Month: June 2026

Sunday Psalm Studies: Exodus 15:1-21 (Part 1)

The Song of the Sea: Exodus 15:1-18, 20-21

As the Sunday Psalm Studies continue, we will be focusing on a number of the Psalms that have regularly been considered among the oldest, the most ancient Hebrew songs and poems preserved in the Scriptures. These Psalms have, for the most part, already been examined in the prior studies (as well as in other notes and articles on this site); now it is time to subject them to a closer and more detailed analysis.

In this regard, the Psalm with which we will begin—the Song of the Sea (<Y`h^ tr^yv!, Exodus 15:1-18ff), sometimes also called the “Song of Moses” (or even the “Song of Miriam”)—was discussed in an earlier set of notes, and that prior exegesis will be incorporated into the current expanded study. It is natural that my own views and approach regarding the Song would change somewhat over time, as new observations and insights emerge. In addition, I will be engaging much more extensively with modern scholarship on the Song, though (hopefully) without overburdening the reader in the process. A particular number of the most relevant (and useful) commentaries and studies will be cited regularly by shorthand abbreviation (usually last name of the scholar, followed by page number); as is customarily the case in the exegetical notes and studies on this site, such abbreviations are provided at the bottom of each article.

Introduction to the Song

The issue of the dating of the Song, and its status as one of the oldest Scriptural poems, remains contested and in dispute. Indeed, in spite of the apparent antiquity of the Song (at various points) and its attribution (within the narrative) to Moses and Miriam and the Israelite people of the time, a number of scholars in the late 19th and early 20th century, were inclined to view the Song as a relatively late production—viz., from the exilic or (early) post-exilic period. See, for example, the articles by A. Bender (“Das Lied Exodus 15”, Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [ZAW] 23 [1903], pp. 1-48) and P. Haupt (“Moses’ Song of Triumph”, American Journal of Semitic Languages [AJSL] 20 [1904], pp. 149-72). The situation changed notably in the second half of the 20th century in the wake of the pioneering studies by F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman (along with, and following, the work of W. F. Albright), who treated the Song as an early Israelite poem from the pre-monarchic period (13th-11th century B.C.); their analyses exercised a considerable influence over an entire generation of scholars, and an early date for the Song came to be recognized (and even assumed) by many commentators.

Now, in recent decades, the pendulum has swung back, and increasingly scholars are viewing the Song as a much later (exilic or post-exilic) work. One of the first modern commentators to provide extensive arguments for a post-exilic (e.g., c. 450 B.C.) date is Martin L. Brenner in his 1991 monograph The Song of the Sea: Exodus 15:1-21 (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 195). And yet, there are still scholars who accept a relatively early date for the Song, as stemming from the premonarchic or early Kingdom-period (12th-10th century B.C.); see, for example, the dissertation-monograph by Brian D. Russell (The Song of the Sea: The Date of Composition and Influence of Exodus 15:1-21 [2007]), or the commentary by G. I. Davies (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Exodus 1-18, 2 vols., International Critical Commentary [ICC]). There is thus a considerable divergence of opinion as to the age of the Song, even with regard to objective linguistic evidence such as vocabulary, syntax, poetic conventions and distinctive style. 

In any event, the dating of ancient Hebrew poetry is itself fundamentally difficult and problematic. There are number of factors and reasons for this difficulty. To begin with, poetic conventions and traditions can persist for centuries, over many generations, and it is much more likely for archaic features of the language to be preserved in poetry than in prose. The main reason for this is that poetry, with its specific stylized and formal aspects, is less likely to be ‘modernized’ over time. To the extent that the Exodus narratives (and/or their underlying traditions) derive from the premonarchic period (even back to the 13th century and the time of Moses), they have surely been developed, adapted, and modernized during the course of transmission. It is primarily in the early poetry that the older language (and literary/poetic style) has been preserved. This, however, creates certain text-critical problems in our study of the poems. Over time, copyists become less familiar with the older language and style, and there are signs that archaic features in the poetry were misunderstood and (at times) mistakenly ‘corrected’ or given an inaccurate pointing. While we cannot always be sure that transmission errors have taken place, the possibility must be considered in any proper critical study of the text.

At the same time, a poet from a later period may intentionally utilize archaic (or archaic-sounding) elements for a specific literary-dramatic, theological, or other purpose. Indeed, a number of commentators who favor a relatively late date for the Song would explain the apparent ancient/archaic features as learned and artificial ‘archaisms’, so as to fit the Mosaic setting of the narrative. To this we may add the relative lack of evidence for comparison, when attempting to judge the date of a Psalm or other Scriptural poem on linguistic grounds; often there are simply too few occurrences (in the surviving material) of a particular word, phrase, idiom, or syntactical-poetic convention for a definitive determination. All of these factors complicate the situation and hinder our ability to make assessments for the date of many ancient Hebrew poems that are anything more than tentative (at best).

The Song’s age/date also relates to other literary- and compositional-critical questions, among which two of the most prominent are: (1) the relationship of the Song to the narrative setting and framework of chapters 14-15, and (2) the relationship of the Song to the shorter ‘Song of Miriam’ in vv. 20-21. These and other issues will be discussed at various points in the exegetical notes, and again (in further detail) as part of a concluding study. With regard to the second of the two stated questions, it may be worth briefly noting three interpretive models (cf. the summary by Zenger, p. 453f):

    • Verse 21 represents a refrain for the Song, which may have been sung after each verse or strophe/stanza; this would be in accord with how the narrative framework presents the matter—viz., the principal Song sung by Moses and the men, with the response sung (with dancing) by Miriam and the women.
    • Vv. 20-21 provide a shorthand reference to the Song, including just the opening lines; this quotation was part of the older narrative, to which was added a full/expanded form of the Song, specifically associated with Moses (rather than Miriam) as befits the overall narrative context.
    • The Song itself represents a secondary expansion of the shorter ‘Song of Miriam’ (vv. 20-21), building upon the earlier song (v. 1) and expounding it (vv. 4ff) with an additional section (vv. 13-17) dealing with the settlement of the Israelite people (in the land of Canaan).

There can be little doubt that Song is closely related to the narrative framework of chapters 14-15, with the crossing of the Sea episode being narrated in chapter 14, and the parallels between narrative and poem will be discussed throughout the notes. This conjunction of a battle narrative followed by a poem/ode celebrating victory is similar to the situation in Judges 4-5 (cf. the essay by Alan J. Hauser, “Two Songs of Victory: A Comparison of Exodus 15 and Judges 5”, Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry, ed. Elaine R. Follis [1997], pp. 265-84). There are also contemporary parallels from ancient Egypt, such as in the chronicles of the 13th century Pharaohs Rameses II (against the Hittites) and Merenptah (against the Libyans). However, as Sarna (pp. 75-76) notes, the Egyptian accounts celebrate the accomplishments of a human king (Pharaoh), while in the Exodus narrative it is the victories of God (YHWH) as Sovereign that are to be praised.

Structure/Outline

When it comes to the poetic structure of the Song there is little agreement, beyond the recognition of a broad two-part historical division—(i) episode at the Reed Sea (vv. 1-12), and (ii) exodus and settlement of the people (vv. 13-18). Any finer division of the Song into stanzas/strophes or verses has proven difficult, with a variety of approaches having been made by commentators toward segmenting and delineating the poem.

For this study, I have adopted a four-stanza division, with the following basic format: (a) hymnic YHWH praise-verse, followed by (b) an expository stanza recounting what YHWH has done on behalf of His people. This format itself may be seen as developing out of the initial call to praise in v. 1 (cf. also v. 21): YHWH hymn (v. 1a), His deeds on behalf of Israel (v. 1b). The stanzas are comparable in size/length, but otherwise irregular, with only the central two stanzas (vv. 7-10, 12-16) evincing a metrically similar strophic pattern (cf. especially the study by Freedman, pp. 187-227).

    • Opening praise (v. 1b)
      with additional YHWH-hymn (v. 2)
    • Stanza 1 (vv. 3-5)
    • YHWH-verse (v. 6)
    • Stanza 2 [Strophe I] (vv. 7-10)
    • YHWH-verse (v. 11)
    • Stanza 3 [Strophe II] (vv. 12-16a)
    • YHWH-verse (v. 16b)
    • Stanza 4 (v. 17)
    • Closing praise (v. 18)

At the same time, I am inclined to follow Freedman in recognizing a distinct concentric-chiastic structure to the Song. The core of the Song—viz., the central pair of strophic stanzas—is framed by the three YHWH-verses (vv. 6, 11, 16b). The central position of the second YHWH-verse (v. 11) is indicated by its expanded form—including a third couplet (v. 11c) that departs from the repetitive parallelism of the verse-pattern. Here is an outline of the Song’s concentric structure:

    • Opening praise (vv. 1b-2)
      • Outer Stanza—Reed Sea event (vv. 3-5)
        • YHWH-verse (v. 6)
          • Inner Stanza—Reed Sea event (vv. 7-10)
            • Central YHWH-verse (v. 11)
          • Inner Stanza—Exodus/Settlement (vv. 12-16a)
        • YHWH-verse (v. 16b)
      • Outer Stanza—Exodus/Settlement (v. 17)
    • Closing praise (v. 18)

Metrically, the Song generally employs a short 2-beat couplet (bicolon) format. This meter is established in the opening praise of v. 1 and is repeated throughout the YHWH-verses. The stanzas also utilize a 2+2 meter, punctuated by longer 3-beat lines (sometimes at the close of a strophe). In the text as we have it, the meter is not consistent. When approaching such situations in early Hebrew poetry, many commentators are inclined to emend the text whenever possible, to restore a more consistent rhythm—based on the fair assumption that the poem would originally have been sung according to a more regular, consistent (performable) rhythm. Such emendation and reconstruction must be approached with great care and caution; I must admit that I am not inclined to reconstruct the text of the Song as aggressively as Cross, for example, does.

Narrative Introduction

The Song is set within the context of the prose narrative through the introductory notice of verse 1a:

“Then Moše sang—and (with him the) sons of Yisrael—this song to YHWH. And he said (this), saying:”

The statement indicates that the Song is in response to the actions of YHWH in delivering the people of Israel from the Egyptian forces (narrated in chapter 14). The nature-miracle at the “Reed Sea” ([Ws-<y~) is the occasion for praising God and serves as the basis for the opening praise (v. 1b) and the first half of the Song as a whole.

Opening Praise (vv. 1b-2)

Verse 1b

“(Come,) I will sing to YHWH,
for rising, He has risen high!
(The) horse and its ride
He has hurled in(to) the Sea!”

Muilenburg (p. 238) refers to this opening praise as a “hymnic introit”, which is fitting. Like many of the Scriptural Psalms, it is essentially a call to praise, whereby the Psalmist speaks on behalf of the people (i.e., the congregation). The imperfect verb form (hr*yv!a*) has jussive/cohortative force (“[come,] let me…” [i.e., “let us…”]); the Targum and Syriac versions do, indeed, render as a plural verb (“let us sing…”, “we would sing…”). Cross prefers to emend the text here to a simple imperative (Wryv!, “sing!”), which tightens the rhythm and matches the opening of the parallel song in verse 21 (and is supported by the Samaritan Pentateuch [causal imperative]); he may be correct in terms of the earliest/original form of the poem. The first-person formulation matches the beginning of the Song of Deborah (Judg 5:3) and likewise occurs with some frequency in the Psalter (e.g., 89:2[1]; 101:1; 108:2[1]); Muilenburg also cites the Nikkal poem from Ugarit (’ašr nkl w’eb…).

The expression hw`hl^ (with the prefixed preposition l), also occurring in the narrative introduction (v. 1a), can mean “unto YHWH” or “with regard to YHWH” (i.e., “about/concerning YHWH”), and a few commentators (e.g., Freedman, Propp, Davies) opt for the latter, particularly since the Song is indeed about what YHWH has done. This may be supported by the parallel in Judges 5:3; note also the occurrence in Exod 14:3, where yn@b=l! clearly means “about/regarding the sons of (Israel)” rather than “to the sons of (Israel), cf. Davies, p. 324f.

As noted above, the primary meter for the Song is established in these first two couplets (2-beat, 2+2). The terse, staccato-like rhythm and repetitive parallelism are typical of Canaanite poetry of the period (as glimpsed, for example, in the 14th-13th century poetic texts from Ugarit).

The second line utilizes the common Semitic convention of doubling a verb for emphasis, thereby intensifying its force. Usually this is done by adding a cognate infinitive, creating a syntax which is most difficult to render literally in English. Here an approximate translation would be “rising, he has risen”, with a doubling of the root hag (“be high, raise high”). Though the root is relatively common (including references to YHWH’s greatness and exaltation), occurrences of the verb itself are actually rare (just five other instances in the Hebrew Scriptures). The active sense of the Qal stem suggests that the reference is to YHWH having raised Himself in might against the enemies of Israel; at the same time, it indicates a call to exalt YHWH (in praise), because He Himself is exalted. The initial particle yK! (rendered “for”) provides the reason why YHWH is to be praised, following a traditional syntax that occurs relatively often in the praise-Psalms (see esp. at the beginning of Psalms, e.g., 106:1; 107:1; 117:1f; 118:1).

The second couplet declares succinctly the victory of God in battle, defeating the Egyptian forces who threatened His people. It summarizes the powerful nature-miracle that occurred at the Reed Sea (as recorded in the tradition), which the Song develops more descriptively in the subsequent stanzas (to be discussed). The Masoretic texts reads obk=r) (“its rider”), which might give one the mistaken impression that it refers to one riding the horse, instead of the person riding in the chariot drawn by the horse. Whether or not Cross (cf. also Uzschneider/Oswald) is correct that the original text is better vocalized as bk#r# (“ride”, cf. 14:18, 23, oBk=r!, “his ride”), the reference is clearly to the chariot-ride (and the soldier/officer[s] riding in it)—cf. Jer 17:25; 51:21; Hag 2:22, and the various occurrences of the verb bkr in the context of mounting a chariot (Gen 41:43; 1 Kings 18:45, etc., cited by Propp, p. 510). If the reference were actually to the rider of a horse (i.e., cavalry), then it would certainly be anachronistic to the setting of the poem (cf. Davies, pp. 325-6); Brenner (pp. 82ff) assumes that it is the rider of a horse that is meant, and cites the point in support of a late (post-exilic) date for the Song.

The verb hm*r*, elsewhere refers to the shooting of arrows from a bow (Jer 4:29; Ps 78:9); thus, one may speak of YHWH “shooting” (i.e., thrusting, propelling) the Egyptian chariots into the sea (cf. Russell, p. 16; Propp, p. 511).

Verse 2a

“My strength and my protection (is) YH(WH),
and He has come to be salvation for me!”

As Cross/Freedman (p. 243) notes, the pair of couplets in verse 2 have a longer 3-beat (3+3) meter which, if original, seems to anticipate the 3-beat lines at the close of strophes/stanzas in vv. 5, 8b, and 14. Cross himself (p. 127) is inclined to treat v. 2a as a secondary addition, a traditional praise-couplet that is also found in Psalm 118:14 and Isa 12:2. Brenner (pp. 54-60ff) makes much of these parallels in support of a late (post-exilic) date for the Song. It may well be that those two texts are quoting from the earlier Song, as Propp suggests (p. 511).

Verse 2 reaffirms the praise that is due to YHWH. It is his strength and might that have led to the victory. There is almost certainly an intentional contrast between the Egyptians’ reliance upon military technology (chariotry) and Israel’s reliance upon the power of God (cf. Psalm 20:8[7]; Isa 31:1; 36:9). The word hrmz, parallel with zu (“strength”), should be understood as deriving from a separate root rmz with a similar meaning (“be strong, brave”, etc). The comparable ¼mr in Ugaritic is used in a military context (for armed troops, etc), which is very much appropriate here; cf. Cross/Freedman (p. 243), Propp (p. 512f), Davies (p. 327). This root zmr/¼mr occurs frequently in Semitic names, going back to the Mari texts (Zimri-lim, etc). As this root generally dropped out of use in Hebrew, it is easy to see how copyists might have mistaken it here for the more common root rmz meaning “make music”. It thus can also be cited in support of an early date for the Song.

The form trmz (apparently without a first person singular suffix [y-]) can be explained several ways (cf. Freedman, p. 200): (i) the suffix on the prior noun zu (“strength”) does double-duty (“my strength and [my] protection”); (ii) the yod (y) at the beginning of the next word does double-duty, making it unnecessary to write a second y for the suffix; (iii) in the early spelling the word would have been written without a vowel letter (i.e., T!r^m=z]w+) and a vestige of this older orthography has been preserved. Quite likely, we are dealing with a combination of (ii) and (iii); that a suffix is intended on both nouns is supported by the balanced syllable count (7:7) for the couplet that is produced as a result.

The double-use of a prefixed l preposition—hu*Wvyl! yl!—can be a bit tricky to translate. In English, we would probably say “as salvation for me”, but perhaps more literally, “(as a source) for salvation to me” (Freedman, p. 200, literally renders “[belonging] to me for salvation”); for poetic concision I have slanted the translation a bit, “He has come to be salvation for me”. For this terminology, cf. 2 Sam 10:11; Psalm 118:21.

Note the alliterative assonance in all three word pairings of the couplet: (i) ‘āzzî wezimratî, (ii) Yāh wayhî, (iii) lî lîšû‘â.

For more on v. 2a see the articles by S. B. Parker, “Exodus XV 2,” Vetus Testamentum [VT] 20 (1970), pp. 358-59, and M. L. Barre, “‘My Strength and My Song’ in Exodus 15.2”, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly [CBQ] 54 (1992), pp. 623-37.

Verse 2b

“This (is) my Mighty (One) and I will exalt Him,
Mighty (One) of my father, and I will lift Him high!”

This is a straightforward 3-beat couplet with clear parallelism. It repeats the identification—so vital to the early Exodus narratives—of YHWH with both: (a) the Creator °E~l (“Mighty [One]”) and (b) the God (°E_lœhîm, “Mightiest [One]”) worshiped by the ancestors of Israel as Creator and Protector.

The verbs hwn and <wr are in parallel; the latter means “be high” (cf. hag in v. 1b, above), so, for this reason, a second hWn root (II) with a comparable meaning is assumed, rather than hWn (I), “wander, journey (toward a destination/abode)”. Based on the noun hw#n` (from hwn I, cf. verse 13), a Hiphil form of hwn (I) might mean “make/establish a dwelling”. However, it seems better to connect the form here with han (“be/make beautiful”), or, alternately, with Arabic nawwaha (“raise, elevate, exalt”); cf. Propp (p. 514), Davies (p. 328). The second verb form (of <Wr Polel, “make/lift high”) unusually includes an energic n before the Wh– suffix (cf. GKC §58i,k). Freedman (p. 200) argues that the w-particles on both verbs are emphatic, not conjunctive—i.e., “(whom) indeed I exalt…indeed I lift high!”

The final line of v. 2 is longer than the first three, with 11 syllables rather than 7. Cross/Freedman (p. 243f) would address this irregularity, by interchanging the verbs of lines 3 and 4, respectively, which produces a balanced (9:9) couplet. Freedman (p. 201f) himself would allow for the unbalanced couplet as a legitimate instance of poetic variation. Indeed, the longer line is fitting for the close of the poetic section (vv. 1b-2).

The first Stanza (vv. 3-5) will be discussed in Part 2 of this Study.

    • References marked “Cross” above (and throughout these notes) are to Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History and Religion of Israel (Harvard University Press: 1973).
    • Those marked “Cross/Freedman” are to Frank Moore Cross and David Noel Freedman, “The Song of Miriam”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 14 (1955), pp. 237-50. This is a revised version of a chapter from their earlier dissertation, published in idem, Studies in Ancient Yawhistic Poetry, Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Dissertation Series (1975), pp. 31-45.
    • Those marked “Freedman” are to David Noel Freedman, Pottery, Poetry and Prophecy: Collected Essays on Hebrew Poetry (Eisenbrauns: 1980): (1) pp. 131-66, “Early Israelite History in the Light of Early Israelite Poetry” (originally published in Unity and Diversity, ed. H. Goedicke & J. J. M. Roberts [1975]); (2) pp. 179-86, “The Song of the Sea” (originally published in 1968); (3) pp. 187-228, “Strophe and Meter in Exodus 15” (originally published in A Light Unto My Path, ed. H. N. Bream, R. D. Heim, C. A. Moore [1974]).
    • Those marked “Muilenburg” are to James Muilenburg, “A Liturgy on the Triumphs of Yahweh”, in Studia Biblica et Semitica Theodoro Christiano Vriezen … dedicata (1966), pp. 233-51.
    • Those marked “Zenger” are to Erich Zenger, “Tradition und Interpretation in Exodus 15 1–21”, in Congress Volume: Vienna, 1980 Vetus Testamentum [VT] Supplements 32 (Brill: 1981), pp. 452-83.
    • Those marked “Brenner” are to Martin L. Brenner, The Song of the Sea: Exodus 15:1-21, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 195 (De Gruyter: 1991).
    • Those marked “Russell” are to Brian D. Russell, The Song of the Sea: The Date of Composition and Influence of Exodus 15:1-21 (Dissertation, 2002), also published as a monograph (Studies in Biblical Literature 101 [Peter Lang, Inc.: 2007]).
    • Those marked “Davies” are to G. I. Davies, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Exodus 1-18, 2 vols., International Critical Commentary [ICC] (T&T Clark: 2020).
    • Those marked “Utzschneider/Oswald” are to Helmut Utzschneider and Wolfgang Oswald, Exodus 1–15, (English version, trans. Philip Sumpter), International Exegetical Commentary on the Old Testament (Kohlhammer: 2015).
    • Those marked “Propp” are to William H. C. Propp, Exodus 1-18, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 2 (1999).
    • Those marked “Sarna” are to The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus twm?, commentary by Nahum M. Sarna (Jewish Publication Society: 1991).

June 26: Job 12:23-25

Job 12:23-25
Verse 23

“(He is the One) enlarging the nations, and makes them go away;
spreading out the nations, He then leads them (to slaughter);”

The final strophe of the hymn (in the second half of chapter 12, vv. 14-25) continues the theme of Divine judgment (on the nations/peoples) as an expression of YHWH’s supreme power and authority (as King and Judge) over the cosmos. The apparent use of the verbs ag`c* (Hiphil, “make large, make grow”) and hj*n` (“lead, guide”) here in v. 23 suggest acts that are beneficial to the nations. However, the emphasis throughout the prior stanzas has been thoroughly upon acts of judgment (i.e., punishment). Thus, the verbs ag`c* (if actually intended) and hj*n` are almost certainly being used with an ironic double-meaning.

As noted above, for the first verb in v. 23, the MT reads a Hiphil form of the verb ag`c* (= gg~c* / hg`c*, “be large”), “make large”, “cause to grow”; cf. 8:7, 11. Thus, the line appears to describe YHWH’s governing role in both the rise and fall of nations: “(He is the One) making large the nations [cf. Isa 9:3; 26:15], and He (also) makes them go away [i.e., perish]”. However, the Greek (Theodotion, Symmachus) and Syriac versions clearly read a form of the verb ag`v* (or hg`v*), “go astray” (Hiphil “cause to stray, lead astray”), a reading that is supported by a number of Hebrew manuscripts. Following Seow (p. 637), there is thus a sound basis for adopting the reading ayG]v=m^ (rather than ayG]c=m^). Yet (as Seow also notes), given the poet’s penchant for double-meaning wordplay, there is likely such a double-meaning employed here—viz., “cause to grow” / “lead astray”. If a form of the verb ag`c* is indeed intended, then it should be understood in the same darkly ironic sense.

The parallel of jf^v* (“stretch/spread out”) in the second line does favor ag`c* (Hiphil, “enlarge”) in line 1; as noted, both verbs are being used with a grim irony—viz., the growth (and seeming success) of the nations results in their punishment (and destruction). The verb hj*n` (Hiphil, “lead, guide”), with YHWH as the subject, is always used in the positive context, i.e., of God guiding His people. This application to God’s control over the other nations is unusual and surely must be read in the same darkly ironic sense as the other verbs in the couplet. The use of hj*n` in the idiomatic context of YHWH as a shepherd who leads his sheep (cf. Psalm 23:3) allows for the idea of the sheep being led to the slaughter (cf. Isa 53:7, where the verb lb^y` is used). The parallel with db^a* (Piel “make go away”) in line 1 does, indeed, indicate a meaning here for hj*n` (Hiphil) of “lead away”.

The prefixed l particle in both instances of the noun <y]oG (“nations”) is as a marker of the accusative. A number of commentators (e.g., Kissane, Fohrer), unsatisfied with the repetitive parallelism (viz., the same plural noun <y]oG used in both lines), prefer in line 2 the variant reading <yM!a%l= (“peoples”) or would emend the text to <ym!u^[l*] (also “peoples”). The variant does occur in a few manuscripts, and may be supported by the Targum and Syriac Peshitta; cf. Seow, p. 637.

On the absence (of some or all) of verse 23 from the LXX, see the note by Althann, p. 70*.

Verse 24

“(the One) turning aside (the) heart of (the) chiefs of the land’s people,
and (who) makes them wander in a wasteland (with) no path—”

The wandering motif established in v. 23 (cf. above) continues here, utilizing the verb hu*T* (“wander”, Hiphil “cause to wander”). In v. 23, it is the nation as a whole (i.e., the people) that is led off (to destruction) by YHWH; here it is the leaders (<yv!ar*, “top/chief [one]s”) who God leads astray, causing them wander off in a desolate wasteland (WhT)) where they will ultimately perish. This focus on the nation’s leaders and prominent individuals echoes the prior two strophes (vv. 17-19, 20-22).

The expression Jr#a*h* <u^ yv@ar* (“[the] chiefs of [the] people of the earth/land”) seems overloaded—a fact of which the translator is acutely aware! Gordis (p. 141) may be correct in his suggestion that the MT is conflate, preserving two variant readings: <u^ yv@ar* (“chiefs of [the] people”) / Jr@a*h* yv@ar* (“chiefs of the earth/land”). The LXX appears to lack the noun <u^ (“people”), but this may simply represent a streamlining of the translation, just as many a modern translator is apt to do (and which I partly do above). Seow (p. 637) suggests that the use of the expression Jr#a*h* <u^ (“people of the earth/land”) specifically designates the nations and those of the Israelite/Judean people who are not among the true faithful/righteous ones (cf. Ezra 3:3; 4:4; 9:1-2, 11; 10:2, 11). It is such people who properly face judgment from YHWH.

The noun WhT) denotes a desolate wasteland, devoid of order and structure (here, specifically, having “no path”). Used most famously in the cosmological setting of Gen 1:2, the majority of Scriptural occurrences (11 of 20) are in the book of Isaiah. It was used earlier in 6:18, and cf. also in 26:7. In a Wisdom context, the idea of having “no path [Er#D#]” suggests that a person is lost in ignorance and wickedness. Here, as in 6:18, it is expected that the person who wandered off in the desolate WhT) will perish there (vb db^a*, v. 23).

Verse 25

“they feel around (in) darkness, and (with) no light—
indeed, He makes them wander like the drunkard!”

This final couplet expands upon the statement in v. 24b, as is clear from the repetition of the verb hu^T* (Hiphil, “make wander”)—YHWH makes the leaders of the people wander about like drunks, viz., the image of an intoxicated person staggering around not realizing where he/she is going. The desolate wasteland of wandering is also a dark place (cf. Gen 1:2)—almost certainly an allusion to death and the realm of the dead (Sheol, cf. verse 22), as also to the expectation that the wanderers will perish in the wasteland (see above). The description “no path” (v. 24b) is matched here by “no light”; for the emphatic conjunction “darkness and no light” (i.e., deep darkness with no light at all), cf. Amos 5:18; Lam 3:2 (the Amos reference clearly evokes the judgment of nations and the “day of YHWH” idiom).
Some commentators (e.g., Duhm, Dhorme, Driver-Gray, Horst) would emend from a (suffixed) Hiphil to a Qal form of the verb hu*T*, i.e., “they wandered”; but this, in my view, distorts (and blunts) the emphatic force of the poet’s use of repetition in these couplets. Blommerde (p. 65, so also Michel, p. 293) similarly adopts a Qal reading and follows Dahood in parsing the <– sufformative as an enclictic < (rather than the third person plural object suffix). Cf. Clines, p. 281.

The initial phrase should probably be translated adverbially, as if there were a prefixed B= preposition on the noun Ev#j) (i.e., “in darkness”), “feel around in (the) darkness”, cf. 5:14; Deut 28:29. However, one may also understand Ev#j) as the object of the verb vv^m* (“feel”), in which case the idea may be that of a darkness so thick and deep as to be palpable (i.e., which might actually be felt, cf. Exodus 10:21); Seow, p. 638 (so also Driver, earlier).

As we turn to chapters 13-14, beginning with the next note, it will become clearer how the judgment-focus in the hymn of 12:14-25 relates to Job’s complaint against YHWH (viz., regarding the seemingly unjust judgment that God has brought against him).

    • 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 “Althann” are to Robert Althann, bwya Job, Biblia Hebraica Quinta, vol. 16 (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: 2024).
    • 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 “Gordis” are to Robert Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Studies, Moreshet Series, Studies in Jewish History, Literature and Thought, vol. II (The Jewish Theological Seminary of America: 1978).

Wednesday Wisdom: Proverbs 11:1-12

Chapter 11

Proverbs 11:1-12

As previously mentioned, the traditional chapter divisions for Proverbs 10-29 are somewhat arbitrary and do not necessarily reflect any definite structure for the collection. In particular, the division between chapters 10 and 11 is far from clear, as one can find proverbs (and groups of proverbs) with the same or similar thematic emphasis in both chapters. However, I do regard verses 2-12 as a distinct and valid proverb-grouping. Indeed, the proverbs in vv. 3-11, much like those of 10:24-25, 27-30 (discussed in the previous study), feature the theme of the contrasting fates for the righteous and wicked, respectively (cf. Heim, p. 137; Whybray, Composition, pp. 96-7). In turn, this grouping is framed by a pair of similar sayings (vv. 2, 12) that include the idea of the wicked showing contempt, and bringing shame/disgrace, to others.
For different ways of delineating the proverb-groupings of chapter 11, see the summary by Heim, pp. 135-8.

The position of the proverb in verse 1 is peculiar, since it seems to have little or no connection with what follows in vv. 2-12, and its only connection with the preceding proverbs is the shared use of the noun /oxr* with 10:32 (a clear example of catchword-bonding as method for joining individual proverbs). However, it must be noted that chapter 11, rather more so than chap. 10, contains a number of proverbs that mention commercial/financial activity along with an emphasis on the importance of fair and honest dealings with people (in daily business, etc.). In this regard, verse 1 anticipates some of the proverbs that occur later in the chapter (in vv. 15ff).

This positioning of verse 1, along with the framing proverbs of vv. 2 and 12, implies a relationship with the fate-declarations in vv. 3-11. That is to say, if a person regularly acts in a foolish and wicked way toward others (in daily life and business), then, as a result, he/she will end up meeting the fate of the wicked described in vv. 3-11.

Verse 1

“Balance-scales of deceit (are) an abhorrent thing to YHWH,
but a fully (honest) stone-weight (is) His delight.”

There are a number of proverbs in the collection that mention the ethical importance of the use of fair/honest weights and measures in business dealings (cf. 16:11; 20:10, 23). The issue was also part of the Divine Instruction (Torah)—cf. Lev 19:35-36; Deut 25:15—and was referenced as an ethical (and social justice) concern by the Prophets (e.g., Hos 12:7; Amos 8:5). It is also found in the wider Wisdom Tradition of the ancient Near East, as, for example, in the Egyptian Instruction of Amenemope (§§16, 17); note also the injunction in the Code of Hammurabi (§94). Cf. Fox (p. 530), and Schipper (p. 392), who cites several other ancient Near Eastern references.

The adjective <l@v* I (from the root <lv) means “full, complete”; in this context, the meaning is “fully/completely honest” (so also in Deut 25:15). The noun hb*u@oT, denoting something loathsome and abhorrent (to someone), is frequently used in an ethical-religious sense (viz., something abhorrent to God, and thus also to the righteous), and occurs fairly often in the Proverbs (20 times, cf. earlier in 3:32; 6:16; 8:7). The noun hb*u@oT thus represents the opposite of /oxr*, which denotes something that is “pleasing, favorable, acceptable” to someone (translated here “delight”). On YHWH’s ‘delight’ for a person who is honest and truthful, cf. 12:22.

On the possible positional relation of this proverb to vv. 2-12ff, and the connection with 10:32 (based on the shared use of the noun /oxr*), see the introduction above.

Verse 2

“(When someone) heated comes, then comes contempt,
while with (the) careful (one)s (is found) wisdom.”

This is the first of two proverbs, framing the group of vv. 3-11, which make the point that the foolish/wicked ones act in a contemptuous way (and treat people with contempt); here the root hl*q* (noun /olq*) is used, while in v. 12 it is zWB (cf. below). Here the foolish/wicked ones are designated by the noun /odz` (from the verbal root dyz!), denoting someone who is “hot/heated”, usually in the ethical sense of “hot with anger” (i.e., ‘hot-tempered’) or with the specific connotation of “insolence, arrogance”; cf. 13:10; Deut 17:12; 18:22. Such a person acts (and speaks) rashly (i.e., foolishly) and in a presumptuous or arrogant manner; this leads to contemptuous conduct and to treating people with contempt. By contrast, the wise/righteous person is characterized by u^Wnx*—that is, acting and thinking in a clear/careful way. Such a ‘level-headed’ person represents the exact opposite of the rash-tempered one. See Schipper, p. 393, for several examples of a similar contrast made in the Egyptian Wisdom texts (e.g., Papyrus Insinger, 4.22; 33.23).

The qatal + wayyiqtol verbal structure here represents, not past tense per se, but, rather, a specific sequence of events—viz., first rashness and hot-tempered/arrogant behavior, then contempt. In other words, the contempt comes as a consequence/result of a person’s rash/arrogant conduct. I understand this contempt primarily in terms of the foolish/wicked person’s treatment of others, but it may also allude to the fate of the foolish/wicked (anticipating the thematic emphasis in vv. 3-11)—viz., that they themselves will be treated with contempt; cf. 16:18; 18:12; 29:23.

Frequently in these contrastive righteous vs. wicked proverbs, the singular is used in the first line, and the plural in the second; such is the case here. It is a stylistic device, for poetic variation within the couplet.

Note the alliteration and rhyming rhythm of the first line (cf. Fox, p. 531, and mentioned by other commentators as well):

/olq* ab)Y`w~ /odz` aB*
bā’ zādôn | wayyābō’ qālôn

Verse 3

“(The) completeness of (the) straight guides them,
but (the) twisting of (the) treacherous ravages them!”

This is the first of a sequence of proverbs (vv. 3-11) that emphasize the contrasting fates of the righteous and wicked (cf. 10:24-25, 27-30). The expressions “completeness of the straight” and “twistedness of the treacherous” are precisely parallel, but conceptually the four terms, as given, represent a chiastic sequence:

    • “completeness” (hM*T%), as a characteristic of the righteous
      • “straight” (rv*y`), i.e., upright
      • “twisting” ([l#s#), i.e., crooked and perverse
    • “treacherous” (dg@oB, verbal adjective), characteristic of the wicked

The verb dg^B* (“be treacherous”) particularly indicates an implied social context (as in vv. 1-2)—that is, of how a person deals with others in society. The wise and righteous person is straight and honest in his/her dealings, acting with truthfulness and integrity (in a “complete” manner).

The contrasting characteristics of “straightness” (rvy) and “twistedness” ([ls) relate to the traditional path/walking idiom that featured so prominently in chapters 1-9. Cf. the use of [ls in 13:6; 15:4; 19:3; 21:12; 22:12.

Most commentators follow the Qere for the final word of the verse, reading the imperfect (yiqtol) verb form <D@v*y+ (“it ravages them”) rather than the Kethib perfect form (or suffixed noun) with w-conjunction, <dvw (“indeed it ravages them”, or “indeed it [is] their devastation”).

The LXX (A) has a very different version of this proverb (cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 185): “(With the) dying off of (the) righteous, he leaves behind concern, / but (soon) at hand and (a cause) for joy (is the) destruction of (the) impious!”.

Verse 4

“Wealth gives no benefit in (the) day of (His) anger,
while righteousness snatches (one) from death.”

This proverb closely resembles 10:2 (see the earlier note), the main differences (in the first line) being: (1) the riches are simply referred to as a person’s strength/substance (i.e., “wealth”, /oh) and not described as having been gathered “by wickedness”; (2) there is a contextual reference to the judgment (by God) of the wicked, referred to as “(the) day of anger” (i.e., YHWH’s anger). This alludes to the “day of YHWH” concept from the Prophets; cf. especially Zeph 1:18, where a similar emphasis on the uselessness of a person’s worldly/material riches occurs.
For more on the relationship between 10:2 and 11:4, see the discussion by Heim, Poetic Imagination, pp. 213-7.

This couplet is missing from the LXX, though it is supplied in some manuscripts from the Theodotion version; cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 185.

Verse 5

“(The) rightness of (the) complete shall keep straight his path,
but in his (own) wickedness (the) wicked (one) falls!”

The characteristic designations (of the wise/righteous) from vv. 3 (<mt, “complete”) and 4 (qdx, “right[eous]”) are combined here in v. 5, set in contrast with uvr (“wicked”, used twice). The point in this proverb, clearly made, is that the righteous character of the righteous results in their life/salvation, while the wicked character of the wicked leads to their death/destruction. Salvation is expressed here in terms of keeping one’s path straight (another use of the path/walking idiom), which leads to life. The falling (vb lp^n`) of the wicked likewise alludes to the path/walking motif, suggesting that they fall because they do not keep to the straight (and level) path; instead, the crooked paths that they walk are filled with obstacles and rough surfaces which easily cause a person to stumble and fall.

The preposition B on the suffixed noun otu*v=r! (“his [own] wickedness”) can be translated “in” (i.e., “in the mist of his wickedness”) or “by” (i.e., “because or by means of his wickedness”). Both ways of reading the expression are entirely valid; cf. Fox, p. 532, who cites Rabbi Moše Cordovero (Ramak/Ramaq) to the effect that this proverb depicts the wicked man’s path “as full of holes into which he may stumble”. It has been noted (by Fox, and cf. Kselman, p. 546) that there may be some wordplay here between otu*v=r!b= (“in his wickedness”) and otv=r!b= (“in his net”), playing on the idea, found often in the Psalms, that the wicked end up falling into the pit that they themselves dig (for the righteous/innocent victim), or the trap that they set; cf. especially Psalm 35:7-8. See also the exposition/elaboration of this proverb in v. 6 (below).

Verse 6

“(The) rightness of (the) straight shall snatch them (from danger),
while by (their) desire (the) treacherous (one)s are captured!”

This proverb represents an elaboration of the prior one (v. 5), utilizing characteristic terminology (for the righteous and wicked, respectively) from the earlier v. 3. In particular, the righteous are characterized as “straight” (rv*y`, cf. also the verb in v. 5) while the wicked are referred to as “treacherous” (being/acting treacherously, vb dg^B*). The parallel with being “snatched (out of danger)” (vb lx^n`, Hiphil) confirms that the idiom of keeping one’s path straight (in v. 5a) relates to being saved from God’s judgment (and obtaining life).
The literary technique whereby particular terms and thematic motifs are utilized multiple times (in different combinations) is referred to by Schipper as a principle of “undulation” (p. 396; cf. also 354-6, 361ff).

The construct expression in the second line (MT), “in/by (the) desire of (the) treacherous”, almost certainly produces a misleading distortion of the proverb’s intent, suggesting that the upright ones are captured by the evil desires of the wicked. The MT may be explained as the result of a final <– having dropped out, with the text originally reading <t*W`h^b=W (“in/by their [own] desire”). Cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 186; Waltke, p. 481; Schipper, p. 388. The noun hW`h^ (I/II), from the root hwh (I), allows for several possible layers of meaning (as Fox notes, p. 533), including (i) evil/sinful desire, (ii) disaster and harm, and (iii) harmful, threating, or deceitful words. All three of these are clearly relevant to the character (and conduct) of the wicked. The wicked are captured by their own wicked conduct, just as (in v. 5) they fall by it. As in v. 5b, the prefixed preposition B= can mean “in” (i.e., into, in the midst of) or “by” (i.e., by means of, because of). The use of the verb dk^l* (“catch, capture”) gives further support to the idea that there is double-meaning wordplay (“wickedness”/”net”) present in v. 5b (cf. above).
Dahood (p. 21) explains the MT noun form tW^h^ differently, not as a construct form of hW`h^, but as a possible feminine singular substantive (according to the Phoenician spelling).

Verse 7

“With (the) dying of a [wicked] man, hope perishes—
and (the) expectation of wealth (also) perishes!”

It is probable that the MT of the first line of v. 7 has been secondarily altered/expanded by the addition of the adjective uv*r* (“wicked”); if so, then, in its original form, the proverb was a tighter 4+3 couplet (without any occurrence of the righteous-wicked contrast). Indeed, two manuscripts omit the adjective, and the shorter text is adopted by other commentators (such as Waltke, p. 481). And yet, it would make sense that the author/editor of the collection, in order to conform the proverb to the righteous-wicked contrast of vv. 3-11, might have been the one to add the adjective (which also occurs in the parallel saying of 10:28; cf. Schipper, p. 396; Heim, Poetic Imagination, pp. 240ff). In any case, the longer text certainly fits the thematic context of vv. 3-11.
Fox (p. 533f) prefers to omit the noun <d*a* (“[hu]man”), but it is far more likely that it was the adjective uv*r* that was added, whether by the author/editor or subsequently by copyists.

The double use of the similar nouns hw`q=T! and tl#j#oT, both of which mean “hope, expectation”, also occurred in 10:28, where the contrast of fates (between righteous and wicked) was featured. Clearly, the point is that of 10:28b—namely, that the hopes of the wicked perish with them at the time of their death. This includes their “strength/wealth” (/oa I, cf. /oh in v. 4), which is of no use to them at the time of death—the parallel with v. 4 suggesting a sudden or premature/untimely death as a judgment from God.

The LXX preserves the righteous/wicked contrast for this couplet: “(With the) ending (of the life) of a righteous man, hope does note perish, / but (the) boast of the impious (one)s perishes!” Cf. Fox, Textual Commentary, p. 186f.

Verse 8

“(The) righteous (one) will be snatched from distress,
and (the) wicked will come (there) in place of him!”

This proverb represents a creative reorientation to the righteous-wicked contrast that runs throughout vv. 3-11 (but which may not have been present originally in v. 7, cf. above). Instead of a formal contrast, built into the poetic parallelism of the couplet, it is depicted conceptually through the imagery of the verse: viz., the wicked person comes into distress (or a ‘tight spot’) in place of (tj^T^) the righteous. Once YHWH has rescued (“snatched”, vb lx^n` Hiphil) the righteous out of distress, the wicked come to take their place. The implied idea may be that the wicked fall into the very trap they set for the righteous; as noted above (cf. on vv. 5-6), such a conceptual framework appears numerous times in the Psalms (35:7-8, etc.). Note the similarity of 12:13b to the first line here (cf. Schipper, p. 397).

Verse 9

“With (his) mouth (the) impious (one) would harm his companion,
but with knowledge (the) righteous (one)s are snatched (from harm).”

The juxtaposition of vv. 8 and 9 would seem to confirm that the “distress” (hr*x*) mentioned in v. 8 represents a hostile/oppressive ‘trap’ that was set for the righteous by the wicked. Indeed, here the wicked (called [n@j*, “impious”) intend to harm (and even ruin/destroy) others through their evil speech (cf. 10:31-32, and the earlier speech-proverbs in chap. 10). That such attacks are made against a “companion” suggest the verbal characteristic of “being/acting treacherous” (vb dg^B*, vv. 3, 6).

Dahood (p. 21f) explains hp, not as the noun meaning “mouth”, but as a verb cognate with Ugaritic ph (“see, watch”), so that the first line would read “By watching (the) impious (one), his companion comes to harm”; Dahood understands tjv specifically in terms of the meaning “pit” (denominative verb “fall into a pit”). 

Once again, the righteous, it is promised, will be “snatched” (i.e., rescued) from any such harm that the wicked intend. In v. 8, the traditional language implies that it is God who rescues them; but, here in v. 9, it is knowledge (i.e., wisdom) that provides the means of rescue. Since God is ultimately the source of true Wisdom, He is also the ultimate source of rescue for the righteous. One is reminded of the Wisdom-teachings of the lectures in chapters 1-9, which repeatedly promise that following the voice and path of Wisdom will enable the young person to avoid being lured down the crooked paths of folly and wickedness (e.g., 2:12-19, cf. the specific use of the verb lx^n` in vv. 12 and 16).

This couplet provides another instance of singular/plural variation in the contrast between righteous and wicked—singular of [n@j* (“impious”) and plural of qyD!x^ (“righteous”). The adjective [n@j* (root [nj) is a bit difficult to translate with precision (cp. the treatments in HALOT, p. 335f, and TDOT [K. Seybold], V.37-8). I tend to doubt the separate roots (I/II) delineated in HALOT; it seems that the fundamental meaning (for all occurrences of the root), much like that of [ls (cf. verse 3), is “turn, twist, distort”. As a characteristic of the wicked, [n@j* thus means something like “distorted”, both in character and action. In particular, as the context here suggests, the [n@j* person distorts his/her speech, so as to harm and deceive others. I have translated the adjective rather conventionally as “impious”, but “twisted” or “perverse” would doubtless be more accurate.

Verse 10

“With (the) good of (the) righteous, (the) city rejoices—
and, with (the) perishing of (the) wicked, (also) a ringing cry!”

The righteous/wicked contrast is expressed differently here (cf. also verse 8, above), without the use of a formal contrastive parallel. Instead, the point is made that a city will rejoice at both the prospering/blessing (“good”) of the righteous and the ruin/perishing of the wicked. Not that the people of a particular city will actually respond in such a way—rather, the proverb expresses a generalized ideal as to how people, if they truly understood the situation, would react. The saying may also, in an indirect way, reflect the actual consequences of the situations that are envisaged. Since the blessing/prosperity of the righteous means good for the surrounding community, they will end up rejoicing; similarly, since the wicked often cause oppression, distress, and harm for their community, their death might likewise be a cause for joy (meaning relief from oppression, etc.). Cf. the proverb in 28:12.

Verse 11

“With (the) blessing of (the) straight (one)s, a city is (raised) high,
but by (the) mouth of (the) wicked (one)s it is torn down!”

As in v. 10, the effects that the lives of the righteous and wicked, respectively, have on the surrounding society are highlighted. Formally, this proverb follows the pattern of the one prior (in v. 10), but with the contrastive parallel, in line with most of the proverbs in vv. 3-11, being present again. And, once more, it is the characteristic speech of both righteous and wicked that is in view. The expression “blessing of (the) straight [i.e., righteous]” is transitional in this regard, alluding at once to the blessing that comes (from God) upon the righteous (v. 10) and also to the blessing that the righteous themselves bring (to others), especially in terms of their speech (viz., words of blessing). Such words of blessing are juxtaposed (in stark contrast) to that which comes out of the mouth of the wicked. The words of the righteous have the effect of building up (lit., lifting high) the city (i.e., uplifting the community), while those of the wicked only end up tearing it down. Cf. 29:8 for a proverb which similarly describes the effect that the wicked have on a “city”; and note a comparable use of the verb sr^h* (“tear down”) in 14:1.

Verses 10-11 represent a special variation on the overall theme (in vv. 3-11) on the contrasting fates of the righteous and wicked: their character and conduct have a collateral effect on the fate of the surrounding community (and society), viz., the “city”. Schipper (p. 399) suggests that this “city”-motif may intentionally echo the setting of the dramatic scenes in 1:20-21ff; 7:6-12ff; and 9:3-4ff; in any case, the reader/hearer of the book will likely make the connection.

Verse 12

“He (who) speaks contemptuously to his companion (is) lacking heart,
while a man of discernment knows (how) to keep silent.”

This final proverb of the grouping continues the thematic motif (from vv. 9, 11) on a person’s speech, while, at the same time, providing a framing inclusio (along with v. 2, see above) for the proverbs of vv. 3-11. These two framing proverbs feature the idea of the foolish/wicked ones acting contemptuously (and showing contempt) to others. In verse 2, the root hl*q* (noun /olq*) was used, while here it is zWB. It is also noteworthy that, while vv. 3-11 feature a contrast between the righteous and wicked, in vv. 2 and 12 the contrast is more properly between the wise and foolish. The implication seems to be that, by (regularly) showing contempt for others, the foolish ones proceed ever more firmly down the path toward wickedness and will likely meet the fate of the wicked (described in vv. 3-11).

In verse 2, this aspect of foolishness was expressed in terms of acting rashly, with a hot-tempered arrogance (/odz`); here the more frequently occurring expression “lacking of heart” is used (cf. earlier in 6:32; 7:7; 9:4, 16; 10:13, 21, and again in 12:9, 11; 15:21; 17:18; 24:30; 28:16). In Proverbs, this expression refers to a person who lacks wisdom and understanding (in English idiom we would say “lacking sense”), but, potentially at least, might still be able to learn and acquire it. However, if such a person spurns, ignores, or otherwise neglects the teachings of Wisdom, he/she will surely proceed ever further down the paths of folly and wickedness. Even a reckless youth may occasionally act contemptuously toward others; the more frequent and severe that such signs of contempt are indicates a growing wickedness.

There are two ways of reading the first line: (i) a statement that the one who shows contempt to others (lit., to his companion) is lacking sense; or (ii) emphasizing that the foolish person (lacking sense) will likely act contemptuously toward others. The MT vocalizes the initial verb (zWB) as a participle (zB*), which certainly suggests regular/characteristic behavior (“[the one] showing contempt”); it could also be vocalized as a perfective form (zB^), which would tend to support reading (ii), cf. Waltke, p. 490. In that case, the better translation in English would be: “(The one) lacking heart speaks contemptuously to his companion”. In either case, the Hebrew word order in the couplet is chiastic:

    • “speaks contemptuously to his companion
      • (one) lacking heart /
      • but a man of discernment
    • knows (how) to keep silent”

The emphasis on wisdom/knowledge supports the rendering of the verb vr^j* (“be/keep silent”) as “know how to keep silent”. The speech-emphasis of the verse (as also vv. 9, 11) indicates that the contextual nuance for the verb zWB (“be contemptuous, show contempt”) is “speak contemptuously”. Knowing how/when to remain silent (and exercise discretion) is similarly indicated as a sign of wisdom and discernment in 17:28 where the same verb (vr^j* II) in the Hiphil is used; cf. Schipper, p. 400; Meinhold, p. 192.

    • References above marked “Fox” are to Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 10-31, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 18B (Yale University Press: 2009). Those marked “Fox, Textual Commentary” are to idem, Proverbs: An Eclectic Edition with Introduction and Textual Commentary, The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition 1 (Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Press: 2015).
    • References marked “Waltke” are to Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 1–15, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Eerdmans: 2004).
    • References marked “Schipper” are to Bernd U. Schipper, Proverbs 1-15, Hermeneia Commentary Series (Fortress Press: 2010). See also his monograph on Proverbs 2: Hermeneutik der Tora: Studien zur Traditionsgeschichte von Prov 2 und zur Komposition von Prov 1-9, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 432 (Walter de Gruyter: 2012).
    • Those marked “Meinhold” are to Arndt Meinhold, Die Sprüche, Teil 1: Sprüche Kapitel 1-15, Zürcher Bibelkommentare, AT 16.1 (Theologische Verlag Zürich: 1991).
    • Those marked “Heim” are to Knut Martin Heim, Like Grapes of Gold Set in Silver: An Interpretation of Proverbial Clusters in Proverbs 10:1-22:16, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 273 (Walter de Gruyter: 2001); those marked “Heim, Poetic Imagination” are to idem, Poetic Imagination in Proverbs: Variant Repetitions and the Nature of Poetry, Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement 4 (Eisenbrauns: 2013).
    • Those marked “Dahood” are to Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Proverbs and Northwest Semitic Philology, Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici 113 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute: 1963).
    • Those marked “Kselman” are to John S. Kselman, “Ambiguity and Wordplay in Proverbs XI”, Vetus Testamentum [VT] 52 (2000), pp. 545-7.

June 19: Job 12:20-22

Job 12:20-22
Verse 20

“(He is the One) turning away (the) lip of (the) firm,
and (the) taste of (the) bearded (one)s He takes away;”

The idea of YHWH’s power as expressed by His ability to bring judgment upon humankind, introduced in the first strophe (v. 16) and expounded in the second (vv. 17-19, cf. the previous note), continues here in the first two couplets of the third. The focus in vv. 17-19 was upon the leaders/rulers of a nation—the king (v. 18), the governmental officials (v. 17), and the religious officials (v. 19). Here in vv. 20-21, the view broadens to include all the prominent and leading individuals among the people. In the couplet of v. 20, this is expressed by the characteristics of “being firm” (vb /m^a*), in the sense of being considered trustworthy and reliable, and also “bearded” (i.e., “aged”, /q@z`). A society naturally relies upon its elder citizens for leadership, along with others (viz., younger people) who are likewise deemed reliable.

In bringing judgment upon the people, God takes away the ability of its leaders to lead effectively, expressed by the pair of verbs rWs (“turn [aside/away]”) and jq^l* (“take [away]”). What YHWH removes is the leaders’ ability/authority to speak (i.e., speech, lit., “lip”), and their ability to exercise sound judgment and discernment (lit., “taste”). For this use of the noun <u^f^ (“taste”), see 1 Sam 25:33; Ps 119:66; Prov 11:22; 26:16; cf. Seow, p. 636; compare the English idiom “good taste” = good sense, sound judgment.
The preposition l= in the first line presumably is used in the possessive/genitival sense of “belonging to”, like the construct expression “lip [i.e., speech] of the firm (one)s” (cf. Gordis, p. 140); however, Blommerde (p. 64, cf. Michel, p. 290) suggests that it has the meaning “from”, particularly after a verb of removing.

All the couplets of this strophe continue the hymnic use of an opening substantive verbal adjective (participle) to describe God’s characteristic/regular actions: viz., “(He is the One) doing {such}”. Cf. verses 17 and 19, and note the use of this poetic-syntactical feature in the earlier hymn of 9:5-10.

This couplet has a chiastic structure, preserved in the word order of the translation above:

    • “He turns away
      • (the) lip of (the) firm (one)s
      • (the) taste of (the) bearded (one)s
    • He takes away”
Verse 21

“(the One) pouring contempt upon (the) capable,
and (who) loosens (the) waistband of (the) mighty;”

The motif of ‘loosening the belt’, in a judgment-context of bringing shame and disgrace upon those who previously held positions of honor, is repeated here from verse 18 (see the previous note). In this instance (line 2), the verb hp*r* (“loosen”) is used, along with the rare noun j^yz]m= (“waistband”) which occurs only here (but cf. jz~m@ in Psalm 109:19; Akkadian mēzaḫu; Arabic ḥizām); Gordis (p. 140) suggests that it may be an Egyptian loanword (mdḥ). That all the judgment-actions, described in vv. 17-20 and here in v. 21b, are meant to bring shame/disgrace on the people involved, is quite clear from the wording in v. 21a with the expression “pour contempt” (vb Ep^v* + zWB); cf. Psalm 107:40.

The substantive adjective byd!n` (plur.) is usually translated “prince” or “noble”, but it properly refers to someone who is capable and/or willing (cf. Arabic naduba)—that is, willing/able to contribute and play a leading role in society. The person who is byd!n` is typically understood to be of the well-to-do upper class and thus is naturally connected with the king and aristocracy. The parallel term in the second line is qyp!a* (II), which only occurs here in the Scriptures; it apparently means “strong” (cf. Arabic ʾāfiq); also Akkadian epēqu “be massive, solid” [Clines, p. 280; Gordis, p. 140]), but also with the same connotations of willingness and capability attached to byd!n` (cf. Arabic ʾafaqa, ʾafiqa, “surpass, excel”; HALOT, p. 80; Guillaume, p. 91f). Seow (p. 636) mentions the meaning “generous” for Arabic ʾāfîq (c/o Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon, p. 69).

Resembling v. 20 (see above), verse 21 also has a (loose) chiastic structure:

    • “Pouring
      • contempt upon (the) capable /
      • (the) waistband of (the) strong
    • loosening”
Verse 22

“(the One) uncovering deep (thing)s from (the) darkness,
and bringing (even) death-shade out (in)to the light!”

This final couplet appears to return to the theme of YHWH’s control over the natural world (cf. verse 15), but this thematic emphasis is still being applied to the idea of the judgment that God may bring against nations (and their leaders). His ability to “uncover” (hl*G`) the “deep things” that were hidden in the darkness alludes to His awareness of human sin and wickedness—His ability to bring such things to light, even when they appear to be carefully hidden, allows Him to judge and punish them; cf. Daniel 2:22; 1 Cor 4:5. At the same time, these lines foreshadow the Divine speeches of chapters 38-42, with the revelatory emphasis of YHWH making known the great mysteries (of His actions and decisions) that human beings are otherwise incapable of understanding.

For the noun tw#m*l=x^, see the note on its earlier occurrence in 3:5. It is presumably a compound noun meaning “shadow of death, death-shade”, though some commentators hold that it simply means “darkness”. The association with death (and the realm of the dead, i.e., Sheol) would certainly imply a deep darkness—Sheol being in the depths, the darkest parts below the surface of the earth. The Death/Sheol allusion also is quite fitting to the emphasis here on Divine judgment.

The apparent cosmological orientation of v. 22 has led a few commentators (e.g., Pope, p. 94) to question its placement here (cf. Gordis, p. 140). On the related issue of the marking of vv. 21-23 variously with asterisks in the Greek versions/editions, cf. Althann, pp. 69-70*.

    • 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 “Althann” are to Robert Althann, bwya Job, Biblia Hebraica Quinta, vol. 16 (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: 2024).
    • 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 “Gordis” are to Robert Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Studies, Moreshet Series, Studies in Jewish History, Literature and Thought, vol. II (The Jewish Theological Seminary of America: 1978).
    • Those marked “Guillaume” are to A. Guillaume, Studies in the Book of Job with a New Translation, ed. John MacDonald, Supplement II to the Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society (Brill: 1968).

June 18: Job 12:17-19

Job 12:17-19

The second strophe of the hymn builds upon the allusions to judgment in the first (vv. 14-16, see the previous note). The apparent repetition of wording between the first and third couplets creates a formal chiasm for the strophe. A different sort of thematic-conceptual chiasm may be seen in the first strophe:

    • YHWH’s ability to bring judgment upon humankind (v. 14)
      • YHWH’s control over the natural world (esp. the unruly waters) (v. 15)
    • YHWH’s ability to judge humankind (that is, the wicked) (v. 16)

YHWH’s power and authority over the cosmos (as Creator and King) is matched by His ability to judge humankind (i.e., His role as Judge).

Verse 17

“(He is the One) making counselors go (off) stripped,
and He makes (the) judges appear senseless!”

It is a common feature of many confessional theological hymns for the lines (or couplets) to begin with a substantive verbal adjective (participle) describing God’s regular/characteristic behavior, declaring that He (YHWH) is “(the One) doing {such}”. This poetic-syntactical format was not utilized in the first strophe but is introduced here in the second (cf. its usage in the hymn of 9:5-10 [note]).

The verbs describing YHWH’s actions here are in the causative Hiphil and Polel stems: (1) El^y` (“walk, go”, Hiphil “make [someone] walk/go”), and (2) ll^h* III (“be senseless, out of one’s mind, insane”, Polel “cause [someone] to appear insane”, cf. Qoh 7:7). The act of making someone walk/go stripped (ll*ov) of clothing (line 1) is parallel with the act of causing someone to appear insane (vb ll^h* Polel) in line 2. The latter, in particular, carries a strong connotation of mockery and derision (cf. Psalm 102:9[8]); and note the context of Divine judgment in Isa 44:25. There can be no question that these acts here reflect God’s judgment upon human beings (nations), so that the prominent leaders/rulers are stripped of their status and positions of honor, as well as the symbols of that status/honor; even more, they may stripped of their clothing so that they are forced to walk naked (and barefoot, cf. Mic 1:8).

A few commentators (e.g., Pope, p. 93) have followed Duhm’s proposed emendation of the text, supposedly on the basis of the LXX, so that the first line of v. 17 reads “(The) counselors of (the) land He makes foolish [lK@s^y+]”. Although this proposal results in a somewhat more precise synonymous parallelism between the lines, it has little to recommend it. 

This Divine judgment may be realized and implemented through human means, such as by a conquering army which God can utilize to bring suffering and shame upon a people (and their leaders), even as the apparent judgment against Job was carried out (in part) by bands of human raiders (1:15, 17).

Verse 18

“(The) bond of kings He opens up,
and binds a girdle on their loins!”

The judgment-theme from verse 17 continues here, but without the poetic/hymnic device of beginning the couplet with a characteristic verbal adjective (see above). It is expressed tersely, utilizing alliterative and double-meaning wordplay at several points in the couplet.

First there is the conceptual double-meaning of being bound, matched by a double use of the root rsa (“bind”). A person (such as a king) may be bound with symbols of strength, honor and authority (e.g., Isa 28:22); here, the image is presumably of a royal/honorific belt that is bound around the king’s waist. The MT reads rs^Wm (“instruction”, from the root rsy), but the consensus among modern commentators (e.g., Seow, p. 635) is that the vocalization should be rs@om (“bond”, from rsa), rs!am^ > rs@om.
It is likely that the original text (without vowel points) read rsm, which the Masoretes vocalized as rs^m% (= plene rs^Wm), when it should be rs@m) (= plene rs@om). 

YHWH removes (“opens”, i.e., loosens) the bond (rs@om) of honor, and instead binds (vb rs^a*) the ruler(s) with a common girdle. This illustrates the wordplay with the idea of opening/loosening—since it, too, can have both a positive and negative meaning, e.g., loosening a prisoner’s bonds (positive, cf. Psalm 116:16; Isa 52:2), or loosening (i.e., removing) a person’s strength and honor (negative, cf. Isa 5:7; 45:1). Given the imagery in v. 17, the loosening of the king’s belt may well allude to the removal of his clothes, just as the consequent binding of a girdle (i.e., loincloth) around his loins could be suggestive of nakedness (and the shame/dishonor attached to it); cf. the context of Gen 37:34; 1 Kings 20:31f; Isa 20:2; Jer 48:37; Amos 8:10. The interplay of words in v. 18 continues with the alliterative wordplay between the roots rsa (“bind”) and rza (“gird”) in line 2, as YHWH is said to bind (vb rs^a* ’āsar) a girdle (rz)a@ ’ēzôr) on the king’s loins.

The conceptual wordplay might be taken a bit further, if we extend the use of the root rsa (“bind”) to include the idea of a king’s rule and authority being binding; thus, when God opens/loosens the king’s “bond”, this could be taken to mean that God is effectively dissolving the king’s binding (i.e., ruling) authority. In any case, the judgment-context implies the king’s removal from power, in what must be taken as humiliating and shameful treatment of a once-proud ruler.

Blommerde (p. 63; cf. Michel, p. 289) understands the verb rs^a* in the second line as a privative (Piel) form, i.e., “unbind”, with the subsequent preposition B= (“in/on”) used in the sense of “from” (i.e., from being on). This results in a pair of synonymous lines: “(The) bond of kings He loosens, / and He unbinds (the) girding from their loins!”

Verse 19

“(He, the One) making priests go (off) stripped,
and (who) turns around (those) given (to service)!”

The wording from v. 17 (especially in the first line) is largely repeated here, as religious leaders are said to receive much the same punishment (from God) as the governmental officials (judges/counselors). Like the judges, the priests are stripped of their status/position, symbols of honor, and clothing, being forced to walk off barefoot and naked.

The use of the verb ll^h* (Polel, “make [someone] appear senseless/insane”) in v. 17 is matched here by the verb [l^s* (“turn, twist”), probably with the aspect of turning a person around (forcefully) so that he/she becomes confused and is unable to function normally. The verb can connote going (or being led) astray (cf. the wisdom-context in Prov 11:3).

There is some uncertainty as to the exact meaning and derivation of the plural term <yn]t*a@ in the second line. All of the versions understand it as a form of /t*ya@, an adjective meaning “constant, lasting, enduring” (cf. the verbal root /ty I), related to Arabic watana. However, as Seow (pp. 635-6) notes, the parallel here with <yn]h&K) (“priests”) rather suggests a connection with Ugaritic ytn, corresponding to Hebrew /t^n` (“give”); in a religious-priestly context, the meaning is “(one) given (to service)” —cf. Ugaritic ytnm and Hebrew <yn]yt!n+ (nĕtînîm) for comparable plural forms. See the article by Nahum M. Sarna, “<yntya Job 12,19″ Journal of Biblical Literature [JBL] 74 (1955), pp. 272–73; cf. also Gordis, p. 140; Michel, p. 289f. Seow mentions the occurrences of the name /t*ya@ among the temple-servants in 1 Chron 6:27[42], 29[44]; 15:17, 19.

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).
    • Those marked “Pope” are to Marvin H. Pope, Job, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 15 (1965, 1973).
    • Those marked “Michel” are to Walter L. Michel, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic, Biblica et Orientalia 42 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1987).
    • Those marked “Blommerde” are to Anton C. M. Blommerde, Northwest Semitic Grammar and Job, Biblica et Orientalia 22 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute Press: 1969).
    • Those marked “Gordis” are to Robert Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Studies, Moreshet Series, Studies in Jewish History, Literature and Thought, vol. II (The Jewish Theological Seminary of America: 1978).

Wednesday Wisdom: Proverbs 10:23-32

Proverbs 10:23-32

Verses 23-30 appear to form a coherent proverb-grouping, based on the theme of the contrasting fates of the righteous and the wicked (cf. Heim, pp. 127ff; Meinhold, pp. 180ff). The fates of the righteous and the wicked, respectively, are determined by their characteristic behavior—established in the opening proverb, v. 23. The proverbs in vv. 24-25, 27-30 then proceed to describe, in various ways, the fates of the righteous/wicked: for the righteous, blessing from God, security and long life; for the wicked, loss of hope, ruin and an untimely or premature death.

Only the proverb in verse 26 would seem to be out of place in this grouping; at best, it is marginally related to the overarching theme. A good number of proverbs deal with the subject of laziness, idleness, and neglect (of duty or hard work). Indeed, all of the Scriptural occurrences (14) of the adjective lx@u* (“slow-moving”, i.e., “lazy, sluggish”) are in the book of Proverbs. The earlier occurrences in 6:6, 9 are instructive with regard to how verse 26 may be seen as related to the grouping of vv. 23-30. The Lecture in 6:1-19 illustrates a progression, from careless/foolish behavior in practical matters (vv. 1-5) all the way to outright wickedness (vv. 16-19). The “lazy” person (lx@u*, vv. 6-11) is partway down this progression (viz., from foolisness to wickedness). Yet, he is still capable of changing his ways, of learning wisdom and walking the straight/right path. In this regard, the proverb here in v. 26 corresponds to the exhortation in 6:6ff. As Heim states it (p. 130; cf. Plöger, p. 129), the sluggard “is on the way to becoming a wicked fool” —that is, if he does not learn to heed the voice of Wisdom.

The final two proverbs (vv. 31-32) form a coda to this grouping, and a suitable conclusion to chapter 10 as a whole—the emphasis on a person’s speech (through the representative motif of the “mouth”, “lips”, and “tongue”) being found earlier in vv. 8, 10-11, 13-14, 18-21. However, the traditional chapter divisions remain rather arbitrary and fluid in relation to the recognized structures within the collection, and there are comparable speech-proverbs in chapter 11 (vv. 9, 11, 13). There are also proverbs in chap. 11 dealing with the theme of the contrasting fates of the righteous and the wicked (see above). Indeed, it is possible to treat 10:28-11:7 as a distinct proverb-grouping (as, e.g., Fuhs does, pp. 187ff), framed by the similar proverbs in 10:28 (see below) and 11:7.

Verse 23

“As laughter to a fool (is the) working of scheme(s),
but wisdom (is so) to a man of discernment.”

The foolish person (lys!K=) is inclined toward harmful folly and wickedness, described here in terms of acting (vb hc*u*, “do, make, work”) in accordance with a certain kind of “buzzing” (hM*z] I, cf. the verbal root <mz I)—that is, negative and harmful thoughts, suggestions, plans, schemes, etc. Behavior that accords with hM!z] (in this negative sense) represents sin and wickedness, often of a very notorious or shameful kind. By, contrast, the wise person (“man of understanding/discernment”) acts in accordance with wisdom (and righteousness). The fool takes delight (lit., it is “laughter to [him]”) in acting according to harmful/shameful “buzzing”, whereas the “buzzing” (hM*z]m=) that the wise heed is upright and rooted in sound knowledge and understanding (cf. 1:4; 2:11; 3:21; 5:2; 8:12; Sir 44:4). For the basic thought expressed in line 1, cf. 2:14; 15:21.

Verse 24

“(The) fear of (the) wicked, it shall come (upon) him,
while (the) desire of (the) righteous He does grant.”

With the characteristic behavior of the righteous and wicked established in v. 23, the remaining proverbs of this grouping (vv. 24-30, except for v. 26) present the contrasting fates for the righteous and wicked, respectively. This is a regular feature in Wisdom literature and a key component of the dualistic contrast between the wise/righteous and foolish/wicked. The parallelism of the couplet is loose, but formal:

    • “(the) fear of the wicked” | “it shall come (to) him”
    • “(the) desire of the righteous” | “He shall give/grant (it)”

The second component of each line describes an action by God (YHWH)—punishment for the wicked and blessing for the righteous. This is expressed impersonally in the first line: “it shall come (upon) him” (i.e., upon the wicked). YHWH is the implied subject of the verb in the second line as well (cf. verse 22; Fox, p. 525f; Heim, pp. 128-9): “He shall give (it to the righteous)”; in the context of giving (vb /t^n*) a favor or blessing, we would tend to say “grant” rather than “give”.
Waltke (p. 467) prefers to treat /T@y! as indefinite (i.e., “one gives”), citing Job 37:10; Prov. 13:10, and translating as if it were passive (“it is given”). Plöger (p. 122) would revocalize as a passive form, /T*y%. 

God gives to the righteous the very things that they desire (and hope for), since such things are (and must be) good and right, cf. 11:23; but He gives to the wicked the things that they fear (and would wish to avoid), cf. 3:25; 15:21; Isa 66:4. The expression “fear [hr*ogm=] of the wicked” here means “the thing feared by the wicked”, i.e., what the wicked fear. The feminine noun hr*ogm= (“fear, dread”, cf. the verbal root rWG III) is quite rare, occurring just three times in the Scriptures (cf. Psalm 34:5[4]; Isa 66:4); a bit more common is the masculine noun rogm* (I), Psalm 31:14[13]; Isa 31:9; Jer 6:25; 20:3, 10; 46:5; 49:29. Compare the warning given by personified Wisdom in 1:27.

Verse 25

“As (with the) passing of a wind-storm, so (the) wicked are no more,
but (the) righteous (have) a foundation (into the) distant (future)!”

Ultimately, the wicked are destroyed (by God’s Judgment) that comes (and then goes), lit. “passes by” (vb rb^u*), with the suddenness of a great wind-storm (hp*Ws, cf. 1:27). This alludes to the idea that the wicked will suffer a sudden and unexpected (and untimely) death. The negative particle /y]a^ expresses the idea of absence or non-existence, i.e., “is/are not”; frequently, particularly in Wisdom texts, it means that a person no longer exists (i.e., is dead).

It is also possible to translate the prepositional phrase in the first line, as a temporal-conditional phrase (cf. Waltke, p. 467)— “when (the) wind-storm passes by” —a condition that applies to both the wicked and the righteous, with two different outcomes. The wicked are destroyed by the storm, but the righteous survive and are kept safe (Ps 57:1, etc.)—because their ‘house’ has a strong foundation (dosy+); cf. Jesus’ famous illustration in Matt 7:24-27 par. In any case, the emphasis in the second line is on the strength and security that the righteous possess (12:3, etc.)—viz., Divine protection as a blessing from YHWH. It will last them into the distant future (<l*ou), implying a long life and (possibly) a blessed afterlife.
One should perhaps gloss the second line as “but (the) righteous (are) a foundation…” —viz., they themselves are strong and secure. 

YHWH is frequently portrayed in connection with the storm (i.e., storm-theophany), and Divine judgment like the coming of a storm upon humankind, in which the wicked are ‘swept away’ —e.g., Psalm 58:10[9]; Job 21:18; Isa 17:13; 28:2; 30:30; Jer 23:19; 30:23; Ezek 13:13.

In both vv. 24 and 25, the adjective uv*r* (“wicked”) is singular, while qyD!x^ (“righteous”) is plural. This singular/plural variation within the parallelism of the couplet occurs with some frequency in the Proverbs, as we have already seen (a number of times in the proverbs of chap. 10).

Verse 26

“Like sour wine to the teeth
and like smoke to the eyes,
so (is) the slow-mover to (those) sending him!”

The adjective lx@u* denotes one who is “slow-moving” (i.e., sluggish), with connotations of laziness, idleness, and neglect (of work/duty). As noted above, all fourteen Scriptural occurrences of this adjective are in the book of Proverbs, the previous instances being 6:6, 9 (cf. the overall context of 6:6-11). The person who is slow to carry out his duties is an irritation and a burden to those who sent him (expecting him to fulfill his duties promptly). Fox (p. 527) notes other proverbs dealing with the role of messengers, as well proverbs warning against laziness (in addition to 6:6ff, cf. 13:4; 15:19; 19:15, 24; 20:4; 21:25; 22:13; 24:30ff; 26:13ff). The saying in 26:6 is particularly appropriate to the context here; cf. Schipper, p. 382, who also cites two comparable Egyptian examples.

See the introduction above regarding the possible relation of this proverb to the context of vv. 23-30.
The LXX, perhaps in order to bring the proverb more in line with the immediate context of the section (cf. Heim, p. 127), apparently translates lx@u* as paranomi/a (“going aside/over the law”, i.e., “law-breaking, transgression”).

Metrically, this verse is a 4+3 couplet, which I have presented above as a 2+2+3 tricolon.

Verse 27

“(The) fear of YHWH adds to (one’s) days,
while (the) years of (the) wicked are cut short!”

This couplet returns to the principal theme of vv. 23-30—namely, the contrasting fates of the righteous and the wicked, respectively. Here, the righteous are defined as those who possess (and exhibit) a “fear of YHWH”, that is, a reverence and devotion toward Him, giving to Him the honor and worship that He is due. This attribute of “fear of YHWH” is both characteristic of the wise person and essential for the true learning/gaining of Wisdom (cf. 1:7; 2:5; 9:10).

Long life is a fundamental blessing that YHWH provides for the righteous (e.g., Exod 23:26); and, in the Lectures of chapters 1-9, it was promised to those who faithfully follow the path/teachings of Wisdom (3:2, 16, 18; 4:10; 9:11; cf. also 3:22; 4:22-23; 6:23; 8:35). By contrast, the path of folly and wickedness leads to death (cf. 1:19; 2:18-19; 7:27; 8:36), often expressed in terms of a premature or sudden/untimely death (cf. Job 15:32f; 22:16; Qoh 7:17, etc.). As Fox (p. 527) mentioned, this dynamic can be understood in terms of the years allotted for a specific person, or to the average human lifespan. In either case, the righteous will live even longer than expected, while the life of the wicked is “cut short” (on the use of the verb rx^q* in this context, cf. Psalm 89:46[45]; 102:24[23]).
It is a general precept or principle that is stated, to which there are exceptions (as is the case with many of the proverbs). The author/compiler surely was aware that sometimes the wicked end up living to a ripe old age, while the life of those who are seemingly righteous can be cut short. Certain Wisdom texts (such as the book of Job) do occasionally deal with the apparent incongruity of such aberrant situations.

That the promise of long life is part of the wider ancient Near Eastern Wisdom Tradition can be seen, for example, from the following lines of the Sumerian Instructions of Ur-Ninurta (cf. Schipper, p. 382):

“He who knows how to respect religious affairs, who voluntarily [pleases his god]…” (lines 20-21ff)
“…what he has lost is restored (to him).
Days will be added to his days;
years will be plenty in addition to the years he (already) has.” (lines 25-27)
“But the man who does not fear the affairs of (his) god,
[who does not voluntarily] please [(his) god]…” (lines 30-31ff)
“…the days when he lives will not be right.” (line 33)
(translation Bendt Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer [CDL Press: 2005], pp. 229-31)

Verse 28

“(The) expectation of (the) righteous (is) gladness,
but (the) hope of (the) wicked shall perish!”

The righteous can expect (and, indeed, are promised) blessing and happiness (“gladness”, hj*m=c!), while all that the wicked hope for perishes (vb db^a*, lit. “goes/runs away”). This is presumably another reference to the death of the wicked; when they die, all of their hopes perish with them—nothing lasts or remains. The nouns tl#j#oT and hw`q=T! are parallel and largely synonymous, both essentially meaning “expectation, hope” (viz., something that is awaited with hopeful expectation). The noun hw`q=T!, however, also has a double-meaning, which draws out the allusion to a person’s death; in addition to the meaning “hope, expectation”, it also has the concrete denotation of “cord, thread” —as of (figuratively) a person’s life (see the usage in Job 4:6; 6:8; 8:14), when, at death, the cord is “cut” (cf. Qoh 12:6). See the similar use of both tl#j#oT and hw`q=T! in 11:7; cf. also 11:23; 23:18; 24:14.

In contrast to vv. 24-25 (see above), the adjectives qyD!x^ (“righteous”) and uv*r* (“wicked”) in v. 28 are both plural.

Verse 29

“A strong place for the complete (is the) path of YHWH,
while a broken ruin (awaits) for (those) doing evil!”

In this couplet, the righteous and wicked are referenced by the corresponding characteristics of being “complete” (adj. <T* or noun <T)) and “doing evil”, respectively. The expression /w#a* yl@u&P), like the term /w#a* itself, has a relatively wide range of connotative meaning: “causing harm/disaster”, “doing what is false/vain”, “acting with deception”, “committing sin”, “acting (with) injustice”. For the sake of simplicity (and poetic concision), I have translated rather generically as “(those) doing evil” (or “doers of evil”).

The characteristic actions of the wicked (i.e., “doing evil” [of varying kinds]) are also set in contrast with “(the) path of YHWH”, utilizing the familiar path/walking motif (here via the common noun Er#D#) that occurs so frequently in chapters 1-9. The wise/righteous person is one who walks on the straight/right path of Wisdom (which is also the path of God). By walking straight on this path, the righteous are protected by God, and thus the pathway becomes a “strong place” (“place of strength”, “stronghold”)—viz., a place that is protected, secure, and fortified. This locative noun zoum* occurs with some frequency (along with similar terms) in the Psalms (e.g., 27:1; 28:8; 33:3[2]) where the idea of Divine protection features prominently, but only this one occurrence here in Proverbs. The concept, however, is similar to the strong/secure “foundation” (dosy+) that the righteous are said to possess in v. 25b (see above).

By contrast, the wicked have for their security only a “broken ruin” hTj!m=; cf. the earlier usage in vv. 14-15. This alludes to a lack of protection, and also to the destruction and ruin that comes to the wicked (as judgment/punishment from God). This second line resembles that of 21:15, but with a rather different (figurative-psychological) use of hT*j!m=; see the discussion by Heim, Poetic Imagination, pp. 256-51; cf. Schipper, p. 383.

Verse 30

“(The) righteous into (the) distant (future) shall not be shaken,
but (the) wicked shall not dwell (secure) on (the) earth!”

The security and protection YHWH provides for the righteous (v. 29), and the firm foundation He gives them for their dwelling (v. 25), means that they will never be shaken or caused to move from their place. This is expressed here by the verb fom (“move, waver, sway/stagger”), which is frequently used (esp. in the Psalms) in connection with the idea of Divine protection. By contrast, the wicked have no secure dwelling-place on earth; ultimately, they are provided no protection by God, but instead are judged and punished by Him, and, when they die, all that they possess perishes with them. Cf. a similar contrast in 2:21-22.

As Waltke notes (p. 468), lB^ is the regular negative adverb used with the verb fom (cf. Waltke-O’Connor, p. 57; HALOT, p. 131).

As in v. 25, the righteous are said to possess this blessing (i.e., Divine security and protection) “into the distant (future)” (<l*oul=). As mentioned above, this implies the blessing of long life, but it may also allude to the idea of a blessed afterlife.

Verse 31

“(The) mouth of (the) righteous grows wisdom,
while (the) tongue of (the) twisted shall be cut off!”

Chapter 10 closes with a pair of proverbs that reiterate a thematic emphasis from earlier in the chapter (vv. 8, 10-11, 13-14, 18-21)—namely, the importance of a person’s speech (utilizing the motif of “mouth”, “lips”, and “tongue”) and how it reflects one’s underlying character (whether wise/righteous or foolish/wicked).

This speech-proverb applies the thematic orientation from vv. 23-30—viz., the contrasting fates of the righteous and the wicked—to its particular nexus. Thus, here in line 2, God’s judgment upon the wicked comes in response to their wicked (lit. “twisted”) speech. The verb tr^K* (“cut [off]”) is a regular way of referring to the death of a person, though here it could also allude to the idea of a person’s tongue (the manifestation of his wickedness) being “cut out”; cf. Psalm 12:4[3]. Compare the saying of Ahiqar 66 (156), also cited by Fox (p. 529) and Schipper (p. 384):

“May (the) Mighty One [i.e., El/God] twist (the) mouth of the twisted and tear out [his] tongue!”
(c/o James M. Lindenberger, The Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar [Johns Hopkins University Press: 1983], pp. 156-7).

This Aramaic curse-saying twice uses a by-form (ipa) of the same root (iph, “turn, twist”) used here in v. 31 to describe the wicked (hk*P%h=T^, “twisted [one]s”). All but one (Deut 32:20) of the ten Scriptural occurrences of hk*P%h=T^ are in Proverbs (see earlier in 2:12, 14; 6:14; 8:13).

At the same time, as Fox (p. 529) notes, tr^K* here also suggests the cutting down of a tree or plant, even as the verb bWn in line 1 is used for the sprouting and growth of plants (cf. Psalm 92:15[14]; Zech 9:17). Heim (p. 132), following Bühlmann, Delitzsch, and Plöger (p. 130), regards the noun hm*k=j* (“wisdom”) as an instrumental accusative—i.e., “grows through wisdom”. The line thus would refer to the personal growth (and blessing/prosperity) of the righteous rather than to the wisdom that the righteous produce (through their speech), cf. Psalm 37:30. For the idea of ‘fruit’ that is produced by the mouth, see 12:14; 13:2; 18:20; cf. Fox, p. 529; Meinhold, p. 184.
Dahood (pp. 20-21) argues that the verb bWn here means “flow” (as of liquid, cf. [Wn II), and that the form /wudy in v. 32 (see below) has a comparable meaning, derived from a root cognate with Arabic waḏa‘a (“to flow”, cf. Ugaritic d‘t “sweat”). Cf. the discussion of this proposal by Waltke, p. 468.

Verse 32

“(The) lips of (the) righteous know (what is) pleasing,
but (the) mouth of (the) wicked (only) twisted (thing)s!”

This closing proverb shifts the point of contrast, between the speech of the righteous and wicked, to the underlying character of the speech, rather than the fate/result that the speech produces (v. 31). The righteous knows what is pleasing (/oxr*, cf. Qoh 10:12)—and, particularly, what is pleasing and acceptable to God; and those are the things that the righteous regularly speak. By contrast the wicked, who are themselves twisted (v. 31), speak twisted (i.e., crooked, perverse) things; cf. the use of the same plural noun tokP%h=T^. Clearly, the speech by the wicked reflects and expresses their underlying character: i.e., twisted people speak twisted words (cf. 2:12).

Fox (p. 529f; Textual Commentary, p. 184), along with Toy (p. 219) and others, suggests that MT /wudy be emended to read /wuby (vb ub^n`), so that the first line instead reads: “(The) lips of (the) righteous pour forth (what is) pleasing”.

    • References above marked “Fox” are to Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 10-31, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 18B (Yale University Press: 2009). Those marked “Fox, Textual Commentary” are to idem, Proverbs: An Eclectic Edition with Introduction and Textual Commentary, The Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition 1 (Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] Press: 2015).
    • References marked “Waltke” are to Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 1–15, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Eerdmans: 2004).
    • References marked “Schipper” are to Bernd U. Schipper, Proverbs 1-15, Hermeneia Commentary Series (Fortress Press: 2010). See also his monograph on Proverbs 2: Hermeneutik der Tora: Studien zur Traditionsgeschichte von Prov 2 und zur Komposition von Prov 1-9, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 432 (Walter de Gruyter: 2012).
    • Those marked “Meinhold” are to Arndt Meinhold, Die Sprüche, Teil 1: Sprüche Kapitel 1-15, Zürcher Bibelkommentare, AT 16.1 (Theologische Verlag Zürich: 1991).
    • Those marked “Fuhs” are to Hans Ferdinand Fuhs, Das Buch der Sprichwörter: Ein Kommentar, Forschung zur Bibel 95 (Echter-Verlag: 2001).
    • Those marked “Plöger” are to Otto Plöger, Sprüche Salomos (Proverbia), Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament, XVII (Neukirchener Verlag: 1984).
    • Those marked “Toy” are to Crawford Howell Toy, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Proverbs, International Critical Commentary [ICC] (1899).
    • Those marked “Heim” are to Knut Martin Heim, Like Grapes of Gold Set in Silver: An Interpretation of Proverbial Clusters in Proverbs 10:1-22:16, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 273 (Walter de Gruyter: 2001); those marked “Heim, Poetic Imagination” are to idem, Poetic Imagination in Proverbs: Variant Repetitions and the Nature of Poetry, Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement 4 (Eisenbrauns: 2013).
    • Those marked “Dahood” are to Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Proverbs and Northwest Semitic Philology, Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici 113 (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute: 1963).

June 16: Job 12:14-16

Job 12:14-16

The second half of chapter 12 consists of a theological hymn comprised of four strophes (vv. 14-16, 17-19, 20-22, 23-25). In its orientation and emphasis, it is similar to the shorter hymn (9:5-10) in Job’s prior speech. That particular hymn, though related to Job’s complaint (in chaps. 9-10), was formally separate from it. Here, by contrast, the complaint against God’s treatment of him is built into the hymn itself; this gives to the hymn a most vigorous and striking character. The hymn builds upon the earlier reference (to YHWH’s power as Creator) in vv. 9-10, as well as the transitional verses 12-13 (discussed in the previous note).

Verse 14

“See—He tears down, and it is not built (again);
He closes up over a man, and it is not opened!”

The hymn begins with a couplet that demonstrates YHWH’s supreme power—but particularly, in relation to human beings, suggesting acts of judgment/punishment against them. What God tears down (vb sr^h*), no one is able to build up again (unless He allows it); similarly, when He encloses (vb rg^s*) a person (in prison, etc.), no one can “open” it to set him free. YHWH is frequently the subject of sr^h* (in a judgment context, cf. Psalm 28:5; Jer 31:28; 45:4; Lam 2:17; Ezek 13:14, etc.). The verb rg~s* is not often used in this context; for the imagery and wording here, cf. 11:10; Isa 22:22.

It is possible (but not necessary) to read the initial /h@ (normally, an interjection, “See…!”) as a conditional particle (“if…”), as frequently in Aramaic; so Blommerde (p. 63), Seow (p. 634), and others. In either case, it is used here to introduce hypothetical situations. One might translate: “If/when He tears down, it is not built again…”. God’s power cannot be resisted or overturned, and any action He takes cannot be undone (unless He so wishes it).

Verse 15

“See—He squeezes hold of the waters, and they dry up;
and (if) He sends them (forth), then they overturn (the) earth!”

YHWH’s irresistible power comes as the result of His identity as the Creator (and Sovereign/King over the universe). This is expressed, in the second couplet of the strophe, in traditional cosmological terms—viz., His control over the waters. In creating the ordered cosmos, YHWH ‘subdued’ the primeval waters, gaining and exercising complete control over them (see my article “Conflict with the Sea in Ancient Near Eastern Myth”). Here, it is principally the waters of the earth that are in view, though the lines could apply equally well to the waters above the earth (in the heavens and above); cf. Michel, p. 287. When He “squeezes” hold of the waters (vb rx^u* + preposition B=), i.e., holds them back, restrains them, they “dry up” —viz., there is no water. For the waters on/under the earth, this means the drying of the seas, rivers, and springs; for the water above (in the form of rain, etc.), it means drought (cf. Deut 11:17; 1 Kings 8:35). However, when He chooses to release the waters and to “send” them forth (that is, at His command), then they “overturn” (vb Ep^h*) the earth/land; cf. Ps 147:18; Amos 9:6. The verb Ep^h* means “turn, twist”, and can have the meaning “overturn” (in the sense of “overthrow, destroy”); however, in this cosmological context, the sense is more that of distorting and turning the natural order ‘upside down’; cf. 9:5; 28:9. There may be an allusion here to the famous tradition of the Great Flood (Gen 7:11-24).

Verse 16

“(Indeed,) with Him (is) strength and ability!
To Him (belong the one) straying and leading astray! “

In this final couplet of the strophe, Job echoes the earlier theological statement in v. 13 (see the previous note); indeed, the couplet here follows the same syntactical form as that of v. 13. With regard to the first line, the main difference between the two couplets is the emphasis here on YHWH’s strength. The earlier pairing of “wisdom” (hm*k=j*) and “strength” (hr*WbG+) is replaced here by “strength” (zu)) and “ability” (hY`v!WT). The noun hY`v!WT is a Wisdom-term, and thus relates conceptually to hm*k=j* (i.e., “wisdom, understanding”); however, it properly means something like “ability” —i.e., the ability to succeed and accomplish, which entails having/gaining knowledge, understanding, and skill.

Michel (p. 287f), rather typically, treats these Divine attributes as personified subordinate divine beings. This is not entirely implausible in an ancient Near Eastern literary-religious context (where mythological allusions frequently appear), but it seems unlikely in this instance. His further suggestion that the participles in line 2 also refer to divine beings (who deceive and lead humans astray, e.g., 1 Kings 22:20-22) is most improbable.

As in v. 14-15, there is an allusion here to God’s use of His power and authority (as Creator and King) to bring judgment/punishment against human beings. Specifically, He has the power to punish the errant/wicked ones—both those going astray and those who lead others astray. Participles of the closely related verbs gg~v* and hg`v* (note the common gv element) are utilized, both meaning “stray, go astray”. The participles are substantive verbal nouns, indicating characteristic behavior of the person; the second (of hg`v*) is in the Hiphil causative stem (i.e., “cause [someone] to go astray”). The terminology relates to the familiar path/walking idiom in Wisdom literature—viz., the wicked/sinful ones stray from the right path (and even lead others astray). On the use of ggv/hgv in this context, cf. 6:24; 19:4; Psalm 119:10, 21, 67, 118; Prov 5:23; 19:27; 20:1; 28:10.

The second strophe (vv. 17-19) will be discussed in the next note.

    • References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Seow” are to C. L. [Choon Leong] Seow, Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary, Illuminations Commentary Series (Eerdmans: 2013).
    • Those marked “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).

June 15: Job 12:12-13

Job 12:12-13
Verse 12

“(If) with (the) aged (there is) wisdom,
and (with) length of days understanding,”

As mentioned in the previous note, verses 12-13 are transitional, between the first half of the chapter (vv. 2-11) and the second (vv. 14-25). Recognizing this aspect of the verses (as a unit) helps us to understand the point that is being made. On the surface, it may seem to present a contrast—viz., between wisdom received by human beings (through tradition, etc.) and the wisdom which God Himself possesses. Indeed, the Joban Dialogue seems to evince such a contrast within its literary-dramatic structure. The speeches by Job’s companions (and by Job himself) are juxtaposed with the Divine speeches of YHWH (chaps. 38-42). We have already discussed the likelihood that the reference to the Divine name in v. 9 anticipates the YHWH speeches, since it is the only such occurrence in the Dialogue prior to chap. 38.

Blommerde (p. 62) and Michel (pp. 283-5; cf. also Hartley, p. 213), building upon earlier observations by Dahood, W. A. van der Weiden, and an unpublished study by W. Quintens, argue strongly that the adjective vyv!y` (“aged”, plur.) and the expression <ym!y` Er#a) (“length of days”) here are Divine titles, akin to “the Ancient of Days” (Aramaic aY`m^oy qyT!u^) in Daniel 7:13. While such usage is not implausible (in and of itself), it is unlikely here given the other Scriptural occurrences of these terms. The rather rare adjective vyv!y` occurs only in the book of Job (cf. also the related vv@y` in 2 Chron 36:17), and in these other instances (15:10; 29:8; 32:6) it refers to aged humans. The same is true for the expression “length of days” —Deut 30:20; Psalm 21:5[4]; Prov 3:2. Cf. Seow, p. 633; Pope, p. 92.

Since older/aged adults have lived longer and experienced more, it is natural that they would tend to have acquired more knowledge and wisdom than the young. The reference is to wisdom (hm*k=j*) and understanding (hn`WbT=) in a general sense, and, in particular, to the sort of conventual/traditional wisdom mentioned in vv. 2-3 (and associated by Job with the words of his companions).

Verse 13

“with Him (also there is) wisdom and strength,
(and) to Him (belong) counsel and understanding.”

Along with most commentators, I view the 3rd person singular suffix (on the prepositions B= and l=) as a reference to YHWH, pointing back to vv. 9-10. In this regard vv. 12 and 13 do not properly represent a contrast, though they are juxtaposed. The juxtaposition, as I see it, is a qal wahomer comparison: viz., “if such is true, then how much more so…” If aged humans possess wisdom and understanding, then surely God does as well (and even more so)! The attributes of “strength” (hr*WbG+) and “counsel” (hx*u@) are included as additional characteristic attributes.
To allow for a more consistent parallelism, Budde would emend hx*u@ (“counsel”) to <x#u) (“strength, might”), though without any textual or versional support. Driver proposed the existence of a separate noun hx*u@ (II) with a comparable meaning (“strength, firmness, endurance”); cf. Clines, p. 280. 

Gordis (p. 138; cf. earlier Hitzig, Budde) suggests that vv. 12 and 13 represent contrasting quotations; in verse 12, Job summarizes what the companions say, while in v. 13 he offers what he himself declares. I find this line of interpretation to be unlikely. Nor do I think it is correct to treat v. 12 as a question (cf. Pope, p. 92).

As in his prior speech (chaps. 9-10), Job recognizes and admits the power/strength of God, and also His supreme knowledge/understanding. It is not these Divine attributes that Job disputes; rather, the basis for his complaint is the apparent injustice that attends some of God’s actions and decisions—especially in relation to his own particular situation. Indeed, God’s irresistible power means that, whatever judgment He issues or punishment that He brings, no human being can oppose it. And, if such judgments are made unjustly or unfairly, then human beings (like Job) end up suffering punishment that they do not deserve.

One can see, then, how verses 12-13 function as a transition, between vv. 9-10 (at the close of the first half of the chapter) and the theological hymn that follows in the second half (vv. 14-25). Moreover, as noted above, verse 12 refers back to the traditional/conventional wisdom transmitted by other human beings (vv. 2-3) or observable from the natural world (vv. 7-8); verse 13, in turn, looks ahead to the hymn, which expounds the basic theological statement in v. 13 (regarding YHWH’s strength and wisdom) over four vigorous strophes.

    • 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 “Gordis” are to Robert Gordis, The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation, and Special Studies, Moreshet Series, Studies in Jewish History, Literature and Thought, vol. II (The Jewish Theological Seminary of America: 1978).

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalms of Solomon 17-18 (Part 3)

Psalm 17 (of Solomon), continued

The bulk of the Messianic Song of Ps Sol 17 was examined in Part 2 of this study. The Song consists of two main stanzas (vv. 26-34a, 34b-42), with an introduction (vv. 21-25) and conclusion (vv. 43-44). The conclusion will be treated here, before turning to the 18th Psalm.

Messianic Song: Conclusion (vv. 43-44)
Verse 43

“His utterances (are) shown pure by fire,
over prized gold (of) the first (order);
in (the) gatherings he will thoroughly judge (the) tribes
of a people made holy.
His words (are) as (the) words of (the) holy (one)s
in (the) midst of peoples made holy!”

The Messiah’s rule over the Kingdom of God’s people, during the eschatological New Age of Israel’s restoration, was described in some detail in Stanza 2. Here in the conclusion the focus is on his role as judge in the midst of the people. He will “judge thoroughly/throughout” (vb diakri/nw), with words that are holy and pure.

Verse 43 is comprised of three pairs of couplets, the last of which (e-f) is parallel to the first two (a-d). The first line of the third couplet (e) matches the first couplet (ab):

    • “His utterances (are) shown pure by fire,
      over prized gold (of) the first (order)”
    • “His words (are) as (the) words of (the) holy (one)s”

The plural nouns r(h/mata (“utterances”) and lo/goi (“words”) are parallel, with identical meaning. The two comparisons are likewise similar in meaning—both emphasize the holiness and purity of the Messiah’s words. The first comparison, with purified gold, is traditional (Psalm 12:7[6]; Mal 3:3; cf. also Isa 48:10; Jer 9:7; Dan 11:35; Zech 13:9); the eschatological aspect of this imagery is notable in Mal 3:2-3; Dan 11:35 and Zech 13:9. The verb puro/w means “be/set on fire”; its use here (as a perfect participle, viz., a verbal adjective) has the contextual meaning “shown/proven pure by fire”, “tested/refined by fire”. The second comparison focuses of the specific attribute of holiness. Here the substantive plural adjective a%gioi (“holy ones”) likely refers to the divine/heavenly beings (i.e., angels), though it can also refer to human beings. Indeed, for the Community of the Qumran texts, there was a direct correlation between the “holy ones” on earth (i.e., the members of the Community) and those of heaven (the angels); cf. Ps 89:6-8 [5-7]. At the end time, the heavenly ones will join together with those on earth. The community of the Psalms of Solomon may have held similar eschatological ideas regarding their own religious self-identity and place in the coming New Age.

The Messiah will utter his holy words in the midst of a holy people—viz., the faithful ones of Israel/Judah who will be “made holy” (vb a(gia/zw) by God in the New Age. The use of the plural la/oi (“peoples”) in the final line may reflect a stylistic variation; more likely, it is meant to distinguish the tribes of the people (cf. the parallel in the second couplet [cd]), though it may also allude to the eschatological expectation that the other nations (viz., those who survive the Judgment) will likewise be purified, joining together with Israel in the worship of YHWH during the New Age.

Verse 44

“Happy (are) the (one)s coming to be (born) in those days—
to see the good (thing)s of Yisrael,
in (the) gathering together of (the) tribes,
which God shall do!”

The Song closes with a beatitude, using the traditional formula beginning with the adjective maka/rio$ (“happy, blessed” = Hebrew yr@v=a^); cf. my earlier note on this formula. The blessing is for all those people who come to be born during the time of the Kingdom, under the Messiah’s rule, in the New Age of Israel’s restoration.

Conclusion of the Psalm (vv. 45-46)
Verse 45

“May God make His mercy come quickly upon Yisrael!
May He rescue us from (the) uncleanness of profane enemies!”

The Psalm concludes with a prayer, similar to the one at the beginning of the Messianic Song (vv. 21ff), asking for YHWH to send His Messiah and thus to usher in the New Age of restoration for His people. The hope that this will occur quickly (vb taxu/nw) almost certainly reflects the eschatological expectation of the psalmist (and of the community that produced and used the Psalms)—viz., that the coming of the Messiah will, indeed, happen very soon.

Verse 46

“(The) Lord—He (is) our King into the Age and still (further)!”

The final line of the Psalms echoes the initial line (in v. 1), with a theological declaration that YHWH is the true King of His people. The Davidic Messiah, who will rule over the Kingdom on earth in the New Age, is only a vassal-servant of the Supreme King, functioning as His representative among the people. This royal theology is present in many of the canonical Psalms that we have studied, and it informs much of the Messianic thought among Jews and early Christians as well.

Psalm 18 (of Solomon)

The 18th Psalm (of Solomon), the last of the collection, is also a Messianic Psalm, though considerably shorter and narrower in scope than the 17th. In many ways, it summarizes the Messianic expectation and eschatological hope expressed in the other Psalms. The superscription designates it as a Psalm “yet (again) of the Anointed Lord” (e&ti tou= xristou= kuri/ou). It opens, much like Ps Sol 17, with a hymn to YHWH (vv. 1-4), followed by a prayer (v. 5), and a blessing for those who will be born during the coming Messianic Age (vv. 6-9, cf. 17:44, above). The Psalm closes with a hymnic benediction (vv. 10-12), in which the expected faithfulness of God’s people is compared (implicitly) to the obedience of the heavenly bodies.

Hymn to YHWH (vv. 1-4)
Verse 1

“Lord, your mercy (is) upon the works of your hands into the Age,
your goodness over a rich gift upon Yisrael!”

The opening hymn praises YHWH for His attributes and characteristic actions—particularly those demonstrating His faithfulness, devotion, and covenant loyalty toward His people. Like all human beings, the Israelite/Judean people are the “works of (His) hands” (viz., YHWH as Creator); but He specifically established Israel as His people, by means of a special covenant with them.

Verse 2

“Your eyes are looking upon them, and not (one) of them will be lacking;
your ears are listening to (the) need of (the) poor (offered) in hope.”

YHWH regularly shows care and attention toward His people, by looking upon them (i.e., watching, overseeing) so that their needs will be met; none of His faithful ones will be left wanting or in need (see, e.g., Ps 23:1; 34:10-11 [9-10]; 37:25). Similarly, He hears their prayer when they make a plea or request to Him in their need; this is the significance of the noun de/hsi$—viz., a request for some need, or based on a need that a person has. The righteous make such requests “in hope”, with the expectation that God will answer them. As often in the canonical Psalms, the righteous are identified with the poor; here, the attribute is more properly related to their situation in time of need.

Verse 3

“Your judgments upon all the earth (are made) with mercy,
and your love (is) upon (the) seed of Abraham, (the) sons of Yisrael.”

As the Sovereign Ruler (King and Judge) over all the universe, YHWH makes judgments upon/over the entire earth (viz., all humankind). Even in the judgments that He makes with regard to the other nations, YHWH shows kindness and mercy to them, but He demonstrates a special love toward the people of Israel. The expression “son(s) of Israel” is in apposition to “seed of Abraham”. The more difficult reading is the genitive singular ui(ou (“of a son”), referring to Abraham as a “son of Israel”, lit. “(the) seed of Abraham, a son of Israel”. However, other manuscripts have an accusative plural (ui(ou/$) which is more fitting to the context of the verse—viz., the “sons of Israel” are designated as the “seed of Abraham” (i.e., Abraham’s descendants); cf. Wright, p. 202. The reference to Abraham serves as an implicit allusion to the covenant between YHWH and Israel (established initially with Abraham).

Verse 4

“Your child-training upon us (is) as a firstborn (son), an only (child),
to turn a hearing soul away from lack of learning in lack of knowledge.”

YHWH’s love for His people is like that of a father for an only son (monogenh/$), who would also be, of course, his firstborn. On the idea of the Israelite people as God’s son (or children), cf. Exod 4:22-23; Deut 32:6, 19; Hos 1:10 [2:1]; 11:1; Isa 43:6; 64:8[7]; Jer 31:9. The concept came to be applied to believers in Christ, quite apart from any ethnic distinction, especially by Paul (e.g., Gal 3:26; 4:5-6; Rom 8:14-15, 19, 23) and in the Johannine writings (where te/kna, “offspring, children” is always used, Jn 1:12; 11:52; 1 Jn 3:1-2, 10; 5:2). As a loving parent, YHWH trains His child, expressed by the customary noun paidei/a; such training includes instruction and discipline, which is necessary in order to keep the child from being without proper learning (a)maqi/a) and, as a result, acting with ignorance (lit. “lack of knowledge”, a&gnoia). The idea of God disciplining His people, as a parent does to his/her child, appears frequently in Scripture—e.g., Deut 8:5; 2 Sam 7:14; Job 5:17; Ps 94:12; 118:18; Prov 3:11; Jer 31:18; Heb 12:5-11; Rev 3:19.

It is the “hearing” (i.e., obedient) soul that responds to discipline, and thus receives proper training; some manuscripts read u(phkoon (“hearing under [obedience]”) and others eu)hkoon (“good/well hearing”), but the meaning is essentially the same (cf. Wright, p. 204).

Prayer (vv. 5)

“May God cleanse Yisrael for (the) day of mercy with a good account [i.e., blessing],
for (the) day gathered out [i.e., chosen], with (the) ruling of His Anointed!”

The prayer here in v. 5, as in Ps Sol 17 (vv. 21ff), anticipates the coming of the Messiah, which will usher in the New Age of Israel’s restoration. The psalmist specifically asks YHWH to cleanse His people (Israel) in preparation for that day, a day expected to come very soon. It is with a “good account” (or word spoken, eu)logi/a), i.e., blessing, that God will bring about this cleansing (cf. John 15:3). The day when Messiah comes is a day specially chosen by God, “gathered out” from all others.

Blessing for the Messianic Age (vv. 6-9)
Verse 6

“Happy (are) the (one)s coming to be (born) in those days—
to see the good (thing)s of (the) Lord that He will do for the coming generation,”

This section begins with a beatitude formula that closely resembles the one in 17:44 (see above).

Verse 7

“under (the) rod of (the) Anointed Lord’s child-training—
in (the) fear of his God,
in (the) wisdom of (the) Spirit,
and of righteousness and strength—”

The blessings that YHWH will provide for His people during the New Age will occur under the leadership and rule of the Messiah. As God’s representative (and vassal-servant), it is the Messiah who will carry out the training of the people (as God’s children); again, the noun and motif of paidei/a (“child-training”) is used (cf. verse 4, above).

The Messiah will be faithful and devoted to YHWH, as indicated by the expression “in (the) fear of his God” (i.e., fear of YHWH), cf. 17:40. For the attributes of wisdom, righteous, and strength, cf. the Messianic Song of Ps Sol 17 (vv. 22ff, 26ff, 28, 32ff, 36-40). The wording here, as at several points in Ps Sol 17, is inspired by Isa 11:2-4ff (regarded as a Messianic prophecy by Jews and early Christians alike).

Verse 8

“to set men straight in works of righteousness, in (the) fear of God,
to make them all stand (straight) in (the) sight of the Lord—”

The discipline that the Messiah provides for God’s people will ensure that they can remain on a “straight path” (vb “set/put down straight”, kateuqu/nw), and that they will be able to stand (vb “set down”, so as to be stationed in place, kaqi/sthmi) before God, in His sight. I have followed the reading e)nw/pion (“in the eyes/sight of”), though other manuscripts repeat e)n fw/bw| (“in fear [of]”) from the first line rather than e)nw/pion; cf. Wright, p. 206. As a holy and righteous people, the restored Israel of the New Age will all produce “works of righteousness”, i.e., their actions will be right and holy.

Verse 9

“a good generation in (the) fear of God in (the) days of mercy!”
Interlude [dia/yalma]

The coming of the Messiah will be a “day [sing.] of mercy” (v. 5), but the period of his reign—viz., the New Age of the Kingdom—will constitute “days [plur.] of mercy”. All of the people born during this period will themselves constitute a “good generation” —the noun genea/ (translated “generation”) denoting the people who “come to be (born)” during a certain period of time (cf. verse 6; 17:44). They will be good and righteous, fearing and serving God with faithfulness and devotion, just like their leader the Messiah (v. 7; 17:40).

For the indicator dia/yalma, comparable to Hebrew hl*s# (Selah), cf. on 17:29 (in Part 2 of this study).

Closing Benediction (vv. 10-12)
Verse 10

“Great (is) our God and (to be held) in honor,
putting down house in (the) highest (place)s—
the (One) arranging throughout (the) lights in (their) passage,
for times of (the) hours from days to days;
and they have not stepped aside from (the) path that He ordered for them!”

The closing benediction of the Psalm takes the form of a hymn to YHWH, praising His power and faithfulness in His role as Creator (and King) of the universe. As King, He dwells in the highest places (above the heavens), from where He governs and orders all things in the cosmos. The focus is upon the heavenly bodies (lights/luminaries, fwsth/r plur.)—i.e., the sun, moon, and stars of the heavens. He arranges and sets them all in order (vb diata/ssw), so that they move and appear in a regular manner, each body having a particular mode of movement (porei/a), and a passageway or ‘course’ through which they move; cf. Judg 5:20; Psalm 19:6-7 [5-6]. As a result, human beings can utilize them reliably as a way to track the hours of the day and the days of the months and years. Subservient to the King (and His power/authority), the heavenly bodies continue to move just as they were ordered (vb e)nte/llw, denoting a charge or duty placed on someone). The bodies have continuously maintained their course and have not once “stepped alongside” away from their directed path; cf. Gen 1:16; Psalm 8:4[3]; 136:9; 147:4; 148:3ff, and on the fixed boundaries that the created bodies cannot cross, cf. Psalm 74:17; 104:9.

Verse 11

“In (the) fear of God their path (is), according to each day,
from which day God founded them, even until (the) Age.”

This couplet reaffirms the theological-cosmological point made in v. 10 (see above), emphasizing that the heavenly bodies are obedient to God’s command (“in [the] fear of God”), just like the Messiah and the holy/faithful ones of His people. In this regard, the behavior of the heavenly bodies serves as a type-parallel for the “holy ones” on earth. God established them (at the creation), just as He established His people for the New Age (making them holy and guiding/training them in righteousness). The heavenly bodies are obedient servants of God throughout the former Age (and into the New); like the heavenly beings (i.e., angels), they are the faithful residents of heaven, while human beings (i.e., God’s people) are the faithful ones on earth.

Verse 12

“And (so) they have not gone astray
from (the) day He founded them,
from (the) generations (of the) beginning
they have not stood away from their paths,
if not (as) God gave the charge to them
by (the) order of His servants!”

The use of the heavenly bodies as an exemplar for human beings (i.e., God’s people) becomes clearer with the use of the verb plana/w (“go astray”), as also by the reference to “generations” past (the same noun, genea/, occurs in vv. 6 and 9, referring to the holy/faithful generation of the Messianic Age). The repeated emphasis on the heavenly bodies remaining in/on their right paths naturally brings to mind the path/walking motif familiar from Wisdom literature, including in the Psalms (see esp. throughout Psalm 119). The obedient servant of YHWH follows the path that He has laid out.

The final two lines point out that the only time that the heavenly bodies depart from their ordained path is when God specifically commands it. The last line is almost certainly an allusion to Josh 10:12-14 (cf. also, possibly, Isa 38:8).

*    *    *    *    *

This brings to a close our series exploring selected deuterocanonical and extra-canonical Psalms. Beginning with our next study, we will return to the canonical Scriptures, looking at some of the compositions that may be regarded as among the oldest Psalms (insofar as it can be determined), both within and outside of the Psalter.

    • References above marked “Wright” are to Robert B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text, Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies, vol. 1 (T & T Clark: 2007). Those marked “Wright OTP” are to the same author’s annotated translation (with introduction) in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha [OTP], Volume 2, ed. James H. Charlesworth, Anchor Bible Reference Library [ABRL] (1985), pp. 639-70.

Studies on the Spirit: The Flesh, the World, and the Devil (Study 23)

The Flesh, the World, and the Devil

Study 23: The FLesh (Part 3)

In the previous study, we examined the use of the word sa/rc (“flesh”) in the New Testament, surveying, in particular, the occurrences in the Synoptic Gospels (and Acts) and the Letters (outside of the Pauline corpus). We saw that the negative sense of the term was largely absent from the Synoptics and the book of Acts (including in the words/teachings of Jesus), but that it was present in the letters of James, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, and (to a lesser extent) Hebrews. The usage in 1-2 Peter (and Jude) is similar in many respects to Paul’s use of sa/rc (and the “flesh”-concept). We may note the particular idea that there are “impulses” (e)piqumi/a) toward sin that reside in the “flesh”, and that the non-believer and the wicked follow such impulses, allowing them to govern their thought and behavior. See especially 1 Peter 4:1-3ff and 2 Peter 2:10, 18; cf. also 1 John 2:16.

Regardless of how one views the authorship of 1-2 Peter and Jude (as well as 1 John), there is general agreement among critical scholars that all of these letters post-date the undisputed Pauline letters. Indeed, it is fair to posit that Paul was the first Christian (whose works survive) to adopt and develop the negative aspects of sa/rc which we saw in evidence in a number of Jewish writings from the first centuries B.C./A.D. (discussed in Part 1 [Study 21])—esp. the writings of Philo, the sectarian texts from Qumran, and several of the Pseudepigrapha (such as the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs). Paul’s letter to the Galatians is perhaps the earliest of his surviving writings that attests to this sense of sa/rc. The exact date for Galatians remains uncertain, but it is likely earlier than both 2 Corinthians and Romans, and may pre-date 1 Corinthians as well. In any case, we begin our study on Paul’s use of sa/rc with the occurrences in Galatians.

1. Sa/rc in Galatians—the first occurrences (in chapters 1-2)

The first occurrence of sa/rc in Galatians is in 1:16, where Paul uses the expression “flesh and blood” as a way of referring to a human being (cf. Matt 16:17; 1 Cor 15:50; Eph 6:12; Heb 2:14), adopting traditional wording (the corresponding expression in the Hebrew Scriptures being “flesh and bone”). Frequently, as in this instance, sa/rc (or Hebrew rc*B*) is used to designate a human being specifically in contrast to God (cf. also 1 Cor 15:50; Matt 16:17). This fundamental dualistic contrast (viz., between a human being and God) informs the contrastive juxtaposition of “flesh” and the Spirit in Paul’s writings.

In the previous study, I outlined three regular Pauline expressions using the term sa/rc, two of which occur in Gal 2:16, 20:

    • pa=sa sa/rc (“all flesh”) [v. 16]—as a way of referring to humankind collectively, and generally, as also to human nature and the common human condition
    • [e)n] sarki/ (“in [the] flesh”) [v. 20]—the condition of an individual human being, viz., one’s human life and bodily existence

For the most part, this represents a neutral usage of sa/rc, corresponding largely to the Scriptural and early Christian use of the “flesh” concept. A distinctively negative sense of sa/rc is introduced first in the probatio of Galatians (chaps. 3-4).

2. Sa/rc in the probatio of Galatians (chapters 3-4)

In the probatio of Galatians (chaps. 3-4), Paul develops and expounds his central proposition—stated and summarized in 2:15-21, to the effect that “a man is not made right from (the) works of (the) law, if not [i.e., but only] through trust of [i.e., in] Yeshua (the) Anointed” (v. 16). Even more boldly, Paul declares that, as a believer in Christ, he has “died to the law”, and thus is no longer bound by its regulations, etc. And, more to the point, the things which he “dissolved” (lit. “loosened down”)—namely, the Torah regulations, etc., as legally binding obligations to be fulfilled—if he were to “build them up” again (as binding regulations), he would make himself a transgressor of God’s very Law (v. 18).

For other Jewish Christians of the time (and no less today) this was a highly controversial and radical proposition. Paul defends and seeks to prove it through a series of arguments in chapters 3-4. The first of these arguments, in 3:1-5, is based on the nature of the believers’ conversion and their fundamental religious identity. He first issues a rebuke in v. 1, in which he suggests that the Galatian Christians have been ‘bewitched’ (by the evil eye); the ‘spell’ they are under is the belief that it is necessary for them to become circumcised and to observe/fulfill the other Torah regulations, etc. Paul makes his argument through a question that he poses (as a challenge) to the Galatians: “(was it) out of [i.e., from] works of (the) law (that) you received the Spirit, or out of [i.e., from] (the) hearing of trust?” (v. 2). Paul takes for granted that the Galatian Christians would understand and accept that it was through the hearing of the Gospel, and their trust in it, that they came to receive the Spirit.

Paul then builds upon their receipt of the Spirit, asking a follow-up question that is framed as a harsh rebuke:

“Are you so senseless (then), (that, hav)ing begun in (the) Spirit, you would now be made complete by (the) flesh [sarki/]?”

This is perhaps the earliest occurrence of the flesh/Spirit contrast in Paul’s writings. Here, the sense of the expression “in/by (the) flesh” (sarki/) differs significantly from the earlier occurrence in 2:16 (cf. above). It is not simply a reference to a person’s human life and bodily existence; instead, it refers to a mode/manner of existence (“in/by the flesh”) that is in direct contrast to life “in the Spirit”. It is clear from v. 2 that the phrase “(hav)ing begun in/with (the) Spirit” here refers to the believer’s receiving of the Spirit—usually (and traditionally) associated with the baptism ritual; at the very least, the baptismal rite symbolizes the believer’s union with Christ, entailing the receipt of the Spirit (cf. 3:27ff; 4:6-7).

What, then, does Paul mean by “in (the) flesh” here in v. 3? The connection with the ritual observance of circumcision is obvious, since circumcision literally involves a cutting in the flesh, and represents a sign of the covenant that is materially present and visible in/on a person’s flesh. The Galatians were apparently acting under the thought that it was necessary for them, as believers, to adopt the rituals and regulations of the Torah—most notably, circumcision—even after having received God’s Spirit (upon faith and baptism in Christ). One thus “begins with” (vb e)narxomai) with the Spirit, but then finds completion (vb e)pitele/w) with “the flesh” —that is, circumcision, and fulfillment of the other requirements and obligations of the Torah. Paul’s terminology clearly indicates that “flesh” (sa/rc) here refers to performance/fulfillment of all the Torah requirements, and not simply to circumcision alone.

This might be taken to imply that the Torah is “of the flesh”, even though elsewhere Paul makes clear that it is spiritual (pneumatiko/$, “of the Spirit”), Rom 7:14. But it is not the Torah precepts, etc., that are characterized as “flesh”, but only the human performance and observance of the regulations (such as circumcision). In this regard, the “works of the Law” (2:16; 3:2, etc.) may be broadly categorized as “works of the flesh” (cf. 5:19), even though they do not represent sinful behavior per se. For the close association, in Paul’s thinking, between sin and the Torah regulations, see 3:19-22 and the more extensive discussion in Romans 7.

Later on, in the fifth argument of the probatio (4:12-20), Paul refers to the weakness (lit. “lack of strength”, a)sqe/neia) of his flesh that was apparent to the Galatians when he first proclaimed the Gospel to them (vv. 13-14). This probably refers to some kind of physical infirmity or disability, perhaps akin to Paul’s famous ‘thorn in the flesh’ (2 Cor 12:7). It was severe or notable enough that Paul refers to the “testing” (peirasmo/n) of the Galatians that it produced (or provoked). In spite of Paul’s conspicuous “lack of (physical) strength/vigor”, the Galatians did not “make him out to be nothing” (vb e)couqene/w), nor did they “spit him out” (vb e)kptu/w, i.e., reject him); rather, they accepted the Gospel that he proclaimed to them, with trust, as a message sent by God. The main point, in this use of sa/rc, is that the Galatians were not persuaded to trust in Christ because of Paul’s human “flesh” —his physical appearance and strength, personal charisma, persuasiveness and skill in speaking, etc. Instead, they were drawn by the Spirit and by the spiritual power of the Gospel itself (cf. Rom 1:16; 1 Cor 1:17ff). Paul will further develop this aspect of the flesh/Spirit contrast in 1 Corinthians 1-4 (to be discussed).

The noun sa/rc occurs twice more in the final argument of the probatio, 4:21-31—an expository allegory of the Abraham traditions in Genesis 16-17, in which Hagar/Ishmael is contrasted with Sarah/Isaac, symbolizing the contrast of the flesh and the Spirit. Initially, in v. 23, the noun pneu=ma (“spirit”) is not used, but rather e)paggeli/a—viz., a message about something, usually in the context of an important (public) announcement, and often with the connotation of something that is promised (i.e., a “promise”). In Luke-Acts, the noun e)paggeli/a clearly refers to the Spirit (and to the coming of the Spirit)—cf. Lk 24:49; Acts 1:4; 2:33—while, here in Galatians, the point of reference is 3:14ff, identifying the promise with the Spirit, and then expounding it in terms of the promise(s) God made to Abraham (3:16-21).

Note the formulation of the contrast:

“Abraham had two sons: one (born) out of the servant-girl, and one out of the free (woman). But, the (one) out of the servant-girl has come to be (born) according to (the) flesh [kata\ sa/rka], while the (one) out of the free (woman is) through (the) promise [di’ e)pagge/lia$].” (vv. 22-23)

This is arguably the earliest surviving occurrence for Paul’s use of the expression kata\ sa/rka (“according to the flesh”). Here, he does not use the corresponding kata\ pneu=ma (“according to the Spirit”), emphasizing instead the coming of the Spirit as God’s promise to His people (“through the promise”). The proper contrast is made in verse 29, framed in terms of opposition and hostility—viz., between “flesh” and the Spirit:

“the (one hav)ing come to be born according to (the) flesh [kata\ sa/rka] pursued [i.e., persecuted] the (one born) according to (the) Spirit [kata\ pneu=ma]”

This unquestionably entails a negative (and contrastive) sense of the term sa/rc, summarized for Paul primarily by the expression kata\ sa/rka (“according to the flesh”). The non-believer lives and acts “according to the flesh”, while the believer does so “according to the Spirit”. But, more to the point of the message and rhetorical purpose of Galatians, “flesh” also refers to the Torah regulations (of the old covenant), while the Spirit designates the new covenant (cf. Paul’s exposition in vv. 24-25ff). Thus, the person who thinks and acts “according to the flesh”, in this context, means the one who lives according to the old covenant, realized through the performance and fulfillment of the Torah regulations, etc. By contrast, believers in Christ live according to the new covenant—that is, according to the Spirit.

Believers in Paul’s day, just like many Christians today, struggled with this fundamental doctrine of the new covenant and the believer’s freedom from the Torah, and how this is to be understood. The effective elimination of the Torah regulations, etc., as binding obligations for the believer has certain ethical and moral consequences. Paul deals with these in the exhortatio (exhortation) section of the letter (5:1-6:10), including his famous contrast between the “fruit of the Spirit” and the “works of the flesh”. Paul’s use of sa/rc in these passages, as well as in the concluding 6:11-18, will be discussed in our next study (Study 24 [Part 4]).