Month: August 2025

Studies on the Spirit: The Flesh, the World, and the Devil (Study 7)

The Flesh, the World, and the Devil

Study 7: The World (Part 2)

In the previous study, we examined the background of the distinctive (and distinctly negative) early Christian understanding of “the world” (o( ko/smo$); we also surveyed the use of this terminology in the New Testament outside of the Pauline and Johannine writings. Now we shall turn our attention to the use of the term ko/smo$ by Paul in his letters.

The Pauline use of the ko/smo$ term and concept

The noun ko/smo$ occurs 47 times in the Pauline letters. This is a significant number, particularly if we consider it in relation to the remainder of the New Testament, excluding the Johannine writings (where it occurs 105 times). Outside of the Pauline and Johannine writings, ko/smo$ occurs 34 times in the New Testament, compared with 47 occurrences in Paul’s letters.

Paul’s usage of the term generally follows the tendencies within early Christianity which we examined in the previous study (Study 6). Indeed, every thematic emphasis previously discussed can be found in Paul’s letters. At the same time, Paul gave a distinctive thrust to the ko/smo$ term and concept, particularly with regard to its negatively dualistic aspect. Given that the majority of Paul’s letters likely pre-date most (if not all) of the New Testament writings discussed in Study 6, it is quite possible that Paul himself played a significant role in shaping and influencing these areas of early Christian thought.

Occasionally, Paul uses the noun ko/smo$ in the traditional sense of the (entire) physical universe (i.e., ‘heaven and earth’)—in regard to God’s creation of the universe (Rom 1:20; see also Eph 1:4), but also generally (1 Cor 3:22; 7:31; 8:4, etc). More commonly, the traditional meaning of the inhabited world (= oi)koume/nh), i.e., where human beings live on earth, is in view (1 Cor 14:10, etc). In these references, Paul particularly alludes to the early Christian mission—viz., the inhabited world (of human beings), in both its spatial-geographic and socio-cultural sense, as the mission-field within which the Gospel is proclaimed (by missionaries and apostles, such as Paul himself). The main references where this aspect of meaning is emphasized (or is otherwise clearly in view) are: 1 Cor 4:9ff; 2 Cor 1:12; Rom 1:8; Col 1:6; see also 1 Tim 3:16.

As noted above, all of the key aspects of meaning (regarding the word ko/smo$) attested by first-century Christians (cf. the discussion in Study 6) are very much present in Paul’s letters as well. We shall consider the distinctive Pauline development of these semantic and conceptual aspects as we proceed through the next few studies.

1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16ff

We begin with the passage in which the term ko/smo$ occurs most frequently—and in which the Pauline usage of the terminology is developed most thoroughly—1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16, in the broader context of 1:10-4:21. I discussed these sections at length in an earlier set of notes (which as a supplement to the current study I would recommend that you consult). Here the place of the ko/smo$ concept within the dualistic orientation of Paul’s theological and religious outlook is particularly prominent.

This dualism is expressed here primarily by way of the idea of wisdom (sofi/a)—i.e., the contrast between the wisdom of “th(is) world” and the true Wisdom of God. For the purposes of our study, it is most important to note that Paul essentially identifies the Wisdom of God with the Spirit (see further below).

However, the argument begins (1:18) with an implicit identification of Wisdom with the proclamation of the Gospel, and, specifically, the central point of the proclamation—viz., the death of Christ (on the cross), and the effect that his death had on humankind (i.e., believers). Paul develops this thematic emphasis (vv. 19ff) by utilizing the natural contrast between the ideas of wisdom (sofi/a) and foolishness (mwri/a). A death by crucifixion is something that most people (i.e., “the world”) would consider an indication of foolishness, rather than wisdom. And yet, God made use of something utterly foolish and of no account (in the eyes of “the world”) in order to bring salvation to humankind. The point of contrast, utilizing this wisdom/foolishness theme, is clearly expressed in vv. 20-21:

“Where (is the) wise (person)? Where (the) literate (one) [grammateu/$]? Where (is he who) seeks a debate with (you)?—(all who are) of this Age! Has not God made foolish/stupid [e)mw/ranen] the wisdom of th(is) world?” (v. 20)

As I mentioned in an earlier note, Paul is like alluding here to Isaian passages (cf. the use of Isa 29:14 in v. 19), such as 19:12 (“Where are they? Where are your wise [men]…?”) and 33:18 (“where is [the one] making an account [i.e. scribe = Grk grammateu/$]?”). The question “where…?” (pou=) could imply that there are no truly wise people present throughout “the world”; on the other hand, Paul may be calling them to step forward, by way of a challenge to the most gifted speakers, writers, and philosophers of this age, to test their (human) wisdom against that of God. All of their skill, talent, and effort would be of no avail, as Paul indicates in the final question: “Has not God made foolish/stupid the wisdom of th(is) world?” The negative formulation of the question assumes a positive response—viz., “Yes, indeed He has!”.

How has God made the wisdom of this world to be foolish/stupid (vb mwrai/nw)? This is implied by the use of the noun mwri/a (“foolishness, stupidity”) in v. 18: viz., the message of the cross of Christ is seen as something foolish by the world (cf. above). It is only believers in Christ who understand that it is not foolish at all, but rather represents true wisdom—the Wisdom of God. Paul continues his exposition on this point in verse 21:

“For, since indeed [e)peidh/], in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through the wisdom, God thought (it) good, through the foolishness of the proclamation, to save the (one)s trusting…”

The first clause essentially describes the rejection of God’s Wisdom—the true wisdom—by “the world”. Even though Paul does not use the noun ko/smo$ (“world-order, world”) in such a consistently or pointedly negative way as do the Johannine writings (a point to be discussed in upcoming studies), ko/smo$ does often signify the characteristic sin and unbelief of (most of) humankind during the current evil/wicked Age. Rhetorically, in these verses, “the world” refers to all human beings who are not believers.

If most of humankind (“the world”) considers the Gospel of Christ to something foolish, the same is true with regard to their view of believers in Christ. Believers in Christ are, for the most part, among the weak and ‘foolish’ things of the world—a point that Paul expounds forcefully in vv. 26-31. He begins by pointing out that believers—most of them—are not generally considered wise “according to (the) flesh” (kata\ sa/rka). By this expression he means the standards and values of “the world”, with the term “flesh” (sa/rc) clearly being used more or less synonymously with o( ko/smo$ (“th[is] world”). These worldly standards and values are largely defined by the ideals of “power” (adj. dunato/$) and a “good birth” (adj. eu)ge/nh$)—i.e., strength of means/position and social status. Such are mentioned as overriding ideals held by “the world”, in addition to the values cited in the prior verses (i.e., learning and literacy, the ability to speak well and persuade others, etc., vv. 20ff).

Clearly this “wisdom” of the world can be understood as a decided worldview—involving ways of thinking and acting, and including definite value-judgments, standards and ideals, often in connection with a specific social status and position. By contrast, believers in Christ, though they may possess learning and wealth/status/position in society to a certain degree, they are not by any means defined by these things. Instead, they are defined simply and entirely by their trust in Christ (and in the Gospel of Christ)—things which are deemed to be “foolish” by the world. And yet, as Paul notes in vv. 27-28, God gives absolute priority to believers over the rest of the world; believers themselves manifest the Wisdom of God—a Wisdom that is in marked contrast to the world’s wisdom. Indeed, the world’s wisdom, which generally rejects the Gospel of Christ, is fundamentally opposed (and contrary) to God’s Wisdom. See how Paul develops this idea of contrast and opposition:

“…but God gathered out the foolish (thing)s of the world, (so) that He might bring down shame (on) the wise; and God gathered out the (thing)s of the world without strength, (so) that He might bring down shame (on) the strong; and God gathered out the (thing)s of the world without (good) birth, and having been made out as nothing, th(ose) not being (anything), (so) that He might make th(ose) being (‘something’) to cease working—so that all flesh should not (be able to) boast in the sight of God!” (vv. 27-29)

Paul clearly alludes here to the impending (end-time) judgment of the world by God. This is an important thematic emphasis which will be discussed further in the next few studies.

Another key point of emphasis is the parallel between believers’ presence in “the world” and that of Christ’s own incarnate presence. The parallelism is indicated by Paul in these verses, centered around the Wisdom-exposition. Note, in particular, the chiastic structure of v. 21a:

    • “in [e)n] the wisdom of God
      • the world did not know God
    • through [di/a] the wisdom”

The prepositional phrases “in the wisdom” and “through the wisdom” are clearly parallel; the parallelism also affirms that the “wisdom” mentioned in both phrases is the same—viz., God’s wisdom. The expression “the wisdom” in the second phrase essentially means “this wisdom” (i.e., the wisdom of God). The preposition e)n (“in”) in the first phrase should be understood as spatial-relational, with a point of reference that is almost certainly similar to that in the Prologue of the Johannine Gospel (1:10-11ff)—viz., Jewish traditions regarding Wisdom’s desire to dwell among human beings, and yet finding no ‘welcome’ among them, being rejected by most of humankind (cf. Prov 8:31; Sirach 15:7; 1 Enoch 42:2). For a time (temporarily, at least), God’s Wisdom was “in the world” and “among human beings” (the preposition e)n can mean both “in” and “among”), which also means that human beings (“the world”) were also in contact with (e)n) God’s Wisdom. And yet, as a whole, humankind did not come to know God, in spite of the presence of His Wisdom. Exposure to God’s Wisdom should lead to knowledge of Him; on the connection between wisdom and knowledge, in this regard, cf. Prov 1:7; 2:5-6ff; 8:12; 9:10; Eccl 2:26; Wisd 2:13; 8:4, 21; 10:10. The preposition dia/ (“through”) here probably carries the meaning “as a result of”.

Because (e)peidh/) the world rejected His Wisdom in this way, God decided to deal with the world on its own terms—that is, by presenting it with something that it would consider to be “foolishness” (mwri/a). Ironically, the believers who are in the world (and who are called out of it) recognize that this “foolishness” is actually God’s very Wisdom. The “foolishness” to which Paul refers is the proclamation (kh/rugma) of the Gospel—and, in particular, the message of Jesus’ death (“account of the stake [i.e. cross]”, v. 18), as noted above. This particular “foolishness” represents God’s Wisdom; the parallelism of the two dia/-phrases, while seeming to be antithetical, is actually synonymous:

    • “through [dia/] the wisdom (of God)”
    • “through [dia/] the foolishness of the proclamation”

Through the “foolishness” of the Gospel, which actually manifests the wisdom of God, believers (those trusting in the Gospel) are saved.

If the Gospel of Christ is the focus of 1:18-31, it is the Spirit that is primarily in view in 2:1-16. Both are fundamental manifestations of God’s Wisdom, but the Gospel held priority (from a practical standpoint) during the process of believers coming to faith in Christ, while the Spirit has priority for the life of believers in Christ. Again, this manifestation of God’s Wisdom is in marked contrast to the wisdom of “the world”. The contrast is implied from the beginning of the line of argument in vv. 6ff, continuing from the earlier sections (cf. the transitional vv. 1-5), and is eventually stated clearly in verse 12:

“…we did not receive the spirit of the world, but the Spirit th(at is) of God, (so) that we might know the (thing)s under God (hav)ing been given as a favor to us”

As the Wisdom of God, the Spirit—together with all the things of the Spirit—seems like “foolishness” (mwri/a) to the world (v. 14). Here, again, “the world” basically designates unbelievers; and, since unbelievers do not have the Spirit of God dwelling and operating in them, they are not capable of understanding or appreciating the things “of the Spirit” (adj. pneumatiko/$). Their way of thinking and understanding is very different, governed by the “wisdom of the world”; moreover, they hold different standards and values than do believers.

The key point for Paul is that the manner of thinking and the standards/values of believers should—and must—be different from that of unbelievers (i.e., “the world”). And yet, Paul finds himself (in chaps. 1-4 and following) addressing a situation whereby Christians seem to be thinking and acting in ways that differ little from those of “the world”. This is clear from the setting established in 1:10-17, and from the line of argument that runs through 1:18-2:16; only in chapter 3 does Paul begin to address the matter more directly, both exhorting and warning the Christians of Corinth, that as believers (indeed, if they are truly believers), they are to be guided by the Spirit (vv. 1ff, 16ff), in humble submission to the Gospel. This entails, among other things, a manifestation of unity among believers—the sharing of a common will and purpose, with each individual working for the good of the entire community.

In our next study (Study 8), we will continue our examination of Paul’s use of the term ko/smo$, looking at the remaining references in 1-2 Corinthians along with important parallels in the other letters.

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 140 (Part 2)

Psalm 140, continued

The first two stanzas (vv. 2-4, 5-6) were discussed in Part 1 of this study.

Stanza 3: Verses 7-9

Verse 7 [6]

“(So) I said to YHWH: My Mighty (One) you (are)!
Give ear, YHWH, (to the) voice of my plea for favor!”

The third stanza continues the protagonist’s prayer to YHWH for deliverance; however, in stanzas 3 & 4 this is presented as a quotation by the protagonist (“[So] I said…”), a literary-poetic device by which the Psalmist allows the audience to hear what the protagonist said (privately) to YHWH.

Dahood (III, p. 302) regards the prefixed l (on the Divine name) as a vocative particle (i.e., “O YHWH!”) rather than a preposition (“to YHWH”). This is certainly possible, though the parallel with Ps 142:6[5] suggests that here l= functions as a directional-relational preposition (in the context of direct speech), just like la# (“[un]to”). A closer formal parallel to v. 7 is found in Ps 31:15[14] (cf. Hossfeld-Zenger, p. 548).

This couplet gives us the religious-theological basis for the protagonist’s prayer, summarizing it in a nutshell. In the first line, the protagonist declares his faithfulness to YHWH (“You are my Mighty One [i.e., God]”) and loyalty to the covenant; in the second line, he calls upon YHWH to act according to His covenant obligation, by responding to the righteous person’s prayer in time of need. The language used to express this is traditional, including the verb /z~a* (Hiphil, “give ear [to]”, i.e., hear, pay attention [to])—cf. Ps 5:2; 17:1; 39:13[12]; 54:4[3]; 55:2[1], etc; and note the formal covenant-petition setting for the use of this verb in Deut 32:1 and Isa 1:2. The noun /Wnj&T^ denotes a request for favor (i.e., to be shown favor) from a superior, and occurs a number of times in the prayer-Psalms (28:2, 6; 31:13[12]; 86:6; 116:1; 130:2; 143:1), and always in conjunction with the construct loq (“voice of…”). Outside of the Psalms, this word appears almost exclusively in texts from the exilic and post-exilic period (viz., in Jeremiah, Zechariah, Daniel, Chronicles) and thus could be taken as an indicator of a similar date for Psalm 140.

Metrically, this verse is a 4+3 couplet (as also vv. 2-3). However, as Dahood notes, the four words in each line could be subdivided into a 2:2 format; indeed, rhythmically such a division fits the verse well:

“(So) I said to YHWH:
My Mighty (One) you (are)!
Give ear, O YHWH,
(to the) voice of my petition!”

Verse 8 [7]

“O YHWH, my Lord, strength of my salvation—
give cover to my head on (the) day (when) weapons (fly)!”

The first request made by the protagonist is for protection from attacks by hostile adversaries. The traditional idiom of a military attack occurs here, though the Psalm itself otherwise does not suggest a military (or royal) setting. Such language (and royal background) is simply a traditional element of the genre, and can be utilized and applied to any specific scenario.
Some commentators, emphasizing the Psalm’s royal background would identify the protagonist as the king facing foreign enemies in battle; cf. 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), pp. 32, 64-5, 124ff.

As in verse 7[6], in the first line here the protagonist confesses his loyalty to YHWH, declaring trust in YHWH’s ability and power (“strength”, zu)) to provide protection. The noun hu*Wvy+ is customarily translated “salvation”, and this is fine as a concision poetic rendering here; however, it is important to note that the word properly conveys the idea of assistance that is provided in order to keep a person safe and secure. It can also connote victory (in battle).

I follow Dahood (III, p. 303) in rendering the perfect form of the verb Ek^s* (“cover”) as a precative perfect, in accordance with the imperative and jussive verb forms elsewhere in the stanza. The noun qv#n# (I) is relatively rare, occurring just 8 times in the Scriptures (cf. its use in 2 Kings 10:2; Isa 22:8; Ezek 39:9-10; Job 20:24; 39:21; Neh 3:19). It refers to weapons and other military equipment (used by an army in battle), in accordance with the cognate nṯq in Ugaritic; in particular, it seems to be used of a projectile—viz., a flying weapon, such as an arrow, dart, javelin, etc. The expression qv#n` <oy, “day of weapon(s)”, means the “day when weapons are flying” (i.e., time of battle).

Metrically, this verse is an irregular 3+4 couplet, balancing the 4+3 couplet of v. 7 (cf. the similar metrical pattern in vv. 2-4).

Verse 9 [8]

“Do not grant, O YHWH, (the) desires of (the) wicked;
his (evil) plans, let them not rise up to reach (me)!”
Selah

The final line of this final couplet is problematic. My translation follows the MT, though admittedly the syntax is awkward. Possibly the text is corrupt, but, if so, the precise nature of the corruption is difficult to determine. The chief problem lies with the last word of the second line, the plural verb form WmWry` (“they have stood/risen”), which is awkward in its position, and is also hard to relate to the other components of the verse. Thus, some commentators prefer to treat it as part of v. 10 (which is otherwise an irregular 2+3 couplet). However, this parsing of the lines assumes that the Selah marker was misplaced; more seriously, it is scarcely any clearer as to how WmWry` fits in the context of v. 10.

Several other emendations and/or ways of parsing and interpreting the text have been suggested; two, in particular, are worth noting. Dahood (III, p. 303) regards WmWry` as a substantive (verbal adjective) functioning as a Divine title—i.e., “Exalted (One)”. The W– represents a nominative case-ending that has been preserved, with the nominative ending used for the vocative. The appeal of this proposed solution is that it creates a synonymous parallelism for the verse, with three comparable elements in each line (though in different order):

“Do not grant, | O YHWH, | (the) desires of (the) wicked;
his (evil) plans, | let (them) not reach (me), | O Exalted (One)!”

The solution proposed by Allen (p. 333) requires a re-division (and re-pointing) of the MT, along with a transposition of two letters. Instead of wmwry qpt, he suggests the reading omqrpt, a form of the verb qrp (“tear/break off”) with an archaic om– plural suffix. In addition, the preceding la would be vocalized as the noun la@ (“Mighty [One]”, i.e., God) rather that the negative particle la^ as the MT reads. The resultant parallelism of the verse is contrastive, with a chiastic structure (cf. vv. 2, 5):

      • “Do not grant,
        • O YHWH,
          • (the) desires of (the) wicked;
          • (but) his (evil) plans,
        • Mighty (One),
      • break them off!”

In spite of the appeal of such proposals, I have chosen, somewhat reluctantly, to follow the MT parsing and vocalization. The plural verb form WmWry` I take as relating to the suffixed noun omm*z+ (“his [evil] plans”), being treated either as a plural form or a collective singular (plural in sense). Preserving the word order and syntax of the Hebrew, the second line reads something like: “his (evil) plans, do not let reach (me), (as) they have risen (up)”. For clarity and poetic concision, I have simplified and reworked the syntax in translation: “his (evil) plans, let them not rise up to reach (me)!”

Stanza 4: Verses 10-12

Verse 10 [9]

“(The) head of (the one)s surrounding me,
let (the) trouble from their (own) two lips cover them!”

At the end of the third stanza (v. 9, above), the protagonist’s prayer to YHWH (for help and protection) included the request that the evil plans of his adversaries be thwarted and not allowed to succeed. Here in the final stanza, the Psalmist builds upon this shift in emphasis by presenting an imprecatory curse-wish, in which the protagonist calls upon YHWH to bring punishment down upon his enemies. Such imprecations occur with some frequency in the Psalter, featuring regularly in the lament and petitionary (prayer-for-deliverance) Psalms. It is necessary that the modern-day reader seek to understand and appreciate the imprecatory portions of the Psalms from the standpoint of their historical-cultural context, and as a literary-poetic feature, without necessarily treating them as examples to be followed. There are serious theological and spiritual issues surrounding these ancient Near Eastern imprecations, particularly for Christians today who wish to understand and apply the Psalms in the most faithful and right manner possible.

The relation between the protagonist’s prayer for protection (from his enemies) and the curse-wish against those same enemies is clear from the parallels in wording with v. 8 (see above). In particular, both verses contain the idiom of covering one’s head—the same basic idiom, but in a different sense, and with slightly different vocabulary. In v. 8, the covering (vb Ek^s*) refers to the protection that YHWH provides for the protagonist—the “head” (var)) being the protagonist’s own head. By contrast, here in v. 10, the covering (vb hs*K*, Piel) is the judgment (punishment) that YHWH is to bring down upon the protagonist’s wicked adversaries—the “head” (same noun), in this instance, is that of his adversaries (collectively).
Regarding the form of the verb hs*K* in line 2, it is preferable to follow the Masoretic Qere, reading it as a Piel form. As discussed in the note on v. 4, the archaic third person plural suffix om– could indicate a relative early (pre-exilic) date for the Psalm.

The trouble (lm*u*) caused by these wicked enemies comes particularly from their lips (hp*c* dual, “two lips”)—that is to say, it takes the form of evil speech. This was the emphasis at the close of the first stanza (v. 4), and its reoccurrence here suggests that evil speaking has been the underlying and implied focus of the Psalm throughout—in spite of the use of traditional trap-setting (v. 6) and military (v. 8) imagery at other specific points. Thus, it is quite possible that the ‘traps’ being set, and the cruel ‘attacks’, involve the adversaries’ words against the protagonist, perhaps in the form of slander or false accusations. On the other hand, the reference here to the adversaries’ “lips” may simply allude to the evil plans (vv. 3, 5, 9) that they have made against the protagonist.
For more on the portrait of the protagonist’s wicked adversaries in the Psalm, from a thematic and structural standpoint, see the study by D. Dhanaraj, Theological Significance of the Motif of Enemies in Selected Psalms of Individual Lament, Orientalia Biblica et Christiana 4 (Verlag J.J. Augustin Gmbh: 1992), pp. 207-28.

In any case, it is clear that the protagonist, by the curse-wish included in his prayer to YHWH, is asking that the trouble uttered against him by the wicked adversaries come down upon them (i.e., their own head[s]) instead. This reflects the ancient lex talionis principle, whereby the punishment for a particular crime matches the form and manner of the crime itself.

As noted above (see the textual question regarding v. 9), this verse is an irregular (and shortened) 2+3 couplet.

Verse 11 [10]

“Let (there) be tossed upon them (coal)s glowing with fire!
May it cause them to fall in (the) watery abyss—never shall they rise!”

This verse is undoubtedly the most difficult of the Psalm. The language of the MT is problematic, both in terms of the verbs used and the precise agreement of subject-object.

First there is the verb in line 1, fom, which has the basic meaning “sway”, but which can also refer to something (or someone) that is being “tossed about”. It is certainly possible to speak of fiery coals being “tossed” upon someone; however, the imagery seems more suited to the use of the verb rf^m* (“rain [down]”). Indeed, a number of commentators and lexicographers (e.g., Kraus, p. 521; HALOT, p. 555) recommend that the text here be emended to read a form of the verb rf^m* (rf@m=y~). Even if one retains the MT verb, there is the question of the specific form, whether a Hiphil (Kethib) or Niphal passive (Qere) form. The sense of the curse-wish favors the Niphal, but the verb form used in line 2 favors the Hiphil. Is YHWH the explicit subject, as the one who “tosses” the coals upon the wicked, or is a Divine passive to be preferred—viz., the coals “are tossed” (by YHWH) upon them? Or, in agreement with the plural of the Hiphil (Kethib) form, is it the “lips” of the wicked themselves (v. 10b) which cause the ‘coals of punishment’ to be tossed upon them?

Another question is whether the prepositional expression va@B* (“in the fire”) belongs with the second line (and the verb lp^n` [Hiphil]), or as a modifier of <yl!j*G+ (“glowing [coal]s”) in the first line. Then again, who is the subject of the singular verb <l@p!y~ (“let it/him cause them to fall”)? Presumably, it would be YHWH, but such a shift to third person address seems somewhat out of place in the context of the stanza (though it would not be entirely unprecedented in the Psalms).

Finally, there is the precise nature of the image that is intended to be conveyed by the noun hr*m)h&m^ (torm)h&m^), which occurs only here in the Scriptures. Its meaning is to be determined, it would seem, by the cognate mhmrt in Ugaritic, where it is used parallel with npš (“throat”). That association, along with use of the related noun hmry as a name for the domain of Death, makes it reasonably clear that torm)h&m^ here contains a reference to the underworld (i.e., realm of Death), and that the image is of the wicked falling into the abyss(es) of Sheol. And yet, the noun has also been derived from a root (rmh) that is connected with the cognate hamara (“shed, shower”) in Arabic, and thus carries an assumed meaning of “pour (water, rain, etc)”. On this basis, it has been further assumed that torm)h&m^ should be understood in terms of a watery place underground—viz., a muddy/miry pit or bog.

In the translation above, I have followed the Qere of the MT with regard to the first verb (Niphal passive form), and have included the expression “in the fire” in the first line as a modifying element (cf. the Masoretic accentuation). In the second line, I treat the singular form of the verb lpn as an impersonal singular, referring to the punishment that comes upon the wicked (viz., in the form of the ‘burning coals’), and have rendered the plural noun torm)h&m as an intensive-collective, “watery abyss”. The author is thus using mixed-metaphor imagery: (1) fiery coals coming down upon the wicked, and (2) the wicked falling down into the watery abysses of Sheol.

It is also possible to divide the verse as a tricolon, with three distinct images (instead of two); this parsing requires relating the expression “in the fire” (va@B*) to the verb in the second line:

“Let (there) be tossed upon them glowing (coal)s!
Let it cause them to fall into the fire,
(and) into (the) watery abyss—never shall they rise!”

Dahood (III, p. 305) understands the prefixed preposition B= (on the noun torm)h&m) here as meaning “from”, a usage which Rendsburg (p. 96, cf. also pp. 21-3) regards as a feature of Northern (Israelian) Hebrew (under Phoenician influence) and thus as evidence for a Northern origin/provenance of the Psalm. If the preposition B= in the third line is understood as “from”, then the rendering of the suggested tricolon (above) would need to be modified, perhaps as follows:

“Let (there) be tossed upon them glowing (coal)s!
Let it cause them to fall into the fire,
(so that) from (the) abyss they may never rise!”

Verse 12 [11]

“(The) man of tongue—may he never be firm in the land;
(the) man of blood—let evil hunt him, driving (him) down!”

If the curse-wish in v. 11 involves the wicked being brought down to the realm of death, the curses in v. 12 suggests misfortune that will plague the wicked in this life, here on earth (prior to their death). The wicked are characterized two ways: (1) by evil speech (“man of tongue”), as in vv. 4, 10b; and (2) by hostile/violent acts (“man of blood”), cf. the wording in vv. 2-3, 5, 8b. The wish is that the wicked will be pursued by “evil” —the very kind of evil that they sought to cause and bring to others—so that they will have no safe or secure place on earth (or “in the land”). This is expressed two different ways: (a) a lack of firmness (vb /WK, “be firm”, along with the negative/privative particle lB^ [also used in v. 11b]), and (b) actively being hunted (vb dWx) and driven (root [jd).
Rendsburg (p. 96) regards the negative particle lB^ as another Northern feature of the Psalm (cf. the evidence he presents on p. 24f); it is the regular such term in Phoenician (rather than al), which does not occur) and is common in Ugaritic as well.

M. Greenberg (“Two New Hunting Terms in Psalm 140:12”, Hebrew Annual Review 1 [1977], pp. 149-53) notes that in Mishnaic Hebrew the verb dWx + the preposition l= has the technical sense of “hunt (by driving game) into an enclosure”, and thus takes the plural noun tp)j@d=m^ (from the root [jd) as referring to the enclosures or ‘corrals’ into which hunted animals are driven. He also makes the interesting observation (p. 149) regarding the number of rare words and expressions in vv. 10-12: “It is an indication of passion that the poet was not content with standard language but reached for the exotic in order to endow his maledictions with vigor.”

Conclusion: Verses 13-14

Verse 13 [12]

“I know (indeed) that YHWH makes (the)
decision for the down-pressed,
judgment for the needy (one)s.”

The Psalm concludes with an affirmation (and confession) of trust in YHWH. In the context of the prayer, it suggests a confidence by the protagonist that YHWH will answer his prayer, providing protection and deliverance to him and bringing judgment/punishment upon his enemies. In particular, a declaration is made regarding the right judgments that YHWH makes (as Judge), and the justice that He establishes, viz., by acting on behalf of those who are righteous and faithful to the covenant. The noun /yD!, connoting a legal decision that is rendered, is paired with fP^v=m!, a regular term denoting right judgment and justice.

Also traditional is the pairing of the substantive adjectives yn]u* and /oyb=a#. The first term denotes a person who is “pressed/bent down”, in the sense of being oppressed, afflicted, etc, while the second term means “needy”. These terms are frequently paired together in the Psalms—9:19[18]; 12:6[5]; 35:10; 37:14; 41:10[9]; 70:6, etc—as designations for the righteous, particularly in the context of the suffering of the righteous (at the hands of the wicked). That is certainly the setting of the terminology here in Ps 140, even as it typically is in other prayer- and lament-Psalms. The adjective yn]u* is used here in the singular, while /oyb=a# is in the plural (“needy [one]s”), thus referring to the righteous from the standpoint of both the individual and the community.

Rendsburg (p. 96) claims that the spelling of the first person verb form tudy (= yT!u=d^y` [Qere], “I have known”, “I know”) reflects Phoenician orthography, and thus is another indicator of a Northern origin/provenance for the Psalm (cf. Ps 16:2). For a different explanation of the spelling, see GKC §121.

Verse 14 [13]

“Yes, (so the) righteous give thanks to your name,
and will sit, (the) straight (one)s, before your face!”

Two further designations for the righteous/faithful ones, also commonly used throughout the Psalms (and Wisdom literature), occur here in the final couplet (both in the plural): (i) qyd!x* (<yq!yd!x^, “right[eous one]s”), and (ii) rv*y` (<yr!v*y+, “straight [i.e. upright] [one]s”). While verse 13 focused on YHWH’s actions on behalf of the righteous, here it is the response of the righteous toward YHWH’s actions that is in view. The righteous respond by giving thanks/praise to YHWH, using a regular worship-verb (hd*y`) that also connotes the idea of confession (i.e., confession of faith/trust in YHWH) even as we see here in vv. 13-14.

In addition to this response by the righteous (which reflects their essential character), a further result (and consequence) is that they experience blessing from YHWH. This is expressed by the idiom of sitting (vb bv^y`, which can also mean “dwell”) in the presence of YHWH Himself—literally, “alongside/before [ta#] His face”. One could certainly understand this idiom in terms of a blessed afterlife for the righteous (with YHWH, in heaven), as Dahood (III, p. 306f) suggests.

    • 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 “Rendsburg” are to Gary A. Rendsburg, Linguistic Evidence for the Northern Origin of Selected Psalms. Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Monograph Series 43 (Scholars Press: 1990). The specific notes on Ps 140 are on pp. 95-7. 

Studies on the Spirit: The Flesh, the World, and the Devil (Study 6)

The Flesh, the World, and the Devil

Study 6: The World (Part 1)

This second arc of studies will focus on believers’ conflict with the World, and on the role of the Spirit in that conflict. The terminology of “the world” (o( kos/mo$) came to have a distinctive—and distinctly negative—meaning for early Christians. It is not easy to determine just how this particular Christian usage of the word ko/smo$ developed. There have been surprisingly few studies on the subject, and yet it is important to attempt to obtain at least some understanding of how, where, and why this distinctive concept of “the world”, with its strong negative (and dualistic) connotations, took root in early Christian thought.

“The World” (o( ko/smo$)

The basic meaning of the noun ko/smo$ (kósmos, the etymology and derivation of which remains rather uncertain) is “orderly arrangement”, or, more generally, “order”. Idiomatically, it was used frequently with the preposition kata/ (in the sense of “according to”)—kata\ ko/smon, “according to (good) order”, i.e., “orderly” (cf. Homer Iliad 2.214; 10.472; Odyssey 8.179, etc). Also common, and along these same lines, was the sense of ko/smo$ as a beautiful (i.e., well-ordered) decoration or adornment (such as of women, horses, etc, or figuratively of fine speech, and the like); the related verb kosme/w (kosméō) means “put in order, arrange, adorn, decorate”. The English word cosmetic is derived (by way of transliteration) from this Greek terminology.

Key to the Christian usage of the noun is found in its application to the universe and the natural world as a whole. Such usage, which still informs our inherited use of ko/smo$ in English (transliterated as cosmos), is attested as early as the 6th-century pre-Socratic philosophers—see Anaximenes fragment 2, Heraclitus fragment 30 (cited by Clement of Alexandria, Stromata V.104.1), and the reference in Diogenes Laertius [Lives of the Philosophers] 8.48 regarding the teaching of Pythagoras and/or Parmenides. In this regard, ko/smo$ denotes the “ordered universe” —that is, in specific contrast to the chaos and unformed dis-order (or lack of order) of the primeval universe (cf. Gen 1:2). Generally speaking, “world order” —viz., the arrangement of the ordered universe—serves as a solid translation for ko/smo$, according to this aspect of meaning.

Subsequently, in later Greek, ko/smo$ came to refer specifically to the inhabited world—that is, the world of human beings—very similar in meaning to the noun oi)koume/nh. This could be understood in a spatial sense (i.e., the place where humans dwell), or in a more figurative sense for human society/civilization as a whole. This association with human beings on earth sets up a natural contrast with heaven (and God, or the gods). These are the semantic aspects which, for the most part, govern the early Christian usage of ko/smo$.

In the LXX, ko/smo$ frequently is used to translate Hebrew terms signifying beauty and adornment, etc. In the New Testament, ko/smo$ in this sense occurs just once (1 Pet 3:3). Curiously, the LXX occasionally uses ko/smo$ for ab*x*, as a reference to the “armies” (i.e., “host”) of heaven (Gen 2:1; Deut 4:19; 17:3; Isa 24:21; 40:26), probably intended to convey the idea of the beauty and ordered arrangement of the heavenly bodies. Only occasionally does ko/smo$ serve in the LXX to designate the universe (“heaven and earth”) as a whole (Ps 8:6; Eccl 3:1; Isa 44:24; and cf. Symmachus’ version of Job 38:4). The situation changes however in writings influenced by Hellenistic Judaism—the Book of Wisdom (9:3, 9; 11:17, 22; 13:2-3; 16:17, etc), the books of Maccabees (4 Macc 16:18, etc), and the works of Philo of Alexandria (cf. also Josephus). In these writings, ko/smo$ is regularly used in the Greek philosophical sense (see above) for the universe as a whole, as also for the inhabited world of human beings.

The New Testament use of ko/smo$ largely derives from a common vocabulary and modes of expression shared with these Hellenistic Jewish writings.

The Negative Connotations of ko/smo$

How did ko/smo$ come to possess the strong negative and dualistic connotations we find throughout the New Testament (especially in the Pauline and Johannine writings)? As I see it, there are three lines of explanation that are particularly relevant.

First, there is the influence of (neo-)Platonic dualism, with its contrast between the ideal world (viz., the invisible world of Ideas) and the ordinary visible/physical world (“this world”, ko/smo$ ou!to$). Such a dualistic contrast had the natural effect of deprecating the visible/physical world in favor of the ideal world.

Second, there is the understanding of the world—specifically in the inhabited domain of human beings—as having been corrupted by sin and evil. Such a worldview was inherited by early Christians from Scriptural and Jewish tradition.

Third, there is the eschatological frame of reference contrasting “this Age” —i.e., the current state of the world in the present Age—with the “Age to come”. In this regard, the meaning of ko/smo$ overlaps with that of ai)w/n (“age”) and carries a temporal as well as spatial aspect; in later Jewish writings, the noun <l*ou (Aramaic am*l=u*) had a similar dual (spatial/temporal) meaning and could be translated in Greek by ko/smo$. This eschatological contrast is pervasive throughout the New Testament and is perhaps best summarized by the statement in 1 John 2:17: “…the world [ko/smo$] and its impulses go along [i.e., pass away], but the (one) doing the will of God remains into the Age”.

These last two aspects were particularly prominent in Jewish eschatological and apocalyptic thought during the first centuries B.C./A.D. An eschatological dualism, similar in mode and emphasis to that of early Christians, characterized the Community of the Qumran texts. The Community believed that they were living in the end-time, at the end of the current Age (i.e., “this world”), and that the new Age was about to be ushered in. During this present Age, “the world”, already corrupted by sin and evil, was thought to become increasingly dominated by wickedness. Obviously, this referred primarily to human wickedness, but the activity of angelic/demonic powers and spiritual forces of evil was also seen as pervasive in the world. Of the many references to this concept of “the world” (and “this Age”) in the apocalyptic writings, note Jubilees 10:1ff; 1 Enoch 48:7; 2/4 Esdras 4:26.

As we examine the New Testament references, we will see some of the ways in which this traditional dualistic-eschatological usage was developed among early Christians.

New Testament use of ko/smo$ (outside of Paul and John)

Of the 186 occurrences of the word ko/smo$ in the New Testament, more than half (102) are in the Johannine writings (the number is even higher [105] if we include the book of Revelation). Even more striking are the number of occurrences in the Gospel of John (78) compared with just 14 in the Synoptic Gospels combined. This distribution demonstrates how important ko/smo$ is to the Johannine writings. The word is similarly prominent in Paul’s letters (occurring 47 times). Outside of the Pauline and Johannine writings, ko/smo$ does not carry quite so forceful a negative and contrastive emphasis—viz., “the world” as a domain of sin and evil that is fundamentally opposed to God. To gain a better sense of how this negative aspect of meaning developed and came to prevail in early Christian thought, it will be helpful to examine the occurrences of ko/smo$ outside of the Pauline and Johannine writings.

If we include the book of Revelation among the Johannine writings, then there are 33 occurrences of the noun ko/smo$ (out of 186) in the non-Pauline and non-Johannine writings: 14 in the Synoptic Gospels, 1 in Acts, 5 in Hebrews, 5 in James, 3 in 1 Peter, and 5 in 2 Peter. As noted above, 1 Pet 3:3 contains the only NT occurrence of ko/smo$ in the general sense of “(well-)ordered arrangement”, in accord with the use of the related verb kosme/w (“put in order, arrange, adorn, decorate”)—Matt 12:44; 23:29; 25:7; Lk 11:25; 21:5; 1 Tim 2:9; Tit 2:10; 1 Pet 3:5; Rev 21:2, 19. In all the 32 other occurrences, ko/smo$ refers to the universe and/or to the inhabited world of human beings.

The Synoptic Gospels

The word ko/smo$ is quite rare in the Synoptic Gospels, especially when one considers the core Synoptic Tradition as represented by the Gospel of Mark. It occurs just three times in Mark, and one of these occurrences is in the textually questionable ‘long ending’ (16:15) of the Gospel. It appears in a proverbial saying of Jesus (8:36; par Matt 16:26; Lk 9:25) where the word carries its customary comprehensive sense (i.e., the entire world). In 14:9 par (followed by the occurrence in [16:15]), it is used in the context of the early Christian mission— “the world” understood primarily in a spatial sense, designating the inhabited world of human beings.

There are two additional occurrences of ko/smo$ in the Gospel of Luke. The first of these (11:50) refers, in traditional terms, to the creation of the universe (‘heaven and earth’); the eschatological (Judgment) context of Jesus’ saying is noteworthy. In 12:30, ko/smo$ has a rather clear negative connotation, with its reference to “the nations of the world”, set implicitly in contrast to the righteous people of God (cf. the parallel in Matt 6:32f).

One can detect similar contrastive emphases in the more extensive use of ko/smo$ in the Gospel of Matthew. There is also a more pronounced eschatological aspect to the usage (by Jesus) in the Matthean Gospel. Note, for example, the occurrences of the word in the chapter 13 parables (v. 35, and especially v. 38), along with those in the expanded Matthean version of the Eschatological Discourse (chaps. 24-25—24:21; 25:34). These represent Matthean ‘additions’ which do not occur in the core Synoptic version of the material (cp. Mark 4, 13). Another Matthean detail is the reference to “the kingdoms of the world” in the Temptation narrative (4:8; cp. the Lukan version); implicitly, “the world” (with all of its riches and power) is associated with the tempting activity of the Satan/Devil (cf. the previous arc of studies [1-5] in this series). Similarly, there is an allusive connection between “the world” and sin in the woe-declaration by Jesus in 18:7. By contrast, the use of ko/smo$ in 5:14 suggests the early Christian mission, with “the world” as the inhabited domain of human beings—the place where the mission-work occurs, but also indicating a realm, corrupted by sin and evil, that is in need of salvation. The specific expression “the light of the world” is otherwise familiar from its occurrences in the Gospel of John (“I am” sayings of Jesus, 9:5; 11:9; cf. also 12:46).

The New Testament Letters (James, 1-2 Peter, Hebrews)

In the New Testament letters, ko/smo$ takes on a more decidedly negative significance; in this regard, one may detect a certain development in thought from the (earlier) Gospel Tradition. On the other hand, the shift in emphasis may reflect the nature of the material—a strong ethical orientation, which, in an eschatological context (see above), highlights the contrastive nature of “the world” (i.e., during the current wicked Age). Believers in Christ are to conduct themselves in a holy and right(eous) manner, in contrast to the way most people in “the world” tend to behave.

All of the occurrences of ko/smo$ in the letter of James, for example, bring out this ethical emphasis. In 1:27, “the world” is described as a place where believers can become ‘polluted’, and it is thus important to “keep watch” over oneself, so as to remain “without spot” (a&spilo$), i.e., unstained by the world. In 2:5, drawing rather clearly upon traditional teaching by Jesus, the author contrasts riches and poverty as they are constituted “in the eyes of the world” with how they truly are understood in the kingdom of God. The expression “the world of unrighteousness [lit., lack of what is right, a)diki/a]” in 3:6 suggests a close connection between sin/evil and “the world”, while the teaching of 4:4 is even more forceful in declaring that “fondness of [i.e., for] the world” means hostility toward God, since “the world” is fundamentally opposed to God.

The two occurrences of ko/smo$ in 1 Peter (apart from 3:3) generally follow the usage in Luke-Acts (cf. above), by combining (i) a reference to the creation of the universe (in an eschatological context, 1:20; cf. Acts 17:24) with (ii) an understanding of “the world” (i.e., the inhabited domain of human beings) as the mission-field for the early Christian mission (5:9). The latter reference affirms the close conceptual connection between “the world” (v. 9) and “the Devil” (v. 8, cf. the discussion in Study 2). The corruption of “the world” is emphasized in 2 Peter, in the context of a pointedly eschatological exhortation to believers. Two different terms—fqora/ (“decay”, 1:4) and mi/asma (plur., “defilement, pollution”, 2:20)—are used to express this. Comparison is made with the corrupt world of humankind in the time of Noah (2:5), when the world was judged (and destroyed) by God—the great Flood serving as a figure-type for the end-time Judgment (3:6).

In Hebrews, a traditional reference to the creation of the universe (see above) is again utilized, in an eschatological context, to emphasize the corrupt nature of “the world” and to remind/warn believers of the impending Judgment (4:3). To this is added a distinctive Christological emphasis, similar in certain respects to what we find in the Pauline and Johannine writings, focusing on the mission of Christ “in the world” (9:26; 10:5), with the implication that his mission had the purpose of dealing (by sacrificial means) with the pervasive sin extant (among human beings) in the world. This basic contrast, between believers (i.e., the righteous ones) and the wickedness of the world, is presented in chapter 11 (see the use of ko/smo$ in vv. 7, 38), drawing upon the righteous/faithful figures of Israel’s past history as precursors (and type-figures) of believers in Christ.

Conclusion

This survey allows us to glimpse something of how the meaning and usage of the term ko/smo$ developed among Christians during the first century. Several points of emphasis may be noted:

    • Reference to the creation (i.e., beginning) of the universe, in an eschatological context that alludes to (and foretells) the end of the cosmos.
    • The Creation traditions (esp. Gen 3) also affirm the corrupted nature of “the world”, especially as the terminology relates to the inhabited world of human beings.
    • This traditional belief (viz., regarding the sinful and evil condition of the world) is greatly enhanced by its eschatological orientation—the understanding and expectation that the world (inhabited by humans) will become increasingly more wicked and corrupt as the end of the Age draws near.
    • The eschatological dualism (regarding “the world”) thus also has a strong ethical aspect—viz., the contrast between the present Age and the Age to come is mirrored by the ethical contrast between the righteous and the wicked. The kingdoms and nations of the world tend to symbolize the domain of wickedness, in contrast to the righteous people of God (i.e., believers in Christ).
    • At the same time, “the world” —that is, the realm (on earth) inhabited by human beings—is also the space (i.e., the field) for the Christian mission. The presence of the believer “in the world” matches Christ’s own presence (“in the world”) during his mission on earth. The proclamation of the Gospel, during the time that remains before the end of the Age, offers the hope of salvation and renewal to human beings otherwise lost and trapped in the midst of the current corrupted world.

In the next study, we will turn our attention to the Pauline letters, examining in some detail how Paul adapted and developed the key themes outlined above.

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 140 (Part 1)

Psalm 140

Dead Sea MSS: 11QPsa (vv. 1-5)

This Psalm is a prayer for deliverance with strong lament features. As mentioned in the prior study on Ps 139, this is a well-established genre. However, in contrast to the previous Psalm, Ps 140 represents a fuller and more consistent manifestation of the traditional genre-form.

Most commentators divide this Psalm into four main stanzas, with its divisions indicated by the three hl*s# (Selah) pause-markers (after vv. 4, 6, and 9). This would seem to be an instance where the pause-markers serve as an indicator for the poetic structure of the composition (such is not always the case). According to this division, the Psalm can be outlined as follows:

    • Stanza 1: Plea to YHWH for rescue from enemies’ wicked speech (vv. 2-4)
    • Stanza 2: Plea to YHWH for protection from enemies’ wicked actions (vv. 5-6)
    • Stanza 3: Request for help, contrasting the protagonist’s righteousness with the enemies’ wickedness (vv. 7-9)
    • Stanza 4: Curse-wish, in the face of his enemies’ wickedness (vv. 10-12)
    • Conclusion: Confession of faith/trust in YHWH (vv. 13-14)

Thematically, the four stanzas can be grouped into two parts, as indicated by the headings of the above outline. The first two stanzas, taken together, in their thought, imagery, and thematic emphasis, bear a certain similarity to the opening section of Psalm 64 (vv. 2-6 [1-5])—cf. the earlier study on Ps 64.

Allen (p. 334-5) makes a reasonably strong case for treating vv. 9-12 as a stanza-unit, in spite of the Selah-marker after v. 9. He bases this division on the premise that each of the poetic sections begins with a specific address (or reference) to YHWH (using the Divine name). On this basis, verse 9 should begin a stanza. Such a division creates a rather different poetic structure for the Psalm, with three main stanzas (instead of four):

    • Stanza 1: Plea for rescue from his enemies (vv. 2-4)
    • Stanza 2: Plea for protection from his enemies (vv. 5-6)
    • Transition: Declaration of faith/trust in YHWH (vv. 7-8)
    • Stanza 3: Curse-wish against his enemies (vv. 9-12)
    • Conclusion: Confession of faith/trust in YHWH (vv. 13-14)

While this alternate way of dividing the Psalm is plausible, I am inclined to follow the four-stanza division governed by the Selah-markers.

There is some dispute as to the date of this Psalm. The number of rare words and apparent archaic forms suggests a relatively early (pre-exilic) date. However, other commentors, impressed by the Psalm’s intertextuality and its possible relationship to the prior Ps 139, as well as Ps 120 and others (55-59, 64), prefer a significantly later (exilic or post-exilic) date, and would view the apparent archaic features as intentional archaisms (cf. Hossfeld-Zenger, pp. 553-4; Allen, p. 334). If it were possible to determine a royal background to the Psalm (note the Davidic attribution in the heading), then this could support a pre-exilic date, though, as we have discussed in prior studies, elements of a royal background can be preserved (as traditional features) in later compositions. If verses 13-14 represent a secondary addition, then it is possible that an earlier poem has been utilized and adapted by a later author, which would explain the apparent presence of both early and late features in the Psalm (some of these will be discussed in the notes).

It has also been suggested that Psalm 140 has a Northern (Israelite) provenance, which could be a factor in considering the age/date of composition. Rendsburg (pp. 95-7) isolates eight features which he sees as indicators of Northern (Israelian) dialectical Hebrew.

A portion of Ps 140 survives in the Qumran manuscript 11QPsa. While there are couple of minor textual variants that are worth mentioning, more notable is the position of the Psalm in the 11QPsa Psalter. It comes after Ps 150, and immediately follows two other specific works focused on the person of David—a fragment of “David’s Last Words” (par 2 Sam 23:1-7), and a poem referenced as “David’s Compositions”, the latter making mention of the many works composed by David.  This positioning of Ps 140 would seem to emphasize its Davidic authorship, even as is indicated by the Psalm’s heading (with the traditional designation, “[belonging] to David”).

Metrically, Psalm 140 is irregular, with 4+3 couplets accompanied by an unusual number of 3+4 couplets, along with a pair of 3-beat tricola (Stanza 2).

Stanza 1: Verses 2-4

Verse 2 [1]

“Pull me out, O YHWH, (away) from (the) evil person;
from (the) man of violence, watch over me—”

The nature of Psalm 140 as a prayer for deliverance is established here at the beginning of the first stanza. The initial word is a suffixed imperative of the verb Jl^j* (in the Piel stem). This verb has the meaning “pull out”, often in the concrete sense of drawing out a sword, etc; however, it can be used in the sense of “rescue” (i.e., pull out of danger) as it is here (and elsewhere in the Psalms, cf. 6:5[4]; 18:20[19]; 34:8[7], etc.). In the second line, the verb is rx^n`, which means “watch (over)”, in the sense of “guard, protect”. Thus, the first line emphasizes rescue by YHWH, while the second line emphasizes protection, though the phrase with rx^n` could also be rendered “keep me (away) from…”, which would come closer to the rescue-motif in line 1.

This couplet has a chiastic structure (one of several such in the Psalm):

    • “Pull me out…
      • from (the) man [<d*a*] (who is) evil
      • from (the) man [vya!] of violence
    • watch over me”

Clearly, “evil man” and “man of violence [sm*j*, plur.]” are parallel (and synonymous) expressions, reflecting the hostile and wicked character of the protagonist’s enemies. In order to preserve the distinction between the two nouns (<d*a* and vya!), I have translated them above as “person” and “man”, even though they each would customarily be rendered similarly as “man”.

The verb in the second line (rx^n`) is an imperfect (jussive) form, but for poetic concision I have rendered it as an imperative, like the verb form in line 1.

Metrically, this verse is a 4+3 couplet, like the following v. 3 (and see also vv. 7, 9); as noted in the introduction above, a peculiar feature of this Psalm is the metrical balancing of these couplets with even more irregular 3+4 bicola (such as in v. 4).

Verse 3 [2]

“(all those) who weave evil (deed)s in (their) heart,
(then) all day (long) stir up fighting!”

Syntactically, this couplet is a continuation of verse 2, further describing the wicked adversaries of the protagonist. As in the prior verse, the underlying evil character of these people (line 1) is manifested by hostile and violent acts (line 2). Here, their evil character is described particularly in terms of their thoughts (i.e., plans, schemes, etc). I have rendered the verb bv^j* in the concrete sense of “weave”, understood as a colorful figure for “think, reckon, conceive”. They form these evil thoughts and plans in their “heart”, then spend the entire day (“all day [long]”) carrying them out with contentious and violent action. The verb form in the second line, in the MT (WrWg`), is apparently a form of rWG II meaning “attack”, which is certainly appropriate to the context. However, the sense of the line seems rather to require a form of the verb hr*G* (“stir up”), which would entail a slight emendation of the text (MT) to Wrg`y+. I have adopted this emendation, which has textual support (it seems) as the reading of the Qumran manuscript 11QPsa (wrgy).

Verse 4 [3]

“They make their tongue like serpent’s teeth,
(with) hot venom of a viper under both their lips!”
Selah

In this final couplet, the evil actions taken by the protagonist’s enemies are described in terms of speech (i.e., evil words), utilizing the traditional parallel of “tongue” / “lips” (see especially, Ps 120:2, also e.g., Ps 12:4-5 [3-4]; 34:14 [13]; Prov 17:4). This emphasis on words/speech would tend to confirm the reading with the verb hr*G` (“stir up”) in v. 3b (see above). The evil words of the wicked are compared to the bite of a poisonous snake. In line 1, the ordinary noun for a (posionous) snake/serpent (vj*n`) is used (see Ps 58:5 [4]; cf. Num 21:6ff). The verb /n~v*, with the basic meaning of “be sharp, sharpen”, is presumably denominative from the noun /v@ (“tooth”), thus literally denoting “have (sharp) teeth”. Based on this understanding of the verb, the line would read something like, “they have made their tongue to have teeth like (those of) a serpent”; for poetic concision, I have condensed this somewhat.

It may well be that, as Dahood suggests (III, p. 301), the sibilant-heavy alliteration in these lines is meant to convey the sound of a hissing serpent; note especially in line 1: šānĕnû lešônām kemô nāḥāš. 

The parallel noun in the second line, bWvk=u^ occurs only here in the Scriptures. It is taken to refer to a horned viper or adder (LXX a&spi$, “asp”), but the Mishnah understood it to mean “spider”, thus being equivalent to the noun vyb!K*u^ (which in fact is the reading here of the Qumran manuscript 11QPsa, byvku). The noun hm*j@ with the meaning “poison, venom” (cf. Akkadian imtu) presumably derives from the verbal root <mj (“be hot”, see also <jy), thus denoting the deadly “heat” (cf. hM*j^) of a serpent’s venom. This poison lies concealed under the “lips” of the wicked, to be emitted with the evil words they speak. The dual of the suffixed noun literally means “their two lips”, which for dramatic effect I render here as “both their lips”.

Rendsburg (pp. 64, 95) notes that the noun hm*j@ (which also occurs twice in Ps 58:5 [4]), elsewhere appears only in texts that he identifies as distinctively Northern in character (Deut 32:24, 33; Job 6:4). Thus, he regards the use of the word here as a possible indicator of a Northern origin and/or provenance for Ps 140. Another possible indicator of the age/origin of the Psalm is the occurrence of the plural suffix wm– (omyt@p*c=, “their lips”), which also occurs in v. 10. This could be seen as characteristic of early Hebrew poetry, though the mixture of wm– with the standard <– suggests stylistic variation that preserves archaic (or archaizing) usage. Cf. D. A. Robertson, Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry (SBL Dissertation Series 3 [SBL Press: 1972]), pp. 66-68.

Curiously, the Selah (hl*s#) pause-marker, which occurs so frequently in the first three divisions of the Psalter (ending with Ps 89), appears hardly at all in the final two divisions; apart from the occurrences here, it is used just once (in Ps 143 [following v. 6]). As noted in the introduction above, the marker would seem to demarcate the poetic structure (i.e., stanza-divisions) of Ps 140. However, this is not always the case; indeed, sometimes it can be difficult to discern just why (or how) the hl*s# marker is being used.

As mentioned above, this verse is an irregular 3+4 couplet, balancing the 4+3 couplets of vv. 2-3.

Stanza 2: Verses 5-6

Verse 5 [4]

“Guard me, YHWH, from (the) hands of (the) wicked,
(and) from (the) man of violence, watch over me—
(those) who weave (plots) to thrust down my feet!”

This first verse of the second stanza essentially repeats the thought of the first two couplets from the first stanza (vv. 2-3, see above). Indeed, the wording of the second line here is identical to that of v. 2b, while the first line is extremely close (and formally identical) to that of v. 2a. As for the third line, it mirrors v. 3 with its use of the initial relative particle rv#a& (“[those] who”) and the verb bv^j* (“weave”, in the sense of forming evil plans, schemes, etc).
The close similarity of the first two lines to v. 2 means that these lines share the same chiastic structure documented for that verse (see above). 

The parallelism of the verbs rm^v* and rx^n`, which are quite close in meaning (“guard” and “keep watch [over]”, respectively), indicates that the emphasis in the second stanza is firmly on the idea of protection, whereas the concept of “rescue” was in view in stanza 1. The protagonist asks YHWH to prevent the evil plans of the wicked from coming to fruition (and thus inflicting harm upon him).

The climactic phrase in the third line indicates what the wicked enemies are planning/plotting to do—viz., to “push/thrust down” (vb hj*D*) the feet/steps (<u^P^, plur.) of the protagonist. That is, they plan to ‘trip him up’ and cause him to fall down. This could be understood quite literally, in terms of an act of physical violence, or it could be taken more generally (and figuratively) for any kind of hostile and harmful act. Given the emphasis on speech in stanza 1 (v. 4), it is possible that slanderous words or false accusations are in view; this is a motif and thematic emphasis that occurs in a number of Psalms and appears as a regular characteristic of the wicked.

Rendsburg (p. 66f) notes that the noun <u^P^ is the regular word for “foot” (plur. “feet”) in Ugaritic and Phoenician, while lg#r#, the regular term in Biblical Hebrew, does not occur in those languages. This suggests that <u^P^ is a distinctively Northern dialectical word (under Phoenician [or Phoenic] influence), and is indicative of a Northern origin and/or provenance for Psalm 140 (p. 95, as also for Ps 58 [cf. pp. 62-7]).

I follow Allen (p. 332) and other commentators (e.g., Hossfeld-Zenger, p. 548) in parsing vv. 5-6 as a pair of 3-beat (3+3+3) tricola, however it is also possible to divide them into a trio of 3+3 couplets (cf. Dahood, III, p. 300).

Verse 6 [5]

“(The) ‘exalted’ (one)s have hidden a trap for me”
(those) ruinous (one)s spread a net (to seize me)—
at (the) hand of (the) track they set snares for me!”

The nature of the wicked adversaries’ plots to ‘trip up’ the protagonist (and make him fall down), v. 5c, is expounded here, using the specific imagery of setting traps. Three different terms are utilized, each of which occurs in the Psalms and is part of Wisdom-vocabulary:

According to line 3, these traps/snares are specifically set “at the hand of” (i.e., alongside) the pathway traversed by the protagonist. The noun lG`u=m^ denotes the track formed by waggon-wheel(s), implying a deep and well-worn track. The pathway-motif features prominently in Wisdom literature, used in an ethical-religious sense for the ‘path’ that a person ‘travels’ on a regular/daily basis. There are many occurrences in the Psalms (most notably throughout Ps 119), though the noun lG`u=m^ is used somewhat less commonly for this purpose—cf. 17:5; 23:3; 65:12[11]; Prov 2:9, 15, 18; 4:11, 26; 5:6, 21. The wicked seek to ‘trip up’ the righteous as they traverse the path of God, causing them to fall or to go astray from the path.
The occurrences of this word in Proverbs 1-9 (cf. also Isa 26:7; 59:8), which are generally thought to date from the exilic (or post-exilic) period, could be taken as another indicator of a relatively late time of composition for Ps 140.

I follow HALOT (p. 285) and commentators such as Allen (p. 333; cf. also Dahood, III, p. 302) who regard <ylbj in the second line as a verbal adjective (participle) derived from the root lbj III (“be corrupt, act corruptly, bring ruin/damage”), vocalizing accordingly—<yl!b=j) vs. MT <yl!b*j&. I render this as a substantive, “ruinous (one)s”, which captures both the idea of a person being corrupt (in character) and also bringing/causing ruin to others. The corresponding adjective in line 1 (ha#G@, “high”, i.e., lofty, exalted) is used in a negative-pejorative (i.e., arrogant, self-important) or sarcastic sense (in English idiom we might say “high and mighty”).

The  remainder of the Psalm—the final two stanzas (vv. 7-9, 10-12) and the concluding couplets (vv. 13-14)—will be discussed in Part 2 of this study.

    • References marked “Dahood, I”, “Dahood, II” and “Dahood, III” above are to, respectively, Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Psalms I: 1-50, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 16 (1965), Psalms II: 51-100, vol. 17 (1968), and Psalms III: 101-150, vol. 17A (1970).
    • Those marked “Allen” are to Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101-150 (Revised edition), Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 21 (Zondervan: 2002/2014).
    • Those marked “Hossfeld-Zenger” are to Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101-150, translated by Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia Commentary Series (Fortress Press: 2011).
    • Those marked “Rendsburg” are to Gary A. Rendsburg, Linguistic Evidence for the Northern Origin of Selected Psalms. Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Monograph Series 43 (Scholars Press: 1990). The specific notes on Ps 140 are on pp. 95-7. 

Studies on the Spirit: The Flesh, the World, and the Devil (Study 5)

The Flesh, the World, and the Devil

Study 5: The Devil (Part 5)

In the final study on the first arc of this series (dealing with the Devil), I will summarize the key points of emphasis from the prior studies. Our focus has been on believers’ conflict with the Devil, and the role of the Spirit in that conflict. The first study looked at the conflict with the Devil during Jesus’ own (Messianic) ministry, while the second study examined the continuation and extension of this same conflict for Jesus’ disciples (i.e., believers), following the pattern from Jesus’ own life and ministry. These two studies considered the evidence from the Gospels and the New Testament, generally apart from the Pauline and Johannine writings, which were the subject of the third and fourth studies, respectively.

1. During his Messianic ministry, Jesus Christ exercised authority over the Devil and gained victory over him.

This point is more or less stated as a key purpose of the mission of Christ on earth—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” 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). See sections 2. and 3. below.

The Gospel Tradition—and, in particular, the Synoptic narrative—establishes this aspect of Jesus’ ministry from the beginning, with the Spirit playing a central role. The baptism of Jesus marks the start of his public ministry (Mk 1:9-11 par), and it is on this occasion that the Spirit descended upon Jesus (Mk 1:10 par). With the coming of the Spirit, accompanied by the Divine voice from heaven (v. 11 par), Jesus is identified as the Messiah and the Son of God (in a Messianic sense). The presence of the Spirit is clearly depicted in the Gospel Tradition as guiding and empowering Jesus, enabling him to fulfill his Messianic ministry; this thematic emphasis is particularly prominent in the Lukan narrative, as we discussed (see Study 1). 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).

The temptation scene (cf. Matt 4:1-11) thus must be understood as depicting 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, in order that God might destroy the evil power (of the world and the Devil) and rescue humanity (i.e., believers) from it.

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 (cf. the discussion in Study 1). 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). The attribution of these miracles to the power/authority of ‘Beelzebul’ the “chief/ruler of the daimons”, rather than to the power of God, 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. By the saying in Matt 12:28 par, Jesus effectively declares the true source of his miracle-working power—viz., it is by the Spirit of God that he casts out the evil/unclean spirits. Jesus’ authority over these spirits is clear by the act of exorcism itself, 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). The spirits recognize his Messianic identity, but also, to be sure, the presence of God’s own Spirit guiding and empowering Jesus.

2. Believers in Christ hold the same authority and victory over the Devil.

The situation 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 presented 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 (see section 3. below).

This emphasis is strongest in the Johannine writings (see below, and more in Study 4). Just as the Son (Christ) was victorious over the world (and its ruler), as stated climactically at the end of the Gospel Farewell Discourse (16:33), so we as believers, in union with him, and in the power of the Spirit, also have victory. The point is made clearly in 1 John, in 2:13-14, where believers (that is, true believers) are designated as ones who “have been victorious (over) the Evil (one)”. The same point is reiterated and developed (with a Christological emphasis) in 5:4-5ff. Through our trust in Christ, we are united with him (through the Spirit). Our abiding union with the Son (and the Father) is both realized and confirmed by the presence (and witness) of the Spirit, as stated in 3:24 and 4:13. Moreover, it is because of this presence—the presence of God’s own Living Word—that we, as believers, are able to have victory over the world (and its ruler, the Devil), 2:14 , cf. 4:4.

This victory also entails protection. The Spirit protects believers from the world and its evil, guarding us from the Devil’s attacks. Jesus indicates this in the Discourse-Prayer of John 17, as he prays to the Father, requesting of Him that: “…you would keep watch (over) them (protecting them) out of the Evil”. (v. 15, cf. also earlier in vv. 6, 11, 12). The thought expressed—viz., that believers would be watched over and guarded from the world’s evil—is connected with the Paraclete-sayings and the promise of the Spirit. Indeed, how would God the Father protect believers, after the Son’s return to heaven, except through the presence of the Spirit?

The same promise occurs again at the close of 1 John (5:18), an important text which I discussed in detail in a recent set of notes (see also in Study 4).

3. The authority and victory possessed by believers is rooted in the abiding presence of God (and Christ) through the Spirit.

This point was noted above, being particularly prominent in the Johannine writings. However, as we discussed in Study 3, it also features in Paul’s letters and as an important component of the Pauline theology.

Fundamental to Paul’s theology is the tenet that believers in Christ have been set free from bondage to the power of sin, from the world and its ruler (the Devil). Paul speaks more about the “world” and the “flesh” than he does about the Devil, yet 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, a verse discussed in Study 3:

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

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.

Another key Pauline text that was examined is Ephesians 6:10-20 (esp. verses 11ff, 17ff), in which the role of the Spirit is brought out more clearly. The imagery and the scenario portrayed is dramatic, depicting the believer as a soldier who does battle against the forces of evil at the end of the current wicked Age. 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. 1 Pet 5:8 and Rev 12:12ff). The attacks against believers, led by the Devil (as the ruler of the world during the wicked Age), 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 underlying message of the passage is that believers are able to stand against these attacks by the Devil (v. 11). 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. 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”. While all of the the panopli/a (“all the armor, every weapon”) which God has given to us as believers (vv. 13-18ff) is spiritual, particular emphasis is given to the final piece of equipment (note its climactic position in the passage), the only true weapon provided to us by God (v. 17b): “the sword [ma/xaira] of the Spirit, which is (the) utterance [rh=ma] of God”. On the significance of the clarifying relative phrase (“which is [o% e)stin]…”), see the discussion in Study 4.

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. Under the likely influence of Isa 11:4b, the “breath” (i.e., Spirit, j^Wr) of God, which is also possessed by the Messiah, coming out of his mouth (cf. 2 Thess 2:8), functions as a weapon; it 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. God’s Spirit both protects us from the Devil’s attacks and enables us to prevail against the forces of evil.

As mentioned above, the focus on the role of the Spirit is even more prominent in the Johannine writings. In First John, in particular, there is an emphasis throughout on the presence of the Spirit—implicitly, but also being referenced explicitly at key points (2:27; 3:24; 4:2-6, 13; 5:6ff). One of the most important ways of expressing the idea of the Spirit’s presence (and that of the Son and the Father through the Spirit) is the repeated use of the verb me/nw (“remain, abide”). Our abiding union with the Son (and the Father) is both realized and confirmed by the presence (and witness) of the Spirit, as stated in 3:24 and 4:13. Moreover, it is because of this presence—the presence of God’s own Living Word—that we, as believers, are able to have victory over the world (and its ruler, the Devil), 2:14. Or, stated even more boldly, as a word of exhortation, in 4:4:

“You are of [e)k] God, dear offspring, and you have been victorious (over) them [i.e., the ‘antichrists’, v. 3], (in) that [i.e., because] greater is the (One that is) in you than the (one that is) in the world!”

The Spirit also specifically protects believers from the world and its evil, guarding us from the Devil’s attacks. Jesus indicates this in the Discourse-Prayer of John 17, as he prays to the Father, requesting of Him that: “…you would keep watch (over) them (protecting them) out of the Evil”. (v. 15). This verb (thre/w, “keep watch [over]”, par. with fula/ssw, “guard”) features prominently in the Last Discourse and in chap. 17 (cf. earlier in vv. 6, 11, 12). The thought expressed—viz., that believers would be watched over and guarded from the world’s evil—is connected with the Paraclete-sayings (14:16-17; 15:25-26; 16:7-13) and the promise of the Spirit. And note, again, the same promise as it occurs at the close of 1 John (5:18).

4. Victory for believers depends on remaining faithful (remaining “in Christ” and “in the Spirit”)

The promise of victory over the Devil and the forces of evil at work in the world does not negate the struggle that is involved. As indicated by the illustrative ‘spiritual warfare’ passage in Eph 6:10-20 (see above), believers must fight like soldiers doing battle against the forces of evil at the end of the current wicked Age. 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” —attacks that are carefully engineered and pursued (such as by a skilled military commander). The Devil becomes increasingly active during this time of eschatological darkness, a period marked by a particularly intense and pervasive wickedness. Thus, 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 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 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 (see above).

The eschatological orientation of this passage was part of a standard language of ethical instruction and exhortation that Paul shared with many other first-century Christians (cf. the discussion in Study 3). 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)

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.

Outside of the Pauline letters, there are comparable eschatological exhortations in James 4:7 and 1 Peter 5:8-9, both of which were examined in Study 2. The eschatological orientation of the latter reference is particularly prominent, with its use 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 were 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).

In the Johannine writings (Gospel and Letters), the language of exhortation, reflecting the need for believers to remain faithful, is dominated by two key verbs: thre/w (“keep watch [over]”) and me/nw (“remain, abide”). On the use of thre/w (e.g., in 1 Jn 5:18 and the Gospel [Last Discourse and chap. 17]), see above and the discussion in Study 4. The verb me/nw is even more prominent, functioning in many ways as the central keyword (and concept) for the Johannine theology and its ethics. The need for the believer to “remain” in Christ is emphasized throughout the Last Discourse (13:31-16:33, but especially in 15:1-10 [the Vine-illustration section] where the verb occurs 10 times). The use of me/nw is even more pervasive in 1 John, where it occurs 24 times, along with 3 occurrences in 2 John. It serves as both a fervent exhortation and a warning: the believer must remain “in Christ” —which entails remaining “in his word” and “in his love”. The true believer will remain faithful to the teaching and message of Jesus (i.e., his word) and to his example (i.e., the demonstration of his love).

Only by remaining in the Son can believers be free from sin (3:6). In this regard, there is a dual-aspect to the use of the verb me/nw: as believers remain in Christ (obedient to his word and his love), so he remains in believers. It is the abiding presence of Christ (the Son) which guards believers, protecting them from sin and the evil that is in the world (3:9; 5:18). The abiding presence of Christ the Son (and God the Father) is, of course, realized through the Spirit. Ultimately, it is God’s Spirit that protects believers from the evil of the world, and from the world’s ruler, the Devil (the Evil one).

The Devil and The World

The close connection between the Devil/Satan and “the World” (o( ko/smo$) has been mentioned at a number of points in these studies. As we prepare for the next arc of studies in the series, it will be helpful to delineate some of the key characteristics shared by the Devil and “the World”, according to the New Testament witness. For more detail, see especially the discussion in Studies 1 and 2.

A fundamental characteristic of the Devil (or Satan) is 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 (where he is referred to as the antagonist [a)nti/diko$] of Christians); 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 considering the ways that this opposition and antagonism (toward God/Christ/Believers) is manifested, several key behavioral attributes and characteristics may be noted.

As discussed in Study 3, the conceptual noun-pair “sin and death” (Rom 8:2) accurately reflects (and summarizes) the domain and activity of the Devil (viz., as the the chief ruler [a&rxwn] of “this world”).

i. “Sin” (a(marti/a, vb a(marta/nw)

According to 1 John 3:8, “sinning” is a fundamental attribute of the Devil. From the Johannine theological standpoint, this must be understood in terms of a two-fold definition of sin: (a) in the conventional sense of ethical-religious misdeeds (i.e., violations against God’s Law), and (b) in the deeper sense of unbelief—that is, of an unwillingness or refusal to trust in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. The references to the Devil in the Gospel of John tend to emphasize this latter (Christological) aspect—cf. 8:44; 13:2, 27; 16:9, 11; cf. 1 Jn 4:1-6.

As far as the active role (and actions) of the Devil are concerned, we may highlight two primary modes of behavior that relate to his conflict with believers:

    1. The Satan/Devil is seen as one who incites a person (i.e., a believer) to sin—that is, sin understood in the traditional ethical-religious sense, as violations of religious norms and various kinds of moral failure. This role as tempter (rooted in the meaning of the Greek word dia/bolo$, cf. the discussion in Study 1) is thoroughly traditional, often tied to the related idea of deception/deceit. As representative of the early Christian view regarding this aspect of the Devil’s activity, note these key references from Paul’s letters: 1 Thess 3:5; 1 Cor 7:5; 2 Cor 2:11; 11:3, 14; 2 Tim 2:26, and cf. also 1 Tim 3:6-7 and 5:15. Of course, this aspect also features in the Temptation scene in the Gospels (Matt 4:1-13 / Lk 4:1-11), as well as in the Lord’s Prayer (note the final dual-petition, Matt 6:13).
    2. The deceiving power of Satan also functions to lead people astray (vb plana/w)—that is, away from God and from a true faith in Jesus Christ. This role is particularly emphasized in 2 Thess 2:9, as part of the wickedness and evil that dominates the world at the end of the current Age; cf. also 1 John 4:1-6.
ii. “Death” (qa/nato$)

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), the personification of death as a wicked ruler 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. Indeed, the violence and persecution directed at believers (by the world) reflects this same hostile and murderous attitude.

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.

 

August 15: 1 John 5:18

1 John 5:18, concluded

“We have seen that every (one) having come to be (born) [o( gegennhme/no$] out of God does not sin; but (rather) the (one hav)ing come to be (born) [o( gennhqei/$] out of God keeps watch (over) him, and (so) the evil does not touch him.”

As a conclusion to this set of notes on 1 John 5:18 (1, 2, 3, 4), I will offer my own determination on how best to understand and interpret this verse, with regard to the second occurrence of the participial expression (using the idiom genna/w + e)k tou= qeou=). As we have seen, there are several valid lines of interpretation; and, particularly for the two main lines—viz., the reflexive-ethical view and the Christological view—there are a number of strong arguments in their favor. For this reason, my own thoughts on the matter have swung in different directions over the years. I can clearly see the validity and appeal of these interpretive approaches. Moreover, the very ambiguity of the language used (which is rather typical of Johannine style), and the possibility of double or multiple layers of meaning (intentionally applied by the author), makes any decisive determination difficult.

That being said, in the main, I am rather inclined to accept the Christological approach to the interpretive question. That is, I take the second occurrence of the participial expression (using the idiom genna/w + e)k tou= qeou=) as a reference to Jesus Christ—the Son of God—rather than a second reference to the believer (the offspring [te/kna] of God). In my view, the Christological interpretation best conforms to the Johannine theology expressed by the author of 1 John. In particular, it is the close parallels in thought and expression with 3:9 and Jn 17:15 which prove decisive for me. The similarities of language, between the phrase in v. 18 and Jn 17:15, are especially close—as Jesus prays to God the Father (regarding believers):

“…that you should keep watch (over) them [thrh/sh|$ au)tou\$] (to rescue/protect them) out of the evil [e)k tou= ponhrou=]”

As is clear from the context of Jn 17:11-15, it is God the Father and Jesus the Son, specifically, who protect the believer from sin and evil. These are the only other instances where the believer is the object of the verb thre/w (“keep watch [over]”). In every instance where the believer is the subject of the verb, the direct object is always either the noun e)ntolh/ (denoting the duty/mission that the believer is to fulfill) or lo/go$ (“word”, viz., the teaching of Christ and the message of who he is). The verb thre/w is never used reflexively of the believer (the general parallel with the verb fula/ssw [“guard”] in 1 Jn 5:21 notwithstanding).

The similarities with 1 Jn 3:9 are conceptual more than linguistic, but they are directly to the point—that it is the “seed” (spe/rma) of God (within the believer) which protects the believer and keeps him/her from sinning. As I discussed, this “seed” can be understood as Christ the Son (i.e., God’s offspring), though I prefer to interpret it primarily as a reference to the abiding presence of the Spirit, which is the source of the believer’s ‘birth’ as God’s offspring (Jn 3:5-8). Some commentators would view the “seed”, properly as a reference to God’s “word” (lo/go$) abiding in the believer (cf. the parallel with 1 Peter 1:23); however, since Christ himself is the Word (lo/go$) of God, and this is a living and abiding Word (and not simply the content of a message or teaching), the “seed” (as lo/go$) cannot be separated from the person of the Son/Christ, insofar as he dwells/abides within the believer. Moreover, the Son abides in the believer through the Spirit; and the life-giving “word” which the Son gives to the believer is Spirit (realized through the Spirit)—as the overall message of the Johannine theology declares (see esp. Jn 6:63; 1 Jn 5:8).

One of the strongest pieces of evidence against the Christological view, and in favor of the reflexive-ethical view, is the fact that the idiom genna/w + e)k (tou= qeou=), with a substantive (and articular) participle of the verb genna/w, elsewhere in the Johannine writings always refers to the believer, and not to Christ. It thus would be reasonable to assume that both occurrences of this idiom in 1 Jn 5:18 refer to the believer (the repetitiousness of the manner of expression notwithstanding). While the point regarding usage of the idiom is correct in general, I am by no means convinced that Johannine Christians (or the author of 1 John) would consider it impossible or improper to apply the idiom to the person of Christ (the Son). This was discussed in the prior note which looked at the evidence in support of the Christological view, but it is worth repeating here.

In particular, the difference in tense, between the two occurrences of the idiom in v. 18, may well be significant in this regard. Admittedly, there is no real difference in terms of basic meaning or denotation, between the idiom with the participle in the perfect or aorist tense—in both instances it means “the (one) having come to be (born) out of God”. However, I am inclined to think that the tense distinction here is significant and is not simply a matter of stylistic variation. It is noteworthy that, of the ten occurrences of the verb genna/w in 1 John, eight of these are in the perfect tense (2:29; 3:9 [2]; 4:7; 5:1 [1, 3], 4, 18 [1]), and in all of these the verb applies to believers (as the offspring of God). The only other occurrence which is not in the perfect tense is 5:1 [2], where the verb is in the aorist (active) and applies to God (the Father). This point of distinction, in my view, makes it somewhat more likely that the use of the aorist in v. 18 also refers to God (the Son).

Finally, as a lesser point of confirmation, there is the textual question regarding the pronoun in the second participial expression. In my view, the personal pronoun (au)to/n, “him”) is more likely to be original, and that the reflexive pronoun (e(auto/n, “himself”) is a secondary variant, introduced (whether intentionally or unconsciously) in order to clarify what the copyist assumed to be the correct meaning of the phrase. As I mentioned earlier, the personal pronoun itself could be used reflexively. However, if the author here had wished to emphasize the need for the believer to guard him/herself from sin, is it not more likely that a reflexive pronoun would specifically have been used (just as the author does in 3:3 and 5:21)? Thus, assuming that the personal pronoun is original, it seems more plausible that the author intended to express the idea that it is God (spec. the Son of God) who ultimately guards/protects the believer from sin and evil.

These are my reasons for accepting and preferring the Christological interpretation of 1 Jn 5:18. And yet, as I discussed in the prior notes, the reflexive-ethical interpretation is entirely valid and legitimate, particularly from the standpoint of the theology and rhetorical orientation of 1 John. Throughout the work, the author repeatedly exhorts (and warns) his readers on the need to remain in Christ (and in his word), and this entails the obligation for the believer to guard him/herself from sin and from the evil influences that pervade “the world”. Is it possible that the ambiguity of wording in v. 18 is intentional on the part of the author, and that it is meant to convey a certain ‘double-meaning’?

Such ambiguity and the use of double/dual-meaning is very much part of the Johannine style and mode of expression. It pervades the Gospel Discourses, informing the motif-feature of misunderstanding—viz., Jesus’ hearers fail to understand the true meaning of his words, and their response leads to further exposition by Jesus. A point particularly relevant to v. 18, with its emphasis on sin (see the context of vv. 16-17), is the Johannine dual-layered understanding of sin (a(marti/a, vb a(marta/nw). The terminology can be used in the conventional sense of ethical-religious lapses or misdeeds, but the true and deeper meaning of sin, from the Johannine theological viewpoint, is as unbelief—that is, an unwillingness or refusal to trust in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and to follow his teaching and example. At times, the Johannine author(s) seem to move between these two senses of “sin” —ethical and Christological—producing a certain ambiguity which, in spite of its provocative richness, can be difficult to resolve.

Possibly something similar is occurring with the repeated use of the idiom genna/w + e)k tou= qeou= in v. 18 (cf. the comparable theological-Christological ambiguity in v. 20). It could refer (primarily) to the Son (Christ) as the one who protects the believer from evil, yet, at the same time, could refer or allude (secondarily) to the importance of the believer guarding him/herself from sin. As noted and argued above, I would accord priority to the Christological aspect.

Another way of balancing the Christological and reflexive-ethical views could be to adopt a mediating position, perhaps along the lines of the third interpretation (discussed in the previous note). According to this interpretation, it is the birth of the believer (as God’s offspring) that protects and guards the believer from evil. In this regard, the “seed” of God (3:9, cf. above) certainly could be understood as referring, principally, to the begetting of the believer by God (as His offspring). Even so, the Johannine theology would require that this begetting (and birth) be defined Christologically, and from the standpoint of the abiding presence of God’s Spirit. That is to say, our identity as God’s offspring (te/kna) is based upon our union with God’s Son (Christ), which is realized through the presence of the Spirit. Our sonship is rooted in the Divine Sonship of Christ, being communicated to us (by union with him) through the Spirit. Our ‘birth’ as believers certainly comes from the Spirit (as is clear from Jn 3:5-8), but it is equally dependent upon the presence of God’s living Word (Lo/go$) in us. In this regard, Word and Spirit cannot be separated.

As a final point, the need to balance the Christological and reflexive-ethical aspects of interpretation, is, from the Johannine standpoint, affirmed by the use of the key word me/nw (“remain, abide”). It is this word, perhaps more than any other Johannine term or concept, which defines the believer’s union with the Son (and with God the Father, through the Son). The use of the word covers two aspects—and covenantal ‘sides’ —of our abiding union with Christ. These aspects are reciprocal and interdependent: (a) the believer remains in the Son, and (b) the Son remains in the believer. It is the interdependency of these two aspects that is particularly important (and sometimes overlooked by readers and commentators). On the one hand, our ability to remain in the Son is dependent upon the Son’s faithfulness in remaining in and with us. But, at the same time, in order for the Son to remain, we must faithfully remain in him. This latter point informs the ethical exhortations throughout 1 John (see also the Vine-portion of the Gospel Farewell Discourse, 15:1-11), including the reflexive-ethical orientation regarding the use of the verb thre/w/fula/ssw. As a final point, we should compare again the use of this terminology in 1 Jn 5:18 and 21, whereby the two interpretative aspects are balanced together: (i) the Son guards the believer from sin and evil (the primary point in v. 18), while (ii) the believer also protects him/herself from the evil influences that are present in the world (v. 21).

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 139 (Part 4)

Psalm 139, continued

In dealing with the third stanza (vv. 14c-18) in Part 3 of this study, I left the discussion of v. 18b unfinished and unresolved. Textually, there would seem to be two ways that one may read this line:

Verse 18b

(Option 1:)
“I awaken, and I am still with you.”
(Option 2:)
“I come to an end, and I am still with you.”

According to the first option (which is also the reading of the MT), the verb is a form of Jyq! II (“wake up, awaken”). But if this be correct, what exactly is the “awakening” that is involved, and how does it relate to the previous verses? Hossfeld-Zenger (p. 542f) make a fair attempt at an explanation, noting possible parallels with the scenarios in Ps 3:6[5], 4:9, and 17:3ff (the verb Jyq! II occurs in 3:6 and 17:15). Based on the immediate context of the Psalm, one might postulate two different lines of interpretation.

First, connecting back to the theme in stanza 2 (vv. 7-12), it could be inferred that the image of having one’s ‘bed’ in Sheol (v. 8), along with the motif of darkness/night (vv. 11-12) is in view. In that case, it could be implied that the protagonist has been sleeping, and/or has sought to ‘escape’ from YHWH’s presence through sleep. According to this view, one might even interpret stanza 3 (including the transitional vv. 13-14ab ?) as the product of the protagonist’s dreams and/or meditations during the night. Secondly, relating v. 18b directly to stanza 3, the “awakening” could be from the ‘sleep’ of death, viz., at the end of the protagonist’s life (par. to the beginning of his life, vv. 13ff). The reference to Sheol (with its ‘beds’) in v. 8 could support this view (Dahood, III, p. 296f, for example, interprets v. 18b as a prayer by the protagonist that he be allowed to enter into the blessed and Divine afterlife with YHWH). Alternately, the “awakening” could be understood as a continuation of the motif (in vv. 13ff) of the protagonist’s birth—i.e., his emergence from the womb of his mother, out of the darkness.

Whichever interpretive approach one might take, along this line, the basic point being emphasized is that, upon awakening, the protagonist is “still [dou] with [<u!]” YHWH. If the line represents a continuation of the theme in stanza 2, then, once again, the protagonist was unable to get away from YHWH’s presence. If the awakening is from the ‘sleep’ of death, then the emphasis is presumably on being in the presence of YHWH in the afterlife (as Dahood suggests). If the creation/birth theme of stanza 3 is in view, then the point is that YHWH was with the protagonist at the time of his creation (vv. 15-16), and is still with him even upon his birth.

However, the verb in v. 18b could also be read as a form of Jx^q* II (= hx*q* I, “come to an end”), which allows for an entirely different (but possibly related) line of interpretation.  In the Hiphil stem, the meaning would be “bring to an end”, which could refer to: (i) the counting of YHWH’s thoughts toward the protagonist (vv. 17-18a), or (ii) to the various (hypothetical) attempts by the protagonist to get away from YHWH’s presence (stanza 2). The wording of v. 18b in its closing statement (“I am still with you”) perhaps favors the connection with stanza 2, and the theoretical-rhetorical attempts to escape from YHWH’s presence.

Another possibility is that the sense of the verb is “come to an end”, referring to the end of the protagonist’s life. Kraus (p. 510), for example, renders the verb form colloquially, as a conditional clause: “(If) I were done for…”. This could reflect the allusive references to the protagonist’s wicked adversaries in the following vv. 19-22 (stanza 4, see below).

The simplest approach would be to understand the verb Jx^q* in relation to the hypothetical “counting” that is mentioned in v. 18a—i.e., “(If) I (could) bring (the counting) to an end…”. Whether the protagonist tries to escape YHWH’s presence (stanza 2), or to comprehend it (stanza 3), makes no difference—at the the end of his efforts, the result is the same: he finds himself right there with YHWH, still in His presence, before His face and under His ever-seeing eye. With some reluctance, this is the line of interpretation I have decided to follow, understanding the verb as a form of Jx^q* II (= hx*q* I, “come to an end”, Hiphil “bring to an end”). The line refers to the hypothetical attempt to “count” (i.e., comprehend) YHWH’s thoughts toward the protagonist, but it also refers, in summary fashion, to the entire hypothetical-rhetorical enterprise of stanzas 2 & 3 (taken together):

“I bring (it) to an end—and I am still with you.”

Stanza 4: Verses 19-24

Verse 19

“If (only) you would slay, O Mighty (One), (the) wicked,
so (that the) men of blood might turn away from me—”

The sublime Wisdom-verses of stanzas 2 & 3 come abruptly to an end with v. 18, followed here, at the beginning of stanza 4, by a harsh and uncompromising curse-wish (regarding the difficulties in dealing with such language, see my comments on Ps 137:7-9 in the earlier study [on Ps 137]). The juxtaposition is striking, but the imprecatory sentiments in vv. 19ff simply reflect the traditional genre that frames the composition (stanzas 1 & 2). In such petitionary prayer-for-deliverance Psalms, the protagonist frequently includes, as part of his prayer to YHWH, the request that God bring down judgment upon his hostile opponents (portrayed as wicked adversaries). This is very much what we see here: deliverance from his adversaries entails judgment against them. We see this purpose expressed in the second line: “so (that the) men of blood might turn away [vb rWs] from me!”. I read the initial w-conjunction as explanatory, indicating purpose/result. The wicked (line 1) are identified (in line 2) specifically as “men of blood” (<ym!d* yv@n+a^), indicating their violent character (and hostile intent). The plural <ym!d* (lit. “bloods”) often connotes “bloodshed”, sometimes in the general sense of hostile/violent action.
Dahood (III, p. 297) understands <ym!d* here (as also in 5:7 and 26:9, cf. I, pp. 31, 163) as derived from the root hm*D* (“be like”), and thus meaning “likenesses” (i.e., “images”, in the sense of ‘idols’). The expression then would be “men of images”, i.e., ‘idolators’, people who worship deities other than YHWH. Dahood (III, pp. 284, 297) interprets the petitionary scenario of the Psalm as an appeal by the protagonist on behalf of his innocence, against charges of idolatry. 

In the MT, the form of the verb in the second line is a plural imperative (WrWs), suggesting that the line represents an exclamatory interjection by the protagonist. In that case, the initial w-conjunction for the line could be read as a vocative (so Dahood, III, p. 297):

“If (only) you would slay, O Mighty (One), (the) wicked—
O (you) men of blood, turn away from me!—”

It seems better to follow the versional evidence of the Aramaic Targum and Syriac and read an imperfect form of the verb (WrWsy`) instead (cf. Allen, p. 320). The Qumran manuscript 11QPsa apparently has an infinitive form of the verb (rws); it also lacks the initial w-conjunction in the second line (absence of the conjunction may be supported by the LXX and Symmachus Greek translations).

The verb in the first line, lf^q* (“slay”), is rather rare, occurring elsewhere only in Job 13:15; 24:14 (another instance of the verbal and conceptional parallels between Job and Ps 139), with one instance of the related noun lf#q# (Obadiah 9). The Akkadian cognate qatālum is used for the slaughter of a sacrificial animal, but eventually (in Aramaic) the verb came to be used for slaughter or killing more generally (cf. HALOT, p. 1092). It is probably correct to view the verb lf^q* (like the noun lf#q#) in Hebrew as a loanword from Aramaic; however, as Dahood notes (III, p. 297), the verb occurs in the 8th century Panamuwa and Sefire inscriptions, so it cannot necessarily be used to establish a late (exilic/post-exilic) date for the Psalm.

Verse 20

“(those) who speak against you toward (their evil) plan(s),
(who) lift up (voice) to the wickedness (they have) arranged!”

This couplet continues the curse-wish from v. 19; syntactically, the two verses represent a single statement. The wicked “men of blood” are here characterized by a pair of parallel lines, presenting a description of their evil actions and purpose. In each line these two aspects are emphasized: (a) speech-action, followed by (b) an indication of their evil intent. The verb rm^a* (“say, speak”) in the first line is matched by “lift/take up [vb ac^n`] (their voice)” (with loq, “voice”, implied) in the second line. They speak against YHWH (“speak [against] you”), and, at the same time, give voice in agreement to a wicked purpose. The noun aw+v* in the second line denotes something that is “bad, evil”, often with the connotation of being “worthless” (i.e., useless, vain); here (translated “wickedness”), it may well allude to idolatry and false religion (cf. the interpretation by Dahood, mentioned above), since awv can be used in such a context (cf. Ps 31:7; Jer 18:15; Jonah 2:9). However, given the specific use of awv in connection with the name of YHWH (Exod 20:7; Deut 5:11), it seems likely that there is a reference here to taking up the name of YHWH falsely (or for an evil purpose) in an oath, etc.

The evil intent of these people is indicated by the final word of each line. In the first line, the noun hM*z]m= (from the root <mz) denotes something planned, often with a decidedly evil/wicked connotation (i.e., evil plot, scheme, etc). In the second line, the final word of the MT is (apparently) “your cities” (;yr#u*), which makes very little sense in context, and attempts to explain it as such have scarcely been convincing. More plausible is to read the same text (iyru) as a suffixed form of the noun ru* II, meaning “enemy”, attested in both Aramaic and later Hebrew (cf. Sirach 37:5); the suffixed plural noun would thus mean “your enemies”, “your foes”, a reading which clearly is suitable to the context, and for which there seems to be support in the Targum and the Aquila and Symmachus Greek translations. However, given the expected parallel with hM*z]m= (and the idea of something planned), I am inclined, though rather reluctantly, to follow Dahood (III, p. 297f) in viewing iyru as a passive participle (verbal adjective) of Er^u* (“lay out, arrange, make ready”); the vocalization Eyr!u&, so as to match the consonantal text of the MT (and 11QPsa), would have to be regarded as an Aramaism (Aramaic form).

Verse 21

“Am I not (to be) hating them, YHWH, (those who) hate you?
And at (those) standing up against you do I not feel disgust?”

Here in this extended (4+3) couplet, the protagonist expresses the sentiment behind his curse wish of vv. 19-20. The hatred reflected by his harsh imprecation is explained as the product of his righteousness and faithfulness to YHWH. Thus, the curse-wish itself functions as an affirmation of the protagonist’s covenant loyalty, and thus as a further reason why YHWH should grant his petition. He hates these wicked adversaries because they hate YHWH, as is indicated by their “speaking against” YHWH in v. 20 (line 1), which includes (possibly) using His name falsely or for evil purposes in an oath (line 2).

Such people also stand themselves in opposition to YHWH, effectively rising up (in rebellion) against His, as expressed here (in line 2) by the Hitpael (reflexive) participle of the verb <Wq (“stand up”). The corrected form of this participle (beginning with –t=m!b=W rather than –t=b!W), as read in a number of manuscripts of the MT (cf. also 11QPsa), should, of course, be followed. 11QPsa reads the prefixed preposition /m! (“from”) instead of B= (“by, with, at”). The same manuscript also has a reflexive (Hitpael) form of the verb fWq (“feel disgust, loathe”).

Verse 22

“(With) complete hatred I do hate them—
and as hostile (foe)s they (all) are to me!”

The protagonist repeats here, in simpler and more direct terms, the explanation for the curse-wish (vv. 19-20), viz., his hatred for his wicked opponents. It is broadened to reflect the overriding Wisdom-theme of the conflict (and contrast) between the righteous and the wicked. The person who is righteous and faithful to YHWH hates all the wicked ones—all those who are opposed to YHWH and stand against His covenant. The wicked are all regarded as enemies, hostile foes, by the righteous. The construct expression in the first line is, literally, “completeness [tyl!k=T^] of hatred”; for poetic concision, this is rendered adjectivally (“complete hatred”), and in an adverbial sense (“with complete hatred”).

Verse 23

“Search me out, Mighty (One), and know my heart;
examine me, and know my (heart’s) desires,”

The final two couplets of this stanza (and the Psalm) correspond to the opening couplets of the first stanza (vv. 1ff)—an indication of the chiastic structure of the Psalm, and of the petitionary scenario that frames the composition. The protagonist has presented himself before YHWH, asking/inviting God to examine him. The same verb, rq^j*, “search [out], explore” (with the basic meaning, it seems, of “dig deep”) from verse 1 is used here. As I noted, 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 parallel verb in the second line is /j^B*, “examine, test”; it is used in the specific context of testing the quality of metal (in the melting of it), cf. Zech 13:9, but often in a figurative sense of testing a person (his/her heart and mind, actions, etc). It tends to be used in relatively late (exilic/post-exilic) works—Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah, Malachi, Chronicles—but also occurs a number of times (as a Wisdom term) in the book of Job (7:18; 12:11; 23:10; 34:3, 36); cf. also Prov 17:3.

The protagonist calls on YHWH to examine his heart—that is, his innermost thoughts and intentions (cf., entrails/kidneys, i.e., ‘inner parts’ in v. 13). Parallel to the noun bb*l@ (“heart”) in line 1, is the plural <yP!u^r=c^ (= <yP!u!c!, with an inserted r) which refers to a person’s passionate thoughts and feelings, rendered here as “(heart’s) desires”. This form of the word also occurs in Ps 94:19, while the form without the inserted r is used twice in the book of Job (4:13; 20:2). By examining him, YHWH will come to know the truth of his heart—viz., that he is faithful and loyal to the covenant bond with YHWH, and so deserves to have his prayer/petition answered. Of course, as it is clear from the Wisdom sections of the Psalm (stanzas 2 & 3, following vv. 2-6), YHWH already knows the protagonist’s heart and is fully aware of all his thoughts and desires.

Metrically, this verse, like the earlier v. 21, is a 4+3 couplet.

Verse 24

“and see if (the) path of a shaped (image is) in me,
and (then) guide me on (the) path of distant (times)!”

The thought expressed in the final couplet is clear enough, but the idiomatic way in which it is expressed makes translation a bit difficult. Syntactically, we should view these lines as a continuation from v. 23 (see above), as the protagonist gives an indication of what he expects the examination (by YHWH) to prove—namely, that he is (and has been) completely loyal to the covenant with YHWH, and has never violated it by revering or acknowledging any other deity besides YHWH. These ‘other’ deities are referenced here, polemically, by the images used to represent them. The noun bx#u) I (= bx*u*), from the root bxu I, denotes something that is “shaped” or “formed” —that is, a sculpted or cast (figural) image of a deity. There is no “pathway” (Er#D#) of ‘image-worship’ (i.e., worship of other deities) in the protagonist, and he is confident that the examination of him by YHWH will bear this out. As one who is faithful/loyal to the covenant, the protagonist can surely request (and expect) protection by YHWH, and also justice from God on his behalf. This involves deliverance out of danger and distress, including protection and rescue from the attacks of hostile and wicked adversaries (see vv. 19-22, above).

The true path, the pathway that God has established for His people, is ancient and enduring, reflecting the eternal nature and character of YHWH Himself. This aspect is indicated, as it often is in Biblical poetry, by use of the temporal term <l*ou, which properly denotes the “distant” past and/or future. As part of his prayer for deliverance, and as its concluding petition, the protagonist asks that YHWH guide him (vb hj*n`) on the right path, the “distant” pathway, which was established in ancient times (cf. Jer 6:16; 18:15), and which endures into the far distant future. The protagonist has been faithful and has sought to keep himself on this path, but he also asks that YHWH help to guide him as well; indeed, such a request is an indication of his faithfulness and loyalty to the covenant.

The use of the noun Er#D# (denoting a “path[way]” upon which one walks/treads) in this ethical-religious sense is part of a long-standing Wisdom tradition, in which the path/walking idiom is a fundamental motif. As such, it also features frequently in the Psalms; see, most notably, its extensive and repeated use throughout Psalm 119 (cf. the earlier study, with its set of notes).

    • References marked “Dahood, I”, “Dahood, II” and “Dahood, III” above are to, respectively, Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Psalms I: 1-50, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 16 (1965), Psalms II: 51-100, vol. 17 (1968), and Psalms III: 101-150, vol. 17A (1970).
    • Those marked “Kraus” are to Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalmen, 2. Teilband, Psalmen 60-150, 5th ed., Biblischer Kommentar series (Neukirchener Verlag: 1978); English translation in Psalms 60-150, A Continental Commentary (Fortress Press: 1993).
    • Those marked “Allen” are to Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101-150 (Revised edition), Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 21 (Zondervan: 2002/2014).
    • Those marked “Hossfeld-Zenger” are to Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101-150, translated by Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia Commentary Series (Fortress Press: 2011).

August 8: 1 John 5:18

1 John 5:18, continued

“We have seen that every (one) having come to be (born) [o( gegennhme/no$] out of God does not sin; but (rather) the (one hav)ing come to be (born) [o( gennhqei/$] out of God keeps watch (over) him, and (so) the evil does not touch him.”

In discussing how best to understand and interpret the second occurrence of the participial expression (using the idiom genna/w + e)k tou= qeou=) in verse 18, we have examined the two main views. The first may be called the reflexive-ethical view. According to this view, the second occurrence of the participial expression has the same point of reference as the first—namely, the believer is the one who has “come to be (born) out of God”; and, thus, the true believer, as God’s faithful offspring (pl. te/kna), will guard him/herself from sin (just as the exhortations in 3:3 and 5:21 direct). The personal pronoun, following the verb thre/w (“keep watch [over]”), is thus being used reflexively (= to the textual variant that specifically reads the reflexive pronoun, e(auto/n instead of au)to/n). The second view can be called the Christological view. By this line of interpretation, the second expression (with the participle in the aorist tense [gennhqei/$]) refers to Jesus Christ, the Son of God. It is the abiding presence of the Son that protects the believer from sin, much as we find stated in 3:9; the similar wording in Jn 17:15 also supports this view.

The arguments are strong for both of these interpretations. As it happens, there is a third view, or line of interpretation, that must be considered:

3. The spiritual birth (of the believer) protects the believer.

As evidence for this way of reading the second phrase of verse 18, it is necessary to take into account another textual variant. In a number of Greek manuscript and versional witnesses, instead of the aorist participle gennhqei/$ (“[hav]ing come to be [born]”) there is the related noun ge/nnhsi$ (a “coming to be [born]”, i.e., “birth”), similar to ge/nesi$ (cf. Matt 1:1, 18). This noun is the reading in four Greek (minuscule) manuscripts (1505 1852 2138 2495), and would seem to underlie the Harklean Syriac and Bohairic Coptic versions, as well as being represented by the corresponding reading of the Latin Vulgate (generatio). The four Greek manuscripts are all late, dating from the medieval period, however the variant reading itself must be relatively ancient, in order to have spread through the Latin, Syriac, and Egyptian (Coptic) versions. It is apparently attested by Chromatius of Aquileia, a late-fourth century bishop and theological writer.

According to this variant, the phrase in question reads: “but the coming to be (born) [o( ge/nnhsi$] out of God keeps watch (over) him”. The entire verse then reads:

“We have seen that every (one) having come to be (born) out of God does not sin; but (rather) the coming to be (born) [i.e., birth] out of God keeps watch (over) him, and (so) the evil does not touch him.”

In other words, it is the believer’s spiritual birth out of God that protects him/her from sin and evil. As in the case of the Christological view (see the previous note), the wording of 3:9 can be cited in support, as it speaks of the abiding presence of the “seed” (spe/rma) of God that keeps the believer from sin. It is possible to interpret this “seed” as God’s offspring—that is, Jesus Christ the Son of God (i.e., the Christological view). However, one may also understand it in terms of the begetting of the believer (as God’s offspring); this seed abiding within the believer causes the believer to be “born” as God’s own offspring (te/knon, pl. te/kna). The two explanations are hardly incompatible; indeed, within the Johannine theology they are very much complementary. The spiritual “seed” of God that abides in the believer, and which produces the spiritual “birth” (as God’s offspring), is the Son himself, present within the believer through the Spirit. The “seed” can also be identified specifically with the word (lo/go$) of God; but, again, in the Johannine theology, God’s word is ultimately manifest for the believer in the person of Christ (i.e., the incarnate Lo/go$), and thus is present in and through the Spirit. Compare the thought expressed in 1 Peter 1:23, which has similarities in language with the Johannine theology:

“…having come to be (born) again [vb a)nagenna/w], not out of dying seed [spora/], but of (seed) undying, through (the) living and abiding [vb me/nw] word [lo/go$] of God”

Christ himself is this lo/go$, present in the believer through the Spirit.

The variant ge/nnhsi$ is a minority reading, which, almost certainly, does not represent the original text. However, it could reflect the way that many ancient commentators and theologians understood the verse. A change from gennhqei/$ to ge/nnhsi$ could have been intentional, or it could have been made unconsciously by a copyist (note the orthographic similarity between the two words). More to the point, it is possible to regard the variant as representing the true and correct meaning of the verse—viz., that the spiritual birth of believer, as the offspring of God, protects him/her from evil, enabling her/him to stay free from sin. Note the basic statement made by the author, both here and in 3:9:

    • “every (one) having come to be (born) out of God does not sin”
    • “every (one) having come to be (born) out of God does not do sin” (3:9)

Sinlessness (i.e., freedom and protection from sin) is the result of having been born of God (as His offspring).

It is conceivable that one could interpret the majority text (with the aorist participle) along the lines of the variant reading (i.e., the noun ge/nnhsi$), by understanding the second occurrence of the substantive participle abstractly—viz., “that which has come to be born of God”. To further such an interpretation, one might consider a dualistic-anthropology, such as what we find in the Pauline letters. Paul is able to speak of the believer as two distinct ‘persons’ —or, perhaps, two aspects of the same person: an “old man” vs. a “new man” (see Rom 6:6; 2 Cor 5:17; Col 3:9-10f; also Eph 4:22-24), an “outer man” vs. an “inner man” (Rom 7:22ff; 2 Cor 4:16; cf. also Eph 3:16). Outwardly, the believer still experiences the vicissitudes of the old order of creation (including death), but inwardly, the believer experiences eternal life—the New Age in Christ, an entirely new creation. Possibly the Johannine view of the believer reflects a similar anthropological orientation. It is the ‘inner’ aspect, the aspect of the believer that has been born of God, that protects him/her from sin and evil. At the same time, outwardly, the believer remains in the world, and may be, at times and through negligence, prone to the forces (of sin and evil) at work in the world.

In the next daily note, the final one in this series, I will offer my own interpretation of 1 John 5:18, in relation to the lines of interpretation that we have already considered.

 

August 7: 1 John 5:18

1 John 5:18, continued

“We have seen that every (one) having come to be (born) [o( gegennhme/no$] out of God does not sin; but (rather) the (one hav)ing come to be (born) [o( gennhqei/$] out of God keeps watch (over) him, and (so) the evil does not touch him.”

The main interpretive question regarding this verse, as discussed in the two previous notes, involves the second occurrence of the participle of the verb genna/w (“come to be, become”, in the specific sense of coming to be born). The first occurrence clearly refers to believers, but what about the second occurrence? Does it also refer to believers (the “offspring” [te/kna] of God), or to Jesus Christ (the Son [ui(o/$] of God). If the former, then the phrase means that the believer “watches over” (vb thre/w) him/herself; if the latter, then it is Christ who watches over (and protects) the believer. The evidence for the first line of interpretation was presented in the previous note. Here, we will look at evidence for the second.

2. Christ (the Son) keeps watch over the believer.

1. One of the strongest arguments for this line of interpretation is the fact that, for every other occurrence of the verb thre/w (“keep watch [over]”) in the Johannine writings, in which the believer is the subject, a specific object is mentioned—either the noun e)ntolh/ or lo/go$. There is no other instance where the verb thre/w is used reflexively of the believer.
A reflexive use of thre/w is, however, not unprecedented in the New Testament (2 Cor 11:9; 1 Tim 5:22; James 1:27, see below).

As I mentioned in the previous note, the object nouns e)ntolh/ and lo/go$ are closely related, in this context, and within the Johannine theological worldview. The noun e)ntolh/ is used for the duty which Christ has given to his disciples (i.e., believers)—a duty (and mission) similar in kind to that which God the Father gave to him (the Son); indeed, the duty required of us as believers (viz., God’s offspring) is patterned after the duty which the Father gave to the Son. The duty is essentially two-fold: we are expected to “remain” (vb me/nw) in Christ’s word and in his love—that is, faithful to what he taught (and teaches) us, and obedient to the example of love which he has demonstrated to us. In the Johannine letters this dual-e)ntolh/ has been interpreted as: (1) trust in Jesus (as the Son of God), and (2) showing love to other believers, according to Jesus’ own example; see esp. 1 John 3:23f. In relation to the verb thre/w these two object nouns are essentially synonymous, and they are used interchangeably: (i) e)ntolh/ in Jn 14:15, 21; 15:10 (twice); 1 Jn 2:3-4; 3:22, 24; 5:13; and (ii) lo/go$ in Jn 8:51-52 (cf. also v. 55); 14:23-24; 15:20 (twice); 17:6; 1 Jn 2:5.

2. When the believer is the object of the verb thre/w, God the Father or Christ (the Son) is the subject—that is to say, it is always God the Father or Jesus the Son who “watches over” the believer, and not the believer him/herself. Admittedly, such usage is not all that common, but we find it clearly in Jn 17:11 and 15, where Jesus asks God the Father to “watch over” his disciples (i.e., believers). While the incarnate Son (Christ) was physically present with his disciples, he watched over them (v. 12), but now that he can no longer be present with them in this way, it is necessary for the Father to provide the protection—namely, by sending them the Spirit (cf. the Paraclete-sayings in the Farewell Discourse). The Father gives the Spirit to the Son (3:34), who, in turn, gives it to believers (20:22). The Son himself is present in and among believers through the Spirit, and thus is able to protect them (from sin and evil) in perpetuity.

3. The parallels in language between Jn 17:15 and 1 Jn 5:18 would tend to confirm the view that it is specifically the Son (Christ), present in the Spirit, who protects the believer:

    • “…I request…that you [i.e., God the Father] would keep [thrh/sh|$] them out of the evil [o( ponhro/$] ” (Jn 17:15)
    • “…the (one hav)ing come to be (born) out of God keeps watch [threi=] over them, and (so) the evil [o( ponhro/$] does not touch them” (1 Jn 5:18)

The parallel strongly suggests that “the (one hav)ing come to be (born) of God”, in this instance, is the Son of God, who, through the Spirit, fulfills the role prayed for (to the Father) by the incarnate Son during the time of his earthly ministry.

4. Elsewhere in the Johannine writings (and especially in 1 John), the message is clear that it is the abiding presence of the Son (and his word) which gives the believer life and keeps him/her from sin. This is expressed by the repeated use of the key verb me/nw (“remain, abide”), and it is a tenet that is central to the Johannine theology. This remaining/abiding is conditional, dependent on the reciprocal action of the believer remaining in the Son. But if we, as believers, faithfully remain/abide in the Son, then we have the clear promise that the Son will remain/abide in us—see Jn 6:56; 8:31; 15:4-5ff; and, in 1 John, esp. 2:24, 27f; 3:24; 4:13, 15-16; cf. 2 Jn 2.

In two key Johannine passages, this reciprocal remaining—believers in the Son, and the Son in believers—is presented as the basis for sinlessness (i.e., cleansing from sin, etc), which is the point being emphasized in 1 Jn 5:18 (see the context of vv. 16-17). In the Vine illustration of Jn 15:1-6ff, this issue of the believer’s relationship to sin is illustrated via the imagery of vine-cultivation. As the result of our union with Christ, and through the power of his word, believers have been cleansed from sin (see the statement in v. 3; cf. 13:10). But it is necessary to remain in the Vine (i.e., in union with Christ) to remain free from sin—i.e., to have the branches ‘pruned’ (v. 2, lit. “cleaned,”, vb kaqai/rw). The branch that does not remain in the Vine withers away and dies (v. 6).

The second passage is 1 John 3:4-9, part of a larger central division of the work (2:28-3:24) expounding the primary theme of the contrast between the true and false believer. The issue of sin, as it relates to the believer, is addressed in vv. 4-9, even as it was earlier in 1:5-2:6. The false believer (like the unbeliever) sins in all kinds of ways—most notably by violating the great e)ntolh/ (v. 23f, see above) of trust (in Christ) and love (according to Christ’s example). The true believer, by contrast, cannot (and will not) sin in this way, by violating the great e)ntolh/. And yet, in vv. 4-9, the author seems to go further than this, by indicating that believers, insofar as they remain in Christ (and he in them), will not sin (at all)—and, indeed, cannot sin. This is stated boldly in verse 6 and 9, emphasizing both aspects of the reciprocal remaining (viz., between the believer and Christ):

    • “Every (one) remaining in him does not sin” (v. 6)
    • “Every (one) having come to be (born) out of God does not do sin, (in) that His seed remains in him, and (so) he is not able to sin, (in) that he has come to be (born) out of God.” (v. 9)

The language and thought expressed in v. 9 is close to what we find in 5:18. Note the parallels:

    • The believer is identified as “the (one) having come to be (born) out of God”
    • God’s “seed” (i.e., offspring) abides in the believer
    • The believer “is not able to sin” / “the evil does not touch him”

This parallelism suggests a general equation between “the (one hav)ing come to be (born) out of God” (second occurrence of the participial expression in 5:18) and the “seed” of God (“His seed”) in 3:9. In other words, it is the abiding presence of God’s Son (His “seed”, i.e., offspring), through the Spirit, which protects the believer and keeps him/her from experiencing sin and evil.

5. It has been noted that the idiom of the verb genna/w + e)k (tou= qeou=) elsewhere in the Johannine writings is always applied to believers, and never to the person of Christ. While this is technically correct, it is by no means certain that the Johannine author(s) would have found it impossible to apply the idiom, under any circumstances, to the person of Jesus Christ. Indeed, as the Son of God, Jesus Christ would, it seems, need to be understood as having been born of God—the idea is intrinsic to the very nature of the Father-Son relationship. Indeed, in Jn 1:14, 18 and 3:16, 18 (see also 1 Jn 4:9), the adjective monogenh/$ is specifically applied to the incarnate Son (Christ). This adjective is a term which, in its derivation, denotes a child coming to be (born)—ge/no$ tied etymologically to the verbs of becoming (gi/nomai / genna/w). In particular, it signifies an only [mo/no$] child. While it is true that monogenh/$ often carries the more generalized meaning of “only (one), one-of-a-kind”, in the New Testament it is always used in the specific sense of an “only son (or child)”, viz., born to a particular parent—see Lk 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; Heb 11:17.

Secondarily, the prepositional expression e)k (tou=) qeou= (“out of God”) is used of the Son (Christ) on a number of occasions in the Gospel—notably, in 8:42, 44, 47. Admittedly, these references are best understood in terms of the Son being sent to earth (from heaven [e)k tou= ou)ranou=]) by God the Father, and thus refer more properly to the incarnate existence (and mission) of the Son, rather than his eternal and Divine Sonship. The Son’s eternal (and pre-existent) relationship to the Father is expressed by the preposition para/ (“alongside”) rather than e)k (“out of, from”)—1:14; 6:46; 7:29, etc. However, in the Discourse-Prayer of chapter 17, Jesus uses language that is elsewhere applied to the believer, as he contrasts being “of the world” (e)k tou= kosmou=) with its opposite—not being “of the world” (i.e., being “of God”). Jesus applies this language to himself, making clear that what is true of believers is equally true of him. Just as believers are “not of the world”, but instead are “of God”, so these things are also predicated of him. What is true for the other “offspring” of God is also true for the “Son” of God, and vice versa.

Now, in the Johannine idiom, this qualified use of the preposition e)k (i.e., e)k tou= qeou=) has two levels of meaning: (1) that of belonging to God (indicating essential identity), and (2) that of source, i.e., coming from God and being born from Him (i.e., as His offspring). If these characteristics apply to Christ the Son, even as they do believers (the offspring), then it means that one can rightly speak of the Son as having “come to be born out of God”.

5. An additional minor argument relates to the tense distinction in 5:18, between the first occurrence of the participle (of genna/w), which is in the perfect tense (gegennhme/no$), and the second, which is an aorist form (gennhqei/$). When applied to believers, this idiom always occurs in the perfect tense. Indeed, of the ten occurrences of the verb genna/w in 1 John, eight are in the perfect tense, and these all refer to believers. The only other (non-perfect) form is the aorist form in 5:1 (2nd occurrence of the verb), where God the Father is the actor, with the believer as the implied object. That is to say, God the Father is the one who causes the believer to be born, with the believer being identified as “the one having been born”. It seems at least possible that a similar kind of distinction is intended here in v. 18, but in reference to the Son (Christ) rather than the Father:

    • “the (One hav)ing caused to be (born)…the (one) having come to be born” (v. 1)
    • “the (one hav)ing come to be (born) keeps watch (over)” the believer (“the [one] having come to be born”) (v. 18)

6. Mention should be made again regarding the textual situation in v. 18. As discussed briefly in the previous note, the textual evidence is relatively evenly divided between the ordinary personal pronoun (au)to/n) and the reflexive pronoun (e(auto/n). However, in my view, the reflexive pronoun is unlikely to be original. Transcriptional probability favors a change from personal pronoun to reflexive, rather than the other way around. Indeed, it is more likely that a copyist would have changed au)to/n to e(auto/n, thus clarifying the meaning of the text, whereas a change from e(auto/n to au)to/n would introduce a difficult ambiguity into the text. Moreover, all of the ancient versions, along with a number of key Greek manuscripts, witness the personal pronoun, a situation that is hard to explain if the reflexive pronoun were original.

Admittedly, as previously noted, the personal pronoun can be used reflexively, and yet the very originality of the reading with the personal pronoun does tend to favor, however slightly, the view that the second participial expression in the verse refers to Christ (“…keeps watch over him”) rather than the believer (“…keeps watch over himself”).

7. Finally, a comment should be made about the support for the reflexive interpretation based on the parallel language in 3:3 and (more importantly) 5:21 (both of which were discussed in the previous note):

    • “every(one) holding this hope…makes himself holy [i.e., purifies himself, a(gni/zei e(auto\n]” (3:3)
    • “Dear offspring, you must guard yourselves [fula/cate e)auta\] from the images [i.e., ‘idols’] (5:21)

Conceptually, the wording in 3:3 is closer to that of 5:18, while formally the wording of 5:21 (with its use of the verb fula/ssw, largely synonymous with thre/w) is closer. The ethical emphasis in these verses is close to the (reflexive) use of the verb thre/w in James 1:27 and 1 Tim 5:22 [noted above]. Thus, it is conceivable (and would not at all be inappropriate) that a similar meaning, in a context of ethical instruction and exhortation, were also present here in v. 18. Outweighing such considerations, however, are the much stronger parallels between 5:18 and the Johannine theological language in Jn 17:15 and 1 Jn 3:9, noted above. In both of those parallel passages, the clear emphasis is on the presence of Christ (through the Spirit) providing protection (from sin and evil) for the believer. The ethical orientation—viz., of the believer guarding him/herself from sin and evil—is certainly present in 1 John, but it is subordinate to the Christological (and spiritual) orientation, whereby our sinlessness (as believers) is dependent upon the abiding presence of Christ in us.

In the next daily note, I will address a third possible line of interpretation, one which may be regarded as intermediary between the reflexive-ethical and Christological interpretations.

August 6: 1 John 5:18

1 John 5:18, continued

“We have seen that every (one) having come to be (born) [o( gegennhme/no$] out of God does not sin; but (rather) the (one hav)ing come to be (born) [o( gennhqei/$] out of God keeps watch (over) him, and (so) the evil does not touch him.”

As discussed in the previous note, the interpretive difficulty regarding 1 Jn 5:18 involves the two occurrences of the articular substantive verbal noun (participle), from the verb genna/w (“come to be, become”) in the specific sense of coming to be born. It is followed by the prepositional expression e)k tou= qeou= (“out of God”), as a way of qualifying the source of the ‘birth’ —viz., that it is “out of” (i.e., from) God. It is another way of identifying believers (true believers) as the “offspring” (te/kna) of God.

There is considerable ambiguity in this wording, as already mentioned. The first occurrence of the participle unquestionably refers to believers. The referent for the second participle, however, is uncertain and disputed. Does it refer (again) to the believer, or to Jesus Christ? Does the believer keep watch (vb thre/w) over him/herself, or is the point that Jesus Christ (the Son) keeps watch over (i.e., protects) the believer?

Let us consider the arguments for each line of interpretation, beginning with the first, the reflexive view—viz., that the true believer guards him/herself against sin and evil, and thus does not commit sin.

1. The believer keeps watch over him/herself.

1. The single strongest argument in favor of this interpretation is the fact, discussed in the previous note, that every other occurrence of the idiom genna/w + e)k (tou= qeou=) in the Johannine writings refers to the believer, not to Jesus Christ. The occurrences of this idiom—including those, specifically, which utilize a substantive participle of the verb genna/w—were all referenced in the previous note, and it is not necessary to detail them again here. On only one occasion is the verb genna/w (in the sense of coming to be born) definitely applied to the person of Jesus Christ—Jn 18:37. But in this instance, it almost certainly refers to the human birth (i.e., incarnation) of the Son, rather than to the Divine Sonship of Christ. This would seem to be clear from the parallel in the verse between the verb genna/w, and the use of the verb e&rxomai/ (“come”) + ei)$ to\n ko/smon (“into the world”). The Son’s coming to be born is understood in terms of his coming into the world (that is, as a human being), just as we find these themes expressed in the Prologue (1:9-10ff, 14-15ff), along with additional allusions throughout the Gospel.

2. Another argument in favor of this line of interpretation is textual. A fair number of Greek witnesses, including several key manuscripts, read a reflexive pronoun (e(auto/n, “himself”) following the verb thre/w, rather than the ordinary personal pronoun (au)to/n, “him”). The reflexive pronoun is read by a Ac K P Y 33 81 1739 al, while the personal pronoun is the reading of A* B 330 614 r vg syrh (Harklean Syriac) copbo (Bohairic) al. If the reflexive pronoun were the original reading of the text, then, clearly, it would mean that the second occurrence of the participle of genna/w, like the first, refers to the believer: “…the (one hav)ing coming to be (born) out of God keeps watch (over) himself [e(auto/n]”. The reflexive pronoun probably does not represent the original text (a point to be discussed in the next note); but, even so, the existence of the variant itself argues in favor of the reflexive interpretation. It means that there were copyists who understood the phrase in this way, and who wrote the reflexive pronoun—either intentionally, or unwittingly—as a way of clarifying the otherwise ambiguous wording of the verse. In point of fact, the reflexive pronoun would not even be necessary for such a reading of the verse, since the ordinary personal pronoun (here au)to/n [“him”]) can, on occasion, be used reflexively (i.e., “himself”).

3. Also in favor of the reflexive interpretation (i.e., with the believer as the referent) is the fact that, in the majority of occurrences of the verb thre/w (“keep watch [over]”) in the Johannine writings, the believer (or the disciple of Jesus) is the subject. Of the fifteen relevant occurrences of thre/w in the Gospel (out of 18 total), the believer (or faithful disciple) is the subject in all but four: 8:55 (Christ), 17:11 and 15 (God the Father), 12 (Christ). More to the point, in 1 John (apart from here in 5:18), the believer is the subject of every occurrence: 2:3, 4, 5; 3:22, 24; 5:3. Admittedly, in these instances, the object is always specified as either the duty (e)ntolh/) given to the believer by Christ (and God the Father), or to the word (lo/go$) of Christ (which is another way of referring to the e)ntolh/, 1 Jn 3:23f). It can be inferred that, by “keeping watch over” Christ’s word, and the mission/duty that he has given believers to fulfill, the faithful believer effectively “keeps watch over him/herself.”

4. Indeed, there is a strong exhortational emphasis that runs throughout 1 John (and through the Gospel Discourses [esp. the Last/Farewell Discourse]). The importance of the believer “remaining” (vb me/nw) in Christ, and of “keeping watch over” his word (i.e., his teaching and instruction), is repeatedly stressed. Faithfulness to Christ’s word, and to the e)ntolh/, is affirmed as the defining mark of the true believer (in contrast to the false believer). While this message (and rhetorical emphasis) runs throughout the entirety of 1 John, special notice may be given to the specifically reflexive language used in 3:3:

“And (so) every (one) holding this hope upon him purifies himself [a(gni/zei e(auto\n], even as that (one) [i.e., Christ] is pure.”

Even more important to the context of 5:18 is the concluding exhortation (and warning) at the end of the work (v. 21):

“Dear offspring [tekni/a], you must guard yourselves [fula/cate e(auta\] from the images [i.e., ‘idols’].”

The verb fula/ssw (“guard”) is very close in meaning to thre/w (“keep watch [over]”); indeed, the two verbs are virtually synonymous in the New Testament, when they are used in this context of ethical-religious instruction and exhortation. Even though thre/w occurs far more frequently than fula/ssw in the Johannine writings (the latter occurring just four times), the verbs appear to be more or less interchangeable. This can be seen by a comparison of Jn 12:47 with the similar statements involving the verb thre/w (see above). More notably, th/rew is used in Jn 17:11, and fula/ssw in the following v. 12, with the same meaning and in exactly the same context. Thus, the reflexive language in 1 Jn 5:21 would tend to support a reflexive reading of the phrase in question in v. 18.

The evidence in support of the reflexive reading of the second participial phrase in 5:18, as referring to the believer (just as in the first phrase), is considerable indeed. On the surface, it might even seem to be decisive. And yet, there is equally strong evidence that can be marshalled for the view that the second phrase (involving the participle of the verb genna/w) actually refers to Jesus Christ (the Son), rather than the believer. The point being made, then, is that Christ, by his abiding presence through the Spirit, protects the believer. The evidence for this second line of interpretation will be examined in the next daily note.