Category: Ketuvim
The use of psalms in the Book of Acts.
I want to do a study on how psalms are used in the Book of Acts. Does anyone have any books, sections of books, or articles to recommend on the topic?
Annihilation and resurrection in Psalm 1 of the LXX.
Yesterday I shared some comments on Psalm 1 (see “Psalm 1: comments and grammar chart”). In that post I mentioned that it seemed like the Septuagint (LXX) rendering of 1.5a could have easily been interpreted by early Christian exegetes as a reference to resurrection. As passages like Luke 24.25-27 and John 5.39 state, many early Christians believed that Jesus had taught his disciples to read Scripture seeking to know more about him. If you read the Gospels or the Pauline Epistles you will have many opportunities to see this in action. So it in an interesting exercise to ask what passages might have influenced early Christian doctrine. I think Psalm 1.4b-5a if one of those passages.
In 1.4b the LXX says of the wicked, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ὡς ὁ χνοῦς, ὃν ἐκριπτεῖ ὁ ἄνεμος ἀπὸ προσώπου τῆς γῆς. The LXX adds word that we do not find in the MT, “…from the face of the earth (ἀπὸ προσώπου τῆς γῆς).” So the wicked are like chaff blown away by the wind (as the MT says as well) from the face of the earth (which goes beyond the MT).
This last statement adds emphasis to the judgment. I don’t know if Christians would have seen this as an annihilation of sorts. As I mentioned yesterday the following verse (v. 5a) reads, διὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἀναστήσονται ἀσεβεῖς ἐν κρίσει. The wicked will not “rise up” in the judgment. This word ἀναστήσονται from ἀνίστημι was used by early Christians to depict Jesus’ resurrection. In conjunction 1.4b-5a could have easily been read to say that the wicked are destroyed, removed from the face of the earth, and at the judgment they will not experience “resurrection.”
J.K. Gayle shared some thoughts on this subject as well. See “Interpretive Spins in the Ψαλμοὶ: the first twists.”
Psalm 1: comments and grammar chart
Psalm 1 introduces the Psalter as Torah. We are to read and meditate upon the Psalms.
In this Psalm there is a juxtaposition of two types of people: the righteous and the wicked. In v.1 we are told that the righteous one is “blessed” or “happy” (אַ֥שְֽׁרֵי) if they do not “walk in the counsel of the wicked (1.1b);” “stand in the path of sinners (1.1c);” or “sit in the seat of scoffers (1.1d).” Through parallelism we learn that the wicked, sinners, and scoffers are essentially the same type of person
It is important to realize what the psalmist does with these images. While the righteous avoid the counsel, way, and seat of the wicked it is the wicked who will be forbidden from “arising” (לֹא־יָקֻ֣מוּ) at the judgement, sitting in the congregation of the righteous, or participating in the way of the righteous.
Righteous avoid/wicked are forbidden:
- walking in the counsel of wicked (1.1b)
- standing in the “path” or “way” of sinners (1.1c)/wicked cannot “arise” at the judgement (1.5a)and the “way” (דֶּ֣רֶךְ) of the wicked is destruction (1.6b)
- sitting in the assembly (or seating place) of scoffers (1.1d)/sinners forbidden from assembly of the righteous (1.5b)
The righteous “delights” in the Torah of YHWH (1.2a). This is the starting point of differentiation. While it is true that this can refer to Torah as in the Books of Moses, it likely refers to the Psalter itself as well. It has been noted that the Psalms consist of five books (like Torah): 1-41; 42-72; 73-89; 90-106; 107-150. Each of these books ends with a doxology. Whoever arranged the Psalter was intention about creating a “musical Torah” if you will. So when Psalm 1.2 says that the blessed person “delights in the Torah of YHWH” and meditates on “his Torah…day and night” the Books of Moses are in view, but so is the Psalter that this psalm introduces.
Prior to the juxtaposition between the righteous and the wicked at the end of the psalm we find one of imagery in the middle. Since the righteous one delights in the Torah and meditates on it he becomes “like a tree (1.3a)” that is “planted by/upon streams of water (1.3b)” always producing its fruit in season (1.3c) and never experiencing a withering of its leaves (1.3d). It is as if the righteous one is a new “Tree of Life.” Everything that the righteous one does will prosper (an odd claim when we consider the psalms to come, 1.3e).
The “wicked are not so” in that they are compared to dried, dead “chaff” easily blown away by the wind (1.4) This preludes the statement in v. 6: YHWH knows the way of the righteous (hence, security), “but the way of the wicked will perish.”
The Septuagint has an interesting statement in v. 5a that makes me curious to how the early Christians would have read it. It says,οὐκ ἀναστήσονται ἀσεβεῖς ἐν κρίσει. This can be translated, “…the wicked will not arise in the judgement.” Interestingly enough ἀναστήσονται (ἀνίστημι) is the word uses for resurrection.
I have put together a grammatical flow chart to compare the MT and LXX if you are interested. That can be accessed here: LePort. Psalm 1. LXX.MT.Chart. Feedback is welcome.
Individual psalms in the Book of Psalms.
The Book of Psalms contains one hundred and fifty individual psalms. Each psalm has an individual message that morphs when read as part of a collection. What does reading the Book of Psalms teach us about reading Scripture in general?
In Interpreting the Psalms: An Exegetical Handbook (p. 57) Mark D. Furtado asks, “Are the psalms a random anthology of prayers and praises or an intentional collection with a clear purpose and unified message?”
I want to answer: both. I could sit down with Psalm 1, read it, and hear its message loud and clear without the other one hundred and forty-nine psalms. I would know that the blessed/happy person doesn’t do what the wicked do, but meditates on Torah receiving transformation from this practice. I would know that this immersion in Scripture stabilizes me “like a tree planted by streams of water (v. 3a, NIV)” while the wicked “…are like chaff that the wind blows away (v. 4a, NIV).” I would learn that YHWH watches over the righteous, but that the wicked do not have this protection.
As soon as I read Psalm 1 next to Psalm 2 the meaning doesn’t morph drastically, but the context changes a bit. I realize that part of being righteous rather than wicked is submitting to God’s chosen King, his Son, the ruler over the nations. Together the definition of the righteous and that of the wicked change. Yes, Torah matters, but Torah without obedience to God’s anointed one puts me back on the side of the wicked. I wouldn’t know this without the canonized message of the collection.
What does this mean for our reading of Scripture?
Is there a sense in which (like the psalms) we can read the Gospel of Matthew alone, then the Gospel of Mark alone, then the Gospels of Luke and John alone, but when we put them together we should anticipate a fuller, more complex message? I hear many speak of giving each book its own voice, paying attention to “authorial intent,” and the like. There are others who emphasize the message of these various works in the context of the canon. Does it need to be either-or?
Does reading the psalms both individually and together establish a model for how to read Scripture as a whole? If so, how? If not, why not?
The Book of Psalms (Les Livre des Psaumes) in French (1.1b)
A few days ago I began to “exegete” the Book of Psalms in various French translation (see 1.1a). Today I want to continue reading through Psalm 1:
LSG:
Heureux l’homme qui ne marche pas selon le conseil des méchants,
Qui ne s’arrête pas sur la voie des pécheurs,
Et qui ne s’assied pas en compagnie des moqueurs,
SG21:
Heureux l’homme qui ne suit pas le conseil des méchants,
qui ne s’arrête pas sur la voie des pécheurs
et ne s’assied pas en compagnie des moqueurs,
BDS:
Heureux l’homme qui ne marche pas selon les conseils des méchants,
qui ne va pas se tenir sur le chemin des pécheurs,
qui ne s’assied pas en compagnie des moqueurs.
BFC:
Heureux qui ne suit pas les conseils des gens sans foi ni loi,
qui ne s’arrête pas sur le chemin de ceux qui se détournent de Dieu,
et qui ne s’assied pas avec ceux qui se moquent de tout !
The older and newer Segond translations translate line two the same. This blessed one does not “stop” (s’arrête) on the “way” or “path” (voie) of the “sinners” (pécheurs). The BDS agrees with the use of pécheurs, but differs otherwise. It uses the va which I think is a “to be” and tenir which in this instance means something like “stand fast.” I found that line hard to translate. I am not sure why “chemin” was chosen over against “voie”. The BFC does the same thing, but unlike the BDS it agrees with the Segond translations using s’arrête. It is the end of the line where the BFC goes rouge: de ceux qui se détournent de Dieu = “…of those who turn/detour from God.”
As in line 1 where the BFC opted for des gens sans foi ni loi instead of des méchants so the BFC softens (or interprets) des pécheurs by saying qui se détournent de Dieu. So “sinners” are those who “turn from God.”
I will finish the verse in my next post on this subject.
The Book of Psalms (Les Livre des Psaumes) in French (1.1a).
I am desperate to find ways to integrate French into my studies. I did one semester of theological French and then sat on it. I don’t want what little I know to go to waste. Since I will be studying the Book of Psalms this summer I hope to read the Psalms in French. I invite anyone with any knowledge of the language to comment and interact with me. I need people to interact with me!
I imagine on of the best approaches will be to compare a few French translations at a time examining the differences and asking why this or that translation frames it as it does. For consistency sake I will look at (1) the traditional Luis Segond (LSG), (2) the Segond 21 or La Nouvelle Bible Segond (SG21/NBS), (3) Le Bible de Semeur (BDS), and (4) La Bible en français courant (BFC).
LSG:
Heureux l’homme qui ne marche pas selon le conseil des méchants,
Qui ne s’arrête pas sur la voie des pécheurs,
Et qui ne s’assied pas en compagnie des moqueurs,
SG21:
Heureux l’homme qui ne suit pas le conseil des méchants,
qui ne s’arrête pas sur la voie des pécheurs
et ne s’assied pas en compagnie des moqueurs,
BDS:
Heureux l’homme qui ne marche pas selon les conseils des méchants,
qui ne va pas se tenir sur le chemin des pécheurs,
qui ne s’assied pas en compagnie des moqueurs.
BFC:
Heureux qui ne suit pas les conseils des gens sans foi ni loi,
qui ne s’arrête pas sur le chemin de ceux qui se détournent de Dieu,
et qui ne s’assied pas avec ceux qui se moquent de tout !
All four translations open with Heureux, an adjective meaning “lucky, fortunate, happy.” It seems the word that has the closest association with the English “blessed” is sanctifie, but none of these translation use it. It seems that sanctifie would have more to do with something holy, so this nuance of blessedness is not appropriate.
The BFC is the one translation that moves away from the more gender specific l’homme (“the man”) to the generic qui (“who”). The LSG and BDS both describe the walking action as marche (with the negating ne…pas) while the SG21 and BFC (more recent translations) prefer suit. These two seem like synonyms, but I am curious as to why it seems the older translations used marche and the newer use suit.
The LSG/BDS divide against the SG21 and BFC in the use of selon. It seems the more modern translations find it superfluous. Only the BFC departs from the phrase le conseil des méchants opting for gens sans foi ni loi or “the council of lawless people” (it seems like a more literal translation would be “the council of people without faith/credence or law”). This interprets “the wicked” as “lawless people.”
In my next post I will continue examining 1.1.
Jesus and Psalm 22
The primary phrase shared between Jesus on the cross and Psalm 22 is “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me” (Psa 22:1; cf. Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34). I could see how Jesus had the whole psalm in mind during the event of the cross, since much of it is specifically connected with events that surround the cross. Knowing this makes me think that Jesus probably identified himself with the psalmist, seeing and experiencing at the same time both the troubles of that day and the strength, trust-, and praiseworthiness of the Lord. The traditional interpretation that the Father abandoned the Son would not be as strong here, since the psalm speaks of the ultimate nearness of the Lord (Psa 22:10-11, 19-21, 24). Bauckham sees the quoted words of Psalm 22:1 as Jesus’ experience on the cross, but recognizes that the entire psalm lends context to understanding the quotation (Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 255).
As with Bauckham (see Jesus and the God of Israel [2008]), I see Psalm 22 as Christologically rich. In John 19:28, Jesus’ admittance to being thirsty seems to be connected to Psalm 22:15. Like the psalm, the account of the crucifixion event in John 19 also has reference to the mother of the speaker. Psalm 22:6-8, 16, 18 are referred to very specifically in the New Testament as fulfilled by the cross experience. The first set (mocking) is seen in Matthew 27:39-44, Mark 15:29-32, and Luke 23:35. Verse 18 is found fulfilled in Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:24, and John 19:23-24. Further, we see a very human Jesus—one “taken from the womb” and “on [his] mother’s breast” (Psa 22:9)—who has to trust in the Lord as all human beings do. Lastly, we see in the Psalm—as we see in Jesus—someone who points others to the Lord and encourages them in their worship of God: “I will declare your name to my brothers and sisters . . . I will praise you” (22:22); “You who fear the Lord, praise him!” (22:23).
Other events near Emmaus (1 Macc. 3.40-4.15)
Once we were asked if this blog was named after the military battle between the Jewish forces led by Judas Maccabees and the armies of Antiochus Epiphanes as recorded in 1 Macc. 3.40-4.15 (see here).
Well, no, it is named after the story of the disciples encountering the resurrected Christ on the road to Emmaus where he taught them how to see him in Scripture (Lk. 24.13-45). That being said, the story from 1 Maccabees is an interesting one. It feels structured around the story of the armies led by Gideon against Midianites (Judges 6.1-7.25) and it references the exodus through the Red Sea where Pharoah was defeated (Ex. 13.17-14.31). All in all it is a good story, but I can’t find a way to apply it to the name of this blog in order to have a double reference. Unless somehow this blog has something to do with God providing victory in the face of insurmountably challenges, but I have never thought of it that way.
If the Book of Job were a drama and the Book of Jonah a parable
If the Book of Job were merely some form of ancient drama (i.e. there was no historical figure named Job who went through what the story tells us), and/or if the Book of Jonah were merely a parable with the prophet Jonah (a real historical person used as an icon) merely representing Israel’s incredulity toward their calling to spread the Abrahamic promises to the Gentiles, do you think this would change how you read and interpret these stories? In other words, do you need them to be grounded in actual events for the text to make the same impact on you or do you find the “moral of the story” is the same either way?
Holladay On How Protestants Should Read The Psalms
“I suggest that Protestants start reading the Psalms sequentially, that those who embark upon a reading of the psalms, listen to them christocentrically, watching Christ do battle with the enemies of God…this is analogous to the way the church fathers and the reformers read the Psalms, though I propose we do it quite systematically. I propose that we listen to them being recited by Jesus Christ.” (William Holladay: The Psalms Through Three-Thousand Years: Prayerbook of a Cloud of Witnesses)
As we were discussing the Psalms last night in class. My professor put this quote on the board to illustrate that a christocentric reading of the Psalms was typical of the church fathers. Then to drive home his point he stated “and if you don’t put much stock in the church fathers then maybe you will put a little more in the New Testament authors. Because that is how they read it as well.”
Personal Perspectives On Psalms
My Genesis through Song of Solomon class has been working through thePsalms for the past two weeks. Through our class discussions I am beginning to believe that there may be more personal perspectives on the content and usage of the Psalms than any other Biblical book. As I was sitting in class on Monday night, I started to wonder what the readers on Near Emmaus thought of the Psalms? How do you use them in your personal life? And what perspective do you take to the Psalter when you read it?
In class we have been exploring the messianic aspects of the Psalms, which some people in the class oddly seem to have a hard time accepting. I have found it very illuminating personally.
In my devotional life I have been keeping the Daily Offices as much as I can. This combined with my occasional attendance at an Anglican church for Sunday Worship, has exposed me to the importance of the Psalms for worship, and as a model for my prayers to God. Overall I am simply amazed at the depth, rawness, and beauty found in the Psalms.
What lament Psalms taught me.
There was a time in college when I read a lot of apologetics. It seems that the best way to counter people’s accusations against God was to develop logical responses that defend God. I have repented of this mentality.
God doesn’t need me to be his lawyer.
As I read through the Book of Psalms one year those classified as “lament” Psalms smacked me in the face. The holy Scriptures contained accusatory songs against God? Yes, yes they do.
As many of us watch the news regarding the devastation in Japan we ask ourselves why God allowed this to happen. Some of us will be tempted to formulate apologies for God for our friends and family. Don’t.
As the world mourns together during these types of events it seems to me that if there is anything God invites us to do it would be to look heavenward, hands open, eyes discouraged, tongue waving with a heart of faith. A heart of faith does not look like the cold theology of some Christians that think this is the time to rehearse the ending of the Book of Job. No, it looks like those Psalms where the author asks, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?!!!”
Yes, the type of Psalm that we find on the lips of Jesus during his crucifixion.
“My God, my God, why did you forsake Japan? Do not the Scriptures say that you created the boarder over which the ocean cannot pass? Were you not paying attention? Why did this happen?”
I doubt this intimates God. God does not want us defending him. God wants us in dialog with him. Yes, even angry, confused, disheartened dialog.
So pray that angry prayer asking why God has allowed this to happen to Japan. There will be time for theological reflection later. We need to let our mind rest and our heart shout. I think this is what God would expect from us.
__________
My friend Rob Johnson has put his artistic skills to use for Japan. He is giving 100% of proceeds to the relief efforts. See his work here.
God tramples down the waves of the sea: Job 9.8-11 and Mark 6.47
In the aforementioned lecture by Richard Hays he makes an intertextual connection that I would have not noticed. In Mk. 6.45-56 we have the story of Jesus walking on the Sea. In v. 48 there is a semi-cryptic statement that Hays says has perplexed scholars. It says of Jesus as he walked by his disciples who were struggling with the storm that, “He was about to pass them by.”
Why was Jesus about to pass them? Why mention this?
In Job 9.8 God is described as the one “Who alone stretches out the heavens and tramples the waves of the sea”. It says a few more things about God and then in v. 11, “Were he to pass me, I would not see him; Were he to move past me, I would not perceive him.”
Hays connects the LXX rendering of v. 11b ἐὰν παρέλθῃ με οὐδ’ ὧς ἔγνων with the language of Mk. 6.48c καὶ ἤθελεν παρελθεῖν αὐτούς.. In both passages the passing of the main character is put in focus. In both passages the one passing is the one who tramples water. In the Job passage only God can do this.
If the Markan passage contains an intertextual echo of Job 9.11 then this presents a high Christology. Admittedly, the connection is a bit loose at first glance but I think Hays may be on to something. What do you think?
We’re only happy when it rains!
They're only happy when it rains.
Today I read an article by Christopher B. Hays recommended by Daniel Kirk (HT). It is titled “The Folly of Answering Fools” (read here). He bases his thoughts on Prov. 26.4-5 where in one breath Scripture tells us both to answer a fool in his folly and not to answer a fool in his folly. In this proverb we realize that there is a time to challenge foolishness, but there is also a time to let it go. For instance, Hays wonders if Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code would have been as big a deal if it wouldn’t have caused so many Christians to freak out. Maybe there is a time to not bring attention to bad pop culture letting it sink away into obscurity? It is a good article. I recommend it.
This reminded me of a post written earlier this week by Kevin DeYoung where he provided twelve marks of a contentious person (read here). This post made me ponder why Christians always feel obligated to add their two cents (including my own urge to do so). It seems like many Christians fail to live the wisdom of Proverbs 26.4-5 for the simple reason that they like being contentious! Maybe we have a hard time not answering the fool like Hays advises us from the proverb is because we are foolish ourselves. We think we need to say something about everything.
It is like the song by Garbage “I’m Only Happy When It Rains” which has the lines,
I’m only happy when it rains/
I’m only happy when its complicated/
And though I know you can’t appreciate it /
I’m only happy when it rains/
You know I love it when the news is bad/
Why it feels so good to feel so sad/
I’m only happy when it rains
If you think I am being whining consider this: What posts in the blogosphere get the most attention? One with an exegetical investigation? Those pondering theological issues relevant to the church? Not usually (and these can often lead to intense conversations). Rather, it seems to me, that the posts that are intentionally critical of this or that (and I am not saying we should not write these and I am not saying I won’t write these) bring crowds! Why is this?
Are we Christians overly contentious? Can it be said of us not simply that we contend for important things sometimes, or that we can be contentious on occasion when something seems worth our time and effort, but rather that we seek conflict?
This is something that I have been pondering. What do you think? Are we Christians overly contentious? What about those of us in the blogosphere? If we are honest do we prefer juicy, edgy blog posts? How can we seek balance?
Scripture’s poetics
No, not Neruda' poetics
Three days ago I wrote a post about the both/and function of some books with the canon of Scripture. In other words, let us ask whether the Book of Proverbs is true to life in its call to follow Wisdom’s voice or if the Book of Ecclesiastes is true to life in its seeming nihilism for those living “under the sun”. There is a way to read these two books as being in opposition, but I think this is a mistake. I do not deny the juxtaposition, but I do deny that these two necessarily oppose each other.
I was asked to provide a bit of clarification regarding my both/and paradigm which I did in a comment that I thought deserved the attention of becoming a post. This is what I wrote:
“I read the Book of Proverbs as a book of proverbial wisdom that claims that if Wisdom’s words are followed the follower will avoid the heartache and devastation of foolish living. That is truthful and this claim is truthful, but there are times when there is an addition x factor that the author of proverbs has not taken into consideration that can derail the applicability of these various proverbs to certain lives. In other words, the Book of Proverbs presents the general rule that if you follow wisdom you will live a good life. It does not stop to ask if this is still true when A, B, C, or D occur.
“The Book of Job provides a scenario that shows an exception to the general rule of the Book of Proverbs: What is God and Satan wage a cosmic bet? It does not matter is Job lived by wise principles, there is another factor in play: God, angels, demons, and other people can interrupt things causing the Book of Proverbs to appear untruthful to the person who tries to live wisely yet finds their life is a disaster.
“The Book of Ecclesiastes provides another angle that we find is true to our experience. There are people who seem to live horrible lives who are successful; there are people who live “wise” lives who are buried by unforeseen circumstances. If we read the Book of Ecclesiastes alone we can say, “Yes, I have seen this type of scenario. I have seen many lives wasted. I have seen good people buried by bad circumstances. This is so true to life!” But we know this is not the whole story. It is not true of everyone and every life even though it is true.
“When we read these poetic books together we get a vision of life that is holistic. If we just read Proverbs we may think something is wrong when we are trying to live in wisdom yet our child dies or we lose our job. If we Job alone we may fear that our every decision will be overrun by God, angels, demons, and other people. If we read Ecclesiastes alone we may become nihilistic. But together, we see these harmonized voice show the truth that life is more complex than any one of these three books would indicate if read alone.”
Scripture’s poetics sometime present contrasting truth claims which result in truth due to the balance of the canonical witness. If we take Proverbs alone it is true in part. If we take Ecclesiastes alone it is true in part. If we take Job alone it is true in part. Together it is true.
