Month: November 2025

Priesthood of All Believers: John 2:19-21; Matthew 12:5-6

The Priesthood of All Believers

Jesus and the Gospel Tradition

If we examine the possible basis for the Reformation principle of the “Priesthood of All Believers” in the Gospels, the evidence is virtually limited to the relationship between Jesus and the Temple. It is clear that within the early Christian and Gospel Tradition there came to be marked tendency whereby Jesus himself was identified with the Temple. Insofar as Jesus is identified with the Temple, then his disciples, as his servants, function like the priests who were in service to the Temple (i.e., its maintenance and the ritual observance of its sacrificial and cultic apparatus). For the most part, in the Gospels this identification is expressed only in a seminal fashion, through the preservation and development of key historical traditions. From the standpoint of the three Synoptic Gospels (and the core Synoptic narrative), the chief points of development are three:

    • The Temple-action of Jesus which inaugurated his time in Jerusalem (much of which is spent in ministry, teaching and healing, in the Temple precincts)
    • The Temple-saying(s) of Jesus—viz., (1) the purported saying regarding the destruction and rebuilding of the Temple, and (2) the (eschatological) prediction of the Temple’s destruction
    • The “Sabbath controversy” episodes, in which it is indicated (in various ways and degrees) that the fulfillment of Jesus’ ministry takes precedence over the fulfillment of the Torah requirements and regulations
Temple-Action and Saying: The Jerusalem Period and the Death of Jesus

Since the historical and literary setting for the first two traditions is the short period of Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem, just prior to his death, it is natural both the Temple-action and Temple-saying(s) are closely tied, dramatically and thematically, to the event of Jesus’ death.

In the Markan Gospel, there is no direct reference to the Temple at all prior to the Jerusalem Period, with the first reference occurring at the very beginning of this period, following Jesus’ entry into the city (11:1-10). Upon arriving in Jerusalem, straightaway Jesus enters the Temple (v. 11), and the Temple action scene (vv. 15-19) is among the first episodes of the narrative (it is the very first episode in the Matthean and Lukan versions, which rework or omit the fig-tree scene). Two of the subsequent scenes are specifically set (through their narrative introductions, 11:27 and 12:35) in the Temple precincts; it is notable that these feature two key aspects, respectively, of Jesus’ ministry during the earlier Galilean Period: (i) controversy/conflict with the religious leaders (chief priests, scribes, elders), and (ii) his teaching (cf. 14:49), specifically in connection with his Messianic identity.

The prediction of the Temple’s destruction features prominently at the beginning (vv. 1-2) of the Eschatological Discourse in chap. 13; the destruction of the Temple (fulfilled during the Jewish War, 66-70 A.D.), is a key marker of the end-time period of distress (vv. 3ff). The other (related) Temple-saying is the purported statement by Jesus, adduced during his interrogation by the Sanhedrin, to the effect that Jesus himself would destroy and rebuild the Temple (14:58). The Synoptic narrative presents this statement as the product of false witness (v. 57 par), but the authenticity of it, in substance, is more or less confirmed by Jn 2:19ff (see below); cf. also 15:29 par and Acts 6:14. Finally, at the death of Jesus, it is related that the curtain in the Temple was torn in two (15:38 par), thus reaffirming the association between Jesus and the Temple that governs and frames the entire Jerusalem Period narrative.

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke both follow the core Synoptic/Markan narrative regarding the Jerusalem Period, though each develops and expands upon it in various ways. The Matthean Gospel holds closely to the Markan narrative of Jesus’ time in Jerusalem, but there are significantly more references to the Temple sprinkled throughout the narrative. Most notably, is the reference, immediately following the Temple-action (21:12-13), to the healing miracles performed by Jesus there in the Temple precincts (v. 14). The entirety of vv. 14-16 represents a Matthean expansion of the traditional pericope. Jesus’ identity as both the prophetic Messiah (viz., healings in the manner of Elijah, etc) and the royal/Davidic Messiah (v. 15) is confirmed by the actions that he performs in the Temple, much to the displeasure of the “chief priests and scribes”. The people come to the Temple to encounter Jesus the Messiah; his position in the Temple precincts in this regard represents a decided development of the Tradition, further identifying Jesus himself with the Temple. The same occurs with the Sabbath Controversy episode of Mk 2:23-28 (Matt 12:1-8), discussed below.

The Lukan narrative of the Jerusalem Period also emphasizes the ministry performed by Jesus while he is present in the Temple, only the focus is on his teaching (19:47; 20:1; 21:5, 37-38) rather than the performance of healing miracles. This is in accordance with the broader Lukan theme of the transformed purpose of the Temple—prayer, teaching, and the proclamation of the Gospel—in alignment with the symbolism of the early Christian mission. The Temple features prominently in both the Lukan Infancy narrative (1:9ff, 21-22; 2:27, 37, 46ff) and the early chapters of the book of Acts (2:46; 3:1-3ff; 4:1; 5:20-26, 42; cf. also Lk 24:53). The presence of the disciples preaching in the Temple (5:20ff) matches the earlier references to Jesus teaching in the Temple (Lk 2:46ff; 20:1ff), illustrating how the early Christian mission represents an extension and continuation of Jesus’ own Messianic ministry.

John 2:13-22

The Johannine Gospel combines the Temple-action and Temple-saying of Jesus, but situates them at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, rather than the end. In spite of this literary position of the episode, the emphasis on Jesus’ death clearly indicates the correct chronological position (viz., Jesus’ presence in Jerusalem shortly before his death). The two episodes of chapter 2, much like the visionary Son of Man saying in 1:51, serve to encompass and to epitomize the entirety of the incarnate Son’s earthly ministry—its beginning (Cana miracle, 2:1-12) and its end (Temple-action, 2:13-22).

The structure of the Johannine Temple-scene should first be noted, for it supplies the framework necessary for interpretation:

    • The Temple action (vv. 13-16)
      • Parenthesis (v. 17): “His disciples remembered…” —citation of Psalm 69:9
    • The Question (v. 18): “What sign do you show us…?”
    • The Temple saying (vv. 19-20[21])
      • Parenthesis (v. 21-22): “His disciples remembered…” —in between (1) interpretation of the saying, and (2) a statement of the disciples’ later belief

The Temple action (vv. 13-17). The account of the “cleansing” derives from the same historical tradition that underlies the Synoptic version. If the quotation of Isa 56:7/Jer 7:11 was part of the common tradition, the Gospel writer has omitted it—replacing it with different/historical words of Jesus, or, perhaps, ‘explaining’ the quotation. Another Scripture appears in the parenthesis, from Psalm 69:9: “The ‘zeal’ of [i.e. for] your house has eaten me (up)”. The word usually translated “zeal/jealousy” (ha*n+q!) has the basic sense of “(burning) red”, the Greek word zh=lo$ properly “heat/fervor”. The Septuagint (LXX) renders the Hebrew quite literally, and the quotation in John follows the LXX (B), reading the future tense (katefa/getai “will eat me down [i.e. devour me]”). The future form, of course, betters suited the verse as a prophecy related to Jesus; indeed, reflection on Psalm 69 helped shape the Gospel tradition of his Passion (as indicated in v. 17a), and is doubtless one of the key texts used to show that the Messiah must suffer and die (see especially Luke 24:25-27, 44-46). There is a slight ambiguity here in the Psalm: while the ‘zeal’ is generally understood of the protagonist (or Psalmist)—that he is consumed with (righteous) fervor—it could also be taken to mean, in the overall context of suffering, that his righteous zeal has caused him to be “eaten up” by his enemies. The citation in the Gospel could be interpreted, or made to apply, either way. Since it is associated with Jesus’ “cleansing” action, the image primarily would be the intense nature (all-consuming fire) of his ‘zeal’ for God’s house; but it is also possible that a bit of wordplay is involved—a foreshadowing of Jesus’ death that connects with the Temple saying in vv. 19-22.

The Question (v. 18). The highlighting of this verse is based, in part, on the theory that the Gospel writer has joined together separate traditions. However, even looking at the narrative (2:13-22) as a whole, the question the “Jews” ask remains central. It is similar to the question asked by the religious authorities in Mark 11:28 par.— “By (what) such authority [e)cousi/a] are you doing these (things)?” —but the difference in wording here is especially significant:

“Therefore the Judeans {Jews} gave forth (a response) and said to him: ‘What sign [shmei=on] do you show [deiknu/ei$] that you (should) do these (things)?'”

The noun shmei=on and verb deiknu/w (which occur in sequence in the Greek of v. 18) are both important words in the Gospel of John, carrying theological-christological meaning. With regard to deiknu/w, the closely related (and more common) verb dei/knumi is used in reference to what the Father shows the Son, and, in turn, what the Son shows (the world) from the Father (Jn 5:20; 14:8-9; also note 10:32; 20:20). Shmei=on (pl. shmei=a) is used frequently in John—Jesus’ symbolic actions (particularly the miracles) are called “signs” (Jn 2:23; 3:2; 4:48; 6:2, 14, 26, 30; 7:31; 9:16; 11:47; 12:18, 37; 20:30); on the basis of the references in Jn 2:11; 4:54, chapters 2-12, with their alternation of miracle and dialogue/discourse, are sometimes referred to as the “Book of Signs”. The use of shmei=on and deiknu/w here serve to transition from the traditional “cleansing” action to the deeper meaning of the Temple saying (in its Johannine context).

The Temple saying (vv. 19-22). What remains is to treat this powerful and provocative saying of Jesus (v. 19):

“Loose [i.e. dissolve] this shrine [nao/n] and in three days I will raise it (up again).”

There is a parallel structure between the two verses 18 and 19:

    • Introduction: “Therefore the Judeans gave forth (an answer) [a)pekri/qhsan] and said [ei@pan] to him”
      • Question: “What sign are you showing that you (should) do these (things)?” (v. 18)
    • Introduction: “Jesus gave forth (an answer) [a)pekri/qh] and said [ei@pen] to them”
      • Answer: “Loose this shrine and in three days I will raise it” (v. 19)

It is possible that saying in verse 19 was originally separate from the “cleansing” episode (Temple-action), and that the Gospel writer has joined the two traditions together. Whether or not this is the case, the parallelism indicated above demonstrates precise, careful handling of the material; one might extend the structure, by considering v. 18-19a as a chiasm introducing the saying:

      • The Judeans answered/responded and said
        • “What sign are you showing…?”
      • Jesus answered/responded and said…

The imperative lu/sate seems to put the challenge to the Judeans—i.e. “(Even) if you were to destroy/dissolve this Temple…” or perhaps “Go ahead and destroy this Temple…” —but there is some uncertainty that this represents the original form of the saying (see below).

One common element of the references to the Temple saying (with the possible exception of Mark 14:58) is that those who heard it assumed that Jesus meant he would destroy the actual (Herodian) Temple. The Synoptic Gospels record that Jesus, in fact, did predict its destruction (Mk 13:1-2 par). How people understood the second half of the saying is not as clear: the Markan version presented at the ‘trial’ indicates that Jesus would build a Temple “made without hands”, by which probably was meant a real (physical) building, but one produced miraculously (possibly coming down out of Heaven). In John, the Judeans naturally question how Jesus could rebuild something comparable to the Herodian Temple (which took “forty-six years to build”) in just three days. This is an example of the wordplay, and theme of misunderstanding, which appear frequently in the Fourth Gospel—Jesus’ audience takes his words at the (superficial) level of their apparent meaning, and miss their deeper (true, spiritual) significance. This is clear from the Johannine interpretation which follows in vv. 21-22.

These verses, by the Gospel writer, finally determine how one must interpret the saying in the text as it stands. This interpretation is summarized first in v. 21—

“But that one [i.e. Jesus] related/spoke about the shrine [nao/$] of his body”

and then is expounded (parallel with verse 17) in v. 22—

“Therefore, when he was raised [h)ge/rqh] out of [i.e. from] the dead, his learners [i.e. disciples] remembered that he had said this, and they trusted in the Writing and the account [i.e. word] which Yeshua had said.”

The Temple saying as recorded by the Synoptics (at the ‘trial’) also uses the word nao/$ (“shrine”), presumably for the Temple as a whole (also in v. 20 here), even though the word more properly applies to the inner Sanctuary (“Holy Place”). Similarly the term i(ero/n (“sacred-place”), though it also could be used for the entire Temple (precincts), in the “cleansing” episode almost certainly it refers to the outer court (i.e. of the Gentiles). By bringing these two traditions together, the Gospel writer here creates an important juxtaposition between i(ero/n and nao/$—the nao/$ Jesus was speaking of was the (inner) sanctuary/shrine of his body. In this regard, the significance in his use of e)gei/rw (“raise”) in v. 19 is obvious. 

This is all part of a wider Johannine theological theme of Jesus replacing, or fulfilling, the Old Testament religious types and symbols—the focus moves away from the physical Jerusalem Temple (both sacred-precincts and shrine) to the Person of Jesus. This theme recurs, in various forms, throughout chapters 3-12, as Jesus appears in Jerusalem during the various feasts and holy days (Sabbath, Passover [twice more], Sukkoth, and Dedication/Hanukkah). Ultimately, Jesus will be depicted as the sacrificial (Paschal) Lamb slain (on the cross) on the eve of Passover (Jn 19:14, 31-36).

This diminishing of the Temple’s importance, of priority given to the Spirit over the physical/material, is reflected elsewhere in the Gospel of John (see esp. Jn 4:21-24; 6:63). In the Johannine book of Revelation, the Heavenly Temple of God is mentioned (Rev 7:15; 11:19; 14:15-17; 16:1, 17), virtually to the exclusion of the earthly (11:1-2). In the final vision of the Heavenly Jerusalem, it is stated that there is no Temple [nao/$] in it—for the Lord God Almighty is its Temple [nao/$], along with the Lamb (21:22).

The Sabbath Controversy Episodes (Matthew 12:1-8)

Outside of the Gospel of John (see above), the most significant Gospel reference identifying Jesus with the Temple is the saying in Matt 12:5-6—a Matthean addition to the core Synoptic episode of Mark 2:23-28 par (Matt 12:1-8). 

The structure of the scene (in its Synoptic/Markan form) is reasonably simple and straightforward:

    • The narrative setting and action—the disciples plucking grain on the Sabbath (v. 23)
    • Reaction by certain Pharisees (v. 24)
    • Jesus’ answer to them—an example from Scripture (vv. 25-26)
    • Saying(s) of Jesus (vv. 27-28)

The saying (or pair of saying) in verses 27-28 provides the central significance of the scene and characterizes it as a pronouncement episode (the earlier scene in vv. 13-17 is another such episode). It may also be designated as one of several key “Sabbath Controversy” episodes in the Synoptic Gospels (cf. also Jn 5:9ff, 16ff; 9:14ff). In these episodes, Jesus takes action on the Sabbath that is view by some people (viz., religious leaders who are opposed to Jesus) as violations of the Sabbath restrictions. In this particular episode, it is Jesus’ disciples who perform the action, causing some Pharisees to react with disapproval. 
For the background to the Sabbath observance involved in this passage (cf. Exod 34:21, etc), consult my earlier discussion on the Sabbath controversy episodes in the series “Jesus and the Law”.

In response (vv. 25-26 / Matt 12:3-4), Jesus cites an example from Scripture, from the life of David (1 Sam 21:1-6). Even though, in the context of that passage, the Temple had not yet been built, and the sanctuary (at the time) was located at the site of Nob, it is referred to as the “house of God” (o( oi@ko$ tou= qeou=), which could be applied easily enough to the Jerusalem Temple, as we see from the expanded form of Matthew’s version (below). The basic message is clear enough: caring for human need (in this case, hunger) takes precedence over religious regulations (i.e. the Temple ritual, cf. Lev 24:5-9).

The episode culminates (vv. 27-28 / Matt 12:7-8) with a saying by Jesus (or, possibly, a pair of sayings). It is not entirely clear whether the Gospel here has joined together separate sayings by Jesus, or whether they entered into the tradition originally as a dual-saying (perhaps the latter is more likely). The saying in verse 27 is relatively straightforward, though commentators have not always grasped the full consequence of it. Jesus essentially reverses the original sense of the Sabbath Law (and tradition)—it was instituted to commemorate God ceasing (or “resting”) from His work of Creation (Exod 20:8-11, etc). Yet Jesus states that it was put in place “through [dia] man”—that is, on behalf of, for the purpose and benefit of, human beings. This, of course, is also part of the basic Sabbath Law (Exod 16:23-29, etc). But in this particular context—with the emphasis on the care and concern for the needs of human beings—the Sabbath regulation takes on a humanitarian, rather than ritual, purpose. Given the thrust of verse 27, it is possible that v. 28 is parallel to it. In the Semitic (Hebrew/Aramaic) idiom, the expression “son of man” is often synonymous with “man”, the two being set as parallel frequently in Hebrew poetry, i.e. “man…son of man…” (Num 23:19; Job 16:21; Psalm 8:4; Isa 51:12, et al). In such instances, it refers to humankind generally. If this is the sense in which Jesus uses it here, then the dual saying would be understood something like:

“The Sabbath was put in place for man, not man for the Sabbath
Even so, is man the lord of the Sabbath!”

In other sayings and situations, however, Jesus uses the expression “son of man” in a different sense—(1) in reference to himself, both as a human being, and/or as the Chosen One of God, and (2) specifically identifying himself as the divine/heavenly representative of God (“the Son of Man”) who will appear at the end-time Judgment. For more on this subject (and this particular saying), see my recent series “Who Is This Son of Man…?”. 

The Matthean and Lukan versions of this episode largely follow the Markan narrative, but with certain notable differences (discussed in an article in the series “Jesus and the Gospel Tradition”). For example, it is significant that neither Matthew nor Luke has the saying corresponding to Mk 2:27. The lack of any reference to the first saying (about man) effectively removes the possibility that the expression “son of man” is meant in the generic sense in the second saying (12:8; 6:5, cf. above). In Matthew and Luke, almost certainly, it is understood as a (self-)title of Jesus and should be translated so—i.e., “Son of Man”. The saying then takes on a different emphasis; Jesus is identifying himself as the “Lord of the Sabbath”. The implication of this is clear enough—as the Lord over the Sabbath, Jesus’ words and actions, his ministry and personal presence, take precedence over the Sabbath laws. Whether or not the Pharisees properly interpret the regulations ultimately is beside the point; the emphasis is on Jesus’ authority over the Sabbath.

If there were any doubt in this regard, Matthew’s version makes it abundantly clear, by way of the ‘additions’ which are found in verses 5-7. These are three-fold:

    1. A second example from Scripture involving the Priesthood (v. 5), which makes the point in a different manner—the priests who work in the Temple on the Sabbath day are not guilty of violating the Sabbath.
    2. A saying involving the Temple (v. 6): “(one) greater than the Temple is here”. Compare the form of similar sayings (from the so-called “Q” material) in Matt 11:11; 12:41-42 par. Jesus takes the point a step further by essentially declaring himself to be greater than the Temple. The implication, in light of the example in v. 5, is that those who work in his service (i.e. his disciples) on the Sabbath do not violate it. It is but a small step to extend this principle to the entire Temple ritual, and, indeed, the Law (Torah) as a whole. On this, see the detailed discussions in the series “Jesus and the Law“.
    3. A citation from Hosea 6:6—(in Greek) “I wish (for) mercy, not (ritual) slaughter [i.e. sacrifice]”. Jesus quotes this same verse earlier (Matt 9:13 par), part of the core Synoptic tradition. Here it is even more pointed, in relationship to observance of the Law—”If you had known what (this) is [i.e. what the Scripture means]…you would not have brought down ju(dgment) (on) the (one)s (who are) without cause (of guilt)!” I.e., human beings (and, especially, Jesus’ own followers) who care for ordinary needs through ‘work’ on the Sabbath (even if it technically violates the regulations) are not guilty of any such violation.

Verse 5 would be categorized as “M” material (i.e. a tradition found only in Matthew); most likely this is so for the sayings in v. 6 and 7 as well, but these are harder to judge, on critical grounds. Regardless of the source of these traditions, their presence in Matthew’s version evinces an unmistakable development of the tradition. His version of the episode goes beyond the Markan and Lukan accounts, giving it a Christological resonance lacking in the other versions. Not only is Jesus the Son of Man and Lord of the Sabbath—but his authority is greater than even the Law and the Temple itself.

It is in this respect that the Matthean version of the grain-plucking episode establishes the conceptual template for viewing the disciples of Jesus—and, by extension, all believers—as priests. If Jesus is to be identified with the Temple (and even something greater than the Temple), then his disciples (who serve him) are akin to the priests who perform ritual service on behalf of the Temple. The example given in verse 5 altogether confirms this point of emphasis. 
Even though the comparative adjective mei=zon (functioning as a substantive, “[something/someone] greater than”) in v. 6 is neuter, it still should be understood as referring to the person of Jesus rather than as a more generalized or abstract reference (cf. Davies-Allison, p. 314). It has been suggested that the referent is to the Kingdom (of God); even if this were correct, though it would somewhat alter the theological-Christological point of emphasis in the passage, it would have little effect on the specific motif of believers as priests (in service to the Kingdom [and to Christ]). 

In our next study, we will examine the early Christian mission (as narrated in the early chapters of the book of Acts), along with specific consideration of the missionary work of Paul, as we continue to explore the historical and theological basis for the concept of the “priesthood of believers”.

    • References marked “Davies-Allison” are to W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, vol. 2, International Critical Commentary [ICC] (T&T Clark International: 2004).

November 28: Job 4:10-11

Job 4:10-11
Verse 10

“(The) roaring of (the) lion—
both (the) voice of (the) fierce (one)
and (the) teeth of (the) shaggy (one)s—
are pulled out!”

The proverbial animal references in vv. 10-11 need to be understood in the context of the description of God’s judgment (punishment) of the wicked in vv. 8-9 (see the previous note). The wicked may seem fierce and strong, like lions, dangerous and eager to kill (and devour prey)—but God, in His judgment, will render them powerless, eliminating (lit., pulling out, vb ut^n`) both their frightening voice and their deadly teeth. On the use of the lion (as a metaphor for the wicked) elsewhere in the Wisdom tradition, cf. Psalm 17:15; 22:14[13], 22[21]; 34:11[10]; Prov 28:15 (Pope, p. 36).

Five different words for “lion” (including, perhaps, different kinds of lions) are used in vv. 10-11, making translation difficult, especially since the precise derivation and meaning of the nouns remains somewhat uncertain. Yet it is necessary to preserve the distinction in terminology, at least to some extent, without overly distorting the poetic rhythm. The lion metaphor is established in the first line, using the basic noun hy@r=a^ (I), which may denote a “wild animal” generally, but in Hebrew specifically refers to a lion. The “roaring” (hg`a*v=) of the lion in the wild signifies its strength and ferocity, but also the tremendous danger (peril) that it poses to weaker animals.

The inner two lines of the quatrain (see below), as I understand the verse, expound the initial image of the first line. The “roar” of the lion, indicated visually by the beast’s open mouth, comprises both the sound (“voice”) and the threatening image of the animal’s “teeth”. The exact meaning of the two lion-terms in these lines is uncertain. The first noun (lj^v^) has been related to Arabic ṣahala, possibly denoting the noisy howling/bellowing of an animal, but also to saḥlu, “young (animal)” (cf. Guillaume, p. 81; Seow, p. 397). I have sought to capture both aspects, rendering the term descriptively as “fierce (one)” (cf. RSV). The second noun (ryp!K=, plur.) may be related to the Arabic jafara (“to grow”, that is, a hair-coat), thus derived (perhaps) from a putative root rpk (II) with the meaning “be covered (with hair)” (HALOT, p. 494). If this is correct, then the reference may be to the shaggy mane of the male lion; I have tentatively translated the plural here as “shaggy (one)s”.

Both metrically and syntactically, this verse must be parsed as an irregular 2+2+2+1 quatrain. The three 2-beat lion-phrases are followed by the climactic single-beat verb line, describing God’s action (using the passivum divinum, the passive with God as the implied actor). The verb ut^n`, “pull out, break off”, relates most directly to the image of the lion’s teeth (in line 3); however, it is to be applied to all three lines joined together (zeugma), including the voice/sound of the lion’s roar. In this regard, “pulled out” is a far more appropriate translation than “broken out/off”.

This verb occurs only here in the Scriptures but is related semantically to Jt^n` (“pull down/out”, cf. Ps 58:7[6]). As Seow (p. 397) notes, the root utn (ntʿ) 

belongs with the group of Hebrew roots beginning with nt– that suggest elimination or removal: ntḥ (Pi.), “cut up” (Jewish Aramaic “to tear down”; Arabic nataḫa, “to remove hair”; Tigrinya natḥa, “to pluck out”); ntk, “to pour out”; nts, “to tear open”; ntṣ, “to tear down”; ntq, “to tear away”; ntr, “to tear away,” and ntš, “to tear apart.” Possible cognates include Syriac ntʿ, “to tear away, pluck out”; Ethiopic natʿa, “to flee, escape, withdraw, retreat” 

Cf. the survey by Michel, pp. 85-6. The LXX curiously translates ut^n` with sbennumi, “put out”, in the sense of “quench, extinguish”. 

Verse 11

“(The) lion is perishing from lack of prey,
while (the) sons of (the) lion are scattered.”

 The two lion-terms in this couplet are contained in the alliterative pair vy]l^ (layiš) and ayb!l* (lāḇî’). Again, the etymologies of these nouns are uncertain, as is the distinction intended between the two. The contrast is best understood simply as between an adult (male) lion, who goes out hunting for prey, and the young offspring (cubs) who remain with the mother. The removal of the lion’s power and vitality (v. 10) results in the death/demise of the animals. The adult hunter is no longer able to capture prey as he once did, and the young cubs, finding their food source and social structure disrupted, end up being “scattered” (and presumably perishing themselves). The noun [r#f#, translated “prey”, properly denotes something that is torn (verbal root [r^f* I). Without its ferocious teeth, the lion is unable effectively to kill and tear/rend its prey.

    • 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 “Guillaume” are to A. Guillaume, Studies in the Book of Job, with a New Translation, edited by John Macdonald, Supplement II to the Annual of Leeds University Oriental Soceity (Brill: 1968).

November 27: Job 4:8-9

Job 4:8-9
Verse 8

“As I have seen, (those) plowing trouble
and sowing harm, they reap (the same).”

 The implication of Eliphaz’ prior words (vv. 6-7, see the previous note), to the effect that an upright person can trust that he/she will be treated fairly by God, is that suffering comes (most often) as the result of punishment (by God) for wickedness and unfaithfulness. This represents the conventional thinking and orthodox religious worldview that, generally, connects suffering (from illness, etc.) and disaster with sin. The proverbial statement here in verse 8 similarly reflects such a view. It is framed as an anecdotal observation, but the illustration functions as a proverbial maxim.

Such agricultural illustrations are common to Wisdom-traditions, particularly so here, in that the sowing/reaping parallel suggests a clear cause-effect correlation, as well as an allusion to the lex talionis principle whereby the punishment a person faces matches the crime (in nature and manner). In this instance, the person who sows trouble and misfortune will reap the same. In other words, the wicked will be punished (in like manner) for their wicked ways. The same basic illustration is used in Prov 22:8 and Hos 10:13 (cf. also Gal 6:7-8).

Though the plowing (vb vr^j*) and sowing (vb ur^z`) technically represent different aspects (and stages) of the agricultural process, it is clear that the terminology is being used in reference to a single mode of (wicked) behavior. This is confirmed by the fact that the nouns /w#a* and lm*u* (I) are practically synonymous and interchangeable in this context (they are similarly paired together elsewhere in Biblical poetry, 5:6; 15:35; Psalm 7:15[14]; 10:7; 55:11[10]; 90:10; Isa 10:1; Hab 1:3). We have already seen a number of examples of such conceptual wordplay—true synonymous parallelism in which different terms are used ostensibly for the same thing. The basic denotation of the root /wa is “(use of) strength” while that of lmu is “exertion”; the derived nouns /w#a* and lm*u* each carry the primary meaning of “trouble”, either trouble experienced by a person (implying suffering and misfortune) or caused by them (i.e., by the wicked). In order to preserve some slight distinction between the terms in translation, I have rendered them as “trouble” and “harm”, respectively (translators show considerable variation in how these are rendered). Clearly, the reference to trouble that is caused by (typically wicked) persons. The two stages of the agricultural process (plowing/sowing) suggest a degree of planning and concerted effort.
The verb vr^j*, which basically denotes cutting a groove (that is, in the ground, in the case of plowing), can also be used in the more figurative (and intellectual/volitional) sense of planning, devising. In addition to the parallel motif of “plowing” (i.e., devising) wickedness (Hos 10:13), the idiom occurs in the form of plowing/devising evil as well (Prov 3:29; 6:14; 12:20; 14:22); one may also, in the positive sense, plow/devise what is good (Prov 14:22), cf. Seow, p. 396.

The initial phrase—yt!ya!r* rv#a&K^, “according to that which I have seen” (for poetic concision rendered, “as I have seen”)—seems to function as a circumstantial clause that introduces (and frames) the proverb. As Clines (p. 109) notes, the poetic structure of the verse does not match its syntactical structure, producing a certain tension and contorted quality to the couplet which is likely intentional and done for poetic effect. In other words, the phrase “(those) plowing trouble and sowing harm” should be treated as a unit, and yet here it is broken, divided across the two lines. Even so, a loose chiasm is present in the couplet:

    • “As I have seen
      • (those) plowing trouble
      • and sowing harm
    • they reap (the same)”

There is a clear parallelism with regard to the inner lines (practically a hendiadys), but even the outer lines reflect a definite logic that frames Eliphaz’ point—viz., it can be seen and demonstrated that the wicked themselves receive misery and calamity, etc., for the trouble they cause.

Gordis (pp. 44, 47) renders the syntax of the couplet in a slightly different manner; conformed to my translation above, v. 8 would read:

“Whenever I have seen (people) plowing trouble
and sowing harm—they (end up) reaping (the same)!”

Verse 9

“From (the) breath of (the) Mightiest they perish,
and from (the) wind of His nostrils they are finished!”

 The trouble and misery that the wicked “reap” comes as punishment from God. This could be easily inferred from v. 8 itself, but it is made explicit here. The fate of wicked ultimately is death, expressed here by the parallel verbs db^a* (“perish”) and hl*K* (“be finished”, i.e., come to an end); any punitive suffering that they experience in their life prior is preliminary to the final punishment of death.

As with the pairing of /w#a* and lm*u* in verse 8 (see above), the noun hm*v*n+ and j^Wr are synonymous—both mean “breath, wind”. As Michel (p. 84) notes, when these terms occur in the book of Job they always refer to God (cf. 27:3; 33:8; 34:15; 37:10-11). The breath/wind of YHWH often signifies a destructive judgment that comes upon the wicked—e.g., 15:30; Exod 15:8; Ps 18:16[15]; Isa 30:33; cf. also Isa 11:4. The burning/flaring of the nostrils ([a^, sing.) is a regular idiom for anger, especially when applied to God. The underlying imagery is surely that of an angry bull (or other powerful beast) snorting and expelling hot wind from its powerful nostrils. As throughout the Dialogue, the Divine name/title H^ola$ (Eloah) is used, rather than the more common <yh!l)a$ (Elohim).

    • 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 “Clines” are to David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20, Word Biblical Commentary vol. 17 (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 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 “Gordis” are to Robert Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Studies, Moreshet Series, Studies in Jewish History, Literature and Thought, vol. 11 (The Jewish Theological Seminary of America: 1978).

Wednesday Wisdom: Proverbs 4:10-19

Lecture 6: Proverbs 4:10-19

The sixth Lecture is the first of a pair dealing specifically with the path-motif that is so fundamental (and familiar) to Wisdom literature. We have already seen this motif utilized a number of times in the Lectures and poems of chapters 1-9 (see most recently in 3:23, 26, 31f, and also the allusion in 4:5). In Lectures 6 and 7, respectively, the two sides of the dualistic “two paths” concept (cf. Psalm 1, etc) are in view—viz., the straight path of Wisdom (and of the wise/righteous ones) vs. the crooked path(s) of folly (and the foolish/wicked ones). The crooked path is primarily emphasized here in Lecture 6, while the straight path is in focus in Lecture 7. However, the basic instruction and message is the same: one must keep to the straight path and avoid/shun the crooked path(s).

Commentators such as Fox (pp. 178-9ff, 183), Schipper (p. 176) and Müller (p. 25) view the main Instruction section as covering vv. 11-17, divided thematically into two parts, reflecting the “two paths” theme—(i) the path of Wisdom (vv. 11-13) and (ii) the path of the wicked (vv. 14-17). However, I am inclined to treat vv. 11-13 as part of the initial exhortation (introduction/exordium) that precedes the Instruction. This is similar to the view of Meinhold (pp. 93-94f), who regards vv. 10-12 as the introduction and vv. 13-17 as the main Instruction (Hauptteil).

My outline for this Lecture thus is:

    • Introduction (Exordium) Verses 10-13, identifying the father’s instruction with the way of Wisdom
    • Instruction, Verses 14-17, on the importance of avoiding the way of the wicked
    • Lesson (proverb/maxim), Verses 18-19, contrasting the way of the righteous with that of the wicked
Introduction (Exordium): Verses 10-13
Verse 10

“Hear, my son, and receive my sayings,
and many for you will be (the) years of life!”

As with all of the Lectures of chapters 1-9, there is an initial exhortation from a father to his son (“my son”), urging him to pay close attention to the teaching of Wisdom (which is represented by the father’s parental instruction [“my words/sayings”]). The common verbs um^v* (“hear”) and jq^l* (“take, receive”) are regularly used in this context. Also typical is the promise of a long and full life if one heeds the voice of Wisdom (cf. 3:2, 8ff, 16ff; 4:4). This is expressed here by the declaration “(the) years of life…will be many [vb hb*r*]”; in 3:2, the promise is “length of days and years of life” (cf. 9:11).

Waltke (p. 283) notes that the w-conjunction on the imperfect following an imperative signifies purpose; the second line thus could be rendered “(so) that (the) years of life will be many for you”.

Verse 11

“(For) in (the) path of wisdom I give you direction,
help you tread the path by tracks of straightness.”

In this next couplet, the father makes clear that the instruction he gives to his son represents the teaching of Wisdom, by which a person will be able to follow the path of Wisdom. As noted above, this is yet another instance of the path/walking motif—a frequent idiom of Wisdom tradition (as of ethical-religious instruction in general). Numerous terms are used to express this motif, but the most common is the noun Er#D# (“path”, that is, on which a person walks or treads). The corresponding verb (Er^D*, “tread, walk”) is used in the second line, creating a bit of cognate wordplay that is often obscured in translation (cf. here, “path” / “tread the path”). The Hiphil (causative) form of the verb means “cause to tread”, which in the current didactic context may perhaps be rendered “help (one) to tread” —that is, in the sense of giving guidance and direction.

This guidance is expressed by the verb hr*y`, another regular Wisdom term (from which the noun hroT is derived). The basic meaning of the verb is “point the way”, with the primary connotation of giving direction (in the ethical-religious sense). The Hiphil (causative) stem is also used here for this verb. The direction enables the son to tread the path of Wisdom, which is a straight (rvy) path. The adjective rv*y` (“straight”) is another frequent Wisdom term, which likewise is used strictly in an ethical-religious sense; that is, the image of the straight (and level) path is applied as an illustration of upright (righteous) conduct in life. The noun lG`u=m^ denotes a wagon-track, but often in the more general sense of a well-worn and clearly defined track. It is one of the path-terms, and was used earlier in 2:9, 15, 18 (cf. also 4:26; 5:6, 21). Thus, as applied in this context, the father’s teachings are clear and well-established guidelines that keep a person on the straight path of wisdom. The implication is that these are not innovations, but ancient and traditional teachings, preserved and handed down from one generation to the next. This aspect of an authoritative and reliable line of tradition was highlighted in the previous Lecture (cf. the previous study).

The literal expression, “tracks of straightness” (rv#y) yl@G+u=m^), would be rendered more naturally in English as “straight tracks”; however, the construct expression as it stands implicitly emphasizes that the path reflects the “straightness” (i.e., righteousness) of God/Wisdom, rather than simply that the path be characterized as “straight”. Conceptually, as well as religiously and ethically, there is little difference between the path of Wisdom and the path of God. Similarly, the “instruction” (hr*oT) given in the Wisdom-texts parallels the Divine Instruction (Torah) given to Israel; the application of the same path/walking motif to the specific religious setting of Torah and the covenant can be seen, for example, in Deuteronomy 8 (cf. Schipper, p. 177).

The perfect verb forms in this verse are rendered as present tense; they may be regarded as occurrences of the “instantaneous perfective” (Waltke, p. 283). 

Verse 12

“In your walking, your stride will not be straitened,
and (even) if you should run, you will not stumble.”

There is alliterative wordplay here between the noun rv#y) (yōšer), “straightness”, in v. 11, and the verb form rxy@ (yēṣar), a yiqtol/imperfect form of the verb rr^x* (I), “tie up, bind”, often in the more general sense of “hinder, restrict”, or (intransitively) “be constricted, cramped”. In order to capture something of the wordplay (with rv#y)), I have translated rx^y@ as “will be straitened”, i.e., in tight straits, in a tight/cramped spot. That is to say, there will be nothing hindering a free and broad stride along the path (cf. Psalm 18:37 [36], compared with Job 18:7). Nor will there be any obstacles—nothing to trip up a person, causing him/her to stumble (vb lv^K*). The LXX understandably harmonizes the second line with Isa 40:31: “and if you run, you will not become weary”.

Schipper (p. 179) cites an Egyptian tomb-inscription from the Ptolemaic period: “Whoever walks on your [i.e., the deity’s] path is one who will not stumble”.

Verse 13

“Taking firm hold of instruction, do not loosen (your grip);
keep (close) watch over her, for she (is) your life!”

The exhortation concludes with this climactic couplet, which also serves as a transition into the main Instruction. There is a shift away from the path-motif, utilizing a different idiom—namely, that of holding firmly to Wisdom. The verb used to express this is the common qz^j*, “take firm hold, grab/grasp firmly”, as in 3:18 (cf. also 7:13). The opposite is to loosen one’s grip (vb hp*r*)—that is, to let go of Wisdom, equivalent to the idea of abandoning Wisdom, viz., leaving her teachings behind, neglecting them, etc. A comparable idiom is that of guarding or keeping watch over Wisdom’s teaching; the verb rx^n` (“keep watch [over]”) is used here (cf. 3:1, 21; 4:6), but rm^v* (“guard”) works just as well. There may be some slight alliteration between the verb rx^n` and the form rx^y@ in v. 12 (see above).

As Fox (p. 180) notes, feminine pronouns and suffixes are used in this verse, even though the noun rs*Wm (“correction, instruction, discipline”) is masculine. This confirms that rs*Wm, which is a regular Wisdom-term, is being used more or less synonymously (and interchangeably) with feminine hm*k=j* (“wisdom”). The point of reference throughout is Wisdom, personified as a female; as mentioned above, the father’s teaching (“instruction”) represents Wisdom.

The final phrase, “for she (is) your life”, can be understood several ways:

    • the young man should devote his life to Wisdom, following the path of Wisdom at all times, every day
    • a long and full life will result from heeding the teachings of Wisdom (see above on verse 10)
    • Wisdom will guard and protect the life of the one who keeps watch over (i.e., guards) her (cf. verse 6, discussed in the previous study)
Instruction: Verses 14-17
Verse 14

“In(to the) pathway of (the) wicked you must not come,
nor stride forth in (the) path of (the) evil (one)s.”

The Instruction proper begins here with this couplet warning the young man against walking on a different (and opposite) path—namely, the path of the wicked ones. The parallelism of the lines is synonymous, though structured chiastically:

    • “In (the) pathway of (the) wicked
      • you must not come
      • you must not stride
    • in (the) path of (the) evil (one)s

The regular path-terms jr^a) and Er#D# are used synonymously (and in parallel), both meaning “path[way]”. This “path” is characterized as “wicked” and “evil”, being the path (i.e., the daily conduct and behavior) taken by those people who are wicked/evil (in contrast to the righteous). The negative particle (la^) along with the jussive verb forms (i.e., vetitives) in the inner phrases (functioning as prohibitions), makes it clear that the young man must avoid such paths of conduct. It is important not to enter (“come”) into them in the first place; and, if one should happen to stray onto such a path, one must leave it as soon as possible (getting back onto the straight path), rather than continuing on it (“striding forth”). The latter verb is rv^a*, “stride, march, lead forth” (cf. Ugaritic aṯr); this verb is relatively rare in Scripture, occurring just seven times (including twice more in Proverbs, 9:6; 23:19).

The LXX translates the verb rv^a* here in terms of envy: “you must not be jealous [mhde\ zhlw/sh|$]…”, alluding to the related Wisdom-theme warning against envying the apparent success and prosperity that the wicked may achieve in this life. Cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 110.

Verse 15

“Leave it alone—do not pass over on(to) it,
(but) turn from (being) on it and pass over!”

The message from verse 14 is essentially repeated here, but with a different aspect of the prohibition being emphasized. This emphasis is expressed by the initial directive to “leave it alone” —i.e., leave the path of the wicked alone, do not go/come near it. The verb ur^P* “let go, let loose” can be used in the specific context of letting one’s hair ‘hang loose’, or of letting a person (or animal) ‘run wild’ —both of these contextual applications are suggestive of wicked and lawless (unrestrained) behavior. In this case, however, it is the very path of the wicked that is to be “left alone”. In this regard, there may be some conceptual wordplay with the verb hp*r* (“let loose”) in v. 13.

Parallel with the verb ur^P* is the idiom of turning away from the path. Usually, this idiom applies to the negative aspect of turning from the right/straight path (cf. 1:25; 8:33; 13:18; 15:32), but here it carries the positive sense of turning away from the wicked path. The verb hf*v*, in particular, is used for the idea of going astray from the right path (7:25; Num 5:12, 19-20, 29); in all of these instances, marital unfaithfulness is involved. Given this usage, Fox (p. 181) may be correct in his suggestion that the word is “deliberately incongruous” as the author applies it here.

There is also an incongruous double-meaning in the two occurrences of the verb rb^u* (“pass/cross over”); in the first line it refers (negatively) to passing over onto the wicked path, while in the second line it refers (positively) to passing over away from that path. As in verse 14, the first line warns against entering onto the wicked path, while the second line warns against staying on that path.

Verse 16

“For they cannot sleep if they have not caused evil,
and their sleep is robbed if they do not bring stumbling.”

The characteristic conduct (= “path”) of the wicked is described in this couplet, emphasizing their preoccupation with causing evil and harm to others (see earlier in 1:11-16 and 2:12-15). They are ‘kept up at night’ (i.e., unable to sleep) if they have not fulfilled their wicked inclinations during the day (cf. Psalm 36:5[4]; Mic 2:1). In the case of both the verb uu^r* (“be bad/evil”) and lv^K* (“stumble”, cf. verse 12b), the Hiphil causative stem is used—i.e., “cause evil”, “cause (someone) to stumble”. That is to say, the actions by the wicked cause harm to others. The qere Wlyv!k=y], which reads a Hiphil form, is to be preferred over the kethib (Wlovk=y]).

Regarding the motif of sleeplessness, there may be an implicit (comparative) reference to the sweet and restful sleep that comes as a blessing to the wise/righteous one (cf. 3:24).

Verse 17

“Indeed, they eat (the) bread of wickedness
and (the) wine of violence they do drink!”

Even more emphatically (and I treat the initial yK! particle here as emphatic “Indeed…”) this final couplet describes the characteristic behavior of the wicked. They nourish themselves every day by eating uv^r# (wickedness) and drinking sm*j* (lawlessness/crime marked by violence), cf. 1:16. The translation “eat (the) food of wickedness” would better preserve the relationship between the verb <j^l* and the noun <j#l#, but then the more concrete image-parallel of “bread” / “wine” would be lost. Wine, of course, with its resemblance to blood is a suitable image for referencing acts of violence. The same pairing of bread/wine symbolizing the daily conduct of the wicked, occurs in 9:5. The combination of being unable to sleep (until committing violence), v. 16, and drinking blood (= wine) is found in the proverbial illustration of Num 23:24. The idiom of drinking is similarly applied to habitually acting in a wicked and lawless manner in Job 15:16; 34:7 (cf. Fox, p. 181, also quoting Radaq).
The plural form of sm*j* could refer (as a numeric plural) to distinct acts of violence, or it could be regarded as an intensive or comprehensive plural.

A loose parallel may be found in the Egyptian Instruction of Ptahhotep (lines 581-2, as cited by Schipper, p. 182; cf. Fox, p. 181):

“He lives on that by which one dies,
His food is distortion of speech.”

Lesson: Verses 18-19
Verse 18

“But (the) pathway of (the) righteous (is) as light gleaming,
walking and giving light until (the) setting in of the day,”

The path (jr^a)) of the righteous is completely opposite to the path of the wicked. If the path of the wicked is dark and evil, bringing harm to others, the path of the righteous is glowing and shining with light.

The couplet follows the pattern of the prohibition-couplets in vv. 14-15, whereby the first line refers to the beginning of the path, while the second line alludes to its continuation and fulfillment. Thus, the start of the right path here is compared to the coming of light at the start of the day. The specific expression is “light of gleaming” (Hg~n) roa), the noun Hg~n) (“glow, gleam”) essentially referring to the glow of dawn. The sun proceeds to give light until the fullness of daylight arrives. The idiom “walking and giving light” (= “proceeding to give light”) naturally reflects the path/walking motif of the first line (and throughout the Lecture). By mid-morning, the light of day will have firmly set in (from the verb /WK, “be firm/fixed”, with /okn+ functioning distinctly as a verbal noun, cf. Fox, p. 183). On the natural association of righteousness with shining light, cf. Psalm 97:11; Isa 62:1-2; Dan 12:3, etc.

Waltke (p. 284) renders the initial w-conjunction as “now”, which more clearly defines the start of a new section. My translation as “but” emphasizes the intended contrast. In either case, the –w is disjunctive.

Verse 19

“(while the) path of (the) wicked (is) as the darkness—
(and) they do not know by what they may stumble!”

The path (Er#D#) of the wicked has been the focus of the Instruction (see above), but here it is specifically contrasted with the path of the righteous (v. 18). This is an early example of the dualistic “two ways” theme (cf. Psalm 1), as well as reflecting the traditional Wisdom-contrast between the righteous and the wicked. In these two couplets, the contrast is framed proverbially, by way of an illustrative maxim that provides the concluding lesson for the Lecture. The lesson informs the earlier instruction, giving a further reason why the path of the wicked should be avoided. Because the path of the wicked is characterized by darkness (here, hl*p@a&) rather than light, one can easily stumble (vb lv^K*, vv. 12, 16) on it. This alludes to the idea that the wicked, even as they look to harm others (vv. 16-17), end up harming themselves in the process. In causing others to stumble, they themselves stumble and fall; cf. 1:18-19, 31-32. This may happen without the wicked even realizing (or expecting it): “they do not know by what they might stumble”. The widespread nature of this Wisdom-imagery is attested to, for example, by Jesus’ use of it in John 11:10; 12:35.

    • 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 alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 432 (Walter de Gruyter: 2012).
    • Those marked “Meinhold” are to Arndt Meinhold, Die Sprüche, Teil 1: Sprüche Kapitel 1-15, Zürcher Bibelkommentare, AT 16.1 (Theologische Verlag Zürich: 1991).
    • Those marked “Müller” are to Achim Müller, Proverbien 1-9: Der Weisheit neue Kleider, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 291 (Walter de Gruyter: 2000).

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 146

Psalm 146

Dead Sea MSS: 4QPse (v. 1); 11QPsa (vv. 9-10)

This Psalm is the first of the final collection (146-150) of the Psalter. Each of these hymns of praise begins and ends with the exclamation Hy` Wll=h^ (Hal®lû-Y¹h), “Praise YH(WH)!” (other Psalms begin and/or end the same way, cf. 104:35; 105:45; 106:1, 48; 111:1; 112:1; 113:1, 9; 115:18; 116:19; 117:2; 135:1, 21). The thematic focus of these hymns is on the (universal) Kingship of YHWH. Indeed, much as in the prior Ps 145 (cf. the previous study), YHWH is praised and exalted as the Creator and King over the entire universe, with the expectation that all people/nations will come to acknowledge and worship Him. A similar thematic emphasis can be found in other Kingship Psalms (esp. the collection of Pss 93-100). It is unquestionably a hymn (of praise), and yet, as Hossfeld-Zenger note (p. 609), one can also detect Wisdom-elements in the Psalm. As we have discussed in earlier studies, many Psalms were influenced by Wisdom-traditions, particularly as they were developed/redacted and/or applied to a didactic (teaching) or communal worship setting.

There would indeed appear to be a close relationship, both linguistically and in terms of thematic emphasis, between Psalm 146 and the prior 145, to the point that a common authorship is possible. Goulder (p. 284) summarizes a number of important links (cf. also Hossfeld-Zenger, p. 616). Note, for example, the use of the rare noun rb#c@ (“expectation, hope”) in verse 5, with the corresponding occurrence of the verb rb^c* in 145:15. The phrasing in v. 10 resembles that of 145:13, and there are also close parallels of wording between vv. 6c-8b and 145:14-16.

Psalm 146, like all of 146-150, is generally regarded as being a late (post-exilic) composition, perhaps even the creation of the final editors/redactors of the Psalter (cf. Hossfeld-Zenger, p. 612). The strong emphasis on the universal Kingship of YHWH, along with the Wisdom-elements and a number of presumed ‘Aramaisms’ (to be mentioned), would seem to confirm this general conclusion. Also noteworthy is the large number of apparent intertextual references to other Psalms and Scripture passages (see esp. the parallels in the Wisdom-books and [Deutero-]Isaiah). Hossfeld-Zenger conveniently provide a list of the parallels on pp. 610-11 (cf. also Kselman, p. 589), and they will be mentioned at various points in the notes below.

I am in agreement with Allen (pp. 374-5, 377) on the structure of this Psalm. An opening/closing declaration of praise (vv. 1-2, 10), along with the Hy` Wll=h exclamation, frames the hymn proper. The hymn is to be divided into two parts (vv. 3-6b, 6c-9), but I would not regard these as strophes or stanzas. Rather, the two parts, separated thematically, are linked together poetically and syntactically, forming a loose chiastic structure:

    • Praise of YHWH (as King) [vv. 1-2]
      • The insecurity of human rulers and their kingdoms [v. 3]
        • The influence of human rulers perishes (with them) [v. 4]
          • YHWH is the hope for those who are in need [v. 5]
            • Characteristics of YHWH as Creator [v. 6ab]
            • Characteristics of YHWH as (the ideal) King [v. 6c-7b]
          • YHWH gives help to those in need [v. 7c-8b]
        • YHWH has lasting beneficial influence over society [v. 8c-9a]
      • The security provided by YHWH as King [v. 9bc]
    • Praise of YHWH as King [v. 10]

The contrast is made in the outer ‘ring’ of the hymn (in blue), while the theological portrayal of YHWH Himself (as King) forms the core (green). In addition, one can detect chiastic structures in each of the two parts (cf. below).
A similar chiastic structure was noted by Kselman, who, in the rhetorical outline he presents (p. 591), specifically identifies the outer ring (vv. 3-4, 8c-9) as a matching pair of Wisdom couplets. On the Wisdom-elements in the Psalm, see the notes below.

The theme of Part 1 (vv. 3-6a) is the contrast between ordinary human rulers and YHWH, who is the Creator and King of the entire universe. In Part 2 (vv. 6b-9), YHWH is portrayed as the ideal king who establishes and maintains a just, healthy, and blessed society (something that human rulers are unable to do).

Metrically, Psalm 146 is irregular; however, it is generally governed by a 3-beat meter (3+3 couplets and 3+3+3 tricola). Part 1 is comprised of four couplets, while Part 2 also has four verse-units (2 tricola, followed by 2 couplets)

Introduction: Verses 1-2

Verse 1

Praise YH(WH)!
“Praise YHWH, O my soul!”

Following the initial Hy` Wll=h^ exclamation (cf. above), the Psalm opens with a call to praise YHWH. The Psalmist gives the directive to himself (“my soul”), and the same wording occurs in Pss 103 (vv. 1-2, 22) and 104 (vv. 1, 35).

Verse 2

“I shall sing to YHWH in (all of) my living,
I shall make music to (the) Mightiest in my being.”

This couplet, in which the Psalmist declares his desire to praise YHWH—with song and music—for the rest of his life, is identical with 104:33 and presumably represents a quotation from that (earlier) Psalm. This is all the more likely given the parallel in wording between v. 1 and 104:1, 35 (mentioned above). The parallel expressions, indicating the idea of duration of life, are a bit difficult to translate: “in my life/living” | “in my continuing [dou] (to live/exist)”. For poetic concision, I have translated the latter as “in my being” (that is, being alive).

Hymn, Part 1: Verses 3-6a

Verse 3

“You should not put your trust in nobles,
in a son of man, with whom there is no safety.”

The wording of this couplet, which establishes the point of contrast between human rulers and YHWH, seems to be inspired (if not borrowed, loosely) from Ps 118:8-9. The designation “son of man” characterizes the rulers as created human beings. The noun byd!n` denotes someone who is “ready and willing” (and able) to act, in a position of leadership; the use of the adjectival substantive “noble” in English is as good a translation option as any. There is a definite chiasm to this verse:

    • “Do not put your trust
      • in nobles
      • in a son of man
    • there is no safety”

The noun hu*WvT= can also be translated “salvation” or “saving”; but, since the verbal root uv^y` (“save”) can have the nuance “keep safe”, and the idiom of putting trust (or seeking refuge) in someone suggests the idea of protection, the translation “safety” seems appropriate.

The syntactical construction employing a relative particle v along with the suffixed preposition ol (“[belonging] to him”) is almost impossible to translate literally in English: “who there is not (belonging) to him (any) saving [i.e., ability to save]”. The construction “who…to him” needs to be rendered in English as “to whom”; for poetic concision, the prepositional expression is translated “with whom there is no…”. The use of v as the relative particle is usually regarded as a sign of late (post-exilic) composition. Though it reflects an ancient Semitic particle (cf. Akkadian šu/ša) and was used at earlier periods in Hebrew, it was eventually replaced by rv#a&; in later texts, presumably under the influence of Aramaic, it resurfaced and came into general use again. It occurs most frequently in Qohelet (68 times) and the Song of Songs (32 times); it appears 10 times in the Psalter, all occurrences being in the fifth book (cf. 124:1; 129:7; 136:23; 137:8-9; 144:15).

Verse 4

“(When) his breath goes out (and) he returns to his soil,
in that day (all of) his plans (will) have perished!”

The unreliability of human rulers was stated in v. 3; now the Wisdom-couplet of verse 4 gives a primary reason: it is because all humans are mortal and eventually die. Even the noblest ruler will eventually die, to be replaced by another, producing a basic instability and uncertainty as to the effect the change will have on society. When the ruler (or noble, leading figure) dies, all that he/she accomplished (for good) will perish—that is, the specific deeds will not continue.
The noun /oTv=u# occurs only here in the Scriptures. It is taken as an Aramaic loanword (from the root tvu I, “think to do [something], intend, plan”, cf. Jon 1:6); this might be an indication of a late (post-exilic) date for the Psalm, though, as Dahood (III, p. 341) notes, it is attested already in the 8th century Sefire inscriptions. The plural here means “plans”, i.e., “(all) his plans”, all that he had planned to accomplish. 

There is likely an allusion here to Ps 104:29, in which it is specified that YHWH is the one who removes the person’s “breath” (or “spirit”, j^Wr). While Gen 3:19 is the principal reference regarding humans returning to the dirt of the ground, it finds an echo in Wisdom-texts—cf. Job 10:9; 34:14-15; Qoh 3:20; 12:7. The tradition that human beings are formed from the dirt of the ground (or ‘earth’), featuring in the Creation narrative (Gen 2:7, along with the motif of the breath/spirit coming from God), finds expression in the Psalms and Wisdom-texts (cf. Ps 103:14 etc) as well. The same Genesis-tradition utilizes the wordplay between <d*a* (“man, [hu]mankind”) and hm*d*a& (“land, ground, soil”), which also occurs here. In this regard, Allen (p. 374) would translate /d*a* /B# (“son of man”) in v. 4 as “earthling”; the rendering is awkward, but it does preserve something of the wordplay in Hebrew (i.e., “earthling” / “earth”).
Dahood (III, p. 341) would translate hm*d*a& as “land”, referring to the realm underneath the surface of the earth (i.e., depths of the earth, netherworld) from which the protagonist (as a human being) came to be born (cf. Ps 139:15; Qoh 12:7; Job 1:21).

Along with numerous commentators (e.g., Allen, Hossfeld-Zenger), I treat the first line as a temporal-circumstantial clause: i.e., protasis— “(When) his breath goes out…”, apodosis— “(then) in that day…”.

Metrically, verse 4 is a 4-beat (4+4) couplet, deviating from the overall 3-beat pattern.

Verse 5

“Happy (is he) who (has the) Mighty (One) of Ya‘aqob as his help,
and (who places) his hope upon YHWH his Mightiest—”

The contrast, between human rulers and YHWH, is made here in this couplet, worded as a beatitude (using the formula, “Happiness of [yr@v=a^]…”, i.e., “How happy is…!”). This beatitude-formula became a staple of Hebrew Wisdom literature and features in a number of Psalms (most recently, 144:15; cf. especially 1:1). For the specific focus of the beatitude on those who have YHWH as their God, cf. 33:12; 144:15; here the beatitude is narrowed to those who place their trust in YHWH (i.e., the faithful/righteous ones), who rely on Him for help and salvation—cf. Ps 2:12; 84:6[5], 13[12]. The negative proposition in v. 3—viz., that one should not trust in human rulers—finds its positive expression here—i.e., rather, one should trust in YHWH the Great King. The rare noun rb#c@ (from the root rb^c*, Piel “expect, hope for”) means “expectation, hope”, with the connotative sense of “trust” and “confidence”. Elsewhere in Scripture, this noun occurs only in Ps 119:116; it has been regarded as an Aramaism, with the verbal root being common in Aramaic (= rbs in Biblical Aramaic).

The preposition B= in the first line should probably be regarded as an instance of the B–essentiae, to be rendered “as” —i.e., “as his help”; cf. Allen, p.375, Hossfeld-Zenger, p. 608.

Metrically, verse 5 is a 4+3 couplet, following the 4-beat couplet of v. 4; a 3-beat pattern is maintained for the rest of the Psalm (couplets, with tricola in vv. 6c-8b.

Verse 6ab

“(the One) having made heavens and earth,
the sea, and everything that (is) in them!”

This climactic couplet establishes the reason why people should trust in YHWH (v. 5), just as verse 4 gave the reason why one should not trust in human rulers (v. 3). Since He is the Creator of the entire universe (“heaven and earth”, cf. Gen 1:1ff; Exod 20:11), YHWH has the power to accomplish anything. The participial phrasing, with the participle (of the verb hc*u*, “make/do”) functioning as a verbal noun designating YHWH, according to a characteristic action (in this case, creating)—cf. Ps 115:15; 121:2; 124:8; 134:3. The same point of emphasis—i.e., that since YHWH is the Creator, He is able to give any help that is needed for His people—occurs in Ps 121:2 and 124:8. YHWH’s identity as the Creator also provides the basis for acknowledging Him as King over the universe. The wording is close to the prayer of Ezra in Neh 9:6 (cf. Goulder, p. 286f).

Hymn, Part 2: Verses 6c-9

Verse 6c-7b

“(He is) the (One) guarding firmness to (the) distant (future),
making (right) judgment for (those who are) oppressed,
(and) giving bread for (those who are) hungry.”

The connecting hinge between the two parts of the Psalm is the syntactical form of the attributive participle phrase—viz., a phrase governed by a participle (verbal noun) describing a fundamental attribute or characteristic of YHWH (in terms of distinctive/regular action) i.e., YHWH is “the (One) doing {such}”. This syntax begins (and governs) the couplet of v. 6ab, and also the tricolon here in v. 6c-7b. The syntactical device actually is utilized in a number of praise-Psalms; for example, it features throughout Ps 104, a Psalm which definitely seems to have influenced Ps 146.

The main participial phrase occurs in line 1, designating YHWH as the One “guarding [i.e., who guards] firmness”. YHWH as a guardian and protector (esp. of the righteous ones among His people) features prominently in the Psalms (in relation to the wider theme of Divine protection); on the use of the substantive verbal noun (vb rm^v*, “guard”, i.e., “the [one] guarding”) to express this, see Ps 145:20. Here, it is specifically tm#a# (“firmness”) that is guarded by YHWH. This noun (along with the related hn`Wma$) is regularly used in the sense of “faithfulness, trustworthiness”; it is a fundamental characteristic of YHWH, but also of the righteous (viz., those who are faithful to YHWH and the covenant). Here, it is used with three contextual layers of significance:

    • YHWH safeguards (and will not violate) His own faithfulness and trustworthiness
    • He guards and protects those who are faithful to Him
    • He protects and maintains “firmness”, in the sense of justice and what is right, throughout society.

This last aspect is particularly in view here, as the following two lines make clear. Indeed, this entire second part of the hymn emphasizes the Kingship of YHWH, portraying Him as the ideal King, who establishes and maintains justice, creating a safe and secure social environment for human beings. These are accomplishments that are frequently extolled in ancient Near Eastern literature, reflecting characteristic attributes of the ideal ruler. Particularly important is the ideal of providing justice for the vulnerable and oppressed. In modern parlance, we would refer to this as “social justice”; it is a key point of emphasis in the Prophets, but we also find it repeatedly in the Psalms as well. In the Psalms, the focus is typically on YHWH acting to bring justice (i.e., “making right judgment”) for the lowly and oppressed in society—who are often identified specifically with the righteous. In addition to establishing a just society, the ideal ruler also ensures that the people are well-fed and secure in their material circumstances. Food (“bread”) is provided for even the poorest members of society—poverty making their hunger all the more acute.

In terms of close intertextual parallels, the second line seems to reflect Ps 103:6 (a near-quotation), while emphasis in the third line can be found in Ps 107:9; on YHWH as the source for food (for humankind), in a more general sense, cf. 104:28; 136:25; 145:15. Relating specifically to the theme of YHWH’s Kingship, the ideal of providing justice for the oppressed is mentioned in other Kingship-Psalms—e.g., 99:4; cf. 9:8-9 [7-8] ff; 68:6-7 [5-6]; 82:3-4.

Dahood (III, p. 342) proposes that <lwu in the first line be vocalized <l!Wwu&, a passive participle of the verb lwu (I), signifying unjust/wrong action; the passive participle (substantive verbal noun) would thus refer to “(those) treated unjustly”. Such a reading creates a tighter parallelism for all three lines, matching the format of the three lines in vv. 7c-8b.

Verse 7c-8b

“(It is) YHWH loosening (the bonds of those) bound,
YHWH opening up (the eyes of the) blind,
YHWH raising (those with backs) bent down.”

As the ideal Ruler, YHWH also alleviates the suffering that takes place in society. He sets loose (vb rt^n`) those who have been bound (in prison), cf. 68:7[6]; 105:20; 107:10, 14. This can be understood in either a literal/concrete or figurative sense; if understood concretely, then presumably it refers to people who are imprisoned or put in bondage (from debt, etc) unjustly. The joining of the motif of releasing people from prison (i.e., out of the darkness) with the figurative idea of opening the eyes of the blind occurs several times in Deutero/Trito-Isaiah (42:7 [cf. 49:9]; 61:1); its appearance here in the Psalm may be due to that influence. The third line is very close to Ps 145:14b.

If the characteristic actions of YHWH are expressed by way of participles (verbal nouns), the situation of the oppressed/afflicted in society is correspondingly expressed with (passive) participles and similar verbal adjectives. In v. 7a the verb is qv^u* (“press [against], oppress”), in 7b it is bu@r* (“[be] hungry”); in v. 7c, the verb is rs^a* (“bind”), in 8a it is rW#u! (“[be] blind”), and in 8b [p^K* (“bend [down], be bent”).

Verse 8c-9a

“YHWH, (He is) loving (the) righteous (one)s,
YHWH, guarding (the) strangers (among them).”

In this 3+3 couplet (shifting from the two 3+3+3 tricola of vv. 6c-8b), the theme also shifts—from YHWH maintaining justice in society as a whole (protecting the weak and oppressed, etc) to his caring for the community of the righteous ones (i.e., those among His people who are devout and faithful to the covenant). The idea of YHWH showing love to the righteous/faithful ones occurs a number of times in the Psalms—e.g., 11:7; 37:28; 99:4.

YHWH also shows care for the strangers (rG@, plur.) who reside among His people. Such ‘aliens’ do not belong to the community of the faithful, but they are still under YHWH’s protection. These resident strangers/aliens are among the most vulnerable people in society, and concern for their welfare (along with that of the widows and orphans, v. 9bc) is emphasized throughout the Scriptures (see esp. Deut 10:18).

Verse 9bc

“(The) orphan and (the) widow He surrounds,
while (the) path of (the) wicked He bends away.”

In many ways, this couplet continues the thought of the prior (v. 8c-9a) the lines are formally parallel, but in a motivic-thematic sense vv. 8c-9 form a chiastic unit (cf. also Kselman, p. 595):

    • YHWH’s love for the righteous
      • He guards the stranger
      • He surrounds the orphan and widow
    • YHWH’s opposition to the wicked

The outer lines emphasize the contrast between righteous and wicked—a dualistic orientation that occurs frequently in Wisdom literature (and in many Psalms). The inner lines exhibit synonymous parallelism, expressing the protection that YHWH (as the ideal King) provides to the most vulnerable members of society.

Given these two relational axes, the use of the verb dou (I) in v. 9c is somewhat ambiguous. According to the protection motif, and parallel with the verb rm^v* (“guard”), the translation “surround” or “encircle” seems appropriate. However, the idea of care being shown (to the weak and vulnerable) might also suggest the meaning “bring around” (in the sense of “restore”). The meaning of “surround” could also be taken in the sense of “embrace”, which would be fitting as a parallel to the love YHWH shows to the righteous. Dahood (III, p. 342) argues that the verb form dd@ouy+ is to be derived from a root ddu (II), related to Ugaritic ġdd, meaning “swell, surge” (possibly also with the connotation of “rejoice”); Dahood renders it here as “reassure”.

The use of the term Er#D# (“path”), in the figurative sense of regular/habitual conduct (i.e., ‘way of life’), is another indication of the Wisdom-influence on this Psalm. This path/walking idiom features prominently in Wisdom literature (see esp. Proverbs 1-9) and occurs in a good number of Psalms as well (see esp. all throughout Psalm 119). The righteous walk a straight path, which is the path of Wisdom (and of God), while the wicked go astray and deviate from the path, walking upon bent/twisted/crooked paths. In this instance, however, it is stated that YHWH Himself bends/twists (vb twu) their path—i.e., pushes them away from Him (in contrast to His closely surrounding/embracing the righteous). The contrast between the two paths—viz., of the righteous and the wicked, respectively—provides the conceptual framework for the Wisdom Psalm 1.

The Qumran manuscript 11QPsa contains an additional couplet between vv. 9 and 10. Unfortunately, the fragmentary nature of the text makes it impossible to reconstruct the couplet completely. In substance, the Psalmist calls on “all the earth” to revere (and worship) YHWH; the basis for such praise is the declaration (“making known”) of the great works (hcum, plur.) and “mighty deeds” (hrwbg, plur.) that He has performed. These deeds include YHWH’s work as Creator, but also refers to the many things that He has done on behalf of His people (Israel) during their history. This is a fundamental thematic emphasis in the Kingship-Psalms, as we have seen. On the (missionary) role of the righteous Israelites (represented by the Psalmist) in “making known” the nature and deeds of YHWH to the nations, see below on v. 10. 

Conclusion

Verse 10

“YHWH shall be King (even) to (the) distant (future),
your Mighty (One), O Șiyyôn, for cycle and cycle!.”
Praise YH(WH)!

The concluding couplet declares that the Kingship of YHWH shall endure even into the far distant future (<l*oul=), a period covering generation after generation (“for circle and circle”, i.e. ,”for cycle and cycle”, in English we would say “from cycle to cycle”, “from generation to generation”). The expressions <l*ou[l] and rd)w` rd)[l] are both regular temporal-durative terms (i.e., denoting a long period of time) that are frequently paired in Hebrew poetry.

The righteous/faithful ones are connected here with the city of Jerusalem (Zion) and the Temple. The symbolic association remains valid, even if (as most commentators assume) the Psalm is post-exilic in date. As Allen (p. 379) expresses it, Zion here is “a synonym for the worshiping community”. It also reflects the central focal point of YHWH’s Kingship—i.e., YHWH rules from Jerusalem and his ‘throne’ in the Temple sanctuary. Even after the Temple was destroyed, this symbolism would have remained vital, becoming ever more closely connected with the theme of YHWH’s universal Kingship (i.e., His rule over the entire world). The righteous ones of Israel/Judah play a key role in the eschatological mission of announcing the Kingship of YHWH to all the surrounding nations. In a certain sense, early Christians picked up on this eschatological mission, as can be seen especially from the thematic symbolism in Acts 1-2ff, with the early Christian mission being initially centered in Jerusalem, from whence the proclamation of the Kingdom of God would spread out to the nations.

    • 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 “Goulder” are to Michael D. Goulder, The Psalms of the Return: Book V, Psalms 107–150, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 258 (Sheffield Academic Press: 1998).
    • Those marked “Kselman” are to the article by John S. Ksleman, “Psalm 146 in its Context”, The Catholic Bible Quarterly [CBQ] 50 (1988), pp. 587-99.

Studies on the Spirit: The Flesh, the World, and the Devil (Study 16)

The Flesh, the World, and the Devil

Study 16: The World (Part 11)

In the previous two studies (14 & 15), we examined the Johannine use of the term ko/smo$ (and the ko/smo$-concept) in the Farewell Discourse (13:31-16:33) and the chap. 17 Discourse-Prayer of Jesus. In the Farewell Discourse, as in the earlier Discourses of chaps. 3-12, the expression “the world” seems to function virtually as a synonymous designation for “the Yehudeans” (i.e., Jews) who are opposed to Jesus and his ministry. This striking application of the ko/smo$-terminology (in its full negative force) to “the Jews” has troubled many commentators.
The issue was dealt with at length in a 2006 monograph by Lars Kierspel, The Jews and the World in the Fourth Gospel: Parallelism, Function, and Context, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament [WUNT] 220 (Mohr Siebeck).

However, the apparent identification of “the world” with “the Jews” is somewhat misleading. During the period of Jesus’ ministry, the missionary witness was directed almost exclusively to other Jews (Judeans); therefore, the only manifestations of “the world” —in its opposition and hostility to Jesus—were Jewish. This begins to change in the Farewell Discourse and the chap. 17 Discourse-Prayer, as the focus shifts to the mission of the disciples of Jesus (i.e., believers), with the recognition that the early Christian mission—which is a continuation of Jesus’ own mission—will spread out, beyond its Jewish boundaries, into the wider (Greco-Roman) world (cf. also the foreshadowing of this in 12:20-21ff). Thus, it is anticipated that the disciples (believers) will soon experience a hostility from “the world” that is non-Jewish. It is “the world” that is opposed to God and hostile toward His Son (and toward believers); in this regard, Jews only represent “the world” insofar as they are opposed to Christ and the Gospel. In the Passion narrative that follows (chaps. 18-19), the Roman Empire (and its leadership) features prominently as representative of “the world”, and it is to the ko/smo$-references in these chapters that we now turn. 

John 18:36-37

The Johannine version of the Roman interrogation scene of the Passion narrative (18:23-19:16a) has been considerably expanded, primarily through the inclusion of the dialogue-units of 18:33-38 & 19:9-11. The framework of this scene follows the established Gospel tradition, as presented in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 15:1-20 par); the main difference is that the scourging and mocking of Jesus occurs at the center (19:1-3), rather than the end (Mk 15:15-20), of the narrative. Meanwhile, the dialogue-units themselves represent uniquely Johannine contributions (there is nothing like them in the Synoptic version[s]).

In quality, style, and tone, the dialogue-units very much resemble the Johannine Gospel Discourses of Jesus, and are utilized to make the same sort of theological point of emphasis—viz., regarding Jesus’ identity as the (pre-existent) Son sent from heaven by God the Father. Pilate misunderstands the true meaning of Jesus’ words, just as the hearers regularly do in the Discourses. The message regarding the Kingdom of God in these sections is rooted in the historical-traditional question of the kingship of Jesus, which is given a Johannine interpretation that Pilate cannot possibly understand (except, perhaps, unwittingly and ironically).

The seven-episode division of the scene, established by a number of commentators (see, most notably, Brown, pp. 857-9), is sound and accurate, and I have adopted it. As Brown illustrates (p. 859), the scene has a chiastic structure, with the divisions regulated by whether the action takes place outside of the praetorium chamber, or inside:

    • Outside (18:28-32)—the Jewish delegation demands Jesus’ death
      • Inside (18:33-38a)—Pilate questions Jesus about his kingship
        • Outside (18:38b-40)—Pilate finds Jesus not guilty; choice between Jesus and Barabbas
          • Inside (19:1-3)—Roman soldiers scourge/mock Jesus
        • Outside (19:4-8)—Pilate finds Jesus not guilty; “Behold the man”
      • Inside (19:9-11)—Pilate questions Jesus again about his identity
    • Outside (19:13-16a)—the Jewish delegation obtains a sentence of death for Jesus

According to this outline, the dialogue sections are clearly parallel and provide the main theological framework for the scene. This framework is based on the historical tradition, bare as it is, of the Roman interrogation of Jesus (as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels). Pilate asks Jesus directly: “Are you the king of the Yehudeans?” (Mk 15:2), and this is just how the first dialogue section in the Johannine version begins:

“Then Pilatus again came into the praetorium and gave voice [i.e. called out] to Yeshua, and said to him: ‘Are you the king of the Yehudeans?'” (v. 33)

The answer Jesus gives, in the Synoptic versions, is somewhat ambiguous, particularly in the Markan version: su\ le/gei$—which could be taken as an affirmation (“You have said it”), or a more evasive and challenging answer (e.g., “If you say so”, “You say that”). The longer response, in the Johannine version, is definitely not a simple affirmation, but something of a challenge to Pilate:

“Do you say [su\ le/gei$] this from yourself, or did others say it to you about me?” (v. 34)

As in the Synoptic version (Mk 15:4 par), Pilate asks Jesus a follow-up question; the Johannine version is similar in its orientation (reflecting a common underlying tradition), even if it worded very differently, and with a different emphasis:

“(Surely) I (am) not a Yehudean, am I? (It was) your (own) nation and the chief sacred-officials [i.e., priests] (that) gave you along to me! What have you done?” (v. 35)

In the Synoptic version(s), Jesus gives no answer—indeed, he says nothing more at all to Pilate. The Johannine version, in this regard, is very different: indeed, he responds with a mini-Discourse, rather in the Johannine style, expounding upon the question of his identity as the king (basileu/$) of the Jews:

“My kingdom [basilei/a] is not of [e)k] this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my under-rowers [i.e. servants] would [have] struggled (so) that I should not be given along to the Yehudeans. But now [i.e. as it truly is]—my kingdom is not from (this) place [e)nteu=qen].” (v. 36)

Jesus’ exposition is framed by two declarations (both examples of essential predication) regarding the nature of his kingdom/kingship. This may be compared with the two Kingdom-declarations in 3:3, 5. In both instances, the parallel declarations are explained with a practical illustration (cf. 3:6-8). Here, the two statements are:

    • “My kingdom | is not | of this world”
    • “My kingdom | is not | from (this) place”

These statements are generally synonymous, but with somewhat different nuances of emphasis. It is the first statement that utilizes the term o( ko/smo$ (“the world”)—the world, being opposed to God, is unwilling/unable to recognize and trust in Jesus as the Son of God. Indeed, “this world” is hostile to the Son, and to those chosen ones (i.e., believers) who have trusted in him.

Having come from God, sent to earth (below) from heaven (above), Jesus does not belong to “this world” (8:23). Believers also do not belong to this world, but to God (15:19; 17:6ff, 14-16ff [see the previous study]). This means that Jesus’ kingdom (and his kingship) is not from this world—it belongs to God, and has its origins in heaven. As in the aforementioned references, the theological point makes use (in the Johannine idiom) of multiple layers of meaning attached to the simple preposition e)k (“[out] of”), expressing the dual-notion of (a) belonging, and (b) defining one’s source/origin.

The second statement is more generalized, explaining that Jesus’ kingdom is not “from (this) place” (e)nteu=qen). It is possible to understand the adverb e)nteu=qen either in terms of (i) a specific point of reference (i.e., this place, or that place), or (ii) any place. This latter nuance is important, particularly in light of the message in 3:3ff, regarding the spiritual nature of the Kingdom. Unless a person comes to be born of [e)k] the Spirit, he/she cannot enter the Kingdom, nor even see it. The Kingdom is not defined by any physical, earthly place (i.e., “flesh”), but is “of the Spirit”; since God Himself is Spirit (4:24), it stands to reason that His Kingdom is also of the Spirit.

Thus, the expression “the world” is used here, primarily, in the physical-geographical-locative sense of (a) the created cosmos, and (b) the inhabited world of human beings. It does not have a negative connotative meaning per se, other than that it is strictly contrasted with the realm of God (i.e., heaven) and the Spirit.

In the Johannine Discourses, the hearers respond to Jesus’ words, usually in a way that reflects their lack of understanding (or mis-understanding) regarding the true meaning of his words. Often the response takes the form of a question, such as we see with Pilate here, as he asks: “(Is it) not, then, that you are a king?” In the Discourses, this kind of question leads to a fresh exposition by Jesus, in which he expounds the true meaning of his words. This exposition is, again, rooted in the Gospel tradition regarding Jesus’ answer to Pilate’s question (viz., “Are you the king of the Jews?”…”[So] you say [su\ le/gei$]”):

“You say [su\ le/gei$] that I am a king. I have come to be (born) unto this, and unto this I have come into the world: that I should give witness to the truth! Every(one) being of [e)k] the truth hears my voice.” (v. 37)

Jesus’ answer clearly acknowledges Pilate’s lack of understanding. Yes, Jesus is a king, but not in the way that Pilate means! “You say that I am a king” —but then, Jesus proceeds to define his kingship in a very different way, entirely in terms of his [i.e. the Son’s] earthly mission. He came to be born (i.e., as a human being) and, indeed, came into the world, “unto this [ei)$ tou=to]”, i.e., “for this purpose”. The prepositional expression ei)$ tou=to does not point back to Pilate’s idea about Jesus being an earthly king; rather, it points forward to the i%na– goal/purpose clause that concludes the verse: “…that [i%na] I should give witness to the truth”.

In this context, the semantic scope of the term “the world” is narrowed further, in reference to the earthly mission (“in[to] the world”) of the incarnate Son—i.e., the inhabited word of human beings as the mission-field. In this regard, the verb marture/w (“[give] witness”) is utilized, being another Johannine key-term (the theme of witness is prominent throughout the Gospel). The main purpose of the Son’s mission is to give witness to the truth (h( a)lh/qeia).

The dialogue concludes with a follow-up response/question from Pilate, phrased in the Johannine language of essential predication (cf. the Kingdom-statements in v. 36, discussed above):

“What [ti/] | is [e)stin] | (the) truth [a)lh/qeia]?”

Jesus offers no immediate answer to the question; as in the Gospel tradition (Mk 15:4-5), he (for the moment) remains silent. However, the attentive reader of the Gospel will be able to discern the answer.
The answer is threefold, and to be given in the same Johannine theological language of essential predication:

    • First, is the implicit answer that the Son makes known the truth of God the Father—see, especially, this theme as it is expounded in the chapter 17 Discourse-Prayer of Jesus (vv. 3, 6ff)
    • Second, Jesus makes known his identity as the Son of God—who, as the Son, is able to reveal the Father. Jesus declares of himself:
      “I [e)gw/] | am [ei)mi] | …the truth [h( a)lh/qeia]” (14:6)
    • Third, the Son makes himself and the Father known to believers, by giving to them the Spirit—a process that begins during his earthy mission, and concludes with his exaltation (death, resurrection, and departure back to the Father), continuing thereafter by way of the Christian mission. Believers are united with the Son (and the Father) through the Spirit, and, indeed, the Son continues to instruct believers, making the truth of God known through the Spirit. Cf. Study 14 and my earlier notes on the Paraclete-sayings of Jesus.
      As the author of 1 John states:
      “the Spirit [to\ pneu=ma] | is [e)stin] | the truth [h( a)lh/qeia]” (5:6)

The second Dialogue-unit (19:9-11) of the scene matches the first, exhibiting the same kind of the development of the early Gospel tradition. Indeed, the two dialogue-episodes correspond to the two questions Pilate asks Jesus (in Mark 15:2-5 par). The first question (v. 2), is featured in 18:33-38a (cf. above), while the second question (v. 4f) features in 19:9-11. Here is how the Markan version narrates the tradition. In the Johannine version, the traditional elements—(a) follow-up question by Pilate, and (b) Jesus’ lack of any response—are much simpler and streamlined by comparison, set within the distinctive dramatic-narrative framework (cf. the outline above):

“And (Pilatus) came into (the) praetorium again, and he says to Yeshua: ‘Where are you from?’ But Yeshua gave no response back to him.” (v. 9)

In the Synoptic version(s), Pilate’s question only indirectly relates to Jesus’ identity as the Messiah (“King of the Jews”); in John’s version, the question touches upon the central point of the Johannine theology—viz., Jesus’ identity as the Son of God, sent from heaven by God the Father. Pilate unwittingly alludes to Jesus’ heavenly origin when he asks, “Where are you from?” The theological significance of the question becomes even clearer when we realize that it is phrased in the syntax of Johannine essential prediction, which has three components: (a) Divine subject, (b) verb of being, and (c) predicate noun/phrase. Those three components are all present—

“You [su/] | are [ei@] | from where [po/qen]?”

only the word order has been reversed, with the predicate (of origin) being emphasized (in first position):

“From where | are | you?”
po/qen ei@ su/

The interrogative po/qen (“from what place, from where…?”) occurs somewhat more frequently in the Gospel of John than the other Gospels (or elsewhere in the New Testament); nearly half of the NT occurrences (13 of 29) are in John. This includes passages where the interrogative, as here, has definite theological importance—3:8; 7:28; 8:14; and note also the double-meaning conceptual word-play within the Gospel narrative (4:11; 6:5; 7:27; 9:29-30). In some ways, the question (with po/qen) echoes Jesus words in the earlier dialogue unit, where he effectively gives an answer to Pilate’s question, but in negative terms:

“My kingdom is not of this world….
my kingdom is not from here [e)nteu=qen]”

Again these statements are instances of Johannine essential predication, but phrased (paradigmatically) with a negation of the verb of being—viz., stating what Jesus’ kingdom is not:

    • “My kingdom | is not [ou)k e)stin] | of this world”
    • “My kingdom | is not [ou)k e)stin] | from here”

The adverb e)nteu=qen, “from this place”, clearly corresponds with the interrogative po/qen (“from what place…?”). Again, as with po/qen, the adverb e)nteu=qen is more common in the Gospel of John than elsewhere in the New Testament (6 of the 10 occurrences).

Jesus is not from “this place”, i.e., “this world”, the earth below, where humans dwell. At first, Jesus does not tell Pilate where he is from, though the reader/hearer of the Gospel (and esp. the earlier Discourses) understands the implicit identification of Jesus as the Son who was sent from heaven by God the Father. An implicit (positive) answer was, we may say, given in 18:37 (cf. above): Jesus came to earth (from heaven), in order to bear witness to the truth (from God); everyone who is of (e)k) the truth, even as he himself is of the truth (i.e., from God), will hear and respond (with trust) to his voice.

Jesus does not belong to “the world”, nor is his Kingship “of the world”; Pilate, by contrast, does belong to “the world” and his kingship (as part of the Roman imperial administration) is “of the world”. And yet, Pilate does not seem to exhibit the same kind of opposition (and hostility) to Jesus that fundamentally characterizes “the world”. As we have seen, earlier in the Gospel, the expression “the chief (ruler) [a&rxwn] of this world” occurred several times (12:31; 14:30; 16:11) referring, almost certainly, to the Satan/Devil (the ko/smo$ being a realm dominated by darkness and evil). Pilate is not characterized by these wicked/evil attributes so strongly, since he misunderstands Jesus’ words, rather than being provoked to hostility by them. Yet, he is still governed by the same darkness—lack of knowledge and being unable to “see” (i.e., recognize) the true identity of Jesus. He certainly does not trust in Jesus (as the Son of God), and thus he is very much part of the darkness of the world.

As the second Dialogue-episode progresses, Pilate’s lack of knowledge/belief begins to coalesce into something closer to an opposition toward Jesus. As he responds to the silence of Jesus (v. 9, as in the Synoptic version), Pilate’s lack of understanding (typical of the hearers in the Discourses) prompts a reaction that, in his role as imperial governor, threatens violence (and death):

“You do not speak to me? Have you not seen [i.e. realized] that I hold (the) authority [e)cousi/a] to loose you from (custody), and (also) hold (the) authority to put you to the stake?” (v. 10)

The initial question (“You do not speak to me?”) here resembles the initial part of the question in the Synoptic version (“Do you not give forth any [answer]?”, Mk 15:4). We might see an allusion to 18:37, and the idea that only the person belonging to the truth (“of the truth”, i.e., of God) is able to hear Jesus speaking. In this regard, Pilate is ‘deaf’, just as the Jewish religious leaders who oppose Jesus (and are unable/unwilling to trust in him) are ‘blind’ (9:39-41).

Jesus does, eventually, give an answer to Pilate, which, according to the Johannine Discourse-format, can be viewed as an exposition of his silence in v. 9:

“You would not hold (any) authority [e)cousi/a] against me, if it were not given to you from above [a&nwqen].” (v. 11)

Pilate is quite mistaken regarding the true/real nature of authority. The noun e)cousi/a refers to the power or ability which one possesses (in his/her own person), often with the implication that it has come (or has been given) from a superior. In the case of Pilate, his power/authority comes from the Roman Imperial government (and the Emperor). The term has similar implications for the kingship of Jesus. The Son (Jesus) receives his power/authority from God the Father and the Divine Kingdom that is above. Pilate (like any earthly ruler) only has authority over Jesus (the incarnate Son) in a limited (and contingent) way. By using the adverb a&nwqen (“from above”), Jesus gives a belated (and indirect) answer to Pilate’s initial question in v. 9: “Where are you from?” Answer: “From above”.

As with the interrogative po/qen and the adverb e)nteu=qen, the adverb a&nwqen is something of Johannine keyword, even though it used only rarely (5 out of the 13 NT occurrences). The occurrences in 3:3, 7, and again in 3:31, are vital for an understanding of the Johannine theology (and Christology). If we combine these three origin-terms in sequence, we obtain a veritable snapshot of the Johannine message:

    • Question: “From where [po/qen] does Jesus come?”
    • Answer 1: “Not from this place [e)nteu=qen]”, i.e., not from this world
    • Answer 2: “From above [a&nwqen]”, i.e., from God the Father in heaven

Though he came into this world, the Son’s Kingdom—that is, God’s Kingdom—is not of this world. Rather it is of the Spirit; that is, it is of God, who is Spirit (4:24). The keyword motifs that parallel the earlier Discourse-scene in 3:3-8 (cf. above), as well as the thematic emphasis on “the truth” (18:36-37), only confirm the essential Johannine identification of the Kingdom with the Spirit.

Ultimately, Pilate, as representing “the world” acts in opposition to Jesus, by ordering that he be put to death. It is a very different kind of kingdom (and kingship), possessing only a limited authority and being dominated by the darkness and evil of the world (and the chief/ruler of the world). The Johannine version of the Roman Interrogation scene, steeped as it is in the Johannine theology (at least in the Pilate-Jesus dialogue), clearly juxtaposes (and contrasts) the kingdom/authority of the ko/smo$ with the Kingdom/authority of God. The Divine Kingdom is ruled by the Son and is manifested by the Spirit.

References above marked “Brown” are to Raymond E. Brown, S.S., The Gospel According to John (XIII-XXI), Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 29A (1970).

November 20: Job 4:6-7

Job 4:6-7
Verse 6

“Is not your fear (in devotion) your (very) confidence,
your hope, indeed, (the) completeness of your ways?”

As stated by Eliphaz in vv. 3-5 (see the previous note), Job held a reputation for wisdom and righteousness, or being devout and faithful in ethical-religious matters (something attested to also in the Prologue). This fact further drives Eliphaz’ rebuke of Job, whose wisdom and piety have seemingly been replaced by a rashness and bitterness, expressed by his despairing lament (chap. 3). The question as posed by Eliphaz here in v. 6 touches upon Job’s supposed righteousness and religious devotion. If Job is as faithful and devout as he seems, then, even now, he should continue to express confidence and trust in God, expecting that Eloah/YHWH will treat him fairly and justly.

Job’s devotion (to God) is expressed in the first line simply by the noun ar@y` (“fear”), which surely is to be taken as a shorthand for “fear of God”, a definite characteristic of Job emphasized in the Prologue (1:1, 8-9; 2:3); however, it could also be understood here more generally as reverence/piety in ethical-religious matters. The parallel expression “(the) completeness of your ways” in the second line confirms the ethical-religious orientation. The path-motif (here the plural of the noun Er#D#, “path, way”), which features prominently in Wisdom literature, is typically used in an ethical-religious sense, referring to a person’s characteristic and regular/habitual behavior. The noun <T) (“completeness”) similarly occurs here in the connotative sense of righteousness and personal integrity; the related adjective <T* (“complete”) was used in the Prologue (1:8; 2:3) as another fundamental attribute of Job.

The nouns hl*s=K! (“confidence”) and hw`q=T! (“hope, expectation”) are also parallel, paired within the chiastic structure of the couplet:

    • “…your fear
      • your confidence
      • your hope
    • completeness of your ways”

The noun hl*s=K! is extremely rare, occurring elsewhere only in Psalm 85:9[8], but the related noun ls#K# (II), adjective lys!K= (I), and verb ls^K* (I), are all common Wisdom-terms. From the standpoint of Wisdom-terminology, lsk usually refers to foolishness (stupidity), in which case the nouns ls#K# (and hl*s=K!) would indicate a false or misplaced confidence. As suggested by Seow (p. 395), these divergent aspects of meaning could be rooted in an original denotation involving thickness, where “thick” could mean both “firm, solid” (i.e., giving reason for confidence) and “dull, stupid”. In any case, here the feminine hl*s=K!, like the masculine ls#K# (cf. Job 8:14; 31:24; Ps 78:7, but contrast Qoh 7:25), clearly means “confidence”. That is, because of his righteous and devout conduct, Job should be able to stand confidently before God.
On the possible double-meaning ambiguity in the use of hl*s=K! here (i.e., “confidence” / “stupidity”), cf. Y. Hoffman, “The Use of Equivocal Words in the First Speech of Eliphaz (Job IV-V)”, Vetus Testamentum [VT] 30 (1980), pp. 114-9 [115].

The w-conjunction prefixed to the noun <T) (“completeness”) should probably be understood as emphatic (cf. Blommerde, p. 40; Michel, p. 83).

Verse 7

“Bear in mind, I ask—
Who (is) it (that was) clear (of sin), (yet) perished?
Or where have (the) straight (one)s been put away?”

Based on his righteousness, Job should be able to trust that God will let him be destroyed. The point is made, rhetorically, here in verse 7, by way of a religious-theological exposition. The person who is truly “clear” (yq!n`, i.e., free) of sin surely will not be allowed (by God) to perish (vb db^a*)—that is, by a premature death; similarly, those who are “straight” (rv*y`, i.e., upright, righteous) will not “be put away” (vb dj^K*, Niphal). The latter verb (djk) properly means “hide, put away”; to be “hidden” or “put away” in this sense is to be effaced, ‘rubbed out’, obliterated (i.e., “done away with”).

As a positive exhortation, the thrust of Eliphaz’ rhetorical question may be that Job should not give up or abandon hope; he is still alive, which means that God has not completely destroyed him and there is yet hope for healing and restoration. With regard to the idea of premature death as a curse that would not strike the righteous, the promise of long life is very much a Wisdom-theme (e.g., Prov 3:2, 16ff), and one that is rooted in the covenant promises regarding blessings from YHWH as a reward for faithfulness (see Lev 26:3-13; Deut 28:1-14). We have already seen how this traditional view of blessings and curses from YHWH was applied to Job in the description of his terrible illness (2:7, cf. Deut 28:27). Indeed, Eliphaz here expresses an orthodox religious piety (and conventional wisdom), much as Job himself does in the Prologue. Throughout the Dialogue, there is a powerful tension between the experiential aspect of Job’s present suffering and the various expressions of orthodox/conventional piety. Cf. the discussion by Clines, pp. 124-5.

    • 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 “Clines” are to David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20, Word Biblical Commentary vol. 17 (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 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 “Blommerde” are to Anton C. M. Blommerde, Northwest Semitic Grammar and Job Biblica et Orientalia 22 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1969).

Wednesday Wisdom: Proverbs 4:1-9

Lecture 5: Proverbs 4:1-9

The fifth Lecture consists of an extended exhortation, without a specific Instruction section or concluding Lesson. In this regard, it is somewhat comparable to the second Lecture (chap. 2), only in much simpler and abbreviated form. This Lecture is also unusual in that, while it continues the framing pattern of a father giving instruction to his son, here the father addresses “sons” (plur. <yn]B*). The same occurs in 5:7 and 7:24; given that those references occur in the middle, or toward the end, of the Lecture, it is conceivable that 4:1-9 was intended as a concluding section to the prior Lecture (3:21-35, cf. the previous study). In all likelihood, this occasional usage of the plural “sons” reflects the adaptation of traditional format, and the didactic purpose of the Instruction-genre, with a wider audience in mind.
The early Egyptian Instruction of Kagmeni already seems to evince such a development (in the epilogue of the text). Fox (p. 172) mentions a couple of other examples of Egyptian wisdom-texts in which the speaker addresses his audience (i.e., sons) in the second person plural. 
Interestingly, because the Instruction section here utilizes the literary quotation-device (citing the grandfather’s instruction to the father), the Lecture as a whole keeps to genre-format of a father instructing his son (singular).

Another peculiarity is the literary-rhetorical device of having the father cite the instruction given to him by his own father (i.e., the sons’ grandfather). At the structural level, this allows the extension of the exhortation (vv. 4b-9) to function as the main section of the Lecture (viz., as the principal Instruction). From a rhetorical standpoint, this device gives legitimacy to the father’s wisdom-teaching, since it places it within an authoritative line of tradition. The father is following the example of his own father, presenting the same sound and reliable Wisdom-teaching; presumably, this has been going on for generations, with each father transmitting instruction to his son(s). Indeed, as we have seen, the Lectures of Proverbs follow an ancient Near Eastern Wisdom genre-pattern that stretches back some 2,000 years—to at least the mid-3rd millennium B.C. On the generational aspect of this Wisdom-tradition, one might point to examples in the Egyptian Instruction of Ptahhotep (lines 588-595) and Merikare (lines 34-35); cf. the citations by Schipper, p. 167. It is also a characteristic of ancient/traditional religion generally, including the ancient Israelite religion (Deut 6:6-9, etc).

The outline of this Lecture is extremely simple:

    • Introduction (Exordium), Verses 1-2
    • Transition, Verses 3-4a—extending the initial exhortation by introducing the quotation from the grandfather (viz., the Instruction)
    • Instruction: Verses 4b-9—demonstrating that the father’s teaching is a continuation of what he was taught by his own father

The essential, fundamental character of father’s instruction (as quoted) is indicated by its similarity with the Prologue of Proverbs (1:1-7) from the standpoint of the concentration of key Wisdom terms (cf. Plöger, p. 46; Schipper, p. 166). The shared terminology is highlighted in the notes below.

Introduction (Exordium): Verses 1-2
Verse 1

“Hear, O sons, (the) instruction of a father,
and pay attention, to know understanding!”

All the Lectures of chapters 1-9 begin in this manner, with a father exhorting his son, urging him to pay attention to the teaching of Wisdom (embodied by the father’s wise words). As noted above, the use of the plural (“sons”) is a bit unusual and deviates from the pattern, but there are other instances where a plural address is utilized—both here in Proverbs and in other ancient Near Eastern Instructions-texts. The specific wording allows for a generalized setting— i.e., “Hear, sons, the instruction of a father”, rather than “Hear, my sons, the instruction of your father”.

The parallel verbs um^v* (“hear”) and bv^q* (Hiphil, “pay attention”), as imperatives, are regular exhortation-terms in this context. In particular, there is an echo of the purpose-clause at the beginning of the Prologue (1:2), where the phrase “to know wisdom” matches “to know understanding” here, the nouns hm*k=j* (“wisdom”) and hn`yB! (“understanding, discernment”) being more or less synonymous (and interchangeable) as Wisdom-terms. The noun rs*Wm is also part of the regular terminology (cf. earlier in 1:2-3, 7-8; 3:11); here it is translated as “instruction” rather than “correction”.

Verse 2

“For (the) received (teaching is) good (that) I give to you,
(and so) you should not leave behind my guidance!”

The noun jq^l# denotes something received—specifically the father’s wisdom-teachings. This designation is particularly appropriate in light of the emphasis on a line of tradition (cf. the Greek terms para/dosi$, “[something] given along”, i.e., traditio, “tradition”, and para/lhyi$, “[something] taken/received along[side]”).
Waltke (p. 274) explains the perfect tense of the verb here as an instance of the “instantaneous perfective” which “represents the situation as occurring at the very moment the expression is being uttered”.

The verb bz~u* (“leave behind”, i.e., “forsake, abandon”) is another exhortation-term in the Lectures (2:13, 17; 3:3, etc); here it is specifically phrased in the negative (cf. also 3:3) as a warning not to abandon or neglect the teachings of Wisdom (and especially the wisdom-teachings of one’s parents). The noun hr*oT (“instruction, direction, guidance”) is key piece of the Wisdom-vocabulary, in parallel here with rs*Wm in v. 1. Since rs*Wm was translated above as “instruction”, I have rendered hr*oT here as “guidance” (which is poetically more concise than “direction”).

Transition
Verses 3-4a

“When I was (but) a son to my (own) father,
tender and single to (the) face of my mother,
even (so) he guided me, and said to me:”

As noted above, these lines are transitional, providing a bridge (and extension) from the initial exhortation (vv. 1-2) to that of vv. 4b-9. As a way of reinforcing the importance of his teaching, and legitimizing it for his son(s), the father refers back to the instruction given to him by his own father. He was dutifully instructed in the way of wisdom by his parents even from a very young age. The pair of adjectives in the second line—Er^ (“soft, tender, delicate”) and dyj!y` (“one, single, lone”)—express this point of emphasis. The use of dyj!y` might indicate that the instruction took place when the father was a first or only child (cf. Schipper, p. 170), who would have received all the attention from his parents; however, much the same would apply to the youngest child (of a larger family) as well.

The verb hr*y` (“instruct, direct, guide”) is the verbal root of the noun hr*oT (see above) and carries the same meaning in this context.

Instruction: Verses 4b-9
Verse 4bc

“May your heart hold firmly to my words;
guard my directives (closely), and live!”

Verses 4b-9 are presented as a quotation summarizing the instruction which the father (a single son) received from his own father; thus, from the plural address (vv. 1-2) there is shift back to the singular, following the standard format of the other Lectures (and the wider Instruction-genre). The fact that the grandfather’s instruction so closely resembles the father’s—in terminology, style and emphasis—serves to legitimize the father’s teaching. There is a definite rhetorical purpose to this device, as an argument further designed to convince the son(s) (and indeed, all readers/hearers of Proverbs) to heed the instruction.

The instruction is referenced by the plural nouns <yr!b*D= (“words”) and tox=m! (“directives”), both of which are regularly used for the teachings of Wisdom in chaps. 1-9. The focus on the person’s heart is also a regular feature of the instruction (and exhortations) in the Lectures (2:2, 10; 3:1, 3, 5, etc). It is not enough to learn the teachings and follow the instruction at a superficial intellectual level, one must be committed to them, devoting oneself to the path of Wisdom. This is also clear from the use of the verbs Em^T (“hold on [firmly] to”) and rm^v* (“guard”); both are Wisdom-terms, though the former is considerably rarer (cf. 3:18, and [used negatively], 5:5, 22).

A frequent point of emphasis in Proverbs (esp. chapters 1-9) is that following the teachings (and the path) of Wisdom will lead to life, while doing the opposite will lead to death—cf. 1:18-19; 2:18-19; 3:2, 16, 18, 22, etc.

On the absence of (much of) vv. 4b-5 from the LXX (B), see the discussion by Fox, Textual Commentary, pp. 107-9.

Verse 5

“Acquire wisdom, acquire understanding—
do not forget nor turn from (the) words of my mouth!”

Other regular idioms are utilized, including the motif of diligently seeking after (so as to gain/acquire) Wisdom. The verb hn`q* (“[come to] possess, acquire”) was used earlier in 1:5, in just this context; similarly, the comparative illustration of Wisdom as a precious treasure (and far more valuable than ordinary earthly riches), is a traditional motif (cf. 2:4; 3:14-15, etc).

The frequent exhortations to “pay attention” and not to “leave behind” the teaching of Wisdom are sometimes expressed in terms of remembering, or by the negative equivalent of “not forgetting [vb jk^v*]” —the latter being more common in Proverbs (cf. 2:17; 3:1). There is also an allusion here to the ubiquitous path/walking motif, and the exhortation not to “turn away” from the straight path of Wisdom (cf. most recently [in Lecture 4], 3:23, 26b). Here the verb hf*n` (“stretch, bend, turn”) is used (1:24; 2:4, etc); in reference to the path/walking motif, cf. especially the occurrences in Psalm 119 (vv. 36, 51, 112, 157).

Verse 6

“Do not leave her, and she will (ever) guard you;
love her, and she will keep watch over you.”

If the young man will faithfully guard (rm^v*) Wisdom (v. 4c), she will guard him; this point is further emphasized by the parallel use of the near-synonymous verb (rx^n`, “keep watch over”, paired frequently with rm^v*). On the (Divine) protection provided by Wisdom, cf. 1:33; 2:7-8, 11ff, 16ff, 21; 3:23-26, 32.

In chapters 1-9, Wisdom is regularly personified as a woman (the nouns hm*k=j* and hn`yB! [v. 5] both being grammatically feminine); cf. earlier, esp. in the first two Wisdom-poems (1:20-33; 3:13-20). In spite of the mention of the mother here in v. 3, Wisdom is not typically portrayed as a mother-figure; rather, she is portrayed as a lover for the young man, in contrast to the “strange woman” (i.e., adulterous woman or prostitute) of the city (2:16-19, etc). This is indicated quite clearly here by the directives to love Wisdom and not to leave her (i.e., to remain faithful and devoted to her); the idea of sexual-marital faithfulness is certainly in view. For a young man to “leave behind” (bz~u*) Wisdom would be like a man abandoning his wife. On the specific idea of Wisdom as a bride for the young man, see Meinhold, p. 91f.

Verse 7

“(The) beginning of wisdom (is): acquire wisdom!
Even with (all) your acquiring, acquire understanding!”

The motif of acquiring Wisdom (vb hn`q*) is repeated here (from v. 5) and emphatically reinforced. The seemingly tautological first line (cf. Fox, p. 175) probably means simply that before a person can possess wisdom, he/she must first acquire it, just as is the case for all ordinary earthly possessions. This meaning for the line is confirmed by the point in the second line: even as you are acquiring all sorts of other things (that is, during the course of one’s daily life and business), make sure to be faithful and diligent in acquiring wisdom (first of all). The expression “(the) beginning [tyv!ar@] of wisdom” was used earlier in 1:7 (9:10; cf. also 3:9); doubtless the core religious-theological point of emphasis (in 1:7) is being alluded to here as well.

Verse 7 is absent from the Greek (LXX) Version; it is more likely that the verse was omitted (as being repetitive, or by accident) than that it was added to a shorter text. Cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 109.

There is a definite parallelism within vv. 5-8 that argues strongly in favor for the originality of v. 7 (cf. Fox, p. 175):

    • Directive to acquire wisdom and understanding (v. 5)
      • Reciprocal relationship with Wisdom (as a lover) (v. 6)
        [guard her and she will guard you]
    • Directive to acquire wisdom and understanding (v. 7)
      • Reciprocal relationship with Wisdom (as a lover) (v. 8)
        [honor her and she will honor you]
Verse 8

“Raise her up, and she will lift you up high—
she will give weight to you when you embrace her!”

The reciprocal-relational language of v. 6 is echoed here, along with the idea of Wisdom (personified) as a female lover for the young man. If the young man honors/exalts Wisdom by lifting her up high, then she will do the same for him. Two different verbs—ll^s* (in the rare Pilpel stem) and <Wr (Polel stem)—are used for the same basic action “lift/raise high”.
A few commentators, following the rather creative interpretations of the Rabbinic commentaries (including the Targum), have explained the verb form lsls here as meaning “cuddle” (par with “embrace”) or “curl, turn over”. It is conceivable that lsls derives from a root meaning something like “intertwine”; cf. Fox, p. 175.
Again, in the second line, the honor one shows to Wisdom, through faithful and loving devotion (“embracing” her, vb qb^j*), is reciprocated. The verb db^K* (Piel), literally means “give weight [to], make heavy”, though the root dbk is frequently used (as here) in the more figurative sense of “assign worth/value, give honor [to]”.

Verse 9

“She will give for your head a wreath of favor,
a crown of beauty she will present as a gift to you!”

The motif from v. 8, of Wisdom giving honor to the young man who is faithful and devoted to her, is continued here in the final couplet, touching upon the important theme of the blessings that come from following the teachings and path of Wisdom. The image of the teachings of Wisdom as an adornment (of beauty/splendor) for the wise has already occurred a number of times in the Lectures and poems of chaps. 1-9. In particular, the term hy`w+l! (“wreath”) was used earlier in 1:9; on the adornment-motif, cf. also 3:3-4, 22. As Schipper (p. 173) notes, it is normally God (YHWH) who bestows such a crown (hr*f*u&, e.g., Ps 21:4; Isa 28:5; Ezek 16:12); this is another example of the Divine character of Wisdom, acting on God’s behalf and with the same authority.

The verb /g~m* (I) means “present gift(s)” (cf. Ugaritic mgn and the Akkadian noun magannu, “gift” [HALOT, p. 545]); this root is now attested (in Biblical Hebrew) for at least a few occurrences (here, and also Gen 14:20; Hos 11:8). At the same time, there is likely a bit of wordplay here, between /g~m* and the noun /g@m* (I), “protection, shield”. This is an important connection, in light of the fact that protection is one of the important blessings that YHWH provides to the faithful, as also to wise/righteous ones (who follow the path/teaching of Wisdom); cf. especially 3:23-26 (protection) par to 3:2, 4, 8, 10, 16ff (blessing). The noun /j@ (“favor”) can mean “grace, charm, beauty” (i.e., as a sign/mark of one who is favored); but, almost certainly, there is an allusion here to the favor that YHWH shows to the righteous/faithful ones, and Wisdom (as God’s servant) can bestow these same Divine favors (see esp. 3:16-18) to the one who is faithful to her. Cf. the occurrences of /j@ in 1:9; 3:4, 22, 34.

    • 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 alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 432 (Walter de Gruyter: 2012).
    • Those marked “Meinhold” are to Arndt Meinhold, Die Sprüche, Teil 1: Sprüche Kapitel 1-15, Zürcher Bibelkommentare, AT 16.1 (Theologische Verlag Zürich: 1991).
    • Those marked “Plöger” are to Otto Plöger, Sprüche Salomos (Proverbia), Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament, Band XVII (Neukirchener Verlag: 1984).

November 18: Job 4:3-5

Job 4:3-5
Verses 3-4

“See!—you have corrected many (people),
and loose hands you have held firm;
(the one) falling your words have made stand,
and (the) bending knees you have kept firm…”

In this first section of his speech, Eliphaz characterizes Job (prior to his affliction) as a wise leader who had regularly instructed and given assistance to many people. The help given was principally through his words (hL*m! plur., the same noun as in v. 2b [cf. the previous note])—that is, through teaching, exhortation, encouragement, etc. And, indeed, the Job of the Prologue comes across as a man of sound wisdom, rather in contrast to the impulsive and bitter-sounding man of the lament. In this regard, there has been something of a role-change in the Dialogue, whereby it is Job’s companions (and not Job himself) who speak with the reasoned voice of wisdom and orthodox piety; cf. the discussion below on this point.

As often in the poetry of the Dialogue, there is a good deal of alliterative and conceptual wordplay in these couplets. Let us begin with the statement in the first line: “you (have) corrected many”. In the context of vv. 3-4, where the imagery otherwise involves colorful figures for the idea of strengthening the weak, the use of the general adjective br^ (“many”, plur. <yB!r^) seems rather flat by comparison. For this reason, a number of commentators have sought other explanations for <ybr here in the text. Tur-Sinai (p. 76f), for example, would derive it from a root bwr corresponding to an Arabic verb (rwb) meaning “be weak”. A connection with the Akkadian râbu (“tremble, quake”) has also been suggested. Michel (p. 81f), following a proposal by M. Dahood, understands the adjective in the specific sense of “aged” (i.e., of many years, great in years), cf. 32:9. On the other hand, in this first line of the quatrain, the poet may simply be using it to establish the idea of Job as a prominent, prolific, and effective leader/teacher, one whose words gave strength and encouragement to “many”.
Greenstein (pp. 93-4) similarly suggests that <ybr here has a double meaning— “many”, but also “trembling (one)s” —and that the verb rs^y` (cf. below) here carries a (secondary) meaning akin to ds^y*, “fortify”, so that the line can read “you have fortified many who have trembled”. Cf. also Y. Hoffman, “The Use of Equivocal Words in the First Speech of Eliphaz (Job IV-V)”, Vetus Testamentum [VT] 30 (1980), pp. 114-9 [114].

There could well be a bit of alliterative wordplay between the adjectives br (rb) and hpr (rph, v. 3b); this seems likely, and, if so, it could have influenced the poet’s choice of words. The author may also have meant the use of the verb rs^y` (yāsar, “instruct, correct”) to echo the similar sounding rv^y` (yāšar, [Piel] “make straight”). Both of these verbal roots are a regular part of Wisdom terminology. The idea of “making (something) straight”, in the specific sense of setting it up straight (i.e., upright), would provide a good fit for the imagery in v. 4a (“make stand”, i.e., keeping a falling person upright), thus creating a more consistent parallelism within the couplets.
The existence of a separate rsy root (II) meaning “be strong” has been proposed (cf. HALOT, p. 419), thought to be related to Aramaic rva; cf. Hos 7:5.

The corresponding parallel in v. 3b/4b is that of strengthening (spec. making firm) the limbs of someone who is weak. In v. 3b, the verb qz^j* (Piel), “hold firmly, take firm hold (of)”, is used, in reference to hands that are “loose” (i.e., limp, slack, weak). In v. 4b, the verb is /m^a* (“be firm”, Piel “make firm”), in reference to knees (i.e., legs) that are “bending” (i.e., unable to stand, due to lack of strength, etc). These images of strengthening hands/knees, like that of helping a falling person to remain standing (v. 4a), are figurative idioms (common to the Wisdom tradition) for giving encouragement and (moral) exhortation to a person. The idiom of “loose hands”, which occurs a number of times in Scripture (2 Sam 17:2; Isa 13:7; Jer 6:24; 38:4; Ezek 7:17; 21:12; Zeph 3:16; Ezra 4:4; Neh 6:9; 2 Chron 15:7 [Seow, p. 394]), refers to emotional and psychological weakness (i.e., being disheartened) rather than physical weakness per se. In a comparable way, the image of a person’s knees/legs bending (in English idiom we might say “buckling”) suggests the stumbling/falling motif that is so common to the walking-on-the-path theme in Wisdom tradition.

Verse 5

“but now, it comes to you and you are unable (to cope),
it touches up to you and you are at your wits’ end!”

The description of Job’s past conduct (viz., as a wise man who could strengthen and encourage others) is set in marked contrast to his condition now—and, particularly, the rash and bitter railing of his lament (chap. 3). Eliphaz uses the contrast as a stern rebuke; in so doing, he may be attempting to instruct and correct Job—that is, ironically, to the very thing for Job that Job had previously done for others (but now is unable to do for himself). The verb ha*l* was used earlier in v. 2 (cf. also 16:7), with the meaning (“be unable”, par. with the use of lk^y`, “be able”). There is no definite subject for the verb aoB (“come”); the feminine form (“she/it comes” [aobT*]) would indicate a feminine subject, but there is no obvious prior or immediate referent. It seems quite possible that some double-meaning wordplay is involved—that is, between the verb form al#T@ (“you are unable”) and the noun ha*l*T= (which means something like “hardship, affliction”). The LXX reads h%kei e)pi\ se\ po/no$ (“pain comes upon you”), and it has been suggested that this could reflect an underlying Hebrew text that contained the noun ha*l*T=; cf. Seow, p. 394).

The verb lh^B* (final word of the couplet) is difficult to translate. It has the basic meaning “be in a rush”, or (comparably) “be in a state of (extreme) agitation” —i.e., disturbance, alarm, fear, etc—to the point of being “out of one’s mind/senses”. This relatively wide range of meaning is reflected in the usage of the verb, even in the book of Job (cf. 21:6; 22:10; 23:15-16). I have translated it here rather idiomatically in English as “you are at your wits’ end”; the simpler renderings like “you are dismayed”, “you are aghast”, or the bluntly put “you panic” (Michel, p. 79), capture different aspects of the dynamic.

There is a definite role-reversal at work here, as the author portrays Job’s companions (rather than Job himself) fulfilling the role of wisdom-instructor. As previously mentioned, in the context of the transition between Prologue and Dialogue (see the earlier notes on 2:10 and 3:1), there is a striking contrast presented between the Job of the Prologue and the Job of the Dialogue-speeches. The contrast is clear and intentional and is part of the author’s literary art (and rhetorical-dramatic purpose). The parallelism in wording between 2:10 and 3:1 demonstrates that Job (in his lament) came very close to doing what it said (in the Prologue) that he specifically did not do. Ironically, it is Job’s companions who, in the Dialogue-speeches, speak like the Job of the Prologue; that is, they speak with the maxims and slogans of the Wisdom-tradition and express the viewpoint of orthodox religious piety. This will become clearer as we proceed through the remainder of the first Eliphaz speech (as well as the other speeches of the Dialogue).

    • 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 “Tur-Sinai” are to H. N. Tur-Sinai, The Book of Job: A New Commentary (Kiryath Sepher Ltd.: 1957).
    • 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, Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 88 (Theologischer Verlag Zürich: 2007), pp. 81-96.

 

 

November 17: Job 4:1-2

First Eliphaz Speech, Part 1: Chapter 4

Job 4:1-2
Verse 1

“Then Elîpaz the Southlander responded and said:”

With the conclusion of Job’s lament (see the previous note), his first speech of the Dialogue, one of his companions (cf. 2:11) now responds. Custom apparently required that the companions remained silent until Job (i.e., the one in mourning) had initially spoken (cf. the note on 2:11-13). Now they are able to speak, with Eliphaz being the first to do so.

In the aforementioned note, I discussed the possible meaning and derivation of the name zp^yl!a$ (’Ělîpaz). I have left the names of the three companions and their places of origin (with one exception) transliterated (rather than translated) to avoid cluttering the narrative, and also because the exact meaning of these names remains somewhat uncertain. Only in the case of the geographic designation /m*yT@ (Têmān) have I translated the name, rendering it “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.

Verse 2

“Were one to try putting a word to you, you may be unable (to bear it),
and (yet), to show restraint (now) with words, who is able?”

Eliphaz introduces his speech with a rhetorical question, meant to acknowledge (in at least a polite and superficially respectful way) Job’s debilitated condition. Because of this nuance, the verse is difficult to translate accurately into English (while retaining poetic concision); in this instance, accuracy is perhaps to be preferred. The clever conceptual wordplay, within the formal synonymous parallelism of the couplet, also makes translation difficult.

I think it is best to treat the entire verse as a question, rather than as a pair of questions. The verse begins with a prefixed interrogative particle (-h&), but the first line is treated like a conditional clause (“If one were to…”).

The initial verb is hs*n`, but it is not entirely clear whether it should be regarded as a Niphal or Piel stem form (both would be vocalized hS!n]); and this somewhat affects the sense of the line, since the denotative nuance of meaning for the verb differs between the stems: Piel “test, try”, Niphal (reflexive) “attempt, undertake, venture”. Seow (p. 391) takes it as an impersonal Niphal form, while other commentators (e.g., Hartley, p. 105) prefer it as a Piel. The ambiguity of nuance may be intentional, given the conceptual wordplay that occurs in the couplet (see below); the poet may wish to capture both aspects— “venture” (i.e., dare), and “try/attempt” (touching upon the idea of testing someone, i.e., putting a word [question/challenge] to them).
A number of commentators (e.g., Duhm, Beer, Dhorme, Kissane; cf. also Clines, p. 108) regard hsn here as a variant of usn (“take/lift up”), with the expression “take up a word” meaning “begin speaking”, analogous with “take up a song” (in Ps 81:3[2]) or a comparable use of usn in Job 27:1. Cf. the discussion by Seow, p. 391f.

There is unquestionably some conceptual wordplay at work in this verse, presented in terms of the poetic parallelism of the couplet. There are two verbal phrases in each line, and these are parallel:

    • try putting a word (to you) | you may be unable
    • show restraint with words | who is able?

The terminology is comparable, even though the actual terms are different, and are used with different nuances of meaning. For example, in the first line, the common noun rb*D* is used for “word” (i.e., speech, something said), while in the second line it is hL*m!. This latter noun is common in Aramaic (occurring often [24 times] in the Aramaic portions of Daniel), but relatively rare in Biblical Hebrew, at least outside the book of Job; it does occur frequently (34 times) in Job, but elsewhere only in 2 Sam 23:2; Ps 19:5[4]; 139:4; Prov 23:9. The plural ending /y– also would reflect an Aramaic form, though, as Seow (p. 393) notes, this ending is not restricted to Aramaic but is also “attested in Moabite, Ammonite, and the dialect of the Deir ʿAllā inscription, as well as sporadically in Hebrew”. Whether as the vestige of source material or used intentionally by the poet (as a literary-stylistic detail), the form /yL!m! gives to the speech a bit of local Transjordanian color (in accordance with the setting of the tale).

The second verb pair hinges upon the basic meaning of being able (to do something). The lexicons attest to two distinct ha*l* roots, and it may be that these are simply aspects of a single root. The verb ha*l* (I) indicates weakness and inability (i.e., being unable), while (II) has the opposite meaning (i.e., strength, ability). Certainly, the first aspect of meaning is in view here, as a reference to Job’s physical and emotional weakness. I have rendered the phrase “you may be unable (to bear it)”; the statement is made in preparation for the rebuke that Eliphaz intends to give to Job (in response to his lament). In the second line, the verb lk)y` means “be able”. The subject of the verb (“who”) clearly indicates that this phrase is the focus of the question—i.e., “who is able?”, that is, “who is able to show restraint with words” in response to hearing Job’s lament. A negative answer is expected: no one is able to do so (i.e., no one is able to bear it).

The sense of the verb rx*y` (usually “restrain, hold back”) here could be “refrain from speaking”; however, the nuanced rhetorical approach attributed to the speaker (with its superficial show of respect) suggests that “show restraint in speaking” might be preferable. At the same time, if the phrase is meant to indicate what is prompting Eliphaz to break silence (and to speak), then a rendering like “hold back” would indeed be more accurate. Seow (p. 392) suggests that the preposition B= here serves to mark the object of the verb; in that case, the line would be translated:

“and (yet), to hold back words (now), who is able?”

This sets the stage for the first portion (vv. 3-5) of Eliphaz’ speech, in which he rebukes Job for the character and tone of his lament. We will discuss these verses in the next note.

    • 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 “Clines” are to David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 17 (1989)
    • Those marked “Hartley” are to John E. Hartley, The Book of Job, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament [NICOT] (Eerdmans Publishing: 1988).