This psalm changes tone dramatically from Psalm 2. In Psalm 2, the material is vaguely messianic, but also very … proud. It is based on a firm assurance of victory. The central theme of Psalm 2 is that the enemies of Israel should be very afraid. Israel has the power of God behind them and all the other nations are assured defeat and perhaps even total destruction if they do not submit.
Psalm 3, in contrast, is a prayer of David “when he fled his son Absalom”. This ties it to a specific historical event, when Absalom sought to take control of Israel and David was driven into the wilderness. The story is told in 2 Samuel 15-18, and it makes this psalm deeply personal and much more plaintive compared to Psalm 2. Psalm 2 is a triumphant psalm of victory (or future victory). Psalm 3 is a prayer for God’s assistance and prayer for victory.
In spite of the title associating it with this historical event, the psalm itself does not reference David himself, Absalom, or any of the direct events from David’s interaction with Absalom. Instead, the psalm is quite generalized, framed in terms that nearly anyone could relate to during a period of oppression or adversity. Even though the psalm calls us back to a specific historical event, it is written in a timeless way that is ideal for its placement in the liturgy.
As part of the book of Psalms, this would be sung or prayed over and over for generations. If it was narrowly tailored to David in his situation with Absalom, it would be much less relatable. Instead, the language specific to that situation is removed (or was never present) and this makes it much more relatable and applicable to people in different situations that are similar, but distinct, from what David experienced. This style is going to be repeated many times, where a psalm title calls us to a specific situation but the body of the psalm is generalized and non-specific.
This psalm can be divided into three sections. The first section is verses 1-2. In this section the central theme is David’s adversity; the enemies that have gathered against him and have declared his imminent doom.
The second section is verses 3-6. In this central portion, David is declaring God’s protection over himself. David may be surrounded by enemies, but he can sleep with confidence knowing that God is the shield around him and the strength sustaining him. This is the heart of the psalm, a faith declaration of God’s protection.
The concluding section is verses 6-7, which is David’s petition and closing blessing. It feels a little odd to have a prayer following the faith declaration. It’s as if David is saying, “God you are my shield and protector. Now save me!” In some ways the faith declaration feels like it is contrary to the later prayer, depending on how you read it. I don’t think there is any contradiction here, though. David is basically saying that 1) God is his protector and 2) he needs God to save him. God is his helper and he is in need of help. The middle section is a statement of David’s confidence, and the final section is a statement of need.
Interwoven through this psalm is three uses of the word “selah”. This is a word that is used many times in the Psalms and the exact meaning is heavily debated but not precisely known. It is most commonly interpreted as a “pause” or “rest” moment in the psalm for reflection on the previous verse or idea. I’m not going to provide an interpretation or description for every “selah” in the Psalms, but I would encourage my readers to note the places where “selah” is denoted and to study the passages before each selah with additional consideration. These are likely to be the most important concepts in the given psalm.
In the case of Psalm 3, there is a “selah” after verse 2, 4 and 8. In a sense, each selah corresponds with the distinct sections that I previously laid out, so that is a small bit of extra confirmation that my analysis is consistent with the psalmist’s intent.
Saturday, October 13, 2018
Wednesday, October 10, 2018
Bible Commentary - Psalms 2
Psalm 2 is clearly related to Psalm 1 in terms of composition and organization. The closing verse, v. 12, ends with “Blessed are all who take refuge in him”. The opening verse of Psalm 1 is “blessed is the one who does not…”. These two verses enclose both psalms into a single coherent thought, which serves as the introduction to Psalms. Furthermore, they are both untitled psalms which is uncommon in the first book, so that also sets them apart from the psalms that immediately follow.
The content feels starkly different, however. Psalm 1 was very individualistic; it focused on the path of a righteous person and a wicked person, contrasting those distinct lifestyles. Psalm 2 is quite different to say the least.
This psalm has four distinct sections, that carry it through a logical progression from beginning to end. The first section is verses 1-3. This describes the attitude of earthly rulers and nations. More to the point, these are people who are “conspiring” to overthrow the LORD “and his anointed”. We are supposed to imagine all the people of the world plotting to overthrow the LORD and perhaps more to the point, the LORD’s earthly representative who is the “anointed”.
In context, the most reasonable interpretation is that the “anointed” refers to the king of Israel (like David, who was anointed) and that this conspiring refers to Israel’s neighbors plotting to destroy them.
The second section is God’s response in verses 4-6. God responds with five verbs: he laughs, he scoffs, he rebukes, he terrifies and lastly he says. The most important part is what he says, because it tells us about God’s sovereign plan for the earth: “I have installed my king on Zion”. It is clear that the “king” here is the same as the anointed from the first section. God is laughing, rebuking and terrifying the nations because they are hopelessly standing against his divine authority, which is now manifest in the “king on Zion”. I don’t remember if we’ve discussed Zion before but the summary is that it’s another name for Jerusalem or perhaps a specific hill in Jerusalem. In the Psalms, as here, it is used as a poetic name to refer to Jerusalem.
Anyway, what’ clear from this second section is that the rebellious, conspiring nations have no chance of success because they are resisting God’s authority, God is enthroned in heaven, and God is in turn planting the king of Israel on his throne in Zion, respectively.
The third section is the LORD’s proclamation, in verses 7-9. From verse 7 we can see that the psalmist himself is the king of Israel, because he writes “[The LORD] said to me”. At this point it becomes first person about the author himself. I would be willing to bet this was written by David, though of course I cannot prove it. In any case, it is clearly written as though it were written by some king of Israel, and clearly the same person as the “anointed” “king in Zion” described in verses 2 and 6 respectively. The decree is God’s decree about this same king, who is also writing the psalm.
The decree says, “you are my son, today I have become your father”. This reminds me of Solomon though I can’t think of what passage talks about this. It’s a statement of relationship between the king and God, but also informally it is another statement of God’s strong support for the king.
Verses 8-9 go back to the topic of the nations, which is the subject for most of this psalm, establishing that the king must only ask, and God would grant the king authority over all the nations of the world to rule them, inherit them and if he chooses to smash them into pieces. Not only does God have power and authority over the nations, that power flows down to God’s chosen king.
Finally, in verses 10-12 the psalmist speaks directly to the hostile nations, warning them to cease from their dissent and to serve the LORD rather than rebel. Furthermore, the nations should “kiss the son” and show deference and fealty to God’s chosen king, or else they will be risking destruction.
Overall, this psalm has many layers. There is a strong nationalistic layer, contrasting Israel’s favor and protection under God with the rebellion and hostility of the surrounding nations. We see Israel bound together with her God in the midst of a sea of anger and wrath against them. Yet in spite of her isolation, we know that Israel will inherit the land of the nations and smash them to pieces because of God’s strong support.
This psalm, more than many others, is based on a theology of Israel’s greatness on the earth. In that sense it is more reminiscent of Deuteronomy and some of the early Pentateuch. A primary theme of the Pentateuch is that Israel would be blessed with material prosperity and dominate all their neighbors as a direct consequence of their covenant with God. Much of that theology predated the emergence of a king in Israel, however. This psalm appears to combine that earlier doctrine of Israelite greatness with the later king-centric political views.
We also see a strong royalist layer, with God’s deep relationship not to Israel writ large but to the king directly and only through the king does God support the rest of the nation. This is definitely a psalm about “the anointed” of God, who is God’s earthly representative.
Lastly, modern readings tend to focus on the messianic expectations of this psalm. Many people interpret “the anointed” or the “king in Zion” to refer to a future savior-king. Verse 8 encourages this interpretation because we can read this as predicting a future king in Israel who will conquer the entire world, making all the nations “his inheritance” and ushering in world peace under God’s sovereignty and the savior-king’s leadership. Verse 8 is commonly seen as an unfulfilled promise or prophecy and that is how it fits into messianic expectations. In this messianic vision, both the earlier “great Israel” doctrine and the later significance of the Davidic line are combined into a single theology, where the “son of David” brings about a resurgence in Israel as a political power and in their religion. This resurgence is supposed to bring about the fulfillment of the original covenantal promises, but under the leadership of the Davidic line. This psalm combines both, promising Israel a future greatness but under the leadership of their anointed and chosen king.
The content feels starkly different, however. Psalm 1 was very individualistic; it focused on the path of a righteous person and a wicked person, contrasting those distinct lifestyles. Psalm 2 is quite different to say the least.
This psalm has four distinct sections, that carry it through a logical progression from beginning to end. The first section is verses 1-3. This describes the attitude of earthly rulers and nations. More to the point, these are people who are “conspiring” to overthrow the LORD “and his anointed”. We are supposed to imagine all the people of the world plotting to overthrow the LORD and perhaps more to the point, the LORD’s earthly representative who is the “anointed”.
In context, the most reasonable interpretation is that the “anointed” refers to the king of Israel (like David, who was anointed) and that this conspiring refers to Israel’s neighbors plotting to destroy them.
The second section is God’s response in verses 4-6. God responds with five verbs: he laughs, he scoffs, he rebukes, he terrifies and lastly he says. The most important part is what he says, because it tells us about God’s sovereign plan for the earth: “I have installed my king on Zion”. It is clear that the “king” here is the same as the anointed from the first section. God is laughing, rebuking and terrifying the nations because they are hopelessly standing against his divine authority, which is now manifest in the “king on Zion”. I don’t remember if we’ve discussed Zion before but the summary is that it’s another name for Jerusalem or perhaps a specific hill in Jerusalem. In the Psalms, as here, it is used as a poetic name to refer to Jerusalem.
Anyway, what’ clear from this second section is that the rebellious, conspiring nations have no chance of success because they are resisting God’s authority, God is enthroned in heaven, and God is in turn planting the king of Israel on his throne in Zion, respectively.
The third section is the LORD’s proclamation, in verses 7-9. From verse 7 we can see that the psalmist himself is the king of Israel, because he writes “[The LORD] said to me”. At this point it becomes first person about the author himself. I would be willing to bet this was written by David, though of course I cannot prove it. In any case, it is clearly written as though it were written by some king of Israel, and clearly the same person as the “anointed” “king in Zion” described in verses 2 and 6 respectively. The decree is God’s decree about this same king, who is also writing the psalm.
The decree says, “you are my son, today I have become your father”. This reminds me of Solomon though I can’t think of what passage talks about this. It’s a statement of relationship between the king and God, but also informally it is another statement of God’s strong support for the king.
Verses 8-9 go back to the topic of the nations, which is the subject for most of this psalm, establishing that the king must only ask, and God would grant the king authority over all the nations of the world to rule them, inherit them and if he chooses to smash them into pieces. Not only does God have power and authority over the nations, that power flows down to God’s chosen king.
Finally, in verses 10-12 the psalmist speaks directly to the hostile nations, warning them to cease from their dissent and to serve the LORD rather than rebel. Furthermore, the nations should “kiss the son” and show deference and fealty to God’s chosen king, or else they will be risking destruction.
Overall, this psalm has many layers. There is a strong nationalistic layer, contrasting Israel’s favor and protection under God with the rebellion and hostility of the surrounding nations. We see Israel bound together with her God in the midst of a sea of anger and wrath against them. Yet in spite of her isolation, we know that Israel will inherit the land of the nations and smash them to pieces because of God’s strong support.
This psalm, more than many others, is based on a theology of Israel’s greatness on the earth. In that sense it is more reminiscent of Deuteronomy and some of the early Pentateuch. A primary theme of the Pentateuch is that Israel would be blessed with material prosperity and dominate all their neighbors as a direct consequence of their covenant with God. Much of that theology predated the emergence of a king in Israel, however. This psalm appears to combine that earlier doctrine of Israelite greatness with the later king-centric political views.
We also see a strong royalist layer, with God’s deep relationship not to Israel writ large but to the king directly and only through the king does God support the rest of the nation. This is definitely a psalm about “the anointed” of God, who is God’s earthly representative.
Lastly, modern readings tend to focus on the messianic expectations of this psalm. Many people interpret “the anointed” or the “king in Zion” to refer to a future savior-king. Verse 8 encourages this interpretation because we can read this as predicting a future king in Israel who will conquer the entire world, making all the nations “his inheritance” and ushering in world peace under God’s sovereignty and the savior-king’s leadership. Verse 8 is commonly seen as an unfulfilled promise or prophecy and that is how it fits into messianic expectations. In this messianic vision, both the earlier “great Israel” doctrine and the later significance of the Davidic line are combined into a single theology, where the “son of David” brings about a resurgence in Israel as a political power and in their religion. This resurgence is supposed to bring about the fulfillment of the original covenantal promises, but under the leadership of the Davidic line. This psalm combines both, promising Israel a future greatness but under the leadership of their anointed and chosen king.
Monday, October 8, 2018
Bible Commentary - Psalms 1
Psalm 1 is only six verses long, but as the opening psalm of this entire collection it plays a significant role in setting the overall tone of the book.
In fact, even just the first two verses highlight one of the most commonly recurring themes of Psalms: Blessed are those who meditate on the word of God and live by the word of God.
At a high level, Psalm 1 is broken down into two contrasting choices. There is the path of the righteous person, who is described in verses 1-3, and then there is the path of the wicked person who is described in verses 4-6. In a different way, this psalm is echoing the thought of Deuteronomy 30:19. Deuteronomy framed the choice of good and evil as “life” and “death”. Psalm 1, on the other hand, frames things in terms of “the wicked” and “the righteous”.
What I find really interesting about Psalm 1 is that in some important ways it describes the wicked and righteous in terms of what they are not. Verses 1-3 are talking about the blessing of the righteous, but it doesn’t call them righteous; it says “blessed is the man who does not”, and then lists a bunch of things that a good person should not do. Similarly, the wicked is described not by what they do but in the way that they do not “stand in the judgment, nor … in the assembly of the righteous”.
In any case, the “blessed” are described in three ways: they avoid “counsel”, “the path” and “the seat” of evil men. While in some ways this is poetic parallelism, it also speaks to three different aspects of life that we have to control to avoid evil. Counsel obviously refers to advice; when we receive advice from others, we must avoid or ignore the advice of “wicked” people. This means we need to be careful who we listen to. When we are making decisions, who gets to shape our opinions and judgments for those decisions? We are likely to make similar decisions to the people that we listen to. If we are listening to wicked or godless people, then we are likely to make the same mistakes as them.
This naturally ties into the second point, which is “the path of sinners”. If we listen to the advice of the wicked, then we will make the same decisions as them and find ourselves on their path. “The path” refers to our lifestyle, habits and decisions. Just as we avoid the advice of the wicked, we must also choose a different lifestyle.
The third and last point is that we cannot “sit in the seat of scoffers”. The seat can be interpreted in different ways, but the way the NIV translates it is “sit in the company of mockers” and I think that word “company” is accurate. It means that we cannot be regular compatriots, “buddies”, of wicked men. Importantly, this does not mean we need to avoid wicked people entirely, because we are supposed to have a positive influence on others. It’s an acknowledgement that just as we seek to positively influence others, there is the possibility that those “others” could influence us back. Verse 1 is cautioning us to not spend so much time with wicked people that we begin to adopt their habits, customs or attitudes. We can spend time with wicked people, but it has to be moderated, controlled and intentional.
To summarize, those who are blessed should avoid the counsel, the lifestyle and the close friendship and dependence on wicked people.
What the righteous should do is meditate on the word of God and delight in it. In contrast to what we avoid, we seek counsel from the word and we try to find habits and guidance on our lifestyle from the word. Rather than let our choices be shaped by wicked friends or advisors, we shape our choices around the word of God and his commands. The result is blessing and prosperity through all seasons; “whatever they do prospers” (v. 3).
In contrast, verse 4 does not describe the wicked; it describes the consequences of wickedness. The consequence is also a direct contrast to the righteous; unlike the constancy, prosperity and endurance of the righteous, the wicked are blown away like chaff. Verse 5 describes the wicked by their exclusion from the proper domain of the righteous. Whatever the righteous do, the wicked are the opposite of that.
In conclusion, the LORD watches over the path of both the righteous and the wicked, but he watches over the righteous to protect them while the wicked travel on a road to destruction alone.
In fact, even just the first two verses highlight one of the most commonly recurring themes of Psalms: Blessed are those who meditate on the word of God and live by the word of God.
At a high level, Psalm 1 is broken down into two contrasting choices. There is the path of the righteous person, who is described in verses 1-3, and then there is the path of the wicked person who is described in verses 4-6. In a different way, this psalm is echoing the thought of Deuteronomy 30:19. Deuteronomy framed the choice of good and evil as “life” and “death”. Psalm 1, on the other hand, frames things in terms of “the wicked” and “the righteous”.
What I find really interesting about Psalm 1 is that in some important ways it describes the wicked and righteous in terms of what they are not. Verses 1-3 are talking about the blessing of the righteous, but it doesn’t call them righteous; it says “blessed is the man who does not”, and then lists a bunch of things that a good person should not do. Similarly, the wicked is described not by what they do but in the way that they do not “stand in the judgment, nor … in the assembly of the righteous”.
In any case, the “blessed” are described in three ways: they avoid “counsel”, “the path” and “the seat” of evil men. While in some ways this is poetic parallelism, it also speaks to three different aspects of life that we have to control to avoid evil. Counsel obviously refers to advice; when we receive advice from others, we must avoid or ignore the advice of “wicked” people. This means we need to be careful who we listen to. When we are making decisions, who gets to shape our opinions and judgments for those decisions? We are likely to make similar decisions to the people that we listen to. If we are listening to wicked or godless people, then we are likely to make the same mistakes as them.
This naturally ties into the second point, which is “the path of sinners”. If we listen to the advice of the wicked, then we will make the same decisions as them and find ourselves on their path. “The path” refers to our lifestyle, habits and decisions. Just as we avoid the advice of the wicked, we must also choose a different lifestyle.
The third and last point is that we cannot “sit in the seat of scoffers”. The seat can be interpreted in different ways, but the way the NIV translates it is “sit in the company of mockers” and I think that word “company” is accurate. It means that we cannot be regular compatriots, “buddies”, of wicked men. Importantly, this does not mean we need to avoid wicked people entirely, because we are supposed to have a positive influence on others. It’s an acknowledgement that just as we seek to positively influence others, there is the possibility that those “others” could influence us back. Verse 1 is cautioning us to not spend so much time with wicked people that we begin to adopt their habits, customs or attitudes. We can spend time with wicked people, but it has to be moderated, controlled and intentional.
To summarize, those who are blessed should avoid the counsel, the lifestyle and the close friendship and dependence on wicked people.
What the righteous should do is meditate on the word of God and delight in it. In contrast to what we avoid, we seek counsel from the word and we try to find habits and guidance on our lifestyle from the word. Rather than let our choices be shaped by wicked friends or advisors, we shape our choices around the word of God and his commands. The result is blessing and prosperity through all seasons; “whatever they do prospers” (v. 3).
In contrast, verse 4 does not describe the wicked; it describes the consequences of wickedness. The consequence is also a direct contrast to the righteous; unlike the constancy, prosperity and endurance of the righteous, the wicked are blown away like chaff. Verse 5 describes the wicked by their exclusion from the proper domain of the righteous. Whatever the righteous do, the wicked are the opposite of that.
In conclusion, the LORD watches over the path of both the righteous and the wicked, but he watches over the righteous to protect them while the wicked travel on a road to destruction alone.
Tuesday, October 2, 2018
Bible Commentary - Psalms Introduction
Welcome to Psalms! This is the second out of the five wisdom books. It’s easy to remember the wisdom books because they are all grouped together: Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs. We have just finished Job, the first wisdom book, and are now moving on to the second.
Despite their categorical grouping, the wisdom books are incredibly diverse in content and style. Job, for its part, was a 42-chapter book with an almost singular focus on just one topic, the question of human suffering and why bad things happen to good people. Furthermore, Job follows a single narrative line, structured around the dialogue between Job and his friends. The contrast with Psalms could not be starker.
Psalms is not so much a single book or composition as much as it is a compilation of hundreds of individual songs. In some ways we could correctly say that Psalms is not even a single book. Psalms has 150 chapters, and as a general rule each chapter is a distinct psalm (this is not always true, as we will see, but it usually holds), most of which were authored separately, though it is very likely that some psalms were written by the same person.
Even internally, the book of Psalms is actually divided into five books, and this division is ancient. Wikipedia suggests that the five book separation was “introduced by the final editors”, possibly to mimic the five-book organization of the Pentateuch. The book divisions are generally annotated in pretty much any bible, but they are after the following psalms: 41, 72, 89, 106 and Psalms ends at 150.
Psalms does not have a single author or date of composition because, as mentioned, it is an anthology and not a single work. Many psalms specify their author in the title, and these authors include (but are not limited to) King David, the “sons of Korah” and Asaph. Many other psalms are untitled, and for the psalms without titles, their authorship is a topic of guesswork and wild speculation. Some scholars have tried to pin down demographic characteristics of the anonymous psalmists by studying their choice of language and topic, and that is probably the most we will ever be able to know.
The “sons of Korah” and Asaph both refer to professional Levitical musicians who would have a prominent role in composing and performing religious music such as the psalms. David might seem a surprising composer (as one may have expected him to be more busy with political and military concerns), but descriptions of both him and Solomon emphasize their creative endeavors. 2 Samuel 23:1 calls David “the sweet psalmist of Israel”. 2 Chronicles 29:27 refers to musical instruments as “the instruments of David”. Chronicles in general seeks to establish a historical connection between David and the temple worship ceremonies, so his role as a musician is less surprising in that light.
Solomon, on the other hand, only rarely appears in the book of Psalms, but in 1 Kings 4:32 we are told that Solomon wrote 1,005 songs and authored 3,000 proverbs. This indirectly supports David’s role as a musician and author of psalms, because it shows a cultural tradition for kings of Israel to look beyond pragmatic political concerns and to pursue excellence in a variety of fields.
Consistent with the documentary hypothesis, there are modern theories that the Psalms were composed very late, after the exile and possibly even as late as the Maccabean period (i.e. ~160 BC). These theories generally argue based on linguistic traits such as the usage of Aramaic terms or expressions and the attempt to tie specific theological concepts to a later time period as textual evidence that the Psalms must be relatively late. I’m not going to discuss this at length because there are many other things to talk about and I don’t feel like this theory substantially changes our interpretation of the Psalms. We can have a consistent, meaningful interpretation regardless of when they were authored.
Just as Psalms has many authors, it was also authored over a long time period, probably well over a hundred years. A handful of psalms were clearly written after the destruction of the temple (for instance, Psalm 74:7), but many psalms show clear evidence of pre-exilic origin. I personally lean towards a pre-exilic origin for many psalms, because amongst other things the Psalms do not even once mention the Babylonians, Chaldeans, Persians or any other major post-exilic foe.
On the other hand, the Psalms contain many cultural and political relics of the pre-exilic period. The Edomites are mentioned eight times, the Moabites are mentioned three times, and the Canaanites are mentioned three times. While these are certainly not overwhelming numbers in a 150-chapter book, it shows a focus on national enemies from the pre-exilic period, while an absence of their post-exilic enemies. Several psalms also reference “the king” of Israel or Judah, which clearly places those individual psalms into a pre-exilic context; there was no king over Israel after the exile. The psalms “of David” and psalms “of Asaph” certainly point to a focus on pre-exilic traditions, if they do not directly refer to psalms of pre-exilic origin.
Beyond its immediate authors, there is also the question of who compiled it and when it was compiled together into a single anthology. This question faces many of the same challenges as assigning authorship and a date to the individual psalms. In some ways identifying the editor is even more difficult, because the role of the editor was selecting and organizing the Psalms. We can only discern their identity indirectly, by the choice of what material is included in the Psalms. From this basis we can only draw the broadest of generalizations; the editor was probably from Judah and probably a priest. My NIV bible commentary suggests that the first two books of psalms have a likely pre-exilic origin, while the other three books are mixed or uncertain. It seems very likely that the final editor is post-exilic, but anything beyond that I cannot say.
While the content of the Psalms is wildly diverse, as I mentioned before, we can draw some generalities. Psalms generally fall into several categories. There are psalms of praise, petition, mourning; really the Psalms cover pretty much every human emotion and the range of possible interactions that we can have with God at an emotional level.
The emotional descriptions are one of the best parts about the Psalms. I had mentioned long ago that the OT can feel very dry emotionally. It has a lot of neutral language, many descriptions of what people were doing but without talking much about their reactions to it or how we should feel about it. Places like the second half of Exodus, with the tabernacle schematics, or Leviticus with its sacrifice rituals. Theologically significant as they may be, they are not generally considered interesting or engaging writing. On the other hand, Psalms is a very emotional collection, since this is literally Jewish worship music from the temple period.
There is a lot of speculation about why the Psalms got organized in the particular way that they did. Given that it was an anthology, the selection and organization of the Psalms was the primary contribution of the editor. Detailed study makes it clear that the Psalms are indeed organized in particular ways, but apart from really obvious things (like the choice of introductory and concluding psalms), it is not usually evident to a casual reader. Even to someone like me who is reasonably familiar with the bible, analyzing the structure of Psalms is not an easy thing to do, so I am mostly going to ignore it for the purposes of this commentary. One thing I do want to mention is that the division of the five “sub-books” of Psalms is ancient and textual analysis shows significant variation in language (for instance, usage of “elohim” vs. “yahweh”), topic and other factors. This strongly indicates, but does not prove, that the five books come from distinct origins; different authors or groups of authors, different time periods, or different locations. One possibility is that the five sub-books were composed or compiled independently and then merged together at some later phase; once again this is impossible to prove but the evidence vaguely hints at it, so I will vaguely hint at it too.
I will wrap up my introduction here. As long as my introduction already is, there is so much more I could write about Psalms that I want to just stop here and spread out some of that analysis into the chapter-by-chapter breakdown.
With all that said, let’s move on to chapter 1 of the book of Psalms!
Despite their categorical grouping, the wisdom books are incredibly diverse in content and style. Job, for its part, was a 42-chapter book with an almost singular focus on just one topic, the question of human suffering and why bad things happen to good people. Furthermore, Job follows a single narrative line, structured around the dialogue between Job and his friends. The contrast with Psalms could not be starker.
Psalms is not so much a single book or composition as much as it is a compilation of hundreds of individual songs. In some ways we could correctly say that Psalms is not even a single book. Psalms has 150 chapters, and as a general rule each chapter is a distinct psalm (this is not always true, as we will see, but it usually holds), most of which were authored separately, though it is very likely that some psalms were written by the same person.
Even internally, the book of Psalms is actually divided into five books, and this division is ancient. Wikipedia suggests that the five book separation was “introduced by the final editors”, possibly to mimic the five-book organization of the Pentateuch. The book divisions are generally annotated in pretty much any bible, but they are after the following psalms: 41, 72, 89, 106 and Psalms ends at 150.
Psalms does not have a single author or date of composition because, as mentioned, it is an anthology and not a single work. Many psalms specify their author in the title, and these authors include (but are not limited to) King David, the “sons of Korah” and Asaph. Many other psalms are untitled, and for the psalms without titles, their authorship is a topic of guesswork and wild speculation. Some scholars have tried to pin down demographic characteristics of the anonymous psalmists by studying their choice of language and topic, and that is probably the most we will ever be able to know.
The “sons of Korah” and Asaph both refer to professional Levitical musicians who would have a prominent role in composing and performing religious music such as the psalms. David might seem a surprising composer (as one may have expected him to be more busy with political and military concerns), but descriptions of both him and Solomon emphasize their creative endeavors. 2 Samuel 23:1 calls David “the sweet psalmist of Israel”. 2 Chronicles 29:27 refers to musical instruments as “the instruments of David”. Chronicles in general seeks to establish a historical connection between David and the temple worship ceremonies, so his role as a musician is less surprising in that light.
Solomon, on the other hand, only rarely appears in the book of Psalms, but in 1 Kings 4:32 we are told that Solomon wrote 1,005 songs and authored 3,000 proverbs. This indirectly supports David’s role as a musician and author of psalms, because it shows a cultural tradition for kings of Israel to look beyond pragmatic political concerns and to pursue excellence in a variety of fields.
Consistent with the documentary hypothesis, there are modern theories that the Psalms were composed very late, after the exile and possibly even as late as the Maccabean period (i.e. ~160 BC). These theories generally argue based on linguistic traits such as the usage of Aramaic terms or expressions and the attempt to tie specific theological concepts to a later time period as textual evidence that the Psalms must be relatively late. I’m not going to discuss this at length because there are many other things to talk about and I don’t feel like this theory substantially changes our interpretation of the Psalms. We can have a consistent, meaningful interpretation regardless of when they were authored.
Just as Psalms has many authors, it was also authored over a long time period, probably well over a hundred years. A handful of psalms were clearly written after the destruction of the temple (for instance, Psalm 74:7), but many psalms show clear evidence of pre-exilic origin. I personally lean towards a pre-exilic origin for many psalms, because amongst other things the Psalms do not even once mention the Babylonians, Chaldeans, Persians or any other major post-exilic foe.
On the other hand, the Psalms contain many cultural and political relics of the pre-exilic period. The Edomites are mentioned eight times, the Moabites are mentioned three times, and the Canaanites are mentioned three times. While these are certainly not overwhelming numbers in a 150-chapter book, it shows a focus on national enemies from the pre-exilic period, while an absence of their post-exilic enemies. Several psalms also reference “the king” of Israel or Judah, which clearly places those individual psalms into a pre-exilic context; there was no king over Israel after the exile. The psalms “of David” and psalms “of Asaph” certainly point to a focus on pre-exilic traditions, if they do not directly refer to psalms of pre-exilic origin.
Beyond its immediate authors, there is also the question of who compiled it and when it was compiled together into a single anthology. This question faces many of the same challenges as assigning authorship and a date to the individual psalms. In some ways identifying the editor is even more difficult, because the role of the editor was selecting and organizing the Psalms. We can only discern their identity indirectly, by the choice of what material is included in the Psalms. From this basis we can only draw the broadest of generalizations; the editor was probably from Judah and probably a priest. My NIV bible commentary suggests that the first two books of psalms have a likely pre-exilic origin, while the other three books are mixed or uncertain. It seems very likely that the final editor is post-exilic, but anything beyond that I cannot say.
While the content of the Psalms is wildly diverse, as I mentioned before, we can draw some generalities. Psalms generally fall into several categories. There are psalms of praise, petition, mourning; really the Psalms cover pretty much every human emotion and the range of possible interactions that we can have with God at an emotional level.
The emotional descriptions are one of the best parts about the Psalms. I had mentioned long ago that the OT can feel very dry emotionally. It has a lot of neutral language, many descriptions of what people were doing but without talking much about their reactions to it or how we should feel about it. Places like the second half of Exodus, with the tabernacle schematics, or Leviticus with its sacrifice rituals. Theologically significant as they may be, they are not generally considered interesting or engaging writing. On the other hand, Psalms is a very emotional collection, since this is literally Jewish worship music from the temple period.
There is a lot of speculation about why the Psalms got organized in the particular way that they did. Given that it was an anthology, the selection and organization of the Psalms was the primary contribution of the editor. Detailed study makes it clear that the Psalms are indeed organized in particular ways, but apart from really obvious things (like the choice of introductory and concluding psalms), it is not usually evident to a casual reader. Even to someone like me who is reasonably familiar with the bible, analyzing the structure of Psalms is not an easy thing to do, so I am mostly going to ignore it for the purposes of this commentary. One thing I do want to mention is that the division of the five “sub-books” of Psalms is ancient and textual analysis shows significant variation in language (for instance, usage of “elohim” vs. “yahweh”), topic and other factors. This strongly indicates, but does not prove, that the five books come from distinct origins; different authors or groups of authors, different time periods, or different locations. One possibility is that the five sub-books were composed or compiled independently and then merged together at some later phase; once again this is impossible to prove but the evidence vaguely hints at it, so I will vaguely hint at it too.
I will wrap up my introduction here. As long as my introduction already is, there is so much more I could write about Psalms that I want to just stop here and spread out some of that analysis into the chapter-by-chapter breakdown.
With all that said, let’s move on to chapter 1 of the book of Psalms!
Sunday, September 16, 2018
Bible Commentary - Job 42
In this chapter, Job repents and God restores him to his former glory.
This is the final chapter in the book of Job. It’s a deceptively short chapter for how much it impacts the overall narrative and moral of the story.
There are two really big events in this chapter. The first is when Job speaks in verses 2-6 and his big conclusion is “repenting in dust and ashes” (v. 6). Job admits that he “declared that which I did not understand”, that he was speaking about things without knowledge. The “things too wonderful for me” in this case is referring to Job’s assertions that God has been punishing him unfairly. More generally, Job admits that he is simply not qualified to judge God’s conduct or ascribe any blame to God for the things that Job has suffered.
God challenged Job, “will you really annul my judgments? Will you condemn me that you may be justified?” (Job 40:8). In this chapter, Job answers with a definitive no. He cannot, and will not, condemn God because Job simply does not understand the ways of God. Job cannot judge God in matters that he does not understand, and Job recognizes that when he previously questioned God, he was speaking without knowledge.
The second big thing is that when Job prays for his friends, God “restores his fortune”, giving him back double of everything he had lost.
In many places, Job’s friends had been appealing for him to repent of his sins and that God would restore him. Ironically, it appears this is almost exactly what happened. Job repented of questioning God, and God restored him. To be sure, Job did not have any sins that caused his suffering in the first place; God himself called Job “blameless and upright” (Job 1:8). He does repent, though, even if it doesn’t line up exactly. I call this ironic because one of the most significant points in Job is criticizing and refuting the conventional theology of the three friends. They were wrong about Job, they accused him repeatedly of wickedness as the root cause of his suffering, and it was simply never true. Yet here at the very end, Job does end up repenting.
I don’t think the author of Job put this in to secretly reaffirm the three friends, contrary to the rest of the book. Instead, I think both Job’s repentance and his restoration to glory serve separate purposes.
Job’s role in this story is to represent the suffering righteous person. As such, we can view Job’s reaction to his suffering as emblematic of the “natural response” of any righteous person to suffering. Job questions God’s fairness and justice, because he simply doesn’t see or understand the reason why he is suffering. This is how nearly anyone would react, even “good people” like Job. Job’s repentance is how the author of Job asserts that we, too, must change the way we think, repent of blaming God for our suffering, and continue to trust and honor God even in our suffering. Job is all about changing our perspective, and we are encouraged to emulate Job’s repentance.
Job’s restoration to prosperity, health and glory is a reaffirmation of God’s identity as the ultimate judge, protector of the righteous and punisher of the wicked. Job is righteous, so his restoration here is a final conclusive statement about the ultimate fate of the righteous. While we may suffer for a time, God promises us a final blessing.
This restoration was not obvious from the earlier parts of the book. I don’t think we could have necessarily predicted it, and if Job ended his life dying from disease and suffering, it would have changed the tone of the story considerably but it would not have meaningfully contradicted any of the earlier text. This makes the restoration of Job a pivotal moment. It’s short, but it dramatically changes the meaning of this book. We can view suffering not as our ultimate fate, but only a temporary condition until God restores us, blesses us and gives us double what we have lost.
One common tension with the book of Job is that people look at this story and point at modern stories of “suffering righteous” who die and never see that restoration in their earthly life. These examples are held up as a contradiction to Job, as though the existence of other suffering people who (as far as we know) are never restored refutes the theology of Job.
A common reaction to this criticism is to spiritualize Job’s restoration and assert that for some people they are restored during their earthly life, but that other people are restored and receive God’s blessing in the afterlife. We may suffer while on earth, but that God promises our ultimate blessing and restoration when we return to him.
I would propose a second reaction, however. Not that the first one is wrong, I do believe that God promises all the suffering righteous an ultimate restoration, whether in this life or the next. In addition to that, I claim that asserting apparent contradictions to Job’s restoration is ignoring all of the most important parts of Job. The most important part of Job is God’s response in chapters 38-41, where the fundamental premise is that God has a greater wisdom and understanding and that we, humans on earth, simply do not understand God’s ways and his wisdom.
To claim a logical contradiction with Job’s restoration (because we do not see everyone restored to prosperity) is effectively applying the wisdom of men to the ways of God, and returning to the role of judging God and condemning God. This is exactly what Job repented of doing, and now we are doing it again.
Frankly, I don’t think the book of Job promises that the righteous will all be restored. Job is restored, but God does not state this as a promise. We might be restored, and we might not. The point of Job is not to promise us restoration, it is to promise us that God has a wisdom greater than any human understanding, and that we have to respect and honor God’s supremacy.
What can I say in conclusion of this book? I think Job is a challenging book to analyze overall. The topic, why do bad things happen to good people, is a remarkably difficult philosophical question despite how easy it is to ask. It is so easy for us to entangle the question with our own personal emotions, and we see exactly that happen in this book with both Job and his friends responding emotionally in a variety of places. God’s response feels frustratingly indirect, though I believe upon deeper reflection that God is indeed speaking to human suffering and gives us the best answer we can really hope for.
Even in God’s answer, there is a sense of “this is a very hard question and you will not understand the answer”. It might be true, but humans are a curious and inquisitive race, and we rarely take these kinds of answers with any sense of satisfaction. If I answer a question with “you could not possibly understand my answer”, it might be true but it feels evasive and is unsatisfying, because when we ask a question what we are seeking is understanding.
On the other hand, if it’s actually true that we cannot understand the answer, then there isn’t anything else God could tell us that would do better. If he tried telling us the real reason, we wouldn’t understand it, and if he ignored the question then that would feel even more evasive and unsatisfying. This is a tough spot and there might not be anything that God could say that would leave us happy or satisfied, so he does the most respectful thing possible and simply tells us the truth.
It’s also worth mentioning that God’s response to Job is strikingly impersonal. Much earlier in this commentary I raised the question of how Job and his three friends view God. I asked how they perceived God, and how they framed their interactions with God. My answer, in broad terms, is that they perceived God as the judge of human conduct. God is the lawgiver who has defined good and evil, blesses those who do good and punishes those who do evil. This is itself impersonal because, besides denying any close relationship between God and people, it also frames God as emotionally neutral or distant.
In God’s response, that emotional neutrality is reinforced. Read through God’s response again and look for any place at all where God speaks about his feelings in any way. Is God a friend of Job? Is God happy or sad about anything? We don’t see any evidence of it. God contradicts the three friends in other ways, but in this way they seem to be correct.
It’s tough for me to close out this commentary. With such a deep book, I feel like there is always something more that I should be saying, or some other point I should be making. Nevertheless, I will close out my commentary here. If my readers are left unsatisfied with God’s answer, or some question that does not feel properly answered, I would encourage them to pursue a deeper understanding, and I pray that God would grant it to you.
Next, we will enter the book of Psalms.
This is the final chapter in the book of Job. It’s a deceptively short chapter for how much it impacts the overall narrative and moral of the story.
There are two really big events in this chapter. The first is when Job speaks in verses 2-6 and his big conclusion is “repenting in dust and ashes” (v. 6). Job admits that he “declared that which I did not understand”, that he was speaking about things without knowledge. The “things too wonderful for me” in this case is referring to Job’s assertions that God has been punishing him unfairly. More generally, Job admits that he is simply not qualified to judge God’s conduct or ascribe any blame to God for the things that Job has suffered.
God challenged Job, “will you really annul my judgments? Will you condemn me that you may be justified?” (Job 40:8). In this chapter, Job answers with a definitive no. He cannot, and will not, condemn God because Job simply does not understand the ways of God. Job cannot judge God in matters that he does not understand, and Job recognizes that when he previously questioned God, he was speaking without knowledge.
The second big thing is that when Job prays for his friends, God “restores his fortune”, giving him back double of everything he had lost.
In many places, Job’s friends had been appealing for him to repent of his sins and that God would restore him. Ironically, it appears this is almost exactly what happened. Job repented of questioning God, and God restored him. To be sure, Job did not have any sins that caused his suffering in the first place; God himself called Job “blameless and upright” (Job 1:8). He does repent, though, even if it doesn’t line up exactly. I call this ironic because one of the most significant points in Job is criticizing and refuting the conventional theology of the three friends. They were wrong about Job, they accused him repeatedly of wickedness as the root cause of his suffering, and it was simply never true. Yet here at the very end, Job does end up repenting.
I don’t think the author of Job put this in to secretly reaffirm the three friends, contrary to the rest of the book. Instead, I think both Job’s repentance and his restoration to glory serve separate purposes.
Job’s role in this story is to represent the suffering righteous person. As such, we can view Job’s reaction to his suffering as emblematic of the “natural response” of any righteous person to suffering. Job questions God’s fairness and justice, because he simply doesn’t see or understand the reason why he is suffering. This is how nearly anyone would react, even “good people” like Job. Job’s repentance is how the author of Job asserts that we, too, must change the way we think, repent of blaming God for our suffering, and continue to trust and honor God even in our suffering. Job is all about changing our perspective, and we are encouraged to emulate Job’s repentance.
Job’s restoration to prosperity, health and glory is a reaffirmation of God’s identity as the ultimate judge, protector of the righteous and punisher of the wicked. Job is righteous, so his restoration here is a final conclusive statement about the ultimate fate of the righteous. While we may suffer for a time, God promises us a final blessing.
This restoration was not obvious from the earlier parts of the book. I don’t think we could have necessarily predicted it, and if Job ended his life dying from disease and suffering, it would have changed the tone of the story considerably but it would not have meaningfully contradicted any of the earlier text. This makes the restoration of Job a pivotal moment. It’s short, but it dramatically changes the meaning of this book. We can view suffering not as our ultimate fate, but only a temporary condition until God restores us, blesses us and gives us double what we have lost.
One common tension with the book of Job is that people look at this story and point at modern stories of “suffering righteous” who die and never see that restoration in their earthly life. These examples are held up as a contradiction to Job, as though the existence of other suffering people who (as far as we know) are never restored refutes the theology of Job.
A common reaction to this criticism is to spiritualize Job’s restoration and assert that for some people they are restored during their earthly life, but that other people are restored and receive God’s blessing in the afterlife. We may suffer while on earth, but that God promises our ultimate blessing and restoration when we return to him.
I would propose a second reaction, however. Not that the first one is wrong, I do believe that God promises all the suffering righteous an ultimate restoration, whether in this life or the next. In addition to that, I claim that asserting apparent contradictions to Job’s restoration is ignoring all of the most important parts of Job. The most important part of Job is God’s response in chapters 38-41, where the fundamental premise is that God has a greater wisdom and understanding and that we, humans on earth, simply do not understand God’s ways and his wisdom.
To claim a logical contradiction with Job’s restoration (because we do not see everyone restored to prosperity) is effectively applying the wisdom of men to the ways of God, and returning to the role of judging God and condemning God. This is exactly what Job repented of doing, and now we are doing it again.
Frankly, I don’t think the book of Job promises that the righteous will all be restored. Job is restored, but God does not state this as a promise. We might be restored, and we might not. The point of Job is not to promise us restoration, it is to promise us that God has a wisdom greater than any human understanding, and that we have to respect and honor God’s supremacy.
What can I say in conclusion of this book? I think Job is a challenging book to analyze overall. The topic, why do bad things happen to good people, is a remarkably difficult philosophical question despite how easy it is to ask. It is so easy for us to entangle the question with our own personal emotions, and we see exactly that happen in this book with both Job and his friends responding emotionally in a variety of places. God’s response feels frustratingly indirect, though I believe upon deeper reflection that God is indeed speaking to human suffering and gives us the best answer we can really hope for.
Even in God’s answer, there is a sense of “this is a very hard question and you will not understand the answer”. It might be true, but humans are a curious and inquisitive race, and we rarely take these kinds of answers with any sense of satisfaction. If I answer a question with “you could not possibly understand my answer”, it might be true but it feels evasive and is unsatisfying, because when we ask a question what we are seeking is understanding.
On the other hand, if it’s actually true that we cannot understand the answer, then there isn’t anything else God could tell us that would do better. If he tried telling us the real reason, we wouldn’t understand it, and if he ignored the question then that would feel even more evasive and unsatisfying. This is a tough spot and there might not be anything that God could say that would leave us happy or satisfied, so he does the most respectful thing possible and simply tells us the truth.
It’s also worth mentioning that God’s response to Job is strikingly impersonal. Much earlier in this commentary I raised the question of how Job and his three friends view God. I asked how they perceived God, and how they framed their interactions with God. My answer, in broad terms, is that they perceived God as the judge of human conduct. God is the lawgiver who has defined good and evil, blesses those who do good and punishes those who do evil. This is itself impersonal because, besides denying any close relationship between God and people, it also frames God as emotionally neutral or distant.
In God’s response, that emotional neutrality is reinforced. Read through God’s response again and look for any place at all where God speaks about his feelings in any way. Is God a friend of Job? Is God happy or sad about anything? We don’t see any evidence of it. God contradicts the three friends in other ways, but in this way they seem to be correct.
It’s tough for me to close out this commentary. With such a deep book, I feel like there is always something more that I should be saying, or some other point I should be making. Nevertheless, I will close out my commentary here. If my readers are left unsatisfied with God’s answer, or some question that does not feel properly answered, I would encourage them to pursue a deeper understanding, and I pray that God would grant it to you.
Next, we will enter the book of Psalms.
Saturday, September 15, 2018
Bible Commentary - Job 41
In this chapter, God describes Leviathan, the greatest monster in all creation.
This chapter is a continuation of God’s discourse in the previous chapter. The end of last chapter (Job 40:15-24) begins with a challenge: “Behold now, Behemoth”. This chapter begins with, “Can you draw out Leviathan?” There are many obvious parallels between these creatures in both their description and function in the text. They are, like the rest of creation highlighted by God, examples of ferocious and untameable monsters created by God, feared by men, and tangible symbols of God’s supreme power and authority over creation. Apex monsters, they are the greatest, strongest and strangest creatures that God has made and as such they represent all of creation.
The descriptions in this chapter follow two patterns. They either highlight the strength and danger of the Leviathan, or they highlight the uncontrollable temper of the beast. It is strong, invincible, aggressive and does not submit to human control.
What is the purpose? Why is this description here? It’s quite similar to God’s discourse in chapters 38-39. In those chapters, God was highlight the aspects of creation that exceed human understanding, wisdom and power. In all of these ways, God was using creation to show his supremacy over human authority. Presenting the Behemoth and Leviathan for our inspection accomplishes the same purpose. The strong, fearsome monster was created by a strong, uncontrollable God. As with the previous chapters, we can perceive the nature of the created by studying the creation. As I previously mentioned, Leviathan is an apex predator and symbolically represents all of creation.
From that point of view, I don’t think this chapter has a different intent or purpose than the previous three chapters, I think it is meant as the conclusion and summary of the points from those chapters.
The English word “Leviathan” itself is a simple transliteration of the Hebrew word from this chapter. It’s one of the many cases in the bible where the English translation simply takes the Hebrew word and transliterates it into the Roman alphabet. It has since entered English vocabulary to describe a kind of sea monster or a giant of some kind. This is pretty much exactly what it means here as well, except that the text almost certainly referring to a particular species. In the past, Leviathan was sometimes identified with a “dragon” or “sea serpent”. In modern times, the most popular identification for Leviathan is with a crocodile. The general reasoning is that Leviathan has “armor” (v. 13), it is armored underneath as well (v. 30), which may suggest a crocodile. “Spreading out… in the mire” (v. 30) is also possibly a reference to crocodilian behavior.
There are elements that don’t match a crocodile, however. The obvious one is “a flame goes forth from his mouth” (v. 18-21). Leviathan is described as a fire-breathing monster that also has burning bright eyes. It is also described as impervious to swords, arrows, javelins, etc. These may be regarded as poetic hyperbole (that is, exaggeration), but it certainly doesn’t match with a conventional crocodile. Certainly crocodiles are armored and somewhat resistant to weaponry, we can reasonably assert that they don’t breath fire and that an iron sword could easily cut through their hide and cause serious damage. These are both reasons why Leviathan was historically associated with dragons. Furthermore, the word “Leviathan” itself is derived from a Hebrew root word that means curved or coiled, which also implies that Leviathan may be a long, twisty coiled serpent, perhaps like a snake or a mythical dragon.
People have been speculating about the identities of both the Leviathan and the Behemoth for a long time. The good news is that it doesn’t really change our proper interpretation of the text, so we don’t need to enter into those speculations to understand the meaning of this chapter.
Verse 34 concludes with Leviathan as “king over all the sons of pride”. There is nothing greater in all of creation, and God is the great one who has made Leviathan as well as everything else.
In the next chapter, the book of Job draws to a close, Job admits defeat and repents before God.
This chapter is a continuation of God’s discourse in the previous chapter. The end of last chapter (Job 40:15-24) begins with a challenge: “Behold now, Behemoth”. This chapter begins with, “Can you draw out Leviathan?” There are many obvious parallels between these creatures in both their description and function in the text. They are, like the rest of creation highlighted by God, examples of ferocious and untameable monsters created by God, feared by men, and tangible symbols of God’s supreme power and authority over creation. Apex monsters, they are the greatest, strongest and strangest creatures that God has made and as such they represent all of creation.
The descriptions in this chapter follow two patterns. They either highlight the strength and danger of the Leviathan, or they highlight the uncontrollable temper of the beast. It is strong, invincible, aggressive and does not submit to human control.
What is the purpose? Why is this description here? It’s quite similar to God’s discourse in chapters 38-39. In those chapters, God was highlight the aspects of creation that exceed human understanding, wisdom and power. In all of these ways, God was using creation to show his supremacy over human authority. Presenting the Behemoth and Leviathan for our inspection accomplishes the same purpose. The strong, fearsome monster was created by a strong, uncontrollable God. As with the previous chapters, we can perceive the nature of the created by studying the creation. As I previously mentioned, Leviathan is an apex predator and symbolically represents all of creation.
From that point of view, I don’t think this chapter has a different intent or purpose than the previous three chapters, I think it is meant as the conclusion and summary of the points from those chapters.
The English word “Leviathan” itself is a simple transliteration of the Hebrew word from this chapter. It’s one of the many cases in the bible where the English translation simply takes the Hebrew word and transliterates it into the Roman alphabet. It has since entered English vocabulary to describe a kind of sea monster or a giant of some kind. This is pretty much exactly what it means here as well, except that the text almost certainly referring to a particular species. In the past, Leviathan was sometimes identified with a “dragon” or “sea serpent”. In modern times, the most popular identification for Leviathan is with a crocodile. The general reasoning is that Leviathan has “armor” (v. 13), it is armored underneath as well (v. 30), which may suggest a crocodile. “Spreading out… in the mire” (v. 30) is also possibly a reference to crocodilian behavior.
There are elements that don’t match a crocodile, however. The obvious one is “a flame goes forth from his mouth” (v. 18-21). Leviathan is described as a fire-breathing monster that also has burning bright eyes. It is also described as impervious to swords, arrows, javelins, etc. These may be regarded as poetic hyperbole (that is, exaggeration), but it certainly doesn’t match with a conventional crocodile. Certainly crocodiles are armored and somewhat resistant to weaponry, we can reasonably assert that they don’t breath fire and that an iron sword could easily cut through their hide and cause serious damage. These are both reasons why Leviathan was historically associated with dragons. Furthermore, the word “Leviathan” itself is derived from a Hebrew root word that means curved or coiled, which also implies that Leviathan may be a long, twisty coiled serpent, perhaps like a snake or a mythical dragon.
People have been speculating about the identities of both the Leviathan and the Behemoth for a long time. The good news is that it doesn’t really change our proper interpretation of the text, so we don’t need to enter into those speculations to understand the meaning of this chapter.
Verse 34 concludes with Leviathan as “king over all the sons of pride”. There is nothing greater in all of creation, and God is the great one who has made Leviathan as well as everything else.
In the next chapter, the book of Job draws to a close, Job admits defeat and repents before God.
Friday, September 14, 2018
Bible Commentary - Job 40
In this chapter, God challenges Job to answer him.
This chapter begins with God asking for Job’s response. After laying out the glory of creation, God’s role in making all of these things, and Job’s ignorance regarding creation, God now asks Job to “answer” his questions (v. 2). Job’s response in verses 3-4 is that there is nothing he can say to answer God. While God has seemingly already made his point, and Job acknowledges his rhetorical defeat, God decides to continue his rebuke.
In verse 6, we see that God continues to speak out of the storm, like the “whirlwind” of Job 38:1. God also repeats the same challenge in verse 7 as what he said in Job 38:3.
Since God has established his wisdom and understanding of all things, and since Job has admitted defeat, God now speaks to the heart of Job’s criticism in verses 8-14. Verse 8 captures the essence of Job’s criticism. In arguing that he was innocent and God was punishing him unjustly, Job was “condemning” God as a natural consequence of his argument. If God is punishing Job unfairly, it means that God is doing something wrong and Job was innocent.
This is very similar to what Job’s friends were arguing. They believed that it was a zero-sum game between God and Job. If Job was innocent, then God was treating him unfairly, while if Job was a sinner, then God was right to punish him. Since they believed that God was always righteous, Job’s friends concluded that Job must have sinned. I don’t think God is necessarily saying that their assumptions were right or that their arguments were correct, but rather that Job’s argument in fact laid the blame on God for what happened to him.
It is important to note that nowhere in this speech does God actually accuse Job of sinning or doing anything wrong. The only criticism that God has for Job is how Job condemned God as a result of his self-proclaimed innocence.
God is not affirming their moral philosophy or assumptions. If their philosophy were true, then the natural conclusion is that Job is a sinner and God likely would have said so. Instead, God is challenging Job for “throwing him under the bus”, so to speak. The firm belief in his own innocence, combined with a moral framework that places God as the punisher of iniquity, leads Job to condemn God. God rebukes Job’s impious conclusion, and since God does not condemn Job in turn, he is implicitly questioning Job’s moral framework and assumptions. It was the this oppositional moral framework, placing God and Job on opposite sides of the tables, that led Job to condemn God and Job’s friends to condemn Job. Since God declares his own innocence, and refuses to condemn Job, the only natural conclusion is that the moral framework itself is flawed.
God is indeed the righteous judge, and God does punish the wicked, but it’s not in the simplified way presented by Job and his friends. The true nature of God, and the nature of Job’s suffering, is left to us as a bit of a mystery even after God’s response. God never fully clarifies these issues or the nature of Job’s theological error. What we do see clearly is a statement of God’s supreme wisdom and authority in creation and by extension in human lives and morality. We also see that the simplified moral philosophy of Job and his friends is deeply flawed. A deeper understanding of the nature of God is largely outside the scope of this book, and it is left to us to pursue that understanding. While that may seem daunting, we still have the rest of the bible to read to gain a better understanding of God’s nature.
Beginning in verse 15, God resumes his former discourse and challenges Job to demonstrate his mastery over “Behemoth”. In case you are wondering, “Behemoth” is actually a literal transliteration of the Hebrew word, which was later adopted into English. The exact identification of “Behemoth” has been the subject of some debate and controversy, but the general consensus now is that Behemoth is a hippopotamus. The description certainly fits (with a bit of exaggeration) for a vegetarian, strong mammal that tends to live in watery environments like rivers or ponds. They are also fearsome, aggressive animals that are endemic to the Middle East. We can’t know for sure but it is a likely candidate.
God’s description of “Behemoth” is much longer than his description of specific animals from the previous chapter, but the overall intent is similar. God is now laying out the “fearsome monsters” that he has created as further examples of his glory. If creation is a reflection of God’s nature, in the way that God speaks through the thunderstorm, then the Behemoth is a reflection of God’s untameable power and wild ferocity. In Elihu’s words, “God is great, and we have not known him” (Job 36:26). The Behemoth shows us God’s power, and it is an untameable, uncontrollable power. Otherwise, the rest of the description of Behemoth is largely poetic.
In the next chapter, describes a second “monster” from natural creation.
This chapter begins with God asking for Job’s response. After laying out the glory of creation, God’s role in making all of these things, and Job’s ignorance regarding creation, God now asks Job to “answer” his questions (v. 2). Job’s response in verses 3-4 is that there is nothing he can say to answer God. While God has seemingly already made his point, and Job acknowledges his rhetorical defeat, God decides to continue his rebuke.
In verse 6, we see that God continues to speak out of the storm, like the “whirlwind” of Job 38:1. God also repeats the same challenge in verse 7 as what he said in Job 38:3.
Since God has established his wisdom and understanding of all things, and since Job has admitted defeat, God now speaks to the heart of Job’s criticism in verses 8-14. Verse 8 captures the essence of Job’s criticism. In arguing that he was innocent and God was punishing him unjustly, Job was “condemning” God as a natural consequence of his argument. If God is punishing Job unfairly, it means that God is doing something wrong and Job was innocent.
This is very similar to what Job’s friends were arguing. They believed that it was a zero-sum game between God and Job. If Job was innocent, then God was treating him unfairly, while if Job was a sinner, then God was right to punish him. Since they believed that God was always righteous, Job’s friends concluded that Job must have sinned. I don’t think God is necessarily saying that their assumptions were right or that their arguments were correct, but rather that Job’s argument in fact laid the blame on God for what happened to him.
It is important to note that nowhere in this speech does God actually accuse Job of sinning or doing anything wrong. The only criticism that God has for Job is how Job condemned God as a result of his self-proclaimed innocence.
God is not affirming their moral philosophy or assumptions. If their philosophy were true, then the natural conclusion is that Job is a sinner and God likely would have said so. Instead, God is challenging Job for “throwing him under the bus”, so to speak. The firm belief in his own innocence, combined with a moral framework that places God as the punisher of iniquity, leads Job to condemn God. God rebukes Job’s impious conclusion, and since God does not condemn Job in turn, he is implicitly questioning Job’s moral framework and assumptions. It was the this oppositional moral framework, placing God and Job on opposite sides of the tables, that led Job to condemn God and Job’s friends to condemn Job. Since God declares his own innocence, and refuses to condemn Job, the only natural conclusion is that the moral framework itself is flawed.
God is indeed the righteous judge, and God does punish the wicked, but it’s not in the simplified way presented by Job and his friends. The true nature of God, and the nature of Job’s suffering, is left to us as a bit of a mystery even after God’s response. God never fully clarifies these issues or the nature of Job’s theological error. What we do see clearly is a statement of God’s supreme wisdom and authority in creation and by extension in human lives and morality. We also see that the simplified moral philosophy of Job and his friends is deeply flawed. A deeper understanding of the nature of God is largely outside the scope of this book, and it is left to us to pursue that understanding. While that may seem daunting, we still have the rest of the bible to read to gain a better understanding of God’s nature.
Beginning in verse 15, God resumes his former discourse and challenges Job to demonstrate his mastery over “Behemoth”. In case you are wondering, “Behemoth” is actually a literal transliteration of the Hebrew word, which was later adopted into English. The exact identification of “Behemoth” has been the subject of some debate and controversy, but the general consensus now is that Behemoth is a hippopotamus. The description certainly fits (with a bit of exaggeration) for a vegetarian, strong mammal that tends to live in watery environments like rivers or ponds. They are also fearsome, aggressive animals that are endemic to the Middle East. We can’t know for sure but it is a likely candidate.
God’s description of “Behemoth” is much longer than his description of specific animals from the previous chapter, but the overall intent is similar. God is now laying out the “fearsome monsters” that he has created as further examples of his glory. If creation is a reflection of God’s nature, in the way that God speaks through the thunderstorm, then the Behemoth is a reflection of God’s untameable power and wild ferocity. In Elihu’s words, “God is great, and we have not known him” (Job 36:26). The Behemoth shows us God’s power, and it is an untameable, uncontrollable power. Otherwise, the rest of the description of Behemoth is largely poetic.
In the next chapter, describes a second “monster” from natural creation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)