Month: October 2024

October 31: 1 Corinthians 3:3-4

1 Corinthians 3:3-4

In verses 1-2 (see the previous note), Paul rebukes the Corinthians for thinking and acting as people who are “of the flesh” (sa/rkino$), rather than “of the Spirit” (pneumatiko/$)—which is what they should be, as believers in Christ. Now, in verses 3-4, he offers evidence and examples for this; in so doing, he returns to the main issue introduced in 1:10ff—viz., regarding the partisan/sectarian divisions that have cropped up in the Corinthian congregations.

Note, first, how Paul transitions from the rebuke in v. 2 to the exposition/explanation in v. 3:

“…you were not able—but nor are you yet able now, for yet you are of the flesh [sarkiko/$]!”

Here the adjective sarkiko/$ is used, while previously in verse 1 it was the closely related adjective sa/rkino$. Both adjectives mean “of (the) flesh”; sa/rkino$ more properly indicates something made of flesh, while sarkiko/$ denotes the characteristic “of the flesh”. There is no apparent difference in meaning, between the two adjectives, in the way that Paul uses them here; it may simply indicate a stylistic variation, or, at most, a slight nuance of emphasis.

In what follows in verse 3, Paul explains how the Corinthian characteristic, of thinking/acting in a way that is “of the flesh”, manifests itself:

“For, wherever (there is) among you jealousy and quarreling [e&ri$], are you not (being) of the flesh [sarkiko/$] and walk(ing) about according to (the wisdom of) man?”

This question clearly alludes back to the issue of sectarian divisions among the Corinthians (1:10ff). In 1:11, the word e&ri$ (“quarrel[ing], contentiousness, discord, strife”) was also used:

“it has been made clear to me about you…that there are quarrels [e&ride$] among you”

One nuance of meaning for e&ri$ is rivalry, and this would fit the pairing of e&ri$ with zh=lo$ (“jealousy, envy”) here in verse 3. Significantly, e&ri$ occurs (along with zh=lo$) in the vice-list of “works of the flesh” in Gal 5:19-21 (v. 20; cf. also Rom 13:13); these are decidedly not characteristics of believers, as the stern warning in v. 21b makes clear. Indeed, the characteristics of the faithful believer, one who is guided by the Spirit (i.e., “of the Spirit”) are very different (and quite the opposite!)—vv. 22-23. The believer is called to “walk about” (vb peripate/w) in the Spirit, not according to the flesh (vv. 16-18, 25f; compare Rom 6:4; 8:4). Paul makes use of the same verb here in verse 3, indicating that many of the Corinthians are “walking about” in the manner “of the flesh”, and not according to the Spirit (“of the Spirit”). The idiom “walk about”, in such an ethical-religious context, refers to how a person conducts him/herself in her/his daily life and affairs. In Romans 8:4, Paul states the contrast clearly, as believers are characterized as:

“…the (one)s not walking about according to (the) flesh [kata\ sa/rka], but according to (the) Spirit [kata\ pneu=ma]”

In verse 4 of our passage, the discussion is brought around to the specific issue of the sectarian/partisan divisions at Corinth:

“For, when(ever) one would say ‘I am of Paulus’, and (someone) else, ‘I (am) of Apollos’, are you not (being merely) men?”

The noun a&nqrwpo$ (“man, human”) here is being used in a negative, pejorative sense (in contrast to God and the Spirit), just as it has been throughout the section. In this context, being a “man” is synonymous with being “of the flesh”; it means that believers who think and act in such a partisan way are being guided by the flesh, and by ordinary human wisdom (and not the Wisdom of God).

Verses 3-4 make clear that the entirety of 1:18-2:16 has functioned as an exposition of the matter initially discussed in 1:10-17, and, in particular, of the main proposition (propositio) stated by Paul in 1:10—viz., that there should be no divisions among believers in Christ; rather, there should be a unity of thought and purpose that is in accordance with our union with Christ. As believers, we are united, both with Jesus and with each other. How, then, can there be any division? The answer, given thus far implicitly, but developed in 2:6-16, is that some believers have not allowed themselves to be guided by the Spirit, and thus are still much prone to the influence of “fleshly” ways of thinking and acting. In this regard, such believers are incomplete (viz., not yet te/leio$ [“complete”], 2:6).

In the portion that follows, beginning with vv. 5-7, Paul begins to address the specific issue of sectarian divisions—especially those which are tied to the personality of a particular minister (Paul, Apollos, etc)—more directly. We will explore these verses in the next daily note.

Supplemental textual note—In the majority text of verse 3, the noun e&ri$ (“quarreling”) is followed by kai\ dixostasi/ai (“and standing apart [plur.]”, i.e., separate factions). While this correctly connects the “jealousy and quarreling” with the issue of sectarian divisions, there is good reason to think that the words kai\ dixostasi/ai are not original. They are absent from an important array of Greek manuscripts (Ë11vid a B C P Y 81 1739 al); moreover, if the words were present originally, it is hard to explain how/why they would have been omitted.

October 30: 1 Corinthians 3:1-2

1 Corinthians 3:1-4:21

The next main section of 1 Corinthians, covering chapters 3-4, is, in many respects, parallel to the prior 1:18-2:16 (discussed at length in the daily notes for October), building upon the statements and principles laid out in that earlier section, and specifically applying them to the situation of the Corinthian congregations.

1 Corinthians 3:1-2

A key point of interpretation from 2:6-16 involves determining just what Paul has in mind when he refers to believers who are “complete” (te/leio$). This use of the adjective te/leio$ was central to the statement (in verse 6) that introduces the section; and yet, in the verses that follow, Paul never explains what he means by it. He does so now here in 3:1ff.

In 2:6 he began:

“(And) indeed, we do speak wisdom among th(ose who are) complete…”

He is referring to the wisdom of God, in contrast with the wisdom of “this Age” (= wisdom “of men”, wisdom “according to the flesh”). Believers, being “of the Spirit” (pneumatiko/$), are able to receive this Wisdom—the “(thing)s of God”, “(thing)s of the Spirit” (pneumatika/)—and to communicate it with others. However, here in 3:1ff, Paul rebukes the Corinthians for not thinking and acting according to their spiritual identity (as believers):

“And I, brothers, was not able to speak to you as (one)s of the Spirit [pneumatikoi/], but as (one)s of the flesh [sarki/noi], as speechless (babe)s [nhpi/oi] in (the) Anointed” (3:1)

As for these people who are the target of his rebuke, Paul regards them as still being genuine believers (“in Christ”), but they are thinking and acting as those who are “of the flesh” (sa/rkino$), rather than “of the Spirit” (pneumatiko/$). Based on Paul’s use of sa/rc (“flesh”) earlier in 1:26, the adjective sa/rkino$ here presumably refers, in a similar way, to the ordinary human wisdom, the human (and worldly) way of thinking, that is in direct contrast to the Wisdom of God. This could mean, specifically, that many of the Corinthians are being influenced by ideals and patterns of thinking that are wholly “of men” and “of the flesh”. As long as they are thinking/acting in ways “of the flesh”, they are not able to receive the things “of the Spirit” that Paul might wish to speak to them.

The final phrase of the verse touches upon the earlier adjective te/leio$ (“complete”), partially expounding it. The characterization of the Corinthians as mere “babes” in Christ suggests a certain marked immaturity; and, indeed, many translators render te/leio$ in 2:6 as “mature”. At the same time, the literal meaning of the word nh/pio$ (one who is “without speech, not speaking”, infans, Engl. “infant”) plays upon the important theme in 1:18-2:16 of speaking the true Wisdom of God. Many of the Corinthians are not able to speak this Wisdom, and so they are “speechless”, “without the ability to speak”. Like anyone who learns a language, the believer must learn how to understand the “things of God”, the “things of the Spirit”, as they are communicated through “words of the Spirit” (i.e., taught by the Spirit). Until one attains this level of comprehension, the words of Divine Wisdom will largely be unintelligible, and one will not be able to speak the language.

Paul develops the infant-metaphor in verse 2:

“I gave you milk to drink, not (solid) food (to eat), for you were not yet able—but nor are you yet able now!”

Some commentators have balked at the idea that Paul is making a distinction here between two ‘levels’ or categories of teaching, and that the Gospel message, having been received by all believers (even the ‘babes’), would be characterized as “milk”. And yet, in many ways, I would maintain that this is exactly what Paul is saying. In 1:18-2:16, the Wisdom of God that is communicated (and made accessible) to believers is defined and explained two ways: (1) the proclamation of the Gospel (this is the focus in 1:18-2:5), and (2) subsequent teaching/revelation that is communicated through the presence and activity of the Spirit (the emphasis in 2:6-16). Of course, the two are by no means unrelated; indeed, the “things of God” taught by the Spirit allow us to gain a deeper understanding of the meaning and significance of the Gospel. In any event, having initially accepted and embraced the Gospel, the Corinthians are failing to hear and accept the subsequent teaching by the Spirit (the solid “food”).

Verse 2 ends with a particularly stinging rebuke: “…nor are you yet able now!” Enough time has passed, for many of the Corinthian believers, that they should begin to be able to recognize and understand the “things of the Spirit”. But, for the most part, this is not the case. Paul explains why in verse 3, which we shall examine in the next daily note.

Notes on Prayer: Thy Kingdom Come (Rom 14:17; 1 Cor 4:20)

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

In the previous two studies (1, 2), we explored the two main categories of Kingdom-references in the Pauline letters. It now remains to examine a pair of verses—Romans 14:17 and 1 Corinthians 4:20—in which Paul offers us a definition of the Kingdom of God. As 1 Cor 4:20 is the earlier (and simpler) of these statements, we will discuss it first.

1 Corinthians 4:20

“For the kingdom of God (is) not (manifest) in word(s), but in power.”

This declaration occurs at the end of the first main division (1:18-4:21) of the letter. In it, Paul deals most directly with the issue introduced in 1:10ff—viz., the partisan/sectarian divisions that have cropped up among the Corinthian Christians, and the way that this contradicts the ideal of unity among believers in Christ. In 1:18-2:16, this conflict is addressed in terms of a stark (dualistic) contrast between the wisdom (sofi/a) of the world and the Wisdom of God. In so doing, Paul plays on two contrasting senses of the noun lo/go$ (“account, word”). In the context of ordinary human wisdom, the term lo/go$ is used in something of a negative, pejorative sense—i.e., ’empty’ words, even when expressed through great learning and eloquence (1:17; 2:1, 4, 13). The point of contrast is with the Wisdom of God, which is manifest through the Spirit of God (2:4, 10ff). In this context, lo/go$ has a two-fold meaning: (1) the proclamation (kerygma) of the Gospel of Christ (1:18, and implied in 2:1, 4), and (2) words communicated to believers through the Spirit (2:13).

Thus, there is the contrast of words of human learning (and eloquence) vs. words from God, communicated through the Spirit. It is in this frame of reference that Paul uses the noun du/nami$ (“power”). The contrast is most explicit in 2:5:

“…(so) that your trust should not be in (the) wisdom of men, but in (the) power of God.”

This statement informs the Kingdom-declaration in 4:20, being similar both in form and emphasis.

It is clear that Paul essentially identifies wisdom (sofi/a) and power (du/nami$), at least as the terms apply to God. By contrast, human/worldly wisdom is fundamentally devoid of power—at least, in the sense that the noun du/nami$ is being used. Human wisdom (and the words by which it is expressed) does not have the ability to give life, or to transform hearts and minds, the way that God’s Wisdom can. The two aspects of the noun lo/go$, mentioned above, are applicable to this identification of Divine wisdom and power:

    • The power of the Wisdom manifest in the proclamation of the Gospel (1:18, cf. Rom 1:16)
    • The power of the Wisdom manifest in the presence and activity of the Spirit, communicated through “(word)s of the Spirit” (2:4-5, cf. verse 13)

There are two further qualifications related to Paul’s use of du/nami$ in this section: (1) God’s Wisdom/Power is manifested in the person of Jesus Christ (1:24), and (2) an emphasis on the minister’s role in communicating the Wisdom/Power through the proclamation of the Gospel (2:4).

The points and principles stated in 1:18-2:16 are further expounded by Paul in chapters 3-4, applying them to the practical situation of the Corinthians congregations. At the conclusion of these chapters (4:19-21), Paul returns to the use of the keywords lo/go$ and du/nami$. In vv. 19-20, lo/go$ is used again in the negative/pejorative sense elucidated above—viz., in reference to words of human wisdom that are devoid of any real power. Paul makes a pointed application to the Corinthians in verse 19, by the phrase “the word(s) [lo/go$] of th(ose) having become ‘puffed up'”. This implies a certain arrogance and sense of self-importance among some in the Corinthian Community, likely tied (at least in part) to their giftedness in human wisdom (i.e., learning, eloquence, rhetorical skill). Paul contrasts this with the power of God, suggesting that he, as an apostolic minister, will play a role in facilitating a specific demonstration of this power (v. 21, compare 2:4).

The power (du/nami$) to which Paul refers must be understood in terms of the Spirit, as the discussion above indicates. There is an authoritative, transformative character to the Spirit’s manifestation among believers; where the Spirit is present and active, all things are “searched out”, examined, and discerned (cf. 2:10, 14-15), which includes exposure of sin and the conviction of one’s conscience, and even (when necessary) a measure of (Divine) judgment and punishment. Believers play a vital role in this process, all the more so those believers who are “complete” (2:6).

This analysis allows us to confirm that the “power” mentioned in the Kingdom-definition in 4:20 must be understood, principally, as a reference to the Spirit of God. There is no verb present in v. 20, and must be inferred (and added in translation). Several options are possible:

    • “the Kingdom of God does not consist in word(s), but in power”
    • “the Kingdom of God is not based on word(s), but on power”
    • “the Kingdom of God is not manifested in word(s), but in power”

I have opted for the last of these in my translation above, since the term power implies a manifestation of strength/ability, and Paul’s use of the word—both in chaps. 1-4 and elsewhere—seems to indicate an emphasis on active manifestation.

Romans 14:17

“For the kingdom of God is not food and drink, but right(eous)ness and peace and gladness in (the) holy Spirit.”

This statement is formally similar to that in 1 Cor 4:20. Both utilize the explanatory conjunction ga/r (“for…”), and contrast what the Kingdom of God is not with what it is (ou)…a)lla/, “not…but [rather]…”). The verb is implicit in 1 Cor 4:20 (see the translation options above); here in Rom 14:17 it is the verb of being (e)stin, “it is”). It may be advisable to gloss the verb in a manner similar to that suggested above: “is (consisting of)”.

The noun pair “food and drink”, in context (chap. 14), refers to people who observe dietary restrictions (presumably of a religious nature), and, conversely, those who do not. Paul’s main point is that believers should not be judged (by others) with regard to their approach to food/drink. In particular, even though believers in Christ are free to eat/drink whatever they wish, some may choose (for various reasons) to follow certain dietary restrictions; compare Paul’s discussion in 1 Corinthians 8-10. Whether a believer chooses to ignore all such restrictions, or to observe (some of) them, should have no impact on our unity as believers—and should not define our fellowship or how we relate to one another. For the Kingdom of God is not about such things. The same may be said with regard to many other cultural-religious issues and situations.

What, then, is the Kingdom of God all about? How does Paul define it? “The Kingdom of God is…right(eous)ness, peace, and gladness in (the) Holy Spirit”. The Spirit was implied in the definition of 1 Cor 4:20 (see above); here it is explicitly mentioned. We may thus infer that Paul understands “the Kingdom of God” fundamentally in terms of the presence and activity of the Spirit. In 1 Cor 4:20, it is the aspect of the Spirit’s power that is emphasized. Here, it is the result and effect of the Spirit’s power that is primarily in view. A trio of characteristic nouns are used to express this:

    • dikaiosu/nh—This word occurs extensively in the Pauline Letters (58 out of 92 NT occurrences), and especially in Romans (34 times). It has the basic meaning “rightness” (i.e., what is right); in a legal-judical setting, it can specifically mean “justice”, while, in a religious-ethical context, it can mean “righteousness”. Paul utilizes this range of meaning, and often the term (and the dikaio– word-group as a whole) applies to the relationship between human beings and God. Things are “made right” for believers.
    • ei)rh/nh—The noun means “peace”, either in the sense of (i) tranquility, (ii) safety and good health/welfare, or (iii) in the context of a cessation of conflict/hostility. All three aspects can apply to Paul’s use of the term, but in Romans the focus is on the restoration of the bond/relationship between human beings and God (i.e., “peace with God”, 5:1).
    • xara/ (“gladness, joy”)—The meaning of the term is straightforward.

All three of these things are experienced by believers “in the Holy Spirit”; this expression is parallel, and generally synonymous, with the more common “in (Jesus) Christ”. As believers, we are united with Christ (and with each other), i.e., “in Christ”, through the presence of the Spirit. Note, again, how both Christ and the Spirit are identified by Paul with the power (and the Wisdom) of God; cf. the discussion on 1 Cor 4:20 above.

There is “rightness” (dikaiosu/nh) for believers in the Spirit. Our union with Christ means that things have been “made right” for us with God, and we experience the reality (and blessings) of this through the Spirit. Also, the Spirit guides us with regard to “what is right”; on this, see especially Galatians 5:5ff, 16-25.

Secondly, we experience peace (ei)rh/nh) in the Spirit. The bond of relationship with God having been restored, there is now safety and security for us. Our trust also allows to be ‘at peace’ in all circumstances. Moreover, there is health and wholeness (i.e., holiness) for us through the presence of the holy Spirit of God.

Finally, there is gladness and joy (xara/) in the Spirit. In many respects, our experience of joy is the result of the “rightness” and “peace” we have (with God) in the Spirit. There is also, however, an essential (and numinous) sense of sheer delight that comes through the presence of the Spirit of God (and Christ) in and among us.

The statement by Paul in Romans 15:13 can serve as a supplement to the Kingdom-definition in 14:17, as it utilizes some of the same terminology. It takes the form of an exhortational blessing by Paul:

“And may the God of th(is) hope fill you with all gladness [xara/] and peace [ei)rh/nh] in (your) trusting, unto the over-abounding of you in th(is) hope, in (the) power of (the) holy Spirit.”

Here two of the aforementioned characteristics (“gladness/joy” and “peace”) are experienced “in (our) trusting”. This expression is parallel with “in (the) holy Spirit”, and the two expressions are linked together. Our identity as believers (i.e., trusting) in Christ is inseparable from our union with Christ (“in Christ,” “in the Spirit”). Another parallel expression here is “in the hope” —i.e., the future hope (of salvation, resurrection, and glory) we have in Christ. Paul asks that God guide the Roman believers into this hope, filling them (on the way) with an abundant experience of the Spirit’s presence (and activity). Finally, there is the parallel expression “in (the) power of (the) holy Spirit”. This connects back to the statement in 14:17, but also with 1 Cor 4:20 (cf. above), and the identification of the Kingdom of God with both the power of God and the Spirit of God.

In the next study, we will turn to the remaining Kingdom-references of the New Testament, looking first at the Kingdom-theme in Hebrews, comparing it with several other passages (in James, 2 Peter, and also the Pauline Pastoral Letters).

Parallels to 1 Cor 2:6-16 in the Qumran Texts

Qumran Parallels to 1 Corinthians 2:6-16

As the recent Daily Notes on this site have been focused on 1 Cor 2:6-16, it is worth pointing out some intriguing parallels between these verses and several of the Qumran texts (Dead Sea Scrolls). In citing the similarities of thought and language, I do not mean to suggest that Paul is dependent upon the Qumran material. Rather, it is much more likely that these similarities—like nearly all of the noted parallels between Qumran and the New Testament—are due primarily to the common store of Old Testament and Jewish traditions shared by the different authors. There are also important similarities between the Qumran Community and the early Christian Communities from the standpoint of the phenomenology of religion. This will be discussed briefly at the end of the article below.

I wish to highlight passages from two texts where the similarities of thought and expression are particularly apparent and noteworthy.
Cf. the study by Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, “The Wisdom Passage in 1 Corinthians 2:6-16: Between Qumran and Proto-Gnosticism”, in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetic Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998, eds. Daniel K. Falk, Florentino García Martínez, and Eileen M. Schuller (Brill: 2000), pp. 240-53.

1QHa 20:14-17ff

The first passage comes from the so-called “Thanksgiving Hymns” (Hodayot), the hymn in column 20 (previously numbered 12) of manuscript 1QHa. The hymn begins at line 7. A second copy is attested from two fragments (3 and 8) of manuscript 4Q427 (4QHa). The standard critical edition is in DJD [Discoveries in the Judean Desert] vol. 40 (pp. 250-60); cf. also the popular edition by E. Schuller and C. Newsom (The Hodayot [Thanksgiving Psalms]: A Study Edition of 1QHa [SBL: 2012]), pp. 62-5.

The relevant portion begins with line 14b:

“And I, (the one) giving understanding [lyk!c=m^],
I have known you, my God [la@],
by (the) spirit 15that you gave in me;
and firmly [i.e. faithfully] I have listened
to (the) private counsel [dos] of your wonder(s),
by (the) spirit of your holiness.
16You [o]pened up knowledge in the midst of me,
by (the) secret [zr*] of your wisdom [lk#c#]
and (the) fountain of your strength…”

The poet-protagonist of the hymn is called by the verbal noun lyk!c=m^, denoting one who possesses (and gives) insight/understanding [lkc]. He thus functions as an instructor in the Qumran Community in a manner that is loosely parallel to the role of Paul and other Christian ministers. The related noun lk#c# (“insight, understanding”) in line 16 is translated “wisdom”, a rendering that is both suitable to the expression (“secret of your [i.e., God’s] wisdom”) and serves to bring out the parallel with 1 Cor 2:6-16.

Let us note the most significant points in common with Paul’s thought (and manner of expression), touching upon them, in order, as they occur here in lines 14-16:

    • “(one) giving understanding” (lyk!c=m^)—This verbal title provides a loose parallel with Paul’s statement in v. 6: “…we do speak wisdom among the (one)s (who are) complete”. The implication is that inspired ministers (and other spirit-guided believers) are able to communicate wisdom to others in the congregation (cf. also v. 13).
    • “I have known you…by the spirit that you gave in me” —Knowledge of God comes from the spirit [j^Wr] of God, that has been given to the inspired members of the Community. Paul makes the same point (in vv. 10-12): believers are able to access and experience the Wisdom of God through the Spirit (of God) that has been given to us. All believers in Christ receive the Spirit; this is generally parallel to the situation at Qumran—viz., all members of the Community receive the “spirit of (God’s) holiness” (i.e., holy spirit). It is not limited to the chosen/gifted leaders.
    • “I have listened to the private counsel of your wonder(s) [i.e. your wonderful counsel]” —The person gifted with the spirit of God has access to private counsel (dos) from God. Similarly, the believer who receives the Spirit has access to even the “deep things of God” (vv. 10-11). These things are private in that they have been “hidden away” from the rest of humankind (v. 7). The “things of God” are also communicated in a hidden way, through “spiritual (word)s” (v. 13).
    • “by the spirit of your holiness [i.e. your holy spirit]” —The spirit given to the chosen individual is specifically designated as the spirit of God’s holiness (“holy spirit”), which is, of course, also the typical Christian designation for the Spirit (though the actual expression does not occur in 1 Cor 1:18-2:16).
    • “You opened up knowledge in the midst of me” —Paul does not use this terminology, but the idea of ‘opening up knowledge’ within the person, and that this takes place (and is experienced) deep within—i.e., at the heart/center—certainly are implied. There is an implicit connection between the human “spirit” and the Spirit of God (v. 11) that Paul makes more clear elsewhere (cf. Rom 8:16).
    • “by the secret of your wisdom” —The loanword zr* (“secret”, cf. Dan 2:18-19, 28-30, 47; 4:6) corresponds to the Greek musth/rion, used in v. 7 (and also verse 1 [v.l.]). The conjunction of “secret” and “wisdom” (lk#c#, corresp. to Grk sofi/a) clearly is an important point of similarity between the two passages. The Wisdom of God, communicated to the Spirit-led believer, takes the form of a secret, hidden away from the rest of humankind, that is now revealed.

We may also point out the phrase in line 23: “…to gain understanding [vb. lk^c*, Hiphil] in(to) all your secrets [<yz]r*]”; cp. the conjunction of Paul’s expressions “wisdom (communicated) in a secret” (v. 7) and “the deep (thing)s of God” (v. 10).

1QS 11:5-9

The second passage to consider is from the Community Rule document (1QS). In the last major section of the text, we find the following:

“…5b(the) light in my heart (is) from (the) secret [zr*] of His wonder(s).
On the (thing) being (from) distant (times) 6my eyes have looked,
wisdom [hY`v!WT] that was hidden (away) from humanity,
knowledge and a plan of cleverness (kept) from (the) sons of man,
a fountain of righteousness and reservoir of 7strength,
(together) with a spring of honor, (hidden) from (the) counsel [dos] of flesh.
To th(ose) whom God has chosen
He has given them for a holding [i.e. possession] (into the) distant (future),
and gave them an inheritance in (the) lot of (the) 8holy (one)s;
and with (the) sons of heaven He has joined their counsel [dos],
to (be) one council, and foundation of a building of holiness,
to (be) a planting (into) 9(the) distant (future).”

These verses express the religious (and spiritual) self-identity of the Qumran Community. Members of the Community are considered to be the chosen (i.e., elect) ones of God, and to thus be joined with the holy ones (of heaven)—a holy Community on earth to match the one in heaven. The orientation of this identity is eschatological—viz., the members of the Community represent the faithful ones of Israel in the end-time. Along with the holy ones of heaven, they will play a principal role in ushering the end-time Judgment and the coming New Age.

The self-identity of the early Christian Community is quite similar, in many respects. This helps to explain why the author(s) of the Qumran Community Rule (and the Hodayot, cf. above) could utilize language and a manner of expression that is so similar, at times, to that of the New Testament authors (such as Paul). In terms of the phenomenology of religion, Qumran and early Christianity share many features in common. There is, of course, also the common cultural background—time and place and shared religious traditions (i.e., Judaism and the Old Testament Scriptures).

It is, however, the emphasis on Divine wisdom and revelation that creates such a striking parallel between 1QS 11:5-9 and 1 Cor 2:6-16. As in 1QH 20:14-17 (see above), this portion of the Community Rule uses the terms zr* (“secret”) and dos (“private counsel”), as a way of referring to the wisdom of God that is revealed to the Qumran Community, a wisdom that is to be contrasted with ordinary human wisdom. We see this by the two uses of the noun dos in lines 7 and 8, respectively:

    • the revealed Divine wisdom has been hidden away from the “counsel [dos] of flesh” —cp. 1 Cor 2:1, 6-8, and note the parallel expression “wise according to (the) flesh” in 1:26; also “wisdom of men” (2:5), “wisdom of this Age” (2:6).
    • instead, the chosen ones (of the Qumran Community) have been joined with the holy ones (of heaven), being allowed to share in their heavenly counsel [dos].

Perhaps most striking of all is the expression “(the) wisdom that (was) hidden (away) from humanity” (vwnam hrtsn rva hyvwt), which could practically have been lifted out of Paul’s writing (translated into Hebrew). The noun translated “wisdom” is hY`v!WT, a word with a rather wide range of meaning; the derivation is also uncertain. There are eleven occurrences in the Scriptures, most in the Wisdom books of Job (5:12; 6:13; 11:6; 12:16; 26:3) and Proverbs (2:7; 3:21; 8:14; 18:1); see also Isa 28:29 and Mic 6:9. The basic meaning in these instances is something like “sound judgment”, such as leads to (practical) success (compare the similar lk#c#, cf. above). In Job 11:6 it is parallel with hm*k=j* (“wisdom”), while in Isa 28:29 (also Prov 8:14) the parallel is hx*u@ (“advice, counsel”). This matches the contextual use of hY`v!WT here in 1QS 11:5-9, where the words hx*u@ and dos (both meaning “counsel”) occur; note also the similar hM*z]m= (“plan”, cf. Prov 3:21). The chosen ones have special access to revealed heavenly “counsel”, which reflects the very wisdom (and knowledge, etc) of God; in particular, this revelation offers inspired insight into the plan of God (an important theme in 1QS).

Both Paul and the author(s) of these Qumran texts view the Divine wisdom as something “hidden away” from the rest of humankind, to be revealed only (at the end-time) to those who have been chosen by God (cf. 1 Cor 1:27ff; 2:10ff).

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 116 (Part 2)

Psalm 116, continued

For Part 1 (vv. 1-9), see the first part of this study.

Part 2: Verses 10-19

First Stanza: Verses 10-14
Verse 10

“I have firm (trust), though I said:
‘(See,) I (how) bend down so low!'”

As noted in Part 1 of this study, there is a formal (grammatical) parallel between verse 10a and the opening v. 1a, suggesting (among other factors) that these lines each begin a division of the Psalm. In v. 1, the Psalmist declares “I have love” (yT!b=h^a*), while here the statement is “I have firm (trust)” (yT!n+m^a$h#); these are differing ways of expressing the protagonist’s loyal devotion to YHWH. In verse 1, the particle yK! that follows the initial verb is translated “because”; while here it would seem to have an adversative sense (“[even] though”). However, Barré (vv. 74-75) makes a fair argument for rendering yK! as “because” in both lines. The sense in v. 10, as he describes it, is that the Psalmist has faith/trust in YHWH because he admits he is in need of help. The verb hn`u* (II) in the Qal stem has the meaning “bend/crouch (down)”, often indicating a position of fear, or of a person ‘pressed down’ (i.e., oppressed) and experiencing suffering.

I think the correct interpretation is that the Psalmist declares the firmness (/ma) of his trust in YHWH, even though he is drawing attention to his position of suffering and need. After all, such a crouching position does not naturally express a feeling of confidence. The parallelism of the Psalm here allows us to infer that the crouching of the Psalmist refers to the position (and circumstances) in which he makes his urgent prayer to God in vv. 1-4 (“Oh YHWH, help my soul to escape!”, v. 4).

Mention should be made of the interpretation given by Dahood (III, p. 148), who derives the verb form rbda from the root rbd (II), which can mean (in the Piel) “drive back, pursue”, rather than from rbd (I), “speak”. Vocalizing as a passive form leads to variant translation of the line in question: “I have firm (trust), though I am driven back”. This would be a different way of expressing the Psalmist’s time of distress.

Verse 11

“I myself have declared in my flight:
‘Every man is (act)ing false!'”

The parallel between this couplet and v. 10 tends to confirm the meaning “speak” for the verb rb^D* (see above); here the parallel verb is rm^a* (“say”). Each declaration is an expression of the Psalmist’s need, the circumstances under which he makes his plea to YHWH for help (vv. 1-4). In v. 10, he states that he has been made/forced to “bend down low”, while here he declares that “every man is being/acting false [vb bz~K*]”. This could imply that human beings are the cause of his suffering, or that they are responding to his distress in a way that shows them to be deceptive, disloyal, or otherwise unreliable. Both options are possible, and, indeed, both are frequent themes in the Psalms (esp. the Psalms of lament); however, the latter seems more likely in this instance. The important point is that only YHWH can be relied upon to provide help. Even in the midst of his distress, the Psalmist’s heart remains firm toward YHWH, trusting that He can (and will) rescue him (v. 4).

This couplet has a shortened 3+2 meter, while v. 10 was a 3-beat (3+3) bicolon.

Verse 12

“What (then) can I return to YHWH
(for) all His (blessing)s dealt upon me?”

The connection between vv. 11 and 12 is not immediately clear. It would seem that vv. 10-11 should be read in the context of YHWH’s answer to the Psalmist’s prayer. The circumstances in which the prayer was made (vv. 1-4) are reiterated in vv. 10-11, with God’s answer to his prayer (vv. 8ff) being implied. The emphasis here would tend to confirm, as noted above, that the principal theme in vv. 10-11 is that only YHWH can (and should) be relied on to rescue/deliver the faithful in their time of need.

Here the verb bWv (“turn back, return”) in this context means “pay back, repay”. YHWH has dealt with (lmg) the protagonist in a good and favorable way. The noun lWmg+T^ (plur.) is a bit difficult to translate into English; I have rendered it as “(blessing)s dealt”. The 3rd person masculine suffix yh!-, like the two occurrences of the 2nd person yk!– in v. 7 (see also v. 16), is an Aramaic form.

Verse 13

“(The) cup of salvation I do lift up—
and on (the) name of YHWH I will call!”

This idiom of lifting up (vb ac*n`) the “cup of salvation” has several aspects. To begin with, it implies the experience of salvation, of receiving saving help from YHWH. The Psalmist also accepts and embraces this “cup” of blessing, recognizing that it comes from YHWH. Finally, by “lifting” it, a ceremonial (ritual) acknowledgement is indicated. This ritual aspect continues in v. 14, coming into greater prominence at the end of the final stanza (vv. 17-19, see below). On the motif of the “cup” (soK) as a symbol of blessing for the righteous (from YHWH), cf. Psalm 16:5; 23:5; it occurs even more frequently as a symbol of punishment for the wicked (e.g., 75:9[8]; Isa 51:17; Jer 25:15ff; Ezek 23:31-33; Hab 2:16).

The parallel act of “calling on” the name of YHWH similarly has a ritual significance, though it also reflects, in a more general and fundamental way, the loyalty and devotion of the Psalmist. Because the protagonist has experienced the salvation provided by YHWH, he will all the more call upon Him now.

Verse 14

“My vows to YHWH I will (surely) complete,
even (right) in front, before all His people.”

A number of the Psalms that deal with prayer to YHWH (for healing and deliverance, etc) contain the theme of repaying vows (rd#n#, plur.) made to YHWH. The theme typically is featured in the closing portions of the Psalm (or of a major section), as it is here in the final verses of each stanza in the second Part of the Psalm (see also vv. 17-19, below). For other examples, cf. 22:26[25]; 50:14f, 23; 56:13[12]f; 61:9[8]; 66:13-15; 76:11; in Psalm 65, the theme occurs, rather unusually, at the beginning of the composition (v. 1).

The implication is that the protagonist made a vow to God regarding what he would do if YHWH rescued him out of his distress (i.e., saved him from his illness, etc). A ritual action, involving sacrificial offerings, is assumed (confirmed by vv. 17-19); the Torah provides instructions regarding the offerings associated with vows (cf. Lev 7:16; 22:18-25; 27:9ff; Num 15:3ff; Deut 12:6ff; 23:18ff). In the Psalms, sometimes we find the idea of vows being fulfilled with an offering of praise—a suitable emphasis, of course, for the Psalmist.

The protagonist declares (emphatically) that he will fulfill (or “complete”, vb <l^v*) his vows to YHWH publicly, “in front of” (dg#n#) the entire Community, the faithful people of God (“all His people”). A Temple setting is indicated in vv. 17-19 (see below). Many Psalms conclude with such a congregational worship-emphasis, whereby the offering (and/or confession of praise/thanksgiving) is made publicly. The form of the preposition is hd*g+n#, with a directional h– suffix; this further emphasizes the public aspect of the vow-fulfillment—viz., right there in front. Also emphatic is the following particle an`-, though Dahood (III, p. 149) would explain this as an archaic vestige of the NW Semitic intensive form of the preposition (with –n ending); if this explanation is valid, Dahood would doubtless be further correct in positing that the extended –anna (Heb an`-) form is used here for metrical balance.

Second Stanza: Verses 15-19
Verse 15

“Weighty (indeed) in (the) eyes of YHWH
(is) the death (that comes) to His devoted (one)s.”

In the first verse of this closing stanza, the Psalmist’s life-threatening distress (from which YHWH rescued him) is presented from YHWH’s own standpoint. Here it is explained that the death that comes (prematurely) to His devoted servants is “weighty” (rq*y`) in YHWH’s eyes. The precise meaning of the adjective rq*y` in this verse has been discussed and debated by commentators. The root rqy seems to have a semantic range (and development) that parallels the more familiar dbk. Both roots denote being heavy/weighty, a meaning which can carry a negative (i.e., hard, difficult) or positive (valuable, worthy [of honor]) aspect. The positive aspect came to dominate for both roots in Hebrew (as in other languages, cf. Akkadian waqāru, “to be valuable”), though there are rare instances of the negative aspect. A negative meaning for rqy is attested more frequently in Aramaic than in Hebrew (cf. Daniel 2:11, and numerous instances in the Syriac Peshitta [e.g., for Psalm 32:4; 2 Sam 13:25]).

The question, then, is whether rq*y` means that the death of the righteous is “heavy” (i.e., burdensome, grievous) to YHWH, or is precious and valuable to him. Both are certainly possible, and the Psalmist may even be playing on both the positive and negative aspects. I have chosen to keep to the fundamental meaning of “weighty”, which can be interpreted in a positive or negative way. Probably, the more negative sense of “heavy” is in view, since it is the premature death of the righteous that is the subject, not the righteous person him/herself. The prospect of the righteous person’s death weighs on YHWH, and so prompts Him to act—responding to their prayer and rescuing the righteous out of their life-threatening distress.
For more on the adjective rq*y` in this verse, see the article by J. A. Emerton, “How Does the Lord Regard the Death of His Saints in Psalm cxvi. 15?” in The Journal of Theological Studies [JTS] new series, 34 (1983), pp. 146-56.

Another point of difficulty is the noun form ht*w+m* in the second line. This has been explained three ways: (1) as an unusual feminine by-form of the noun tw#m*, (2) as the noun tw#m* with a locative h– suffix, or (3) the same noun with an archaic accusative case ending ([h]-*). If we are dealing with a locative h-, then this would be understood as pleonastic (i.e., redundant, unnecessary), included for metrical or stylistic reasons. Perhaps a stronger argument can be made for h-* representing an archaic accusative ending (cf. Dahood, III, p. 150). Since the context indicates that the noun tw#m* (“death”) is the subject of the verse, that might seem to rule out an accusative case marker. However, there are occasional instances in Hebrew where an accusative noun (usually prefaced by the –ta# marker) functions as the grammatical subject, involving a passive verbal construction (cf. the examples given by P. C. H. Wernberg-Møller, “The Old Accusative Case Ending in Biblical Hebrew: Observations on ht*w+M*h^ in Ps. 116:15″, Journal of Semitic Studies 33 (1988), pp. 155-64).

Verse 16

“Oh, YHWH! indeed I (am) your servant—
I, your servant, son of your slave-girl—
(and) you have opened my bonds!”

This verse is an irregular 4+3+2 tricolon. Metrically, it might be better to parse it as a short 2+2 colon (line 1 here), followed by a 3+2 couplet (cf. Allen, p. 151); however, the ‘terracing’ of the first two lines is better captured by the format adopted above. This “terrace pattern” (cf. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, pp. 210-3), or anadiplosis, refers to situations where the word/phrase at the end of one line (of a couplet) is repeated at the beginning of the second line. This produces a dramatic parallelism, where the thought and imagery of one lines builds and continues into the next. Here we see such an occurrence in the first two lines of v. 16:

    • “Oh, YHWH! indeed I (am) your servant [;D#b=u^ yn]a&]—
      I, your servant [;D#b=u^ yn]a&], son of your slave-girl…”

The Psalmist emphatically (with double-emphasis) identifies himself as the faithful servant (db#u#) of YHWH. This builds upon the last word of v. 15: “His [i.e. YHWH’s] devoted (one)s” (wyd*ys!j&). The adjective dys!j* (also the noun ds#j#) occurs frequently in the Psalms, and usually in the context of the covenant with YHWH. In such a context, as we see implicitly here, the adjective (“good, kind”) specifically connotes “faithfulness, loyalty, devotion”. Because the protagonist has been faithful/loyal to YHWH, He has responded with covenant-protection, rescuing and saving His servant in time of need.

The third line reflects YHWH’s answer to the Psalmist’s prayer (vv. 8ff). The explanation of the perfect form of the verb jt^P* (“open [up]”) as a precative perfect (Dahood, III, p. 150) is not necessary. The mention of “bonds” (rs@om, plur.) refers back to the imagery in verse 3.

On the expression “son of a slave-girl [Heb. hm*a*]”, see the article by F. C. Fensham, “The Son of a Handmaid in Northwest Semitic”, Vetus Testamentum 19 (1969), pp. 312-21, contra the interpretation given by Dahood, III, p. 150 (viz., “son of your faithfulness”, i.e., “your faithful son”).

Verse 17

“To you I will slaughter a slaughtering of thanks,
and on your name, O YHWH, I will call.”

Verses 17-19 parallel the conclusion of the first stanza (vv. 13-14, see above), building upon the thought expressed there. The ritual aspect of the Psalmist’s praise/thanksgiving was introduced in v. 13, while v. 14 specifically mentions his intention to fulfill the vows he made to YHWH. This fulfillment will take the form of sacrificial offerings. The verb jb^z` refers to ritual slaughter (that is, of an animal), while the derived noun jb^z# denotes the slain animal that is offered to YHWH. Sometimes the root jbz can be used generally for offerings that are made, regardless of whether an animal was actually slaughtered. Here, however, we should probably assume that an actual burnt offering (of a slain animal) is in view.

As in verse 13, the idiom of “calling on” the name of YHWH has ritual significance, but also expresses the protagonist’s fundamental faithfulness and devotion to YHWH.

Verses 18-19

“My vows to YHWH I will (surely) complete,
even (right) in front, before all His people,
in (the) enclosures of (the) house of YHWH,
even in the midst of Yerušalaim.
Praise YH(WH)!”

This couplet is identical to verse 14 (see above). The fact that early manuscripts of the LXX omit verse 14, as also do two Hebrew MSS (cf. Allen, p. 152), raises the possibility that v. 14 was not present originally in the Psalm and represents a secondary addition (interpolation). In any case, the verse here confirms that the sacrificial offerings mentioned in v. 17 are for the fulfillment (vb <l^v*) of the Psalmist’s vows to YHWH.

Verse 19 makes clear that the offerings will be made in the Temple precincts (“enclosures of the house of YHWH”), in Jerusalem. As noted in the introduction (Part 1), if this is intended as a concrete historical reference (rather than a literary-poetic reference), then it would indicate that the Psalm (or, at least the tradition preserved here) is pre-Exilic. The more important point is that the Psalmist-protagonist is faithful in fulfilling the ritual offerings, performing them at the Jerusalem Temple. It is another sign that he should be counted among the “devoted ones” who are faithful and loyal to YHWH. From the standpoint of the Psalm itself, this identification and characterization by the author is both representative of the true people of God (i.e., the Community of the faithful) and reflects an ideal of faithfulness and religious devotion that the people are exhorted to follow.

The Psalm concludes with the traditional praise-exhortation Hy`-Wll=h^ (Hal®lû-Y¹h).

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 “Barré” are to Michael L. Barré, “Psalm 116: Its Structures and Its Enigmas”, in Journal of Biblical Literature [JBL] 109 (1990), pp. 61-79.

October 25: 1 Corinthians 2:15-16 (continued)

1 Corinthians 2:15-16, continued

Paul brings this section (1:18-2:16) to a close with his citation from Isaiah 40:13 in verse 16. The citation thus has a climactic position in Paul’s line of argument. We discussed his use of this Scripture briefly in a prior note; it is worth examining it in more detail.

2. The interpretation/application of Isaiah 40:13 in verse 16

In vv. 12-14ff of the (Deutero-)Isaian oracle, the emphasis is on the greatness of YHWH. As Creator and supreme King of the universe, He is far superior to every other being—including all the nations (and their gods). Verses 12-14 each begin with a rhetorical question using the interrogative pronoun ym! (“Who…?”):

    • “Who has measured (the) waters in (the) hollow of his (hand), and determined the heavens by his (hand-)span…?” (v. 12)
    • “Who determined (the) spirit of YHWH?
      And (the) man of His counsel, can he make Him to know?” (v. 13)
    • “With whom did He take counsel, and (so) caused Him to understand…?” (v. 14)

Verses 12-13a deal with YHWH’s role as Creator; no other being could determine and direct the course of Creation, and certainly not a human being. The answer to the question of v. 12 is, of course, obvious: YHWH is the one who “measured” the waters and “determined” the size and course, etc, of the heavens. If no other being could “determine” the course of the Creation, how much less could one “determine” the course of YHWH’s own creative Spirit (j^Wr)? The precise meaning of this verb, /k^T*, here rendered “determine”, is actually somewhat allusive. The two occurrences in vv. 12 and 13 have the verb in the Piel-stem, indicating a transitive act, whereby the subject causes something to be established and put in order (i.e., put right). This can entail a specific act of calculation or estimation (“measure, gauge, determine”), but it can also refer, more broadly, to the aspect of determining the shape/size/course of something, and of directing its establishment.

Verses 13b-14 emphasize that no human being instructed or directed YHWH in His acts of Creation, nor did YHWH ever need to take counsel with any such person. He alone directs His own creative Spirit, determining its course and action. This latter point is what Paul latches onto in his quotation from verse 13.

Interestingly, Paul does not work from the Hebrew text, even though it would have been more applicable to the context of his argument. Rather, he would seem to be dependent upon the LXX. Let us compare Paul’s quotation with the Hebrew and LXX (in translation):

    • Hebrew:
      “Who determined (the) spirit of YHWH? And (the) man of His counsel, can he make Him to know?”
    • LXX:
      “Who has known (the) mind of (the) Lord, and who became His counselor [su/mboulo$] that could bring (thing)s together (for) Him?”

Paul’s quotation is identical with the portions of the LXX in bold; his omission of the initial clause of the second question (cp. Rom 11:34) causes the relative pronoun (o%$), which he retains, to sit awkwardly: “Who has known (the) mind of (the) Lord, he that [o%$] could put (thing)s together (for) Him?” The verb sumbiba/zw literally means “make (people or things) step [biba/zw] together [sun]”; more generally, it denotes “bring/join together”. It can be used in the abstract (cognitive) sense of “put things together”, i.e., so as to understand and comprehend them. That is clearly the meaning here, though the verb is an odd choice for translating the common ud^y` (“know”) in the Hiphil (“make/cause to know”); the causative aspect of the Hiphil is clearly preserved in the Greek syntax: “put/bring (thing)s together (for) Him”. No human being is able to instruct God so as to cause Him to understand.

The Hebrew has “spirit of YHWH”, which the Greek has translated in mental/intellectual terms (as nou=$, “mind”). This certainly fits Paul’s thematic emphasis on wisdom (sofi/a), but the Hebrew would have better suited the specific focus in vv. 6-16 on the Spirit of God. Both thematic aspects can be included in Paul’s interpretive declaration (v. 16b):

“(And) indeed we hold the mind [nou=$] of (the) Anointed!”

Because believers have received the Spirit of God (vv. 10, 12), they/we also have the mind of God, and are thus able to comprehend and communicate His Wisdom. Here, the expression is “mind of Christ”, implying that God (the Father) and Jesus Christ (the Son) are interchangeable in this regard (both being referred to as “the Lord” [o( ku/rio$]). We as believers are united with Christ through the Spirit—it being both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ (Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6; and cf. 1 Cor 6:17; 15:45; 2 Cor 3:17). Moreover, here in 1:30, the exalted Jesus is himself identified as the very Wisdom of God. Thus, if we have access to the Divine Wisdom, through the Spirit, we also have access to the person of Christ, who is this Wisdom. In the context of the overall section, the implication is that believers, who are “of the Spirit”, and who can experience the “things of the Spirit” (i.e., the Wisdom of God), have no need of being instructed (or examined) by other human beings. Earthly human wisdom (and teaching) has its place, but it has no direct bearing on the understanding (and communication) of God’s Wisdom. Indeed, human beings (believers) are capable of communicating the “things of the Spirit” only insofar as they/we are taught and guided by the Spirit, in a spiritual manner (“[word]s of the Spirit”).

Paul repeats this motif, of believers having the “mind of Christ”, in Philippians 2:1-5, a passage which is vital for a correct understanding of how the Wisdom/Spirit theme here in vv. 6-16 relates back to the emphasis on the Gospel proclamation (and specifically of the death of Jesus) earlier in the section. In the next daily note, as we proceed with Paul’s discussion in 3:1ff, we shall begin an examination of this connection. It has a definite bearing on the earlier question of what it means for believers to be “complete” (te/leio$, v. 6).

 

October 24: 1 Corinthians 2:15-16 (continued)

1 Corinthians 2:15-16, continued

In continuing our analysis (from the previous note) on these two concluding verses, let us focus on some specific issues related to each verse: (1) Paul’s use of the verb a)nakri/nw in v. 15, and (2) the interpretation/application of Isaiah 40:13 in v. 16.

1. The use of a)nakri/nw in verse 15

As mentioned in the previous note, Paul’s use of a)nakri/nw here (and in v. 14) is problematic. The situation is particularly complicated because of Paul’s extensive use of the various prefixed kri/nw-verbs, which tend to have overlapping meanings. The base verb kri/nw denotes “separate out, distinguish, select”, sometimes in the specific sense of rendering an opinion, decision, or judgment. Now the context of vv. 14-16 strongly suggests that the meaning “discern” is paramount for a)nakri/nw, and yet, this verb (with the prefixed element a)na-) more commonly has the meaning “examine, investigate”. This, indeed, is the dominant contextual meaning of the verb throughout the New Testament, often in the specific context of a legal-judicial proceeding: Lk 23:14; Acts 4:9; 12:19; 24:8; 28:18. The usage in Acts 17:11 is closest to Paul’s use here in 1 Corinthians; it refers to believers examining Paul’s words in the light of the Scriptures.

Outside of Luke-Acts, the verb is used exclusively by Paul, but only in 1 Corinthians. This suggests that his repeated use of the verb in this letter is connected in some way to the specific issues that he is addressing in the letter. Outside of the three occurrences in 2:14-15, there are seven other instances: 4:3 [twice], 4; 9:3; 10:25, 27; 14:24. The usage in 4:3-4 is, in fact, related thematically to the discussion in 2:6-16. Let us first, however, look briefly at the later occurrences in the letter. In 9:3, the verb refers to the idea of people examining his (i.e., Paul and Barnabas’) conduct as an apostolic missionary. In 10:25, 27, the situation involves discriminating regarding the source of food that one may eat at a dinner. Finally, in 14:24, we find a situation where an individual has his/her sinfulness exposed (and the conscience convicted) under the inspired scrutiny of the assembled congregation.

The use in 4:3-4 is somewhat comparable to that in 9:3 and 14:24. As a chosen minister of the Gospel, Paul cannot legitimately be put under examination by any human court:

“to me, it is as (the) least (thing) that I should be examined [a)nakriqw=] under [i.e. by] you, or under (any) human day (in court); but (then), I do not even put myself under examination [a)nakri/nw]” (v. 3)

The reason for this is explained in verse 4:

“For I have seen altogether nothing in [i.e. against] me, but (yet) not by this have I been declared in the right, (for) indeed, the (one) examining [a)nakri/nwn] me is (the) Lord.”

It is the Lord—both God the Father and Jesus Christ—who examines the heart and mind of the believer. It is, in particular, the exalted Jesus who will function as the eschatological Judge, on behalf of God the Father (v. 5).

Curiously, Paul’s usage of a)nakri/nw in 2:15 seems to transition between two contextual meanings. First, is the understanding and discernment that the Spirit brings to the believer, through a searching out (v. 10) of “all things”; the act of searching (vb e)reuna/w) naturally relates to the use of a)nakri/nw (in vv. 14 and 15a), i.e., “examine”. But what of the final occurrence of a)nakri/nw in v. 15b? The idea of an “examination” of the believer, in the sense of a legal-judicial kind of proceeding, seems to be out of place at this point in Paul’s line of argument—though it would, of course, anticipate the use in 4:3-4.

In the previous note, I argued that, here in v. 15b, Paul is referring to the source of the believer’s discernment—it does not come from any human being (“no one”), but from the Spirit. This, indeed, would seem to be correct for the context, but it also strains the generally accepted meaning of a)nakri/nw:

“the (one) of the Spirit [pneumatiko/$] examines [a)nakri/nei] all (thing)s, but he himself is examined [a)nakri/netai] under [i.e. by] no one”

If we were to accept the translation of “examine” here, it requires qualification. For the context suggests that Paul is referring primarily to the instruction of believers. Thus, unlike in 4:3-4, it is not a legal-judicial setting that is implied, but a situation more akin to the use of a)nakri/nw in Acts 17:11 (see above). As believers, our understanding of God’s Wisdom (“the [thing]s of the Spirit”) is not dependent upon any human being (nor any earthly/worldly wisdom), but comes from the Spirit. Even when human beings (i.e., other believers) play a role in communicating this Wisdom, it still takes place through the guidance and instruction of the Spirit. This is the thrust of Paul’s entire message in vv. 6-16, and it is confirmed by the concluding Scripture citation in verse 16.

In the next daily note, we will look at verse 16 in more detail.

 

 

October 23: 1 Corinthians 2:15-16

1 Corinthians 2:15-16

Before proceeding with the final two verses of this section (1:18-2:16), it is worth commenting a bit further on Paul’s use of the contrasting adjectives yuxiko/$ (“of the soul”) and pneumatiko/$ (“of the Spirit”), discussed in the previous note (on v. 14). This occurrence in 1 Corinthians (cf. also 15:44, 46) would seem to the earliest attested instance of the juxtaposition. The adjective yuxiko/$ itself occurs occasionally in earlier Greek philosophical writings (e.g., Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1117b 28), but not juxtaposed with pneumatiko/$. Philo of Alexandria uses the adjective yuxiko/$ a little over 40 times, but, again, not in contrast with pneumatiko/$ (though he does, on occasion, contrast pneu=ma with yuxh/). Thus, Paul may well be the first author to set these two adjectives in parallel contrast.

Interestingly, after Paul, in the second (and early third) century, these adjectives are used in conjunction by Christian authors, in such a manner, on numerous occasions, and typically in an anti-Gnostic context—Irenaeus Against Heresies I.1.9-16, 14.1-3; Clement of Alexandria Paidagogos 1.31.2; Stromateis 2.10.3; 5.25.5; Excerpts from Theodotus 1.14; 3.54ff; Origen Against Celsus 4.57; 5.19, 22, 61, etc. This has led some commentators to theorize that Paul, in his use of the adjectives, is likewise responding to certain rudimentary Gnostic tendencies (i.e., proto-Gnostic) among the Corinthians. I will be discussing the matter a bit further in an upcoming Saturday Series study, dealing with topic of how Paul’s theology and teaching (in 1 Corinthians) was shaped by the context of dealing with religious conflict .

Let us now continue with Paul’s exposition in vv. 15-16:

“And (so) the (one) of the Spirit [pneumatiko/$] can discern [vb a)nakri/nw] all (thing)s, while he (himself) receives discernment under [i.e. from] no one.” (v. 15)

Paul’s language here in verse 15 can be misleading, and needs to be interpreted in light of the thought of verse 14. The point is that the Wisdom of God (“[thing]s of the Spirit”) can only be received by those who are likewise “of the Spirit” (pneumatiko/$), because such spiritual things, communicated in spiritual words, can only be discerned spiritually. The verb a)nakri/nw is translated as “discern”, though it generally carries the more active sense of “examine, investigate” (often in a legal-judicial context, i.e., “judge”). It is possible that the verb has this latter meaning here in verse 15, in which case, the emphasis would be on the freedom and authority possessed by one who is “of the Spirit”:

“…the (one) of the Spirit examines/judges all (thing)s, but he (himself) is examined/judged by no one”

However, this emphasis seems rather foreign to the overall point that Paul has been making, and I think it best to retain the fundamental meaning of “discern” for both occurrences of the verb a)nakri/nw in v. 15, even though the rendering “discern” would tend to be more fitting for the related verb diakri/nw. What, then, is being stated? The first part of verse 15 reiterates (in summary form) the earlier statements in vv. 10-12; note, in particular:

    • “…the Spirit searches out all (thing)s, even the deep (thing)s of God” (v. 10)
    • “…we (have) received…the Spirit th(at is) of God, (so) that we might see [i.e. know] the (thing)s given to us…by God” (v. 12)

The translation “discern” entails both of these aspects of meaning: (i) “search out” (i.e., examine, investigate), and (ii) “see/know” (i.e., understand, comprehend). More difficult is the passive use of a)nakri/nw in v. 15b. In v. 14, the spiritual things “are discerned” by the spiritual person, but here it is the spiritual person him/herself that is “discerned”. It is understandable why a translation like “examined” or “judged” is preferred in this instance, but I tend to think that the emphasis is on the source of the believer’s discernment—it does not come from other human beings (and their human wisdom), but from the Spirit of God. Thus, the one who is “of the Spirit” relies on the Spirit for discernment, and is not dependent on anyone else. The concluding declaration in verse 16 would seem to confirm this line of interpretation:

“‘For who has known (the) mind of (the) Lord, that th(is person) shall bring (things) together (for) Him?’ And we (indeed) hold (the) mind of (the) Anointed (One)!”

The declaration (16b) is preceded by a quotation from Isa 40:13, corresponding to the LXX rather than the Hebrew. It is interesting that Paul did not work from the Hebrew here, since it reads “Spirit [j^Wr] of the LORD [YHWH]” rather than simply “the LORD”, and thus would make the point of the Scripture even more relevant—viz., that no human being can instruct the Spirit of God. In v. 16b, Paul interprets “the Lord” (o( ku/rio$) Christologically, as referring to Jesus Christ. The “mind of God” is thus also the “mind of Christ”, even as the Spirit of God is also the Spirit of Christ. The association of Christ with the “mind of God” was already established in 1:30, where Paul identifies the exalted Jesus with the Wisdom of God; and, since there is an implicit identification of the Spirit and Wisdom in this passage, an identification of Christ with God’s Spirit is also implied (cf. 6:17; 15:45).

In the next daily note, we will continue this discussion on vv. 15-16.

Citations from the Early Church Fathers (above) were cross-referenced via a contextual TLG search (Thesaurus Linguae Graecae© Digital Library. Ed. Maria C. Pantelia. University of California, Irvine. http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu).

October 22: 1 Corinthians 2:13-14 (continued)

1 Corinthians 2:13-14, continued

In 2:13-14, Paul’s entire line of argument in this section (1:18-2:16) reaches its climax, as he explains the spiritual nature of the Wisdom of God, and how it is communicated in spiritual terms. Our discussion on these two key verses began in the previous note; here again is a translation of the Greek:

“(It is) of the(se thing)s also (that) we speak—not in taught words of human wisdom, but in (word)s taught of (the) Spirit, altogether making spiritual (thing)s distinct in spiritual (word)s. But a man of (the) soul [yuxiko/$] does not receive the (thing)s of the Spirit of God—for they are foolishness to him and he is not able to know (them), (in) that they are discerned spiritually.”

God’s Wisdom, called “(thing)s of the Spirit” (or “spiritual [thing]s”), is communicated among believers through “spiritual (word)s”. Twice in sequence Paul uses the adjective pneumatiko/$ (“of the spirit, spiritual”), while at the end of v. 14 the related adverb pneumatikw=$ (“spiritually”) is used. Because God’s Wisdom is pneumatiko/$, it can only be truly communicated and understood by people (believers) who are also pneumatiko/$. This adjective can be somewhat difficult to translate. The rendering “spiritual” would be fitting, but it can be misleading to modern readers; a translation that better approximates Paul’s meaning is “of the Spirit”.

Here the adjective pneumatiko/$ is set in precise contrast with yuxiko/$, derived from the noun yuxh/ (English translit. psyche), “soul”. There is, unfortunately, no English equivalent for this adjective. If one were to render pneumatiko/$ as “spiritual”, then yuxiko/$ might be translated “soulish”, but this is very awkward (“psychical” is even worse). A better parallel translation would be “of the Spirit” vs. “of the soul”, contrasting the human soul (and mind) with the Spirit (and Wisdom) of God. But what, exactly, is the point of the contrast? Paul uses the adjective pneumatiko/$ with some frequency; indeed, it is essentially a Pauline term, as 24 of the 26 occurrences are in the Pauline letters (the only exceptions being in 1 Pet 2:5 [twice]). By contrast, yuxiko/$ occurs just four times in Paul, and twice in the rest of the New Testament (James 3:15; Jude 19). These rare occurrences of yuxiko/$ need to be examined.

The only other occurrences of yuxiko/$ in the Pauline letters are the three instances in 1 Cor 15:44-46. Here, Paul contrasts the human being on earth, in this life/Age, with the believer after the resurrection, in the New Age. The believer, as a human being, is “sown” (i.e., born) in a body (sw=ma) that is yuxiko/$, but then is raised (after death, etc) with a body that is pneumatiko/$. This contrast is essentially made twice in verse 44. It is then expounded in verse 45, utilizing an Adam/Christ (first man vs second/last man) typology (cf. verse 22, Rom 5:14ff):

“the first man Adam came to be (made) into a living soul [yuxh/], (and) the last Adam (i.e. Christ) into a life-making Spirit [pneu=ma].”

Paul makes clear that the ‘first man’ (that is, all human beings) are not pneumatiko/$ (“of the Spirit”), but only yuxiko/$ (“of the soul”)—a created human being is a living soul, but not a life-giving Spirit. It is only the resurrected/exalted Jesus who was transformed (“became, came to be”) into this Spirit. Paul certainly has in mind the Spirit of God—the Divine Spirit that gives life to all living things; though he does not say so explicitly, the implication is that Jesus came to be united with God, so as to share the same Spirit with Him (cf. 6:17). This is essential to the exaltation Christology of early Christians, and Paul provides the most detailed explanation of the nature of Jesus’ exaltation. In any case, for human beings, this spiritual “body” is only acquired after the resurrection, following the pattern of Jesus’ own resurrection:

“But first (comes) not the pneumatiko/$, but the yuxiko/$, (and) then after (that) the pneumatiko/$.” (v. 46)

If we might summarize: all human beings are yuxiko/$, and have a yuxiko/$ body—that is, a living body (with a soul [yuxh/]). Believers are also yuxiko/$, being alive and possessing a soul, but our existence is not limited to being yuxiko/$. We are also pneumatiko/$ (“of the Spirit”), having received the Spirit, and being united to God/Christ (and to each other) through the Spirit. It is only that our entire person (esp. our body) has not yet been transformed to become pneumatiko/$ (as Jesus was after his resurrection). The important point is that we, as believers, are pneumatiko/$.

How is this pair of adjectives used elsewhere in the New Testament? With regard to pneumatiko/$, it occurs only in 1 Peter 2:5 (twice), as a way of describing the symbolic nature of the traditional ritual imagery—house/Temple, priesthood, sacrificial offerings—as it is applied to believers. As believers, we (collectively) constitute a spiritual Temple (i.e., house of God), ourselves functioning (spiritually) as priests, offering ‘sacrifices’ that are entirely “of the Spirit”.

With regard to the adjective yuxiko/$, it occurs in James 3:15 and Jude 19. The first reference is particularly relevant to the context of 1 Cor 1:18-2:16, since it deals with the theme of wisdom (sofi/a), and in a somewhat similar manner. The author (“James”) contrasts the earthly/worldly wisdom with the true Wisdom of God. As in 1 Cor 1:10-17, the author mentions jealousy and strife that may be manifest in the hearts and lives of Christians, pointing out that such things are incompatible with the Divine Wisdom:

“this is not the wisdom of God coming down, but (wisdom from) upon the earth [e)pi/geio$], of the soul [yuxikh/], like (that of) daimons” (James 3:15)

Any ‘wisdom’ that is divisive, characterized by jealousy and strife, etc, is not the true Wisdom of God, but earthly human wisdom, coming from the human soul alone. The soul of the non-believer remains under bondage to the power of sin and evil; the letter of James does not use this Pauline terminology, but the same basic worldview applies, as he declares ordinary human wisdom to be ‘demon-like’ (i.e., influenced by evil spirits). In Jude 19, the adjective yuxiko/$ has a similarly negative point of reference, referring to the impious and wicked/godless humans who are becoming increasingly prevalent and influential (even among Christians) in the end-time:

“These are the (one)s separating away, (being) of the soul [yuxikoi/] (only), not holding (the) Spirit.”

For a person to be yuxiko/$ (“of the soul”), it is here defined as “not holding/having (the) Spirit”. That is, such a person has only a soul, not the Spirit of God. It is only believers in Christ—true believers—who have/hold the Spirit.

If we apply this same logic to Paul’s use of yuxiko/$ in 1 Cor 2:13-14, then the adjective similarly refers to the human being who has only a soul, not the Spirit; the person who is yuxiko/$ alone (and not pneumatiko/$) is unable to grasp the Wisdom of God, since it is “of the Spirit” (pneumatiko/$). In such a context, yuxiko/$ would refer to non-believers; and yet, as Paul continues his discussion, it is clear that he considers that believers can, in fact, think and act in manner that is yuxiko/$, rather than pneumatiko/$. This relates back to the apparent distinction (in v. 6) between believers who are “complete” (te/leio$), and those who are not.

We shall examine this point of interpretation further, as we continue through our exegesis. In the next daily note, we will proceed to the final verses (15-16) of this section, while also offering a few additional comments on the yuxiko/$ / pneumatiko/$ contrast.

 

 

Notes on Prayer: Thy Kingdom Come (Colossians 1:13, etc)

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

In this study we will examine the second category of Pauline references to the Kingdom of God (category 1 was discussed last week).

2. Identity of Believers in Christ as those who belong to the Kingdom

As in the case of the motif of inheriting the Kingdom, this category of references is firmly rooted in the Gospel Tradition. In a number of the sayings and parables of Jesus that we have examined, we frequently find this theme of believers in Christ (i.e., faithful disciples of Jesus) being identified as the ones who belong to the Kingdom (and thus will enter/inherit it).

The theme is expressed in what is perhaps the earliest surviving letter of Paul (1 Thessalonians). It occurs at the heart of the narration (narratio) section of the letter (2:1-3:10), as Paul describes and summarizes his ministry activity among the Thessalonians; in so doing, he prepares his readers for the exhortation and instruction that follows in chaps. 4-5. The central unit, 2:13-16, in particular, establishes the foundation for the readers’ acceptance of his teaching, by praising their faithfulness (up to this point). By this an implicit expectation is created—viz., that the Thessalonians will continue to remain faithful.

Verse 12 leads into this unit, as Paul blends together a strong exhortation with a declarative statement affirming the Thessalonians’ new religious identity (as believers in Christ). The exhortation continues from v. 11, being itself a continuation of Paul’s prior ministry—that is, Paul again (as he has before) “calls them along” to “walk about” (i.e., conduct themselves in their daily lives) in a manner worthy of their calling. They were called (vb kale/w) by God to become believers in Christ—that is their identity; however, it is necessary that they live up to that identity (the adverb a)ci/w$ denotes being/acting up to a certain level or standard). The believers’ identity is further defined in v. 12b:

“…God, the (One) calling you into His own kingdom and honor [do/ca]”

Thus, in calling these people to trust in Jesus, God also called them “into His kingdom”. Believers in Christ, then, are those who belong to the Kingdom; they will enter (and inherit) it, so long as they remain faithful. The eschatological implications of this ‘test’ of faithfulness are especially clear in 2 Thess 1:5, which otherwise uses very much the same language that we find here. Chaps. 4-5 of 1 Thessalonians also have a strong eschatological orientation.

On the theme of the honor (or ‘glory’, do/ca) of believers, in its primary eschatological aspect, see especially Paul’s discussion in Rom 8:18-30; in Corinthians, cf. 1 Cor 2:7-8; 15:40ff; 2 Cor 3:18 (and the prior use of do/ca in vv. 7-11).

This idea of believers in Christ belonging to the Kingdom of God is given a more pointed theological (and Christological) expression in Colossians 1:13. It comes at the end of the introduction (exordium) of the letter, in the form of a (developed) Pauline thanksgiving. Paul gives thanks to God, ultimately, because:

“…(He) rescued us out of the authority [e)cousi/a] of darkness, and made us stand over [vb meqi/sthmi] into the kingdom of His (be)loved Son”

Two aspects of this Kingdom-statement differ from the earlier statement in 1 Thess 2:12: (1) the Kingdom of God is specifically identified as the Kingdom of God’s Son (i.e., Christ), and (2) there is a stronger sense of the eschatological dimension of the Kingdom being realized already in the present.

The first point is well-founded in the Gospel Tradition, as we have seen. Jesus was identified as the royal/Davidic Messiah, who functions as God’s end-time representative in a position of rule. But, even more important, from an early Christian standpoint, is the result of Jesus’ resurrection—viz., his exaltation to a position at God’s right hand in heaven. The two Christological doctrines—i.e., Jesus as Davidic Messiah and as the exalted Son of God—are closely related, both being held and expressed within the early exaltation Christology. The exalted Christ has a ruling position alongside God the Father in heaven; and, in fact, as God’s royal representative, it is Christ who actively governs the Kingdom (cf. below on 1 Cor 15:24). Thus we, as believers, may speak of the Kingdom of God as the Kingdom of Christ (here, “the kingdom of His [be]loved Son”). The Christological exposition in vv. 15-20 further explains this dynamic (cf. my series of notes on this ‘Christ-hymn’).

The same sort of language is used in 2 Tim 4:1 and 18; on the close relationship between the Kingship of God and the Kingship of Christ, cp. also the terminology in 1 Tim 1:17 and 6:15.

The final Pauline passage of note is 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, which involves a Christological exposition (with an eschatological orientation) comparable, in many ways, to what we find in Col 1:15-20. The subject of chapter 15 is, of course, the resurrection of Jesus, and, in particular, how it relates to the resurrection (and future glory) of believers. Implicit in vv. 20ff is the previously discussed Christological principle—viz., that the exalted Jesus (following his resurrection) came to hold a ruling position (as King) over God’s Kingdom. The relationship between his resurrection and ours is summarized in verse 23:

“…but each (one) in his own order: (the) beginning of (the harvest is the) Anointed (One), (and) then after (that), the (one)s of [i.e. belonging to] the Anointed, in the (time of) his (com)ing along [parousi/a]”

Christ, with his resurrection, represented the beginning of the end-time ‘harvest’. This is expressed by the shorthand (but quite literal) term a)parxh/. After this ‘first-fruit’, then comes the rest of the harvest—namely, the resurrection of all believers in Christ. This will occur at the return, or parousia (lit., “being [i.e. coming] alongside”), of the exalted Jesus to earth, as Paul describes in 1 Thessalonians 4. As ones who belong to Christ, we already belong to his Kingdom; the final (and full) realization of this will take place following the resurrection (again, according to the pattern of Jesus’ own resurrection).

It is particularly in terms of believers, collectively, as representing/comprising the Kingdom of God, that Christ presently rules over the Kingdom. Indeed, the proclamation of the Gospel, leading to the ultimate gathering together of all believers (viz., members of the Kingdom), may be said to constitute the main purpose of Jesus’ Kingdom-rule. In verse 24, Paul indicates that Jesus’ position of rule—defining the Kingdom of God as the Kingdom of Christ—is, in fact, ‘dispensational’, being tied to the end-time era of the Gospel mission. At the end of the Age, when this mission has concluded, then Christ—

“shall give along the Kingdom to the God and Father, when he shall (have) made all (other) rule [a)rxh/] and all authority [e)cousi/a] and power cease working.” (v. 24)

All earthly/worldly power and authority will come to an end, and God’s active reign (as King) will be established over the entire world. This is the ultimate realization of the Kingdom-petition in the Lord’s Prayer. In the interim, the Kingdom is realized (and manifest) through the Gospel mission, as believers come to trust in Christ, and are united with Christ (and God the Father) through the Spirit. According to Paul’s explanation, at the completion (te/lo$) of the Age, Christ will cede and transfer (“give along”) the ruling authority over the Kingdom back to God the Father, having fulfilled his role as God’s royal representative.

In verses 25-28, Paul describes in vivid symbolic detail the final acts by which Christ (the King) brings the current Age to an end. The language draws upon Psalm 110:1ff (a popular Messianic text among early Christians) with its imagery of the king, under God’s power and authority, subduing all enemies of the kingdom. From an eschatological standpoint, the last enemy is death itself—a natural point of reference given the theme of resurrection (from the dead) here in chap. 15; see especially the climactic verses 51-57.

In our next study, we will examine the two references—Romans 14:17 and 1 Corinthians 4:20—in which Paul presents us with an actual definition of the Kingdom of God. These verses demand special attention, both for a clear portrait of Paul’s understanding of the Kingdom, and for clarifying the New Testament teaching on the Kingdom as a whole.