Month: June 2025

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 137

Psalm 137

Dead Sea MSS: 11QPsa (vv. 1, 9)

This Psalm is a communal lament which has the destruction of Jerusalem and the Exile of Judah at its heart. Based on the context of vv. 1-4, it has often been assumed that Psalm was written during the exile, by a poet-composer who was present there in Babylon. However, increasingly commentators have come to prefer an early post-exilic date for the composition; see the brief discussion by Hossfeld-Zenger, pp. 513-4, for a good summary of this position. On the whole, this view would appear to be sound, though I am not at all convinced that the imprecatory verses 7-9 were necessarily added (redactionally) to an original Psalm comprised of vv. 1-6. There are enough examples of Psalms which close with imprecatory verses that Ps 137 easily could have contained something similar from the beginning. Psalm 74 has been cited as a parallel structure, with an opening lament section (vv. 1-11) followed by a call for YHWH to act (using the verb rk^z` [v. 18], as here in v. 7) in a way that brings appropriate judgment on the wicked adversaries of His people.

Both metrically and structurally, the Psalm is somewhat irregular. However, it can be rather clearly divided into two stanzas (vv. 1-4, 7-9) with an intermediary section (vv. 5-6) presented as a vow (in the form of a oath taken by the protagonist). This vow, which entails a curse-formula of self-punishment, prepares the way, thematically and rhetorically, for the imprecatory curse-wishes in vv. 7-9. The two stanzas have a similar structure and could have functioned as strophes sung to much the same melody. The metrical details will be provided in the notes below; however, as an indication of the similarity of the stanzas, one may point out that each begins with a 2-beat (2+2+2) tricolon [v. 1, 7abc], followed by a 3+2 couplet [v. 2, 7de] and another tricolon with a 2-beat rhythm [v. 3abc, 8].

Psalm 137 is justly famous, for the poignancy of its opening lament, the vivid vow made by the protagonist in vv. 5-6, and the horrific curse-wish uttered in vv. 7-9 (especially the climactic v. 9). The protagonist is presented as an eyewitness to life in exile within the Babylonian empire (represented by the capital city Babylon), while the sense of suffering and loss is captured in a wonderfully lyrical and elegiac manner. The poignant beauty of the lament is juxtaposed with the savage harshness of the final curse-wish, and, indeed, most readers today will find such imprecations quite disturbing. Modern Jews and Christians are rightly troubled (even repelled) by such expressions of vengeance, of a wish and desire to see graphic and gruesome violence done to one’s enemies. This is true of the imprecatory portions of the Psalms in general, but the problem is particularly pointed in the case of vv. 7-9 here in Psalm 137. I will offer a few thoughts on the matter at the close of the exegetical notes below.

Sadly, Psalm 137 survives in only one Qumran manuscript (11QPsa), and very little of it at that. Even so, there is at least one noteworthy textual variant, in verse 1, which is mentioned below. In the Psalter represented by 11QPsa, Psalm 137 follows Ps 139, the immediate sequence being: 139, 137, 138.

Stanza 1 (Lament): Verses 1-4

Verse 1

“Upon (the) streams of Bab-ilim,
there we sat—so even we wept,
in our remembering Ṣiyyôn.”

Metrically, this famous opening verse is a 2-beat (2+2+2) tricolon; however, its poetic structure is rather more subtle and complex than this would indicate. There is a certain chiastic structure to the verse, marked by the framing geographical references in lines 1 and 3—Babylon (capital of the great foreign empire) and Zion (i.e., Jerusalem, destroyed capital of the conquered and exiled kingdom of Israel/Judah). The central line 2 contains a pair of short staccato-like rhymed phrases (each with 4 syllables):

    • šām yāšaḇnû (“there we sat”)
    • gam bāḵînû (“also/even we wept”)

Just as the protagonist (and his fellow exiles) sat there in Babylon, so they also wept. For the traditional association of the seated position (on the ground) with mourning and lamentation, see esp. Job 2:12-13; Lam 2:10; Neh 1:4; cf. Dahood, III, p. 269. The lamentation was primarily over the loss (and destruction) of the holy city of Jerusalem (Zion), and with it the Temple. The loss of Zion is compounded by the status of the people in exile—viz., away from the land. Life in a foreign land, such a long distance away from Jerusalem, makes for a double sense of loss.

The noun rh*n*, which denotes a flowing stream of water, is often used of rivers; however, in the context of the Babylonian capital, as commentators have pointed out (e.g., Allen, p. 301; Hossfeld-Zenger, p. 512), it more properly refers to the city’s canals (cf. the use of the related Akkadian term nāru). In references to streams and rivers, etc, the preposition lu^ (“upon”) can mean “beside, next to”.

The MT reads a construct phrase “…streams of Bab-ilim”, but the Qumran manuscript 11QPsa has here a prepositional phrase “…streams in Bab-ilim”, as indicated by the prefixed preposition B= (i.e., lbbb “in Bab-ilim”). An argument can be made for the originality of this reading, since, in view of the sequence of three b letters, it is natural that one of these may have dropped out during the course of copying. Dahood (III, p. 269) argues in favor of the Qumran reading, which would yield a symmetric 7:4:4:7 syllable-count to the verse, enhancing its chiastic structure (see above).

It should also be noticed that there has been a correction within the manuscript 11QPsa. Originally it had a third person verb form in the second line (i.e., “they sat”), which a second hand corrected to a third person form (“we sat”) in agreement with the MT (and LXX).

Verse 2

“Upon (the) willows in her midst,
(there) we hung up our harps.”

The lyrical scene in v. 1 is enhanced and developed by the following couplet. The exiles are sitting (in lamentation) next to the waterways of Babylon. There are also willow (or poplar) trees in the vicinity, and they have “hung up” (vb hl*T*) their harps upon these trees. Dahood (III, p. 270) is correct is explaining the idiom of “hanging up” the harps as signifying that they are not being used (and that there is no use for them); however, contrary to his opinion, I see no reason to doubt that the picture here is of the harps actually hanging (symbolically) on the trees. The noun roNK! is a regular term for a stringed instrument (with a wooden frame), variously regarded as harp, lyre, or zither. The “harp” in this context signifies joyous music-making; the exiles have no occasion for joyful song and music, though their harps could certainly be used for the mournful music of lament, even as the Psalmist is doing here with his composition.

Metrically, the verse can be parsed as either a 3+2 or 2+2 couplet (cf. Freedman, p. 204; Allen, p. 301).

Verse 3abc

“Indeed, there they asked us,
our captors, (for) words of song,
our mockers, (for) gladness:”

This verse is another 2-beat (2+2+2) tricolon (see on v. 1 above). It provides a certain formal parallel with the opening verse, with the locative adverb <v* (“there”) in line 1 corresponding to the location of Babylon (and its waterways) in the first line of v. 1. Similarly, the “words of (joyful) song” in line 2 are juxtaposed with the mournful sitting and weeping of the exiles in v. 1. Finally, the “gladness” here in line 3 is contrasted with their mourning over the loss of Zion in v. 1; note how the “song of gladness” here is defined (in 3de) specifically as a “song of Zion”.

The Babylonians are identified by two substantive verbal adjectives (participles) which are difficult to translate. The first (in line 2) is of the verb hb*v*, which means “take captive, take into captivity”; for poetic concision I have translated the suffixed participle here as “our captors”, though properly it means “(the one)s having taken us captive”. The precise derivation and meaning of the second participle (in line 3) is uncertain. It has been explained as a poel form of the root llh (II), a qal form of llT, or a form of lth—in all of these instances (and the three verbal roots may be related) the basic meaning would seem to be something like “mock, taunt, toy with”, and this has been adopted by most commentators (cf. Allen, p. 302). By asking the Judean exiles for joyful songs, the Babylonians are cruelly mocking them—whether intentionally or unintentionally. The exiles are in mourning over their loss (esp. the loss of Zion), and are thus in no mood for songs of joy—indeed, they are unable to produce such music, having “hung up” their harps (v. 2).

Verse 3de

“Sing (now) for us
from a song of Ṣiyyôn!”

This short 2-beat (2+2) colon corresponds to the couplet of v. 2, producing a harsh juxtaposition between the two verses: the Judean exiles are asked to sing a (joyful) song of Zion, but they have “hung up” their harps and are unable/unwilling to make any such music. The wording in line 2 is literally “from a song of Zion”, with a prefixed preposition /m!; this could be taken in a partitive sense (i.e., “from one of the songs of Zion”). As noted above, this “song of Zion” is understood to be a joyful song, a song of “gladness” (hj*m=c!, v. 3c). It is not entirely clear whether the Babylonians who make this request are intentionally mocking the Judean exiles; it could just as well be that they are doing it unintentionally, and simply want to hear a “song of Zion”, but such a request itself ends up becoming an oppressive taunt.

Verse 4

“(But) how can we sing
(here) a song of YHWH
upon a land that is strange?”

The lament closes with the protagonist, representing the exiles, explaining why, having “hung up” their harps (v. 2), they are unable to sing such a song as the Babylonians request (v. 3). They are in a “strange land”, far away from their homeland and the holy city of Zion. The construct expression in the third line is difficult to translate with poetic concision (“land of strangeness”, “land of stranger[s]”). Functionally, I treat the noun rk*n@ as an adjectival substantive, i.e., “that which is strange”; in combination with the noun hm*d*a& (“land”) it means “a land that is strange”. The “song of Zion” in v. 3 is here identified as a “song of YHWH” —since Jerusalem is regarded as the holy city of YHWH, with the ‘mount’ of Zion specifically as the location of the Temple sanctuary in which YHWH (symbolically and ritually) dwells among His people. Any number of Psalms, particularly those which feature Jerusalem/Zion prominently—such as the “Songs of Ascents” (Pss 120-134), recently studied—could be referred to as a “Song of Zion”.

Transition (Oath): Verses 5-6

These verses, which I take to be transitional between the two stanzas of vv. 1-4 and 7-9, function as a vow made by protagonist, by which he promises to act in a particular manner. The promise is implicit, expressed as an oath, presented in negative terms, along with a curse-formula—viz., declaring what will happen if he fails to live up to the agreed-upon promise. Such oaths (and curse-formulae) are regular features of binding agreements (i.e., covenants) in the ancient Near East, and is suggestive of a covenantal context here as well. Vows made by the Psalmist-protagonist occur relatively frequently in the Psalms and are an integral part of several different genre (including Psalms of lament and prayer-pleas for deliverance); however, these sorts of negative-condition oaths are much less common, occurring only rarely and with no exact parallel to vv. 5-6 here (for a loose parallel, with oaths made by YHWH, cf. 89:36[35]; 95:11).
For a treatment of the subject of conditional vows and oaths in the Psalms (esp. the lament-Psalms), see the essay by Tony W. Carteledge, “Conditional Vows in the Psalms of Lament: A New Approach to an Old Problem”, in The Listening Heart: Essays in Wisdom and the Psalms in honor of Roland E. Murphy, edited by Kenneth G. Hoglund, Elizabeth F. Huwiler, et al. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament [JSOT] Supplement Series 58 (JSOT Press: 1987), pp. 77-94.

Verse 5

“If I forget you, Yerušalaim,
may my right hand forget!”

As noted above, the vow/promise made by the protagonist here is implicit, made indirectly, in the form of an oath with an associated curse-formula. The protagonist calls forth a curse upon himself if he should fail to act according to the implied promise. The curse, in this instance, matches the person’s behavior, according to the lex talionis principle: if he ever forgets Jerusalem, then let his own right hand forget! This dual use of the verb jk&v* (“forget”) is clear enough, but the application in the second line has caused some difficulty for commentators, with a number of proposed solutions and emendations as a result. However, most likely, the idiom of a person’s hand ‘forgetting’ simply means that it is unable to function properly—i.e., loses its strength and ability.

As noted in the introduction above, the curse-formulae here in vv. 5-6 prepares for the imprecatory curse-wishes in the second stanza (vv. 7-9), as does the application of the lex talionis principle.

Verse 6a

“Let my tongue stick to my mouth,
if I do not remember you—”

The oath and curse formula in verse 6 is much the same as that of verse 5, but with the conditional and result clauses presented in reverse order. The idea of “forgetting” is expressed here in negative terms—i.e., “not remembering”, using the verb rk^z` (“remember, have/keep in mind”), as in verse 1 (and in v. 8, see below). The curse in v. 5 involves the inability of the person to use his hand(s); here it effectively means the inability to use his mouth (to eat/drink or to speak). The tongue will stick (vb qb^D*) to ‘the roof of his mouth’ (noun Ej@). If the lex talionis principle applies here (as it does in v. 5), then the inability of the protagonist to use his mouth may indicate that “not remembering” Jerusalem, in this context, means failing to mention (i.e., speak of) her. For this motif of the tongue sticking to the ‘roof of the mouth’, cf. also Ps 22:16[15] and Lam 4:4.

Verse 6b

“if I do not bring up Yerušalaim (to be)
upon (the) head of my gladness!”

The condition from v. 6a continues here, providing further explanation as to what it means to “remember” Jerusalem. It is essentially defined as ‘lifting up’ Jerusalem to be at the “head” (var)) of the Psalmist’s gladness (hj*m=c!, same noun used in v. 3c, see above). The expression “head of gladness” indicates being at the forefront of a person’s joy and praise, which would include singing “songs of Zion” such as the Judean exiles are not willing/able to do during the time of lament (vv. 1-4). This could imply that the setting of vv. 5-6 may be post-exilic, as suggested in the Introduction. Having returned from exile, and having experienced the loss of Zion, the protagonist vows always to remember her, making her the focus of his joy and praise, and his worship of YHWH. We may consider, in this context, the setting of the Songs of Ascents collection, with its emphasis on Jerusalem (and the pilgrimage festivals) as a focal point both of national identity and communal worship.

Metrically, verse 5 is a 2-beat (2+2) couplet, while verse 6 is comprised of two 3+2 couplets.

Stanza 2 (Curse-Wish): Verses 7-9

Verse 7abc

“Remember, O YHWH,
for (the) sons of Edôm
(the) day of Yerušalaim—”

In the initial portion of the curse-wishes in stanza 2, the protagonist calls on YHWH to bring judgment against the Edomites (“sons of Edom”). As in verses 1 and 6a, the verb rk^z` (“remember, bring to mind, have/keep in mind”) is used, but in rather a different sense. In the introduction, I noted the parallel with Psalm 74 (v. 18), where the protagonist similarly calls on YHWH to “remember” the wickedness and violence done against His people (cf. also 89:51[50]), and to respond accordingly by bringing judgment against those hostile enemies (viz., among the surrounding nations). The “day of Jerusalem” is the day of the city’s conquest and destruction (see esp. Obadiah 12) by the Babylonians in 587/6 B.C.; Edom’s response to the conquest of Judah/Jerusalem, and their role in it, is similarly condemned in Obadiah 10-14.

The use of the preposition l= in line 2 (“for the sons of Edom”) essentially means “against the sons of Edom”. The very different explanation by Dahood (III, p. 272), treating the l as a vocative particle, whereby the protagonist addresses the curse directly to the Edomites, it not particularly convincing.

As in the first stanza (see on v. 1 above), this second stanza opens with a 2-beat (2+2+2) tricolon.

Verse 7de

“the (one)s saying ‘Lay bare, lay (her) bare
unto the (very) foundation of her!'”

The solidarity of the Edomites with the Babylonians in their destruction of Jerusalem is clearly expressed here. The use of the verb hr*u* (“uncover, lay bare”), with its connotations of nakedness and shame, in the context of a city personified as a female, almost certainly is meant to allude to the imagery of sexual mistreatment and violence against women. This shameful violence perpetrated against Jerusalem will, according to the curse-wish of the protagonist, be turned against the “daughter” Babylon (see below on vv. 8-9). The Edomites, by proxy and association, are to share in the judgment and punishment YHWH will bring against the Babylonians.

Verse 8

“Daughter Bab-ilim, the destroyer:
Happy (the one) who fulfills to you
your dealing which you dealt to us!”

The lex talionis principle of judgment (see above on vv. 5-6) is particularly clear in this imprecatory curse-wish formula against Babylon. Even though YHWH is no longer being directly addressed, it should be understood that the protagonist is still calling upon YHWH to bring the judgment against Babylon. Babylon will be dealt with (root lmg in line 3) according to the way that the Babylonians dealt with Jerusalem—viz., the city will be conquered and destroyed (militarily) by an invading army. This judgment is based upon Babylon’s own conduct and will be completed and fulfilled (vb <lv) against her as ‘payment’ in return.

There is some question surrounding the participle of the verb dd^v* (“destroy”) in line 1. In the MT it is a passive participle (hd*WdV=h^), but some commentators (e.g., Dahood, III, p. 273) prefer the treatment and/or vocalization of it as an active form (hd*odV*h^). In terms of the lex talionis principle in the curse-wish, both are possible (and viable). Babylon could be identified as “the destroying (one)”, i.e., “the destroyer”, “the one who destroys”; at the same time, her judgment could also be referred to here by calling her “the one being destroyed”, i.e., “the one who will be destroyed”. Just as Babylon destroyed Jerusalem, so she also will be destroyed. I have opted, tentatively, for the active participle, while recognizing that the passive vocalization in the MT is entirely valid.

On the beatitude-formula in this curse wish, introduced by the construct word/form yr@v=a^ (“[O the] happiness of…!”, i.e., “happy the one who…!”), see the earlier study on Psalm 1, and the supplemental note in the series on the Beatitudes of Jesus. The curse-wish is thus formed by way of a blessing formula; in particular, happiness is called forth for the people (viz., the soldiers of the invading army) who bring the destruction upon Babylon.

Verse 9

“Happy (the one) who takes hold and dashes
your suckling (babe)s against the rock!”

The curse wish, phrased as a blessing (beatitude) formula, continues from verse 8. It expresses the formula, related as it is to the destruction of Babylon (by an invading army), in grim and horrific detail. It is this particular aspect of the curse wish of vv. 7-9 which is so disturbing and repellent to readers today, and (especially) to the sensibilities of modern Christians. The language and imagery of the verse is clear enough—as clear as it is troubling. It is based upon the conduct of invading armies in ancient Near Eastern warfare—that is, wars of conquest and extermination in which the entire population (including women and children) may be targeted for gruesome slaughter. On the expression of this elsewhere in poetry, see, e.g., Hosea 10:14; Lam 2:21; for the specific image of infants being “dashed (to pieces)”, cf. Isa 13:16; Nah 3:10.

In considering how modern readers (especially Christians) should respond to such savage imprecatory language in the Psalms, it is important to remember, first, that the protagonist in the Psalms frequently expresses feelings and emotions—such as doubt, fear, frustration, anger, hatred—which, while quite real and legitimate, are not necessarily to be admired or emulated. The thought and feeling expressed in the Psalms encompasses the entire spectrum of experience among the Israelite people. Moreover, this occurs within ancient Near Eastern conventions and lines of tradition which are quite foreign to (most of) us today. Modern-day Christians are under no obligation to adopt or accept cultural standards and practices from the ancient Near East, even though they may be employed or documented within the Scriptures. The use of harsh imprecatory language and curse-formulae is one such example of conventional practice and a mode of expression from the ancient Near East which the Biblical authors and speakers frequently employ.

At the same time, there are certain aspects of the imprecatory portions of the Psalms which ought to be recognized, and which might even be applied by Christians to their own life setting and experience. Two aspects, in particular, should be emphasized: (a) the value (and even the need) to call upon YHWH to bring judgment against human wickedness (including the cruel use of violence by human governments and armies, etc); and (b) the validity of the lex talionis principle of judgment. Both of these aspects are present in nearly all the imprecatory passages in the Psalms, including here in vv. 7-9. The lex talionis principle, in particular, is emphasized here (as noted above), and is worthy of further consideration—as enacted by God, not by us as believers in Christ. All judgment belongs to God, and it is righteous, and Christians may rightly pray for God to bring His righteous judgment about. The rightness and justice of God’s judgment against wickedness involves punishment that matches the crime (viz., the lex talionis principle), even as the New Testament authors admit, in confirmation of the Psalms and elsewhere in Scripture (e.g., the nation-oracles of the Prophets, etc)—cf. James 2:13, and throughout Revelation 17-18 (with allusions to Jeremiah 50-51).

    • 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 “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 “Freedman” are to David Noel (D. N.) Freedman, “The Structure of Psalm 137”, in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, ed. Hans Goedicke (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971) 187–205, reprinted in Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry (Eisenbrauns: 1980), pp. 302-21.

Studies on the Spirit: The Spirit and the Death/Resurrection of Jesus (Study 14)

Study 14: The Spirit and the Communication of Jesus’ Resurrection to Believers (John)

These last few studies in this series have focused on the communication of the death and resurrection of Jesus to believers by and through the Spirit. Studies 11 and 12 dealt with the communication of the death of Christ, and we are now considering the communication of the resurrection. The previous study looked at Paul’s treatment of the subject; and we now turn to the Johannine writings.

The Johannine authors (viz., of the Gospel and Letters) seem to have shared the basic early Christian understanding of the resurrection, and have much in common with the Pauline view (see the discussion in Study 13). However, the most distinctive aspect of the Johannine view is the idea that believers in Christ experience the resurrection in the present. This is part of a broader eschatological point of view, whereby a number of key end-time events—such as the resurrection and the Last Judgment—are understood as being experienced (by believers) already in the present, before the actual end of the Age. This tendency is referred to as a “realized eschatology”, and, though it was held (to some degree) by many early Christians, it has a special prominence in the Johannine writings.

The two main sections of the Gospel dealing with the resurrection are: (1) the chapter 5 Discourse, and (2) the narrative episode (with Discourse-elements) involving the raising of Lazarus (chap. 10).

1. The Resurrection in the Chapter 5 Discourse

We can see the realized eschatological emphasis in the Johannine Gospel by the way that a present experience of the resurrection features in the chapter 5 Discourse of Jesus. The main theme of the Discourse (vv. 19-47), which develops out of the miracle-narrative in vv. 1-16, is how Jesus, as the Son of God, does the same work as the Father. The starting point of the Discourse is the saying by Jesus in verse 17: “My Father is working until now, and I also am working”. The hostile reaction in verse 18 indicates that many people (and, in particular, the Jewish religious authorities) understood the significance of Jesus’ statement; certainly, the Gospel writer presents the situation as such.

The Discourse that follows can be divided into two halves (vv. 19-29, 30-47), each of which begins which a declaration by Jesus that he, as the Son, acts on the Father’s behalf:

    • “the Son is not able to do anything from himself, if not [i.e., except] what he should see the Father doing…” (v. 19)
    • “I am not able to do anything from myself: (but) just as I hear, I judge…” (v. 30)

Like a faithful and dutiful son who is obedient to his father, Jesus (the Son) follows the example of His Father—doing what He sees the Father doing, and saying what He hears the Father saying. This is a key theme in the Johannine Gospel, and it is especially prominent in the chapter 5 Discourse. The first half of the Discourse focuses on the Son doing (what He sees the Father do), while the second half focuses on the Son saying (viz., as a witness, what He hears the Father say). The resurrection-references occur in the first half, with the theme of the Son doing the works of the Father being the natural development of the saying in v. 17 (and the healing miracle of the narrative episode). This section, in turn, is divided into two portions (vv. 19-24, 25-29), each of which contains key eschatological statements regarding the resurrection (and the end-time Judgment). It is possible to treat verse 30 as the concluding statement of the first half of the Discourse, producing an inclusio (vv. 19, 30) that emphasizes how the Son performs the two great end-time acts of the Father: (a) raising the dead, and (b) rendering judgment on all humankind. These two acts are discussed in vv. 20-24 and 25-29.

The life-giving power of God, by which the dead are raised, is described in a general sense in verse 21, in the context of the love which the Father has for the Son (v. 20), thus explaining why the Father gives to the Son the ability to do this work:

“For the Father is fond of the Son and shows to him all (thing)s which He (Himself) does—and (thing)s greater than these He will show him, (so) that you will be in wonder! For, just as the Father raises the dead and makes (them) live, so also the Son makes live th(ose) whom he wishes.” (vv. 20-21)

The thought expressed here, and its wording, resembles that of two other key references dealing with the relationship between the Father and Son, and which involve the role of the Spirit as the life (and life-giving power) of God. The first is 3:34-35, at the close of chapter 3 (which encompasses the great Nicodemus-Discourse); the emphasis here is on the Son speaking the words of the Father, rather than doing the deeds/works, but the overall message is much the same:

“For the (one) whom God send forth speaks the (very) utterances of God; for (it is) not out of a measure (that) He gives the Spirit. The Father loves the Son and has given all (thing)s in(to) His hand.”

The second reference is in 6:57, at the close of the chap. 6 Bread of Life Discourse (note the context of the resurrection in v. 55 [also v. 44]):

“Just as the Living Father sent me forth, and I live through the Father, so also the (one) eating me—even that (one) shall live through me.”

In Study 12, I discussed at length how the life-giving power of Jesus’ death is communicated to believers in a spiritual way, through the Spirit. This is clear both from the specific reference to the Spirit that follows in v. 63 and from the parallel between eating the “living bread” (chap. 6) and drinking the “living water” (4:10-15; 7:37-39), the latter being specifically identified with the Spirit in 7:39 (cf. also the contextual association in 4:23-24). Moreover, as discussed in prior studies, it was traditional to understand that God raised the dead through His Spirit, even as He originally gave life to human beings through the Spirit (cf. Gen 2:7 [note the parallel in Jn 20:22]; Job 27:3; 32:8; 33:4); indeed, it was by the Spirit that Jesus himself was raised from the dead, and so it will also be for believers in Christ at the end-time (Rom 8:11, etc). All of this strongly suggests that the life which the Father gives to the Son, and which the Son shares with the Father, should be understood in terms of the Spirit.

The Father also gives the power of judgment to the Son (v. 22, also vv. 27, 30), so that the Son can function as the Divine Judge, performing the work of God the Father at the Last Judgment. However, in vv. 23-24, it is clear that the focus of this Judgment is in the present, rather than the future, and that it is defined in terms of a person’s trust in Jesus. This point is implied in v. 23, but is rendered more explicit elsewhere in the Gospel—notably, in 3:19, also 9:39; and the present aspect of the Judgment is certainly emphasized in 12:31, 47-48, and 16:8, 11. Thus, the person who does not (or who refuses to) trust in Jesus has already been judged, even before the occurrence of any final Judgment at the end of the Age. Similarly, those who do trust in Jesus (i.e., believers) have already passed through the Judgment into eternal life:

“…the (one) hearing my word, and trusting in the (One hav)ing sent me, holds (the) Life of the Age [i.e. eternal life], and does not come into judgment, but has stepped across out of death (and) into life!” (v. 24)

The present and future aspects of the resurrection (and the Judgment) are balanced more precisely in vv. 25-29: there will be an end-time resurrection (and Judgment), but it is also experienced in the present, especially for believers in Christ. This is indicated particularly by the wording in verse 25:

“Amen, amen, I declare to you that an hour is coming, and now is (here), when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and the (one)s (hav)ing heard shall live!”

The same sort of wording occurs in 4:23-24 (as part of the Living Water Discourse, see above):

“But an hour comes, and now is (here), when the true worshipers will give worship to [lit., kiss toward] the Father in (the) Spirit and Truth… God (is) Spirit, and it is necessary (for the one)s worshiping Him to worship in (the) Spirit and Truth.”

This true worship “in (the) Spirit” is treated as an eschatological event, characteristic of the New Age to come, but one which is already here, to be experienced now in the present by believers in Christ. Similarly, the resurrection is experienced through the Spirit, as a result of the death and resurrection of Christ, which is communicated to believers through the Spirit.

The connection with Jesus’ death is developed (primarily) in the Bread of Life Discourse, as mentioned above and discussed in some detail in Study 12; as for Jesus’ resurrection, there is less of a definite connection presented in the Gospel of John. However, based on the resurrection-references we have considered above, it is fair to understand the life-giving power of Jesus’ resurrection as an essential part of the life that Jesus gives to believers (through the presence of the Spirit). Note, in particular, the language in v. 26, in terms of the parallels with 6:57 and 3:34-35 (noted above):

“For, just as the Father holds life in Himself, so also He gave (it) to the Son to hold life in himself.”

When the believer is united with the Son (Christ), and shares in the life-giving power of his death (through the idiom of eating/drinking), then this same life (and life-giving power), which the Son holds, is also held by the believer, being present within, through the abiding presence of the Spirit.

2. The Resurrection in Chapter 11 (Raising of Lazarus)

The resurrection features most prominently in the Lazarus episode of chapter 11. While this episode does not contain a full Johannine Discourse, there are Discourse-elements that run throughout the narrative—most notably, in the exchange between Jesus and his disciples (vv. 7-16), and then between Jesus and Martha (vv. 21-27). As in chapter 5 (section 1. above), present and future aspects of the resurrection are balanced together, centered around the event of the raising of Lazarus from the dead, which functions on at least three symbolic levels: (i) foreshadowing Jesus’ own death and resurrection, (ii) as a figure-type of the end-time resurrection, and (iii) as symbolizing the experience of the resurrection in the present by believers.

The first aspect (i) is implied by the narrative context. In particular, note the way that the Lazarus episode leads into the scene of vv. 45-53, in which the death of Jesus is planned by the Jerusalem authorities (cp. the Synoptic scene in Mk 14:1-2 par); the entry into Jerusalem and the Passion narrative follows in chaps. 12-19. As for the second and third aspects (ii and iii), these feature in the short Discourse-dialogue between Jesus and Martha. Even more so than in chapter 5, it is the present (realized) experience of the resurrection by believers that is emphasized, but without denying the reality of the future/end-time resurrection (as expressed by the traditional belief)—cf. Martha’s statement in v. 24: “I have seen [i.e., know] that he [i.e., Lazarus] will stand up (again) in the standing up [i.e., resurrection] in the last day”. To which Jesus responds:

“I am [e)gw\ ei)mi] the standing up [a)na/stasi$] and the life! The (one) trusting in me, even if he should die off, he shall live; and every (one) living and trusting in me shall not (at all) die off into the Age.” (vv. 25-26)

Through the syntax of essential predication, involving the specific use of the first person “I am [e)gw\ ei)mi]…”, Jesus identifies himself with both the resurrection and the Divine life (eternal life). The person who trusts in Jesus comes to be united with him, and thus shares in the life-giving power of the resurrection which is present in the Son. As stated in 5:24 (see above), the believer already holds eternal life, and has already passed through the Judgment into life. This involves both the present and future experience of the resurrection. As if to emphasize again that this experience of the resurrection is dependent upon the believer’s trust in Jesus, the dialogue in 11:21-27 concludes with Martha’s confession of faith—a confession which, in the Johannine narrative, holds a similar place as that of Peter’s in the Synoptics (cf. Mk 8:29 par):

“I have trusted that you are the Anointed (One), the Son of God, the (One) coming into the world!” (v. 27; cf. 20:31)

3. The Resurrection-theme in First John and the Johannine Tradition

There is no specific reference to the resurrection—either that of Jesus or of believers—in the Johannine Letters. The theme must be inferred implicitly from the various references to life (zwh/), particularly as the terminology occurs in First John.

To begin with, as in the Gospel (see above), the author of 1 John identifies Jesus Christ (the Son) himself with the Divine/eternal life. This is stated at the beginning of the work (1:1-2), and in the confessional statement at its close (5:20). The key Christological exposition, in this regard, occurs in 5:6-12, and particularly in vv. 11-12:

“…God gave (the) Life of the Age [i.e., eternal life] to us, and this Life is in His Son. The (one) holding the Son holds the Life; the (one) not holding the Son of God does not hold th(is) Life.”

Since the Son is the Divine/eternal life, the person who “holds” the Son (i.e., trusts in Jesus as the Son of God) also “holds” the Divine/eternal life. The Son is present, abiding in the believer, and this presence is realized (and confirmed) through the Spirit. The point is made on several occasions—in 3:24; 4:13, and here in 5:6ff—that the believer’s union with the Son (and through the Son, with the Father) is manifest by the abiding presence of the Spirit.

From the believer’s standpoint, life and death and closely connected in this regard, even as the death and resurrection of Jesus are also connected. The believer participates in Jesus’ death, and also experiences his resurrection life (cf.  3:14; 4:9). Both, I would maintain (and as we have discussed, cf. especially in Study 12), are communicated to the believer through the Spirit. The references and allusions to the Spirit in the death and resurrection accounts in the Gospel are instructive, as there are rather clear allusions to Jesus’ giving forth the Spirit in connection with his death (19:30, 34), even as the event of his giving the Spirit to the first believers (disciples) is narrated as occurring following his resurrection (20:22).

But the two aspects—death and life—are also combined in other ways. For example, as discussed in the context of eucharistic language at the close of the Bread of Life Discourse (6:51-58, see Study 12), there is a strong emphasis on the life-giving power of Jesus’ death. For the person who trusts in Jesus, this life-giving (i.e., resurrection) power is communicated to the believer—via the idiom of eating/drinking—through the Spirit (cf. again the context of 6:63 and [with the parallel of drinking the living water], 4:23-24; 7:39).

The participation in the death of Christ also communicates a cleansing power to the believer—that is, for the removal of sin. This point was also discussed in Study 12, in connection with the author’s treatment of the believer’s relationship to sin in 1 John 1:7-2:2. But the entire sin/forgiveness dynamic for the believer can itself be described in terms of death and life, as we find, for example, in 5:16-17, where the issue of sin and the believer is again addressed. Sin fundamentally leads to death, but when sin is forgiven (and its effects removed) for the believer, life is restored—and thus, the believer experiences a sort of ‘resurrection’, in which life is given to him/her (v. 16). As 1:7-9ff makes clear, this cleansing and forgiveness is part of the life-giving power of Jesus’ death (“blood”) that is communicated to the believer.

If forgiveness restores life to the believer from the danger of death, the author of 1 John also refers to a sin which is “toward death” —that is, which leads to the ultimate death of a person, and for which there can be no cleansing or forgiveness. From the Johannine standpoint, the great (and ultimate) sin is that of unbelief—the failure/refusal to trust in Jesus Christ as the Son of God (see esp. Jn 16:9). Almost certainly, this is the “sin toward death” to which the author refers here in vv. 16-17. However, for the true believer, who holds eternal life, and who has passed from death into life (3:14), the abiding presence of the Son (through the Spirit) protects and preserves the believer from death—and from the ultimate effects of sin (v. 18). Thus, through the dynamic of cleansing/forgiveness, life—that is, the eternal life which we possess as believers—is continually maintained and preserved.

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 136 (Part 2)

Psalm 136, continued

For a discussion of the background and structure of the Psalm, along with notes on the opening call to worship (vv. 1-3) and First Stanza (vv. 4-9), see Part 1 of this study.

Second Stanza: Verses 10-16

Verse 10

“To (the One) striking Egypt by their firstborn—
for (in)to (the) distant (future is) His ḥeseḏ!”

The first stanza dealt with YHWH’s mighty deeds, and the demonstration of His incomparable power, in Creation; the second and third involve His deeds on behalf of His people Israel, particularly during the formative period of their history. As noted in the Introduction (Part 1), this three-part thematic structure is also found in Psalm 135 (vv. 6-12). The same span of Israelite history is covered: first the Exodus (involving the plagues on Egypt, vv. 8-9), and then the conquest and settlement of Canaan (focusing on the Transjordan territories, vv. 10-12). Here in Psalm 136, Stanza 2 covers the Exodus and plagues on Egypt, while Stanza 3 deals with the conquest/settlement (esp. of the Transjordan). As previously discussed, many commentators believe that Psalm 135 was dependent on Ps 136 (as the earlier composition).

The wording here in verse 10 generally corresponds with that of Ps 135:8 (line 1), emphasizing how YHWH struck (vb hk*n`) the firstborn of Egypt—viz., the climactic plague brought upon Egypt by God (cf. Exodus 11-12, esp. 12:29-32). It was this final plague which ultimately led to the release of the people and their exodus from Egypt.

This verse begins just like the opening of Stanza 1 (indeed, the first four verses of that stanza, vv. 4-7). The specific phrasing— “to (the One) {do}ing {such}…” —connects back to the opening call to worship (vv. 1-3), and the Psalmist’s call for the people to give praise to YHWH, i.e., “to the One who…”. The three stanzas of the Psalm expound and illustrate the greatness and mighty deeds of YHWH—and thus the reasons why He is to be praised. This Psalm is a confessional hymn, and in these stanzas the people give confession as to who YHWH is and to all that He has done on their behalf. The syntactic pattern is filled out here as: “To (the One) striking [or, having struck] Egypt…”. It was YHWH who, through His power and control over creation (vv. 4-9), caused the firstborn children (and animals) of Egypt to die, even as He brought terrible disruptions to the natural order throughout their land. The prepositional phrase “in/by their firstborn” indicates the way in which YHWH “struck” Egypt—it was by the death of their firstborn.

For a discussion on the common refrain (line 2), and my reasons for transliterating the noun ds#j# (ḥeseḏ) rather than translating it (as “goodness, kindness”, or “loyalty, devotion”), see the Introduction and note on verse 1 (in Part 1). Here in the second and third stanzas, the context of the covenant comes more clearly into view (as it often does in the Psalms), which would justify a translation of ds#j# along the lines of “faithfulness, loyalty, devotion” —i.e., YHWH’s faithfulness to the covenant with His people.

Verse 11

“and bringing out Yisrael from the midst of them—
for (in)to (the) distant (future is) His ḥeseḏ!”

Syntactically, verse 11 continues the thought from v. 10, making clear the connection between the final plague and the Exodus of Israel from Egypt, in accordance with the historical tradition (cf. Exod 12:31-41ff).

Verse 12

“with a firm hand and with an arm stretched forth—
for (in)to (the) distant (future is) His ḥeseḏ!”

Again, verse 12 represents a syntactical continuation of vv. 10-11 (see above); it describes, in traditional (poetic) terms, the way in which YHWH brought His people out of Egypt (v. 11). The idiom of YHWH’s “strong/firm hand” is particularly used in the Exodus narratives (see Exod 3:19; 6:1; 13:9; 32:11) and is clearly part of an ancient tradition. It is also prominent in Deuteronomy (3:24; 4:34, et al), and much of the Deuteronomic history; however, it is surprisingly rare in the Psalms (occurring only here, but cf. also 89:14[13]). The adjective qz`j* has the basic denotation of “strong”, but it frequently carries the more dynamic meaning of the root qzj (i.e., “taking firm hold [of something/someone]”), and thus connotes the firmness (in the sense of both strength and faithfulness) with which YHWH cares for His people and acts on their behalf.

The motif of YHWH’s “outstretched arm” is also common to the tradition (Exod 6:6, etc), with the pairing of hand-arm making for a natural parallelism (Ps 44:4[3], etc). It is in Deuteronomy that we find most frequently the poetic parallel of “strong/firm hand” and “outstretched arm” —4:34; 5:15; 7:19; 11:2; 26:18—as well as in texts related to (or inspired by) that line of tradition (1 Kings 8:42; Jer 21:5; 32:21; Ezek 20:33-34; cf. also 2 Kings 17:36; Jer 27:5; 32:17). The specific parallel occurs only here in the Psalms, though there are close approximations (with the same basic sense) in 44:4[3]; 89:14[13], 22[21]; 98:1. The stretching out (root hfn) of YHWH’s arm indicates that His strength and firmness (and His faithfulness/loyalty to the covenant) is in action, on behalf of His people.
As Dahood notes (III, p. 266), the Qumran manuscript 11QPsa reading of the noun u^orz+ (“arm”) includes a prothetic a (uwrza). 

Verse 13

“To (the One) cutting (the) Reed Sea (in)to cuts—
for (in)to (the) distant (future is) His ḥeseḏ!”

According to the historical tradition, the greatest deed performed by YHWH during the Exodus, and the one which completed the departure of Israel out of Egypt, was the miraculous event at the Reed Sea (“Sea of Reed[s]”), as described most notably in Exodus 14 (and the poetic account in chap. 15 [see my earlier notes on this great Song]). The separating of the Sea (Exod 14:21ff) is here described using the verb rz~G`, meaning “cut” (i.e., in two, or in pieces). I have rendered the phrase here as “cutting…(in)to cuts”, rather than the more natural English equivalent of “cutting…(in)to pieces”, so as to preserve the etymological connection between the verb rz~G` and the plural noun <yr!z`G=. Dahood (III, p. 266) suggests that <yrzg should be vocalized as a dual form (<y]r^z+G]), literally “two cuts” (or “two pieces”); this is possible but unnecessary, as the idea of dividing the sea into two halves/pieces is present in any case.

Verse 14

“and (who) caused Yisrael to pass through its midst—
for (in)to (the) distant (future is) His ḥeseḏ!”

The “cutting” (i.e., dividing/separating) the Reed Sea was for the purpose of enabling Israel to “pass through” it (i.e., “pass over”, vb rb^u*, on dry ground). The verb rb^u* is in the Hiphil (causative) stem, i.e., “cause to pass over”, demonstrating YHWH’s power in action. This is all according to the established historical tradition, which in Exod 14:21 includes the specific detail of Moses stretching out his arm; acting as YHWH’s chosen representative, this reflects God’s own outstretched arm (v. 12) and the all-mighty Divine power which it possesses. YHWH’s power specifically entails His control (as Creator) over the natural world and its elements (and esp. the waters); see vv. 5-6ff and 135:6-7.

Verse 15

“but (who) shook Pharaoh and his strength in(to the) Reed Sea—
for (in)to (the) distant (future is) His ḥeseḏ!”

Verses 14-15 represent a syntactical continuation of v. 13 (even as vv. 11-12 were a continuation of v. 10, see above). Moreover, the statement here in v. 15 is parallel (and contrastive) with that of v. 14. Even as YHWH’s power (in action) enabled His people Israel to pass through the Sea, He shook off (vb ru^n` II) Pharaoh and his army (lit. “strength”, ly]j^) so that they tumbled into the Sea. This description of YHWH’s action against the Egyptian forces is more in accord with the poetic account of the Song (Exod 15:4-5) than with the corresponding prose account chap. 14 (vv. 26-28). The prose account emphasizes the separated waters returning to cover the Egyptians, whereas in the poetic account the Egyptians are thrown into the water. And yet, this detail is also contained in the prose account (v. 27), including the specific use of the relatively rare verb ru^n` (II), which clearly indicates Exod 14:27 as the source of this line in the Psalm.

Verse 16

“To (the One) making His people walk in the outback—
for (in)to (the) distant (future is) His ḥeseḏ!”

This account of the Exodus concludes with a notice that YHWH caused/made His people walk (i.e., travel, journey) in the outback (lit., “place out back”, rb^d=m!, i.e., ‘wilderness’). This summarizes the wilderness-journeys of Israel, prior to the people’s settlement in the land of Canaan, according to the traditions narrated (primarily) in the books of Exodus and Numbers. During the time of this journeying, YHWH performed many miraculous and mighty deeds on behalf of His people. I have translated the Hiphil (causative) form of the verb El^y` (= El^h*, “walk, go”) quite simply as “make walk” (participle, “making walk”). This should probably be understood in the sense of “enable to walk”, emphasizing the providential care shown by YHWH; however, the basic translation of “make walk” also allows for inclusion of the tradition whereby YHWH forced His people to travel the wilderness forty years, as punishment for their disobedience and faithlessness to the covenant. The Deuteronomic tradition (e.g., Deut 8:4; cf. also Neh 9:21) emphasizes the point that YHWH cared for His people and acted on their behalf all throughout the forty years of wandering.

The meter of verse 16 (like that of v. 12) deviates from the regular metrical pattern of the Psalm (3+3); it is a 4+3 couplet with an extended first line.

Third Stanza: Verses 17-22

Verse 17

“To (the One) striking (many) great king(dom)s—
for (in)to (the) distant (future is) His ḥeseḏ!”

While the second stanza (see above) covers the period of the Exodus (and wilderness journeys), the third stanza deals with the conquest and settlement of the land of Canaan. This is summarized here in parallel with the initial line of the second stanza (v. 10): just as YHWH was the One who demonstrated His incomparable power by striking Egypt, so He also struck other “great kingdoms”. This statement corresponds with Ps 135:10a, where the expression “great nations [<y]oG]” is used. Almost certainly, the same meaning occurs here; for the viability of rendering the plural noun <k!l*m= (also in v. 18) as “kingdoms” rather than “kings”, see Dahood (III, p. 266f).

These kingdoms (with their kings, v. 18) could be understood in terms of the various Canaanite territories (city-states and other regional domains), such as those (e.g., Jericho, Hazor) whose conquest and destruction are narrated in the book of Joshua. More often, Scriptural tradition refers to the conquest in terms of the ethno-linguistic groupings of peoples who were displaced (and dispossessed) by the Israelites (cf. Exod 3:8, 17; 13:5; 23:23, etc). However, here (as in Ps 135) the primary focus is on the Transjordanian territories, understood in the tradition as two great kingdoms (with mighty kings).

Verse 18

“and (who) killed (their) magnificent kings—
for (in)to (the) distant (future is) His ḥeseḏ!”

This verse corresponds to the second line of Ps 135:10, only the adjective ryd!a^ (“magnificent, majestic”, etc) is used instead of <Wxu* (“strong, mighty”). The adjective ryd!a^ could, of course, apply to any great king or ruler of renown, but in the context of the Psalm it is primarily the kings of the Transjordan territories, Sihon and Og, who are in view.

Verses 19-20

“even Siḥon king of the Amurru—
for (in)to (the) distant (future is) His ḥeseḏ!
and (mighty) Og king of the Bašan—
for (in)to (the) distant (future is) His ḥeseḏ!”

Verses 19 and 20 correspond to Ps 135:11ab, and refer to the initial conquest and settlement of the land of the Promised Land by Israel. It began with the eastern (transjordanian) territories of the Bashan (ruled by the giant Og), and the region just south (between the Jabbok and Arnon rivers) which was ruled by Sihon. The designation of /v*B* (Bāšān) is geographic, while yr!m)a$ (’Ămōrî) is a gentilic, referring to the Amurru (or Amorite) people(s). The Israelite conquest and initial settlement of these transjordanian territories is narrated in Numbers 21 and Deuteronomy 2-3.

I follow Dahood (III, p. 262, cf. also Allen, p. 287) in understanding the prefixed l= particles (on the names of Sihon and Og) as emphatic, rather than as prepositions or Aramaic-style markers of the accusative (direct object); the same convention is used in Ps 135:11.

Verses 21-22

“And He gave their land for an inheritance—
for (in)to (the) distant (future is) His ḥeseḏ!”
(as) an inheritance for Yisrael His servant—
for (in)to (the) distant (future is) His ḥeseḏ!”

These two verses correspond to Ps 135:12, just as vv. 19-20 do to 135:11 (see above). It is worth emphasizing again the critical theory that the author of Psalm 135 made use of Ps 136, especially here in the second and third stanzas. The main difference is that here in v. 22, Israel is described as YHWH’s servant (db#u#), while in 135:12 it is as YHWH’s people (<u^). Both terms are significant from the standpoint of the covenant bond with YHWH, and, in particular, to Israel’s faithfulness (or lack thereof) to that covenant. According to the binding agreement, the Israelite people are expected to conduct themselves as faithful servants to YHWH.

The Israelite settlement of the Transjordan territories (and the rest of Canaan) is alluded to here, using the familiar traditional description of this land as a hereditary possession (i.e., inheritance, heritage), expressed by the noun hl*j&n~. This inheritance of the land is a vital part of the covenant-bond between YHWH and His people, going back to the tradition of the bond established with Abraham and the other ancestors of Israel (cf. Genesis 15, etc).

Additional Stanza: Verses 23-25

Verse 23

“(It is He) who, in our lowliness, remembered us—
for (in)to (the) distant (future is) His ḥeseḏ!”

The main hymn of vv. 4-22 is followed by a short three-verse stanza (?) which seems to broaden the context of the hymn, to make it apply to the people generally, throughout their history, in all places. These verses are almost certainly secondary to the main hymn, and likely represent a redactional addition (as discussed in the Introduction) that may correspond in time to the composition of Psalm 135 (note the use of the prefixed relative particle [-v] which occurs on a number of occasions in Ps 135, but not otherwise in Ps 136).

YHWH continues to care for His people and to act on their behalf, even when they suffer and endure attacks, persecution, etc, described here generally as “low(li)ness” (lp#v@), or a ‘low place/position’. This could refer to any number of situations throughout Israelite history, but it seems likely that the Exile is in view, and that these verses are written from a post-exilic point of reference. The idiom of YHWH “remembering” suggests that He has, for a time, forgotten (or seems to have forgotten) His people. Though Israel may find themselves in a ‘low place’ for a period of time—which may correspond specifically with idea of punishment from YHWH (for disobedience to the covenant-bond)—God will eventually act again on His people’s behalf (i.e., will “remember” them).

Verse 24

“and tore us away from our hostile foes—
for (in)to (the) distant (future is) His ḥeseḏ!”

When YHWH acted on His people’s behalf, throughout their history, He frequently rescued them from their adversaries and oppressors. The act of rescuing is here expressed by the relatively rare verb qr^P* (“tear off, tear away”); it is not typically used in this context (but see Lam 5:8). This imagery could apply to any number of historical situations, including the restoration/return of the people from exile.

Verse 25

“(He, the One) giving bread to all flesh—
for (in)to (the) distant (future is) His ḥeseḏ!”

The relation of this verse to the preceding two is not entirely clear. Most significant is the way that the general theme of YHWH’s care for His people is widened (and generalized) still further to apply to all people (“all flesh”). In terms of the thematic structure of the Psalm, this relates back to the first stanza, emphasizing YHWH’s role as Creator, and thus as Sovereign Ruler over all creation (including all humankind). He provides food (“bread”) for all human beings, alluding to the many natural resources within creation—including grain (i.e., agriculture) and the means for producing it (water/rain, fertile ground, animals for labor, etc). The same God who cares providentially for all people will surely care for His chosen people—those bound to Him by a special covenant-bond.

Conclusion (Call to Worship): Verse 26

Verse 26

“Give thanks to (the) Mighty (One) of the heavens—
for (in)to (the) distant (future is) His ḥeseḏ!”

This final verse echoes the initial call to worship (vv. 1-3), as the Psalmist again calls on the people to give praise and thanks to YHWH. On the significance and use of the verb hd*y`, see the note on verse 1 (in Part 1).

Again, YHWH is identified as the supreme God, the greatest of all—incomparable in His position as Creator and King of the universe. Along with the superlative honorific titles in vv. 1-3, the Psalmist here uses the expression “Mighty (One) [i.e., God] of the heavens”, which also alludes (like v. 25, cf. above) to the first stanza of the hymn (vv. 4-9), describing YHWH’s mighty deeds as Creator. In particular, He is identified in v. 5 as the One who made the heavens. YHWH created the heavens, but it is also in (or above) the heavens that He has His dwelling and seat of rule (throne). Thus, the expression “Mighty (One) of the heavens” conveys the idea of YHWH as King over the universe just as much as it does His role as Creator.

The Qumran Psalm Catena

Following Psalm 136 in the Qumran manuscript 11QPsa, there is a set of verses that has been referred to by scholars as a catena (or “chain”, i.e., of verses). For the most part, these verses were taken from (or are common to) Psalm 118—vv. 1, 15-16, 8-9, and 29, with an additional couplet between vv. 9 and 29. As the opening verse of Ps 118 (and the Catena) is identical with Ps 136, it is natural that the Catena would be included here. It probably represents a separate composition, but some commentators have postulated that, at least in the 11QPsa manuscript, it is intended as a longer-ending conclusion to Psalm 136.

Based on my earlier translation of Psalm 118 (see the study on that Psalm), modified slightly to correspond with my treatment of Ps 136, here is a rendering of the Catena (note the additional couplet in bold):

“Give thanks to YHWH, that (He is) good—
for (in)to (the) distant (future is) His ḥeseḏ!
(Hear the) voice of salvation ringing out
in (the) tents of (the) righteous:
(The) right hand of YHWH (is) acting (with) force!
(The) right hand of YHWH (is) being lifted up high!
(The) right hand of YHWH (is) acting (with) force!
Good (it is) to place trust in YHWH,
(rather) than trusting in man;
good (indeed) to seek protection in YHWH,
(even more) than trusting in nobles;
good (it is) to place trust in YHWH,
(rather) than trusting in a thousand people!
Give thanks to YHWH, that (He is) good—
for (in)to (the) distant (future is) His ḥeseḏ!“

    • 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 “Allen” are to Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101-150 (Revised edition), Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 21 (Zondervan: 2002/2014).

Studies on the Spirit: The Spirit and the Death/Resurrection of Jesus (Study 13)

Study 13: The Spirit and the Communication of Jesus’ Resurrection to Believers (Paul)

Having examined how the power and effect of Jesus’ death is communicated to believers through the Spirit (Studies 11 and 12), our focus is now on the communication of his resurrection. We begin with the treatment of this subject by Paul in his letters. Much of our discussion in Study 11, dealing with the communication of Jesus’ death to believers, applies to the resurrection as well. In particular, the Pauline theme of believers’ participation in the death and resurrection of Christ is central, relating to both aspects—death and resurrection alike. This idea of participation is basic to the fundamental theological tenet of believers’ union with Christ (“in Christ”)—a union that is realized and experienced through the Spirit. The union is symbolized by the baptism ritual, as is clear from Paul’s most direct and extensive treatments of the subject, in Galatians 3-4 and Romans 6-8. In particular, we note again the statements in Gal 3:26-28 in the context of 4:4-6ff, with the participation-theme having been introduced in 2:20 (cf. 1 Cor 12:13; Col 2:12).

The same participation theme (and baptism-symbolism) is established at the beginning of Romans 6 (vv. 3-4ff), and is developed throughout the remainder of chaps. 6-8, being expounded extensively by Paul, expressing more fully the theological significance and its application to the lives of believers. He begins from the point of reference of Jesus’ death, since the death of Christ is more immediately relevant for the symbolism of baptism:

“Or are you without knowledge (of the fact) that, (for) as (many) of us as were dunked [i.e., baptized] into (the) Anointed Yeshua, we were dunked into his death?” (v. 3)

And yet, the symbolism of Jesus’ death represents just one side, or aspect, of the baptism ritual; for, just as believers go down into/under the water (i.e., death and burial), so they/we also come up again out of the water—symbolizing the resurrection into new life. Paul brings both of these aspects together, relating them one to the other:

“Thus, we were buried together with him through the dunking into his death, (so) that, just as (the) Anointed was raised out of the dead through the do/ca of the Father, so also we should walk about in newness of life.” (v. 4)

The ethical orientation of the passage (see vv. 1-2, 6ff) is clear from Paul’s wording of the resurrection-portion of this declaration (4b), phrased as an exhortation to believers that “we should walk about in newness of life”; the verb peripate/w (“walk about”) represents a traditional ethical-religious idiom (cf. use of the Hebrew El^h* [“walk”] in a reflexive and iterative/frequentive sense, “walk about”) referring to a person’s habitual (i.e., daily) conduct and behavior (compare Paul’s use in Rom 8:4; 13:13; Gal 5:16, etc). This is important for Paul’s understanding of the relation of believers to the resurrection, and will be discussed further below.

The dual-aspect of the believer’s union with Christ—i.e., participation in his death and resurrection—is reiterated in verse 5:

“For, if we have come to be planted together in the likeness of his death, (so) indeed we will also be (in the likeness) of his standing up [i.e., resurrection] (out of the dead)!”

Paul uses a planting motif, imagery that, in many ways is just as traditional for early Christians as the baptism-image; it would have been particularly familiar and popular as a result of Jesus’ own illustrative teaching (e.g., Mark 4:1-9ff par)—see esp. John 12:24, where this seed/planting motif is applied to Jesus’ death (and resurrection). Of more immediate significance is Paul’s use of the motif in 1 Cor 15:35-41, with its specific application to the resurrection in vv. 42-44ff. The same line of imagery is indicated by the noun a)parxh/ in vv. 20, 23 (also in Rom 8:23) as a term denoting the beginning of the harvest (i.e., ‘first-fruits’), with the “harvest” being referenced in an eschatological sense (viz., the end of the growing season = the end of the current Age).

Another important element of Paul’s language in Romans 6-8 is use of sun-prefixed compound verbs and terms. The preposition su/n means “together with”, and the terminology is utilized by Paul specifically to express the idea of believers’ union with Christ—and, in particular, their/our participation in his death and resurrection. In the Study 11, I listed out the occurrences of this terminology, in chapters 6 and 8; it is worth noting these again:

In chapter 6:

    • Vb sunta/fw (“bury together with”), v. 4 (cf. also Col 2:12)
    • Adj su/mfuto$, denoting something “planted together with”, v. 5
    • Phrase “died off together with [su/n] Christ”, v. 8
    • Vb suza/w, “live together with”, v. 8

In chapter 8:

    • Vb summarture/w, “give witness together with”, v. 16 (note that it is the Spirit who gives witness together with believers)
    • Noun sugklhrono/mo$, denoting one who receives the lot (i.e., inherits) together with another (i.e., co-heir), v. 17
    • Vb sumpa/sxw, “suffer together with”, v. 17
    • Vb sundoca/zw, “be honored/esteemed together with”, v. 17
    • Vb sustena/zw, “groan together with”, v. 22
    • Vb sunwdi/nw, “be in pain together with”, v. 22
    • Vb sunantilamba/nomai, “take hold together with”, v. 26 (again, the Spirit is the subject)
    • Vb sunerge/w, “work together with”, v. 28
    • Adj summorfo/$, denoting one who is “formed together with” another, v. 29

This thematic emphasis on union and participation must be clearly recognized and understood. The resurrection of believers is intimately (and existentially) tied to Jesus’ own resurrection; indeed, our resurrection (as believers) comes about and is made possible because we share in Christ’s own resurrection. This is clear enough from Paul’s exposition and line of argument in both 1 Cor 15 and Rom 8, but he also makes the point in other passages: see, most notably, the statements in 1 Cor 6:14; 2 Cor 4:14, and Col 2:12; 3:1 (cf. also Eph 2:6).

After 1 Corinthians 15 (see above), Romans 8 is the main Pauline passage dealing with the resurrection. The focus is on the resurrection of believers, but, as noted here (and elsewhere), the resurrection of believers is dependent upon believers’ participation in Jesus’ own resurrection. Working from Romans 8 as our primary point of reference, let us consider how, or in what way, the Spirit communicates the resurrection of Christ to believers.

It is first necessary to recognize the basic understanding which Paul held, shared with other early Christians, regarding the nature and significance of the resurrection. This understanding is fundamentally eschatological—viz., the resurrection as an end-time event. While the eschatological nature of the resurrection is basic to Jewish and early Christian tradition, it is important to realize that, for early Christians, the resurrection of Jesus was also an eschatological event—a point too often ignored or missed by Christians today. The death and resurrection of Jesus marked the end of the current Age and the beginning of the New Age.

For early Christians (including Paul) there are three primary points of significance which I would emphasize, with regard to the resurrection:

    1. The eschatological new life of the resurrection is (currently) only experienced by believers in Christ; yet the reality and power of the resurrection is experienced in the present by believers. There are numerous consequences to this experience of the resurrection life, many of which Paul references or alludes to in his letters. This new life is experienced through the presence of the Spirit.
    2. As believers, our experience of the resurrection will only be realized fully with our own bodily resurrection (from the dead), following the pattern of Jesus’ own (bodily) resurrection—cf. the paradigm expounded by Paul in 1 Cor 15. Again, the resurrection will only be realized through the power and presence of the Spirit—the same Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead (Rom 8:11; cf. 1:4; 1 Cor 15:45, etc).
    3. This full and final resurrection also represents the completion of our salvation as believers in Christ. The resurrection is thus fundamentally soteriological; we will not fully understand what it means to be saved until we are raised from the dead, for only then will be completely set free from bondage to the power of sin (in our flesh) and death (viz., for our mortal bodies).
1. The Experience of the Resurrection in the Present

With regard to the first point, Paul specifically refers to the presence of the Spirit as an a)parxh/ (v. 23, cf. above)—that is, the beginning of the end-time ‘harvest’. In the present, until the final consummation of the Age, it is only believers who are able (and allowed) to experience the New Age (i.e., the ‘new creation’, 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). It is experienced as a result of our union with Christ, realized through the presence of the Spirit. United with Christ, we as believers participate in the power of both his death and resurrection—this language and idiom of participation is reiterated by Paul here in chapter 8 (vv. 10-11). Beginning in verses 1-2, this resurrection life is described according to the designation of new life (7:6, “new life of the Spirit” [lit., “newness of the Spirit”], just as in 6:3 [“newness of life”], see above). This new life in the Spirit is characterized primarily by freedom (cf. 2 Cor 3:17)—freedom from bondage to the power of sin (and death), and, secondarily, freedom from the law of the old covenant (tied to the old creation):

“For the Law of the Spirit of Life in (the) Anointed Yeshua has set you free from the law of sin and death.” (v. 2)

As Paul makes clear by his exposition in vv. 3-4, this was achieved through the death (and resurrection) of Christ, and through our participation (as believers) in his death. By participating in the death of Jesus, we also died—dying to our old human nature (which was in bondage to the power of sin), and dying to the law of the old covenant as well. Our death to sin is primarily in view here in Romans (see 6:2, 6-11), but Paul also emphasizes our death to the old covenant law (viz., the binding regulations and requirements of the Torah)—7:1-6ff, 8:3-4—the latter emphasis being much more prominent in Galatians (2:4, 16-21; 3:23ff; 4:1-7, 21-22ff; 5:1ff, 13ff).

These two aspects of the freedom/bondage theme are brought together in chapter 8 under the common motif of “flesh” —in the negative sense that Paul typically uses the term sa/rc, juxtaposed in contrast to the Spirit. As believers in Christ, set free from bondage, we are free to live according to the Spirit, rather than the flesh. As in Galatians 5 (see esp. vv. 16-25), Paul exhorts his readers to submit to the authority of the Spirit’s power and presence, allowing themselves to be guided by the Spirit (i.e., to “walk about” according to the Spirit, v. 4 [cf. above]). The hearts and minds (and lives) of believers are to be governed by the Spirit. To the extent that this takes place, we become conformed to the living presence of Christ himself, with whom we are united (through the Spirit). This conformity, by which we reflect the character and mind of Christ—a Christ-likeness—is another consequence of our participatory union with him. Here in Romans 8 (vv. 14-17; cf. Gal 3:26-4:7), our likeness to Christ, by way of our union (and shared characteristics) with him, is expressed through the thematic motif of sonship—by sharing in the Sonship of Christ, we also become the sons (i.e., children) of God.

Yet this shared sonship and Christ-likeness is not just a matter of personal/individual ethics and morality. The “new life of the Spirit” encompasses many other aspects of Christian life and experience. For example, here in chapter 8 (vv. 26-27), Paul specifically mentions the role of the Spirit in the prayer-life of believers. The Spirit’s role is given far greater emphasis in 1 Corinthians, particularly as it relates to the life of believers in community. At the corporate/communal level, believers ought to be united, reflecting the unity that we share in Christ through the Spirit. This is a point that Paul argues for vigorously in the first division of the letter (1:18-4:6; cf. the propositio of 1:10-17), and it governs the practical instruction that he offers throughout the remaining chapters. The individual believer is united with Christ; but the community of believers (including individual congregations) is also united with him, forming a “body” of Christ (12:12-27ff). The Spirit works through individual believers in various ways, for the benefit of the entire Community (see throughout chapters 11-14). These manifestations of the Spirit certainly apply to the communal worship practiced by believers but cannot be limited to that portion of the Christian life.

2. The Experience of the Resurrection in the Future

In Romans 8, Paul clearly delineates between the experience of the resurrection by believers in the present (vv. 1-10ff) with that which they/we will experience in the future, at the final culmination of the present Age. Already believers in Christian are living in the New Age, experiencing the New Creation (Section 1., above), and yet the current Age has not fully come to an end. We as believers experience this limitation in several ways, which Paul would subsume under the common concept of the “flesh” (sa/rc, see vv. 3-9ff and the discussion above). Though freed from bondage to the power of sin, we still experience a vestigial impulse (e)piqumi/a, vb e)piqume/w) toward sin in our “flesh” (see 6:12; 7:7-8; 13:14; Gal 5:16, 24; Col 3:5). And, even though we share in the resurrection life of the Spirit, we still live in physical bodies that are subject to death. In this way our freedom from bondage to the power of sin and death, in the flesh, has not yet been fully realized.

As noted above, Paul refers to the Spirit in and among believers (in the present) as the very beginning of the end-time harvest (i.e., the ‘first-fruit[s]’, a)parxh/), v. 23, indicating that the fulness of the harvest is yet to come. In 2 Cor 1:22 and 5:5 (cf. also Eph 1:14), he uses a different motif, referring to the Spirit as a ‘deposit’ or ‘down-payment’ (a)rrabw/n) for the fulness of the future glory that awaits us as believers. This refers, primarily, to the end-time resurrection. At this moment, at the end of the current Age (and the return of the exalted Christ to earth, see section 3. below), believers in Christ will be completely transformed by the Spirit. The Spirit will no longer simply reside within our bodies; rather, it will completely envelop and transform our bodies, even as Jesus Christ himself was transformed by the Spirit (1 Cor 15:45, cf. also Rom 1:4, etc). Our participation in the resurrection of Jesus will be completed by a bodily resurrection that follows the pattern of his own resurrection (see throughout 1 Cor 15, and the other references noted above). Here, in verse 11, the role of the Spirit (cf. vv. 2-10ff) in this regard is made specific:

“But, if the Spirit of the (One hav)ing raised Yeshua out of (the) dead houses [i.e., dwells] in you, (then) the (One hav)ing raised (the) Anointed out of (the) dead will make alive also your dying bodies, through His Spirit housing in you.”

The message is straightforward and clear: the same Spirit of God that currently dwells in us (as believers) will ultimately give life to our dying bodies (even raising us from the dead)—just as God, by His Spirit, raised Jesus from the dead. The phrasing “will make alive your dying bodies” is probably meant to account for the belief (held by Paul and other first-century Christians) that most of the believers currently living at the time would still be alive (i.e., would not yet have died) at the return of Christ and the end of the Age (cf. 1 Thess 4:13-18). Following the pattern of Christ’s own resurrection, believers in Christ will be exalted and transformed into living Spirit-beings. This is the ultimate consequence of our participation in the resurrection of Jesus, and our union with him through the Spirit. The exalted Christ shares a single Spirit with God the Father (see 1 Cor 6:17), and we, in our own way, as God’s offspring also share in this same Spirit.

Here in Romans 8, Paul poignantly expresses the nature of present time, at the close of the current Age, as we wait for the full realization of the resurrection life. In one of the most striking and remarkable passages of the Pauline corpus, vv. 18-25, this future hope of believers is related to hope of all creation. Believers in Christ currently experience the “new creation” (of the New Age); but eventually all of creation will be transformed to become a new creation, and will come to know the same freedom which we as believers already experience (v. 21). This transformation of creation is unquestionably connected with the physical resurrection of believers, following which they/we will be exalted so as to share in the Divine glory/splendor (do/ca, see 6:3)—the very do/ca which Jesus Christ experienced with his own resurrection and exaltation.

3. The Resurrection as Salvation

This final point can be made briefly, by way of summary of the key statements made by Paul throughout Romans 8 (and elsewhere in his letters).

To begin with, believers’ experience of the resurrection, and of the “new life of the Spirit”, entails at its heart freedom from bondage—and thus, salvation, in a very real and basic sense. As believers in Christ, we have been set free from bondage to the power of sin and death (v. 2); and, along with this we have been liberated from the effects of our bondage to sin (guilt and punishment, etc, v. 1). For first-century Christians, living with a strong sense of eschatological imminence, salvation primarily meant being saved from the end-time Judgment. Paul helped to give an increasing (and greater) emphasis on the present experience of salvation; and his main contribution in this regard was his development of the freedom/bondage theme, emphasizing how believers have been set free from bondage to sin, and are no longer compelled to live in a sinful or wicked manner.

At the same time, Paul still followed the lines of early Christian tradition in thinking of, and referring to, the end-time resurrection and return of Christ as the full realization of our salvation. Here in Romans 8, there is no mention of the Judgment, nor even of our being saved/rescued from it (but note the allusions in v. 1 and the closing vv. 31-38); rather, the focus is on our freedom from bondage to the power of death. Through the resurrection of our bodies, with the accompanying exaltation and glory (do/ca) that results from it (v. 18), we will finally be set free entirely from the power of death. Paul expresses this by way of the term a)polu/trwsi$ (lit., a “loosing from [bondage]”): the resurrection involves “the loosing of our body from (bondage)” (v. 24). This represents the future fulfillment of a salvation (i.e., loosing from bondage) that begins now in the present; cf. Paul’s use of the term a)polu/trwsi$ earlier in 3:24, and also in 1 Cor 1:30; Col 1:14 (and cf. Eph 1:7, 14 [note the eschatological context in 4:30, cp. Lk 21:28]).

The exaltation of believers that will come about through our resurrection and transformation (by the Spirit) represents the culmination of our salvation. In the climactic portion of chapter 8, Paul expresses this through a soteriological sequence or chain of Divine blessings which believers in Christ experience. It begins with God calling us to salvation, as Paul states in v. 28, defining believers as “the (one)s being called [klhtoi] according to (the) plan set forth (by Him)”. This calling reflects foreknowledge and foreordination by God, indicated in v. 29 by the verbs proginw/skw (“know before[hand]”) and proori/zw (“mark out before[hand]”)—together these represent the first stage of our salvation:

“(For it is) that the (one)s that he knew before(hand) He also marked out before(hand) (to be) formed together as the image of His Son, unto his being (the) first-produced [i.e., firstborn] among many brothers”

Note the idea of the shared sonship of believers, through our union with Christ (thus participating and sharing in his Sonship), which is here reiterated from vv. 14-18 and 19-24 (see above). As indicated by Paul in verse 23, with the resurrection, the Divine sonship of believers will be fully realized. The chain of salvation continues in verse 30:

“and the (one)s whom He marked out before(hand), these He also called [vb kale/w];
and the (one)s whom He called, these He also made right [vb dikaio/w];
and the (one)s whom He made right, these He also honored [vb doca/zw].”

The final verb (doca/zw), which means “give/show honor, esteem”, refers to the final stage of salvation—the exaltation of believers through the end-time resurrection (and transformation by the Spirit). This verb is, of course, related to the noun do/ca, used in 6:4 in reference to the resurrection of Christ, and here in vv. 18 and 21 in reference to the resurrection of believers. As in much of the New Testament, do/ca (“esteem, honor”) is used here as a Divine attribute, basically referring to the splendor and glory which God possesses, and which makes Him worthy of our honor and esteem. This same Divine splendor/glory, which Jesus experienced and received with his own resurrection (and exaltation) will also be given to believers at the time of their/our resurrection. With this exaltation, our salvation will be complete.

*       *       *      *       *       *

In our next study (Study 14), we will turn our attention again to the Johannine writings (Gospel and Letters), to explore how these writings understand the Spirit’s role in communicating the resurrection of Christ to believers.

 

Studies on the Spirit: The Spirit and the Death/Resurrection of Jesus (Study 12)

Study 12: The Spirit and the Communication of Jesus’ death to Believers (John)

In the previous study, we examined how the power and effect of Jesus’ death is communicated to believers through the Spirit, looking at the issue from the Pauline standpoint. Now we turn to the Johannine writings (Gospel and Letters). As with many issues involving the role of the Spirit, there is much common ground between Paul’s letters and the Johannine writings. However, there are also important differences. Indeed, the Johannine writings evince a very distinctive theology, with aspects of the Johannine theological idiom and mode of expression—vocabulary, style, points of emphasis, etc—that are quite unique, even when the writings themselves are rooted in traditions shared by other early believers.

There are two particular aspects of the Johannine theology, in relation to the idea of Jesus’ death being communicated to believers through the Spirit, that I wish to highlight: (1) sacrificial imagery, and (2) believers fulfilling the type-pattern established by Jesus’ own sacrificial death.

1. Sacrificial imagery

Many early Christian authors and theologians drew upon the imagery and legacy of ritual sacrifice, inherited from the ancient Israelite and Jewish Temple cult and associated Torah rituals. The author of Hebrews, as one particularly notable example (see esp. chapters 5-10), deals extensively with the typology of sacrifice, explaining how Jesus fulfilled the type-patterns of the sacrificial offerings and priestly ritual. The Gospel of John does much the same thing, though expressing the matter in a different way.

Jesus is introduced (in 1:29, 36) as the “lamb of God”, alluding to the sacrificial offerings (and to the Passover lamb); this reference is discussed further below. Then, in chapter 2 (vv. 13-22), Jesus is effectively identified with the Temple and (by extension) its entire cultic (ritual-sacrificial) apparatus; even more so than in the Synoptic Tradition (Mk 11:15-18 par; cf. also Mk 2:23-28, esp. the Matthean parallel, 12:1-8 with the statement in v. 6), the Temple is portrayed as being fulfilled in (and superseded by) the person of Jesus (with specific allusions to his death and resurrection, vv. 19-22). According to the Johannine narrative, this episode took place at the time of the Passover festival; and, similarly, a number of the great Discourses that follow (in chaps. 3-12) are set on the occasion of, or in connection with, the festivals.

In various ways, Jesus is depicted as fulfilling, in his own person, important elements and aspects of the festivals, involving a wide range of Scriptural and Israelite/Jewish tradition. For example, the Bread of Life Discourse in chapter 6 (cf. below) is set around the time of the Passover, and, in connection, Jesus fulfills the type-pattern of several key Moses-traditions—most notably that of the manna (“bread out of heaven”), which is central to the Discourse. The Discourse-complex in chapters 7-8 is even more closely associated with a festival (Sukkot/Booths); Jesus’ identification with light (8:12) and water (i.e., living water, 7:37-39) are almost certainly intended to be seen as the fulfillment of ritual details and images connected with the festival. Finally, Jesus’ own Passion and death took place at the time of the Passover festival (12:1; 13:1, etc), according to the common Gospel Tradition. However, the Gospel of John is unique in portraying Jesus’ death on the cross as occurring on the very day of the Passover Eve, at the time when the lambs are slain for the festal celebration (19:14); thus, the Gospel writer implicitly identifies Jesus with the slain Passover lamb (cf. also the detail in vv. 31-33, with its interpretation in v. 36).

If we are to apply this line of Christological interpretation by the Johannine Gospel writer, there are three passages or references which should be spotlighted. Let us consider them, briefly, in turn.

a. The “Lamb of God” (1:29)

In his function as a witness to Jesus Christ (1:7-8, 15, 19ff, 32-34), John the Baptist declares in 1:29 (echoed in v. 36) that Jesus is “the lamb of God, the (one) taking (away) the sin of the world”.

Commentators have struggled to determine precisely the origins and significance of the expression “the lamb of God” (o( a)mno/$ tou= qeou=), which occurs only here (being repeated in verse 36) in the Scriptures. A number of sources of influence have been proposed and discussed, with commentators differing on their relative plausibility. There has, however, come to be something of an emerging consensus that the two main sources are: (a) the figure of the Passover lamb, and (b) the reference to the Servant-figure in the Isa 52:13-53:12 Servant Song as a lamb (53:7).

The relatively recent article by Jesper Tang Nielsen, “The Lamb of God: The Cognitive Structure of a Johannine Metaphor” (published in Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language, eds. Jörg Frey, Jan G. van der Watt, and Ruben Zimmermann, WUNT 200 [Mohr Siebeck: 2006], pp. 217-56) discusses the conceptual blending of these two specific background-aspects of the expression.

While some would argue that the Isaiah 53:7 reference is primary, in my view the Passover lamb represents the principal point of reference. This seems to be quite clear, based on two points of evidence. First, we have the specific identification (noted above) of Jesus with the Passover lamb in 19:14, 36, where the lamb-identification is made in the context of Jesus’ death—being ‘lifted up’ on the cross. Second, the foreshadowing of this moment in the reference to the ‘bronze serpent’ tradition (Numbers 21:9) in 3:14-15 strongly suggests the parallel of the lamb, once it has been ‘lifted up’, giving life-saving healing to all those who look at (i.e., believe in) it.

And yet, as many commentators have noted, there is no indication, either in the Old Testament or in later Jewish tradition, of a direct connection between the Passover lamb and sin. In particular, there is no evidence that the Passover lamb (or the ritual as a whole) was ever thought to take away sin (see on the verb ai&rw below). I have discussed the Passover tradition in several recent articles, and will here only mention three aspects of its significance that seem relevant to the sin-association in Jn 1:29:

    • The apotropaic function of the Passover lamb’s blood in the original Exodus-tradition (Exod 12, esp. vv. 7, 13, 22-23), as protection against death.
    • The idea that those participating in the ritual must purify themselves in preparation—represented primarily through the symbolism of the leaven that is removed (see vv. 14-20, and compare Paul’s interpretation in 1 Cor 5:7); note also the purity regulations in Numbers 9.
    • The symbolism of the historical context of the Passover—the Exodus as freedom from bondage (in Egypt).

One can see how each of these aspects could be related to the removal of sin (and its effects). Philo of Alexandria, in his allegorical interpretation of the Passover tradition, blends together the second and third aspects in a unique way. In his work On the Special Laws, in the section on the Passover (2.145-149), the festival is interpreted as figuratively representing the purification of the soul, explaining the Passover as symbolizing the “passing over” of the soul, away from the body and its passions (2.147). Similarly, Josephus, in his brief discussion of Passover in Antiquities 2.311-14, shifts the meaning of the lamb’s blood somewhat. Instead of its apotropaic function (see above), with the blood being applied to the house of the Israelite family (thus protecting the people inside), a spiritualizing ethical interpretation is given, whereby the blood actually purifies (vb a(gni/zw) the individual who faithfully observes the ritual. This concept of the purification of the devout/faithful Israelite by the lamb’s blood is not that far removed from the Christian idea of Jesus’ blood cleansing the believer from sin (1 John 1:7, see below).

Already in the Exodus tradition (Exod 12:27), the Passover (lamb) is referred to as a sacrificial offering (ze»aµ)—that is, an animal that is ritually slain as an offering (to God). In Israelite and Jewish tradition, the Passover would increasingly be recognized as a kind of sacrifice. It clearly is not an offering for sin; it has much more in common with the šelem offering (Leviticus 3), in which the worshiper eats the meat of the animal as part of a ritual meal. Even so, the traditional conception of the Passover as a sacrifice may well have led early Christians to connect it with other aspects of the sacrificial offerings, such as the offerings for sin—including the expiatory offerings of the Day of Atonement festival (Leviticus 16), which involved the ritual/symbolic removal of sin. That early Christians did, in fact, associate the Day of Atonement offerings with the person of Jesus (and his sacrificial death) is clear from Hebrews 8-10. It would not be unreasonable for an early Christian to blend this sin offering imagery together with the motif of Jesus as a Passover lamb that is slain, bringing life and salvation to those who believe.

The specific idea of the removal of sin is found throughout the Johannine writings, most notably in 1 John 1:7, where it is stated that the blood of Jesus (i.e., through his death as the slain ‘lamb’) cleanses the believer from sin. Perhaps the strongest argument for this meaning of the verb ai&rw here in Jn 1:29 comes from 1 John 3:5, where it is indicated the purpose of Jesus’ appearance on earth was to “take away” sin (“…that he might take away [a&rh|] sin”). But how does Jesus’ “blood” remove sin from the believer? Clearly, a confession of one’s sin is involved (with an associated repentance being implied), as is stated in 1:9, yet such confession is only a precursor to the actual removal of sin. How does the removal take effect? This is best understood (and explained) in terms of the Johannine theological principle of the believer being “in” (e)n) Christ (2:5f)—that is, in union with Christ (the Son). And how is this union with the Son (and the Father) realized and experienced, except through the presence of the Spirit?

This is altogether confirmed by the entirety of the Johannine witness; but, in particular, compare the specific wording in 2:5 with that of 3:24 and 4:13. Like Paul, the Johannine author(s) understand believers’ union with Christ (“in Christ”) as a spiritual union, realized through the Spirit. Thus, it is through the Spirit that the cleansing and life-giving effects of Jesus’ death (his “blood”) are communicated to believers. This involves both cleansing (i.e., removal of sin) and the communication of the Divine life (i.e., eternal life) to the believer. This latter aspect is particularly in view in the Bread of Life Discourse (chap. 6)—especially with the eucharistic language in vv. 51-58.

b. The “Bread of Life” (esp. 6:51-58)

As virtually all commentators recognize, there is eucharistic language in the climactic section (vv. 51-58) of the great “Bread of Life” Discourse in chapter 6 (vv. 22-58). The parallels with the Synoptic ‘words of institution’ by Jesus (at the Last Supper), Mk 14:22-24 par, are quite apparent. Significantly, there is no comparable eucharistic tradition in the Johannine version of the Last Supper scene (chap. 13); instead, the corresponding eucharistic language and imagery is incorporated as part of the Bread of Life Discourse. As with the Passover lamb (cf. above), Jesus’ death is portrayed as a sacrificial offering that one consumes (i.e., eats/drinks). In the Synoptic Tradition of the Last Supper, the sacrificial imagery alluded to is not the Passover (in spite of the Passover setting), nor the sin offering, but the sacrifices made at the establishment (ratification) of the covenant, between God and His people, at Sinai (as narrated in Exodus 24). It is a šelem offering (Leviticus 3), in which the worshiper eats the meat of the animal as part of a ritual meal, while, according to the Sinai-covenant tradition, the blood is poured/sprinkled upon the people (Exod 24:8). Both ritual aspects are combined in the Eucharist-symbolism: (a) believers eat/drink the body/blood of Jesus, while also (b) the blood is poured “over” believers (note the use of the preposition u(pe/r in both Mk 14:24 par and Jn 6:51), confirming the unifying covenant-bond between God and His people.

These two ritual aspects are conceptually related, as symbolism that represents the union of believers with Christ. However, whereas the covenant aspect is emphasized in the Synoptic Tradition, it is the ritual meal (i.e., eating/drinking a šelem offering) that is primarily in view here in the Bread of Life Discourse. The emphasis is certainly on eating Jesus, with the corollary of drinking him as well. Within the eucharistic language of vv. 51-58, the “bread” of Jesus’ person becomes both his body (which one eats) and his blood (which one drinks). This dualism effectively brings together the thematic emphasis of the ‘Living Water’ Discourse (chap. 4) with that of the Bread of Life Discourse; there is a clear and obvious parallel between drinking the living water that Jesus offers (4:10-15; 7:37-39) and eating the living bread which he gives.

The main difference between these two thematic symbols is that the living water is identified with the Spirit (vv. 23-24, and explicitly in 7:39; cf. also 1:31-33; 3:5-8), while the living bread is identified with the person of the Son (Jesus) himself. And yet, even in the case of the Bread of Life Discourse, the Spirit is closely connected with the bread-motif, even if there is no explicit mention of the Spirit in the Discourse proper. How does one eat/drink the body/blood of Jesus, if not spiritually, through the Spirit? Three points make clear that the focus of the eucharistic language is 6:51-58 is spiritual rather than ritual/sacramental:

    • The parallel with chap. 4 and the “living water”, which clearly involves the presence/activity of the Spirit; if ‘drinking’ this living water involves the Spirit, then it stands to reason that the ‘eating’ of the living bread does as well.
    • The wording in verse 57 seems to echo 3:34-35, with the giving/sharing of the Spirit understood as central to the relationship (and bond of unity) between Father and Son. Moreover, the life-giving aspect of this bond naturally connects v. 57 with the presence of the Spirit.
    • The statement in verse 63, which, in the literary context of the narrative, unquestionably relates back to the Discourse, confirms that the life-giving power of Jesus’ death is communicated (to the believer) through the Spirit.

This is not to say that the Gospel of John eschews any sacrificial or ritual aspect to the Eucharist, but, rather, that the emphasis on the Spirit is primary. For more on verse 63 in relation to vv. 51-58, see my earlier article (and notes) in the series “Spiritualism and the New Testament”.

c. The Death of Jesus on the Cross (19:30ff)

The Johannine theological and Christological understanding regarding the sacrificial nature of Jesus’ death, and the communication of its power and effect to believers, is, in the Gospel narrative, manifest in the climactic account of the death itself. The symbolism of Jesus as the slain Passover lamb (19:14, 36) was discussed above. Here I wish to focus on the account of his actual death, focusing briefly on two key details: (a) the description of the moment of Jesus’ death (v. 30), and (b) the “blood and water” that emerged from him after his death (v. 34).

The Johannine account of the moment of Jesus’ death (in 19:30) follows the common Gospel Tradition (cf. Mk 15:37; Matt 27:50; Luke 23:46), but gives to it a new and distinct interpretation, in accordance with the Johannine theology (see above). I have discussed this development of the tradition in earlier notes and articles (see most recently, in Study 6 of this series). Here it is important to point out how the wording in v. 30 likely contains an allusion to Jesus’ giving of the Spirit to believers, conveyed through a simple bit of allusive double-meaning wordplay:

“…he gave along the spirit [i.e., his last breath]”
understood/interpreted as:
“…he gave along the Spirit”

With regard to the curious (apparently physiological) detail of the emergence of “blood and water” from Jesus’ side after his death (v. 34), there is almost certainly a similar allusion—viz., to the giving of the Spirit (after Jesus’ death, 20:22), but also to the communication of the life-giving power of his death (“blood”) through the Spirit. The association of the Spirit with water is traditional, and clear enough in the theological context of the Johannine narrative (cf. again 1:31-33; 3:5-8; 4:10-15, 23-24; 7:37-39); similarly, the connection between the Spirit and Jesus’ blood (as something which one likewise drinks) is established by the context of 6:51-58, especially in connection with v. 63 (see above). The miracle of the Cana episode (2:1-12) may also provide a foreshadowing of this symbolism (i.e., water and wine = water and blood), the association being all the more likely in view of the eucharistic imagery in 6:51-58 (i.e., “blood” symbolized by wine which one drinks), and by the fact that the Cana episode (at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry) matches the scene of his death (at the end of his ministry). In this regard, it is perhaps relevant that Mary (Jesus’ mother) appears in both episodes (2:1ff; 19:25-27)—her only appearances in the Gospel.

Thus, these two details present a dramatic manifestation, at the conclusion of Jesus’ life/ministry, of: (i) the fact that Jesus’ would give the Spirit to his disciples (believers) following his death, and (ii) that the life-giving (and cleansing) power of his death would be communicated to believers through the Spirit.

For more on the water-blood-Spirit triadic parallelism, in relation to the death of Jesus, see 1 John 5:6-8ff, which I have discussed in some detail in earlier notes and articles.

2. The Type-Pattern (for Believers) of Jesus’ Sacrificial Death

In the Johannine writings, the sacrificial nature of Jesus’ death is not only communicated to believers through the Spirit—it is also realized in believers through the Spirit. This involves more than our receiving the cleansing and life-giving power of Jesus’ death (discussed above); it also entails that we, as believers, will manifest that same manner of self-sacrifice, in our own lives and persons, which Jesus demonstrated for us.

This conceptual parallelism is present at a number of points in the Gospel of John, most notably evident by a comparison of Jesus’ statements in chapter 10 with those (to his close circle of disciples) at the beginning of the Last/Farewell Discourse. The theme of self-sacrifice is expressed at the beginning of Jesus’ expository application (in v. 11) of his “Good Shepherd” illustration (vv. 1-6ff):

“I am the Good Shepherd—the Good Shepherd sets (down) his life over [u(pe/r] the sheep.” (cf. also v. 15)

The longer explanatory statement in vv. 17-18 is particularly noteworthy for its use of the verb ai&rw, the same verb used earlier in 1:29 (also 1 John 3:5, see above). The context of Jesus’ death, as a self-sacrifice, is clearly indicated:

“Through this, the Father loves me, (in) that [i.e. because] I set (down) my soul [i.e. lay down my life], (so) that I might take it (up) again. No one takes [ai&rei] it away from me, but (rather) I set it (down) from myself; I hold (the) authority to set it (down), and I (also) hold (the) authority to take it (up) again—this (is) the charge (laid) on (me) to complete (that) I received (from) alongside my Father.” (10:17-18)

The verb ai&rw is used in the sense of Jesus’ life being “taken away”; however, when he speaks of his actual death, as a self-sacrifice, he uses the verb pair “set/lay (down)” (ti/qhmi) and “take (up)” (lamba/nw). No one “takes away” his life; rather, he himself sets it down (dies) and takes it back up again (returning to life).

This same language, in connection with Jesus’ death, also occurs at the beginning of the Last Discourse (13:31-16:33), framed in terms of the e)ntolh/ (mission/duty) required of Jesus’ disciples (the same noun used in 10:18): to show love to one another (i.e., the so-called ‘love-command’), vv. 34-35. The Johannine version of the traditional exchange with Peter (cf. Mk 14:29-31 par) that follows in vv. 36-38 illustrates the self-sacrificial nature of this love, as Jesus asks Peter, “Will you set (down) your soul over me” —using the same wording from 10:11ff. This language occurs again, in the further exposition of the love–e)ntolh/ by Jesus in 15:12-17. The disciples (indeed, all believers) are to show love to one another in the same manner that Jesus himself demonstrated love in ‘laying down his life’ on their behalf.

The point, which also was illustrated by Jesus in the earlier foot-washing scene (vv. 3-12ff), is repeated in various ways throughout the Last Discourse (and the Discourse-Prayer of chap. 17): such sacrificial love is a manifestation and demonstration of the bond of unity between believers and Christ. This ‘love-command’, which is intrinsic to the historical Gospel tradition, becomes a central point of emphasis for the Johannine churches, and features prominently in the Johannine writings (especially 1 John). It is a component of the great dual (or two-fold) e)ntolh/ that all true believers will obey and fulfill (see esp. 1 John 3:23-24): (i) trust in Jesus Christ as the Son of God (which includes faithfulness to his word[s]), and (ii) love toward other believers according to the example shown by Jesus himself.

All true believers will be faithful to this e)ntolh/; fulfilling this duty/mission (which is a continuation of the incarnate Son’s own mission) is an indication that the Spirit abides within the believer, as is stated, for example, in 1 John 3:24 and 4:13. The person who is united with Christ through the Spirit, and who (further) allows him/herself to be guided by the Spirit, will manifest the same sacrificial love that Jesus demonstrated (through his death). In this way, the death of Jesus is realized in the life and person of the believer. Paul conveys something of the same idea through his important principle of the participation of believers in the death of Jesus (see the discussion in the previous study). By sharing in his death, we receive the benefits and blessing conferred by it, but we also are able to act and live out that death, on a daily basis—dying to sin (i.e., being cleansed from it), and manifesting the life-giving power that is communicated through death (paradoxically, life coming by way of death). The proclamation of the Gospel (by word) is one key way that we as believers live out and communicate the power of Christ’s death; but we also communicate the Gospel, and fulfill Jesus’ own mission, the mission which he bequeathed to us after his death, by demonstrating love. It is a love which is directed first (and primarily) to other believers, but which then, as a result, and naturally, can be extended to embrace the entire world.

In the next study (Study 13), we return to the letters of Paul, to examine how (and in what ways) the resurrection of Jesus is communicated to believers through the Spirit.

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 135 (Part 2)

Psalm 135, continued

Here is a reminder of the structural outline of Psalm 135. For the introduction and notes on vv. 1-7, see Part 1.

    • Call for the people to praise YHWH, in a festal Temple setting (vv. 1-2)
      • Praise for the name of YHWH, affirming His covenant bond with Israel (vv. 3-4)
      • Declaration of the greatness and incomparability of YHWH (vv. 5-7)
        • YHWH’s greatness and power manifest in the formative history of Israel (vv. 8-12)
      • Praise for the name of YHWH, affirming His covenant bond with Israel (vv. 13-14)
      • The incomparability of YHWH [vs. the gods of the nations] (vv. 15-18)
    • Call for the people to bless YHWH, in a Temple setting [Zion] (vv. 19-21)

Hymn Section 2 (historical summary): Verses 8-12

As indicated in the outline above, verses 8-12 comprise the central section of the Psalm, forming a summary of YHWH’s greatness and power as it was manifest on behalf of His people Israel, during the formative period of their history. A similar historical summary runs through much of the following Psalm 136. Many other Psalms demonstrate an historical orientation along these lines, often applied more extensively and covering a wider period of Israel’s history; see, for example, Pss 78, 105 and 106.

Verse 8

“(It is He) who struck (the) firstborn of Egypt,
(all of them—) from man even unto animal.”

Both thematically and syntactically, verses 8-12 relate back to the prior section (vv. 5-7) declaring the greatness of YHWH (as Creator and King over the universe). This is done primarily by the initial prefixed relative pronoun (v). Israel’s God YHWH (vv. 3-4), the One praised as the Creator with power and authority over all the cosmos (vv. 5-7)—it is He who (v) acted in history on Israel’s behalf, establishing them as a people and a nation. The formative event in this history was the exodus from Egypt; here the plagues which YHWH brought upon Egypt (Exod 7-12) are highlighted and summarized, particularly the final plague (death of the firstborn) which led to the people’s release (12:29-33ff). The plagues represent a manifestation of YHWH’s power over nature (vv. 5-7), made for the sake of saving and rescuing His people. A similar summary of the final plague is found is Psalm 136 (v. 10a).

I follow Allen (p. 286) in reading a prefixed w-conjunction (used emphatically) on the preposition du^—i.e., “even unto”, rather than MT “unto”. Metrical considerations strongly support this slight emendation of the text, as it yields a clear 3-beat (3+3) couplet, to match those in vv. 10 and 12.

Verse 9

“He sent forth (great) signs and portents
in(to the) midst of Egypt—
among Pharaoh and among all his servants.”

The plagues against Egypt were referenced in v. 8, by way of the climactic final plague; here they are described and summarized generally. The plagues themselves are referred to in traditional terms as “signs” (totoa) and “portents” (<ytp=m)) sent by YHWH (cf. Deut 6:22; 26:8).

Dahood (III, p. 261), along with other commentators (e.g., Allen, p. 286; Hossfeld-Zenger, p. 492), is doubtless correct in regarding the Masoretic pointing of ykkwtb (“in the midst of you”, yk!k@otB=) as a misreading of the text (i.e., second person object suffix, yk!-). The form is properly understood as an emphatic variant of the construct EotB=, “in the midst of” (cf. Exod 11:4, etc). Dahood cites Ps 116:19 as a similar instance of this form.

Metrically this verse is an irregular (chiastic) 3+2+3 tricolon, comparable to the 3+3+3 tricolon of v. 11. These three-beat tricola alternate with the 3+3 couplets of vv. 8, 10, and 12.

Verse 10

“(It is also He) who struck many (other) nations,
and killed (their) strong (and mighty) kings—”

Verse 10 begins just as v. 8 did, with a prefixed relative pronoun, and thus continues the same thought—viz., emphasizing YHWH’s actions on behalf of His people (vv. 3-4) as a manifestation of His supreme power (as Creator and King of the universe, vv. 5-7). The focus here shifts from the Exodus (vv. 8-9) to the conquest of the land of Canaan, allowing for the establishment of Israel as a great nation in that land. The couplet generally corresponds with Ps 136:17-18.

Just as YHWH “struck” Egypt, so He struck (same verb, hk*n`, Hiphil) other nations as well. In so doing, He killed off (“slew”, vb gr^h*) the strong and mighty rulers (kings) of these nations. The adjective <Wxu* is used to emphasize the strength and might (“strong [and mighty]”) of these kings; primarily it is the Transjordanian kings Sihon and Og who are in view, as is clear from v. 11 (cf. also 136:19-20).

Verse 11

“even Siḥon king of the Amurru
and (great) Og king of the Bašan
and all (the) kingdoms of Kena‘an!”

The conquest and settlement of the land began with the eastern (transjordanian) territories of the Bashan (ruled by the giant Og), and the region just south (between the Jabbok and Arnon rivers) which was ruler by Sihon. The designation of /v*B* (Bāšān) is geographic, while yr!m)a$ (’Ămōrî) is a gentilic, referring to the Amurru (or Amorite) people(s). The Israelite conquest and initial settlement of these transjordanian territories is narrated in Numbers 21 and Deuteronomy 2-3.

The final line would seem to refer, in the most general possible way, to the rest of the conquest (and settlement) of Canaan. The “kingdoms” here refer to the various Canaanite city-states of the late Bronze Age, many of which were weakened and/or destroyed sometime prior to the Israelite settlement. The book of Joshua narrates the conquest of a number of these city-states (such as Jericho and Hazor), though more often in Israelite tradition the conquest and settlement (which meant dispossessing many of the original inhabitants) was described in terms of the peoples (ethno-linguistic groupings) who were conquered (Exod 3:8, 17; Deut 7:1; 20:17; Josh 3:10; 24:11; Judg 3:5, etc).

I follow Dahood (III, p. 262, cf. also Allen, p. 287) in understanding the three prefixed l= particles as emphatic, rather than as prepositions or Aramaic-style markers of the accusative (direct object).

Verse 12

“And He gave their land (as) an inheritance,
an inheritance for Yisrael His people!”

The Israelite settlement of the Transjordan territories (and the rest of Canaan) is alluded to here, using the familiar traditional description of this land as a hereditary possession (i.e., inheritance, heritage), expressed by the noun hl*j&n~. This verse is conceptually and thematically parallel with verse 4, in which the people itself is designated as the personal property (hL*g%s=), or hereditary possession, of YHWH; now, in turn, YHWH gives the land to His people as their possession. This inheritance of the land is a vital part of the covenant-bond between YHWH and His people, going back to the tradition of the bond established with Abraham and the other ancestors of Israel (cf. Genesis 15, etc).

Hymn Section 3: Verses 13-18

Praise to the Name of YHWH (vv. 13-14)
Verse 13

“YHWH—your name (in)to (the) distant (future)!
YHWH—your memorial (un)to cycle and cycle!”

The opening verses of this next section of the hymn match those of the first section (in vv. 3-4). The focus is on giving praise to the name of YHWH (for this thematic emphasis, cf. the notes on vv. 3-4 in Part 1). YHWH (and His name) is to be acknowledged and worshiped by the people of Israel for generations to come, far into the distant future. This emphasis on YHWH’s name is another way of expressing the covenant-bond between YHWH and His people. It refers to all that He has done for His people (vv. 8-12), in addition to the basic theological and religious recognition of YHWH as Creator and King of the universe (vv. 5-7). For this, YHWH is to be remembered (“your memorial”, i.e., memory and thought of you) by all the people. Songs and poems such as this very Psalm are used to keep YHWH’s covenant loyalty and His mighty saving deeds in mind for generation and generation. Both of the temporal designations used here are traditional and are frequently paired together in Hebrew poetry. The expression <l*oul= fundamentally means “into/unto (the) distant (future)”, while roD means “circle” (temporally, “cycle”), with the doubled expression rodw~ roD essentially meaning “from cycle to cycle” (often rendered as “from generation to generation”). Overall, this verse seems to allude to the declaration in Exod 3:15b (cf. also Ps 102:13).

The poetic-translational style employed above, with the Divine name (YHWH) treated as a casus pendens, generally corresponds with that of Dahood (III, p. 262).

Verse 14

“How YHWH decides on behalf of His people,
and over His (faithful) servants breathes deep!”

The allusion to the covenant in verse 13 (cf. above) is made more specific here, according to two fundamental aspects of the covenant-bond between YHWH and His people: (a) faithfulness and loyalty toward them, (b) a deep and loving concern for their welfare. The two lines of v. 14 reflect these two aspects. In the first line, YHWH’s actions (cf. verses 8-12) are described in terms of decisions made (and judgments rendered) on the people’s behalf, utilizing the verb /yD! (essentially translated here as “decide [on behalf of]”). In the second line, the verb is <j^n`, which has the basic meaning “breath deep” (sigh, etc); the idiom “breathe deep(ly) over [lu^]” someone connotes the deep care (and loving concern) that one has for that person. This is the care and concern that YHWH has (and shows) toward His people, acting on their behalf. In particular, He acts on behalf of those who are His “servants” —that is, those who themselves are faithful and loyal to the covenant-bond. The verse is essentially a quotation from Deut 32:36a.

I regard the initial yK! particle as emphatic, translated here as “How…!”

Verses 13-14 are both 3-beat (3+3) couplets, as are vv. 3-4.

Praise to the Greatness of YHWH (vv. 15-18)

These verses correspond to vv. 5-7 in the first section of the hymn (cf. the notes in Part 1), as praise is given to the incomparable greatness of YHWH. This greatness is compared with that of the other deities (“mighty [one]s”) worshiped by the nations (v. 5). While the existence of these deities seems to be allowed for in that earlier reference, here in vv. 15-18 the gods of the nations are essentially identified with their images (i.e., idols), thus implying that they have no real existence of their own. They are thus false gods, in the most thorough and humiliating sense, and these verses suggest a stricter form of monotheism than we often find in the Psalms.

Vv. 15-18 are largely identical with Ps 115:4-8, presumably representing an adapted quotation from that particular Psalm.

Verse 15

“(The) ‘shapes’ of the nations (are) silver and gold,
(something) made by (the) hands of man!”

Even more than in verse 5, the gods of the nations are here contrasted with the God of Israel (YHWH), utilizing the derogatory term bx*u* (denoting something fashioned or shaped, cf. 106:36, 38; 1 Sam 31:9; Isa 46:1, etc), effectively identifying the deities worshiped by the nations with their images. This is traditional Israelite monolatrous (and monotheistic) rhetoric, finding its most biting and extreme form in the satirical polemical texts against idols in Isa 40:18-20; 41:21-29; 44:9-20; Jer 10:1-16. The idol-images of deity are specifically designated as “something made” by human beings (“hands of man”), the noun hc#u&m^ is derived from the root hc*u* (“do, make”); this is in pointed contrast with YHWH, who as Creator made all things. Verse 15 is essentially identical with Ps 115:4, on which cf. the earlier study.

Verses 16-17

“A mouth (belongs) to them, but they do not speak;
eyes (belong) to them, but they do not see;
ears (belong) to them, but they do not hear;
there is not even any breath in their mouths!”

The first three lines of this litany are identical with those of Ps 115:5-6 (cf. the earlier study). A number of the major body parts are covered, generally assuming an anthropomorphic image of deity, in what could be taken as a mocking reversal of the creation of humankind by YHWH. Just as YHWH made humankind in His image (Gen 1:26-27), so the peoples of the nations have made their gods in their own image. Yet it is a lifeless image; the body parts are all there, at least in form/shape, but they do not function. This is the climactic point made in the Deutero-Isaian passages cited above—Isa 40:20b; 41:29; 44:20; cf. also Jer 10:5, 8, 14b-15.

The fourth line differs from the model (Ps 115:5-6ff) which presumably served as the source of the quotation. The Psalmist here appears to be adapting Ps 115:6b and 7c; a creative adaptation seems more likely than that the text of the earlier Psalm has been misread. The noun [a^ (“nostril[s]/nose”) has been transformed into the emphatic particle [a^ (here translated as “even…”). The final word “their mouths” seems to reflect the closing word of 115:7c, “their throat”. The final line here in v. 6 is much more dramatic, since it implies that the gods of the nations—that is, their idol-images—are not alive at all, since they have “no breath in their mouths”. The point is driven home by the use of the existential particle vy@ (“there is”), juxtaposed, ironically, with the particle of non-existence (/ya@, “there is no”). The irony is doubtless intentional, but it is extremely difficult to translate; poetic concision more or less requires a simple rendering, such as “there is not any…”, which I have adopted above.

Verse 18

“They become (just) like them, (those) making them,
(and also) every (one) that is trusting in them!”

This verse is identical with Ps 115:8 (cf. the earlier study). The idea that the people making the dumb and lifeless images become just like those images, is suggested at several points in the polemical passages (Isa 41:24; 44:9, 18-20; Jer 10:8, 14-15).

Metrically, verse 15 is a 4+3 couplet, while vv. 16-17 are both full 4-beat (4+4) couplets; this corresponds generally with the longer 4-beat rhythms in vv. 5-7. This final verse 18 is 3+3 couplet.

Benediction (Call to Bless YHWH): Verses 19-21

The final verses 19-21 can be characterized as a benediction. However, the blessing is not invoked upon the people; rather, the people are called on to bless YHWH. The closing call to bless YHWH thus matches the opening call to praise Him (vv. 1-2). Verse 19-20 are similar to Ps 115:9-11 and 118:2-4 (cf. also 134:1-2), while verse 21 resembles 134:3. As noted in the introduction, it seems likely that the poet-composer of Psalm 135 is drawing upon these other (earlier) Psalms.

Verses 19-20

“O house of Yisrael, bless YHWH!
O house of Aharon, bless YHWH!
O house of Levi, bless YHWH!
(All you) who fear YHWH, bless YHWH!”

Four different groups are called upon to bless YHWH, using the regular verb Er^B*; in Ps 115:9-11, they are called to place their trust in YHWH (utilizing the verb jf^B*, a frequent thematic term in the Psalms). The first group is the Israelite people as a whole, in terms of their ethnic-religious identity. The second group are the priests (“house of Aaron”), while the third group are the Levites (“house of Levi”), who support the priesthood as servants in the Temple, etc, performing various duties. The final group is specified as the righteous/faithful ones of Israel (viz., the ones fearing YHWH, expressed by the verbal adjective ar@y`).

Verse 21

“Blessed be YHWH from Ṣiyyôn,
(the One) dwelling in Yerušalaim!
Praise YH(WH)!”

While the people are called on by group in vv. 19-20, here in the final verse they are united, being called upon (and speaking) with a single voice.

The locational reference in line 1 (“from Zion”) is problematic, and it is natural that the Qumran manuscript 11QPsa would have a reading that follows Ps 134:3a (cf. also 128:5): “May YHWH bless you from Ṣiyyôn” —a more customary (and expected) form of benediction. Dahood (III, p. 262f) works around the difficulty in the MT by redividing the consonantal text. According to his explanation, the letter m belongs not as a (prepositional, /m!) prefix to the noun /oYx! (Zion), but as an enclitic suffix (<-) to the Divine name (YHWH). The result is a simple construct expression, “YHWH of Ṣiyyôn”, parallel to the expression in the second line (“Dweller of Yerušalaim”, i.e., the One who dwells in Jerusalem [in the Temple sanctuary]).
Dahood notes that, in Ugaritic, an enclitic <– is quite frequent with divine names, such as Baal (b‘l, i.e., b‘l-m).

However, if one wishes or chooses to retain the MT word-division, it may still be possible to explain the locational reference “from Ṣiyyôn”, in terms of the festal orientation of the preceding “Songs of Ascents” collection (Pss 120-134). As in Ps 134, the people are all present in Jerusalem, on the occasion of one of the great pilgrimage festivals; thus, it is here, from Jerusalem—and, particularly, from the elevated/hilltop locale of the Temple (‘mount’ Zion)—that they offer blessing to YHWH. One may also understand the point of reference in relation to the idea that worship of YHWH will proceed forth from Jerusalem out into the surrounding nations (cf. the context of vv. 5-7 and 15-18). In the New Age of Israel’s restoration, the covenantal blessing will go out into the nations, even as promised in the initial covenant YHWH established with Abraham (Gen 18:18; 22:18, etc). In Christian tradition, this blessing (cf. Gal 3:8) was fulfilled through the early Christian mission, which, according to the narrative of Luke Acts, began from Jerusalem on the occasion of one of the great pilgrimage festivals (Weeks/Pentecost, cf. Acts 2).

The Psalm ends as it began, with the traditional call to worship Hy` Wll=h^ (Hal®lû Y¹h), “Praise YH(WH)!”

    • 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 “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 11)

Study 11: The Spirit and the Communication of Jesus’ death to Believers (PAUL)

In this series, we now turn our attention to the role of the Spirit in and among believers—and, in particular, how the power and effect of Jesus’ death/resurrection is communicated to believers through the Spirit. This is a core topic of early Christian theology, but its affirmation and exposition in the New Testament is largely limited to the Pauline and Johannine writings. We begin with the Pauline writings, and with the statements by Paul regarding the communication of Jesus’ death to believers.

This is expressed by Paul in his letters (primarily Galatians and Romans) according to two key themes: (1) freedom from bondage, and (2) participation in the death/resurrection of Jesus as a result of believers’ union with Christ.

1. Freedom from Bondage (to the power of Sin and Death)

According to the Pauline theology, the death (and resurrection) of Jesus resulted in humankind being set free from bondage to the power of sin (and death). Paul expresses or alludes to this theological tenet on a number of occasions, but the main passages where it is stated (and expounded) are Galatians 3-4 and Romans 5-8 (esp. beginning with chap. 6).

In the probatio of Galatians (chaps. 3-4), Paul argues in support of his central proposition, put forward in 2:15-21, regarding the freedom that believers now have in Christ (v. 4). This entails, primarily, freedom from bondage to the power of sin (cf. above, and below on Romans 6-8); but, in Galatians, Paul’s emphasis is on the related (if secondary) aspect of freedom from the Law (that is, the Torah of the Old Covenant, cf. 2 Cor 3:14; Gal 4:24). Paul’s view of the relationship between the Law/Torah and sin—viz., the two aspects of the freedom/bondage theme—is complex (and controversial). He deals with the subject most directly in Galatians 3 (vv. 10-14, 19-20ff) and Romans 7, and I have discussed the matter at some length in the relevant articles of my earlier series “Paul’s View of the Law”. The main point is that, in setting humankind (believers) free from bondage to sin, they/we were also set free from bondage to the Law (that is, the regulations, etc, of the Torah). All of the arguments and illustrations in chaps. 3-4 seek to demonstrate and prove the point—cf. the articles in the aforementioned series on the six arguments of the probatio (3:1-5, 6-14, 15-18ff; 3:26-4:11; 4:12-20, 21-31).

Following these arguments, Paul restates, in a comprehensive way, the declaration regarding Christian freedom: “To freedom (the) Anointed has set us free” (5:1a). That is, Christ has set us free, through his death (and resurrection). Paul does not explain here exactly how this was done, though there are allusions in 2:19-21; 3:10-14, and 3:28-4:7. Like all other New Testament authors, where Paul does attempt to describe it, he utilizes figurative language and vivid illustration. Two examples will serve to demonstrate the Pauline theology in this regard. The first is Paul’s illustration in Romans 7:1-6, and especially the statement in verse 4, considered in comparison with Colossians 2:14f (cf. also Eph 2:14-16):

“you died off to the Law through the body of the Anointed” (Rom 7:4)

Both aspects of the freedom/bondage theme (i.e., freedom from sin/guilt, and freedom from the Law) are similarly in view in Col 2:13-14ff, where the same basic image (viz., the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, cf. Gal 2:19-21) is portrayed more graphically: Christ has made us (i.e., believers) alive together with him (v. 13), graciously removing the guilt of all our sins and transgressions (of the Law), having done this through his death on the cross:

“…he has taken it out of the midst, (hav)ing nailed it to the stake [i.e., cross]” (v. 14)

In Romans 8:3, Paul describes, somewhat allusively, how God, through the death of Christ, freed humankind from bondage to the power of sin:

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

In Romans 5-8, as on other occasions, Paul personifies sin and death, portraying them as wicked rulers, enslaving tyrants who have put all of humankind (and, indeed, all of creation) under bondage. But, through the death of Christ, God has brought judgment against these rulers, effectively removing them from power. In this regard, one is reminded of the Judgment scenes in the famous vision of Daniel 7, where God renders judgment against the wicked rulers of the world, thus bringing an end to their power (vv. 10-11, 22, 26-27).

Believers have therefore been set free from this bondage, as Paul boldly and climactically declares in Rom 8:1-2, just prior to his statement in v. 3:

“So then, there is now no judgment against the (one)s in (the) Anointed Yeshua—for the Law of the Spirit of life in (the) Anointed Yeshua (has) set you free from the law of sin and death!”

This freedom is rooted in the presence and activity of the Spirit, as Paul also makes clear in Gal 5:1ff, and in 2 Cor 3:17. In all of these references, the freedom in the Spirit is contrasted with the binding nature of the Law (Torah) of the old covenant. It is now through the internal authority of the Spirit that believers fulfill the Law of God, not through the external authority of Torah (or any other written code). Yet, in order to avoid sin, and to combat the continuing impulses toward sin that remain in the “flesh”, believers must consciously and intentionally allow themselves to be guided by the Spirit. This does not happen automatically, but, rather, depends upon the willingness of us as believers to submit to the Spirit of God and Christ that dwells within. See esp. Gal 5:16-25 and Rom 8:4ff.

2. Union with Christ: Participation in the Death and Resurrection of Jesus

That believers are united with Christ, through the Spirit, is basic to all Christian theology. However, Paul gives to the tenet a distinctive theological (and spiritual) emphasis, by highlighting the way that believers participate in the death and resurrection of Jesus. This participation is a fundamental aspect of what it means to be “in Christ” (a favorite expression of Paul’s, cf. Gal 3:26, 28; Rom 8:1-2, etc), and is realized through the presence of the Spirit.

The main passages in which Paul expounds this participation doctrine are chapters 6 and 8 of Romans. In so doing, he draws upon the traditional symbolism of the baptism ritual. This is altogether understandable, since the baptism represents the confirmation of the believer’s faith/trust in Christ and the person’s initiation into Christ (i.e., “in Christ”). Moreover, it was typically at the baptism that the Spirit was understood to come upon (and into) the believer; in any case, the ritual symbolized this spiritual union. For the association of the baptism-ritual with the Spirit, and as a symbol of the believer’s union with Christ, see especially Gal 3:27-28ff (cf. 1 Cor 12:13). But in Romans 6, Paul particularly emphasizes believers’ participation in the death and resurrection of Jesus, as a central aspect of this union. As believers, because we are united with Christ, we have been crucified, died, and were buried together with him, and this dynamic, realized and experienced spiritually (through the Spirit), is symbolized by the baptism rite. Paul expounds the baptism-symbolism in vv. 3-11, even as he also makes the connection in Col 2:12ff (cf. above), and implicitly in Gal 3:27-28ff.

The participation aspect is neatly expressed by the sun– prefixed verbs and terms used by Paul in these passages. The preposition su/n in these instances denotes “together with”, and thus indicates that believers experience these things (i.e., the death and resurrection of Jesus) together with him. The experience is not limited to the single physical/historical event; instead, through the Spirit, the experience is timeless and eternal. Perhaps the most striking use of this sun-terminology is in Galatians 2:19f, where Paul uses the extremely rare verb sustauro/w (su/n + stauro/w), “put to the stake [i.e., crucify] together with”. The same verb is used again in Rom 6:6, along with the other related terms:

    • Vb sunta/fw (“bury together with”), v. 4 (cf. also Col 2:12)
    • Adj su/mfuto$, denoting something “planted together with”, v. 5
    • Phrase “died off together with [su/n] Christ”, v. 8
    • Vb suza/w, “live together with”, v. 8

There is an even more extensive use of such terminology in chapter 8, in which the same participation theme is expounded and developed further (vv. 1ff, 9-11ff, 16-17, 23ff, 28-30). Since the focus in chap. 8 is on the resurrection (and future exaltation) of believers, we shall save a detailed discussion on the for the upcoming study (that deals with the communication of the resurrection to believers). However, in advance, we may note the following sun-terms:

    • Vb summarture/w, “give witness together with”, v. 16 (note that it is the Spirit who gives witness together with believers)
    • Noun sugklhrono/mo$, denoting one who receives the lot (i.e., inherits) together with another (i.e., co-heir), v. 17
    • Vb sumpa/sxw, “suffer together with”, v. 17
    • Vb sundoca/zw, “be honored/esteemed together with”, v. 17
    • Vb sustena/zw, “groan together with”, v. 22
    • Vb sunwdi/nw, “be in pain together with”, v. 22
    • Vb sunantilamba/nomai, “take hold together with”, v. 26 (again, the Spirit is the subject)
    • Vb sunerge/w, “work together with”, v. 28
    • Adj summorfo/$, denoting one who is “formed together with” another, v. 29

In my view, Paul takes this participation idea seriously. It is not simply figurative language; rather, believers genuinely die (and are buried), even if this death occurs at the level of the Spirit, rather in an ordinary physical sense. As the illustration in 7:1-5 makes clear, believers are set free (particularly from the Law/Torah of the Old Covenant) precisely because they/we have died. Moreover, in a similar way, our death frees us from bondage to the power of sin; it is the “old self”, the old human nature enslaved to the power of sin, that has died. At the same time, our participation in the death of Christ allows us to enjoy the benefits of what that death accomplished, in terms of removing sin from power and ending its enslaving reign (see the discussion above on 8:3). Sin no longer holds any power over believers, even as the Law of the old covenant no longer has any binding authority. The authority rests now with the internal presence of the Spirit.

And yet, in a sense, this freedom, while essential and fundamental, is not absolute. That is, believers must still struggle with two vestigial aspects of the ‘old nature’: (i) an impulse toward sin that remains in the ‘flesh’, and (ii) believers remain mortal and subject to the power of death. We will be completely set free from these only with the end-time resurrection, when our participation in the death and resurrection of Jesus is realized in full. The main point emphasized by Paul is that we as believers are no longer enslaved to the power of sin—in that sense, we are truly free, and this freedom was effected for us by the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, and we now share in the power of that death through the Spirit. It is, indeed, through the Spirit that our participation in the death and resurrection of Christ is realized.

This, at any rate, his how the matter is presented and described by the inspired witness of Paul in his letters (esp. Galatians and Romans). Before proceeding to examine the Pauline view of the communication of the resurrection to believers, we shall, in the next study, turn to the Johannine writings, to see how the Gospel (and Letters) of John understand the Spirit’s role in the communication of Christ’s death to believers.

“God Sent Forth His Son…”: Philippians 2:6-11 (Part 1)

Philippians 2:6-11

The next article in this series will look at the so-called Christ-hymn of Philippians 2:6-11. The designation ‘Christ-hymn’ reflects a general scholarly consensus (with few exceptions) regarding this passage, whereby its poetic and hymnic features are recognized. The poetic analysis can be traced back to at least the end of the 19th century (with the work of Johannine Weiss), and has continued throughout the decades until the present day. The identification of Phil 2:6-11 as an early Christian hymn owes much to the landmark study by Ernest Lohmeyer in 1928 (Kyrios Jesus: Eine Untersuchung zu Phil. 2,5-11), and it is only in recent decades that this theory has begun to be seriously questioned by a number of scholars. It remains the majority view, however, and even more skeptically-minded commentators tend to follow it.

In using the designation ‘Christ-hymn’ there are three basic features and criteria which are understood:

    • The passage has a poetic, hymn-like structure, comprised of verses and stanzas
    • It contains a confessional formula or statement of belief that is Christological in nature—viz., regarding what early Christians believed about the person of Christ, who he is and what he did (or what God the Father did through him)
    • It had a liturgical use and purpose, utilized within the context of a communal worship setting.

The last of these three criteria is the most doubtful and speculative.

Along with the basic critical theory that identifies Phil 2:6-11 as a hymn, there has been considerable discussion and debate among commentators as to whether Paul was the author of this hymn, or whether he utilized and adapted an existing hymn which others may have composed. Scholars are somewhat divided on the question, which is approached on the basis of: (1) the poetic style and structure of the hymn, (2) the language and vocabulary, and (3) the theological points of emphasis. Sound arguments for and against Pauline authorship have been put forward, and you will find a detailed presentation of them in Ralph P. Martin, Carmen Christi: Philippians 2:5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of early Christian Worship, Revised Edition (Eerdmans: 1983), pp. 42-62. With regard to the vocabulary and theological emphases, I find the arguments for non-Pauline authorship much stronger in the case of Rom 1:3-4 (cf. the earlier article in this series) than that of Phil 2:6-11. While it is certainly possible that Paul adapted an existing (non-Pauline) hymn, he could just as well have composed the passage himself. If he did adapt an existing work, then at least two points must be admitted: (i) it was adapted in such a way as to be accord with much of Paul’s own language and style, and (ii) Paul was himself in basic agreement with its theology (and Christology).

I have previously examined all of the New Testament passages which can reasonably be regarded as ‘Christ-hymns’, including a set of notes on Phil 2:6-11. Furthermore, my intention is to embark on an even more detailed series of exegetical notes on the passage in the coming weeks. Thus, I will not be engaging in that level of exegesis here in this article. Rather, I will focus on key questions and issues regarding the twin Christological tenets of the pre-existence and incarnation of Christ—the evidence for these in Phil 2:6-11, and the manner in which they are expressed.

Throughout the history of interpretation, most commentators have accepted (or assumed) that both of these Christological tenets—Divine pre-existence and incarnation—are present in the hymn (esp. verses 6-8). However, increasingly there have been a number of commentators in recent decades who would have argued that the idea of Divine pre-existence (and incarnation) is not (or is not necessarily) present at all. The most common view in this regard is one which explains vv. 6-8 in terms of an Adam-Christ paradigm, of the sort which Paul utilizes in 1 Corinthians 15 (vv. 22ff, 45-49) and Romans 5-8 (esp. 5:12-21). According to this line of interpretation, verse 6 does not refer to Christ’s Divine pre-existence, but to the fulfillment of his role as the “second Adam”. Thus, for example, to speak of Christ being “in the form [morfh/] of God” is just another way of referring to Adam (i.e., humankind originally) as having been created “in the image [ei)kw/n, Heb <l#x#] of God” (Gen 1:26). Similarly, the idea of possessing “equality [lit. being equal, ei@nai i&sa] to God”, and of this as something one might ‘seize’ or ‘hold onto’ (i.e., a(rpagmo/$), is to be understood as an allusion to Gen 3 (vv. 5, 22), along with the use of tWmD= in Gen 1:26. Whereas the first Adam lost his likeness/equality to God through disobedience, the second Adam (Christ) gave it up willingly (v. 7), in an act of obedience to God (v. 8).

However, as I indicated, most commentators still understand vv. 6-8 as referring both to Divine pre-existence and incarnation. Yet, even when this is accepted, there is still some uncertainty as to the force of the particular idea of pre-existence and what it entails. There are four lines of interpretation which may be considered:

    • A heavenly Adam, corresponding to the earthly Adam of history and religious-cultural tradition (cf. 1 Cor 15:47-49); this would represent a variation of the Adam-Christ typology (see above), following upon certain strands of Jewish mystical and philosophical tradition.
    • A heavenly being (Angel, etc), without any reference to an Adam-tradition; cf. the “Son of Man” tradition(s) in Judaism and early Christianity.
    • The pre-existent (personal/personified) Wisdom of God—cf. Proverbs 8 (vv. 22-31) and subsequent Jewish tradition.
    • The Son of God (cf. Gal 4:4; Rom 8:3, etc), without necessarily a specific connection with the Divine Wisdom.

While Paul may well have had an Adam-Christ paradigm and/or a rudimentary Wisdom-Christology in view—since there is evidence for both of these elsewhere in his letters—I would argue that principal in Paul’s mind (via the hymn) is Jesus as the exalted Son of God (in accordance with Christ’s position and status following the resurrection). The parallelism of the two halves of the hymn more or less confirms this Christological orientation.

In this article, I wish to treat the matter from two vantage points: (1) the concentric-chiastic structure of the hymn (as touched on above), and (2) the specific wording used in the first half of the hymn (vv. 6-8), where the ideas of pre-existence and incarnation are most relevant and prominent.

1. The Structure of the Hymn

Virtually all scholars recognize the basic division of the hymn into two parts—verses 6-8 and 9-11—which are more or less equally balanced, and which mirror each other in theme and concept. Indeed, one of the great beauties of the hymn is the way that the poetic structure of the hymn matches its theological (Christological) narrative.

Verses 6-8 describe the lowering of Jesus from an exalted heavenly place alongside God the Father, while vv. 9-11 correspondingly describe the exaltation, the raising of him back to heaven. This may be framed as a chiastic outline—moving from divine/heavenly (pre-)existence, and then back to an exalted status (as God/Lord) in heaven:

    • God sends his Son from him (i.e. from heaven)
      • to be born (lit. come to be) of a woman (Gal 4:4)
        • into the suffering/slavery of the human condition (v. 7a)
        • suffering/death on the cross (v. 8)
      • through the resurrection, Jesus is “born” (i.e. firstborn of the dead)
    • God exalts him to heaven, at his right hand, as Son of God (cf. Ps 2:7 / Acts 13:32-33) and Lord

This same sequence is indicated, in simpler form, by the four main aorist verbs that guide the syntax of the passage:

    • e)ke/nwsen (“he [Jesus] emptied [himself]”)—his ‘departure’ from heaven and birth/incarnation as a human being
    • e)tapei/nwsen (“he lowered [himself]”)—his suffering and death
    • u(peru/ywsen (“[God] lifted [him] high”)—Jesus’ resurrection and ascension/exaltation
    • e)xari/sato (“[God himself] showed favor [to him]”)—”with the name over every name”, as Lord and (Son of) God in heaven

Commentators have differing views on how best to delineate the poetic structure of the hymn. The main point, however, is that the two halves mirror each other conceptually, so that the lowering of Christ (“he lowered himself” [e(auto\n e)ke/nwsen], v. 8) is matched by the exalting of him by God (“He lifted him high” [au)to\n u(peru/ywsen], v. 9). Thus, the incarnation of Christ, culminating in his death, is parallel to his exaltation (after his resurrection); and, to extend the mirror-pattern, the exalted/heavenly state of the pre-existent Christ is parallel to that of the resurrected Christ.

It is easy to see how this chiastic paradigm came about. Beginning with the Gospel narrative of the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus, which forms the basis of the early exaltation-Christology, this narrative was enhanced and expanded to incorporate the developing pre-existence Christology (an early form of which is found here in the hymn). The pre-existence of Christ was explained in relation to the exaltation-Christology, and according to the conceptual and narrative pattern of that Christology. Prior to his incarnation, at the very beginning, Christ had an exalted and Divine status/position (with God) which corresponded to the status/position (at God’s “right hand”) he held following the resurrection. The two ‘states’ are similar (and comparable), even if they are described with different wording and terminology in the hymn.

2. The Wording Used in Verses 6-8

The references to the Divine pre-existence and the incarnation of Christ in the first half of the hymn (vv. 6-8) would seem to be relatively clear, and yet the specific wording that Paul (and/or the author of the hymn) uses to express these ideas is difficult and challenging. The hymnic nature of the passage itself is the primary cause of the difficulty, since complex and multifaceted theological concepts are being referenced with the utmost poetic concision—using just a short phrase or single expression. Sometimes the interpretive problem hinges on the meaning of a single word, used in context. Determining the precise meaning has proven difficult indeed, and disagreements remain among commentators and theologians regarding the best way to understand (and translate) the wording of the hymn in these verses.

Here are the key phrases and expressions (concentrated in vv. 6-7):

    • e)n morfh=| qeou= (“in [the] form [morfh/] of God”)
    • a(rpagmo\n h(gh/sato, in the context of:
      to\ ei@nai i&sa qew=| (“[the] being equal to God”)
    • e(auto\n e)ke/nwsen (“he emptied himself”)
    • the three nouns morfh/, o(moi/wma, and sxh=ma in sequence—all referring to the human existence and condition of Jesus

The first two phrases/expressions (v. 6) relate to the idea of Christ’s Divine pre-existence, while the last two (v. 7) relate to the incarnation.

The best place to begin is with the use of the noun morfh/, since it occurs in both v. 6 and 7; it thus would seem to provide a key to the hymn’s understanding of the Divine pre-existence and incarnation of Christ. The centrality of the terminology is, I think, confirmed by the fact that morfh/ is used in parallel expressions:

    • morfh\ qeou= (“form of God”)
    • morfh\ dou/lou (“form of a slave”)

The parallelism extends to the specific phrase used in each case, a phrase that is normative (and definitive) for describing the pre-existent and incarnate states, respectively, of Jesus Christ:

    • e)n morfh=| qeou= u(pa/rxwn (“be[ginn]ing in [the] form of God”)
    • morfh\n doulou= labw/n (“[hav]ing taken [the] form of a slave”)

The noun morfh/ means “form, shape”, in the sense of the visible appearance of something. Rather surprisingly, the two occurrences here in vv. 6-7 are the only occurrences in the entire New Testament (apart from Mark [16:12]). The idea of the visible appearance of God suggests the traditional-theological use of the noun do/ca (corresponding to Hebrew dobK*), in the specific sense of the Divine splendor that surrounds God (as described in theophany-visions). And, indeed, this basic sense of the terminology would seem to be confirmed by the parallel in verse 11, with the closing expression “unto the do/ca of God the Father”. In terms of the mirrored-chiastic parallelism of the hymn (cf. above), the expressions morfh\ qeou (“form of God”) and do/ca qeou= (“splendor of God”) are certainly parallel, the hymn’s final expression corresponding to its first. The latter expression alludes to the Divine splendor possessed by the exalted Christ (following his resurrection), and thus the former must carry a similar/comparable meaning for the pre-existent Christ.

Therefore, we may fairly explain the hymn’s (and Paul’s) use of the expression “in the form of God” (e)n morfh=| qeou=) as referring to an exalted Divine/heavenly state in which Christ existed at the beginning. The verb u(pa/rxw literally means “begin under” —that is, begin in a certain position or condition, though it can also carry the existential meaning “begin to be” (i.e., begin to exist). This existential meaning was generalized so that, quite often, the verb simply means “to be”, comparable to the verb of being (ei)mi). It is best, I think, to retain here the more precise and specific meaning of beginning under (i.e., in) a particular state or condition (viz., that of the exalted “form” of God).

The parallel with the expression in verse 7 (“form of a slave” [morfh\ dou/lou]) emphasizes the specific aspect of status and position. At the beginning, Christ held an exalted status and position alongside God; but then, after he “emptied himself”, he took on (vb lamba/nw, “take”) the status and position of a lowly slave. This designation of a “slave” (dou=lo$), coming at the start of the description in verse 7, essentially summarizes the human condition (“form of a slave”) of the incarnate Christ. Yet it does not refer only to his humanity in general terms; rather, it also signifies the culmination of Jesus’ human life (and his earthly mission)—viz., his death on the cross (v. 8). The “emptying” (vb keno/w) mentioned in verse 7 is paralleled by the “lowering” (vb tapeino/w) in verse 8. These two actions must be taken in tandem, even if they also signify distinct ‘stages’ in the incarnate existence of the Son (Christ)—i.e., the initial incarnation/birth as a human being, with the beginning of his earthly life and ministry (v. 7), followed by the completion of that life/ministry with his sacrificial death (v. 8).

In Parts 2 and 3 of this article, we will proceed to examine the remaining key words, expressions, and phrases in vv. 6-8. Then, we will conclude by comparing the Christ-hymn with Paul’s earlier references to the pre-existence and incarnation (discussed in the prior articles of this series).

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 135 (Part 1)

Psalm 135

Dead Sea MSS: 11QPsa (vv. 1-7, 9, 17-21); 4QPsk (vv. 6-8, 10-13, 15-16); 4QPsn (vv. 6-8, 11-12)

This Psalm is fundamentally a confessional hymn of praise to YHWH. It has a chiastic-concentric structure (see below) centered on the recitation of YHWH’s role in the formative history of His people Israel (vv. 8-12). In this regard, it is closely aligned with the following Psalm 136; and, indeed, it is quite possible that the composition is dependent upon Ps 136 (along with other established Psalms, cf. the discussion below).

Nearly all commentators have noted the striking intertextuality of Psalm 135, with its many apparent references to other Scripture texts (including many other Psalms). These are conveniently summarized by Allen (pp. 287-8) and Hossfeld-Zenger (pp. 494-5), and the individual parallels are discussed here in the exegetical notes. When faced with such resemblances, it is often difficult to determine whether a particular Psalm is drawing upon a common store of traditions or is specifically citing written texts; but here the evidence would seem to favor a literary dependence. In particular, our author likely was familiar with both the Hallel collection (Pss 113-118) and the Songs of Ascents (Pss 120-134), as well as Psalm 136. One may conclude that Psalm 135 was written later than these Psalms, sometime during the post-exilic period; a date of composition during the 5th or 4th century B.C. seems probable (cf. the discussion by Hossfeld-Zenger, pp. 495-6). The liturgical orientation, especially of the framing verses (vv. 1-2ff, 19-21), which resembles that of Ps 134:1/113:1 and 115:12-13, respectively, has been attributed to a priestly authorship—possibly originating with a group of Levitical Temple-singers, who, as Hossfeld-Zenger theorize (p. 496)—

like their Asaphite “predecessors,” intended to link the canonical history of Israel’s origins to the theology of Zion… . It accords also with this historical-theological dimension that Psalm 135 repeatedly…adapts the Passover Hallel, Psalms 113–118 (also combined by Temple singers…). In particular, Psalms 135–136 take up the polemic against foreign gods, that is, the monotheistic position of Psalms 115 and 118, and invite the nations of the world…to join Israel in praising YHWH in Psalms 114 and 117—as explicitly happens within the composition of Psalms 113–118.

As noted above, there is a rather clear chiastic-concentric structure to the Psalm. Principally, it is comprised of a central confessional praise-hymn to YHWH (vv. 3-18), which is bracketed by an opening call to worship (vv. 1-2) and a closing benediction (vv. 19-21). The benediction does not involve an invocation of blessing upon the people, but, rather, echoes the call to worship, exhorting the people to bless YHWH. The hymn is further divided into three main sections—vv. 3-7, 8-12, and 13-18. The central section is the historical summary of vv. 8-12, while the flanking sections each involve: (i) praise to the name of YHWH, affirming His covenant bond with His people (vv. 3-4, 13-14), and (ii) a declaration of the greatness and incomparability of YHWH, who is not to be compared with the weak/false gods of the nations (vv. 5-7, 15-18). This yields the following structural outline:

    • Call for the people to praise YHWH, in a festal Temple setting (vv. 1-2)
      • Praise for the name of YHWH, affirming His covenant bond with Israel (vv. 3-4)
      • Declaration of the greatness and incomparability of YHWH (vv. 5-7)
        • YHWH’s greatness and power manifest in the formative history of Israel (vv. 8-12)
      • Praise for the name of YHWH, affirming His covenant bond with Israel (vv. 13-14)
      • The incomparability of YHWH [vs. the gods of the nations] (vv. 15-18)
    • Call for the people to bless YHWH, in a Temple setting [Zion] (vv. 19-21)

This thematic structure is matched by the metrical patterns in the Psalm. The opening and closing calls to worship generally utilize a 3-beat couplet pattern, as do the praise units of vv. 3-4 and 13-14. By comparison, the sections emphasizing the greatness and incomparability of YHWH (vv. 5-7, 15-18) predominantly follow a 4-beat (or 4+3) meter. The central historical section is particularly distinctive, with 3-beat couplets (3+3) alternating with tricola (3+2+3, and 3+3+3).

Psalm 135 is reasonably well-preserved in three different Qumran manuscripts (11QPsa, 4QPsk,n). These contain a number of variant readings; but, perhaps even more interesting is the different ordering of the Psalms in these manuscripts. In 11QPsa, Psalm 135 follows Ps 119; in 4QPsk, it is followed by a Psalm that is no longer preserved, and then by Ps 99; while in 4QPsn, verse 12 of Ps 135 is immediately followed by Ps 136:23-26.

Call to Worship: Verses 1-2

Verse 1

“Praise YH(WH)!
Give praise to (the) name of YHWH!
Give praise, (you) servants of YHWH—”

The Psalm both begins and ends with the traditional call to worship Hy` Wll=h^ (Hal®lû Y¹h), “Praise YH(WH)!” As noted above, this call to praise YHWH resembles the opening of Ps 134 (v. 1, cf. the previous study). Even more precise are the same three lines (but in different order) as they occur in Ps 113:1 (the beginning of the Hallel collection); curiously, the order is different again in the Qumran manuscript 11QPsa (cf. above) of v. 1, with the lines occurring in an inversed order. The order in 113:1, with the vocative in the first line, is more customary, but there are instances where this emphasis is reversed, as in Ps 96:1 (cf. Watson, p. 358).

The name of YHWH is emphasized in the following unit (vv. 3-4, parallel with vv. 13-14), and this emphasis is theologically significant, both in terms of YHWH’s covenant bond with His people, and the ritual-religious focus of worship (for the people) in Jerusalem (Zion) at the Temple sanctuary. It is in the Temple sanctuary that YHWH has His manifest dwelling (symbolically and ritually) among His people. Specifically, it is His name that dwells in Zion, a point that is given particular emphasis within the Deuteronomic theology (see esp. the references in the Prayer of Solomon, at the dedication of the Temple, 1 Kings 8). From the standpoint of ancient Near Eastern thought, the name of a person represents and embodies the person him/herself. Thus, in religious-theological terms, the presence of God’s name means the presence of God Himself; it is so for any invocation or praise of YHWH’s name, as we see here—the praise is directed toward YHWH Himself.

The faithful/devout ones among YHWH’s people are designated as the servants (<yd!b*u&) of YHWH. As discussed in the previous study, some commentators would limit this terminology in Psalm 134 to the priests and Levites (i.e., those who officiate and serve in the Temple), while here it is clearly more inclusive, as the parallel in vv. 19-21 indicates. I am inclined to think that the point of reference in Ps 134 is similarly inclusive—referring to all the people, the congregation of the faithful, who devoutly gather for worship in Jerusalem (on occasion of the great festivals).
Dahood (III, pp. 254, 259), both here and in Ps 134:1, would repoint MT yd@b=u^ (“workers [i.e., servants] of”) as yd@b*u& (“works of”), making it a reference to all of creation (including human beings); however, few commentators have followed him in this.

Verse 2

“(you) who (are) standing in (the) house of YHWH,
in (the) courts of (the) house of our Mighty (One)!”

This second couplet (3+3 meter, as in v. 1), continues the thought from the previous line (1c). The first line also occurs in 134:1, as does the second line (at least in the LXX), but the LXX reading is generally regarded as a harmonizing addition based on 135:2b. In any case, the reference to the “courtyards” (rx@j*, plur.) of the Temple (“house of YHWH/God”), allows for the inclusion of all the people that might be worshiping within the Temple precincts. By comparison, the description in the first line of those “standing in the house of YHWH” could be taken as a limiting reference to the priests and Temple personnel (i.e., Levitical singers, guards, and other servants). It is clear from vv. 19-21 that the Psalmist here has all of the people—the entire congregation of the faithful—in view (as, I believe, the author of Ps 134 also does).

The Qumran mansucript 11QPsa includes additional phrases at the beginning and end of the verse:

“and lift high YH(WH),
(you) who (are) standing in (the) house of YHWH,
in (the) courts of (the) house of our Mighty (One),
even in (the) midst of you, O Yerušalaim!”

Hymn Section 1: Verses 3-7

Praise to the Name of YHWH (vv. 3-4)
Verse 3

“Praise YH—for (truly) YHWH (is) good!
Sing to His name—how pleasant (it is)!”

While many commentators include vv. 3-4 as part of the opening call to worship, I feel that it is better regarded as the beginning of the hymn of praise (covering vv. 3-18). Certainly, the repetition of the Hy` Wll=h^ (Hal®lû Y¹h) indicates that the Psalmist is still calling on the people to praise YHWH, but now this call is incorporated, structurally and poetically (cf. the outline above), into the hymn itself. As noted above, the name of YHWH represents and embodies YHWH Himself, and thus the terminology can be used interchangeably. However, there is a specific theological point that is being emphasized here by reference to the “name” (<v@) of YHWH—that is, the covenant bond between YHWH and His people. The “goodness” (bof, “good”) of YHWH is an all-encompassing attribute and characteristic that certainly includes His faithfulness and loyalty to the covenant—an aspect that is more commonly expressed by the term ds#j# (“goodness, kindness”).

The declaration that one should praise YHWH because (yK!) He is good reflects a basic religious and theological outlook; however, the phrasing used here also echoes the specific wording from earlier Psalms (118:1, 29; 136:1, 26; cf. also 107:1). Meanwhile, the pairing of the adjectives bof (“good”) and <yu!n` (“pleasant, delightful”) occurred in Ps 133:1 (cf. also 147:1).

For stylistic variation, I have rendered the particle yK! differently in line 2, as an emphatic (“how…!”), rather than explicative (“for, because”).

The Qumran manuscript 11QPsa contains a slight textual variant in v. 3, omitting the preposition l that prefixes wmv (“His name”) in the MT. This could mean that the Psalmist is specifically calling on the people to sing (recite) the actual name of YHWH, rather that singing to His name (i.e., praise to YHWH). 

Verse 4

“For Ya‘aqob He chose for Him(self),
(did) YH(WH),
Yisrael for His (very own) property.”

This second couplet expands upon the name and goodness motifs introduced in v. 3, interpreting and applying them specifically in the context of YHWH’s covenant bond with His people Israel. The bond is defined here in the traditional terms of (i) YHWH’s choice (vb rj^B*) of Israel, and (ii) Israel as His personal (and prized) possession (or property, hL*g%s=). The name-motif applies to both of these aspects, since the presence of the owner’s name is a mark of his possession/property (i.e., what belongs to him). The verb rj^B* (“choose, make a choice of/on”) is used regularly throughout the Scriptures in this particular religious context, however the noun hL*g%s= occurs more rarely—the key references being Exod 19:5; Deut 7:6; 14:2; 26:18, and Mal 3:17.

Metrically, verse 4 is a 3+3 couplet; however, to highlight the parallelism of the lines, and the centrality of the reference to the Divine name (YH[WH]), I have displayed the verse in translation chiastically, as a triad.

Praise to the Greatness of YHWH (vv. 5-7)
Verse 5

“Indeed, I acknowledge how great YHWH (is),
even our Lord, from all (the) mighty (one)s:”

The confessional aspect of the hymn comes clearly to the fore here in this next unit, as the Psalmist acknowledges the incomparable greatness (lodG`, adj. “great”) of YHWH. The common verb ud^y` (“know”) is best translated here as “acknowledge”, in keeping with the confessional orientation. The repeated use of the particle yK! (cf. above in vv. 3-4) creates a challenge for translators, since different possibilities of nuance may be intended. I treat the initial yK! at the beginning of line 1 as emphatic (“Indeed…”), as is appropriate for the opening of the section. The second yK! in the line (rendered “how”) is also emphatic, but with a comparative nuance that anticipates the comparison in the second line.

The point being made in the second line is two-fold. First, the Psalmist acknowledges that YHWH is Israel’s Lord (/oda*), reflecting the covenant-bond theme introduced in vv. 3-4: as YHWH chose Israel to be His people, so He is their God (and Lord). The double-suffixed form of the noun /oda* (“our my Lord”) may seem peculiar, but it simply represents the well-established use of the suffixed yn`oda& (“my Lord”, Adonai) as a way of expressing the Divine name (YHWH). Cf. my earlier article on the noun /oda* as a Divine title. The standard title “Mightiest (One)” (<yh!l)a$, i.e., ‘God’) is not used here (“our Mighty [One]”, i.e., ‘our God’, v. 2b), because that plural noun is used for a different purpose in line 2. However, the Qumran manuscript 11QPsa does read “our Mighty [One]” (‘our God’), instead of “our Lord”.

The second point is that YHWH’s greatness is distinct from all other deities—that is, the gods acknowledged and worshiped by the other nations. In this context, the plural noun <yh!l)a$ is used here as a true (numerical) plural, “mighty (one)s” (i.e., gods), rather than as an intensive or comprehensive plural (i.e., YHWH as the “Mightiest [One]”). The distinction between YHWH (“our Lord”) and all other deities is made here by way of comparison, using the preposition /m! (“from”) in a comparative sense. I have retained the basic meaning of “from” (i.e., YHWH as distinct from all other deities), and yet the comparative aspect is certainly present as well (i.e., “greater than”). Indeed, YHWH’s greatness is incomparable, and the Psalmist gives important reasons why in the verses that follow.

This verse does not deny the existence of other deities, declaring only that YHWH is far greater and more powerful than they. In itself it is not a statement of absolute monotheism, but, as in much of the Scriptural tradition, of a qualified monotheism—emphasizing that all other deities are inferior and subordinate to YHWH (cf. Exod 18:11; Psalm 95:3). The Israelite Yahwistic religion was also strictly monolatrous (i.e., worship of only one God), at least in its ideal and prescribed form (Exod 20:3f, etc), and that point is certainly expressed and implied here. At the same time, in the parallel section of vv. 15-18, we find the suggestion that the deities worshiped by the nations are merely represented by their idol-images and have no real existence of their own. Thus, the apparently stricter monotheism of vv. 15-18 must be included along with vv. 5ff in order to understand properly the theology of the Psalmist.

Verse 6

“All that YHWH desires (to do), He does—
in the heavens and in the earth,
in the seas and in all (the) depths—”

The incomparable greatness of YHWH (v. 5) is explained here in vv. 6-7 in terms of His identity and role as the Creator, with absolute power and authority (and control) over the entire universe (“the heavens and the earth”, line 2). The initial line, expressing that everything YHWH desires (or takes delight, favors, vb Jp^j*) to do, He does, may be an allusion to Ps 115:3. The parallelism of “seas” / “depths” should probably be understood in terms of the broader cosmological dualism of “heavens” / “earth”. According to this paradigm, the “depths” refer to the regions of the lower half of the cosmos (“earth”), i.e., below the surface of the earth. The “seas”, by contrast, must allude to the upper half (“heavens”)—that is, to the waters of the atmosphere (and from above) that come down in the form of rain, etc. The focus in v. 7 would seem to confirm this point of reference.

While verse 5 was a 4+3 couplet, verses 6 and 7 are both distinctive 4+3+3 tricola.

The Qumran manuscript 11QPsa has a significantly more expansive text for verse 6; in between the second and third lines, there is the following:

“…(even) to do as He does—
there is none like YH[WH],
there is none like YHWH,
and none who does
like (the) King of (the) mighty (one)s”

Verse 7

“bringing up (the) billows from (the) end of the earth,
(lightning) flashes for the rain He makes,
bringing forth (the) wind from His storerooms!”

The Creator YHWH’s control over the universe (“heaven and earth”, v. 6) is described dramatically here in verse 7—particularly His control over the waters of the heavens (and below on the earth), and related weather phenomena (lightning, wind, etc), which are manifested in the rain-storm. In a sense, the cosmological parallelism from verse 6 continues here: heavens—earth | seas—depths | billows—rain. The rising billows (of mist and clouds) are “brought up” (vb hl*u*, Hiphil) by YHWH from the “end(s) of the earth”, and, as a result the rain-storm comes down from the heavens; the latter (rain-storm) is only mentioned indirectly, in connection with the related phenomena of flashes of lightning and the release (vb ax*y`, Hiphil, “bring forth”) of wind.

Metrically, verse 7 is a 4+3+3 tricolon, but conceptually and syntactically it takes the form of a chiastic triad:

    • “bringing up billows from the end of the earth
      • lightning flashes for the rain He makes
    • bringing forth the wind from His storerooms”

The use of the colorful term “storerooms” (rx*oa, plur.) evokes YHWH’s control over the heavens and the storms, etc; the powerful winds are neatly tucked away in the storerooms of His Divine palace, until the moment He chooses to release them. This sort of imagery, reflecting the ancient Near Eastern cosmological-mythic storm theophany—specifically applied to YHWH—is relatively common in the Psalms and elsewhere in early Hebrew poetry; for the cosmological-mythic background, cf. my article on “The Conflict with the Sea in Ancient Near Eastern Myth”. However, the wording used here would seem to be drawn specifically from Jeremiah 10:13 and 51:16. The context of those prophetic passages is certainly similar, and appropriate—contrasting YHWH with the false/inferior gods of the nations.

The remainder of the Psalm will be discussed in Part 2 of this study.

    • References marked “Dahood, I”, “Dahood, II” and “Dahood, III” above are to, respectively, Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Psalms I: 1-50, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 16 (1965), Psalms II: 51-100, vol. 17 (1968), and Psalms III: 101-150, vol. 17A (1970).
    • 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 “Watson” are to Wilfred G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament [JSOT] Supplement Series 26 (JSOT Press: 1984, 1986).