Month: December 2024

December 29: Psalm 119:113-120

Psalm 119, continued

Stanza 14 was examined in the previous note; see also the introduction to the Psalm.

Stanza 15: verses 113-120

s
Verse 113

“(Those) ‘split-twigs’ [<yp!u&s@] I hate,
but your instruction I do love.”

The initial verse of this stanza is an usual 2-beat (2+2) couplet. One might suspect that a word has dropped out of the first line, but there is no indication of this in either the manuscript tradition or the versions. The exact meaning of the plural noun <yp!u&s@ ([u@s@), which occurs only here in the Scriptures, is uncertain. It is presumably derived from the root [us, denoting something that is “split” (cf. Arabic sa±aba, sa±ifa), sometimes in the specific sense of being “cut off”; as such, it can be used in the context of cutting off branches, etc, from a tree (cf. Isa 10:33, and the noun [yu!s* II; cp. the Arabic words sa±af and šu±bat, HALOT, p. 762). Possibly the intended image is that of a two-pronged branch, which would suggest idea of going two different directions on the path—i.e., of ‘branching off’ from the main pathway. The LXX, seems to understand the word in the specific sense of going over the bounds of the law (i.e., violating the law), using the adjective para/nomo$ (“alongside [i.e., across] the law [no/mo$]”), as characteristic of a person who violates (breaks) the law; however, the LXX translator may not have understood the word [u@s@, and may be offering an interpretive guess based on the context.

In any case, the protagonist declares that he hates such two-pronged branches (or ‘split twigs’), while, by contrast, he loves the instruction (hr*oT) of YHWH, with its rightness (v. 106, etc) and straightness. This is another indication of his faithfulness to the covenant (and its Torah), and of his intention to keep going straight on the path (v. 112). Probably the ‘split-twigs’ also allude to those people (i.e., the wicked and faithless ones) who stray from the path, and who would cause others to veer off from it (see v. 115).

Verse 114

“My shelter [yr!t=s!] and my protection (are) you—
(and so) for your word I do wait.”

The theme of protection introduced here tends to confirm that the ‘split twigs’ in v. 113 refer to people (i.e., the wicked), those who might threaten and attack the righteous; cf. the following v. 115. This is a regular theme in the Psalms—with the protagonist asking YHWH for protection (from his enemies, etc), emphasizing his trust in God as the source (and ‘place’) of protection. The locative noun /g@m* (“place of protection, protected place”) is used frequently in this context (19 times in the Psalms, cf. most recently in 115:9-11). The noun rt#s@ is somewhat less common (10 times in Ps.), but has a similar meaning (cf. Ps 91:1). The root rts denotes an act of hiding, i.e., the cover or shelter behind/under which a person can find protection.

Throughout the Psalm, the noun rb*D* (“word”, something spoken) has a dual-significance. On the one hand, it refers to the (collective) precepts, etc, of the Torah; yet, it also carries a broader reference, to promises made by YHWH, and to the life-giving (and saving) power of His word. Both aspects are in view here. Divine protection is one of things that is promised (in the Torah) to those who remain faithful to the covenant. YHWH, in his role as Sovereign, is obligated to protect and rescue His faithful servants from danger, etc, in their time of need. Trusting in this protection that YHWH provides, the protagonist waits (vb lj^y`, cf. also vv. 43, 49, 74, 81) for the “word” to be realized, and for YHWH to act, with saving power, on his behalf.

The Qumran manuscript 11QPsa, followed by certain manuscripts of both the MT and LXX, has the plural of rb*D*: “for your words [hkyrbdl] I do wait”. This variation is reversed in 11QPsa for v. 115 (see below), reading the singular “command of…”, instead of plural “commands of…”.

This verse is a 3+2 couplet, which is the dominant meter of the Psalm (though not in this stanza).

Verse 115

“Turn away [WrWs] from me, (you who are) doing evil!
For I will watch (over the) commands of my Mighty (One).”

Throughout the Psalm, the motif of bending or turning away from the path of God is referenced; it is a characteristic of the wicked that they would bend/turn from the path, and seek to make others go astray as well (see on v. 113 above). Here, the protagonist turns this language around, directing the wicked (“[those] doing evil”) to “turn away” (vb rWs) from him. The boldness of this command presumably reflects the protagonist’s firm trust in YHWH and the protection that He provides (v. 114); see the earlier occurrence of the verb rWs in v. 29. In verse 102, the verb is used to express the protagonist’s faithfulness to the covenant (i.e., he does not “turn aside” from the path).

The participle of the verb uu^r* (Hiphil, “do/cause evil”) reflects the regular/habitual behavior of the wicked, and is traditional terminology (Ps 26:5; 27:2; 37:1; 64:3[2], etc), part of the fundamental contrast between the righteous and the wicked. Protected as he is by YHWH, the protagonist is able to command the wicked to “turn away” from him. In any case, their attacks, and any attempts to make him ‘turn aside’ from the path are sure to fail, so they might as well go away.

In the second line, he flatly states his avowed intention to “keep watch over” (vb rx^n`) the commands of YHWH (“my Mighty [One],” i.e., my God). That is, he intends to remain faithful to the covenant (and its Torah), and will not stray from the path. The verb rx^n` is used regularly (see vv. 2, 22, 33-34, 56, 69, 100), along with the parallel rm^v* (“guard”), in this context of observing the regulations, etc, of the Torah—things which YHWH Himself has ordered or commanded; on the noun hw`x=m! (plur.) as one of the key terms for the Torah, see earlier in vv. 6, 10, 19, 21, 32, 35, 47-48, 60, 66, 73, 86, 96, 98.

The meter of this verse is 3+3 (so also v. 116).

Verse 116

“Lay hold of me [yn]k@m=s*], according to your word, that I may live—
indeed, do not let me be ashamed of my expectation!”

This couplet looks back to v. 114 and the idea that the protagonist is trusting in YHWH to provide (life-saving) protection for him—that is, from his enemies (i.e., the wicked, v. 115). This prayer-for-deliverance formula (cf. the earlier use of hy`j*, “live”, in vv. 17, 25, 37, 40, 50, 77, 88, 93, 107) can also be used in the context of life-threatening illness, etc. Because he has been faithful to the covenant (see the second line in each of the prior verses), the protagonist can expect to receive protection and blessing (including healing, etc) from YHWH. If he were not to receive this, it would bring shame upon him, and he would feel ashamed of his expectation; on the use of this shame-motif (vb voB) earlier in the Psalm, see vv. 6, 31, 46, 78, 80.

In his prayer, the protagonist calls upon YHWH to act on his behalf, using the the verb Em^s*, which indicates giving support (and protection) to a person by taking hold of them.

Verse 117

“Give support to me [yn]d@u*s=], that I may be saved,
(so) that (then) I might look on your decrees continually!”

The first line echoes that of v. 116 (above); indeed, there is a strong formal parallelism:

    • “Lay hold on me…that I may live”
    • “Give support to me, that I may be saved”

The purpose of his salvation is so that the protagonist will be able to continue being faithful to the covenant and observing the precepts and regulations of the Torah (referred to as the “inscribed decrees” [qj), plur.] of YHWH, cf. earlier in vv. 5, 8, 12, 23, 26, 33, 48, 54, 64, 68, 71, 80, 83, 112). This is typical of the protagonist’s petitions throughout the Psalm—the blessing he repeatedly requests involves the opportunity to gain greater understanding of the Torah precepts, and to fulfill the required duties, etc, with even greater devotion. On the temporal-durative adverb dym!T* (“continual[ly]”), see earlier in vv. 15, 19, 44, 109; for a very different explanation of dym!T* here, cf. Dahood, III, p. 186.

The Qumran manuscript 11QPsa reads “…that I may lift up [acaw] your decrees”, instead of “…that I may look [huvaw] on [-b] your decrees”. Some commentators, following the LXX and other ancient versions, would emend the MT to read a form of the verb uu^v* (“take delight [in]”), as in vv. 16, 47, 70. However, as Deissler (p. 215) and Allen (p. 179) note, the fine alliterative wordplay present in the MT stands in its favor: hu*v=a#w+ hu*v@W`a!w+ (w®°ew¹š¢±â w®°iš±â).

Metrically, this verse is an irregular 2+3 couplet.

Verse 118

“May you hurl away [t*yl!s*] all (those) straying from your decrees—
what falsehood (is present in) their deceit!”

Given the imperatives in vv. 116-117, and the protagonist’s directive against the wicked in v. 115, Dahood (III, p. 186) is doubtless correct in viewing the perfect verb forms in vv. 118 and 119 as precative perfects. For imprecatory petitions (against the wicked) earlier in the Psalm, see vv. 21, 78, 84, cf. also v. 53. The wicked, contrary to the righteous, are those who go astray (vb hg`v*, see vv. 10, 21) from the path of God, violating or failing to fulfill the regulations, etc, of the Torah (on the designation of these as “decrees” [qj), plur.] of YHWH, see v. 117 above). The participle indicates that this is regular/habitual behavior (always “going astray”) that characterizes the wicked. By contrast, the protagonist does not go astray from the path.

The initial yK! particle of the second line I regard as emphatic. The protagonist exclaims how false these people are. Their cunning/crafty conduct and (intentionally) misleading ways reflect a fundamental falseness (rq#v#) in them; on this characteristic of the wicked, cf. earlier in vv. 29, 69, 78, 86, 104. The noun tym!r=T^ is derived from the root hmr II (“deceive, mislead”); however, interestingly, there is a separate root hmr I, meaning “throw, hurl”, which would be in accord with the use of the verb hl*s* (“throw/hurl [away]”) in line 1. Was the Psalmist aware of this, and was the author thus employing a bit of conceptual wordplay?

Verse 119

“(As thing)s cast aside [<yg]s!] you shall remove all (the) wicked of (the) earth—
(and) for this (reason) I do love your witness!”

The initial plural noun <yg]s! (lit, “(thing)s cast aside”, i.e., as refuse) echoes the precative verb in v. 118a (hl*s*, “throw/hurl away”). I treat the verb here in line 1 also as a precative perfect, but I translate it as “you shall…”, rather than “may you…”, as this fits better with the wording in line 2.

I am somewhat inclined follow Dahood (III, p. 186) in pointing tbvh as a form of the verb bWv (“turn [back/away]”, Hiphil), t*b)v!h=, i.e., “may you turn (them) away…”. However, it is certainly possible to retain the MT vocalization, as a form of the verb tb^v* (Hiphil), “make cease” (i.e., put an end to). Allowing for both possibilities, I have translated the verb as “remove” (“may you remove…!”).
The Qumran manuscript 11QPsa has reads an entirely different verbal form, ytbvj, “I regard/consider”, which is supported by the LXX. In favor of this reading is the fact that it provides a smoother logical and grammatical joining of the two lines. However, the MT is definitely the more difficult reading, and perhaps should be preferred on that basis.

Because YHWH, in His righteousness (and justice), will surely act to bring judgment upon the wicked—and thus, at the same time, protect and bring salvation to the righteous—it causes the protagonist to love the (covenant) loyalty of YHWH all the more. The covenant itself is referenced here by the noun hd*u@ (plur.), “witness”; specifically, it is the terms of the covenant, i.e., the regulations, etc, of the Torah, designated by this noun, which has recurred throughout the Psalm (see vv. 2, 22, 24, 46, 59, 79, 95, also [tWdu@] vv. 14, 31, 36, 88, 99, 111). As the terms of the covenant, the precepts and regulations of the Torah have been solemnly witnessed to by both God and people. I have regularly translated the plural here as a (collective) singular, “witness”.

Verse 120

“(Yet) bristles [rm^s*] my flesh from (the) dread of you,
and from your judgments I am (rightly) afraid.”

Even if the protagonist loves the covenant-loyalty of YHWH (v. 119b), he also rightly fears YHWH as the Sovereign over all who renders judgment (fP*v=m!) against humankind. Through most of the Psalm, I have rendered the plural of fP*v=m! as “just (ruling)s”, in reference to the regulations, etc, of the Torah (cf. earlier in vv. 7, 13, 20, 30, 39, 43, 52, 62, 75, 84, 91, 102, 106, 108). Here, however, the idea of punitive judgment (i.e., against the wicked) seems to be in view (cf. the imprecatory character of vv. 118-119, above); thus I have translated the plural, in this instance, as “judgments”. Even so, the “judgments” made by YHWH (as King and Judge) still reflect His “just (ruling)s” given throughout the Torah—esp. with regard to the punishments and curses (cf. Deut 28:15ff) that will fall upon those who violate the covenant.

The sixteenth stanza (vv. 121-128) will be discussed in the next note.

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 “Deissler” are to A. Deissler, Psalm 119 (118) und seine Theologie: Eine Beitrag zur Erforschung der anthologischen Stilgattung im Alten Testament (Zink [Munich]: 1955).

The Incarnation and the Birth of Jesus in Paul: Gal 3:13; 4:4ff

Galatians

As noted in the introduction, many scholars would date Galatians as earlier than either 1 or 2 Corinthians, having been written perhaps in 53 or 54 A.D. (some would date it even earlier, 49-50). I am more inclined to place it a bit later (perhaps 57), and closer in proximity of time to both 2 Corinthians and Romans. Its subject matter is very close to that of Romans (in chaps. 3-8), utilizing some of the same (or similar) arguments and illustrations. As for the polemical tone and emphasis of Galatians, it resembles that of 2 Corinthians (esp. in chapters 10-13). I am thus discussing the references in Galatians after those in 2 Corinthians (cf. the previous article). However, it is worth keeping in mind the possibility that Galatians was written a year or two (or more) before 2 Corinthians.

Galatians 3:13

The first reference I wish to discuss is Paul’s statement in 3:13, for two reasons: first, its use of the verb gi/nomai, and, second, its conceptual similarity to the statement in 2 Cor 5:21 (discussed in the previous article).

“(The) Anointed (One has) purchased us out of the curse of the law, (hav)ing become over us [i.e., for our sake] a curse (himself), (in) that it has been written: ‘A curse upon every (one) hanging upon (a piece of) wood [i.e., a tree]'”

Verses 7-14 represent the second in a series of six arguments made by Paul, constituting the probatio (chaps. 3-4) of the letter, in which he seeks to persuade the Galatians regarding the proposition he has made (propositio, 2:15-21), viz.: that a person is ‘made right’ (vb dikaio/w) in God’s eyes through trust in Jesus Christ, and not by performing the required duties, etc, of the Torah (v. 16). As a consequence, Paul also establishes the highly controversial principle that believers in Christ are no longer bound by the Torah regulations, but instead are set free from them (vv. 19-21; cf. 5:1ff, and the arguments throughout chaps. 3-4). I have discussed Paul’s view of the Law (Torah) extensively in an earlier series (part of “The Law and the New Testament”), along with a set of articles on all the sections of Galatians; cf. here the article on 3:7-14.

Paul contrasts the old and new covenants (cf. on 2 Cor 3:7ff in the previous article) by juxtaposing Abraham’s trust in God (and the blessing that results from the covenant God established with him), vv. 7-9, against the “works” required by the Mosaic covenant (and the curse that results from failing to perform them), vv. 10-14. This curse (kata/ra) is part of the ancient binding-agreement (covenant) format (cf. Deut 28:15-68, alongside the blessings of vv. 1-14). Paul specifically cites the declaration in Deut 27:26, but interprets it in such a way as to maintain that everyone who is bound by the Law (including Gentiles, cf. 4:8ff) is effectively under a curse (u(po\ kata/ran, v. 10). Christ, through his death, freed humankind from this curse, and, at the same time, freed them from the binding power of the Torah. It is only through trust in Jesus that this freedom is realized.

By juxtaposing Deut 27:26 with 21:23, Paul is able to tie this curse-motif to the idea of Jesus’ death—i.e., by crucifixion (“hanging on [the] wood”). Indeed, Paul specifically states (here in v. 13) that, with his death, Jesus actually became the curse (“having become [geno/meno$] [the] curse for us”). This is altogether similar in thought to the statement in 2 Cor 5:21, in which Jesus is said to have ‘become’ sin (spec., [God] made [him to become] sin); cp. Rom 8:3. In Romans (chaps. 3-7, esp. ch. 7), Paul expounds on the close association between the Torah and sin; for this same association here in Galatians, see vv. 19-23. Thus, in terms of Paul’s line of argument, the “curse” is a concept that joins together the bondage humanity experiences under both the Law and the power of sin:

Through Christ’s death (and resurrection), those who trust in him are freed (v. 13, “purchased out of [bondage]”) from all three of these. In Paul’s thought, there is a strong incarnational aspect to this proposition, even if it is only expressed in a seminal form. The freedom wrought by God came as a result of Christ coming to be (born) “under the Law” (see below on 4:4ff), and thus also “under the curse” (and “under sin”, cf. 2 Cor 5:21; Rom 8:3). The use of the verb gi/nomai (“come to be, become”) also reinforces this incarnational aspect: just as he came to be born a human being, he also “became the curse” (under the Law), and even “became sin”.

Galatians 4:4ff

“…but, when the fullness of the time came, God sent out from (Himself) His Son, (hav)ing come to be [geno/meno$] out of a woman, (hav)ing come to be [geno/meno$] under (the) Law” (4:4)

This statement by Paul in 4:4 is his clearest reference to the birth of Jesus, and one of his strongest incarnational references as well. It is made in the same overall context as that of 3:13 (see above): namely, his arguments in support of the proposition that people are made right with God through trust in Jesus, not through performance of the required duties of the Torah, and that believers are freed from any binding obligation to the Torah. Verse 4 is part of the fourth argument (3:26-4:11) made toward demonstrating the proof (probatio, chaps. 3-4) of this proposition. As this argument has been discussed extensively in an earlier article (in the series on Paul’s View of the Law, cf. above), I will be focusing here on the points most relevant to the current study.

After the initial orienting temporal clause (“when the fullness of the time came…”), which establishes the time of Jesus’ birth, in terms of what we might call the ‘salvation history’, God chose to act:

“God sent out from (Himself) His Son”
e)cape/steilen o( qeo\$ to\n ui(o\n au)tou=

Even the casual reader of the New Testament will likely notice the similarity to the famous statement in John 3:16, but, even more precisely, in v. 17—

“God sent (forth) from (Him) the Son into the world…”
a)pe/steilen o( qeo\$ to\n ui(o\n ei)$ to\n ko/smon

In the Gospel of John, the coming of the Son “in to the world” unquestionably entails the idea of incarnation, as is clear from 1:14, in relation to vv. 9-10 (cf. also vv. 15, 30). This is often expressed in terms of God sending (vbs. a)poste/llw and pe/mpw) His Son.

I would argue that the incarnational aspect of Gal 4:4 is nearly as strong, if not as explicit, as it is in the Johannine Gospel. This is indicated, for example, by the way that the statement “God sent out from (Him) His Son” is sequentially prior to the human birth of Jesus. Moreover, we might ask: from where would God be sending His Son, if not from heaven? A heavenly origin for Christ would certainly seem to be implied, just as in the Gospel of John, though the comparable wording in Jn 1:6, in reference to John the Baptist, might give one caution about pressing the use of the verb [e)c]aposte/llw too far.

Grammatically, the short clauses that follow in v. 4, are also subordinate to the main statement “God sent out from (Him) His Son”. They qualify this statement by describing what took place when God “sent” His Son. Two parallel participial phrases are used, each involving the important verb of becoming (gi/nomai):

    • “(hav)ing come to be | out of | a woman”
      geno/menon | e)k | gunaiko/$
    • “(hav)ing come to be | under | (the) Law”
      geno/menon | u(po\ | no/mo$

The accusative form of the participle indicates that it modifies “the Son”, which is in the accusative (to\n ui(o/n) as the object of the verb e)caposte/llw. Let us consider the significance of each of these subordinate clauses.

1. “(hav)ing come to be out of a woman” —This clearly refers to the human birth of Jesus, the closest Paul ever comes to a direct reference to Jesus’ birth. He says nothing whatsoever about either the circumstances or nature of his birth. Jesus simply was born, like all human children, “out of” the womb of his mother. Typically, the verb genna/w (related to gi/nomai) is used when specifying a birth (i.e., coming to be born); however, the more general gi/nomai can also be used for this purpose. John 1:14 likely alludes to a human birth (especially given the immediate context of vv. 12-13), even though this is far from being made explicit (cp. 18:37, where genna/w is used).

2. “(hav)ing come to be under (the) Law” —There are perhaps three different levels (or aspects) of meaning for this phrase. First, it can simply refer to the Israelite/Jewish religious and cultural setting into which Jesus was born (cf. Rom 15:8). Second, it may allude to Jesus’ human life (and death) as a fulfillment of the promises and types, etc, in the Scriptures (“[the] Law”), and its related purpose of introducing salvation (and the new covenant) to the Israelite/Jewish people (Rom 15:8 may indicate this as well). Thirdly, it strongly indicates that Jesus, in becoming a human being, came under the bondage of the Law—with its consequent bondage under the power of sin. In the context of Galatians, it is this last (third) aspect of meaning that is primarily in view. Cf. above on 3:13, noting the parallel phrases “under sin”, “under [the] curse”, and “under [the] Law”.

Thus, as Paul expresses it, the Son of God became a human being, born as a human child; but he also came to share in the fullness of the human condition, which includes being held under bondage to the power of sin, and to the binding regulations/requirements of the Torah (on the close association between the Torah and sin in Paul’s thought, cf. above). All of this took place so that God, through His Son, could free humankind (that is, believers) from this bondage, as the concluding statement in v. 5 indicates (using some of the same language from 3:13):

“…(so) that he might purchase th(em) out (from) under (the) Law, (so) that we might receive from (Him) the placement as sons.”

As in the Gospel of John, the Sonship of Jesus is tied the subsequent (Divine) sonship of believers. Through trust in Jesus (the Son), we, as believers, are united with him and share that same Sonship, becoming ourselves the sons (i.e., children/offspring) of God. Paul, unlike the Johannine author(s), is willing to use the term ui(o/$ (“son”) for believers, but typically in connection with the specific thematic motif of ‘adoption’ (lit., “placement as a son”, ui(oqesi/a, cf. Rom 8:15, 23; 9:4, also Eph 1:5). That this Divine sonship is realized through the abiding presence and power of the Spirit, is clear from v. 6 (cf. also Rom 8:14ff).

The spiritual birth of believers is also alluded to in 4:21-31, the final argument of the probatio, utilizing the illustrative Scriptural tradition of the two sons of Abraham (Ishmael and Isaac), building upon the theme established in 3:7ff (see above). In this section (vv. 23-24, 29), the verb genna/w is used for a human birth; but, in the symbolism of the illustration, the expression “according to the flesh” (cp. 2 Cor 5:16) is being used in the negative Pauline sense, related to humankind’s bondage to the power of sin (and, here, the curse of the Law). Even so, the occurrences of gi/nomai and genna/w are juxtaposed in a way that implicitly brings together the related ideas of the human birth of Jesus and the divine birth of humans (believers), reinforcing the connection made in vv. 4-6 (cp. John 1:12-14).

 

 

 

 

 

The Incarnation and the Birth of Jesus in Paul: 2 Cor 3:7; 5:21; 8:9

The first line of study in this series (A.) involves Paul’s use of the verb gi/nomai (“become, come to be”) in Christologically significant contexts, related either to the birth of Jesus and/or to the idea of his incarnation (as the pre-existent Son of God). Cf. the introduction for an overview, and the initial discussion of Paul’s gi/nomai-references.

2 Corinthians

There are three key verses in 2 Corinthians where the verb gi/nomai is used, or where the idea of Christ’s “becoming” (in an incarnational sense) is otherwise present. These are: 3:7, 5:21, and 8:9. We will examine each of these references, in turn.

2 Corinthians 3:7

Paul’s discourse in 2 Cor 3:7-18, part of the wider unit of 3:1-18, provides an interesting parallel with the Johannine Gospel Prologue (1:1-18). Both passages draw upon the traditions in Exodus 33-34, involving YHWH’s revelation to Moses (see esp. 33:18-23; 34:5-9, 29-35). This revelation parallels the original theophany in chapters 19-20ff, and its significance relates to the re-establishment of the covenant (34:10-28)—after the original covenant (chaps. 20-24) had been annulled as a result of the Golden Calf incident (chap. 32). The re-established covenant was mediated entirely through the personage of Moses (cf. my earlier study on this passage). Thus, for both Paul and the Johannine author, Moses is rightly regarded as representative of the covenant as a whole.

In the Johannine Prologue (as in the Gospel overall), a specific contrast is made, between Moses and Jesus. The final portions of the Prologue (vv. 14-18) deal with theme, which is made explicit by the statement in v. 17:

“(for it is) that the law was given through Moshe, (but) the favor and truth (of God) came to be [e)ge/neto] through Yeshua (the) Anointed.”

The ‘old’ covenant (here designated as “the law” [o( no/mo$], i.e., the Torah) was specifically mediated “through [di/a] Moses”. Similarly, but entirely by contrast, the ‘new’ covenant is mediated “through Jesus Christ”.

In 2 Cor 3:7-18, Paul presents a much more extensive and well-defined contrast between the old and new covenants. This is fully in accordance with his teaching regarding the Torah in Galatians and Romans (cf. the articles in the series “Paul’s View of the Law”). Indeed, it is interesting that he makes this thematic excursion (viz., contrasting against the old covenant and Torah), since it does not appear to be essential to the point is making (in vv. 1-5). Paul clearly had the controversial issue—addressed so extensively in Galatians and Romans—regarding the relationship of believers (in the new covenant) to the Torah (of the old covenant), very much in the forefront of his thought. Thus he introduces the covenant-theme in v. 6, and proceeds to expound it, utilizing the Scriptural traditions of Exodus 33-34.

The contrast (between the covenants) is clearly established and presented in stark and vivid terms—i.e., letter vs. Spirit, death vs. life, stone vs. the soft flesh of the ‘heart’, etc. Perhaps most significant is his use of the verb katarge/w, which essentially means “make (something) cease working”. The validity and efficacy of the “old covenant” (v. 14) is here symbolized, according to the Scriptural illustration, by the glory that was visible upon Moses’ face after he met with YHWH (in his role as mediator of the covenant), Exod 34:29-35. In Paul’s line of argument, this “glory” (Grk do/ca) was only temporary, being destined to fade and go away (lit, “being made inactive [i.e., to cease working]”, katargoume/nh). So it is with the old covenant as a whole (vv. 11-14)—it is “being made inactive”. See Paul’s use of the verb katarge/w, in a similar context, in Gal 3:17 (note also 5:4, 11) and Rom 4:14; 6:6; 7:2, 6 (and cf. also 3:31, which is often misinterpreted by commentators [note]).

In contrast to the temporary glory of the old covenant, the glory (do/ca) of the new covenant is permanent (vv. 10b-14); indeed, it is eternal, being based on the Spirit, not the “letter” (vv. 6ff, 17-18). It is through the Spirit that believers experience the manifest presence of God in the person of Jesus Christ. This, again, is contrasted with the tradition of the shining face of Moses (vv. 16-18).

Let us return to the parallel between vv. 7-18 and the Johannine Prologue (esp. vv. 14-18). There are three similarities of note:

    • The contrast between Moses and Jesus, representing the old and new covenants, respectively
    • The superiority of Jesus (and the new covenant), emphasizing its permanence and eternality
    • The motif of the glory (do/ca) of God that is manifest (shining forth) in the person of Jesus (His Son), in contrast to the temporary glory on the shining face of Moses.

In addition, it is worth noting the use of the verb of being (gi/nomai). Paul uses it here in verse 7, in reference to the glory of the old covenant (mediated through Moses):

“Now if the ministry of death in letters engraved on stones came to be [e)genh/qh] in (such) glory [do/ca], so as (for) the sons of Yisrael not to be able to (look) straining at the face of Moshe, through the splendor of his face th(at is) being made inactive [katargoume/nhn], how shall not (all the) more the ministry of the Spirit be [e&stai] in glory [do/ca]?”

Paul uses the same contrast, between the verb of being (ei)mi) and becoming (gi/nomai), that we find in the Johannine Prologue. Is this mere coincidence? In the Johannine Prologue (see esp. vv. 1-3), the verb of being is used of God, while the verb of becoming is used of created (human) beings; it is only applied to Jesus (the Divine Word and Son) in the context of his incarnation (as a human being), vv. 14-15, 17. Here in 2 Cor 3:7, the verb of being is used for the “ministry of the Spirit (of God)” and its glory, while the verb of becoming applies to the ministry of the “letter” (i.e., Torah of the old covenant, mediated by the created human being Moses) with its temporary (and fading) glory.

For more on 2 Corinthians 3:1-18 (and verses 7ff, in particular), see my earlier set of notes (part of the series “Spiritualism and the New Testament” [article]).

2 Corinthians 5:21

If the verb gi/nomai refers to the incarnation in 3:7 only implicitly, and by way of contrast, the situation is rather different in 5:21. Yet, once again, the verb is not used directly of Jesus Christ, but applies to him indirectly and implicitly. Let us consider, first, the declaration in verse 17:

“…if any(one) (is) in (the) Anointed, (he/she is) a new formation; the old (thing)s (have) gone along, (and) see—new (thing)s have come to be [ge/gonen]!”

This idea of believers—individually and collectively—as a “new formation” (kainh\ kti/si$) is related conceptually to the “new covenant” theme of 3:6-18 (see above). Indeed, the new covenant is realized through the transforming presence of the Spirit, and, in this regard, we see the theme of transformation (by the Spirit) clearly emphasized at the close of the earlier passage (vv. 17-18). Thus, the believer is transformed (spiritually) into something entirely new—i.e., a new kind of being (that is formed, kti/si$). This Pauline “new creation” motif is clearly related to the idea of a ‘new birth’ —that is, believers born anew as the offspring (sons/children) of God. This is another key point of similarity between the Pauline and the Johannine theology (see above).

The section of 5:11-21 resembles 3:1-18 in the way that it begins with reference to the Christian ministry (spec. the apostolic ministry of Paul and his fellow missionaries), vv. 11-15, and then leads into a theological exposition (vv. 16-21) emphasizing the nature of the new covenant and the consequences of it for believers.

In vv. 18-19, following the declaration in v. 17, Paul emphasizes that this transforming power (of the Spirit) experienced by believers was made possible by the mediating work done by God in the person of Jesus Christ. There are incarnational allusions here, both in terms of the implicit focus on the human life (and death) of Jesus (cf. also vv. 14-15), but also in light of the specific idea of Jesus being considered “according to (the) flesh” (kata\ sa/rka, v. 16). For someone to consider Jesus Christ “according to (the) flesh”, this implies that Jesus was, in fact, a real flesh-and-blood human being (‘in the flesh’). Paul gives us an even clearer allusion to the incarnation with the closing words of the section:

“He [i.e. God] made the (one) not knowing (any) sin (to become) sin over us [i.e., for our sake], (so) that we might become [genw/meqa] the right(eous)ness of God in him.” (v. 21)

Note the parallelistic structure of this verse:

    • God made Jesus to become sin | over us
      so that
      we might become God’s righteousness | in him

The verb of becoming (gi/nomai) is only used in the second portion (in reference to believers); however, I would maintain that is definitely implied in the first portion as well (in reference to Christ)—i.e., God made him become… . In the first instance, the impetus and action of God is emphasized (making Jesus become sin), while in the second it is the result that is emphasized (i.e., God making us become righteousness).

This is not the place to enter into the thorny theological discussion regarding what it means for Jesus to “become sin”. Certainly, Paul suggests a basic sinlessness for Jesus with the participial phrase (indicating a regular/characteristic state) “the (one) not knowing sin”. Just as certainly, we can maintain that, for Paul, to say that Jesus “became sin” meant that he became (fully) a human being, prone to the same sinful impulses (and under bondage to sin) as all other human beings. Whether or not Jesus (as a human being) actually committed sin, while an important doctrinal question, is secondary to the main point Paul is making. He touches upon the broader Christological implications in Romans 8:3ff (to be discussed in an upcoming article). For more on the theological aspects (of both 2 Cor 5:21 and Rom 8:3), see my earlier note.

Does v. 21 allude to the Divine pre-existence of the Son? It might be possible to infer this, depending on how one interprets and expounds the phrase “the (one) not knowing (any) sin”. In particular, if Jesus’ “becoming sin” essentially means “becoming a human being” (i.e., “flesh”, cf. the parallel in Rom 8:3), then his time of “not knowing sin” might refer to his pre-existence, prior to his birth as a human being. This becomes all the more likely when one considers the thought expressed in 8:9 (discussed below).

2 Corinthians 8:9

“For you know the favor of [i.e., shown by] our Lord Yeshua (the) Anointed: that, (though) being rich, he became poor [e)ptw/xeusen] through us [i.e., for our sake], (so) that we, by that (one)’s poverty, might become rich [plouth/shte].” (8:9)

The verb gi/nomai is not used in this verse, but the idea of becoming is certain present, in the parallel verbs ptwxeu/w (“be[come] poor”) and ploute/w (“be[come] rich”). The parallelism strongly suggests the idea of the incarnation of a Divine being:

    • Being rich (i.e. Divine), Christ “become poor” (i.e. a human being), so that
    • In his poverty (i.e., humanity [and death]), we might “become rich” (i.e., Divine, sons/children of God)

To be “in Christ’s poverty” is an aspect of the broader principle of being “in Christ”, and refers specifically to his death. It is by participating in his death that we, as believers, are then able to participate in the life-giving power of his resurrection. This is experienced even in the present, through the abiding presence of the Spirit, but eventually it will be realized fully (through the spiritual transformation that occurs) with the final resurrection. In union with Christ, this participation in his death and resurrection enables us to become the sons/children of God (i.e., “rich”). This will be discussed further in the articles on Romans (cf. Rom 6:3-10; 8:9-11, 18-23ff).

The incarnational paradigm Paul indicates here, in seminal form, will be developed more fully in the famous ‘Christ-hymn’ of Philippians 2:6-11 (to be discussed). It is interesting how, both here (chaps. 8-9) and in Philippians 2, Paul utilizes this theological (Christological) frame of reference to buttress a more practical point or argument that he is making (cf. also the context of 2 Corinthians 3, above). In Philippians 2, the incarnation serves as an example for believers to follow—viz., of willing self-sacrifice, subordinating one’s individual needs and interests to the good of the community. Here, verse 9 serves much the same point in the context of chapters 8-9, with Paul’s goal of encouraging the Corinthians to contribute financially to the “collection for the saints” (i.e., the believers in need in Jerusalem and Judea). He specifically frames the (incarnational) self-sacrifice of Christ as that of a rich person who bestows a favor (xa/ri$) or gift, on the behalf of others who are in need (“through us”, i.e., for our sake).

The Incarnation and the Birth of Jesus in Paul: Overview

This article introduces a new series to be presented this Christmas season, in which we will examine the possible references to the birth of Jesus in the Letters of Paul. At the same time, we will explore evidence for the idea of the incarnation of Jesus as the (pre-existent) Son of God. The two topics belong together, at least from the orthodox standpoint, since the incarnation of the Son is usually understood in terms of his birth as a human being (Jesus).

At the outset, it should be stated that there are no direct references to the birth of Jesus in Paul’s letters. What we have, instead, are a handful of indirect references or allusions to his birth. All of these will be examined and discussed, in some detail.

A consideration of the evidence for the doctrine of the incarnation (in at least a rudimentary form) is intriguing, as it likely would represent the oldest such testimony (that survives) among the earliest Christians. We might even speculate as to the pioneering role Paul may have played in the establishment and development of the belief. The references in his letters, written sometime around (or just prior to) 60 A.D., can fairly be regarded as the earliest testimony to a revolutionary shift that took place within the Christology of first-century believers, in which a predominantly exaltation-Christology was supplemented (and, to some extent, supplanted) by a pre-existence-Christology. This point will be discussed below (and at various points throughout this series).

The doctrine of the incarnation of Christ (as the Son of God) is evidenced in the New Testament primarily from the Gospel of John and the book of Hebrews. The classic reference, of course, is Jn 1:14 (from the ‘Prologue’, vv. 1-18)—a verse which I discussed extensively in a series last Christmas season. Scholars tend to date both of these writings rather late (c. 90); there is a general consensus for this dating of the Gospel, while a greater divergence of opinion exists regarding the date of Hebrews. In any case, what is striking is the lack of any such reference to the incarnation-concept elsewhere in the New Testament—that is, apart from the letters of Paul. I find virtually no indication of it in any of the Synoptic Gospels, nor in the book of Acts. This is rather surprising, particularly with regard to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, since they are typically dated rather late by scholars (c. 80 A.D., or later). There is not the slightest indication of any pre-existence Christology in the record of the early Christian preaching in Acts, nor does the author (of Luke-Acts) adapt any of the material to fit such a belief.

Thus, apart from (and prior to) Hebrews and the Johannine Gospel, Paul’s letters provide us with virtually the only other surviving evidence of a pre-existence Christology—and, with it, the idea of an incarnation of the pre-existent Son of God—among early Christians of the first-century. This evidence dates from c. 55-60 A.D., which could be as much as 30 years earlier than that of John and Hebrews. Such a striking gap in time raises the distinct possibility that Paul was among the first (perhaps even the first) Christian preacher and author to express the idea of the incarnation—and to set it within an established Christological context.

In proceeding with this study, I will be following two basic lines of evidence. The first involves occurrences of the verb of becoming (gi/nomai) used in theologically (and Christologically) significant contexts where it could refer to the incarnation and/or the birth of Jesus. The second involves specific references to the sonship of Jesus, along with the corollary theme of God the Father sending His Son (Jesus) to earth. Interestingly, both of these types of Christological idiom are also prominent—and much more so—in the Johannine writings (Gospel and Letters). This raises the possibility, which is being discussed more frequently these days among New Testament scholars, that the Johannine author(s) may have been influenced, in varying decrees, by Paul’s theology and mode/manner of expression. Some of the specific parallels will be discussed in the articles of this series (cf. also at many points in last season’s series “The Word Became Flesh…”).

A. Use of the Verb gi/nomai

We begin with Paul’s use of the verb of becoming (gi/nomai, “become, come to be”). The Johannine Gospel famously makes regular use of this verb (along with the related genna/w), imbuing it with profound theological significance (and importance). In general, the verb(s) of becoming are applied to human beings (esp. believers)—that is, as created beings, who then “come to be (born)” as the offspring (te/kna, i.e., children) of God. It is the verb genna/w which is particularly used to convey this idea of coming to be born. The Johannine Prologue (1:1-18) is instructive for how it distinguishes the verb of being (ei)mi, which applies almost exclusively to God), and the verb of becoming (gi/nomai, which applies to created [human] beings). But then, in verse 14, the verb of becoming is used specifically of the pre-existent Word (Logos) of God:

“And the Word became [e)ge/neto] flesh and put down his tent [i.e. dwelt] among us, and we looked at his splendor, splendor as an only (Son) alongside (the) Father, full of (His) favor and truth.”

This idea of becoming a human being (“flesh”) certainly implies a human birth, even if the verse does not explicitly say so. It is strongly implied from the immediate context (vv. 12-13), with the parallel Johannine idea of believers in Christ “coming to be born” (vb genna/w). The same incarnational use of gi/nomai follows in vv. 15 (and the parallel in v. 30). Then much later on, toward the close of the Gospel, the birth of the Son (as a human being) is referenced more clearly, using the verb genna/w:

“I have come to be (born) [gege/nnhmai] unto this [i.e. for this purpose], and unto this I have come into the world—that I should give witness to the truth; every (one) being of the truth hears my voice.” (18:37)

In between, throughout the Gospel, there are other implicit allusions to the Son’s human birth, usually through the idiom of his coming, and of his being sent by the Father, as well as through the Johannine (use) of the specific expression “the son of man” (on which, see my recent study series).

Possible allusions in 1 Thessalonians?

In Paul’s earliest surviving writing[s] (1 [and 2] Thessalonians), he uses the verb gi/nomai extensively, especially in chapters 1-2. He applies it to himself (and his fellow missionaries), referencing the way in which he (and the Gospel proclamation) “came to be” among the Thessalonians—1:5-7; 2:1, 5, 7-8, 10, 14; 3:4-5. There is no direct Christological application here in these references; however, Paul may be alluding, in a seminal way, to the idea that the apostolic mission (proclaiming the Gospel) is patterned after the incarnation of Christ. This pattern/example motif is certainly present in 1:5-7 (cp. 1 Cor 4:16; 11:1), and the overall emphasis is on faithfulness in the midst of suffering. The idea that, through suffering (for the sake of the Gospel), believers participate in the sufferings of Christ (cf. 2:7-8ff, 14), is something that would be developed by Paul in his later writings. Insofar as the suffering (and death) of Christ is rooted in his humanity, it can be seen as a basic way of referring to the incarnation of the Son. And, indeed, as we shall see, Paul’s rudimentary incarnation-references do focus on the suffering/death of Jesus.

There is, however, in the Thessalonian letter(s), no hint of a pre-existence Christology. The only reference to the Divine/heavenly status of the Son (1 Thess 1:5) indicates an exaltation Christology—viz., the Son’s position in heaven is following (and as a result of) his resurrection from the dead and exaltation (to God’s right hand in heaven).

1 Corinthians 1:30

Probably the earliest Pauline use of gi/nomai, in a distinctly Christological context, is 1 Corinthians 1:30—a verse which I have discussed in a recent series of notes (cf. the note on vv. 30-31). Significantly, as in many of the Johannine passages (cf. above), the “becoming” of Christ is tied to the ‘coming to be’ (viz., as the children of God) of believers:

“But of [e)k] Him, you are in (the) Anointed Yeshua, who came to be [e)genh/qh] (the) wisdom for us from God—also right(eous)ness, and (the means of) being made holy, and (the) loosing from (bondage)…”

As believers, we now belong to God, having been chosen by Him; we have been “gathered out of” the world, and do not belong to it any longer. In the Johannine writings, this use of the preposition e)k (“out of [e)k] Him,” that is, out of God) would specifically connote the idea of being God’s offspring (te/kna, i.e., children, cf. the discussion above). Paul similarly refers to believers as God’s te/kna (and also His ui(oi, “sons”), but here it is best to understand the prepositional expression primarily in terms of belonging to God. The preposition e)k can also emphasize that it is because of God—i.e., His act and initiative—that we are in Christ.

Based on the context of the passage (and of 1 Cor 1:18-4:21 as a whole), the Christological point of reference here is not to Jesus’ birth, but to his death (and subsequent resurrection). Indeed, much of the focus here is upon the cross as the aspect of the Gospel that is being emphasized. In the developed theology of Paul’s letters (e.g., 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, Colossians), the union of believers “in Christ” fundamentally involves a participation in his death (and resurrection). And, indeed, the idea of “belonging” expressed here in v. 30 implies a sense of union—viz., we are united with God—a union that is realized by being united with Jesus Christ. Paul expresses this here by his regular idiom “in Christ [Jesus]” (e)n Xristw=| [Ihsou=]); we as believers are “in Christ”, united with him, through the presence of the Spirit (and symbolized by the ritual of baptism).

At this point in the letter, Paul simply states the Christological principle, by way of a shorthand expression, without expounding its significance in detail. He does, however, include the fundamental idea that Jesus, through his death and resurrection, has become wisdom (that is, the true, Divine wisdom) for us. Elsewhere in his writings (e.g., 2 Cor 3:18; 4:4; Col 1:15ff), Paul draws upon a rudimentary pre-existence Christology in identifying Jesus with the Divine Wisdom (a point that will be discussed in the subsequent articles of this series); here, however, the focus is on the death (and resurrection) of Jesus—that is, the earlier exaltation Christology.

A passive form of the verb of becoming (gi/nomai) is used here—e)genh/qh (“he came to be”, i.e., “he was made to become”); this should be understood as an example of the Divine passive, in which God is the implied actor. It was God (the Father) who made Jesus Christ to become the manifestation of Divine Wisdom for us, through his death on the cross (and subsequent) resurrection. Here, Paul’s focus is specifically on Jesus’ death, rather than his resurrection, as a manifestation of God’s Wisdom.

In addition to wisdom (sofi/a), Paul states that Jesus “became” three other things for us:

    • dikaiosu/nh— “rightness” (or “righteousness”), that is, the means by which we are “made right” before God, so that things are made right for us with God. The noun dikaiosu/nh (along with the entire dikaio– word-group) is a key component of Paul’s theological vocabulary.
    • a(giasmo/$— “holiness”, but in the specific sense of the act and/or condition of being made holy (vb a(gia/zw); it is best understood here in terms of Jesus (and his death) as the means by which we are made holy (by God). This is another key theological term for Paul, though it does not occur all that often in his letters (see esp. Rom 6:19, 22); typically, it is associated with the work of the Spirit (2 Thess 2:13), while the practical (ethical/moral) consequences are emphasized in 1 Thess 4:3-7.
    • a)polu/trwsi$— “loosing from (bondage)”; the ‘bondage’ Paul has in mind is humankind’s bondage to the power of sin and evil that dominates the world in this current Age (cf. Paul’s exposition in Romans 5-8). Jesus Christ is the means by which we are set free from this bondage, through our trust and union with him. This is another key Pauline term (cf. Rom 3:24; 8:23); seven of the ten NT occurrences are in the Pauline letters.

Thus, we can see that, though gi/nomai in 1 Cor 1:30 does not refer, in any meaningful way, to the birth of Jesus, it does suggest certain aspects of Paul’s view of the incarnation. In particular, Paul here summarizes important theological implications and effects of the sacrificial death (and resurrection) of Jesus—points which elsewhere serve as contextual components for his incarnation-references. Even so, there is nothing in v. 30 (or in the wider section/division of 1 Corinthians as a whole) which would not be compatible with the earlier exaltation-Christology, or which would require a pre-existence-Christology.

The Chronology of the Pauline Letters

The time-frame of the Corinthian correspondence, in relation to other letters of Paul (i.e., Galatians, Romans, Philippians, Colossians), is worth noting. While some commentators would date Galatians quite early (49-50), making it perhaps the earliest of Paul’s surviving letters, a time of composition in the mid-late 50’s seems more plausible. A date of 54 A.D. (or 53-54) is perhaps the earliest feasible time for the writing of Galatians, and is accepted by many scholars (cf. the chronology outlined by Fitzmyer, pp. 139-41). I tend to think that it might have been written a bit later (perhaps 57), closer in proximity of time to 2 Corinthians and Romans, with which it shares much in terms of subject matter and rhetorical-polemic style, etc.

As for 1 Corinthians, 16:8 indicates that it was written from Ephesus, which indicates a point sometime within the period of 54-57. Fitzmyer (p. 140) suggests the the first (lost) letter to Corinth was written in 56, while 1 Corinthians followed in the spring of 57 (prior to Pentecost); 2 Corinthians then would have been written later in that same year. Other commentators place the time of composition somewhat earlier, with 1 Corinthians being written in spring of 54 or 55 (cf. Thiselton, pp. 29-32). Paul’s letter to the Romans was almost certainly written after 1-2 Corinthians, sometime between 55-58, the latter end being more likely (Fitzmyer suggests 57-58, between the autumn and spring). The dating of Philippians and Colossians is more difficult, and there are many commentators who would regard Colossians as pseudonymous, and thus written (most likely) after Paul’s death. Assuming Pauline authorship for both letters, some time around 60 A.D. (or a few years thereafter) seems probable; if either or both of the letters was written from Paul’s imprisonment in Rome, then it would require a date of 61-62 (possibly 63, at the latest).

For the purposes of this study, I am treating the Corinthian references before the Galatian, even though it is possible that Galatians was written prior to the Corinthian correspondence. In the first main article of this series, we will be examining three references in 2 Corinthians where either the verb gi/nomai is used, or otherwise the idea of Christ “becoming” (in an incarnational sense) is present: 3:7, 5:21, and 8:9.

References above marked “Fitzmyer” are to Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., The Acts of the Apostles, Anchor Bible [AB] Vol. 31 (1998)—cf., in particular, his chronological outline in pp. 139-41.
Those marked “Thiselton” are to Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Greek Testament Commentary [NIGTC] (Eerdmans: 2000).

Notes on Prayer: Thy Kingdom Come (Infancy Narratives, Pt 2)

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

Having examined the Kingdom-theme in the Matthean Infancy Narrative (Matt 1-2) in Part 1, we now turn to the Lukan Narrative (Lk 1-2):

    1. The citation of Isaiah 7:14 in Matt 1:18-25
    2. The Jesus/Herod juxtaposition in Matthew 2
    3. The Messianic orientation of the Angelic announcement in Luke 1:26-38
    4. The context of the census-tradition in Luke 2:1ff, along with the Angelic announcement in vv. 10-14.

The Matthean development of the theme was guided by a matrix of Scriptural quotations and allusions—the two main citations being Isaiah 7:14 and Micah 5:1[2]. These were understood in relation to Jesus’ Messianic identity—that is, the royal Messiah from the line of David—and as expressed by the historical-traditional title “King of the Jews” (2:2). The Lukan narrative adopts a rather different narrative approach, drawing upon other lines of Scriptural and Jewish (Messianic) tradition.

3. The Messianic orientation of the Angelic announcement in Luke 1:26-38

The first Kingdom-reference in the Lukan Infancy Narrative occurs within the Angelic announcement (to Mary) in 1:26-38 (vv. 32-33). In this regard, the treatment is similar to that of the Matthean narrative, where the citation of Isa 7:14 (see sect. 1 in Part 1) occurs in the context of the Angelic announcement (to Joseph), 1:18-25 (vv. 22-23). The prophecy of Isa 7:14 does not feature in the Lukan narrative, though it is possible that the ±Immanû-°¢l (“God-with-us”) message is alluded to by the language in v. 28b.

With regard to the form of the annunciation-tradition, it appears to be patterned after familiar Scriptural examples: angelic announcements in Old Testament narrative—for birth annunciations, see Genesis 16:7-13; chapters 17-18 (esp. 17:15-21; 18:10-15) and Judges 13. This narrative pattern, which applies here in vv. 26-38, may be outlined as follows:

    • Appearance of the angel, who addresses the person by name (v. 28)
    • The person is startled (v. 29)
    • Assurance of the angel— “do not fear” (v. 30)
    • Announcement of the coming/impending birth (v. 31)
    • The name which is to be given to the child (v. 31b)
    • Prophecy/announcement of the child’s future (v. 32-33)
    • Question by the person receiving the vision— “how will this be?” (v. 34)
    • The angel’s response, along with a sign (vv. 35-37)
    • Acceptance of the vision (v. 38)

For more detail, cf. R. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, Anchor Bible Reference Library [ABRL] 1993, pp. 155-9, 292-8.

From a structural standpoint, there are three parts to the angel’s message, each followed by Mary’s response:

    • Verse 28—Mary is addressed by name
      • V. 29—Mary is startled by what she sees
    • Verses 30-33—The Message to Mary
      • V. 34—Mary asks “how will this be?”
    • Verses 35-37—Answer to Mary’s question, with a sign
      • V. 38—Mary responds “…may it come to be for me according to your word”

Each part has a theological/christological element, which is an indication of how the traditional pattern has been developed within the Gospel narrative:

    • v. 28b— “the Lord is with you”
    • vv. 31ff— “this one will be great and will be called Son of the Highest…”
    • v. 35a— “The Holy Spirit… power of the Highest…
      v. 35b—…(the child) will be called Holy, the Son of God”

As noted above, it is possible that the declaration o( ku/rio$ meta\ sou= (“the Lord is with you”, or “the Lord be with you”, v. 28b) alludes to the prophecy in Isa 7:14. While the corresponding expression (in Hebrew) occurs as a pious, but ordinary, greeting in Ruth 2:4, the annunciation context suggests that something of deeper theological significance is implied. A reasonably close parallel to our passage is found in the angelic annunciation to Gideon in Judg 6:12, as an assurance of God’s support and care. In Lk 1:28, 30, this divine care is described in terms of God’s favor (xa/ri$)—Mary is one who has been favored (kexaritwme/nh) by God (xa/rin para\ tw=| qew=|).

If an allusion to the famous prophecy of Isa 7:14, with the name Immanuel (±Imm¹nû °E~l, “God with us”), is intended (see Part 1), it is worth noting how the context of Isa 8:8-10 indicates that this name reflects God’s support and protection of the (righteous) king, connected with peace, prosperity, and the salvation of the land (and its people) from enemies. In terms of the original historical context, the most reasonable identification is with Hezekiah (cf. 2 Kings 18:7). Later on, of course, the passage (along with Isa 9:1-6) came to be interpreted in a (future) Messianic sense, and was applied by Christians to the birth of Jesus (Matt 1:22-23).

There may also be an allusion to Zeph 3:14-17 here in Lk 1:28. Apart from the formal similarity of the opening (xai=re, “be glad / rejoice!” as a greeting) and a possible parallel between Mary and “daughter of Zion” (Jerusalem/Judah personified), note the similar assurance that is offered (compare v. 28a with Zeph 3:15b, 17a). In Zephaniah, it is also a promise of protection and salvation.

Luke 1:31-33 “this one will be… will be called…”

In the angelic message proper (vv. 31-33), the emphasis is on the Messianic character and status of the child. This was foreshadowed in the birth-announcement to Zechariah earlier in the narrative (vv. 13-17) regarding the Messianic identity of John the Baptist. The Lukan parallelism, effectively comparing John’s birth with Jesus’ birth, emphasizes the superiority of Jesus. This applies also to his Messianic identity.

The announcement relates to both the conception (“you will receive together in the womb”) and birth (“you will produce”) of a son (v. 31a), and is connected with the favor (xa/ri$) Mary receives from God (vv. 28, 30). In terms of the naming of the child (v. 31b), there may also be here an echo of Isa 7:14 LXX—note the similar sequence “will produce” followed by “will call his name” —as is made explicit in Matthew (“you will call his name Yeshua” / “they will call his name Immanuel”, Matt 1:21, 23).

Almost certainly, in this passage there also are allusions to 2 Sam 7:8-16—a prophetic announcement regarding the Davidic line, which had come to be interpreted in a Messianic sense by the time the Gospels were written, as can be seen, for example, in the Qumran text 4QFlor (174) lines 10-13. Note the following points of correspondence:

    • v. 32a—Jesus’ greatness and his name (2 Sam 7:9)
    • v. 32b—Jesus as God’s son (2 Sam 7:14)
    • v. 33—The throne of David and his kingdom, which will last forever (2 Sam 7:13, 16)

Cf. also Isa 9:5-6 (6-7) and Dan 7:14. The royal Messianism of Jesus is part of his superiority over John, who is only a Messianic figure according to the prophetic pattern of Elijah (v. 17). In the wider Gospel tradition (and in the Synoptic narrative), Jesus also fulfills the prophetic figure-types—of Moses, Elijah, and the herald of Isaiah 61 (cf. Parts 2–3 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”); indeed, it is Jesus’ identity as a Prophetic Messiah that dominates the Galilean period of the Gospel, with his Royal identity (as “son of David”) becoming prominent only in the Jerusalem period. The Infancy Narratives anticipate the Jerusalem period (including the Passion Narrative) by emphasizing Jesus as the royal/Davidic Messiah.

In this regard, there are two main theological/christological phrases in Lk 1:32 which need to be examined:

    • “he will be great” (e&stai me/ga$)—The absolute use of me/ga$ (“great”) in the LXX typically refers to YHWH (Psalm 48:2 [145:3]; 86:10; 135:5); it tends to be qualified when used of human beings, such as when it is used of John the Baptist in Lk 1:15 (“he will be great in the eyes of the Lord”)—see also 2 Sam 19:33; Sir 48:22. The fact that the Lukan infancy narratives present the births of John and Jesus side by side—with Jesus having the more exalted status—indicates that me/ga$ here means something decidedly greater than when applied to John.
    • “he will be called Son of the Highest” (ui(o\$ u(yi/stou klhqh/setai)—Here, in context, klhqh/setai (“he will be called“) is parallel and generally synonymous with e&stai (“he will be“). The giving of a name—especially when given by God—confers (and confirms) just who the child is, and what he/she will become. The specific name is “son of the Highest” —uyi/sto$, which is used in the LXX of YHWH, as a translation of Hebrew ±Elyôn (/oyl=u#, Gen 14:18; Dan 4:14; cf. also Jubilees 16:18, and note 1 Enoch 9:3; 10:1; 46:7; 60:1, 22). It is used relatively often in Luke-Acts (Lk 1:35, 76; 6:35; 8:28; Acts 7:48; 16:17)—in Lk 1:76, it is said of John, “you will be called Foreteller [i.e. Prophet] of the Highest”.

In addition, there is the related statement in v. 35, that the child “…will be called Holy, the Son of God” (cf. my earlier notes on this verse, and v. 32). While the Lukan Gospel writer may have understood these Divine titles in a developed Christological sense, their primary significance, within the Infancy narratives, is Messianic. We can see this clearly enough from the striking parallels in the Aramaic Qumran text 4Q246 (the so-called “Son of God” text). Four key phrases in in 1:32, 35 are indicated and compared side by side with 4Q246:

aura lu hwhl br[ ] “[he will be] great upon the earth” (I.7)
rmaty la yd hlb “Son of God he will be hailed” (II.1)
hnwrqy /wylu rbw “and Son of the Highest he will be called”
<lu twklm htwklm “his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom” (II.5)		 ou!to$ e&stai me/ga$ “this (one) will be great” (Luke 1:32)
klhqh/setai ui(o\$ qeou= “he will be called | Son of God”
kai\ ui(o\$ u(yi/stou klhqh/setai “and Son of the Highest he will be called” (1:35)
kai\ th=$ basilei/a$ au)tou= ou)k e&stai te/lo$ “and of his kingdom there will not be an end” (1:33)

The parallels are remarkable, too close it would seem to be mere coincidence, and yet it is unlikely that Luke borrowed from this text. The angel (and/or the Gospel writer) would seem to be drawing upon Messianic hopes and beliefs which were common and widespread in first-century Palestine, using that very language and imagery to announce the birth and coming of a new Anointed king, who will fulfill the promises God made to his people centuries before, promises reflected even in this snippet of text we call 4Q246: “his kingdom will be an eternal kingdom…. his rule will be an everlasting rule…” (II.5, 9).

In this regard, it is significant that the 4Q246 is almost certainly inspired by the prophetic visions in Daniel 7, with their contrast between the sequence of great earthly kingdoms (vv. 1-8ff, 17-26) and the Kingdom of God (vv. 13-14, 22, 27). The Lukan author would seem to be drawing upon a similar sort of contrast in the Infancy narrative, as we shall see.

4. The context of the census-tradition in Luke 2:1ff, along with the Angelic announcement in vv. 10-14

As noted above, the Qumran text 4Q246, with its dependence upon Daniel 7, presented an eschatological vision of a Messianic Kingdom (of God) that supplants the great earthly kingdoms that held sway (often in cruel and warring fashion) during this current Age. The Daniel vision(s) portray a sequence of four empires (vv. 1-12, 17-26), the last of which is the Hellenistic (Greek) empire of Alexander (and his successors). However, among Jews (and Christians) of the first century B.C./A.D., this last greatest (and cruelest) empire had become identified with that of Rome. Thus, the primary juxtaposition is between the wicked Roman Empire (vv. 7-8, 23-26) and the Kingdom of God that is bestowed upon the “one like a son of man” (vv. 13-14) and the “holy ones” (v. 27).

The Messianic figure of Dan 7:13-14 (as interpreted), was, of course, applied by early Christians to the person of Jesus Christ. He is the one who is given rule over the great and eternal Kingdom of the end-time, ruling and exercising judgment over all the other nations. So it is in this light, according to the Messianic understanding of early Christians, that we must understand the contrast that the Lukan author presents—between Jesus as Messianic Ruler and the Roman emperor Augustus.

The Matthean narrative presented a similar contrast (cf. the discussion in Part 1), between Jesus and Herod, in relation to the title “King of the Jews” (2:2). The contrast in the Lukan narrative has been expanded greatly; Jesus is no longer simply King of Israel, etc, but one who rules over all the nations. This universalistic emphasis and orientation, which can be seen throughout Luke-Acts, is expressed most clearly, within the Infancy narrative, in the canticle of Simeon (see vv. 30-32). However, even earlier there is an implicit expression of this theme, juxtaposing Jesus with the Roman emperor Augustus.

This juxtaposition forms the framework of the narrative in chapter 2—particularly vv. 1-14. The contrast is implicit, and must be gleaned from the literary context. It begins in verse 1, with what (at first glance) seems to be simple historical information, regarding the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem (the city of David, where Jesus would be born as the Messiah):

“And there came to be, in those days, a decision [do/gma] (that) went out (from) alongside Caesar Augustus, (for) all (the) inhabited (world) to be written down.”

The emperor Augustus’ rule over “all the inhabited (world)” (pa=san th\n oi)koume/nhn) is clearly indicated, if not directly stated. The boundaries of the Roman Empire would have encompassed virtually all of the world known to people in Palestine and the Mediterranean at that time. It was the authoritative decision (do/gma) made by Augustus (i.e., the census, “writing down [names]” [a)pografh/]) that set in motion the events leading to Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem—as narrated by the Lukan author in vv. 2-7. It is with Jesus’ birth that the implicit contrast, between he and Augustus, comes more clearly into view, in the form of the Angelic annunciation to the shepherds (2:10-14).

The Angels’ announcement to the shepherds follows the basic annunciation pattern (see section 3. above). However, verses 13-14 (with the Gloria of the angelic chorus) break from the pattern, which is fitting for the exalted character of the birth of Jesus. The “good news” (eu)aggeli/zomai, “I bring you a good message [good news]”) of the birth announcement (vv. 10-11) has become the good news of the Gospel (v. 14). This use of the verb eu)aggeli/zomai strongly suggests an intentional parallel to the birth of Augustus (v. 1) as a Savior-figure who brings peace to the world. Consider the following points of comparison between Augustus and Jesus:

    • Son of God. Gaius Octavius was the adopted son and heir of Julius Caesar (so, Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus); upon the deification of Caesar (recognized as ‘god’, Jan 1, 42 B.C.), Octavianus effectively became “son of god” (divi filius). This status only increased in strength as he was proclaimed emperor (Imperator, ratified 29 B.C.) and given the title Augustus (27 B.C.).
    • Bringer of Peace. Augustus pacified much of the Empire, as detailed in his own account (cf. Res gestae divi Augusti II.12-13 [34-45]) and that of other Roman historians. The shrine of Janus in the capital, open in time of war, was finally closed during Augustus’ reign, and the ‘peace of Augustus’ (Pax Augusta) was proclaimed (the famous altar ara pacis augustae).
    • Savior. Augustus was called “savior” (swth/r)—e.g. “savior of the whole world” (swth=ra tou= su/npanto$ ko/smou) in an inscription from Myra (V. Ehrenberg and A. H. M. Jones, Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius [Oxford:1949], no. 72).

Most notably, the Roman government established a new calendar (the Julian) which set the birthday of Augustus (Sept 23) as the start of the new year. A letter from proconsul Paulus Fabius Maximus (c. 9-5 B.C.), to the territories of Asia under his charge, included a decree which contains the following:

“Providence…has granted us and those who will come after us [a Saviour] who has made war to cease and who shall put everything [in peaceful] order; and whereas Caesar, [when he was manifest], transcended the expectations of [all who had anticipated the good news], not only by surpassing the benefits conferred by his predecessors but by leaving no expectation of surpassing him to those who would come after him, with the result that the birthday of our God signalled the beginning of Good News for the world because of him”

Even more well-known is the so-called Priene Calendar Inscription, related to this decree, of which note especially the following:

“Since Providence, which has ordered all things and is deeply interested in our life, has set in most perfect order by giving us Augustus, whom she filled with virtue that he might benefit humankind, sending him as a savior [swth/r], both for us and for our descendants, that he might end war and arrange all things, and since he, Caesar, by his appearance [e)pifanei=n] (excelled even our anticipations), surpassing all previous benefactors, and not even leaving to posterity any hope of surpassing what he has done, and since the birthday of the god Augustus was the beginning of the good tidings for the world that came by reason of him [h@rcen de\ tw=i ko/smwi tw=n di’ au)to\n eu)aggeli/wn h( gene/qlio$ tou= qeou=],”

For the above letter of Paulus Fabius Maximus and the Asian decree, see Frederick W. Danker, Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field (1982), p. 217; the translation of the Priene Calendar Inscription is courtesy of Craig A. Evans, Mark’s Incipit and the Priene Calendar Inscription: From Jewish Gospel to Greco-Roman Gospel

The birth(day) and appearance of the ‘savior’ is called “good news/tidings”, the same word typically translated as “gospel”. The closest Gospel parallel is found in the Angelic announcement of Jesus’ birth in Luke 2:10-14 (note the italicized portions):

10And the Messenger said to them, “Do not fear! For see—I bring a good message [eu)aggeli/zomai] to you of great joy which will be for all people: 11that today is brought forth for you a savior [swth/r]—which is Anointed, Lord—in the city of David! 12And this (is) the sign for you: you will find a babe wrapped in cloth-bands [i.e. swaddled] and lying (down) in a feeding-(trough).” 13And suddenly there came to be with the Messenger a full crowd of (the) heavenly army praising God and saying,

14“do/ca in the highest (places) to God,
and upon earth peace in [i.e. among] men of (his) eu)doki/a.”

Already in Scriptural tradition, there was the famous birth announcement in Isa 9:5-6 (6-7)—cf. also the “good news” of Isa 52:7ff; 61:1, passages which both have traditional messianic associations. The Lukan author has expanded the scope of this message, by applying it to the contemporary context of the Roman Empire, and thus anticipating the early Christian mission—to the Gentiles, throughout the Greco-Roman world.

A similarly universalistic expansion can be seen in the phrase “which will be for all the people [panti\ tw=| law=|]” (v. 10). In the immediate context, the “people” (lao/$) is Israel, but this widens in the Gospel to include Gentiles (“the peoples [laoi/]”, cf. 2:31-32).

Ultimately, the Angels’ message is defined, principally, by Jesus’ Messianic identity. This message contains two interlocking “Messianic” constructs or pairs:

Here the “city of David” is Bethlehem; at the death/resurrection of Jesus, it is Jerusalem. In this regard, it is important to note a fascinating parallel between the angelic announcement of Luke 2:14 and the exclamation by the people upon Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem (Lk 19:38)—in which, as we have seen, his Messianic identity (and his kingship) was also strongly emphasized:

In one, heavenly beings declare peace to those on earth; in the other, earthly beings declare (or affirm) peace for those in heaven. One may perhaps compare this with the request from the Lord’s prayer that God’s will be done “as in heaven, (so) also upon earth” (Matt 6:10b [not in the Lukan version]). The emphasis on peace, in a Messianic context, is an important aspect of the portrait in Luke-Acts (Lk 1:79; 2:29; 19:42; 24:36; Acts 10:36).

For more on the possible parallels between the births of Jesus and Augustus, cf. my earlier note, and also the discussion on the Fourth Eclogue of Virgil.

Notes on Prayer: Thy Kingdom Come (Infancy Narratives, Pt 1)

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

Before proceeding the conclusion of this series, it is worth examining the Kingdom-theme as it is expressed in the Infancy Narratives (of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke). This relatively brief study, presented in a more detailed form in earlier exegetical series, is particularly suitable for our celebration of the birth of Jesus this Christmas season.

The Kingdom of God in the Matthean and Lukan Infancy Narratives

The subject of the Kingdom of God, and of Jesus as King, is primary to the Matthean (Matt 1-2) and Lukan (Lk 1-2) Infancy Narratives. Indeed, as a theological (and Christological) theme, the Kingship of Jesus is far more prominent in these narratives than either the incarnation or the virgin birth. While the virginal conception of Jesus does feature in both narratives, it is clearly subordinate (in significance) to the identity of Jesus as Messianic King. And, as for the classic doctrine of the incarnation, evidence for it can scarcely be found in either narrative (or in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke as a whole, for that matter).

Jesus’ identity as the royal/Davidic Messiah has been discussed, at length, in earlier studies in this series; for an overview of the subject, see Parts 6–7–8 of “Yeshua the Anointed”. The significance of this theme can be seen, first, through the orienting (historical) tradition regarding the Davidic genealogy of Jesus. This is established as a basic point of information regarding Jesus’ human father, Joseph. The Matthean and Lukan narratives attest to it, quite independently, it would seem; one can regard it as an established point of historical tradition. It is regarded as a key point of information in each of the genealogies (Matt 1:1, 6, 17; Luke 3:31), and is brought out within the fabric of the narrative as well (Matt 1:20; Luke 1:27; 2:4). Some commentators, following a tradition that came to be accepted by a number of early Christians, held that Jesus was also of Davidic ancestry through his mother, and that the Lukan genealogy reflects the lineage of Mary. However one may judge the validity of the tradition regarding Mary’s Davidic ancestry (and the information in Luke 1:5, 36 would seem to argue against it), the text clearly identifies the Lukan genealogy as that of Joseph, not Mary (3:23)—just as in Matthew (1:16).

Here in this article, the Kingdom-theme, as expressed within four specific portions of the Infancy Narratives, will be discussed. These are:

    1. The citation of Isaiah 7:14 in Matt 1:18-25
    2. The Jesus/Herod juxtaposition in Matthew 2
    3. The Messianic orientation of the Angelic announcement in Luke 1:26-38
    4. The context of the census-tradition in Luke 2:1ff, along with the Angelic announcement in vv. 10-14.

The first two will be discussed in Part 1 of this study (below), the last two in Part 2.

1. The citation of Isaiah 7:14 in Matt 1:18-25

This citation of Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:22-23 is one of a number of such Scripture citations which occur in the Infancy narrative (1:18-2:23):

With the possible exception of 2:5-6 (Micah 5:2), these Scripture passages were taken and applied in a sense altogether different from the original context (cf. the discussion below regarding Isaiah 7:14).

It is interesting to see how (and where) the Gospel writer introduces the prophecy: it follows directly after the heavenly Messenger’s announcement to Joseph. Note the similarity in language in v. 21: “she will bring forth a son and you will call his name Yeshua± [Jesus]”, which is nearly identical to that of Isa 7:14 (cf. the similar pronouncements in Gen 16:11 and Judg 13:5). Many critical scholars would hold that Matthew has shaped the angelic announcement to fit Isa 7:14; however, it is certainly possible that, seeing the similarity in language, the writer was led to include the Isaiah prophecy at this point. Indeed, this sort of “catch-phrase bonding” abounds in the New Testament, and was a prime technique used by early Christians to join Scriptures and traditions together. The writer is also careful to distinguish the two passages: while “call his name Jesus” and “call his name Immanuel” are parallel, they are not identical—this is probably why the third person plural “they shall call” is used in the citation; it is a small adaptation, but it has an interesting effect. Joseph (the “you” of v. 21) calls him “Jesus” (v. 25), but “they” (people of Israel, believers, those who encounter Jesus) will call him “Immanuel”.  This is indeed what has happened: for believers, who ‘find’ Jesus in the Scriptures, apply those texts to him—whether or not the original context truly warrants it!

It is hard to know just when early Christians began to view Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy of Jesus’ birth, as we see in Matthew 1:22-23; it is possible, though quite uncertain, that the Gospel writer was the first to make the connection. Here I place side-by-side, the Hebrew (MT), the Greek (LXX) and Matthew, in a rather literal translation, with the Hebrew/Greek given below:

As I have discussed, “virgin” is not particularly appropriate for translating hm*l=u^; nor exactly is “young girl/woman”. As no English word or phrase entirely fits, I have somewhat reluctantly opted for “maiden” as the least unsatisfactory solution.

For my Lord Him(self) will give for you a sign: See—the maiden (is [becoming]) pregnant and (is) bearing a son, and (she) will call his name “God-with-us” Through this (the) Lord Him(self) will give you a sign: See—the virgin will have in womb and will bring forth a son, and she will call his name ±Immanû¢l {first part of the verse is not cited} See—the virgin will have in womb and will bring forth a son, and they will call his name ±Immanû¢l, which is being explained across [i.e. translated] (as) “God with us”
toa <k#l* aWh yn`d)a& /T@y] /k@l* /B@ td#l#y)w+ hr*h* hm*l=u^h* hN@h! la@ WnM*u! ov= tar*q*w+ dia\ tou=to dw/sei ku/rio$ au)to\$ u(mi=n shmei=on i)dou\ h( parqe/no$ e)n gastri\ e&cei kai\ te/cetai ui(o/n kai\ kale/sei$ to\ o&noma au)tou= Emmanouhl  

The LXX is an accurate rendering of the Hebrew (MT), the difficulties surrounding the use of parqe/no$ notwithstanding, and apart from the very different idiom used for conception and childbirth. The citation in Matthew is identical to the LXX, but for one difference (indicated in italics above): “they will call” instead of “you will call”. The MT has regularly been understood as a 2nd person form, but most scholars today read it as a 3rd person feminine. Manuscript 1QIsaa reads arqw (“and he will call”), apparently in an indefinite sense, which may be reflected in the Syriac )rQtNw (wntqr°, “and he will be called”), and possibly is the basis for the rendering in Matthew (“they will call”). The Gospel writer also provides an explanation of the Hebrew term.

This leads to the interpretive crux—believers, including the earliest Christians (and the inspired Gospel writer), have applied Isaiah 7:14 to the (virgin) birth of Jesus, even though the original context of the passage relates to the Syrian-Ephraimite crisis facing Ahaz and the kingdom of Judah in c. 735-4 B.C.  Indeed, the prophecy relates to the historical circumstances (in 6:1-9:6) involving Ahaz and the kingdom of Judah. This is the view favored by most critical or otherwise serious scholars today, with two differing positions being commonly held:

(a) The “maiden” in question is the wife (or bride) of Isaiah, and thus the child is also Isaiah’s. The close parallel of 8:1-4 is a strong argument in favor of this view, as is the fact that the prophet gave symbolic names to two other children (7:3; 8:3) relevant to the circumstances and fate of Israel/Judah. However, these other children create a problem, as does the fact that hm*l=u^, it seems, would not normally be used of a married woman (though it might be of a young bride). The “prophetess” of 8:3 appears to be different woman from that of 7:14, which is another complication; though we really don’t know enough about Isaiah’s personal life to be sure of the details.

(b) It refers to the wife (or concubine, etc) and child of Ahaz. In the context of the passage, the prophecy is addressed to the king (as head of the ‘house of David’), so an application to Ahaz, rather than Isaiah himself, seems to make more sense. In Song 1:3; 6:8, hm*l=u^ seems to be a technical term for girls in the royal court (or harem), and this may also be the sense here. The promise of the name “God-with-us” is, perhaps, more appropriate for a royal figure; and the parallel of 9:5-6, if applicable, would also be an argument in favor of this view.

In terms of the original meaning of the prophecy, I would say that the second option (b) is the best solution, though certainly not without its own difficulties. However, it seems to fit the context overall: a specific girl (hm*l=u^h*), belonging in some respect to the royal court (circumstances unknown to us), is (or is soon to become) pregnant and will give birth to a son; by the time the child has been weaned, and is old enough to choose between good and evil, Aram-Damascus and Ephraim (the Northern Kingdom) will suffer at the hands of the king of Assyria and no longer threaten Judah (a prediction which more or less came to pass by 732 B.C.). Whether such a son of Ahaz should be identified with the (positive) figure of Hezekiah is a separate question (see below); though accepted by some scholars, I am by no means certain that such an identification is correct.

According to the early Christian use of Isa 7:14, the “sign” (toa) could be taken as relating to the miraculous nature of the birth; and, indeed, the Hebrew word can occasionally refer to a wondrous portent or omen. The LXX translator may have understood this as a miraculous event (i.e., use of parqe/no$ to indicate a virginal birth, so understood in Matt 1:18ff). However, the use of toa elsewhere in Isa 6:1-9:6 (7:11; 8:18) and in the book as a whole (19:20; 20:3; 37:30; 38:7, 22; 44:25; 55:13; 66:19) would speak against this (only in Isa 38:7 is does a special miracle seem to be indicated). Instead, the “sign” (toa) of 7:14 is the child itself [rather than the nature of the birth], cf. 8:18—the sign carries two primary points of signification: (a) the name “God-with-us” [cf. esp. 8:8, 10], and (b) the temporal indicator based on the development of the infant [7:15ff].

What of the name “God-with-us” (la@ WnM*u! ±Immanû-°¢l)? Theologically significant names were common in Hebrew, often using “God” (°El) or Yahweh (shortened or hypocoristic form “Yah[u]”). This is more or less obscured in English translations, where names are typically given an anglicized transliteration rather than translated. For example, Isaiah (Why`u=v^y+, Y§sha±y¹hu) ought to be rendered “Yah-will-save” or “May-Yah-save!”; similarly, Ahaz is probably a shortened form of Jehoahaz (zj*a*ohy+, Y§hô°¹µ¹z) and would mean something like “Yah-has-seized” or “Yah-has-grasped [hold]!”. So, a name such as “God-with-us” (la@ WnM*u!) could certainly be applied to a significant person or ruler (though at this time, Yah-names are much more common than El-names). Isaiah himself gave elaborate symbolic names for his two (other) sons: “[a] Remnant will return”, Isa 7:3), and “Hurry [to] seize booty! hasten [to] take spoil!” (or something similar)—both names relating to the impending/future judgment on Israel.

In the historical context, the name “God-with-us” has a very specific meaning: Ahaz and the southern Kingdom faced an imminent attack by Aram-Damascus and the Northern Kingdom, along with the looming specter of an Assyrian invasion. Isaiah’s counsel in chapter 7 was to trust in God, for God is with Jerusalem and his people in Judah; and, within just a year or two, the threat from Aram-Ephraim will be eliminated. The use of the name “God-with-us” in Isa 8:5-10 is even more dramatic and telling, for the warning (and promise) of ±Immanû °El (vv. 8, 10) extends to all the surrounding nations (even to the Assyrian Empire): “take counsel (for) counsel and it will break apart, give word (to) a word and it will not stand! For God (is) with us!”. In this final exclamation, we have moved clearly from the sign (the child) to what it signifies—that God Himself is with us. Little wonder that early Christians would have applied this name (and the passage) to the person of Jesus Christ (cf. the possible allusions to this language in Luke 1:28).

In terms of our present study, most significant is the royal context of the prophecy in Isa 7:14. It is addressed to a king (Ahaz), and involves the fate (and salvation) of the kingdom of Judah. The child whose birth is the “sign” for the salvation, may well have been the son of Ahaz, and thus a future king for whom the basic message of the prophecy would also apply. This last point is all the more significant if the royal child (and future king) is identified with Hezekiah—cf. the specific notice in 2 Kings 18:7, in relation to the name ±Immanû °El (“God-with-us”). In any case, this royal emphasis, with the message of Divine protection and salvation (for Israel/Judah), promised to a future king, naturally led to a Messianic interpretation of the prophecy, and its specific application by early Christians to the person (and birth) of Jesus (as the Messiah).

For more on the context and interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, see my earlier set of notes, along with the four-part article in the series “The Old Testament and the Birth of Jesus”.

2. The Jesus/Herod juxtaposition in Matthew 2

The theme of Jesus’ identity as the royal/Davidic Messiah, established in Matthew 1 (see above), is further developed and expounded in chapter 2. This is done by way of a contrastive juxtaposition of Jesus with Herod—viz., as two ‘rivals’ to the title and position of “King of the Jews” (v. 2). The narrative also utilizes the typology of the Moses traditions in Exodus 1-2, as a way of narrating the conflict. The parallels between the births of Moses and Jesus have been noted by many commentators (see my earlier notes in the series “The Old Testament and the Birth of Jesus”).

While Moses is sometimes regarded as a king or royal figure in Jewish and early Christian tradition, that is not part of the original Exodus traditions. Instead, there are other Scriptural references (quotations or allusions) in Matthew 2 which bring out the royal associations. The most notable of these, of course, is Micah 5:2 (see below); however, certain others must also be mentioned:

Numbers 24:17

This is part of Balaam’s (fourth and final) oracle as recorded in Numbers 23-24. There are two aspects of the verse which may relate to the narrative in Matthew 2:1-12: (a) the overall setting of the passage, and (b) the star.

(a) The narrative setting

Numbers 22-24 records several traditions (and oracle poems) connected with Balaam (<u*l=B! Bil±¹m), a somewhat mysterious figure (to us) who was no doubt much better known to Israelites of the late-second/early first millennium B.C. living in Canaan (inscription fragments from Deir ±All¹ [c. 700] refer to him, as a “seer [hzj] of the gods”). There is a certain parallel to details of the Magi narrative in Matthew:

    • A ‘wicked’ king (Balak [ql*B*]) summons the seer Balaam for help against “the children of Israel” (22:5) who had “come out from Egypt” (cf. Matt 2:15 [Hos 11:1])
    • Balaam is a seer who received revelations from God (24:15-16), while the Magi apparently also receive revelatory visions and/or dreams (Matt 2:12). The LXX states that Balaam received his visions “in sleep” [e)n u%pnw|] (24:16, also v. 4).
    • Balaam comes “from the east” (Num 23:7; LXX a)p’ a)natolw=n, the same phrase in Matt 2:1).
    • Balaam prophecies the future of Israel (in four oracles: Num 23:7-10, 18-24; 24:3-9, 15-24); there is also a prophecy [Micah 5:2] in Matthew, cited by the “priests and scribes” (not the Magi).
    • The prophecies mention the coming of a star out of Israel [Jacob] signifying the arrival of a powerful ruler (Num 24:17ff—on this, see below).
    • Balaam is warned by an angel (Num 22:31-35); the Magi are warned in a dream in Matt 2:12 (an angel is not mentioned, but is sometimes assumed according to the pattern in 1:20; 2:13, 19).
    • Balaam departs back to his own place (Num 24:25); the Magi return to their own country (Matt 2:12)

(b) The Star

Numbers 24:17, part of Balaam’s fourth oracle, begins as follows:

I see him, but not now;
I perceive him, but not near;
A star will march [ird] from Ya±¦qœ» {Jacob},
and a staff will rise [<wq] from Yi´ra°¢l {Israel}…

The reference is clearly to a ruler who will crush the enemies of Israel and exercise dominion over the surrounding nations (see esp. verse 19). Many critical scholars would hold that this refers to the Davidic monarchy, and to the person of David (as star and scepter), whether as a genuine or ex eventu prophecy. However, by the time of the New Testament, this passage had come to be understood in a (future) Messianic sense.
It is cited numerous times in the Qumran documents (1QSb 5:27; 1QM [War Scroll] 11:6-7; and 4Q175 [Testimonia]), either in a ‘Messianic’ or eschatological context. Most notably it occurs in the related Damascus Document (CD [Cairo MS A]), in 7:19, where the star is the “Interpreter of the Law who shall come” and the staff/scepter is the coming “Prince of the whole congregation”. In some Qumran texts, there are apparent references to two Anointed [Messiah] figures—one “of Israel”, a royal (Davidic) Messiah, presumably identified with the “Branch of David” and the “Prince of the Congregation”; the other “of Aaron”, a priestly Messiah, likely identified (as here) with the “Interpreter of the Law”. Yet there are other texts which seem to recognize only one ‘Messiah’, so the situation in the Community (represented in the texts) is far from certain.

This view of Num 24:17 was aided greatly by the peculiar reading of the Septuagint (LXX): instead of a staff/scepter [fb#v@], it reads “a man [a&nqrwpo$] will rise out of Israel”. This may reflect an interpretive gloss which somehow made its way into the text.
We find something similar in the Jewish/Christian (Pseudepigraphic) Testament of Judah 24:1-6, where “a man will rise” is connected with the “scepter” of the kingdom and a “staff of righteousness”. That this Messianic interpretation was relatively widespread by the time the Gospels were written is indicated from its mention by Philo of Alexandria (On Rewards and Punishments §95), an author who otherwise had little interest in Messianic predictions as such. It is also worth noting that it was applied to Simon bar-Kosiba (as bar-Kochba, “son of the Star”), famously by Rabbi Akiba (j.Ta’anit 68d) in the context of the Jewish Revolt of 132-135 A.D.—cf. also b.Sanh. 93b; Justin Martyr, First Apology 31.6; Eusebius, Church History 4.6.1-4, 8.4.

Isaiah 60:1-6

Verse 1 of this famous passage begins:

Stand up [i.e. rise], shine! for your light has come,
and the weight [i.e. glory] of YHWH has shot forth [i.e. risen/shined] upon you

Note also verse 2b-3:

…and YHWH will shoot forth [i.e. rise] upon you,
and His weight [i.e. glory] will be seen upon you;
And the nations will walk to your light,
and kings to the brilliance of your rising/shining

Then further on in verses 5b-6:

…for the roaring [i.e. wealth/abundance] of the sea will be turned over upon [i.e. to] you,
(the) strength [i.e. wealth] of the nations will come to you—
an abundance of camels will cover you,
(young) camels of Midyan and ±Ephah;
all of them from Sheba will come,
gold and white-resin [i.e. incense] they will carry,
and praises of YHWH they will bring (as a message)

It is scarcely necessary to comment on the similarities to details in Matthew’s account of the visit of the Magi. The original oracle in Isaiah prophecies the future greatness of the (restored) Kingdom of Israel/Judah, with nations bringing their wealth (to Jerusalem) to the house of God (verse 7).

Psalm 72:10-11

In Psalm 72 (cf. my earlier study) we find a similar theme as in Isaiah 60:1-6, but in the more general context of the ideal (righteous) king—strengthened and supported by God, he will extend the dominion (of Israel) so that kings of the surrounding nations will serve him and offer tribute (vv. 8-11, 15). Note especially verses 10-11:

(Let) the kings of Tarshish and (of) the islands return gift(s),
(let) the kings of Sheba’ and Seba’ bring present(s) near;
(Let) all kings bow (themselves) down to him,
and (let) all nations serve him

See also Psalm 68:29 and Isaiah 49:7. It is no doubt due to these references that the idea of the Magi as kings developed in Christian tradition.

This brings us to the citation of Micah 5:1[2] in Matthew 2:6.

Micah 5:1[2]

Unlike the oracles of Isaiah 7:10-17 and 9:1-7 (see above on Isa 7:14), which are presented in a relatively precise historical context (the reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah, the Syro-Ephraimitic crisis and impending invasion by Assyria, c. 740-701 [esp. 735-732] B.C.), Micah 5:1-6 [MT 4:14-5:5] has a rather more general setting of coming judgment (military attack implied) followed by restoration. The themes (as well as language and style) of the these oracles in Micah are quite similar to those of Isaiah, but without some of the accompanying historical detail. The implication of Micah 5:5-6 would seem to be that the Davidic ruler of 5:2 will lead (Judah’s) troops against the Assyrian invasion, which will lead to the gathering in of the remnant of Jacob (the Northern kingdom?). There is thus a closer parallel to the oracle in Isa 9:1-7, which is also more plausibly ‘Messianic’ (in its original context) than Isa 7:10-17. The reference to Bethlehem (in Judah), while possibly intended (originally) to refer to a specific coming ruler in Micah’s own time, also makes likely an archetypal reference to the Davidic line (cf. also references to the “house of David” and “throne of David”, Isa 7:13; 9:7, etc).

    • While one can consider the language in 5:2b as similar to the exalted honorific titles given to ancient Near Eastern rulers (see my notes on Isaiah 9:6-7 in this regard), there is a dynamic, almost ‘mythological’ quality to the phrasing, which, when removed from the immediate context, would certainly suggest divine origin. Once the specific ritual sense of king as God’s “son” (cf. Psalm 2) has ceased to be relevant in Israelite history, the way is paved for the idea of a future/Messianic ruler as “son of God”.

Matthew’s citation of Micah 5:2 differs in several respects from both the Hebrew (MT) and Septuagint (LXX) versions (on which, see my earlier study). Perhaps most notable is that Matthew has omitted the final bicolon (“and his coming forth…”), inserting at the end of the prior line (replacing “of Israel”): “who will shepherd my people Israel”. This appears to be a quotation from 2 Samuel 5:2 (LXX): “you will shepherd my people Israel”, joined to Mic 5:2. The inclusion of this Scripture would strengthen the citation as a reference to the Davidic ruler figure-type.

Messianic Interpretation of Micah 5:1 [2]

The historical tradition in Matt 2:4-6 evinces a belief, or expectation, by Jews of the time, that the Anointed One (that is, the Davidic Messiah) would be born in Bethlehem. There can be little doubt that this underlies the core Gospel traditions in the Infancy narratives. Both the Matthean and Lukan narratives emphasize the association with David (see above), though this is stronger and more pervasive in Luke (cf. Matt 1:1ff, 17, 20; Lk 1:27, 32-33, 69ff; 2:4, 8ff, 11). The historical detail of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem is part of this Davidic Messianic tradition. The fact that the Bethlehem tradition is presented so differently within the two narratives demonstrates that it pre-dates both of them.

Indeed, there is evidence that the Bethlehem tradition (and also Micah 5:1 [2]) had been independently applied to the Messiah, in Judea, prior to the writing of the Gospels. This can be inferred fairly from John 7:41-42:

“Others said [i.e. regarding Jesus], ‘This is the Anointed (One)’, and (yet) others said, ‘No, for the Anointed (One) does (not) come out of the Galîl {Galilee}, (does he)? (Has) not the Writing said that out of the seed of Dawid and from Beth-Lehem the Anointed (One) comes?'”

The historical context in John at this point is ambiguous enough to virtually guarantee that we are dealing with a Jewish (rather than early Christian) tradition. It could be derived simply from the historical details surrounding David’s life, but more than likely the reference in Micah 5:2 is assumed as well.
The tradition of the Messiah’s birth in Bethlehem is established in the subsequent Rabbinic literature—most notably, Jerusalem Talmud Berakot 5a [2:4], and the Midrash Rabbah to Lamentations §51 (on Lam 1:16). However, these passages are considerably later than the first century, and evidence from the first centuries B.C./A.D. is scant indeed. Sadly, the surviving fragments of the Qumran Commentary (Pesher) on Micah (1Q14) do not cover the relevant portion of the book (4:14-5:5 [5:1-6]). A separate text, 4Q168, with two small fragments, may be a similar Micah pesher (the surviving portion deals with 4:8-12), but too little is preserved to provide much by way of interpretation.
According to Origen, in his work Against Celsus (1.51), Jewish scholars in his time (and prior) had removed or suppressed the Bethlehem tradition—i.e., the expectation that the (Davidic) Messiah would be born in Bethlehem—to avoid giving support for the Christian belief in Jesus as the Messiah. However accurate this bit of apologetic may (or may not) be, it could be seen as providing independent confirmation of the Bethlehem tradition by perhaps the mid-2nd century A.D. Around the same time may be dated the Aramaic Targum (Jonathan) on the Prophets, which glosses/paraphrases Micah 5:1 [2] to say specifically that the Messiah comes out of Bethlehem. Unfortunately, the Jewish evidence cannot be dated, reliably at least, any earlier than this.

For more on the background of Micah 5:2 and its use in the Matthean Infancy narrative, see my articles in the series “The Old Testament and the Birth of Jesus” and “The Birth of the Messiah”.

In the overall context of the Matthean Gospel, this development of the Kingdom-theme in the Infancy narratives (esp. in chapter 2) establishes two key theological points of interpretation that feature prominently throughout the Gospel (as we have seen in the prior studies): (1) the Messianic identity of Jesus, in connection with the specific title “King of the Jews” and the implications regarding the kingship of Jesus; (2) the pointed contrast between Jesus’ kingship and that of earthly rulers (such as Herod). The latter thematic contrast informs many of the Matthean passages dealing with the Kingdom of God (and the expectation of its coming). Jesus’ kingdom is not like other earthly kingdoms; those who belong to it—that is, to the Kingdom of God—and who will enter/inherit it, are those who are his faithful disciples, trusting in him and following both his teachings and example.

In Part 2 of this article, we will examine the sections of the Lukan Infancy narrative (points 3. and 4. in the above outline).

 

December 23: Psalm 119:105-112

Psalm 119, continued

Stanza 13 was examined in the previous note; see also the introduction to the Psalm.

Stanza 14: verses 105-112

n
Verse 105

“A lamp [rn@] (shining) for my feet (is) your word,
and (as) a light for my pathway.”

The path-walking theme of the Psalm, reintroduced in the previous stanza (vv. 101ff), continues here. The less common noun byt!n` is used (as in v. 35), rather than Er#D# or jr^a), but with no difference in meaning (“pathway”). In some verses, the “word(s)” of YHWH (i.e., His Torah) constitute the path itself; in other instances, His words guide/direct the person on the path. That is the case here. YHWH’s word(s) (rb*D*, singular/collective) illuminate the path so that the righteous/faithful one is better able to walk upon it. The precepts, etc, of the Torah serve as light (roa)—but also, specifically, as a source of light (i.e., “lamp”, indicated by the parallel noun rn@). The implication is that darkness is dispelled by this light, symbolizing the removal (and/or avoidance) of sin and wickedness. Moreover, the illumination helps to ensure that the person walking does not trip or go astray (down a side passage). The language in the first line could mean that the light shines directly down onto the protagonist’s feet, which would imply that the main idea is that it keeps him from tripping.

This verse is a 3+2 couplet, which is the dominant meter of the Psalm (here in this stanza, vv. 107-110).

Verse 106

“I have sworn sevenfold [yT!u=B^v=n]], and shall make stand—
(that I am) to guard (the) just (ruling)s of your rightness!”

Here the protagonist notes that he has sworn that he will “guard” (i.e., observe and fulfill) the Torah precepts and regulations, etc. This traditional use of the verb rm^v* (“guard”, along with the synonymous rx^n`, “watch [over]”) recurs throughout the Psalm (cf. earlier in vv. 4-5, 8-9, 17, 34, 44, 55, 57, 60, 63, 67, 88, 101). These regulations, etc, of the Torah are referred to as the “just (ruling)s” (fP*v=m!, plur.) of YHWH (the Sovereign), as in vv. 7, 13, 20, 30, 39, 43, 52, 62, 75, 84, 91, 102. They reflect His fundamental “rightness” (qd#x#); see the same expression “just (ruling)s of your rightness” in vv. 7, 62 (cf. also v. 75). The noun qd#x# (like the related hq*d*x=) can mean “righteousness” (in an ethical-religious context), or “justice” (in a social-judicial context); in the context of the covenant, it can also carry the meaning “faithfulness, loyalty”.

The protagonist has sworn this (with an oath), and intends to make good on it (“make it stand”, vb <Wq, Piel). The verb ub^v* (Niphal), which, apparently, denotes doing something seven times (or seven-fold), presumably (in the context of oath-taking) refers to some manner of “seven fold” affirmation—whether in a figurative or ritual-symbolic sense. However, the precise derivation and significance of the verb remains uncertain.

Verse 107

“I am pressed-down [yt!yn@u&n~] to the extreme, O YHWH—
give me life, according to your word!”

The petition in the second line is identical to that of verse 25b; cf. also v. 17, and note the similar use of the verb hy`j* in vv. 37, 40, 50, 77, 88, 93. The declaration in the first line represents a recurrence of a type of lament-motif that has run throughout a number of the earlier stanzas. On the use of the verb hn`u* (II), denoting being in a bent/pressed-down condition, cf. earlier in vv. 67, 71, 75, and also the related noun yn]u(, vv. 50, 92. This is a prayer to YHWH for deliverance—from affliction (possibly as the result of serious sickness/illness) and/or oppression (i.e., from the wicked). In such instances, the “word” (rb*D*) of YHWH refers, not only to the Torah precepts, etc, but to the promises contained in the Torah (viz., of protection and blessings for the faithful), and also to the creative and life-giving power of His word.

The temporal-adverbial expression da)m=-du^ means something like “until the very (end)”. Here it seems to be used primarily in an intensive sense, which I render as “to the extreme”; however, it could also indicate “to the point of (death)”.

Verse 108

“(With the) willing gifts of [tobd=n]] my mouth, do be pleased, YHWH,
and (in return) teach me your just (ruling)s.”

The noun hb*d*n+ denotes something done (or offered) willingly, through a free (and noble) impulse; it can specifically refer to a kind of voluntary offering (made to God). In the immediate context of this stanza (as well as the prior two), these “willing gifts” of the protagonist’s mouth must refer to the confession (of faith) and praise to YHWH made throughout. It can also allude to the musical composition (of the Psalm as a whole) and its words that are sung/recited to God (in worship).

In any case, the first line is framed as a prayer to YHWH, akin to the earlier prayer-petitions, with which it shares the same focus and goal: viz., that YHWH would grant the protagonist further instruction in the Torah, so that he might have greater understanding of its precepts and be better able to fulfill its regulations, etc. The ‘offerings’ made by the protagonist, whether considered from a figurative or ritual standpoint, reflect his essential faithfulness and loyal devotion to the covenant. In return for this loyalty, the expectation is that YHWH will favor him and answer his request. The verb hx*r* (I) tends to be used in the religious (propitiatory) context of soothing or placating the deity, i.e., so that he/she would be pleased (with the offering) and show/bestow favor to the devotee. The associated particle an` is energic, urging God to (be willing to) act on the protagonist’s behalf.

Verse 109

“(I place) my soul [yv!p=n~] in my palm, continually,
and your instruction I do not forget.”

Dahood (III, p. 185) would render ypkb (MT yP!k^B=, “in my palm”), as a dual (construct) form (yP@k^B=), referring to the two hands [palms] of YHWH: i.e., “in (the) palms of (your) perpetual (care)”. Certain manuscripts/witnesses of the ancient versions also attest to the reading “in your palm”. However, the verse seems to be following up on the offering imagery in v. 108 (see above), and this favors the idea of the protagonist ‘offering up’ his “soul” in his own hands (palms) to YHWH. Admittedly, the idiom of ‘putting one’s soul in one’s hand(s)’ often carries the sense of taking a dangerous or risky action (e.g., Judg 12:3; 1 Sam 19:5; 28:21; Job 13:14, cf. Hossfeld-Zenger, p. 252); but here the emphasis rather appears to be on the offering-motif, alluding to the familiar image of lifting up or presenting one’s hands (“palms”) to YHWH, in purity and holiness. For this contextual use of [K^ (“palm[s]”) elsewhere in the Psalter, see 24:4; 26:6; 44:21[20]; 63:5[4]; 73:13; 88:10[9]; 141:2. Even more notable is the earlier occurrence in v. 48, which juxtaposes the raising of the palms (in an act of worship) with the protagonist’s fidelity to YHWH’s commands (in the Torah). To further emphasize the worship (and sacrificial) setting of this verse, I would further suggest that the use of the adverb dym!T* (“continually”) here likely alludes to the continual daily offering (made every morning and evening), cf. Exod 29:42; Num 28:6ff, etc.

Thus both lines represent a further confession (and affirmation) of the protagonist’s loyalty to YHWH (and the covenant). The declaration that he “does not forget [vb jk^v*]” the Torah echoes the earlier statements in vv. 16, 61, 83, 93.

Verse 110

“They have given (out) [Wnt=n`], (the) wicked, a trap for me—
yet from your charges I have not wandered.”

This couplet more or less restates the thought in v. 61 (Stanza 8); the noun hP^ (a metal snare for trapping birds) is used here instead of lb#j# (a cord or rope used as a noose for snaring prey), but the basic image is the same: the wicked are laying out traps for the protagonist. This kind of hostility and opposition from the wicked (toward the righteous) is typical of the lament-motifs found regularly in the Psalms (and in the earlier stanzas of this Psalm). It brings out the fundamental contrast between the righteous and the wicked (a key Wisdom theme). The essence of these ‘traps’, from the standpoint of the Psalm’s context, is that they would lead the righteous astray—away from the path of God (i.e., obedience to the covenant and the Torah). The protagonist declares that, even in the face of such opposition from the wicked, he has not “wandered” (vb hu*T*) away from the path.

On the use of the noun dWQP! (in the plural) for the regulations, etc, of the Torah, see above (note on v. 104).

Verse 111

“I claim as my inheritance [yT!l=j^n`] your witness, O Distant (One)—
indeed, (the) source of joy for my heart they (are)!”

This verse reiterates a recurring idea throughout the Psalm—namely, that the righteous (such as the protagonist) who remain faithful to the covenant, will (and can expect to) receive the covenant blessings. The theme is expressed here by the idiom of inheritance, with the verb lj^n` (“inherit, take/receive an inheritance”) used for this purpose. However, as in many of the earlier prayer-petitions in the Psalm, what the protagonist specifically asks for (and expects) as his blessing is to gain greater understanding and insight into the Torah, so that he might better observe its precepts and regulations. Indeed, he claims the Torah itself as his inheritance, utilizing the plural of the noun tWdu@ (= hd*u@, “witness”). Throughout the Psalm, this is one of the regular terms used for designating the precepts and regulations, etc, of the Torah—specifically as representing the terms of the covenant, which have been witnessed to by both God and the people. For earlier occurrences, cf. vv. 2, 14, 22, 24, 31, 36, 46, 59, 79, 88, 95, 99.

The second line more or less repeats the earlier statements from vv. 16, 24, 47, 70, 77, 92, emphasizing how the Torah is the protagonist’s delight. Here, the use of the noun /occ* (“joy, rejoicing”) is even closer to v. 14, where the related verb cWc occurs. Since the Torah is the greatest joy (and delight) for the protagonist, it is natural that he would wish it as the inheritance he would receive from his Sovereign, YHWH.

In this regard, I tentatively follow Dahood (III, p. 185) in treating <l*ou here as a Divine title (meaning essentially “Eternal [One]”). Elsewhere in the Psalm, <l*oul= is the temporal-durative expression “into the distant (future)”, used as such in the following v. 112. I think it not unlikely that there is a bit of dual-meaning wordplay going on, between vv. 111 and 112. Here, the term <l*ou is used as a Divine epithet (“Distant [i.e. Eternal] One”), with the prefixed l= being an instance of the vocative–l. Though the designation “Distant” here could be misleading in English, I have used it so as to retain the wordplay with <l*ou in v. 112 (see below).

Metrically, this verse departs from the 3+2 meter of vv. 107-110, being a 3+3 couplet.

Verse 112

“I have stretched [yt!yf!n`] my heart
to do (the thing)s decreed by you,
(even) to (the) heel of (the) distant (future)!”

The verb hf*n` (“stretch [out]”) in line 1 is perhaps better translated “bend” (i.e., “turn”), in keeping with the path-walking imagery throughout the Psalm; cf. the earlier occurrences of the verb in vv. 36, 51. The protagonist directs his heart—i.e., by stretching or bending it—to follow the path of YHWH, and to fulfill all of the regulations, etc, given in the Torah. The noun qj) (along with the feminine by-form hQ*j%) has been used (in the plural) repeatedly as a designation for the Torah precepts and regulations, as, literally, decrees inscribed by YHWH (the King)—cf. earlier in vv. 5, 8, 12, 16, 23, 26, 33, 48, 54, 64, 68, 71, 80, 83.

The protagonist is determined and committed to fulfill the Torah requirements “into the distant (future)” (<l*oul=); on this temporal-durative expression, cf. the earlier occurrences in vv. 44, 52, 89, 93, 98. See also what I regard as the wordplay involving the use of <l*oul= in v. 111, above. The addition of the final word bq#u@ (“heel”), used adverbially, means something like “to the very end” (lit., “to the heel”). This syntax makes a concise translation (in a 2-beat line) virtually impossible; I have thus rearranged and streamlined the rendering somewhat: “(even) to (the) heel [i.e., very end] of (the) distant (future)”.

As is reasonably clear from the translation above, this verse is a 2+2+2 tricolon.

The fifteenth stanza (vv. 113-120) will be discussed in the next note.

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).

December 22: Psalm 119:97-104

Psalm 119, continued

Stanza 12 was examined in the previous note; see also the introduction to the Psalm.

Stanza 13: verses 97-104

m

Verse 97

“What [hm*] love I have (for) your instruction!
All the day (long) it (is) my meditation.”

The praise and confessional orientation of the previous stanza is even more pronounced here in stanza 13. It begins with a declaration of the protagonist’s love for the Torah of YHWH. This is a reflection of his devotion to the covenant, and he adds that the Torah is the focus of his thought and speech all the time (“all the day [long]”). The verb j^yc! was used earlier in vv. 15, 23, 27, 48, 78; it can mean “meditate”, but at least as often refers to a speech-act (i.e., “speak, converse”, etc). It has been suggested that the root meaning is something like “concern (oneself) with” or “give consideration to (something)”. It would not be inappropriate to render the second line here as, “All the day (long) it [i.e., the Torah] is my concern”. The noun hj*yc! is used, rather than the verb.

Metrically, this verse is a 3-beat (3+3) couplet.

Verse 98

“From (those) hostile to me [yb^y+a)m@], your command makes me wise,
for into the distant (future) it (belongs) to me.”

The first line could mean that the word (lit. “command”) of YHWH makes use of the persecution, etc, coming from the protagonist’s hostile adversaries, in order to give/bring him (greater) wisdom. This is a theme that was expressed earlier (see esp. v. 71), and likely was alluded to again in the previous stanza. However, most translators and commentators regard the prefixed /m! particle on yb^y+a)m@ (“from [those] hostile to me”) as an instance of the comparative /m!—i.e., “(more) than (those who are) hostile to me”. If so, then this reflects the traditional contrast, between the righteous and the wicked, that features so often (as a Wisdom-motif) in the Psalms.

YHWH’s word (“command”) belongs to the protagonist; it thus is able constantly to give him strength and protection against the wicked (see v. 95). Being one of the righteous (i.e., those faithful/loyal to the covenant), the protagonist can always rely upon the promises (and life-giving power) of YHWH’s word, i.e., “into the distant (future)” (<l*oul=); see vv. 89 and 93 in the prior stanza (also v. 44) for the use of this traditional temporal-durative expression. The noun hw`x=m! (usually in the plural), denoting something ordered or commanded (i.e., “command”), is one of the primary terms in the Psalm used to designate the regulations, etc, of the Torah (see vv. 6, 10, 19, 21, 32, 35, 47-48, 60, 66, 73, 86); it can also refer to YHWH’s word (esp. in His role as Creator and Sovereign [King]) more generally. The apparent plural in the MT (“your commands”) does not agree with the singular of the verb (“makes me wise”), nor with the pronoun ayh! (“it”, lit., “her”). For this reason, some commentators (following the LXX) would revocalize the text as ;t=w`x=m!, rather than MT ;t#ox=m!. Dahood (III, p. 184) less plausibly explains the MT as representing a singular feminine form with a Phoenician ending.

This verse is a 3+2 couplet, the dominant meter of the Psalm, and in this stanza (all but vv. 97 [see above], 101, and 104).

Verse 99

“(More) than all [lK*m!] (those) teaching me, I have gained insight,
because your witness (is the) meditation for me!”

The initial /m! prefix is unquestionably comparative here (cp. the less certain occurrence in v. 98 [above]). The protagonist states boldly that his constant devotion to the Torah has given him wisdom and understanding (vb lk^c*, Hiphil) that surpasses those who had taught him (in his youth). The noun is hj*yc!, repeated from v. 97 (cf. above). It is customarily rendered “meditation”, but could plausibly be understood in the more general sense of “concern” —viz., the protagonist is constantly concerned with the Torah. The noun hd*u@ (“witness”, also [as here] the related tWdu@), usually in the plural, is another of the Psalm’s primary words for designating the precepts and regulations of the Torah; representing the terms of the covenant (between YHWH and Israel), these have been solemnly witnessed to by both God and people. Cf. the earlier occurrences in vv. 2, 14, 22, 24, 31, 36, 46, 59, 79, 88, 95.

Verse 100

“(More) than (the) old (one)s [<yn]q@z+m!], I possess understanding,
because I keep watch (over) your charges.”

This couplet largely restates the declaration of v. 99. The substantive plural adjective <yn]q@z+, “old/aged (one)s” stands for the participle “(ones) teaching” (or “…having taught”), since teachers are typically among the elders. The verb /yB! (“understand, discern”), in the reflexive Hitpolel (used earlier in v. 95), is parallel with lk^c* in v. 99, and indicates how the protagonist personally has gained (and is gaining) still greater understanding and discernment, etc; for other occurrences of this verb, cf. vv. 27, 34, 73. Again, this is due to his constant devotion to the Torah precepts and regulations, which are here referenced by the noun dWQP! (in the plural), another of the regular designations (cf. earlier in vv. 4, 15, 27, 40, 45, 56, 63, 69, 78, 87, 93-94). This noun denotes a prescribed duty that a person is obligated to fulfill (“take care of, attend to”); I have usually translated the plural in the Psalm as “charges”. The verb rx^n` (“keep watch [over]”), used interchangeably with rm^v* (“guard”), refers, in this traditional ethical-religious context, to observance of the Torah requirements; cf. earlier in vv. 2, 22, 33-34, 56, 69.

Verse 101

“From every [lK*m!] evil pathway
I have held back my feet,
in order that I might guard your word(s).”

This verse (an irregular 2+2+3 tricolon) marks a return to the path-walking theme that has governed much of the Psalm, but which was not utilized particularly in the prior three stanzas. The noun jr^a) (“passage-way, pathway”) is used less frequently than Er#D# (a “path” that one walks/treads), but has essentially the same meaning and significance (cf. vv. 9, 15). The protagonist keeps his feet from going down any evil pathway (that is, off of the main/straight path of God); he literally “holds them back” (vb al^K*). For this basic idea, see earlier in vv. 29f, 36-37, 59. It is his faithfulness to the Torah (the “word[s]”, rb*D*, of YHWH) that enables him to keep his feet from going astray; at the same time, he does this so that he will be better able to “guard” the precepts and regulations of the Torah. For this use of the verb rm^v* (parallel with rx^n`, “keep watch [over]”), see above on v. 100; note the earlier occurrences in vv. 4-5, 8-9, 17, 34, 44, 55, 57, 60, 63, 67, 88.

Verse 102

“From your just (ruling)s [;yf#P*v=M!m!] I have not turned aside—
for (so) you (yourself) have instructed me!”

The first line of v. 102 echoes the first two lines of the previous v. 101; the protagonist declares that he has not “turned aside” (vb rWs) from the Torah—that is, from the ‘path’ that YHWH has laid out for His people to follow. The Torah regulations, etc, are referred to here by the recurring designation of fP*v=m! (plur.), “just (ruling)s”, that is, those made by YHWH as Sovereign; cf. the earlier occurrences in vv. 7, 13, 20, 30, 39, 43, 52, 62, 75, 84, 91.

The protagonist’s faithfulness in adhering to the instruction (hr*oT) of YHWH, comes as a result of the instruction itself. God instructs (vb hr*y`) the faithful ones on the need to (and how to) follow the instruction. The fidelity of the righteous is due, in large measure, to the assistance provided by YHWH. This, indeed, has been the focus of the protagonist’s prayer-petitions in the earlier stanzas.

Verse 103

“How [hm*] smooth are your sayings to my palate—
(more sweet) than honey to my mouth!”

The language in this couplets reflects the earlier declarations by the protagonist that the Torah of YHWH is his delight (uuv), vv. 16, 24, 47, 70, 77, 92. Here this is expressed in terms of taste. The “words” (plur. of hr*m=a!, cf. vv. 11, 38, 41, 50, 58, 67, 76, 82) of YHWH are smooth and sweet to his ‘mouth’. On the Wisdom-aspect of this idiom, see Prov 5:3; 24:13. The prefixed /m! particle at the beginning of the second line is another instance of the comparative /m! (as in vv. 99 and 100 [and possibly 98]).

The syntax of the couplet would seem to require that ;trma be vocalized as a plural form (with defective spelling), ;t#r)m=a! (“your sayings”), rather the MT singular ;t#r*m=a!.

Verse 104

“From your charges [;yd#WQP!m!] I gain understanding,
(and) for this (reason) I do hate
every pathway of falsehood!”

This concluding tricolon (2+2+2) echoes, in reverse order of emphasis, the thought of the earlier tricolon (2+2+3) in v. 101. The declaration that the protagonist hates every pathway (jr^a)) of falsehood mirrors the earlier statement that he “holds back” his feet from every evil pathway (jr&a)). Similarly, the admission that he personally gains understanding and discernment (vb /yB!) from YHWH’s Torah matches the stated purpose of “guarding” YHWH’s words. For the significance of the noun dWQP! (plur.) as a designation for the regulations, etc, of the Torah, see above on v. 100, and also vv. 93-94 in Stanza 12. The reflexive Hitpolel form of the verb /yB! was used earlier in vv. 95, 100 (cf. also the other occurrences of the verb, vv. 27, 34, 73). The noun rq#v# (“falseness, falsehood”) was used as a fundamental characteristic of the wicked, and of the passage-ways that lead one astray (from the true path of God), cf. earlier in vv. 29, 69, 78, 86.

For a very different way of explaining the apparent adverbial expression /K#-lu^ (“upon thus”, “over this”, i.e., “for this [reason]”), see Dahood, III, p. 185.

The fourteenth stanza (vv. 105-112) will be discussed in the next note.

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).

December 20: Psalm 119:89-96

Psalm 119, continued

Stanza 11 was examined in the previous note; see also the introduction to the Psalm.

Stanza 12: verses 89-96

l
Verse 89

“Into the distant (future) [<l*oul=], YHWH, (is) your word,
having taken its stand in the heaven(s)!”

This next stanza has a praise and confessional emphasis, though lament-features from earlier stanzas (see esp. Stanza 11) continue to be present (in vv. 92-95).

Here the Psalmist/protagonist praises the word (rb*D*) of YHWH, referring, certainly, to the covenant and the Torah, but also in a broader and more comprehensive sense—to the power of His creative and life-giving word, the fidelity of His promises, etc. The noun rb*D* occurs 24 times in the Psalm (most recently in v. 81), with little difference in meaning whether it is used in the singular or plural; here it occurs in the singular, but (to be sure) in a collective and comprehensive sense.

YHWH’s word lasts “into the distant (future)” (<l*oul=)—that is, forever. This means that it will be valid and trustworthy far into the future, and applies certainly to the precepts, etc, of the Torah, and to the related covenant promises. God’s word has already been established (in heaven) in the far distant past (i.e., from the time of creation, even from eternity). The verb bx^n` (in the Niphal/reflexive stem), “take one’s stand”, is used to express this; the participle suggests a continuous (durative) action or condition.

I parse this verse as a 3+2 couplet, which is the dominant meter of the Psalm, and here in Stanza 12 (all but vv. 90 and 96). Some translators and commentators (e.g., Allen, Hossfeld-Zenger) divide it differently (as an irregular 2+3 couplet), anchoring ;r=b*D= (“your word”) as the explicit subject of the second line.

Verse 90

“For cycle [rd)l=] and cycle your firmness (endures),
(just as) you fixed (the) earth and (so) it will stand.”

YHWH’s word (v. 89) is a reflection and expression of His faithfulness, which, being a fundamental Divine attribute, endures forever, even as His word does. The noun hn`Wma$ (lit. “firmness”) is a regular term for this idea of YHWH’s faithfulness—including the related concepts of trustworthiness and truthfulness, etc.—particularly with regard to the covenant He has established with His people. It was used earlier in vv. 30, 75, and 86. Parallel with the temporal expression <l*oul= (“into the distant [future]”) in v. 89, here a similar (traditional) expression, rd)w` rd)l=, “unto circle and circle”, is used. The noun rd) (“circle”) can have a temporal meaning (“cycle”), or it can refer to the ‘circle’ of people present/living (at a particular time). As it would seem that the temporal (durative) aspect is primarily in view here, I have translated the expression as “for cycle and cycle”; it could also be rendered “for generation and generation”, which would capture the second aspect (of the people involved).

In v. 89, the “firmness” of YHWH’s word was declared in relation to the heavens; here, in a similar way, it is related to the earth. These, of course, are the two main components of the cosmos— “the heavens and the earth” —which YHWH created. He has fixed each of them firmly in place (expressed here by the verb /WK, see earlier in vv. 5, 73), and they now stand (vb dm^u*, the similar verb bx^n` being used in v. 89), so as to last and endure into the distant future. The firmness of the heavens and earth thus reflects that of YHWH’s own word—indeed, they came into existence and were established through His word (Genesis 1, cf. John 1:3ff).

This verse is a 3+3 couplet, one of two verses (v. 96) that depart from the 3+2 metrical pattern.

Verse 91

“(According) to your just (ruling)s [;yf#P*v=m!l=], they stand this day—
for the(y) all (are) your (loyal) servants!”

Again the motif of standing (vb dm^u*, as in v. 90) is used here, but it is not entirely clear if the plural subject of the verb (Wdm=u*, “they have stood, they stand”) is the heavens and earth or the word(s)/faithfulness of YHWH. Both are possible, and would be entirely valid, in terms of the context of the stanza. However, it seems that the focus here in v. 91 is on the heavens and the earth, particular as the second line emphasizes how they are loyal “servants” of the Creator/King YHWH. The phrase “they stand this day” could (again) emphasize their lasting endurance—viz., “they have stood to this day”. Yet the second line suggests that the heavens and earth (i.e., “all” of creation) are standing before their Sovereign (YHWH), like dutiful and faithful servants. This ‘faithfulness’ of the natural world (to its Creator) certainly is meant to illustrate the loyalty and devotion that should similarly characterize the people (i.e., in relation to the covenant and Torah).

As with the noun rb*D* (“word”) in v. 89, the plural “just (ruling)s” (or “judgments”) refers both to the Torah and to the words/commands of YHWH (as Creator and King) in a more general and comprehensive way. For earlier occurrences of the plural of fP*v=m!, cf. vv. 7, 13, 20, 30, 39, 43, 52, 62, 75, 84.

Verse 92

“If it were not [yl@Wl] (that) your instruction (was) my delight,
surely I would have perished in my affliction!”

Here the Psalmist returns to the lament-motifs from the prior stanzas (cf. Stanza 11), though, in keeping with the overriding praise-emphasis of the stanza, the protagonist’s suffering seems to be referenced as a thing of the past (i.e., from which YHWH has delivered him). This is rather in contrast to the orientation of the previous stanza, where the protagonist is on the verge of utter despair (and exhaustion) waiting for God to answer his prayers. At the same time, the theme brought out here—viz., that the Torah was a source of strength and comfort in the midst of his suffering—was suggested in earlier stanzas (see vv. 22-23, 31, 43, 49-50, 54, 62, 70-71, 74, 81). The suffering and affliction of the protagonist is expressed (and summarized) by the traditional term yn]u(, denoting a condition of being “bent/pressed down” (yn]u*, vb hn`u* II)—cf. earlier in vv. 50, 67, 71, 75.
The Qumran manuscript 11QPsa has “in my crookedness” (ynwwub), rather than “in my (being) bent down” (yynub); that is, “in my sin”, rather than “in my affliction”.

This declaration could also contain an acknowledgement that it was the protagonist’s faithfulness to the Torah that led to his being delivered (from affliction) by YHWH, according to the promises of the covenant. Nevertheless, despite that fact that deliverance is indicated here in this verse, the following vv. 94-95 (see below) show that the protagonist (like all the righteous) still face the threat of oppression from the wicked.

Verse 93

“Into the distant (future) [<l*oul=] I will not forget your charges,
for by them you have given me life!”

As noted above, the enduring firmness of the heaven and earth (vv. 89-90) is meant to parallel the faithfulness (firmness) of God’s people—those who are loyal to the covenant and devoted to its Torah. This parallelism is reflected by the use of the same temporal-durative expression <l*oul= (“into the distant [future]”) used in v. 89. It also represents the two sides of the covenant—viz., the faithfulness of YHWH, and the corresponding faithfulness of the righteous. Just as the “firmness” of YHWH (and His word) endures far into the future (i.e., forever), so also does (with God’s help) the faithful devotion of the righteous.

Here, the protagonist’s faithfulness is expressed in negative terms, that is, as “not forgetting [vb jk^v*]” (= “remembering, keeping in mind”) the regulations and precepts of the Torah; for this same idiom, cf. earlier in vv. 16, 61, 83. As for the Torah regulations, the plural of dWQP! is used, being one of the primary such terms occurring repeatedly in the Psalm (cf. earlier in vv. 4, 15, 27, 40, 45, 56, 63, 69, 78, 87). It denotes things which a person is obligated to “take care of” (deal with, attend to), i.e., as prescribed duties. For most instances in the Psalm, I have translated the plural as “charges” (i.e., duties with which Israel has been charged by God).

The deliverance provided by YHWH (alluded to in v. 92, cf. above) has led to greater devotion to the Torah by the protagonist. This, in fact, had been the overriding focus of the earlier prayer-petitions—viz., the expressed goal and purpose of the asked-for blessing was so that the righteous protagonist might be ever more faithful to the covenant, with better understanding of the Torah precepts. I have translated the verb form yn]t*yY]j! as a true perfect, “you have given me life”, implying that the protagonist has received deliverance (healing, etc) from YHWH. On this use of the Piel of the verb hy`j*, cf. the earlier occurrences in vv. 17, 25, 37, 40, 50, 77, 88. The protagonist’s faithfulness and devotion to the Torah has led to his deliverance; at the same time, this salvation was brought about through the word of YHWH (cf. above), and according to the covenant promises He has made.

Verse 94

“To you [;l=] (indeed,) I (do belong)
—save me!
For (these) charges of yours I search out.”

The protagonist’s sudden appeal for YHWH to save him would seem to be at odds with the implied situation in vv. 92-93 (see above), viz., that he has already received deliverance from YHWH. Perhaps the thrust of the appeal here is that YHWH will continue to save him—i.e., protect his life and rescue him in the face of all current and future threats. The basis for this appeal is the expectation that YHWH will be faithful (see above) in fulfilling His covenant obligations, which include providing protection and blessing, etc, for those who remain loyal to Him (that is, to the covenant). This aspect of the covenant-bond is expressed here two ways, which together bracket the central cry of “save me!”. In this regard, the 3+2 couplet can be divided chiastically, as a 2+1+2 unit:

    • Affirmation of covenant loyalty: “To you I (do) belong”
      • Petition: “Save me!”
    • Affirmation of covenant loyalty: “For your charges I search out”

These “charges” are, as in v. 93 (using the plural of dWQP!), the regulations, etc, of the Torah, which God’s people (under the covenant) are obligated and duty-bound to fulfill. Being careful always to observe and fulfill these regulations, and to understand the precepts (i.e., to “search” them out, vb vr^D*, vv. 2, 10, 45), demonstrates that the individual truly “belongs to” YHWH, as His devoted servant (cf. the parallel role taken by heaven and earth in v. 91).

Verse 95

“For me [yl!] (the) wicked look out, (hoping) to destroy me,
(yet) your witness I will (ever) seek to understand.”

In light of the interpretation of vv. 92-93f offered above, I regard the lament-motif here—i.e., the threat posed by the wicked—as carrying a general significance. That is, the wicked regularly do this—i.e., look out (vb hn`q* I) for opportunities to destroy (lit., make perish) the righteous. This is just as true for the righteous, generally, as it is for the specific figure of the Psalm’s protagonist. The perfect form of the verb hn`q* could thus be taken as a gnomic perfect; another possibility is that the action is past, but that effects of it may continue into the present, or might recur in the future. There is certainly an expectation of hostility and opposition from the wicked.

The basic statement in the second line has been made earlier by the protagonist—viz., that even in the face of suffering and oppression, he remains faithful and devoted to the covenant. In particular, he wishes to understand the precepts and regulations of the Torah all the more. For this use of the verb /yB! (“understand, discern”) previously in the Psalm, cf. vv. 27, 34, 73; similar are occurrences of the verb j^yc! (in the senses of “meditate, converse [upon]”) in vv. 15, 23, 27, 48, 78. The Hitpolel (reflexive) form of /yB! I render in terms of the protagonist actively (and personally) “seeking to understand” the Torah; this translation provides a fitting parallel to the use of vr^D* (“search out”) in v. 94.

Verse 96

“For (with) all [lk*l=] completion I have seen (the) end—
how wide your command (is), so very (great indeed)!”

This last verse is one of the most difficult and obscure in the Psalm, as can be seen from the very different translations and interpretations (compare, for example, those of Dahood [III, p. 184], Allen [p. 174], and Hossfeld-Zenger [p. 251]), as well as occasional proposals for emending the text. As far as the text is concerned, the Qumran manuscript 11QPsa agrees with the MT.

What, exactly, is the Psalmist-protagonist saying in this couplet? It is perhaps safest to explain the verse in the immediate context of the prior v. 95—that is to say, in relation to the past (and present/future) attacks by the wicked, and, more broadly, to the difficult Wisdom-theme of the suffering of the righteous.

A key to the interpretation is the meaning and significance of the noun hl*k=T!, which occurs only here in the Scriptures. It is presumably derived from the root hlk (I), “be finished, come to an end” (cf. the use of the verb hl*K* earlier in vv. 81-82, 87, also 123). Formally, an abstract noun is indicated, “finish, end, completion”. On the surface, the declaration in line 1 seems almost tautological: “I have seen the end of all completion” (?) Possibly, the expression (or phrase) hl*k=T! lk*l= is being used in something of an adverbial sense: “I have seen the end of it all completely”. The unusual expression hl*k=T! lk*l= may have been chosen, in large part, for its poetic value; note the alliterative wordplay: l®½¹l ti½lâ. But to what, exactly, does he see an end? Again, it is simplest to interpret this in the light of the immediate context of v. 95. What he sees an end to, perhaps, is the suffering experienced by the righteous (at the hands of the wicked), and how there is a purpose to it. The purpose was indicated earlier in vv. 67, 71, 75 (and hinted at elsewhere): it is so that the righteous might become ever more faithful to the covenant (and to the Torah).

In this regard, the declaration in line 2, in which the protagonist exclaims how wide (bj*r*) and very great (da)m=) are the commands of YHWH, makes good sense. It is essentially a Wisdom-declaration, being tied back to the creation context at the beginning of the stanza (vv. 89-90). YHWH’s word created the cosmos and established all things, and this same word informs the Torah and the covenant-bond between Himself and His people. It thus works in many wonderful and mysterious ways, bringing life and understanding, even in the midst of terrible suffering and affliction. As long as one remains faithful and devoted to the covenant (and to God’s instruction), even the most severe hardship will turn out to be a blessing in the end.

Like v. 90, this verse is a 3+3 couplet.

The thirteenth stanza (vv. 97-104) will be discussed in the next note.

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).

December 19: Psalm 119:81-88

Psalm 119, continued

Stanza 10 was examined in the previous note; see also the introduction to the Psalm.

Stanza 11: verses 81-88

k
Verse 81

“It languishes [ht*l=K*] for your salvation, (does) my soul,
(yet) for your word I will (still) wait.”

Following the lament-features in the prior stanzas, this next stanza has more fully the character of a lament-Psalm. It begins with the protagonist’s declaration that his soul “fails”, nearly reaching its end, waiting for the deliverance (“salvation”) from YHWH to come. This implies a condition of suffering and distress, such as was indicated in the earlier stanzas. In the lament-Psalms, this suffering can either stem from (i) a debilitating physical ailment (i.e., sickness, disease), or (ii) the attacks of hostile/wicked adversaries; sometimes motifs from both types of scenario are included.

The verb used is hl*K*, meaning “cease, come to an end”, but sometimes also in the physiological sense of one’s bodily organs (eyes, kidneys, etc) failing. Given the immediate context of waiting (with hope), in line 2, the translation “languish” is poetically appropriate here, and is adopted by many translators and commentators. Even though the protagonist is nearly ‘finished’, with his body and soul languishing, still he waits (vb lj^y`, cf. vv. 43, 49, 74) for YHWH to act on his behalf and bring deliverance. He specifically waits for YHWH’s “word” (rb*D*), a term used regularly throughout this Psalm for the covenant and the precepts, etc, of the Torah. Here it also indicates, specifically, the promises in the Torah (i.e., promising blessing and health, etc) for those who are faithful to the covenant; in addition, the creative (life-giving) power of YHWH’s word is in view. YHWH speaks and life comes into existence (Gen 1); so also salvation and deliverance (including healing from disease) comes about by His word.

This verse is a 3+2 couplet, which is the dominant meter of the Psalm (see also vv. 83, 85 in this stanza).

Verse 82

“They fail [WlK*], do my eyes,
(looking) for your word to show—
when will you allow me to breathe?

I parse this verse as a 2-beat (2+2+2) tricolon. In so doing, I also follow Dahood (III, p. 182f) in rendering the verb rm^a* (second line) in the fundamental sense of “show” (i.e., become visible). The protagonist is watching, waiting for the word of YHWH—viz., what He has promised (in the covenant), and His live-giving (saving) word—to “show”, that is, to come true and be manifested. The noun hr*m=a! is used, which elsewhere in the Psalm I have translated as “saying”; here, for poetic concision, I render it as “word”. This is perfectly appropriate, since hr*m=a! in this Psalm (cf. earlier in vv. 11, 38, 41, 50, 58, 67, 76) is synonymous with (and essentially equivalent to) rb*D* (v. 81, etc). The protagonist’s eyes “fail”, straining as he watches so intently (and for so long); this is the same verb hl*K* that was used in v. 81 (where I translated it “languish”).

The seeming failure of YHWH to respond to the protagonist’s prayers, and to act on his behalf in his time of need, prompts him to ask (with a sense of despair) “When [yt^m*] will you bring relief?”. The actual verb is <j^n`, used earlier in vv. 52, 76 (cf. also v. 50), denoting “breathe deep, sigh, gasp/pant”, but in the positive sense of finding relief or comfort (in the midst of suffering). Here, it implies the deliverance (salvation) for which the protagonist waits so expectantly. I translate the Piel form as “allow to breathe” (i.e., to find relief).

In a minor variant reading, the Qumran manuscript 11QPsa has “my eye fails” (ynyu htlk), rather than “my eyes fail”.

Verse 83

“(See) how [yK!] I have become like a (wine)skin in (the) smoke—
(yet) your decrees I have not forgotten.”

The basic theme from vv. 81-82, of the protagonist ‘wasting away’ in his distress, even as he continues to wait (with hope) for YHWH to deliver him, continues here. The significance of the idiom “a skin-bottle/bag in the smoke” is not at all clear (see Hossfeld-Zenger, p. 275, for possible explanations, and note the very different reading proposed by Dahood [III, p. 183]). However, the comparison of protagonist, in his wretched and dilapidated condition, with a loose and empty “skin”, would perhaps be fitting. If the specific image involves a shriveled (and blackened?) skin, in the midst of the fire (“smoke”), then it becomes even more vivid. The “smoke” likely alludes, in a general way, to the suffering and distress experienced by the protagonist.

The message is the same as in v. 81 (see above). Even though the protagonist may be suffering, and waiting for relief and deliverance (from YHWH) that never seems to come, still he remains faithful to the covenant, and to the Torah of YHWH. This is expressed here negatively, with the verb jk^v* (“forget”, i.e., “I have not forgotten…”), as in vv. 16, 61.

I take the initial yK! particle as emphatic (and exclamatory): “How I…!”, directed as an appeal to YHWH, “See how I…!”. His continued faithfulness to the covenant makes it only right that he receive the promised blessing—in terms of Divine protection and deliverance (i.e., restoration to full health and life).

Instead of “I have become” (ytyyh), the Qumran manuscript 11QPsa reads “you have made me” (yntycu), emphasizing the superintending action of YHWH. The same manuscript reads “your loyal devotion” (hkdsj) instead of “your decrees” (;yQ#j%).

Verse 84

“How many [hm*K] days of your servant?
When will you (finally) make (good)
(the) judgment on (those) pursuing me?”

Like v. 82 (see above), I regard this verse as a 2+2+2 tricolon. Again the protagonist asks YHWH, “When…?” —i.e., how long will it be before YHWH acts on behalf of His faithful servant? This is expressed in the first line as “How many [lit., according to what (number of)] days of your servant?” —how many days will he continue to suffer, precious days used up in distress and waiting for deliverance?

The suffering of the protagonist in vv. 81-83 seemed to follow the scenario of physical illness/ailment; however, in this verse, he clearly refers to attacks by hostile adversaries (“[those] pursuing me”). As I noted above, both of these scenarios feature regularly in the lament-Psalms, and sometimes are even interrelated. Attacks by the wicked—particularly in terms of verbal attacks (i.e., slanderous lies, false accusations, taunts, etc)—are mentioned or alluded to in the earlier stanzas (vv. 22-23, 39, 42, 61, 69-70, 78). His prayer for deliverance includes an appeal for justice, with “judgment” being made/done by YHWH against his wicked opponents (compare the imprecatory [curse] wish in v. 78).

In some Psalms, the suffering protagonist is mocked/taunted by the wicked, with (in certain instances) the implication being that they are mocking his fidelity and trust in YHWH. Possibly a similar scenario is assumed here; if so, then the very deliverance (healing, etc) that YHWH finally brings to the protagonist would also serve as an effective judgment against the taunts, etc, of the wicked.

Verse 85

“They have dug [WrK*] for me pits, (have the) heated (one)s,
who (do) not (act) according to your instruction!”

The motif of the wicked “digging a pit”, so as to trap (and destroy) the righteous, is found in a number of Psalms with lament-features—e.g., 7:16[15]; 57:7[6]; it is often accompanied by a corresponding judgment-motif, following the lex talionis principle, that the wicked will themselves fall into the very pits that they dug (cf. also Ps 94:13; Prov 26:27). The wicked are characterized as those who do not act in accordance with the Torah—thus making a marked contrast with the righteous. They are also described as “heated (one)s” (<ydz@), an adjective (dz@, “hot”) that has been used throughout this Psalm (vv. 21, 51, 69, 78). It tends to connote a prideful/boastful arrogance; insofar as pompous boasting is involved, the English idiom of a person being “full of hot air” might be comparable. The “pits” (11QPsa, along with some mss of the MT, have singular “pit”) should be understood in terms of verbal attacks (or traps)—i.e., lies, slander, false accusations, taunts (cf. above)—a point that would seem to be clarified in v. 86.

Verse 86

“All [lK*] your commands (are made with) firmness,
(but with) falseness they pursue me—help me!”

In contrast with the words (“commands”, etc) of YHWH, those of the wicked are false; on this attribute of falseness (or falsehood), rq#v#, cf. also vv. 29, 69, 78. This may refer specifically to false accusations, slanderous lies, etc.—i.e., verbal attacks by the wicked, as noted above. By contrast, the words of YHWH are firm and sure, being always made in firmness (hn`Wma$)—indicating the fundamental Divine attribute of faithfulness, but also of truthfulness. This is part of the basic contrast between the righteous and wicked.

Verse 87

“With a little [fu^m=K!], they will have finished me on the earth,
though I have not (ever) left behind your instruction!”

The attacks of the wicked have nearly “finished” (vb hl*K*, cf. verses 81-82, above) the protagonist. If slanderous lies and accusations are principally in view, then this could be understood in the sense of finishing off his reputation, though debilitating physical (and emotional) effects, relating to the slander, might also be involved. The qualifying expression “on the earth” could allude to the possibility of the protagonist’s impending death, or, again, to the destruction of his reputation and good name. This is happening to the protagonist, even though he has not abandoned the Torah—that is, he has remained faithful to the covenant. Thus the attacks by the wicked are unjust, and the protagonist, as one of the faithful, should be able to expect help and deliverance from YHWH (though this, apparently, has yet to come). The seeming lack of an answer to his prayers is part of what causes him to languish (and waste away) in his distress.

The expression fu^m=K! means “according to a little”, i.e., “just a little bit more, and…”; this is another way of indicating that the protagonist is near to being “finished”. The Qumran manuscript 11QPsa reads “from [/m!] the earth”, rather than MT, “on/in [B=] the earth”; there may not be any real difference, as the MT can be understood as “…(from being) on the earth” (cf. Dahood, III, p. 183).

The protagonist affirms again his faithfulness to the Torah, in the negative sense of “not leaving/abandoning [vb. bz~u*]” it (v. 8, cf. also v. 53); cp. verse 83b, with the similar idiom of “not forgetting”. The noun dWQP! (plur.) is one of primary terms for the regulations, etc, of the Torah (used earlier in vv. 4, 15, 27, 40, 45, 56, 63, 69, 78). It denotes prescribed duties that one is obligated to fulfill (i.e., take care of, attend to); I have usually translated occurrences of the plural in the Psalm as “charges”, but occasionally (for clarity in the context of the verse), as here, “instructions”.

Verses 86 and 87 are both 3+3 couplets.

Verse 88

“According to your devotion [;D=s=j^K=], give me life—
(so) that I might (ever) guard (the) witness of your mouth!”

The protagonist’s final appeal is to the covenant-loyalty (ds#j#) of YHWH. He himself has been faithful to the covenant, and so he has every right to expect that YHWH will full His covenant obligations, and provide help, protection, and blessing to one of His loyal servants. As throughout the Psalm, the goal and purpose of this blessing is that the protagonist will be able to continue observing the Torah, with even greater devotion and better understanding of its precepts. The verb rm^v* (“guard”) has been used regularly (along with rx^n`, “watch [over]”) in this traditional context of Torah observance—cf. earlier in vv. 4-5, 8-9, 17, 34, 44, 55, 57, 60, 63, 67. The Torah precepts and regulations are also repeatedly referenced by the term hd*u@ (“witness,” plur.)—viz., as representing the terms of the covenant, solemnly witnessed to (by both God and the people). I have tended to translate the plural as a (collective) singular (cf. vv. 2, 22, 24, 46, 59, 79). Here the related (and synonymous) noun tWdu@ is used, in the singular (with the plural in vv. 14, 31, 36).

On the request that YHWH “give life” to the protagonist (vb hy`j*, Piel), either in the sense of restoring life or preserving it, cf. the earlier usage in vv. 17, 25, 37, 40, 50, 77. Instead of “give me life” (ynyj), the Qumran manuscript 11QPsa reads “show me favor” (ynnwj).

Metrically, this final verse is an irregular 2+3 couplet.

The twelfth stanza (vv. 89-96) will be discussed in the next note.

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).