more so—to choose people who are not rich and powerful and influential (according to the world’s standards). This is very much the point of the contrast Paul is making here (“but [a)lla/] God gathered out [i.e. chose]…”), as he expounds (in vv. 27-28) on the three illustrative characteristics that represent the world’s values:

    • Wisdom (i.e., human wisdom and learning):
      “the foolish (thing)s [mwroi/] of the world
      …that He might bring down shame (on) the wise”
    • Power/strength:
      “the (thing)s without strength [a)sqenh=] of the world
      …that He might bring down shame (on) the strong”
    • Noble/prominent lineage:
      “the (thing)s a)genh= of the world…”

The last adjective (a)genh/$) is a bit difficult to translate. Literally, it means “without [a)-] ge/no$” —the noun ge/no$ denoting the circumstances of a person “coming to be (born)”, generally referring to one’s family (and/or ethnic) lineage. In context here it means “without (noble) birth”, i.e., lacking any sort of prominent family background.

All three of these points of contrast—being in contrast to what the world values—are summarized in verse 28, building upon the third characteristic (a)genh=). First, Paul uses the verbal adjective (participle) e)couqenhme/na, a perfect passive participle of the verb e)couqene/w, meaning “make out [i.e., treat/regard] as nothing” —that is, those who are insignificant and of no importance in the world’s eyes. Paul gives this an even harsher tone by using the verb of being (participle o&nta): “the (thing)s not being [mh\ o&nta]”, that is, not being of any importance. The contrast could not be any more extreme: God chooses people who “are no(thing)” (mh\ o&nta) in the world’s eyes and turns them into ones who “are” (o&nta) something truly important—in God’s eyes!

As for those who are (o&nta) something in the world, God’s choice of those who ‘are nothing’ does more than “bring down shame” (vb kataisxun/w) on these prominent and powerful persons—it portends their ultimate downfall and demise. Paul expresses this by the verb katarge/w. This is a favorite Pauline term; of the 27 occurrences in the New Testament, all but two (Lk 13:7; Heb 2:14) are in the Pauline letters. The verb essentially has the (transitive) meaning “make (something) cease working”, i.e., so that it is no longer active or effective. In this context (cf. also 2:6), it refers to the prospect that the powerful and prominent people in the world will cease to be so. This alludes to the coming judgment upon the world; the end-time Judgment scene is clearly referenced in the climactic verse 29:

“…so that all flesh should not boast in the sight of God”
o%pw$ mh\ kauxh/shtai pa=sa sa\rc e)nw/pion tou= qeou=

At the same time, this declaration also applies to the salvation of humankind (that is, of believers)—no human being will be able to “boast” that they are deserving of being saved (i.e., passing through the Judgment) based on their own merit or (worldly) status. Rather, salvation is based upon being called by God, and then responding with trust to the Gospel. This is expressed by Paul in vv. 30-31, which we shall examine in the next daily note.

In conclusion here, I present a contiguous translation of verses 26-29, which, as previously mentioned, comprise a single sentence in Greek:

“For you can look to your (own) calling, brothers: (how) that not many (of you were) wise according to the flesh, not many (were) powerful, not many of good birth; but God gathered out the foolish (thing)s of the world, (so) that He might bring down shame (on) the wise; and God gathered out the (thing)s of the world without strength, (so) that He might bring down shame (on) the strong; and God gathered out the (thing)s of the world without (good) birth, and having been made out as nothing, th(ose) not being (anything), (so) that He might make th(ose) being (‘something’) to cease working—so that all flesh should not (be able to) boast in the sight of God!”

 

 

September 26: 1 Corinthians 1:26

1 Corinthians 1:26

Verse 26 marks the beginning of the next discourse-unit (vv. 26-31) of 1:18-2:16. Verses 26-29, like the prior vv. 21-25 (cf. the previous note), comprise a single sentence in Greek. In these verses, Paul illustrates his argument from vv. 18-25, applying it to the personal situation and circumstances of Corinthians believers:

“For you can look to your (own) calling, brothers, (how) that not many (of you were) wise according to the flesh, not many (were) powerful, not many well-born…” (v. 26)

Paul’s point is that most believers were not especially gifted intellectually or philosophically (“wise”, sofo/$), nor were they “powerful” (dunato/$) by the standards of “the world”. These two characteristic adjectives are related to the nouns used in verse 24— “wisdom” (sofi/a) and “power” (du/nami$). Rather than relying upon the wisdom and power of “the world”, believers have trusted in the wisdom and power of God. Experiencing the Divine wisdom and power does not require any particular earthly, human wisdom/power (i.e., “according to the flesh”). This expression, “according to the flesh” (kata\ [th\n] sa/rka), is used with some frequency by Paul (some 18 [or 19] times), and is part of his distinctive use of the term sa/rc (“flesh”). The expression means something like, “in an (ordinary) human manner”, in contrast to the Divine. According to Paul’s revolutionary Christian anthropology, believers in Christ have been freed from the power of sin and evil that has dominated all of humankind (“the world”) during this current Age. However, because we, as believers, remain human beings, there remains in us a certain impulse toward sin, against which we must continue to struggle. Paul refers to this human impulse as “[the] flesh”.

In this instance, the sinful aspect of “the flesh” is not particularly being emphasized; rather, it refers to humankind and human nature in a more general sense. Even so, the dualistic contrast (implying opposition) between the “flesh” and God (His Spirit) is very much part of Paul’s line of argument. This can be seen by a reiteration of his contrast between the two kinds of wisdom: there is wisdom “according to the flesh” (or “of the world”, v. 20), and then there is the Wisdom of God.

Another worldly characteristic that has no relevance for believers is being “well-born” (eu)ge/nh$)—that is, of a ‘good’ or noble birth. Often the possession of both wisdom and power comes as a byproduct of a noble birth and heritage. But God did not “call” people to be believers in Christ based on any of these factors. It was common for early Christians to refer to themselves (believers) as those called (klhto/$), and Paul makes use of this traditional idiom frequently (including here in 1 Corinthians, 1:1-2, 24). The related noun klh=si$ (“calling”) is also part of the Pauline vocabulary (cf. 7:20; Rom 11:29; 2 Thess 1:11; Phil 3:14; 2 Tim 1:9; also Eph 1:18; 4:1, 4). The very motif of being “called” by God indicates that our trust in Jesus Christ is not due to any specific activity or personal attribute on our part; the initiative is God’s, not ours.

A related motif is that of being “gathered out” (i.e., chosen) by God; the meaning of the idiom is largely synonymous with that of being “called”. In each instance, the believer is marked off and separated out from the rest of humankind; this dynamic is perhaps indicated more clearly by the use of the verb e)kle/gomai (“gather out”). This is the verb Paul uses in verse 27:

“…but God gathered out [e)cele/cato] the foolish (thing)s of the world, (so) that He might bring shame down (on) the wise”

This does not mean that all believers in Christ were “foolish” in the world’s eyes, before they were chosen by God, but some certainly were—that is, they were not necessarily wise, not especially gifted with human wisdom and learning. Throughout this passage, “foolish” (mwro/$, noun mwri/a) is specifically contrasted with “wise” (sofo/$, noun sofi/a). This is another way of saying that whether or not a person becomes a believer in Christ has nothing to do with the possession of human/earthly wisdom (“of the world”, “according to the flesh”). Indeed, the fact that God would choose many who were not particularly wise, while not choosing others who were wise, shows ultimately how insignificant such wisdom is, and it “brings down shame” (vb kataisxu/nw) on all who would place their trust in human wisdom.

The wise/foolish contrast serves as a framework for including other similar sorts of contrasts—reflecting the fundamental difference between the human and the Divine. Paul lists out some of these in vv. 27-28, before drawing his concluding point in verse 29. We will consider these in the next daily note.

September 25: 1 Corinthians 1:23-25

1 Corinthians 1:23b-25

The central pivot in Paul’s exposition of his statement in v. 21 is the declarative clause in v. 23a:

“but we proclaim (the) Anointed (One) having been put to the stake [i.e. crucified]”

This the manifestation of true wisdom—the Wisdom of God—in contrast to the ordinary human wisdom of “the world”. All of humankind can be divided into two general groups: Jews and non-Jews (called “Greeks” or “the nations”). Neither of these groups have been able to recognize the Wisdom of God, particularly as it is manifest in the proclamation of the Gospel. It is only believers in Christ—whether from a Jewish or non-Jewish background—who recognize the true wisdom. The crux of the world’s failure to respond to the Wisdom in the Gospel, according to Paul, lies in their rejection of the message of the cross (i.e., Jesus’ death by crucifixion [“having been put to the stake”, vb stauro/w]).

For Jews, this message is a ‘stumbling-block’, something that trips them up; this is the meaning of the noun ska/ndalon, which properly denotes the trigger of a trap. The word (cf. also the related verb skandali/zw) was used by Jesus a number of times in the Gospel Tradition—Matt 13:41; 16:23; 18:7 par—and also by Paul (Rom 9:33; 11:9; 14:13; 16:17; Gal 5:11). Its application to the current context—viz., the crucifixion of Jesus as a barrier, preventing Jews from accepting him as the Messiah—occurs in the Scripture citations by Paul in Rom 9:33 and 11:9, and in Gal 5:11. Jesus’ death—by such a shameful manner of death as crucifixion—was entirely out of keeping with what Jews of the time would have expected of the Messiah. For more on this, see Part 11 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”.

For non-Jews, who held no such Messianic expectations, the crucifixion of Jesus simply comes across as foolishness (mwri/a). Why should anyone trust in, and be devoted to, a human being who was put to death in this manner? The episode in Acts 17 (at Athens) suggests that many Greeks, those who “seek after wisdom”, would find the message of Jesus’ resurrection just as “foolish” (v. 32). The noun mwri/a denotes something stupid/foolish, and was used here earlier in vv. 18 and 21, along with the related verb mwrai/nw in v. 20.

Again, the key point for Paul is that believers—comprised of both groups of humans, Jews and non-Jews—recognize God’s Wisdom in the Gospel:

“but for them th(at are) called, both Yehudeans and Greeks, (the) Anointed (One), (the) power of God and (the) wisdom of God” (v. 24)

This restates Paul’s initial declaration in verse 18, to the effect that believers recognize the Gospel of Christ (particularly his death, “the word/account of the stake [i.e. cross]”) as the power of God, able to save humankind (from bondage to sin and death), cf. the famous propositio of Romans (1:16). Now, in v. 24, Paul adds the idea of “wisdom” (sofi/a) to that of “power” (du/nami$), making explicit what had been implied throughout vv. 17-23—namely, that the Gospel represents the true wisdom, the very “wisdom of God”.

Paul understands full well that the message of Jesus’ death (by crucifixion) makes for a strange kind of “wisdom”. He tacitly admits this, and expresses it by continuing the wisdom-foolishness contrast established earlier in the section:

“…(in) that the foolish (thing) of God (is) wiser (than the wisdom) of men, and the strengthless (thing) of God (is) stronger (than the strength) of men!” (v. 25)

This statement reflects the theological principle that God is incomparably greater than any human being. So vast is the gulf that even the least bit of the Divine wisdom (or strength) far surpasses that of humankind. More than this, the adjective mwro/$ (“foolish, stupid”, related to mwri/a) also represents the human response to God’s Wisdom, and their understanding of it (or lack thereof). Since human beings (non-believers) do not really know God, they cannot recognize or understand His wisdom. The same is true with regard to His “strength” (i)sxuro/$) which may, indeed, seem like weakness to the world. This certainly applies to the crucifixion of Jesus, which seems very much like something “without strength” (a)sqenh/$). And yet, the crucifixion of Jesus is actually a source and manifestation of strength—Divine strength and power—greater than anything human beings can exhibit. Paul goes on to explain further the nature of this power, applying it specifically to the situation and circumstances of believers, in vv. 26ff. We will examine this development in the next daily note.

It may be helpful here to present a translation of vv. 21-25, treated as a single Greek sentence, in full:

“For since, indeed, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through th(is) wisdom, God thought it good, through the foolishness of the proclamation, to save the (one)s trusting—since, indeed, both Yehudeans ask for a sign and Greeks seek after wisdom, but we proclaim (the) Anointed (One) having been put to the stake [i.e. crucified], (on the one hand) a (cause of) tripping for Yehudeans, and (on the other) foolishness for (the) nations, but, for them th(at are) called, both Yehudeans and Greeks, (the) Anointed (One), (the) power of God and the wisdom of God, (in) that the foolish (thing) of God (is) wiser (than the wisdom) of men, and the strengthless (thing) of God (is) stronger (than the strength) of men!”

 

September 24: 1 Corinthians 1:22-23

1 Corinthians 1:22-23a

As discussed in the previous note (on verse 21), verses 21-25 can be read, syntactically, as a single sentence in Greek. In particular, vv. 22-23a provides a modifying parallel to verse 21. This is clear from the compound particle e)peidh/ (e)pei/ + dh/) that begins each compound clause. The particle means something like “since now, indeed…”; the parallel in thought is clear enough:

    • “since indeed…the world did not know God through the wisdom (of God)” (v. 21)
    • “since indeed, both Yehudeans ask for a sign and Greeks seek after wisdom” (v. 22)

The statement in v. 22 explains the one in v. 21—that is, how it was, and the manner in which, “the world” did not know God, even though the Wisdom of God was present among them. Here, “the world” (o( ko/smo$) signifies the inhabited world of humankind, and, in particular, all human beings apart from believers in Christ. These human beings can be divided into two ethno-religious categories: Jews and non-Jews (“Greeks”, i.e., Gentiles). The distinction, as Paul applies it here, is not easy to decipher, at least in relation to the overriding idea expressed in v. 21. On the assumption that most Israelites and Jews would be somewhat with the Wisdom of God (as, for example, it is expressed in the Scriptures), the emphasis on “asking for a sign” may refer to establishing the authority of the teacher of wisdom. This is certainly the significance of the motif as it occurs in the Gospels—Mark 8:11; Matt 12:38-39; Luke 11:16; also John 6:30—where the request suggests a lack of faith, and indicates the inability (or unwillingness) to recognize the Word of God as it is declared by an inspired/prophetic teacher. The ‘Greeks’, by contrast, tend to show an interest in various kinds of human wisdom (philosophy, science, rhetoric, and other forms of learning), which, in its own way, is derived from the Divine Wisdom, yet does not lead to a true knowledge of God.

Both ‘Jews’ and ‘Greeks’ respond to the Divine Wisdom, in different ways, and yet fail to obtain a true and proper knowledge of God through it. It is only believers in Christ who recognize the Wisdom of God and come to know Him through it. Paul makes this quite clear by the contrast in v. 23a:

“…Yehudeans ask for a sign and Greeks seek after wisdom,
but we proclaim (the) Anointed (One) having been put to the stake [i.e. crucified]”

The implication, again, is that true wisdom—viz., the Wisdom of God—is manifest in the person of Jesus Christ, and, most paradoxically, in his death (crucifixion). The same point was already made in v. 18, with the use of the expression “the word/account [lo/go$] of the stake [i.e. cross]”. As I noted, the terms lo/go$ (“word”) and sofi/a (“wisdom”) are closely related, especially when used in a theological context—that is, referring to the Word/Wisdom of God. In early Christian theology, Jesus came to be identified with both the Word (Logos) and the Wisdom of God. In this regard, Paul draws upon much the same store of Jewish theological and philosophical tradition as the author of the Prologue of the Johannine Gospel (1:1-18), though he makes use of it in a different manner.

From this Christological standpoint, which Paul is only beginning to expound at this point, the response to God’s Wisdom by “the world” is understood primarily in terms of the response by people to the Gospel proclamation (kerygma). It is the message about Jesus Christ that they are responding to, as they hear the Gospel proclaimed (by missionaries such as Paul and Apollos, etc). Through this lens of the Gospel (v. 23a), the failure of the two groups of human beings (non-believers) to respond properly to God’s Wisdom can be explained and better understood. Essentially, the Jew-Gentile distinction from v. 22 is restated in v. 23b:

    • Jews—
      • fail to know God, through His Wisdom, in that they “ask for a sign”, not trusting or responding in faith to the Word declared by the inspired messenger
      • the proclamation of the death of Christ (viz., the cross) becomes something that trips them up, a ‘stumbling-block’ (ska/ndalon) to them.
    • Non-Jews (“Greeks”, “the nations”)—
      • eagerly search after wisdom, but fail to recognize or respond to the Wisdom of God
      • the proclamation of the cross seems like “foolishness” (mwri/a) to them.

Paul brings his line of argument back around to the wisdom-foolishness contrast of v. 18 (also brought out in v. 21). While the contrast relates more directly to the “Greeks”, it applies to all human begins.

In the next daily note, we will consider how Paul expresses this point of application, in vv. 23b-24, before turning to the climactic theological declaration he makes in v. 25.

 

Notes on Prayer: Thy Kingdom Come (Matthew 20)

“May your Kingdom come!”
e)lqe/tw h( basilei/a sou

In the previous study, we examined the Kingdom sayings and parables in Matthew 18. There is another important Kingdom-parable in chapter 20, positioned in relationship to several other traditional Kingdom-teachings. With regard to this literary context, based on the established Synoptic tradition (and narrative framework), mention should be made of the Kingdom-references in chapter 19. In particular, it is interesting to consider the way that the Matthean Gospel writer has adapted and developed the existing tradition. There are at least three relevant instances of Matthean development:

    1. Following the Divorce-teaching section (vv. 3-9; Mk 10:2-11), the Gospel writer adds a Kingdom-saying by Jesus in verse 12. This is certainly to be regarded as a separate tradition (“M” material), which the writer has joined thematically (i.e., based on the subject of marriage/divorce) to the Synoptic pericope, by way of the transitional vv. 10-11. The saying emphasizes that some people will deny themselves the pleasures of marriage and sexual companionship (essentially becoming ‘eunuchs’) “because of [dia/] the kingdom of the heavens”. In the Gospel context, this, of course, refers to being a disciple of Jesus, and the various sorts of self-sacrifice that this discipleship entails.
    2. The Gospel writer includes the Kingdom-saying tradition from Mk 10:13-16 (vv. 13-15), even though comparable sayings were already presented in 18:1-4 (cf. the discussion in the previous study). This contextual ‘doubling’ serves to reinforce the Kingdom-teaching(s) involved; here the child-illustration is given in the context of the section’s discipleship and self-sacrifice themes.
    3. Much the same can be said of the author’s handling of the ‘Rich Young Ruler’ tradition (vv. 16-22ff; Mk 10:17-30), with its core Kingdom-saying (v. 23) as an exposition of the discipleship-teaching inherent in the main episode. These thematic associations are part of the Synoptic material; however, the Matthean author enhances these by including the sayings of vv. 28 and 30. The saying in v. 30 is transitional to the parable in 20:1-16 (see below), while the saying in v. 28 (compare the parallel in Lk 22:28-30) serves to express the Matthean theme of the heavenly (rather than earthly) reward that comes as a result of being a faithful disciple of Jesus. Clearly, the setting of this heavenly reward is the Kingdom of the heavens.

This brings us to the parable in 20:1-16.

Matthew 20

The opening of this parable makes clear that it is another Kingdom-parable:

“For the kingdom of the heavens is like(ned) to a man, a master of a house, one who went out at the (proper) time early in the morning to hire (for wages) [vb misqo/w] workers in his vineyard.” (v. 1)

This “man” who hires the workers could be explained as God (the Father) or as Jesus; in either case, the interpretive context clearly relates to being a disciple of Jesus. Ultimately, however, the (mission-)work the disciple provides is done for the heavenly Father (and His “kingdom of the heavens”); it is God who gives out the worker’s wage (misqo/$, v. 8; cf. 5:12, 46; 6:1ff; 10:42).

The key point of teaching in this parable is that, quite unexpectedly, each worker receives the same wage, regardless of how long he worked in the vineyard during the day (vv. 8-10ff). This would seem to contradict the earlier Kingdom teachings (e.g., in chaps. 18-19), which suggest that some disciples will receive a greater reward. The child-illustrations (see above) are significant in this regard, since they make quite clear that one’s ‘greatness’ in the Kingdom is based on the extent to which one “becomes like a little child”. Even so, the idea of greater/lesser reward would seem to be implied, and thus the motif of an equal reward for all comes here as something of a surprise. It provides a different spin on the saying in 19:30:

“Indeed, many (who are) first will be last, and (the) last first.”

Based on the earlier Kingdom-teachings (such as the child-illustrations), this would naturally be taken to mean that the one who is lowest/humblest, who is willing to give service and to sacrifice the most, will have the highest position in the Kingdom. However, the explanation from the parable in 20:1-16 is quite different: in the Kingdom, there is no ‘first’ or ‘last’ —all are equal, and receive the same reward. That the parable does, in fact, provide an exposition of the saying in 19:30 is confirmed by Jesus’ restatement of the saying at the close of the parable (v. 16).

How should this message of equality in the Kingdom be understood in the narrative context of the Gospel at this point? The Kingdom-references that follow, in the remainder of chapter 20 and into chap. 21, are instructive in this regard. The emphasis is squarely upon the impending suffering and death of Jesus. This is clear enough from the Passion-prediction in vv. 17-19, and by the episode involving the sons of Zebedee in vv. 20-28. These are both inherited from the Synoptic Tradition (Mk 10:32-45), and are included by the Matthean author with relatively little adaptation. The differences are relatively minor; most notably, it is the disciples’ mother who makes the request of Jesus (vv. 20-21), rather than the disciples themselves. Most critical commentators explain this as an attempt to cast the apostles (James and John) in a less negative light; but, otherwise, the author makes no real change to the underlying tradition. The message is the same, in any case: discipleship involves a willingness to follow Jesus’ example, even to the point of ‘imitating’ his suffering and death.

The healing episode that follows (vv. 29-34), and then the Triumphal Entry scene (21:1-11), are also well-established pieces of the Synoptic Tradition, to which the Gospel writer makes only minor or modest adaptations. Both episodes feature the idea of Jesus as a King, and thus relate to the wider theme of the Kingdom of Heaven. The healing episode effectively introduces, within the main Gospel narrative, the specific identification of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah (“son of David”). As I have discussed previously, it is only in the second half of the Synoptic narrative (viz., the Jerusalem period) that Jesus’ identification with the Royal/Davidic Messianic figure-type becomes prominent (in the first half, it is the Prophetic figure-types that dominate). Apart from the Infancy narratives (chaps. 1-2), where the Davidic Messiah does feature, the Matthean author generally follows the Synoptic framework. Thus, it is with the Triumphal Entry scene that the theme of Jesus as Messianic King takes center stage; it is a thematic emphasis that prevails throughout the Jerusalem Period episodes, and into the Passion narrative, as we examined in the earlier studies on those passages during Holy Week.

To experience, along with Jesus, his suffering and death, is the ultimate equalizer for all disciples. Being a faithful disciple entails both suffering and self-sacrifice (which is itself a kind of ‘death’, or at least a demonstrates a willingness to die); every true disciple will follow Jesus, even to the point of death. As with the first disciples, there may be temporary failings and failures along the way, but the one who truly belongs to the Kingdom, and who will inherit it, is the one who is willing to share in the suffering and death of Jesus. This is symbolized, for example, by the Lord’s Supper ritual, and is realized, in practical terms, a number of different ways, as we live out our faith in the midst of the world’s darkness. These ways are reflected by Jesus’ teachings, such as the great Kingdom sayings and parables presented in the Gospel of Matthew.

In the next study, we will continue our exploration of these passages, turning to the Kingdom-references in chapters 21-23.

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 113

Psalm 113

Dead Sea MSS: 4QPsb (verse 1)

Psalm 113 is a hymn of praise to YHWH. It opens the so-called Hallel collection of Pss 113-118, sung during the great pilgrimage festivals (esp. Passover), a tradition that probably dates to at least the first century A.D. The designation Hallel (Praise) is given to the entire collection, however it applies more readily to Psalm 113 than the following compositions. Indeed, this Psalm both opens and closes with the exhortation Hy` Wll=h^ (Hal®lû-Y¹h, “Praise YH[WH]!”), and each line of verse 1 begins with the verb ll^h* (h¹lal), “praise” (cf. also 117:1-2 and 115:17-19).

It is not immediately clear why Pss 113-118 should be grouped together as a collection. There have been attempts to delineate unifying themes or elements in these six Psalms, but I do not find them especially convincing. One might note, for example, that Ps 113 has at least as many points of similarity with the prior Pss 111-112 (esp. 112, cf. the previous study), than with the Psalms that follow in the Hallel grouping. However, it is possible to read the collection in such a way as to discern a dramatic-narrative framework. The position of Ps 114, in particular, gives to the collection a dramatic connection to the Exodus which would have been especially appropriate at Passover. Quite possibly, the collection was treated in a manner of a song-cycle, allowing for a treatment of Israelite/Judean history and religious life within the scope of a specific set of songs. The simple strophic structure of Pss 113 and 114 (see below) would have made them quite easy to remember and to sing/recite in a congregational setting.

Scholars have long noted the definite similarities between the third strophe (vv. 7-9) and the ‘Song of Hannah’ (1 Sam 2:1-10 [vv. 5, 8]). This has naturally led to speculation regarding the relationship between the two compositions, and, subsequently, the age/date of each poem. D. N. Freedman (“Psalm 113 and the Song of Hannah” [1975], in Poetry, Poetry, and Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry [Eisenbrauns: 1980], pp. 243-62) argues that Psalm 113 is the earlier composition, and that the Song of Hannah is dependent upon it; however, the majority of commentators would, I think, be inclined to argue the opposite (see esp. the study by A. Hurvitz, “Originals and Imitations in Biblical Poetry: A Comparative Examination of 1 Sam 2:1-10 and Ps 113:5-9”, in Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry [Eisenbrauns: 1985], pp. 115-22). Another possibility is that both compositions made use of a common early poetic tradition. Certain details that may have a bearing on the age/date of Psalm 113 are discussed in the notes below.

This Psalm has a simple three-part strophic structure, with each strophe containing three bicola of generally similar rhythm. The precise meter does vary, between 3+3 and 3+2 couplets.

First Strophe: Verses 1-3

Verse 1

“Praise YH(WH)!
Give praise, (you) servants of YHWH,
give praise (to the) name of YHWH!”

As noted above, each line of v. 1 begins with the plural imperative (Wll=h^) of the verb ll^h* II (Piel, “[give] praise”); the emphatic use of this verb establishes the praise theme, both in Ps 113 and for the entire Hallel collection (113-118). Psalms 111 and 112 begin with the same traditional exhortation Hy` Wll=h^ (Hal®lû-Y¹h, “Praise YH[WH]!”); it also opens/closes Ps 106, and punctuates Pss 102, 104, and 105 as well.

Dahood (III, p. 131) argues that MT hwhy yd@b=u^ (“servants of YHWH”) should be repointed as hwhy yd@b*u& (“works of YHWH”), being regarded as the object of the verb rather than the subject.

Verse 2

“May (the) name of YHWH be (continually) blessed,
from now even unto (the) distant (future)!”

The name of YHWH serves as a manifestation and embodiment of YHWH Himself; on the ancient Near Eastern background of names and naming, in this regard, see the Introduction to my earlier series “And You Shall Call His Name…”. It is primarily through the manifest name of YHWH that the Israelite people relate to Him, in a setting of prayer and worship. A name-theology was particularly associated with the Jerusalem Temple, featuring most prominently in the Deuteronomic books (cf. my earlier notes on the Prayer of Solomon [at the dedication of the Temple] in 1 Kings 8).

Here the use of a participle form (Er*b)m=, passive, “being blessed”) suggests a regular or continual action. The jussive verbal form at the beginning of the line (“may it be…”) matches the imperatives in v. 1; the combination of verbal forms reads awkwardly in English translation (“may it be [continually] being blessed”), but the point is clear enough.

Verse 3

“From (the) rising of (the) sun unto its coming (down),
(the) name of YHWH is (always) being praised!”

This verse essentially restates v. 2; indeed, the two verses combined form a chiastic unit:

    • “May the name of YHWH be blessed
      • from now unto the distant future
      • from the sun’s rising unto its setting
    • the name of YHWH is (to be) praised”

The inner prepositional lines, emphasizing the comprehensiveness (and universality) of the praise that should be given to YHWH, present both temporal (2b) and spatial-geographic (3a) aspects. The noun aobm= is primarily locative (i.e., “place [-m] of coming”), i.e., where the sun sets or comes back to rest (at night).

Commentators have noted the alliterative wordplay between <v@ (š¢m, “name”) and vm#v# (šemeš, “sun”).

Metrically, verses 1 and 2 are 3-beat (3+3) couplets, while verse 3 is a shortened 3+2 couplet.

Second Strophe: Verses 4-6

Verse 4

“Being high over all (the) nations (is) YHWH,
(and) over the heavens His weight.”

If the first strophe declared the need for YHWH to be praised, the second strophe provides the reason why He should be praised. It is stated here as a fundamental theological principle: viz., the transcendent greatness of YHWH, and His position as Sovereign over all of creation. The repeated use of the preposition lu^ (“over”) indicates His sovereignty, ruling as King over the universe. Principally, this means over the nations (i.e., humankind). The verb <Wr means “be high”; as in vv. 2a and 3b, a participle is used, indicating a continual (perpetual) action or condition.

Each line of the couplet refers to one half of the universe (heaven-earth), as it was understood within the ancient Near Eastern cosmology. The lower half (earth) is the portion that is inhabited (on the surface) by humankind (i.e., the nations); the upper half is the heavens. YHWH’s greatness and majesty transcends even the heavens—He is Sovereign Lord over the entire cosmos.

Like the “name” (<v@) of YHWH, the dobK* (lit., “weight”) is an essential manifestation of YHWH Himself. It applies to His transcendent presence over creation, but also to his manifest presence among His people, such as in the ritual-symbolic setting of the Temple sanctuary. The “name” and “weight” are closely related and connected, in this regard. The noun dobK*, in a religious-theological context, connotes the worth of YHWH, and the honor that is due to Him; it also can have a theophanous connotation—viz., the manifest splendor (or ‘glory’) of God, in a visible or metaphysical form.

Verses 5-6

“Who (is) like YHWH our Mightiest (One)—
the (One) rising up high to sit,
the (One) coming (down) low to see—
in the heavens or on the earth?”

Grammatically, these two verses (3+2 couplets) form a single sentence (or question). The structure is chiastic, as in vv. 2-3 of the first strophe (see above), though here the chiasm mirrors the syntax. The inner lines (5b-6a) are precisely parallel, each one a phrase modifying the subject (“YHWH our Mightiest [One]”). YHWH is the One “rising up high” (vb Hb^G`) and also the One “coming (down) low” (vb lp@v*). He rises high to sit (upon His throne above the heavens), and then comes down to see/look (at humankind upon the earth). Both actions reflect the Sovereignty of YHWH (as King) over all creation; the verb forms again are participles (see above), indicating regular/continuous action.

These participial forms here in vv. 5-6 contain a couple of features that require comment. First, they each are in the Hiphil stem, which usually has causative meaning, but that would seem to be inappropriate here. Dahood (III, p. 131) considers that the Hiphil, in these instances, has elative force—that is, expressing an intense or elevated quality (or degree) of the action or state involved. Allen (p. 133, citing Joüon §124n) explains them as expressing an adverbial idea, being followed as they are by verbal objects (infinitives, with prefixed preposition l=).

Second, the y-! sufformative is problematic. Dahood (III, p. 131) regards them as archaic (genitive) case endings, referring back to YHWH, the proper noun reading as genitive (being governed by the preposition K). Other commentators would explain them as the marker of (verbal) nouns in the construct state, or simply as ornamental. Perhaps most plausible is the explanation that they are essentially enclitic, having no real meaning, but being included to fill out the rhythm of the lines. The study by Avi Hurvitz (mentioned above) examined these instances in some detail, concluding that they are an example of deliberate archaizing, generally indicative of a relatively late date of composition (Exilic or early post-Exilic period). A stronger argument can, perhaps, be made for the occurrences in vv. 7-9 (see below) as being genuinely archaic endings.

Thematically, these verses add the idea of YHWH’s incomparability to that of His transcendent greatness and sovereignty; there is no being, divine or human, who can compare to YHWH.

Third Strophe: Verses 7-9

Verse 7

“He causes (the) poor to stand up from (the) dust,
(and) from (the) ash-heap He lifts high (the) needy—”

This couplet begins the third (and final strophe), building upon v. 6 and the idea of YHWH coming down to look upon human beings. The strophe describes the care YHWH shows to humankind—and particularly for those who are lowly and oppressed. In Psalm 114, this theme will be applied specifically to Israel, focusing on the Exodus; here, however, it is applied to humanity generally.

The verse is nearly identical to the first couplet of 1 Samuel 2:8 (from the ‘Song of Hannah’, vv. 1-10); the only difference is the form of the initial participle. Here in Psalm 113, the participle, as in v. 6, has a y-! sufformative, and likewise in vv. 8-9; possible explanations for this suffix were mentioned above, but there is no consensus among scholars. It may represent: (a) a genuinely archaic case ending, (b) an archaizing feature, or (c) a stylistic or rhythmic device.

There is little difference between the participle in the first line and the imperfect verb form in the second—they both express regular action performed by YHWH. In contrast with the Hiphil forms in verse 6 however (cf. above), here the Hiphil stem has genuine causative force: viz., YHWH causes the poor/needy to rise from the ground, elevating their status and position. The use of the verb <Wr (“be/lift high”) alludes back to the elevated position of YHWH (vv. 4-5), as Divine Sovereign over all creation.

Verse 8

“to make (him) sit (down) with (the) nobles,
(even) with (the) nobles of his people.”

Verse 8 is joined syntactically with the prior v. 7, almost certainly due to the parallel in 1 Sam 2:8 (see above on v. 7). Indeed, the first line of v. 8 here is identical to the third line of 1 Sam 2:8; the repetitive second line probably represents an adaptation (of that earlier hymn) by the Psalmist. I would take this as evidence for the priority of the Song of Hannah. The infinitive verb form that begins the line has a y-! sufformative, just like the participles in vv. 5-7, only here it is less comprehensible, and may reflect an ungrammatical (stylistic) imitation of the prior archaic (or archaizing) participle forms. Dahood (III, p. 132) regards it as an archaic (y-) third person singular object suffix)

The dramatic idea being expressed is that YHWH is able to raise the poor/lowly ones in society to a noble status and position. His sovereignty extends to the structures of human society, and He can (and does) alter them as He wishes.

Verse 9

“He causes (the) sterile (woman) to sit (in) the house,
(as) a glad mother of the sons (in her house).
Praise YH(WH)!“

A specific instance of the care YHWH shows to the lowly/needy in society is mentioned here in the concluding couplet: referring to a woman who is barren/sterile (rq*u*, fem.). This is particularly suitable to the literary context of the Song of Hannah, and, indeed, the couplet may well be inspired by 1 Sam 2:5b. In any case, YHWH ‘lifts up’ the barren woman from her lowly position by giving her the ability to bear children and become a mother. The verb bv^y` (“sit”) in the Hiphil (“cause to sit”) is used, just as in verse 8 (cf. above), but with a rather different context. In each instance, the reference is to YHWH causing a person to sit in an improved/elevated position, a place of honor. Here, the woman now “sits” in an honored place in the house(hold), as a capable wife and mother, bearer of many children (lit., “sons”). In the cultural context of the ancient Near East (and Israel), children were regarded as a supreme blessing from God, and a lack of children (or, especially, the inability to bear) typically viewed as a curse.

References marked “Dahood, I”, “Dahood, II” and “Dahood, III” above are to, respectively, Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Psalms I: 1-50, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 16 (1965), Psalms II: 51-100, vol. 17 (1968), and Psalms III: 101-150, vol. 17A (1970).
References marked “Allen” are to Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101-150 (Revised edition), Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 21 (Zondervan: 2002/2014).

September 20: 1 Corinthians 1:21

1 Corinthians 1:21

Having initially expounded his contrastive statement in v. 18 with certain quotations and allusions from Scripture (vv. 19-20, discussed in the previous note), Paul now offers a more precise line of exposition. The allusive language in verse 21 actually serves to further the key point of contrast—that is, between the two kinds of wisdom (sofi/a): the wisdom of the world, which is actually foolishness (mwri/a), and the Wisdom of God, which seems like foolishness to the world. This wisdom-foolishness contrast is what Paul uses to frame his exposition. Here is how the argument begins, in verse 21:

“For, since indeed [e)peidh/], in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through the wisdom, God thought (it) good, through the foolishness of the proclamation, to save the (one)s trusting—”

The first clause essentially describes the rejection of God’s Wisdom—the true wisdom—by “the world” (o( ko/smo$). Paul does not use the noun ko/smo$ (“world-order, world”) in such a consistently or pointedly negative way as do the Johannine writings; however, ko/smo$ does often signify the characteristic sin and unbelief of (most of) humankind during the current evil/wicked Age. Rhetorically, in these verses, “the world” refers to all human beings who are not believers. The statement in v. 21a has a chiastic structure:

    • “in [e)n] the wisdom of God
      • the world did not know God
    • through [di/a] the wisdom”

The prepositional phrases “in the wisdom” and “through the wisdom” are clearly parallel; the parallelism also affirms that the “wisdom” mentioned in both phrases is the same—viz., God’s wisdom. The expression “the wisdom” in the second phrase essentially means “this wisdom” (i.e., the wisdom of God). The preposition e)n (“in”) in the first phrase should be understood as spatial-relational, with a point of reference that is almost certainly similar to that in the Prologue of the Johannine Gospel (1:10-11ff)—viz., Jewish traditions regarding Wisdom’s desire to dwell among human beings, and yet finding no ‘welcome’ among them, being rejected by most of humankind (cf. Prov 8:31; Sirach 15:7; 1 Enoch 42:2). For a time (temporarily, at least), God’s Wisdom was “in the world” and “among human beings” (the preposition e)n can mean both “in” and “among”), which also means that human beings (“the world”) were also in contact with (e)n) God’s Wisdom. And yet, as a whole, humankind did not come to know God, in spite of the presence of His Wisdom. Exposure to God’s Wisdom should lead to knowledge of Him; on the connection between wisdom and knowledge, in this regard, cf. Prov 1:7; 2:5-6ff; 8:12; 9:10; Eccl 2:26; Wisd 2:13; 8:4, 21; 10:10. The preposition dia/ (“through”) here probably carries the meaning “as a result of”.

Because (e)peidh/) the world rejected His Wisdom in this way, God decided to deal with the world on its own terms—that is, by presenting it with something that it would consider to be “foolishness” (mwri/a). Ironically, the believers who are in the world (and who are called out of it) recognize that this “foolishness” is actually God’s very Wisdom. The “foolishness” to which Paul refers is the proclamation (kh/rugma) of the Gospel—and, in particular, the message of Jesus’ death (“account of the stake [i.e. cross]”, v. 18). Thus, while “wisdom” (sofi/a) is emphasized in the first clause, the apparent opposite (“foolishness”, mwri/a) is the focus in the second clause. And yet, this particular “foolishness” also represents God’s Wisdom; the parallelism of the two dia/-phrases, while seeming to be antithetical, is actually synonymous:

    • “through [dia/] the wisdom (of God)”
    • “through [dia/] the foolishness of the proclamation”

Through the “foolishness” of the Gospel, which actually manifests the wisdom of God, believers (those trusting in the Gospel) are saved. This clause is clearly expository in relation to v. 18:

    • “for the (one)s being saved, (the account of the cross) is the power of God”
    • “…through the proclamation, to save the (one)s trusting”

The ones saved by the Gospel are saved because they have trusted in it. The use of the noun kh/rugma emphasizes that the Gospel is proclaimed by Christian ministers and missionaries; in this regard, the “account” (lo/go$) specifically takes the form of a spoken word (cf. the use of lo/go$ in v. 17).

Grammatically, one can view verses 21-25 as a single sentence in Greek, with vv. 22-23a, in particular, providing an epexegetical parallel to v. 21. In other words, vv. 22-23a further explain the statement in v. 21; these verses will be discussed in the next daily note.

September 19: 1 Corinthians 1:19-20

1 Corinthians 1:19-20

As discussed in the previous note, verse 18 marks the beginning of the main body (probatio) of 1 Corinthians, the first section of which is 1:18-2:16. In terms of classic Greco-Roman rhetoric, the main body of the letter (or speech) is called the probatio; the name refers to a “proving” of the author’s central proposition (propositio), utilizing such lines of argument as would be relevant and/or effective. The proposition of 1 Corinthians is stated in verse 10: “there should be no splits [sxi/smata] among you”. This call for Christian unity is framed by a pair of exhortations, urging the Corinthians to be united (and unified) in both what they say and how they think. That this ideal was not being realized by the Corinthian congregations is clear from Paul’s narration (narratio) of the problem in vv. 11-17.

In the conclusion of this section (v. 17), which also serves as a transition to the probatio, Paul introduces the thematic keyword sofi/a (“wisdom”), pairing it with the noun lo/go$ (“account, word”), by way of the expression sofi/a lo/gou (“wisdom of [the] word”). In Jewish and early Christian philosophy, the terms lo/go$ and sofi/a were closely related, and could refer specifically to the Word/Wisdom of God. Paul will develop this theological association, from a Christological standpoint, throughout 1:18-2:16; but initially, in verse 17, the expression “wisdom of word” is meant to indicate the opposite of God’s Wisdom—namely, a human, earthly kind of wisdom, that is essentially apart from God’s Wisdom. In the immediate context of v. 17, “wisdom of word[s]” refers to the mode/manner of speaking—specifically, by the minister in his/her proclamation of the Gospel. When the minister seeks to persuade by the manner of proclamation (i.e., speaking ability and rhetorical techniques, etc), rather than focusing on the content of the proclamation, the Gospel becomes distorted—Paul would even say “emptied” (vb keno/w) of its power (v. 17b).

If the Gospel does not depend upon human/earthly “wisdom of word[s]”, the implication is that it involves a different kind of wisdom. In verse 18, Paul shifts the meaning of lo/go$, by qualifying it with the expression “of the stake [i.e., cross]” — “the word/account of the stake”; actually, the literal syntax of the phrase reads: “the word/account th(at is) of the stake” (o( lo/go$ o( tou= staurou=). In this setting, lo/go$ is no longer antithetical to true wisdom (sofi/a), but, rather, embodies it. The true wisdom (of God) is manifest in the person of Jesus Christ—and, in particular, his death and resurrection.

The contrast in v. 18 makes this clear. Paul contrasts the human/earthly wisdom with the Wisdom of God; he does this, initially, by contrasting the effect of the Gospel proclamation on two different groups of human beings: “the (one)s perishing” and “the (one)s being saved” —viz., the lost and the saved, unbelievers and believers. For unbelievers (“the [one]s perishing”), the Gospel message, centered on Jesus’ death (crucifixion), is mere foolishness (“stupidity, [something] stupid”, mwri/a). In contrast, for believers (such as Paul and the Corinthian Christians), the Gospel is the very power of God.

In verses 19-20, Paul begins to expound this important dualistic contrast. He does this by utilizing several Scriptural quotations and allusions. First, in v. 19, is a quotation from Isaiah 29:14, in which YHWH speaks through the prophetic oracle:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise (one)s, and the discernment of the discerning (one)s I will set aside.”

Paul’s Greek quotation matches that of the LXX, except that the final verb is a)qete/w (“set aside, unset”) rather than kru/ptw (“hide, conceal”); the latter (LXX) matches the Hebrew:

“and (the) wisdom of (the) wise (one)s shall perish, and (the) discernment of (the) discerning (one)s shall be hidden [rT*T^s=T!]”

In the context of the original Isaiah 29 oracle(s), this refers to the leaders of the Judean kingdom, who sought to act with wisdom/discernment, in the face of the Assyrian threat (c. 704-1 B.C.), by forming a defensive alliance with Egypt. Paul, of course, has universalized the context, so as to refer to human wisdom generally. The underlying point, however, has not changed—viz., the fallacy of relying on human wisdom rather than trusting in the Wisdom of God.

Paul follows this quotation with a biting (and mocking) sort of rhetorical question:

“Where (is the) wise (person)? Where (the) literate (one) [grammateu/$]? Where (is he who) seeks a debate with (you)?—(all who are) of this Age! Has not God made foolish/stupid [e)mw/ranen] the wisdom of th(is) world?” (v. 20)
Some textual witnesses include the demonstrative pronoun tou/tou (“…wisdom of this world”), matching “…of this Age” earlier in the verse; whether or not a second tou/tou was originally present, a demonstrative meaning (“this world”) certainly is intended.

In all probability Paul is alluding to other Isaian passages, such as 19:12 (“Where are they? Where are your wise [men]…?”) and 33:18 (“where is [the one] making an account [i.e. scribe = Grk grammateu/$]?”); the deutero-canonical Baruch 3:16ff has also been noted (cf. Conzelmann, p. 43). The question “where…?” (pou=) could imply that there are no truly wise people present throughout “the world”; on the other hand, Paul may be calling them to step forward, by way of a challenge to the most gifted speakers, writers, and philosophers of this age, to test their (human) wisdom against that of God. All of their skill, talent, and effort would be of no avail, as Paul indicates in the final question: “Has not God made foolish/stupid the wisdom of th(is) world?” The negative formulation of the question assumes a positive response—viz., “Yes, indeed He has!”.

How has God made the wisdom of this world to be foolish/stupid (vb mwrai/nw)? This is implied by the use of the noun mwri/a (“foolishness, stupidity”) in v. 18: viz., the message of the cross of Christ is seen as something foolish by the world. It is only believers in Christ who understand that it is not foolish at all, but rather represents true wisdom—the Wisdom of God. Paul continues his exposition on this point in verse 21, which we shall examine in the next daily note.

Lexical note: The Greek word translated “discernment” above is su/nesi$, from the verb suni/hmi which essentially means “put together” —that is, the mental/cognitive activity and ability of “putting (things) together”. While this denotation is clear enough in English, there is no concise English equivalent for either the noun su/nesi$ or the adjective suneto/$. To avoid overly cluttering the translation, I have rendered these as “discernment” & “discerning”; a translation “understanding” (for both noun and adjective) would also be acceptable.

References above marked “Conzelmann” are to Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, Hermeneia Commentary series (Fortress Press: 1975), English translation by James W. Leitch.

 

 

September 18: 1 Corinthians 1:18

1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16

This series of notes follows up on the recent article (on 1 Cor 1:10-17) in the Saturday Series. The focus in that study was on introducing how Paul adapted existing theology and tradition in order to address religious conflicts within the early Christian Community. All such inner-Community conflicts and controversies disrupt the unity that we, as believers in Christ, share as a consequence of our fundamental religious identity. Paul deals with this theme directly in 1 Cor 1:10-17. Indeed, verse 10, which serves as the main proposition (or propositio) of the letter, emphasizes the need for believers to act and live out their spiritual unity together in community. The dual exhortation, toward our being united in what we say (10a) and in how we think (10c), brackets the declaration that there should be no “splits” among us (10b).

Paul then describes something of the nature of this problem, as it is realized among the Corinthians, in the narratio that follows in vv. 11-17. Many of the Corinthians, apparently, defined their religious identity in terms of a sectarian allegiance—in particular, to a leading minister (“I am of Paul”, etc), or (perhaps) specifically to no human minister at all (“I am of Christ”). Such sectarian identifications have, in many ways, taken the place of the Community as a whole. These divisions may, to some extent, be the byproduct of a growing Community—one that can no longer be contained within a single house-church or congregation. As soon as multiple congregations came to be established in the city, it would naturally become more difficult to maintain a sense of unity among them all; various sorts of sectarian divisions would begin to emerge over time. Paul has heard of such divisions existing at Corinth, if only in seminal form, and finds evidence for them in the various issues he is asked (or feels compelled) to address in his letter. He seeks to nip the divisiveness ‘in the bud’, as best he can, before the matter becomes ever more serious.

Verse 17 marks the conclusion of the narratio, and also serves as the transition to the main body of the letter (the probatio). It is interesting to consider how Paul makes this transition, utilizing the motif of baptism. In verses 13ff, baptism functions implicitly as a sign of the unity which we all have as believers in Christ. Baptism, indeed, is a symbol—in ritual form—of our union with Christ (12:13; Gal 3:27; cf. also Eph 4:5). According to the traditional baptismal formula, believers are baptized “in the name” of Jesus (Matt 28:19; Acts 2:38; 8:12ff; 10:48; 19:5), identifying them as Christians who belong to Christ, who follow him, and who are united with him. This union includes a spiritual participation in the death and resurrection of Jesus (Rom 6:3; Col 2:12)—which leads to our new life (and identity) in Christ, in the Spirit. By this new life/identity, we are all, as believers, also united together, in community with one another. This is the spiritual reality, and the ideal, however difficult it may be to realize it in concrete, practical terms, within a congregation (or group of congregations).

In verse 17, Paul makes a rhetorical pivot on the baptism-motif, having pointed out that he personally, as a Christian minister, had only baptized a small number of people (vv. 14-16). Indeed, as a minister (and apostolic missionary), his primary duty is not to perform baptisms, but to proclaim the Gospel. Since Paul was apparently one of the ministers around whom sectarian divisions had developed (v. 12f), this point of contrast serves as a subtle way to shift from the person of the minister to what it is that the minister is called to serve: namely, the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:18

The very fact that there are “splits” among the Corinthians suggests to Paul that they do not entirely appreciate the significance of this Gospel. He begins to develop a line of argument on this basis, which he expounds in the first section (1:18-2:16) of the probatio. Following his contrast between baptism (a ritual based on the Gospel) and the Gospel itself, Paul proceeds to distinguish (by way of contrast) the nature of the proclamation of the Gospel (vb eu)aggeli/zw). First he states what this proclamation is not:

    • “not with wisdom of word(s)” (ou)k e)n sofi/a| lo/gou)

When it comes to declaring what the proclamation is, Paul does this implicitly: if it is not made with a wisdom (sofi/a) of words, then it must be with a different kind of wisdom. There is a certain irony in his use of the noun lo/go$, a term with a wide semantic range, which primarily means “account” (in the sense of something spoken/told), but is often intended more generally as “word, speech”. It can be used as a technical term for the Gospel itself, as Paul essentially does in v. 18 (see below); but here in v. 17, it carries the general meaning of “(spoken) word, speech”. In the expression “wisdom of word” (sofi/a lo/gou) the term lo/go$ connotes the manner/form of the speech, rather than its content.

The proclamation requires a human minister, who makes the proclamation through human speech (and techniques of speaking and persuasion). It is easy enough to swayed by the speaker (and his/her manner of speech), rather than the message. This, indeed, lies at the heart of problem Paul describes in vv. 11-17 (see above)—the error of identifying with the minister, rather than with what is being ministered (viz., Christ and the Gospel). The only way this can happen is if Christians fail to understand and appreciate what the Gospel is really all about. He states this boldly at the close of verse 17, declaring that a misplaced focus on the minister (and his/her “wisdom of word[s]”) effectively empties (vb keno/w) the Gospel of its power. Quite provocatively, Paul formulates this as “emptying the (very) cross of Christ”:

“…to proclaim the good message, (but) not with wisdom of word[s], (so) that the stake [i.e. cross] of (the) Anointed (One) should not be emptied (of its power).”

Implicit in this statement is a fundamental contrast between: (i) a human wisdom/word that is apart from (or only partially connected with) the cross of Christ, and (ii) a wisdom/word that is centered on the cross. In verse 18, as Paul begins the probatio (i.e., the arguing and proving of his proposition), the terms “wisdom” (sofi/a) and “word/account” (lo/go$) become combined. At first, he only uses lo/go$, but, in so doing, he effectively is describing sofi/a as well, declaring what the true wisdom is:

“For the word [lo/go$] of the stake [i.e. cross] is…”

This is an example of what we might call essential predication: Paul gives us essential information regarding what the proclamation of the Gospel is (e)sti/n). He has already defined the proclamation here as “the word/account of the cross”, and he now proceeds to declare what this word/account is. He does this by presenting another contrast—establishing a dualistic contrast that runs through the entire section (1:18-2:16): contrasting true and false wisdom (sofi/a). Here in v. 18, the contrast is made using a me\n…de/ construction, which, in English syntax, may be approximated as “on the one hand [me/n]…but on the other [de/]…”:

    • “on the one hand [me/n], it is [e)stin] foolishness [mwri/a] to the (one)s perishing”
    • “but on the other [de/], it is [e)stin] the power of God to us the (one)s being saved”

The proclamation of the Gospel is both something foolish (to one group) and the very power of God (to the other).

In the next note, on vv. 19-20, we will begin to examine how Paul expounds and develops this point of contrast.