Tag: Judgment

May 15: John 16:11

John 16:11

In verse 11, we have the third (and final) item of the triad in the Paraclete-saying of v. 8:

“that (one) will show the world (to be wrong)…about judgment [kri/si$]”

In the previous notes on v. 9 and 10, two key points were established: (1) the Spirit will show the world to be wrong in its understanding (of sin and righteousness), and that (2) the true nature of sin and righteousness is to be understood in Christological terms—that is, in relation to Jesus’ identity as the Son sent (from heaven) by God the Father. The same two points apply to the final statement regarding judgment (kri/si$).

The noun kri/si$ fundamentally refers to a separation, often in the sense of discerning or making a decision about something. It is typically translated “judgment”, either in this general sense, or within the specific legal-judicial context of a decision rendered in a court of law (by a judge). For the most part, in the Gospel of John, as throughout the New Testament, kri/si$ specifically refers to the coming end-time (eschatological) Judgment, when God will judge the world, punishing humankind for its wickedness.

The noun occurs 11 times in the Gospel (out of 47 NT occurrences), and once in 1 John (4:17); the related verb (kri/nw) occurs 19 times in the Gospel, but not in the Letters. Occasionally, the more general sense of judgment is intended (cf. 7:24), or kri/si$/kri/nw is used in an ordinary legal-judicial context (7:51; 18:31); however, as noted above, primarily the reference is to the coming end-time Judgment (see esp. 5:29-30; 12:31, 48; 1 Jn 4:17).

Even though the eschatological context is primary, this is presented in a very distinctive way in the Gospel Discourses. At several points, we find signs of what is called “realized” eschatology—that is, the idea that end-time events, such as the resurrection and the Last Judgment, are understood as having, in a sense, already occurred, being realized in the present. This does not mean that the Gospel writer (or Jesus as the speaker) denies a future fulfillment, but only affirms that it is also fulfilled in the present. This is seen most clearly in the chapter 5 Discourse, where the resurrection is defined, not simply as a future event, but as realized in the present, through the presence of the Son of God (Jesus)—vv. 25ff; cp. 11:25-26. In terms of salvation from the coming Judgment, this is realized for believers (in the present), through their/our trust in Jesus:

“the (one) hearing my word, and trusting in the (One hav)ing sent me, holds (the) life of the ages [i.e. eternal life], and does not come into judgment, but has stepped over, out of death, (and) into life.” (5:24)

If believers are saved from judgment in the present, through trust, then unbelievers correspondingly come under God’s judgment, having the judgment (already) passed against them (in the present), through their lack of trust. The key passage alluding to this is 3:19-21; cf. also 9:41; 15:22-24. In the wider Gospel tradition, the end-time period of distress, seen as the beginnings of the Judgment, commences with the suffering and death of Jesus (see, e.g., Mark 14:38-41 par, and the context of the “Eschatological Discourse” [chap. 13 par]). The Johannine tradition evinces the same basic eschatological view, and this is confirmed by Jesus’ declaration in 12:31, and is strongly implied throughout the Last Discourse.

The explanation of the Paraclete-saying in v. 8 concludes with the words of Jesus in v. 11:

“…and about judgment, (in) that the Chief of this world has been judged”

The perfect tense of the verb kri/nw (ke/kritai, passive, “he has been judged”) indicates a past event, the effect of which continues in the present. The implication is that the “chief of this world” has already been judged, just as believers have already passed through [perfect form of the vb metabai/nw] the Judgment (5:24, cf. above).

The expression “the chief of this world” (o( a&rxwn tou= ko/smou tou=tou) occurred earlier the 12:31 declaration:

“Now is (the) judgment of this world, now the Chief of this world shall be cast out!”

The idea expressed is very close to that here in v. 11: “shall be cast out” (future tense) is parallel with “has been judged” (perfect tense). Essentially the same expression was used earlier in the Last Discourse, at the close of the first discourse (14:30f):

“Not much more shall I speak with you, for the Chief of the world comes, and he does not hold anything on me, but (this is so) that the world would know that I love the Father, and, just as He laid on me (a duty) to complete, so I do (it).”

This is a rather complicated way for Jesus to refer to his impending suffering (and death). The approach of the “Chief of the world” signifies the world’s role, under the dominion of its “Chief”, in putting Jesus to death. The point is strongly made that this does not mean that the world (or its Chief) has any power over Jesus, or has anything incriminating on him (deserving of death)—cf. Jesus’ words to Pilate in 19:11, and note the emphasis in 10:18. In his own way, Pilate is one of the world’s “chiefs”, though ultimately subservient to the dominion/control of its main Chief (the Devil). Jesus’ suffering and death will happen so that everyone (“the world,” in a more generic sense) will know of the love between Father and Son, and that the Son (Jesus) is simply fulfilling the duty and mission given to him by the Father.

In speaking of the “coming” of the world’s Chief, coinciding with the onset of Jesus’ Passion, one is reminded of the Synoptic Garden scene, when Jesus announces to his close disciples that “the hour (has) come [h@lqen h( w%ra]” (Mark 14:41 par; cp. Jn 12:23, 27 in connection with v. 31). In the Lukan version (22:53), this declaration is given more vivid and personal form:

“…but this is your hour, and the authority [e)cousi/a] of darkness”

In many ways, this language approaches the Johannine theme of the world’s opposition to Jesus; the plural “you” essentially refers to those people, hostile to Jesus, who belong to the current world-order (ko/smo$) of darkness and evil. Functionally, they are servants of the Devil, the “Chief” of the world.

According to the world’s view of things, Jesus was judged and punished by the world’s authority; yet this view of judgment (kri/si$) is decidedly wrong. Jesus’ suffering and death actually marks the beginning of his exaltation—of his being “lifted up” (as the Son of God) in glory. While it might appear as though Jesus was judged, it was actually the world (and its Chief) that underwent judgment. This is the true nature of judgment that the Spirit will bring to light, exposing the false understanding of the world. Jesus himself declared the true situation at the close of the Last Discourse (16:33):

“…in the world you have distress, but you must take courage, (for) I have been victorious (over) the world!”

Again a perfect tense form (neni/khka, “I have been victorious”) shows how the future (eschatological) event of the Judgment is realized in the present. That Jesus’ victory over the world includes the “Chief of the world” —something already alluded to in 12:31—is confirmed by the author of 1 John:

“Unto this [i.e. for this purpose] the Son of God was made to shine forth [i.e. appear on earth], that he should dissolve [i.e. destroy] the works of the {Devil}.” (3:8)

The mission of the Son on earth, culminating in his death, had the purpose (and effect) of destroying the ‘works’ (implying dominion/control) of the Devil. This is another way of stating that, with the death of Jesus, the “Chief of the world” has been judged.

Another way that the world is wrong about judgment relates to the future expectation of the end-time (Last) Judgment. The conventional religious view was that only at the end time, in the future (however immediate or far off), would God judge the world—judging human beings for their ethical and religious behavior. In two respects, the Gospel of John presents a very different perspective on the great Judgment: (1) the Judgment is effectively realized in the present, based on whether or not one trusts in Jesus (as the Son of God), and (2) people are judged ultimately, and principally, on their response to the witness regarding Jesus identity (as the Son). This ‘realized’ eschatological emphasis in the Johannine writings (esp. the Gospel) was discussed above, but it is worth mentioning again here. Point (2) has already been addressed in the prior notes (on v. 9 and 10), but, in this regard, the Christological emphasis of the Paraclete-saying cannot be overstated.

In the next daily note, our analysis of vv. 8-11 will be summarized, along with some exegetical comments on the following vv. 12-15.

May 11: John 16:8 (continued)

John 16:8, continued

Continuing the discussion from the previous note, there are two points related to verse 8 that need to be addressed:

    1. The use of the word ko/smo$ (“world”), specifically in regard to the special Johannine theological usage of the term, and
    2. The parallelism between the prepositional triad (“about sin…”) and the earlier “about me” (i.e., about Jesus, the Son) in the third Paraclete-saying.
1. Use of the word ko/smo$

The noun ko/smo$ is very much a Johannine keyword. It occurs 78 times in the Gospel, 23 times in 1 John, and once in 2 John (as well as 3 in the book of Revelation)—more than half of all New Testament occurrences (186). Beyond this, the word is used in a very distinctive way in the Johannine writings. While ko/smo$ is sometimes used in the ordinary geographic sense—of earth as the place (and plane of existence) where human beings reside—more often it has a pointed ethical-religious meaning. The “world” represents the domain of darkness and evil that is opposed to God. This decidedly negative sense of the word is part of a pronounced dualism in the Johannine writings—light vs. darkness, above vs. below, etc.

In actuality, the two aspects of meaning—geographic (neutral) and ethical-religious (negative)—are closely related. At some points in the Gospel, the two aspects are blended together (e.g., 1:9-10), or the author/speaker makes use of wordplay, shifting between the two meanings (e.g., 3:16-17, 19; 17:13-14ff). The noun ko/smo$ is especially prominent in the Last Discourse, where it occurs 19 times, and the chapter 17 Prayer-discourse where it occurs nearly as often (18 times).

The negative meaning dominates the Last Discourse, especially in 15:18-19 (prior to the third Paraclete-saying [vv. 26-27]), where the emphasis is on the world’s hatred of the disciples (believers), because they represent Jesus, speaking and acting in his name. The Last Discourse assumes an eschatological worldview, anticipating a persecution of believers that is part of the end-time period of distress (cp. Mk 13:9-11 par, and note the reference to the Spirit in v. 11).

The noun ko/smo$ is usually translated “world”, but would perhaps be more accurately rendered “world-order.” The fundamental denotation of ko/smo$ refers to the order and arrangement of the created world. In terms of the negative, dualistic meaning of ko/smo$ in the Johannine writings, this can be understood as referring to the current arrangement of things—the way they function and operate—in a domain and mode of existence dominated by sin and darkness, led by the world’s Chief, the Devil (14:30; 16:11).

This “world” was referenced in the first Paraclete-saying (cf. Part 1), in 14:17, where the point was made that the world cannot see (that is, know and recognize) the Spirit, which means that it also cannot see Jesus—that is, cannot recognize the truth of who he is. There is a bit of conceptual wordplay by Jesus in verse 19. He states that, very soon, the world will no longer see him. This refers, on one level, to his impending death and departure (to the Father); but, on a deeper level, it alludes to the fact that the world cannot recognize and accept his identity as the Son of God. This is why the world also cannot recognize or accept the Spirit. Believers, by contrast, both “see” Jesus and the Spirit; in the latter case, they/we also can recognize the continuing presence and activity of Jesus through the indwelling Spirit.

2. The peri/-prepositional triad in verse 8

In the third Paraclete-saying (15:26f, Part 3), the function of the Spirit is to give witness about (peri/) Jesus. Here, in the final saying, there is a similar (parallel) prepositional expression serving as the indirect object of the verb:

    • “about me” (peri\ e)mou=)
    • “about [peri/] a(marti/a and
      about [peri/] dikaiosu/nh and
      about [peri/] kri/si$“

The parallelism strongly indicates that this triad must be understood in terms of the Spirit’s witness about Jesus—that is, the truth about who he is.

The relation between the second and third Paraclete-sayings makes clear that the Spirit’s witness about Jesus is directed to the disciples (believers); and, yet, in a secondary way, it is also directed at the world, since the Spirit’s witness enables believers also to give witness (to the world) regarding the truth of who Jesus is. This shift of focus to the world is expressed here in the final saying, where the Spirit’s function of exposing darkness/evil and showing (people) to be in the wrong, is directed at the world (ko/smo$). This meaning of the verb e)le/gxw was discussed in the previous note.

I have left the three terms of the triad untranslated above. The first noun, a(marti/a, has a straightforward meaning (“sin”); and yet, the Johannine writings present a very distinctive emphasis regarding the true nature and primary significance of sin (a(marti/a). This will be discussed in the next daily note, on verse 9.

The second noun, dikaiosu/nh, is more difficult to translate. Fundamentally, it means something like “right-ness”, but is usually rendered in English as “righteousness”. This is certainly the translation when the noun is used in a religious-ethical context; however, when a social or judicial context is being emphasized, then the translation “justice” is preferred. This creates a problem for translators, since “righteousness” and “justice” have very different significance and points of reference in English. In the note on verse 10, I will discuss how dikaiosu/nh should be understood (and translated) here.

Interestingly, dikaiosu/nh is something of a rare word in the Johannine writings. It occurs only here (vv. 8 and 10) in the Gospel, and just 3 times in the Letters (1 Jn 2:29; 3:7, 10).

The final noun is kri/si$, which is usually translated “judgment”. The fundamental meaning is of a separation that is made, usually in the sense of a person discerning or making a decision (cf. 7:24). It is frequently used in a judicial context, of judging a case and rendering judgment. In the Gospel of John, as in the rest of the New Testament, kri/si$ refers primarily to the end-time (eschatological) Judgment, when God will judge the world. This is certainly the focus in 5:22-30, where kri/si$ occurs 5 times, as also in 12:31. However, the Johannine writings (including the Gospel Discourses) demonstrate a pronounced ‘realized’ eschatology. By this is meant a tendency to view the end-time events as having (in a sense) already taken place for believers, being realized for them now, in the present, through the Spirit. This does not negate the idea of a future fulfillment (cp. 5:24 with vv. 29-30); it only affirms a spiritual fulfillment in the present.

At several points in the Discourses, Jesus alludes to the idea that the Judgment (kri/si$) takes place in the present—believers in Christ have already passed through the Judgment (5:24), while those who are unwilling/unable to believe have, in a sense, already been judged by their unbelief (3:19; cf. 12:31, 48). This Johannine use of the judgment-motif is important for understanding the significance of kri/si$ here in the Paraclete-saying. This will be discussed further in the note on verse 11.

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 69 (Part 3)

Psalm 69, continued

Part 2: Verses 14-30 [13-29]

(Verses 14-19 [13-18] were discussed in the previous study)

Verses 20-21 [19-20]

“You, (indeed) you know my scorn—
my shame and disgrace are before you—
(the) scorn (from) all my oppressors,
it has broken my heart  and I am sick.
I looked for but a nod, and there was none,
and for (those) sighing, but I did not find (one).”

In verses 14-19, the Psalmist makes his prayer, his petition, to YHWH for deliverance from his adversaries. Here, the tone of lament from the first part of the Psalm (cf. the prior study) is repeated. The protagonist details his suffering to God, defined primarily in terms of the verbal abuse and taunting from those oppressing him (vb rr^x* II). The primary word here is hP*r=j#, “scorn, reproach,” capturing the sense of verbal abuse, and often connoting the casting of blame upon someone. This abuse leads to the protagonist experiencing shame and disgrace—the nouns tv#B) and hM*l!K= being quite similar in meaning.

The standard verse division (between vv. 20 and 21) is problematic, both metrically and syntactically. Hossfeld-Zenger (p. 172) proposes transferring the words yt!M*l!k=W yT!v=b*W (“[and] my shame and my disgrace”) from line 2 in v. 20 down into v. 21. In my view, the simplest solution is to include the first word of v. 21 (hP*r=j#, “scorn”) as part of the final line of v. 22. This allows (more or less) the three-beat rhythm of the lines to be maintained throughout vv. 21-22. It also heightens the thematic emphasis on abuse/scorn in v. 21, making it clear that this abuse comes from the Psalmist’s adversaries.

YHWH is aware of all this, as the Psalmist points out in his petition— “my shame and my disgrace are in front of [dg#n#] you,” i.e., are right before God’s eyes. It is also known to God what the effect of this abuse has been: it has “broken” (vb rb^v*) the Psalmist’s heart and made him sick (vb vWn), a most vivid way of referring to suffering—both emotional and physical. Beyond this, he has no one to help or give comfort to him in his time of distress. The verb dWn denotes waving/shaking or nodding one’s head, here as a sign of sympathy for the psalmist’s suffering; similarly the verb <j^n` means “breathe (deep),” i.e., “sigh” on behalf of someone.

Verse 22 [21]

“They gave in my food (the bitter) head,
and for my thirst they made me drink sour (wine).”

It is possible that the initial –w conjunction is meant to contrast with the people (the Psalmist’s friends and neighbors) who should have been sympathetic toward him in his time of suffering. In this case, the translation would be: “Instead, they gave…poison…”. On the other hand, these lines may simply be amplifying the description of the abuse given by the Psalmist’s adversaries.

The noun var) literally means “head,” and presumably refers to the ‘head’ of a (particular) plant which is bitter and/or poisonous to the taste. The Psalmist’s adversaries (or would-be friends) further mock and abuse him by putting something harsh and bitter tasting (possibly even poisonous) in his food. The parallel is of giving him sour wine (Jm#j)) to drink. Probably this imagery is meant to be figurative, indicating the cruelty and treachery of the Psalmist’s opponents (or false friends).

Early Christians, quite naturally, came to interpret verse 22 (especially the second line) in terms of the events of Jesus’ Passion—of the sour wine given to him (to drink) while he was dying on the cross (Matt 27:34, 48 par).

Verse 23 [22]

“May their table be before them as a trap,
even for (those) of (their) bond, as a snare!”

The Psalmist’s lamenting plea suddenly turns into an imprecatory outburst, calling on God to visit the opponents’ own wicked intentions back upon them (in judgment). They will be caught in the very sort of treacherous trap they seek to lay for the righteous. The nouns jP^ and vq#om are parallel in meaning—the first word refers to a metal trap, and the second to a noose or snare made of rope/cord.

The plural noun <ym!olv= here is difficult to translate. My interpretation follows the use of <wlv in Psalm 41:11 [10] (cf. the earlier study), with the assumption that it refers to people in covenant-bond with one another, who have close/intimate fellowship at table. In such an environment, one should be able to trust in those at the table, but, based on the Psalmist’s curse-request, even a meeting of supposed friends sharing a common bond will turn into a “trap” for the wicked.

Verse 24 [23]

“Let their eyes be (made) dark from seeing,
and their thighs continually may (they) shake!”

The lex talionis imprecation continues from v. 23. Just as the Psalmist was made sick (to the point of suffering physically) by the opponents’ abuse, so they will be made to suffer in a similar way. Their eyes (i.e. sight) will become dark (vb Ev^j*); the expression “from seeing” (toarm@) is privative—i.e., their eyes will grow dark (i.e. blind) so that they are unable to see.

Verse 25 [24]

“May you pour out upon them your anger,
and may (the) burning of your nostril(s) take them!”

The imprecation by the Psalmist here turns into a direct call on YHWH to bring destructive judgment upon his adversaries. This is expressed in traditional terms, referring the burning anger of God. The noun <u^z~ refers to this anger simply, while, in the second line, the more colorful idiom of God’s burning nostrils (lit. “burning of your nostril[s]”) is used, presumably drawing upon the idea of an angry bull, etc, snorting out a hot wind. The idiom was so common that the noun [a^ came to signify “anger” generally, derived from the more concrete image of burning/flaring nostrils (or the burning anger visible in one’s face).

Verse 26 [25]

“Let their row (of dwellings) be (made) desolate,
(and) in their tents let there not be (anyone) sitting!”

Because of God’s judgment on the wicked, there will literally be no one “sitting” (i.e., dwelling) in the tents; the entire encampment (lit. row [of tents]) will be made desolate (vb <m@v*).

Verse 27 [26]

“For the one whom you struck they have pursued,
and tell about (the) anguish of (he) whom you wounded.”

This is a difficult couplet, in terms of its syntax. The basic sense, however, seems clear enough. The Psalmist’s adversaries are deserving of punishment because they persecuted and mocked (or slandered) a righteous individual who was suffering. Here, the suffering is best understood as a physical illness, brought about by God. The Psalmist acknowledges that it was YHWH who “struck” him with this suffering, ‘piercing’ him (figuratively speaking). This suggests that the reproach (“scorn,” hP*r=j#) by the adversaries (cf. above) may have involved casting blame upon the Psalmist, to the effect that he was deserving of suffering because he committed certain kinds of sins or crimes. Such a focus on the wicked slandering the righteous would be in keeping with descriptions we have seen in earlier Psalms. In this regard, the verb rp^s* (“give account, recount”) here should probably be understood in the negative/pejorative sense of “telling tales” about someone.

I tentatively follow Dahood (II, p. 163) in vocalizing hta as ht)a) (direct object marker with 3ms suffix) instead of MT hTa^ (2ms pronoun); the combination rv#a& hta thus means “he who” or “the one who”. The parallelism of the lines would require that ;yl#l*j& involve a similar expression; this is achieved (again following Dahood) by reading a genitive form with an instrumental suffix (i.e., “by you”), viz. “(he) of your piercing”, i.e. “he whom you pierced”.

Verse 28 [27]

“Give crookedness upon their crookedness,
and (so) may they not come in(to) your righteousness.”

Here the Psalmist’s imprecation (beginning in v. 23, cf. above) reaches its harshest point. The first line is a bit difficult to translate. The noun /ou* literally means “crookedness,” indicating a state of being crooked, twisted, perverse, often specifically in an ethical-religious sense. The Psalmist asks God to put (lit. give) further “crookedness” upon the wicked who are already “crooked”. The second line makes clear that this is to be understood in the literal sense of taking a twisted path. The wicked already walk in a twisted/crooked way, but the Psalmist, by his request, wants to ensure that they are unable to find their way into God’s “righteousness”. By this, probably, is meant the way into His righteous dwelling-place (i.e., His blessed abode in Heaven). If verse 26 implies the death of the wicked, here we seem to have the idea of a more permanent perishing, with the wicked unable to have any life after death. This is confirmed by what follows in verse 29.

Verse 29 [28]

“May they be rubbed (out) from (the) account of (the) living,
and with (the) righteous let them not be written!”

The idiom of a “(written) account” (i.e. book or scroll) of the “living” is traditional, referring to an account that God keeps, specifically recording those who are righteous, and thus have a deserving place in the blessed afterlife (cf. Exod 32:32-33; Psalm 56:8; 139:16; Dan 12:1; Phil 4:3; Rev 3:5, etc). The Psalmist asks that his wicked adversaries be “rubbed (out)” (vb hj*m*) from this book. Christians today doubtless will find this sort of imprecatory language and thinking disturbing, but it is very much a part of the ancient Near Eastern worldview.

Possibly there is a bit of wordplay here between the noun rp#s@ (“account”) and the related verb rp^s* in v. 27 (cf. above). By ‘telling tales” and giving slanderous accounts of the Psalmist’s suffering, the wicked will end up being blotted out of the account (i.e. book) of life.

Verse 30 [29]

“But I (am) oppressed and in anguish—
may your salvation, Mightiest, set me (up) high!”

The imprecation reached its climax in verse 29, and now the Psalmist returns to the main line of his prayer and petition, again lamenting his current condition. He is apparently experiencing genuine physical and emotional suffering, which has been exacerbated by the abuse of his opponents. The pronoun yn]a& (“I”) with the prefixed conjunction is emphatic and could be translated “But as for me, (I am)…”

Two terms are used to describe the protagonist’s condition. The first is the adjective yn]u* (“oppressed”), an adjective that occurs frequently in the Psalms (29 times, out of 73 OT occurrences). It characterizes the righteous—as people who tend to be poor and oppressed (spec. by the wicked). The second term is a verbal noun (participle), ba@oK, denoting a state of “being in anguish”; the use of a participle suggests that it refers to a present and continuing condition.

In the final line, the Psalmist closes his prayer with an expression of trust in YHWH, using the traditional motif, frequent in the Psalms, of God as a place of safety and protection for the righteous. This is the fundamental significance of the word hu*Wvy+ (“salvation”) here. The protagonist expects that God will answer his prayer, and will deliver him from his suffering, and, at the same time, will rescue him from the threats and abuse of his wicked adversaries. It is expected that YHWH will take him to a safe and protected place “up high” —that is the basic meaning of bg~c*, a relatively rare verb which occurs with some frequency in the Psalms (7 out of 20 OT occurrences).

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).
Those marked “Hossfeld-Zenger” are to Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51-100, translated from the German by Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia Commentary series (Fortress Press: 2005).

March 31: John 3:36

John 3:36

“The (one) trusting in the Son holds (the) life of the ages, but the (one) being without trust in the Son shall not see life—rather, the anger of God remains upon him.”

Verse 36 is the final verse of our passage (vv. 31-36), and marks the conclusion of the chapter 3 Discourse, as well as the end of chapters 1-3 as a division in the Gospel. As noted previously, vv. 31-36 have a summarizing function and character similar to that of 12:44-50. The verses summarize and recapitulate many of the key themes of chaps. 1-3. In particular, as noted, they reproduce the thematic sequence of the exposition by Jesus (vv. 11-21) in the Nicodemus Discourse. Verses 31-33 reprise the theme of Jesus as the one coming from heaven (vv. 12-13), while vv. 34-35 focus on Jesus as the Son sent by God the Father (vv. 16-17). Verse 36, in turn, emphasizes how trust in Jesus (as the Son) leads to eternal life for the believer, and (correspondingly) judgment for the unbeliever; this is the key theme of vv. 18-21, being already introduced in vv. 15-17.

The believer and unbeliever are each defined, grammatically, through the typical Johannine idiom, using an articular verbal noun (participle) as a substantive descriptor of the person. For the believer, this is o( pisteu/wn, “the (one) trusting” (cf. vv. 16, 18; 1:12, etc), while, for the unbeliever, it is o( a)peiqw=n, which essentially means “the (one) being without trust” (the a)– prefix is privative, indicating being without something). The contrast thus is trust (in Jesus) vs. being without trust, even though the two verbs used are different. pisteu/w does have the fundamental meaning “trust”; however, the second verb, a)peiqe/w, properly means “being without persuasion,” i.e., being unpersuaded (the root verb pei/qw meaning “persuade”). In the theological context of the Johannine Gospel, this means that the unbeliever is a person who is unpersuaded by the witness of who Jesus is, and thus is without trust in him.

The focus of this trust (or lack-of-trust) is Christological in nature—that is, it relates specifically to Jesus’ identity as the Divine/heavenly Son of God. The trust is explicitly “in the Son” —i.e., in Jesus as the Son of God. Grammatically, this is expressed two ways: first, by the prepositional expression ei)$ to\n ui(o/n (lit. “into/unto the Son”), and, second, through the dative case (without preposition), tw=| ui(w=|, “(in) the Son”. In the latter expression, the specific preposition e)n may be implied. Both modes of expression are common among early Christians, and can be found used in the Gospel of John; the expression with the preposition ei)$ is more typical, and is used earlier in vv. 16 and 18 (also in 1:12), but the expression with e)n also occurs (e.g., 20:31).

The virtually the same contrast occurred earlier in verse 18, except that the idea of unbelief is expressed there through the specific negation of trust (using the negative particle mh/):

    • “The (one) trusting [pisteu/wn] in him is not judged
    • but the (one) not trusting [mh\ pisteu/wn] already has been judged”

The contrasting fates of these persons is expressed in terms of being judged by God (with the end-time/afterlife Judgment principally in mind); while, here in v. 36, the focus is on a person having/experiencing eternal life:

    • “is not judged” = “holds eternal life”
    • “has already been judged” = “shall not see life”

In the Gospel of John, the word zwh/ (“life”) almost always refers to the Divine (i.e., eternal) Life possessed by God. Jesus (as the Son) holds this same Life, and is able to communicate it to believers, through the Spirit. The fundamental association between eternal life and the Spirit is only alluded to here (through the context of vv. 5-8 and 34f), but elsewhere in the Gospel it is made more explicit, such as in 4:14ff (cp. 7:38-39) and 6:63. Both of these references will be discussed in upcoming notes in this series. From the Johannine standpoint, one “holds” (vb e&xw) eternal life through holding the Spirit within—the signification being essentially the same. I regard this as a fundamental principle of Johannine spiritualism, which will be further established as we continue in our study.

March 7: Psalm 68:5-7

Strophe 2: Psalm 68:5-7 [4-6]

The first strophe was examined in the previous note; on the structure of Psalm 68, see the introductory study.

Verse 5 [4]

“Sing to (the) Mightiest,
make music (to) His name!
Raise a highway for (the) Rider of (the) Clouds!
<Be glad> in YH(WH)
and leap before His face!”

This verse is comprised of a pair of 2-beat (2+2) couplets with a longer 3-beat line in between: 2+2+3+2+2. The short couplets emphasize the need for all people—indeed, all of creation—to give praise to YHWH. The two verbs in the first couplet—ryv! (“sing”) and rm^z` (“make music”)—match the terms in the Psalm heading: ryv! (“song”) and romz+m! (denoting a musical composition). It is most appropriate, of course, for the Psalmist to worship God through music and song.

In the second couplet, it seems likely that the Masoretic text is corrupt. The MT of the first line reads omv= Hy`B= (“in/by YH[WH] His name” [?]), which does not make much sense. The reading omv= may have been influenced by the occurrence of the word in the first couplet. I have followed Kraus’ suggestion (p. 46) that wm? could be emended slightly to read Wjm=c! (“be glad, rejoice”); Dahood (II, p. 136) obtains a comparable result, by reading Wmc=, as an imperative of a theorized root <cy (“be pleasant”). In either case, we should assume an imperative form of a verb essentially meaning “rejoice, be glad”. This is both appropriate to the context, and establishes a formal parallelism between the two couplets:

    • Sing | to the Mightiest /
      make music | (to) His name
    • Be glad | in YHWH /
      leap for joy | before His face

The longer middle line provides the setting—and the reason—for giving praise to YHWH: He is “(the One) riding on the rain-clouds”. This descriptive title is known from Canaanite tradition, as an epithet of the storm-deity Baal-Haddu; however, such epithets and imagery are also used of El-YHWH in the Old Testament (cf. Deut 33:26; Psalm 18:10-13). The first term is a participle, bk@r), “(one) riding, rider,” in construct relationship with the plural noun tobr*u& (with prefixed preposition B=). Here Hebrew tbru should be taken as a variant spelling of tpru (“rain-clouds, storm-clouds”), being an example of the interchange of b and p in NW Semitic (cf. Dahood, II, p. 136).

YHWH is here described in the language of storm-theophany, such as we see frequently in early Hebrew poetry. In the ancient Near East, the deity’s control over the waters (and thus the rain) was especially important and was emphasized in religious tradition. That YHWH rides upon the clouds is a way of expressing the idea of His authority and power over the heavens (and the rain it brings). His control over the waters also reflects a cosmological principle—viz., the Creator’s subduing of the primeval waters, so as to bring life-sustaining order to the universe; cf. my earlier article on this subject.

The verb ll^s* specifically denotes raising a mound or a building up a pathway for travel; cf. the famous use of the related noun hL*s!m= in Isa 40:3. The context of YHWH as the heavenly ‘Cloud-Rider’ suggests that the pathway being raised (for God to travel on) is located in heaven (cf. the noun hL*s!m= in Judg 5:20). The underlying mythic-religious tradition surely involves the relationship between YHWH and the divine/heavenly beings under His command. However, the verb ll^s* can also be used in the more general religious sense of “lift up” —that is, to extol or exult God in praise. This is something that all beings—heavenly and human—are called on to do.

Verse 6 [5]

“A Father (for) orphans
and a Judge (for) widows
(is the) Mightiest in His holy dwelling-place.”

Not only does YHWH establish order in the cosmos, bringing beneficent rain from heaven, but He also establishes order (and justice) on earth for human beings. This theme of YHWH as Judge, making judgment on behalf of the righteous—including the poor and oppressed—occurs frequently in the Psalms. He does this from heaven, from the “dwelling-place” (/oum*) of His holiness. The construct phrase “dwelling-place of His holiness” can also be rendered “His holy dwelling-place”, which I have used above for poetic concision.

Verse 7 [6]

“(The) Mightiest settles
(those left) all alone in a house;
He brings out (those) bound in(to) prosperity,
while (the) rebellious (one)s
dwell in a scorched (land).”

The meter of this verse matches that of verse 5 (cf. above)—2+2+3+2+2, with a three-beat line sandwiched between a pair of 2-beat couplets. Again there is a parallelism between the couplets, playing on the idea of a dwelling-place (introduced in the last line of v. 6). The poor and oppressed are settled (vb bv^y`, Hiphil) by God in a comfortable home (lit. house, ty]B^). Here the lowliness and suffering of the righteous is expressed by the adjective dyj!y`, denoting being one, in the sense of being alone. The middle line expands upon this idea of solitary loneliness by introducing the image of people bound (root rsa) in prison; YHWH brings them out (vb ax^y`) of their confinement and isolation into a place/condition of prosperity.

The plural noun torv*oK occurs only here in the Old Testament, and its meaning is difficult to determine. Commentators have related it to cognate roots in Ugaritic (k¾r) and Akkadian (kaš¹ru), with the common meaning apparently being something like “be successful, fortunate, happy” (cf. Kraus, p. 46; Dahood, II, p. 137). The plural form here may have a collective/abstract meaning; I have rendered it loosely as “prosperity”.

By contrast, in the second couplet, the stubborn/rebellious ones (vb rr^s*)—i.e., the wicked—will not live in comfort under the blessing of God; instead, they are doomed to dwell in a “scorched” (hot, dry and parched) land. This may be an allusion to the historical tradition of the Exodus, where the rebellious people were not allowed to enter the land of Promise, but perished in the desert.

The third strophe will be discussed in the next daily note.

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).
Those marked “Kraus” are to Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalmen, 2. Teilband, Psalmen 60-150, 5th ed., Biblischer Kommentar series (Neukirchener Verlag: 1978); English translation in Psalms 60-150, A Continental Commentary (Fortress Press: 1993).

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 67

Psalm 67

Dead Sea MSS: 4QPsa (vv. 1-2, 4-8 [1, 3-7])

This short Psalm has a simple and appealing structure. A central hymn in verses 3-6 [2-5] is framed by a prayer-lyric at the opening (v. 2 [1]) and closing (vv. 7-8 [6-7]) of the Psalm. The closing lyric is similar, in a number of respects, to the opening, and thus functions in the manner of repeated refrain. The core hymn shares certain ideas and features in common with the prior Psalms 65 and 66. Most notably, the theme of the nations coming to praise the God of Israel, acknowledging His greatness and power, was prominent in Ps 65 (cf. the previous study).

Like the previous two Psalms (cf. also Pss 30, 45-46, 48), this Psalm is designated both a musical composition (romz+m!) and a “song” (ryv!). As I have noted, since virtually every Psalm could be called a “song”, it is not entirely clear precisely what (if anything) is distinctive in the use of the term ryv!. It has been suggested that it refers to a Psalm that was specifically sung in a ritual worship setting (in the Temple); if so, then the characterization of such Psalms as a religious hymns would be appropriate. This Psalm is also directed to be performed on stringed instruments (tonyg]n+), as also in the headings of Pss 4, 6, 54-55, 61 (and 76).

Psalm 67 also has the distinction of being one of the Psalms most completely preserved in the Qumran scrolls. This is due to the brevity of the Psalm, and the happy coincidence that the bulk of it is contained within the surviving fragments of 4QPsa.

Metrically, the Psalm follows a 3-beat (3+3) couplet format, with only a couple of exceptions (noted below).

Verse 2 [1]

“Mightiest, show favor to us and bless us,
make your face to shine (and) come upon us!”
Selah

The opening verse is a prayer-couplet, introducing the hymn proper, calling upon God (YHWH) to bless His people—i.e., the Psalmist and the other righteous/faithful ones of Israel. Four verbs are used, two in each line, three jussives along with one (precative) perfect form (cp. on verses 7-8 below):

    • Line 1:
      (a) /n~j* (“show favor”); (b) Er^B* (“bless”)
    • Line 2:
      (a) roa (Hiphil, “make shine); (b) ht*a* (“come”)

I follow Dahood (II, p. 127) in reading wnta as Wnt*a* (“come [upon] us”), rather than MT WnT*a! (“with/to us”). As indicated above, it would then be understood as a perfect form of the verb ht*a* (“come”), cf. Job 3:25; it is read as a precative perfect, to match the three prior jussive forms. The shining of God’s face is parallel to the idea of “showing favor”, while God blessing His people is explained in terms of His presence (and nearness), “coming” upon them.

The use of the term <yh!l)a$ (“Mightiest,” Elohim, i.e. ‘God’) in place of the Divine name hwhy (YHWH), marks this as another ‘Elohist’ Psalm.

Verses 3-4 [2-3]

“For (the) knowing in all (the) earth your path,
(and) in all (the) nations your saving help,
may the peoples throw you (praise), Mightiest,
let the peoples throw you (praise), all of them!”

These two matching couplets, which open the hymn proper, can be viewed grammatically as a single statement. The first couplet (v. 3) describes the nations of the earth coming to know (vb ud^y`) and recognize YHWH, both in terms of His “way” (Er#D#) and the saving help (hu*Wvy+) that He gives to His people. Here the word Er#D# (lit. indicating a trodden path) should be understood in the sense of God’s dominion over the earth. The setting of the foot (of the ruler) on his territory marks it as belonging to him, and under his ruling authority. For the theme of the nations witnessing the great deeds done by YHWH on behalf of His people (Israel), cf. the previous studies on Pss 65 and 66.

The second couplet (v. 4) twice calls upon all the peoples (<yM!u^) to give (lit. throw/cast, hd*y`) praise to YHWH. In the context of the first couplet, it is clear that this praise is in response to a recognition of YHWH’s sovereign power over the world, and of the mighty acts of salvation performed by Him (such as the great Exodus event at the Reed Sea, cf. Ps 66:6).

Verse 5 [4]

“May they be glad and cry (for joy), (the) nations,
for you judge (the) peoples (in) a level (place),
and (the) nations, you shall lead them in(to) the land.”
Selah

This verse is a 3-beat (3+3+3) tricolon, thus departing slightly (for dramatic effect) from the metrical pattern. Even in translation, the chiasm of the verse is rather obvious:

    • May…the nations [<yM!a%l=]
      • you judge the peoples [<yM!a^]
    • and the nations [<yM!a%l=]…

It is possible to parse the chiasm even more finely (cf. Dahood, II, p. 128):

    • May be glad and cry (out)
      (the) nations
      • for you shall judge /
      • (the) peoples (in) straightness
    • and (the) nations
      you shall lead into the land

The plural <yM!a%l= is more or less synonymous with <yM!u^ (“peoples”); however, to preserve the distinction here in v. 5 I have rendered the former as “nations” (like <y]oG in v. 3). A more literal translation might be “communities” or “assemblies” (i.e., assembled peoples).

There is likely a bit of wordplay at work in the second and third lines. The noun rovm! can be translated “straightness” (i.e., fairness, with justice), but it literally denotes a “level place”; thus, it could refer to the place where the judgment occurs, where the nations are gathered together—in other words, a depiction of the afterlife (or eschatological) judgment.

In the third line, the juxtaposition of Jr#a*B* (“in the earth/land”) with the verb hj*n` (“lead, guide”) can be understood two ways. First, the idea could be that YHWH, exercising His sovereign control over the world, will guide all of the nations on the earth, in a general way. Alternately, following upon the motif of the great Judgment (cf. above), the specific sense could be that God will lead the nations (the righteous ones) into the ‘land of the living,’ —that is, into the blessed/heavenly afterlife, along with the righteous of Israel.

Verse 6 [5]

“May the peoples throw you (praise), Mightiest,
let the peoples throw you (praise), all of them!”

Verse 6 repeats the couplet in v. 4 (cf. above), like a recurring refrain to the hymn.

Verses 7-8 [6-7]

“May the land give (forth) her produce,
may (the) Mightiest, our Mighty (One), bless us!
May (the) Mightiest bless us,
and may they fear Him,
all (the) ends of (the) earth!”

Verse 7 essentially matches verse 2, thus forming a frame for the hymn in vv. 3-6. It is a prayer asking YHWH to bless His people (and their land). The idea of material blessing, of output/produce (lWby+) from the land (Jr#a#), certainly is in mind (cp. 65:10-14, with the focus on God providing rain from heaven to make fertile the land). However, the possibility that Jr#a# in verse 5 was alluding to the blessed afterlife (i.e., the ‘land of the living’), could mean that the fertility of the land here should be understood in a similar sense.

In verse 8, a two-beat (2+2+2) tricolon is added to the couplet in v. 7, as a coda that brings the Psalm to a close. The two key themes of the Psalm are brought together: (1) a prayer for God’s blessing (line 1), and (2) the idea that the other nations would come to revere YHWH (as the one true God) along with Israel (lines 2-3). The meaning of Jr#a#, as I have translated it, shifts from the “land” (v. 7) to the cosmic/universal sense of “(the) earth” at the end of v. 8.

It is worth noting that, in the first line of v. 8, the Qumran manuscript 4QPsa has “May they [i.e. the nations] bless you, Mightiest,” rather than MT “May the Mightiest bless us.” The entire closing verse then would refer to the theme in the hymn (vv. 3-6), of the nations coming to worship YHWH:

“May they bless you, Mightiest,
and may they fear you [?],
all (the) ends of (the) earth!”

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).

January 4: Isaiah 9:3-4

Isaiah 9:3-4 [4-5]
Verse 3 [4]

“For (the) yoke of his carrying,
and (the) pole of his shoulder—
(the) rod of (the one) pressing on him—
you have broken, as (on the) day of Midyan!”

Again we have a pair of 3+3 couplets (cf. the previous note on vv. 1-2 [2-3]), though the rhythm is, in actuality, slightly irregular. The first three lines involve construct phrases, the first two of which are in synonymous parallelism:

    • “the yoke of his carrying” (olB=s% lu))
      “the pole of his shoulder” (omk=c! hF#m^)

The image is the same: that of a yoked animal serving as a beast of burden. The lu) (used also in 10:27; cf. 14:25) denotes the thrusting of the (animal’s) head into the yoke, while the hF@m^ (also in 10:24) refers to the extended pole, or bar, that rests upon the neck and shoulder. The root lbs denotes the carrying or dragging of a weight (i.e., load or burden). Human beings are being forced to act like beasts of burden, referring to a harsh and wearisome condition of servile labor. The construct phrase in the third line builds upon (and further expounds) this image:

    • “the rod of the one pressing [on him]” (cg@N)h^ fb#v@)

The rod or staff (fb#v@, also in 10:24) represents both the ruling (superior) position of the oppressor and the instrument used to oppress the slave. The verb cg~n` essentially refers to the pressing/driving of someone to do work; it can be used in the concrete sense (as here) of forcefully driving an animal (or human slave), or with the more generic meaning of making demands on someone.

The final like declares the dramatic reversal of this situation:

“…you have broken, as (on the) day of Midian!”

The allusion is presumably to the historical traditions narrated in Judges 6-7, and, if so, then the idea would doubtless be of an unexpected victory over a superior force, made possible through the power of YHWH. Indeed, God will have “broken” (tt^j*, Hiphil causative stem) the foreign oppression over Israel, as He did in the Exodus, and as described in the accounts of deliverance in the book of Judges.

The perfect tense here, as throughout verses 1-4, is an example of the prophetic perfect—i.e., events that will occur in the future (being prophesied) referred to as things that have already happened.

Verse 4 [5]

“For every shoe stomping with a quake,
and (every) garment rolled with blood,
indeed shall be for burning,
(for) being eaten up by fire.”

A 3-beat couplet is followed by a short/terse 2-beat (2+2) couplet. The overall imagery alludes to a military victory over Israel’s foreign oppressor.

In the first two lines, the reference is to the foot-gear and clothing of soldiers. Both parts of the cognate noun-verb pair (/oas=, and participle /a@s)) occur only here in the Old Testament, and likely are Assyrian (or Babylonian) loanwords (Akkadian š¢nu, “shoe, sandal”). This may well be intentional, given the context of the Assyrian conquest of the Israelite Northern Kingdom (cf. the prior note on 8:23 [9:1]). It is almost impossible to translate literally the cognate relationship between noun and verb; the verb is denominative from the noun (“shoe”), and thus would mean something like “use the shoe” or “shoe along” (i.e., step, stomp, tread). Since the feet of the soldiers are ‘stomping’ on the ground enough to make the ground “quake” (noun vu^r^), a large military force is implied.

That this force has been (i.e., will be) defeated, is indicated by the second line, with the image of clothing (singular [collective] noun, hl*m=c!) that is “rolled” (vb ll^G`) in blood. The plural form <ym!D* (lit. “bloods”) almost always refers to acts of bloodshed—that is, killing or violent action taken against someone. With the army of the foreign oppressor defeated, and (presumably) many of the soldiers dead, their shoes and garments will be used as fuel for the fire—which is the image in the final two lines.

We can see that the joy that will come to the oppressed Israelite people (vv. 1-2) will be, in large measure, due to the military defeat of their oppressors, which will thus result in deliverance for the people. The defeat of the oppressing nation could come from the action of another foreign nation; however, what follows in vv. 5-6 strongly indicates that it will be the Judean kingdom, led by God’s chosen ruler, which brings about the deliverance and restoration of Israel. This will be discussed in the next note.

 

December 27: Isaiah 7:18-25

Isaiah 7:18-25

These verses contain prophetic sayings of judgment against the kingdom of Israel, each beginning with “(and it shall be) on that day…”. It is possible that they were originally uttered in a separate context, only later being connected with the oracles in 7:1-17 (and 8:1-4). While they fit the overall message of judgment, against Aram-Damascus and the Northern Kingdom, the closing words of v. 17 (cf. the previous note) give these sayings a greater sense of immediacy. The reference to the “king of Assyria” provides the literary impetus for the prophetic sayings in vv. 18-25.

Probably these sayings originally were directed against the Northern Kingdom, but they would also have applied as a warning to the Southern Kingdom. And, indeed, in the wider context of chapters 2-39, they could function as a prophecy of the devastating invasion of Judah by Sennacherib at the end of the 8th century.

Saying #1 (vv. 18-19)

“And it shall be, on that day, (that) YHWH shall whistle, to the fly that is on (the) edge of (the) streams of Egypt, and to the bee that is in (the) land of Aššûr {Assyria}, and they shall come and shall rest, all of them, in (the) wadis of the steep (rock)s, and in (the) holes of the cliffs, and in all the thorn-bushes, and in all the (place)s one leads (flocks to drink).”

The basic meaning of this colorful imagery is clear enough. The Assyrians, along with the Egyptians, will invade the land like a swarm of flies and bees, and will take their place in every part of the land (no matter how small or remote). The image of a swarm of angry, stinging bees is appropriate for depicting an invading army (cf. Deut 1:44; Psalm 118:2). Flies are more of a nuisance, and here they presumably allude to Egypt’s status as a subordinate (ally) to Assyria. The historical reference may be to the pro-Assyrian position of the Nubian Pharaoh Shabako (c. 716-702), or to Shebiktu (c. 702-690) as an unreliable ally (a “broken reed”, 36:6) for Judah against the Assyrian threat; cf. Blenkinsopp, p. 236. There is some evidence that the Nubians had ties with Assyria even earlier (c. 732-720), even to the point of sending troops to aid Sargon in his siege of Gaza (cf. Roberts, p. 126).

Saying #2 (v. 20)

“On that day, my Lord shall shave with a razor th(at is) hired—(done) by (those) beyond (the) River, by (the) king of Aššûr—the head and (the) hair of the feet [i.e. genitals], and also the aged (beard) it shall sweep (away)!”

This second saying utilizes the motif of a person being shaved (lit. made bald/bare) with a razor. It is again used to depict  the military action of the king of Assyria, and the Assyrians from the northeast (“over [the Euphrates] River”). The victim—i.e., the kingdom of Israel (and/or Judah)—will be shaved completely, including (most shamefully) his pubic hair (lit. hair of the ‘feet’). Even the long beards of the distinguished elders will be “swept away” (vb hp*s*), in a complete and destructive manner.

Saying #3 (vv. 21-22)

“And it shall be, on that day, (that) a man shall keep alive a young calf of (the) cattle; and it shall be (that) from (the) abundance of (her) making milk he shall eat butter-milk—for butter-milk and syrup (is what) every (one) left over in (the) midst of the land shall eat.”

The reference to “butter-milk [ha*m=j#] and syrup [vb^D=]” echoes the oracle in verses 10-17 (v. 15, cf. the previous note). And, as in the prior verse, there is a certain ambiguity in the reference. Is it a promise that the ‘remnant’ in the land will have blessing, eating rich food? Or, is it here a reference to the pathetic condition of the land, such that the survivors will have to subsist on the food given to newly-weaned infants? Almost certainly, the latter sense is intended, confirmed (it would seem) from the imagery in verse 20, where a man is able to keep alive only a young calf from the cattle, and will have to survive by eating whatever milk-product she is able to produce.

Saying #4 (vv. 23-25)

“And it shall be, on that day, (that) every standing-place, in which were there a thousand vines (valued) at a thousand (pieces of) silver, it shall be (a place) for thorn(s), and (even) for weed(s) it shall be. With arrows and with bows (men) shall come here, for all the shall shall come to be thorn(s) and weed(s). And on all the hills that were dug with the hoe, you shall not come there, (for) fear of (the) thorn(s) and weed(s), and it shall be (a place) for sending oxen and for (the) treading of cattle.”

The wording of this saying is rather awkward, repetitive, and less colorful, but the imagery is quite clear. As a result of the Assyrian military invasion (spec. the bowmen), the entire land will be turned into a wilderness, a rough pasture-land overgrown with weeds and thornbushes.

References above marked “Roberts” are to J. J. M. Roberts, First Isaiah, Hermeneia (Fortress Press: 2015).
Those marked “Blenkinsopp” are to Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1-39, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 19 (Yale University Press: 2000).

December 22: Isaiah 6:9-13

In the previous notes (1, 2, 3), we examined verses 1-8 exegetically, deriving the critical analysis through a verse-by-verse study. This week, while continuing through the remaining verses (9-13), we will also take the additional step of considering some of the wider theological issues that arise in the interpretation of this passage, and how it has been applied subsequently by Christians within the context of their own life-setting (cf. the supplemental note on this topic).

Isaiah 6:9-10

“And He said, ‘Go, and your shall say to this people:
Hearing, you must hear,
and (yet) you shall not discern;
seeing, you must see,
and (yet) you shall not know!
Make fat the heart of this people,
make heavy its ears and smear over its eyes,
so that it should not see with its eyes,
and with its ears hear, and with its heart discern,
and then turn, and there be healing for it!'”

Verses 1-8 establish the setting for Isaiah’s prophetic mission, rooted in an authentic historical (and biographical) tradition, as was discussed in the previous notes. In verse 8, Isaiah dramatically volunteers for the mission, to serve as God’s spokesperson (ayb!n`, “prophet”) and deliver His message to the people. Now the nature of this mission (and message) is presented to him, in rather jarring and disturbing terms. There is a stronger poetic character to this portion of the vision, and I have rendered it (loosely) as poetry above.

In verse 9, YHWH gives to Isaiah the message that he is to give to the people. However, this does not represent the content (or words) of the message per se, but rather illustrates the intended effect of his prophetic speaking. It makes use of a peculiar Semitic idiom, in which the verb is doubled for effect, with an infinitive together with an indicative (or imperative) form. Here the syntactical pattern involves an imperative; we can see the dramatic, staccato effect of this syntax, by displaying the Hebrew in transliteration:

šim±û š¹môa±…
ûr°û r¹°ô…

In translating this syntax, I find it is easier in English to give the infinitive first: “hearing, you must hear…seeing, you must see…”. The thrust is emphatic—that is, to give special emphasis to the verbal action. Here the sense is perhaps best understood as a prolonging of the effect of Isaiah’s preaching, and/or that the effect will be thorough and complete. In conventional translation, this is commonly rendered, in corresponding English idiom, as “keep on hearing…keep on seeing…”. In general, this is correct. The people will keep hearing Isaiah’s message, and yet will not understand or discern the truth; they will keep seeing the signs around them, and yet will not know or be aware of what is happening (until it is too late).

Even more striking is the way that this is described in verse 10, where YHWH commands the prophet to dull the senses of the people, so that they will not turn and repent. The theological difficulties with this idea were recognized at an early point, as indicating by the softening and rephrasing of the language in the Greek version, changing the infinitives to finite verbs, and making the people the subject of the action (i.e., “the mind of this people was made fat…”); cf. Roberts, p. 90. This will be discussed further below. For the moment, it is necessary to render the Hebrew as literally as possible, as I have done above.

The two-fold image of eyes/ears (seeing/hearing) has been turned into a three-fold image (eyes/ears/heart), folding in the separate idea of discernment/knowledge (= heart) from verse 9. For each sense-faculty, the prophet’s message involves the verbal action of covering it over. The three verbs are all imperatives in the (Hiphil) causative stem, clearly indicating that God, through the prophet, is causing this to happen:

    • “make fat” (/m@v=h^) the heart, i.e. cover it over with a layer of oil or fat
    • “make heavy” (dB@k=h^) the ears, i.e. weigh them down with a coating or covering
    • “smear over” (uv^h*) the eyes, i.e. with a coating so that the person cannot see clearly

The purpose of this is stated in the second half of verse 10, marked by the adverbial conjunction /P#. Its use negates a situation, often in the sense of something that is to be avoided, removing it from consideration. In English, such phrases are customarily translated as “lest…”, but this wording is rather archaic, and it is probably better to preserve more clearly the negative sense, which I do above (“so that…not…”):

“so that it [i.e. the people] should not see with its eyes,” etc.

What a strange mission for the prophet—to ensure that God’s people do not see or understand the truth! However, YHWH clearly tells Isaiah this is so that the people will not turn and receive healing (“and there will be healing for it”). The verb bWv literally means “turn”, often in the sense of “turn back, return”, used frequently in a moral-religious context, of people “turning back” to God. This wider application, especially when extended to include the idea of eternal salvation, makes the Christian use of vv. 9-10 genuinely problematic. Here it must be understood in the more limited (historical) context of the impending Assyrian invasion(s) of Israel and Judah.

Isaiah 6:11-12

“And I said, ‘Until what (time), my Lord?’ And He said, ‘Until such (time) when cities have crashed (into ruins) with no one sitting [i.e. dwelling] (in them), and houses with no man (in them), and the ground [i.e. land] is left a (complete) devastation—and (until) YHWH (remove)s the men far away, and th(is) abandonment increases in the midst of the land!'”

Understandably disturbed by the mission God has given him, Isaiah wants to know how long (“until what [time]”) his speaking will have this negative effect. YHWH’s response (“until such [time] when…”) could not be more bleak, indicating that the prophet must continue his mission until cites have been destroyed, houses abandoned, and the land throughout has been completely devastated. This properly describes the effect of military conquest, and refers specifically to the invasion of Israel and Judah by the powerful Assyrian Empire (multiple campaigns between 733 and 701 B.C.). The northern Israelite kingdom (centered at Samaria) was conquered by Shalmaneser V in 722, and the southern Judean kingdom was devastated (and very nearly conquered) by Sennacherib some 20 years later. The exile of the people is prophesied in verse 12, emphasizing the extent of it in two ways:

    • wideness/distance from the land—i.e. the people being removed far away
    • and increase of abandonment within the land—i.e. there will hardly be anyone left in it (v. 11)

Though the Assyrians are the proximate cause of this devastation, it is YHWH who brings it about (and is the ultimate cause), as v. 12 clearly indicates.

Isaiah 6:13

“‘And (if) there is yet in it a tenth, it shall even turn (back) and shall be for (the) consuming (of it). Like the elah-tree and like the oak tree, which, in (its) being sent [i.e. cut] (down), (there is a portion) in them (that remains) standing, (and) its (portion that remains) standing (is the) holy seed.'”

The textual difficulties in this concluding verse are considerable, and cannot be dealt with in detail here. Many commentators feel that the text is corrupt, and, if so, it is practically impossible to retrieve/restore the original. The Qumran manuscripts and the versions offer little help, except to confirm the difficulty of the verse. The problems may have arisen from early scribal attempts to cast the verse in a more positive light, emphasizing an ultimate promise of hope in the midst of the devastation that was prophesied. For the purposes of this study, I have worked from the Masoretic text, without emendation.

With regard to the tree-illustration, the key term is tb#X#m^, which refers to something that “remains standing (in place)” (vb bx^n`). The idea is that nearly the entire tree has been “sent (down)”, i.e. cut down, felled; and yet there is the stump, a small portion that remains standing. This portion is called “the holy seed” (the Qumran Isaiah scroll [1QIsaa] includes the definite article), by which is probably meant the basis, or foundation, from which the restoration of the land (and its people) can begin. In the context of the Assyrian invasion of Judah, this may refer specifically to the city of Jerusalem, which survived a siege and was not conquered, while many of the surrounding cities were. To the extent that the Isaian context was applied to the later situation of the Babylonian invasion (and exile), this promise of restoration, centered at Jerusalem, would have taken on special significance, eventually carrying Messianic and eschatological overtones (cf. chapters 2-4, 11-12).

References above marked “Roberts” are to J. J. M. Roberts, First Isaiah, Hermeneia Commentary series (Fortress Press: 2015).

The Christian Use of Isaiah 6 (vv. 9-13)

Christian Application of Isa 6:9-13

For many Christians, and readers of the New Testament, verses 9-13 (esp. vv. 9-10) are familiar from their use in the Gospels and by the early Christian missionaries (such as Paul). This provides an interesting example of how Old Testament passages can be taken out of their original context, and applied to a new setting and situation. For commentators who wish to affirm both a single (primarily/original) meaning to the Old Testament prophecies, and the inspiration of the New Testament authors/speakers, it is necessary to posit something like an “inspired application”, which, though secondary, carries its own inspired meaning and truth.

Jesus himself made use of vv. 9-10, citing them, according to the Synoptic tradition, as part of an explanation for why he taught and preached using parables. We tend to think of the parables as illustrations which help the average person to understand what Jesus is saying; however, according to Mark 4:10-12 par, Jesus’ intention is the opposite. He is communicating the “secret” of the Kingdom of God, but this “secret” is being revealed only to his close followers. For others, the truth of the Kingdom remains hidden, and parables serve to conceal the truth from the people at large. It is in this context that Isa 6:9-10 is cited. The Greek wording (in Mark) differs from both the Hebrew MT and the Greek LXX, especially in its use of the verb a)fi/hmi (“release, let [go] from”), with its connotation of forgiveness from sin: “…so they should not (at any time) turn back and it be released for them” (the parallel in Matt 13:14-15 is closer to the LXX). If forgiveness from sin is meant here, then it gives to vv. 9-10 an application toward the idea of eternal salvation that is rather troubling, in light of God’s active role (in the original prophetic message) in keeping people from recognizing the truth.

The Gospel of John does seem to take things a step further, in this direction, when the author (and/or his underlying tradition) cites vv. 9-10 in 12:39-41, using the prophecy as a way of explaining why many Jews at the time were not able to trust in Jesus. In the Johannine writings, the verb pisteu/w (“trust”) tends to be used in the specific sense of the trust in Jesus (as the Messiah and Son of God) that marks the true believer, and one who possesses eternal life. Thus, to say that these people were not able to trust means that they were not (and could not be) true believers destined for salvation and eternal life.

In the closing scene in the book of Acts (28:23-28), as Paul speaks with Jews in Rome, he also cites Isa 6:9-10 (vv. 26-27), similarly, as an explanation for why many of these Jews were unable/unwilling to believe (lit. were “without trust”, v. 24f). The closing words in v. 28, pitting the trusting Gentiles against unbelieving Jews, may seem disturbing to our modern-day sensibilities, but they reflect the historical situation faced by Paul and other missionaries at the time. He deals with the Jew/Gentile problem—i.e. why many Gentiles trust in Jesus while many Jews do not—more comprehensively in his letter to the Romans (esp. chapters 9-11).

What is common in all these passages, in relation to Isa 6:9-13, is the idea that God is specifically acting so that many people do not (and cannot) see or recognize the truth. This seems to go squarely against how we tend to think about God—that he wants everyone to understand and accept the truth, and any failure to do so is our responsibility, not God’s. In balancing the sense of the control human beings have over their own destinies, with the extent to which they are controlled by God (or the deities, in a polytheistic setting), the ancient peoples tended to emphasize God’s ultimate (and sovereign) control, whereas modern (Western) society, by contrast, stresses individual human control and responsibility.

Why does God not want His people to see/understand the truth and turn back to Him (in repentance, etc)? To answer this, we must keep close to the original historical context of Isa 6:9-13. Isaiah’s mission in chap. 6ff is to announce the judgment that is coming on the people of Israel and Judah, in the form, primarily, of the Assyrian military invasion(s). If the people realized the nature of this judgment, and its imminence, they might well repent, and this would prompt YHWH to curtail the just punishment that the people deserved for their sins and crimes. Instead, in order for the full punishment to be meted out, and for the judgment to be realized in full, the people are prevented from realizing (or accepting) what is happening to them, until it is too late.

This is comparable in some ways to the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in the Exodus narratives. By hardening Pharaoh’s heart (Exod 4:21; 7:3; 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 8, 17), God brings about the full punishment upon Egypt, the completion of all the “plagues”, including the last and greatest (death of the firstborn). This, of course, does not remove the guilt or responsibility of Pharaoh—there is a sense in which he hardens his own heart (Exod 8:11, 28; 9:34; cf. also 7:13-14; 8:15; 9:7, 35; Roberts, p. 102 note)—but ultimately it is God (YHWH) who brings this about. The point is that God’s action (here through the prophet Isaiah) allows for the full judgment/punishment of the people to be realized. Only after this punishment has taken effect—through conquest, destruction, and exile—can the restoration of the people occur (v. 13).

References above marked “Roberts” are to J. J. M. Roberts, First Isaiah, Hermeneia Commentary series (Fortress Press: 2015).