Elohim – Next Step Bible Study

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 52 (Part 2)

Psalm 52, continued

Verses 8-11 [6-9]

Verse 8 [6]

“(The) just (one)s will see and will fear,
and upon him they will laugh.”

The first part of the Psalm (vv. 3-7 [1-5]) presented a harsh polemic, inspired by both prophetic and Wisdom tradition, against the wicked (cf. the previous week’s study). The specific focus of the polemic was the false and deceitful speech of the wicked—their words may sound good, but they are belied by the action and intention of such people. In particular, their confession of loyalty to YHWH (and His covenant) is false. The section concluded with an imprecatory declaration regarding the fate of the wicked, and it is this fate (death and permanent dwelling in the grave) which is in view as we begin the second part of the Psalm. The suffixed preposition wyl*u* (“upon him,” i.e., at him) refers to the wicked person (and his fate).

There is obvious wordplay in the first line combining the similar sounding verbal phrases “and they will see” (War=y]w+, w®yir°û) with “and they will fear” (War*yy]w+, w®yîr¹°û). Viewing the miserable fate of the wicked brings fear, but also laughter (vb qj^v*). This may seem an inappropriate response for the righteous, to laugh at the punishment and suffering that awaits the wicked; perhaps it should be understood in the sense of rejoicing at the establishment of YHWH’s justice, made manifest through the punishment meted out, deservedly, to the wicked.

The 3+2 meter of this couplet establishes the rhythm of the remainder of the Psalm, which follows a 3+2 meter more consistently than in the first part.

Verse 9 [7]

“See—the strong (one who) would not set
(the) Mightiest (as) his safe place,
but sought protection in (the) abundance of his riches
and would be strong in his downfall!”

This pair of 3+2 couplets represents, apparently, the mocking words of the righteous, and should be associated—however inappropriate it may seem to us—with their laughter at the wicked. Overall, the tone fits the harsh polemic of the first half of the Psalm, and builds on the Wisdom-themed contrast between the righteous and the wicked in the second half. The righteous person trusts in YHWH, while the wicked person trusts instead in their earthly wealth and power. This contrast here is expressed both in negative and positive terms:

- He would not make YHWH his “safe/secure place” (zoum*), i.e., the place where finds protection, but instead…
- He “sought protection” (vb jf^B*) in his riches

The verb jf^B* is used frequently in the Psalms, denoting seeking (and finding) protection; implied is the trust one has in that protection. This usage has, as its background and context, the ancient covenant idea—specifically, the protection which YHWH (the Sovereign) is obligated to provide to His faithful servants/vassals, according to the terms of the covenant. Not only are the wicked disloyal to the covenant, they effectively disregard and ignore it, relying instead on their worldly strength and wealth for protection. Note how the false and empty strength of the wicked is contrasted with the true strength of YHWH (as the Mightiest [<yh!l)a$]):

- the ‘strong’ one (rb#G#h^)
  - the Mightiest (<yh!l)a$)
- he was ‘strong’ (zu)y`)

There is also a bit of alliterative wordplay between the words oZWum* (“his secure place”) and zu)y` (“he was strong”). The wicked clings to his false strength even in his downfall (hW`h^)—that is, even as he meets his terrible fate. Another bit of wordplay occurs here, since the word hW`h^ can also be read as a byform of hW`a^, referring to a person’s wicked/evil desire—i.e., the wicked remains ‘strong’ in his wickedness, clinging to it even as he perishes.

Verse 10 [8]

“While I (will be) like a fresh green olive-tree
in (the) house of (the) Mightiest—
I find protection in (the) goodness of (the) Mightiest,
(for the) distant (future) and until (the end).”

With this pair of 3+2 couplet, the righteous (i.e., the Psalmist) contrasts his fate with that of the wicked. While no future life awaits for the wicked—only death and the grave—the righteous will experience a blessed afterlife “in the house of God”. His faithfulness and loyalty to the covenant will result in blessing both in this life and in the life to come. Again the use of the verb jf^B* (cf. above) and the noun ds#j# must be understood in the context of the covenant idea—the binding agreement (covenant) between YHWH and His people. The “goodness” (ds#j#) of YHWH refers specifically to His covenant loyalty—i.e., He generously bestows blessings on those who have been loyal to Him. The protection God provides extends even to rescuing the righteous from the final fate of death and the grave. Moreover, dwelling in the house of YHWH is an extension of the covenant-idea of the faithful vassal having a place in the house (and at the table) of his sovereign. The specific motif of the righteous as a fresh and growing (green) tree derives from a separate line of (Wisdom) tradition—cf. Psalm 1:3, etc.

It is worth noting again that Psalm 52 is one of the ‘Elohist’ Psalms, in which, most probably, occurrences of the Divine name (hwhy, YHWH) were consistently replaced by the name/title <yh!l)a$ (Elohim). In these verses, however, the use of the title <yh!l)a$ has its own special significance, since its presumed meaning (“[the] Mightiest [One]”) relates to the contrastive theme of strength/might—i.e., the false (worldly) strength of the wicked, and the true strength of YHWH (cf. above).

Verse 11 [9]

“I will throw you (praise), Eternal (One), for you have done (this)—
and I will call on your Name, for (it is) good—
in front of your good (and loyal one)s!”

Many Psalms, at least in the form they have come down to us, conclude with lines that apply the poem to a communal worship setting. That is certainly the case here, as the Psalmist speaks of praising and proclaiming the name of YHWH in front of [dg#n#] the righteous (“good/loyal ones”, <yd!ys!j&). This descriptive title of the righteous, specifically connoting loyalty to YHWH and His covenant, stands in contrast to the false and deceitful devotion of the wicked as a “good (servant) of the Mighty (One)” (in a sarcastic sense, cf. on v. 3 [1] in the previous study).

The expression <l*oul= echoes the use of <l*ou at the end of v. 10 (cf. above), and may be used here in the same temporal sense: “I will through you praise into (the) distant (future) [<l*oul=]”. However, it is also possible that there is a bit of wordplay involved, and that the occurrence of <l*ou here is actually part of the praise of YHWH, referring to Him by the title of <l*ou (requiring a translation something like “Eternal [One]”). In such an instance, the prefixed preposition (l=) would be an example of the vocative–l—i.e., “O, Eternal (One)”. Cf. Dahood, II, p. 16f; with some hesitation, I have adopted this interpretation in my translation above.

I also follow tentatively follow Dahood (I, p. 121f; II, p. 17) in deriving the verbal form hW#q^a& here from the root hwq (II), “gather, collect”, in the sense of “call” (cf. the comparable occurrence in Psalm 19:5), and thus similar in meaning to the more common arq. The action of calling (on) the name of YHWH is more suitable to the public/communal worship setting of the verse.

The meter of this final verse is, loosely, 3+3+2.

References marked “Dahood, I” and “Dahood, II” above are to, respectively, Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Psalms I: 1-50, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 16 (1965), and Psalms II: 51-100, vol. 17 (1968).

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 52 (Part 1)

Psalm 52

Dead Sea MSS: 4QPs^c (vv. 5-11 [3-9])

This Psalm, like the prior Psalm 51, is part of the so-called ‘Elohist’ Psalter (cf. below), and is also a Davidic Psalm, being attributed in the superscription to David. The historical setting assigned (v. 2) is, however, rather puzzling, referring to events narrated in 1 Samuel 21:8 and 22:6ff. There is little about that narrative background that would apply to the thoughts expressed in the Psalm.

The heading designates Psalm 52 as a lyK!c=m^; the prior Psalms 32, 42, 44, and 45 were similarly described. The precise meaning of this term remains uncertain, but it is presumably derived from the root lk^c* which characteristically occurs in the Hiphil stem (= lyK!c=h!). The root fundamentally indicates the use of reason and intelligence—i.e., wisdom, understanding, prudence, etc. As a poetic or musical term, it could refer to a harmonious composition, a work of great skill and artistry (or requiring skill to perform), a poem/song used for instruction, or something else entirely.

Metrically, the Psalm generally follows a 3+2 couplet format, though here in the first part a 3-beat (3+3) couplet is actually more common.

In terms of a poetic and thematic structure, I am inclined to divide the composition into two parts. The first part (vv. 3-7 [1-5]) contains a polemic diatribe directed at the wicked with their false and deceitful profession of trust in God; this part concludes, it would seem, with an imprecation against the wicked (see below on v. 7). The second part (vv. 8-11 [6-9]) declares the fate of the wicked, and also presents a familiar contrast between the wicked and the righteous—those who are truly faithful to YHWH. The Psalmist, of course, counts himself among the righteous.

Wisdom themes tend to dominate, centered around the contrast between the righteous and the wicked (and their fates). There are also prayer elements in the Psalm, related to the covenant appeal setting that we find in many of the compositions. By emphasizing the faithlessness and deceit of the wicked, the Psalmist uses this point of contrast to affirm his own loyalty to YHWH.

An interesting rhetorical aspect to this Psalm is the juxtaposition of the terms la@ and <yh!l)a$ as Divine titles. la@ (°E~l) occurs in the first part of the Psalm, in connection with the wicked, while <yh!l)a$ (°E_lœhîm) occurs in the second part, connected with the righteous. As an ‘Elohist’ Psalm, many commentators believe that the Divine name hwhy (YHWH) was used in the original composition, but was later replaced by the title <yh!l)a$. This would mean that, originally, the Divine names la@ and hwhy were juxtaposed. There are two ways of explaining the specific association of the title la@ with the wicked here:

- The wicked have, at best, a nominal and superficial faith in ‘God’ (used as a general designation), rather than a true faith in YHWH and covenant loyalty to Him.
- The false character of the religion of the wicked is indicated by its association with the Creator El (as understood by the Canaanites), in contrast with a true faith in El-YHWH, the God of Israel.

Israelites and Judeans, having become increasingly familiar with Canaanite religion and culture over the centuries, must have been aware of certain clear differences between the Canaanite conception of the Creator El and the Israelite understanding of El-Yahweh. Interestingly, however, there is scarcely a trace of this sense of conflict in the Old Testament. For the most part, YHWH was identified simply with the Creator (El), and the title la@, though relatively rare, almost always refers to the God of Israel. Here, in Psalm 52, we have one of the only instances in the Old Testament where the title is used in a negative context, being contrasted with the name YHWH (here as Elohim).

For readers who might be new to these studies, a brief explanation of the titles El (la@) and Elohim (<yh!l)a$) may be helpful. The word la@ is a fundamental (and primitive) Semitic term for deity. While the precise meaning and derivation is not entirely certain, the basic meaning would seem to be something like “mighty” —as a divine title, “Mighty (One)”. The plural of la@ is <yl!a@, “mighty (one)s”, but this is only rarely used in the Old Testament; much more common is the plural form <yh!l)a$, which is an expanded form to match the triconsonantal pattern of words (i.e., hla instead of la) that is more common in Classical Hebrew. As a divine title, <yh!l)a$ would literally mean “Mighty (One)s”, rendered generally as “Gods” (or “gods”); however, as applied to El-Yahweh, in an Israelite monotheistic context, the plural form is best understood as an intensive (or possibly comprehensive) plural—i.e., “Mightiest (One)”. For more on this, cf. my earlier studies on the names El and Elohim.

Verses 3-7 [1-5]

Verse 3 [1]

“(For) what do you give shout with evil, O strong (one),
(you) ‘loyal’ of (the) Mighty (One), all the day planning disasters?”

The polemic begins with a sarcastic tone, describing the wicked person by the descriptive titles “strong (one)” (roBG]) and “good [i.e. loyal] (one) of °E~l.” As indicated above, I translate the name la@ (°E~l) according to its fundamental meaning, “Mighty (One)”, which is loosely parallel in meaning here to roBG] (“strong [one]”). However, la@ refers to God, to the Creator Deity (El-Yahweh). I tentatively follow Dahood (p. 13) in vocalizing dsj (MT ds#j#) as dys!j& (spelled defectively). The expression la@ ds!j& means “loyal one of El”, which may have a double-meaning here: (1) it is used in a sarcastic sense for the false religious devotion of the wicked, and/or (2) the loyalty of the wicked corresponds to the corrupt/idolatrous understanding of the Creator God by the Canaanites (El vs. YHWH).

Part of the “shout” (vb ll^h*) given by the wicked likely involves a boast regarding his own religious profession of faith and loyalty to God. The actions of the wicked belie his/her supposed faith and prove it to be false. It is made “with evil” (hu*r*B=), probably best understood as “with evil (intent)”. Whatever the wicked person may say or claim, he/she intends to bring about disastrous things. The noun hW`h^, here in the plural, literally means “(down)fall”. The verb bv^j* reveals the true intention of the wicked, the planning/plotting of evil.

With some reluctance, I have included the first two words of v. 4 [2] as part of the opening couplet (cf. Dahood, p. 12-3), yielding a 4-beat (4+4) bicolon.

Verse 4 [2]

“Your tongue, like a sharpened razor,
is (busy) working treachery.”

With this second couplet, the normative 3-beat (here 3+2) meter of the Psalm begins. The deceitfulness and false religious confession of the wicked person is described more pointedly here, with the image of a tongue that is sharp like a razor (ru^T^). With his speech, the wicked person is working deceit and treachery. The noun hY`m!r= (“deceit”) can carry the stronger meaning of “treachery” —that is, against the covenant, showing disloyalty to YHWH and intending evil against the righteous.

Verse 5 [3]

“You love (what is) evil more than (the) good,
falsehood more than speaking (what is) right.”
Selah

This couplet well-summarizes the character of the wicked, and also, implicitly, establishes the contrast between the righteous and the wicked. The comparative use of the preposition /m! (“from”) essentially has to be translated in English as “more than”. The noun rq#v# (“[acting] false, falsehood, deceit”) is contrasted with speaking “(what is) right” (qd#x#), a specific manifestation of the more general contrast between “evil” (ur*) and “good” (bof). Again the focus is on the speech of the wicked, with the relation between what is actually spoken (which may seem good) and the underlying intent (which is evil). That is why the deceitfulness of the wicked continues to be emphasized.

Verse 6 [4]

“You love all (those) words devouring (the truth),
(with your) tongue of treachery!”

The deceitfulness and treachery (hm*r=m!) of the wicked person’s speaking is here colorfully summarized as “all words of devouring” (ul^B# yr@b=D!-lK*). The root ul^B* (I) refers to a mouth that opens up and swallows something. This language is often used in Biblical poetry, applied to the ravenous mouth (and appetite) of Death, and this same allusion is probably also intended here. The deceit of the wicked person leads to death—both for his victims, but also, more importantly, for himself. The immediate point of reference, however, is probably to the idea of the wicked person’s mouth/speech ‘devouring’ all truth and rightness.

Verse 7 [5]

“(So) also (the) Mighty (One) will bring you down to the end,
He will take hold of you and tear you away from your tent,
and will (up)root you from (the) land of (the) living.”
Selah

This first part of the Psalm concludes with a dramatic declaration, in a three-beat (3+3+3) tricolon, of the fate of the wicked. The death of the wicked was already alluded to in v. 6 [4] (cf. above), but here it is described clearly and graphically. Such references in Old Testament poetry tend to have a double-meaning: both the ordinary sense of physical death, and the idea of a death that is permanent and final (with no hope of a blessed afterlife).

The initial particle <G~, “(so) also”, allows the Psalmist to express the idea that the fate of the wicked person (in death) will correspond to his/her wicked conduct (in life). Just as, through deceitful words, the wicked would “swallow (down)” what is right, so also, in the end, God will “bring (them) down” (vb Jt^n`) to the realm of Death. The two-fold aspect of death, noted above, is expressed through the final two lines:

- The ordinary aspect of death—i.e., being torn away from one’s “tent” (home and, figuratively, one’s body)
- The second/final aspect of death—being torn up (lit. uprooted) from the “land of the living”, from the possibility of any future life.

Gunkel (Die Psalmen [1926], p. 230) claimed that the imperfect verb forms here in v. 7 are not simple declarative statements about what will happen, but are precative—expressing a wish for something to happen (cf. also Dahood, p. 14). There are many such imprecatory sections in the Psalms, which essentially serve as curse-formulas; following this sense, the force of the translation would be: “May (the) Mighty (One) bring you down…[etc].” Such a curse-formula would be fitting to the polemic of the Psalm, and would make for an appropriate conclusion to the first part.

The reference to the “Mighty (One),” °E~l (la@), matches the earlier reference in v. 3 [1] (cf. above), thus framing the first part of the Psalm. The first occurrence of la@ seems to been intended to highlight the false religious confession of the wicked; however, in terms of the judgment rendered against the wicked, here la@ functions in a manner consistent with the true God (YHWH). To be sure, in Israelite religious thought, la@ and hwhy are different names for the same God, though, as noted above, la@ is the more general title, used throughout the Semitic world, and could also apply to a false/distorted view of God (as with the Canaanite conception of the Creator El).

The first part of the Psalm closes with a Selah (hl*s#) pause-marker. However, the presence of the marker itself really cannot be used to determine the structure of the Psalm (note the earlier occurrence of the marker after v. 5 [3]). In any case, the precise purpose and significance of these markers remains uncertain, other than that they relate to the performing tradition of the Psalms, and seem to indicate a musical pause or (possibly) a shift in tone or key, etc. They do not appear to have been applied consistently, nor is it particularly likely that they have been consistently preserved in the text as it has come down to us.

References above marked “Dahood” are to Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Psalms II: 51-100, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 17 (1968).

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 44 (Part 1)

Psalm 44

Dead Sea MSS: 1QPs^c (vv. 3-9, 23-25 [2-8, 22-24]); 4QPs^c (vv. 8-9 [7-8]?)

This Psalm is a lament, written from the standpoint of the people, or nation as a whole. It appears to have an Exilic setting, to judge from the statement in verse 12 [11]; at any rate, the kingdom has met with crushing defeat, and it has led to exile of the population. Possibly the Assyrian conquests are in view, which would indicate a late 8th or 7th century date, but some commentators would place it in a later period; the lack of clear historical references do not allow for a precise dating.

The superscription is essentially the same as that of Psalm 42-43. On the term lyK!c=m^, and the identification of the “sons of Qorah”, cf. the study on that Psalm. This is an ‘Elohist Psalm’, using the general plural term/title <yh!l)a$ (°§lœhîm, understood as an intensive plural, “Mightiest [One]”, i.e. “God”) in place of the Divine name hwhy.

I divide this Psalm into three parts, the first of which (vv. 2-9 [1-8]) ends with a Selah pause. It emphasizes the mighty deeds performed by YHWH for His people (Israel) in the past, from the Exodus to the military victories of the Conquest of Canaan, along with those in the time of the Judges and the early Kingdom period. The second part (vv. 10-17 [9-16]) focuses on Israel’s subsequent defeats, leading to their conquest and exile. In the final part (vv. 18-27 [17-26]), the people collectively affirm their loyalty to the covenant with YHWH and call on Him to deliver them from their current suffering and disgrace.

Verses 2-9 [1-8]

Verse 2 [1]

“Mightiest (One), with our ears we have heard,
our fathers have recounted (it) for us:
the deed(s which) you did in their days,
in (the) days (now gone) before”

The meter of this initial couplet is 3+2, typical of the so-called qina meter often used in poems of lament. The first section opens with a traditional reference to the history of Israel, marked by the great and wondrous deeds done (luP, both noun and verb) by YHWH on the people’s behalf. These deeds are presented as something told in narrative form, as a traditional tale (or tales) passed down from earlier generations (“our fathers…”, “…in days before”). Certainly this would have included the story of the Exodus from Egypt, with the miraculous deliverance at the Reed Sea, as well as accounts of the Conquest of Canaan (under Joshua), and the victories under the Judges and the first kings of Israel (Saul, David). Some of these existed in a poetic form that could be taught and committed to memory (cf. Exod 15:1-21; Judges 5); the great poems also formed the core of the larger historical narratives (in the Pentateuch and Joshua-Kings) that developed by the time of the Exile.

The opening word, <yh!l)a$ (“Mightiest [One],” Elohim), used in place of the Divine name YHWH, marks the ‘Elohist’ character of this Psalm.

Verse 3 [2]

“You, (with) your hand,
dispossessed (the) nations and planted them,
broke apart (the) peoples and sent them (up).”

This verse is to be parsed rhythmically as a 3-beat (3+3) couplet preceded by a 2-beat line. The short initial line serves to build dramatic suspense, emphasizing that it is God (YHWH) who achieved the victories and successes for Israel; He did this with His own Divine power (His “hand”). The nations / peoples are contrasted with “them” —that is, with the people of Israel. This refers primarily to the nations of Canaan who were “dispossessed” (vb vr^y` in the Hiphil stem) of their land and “broken apart” (vb uu^r*) as national and territorial entities. In their place, Israel was “planted” in the land, where God’s people would “send (up)” (jl^v*) their shoots and branches—that is, grow and prosper. This imagery is ancient, and can be seen as early as the Song of the Sea (Exod 15:13-17).

Verse 4 [3]

“For it was not with their sword (that) they possessed the land,
and their arm did not work salvation for them;
(but it was with) your hand and your arm,
and (the) light of your face,
that you showed favor to them.”

The meter of this verse is quite irregular: an extended 4+3 couplet, followed by a 2-beat (2+2+2) tricolon. The initial couplet plays on the emphatic contrast in v. 3 [2] using the suffix < *– (“them, their”), referring to the people of Israel. In v. 3, the contrast was with the nations, while here it is with YHWH. The contrast emphasizes the point made in the initial line of v. 3—that is was God’s own hand that achieved these successes for Israel. Ultimately, victory and deliverance from enemy forces was not won by Israelite strength and military power (“their sword”), but by the power of God. This is expressed beautifully by the terse tricolon and closes the verse here:

“(it was with) your hand and your arm,
and (the) light of your face,
that you showed favor to them”

On the shining “face” (lit. “turning[s]”, <yn]P*) of YHWH as a manifestation of His fiery anger and judgment (against the wicked), cf. 34:16; 80:16, etc. The reverse of this is the motif of God’s face “shining” on the righteous in love and benevolence (4:6; 11:7; 17:15; 31:16; 67:1, etc). When the righteous experience suffering and misfortune, it seems that YHWH has turned away His face or has “hidden” it (10:11; 13:1; 27:9; 30:7, etc).

Verse 5 [4]

“You (are) He, my King (and) my Mighty (One),
commanding (act)s of salvation (for) Ya’aqob.”

The Psalmist, in addressing YHWH, identifies Him as the same one who did these things for Israel (Jacob) in the past: “You (are) He” (aWh-aT*a^). This expression also serves to establish, most emphatically, the declaration “you (are) my King and my God”. Here “Mighty (One)” = “Mightiest (One)” (<hy!l)a$). With Dahood (p. 265) and other commentators, I divide MT hwx <yhla as hwxm yhla (hW#x^m= yh*l)a$, “my Mighty [One], commanding…”).

Verse 6 [5]

“In you we butted (horns against) our adversaries,
in your name we trampled (the one)s standing (against) us.”

With God’s own strength on their side, the Israelite people are able to defeat their enemies. The imagery is that of a powerful animal, like a ram, butting (vb jg~n`) its opponent and trampling (vb sWB) him. The parallel of “in your name” with “in you” illustrates again how, in the ancient Near Eastern mind, the name of a person is a manifestation and embodiment of the person himself. To be protected and strengthened by God’s name means being protecting/strengthened by His very presence and power.

An important grammatical shift takes place in this verse, as the Psalmist now speaks in the first person plural (“we…”), rather than the third person (“they/them/their”). He, and the righteous ones of his generation, identify themselves with the Israel of the past.

Verses 7-8 [6-7]

“For not with my bow did I seek protection,
and my sword did not bring me salvation,
(but) you have saved us from our adversaries,
and (the one)s hating us you have put to shame.”

These two couplets essentially restate v. 4 [3] (cf. above), but with the Psalmist (and other righteous ones) taking the place of the Israelites of old, and thus speaking in the first person, as in v. 6 [5] (i.e., “our sword” instead of “their sword”). However, the point is the same: it was not our strength and military skill that won the victory, but the power of YHWH working on our behalf.

Verse 9 [8]

“In (the) Mightiest (One) we shout all the day (long),
and (to) your name we throw (praise) into (the) distant (future).” Selah

The first section closes with this declaration of praise and worship for YHWH (the “Mightiest [One]”, Elohim). The righteous ones shout (vb ll^h*) praise “in” YHWH—that is, in His power and presence (cf. above). But they also throw (vb hd*y`) praise to Him—specifically, to His name, which, as noted above, means the same as giving praise to Him.

References marked “Dahood” are to Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Psalms I: 1-50, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 16 (1965).

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalms 42-43 (Part 3)

Psalms 42-43, continued

Psalm 43:1-5

This is the third and final stanza of the psalm (cf. Parts 1 and 2 for the first and second stanzas).

Verse 1

“Judge (on) my (behalf), Mightiest (One),
struggle (for the sake of) my struggle:
from a nation with no goodness,
(and) from a man of deceit
and injustice, help me escape!”

The opening verse of this stanza consists of five 2-beat lines, and the terse staccato-like rhythm seems to highlight the dramatic situation facing the Psalmist. He makes his plea to God for deliverance, framed as a legal petition, made to YHWH in His role as Judge. As previously noted, in these ‘Elohist’ Psalms, the general title “Mightiest (One)” (<yh!l)a$, Elohim) is regularly used in place of the Divine name hwhy.

At the end of the second stanza (42:10-11 [9-10]), the Psalmist’s suffering was described in terms of attacks and taunts by his adversaries, and this theme is picked up here in verse 1. Now, however, the adversaries are understood as the wicked generally—and this human wickedness is realized both in terms of nations (“a nation with no goodness”) and individuals (“a man of deceit and injustice”). While I have translated the substantive adjective dys!j* and noun hm*r=m! according to their fundamental meaning (“goodness” and “deceit”), both terms have a special meaning in the context of the covenant bond; dys!j* denotes one who is faithful and loyal, while hm*r=m! can specifically indicate treachery or betrayal. The root lw#u* basically signifies a departure or deviation from right conduct, whether in a moral-ethical or legal sense. Since a judicial context in involved, it is appropriate to translation the noun hl*w+u^ as “injustice”.

The judicial setting is clear enough from the first two lines, with the use of the verb fp^v* (“judge, render judgment”) and by byr!. This latter verb means “struggle, grapple”, but regularly in the sense of a legal contest—i.e., for justice, in a court of law. The double-use of the root, with the related noun byr!, emphasizes the idea of a legal fight (by God, on behalf of the Psalmist). This suggests that YHWH is as much a legal advocate for the Psalmist as He is the actual Judge in the case.

Verse 2

“For you are the Mighty (One) of my place of refuge—
(so) for what [i.e. why] do you reject me,
for what [i.e. why] do I walk about (clothe)d in darkness,
in (the) pressure of the (one) hostile to me?”

The imagery in this verse shifts to YHWH (“Mighty [One]” = “Mightiest,” Elohim) as a place of protection for the Psalmist, lit. a “place of refuge” (zoum*). The legal aspect of the covenant with YHWH has been replaced by the socio-political—referring to the protection which the sovereign is obligated to provide for his faithful vassal.

The last two lines echo 42:10 [9] (cf. the previous study on stanza 2), with the image of the Psalmist forced to go about in darkness (i.e., dark in color/dress, like one in mourning) because of the oppression he faces from his enemy. The singular verbal noun by@oa (“[one] being hostile”) can be understood as a human adversary, or the great enemy Death himself (that is, the danger facing the Psalmist is life-threatening). As the second line makes clear, the protagonist feels that God has turned away from him (vb jn~z`, “reject, repel”), leaving him vulnerable to the attacks of his enemies. This is the reason for the appeal to YHWH, calling for both justice and protection, on the basis of the covenant bond.

Metrically, this verse generally follows the pattern of v. 1, with its sequence of 2-beat lines; here it is a quatrain, with the rhythm 3+2+2+2.

Verse 3

“Send (out) your light and your truth,
they shall be my guide (to safety),
they shall bring me to (the) hill of your holiness,
and to (the) places of your dwelling.”

Having established the covenant-basis for his appeal, the Psalmist now requests that God act on his behalf. In spite of the legal/judicial setting of verse 1, the action requested by the Psalmist is one of rescue. This is indicated by the use of the verb fl^P* in v. 1, and also the noun zoum* (“place of refuge”) in v. 2. This place where YHWH will provide protection is further described here in v. 3 as the “mountain of [God’s] holiness” (i.e., His holy mountain), and the locale where He Himself dwells (plur. of /K*v=m!, “dwelling-place”). The idea of El-Yahweh residing on/in a great mountain (shaped like a giant tent) is an ancient Semitic cosmological (and religious) motif. While the mountain is an archetypal symbol, it can be realized at the practical conceptual (and ritual) level in any local mountain or hill-top site. Here the emphasis is on the presence of YHWH—i.e., the place where He dwells.

The fact that the Psalmist specifically calls for YHWH to send His light (roa) and truth (tm#a#, signifying “firmness, certainty”), illustrates that what threatens him is understood primarily in an ethical-religious sense—as wickedness and injustice. The lack of faithfulness and loyalty (dsj) is a primary characteristic of the wicked, but also a tendency to act falsely and with deceit (on both points, cf. verse 1 above). In the second stanza (42:10-11 [9-10]), the attacks by the wicked involve slanderous taunts against the Psalmist. Truth and light serve as the antidote for the poison of such dark slander.

Verse 4

“And I will come to (the) place of slaughter for (the) Mightiest,
to (the) Mighty (One) of my joyous circling,
and (there) I will throw you (praise) on (the) harp,
(O) Mightiest (One), my Mighty (One)!”

In this verse, the “mountain” of God’s dwelling is now realized as the location of the Temple (i.e., the ancient fortified hilltop site of ‘Mount’ Zion). Having been rescued by YHWH, and now dwelling in safety under His protection, the Psalmist will give worship to God in the Temple precincts. The image is of a person circling joyously around the altar (“place of [ritual] slaughter”), giving praise to God. The motif is symbolic, as much as it may be meant to describe an actual scene of worship in the Temple. Whether, or to what extent, the stanzas of this Psalm were part of a specific Temple ritual (procession into the precincts, etc) is difficult to say.

The oddity of the final line, which reads (literally) “(O) Mightiest (One), my Mightiest (One)” (in conventional English, “[O] God, my God”), provides a strong argument in favor of the theory that, in the ‘Elohist’ Psalms, the divine name hwhy (YHWH) had been originally used throughout, but that it was (systematically) replaced by the plural title <yh!l)a$ (for reasons that are far from clear). The final line would thus have originally made more sense: “(O) YHWH, my Mighty (One)”, “(O) YHWH, my God”.

Refrain: Verse 5

“(For) what are you bent down, my soul,
and make (such) a clamor upon me?
Wait for (the) Mightiest (One)—
for again will I throw Him (praise),
(the) Salvation of my face and my Mighty (One).”

This same refrain occurs in all three stanzas of the Psalm (for comments, cf. the previous study, on 42:6 [5]). After the declaration of hope, in v. 4, that YHWH will rescue the Psalmist, this refrain takes on a new tone. There is even more reason now for the righteous to wait on the Lord, trusting that He will act to deliver them, and less reason for one’s soul to be sad and downcast in the midst of distress.

The Monotheistic Revolution: Genesis 1:1

Genesis 1:1

“In the beginning, (the) Mightiest created the heavens and the earth.”
Jr#a*h^ ta@w+ <y]m^V*h^ ta@ <yh!l)a$ ar*B* tyv!ar@B=

The format of this series (at least initially) will be to begin with a verse from the Genesis Creation account (1:1-2:4a). Before relating the verse to the polytheism of the ancient Near East, it will be examined on its own terms. Each word or phrase will be considered as part of this exegesis.

tyv!ar@B= “in (the) beginning” —The opening word of Gen 1:1 is the feminine noun tyv!ar@, and related to the root noun var) I (“head”). The idea of the head can also be understood in the more figurative sense of “top”, and from there to the more abstract concepts of “first, chief,” as well as its use in the temporal sense of “beginning, start”. The feminine noun tyv!ar@ properly captures this abstract usage, especially the temporal or foundational aspect of a beginning.

Some commentators read the noun here as being in the construct state (i.e., “in the beginning of…”), and that verse 1 should be understood, not as an independent sentence, but as a temporal clause, subordinate to what follows in verses 2-3: “In the beginning (when) God created the heavens and the earth…” Cassuto (pp. 19-20) argues that, if this were the intended syntax, then the verb would precede the noun at the start of verse 2. The examples he cites (Jer 26:1; 27:1; 28:1; Hos 1:2) do, in fact, provide the closest grammatical parallels to our verse.

Overall, it is best to understand the opening word (with prefixed preposition), tyv!ar@B=, as a subordinate temporal phrase: “In the beginning, God created…”. It was specifically, at the very beginning—i.e., before anything had yet come to be in the universe—that God created.

ar*B* (“created”)—This is a common verb, similar in meaning to rx^y` (“form, fashion, shape”), with the basic meaning “make,” or, in the case of an artist or artisan, “create”. God thus makes (creates) the universe, and all of the Creation account (1:1-2:4a) is essentially a declaration of YHWH as the Creator (cf. below).

<yh!ýa$ (“[the] Mightiest”)—I translate the plural form <yh!ýa$ (°§lœhîm, “mighty [one]s”) as an intensive plural (i.e., “mightiest”). It is related to the common Semitic word for deity la@ (°¢l, “mighty [one]”). On El as the Creator deity for the ancient Semitic peoples, cf. below. I discuss the names/titles El and Elohim in more detail in prior articles.

Jr#a*h^ ta@w+ <y]m^V*h^ ta@ (“the heavens and the earth”)—The direct object of the sentence, and the thing that God creates, is represented by this pair of nouns (“the heavens” and “the earth”). This will be discussed further in the next study. Here, I wish to focus on the first three words of the verse only:

<yh!l)a$ ar*B* tyv!ar@B=
“In (the) beginning, (the) Mightiest created”

The Creator in Near Eastern Polytheism

Let us begin with the Semitic-speaking world, since it is closest to ancient Israel, both linguistically and culturally. The word la@ (°¢l), which generally corresponds to “God” in English, is an ancient Semitic word which was well-established and in wide use by at least the early Bronze Age (third millennium B.C.), attested in every part of the Semitic-speaking world—in Mesopotamia, Syria-Palestine, south into Arabia and N. Africa, as well as in the Phoenician (Punic) colonies much further afield. It doubtless belongs to the earliest Proto-Semitic vocabulary, and has a basic meaning and usage similar to the early terms dingir () in Sumer and netjer (n¾r, ) in Egypt. The precise etymology remains uncertain, but the fundamental meaning of la@ would seem to be “mighty” or possibly “great, exalted”. It is often thought to be derived from the root lwa (°awl), but it seems more likely that it stems from a primitive biconsonantal root la.

As applied to the power (or powers, i.e. deities) which were thought to govern the universe, the term would literally mean “mighty (one)”, with plural <yl!a@ (°¢lîm) as “mighty (one)s” —that is to say, “God” or “gods”. The main difference between °¢l and the corresponding terms from Sumer and Egypt is that °¢l was commonly used as the name of the chief (Creator) Deity of the Semitic-speaking peoples. The range of usage does generally match that of “God” in English:

- of Deity generally—”God”
- to refer to any particular deity (or deities)—”god(s)”
- as a name when addressing or referring to the Creator Deity—as “God”

There is reasonably well documented evidence for the chief Creator God being named °E~l (“Mighty [One]”), for both the Amorites in Mesopotamia and Canaanites in Syria-Palestine. As pronounced (vocalized) at the time (c. 2000-1400 B.C.) it would have been °Il(u). The most extensive information comes from the religious texts and myths uncovered at Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit) in Syria.

The principal role of °E~l was as Father—both of gods and human beings—or, more concretely, as Creator. This is seen in the famous episode in Genesis 14, in which Abraham encounters Melchi-Zedek, the (Canaanite) priest-king of Salem. There °E~l (using the compound name °E~l ±Elyôn) is referred to with the formula-title “creator [hn@q)] of heaven and earth” (v. 19). This passage will be discussed further in upcoming studies.

Multiple Creators?

One aspect of ancient polytheism that can be perplexing to modern readers and students is the overlapping attributes and characteristics of certain deities. Sometimes more than one deity will share the same basic role, and have (in many respects) the same fundamental identity. In part, this has to do with the nature of deity itself, as understood within a polytheistic framework.

For example, consider the idea of a “fertility deity”. There are many parts of the natural world where we see fertility taking place—in the fields and trees, among the animals and human beings, and so forth. Since there were deities who were thought to embody and govern each of these parts, there were thus many different “fertility deities”. The same may be said of “Creator deities”, since creation—the production and generation of life—takes place in many different parts of the natural world.

It is perhaps helpful to distinguish between this common sense of creation and that performed “at the beginning” (as in Gen 1:1). A deity who existed “at the beginning”, and who brought into being the other deities, can be referred to as a Primeval Creator. Clearly, El-Yahweh is a Primeval Creator; indeed, as a whole this characterizes the Semitic °E~l, who was understood to be “father of (all the other) deities”. It is important to remember that, from the polytheistic standpoint, the God who creates the universe, creates (at the same time) all of the powers (i.e., deities) that are manifest in the universe; the two cannot be separated.

Even so, there can be multiple Primeval Creators within certain developed polytheistic systems of thought. While this may seem completely contradictory, we can begin to explain it once we have clearly in mind the nature of ancient polytheism. The complexity of the universe (and how it is understood) means that there can be multiple aspects to the same basic phenomenon; and these different aspects can be conceived as distinct deities. With regard to the Creation, let us consider these illustrative examples from human experience, where a creator can be understood in terms of: an artisan or craftsman, a speaker, a planner/designer, a father bearing seed, a mother giving birth, and so forth. In addition to this, there are the various syncretic (and syncretistic) tendencies in ancient polytheism; these will be discussed at various points throughout this series.

Sumer and Mesopotamia

As noted above, the Sumerian term for deity was dingir (), the precised meaning and derivation of which remains uncertain. By all accounts, it was never used as the name or title of a specific High Deity, such as °¢l / °il(u) was by the Semitic peoples. These Semitic-speakers include the eastern territories extending into Mesopotamia. The Amorites certainly worshiped the Creator God °E~l, while the Akkadians were more directly influenced by the Sumerians, inheriting and adapting many of their fundamental religious beliefs and conceptions of deity.

Among the Sumerians, the deity An held a place comparable to °E~l. The word essentially means “heaven, sky”, referring to the entire upper half of the universe. He was the great High God of the Sumerians, and generally regarded as the Creator of the deities. An (“heaven”) coupled with Ki (“earth”) to produce the various other deities. The universe as a whole was called an-ki (“heaven-earth”), much as we see in Genesis 1:1 and 14:19 (cf. above). This will be discussed further in the next study.

However, the role of Primeval Creator more properly belongs to the goddess Nammu, a name written with the ideogram for “sea”. Embodying the primeval waters which were thought to have preceded the creation of the universe, Nammu was conceived of as a great Mother who gives birth to An-Ki (Heaven and Earth). On a tablet that gives a list of Sumerian deities, Nammu is specifically described as “the mother, who gave birth to heaven and earth” (Kramer, p. 39). Thus, while An and Ki created the deities, they themselves were first created by Nammu. The ancient Near Eastern cosmology, upon which these beliefs are based, will be discussed in the upcoming studies; the primeval waters, especially, will be discussed in association with Gen 1:2.

Ancient Egypt

As I mentioned in the Introduction, the polytheism of ancient Egypt was especially rich and complex. Its complexity is partly due to the fact that we have more information and knowledge about it, thanks to the wealth of surviving artifacts, texts, and inscriptions. At the same time, the Egyptian people also seem to have developed their polytheistic ideas and structures in ways that went beyond those of the surrounding cultures. The syncretic tendencies were especially elaborate and sophisticated, providing a highly detailed depiction of the phenomena of the natural world. It is like a painting that was made with 100 colors instead of 20. As a result, the names and forms of many more deities are known to us from ancient Egypt, than elsewhere.

Over the long history of ancient Egypt, a number of different Creator deities took on prominence. They were not mutually exclusive, but could exist in the religious thought and practice of the people simultaneously. To some extent, they were combined syncretistically, but they also can be seen as representing different aspects of Creation. The following deities can be characterized as (Primeval) Creator gods, and are the most prominent:

- Atum—the name means something like “the All” or “the undifferentiated [One]”; Atum is alone in the dark primeval waters (Nun) where he brings forth (creates) the first deities out of himself.
- Ra (R)—the precise derivation of this name remains in dispute, but could mean something like “(the) rising/ascending (one)”. Ra fundamentally represents the creative, life-giving power manifest in the sun; however, he came to be recognized as the Primeval Creator, especially through the syncretic combination Ra-Atum (i.e., Ra identified as the Creator Atum). The primary religious/cult center for Ra was the city of Iunu (On in the Old Testament, Heliopolis in Greek [“city of the sun”]).
- Amun (°mwn), “[the] Hidden [one]” —this deity may have represented the ‘hidden’ power in the sky (the air/atmosphere); however, in at least one line of cosmological tradition, he is associated with the primeval darkness that preceded the Creation, representing (together with a female consort) one of four deity-pairs embodying aspects of this Primeval state. He came into special prominence when the Egyptian capital was located at Wasit (Thebes), and he was identified (syncretically) with the Creator as Amun-Ra, the great High Deity throughout much of Egyptian history.
- Ptah—a Creator deity worshiped especially at the ancient capital Men-nefer (Memphis), and conceived primarily as a craftsman/artisan, who brought the world into existence as a work of art. In many ways, Ptah corresponds with our basic concept of God as Creator better than the other deities mentioned above. The famous cosmological text on the Shabaka Stone is an especially developed theological work (the so-called “Memphite Theology”) affirming Ptah as the supreme Deity and Creator of the world.

Summary

As Creator, YHWH (= Elohim in Genesis 1:1ff) holds a place in Israelite monotheism similar to that of the Primeval Creator-deities in ancient Near Eastern polytheism. The main difference is two-fold: (1) in creating the universe (heaven and earth), YHWH does not create any comparable deities; and (2) He proceeds to create all aspects and components of the universe Himself. Both of these points are fundamental to the distinction between monotheism and polytheism. Since the various “powers” (= deities) are related to the various parts of the universe, they come into being with the universe; this is essential to the polytheistic worldview. Similarly, as the universe takes shape, in stages, the first created deities, in turn, create more deities—the coming-to-be of world (cosmogony) is also a coming-to-be of all the deities in the world (theogony). This will be discussed in more detail in upcoming studies.

By contrast, in the Genesis Creation account, there is cosmogony, but no theogony. God (YHWH) alone creates all the different parts of the universe. To be sure, the Israelite and (later) Jewish worldview included other divine/heavenly beings (Angels, etc) who were created by God. This idea is comparable, in certain respects, with Near Eastern polytheism; however, there is not the slightest mention of it here in the Genesis Creation account.

References above marked “Cassuto” are to Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part I: From Adam to Noah (1944), transl. by Israel Abrahams (1961) (Magnes Press: 1989).
References marked “Kramer” are to Samuel Noah Kramer, Sumerian Mythology: A Study of Spiritual and Literary Achievement in the Third Millennium B.C. (1944) (Harper & Bros.: 1961).

August 4: Exodus 3:13-15

These daily notes during the month of August are supplemental to the current Study Series The People of God. Before proceeding with these notes on Exodus 3:13-15, I would recommend reading the current article (Part 1 of the topic “Israel as the People of God”).

Exodus 3:13-15

Following the initial revelation of God to Moses (vv. 1-6), the revelatory message comes in vv. 7-15. This message provides the basis for the commission of Moses to serve as God’s representative in leading Israel out of Egypt (3:16-4:17). The revelatory message climaxes with the declaration of God’s name (vv. 13-15). This is one of the most famous passages of the Old Testament, and yet one that is fraught with considerable difficulties for interpretation. In particular, the historical-critical issues surrounding these verses are significant.

Verse 13

The first point to note comes from a careful reading of verse 13:

And Moshe said to the Mightiest [°E_lœhîm]: “See, I am coming to (the) sons of Yisrael, and (if) I say to them ‘(The) Mighty (One) [°E_lœhîm] of your fathers has sent me to you’, and they say to me ‘What (is) His name?’, what do I (then) say to them?”

As noted on numerous occasions, I take the plural form <yh!ýa$ (°§lœhîm) in such instances to be an intensive (or comprehensive) plural, meaning something like “(the) Mightiest (One)”, more or less equivalent to the more common (and older) word la@ (°¢l < °il[u]), “Mighty (One)”, i.e. “God”. By the mid-1st millennium B.C., <yh!ýa$ was the established word for “God” in Hebrew, and is used regularly throughout all the writings of the period. In works which contain much older traditions (such as Genesis and the Pentateuch), these typically have been ‘modernized’ in certain respects, including the regular use of <yh!ýa$. Earlier Hebrew/Canaanite speech would have used °il[u] (= la@) instead—i.e., “the Mighty (One) [°E~l] of your father(s)” (e.g., Gen 49:25, preserved in poetry). Cf. further on the names El and Elohim.

The force of Moses’ question is curious, especially when one considers it from the historical standpoint. Does Moses already know God’s name (Yahweh/ hwhy)? or does the question imply that the name is unfamiliar to him? Indeed, what name would the Israelites, and other south Canaanite-speaking peoples, in the 14th-13th centuries, have used to worship their Creator God? Can a distinction be made between the Israelites in Egypt and their earlier ancestors (in Canaan)?

To begin with, it is important to note that the evidence from the book of Genesis strongly indicates that the ancestors of Israel worshiped (and referred to) the high Creator God as °Il / °El (la@), rather than Yahweh (hwhy). The early traditions themselves clearly support this (14:18-22; 16:13; 17:1; 21:33; 28:3; 31:13; 33:20; 35:1, 3, 7, 11; 43:14; 46:3; 48:3; 49:25). Moreover, there are no Yah(weh)-names recorded in the book of Genesis, whereas many El-names (personal and place-names) are attested, including a number of key religious/cultic sites (35:7, etc).

To this must be added the direct statement in Exodus 6:3, that God made himself known to the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), not by the name YHWH, but as °E~l (spec. °E~l Šadday, something like “Mighty [One] of the mountain”). Some commentators have sought to gloss over this, and thereby harmonize the passage with occurrences of hwhy in the book of Genesis. However, it is important to distinguish the use of hwhy in the Genesis narrative, written in the kingdom period (and certainly no earlier than Moses’ time), from the older traditions (where la@ is used). A devout Yahwist surely would make use of the tetragrammaton in writing a history based on those traditions. There are, however, several references where the tetragrammaton appears to be prominent within the early tradition itself (cf. 24:12, 27, 42, 48; 28:13; 32:9), and these are a bit harder to explain in light of the statement in Exod 6:3.

Even so, it is all but certain that the divine name Yahweh was not entirely unknown to the Israelites of Moses’ time. This can be affirmed, with some confidence, based on objective evidence from the Semitic-speaking world of the mid-2nd millennium B.C. It is also worth noting that, by all accounts, the earliest Yah(weh)-name recorded in the Old Testament is that of Moses’ own mother—Yôke»e¼ (db#k#oy), meaning something like “YHWH is worthy”. This will be discussed further in the next daily note (on verse 14).

April 28: Genesis 41:38

Genesis 41:38, etc

In the previous note, we saw how the spirit/breath (j^Wr) of God, more than simply giving life to human beings, is also the source for the wisdom and understanding within the person. This wisdom is available to all, as part of the way humankind was created (by God), though many people do not hear or listen to its voice. At the same time, certain people are uniquely or specially gifted with certain kinds of wisdom and ability. In the ancient world, such gifted individuals were seen as possessing a special divine presence or “spirit” (our term genius reflects its origins in the ancient concept of an indwelling deity). Israelite and Old Testament tradition followed this ancient way of thinking, ascribing the special talent and insight of certain individuals to the spirit of God (El-Yahweh).

There are a number of such references in the Old Testament Scriptures, beginning with the Pentateuch. Regardless of when the final form of the books were actually composed, there is no reason to doubt that these references reflect genuine historical tradition and the most ancient way of thinking (i.e. going back to the time of the Patriarchs).

Genesis 41:38

In response to Joseph’s interpretation of Pharaoh’s dreams, and the prospect of an impending famine-crisis, the decision was made to appoint a special overseer to manage the crisis (vv. 33ff). It was to be a man discerning (/obn`, i.e. possessing discernment) and wise (<k*j*). The Pharaoh realized that there was no one better qualified than Joseph, as he declares in verse 38:

“Can there be found (anyone) like this man [i.e. Joseph], wh(o has the) spirit [j^Wr] of (the) Mightiest [<yh!ýa$] in him?”

Joseph’s ability to know the meaning of Pharaoh’s dream was proof of his wisdom/discernment (v. 39). The main point here, however, is that such wisdom is an indication of God’s spirit at work in Joseph, much as Elihu declared that the wisdom/understanding available to human beings has its source in the spirit/breath of God (Job 32:8, cf. the previous note).

I have translated <yh!ýa$ above in accordance with the basic usage in Scripture. However, it is worth pointing out here that it is a plural form, which, as a substantive, would literally mean something like “mighty (one)s”, more or less equivalent to the simpler plural <yl!a@. There has always been some difficulty explaining the use of this plural in a monotheistic setting, to refer to the one God (El-Yahweh). In my view, the best explanation is that the word serves as an intensive plural—i.e., “mightiest (one)”—and so I typically translate in these notes and articles (as opposed to blandly rendering it as “God”). Yet, if we accept the authenticity of tradition recorded here, it is possible that the Egyptian Pharaoh would have had a true plural in mind (i.e. Mighty Ones, “gods”). The parallel in Dan 5:14, where Belshazzar makes a similar statement regarding Daniel (in Aramaic), would tend to confirm this: “I have heard about you that (the) spirit [j^Wr] of the Mighty Ones [/yh!l*a$, i.e. “gods”] (is) in you”.

For more on the meaning and significance of the related titles la@ (‘El) and <yh!ýa$ (‘Elohim), cf. my earlier articles indicated by the links here.

Exodus 31:3; 35:31

Such special wisdom and knowledge can be demonstrated in other ways, and these no less reflect the working of God’s j^Wr. It can apply to persons with considerable gifts and talents in areas of art and science, for example. We see this expressed in the case of Bezalel, a craftsman and artisan, who was appointed (along with at least one other man) to design the Tent-shrine (Tabernacle) and its furnishings (Exodus 31:1ff). The divine source of this ability is clearly stated in verse 3:

“And I have filled him (with the) spirit [j^Wr] of (the) Mightiest—with wisdom, and with discernment, and with knowledge, and with all (the) work [hK*al*m=] (he is to do)”

The common word hK*al*m= is a bit difficult to translate in English. It means something like “business”, i.e. the work a person is expected to do. Sometimes the word connotes the skill or ability required to perform such duties. The first three terms—wisdom, discernment, knowledge—show one side of this ability, while hK*al*m= signifies the working out of it in practice, in the actual business of his craft. Interestingly, it is YHWH who is speaking, and yet the expression “spirit of the Mightiest [i.e. of God]” is still used (rather that “my Spirit”), indicating how fundamental it was to the idea involved.

This same declaration regarding Bezalel is repeated, this time by Moses, in 35:31:

“And He [i.e. YHWH] (has) filled him (with the) spirit [j^Wr] of the Mightiest…”

In using the word inspiration, we tend to think strictly in terms of the composition of the Scriptures, or in the related sense of inspired prophecy (within the context of Scripture). However, these passages we have examined thus far demonstrate that the concept of divine inspiration cannot—and should not—be limited in this way. In the next daily note, we will turn to the idea of the “prophet” —that is, the ayb!n`, one who serves a position of leadership, a spokesperson for God in relation to His people.

Saturday Series: Genesis 1:26-27; 2:4

Genesis 1:26-27; 2:4

Today we will be looking at two verses in the Genesis Creation narratives which have proven challenging for commentators over the centuries. Both passages are instructive for us, in that they demonstrate the importance of careful study, with sensitivity to the nuances of the ancient Hebrew language. The first of these examples comes from the Creation account in chapter 1—the famous account of the creation of humankind at the climax of the sixth day (i.e., at the climax of God’s creative work), verses 24-31.

Genesis 1:26-27

The distinction which introduces God’s creation of humankind (“man”, °¹d¹m, <d*a*) is well-known to most students of Scripture. While the divine directives throughout the “days” of creation are third-person jussives (imperfect verb forms with the force of a command, “there shall be…”, “let there be…”, etc), the creation of humankind begins with a first-person cohortative of the verb ±´h—na±¦´eh, “We shall make”, “Let us make…” This use of the first-person plural has been the source of much discussion by commentators and theologians, in light of the strong monotheistic view of God which is fundamental for nearly all Jews and Christians. The plural continues in the directive:

“We shall [i.e. let us] make man in our image (and) according to our likeness, and they shall [i.e. let them] rule…”

The expression “image (and) likeness” will be discussed briefly below; but, as to the use of the plural, there have been a number of attempts to explain this. The most notable include:

- It reflects a genuine plurality in God (or the Godhead), in which various elements (including ‘persons’ or personifications) may be distinguished. For Christians, it has been popular to read the Trinity into the use of the plural here. Jewish mystics have recognized a different sort of multiplicity in the Godhead (e.g., the Sefirot traditions in the Kabbalah).
- It is a vestige of an ancient polytheistic view of God (and the Divine Council), especially preserved in the majestic poetry-prosody of the Creation account, much as we see echoes of Semitic (Canaanite) mythology in the earliest Psalms, etc.
- The scene is that of the heavenly (royal) court, and God is depicted as taking counsel with other heavenly beings (i.e. “angels”); in some versions of this view, the heavenly beings specifically take part in the process of creating humankind.
- It is the plural of majesty, in which the king or ruler speaks on behalf of the people whom he represents, and in a majestic fashion, using the plural (“we, us”), though it is he himself who gives the directive.
- It is the plural of exhortation, in which a person may use the plural to exhort him/herself to do something.
- It is a simple grammatical agreement with the plural noun °§lœhîm (see below).

The first two options are, on the whole, most unlikely. Despite the popularity of the Trinitarian interpretation among Christians, there is really no evidence supporting the idea of plurality in the ancient Israelite view of God, nor do we see anything of the sort expressed in the Old Testament. The third and fourth views are more plausible, the third generally favored by many scholars, going back to the medieval Rabbinic commentators (including Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Nahmanides). In my view, however, the last two options are the simplest explanations and relate directly to the grammar and syntax of the passage.

The word (and name) used for “God” in chapter 1 is °§lœhîm (<yh!ýa$), a plural noun related to the fundamental Semitic word °¢l (la@), which, as I discussed last week (and elsewhere), most likely originally meant something like “Mighty (One)”. The best explanation of the plural °§lœhîm, more or less equivalent to the simpler form °¢lîm, is an intensive plural. In the Semitic languages (including ancient Hebrew), the grammatical plural does not always indicate numeric plural; it can be used to express other aspects, including use as an intensive. The plural form, which normally would mean “mighty (one)s”, would, in the case of the Divine, actually mean something like “Mightiest (One)”. It is also possible to understand it as a comprehensive collective plural, perhaps meant to reflect the idea of all of the divine ‘beings’ (i.e. all Deity) embodied in one God—the one true Creator God. This would have special significance in the context of Israelite monotheism, in contrast to the polytheism of the surrounding peoples.

Even though °§lœhîm is plural, when used of the one Creator God (El-Yahweh), it typically agrees with the singular (“he, his, him”, etc). Indeed, the plural is only used here in verse 26; when the corresponding narration occurs in verse 27, we find the singular:

“And God [°§lœhîm] created man in his image…”

This makes it far more likely that the plural in verse 26 is a plural of exhortation. Normally, in such a plural cohortative, a person is attempting to exhort his audience to take a course of action, etc. However, on occasion, it is used in reference to the person himself, as self-encouragement. Here, too, we may understand this as an intensive plural, i.e. spurring oneself to take action, or envisioning a specific outcome. Consider the example in 2 Samuel 24:14 (Cassuto, p. 55): “Let us fall into the hand of the Lord…but into the hand of man let me not fall”. In such a case, “let us…” is clearly the same as “let me…”.

Another point of difficulty in verse 26 is the use of the words ƒelem (“image, figure, shape”) and d®mû¾ (“likeness, resemblance”). The two words make for a synonymous pairing, and occur together in an extra-biblical (Assyrian-Aramaic) inscription from the 9^th century B.C. The noun ƒelem tends to refer to a concrete physical shape, as of a solid object (such as a statue) cut out or formed in a pattern-mold. It was used specifically for statues and likenesses of deities in the Ancient Near East. More importantly, in ancient royal theology, the king (in his person) was often viewed as the “image” of God. The ancient Israelites certainly would have been aware of this tendency, and it informs the account in Genesis. What applied primarily to the ruler, as God’s image and representative on earth, is here viewed as applying to all humankind, at the point of our very creation. Even so, there have been numerous ways of understanding human beings as made “in God’s image”:

- It is related to the physical shape, which resembles that of the Deity (anthropomorphic)
- It is to be understood in an intellectual and/or spiritual sense—i.e. we resemble God in the uniqueness of the human mind, reasoning, moral and religious awareness, etc
- It refers specifically to the human soul
- It relates primarily to humankind as God’s representative (“image”) on earth.
- It is meant to express the special exalted status of human beings in the order of creation (see Psalm 8:4-7)

The last two views best fit the context of the passage. According to vv. 27-31, God created humankind to have dominion and rule on earth; this is the primary emphasis given in the passage for the role of human beings, and it fits the idea that we function as God’s representatives on earth. The climactic position of the account of the creation of humankind, and in the exalted language that is used to describe it, confirms the nobility of human beings in relation to God. This semi-divine status is confirmed by the famous hymn on humankind in Psalm 8.

Genesis 2:4

When we turn to Gen 2:4, we find a different sort of critical question—one which typically has been thought to relate to the composition of the Pentateuch (Genesis-Deuteronomy) and the sources (or source documents) used in its composition. While somewhat obscured in translation, the Creation account in 1:1-2:3 uses the word (or “name”) °§lœhîm throughout. As I noted above, this plural noun, probably should be understood as “(the) Mightiest (One)”, and it is used by the ancient Israelites, and throughout the Old Testament, as the common designation for “God”—that is, the one true God (El-Yahweh). Only infrequently is it used as a genuine plural “mighty ones” (i.e. “gods”, etc). We typically translate °§lœhîm in the Old Testament, and here in Genesis 1ff, as “God”.

However, in 2:4 the nomenclature changes, with the introduction of the divine name hw`hy+, the so-called tetragrammaton (YHWH), usually vocalized as Yahweh. The origins and meaning of this name remain uncertain, and debated by scholars, though there is general agreement that it derives from the root hyh/hwh (“to be, exist, live”). This is confirmed by the tradition in Exod 3. One line of interpretation reads the name itself as a verbal form, probably as a causative—”he causes to be, he makes live”, etc. As such, it would be a fundamental designation of the Creator God, otherwise known as °¢l in ancient Semitic language, both in Mesopotamia and Canaan. Abraham and the Patriarchs would have spoken of “God” as °E~l. Subsequently, as narrated in Exodus 3:11-15, the divine name was declared to be Yahweh, and, from at least the time of Moses on, Israelites identified Yahweh with the one Creator God El. For more on this dynamic, see my earlier discussions of the names El, Elohim, and Yahweh.

The names Yahweh and Elohim are joined together in 2:4, and are used this way throughout chapters 2 and 3 (twenty times); only in the dialogue with the serpent (3:1b-5) is Elohim used alone. In chapter 4, following the Creation narratives of chaps 1-3, Yahweh begins to be used alone as the name of God.

The varying usage of Yahweh and Elohim throughout the Pentateuch (and other portions of the Old Testament) spurred the critical hypotheses, beginning in the early 18^th century, that the Pentateuch was at least partially composed from two earlier documents which primarily used the names Yahweh and Elohim, respectively. The supposed documents, labeled “J” (Jahwist/Yahwist) and “E” (Elohist), became part of the so-called “Documentary Hypothesis” for the composition of the Pentateuch. Some variation of this hypothesis is accepted by most critical scholars and commentators today, though by no means drawn and defined so sharply as it has been in the past. While many traditional-conservative commentators continue to accept, on the whole, the traditional authorship of Moses, only rarely have critical scholars seriously questioned the basic approach underlying the Documentary hypothesis. One such scholar is the Jewish commentator Umberto Cassuto, who discusses the matter at length in his Commentary on Genesis (Part One), and his work The Documentary Hypothesis (both available in highly readable English translations). While I do not find his treatment of the matter entirely convincing, he offers a valuable reminder of the importance of studying the use of the divine names from the standpoint of the Hebrew language itself. These names had a particular meaning and significance for Israelites in the period c. 1200-500, when the Pentateuch received its final shape and began to be transmitted to later generations.

Of special significance is the way that Yahweh and Elohim are joined together in chapters 2-3, beginning with 2:4, which serves as a transition between 1:1-2:3 and the narrative in 2:5ff:

“These are the (period)s of giving birth [i.e. generations] of the heavens and the earth in their being created [i.e. when they were created], in (the) day when YHWH Elohim made (the) earth and (the) heavens.”

This both concludes the prior account and introduces what follows. Indeed, many commentators view v. 4b as the start of a new sentence and the beginning of the next narrative. In this light, the joining of Yahweh with Elohim (typically rendered in English as “the LORD God”) is important in the fundamental way it identifies Yahweh with the one true Creator God (Elohim), much as the early Israelites identified him with El. This identification marks the Creation narratives of chapters 1-3 and is uniquely characteristic of them. The conjunction of Yahweh-Elohim is relatively rare elsewhere in the Old Testament, and is only found in the Pentateuch, outside of Gen 2-3, at Exod 9:30. Interestingly, while Yahweh does not occur in chapter 1, there may be an allusion to it in the use of the jussive y®hî (yh!y+, “there shall be, let there be…”). The name Yahweh, referring to God as the one who creates (causes to be) originally seems to have been associated with the creation of the heavenly realms/beings. This association was preserved in the fixed expression Yahweh ‚§»¹°ô¾, “He (who) causes the (heavenly) ‘armies’ to be”, translated conventionally as “Lord of Hosts”. It is perhaps significant that the jussive y®hî is specifically used in connection with the creation of the heavenly bodies in chapter 1 (vv. 3, 6, 14; Sarna/JPS, p. 7).

For next week, we will be looking further ahead in the book of Genesis, to the narratives in chapters 15 and 17 which describe the covenant established between God and Abraham. Read those, along with the surrounding Abraham narratives, and then turn and study the account in Exodus 24 of the establishment of the covenant with the people of Israel. The background and setting of the “covenant” idea and imagery is of great importance if one wishes to understand the ancient religious thought and expression of the Old Testament, and how it was interpreted and applied in the New Testament. Read these passages carefully, thinking and meditating upon them…and I will see you next Saturday.

References marked “Cassuto” above are to U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (Part One): From Adam to Noah, translated by Israel Abrahams (Magnes Press [Jerusalem]: 1944/1961). For his work on the “Documentary Hypothesis”, cf. The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch, transl. Israel Abrahams (Shalem Press [Jerusalem]: 2006).

References marked “Sarna/JPS” are to The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis ty?arb, Commentary by Nahum M. Sarna (Jewish Publication Society [JPS]: 1989).

“And you shall call His Name…”: Names of God (Elohim)

In yesterday’s article, I examined °E~l (la@) as the basic Semitic word used in the sense of “God” and, in particular, as the name of the chief Creator Deity. Today I will be looking at the related word °E_lœhîm (<yh!ýa$).

°E_lœhîm

Almost certainly this word is related in some way to the more primitive °E~l (°Il[u]); however, the precise relationship, and the origins of its usage, remain rather uncertain. The simple plural form of °¢l—°¢lîm (<yl!a@)—is rare in the Old Testament (4 times), and only twice is it certainly a plural (in Exod 15:11 and Dan 11:36, cf. Cross pp. 45-46). By comparison, the plural form °§lœhîm (<yh!ýa$) is widely used (more than 2500 times)—both as a literal plural, and in a singular sense for “God” generally, or the Israelite Deity (Yahweh/El) in particular. The somewhat unusual application of this plural form for God definitely requires comment, and will be discussed below. One common theory to explain the form of the word is that the simple plural of a biconsonantal (two-letter) root la, i.e. <yl!a@ has been expanded (with the letter h [h]) to fit the pattern of a triconsonantal (three-letter) root (such as lwa or hla). In other words, the form °¢lîm becomes °§lœhîm. While not without certain difficulties, this is probably as good an explanation as any.

By the time the Old Testament Scriptures were written—i.e., in the period between c. 1200 and 500 B.C.—the plural form °§lœhîm had all but completely replaced the older °¢l as the basic word corresponding to “God” in English. This may not have been so much the case in the early part of the period, as we find vestiges of the older use of °¢l in (the archaic) portions of the Psalms, etc; but, certainly it is true in the later Kingdom period. In the ordinary plural sense, °§lœhîm would be translated straightforwardly as “mighty (one)s”, i.e. gods, when referring to the (divine) powers as understood by the ancient (polytheistic) religions of the time. In this plural sense, it can be used three ways in the Old Testament:

As “mighty ones” generally, i.e. a descriptive term which could refer either to human or divine beings—Exod 22:7-8; Psalm 82:1, 6, etc
For divine beings, in the basic sense of supernatural, heavenly beings (i.e. “Angels”) who reside in the heavenly court of God—Psalm 8:6, et al, where it is generally synonymous with the old Semitic expression “sons of God” (b®nê °¢l, or b®nê °¢lîm)
For (pagan) deities worshiped by the (Canaanite, etc) peoples surrounding Israel (i.e. “other gods”)—cf. Exod 20:3; 23:13; Josh 24:2, etc

More commonly, however, °§lœhîm refers to “God”, that is, to Yahweh/°E~l in Israelite religion. How did this plural word come to be used for the singular “God” in this sense? A completely satisfactory explanation to this question has not yet been offered. There are two which seem to me reasonably plausible:

As a collective—i.e. “(all) the gods”. This might be a shorthand way of referring to God as the Creator of (all other) divine beings. Note the specific use of °§lœhîm throughout the Creation account in Gen 1:1-2:4, as well as the (apparent) fundamental meaning of the name hwhy (Yahweh) connected with the creation of the heavenly beings (cf. the next article, on “Yahweh”). There may be a rough parallel in Egyptian religion, where the Creator is called by the name Atum (i.e. the “All”). In a monotheistic context, it was a natural development that all other divine names and forms would be seen as embodied in the one true God.
As an intensive—i.e. “the Mightiest“. This use of the plural is attested in Hebrew, primarily in the Psalms and other poetic passages, as in Psalm 21:7; 68:7; 76:11; Isa 32:18; 40:14, 26, etc. For more examples, cf. GKC §124 e. There is some evidence that, in the earliest strands of Israelite religion, Yahweh/°E~l was emphasized as the “Mightiest” or “Greatest” of all deities or divine beings, and, as such, was the one who should be worshiped. Over time, this would have developed into a more distinct and precise monotheism—i.e. God is the only Mighty One, the only divine Being. Once this monotheistic outlook came to dominate Israelite society completely, it was hardly necessary to qualify God (Yahweh) in this manner, and the “Mightiest” (°E_lœhîm) was simply understood as synonymous with (the one) God.

Probably the second of these two explanations is more likely than the first. To see how the names °E~l and °E_lœhîm were related in early Israelite tradition, we should turn to the formula in Gen 33:20, associated with the altar dedicated by Jacob near the city of Shechem. Here °E~l is identified as the “God” (°E_lœhîm) of Israel—”°E~l °E_lœhê Yi´ra°¢l“. In a similar manner, Yahweh (hwhy) is identified as the one (true) God (°E_lœhîm) in the Creation Account of Genesis 1-2. The name °E_lœhîm is used throughout 1:1-2:4a, and Yahweh in chapter 2, but they are joined together in the transitional line 2:4b—”in the day (when) Yahweh °E_lœhîm made the heaven(s) and earth”.

In the New Testament, most of these distinctions have disappeared. When the basic Greek word qeo/$ (theós) is used, which more less corresponds with °§lœhîm, it is assumed that the reference is to the one God, the God of Israel (Yahweh/El), God the Father and Creator. This hardly needed to be explained to Greek-speaking Jews and Christians of the time. The word qeo/$ occurs more than 20 times in the Lukan Infancy narrative (but only once in Matthew, at 1:23). It is especially prominent in the Angelic announcement to Mary (5 times in 1:26-37), the hymn of Zechariah (1:64, 68, 78), and the Angelic appearance to the shepherds (2:13-14, 20). Several of these passages will be discussed in the notes.

In the references above, “Cross” = F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Harvard University Press: 1973 / 1997). “GKC” = Gesenius-Kautsch-Cowley, i.e. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, edited/expanded by E. Kautsch, 2nd English edition by A. E. Cowley (Oxford University Press: 1910).