Month: November 2024

November 30: 1 Corinthians 4:14-16

1 Corinthians 4:14-16

In the closing section (4:14-21) of this division (1:18-4:21) of the probatio of 1 Corinthians, the final rhetorical turn Paul takes is an appeal to his own relationship to the Corinthian believers. Throughout this division (and especially in chaps. 3-4), there has been a thematic (and illustrative) emphasis on those who are ministers of the Gospel—in particular, apostolic missionaries such as Paul himself. The example of the apostolic missionaries, in general, was offered in 4:6-13; Paul would, of course, be included among them, but now, in vv. 14-21, he turns to his own specific example—viz., as a founding (apostolic) missionary for the Corinthian churches (cf. Acts 18:1-17ff). We find a comparable personal appeal toward the end of the probatio of Galatians (4:12-20), in which Paul (similarly) urges his readers to follow his example. Much of 2 Corinthians is centered around Paul’s relationship (as an apostle) to the Corinthians; in this regard, the rhetoric of 2 Corinthians is more forceful and developed, but a seminal form of the same line of argument can be found here.

“(I am) not attempting to turn you in (shame when) I write these (thing)s; rather, (I am) putting (it) in mind (for you), as (for) my (own be)loved offspring.” (v. 14)

The use of the verb e)ntre/pw (lit., “turn in”) can function as an idiom for causing a person to experience shame (the derived noun e)ntroph/ is often translated “shame”). Paul claims that he has not been writing “these things” (particularly, the harshly ironic/sarcastic synkrisis in vv. 9-13 [cf. the previous note]), in order to make the Corinthians feel ashamed; however, as Witherington (l.c.) notes, “this denial is a rhetorical move since he is, in fact, trying to shame them into reevaluating their views and lifestyle”. One could perhaps interpret the initial clause of v. 14 as a claim by Paul that shaming the Corinthians is not the primary motivation for his writing to them in such a manner.

The real reason is stated in the main clause, introduced by a contrastive particle a)lla/ (“but, rather…”). Any shaming that he has done is couched in terms of parental discipline, and comes under that heading. Instead of the participle (denoting regular/characteristic activity) of the verb e)ntre/pw, Paul uses a participle of the verb nouqete/w (lit., “put in mind”). In other words, his purpose is pedagogic, and he wishes to give the Corinthians something to think about, which then may serve as a guiding lesson for them. As in Gal 4:12-20 (v. 19, cf. above), Paul presents himself as a parent—father or mother—who is addressing one’s “(be)loved offspring [te/kna, i.e., children]”. In Gal 4:19, he uses the maternal motif of giving birth (i.e., labor pains, vb w)di/nw), while here in verse 15 the verb genna/w (in the transitive-causative sense of “cause to be [born]”) can be used of either the father (“beget”) or mother; cf. Philemon 10. Paul specifically refers to himself (indirectly) as “father” in v. 15.

“For, even if you may hold multitudes of childhood-guides [paidagwgoi/] in (the) Anointed, yet you do not (have) many fathers; for, in (the) Anointed Yeshua, through the good message, I caused you to be (born) [e)ge/nnhsa].” (v. 15)

Here Paul extends the illustration by contrasting his own role as parent/father, with that of a “child’s guide” (paidagwgo/$); in Greco-Roman society, the role of the paidagwgo/$ was typically filled by a trusted household servant/slave—thus, in clear contrast with the position of the parent. For more on this motif, see my earlier article on Galatians 3:23-29ff (the noun occurs in vv. 24-25).

The Corinthian believers have many “guides” —viz., various leaders and ministers who have guided the growth and development of their congregations. Yet (a)lla/), they do not have many “fathers” —by “father” is meant, in this illustration, an apostolic missionary, such as Paul. Through the proclamation of the Gospel (“the good message”), the first believers at Corinth came to trust in Jesus, and the initial churches were formed; in this way, Paul played a formative role in ‘giving birth’ to them. Interestingly, in Galatians 4:19, this ‘giving birth’ describes a longer process of growth and development—an application of the illustration that would fit in well with our section (1:18-4:21) as a whole. The process of believers being shaped/formed into the very image of Christ relates to the idea of being “complete” (2:6). Paul wishes that he could communicate other “(thing)s of the Spirit” to the Corinthians; however, this is difficult—perhaps even impossible—as long as they continue to be reliant upon human wisdom, allowing themselves to be influenced by fleshly/worldly ways of thinking and acting.

“(So) then, I call you alongside: become imitators of me.” (v. 16)

Clearly, Paul’s parental role was not limited to proclaiming the Gospel; it also does—and needs to—include the further spiritual growth of the Corinthians in Christ. Insofar as Paul can serve as a beneficial example to the Corinthians, assisting them to be ever more thinking and acting as ones “of the Spirit”, his apostolic work continues. He summarizes this concisely in verse 16, with the exhortation “become imitators [mimhtai/] of me”. It is prefaced by the phrase, “(So) then, I call you alongside…”. The verb parakale/w (“call alongside”) is often used in an instructional or exhortational context. Furthering the parent-illustration, one can imagine a father calling his children along to him, in order to give them important instruction. They must come in close to him, paying attention, in order to hear and obtain guidance.

The idea of “imitating” another person tends to have a negative connotation in English. However, there is a long history of “imitation” (mi/mhsi$, vb mime/omai), in a positive sense, throughout Greek philosophy and religion (cf. the representative examples cited by Conzelmann, p. 92). The true philosopher (e.g., Socrates), guided by reason and virtue, very much serves as a positive example for others to follow. Similarly, the faithful and mature believer in Christ—including those called and gifted as ministers—can serve as a moral and spiritual example. For Christians, of course, Jesus Christ is the supreme example; apostolic ministers such as Paul are only to be followed insofar as they are following the example of Jesus himself. This helps to explain the importance of the emphasis on self-sacrificial suffering in vv. 9-13 (see the previous note), as it represents a kind of ‘imitation’ of the suffering of Christ (viz., the cross). Paul states the Christological orientation explicitly in 11:1:

“Become imitators of me, just as I (am an imitator) of (the) Anointed (One).”

This noun (mimhth/$, “imitator”) also occurs in 1 Thess 1:6 and 2:15; the only other occurrence, outside of the Pauline corpus, is in Hebrews 6:12.

In the next daily note, on verses 17-19, we will examine how Paul finally applies this principle to the specific situation of the Corinthian congregations.

References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Conzelmann” are to Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, Hermeneia Commentary series (Fortress Press: 1975), translated by James W. Leitch from the German Der erste Brief an die Korinther (1st edition), Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament (begründet von H. A. W. Meyer), Fünfte Abteilung—11. Auflage (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 1969).
Those marked “Witherington” are to Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Eerdmans: 1995).

November 29: 1 Corinthians 4:9-13

1 Corinthians 4:9-13

“For I think (that) God has shown us, the (one)s having been sent forth [a)po/stoloi], off last, as (one)s given up to death, (in) that we came to be (made) an object of wonderment to the world—even to (the) Messengers and men (alike)” (v. 9)

In verses 9-13, Paul builds upon the sarcastic contrast established in verse 8 (see the previous note) between himself (along with his apostolic colleagues) and the Corinthians. The rhetorical comparison (synkrisis) continues to have an ironic and hyperbolic tone throughout. And yet, despite the obvious exaggeration, the example of the apostles’ humble obedience (to the Gospel), and self-sacrifice, are to be taken seriously. It serves as a practical example of how the believer who would be “complete” (2:6) and fully “of the Spirit” will follow the message of the cross (1:17-18, 23ff), the self-sacrifice that was exemplified by Jesus himself in his death.

Paul somewhat casually, almost backhandedly, brings this theme of the apostles’ suffering to the fore, as he muses: “I think [i.e., guess, suppose] (that) God showed us off…(as) last…”. The verb is a)podei/knumi, meaning “show forth”, or in English idiom, “show off”; it implies a public display. In saying “us”, Paul refers to himself, certainly, but also to all of his missionary colleagues, those have been called (by God) as missionaries of the Gospel, and commissioned (i.e., ones “sent forth”, a)po/stoloi, vb a)poste/llw) by Christ himself. The noun a)po/stolo$, of course, is transliterated into English as apostle; in the New Testament, the term refers (primarily) to the first-generation of believers who performed the ground-breaking missionary work, establishing Christianity and founding churches in territories throughout the Roman Empire.

And yet, in spite of the seeming honor that should go along with such a role, Paul rather states that God has “shown off” the apostles (publicly) to be the last of all. Human wisdom might dictate that leading apostles (such as Paul) should be shown to be first (i.e., in the eyes of the world),  but, instead, they are last. In the verses that follow, Paul describes in what way(s) he and his colleagues are shown off as “last”; but he introduces it here, in a summary fashion: “…(in) that [i.e., for, because] we came to be made an object of wonderment [qe/atron] to the world”. The noun qe/atron, from the verb qea/omai, denotes something that one “looks/gazes at with wonder”, and thus relates conceptually the use of the verb a)podei/knumi (“show off”). Indeed, the word came to be used specifically as a “place for public shows” (Acts 19:29, 31, as in our transliterated term theater). The word “spectacle” in English (Lat. spectaculum, vb spectare) effectively captures both the positive and negative (i.e., “made a public spectacle”) connotations of the term.

Paul’s description of the apostles as “(one)s given up to death” (adj. e)piqana/tio$), in the context of this theater-motif, suggests the image of condemned prisoners brought into the arena (i.e., theater) to face death; see the use of the adjective, for example, in Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 8.18.2, and note also the use in the LXX (Bel 31), cf. Conzelmann, p. 89. Such a public death would be a most demeaning spectacle. While there were any number of early Christian missionaries who faced a death of this sort, there can be no doubt that Paul is also (intentionally) alluding back to Jesus’ own death (by crucifixion)—one of the most degrading (and painful) forms of public execution. The suffering/death of the apostles, like that of Jesus’ himself, is something that is ultimately looked on with wonder by the entire world—angels (lit., messengers) and humans alike. Here, Paul probably has an eschatological orientation in mind.

“We (are) fools through [i.e., because of] (the) Anointed, while you (are) sensible [fro/nimoi] in (the) Anointed! We (are) without strength, while you (are) strong (indeed)! You (are held) in esteem [e&ndocoi], while we (are) without honor [a&timoi]!” (v. 10)

The sarcastic tone of the contrast set in v. 8 becomes particularly harsh here, filtered through the intervening motifs of v. 9 (see above). It also builds upon the overall contrast of the section—viz., that of human wisdom vs. the Wisdom of God. In the eyes of the world, according to the values of human wisdom, Paul and his apostolic colleagues possess three negative characteristics:

    • Foolishness (mwri/a)— “we (are) fools [mwroi/]”
    • Weakness— “we (are) without strength [a)sqenh/$]”
    • Lack of honor (a&timo$)

All three of these were mentioned, or implied, earlier (1:25-29), as characteristics of believers in general, and in reference to the proclamation of the Gospel. In the world’s eyes, believers (and all preachers/ministers of the Gospel) would generally seem to be foolish, weak, and without honor/esteem. Paul’s attribution of the opposite of these things—thoughtfulness (i.e., wisdom), strength, esteem—to the Corinthians is another way of pointing out (through a kind of shaming technique) how the Corinthians (and their leaders) have become influenced by human wisdom—worldly/fleshly ways of thinking and acting.

It is important to note that Paul still considers the Corinthians whom he is rebuking to be genuine believers; they are still “in Christ [e)n Xristw=|]”, even though they may be immature or ‘incomplete’ (2:6), thinking and behaving in a worldly/fleshly manner. For the suffering experienced by the apostles—implicitly, according the obedient self-sacrifice of Jesus’ own example (cf. above)—a different expression is used: “through Christ [dia\ Xristo/n]”, with the preposition dia/ (prim. “through”) used in the sense of “because of” or “for the sake of” (cp. Mk 8:35; 10:29; 13:9, 13 pars; Lk 6:22; 9:24 par; Acts 9:16, etc).

“Until the (present) hour now, indeed, we hunger and thirst and are naked and are struck (with fists) and are without standing [i.e. have no settled abode]; and we beat (ourselves), working with (our) own hands; (all the while,) being reviled, we give a good account; being pursued [i.e. persecuted] we hold up (under it); being defamed, we call alongside (gently).” (vv. 11-13a)

Paul offers similar ‘hardship lists’ in 2 Cor 4:7-11f; 6:4-10; 11:23-29. The rhetorical purpose of those instances is more pointed and developed. Here, Paul presents a general summary, given in exaggerated terms, of the kinds of hardship that the faithful apostle (i.e., missionary of the Gospel) is likely to endure. Paul certainly is able to draw from his own experience, but it is not his own example that he is particularly emphasizing here. Rather, these verses exemplify two important aspects for the believer who is (or who is becoming) “complete”, acting and thinking according to the Wisdom of God, following the guidance of the Spirit and the message/example of the cross: (1) a willingness to endure deprivation and violence, etc., for Christ’s sake (dia\ Xristo/n), and (2) in the face of such suffering (and outright hostility from the world), that one consistently responds in a Christ-like manner, exhibiting the ‘fruit of the Spirit’ (Gal 5:22-24); compare vv. 12b-13a with the instruction in Rom 12:17ff.

“As (filth) cleaned around by the world, (so) we have become, (something) scraped around by all (people), (even) until (this moment) now!” (v. 13b)

The suffering and lowliness of the apostles is expressed here, climactically, in the most extreme terms. Paul uses two similar nouns—(1) perika/qarma [plur.], denoting the refuse, debris, etc, that results from “cleaning around” something, and (2) peri/yhma, denoting what results from “scraping around” something. The world literally treats the apostles and missionaries of the Gospel like something one “scrapes off”. It makes for a vivid, if quite hyperbolic, conclusion to the synkrisis of vv. 8-13, and to the section of vv. 6-13 as a whole. In the next daily note, we shall consider how Paul further develops and applies this line of rhetoric, in order to bring his message home to the Corinthians. These final verses (vv. 14-21) represent the conclusion of the probatio-division spanning 1:18-4:21.

References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Conzelmann” are to Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, Hermeneia Commentary series (Fortress Press: 1975), translated by James W. Leitch from the German Der erste Brief an die Korinther (1st edition), Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament (begründet von H. A. W. Meyer), Fünfte Abteilung—11. Auflage (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 1969).

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 118 (Part 3)

Psalm 118, continued

For the introduction (vv. 1-4) and the Hymn (vv. 5-18), see Part 1 and 2 of this study.

Second Part: Verses 19-28

The First Part of the Psalm (vv. 5-18) constituted a hymn of thanksgiving to YHWH. The protagonist gives thanks because God has answered his prayer, rescuing him from the attacking enemies that had surrounded him. The deliverance appears to have taken the form of a military victory—or, at least, language/imagery along such lines has been utilized. It has been suggested (cf. the discussion in Parts 1 and 2) that the protagonist is the Israelite/Judean king; at the very least, the hymn evinces a royal background, whether or not a specific (historical) setting from the monarchy is intended. I do understand the hymn, in its original form, to be pre-exilic, dating from the monarchic period.

The Second Part of the Psalm (vv. 19-28) seems to describe a ritual/ceremonial occasion, set at (and within) the Jerusalem Temple precincts. If this ceremonial portion is also original (along with the hymn), then it likely contains the same royal background—with the king as the protagonist. There are numerous Psalms which involve or utilize a Temple setting, with a recurring thematic motif of the righteous coming to the Temple (and entering its courts) in order to give praise and worship to YHWH—cf. Psalms 115-116, and 5:8-9; 24:3-6; 138:1-2. Many prayer-Psalms contain this pattern: beginning with the call for YHWH to rescue the protagonist, and ending with the promise to give praise/thanks to YHWH publicly, in a communal (and ritual-liturgical) worship setting; a good number of thanksgiving Psalms utilize a comparable pattern (see Ps 30, for a good example).

Perhaps the closest parallel to Ps 118:19ff is that of Isaiah 26:1-2ff, which opens with the theme of YHWH’s strong protection, that brings victory to His people (v. 1), and then alludes to the entry of righteous into the holy city (Jerusalem, v. 2). This even includes the specific motif of a call to open the gates of the city (cp. with v. 19 of the Psalm, below). Whether or not the protagonist is to be identified with the Israelite/Judean king, he certainly functions a representative of the entire people—and, in particular, of the faithful/righteous ones among them.

Unit 1: Verses 19-21
Verse 19

“Open for me (the) gates of right(eous)ness—
I will come in (through) them (and) give thanks to YH!”

The parallel with Isa 26:2 has already been noted (cf. above); there the righteous ones of the people as a whole are to enter, while here it is the righteous (and victorious) protagonist. However, based on verse 15f (see Part 2), the protagonist (esp. if the king) is almost certainly accompanied by “the righteous (one)s”, as part of a ceremonial procession. This would fit both the original context of the Psalm (viz., its royal background and original/underlying traditions), and the subsequent use of it (esp. as part of the Hallel collection, 113-118) on festal occasions (notably, the great pilgrimage festivals).

The “gates” here are often assumed to be the gates of the Temple; however, Dahood (III, p. 159) is probably correct in viewing them as the city gates. We should imagine the ceremonial procession as beginning with an entry into the city of Jerusalem, and then continuing into the Temple precincts and courts. This would match the pilgrim-festival application (i.e., for Passover and Sukkot)—including, most notably, the setting for Jesus’ entry (as king) into Jerusalem (Mark 11:1-10 par), an entry which continued on to the Temple and its courts (vv. 11, 15ff par).

Verse 20

“This (is) the gate (leading) to YHWH—
(the) right(eous) will come in (through) it!”

This couplet is generally parallel to that of v. 19 (see above). The “gates of righteousness” are also the gates that lead to YHWH (i.e., the Temple sanctuary). This translation understands the prefixed l (of hwhyl) as being locative/directional; (similar to la#, “to[ward]”) however, it is also possible to treat it as the l indicating authorship/ownership (i.e., “belonging to”)—in other words, these gates (of the holy city and its Temple) belong to YHWH. The second line of each couplet expresses different aspects of the same basic idea—viz., the righteous enter through the gates (the imperfect verb form[s] could also indicate their intention to enter). In v. 19, it is the protagonist (presumably the king) who would enter, while, in v. 20, it is the righteous ones of the people as a whole. The king stands as the representative leader of the people.

There is also a chiasm to verses 19-20, at least in terms of certain thematic wording:

    • The gates of righteousness are to open
      • allowing the people to worship YHWH
      • the gates (and the Temple) belong to YHWH
    • the righteous will enter through the open gates
Verse 21

“I will give thanks to you, because you answered me,
and (so) came to be for me as (my) salvation.”

The protagonist expresses clearly the reasons why he wishes (and intends) to enter the city (and go to the Temple), in order to give thanks (or praise, vb hd*y`) to YHWH. It is because (yK!) YHWH answered his prayer (v. 5), protecting and rescuing him, and giving to him victory over his enemies. This is the guiding theme and subject of the hymn (vv. 5-18). On the specific idiom of YHWH “becoming” the Psalmist’s salvation (hu*Wvy+), cf. verse 14 (discussed in Part 2). As previously mentioned, the noun hu*Wvy+ can also carry the meaning “safety, protection”, and even “victory”.

Unit 2: Verses 22-25
Verse 22

“(The) stone (which) the builders rejected
has become as (the) head of the corner.”

This proverbial-sounding couplet begins the second unit (or stanza) of this section. The illustration emphasizes the manner, and the conditions, in which YHWH acted to save (and bring victory to) the king-protagonist and his people. The motif in the first line, of “(the) stone the builders rejected”, should be understood in general terms, and not pressed too far in its specificity. The basic idea is that the people doing the building (verbal noun [participle]), rejected (vb sa^m*) certain stones during the process of construction; then, once the building was complete, a rejected stone was chosen to be the crowning “head of the corner” for the edifice. Probably the expression “head of the corner” refers to a capstone or cornice, rather than a foundational ‘cornerstone’ per se. This has led certain commentators (e.g., Hossfeld-Zenger, p. 242) to interpret the verse within the post-exilic context of the rebuilding of Jerusalem (and the Temple); the crowning “head of the corner” would then mark the completion of the (re)building.

In terms of the royal background proposed for the hymn (and, presumably, this ceremonial section), the proverb-illustration would have to be understood in the sense of the Israelite/Judean king being “rejected” by the surrounding nations (perhaps those which had previously been vassals or allies, cp. the setting of Psalm 2 [on which, cf. the earlier study]). More broadly, it can refer to the way that various nations have despised Israel/Judah (as the verb sa^m* can also mean “despise”); such an interpretive paradigm could apply to any number of periods or moments in Israelite/Jewish history.

It would seem that, from a relatively early period (cp. Zech 4:7), this verse—and the motif of the “stone” —was given a Messianic interpretation. This is very much in accordance with, for example, the highly interpretive rendering of the Aramaic Targum, which speaks of David as the “son” who had been rejected, only later to be raised by God to a position of rule. Early Christians, of course, applied the verse to Jesus (as the Davidic Messiah), an application which goes back to Gospel tradition, and the parable of Jesus in Mark 12:1-12 par (vv. 10-11); cf. also 1 Peter 2:6-7f, where it was joined (based on the common “stone” motif) with Isa 28:16 (and 8:14f, cp. Matt 21:44). The early Christians would seem to have understood the “head of the corner” as a foundational cornerstone (cf. Eph 2:20).

For a fine study of v. 22, and the “stone” motif, cf. the article by Michael Cahill, “Not a Cornerstone! Translating Ps 118, 22 in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures”, Revue Biblique 106 (1999), pp. 345-57.

Verse 23

“(It was) from YHWH (that) this came to be—
(and) it is (something) wonderful in our eyes!”

The Psalmist makes two points in this couplet: (1) that YHWH was the cause of the ‘rejected’ stone becoming the crowning “head of the corner”, and (2) that it was something wonderful/marvelous (vb al*P*, Niphal). In the context of the Psalm, this is another way of referring to the mighty deeds performed by YHWH in protecting and rescuing His people. The language could allude great historical events (e.g., the event at the Reed Sea) in the history of Israel (according to Scriptural tradition), or to the more localized context of a military victory on behalf of the king and people. If an exilic (or post-exilic) setting is assumed, then it could describe (or anticipate) the restoration of Israel.

The fact that the protagonist (and his people, the righteous ones) have seen these things, experiencing the protection and salvation provided by YHWH, leads them to come to Jerusalem, in a great procession, to worship and give praise to Him.

As in vv. 19-20 (see above), there is a certain thematic chiasm across verses 22-23:

    • The rejected stone was unacceptable ‘in the eyes’ of the builders
      • yet it came to be as the head of the corner |
      • this came to be as a result of YHWH’s action
    • and it appears as something wonderful “in our eyes”
Verse 24

“This (is) the day YHWH made (it happen)—
let us spin (for joy) and be glad in it!”

The first line should be understood as referring to the “day” when YHWH acted to save/rescue His people. Similarly, the people will rejoice and be glad because of what YHWH has done. It is possible to explain the final prepositional oB as “in Him” (i.e., in YHWH), for what He has done.

There is a certain parallelism between the couplets of v. 23 and v. 24. The subject in the first line of each is represented by a demonstrative:

    • “This [taz)] came to be from YHWH”
    • “This [hz#] is the day YHWH did (it)”

The feminine taz) refers to the thing that YHWH did (presumably alluding back to the feminine hu*Wvy+, “salvation”, i.e., saving action), while the masculine hz# refers to the moment or time (<oy, “day”) when He did it.

Continuing the parallelism, the second lines of each couplet are also similar in theme and emphasis.

Verse 25

“Oh YHWH, please bring salvation (again)!
Oh YHWH, please bring prosperity (to us)!”

This unit, or stanza (vv. 22-25), concludes with a dual request (petition) to YHWH, marked by the particle of entreaty (an`). Given the salvation/victory that YHWH has already brought (and which is now being celebrated), it seems somewhat strange that the protagonist here would ask YHWH to bring salvation again. But this is perhaps to be understood in the sense of “continue to keep us safe”. It is paired with the idea of bringing prosperity (vb jl^x*), tying the concept of salvation (i.e., safety/protection) to that of blessing—both being covenant obligations of YHWH toward the faithful ones of His people. Each of the verbs is in the Hiphil (causative) stem, i.e., “make/keep safe, bring salvation”, “make prosperous, bring prosperity”.

Another possible interpretive approach would be to treat the salvation described in the hymn (vv. 5-18) as representing the historical past, while the ritual/ceremonial section in vv. 19-28 seeks to have realized a similar salvation for the people in the present (and future).

As a different explanation, it has been suggested that the prayer here (for salvation/prosperity) is tied specifically to a seasonal prayer for rain; this certainly would fit the traditional Sukkot festival setting for the Psalm (esp. vv. 19-28), see below. Cf. the article by Jakob J. Petuchowski, “‘Hoshi‘a na’ in Psalm CXVIII 25,—A Prayer for Rain”, Vetus Testamentum 5 (1955), pp. 266-71.

Unit 3: Verses 26-28
Verse 26

“Blessed (is) the (one) coming in (the) name of YHWH!
We (all) bless you [pl.] from (the) house of YHWH!”

If we may assume a ritual progression across the three units (or stanzas) of this section, then the procession, having initially entered through the city gates (unit 1), has now reached the temple. Again the singular-plural dichotomy (i.e., king-protagonist and righteous ones) from earlier in the Psalm is maintained, with the singular (“the [one] coming…”) in line 1, and the plural (“we bless you [plur.]…”) in line 2. Probably the scenario would have the king at the head, leading the procession, with the people (“the righteous ones”) following. The verb aoB (+ prep. B=), used earlier in vv. 19-20, again refers to the procession entering; the righteousness of those entering is indicated by the expression “in the name of YHWH” —viz., those who belong to YHWH (as His faithful/loyal people), and who worship Him with devotion. The expression “from the house of YHWH” is parallel, with YHWH’s name being especially connected with the Temple (“house”) in Israelite religious tradition. It is a thematic connection that is particularly emphasized in Deuteronomy (and the Deuteronomic history), illustrated most notably in the Prayer of Solomon (at the dedication of the Temple, 1 Kings 8 [on which, cf. my earlier series of notes]).
On a textual note, the Qumran manuscript 11QPsa originally read “We bless you in/by (the) name [<vb]…”, but then the additional word was marked (as erroneous) by a later hand.

Line 2 references two groups—one approaching (and entering) the Temple, and the other greeting them (“We bless you…”) from within the Temple courts. The ones within the Temple may represent a group of priests; if these verses were part of a liturgy, then a chorus of priests may have sung/recited the line(s).

In terms of the original context of the Psalm (and its royal background), the “(one) coming in the name of YHWH” refers to the faithful (and victorious) king. This led naturally to a Messianic interpretation, which was applied, in early Christian tradition, to the person of Jesus (as the Davidic Messiah). Verse 26 (along with v. 25) features prominently in the Gospel Tradition, connected with the ‘triumphal entry’ of Jesus into Jerusalem (Mark 11:9-10 par; cf. also Matt 23:39; Lk 13:35). See the article in the series “The Old Testament in the Gospel Tradition”, and also Parts 6–8 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”, along with the supplemental note on “The One Coming”.

As previously mentioned, from a relatively early time, the Psalm came to be reinterpreted according to its festival setting, with v. 26 applied to the pilgrims coming into Jerusalem for the festivals of Passover and Sukkot, etc. See Part 1 of the article on the Sukkot festival.

Verse 27a

“(The) Mighty (One is) YHWH,
(and) He has brought light to us!”

The first half of verse 27 is a short 2-beat (2+2) couplet, presumably describing (in at least a shorthand way) a ceremony that occurs in the Temple—confession/praise of YHWH, accompanied (probably) by a ritual/ceremonial action. The first line is best understood as a confessional declaration, acknowledging YHWH as the one true God (to be worshiped by Israel), and that, as such, He has the power to protect and save His people.

The motif of YHWH bringing (i.e. shining) light upon His people is traditional, connected with the ceremonial priestly blessing (Num 6:25-26, cf. Psalm 67:1; 80:3, 7, 19). The shining of light refers to the active/manifest presence of YHWH, and the providential protection and blessing that He provides.

In later Israelite/Jewish tradition, a lamp-lighting ritual was performed as part of the Sukkot ceremonies (see Mishnah tractate Sukkah 5.2-3ff); possibly v. 27a alludes to an ancient seminal form of such a ritual. Cf. the light motif utilized by Jesus in his Sukkot Discourse (John 8:12ff).

Verse 27b

“Bind (the) processional with woven (branch)es,
up to (the) horns of the place of slaughter!”

This second couplet (3+2) has proven difficult to interpret (and translate). The main uncertainty regards the specific contextual meaning of gj^, which signifies a festival (esp. a pilgrimage festival). Does it refer to a festal procession, or to a sacrifice offered during the festival? (on the latter, cf. Exod 23:18). If the former, then the “woven/twined (strand)s” (<ytb)u&) would presumably refer to ropes/cords used to “bind” (vb rs^a*) the offering until reaching the altar (lit. “place of [ritual] slaughter”); if the latter, then the <yt!b)u& could be festive branches, such as those traditionally used during Sukkot (Lev 23:40, etc; cf. Part 1 of the article on Sukkot). Dahood (III, p. 160) offers an intriguing solution, by redividing the Hebrew (<ytbu bgj, instead of <ytbub gj); then he would correlate bgj with Syriac µugb¹ (“shrine”, cp. Arabic µij¹b), explaining the couplet as an exhortation to adorn the courtyard (up to the altar) with festive branches.
The Qumran manuscript 11QPsa reads a plural construct noun (yrwsa, i.e., “bindings of”) instead of the imperative (Wrs=a!, “bind…!”); almost certainly this is a copyist’s mistake.

It seems best to understand gj^ in terms of a festal procession. This would be in accordance with the basic meaning of the ggj root, and would also fit the overall scenario in vv. 19-28, which seems to describe a procession. Beginning at the city gates, it now, at its climax, reaches the sacrificial altar (“up to the place of slaughter”) in the Temple courtyard.

Verse 28

“My Mighty (One) you (are), and I give you thanks!
“My Mightiest (One), I do lift you high!”

The stanza, and the ceremonial section as a whole, concludes with this declaration of praise to YHWH. As in v. 27a (cf. above), it combines a confession of YHWH (as the one true God, worshiped by the righteous), with thanksgiving (line 1) and praise (line 2) to Him. Both of the related Divine terms/titles la@ (°E~l) and <yh!l)a$ (°E_lœhîm) are used, synonymously, with little or no difference in meaning.

The meter of this couplet (3+2) matches that of v. 27b.

Conclusion: Verse 29

“Give thanks to YHWH, that (He is) good—
His loyalty (lasts) to (the) distant (future)!”

The Psalm concludes just as it began; indeed, verse 29 is identical with verse 1 (cf. Part 1). This exhortation and call to praise YHWH frames the entire Psalm, and helps to set it within the liturgical (worship) context of the Hallel (Praise) collection.

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).
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).

November 23: 1 Corinthians 4:8

1 Corinthians 4:8

Paul’s rebuke to the Corinthians in verse 7b (see the previous note) is followed up by a harshly sarcastic piece of rhetoric (vv. 8-13). He seeks to persuade the Corinthians by shaming them, through an ironical comparison (synkrisis), juxtaposing the Corinthians (and their local leaders/ministers) with Paul and his apostolic colleagues (including Apollos). He begins by praising the Corinthians sarcastically:

“Already you are (one)s having been stuffed full, already you became rich! Apart from us, you became kings!” (v. 8a)

The note of sarcasm regarding the Corinthians becoming rich (vb ploute/w) and become kings (vb basileu/w) is indicated by the initial statement: “Already you are (one)s having been stuffed full [kekoresme/noi]”. The verb kore/nnumi occurs only once elsewhere in the New Testament (Acts 27:38), and is never used in the LXX. It denotes “eating one’s fill”, i.e., so as to become fully satisfied (and sated). It is a characteristic of a wealthy person, with connotations of gluttony.

With regard to the Corinthians having “become kings” (i.e., now are ruling/reigning as kings), Paul prefaces this by the prepositional expression xwri\$ h(mw=n (“apart from us”). This should be understood in the rudimentary spatial sense of xwri/$ (“apart from”, denoting separation, with space between)—i.e., in the (physical) absence of Paul and his ministerial colleagues, away from Corinth. In other words, the Corinthians reached kingly status on their own, through their own giftedness, and under the influence of their local leaders. On this last point, Paul continues, with an especially pointed sense of irony:

“And I would owe (it), indeed, (if) you did become kings, (so) that we also might be kings together with you!” (v. 8b)

The particle o&felon is actually a first person (aorist) form of the verb o)fei/lw (“owe, be in debt”), but it came to be used as a modal particle expressing a wish-exclamation, i.e.: “Would that you really did become kings…!” or “How I wish you really did become kings…!” The ironic implication, of course, is that the Corinthians really did not reach a true ‘royal’ status on their own—though they may have imagined that they did!

The final phrase, “that we also might be kings together with you”, along with the earlier expression “apart from us” (xwri\$ h(mw=n), prepares for the rhetorical comparison (synkrisis)—viz., between Paul and the Corinthian ministers—that follows. In the next daily note, we will examine this comparison.

Given the thematic emphasis on wisdom throughout these chapters, Paul may, in utilizing the motif of a person ruling/reigning as king (vb basileu/w [and sumbasileu/w]), have in mind Greek philosophical (esp. Stoic) conceptions and descriptions of the wise person as a “king” —e.g., Epictetus Dissertations 3.22.63; Horace, Epistles 1.1.106; Plutarch Moralia 1058B-C; Seneca Epistle 85.2. Within the Hellenistic Jewish milieu, see, e.g., Philo of Alexandria, On Abraham §261; similarly, on the wise man being rich, Allegorical Interpretation I.34; III.163; Who Is the Heir of Divine Things? §27. Cf. Conzelmann, p. 87; Garland, loc. cit. However, if Paul intends any such philosophical allusions, he does so ironically, in continuance of his pointed contrast between human wisdom (such as that of the philosopher or sophist) and the Wisdom of God.

References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Conzelmann” are to Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, Hermeneia Commentary series (Fortress Press: 1975), translated by James W. Leitch from the German Der erste Brief an die Korinther (1st edition), Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament (begründet von H. A. W. Meyer), Fünfte Abteilung—11. Auflage (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 1969).
Those marked “Garland” are to David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Baker Academic: 2003).

November 22: 1 Corinthians 4:7

1 Corinthians 4:7

“For who (is it that) distinguishes you (so) thoroughly? What, indeed, do you hold that you did not receive (from another)? And if, indeed, you received (it from another), (for) what (reason) do you boast as (though) not having received (it)?” (v. 7)

Here in verse 7, Paul asks a series of related rhetorical questions, as a follow-up to his exhortation in v. 6b (see the previous note). In 3:5-4:5, Paul had applied the principles and points made 1:18-2:16 to he and Apollos. Now, in 4:6ff, he applies the principles directly to the Corinthian congregations (and their leaders). What applied to apostolic missionaries such as Paul and Apollos, applies just as much (if not more) to other local ministers. Indeed, the Corinthians are particularly in need of this application, given the rivalries and divisions that have arisen within their congregations. Paul alludes to these sectarian tendencies again here in v. 6, warning the Corinthians—especially the more gifted and talented among them—against elevating themselves over other believers, becoming “puffed up” with human wisdom, etc, and regarding themselves with an inflated sense of their own importance.

The questions Paul asks in verse 7 form a rhetorical chain, which serves to further his line of argument. The first question he asks is “Who [ti/$] (is it that) distinguishes you (so) thoroughly”. This could be taken in a negative, belittling sense, implying that the Corinthian leaders are not really as “distinguished” as they themselves think. More likely, however, Paul is emphasizing that, however distinguished these people may be—in terms of their wisdom and learning, skill and abilities, etc—it was another who made them so. Namely, it was God who did this. Certainly, this would be the case with regard to their spiritual gifts (cf. 2:12f), but it can be extended to their ‘natural’ human talents, etc, as well. The Corinthians believers surely did not obtain these things on their own, apart from God.

The use of the verb diakri/nw represents the third such compound kri/nw-verb utilized by Paul in these chapters, following sugkri/nw in 2:13 [note], and a)nakri/nw in 2:14-15 [notes]; 4:3-4 [note] (cf. also kri/nw in 4:5). The basic meaning of diakri/nw is “separate out thoroughly” —viz., so as to distinguish something (or someone) and make it distinct. Implicit in the use of all these kri/nw-verbs is that God is the one who ultimately does the separating, who makes things (and people) distinct. The usage represents another aspect of the running thematic contrast, between human wisdom and the Wisdom of God.

The second question builds upon the first, and clarifies it: “What [ti/], indeed, do you hold [i.e., in your possession] that you did not receive (from another)?” Again, the clear implication is that whatever gifts the Corinthians may possess, they received them from God. If this is so, then the third question follows: “…(for) what [ti/] (reason) [i.e., why] do you boast as (though) not having received (it) [i.e., from God]?” The thrust of this boasting motif (cf. the use of the verb kauxa/omai earlier in 1:29, 31; 3:21) is that a believer should not “boast” in another human being, nor in anything human (i.e., wisdom, etc), but only in God. Least of all should believers boast in themselves! Indeed, if we are to boast in anything at all, it is in what we have, through the Spirit, from our union with God, “in Christ” (i.e., “in the Lord”, 1:31).

The further implication is that some of the Corinthians have, in fact, been ‘boasting’ improperly, even as they have become ‘puffed up’ —in their sense of self-importance and reliance upon human wisdom. This provides the basis for the rather harsh sarcastic tone Paul takes in verses 8ff. In the next daily note, we shall examine this striking rhetorical turn he takes.

November 21: 1 Corinthians 4:6

1 Corinthians 4:6

“Now these (thing)s, brothers, I changed the shape of (so as) to (fit) myself and Apollos, for you [i.e. for your sake]—(so) that in us you might learn the (point of) ‘not over the (thing)s that have been written’, (so) that, one (person) over the (other) one, you would not be ‘puffed up’ against the other.” (v. 6)

This rather convoluted sentence by Paul introduces the next section (vv. 6-13) of his expository application—viz., applying the principles and examples laid out in 1:18-2:16. In chapter 3 (and continuing into 4:1-5), Paul has applied “these things” (tau=ta) to himself, and to Apollos, as leading (apostolic) ministers. One reason for doing this is that he and Apollos, apparently, had become a source of the partisan/sectarian divisions among the Corinthians (1:11ff; 3:3-4). A second reason is that the example of he and Apollos can be made to extend/apply to other leading or influential ministers at Corinth. This seems to be the gist of the initial statement here in verse 6, as Paul explains that he “changed the shape” (vb metasxhmati/zw) of the points in 1:18-2:16 so that they would apply specifically to he and Apollos. He did this for the sake of the Corinthians (“through [dia/] you”, i.e., “for you”, “for your sake”).

This means that his line of argument in 1:18-2:16 was really aimed at the Corinthian congregations (and their leaders). What applies to Paul and Apollos certainly applies to other believers as well. In particular, the warnings in 3:8-15ff, and again in vv. 18-20 and 4:5, while given initially in the context of Paul (and Apollos) as ministers, are just as necessary for the Corinthians—indeed, perhaps even more so, as the partisan divisions, and the apparent rivalries and jealousies among them, demonstrate that they are not yet “complete”. They continue to be guided by worldly/fleshly ways of thinking and acting (i.e., human wisdom), rather than being truly “of the Spirit” (that is, guided by the Wisdom of God).

The central clause is the most difficult part of the verse, as the exact meaning and force of the maxim “not over the (thing)s that have been written” (mh\ u(pe\r a% ge/graptai) is not entirely clear. The most obvious explanation is that it refers to things written in the Scriptures. Elsewhere in Paul’s letters, the verb gra/fw, when used in the passive perfect (“have/has been written”), virtually always occurs in the context of Scripture quotations, etc—including here in 1:19, 31; 2:9; 3:19. Paul is saying that he applied the teachings of 1:18-2:16 to he and Apollos, as an example to the Corinthians, to demonstrate the truth and importance of this maxim. The Scriptures quoted (or alluded to) in chaps. 1-3 all serve to illustrate the points he is making—and, indeed, function in support of his entire line of argument. They represent a key aspect of the proving (probatio) of his main point (the propositio, 1:10). The Corinthians would be wise to heed the maxim, and to take to heart the significance of the Scriptures he has cited, in relation to the overall message of 1:10-2:16ff.
For other explanations of the phrase mh\ u(pe\r a% ge/graptai, see the discussions in Conzelmann, p. 86, Thistelton, pp. 352-6, and Garland, loc. cit.

Paul further explains the importance of the maxim (and his expository application as a whole) with the final clause of verse 6. A pair of parallel i%na-clauses (“so that…”) results:

    • “(so) that…you might learn the (point of) ‘not over the (thing)s that have been written'”
    • “(so) that, one (person) over the (other) one, you would not be ‘puffed up’ against the other”

Paul cleverly makes double-use of the preposition u(pe/r (“over”):

    • “over the (thing)s that have been written”
    • “one (person) over the (other) one”

By placing human wisdom, etc, over the message of 1:18-2:16 (with its emphasis on Christ and the Spirit, the Wisdom of God), the Corinthians become prone to elevate one person (i.e., believer) over another—another reference to the rivalrous “quarreling” (e&ri$) and jealousy (zh=lo$) that exist among the Corinthians (1:11; 3:3), and to the sectarian divisions among them. If they are not to elevate apostolic ministers such as Paul or Apollos (or even Peter), then they certainly should not do so for their own local ministers and community leaders. More to the point, a believer should not elevate him/herself over others in the Community. Paul’s own example in this regard (3:3-4:5) is particularly instructive.

When one believer is elevated over another, that person becomes even more prone to the negative and harmful effects of human wisdom (when cultivated apart from the Wisdom of God). Such persons tend become ‘puffed up’ (vb fusio/w), inflated by a sense of their own importance. This inflation, fueled by a reliance upon human wisdom, leads to pitting one believer (or group of believers) against (kata/) another. Such a situation would, no doubt, cause rivalries and divisions within the Community to intensify. Paul is seeking to turn the Corinthians away from this danger, and back toward restoring the ideal of unity among their congregations. In the remainder of the section (vv. 7-13), he utilizes a variety of pointed rhetorical techniques (human wisdom, ironically) in order to persuade them of this. We will examine the rhetorical question in verse 7, as an introduction to the illustrative argument of vv. 8ff, in the next daily note.

References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Conzelmann” are to Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, Hermeneia Commentary series (Fortress Press: 1975), translated by James W. Leitch from the German Der erste Brief an die Korinther (1st edition), Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament (begründet von H. A. W. Meyer), Fünfte Abteilung—11. Auflage (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 1969).
References marked “Thistelton” are to Anthony C. Thistelton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Eerdmans: 2000).
Those marked “Garland” are to David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Baker Academic: 2003).

November 19: 1 Corinthians 4:3-5

1 Corinthians 4:3-5

“And (yet), to me it is unto [i.e. amounts to] little that I should be examined under you, or under (any) day of man; but (then), I do not even examine myself (that way).” (v. 3)

In the remainder of this section (vv. 3-5), Paul makes clear that, even though the Christian minister is subservient to the Community (3:21-22f), and that the Community is to seek out the requisite characteristics of the minister—that he/she should be worthy of trust (v. 2)—ultimately the authority rests with God. It is of little account to Paul whether he is examined (and proven worthy) by any human authority. He first expresses this point in terms of the Corinthian congregations (“under [i.e., by] you”), but then broadens it to include any examining (or judicial) body of humans—summarizing the matter with the expression “a day of man” (or “human day”). The adjective a)nqrw/pino$ characterizes it as “human”, while “the day” (h(me/ra) is a shorthand idiom for the ‘day’ of judgment (i.e., day in court, etc). Paul adds that he is not even capable of examining (and judging) himself in this way. The judgment belongs to God—a point that he will soon elucidate. This does not mean that self-examination is not valuable or important, but, rather, that ultimately the authority (and the decision) rests with God.

Here Paul uses the verb a)nakri/nw in a slightly different way than he did in 2:14-15 (cf. also sugkri/nw in v. 13). As I discussed in prior notes, the context of that earlier usage suggests that the emphasis is on the spiritual discernment which the believer (esp. one who thinks/acts “of the Spirit”) possesses. It does not derive from any human source, nor is it dependent upon how other humans view it. Even so, the fundamental meaning of “examine” is still present in 2:14-15, since the believer’s discernment involves spirit-guided examination (i.e., searching out, vb e)reuna/w, v. 10).  In verse 15, Paul may also be anticipating the subsequent idea of the believer being “examined” (by other humans), expressed here in 4:3ff.

“For nothing have I seen altogether against me; but (it is) not by this (that) I have been proven right—indeed, (the) Lord is the (One) examining me!” (v. 4)

In verse 4, Paul explains why he is unable to prove himself worthy through self-examination. Even if a person is unaware of any fault or failing (“nothing…against me”, ‘against’ being expressed by the dative case), this does not meant that he/she has been “shown/proven to be right”. Paul makes use of a passive form of the verb dikaio/w, “be right”, or in the active/transitive sense of “show/prove/declare right”. In a legal-judicial context, this can mean being acquitted of a charge (i.e., proven innocent, or in the right). The translation “justify” is appropriate here, as long is this is understood in the context of a legal-judicial examination. God is the one who ultimately will examine the minister and show him/her to “be right”. Paul’s use of the title “Lord” (ku/rio$) could refer to God, but in verse 5 (cf. also 1:31; 2:8, 16; 3:5) it is clear that this refers to the exalted Christ—alluding to his eschatological role as Judge.

“So then, you should not judge anything before (its) time, until (when)ever the Lord should come—who indeed will shine light (on) the hidden (thing)s of darkness, and (also) will make to shine forth the purposes of the heart; and then praise will come to be upon each (person) from God.” (v. 5)

At first glance, Paul appears to be giving wholly impractical advice—viz., that one should not seek to examine or judge anything until the end-time return of Jesus Christ. The entirety of 1 Corinthians makes clear that this is not exactly what Paul means. The reference here is to a final, definitive judgment—for which the authority to deliver it rests entirely with God (and His Messianic representative, Jesus Christ). The strong eschatological orientation here may seem somewhat out of place, but one must always keep in mind the imminent eschatology of first-century Christians. The expectation that Christ would return from heaven at any moment, likely within the lifetime of most believers, influenced nearly every aspect of early Christian life and thought.

In the next daily note, we will turn to the next section of Paul’s application (vv. 6-13), as he again includes Apollos (along with himself) as among those whom the Corinthians regard as leading ministers (worthy of their partisan allegiance).

 

Notes on Prayer: Thy Kingdom Come (John 18:36-37)

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

There are two passages in the Gospel of John in which Jesus mentions the Kingdom of God. The first of these—the opening section (vv. 3-8) of the Nicodemus Discourse of chapter 3 (vv. 1-21)—was discussed in the previous study. We now turn to the second of these, which is contained within the dialogue between Jesus and Pilate (part of the Johannine Passion Narrative), in 18:33-38 and 19:9-11.

John 18:36-37

The two dialogue units we will examine (18:33-38 & 19:9-11) are distinctively Johannine elements of the Roman interrogation scene of the Passion narrative (18:23-19:16a). The framework of this scene follows the established Gospel tradition, as presented in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 15:1-20 par); the main difference is that the scourging and mocking of Jesus occurs at the center (19:1-3), rather than the end (Mk 15:15-20), of the narrative.

The Johannine version of this scene has been considerably expanded, primarily through the inclusion of the dialogue-units. Regardless of how one chooses to judge the historicity of these portions (there is, of course, nothing like them in the Synoptic version[s]), one must admit their distinctively Johannine character. In quality, style, and tone, they very much resemble the Johannine Gospel Discourses of Jesus, and are utilized to make the same sort of theological point of emphasis—viz., regarding Jesus’ identity as the (pre-existent) Son sent from heaven by God the Father. Pilate misunderstands the true meaning of Jesus’ words, just as the hearers regularly do in the Discourses. The message regarding the Kingdom of God in these sections is rooted in the historical-traditional question of the kingship of Jesus, which is given a Johannine interpretation that Pilate cannot possibly understand (except, perhaps, unwittingly and ironically).

The seven-episode division of the scene, established by a number of commentators (see, most notably, Brown, pp. 857-9), is sound and accurate, and I have adopted it. As Brown illustrates (p. 859), the scene has a chiastic structure, with the divisions regulated by whether the action takes place outside of the praetorium chamber, or inside:

    • Outside (18:28-32)—the Jewish delegation demands Jesus’ death
      • Inside (18:33-38a)—Pilate questions Jesus about his kingship
        • Outside (18:38b-40)—Pilate finds Jesus not guilty; choice between Jesus and Barabbas
          • Inside (19:1-3)—Roman soldiers scourge/mock Jesus
        • Outside (19:4-8)—Pilate finds Jesus not guilty; “Behold the man”
      • Inside (19:9-11)—Pilate questions Jesus again about his identity
    • Outside (19:13-16a)—the Jewish delegation obtains a sentence of death for Jesus

According to this outline, the dialogue sections are clearly parallel, and provide the main theological framework for the scene. This framework is based on the historical tradition, bare as it is, of the Roman interrogation of Jesus (as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels). Pilate asks Jesus directly: “Are you the king of the Yehudeans?” (Mk 15:2), and this is just how the first dialogue section in the Johannine version begins:

“Then Pilatus again came into the praetorium and gave voice [i.e. called out] to Yeshua, and said to him: ‘Are you the king of the Yehudeans?'” (v. 33)

The answer Jesus gives, in the Synoptic versions, is somewhat ambiguous, particularly in the Markan version: su\ le/gei$—which could be taken as an affirmation (“You have said it”), or a more evasive and challenging answer (e.g., “If you say so”, “You say that”). The longer response, in the Johannine version, is definitely not a simple affirmation, but something of a challenge to Pilate:

“Do you say [su\ le/gei$] this from yourself, or did others say it to you about me?” (v. 34)

As in the Synoptic version (Mk 15:4 par), Pilate asks Jesus a follow-up question; the Johannine version is similar in its orientation (reflecting a common underlying tradition), even if it worded very differently, and with a different emphasis:

“(Surely) I (am) not a Yehudean, am I? (It was) your (own) nation and the chief sacred-officials [i.e., priests] (that) gave you along to me! What have you done?” (v. 35)

In the Synoptic version(s), Jesus gives no answer—indeed, he says nothing more at all to Pilate. The Johannine version, in this regard, is very different: indeed, he responds with a mini-Discourse, rather in the Johannine style, expounding upon the question of his identity as the king (basileu/$) of the Jews:

“My kingdom [basilei/a] is not of [e)k] this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my under-rowers [i.e. servants] would [have] struggled (so) that I should not be given along to the Yehudeans. But now [i.e. as it truly is]—my kingdom is not from (this) place [e)nteu=qen].” (v. 36)

Jesus’ exposition is framed by two declarations (both examples of essential predication) regarding the nature of his kingdom/kingship. This may be compared with the two Kingdom-declarations in 3:3, 5 (cf. the previous study). In both instances, the parallel declarations are explained with a practical illustration (cf. 3:6-8). Here, the two statements are:

    • “My kingdom | is not | of this world”
    • “My kingdom | is not | from (this) place”

These statements are generally synonymous, but with somewhat different nuances of emphasis. The first statement utilizes the Johannine key-term “the world” (o( ko/smo$), which regularly carries a negative connotation. The terminology is tied, in large part, to the traditional Jewish (eschatological) concept of the current Age (“this Age”, “this world”) as being dominated by sin and wickedness, and fundamentally opposed to the will and ways of God. But in the Johannine writings, this dualism is given a decidedly Christological focus—i.e., the world, being opposed to God, is unwilling/unable to recognize and trust in Jesus as the Son of God. Indeed, “this world” is hostile to the Son, and to those chosen ones (i.e., believers) who have trusted in him.

Having come from God, sent to earth (below) from heaven (above), Jesus does not belong to “this world” (8:23). Believers also do not belong to this world, but to God (15:19; 17:6ff, 14-16ff). This means that Jesus’ kingdom (and his kingship) is not from this world—it belongs to God, and has its origins in heaven. In the Johannine language, this dual-notion of (a) belonging, and (b) defining one’s source/origin, is expressed by the simple preposition e)k (“[out] of”).

The second statement is more generalized, explaining that Jesus’ kingdom is not “from (this) place” (e)nteu=qen). It is possible to understand the adverb e)nteu=qen either in terms of (i) a specific point of reference (i.e., this place, or that place), or (ii) any place. This latter nuance is important, particularly in light of the message in 3:3ff, regarding the spiritual nature of the Kingdom. Unless a person comes to be born of [e)k] the Spirit, he/she cannot enter the Kingdom, nor even see it. The Kingdom is not defined by any physical, earthly place (i.e., “flesh”), but is “of the Spirit”; since God Himself is Spirit (4:24), it stands to reason that His Kingdom is also of the Spirit.

In the Johannine Discourses, the hearers respond to Jesus’ words, usually in a way that reflects their lack of understanding (or mis-understanding) regarding the true meaning of his words. Often the response takes the form of a question, such as we see with Pilate here, as he asks: “(Is it) not, then, that you are a king?” In the Discourses, this kind of question leads to a fresh exposition by Jesus, in which he expounds the true meaning of his words. This exposition is, again, rooted in the Gospel tradition regarding Jesus’ answer to Pilate’s question (viz., “Are you the king of the Jews?”…”[So] you say [su\ le/gei$]”):

“You say [su\ le/gei$] that I am a king. I have come to be (born) unto this, and unto this I have come into the world: that I should give witness to the truth! Every(one) being of [e)k] the truth hears my voice.” (v. 37)

Jesus’ answer clearly recognizes Pilate’s lack of understanding. Yes, Jesus is a king, but not in the way that Pilate means! “You say that I am a king” —but then, Jesus proceeds to define his kingship in a very different way, entirely in terms of his [i.e. the Son’s] earthly mission. He came to be born (i.e., as a human being) and, indeed, came into the world, “unto this [ei)$ tou=to]”, i.e., “for this purpose”. The prepositional expression ei)$ tou=to does not point back to Pilate’s idea about Jesus being an earthly king; rather, it points forward to the i%na– goal/purpose clause that concludes the verse: “…that [i%na] I should give witness to the truth”. The verb marture/w is another Johannine key-term, and the theme of witness is prominent throughout the Gospel. The main purpose of the Son’s mission is to give witness to the truth (h( a)lh/qeia).

The dialogue concludes with a follow-up response/question from Pilate, phrased in the language of Johannine essential predication:

“What [ti/] | is [e)stin] | (the) truth [a)lh/qeia]?”

Jesus offers no immediate answer to the question; as in the Gospel tradition (Mk 15:4-5), he (for the moment) remains silent. However, the attentive reader of the Gospel will be able to discern the answer. The answer is threefold, and to be given in the same Johannine theological language of essential predication:

    • First, is the implicit answer that the Son makes known the truth of God the Father—see, especially, this theme as it is expounded in the chapter 17 Discourse-Prayer of Jesus (vv. 3, 6ff)
    • Second, Jesus makes known his identity as the Son of God—who, as the Son, is able to reveal the Father. Jesus declares of himself:
      “I [e)gw/] | am [ei)mi] | …the truth [h( a)lh/qeia]” (14:6)
    • Third, the Son makes himself and the Father known to believers, by giving to them the Spirit—a process that begins during his earthy mission, and concludes with his exaltation (death, resurrection, and departure back to the Father), continuing thereafter by way of the Christian mission. Believers are united with the Son (and the Father) through the Spirit, and, indeed, the Son continues to instruct believers, making the truth of God known through the Spirit. Cf. my earlier notes on the Paraclete-sayings of Jesus.
      As the author of 1 John states:
      “the Spirit [to\ pneu=ma] | is [e)stin] | the truth [h( a)lh/qeia]” (5:6)

In the next study, we will briefly examine the second Dialogue-unit (19:9-11) of the Pilate scene, along with some additional contours of the Kingdom-theme that may be gleaned from elsewhere in the Johannine Writings.

References above marked “Brown” are to Raymond E. Brown, S.S., The Gospel According to John (XIII-XXI), Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 29A (1970).

 

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 118 (Part 2)

Psalm 118, continued

For the introduction (vv. 1-4) and the first section of the Hymn (vv. 5-9), see Part 1 of this study.

First Part: Verses 5-18 (cont.)

The first section (or strophe) of the Hymn emphasized the protagonist’s trust (vb jf^B*) in YHWH, relying upon Him for protection (vb hs*j*) when threatened with danger (from enemies, etc). YHWH’s answer to the Psalmist’s prayer was established in the initial couplet (v. 5). What this response from God entailed is described in the next two sections (vv. 10-13, 14-18). The Psalmist is rescued from mortal danger, with language and imagery that suggests a military action. As discussed in the overview to the Psalm, both the hymn and the following ceremonial portion (vv. 19-28) evince a royal background and setting. The protagonist is best understood as the Israelite/Judean king, facing hostility and attack from (foreign) enemies. Only secondarily was this background applied to the people as a whole, to the righteous/devout ones of Israel/Judah.

These two couplets have a similar poetic structure, and may generally be regarded as parallel strophes.

Section 2: Verses 10-13
Verse 10

“All (the) nations turned round (against) me,
(but) in (the) name of YHWH I did cut them down!”

The scenario of the life-threatening danger facing the protagonist is here set, as a military force of “all (the) nations” encircles and surrounds him. This motif—viz., of being surrounded by hostile foes—is relatively common, in both the lament- and prayer-Psalms. While it has its origins in the royal background of the Psalms, it came to be applied, in a more general sense, to the dangers and oppression/persecution, etc, which the righteous face (from the wicked). This emphasis on “all the nations” could indicate an exilic (or post-exilic) setting, though the basic motif of “the nations” as a hostile/attacking force is very much at home in a royal setting (i.e., the monarchic period).

The verb bb^s* could simply mean “surround”, but I have preferred to translated it here in the more rudimentary (but also dynamic) sense of “turn round”, and thus capturing the image of one army actively encircling another. The protagonist meets this hostile force in battle, fighting “in (the) name of YHWH”. This implies the covenant-bond between YHWH and Israel (and the king), and also indicates the trust which the protagonist has in God (vv. 6-9, cf. above). He knows that YHWH fights on his side, and will give him protection (indeed, he is under YHWH’s protective power)—and ultimately the victory.

The verb form <l*ym!a&, which also occurs in vv. 11 and 12 (emphatically ending each couplet) is problematic. It would seem to be a Hiphil form of the verb lWm, meaning “circumcise”. However, this is the only occurrence of that verb in the Hiphil, and, moreover, its use here (with the meaning “circumcise”) seems somewhat out of place. Several explanations are possible:

    • It is used here in the rudimentary sense of “cut off”, or “cut down” (cf. Psalm 58:8; 80:6; Job 14:2); or, in a similar sense, possibly circumcision is utilized as a symbol of a violent (and bloody) action.
    • There may be an allusion to the historical tradition of David cutting off the foreskins (tolr=u^) of defeated (Philistine) enemies (1 Sam 18:25-27), and/or to a comparable symbolic action that other Israelite/Judean kings might have taken (against enemies belonging to “the nations”). This is the line of interpretation advocated by Dahood (III, p. 157f). However, it should be noted that the verb lWm is not used in 1 Sam 18:25-27.
    • The causative aspect of the Hiphil verb form could indicate a forced conversion of the defeated enemies (cp. the episode in Genesis 34). In a more figurative sense, it could allude to the conversion of the nations generally—a theme which occurs with some regularity in the poems and Psalms of the (post-)exilic period.

Of these possibilities, the first is most plausible, and it is the one I have adopted. However, the Hiphil verb form has also been explained as coming from a separate lWm root (II) that means “be in front of, oppose”, related to, or derived from (as a denominative), the substantive/preposition lWm, meaning “in front, opposite”. With YHWH fighting on his side, the protagonist (i.e., the king) is able to stand against the enemies’ attack, opposing them.

The particle yK! preceding the verb is emphatic—i.e., “I did (indeed) oppose them”, or “I did (indeed) cut them down”.

Verse 11

“(Yes) they turned round on me, even surrounded me,
(but) in (the) name of YHWH, I did cut them down!”

This couplet repeats (and amplifies) verse 10 (the second line is identical). The verb form (vb bb^s*) is doubled, with slight poetic variation, for emphasis.

Verse 11 is lacking in the Qumran manuscript 4QPsb, presumably having been omitted, either by accident (haplography), or because it was seen as a redundant repetition.

Verse 12

“(So) they surrounded me like (angry) bees,
(to be) extinguished like fire in (the) thorns,
(for) in (the) name of YHWH, I cut them down!”

The act of the nations surrounding (vb bb^s*, as in vv. 10-11) the protagonist (king) is compared to the behavior of a swarm of angry bees. While this image captures the number of his opponents (and their hostility), as mere insects they ultimately do not pose a real threat. With YHWH fighting on the side of the protagonist’s army, the enemy forces are quickly subdued, being extinguished (passive participle of the vb Eu^D*), like a fire that blazes up but then is suddenly quenched amid a thicket of thorn-bushes. The LXX translates as e)cekau/qhsan, “they were burned out”, though this rendering has sometimes (mistakenly) been understood as reflecting a different underlying Hebrew (i.e., Wru&B*, “they burned”).

The third line (of this 3+3+3 tricolon) is identical to the second line of both v. 10 and 11.

Verse 13

“(With) pushing, <I was pushed>, to (the point of) falling,
but YHWH gave (the) help to me.”

Though the protagonist’s victory was assured, because YHWH was on his side, he still faced hardship, being pushed (vb hj*D*) severely by the forces against him. A cognate infinitive absolute, paired with a finite verb form (of the same root), is used here to express the intensity of the action: “(with) pushing I was pushed”. This grammatical idiom is relatively rare in Hebrew poetry, but the alliterative wordplay can add effective dramatic emphasis to the poetic moment. For the finite (perfect) verb form, the MT reads an apparently anomalous second person form: “you pushed me” (yn]tyj!d=). While this could conceivably indicate a climactic taunt from the protagonist toward his (defeated) enemies, the second person form would appear to be out of place. It seems best to follow the LXX (and other ancient versions) in reading a passive (Niphal) first person form, yt!yt@d=n], “I was pushed”. Many commentators (e.g., Allen, p. 162) adopt this simple emendation (supported by the versions). For an interesting explanation, in favor of the MT reading, see Dahood, III, p. 158; Hossfeld-Zenger, rather typically, follow the MT without any real explanation.

The protagonist was getting pushed to the point of falling (i.e., going down to defeat), but YHWH provided the sure help (vb rz~u*) and assistance needed to remain standing, and to obtain victory.

Section 3: Verses 14-18
Verse 14

“My strength and my protection (is) YH(WH),
and He has become for me also (my) salvation!”

Because the protagonist has trusted in YHWH—viz., as his strength (zu) and protection (trmz)—he has been saved from the enemies’ attack, and given victory over them (in such a context, hu*Wvy+, “salvation, safety”, can specifically connote “victory”). The prefixed l= on huWvyl! should probably be understood as an emphatic l.

The noun tr*m=z] here has customarily been translated “song”, from the root rmz (I). This would, of course, be appropriate for the Psalmist, who is producing here a musical composition (rm)z+m!) with words (i.e., a song); and a song is fitting for the victory experienced by the protagonist. The same occurrence of the pairing (zu) with tr*m=z]) in Exod 15:2 (in the context of a song) only adds to the presumption (cf. also Isa 12:2; Psalm 59:18). However, in these instances—at least here, and in Exod 15:2—derivation from a separate root (rmz III, cf. HALOT, p. 274) must be posited. This root has cognate parallels in Amorite (rmz) and Canaanite (Ugaritic, ¼mr) languages, as also in Arabic, with the basic meaning “protect”. The Psalmist thus praises YHWH as his protection, even as YHWH was for the king-protagonist in the battle against his enemies. In support of this interpretation of trmz, cf. Dahood, III, p. 158, and Allen, p. 162. However, in light of the musical context of the Psalm, and given the “voice” that rings out in vv. 15-16 (see below), it is likely that the author understands the wordplay involved with trmz (i.e., “protection / song”) and makes use of it.

Verse 15ab

“(Hear the) voice of salvation ringing out
in (the) tents of (the) righteous:”

The first line could also be translated “A voice of salvation (is) ringing out”. The pairing hu*Wvyw] hN`r!, which is difficult to translate literally (“ringing shout and salvation”), is best understood as a hendiadys—i.e. “shout of salvation”, or “salvation ringing out”. The scene may be explained simply: the soldiers of the king-protagonist are celebrating their victory. The “tents of the righteous” are the tents of the army encampment. Here the substantive plural adjective <yq!yD!x^ (“right[eous] ones”) has a dual meaning: (1) the victorious soldiers, but (2) the victory was achieved because the king (and his army) was faithful to YHWH (i.e., righteous). The latter aspect, in particular, applies to the faithful/righteous ones of the people, in a religious-ethical sense. I have pointed out, on numerous occasions, how the royal background of many Psalms has come to apply to the individual righteous one, or to the Community of the faithful as a whole.

Verse 15c-16

“(The) right hand of YHWH (is) acting (with) force!
(The) right hand of YHWH (is) being lifted up high!
(The) right hand of YHWH (is) acting (with) force!”

This tricolon (cp. the similarly positioned tricolon of v. 12) expresses the shout of praise (v. 15ab) coming from the victorious soldiers (“tents of the righteous”). The third line repeats the first, emphasizing that YHWH has acted with strength/force; the noun ly]j^ can specifically refer to the military strength/force (of an army, etc). It is a tacit acknowledgement that the strength of YHWH, fighting on the side of the righteous/faithful ones (led by the king), has brought about the victory. The strength of YHWH’s “right hand” is due to it being raised/lifted high (vb <Wr, Polel); as Creator and King of the universe, YHWH is in heaven, high above all, and His power reflects this.

The Qumran manuscript 4QPsb is apparently lacking the final line, which is also absent in some manuscripts of the MT and LXX. It is natural that copyists might omit the line as an erroneous or unnecessary repetition.

Verse 17

“(So then,) I did not die, but I lived—
that I might recount (the) acts of YHWH.”

The protagonist puts himself among the “righteous ones” (vv. 15-16) who praise the strength and saving actions of YHWH. This is typical of the Psalms, wherein the Psalmist/protagonist regularly identifies himself with the righteous/faithful ones of Israel. Here, the dynamic also reflects the Psalm’s royal background, with the king as the representative of the people. The salvation applies both to king and people (i.e., his army). Because he (and they) were saved (and made victorious) by YHWH, they did not die, even when faced with grave danger from attacking enemies, but lived. The paradigm—viz., of hostile adversaries and life-threatening danger—can be applied to a variety of situations that might face the righteous, as we have seen in many of the Psalms we have examined. Even if the royal (and military) background is primary here, the Psalm is not limited to this setting; this point is clear enough from the way that Psalm 118 came to be anchored in the festal Hallel collection (and see the communal worship setting of the framing verses 1-4 and 29).

Verse 18

“(With) chastening He chastened me, (did) YH,
but into the (hand of) death He did not give me!”

The final couplet of the strophe begins the way that the final couplet of the prior strophe did (see above on v. 13), utilizing the grammatical device of the cognate infinitive absolute, in order to express the intensity of the protagonist’s experience. YHWH allowed him to be “pushed” severely (v. 13), almost to the point of falling (i.e., to defeat and death); in so doing, YHWH “instructed” (i.e., “disciplined”) the protagonist. In English, the harshness of the verb rs^y` is perhaps best expressed by the translation “chasten” (though this has a somewhat archaic sound). In an ancient Near Eastern cultural context, instruction could very well involve the use of blows, or other painful physical means. It was a severe and painful lesson faced by the protagonist; but, however much he may have suffered, YHWH did not allow him to die. This is a principle that we find expressed often in the Psalms, in connection with the suffering of the righteous.

The remainder of the Psalm will be examined in Part 3 of this study.

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).

 

November 15: 1 Corinthians 4:1-2

1 Corinthians 4:1-2

“So a man should count us as under-rowers of (the) Anointed and house-portioners of (the) secrets of God.” (4:1)

In the next two sections of Paul’s exposition (4:1-5, 6-13), he applies the points made in chapter 3 (esp. verses 5-15) to the situation regarding he and Apollos as ministers (and apostolic missionaries) to the Corinthians. He begins with himself here in vv. 1-5, and then includes Apollos in vv. 6ff. The statement in verse 1 relates back to the driving issue of sectarian/partisan divisions in the Corinthian Community, and how this disrupts—and is fundamentally contrary to—the ideal of unity that should prevail among believers in Christ. According to 1:11ff and 3:3-4, these divisions were centered on prominent and influential ministers (such as Paul and Apollos), with believers identifying (and aligning) with a particular ministerial affiliation (“I am of Paul”, etc). In the previous section (3:18-23, cf. the previous note), Paul argued vigorously against such a tendency, pointing out that Christian ministers belong to the Community of believers as a whole, and are subservient to the Community. The unity of believers in Christ takes priority over anything a particular minister can offer.

Paul had applied this line of argument to himself, and does so again here in vv. 1-5. In so doing, he presents a definition and explanation of the nature of the Christian ministry. The entire matter at issue is how, through reliance upon human wisdom, many Christians have come to think about certain ministers or leaders. Here, Paul states how ministers should be thought of in truth; he uses the verb logi/zomai in its basic (cognitive) sense of “(ac)count”, i.e., reckon, consider, perhaps also touching upon the related nuance of “estimate, value”.

How, then, should ministers be considered or “counted”? Two idiomatic Greek expressions are used. The first involves the noun u(pere/th$, which literally means “under-rower”, drawn from a naval or seafaring context, referring to the common sailors (rowers) who work together under a head boatman or ship’s captain, etc. The term came to be used in a more general sense for any subordinate official or servant-worker, which is how it is used here (and throughout the New Testament). Even a leading apostolic missionary such as Paul is merely an “under-rower” —that is, a subordinate servant (working together with others)—of Jesus Christ. Interestingly, this is the only use of the noun u(pere/th$ in Paul’s letters (but note the occurrence in Acts 13:5 and 26:6). Typically, Paul expresses this idea, viz., of the minister as a servant-worker, using the nouns dou=lo$ (“slave, servant”) and dia/kono$ (“attendant”).

The second expression involves the noun oi)kono/mo$, which means something like “house-portioner”, i.e., one who “portions out” (vb ne/mw) or distributes things in a house(hold). It technically refers to a servant who manages the affairs of a household or estate, etc (cf. Gal 4:2, and note in the parables of Jesus, Lk 12:42; 16:1ff). In the application here (cf. also Titus 1:7), the ‘household’ is that which belongs to God, and the ‘house-manager’ handles the “things of God”. This thematic motif was introduced in 2:6-16. Believers have been entrusted with the “things of God”, given to us through the Spirit; those who are “of the Spirit”, i.e., who regularly think and act in a spiritual manner (guided by the Spirit), are able to act as teachers and ministers who can further communicate these “things of the Spirit” among other believers. This process of ministry begins with the proclamation of the Gospel, but does not end there; it entails the opportunity of further (Spirit-guided) instruction in the things of God.

Paul here makes use of the same word (musth/rion, “secret”) that he did in 2:7. These things of the Spirit, which include the “deep things” of God (v. 10), represent a Divine Wisdom that has been “hidden away” from the world (i.e., from humanity at large), all throughout the Ages. It has only been revealed now, at the end of the current Age, to believers in Christ. Paul thus refers to ministers (such as himself) as “house-managers of the secrets of God”, believers who are able to “portion out” and communicate something of this Divine Wisdom, these “things of the Spirit”. While all believers have access to this Wisdom, not all are (yet) able to understand it and communicate it to others. This requires a believer who is “complete”, one who regularly (and consistently) thinks and acts according to the Spirit (“of the Spirit”). Moreover, believers are gifted in unique and different ways, as Paul discusses in detail in chapters 12-14.

“Here, (for the) rest, it is sought among the house-portioners that one be found trustworthy.” (v. 2)

The main quality that is required of the Christian minister (as ‘house-manager’, oi)kono/mo$) is that he/she be trustworthy, worthy of trust (pisto/$). The idiomatic introduction to verse 2, w!de loipo/n, is difficult to translate—something like, “Here, for the rest…”, “Here the remainder (is)…”; perhaps a fair approximation would be, “Here, it remains (to point out)…”, i.e., “it follows, then, that…”. Because a minister handles and communicates the “secrets of God”, it follows that he/she must be trustworthy. The passive of verb zhte/w (“seek, search”) indicates that such faithfulness and trustworthiness is a quality that is to be “sought out” by other believers. Here, the adjective pisto/$ is related to the earlier use of te/leio$ (“complete”) in 2:6. If we are to inquire as to what this completeness of the believer means, it certainly entails being “worthy of trust”. This alludes to the broader characteristic of being “of the Spirit” (pneumatiko/$); thematically, based on the context of Paul’s earlier discussion in 1:18-2:16, this involves two aspects: (1) faithfulness to the Gospel, and (2) a willingness to be guided by the Spirit (rather than by fleshly/worldly ways of thinking and acting, i.e., human wisdom).

In verses 3-5 (to be examined in the next daily note), Paul goes on to explain what this “trustworthiness” involves, applying it to his own situation as a Christian minister.