Month: December 2025

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 149

Psalm 149

Dead Sea MSS: 11QPsa (vv. 7-9)

Psalm 149, like all of the Psalms in the final collection (146-150) of the Psalter, is a hymn of praise to YHWH that emphasizes His Kingship over the universe (and over all humankind). However, this hymn evinces a stronger eschatological orientation, focusing (especially in the second stanza) on the realization of God’s Kingdom among the nations. This eschatological framework took root during the exile and underwent considerable development in the early post-exilic period, as the ‘New Age’ of Israel’s restoration came to be viewed as a time when the surrounding nations would join the restored Israel/Judah in acknowledging YHWH and giving worship to Him (as the supreme God and Sovereign).

These Hallelujah Psalms, along with a number of others in the Psalter (esp. the collection 93-100), share this eschatological outlook with the Prophets of the exilic and post-exilic periods—most notably, the poems of Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah (chaps. 40-55, 56-66). Commentators have noted the many similarities of thought and expression between the Hallelujah Psalms and Pss 93-100, as also in relation to Isa 40-66. Hossfeld-Zenger (p. 647) have conveniently summarized these intertextual links for Ps 149 (see also Broderson, pp. 93-8), and they will be mentioned in the notes below as well. An early post-exilic date for this Psalm (as for the collection 146-150 as whole) would seem to be quite secure, though the dating in the Maccabean period (favored by some scholars) seems rather too late; a mid-fifth century date would be more probable and makes for a reasonable estimate.

There has been some debate among commentators regarding the structure of this Psalm, with some preferring a two-stanza division (vv. 1-4, 5-9) and others a triadic three-strophe division (vv. 1-3, 4-6, 7-9); Prinsloo’s peculiar suggestion (pp. 398ff) of a two-part division (vv. 1-5, 7-9), with verse 6 as a transitional ‘hinge’ joining the two sections, is not very convincing. My own outline is as follows:

    • Opening call to give praise/worship to YHWH (verse 1)
    • STANZA 1 (verses 2-4)
      • Call for the faithful/devout ones of Israel to Praise YHWH (vv. 2-3)
      • YHWH as King—in relation to His people (v. 4)
    • STANZA 2 (verses 5-9a)
      • Call for the faithful/devout ones of Israel to Praise YHWH (vv. 5-6)
      • YHWH as King—in relation to the nations (vv. 7-9a)
    • Conclusion (verse 9b)

This outline produces a pair of stanzas that are thematically, poetically, and syntactically similar. Each stanza begins with a pair of couplets in which the call to praise is governed by jussive verb forms. Moreover, the first couplet presents the basis for praise and its location (i.e., in YHWH’s glorious presence), while the second couplet describes the manner of praise (with instruments in the hands of the people). The second portion of each stanza is expository, describing the relationship of YHWH (as King) to humankind—with His chosen people Israel (v. 4), and then with all of the other nations (vv. 7-9a). Framing the two stanzas is an opening couplet (v. 1) and a closing line (v. 9b) referencing the setting of the hymn—viz., the assembly of the loyal/devoted ones (<yd!ys!j&).

Unfortunately, only a small portion of Psalm 149 survives among the Dead Sea scrolls, in the Qumran manuscript 11QPsa, where it follows immediately after Ps 143. However, it likely was also present in a fragmentary manuscript from Masada (MasPsb), where it would have followed Ps 148, as in the canonical Psalter.

Introduction: Call to Worship

Verse 1

Praise YH(WH)!
“Sing (now) to YHWH a new song,
His praise in (the) assembly of (the) devout!”

The Psalmist calls on the people to give praise to YHWH with an imperative-formulation (using the verb ryv!, “sing”), following the pattern of the initial Hy` Wll=h^ exclamation. All of the Psalms in the Hallelujah collection (146-150) begin and end with this praise-exclamation, Hal®lû-Y¹h, “Praise YH(WH)!”. The verb ll^h* is not used in the couplet, but the derived noun hL*h!T= (“praise”) is present, parallel to the noun ryv! (“song”).

This particular call to praise echoes the opening of Psalms 96 and 98, resembling also Isa 42:10 (cf. Judith 16:13). Clearly, the praise and worship given to YHWH is musical in nature, involving song (like the hymn of Ps 149 itself) and performed with various musical instruments (see v. 3 below); cf. the parallel in v. 6. It is also performed in a public gathering (lh*q*), in which God’s people are assembled together; it is assumed that those who are so gathered are the ones faithful and devoted (adj. dys!j*) to YHWH. From an eschatological standpoint, the Psalmist probably envisions that the entirety of the people will be faithful to YHWH.

This couplet has an extended 4+3 meter (though this is not apparent in my translation), matching the final four-beat line of v. 9b. The remainder of the Psalm is comprised of 3-beat (3+3) couplets (+ the line in v. 9a).

Stanza 1: Verses 2-4

Verse 2

“Let Yisrael be glad in (the One hav)ing made him,
let (the) sons of Ṣiyyôn be joyous in their King!”

This initial couplet describes the praise (given to YHWH, v. 1) as joyous in character, performed with an attitude and spirit of rejoicing. The verb jm^c* denotes being glad, while the parallel lyG] alludes to a joyfulness expressed through (loud) singing and dancing; the basic denotation of lyg seems to involve movement in a circle (i.e., twirling, spinning, dancing; cf. Arabic jwl). The people of Israel here are identified with the city of Jerusalem (Zion) and the central cultic site of the Temple sanctuary—symbolic and ritual dwelling-place of YHWH where He is enthroned as King. This close association is typical of the early post-exilic period and is reflected in a number of Psalms—especially in the Songs of Ascent (120-134) and other Zion-Psalms. The term “Zion” serves to represent the people as a whole—i.e., the faithful ones, those who devoutly worship YHWH and who honor the holy city (with its Temple sanctuary).

YHWH is identified as both the Creator of the universe (including all of humankind) and its King. These two thematic points of emphasis are closely related (see, e.g., Isa 43:15) and feature in all the Psalms of this final collection (as also in Pss 93-100, etc). The substantive verbal noun (participle) hc#u), “(one) making, maker”, from the common verb hc*u* (“make, do”), is a traditional way of expressing the idea of YHWH as Creator. Here, it is apparently a plural form (with suffix, wyc^u)), which, if so, can be understood as a comprehensive/intensive plural (like the plural noun <yh!l)a$) or as a plural of majesty, i.e., “great/supreme Maker”; cf. Isa 54:5; Job 35:10, also Eccl 12:1 (with the verb ar*B*). As noted by Goulder (p. 298; cf. Allen, p. 396), all of these apparent plural forms involve YHWH’s work as Creator. However, the form could also be explained as an archaic singular which preserves the original y of a h–l root (i.e., ycu > hcu); cf. GKC §124k; the archaism of this preserved detail may still reflect specific poetic traditions regarding the theme of YHWH as Creator (Deut 32:6, etc). While YHWH is the “Maker” of all humankind, He is particularly so for His people Israel, since He also formed them as a nation; cf. Psalm 95:6; 100:3; Isa 44:2; 51:13; 54:5.

The second line features the related theme of YHWH as King; and, indeed, the Kingship of YHWH is the prominent thematic emphasis in the Psalm (as throughout Pss 146-150). His Kingship is based upon His identity as the Creator. On the specific connection of YHWH’s Kingship with Zion, see esp. the prior references in Ps 146:10; 147:13.

Verse 3

“Let them praise His name with twirling dance(s),
let them make music to Him with tambor and harp!”

While the initial couplet alludes to the basis for the praise given to YHWH, and emphasizes that it occurs in His presence (i.e., in relation to the Temple sanctuary), here in the second couplet the focus is on the manner of the praise—specifically, that it is done with dancing and music (possibly alluding to Exod 15:20). The noun rojm* denotes a dance performed in a circle, from the verbal root lwj (“turn round [in a circle], spin, twirl”), cp. the use of lyg earlier in v. 2b. The musical instruments with which the people “make music” (vb rm^z`) to YHWH are represented here by the tamborine ([T)) and harp (roNK!); cf. 147:7; 150:3-4; note also Jer 31:3-4.

In line 1, the people are called to praise the name of YHWH, which, as I have discussed, means the same thing as praising YHWH Himself; the parallelism of the lines here makes that point quite clear. It is particularly through God’s name that His people relate to Him (in worship, etc.), all the more so in light of the ancient line of tradition connecting His name with the Temple sanctuary in Jerusalem (the name symbolizing the presence of YHWH). In this regard, cf. especially the references in the Prayer of Solomon (1 Kings 8), set at the dedication of the newly-built Temple, which I have discussed in an earlier set of notes. Compare the prior references to YHWH’s name in Ps 148:5, 13; cf. also the framing references in 145:1-2, 21.

The word order in my translation of v. 3 is meant to bring out the synonymous parallelism of the couplet; however, in terms of the Hebrew word order, the verse has a chiastic structure:

    • “Let them praise | His name
      • with twirling dance(s)
      • with tamborine and harp
    • let them make music | to Him”
Verse 4

“For YHWH (is One) taking delight in his people,
and He adorns with salvation (those) bent down!”

The final couplet is expository, explaining further the reason why the people give praise to YHWH. As their God, and within the covenant bond He has established with them, YHWH looks fondly on His people, taking delight (vb hx*r*) in them and in doing good on their behalf. This implies the many different blessings that YHWH provides for His people, insofar as they loyal to Him and faithful to the covenant (cf. Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 28); see Psalm 147:11. These blessings include protection and deliverance (i.e., salvation, hu*Wvy+); YHWH will protect and rescue His people from all the dangers they might face (such as from the hostile nations, cf. Stanza 2 below). This salvation effectively serves as an adornment (vb ra^P*) that gives beauty and honor to the people; cf. Isa 60:9; 61:3 (rap specifically is connected with a headdress/turban). Quite often in the Psalms, YHWH is praised primarily because of salvation He has provided (whether to the individual righteous person or to the people collectively); particularly relevant are the references in Ps 96:2; 98:2f; and cf. Isa 44:23; 49:13.

Throughout the Psalms, the adjective wn`u` (cf. also yn]u*) is used as a designation for the righteous ones. It denotes a person who is “bent down”, either as the result of enduring affliction and oppression, or in terms of a characteristic humility and devout ‘lowliness’. Both aspects of meaning apply to the righteous, and both are likely in view here. The need for salvation implies some measure of oppression (from the nations, etc.), while the fact that YHWH acts to save them indicates that the people are demonstrating devotion and faithfulness. For this thematic motif, see esp. the earlier Ps 147:6, 11.

The participle (of the verb hx*r*) in line 1 can be understood in a simple active/dynamic present sense (“[He] is taking delight”), which might be translated in the present tense (“He takes delight”); however, such substantive participles, when applied to YHWH in the Psalms, often express a fundamental characteristic and regular/habitual behavior, and I have translated it above in that manner: “[He] (is the One) taking delight”.

While the first stanza (and esp. verse 4) certainly refers to past acts of deliverance on behalf of Israel, I do not find here a specific allusion to the Exodus (as a primary point of reference), such as Ceresko (pp. 181-4) suggests. The best argument in favor of the Exodus-proposal would be the possible allusion to Exod 15:20 in verse 3 (mentioned above).

Stanza 2: Verses 5-9a

Verse 5

“Let (the) devoted (one)s rejoice in weight (of honor),
let them ring out upon (the) places where they lay!”

This first couplet of the second stanza corresponds with v. 2 in stanza 1 (see above). However, the precise meaning (in relation to that earlier couplet) is uncertain. Particularly problematic is the mention of “places of laying-down/reclining” (bk*v=m!), usually understood in the sense of “beds, couches” (Ps 4:5[4]; 36:5[4], etc.), though such a meaning (at first glance) seems rather out of place here. Allen (p. 400) understands the locative noun here in the context of the righteous laying down (prostrate) in worship and humble devotion, either with specific reference to v. 4b or to the scene in v. 2 (i.e., worshiping in the presence of YHWH). While the latter would make for a rather fitting parallel to verse 2 (with the dobK* [“weight”] being that of YHWH), it does not particularly suit the parallelism of the couplet itself.
Ceresko (pp. 185ff) argues that verse 5 is the central ‘pivot’ verse of the Psalm, and that the noun dobK* (“weight”, i.e., honor, glory) stands at the very center of the composition, which would tend to confirm that this “weight” (of honor/glory) is that of YHWH rather than of the righteous (see below). He notes that there are 76 syllables prior to the word dobK* and 75 following it. Also, like Dahood (III, p. 357), Ceresko treats the noun as a Divine title (“Weighty [i.e., Glorious] One”), a suggestion originally made decades earlier by J. Böhmer. 

Another possibility is to view the reclining places (i.e., couches) as places of honor and prestige, in which the righteous are able to relax, having been delivered from the oppression of their enemies, etc. This would provide a fitting (if somewhat oblique) parallel to dobK* in line 1; in this case, dobK* would refer to the “weight” (i.e., of honor, glory, esteem) that God’s people have received (implied in v. 4).

For the many and varied attempts otherwise to explain the use of bk*v=m! here, see Hossfeld-Zenger, p. 642; Goulder, p. 299; and Broderson, pp. 101-3. Ceresko (p. 186f) takes bk*v=m! in its ordinary domestic sense (i.e., “bed”) and claims that the lines of the couplet represent a distinction (for the righteous) of public (line 1) vs. private worship. The idea that the devout ones will be faithful to YHWH, worshiping him even at night (in the privacy of their bedrooms), does appear as an occasional point of emphasis in the Psalms (cf. 4:5[4]). Ceresko points to Micah 2:1 (cf. Psalm 36:5[4]) where there is a contrast between the wicked planning evil “upon their beds” and the righteous in the assembly of YHWH (v. 5).

Verse 6

“(Let) high praises of (the) Mighty (One be) in their throat,
and (let there be) a two-mouthed sword in their hand—”

As Allen (p. 396) notes (citing Joüon §§155n, 163b), a nominal clause can have jussive force; in light of the tacit parallel with v. 3 in Stanza 1 (see above), I so understand and translate the verse.

There is no problem with the first line, which continues the focus on giving praise to YHWH—and, particularly, of singing praises loudly and jubilantly to Him (i.e., exalting praises are in the people’s throat [/orG`]). The difficulty comes in the second line: in what sense is the image of the “two-mouthed [i.e., two-edged] sword” to be taken? Is it a metaphor for praise? Has the scene suddenly switched to a military camp in which the people are preparing for holy battle? Is there an allusion to a ritual ‘sword-dance’, in the manner that many interpreters understand the reference in Song 7:1 [6:13]?

In verse 3, the people have musical instruments in their hands, while here, in the parallel couplet of the second Stanza, they hold swords—i.e., instruments of war. Yet the swords could also be used in a praise-context in a manner comparable to the tamborine, etc.—that is, used to make a loud ringing noise. Indeed, the parallel with verse 3 forces one to consider seriously the possibility that swords here serve strictly a symbolic and ritual purpose in the public assembly.

At the same time, there is unquestionably militaristic imagery that follows in vv. 7ff, and many commentators assume that the setting of the stanza (if not the entire Psalm) is that of an impending battle against the nations. However, if this is so, the battle must be understood in an eschatological context—that is, the great ‘day of YHWH’ when He brings judgment against the nations. It is perhaps assumed that God’s people (the righteous ones) will assist or otherwise act on YHWH’s behalf in bringing this about (through battle). Another possibility is that the sword represents the people’s solidarity with YHWH, giving praise to Him in anticipation of the judgment that He is about to bring against the nations. Almost certainly, the Psalm here is drawing upon ‘holy war’ tradition, in which the Israelite people would on occasions engage in bloody battle (with YHWH’s power working on their side) against other nations, but it is not entirely certain how concrete the imagery is meant to be applied in this instance. Cf. Mowinckel, pp. 295-6.

Verse 7

“(so as) to make retribution on the nations,
reprisals (in judgment) on the peoples;”

Verses 7-9 are expository, just like verse 4 was for the first stanza (see above). While verse 4 emphasized YHWH’s relationship to His people (Israel), here the focus is on His relationship to the surrounding nations. YHWH delivered His people (v. 4), ultimately restoring them (to their land, etc.) and ushering in a New Age. And, in this New Age, Israel’s restoration is to be following by the great Judgment—the day of YHWH—against all the other nations. Both of these eschatological events—the restoration of Israel and the judgment of the nations—demonstrate YHWH’s supreme power as King over the universe.

Syntactically, the two couplets of vv. 7-8, as well as the closing line of v. 9a, take the form of infinitive purpose/result clauses—i.e., “in order to…”, “so as to…”. The syntactical connection between vv. 7ff and the previous line (in v. 6b) certainly seems to suggest that God’s people (i.e., the righteous ones) will use the ‘two-edged sword’ in their hands to execute the judgment against the nations. Whether an actual, concrete military battle—between Israel and the nations—was envisioned by the Psalmist is harder to say.

The noun hm*q=n] can mean “vengeance, revenge”, but it can also carry the more juridical sense of “retribution”; given the judgment-context of these verses, I have rendered it here as “retribution”. In Israelite historical tradition, hm*q=n] occurs on several occasions in reference to Israel’s execution of vengeance (and judgment) against the wicked/oppressive nations (Num 31:2-3; Judg 11:36; 2 Sam 22:48). It occurs more frequently in the book of Jeremiah (9 times), and particularly within the oracle of judgment against Babylon (50:16, 28; 51:6, 11, 36); cf. also the nation-oracle references in Ezek 25:14-15, 17. These exilic-era references illustrate the seminal eschatological theme of the “day of YHWH”, in which, with the coming of the New Age (of Israel’s restoration), YHWH will judge all of the nations; this theme would undergo considerable development in the post-exilic period—a development that is surely reflected here in Ps 149. The noun hm*q=n] occurs three other times in the Psalms: in 18:48[47] (par 2 Sam 22:48), where it is the Davidic king specifically who acts to bring judgment/vengeance on the nations; 79:10, where it is declared that YHWH will avenge the violence perpetrated against His people (and the poor/righteous ones); and, finally, at the beginning of Ps 94 (v. 1), which is very close to the thematic context of Ps 149—expressing the eschatological expectation that YHWH, as King, will exercise judgment against all the nations (and their kings).

The parallel noun (in line 2) is hj*k@oT, from the verb jk^y` (“argue, dispute, prove [right/wrong],” often, “reprove, rebuke”). The common sense of “rebuke” can carry the harsher negative/penal meaning of “punishment”, such as is the case here; I have translated the plural above as “reprisals”. The related noun tj^k@oT occurs more frequently, especially in Proverbs in the disciplinary sense of a corrective rebuke, but also (occasionally) in a judgment-context—cf. Ezek 5:15; 25:17. The specific noun hj*k@oT occurs just three other times in Scripture (2 Kings 19:3 / Isa 37:3; Hos 5:9), all of which refer to judgment against Israel, while here it is to judgment against the nations; perhaps there is an implicit allusion to vindication against the nations for their role in the judgment(s) brought upon Israel/Judah.

For the idea of the eschatological Judgment on the nations specifically as a “day of vengeance”, see Isa 61:2; 63:4; cf. also Mic 5:14.

Textual Note on v. 7b

The WLC and BHS editions of the text read <yma lB (“not peoples”), while the Aleppo Codex parses differently, <ymalB (“on [the] peoples”). This confusion, due to the fact that the nouns hM*a% and <a)l= both essentially mean “(group of) people, tribe, nation”, also seems to occur in Ps 44:15[14]; 57:10[9]; 108:4[3]. Here, the parallelism of the lines in v. 7 argues strongly—one might say, decisively—in favor of the reading <ymalB: that is, the plural noun <yM!a%l= with the prefixed preposition B=. However, <yma lB (“not peoples”) is certainly the more difficult reading (lectio difficilior) and therefore should not be summarily dismissed. Possibly the Psalmist is employing a bit of wordplay that might allow for recognitions of both ways of reading the text. Insofar as <yma lB is to be regarded as valid, the implication may be that the other nations, because of their wickedness, are to be considered non-peoples, their status as such being confirmed by YHWH in the Judgment. On the idea of the nations—i.e., those worshipping ‘idols’ and deities other than YHWH—as non-peoples, cf. Deuteronomy 32:21. See the discussion by Broderson, pp. 104-5.

Verse 8

“to bind their kings with (heavy) fetters
and their weighty (one)s with bonds of iron;”

If there is a military battle whereby the nations are subdued, the Psalmist makes no mention of it, except allusively by way of suggestion; instead, he moves immediately to the result (i.e., result-infinitive) of the subduing judgment-action. The kings and other rulers/leaders of the nations are taken prisoner, bound (vb rs^a*) with heavy chains. This is certainly to be understood as an important stage, or aspect, of the eschatological judgment—cf. Isa 24:21-22; 41:15ff; note also the language in Nahum’s judgment oracle against Assyria (Nineveh), 3:10. There may be a specific allusion here to Psalm 2:2-3.

In the second line, the substantive verbal adjective (pass. participle), “weighty [i.e., honored] (one)s”, from the verb db^K*, is parallel with “kings” in line 1. Possibly, the two terms are precisely synonymous (i.e., both referring to the kings); more likely, however, the pairing is a merismus that covers all of the nation’s leading/prominent individuals. Clearly, there is an intentional echo of the use of the related noun (dobK*) in v. 5. The “weight” (i.e., glory/honor) given by the nations to their leaders is contrasted with that of the King YHWH (and His people).

Verse 9a

“to make on them (the) judgment (that is) written!”

This concluding line echoes verse 7, thus forming an inclusio for vv. 7-9 as a poetic unit. The specific idiom of “make judgment” (vb hc*u* + fP*v=m!) means execute judgment, i.e., acting to establish justice and right order (cf. Ps 9:5[4]; Lam 3:59). The passive participle of the verb bt^K* (“write”), i.e., “(hav)ing been written”, functions as a modifying adjective—i.e., a judgment that has been written. This presumably refers to the judgment of the nations as a decree issued by YHWH (as King and Judge), which then the holy/righteous ones will carry out (v. 6b ff). There are allusions to such a role for the righteous in the Prophetic texts (e.g., Isa 26:5-6; 41:15; Ezek 25:13-14; Mic 4:13; Zechariah 9-12), though the idea becomes more prominent subsequently in Jewish eschatology and apocalyptic, as (for example) in 1 Enoch 48:9; 91:12 and, notably, the Qumran War Scroll; cf. Hossfeld-Zenger, p. 650.

Conclusion

Verse 9b

“A splendid honor this (is) for all (the) devout (one)s!”
Praise YH(WH)!

The second line of verse 9 can be understood two ways: (1) in connection with the judgment of the nations in Stanza 2, whereby one could read v. 9 as a couplet (with v. 9b corresponding to v. 5); and (2) as a conclusion to the Psalm as a whole, in which case the line corresponds to the opening call to praise in verse 1. The parallel with v. 1 is established by the use of the substantive plural adjective <yd!ys!j&, “(the) devoted (one)s”, rendered above (in v. 1) as “(the) devout. This is a regular designation for the righteous ones of Israel, those who are faithful/loyal to YHWH and devoted to the covenant. The setting of the Psalm is the congregation/assembly of the righteous ones of Israel; though, as I noted above, within the eschatological orientation of the Psalm, the composer presumably expects the entire people to be righteous/devout.

Just as the past acts of protection and deliverance (salvation), performed by YHWH on behalf of His people, result in their honor/glory (vv. 4-5), so it will be for them with regard to the judgment of the nations. In the previous world order, the nations and their kings held greater positions of honor and power; this will no longer be so in the New Age, as the restored Israel (i.e., the Community of the righteous) will hold the highest position of honor/power over the nations that have been defeated/subdued in the Judgment.
In verse 5, the noun is dobK*, while here in v. 9b it is rd*h*; in the context of the Psalm, these are nearly synonymous terms, as both essentially mean “honor”. The noun rd*h* also suggests the idea of beauty and adornment, echoing the use of ra^P* in verse 4; this aspect of meaning is often translated as “splendor”. But rd*h* also can connote the idea of “majesty”, which is fully in keeping with the theme of YHWH as King; by extension, this sense of Divine royalty comes to be applied to the restored (and righteous) people of God in the New Age.

In the Qumran manuscript 11QPsa, there is a couplet rather than a single line here for v. 9b (which would match the couplet in v. 1):

“A splendid honor this (is) for all (the) devout (one)s,
for (the) sons of Yisrael (the) people of His holiness!”

    • 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 “Broderson” are to Alma Broderson, The End of the Psalter: Psalms 146-150 in the Masoretic Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Septuagint, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 505 (Walter de Gruyter: 2017).
    • Those marked “Ceresko” are to A. R. Ceresko, “Psalm 149: Poetry, Themes (Exodus and Conquest),” Biblica 67 (1986), pp. 179-94. 
    • Those marked “Prinsloo” are to W. S. Prinsloo, “Psalm 149: Praise Yahweh with Tambourine and Two-edged Sword,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [ZAW] 109 (1997), pp. 395-407.
    • Those marked “Mowinckel” are to Sigmund Mowinckel, Psalm Studies, 2 volumes, translated by Mark E. Biddle from the original German publications, Psalmenstudien [6 vols] (1921-4). Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] History of Biblical Studies 2 (SBL Press: 2014).

“God Sent Forth His Son…”: Philippians 2:6-11 (Part 4)

Philippians 2:6-11, continued

(See Parts 1, 2, and 3 of this article)

3. The Christ-Hymn and the Pauline view of the Incarnation

We have already examined the idea of the incarnation of Christ as presented in the first half (vv. 6-8) of the Philippians hymn—both in terms of the language/wording used and the overall structure of the hymn. Now it remains to consider how this portrait relates to the other references and allusions to the incarnation elsewhere in Paul’s letters.

Of particular importance is description of Christ’s Divine/heavenly pre-existence in verse 6. As we have seen, there are several other references that suggest pre-existence (the closest parallel being 2 Cor 8:9), but these are allusive at best; it is only here at the beginning of the Christ-hymn that we find anything approaching a developed conception of pre-existence. Even so, the idea of pre-existence can be affirmed only indirectly, on the basis of the sequence and structure of the hymn, in two major ways: (1) a description of Divine/heavenly existence (verbs u(pa/rxw and ei)mi) precedes Christ’s life as a human being (with the verb gi/nomai alluding to his human birth); and (2) the chiastic thematic/conceptual structure of the hymn indicates that an exalted existence prior to Christ’s human birth corresponds to a similar existence after his death (vv. 9-11).

We are also provided with very little information about the nature of this pre-existence. The parallel with the post-resurrection exaltation (vv. 9ff) tells us that Christ possessed an exalted status and position in heaven alongside God; the context of v. 6 in relation to vv. 7-8, with the language of emptying (vb keno/w) and lowering (vb tapeino/w) oneself, confirms this point of orientation. Beyond this, there is only the statement that he existed “in (the) form of God” (e)n morfh=| qeou=), in a manner that came near to being “equal to God” (i&sa qew=|). As I argued in Part 1 (and again in Part 3), the expression e)n morfh=| qeou= should be understood primarily in terms of status and position, though, in a fundamental sense, it must also refer to the possession of the (visible) Divine/heavenly glory.

It is worth considering the conceptual framework in which Paul (and/or the author of the hymn [if it was someone other than Paul]) envisioned the exalted pre-existence of Christ. There are four major lines of interpretation that one might pursue, for each of which there have been advocates among modern commentators:

    • A heavenly/angelic (Messianic) being, akin to the “Son of Man” figure from Daniel and the Enoch Tradition.
    • A heavenly ‘Adam’, corresponding to the earthly Adam—i.e., the first human, after whom all others are patterned; cf. 1 Corinthians 15; Romans 5.
    • The Divine Wisdom, comparable to the Word (Logos) of the Johannine Gospel Prologue (1:1-18).
    • The Son of God, similar to the pre-existent Son referenced throughout the Gospel of John.

There is obviously a certain amount of conceptual overlap between these four figure-types, as we can see, for example, from the Johannine Prologue, in which the idea of the Divine/pre-existent Wisdom from Jewish tradition is blended together with the figure of the Son of God. Similarly, among early Christians the concept of the Messiah as the ‘Son of God’ (drawn from Scriptural and religious tradition) came to be joined together with a heavenly ‘Son of Man’ figure (from Daniel 7) and applied to the person of Christ; a somewhat comparable dynamic seems to have occurred within the Enochic Tradition, applied to the person of Enoch.

If we turn to the other Pauline references that we have studied, we find that the primary point of reference is to the pre-existent Christ as the Son of God. This is very much clear from Gal 4:4 and Rom 8:3, which specifically refer to God sending forth His Son. In Rom 8:3, the simple verb pe/mpw (“send”) is used, but in Gal 4:4 it is the compound verb e)caposte/llw (“send out from”); if one takes the compound verb in a precisely literal sense, then the reference is to God sending forth His Son from where He is (i.e., the Divine realm of heaven). In Rom 1:3-4, the point of reference is also to Christ as the Son, even though, in this instance his Messianic identity is more clearly in view, and thus the Sonship could be understood in a traditional Messianic (rather than heavenly/pre-existent) sense. Cf. also Rom 5:10, which alludes to the possession of Divine Sonship by Christ prior to his death.

It is noteworthy, however, that there is no specific mention of Christ as God’s Son anywhere in the Christ-hymn (nor in Philippians at all, for that matter). This is somewhat surprising if Divine Sonship were the primary idea being emphasized in verse 6. It could be argued that the expression “(the) form [morfh/] of God” here is comparable to “(the) image [ei)kw/n] of God” in 2 Cor 4:4 (cf. also Col 1:15), with the Son being understood as the “image” of the Father. However, Sonship does not seem particularly to be emphasized in either 2 Cor 3:1-4:6 or the ‘Christ-hymn’ of Col 1:15-20 (to be discussed). Rather, in these two passages, Paul seems to be drawing upon Hellenistic Jewish tradition regarding the personification of the Wisdom of God; Christ is thus being identified as the Divine (and pre-existent) Wisdom (cf. Prov 8:22-31). Such an identification is likely in view also in 1 Cor 8:6, with the allusions to Christ’s role in Creation and in sustaining the cosmos (cf. John 1:3f, 10).

At the same time, if the expression “(the) form of God” in Phil 2:6 is in any way comparable with “(the) image of God”, then the use of this terminology in 1 Cor 11:7 and 15:49 could imply an allusion to the Creation account and the idea that humankind (Adam) was made “in the image of God” (Gen 1:26-27); this, in turn, would tend to support the Adam/Christ parallelism that Paul utilizes in 1 Cor 15 and Romans 5. The context of Romans 8:29 seems to draw upon this same line of interpretation; indeed, in Romans 8 the theme of (Divine) sonship is blended together with that of humanity’s corporate identity in Christ (i.e., the new ‘Adam’).

Thus, as this brief survey indicates, Paul was capable of utilizing all four of the conceptual frameworks outlined above, even combining them in different and creative ways. In my view, the pre-existence of Christ in Phil 2:6, in the context of the Christ-hymn as a whole, is best understood in the light of the exaltation Christology of vv. 9-11. Within this early Christology, which informed all of the earliest Christian preaching (and featured in the first Gospel narratives), Jesus’ identity as the Son of God (and as the heavenly Son of Man [of Daniel 7]) was understood primarily in terms of his resurrection and exaltation to heaven (at God’s right hand). The chiastic structure of the Christ-hymn produces an inverse ‘mirror-image’ of the exaltation-Christology, so that, in the first half of the hymn (vv. 6-8), the conception of Christ’s exalted pre-existent status (and subsequent incarnation) mirrors the traditional portrait of his post-resurrection exaltation. It is doubtful whether the pre-existence Christology of the hymn goes much beyond this.

As noted above, in 2 Corinthians 3:1-4:6, followed by Colossians 1:15-20, Paul does seem to be developing a seminal Wisdom Christology, by which Jesus Christ was identified with the personified (and pre-existent) Wisdom of God. More distinctive as a Pauline contribution is his Adam/Christ typology that he utilizes in 1 Corinthians 15 and then develops more extensively in Romans 5-8. However, for most of the incarnation-references that we have examined, these Christological developments are only marginally in evidence. More commonly, Paul simply refers to Jesus’ Messianic identity and to his exalted status as Son of God and “Lord”, evincing a tendency to attribute these to Jesus’ person even prior to his death and resurrection. This certainly implies at least a rudimentary pre-existence Christology, but one that was as yet not defined with theological precision, not even in the Philippians Christ-hymn. Given the context of this hymn within the letter, it would be unrealistic to expect such precision, in any case.

In the Christ-hymn of Colossians (1:15-20), we perhaps find evidence for a Christology that has gone a step or two further in its development. It is to this key passage, complicated by questions regarding the Pauline authorship of the letter, that we will turn for the next article in our series.

“God Sent Forth His Son…”: Philippians 2:6-11 (Part 3)

Philippians 2:6-11, continued

(See Parts 1 and 2 of this article)

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

In this section we are examining certain key phrases and expressions (concentrated in vv. 6-7):

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

The first two phrases/expressions (v. 6) relate to the idea of Christ’s Divine pre-existence, while the last two (v. 7) relate to the incarnation. For the discussion on the first expression (e)n morfh=| qeou=) with its use of the noun morfh/, see Part 1; the last three expressions were examined in Part 2. Here, in Part 3, the three nouns—morfh/, o(moi/wma, and sxh=ma—used in sequence in verse 7 will be considered. These nouns occur in a series of participial phrases:

    • “(hav)ing taken (the) form of a slave”
      morfh\n dou/lou labw/n
    • “(hav)ing come to be in (the) likeness of men”
      e)n o(moiw/mati a)nqrw/pwn geno/meno$
    • “(hav)ing been found in bearing as a man”
      sxhma/ti eu)reqei\$ w($ a&nqrw/po$

The phrases are parallel, closely parallel in wording, but they do form a definite sequence of progression; this sequence may be outlined as follows:

    • the human condition (in contrast to the Divine/heavenly condition [v. 6])
    • a human being, like all other human beings (in form and appearance)
    • a distinct and specific human being—viz., a particular man

The first two phrases are identical in structure (using the Greek word order):

    • morfh\n | dou/lou | labw/n
      “(the) form | of a slave | (hav)ing taken”
    • e)n o(moiw/mati | a)nqrw/pwn | geno/meno$
      “in (the) likeness | of men | (hav)ing come to be”

Let us first consider the two verbs, each in the form of an aorist participle (indicating a past action or condition). In the first phrase, it is the common verb lamba/nw (“take”), which refers to Christ’s voluntary adoption of the human condition, as indicated by the context of v. 6 and the initial phrase of verse 7 (discussed in part 2): “he emptied himself”. The second verb, the verb of becoming (gi/nomai, “come to be”), refers to Christ’s existence as an (actual) human being and alludes, most likely, to his birth as a human being. The related verb genna/w is more commonly used in reference to a birth, but gi/nomai can sometimes carry this same sense. One naturally thinks of its use in John 1:14 (“And the Word became [e)ge/neto] flesh”), though the Pauline usage in Rom 1:3 and Gal 4:4 (both previously discussed) is surely a more relevant parallel, particularly in the use of the aorist participle:

“…His Son, the (one hav)ing come to be [genome/nou] out of (the) seed of David according to (the) flesh” [Rom 1:3]
“…God sent forth His Son, (hav)ing come to be [geno/menon] out of a woman…” [Gal 4:4]

Since the birth of the Son (as a human being) is clearly being referenced in these verses, almost certainly it also is here in Phil 2:7.

Also parallel are the expressions “form of a slave” (morfh\n dou/lou) and “in (the) likeness of men” (e)n o(moiw/mati a)nqrw/pwn). In this context, the noun dou=lo$ (“slave”) is parallel with a)nqrw/po$ (“man”, plur. “men”), suggesting that the human condition is depicted as a kind of slavery. As discussed in Part 1, this is best understood in terms of the precise parallel between the two expressions:

    • morfh\ qeou= (“[the] form of God”) [v. 6]
    • morfh\ doulou= (“[the] form of a slave”) [v. 7]

The noun qeo/$ (“God”) refers to the Son’s exalted status and position (in heaven, alongside God [the Father]); by contrast, the noun dou=lo$ (“slave”) indicates the lowly status and position of a human being. The lowness of this status/position is understood, primarily, in comparison to God. Next to God Himself, human beings are mere slaves. Nevertheless, it is possible to read into the use of the term dou=lo$ here other connotative and contextual aspects of meaning. For example, many commentators see here in dou=lo$ an allusive reference to the concept of the “servant of God [YHWH]”, particularly as the corresponding term in Hebrew (db#u#) is used in Isa 52:13-53:12. Paul’s frequent designation of Christian ministers and missionaries as the “servants” (i.e., “slaves”, dou=loi) of God (and Christ), such as at the beginning of Philippians (1:1), lends credence to such a proposition (see below).

Closer to the theological context of Gal 4:4 (cf. Rom 8:3) is the Pauline concept of humankind being under bondage (i.e., as slaves) to the power of sin; within the Pauline theology, being “under the law” (Gal 4:4) is closely related to being “under sin” (note the parallelism in Gal 3:22-23, and cf. also “under [the] curse” in 3:17). If coming to be born as a human being means being “under the law”, then this also involves being in bondage to the power of sin (“under sin”). Christ came to be born “under sin” so that he might free humankind (i.e., believers) from the power of sin (cf. the context of Rom 8:3).

This brings us to the relationship between the second and third phrases, particularly with regard to the parallel expressions “in (the) likeness of men” and “in bearing as a man”. The plural of a&nqrwpo$, “men”, refers to human beings generally, while the singular (“man”) refers to a particular individual—that is, Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son, as a human being. He came to be born as a human being like all other humans; and, upon his birth, he appeared and carried himself just like any other man. The noun sxh=ma in this regard is somewhat ambiguous. It is derived from the verb e&xw (“hold, have”) by way of the (2nd aorist) infinitive sxei=n (“to hold, to [have] held, holding”). The denotation of the noun is thus “holding”, i.e., the way (or manner) in which something is “held” or “holds together” (i.e., its form/shape/structure), or (reflexively) the way in which one “holds oneself” (i.e., conducts or carries oneself). In order to preserve this basic range of meaning, while still keeping the English readable, I have translated sxh=ma above as “bearing”.

Clearly, the three nouns in these phrases—morfh/, o(moi/wma, and sxh=ma—are closely related in meaning. Yet, there are definite distinctions between them, however subtle. The noun morfh/ properly refers to the visible form or shape of an object (or person). The noun o(moi/wma, from the verb o(moio/w (pass. “be[come] like”), means “likeness”, indicates a close similarity or resemblance (between one thing/person and another). As discussed above (and in Part 1), the use of morfh/, in this context, refers to the Son’s status and position such as it is clearly distinguishable (i.e., visible); as a human being, the incarnate Son’s status and position was lowered to that of a mere “slave” which could be readily apparent to any observer (that is, he was clearly a human being). The use of o(moi/wma (in the prepositional expression “in the likeness [of]”, e)n o(moiw/mati) emphasizes this point. In every way, the incarnate Son, resembled (i.e., looked like) every other human being. The use of sxh=ma takes the point a step further, applying it specifically the person of Christ as a human being. In his “bearing”, Christ had the physical form/structure of a human being, having been born just like every other human; at the same time, he carried himself in the manner and fashion of an ordinary human being—that is, in his daily life: eating, sleeping, speaking and relating to other people, et al. The passive participle of the verb eu)ri/skw (“find”), “(hav)ing been found”, refers generally to the observance of Christ by other people, and to the experience they had as they encountered him.

Nevertheless, the use of the comparative particle w($ (“as”), i.e., “as a man”, in light of the noun o(moi/wma (“likness”) in the prior phrase, may be intended as an allusion to the fact that the incarnate Son was also something more than an ordinary human being (v. 6). The point should not be pressed too far, nor should the language and imagery in the hymn be forced into the theological and ideological matrix of later Christology. The wording in verse 7, taken on its own, provides specific support for neither the orthodox nor a docetic Christology. While it is certainly emphasized that the Son became a human being and resembled one in every way, the verse offers no precise definition as to the nature and (possible) limitations of the incarnate Son’s humanity.

In contrast to the difficult wording in verses 6-7, that of verse 8 is simpler and more straightforward. Note, however, the way in which the phrasing of verse 8 is formally parallel with v. 7:

    • “he emptied himself,
      • …(hav)ing come to be in (the) likeness of men”
    • “he lowered himself,
      • (hav)ing come to be obedient to the point of death”

Clearly, we are dealing with two distinct stages of the incarnation: (a) the Son’s birth as a human being (and his human life generally), and (b) the incarnate Son’s ministry among human beings, culminating in his death. The two components in the participial clause of verse 8—Christ’s obedience (u(ph/koo$) and his death—suggest two distinct aspects of the “slave” (dou=lo$) motif (i.e., the first of the participial phrases in v. 7), outlined above. First, there is the concept of Christ as the “servant of God”, one who serves God with total obedience and commitment (even to the point of death). Second, is Pauline theological concept of humankind being under bondage (i.e., as slaves) to the power of sin and death. Christ’s death (on the cross) is the end product of his having been born “under the law” and “under sin” (Gal 3:22-23); of great significance, in this regard, is the use of the related expression “under (the) curse” in Gal 3:17, since it is specifically tied to Jesus’ death on the cross. Though it is only implied here in the hymn, the Son came to be born as human being “under sin” so that he might set human beings free from their bondage to sin and death.

In Part 4 of this article, we will explore how the Christology of Phil 2:6-11—and especially, the references to the incarnation in vv. 6-8—relates to the other Pauline passages that we have previously discussed.

December 22: Job 4:20-21

Job 4:17-21, continued
Verse 20

“From daybreak to the sunset they are crushed,
without (anyone) setting (it to heart)—
to (the) very end they perish!”

This verse builds upon the emphasis on human mortality in verse 19 (see the previous two notes). Indeed, the verb tj^K* (“crush, shatter”) here is quite similar in meaning to ak*D* (= Ek^D*, “[make] crumble, crush”) in v. 19c. The human body (like the houses in which people dwell), after a short period of life, eventually crumbles to dust (i.e., decays). Here in v. 20 there is likely an additional allusion to the pain and suffering that accompanies many a human life. The passive (MT Hophal, though textually it can be read as a Qal passive form) of tj^K* suggests a condition of suffering, which goes on all day long, and which could indicate the specific experience of oppression (by the wicked, etc). The second line would seem to suggest oppression and injustice that goes unnoticed and/or unaddressed (cf. Isaiah 57:1).

As for the second line/phrase, <yc!m@ yl!B=m!, the ancient Versions apparently found it difficult to understand, since it is translated in a variety of ways (see the summary note by Seow, p. 407f). It is generally regarded as a shorthand for the fuller phrase bl@ [lu^] <yc!m@ yl!B=m!, to be translated “without (anyone) setting (it to) heart”. The compound adverbial-prepositional particle yl!B=m! (i.e., the negative particle yl!B= + preposition /m!) means something like “from there being a lack of”, “from there not being (any)”; yl!B= indicates a condition of absence or non-existence, denoting a situation where something (or someone) has become ‘worn out’ and ceased being active. In Isa 57:1 the same basic phrase occurs, but with a different negative particle (of non-existence), /ya@; cf. also Isa 42:25.
It should be noted that a few commentators (e.g., Dahood, p. 55; Pope, p. 38; Blommerde, p. 43) have explained the phrase differently. Following a suggestion originally made by N. Herz (back in 1900), the text <y?m ylbm is redivided and vocalized as <v@ <yl!B=m!, “without a name”. Verse 20b then reads, simply: “without a name, they perish”. The <– sufformative on yl!B=m! in this instance is enclitic (cf. the article by N. Sarna, “Some Instances of the Enclitic –m in Job” Journal of Jewish Studies 6 [1955] 108–10). Most commentators, however, are unconvinced by the proposal; cf. Michel, p. 99; Clines, pp. 113f; Seow, p. 408. 

Verse 20 has an irregular meter (9:11 syllable count); it can be treated as a 3+4 couplet, or (as I have done above) a 3+2+2 tricolon.

Verse 21

“Is (it) not (that) their cord is pulled out from them?
They die, and without (ever possessing) wisdom!”

The first line of this final couplet is difficult, but the imagery is most likely similar to that of verse 19—viz., the temporary nature (and limited duration) of human dwellings as a symbol for the mortality and transitoriness of human existence. Most commentators identify the noun as rt#y# (II), with the meaning “tent-cord”, though in Psalm 11:2 (cp. Hab 3:9) the reference is to a bow-string, while in Judg 16:7-9 it is used for the tendon of an animal; the general denotation is that of a taut/firm “cord”. The pulling out (vb us^n`) of (tent) cords serves as a shorthand reference for the taking down of a tent-dwelling (when the encampment is moved). Indeed, the verb us^n` is used for the pulling up of camp, even though (as Clines notes, p. 114) it is more appropriate for the pulling out of the tent-pegs (dt@y`, plur.) rather than the removal of the cords (for which other verbs are typically used). Pope (p. 38) notes the parallel with Isa 33:20, where the verb us^n` is used in connection with the removal of the tent-pegs and the breaking of the ropes; cf. also Isa 38:12. A more immediate parallel in the book of Job occurs in 30:11, in which Job refers to his “cord” (rt#y#) being loosened (lit., opened up).
As we have noted, there are a number of instances in the poetry of Job where mixed metaphors are used, or where a peculiar word is chosen, perhaps for the specific purpose of utilizing a bit of wordplay or of alluding back to references earlier in the poem. Cotter (p. 198f) suggests that here us^n` is used because it (and/or the related verb js^n`) is meant to hearken back to the use of hs^n` at the beginning of the poem (v. 2). 

A few commentators (e.g., Seow, p. 408) prefer to identify the noun as rt#y# (I), “remainder”, an identification that is supported by Theodotion’s Greek translation (to u(poleimma au)twn) and the Latin Vulgate. This could refer to what remains of the person after he/she has been “crushed” (v. 19c-20), or, specifically, to one’s possessions or fame/honor. Upon death, nothing of this will remain, but will be taken away (by others?).

The preposition B= normally means “in, with”, usually in a spatial-relational sense, i.e., “in/with them”. The reference then could be to the “cord” within a person (i.e., his/her life) being removed; cf. Qoh 12:6. However, it is also possible to understand B= here in the sense of “from” (similar to /m!), i.e., referring in this instance to something that is taken away from a person (viz., his/her life). Such usage is relatively rare, but not at all uncommon, as many commentators now recognize. Cf. Michel, p. 101f; Seow, p. 408f; and note the article by N. Sarna, “The Interchange of the Prepositions Beth and Min in Biblical Hebrew” Journal of Biblical Literature [JBL] 78 (1959) 310–16.

The point made in the climactic final line—viz., that people perish because of a lack of wisdom—is a fundamental tenet of Wisdom-teaching (36:12; cf. Prov 5:23; 10:21; Hos 4:6, etc). It is doubtless alluded to in the earlier illustration of the strong young lion that perishes from lack of food (v. 11); cf. Cotter, p. 199.

The first line is phrased as a rhetorical question (in the negative), i.e., “Is not…?”, though this could also be rendered as an emphatic assertion (“Surely…!”). It is possible to extend the interrogative to cover the entire couplet:

“Is (it) not (that) their cord is pulled out from them,
and they die with(out ever possessing) wisdom?

    • 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 “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 “Blommerde” are to Anton C. M. Blommerde, Northwest Semitic Grammar and Job, Biblica et Orientalia 22 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1969).
    • Those marked “Dahood” are to Mitchell Dahood, “Northwest Semitic Philology and Job,” in The Bible in Current Catholic Thought (FS M. J. Gruenthaner), ed. J. L. McKenzie. St Mary’s Theology Studies 1 (Herder and Herder: 1962), pp. 55-74.
    • Those marked “Cotter” are to David W. Cotter, A Study of Job 4-5 in the Light of Contemporary Literary Theory, Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Dissertation Series 124 (Scholars Press: 1992).

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 148 (Part 2)

Psalm 148, continued

The first stanza (vv. 1-6) was discussed in Part 1 of this study.

Stanza 2: Verses 7-14

Verse 7

“Praise YHWH from the earth—
(you) sea-monsters and all (the) depths;”

The second stanza is patterned after the first, in the sense that the two stanzas relate to the two halves of the cosmos (“heaven and earth”). The first stanza calls on all things in the upper half (“the heavens”) to praise YHWH, while here in the second stanza it is the lower half (“the earth”) that is called on to give praise. According to the ancient Near Eastern cosmology, the designation “the earth” refers to the entire lower half, not just the flat surface of the earth; that is to say, it also includes all of the deep places (“depths”) below the surface, just as “the heavens” includes all of the high places stretching to the highest point of the heavens (and incorporating the primeval waters that are above). Dahood’s claim (III, p. 353f) that the noun Jr#a# here specifically means the netherworld (i.e., the realms below the surface) is surely incorrect; the term designates the entirety of the lower half of the cosmos—the inhabited surface of the earth as well as all of the places below.

The derivation of the noun /yN]T^ remains uncertain, even though it is attested in Ugaritic and other ancient Semitic languages. In the Hebrew Scriptures (as in Ugaritic) it refers to the great ‘monsters’ (plur. <yn]yN]T^) that dwell in the sea. There are usually mythical implications attached to the term, but it is practically impossible to distinguish between references to real sea-monsters (such as whales, giant eels, crocodiles, etc.) and fabulous mythological creatures (as in the Ugaritic Baal epic). The two are closely connected in the thought and imagination of the ancient Near Eastern peoples. In Psalm 74:13, the usage is clearly mythological, referring specifically the cosmological myth of the great God who subdues the primeval waters and thus gains control over them, thereby producing an ordered universe that is habitable for human beings; cf. also Isa 27:1; 51:9, and the probable allusion in Job 7:12. The mythological imagery is applied to the nation of Egypt in Ezek 29:3; 32:2, drawing upon the specific local image of the crocodiles that dwell in the Nile. YHWH subdues the great nations, even as He subdued the great waters in primeval times; cf. Jer 51:34. For more on the Israelite appropriation of this cosmological myth, applied to YHWH, see my earlier article “The Conflict with the Sea in Ancient Near Eastern Myth”.

In Genesis 1:21, the mythological aspect has largely been removed, and <yN]T^ simply refers to the great creatures (whales, etc.) that inhabit the seas. In Psalm 91:13, as also in Exod 7:9ff; Deut 32:33, the term is used for snakes/serpents—doubtless a reflection of the fundamental signification of the word, viz., as referring to the serpentine shape of the creature. Here at the beginning of the second stanza of Ps 148, the principal reference is general—to the mighty creatures that dwell in the seas and rivers below the surface of the earth. There surely is a mythological allusion, as indicated by the implicit parallel with the divine/heavenly beings in verse 2, but it is relatively vague. The sense of the term here is probably closer to its use in Gen 1:21 that to that in Psalm 74:13, et al.

The body of the first Stanza (vv. 1-4) contained seven imperatives using the verb ll^h* II (“praise”), calling on the heavenly bodies/beings to praise YHWH, following the pattern of the initial Hy` Wll=h^ exclamation. The second stanza contains just this single imperative, which applies to the entire body of the stanza (vv. 7-12).

Verse 8

“(you) fire and hail, snow and smoke,
wind and storm, (all) doing His word;”

In the initial couplet (v. 7) there is a clear allusion to the waters that surround and lie below the surface of the earth; these waters are parallel to the waters that are above the heavens (v. 4). Here in v. 8, we find a reference to YHWH’s control of the waters, releasing them in the form of powerful rain-storms (along with other related atmospheric phenomena). One might rather have expected such a storm-reference in the first stanza (i.e., dealing with the heavens), but here, in the context of the second stanza, the emphasis is presumably upon the manifestation of the storm for the people (and animals) dwelling on the earth.

There is a chiasm in the first line:

    • fire
      • hail
      • snow
    • smoke

The inner nouns designate various extreme forms of the waters released by YHWH onto the earth; cf. 147:15-17, where there is a similar reference to the waters coming upon the earth (first reaching the tops of the mountains) in the form of snow and hail. The outer nouns refer to the more extreme effects (fire and smoke) of the storms, presumably alluding specifically to the effect of lightning upon the earth. Fire and smoke certainly are components of the storm-theophany associated with the manifestation of YHWH upon the earth (Exod 19:18, etc). Some commentators and translators have sought to render the noun rofyq! (“smoke”) variously as “fog, mist, vapor”, however in Gen 19:28 we are clearly dealing with smoke from fire; in Ps 119:83, admittedly, the use of the word is more ambiguous.

In the second line, it is the wind (and tempest) of the storm that is being emphasized. All of these atmospheric phenomena act in response (and in obedience) to the command (“word”) of YHWH. This indicates His role as the Creator and Sovereign over the universe, but also shows, in particular, His control of the waters. Cf. Ps 103:20; 107:25; 147:15ff.

Metrically, this verse is an extended 4-beat (4+4) couplet, in contrast to the 3-beat (3+3) couplets in the remainder of the stanza.

Verse 9

“(you) mountains and all hills,
tree(s) of fruit and all cedars;”

While the first two couplets (vv. 7-8) dealt generally with the waters that surround the earth (including the storms that are manifest upon the earth, v. 8), the next two focus on specific features and components of the earth’s surface. Here in v. 9, it is the mountains/hills (line 1) and the trees (line 2) that are mentioned. Dahood (III, p. 354) is probably correct in considering the second line as a merismus, including both cultivated trees (in orchards, etc) and uncultivated trees that grow wild (in forests, etc); cf. Ps 104:16. The idea of the mountains and trees giving praise to YHWH also is found in the poems of Deutero-Isaiah (44:23; 49:13; 55:12).

Verse 10

“(you) living beasts and all livestock,
crawling (thing)s and winged chirpers;”

Verse 10 focuses on all the animals upon the earth. The first line deals principally with the four-footed animals—both wild beasts (lit., “living [beast]s”) and herd animals (hm*h@B=, i.e., livestock, cattle). The second line summarizes all the other animals, in two broad categories: “crawling things” (reptiles, insects, etc) and winged creatures (specifically, birds, lit. “chirpers of wing”, i.e., winged chirpers). Cf. Genesis 1:20-21ff, 24-25; see the note by Broderson (p. 138) on the common vocabulary between Ps 148 and Gen 1:1-2:4a.

Verse 11

“(you) kings of (the) earth and all peoples,
(their) leaders and all judges of (the) earth;”

In the final two couplets of the main body of Stanza 2, the focus is on the people (human beings) of the earth. This is summarized here in v. 11 in terms of the nations and their leaders; however, there has been some debate among commentators as to the precise structure of the couplet in this regard. Is the parallelism meant to be synonymous? In that case, there seems to be a mismatch between “peoples/nations” (<yM!a%l=) and “judges/rulers of the earth”. One solution for working around this difficulty was introduced by G. R. Driver (and followed by J. Gray), rendering <ymal as “rulers” based on purported Akkadian and Ugaritic evidence (Akk. limu, limmu; Ugar. l’m). This would yield a suitably parallelistic couplet:

“kings of (the) earth | and all rulers
princes | and all judges of (the) earth”

Most commentators have rejected this proposal (cf. Hillers, p. 327; Allen, p. 389). More plausible is the suggestion by D. N. Freedman (and followed by Dahood, III, p. 354) to treat the construct plural noun yfpv in the second line as a by-form of yfbv (“tribes of”); again, the result would be a parallelistic couplet:

“kings of (the) earth | and all peoples
princes | and all tribes of (the) earth”

I tend to think, however, that couplet is governed, not by synonymous parallelism, but by a chiastic structure:

    • “kings of (the) earth
      • all peoples
      • (their) leaders
    • judges/rulers of (the) earth”

The inner terms delineate humankind in terms of the peoples/nations and their leaders (<yr!c*). The outer terms refer to the main (and most prominent) categories of leaders for the people—kings and judges (i.e., those making ruling decisions and determinations).

Verse 12

“(you) choice men and also maidens,
old persons along with young (one)s!”

If human society in verse 11 was divided between the people and their leaders/rulers, in verse 12 the division is between male and female (line 1) and old and young (line 2). By combining the categories (<g~ [“also”], <u! [“along with”]), the Psalmist provides a simple representation of the entire human society, viz., humankind as a whole. The plurals in the second line are masculine, but the rendering “old men along with young men” would distort the emphasis of the line; thus, I translate them here more generically— “old (person)s” and “young (one)s”.

Verse 13

“Let them (all) praise (the) name of YHWH—
for His name alone (is to be) lifted high,
His majesty over (the) earth and heavens!”

Verses 13-14 correspond to vv. 5-6 at the close of the first stanza, only they take the expanded form of tricola (3+3+3) rather than couplets (3+3). In both instances, the call to praise is expressed by a third person jussive form (of the verb ll^h* II, “praise”, i.e., “Let them praise…!”) rather than the imperative(s) of the main body. Also, as in verse 5, the praise is directed specifically toward the name of YHWH; on the significance of this, see the note (on v. 5) in Part 1.

Not all commentators follow this parsing of the lines of vv. 13-14. For example, Dahood (III, p. 351) treats vv. 13-14 as a sequence of three couplets. This effectively requires a different understanding of the lines in vv. 13c-14a:

“(Though) His majesty (is) over (the) earth and heavens,
He (has) raised high a horn for His people”

R. A. F. MacKenzie in his note (“Ps 148,14bc: Conclusion or Title?”, Biblica 51 [1970], pp. 221-4) also parses the lines as bicola; see his discussion on the possible relationship of v. 14bc to Psalm 149.

The exaltation of YHWH—that is, the lifting high (vb bg~c*) of His name—relates to His Kingship over the universe, as is indicated in the final line. Both portions of the cosmos, “the heavens” (Stanza 1) and “the earth” (Stanza 2), are combined together here, with the Sovereignty of YHWH being declared over (lu*) them.

Verse 14

“And He has raised high a horn for His people,
(the) praise (belonging) to His devoted (one)s,
to (the) sons of Yisrael, a people close to Him!”
Praise YH(WH)!

The final tricolon in v. 14 corresponds to the final couplet of the first stanza (v. 6), which expounds the reason for the call to praise (v. 5 / 13). In the first stanza, the focus was upon YHWH’s faithfulness demonstrated in His role as Creator (of heaven and earth); here, it is on the faithfulness (and covenant loyalty) shown to His people Israel. There is a definite theme of reciprocity that informs the relationship of v. 13 to v. 14. As the people show their devotion and loyalty to YHWH, by lifting Him up high (with praise), He reciprocates by lifting them up high (so that they are given praise). The praise for God’s people comes from the other nations (e.g., Deut 26:19; Jer 13:11; 33:9; cf. Allen, p. 390).

In v. 13, what the people lift high (vb bg~c*) is YHWH’s name; here, in v. 14, what YHWH lifts high (vb <Wr, Hiphil) for His people is their “horn” (/r#q#). The horn, drawn from animal imagery, is a symbol of strength and vitality, and it occurs with some frequency in the Psalms (18:3[2] / 2 Sam 22:3; 75:5-6 [4-5], 11 [10]; 89:18[17], 25[24]; 92:11[10]; 112:9; 132:17) and elsewhere in Biblical poetry (e.g., Deut 33:17; 1 Sam 2:1, 10; Jer 48:25; Ezek 29:21; Micah 4:13). When applied to God’s people (and to the righteous), the specific idiom of YHWH raising high (i.e., exalting) their horn tends to be used, emphasizing how YHWH acts on behalf of His people, giving them strength, victory, and honor. The idiom particularly applies to the leadership of the people—viz., to the Israelite/Judean king, and especially to the Davidic dynasty—from which it came to take on Messianic significance for Jews and Christians (cf. Ezek 29:21; Psalm 132:17; Luke 1:69). The use of the idiom here could reflect a restoration theology, alluding the ideal of the restoration of Israel in the post-exilic period; cf. Hossfeld-Zenger, p. 638f.

As a number of commentators recognize (cf. Allen, p. 389), the prefixed l= prepositions (in all three lines) should be understood in a possessive/genitival sense, i.e., “belonging to”. Dahood (III, p. 355) argues that those in v. 14bc (which he treats as a couplet) should be understood in the sense of “from” —referring to the praise that comes to YHWH from His people. However, when verse 14 is read (correctly) as a tricolon, the parallelism of the lines requires that the preposition be rendered either as “for” or “(belonging) to”. Cf. the discussion by Brünig, pp. 4-5.

The blessing which YHWH provides to His people is given specifically to those who are faithful and devoted to Him (adj. dys!j*)—that is, specifically, loyal to the covenant bond with YHWH. The people as a whole are already close to Him (adj. br)q*, with dative suffix), but it is to those who show that they are truly loyal that YHWH bestows the covenant blessings—which include Divine protection and victory over enemies, etc (implicit in the horn-motif). With regard to this implied theme of faithfulness/loyalty to the covenant, Broderson (p. 138f) notes the significant amount of shared vocabulary between Ps 148 and Deuteronomy 4:1-18 (her overall discussion, pp. 137-42, of the possible intertextuality within the Psalm is also quite useful).

    • 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 “Broderson” are to Alma Broderson, The End of the Psalter: Psalms 146-150 in the Masoretic Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Septuagint, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 505 (Walter de Gruyter: 2017).
    • Those marked “Hillers” are to Delbert R. Hillers, “A Study of Psalm 148”, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly [CBQ] 40 (1978), pp. 323-34.
    • Those marked “Brüning” are to the article by Christian Brüning, “Psalm 148 und das Psalmenbeten,” Münchener theologische Zeitschrift [MThZ] 47 (1996), pp. 1–12.

Studies on the Spirit: The Flesh, the World, and the Devil (Study 19)

The Flesh, the World, and the Devil

Study 19: The World (Part 14)

The conflict with “the world” which defines the identity of believers in Christ—especially the distinction between true and false believers—was a key theme in 4:1-6 (discussed in the previous study), presented in terms of Christology (i.e., the nature of one’s trust in Jesus Christ). In the major section that follows (4:7-5:4a), the focus shifts from trust to love—and, correspondingly, the conflict with “the world” is presented in terms of the fulfillment of the duty (e)ntolh/) to show love to other believers. False believers (that is, the ‘antichrists’ of 4:1-6) do not fulfill the duty of the true believer (3:23): they do not have a genuine trust in Jesus Christ, nor do they show love to (true) believers.

1 John 5:1-5

The primary ko/smo$-reference(s) in the remainder of 1 John occur in 5:4-5. I tend to agree with the commentators (such as Brown and Strecker) who view verse 4 as a transitional ‘hinge’ between the two sections 4:7-5:4a and 5:4b-12. At the same time, there does seem to be a certain chiastic structure to 5:1-5 (as illustrated visually by von Wahlde, p. 172f), and so it might be preferable to treat vv. 1-5 and a transitional unit between 4:7-21 (on the theme of love) and 5:6-12 (on the theme of trust). The focus in vv. 1-5 on the theme of fulfilling the ‘commandments’ (i.e., the two-fold e)ntolh/ of 3:23) as a fundamental characteristic of the true believer would tend to confirm the transitional character of these verses—that is, blending together the twin duties (e)ntolai/) of love (4:7-21) and trust (5:6-12). Note the highlighting of the dual e)ntolh/ in verse 1:

    • “Every(one) trusting that Yeshua is the Anointed (One) has come to be (born) of God
      and
    • every(one) loving the (One) causing to be (born) [also] (loves) the (one) having come to be (born) of Him”

The transition continues in vv. 2-3, by shifting from the thematic emphasis of loving one’s fellow believer to that of loving God. We see this shift occur in the statement of v. 1b, emphasizing how the person who genuinely loves God (“the [One] causing [offspring] to be born”) will also love believers who are the offspring of God (“the [one] having come to be born of Him”). In vv. 2-3 a true love of God is further explained as being demonstrated through the fulfillment of both duties (e)ntolai/)—trust and love. The noun e)ntolh/, often translated flatly as “commandment”, properly refers to a duty which (in this context) God has given to us (lit., placed on us) to complete. The use of the plural (e)ntolai/) here indicates that there is more than one duty required of believers. Some commentators have (mistakenly) interpreted this as a reference to the Torah regulations, or a subset of them (e.g., the ethical commands of the Decalogue, etc.), or to the teachings of Jesus. However, within the Johannine religious and theological worldview, this use of the plural (which occurs interchangeably with the singular) can only refer to the double-duty of trust and love (3:23, etc). If any other ‘commands’ are in view, they are subsumed under these two duties; by fulfilling the two e)ntolai/, the entire Law of God will properly, and effectively, be fulfilled by believers.

This helps to explain the statement in v. 3b, that “His e)ntolai/ are not heavy [baru/$] (to bear)”. It is no burden for the true believer to fulfill the twin duties of trust in Jesus Christ and of showing love to fellow believers. This thought should be understood against the eschatological background of early Christianity, which drew upon certain key traditions from the restoration eschatology of the exilic and post-exilic Prophets—most notably, the expectation whereby God, in the New Age, would ‘pour out’ His Spirit onto (and into) His people, an effect of which would be the enabling of them to fulfill the Law of God completely and without fail. For more on this background, see the set of notes (on the relevant passages) in my earlier series “The Spirit in the Old Testament”. For early Christians, the presence of the Spirit allows God’s people (believers) similarly to fulfill the Law of God completely, the various commands and regulations of the Torah now being subsumed under the command of love (cf. Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14; James 2:8). Within the Johannine tradition, this ‘love-command’ has been expanded into the form of the dual–e)ntolh/ of trust and love.

The ability of believers to fulfill this duty is further expounded here in verse 4, in terms of the conflict with “the world” (o( ko/smo$):

“(For it is) that every(thing) having come to be (born) of God is victorious (over) the world” (v. 4a)

The implication is that “the world” exerts a negative influence that might otherwise hinder or keep believers from fulfilling their duty. In this light, it is important to note the earlier ko/smo$-references in 4:7-21, in which the aspect of the world (i.e., the inhabited world of human beings) as the mission-field for the Gospel is emphasized. The three references present this aspect (discussed in the earlier studies) according to a dynamic theological sequence:

    • The Son comes into the world, alluding to the incarnation (i.e., born into the world of human beings) and to the purpose of his mission on earth:
      “…the love of God was made to shine forth on/among us, (in) that He sent forth His only Son into the world, that we might live through him” (4:9; cf. Jn 3:16f)
    • The Son fulfills his mission in the world, acting for the salvation of humankind (i.e., those who trust in him, believers):
      “And we have seen and give witness that the Father has sent forth His Son (as) Savior of the world” (v. 14)
    • With the Son have departed back to the Father in heaven, believers now take his place, continuing his mission “in the world”:
      “…just as that (one) is, (so) also we are in this world” (v. 17)

The world does not only represent the field of the mission for believers; it also represents a domain of darkness and evil that is opposed to God, and which is hostile to believers. Even as “the world” was hostile to (i.e., hated) the Son, so it is also hostile to the other offspring of God (i.e., believers). This negative (and antagonistic) concept of “the world” includes non-believers and false believers (cf. the previous study on 4:1-6) but also all kinds of other negative influences that hinder the fulfillment of believers’ duty and mission (cf. the earlier study on 2:12-17).

Yet, it is declared in v. 4a that believers “are victorious over the world”. It is worth noting a significant grammatical detail in v. 4a. The substantive perfect passive participle (of the verb genna/w), along with the prepositional qualifier e)k tou= qeou= (“of God”), which is regularly used as a way of designating believers, occurs here in a neuter form: “the (thing) having come to be (born) of God”. Thus, the emphasis is not on the specific person who has come to be born of God, but, rather, on the fact of his/her so coming to be born. It is specifically because the true believer is the offspring (te/knon, a neuter noun) of God, that he/she is able to be victorious over the world.

The nature of this victorious ability is further explained in v. 4b:

“and this is the victory (hav)ing been victorious (over) the world: our trust”

The aorist participle of the verb nika/w (“be victorious [over]”) is a bit difficult to translate. In English, one is more or less forced to choose between rendering it as a present (“being victorious”) or as a perfect (“having been victorious”). The latter is preferable in that it preserves the past aspect—viz., as an event or condition which occurred in the past (and the force of which continues into the present). Cf. the discussion by Brown, pp. 570-1.

It is specifically the believer’s trust in Jesus Christ which brought about this victory and which enables the believer to be victorious over “the world”. This is best understood in terms of the believer sharing in the victory which was accomplished by the incarnate Son (Jesus) through the fulfillment of his mission on earth. In particular, it was the sacrificial death of the Son which brought the victory. This can be seen from the only occurrence of the verb nika/w in the Gospel, at the climax of the Farewell Discourse (just prior to Jesus’ death), in which the Son declares to his disciples (believers): “I have been victorious (over) the world!” (16:33). In that same context there are statements which indicate that the fulfillment of the Son’s mission specifically led to victory over the Devil (“the chief/ruler of this world”) and to the breaking of the dominating power of evil over the world—12:31; 14:30; 16:11. The same point is made, but with different terminology, in 1 Jn 3:8, in which the author states a primary purpose of the Son’s mission:

“for this (reason) was the Son of God made to shine forth: that he should loosen [i.e., dissolve/destroy] the works of the Devil”

The verb nika/w occurs more frequently in 1 John than it does in the Gospel. In 2:13-14, it is stated twice that believers have been victorious over evil (and the Devil), echoing the language used by Jesus in Jn 16:33. The substantive use (with definite article) of the adjective ponhro/$ (lit., “the evil”) can be understood personally as “the Evil (one)” —that is, a reference to the Devil, the “chief/ruler of this world”. In 2:14, the source of this victory is explained as the “word [lo/go$] of God” that abides within the believer. In terms of the Johannine theology, as I have discussed, this is principally a reference to the presence of the Son within the believer, with whom the believer is united, and who continues to guide and instruct (and protect) the believer (see below on verse 18). This union is realized through the abiding presence of the Spirit, and it is thus through the Spirit that the believer participates in the victory which the Son achieved over the forces of evil—i.e., over the world and the Devil. The abiding union with the Son, and the presence of the Spirit, is experienced when the believer comes to trust in Jesus (as the Son of God). It is at this moment (symbolized by the baptism ritual) that the believer comes to be born as the offspring of God.

The emphasis on the defining aspect of the believer’s trust in the Son is stated (by way of a rhetorical question) again at the close of the unit (v. 5):

“[And so] who is the (one) being victorious (over) the world, if not the (one) trusting that Yeshua is the Son of God?”

The use here of a present participle of the verb pisteu/w (“trust”) may indicate the need for the believer to continue trusting in Jesus—that is, in terms of the message and rhetoric of 1 John, to continue holding the correct view of who Jesus is, the nature of his identity as the incarnate Son of God. This correct view is in direct contrast to the false view(s) of the ‘antichrist’ opponents (4:1-6); the Christological issue is further expounded and clarified in 5:6-12. Note, in particular, the emphasis on the role of the indwelling Spirit in proclaiming and affirming the truth of who Jesus is and of what he accomplished (as the incarnate Son) during his mission on earth—vv. 6-8ff.

1 John 5:18-19

The final occurrence of the word ko/smo$ is in verse 19, at the close of 1 John, where it is stated that:

“the whole world lays/lies in the evil”

As in 2:13-14 (cf. also Jn 17:15), the articular substantive use of the adjective ponhro/$ probably refers to the Devil (“the Evil [one]”), in which case the clause would be glossed as “the whole world lies in the (hand/control of) the Evil (one)”. This statement holds, in spite of the fact that Jesus subdued the Devil and destroyed his evil power over the world. This eschatological event is only realized in the present for believers in Christ—it is only they/we who have been set free from bondage to sin and evil, and who are victorious over the world and the Devil. This is clear when both components of verse 19 are read together:

“We have seen that we are of God, and that the whole world lays in the evil.”

Believers are currently in the world, but are not of the world; rather, they/we are of God, having been born of God (as His offspring). The world, for the time being, continues to be dominated by darkness and evil, and yet believers are able to be victorious over it, and are protected from its harmful and destructive influence. This specific theme of protection is emphasized in the prior verse 18:

“We have seen that every(one) having come to be (born) of God does not sin, but (rather) the (one hav)ing come to be (born) of God keeps watch (over) him, and (so) the evil does not touch him.”

This verse is fraught with textual and interpretive difficulties, which I have discussed in a set of recent notes. My view is that the aorist participle in the central phrase (“the [one hav]ing come to be [born] of God”) refers to the abiding presence of the Son within the believer. This Christological interpretation does not diminish or negate the validity of the ethical-reflexive interpretation, which emphasizes that the believer (“the [one] having to be [born] of God”) keeps watch over himself, i.e., guarding himself from sin. As I discussed in the aforementioned notes, the parallel with John 17:15, as well as earlier in 1 Jn 3:9, argues strongly in favor of the Christological interpretation as being primary. As mentioned above, it is through the Spirit that we as believers experience the Son’s abiding presence and, with it, the protection that he provides. Through the Spirit, the Son gives us victory over the world and protection from its evil influences.

*     *     *     *     *

In the next study, the final study in this arc dealing with “the world”, we will summarize the main characteristics and attributes of “the world”, along with a summary of the most important points of emphasis regarding the conflict between believers and “the world”.

    • References above marked “Brown” are to Raymond E. Brown, S.S., The Epistles of John, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 30 (1982).
    • Those marked “Strecker” are to Georg Strecker, Die Johannesbriefe übersetzt und erklärt, Meyers Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 1989). English translation, The Johannine Letters, transl. Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia Commentary Series (Fortress Press: 1996).
    • Those marked “von Wahlde” are to Urban C. von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John. Volume 3: Commentary on the Three Johannine Letters, Eerdmans Critical Commentary (2010). 

Wednesday Wisdom: Proverbs 5 (Part 1)

Lecture 8: Proverbs 5:1-23

Following the two short Lectures 6 and 7, with their generalized instruction (see the previous study), the eighth Lecture is considerably longer and contains more practical/applicational teaching, akin to that of Lectures 1-2 and 4. Indeed, the specific instruction warning the young man against the “strange woman” echoes the teaching in 2:16-19 with its parallel in vv. 12-15 (cf. 1:10-16).

This figure of the “strange woman” (hr*z*) functions on a number of different levels within the rhetorical and didactic framework of chapters 1-9. On the one hand, she symbolizes the wicked/foolish ones and the crooked path(s) of wickedness and folly that they travel. This is in clear and marked contrast to Wisdom herself (i.e., personified as a woman) and the straight path of righteousness and wisdom. Obviously, the personification of Wisdom as a woman (hm*k=j* and other Wisdom-terms being grammatically feminine) allows for the figure type of the “strange woman” as a point of contrast. Cf. Nel, p. 42.

At the same time, the “strange woman” also represents a particular social-religious dimension to the path of wickedness and folly. In Lecture 2, this is seen by the way that two social situations are highlighted—both of which present a certain dangerous allure for a maturing young man: (a) groups of other young men prone to violence and lawlessness (2:12-15), and (b) women who might lure a youth into illicit sexual experience (vv. 16-19). The first group-type is the subject of the instruction in Lecture 1 (1:10-16ff), while the second is the subject here in Lecture 8. The social category of sexually promiscuous (young) women is embodied by a singular figure-type—namely, the “strange woman” (2:16).

This figure-type of the “strange woman” will be discussed in more detail in a future article (at the close of the exegesis of chapters 1-9), but it is worth giving a short summary here of several strands of tradition that inform the significance of this figure. These distinct strands also tend to govern how the relevant passages in chapters 1-9 are interpreted by commentators. There are three main ways that the “strange woman” figure (and the danger/threat that she represents for the young man) have been explained:

    • As a prostitute—i.e., the illicit sexuality of prostitution
    • As a promiscuous wife—i.e., the sin of adultery
    • As a foreign woman—viz., the danger of foreign religious-cultural influence (through mixed marriage, etc.).

All three domains of signification are rooted in Israelite ethical and religious tradition. As for the first two categories, apart from the obvious ethical and legal issues involved, prostitution and adultery frequently appear in Scripture (and in extra-Biblical tradition) as symbols for religious unfaithfulness to YHWH. The same is true of the “foreign woman” type, though there is also an historical aspect to the line of tradition in this regard, as there are numerous examples in Israelite and Old Testament tradition of the baleful influence of foreign women (and wives) who led Israelites into unfaithfulness—viz., the worship of deities other than YHWH (along with related religious and cultural practices). Perhaps the most prominent example is the influence of the Moabite (and/or Midianite) women in the Baal-Peor episode (Numbers 25).

One can also mention the negative influence of the foreign wives on a number of Israelite and Judean kings—most notably Solomon and Ahab (whose wife was the notorious Jezebel). Samson also serves as an example as to the dangers involved for a young man who becomes involved with foreign women (Judges 14ff); the fact that Samson ignored the instruction by his parents in this matter (14:2-3ff) is particularly relevant for the scenario of the Lectures in Proverbs. If chapters 1-9 were composed during the early post-exilic period (as many commentators believe), the situation addressed in Ezra-Nehemiah regarding the cultural-religious dangers of mixed marriages may also play a significant role in the shaping of the “strange woman” figure-type (cf. Ezra 10; Neh 9:2; 13:3ff, 26-27ff).
See the discussion by Maier, pp. 126-32, regarding the possible socio-historical background of this particular passage.

The structure of Lecture 8 may be outlined as follows:

    • Introduction (Exordium): Verses 1-2
    • Instruction—Warning against the “Strange Woman”: Verses 3-20
      • Section 1: The dangers posed by her (vv. 3-6)
      • Section 2: The negative effects of involvement with her (vv. 7-14)
      • Section 3: Contrast with the right path—viz., proper sexual relations with one’s own wife (vv. 15-20)
    • Concluding Lesson (proverb-maxims): Verses 21-23
Introduction (Exordium): Verses 1-2
Verse 1

“My son, to my wisdom pay attention,
and to my understanding bend your ear—”

All of the Lectures in chaps. 1-9 begin with the same traditional genre-format—viz., of a father giving instruction to his son (“My son…”). The father’s words are presented as reflecting and embodying the teachings of Wisdom. Thus, by heeding the wise parental instruction that the father offers, the son will be following the voice (and the path) of Wisdom. The wording of this couplet closely resembles the introduction to the prior Lecture (4:20, cf. the previous study). The expressions “my words” and “my sayings” correspond here to “my wisdom” and “my understanding”, clearly illustrating how the father’s teachings embody the teaching of Wisdom. The nouns hm*k=j* and hn`WbT= are regular Wisdom-terms which occur frequently in these chapters, being used more or less interchangeably (as synonymous terms). Likewise, the hearing-idiom utilizing the verb bv^q* (Hiphil, “pay attention to”) and the expression “stretch/bend [vb hf*n`] the ear” occur with regularity (including in 4:20).
The specific suffixed form “my wisdom” also occurs in Qoh 2:9, 15, and Isa 10:3; Schipper, p. 200.

Verse 2

“to guard (the) buzzing (of your thought)s
and (that) your lips keep watch of knowledge!”

By paying attention to the teachings of Wisdom (as embodied in the father’s wise instruction) a person will guard both his thoughts and his words. The synonymous verbs rm^v* (“guard”) and rx^n` (“keep watch [over]”) occur with considerable frequency in Wisdom texts (including throughout Proverbs 1-9, cf. in the previous Lecture [4:21, 23]).

The noun hM*z]m=, though a relatively rare word in Scripture, is a distinctive Wisdom-term—8 of the 19 occurrences being in Proverbs (including earlier in 1:4; 2:11; 3:21; cf. also 8:12) with 2 in Job and 5 in the Psalms. It properly denotes a “buzzing” (verbal root <mz I), or with the nuance of “whispering, murmuring”; that is, particularly, the ‘buzzing’ of a person’s active thoughts, indicating one’s plans and intentions. It is often used in the negative sense of wicked thoughts and plans (i.e., plots, schemes), but in Proverbs 1-9 the positive sense is in view—viz., thoughts and plans governed by wisdom. In this context, hM*z!m= is often translated as “prudence” or “discretion”, but here the plural clearly refers to a person’s thoughts.

The second line refers to the guarding of a person’s words. However, this is not expressed in the customary way of guarding one’s mouth or tongue, etc.; rather, with the mouth itself a person guards (lit., keeps watch over [vb rx^n`]) the knowledge (ty^D^) of Wisdom. By this is meant that a person takes care to speak wise and right words, as opposed to words of wickedness and folly. On this phrasing, cf. Malachi 2:7.

A number of commentators (e.g., Toy, Whybray, Fox) propose the addition of a further line or couplet here (following v. 2), corresponding generally to that in the LXX (v. 2c): “do not hold (your) attention toward a worthless woman”. Fox (p. 191) suggests a restoration comparable to 7:5: “to guard you from the strange [hr*z`] woman / from [the] foreign (woman who) makes smooth her words”. Apart from the dubiousness of this proposal (lacking any clear textual support), it seems to me quite unnecessary. Indeed, one would not necessarily expect a direct reference to the subject of the Instruction in the initial exhortation.

Instruction: Verses 3-20
Section 1: Verses 3-6
Verse 3

“How sweet a dripping drips (from)
(the) lips of a (woman who has) turned aside,
and smooth(er) than oil (is) her palate,”

The figure of the “strange woman” is introduced abruptly here at the beginning of the Instruction. The abruptness of the reference has led to the suggestion that a line or couplet may be missing after v. 2 (and should be added), as mentioned above; cf. the reasoning by Fox (p. 191; Textual Commentary, pp. 114-5).

There is a fascinating dual aspect to this figure-type, blending together: (1) a visceral/sensual sexuality, and (2) a symbol of folly (i.e., the antithesis of Wisdom). The first aspect is clear from the language of love poetry that is utilized here, such as we find in the Song of Songs (cf. 4:11; 5:16; 7:10); while it is possible that the author has borrowed from the Song, it is hardly necessary to assume this. The woman’s lips are used to kiss (i.e., sexuality), but they are also used to speak—and it is the speech of the “strange woman” that is primarily in view here, even as it is in 2:16ff. Thus, her speech is meant as a direct contrast with the teachings of Wisdom. Both of these aspects represent dangers for the young man: (i) the danger of illicit sexual experience, and (ii) the danger of foolish and unguarded speech (v. 2b), words that are without wisdom (and which may directly contradict the teaching of Wisdom). This speech of the “strange woman” is alluring and may lure the young man toward death (see below). On the smoothness (i.e., apparent attractiveness and allure) of the speech of the wicked, cf. Psalm 55:22[21].
The noun tp#n) is conceptually related to the following verb [f^n`, “drip”; that is, it refers to a sweet dripping, viz., of extracted honey (cf. Ugaritic nbt). With Müller (p. 82) I am inclined to regard the initial yK! particle as emphatic (rather than causal); I translate the line in an exclamatory sense: “How sweet a dripping…!”. This framing of vv. 3-4 gives added emphasis to the contrastive comparison.

The substantive feminine adjective hr*z` is used as a shorthand here for the fuller expression hr*z` hV*a! (2:16a), typically translated as “strange Woman”. This figure (on which, see above) features in a number of key passages throughout chapters 1-9 (2:16-19; 6:20-35; 7:1-27; cf. also 9:13-18). As I mentioned in the earlier notes on 2:16ff, the translation of the adjective rz` (fem. hr*z`) as “strange” is a bit inaccurate, since the proper denotation of the term, derived from the verbal root rWz [II], is one who has “turned aside” —a meaning fully in keeping with the path/walking idiom that occurs throughout chapters 1-9, including here in vv. 5-6ff (see below). However, this meaning is difficult to translate in English as an adjective, thus, something like “estranged” tends to be adopted (i.e., having turned aside so as to become ‘estranged’), or simply “strange” (which is much more elegant, especially in poetry); a rendering of “deviant” might be better, but this can be somewhat misleading as well. Perhaps the idea of having gone down ‘strange paths’ should be foremost in mind. The parallel adjective yr!k=n`, used in vv. 10, 20 (cf. 2:16b), more properly means “strange”, in the (general) sense of foreign, alien, etc.
The LXX reads gunaiko\$ po/rnh$ (“woman of prostitution”, “woman who is a prostitute”). This could mean that the underlying Hebrew text had hnz rather than hrz, or that the translator confused the two words; it is also possible that the “strange woman” was interpreted as a prostitute (see above). Cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 115.

Metrically, verse 3 should probably be treated as an irregular couplet; however, in my translation above I present is (visually) like a tricolon (i.e., in three lines).

Verse 4

“but what follows her (is) bitter as wormwood,
sharp as a sword with two mouths!”

The words of the “strange woman” may be sweet and smooth (v. 4), but ultimately the taste is bitter (fem. hr*m*) and the effect harsh (“sharp”, fem. hD*j^). The noun hn`u&l^ is traditionally rendered “wormwood”, i.e., the Artemisia absinthium which produces a very bitter-tasting oil. If the speech of the “strange woman” is meant to suggest the allure of illicit religious practice (i.e., worship of other deities, being unfaithful to YHWH), then the mention of “bitterness” here could allude to Deut 29:18. The juxtaposition of smooth speech (by the wicked) with their deadly sword-like effect of their words may reflect Psalm 55:22[21]. On the image of the tongue (i.e., speech) of the wicked as a deadly sword, cf. Psalm 57:5[4]. For a positive use of the image of a double-edged (i.e., two-mouthed) sword, cf. Psalm 149:6. On the proverbial use of the same sweetness/bitterness motif, cf. Prov 27:7; 31:6; also Qoh 7:26.

Syntactically, verse 4 represents a continuation from verse 3, establishing the contrast between the attractive allure of the woman’s words and their harmful effect (“[the] following of her”, “what follows her”, Ht*yr!j&a^).

Verse 5

“Her feet are going down (to) Death,
(down to) Šě’ôl her steps take hold;”

In verses 5-6, the familiar path/walking motif, which features so prominently in Wisdom texts (and which is pervasive throughout Proverbs 1-9), in introduced. The path of the “strange woman” is a variation on the thematic motif of the crooked path(s) of wickedness and folly, which is in direct contrast to the straight path of righteousness and Wisdom. As in 2:16-19 (vv. 18-19), it is particularly emphasized that her path leads to death—i.e., down to Sheol and the realm of Death. This is true of the path(s) of wickedness generally, in contrast to the path of Wisdom which leads to life—cf. 1:15-16, 31-33; 2:20-22; 3:17f; 4:18-19.

The use of the verb Em^T* (“hold on to, hold firmly to”) in connection with the path-motif is a bit unusual, but it does occur in Psalm 17:5. It indicates that a person’s keeps firmly on the path, walking it without wavering or altering course. The “strange woman” walks with firm and secure strides (“footsteps”), marching all the way down to Sheol; cf. Fox, p. 192.

There is a loose chiastic structure to this couplet, which I preserve in the translation above:

    • “Her feet | are going down
      • (to) Death,
      • (to) Šě’ôl
    • her steps | take hold”
Verse 6

“(the) pathway of life she does not observe,
her tracks wander (and) she does not know.”

Syntactically, this couplet is tied to v. 5 just as vv. 3 and 4 are connected (see above). Yet, the exact relationship between the couplets is a bit uncertain. Is it that the “strange woman” is lacking knowledge (of the path of life), and therefore she walks firmly down the path leading to death? Or does the firmness with which she walks the path of the wicked result in her failure even to perceive the right path? The latter might be indicated by the peculiar use of the particle /P#, which normally means “lest” (cf. verses 9-10, below); Fox (p. 193) interprets it here as a negative optative, suggesting that the “strange woman” has no wish at all to walk on the path that leads to life and purposely avoids it. Waltke’s observation (p. 302) seems more to the point:

Both the construction and meaning of pen [/P#] are unique. Elsewhere it never occurs in the middle of a clause or after a nominative, and it serves as a conjunction that rejects the proposition of an apodosis, either expressed (= “so that not,” “lest”) or assumed (= “otherwise”). Here its clause does not reject the notions of the clauses in vv. 5 or 6b but says something similar. It appears to have the sense of the emphatic adverb “not” in Job 32:13, which is the expected sense here. The versions all read thus.

Indeed, the parallelism of the couplet suggests that /P# and the negative particle al) have a comparable meaning. The second phrase in each line is in synonymous parallelism, while the first phrase is antithetic:

    • “the pathway of life | she does not observe
    • her tracks wander | she does not know”

Clearly, the phrase “she does not watch/observe” is synonymous with “she does not know”; conversely, the wandering (vb u^Wn) of her tracks represents the opposite of keeping to the straight path that leads to life. The nouns jr^a) (“pathway”) and lGu=m^ (“track”) are regular path-terms that recur and are used interchangeably throughout chapters 1-9. The verb sl^P* (II) was used earlier in 4:26 (see the note in the previous study); as in that passage, here there may be some double-meaning wordplay between slp II (“watch, observe”) slp I (“dig/break through”, i.e., so as to clear a pathway).

A few commentators choose to parse the forms of the verbs sl^P* and ud^y` as 2nd person singular rather than third person (feminine) singular, referring to the young man of the address rather than the “strange woman” (cf. Fox, p. 193; Tan, p. 89f). While this approach hardly seems correct, if one were to adopt it, the couplet might be rendered as follows:

“(beware) lest you not observe (the) pathway of life,
(for) her tracks wander, (and so) you will not know”

The LXX translation of the second line may be an attempt to smooth over some of the difficulties: “her courses are slippery [sfalerai/] and not well-known”.

Section 2: Verses 7-14

On the interlocking structure of this section, see the diagram and note by Nel, pp. 24-5.

Verse 7

“Therefore now, my sons, listen to me,
and do not turn from (the) words of my mouth!”

At the beginning of this second section of the Instruction, the father essentially repeats his exhortation (from v. 1f, see above); this emphasis may reflect the seriousness of the situation being addressed, given the references to the ‘path’ of the “strange woman” leading to death (section 1). The alternation from singular to plural address (i.e., “my sons”) is a bit unusual, but it does occur at several points in the Lectures (including earlier in 4:1; cf. also 7:24). It may serve the didactic purpose of implicitly widening the address to a larger audience (for whom the instruction would be equally relevant). The singular address (implying a single “son”) returns in vv. 8ff
The LXX (also the Vulgate) reads the singular here (i.e., “my son”), probably to harmonize (whether or not intentionally) with v. 1.

Verse 8

“Make your path to be far away from her,
and do not come near to (the) door of her house—”

Again, the seriousness of the situation warrants the emphatic wording here in this next couplet. The Hiphil imperative of the verb qj^r* (“be wide/far [from]”) literally means “make to be far [from]…!”, or “keep far [away from]…!” It is not enough to instruct the son to avoid the “strange woman”; he must make/keep his path (Er#D#) far away from her. The compound preposition lu^ + /m! in context means something like “from (being anywhere) near”. In this vein, one should probably read the initial w-conjunction of the second line as emphatic, in addition to being copulative—i.e., “and do not even come near…!” The LXX translation, using pro/qurai$ (“to [the] front doors”), may reflect such an emphatic nuance.

Coming to the house of the woman implies and alludes to a sexual encounter. Cf. 2:18, though it is not entirely clear in that reference whether the image is of the woman’s house or of her “pathway” (see the note in the earlier study).

Verses 9-10

“lest you give your weight to (those) following,
and your years to (one who is) cruel;
lest (those) turning aside be full of your strength,
and your pains (be) in (the) house of a stranger;”

The wording in vv. 9-10 is a bit peculiar, but the basic idea seems to be clear enough. The consequences of becoming entangled with the “strange woman”, having gone astray onto the path of the wicked, are that much of one’s life will end up being taken over by the wicked. There is a rough parallelism in terms of what may be lost:

    • “weight” (doh I)
      • “years”, i.e., of one’s life (prime of life)
    • “strength” (j^K))
      • “pains” (i.e., “labors”, the result of one’s labors)

Waltke (p. 303) suggests that hnv (“year”, plur.) in v. 9b should instead be read as a putative noun from the root hnv III (“shine, gleam”), and thus meaning something like “radiance, brilliance”. This is most unlikely. While a meaning such as “radiance” would make for an apt parallel with doh (“weight”, in the common sense of “splendor, glory, honor”, par dobK*) in the immediate couplet, it does not fit the parallelism of vv. 9-10 as a whole, which requires a parallel for the plural “labors, pains” (i.e., the labors done during one’s life); “years” makes for a suitable, if general, match.

The ones who will take over the best part of the young man’s life are described in various terms that all refer, in a basic sense, to the wicked. The plural of the substantive adjective rj@a* means “(those) following”, “(those coming) after”, almost certainly alluding back to the related noun tyr!j&a^ (“[the] following, [what comes] after”) in v. 4 (see above), in reference to the consequences that result from becoming involved with the “strange woman”. The plural substantive could be rendered generally (as it frequently is) here as “others”, which is suitable to the idea of the ‘otherness’ of the wicked (esp. in v. 10). Among these “others” will be at least some who are cruel (rz`k=a^), suggesting a tendency toward violence and oppression that is characteristic of the wicked.

In verse 10, the parallel substantive adjectives rz` (plur.) and yr!k=n` are used. The former is the same adjective used to designate the “strange woman” (fem. hr*z`), while the latter properly means “strange, foreign” (i.e., a “stranger”). As noted above, rz` has the fundamental meaning of one who has (or is) “turned aside”; in the light of the path-motif, it is worth preserving this meaning in translation, as I have done above.

All of the “strength” of the young man (including his wealth) will end up in the house(s) of “strangers”, rather than in his own house (cp. Sirach 26:19). It is hardly necessary to envision a specific social situation where this occurs; the negative fate simply reflects the opposite of what is promised for the person who follows the path of Wisdom (cf. 3:8-10, 16-18, 33-35). Indeed, these consequences are included among the curses that will befall the Israelites who violate the covenant with YHWH, according to the traditions recorded in Leviticus 26 (v. 16) and Deuteronomy 28 (v. 33); in the Prophetic poems of the exilic period, these curses are seen as having been fulfilled (e.g., Isa 1:7; Lam 5:2). For a similar reflex in the Wisdom texts, compare Job 31:7ff; cf. also Hos 7:9. See the discussion by Maier, pp. 122-6.

Verse 11

“and you groan in what follows for you,
with (the) finish of your flesh and your body,”

The loss of the prime years of life (with their resultant wealth and honor, etc.) will be followed by further loss—pain and suffering as one grows old(er). Note again the use of tyr!j&a^ (“[the] following, [what comes] after”, viz., as a consequence), cf. verse 4. The suffering should probably be understood as both physical and psychological; one “groans” (or “growls”, vb <h^n`) from physical pain or discomfort, but also from the realization and sense of all that has been lost. It is a groaning of regret as much as it is of pain.

I take the temporal-circumstantial phrase “with (the) finishing of your flesh and your body” as a general reference to growing old—i.e., leading to old age and the approach of death (cf. verses 5-6, above). Meinhold (p. 103) and Schipper (pp. 205-7) seem to interpret vv. 9-11 in much the same way.

Verse 12

“and you will say:
How I hated correction,
and my heart spurned rebuke,”

The sense of regret indicated in verse 11 takes dramatic form in vv. 12-14 with a rhetorical monologue, whereby the young man—now old and with his youth spent—laments his failure (and unwillingness) to heed the teachings of Wisdom, such as those which his father had given to him. The willingness to accept “correction” (rs*Wm) and “rebuke” (hj*k@oT) as a necessary component of instruction is emphasized at a number of points in chapters 1-9; the two nouns occur repeatedly—cf. 1:2-3, 7-8, 23, 25, 30; 3:11; 4:1, 13; 5:23; 6:23; 7:22; 8:10, 33. The idea of hating wisdom and instruction occurs earlier in 1:22, 29, while that of spurning (despising/rejecting, vb Ja^n`) it is found in 1:30 (cf. 15:5). Fools hate and reject sound instruction (and the discipline that accompanies it), while the wise accept it and are willing to receive correction.

Verse 13

“and I would not hear (the) voice of my instructors,
and to (the one)s teaching me I did not bend my ear”

The regretful man of this lament admits that he failed (and was unwilling) to do the very thing commanded by the father in the opening exhortation of the Lecture (v. 1)—namely, to listen to the teachings of his instructors, paying attention (i.e., ‘bending the ear’) to their words.

Verse 14

“(and) soon I came to be in all (manner) of evil,
in the midst of (the) assembly and appointed (meeting)!”

The man in the monologue realizes that his unwillingness to accept instruction let to his becoming engaged (and lost) “in all (manner) of evil”. It is possible to read the noun ur* in the sense of “trouble” —i.e., getting in trouble for his improper and wayward behavior—with the second line then understood as a specific reference to discipline and punishment in the public assembly of the community at large. This is certainly possible, though I do not know that it is the primary point of reference. To be sure, a youth who is unwilling to accept discipline from his parents is likely to end up being disciplined (and in a more serious and severe fashion) by society. The shaming effect of public discipline would add to the sense of regret for the person later in life.

I tend to think that the force of the second line is meant to modify the statement in the first line. That is to say, the evil in which the man was engaged had an effect on the entire community—the nouns lh*q* (“assembly”) and hd*u@ (“appointed [meeting/gathering]”) as essentially synonymous terms that may be used as together as a hendiadys here, i.e., “(the) appointed assembly” (on the historical development of these terms, cf. Fox, p. 199; Maier, pp. 128-32; Schipper, p. 198). This need not be understood as a reference to a formal assembly (i.e., to render verdicts and deliver punishments, etc.), though that aspect is probably in view. The wayward man was engaged in behavior that is detrimental to society, and it would (at some point) have prompted the community to take action, through public shaming and other perhaps more serious punitive means.

The prepositional expression fu^m=K! means “according to a little”, which in a temporal sense means something like “in a little bit”, i.e., “soon”, which is how I take it here; cf. Fox, p. 198; Waltke, p. 303.

*     *     *     *     *

The remainder of the Lecture (vv. 15-23) will be discussed in Part 2 of this study.

    • 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 “Nel” are to Philip Johannes Nel, The Structure and Ethos of the Wisdom Admonitions in Proverbs, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 158 (Walter de Gruyter: 1982).
    • 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).
    • Those marked “Maier” are to Christl Maier, Die «fremde Frau» in Proverbien 1-9: Eine exegetische und socialgeschichtliche Studie, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 144 (Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz / Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 1995).
    • Those marked “Tan” are to Nancy Nam Hoon Tam, The ‘Foreignness’ of the Foreign Woman in Proverbs 1-9: A Study of the Origin and Development of a Biblical Motif, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 381 (Walter de Gruyter: 2008).

December 16: Job 4:19

Job 4:17-21, continued

See the previous note on vv. 17-18. The first two lines of verse 19 were also discussed briefly, and we pick up here with those comments:

Verse 19

“then surely (it is so for those) dwelling in houses of clay,
(those) for whom their foundation (lies) in the dust”

The syntactical framework of [a^…/h@ shows that vv. 18-19b belong together as a unit. Indeed, verse 19ab represents the continuation (and climax) of the comparison begun in v. 18—which is itself an extension of the comparison in v. 17 (see above). If even the heavenly beings fail and are imperfect, falling far short of God’s own righteousness and holiness, etc, then it is all the more so for human beings! A conditional (“if…”) clause is implicit in v. 18, introduced by the interjection /h@ (“See…!”); the speaker wishes to bring special attention and emphasis to the comparison: “See (then)—if…”. The conjunctive particle [a^ that begins verse 19, has affirmative-declarative and emphatic force, rendered variously (depended on the context) in English as, “yes, surely”, “so also”, “so even”, “even more”, “how much more”, etc.

The mortal nature of human beings (i.e., as created physical beings) is particularly emphasized in this couplet (even as it is throughout Job’s lament in chap. 3). The terms “clay” (rm#j)) and “dust” (rp*u*) allude to this aspect (cf. 10:9; 13:12; 33:6; Isa 64:8; Gen 2:7; 3:19), and, in particular, to the death that awaits all human beings at the end of their limited life-span. The image of a “house of clay”, with its foundation set “in the dust”, certainly refers to the construction (i.e., creation) of the human being—and particularly of the physical body as a ‘building’ (cf. Wisdom 9:15; 2 Cor 5:1; 2 Pet 1:14)—as well as to the realm of Death (Sheol) that exists beneath the surface of the earth. Cf. the various references and allusions to Death/Sheol in chap. 3.

As I mentioned in the previous note, the third line of the verse (19c) is highly problematic, both in terms of its exact meaning and its relation to 19ab and what follows in v. 20f. The MT, which is generally followed by the Versions (LXX, Vulgate, Targum), reads as follows:

“they will crush them before a moth”
vu* yn@p=l! <WaK=d^y+

This makes very little sense, as most commentators recognize. Grammatically, the difficulty is eased by redividing the words so that the m is attached to the second word as a (prepositional) prefix (-m) rather than to the first word as an (object) suffix (<-). Along with this slight modification, the verb can also be repointed as a passive form:

“they will be crushed from before a moth”
vu* yn@p=L!m! WaK=d%y+

As Seow (p. 406) notes, this passive verb form accords with the one in the following line (v. 20a).

While the grammar may now make sense, the imagery remains problematic, mainly due to the apparent mention of the “moth” (vu*). If the MT is correct at this point, and the versions tend to confirm it (LXX sh=to$, Targum aljz, Vulgate tinea), it is unclear whether the “moth” is understood as the agent of the “crushing” or whether it represents the thing that is “crushed”. Since the principal idea in v. 19ab is the weakness and transitoriness of human existence, the comparison could be to the fragility of the moth, a small creature can be easily crushed (thus the fittingness of the verb ak*D*, “crush”). Commentators who favor this explanation would understand the preposition yn@p=l! to mean “like” (in a comparative sense), rather than the normal spatial-relational meaning “before” (i.e., “they are crushed like a moth!”). However, elsewhere in Scripture the moth is viewed as the agent of destruction (Ps 39:12[11]; Isa 50:9; 51:8; Hos 5:12; cf. also Matt 6:19-20; Lk 12:33), and thus the imagery is likely to be comparable here.

Thus, if the reading vu* (“moth”) is correct, then presumably the comparison is of the human body being destroyed just as a moth devours a garment (viz., the human body as a ‘garment’). While this introduces a mixed metaphor—a clay building that easily crumbles / a garment that a moth devours—the basic imagery of destruction and decay (viz., of the human body) is much the same. The verb ak*D* in this regard is unusual, since we would rather expect the use of lk^a* (“eat, devour, consume”) for the action of the moth, as in Isa 50:9; 51:8. Nevertheless, in Ps 39:12[11] the verb hs*m* is used, with the meaning “dissolve”, which is reasonably close conceptually to ak*D* (= Ek^D*), in the transitive-causative sense of “make crumble”. Similar is the use of Jx^r* (“break [apart”) in Hos 5:11, in connection with the mention of the “moth” in v. 12, suggesting that the moth (who is YHWH) will act to “break apart” (i.e., crush) both Israel (Ephraim) and Judah in judgment. The use of ak*D* here may serve to join together the two metaphors—viz., like their houses of clay and dirt, the bodies of human beings will eventually be made to crumble; similarly, like a garment that the moth breaks apart, their bodies will crumble.

The reference to the “moth” in Ps 39:12[11] increases the likelihood that the MT cu* (“moth”) is original here, since Psalm 39 seems to have influential for the Job poet. In particular, there a number of apparent allusions to this Psalm in the Job-speech of chapters 6-7 (discussed in the notes on these chapters); cf. also 10:20-21 and 13:28-14:6.

In spite of the awkwardness of the mixed metaphor, the MT, when redivided and repointed (see above), thus makes tolerable sense:

“then surely (it is so for those) dwelling in houses of clay,
(those) for whom their foundation (lies) in the dust,
(who) will be made to crumble (as) before (the) moth!”

However, a different line of interpretation has become popular among commentators, first having been introduced by N. Herz back in 1900 (“Some Difficult Passages in Job”, ZAW 20, pp. 160-3). The suggestion was made that the consonantal text ?u (MT vu*) be vocalized as cu); this lexeme would then be joined together with the initial m of the next word (in v. 20a) to form the suffixed verbal noun <c*u), “their maker” (from the verb hc*u*, “make, do”). The reference would be to YHWH (Eloah in the Job-Dialogue) as the “Maker” (i.e., Creator) of human beings. Verse 19 thus reads:

“then surely (it is so for those) dwelling in houses of clay,
(those) for whom their foundation (lies) in the dust,
(who) will be made to crumble before their Maker!”

This is the approach taken by a number of recent commentators; most notably, it is adopted by Seow (p. 407), who treats verse 19 as a tricolon, much in the manner I have rendered it above. Other commentators would attach v. 19c to subsequent verse 20. J. A. Rimbach, in his article “ ‘Crushed before the Moth’ (Job 4:19)” Journal of Biblical Literature [JBL] 100 [1981], 244–46, follows Herz in further redividing and reordering vv. 19c-20 to yield the following pair of couplets (according to Rimbach’s translation):

“They are crushed before their maker;
they are without a name.
In the space of one day they are cut off:
they perish forever.”

Verses 20-21 will be discussed in the next note.

Following M. Dahood, Blommerde (pp. 42-3) and Michel (pp. 97-8) have modified this interpretive approach, by treating the verb ak*D* as equivalent to Aramaic akd/ykd (= akz, Heb hkz/ykz), “be clean/pure”. The thought expressed then becomes nearly identical to that of v. 17b, with verse 19 being turned into a rhetorical question (on the particle [a^ in v. 19a, see the previous note):

“then (how) could (those) dwelling in houses of clay,
for whom their foundation (lies) in the dust,
be considered pure before their Maker?”

Seow (p. 406) provides several arguments against reading the verb ak*D* in this manner. He notes, for example, that the verb hk*z` (with the meaning “be pure”) is specifically attested in Job (15:14; 25:4), along with the geminate byform Ek^z` (9:30; 15:15; 25:5) and the related adjective Ez~, “pure” (8:6; 11:4; 16:17; 33:9). Meanwhile, ak*D* elsewhere in the book (5:4; 6:9; 19:2; 22:9; 34:25) always has the meaning “crush”.

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).
    • Those marked “Michel” are to Walter L. Michel, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic, Biblica et Orientalia 42 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1987).
    • Those marked “Blommerde” are to Anton C. M. Blommerde, Northwest Semitic Grammar and Job, Biblica et Orientalia 22 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1969).

Studies on the Spirit: The Flesh, the World, and the Devil (Study 18)

The Flesh, the World, and the Devil

Study 18: The World (Part 13)

In 2:15-17 (see the previous study), the relationship of believers to “the world” (o( ko/smo$) was presented by the author in strongly ethical terms. This aspect is given further practical application in 3:17, as an illustration of what it means for believers to show love to others (vv. 10-11ff). Drawing upon the sort of distinction made in the Discourse Prayer of Jesus in the Gospel (chap. 17), it is effectively noted that believers, though they are not of the world (i.e., do not belong to it), for the present are still living in the world. As such, it is necessary for believers to make use of the “things of the world”, but without becoming attached to them or “loving” them. We see this same distinction expressed in 3:17, as the author states that the true believer will make use of the “living [bi/o$] of the world” to help others who are in need (“having need [xrei/an e&xonta]”). The noun bi/o$ was used earlier in 2:16, in reference to the “things of the world”; it denotes the means and manner of living—that is, in one’s daily life here on earth (“in the world”). Practically, this refers to food, clothing, money, and other resources that are used to fill a person’s daily needs. The author is not referring to charitable humanitarian actions in general, but, rather, the focus is specifically on the care that believers show to other believers (“his brother”).

This sort of practical ethical orientation is largely absent from the ko/smo$ references in the Gospel, which, as we have discussed, have two main aspects of contextualized meaning: “the world” (i) as the mission field for the Gospel, and (ii) as a domain of darkness and evil that is opposed to God. Throughout much of the Gospel, and particularly in the Farewell Discourse (13:31-16:33), it is the latter (negative and dualistic) aspect that is primarily in view, even as it is here in the remainder of 1 John. The references in 3:1 and 13, for example, echo the usage in the Farewell Discourse, emphasizing the world’s hostility and opposition toward believers (and to the Christian mission), and providing something of an explanation for this opposition. The world does not know or recognize the children of God (believers) because it did not know or recognize the Son of God (Jesus Christ); the hostility of the world toward Jesus’ ministry extends to the mission of believers, since the early Christian mission represents an extension and continuation of Jesus’ own.

In verse 13, this sense of hostility is clarified as hatred (vb mise/w), just as in the Farewell Discourse (Jn 15:18-19, 23-25, also 17:14) and earlier in 2:9, 11. This hatred contrasts precisely with the love exhibited by believers. The equation is simple and straightforward, and it informs the author’s rhetoric (emphasizing the contrast between the true and false believer):

    • Believers love other believers
    • “The world” hates believers

In this dualistic equation, “the world” represents non-believers (and false believers) being categorically opposed to believers (i.e., true believers).

1 John 4:1-6

In 4:1-6, the same dualistic contrast is further developed, in terms of the believer’s relationship to “the world”. The two basic Johannine aspects of the ko/smo$-concept (outlined above) are present in this passage, though it is the latter (negative) aspect that is dominant.

It is also noteworthy that, earlier in 2:12-17, any reference to the Spirit was implicit, anticipating the references and allusions in vv. 20-27 and in chapter 3 (cf. especially the climactic reference in v. 24). Now, here in chapter 4, reference to the Spirit is made explicit, as the Spirit is contrasted directly with “the world”. Properly, the point of contrast is between the Spirit of God and the spirit(s) of “the world”. God’s Spirit is the Spirit of truth, while the spirit(s) of the world are false. In spite of this strong negative orientation, both aspects of the ko/smo$-concept are present in the initial reference in verse 1. That is to say, it includes a reference to “the world” as the early Christian mission field.

The author begins with the point of contrast involving the Spirit, indicating there are other spirits separate from (and opposed to) the Spirit of God:

“Loved (one)s, do not trust every spirit, but (instead) test the spirits (to see) if it is of [e)k] God”

The reason for this testing (to determine whether or not it is to be approved), vb dokima/zw, is given in the second half of the verse:

“(for it is) that many false prophets have gone out into the world!”

The noun profh/th$ (transliterated as prophet) literally means “foreteller”, though this can be misleading; the basic significance of the term is one who says/tells something before. The prefix pro– (“before”) can either mean “beforehand” (i.e., prior to) or in the spatial-relational sense of “before”(i.e., in front of) a person or group. The corresponding Hebrew term ayb!n` properly designates a spokesperson—specifically, one who speaks on God’s behalf, representing God before the people (and the people before God). This is the principal meaning of profh/th$ in the New Testament as well, particularly in the socio-religious context of early Christianity. In a real sense, every believer is an inspired prophet, possessing the Spirit of God and communicating the message and teaching of the Spirit to others. At the same time, certain believers were seen as possessing a special prophetic gifting by the Spirit. The former egalitarian orientation may be termed spiritualistic, while the latter we may call charismatic. In my view, the Johannine orientation and emphasis is spiritualistic rather than charismatic. Every true believer, who possesses the Spirit and is taught, guided and inspired by it, is a prophet. By contrast, the false believer, insofar as he/she possesses a spirit and is inspired by it, possesses not the Spirit of God, but another spirit—a false spirit which speaks falsehood and leads people astray. In this regard, the false believers who proclaim and teach, claiming to be guided by the Spirit, are “false prophets” (yeudoprofh=tai).

The author states that these “false prophets” have “gone out into the world”. As I see it, there is a double meaning for ko/smo$ here. On the one hand, it signifies the inhabited world of human beings as a mission-field—viz., for the Gospel and Christian teaching. These “false prophets” have essentially taken to this mission-field as false believers, proclaiming and advocating false teaching (esp. a false view of Jesus Christ) that threatens to lead many people (including other believers) astray (cf. esp. the context of 2 Jn 7-11). The author has in mind a specific group that he refers to as “against the Anointed” (anti/xristoi, ‘antichrists’), v. 3, even as he does earlier in 2:18ff (cf. also 2 Jn 7).

In 2:19, he notes that “they went out from us”, which brings us to the second aspect of the ko/smo$-concept—namely, a domain of darkness and evil that is opposed to God. In terms of the author’s rhetoric in 1 John, this means, categorically, the world of non-believers (and, especially, of false believers). The statement that the ‘antichrists’ “went out from us” is precisely parallel to the notice here in 4:1—that they “have gone out into the world”. The expression “into the world” means “away from us” (i.e., away from the true believers). This dynamic finds its type-pattern in the Last Supper scene of the Gospel (chap. 13) just preceding the Farewell Discourse (13:31ff), as Judas Iscariot (symbolizing the false believers) departs from the community of the true disciples (i.e., true believers), going out into the darkness of the world:

“Then, (hav)ing received the morsel, that (one) [i.e., Judas] went out—and it was night.” (13:30)

Verse 2 makes clear that the main point at issue for the author is Christological. The true believers, inspired by the Spirit of God, hold a true view of Jesus Christ, while the false believers, led by false/deceiving spirits, espouse a false view of Christ. It is not possible here to discuss exactly what this false view held by the ‘antichrist’ opponents may have entailed. I have treated the matter at some length in earlier notes and articles. More important for the current study is the author’s emphasis on the role of the Spirit in proclaiming and confessing the true view of Christ (as the incarnate Son of God). All true believers will give an account as one (vb o(mologe/w)—i.e., together and in agreement—of who Christ is, making a common confession of faith that affirms the correct Christology. Any Christian who claims to be a true believer possessing and speaking from the Spirit, but who does not make this common confession, cannot possess the Spirit of God, and is thus a false believer (and a false prophet). This is point make boldly by the author in verse 3, identifying such false believers again as ‘antichrists’ (a)ntixri/stoi, “against the Anointed”). According to the author, this eschatological manifestation of ‘antichrist’, along with the false prophets of the end-time, is “already in the world now” in the form of the false believers who are espousing a false view of Christ.

The true believer possesses the true Spirit of God. All throughout his work, the author, as part of his rhetorical strategy, addresses his audience as though they were all true believers. He does this again here in verse 4:

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

The initial statement is another instance of the Johannine theological formula of essential predication—Divine subject | verb of being | predicate noun/phrase. In this instance, as often in 1 John, believers (that is, true believers) represent the Divine subject (i.e., as the children/offspring of God):

“You [u(mei=$] | are [e)ste] | of God [e)k tou= qeou=]”

The use of e)k (“out of”) in the prepositional expression e)k tou= qeou= has two aspects of meaning: (1) in the sense of belonging to God (i.e., being of God), and (2) an allusion to the idea of believers coming to be born of God (i.e., as God’s offspring); the latter idiom uses the verb genna/w (“come to be [born]”), usually in the form of a substantive perfect participle, along with the expression e)k tou= qeou=. The author’s use of tekni/on, a diminutive of the noun te/knon (plur. te/kna, “offspring”, i.e., “children”) also alludes to the identity of believers as the offspring of the God; cf. the discussion on this detail in the previous study.

The true believer is victorious over the false believers (i.e., false prophets and ‘antichrists’); the basis for this victory (cf. on 2:12ff in the previous study) is the Spirit of God that abides within. Given the context of the passage (and cf. 3:24), there can be no real doubt that the Spirit is the point of reference for the expression “the (one) in you”, to be contrasted with the spirit (of Antichrist) that is in the world (“the [one that is] in the world”). It is also possible to view the expression as a reference to the abiding presence of the Son (Christ), since, according to the Johannine theology, the Son now is present in and among believers through the Spirit. This idea of believers’ victory over the world, in relation to the abiding presence of the Spirit (and the Son), will be discussed further in the next study.

The contrast between true believers and false believers, as also between the Spirit and the false spirit(s), is further expounded in verses 5-6. The false believers belong to “the world” and they speak from the spirit(s) of “the world”:

“They are of the world; for this (reason) they speak out of [i.e., from] the world and the world hears them.” (v. 5)

The false believers (“they”) are again contrasted with the true believers (“we”, i.e., the author and his audience, whom he treats as true believers):

“We are of God, (and so) the (one) knowing God hears us, (while) the (one) who is not of God does not hear us.” (v. 6a)

Again, the theological language of essential predication is utilized, three times in vv. 5-6a—once with true believers as the Divine subject, and twice, in antithetical and negative formulation, with false believers as the subject. Verse 6a contains a contrastive parallel (word order modified):

    • “We [h(mei=$] | are [e)smen] | of God [e)k tou= qeou=]”
    • “the one who [o^$] | is not [ou)k e)stin] | of God [e)k tou= qeou=]”

The same basic contrast is made through an antithetical formulation in v. 5:

“They [au)toi\] | are [ei)sin] | of the world [e)k tou= ko/smou]”

The author, at least in his rhetorical emphasis, demonstrates a profoundly strong spiritualism, exhibiting the positive expectation that all true believers, who possess the Spirit of God, will essentially be in agreement with one another, accepting the truth spoken under the Spirit’s guidance. It is not at all clear just how much room there was, in the author’s mind, for disagreement between believers. At least on the fundamental matters of Christian identity—that is, one’s trust in Jesus Christ (as the Son of God) and the love that is shown to fellow believers (3:23)—all believers should, and must, be in full agreement.

In what may seem to be a paradox, it is the active and abiding presence of the Spirit itself that allows believers to distinguish between the Spirit of truth (i.e., God’s holy Spirit) and the spirit of going/leading astray (v. 6b), i.e., of falsehood and deception. The expression “the Spirit of Truth” as a designation of the Holy Spirit is distinctive of the Johannine writings, being attested three times in the Farewell Discourse (14:17; 15:26; 16:13), even as we find a similarly close identification of the Spirit with truth at other points (cf. Jn 4:23-24)—most notably, the declaration in 1 Jn 5:6: “…the Spirit is the truth”.

The term pla/nh denotes straying—either in the basic sense of going astray, or in the transitive-causative sense of leading (someone) astray. Both aspects of meaning certainly apply, though it is the latter (i.e., leading people astray) that is primarily in view. The spirits of the world—specifically, the spirit of Antichrist that is at work in the world, through many different individuals (thus, “spirits”)—fulfill the eschatological expectation of false prophets who will be active at the end-time (cf. Mk 13:5-6, 22 par), leading many people astray. Even believers may be led astray by such false and deceiving ‘spirits’ (Mk 13:22), and this is very much the focus of the author’s work in 1 John—exhorting and warning his readers/hearers not to be led astray by the teaching of the ‘antichrists’.

In our next study, the last study on the specific Johannine use of ko/smo$, we will examine the important references in 1 Jn 5:4-5 and 19.