March 2025 – Next Step Bible Study

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 129

Psalm 129

Dead Sea MSS: 11QPs^a (vv. 1-8); 4QPs^e (v. 8)

Psalm 129 is the final Song of the second group of five “Songs of Ascents” (Pss 125-129). In both structure and thematic emphasis it closely resembles Psalm 124, which has a comparable position in the first group of Songs (Pss 120-124); cf. the earlier study on Ps 124. Both Psalms deal with the idea of the deliverance of God’s people from the wicked adversaries who threaten and oppress them.

The focus is on what YHWH has done in the past, but also attests (implicitly) to the expectation that God will continue to bring deliverance to His people, so long as they remain faithful to Him (and to the covenant). This dual-aspect orientation is appropriate to the festal setting that is assumed for the collection as a whole—that is, the devout pilgrims in Jerusalem praise YHWH for all of His great saving deeds, expressing faith and hope that this Divine protection will continue.

The introduction and first stanza (vv. 1-2, 3-5) contain elements of lament, such as we typically find in the lament- and prayer-Psalms. Yet there is an equal measure of implied thanksgiving and praise to YHWH for the salvation that He brought. A shift in tone occurs with verse 5, leading into the second stanza (vv. 6-8b), as the protagonist’s prayer to YHWH becomes a curse-wish, an imprecatory call for judgment upon the wicked adversaries. This, too, is a feature that we find in a number of lament- and prayer-Psalms; indeed, there are imprecatory elements in many Psalms, where (as here) the punishment often follows the lex talionis principle (cf. the discussion in the notes below).

Commentators are generally in agreement on the bipartate structure of this Psalm. It is typically divided into two stanzas, vv. 1-4 and 5-8. However, I prefer to follow the pattern established for Psalm 124 (cf. the earlier study). An initial unit (couplet or pair of bicola, vv. 1-2) establishes the theme for the Song, which is then followed by two metrically similar stanzas (vv. 3-5, 6-8b). There is connection between the two stanzas, indicated by the comparative tone of vv. 5 and 6, and also the catchword-bonding, involving a bit of wordplay between the verbs voB and vb@y`; cf. the similar bond in Ps 124, between v. 5 and v. 7, involving the noun vp#n# (which has the dual meaning of “throat/neck” and “soul”). This is another example of the step-parallelism that we have seen in a number of the Songs.

The Psalmist speaks as an individual protagonist (“me/my”), yet the orientation is fundamentally communal, as is the case with all of the Songs of Ascent, particularly in the form in which they have come down to us. This is actually quite typical of the Psalms as whole, since the protagonist generally represents God’s people (esp. the righteous/faithful ones). Thus, the form of individual lament, with prayer for deliverance and thanksgiving, serves as a communal address to YHWH, in the context of corporate worship. The concluding blessing in v. 8c is presumably an indication of the liturgical use and application of the Song (as is the formula in v. 1a). The thematic emphasis on blessing characterizes the entire second group of Songs, as previously noted.

The reference to “Zion” in verse 5 is indicative of the Jerusalem/Zion orientation that we see throughout the Songs of Ascents. It may be evidence of redaction, though the reference could just as easily be part of the original Song, as there are numerous other Psalms with a Jerusalem/Zion emphasis. However, in the context of the Songs, YHWH’s salvation and protection of Zion is used as a way of referring to the restoration of the Land (and its people) as a whole. A post-exilic point of reference prevails for the collection, even if certain of the Songs may have originated in a pre-exilic setting.

Metrically, the first stanza of the Psalm follows the 3+2 couplet pattern established in the introduction (vv. 1-2); however, in the second stanza, we find a 3+3 meter.

For a discussion of the meaning and significance of the heading “Song of the Ascents” (tolu&M^h^ ryv!), see the earlier study on Ps 120.

Introduction: VerseS 1-2

Verse 1

“Much were they hostile to me from my youth—
(so) let Yisrael now say—”

The initial (3+2) couplet is comparable to the opening of Psalm 124 (v. 1), utilizing the same liturgical formula “(so) let Yisrael now say—”. The declaration in 124:1 (“If [it had] not [been] YHWH who was [there] for us…”) can be joined with the declaration here to express the idea of the protection and deliverance provided by YHWH for His people. The focus in Ps 124:1 was on YHWH’s protective presence, while here it is on the hostile adversaries that threaten (and attack) the people; it is YHWH’s obligation to deliver His faithful ones from such dangers. As noted above, the people are represented by an individual protagonist, possibly meant to be understood as Zion personified.

Unidentified opponents and attackers are said to have been “hostile to” (vb rr^x* II) the protagonist—a situation which has been realized for many years, since the time of the protagonist’s “youth” (“from my youth”). If Israelite history is in view, then this reference could allude to the formative period of sojourn and oppression in Egypt, out of which the covenant people of YHWH emerged. The hostility has continued for a long time, with many incidents and periods of affliction; this is all summarized under the initial adjective br^ (“much”, fem. tB^r^).

Verse 2

“much were they hostile to me from my youth,
yet they were not able to (overcome) me!”

The repetition of the declaration from verse 1 (cp. Ps 124:1-2), here qualifies it, in dramatic fashion. In spite of the repeated and prolonged hostility from these (unnamed) adversaries, they were not able to defeat the protagonist. This presumably needs to be understood in an absolute and final sense, since the Israelite/Judean people suffered many defeats from hostile adversaries and foreign enemies during their history. Another line of interpretation would explain this statement in terms of the absolute protection that YHWH provides for His people, so long as they remain faithful to Him. That is, the protection prevails specifically for the righteous/faithful ones, who are represented here (as often in the Psalms) by the protagonist.

Stanza 1: Verses 3-5

Verse 3

“Upon my back, (the one)s plowing plowed,
(and) made long their furrows.”

The agricultural imagery that features prominently in the second stanza (cf. below) is introduced here in the first, as a way of depicting figuratively (but graphically and vividly) the attacks and oppression of the wicked upon the righteous (i.e., the protagonist as representative of the [righteous] people of God). Their hostile (and violent) attacks are compared with the act of men plowing the land, digging their tools into the ground (the root vr^j* [I] fundamentally means “cut in”). The Qumran manuscript 11QPs^a, followed by the LXX, reads “(the) wicked” (plur., <yuvr), rather than “(one)s plowing” (<yvrj); however, most commentators prefer the MT. Yet, there can be no doubt that the hostile adversaries are to be identified and characterized as wicked.

The severity and intensity of the attacks is indicated in the second line by the image of digging long furrows. The noun hn`u&m^ occurs only here (and 1 Sam 14:14). Its meaning can be determined by the context, but also by the cognate words ‘nt in Ugaritic and ma‘nātu in Arabic. The LXX and Syriac version apparently did not understand the word, and either related it to /wu (in the sense of “iniquity”) or hwnu (“submission”); cf. Allen, p. 246. The noun hn`u&m^ is locative, from the root hnu I, and properly refers to the place, at the end of the row, where one turns around the plow.

In this comparative imagery, the ‘ground’ in which the digging/cutting is done is identified as the “back” of the protagonist, suggesting a severe act of violence.

Verse 4

“(Yet) YHWH (is) right, (and) has cut (through)
(the) rope of (the) wicked (plowmen)!”

There is a bit of conceptual wordplay between the idea of cutting (i.e., digging/plowing) into the ground (vb vr^j* I) and cutting through (vb Jx^q*), i.e., severing, the “rope” used by the wicked to harness their ‘plow’ (that is, to the yoke-animal[s]). By severing this rope, the plow is made ineffective, and so the wicked are not able to continue their violent act of ‘plowing’ (i.e., digging/cutting into the “back” of the righteous). Thus, they are not able to prevail over the righteous (cf. the wording in v. 2, above).

This action by YHWH is a reflection of His character as qyD!x*—a fundamental attribute of God. The basic meaning of qyD!x* is “right”, but it can also mean “righteous”, in an ethical-religious context, or “just, lawful” in a legal context, or even “faithful, loyal”, in the context of the covenant. All of these aspects and nuances of meaning apply, though here it is perhaps the latter (viz., covenant loyalty) that is primarily in view. The protection and deliverance that YHWH provides for His people fundamentally reflects His loyalty to the covenant bond.

I parse this verse as another 3+2 couplet; however, it is possible to divide it as an irregular 2+3 couplet, which many commentators seem to prefer:

“(Yet) YHWH (is) right,
(and) has cut (the) rope of (the) wicked”

Verse 5

“(So) may they be put to shame and turned back—
all (those) showing hatred of Ṣiyyôn!”

Another bit of conceptual wordplay is involved here, between the verb gWs (“go back”, along with the adverb roja*, “behind, [to the] back”) and the noun hn`u&m^ (v. 3) as denoting the place where one “turns back” the plow. Thus, the punishment of the wicked by YHWH reflects their evil action—as they “turn back (i.e., around)” the plow at the end of each row to continue ‘digging’, so YHWH will make them “turn back” for good, in shame, being forced to cease their attacks. This shift in tone (i.e., an imprecatory curse-wish by the protagonist) serves as an effective transition to the second stanza, where this language dominates. The imperfect verb forms in vv. 5-6 should be read as jussives with precative (imprectory) force.

The hostility of the wicked toward the righteous protagonist is here described as “hatred of Zion”, indicating, again, how the protagonist represents the people (righteous ones) as a whole. The city of Jerusalem (Zion), the holy city of God, also—and especially in these Songs—serves to represent the land and people as a whole.

Stanza 2: Verses 6-8b

Verse 6

“May they come to be as the grass on rooftops,
which, before (one) pulls (it), has withered,”

The second stanza consists of an imprecatory curse-wish (i.e., punishment from YHWH upon the wicked) that essentially expounds and develops the wish in v. 5 (see above). It utilizes agricultural imagery comparable to that of vv. 3ff, so as to make the punishment fit the crime. That is to say, the punishment matches, in a certain sense, the actions taken by the wicked, according to the lex talionis legal principle of judgment. Such a principle governs many of the imprecatory sections in the Psalms—the evil conduct of the wicked comes back upon them, in the form of a judgment that resembles their own behavior.

Here the image is that of grass that grows in the dirt upon the flat rooftop (gG`) of a house. In such a setting, because there is little depth to the soil, the grass withers quickly and dies (cp. Mark 3:5-6 par). Cf. the same basic imagery in 2 Kings 19:26.

There are a number of different ways that commentators understand and translate the second line. Based on the aforementioned parallel in 2 Kings 19:26, some are inclined to emend the verb [l^v* (“pull out”) here to [d^v* (“scorch”, i.e., dry out with heat). While this makes for a consistent image, it is somewhat incompatible with overall thematic imagery in the stanza as a whole (cf. below). In order to retain the MT, but to make the verb [l^v* better fit the context (and grammar) of the verse, it is given the meaning “draw up” (i.e., grow up). However, the basic meaning of [l^v*, in this context, clearly is “pull out” (i.e., pluck, harvest). Dahood (III, p. 232) would repoint [lv here as a participle ([l@v), “[one] pulling out, [one] plucking”), along with the preposition hm*d=q^ (“before, in front of”) understood in a spatial sense:

“which, in front of (the one) pulling (it), has withered”

The treatment by Hossfeld-Zenger (p. 407) seems to me much preferable; they render the verb form [l^v* impersonally, “(one) pulls (it) out” (i.e., “it is pulled out”), with the preposition hm*d=q^ understood temporally. I have followed this approach:

“which, before (one) pulls (it) out, has withered”

As noted in the Introduction to the Psalm above, there is a bit of wordplay between vv. 5 and 6, with the imperfect form of the verb voB (“be put to shame”), Wvb)y@ (y¢»œšû) in v. 5 resembling the form of the verb vb@y` (y¹»¢š, “dry up, wither”), in v. 6.

Verse 7

“which cannot fill his palm, the (one) cutting,
or his lap, the (one) gathering sheaves,”

The imagery from verse 6 is extended here, from the rooftops to the wider (agricultural) setting of the fields which are plowed, etc (cf. verse 3). Because the grain (= grass, v. 6) withers and dies early, there is virtually nothing to harvest. The one coming to cut down the stalks of grain can barely find enough to fill the palm of his hand, and the one gathering up (and then binding) the sheaves of grain has nothing to carry. The second line is a bit difficult to translate. The noun /x#j@ (= /x#j)) denotes the receiving of something, which one takes in and guards/treats with care (cf. Akkadian ḫaṣānu, and the noun ḫiṣnu, “protection”). The cognate verb in Arabic (and Ethiopic), ḥaḍama, can specifically mean “carry in one’s arms”, which is presumably the basic action indicated here. The only other occurrences of the noun are in Isa 49:22 and Neh 5:13 (cf. also Prov 30:4); the context suggests that one’s “bosom” or “lap” is basically intended, possibly even the ‘fold’ of one’s garment. For poetic concision, I have translated /x#j) here as “lap”.

Verse 8ab

“and they do not say, the (one)s passing by,
‘(The) blessing of YHWH (be) to you!'”

The parallel in Ruth 2:4 suggests that the concluding couplet contains a traditional greeting given to those engaged in the harvest. Since, in the judgment-scenario depicted here in vv. 6-8b, there is no harvest (for the wicked), those who pass by have no occasion to offer this blessing in greeting. The implication is that the judgment that comes upon the wicked is a curse, and not a blessing, from YHWH. For the covenant-setting of such blessings and curses, see esp. Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. For the wicked, ultimately there is no blessing.

Conclusion: Verse 8c

“We bless you in (the) name of YHWH!”

By contrast, the righteous are blessed by YHWH, and are able to receive blessings (in YHWH’s name) from others. While this concluding line fits well with the preceding couplet, it is best treated separately, as a concluding declaration of blessing. It has a liturgical function, comparable to the initial formula “let Israel now say” in v. 1.

Blessing is a thematic emphasis that runs throughout the second group of Songs; see esp. the conclusion of the previous Psalm 128 (v. 5f). It is tied to the site/city of Zion, as being under the protection and care of YHWH. In this regard, as previously noted, Zion represents the land and people as a whole. Insofar as the people are faithful to YHWH, they will be under His covenant protection, and will experience blessings within the protected ‘space’ of “Zion”, secure and having been delivered from all enemies and adversaries.

Studies on the Spirit: The Spirit and the Death/Resurrection of Jesus (Study 3)

Study 3: The Role of the Spirit in the Baptism of Jesus

In our examination of the Holy Spirit in relation to the death and resurrection of Jesus, we are first considering the role of the Spirit in the earthly life and ministry of Jesus, as recorded in the Gospel accounts. In doing so, we have begun with the Baptism of Jesus, in which the Spirit features prominently. After our initial exploration (Study 1), we are now looking at the role of the Spirit in the Baptism, according to three topics:

1. The Relation of the Baptism of Jesus to John the Baptist’s ministry
2. The version of the Baptism tradition in the Gospel of John
3. The Baptism episode as the Introduction to the narrative of Jesus’ ministry (in the Synoptic Gospels)

The first of these topics was discussed in the previous study (Study 2), while the final two are addressed here in Study 3.

2. The Baptism tradition in the Gospel of John

The Gospel of John follows the broader Gospel Tradition in the way it begins the narrative with a description of John’s ministry (1:19-28), relating to his Messianic identity, followed by an account of his baptism of Jesus (1:29-34). This, however, is done in such a way as to reflect both: (1) a distinctive Johannine line of tradition (in contrast to the Synoptic), and (2) specific interests and concerns of the Gospel writer (and his Community).

It is difficult to say for certain how much of the description of the Baptism in vv. 29-34 is distinctively Johannine. A better case can be made for the preceding episode (vv. 19-28), involving the testimony of John the Baptist with regard to his Messianic identity, as preserving a coherent piece of Johannine Tradition. However, in both episodes, the special theological (and Christological) concern of the author is clear—in that the purpose of the narrative is to bring out (and enhance) the contrast between John the Baptist and Jesus. This emphasis was already established in the Gospel Prologue (vv. 1-18), by the comparative references to the Baptist that punctuate the poetic/hymnic text at key points (vv. 6-8 and 15 [cf. 30]). Moreover, such a contrast serves as a thematic point of emphasis that structures the entirety of chapters 1-3.

At the same time, this very contrast is rooted in the early Gospel Tradition, and the authentic historical tradition, regarding the testimony of John the Baptist (and his baptizing ministry) in relation to the person of Jesus Christ (and his Messianic identity). We saw this quite clearly in the tradition of Mk 1:7-8 par, the two sayings by the Baptist that are joined together, and by the distinctive features of Jesus’ Baptism—(i) the descent of the Spirit, and (ii) and the declaration of Sonship by the Divine voice from heaven. All of these elements are included in the Johannine account, but are adapted to the distinctive literary and theological contours of the narrative.

John’s version of the sayings in Mk 1:7-8 par generally follows that of Matthew-Luke, in the way that the saying in v. 7 is contained (grammatically) within the context of v. 8:

“I dunk you in water; (but) in the midst of you has stood (one) whom you have not seen [i.e., known/recognized], the (one) coming in back of me…” (Jn 1:26-27)

The portion in gray is a Johannine ‘addition’, that is not included in the Synoptic version(s) of the tradition. It is essentially repeated by the Baptist in v. 31.

In the Johannine narrative, the saying(s) by the Baptist in vv. 26-27 are part of his response to questions regarding his Messianic identity (vv. 19ff), posed to him by a delegation from the authorities in Jerusalem (cp. the question regarding John’s identity in Luke 3:15). He explicitly denies being: (a) “the Anointed One”, (b) “Elijah”, and (c) “the Prophet”. The first of these designations (o( Xristo/$) probably refers to the Royal/Davidic Messiah; this seems to be how the Gospel writer understands it, even though a Messianic Prophet is more compatible with the character and ministry of the Baptist. The last two designations are certainly Prophet-figures: “Elijah” and “the Prophet”, which most likely is a reference to the “Prophet like Moses” who is to come (Deut 18:15-18). John explicitly denies being any of these Messianic figure-types, implying that they are to be fulfilled by another (Jesus); his denial of being “Elijah” is in marked contrast with other parts of the Gospel Tradition, preserved in the Synoptics (cf. the discussion in Study 1). In the remainder of the episodes in chapter 1—the three “days” of vv. 29-34, 35-42, 43-51—several Messianic titles and designations are applied specifically to Jesus (cf. in vv. 34, 41, 49, note also the reference in v. 45).

Interestingly, the concluding portion of the saying of the Baptist (1:26-27; cf. Mk 1:7-8 par) is not presented until the account of the Baptism itself (v. 33): “…this is the (one) dunking in (the) holy Spirit!” The entire Baptism account is given indirectly, as testimony by John the Baptist, in accordance with the important Johannine emphasis established in the Prologue (vv. 6-8, 15). The content of the sayings (vv. 26-27) is essentially adapted and expounded within this context, being presented as port of the testimony and account of the Baptism; note:

- “This is the (one) over whom I said ‘a man comes in back of me…'” (v. 30) |
  “the (one) coming in back of me”
- “And I had not seen [i.e., recognized] him…” (v. 31) |
  “in the midst of you has stood (one) whom you have not seen”
- “…having sent me to dunk in water” (v. 33) |
  “I dunk you in water…”

These echoes of the sayings prepare for their conclusion in verse 33, by which they are clearly applied to the person of Jesus, in the context of his Baptism. Indeed, the conclusion of the saying is set in parallel with the account of the coming of the Spirit upon Jesus:

- “I looked upon the Spirit stepping [i.e. coming] down as a dove out of heaven…” (v. 32)
- “…the (one) upon whom you should see the Spirit stepping down…”
- “…this is the (one) dunking in (the) holy Spirit!” (v. 33)

In this regard, the presentation of the Baptism account as the testimony of John the Baptist represents a complex adaptation of the Tradition to the interests of the Johannine theology. Note how the account begins with an emphasis on the Baptist’s witness, and then concludes with a declaration of God’s own words to him (par. to the tradition of the Divine voice from heaven):

And Yohanan gave witness [e)martu/rhsen], saying: “I looked upon the Spirit stepping down as a dove out of heaven and remaining on him. And I had not seen [i.e., recognized] him; but, the (One hav)ing sent me to dunk in water, that (One) said to me, ‘Upon whomever you should see the Spirit stepping down and remaining upon him—this is the (one) dunking in (the) holy Spirit!'” (vv. 32-33)

Finally, the actual declaration by the Divine/heavenly voice in the Baptism tradition (Mk 1:8 par) is, in the Johannine version, presented as a declaration by the Baptist (i.e., his witness):

“And I have seen and have given witness that this (one) is the Son of God!” (v. 34)
In a few manuscripts and versional witnesses, the text reads e)klekto/$ (“[one] gathered out”, “chosen [one]”), rather than ui(o/$ (“son”). As previously discussed, this designation e)klekto/$ has Messianic signficance, and its parallel here with the title “Son” (ui(o/$, cp. Lk 9:35 par) confirms the fact that, within the Gospel Tradition, this Divine Sonship of Jesus must be understood primarily in a Messianic sense.

Three other details in the Baptism account represent Johannine theological additions or adaptations of the Tradition. First, is the use of the verb katabai/nw (“step down”). The same verb is used to describe the Spirit’s descent upon Jesus in the Synoptics, but both katabai/nw and the parallel/related a)nabai/nw (“step up”) have special theological (and Christological) meaning in the Gospel of John. Note the first key usage in the “Son of Man” saying in 1:51; it is foreshadowed by the occurrence of the verb katabai/nw here in the Baptism account. Second, is the added reference to the Spirit remaining (vb me/nw) upon Jesus (vv. 32-33), which does not occur in the Synoptic versions, though the idea is, I believe, understood and assumed by those authors (a point to be discussed in the next study). The verb me/nw (“remain, abide”) is another common word which has special (and profound) theological importance in the Johannine Writings (Gospel and Letters). It ultimately refers to the abiding presence of God, and it applies both to the relationship between Father and Son (Jesus), and to the relationship between the Son (and the Father) and believers. This abiding union is realized through the presence of the Spirit—a theological point that is first mentioned (by way of allusion and foreshadowing) in the Baptism account.

Finally, third, we have the important saying by the Baptist in v. 30 (presented earlier in the Prologue, v. 15), in which, it seems, an early bit of Baptist-tradition (cp. the saying of vv. 26-27) has been cast thoroughly in Johannine theological terms:

“In back of me comes a man who has come to be in front of me, (in) that he was (the) first of me.”

The Johannine use of the verbs e&rxomai (“come”), gi/nomai (“come to be”), and the verb of being (“was,” h@n), refer and allude, in turn, to: (i) the earthly ministry of Jesus (“[a man] comes”), (ii) the incarnation of the Son in the person of Jesus (“has come to be [born]”, cf. verse 14), and (iii) the Divine pre-existence of the Son (“was”, see vv. 1-2, 4, etc). Thus, in the Baptism account, and through the Baptist’s testimony, it is signified that Jesus is something more than the Messiah—he is also the pre-existent Son of God, who was sent to earth (from heaven) by God the Father. This Christological point is further signified by the coming of the Spirit upon Jesus and remaining upon him.

This distinctively Johannine theological and Christological understanding of the Spirit will be discussed further as we proceed with our studies.

3. The Baptism episode as the Introduction to the narrative of Jesus’ ministry

As we have seen and discussed, the presence of the Spirit upon Jesus at his Baptism, according to the Gospel Tradition, fundamentally (and primarily) indicates Jesus’ Messianic identity—as the Messianic Prophet, but also as the Royal/Davidic Messiah. We must now consider how this theme of the presence of the Spirit, established in the Baptism scene (and in light of the Baptist’s saying in Mk 1:8 par), is applied and expounded throughout the Gospel narrative. This we will do extensively in the next study (Study 4), but it is worth giving initial consideration to the subject here at the close of the current study.

The first point worth noting is that there are relatively few references to the Spirit in the Synoptic Gospels. Following the Baptism scene, there are just four in the remainder of the Gospel of Mark, with corresponding parallels in Matthew-Luke, and an additional “Q” saying (Matt 12:32 par, cf. v. 31 par). There are four further references to the Spirit in Matthew, two of which occur in the Infancy narrative (1:18, 20), and one at the very close of the Gospel (28:19); only the reference in 12:28 (“Q”, cf. the context of vv. 31-32) occurs in the main narrative. Even in the Gospel of Luke, outside of the Infancy narrative, there are surprisingly few references, in spite of the thematic importance of the Spirit for the two-volume work of Luke-Acts as a whole.

However, it is in the Lukan Gospel that we find the clearest expression of how the presence of the Spirit on Jesus was understood within the Gospel Tradition. We begin with the bit of tradition that is stated briefly by the Markan author, of how, immediately after the Baptism of Jesus (1:9-11)—

“…the Spirit cast him out into the desolate (land)” (v. 12)

Thus, under the guidance and authority of the Spirit, Jesus is thrust into the desert/wilderness, where it is said that “he was being tested by the Satan” and was out in the open “with the wild animals” (v. 13). After this time of testing in the wilderness (a traditional period of forty days), Jesus embarks upon his public ministry (vv. 15-28). The significance of this wilderness/testing tradition will be discussed in the next study. Here, it is most important to note the way that the Lukan author understands and develops this tradition. There are three main thematic and structural components to this tradition:

- The Spirit impelling Jesus out into the desolate region
- The time of his being testing by the Satan/Devil
- His return, to begin his ministry (in Galilee)

Notice how the Lukan author develops these components, within a framework that gives greater emphasis to the presence and role of the Spirit. First, there is the Lukan version of the notice in Mk 1:12:

“And Yeshua, full of (the) holy Spirit, turned back from the Yarden, and was led in/by the Spirit in(to) the desolate (land)” (4:1)

These two phrases, of being “full of [i.e., filled by] the Spirit” and being (led) “in the Spirit”, are used repeatedly by the Lukan author, particularly in the book of Acts, where the terminology describes the activity of the Spirit in and among the early believers during their (apostolic) mission. Within the Lukan narrative framework, Jesus serves as the type-pattern for this role of the Spirit in the early Christian mission.

The second development of the tradition comes by way of the author’s use of the Temptation scene in vv. 2-13 (“Q” material, shared by Matthew, 4:2-12), expounding upon the brief notice in Mk 1:12-13. The Lukan version rather clearly implies that Jesus endures the testing, and is victorious over the Devil’s efforts, due to the presence and power of the Spirit that is on him (and in him). And, finally, upon his return from the testing, we read:

“And Yeshua turned back, in the power of the Spirit, (coming) into the Galîl.” (v. 14)

Again, we find specified what is only implied in the Markan narrative—viz., that Jesus begins his public ministry under the power and guidance of the Spirit.

This thematic detail is further expounded in the episode which the Lukan author uses to introduce/begin the narrative of Jesus’ ministry (viz., the Galilean period of ministry)—the episode at Nazareth (vv. 16-30, cf. Mark 6:1-6a par). The short notice in vv. 14b-15 (cf. Mk 1:21, 28) sets the stage for this scene, in which the Scripture of Isaiah 61:1ff, treated as a Messianic prophecy, holds central place. For the Lukan author, and, we may assume, for many other early believers, Isa 61:1ff was a central text in support of Jesus’ Messianic identity (cf. its use in 7:18-23 [“Q” material, par Matt 11:1-6]). By presenting this prophecy (vv. 17-19) in the immediate context of Jesus’ Baptism (and the Spirit-references of vv. 1, 14, cf. above), the Lukan author quite clearly evinces the belief that this prophecy was fulfilled at the Baptism (in which Jesus was ‘anointed’ by the Spirit of God) and then with the beginning of his public ministry (as the Messiah)—cf. the specific statement by Jesus in v. 21.

It is equally clear that Jesus’ Messianic identity, in relation to Isa 61:1ff, is Prophetic—that is to say, he is identified as the Messianic Prophet. We have already discussed how this was established in the Baptism scene, and that the primary significance of both the coming of the Spirit upon Jesus, and the declaration of Sonship from heaven, is Messianic. This same understanding of Isa 61:1ff is confirmed by what follows in vv. 23-27, where Jesus identifies himself as a Prophet (v. 24), and specifically connects himself with the figure of Elijah (vv. 25-27).

Actually, the prophecy of Isa 61:1ff would seem to combine two distinct manifestations of inspired (Anointed) prophetic activity, which correspond to the two main aspects of Jesus’ own ministry (esp. in the Galilean Period): (1) the proclamation of “good news” from God, and (2) the performance of healing (and exorcism) miracles. These two aspects of Jesus’ ministry are established quite clearly in the Synoptic Tradition, beginning with the proclamation of “good news” (Mk 1:14-15 par), and then the performance of healing/exorcism miracles (Mk 1:23-27ff par). In Luke’s version, these narratives and notices follow the Nazareth scene, vv. 31-36ff, 43. At the same time, the Lukan author gives greater emphasis to the role of teaching by Jesus (vv. 15-16, etc), developing the point of tradition noted in Mk 1:21-22 par).

It may be said that these two aspects—preaching/teaching and performance of signs/miracles—represent the principal characteristics of the Moses and Elijah figure-types, respectively. This will be discussed further in the next study (Study 4), but here we may posit that, in fulfilling the Anointed Prophet-figure of Isaiah 61:1ff, Jesus also combines in himself the two Messianic Prophet-figures of Moses and Elijah. This was established at the Baptism, at the beginning of the Galilean Period of his ministry, and is confirmed in the Transfiguration scene (Lk 9:28-36 par, vv. 30ff) at the end of this same Period.

The Anointed Prophet-figure of Isa 61:1ff is related, at least conceptually, to the “Servant of YHWH” figure that features in a number of the poems in deutero-Isaiah (esp. 42:1-4; 49:1-6; 50:4-9; and 52:13-53:12). Most notable is 42:1-4, in which the Spirit comes down upon the Servant-figure, much as it does in 61:1ff (cf. also 11:2ff). We have already noted how the Divine/heavenly voice at the Baptism alludes to Isa 42:1ff, and that Luke understands 61:1ff in a similar way, applying it to Jesus’ Baptism (and his Messianic identity). In the Gospel of Matthew, Isa 42:1ff is used in a manner comparable to the Lukan use of 61:1ff. The Matthean author quotes Isa 42:1-3 at 12:17-21, mid-way through his narrative of the Galilean Period of Jesus ministry, but (notably) immediately prior to the key Spirit-references in 12:28, 31-32. We will discuss these, along with the other Synoptic Spirit-references, in our next study.

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 128

Psalm 128

Dead Sea MSS: 1QPs^b (v. 3); 11QPs^a (vv. 3-6)

Psalm 128 is the fourth Song of the second group of five “Songs of Ascents” (Pss 125-129). In many ways, it serves as a complement to the prior Psalm 127 (cf. the previous study). Indeed, the two Psalms, taken together, form a kind of diptych—a two-paneled presentation, with a certain mirror-structure. This is achieved primarily through verses 5-6, in which the implicit allusions to Zion/Jerusalem at the beginning of Ps 127 (v. 1) are made explicit at the conclusion of Ps 128. Similarly, the blessings promised to God’s people (the faithful/righteous) in Ps 127—enjoying the produce from one’s labor (v. 2), and fruitfulness in the form of children (spec. sons, vv. 3-5)—are also present in the body of Ps 128 (cf. the notes below). The thematic emphasis on blessing characterizes the entire second group of five Songs.

Nearly all commentators recognize verses 5-6 as redactional (cf. Crow, pp. 74-6), having most likely been added to an existing Wisdom poem (or set of verses), presumably when the collection of Songs was made. At the same time, the redactor-Psalmist also could have formed the poem (vv. 1-4) itself out of traditional material. The structure, in this regard, is simple and clear. The poem is framed by beatitude or blessing formulae in vv. 1 and 4. The nature of the blessing is described by the three couplets in vv. 2-3. The meter of the Song formed by this poem is consistent, being comprised of five 3+2 couplets.

The conclusion of the Psalm, which evinces a somewhat different rhythm/meter, also takes the form of a blessing, with a certain inclusio of its own (vv. 5a and 6b). Its emphasis associating the blessing with the city of Jerusalem (Zion) is in keeping with the interests of the collection as a whole. However, this thematic addition (or adaptation) is of genuine theological and religious significance for the Psalm, in the context of the collection. This becomes particularly clear when one considers Psalm 128 in relation to Ps 127 (cf. above).

The protection which YHWH provides to Zion enables the people within the city to prosper and flourish. In this context, Jerusalem/Zion represents and symbolizes the land (and its people) as a whole. It has been restored by YHWH (cf. the “building” motif in 127:1a), and is now under His protection (“guarding” motif, 127:1b), allowing the people to repel enemies from its walls and gates (127:5b). It is within this protected ‘space’ that the people experience the blessings of YHWH as they live and work, establishing families and raising children.

For a discussion of the meaning and significance of the heading “Song of the Ascents” (tolu&M^h^ ryv!), see the earlier study on Ps 120.

The Poem: VerseS 1-4

Verse 1

“Happiness of every (one) fearing YHWH,
the (one) walking in His ways!”

The initial (3+2) couplet is a beatitude, matching that of 127:5a (cf. the previous study). This is another example of the diptych framework and mirrored-structure of Pss 127 and 128, taken together (see the discussion in the introduction above). On this beatitude formula, introduced by the construct yr@v=a^, which functions as an exclamation or interjection (“[Oh, the] happiness of…!”, i.e., “How happy is…!”), see my earlier article (from the series on the Beatitudes of Jesus). Here, the beatitude has a Wisdom-emphasis similar to that of Psalm 1:1 (cf. the study on Ps 1).

The attributes of fearing YHWH (verbal adjective ar@y`) and walking (vb El^h*) in His ways/paths (Er#D#, plur.) are traditional characteristics of the righteous; they feature frequently in the Wisdom literature, and also in the Psalms (where Wisdom influence is frequently present). From an ethical-religious standpoint, “walking” in the paths of YHWH means fulfilling the duties of the covenant—viz., obeying the precepts and regulations of the Torah. Psalm 119 deals extensively with this traditional application of the walking-motif; cf. the recent study and notes on Ps 119. Blessings come as a result of fulfilling the terms of the covenant (i.e., obedience to the Torah), while, by contrast, curses come as a result of disobedience—see esp. Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28.

Verse 2

“(The) labor of your palms, indeed you shall eat—
(to) your happiness, and good for you!”

Here the blessing (note the repetition of the yr@v=a^ form in line 2) is described, in concrete and practical terms, much as it is in Psalm 127:2-5a (cf. above). Specifically, reference is to enjoying the work of one’s hands (“palms”)—principally, the food that it produces. The noun u^yg]y+ denotes work that is wearisome—i.e., hard work/labor that causes one to become tired and weary. In Ps 127:2, the noun bx#u# (plur., “pains”) was used to express something of the same idea. Agricultural work may be primarily in view, but all manual labor and work can be seen as producing food to eat. This blessing involves more than the sustenance of life; it implies that the food one eats will be enjoyed—for one’s good and happiness.

The particle yK! in the first line is best understood as emphatic, as a number of commentators recognize (Dahood, III, p. 228; Allen, p. 242, etc.). It is absent in (or untranslated by) the LXX, even as also in v. 4a (cf. below).

Verse 3a

“Your wife (will be) like a vine bearing fruit,
in (the) inner ‘thighs’ of your house.”

The blessing of fruitfulness of the field, etc, producing food to eat (v. 2), is matched here by fruitfulness in the house—viz., of bearing children. The woman (wife) is like the field (spec. a vine) that bears fruit. The verbal adjective (participle) hY`r!P) (“bearing fruit”) indicates both the action and the characteristic of fruitfulness. This particular form of the participle preserves the final consonant (y) of the root yrp, rather than the usual contracted form hr*P). Dahood (III, p. 228) suggests that this was for metrical reasons, to produce a 3+2 couplet with a syllable count of 9:7, matching that of the following verse.

The noun Er@y` (fem. hk*r=y~) can simply mean “side” (Exod 40:22, etc), but also has the concrete meaning (in the dual) of “inner thighs”, “loins”. Both meanings are clearly present here, with some conceptual wordplay between the ‘inner parts’ of the house and the thighs/loins of the woman. The latter aspect is important to preserve, along with its sexual associations—both in terms of beauty (and sexual appeal) and fertility (childbearing). Cf. the terminology in Num 5:21ff and Song 7:2[1].

Verse 3b

“Your sons (will be) like shoots of olive trees
surrounding for your (table) spread.”

If the wife is compared with a fruit-bearing vine (v. 3a), the children are here compared with the shoots (lyt!v=, plur.) of an olive tree. The significance of the metaphor involves the sprouting of new shoots out of a tree that has been cut down (i.e., died); cf. the discussion in Hossfeld-Zenger, pp. 401-3. The children (esp. sons) continue the family line. This familial emphasis is indicated here by the table spread (/j*l=v%)—that is, the cloth/hide spread on the floor for eating/dining—which matches the “house” image in 3a. On the special importance of children (sons) as a blessing from YHWH, cf. the second stanza of Ps 127 (vv. 3-5a) in the previous study.

Verse 4

“See—surely indeed will he be blessed,
(the) strong (one) fearing YHWH!”

This blessing (which concludes the poem), corresponds to the initial beatitude of v. 1 (see above). The blessings described (and promised) in vv. 2-3 are for the righteous—those who fear YHWH (same verbal adjective [ar@y`] used in v. 1).

The combination of the particle yK! plus the adverb /K@ is a bit unusual, as many commentators have noted (and have attempted to explain, cf. Crow, p. 73, etc). It is probably best regarded as being added for emphasis—i.e., “surely indeed…”. The adverb /K@ derives from a root (/WK) denoting firmness, often in the sense of something being sure, certain, trustworthy, etc. For a very different explanation of /K@ here (as a Divine appellative), cf. Dahood, III, p. 229.

The noun rb#G#, which denotes “strong (one)”, often simply means “man” —that is a strong and vigorous male, in the prime of his life. Cf. the same noun, along with the related noun roBG] (connoting a warrior), in Ps 127:4-5. This is another point of relation between Pss 127 and 128.

Benediction: Verses 5-6

Verse 5a

“May YHWH (indeed) bless you from ‚iyyôn!”

These final lines are likely redactional, having been added to the poem of vv. 1-4, presumably at the time that the collection of Songs was made. The Jerusalem/Zion emphasis is otherwise absent from the Wisdom verses of the poem, even as it is from the bulk of Psalm 127 (vv. 2-5a). However, it does serve as a matching complement to the initial couplets of Ps 127 (v. 1), with motifs of the building the “house” and guarding the city functioning as allusions to Jerusalem—and specifically as a symbol of the restoration of the land (and its people) as a whole. This is a key thematic emphasis of the collection, and its addition at the end of the Psalm (and Pss 127-128 taken together) helps to further that emphasis.

Verse 5b-6a

“And may you look on (the) good of Yerušalaim
all (the) days of your life—
and may you see (the) sons of your sons!”

The benediction has an inclusio structure, even as the poem does, with the initial blessing of v. 5a matching the final wish for peace in v. 6b. It is possible to parse vv. 5b-6 as a pair of 3+2 couplets, which would match the meter of the poem; however, it seems better to treat vv. 5b-6a as a chiastic 3+2+3 tricolon. This tricolon is framed by lines with the formula “and may you see/look (on)…”, utilizing an imperative of the verb ha*r* (“see”). In my view, the imperatives have the same force and orientation as the jussive form of the primary blessing of v. 5a. However, it is possible to read the prefixed w-conjunction here in lines 1 & 3 as indicating purpose or result (i.e., “so that…”).

The blessing entails that the individual (understood as the male head of the house/family) will live long enough to see both the prosperity of Jerusalem/Zion and of his own family line (i.e., grandchildren, “sons of [lit. belonging to] your sons”). As noted above, Jerusalem/Zion represents and symbolizes the land and people as a whole, and thus its prosperity is that of the entire land/people. However, there is doubtless a specific blessing intended for the city itself, the capital city of the restored nation. Most significant, from the standpoint of the Songs, is the way that the blessing/prosperity of the people (viz., the righteous) is connected with the blessings and peace of Zion.

Verse 6b

“Peace (be) upon Yisrael!”

This short 2-beat line concludes the benediction, and the Psalm itself. It matches the initial blessing of v. 5a, as noted above. The parallel of Zion/Israel also confirms the point made in the preceding note—that Jerusalem/Zion fundamentally represents the land and people as a whole (“Israel”).

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).
Those marked “Crow” are to Loren D. Crow, The Songs of Ascents (Psalms 120-134): Their Place in Israelite History and Religion. SBL Dissertation Series 148 (Society of Biblical Literature: 1996).

Studies on the Spirit: The Spirit and the Death/Resurrection of Jesus (Study 2)

In the first study of this series, on the relation of the Spirit to the Death and Resurrection of Jesus, we looked at the Baptism of Jesus—the episode which, in the Gospel Tradition, marks the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry. The Baptism comes at the beginning of his earthly ministry, even as Jesus’ death (and resurrection) marks its end. We cannot properly consider the Spirit in relation to the death/resurrection of Jesus without first examining its relation to his earthly life and ministry (starting with the Baptism).

Our study began with the Baptism in the Synoptic Tradition—that is, the Synoptic Gospels, focusing specifically on the Gospel of Mark. We saw that the presence of the Spirit, coming down upon Jesus (Mk 1:10 par), and accompanied by the declaration of the Divine voice from heaven (Mk 1:11 par, “You are my Son…”), primarily signified the Messianic identity of Jesus—both the Prophetic and Royal/Davidic figure types.

Study 2: The Role of the Spirit in the Baptism of Jesus

In this second study (continuing into the third), we will be examining the role of the Spirit in the Baptism tradition, in more detail, focusing on three topics:

1. The Relation of the Baptism of Jesus to John the Baptist’s ministry
2. The version of the Baptism tradition in the Gospel of John
3. The Baptism episode as the Introduction to the narrative of Jesus’ ministry (in the Synoptic Gospels)

1. The Relation of the Baptism of Jesus to John the Baptist’s ministry

All of the Synoptic Gospels, along with the Gospel of John, relate the Baptism of Jesus to the dunking (baptizing) ministry of John the Baptist. That the Gospel account of John the Baptist’s ministry (Mk 1:2-8 par) is based largely upon authentic historical tradition would seem to be confirmed by the independent witness of Josephus, writing in his Antiquities (18.5.2, §§116-119 [esp. §117]). The dunking (baptism, Grk ba/ptisma) had, as its main purpose and significance, the purification of the individual and the ‘washing away’ of his/her sins (cf. Mk 1:4 par). In this regard, the Gospel Tradition indicates an eschatological emphasis—that is, the repentance and purifying of the people was in preparation for the coming judgment.

We can glimpse the eschatological significance of John’s ministry based upon the following pieces of evidence from the Gospel Tradition:

- The implicit identification of John with Elijah (v. 6 par, cf. 2 Kings 1:8), suggesting that he is fulfilling the figure type of the Elijah who comes at the end-time (based on the tradition in Malachi 3:23-24 [4:5-6]); for a more explicit identification elsewhere in the Gospel Tradition, cf. Mark 9:11-13 par; Matt 11:14; Luke 1:17.
- The use of Isa 40:3 as a prophetic description, juxtaposed with Mal 3:1 (Mk 1:2-3 par); in Jn 1:23, John the Baptist specifically identifies himself with the herald of this prophecy. The eschatological (and Messianic) import of the prophecy is indicated by the Qumran Community’s use of the same text, as a self-designation of their identity as the holy/faithful ones of God’s people in the end-time.
- John’s prophetic reference to “the one coming” (Mk 1:7 par); on the eschatological/Messianic background of this terminology, see my earlier article in the series “Yeshua the Anointed”.
- The pericope included by Matthew and Luke (“Q” material, Matt 3:7-10 / Lk 3:7-9) with its strong judgment-emphasis (indicating the imminence of the coming Judgment), along with the climactic (“Q”) saying in Matt 3:12 / Lk 3:17.

More than this, the act of baptism itself, with its water-symbolism, is strongly suggestive of a number of key prophetic references with an eschatological orientation. The water/fire parallel in the “Q” version of the Baptist’s saying in Mark 1:9 (Matt 3:11 / Lk 3:16) only enhances the dual-significance of purification and judgment inherent in this symbolism. Water is used for cleansing, but it can also bring destruction; similarly, fire can refine and purify, but it also destroys. The coming Judgment means purification and salvation for the holy/righteous ones, but destruction for the wicked (cp. the dualism in the harvest imagery of Matt 3:11 par, similarly used by Jesus in 13:30, 39-42).

A key prophetic reference is Isaiah 4:4, where we find the motif of washing/cleansing (i.e., with water), in the context of the coming Judgment. The washing removes the “filth” (i.e., sin/impurity) from the people (represented by Jerusalem and the “daughters of Zion”), in preparation/anticipation of the Judgment, which will involve a “spirit [j^Wr] of burning” (i.e., fire). There is thus here a juxtaposition of water-wind/spirit-fire, just as in the “Q” version of the Baptist’s saying (Mk 1:8; Matt 3:11 par). A similar juxtaposition of motifs, also in a prophecy of judgment, occurs in Isa 30:27-28; and note also Jer 4:11-14, where a hot/burning wind of judgment (from YHWH) combines with a washing that leads to salvation for the righteous (who repent and are purified from their sins). The coming of God’s Spirit (i.e., breath/wind) is symbolized by both water and fire.

In the Baptism scene, water serves exclusively as a motif of cleansing, and thus signifies salvation for the righteous/holy ones. Only those who repent and are purified from sin (i.e., made holy) will be saved from the coming Judgment. It seems likely that the symbolic/ritual act of baptism itself was meant to illustrate the water-imagery from a number of key prophetic texts relating to the coming New Age of Israel’s restoration. By the first centuries B.C./A.D., these prophecies would have been interpreted in an eschatological sense. The main image is of God’s Spirit being ‘poured out’ (like water) upon the people. And, if we understand the baptism (“dunking”, vb bapti/zw) as a partial immersion—i.e., the individual stands or bends down in the water, while the baptizer (John) pours water over his/her head—then the prophetic imagery is, in a sense, being enacted.

The important texts in this regard are: Isaiah 32:15ff; 44:3ff; Ezekiel 39:29; and Joel 2:28-29ff; cf. also Zech 12:10, and the context of 13:1ff. These are the references where the water-Spirit association occurs, though there are other restoration-prophecies which emphasize the role of the Spirit in purifying, restoring, and uniting God’s people—cf. Isa 34:16; 59:21; Ezek 11:19; 36:26-27; 37:14. Also, it is important to note, again, the Isaian prophecies which refer to YHWH’s Spirit coming down upon His chosen Servant: 11:2ff; 42:1ff; 61:1ff; and also 59:21.

All of these prophetic references are significant for relating the Baptism of Jesus to the baptizing ministry of John—particularly with regard to the eschatological and Messianic nature of the event, as understood by early Christians. John’s baptizing illustrated the prophecies, but also pointed to their subsequent fulfillment in the person of Jesus Christ. The core sayings in Mark 1:7-8 demonstrate two ways in which the prophetic symbolism was applied to Jesus, through the medium of John’s words and symbolic/ritual actions.

First, by the saying in verse 7, John contrasts and subordinates himself to “the one coming”. The Markan wording is: “The (one) stronger than me comes [e)rxetai] in back of me…”. The Matthean version (3:11) differs slightly: “the (one) coming [e)rxo/meno$] in back of me is stronger than me…”. That this figure is to be identified with the Messiah, is clear from the context of the Lukan version (3:15-16). The Johannine Gospel makes this contrast even more pronounced, as the Baptist denies being any of the chief Messianic figure-types (including Elijah), 1:19-21ff; they are all fulfilled by Jesus. This will be discussed further in section 2. (in the next study).

In the second saying (Mk 1:8), it is the baptizing performed by John and Jesus, respectively, that is contrasted:

“I dunked you in water, but he will dunk you in (the) holy Spirit!”

The subject (“he”) is “the one coming” mentioned in the previous saying. In both Matthew and Luke, the two sayings are joined together differently, and this may reflect a separate (“Q”) version of the material:

“I dunk you in water, but the (one) stronger than me comes…—(and) he will dunk you in (the) holy Spirit [and fire]!” (Lk 3:16)

The Gospel of John presents the sayings in a similar way (1:26-27), though the conclusion, regarding the baptizing in/with the Spirit, is separated out and made part of the Baptism account itself (vv. 31, 33).

These points of contrast make clear that the fulfillment of the prophecies involve the pouring out of God’s Spirit, not water—the water only serves to represent and symbolize the Spirit. So it is with the baptizing by John: his baptizing with water symbolizes, and points the way toward, the coming (eschatological) baptizing of God’s people with His Spirit.

All of the Messianic and eschatological references discussed here would seem to apply to the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus at his Baptism. However, the treatment of these motifs in the Gospel Tradition is actually quite complex, due to the way that they have been adapted to fit the shape of the traditional (historical and literary) narrative. Before proceeding, it may be worth outlining the basic structure of the Synoptic narrative:

- The Baptism of Jesus:
  Demonstration and declaration of his Messianic identity
- The Galilean Period of Jesus’ Ministry:
  Identity as the Messianic Prophet (Moses, Elijah, and the Anointed Servant/Prophet of Isa 61:1ff, etc)
- The Transfiguration of Jesus:
  Demonstration and declaration of his Messianic identity
- The Jerusalem Period of Jesus’ Ministry:
  Identity as the Royal/Davidic Messiah
- Conclusion: The Death and Resurrection of Jesus the Messiah

The ultimate fulfillment of the prophecies would occur only with the death and resurrection of Jesus, after which the Spirit would be poured out on God’s people (believers). However, the Spirit was also manifest during Jesus’ ministry, prior to his death/resurrection. This will be discussed in some detail in Study 4. However, in the next study (Study 3), we will continue the current discussion focusing on sections/topics 2. and 3. noted above:

- The role of the Spirit in the Johannine version of the Baptism scene, and
- The Baptism of Jesus as an introduction to the (Synoptic) narrative of Jesus’ ministry (cf. the outline above)

For a useful examination of the eschatological and Scriptural-traditional background of John’s Baptism, and how it was interpreted within the Gospel Tradition, I would also recommend the article by Morna D. Hooker, “John’s Baptism: A Prophetic Sign”, in The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn, eds. Graham N. Stanton, Bruce W. Longenecker, Stephen C. Barton (Eerdmans: 2004), pp. 22-40.

“God Sent Forth His Son…”: Introduction

“God Sent Forth His Son…”

“when the fullness of time came, God sent forth His Son…” (Galatians 4:4)
“God sent forth His Son into the world…” (John 3:17)

This new study series will examine the early Christian concept of the incarnation—the idea that the (pre-existent) Son of God became a flesh-and-blood (incarnate) human being in the person of Jesus. In particular, we will be considering both the nature and purpose of the incarnation, as this belief originally crystalized and developed within first-century Christianity, as attested in the New Testament Scriptures. The question of the goal and purpose of the incarnation is especially relevant in light of the seasonal celebration of the death and resurrection of Jesus, and makes for a fitting subject to be discussed this Spring during the Lenten/Easter season.

Earlier this year, during the Christmas season, I began a series on the Incarnation and the Birth of Jesus in the Pauline Letters, discussing in some detail nearly all of the relevant passages. The remaining articles that were planned, dealing with the specific theme of the Sonship of Jesus, and the idea of God sending forth His Son, will be folded into this current series.

Introduction: The Development of Early Christology

An important point, to be addressed at the outset, involves the place of the incarnation-concept within the earliest Christology—viz., the view of Christ held by the first generation(s) of believers, during the first century A.D. Contextually, this may be summarized by the heading of the Gospel of Mark, regarded by most commentators as the earliest of the surviving Gospels (c. 60-70 A.D.):

“(The) beginning of the good message of Yeshua (the) Anointed [(the) Son of God]” (1:1)

The words “(the) Son of God” (ui(ou= qeou=) are bracketed [] because they are absent from a number of key manuscripts (a^* Q 28^c al), and so were possibly not part of the original text of Mk 1:1. However, even if the words were not originally present, they were doubtless added (or included) very early on, probably before the end of the first century. The wording establishes a basic tenet of Christology, identifying Jesus as the “Son of God”. This identification is the cornerstone of the incarnation-concept, particularly as it came to be expressed within orthodox Christology, since it entails (and implies) the idea that the pre-existent Son (of God) became a flesh-and-blood human being, in the person of Jesus.

Yet, the designation at the beginning of the Markan Gospel gives us no further information about what it means to say that Jesus is the “Son of God”, apart from the definite juxtaposition of the expression with the title Xristo/$ (“[the] Anointed [One]”, i.e., Messiah = Heb. j^yv!m* [m¹šîaµ]). This, in fact, is most significant regarding the earliest Christian understanding of Jesus as God’s Son. It indicates that the Divine Sonship of Jesus is to be understood primarily, if not exclusively, in a Messianic sense—that is, in terms of Jesus’ identity as the Anointed One (Messiah) of God.

This association, established so clearly, and in such a matter-of-fact manner, at the beginning of the Gospel of Mark, is confirmed by a careful study of the earliest strands of Christian Tradition found in the New Testament Scriptures. These may be divided into three main categories: (1) the Gospel Tradition, particularly that of the Synoptic Gospels, the core Synoptic Tradition; (2) evidence of early Christian preaching (proclamation [kerygma] of the Gospel) preserved in the sermon-speeches of the book of Acts; and (3) the (undisputed) letters of Paul.

The Gospel Tradition as it came to be represented by the core Synoptic Tradition (such as in the Gospel of Mark), developed during the period of c. 35-60 A.D. The earliest Christian preaching, based on the historical time-frame presented within the Acts-narrative, covers a similar period. Meanwhile, the letters of Paul—that is, those where Pauline authorship is certain or undisputed—were written during the latter half of this period. It will be worth surveying, however briefly, Jesus’ identity as the Son of God, as evidenced within each of these sources.

1. The Gospel (Synoptic) Tradition

In examining the Synoptic Tradition, I focus primarily on the Gospel of Mark. Apart from the heading in 1:1 (v.l., see above), there are seven references to Jesus as God’s Son (ui(o/$).
For the purposes of this survey, I exclude all instances where the specific expression “(the) son of man” ([o(] ui(o\$ [tou=] a)nqrw/pou) is used; these were discussed at length in an earlier series (“Who Is This Son of Man…?”). While not unrelated to the Divine Sonship of Jesus (esp. in the Gospel of John), the expression/title “Son of Man” has a very different emphasis. It is actually closer in significance to the specific idea of incarnation (viz., Jesus as a real human being). As such, it is certainly relevant for this series, and will be addressed at a number of junctures in the upcoming articles.

The first such reference occurs early in the narrative, in the Baptism scene (1:9-11 par) which marks the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry. Following the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus (v. 10), the Divine voice from heaven declares: “You are my Son, the (be)loved, in you I think good [i.e. I think good/well of you]” (v. 11). The wording of this declaration, along with the coming of the Spirit upon Jesus, confirms the observation made above (on the heading [v. 1]), that the Divine Sonship of Jesus is to be understood here in a Messianic sense. That is to say, it identifies Jesus as the Messiah—one specially chosen (‘anointed’) by God.

The Divine/heavenly voice at the Baptism would seem to allude both to Psalm 2:7 and Isaiah 42:1—each of these represents a key Messianic reference that was adopted by early Christians and applied to Jesus (as the Messiah). The two verses, respectively, identify Jesus as a Messianic Prophet (Isa 42:1), and as the royal/Davidic Messiah (Ps 2:7). The presence of the Spirit upon Jesus applies more readily to his identity as a Messianic Prophet—particularly the anointed prophet/herald of Isa 61:1ff (but cf. also Isa 11:2 and 42:1). For further discussion, see the recent article (in the new Studies on the Spirit feature); cf. also the articles on Isa 42:1ff and 61:1ff in the series “The Old Testament in the Gospel Tradition”, and Parts 2–3 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”.

Isaiah 61:1ff is particularly prominent in the Lukan version of the narrative, where this Scripture features in the Nazareth episode (4:16-30, vv. 18-21ff), marking the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, following the Baptism and Temptation scenes. Thus, the coming of the Spirit at the Baptism, along with the declaration of Sonship by the Divine/heavenly voice (3:21-22), is explained implicitly in terms of Jesus’ identity as the anointed Prophet/herald of Isa 61:1ff (cf. also the context of 4:1, 14).

As it happens, the Lukan author is following the Synoptic Tradition, which divides the Gospel narrative into two halves. In the first half, the Galilean period, the focus is on Jesus as the Messianic Prophet, according to two figure-types (Elijah and Moses), that are essentially blended together in the figure of the Anointed herald of Isa 61:1ff, and then are combined (visually) in the Transfiguration scene. Jesus’ identity as the royal/Davidic Messiah is more or less reserved for the second half of the narrative (the Jerusalem period).

The Transfiguration scene (Mk 9:2-8 par) is significant from this standpoint, in terms of the thematic structure of the narrative. It marks the end of the Galilean period, and begins the transition to the Jerusalem period, by effectively introducing (vv. 9-13ff) the journey to Jerusalem (chap. 10). Jesus’ role as the Messianic Prophet reaches its climax in the Transfiguration scene, as he is dramatically associated with (and implicitly identified with) the Messianic Prophet figure-types of Moses and Elijah. And, in this context, for good measure, the declaration of the Divine/heavenly voice at the Baptism is essentially repeated, 9:7 (in Matthew’s version, the two declarations are identical [cf. Matt 3:17; 17:5]), confirming Jesus’ as God’s Son (in this Messianic sense).

The Messianic significance is brought out especially in Luke’s version of the declaration (9:35), where (according to the best textual reading) the designation “chosen” (lit., “[one] gathered out”, e)klelegme/no$) is used, rather than “(be)loved”. Cf. the comparable designation e)klekto/$ in 23:35, where its Messianic import is equally clear. The same substantive adjective o( e)klekto/$ (“the [one] gathered out”, i.e., “the chosen [one]”) also occurs in some manuscripts of the Johannine version of the Divine/heavenly declaration at the Baptism (Jn 1:34 v.l.), indicating that the Messianic designation (“the Chosen [One]”) was, to some extent at least, interchangeable with the designation “Son” (of God).

As for the remaining five references (in Mark) to Jesus as God’s Son, two occur as declarations by evil (demon) spirits (3:11; 5:7 pars). These are best explained in terms of Jesus’ miracle-working (i.e., exorcism) power, as the Anointed/Messianic Prophet of God (cf. Isa 61:1ff and the figure-type of Elijah); the demon-spirits recognize this identity, and (implicitly) the power/presence of the Spirit of God upon Jesus (cf. Matt 12:28 par, in the context of vv. 18-21 [citing Isa 42:1-3, see above]).

The final two Son-references in the Gospel occur at climactic points in the Passion narrative (14:61f; 15:39). The question posed by the high priest to Jesus seems to echo the question posed by Jesus to his disciples in 8:27, along with the confession-response by Peter (v. 29). Matthew’s version makes the association explicit, by presenting Peter’s confession (16:16) and the high priest’s confession (26:63) in nearly identical wording. Underlying this Matthean development is the essential juxtaposition of the titles “Anointed One” and “Son of God”, which we saw already in the heading of Mark (1:1), and which is repeated in the confessional context of 14:61-62; cf. also 15:39, where the centurion’s confession (of Jesus as God’s “Son”) punctuates a Passion-narrative which features a strong Messianic emphasis (14:61-62; 15:2, 9ff, 17-18, 26, 32, 35-36).

By comparison, the Son-reference of 13:32 par is more difficult to place or to explain within the Tradition. The self-designation of Jesus simply as “the Son” is more in keeping with the usage in the Gospel of John. The only other Synoptic occurrence is in a saying from the “Q” material (Matt 11:27 / Lk 10:22); cf. also Matt 28:19. In the immediate context of both Mk 13:32 par and Matt 11:27 par, we find references to Jesus as “the Son of Man”, which is his more regular form of self-designation in the Synoptics.

Both Matthew and Luke generally follow Mark’s Gospel in terms of these Son-references (apart from the “Q” saying in Matt 11:27 par, mentioned in the note above). Evidence of Christological development or expansion is actually quite rare. Perhaps the clearest example can be seen in the Matthean forms of Peter’s confession, and the corresponding question to Jesus by the high priest 16:16; 26:63, cf. above); and note the similar confession by the disciples, earlier in the narrative, 14:33. The use of the title “Son of God” by the Devil in the Temptation scene (“Q” material, Matt 4:6 / Lk 4:3, 9) corresponds to the declarations by the demons in Mk 3:11; 5:7 pars (cf. above). Finally, it may be noted that, in Matthew’s version of the Passion narrative, the climactic confession by the centurion (Matt 27:54) is further enhanced by the references to Jesus as the “Son of God” preceding in vv. 40, 43; comparison with the core Synoptic (Markan) version (cf. above) only confirms that this use of the title “Son of God” is fundamentally Messianic in nature.

Indeed, from this survey, it would seem to be clear that the Sonship of Jesus, and the use of the title “Son of God”, in the Gospel Tradition is primarily (if not exclusively) Messianic. It is tied to Jesus’ identity as the Messiah—both the royal/Davidic Messiah and the Messianic Prophet figure-types (on which, cf. above)—an identity that is established at the Baptism of Jesus (that is, at the beginning of his public ministry), with the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus, accompanied by the Divine/heavenly declaration of Sonship. In the Synoptic narrative, this Messianic identification continues throughout the course of Jesus’ ministry, climaxing with the moment of his death.

2. The Early Gospel Preaching (Kerygma) in Acts

At first glance, it is rather striking how few references there are to Jesus as God’s Son in the book of Acts. Given the relative importance of the designation in the Synoptic Gospels (including the Gospel of Luke, see the discussion in section 1. above), we would perhaps expect to find a much larger number of references. There are two key references in Acts—9:20 and 13:33. These are significant in at least two respects: (a) they serve (in the narrative) as examples of Paul’s missionary preaching (see section 3. below), and (b) they confirm the fundamental Messianic significance of the designation (“Son of God”) evidenced throughout the Gospel Tradition.

In particular, note the same basic juxtaposition of the titles “Anointed One” (xristo/$) and “Son of God” (ui(o\$ qeou=) which we highlighted in our analysis of the Synoptic Tradition (above). The correspondence of the titles becomes quite clear when we consider how the Lukan author frames the summary narrative of Paul’s first preaching of the Gospel (in Damascus), 9:20-22; see how Paul’s preaching activity is summarized:

- “he proclaimed (of) Yeshua that
  ‘This (one) is the Son of God'” (v. 20)
- “he was driving together (the point) that
  ‘This (one) is the Anointed'” (v. 22)

The titles “Anointed One” and “Son of God” are precisely parallel, and, at least to some extent, are interchangeable; this confirms that the title “Son of God”, as applied to Jesus in this context of the early Gospel preaching, was used in a Messianic sense. The same is true with the citation of Psalm 2:7 (by Paul) in 13:33, a usage of the Psalm verse (as a Messianic reference) which conforms to the allusion in the declaration (by the Divine/heavenly voice) at Jesus’ Baptism in the Gospel Tradition (cf. above). In a variant reading of the Lukan form of the declaration (3:22), Psalm 2:7 is explicitly quoted, implying that it was at the Baptism (with the coming upon Jesus of the Spirit) that Jesus came to be ‘born’ as God’s Son.

What is important to note about the use of Psalm 2:7 in the Antioch sermon-speech (by Paul) in Acts 13 (v. 33ff) is that the Messianic reference is applied, not to Jesus’ Baptism, but to his Resurrection. The implication, then, according to this preaching, is that Jesus was ‘born’ as God’s Son when he was raised from the dead. This aspect of Jesus’ Sonship is not emphasized in the Synoptic Gospels, but does seem to be a key point of emphasis that orientates the early proclamation (kerygma) of the Gospel. Note, for example, the third section (vv. 29-36) of the Pentecost sermon-speech by Peter in chapter 2, which, in many important ways, matches the Antioch sermon-speech by Paul later in chap. 13. As a Scripture text, the well-established Messianic verse of Psalm 110:1 is used (cf. Mark 12:36f par; Heb 1:13, etc), but it is clearly applied to the resurrection of Jesus, with his exaltation to the “right hand” (v. 1b) of God in heaven (on the importance of this particular motif for early Christology, cf. Mk 14:62 par; Acts 2:33; 5:31; 7:55-56; Rom 8:34; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet 3:22). Even more striking is the wording that Peter (and the author of Acts) uses at the conclusion of the sermon:

“let all (the) house of Yisrael know that God made him (to be) both Lord and Anointed [Xristo/$], this Yeshua whom you put to the stake [i.e., crucified]!” (v. 36)

The declaration is clear enough: God made Jesus to be the Anointed One, through his resurrection (and exaltation); this is comparable to the idea in 13:33 (citing Psalm 2:7), that, when Jesus was raised/exalted by God, he came to be born as God’s Son. The designation “Lord” (ku/rio$) in 2:36 indicates a Divine status and distinction comparable to that of “Son of God”. While this sort of language and thinking would be highly problematic from the standpoint of the developed (orthodox) Christology of later generations, it would seem to reflect the earliest Christian understanding of the Gospel accurately enough.

Many scholars, however, would question the extent to which the book of Acts accurately preserves or portrays the early apostolic preaching, as it would have occurred (historically) in the period c. 35-50 A.D. This is an issue that I have dealt with on several occasions, including in my exegetical series “The Speeches of Acts”. I am not able to go into the matter in any detail here, but will only state my conviction that the sermon-speeches of Acts preserve genuine elements and features of the early preaching, while (at the same time) also being thoroughly Lukan in style as a finished literary product.

The preaching recorded in the book of Acts demonstrates two clear points of emphasis for the early Christian understanding of Jesus as the “Son of God: (1) the Messianic identity of Jesus, and (2) the fact that Jesus, after his death and resurrection, was exalted to a Divine status and position in heaven (at God’s “right hand”, Ps 110:1b [cf. the discussion above]). The main apologetic concern for the early apostolic missionaries, in both of these respects, centered on the death of Jesus. His death was, naturally enough, the necessary precursor to his exaltation; and, yet, at the same time, it proved a great difficulty for their missionary preaching to other Jews. The suffering and death of the Messiah was not at all part of the Messianic expectation for Jews at the time (on this subject, see the article in the series “Yeshua the Anointed”). It is repeatedly mentioned in Acts how the missionaries took great pains to demonstrate (from the Scriptures) that it was necessary for the Messiah to suffer and die, and thus proving that Jesus could be (and was) the promised Messiah—see esp. Acts 3:18; 5:42; 9:22; 17:3; 18:5, 28; 26:23, and similarly in the Lukan Gospel, Lk 24:26f, 45-46; the teaching echoes the Passion-predictions of Jesus in the Synoptics (cf. Lk 9:22; 18:31ff par). Note also, in this regard, the importance of Isa 52:13-53:12 as a Messianic prophecy, serving as the primary Scripture text for the idea that the Messiah (i.e., the Servant of YHWH) would suffer and die (cf. Acts 8:32-35).

3. The Pauline Letters

Paul, in his letters, generally follows the main contours of the early Christology, with regard to the Sonship of Jesus. The main points of emphasis from the Gospel Tradition and the early apostolic preaching (discussed in sections 1. and 2. above) are continued—viz., the identification of Jesus as the Messiah (i.e., Sonship in a Messianic sense), and that his identity as God’s Son is tied specifically to the Resurrection. This last aspect is especially clear in what is presumably the earliest Son-reference in the surviving letters, 1 Thess 1:10. Most of his other references to Jesus as God’s Son can also be viewed entirely from the standpoint of this early exaltation-Christology—see 1 Cor 1:9; 15:28; 2 Cor 1:19; Col 1:13, etc.

However, there are other references which indicate a rudimentary pre-existence-Christology, along with an accompanying incarnational aspect. The earliest such occurrence is in the letter to the Galatians (4:4), the dating of which remains disputed, though some time in the early-mid 50s (c. 54?) seems probable. By the time of his letter to the Romans, several years later (c. 57-58), this Christological understanding appears to have become more prominent in his thought—as can be glimpsed from the wording in 1:3; 5:10; 8:3, 29, 32. These references (all of which will be discussed) likely preceded the writing of Philippians (c. 60), with its famous ‘Christ-hymn’ (2:6-11), in which the idea of the Divine pre-existence of Jesus features most prominently.

Paul was, it seems, one of the first Christians to express such a pre-existence (and incarnational) Christology. There does not appear to be any real evidence for such a view prior to the mid-50s. As noted in the analysis above, this Christology is virtually absent from the Synoptic Gospels and the book of Acts. In the earlier strands of the Tradition recorded in these texts, the Messianic identity and Divine Sonship of Jesus was seen as being established either: (a) at the beginning of his public ministry (i.e., the time of his baptism), or (b) with his resurrection (and exaltation to heaven). To be sure, the Infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke evince the view that Jesus was the Messiah from the very moment of his birth; however, even in these narratives, there is no indication of Divine pre-existence. The declaration of Jesus’ Sonship in Luke 1:32, 35, applies to the time of his birth (note the future tense of the announcement, “he will be…”, “he will be called…”), and is also still understood in a Messianic sense (as is clear from the context).

With Paul, however, a new Christological understanding begins to emerge. Paul may not have been the very first believer to express the idea of Jesus’ pre-existence, or of the incarnation (in the person of Jesus) of the pre-existent Son, but he was doubtless influential in the development and spread of this Christology. We can see the Pauline influence, for example, in the book of Hebrews (passages to be discussed). It is not certain what influence Paul may have had upon the Johannine writings; for the most part, they seem to be the product of an entirely separate line of Tradition. In any case, it is in the Gospel of John where this early development of the pre-existence and incarnational Christology receives its flourish.

In the articles within this series, we will attempt to trace this development, beginning with the earliest Pauline references. Our starting point will be the confessional statement in Romans 1:3-4, for the reason that many commentators believe Paul has, in these verses, adapted an earlier (existing) credal formula. If so, then the Christology expressed in these verses may, at least to some extent, pre-date Paul’s own writings. It is often thought that the ‘Christ-hymn’ of Phil 2:6-11 also represents an earlier confessional statement (in poetic-hymnic form) that Paul has utilized. Both of these texts are of particular significance for the way that they join together the older exaltation-Christology (Rom 1:4; Phil 2:9-11) with the newer pre-existence-Christology (Rom 1:3; Phil 2:6-8), and include the specific idea of the incarnation, at least in a rudimentary form. This conjunction is especially clear in the case of the Philippians hymn, but it would seem to be present in Rom 1:3-4 as well; at least, it is possible to read the verses in this way.

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 127

Psalm 127

Dead Sea MSS: 1QPs^b (vv. 1-5); 11QPs^a (v. 1)

This is the third (and central) Song of the second group of five “Songs of Ascents” (Pss 125-129). The central Song in each group (cf. Ps 122 and 132) features the city of Jerusalem as an orienting theme; though, here in Psalm 127, the connection is established only indirectly, and by allusion, in verse 1. In actuality, Psalm 127 is a Wisdom Psalm, as most commentators recognize. As such, in the original context of its verses, it almost certainly had nothing to do with the presumed Zion/pilgrimage setting of the collection. The basis for its inclusion in the collection will be discussed below.

While many Psalms contain Wisdom elements, or have been influenced by Wisdom-traditions, relatively few exhibit a Wisdom orientation throughout. Here, in each part of the Psalm, a short sequence of Wisdom couplets or verses has been fitted together, in such a way as to give the overall work a certain conceptual and thematic unity.

Most commentators would admit a simple two-part structure (vv. 1-2, 3-5) for the Psalm, based on a number of thematic and poetic parallels. For example, in the initial couplets of each part, we find the motif of YHWH establishing and securing the city/territory for His people (viz., the wise/righteous ones). Moreover, there is parallelistic alliterative wordplay between the verb hn`B* (banâ, “build”) in v. 1, and the plural noun <yn]B* (b¹nîm, “sons”) in v. 3.

A loose thematic and metrical structure prevails for each part as well:

- YHWH builds the city and supplies the inheritance (v. 1a [3+3] & 3 [4+3])
- YHWH guards the city and (implicitly) supplies ‘arrows’ for defense of one’s inheritance (v. 1b [3+3] & 4 [3+3])
- Contrast: the vanity of toil, but the blessing that comes [for the righteous] (v. 2 [2+2+2] & 5a [2+2+2])
- Peace and security is promised [for the righteous], including the repulsion of enemies (v. 3 [3+3] & 5b [3+2])

At the same time, one may identify a certain envelopment structure to the Psalm, which, from a thematic standpoint, helps to explain its inclusion among the Songs of Ascents. In the outer shell (vv. 1 and 5b) there is the thematic emphasis on the protection that YHWH supplies for His people (viz., the righteous). This is expressed in terms of building and guarding a city (in v. 5b, the city “gate” [ru^v^]). Within this protected space (represented by the remainder of the Psalm), the people live, work, and are blessed (v. 2), especially being blessed with children (vv. 3-5a) that will ensure the family line (i.e., the establishment of one’s “house”).

In this regard, the dual house/city reference in v. 1 was utilized as an implicit allusion to Jerusalem and the Temple, and thus, on this basis, Psalm 127 could fit into the collection of the Songs of Ascent—particularly here in the second group, where the blessing that will come to the people is emphasized. The building of the house and guarding of the city could equally well fit the theme of the restoration of Zion (126:1, cf. the previous study), serving as a representative symbol for the restoration of the land (and its people) as a whole. From a post-exilic standpoint, the ‘building of the house’ refers to the rebuilding of the Temple, while the ‘guarding of the city’ alludes to the (re)building of Jerusalem’s walls in the time of Nehemiah (mid-5th century). For more on this particular line of interpretation, cf. Goulder, pp. 64-7.

The actual date for the Psalm is difficult to determine. The attribution to Solomon (or to the time of Solomon) is doubtful, but commentators such as Dahood (III, p. 222f) and Lipiński (Revue biblique 75 [1968], pp. 321-67 [see p. 353]) would assign Ps 127 to the pre-exilic (monarchic) period. It may have been the reference to the building of the “house” in v. 1 that led to the association with Solomon (viz., as a reference to the building of the Temple, cf. above). The Solomon reference (“[belonging] to Solomon”) is absent from the superscription in the LXX (some manuscripts), but is present in the Qumran manuscript 11QPs^a.

For a discussion of the meaning and significance of the heading “Song of the Ascents” (tolu&M^h^ ryv!), see the earlier study on Ps 120.

Part 1: VerseS 1-2

Verse 1a

“If YHWH does not build (the) house,
(those) building it labor on it in vain.”

The initial (3+3) couplet is a proverbial saying with a religious (and theological) emphasis. Without the support (and protection) of YHWH, the work done by the people will come to nothing. From the post-exilic standpoint (of the collection, if not the Psalm itself), this proverb alludes to both the Exile and the subsequent return/restoration. Experience taught that the land and cities of Israel/Judah would not be secure if the people violated the covenant and were unfaithful to YHWH. Even if fine cities and towns had been established, they might well be destroyed, or would come to be inhabited by others. This, indeed, is how the exiles of Israel and Judah were interpreted by the Scriptural authors (especially of the Deuteronomic history). At the same time, under the protection of YHWH, a restoration could occur, with the cities and houses (including the “house” of the Temple) being built again.

The noun aw+v*, often used in an adjectival or adverbial sense, covers the range of meaning “false, deceptive, worthless, futile, vain”; here, the English idiom “in vain” is appropriate to the context. It is a Wisdom-term, though it occurs only once in Proverbs (30:8) and not at all in Ecclesiastes; it occurs six times in the book of Job, and fifteen times in the Psalms.

Verse 1b

“If YHWH does not guard the city,
(the one) guarding watches in vain.

This second couplet matches the first, in parallel, as part of proverb-pair. The motif of the building of a house is matched here by that of guarding a city. As noted above, from a post-exilic standpoint, this could be interpreted in terms of re-building the walls of Jerusalem. More pertinent to the Psalm as a whole (and its place in the collection) is the important theme of Divine protection—viz., the protection that YHWH provides for His people, so long as they remain faithful to the covenant. Without YHWH to guard the “city” —Zion/Jerusalem, but representing the land and the people as a whole—all human guardians will be of no avail.

Verse 2a

“(It is) a vain thing for you
to rise, loading up (early),
(then) to sit, following (late).”

The futility (same noun from v. 1, aw+v*) of human toil and labor (cf. the verb lm^u* in v. 1a) is emphasized here in this short (2-beat, 2+2+2) tricolon. The terseness of the rhythm may be meant to capture (poetically) the sense of futility that attends the cycle of daily work. One rises early, “loading up” (i.e., the animals, etc) for work, then labors all day long, only to rest late, “following” the end of the day’s work. The verb <k^v* denotes the basic idea of loading up animals; but, since this activity typically occurs early in the morning, the verb came to be used more generally in the sense of “get up early”, “do something early (in the morning)”.

In the context of v. 1, the daily labor of human beings becomes especially futile when it is done without YHWH, or apart from Him. However, even for the righteous, the daily cycle of work and toil can seem vain or futile. Yet, there is the promise of blessing for those who remain faithful (and who work diligently), as is clear from v. 2b (cf. below); this emphasis is brought even more strongly in the second part of the Psalm (vv. 3-5).

Verse 2b

“(So you are) eating the bread of pains—
(yet) truly He gives to His beloved sleep.”

This final couplet of Part 1 is undoubtedly the most difficult and problematic of the Psalm, and for several reasons. First, there is the question of its relation to the ‘vanity’ saying of v. 2a, both from a syntactic and conceptual standpoint. Second, there is uncertainty regarding the force of the adverb /K@ at the beginning of the second line. And, thirdly, we have the problem of the meaning of the word an`v@, which occurs only here in the Scriptures.

The phrase “He [i.e., YHWH] gives to His beloved” strongly indicates that the final line represents a shift of focus, away from the ‘vanity’ in vv. 1-2a, and toward the blessing that will come to the faithful ones of God’s people. In this regard, v. 2b serves as a transition to the thematic emphasis of vv. 3-5 (cf. below). Thus, the an`v@ that YHWH gives “to His beloved” (viz., the faithful/righteous one) should be seen specifically as a blessing.

But what does the word an`v@ mean? The question remains disputed by commentators; indeed, a number of articles have been written specifically on this textual point—the most extensive being the study by J. A. Emerton, “The Meaning of š¢n¹° in Psalm 127.2″, Vetus Testamentum [VT] 24 (1974), pp. 15-31. At least three plausible explanations have been offered:

- an`v@ represents an alternate (Aramaizing) spelling of the noun hn`v@ (“sleep”, from the root /vy)
- It is to be derived from the root hnv (III), “shine, be exalted”, and thus means something like “honor” or, possibly (in context), “success, prosperity”
- Dahood (III, pp. 223-4) would relate it to Syriac šayn¹°, “prosperity” (cf. also Ethiopic sene°, “peace”)

Probably the majority of commentators would opt for the first explanation as being the simplest. It has, much in its favor, the immediate context of v. 2a, with the emphasis on working all day long, and only coming to rest (“sit”) at the end of the day’s labor. This same paradigm seems to apply here in v. 2b: line 1 repeats the motif of hard labor (“pains”), while line 2 mentions the rest (“sleep”, an`v@ = hn`v@) that comes after labor.

According to this line of interpretation, line 1 should be seen as relating the “beloved” of YHWH back to the “futility” (aw+v*) mentioned in v. 2a. The righteous participate in the human condition (of toil, cf. Gen 3:17-19); they, too, along with all other people, eat “the bread of pains”, and yet YHWH gives to them rest from their labors. Thus could simply refer, again, to the common human condition (viz., sleep at night after a hard day’s work); yet, here it would seem to allude specifically to the blessing that comes from YHWH for those who are faithful to Him—and also faithful and diligent in their labor, trusting that YHWH will provide for them and protect them (cf. on verse 1, above). For the righteous, the sleep that comes at the end of the day is indeed (truly/surely, /K@) a sweet and blessed rest.

For more on this verse as a whole, see the fine and extensive discussion by Hossfeld-Zenger, pp. 387-92, which surveys a wide range of scholarly opinion. Their proposed solution is generally in accord with my own.

Part 2: Verses 3-5

Verse 3

“See—an inheritance from YHWH (are) sons,
(and the) wage, fruit of the belly.”

The blessing theme, introduced at the very end of the first part (cf. verse 2b, second line, above) is developed here in the second part of the Psalm. The blessing that YHWH provides for His people is defined specifically in terms of children (“sons”). This is another way of expounding the motif from v. 1, of ‘building the house’ —since the noun tyB@ (“house”) can be used figuratively for a family line (lineage); thus the ‘building’ of a house, in this transferred context, means the establishment of a family line. YHWH’s granting of children is parallel to the idea of YHWH building the house in v. 1. Indeed, there is wordplay to this effect (as noted above), between the verb hn`B* (banâ, “build”, plur. participle <yn]oB, bônîm, “builders”) and the plural noun <yn]B* (b¹nîm, “sons”).

Children are designated here as an inheritance, that is, a hereditary property, hl*j&n~, which again draws a connection back to verse 1, and the territorial aspect of the city—viz., Zion/Jerusalem, and the Land as a whole—as an inheritance for the people. The genitive/construct expression “inheritance of YHWH” means “inheritance (coming) from YHWH”. At the same time, there may be an allusion to the religious (and covenantal) tradition of the people (and their sons, esp. the firstborn) as belonging to YHWH (viz., as His inheritance).

The use of the parallel noun rk*c* (“wage”) alludes back to verse 2 and the motif of performing work/labor during the day. Thus the idea, introduced in v. 2b (cf. above), of a blessing (from YHWH) that comes after labor, is here expounded in terms of the blessing of children (“fruit of the belly”).

The meter of this couplet is 4+3; cp. the corresponding 3+3 meter of v. 1a.

Verse 4

“Like arrows in (the) hand of a strong (one),
so (truly are the) sons of the (time of) youth.”

Sons are compared proverbially with arrows (<yX!j!) in the hand of a warrior (“strong one”, roBG]), thus blending together the blessing and protection themes of the Psalm (cf. on verse 1, above), drawing upon militaristic imagery of the kind that occurs so frequently in the Psalms (the plural noun <yX!j! occurs 13 times). Even as YHWH protects His people, He also blesses them and allows them to flourish. The expression “sons of the youth [plur.]” means sons born in the time of youth, i.e., when the individual is still a young man—that is, when he is still young enough to enjoy the experience, and able to be assisted by his children once they have grown. Dahood (III, p. 224) cites a wry Canaanite proverb (from Ugarit) to this effect: “A son born too late is no advantage”. Compare the opposite example of Abraham (Gen 21:7, etc), who obtained a son only as a very old man; similarly, in the case of Jacob when he begot Joseph (Gen 37:3), where we find the comparable expression “son of (his) old age”.

Verse 5a

“Happiness of the strong (man),
for whom He fills up
his quiver with them!”

Like the corresponding third unit of Part 1 (v. 2a), verse 5a is a 2-beat (2+2+2) tricolon. It expounds the comparative motif introduced in verse 4 (cf. above)—sons are like arrows in the possession of a warrior. The comparison is made all the more precise by the use of the noun rb#G#, related to roBG] in v. 4. Both nouns have the denotation “strong (one)”; but roBG] tends to refer to a mighty warrior, while rb#G# has the more general meaning of a vigorous man in the prime of his life (and strength).

The subject of the verb aL@m! (“fill”, Piel) in line 2 is YHWH, as Allen correctly notes (p. 235); YHWH fills the strong one’s “quiver” with ‘arrows’ by giving to him sons. The nature of this as a blessing is expressed here by the traditional beatitude-formula, introduced by yr@v=a^ (“Happiness of…!”, “How happy (is)…!”), as in Psalm 1:1, etc.

Verse 5b

“They are not shamed, but drive back
(the) hostile (one)s at the gate!”

I follow Dahood (III, p. 225; cf. also Crow, p. 67f) in treating the verb form (WrB=d^y]) as derived from rbd I (Piel, “turn/send/drive back”), rather than rbd II (“speak”). The militaristic imagery of vv. 4-5a, along with the overarching motif of the protection provided by YHWH (i.e., guarding the city, v. 1b), altogether favors this interpretation; for a contrary conclusion, favoring the (traditional) derivation from rbd II, cf. the analysis by Hossfeld-Zenger, pp. 393-4.

The protection provided by YHWH has a militaristic component—that is, He enables His people to succeed in their military actions and in defense of their territory. Such protection, of course, hinges upon the people’s faithfulness to the covenant, though this covenantal aspect is only vaguely indicated in the Psalm.

The “gate” (ru^v^) where the enemy is turned back is another referential point of contact with the initial couplets of verse 1, emphasizing the symbolic location of the “city”, protected by YHWH, who guards its walls (and gates). The prefixed preposition B= would normally mean “in” (i.e., “in the gate”), but this probably should not be taken too literally— “at the gate” is perhaps a better fit to the context. Dahood (III, p. 225) would translate the preposition as “from”.

Some commentators would emend the plural verb forms of v. 5b to the singular, so as to agree with the singulars of vv. 4-5a; cf. a different explanation of the forms by Dahood (III, p. 225). However, this is not necessary, as there is frequently a singular-plural alternation in the Psalms, often for the simple reason that the protagonist tends to represent the people (esp. the righteous/faithful ones) as a whole, and thus the Psalmist is able to shift between an individual and communal/corporate point of reference, without any sense of contradiction.

Studies on the Spirit: The Spirit and the Death/Resurrection of Jesus (Study 1)

The Saturday Series feature on this site has been repurposed as Studies on the Spirit—exegetical and theological studies on the (Holy) Spirit, focusing on key passages and developments within the New Testament and (early) Christian tradition. The purpose of the original Saturday Series was to introduce the principles and methods of Biblical Criticism, demonstrating them inductively through studies on selected Scripture passages. This will continue to be an important and integral component of the site; already you can find many examples, including all the earlier studies of the Saturday Series. However, I felt it equally important to introduce this new focus on the Spirit, as a sound understanding of the nature and role of the Holy Spirit, particularly as described in the writings of the New Testament, is vital for believers in Christ today, since there seems to be such a fundamental lack of clear awareness and understanding of the subject within much of modern Christianity.

The Spirit and the Death/Resurrection of Jesus

The first series of studies will examine the role of the Spirit in relation to the death and resurrection of Jesus. This theme is, of course, fitting for the seasonal celebrations of Lent, Holy Week, Easter (Resurrection Sunday), and Pentecost this Spring. It is somewhat surprising that the New Testament Scriptures actually say relatively little (at least, explicitly so) regarding this relationship. Most obvious, perhaps, is the salvation-historical context, in terms of the sequence: how the coming of the Spirit naturally follows the death and resurrection of Jesus, with the implication that the former cannot occur until the latter takes place.

Much more can be said about the role of the Spirit—and, indeed, even the nature of the Spirit—in relation to the death and resurrection of Jesus, based on the evidence attested by the New Testament Scriptures. However, this requires a careful and detailed examination of all the key passages and lines of tradition that touch upon this subject.

Study 1: The Baptism of Jesus in the Gospel Tradition

I choose to begin with the early Gospel Tradition—and, in particular, the role of the Holy Spirit in the tradition of Jesus’ Baptism. In the core Synoptic Tradition, as represented primarily by the Gospel of Mark, this scene of Jesus’ Baptism (Mk 1:9-11 par) represents the first (and arguably the most noteworthy) reference to the Spirit, prefaced immediately by the saying of the Baptist in v. 8 (par): “I dunked [i.e. baptized] you in water, but he will dunk you in (the) holy Spirit [e)n pneu/mati a(gi/w|]”. This saying, which functions in the narrative (and at the level of the historical tradition) as a prophetic statement about the ministry of Jesus, alludes both to Jesus’ Messianic status, and to the coming of the Spirit upon his disciples (believers) following his death and resurrection (Acts 1:5ff). The first thematic aspect (the identification of Jesus as the Messiah) is primary to the Baptism tradition, as will be discussed below.

The Markan Gospel narrates the event as follows:

“And it came to be in those days (that) Yeshua came from Nazaret of the Galîl and was dunked in the Yarden under [i.e. by] Yohanan. And straightaway, (with his) stepping up out of the water, he saw the heavens being split and the Spirit as a dove stepping [i.e. coming] down to him. And there came to be a voice out of the heavens: ‘You are my Son the (be)loved (one), (and) in you I think good [i.e., I think good of you].'” (1:9-11)

This is a core component of the Synoptic Tradition, and the versions of the event in Matthew (3:13, 16-17) and Luke (3:21-22) different in only relatively small ways. Even the Gospel of John (1:32-34) shows awareness of an underlying tradition which generally corresponds to that of the Synoptics. The point will be discussed further in the next study.

What is the significance of the coming of the Spirit down onto/upon (ei)$/e)pi/) Jesus? The saying(s) by the Baptist in Mk 1:7-8 par (cf. also Lk 3:17 par, and the context of vv. 15-16), coupled with the declaration by the Divine/heavenly voice (Mk 1:11 par; cf. 9:7 par), point to the primary significance as being Messianic—that is, the presence of the Spirit identifies Jesus as one specially chosen (i.e., ‘anointed’) by God as His Servant (and “Son”). The Spirit also empowers him toward fulfilling this Messianic role. Within the (Synoptic) Gospel narrative, the Baptism, with the coming of the Spirit upon Jesus, marks the beginning of his public ministry. Moreover, it is to be inferred that the Spirit remained on Jesus (cf. Jn 1:32-33, to be discussed), continuing to empower and guide him, until the moment of his death. Thus, the Spirit’s role throughout the entire Gospel narrative leads up to the critical association with the death (and resurrection) of Jesus. Our examination of this association will develop over the course of the remaining studies.

The Messianic significance of the Spirit at Jesus’ Baptism

In terms of the Baptism tradition, the coming of the Spirit (v. 10) is closely tied to the declaration by the heavenly voice (v. 11)—the two details cannot be separated, and each serves to inform the meaning and significance of the other. The Spirit and the Divine voice both serve to identify Jesus as the Chosen/Anointed One (i.e., Messiah) of God. It is import to realize, in this regard, that the identification of Jesus as God’s Son is fundamentally (and primarily) Messianic.

Within the Synoptic Tradition, Jesus’ identity as the Messiah is rather clearly defined according to two broad lines of Scriptural and Jewish tradition, which may be epitomized as categories of Messianic figure-types: (1) the Prophetic, and (2) the Royal/Davidic. In point of fact, these serve to structure the Synoptic narrative. In the first half of the narrative, the Galilean period, Jesus is identified as a Messianic Prophet, and is only identified as a Royal Messiah (from the line of David) in the second half of the narrative (the Jerusalem period), beginning with the Triumphal Entry (Mk 11:1-10 par), and anticipated by the use of the expression “Son of David” in the prior episode (cf. 10:47-48 par). Only Matthew deviates from this demarcation, introducing the title “Son of David” at several points during the Galilean period (9:27; 12:3, 23; 15:22).

The Infancy narratives (both Matthean and Lukan) focus entirely upon Jesus’ identity as the Royal/Davidic Messiah, and say virtually nothing about his role as a Prophetic Messiah. Yet, these narratives almost certainly represent secondary developments (and additions) to the Synoptic Tradition, and, as such, in their thematic emphases, they reflect the Christological orientation of believers in the mid-late first century, when the idea of Jesus as a Messianic Prophet had lost its importance and had largely vanished from view. In this regard, it is interesting that the Lukan author hews so closely to the Synoptic Tradition, focusing on Jesus almost exclusively as a Messianic Prophet-figure in the Galilean period (cf. the discussion below)—this in spite of his strong emphasis on Jesus as the Royal/Davidic Messiah in the Infancy narrative.

(1) Jesus’ identity as a Messianic Prophet

(cf. Parts 2–3 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”)

If we consider the coming of the Spirit upon Jesus as a sign of his status as a Messianic (Chosen/Anointed) Prophet, we must look to the background for such an association in the Scriptures, and in subsequent Jewish Tradition. That prophecy was a sign of the presence of the Divine Spirit upon a person is well attested; among the references in the Scriptures, see Num 11:25ff; 24:2; 1 Sam 10:6ff; 2 Sam 23:2; 1 Kings 22:24; 2 Chron 15:1; Isa 59:21; Ezek 2:2, etc.

The early Christian understanding of Jesus as a Messianic Prophet follows three lines of tradition, represented by three distinct Messianic figure-types: (1) Moses, (2) Elijah, and (3) the Anointed herald of Isaiah 61:1ff. Each of these figures is associated with the manifest presence of God’s Spirit, or of a Divinely instilled prophetic Spirit.

For Moses, there are two passages relating to his role as a Divinely-inspired prophet: (i) Numbers 11:10-30 (esp. vv. 24-30), and (ii) Deuteronomy 18:15-22; cf. also the statement in Deut 34:10. The first passage focuses on the presence and activity of the Spirit, while the second came to be the core text for the idea of a Messianic prophet “like Moses” who would appear at the end time. This idea had become well-established in Jewish Tradition by the first century B.C./A.D., and was adopted by early Christians, applying it to Jesus (see esp. Acts 3:22; 7:37). I have discussed the first passage at length in an earlier series on the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament; cf. the notes on Num 11:10-30.

The prophetic spirit that was manifest in the person of Elijah is mentioned in 2 Kings 2:9, 15; in this context, see also the association with the Spirit of YHWH in v. 16, indicating Elijah’s special/chosen status. Traditionally, the miracle-working power of Elijah (and Elisha) is associated with this ‘anointing’ (cf. 1 Kings 19:16) by the Spirit, as in Isa 61:1ff (cf. below). It is this aspect of Jesus’ ministry (i.e., his working of healing miracles, etc) which led to his being identified with the Messianic figure type of Elijah, though elsewhere in the Gospel and early Christian tradition this role is given to John the Baptist (see esp. Lk 1:15, 17, where the prophetic “spirit of Elijah” is closely connected with the presence of the Spirit of God). The idea of Messianic prophet according to the figure-type of Elijah, who would appear at the end-time, largely stems from Malachi 3:23-24 [4:5-6], which expounds the earlier oracle of 3:1ff (cf. my note on “The One Coming” in the series “Yeshua the Anointed”).

Finally, there is the Anointed herald of Isaiah 61:1ff, which is related conceptually to the “Servant of YHWH” figure that recurs throughout the Isaian (and/or deutero-Isaian) oracle-poems. There are actually three key Isaian passages which are fundamental to the idea of a Messianic prophet who is ‘anointed’ by the Spirit of God. I have discussed each of these in the earlier series on “The Old Testament in the Gospel Tradition”, or in the aforementioned series on the Spirit in the Old Testament: (a) 11:1-9 (esp. vv. 1-2 [notes]), (b) 42:1ff (article), and (c) 61:1ff (article). The influence of Isa 11:1-2ff is certain, though the passage is not specifically cited or alluded to in the Gospel Tradition; Jesus is identified as the Spirit-anointed figure of the passage, according to a Messianic interpretation, in 2 Thess 2:8 (citing v. 4). The wording of v. 2 (“The Spirit of YHWH shall rest upon him”) certainly could be seen as having been fulfilled by the coming of the Spirit upon Jesus in the Baptism scene.

More explicit associations, however, are attested for the prophecies of Isa 42:1ff and 61:1ff, both of which are connected with the Baptism scene in the Gospel Tradition (cf. the aforementioned articles). The scene itself almost certainly alludes to Isa 42:1, particularly in the LXX translation, since the word for Hebrew db#u# (“servant”) in Greek is pai=$, which also means “child”. The latter nuance puts the LXX of Isa 42:1 into close alignment with the Gospel Baptism scene, juxtaposing the coming of the Spirit upon Jesus with the declaration that he is God’s Son.

As for Isa 61:1ff, the Lukan Gospel specifically identifies the Baptism of Jesus as the fulfillment of this prophecy. The author does this by moving up the Nazareth scene (cf. Mk 6:1-6 par) to the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry (4:16ff), immediately following the Baptism and Temptation episodes (3:21-22; 4:1-13); Isa 61:1 is famously featured (vv. 18-19ff) in this Lukan version of the Nazareth scene. In context, the coming of the Spirit upon Jesus at the Baptism is to be understood as the ‘anointing’ of the Spirit mentioned in Isa 61:1, a fact that the author more or less confirms by the narrative detail in 4:1, 14. The Spirit, having come down upon Jesus, now guides and empowers him all throughout his ministry; in this regard, Jesus serves as the type-pattern for the mission of the first (apostolic) believers, who continue his Spirit-empowered ministry, as narrated in the book of Acts.

(2) Jesus’ identity as the Royal/Davidic Messiah

(cf. Parts 6, 7, 8 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”)

If the Divine/heavenly voice of the Baptism scene alludes to Isaiah 42:1 (cf. above), it also evokes the declaration (by YHWH) in Psalm 2:7: “You are my Son”. The original context of this statement of Divine sonship involves the ancient/traditional royal theology, whereby the king was identified—symbolically and ritually—as the “son” of God. For more detail, see my earlier study on Psalm 2, as well as the article in the series “The Birth of the Messiah”. In a variant reading of the Lukan version of the Divine/heavenly declaration (3:22), Psalm 2:7 is more fully (and explicitly) quoted, as from the LXX: “You are my Son; today I have caused you to be (born) [e)gw\ sh/meron gege/nnka/ se]”. This is understandable, given the importance of Ps 2:7 as a Messianic prophecy, both in Jewish Tradition and among early Christians (cf. Acts 13:33; Heb 1:5; 5:5).

The anointing of the king is an obvious motif; but how does the Spirit relate specifically to the royal/Davidic Messiah (and, thus, to Jesus’ identification with this figure)? The association goes back to an ancient Near Eastern concept of charismatic kingship, whereby the king was seen to be specially favored and gifted by the gods, so as to be equipped and able to rule effectively. We see vestiges of this traditional conception in some of the earlier narrative strata of the Scriptures. It is expressed according to two primary aspects, whereby the manifest Spirit of God results in: (1) wisdom, insight, and skill for ruling; and (2) military leadership and prowess in battle.

With regard to the former, Joshua is perhaps the principal example, though the references are quite limited (Num 27:18; Deut 34:9). Like Elisha who followed Elijah (cf. above), the presence of the Spirit on/in Joshua is a continuation of the Spirit’s presence on/in Moses, enabling him to rule over God’s people (Num 11:17ff; Deut 34:10). Joseph (Gen 41:38) and Daniel (Dan 4:8-9, etc) also achieved a certain royal/ruling status, due to the presence of God’s Spirit enabling and guiding them. As for the military aspect, this is emphasized mainly in the narratives of the Judges—cf. the references regarding Othniel (3:10), Gideon (6:34), Jephthah (11:29), and Samson (13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14).

Most relevant to the specific figure-type of the Davidic royal Messiah are the references to the Spirit in the David narratives of 1 Samuel. Particularly notable is the contrast between Saul and David. As king (the first king of Israel), God’s Spirit had come upon Saul (1 Sam 10:6, 10; 11:6), in a highly dramatic and powerful manner (note the prophetic emphasis [cf. also 19:20, 23ff]). However, following Saul’s disobedience (see chap. 15), the promise of kingship was taken away from him, to be given over to another (David), cf. 16:1-12. As part of this transfer, God’s Spirit came upon David (16:13), while, at the same time, departing from Saul, to be replaced by an evil spirit (v. 14). Especially to be noted, in relation to the Messianic figure-type, is the close connection between the anointing of David as king (v. 12) and the coming of the Spirit upon him (v. 13). The presence of God’s Spirit is mentioned elsewhere in the Scriptures, where again the emphasis is on David’s role as an inspired prophet (2 Sam 23:2; cf. also Psalm 51:11; Mk 12:36 par; Acts 1:16; 4:25).

In point of fact, the ruling and prophetic aspects of the Spirit’s presence upon chosen individuals are often blended together in the Scriptural tradition; beyond Saul and David, the examples of Moses, Joseph, and Daniel have already been noted (cf. above). This tendency allowed for the same combination to be applied readily with regard to the Messianic identity of Jesus—viz., as both King and Prophet. The Baptism scene would seem to establish both of these points of identification, even though, in the Synoptic narrative, Jesus’ identity as the royal/Davidic Messiah does not come clearly into view until the Jerusalem period.

In the next two studies (2 and 3), we will continue with our discussion of the role of the Spirit in the Baptism of Jesus. The significance of the Spirit’s role will be examined in a bit more detail; in addition, we will explore the development of the Baptism tradition in the Gospel of John, as well as give consideration to how the Spirit’s role, established in the Baptism scene, was to be demonstrated throughout Jesus’ ministry—as described in the Synoptic narrative (and, particularly, the Lukan narrative).

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 126

Psalm 126

Dead Sea MSS: 11QPs^a (vv. 1-6); 4QPs^e (vv. 1-5); 4QPs^b (v. 6)

This Psalm is the second Song in the second group of five “Songs of Ascents” (Pss 125-129); cp. Ps 121. As with the other Songs in this group (cf. the prior study on Ps 125), the thematic emphasis is on the blessing that YHWH will provide for the people (viz., the righteous/faithful ones). This takes place within the broader context of the restoration/return of the people to the land (with its capital of Jerusalem/Zion). Indeed, the restoration of Israel is very much the primary theme of Psalm 126, expressed clearly in the first verse of each part of the Song (vv. 1 and 4).

The question of genre hinges on whether one accepts the imperative form of the verb bWv in v. 4 (see the discussion below). The use of the imperative suggests that the second part (vv. 4-6) essentially represents a prayer for blessing (esp. for the fertility of the land). This would give the Psalm something of hybrid quality, joining this prayer-stanza to the earlier praise/thanksgiving stanza of vv. 1-3.

There can be no real doubt as to the straightforward two-part structure of the Psalm, indicated by the similarity of vv. 1 and 4. The restoration theme of the initial verse of each section (or stanza) is developed in the verses that follow. The first section (vv. 1-3) emphasizes the action of YHWH in bringing about the restoration of His people, with the blessing that this entails. The second section (vv. 4-6) focuses on the action(s) of the people in the land, whereby they experience this blessing. Again, if the imperative form of the verb bWv in v. 4 is correct, then the second section has a present-future orientation, while the first section is rooted in the past.

Most scholars would date Psalm 126 to the post-exilic period, with the general assumption that the “return” (vb bWv, noun hb*yv!) mentioned in verse 1 refers (or alludes to) the return of Israel/Judah from exile, and to the re-establishment of the people back in the land (centered on the holy city of Jerusalem [Zion]). For earlier translators, who understood hb*yv! in v. 1 as derived from the verbal root hb*v*, and thus meaning “captivity”, there was no doubt as to the exilic reference. Yet, even if there is not a specific reference to a return from exile in v. 1, there would seem to be at least an allusion to this aspect of the restoration-theme.

An early post-exilic date for the Psalm would be in keeping with the time-frame and setting for the collection as a whole. It also tends to be supported by a number of stylistic and thematic similarities with Prophetic texts (esp. from the books of Joel, Jeremiah, and a number of the [deutero-]Isaian poems) that are usually dated to the exilic or early post-exilic period. These will be discussed in the notes.

The meter of this Psalm is irregular, but is relatively consistent within each part: primarily following a 2-beat (2+2+2) tricolon pattern in Part 1, and a 3+2 couplet pattern in Part 2.

For a discussion of the meaning and significance of the heaning “Song of the Ascents” (tolu&M^h^ ryv!), see the earlier study on Ps 120.

Part 1: VerseS 1-3

Verse 1

“In (the) returning of YHWH
(for the) returning of ‚iyyôn,
we were like (those) dreaming.”

The syntax of this initial verse is difficult, but it is facilitated by parsing the verse as a 2-beat (2+2+2) tricolon (cf. Allen, p. 227); indeed, this would seem to be meter that governs the first part of the Song. By this division, the first two lines contain parallel phrases, each of which utilizes a (verbal) noun, from the root bWv (“turn back, return”) in a construct expression.

In the first line, there is a verbal noun (infinitive) joined in construct with the subject YHWH. As noted pointedly by Hossfeld-Zenger (p. 369), this infinitive is in the Qal stem, rather than the Hiphil (or Pilpel), so that the action summarized is that of YHWH Himself “turning back” or “returning”. The prefixed preposition B= gives a temporal significance to the phrase. Literally, the rendering is “In (the) returning of YHWH…”, which, in English idiom, would normally be translated, “When YHWH returned…”.

The second line utilizes the noun hb*yv!, though some manuscripts read tWbv= as a correction or harmonization with v. 4 (cf. below). The noun hb*yv! does not occur elsewhere in the Scriptures, but tended to be explained as deriving from the root hb*v* (“take [away] captive”), and thus meaning “captivity” (cp. tyb!v=, which is the reading of 4QPs^e). However, the noun hb*yv! is attested (extra-biblically) in the Aramaic Sefire Inscription (iii. 24) from the eighth-century B.C., where it is similarly used in conjunction with the verb bWv (and with a divine subject). There, the verb is in the Hiphil (causative) stem, where it means “bring back, make return”; the line in the Inscription may be translated as: “The gods made return (the) return of my father’s house”. To avoid the redundancy in translation, a more idiomatic rendering is usually made, such as: “The gods restored the fortunes of my father’s house” (cf. Dahood, III, p. 218). In any case, it is clear that hb*yv! is more or less equivalent in meaning to tWbv=, which is the regular noun used in v. 4.

The expression in line 2 has the accusative marker (-ta#), but, given the Qal form of the verb bWv in line 1, this cannot be taken as a simple marker for a direct object, which might be the case if the verb were in the Hiphil (causative) stem (as in the Sefire Inscription, cf. above). Hossfeld-Zenger (p. 369) treats it as a qualitative “internal object” that further explains the purpose and result of YHWH’s “return” —that is, His returning is “a return with regard to Zion”. I am inclined to gloss the accusative phrase in the second line as “for the purpose of…”: YHWH’s return is “for the returning of Zion”, that is, to bring about Zion’s restoration. This is treated as a past event, something which has already occurred; as noted in the introduction above, this is best understood in terms of an early post-exilic setting for the Psalm, with the re-establishment of the people of Israel/Judah back in the land. Goulder (pp. 60-64) connects this with the time of Nehemiah (c. 450 B.C.) and the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem (its walls).

The final line is somewhat enigmatic, and there have been a number of alternative interpretations and emendations suggested (cf. Dahood, III, p. 218-9; Crow, pp. 59-60); Beyerlin’s study of the Psalm (in English, We Are Like Dreamers: Studies in Psalm 126, transl. Dinah Livingstone [T&T Clark: 1982]) deals extensively with the meaning and significance of the line. The normal explanation of <ymljk is as a plural participle of the verb <l^j* (“dream”), with the prefixed preposition K= (in the comparative sense of “like, as”).

The LXX and other ancient versions (Syriac, Aramaic Targums) derive the word/form from a separate root <l^j* meaning “be healthy/healed”; the reading in the Qumran manuscript 11QPs^a may [possibly] support this semantic connection. If correct, the idea would presumably be that the people (esp. the righteous) were themselves ‘restored’ and made whole by the restoration of Zion.

Thus, in this line, the Psalmist-protagonist, speaking collectively with the voice of the people (esp. the righteous), states that, when YHWH returned, to bring about the return/restoration of Zion, “we were like (those) dreaming”. This suggests that the restoration of Zion was the fulfillment of the people’s hopes and dreams; perhaps a certain prophetic aspect to this fulfillment is also intended—viz., as the fulfillment of prophecies of restoration.

On this last point, it is significant to note similar cognate-phrase occurrences of the verb bWv combined with the noun tWbv= (with YHWH as the subject)—primarily in Jeremiah (29:14; 30:3, 18; 31:23; 32:44; 33:7, 11, 26) and Ezekiel (16:53 [4 times]; 29:14; 39:25), but cf. also Deut 30:3; Psalm 14:7; 53:7[6]; 85:2[1]; Hos 6:11; Amos 9:14; Joel 4[3]:1; Zeph 2:7; 3:20. The usage is traditional (cf. Job 42:10) and spans a relatively wide range of Prophetic writings, from pre-exilic texts down into the post-exilic period.

Verse 2a

“Then our mouth was filled (with) laughter,
and our tongue (with) a ringing cry.”

The return/restoration of Zion is a source of great joy for the people (as represented by the Psalmist-protagonist). The traditional poetic parallelism of mouth/tongue is utilized for this expression of joyful praise. The verb /n~r*, denoting a ringing cry (or shout) occurs with some frequency in the Psalms (15 times) as a praise-term. It also is used regularly throughout the prophetic oracles and poems of (deutero-)Isaiah, often in the context of the restoration of Israel and the return from Exile (35:10; 40:23; 48:20; 49:13; 51:11; 54:1; 55:12); cf. also Zeph 3:17.

As Allen (p. 228) notes, it is possible to divide this verse as a 2+2+2 tricolon, which would be in keeping with the meter of this stanza (vv. 1, 2b, 3):

“Then came to be filled
our mouth (with) laughter,
and our tongue (with) singing.”

Verse 2b

“Then even the nations did say:
‘YHWH has shown (Himself) great
to do (such things) with them!'”

If YHWH’s own people of Israel/Judah was overjoyed by the restoration of Zion, the surrounding nations, were at least amazed by this as well. I here follow Dahood (III, p. 219f) in regarding the prefixed preposition B= on the noun <yoGh^ (“the nations”) as having emphatic force: “even the nations”. However, the more common locative/inclusive meaning is also possible: “among the nations”. In such an instance, the verb (Wrm=ay), “they said”) would be used in something of a general or impersonal sense: “They (i.e., people generally) said among the nations…”.

The syntax of the second and third lines is difficult to translate in English; taken together, the lines literally read: “YHWH made great to do with them”. Along with Dahood (III, p. 220), I render the Hiphil form of the verb ld^G` (“be great”) in an elative sense—i.e., “YHWH showed (Himself to be) great”, “YHWH showed (His) greatness”. This greatness was demonstrated by what He did with (i.e., for) His people—restoring them and causing them to be re-established back in the land. The “return” of Zion (Jerusalem) both symbolizes this restoration (as a whole) and represents the joyous culmination of it.

For an important parallel to this wording, see Joel 2:20-21.

Verse 3

“YHWH has shown (Himself) great
(indeed) to do (such things) with us,
and we were (made) glad (by it)!”

God’s people joyously echo the words of the nations (v. 2b), so that the declaration becomes an exclamation of praise. The final climactic line also seems to echo the statement in the third line of verse 1 (cf. above), though this is difficult to bring out in translation; note the parallel:

- “we were [Wnyy]h*] like (the one)s dreaming”
- “we were [Wnyy]h*] (the one)s (made) glad”

This parallelism tends to support the traditional explanation of the form in v. 1 as being a participle (verbal adjective) from the vb <l^j* (“dream”). The people were made glad, like those who have seen their own cherished dreams fulfilled.

Part 2: Verses 4-6

Verse 4

“Return, O YHWH, (for) our return—
like (the) beds in the Dry-region!”

The initial couplet of the second part of the Psalm restates the principal theme from the first part (v. 1, cf. above), utilizing the same cognate-phrase combining the verb bWv (Qal) and the noun tWbv= (hb*yv! in v. 1). As YHWH returns to the land (and its people), the land (and people) itself is restored and returns to life and prosperity, in the same manner that the seasonal (winter) floods bring water to the dry river-beds (wadis) of the desert. The wadis are here referenced by the noun qyp!a*, denoting a channel, etc, that holds/contains water.

The dry and arid region (bgn) of southern Palestine, south of Jerusalem and the Judean hills, is known by this characteristic designation (bg#n#, nege», Negev). The image of the arid desert being suddenly filled with life-giving and fertilizing waters is a suitable motif for the restoration of the land (and its people). It is also quite traditional, occurring in various forms throughout the Psalms and prophetic poems (Ps 105:41; 107:35; Isa 35:6-7; 41:18; 43:19-20, etc).

The verb form in line 1 in the MT is an imperative (hb*Wv, “Return…!”), and thus expresses a prayer-wish by the people, as they call on YHWH. Dahood (III, p. 220) would explain this as a qatala form (vocalized as hb*v*, or hb*v)), rather than an imperative, thus rendering v. 4 as a past-tense descriptive statement, just like v. 1. However, I do not find this explanation particularly convincing, and see no compelling reason to alter the MT vocalization. Assuming that the MT is correct, the imperative form, and the prayer-wish that it expresses, gives to the second part of the Psalm a present-future orientation that complements the past orientation of the first part. Even though blessing has returned to the land and its people, there is a wish (and prayer) that this should continue, and be ever more fully realized.

Verse 5

“The (one)s sowing seed with tears,
with a ringing shout shall harvest.”

The desert motif in verse 4 (cf. above), beyond its regional significance (viz., Judea and Jerusalem, and the land as a whole), serves qualitatively as a symbol for suffering. A time of dryness and suffering (for the land and its people) gives way to blessing and prosperity. The normal agricultural seasonal cycle also serves to illustrate this dynamic: one sows the seed in a time of suffering (with tears), but then this sadness is replaced by a ringing cry (or shout) of joy (hN`r!, cf. verse 2). On the temporary nature of weeping (for the righteous), to be replaced by joy, see, e.g., Psalm 30:6[5].
Goulder (p. 63) mentions the Egyptian custom of weeping while sowing, and suggests that this may have entailed a certain ritual-magical significance, whereby the god(s) of the heavens/skies would be prevailed upon to bring the fertilizing ‘tears’ of rain at their proper time.

Metrically, this verse is a shortened 2-beat (2+2) couplet, compared with the 3+2 meter of vv. 4, 6.

Verse 6

“He goes (out), going and weeping,
carrying the pouch of seed,
(but) shall come, coming with a shout,
carrying his bounded (sheave)s.”

The final two couplets fill out, with a more detailed and vivid depiction, the imagery of v. 5. The noun Ev#m# (cf. Akkadian mašku) refers to a leather (skin) pouch, such as the kind in which one carries seed for sowing. If the Ev#m# contains the seed, the harvested grain is tied up (bound, <la) in sheaves (tM)l%a&) for carrying.

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 125

Psalm 125

Dead Sea MSS: 11QPs^a (vv. 1-5); 4QPs^e (vv. 2-5)

In analyzing these “Songs of Ascents” (Pss 120-134), I am following the approach that divides the collection into three groups of five Songs (Pss 120-124, 125-129, and 130-134). According to this approach, Psalm 125 represents the first Song of the second group (cp. Psalm 120).

The structure of the Psalm explains its nature. The initial section (vv. 1-2) is a confessional hymn to YHWH, in which the people express their trust in Him. This theme is expressed in traditional terms, with the image of YHWH as a firm and abiding rock (i.e., mountain) that provides support and strength for His people. By utilizing this rock/mountain imagery, the attributes of YHWH can be praised, but it also allows the Psalmist to introduce the important association between YHWH and the city of Jerusalem, with God’s dwelling-place on ‘Mount’ Zion (i.e., the Temple mount), where He rules as King (on earth) among His people. We have discussed the setting for the Songs as traditionally being that of the pilgrimage festivals—entailing the journey of devout pilgrims to the holy city of Jerusalem. This setting is quite apparent in Ps 122, and may be indicated in others of the Songs as well.

Two short stanzas—v. 3 and vv. 4-5—follow the initial hymn. These stanzas draw upon the traditional contrast between the righteous and the wicked—a staple theme from Wisdom Tradition which plays an important role in many Psalms. The protagonist typically identifies himself with the righteous—viz., those who are devout and loyal to YHWH, being faithful to the covenant (and its Torah).

These righteous ones trust in YHWH, relying upon the protection that He provides—this Divine protection being a covenant obligation of YHWH to His people. Insofar as the people remain faithful to the covenant, they can trust that YHWH will protect them. This includes keeping them secure in the promised land (cf. stanza 1, v. 3), a thematic emphasis that many commentators regard as indicative of a post-exilic setting. A post-exilic date does seem likely, and, indeed, there are other linguistic and stylistic considerations (cf. Crow, pp. 57-8) which would tend to support such a view. At the very least, this Psalm, in its redacted form (cf. Hossfeld-Zenger, p. 363), probably dates from the early post-exilic period; much the same can be said for the collection as a whole.

However, in should be noted that the thematic emphasis on restoration/return to the land, found in a number of the Songs in the first grouping (esp. Pss 120 and 123), is not particularly to be found here in the second group. Instead, the focus tends to be on the blessings that will come to God’s people, while dwelling in the land, as long as they are faithful to the covenant-bond.

The meter of this Psalm is irregular, as will be noted below.

For a discussion of the meaning and significance of the heaning “Song of the Ascents” (tolu&M^h^ ryv!), see the earlier study on Ps 120.

Hymn: VerseS 1-2

Verse 1

“The (one)s trusting in YHWH
(are) like (the) mount of ‚iyyôn—
not moved, into (the) distant (future) it sits!”

I have described the initial section (vv. 1-2) as a short confessional hymn, in which the people both praise YHWH (for His faithfulness and protective power) and confess their trust in Him. The righteous, indeed, are characterized as “the (one)s trusting” in YHWH; the verbal adjective (participle) <yj!f=B) is used to express this. The verb jf^B* (“rely upon, trust in”) occurs frequently in the Psalms (46 times), in similar contexts.

The righteous can trust in YHWH because He is firm and reliable, like a Rock—a regular attribute (and title) given to Him in the Psalms. Here, in particular, He is implicitly compared with a mountain (rh^), as also earlier in Ps 121 (vv. 1-2, cp. 123:1). At the same time, those who trust in this mountain are like a mountain themselves—viz., firm, reliable, secure. Like the great mountains, they will not be shaken or moved from their place, and will abide (and endure) into the distant future (<l*oul=). The verb fom is frequently used in this ethical-religious context, to the effect that the righteous one (who trusts in YHWH) will not be moved—a basic meaning which includes the connotations of sway, shake, stagger, slip. This verb occurs 24 times in the Psalms (cf. for example, the promise in 112:6).

YHWH also dwells on a mountain, as discussed in the earlier notes on 121:1-2. Cosmologically, this mountain dwelling, from where YHWH rules (as King) over the cosmos, spans the entire space between heaven and earth; His ruling seat is in heaven, upon the top/peak of the mountain (cf. 123:1). From a ritual-symbolic standpoint, YHWH also dwells among His people in Jerusalem, in the Temple sanctuary. The city—and, particularly, the Temple location—is situated on an elevated hilltop site (Zion). Its typological connection with the great cosmic mountain allows Jerusalem/Zion to be referred to as a mountain, even if it is, in actuality, something of a modest hill.

The association here with Jerusalem/Zion alludes to the covenant bond between YHWH and His people, and, specifically, to ritual celebrations which occur in Jerusalem on the occasion of the great pilgrimage festivals. All of the righteous ones will fulfill their covenant obligation and participate in the festal pilgrimage to Jerusalem (cf. the context of Ps 122).

The meter of this verse (tricolon) is irregular—2+2+3. Some commentators (e.g., Beyerlin) would treat the final word of v. 1 (bv@y@) as belonging to the first line of v. 2, thus alleviating the metrical difficulty. Both Beyerlin and Dahood (III, p. 215), following the LXX, vocalize bvy as a participle (bv@y)), “sitting/seated”, whereby v. 2 would begin: “(the one) sitting in Jerusalem…”, referring either to those dwelling/residing in Jerusalem (to be identified with the devout/righteous ones), or to YHWH dwelling (and seated on His throne) in the Temple sanctuary. The MT vocalization, however, can be retained, since the image of a mountain that “sits/sets” in place, firm and abiding, is an appropriate contrast to having “moved” (being swayed, shaken, etc); cf. the wording in Joel 4[3]:20.

The Qumran manuscript 11QPs^a has a somewhat smoother reading with the inclusion of a prefixed relative particle (v) at the beginning of the third line (“which is not moved…”).

Verse 2

“Yerušalaim (has) mountains round about her,
and YHWH (also is) round about His people,
from now even until (the) distant (future)!”

The comparisons are made more prosaically in this second verse (a longer 3-beat [3+3+3] tricolon). Here, it is YHWH who is specifically compared with the mountain; cf. the discussion above. The identification of the people (viz., the righteous/devout ones) with the city of Jerusalem (= [mount] Zion), from v. 1, continues here. As noted above, the ‘mountain’ of Jerusalem is, in fact, only a modest hill; however, there are larger mountains surrounding the city (including the Mount of Olives and Mount Scopus, visible from the city), and these are identified with the strength and protective power provided by YHWH (cf. 123:1). On the specific motif of YHWH “surrounding” (bbs) those who trust in Him, giving them protection, see Psalm 32:10; 34:8[7]; Zech 2:9[5] (cf. Allen, p. 225). It is YHWH’s protection—reflecting His firm support and faithfulness to the covenant—which allows the righteous to be firm and secure (like a mountain) themselves.

The use of the preposition l= following the adverb byb!s* (“surrounding, around”) corresponds in the translation above to “about”, i.e., “round [byb!s*] about [-l=]”.

Stanza 1: Verse 3

Verse 3a

“For (surely) shall not rest
(the) staff of the wicked
upon (the) lot of the righteous,”

As noted in the introduction above, both of the stanzas (v. 3 and vv. 4-5) deal with the traditional thematic contrast of the righteous vs. the wicked.

Literally, the expression is “staff of the wickedness”, i.e., “the staff of wickedness”, but I have rendered the abstract noun uv^r# (“wickedness”) rather more concretely (“[the] wicked”), in order to bring out this thematic contrast. Cf. Dahood, III, p. 215.

Here, this contrast is used to expound the principal theme from the hymn—viz., of the protection which YHWH provides for His people, and how the righteous trust in this protection, and thus are able to dwell and abide secure in it. The Divine protection is part of the blessing, etc, promised by YHWH (to the faithful) in the covenant. In particular, this promise entails that the people—so long as they remain faithful—will dwell secure in the land of their inheritance (viz., the Promised Land, centered on the capital city of Jerusalem/Zion). Most likely, this particular iteration of the promise reflects an early post-exilic setting, upon the initial restoration and re-establishment of Israel/Judah in the land. The land as a whole, is described as an inherited “lot” (lroG, denoting a small stone that is used for casting lots); originally (and traditionally) this would have referred to the territorial allotments for each tribe. For the casting of lots to determine how the territory should be divided and allotted, cf. Num 26:55-56; Joshua 14:2, and throughout chaps. 18-20.

Metrically, v. 3a is a 2-beat (2+2+2) tricolon.

Verse 3b

“so that the righteous should not send (out)
their hands in deviant (ways).”

Grammatically, verse 3 forms a single sentence, the two units linked together by the conjunctive particle /u^m^ (prefixed by l=). This compound particle is difficult to translate literally, but basically it means “for the purpose of”, i.e., “so that”, “in order to”. Dahood (III, p. 216) suggests that here the force of the clause should be seen as conditional: “provided that…” (he cites Josh 4:24 as a similar instance). The meaning would then be that the people would be in secure possession of the land, so long as they continue in their righteousness (i.e., being faithful to the covenant and its Torah). This is definitely an emphasis here in the stanzas (see vv. 4-5, below), but it is questionable whether the clause of v. 3b specifically expresses it. The conventional interpretation would be just as valid—viz., the wicked will be kept from having rule over the people, so that the righteous are not perverted to such an extent by it so as to “send out their hands” in deviant behavior (hl*w+u^) themselves.

The use of the construction al) /u^m^l= is usually regarded as an indication of post-exilic date for the Psalm (or at least its redaction, cf. Crow, p. 55ff); compare the occurrences in exilic and post-exilic passages such as Ezek 14:11; 19:9; 25:10; 26:20; Zech 12:7; cf. also Ps 119:11, 80.

Stanza 2: Verses 4-5

Verse 4

“Do good, YHWH, to (those who are) good,
and to (those) straight in their hearts.”

The conditional aspect of YHWH’s blessing upon His people, alluded to in the prior stanza (see above on v. 3b), is more clearly expressed here in vv. 4-5. YHWH is expected to “do good” (vb bof, Hiphil) to those who are themselves good (i.e., the righteous), and who thus do what is good and right. Their right(eous) conduct is a reflection of a pure and right intention—as expressed by the traditional idiom of being “straight” (rv*y`) in one’s heart (in modern parlance, we might speak of “personal integrity”, though English also uses the idiom of being “straight”). The protagonist calls upon YHWH to act in accordance with His own covenant loyalty, and to bless with goodness all those who are good.

Metrically, verse 4, like the prior v. 3b, is a 3+2 couplet.

Verse 5

“But the (one)s bending (in) crooked ways—
YHWH shall make (them) go (away),
(all) th(ose) makers of trouble!”

If YHWH is called upon (and is expected) to bless the righteous (v. 4), He is similarly asked to punish the wicked. The wicked are described by two traditional idioms. The first is that of bending/turning (vb hf*n`), away from the true path (of God), and onto “crooked” pathways (the rare emphatic adjective lq^l=q^u& is used [cf. Judg 5:6] here). The second is the more general expression “makers of trouble” (/w#a^[h*] yl@u&P)), i.e., trouble-makers. Those among God’s people who have been unfaithful to the covenant, acting in improper and wicked ways, will be driven out (lit., made to go [away], vb El^h* Hiphil) from the land and the inheritance that belongs to the righteous. In this regard, they will be no different than the wicked and godless ones among the nations. Indeed, many commentators would read the particle ta#, not as a marker of the accusative (direct object), but in a prepositional (inclusive) sense (“together with, along with”)—that is, the unfaithful Israelites will be punished and removed along with the wicked (of the nations).
Before the expression “makers of trouble”, the Qumran manuscript 11QPs^a includes the emphatic/comprehensive modifier lwk (“all”). I have glossed my translation to a similar effect (see above).

This final verse is a 3+2+2 tricolon, which provides a certain rhythmic balance to the tricolon in v. 3a.

Benediction

“Fullness (be) upon Yisrael!”

The Song closes with this benediction, wishing for blessings upon the people of Israel as a whole. Clearly, this must be understood in light of the distinction in vv. 4-5, between the righteous and the wicked (i.e., not all Israelites are righteous). The noun <olv*, which is often translated flatly as “peace”, properly means “completion, fullness, wholeness”, of which “peace” is only one important aspect. Quite often the term is used in a covenant-context—implying a fulfillment (and completion) of the covenant bond, with its obligations (and promised blessings). Insofar as the Israelite/Jewish people are faithful to the covenant with YHWH, He will bring blessings upon them—including protection and security, along with the peace that naturally follows.

The same blessing formula occurs at the end of Psalm 128 (v. 6b).