Month: October 2025

Priesthood of All Believers: Introduction (Exod 19:6; 1 Pet 2:9)

The Priesthood of All Believers

In coordination with the traditional date (October 31) celebrating the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, I am introducing a new installment of the periodic feature Reformation Fridays. The first two series covered the Reformation principles of Sola Fide (i.e., Justification by Faith) and Sola Scriptura (the authority and primacy of Scripture).

In developing the seminal doctrine of “the Priesthood of All Believers”, the Reformers were specifically combating the Roman Catholic view of the priesthood, with its long-established ecclesiastical tradition and theological underpinnings. It was, in particular, the apparent lack of Scriptural support for the Roman Catholic ecclesiology and practice that led the Reformers toward a different ideal and model. There were two key aspects to the Protestant principle regarding the priesthood. First, Christian ‘priests’ were no longer seen as performing a sacrificial role—i.e., offerings for the removal of sin and guilt, etc. Christ alone fills this role, as great High Priest; a human priest or minister does not possess a separate authority to remove sin.

Secondly, the role of ‘priest’, such as it exists in the New Covenant, fundamentally belongs to all believers. Quoting from 1 Peter 2:9 (see below), Luther, in his 1520 tract On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, states clearly that “…in this way, we are all priests, as many of us as are Christians” (cf. Luther’s Works [LW] 36.112-2, Weimar Ausgabe [WA] 6.564.6-14). However, he goes on to say:

“There are indeed priests whom we call ministers. They are chosen from among us, and who do everything in our name. That is a priesthood which is nothing else than the Ministry [1 Cor 4:1].”

Luther admits the validity of ordained ministers, and that they can be considered ‘priests’. This two-sided understanding of the priestly office would remain a source of tension among Protestants for centuries, even into the present day. How far should one take the principle of the “priesthood of all believers”, and how should it be realized in practice? We shall discuss some aspects of these questions during the course of our studies; in addition, we will be considering certain historical developments within the Protestant Reformation, to see how different groups and individuals sought to apply the principle.

We shall begin, however, with an exploration of a number of key Scripture references which provide the ideological and theological basis for the principle of the “priesthood of all believers”. The principal Old Testament reference is the declaration in Exodus 19:6:

“And (so) you shall be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation”

This is YHWH’s intention for the people of Israel, rooted in the binding agreement (covenant) that He has established with them (cf. the context of Exodus 19-24ff). Since He Himself is holy, His people must also be holy (Lev 19:2; 11:44-45). This is the guiding principle of all the Torah regulations and precepts; these function as the terms of the covenant, and the people are obligated to follow them. There would, of course, be separate groups of priests (from the tribe of Levi and the descendants of Aaron), devoted to the sacrificial ritual, etc, but the principles of holiness and purity effectively apply to the entire people, and not merely the priests. The regulations and purity laws for the priesthood are an extension of the laws that apply to the people at large.

While the New Testament writings address, in various ways, these important themes of holiness/purity and priestly consecration, perhaps nowhere is the ancient tradition expressed in Exod 19:6, etc, applied to the situation of believers in Christ so directly as in 1 Peter 2:9:

“But you are a lineage [ge/no$] gathered out [i.e. chosen], a royal priesthood [i(era/teuma], a holy nation, a people made to (be) around (God) [i.e. as His possession]…”

The main Scriptural reference is to Exod 19:5-6, but there are likely other allusions as well (cf. Lev 20:26; Deut 7:6; 10:15; 14:2; 26:18-19; 28:9; Psalm 135:4; Isa 43:20-21; 61:6; Mal 3:17). What applied to the people Israel, from an ethno-religious standpoint in the Old Covenant, now applies to believers in Christ, from a spiritual standpoint, in the New Covenant. Like the ancient Israelites, believers in Christ were chosen by God, “gathered out” from all other people, to be His people (i.e., the people of God). One fundamental difference, between the Old and New Covenant, is that, in the New Covenant, there are no longer sacrificial offerings that are required, nor is there any need for a priesthood to perform such sacrifices (and the other ritual acts required by the Torah). As we shall see, this was an ideal already being expressed among early Christians even before the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple.

The idea of a “priest” thus has an entirely new significance for believers in Christ. However, there have been, from the beginning, divergent ways of applying the priest-motif to the situation of the New Covenant. We may note two broad (and, to some extent, competing) tendencies, expressed already in the New Testament, and which are still being grappled with by Christians today. These may be labeled as (1) the ministerial approach, and (2) the egalitarian approach.

In the first approach, specially chosen (ordained) ministers take the place of the ancient priests, being set apart (in certain respects) from other believers, in order to serve the priestly role. In the second approach, all believers fulfill the priestly role equally. Most of the Reformers sought to embrace both approaches, and to hold them in balance together; this was easier done in theory than in practice. Luther is a good early example of this in the Reformation, as seen by the quotation above. The following statement from his appeal To the Christian Nobility (also written [in German] in 1520) effectively expresses the egalitarian aspect of the priesthood-principle, while still admitting the existence of (and need for) specially chosen ministers:

“All Christians are truly of the spiritual estate, and there is no difference among them except that of the office as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12 that we are all one body, yet every member has its own work by which it serves the others. This is because we all have one Baptism, one Gospel, one faith, and are all Christians alike; for the Baptism, Gospel and faith alone make us spiritual and a Christian people.”
(cf. Luther’s Works [LW] 44.127, Weimar Ausgabe [WA] 6.407.13-19)

Other Protestants would take the egalitarian ideal more seriously, attempting to apply it in practice (in a congregational setting). Generally, however, the “priesthood of all believers” principle has proven difficult to realize. There are various religious and socio-cultural forces that fight against it. Even in the New Testament era, apostolic ministers such as Paul appear to have been torn on the matter. While recognizing the egalitarian ideal, there was also a tacit acknowledgment that a functioning congregation/church  seems to require a certain hierarchical structure, with specific ministerial and leadership roles that are limited (as a practical necessity) only to certain individuals.

In the next study, we will explore the priest-motif as it appears in the Gospel Tradition, and also the early Gospel preaching (as preserved in the book of Acts, etc). An examination of these references will help provide the background for how the priesthood-theme developed among early Christians.

For more on the context of the quotations from Martin Luther above, see the article by Norman Nagel, “Luther and the Priesthood of All Believers”, Concordia Theological Quarterly 61 (1997), pp. 277-98.

October 31: Job 3:11-12

Job 3:11-12
Verse 11

“For what (reason) did I not die from (the) womb,
(or) from (the) belly come out and (then) perish?”

From the cursing of the day of his birth in vv. 4-10 (see the previous two notes [1, 2]), Job turns to lament the fact that he ever came to be born. The compound interrogative hm*l* (“for what…?”, i.e., “for what reason…?”, “why…?”) is frequently used to introduce declarations of lament. He expresses the wish that he had died in the womb (line 1) or had come out of the womb dead (i.e., stillbirth, line 2). Probably the preposition /m! (“from”) is used in slightly different ways, in lines 1 and 2. In line 1, it seems best to understand it in a temporal sense, i.e., “from the time when I was in the womb”; while in line 2 it is used to indicate source, in a spatial-locative sense, i.e., coming out of (“from”) the womb. The noun <j#r#, in the special sense of a mother’s womb, is parallel with the common term /f#B# (“belly”, cf. in v. 10). Also parallel are the verbs tWm and uw~G`; the former is the common verb for “die”, while the latter, though somewhat rarer, has a comparable meaning (“perish, die”), but with the specific aspect of expiring—giving/emptying out one’s last breath (cp. Arabic jāʿa “to be empty, hungry”; HALOT, p. 184f).

Verse 12

“(On) what account were (the) knees in front of me,
(and for) what (reason the) breasts that I should suck?”

The lamenting question continues in this second couplet, the first line of which has the compound particle u^WDm^ (= u^Wdy`-hm*), “on what account…?”. If he did not die in the womb or as a stillbirth, then why not let him perish as a newborn? Both of the images utilized here signify the care and nurture that is shown to a newborn infant. It is unlikely that the birthing process is still in view here (cf. verse 11 above), and thus the knees are probably not those of a midwife. Rather, they should be viewed as those of the mother (or nurse) upon whose knees (and lap) the baby rests. The baby looks (down) and sees the knees “in front” of him (vb <d^q*, “be in front”). The nursing context is clear from the breasts/suck[l]ing reference in line 2. The nouns Er#B# (“knee”) and dv^ (“breast”) are both in the dual—lit. “(the) two knees”, “(the) two breasts”.
On the ancient Near Eastern birthing and nursing customs that may inform the idiom of the “knees in front” in line 1, cf. the summary of scholarly opinions, with examples from ancient texts, in Pope (p. 31), Seow (pp. 356-7).

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).
    • Those marked “Pope” are to Marvin H. Pope, Job, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 15 (1965, 1973).

October 30: Job 3:6-10

Job 3:6-10
Verse 6

“That night—may falling darkness take it!
Let it not be united with (the) days of (the) year,
(and) with (the) number of months not come!”

This tricolon matches the earlier one of v. 4 (see the previous note), in both form and emphasis. Job’s curse against the day of his birth was elaborated in vv. 4-5, while here the curse against the night of his birth (properly, his conception) is in view. The casus pendens imprecation in the first line follows the pattern of v. 4, as do the following negative formulations (“let not…!”) in the second and third lines. The basic thrust of the curse is also the same—namely, that darkness would take over the light, making it so that the day/night of his birth never took place (i.e., never saw the ‘light of day’). In v. 4, the common noun Ev#j) was used for “darkness”; here, it is the rarer lp#a)—of the nine Scriptural occurrences, five are in the book of Job (cf. 10:22; 23:17; 28:3; 30:26). It may indicate the specific idea of falling darkness, which is fitting to the context of the coming of night (and the setting of the sun, stars, etc); cf. Arabic ’afala (“go down, ‘set'”) and Akkadian āpalu [HAOT, p. 79]. The use of the verb jq^l* (“take”) here has the forceful (even violent) sense of “take hold of” (i.e., grab, seize) or “take away”.

There is some uncertainty regarding the verb in the second. The MT vocalizes djy as a yiqtol (imperfect/jussive) form of the verb hd*j* (I), “be joyful”, perhaps under the influence of the use of jm^c* (“be/make glad”) in the similar curse passage of Jer 20:14-18 (v. 15). However, the poetic context (esp. the parallelism of lines 2-3) strongly argues for a (jussive) form of the verb dj^y` (“be[come] one”, i.e., be joined/united), to be vocalized as dj^y@; this reading has the near unanimous support of the Versions (LXX/Symmachus, Syriac, Targum, Vulgate) and is accepted by a majority of commentators and translators today. Quite possibly, the author intends here a bit of double-meaning wordplay implicit in the word-form djy; in support of this view, cf. Gordis (p. 34), Rendsburg (p. 51), Seow (p. 347), and for more on the textual and linguistic arguments, see Michel, pp. 50-2, and Grabbe, pp. 32-5.

To wish that a particular day/night not be joined or counted among the days, weeks, and months of the year effectively means that one wishes that it ceased to exist (and that it never did exist).

Verse 7

“See (also regarding) that night—
let it become hard as stone,
let no ringing shout come in it!”

The curse against the night of Job’s conception (and birth) is further elaborated, with a two-fold imprecation: (1) that the night become as hard (and immobile) as stone, and (2) that it be silent and (especially) devoid of any shout/cry (of joy) ringing out (/nr) during it. The rare noun dWmlG^ (galmûd), which occurs only in Job (15:34; 30:3) and once in Isa 49:21, would seem to be a loanword in Hebrew (and Aramaic) from Arabic—jamada (“be hard [as stone]”), and esp. transitive jalmada (“become hard [as stone], turn to stone”) with the derived nouns jalmad and gulmūd (“hard stone”, “hardness of stone”), cf. HALOT, p. 194; Seow, pp. 348-9. Based on the usage in Isa 49:21, an allusion to the barrenness (sterility) of a woman seems likely, especially in view of the thrust of Job’s curse-wish—viz., that the day of his conception/birth never had occurred (cf. verse 10, below).

Verse 8

“Let them mark it, (those) binders of (the) <y,
the (one)s ready (and able) to rouse Liwyatan!”

Here, in verse 8, the curse against the night of Job’s conception/birth is extended to involve it being bound by a special (magical) curse-formula, i.e., by an enchantment such as that used by gifted/professional magicians in order to coerce and manipulate the forces and powers of nature. The verb used in line 1, apparently bq^n`, literally means “mark by boring/drilling a hole”; however, in this context (cf. also Prov 11:26), we may be dealing specifically with a separate root (?) that is a by-form of bb^q* II, denoting the placing of a curse upon someone through a magical formula. This meaning is further confirmed here by the use of the root rra (cf. Akkadian arāru), “bind with a curse-formula”. Yet, there is uncertainty regarding the precise expression (in the MT), <oy yr@r=a), “binders of [the] day”, i.e., those who place a binding curse upon a (particular) day (cf. Jer 20:14-15). Such an expression certainly fits the overall thrust of the poem (i.e., cursing the day of Job’s birth), and yet it does not accord particularly well with the parallelism suggested by the second line, in which the mythic sea-monster Liwyatan (Leviathan) is mentioned. Thus, it has been proposed that the reading here should be “binders of the sea [<y`]”.

In discussing verse 6 (see above), the possibility was mentioned that the author was intentionally utilizing some double-meaning wordplay (involving the word-form djy). It seems even more likely that wordplay of this sort is intended here, regarding the form <y. It is altogether plausible (even likely) that the (unvocalized) consonantal text here originally read <y, which could mean either “day” (<y) = <oy) or “sea” (<y`), depending on how it was pronounced. It became customary in Hebrew to clarify pronunciation (especially in such ambiguous cases) by the use of vowel-letters (such as w, for “o” [o], etc.); poetic texts (such as the Job-poems), if they were written in the older/archaic style (without vowel-letters), would tend to be altered to full (plene) spelling (i.e., with vowel-letters) during the course of copying. To allow for the (strong) possibility of double-meaning wordplay occurring here in v. 8a, I have left <y untranslated above.
Greenstein (p. 654f) suggests that MT <oy reflects vocalization according to Phoenician pronunciation, such that a stressed a vowel (as in <y`, “sea”) becomes a stressed o (i.e., <y) = <oy). 

The magicians who are able to bind the <y (“sea”) with a curse are further identified with those capable of “rousing” (vb rWu, note the wordplay between the form rru and the earlier root rra) the great sea-monster (called by the mythic term Liwyāṯān). The Liwyāṯān (term and concept) features prominently in chapter 41 and will be discussed in detail in a later notes. For the ancient Near Eastern (esp. Canaanite) cosmological-mythic background of this sea-monster figure-type, see my earlier article “Conflict with the Sea in Ancient Near Eastern Myth”. Regarding the day/sea association established in this couplet, it has been suggested that there may be an allusion to the ancient/primitive myth-concept that eclipses (of the sun and/or moon), which thus darken the day, were caused by a celestial dragon that ‘swallowed’ the sun/moon. Possibly this verse expresses the idea that the great sea-monster/dragon, once roused from the depths of the sea, would bring an eclipse of the light.

Verse 9

“Let its twilight stars become darkened!
May it hope for light, and there be none,
and may it not (ever) see (the) eyes of dawn!”

Following the difficult language in vv. 7-8, the imprecations of v. 9 are more in line with the overall thrust of the curse (cf. the comparable tricolon in v. 5 [previous note]). In accordance with the theme of the curse—viz., that the light (of Job’s birth) would be turned to darkness—it is wished that the lights which illumine the night (esp. the stars) would “become dark” (vb Ev^j*). Deprived entirely of its light, the night may yet hope for (and expect) light, but there will not be any; even the hope of the twilight ([v#n#) that comes with the breaking dawn will be in vain. The term [u^p=u^ (in the dual), which is usually translated as “eyelids” (or “eyelashes”), should probably be understood fundamentally as “eyes” (also in 41:10[18]); cf. Pope, p. 30-1; Michel, pp. 57-9; Seow, pp. 353-4. There is a clear conceptual wordplay here between the night seeing the eyes of dawn. This quasi-personification of the dawn (rj^v^, cf. Ps 57:9[8]; 108:3[2]) may preserve a vestige of the role of Dawn (Šḥr) as a Divine/heavenly being (goddess) in Semitic (Canaanite) mythic tradition.

Verse 10

“For it did not keep shut (the) doors of my belly,
and (so) hide (all this) suffering from my eyes!”

The reason for the curse is ultimately stated here, at the close of the poetic unit. It applies to both the curse against the day of Job’s birth and the night of his conception; however, the proximity with vv. 6-9 clearly gives precedence to the night. In particular, Job curses that night because it did not “keep/close shut” (vb rg~s*) the “doors” of Job’s “belly”. This clearly refers to the belly (i.e., womb) of Job’s mother, and yet the ambiguity of language is doubtless intentional (and another example of double-meaning), since it also alludes to the suffering felt and experienced by Job himself, as is clear from the second line. The logic is simple and straightforward: if Job had never been born, he would not have experienced this terrible suffering. The noun lm*u* (“labor, toil”) is used here in a general (negative) sense, emphasizing the “trouble” (i.e., pain, misery, suffering, etc) that attends much of human existence and which has been exacerbated to an astonishing (and extreme) degree in the case of Job.

The eyes/seeing motif from the prior verses continues here, as the experience of suffering/misery by Job is described in terms of seeing it. If he had never been born, then he would not have seen (i.e., experienced) any of it; it would have been hidden (vb rt^s*, note the alliterative wordplay between the verbs rgs and rts) from his eyes.

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).
    • Those marked “Pope” are to Marvin H. Pope, Job, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 15 (1965, 1973).
    • Those marked “Michel” are to Walter L. Michel, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic, Biblica et Orientalia 42 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1987). 
    • Those marked “Grabbe” are to Lester L. Grabbe, Comparative Philology and the Text of Job: A Study in Methodology, Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Dissertation Series 34 (Scholars Press: 1977).
    • Those marked “Gordis” are to Robert Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Studies (The Jewish Seminary of America: 1978). 
    • Those marked “Greenstein” are to Edward L. Greenstein, “The Language of Job and Its Poetic Function”, Journal of Biblical Literature [JBL] 122 (2003), pp. 651-66.
    • Those marked “Rendsburg” are to Gary A. Rendsburg, “Double Polysemy in Gen 49:6 and Job 3:6”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly [CBQ] 44 (1982), pp. 48-51. 

October 28: Job 3:4-5

Job 3:4-5

In the initial portion of this speech (v. 3, see the previous note), Job cursed both the day and the night of his birth (or, properly, the night of his conception and the day of his birth). Now, in the two poetic units that follow (vv. 4-5 and 6-7ff), this curse is further expanded and expounded upon. The day is the focus of the first unit, while the night is the focus of the second. In both instances, the contrasting imagery of darkness and light dominates, with the curse-wish asking that darkness come to prevail over the light—blotting out the bright light of day as well as the lights that illumine the night. The imperfect verb forms are all jussives, continuing the imprecation of the curse-wish (i.e., “let it…!”, “may it…!”).

Verse 4

“That day—let it come to be darkness!
Let not (the) Mightiest search it from above,
and do not let (any) radiance shine upon it!”

Verses 4 and 6 each begin with a so-called casus pendens construction, indicated here by an emphatic m-dash pause that gives a dramatic and suspenseful quality to the imprecatory formula: “That day—let it…!” Job’s wish is that the day of his birth should become darkness. This does not refer simply to his birthday (i.e., as a commemorative day), but to the actual time of his birth, implying that he should/would never have been born. One can also interpret the demonstrative expression “that day” in a general and comprehensive sense, calling for the daylight itself to be darkened.

The last two lines of the tricolon draw upon the theological belief that the daylight has its source and origin with God (as Creator, Gen 1:3ff, etc). Here, the specific Divine name H^ola$ (’Ělôah) is used. It is a regular way of referring to God throughout the Job-Dialogue (41 times, out of 58 Scriptural occurrences); it occurs only sporadically in the rest of Scripture, largely limited to poetry (cf. Deut 32:15, 17; Hab 3:3; Ps 18:32[31]; 50:22; 114:7; 139:19) and five occurrences in the late texts of Daniel, Nehemiah and Chronicles (cf. also Prov 30:5; Isa 44:8). It is presumably to be derived (along with the plural <yh!l)a$) from the root la@, and with a comparable denotative meaning (i.e., “Mighty [One]”, “Mightiest”), the common Semitic term for deity (cf. ilu[m]), as discussed by HALOT (p. 52f) and elsewhere. Job asks that God not “search out” (vb vr^D*) the day, viz., so as to shine light upon it; this searching (and the light) comes “from above” (prop. “from the place above” [lu^M*m!], i.e., from God’s dwelling above the heavens).

Job does not want any light (lit. radiance, hr*h*n+) at all to shine upon the day. The verb up^y` (I, Hiphil), like the root rhn (I), means “give forth light, shine” (cf. Ugaritic ypʿ, and Akkadian [w]apū, “be/make visible”); it is a rather rare term, occurring just eight times (all in poetry), four of which are in the book of Job (10:2, 22; 37:15).

Verse 5

“Let (the) darkness and death-shade claim it!
Let a (black) cloud dwell over it,
(and) let day’s darkeners frighten it!”

The imprecations in v. 4 (lines 2 & 3) have a negative formulation (“Let not…!”), while those here in v. 5 all have a positive formulation. Yet the basic curse-wish is the same—namely, that the day (particularly, the day of Job’s birth) would be made dark, deprived and devoid of light. This wish is expressed summarily in the first line, as Job asks that darkness (Ev#j)) and “death-shade” (tw#m*l=x^) should claim the day as their own. The common verb la^G` means “redeem”, usually in the specific context of a kinsman buying back property (or a family relation) that had been sold (to fulfill a debt, etc). Here, however, the positive aspects that are especially associated with the verb “redeem” in English are really not in view; rather, it is the general sense of a person claiming something (as their property) that is being emphasized.

There is a long-standing debate among linguists and commentators as to whether the noun twmlx, which occurs exclusively in poetry (occurring 18 times, including 8 more times in Job), represents a compound noun (twm + lx, “shadow of death”) or is to be derived entirely from a putative root <lx (II, cp. Akkadian ṣalāmu, HALOT, p. 1028) meaning “be(come) dark”, in which case the noun should be vocalized tWml=x^ (or toml=x^) rather than tw#m*l=x^. Michel (pp. 42-6) and Seow (pp. 341-3) provide a good summary of the linguistic issues and scholarly arguments on each side. Whichever explanation is to be preferred, the overall meaning of the line is altered very little; however, the meaning “shadow of death” (or “death-shade”) does make explicit the important association between darkness and death. 

The curse-wish of the first line is further expounded by the imagery in the next two lines. First, the idea of the darkness (of death) claiming the day is expressed by the image of a dark cloud-mass (hn`n`u& [which occurs only here], cf. /n`u* I) dwelling over the day, so as to cover it, blotting out the sunlight.

The second line contains the expression <wy yryrmk, the first part of which the MT points as a construct plural form from the root rrm I (“be bitter”), i.e., “bitternesses of”, along with the prefixed preposition K=, so that the expression means “like (the) bitternesses of (the) day”. This, however, makes little sense in context here, in spite of the apparent occurrence of the expression <wy yryrmb (“at [the] embittered of [the] day”) in Sirach 11:4 [Heb.] (cf. also <wy yrwrmb in one of the Hodayot hymns from Qumran). The expression “as [on a] bitter day” (rm* <oyK=) occurs in Amos 8:10, in a context of mourning. Since “bitterness” (and, specifically, the root rrm) can connote or allude to the idea of poison, the expression could be understood as “poisonous ones of the day” (i.e., those who are poisonous to the day). In Deut 32:24, the expression “bitter [yr!yr!m=] destruction” is used in reference to deadly pestilence; cf. Psalm 91:6, where the images of darkness (even in the daytime) and pestilence are closely connected. Rabbinic commentators (Rashi, Ibn-Ezra) explained the expression here as meaning “like demons which rule at noon” (cf. Pope, p. 29; Reichert, p. 10). An allusion to demons has similarly been recognized by Gordis (p. 33), though with a different explanation of yryrm, and also by those who would parse the expression as <oy yr@r=a) omK= (“like [the] cursers of [the] day”). Michel (pp. 47-50) prefers to explain <wy yryym as “(the) poisonous (one)s of (the) sea [<y]”, with prefixed K= as an asseverative particle.

Much more appropriate to the poetic context of vv. 4-5—and (more importantly) the parallelism of the lines in v. 5bc—is the proposed derivation of yryrmk from a root rmk (III) understood as meaning “be dark (or black)”, along with the related meaning “be sad” (darkness/blackness and sadness/mourning being naturally associated). Admittedly, the lexical evidence for such a root is very slight, being almost exclusively limited to Syriac (cf. HALOT, p. 482, and the discussions by Grabbe, pp. 29-31, and Seow, pp. 344-6); yet the context would seem to require it, and, indeed, this is the interpretive approach taken by many commentators and translators today (see, e.g., Clines, p. 70). If understood as a plural form, then it might be best to treat yryrmk as an intensive or comprehensive plural, rendering in the singular, “darkness of [the] day”. However, the parallelism with the image of clouds blotting out the sunlight (line 2) makes a verbal noun (in the plural) much preferable, i.e., “darkeners of (the) day”, those who darken the day—a reference to the clouds, possibly personified as heavenly beings. By covering the daylight, these “darkeners” bring fear and terror to the day.

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).
    • Those marked “Pope” are to Marvin H. Pope, Job, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 15 (1965, 1973).
    • Those marked “Clines” are to David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20, Word Biblical Commentary [WBC], vol. 17 (1989).
    • Those marked “Michel” are to Walter L. Michel, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic, Biblica et Orientalia 42 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1987). 
    • Those marked “Grabbe” are to Lester L. Grabbe, Comparative Philology and the Text of Job: A Study in Methodology, Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Dissertation Series 34 (Scholars Press: 1977).
    • Those marked “Gordis” are to Robert Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Studies (The Jewish Seminary of America: 1978). 
    • Those marked “Reichert” are to Job, with Hebrew Texts and English Translation, Soncino Books of the Bible, Commentary by Rabbi Victor E. Reichert (The Soncino Press: 6th ed., 1967). 

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 145 (Part 1)

Psalm 145

Dead Sea MSS: 11QPsa (vv. 1-7, 13, 14-21)

This Psalm, which has come to hold an important place in the Jewish liturgy, is a hymn of praise “celebrating the attributes of Yahweh, especially his kingship” (Dahood, III, p. 335). It is the last of the acrostic poems in the Psalter (see the earlier studies on Pss 9-10, 25, 34, 111, 112, and 119), with each couplet beginning with a different letter of the alphabet (in sequential order).

The major textual issue in this Psalm is the general absence of a couplet beginning with the letter nûn (n, = ‘n’) in the MT (it would occur between vv. 13 and 14). Such a couplet, however, does occur in one MT manuscript, and in the Greek (LXX) and Syriac versions; more importantly, it is attested in the Qumran manuscript 11QPsa. Thus, the text-critical question is: did a n-couplet drop out of the original text, or is the couplet in 11QPsa (and the Versions) an interpolation (i.e., scribal addition)? The versional evidence for the couplet is substantial, especially when considered in the light the 11QPsa manuscript. It seems that a poet as gifted as our Psalmist easily could have (and presumably would have) come up with a suitable couplet beginning with the letter n. On the other hand, there are similar instances of missing letters in the acrostics of Pss 25 and 34, and sound reasons have been adduced for deeming the 11QPsa couplet, in particular, as unlikely to be original (see Kimelman, pp. 49-50, and the note by Hossfeld-Zenger, p. 592).

Whether or not one includes the 11QPsa couplet, or a comparable n-couplet based on the Versions, affects how one views the structure of the Psalm, particularly in the latter portions. Without the restored/reconstructed n-couplet, there is an inclusive symmetry to vv. 14-20, suggesting that this unit should be treated as a stanza (which would match vv. 3-9 in length). However, if the couplet (13b) is included, then it creates a certain parallelism between vv. 13b-16 and 17-20, indicating that those verse divisions should be regarded as unit-stanzas.

In other respects, the structure of Psalm 145 has been much discussed, with quite differing views among commentators regarding how it should be divided. One point of detail that has been noted is that the three couplets of vv. 11-13 begin with the letters k, l, and m, which when reversed spell the root (ilm) denoting kingship (El#m# = “king”). This has led to the view that verses 11-13, which should be treated as a unit, lie at the center and heart of the Psalm. Weber (II, p. 367), in fact, specifically defines vv. 11-13 as the central stanza of a five-stanza structure (with a chiastic outline):

    • A: vv. 3-6
      • B: vv. 7-10
        • C: vv. 11-13
      • B´: vv. 14-16
    • A´: vv. 17-20

Liebreich (pp. 187ff), followed by Kimelman (pp. 37-38ff), adopts a four-stanza outline (vv. 3-6, 7-9, 11-13, 14-20) with v. 10 as a central interlude. There is general agreement as to the framing inclusio of vv. 1-2 and 21 providing the introduction/conclusion to the composition. Otherwise, the debate is over how the couplets of vv. 3-20 should be divided and their structure delineated. I am inclined to adopt a two part structure, with four stanzas: two 3-couplet stanzas in the first part (vv. 4-6, 7-9), and two 4-couplet stanzas in the second part (vv. [13b]-16, 17-20). Verses 10-13 represent a central bridge stanza, in which the universal Kingship of YHWH (the main theme of the Psalms) is particularly emphasized. Verse 3, which I include as part of the introduction, in some ways stands alone as a theological declaration, the style and tone of which is repeated at various points throughout the stanzas. The alternation between second person and third person address is not at all unprecedented in the Psalms and may be taken here as reflecting a certain royal-courtly style (cf. Dahood, III, p. 338).

There is also agreement (largely) among commentators as to the relatively late (post-exilic) dating of the Psalm (cf. Hossfeld-Zenger, p. 597, for a typical summary). The acrostic format, along with certain ‘Aramaisms’ (to be given mention in the notes), and presumed inter-textual links (esp. with other Psalms and portions of the Psalter) have all been cited as evidence for a post-exilic date. The universal orientation of the Kingship-theme, whereby it is expected that all peoples/nations will (soon) come to recognize and worship YHWH, has also been regarded as typical of later theology. However, it is possible that this tendency had already begun to take root in the late monarchic (pre-exilic) period, and may be evinced, for example within the collection of Pss 93-100 where one finds a similar development of the Kingship-theme. Certainly, an emphasis on the Kingship of YHWH would have been compatible with the royal background (and setting) of many Psalms, including traditional material and genre-forms that date back to the monarchic period.

Ps 145 is preserved extensively in the Qumran manuscript 11QPsa. Apart from the key textual issue regarding the missing n-couplet (v. [13b]) in the MT, there are a number of variant readings, most of which are minor but some worthy of mention (and will be mentioned in the notes). Of special interest is repeated refrain that runs through the Psalm, after each couplet, much as in the manner of Ps 136; the text of this refrain (i.e., congregational response), which surely reflects an early liturgical adaptation of the composition, follows the second line of vv. 1-2 (see below):

“Blessed be YHWH and blessed be His name,
(in)to (the) distant (future) even unto (the end)!”

The character of Ps 145 as a hymn of praise is indicated by the designation in the heading of the work as a hL*h!T (I), a “(song of) praise” (the reading hlpt, “prayer/petition” in 11QPsa is presumably a scribal error). The heading also contained a traditional Davidic attribution (“[belonging] to David”).

The meter of this Psalm is irregular, including a roughly similar number of 3+3, 4+3, and 3+4 couplets. The relatively large number of irregular 3+4 couplets is unusual.

Introduction: Verses 1-3

Verse 1 [a]

“I will lift you high [;m=m!ora&], my Mightiest, O King,
and bless your name (in)to (the) distant (future), to (the end)!”

The Psalm of praise begins in formal fashion, adopting a royal-courtly style. The verb <Wr (“be high”) in the Polel stem means “bring/raise/lift high” (i.e., exalt, extol); it is applied to the praise and honor of YHWH (as High God and King) on numerous occasions—cf. Exod 15:2; Isa 25:1; Ps 30:2[1]; 34:4[3], 99:5, 9; 107:32; 118:28. The occurrences in 99:5, 9 are particularly close to the usage here, in terms of thematic emphasis—viz., focus on the universal Kingship of YHWH, as Creator and Sovereign over the universe.
The prefixed –h (on the noun El#m#, “king”), which normally functions as a definite article, here has vocative force (“O king!”), as most commentators recognize. 

The blessing (vb Er^B*) offered to YHWH in the second line was incorporated into the refrain that runs through the Psalm in the Qumran manuscript 11QPsa; the utilization of such a refrain (as a congregational response) reflects an early liturgical adaptation of the composition (cf. the refrain of Ps 136).
Dahood (III, pp. 334, 336) curiously treats the line in v. 1 differently from that in v. 2; in v. 1, the temporal-durative nouns <l*ou (“distant [future]”) and du^ (“unto [the end]”) are regarded as Divine titles (“Eternal [One]”, “Everlasting [One]”), seen as matching the titles “Mightiest” (i.e., God) and “King”, whereas the same terms in v. 2 retain their temporal significance (matching the expression “in every day”). 

Metrically, this verse is a long and irregular 3+4 couplet; it is the first of five such 3+4 couplets in the Psalm (including the following v. 2).

Verse 2 [b]

“With every [lk*B=] day (indeed) I will bless you,
and praise your name (in)to (the) distant (future), to (the end)!”

This second couplet mirrors the first, both metrically (3+4) and in terms of its orientation. The second line is nearly identical to that of v. 1, substituting the verb ll^h* (“praise”) for Er^B* (“bless”). Indeed, the use of praise/bless verbs are presented in reverse order (from that of v. 1)—i.e., Er^B* in line 1, rather than line 2. The Psalmist-protagonist declares that he will praise YHWH “with every day” that comes; the prefixed B= preposition (essentially for the acrostic pattern [b-couplet]) could also be rendered “on” or “in”, i.e., during the course of each day.

Verse 3 [g]

“Great [lodG`] (is) YHWH, and very much (to be) praised,
and His greatness—there is no searching (it out)!”

This third couplet unexpectedly introduces a shift—from a second person address (unto YHWH) to a third person declaration about YHWH. While such alternation of person (2nd/3rd) may be intended to imitate a certain formalism of royal-courtly style, it also functions here to introduce a theological declaration, in which the attributes of YHWH are highlighted. This theological thread will run through the stanzas of the Psalm.

The particular attribute in focus here is the greatness of YHWH, as expressed by the adjective lodG` and the related noun hL*WdG+. The noun is relatively rare, and, of the 12 other occurrences, half are in books (Esther, Chronicles) from the exilic or post-exilic period. The emphasis on the unsearchability (“there is no searching [it]”)—viz., YHWH’s greatness is so vast that it is not possible to search it out, so deep that one cannot fathom its depths—also seems to reflect a relatively late (and theologically developed) Wisdom-sentiment (cf. Job 5:9; Isa 40:28). The first line closely resembles the opening line of Ps 48 (v. 1).
Dahood (III, p. 336) here regards the adverb da)m= (“very much”) as another Divine title (see above on v. 1), rendering it as “the Grand”; he treats the adverb similarly in a number of other instances in the Psalms. 

Metrically, this verse is a 4+3 couplet, balancing the irregular 3+4 couplets of vv. 1-2.

Stanza 1: Verses 4-6

Verse 4 [d]

“Circle [roD] to circle, let them (all) laud your works,
and your mighty deeds put out in front!”

In the first stanza, the Psalmist calls on people everywhere, from generation to generation (lit., “circle to circle”), to join him in giving praise to YHWH. The verb jb^v* (I) is a relatively rare praise term, one which is thought to be an Aramaic loanword, or reflecting Aramaic influence (and thus evidence for an exilic/post-exilic date for the Psalm); apart from four other occurrences in the Psalms (63:4[3]; 106:47; 117:1; 147:12), the other three are in late texts (Eccl 4:2; 8:15; 1 Chron 16:35). I agree with Allen (p. 367) that the imperfect verb forms in vv. 4-6f should be rendered as jussives (i.e., “let them…!”, “may they…!”).

It is particularly the mighty deeds of YHWH that are to be praised. Typically, this refers to His acts as Creator, but also to the great things that He has done on behalf of His people, Israel, throughout their history (most notably, in the Exodus and the Conquest/Settlement of the Land); see, for example, Ps 77:11-15 and 78:4ff.  The verb dg~n` (Hiphil) means “put/bring in front”, in the sense (here and in similar praise and confessional contexts) of making something known, presenting it to people (viz., putting it in front of them).

Verse 5 [h]

“(The) honor [rd^h&] (and) weight of your majesty may they speak,
even (as) your wondrous deeds I will utter!”

This second couplet builds upon the first. By lauding and declaring (publicly) the mighty deeds of YHWH, people will honor Him (viz., His majesty/splendor [doh] as King). The nouns rd*h* and dobK*, both of which (in this context) essentially mean “honor” are vocalized in the MT as a double-construct form (viz., “[the] honor of [the] weight of your majesty”), but they are perhaps better understood as a hendiadys-pairing (“[the] honor [and] weight…”); either way, the expression indicates a double-honor, and one that is especially grand.

Instead of the MT yrbdw (“and words of”), the Qumran manuscript 11QPsa reads a verb form wrbdy (“they will speak”). This reading is supported by the Greek (LXX) and Syriac versions, and is perhaps to be preferred (cf. Allen, p. 367). I have tentatively adopted it in the translation above; it has the advantage of continuing the thought from v. 4, with the Psalmist calling on people everywhere to give honor and praise to YHWH. Metrically, it produces a 4+3 couplet, matching that of v. 4. The 3-beat second line more appropriately begins with a prefixed w-conjunction, which the same manuscript (11QPsa) also attests to; I translate the conjunction above in the emphatic-relational sense of “even (as)…”.

According to this reading, in verse 5, the Psalmist specifically calls on people to join him (i.e., the righteous one[s] of Israel) in giving praise/honor to YHWH. He, too, is uttering (vb j^yc!) words of praise, extolling YHWH especially for all His mighty deeds. It has been suggested that, in such a musical-poetic context as here in the Psalms, the verb j^yc! II, with its relatively wide semantic range (i.e., “utter, talk, converse, ponder, meditate, muse”, etc), could carry the specific meaning “compose” —viz., compose a hymn (such as this very Psalm) on the greatness of YHWH; cf. its use in Ps 77:4, 7, 13 and 105:2; note also the occurrences in Ps 119 (vv. 15, 23, 27, 48, 78, 148) and 143:5.

Verse 6 [w]

“And (the) strength of your fearsome (deed)s let them tell,
while (all) your great (work)s I will recount!”

This final couplet of the stanza mirrors that of the prior v. 5, adding further support to the reading of that verse according to the text of 11QPsa (see above). Again, the Psalmist calls on the people(s) to praise YHWH, declaring especially all His great and mighty deeds. The strength (zWzu$) of these deeds is particularly emphasized, as also the fact that they are truly fearsome—the passive participle of the verb ar@y` denoting something that should be feared, that is deserving of fear (and thus also of honor and reverence, etc). The mighty deeds performed by YHWH—both as Creator and the Savior/Protector of His people—are a primary reason why He Himself is to be honored and feared, acknowledged and venerated by all people.

The theme of YHWH’s greatness (see above on v. 3) punctuates the close of this stanza, as the key root ldg occurs again, in the suffixed plural form of the noun hl*WdG= [Kethib], i.e., “your great works/deeds”.

The hn– sufformative on the first person singular verb in line 2 (“I will recount”) is perhaps best explained as an instance of an energic n, as suggested by Dahood (III, p. 337; cf. Allen, p. 367). However, the survival and/or existence of an energic (volitive) mood in Biblical Hebrew remains a point of debate among linguists and commentators.

Stanza 2: Verses 7-9

Verse 7 [z]

“(With) memory [rk#z@] of your great goodness may they gush,
and of your righteousness let them ring out:”

In the second stanza, the Psalmist continues calling on people everywhere to give praise and honor to YHWH (as King). However, now the focus shifts, from the mighty deeds of YHWH to his fundamental attributes and characteristics (cf. verse 3).

Here, the greatness of YHWH is expressed through the term br (“many, much, abundance”), though it is not entirely clear whether the MT vocalization (as an adjective, br^, “abundant”) should be followed or the text revocalized as a noun br) (“abundance”); cf. Allen, p. 367, and compare the similar wording in Isa 63:7. Dahood (III, p. 337) characteristically treats br here as a Divine title, i.e., “Great (One), Master”.

The relatively rare verb ub^n`, which colorfully denotes “gush (forth)” (i.e., as water from a spring), does not normally occur as a praise-term. Rather, it tends to be used as wisdom-term in Scripture, including in the Psalms (cf. 19:3[2]; 78:2; 119:171); elsewhere, its use is limited to the Wisdom-texts of Proverbs (1:23; 15:2, 28; 18:4) and Ecclesiastes (10:1). The mouth/lips of the righteous “gush” forth wisdom, while those of the wicked spout foolish and impious things (Ps 59:8[7]; 94:4). By contrast, the verbal root /n~r* (“ring out”) is a frequent praise-term in the Psalms.

The key attributes of YHWH mentioned here (as worthy of praise) are His goodness (bof) and right(eous)ness (hq*d*x=)—both referenced many times in the Scriptures, including dozens of references in the Psalms.

Verse 8 [j]

“Showing favor [/WNj^] and deep love (is) YHWH,
long in (His) nostrils and great in kindness.”

This couplet is taken from the famous declaration of Exod 34:6, though with slightly different wording (cp. a similar application in Ps 86:5, 15), including the replacement of br^ (“abundant”) with the keyword ld)G` (“great”); cf. Num 14:19. Here the declaration takes the effective form of a confession of faith which the faithful ones are expected to make (as part of their veneration of YHWH). YHWH shows deep love (adj. <Wjr^) and care toward His people and is favorable (adj. /WNj^) toward them (i.e., will show them favor). In this regard, He will frequently hold back His anger toward them, extending His kindness/goodness (ds#j#) to them instead. The expression “long of nostrils” (<y]P^a^ Er#a#) is a colorful idiom that alludes to the depiction of anger in terms of a snorting/raging bull, etc. The hot steam that would normally be snorted out is held back and stored away in the ‘long nostrils’. Correspondingly, a person who is quick to anger, snorting it out immediately, is a person “short of nostrils”. In ancient Semitic (Canaanite) religious tradition, as inherited by Israel, the God El (= El-YHWH) was often described or depicted as a bull (e.g., Gen 49:24; Ps 132:2, 5; Isa 49:26; 60:16; cf. also Exod 32:4; 1 Kings 12:28, and 7:25).

This central couplet has an irregular 3+4 meter (see above on vv. 1-2), in between the two ‘regular’ three-beat (3+3) couplets of vv. 7 and 9. The metrical patterns of this second stanza are not as easily rendered in translation as those of stanza 1 (see above).

Verse 9 [f]

“Good (is) YHWH toward all the (peoples),
and His great love (is) over all His works.”

In this final couplet, it is declared that the goodness (bot, v. 7) and deep love (<jr, v. 8) of YHWH extends to all peoples, and not only to the people of Israel. This continues a universalistic orientation of the Psalm—and particularly here in these first two stanzas, in which the Psalmist calls on people everywhere, in all times (‘generation to generation’), to worship YHWH, giving honor and praise to Him. This universalism is rooted in the Kingship theme of the Psalm; since YHWH is King over all creation, all the peoples in the world should acknowledge His rule and give Him the praise and honor that He is due. Compare the universalism (similarly tied to the Kingship of YHWH) that pervades the collection of Pss 93-100, with its concluding declaration in 100:5.

The plural form of the noun <j^r^ is best regarded as an intensive/comprehensive plural, though it could also refer to the various manifestations of YHWH’s love and care for humankind. Human beings, to be sure, are among the created “works” of YHWH, over which His great love extends.

*          *          *          *          *

The remainder of the Psalm (vv. 10-21) will be examined 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 “Weber, I”, “Weber, II” and “Weber, III” above are to, respectively, Beat Weber, Werkbuch Psalmen (Verlag W. Kohlhammer), I. Psalmen 1 bis 72 (2001), II. Psalmen 73 bis 150 (2003, 2016), III. Theologie und Spiritualität des Psalters und seiner Psalmen (2010).
    • Those marked “Liebreich” are to Leon J. Liebreich, “Psalms 34 and 145 in the Light of Their Key Words”, Hebrew Union College Annual 27 (1956), pp. 181-92.
    • Those marked “Kimelman” are to Reuven Kimelman, “Psalm 145: Theme, Structure, and Impact, Journal of Biblical Literature [JBL] 113 (1994), pp. 37-58.

October 25: Job 3:1-3

The First Speech of Job (chapter 3)

Job 3:1

“After this, Ayyab opened his mouth and cursed his day.”

This short narrative statement introduces the first speech of the Dialogue, being the first speech given by Job himself. It was prepared for by the closing verses of the Prologue (2:11-13, see the previous note), in which the three companions were introduced, and a solemn narrative setting was established. This setting evokes traditional mourning customs, as Job effectively mourns his great losses, and even, in a real sense, the loss of his own life. The silence of Job’s companions, for seven entire days and nights (a traditional period for mourning the dead), sets the stage quite dramatically for the first speech. As discussed in the previous note, this period of silence likely alludes to the custom whereby the comforters refrain from speaking until the mourner (in this case, Job) first begins. Whatever the historical basis for such a custom (at the time the book was written), it certainly works as an effective literary device.

In the previous note, I also mentioned the important parallel in wording between 2:10 and 3:1:

    • “In all this, Ayyab did not sin with his lips”
    • “After this, Ayyab opened his mouth and cursed”

Clearly, Job—that is, the Job of the Dialogue-speeches—comes very close to doing precisely what (in 2:10) the narrative said he did not do. The juxtaposition is certainly intentional, as the author emphasizes the inherent tension between Job’s devout/righteous character and the deep despair he nonetheless experiences in the midst of his terrible suffering.

Job 3:2-3

“Indeed, he responded and said:
May it perish, (the) day
in which I was born,
and the night (which) said
‘a healthy boy (is) conceived!'”

The initial line (v. 2) simply represents a continuation of the narrative introduction (v. 1), presenting the poetry that follows as the direct speech of Job. He is responding (vb hn`u*) to all his losses, his desolation, suffering and misery. It is framed by a curse-formula, as indicated by the use of the verb ll^q* (“make light of, belittle, treat as insignificant”, whence, “treat with contempt, despise, disdain”) in v. 1. Job treats “his day” —that is, his life in general, but specifically his birth—with utter contempt. The curse-formulation is governed by the initial jussive verb form (of the verb db^a*, “perish, be[come] lost/destroyed”): “May it perish…!”.

There is a loose synonymous parallelism to the couplets in v. 3. In the first line of each, Job curses the “day” and the “night”, respectively, of his birth. The verb hr*h* properly refers to the conception of the child, rather than its birth per se, but the two aspects—conception and birth (vb dl^y`)—are here combined, in the second line of each couplet. There may also be an allusion to the idea that the conception takes places in the ‘hidden’ darkness of “the night”, while the actual birth of the child occurs in the open light of day.

The most obvious Scriptural parallel to vv. 3ff is found in Jeremiah 20:14-18, as noted by nearly all commentators. The italicized portions of vv. 14-15 are particularly close:

“Cursed (be) the day in which I was born!
The day (in) which my mother gave me birth,
do not let it be blessed!
Cursed (be) the man who brought the news to my father,
saying, ‘A son is born to you, a male!’…”

The birth announcement (v. 15) parallel, however, fits rather awkwardly to the actual wording here in v. 3, since it is the conception of the child, rather than his birth, that is apparently being announced, and it is ‘announced’ (figuratively) by the night. This peculiarity of the idiom (however colorful it may be) has led a few commentators—most notably Michel (p. 40f), following the lead of M. Dahood—to attribute to the verb rm^a* here, not its normal meaning (in Hebrew) of “say”, but its older meaning of “see” (as, e.g., in Ugaritic and Akkadian). In other words, the night “saw” the moment when the child (Job) was conceived. It has been postulated that the fundamental meaning of this Semitic verbal root is “show, make visible, make known”. Such a broad meaning is closer to the Hebrew usage than the specific meaning of “see”, for which there is precious little evidence, though Dahood claims to find a number of instances (which he cites in his Commentary on the Psalms [Michel lists these out, p. 40, n. 6]). The meaning “see” for rm^a* would make a fitting parallel to the use of ha*r* (“see”) in v. 16b.

The noun rb#G#, from the root rbg (“be strong”), typically refers to a strong and vigorous young male (viz., of fighting age) but is not normally used of an infant child. Here, it may simply designate a male child (cf. the wording in Jer 20:15), though the root idea of strength is perhaps meant to contrast with Job’s current debilitated (and weakened) condition. I have combined these two basic aspects—maleness and strength, in the context of birth—with the translation “a healthy boy”. Greenstein (p. 86) suggests that the noun rb#G# is used, at least in part, for the purpose of identifying Job with the “man” (rb#G#) in v. 23 whose “life of suffering is ignored by God”.

    • References marked “Michel” are to Walter L. Michel, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic, Biblica et Orientalia 42 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1987). 
    • Those marked “Greenstein” are to Edward L. Greenstein, “Features of Language in the Poetry of Job” in Das Buch Hiob und seine Interpretationen: Beiträge zum Hiob-Symposium auf dem Monte Verità vom 14.-19. August 2005, eds. T. Krüger, M. Oeming, K. Schmid, C. Uehlinger (Theologischer Verlag Zürich: 2007), pp. 81-96.

Wednesday Wisdom: Proverbs 3:13-20

Second Wisdom Poem: Proverbs 3:13-20

This second Wisdom-poem has a relatively simple two-part structure, being divided into two stanzas—vv. 13-15 and 16-18—followed by a conclusion that I refer to as a “theological appendix” (vv. 19-20). Continuing the literary-dramatic pattern from the first poem (1:20-33), Wisdom is personified as a woman (cf. also the contrast with the “strange woman” in 2:16-19). This personification comes clearly into view in the second stanza (vv. 16-18), drawing, it would seem, upon ancient lines of iconographic tradition (related to Near Eastern goddess figures). Certainly, the divine nature of Wisdom (and the blessedness that she brings) is being emphasized. Wisdom has its origins with God Himself, a point that is made more-or-less explicit in the concluding verses 19-20.

Stanza 1: Verses 13-15

The stanza begins with a longer beatitude-couplet, followed by a pair of shorter-length tricola. The blessedness of the person who obtains wisdom is declared (v. 13), and then the (Divine) riches of this blessing are compared with ordinary earthly riches (vv. 14-15).

Verse 13

“O (the) happiness of (the) man (who) finds wisdom,
the man (who) obtains understanding!”

This couplet (and the stanza) is marked by the standard beatitude formula, beginning with the plural construct yr@v=a^ (“happy [thing]s of…”), in a collective/comprehensive sense (i.e., “[all the] happiness of”, cf. the noun rv#a#), but used as an interjection in the beatitude-formula: “O the happiness of…!” or “How happy is…!”. The rendering “happiness” in English can be somewhat misleading, as it tends to convey a subjective feeling, whereas rva primarily refers to a real condition—thus the frequent translation as “blessedness”; the rendering “good fortune” might split the semantic difference.

This beatitude-formula occurs with some frequency in Wisdom texts (Prov 8:32, 34; 28:14; Job 5:17; Sirach 14:1-2; 14:20-15:1; 25:8-9; 28:19-23, etc), including certain Psalms with a Wisdom-orientation (most notably Pss 1 and 119). However, its roots are in a funerary/mortuary context, with reference to the promise of a blessed afterlife for the dead. While this contextual origin may inform the language of the actual blessing (cf. my earlier study on Psalm 1 and the special note in the series on the Beatitudes of Jesus), the afterlife is not particularly in view here (nor in Proverbs as a whole); rather, the focus is on a blessed/happy life on earth—a long, full, and rich life (vv. 16-17).
For several Egyptian examples of a similar beatitude-formula, utilizing wording and thematic emphases comparable to what we find here in Proverbs, cf. Schipper, p. 142—”How good is the one who walks in God’s path”, etc.

This happiness/blessedness is declared for the person who finds and obtains Wisdom. This is expressed by the parallelism:

    • “(the) man | (who) finds [vb ax*m*] | wisdom”
    • “(the) man | (who) obtains [vb qWP] | understanding”

As we have seen, the noun hn`WbT= is one of the regular Wisdom-terms in Proverbs, along with the related hn`yB! (both from the root /yB!), denoting “understanding, discernment” (including the connotative meanings of “skill, ability”, etc). This noun occurs 19 times (nearly half of Scriptural occurrences [42]) in Proverbs, including four times earlier in chapter 2 (vv. 2-3, 6, 11).

Verse 14

“For (indeed) good (is) her profit
(more) than (the) profit of silver,
and (more) than gold her (in)come!”

In the two tricola of vv. 14-15, the blessedness that comes from finding/obtaining Wisdom is contrasted with ordinary earthly riches. This suggests, implicitly, that the blessings that Wisdom brings are Divine (in nature and origin). Such a characterization is already embedded in the beatitude-formula itself but will be expounded with increasing clarity in the remainder of the poem. The comparison is made through the syntactical idiom that utilizes the preposition /m! (“from”) in a comparative sense; in English, this idiomatic usage requires the translation “(more) than”. In this case, the comparison in terms of blessing is “good [bof] more than…” (i.e., “better than…”).

The point of comparison in v. 14 is defined by the noun rj^s^ which denotes trade (viz., the work and activity of trading, engaging in trade), as well as the profit that comes through commerce/trade. The suffixed form Hr*j=s^ (“her trading”, “her profit”), in reference to Wisdom (hm*k=j*, grammatically feminine and personified as a woman), can be understood two different ways—(1) Wisdom as the profit (i.e., riches/reward) itself, or (2) as the one who produces the profit (viz., through work and ‘trade’). The first aspect is in view in the following v. 15, while the second seems to be suggested (to some extent) in vv. 16-17 (cf. also the work motif in vv. 19-20). The noun ha*WbT= (“coming [in]”, i.e., “income”) is parallel to rj^s* (in the sense of “profit”); there is an obvious alliterative wordplay between ht*a*WbT= (teḇû’āṯâ) and hn`WbT= (teḇûnâ), the closing words of the first and third lines, respectively.

The basic comparison, between Wisdom and silver/gold, is traditional, occurring a number of times in Wisdom poetry (e.g., 16:16; Ps 19:10; Job 28:15ff), and is reprised in the great poem of chapter 8 (vv. 10, 19).

Verse 15

“She (is more) valuable than pearls,
and (even) all your desired (good)s
cannot be compared with her!”

In the tricolon of v. 15, the comparison of v. 14 is extended to include precious gems and, comprehensively, even all the things that a person might desire (by way of earthly goods and riches)— “all your desired (good)s” (suffixed plural of the noun Jp#j@, “desire”, concretely, “something desired”). The LXX lacks the pronoun corresponding to the suffix, raising the possibility that the original text might have read simply <yx!p*j& (“desired [good]s”); cf. Fox, p. 157; Waltke, p. 251. The LXX differs from the MT in more substantial ways as well, and reads as a four-line quatrain, rather than a tricola (see Fox, Textual Commentary, pp. 100-1).

The exact meaning of the noun in the first line, plur. <yn]yn]P= Qere, is uncertain, though it occurs several times elsewhere in Proverbs (8:11; 20:15; 31:10) and Job (28:18); cf. also Lam 4:7. It is usually understood as a reference to pearls of coral; cf. Greek pi/nna (HALOT, p. 946; cf. Waltke, p. 251). Jesus’ parable of the Kingdom of Heaven as the one valuable pearl (‘pearl of great price’) that a person should seek to obtain (Matt 13:45-46) naturally comes to mind.

The verb hw`v* (cf. Ugaritic ṯwy) means “be like, be similar, resemble”, though occasionally it carries the more forceful meaning “be the same, be equal”. The cognate in Arabic, sawiya, can specifically mean “be of comparable value”, which is fitting to the commercial language and imagery of the context here; cf. HALOT, p. 1436. Given that the entirety of vv. 14-15 involves a comparison, the translation “cannot be compared with her” seems appropriate.

Stanza 2: Verses 16-18

In the second stanza, the Divine nature of Wisdom (and the blessedness she provides) is emphasized. The point was made implicitly in the first stanza—through the beatitude-formula and the comparison with ordinary earthly wealth/riches—but is developed here in the second stanza, only to be confirmed (in an even more explicit fashion) in the concluding verses (vv. 19-20).

The Divine nature of Wisdom, coupled with the personification of Wisdom as a woman (as earlier in chap. 2), makes it natural that imagery and symbolism traditionally associated (within the ancient Near Eastern religious culture) with a goddess would be utilized. This point will be discussed briefly below, and more extensively in a supplemental note (“Tree of Life and Goddess in Ancient Near Eastern Religious Tradition”).

Verse 16

“Length of days (is) in her right hand,
and in her left hand wealth and weight.”

Wisdom is portrayed here anthropomorphically, as a woman (the noun hm*k=j* is grammatically feminine) facing forward and standing with blessings in each hand. This imagery suggests the numerous depictions of goddess-figures in the ancient Near East (including Syria-Palestine), such as the one below, depicted on a portion of a Late Bronze Age clay model from Tel Qarnayim (near Beth-Shean) [drawing c/o Keel-Uehlinger, p. 67f, ill. 72]:

Kayatz (p. 105; cf. Fox, p. 157; Schipper, p. 144f) suggests that the image of Wisdom, in this regard, is drawn specifically from Egyptian depictions of Ma‘at (i.e., truth/justice personified as a goddess), in which she might be holding an ‘anḫ (ankh, representing life) symbol in one hand and a wa’s sceptre in the other. For more on the general parallel between Wisdom and Ma‘at, see Schipper, pp. 140-1.

Long life, as a blessing/reward promised to those who follow the path of Wisdom, featured prominently in the prior Lecture (v. 2); the way of Wisdom as the path of life is clearly contrasted with the way of wickedness/foolishness as the path leading to death (1:19, 31-33; 2:12ff, 16ff, 20-22). The same Lecture also introduced the promise of blessing in terms of a rich/full life on earth, including wealth and riches (cf. verses 7-10). The wise person does not pursue these things as a goal (in and of themselves), but by following the path of Wisdom one still obtains them; cp. the words of Jesus in Matt 6:33. A similar promise is found in 8:18 / 22:4.

The noun dobK* literally means “weight”, sometimes in the concrete sense of (physical) wealth and substance (of goods, etc); more abstractly, it refers to the value or worth of something (or someone), and also the honor which is due (to a person).

The LXX includes an additional couplet (16b) that is absent from the MT; cf. the discussion in Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 101:

“out of her mouth travels right(eous)ness,
(and) law and mercy she carries on her tongue”

The first line is similar to Isa 45:23a, while the couplet as a whole resembles Prov 31:26 and may be based upon that verse.

Verse 17

“Her paths (are) paths of goodness,
and all her pathways are fullness.”

Here, in this next couplet, the path-motif—a central and recurring motif throughout chaps. 1-9 (cf. verse 6, and as a principal theme-motif in chap. 2)—is again utilized. The regular terms Er#D# and hb*yt!n+, both essentially meaning “path(way)”, are used in tandem (on the latter term, cf. 1:15). The pathways of Wisdom are characterized by the nouns <u^n) and <olv*. The former of these, from the root <u^n` (I), denotes beauty, loveliness, pleasantness, and delight(fulness)—aspects of meaning which I combine here in the translation “goodness” (par. “good”, bof, in v. 14). It is a rather rare term in Scripture, occurring just seven times (including twice more in Proverbs, 15:26; 16:24). Much more common is the second noun, <olv*, which means “fullness, completeness”, including the specific ideas of health, well-being, peace, prosperity, and security; often the noun is flatly translated as “peace”.

Verse 18

“A tree of life (is) she (herself)
for the (one) holding firmly on(to) her—
indeed (the one) holding her is called happy!”

Here, in the concluding tricolon (cf. the tricola of vv. 14-15), Wisdom is referred to as a “tree of life” (<yY]j^ Ju@). This terminology suggests something beyond a long and rich life (on earth), alluding to the beatific notion of a blessed and Divine life (note the beatific orientation in the final line, with the passive participle rv*a%m= corresponding to the initial yr@v=a^ of v. 13). The use of the expression “tree of life” in Gen 2:9; 3:22 makes such a paradisial context quite clear; the expression also occurs in several specific proverbs (11:30; 13:12; 15:4).

The blessing here specifically refers to the person who holds on to Wisdom (as a “tree of life”). This is expressed by two verbs—qz~j*, which denotes grabbing/holding firmly onto something (or someone), and Em^T*, which can refer either to the taking hold of something or of actually holding it (in one’s hand). The importance of holding Wisdom—both taking hold of it and then holding on to it—is implicit throughout the Lectures and poems of chaps. 1-9, but it is explicitly emphasized in 4:4 and 13, where the same two verbs are used. The verbal noun (participle) forms here signify regular and continual actions that are (and become) characteristic of the righteous person who follows the path of Wisdom. Such a person will find/obtain Wisdom, and then, through faithfulness and diligence, will also hold on to her.

The identification of Wisdom, personified as a (Divine) woman, with the “tree of life” motif, would seem to draw upon ancient religious symbolism from the Near East (including Syria-Palestine), whereby certain iconographic symbolism (which may be labeled as “tree of life”) is clearly associated with various goddess-figures. This will be discussed and illustrated in a supplemental note.

Interestingly, the LXX further emphasizes the Divine nature/character of Wisdom by making the point that taking hold of Wisdom is very much like taking hold of God Himself (cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 101f):

“A tree of life she is for all th(ose) holding against [i.e., onto] her, and for the (one)s leaning (heavily) upon her, as upon (the) Lord, (there is) no falling”

Conclusion: Verses 19-20

The poem proper concludes with verse 18; this is clear from the way that the last word of v. 18 (passive participle of the verb rv^a*) corresponds to the first word of v. 13 (the yr@v=a^ beatitude-formula, cf. above). The concluding vv. 19-20 have more the character of a ‘theological appendix’ to the poem, in which the Divine nature of Wisdom (and the life/blessings that she provides) is further expounded.

Verses 19-20

“YHWH with wisdom founded (the) earth,
(and) set firm (the) heavens with understanding;
with His knowledge (the) depths were split apart,
and the clouds (made to) drip down dew.”

The role of Wisdom in YHWH’s work as Creator will be developed further in the poem of chapter 8 (verses 22-31). Here the same thematic emphasis is introduced, foreshadowing that greater poem.

Once again, the nouns hm*k=j* (“wisdom”) and hn`WbT= (“understanding”) are used in tandem, as largely synonymous wisdom-terms (cf. verse 13); to these, tu^D^ (“knowledge”) is added (v. 20). All of these nouns (esp. hn`WbT=) can carry the contextual connotative meaning “skill, ability”, which is particularly appropriate in reference to YHWH’s work as Creator (viz., as a skilled architect and craftsman/builder). The principal creation of the cosmos (‘heaven and earth’) is summarized in v. 19. The verbs rs^y` I (“found, lay/set a foundation”) and /WK (Polel, “make/set firm”) are regularly used in this cosmological context; the specific idiom of YHWH “making firm” the heavens also occurs in 8:27.

In the second couplet, YHWH’s control over the waters is emphasized. This is an important cosmological theme in Israelite poetry, drawn from ancient Near Eastern mythic tradition (see my article “The Conflict with the Sea in Ancient Near Eastern Myth”). The cosmos (heaven and earth) was understood as being surrounded by the primeval waters—that is, waters above the heavens and also waters below the earth. The splitting apart (vb uq^B*) of the depths (or deep places) allows the waters from below to be released (in the form of springs, fountains, rivers, etc). Correspondingly, the waters from above are released (and stored) in the clouds, etc, of the atmosphere, from whence they come down to the earth in the form of rain (here, light rain or “dew” [lf^]). These waters, as they are controlled and released by YHWH, have a beneficial and life-giving effect, making the earth fertile and able to support life. This should be understood in light of the promised blessings here, and also in the prior Lecture (see vv. 9-10)—implying that the land will be fruitful for the one who faithfully follows the path of Wisdom.

    • References above marked “Fox” are to Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 1-9, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 18A (Yale University Press: 2000). Those marked “Fox, Textual Commentary” are to idem, Proverbs: An Eclectic Edition with Introduction and Textual Commentary, The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition 1 (Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Press: 2015). 
    • References marked “Waltke” are to Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 1–15, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Eerdmans: 2004).
    • References marked “Schipper” are to Bernd U. Schipper, Proverbs 1-15, Hermeneia Commentary Series (Fortress Press: 2010). See also his monograph on Proverbs 2: Hermeneutik der Tora: Studien zur Traditionsgeschichte von Prov 2 und zur Komposition von Prov 1-9, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlich Wissenschaft [BZAW] 432 (Walter de Gruyter: 2012).
    • Those marked “Kayatz” are to Christa Kayatz, Studien zu Proverbien 1-9, WMANT 22 (Neukirchener Verlag: 1966).
    • Those marked “Keel-Uehlinger” are to Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel, transl. Thomas H. Trapp (Fortress Press: 1998). Originally published (in German) as Göttinnen, Götter und Gottessymbole (Herder Verlag: 1992).

Tree of Life and Goddess in Ancient Near Eastern Religious Tradition

This note is supplemental to the current study on Proverbs 3:13-20 (in the Wednesday Wisdom feature).

As mentioned in the discussion on Prov 3:18, the identification of the Divine Wisdom (personified as a woman) with the “tree of life” motif strongly suggests a line of ancient Near Eastern religious iconography, whereby a “tree of life” symbolism is closely associated with certain goddess-figures. In this line of iconography, a central tree-image is used to represent the life-giving power and fertility that is manifest in the natural world (esp. its vegetation).

There are two main versions or variations of this iconography. The first depicts a pair of animals (usually caprids, i.e., ibexes or gazelles, etc) flanking the central tree, and (typically) reaching up their heads and bodies to touch the tree, and to eat from it. This type of image is attested as far back as the early Sumerian period, as represented by this cyclinder-seal impression from the vicinity of Uruk (Collon, p. 12):

A second kind of image shows a pair of hybrid (divine) beings guarding the tree, with arms/wings raised toward it; a variation of this image depicts human (and/or [semi-]divine) worshipers venerating the tree (with hands raised). Below is a Middle Bronze Age II (c. 1750 B.C.) cylinder seal impression from Tel el-Ajjul in Israel (Collon, p. 53; drawing Keel-Uehlinger, p. 30):

The fertility of the earth and its vegetation was understood as reflecting the manifest presence of divine beings (powers) who effected and governed/controlled the processes of the natural world. These powers could be conceived of in a variety of ways, involving both male gods and female goddesses. On the whole, the central tree of the iconographic traditions noted here, was envisioned as a female figure, a goddess. The surviving depictions—mainly in the form of glyptic art (cylinder- and stamp-seals, etc)—rarely give any definite evidence as to the name of the goddess in view. In the Canaanite world (of Syria and Palestine) during the Bronze Age, the goddess probably would have been Asherah; sometimes the goddess is specifically depicted with attributes characteristic of the Egyptian Hathor. Here are three scarab stamp-seals (Middle Bronze Age IIB), Egyptian inspired or produced in Egypt for export into Palestine (Keel-Uehlinger, pp. 26-8, illustr. 11a, 12b, 13b):

The goddess-figure is closely identified with the branches of a tree and could be understood as representing the life-giving power within the tree. The highlighting of the pelvic/genital area in the first two examples symbolizes the fertility of the natural world (spec. vegetation); the more stylized goddess in the third example is inspired by depictions of the Egyptian Hathor. A similar sort of stylized goddess head appears above the central tree in the following seal (also Middle Bronze IIB, Keel-Uehlinger, pp. 29-30):

Two adoring worshiper-figures flank the tree and touch or grab hold of it. The vertical alignment of goddess-head and tree suggests that the composition represents, in some way, the body of the goddess. This is indicated even more clearly in other examples, such as the following two gold-leaf pendants (Late Bronze Age) from Megiddo and Tel el-Ajjul (Keel-Uehlinger, p. 54f):

Again, these are Egyptian-inspired with the goddess wearing a Hathor headdress; otherwise the ‘body’ of the goddess is highly stylized, emphasizing the breasts and the genital area. Noteworthy is the small tree in the center of the second image, almost as if growing out of the navel. In the ceramic figure (from Megiddo) to the right, a vertical line takes the place of a ‘tree’, but probably contains the same symbolic meaning. An even clearer example of the symbolism (and considerably more realistic) is this striking figurine from Revadim (Keel-Uehlinger, pp. 73-5, illustr. 82):

Flanking human figures reach and take hold of her breasts, even as they do the branches of the life-giving tree. Even more remarkable is the depiction (if one looks carefully) on her thighs of the flanking caprids reaching up to eat from the tree-branches. Clearly the body of the goddess is identified with the tree-image—both understood as representing the same life-giving power. A similar identification is made, but in a different way, in the following scene from a cylinder-seal (Late Bronze Age Megiddo):

The goddess stands next to a ‘tree of life’ scene (i.e., central tree flanked by caprids), indicating the basic parallelism (and identification); the goddess/tree, in turn, is flanked by a guarding kerub/sphinx figure (on the left) and a worshiper (on the right). In this comparable seal (from Acre), the parallelism is vertical, with a four-winged goddess positioned directly above the ‘tree of life’:

One finds the same vertical parallelism in this 10th century terra-cotta cultic stand from Taanach (Keel-Uehlinger, pp. 157-60, illustr. 184):

In the bottom register, a goddess-figure is flanked by guarding lions; in the third register (from bottom, second from the top), the familiar tree of life scene (central tree, with caprids) is flanked by the same pair of lions. Thus, the goddess and the tree are almost certainly to be identified, according to the iconography of this piece.

In the Iron Age, the depiction of goddess-figures largely disappears from the surviving art in Syria-Palestine; this period corresponds with the Israelite monarchy, and thus the disappearance of the goddess could reflect, at least in part, the influence of Israelite (monotheistic) religion. The tree-motif remains, but generally with only faint vestiges of an association with the goddess-figure(s).

One important example comes from the now-famous site of Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, with the remains of a building that is (most commonly) identified as a caravan way-station (caravanserai), ~50 km south of Kadesh Barnea, near the route from Gaza to Elath. The remains date from the 9th/8th century, at a time when the Israelite northern kingdom exercised considerable control over the south. The following painted scene comes from pithos A (Keel-Uehlinger, pp. 211-2):

This illustration has held particular significance in light of the inscriptions found here which (apparently) mention “Yahweh…and His asherah”.  Asherah is the name of a Semitic (and Canaanite) goddess who, in Canaanite tradition, was identified as the spouse of the High God (and Creator) El, and who was worshiped by some in Israel (cf. 1 Kings 15:33; 18:19; 2 Kings 21:7; 23:4). Thus, it has been thought that these inscriptions (also at Khirbet el-Qom) attest to the veneration of the goddess Asherah as the spouse/consort of YHWH (generally equated in Israel with the Creator El). However, in other Scriptural passages, “asherah” seems to refer to a specific kind of cultic object, rather than the goddess—either a sacred tree, or a ritual pole/post that probably is meant to symbolize a tree (cf. Deut 16:21; Judg 6:25ff; 2 Kings 18:4; 23:15, etc).

Almost certainly, based on the symbolic associations documented above (and the shared name, Asherah), this cultic object (tree/pole) ultimately derives from the goddess, presumably as a representation of her. Even so, it is not entirely certain whether (or to what extent) Israelites and Judeans, in the monarchic period (and later), were cognizant of this specific connection. With the persistence of certain religious practices and traditions, continuing (and being adapted) within the context of Israelite/Judean monotheism, much of their original meaning and significance may have been lost. The weight of the Scriptural evidence, however, certainly suggests that the asherah tree/pole was intended as an image (for worship/veneration), and that the Deuteronomic authors (of Judges and Kings) viewed the objects (often referenced in the plural, “asherahs”) as improper and problematic religious elements, in terms of the prohibition against venerating any deities other than YHWH.

The Wisdom-literature setting of Proverbs 3:18 is even further removed from the ancient context that associated the “tree of life” motif with a goddess. The parallels involved with the personification of Wisdom (as a woman) are, to some extent, coincidental, based on the fact that the noun hm*k=j* (“wisdom”) is gramatically feminine. Nevertheless, the Divine nature of Wisdom, as indicated at various points in Proverbs 1-9, coupled with this female personification, has inched the author back closer to the ancient goddess-paradigm. Presumably, the author had no conscious intention of presenting Wisdom as a goddess per se, and yet the archetype remained at hand, if only in the collective consciousness of the people, inherited from millennia-long lines of tradition. In 3:19-20, as also in 8:22-31, ancient cosmological and mythological traditions are recalled, for the purpose of emphasizing the Divine nature and source of Wisdom.

    • Reference marked “Keel-Uehlinger” are to Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel, transl. Thomas H. Trapp (Fortress Press: 1998). Originally published (in German) as Göttinnen, Götter und Gottessymbole (Herder Verlag: 1992).
    • Those marked “Collon” are to Dominique Collon, First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East (University of Chicago Press: 1987). 

October 22: Job 2:11-13

Job 2:11-13
Verse 11

“And (when) three companions of Ayyab heard (of) all this evil th(at had) come upon him, then they came, (each) man from his place of standing—Elîpaz the Southlander, Bildad the Šûaḥite, and Ṣôpar the Na‘amahite—so they (together) as one determined to come to shake (the) head unto him and to sigh (with) him.”

The conclusion of the Prologue (vv. 11-13) serves as a transition from the narrative to the poetic Dialogue-speeches that follow. It introduces the three “companions” (u^r@ II, plur.) of Job who will participate in the Dialogue, each one giving speeches of his own. There is doubtless a bit of wordplay here between the noun u^r@ II (rēa‘, “companion”) and the adjective ur^ (ra‘, “evil”). Also note the play on the use of the common verb aoB (“come”), which occurs three times in this verse: the companions had determined “to come” to see Job, having heard about all the evil that “(had) come” upon him, and so they “came”. Also, there is surely some intentional irony here regarding the earlier use of ur^ in 1:1, 8 and 2:3, repeatedly emphasizing how Job characteristically “turned away” (vb rWs) from evil (thus indicating his essential righteousness), and yet evil has come upon him regardless (his righteousness notwithstanding); cf. Seow, p. 307.
The Targum adds the interesting and colorful (mythological) detail that the companions (while still in their own lands) became aware of the terrible disasters that struck Job “because the trees in their gardens had withered (cf. b. B. Bat. 16a), their food had changed to raw flesh, and their wine had turned to blood” (Seow, p. 306-7).

I have left the names of the three companions and their places of origin (with one exception) transliterated, to avoid cluttering the narrative at this point, and also because the exact meaning of these names remains somewhat uncertain. The name zp^yl!a$ (’Ělîpaz) has been explained as “my Mighty (One) [i.e., God] is Pure/Shining (Gold)”, though other suggestions have also been made. It is apparently an Edomite name, confirmed by the other occurrences in Scripture (Gen 36:4, 10ff, 15-16; 1 Chron 1:35f), as also by the designation of his place of origin as /m*yT@ (Têmān), “South(land)” —that is, specifically a southern Edomite region (which also came to be used for Edom as a whole), Gen 36:15-16; 1 Chron 1:36; Amos 1:11-12; Obad 9; Jer 49:7, 20; Ezek 25:13, and cf. the inscriptions from Kuntillet ʿAjrûd (9th/8th century B.C.) with the reference(s) to “YHWH of (the) Teman”. Cf. Seow (who offers the best linguistic, etc, summaries for all these names), p. 391.

The name dD^l=B! (Bildad), which is apparently attested in Old South Arabic (in the form brdd), may be based on the root brr meaning “be (up)right”; cf. the summary by Seow, p. 526f. His homeland is j^Wv (Šûaḥ, which may be represented by Šuḫu in cuneiform), possibly (northern) Arabia in the vicinity of southern Edom; cf. the occurrences of the name in the context of the Arabian peoples descended (by tradition) from Abraham and Keturah (Gen 25:2; 1 Chron 1:32).

The final name is rp^ox (Ṣôpar), which may be related to the Transjordanian Ṣippôr (Num 22:2, 4, 10, 16; 23:18; Josh 24:9; Judg 11:25), and/or Ṣippôrâ, the Midianite wife of Moses (Exod 2:21; 4:25; 18:2); cf. Seow, p. 608, who also cites possible cognate/parallel forms from pre-Islamic Arabia, as well as examples in Ugaritic and Palmyrene. The place name hm*u&n~ (Na‘ămâ) occurs several other times in Scripture, most of which indicate either a Transjordan (i.e., Ammonite) locale (1 Kgs 14:21, 31; 2 Chron 12:13) or a southern region near Edom (Gen 4:22). Seow mentions a Sabaean tribal name nʿmt, which he compares with the noun nʿmt, “prosperity,” in Old South Arabic.
Instead of the geographical designation yt!m*u&n~ (Na‘amahite), the LXX identifies Zophar as a Minean, and as a king of the Mineans; indeed, all three companions are identified as kings or royal figures, using the term basileu/$.

All three companions came to comfort and console Job in his suffering. Both of the actions mentioned here—viz., “shaking” (vb dWn) the head toward (or in regard to) someone, and “breathing/sighing” (vb <j^n`) with them—are regular idioms applicable to this context.

Verse 12

“And (as) they lifted up their eyes from far (off) and could not recognize him, then they lifted up their voice and wept, and they tore apart, each man his outer garment, and they sprinkled dust upon their heads (from) heavenward.”

The arrival of the three companions is narrated in dramatic fashion, presenting them as they approach and, even from far off, find Job to be unrecognizable (due to his disfiguring physical affliction, cf. the note on verse 7). The verb rk^n` (I) in Hebrew has the basic meaning “recognize” (though the original root meaning seems to be something like “inspect”, cf. HALOT, p. 699), either in the positive sense (i.e., recognize) or the opposite/negative sense—i.e., not recognize (someone), to fail or be unable to recognize them. Here the latter aspect is achieved through the negative particle al), but the verb itself can also carry this sense, i.e., “be strange, different,” sometimes even in the context of wearing a disguise. The derived adjective rk*n@ means “strange, foreign” (sometimes in the specific sense of “hostile”) and the substantive yr!k=n` “stranger, foreigner”. As mentioned in the previous note, the motif of the suffering protagonist as a stranger to his friends and family features in the Psalms of lament, and this can even include (as here) the idea that the person becomes unrecognizable as a result of his/her illness and affliction. The ancient Wisdom-origins of this motif are suggested by its occurrence in the Akkadian-Babylonian text Ludlul bēl nēmeqi (see esp. Tablet I, lines 78-92), which has certain general similarities to the book of Job.

The companions respond to this sight, much as Job himself responded to the announcement (and experience) of the disasters which struck him (1:20; 2:8)—namely, with a series of traditional gesture-acts that indicate mourning:

    • lifting up the voice (i.e., giving out a loud shout/cry)
    • weeping (vb hk*B*)
    • tearing apart a fine outer garment (just as Job did, 1:20)
    • tossing/sprinkling dust on the head
      (these latter two are often mentioned together, e.g., Josh 7:6; 1 Sam 4:12; 2 Sam 13:19)

The directional modifier “toward the heaven” (i.e., heavenward) is meant to depict the act of tossing the dust up into the air, whereby it then falls (i.e., is sprinkled) upon the head. Possibly, as Seow suggests (see his extensive discussion on p. 308), this act here could indicate a “‘ritual identification’ with Job’s suffering”, with the companions effectively calling on heaven to afflict them much as Job has been afflicted (cf. the parallel of Moses throwing soot into the sky, which causes the skin-disease plague [/yj!v=] to break out in Egypt, Exod 9:8-10). Certainly, by tossing dirt upon themselves, the companions are, in real sense, joining Job in the midst of the dust/ashes outside the city (v. 8). For the association of throwing dust upon oneself and sitting/wallowing in ashes, cf. Ezek 27:30; Lam 2:10.

Verse 13

“Then they sat on the ground (there) seven days and seven nights, and there was no one speaking to him a (single) utterance, for they saw that the pain was very great.”

The sense of the companions (symbolically) joining Job, identifying with his suffering (see above), is confirmed by the specific act of sitting down on the ground (i.e., in the dirt/ashes) with him. Here the preposition l= (usually in the directional sense of “to, unto, toward”) means “(up)on”, more or less equivalent with lu^; see Blommerde, p. 37f; Michel, p. 36; Seow, p. 308. They sat there with Job for seven days, and seven nights—a traditional period for mourning the dead (e.g., Gen 50:10; 1 Sam 31:13; Sir 22:12), attested in ancient Near Eastern literature at least as far back as the Gilgamesh Epic (i.e., Gilgamesh mourning the death of Enkidu for seven days/nights). The idea that Job considers himself as effectively dead—his family, wealth, and social position all gone, and now also afflicted by a severe and ugly/disfiguring disease—outcast and sitting in the ashes, has already been discussed. His wife’s words to him (see the previous note on vv. 9-10) only serve to reinforce his nearness to death. Thus, mourning for Job takes place even before his actual death. This same idea is found in the Akkadian-Babylonian Wisdom text Ludlul bēl nēmeqi (cf. above), Tablet II, lines 115ff: “Before my death, mourning for me was completed” (translation Annus-Lenzi).

The Talmud (b. Moʿed Qaṭ. 28b) records a tradition that comforters are to remain silent, not uttering a word until mourner him/herself speaks. As Seow notes (p. 309), this tradition could have been derived from the reference here in the book of Job, though there is cultural-regional evidence for a comparable practice, extending from ancient times into the modern era. Seow, citing a documentary study by A. Musil (Arabia Petrae Vol. 3. [Holder: 1908], p. 413), references a practice by Transjordanian Arabs in the early 20th century:

“As soon as the news of one’s illness is disseminated, relatives and friends come immediately to visit and surround the sick. Silently, without saying a word, they listen to his groans and complaints. Only when he speaks to them do they answer him and lament his condition.”

The mention of this practice here in v. 13, at the end of the Prologue, obviously serves the narrative purpose of preparing the reader for the beginning of the Dialogue, which opens with a speech by Job (i.e., the mourner). In our next note, we will embark on an analysis of this first Dialogue-speech (chapter 3).

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).
    • Those marked “Michel” are to Walter L. Michel, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic, Biblica et Orientalia 42 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1987). 
    • Those marked “Blommerde” are to Anton C. M. Blommerde, Northwest Semitic Grammar and Job, Biblica et Orientalia 22 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1969). 
    • Those marked “Annus-Lenzi” are to Amar Annus and Alan Lenzi, Ludlul bēl nēmeqi: The Standard Babylonian Poem of the Righteous Sufferer, State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts 7 (Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project: 2010). 

October 21: Job 2:9-10

Job 2:7-10, continued
Verse 9

“And his wife said to him, ‘Are you yet holding firm on(to) your completeness? (Go on and) {curse} (the) Mightiest, and die!'”

Somewhat unexpectedly, Job’s wife (lit. “woman”, but in the sense of “wife”) makes an appearance in the narrative. It is her only appearance in the book, and her only role in the drama of the narrative. Both the lack of other detail and the enigmatic nature of her words have led to much pious speculation, by ancient/medieval Jewish and Christian commentators, as well as (in a different way) by modern interpreters. For example, Jewish tradition, as expressed in the Targum as well as other writings (e.g., Midrash Rabbah [on Genesis]), identified Job’s wife with Dinah (Gen 34:7), based primarily on the shared use of the root lbn (v. 10, see below) in both passages; cf. Seow, p. 304. The LXX fills out her role by way of an expanded addition (translation quoted from Seow, p. 304-5):

“How long will you endure, saying, ‘Behold, I will wait yet a little while, expecting the hope of my salvation?’ Behold, the memory of you has vanished from the earth—your sons and daughters, the pangs and travails of my womb that I bore in vain with labor. As for you, with the rottenness of worms in your body, you sit and spend the nights in the open air, while I am a wanderer and a slave, roaming from place to place and house to house, waiting for the setting of the sun, that I may rest from my weariness and my sorrows which now beset me.”

At the heart of much of the speculation lies the interpretive difficulty surrounding her words, and, in particular, her use of the verb Er^B* (“bless”). This verb is used a number of times in the Prologue, sometimes in the ordinary (positive) sense of “bless” (1:10, 21), but other times apparently in the opposite (antithetical/euphemistic) sense of “insult” or “curse” (i.e., speak ill of someone, rather than good, 1:5, 11; 2:5). The question is, whether Job’s wife here is using it in the positive or negative (antithetical/euphemistic) sense. The similarity with the wording of the exchange between YHWH and the Adversary (vv. 3, 5), strongly suggests that the meaning here in v. 9 is the opposite of “bless” —that is, “curse”. The wife, much like the friends of the Dialogue, serves to give voice to conventional ways of thinking. With all of the disaster that has come upon Job, it must seem that his scrupulous religious devotion has been pointless. A similar sentiment is occasionally expressed in the Psalms of lament, cf. 73:13.

Indeed, it is possible to see the figure of Job’s wife as representing two particular tendencies that occur in the lament-Psalms: (1) the idea that the suffering protagonist (esp. where the suffering is connected with disease or illness) has become a stranger to his family and friends, e.g., 38:12[11]; 69:9[8]; 88:19[18]; and (2) the voice of skeptics and scoffers suggesting either (a) that the protagonist’s religious devotion is false, or (b) that it has been foolish or in vain, see esp. 22:8-9 [7-8]. The wife’s words are best understood as an expression of bitterness, rather than mocking; and yet, there does seem to be a certain sarcastic edge, especially to the first portion (treated as interrogative):

“Are you yet holding firm on(to) your completeness [i.e., integrity]?”

The emphatic position of the adverbial particle dou (denoting continuance, “yet, still”) indicates the force of the question—viz., “After all that has happened, are you still holding firm…?” The implication is that there is no point in Job seeking to maintain his piety and devotion. Her final bitter exhortation brings this out: “{Curse} [Er@B*] (the) Mightiest [i.e., God], and die!” In other words, it would be better to curse God and die (thereby being released from suffering), rather than attempt to maintain proper religious devotion and go on living in the midst of such misery and desolation. Conceivably, the same point could be made using the verb Er^B* in the regular sense of “bless”, perhaps along the lines of “Go on and bless God (one last time), and then die!” The author’s dual-meaning usage of Er^B* even allows for the possibility that both aspects of meaning (positive/negative) are in play here in v. 9, which (of course) would make translation of the imperative virtually impossible.

Most ancient and medieval commentators certainly understood the use of Er^B* in verse 9 to mean “curse”. A recognition of loose parallels with Eve from the Genesis Temptation narrative (chap. 3) led to the rather unfortunate characterization of Job’s wife as “the devil’s helper” (diaboli adiutrix, Augustine), or, even worse (from Calvin), “an instrument of Satan … a she-devil … a fiend of hell” (Seow, p. 305). In many ways, the approach of modern commentators has been a reaction to this line of interpretation; there has been an increasing reluctance to view Job’s wife as a ‘mouthpiece for the Adversary’, and even a tendency in the opposite direction—viz., of portraying here as equally pious and devout (in her own way).

The author’s own approach to the figure of Job’s wife is altogether simpler and more straightforward. She functions primarily as a literary-narrative device, and is so utilized in several respects. First, she corresponds to the four messengers of the first episode (1:14-19). Job’s reaction is in response to their message of the disasters that wiped out most of his family and household. Since the disaster in the second episode affected Job’s own person, there was no need for any messenger figure; and yet, the declaration by his wife still allows for a dramatic reaction by Job, and one which highlights again his righteous and devout character.

Second, as noted above, she reflects the conventional religious thinking that is thoroughly rooted in the idea that righteous living and devotion to God should be rewarded. If it is not, then there would seem to be no point to it; if such terrible disasters can strike one who has been faithful to God, then such faithfulness would seem to be in vain. In this regard (and thirdly), the mode of the wife’s thinking corresponds with the Adversary’s prediction(s)—viz., that in the face of unwarranted disaster and suffering, even apparently righteous and ‘complete’ persons (such as Job) will no longer seek to “hold firmly” to their righteousness and devotion.

Verse 10

“But he said to her, ‘Like (the) speaking of one of the contemptuous, (so) you speak! Shall we receive the good from (the) hand of the Mightiest, and not also receive the evil?’ In all this, Ayyab did not sin with his lips.”

Job’s response to his wife is two-fold. First, he rebukes her bitter and sarcastic way of speaking (see above on v. 9), comparing it with those who are truly contemptuous of God. The adjective lb*n` is usually rendered as “foolish”, with the feminine plural here clearly meaning “foolish women”. And yet, such a rendering in modern English can be misleading, even giving a certain sexist tone to Job’s words that may not be intended by the author. In Wisdom literature, foolishness is closely related to wickedness (e.g.,  5:2f; 12:17; 30:8; Ps 74:18, 22; 107:17; cf. Michel, p. 33), and thus to behavior that runs contrary both to wisdom and right(eous)ness. In Aramaic and Syriac, the root corresponding to lbn (II) in Hebrew properly means “be contemptuous, treat (someone) with contempt”, and this is presumably the aspect that is being emphasized here. For literary-poetic concision, and to avoid any unnecessary sexist overtones, I have rendered the feminine plural adjective generally as “contemptuous (ones)” —that is, those who would treat God with contempt. Job seems to accept that his wife is not normally such a person, but has been driven to utter such words out of an overwhelming experience of misery and despair.

The Wisdom-aphorism uttered by Job in the second part of his response matches that of the first episode (v. 21), as an expression of the basic theological tenet that everything a person experiences in this life—good and bad—ultimately comes from God (“from the hand of the Mightiest”).
The verb lb^q*, which is generally synonymous with the much more common jq^l*, “take, receive”, occurs mainly in late (exilic or post-exilic) texts—8 of the remaining 14 occurrences are in Chronicles, Ezra, and Esther; cf. also Prov 19:20. This is probably another indication that the Prologue was likewise composed sometime in the 6th-5th century B.C. The two occurrences in Exodus (26:5; 36:12), as well as the cognates attested in Amarna Akkadian and Ugaritic, etc., would seem to confirm the evaluation that lbq was “an Old Hebrew verb, which was replaced by jql, but under Aramaic influence was later revived” (HALOT, p. 1061); cf. Michel, p. 33f. 

This apparently calm and reasoned acceptance of God’s will is certainly to be regarded as a reflection of Job’s wisdom, and of his essentially righteous and devout character. And yet, it contrasts markedly with the portrait of Job that soon emerges in the Dialogue (beginning with the opening speech of chap. 3)—one who, like his wife, complains and laments bitterly in the midst of his unwarranted suffering and misery. The juxtaposition—compare v. 10 here with 3:1-2ff—is intentional by the author, creating a theological-philosophical and dramatic tension that runs throughout the entire Dialogue. How close, indeed, does Job come to “sinning with his lips” in the Dialogue-speeches! The parallelism of wording in v. 10 and 3:1 is by no means coincidental:

    • “In all this, Ayyab did not sin with his lips”
    • “After this, Ayyab opened his mouth and cursed…”

Interestingly, the Targum anticipates this shift, by adding to the statement at the end of v. 10 the qualifying phrase: “…but in his thoughts he already cherished sinful words” (quoted from Pope, p. 23).

In the next note, we will discuss the remainder of the Prologue-narrative, vv. 11-13.

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).
    • Those marked “Pope” are to Marvin H. Pope, Job, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 15 (1965. 1973).
    • Those marked “Michel” are to Walter L. Michel, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic, Biblica et Orientalia 42 (Rome, Biblical Institute Press: 1987).