Month: July 2025

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 139 (Part 2)

Psalm 139, continued

For the introduction to the Psalm, and a discussion of the first stanza (vv. 1-6), see Part 1 of this study.

Stanza 2: Verses 7-12

Verse 7

“Where could I go (away) from your spirit?
Indeed, where from your face can I get away?”

As discussed in the introduction (Part 1), the inner stanzas (2 and 3) represent an expository development (influenced by Wisdom-traditions) on the theme established in stanza 1—namely, YHWH’s all-seeing ‘eye’ (cf. Ps 11:4f; Jer 16:17; Heb 4:13) and ever-present awareness. YHWH knows all things, and, in particular, He is fully aware of everything the protagonist thinks and does—his conduct each day, as well as the purpose and intention of his heart. Even from far off (in heaven, v. 2b), God can see all things involving human beings on earth (cf. 138:6, discussed in the prior study); and, especially, He takes cognizance of the righteous/faithful ones among His people. This theme is developed with rhetorical (and poetic) flourish, setting up a hypothetical scenario: supposing that a person, like himself, wanted to get away from YHWH’s presence, so that God would not be able see him and know what he is doing.

The second line (parallel with the first) makes clear that the “going” (vb El^h*) suggested by the protagonist means getting away from YHWH; the verb jr^B* means “get away” (i.e., “run away, flee, escape”). The presence of YHWH is indicated in traditional theological terms—viz., of His “spirit” (j^Wr, which can also mean “breath”) and His “face” (<yn]P*), the latter noun from a root denoting “turn toward” (i.e., so as to face someone or something). YHWH’s face, like His eyes, turns everywhere—so that He can look on all things, seeing all things. One is reminded of the famous dictum from the Qur’an (2:115): “Whichever way you turn, there is the face of God” —a statement which affirms for Muslims the omnipresence and omniscience of God, even as Psalm 139:7-12 does for Jews and Christians. A more direct (Scriptural) parallel is found in Jeremiah 23:24, which likewise emphasizes the impossibility of a human being getting away (i.e., hiding) from God; the same point is illustrated dramatically in the Jonah tale (1:3ff).

I treat the initial w-conjunction in the second line as emphatic (“indeed…”); however, note the copulative use of the –w in the verses that follow.

Verse 8

“If I should ascend (to the) heavens, there you (are)!
And if I make my spread (in) Še’ôl, see—you (are there)!”

The point made in verse 7 is illustrated here in vivid and colorful fashion, focusing on the extremities of the cosmos: the heights of the heavens above, and the depths of loav= (Še’ôl, Sheol) below. The noun loav= (the derivation of which remains uncertain) is used (especially in poetry) to designate the realm of the dead, traditionally viewed as being located far beneath the surface of the earth (i.e., the underworld). See my earlier note on “Sheol”. Even if a person were to go up into the heavens above, in an attempt to get away (and hide) from YHWH, or down into Sheol below, it would all be in vain—YHWH would still be present there. This illustration appears to have been well-established and part of the proverbial language of Wisdom, judging by the parallel in the Amarna Letters (EA 264, lines 15-19) [addressing the Egyptian king]:

“Should we go up into the sky [ša-me-ma], or should we go down into the netherworld, our head is in your hand.” (translation, W. L. Moran)

This parallel has been noted by earlier commentators (e.g., Danell, p. 28; Dahood, III, p. 289). See also Amos 9:2, where the idiom and the thought is even closer to verse 8 here.

The verbs used here are both rare and appear to be the result of Aramaic influence (and thus suggest a relatively late [exilic or post-exilic] date for the Psalm, cf. the introduction [Part 1]; however, it should be noted that qls occurs already in the 8th century Sefire inscription, see Holman, p. 51). In line 1, the verb ql^s* (“go up, ascend”) is used, rather than the common Hebrew verb hl*u*. This verb (ql^s*) occurs only here in the Scriptures, but is otherwise attested in Aramaic (and the cognate salaqa II in Arabic). In the inflected form qS^a#, the medial consonant l has been assimilated. The verb in the second line, ux^y`, is also rather rare, occurring elsewhere only in Isa 14:11; 58:5, and Esther 4:3, though the root is also attested in the locative noun ux*m^ (Isa 28:20) and the related u^Wxy` and u^yx!y`. The root uxy denotes laying or spreading out a cover, as for a bed (or couch, etc); here it implies a place where one might spend the night or reside (cf. the parallel use of the verb /k^v*, “dwell” in v. 9, below). By lodging in the depths of Sheol, one might naturally think to have eluded YHWH, effectively hiding away from Him—but this is certainly not the case! As the realm of the dead (i.e., the grave), where the dead ‘sleep’, Sheol is a natural place for a person to have a ‘bed’; note the parallel in Job 17:3, and see also Isa 14:11; Job 21:26 (cf. Dahood, III, p. 289; Holman, p. 51). An Ugaritic text refers to the netherworld as “the house of beds” (cf. 2 Kings 15:5).

Verses 9-10

“Were I to take up (the) wings of (the) dawn,
(and) dwell in (the) hind(most part) of (the) sea,
even there your hand would guide me,
and take firm hold of me, your right hand!”

The two couplets of verses 9 and 10 form a syntactic unit, expressing a single illustrative idea. The spatial-directional orientation in verse 8 was vertical (i.e., above/below), while here it is horizontal—out across the land (i.e., the surface of the earth), all the way to the distant sea (which also signifies the west, viz., direction/location of the Mediterranean). That an east-west orientation is intended is rather clear from the expression “wings of the dawn [rj^v^]”, alluding to the sunrise in the east, with the journeying of sun in the sky (as with “wings”) during the day until it sets in the west.

The noun tyr!j&a^ denotes a place or part behind (coming after, following). In keeping with the overall imagery in the stanza, an extreme point (extremity) is surely intended—viz., the point furthest behind, i.e., the hintermost (or hindmost) place, at the very end(s) of the earth.

Again, it is impossible to escape from YHWH’s presence, no matter how far one travels to the east or to the west. This is the same point as in vv. 7-8; however, here we also have the added idea of YHWH’s providential care for humankind (and esp. the righteous ones among His people), just as in verse 5 of stanza 1. Indeed, the same imagery from verse 5, of YHWH’s hand being upon the protagonist, occurs here. The first line emphasizes the guiding role (vb hj*n`, “lead, guide”) of YHWH’s hand, while in the second line the verb zj^a* (“take/grab firm hold”) suggests its protective strength. The parallelism of “hand” / “right hand” is traditional, occurring with some frequency in Biblical poetry (in the Psalms, see most recently the study on Ps 138 [v. 7]).
In such instances, it is possible that dy` (“hand”) specifically means “left hand” (see Dahood, III, p. 290; Holman, p. 53f). 

Dahood (III, p. 290) suggests that the verb form hn`K=v=a# has volitive force, expressing purpose—i.e., “(that) I might dwell…”. He also recommends that the suffixed verb form ynjnt in v. 10a be vocalized as yn]j@yn]T=, as a Hiphil form of the verb jWn (“rest”), rather than MT yn]j@n+T^, and would understand the line thus as: “even there your hand would rest (upon) me”. Cf. also Holman, p. 55.

Verse 11

“And (if) I say, ‘Surely darkness will spread over me,
and (become as) night (the) light (that is) around me,'”

The precise interpretation of this verse is problematic, particularly with regard to the apparent form of the verb [Wv in line 1. This verb occurs just two times elsewhere in the Scriptures—Gen 3:15 and Job 9:17, and the meanings in these references are not entirely certain. Nor is it certain whether one or two distinct [wv roots are involved. In Gen 3:15, the verb has typically been rendered “bruise”, and yet the LXX translates it with the verb thre/w (“keep watch [over]”), which could suggest a connection with the Arabic sāfa (“look, watch”, cf. Old South Arabian šwp, “look at, examine”). There are also possible connections with the Aramaic roots [Wv meaning I “rub, rub away” (cf. Mandaean šup) and II “blow”, Syriac šap (“stroke, spread”), and Arabic roots meaning “polish”, “smear”, “stretch (up)”, etc.; see HALOT, p. 1446f. HALOT suggests a single Hebrew root [Wv with the meaning “grip firmly”. The Scriptural evidence, slight as it is, might be better facilitated by positing two roots—one (I) which could mean something like “grip firmly”, and another (II) which means “look (at), watch, observe”; cf. the approach taken by Holman (p. 59).

Another option is to follow the Symmachus Greek version (with the verb kalu/ptw, “cover”) and to emend the MT from yn]p@Wvy+ to yn]K@Wcy+, as being a form of the verb EWc, “enclose, fence in”. This is the approach taken, for example, by Kraus (p. 510). The emendation would certainly be fitting and appropriate to the context, particularly if (as it seems) verse 11 continues the rhetorical-dramatic scenario of the stanza involving the idea of a person attempting to hide from God. However, the Qumran manuscript 11QPsa agrees with the MT (ynpwvy), confirming the more difficult reading, and thus making any such emendation questionable at best.

Tentatively, in my translation, I have adopted for [Wv here the general meaning “spread (over)”, in light of the possible cognate evidence (from Aramaic and Syriac, etc, see above). This could cover the related meanings of “rub (over)” and “blow (over)” (the latter being particularly suitable to the context of Job 9:17). It also has the advantage of providing a fit parallel for the idea of light being “around” a person. As darkness spreads over (and around) him, the light that was there becomes dark like the night. All of this should be viewed as part of a continuing attempt to evade and hide from YHWH.

For a very different ways of rendering this verse (and, by extension, v. 12), see Dahood (III, p. 291f) and Holman (pp. 56-60).

The use of the w-consecutive imperfect (of the verb rm^a*) at the beginning of the verse suggests a shift to a new section (or unit) in relation to what has come previously. In the context of the stanza, and its rhetorical-dramatic scenario, this could indicate a shift in the speaker’s rhetorical outlook: i.e., “(so) then I said…”, or “then I thought…”. Probably it is used for dramatic effect here. Having exhausted all possibility of going to the extremities of the world to hide from YHWH, the speaker is left with the hope of shrouding himself in darkness in order to escape from YHWH’s sight. In the Qumran manuscript 11QPsa, the verb appears to be in a jussive/cohortative form, “And/then let me say…”.

Another important difference in 11QPsa is that there is no reference at all to light in the verse; the image is entirely that of being covered/surrounded by darkness. Instead of the noun roa (“light”), 11QPsa reads the verb rza (“surround”, often in the sense of “gird [oneself]”). Thus, the second line would read: “and night will gird itself around me”. If this reading were correct, it might give added support to understanding the meaning of the verb [Wv in line 1 as “grip firmly” (as HALOT suggests, see above).

Verse 12

“even darkness does not darken (things) from you,
and night like the day is made to give light—
so (then) the darkness (is just) like (the) light!”

The stanza closes in dramatic fashion with a 3+3+3 tricolon (all the previous verses were 3+3 couplets). Syntactically, verse 12 continues the thought from v. 11, providing a corrective to the mistaken assumption (in the rhetorical scenario) that a person may be able to hide from God by surrounding him/herself with darkness. By way of a threefold assertion, the Psalmist points out that darkness really isn’t dark to YHWH at all; rather, it is just like the light, and He can see everything just as clearly as if the person were standing in bright daylight. This, of course, is another way of asserting the all-seeing ‘eye’ of God, alluding to the theological attributes of omniscience (all-knowing) and omnipresence (ever-present). There is a general parallel in Job 34:22 (cf. also Daniel 2:22), and it can be regarded as a basic tenet of Wisdom-theology.

In the third stanza (vv. 14c-18) to be discussed in Part 3 of our study, this theme of YHWH knowing all things, and seeing even within the hidden and innermost darkness, is applied to the person of the Psalmist-protagonist as a created human being. It is prefaced by the transitional verses 13-14ab, which introduces the thematic orientation by focusing on the mystery and wonder of his own creation, taking the form of a short hymn of praise to YHWH (as Creator).

    • References marked “Dahood, I”, “Dahood, II” and “Dahood, III” above are to, respectively, Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Psalms I: 1-50, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 16 (1965), Psalms II: 51-100, vol. 17 (1968), and Psalms III: 101-150, vol. 17A (1970).
    • Those marked “Kraus” are to Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalmen, 2. Teilband, Psalmen 60-150, 5th ed., Biblischer Kommentar series (Neukirchener Verlag: 1978); English translation in Psalms 60-150, A Continental Commentary (Fortress Press: 1993).
    • Those marked “Holman” are to Jan Holman, “Analysis of the Text of Psalm 139”, Biblische Zeitschrift 14 (1970), pp. 37-71.
    • Those marked “Danell” are to G. A. Danell, Psalm 139, Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift 1951:1, pp. 1-37.
    • References marked “HALOT” are to The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, by Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner (Brill: 1994-2000).

Studies on the Spirit: The Flesh, the World, and the Devil (Study 3)

The Flesh, the World, and the Devil

Study 3: The Devil (Part 3)

The initial set of studies in this series focus on the role of the Spirit in connection with the conflict between believers and the Devil (or the Satan, also referred to by other designations). In Study 1, we began with the Spirit as it was manifested in the Messianic ministry of Jesus. In Study 2 this was extended to the life and ministry of believers, viewed as (in many ways) a continuation of Jesus’ own ministry. A number of the key points and principles that we have already examined will be further elucidated in our third study, focusing on the relevant references to the Spirit (and the Devil) in the Pauline Letters.

“Sin and Death”

In his letters, Paul has rather more to say about “the world [ko/smo$]” and “the flesh [sa/rc]” than he does about the Devil. However, he clearly views the Devil/Satan as closely connected to these other realms and aspects of the conflict that believers face. Moreover, the same oppositional dualism between the Spirit and the “flesh”, which is so fundamental to Paul’s theological and ethical-religious outlook, also informs his understanding of the nature of the hostile activity (against believers) taken by the Devil. This dualism is perhaps best expressed by the declaration in Romans 8:2:

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

There is a clear contrastive (and oppositional) parallel between the expressions “the Law [no/mo$] of the Spirit of Life” and “the law [no/mo$] of sin and death”. The same noun no/mo$ (usually translated as “law”) is used, with the point of contrast (that is, two different kinds of law) being found in the parallel terms “Spirit” / “sin” and “Life” / “death”. The noun no/mo$ literally means something like “allotment” —often in the legal sense of something that is assigned to a person. From an early time, the word came to have a normative meaning, referring to things that a person was expected to do or to follow—i.e., prescribed or assigned duties and practices, customs, etc. Paul regularly uses no/mo$ in relation to the binding obligations (for Israelites and Jews) of the covenant (viz., the regulations and requirements, etc, of the Torah). Yet the word has a broader meaning as well, since Paul can speak of “the Law of God” in a comprehensive way that cannot (and should not) be limited to the Torah (cf. Rom 7:22, 25, and esp. 1 Cor 9:21).

Similarly, the negative aspect of no/mo$ here in Rom 8:2ff refers to the Torah (see the overall context of chapters 6-8, and cf. Galatians 3-4, 2 Corinthians 3), but it is not limited to that singular cultural-religious point of reference. Rather, the expression “the law of sin and death” refers, properly, to the bondage under which human beings have labored and suffered since the time of the first man (“Adam”, see esp. 5:12-21). The use of the term no/mo$ suggests that these things (“sin and death”) have been allotted to humankind, and that humans are bound (even against their own will, cf. the discussion in chapter 7) to serve them. However, in Christ (“in [the] Anointed Yeshua”) believers have been set free from this bondage. They/we are no longer held in thrall to the forces of sin and death, even though the full realization of this freedom will not be experienced until the end of the current Age. Even in the present, however, we already experience this freedom, through the Spirit which dwells in and among us, guiding and empowering us.

The conceptual noun-pair “sin and death” accurately reflects (and summarizes) the domain and activity of the Devil. This can be seen throughout the New Testament Scriptures, as also in contemporary Jewish tradition. As will be discussed in greater detail in the studies on “the World”, early Christians viewed the Satan/Devil as the chief ruler (a&rxwn) of this world (viz., in the current Age); on this, see the designations mentioned (and discussed briefly) in Study 1. As for the noun “sin” (a(marti/a, denoting error/failure and idea of ‘missing the mark’, vb a(marta/nw, and cf. the Hebrew root afj), it is typically understood in a traditional ethical-religious sense—viz., violations of religious norms and various kinds of moral failure. In this regard, the Satan/Devil is seen as one who incites a person (i.e., a believer) to sin.

This role as tempter (rooted in the meaning of the Greek word dia/bolo$, cf. the discussion in Study 1) is thoroughly traditional, but is mentioned specifically by Paul on several occasions, usually tied to the related idea of deception/deceit. The key references are: 1 Thess 3:5; 1 Cor 7:5; 2 Cor 2:11; 11:3, 14; 2 Tim 2:26, and cf. also 1 Tim 3:6-7 and 5:15. The deceiving power of Satan is particularly emphasized in 2 Thess 2:9, as part of the wickedness and evil that dominates the world at the end of the current Age. Indeed, there is generally an eschatological orientation or aspect to all of these references, functioning as part of a standard language of ethical instruction and exhortation that Paul shared with many other first-century Christians (see the discussion in Study 2). There is a common tone and syntax to the warnings Paul gives to believers, that they should guard their lives and conduct—

    • “(so) that the Satan should not (be able to) test you” (1 Cor 7:5)
    • “(so) that we should not be held more (in force) under the Satan” (2 Cor 2:11)

The use of the aorist subjunctive, governed by the conditional negative particle i%na mh/ (“[so] that not…”), is preventative—i.e., so that believers should not become deceived or influenced by Satan (so as to be led into sin). Similar are the exhortation-warnings in 1 Tim 3:7 and 2 Tim 2:26:

    • “(so) that he should not fall into reviling [i.e., disgrace, being reviled] and (the) snare of the Diabolos”
    • “and (so) they might sober up (again) [i.e., recover] out of the snare of the Diabolos”

The warning in Eph 4:27 uses an imperative, and is simple and direct, while at the same time being comprehensive as to the believer’s life and conduct (see the context of the ethical instruction in 4:17-5:21):

“…and do not give (any) place to the Diabolos”

Insofar as we submit to God’s holy Spirit, allowing ourselves to be guided by it (see esp. Gal 5:16-25), we will not afford any “place” (opportunity, etc) for the Devil/Satan to lead us into sin.

The second term (from the expression “the law of sin and death”) is death (qa/nato$). There are several ways in which this can be understood as relating to believers’ conflict with the Devil. In the immediate context of Romans 8, physical death—i.e., human mortality—is primarily in view. While we, as believers, currently possess new life (i.e., resurrection life) through the Spirit as the result of our union with Christ, we remain, in a real sense, in bondage to the power of death—in that we still are subject to the limits of human mortality. Only at the end of the Age, with the resurrection, will we be set free fully from bondage to death. As with sin, Paul personifies death as a wicked ruler—a tyrant who rules with inexorable power over all human beings (e.g., Rom 5:14ff; 1 Cor 15:26, 54-56). While this is traditional imagery (cf. Rev 20:13-14), Paul utilizes it in a distinctive way to express certain key theological and Christological points.

Yet it is the personification of death as a wicked ruler which naturally suggests a relationship with the figure of the Devil/Satan, the one who is effectively (if temporarily) the chief ruler of the world during this current wicked Age. Indeed, Hebrews 2:14 goes so far as to identify the Devil as the one “holding the power [kra/to$] of death”. This could refer to both the strength and the willingness to bring about a person’s death, i.e., to kill; and, certainly, this aspect of the Devil/Satan’s character is emphasized at times in the New Testament. For example, in John 8:44, Jesus characterizes the Devil as a murderer, and the same point, in the language of the Johannine theological and religious idiom, is made in 1 Jn 3:8, 12-15. As it happens, murder is an extreme manifestation of sin and wickedness, and one which particularly reflects a person’s opposition to God.

This brings us to the third aspect of death, in relation to the Devil, that must be mentioned: the close connection between sin and death (already indicated by the expression “the law of sin and death”). As noted above, the figure of the Devil as a wicked ruler (ruling of the world during the current Age) relates to the Pauline personification (esp. in Romans) of both Sin and Death as wicked tyrants who hold humankind in bondage. Just as the Devil (and all who follow or belong to him) is characterized by sinning, so he also is by death (and murder). This connection is brought out more clearly in the Johannine writings (e.g., 1 Jn 3:8ff, 12ff, see above), but Paul surely would affirm it. Moreover, sin, by its very nature, leads to death—as pointed out succinctly in James 1:15. Paul develops the point more thoroughly, especially in Romans (see 5:12-21; 6:10ff, 16ff, 23; 7:13 [cf. the overall context of chap. 7]); note also the declaration in 1 Cor 15:56.

Ephesians 6:10-20 (vv. 11ff, 17ff)

In the aforementioned passages and references, Paul does not bring out the role of the Spirit as clearly as he might have. While it is very much to be inferred, the connection, for the most part, is not made explicit. However, there is one Pauline passage in which the role of the Spirit in our conflict with the Devil is specifically emphasized: the famous ‘spiritual warfare’ passage in 6:10-20, at the close of the letter. This section is part of the ethical instruction and exhortation that covers the bulk of chapters 4-6 (see above on the context of 4:27) and occupies a climactic position. The imagery and the scenario portrayed is indeed dramatic, depicting the believer as a soldier who does battle against the forces of evil at the end of the current wicked Age.

The eschatological aspect of this imagery is clear enough, as is typical (and to be expected) among first century Christians (cf. my article on the imminent eschatology of the New Testament). Various expressions bring out this emphasis, most notably the expression “this darkness” (v. 12, i.e., the darkness of this present Age and time, cf. Lk 22:53, etc) and the reference to “the evil day” (v. 13). According to the eschatological worldview of early Christians (generally shared by Jews during the first centuries B.C./A.D.), the end of the current Age is marked by a particularly intense and pervasive wickedness. The current Age itself is characterized by wickedness (thus the designation of “darkness”, cf. Rom 13:12; Col 1:13; Eph 5:8, 11, etc) but is understood to become especially so as the Age draws to a close (cf. the symbolism in Acts 2:20, and the context of Paul’s instruction in 1 Thess 5:4-5).

More to the point, the Devil becomes increasingly active during this time of eschatological darkness (cf. in the previous study, on 1 Pet 5:8 and Rev 12:12ff), and this is a view that Paul would surely have shared with most other first-century Christians. The context of Eph 6:10-20 certainly bears this out: there is expressed a definite sense of eschatological urgency, the need for believers to stand firm in faith and to fight against the forces of evil (led by the Devil) as they are manifest throughout the world. The end-time is seen as a period of distress (qli/yi$, Mk 13:19, 24 par; Rev 1:9; 2:9ff; 7:14, etc), which includes intense opposition to God (and to Christ) and hostility against Christians (Mk 13:9-13 par, etc). In verse 11 of our passage, the attacks against believers are specifically referred to as “the methodical works [meqodei/a, plur.] of the Diabolos”. The use of the noun meqodei/a suggests that these attacks are carefully engineered and pursued (such as by a skilled military commander)—quite a different sort of descriptive image than that of the prowling and raging lion of 1 Pet 5:8. Yet, the attacks are surely to be seen as equally vicious; led by the Devil (as the ruler of the world during the wicked Age), they are carried out by other evil forces—to be understood as evil spirits, even if their activity may also involve human individuals and institutions (inspired and influenced by the spirit[s] of evil). These forces of evil and wickedness have varying degrees of ruling power and authority (under that of the Devil), as the terminology in verse 12 makes clear: “chiefs/rulers” (a)rxh/, plur.), “authorities” (e)cousi/a, plur.), “world-powers” (i.e., mighty ones of [this] world-order, kosmokra/twr, plur.).

The principal exhortation is for believers to “stand” (vb i%sthmi) boldly in the face of (lit., “toward”, pro/$) these attacks by the Devil (v. 11); at the same time, resistance (cf. James 4:7) involves an active struggle (‘wrestling’, pa/lh, v. 12). In this fight, both the protection and the weapon(s) that we need in order to prevail come from God—that is, from His Spirit. Though the Spirit is not immediately referenced in vv. 11-12ff, it is clearly implied, by way of contrast and negation: the struggle is not one of “flesh and blood” (v. 12); rather, it is spiritual in nature—involving the holy Spirit of God, fighting against the evil spirits under the Devil’s authority. The adjective pneumatiko/$ (“of the spirit, spiritual”) is specifically used, as a substantive characterizing these forces of wickedness: we are to stand facing (pro/$, “toward”) these “spiritual [power]s of evil”.

The remaining verses in the passage (vv. 13-18ff) principally expound the image of the panopli/a (“all the armor, every weapon”) which God has given to us as believers. This noun, in the expression h( panopli/a tou= qeou= (“the panopli/a of God”), was introduced in verse 11, and is repeated here in v. 13. This kind of military/soldier imagery, used in an ethical-religious context, is traditional and relatively widespread, both in the ancient Near East and the Greco-Roman world; however, the main inspiration and influence for our passage comes from the Scriptures—Isaiah 59:17. In the Isaian passage (chap. 59), it is God (YHWH) Himself who puts on the armor/weapons and acts in defense of His people (the righteous), for the cause of justice and righteousness, against the wickedness of the world. It is noteworthy that, in the oracular notice following this poem, there is a declaration regarding the presence of God’s Spirit upon the prophet (and his descendants). A precursor to Ephesians’ adaptation (in Greek) of this imagery is found in the book of Wisdom (5:17-20); the presentation has similarly been expanded, but emphasizing (in accordance with the Wisdom-context) God’s saving action on behalf of the righteous.

In the context of this poem, Isa 59:20 has been taken as a Messianic prophecy, which early Christians would have applied to the person of Christ, and to the new covenant which he established (v. 21). Indeed, Paul himself interprets the verse in this way (in Rom 11:26-27). Along these lines, the similar language and imagery in Isa 11:5 (part of another traditional Messianic prophecy, vv. 1-9)—i.e., “belt of righteousness” —may also have inspired our passage. Just as God Himself, along with Jesus the Messiah, possessed the Divine armor and weapons to stand (and prevail) against the Devil’s attacks, so the same armor and weapons are available to us as believers. We are commanded to “take up” (vb a)nalamba/nw) this armor, and then to “stand” against the forces of evil as they attack. The armor is detailed as follows:

    • ‘the belt of truth [a)lh/qeia]’ (cf. Isa 11:5); lit., “(hav)ing girded around your loins with (the) truth”
    • “the chest-plate [qw/rac] of right(eous)ness [dikaiosu/nh]”
    • ‘footguards made ready’ “of the good message [i.e., gospel] of peace [ei)rh/nh]”
    • “the door (shaped) cover [qureo/$, i.e., shield] of trust [pi/sti$]”
    • “the [guard] round the head [perikefalai/a, i.e., helmet] of salvation [swth/rion]”

This equipment is primarily protective in nature—referring to the protection that God provides for the believer, by way of their/our union with Christ (through the presence of the Spirit). It is Divine armor (i.e., “of God”), worn by God and His Messiah (Jesus Christ), as noted above. Each particular piece of equipment is used to symbolize a specific Divine attribute or dynamic. The first two (v. 14) are Divine attributes—truth (a)lh/qeia) and right(eous)ness (dikaiosu/nh) —uniquely manifested and embodied in the person of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:10; 2 Thess 2:13; Rom 3:22; 5:17; 8:10; 1 Cor 1:30; Phil 3:9). The second two (vv. 15-16) relate specifically to our union with Christ—in terms of our trust (pi/sti$) in him and acceptance of the Gospel, the good message (eu)agge/lion) that leads to peace (ei)rh/nh) with God.

This entire dynamic is summarized by the final attribute (v. 17a)—salvation (swth/rion), a noun that can denote the act of salvation, the means of salvation, and/or the one who brings salvation (i.e., savior). The idea of salvation, in this context, also refers specifically to the protection God provides to the believer (against the Devil’s attacks). It is significant that this reference follows the expanded (and climactic) description of the protective (door-shaped) shield, which we are able to use to protect ourselves from the “fiery arrows” hurled by the Devil (v. 16b), quenching them before they are able to bring harm to us.

The only true weapon provided to us by God is the final piece of equipment, described in v. 17b. As with all of the protective armor, we are called to “take (up)” this piece—it is “the sword [ma/xaira] of the Spirit, which is (the) utterance [rh=ma] of God”. The clarifying relative phrase (“which is [o% e)stin]…”) has proven to be somewhat problematic, particularly among Protestant readers and commentators, especially when the expression r(h=ma qeou= is rendered as “word of God”. By understanding this expression in the customary (Protestant) manner—viz., as the Bible—the “sword of the Spirit” can be interpreted simply as the inspired Scriptures, which Christians are able to wield (through memorization and quotation, etc) as a weapon against the Devil. However, while there is some New Testament precedent for the role of Scripture in this regard (cf. the quotation of Scripture by Jesus in the Temptation scene, Matt 4:1-13 par), such a line of interpretation surely does not reflect the primary emphasis or thought being expressed here.

To begin with, the neuter relative pronoun (o%) would more properly relate back to the neuter noun pneu=ma (“Spirit”), or to the expression “sword of the Spirit” as a whole. Moreover, contrary to the view of some commentators, it is unlikely that the genitive expression “the sword of the Spirit” is fundamentally different than those used earlier (i.e., “chest-plate of righteousness”, “shield of trust”, “head-guard of salvation”), in which the piece of armor/equipment symbolizes the Divine attribute. Thus, we must affirm that the Spirit is the “sword” which God provides to us. It is further identified as the “utterance of God”, and this dual-identification makes more sense when we recognize that the noun pneu=ma (“spirit”), like Hebrew j^Wr, can also mean “breath” —i.e., the breath of God. As God speaks, so also He breathes forth His word. While this certainly does apply to the inspired Scriptures (cf. 2 Tim 3:16), it can scarcely be limited to it; rather, the point of reference is to any/every word spoken by God, the creative (and also the destructive) power of which involves the presence and activity of His Spirit.

It is quite possible that Isa 11:4b (see above on v. 5) also informs this dual-imagery, whereby the “rod/staff” (fb#v#) that comes from the Messiah’s mouth (cf. 2 Thess 2:8) functions as a weapon (fb#v# can signify the shaft of a spear); similarly, the “breath” (j^Wr) from his mouth also acts like a sword, slaying the wicked. In Revelation 1:16 (cf. also 2:12, 16), it is specifically a sword that comes out of Christ’s mouth, which he uses to bring about the end-time Judgment, putting the wicked to death. In Hebrews 4:12, God’s word (lo/go$) is similarly compared with a sharp ‘two-edged’ (lit., “two-mouthed”) sword.

The same Spirit (and Breath) of God has been given to us as believers; it is the very utterance (word) of God, possessing all of His creative power, but which can also be used to bring judgment (and destruction) on the wicked. The rest of the armor is used for protection, but the sword (i.e., the Spirit) brings victory for us against the enemy. In truth, I would maintain that this climactic reference to the Spirit informs the entire exposition of vv. 13-17. The battle we face as believers is spiritual (pneumatiko/$), which means that all of our equipment—armor and weapons—is pneumatiko/$ (“of the Spirit”). God’s Spirit both protects us from the Devil’s attacks and enables us to prevail against the forces of evil.

In our next study, we will turn to the Johannine writings, to see how this same thematic focus—viz., on the role of the Spirit in our conflict with the Devil—has been shaped and developed within the distinctive idiom of Johannine theology.

 

 

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 139 (Part 1)

Psalm 139

Dead Sea MSS: 11QPsa (vv. 8-24)

This complex and challenging Psalm would seem to represent a highly structured development of a particular genre-tradition—namely, that of a petition (prayer) to YHWH in which the protagonist affirms his faithfulness and loyalty to the covenant.

There has been much discussion among commentators as to a specific ritual or judicial-legal setting which may inform the composition as a whole; however, such interpretive reconstructions are speculative at best. As an example, the protagonist has been identified as a royal figure (the king), with his ‘examination’ in the Psalm (and declaration of innocence, etc) conceived of as part of the preparatory ceremonies for the New Year’s enthronement festival (viz., commemorating the enthronement of YHWH, but which also entails a renewal of kingship for the Davidic ruler). For a summary of this line of interpretation, see Croft, pp. 90-96. Other commentators adopt a forensic interpretation, with the context of judicial trial in a religious setting (Allen, p. 324). It has been advocated by scholars such as H. Schmidt, L. Delekat, and W. Beyerlin, Weiser, Krauss, and Dahood (III, p. 284); see in particular the article by E. Würthwein (“Erwägungen zu Psalm 139”, in Vetus Testamentum [VT] 7 [1957], pp. 165-82).

I am inclined to view such legal-judicial and ritual elements as aspects of the genre rather than being reflective of a particular historical situation. It is natural that the Psalmist, in making his appeal to YHWH, would utilize certain language and imagery drawn from the legal and religious (cultic) spheres—particularly as it relates to the binding agreement (covenant) between YHWH and His people. The covenant was understood as a legally binding agreement with strong judicial and ritual aspects; the covenant formulae themselves (including oath/vow and curse formulas), as well as related affirmations of loyalty, etc., held certain well-established formal and stylistic features which were adopted in the Psalms (and other ancient Israelite poetry).

We find the traditional prayer/petition genre expressed by the basic framework of the Psalm—viz., the first and fourth stanzas (vv. 1-6, 19-24). Even more simple is the inclusio framing of vv. 1ff and 23-24, which contain the same verb pair (rq^j* [“search out”] and ud^y` [“know”]), as the protagonist calls upon YHWH to examine him. This invitation to YHWH is intended by the protagonist as an affirmation of his faithfulness and loyalty to God (viz., to the covenant). The context of vv. 19-21 suggests that the protagonist is specifically under attack by hostile opponents, and that these attacks may have taken the form of slanderous accusations. Such a scenario occurs frequently in the Psalms, and the protagonist, in making his appeal to YHWH, typically seeks vindication against his enemies. The answer to the protagonist’s prayer, in this context, involves YHWH bringing judgment against his enemies. The imprecatory curse-wish in vv. 19ff is striking, but it is quite in keeping with the traditional genre; there are many such imprecatory passages in the Psalms (see the earlier study on Ps 137:7-9).

What makes the imprecation here in vv. 19ff seem so startling is way it contrasts with the noble and majestic Wisdom verses in the second and third stanzas (vv. 7-18). However, it is frequently the case in the Psalms that older traditional genres (which often evince a royal background, see below) have undergone considerable development; and, often, the lines of development involve the application of Wisdom traditions. Here, the thought expressed in vv. 4-6, driven by the appeal/petition language in vv. 1-3, leads to the expository development within the second and third stanzas, as the all-seeing, ever-present character of YHWH is extolled. These characteristics have typically been referred to in terms of the Divine attributes of omniscience and omnipresence; yet the message is not so much one based on theology proper as it is an expression of YHWH’s ruling authority (viz., as King over the universe) and His justice.

The second and third stanzas (vv. 7-12, 14c-18) are joined together by the poignant transitional verses 13-14ab, as the Psalmist/protagonist applies the theme of YHWH’s all-knowing power and control (over Creation) to his own being (viz., his own creation as a human being).

The complex structure of the Psalm, along with the strong Wisdom exposition in the middle stanzas, suggests a relatively late time-frame for its composition. A good number of commentators would concur, and are inclined to date the Psalm to the post-exilic period. Certain apparent Aramaisms (to be discussed in the notes) would tend to confirm this judgment, though such evidence is far from decisive. A number of conceptual and linguistic parallels with the book of Job have also been used as a factor in determining the Psalm’s date. However, the dating of the book of Job is itself a much-disputed topic, with a wide range of opinions and theories, though a time-frame in the late pre-exilic period (7th century?) for the main composition of the book seems plausible (as suggested by Dahood, III, p. 285 and others).

A pre-exilic date (i.e., in the monarchic period) would fit the traditional attribution to David in the heading (“[belonging] to David”, dw]d*l=)—that is, to a time when a Davidic king ruled over Israel/Judah. The prayer/petition genre that informs the framework of the Psalm (in stanzas 1 & 4, see above) contains many features and elements suggestive of a royal background, and such elements may still be present even when the genre-form has undergone significant development or has been adopted by later author-composers.
The heading also contains the information j^X@n~m=l^, as in many other Psalms (but in none of Pss 110-138); the precise meaning of the verbal noun jX@n~m= (from the root jxn) remains uncertain, but in the musical context of the Psalm it presumably means something like “directing” (i.e., “for the [one] directing”).

Metrically, Psalm 139 tends to follow a 3-beat (3+3) couplet format, though there are a number of exceptions (which will be noted).

Although verses 1-7 are missing from the Qumran manuscript 11QPsa, nearly all of the remainder of the Psalm is preserved without any lacunae (gaps). A good number of variant readings occur in vv. 8-24 of 11QPsa, though in virtually every instance the text of the MT is to be preferred.

Stanza 1: Verses 1-6

Verse 1

“YHWH, you search me (out)—
you know (me), you (yourself)!”

The nature of Psalm 139 as a petition is indicated here at the beginning of the first stanza. The protagonist presents himself before YHWH, and asks/invites God to examine him, using the verb rq^j*, “search [out], explore” (with the basic meaning, it seems, of “dig deep”). The Wisdom-orientation of the Psalm is demonstrated by the use of this verb, which, while relative rare in the Scriptures overall (27 occurrences), appears with some frequency in the Wisdom Literature—six times in Job (5:27; 13:9; 28:3, 27; 29:16; 32:11), four times in Proverbs (18:17; 23:30; 25:2; 28:11), and once in Qohelet (12:9). Outside of the two occurrences in Ps 139, rq^j* only occurs once elsewhere in the Psalms (44:22).

The verb ud^y` (“know”) makes for a natural pairing with rq^j*, both in terms of the Wisdom-orientation and the petition-setting of the Psalm. By examining the protagonist, YHWH will know that he is faithful and loyal. Of course, as becomes clear later in the stanza (and throughout the remainder of the Psalm), YHWH must already know this—He surely knows and recognizes the righteous and faithful character (and conduct) of the protagonist. As a result, this particular mode of the formulating the petition, serves as a round-about way for the protagonist to declare and affirm His faithfulness to YHWH. He appeals to YHWH’s own Divine omniscience, and (more importantly) the all-seeing ‘eye’ of His Divine justice.

The same verb-pair recurs in verse 23, but as imperatives. Given the nature of the petition-genre, and the framing inclusio of vv. 1ff & 23-24, a number of commentators would treat the perfect verb form of rq^j* here in v. 1 as a precative perfect, expressing the protagonist’s wish (formulated as something which has already happened). This is the approach taken by Dahood (III, p. 285 f) and Holman (p. 39), but is disputed by others (see Allen, p. 318). Along the same lines, the imperfect form of the verb ud^y` in line 2 is correspondingly rendered (and pointed) as a jussive form. I would tend to agree with the approach of Dahood and Holman; whether or not one treats the verb forms specifically as precative perfect + jussive, this would seem to be the verbal force of the protagonist’s words as he calls on YHWH to examine him.

I also follow Dahood and Holman (also Allen, p. 318, and others) in regarding the second person pronoun hT*a^, which begins v. 2 in the MT verse division, as belonging to the opening couplet. Metrical considerations would seem to require it. In this context, the pronoun functions emphatically (i.e., “you yourself”), as also indicated by its final position in the line (and verse). Metrically, the verse is a 2-beat (2+2) couplet.

Verse 2

“You know my sitting and my standing,
you discern my intention from far away.”

The verses which follow expound principally the idea of YHWH’s knowledge, and the use of the verb ud^y` (“know”) in v. 1b. Even though the protagonist calls on YHWH to examine him (1a), he acknowledges that God already knows everything about his character and conduct. The details of the protagonist’s daily life (and regular/habitual behavior) are epitomized here by the idiom of “sitting (down) and standing (up)”, summarizing all of his (outward) actions.

YHWH knows all this, but He also is fully aware of the protagonist’s inner thoughts and desires. This is expressed in the second line, by use of the verb /yB! (“understand, discern”) along with the rare noun u^r@, which occurs only here (for certain) in the Scriptures, and is usually regarded as an Aramaism (that is, an Aramaic word, from the root au*r^ II, “want/wish, desire, like”). The related nouns tWur and /oyu=r^ occur as Wisdom-terms in Qohelet (seven [1:14; 2:11, 17, 26; 4:4, 6; 6:9] and three times [1:17; 2:22; 4:16], respectively), where the meaning is “longing, striving”. While u^r@ could be translated “wish, desire”, I have rendered it above as “intention”, along with Hossfeld-Zenger (p. 534). Even from “far away” (i.e., high above in heaven) YHWH knows everything that goes on among human beings on earth (cf. 138:6, discussed in the previous study).

This verse is a 3+3 couplet, which, as noted in the introduction, is the primary meter of the Psalm.

Verse 3

“My journeying and my lying down you scan,
and all my pathways you oversee with care.”

This verse is similar, both in thought and formal comparison, with the previous v. 2. Again, the first line summarizes the outward (regular/daily) actions by the protagonist, using a comparable pair of verbal nouns. His “journeying” (vb jr^a*) is juxtaposed with his “laying down” (vb ub^r*)—that is, to rest, at the end of the day’s traveling. This idiom of travel can also be used in a figurative (and ethical-religious) sense for a person’s regular conduct, particularly with regard to the use of the root ird (“walk, tread”), and the noun Er#D# (“path, way” [i.e., upon which one treads]). The “path” of the righteous corresponds to the “path” that YHWH has established—that is, according to the covenant and its Torah. This idiomatic language is used frequently, particularly in the Psalms and Wisdom literature; see especially its usage throughout Psalm 119. This ethical-religious aspect of meaning attaches to the use of Er#D# in line 2, and corresponds generally with v. 2b, emphasizing the inner intention of the protagonist.

As in verse 2, the protagonist acknowledges that YHWH sees and knows both his actions and the purpose/intention of his heart. Here this is expressed by the verbs hr*z` and /k^s*. The first verb (hr*z`) could reflect the root (I) meaning “sift, winnow”, used in a figurative sense; however, some commentators (e.g., Dahood, III, p. 287, and cf. HALOT, p. 280) would attribute it to a separate root (II) related to tr#z# (“span”, i.e., of a hand or finger), and thus meaning “(to) span, measure”. The meaning “survey” adopted by Dahood for the rendering here is probably not far off the mark; I have rendered it “scan” above, in accordance with the thematic emphasis on the ‘all-seeing’ eye(s) of YHWH. The meaning of the second verb /k^s* here is also difficult to determine with precision. The basic meaning in context would seem to be “take care over”, in the specific sense of guiding and protecting a person (from danger) on his/her journey, etc. The related noun /k@s) denotes an overseer (cf. Isa 22:15).

Verse 4

“Even when there is no utterance on my tongue,
see, O YHWH—(still) you know about it all!”

The contrast between outward action and inward thought/intention (see vv. 2-3) continues here, as the protagonist’s spoken utterance (hL*m!) is implicitly contrasted with his unspoken thought and desire, etc, which YHWH fully knows even without it being spoken out loud. The noun hL*m! (from the root llm III) is relatively rare, occurring only once elsewhere in the Psalms (19:5). Of the 38 Scriptural occurrences, 35 are in the Wisdom books (34 times in Job, and once in Proverbs [23:9]), so it is very much a Wisdom-term. It is regarded as an Aramaism (an Aramaic word), however the repeated occurrences in the book of Job, as also in earlier Aramaic texts (such as the 8th century Sefire inscriptions) means that it cannot be used reliably as a marker for a late (i.e., post-exilic) date of the Psalm.

I follow Dahood (III, p. 287) in regarding the initial particle yK! as emphatic, in the conditional sense of “even if…!”, as an asseverative formulation.

Verse 5

“(From) behind and in front, you enclose me,
and set upon me (the) palm of your (hand).”

The motif of the care that YHWH shows to a person, established in v. 3 (see above), is developed here. YHWH encloses the protagonist, thereby making him secure; this is expressed by the use of the verb rWX I (“bind, tie up, encircle, surround”), as well as by the comprehensive directional reference of a place/position “behind” [roja*] and one “in front, before” [<d#q#]. The same motif is expressed in line 2 by the anthropomorphic image of the protagonist being enclosed by the palm of YHWH’s hand; he is literally protected by God’s hand (‘in His hand’). This language of “enclosing”, along with the image of the span of a person’s hand, would certainly seem to confirm the meaning of the verb hr*z` in v. 3a as “span” (see above, where it is translated “scan”).

Verse 6

“Wonderful (is) th(is) knowledge, (so far) from me!
(It is) high up—I am not able to (reach) it!”

In the concluding couplet of the stanza, the protagonist praises the knowledge possessed by YHWH, the all-seeing and all-knowing God. This Divine ability (of the Creator) to know all things is far beyond that of any human being. The protagonist’s petition thus ends in praise of God, as it fitting for one who is righteous and loyal to Him. That his petition has proceeded in such a direction is itself evidence (and an affirmation) of the protagonist’s faithfulness.

At the same time, the thought expressed here in verse 6 deepens the theological treatment of the Wisdom theme that was introduced in this stanza. It also serves as a transition into the developmental exposition that follows in the second and third stanzas, which will be analyzed and 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 “Holman” are to Jan Holman, “Analysis of the Text of Psalm 139”, Biblische Zeitschrift 14 (1970), pp. 37-71.
    • Those marked “Croft” are to Steven J. L. Croft, The Identity of the Individual in the Psalms, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament [JSOT] Supplement Series 44 (JSOT Press: 1987).

 

Notes on Prayer: Thy Kingdom Come (Conclusion)

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

As a belated conclusion to the series on the Kingdom-petition in the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:10a; Lk 11:2b), this final study will survey the Kingdom-theme as it features in the Book of Revelation. Not surprisingly, it is the eschatological aspect of the Kingdom (and its coming) which is emphasized in Revelation; however, nearly all of the aspects which we have examined are present in some form or fashion. In this regard, the Book of Revelation represents a compendium of early Christian thought regarding the coming of God’s Kingdom. Moreover, the Kingdom (and its coming) runs as a primary thematic thread throughout the book—both its dramatic-narrative framework and the visions contained therein

The Kingdom in the Book of Revelation

We can see this motivic and thematic integration from the very beginning of the book, in the author-seer’s introductory greeting (exordium), 1:4-8. In the context of the imminent appearance of the exalted Christ at the end of the current Age (vv. 1-3, 4, 7, etc), which is clearly central to the book’s message, the coming of the Kingdom is unquestionably tied to end-time coming (i.e., the return, second coming) of Christ and his identity as King. The Kingship of Christ has been the focus in a number of the prior studies, and it features even more prominently (and dramatically) in the book of Revelation.

There are two principal aspects of this Kingship: (1) Jesus’ Messianic identity, particularly his fulfillment of the royal/Davidic figure-type; and (2) the Divine status and position of Jesus, following his resurrection and exaltation to the right-hand of God (in heaven). Both of these aspects are combined in vv. 5ff. Jesus is called by the title of Christ (Xristo/$, “Anointed [One]”, Messiah) and declared to be “the chief/ruler [a)rxw/n] of the kings of the earth”. This rulership over the nations (and their kings) is certainly essential to Jesus’ Messianic identity (viz., as the royal/Davidic Messiah), confirmed both by Jewish and early Christian tradition (regarding this Messianic figure-type, see Parts 6–8 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”), and by the context of the portrait which we find here throughout the book of Revelation (see below).

The exalted (Divine) status and position of Jesus is also alluded to quite precisely by reference to Daniel 7:13, with the end-time appearance of Jesus being defined as “coming with the clouds” (i.e., from heaven, v. 7), according to well-established early Christian tradition (Mk 13:26; 14:62 pars; Acts 7:55-56). The pairing of Dan 7:13 with an allusion to Zech 2:10 here is paralleled by the reference in the Matthean version of the eschatological Discourse (24:30); cf. also John 19:37.

Moreover, the Divine status and position of the exalted Christ is vividly portrayed in the vision that follows in vv. 9-20, and is further confirmed by key details and references in the prophetic announcements (for the seven Asian churches) in chapters 2-3 (e.g., 2:1, 8, 12, 18, 26-27; 3:1, 5, 7, 12, 14, 21). Jesus’ identity as the royal/Davidic Messiah is similarly alluded to in these references (see esp. 2:26-27; 3:7).

Another important aspect of the Kingdom-theme is the role of believers in the Kingdom, and how they/we, through faithfulness to Christ (even during the end-time period of distress), are allowed and enabled to share in his kingship, obtaining a royal status bequeathed by the exalted Christ himself. This thematic aspect is a key component of the treatment of the Kingdom in the book of Revelation, one which is also established here at the beginning of the work. Note the reference in 1:6 to believers as a priestly kingdom (combining both royal and priestly aspects), drawing upon ancient Israelite and Scriptural tradition (see esp. Exodus 19:6) even as we find elsewhere in the New Testament (esp. 1 Peter 2:9 [see also v. 5]). The holy/priestly status of believers is emphasized at a number of points in the book of Revelation, most notably in 5:10 (where the royal and priestly aspects are again combined) and 20:6; but there are other significant references and allusions as well, such as the references to the sacrificial ritual and the Jerusalem Temple (e.g., 3:12; 5:8; 6:9; 7:15; 8:3; 11:1ff; 15:5ff), including the final climactic vision of the holy city of the New Jerusalem (chaps. 21-22). The idea of believers sharing in the royal status and kingship of Christ is prominent in the beatific announcements of blessing and reward for faithfulness in chaps. 2-3 (esp. 2:26-28; 3:12; cf. also 7:15ff), and is subsequently depicted throughout the following visions as well.

A number of these same thematic motifs and aspects of the Kingdom of God are integrated within the dramatic portrayal of the Throne-vision in chapters 4-5. In chapter 4, there is a vision of God Almighty on His throne, described in traditional theophanic terms (cf. Exodus 19, 24; Ezekiel 1; Daniel 7) and confirming the fundamental theological message of YHWH as King over all Creation, to be worshiped by all beings (including humankind and all the nations). Then, in chapter 5, the focus shifts to the exalted Christ, standing at the “right hand” of God (v. 1)—only the exalted Christ is distinctively described here in terms of his sacrificial death (i.e., as the “Lamb who was slain”, v. 12, cf. also vv. 6, 9). This simply reflects the well-established exaltation-Christology held by early Christians, whereby the Divine status and position of Christ (at the “right hand” of God) was understood primarily as a result of his death and resurrection. Jesus’ faithfulness in completing his Messianic mission (note the Messianic allusions in v. 5), culminating in his sacrificial death (which serves to ransom/redeem humankind [i.e. believers], v. 9), leads to his receiving the greatest possible honor from God—viz., a ruling place at His side, so that he might rule (as King) with the same power and authority. Indeed, Christ (the Lamb) is portrayed as receiving honor and worship from all living creatures—the same honor which they give to God Himself (compare 4:8-11 with 5:8-14).

Believers, in their own way, share in this same exalted and royal status (see above), as indicated by the declaration in 5:10, but also by the figure-portrait of the “twenty-four elders” seated on thrones (of their own) surrounding the central throne of God, 4:4; 5:6, 8, 14. The identification of believers (the true and faithful ones) with these “elders” is more or less confirmed by the scene in 7:9-17, in which worship of the Lamb (Christ) is reiterated.

The great Vision-cycles which form the core of the book of Revelation primarily depict the coming Judgment (on humankind), and reflect, in various ways, the traditional association of the royal/Davidic Messiah with the end-time Judgment (viz., the Judgment of the nations). The Messiah functions as God’s appointed (i.e., anointed) representative, who ushers in and oversees the Great Judgment. A key prophetic reference in this regard was Psalm 2:7ff (v. 9), which is quoted or alluded to several times in the book—first in 2:26-27 (see above), and then in 12:5 and 19:15. Christ’s role, at least in the initial vision-cycle (6:1-8:5), is expressed by his authoritative act of opening the seals, and thus bringing about the events of the Judgment (6:1, etc). Toward the close of the cycle (7:9-17), at a dramatic moment just prior to the opening of the seventh seal (8:1-5), the scene from chapter 5 is reprised, with believers joining the “elders” (and the heavenly “living creatures”) in worshiping the Lamb (i.e., the exalted Christ).

At the close of the second Vision-cycle (8:6-11:19), there is a similar Kingdom-scene (11:15-19), in which the “elders” (on their thrones) give worship to God and Christ (on the central throne). In many ways, this represents the central point of the book, and a climactic moment in which the “coming of the Kingdom” is ultimately realized—in its eschatological (and final) sense. At this point, the Kingdom-petition of the Lord’s Prayer, including its qualifying petition in Matt 6:10c, truly has been fulfilled: God’s Kingdom has been established on earth, just as it has been in heaven. Here is how this is expressed in 11:15:

“The kingdom of the world [i.e., ‘on earth’] has become the (Kingdom) of our Lord and His Anointed (One) [i.e., ‘as in heaven’]—”

It is the Kingdom of God Almighty (“our Lord”) and the exalted Christ (“His Anointed”), since they share the same ruling position and authority. The final statement in verse 15 (“and He shall rule as king into the Ages of the Ages”) also should be understood as applying to both God and Christ. The everlasting rule and dominion of God (as King) is traditional (e.g., Exod 15:18; Psalm 145:13; 146:10; Dan 4:34; 6:26), but the Messianic context of the reference here is almost certainly inspired by Dan 7:14 (and the entire Judgment scene in chap. 7). The everlasting character of the Messiah’s kingdom is further indicated by references such as 2 Sam 7:13 and Isa 9:7, interpreted as Messianic prophecies. This was clearly part of the early Christian understanding of Jesus’ identity as the royal/Davidic Messiah (note Luke 1:33 and Heb 1:8 [citing Ps 45:6]; and cf. also John 12:34).

The coming of God’s Kingdom “upon earth” was finally realized (in its ultimate eschatological sense) through the end-time Judgment, which (as noted above) was ushered in and overseen by the Messiah (Christ, the Lamb). This is clearly expressed by the poetic verses (of praise and worship) that conclude the section (vv. 17-18). The Vision-cycle itself ends with a final theophany (v. 19), in which all of creation itself effectively gives worship to God.

The final Vision-cycle (chapters 15-16ff), depicting (again) the great Judgment, is preceded by a series of visionary scenes (chaps. 12-14) which dramatically portray the end-time period of distress, during which believers in Christ face oppression and persecution from the nations. This reflects the opposition of “the kingdom of the world”, dominated by the forces of evil, against the Kingdom of God (and Christ). For the original author and audience of the book, the Roman Empire unquestionably serves as the model for this depiction of the “kingdom of the world” as the domain of a great evil “beast” (cf. the vision in Daniel 7), even as it also does in the following chapters 17-18 (utilizing the political image of “Babylon” as the great and wicked world-ruling city). For believers to emerge from this time of distress faithful to Christ, they must resist the evil influence of this “kingdom of the world”. Note, in particular, the imagery of marking/sealing in chapters 13-14 (cf. also earlier in chap. 7), which indicates a person’s allegiance, and the one to whom he/she properly belongs. The true believer belongs to God and to Christ, and to the Kingdom (of God and Christ), while the unbeliever (and false believer) belongs to the “beast” and the “kingdom of the world”.

These intermediary visionary scenes conclude with another short climactic vision of the great Judgment (chap. 14), but this time connected specifically with the return to earth of the exalted Christ (cf. Mark 13:26ff par)—in his Messianic role of a conquering King (vv. 14-16ff) who brings about the Judgment of the nations (vv. 17-20). The opening of the final Vision-cycle (15:1-4) picks up this same line of imagery, as believers (in heaven) sing praise to God, declaring his rule (as King) over the nations.

The final visions of the Judgment (in chaps. 19-20) alternate between the scenes of judgment (on earth) and the blessed and exalted state of believers in heaven. Believers themselves have a royal status and place in this Kingdom of God (19:6-8ff), even sharing in the rule (held by God and Christ) of the eternal Kingdom (20:4-6).

An even more comprehensive portrait of this eternal Kingdom of God is given in the final vision (chaps. 21-22)—that of the “New Jerusalem”, the Holy City that serves as a traditional and representative symbol of the Kingdom. In this regard, “Jerusalem” stands in marked contrast to “Babylon” (chaps. 17-18) the symbol of the “kingdom of the world” in all its wickedness. An important point of emphasis is that, in this new “Jerusalem”, there is no longer any temple (21:22). The Temple had functioned, in a ritual and symbolic sense, as the dwelling-place for God among His people (cf. the wording in 21:3). Moreover, the golden chest (i.e., ‘ark’) in the sanctuary, with its winged kerub-figures, symbolized the throne of God (cf. the theophany-scene in 11:19), the place where He ruled (as King) over His people. Now, in the eternal Kingdom of God, there is no temple sanctuary; rather, the entire holy city serves as the throne of God (and Christ), where believers also sit (on their own thrones), surrounding God (and Christ) and ruling alongside.

The final reference to the Divine throne is the beatific scene of eternal life that closes the vision (22:1-5), in which the flowing river of the “water of life” flows forth from the throne upon which both God and the Lamb (Christ) sit, v. 1. This imagery, which is drawn (primarily) from several prophetic passages (Ezek 47:1; Zech 13:1; 14:8; cf. also Joel 3:18; Isa 33:20-21), is utilized as a way of depicting the Divine life that fills the city, perpetually giving life and blessedness to all who reside there (vv. 2-3). This experience of eternal life is ultimately defined in terms of being in the presence of God and Christ. This beatific vision, described in the traditional language of ‘seeing God’s face’ (v. 4) and with the traditional imagery of light (v. 5), offers us the truest sense of what it means to belong to the Kingdom of God—as believers, to “enter” and to “inherit” the Kingdom. It is a scenario—and a message—which one finds throughout the New Testament, beginning with the words and teaching of Jesus, just as we have seen in our examination over the course of this series.

One aspect of the Kingdom, which is surprisingly absent from the book of Revelation, is the identification of God’s Kingdom with the Spirit. Throughout the book, the Spirit is primarily associated with the prophetic word (and vision); cf. 19:10; 22:6. The seer (John) is said to be “in the Spirit” when the visions come to him (1:10); he then hears the Spirit speaking to him (2:7, 11, et al.) and sees visions in the Spirit (4:2), being transported by the Spirit from one visionary location to another (17:3; 21:10). The Spirit also, along with the entire inspired Community of the faithful, declares the final word of exhortation (21:17).

However, there is another line of Spirit-reference in the book which is of particular interest in relation to the Kingdom-theme: namely, the references to the “seven spirits” of God, which are specifically said to stand “in the sight of” God as He sits upon His throne (1:4; 4:5). The plural “spirits” (pneu/mata) are probably to be understood as separate divine/heavenly spirit-beings (i.e., angels), since they are said to be sent out by God throughout the earth on missions (5:6). And yet, in Zechariah 4, which is clearly the principal source for these references, the seven fiery “lamps” are specifically associated with the Spirit (singular) of God (v. 6). Moreover, the Spirit can also be conceived as being ‘sent forth’ by God (and/or by the exalted Christ), such as for the purpose of coming upon His people (i.e., believers) at the end-time (Acts 2:1-4ff, 17-21 [Joel 2:28-32], etc). In any case, these Spirit-references in the book of Revelation allow for at least the possibility of specifically connecting God’s throne (and His Kingdom) with His Spirit.

* * * * * *

For the remainder of the summer, the Notes on Prayer feature will focus on the role of prayer in the Book of Daniel.

Studies on the Spirit: The Flesh, the World, and the Devil (Study 2)

The Flesh, the World, and the Devil

Study 2: The Devil (Part 2)

In our first study, focusing on role of the Spirit in connection with the conflict between believers and the Devil (or the Satan, also referred to by other designations), we began with the Spirit as it was manifested in the Messianic ministry of Jesus. Guided and empowered by the Spirit (Lk 4:1ff, 14-16ff), Jesus Christ was able to exercise authority over the Devil—as evidenced primarily by the healing miracles he performed, involving the casting out (i.e., exorcism) of unclean/evil spirits (cf. Acts 10:38, and especially Matt 12:28 par in the context of the ‘Beelzebul’ episode [Mk 3:22-30 par]). This authority was established in the Temptation scene (Lk 4:1-13 par), particularly as it is presented in the Lukan narrative, framed by the descent of the Spirit at the baptism (3:21-22) and the citation of Isa 61:1 in the Nazareth episode (4:16-30, vv. 18-19). It is clearly indicated that this authority over the Devil was realized through the Holy Spirit—the same Spirit which, at the baptism, established Jesus’ Messianic identity as the Son of God (Mk 1:11 par, cf. 3:11; 5:7 par; Matt 8:29; Lk 4:41). The presence and activity of God’s holy Spirit is in direct contrast (and opposition) to the unclean and evil spirits.

The role of the Spirit is much the same for believers in Christ, following the type-pattern and example of Jesus himself. Indeed, the mission of believers is, in many ways, simply an extension and continuation of Jesus’ own ministry. This connection is evidenced already in the Gospel narrative, with the mission of the disciples (Mk 3:14-15; 6:7-13 par; Lk 10:1-12), clearly represented as a continuation of Jesus’ ministry, including authority to cast out evil spirits (i.e., authority over the Devil). The preaching of the Gospel also reflects God’s power over evil, bringing freedom and deliverance from sin for all who believe (see again the citation of Isa 61:1 in Lk 4:18f [also 7:22]; cf. also Acts 26:18). The same pattern holds for the early Christian mission (as narrated throughout the book of Acts, etc), only now it is unquestionably the presence of the Spirit that guides and empowers believers, even as it did for Jesus himself.

In this regard, an important part of the Gospel (the ‘good news’) is the message that, with the coming of Christ, the power and authority of the Devil (over the world in this current Age) has come to an end (Lk 10:18; cf. Rev 12:9). Indeed, a key purpose of Christ’s mission on earth was to defeat the Devil and destroy his power—cf. Jn 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; 1 Jn 3:8; Heb 2:14. And, even though this will not be fully realized for humankind until the end of the current Age (cf. Rom 16:20; Rev 12:12; 20:2ff), believers in Christ already experience the New Age, even in the present. The Devil (or Satan) no longer has any power over us as believers, even though he may continue to harass, tempt, and attack us. We have the ability to resist the Devil and his attacks (James 4:7; Eph 6:11ff), and, moreover, we are protected from them. The clear implication is that this Divine power and protection comes through the presence of the Spirit.

It is in the Johannine writings (Gospel and Letters) that we find the clearest statements to this effect. However, before considering those references, it is worth examining passages in the remainder of the New Testament which address the relationship between believers and the Devil. In such references, even when the Spirit is not explicitly mentioned, a connection with the Spirit may be fairly inferred.

Let us begin with two of the exhortative commands given to believers, in James 4:7 and 1 Peter 5:8-9, respectively.

James 4:7

“So, place yourselves under order to God; then stand against the Diábolos, and he will flee from you.” (James 4:7)

There are two sequentially-related verbal imperatives in this verse. The first is of the verb u(pota/ssw, which means “set/place in order under” —that is, under the authority of a higher power. It can be used in a practical context, viz., of relationships involving human government (kingdoms, families, church-congregations, see the six occurrences in 1 Peter and the three in Titus); yet here the verb is specifically applied to believers in relation to God. The immediate context in the letter of James (chap. 4) is a set of ethical instruction which the author gives to believers, drawing upon traditional teaching by Jesus (vv. 9-17), but also involving instruction (in vv. 1-4) that resembles aspects of Pauline and Johannine teaching. Certainly, putting oneself “under order to God” involves holy ethical/moral conduct (cf. how the parallel idiom of “coming near” to God is defined in verse 8ff), and yet the matter is also framed in terms of the believer’s conflict with the “flesh” (i.e., impulses toward sin, vv. 1-3) and the “world” (v. 4). These two sources of conflict will, of course, be discussed in the upcoming studies in this series; here it is important to note how our resistance to the Devil is connected with both the evil influence of “the world” and our struggle with the “flesh”.

It is worth considering other occurrences of the verb u(pota/ssw as they might relate to its use here in James 4:7. Of particular interest are those which (i) relate to our conflict with the Devil, and (ii) suggest the role of the Spirit in and among believers. In the first category is the use of the verb in Luke 10:17 and 20, where it refers specifically to the disciples’ authority over evil spirits (in the context of the mission in 10:1-12, see above). The daimons (i.e., evil spirits or ‘demons’) are said to place themselves under order [u(pota/ssetai] to the disciples. In connection to the exhortation of James 4:7, we might infer that, insofar as we (as believers) place ourselves under order to God, the Devil (and his demons) will put themselves under order to us.

The remainder of relevant occurrences of the verb are all from the Pauline letters. Of these, there are several references, similar in many ways to that of Lk 10:17ff (see above), which emphasize that God has placed all things (viz., all creation) under order to Jesus Christ—1 Cor 15:27-28; Phil 3:21, and Eph 1:22 [cf. 5:24]. By extension, we may note again that, just as all things (including the Devil and evil spirits) are under the authority of Christ, so they are also under the authority of believers, insofar as the Spirit of God (and Christ) is present and active in us.

The connection with the Spirit is brought more clearly by the occurrences of u(pota/ssw in Romans. First, we have Paul’s statement in 8:7, where the context is that of believers being guided by the Spirit (vv. 2ff), in contrast to the flesh. In this regard, the “Law of God” referenced in verse 7 no longer refers to the “law” (Torah regulations, etc) of the old covenant, but to the Law of the new covenant— “the Law of the Spirit of Life”. It is only “in the Spirit” that a person (i.e., believer in Christ) is able to place him/herself under order to “the Law of God”; the person whose mind is still governed by “the flesh” cannot do this (cf. Paul’s discussion in chap. 7). Thus, placing oneself in order to God, in this context, clearly means allowing oneself to be guided and led by the Spirit. The same Law-Spirit relationship (and Spirit/flesh contrast) informs Paul’s use of the verb u(pota/ssw in 10:3, as he contrasts those who, still operating under the strictures of the old covenant, have been unwilling to put themselves under order [u(peta/ghsan] to the “right(eous)ness of God” that is now manifest in the person of Christ (and realized through the Spirit).

Returning to James 4:7, the second imperative is of the verb a)nqi/sthmi, “stand against”. The two imperatival phrases should be read sequentially, one following (and resulting from) the other. That is to say, as believers place them/ourselves under order to God (and His Spirit), they/we will be enabled to “stand against” the Devil. Recognizing the active presence of God’s own Holy Spirit (which is also the Spirit of Christ), the Devil (and his evil spirits) will flee from us. The very act of flight is an acknowledgment of our authority (in Christ) and the power (through the Spirit) we hold over them.

1 Peter 5:8-9

“Stay sober, keep awake!—(for) our antagonist [a)nti/diko$] the Diábolos, as a lion roaring, walks about seeking [one] to gulp down; (he is) the (one) whom you must stand against, firm in the trust, having seen the same (kind)s of sufferings for your brothers in [the] world being brought to completion.” (1 Peter 5:8-9)

The imperative of the verb u(pota/ssw in James 4:7 (see above) here corresponds to the twin imperatives of the verbs nh/fw (“be/stay sober”, lit. refrain from [drinking] wine) and grhgoreu/w (“keep awake”, lit. be raised/roused [from sleep])—both of which are part of the traditional early Christian vocabulary of ethical instruction, within an eschatological setting. For similar occurrences of nh/fw, see 1 Thess 5:6, 8; 2 Tim 4:5, and earlier here in 1 Pet 1:13; 4:7. The use of grhgoreu/w is more common, occurring in the eschatological teaching of Jesus (Mk 13:34-35, 37 par; Matt 25:13; Lk 12:37, and note also the context of Mk 14:34, 37-38 par), and in Paul’s exhortative (ethical) instruction (1 Thess 5:6, 10; 1 Cor 16:13; Col 4:2; cf. also Acts 20:31). Not surprisingly, it also features in the exhortations of the book of Revelation (presented as sayings/commands by the exalted Christ, 3:2-3; 16:15). From the eschatological standpoint of early Christians (an imminent eschatology), the end of the current Age was viewed as a time of severe distress [qli/yi$], characterized by intense (and increasing) wickedness and opposition to God. The Devil/Satan was seen as being particularly active and aggressive during this period, perhaps realizing (as stated in Rev 12:12) that his time is short.

Believers are exhorted (and commanded) to stay awake and alert during this time of darkness, when the Devil (described as the antagonist [a)nti/diko$] of Christians) is “walking [i.e., prowling] about”, looking for someone to devour (lit., “gulp down”). However, as noted in James 4:7, believers are able to stand against the Devil; the same point is made here, using the same verb (a)nqi/sthmi, “stand against”). It is by remaining firm (stereo/$) in the faith (viz., our trust in Christ) that one is able to resist (and defeat) the Devil. There is no mention of the Spirit here; indeed, the emphasis seems rather to be on the strength that comes from ecclesiastical-communal solidarity (cf. the use of u(pota/ssw in v. 5). In particular, the encouraging example of faithfulness and patient endurance by other believers, during this end-time period of distress and persecution, is highlighted (v. 9).

However, 1 Peter certainly recognizes the presence of the Spirit in and among believers as a central aspect of our Christian identity (2:5; 4:14) and the product of our trust in Christ. Indeed, the presence and activity God’s holy Spirit is the basis for our own holiness and sanctification (i.e., being made holy), as stated in 1:2, at the opening of the letter. The Spirit also remains central to the message of eschatological hope (and promise) that runs throughout the letter. Even so, it must be admitted that the role of the Spirit is brought out more clearly in the Pauline and Johannine writings; and, if we compare the message of 1 Pet 5:8-9 with certain parallels in those writings, then the spiritual aspect of our “staying sober” and “keeping awake” comes into clearer focus. In particular, the Johannine writings (esp. the First Letter) present the same eschatological conflict of 1 Pet 5:8-9 in terms of the contrast between the Spirit that is in believers and the false/evil spirit[s] (of the Devil) that are at work in the world here at the end of the current Age. This will be discussed in greater detail in a number of our upcoming studies.

In the next study (Study 3), we will survey the major (and most relevant) references to the Spirit in Paul’s letters, in the context of believers’ conflict with the Devil. Particular attention will be given to the famous Pauline passage in Ephesians 6:10-20, with its key references to both the Devil (vv. 11ff) and the Spirit (vv. 17ff).

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

Philippians 2:6-11, continued

(See Part 1 of this article)

2. The Wording used in verses 6-8 (continued)

In this section we are examining certain 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. For the discussion on the first expression (e)n morfh=| qeou=) with its use of the noun morfh/, see Part 1.

We now turn to the phrase a(rpagmo\n h(gh/sato in the context of the syntactical expression to\ ei@nai i&sa qew=| (“[the] being equal to God”). These two components, governed by the negative particle ou)k (ou)x), comprise the clause of v. 6b, conditioned by the initial participial clause of v. 6a (“who, beginning under in [the] form of God…”). Verse 6b is the continuation of this statement, forming an exceptive contrast: i.e., “who, (though) beginning in (the) form of God, did not [ou)k]…”

There are two main interpretive difficulties, related to the meaning of each of the components of v. 6b. The first is the meaning of the phrase a(rpagmo\n h(gh/sato. The noun a(rpagmo/$ is derived from the verb a(rpa/zw, meaning “take (with force), seize, snatch (away)”, often in the negative and/or violent sense of “rob, steal, plunder”. The negative/violent sense certainly occurs where the verb is used in, e.g., Matt 11:12; 13:19; John 6:15; 10:12, 28-29; however, in the only three instances of the verb in Paul’s letters, it refers to a person being ‘taken up’ into heaven (1 Thess 4:17; 2 Cor 12:2, 4, cp. with Rev 12:5, and the salvation context of Jude 23). The derived noun a(rpagmo/$ could have the active meaning of “seizing” or the passive meaning (similar to the related a%rpagma) “that which is seized”. Since a(rpagmo/$ occurs only here in the New Testament, it is difficult to determine the precise meaning in context; nor is it used in the LXX (while the related a%rpagma occurs 18 times) and is likewise extremely rare in extra-biblical Greek of the period (outside of early Christian writings dependent upon Phil 2:6), with not a single surviving occurrence, as far as I am aware, earlier than our passage.
The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae search tool locates just four occurrences in non-Christian Greek writings from the first-second centuries A.D., viz., of Plutarch (2), Phrynichus, and Vettius Valens.

The verb h(ge/omai is a middle deponent form of the primary verb a&gw (“lead”), and thus meaning “lead forth”, sometimes in the figurative-conceptual sense of bringing something forth in one’s mind, so as to give it consideration, regard, etc. This is quite clearly the sense in which it is used here, particularly when compared with the usage earlier in v. 3, and again in 3:7-8.

The denotative meaning of the second phrase-expression, to\ ei@nai i&sa qew=| (“[the] being equal to God”), is straightforward enough, but its exact significance in context remains much disputed. But, before proceeding, let us assemble the entire clause, combining together the two phrase-components, governed by the negative particle (i.e., indicating what Jesus did not do): “he did not lead forth (in his thought) [i.e., consider/regard] the being equal to God (as) a a(rpagmo/$.” The main question to be addressed, then, is whether a(rpagmo/$ means the act of seizing or something to be seized. Most commentators follow the latter option, whereby a(rpagmo/$ is more or less equivalent with the related a%rpagma, even though nouns ending in –mo$ tend to have a predominantly active/action orientation. To capture both possibilities, one may translate as follows:

“…he did not lead forth (in his thought) the being equal to God (as something for) seizing”

The use of a(rpagmo/$, in the sense of “(something for) seizing”, should be understood in the positive sense of an honor, something to be prized, in keeping with the exalted position of Christ at the beginning. In English idiom, a(rpagmo/$ could be rendered (in this sense) as “a (great) catch”; cf. the expression a(rpale/an do/sin, “a gift desirable for seizing/taking”, in the 8th Pythian ode of Pindar (line 65), using the related adjective a(rpale/o$.

This leads to a second major interpretive question: how does “being equal to God” relate to being “in the form of God” (v. 6a)? Are the expressions essentially equivalent in meaning, or is there a distinction? If the former, then the issue in v. 6 is that Christ did not wish to hold on to his equality with God (viz., as something which he already possessed), but willingly gave it up. This line of interpretation, which is favored by a fair number of commentators, is more or less required by orthodox Christology; however, in the overall context of the Christ-hymn of vv. 6-11, it is rather unlikely. Almost certainly an important distinction is in view, between being “in the form of God” and “being equal to God”. In his exalted position as the pre-existent Son of God, Christ was still—as the Son—subordinate to the Father. Like a faithful and dutiful son, Christ was unwilling to take hold of the honor that belongs to his father, even though he is set to inherit it, before the time when it is bestowed upon him (by the father). Such ‘subordinationism’ may be problematic from the standpoint of later orthodox Christology, but it is altogether in keeping with the first-century Christology of the New Testament.

This brings us to the key phrase of verse 7: e(auto\n e)ke/nwsen (“he emptied himself”), utilizing the verb keno/w (“to [make] empty”). The initial adversative conjunction in verse 7, a)lla/ (“but, rather”) sets in contrast what Christ did not do (v. 6) with what he actually did. He did not consider “being equal to God” as something for grabbing hold of (as an honor or prize), but instead he “emptied himself”. While the verb keno/w can be used in the concrete sense, e.g., of emptying a vessel of its contents, this meaning is properly reserved for the compound verb e)kkeno/w (“empty out”), which occurs more frequently in the LXX (16 times) than simple keno/w (only twice, Jer 14:2; 15:9). In both the LXX and the New Testament, keno/w is used in a more abstract or figurative sense. The four other NT occurrences are all in Paul’s letters (Rom 4:14; 1 Cor 1:17; 9:15; 2 Cor 9:3), and, in all of these instances, keno/w has something of a figurative meaning, connoting the loss of honor, esteem, or value and significance. By comparison, in the LXX, it is used of a human subject, indicating the loss of strength and energy, just as in English idiom we might speak of being “spent” or “on empty”.

The use of keno/w with a reflexive pronoun (as the object), whereby a person is said to “empty himself”, is extremely rare in Greek writings of the period, especially when one excludes other early Christian writings that are dependent upon Phil 2:7. There is a rare occurrence of the idiom in the work of Aristophanes of Byzantium (quoted by Claudius Aelian), where it is used in the context of a person physically ’emptying himself’ through lack of food and rest—indicating a basic connotation of self-denial which is not entirely out of keeping with the setting of the Christ-hymn (see below).

While the use of keno/w in the Christ-hymn certainly relates to the idea of incarnation, the precise significance of what it means for the pre-existent Son of God to “empty himself” remains much discussed and debated among commentators. Particularly controversial are the lines of interpretation which may be summarized under the label of a Kenosis (or Kenotic) theory—from the Greek word ke/nwsi$ (an “emptying”), derived from the use here of the verb keno/w. According to the various formulations of Kenosis theory, the pre-existent Christ (or Son), in becoming fully human, “emptied himself” of the Divine nature and/or attributes. While this approach is problematic in terms of orthodox Christology it does have the advantage of explaining and harmonizing certain aspects of the New Testament witness.

The use of the term “nature” itself is problematic, as it is rather general in English and can be used in a relatively wide range of semantic contexts. In particular, the Christological focus shifts markedly whether “nature” is understood primarily in terms of identity or in terms of attributes. If we are to understand being “in the form of God” in terms of Jesus’ identity as the Son of God, then it is clear, from the New Testament and early Christian perspective, that Christ never gave up being the Son of God. However, it is a different matter with regard to the Divine attributes—those fundamental characteristics which are typically attributed to Deity, such as omnipotence and omniscience, as well as ‘moral’ attributes such as righteousness and holiness (including the idea of sinlessness). Many theologians maintain that the experience of a true and full human nature by Jesus Christ would require his surrendering (or at least limiting) possession and/or use of these attributes.

The New Testament witness and the Gospel Tradition, it may be argued, supports such a Kenosis-Christology. For example, it seems quite clear from the Gospel narrative, that the coming of the Spirit upon Jesus at his baptism enabled him to fulfill his Messianic mission, giving him the power (and authority) to act as God’s anointed representative, performing miracles and casting out the evil spirits, etc; see esp. Luke 4:1ff, 14ff (18ff [Isa 61:1]) in the context of the baptism (3:21-22), and the saying of Matt 12:28 par in the context of the ‘Beelzebul’ episode (Mk 3:22-30). But, if Jesus Christ, as the incarnate Son, already fully possessed the Spirit and was all-powerful (i.e., possessing the Divine attribute of omniscience), then the Gospel portrait, with its emphasis on the importance of the coming of the Spirit upon Jesus (at his baptism), becomes difficult to maintain.

Similarly, the temptation scene (Lk 4:1-13 par), and the reality of Jesus’ human experience (as indicated in statements such as Heb 2:18; 4:15), would lose much of its significance if Christ were unable to sin (due to his possession of Divine sinlessness, etc). Rather, the overall portrait in the New Testament suggests that Jesus was prone to temptation, and subject to the impulse toward sin, just like any other human being. That he remained faithful to God and did not sin may be seen as the result of his reliance upon the presence and the power of God’s holy Spirit; his example also sets the pattern for the possibility of sinlessness among believers, insofar as they/we also submit to the guidance of the Spirit and rely wholly on its power.

Yet, even though the New Testament may support such a Kenosis-theory involving the divine attributes, it remains rather speculative. It must also be admitted that the Christ-hymn here in Philippians displays no clear evidence of any sort of developed Kenotic theory, apart from use of the phrase “he emptied himself”, the interpretation of which is the very point at issue.

A more profitable line of interpretation involves, not the Divine ‘attributes’, but the exalted status and position which the Son held prior to his incarnation. As we discussed with regard to the use of the expression “in the form of God” (v. 6, see in Part 1), the primary point of reference is not to the pre-existent Christ’s Divine “nature” or “attributes”, but to his exalted status/position in heaven (with God the Father). The parallel between the expressions “in the form of God” and “in the form of a slave” would seem to confirm this. The expression in v. 7 is not “in form of a man”, but “in the form of a slave”—viz., a lowly position on earth (as a human being), in contrast to his exalted position (with God) in heaven. By “emptying himself”, Christ went from this exalted Divine position to the lowly status of a human being. The use of the reflexive pronoun (“himself”) makes clear that what he “emptied out” was not the Divine nature or attributes, etc, but his own self.

Another useful interpretive approach involves the conceptual parallel between emptying and pouring out. In particular, we should consider instances of Paul’s use of this related idiom. As it happens, Paul makes use of it here in Philippians, in the context of the Christ-hymn (v. 17). The verb is spe/ndw, “pour out”, often utilized in the ritual setting of sacrificial libations or drink-offerings (cf. Gen 35:14, etc. LXX). Paul states, with regard to himself (and his work as a minister of the Gospel): “But, indeed, if I am poured out [spe/ndomai] upon the sacrifice and the service of your trust, I rejoice and (also) rejoice together with you all.” The same sacrificial language and imagery (with the verb spe/ndw) occurs in 2 Tim 4:6. In the service of Christ and the Gospel, Paul, like every faithful Christian minister, has “poured himself out” (i.e., “emptied himself”), devoting his entire life, giving out all of his strength and energy, etc, for that mission. In light of the context of the Christ-hymn, and the message regarding the need for self-sacrifice by believers, in service to one another (vv. 1-5), Paul surely understands the “self-emptying” by Jesus in a similar way. Christ willingly gave all of himself—his entire life and being—to the mission God set for him, which involved being sent out from his Divine/heavenly position to take on the lowly status and position of a human being (on earth)—i.e., an incarnation—with all of the weaknesses and limitations which that entailed.

In Part 3 of this article, we will examine the remaining words and phrases in verse 7 (and 8) as they relate to the idea of the incarnation of Christ. Then, in conclusion, we will consider the Christological message of vv. 6-8 in relation to the wider Pauline Christology—particularly the earlier references to pre-existence and incarnation in Paul’s letters (discussed in the prior studies).

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 138

Psalm 138

Dead Sea MSS: 11QPsa (vv. 1-8)

This Psalm is essentially a hymn of thanksgiving and praise to YHWH, but developed in such a way as to incorporate elements from a number of additional genres. The most distinctive feature of the Psalm is its chiastic structure, which, rather unusually, is better defined metrically than thematically. As nearly all commentators recognize, there is a three-part division to the Psalm:

    • Expression of thanksgiving to YHWH for His faithfulness and devotion (vv. 1-3)
      • Call for all people to acknowledge the Sovereign greatness and loyalty of YHWH (vv. 4-6)
    • Expression of trust in YHWH’s continued faithfulness and devotion (vv. 7-8)

As indicated by this outline, the central unit (vv. 4-6) is transitional between the two expressions (by an individual protagonist) of worship to YHWH. Note the symmetry of the metrical structure which parallels the thematic structure (cf. Allen, p. 310f); momentarily excluding the initial couplet of v. 1, we have the rather precise chiasm:

      • 3+2+2 (v. 2abc)
        • 2+2 (v. 2de)
          • 3+3 (v. 3)
            • 4+3 (v. 4)
              • 3+3 (v. 5)
            • 4+3 (v. 6)
          • 3+3 (v. 7a)
        • 2+2 (v. 7b)
      • 3+3+3 (v. 8)

Such poetic structural precision is most impressive, and a clear indication of the Psalmist’s artistry.

Psalm 138 is given the traditional ascription of Davidic authorship (“[belonging] to David”) in the heading. Dahood (III, p. 275f), for one, is inclined to date the composition to the early monarchic period, perhaps even to the 10th century, which would make Davidic authorship an actual possibility. However, his is a minority opinion, and other commentators would give the work a much later date—in the Exilic or post-Exilic period. There can be little doubt that there is a strong royal background to the Psalm, but this does not necessarily mean that it was composed in the monarchic (pre-exilic) period. As we have already seen and discussed in a number of the prior studies, many Psalms evince a royal background, often combining such elements with the orientation of a protagonist who is simply one of the righteous, and of a communal worship setting. Even a Psalm composed at a much later time might well make use of older genre-elements and lines of tradition, such as  those which originally took form during a time when kingship was active and a royal theology (with its corresponding cultural background) was prominently in view.
As possible confirmation for a later (exilic) date for the Psalm, one may note the heading in some manuscripts of the LXX which attributes authorship properly to Zechariah; there is a similar qualified heading in the LXX of Psalm 139.

Psalm 138 is noteworthy as a rare example of a Psalm that survives fully intact (without any lacunae) in a Qumran manuscript (11QPsa). In spite of this full textual preservation, there are only a few variant readings, thereby generally confirming the reliability and integrity of the MT for this Psalm.

Stanza 1: Verses 1-3

Verse 1

“I will give thanks to you with all of my heart—
in front of (the) Mighty (one)s I will make music to you!”

While the initial couplet of verse 1 is here included as part of the first stanza, which is characterized by a tenor of thanksgiving and praise, it is also possible to treat v. 1 as an introductory declaration by the protagonist that stands outside of the stanza proper and governs the entire Psalm (viz., as a hymn of thanksgiving/praise).

The verbs hd*y` and rm^z` (I), which are set in parallel, occur frequently in the Psalms. The first (hd*y`) has the basic meaning of “give thanks/praise” (to God), often with a connotation of making a confession to God; in such a context, where this verb is used in the Psalms, we often find a theological and religious declaration of belief in YHWH—viz., who He is, His character, etc, and what He has done. Such a confessional orientation is fundamental to the praise and worship that the righteous ones give to YHWH. The verb in the second line (rm^z`) means “make music”, including both the playing of (instrumental) music and singing; many Psalms are designated as a rm)z+m! (“musical composition”).

In the Qumran manuscript 11QPsa there is an additional word in the first line—the Divine name hwhy (YHWH). This is probably a scribal addition meant to clarify whom the protagonist is addressing. Rhythmically, it may also have been felt that the extra word was needed; verse 1 in the MT (without the Divine name) has a 3+3 meter, but a slightly irregular 7:10 syllable ratio. However, as Dahood notes (III, p. 276), there is a symmetry to the syllable count of the first four lines (7:10::10:7) which would be upset by the additional word, and serves as an argument in favor of the MT.

The original scribe of 11QPsa also included the Divine name in the second line, along with <yh!l)a$. This juxtaposition makes clear that <yh!l)a$ refers to YHWH, and not to other gods; the same reading is found in some manuscripts of the MT. However, the text of 11QPsa was subsequently corrected to read simply <yh!l)a$, without the Divine name, even as it stands in the majority MT. Indeed, most commentators would hold that <yh!l)a$ here is not being used as a (superlative) designation for YHWH (i.e., “Mightiest [One]”), via the traditional utilization of <yh!l)a$ as an intensive (or comprehensive) plural; rather, it is to be regarded as an ordinary numeric plural (“mighty [one]s”) in reference (most likely) to the other gods (“Mighty [one]s”) worshiped by the nations. For commentators who understand Psalm 138 to have been composed in the Exilic period (or in the post-Exilic diaspora), this is essentially a reference to Israelites and Jews who maintain their faithfulness to YHWH even the midst of populations who acknowledge and worship other deities. This orientation would enhance the confessional natural of the Psalm (see above on the use of the verb hd*y`). In Dahood’s royal interpretation (III, p. 276f), the same sort of setting applies to the protagonist (i.e., the king) when he is abroad in foreign lands (on military campaign, etc).
By rendering <yh!l)a$ with the plural of a&ggelo$ (“messenger”)—viz., as a reference to the heavenly angels, rather than other gods—the LXX avoids any possible conflict with Israelite-Jewish monotheism

In any case, the protagonist effectively declares (and confesses) the greatness and superiority of YHWH, in relation to all other gods. This point of reference is paralleled by the central unit of vv. 4-6, in which the Psalmist/protagonist calls on all the nations to acknowledge the Sovereignty of YHWH, and thus to worship Him before all other deities.

The LXX includes an additional line, between v. 1a and 1b, which gives the reason why the protagonist praises YHWH: “…(in) that [i.e., because] you (have) heard the utterances of my mouth” —that is, YHWH has answered the Psalmist’s prayer. The line may have been added under the influence of the similar v. 4b. 

Verse 2abc

“I will bow down toward (the) palace of your holiness,
and with thanks confess your name
over your loyalty and your firmness.”

The protagonist’s worship and praise of YHWH, introduced in verse 1, is here given a distinct religious and ritual setting—viz., in relation to the Temple of YHWH in Jerusalem. The noun lk*yh@ properly denotes a great house or palace; however, clearly, the ‘palace’ of deity, in such a ritual context, is a temple. The Temple is the house (i.e., palace) of God, where He dwells (in His holiness) among His people. The innermost shrine, specifically, is the holy place where YHWH has His dwelling. This sacredness of the Temple sanctuary makes it the focal point for all Israelite-Judean (and Jewish) worship. According to certain lines of ancient Israelite religious tradition, it was through the presence of YHWH’s name that He dwelt among His people in the Temple sanctuary. This name-theology features in a number of Psalms; see (most recently) in the study on Psalm 135 (vv. 1, 3, 13). It is particularly prominent in the book of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic history; cf. my series of notes on the Prayer of Solomon (at the dedication of the Temple) in 1 Kings 8, where the name-theology is especially emphasized.

Some commentators would take this Temple point-of-reference quite literally, to the point of assuming that the protagonist is present in the Temple precincts. For commentators who posit an exilic or post-exilic (diaspora) setting for the Psalm, it is simply a reference to the tradition of praying and worshiping in the direction of Jerusalem (and the Temple), just as described throughout Solomon’s Prayer (1 Kings 8). Dahood (III, p. 277) also views the protagonist as being away from Jerusalem (in a foreign land, see above on v. 1), but according to his interpretation of the protagonist as the Israelite/Judean king (away on military campaign, etc). I am inclined to view the Temple-orientation here in the most general way, as a basic reference to the true and proper worship of YHWH by the faithful, with its focus on the Jerusalem sanctuary.

The protagonist praises (and confesses) the loyalty and faithfulness of YHWH, in particular, utilizing a pair of nouns—ds#j# and tm#a#—which feature prominently (and are used in tandem) in many Psalms. As I have discussed, the noun ds#j# has the basic meaning “goodness, kindness”, but often with the specific connotative meaning of “faithfulness, loyalty, devotion”, particularly when used in the context of the covenant (as it typically is in the Psalms). The noun tm#a# (like the related hn`Wma$) means “firmness”, but often in the sense of “faithfulness, trustworthiness”. Thus, both terms function as fundamental attributes of YHWH, particularly in relation to the binding agreement (covenant) He has established with His people. He is faithful and loyal to this covenant bond, acting with loyal devotion on behalf of His people; it is for this, primarily, that He is worshiped and given praise. There is also a strong association between YHWH’s name and the covenant.

The same verb, hd*y`, is used here (in v. 2b) as in v. 1a (see above); there it was translated as “give thanks”, while here I render it “confess with thanks”. 

Metrically, verse 2abc is an irregular tricolon (3+2+2), matching the tricolon in verse 8; on the metrical symmetry of the Psalm, see the introduction above.

Verse 2de

“Indeed, you make great over all
your name—your (very) word!”

To the declaration in v. 2abc, the protagonist adds here a short praise-confession, in which he establishes the greatness of YHWH (a key theme to be developed in the central vv. 4-6). YHWH’s greatness is understood in terms of His name and His word (hr*m=a!, i.e., that which He has said)—both of which are specifically related to the covenant and have been singled out as the focus of worship. The verb ld^G` (Hiphil, “make great”) is in a perfect form, which should probably be translated as “you have made great”; however, for poetic concision I render it here like a present form, in a general or regular/frequentive sense, “you make great”.

Sense is best made of this verse by vocalizing the substantive lK (“all”) as an absolute form (lK)), rather than the construct form (lK*) in the MT; this allows for parsing and line division such as indicated by the translation above.

Metrically, this verse is a short 2-beat (2+2) couplet, just like the matching verse 7b.

Verse 3

“In (the) day I called, (so) even you answered me,
you made me storm (forth with) strength in my soul!”

The concluding couplet of the stanza indicates that the protagonist understands the covenant faithfulness and loyalty of YHWH—expressed in a general way in v. 2—also in specific reference to an act (or actions) made on his behalf. An entire genre of thanksgiving Psalms, featuring the protagonist’s prayer for deliverance (which YHWH has answered), is alluded to and summarized here in a single couplet. The nature of the help YHWH provided is not described in any detail, other than by way of the implicit military language presented allusively in line 2. The verb bh^r* has a rather wide semantic range, but a basic meaning is something like “impel, drive forth”, often suggesting also the emotions involved, either of the one who drives (in anger or pride, etc) or the one who is driven forth (in fear and trembling, or with pride of strength). Here it is YHWH who causes the protagonist to drive forth, and to drive off his enemies; I have rendered the Hiphil (causative) form of the suffixed verb here as “you made me storm (forth)” (cf. Dahood, p. 275). For the association of the verb bh^r* with the noun za) (“strength”), see Ezek 24:21; 30:6, 18; 33:28; cf. Allen, p. 311.

This verse is a 3-beat (3+3) couplet, matching that of v. 7a.

Transition (CAll to the Nations): Verses 4-6

Verse 4

“May they confess you, YHWH, all (the) kings of (the) earth,
when they hear (the) words of your mouth!”

As noted above, these central verses (vv. 4-6) are transitional, forming a bridge between the two stanzas. The stanzas present a confession of faith and worship by the protagonist, an individual who represents the righteous/faithful ones of God’s people. Here in the transition, the orientation shifts, as the Psalmist-protagonist effectively calls upon all people—viz., the nations and their kings—to confess and worship YHWH, even as he himself does. The same verb (hd*y`) as in v. 1a and 2b is used here; previously it was translated as “give thanks” and “confess with thanks”, while here it is simply “confess”. See above on verse 1 for the confessional aspect of the Psalm, and the expression of this aspect through the verb hd*y`.

The nations will acknowledge YHWH as the Supreme/Sovereign God, and will worship Him accordingly, when they have “heard” the “words” of His mouth. From our standpoint, the use of the noun rm#a@ (“word”, thing said) is suitably vague: what are the “words” of YHWH to which the nations will respond? It could refer to a prophetic announcement (cf. the expression “words of my mouth” in Deut 32:1), or to teaching (viz., of the Torah precepts, etc); the latter is suggested by the expression “words of my mouth” in Ps 78:1, as also by the use of the related noun hr*m=a! (19 times) in Psalm 119 (cf. the references to God’s “mouth” in vv. 13, 72, 88).

The use of hr*m=a! here in verse 2 (see above) suggests that YHWH’s covenant promises (and His loyalty to the covenant) are in view. This covenant loyalty would be demonstrated clearly (and with power) when God responds on behalf of His people, even as He did for the protagonist (according to v. 3, see above). Probably this latter aspect is principally what the Psalmist has in mind: as the nations (and their kings) hear and experience what YHWH has done (and is doing) on behalf of His people, in faithfulness to the covenant bond, they will come to worship YHWH (as the greatest and mightiest God); cf. the universalistic orientation of Pss 95-99, which similarly express the expectation that the nations will acknowledge YHWH as the greatest God and King over all.

As noted above, these verses match the confessional declaration in verse 1, whereby the protagonist boldly makes his confession (of praise to YHWH) “in front” of the gods of the nations; now, here in vv. 4-6, he calls (with equal boldness) upon the nations and their kings to make a similar confession.

Metrically, this verse is a 4+3 couplet, matching that of v. 6.

Verse 5

“And they shall sing on (the) paths of YHWH:
How great (indeed is the) weight of YHWH!”

This couplet (3+3) is at the very center of the Psalm (cf. again the symmetric/chiastic structure outlined in the introduction above), and presents the dramatic moment when the nations will join the protagonist (along with all the righteous of Israel) in giving praise and worship to YHWH. A description of this worship is given in line 1, though the syntax can be rendered in several different ways. The use of the preposition B=, prefixed to the expression “paths of YHWH”, could be locative (i.e., they sing while being “on” the paths of YHWH), or partitive (viz., they sing a song about the paths of YHWH). The expression “paths of YHWH” (hwhy yk@r=D^) also has several possible layers of meaning. The noun Er#D# (i.e., a pathway upon which one treads), along with the idiom of “walking” itself, is frequently used in an ethical-religious sense, in the context of faithfulness to the covenant with YHWH, the terms of which are the precepts and regulations, etc, of the Torah; cf. especially the repeated use of this language and imagery in Psalm 119. At the same time, in the context of the Kingship and Sovereignty of YHWH, Er#D# can also refer to His domain and dominion—i.e., the paths of His Kingdom upon which YHWH treads (as King). Dahood (see III, p. 278) particularly emphasizes this aspect of meaning (both here and elsewhere in the Psalms).

The content of what the people sing is provided in line 2, treating the initial yK! particle as an exclamation (“How…!”); cf. Dahood, III, p. 278f. The particle could also be render emphatically (i.e., “Yes indeed…!”), cf. Hossfeld-Zenger, p. 526. They declare the greatness of YHWH, extolling His “weight” (dobK*)—alluding to the Divine splendor and majesty, as well as all that makes Him worthy of praise by humankind.

Verse 6

“Yet (with) YHWH standing (so) high, still (the) low He sees;
though high (up), from a far-off place He knows.”

This final verse of the transitional section has proven difficult to translate. The main issue is whether the adjective H^b)G+ (“high”) in line 2 is meant as a contrast with lp*v* (“low[ly]”) in line 1, or a synonymous parallel (referring to YHWH) with the participle <r* (“standing [up] high”) in line 1. Commentators seem to be divided on this question, with Allen (p. 311f) for example preferring the former option, and others (like Dahood, III, p. 279, and Hossfeld-Zenger, p. 526) the latter. Sound arguments can be made on both sides. Admittedly, the root hbg can refer to the ‘high-mindedness’ of human beings, and thus to the pride and arrogance, etc, of the wicked (or simply, to the ‘high and mighty’ in society, who also tend to be associated with wickedness), as in Isa 5:15; 10:33, and as a Wisdom motif (e.g., Prov 16:5; Eccl 7:8); in the Psalms, cf. 101:5. At the same time, hbg often merely denotes being “high up”, in a spatial or locative-relational sense; though it is not particularly applied to YHWH in the Scriptures, it can be used in the positive context of one who is faithful to YHWH (cf. 2 Chron 17:6), and the adjective did come to be used as a Divine title (of exaltation) in Rabbinic literature (Dahood, III, p. 279).

The closest parallel in thought and imagery would seem to be Psalm 113:4-6, which uses both the participle <r* and the root hbg in tandem (vv. 4-5), just as here, in the context of YHWH’s greatness and exalted position (above the heavens) as King over the universe. There hbg occurs as a substantive verbal adjective (participle), with a locative sense: YHWH is the One who has His dwelling on High. The root lpv (“be low”) also occurs in the same passage (v. 6), though applied to YHWH, in tandem with hbg, referring to YHWH as the One who “lowers Himself” (from on High) to look down on and attend to all things in the universe (esp. humankind and the nations). This would seem to be the same basic scenario here in Psalm 138; cf. Hossfeld-Zenger, p. 526.

Stanza 2: Verses 7-8

Verse 7a

“If I should walk in (the) midst of narrow (straits),
you will keep me alive against my enemies’ anger.”

This first couplet of the second stanza matches the last couplet of the first stanza (v. 3), both in meter (3+3) and the thought that is expressed. In v. 3, the protagonist declares that YHWH has answered his prayer and has given him strength and courage, etc, to face and defeat his enemies. We find the same basic idea here, but with an emphasis on Divine protection (a frequent theme in the Psalms). The noun hr*x* (I), “narrowness, tightness”, is a general term for various kinds of trouble and distress, including oppression and attacks from adversaries, such as the emphasis is here; in English idiom, we might speak of a person being in a “tight spot”. For poetic concision I have rendered the expression in the second line, “(the) anger of (those) hostile to me” more conventionally as “(the) anger of my enemies” (“my enemies’ anger”). Clearly, the “tight spot” for the protagonist, in this instance, refers to attacks by enemies. In terms of the royal background of the Psalm (on which, see the introduction above), this likely alludes to a military conflict—viz., attacks or threats from foreign enemies, rebellious vassals or nobles, etc. Such a setting can just as well be applied more generally to distress that the righteous face, from wicked opponents and the surrounding nations, etc. The traditional elements of royal theology are frequently applied this way in the Psalms.
There is a slight variant reading in the first line of v. 7a in the Qumran manuscript 11QPsa, reading iwtb instead of brqb; there is no real difference in meaning, as both prepositional expressions essentially mean “in the middle of, in the midst of”. 

If the focus in stanza 1 was on a confession of praise and thanksgiving to YHWH, for His faithfulness and covenant loyalty, here it is on a confession of trust that YHWH will continue to be loyal to the covenant bond (which includes providing protection for His faithful servants).

Verse 7b

“You will stretch forth your hand,
and save me (with) your right (hand).”

This short 2-beat (2+2) colon matches the couplet in verse 2de (see above), which refers to the demonstration of YHWH’s greatness and covenant loyalty on behalf of His people. Here, the demonstration is applied specifically to the circumstances of the protagonist—viz., the danger and distress which he faces (v. 7a, cf. verse 3). The same trust expressed in v. 7a is repeated here, as the protagonist confesses to YHWH his expectation that God will act on his behalf, to save and protect him (the Hiphil of the verb uv^y` can mean “keep [someone] safe”). The idiom of God’s hand (or arm), and specifically His right hand, is often used in poetry to express the idea of YHWH acting (with power) on behalf of His people. It occurs quite frequently in the Psalms; for the pairing of hand-arm, in this context, see Ps 136:12 (the most recently discussed reference, cf. the study on Ps 136).

Verse 8

“YHWH will complete (these matters) on my behalf!
YHWH, your loyalty (lasts) into the distant (future)—
(the) works of your hands, may you not forsake!”

This final tricolon (3+3+3) generally matches the tricolon of v. 2abc (see above). Both verses involve a confession by the protagonist regarding the faithfulness and covenant loyalty of YHWH. As in the earlier reference, the noun ds#j# is used, and translated (again) as “loyalty”.

The verb rm^G` means “complete, bring to an end”, sometimes in the concrete (and violent) sense of “destroy”, which is appropriate to the context indicated in verse 7—viz., of  dealing with hostile attacks by enemies. In protecting the protagonist, and providing him victory over his enemies, YHWH will bring destruction to those wicked adversaries. The verb rm^G` can be used in a sense similar to <l^v* (“complete, fulfill”) in this regard, whereby it carries a connotative meaning of “repay” (i.e., requite, avenge); cf. Dahood, III, p. 282, and the same author’s earlier article (on rmg) in Theological Studies 14 (1953), pp. 595-7.

The expression in the final line, “(the) works of your hands”, can indicate several different points of reference. It may specifically continue the thought from v. 7b, referring to YHWH’s actions on behalf of the protagonist; the expectation here is that YHWH will complete these actions, and will not abandon them before salvation and victory have been achieved. At the same time, the “works of (YHWH’s) hands”, elsewhere designates the things that YHWH has done and produced, in a general or comprehensive sense, including as a reference to creation as a whole (Psalm 8:6, etc). It can also refer specifically to human beings (i.e., the nations and their kings, cf. verses 4-6), and, in particular, to God’s own people. More precisely, there is also an allusion to the covenant bond YHWH has established with His people, including all of the promises that He is obligated to fulfill. As noted above, these obligations include providing protection, rescuing the people from danger and enemies, etc, so long as they remain faithful. YHWH, for His part, is—and will remain—completely faithful and loyal to the covenant, as stated in the second line of the verse.

The expression of trust in the stanza, at its close, turns into a final prayer—in which the righteous protagonist specifically requests that YHWH bring to completion that which He was promised to His people.

    • 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 Flesh, the World, and the Devil (Study 1)

The Flesh, the World, and the Devil

For the remainder of the summer, the Studies on the Spirit will focus on the relation of believers in Christ to the famous triad of evil—

The Flesh—the World—the Devil

in terms of the presence and activity of the Spirit. When considering this triad as a representation of sin and wickedness, it is important to emphasize that the Spirit operative in believers is the holy Spirit of God, the “Spirit of holiness” (Heb. vd#q) j^Wr, cf. Rom 1:4)—that is, the Spirit of God’s own holiness. This is a primary point in the conflict between the Spirit and the aforementioned triad of evil—viz., the holiness of God vs. the sin and wickedness of all that is opposed to God.

Early Christians expressed this sense of conflict in traditional terms, drawing upon distinctive lines of Scriptural and Israelite-Jewish tradition. Yet much of their understanding was also rooted in the realities of practical experience, and certain basic contours of the common psychology and phenomenology of religion. Three particular conceptual terms were utilized among early Christians (and the New Testament authors): the flesh (sa/rc), the world (ko/smo$), and the Devil (or the Satan). Believers in Christ recognize that they/we must grapple with, and struggle against, these forces, and it is primarily through the presence and power of the Spirit that this struggle is to take place.

In this regard, all three components of the triad need to be examined carefully, and in detail. The main purpose of this study is to give believers in Christ a greater understanding and appreciation of the nature of our struggle—at least insofar as the New Testament Scriptures address the subject. The believer’s struggle with each of the three forces of the triad will be studied in turn; because the struggle against the Devil is the most straightforward of the three, it is here that we begin.

Study 1: The Devil (Part 1)

The word “devil” is a simplified English transliteration of the Greek noun dia/bolo$ (diábolos), being derived from the verb diaba/llw. This verb has the basic meaning “throw through”, in the sense of “throw over (or across)”, often in the hostile (figurative) context of ‘throwing’ harsh words or insults, slander, accusations, etc, across at another person. Thus, the derived noun dia/bolo$, in such a context, refers to a person who ‘hurls’ harmful words of slander and false accusation, etc, against another. While the term would naturally apply to any human adversary (e.g., Ps 109[108]:6; Est 7:4 LXX; 1 Tim 3:11; 2 Tim 3:3), it came to be used by early Christians in a very special sense—as a reference to the great Adversary, otherwise known in Israelite and Jewish tradition as “the Satan” (Heb. /f*c*, Śāṭān). This use of dia/bolo$ is evidenced in the LXX, where the word is used to translated Hebrew /f*c*—and, in particular, in certain of those rare instances where /f*c* refers to a specific person, a divine/angelic being who functions as an adversary (and accuser) of God’s people (1 Chron 21:1; Zech 3:1-2).

In the New Testament, dia/bolo$ and sata/n (a Greek transliteration of Heb /f*c*) are used, more or less interchangeably (see Rev 12:9), as a designation of this great Adversary/Opponent of God. Increasingly, he came to be viewed in malevolent terms, as one who seeks to destroy God’s people, and as a veritable personification of all that is wicked and evil. A range of divine (or semi-divine) spirit-beings came to be seen as operating under his control, carrying out his evil purposes—thus they are evil spirits or “demons” (a daimon is a Greek term for a lesser kind of deity [i.e., spirit-being], which, in a monotheistic context, would typically be regarded as a false or evil deity). The noun dia/bolo$ occurs 34 times in the New Testament (out of 37 overall occurrences) in this particular sense, while sata/n occurs 36 times.

There are other designations which likely refer to this same malevolent figure. For example, most commentators would hold that the substantive use of the adjective ponero/$ (“evil”) with the definite article (“the evil”) in Matt 6:13; 13:19, 38; John 17:5; 1 Jn 2:13-14; 3:12; 5:18-19 (cf. also 2 Thess 3:3; Eph 6:16) should be understood as referring to a person—namely, the Devil or Satan as “the Evil (one)”. Similarly, the title “chief/ruler [a&rxwn] of this world” in the Gospel of John (12:31; 14:30; 16:11; cp. 1 Jn 5:19, and cf. also 2 Cor 4:4 [“the god of this world”]) is almost certainly a designation for the Satan/Devil, and indicates the close connection between the Devil and “the world” (o( ko/smo$)—a point to be discussed further in upcoming studies. A related title (probably), with a similar point of reference, is “chief/ruler [a&rxwn] of the authority of the air” (Eph 2:2). Also worthy of note is the use of the ancient Semitic (Canaanite) title ba±al z§»ûl (i.e., ‘Beelzebul’), originally an honorific title for the Canaanite deity Hadd(u) (Baal), but which, as a result of development within an Israelite-Jewish monotheistic setting, came to be applied to the ruler who leads and controls the evil spirits (or daimons [‘demons’]), the “chief/ruler [a&rxwn] of the daimons” (Mk 3:22 par, see below).

The Devil (or Satan) is certainly presented in the New Testament Scriptures as a hostile adversary against believers, which is, in many ways, simply an extension of his intrinsic opposition to God (and to Christ)—see, e.g., Acts 13:10; John 8:44. Warnings to believers regarding the Devil’s hostile plans and attacks against them occur in numerous passages, most notably the famous statement in 1 Peter 5:8; see also Rev 2:10, a reference which also summarizes the Devil’s role throughout the entire book of Revelation. The Satan/Devil is described as setting ‘traps’ for believers, so as to lure them into sin and evil (2 Tim 2:26, also 1 Tim 3:6; cf. 1 Cor 7:5); he also pursues more violent attacks (Eph 6:11, etc) which can have the purpose of bringing death and destruction, or to deceive Christians to such an extent that they might abandon the true faith (cf. Lk 8:12 par; 2 Cor 11:14; 2 Thess 2:9; 1 Tim 5:15). The Devil is portrayed as making use even of Jesus’ own disciples in order to oppose the Messianic mission (Mk 8:33 par; Lk 22:3 par, 31; Jn 6:70; 13:2, 27). In other various ways, Satan may attempt to hinder the apostolic Christian mission as well (1 Thess 2:18, etc).

In spite of the many such warnings to believers, regarding the Devil’s hostile plans and evil attacks, there is also a strong message that runs through the New Testament emphasizing how the Devil has no real power over believers. Indeed, his authority in this regard has been broken, and this was achieved through the mission of Christ on earth (cf. Lk 10:18; Jn 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; 1 Jn 3:8; Heb 2:14; Rev 12:9). Even though the Devil continues to act as the “chief ruler of this world” (see above) until the current Age comes to an end (cf. Rom 16:20; Rev 20), he no longer has any authority or power over believers (1 Jn 5:18-19). The believer in Christ is now able to resist and overcome the Devil (James 4:7; Eph 6:11, etc). As we shall discuss in the upcoming studies, it is through the presence and power of the Spirit that the Devil is overcome; indeed, the Spirit protects the believer from any and all attacks by Satan (see esp. 1 Jn 5:18; Eph 6:11, 17).

In considering the role of the Spirit in overcoming the Devil, we must begin with the example of Jesus Christ himself. For the Spirit plays a central role in this regard, according to the Gospel narrative. It begins with the baptism of Jesus, marking the start of his public ministry (Mk 1:9-11 par), and the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus (Mk 1:10 par). This coming of the Spirit, accompanied by the Divine voice from heaven (v. 11 par), identifies Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God (in a Messianic sense). Moreover, the presence of the Spirit is clearly depicted in the Gospel Tradition as guiding and empowering Jesus, enabling him to fulfill his Messianic ministry. It is the Lukan narrative, in particular, which emphasizes this role of the Spirit, both by the use of the Isaiah 61:1ff prophecy (4:18-19ff, cf. the context of vv. 16-30), and the framing of the prior temptation scene (vv. 1-13). These two scenes, following as they do the baptism episode (3:21-22), illustrate and expound the significance of the coming of the Spirit upon Jesus (v. 22). The Spirit leads Jesus into the wilderness, where he is to confront the Devil (and to be tempted by him), v. 1ff (cf. the brief notice in Mk 1:12-13); then, following the temptation scene, Jesus returns to Galilee “in the power of the Spirit” (v. 14ff), where he begins his Messianic ministry, in fulfillment of the Isa 61:1 prophecy (cf. also 7:22 par).

Within this narrative context, the temptation scene (cf. Matt 4:1-11) must be understood in terms of Jesus resisting (and overcoming) the Devil through the power of the Spirit. Yet, Jesus also willingly submitted to the temptation, thus putting himself (in a real sense) under the Devil’s authority (at least for a moment). This can be explained in terms of Jesus identifying himself fully with the human condition (viz., humanity under the power of sin and death in the current Age), in order that God might destroy the evil power (of the world and the Devil) and rescue humanity (i.e., believers) from it. For more on this subject, and its theological point of emphasis, see the recent articles (e.g., Studies 11 and 13 of the previous series) on the significance of Jesus’ death for believers.

Even more clear and vivid, as a demonstration of Jesus’ power over the Devil, are the many healing miracles which he performed, involving the casting out (i.e., exorcism) of unclean/evil spirits. That such miracles were performed through the presence and power of God’s holy Spirit is quite clear from the Gospel Tradition (and, especially the Lukan narrative, see above). God ‘anointed’ Jesus with His Spirit, enabling him to fill the role of Messianic Prophet, according (principally) to the figure-types of Elijah and the Isaian Servant (of 42:1ff and 61:1ff, cf. also 11:2ff). The figures of Elijah and the anointed Servant of Isa 61:1ff are specifically characterized by the performance of (healing) miracles. The role of the Spirit is made even more explicit in the ‘Beelzebul’ episode (Mark 3:22-30 par), which centers around the performance of healing/exorcism miracles by Jesus (vv. 10-12, 22). Some religious experts, in hostile opposition to Jesus, attributed these miracles, not to the power of God, but to the power/authority of ‘Beelzebul’ the “chief/ruler of the daimons” (see above). This prompts Jesus to deliver the parable-illustrations of vv. 23b-27, but also the grave warning against insulting the holy Spirit of God (vv. 28-29). As the narrator’s concluding comment in v. 30 makes clear, this saying by Jesus relates specifically to the fact that his miracles were being attributed to an evil/unclean Spirit, rather than the Spirit of God.

In the narrative context of this same episode, the Matthean and Lukan Gospels each include a saying by Jesus (part of the so-called “Q” material), in which he effectively declares the true source of his miracle-working power. In the Lukan version (11:20), it is attributed to “the finger of God”, while in the parallel Matthean version (12:28) the expression is (explained as) “the Spirit of God” —viz., it is by the Spirit of God that he casts out the evil/unclean spirits. His authority over these spirits is clear by the act of exorcism itself (i.e., they respond to his command and depart from the afflicted person); but the sense of their submission is enhanced by the various traditions recorded whereby the demons declare/announce Jesus’ identity as the Son of God (Mk 3:11 par; Matt 8:29; 14:33). Again, this goes back to the Baptism episode, with the twin event of the coming of the Spirit and the Divine voice from heaven, announcing Jesus’ Messianic identity as the Son of God. The spirits recognize this Messianic identity, but also, to be sure, the presence of God’s own Spirit guiding and empowering Jesus.

In the next study, we will turn our attention to the presence of the Spirit in believers, and how this presence enables believers to overcome, and exercise authority over, the Devil and his evil spirits.