Month: April 2025

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 132 (Part 1)

Psalm 132

Dead Sea MSS: 11QPsa (vv. 8-18)

This, the longest of the “Songs of Ascents”, is the third (central) Song the final group of five (Pss 130-134). The focus in this Song is on Jerusalem (Zion) as the city chosen by YHWH for His dwelling-place. This theme is shared by the corresponding Song in each of the first two groups (i.e., Pss 122 [study] and 127 [study]), along with the key motif of building—that is, of establishing and building up the city (its walls, etc), but most particularly, the building of the Temple as the “house” for YHWH. Psalm 132 most closely resembles Ps 122 with its emphasis on both the house/dwelling of YHWH, and on the city as the royal capital (and seat of the Judean kings who follow in the line of David, cf. 122:5).

More than any other Song in this collection, Ps 132 deals extensively with historical tradition and the Israelite/Judean royal theology. This has led to considerable debate among scholars and commentators as to the date and provenance of the Psalm. Opinions range widely, from an early pre-exilic (10th century) date, to a setting in the post-exilic period.
As examples of this extreme range of opinion, Dahood (III, p. 241f), rather typically, holds the former position (i.e., early pre-exilic), while Hossfeld-Zenger (p. 459f), also quite typically, maintains the latter view (i.e., post-exilic).

The assumption of a pre-exilic date, in the monarchic period, is often wedded to the hypothesis that Ps 132 represents an ancient liturgy—most commonly posited for the occasion of a ceremony commemorating the procession of the ark to Jerusalem in the time of David (2 Samuel 6). Such a ceremony likely would have had a strong royal orientation as well, celebrating the choice of David as king.
For a good (and representative) exposition of this ritual-liturgical interpretation, with a summary of the earlier (German) scholarship, cf. Kraus, pp. 475-9. He cites Ancient Near Eastern kingship rituals (in Egypt and Mesopotamia), with a special mention of the example of the Sumerian king Gudea of Lagash (p. 478), and the famous temple-Hymn, in which Gudea’s kingship is connected with the building of a temple-shrine. Cross (pp. 79-111, etc) deals extensively with the idea of a procession-ritual (involving the ark), and discusses Psalm 132 in the context of other Psalms (e.g., 24, 68) with a royal-ritual background. For a critical treatment of the matter, in reference to Psalm 132 (and esp. verse 8), see the article by Delbert R. Hillers, “Ritual Procession of the Ark and Ps 132”, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly [CBQ], 30 (1968), pp. 48-55. Cf. also Heinz Kruse, “Psalm cxxxii and the Royal Zion Festival”, Vetus Testamentum [VT], 33 (1983), pp. 279-97.

There can be little doubt that Psalm 132 deals with the same basic historical traditions as those recorded in 2 Samuel 6-7, but the precise relationship of the Psalm to those chapters (and the history and [Davidic] traditions preserved therein) remains a subject of some dispute. I will discuss the matter, along with some related historical- and literary-critical points, in the course of the notes.

Whatever the compositional origins of Psalm 132, its inclusion among the “Songs of the Ascents” is likely due to two factors: (1) the thematic emphasis on Jerusalem and the Temple-sanctuary of YHWH, and (2) the references and allusions to pilgrim celebrants (in vv. 6-7, 9, 15-17). If the Psalm derived from an ancient (pre-exilic) ritual-liturgical setting, then it would have been relatively easy (and natural) to adopt (and/or adapt) it for ritual (festal) use in the post-exilic context of the collection.

There is general agreement on the bi-partite division of the Psalm, though some dispute remains as to whether verse 10 belongs to the first part or the second; I follow the commentators who include it in the first part, thus creating a division of vv. 1-10, 11-18. In addition, there is a formal (though not poetic or strophic) subdivision within each part, resulting in four main sections. The structure can be outlined as follows:

    • Part 1 (vv. 1-10): David’s role in establishing the royal dwelling for YHWH in Jerusalem
      (framed as a prayer to YHWH, on David’s behalf)

      • David’s vow to provide a dwelling for YHWH (vv. 1-5)
      • The procession of YHWH (manifest through the ‘ark’) to His dwelling in Jerusalem (vv. 6-10)
    • Part 2 (vv. 11-18): The covenant bond between YHWH and the royal city and the royal line [of David]
      (framed as an answer to prayer by YHWH)

      • YHWH’s vow/oath to David (vv. 11-12)
      • YHWH’s choice of Jerusalem as the royal city (vv. 13-18)

Metrically, Psalm 132 consistently follows a 3-beat (3+3) couplet format, with only several (apparent) exceptions; these will be discussed in the notes.

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 1-10

Section 1: David’s Vow to YHWH (vv. 1-5)
Verse 1

“May you have in mind, YHWH, for David
all his (willingness) to lower himself—”

In terms of the initial section of the Psalm, this first couplet is introductory; in point of fact, it, along with the closing v. 10, functions to frame the entire first part of the Psalm. The verses together serve to frame vv. 2-9 as a prayer to YHWH, made on David’s behalf. This suggests that vv. 1 and 10 have a literary (and redactional) purpose, as a way of adapting and incorporating earlier traditional material. Possibly this could relate to the original liturgical function of the Psalm, whereby the people (and/or the current king as officiant) makes this prayer on behalf of David and his (royal) descendants, effectively praying for the continuation of the Davidic line (an important theme of the second part, vv. 11-18).

The use of the verb rk^z` (“have in mind, remember”) + the preposition l= (in reference to a specific person) is not especially common, but it does occur in similar prayer-contexts, where God is asked to ‘pay to back’ to certain people in regard to things that they have done—either positively (Neh 13:14) or negatively (Ps 137:7). Dahood (III, p. 242) explains the l= as vocative, understanding the address as being to David, rather than YHWH: “Remember YHWH, O David…!” This line of interpretation also colors Dahood’s peculiar explanation of otoNu% in the second line.

The suffixed (verbal) noun otoNu% is a Pual infinitive of the verb hn`u* (II), with the basic meaning “bend down [low]”, which can be understood either in terms of suffering and affliction, or with the more positive nuance of humility. The normal passive sense of the Pual would mean that David “was bent down” (i.e., by another), suggesting a state of oppression or affliction. However, the context here makes a reflexive meaning more likely—either (i) self-affliction, in the sense of laboring hard, or (ii) humbling oneself, such as in service to God. The use of the related yn]u* in 1 Chron 22:14 indicates that the emphasis is on committed effort and hard work; for the specific sense of self-affliction, cf. Lev 23:27, 29.

The meter of v. 1 is a shortened 3+2 couplet, which runs contrary to the 3+3 format throughout the Psalm. For this reason, a number of commentators have suggested that a word may have dropped out from the second, and propose the addition of something like hb*ofl= (“for good”); cf. Crow, p. 99, citing the article by H. Kruse, “Psalm cxxxii and the Royal Zion Festival”, Vetus Testamentum [VT], 33 (1983), p. 281. Unfortunately, this verse does not survive among the Qumran manuscripts, so it is not possible to make a textual comparison in this instance.

Verse 2

“how he made affirmation seven-fold to YHWH,
made a vow to the Strong (One) of Ya‘aqob:”

This second couplet marks the beginning of the first section proper, introducing the oath/vow made by David, which the Psalmist presents in the following vv. 3-5. The verb ub^v* (Niphal) is the regular terminology in the Scriptures for swearing an oath. The precise etymology and derivation is uncertain, other than it is presumably related to the number seven (ubv), and (likely) to the idea of doing or affirming something seven-fold. The parallel verb rd^n` in the second line denotes making a vow (to YHWH), regarding something which one is committed to doing.

The expression “Strong (One) [ryb!a*] of Jacob” is a title for YHWH (cf. Gen 49:24; Isa 1:24; 49:26; 60:16), expressing His covenant-bond with Israel (Jacob). The epithet ryb!a* (“strong/mighty [one]”) is conceptually related (and similar) to the noun la@ (“mighty [one]”), used as a Divine name/title (“Mighty [One]”, i.e., God). The substantive adjective ryba can specifically refer to a powerful animal, such as a bull, where it is vocalized as the noun ryB!a^. Ancient Israelites not infrequently described El-YHWH as a great Bull, drawing upon familiar mytho-religious imagery (from Canaan and elsewhere in the ancient Near East). The imagery was controversial, and was seen by many as especially problematic when extended to a visual depiction (and/or embodiment) of YHWH, as in the famous (or infamous) instances described in Exod 32:4ff; 1 Kings 12:28. It has been suggested that the effective title “Bull of Jacob” indicates the northern provenance of Psalm 132, or that it draws upon northern traditions (such as the bull-iconography of the shrines at Bethel and Dan).

Verse 3

“(See) if I will come in(to the) tent of my house,
if I will go up upon (the) couch of my spread,”

As noted above, verses 3-5 express the oath/vow made by David (v. 2). It utilizes the conditional particle <a! (“if”) as an effective negative formulation, which we would tend to translate with a negative particle in English—i.e., “(See) if [<a!] I will…!” = “I will not…!”

This vow serves as example of ‘self-denial’, viz., the lowering of himself (v. 1), that David underwent. He promises that he will not enjoy the comfort of his bedchamber, until he fulfills what he has vowed to YHWH (v. 5). The expression “tent of my house” probably refers specifically to the canopy of his royal bedroom (cf. Dahood, III, p. 243, who cites Prov 7:17; 27:23); certainly the expression in the second line, “couch of my spread”, refers to a luxurious bed (cf. Deut 3:11; Prov 7:16; Song 1:16; Amos 3:12; 6:4). The idiom of “going up on one’s couch [i.e., bed, cru]” is known in Ugaritic (Aqhat, tablet I, col. 1, line 38-9).

Verse 4

“if I will give sleep to my (own) two eyes,
(or) to my fluttering (lid)s (their) slumber,”

The self-denial involved in David’s vow extends from the comfort of his bed (v. 3) to even any restful sleep at all. The parallelism of “sleep/slumber” and “eyes/eyelids” is basic and straightforward (cf. Prov 6:4). The same pairing of “sleep” (hn`v@, vb /v^y`) and “slumber” (hm*WnT=) also occurs in Ugaritic (Kirta, tablet I, col. 1, lines 31-32, 33-35). The form of the noun used here (tnv), with the ending t-*, may be an instance of the archaic feminine ending (t-), even as the cognate word in Ugaritic is šnt; cf. Dahood, III, p. 243, and note also the phenomenon in Hebrew of occasional t-* endings (in place of h-*) in poetic contexts, GKC §80g, Joüon §89n.

The noun [u^p=u^ is presumably derived from the root [Wu [I] (“fly [about]”), and thus is taken to denote a person’s fluttering eyelids. However, some commentators (cf. Dahood, III, p. 244) maintain that [upu properly denotes the pupil of the eye.

There is an interesting parallel in the case of the Sumerian king Gudea of Lagash (noted above), regarding a similar devout/religious zeal in building a temple: “to build a house for his king [i.e., god] he does not sleep by night, he does not slumber at midday” (cited by O. Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms [Seabury: 1978], pp. 269-70; cf. Allen, p. 270).

Verse 5

“until I should find a standing-place for YHWH,
a dwelling-place for the Strong (One) of Ya‘aqob!”

The conclusion of the oath (following the conditional declarations of vv. 3-4) here states what David vowed to do for YHWH: to find a place for Him. A pair of common locative nouns are utilized (as indicated by the –m preformative): (a) <oqm*, which means “standing place” (i.e., place to stand, <wq); and (b) /K*v=m!, “dwelling place” (i.e., place in which to dwell, /kv). In the context of ancient Israelite religious tradition, the noun /K*v=m! came to be used specifically for the Tent-shrine (i.e., Tabernacle) of YHWH. In such a context, the sanctuary of the shrine is paramount, as representing the place where God is manifestly present (ritually and symbolically). This applies just as well to the sanctuary of the Temple, and to the preliminary Tent which David established in Jerusalem (cf. 2 Sam 6:15ff; 7:2ff).

The plural of the noun /K*v=m! (lit., “dwelling places”) here (and in v. 7) could be taken as an instance of an intensive or superlative plural (i.e., majestic/glorious dwelling). Dahood (III, p. 244; cf. I, 262 [on Ps 43:3]) cites it as an example of the Canaanite (Ugaritic) tendency to use plural nouns and place names with singular meaning. Cross (p. 95) understands the plural here in terms of an “encampment”, i.e., a group of tent-dwellings taken collectively.

Interestingly, there is no indication elsewhere in Scripture of such a vow being made by David regarding the construction of a dwelling-place for YHWH (and his ‘throne’ upon/above the ark, vv. 7-8, 13ff). However, that David had this intention is clearly expressed on several occasions—cf. 2 Sam 7:2-3 par; 1 Kings 8:17; 1 Chron 22:7; 28:2.

For the expression “the Strong (One) [ryb!a*] of Jacob”, as a title of YHWH, see above on v. 2.

This study will continue in Part 2.

    • References marked “Dahood, I”, “Dahood, II” and “Dahood, III” above are to, respectively, Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Psalms I: 1-50, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 16 (1965), Psalms II: 51-100, vol. 17 (1968), and Psalms III: 101-150, vol. 17A (1970).
    • Those marked “Kraus” are to Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalmen, 2. Teilband, Psalmen 60-150, 5th ed., Biblischer Kommentar series (Neukirchener Verlag: 1978); English translation in Psalms 60-150, A Continental Commentary (Fortress Press: 1993).
    • Those 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).
    • Those marked “Cross” are to Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Harvard University Press: 1973). Psalm 132 is discussed on pages 94-97, 232-238, 244-248.

 

“God Sent Forth His Son…”: Romans 5:10; 8:3

Romans 5:10 (continued); 8:3

An exegesis (and theological exposition) of the context/setting of Romans 5:10 was presented in the previous article; we examined the immediate context of 5:1-11, as well as the broader setting of 3:21-5:21. This will enable us, in the current article, to focus on the Christology of verse 10 in more detail. There are three components to the verse: (i) an initial phrase that ‘sets the scene’, and (ii-iii) a pair of sequential clauses that summarize the mediatoral work of God’s Son (Jesus) in relation to humankind (believers):

    • “For, if (while) being (one)s hostile (to God),
      • we were made different [kathllaghmen] (in relation) to God
        through [dia/] the death of His Son,

        • how much more, having been made different, will we be saved
          in [e)n] the life of him?”

Note the difference in tense between the verb katalla/ssw (past/aorist) and sw/zw (future): as believers, we have already been made different, but our salvation will only be fully realized in the future—i.e., an eschatological reference to the coming Judgment and the end-time Resurrection. The present aspect of our salvation (i.e., having been made different) was effected through the death of Christ, while the future aspect (final salvation and glory) is enabled by his life (i.e., resurrection). This is an important principle in Paul’s theology—namely, the participation of believers in the death and resurrection of Jesus. It is expounded and developed in chapters 6-8, and particularly in chap. 8 (cf. below, and in the next article), where both present and future aspects of the believer’s experience are held in balance.

What of the central Son-phrase in verse 10 (“through the death of His Son”)? How much can we infer, from this phrase, regarding Paul’s understanding of the Sonship of Jesus? At the very least, it would seem to imply that Jesus was God’s Son prior to his death, but his Sonship, in this regard, could still be understood entirely in a Messianic sense—as we see in Rom 1:3, and throughout the Gospel Tradition (Mk 1:11 par, etc). It is only when the reference here (and in 1:3-4) is read in light of the statements in 8:3 and (earlier) in Gal 4:4 (cf. the recent article), that we are able to infer an incarnational perspective.

Let us consider Rom 8:3 (along with v. 4):

“For, (due) to the law’s being without power, in that it was without strength through the flesh, God, (hav)ing sent His own Son in (the) likeness of flesh of sin, and about sin (itself), He brought down judgment (on) sin in the flesh, (so) that the right (thing) of the law might be fulfilled in us…”

Paul’s thought (and syntax) in these two verses is particularly dense and complex. It may help to outline vv. 3-4 in terms of its thematic structure, which is chiastic in nature:

    • The Law is without power [and thus fulfilling it cannot bring about rightness for human beings before God]
      • God sent His Son in the likeness of flesh of sin
        • and thus concerning sin
      • He brought down judgment on sin in the flesh
    • Human beings (Believers) are now able to fulfill the “right (thing)” described and intended by the Law

The motif of “flesh” (sa/rc, a familiar Pauline keyword) informs the entire statement. The Law was made powerless (“without power”, “without strength”) because of the flesh (“through the flesh”, dia\ th=$ sarko/$), which itself had been corrupted (and enslaved) by sin (cf. Paul’s extended discussion in chaps. 5-7). Human beings were thus in bondage to sin (“in the flesh”), their human nature having become a “flesh of sin” (i.e., sinful flesh). It was necessary for God Himself to free humankind from this bondage (see v. 2), which He did through the incarnation of the Son.

This extensive use of the term sa/rc (“flesh”) throughout vv. 3-4 strongly argues in favor of an incarnational Christology—viz., a belief that the Son of God took on human form (“flesh”) in the person of Jesus. That this took place through a human birth is confirmed by the parallel between v. 3 and Gal 4:4 (cf. the recent article). Both references contain the idea (and motif) of God sending His Son (presumably, from heaven to earth); here it is the general verb pe/mpw (“send”), while in Gal 4:4 (cf. also v. 6) the compound e)caposte/llw (“send out from”) was used.

Even more clearly than in Gal 4:4ff, Paul indicates in Rom 8:3-4 (in context of v. 2) the purpose of the incarnation. It is summarized by the phrase at the center of vv. 3-4: peri\ a(marti/a$ (“about sin”)—that is, because of the sin that holds humankind in bondage. Verse 2 states the matter more fully: “the law of the Spirit of life in (the) Anointed Yeshua (has) set you free from the law of sin and death”. Humankind (believers) have been set free from bondage to the power of sin (and death). Paul explains, if somewhat enigmatically (and provocatively), how this was accomplished, by the inner clauses of vv. 3-4 (cf. the outline above):

    • “(hav)ing sent His own Son in (the) likeness of flesh of sin…
    • He brought down judgment (on) sin in the flesh”

What Paul does not make immediately clear, at this point in the passage, is that the judgment made against sin (“in the flesh”) was done through the death of Jesus. In this regard, the earlier statement in 5:10 supplements the message. Indeed, v. 10 comes at the close of a section (vv. 6-10) that very much emphasizes the death of Jesus—an emphasis that continues (implicitly) throughout vv. 12-21, and into chapter 6. The main statement in v. 10 is conceptually parallel with that in v. 9:

    • “(hav)ing been made right [vb dikaio/w] in his blood” (v. 9)
    • “we were made different [vb katalla/ssw] (in relation) to God through the death of His Son” (v. 10)

The verbs dikaio/w (“make right”) and katalla/ssw (“make different”) are certainly parallel, with both being instances of the ‘Divine passive’ (divinum passivum) in which God is the implied actor; moreover mention of the “blood” of Jesus is another way of referring to his death, while also emphasizing the sacrificial nature and character of the death.

In 2 Corinthians 5:21, Paul seems to anticipate (and blend together) the wording of Rom 5:10 and 8:3. He utilizes the same verb (katalla/ssw) from Rom 5:10, and there is also present a Christological statement that resembles Rom 8:3. Picking up at the end of v. 20, we read:

“…(may you) be made different [katalla/ghte] (in relation) to God. The (one) not (hav)ing known sin He made (to be) sin, over us, (so) that we might come to be the right(eous)ness [dikaiosu/nh] of God in him.”

In some ways, the declaration that God made His Son to be sin is even more striking that the statement in Rom 8:3, that God sent His Son “in the likeness of flesh of sin”. The use of the noun o(moi/wma (“likeness”) could be taken to mean that the Son’s incarnate human nature only resembled the condition of all other human beings. However, elsewhere in Romans (5:14; 6:5; cf. also Phil 2:7), the noun o(moi/wma is clearly being used as a way of relating Christ to humankind, entailing a sense of real (and full) participation. The incarnate Son shared fully in the human nature that is in bondage to sin; Paul indicated much the same already in Gal 4:4 with the idea that God’s Son, in his birth as a human being, came to be “under the law” (and under the curse of the law, cf. 3:13).

And yet, the qualifying phrase in 2 Cor 5:21, identifying Christ as “not (hav)ing known sin”, would indicate that Paul also held a relatively firm (if rudimentary) belief in the sinlessness of Jesus (viz., as a human being). Jesus Christ, along with all other human beings, was in bondage to the power of sin, but without succumbing to the wicked influence of that power. Quite the opposite! Through the participation of His Son in the human condition, God took the opportunity to destroy the enslaving power which sin possessed, freeing humankind from its grip. Now human beings (believers) are able, like the incarnate Son himself, to live free from sin. Though an impulse toward sin, with which one must continually grapple, may remain in the “flesh” of the believer, it is no longer an irresistible and enslaving power.

It is fascinating to consider the way Paul makes use of these powerful soteriological statements and concepts (in vv. 11-19 and 20-21ff) for the immediate rhetorical (and pastoral) purpose of exhorting the Corinthians to be reconciled and at peace with one another (as believers). Because believers have been freed from bondage to sin, and have been transformed into a “new creation” (v. 17)—that is, an entirely different kind of humanity—they/we should be living in peace and unity with one another (i.e., living according to the Spirit, rather than merely according to the “flesh”). This applies to the relationship between the congregation and its ministers (such as Paul), but even more fundamentally to the common bond that unites all believers.

Paul never presents an entirely clear or comprehensive theological exposition of exactly how humankind was freed from the power of sin, and “made different/right” with God, through the death of Christ. The most extensive discussion is found in chapters 5-8 in Romans, which offers a fuller exposition of many of the points mentioned in 1-2 Corinthians (and also Galatians). We will examine the culmination of the Romans arguments (in chap. 8) in the next article. I would isolate at least three distinct theological tenets, held by Paul, which inform the lines of argument:

    • The manifest presence of God in the person of Jesus Christ (His Son)—that is, God was present, working in Christ (and through him) to effect the transformative salvation of humankind.
    • The Adam-Christ typology—by which both Adam (the first man of the old human condition) and Christ (the first of the new) represent all of humankind, generally and collectively.
    • Sacrificially imagery, regarding the sacrifice/offering for sin—the death of Christ fulfills the paradigms of the ancient sacrificial offerings, intended to deal with sin and impurity, etc, so as to achieve/maintain holiness before God.

There are important incarnational aspects to all three of these theological (and Christological) tenets. One can see the strands present in all of the passages we have been considering—Rom 5:1-11ff, 8:2-4ff, and 2 Cor 5:11-19ff. With regard to the latter (2 Cor 5:11-19ff), we may juxtapose several of the theological statements that run through the passage:

    • “…God, the (One hav)ing made us different (in relation) to Himself through the Anointed (One)” (v. 18)
      “God was, in (the) Anointed (One), making us different (in relation) to Himself” (v. 19)
    • “one [i.e. Christ] died away over all, (so) then the(y) all (have) died” (v. 14)
      “…if any(one is) in (the) Anointed, he (is) a new formation [i.e., creation]; the old (thing)s (have) gone along, (and) see—they have become new!” (v. 17)
    • “The (one) not (hav)ing known sin He made (to be) sin, over us..” (v. 21)

On the last point, the sacrificial aspect is not particularly emphasized by Paul in this passage. The language in Rom 8:3 is more suggestive, especially with regard to the phrase “about/concerning sin” (peri\ a(marti/a$), which regularly occurs in the LXX in relation to the sin offering (Lev 5:6-7ff; 16:3ff; Num 6:16; 7:16, etc; cf. also Isa 53:10). Even stronger is the statement in Rom 3:25, with its use of the noun i(lasth/rion in connection with the blood of Jesus. The verb katalla/ssw, used in Rom 5:10 and 2 Cor 5:18-20, does not normally occur in a ritual or sacrificial context (it is completely absent from all relevant references in the LXX); however, there are strong propitiatory implications when used in a religious setting (as here, cf. 2 Macc 1:5; 7:33; 8:28), entailing the idea of appeasing God (through prayer and repentance, etc) and thus being treated favorably by Him. Finally, the prepositional expression u(pe\r h(mw=n (“over us”) in 2 Cor 5:21 does suggest the sacrificial aspect of Jesus’ death on behalf of human beings (cf. Mark 14:24 par [esp. Lk 22:19-20]; Jn 6:51 [cf. also the use of u(pe/r in 10:11, 15; 11:50-52, etc]).

In the next article, we will examine the context of Romans 8:3 (chap. 8) in more detail, considering the incarnational aspects of the reference in connection with both the death and resurrection of Jesus. Our discussion of Paul’s incarnational theology in Romans (and esp. chapter 8) will conclude with a particular study of the Sonship theme as it reaches its climax in vv. 29-30.

Studies on the Spirit: The Spirit and the Death/Resurrection of Jesus (Study 6)

Study 6: The Spirit and the Death of Jesus in the Gospels

As we focus now on the relation of the Spirit to the death of Jesus, it is interesting to note that there is not a single definite reference to the Spirit in the Passion narratives of the Gospels. The word pneu=ma (“spirit”) occurs in Mk 14:38 / Matt 26:41, but in reference to the ‘spirit’ (in the general sense of will, intention, etc) of the disciples. The only other occurrence of the pneu=ma is in the description of the moment of Jesus’ death, as represented by three different versions of the core Gospel Tradition—in the Matthean, Lukan, and Johannine Gospels, respectively.

There are two traditions connected with the moment of Jesus’ death which are particularly relevant: (1) the final words by Jesus, quoting the Psalms (Mk 15:34 par); and (2) the narrative description of his death (Mk 15:37 par). The presentation of these traditions, and the interpretation of them, by early Christians leads to significant theological and Christological questions which must be addressed. Some of these involve the role of the Spirit, and its relation to the death of Jesus.

1. Jesus’ final words in Mk 15:34 par (Ps 22:2[1])

If we begin with the overall portrait of Jesus’ Messianic ministry, preserved in the Gospel Tradition (and esp. the Synoptic Narrative), as discussed in the preceding studies, it is clear that: (a) the Spirit came upon Jesus at the beginning of his public ministry (the Baptism), and (b) it guiding and empowered him (esp. for the performance of healing/exorcism miracles) throughout the time of his ministry (esp. during the Galilean Period). The Lukan narrative particularly emphasizes the role of the Spirit, in this regard.

The implication is that the Spirit remained in/on Jesus throughout his ministry, presumably all the way up to the moment of his death. This is indicated only in the Gospel of John, in the Johannine version of the Baptism scene (vv. 32-33), narrated indirectly through the witness of John the Baptist:

(God speaking to John:)
“Upon whomever you should see the Spirit stepping [i.e., coming] down, and remaining [me/non] upon him…” (v. 33)
(John speaking:)
“I have looked at the Spirit stepping [i.e., coming] down as a dove out of heaven, and it remained [e&meinen] upon him” (v. 32)

The verb me/nw (“remain, abide”) has special theological (and Christological) significance in the Johannine writings. Even so, its use here in the Baptism narrative could reflect a basic early Christian understanding of the relation of the Spirit to the (Messianic) ministry of Jesus—viz., that the Spirit remained with him throughout.

But what happened at the moment of Jesus’ death? Did the Spirit continue to remain with him, or did it depart from him? The latter must be considered a real possibility, given the (Synoptic) tradition recorded in Mark 15:34 (par Matt 27:46). In the Synoptic narrative, the quotation by Jesus of Psalm 22:2[1] represents his only words on the cross, and come just before the moment of his death (Mk 15:37 par). Though differing slightly in detail, Mark and Matthew agree in presenting Jesus’ words as a Greek transliteration of an Aramaic (or mixed Hebrew-Aramaic) quotation, followed by an explanatory translation in Greek.

The initial couplet of the Psalm in Hebrew may be translated as follows:

“My Mighty (One), my Mighty (One), for what [i.e. why] have you left me,
(be)ing far removed from my (cry for) help, (the) words of my groaning?”

This establishes the Psalm as a lament, in which the protagonist cries to God in the midst of his suffering. It is an example of synthetic parallelism, with the second line building upon the first. The verb bz~u* (“leave, [set] loose, abandon”) in line 1 is picked up by qojr* in line 2, which I parse as a verbal noun (from qj^r*, “be far [removed], distant”). Not only does the Psalmist feel that God has left him, but He has gone far away. The parallel suffixed nouns yt!u*Wvy+ (“my [cry for] help”) and yt!g`a&v^ (“my groaning”) in the second line further add to the intensity of the scene. The root ga^v* more properly denotes roaring—i.e., a roaring cry of suffering and distress.
For more detail on the Psalm, and the early Christian use of it, see my earlier article in the Sunday Studies on the Psalms, and also the article in the series “The Old Testament and the Gospel Tradition”.

The first line is the portion quoted by Jesus:

My Mighty (One), my Mighty (One), for what [i.e. why] have you left me…?
yn]T*b=z~u& hm*l* yl!a@ yl!a@
°E~lî, °E~lî, l¹mâ ±¦za»t¹nî…;

The Greek translation in Mark and Matthew is somewhat simpler than that of the LXX; but, in all three citations, the verb e)gkatalei/pw is used to render the Hebrew bz~u*. This compound Greek verb is more precise than the corresponding Hebrew. It means “leave behind in (a certain place or condition)”, and thus fittingly emphasizes the condition of Jesus at the moment of his death—left to die an agonizing and humiliating death on the cross, alone and in darkness.

The protagonist of the Psalm certainly feels as though God has abandoned him, and does not hesitate to express this. Such tone and language is altogether typical of the lament-Psalms, and should not be taken to mean that the protagonist has lost all hope, or that he/she no longer trusts in YHWH. Indeed, in such Psalms, feelings of trust and despair regularly go together, as characteristic of the suffering experienced by the righteous. Jesus’ quotation applies the lament of the Psalm in a similar manner. It is a most vivid and strikingly dramatic moment in the Passion narrative, as Jesus, the Messiah and Son of God, reaches the culmination of his identification with the human condition (“son of man”), in all of its weakness, mortality, and suffering.

But, is it possible that God did truly abandon Jesus at the moment of his death? Did the Spirit, which has remained with Jesus since his Baptism (cf. above), depart from him? Some early Christians (in the 1st-2nd century) seem to have understood the tradition of Mk 15:34 par in this way. For example, in the extra-canonical Gospel of Peter (§19), Jesus’ words are presented as follows:

“My power, (my) power, you have left me behind!”
h( du/nami/$ mou, h( du/nami$, kate/leiya/$ me.

It is possible that the expression h( du/nami$ mou (“my power”) is the product of an extremely literal rendering of Hebrew yl!a@ (“My Mighty [One]”, i.e., “My God”); cf. my translation of Ps 22:2[1] above. Along these lines, one should note the Greek version of Aquila, which uses i)sxure/ (voc. “O strong [one]”). In commenting on this translation, Eusebius of Caesarea (Demonstration of the Gospel 10.8.30) actually recommends adapting i)sxure/ mou (“O my strong [one]”) to i)sxu/$ mou (“[O] my strength”), which is quite close to what we find in the Gospel of Peter. Cf. Brown, p. 1058.

However, if we take the words of Jesus in Gos Pet 19 at face value, it suggests that his power—that is, his Divine power (i.e., the Spirit) by which he was empowered to fulfill his Messianic ministry—has left him at the moment of his death. Some scholars have, at least in the past, interpreted this detail in the Gospel of Peter as evidence for a separationist Christology, such as is attributed to Cerinthus (cf. Irenaeus, Against All Heresies 1.26.1) and other so-called Gnostics. According to such Christologies, the Divine Christ and the man Jesus were separate entities, who were joined together (at the Baptism), and then who separated at the moment of death. The Divine Christ (i.e., the Spirit) came down upon Jesus, abiding in/on him, just as in the common Baptism tradition.

It is equally possible to approach the matter from an entirely orthodox Christological standpoint, but according to a kenosis-theology (cf. the Christ-hymn of Philippians 2:6-11). When the pre-existent Son of God ’emptied’ himself (vb keno/w), and became a human being, it was necessary for the Spirit to come upon him and remain with him throughout the time of his human life and ministry. At the moment of his death, with the mission having been accomplished (cf. below on John 19:30), the Spirit could depart again, back to heaven. With the resurrection, the Son himself would return back to his Divine/heavenly position.

This is a reasonable line of interpretation, which is generally in accord with both the Pauline (cf. Phil 2:6-11) and Johannine Gospel portrait (cf. further below). But, is it also possible that the Spirit did not depart from Jesus at his death, and instead remained with him, all through the death, burial and resurrection? Is there any evidence in the New Testament Scriptures for such a view? The best example I can find is the use of Psalm 16:8-10 in the Pentecost sermon-speech by Peter (2:25-28ff). The language of verse 10 [LXX], in 2:27 (and 31), is significant, since the same verb (e)gkatalei/pw) is used as in Mk 15:34 par:

    • “…for what (reason) did you leave me behind in (this place)?”
    • “you will not leave behind my soul in (the) unseen realm (of the dead)…” (2:27)
      “and he was not left behind in (the) unseen realm…” (2:31)

The simplest explanation of this use of Ps 16:10 is that God did not leave Jesus to lie dead and buried, but instead raised him from the dead. However, it could also be taken to imply that the Spirit of God remained present with Jesus, even in the grave.

2. The moment of Jesus’ Death in Mk 15:37 par

The Markan Gospel, as representative of the Synoptic Tradition, narrates the death of Jesus with the utmost brevity:

“But Yeshua, (hav)ing let go a great voice, breathed out [e)ce/pneusen] (his last).” (Mk 15:37)

The verb e)kpne/w (“breathe out”, i.e., “expire”) is related to the noun pneu=ma (“breath, spirit”), by way of the root verb pne/w (“blow, breathe”). Matthew’s version is noteworthy in this regard:

“But Yeshua, again (hav)ing cried out with a great voice, let go the (last) breath [pneu=ma].” (27:50)

The Matthean wording is cleaner and clearer than Mark’s. The changes in detail are small but significant. Notably, the verb afi/hmi (“send away”, often in the sense of “let go, release”) is retained, but connected with the last ‘breath’ of Jesus as its object, rather than the ‘great cry’ he utters just before. This allows the wording to be read as an allusion to a sending/release of the Spirit by Jesus (cf. below on John 19:30).

In Luke’s version (23:46), the quotation from Psalm 22:2[1] is omitted, being replaced (as Jesus’ last words) with a different quotation from the Psalms (31:6[5]). The Hebrew may be rendered as follows:

“In(to) your hand I shall give over my spirit—
(may) you (so) ransom me, YHWH Mighty (One)!”
[cf. the discussion in my earlier study on the Psalm]

It would be hard to imagine a greater contrast to the sense of lament and despair of Ps 22:2[1] (cf. above); here the protagonist expresses complete trust that YHWH will protect and save (“ransom”) his life (i.e. “spirit”). The Greek quotation (by Jesus) in Luke generally follows the LXX, the slight differences reflecting adaptation to the Lukan context, and the specific identification of Jesus as the Son of God:

“Father, into your hands I set along my spirit”

The use of the word pneu=ma corresponds to the Hebrew j^Wr. Instead of a simple reference to the ‘last breath’ of Jesus, it refers to his entire life and person. The Son (Jesus) entrusts his life to the Father, knowing that God will protect and care for him, and will not allow him to perish in the grave (cf. above on Ps 16:10/Acts 2:27ff).

The Lukan narrative has effectively eliminated the detail from Mk 15:35-36 par, joining together as a single and concise narrative event: (a) Jesus’ great cry, (b) his final words to God (quoting the Psalms), and (c) the moment of death. Following the quotation from Psalm 31:6[5], we read:

“And, (hav)ing said this, he breathed out (his last).”

Luke retains the Markan use of the verb e)kpneu/w (see above).

In the Johannine version (19:30), we find a different manner (and level) of interpretive development. Instead of a quotation from the Psalm (and far from the cry of despair of Mk 15:34 par), with his last dying word, Jesus simply announces the completion of his mission: “It has been completed” (tete/lestai), cf. verse 28. Then the moment of death is narrated as follows:

“And (then), (hav)ing bent the head, he gave along the spirit.” (v. 30)

The Johannine version shares with Matthew the use of the noun pneu=ma, along with the specific idea of Jesus giving/setting forth the spirit; meanwhile, with Luke there is a similarity in the verb used: paradi/dwmi (“give along”), compared with Luke’s parati/qhmi (“set/place along”). Most significant, however, is the likelihood that the Johannine author, through a bit of wordplay, is alluding to the giving of the Spirit by Jesus to his disciples/believers (cf. 20:22).
It is quite possible that there is a similar allusion to the giving of the Spirit in 19:34.

Conclusion

These instances from the Passion narrative (Mk 15:34, 37 par) provide fascinating and instructive examples as to how details from the Gospel Tradition can take on deeper Christological significance, coming to be interpreted in new and different ways—but without ever entirely separating from the established historical tradition. The ‘cry of dereliction’ by Jesus (quoting Psalm 22:2[1]) resulted in the raising of certain Christological questions and issues, regarding (i) the relation of the Son (Jesus) to the Father, (ii) the relation of the Spirit to Jesus at the time of his death, and (iii) what happened between the moment of his death and his resurrection.

With regard to the narrative description of Jesus’ death, a simple reference to the expiration of Jesus (i.e., breathing his last “breath”), based on the root verb pne/w (and its relation to the noun pneu=ma), allowed early Christians to use this detail as an anticipatory (foreshadowing) allusion to the giving of the Spirit by Jesus (to believers). Such an interpretive development would seem to be clearly present in the Johannine version, but it can perhaps also be glimpsed (in a seminal form) in Matthew’s version.

The general lack of reference to the Spirit in the Passion narratives remains curious, given the importance of the Spirit to the Gospel Tradition as a whole (cf. the discussion in the previous studies), and the vital connection of the Spirit to both the death and resurrection of Jesus in the wider Christian Tradition (points to be discussed in greater detail).

In our next study, we will turn to the resurrection of Jesus, and will be to examine how early Christians understood the connection of the resurrection to the Spirit, in two main respects: (1) the role of the Spirit in raising Jesus from the dead, and (2) the access of the exalted Jesus (following the resurrection) to the Spirit, which entails his ability to give the Spirit to others (believers), thus fulfilling the Messianic baptism-prophecy of Mark 1:8 par.

References above marked “Brown” are to Raymond E. Brown, S.S., The Death of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels, 2 Vols., Anchor Bible Reference Library [ABRL] (1994)

“God Sent Forth His Son…”: Romans 5:10

Romans 5:10

After Galatians 4:4 (discussed in the previous article), the earliest Pauline references to the incarnation of the Son of God (in the person of Jesus) would seem to be found in Romans. We have already discussed the possibility (and even likelihood) that Paul’s adaptation of the Christological formula in 1:3-4 evinces a belief in the pre-existence of the Son, and thus also of the Son’s incarnation in the person of Jesus. Paul’s wording in 8:3, which seems to echo Gal 4:4 (at least in part), gives perhaps a clearer sense of this Christology. But another reference worth considering is 5:10, particularly with regard to its emphasis on the death of the Son of God.

This reference occurs toward the end of a major division (3:21-5:21) in the probatio of Romans (1:18-8:39). This division is comprised of four sections, according to the following thematic structure:

    • Rom 3:21-5:21: Announcement of God’s righteousness (in Christ), apart from the Law (Torah)
      —3:21-31: A description of God’s right(eous)ness, and on being made right/just before God
      —4:1-25: Argument from Scripture: The blessing/promise to Abraham (by trust/faith)
      —5:1-11: The effect/result of being made right/just: salvation from the coming judgment
      —5:12-21: Argument/Illustration from Scripture: Sin and Salvation (Adam/Christ)

Our focus is on the third of these sections (5:1-11), which runs parallel to the first (3:21-31), in terms of the thematic and rhetorical structure outlined above:

    • 3:21-31: A description of God’s right(eous)ness and on being made right/just
      • 4:1-25: Argument from Scripture: The blessing/promise to Abraham (by trust/faith)
    • 5:1-11: The effect/result of being made right/just: salvation from the coming judgment
      • 5:12-21: Argument/Illustration from Scripture: Sin and Salvation (Adam/Christ)

While the emphasis in 3:21-31 is on the “rightness” (i.e., righteousness, dikaiosu/nh) of God and the manifestation of it in action (“justification”), here it is on the effect of justification—believers being made (or declared) just/right before God. We can also see this parallel in its relation to the esteem (do/ca, or “glory”) of God—i.e. the honor/glory which He intrinsically possesses, and which should be shown to him:

    • the justice/righteousness of God—the esteem/glory of God (Rom 3:23)
    • justification of believers—the hope (e)lpi/$) of receiving/experiencing the glory of God (Rom 5:2)

The phrase “through our Lord Yeshua (the) Anointed” (dia\ tou= kuri/ou h(mw=n Ihsou= Xristou=) frames the passage, occurring at both the beginning (v. 1) and the end (v. 11). Jesus Christ is the means by which God has “made (things) right” (vb dikaio/w) for us. This key verb occurs 15 times in Romans, including 8 times in 3:21-5:21 (3:24, 26, 28, 30; 4:2, 5; 5:1, 9), with God as the subject and believers as the object. Believers are “made right” before God, so that they/we are able to participate in the “rightness” (or “righteousness”, dikaiosu/nh) of God. The noun dikaiosu/nh, so fundamental to Paul’s theology, occurs even more frequently in Romans (33 times) than does the verb; it occurs 14 times in 3:21-5:21, including at the very beginning of the division (3:21), matching its central occurrence in the propositio of the letter (1:17).

The effects of having been “made right” are detailed in vv. 1-11. Paul’s use of the noun dikaiosu/nh and verb dikaio/w are comprehensive, entailing and covering virtually everything that God has done (and will do) for believers. The section can be divided into three units (vv. 1-2, 3-5, 6-11), over which is spread out Paul’s exposition.

Verses 1-2 establish the theme of the “hope of glory” (e)lpi\$ th=$ do/ch$), referring to the culmination of God’s work (through Christ) on behalf of believers: “we boast upon (the) hope of the honor/esteem [i.e. glory] of God” (kauxw/meqa e)p’ e)lpi/di th=$ do/ch$ tou= qeou=). This is prefaced by several statements predicated upon “justification by faith” — “being made just/right out of trust” (dikaiwqe/nte$ e)k pi/stew$):

    • we have/hold [e&xomen] peace toward [i.e. with, before] God (through the Lord Jesus Christ) [v. 1]
    • we have/hold [e)sxh/kamen] the way leading into the favor (of God) [v. 2a]
    • we stand [e)sth/kamen] in this favor (of God) [v. 2b]

Note the word play and assonance of the three verbs (in Greek); the first is in the present tense/aspect, the last two are perfect forms, indicating past action which continues into the present (or is a permanent condition).

In the second unit (vv. 3-5), Paul takes into account the suffering and affliction that believers will likely experience in their lifetime. The “hope of glory” remains and continues, even in the midst of “distress”: “we also boast in the (moment)s of distress” (kai\ kauxw/meqa e)n tai=$ qli/yesin). The word qli/yi$ fundamentally refers to pressure, stress, constriction, etc.—it can mean suffering or trouble generally, or affliction and oppression specifically. Verses 1-2 started with believers’ status before God (through justification), and ended with the boast; here vv. 3-5 has an inverse structure, beginning with the boast, and concluding with the presence and work of God in believers (through the Spirit). This structure in vv. 3-5 follows a memorable chain of development:

    • distress/affliction (qli/yi$) which produces…
      • endurance (lit. “remaining under” u(pomo/nh), which produces…
        • proving/testing (“being accepted/received” dokimh/), which produces…
          • hope/expectation (e)lpi/$)

Finally, hope will never shame or embarrass (i.e. disappoint) us (v. 5); the reason for this confidence (“boasting”) is, according to Paul, that “the love of God has been poured out in our hearts through the holy Spirit th(at) is given to us” (compare the similar thought expressed in Gal 4:6 [cf. the previous article]). Love (a)ga/ph) is parallel to God’s favor (xa/ri$) in v. 2; more notable is the parallel between the “honor/esteem of God” (do/ca qeou=) in v. 1 and the “love of God” (a)ga/ph qeou=) here in v. 5.
Interestingly, we may also find an organizing principle in these verses reflecting the famous triad of 1 Cor 13:13—faith (v. 1), hope (vv. 2-5a), and love (v. 5b).

In the third and final unit (vv. 6-11), Paul deals specifically with the subject of Jesus Christ as the means through which (dia/) God has “made (things) right” for believers. It is through the death of Christ, in particular, that this all was accomplished. Paul presents the line of argument in vv. 6-10, before concluding with the declaration in v. 11 and a return to the twin-motif of “boasting / hope (of glory)”:

“we also are boasting in God through our Lord Yeshua (the) Anointed, through whom we now (have) received the katallagh/“.

This last verse of the section sums up the sacrificial work (related to the death of Jesus) described in vv. 6-10. The elements are clear—it is: (1) the work of God, (2) that takes place through Christ, (3) resulting in katallagh/ for believers. The Greek word katallagh/ (katallag¢¡), from the verb katalla/ssw (katallássœ), fundamentally means making (something to be) other, or different, i.e. a change, often in the sense of a (mutual) exchange or reconciliation between two parties. Even as God makes the situation right (dikaio/w) for human beings (believers), so he also has made things different—he has eliminated the separation and hostility which existed under the power of sin.

Note the elements of this sacrificial work as expressed in vv. 6-10, presented in a summary expository form:

    • It involves Christ’s death, which was over (u(pe/r, i.e. on behalf of, for the sake of) those who lacked proper fear/reverence (a)sebh/$) toward God (i.e. the impious/wicked–all human beings, cf. Rom 3:9-20, 23, etc)—V. 6
    • It took place especially for human beings who are wicked/impious (a)sebh/$), and not just/righteous (di/kaio$) or good (a)gaqo/$)—this makes the sacrificial act all the more noteworthy and significant (V. 7)
    • The character of this sacrificial act reflects and expresses the love (a)ga/ph) of God for (“unto”, ei)$) human beings (V. 8)
    • Its result and effect is that people (believers) are:
      • made just/right, i.e. “justified” (dikaio/w), by means of Christ’s very death (e)n tw=| ai%mati au)tou=, “in his blood”), V. 9a
      • saved (sw/zw) from the passion/anger (o)rgh/, i.e. “wrath”) of God which is about to come upon humankind—this also takes place through Christ (di’ au)tou=, “through him”), V. 9b
    • Ultimately, its effect is to make different (katalla/ssw) the situation of separation and hostility between human beings and God, who were effectively enemies (e&xqroi) to each other (V. 10)
      • this reconciliation also is understood specifically as a result of Christ’s death (v. 10a)
      • however, ultimately salvation also comes as a result of Christ’s life, i.e. his resurrection (v. 10b)

With this exegetical and theological context of verse 10 established, in the next article we will turn to examine its Christological implications—including the incarnational aspect of Paul’s statement—in more detail. As part of our study, we will provide a comparative point of reference by considering the subsequent Son-reference in 8:3, where a specific emphasis on the idea of incarnation is more pronounced.

“God Sent Forth His Son…”: Galatians 4:4

Galatians 4:4

“…but, when the fullness of the time came, God sent out from (Himself) His Son, (hav)ing come to be out of a woman, (hav)ing come to be under (the) Law”

This statement by Paul in Galatians 4:4 seems to be the earliest (surviving) reference to the idea of the incarnation of God’s Son in the person of Jesus. It certainly is the earliest such reference in Paul’s letters. Most commentators would regard Galatians as having been written at least several years earlier than either Romans or 1-2 Corinthians—perhaps c. 53-54. I am somewhat inclined toward a slightly later date (c. 56-57?), due to the strong parallels in rhetorical and polemical emphasis with both Romans and 2 Corinthians. In any case, Galatians was written earlier than Romans.

The confessional statement of Gal 4:4, which generally resembles that of Rom 1:3 (discussed in the previous article, and cf. below), is made in the overall context of Paul’s arguments in Galatians—in support of the proposition that people are made right with God through trust in Jesus, not through performance of the required duties of the Torah. More to the point, in Christ believers are freed from any binding obligation to the Torah. Verse 4 is part of the fourth argument (3:26-4:11) made toward demonstrating the proof (probatio, chaps. 3-4) of this proposition. As this argument has been discussed extensively in an earlier article (in the series on Paul’s View of the Law, cf. above), I will be focusing here on the points most relevant to the current study.

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

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

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

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

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

While we should take care against unduly reading Johannine Christology into Paul’s letters, I would argue that the incarnational aspect of Gal 4:4 is nearly as strong, if not as explicit, as it is in the Johannine Gospel. This is indicated, for example, by the way that the statement “God sent out from (Him) His Son” is sequentially prior to the human birth of Jesus. The temporal aspect of this priority is much clearer here than in Rom 1:3f (cf. Part 3 of the previous article).

Moreover, we might ask: from where would God be sending His Son, if not from heaven? A heavenly origin for Christ would certainly seem to be implied, just as in the Gospel of John, though the comparable wording in Jn 1:6, in reference to John the Baptist, might caution one about pressing the use of the verb [e)c]aposte/llw too far.

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

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

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

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

This use of gi/nomai closely resembles that of Rom 1:3 (cf. Part 1 of the previous article)—a point which is all the more significant if, as many commentators believe, Paul in Rom 1:3-4 is adopting (and adapting) an earlier existing Christological confessional formula. Note the parallel:

    • Gal 4:4
      “(hav)ing come to be | out of | a woman”
      geno/menon | e)k | gunaiko/$
    • Rom 1:3
      “(hav)ing come to be | out of | (the) seed of David”
      genome/nou | e)k | spe/rmato$ Daui\d

The additional qualifying expression kata\ sa/rka (“according to [the] flesh”) further emphasizes the human life (and birth) of Jesus.

2. “(hav)ing come to be under (the) Law” —There are perhaps three different levels (or aspects) of meaning for this phrase. First, it can simply refer to the Israelite/Jewish religious and cultural setting into which Jesus was born (cf. Rom 15:8). Second, it may allude to Jesus’ human life (and death) as a fulfillment of the promises and types, etc, in the Scriptures (“[the] Law”), and its related purpose of introducing salvation (and the new covenant) to the Israelite/Jewish people (Rom 15:8 may indicate this as well). Thirdly, it strongly indicates that Jesus, in becoming a human being, came under the bondage of the Law—with its consequent bondage under the power of sin. In the context of Galatians, it is this last (third) aspect of meaning that is primarily in view. Cf. 3:13, noting the parallel phrases “under sin”, “under [the] curse”, and “under [the] Law”.
It is possible to understand this same nuance of meaning in the expression kata\ sa/rka (“according to [the] flesh”) in Rom 1:3 (cf. above), following Paul’s regular (negative) anthropological use of the term sa/rc (“flesh”). For a fine exposition of this line of interpretation, cf. the article by James D. G. Dunn, “Jesus—Flesh and Spirit: An Exposition of Romans 1:3-4”, Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 24 (1973), pp. 40-68; reprinted in The Christ and the Spirit: Collected Essays of James D. G. Dunn. Volume 1: Christology (Eerdmans: 1998), pp. 126-53.

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

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

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

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

Thus, if Galatians 4:4 represents Paul’s earliest surviving reference to the incarnation, it also gives us some indication of how he understood the incarnation—in terms of both its nature and purpose. Three points may be taken from the context of 4:4:

First, there is the twin-purpose of the incarnation, as stated in v. 4 and then expounded in vv. 5-11:

    • to free human beings (believers) from bondage to the Law (and to sin)
    • to allow believers to become the sons [i.e., children/offspring] of God, sharing in the Divine Sonship of Jesus

Second, we have the important Pauline theological principle that the life and experience of believers (sons of God) is patterned after that of Jesus (the Son) himself.

And, finally, third, the nature of this Sonship, and our experience of it (as believers), is spiritual—that is, it is realized through the presence and power of the Spirit. Through the Spirit that is given to us (v. 6), which is the Spirit of God’s own Son, we are able to share in the Divine Sonship, in union with Christ the Son. The emphasis on union (“in Christ”) through the Spirit is brought out more clearly by Paul in Romans, but it is certainly implied here (cf. also 2:19-20).

These three expository points are neatly contained, in summary form, within verse 6:

“And (in) that [i.e., because] you are sons, God sent out from (Him) the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying ‘Abba, Father!'”

It is worth discussing briefly each of the phrases and components of this verse.

o%ti de/ e)ste ui(oi/ (“and [in] that you are sons…”)—The initial o%ti particle is causal (i.e., “because”), and thus the initial phrase presents the reason why God gives (and can give) the Spirit to believers. The core phrase is a declarative statement, an instance of essential predication in Paul’s letters, defining the fundamental identity of believers—i.e., what they/we are (“you are [e)ste]…”). Believers are sons (ui(oi/), viz., the sons of God (cf. the discussion above). This is corollary to the basic statement in v. 4 identifying Jesus as God’s Son.

e)cape/steilen o( qeo/$ (“God sent out from [Him]”)—This is precisely the same wording used in v. 4 (cf. above), with the exact same verb (and form), making clear that the parallel between “His Son” (in relation to Jesus) and “the Spirit of His Son” (in relation to believers) is precise.

to\ pneu=ma tou= ui(ou= au)tou= (“the Spirit of His Son”)—God sent forth the Spirit of His Son (to believers), even as He sent forth His Son (into the world). God’s Spirit that He sends is that of His own Son, and it is through the Spirit that believers experience (and share in) the Sonship of Jesus.

ei)$ ta\$ kardi/a$ h(mw=n (“into the hearts of us”)—In verse 4, the location of where God sent forth His Son is not specified. Generally, it may be identified as into the world, such as we see stated in John 3:17 (cf. also 1:9ff)—that is, among human beings (i.e., “out of a woman”), but particularly among the Israelite/Jewish people (“under the law”). For the Spirit of God’s Son, the location has shifted, from an external and outward orientation (i.e., the world) to one that is internal and inward—viz., the “hearts” of believers. We as believers experience the Spirit within, in the “heart” (i.e., symbolizing the inner organs of the body). If the Son dwelt in the world, among human beings, the Spirit of the Son abides in the hearts of believers.

kra=zon a)bba o( path/r (“crying ‘Abba, Father!'”)—The Spirit of God’s Son itself identifies God as its Father, crying out to Him with an exclamation confirming the Father-Son relation. That the Spirit does this within believers, in union with them, provides a similar confirmation that they/we are God’s children (“sons”)—the very point established at the beginning of the verse. Paul develops this thematic imagery in Romans 8 (see esp. verses 14-17), which we will be discussing in an upcoming article in this series.

For the next article, we will turn to Romans 5:10, which is the first reference in which the idea of the incarnation is connected specifically with the death of Jesus.

 

 

 

“God Sent Forth His Son…”: Romans 1:3-4 (Part 3)

Romans 1:3-4, concluded

Having examined verses 3-4 in detail in Parts 1 and 2, it now remains to consider the Christological implications of the confessional statement.

Of primary importance is the relationship of the initial phrase in v. 3, affirming the Divine Sonship of Jesus, to the two confessional clauses of vv. 3b-4b. We have already discussed how this phrase is matched by the closing Christological declaration of v. 4c, creating an inclusio:

    • “…about His Son,
      • the (one hav)ing come to be (born) out of (the) seed of David
        • according to (the) flesh,
      • the (one hav)ing been marked out (as) Son of God in power
        • according to (the) Spirit of holiness,
          out of a standing up of (the) dead
    • —Yeshua (the) Anointed, our Lord“

The parallelism, which is clear enough, unites the two primary titles of Jesus— “Anointed One” (Messiah) and “Son of God”. The central clauses themselves take the poetic form of a pair of parallel couplets, as discussed in Parts 1 and 2. Only the phrase “out of a standing up of (the) dead” (in italics above) disrupts the poetic structure. That phrase, along with the qualifying expression “in power”, are sometimes considered by commentators to be Pauline additions to an older confessional formula. At the same time, it has been thought that the framing structure of “…about His Son…Yeshua (the) Anointed” is also fundamentally Pauline—an indication of how Paul adapted and incorporated (if so he did) the earlier confessional formula in vv. 3-4.

Wither regard to this confessional formula, we have seen how each of the parallel couplet-clauses refers to a specific aspect of Jesus’ identity as the Messiah and Son of God:

    • Verse 3: Jesus as the Royal/Davidic Messiah, during his human life (“according to the flesh”), and from its beginning (“[hav]ing come to be [born]”).
    • Verse 4: Jesus as the Son of God, following the end of his life—his death and resurrection— “according to the Spirit of holiness [i.e. holy Spirit]”.

We have already examined the phrases and terminology set in parallel, but it is worth noting these again for consideration of their specific Christological significance:

    • “(hav)ing come to be (born)”
      • “out of (the) seed of David”
        • “according to (the) flesh”
    • “(hav)ing been marked out”
      • “(as the) Son of God”
        • “according to (the) Spirit of holiness”

According to this framework, Jesus was the Messiah during his lifetime (in the “flesh”), but was designated the Son of God specifically in connection with his resurrection from the dead—as is clearly indicated by the qualifying phrase in v. 4 (“out of [the] standing up [i.e., resurrection] of [the] dead”). In truth, both titles (Messiah and Son of God) apply to both sides of Jesus’ life and ministry—pre– and post-resurrection—however, a valid distinction is retained by their separate use here in each clause. The Divine Sonship of Jesus (during his life and ministry) is fundamentally Messianic in nature, while the significance of his identity as the Messiah, following his resurrection, relates to his exalted status and position as Son of God in heaven (at the right-hand of God the Father).

Indeed, in this regard, the two parts of the formula in vv. 3-4 reflect the two main components of the earliest Christology, in terms of understanding the Sonship of Jesus: (1) his identity as the Messiah, during his public ministry, by which he is declared to be God’s Son [v. 3]; and (2) his exaltation to Divine status and position (as God’s Son) in heaven, following his death and resurrection [v. 4].

Both of these Christological tenets are fully in accord with the established Gospel Tradition. The only real difference is that the wording in verse 3 suggests that Jesus’ identification as the Messiah is established already at the time of his birth, and thus prior to the declaration of Sonship during his Baptism (Mk 1:10-11 par). The formula of vv. 3-4 is thus more in line with the Christology of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, with the inclusion of their Infancy narratives. Though Paul says almost nothing about Jesus’ birth, his use of vv. 3-4 here, along with the parallel statement in Galatians 4:4 (to be discussed in the next article), strongly suggests that he would be in agreement—viz., on the point that Jesus was the Messiah from the very moment of his birth.

Yet, is it possible to take the Christological argument even further? The prefacing of vv. 3-4 with the identification of Jesus as God’s Son allows for the consideration of several possibilities. Perhaps the simplest explanation is that Paul is affirming the interchangeability of the titles “Son of God” and “Messiah”, as noted above:

    • Son of God (“His Son”)
      • clause 1 [v. 3]—the Davidic Messiah
      • clause 2 [v. 4]—the Son of God
    • Yeshua the Anointed (i.e., Messiah)

A related purpose may be to make clear that the Divine Sonship of Jesus applies to his human life (“according to the flesh”) as the Messiah (v. 3), just as it does to his exalted status/position following the resurrection (“according to the Spirit”, v. 4).

It is interesting to consider whether (or to what extent) Paul may have a temporal priority in mind. Is Jesus to be regarded as the Son of God even prior to his birth? The parallel with Galatians 4:4 (to be discussed) does seem to point in this direction. Two Christological possibilities remain:

    • Jesus was foreordained (i.e., predestined), prior to his birth, to be the Messiah and Son of God
    • He had a Divine/eternal pre-existence as the Son of God, before his birth as a human being

In the immediate context of Rom 1:3-4, the parallel between the verbs gi/nomai (“come to be [born]”, v. 3) and o(ri/zw (“mark out”, v. 4) would seem to argue in favor of the former view. In the New Testament, o(ri/zw, though it occurs rarely, is almost exclusively used in reference to the foreknowledge of God, by which He established a decree, etc, predetermining events that would occur on earth among human beings (cf. Acts 17:26; Heb 4:7). In particular, it is used with regard to what God has ordained (and predetermined) for Jesus—Lk 22:22; Acts 2:23; 10:42; 17:31—as also here in v. 4. As I noted, o(ri/zw is not a Pauline term, and its use here (the only occurrence in Paul’s letters) is a strong indication that it has been inherited from the early Gospel Tradition (and early apostolic preaching [cf. the Acts references above]). The prefixed verb proori/zw (“mark out before[hand]”) would more precisely bring out the idea of pre-determination (or predestination); it is also the verb that Paul otherwise uses (Rom 8:29-30; 1 Cor 2:7; cf. also Eph 1:5, 11).
It is possible that in some Greek manuscripts v. 4 read the verb proori/zw, rather than simple o(ri/zw, since the Old Latin versions, followed by the Vulgate and some Latin writers, translate the participle as praedestinatus (“predestined”).

What of the second option outlined above? Could the idea of Jesus as the Son of God prior to his birth imply a belief in his Divine pre-existence (as the Son), and thus also his subsequent incarnation (as a human being)? It is not possible to answer this question on the basis of vv. 3-4 alone, not even within the immediate context of the letter (vv. 1-17). We must turn to several other references by Paul, both in Romans and in other contemporary (or near-contemporary) letters, beginning with his statement in Galatians 4:4 (discussed in the next article).

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 131

Psalm 131

Dead Sea MSS: 11QPsa (v. 1)

This second Song of the final group of five “Songs of Ascents” (Pss 130-134) functions as a companion piece to the prior Ps 130 (see the previous study). The theme that is implicitly featured in that Psalm—viz., the spirit of repentance with which the righteous approach YHWH (in prayer and worship)—is here matched by the humble and devout attitude expressed by the protagonist. This exemplary character and mindset is used to exhort the Community at the close of the Psalm (v. 3), even as it is in Ps 130 (vv. 7-8). The approach taken in Ps 131 is of a more confessional nature, influenced by Wisdom tradition, both in terms of the thought expressed (in v. 1) and the imagery used (in v. 2).

The structure of this short Psalm is relatively simple and straightforward. The concluding exhortation in v. 3 is less integral to the work than that of Ps 130 (vv. 7-8, cf. the discussion in the previous study). In this case, it is more likely that the verse is redactional, having been added to an original poem, perhaps by the compiler of the collection, and in imitation of Ps 130:7-8. The poem itself is comprised of two short stanzas. In the first stanza (v. 1), the protagonist denies having any high-mindedness or a heart that is elevated and haughty. By contrast, in the second stanza (v. 2), a positive confession is made, with the protagonist expressing a humble and devout attitude.

The meter of the poem is slightly irregular, with the outer couplets of vv. 1a, 2b (and also v. 3) being 3+3; rhythmically, the inner couplets (vv. 1b-2a) seem to exhibit a certain tension (v. 1b, 3+2) which is then resolved (v. 2a, 2+2).

There is really no way of dating the poem, while, as noted above, the concluding verse was likely added in the post-exilic period, at the time when the collection was put together.

In spite of the brevity of this Psalm, its beauty is widely recognized by commentators and readers alike. The ideal of the protagonist’s humble and devout mindset, expressing a committed faith and trust in YHWH, provides a valuable example for us today, just as much as it did for the Israelite/Jewish people in the post-exilic period.

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 heading of Ps 131 also includes the traditional Psalmic attribution “(belonging) to David”, which is certainly anachronistic in terms of the collection of the Songs; however, it is possible that the poem in vv. 1-2 could stem from a considerably earlier (even pre-exilic) time. Dahood (III, p. 238), as he often does, raises the possibility of a royal background, and that the protagonist/speaker of the poem could be a king.

Stanza 1: Verse 1

Verse 1a

“YHWH, my heart is not lifted up high,
and my eyes are not raised up high,”

In the first stanza, the protagonist’s confession is made in negative terms—that is, characteristics which he/she does not possess. In each line of the couplet, the negative particle (al)) governs (and thus negates) a verb meaning “be high”. In the first line, the verb is Hb^G`, and it relates to the protagonist’s heart: “my heart is not lifted high”. The “heart” (bl@) is an anthropological term in Hebrew that refers to a person’s feelings and emotions, but also to one’s mind and will. Here, it is broadly used to express a person’s mind-set and attitude. To have a “high” or elevated heart is an idiom expressing the idea of pride and arrogance, often with an inflated sense of one’s own importance.

In the second line, the verb is <Wr, and relates to a person’s eyes. As in the first line, here the motif of “eyes” is used to express the idea of a prideful attitude and mindset; it can also suggest greediness or even a hostile and adversarial outlook (toward the righteous, or against the poor and lowly). Both of these idioms are present is Wisdom-teaching—for a high/elevated heart, cf. Prov 16:5; 18:12; for eyes that are raised/lifted high, cf. Prov 6:17; 30:13; Ps 18:28[27]; the two are combined (as here) in Prov 21:4 and Psalm 101:5. Cf. Allen, p. 260.

Verse 1b

“and (so) I do not walk about in great (thing)s,
or in (thing)s (too) wondrous for me!”

I treat the initial w-conjunction in the second couplet as indicating the consequence of the statements made in the first couplet (above). Because the protagonist does not have a ‘high heart’ or ‘elevated eyes’, he/she does not “walk about” in great and wondrous things. This use of the common verb El^h* (“walk”) is traditional, giving to it a definite ethical-religious connotation—i.e., “walking” refers to how a person conducts his/her life, reflecting regular and characteristic behavior. A person’s eyes and heart leads one toward certain behavior. This idiom of “walking” (sometimes using the related motif of a “path[way]”) is frequent in Wisdom literature, as also in the Psalms. It features prominently throughout Psalm 119 (cf. the recent study and notes).

The “great (thing)s” (adj. lodG`) mentioned in line 1 are best understood in terms of worldly human standards, and, perhaps, in relation to a person’s self- (and selfish) interest; cp. Jer 45:5. Similarly, the things that “are wondrous” (verbal adjective, vb al*P*) presumably refer to extraordinary accomplishments and experiences in the human sphere. However, the use of the preposition /m! in the comparative sense (“[more] than”), in this context (“…[more] than me”), also suggests the idea of a person attempting to dabble (or meddle) in affairs which are beyond their abilities or their comprehension. It is often indicated that the elevated human heart (and eyes) which seeks out ‘great things’ is, in some sense, attempting to compare itself with that of God. This is particularly true in the Prophetic nation-oracles, in reference to great and ambitious world leaders; and this certainly fits the judgment context of the aforementioned reference in Jeremiah 45:5.

The righteous and devout person, faithful and loyal to YHWH, is not like such great worldly leaders and figures with their lofty ambitions; rather, the attitude of the righteous is humble and self-effacing, placing trust wholly upon YHWH, as expressed in the second stanza.

Stanza 2: Verse 2

Verse 2a

“No, but (rather) I laid down
and sought to quiet my soul,”

This short 2-beat couplet has generated a rather large amount of commentary, including detailed studies by P. A. H. de Boer (“Psalm 131:2”, VT [Vetus Testamentum] 16 [1966], pp. 287-92) and others. For a good summary of the textual questions, particularly in relation to the LXX and ancient translations, cf. the discussion in Hossfeld-Zenger, pp. 443ff. Given the difficulties and interpretive possibilities involved, it is perhaps safest to keep as close to the MT as possible (sadly, the verse is not preserved in any of the Qumran manuscripts).

As the couplet in v. 2a stands, each line consists of two words, with something of a chiastic structure:

    • “No, but (rather) [al)-<a!]
      • I have laid down [yt!yW]v!]
      • and have quieted [yT!m=m^odw+]
    • my soul [yv!p=n~]”

The inner words consist of a verb pair, describing the faithful action (and intention) of the protagonist, in contrast to the negative attitude and mind-set mentioned in verse 1 (cf. above). The first verb is hw`v* (Piel), but there is some uncertainty as to which of two posited hwv roots this occurrence should be attributed. The first root (I) means something like “be similar”, which in the Piel stem (“make similar”) could carry the specific meaning of “(make) level” (cf. Isa 28:25). In this context, it could possibly refer to the protagonist ‘evening out’ his soul, making it smooth and level, i.e., soothing/calming it. Alternatively, the second root (II), in the Piel, has the meaning “set/lay down” (cf. Isa 38:13), which makes an appropriate (contrastive) parallel to the motif of raising/lifting high in stanza 1 (cf. above). Here, then, the protagonist could speak of ‘laying down’ his soul, i.e., lowering it in a humble manner. I have opted for this latter line of interpretation.

The second verb is <m^D* (I), which means “be silent/quiet”, as also the cognate/related hm*D* (II). The use of the Poel stem here is quite rare (this is the only occurrence for the verb <m^D*), and could express the protagonist’s active intention and purpose—i.e., “sought to quiet…”. Here, the quieting of the protagonist’s soul is a reflection of his devotion to YHWH, and is the proper response of the devout person in approaching God (in prayer or worship), cf. Lev 10:3; Psalm 4:5 (and note the context of repentance and avoidance of sin in this latter reference, cp. Psalm 130). The “soul” (vp#n#) of the individual is comparable to the “heart” (bl@) in v. 1—both words can serve as general and comprehensive terms for a person’s mind, will, intention, etc.

The initial compound particle al)-<a! usually has an exceptive meaning (“if not”, i.e., except, unless); however, occasionally the meaning and use is contrastive (i.e., instead, rather), which I translate here as “no, but (rather)…”. al)-<a! also belongs to the traditional Hebrew oath-formula, and possibly it is being used here intensively, for a solemn declaration (“No, indeed…”). For a very different explanation of MT al <a, see Dahood, III, p. 238f.

Verse 2b

“Like a weaned (infant) upon its mother,
like the weaned (child) on me—(so is) my soul.”

The theme of the righteous individual’s humble and devout attitude, with a soul ‘quieted’ before YHWH, is complemented here in the second couplet by the image of a young child that is dependent upon its mother. This likening is indicated by the use of the preposition K= (“like, as”), but may also be suggested by a bit of wordplay involving the verbs in v. 2a (cf. above). As noted, there is a separate root hw`v* which means “be like”; similarly there is a separate root hm*D* (= <m^D*) with a comparable meaning. Thus, in lowering and quieting his soul, the protagonist is intentionally making himself like an infant child who is entirely reliant upon his mother.

This image of an infant child is, apparently, indicated by the word lmg, parsed by the Masoretes as a passive participle (verbal noun). The verb lm^G` means “do, act”, often in the specific sense of “deal with (someone)”. However, on a number of occasions in the Scriptures, it clearly refers to the weaning of a nursing child away from dependence on the mother’s milk (cf. Gen 21:8; 1 Sam 1:23f; 1 Kings 11:20; Hos 1:8; cp. the context of the bearing/ripening of fruit, Num 17:23; Isa 18:5). This typically would have occurred around the age of three. Such a child has been “dealt with”, i.e., raised/trained properly. If this image is particularly related to the motif of quietness (v. 2a), then its significance might lie in the idea that the weaned child no longer cries out of need (for milk); instead, it can rest quiet and contented with the mother. Yet, the child is still young enough to be dependent upon the parent, and the specific use of the preposition lu^ (“upon”) suggests the image of a parent carrying a young child.
In regard to the presumed festal setting of the collection of Songs, there are specific references to Jewish parents carrying their young children to the festival (on the father’s shoulders, etc)—e.g., b. Ḥag. 5b-6a; m. Ḥag. 1:1; cf. Allen, p. 261.

Especially problematic to a precise interpretation (and translation) of v. 2b is the Masoretic vocalization of the second occurrence of the preposition lu^, in the second line, the form ylu vocalized as the preposition with a first person singular suffix (“upon me”, yl^u*, cp. yl@u& in line 1). If this vocalization is to be accepted, then the Psalmist is intensifying (and personalizing) the comparison: not only is the quieted soul compared to a weaned infant (carried by its mother), it is compared to the protagonist’s own child (that he/she carries). This personalization of the image (if correct) makes for one of the particularly beautiful and touching aspects of the Psalm for many readers and commentators.

Dahood would explain the second ylu as preserving an archaic (Northern/Phoenician) third person singular y– suffix (“upon him”), treating it then as an implicit reference to YHWH as the parent. This is fitting for the overall message of the Psalm, and is fully in keeping with Israelite religious tradition—see esp. the image of YHWH carrying Israel, like a father carrying his child, e.g., in Deut 1:31; Isa 46:3-4; cf. also Hos 11:3. Most commentators, however, tend to accept (and follow) the MT, and I have done so here as well.

For a detailed study of this couplet, see the article by W. A. Van Gemeren, “Psalm 131:2—kegamul: The Problems of Meaning and Metaphor”, Hebrew Studies 23 (1982), pp. 51-7.

Conclusion: VERSE 3

“Wait, O Yisrael, (with hope) unto YHWH—
from now even until (the) distant (future)!”

This conclusion (in the first line) matches the wording of Ps 130:7a. As noted in the introduction above, it seems likely that the same exhortation here was introduced, perhaps in imitation of Ps 130:7a, by the editor/compiler of the collection of Songs. In any case, it serves much the same function here as the conclusion of Ps 130. It applies the message of the poem to the Community as a whole, in a communal worship setting (such as the festival setting[s] in which the Songs came to be sung). The people are exhorted to follow the example of the Psalm’s protagonist, by eschewing and avoiding any sort of high-mindedness and seeking after “great things”; instead, they should remain humble, with a lowered/quieted soul, waiting upon YHWH with faith and devotion. It is paradoxical, but in a beautiful way, that a mature faith and devotion is compared as being like that of a little child. Jesus, of course, made the same comparison in teaching his disciples (Mark 10:15 par; Matt 10:4ff, cf. also 21:15-16), and it is a lesson that we as believers need to keep in mind at all times.

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).

Studies on the Spirit: The Spirit and the Death/Resurrection of Jesus (Study 5)

Study 5: The Spirit in the Gospel of JOhn

When we turn to the Gospel of John, we come across a rather different portrait of the Spirit in relation to the ministry of Jesus. As we saw in the previous study, as well as in the earlier three studies (1, 2, 3), the Synoptic Gospels emphasized the Messianic identity of Jesus. The Spirit, having come down upon Jesus at his Baptism, was a clear sign identifying him as the Messiah (cf. Isa 42:1-3, 61:1ff, and also 11:2ff). The Spirit’s presence, in and upon Jesus, subsequently served to guide and empower him throughout his entire ministry, enabling him to fulfill his role as the Messiah. During the Galilean Period of ministry, it is particularly his identity as the Messianic Prophet—according to the figure-types of Moses, Elijah, and the Servant of Isa 42:1ff/61:1ff—that is in view.

The two main aspects of Jesus’ Messianic ministry—proclaiming the good news (of God’s Kingdom) and performing healing/exorcism miracles—are presented as being the result of his ‘anointing’ and empowerment by the Spirit. This is most clear in the Gospel of Luke, but is implicit throughout the Synoptic narrative; the Synoptic tradition in Mark 3:28-29 par, along with the “Q” sayings in Matt 12:28 and 32 (pars), in the context of the ‘Beelzebul episode’, also makes the association explicit (cf. the citation of Isa 42:1-3 in Matt 12:17-21). Along with these references, there are a number of statements by Jesus promising the coming of the Spirit upon his disciples, allowing them to continue his Messianic ministry (cf. Mk 13:11 par; Luke 11:13; 12:12 par; cf. also Lk 24:49).

By contrast, in the Gospel of John, the relation of the Spirit to the Messianic identity of Jesus is not particularly emphasized, except for the initial episodes in the first chapter (vv. 19-51), around the central event of Jesus’ Baptism (vv. 29-34). In this regard, the Johannine narrative follows the wider Gospel Tradition, and corresponds generally with the Synoptic narrative. Indeed, the Gospel of John expounds and develops the Tradition in a number of important ways, which serve primarily to emphasize the contrast between John the Baptist and Jesus. Within the core Synoptic Tradition, this contrast is presented by John the Baptist’s sayings in Mk 1:7-8 par, whereby Baptist’s Messianic identity is subordinated to that of Jesus’. The Johannine Gospel develops this contrast through two main approaches: (1) a distinctive literary framework (in 1:19-51), and (2) a theological and thematic orientation covering chapters 1-3 as a whole.

1. The Messianic Identity of Jesus in 1:19-51

The elements of the Gospel Tradition are presented within a particular literary framework, that narrates the events at the very beginning of Jesus’ public ministry, according to a sequence of four ‘days’ (cf. the repeated notice in vv. 29, 35, 42, “On the morrow…”). The Prologue (vv. 1-18) prepares for this Johannine presentation by establishing the role of John the Baptist (in relation to Jesus) already in vv. 6-8, 15. John the Baptist is not the Messiah, much less the Son of God (esp. in the Johannine sense); instead, he is identified as a Divinely-appointed witness (marturi/a, vb marture/w) to the true Messiah (and Son of God). It is Jesus who is properly identified as both the Messiah and the (incarnate) Son of God.

In the first episode (vv. 19-28), John the Baptist’s ministry is described, indirectly (see v. 28), and entirely in terms of his role as witness to Jesus. He explicitly denies being any of the three major Messianic figures— “Elijah”, “the Prophet” (i.e., Moses), and “the Anointed One” (presumably the royal/Davidic Messiah). This implies that another (Jesus) will fulfill all of these figure-types. A Johannine version of the saying(s) corresponding to Mk 1:7-8 par provides a climax to the episode (vv. 26-27), though the Baptism-declaration of Mk 1:8 par is not completed until a later point in the narrative (v. 33).

In the second episode (vv. 29-34, the second ‘day’), the Baptism of Jesus is described, but only as an indirect narration, made by the Baptist in his role as witness. I have already mentioned three details or aspects of this narration which touch upon the distinctive Johannine theology (and Christology):

    • The use of the verb katabai/nw (“step [i.e., come] down”) for the description of the Spirit’s descent upon Jesus (vv. 32-33); in the Johannine Gospel, this verb (along with the related a)nabai/nw, “step up”) has special Christological significance, identifying Jesus as the incarnate Son of God.
    • The Spirit which comes down upon Jesus is said to remain on him (vv. 32-33); the verb me/nw (“remain, abide”) is a vital Johannine keyword, used in reference to the abiding union of God the Father and (Jesus the) Son, as well as that of the believer with both Son and Father.
    • John the Baptist serves as God’s own witness, essentially taking the place of the voice from heaven (Mk 1:11 par) in declaring Jesus’ identity as the “Son of God” (v. 34). In the Johannine Gospel, this Divine Sonship goes beyond the Messianic sense it carried in the original Tradition (cf. the variant reading in v. 34, “the [one] gathered out”, i.e., “chosen [one]”, o( e)klekto/$); Jesus is not merely the Messiah, he is also the pre-existent Son (and Word) of God, as indicated in the Prologue.

This Johannine theological development of the Tradition is also summarized by the saying of John the Baptist in verse 30 (also v. 15), the content and message of a traditional saying by the Baptist (v. 27, Mk 1:7 par) that has been cast in Johannine theological language.

There is a gradual and progressive shift in the literary presentation and development for the final two ‘days’ (vv. 35-41, 42-50f), as the disciples of John the Baptist become disciples of Jesus, and the disciples also gradually take over the Baptist’s role as witness to the Messianic identity of Jesus. There are subtle details in these episodes (as in vv. 29-34, cf. above) which allude to the deeper (Johannine) understanding of who Jesus is. One such detail is the further use of the verb me/nw (in vv. 38-39), foreshadowing the abiding union of believers with the Son (and also with the Father) through the presence of the Spirit.

2. The Thematic Orientation of Chapters 1-3.

The Baptist-references in the Prologue (vv. 6-8, 15, cf. above), are matched by the final testimony of the Baptist at the conclusion of chapter 3 (vv. 27-30[ff]). Thus, chapters 1-3 form a thematic literary unit that intersects with the broader narrative of Jesus’ public ministry (chaps. 2-12). The principal theme throughout chaps. 1-3 is the contrast between John the Baptist and Jesus. However, in chapter 3, the aspect of this theme being emphasized is the contrast between the baptism (in water) performed by John and that baptism (in the Spirit) performed by Jesus. This thematic emphasis relates back to the tradition in Mk 1:8 par (see here, 1:26-27, 30-33), but is given deeper and more profound theological interpretation in chapter 3—both within the Nicodemus Discourse of vv. 1-21, and in the concluding Discourse-unit of vv. 31-36. As it happens, both of these sections make particular mention of the Spirit.

In the initial exposition by Jesus (vv. 5-8), the contrast between water and the Spirit is framed in terms of the central saying of v. 3, and the idea of a person’s birth. This birth-motif relates naturally enough to the baptism ritual; the emphasis on renewal and the symbolism of emerging from the water both are suggestive of the imagery of birth. But, just as baptism in water is superseded by baptism in the Spirit, so a person’s birth out of water is superseded by his/her birth out of the Spirit. Some commentators would hold that water and Spirit are not being contrasted in verse 5, but I disagree entirely. The whole thrust of the exposition in vv. 5-8 is contrastive (though comparative), and, moreover, the water/Spirit juxtaposition in v. 5 matches the flesh/Spirit contrast in v. 6. According to this line of interpretation, to be born “out of water” is another way of referring to a natural human birth “out of flesh”.

Though it must be inferred within vv. 5-8, it is clear from the remainder of the Discourse (vv. 9-21) that a person’s birth “out of the Spirit” comes as a result of trusting in Jesus—that is, in his identity as the incarnate Son of God, who was sent to earth from heaven by God the Father. This deeper theological (and Christological) understanding of Jesus’ Sonship also represents an important exposition of the tradition regarding Jesus’ Messianic proclamation of the Kingdom (Mk 1:14-15 par, etc). One can neither see (i.e., recognize) nor enter into this Kingdom unless a person comes to be born “from above” (v. 3), which means being born “from the Spirit” (vv. 5-8).

From the standpoint of the Johannine theology, this experience of the Kingdom of God may be explained by the keyword zwh/ (“life”)—that is, the “life of the Age(s)” (zwh/ ai)w/nio$), or eternal life (vv. 15-16ff), which is characteristic of God Himself, and which He Himself bestows. Trust in Jesus leads the believer to experience this Life, and thus to enter into the Kingdom of God. This is certainly the message of the concluding section of the Discourse (vv. 15-16ff), but it also marks the conclusion of chapter 3 (and chaps. 1-3) as a whole, in verse 36.

The concluding Discourse-unit of vv. 31-36, which could be taken as a continuation of the Baptist’s testimony (vv. 27-30), represents the first main portion of the Gospel (apart from the Prologue) in which the relationship of the Divine Son to the Father is described in some detail. This will become a fundamental component of the Gospel narrative, and is at the core of the Johannine Christology.

A key theme in this regard is the idea that the Father gives to the Son, and that the Son, in turn, gives to believers (who are, in their own way, the offspring [children] of God). In this sense, the Son is the ultimate witness—one far superior to John the Baptist himself—who makes the Father known, and who communicates to others (believers) what he has received from the Father. This Johannine theme is introduced here in vv. 31-36 (esp. 32-35). The Father gives “all things” to the Son (v. 35), but the first and foremost of these is the Spirit (v. 34). The Father gives the Spirit to the Son, and the Son, in turn, gives the Spirit to believers. This dynamic is symbolized by the Baptism (and the baptism-saying): the Spirit is given by the Father, and comes down upon the Son (Jesus), while Jesus, in turn, will ‘baptize’ believers with the same Spirit.

3. Spirit references in the remainder of the Gospel

The remaining references to the Spirit in the Gospel of John may be isolated and grouped as follows:

    • The statements by Jesus in 4:23-24 (Samaritan Woman, or Living Water Discourse), in connection with the author’s notice in 7:39
    • The climactic saying by Jesus in 6:63 (Bread of Life Discourse)
    • The Paraclete-sayings by Jesus (14:16-17, 25-26; 15:26-27; 16:7-13) in the Last (Farewell) Discourse
    • The likely allusion in 19:30 (and v. 34), at the death of Jesus
    • The giving of the Spirit to believers by Jesus (after the resurrection) in 20:22

Common to all of these references are two fundamental points:

    1. Jesus gives the Spirit to believers. Though God the Father is the ultimate source of the Spirit (cf. 3:34-35; 4:24; 6:57), it is the Son (Jesus) who is its source for believers.
    2. The Spirit is given to believers following, and as a result/consequence of, the death and resurrection of Jesus.

The Spirit-references in 4:23-24 and 6:63 are related, contextually, by their position in the Living Water (chap. 4) and Bread of Life (chap. 6) Discourses, respectively. The imagery is clearly similar (and comparable): the Son gives “living water” (4:10-15), and, similarly, “living bread” (6:35, 51, etc), to those who trust in him. With regard to the “living water”, the context of the Spirit-references in vv. 23-24, as well as the use of the water/baptism motif in 3:5-8 (and 1:30-33), cf. above, makes rather clear that this “water” is the Spirit (a point the Gospel writer explicitly makes in 7:39 [cf. verses 37-38]). As for the “living bread”, this is identified with the person of the incarnate Son (Jesus) himself; however, this “bread” is communicated to believers (and is eaten by them) through the Spirit, as indicated by the climactic saying in v. 63. This will be discussed further in an upcoming study.

It is interesting to consider the subtle ways that these Spirit-references, in their literary and narrative contexts, continue the Johannine theological development of the Gospel Tradition—specifically with regard to the identity of Jesus as the Messiah, and to the Messianic ministry performed by him (cf. sections 1. and 2. above). Note, for example, how the question of Jesus’ Messianic identity plays an important role in both the Living Water and Bread of Life Discourses. In the former, the question comes at the conclusion of the main Discourse (vv. 25-30), immediately following the Spirit-references of vv. 23-24, and preceding the discussion by Jesus with his disciples (vv. 31-38) foreshadowing his message in the Bread of Life Discourse. In that latter Discourse, the question of Jesus’ Messianic identity (vv. 13-14f) precedes the Discourse (vv. 25-59), linking it to the Miraculous Feeding episode (vv. 1-12) and the obvious symbolism (of bread/eating) common to both.

In the Farewell Discourse, the promise of the Spirit/Paraclete relates to the mission of the disciples (believers), in the sense that they will be continuing the Son’s own mission. This follows the Gospel traditions noted in Study 4—the sayings promising the coming of the Spirit, but also the tradition(s) regarding the initial mission(s) of the disciples which took place during Jesus’ lifetime (Mk 6:7-13 par; Lk 10:1-12). In those passages, it is clear that the disciples are continuing Jesus’ Messianic ministry (proclaiming the good news, performing healing miracles), empowered by the Spirit, even though there is no specific mention at that point in the narrative of their having received the Spirit.

Finally, the references in connection with the death (19:30, 34) and resurrection (20:22) of Jesus are implicitly connected to the fundamental Gospel tradition that associates his death with his identity as the Messiah. In the Synoptic Tradition, the Jerusalem period, beginning with the Triumphal Entry (Mark 11 par), emphasizes Jesus’ identity as the royal/Davidic Messiah—and it is this particular Messianic figure-type that features in the Passion narrative, in both the interrogation and crucifixion scenes (Mk 14:61ff; 15:1-2ff, 9ff, 17-20, 26, 32, 39 pars). The Johannine Gospel retains this basic line of tradition (18:33, 39; 19:2-5ff, 12-15, 19-22), but develops it theologically, mainly through the Discourse-dialogue of Pilate and Jesus (18:33-38; 19:9-11, cf. my recent study on these passages). This also occurs by way of certain details and nuances of emphasis in the narrative, such as in 19:30, 34 (to be discussed further in our next study).

Indeed, in Study 6 (timed for Saturday of Holy Week), we will examine the Gospel tradition regarding the moment of Jesus’ death—the release of his “spirit”. This will be done according to three lines of inquiry:

    • The core Gospel tradition as narrated in the Synoptics
    • The Johannine theological development of this tradition, with allusions to the giving of the Spirit to believers, and
    • The theological question regarding what happened to the Spirit of God at the time of Jesus’ death: did it ‘depart’ from him, or did it remain with him through death, burial and resurrection?

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 130

Psalm 130

Dead Sea MSS: 11QPsa (vv. 1-8); 4QPse (vv. 1-3, 6)

This the first Song of the third (and final) group of five “Songs of Ascents” (Pss 130-134). Like the initial Song of the first two groups (Pss 120, 125), there is a strong lament component in this Psalm, drawing upon the traditional genre and style of the lament- and prayer-Psalms. However, the emphasis on oppression from the wicked, found in those prior two Songs, is absent from Psalm 130. Instead, the focus is on sin as the implied cause of suffering and distress. For this reason, Ps 130 has been counted among the seven “Penitential Psalms” (also 6, 32, 38, 51, 102, and 143) in Christian liturgical tradition, sung in particular during the season of Lent, and intended to foster a spirit of repentance among the faithful.
There have been many beautiful musical settings of the “Penitential Psalms”, by distinguished composers such as Andrea Gabrieli, Roland de Lassus, and numerous others. Most of the settings were made according to the Latin (Vulgate) text of the Psalms; Ps 130 is known by its opening words in Latin, De profundis.

There is a rather clear two-part structure to this Psalm (vv. 1-4, 5-8), with a similar thematic structure to each part. Many commentators would divide each part further, into two related sections; however, the structural parallel remains. This refined division may be outlined as follows:

    • Lament/Plea to YHWH (direct address), vv. 1-2
      • Hope of forgiveness for the individual, vv. 3-4
    • Lament/Plea to YHWH (indirect address), vv. 5-6
      • Hope of forgiveness for the Community, vv. 7-8

This parallelism argues in favor of verses 7-8 being an integral (and original) part of the composition, rather than a later redaction. Many Psalms conclude similarly with a communal orientation, in which the message and themes of the main poem are applied to the Community and its worship. This could indicate the work of a redactor, though just as likely these concluding sections could represent the work of a principal composer adapting earlier traditional Psalmic elements and material. For examples of comparable lament- and prayer-Psalms, featuring a prayer for deliverance to YHWH, note Pss 28 (vv. 8-9), 31 (vv. 24-25 [23-24]), and 64 (v. 11 [10]); cf. Allen, p. 254.

The protagonist in the Psalms typically represents the people as a whole, and there is often an interplay between these two points of view—individual and communal. There can be an exemplary didactic purpose, whereby the situation of the individual protagonist in the Psalm is applied to that of the Community, in order to teach and exhort the people.

The date of the Psalm is uncertain, though the majority of commentators would probably tend to place it in the post-exilic period, along with the collection of the Songs of Ascents as a whole. This view is based, in part, on certain observations regarding the vocabulary. Two words, in particular, have been noted (cf. Allen, p. 255) as evidence for a post-exilic date: (i) the adjective bV*q^ (“attentive”) in v. 2, which occurs elsewhere only in 2 Chron 6:40; 7:15; Neh 1:6, 11; and (ii) the noun hj*yl!s= (“forgiveness”) in v. 4, which only occurs in Neh 9:17 and Dan 9:9.

The reasons for inclusion of Psalm 130 in this collection of Songs are not entirely clear. In terms of the restoration and blessing themes that tend to govern the collection, it is possible that it was felt necessary to include a reminder of the importance of repentance and forgiveness in order to maintain the restored Community within the land. Blessing and protection from YHWH depends upon the people remaining faithful to the covenant, and this entails repentance and the removal of sin (and its effects), by both the individual and the Community. The following Psalm 131 evinces a similar focus, but with a stronger Wisdom-emphasis.

While the two parts of the Psalm are similar thematically, there are quite different metrically. The first part generally follows a 3+2 couplet format, though the first couplet has an extended 3+3 (or possibly even 4+3) meter. The second part is comprised primarily of tricola, with a shorter 2-beat pattern in vv. 5-6, and a longer 3-beat pattern in v. 7; the concluding verse 8 returns to the 3+2 couplet format of the first part.

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. This heading is absent for Ps 130 in the original of the Qumran manuscript 4QPse, but was added (as a correction) by a later hand.

Part 1: VerseS 1-4

Verse 1

“From (the) deep places I call to you, YHWH—
O my Lord, may you hear by my voice!”

The lament and plea/petition to YHWH covers vv. 1-2, as noted in the outline above. It draws on traditional imagery and language from the lament- and prayer-Psalms, though the actual prayer for deliverance is presented in a rather generalized and cursory form. The request for YHWH to “hear” (vb um^v*) the protagonist’s “voice” is a regular way of expressing the hope that YHWH will answer his prayer. The idiom of the verb um^v* + the preposition B= (rendered here as “hear by”) is perhaps better translated in English idiom as “listen to” (or, in more archaic language, “hearken to”).

The motif of “calling out” (vb ar^q*) to God is made all the more vivid (and urgent) by the image of a person being trapped in a deep pit or hole. In such a situation, one is compelled to cry out all the more loudly and vehemently, in the hopes that YHWH may actually hear and respond. The noun qm+u&m^ is locative, and literally means “deep place”; the plural, with the prefixed preposition /m!, means “from (the) deep places”, while in English we would probably say, “out of the depths”. The imagery occurs with some frequency in the Psalms and other poetry, though the noun qm*u&m^ is only used in Ps 69 (vv. 3[2], 15[14]).

Typically, the “deep places” allude to the ‘Pit’ of Sheol, the realm of Death and the dead; the imagery suggests a life-threatening situation that has put the protagonist at the point of death. This can take the concrete form of disease or attack by hostile enemies, though it can also be used for the idea of distress more generally. Sometimes, this danger is expressed in terms of being trapped within deep and dangerous waters (i.e., the ‘depths’ of the sea), which threaten to submerge and drown a person. When YHWH delivers one out of distress, this is described in terms of being pulled out (i.e., rescued) from the depths. For notable occurrences of this motif, see Psalm 63:10[9]; 68:23[22]; 69:3[2], 14-15[13-14]; 71:20; 86:13; 88:7[6]; Lam 3:55ff; Jonah 2:3-6.

The perfect form of the verb ar^q*, like that of the parallel form of hw`q* in v. 5, is translated as present tense. Cf. the note by Hossfeld-Zenger, p. 422.

Verse 2

“Let your ears (now) become attentive
to (the) voice of my plea for favor!”

The second part of the lament (and plea/prayer for deliverance) occurs here in verse 2. The root bvq, denoting attentiveness, listening intently, etc, is often paired with the verb um^v* (“hear”, v. 1), or otherwise used to express the idea of YHWH answering one’s prayer. However, as noted above, the adjective bV*q^ (“attentive”) is quite rare, occurring only in late texts and nowhere else in the Psalms. More common is the verb bv^q* (“be attentive, pay attention”), though the same is expressed here by the verb of being/becoming (hy`h*) + the adjective. For occurrences of the verb bv^q* in the Psalms, cf. 5:3[2]; 10:17; 17:1; 55:3[2]; 61:2[1]; 66:19; 86:6; 142:7[6].

The noun /Wnj&T^ denotes a request for favor—i.e., that a person be shown favor or be treated favorably by YHWH, which, in this context, means being delivered out of distress.

Verse 3

“If you were to guard (our) crooked (ways), YH,
O my Lord—who could stand?”

As noted in the outline of the Psalms thematic structure (cf. above), verses 3-4, like the corresponding vv. 7-8 in the second part, presents the hope (and promise) of forgiveness from YHWH. From these sections, we are able to infer that the distress indicated in vv. 1-2 (and 5-6) has come about as the result of sin. Yet there is hope for the forgiveness of sin, if one calls upon YHWH in repentance; this will then lead to YHWH answering one’s prayer and bringing deliverance out of distress.

Here the noun /ou*, in the plural, denoting things that are “bent, twisted, crooked”, is a traditional designation for “sin(s)”. It specifically indicates a deviation away from what is straight and right, particularly from the standpoint of the covenant with YHWH and its Torah. The point being made in this couplet is that, without forgiveness of sin (and its destructive effects), no human being could survive (“stand”). And forgiveness only comes from God, through His mercy and faithfulness; He releases (i.e., removes, disperses) the guilt and damaging effects of sin. To do otherwise would mean that He retains the guilt, etc, of a person’s sin, and there would thus be no deliverance; this is expressed here by the verb “guard” (rm^v*), which tends to be used in the sense of positive protection, but here has the negative contextual meaning of retaining the guilt and punishment of a person’s sin.

Verse 4

“But, with you (there is) the forgiveness,
to the end that you may be feared.”

The negative possibility—i.e., that YHWH might not forgive sin—is expressed as a rhetorical question in verse 3. But the positive truth of the matter—viz., that YHWH will forgive—is stated here. As other commentators have noted (e.g., Hossfeld-Zenger, p. 422), the initial particle yK!, coming after the rhetorical question of v. 3, is adversative— “but instead/rather…”. It is stated that the forgiveness of sin is “with” YHWH. This could mean that He has the ability to forgive, or that He is willing to forgive; doubtless both aspects of meaning are present.

As a result of YHWH’s forgiveness of sin, He comes rightly to be feared (vb ar@y`, Niphal stem) by humankind. The verb here can be understood in the sense of His being revered, i.e., by those who are righteous/faithful among His people. The righteous recognize that their sins are forgiven entirely because of YHWH’s own mercy and goodness, but also that the power to forgive reflects His sovereign might as Creator and King of the universe. The fear/reverence of YHWH represents both the purpose and the consequence of His willingness (and ability) to forgive.

The imperfect form of the Niphal of ar@y` is somewhat unusual, since it otherwise occurs as a participle; in this context, the participle (verbal adjective) functions as a Divine attribute (“to be feared, worthy of fear, fearsome”). It may be for this reason that the ancient Versions had some difficulty with the text at this point, either understanding the form (arwt, MT ar@W`T!) as coming from the verb ha*r* (“see”), or as a byform of hr*oT (i.e., ar*oT), “law” (Greek no/mo$).

Part 2: Verses 5-8

Verse 5

“I wait for YHWH (to answer),
(so) waits my soul (for Him),
even for His word I do wait!”

Verses 5-6 in the second part of the Psalm correspond to vv. 1-2 in the first part (cf. above). Again we find a plea/prayer for deliverance from the protagonist, only it is formulated as an indirect address to YHWH, rather than the direct address of vv. 1-2.

If the protagonist calls out to YHWH in vv. 1-2, here in vv. 5-6, he waits for the answer—i.e., for YHWH to respond to his prayer and to deliver him out of his distress. Two different verbs are used to express this motif of waiting—hw`q* [I] and lj^y`—with relatively little difference in meaning. Both verbs can connote the idea waiting with hopeful expectation. The “word” (rb*D*) of YHWH is, specifically, His response (i.e., answer) to the protagonist’s prayer.

One should note Dahood’s proposal (III, p. 236) that the verb hwq in lines 1 and 2, does not mean “wait [for]”, but rather “call”, just like the verb arq in v. 1. While this creates an obvious (and precise) parallel between the two parts of the Psalm, it also disrupts the thematic emphasis on waiting (for YHWH) in the second part. Support for his identification with a separate hwq root (with the meaning “call”) is stronger in the case of Ps 19:5[4] and 40:2[1] (cf. I, pp. 121f, 245).

Frequently in the lament- and prayer-Psalms, there is the sense that YHWH seems unwilling to respond in a timely fashion, and, as a result, the protagonist ends up enduring suffering and distress for much longer than he would have wished (or expected). Yet, the willingness to wait on YHWH—even if one has to endure extended suffering—trusting that He will eventually respond, is a mark of the righteous. The faithful/devoted ones are characterized by patient endurance, and such patient waiting (with hope and trust) will be rewarded by God—cf. Psalm 25:3, 5, 21; 27:14; 37:9, 34, etc.

Metrically, both verse 5 and 6 are 2-beat (2+2+2) tricola, in contrast to the (3+2) couplet format of Part 1.

Verse 6

“My soul (watches) for my Lord,
(more) than guardians for the dawn,
(yes, even) guardians for the dawn!”

The patient (but eager) waiting by the protagonist is compared with that of guards (“[the one]s guarding”) stationed on the city walls (i.e., at the watchtower), who maintain their sentry-position all through the night. They await the coming of dawn, since with the morning light there is finally relief, because it means the end of their night-vigil and the passing of the time of danger. The protagonist’s waiting is even greater than that of the sentry-guards, as expressed by the comparative /m!, which in English requires the translation “(more) than”. The Qumran manuscript 4QPse makes the comparison differently, with the preposition K= (“like”), rather than /m!.
Dahood (III, p. 236) gives an entirely different explanation of the –m prefix, suggesting that it should be separated from the verbal noun <yr!m=v), and treated as an (enclitic) suffix on the preceding noun ynda (“my Lord”). By this parsing, there need not be any comparison made, i.e.—
“My soul (looks) to my Lord,
guarding until (day)break,
(yes,) guarding till (day)break.”

The specific expression in lines 2 and 3 is difficult to translate concisely. Literally, it should be rendered something like, “(those) guarding (who watch) for the (day)break”; for poetic concision, this is condensed and simplified in my translation above.

The Qumran manuscript 4QPse reads the first line somewhat differently than the MT. The repetition of the verb lj^y` (as an imperative) from the end of the previous line, produces a 3-beat (rather than a 2-beat) line: “Wait, O my soul, for the Lord”.

Verse 7

“Wait, O Yisrael, (with hope) unto YHWH,
for with YHWH (there is) the goodness,
and much ransom is made with Him.”

Along with commentators such as Allen (pp. 252ff) and Hossfeld-Zenger (pp. 422ff), I parse verse 7 as a 3-beat (3+3+3) tricolon, corresponding with the earlier 2-beat tricola in vv. 5-6.

Here in vv. 7-8, we find an expression of the hope and promise of forgiveness from YHWH, parallel to that in vv. 3-4 (cf. above). The second and third lines are generally comparable to the couplet in v. 4. The “forgiveness” (hj*yl!s=) mentioned in verse 4 is matched here by a combination of the nouns ds#j# and tWdP=. The latter means “ransom” —that is, the price paid to free a person out of bondage; the root hd*P*, like the similar la^G` (“redeem”), can be used more generally in the sense of “rescue, release, deliver” (i.e., out of danger or distress, etc). The accompanying noun ds#j# is a regular term used as an attribute of YHWH (and also of the righteous); it has the basic meaning “goodness, kindness”, but also frequently carries the meaning “faithfulness, loyalty, devotion”, particularly in the context of the covenant between YHWH and His people. This goodness and loyal devotion of YHWH, by which He is willing (and able) to ransom His people out of their distress, is “with” Him, even as the specific ability to forgive is “with” YHWH (v. 4).
The Hebrew text of the third line in the Qumran manuscript 11QPsa (hdp wmu brh) differs from the MT, but the meaning is ostensibly the same: “(there is) much ransoming being made with Him”.

In the first line, the Psalmist calls on the people (Israel) to follow the protagonist’s example, exhorting them to “wait” patiently, and with hope and trust, for YHWH to answer their prayers.

Verse 8

“And He (Himself) will ransom Yisrael
from all his crooked (way)s!”

If verse 7 matches the wording and thematic emphasis of v. 4, verse 8 corresponds with v. 3, particularly in the use of the noun /ou* (plur.) translated as “crooked (way)s” —i.e., sins, in the specific sense of deviations from the right and straight way of YHWH, as laid out in the Torah of the covenant. This confirms that the “ransom” (here, vb hd*P*) mentioned in vv. 7-8 properly means forgiveness from sin. Once the effects of sin have been removed, then the people can be rescued and delivered by YHWH. The implication is that their suffering and distress, in this instance, has come about as the result of sin; because of this, deliverance is to be preceded by repentance. Yet, insofar as the people call upon YHWH in a spirit of repentance, with a devout and faithful heart, the promise of forgiveness will be realized—indeed, YHWH will forgive (and release) His people from all their sins.

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).

 

Studies on the Spirit: The Spirit and the Death/Resurrection of Jesus (Study 4)

Study 4: The Spirit in the Ministry of Jesus

In our studies on the Holy Spirit in relation to the death and resurrection of Jesus, we have begun with the ministry of Jesus. This approach allows us to see how the Spirit-references during the period of Jesus’ ministry relate to the climactic moment of his death/resurrection. Our starting point for this examination was the Baptism tradition, since, in the Gospel narratives (both the Synoptics and John), the Baptism of Jesus marks the beginning of his public ministry.

In the studies thus far (1, 2, 3), we have looked closely at the role of the Spirit in the Baptism episode (Mark 1:8-11 par), noting that the primary significance of the Spirit’s descent upon Jesus is Messianic. The presence of the Spirit (v. 10), along with the declaration of the Divine voice from heaven (v. 11), establishes Jesus’ identity as the Anointed One (Messiah) of God, according to both the Prophetic and Royal/Davidic Messianic figure-types. The coming of the Spirit upon Jesus relates especially to the Prophetic figure-types, drawing upon the Isaian prophecies in 11:2ff, 42:1ff, and 61:1ff, but there are also important associations with the Royal/Davidic figure type, as we have discussed. The Divine voice from heaven seems to be quoting from both Isa 42:1 and Psalm 2:7.

During the Galilean period of Jesus’ ministry, however, it is his identity as the Messianic Prophet that is foremost in view. This is particularly so in the Synoptic Narrative, which is essentially divided into two halves: (i) the Galilean period, and (ii) the Jerusalem period. In the Galilean period, the focus is on Jesus as the Messianic Prophet, according to the figure-types of Moses, Elijah, and the Prophet/Servant of Isa 42:1ff, 61:1ff, etc. His identity as the Royal/Davidic Messiah is reserved for the Jerusalem Period; only Matthew’s narrative deviates slightly from the distinctive structure, while the Matthean and Lukan Infancy narratives, which emphasize Jesus as the Royal/Davidic Messiah, represent additions to the core Synoptic Tradition.

In the previous study (Study 3), we saw how the Lukan Gospel significantly developed these thematic associations, clearly interpreting the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus (at his Baptism) as a fulfillment of Isa 61:1ff (treated as a Messianic prophecy); cf. Luke 4:16-30. In this regard, the Lukan author brings out the role of the Spirit in a way that is only implied in the broader Synoptic Tradition—the Spirit guides and empowers Jesus in fulfilling his role as the Messiah. We examined how the Lukan additions to the tradition (Mk 1:12-13ff) in 4:1ff, 14ff, along with the positioning of the Nazareth episode (in which the Isa 61:1ff features) at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (cp. Mk 6:1-6a par), give special emphasis to Jesus’ Messianic identity as the Chosen One of God who is Anointed by the Spirit.

The Matthean Gospel does much the same thing, with the quotation of Isa 42:1-3, occurring at a comparable point partway through the Galilean Period narrative. This is especially significant because the Synoptic tradition that the quotation prefaces (12:17-21) is the ‘Beelzebul Episode’, which represents a key reference-point for the role of the Spirit in Jesus’ Messianic ministry.

As previously noted, there are actually quite few—surprisingly few—direct references to the Spirit in the Synoptic Gospels, apart from the introductory context of the Baptism scene (and, subsequently, the prefacing Infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke). The remaining Spirit-references can be grouped conveniently into two categories:

    1. Sayings of Jesus in connection with the ‘Beelzebul Episode’ and
    2. Sayings in which Jesus promises the coming of the Spirit to his disciples

Let us briefly examine each of these, in turn.

1. Spirit-references in the ‘Beelzebul Episode’

This episode is a key component of the Synoptic Tradition, being found in all three Synoptic Gospels. The Markan Gospel positions this episode relatively close to the beginning of the Galilean Period, following the initial accounts of healing miracles in 1:21-2:12 and the Sabbath controversy episodes in 2:18-3:6. Interspersed within these narratives is an account of the establishment of the core group of Jesus’ disciples (1:16-20, 29ff; 2:13-14ff; 3:13-19). Thus, the ‘Beelzebul episode’ (3:22-30) comes at a key (and climactic) point of the narrative, following an initial period of ministry-work by Jesus. People now are starting to react to the distinctive (Messianic) character of his ministry, and opposition to him begins to build.

The episode itself consists of a narrative introduction (vv. 22-23a), followed by a series of traditions: (a) the short parable-illustration(s) by Jesus in vv. 24-27, and (b) the saying on the “insult against the Holy Spirit” in vv. 28-29 (with an explanatory comment by the author in v. 30). The entire episode is framed by a further pair of traditions reflecting Jesus’ relationship with family relations and neighbors (vv. 20-21 and 31-35), establishing an important contrast between Jesus’ natural earthly family and his true (spiritual) family (i.e., his disciples/believers).

Underlying and running through all of these traditional elements is the question of Jesus’ Messianic identity—how it is manifested in his ministry (esp. the healing/exorcism miracles), and how people respond to it (i.e., whether [or not] they recognize him as the Spirit-empowered Messiah of God). And, indeed, it is the Spirit-empowered aspect of his ministry that is particularly being emphasized in the Beelzebul episode. The Jewish (religious) authorities and experts have been reacting in an increasingly negative and hostile way toward Jesus (and esp. to his healing miracles), and here, at the beginning of the episode, some of them openly attribute his miracle-working power to evil spirits or daimons (i.e., ‘demons’), rather than to the Spirit of God (v. 22). Both of the traditions that follow address this false attribution, as Jesus effectively makes the point that his miracles are not (and cannot be) brought about by the power of Satan (and the other evil spirits under his control). The Satan is here designated as “the chief (ruler) [a&rxwn] of the daimons”, and is identified by a traditional (and euphemistic) association with the ancient Canaanite deity Haddu/Hadad (i.e., ‘Baal’, called by the title ba±al-z§»ûl, “exalted lord”, or “lord of [the] exalted [place]”.

In the second tradition, the saying of vv. 28-29, Jesus implicitly states that his healing/exorcism miracles are done through the power of God’s holy Spirit. By attributing his miracles to evil/demonic spirits, rather than God’s own Spirit, Jesus’ opponents are committing a grave insult (blasfhmi/a, vb blasfhme/w) against the Spirit of God. The saying in vv. 28-29 warns people against this in the strongest possible terms, pointing out that, of all the “insults” and other sins that human beings (“sons of men”) might commit, such an “insult to the holy Spirit” will not (ever) be forgiven by God.

The Matthean and Lukan Gospels each include this episode, adapting and expanding it in various ways. Their expanded version includes so-called “Q” material (i.e., sayings and traditions present in both Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark). Let us first consider the Lukan version (11:14-23). The most notable difference is the setting: Luke has placed the episode entirely out of the Galilean period of Jesus’ ministry, including it instead as part of the lengthy Journey to Jerusalem (9:51-18:14ff; cp. Mark chap. 10). The Lukan author includes many different traditions—sayings, parables, and narrative episodes—in this central division, during which Jesus is presented as giving extensive teaching to his disciples, in preparation for what will take place in Jerusalem (viz., his suffering, death, and resurrection).

The material in chapters 11 and 12 has, as one of its key themes, the contrast between true and false disciples. This is presented in the context of controversies between Jesus and the hostile religious authorities (material that otherwise belongs properly to the Galilean period), as well as eschatological sayings by Jesus, warning of the coming distress (during which the disciples will experience suffering and persecution) and the end-time Judgment. These thematic points of emphasis make chapter 11 a suitable location for the Beelzebul episode, but it is also worth noting the immediate context of 11:1-13 (teaching on Prayer), with its climactic reference to the promise of the Spirit (v. 13, cf. also verse 2 [v.l.], and the earlier reference in 10:21). This particular Spirit-reference will be discussed briefly in section 2. below.

This Lukan version of the episode (like the Matthean) would seem to be derived primarily from a separate “Q” version, parallel to the Synoptic/Markan version. Matthew has blended the two versions together (cf. below), but this is less evident in Luke. The Lukan author has also given a distinctive shape to the “Q” content (vv. 15, 17, 18ab, 19-20, [21-22?], 23) with his own additions or other source material (vv. 14, 16, 18c, [21-22]); cf. Fitzmyer, p. 918. Most notable is the saying in verse 20, in which Jesus explicitly identifies God as the source of his healing power:

“But if (it is) by the finger of God (that) I cast out the daimons, then (surely) the kingdom of God has now come upon you!”

Interestingly this Lukan/Q version of the episode does not include the saying regarding the “insult to the holy Spirit” (Mk 3:28-29f, cf. above); there is a corresponding “Q” version of this saying which Luke includes a bit further on in the narrative (12:10), in the context of other “Son of Man” references (11:30; 12:8-9, 40), as well as the Spirit reference of v. 11 (cf. below).

This brings us to the Matthean version of the episode, which generally retains the Synoptic/Markan context, and portions of that parallel version, though presenting it around the mid-point of the Galilean Period. As noted above, it is immediately preceded by the quotation of Isa 42:1-3 (12:17ff), designating the healing/exorcism miracles of Jesus as a specific sign of his Messianic identity—viz., the Anointed Servant of God, upon whom the Spirit has come. Thus it is appropriate that the Spirit is given greater prominence in the Matthean version of the episode.

This can be seen, first, by the version of the “Q” saying corresponding to Lk 12:10 (cf. above), which has the expression “Spirit of God” instead of “finger of God”. Most likely, Luke contains the more original form of the “Q” saying; Matthew has presumably explained the idiom “finger of God” as a reference to God’s Spirit (in light of the context of Isa 42:1ff). In Scriptural tradition, miracles and wonders performed by God (YHWH) are usually referenced in terms of His “arm” or “hand”, but occasionally “finger” is also used (Exod 8:15[19]; cf. also Exod 31:18; Deut 9:10; Ps 8:4). In any case, it is made clear that Jesus’ miracles are the result of God’s Spirit at work in and upon him. This was already implied by Luke’s use of Isa 61:1ff (4:18-19ff [cf. vv. 1ff, 14]), in the context of the references to the miracles of Elijah/Elisha (vv. 25-27). Similarly, Isa 61:1ff is alluded to in 7:22, part of a “Q” pericope (7:18-35, par Matt 11:2-19) which confirms Jesus’ Messianic identity, his miracles being those performed by the Servant/Prophet who has been specially ‘Anointed’ by God’s Spirit.

Matthew includes the Synoptic saying (in a simpler form) regarding the “insult to the Spirit” (v. 31, Mk 3:28-29), but has joined to it the “Q” version (v. 32, Lk 12:10 [cf. above]) which is formulated as a “Son of Man” saying:

“whoever should say a word against the son of man, it will be put away [i.e., forgiven] for him; but whoever should say a word against the holy Spirit, it will not be put away [i.e. forgiven] for him—neither in this Age, nor in the (Age) coming!”

This “Q” version of the saying has proven somewhat difficult for commentators and theologians. Why should an insult, etc, against Christ (“the Son of Man”) be forgiven, while the same against the Holy Spirit will not be? I have discussed the matter at length in earlier studies, including (most recently) in an article as part of a series on the “Son of Man” sayings (“Who Is This Son of Man…?”). I believe that the distinction being made is between an ad hominem attack on Jesus the man (“son of man”) and an attack on the Divine Spirit that is present within him and which empowers him. This is certainly the context of the Beelzebul episode, which the Markan author makes clear in the closing comment of 3:30. Such an attack on God’s Spirit is fundamentally blasphemous, but, in the case of Jesus Christ, it also indicates an effective denial of his identity as the Spirit-endued Messiah of God.

2. Sayings in which Jesus promises the coming of the Spirit to his disciples

In the Markan Gospel, there is really only one other reference to the Spirit. It occurs within the Eschatological Discourse of chapter 13. In Jesus’ description of the coming (end-time) period of distress (qli/yi$, v. 19), he includes a section (vv. 9-13) dealing with how this distress will affect his disciples (i.e., believers). He foretells that many of his disciples will be arrested and brought to trial; at such time, when the disciples will have the opportunity to speak in their defense, as as a witness to the Gospel of Christ, it is indicated that they will speak under the prophetic inspiration of the Holy Spirit (v. 11). This is effectively a Synoptic reference to the promise of the Spirit, implying that the Spirit, after Jesus’ death and departure (i.e., resurrection/exaltation), will be given to believers.

Naturally enough, this theme is more prominent in the Gospel of Luke, where it specifically foreshadows the fulfillment of Jesus’ words narrated in the book of Acts—as the early believers repeatedly are portrayed as speaking under inspiration when interrogated or brought to trial. Luke essentially has two versions of the tradition we see in Mk 13:11. The first occurs in 12:11, immediately following the “Q” saying on the “insult to the Holy Spirit” (v. 10, cf. above). The sayings were likely joined together by way of thematic ‘catchword-bonding’, on the basis of the common Spirit-reference. Interestingly, at the corresponding place in the Eschatological Discourse (21:14-15), there is no direct reference to the Spirit; instead, Jesus indicates that he himself will give the disciples the words to speak: “…for I will give to you a mouth and wisdom” (v. 15).

There are interesting implications here for the relationship of Jesus to the Spirit in a post-resurrection context. Jesus could be seen as functioning in the role of the Spirit (or as the Spirit); alternately the emphasis may be on his giving the Spirit to the disciples (“I will give to you…”). This will be discussed further as we continue through our studies.

In Matthew’s Gospel, the saying corresponding with Luke 12:11 also occurs outside of the Eschatological Discourse (cf. Mk 13:11), and at an earlier point in the narrative (10:20). Indeed, much of what corresponds to Mk 13:9-11 has been transferred to this location, in an expanded form (vv. 17-22), presented as part of Jesus’ instruction to his disciples for the mission on which he sends them, during the time of his ministry (chap. 10; cf. Mark 6:7-13).

This association helps to explain the basic nature of the Spirit-reference, in spite of its varying narrative locations within the Tradition. The disciples’ mission, both during the Galilean period of Jesus’ ministry and after his death and resurrection (i.e., the early Christian mission), is fundamentally characterized as a natural extension and continuation of Jesus’ own Spirit-empowered Messianic ministry. This is clearly implied in the core traditions of Mk 3:13-15 par and 6:7-13 par (cf. also Luke 10:1-12). The disciples are authorized (by Jesus) to perform the same works of ministry—(a) proclamation of the good news and (b) performing healing/exorcism miracles. They are clearly empowered to do so, presumably with the same power (of God’s Spirit) that is present in and upon Jesus. For the apostolic early Christian mission (especially as recorded in the Lukan book of Acts), there can be no doubt that believers are guided and empowered by the Spirit.

Thus, if we are to summarize the main references to the Spirit in the Synoptic Gospels, the following points can be made:

    • The Spirit is introduced in the Baptism scene, where it is depicted as coming upon Jesus, as a sign of his Messianic identity—specifically as the Anointed Servant of God prophesied by Isa 42:1ff and 61:1ff (cf. also 11:2ff).
    • The Spirit guides and empowers Jesus throughout the time of his ministry, especially during the Galilean period where the focus is on his identity as the Messianic Prophet. In particular, the abiding presence of God’s Spirit is the source of his ability to work healing miracles (as in the manner of Elijah, but also the Servant/Prophet figure of Isa 61:1ff).
    • This same Spirit empowers the disciples of Jesus to perform the same works of ministry—preaching the Gospel and performing healing miracles—as a continuation of Jesus’ own inspired Messianic ministry. The Spirit will be given to the disciples (believers) by Jesus (cf. Lk 21:15), after his death and resurrection. It may be inferred that the same occurred during the initial mission described in Mk 6:7-13 par (cf. also Lk 10:1-12), even though there is no specific reference to the disciples receiving the Spirit on these occasions.

Thus, the main purpose and goal of the Spirit’s work is that of the early Christian mission, viewed as an extension and continuation of Jesus’ own (Messianic) ministry. It is the Lukan Gospel that brings out this thematic emphasis most clearly and fully, largely in anticipation of the mission narratives that follow in the corresponding book of Acts.

In some ways, the section on prayer in 11:1-13 is central to the Gospel narrative as a whole. It is noteworthy that this passage is essentially framed by references or allusions to the Spirit—first, in the petition for the coming of God’s Kingdom (v. 2), and second, by the climactic reference in verse 13, suggesting that the coming of the Spirit represents the ultimate goal and purpose of the disciples’ prayer. The Lukan Gospel understands God’s Kingdom (and its coming) primarily in terms of the early Christian mission—defined two-fold as: (a) the proclamation of the Gospel, and (b) the coming of the Spirit upon believers; cf. Acts 1:6-8. In this regard, the sub-singular variant reading (mss 162 700 and in two [or three] Church Fathers) attested for the Kingdom petition in the Lukan Lord’s Prayer (11:2) is quite appropriate, as we read (with some variation):

“May your holy Spirit come upon us and cleanse us”

This, in turn, alludes back to the prophecy by John the Baptist at the beginning of the Gospel narrative, with its implicit promise (by way of foreshadowing) that Jesus the Messiah, after his death and resurrection, would “…dunk [i.e., baptize] you with the holy Spirit!” (Mk 1:8 par).

In the next study, we will turn our attention to the Gospel of John, looking at some key references to the Spirit, with specific attention being given to the uniquely Johannine theological adaptation of the Gospel Tradition. In so doing, we will begin focusing our attention more closely upon the relationship of the Spirit to the death and resurrection of Jesus, which is the main subject of these studies.

References above marked “Fitzmyer” are to Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV), Anchor Bible [AB], Vol. 28A (1985).