New Expositors commentary?
Anyone getting the Revised Expositors commentary? Thoughts?
Comments
-
My thought is: "I'm happy with my old cheaper version." ;-) I think is better and it has one book (commentary) dedicated to introductions only, with several articles written by great scholars on various subjects (e.g. Gordon Fee, F.F. Bruce, Metzger, etc.). If I had cash to spare, I'd probably buy it, but I think I would much rather get another set than this new version.
Hope this helps!
DAL
0 -
I'm getting the new version but only because I don't own the old copy. If you have the original, I would just keep that one because, as Dal pointed out, not much has changed.
0 -
Since there is no upgrade price, if you own old set, there is no point to buy a new one. They offered before an upgrade but the price was way to high. I love my older set and will stay with it.
PS
if I would have to buy now, I still would buy old set because of the authors mentioned above, and it is almost three times cheaper. Can't beat that
"No man is greater than his prayer life. The pastor who is not praying is playing; the people who are not praying are straying." Leonard Ravenhill
0 -
There is some discussion of the revised EBC (and the relative merits of the new version over the old), here,
http://community.logos.com/forums/t/31690.aspx?PageIndex=1
Thought it might be of interest.
0 -
Wild Eagle said:
Since there is no upgrade price, if you own old set, there is no point to buy a new one. They offered before an upgrade but the price was way to high. I love my older set and will stay with it.
Here are 2 samples Psalm 23 and John 7:53-8:10… I choose these two because Psalms is revised John is replaced. One Also must remember the original set Volume 1 was a series of articles which are not part of the revised edition.
R-EBC
W. Psalm 23: The Goodness of God
OVERVIEW
Psalm 23 is a psalm of trust and confidence (see the fine exposition by Patrick D. Miller Jr., “Psalm 23,” in Interpreting the Psalms, 112–19). Its original setting or situation in life is difficult to determine. S. Gelinder (“On the Condition of the Speaker in Psalm 23,” Beth Mikra 23 [1978]: 642–64 [Heb.]) [Vol. 5, p. 252] concludes that the psalmist was a king who in his trouble was confident in Yahweh’s ability to deliver him. Jack R. Lundbom (“Psalm 23: Song of Passage,” Int 40 [1986]: 6–16) suggests that the psalm is set in the wilderness at the time of David’s flight from Absalom.
The psalm expresses confidence in God’s goodness—in this life and in the life to come. The personal way in which the psalmist speaks of God, the imagery of God’s soothing guidance, and the ensuing confidence in God have all been factors in making this one of the most charming and beloved of the psalms. The universal appeal of this psalm lies in the comfort it gives to those who have confronted the most difficult periods of life. It is a psalm of God’s strength and grace for all ages. The teaching of Jesus that he is the Good Shepherd (Jn 10:11) who has come for both Jews and Gentiles (Jn 10:16) gives the Christian a sound reason to apply the benefits of God’s goodness to the ancient covenantal people and to himself, as a child of Abraham and fellow–heir of Jesus Christ (Gal 3:29; 4:7). Moreover, it causes us to hope in the glory God has prepared for his own (Rev 7:17).
The structure of the psalm is both simple and complex (see Craigie, 204–5; Charles O’Connor, “The Structure of Psalm 23,” LS 10 [1985]: 206–30; Werner Stenger, “Strukturale ‘relecture’ von Ps 23,” in Freude an der Weisung des Herrn [ed. Haag and Hossfeld], 441–55). There are two principle metaphors for the Lord’s goodness: he is like a “shepherd” who is interested in each sheep (vv. 1–4), and he is like a host who has prepared a lavish banquet (vv. 5–6). Each of these has its peculiar set of metaphors. See Jean Marcel Vincent (“Recherches exegetiques sur le Psaume xxiii,” VT 28 [1978]: 442–54) for a careful analysis of the language and poetic artistry. For the purpose of exposition, I will analyze the psalm under two metaphors:
A The Lord Is My Shepherd (vv. 1–4)
B The Lord Is My Host (vv. 5–6)
For compositional connections with Psalms 22–24, see Overviews, Psalms 22; 27; 29.
1. The Lord Is My Shepherd (23:1–4)
A psalm of David.
1 The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want.
2 He makes me lie down in green pastures,
he leads me beside quiet waters,
3 he restores my soul.
He guides me in paths of righteousness
for his name’s sake.
4 Even though I walk
through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil,
for you are with me;
your rod and your staff,
they comfort me.
[Vol. 5, p. 253]
COMMENTARY
1 The first word of the psalm, “The LORD” (Yahweh), evokes rich images of the provision and protection of the covenantal God. He promised to take care of his people and revealed himself to be full of love, compassion, patience, fidelity, and forgiveness (Ex 34:6–7). The psalmist exclaims, “Yahweh is my shepherd,” with emphasis on “my.” The temptation in ancient Israel was to speak only about “our” God (cf. Dt 6:4) in forgetfulness that the God of Israel is also the God of individuals. The contribution of this psalm lies, therefore, in the personal, subjective expression of ancient piety. For this reason, Psalm 23 is such a popular psalm. It permits individual believers to take its words on their lips and express in gratitude and confidence that all the demonstrations of God’s covenantal love can be claimed not only corporately by the group but also personally by each of its members.
The metaphor of the shepherd has a colorful history, as it was applied to kings and gods. King Hammurabi called himself “shepherd” (ANET, 164b). The Babylonian god of justice, Shamash, is also called “shepherd”—“Shepherd of the lower world, guardian of the upper” (ANET, 388). The metaphor is not only a designation or name of the Lord, but it also points toward the relationship between God and his covenantal children (cf. 74:1–4; 77:20; 78:52, 70–72; 79:13; 80:1; Isa 40:11; Mic 7:14). The people of God were well acquainted with shepherds. David himself was a shepherd (1Sa 16:11), as the hills around Bethlehem were suitable for shepherding (cf. Lk 2:8).
The psalmist moves quickly from “my shepherd” to a description: “I shall not be in want.” Dahood, 1:146, may stretch its meaning when he writes, “Implying neither in this life nor in the next”; but so do those commentators who find allusions to the Lord’s provisions, guidance, and protection of Israel in the wilderness (cf. A. A. Anderson, 1:196–97; Craigie, 206–7). The conclusion of the psalm (v. 6) gives at least some support to Dahood’s contention; however, the psalm should not be narrowly interpreted in terms of “the eternal bliss of Paradise” (Dahood, 1:145).
2–4 The image of “shepherd” aroused emotions of care, provision, and protection. A good shepherd was personally concerned with the welfare of his sheep. Because of this, the designation “my shepherd” is described by the result of God’s care—“I shall not be in want” (v. 1); by the acts of God—“he makes me lie down … he leads … he restores … he guides” (vv. 2–3); and by the resulting tranquillity—“I will fear no evil” (v. 4).
The shepherd’s care is symbolized by the “rod” and the “staff” (v. 4c). A shepherd carried a “rod” to club down wild animals (cf. 1Sa 17:43; 2Sa 23:21) and a “staff” to keep the sheep in control. The rod and staff represent God’s constant vigilance over his own and bring “comfort” because of his personal presence and involvement with his sheep.
Verses 1 and 4, taken as an inclusio, read:
The LORD is my shepherd. …
Your rod and your staff,
they comfort me.
2 The nature of the care lies in God’s royal provision of all the necessities for his people (see Richard S. Tomback, “Psalm 23:2 Reconsidered,” JNSL 10 [1982]: 93–96, for the background in the ancient Near East). The “green pastures” are the rich and verdant pastures, where the sheep need not move from place to place to be satisfied (cf. Eze 34:14; Jn 10:9). These “green pastures” were a seasonal phenomenon. The fields–even parts of the desert–would turn green during the winter [Vol. 5, p. 254] and spring; but in summer and fall the sheep would be led to many places in search of food. God’s care is not seasonal but constant and abundant. The sheep have time to rest, as the shepherd makes them “lie down.” The “quiet waters” are the wells and springs where the sheep can drink without being rushed (cf. Isa 32:18). The combination of “green pastures” and “quiet waters” portrays God’s refreshing care for his own.
3a As the good shepherd provides his sheep with rest, verdant pastures, and quiet waters, so the Lord takes care of his people in a most plentiful way. He thereby renews them so that they feel that life in the presence of God is good and worth living. He “restores,” i.e., gives the enjoyment of life, to his own (cf. 19:7; Pr 25:13). The word “soul” is not here the spiritual dimension of humankind but denotes the same as “me,” repeated twice in v. 2, i.e., “he restores me.”
3b–4 The nature of the shepherd’s care also lies in guidance (vv. 3b–4b). In v. 2, the psalmist spoke of God as leading (“he leads me”). He develops the shepherd’s role as a guide, only to conclude with another aspect of his shepherdly care–protection (v. 4c). He leads his own in “paths of righteousness.” These paths do not lead one to obtain righteousness. “Righteousness” (sΩedeq) here signifies in the most basic sense “right,” namely, the paths that bring the sheep most directly to their destination (in contrast to “crooked paths”; cf. 125:5; Pr 2:15; 5:6; 10:9). The shepherd’s paths are straight (cf. Aubrey R. Johnson, “Psalm 23 and the Household of Faith,” in Proclamation and Presence, ed. John I. Durham and J. R. Porter [Richmond, Va.: Knox, 1970], 258). He does not unnecessarily tire out his sheep. He knows what lies ahead. Even when the “right paths” bring the sheep “through the valley of the shadow of death” (v. 4), there is no need to fear.
The idiom “the shadow of death” has stirred discussion. Briggs, 1:211–12, spoke of the MT’s punctuation (sΩalmaœwet, “shadow of death”) as “a rabbinical conceit” and preferred, instead of a compound phrase, one word (sΩalmu®t, “darkness”). D. Winton Thomas (“t‰wDmVlAx in the Old Testament,” JSS 7 [1962]: 191–200) has argued persuasively that the MT may be correct, with “death” being a superlative image for “very deep shadow” or “deep darkness.” This imagery is consistent with the shepherd metaphor because the shepherd leads the flock through ravines and wadis where the steep and narrow slopes keep out the light. The darkness of the wadis represents the uncertainty of life. The “straight paths” at times need to go through the wadis, but God is still present.
The shepherd who guides is always with the sheep. The presence and guidance of the Lord go together. He is bound by his name (“for his name’s sake,” v. 3b), “Yahweh,” to be present with his people. Underlying the etymology of “Yahweh” is the promise “I will be with you” (Ex 3:12). For the sake of his name, he keeps all the promises to his covenantal children (cf. 25:11; 31:3; 79:9; 106:8; 109:21; 143:11; Isa 48:9; Eze 20:44). He is loyal to his people, for his honor and reputation are at stake (see Reflections, p. 135, The Name of Yahweh).
The nature of the shepherd’s care lies further in the protection he gives (v. 4c). The “rod” and the “staff” symbolize Yahweh’s presence, protection, and guidance. They summarize his role as shepherd. The effects of his care are expressed in the first person—“I shall not be in want … I will fear no evil” (vv. 1, 4)—as an inclusionary motif together with “shepherd” and “rod/staff” (vv. 1, 4). Thus the psalmist rejoices that Yahweh is like a shepherd in his provision, guidance, and protection, so that the psalmist lacks nothing and fears not.
[Vol. 5, p. 255]
NOTES
For a discussion of the technical words and phrases in the superscription, see Introduction, pp. 62–67.
3–4 A. L. Merrill (“Psalm XXIII and the Jerusalem Tradition,” VT 15 [1965]: 354–60) and John Eaton (“Problems of Translation in Psalm 23:3ff.,” BT 16 [1965]: 171–76) give a royal interpretation. Eaton renders these verses as follows:
He restores my life;
he leads me on the highroad of salvation for the sake of his Name.
Even though I enter the chasm of Death’s dominion,
I fear no evil; for thou art with me;
thy royal rod and staff bring me to joy again.
G. J. Thierry (“Remarks on Various Passages in the Psalms,” OtSt 13 [1963]: 97) treats these verses as having reference to a person and not to “sheep,” as does Briggs (1:207). Timothy A. Willis (“A Fresh Look at Psalm xxiii 3a,” VT 37 [1987]: 104–6) disagrees and argues that these verses relate to three distinct tasks of the shepherd–providing food, water, and shelter.
2. The Lord Is My Host (23:5–6)
5 You prepare a table before me
in the presence of my enemies.
You anoint my head with oil;
my cup overflows.
6 Surely goodness and love will follow me
all the days of my life,
and I will dwell in the house of the LORD
forever.
COMMENTARY
5 The Lord is the host at a banquet (cf. Isa 25:6–8) prepared for his child. The “table” is laden with food and drink. Before entering into the banquet hall, the host would anoint the honored guest with oil (45:7; 92:10; 133:2; Am 6:6; Lk 7:46) made by adding perfumes to olive oil. The “cup” symbolizes the gracious and beneficent manner of entertainment. The overflowing cup pictures the Lord as giving the best to his child. It symbolizes the care and provision of God, previously represented by “green pastures” and “quiet waters.” Moreover, the Lord vindicates his servant “in the presence of [his] enemies,” expressing both the adversities of life itself as well as God’s demonstration of his [Vol. 5, p. 256] love toward his own. In the presence of God, the fragrance of his rewards (“oil”) and the bounty of his provision (“cup”) make one forget troubles and tears. His is “the cup of salvation” (116:13) that pertains to both body and spirit.
6 In view of this picture, the psalmist draws comfort that God’s love and presence are constant. “Goodness and love” reflect the attributes of Yahweh, the covenantally faithful God. The “goodness” (t√o®b) of God is demonstrated in his abundant care and promises, and these are evidence of his blessing (cf. 4:6). In the words of 4:7, God’s goodness gives greater joy than the abundance of “grain and new wine.” The “love” (hΩesed; KJV, “mercy”) of God is the covenantal commitment to bless his people with his goodness, i.e., his promises. The psalmist expresses deep confidence in God’s loyalty. Instead of being pursued by enemies who seek his destruction, it is God’s “goodness and love” that follow him. He need not fear, because God’s care will always manifest itself in his provision, abundance, and protection. God’s loving care follows the psalmist throughout life. The psalmist does not say that our cup will always be full or that our heads will always be anointed with oil, but we do have the promise that God’s beneficence will be our lifelong companion.
The psalmist’s experience of God’s “goodness and love” is equivalent to dwelling “in the house of the LORD.” To eat and drink at the table prepared by the Lord recognizes a covenantal bond (cf. Kidner, 1:112) that does not cease when one leaves the precincts of the tabernacle or temple. The following psalm (Ps 24) deals with the moral requisites for fellowship with the Lord and his blessing (vv. 3–6; cf. Ps 15). The saints in the OT had a sense of God’s presence in the abundant evidences of his goodness. The “house of the LORD” signifies what Kraus, 1:191, defines as, “Whoever has experienced Yahweh’s y§s¥u®{a® [‘deliverance’] may at all times remain in the environs of salvation, in the sanctuary” (cf. 27:4–5; 52:9; 61:4; 63:2; see Reflections, p. 931, The Ark of the Covenant and the Temple).
The “experience” with God takes on transcendental significance, as it gives the believer a taste of everlasting fellowship with God. Thus Weiser, 231, writes, “The hallowed atmosphere of worship is and remains a holy experience whereby the heart feels exalted and becomes more strongly conscious of the nearness of God than is possible in the noise and din of the streets.” Similarly, Brueggemann, 156, writes, “It is not the place but the vitality of the relationship which transforms.” In motifs and metaphors identical to this psalm, the apostle John portrays the ministry of our Lord, the Great Shepherd, to all who suffer on earth (Rev 7:15b–17).
NOTES
5 The verb D;t◊nAÚvî;d (dis¥s¥antaœ, “you anoint,” “you revive”) has the same root as “the rich” (y´nVvî;d, dis¥ne®) in 22:29a and may be a verbal link between these two psalms. The meaning “anoint” is unrelated to the anointing of a king (contra Eaton, Kingship and the Psalms, 36–38); rather, it denotes the plentiful pouring out of oil (cf. NEB, “thou hast richly bathed my head with oil”).
5–6 The LXX renders the last phrase of v. 5 together with the first phrase of v. 6 to describe the cup as being filled with “the best” wine. Though the phrase “goodness and love” occurs only in 23:6, the MT makes good sense. For the covenantal usage, see Michael Fox, “T¸ÔB as Covenant Terminology,” BASOR 209 (1973): 41–42.
[Vol. 5, p. 257]
6 The Hebrew yI;tVbAv◊w (w§s¥abtˆî, “and I will dwell”) occasions difficulties. “I will dwell” requires either yI;tVbIv◊w, w§s¥ibtˆî, or yI;tVbAvÎy◊w, w§yaœs¥abtˆî. The ancient versions agree on the reading “I will dwell” (LXX, Syriac), but the MT reads “I will return,” i.e., “I will continually come back to the house of the Lord as long as I live.” Delitzsch, 1:332, reads both verbs as a pregnant construction, i.e., “again, having returned, dwell in the house of Jahve” (Craigie, 204, “and I shall dwell again in the house of the LORD”). I opt for Dahood’s proposal, 1:148, according to which the MT may be “a contracted form” of yI;tVbAvÎy◊w, w§yaœs¥abtˆî (“and I will dwell”). This is consistent with the ancient witnesses, and there is no need to emend the MT.
David Noel Freedman (“The Twenty–Third Psalm,” in Michigan Oriental Studies in Honor of Georg Cameron, ed. L. L. Orlin et al. [Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1976], 139–66) has explained this psalm from the exilic perspective, in which the people of God anticipate a new exodus and a renewal of covenant. Michael L. Barre and John S. Kselman (“New Exodus, Covenant, and Restoration in Psalm 23,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth, ed. Carol F. Meyers and M. O’Connor [Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1983], 97–127) have further developed this thesis in the light of ancient Near Eastern parallels, concluding that the original royal psalm has been creatively reworked in the exilic community, which, like the Davidic king, prays that they may enjoy God’s covenantal blessings and his presence forevermore.
EBC
Psalm 23: The Goodness of God
Psalm 23 is a psalm of trust and confidence (see the fine exposition by Patrick D. Miller, Jr., “Psalm 23,” Interpreting the Psalms pp. 112-19). Its original setting or situation in life is difficult to determine. S. Gelinder concludes that the psalmist was a king who in his trouble was confident in Yahweh’s ability to deliver him (“On the Condition of the Speaker in Psalm 23,” Beth Mikra 23 [1978]: 642-64 [Heb.]). Jack R. Lundbom suggests that the psalm is set in the wilderness at the time of David’s flight from Absalom (“Psalm 23: Song of Passage,” Int 40 [1986]: 6-16).
The psalm expresses confidence in God’s goodness—in this life and in the life to come. The personal way in which the psalmist speaks of God, the imagery of God’s soothing guidance, and the ensuing confidence in God have all been factors in making this one of the most charming and beloved of the Psalms. The universal appeal of this psalm lies in the comfort it gives to those who have confronted the most difficult periods of life: “It is for parents who survive the folly of rebellious children, for people returning from war, for someone recently out of jail” (ibid., p. 16). It is a psalm of God’s strength and grace for all ages. The teaching of our Lord that he is the Good Shepherd (John 10:11) who has come for both Jews and Gentiles (John 10:16) gives the Christian a sound reason to apply the benefits of God’s goodness to the ancient covenant people and to himself, as a child of Abraham and fellow-heir of Jesus Christ (Gal 3:29; 4:7). Moreover, it causes us to hope in the glory God has prepared for his own (Rev 7:17).
The structure of the psalm is both simple and complex (see Craigie, Psalms 1-50 pp. 204-5; Charles O’Connor, “The Structure of Psalm 23,” Louvain Studies 10 [1985]: 206-30; Siegfried Mittmann, “Aufbau und Einheit des Danklieds Psalm 23,” Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche 77 [1980]: 1-23; Werner Stenger, “Strukturale “relecture’ von Ps 23,” Freude an der Weisung des Herrn, Beitrage zur Theologie der Psalmen, Festgabe zum 70. Geburtstag von Heinrich Gross edd. Ernst Haag and Frank-Lothar Hossfeld [Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1986], pp. 441-55). There are two principle metaphors of the Lord’s goodness: he is like a “shepherd” who is interested in each sheep (vv.1-4), and he is like a host who has prepared a lavish banquet (vv.5-6). Each of these has its own peculiar set of metaphors. See Jean Marcel Vincent for a careful analysis of the language and poetic artistry (“Recherches exegetiques sur le Psaume xxiii,” VetTest 28 [1978]: 442-54). For the purpose of exposition, we shall analyze the psalm under the two metaphors:
A. The Lord Is My Shepherd (vv.1-4)
B. The Lord Is My Host (vv.5-6)
I. The Lord Is My Shepherd (23:1-4)
1 The first word of the psalm, “The LORD” (Yahweh), evokes rich images of the provision and protection of the covenant-God. He promised to take care of his people and revealed himself to be full of love, compassion, patience, fidelity, and forgiveness (Exod 34:6-7). The psalmist exclaims, “Yahweh is my shepherd,” with emphasis on “my.” The temptation in ancient Israel was to speak only about “our” God (cf. Deut 6:4), forgetting that the God of Israel is also the God of individuals. The contribution of this psalm lies, therefore, in the personal, subjective expression of ancient piety. For this reason Psalm 23 is such a popular psalm, because it permits each believer to take its words on his lips and express in gratitude and confidence that all the demonstrations of God’s covenant love are his, too.
The metaphor of the shepherd has a colorful history, as it was applied to kings and gods. King Hammurabi called himself “shepherd” (ANET, p. 164b). The Babylonian god of justice, Shamash, is also called “shepherd”: “Shepherd of the lower world, guardian of the upper” (ANET, p. 388). The metaphor is not only a designation or name of the Lord, but it points toward the relation between God and his covenant-children (cf. 74:1-4; 77:20; 78:52, 70-72; 79:13; 80:1; Isa 40:11; Mic 7:14). The psalmist moves quickly from “my shepherd” to a description: “I shall not be in want.” The people of God were well acquainted with shepherds. David himself was a shepherd (1 Sam 16:11), as the hills around Bethlehem were suitable for shepherding (cf. Luke 2:8).
2-4 The image of “shepherd” aroused emotions of care, provision, and protection. A good shepherd was personally concerned with the welfare of his sheep. Because of this the designation “my shepherd” is further described by the result of God’s care: “I shall not be in want”; by the acts of God, “he makes me lie down ... he leads ... he restores ... he guides” (vv.2-3); and by the resulting tranquility, “I will fear no evil” (v.4).
Dahood may stretch the meaning of “I shall not be in want” when he writes, “Implying neither in this life nor in the next” (Psalms 1:146); but so do those commentators who find allusions to the Lord’s provisions, guidance, and protection of Israel in the wilderness (cf. A.A. Anderson, 1:196-97; Craigie, Psalms 1-50 pp. 206-7). The conclusion of the psalm (v.6) gives at least some support to Dahood’s contention; however, the psalm should not be narrowly interpreted in terms of “the eternal bliss of Paradise” (Dahood, Psalms 1:145).
The shepherd’s care is symbolized by the “rod” and the “staff “ (v.4c). A shepherd carried a “rod” to club down wild animals (cf. 1 Sam 17:43; 2 Sam 23:21) and a “staff “ to keep the sheep in control. The rod and staff represent God’s constant vigilance over his own and bring “comfort” because of his personal presence and involvement with his sheep. Verses 1 and 4, taken as an inclusio, read:
The LORD is my shepherd....
Your rod and your staff,
they comfort me.
The nature of the care lies in God’s royal provisions of all the necessities of his people (see Richard S. Tomback, “Psalm 23:2 Reconsidered,” JNSL 10 [1982]: 93-96, for the background in the ancient Near East). The “green pastures” are the rich and verdant pastures, where the sheep need not move from place to place to be satisfied (cf. Ezek 34:14; John 10:9). The “green pastures” were a seasonal phenomenon. The fields, even parts of the desert, would green during the winter and spring. But in summer and fall the sheep would be led to many places in search of food. God’s care is not seasonal but constant and abundant. The sheep have time to rest, as the shepherd makes them to “lie down.” The “quiet waters” are the wells and springs where the sheep can drink without being rushed (cf. Isa 32:18). The combination of “green pastures” and “quiet waters” portrays God’s “refreshing care” for his own.
As the good shepherd provides his sheep with rest, verdant pastures, and quiet waters, so the Lord takes care of his people in a most plentiful way. He thereby renews them so that they feel that life in the presence of God is good and worth living. He “restores,” i.e., he gives the enjoyment of life, to his own (v.3; cf. 19:7; Prov 25:13). The word “soul” is not here the spiritual dimension of man but denotes the same as “me” repeated twice in v.2, i.e., “he restores me.”
The nature of the shepherd’s care also lies in guidance (vv.3b-4b). In the previous verse the psalmist spoke of God as leading (“he leads me”). He develops the shepherd’s role as a guide only to conclude with another aspect of his shepherdly care: protection (v.4c). He leads his own in the “paths of righteousness.” These paths do not lead one to obtain righteousness. “Righteousness” (sedeq ) here signifies in the most basic sense “right,” namely, the paths that bring the sheep most directly to their destination (in contrast to “crooked paths”; cf. 125:5; Prov 2:15; 5:6; 10:9). His paths are straight (cf. Aubrey R. Johnson, “Psalm 23 and the Household of Faith,” in Proclamation and Presence. Old Testament Essays in Honour of Gwynne Henton Davies edd. John I. Durham and J.R. Porter [Richmond: Knox, 1970], p. 258). He does not unnecessarily tire out his sheep. He knows what lies ahead. Even when the “right paths” bring the sheep “through the valley of the shadow of death” (v.4), there is no need to fear.
The idiom “the shadow of death” has stirred up some discussion. Briggs spoke of the MT punctuation (salmawet “shadow of death”) as “a rabbinical conceit” and preferred, instead of a compound phrase, one word (salmut “darkness,” 1:211-12). D. Winton Thomas (“t‰wDmVlDx in the Old Testament,” JSS 7 [1962]: 191–200) has argued persuasively that the MT text may be correct, with “death” being a superlative image for “very deep shadow” or “deep darkness.” This imagery is consistent with the shepherd metaphor because the shepherd leads the flock through ravines and wadis where the steep and narrow slopes keep out the light. The darkness of the wadis represents the uncertainty of life. The “straight paths” at times need to go through the wadis, but God is still present.
The shepherd who guides is always with the sheep. The presence and guidance of the Lord go together. He is bound by his name (“for his name’s sake”), Yahweh, to be present with his people. Underlying the etymology of Yahweh is the promise “I will be with you” (Exod 3:12). For the sake of his name, he keeps all the promises to his covenant children (cf. 25:11; 31:3; 79:9; 106:8; 109:21; 143:11; Isa 48:9; Ezek 20:44). He is loyal to his people, for his honor and reputation are at stake! (See the appendix to Ps 7: The Name of Yahweh.)
The nature of the shepherd’s care lies further in the protection he gives (v.4c). Above we briefly considered the significance of the “rod” and the “staff “ as they symbolize his presence, protection, and guidance. They summarize his shepherd role. The effects of his care are expressed in the first person—“I shall not be in want.... I will fear no evil” (vv.1, 4)—as an inclusionary motif together with “shepherd” and “rod/staff” (vv.1, 4). Thus the psalmist rejoices that Yahweh is like a shepherd in his provisions, guidance, and protection, so that he lacks nothing and fears not.
II. The Lord Is My Host (23:5-6)
5 The Lord is the host at a banquet (cf. Isa 25:6-8) prepared for his child. The “table” is laden with food and drink. Before entering into the banquet hall, the host would anoint the honored guest with oil (45:7; 92:10; 133:2; Amos 6:6; Luke 7:46). The oil was made by adding perfumes to olive oil. The “cup” symbolizes the gracious and beneficent manner of entertainment. The overflowing pictures the Lord as giving the best to his child. It symbolizes the care and provisions of God, previously represented by “green pastures” and “quiet waters.” Moreover, the Lord vindicates his servant “in the presence of my enemies,” expressing both the adversities of life itself as well as God’s demonstration of his love toward his own. In the presence of God, the fragrance of his rewards (“oil”) and the bounty of his provisions (“cup”) make one forget troubles and tears. His is “the cup of salvation” (116:13) that pertains to both body and spirit.
6 In view of this picture, the psalmist draws comfort that God’s love and presence are constant. His “goodness and love” reflect the attributes of Yahweh, the covenant-faithful God. The “goodness” (tob ) of God is demonstrated in his abundant care and promises, and these are evidence of his blessing (cf. 4:6). In the words of 4:7, it gives greater joy than the abundance of “grain and new wine.” The “love” (hesed ; KJV, “mercy”) of God is the covenantal commitment to bless his people with his goodness, i.e., his promises. The psalmist expresses deep confidence in God’s loyalty. Instead of being pursued by enemies who seek his destruction, God’s “goodness and love” follow him. He need not fear, because God’s care will always manifest itself in his provisions, abundance, and protection. His loving care follows him throughout life. The psalmist does not say that our cup shall always be full or that our heads will always be anointed with oil, but we do have the promise that God’s beneficence will be our lifelong companion.
The psalmist’s experience of God’s “goodness and love” is equivalent to dwelling “in the house of the LORD.” To eat and to drink at the table prepared by the Lord is a recognition of a covenant bond (cf. Kidner, 1:112). The covenant bond does not cease when one leaves the precincts of the tabernacle or temple. The following psalm (Ps 24) deals with the moral requisites for fellowship with the Lord and his blessing (vv.3-6; cf. Ps 15). The saints in the OT had a sense of God’s presence in the abundant evidences of his goodness. The “house of the LORD” signifies what Kraus defines as “whoever has experienced Yahweh’s yeshu‘ah [“deliverance’] may at all times remain in the environs of salvation, in the sanctuary” (Psalmen 1:191; cf. 27:4-5; 52:9; 61:4; 63:2; see the appendix to Ps 132: The Ark of the Covenant and the Temple: Symbols of Yahweh’s Presence and Rule).
The “experience” with God takes on a transcendental significance, as it gives the believer a taste of everlasting fellowship with God. Thus Weiser writes, “The hallowed atmosphere of worship is and remains a holy experience whereby the heart feels exalted and becomes more strongly conscious of the nearness of God than is possible in the noise and din of the streets” (p. 231). Similarly Brueggemann writes that “it is not the place but the vitality of the relationship which transforms” (p. 156). In motifs and metaphors identical to this psalm, the Apocalypse portrays the ministry of our Lord, the Great Shepherd, to all who suffer on earth (Rev 7:15b-17).
R-EBC
2. Woman Caught in Adultery (7:53–8:11)
OVERVIEW
The last verse of ch. 7 and the first eleven verses of ch. 8 record an event that occurs nowhere else in Scripture. In fact, it should probably not be included in the fourth gospel either, since it is absent from virtually all the early Greek manuscripts. Scholarly opinion, however, judges that, while it is not part of the authentic material of John’s gospel, it may well have happened. The episode could have been added by a copyist at a slightly later time when there was less danger that it could be misinterpreted as countenancing promiscuity.
[Vol. 10, p. 470]
7:53Then each went to his own home.
8:1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
COMMENTARY
8:1–2 Because 7:53 speaks of people going to their “own home(s)” while Jesus “went to the Mount of Olives” (8:1; though Jesus was not present at the meeting described in 7:45–52), it has been proposed that the story of the woman taken in adultery was at one time attached to some other narrative. Whatever the case may be, it was Jesus’ custom when in Jerusalem to spend the evenings on the Mount of Olives (cf. Lk 21:37) or with his friends just over the mountain to the east in Bethany (cf. Mk 11:11, 19–20). Early the next morning he entered the outer court of the temple, where scribes often met with their students, and began to teach the people gathering around him.
3 As Jesus was teaching, some scribes and Pharisees arrived with a woman who had been caught in adultery and made her stand before the group. Apparently her accusers had caught her while actually engaged in the act and had brought her directly to Jesus. That the entire affair was trumped-up is clear from the fact that the man involved was not apprehended. It takes two to commit adultery! According to Mosaic law, both parties would be guilty and subject to the death penalty (cf. Lev 20:10; Dt 22:22).
While scribes (NIV, “teachers of the law”) and Pharisees are regularly mentioned together in the Synoptic Gospels, this is the only occurrence in the fourth gospel. Scribes were the recognized experts in the Mosaic law; the Pharisees were those who had devoted their entire lives to observing even the most minuscule part of the law. Some but by no means all of the scribes were also Pharisees.
4–5 The accusers pose to Jesus a question designed to get him in trouble, regardless of his answer. “Teacher,” they say, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” From Ezekiel 16:38–40 it is clear that stoning was the prescribed manner for carrying out the death [Vol. 10, p. 471] penalty in cases of adultery (cf. Dt 22:23–24). Leviticus 20:10 calls for the death of both parties committing adultery but does not indicate the method. (At a later time the penalty was to be carried out by strangulation; cf. b. Sanh. 52b; 84b; 107a.) While there is no sure way of knowing whether the woman in John 8 was married or unmarried, the term “adultery” (moicheia, GK 3657) implies the former.
6 The purpose of the question in v. 5 was not to fulfill the demands of justice but to trap Jesus into saying something that could be used as a basis for an accusation against him. For Jesus to answer that the woman should be stoned would run counter to his recognized concern for “tax collectors and ‘sinners’ ” (Mk 2:15). It would portray him as severe, if not vindictive. What’s more, it could put him in jeopardy with the Romans, who did not allow the Jews to carry out the death penalty (Jn 18:31). On the other hand, for Jesus to say that the woman should not be stoned would be to contradict the Law of Moses. That would provide the Sanhedrin with a charge they could use in discrediting him in the eyes of the people. In either case, the accusers thought they had Jesus on the horns of a dilemma from which he could not remove himself without serious damage.
Instead of answering their question, Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger. Exactly what he wrote no one knows. Since the verb (katagraphoœ, GK 2863), which occurs only here in the NT, means “to draw figures” as well as “to write down” (BDAG, 516; in classical Greek, “to mark” or “to scratch deeply”), it may be that Jesus was simply passing the time in order to give the accusers opportunity to reflect on what they were doing. Those who conjecture that Jesus actually wrote some words suggest such possibilities as the decision that he would then announce; a passage of Scripture such as Exodus 23:1b, 7; or some symbolic word of doom as in Daniel 5:24. Eager to get the upper hand in a verbal exchange they thought they were sure to win, the scribes and Pharisees continued to press home their question: “This is what the Law of Moses says—so what do you say?”
7 Jesus does not deny that the woman’s offense is worthy of the punishment decreed by the Law of Moses. What he does question is the moral competency of her accusers to carry out the penalty. In effect he says, “Go ahead and administer the proper penalty, but only if you have never committed the same offense.” If we understand “without sin” in a general sense as referring to any sin at all, then it is even more evident that none of them would be able to initiate the punishment. That the accuser must be the one to cast the first stone is the clear teaching of Deuteronomy 13:9 and 17:7.
9 Obviously, these religious leaders had not expected Jesus to respond as he did. Gradually they caught on to the full import of what he had said and began to slip away one at a time, beginning with the older men, until only Jesus and the woman were left. The KJV’s interpretative addition “being convicted by their own conscience” is based on inferior textual evidence. It was less their conscience than their embarrassment at being outmaneuvered that prompted them to leave the scene. Jesus’ answer left them at a loss as to what to do or say next. The only option remaining was a tactical retreat. Carson, 336, says, “Those who had come to shame Jesus now leave in shame.” The NIV circumvents the problem of how the woman could be “in the midst” (en mesoœ) when no one else remained by translating the phrase with “still standing there.” Hendriksen, 2:39, is probably right in surmising that only the scribes and Pharisees had gone, leaving the rest of the crowd intact—thus she could still be “in the midst.” There was no reason why those who were not involved in the charge against the woman should leave.
10 When those who had brought the charge had left, Jesus straightened up and asked the woman [Vol. 10, p. 472] where her accusers were. Rhetorically, Jesus asked, “Has no one condemned you?”—or to put it in another way, “They didn’t carry out their sentence, did they?” Lindars, 312, notes that katakrinoœ (GK 2891) means “give a judicial sentence” and in this case “indicates a decision to carry out the penalty required by the law.” For obvious reasons the Jewish authorities had not carried out the penalty.
11 Jesus is not saying that the woman’s act of adultery is not worthy of condemnation but that he doesn’t intend to press charges. In no way does he condone her sin. Neither does he offer her divine forgiveness for what she has done. He simply tells her to “go, and never sin again” (Montgomery). We would hope that the guilty woman repented of her sin, but the text is silent about that. And of course there is room in the kingdom for every kind of sinner (including the adulteress) who turns from sin and embraces by faith the Lord Jesus.
NOTES
7:53–8:11 For a convenient summary of both the external and internal evidence in favor of excluding this unit, see the NET text critical note at 7:53. After reviewing the external evidence and concluding that “practically all of the earliest and best manuscripts we possess omit the pericope,” it goes on to state and essentially refute the several arguments from internal evidence that would tend to support its inclusion. The question of whether the pericope should be regarded as authentic tradition is left open. “It could well be that it is ancient and may indeed represent an unusual instance where such a tradition survived outside of the bounds of the canonical literature.” (See also Metzger, 187–89, for the textual evidence and the committee’s reasons for including the pericope in the UBS Greek NT, albeit enclosed within double square brackets.)
3 Since adultery is a violation of the divinely instituted rite of marriage, it was strongly prohibited in the OT. A bride found not to be a virgin was to be stoned (Dt 22:13–21); a man who violated an unmarried woman was required to marry her (Ex 22:16); a priest’s daughter who becomes a prostitute was to be burned (Lev 21:9); adultery (“voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse” [dictionary definition]) violates both the seventh and tenth commandments and carries the penalty of stoning. It remains an open question, however, whether or how often the penalty was carried out. In Hosea 3:1 the prophet is told by God to “go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another and is an adulteress” (see also the account of David and Bathsheba in 2Sa 11).
8 Several witnesses (U 700 et al.) add eºnoß e˚ka¿stou aujtw◊n ta»ß aJmarti÷aß (henos hekastou autoœn tas hamartias, “the sins of every one of them”) at the end of the sentence. Metzger, 190, suggests that the motive may have been “to satisfy pious curiosity concerning what it was that Jesus wrote upon the ground.”
EBC
6. The woman taken in adultery (7:53-8:11)
Although this narrative is included in the sequence of the outline, it can hardly have belonged to the original text of this Gospel. It is absent from most of the oldest copies of the Gospel that precede the sixth century and from the works of the earliest commentators. To say that it does not belong in the Gospel is not identical with rejecting it as unhistorical. Its coherence and spirit show that it was preserved from a very early time, and it accords well with the known character of Jesus. It may be accepted as historical truth; but based on the information we now have, it was probably not a part of the original text.
7:53-8:1 The words “Then each went to his own home” show that the following account must have been related to some longer narrative of which it was a part. The subjects of this verse must be people at a gathering in the city of Jerusalem at which Jesus was present, for the next verse says, “But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.” “But” implies continuity with a mild contrast: the members of the group, whatever it was, went to their homes while Jesus made his way to the Mount of Olives, where he spent the night. This does not fit well with the preceding text because Jesus was not present at the meeting of the Sanhedrin to which the guards had reported. Furthermore, the withdrawal to the Mount of Olives would fit better the Passover season, when Jesus slept more than once under the shadow of the trees there. The reference to the temple courts (8:2) fits with his teaching described in 7:14, but this does not make convincing evidence. Since he used the Court of the Gentiles on numerous occasions, the event more probably occurred during one of his visits to Jerusalem during the last year of his life, either at the Feast of Dedication (10:22) or at the Final Passover (12:12).
2-3 The episode took place in the temple court at dawn. The entire affair had the appearance of trickery, a trap specially prepared to catch Jesus. The Sanhedrin would probably not have arisen early in the morning unless there was a special reason for doing so. They forced their way into the center of the group and interrupted Jesus’ teaching by posing a question that created an apparently impossible dilemma for him.
4 The guilt of the woman was indisputable; she had been “caught in the act.” There is no indication here that Jesus challenged the charge. He accepted the alternatives that it entailed.
5 The dilemma that the scribes and Pharisees posed was this: The woman was guilty, and under Mosaic law she would be condemned to death. The law’s requirement was this: “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death” (Lev 20:10). The nature of the penalty—stoning—was defined by the Deuteronomic law: “If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife ... you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death” (Deut 22:22-24). If, then, Jesus refused to confirm the death penalty, he could be charged with contradicting the law of God and would himself be liable to condemnation. If, on the other hand, he confirmed the verdict of the Pharisees he would lose his reputation for compassion; and, as Morris suggests, he could have been reported to the Romans as inciting the Sanhedrin to independent exercise of the death penalty (NIC, p. 887).
6-8 The Pharisees’ question was emphatic: “You, there! What do you say?” Jesus made no reply but “bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.” There have been several conjectures as to what he wrote. Some say he may have simply made marks in the dust to cover his embarrassment; or, as has also been suggested, he may have started to make a list of the sins of those who stood in front of him. It was, incidentally, the only occasion on record that refers to his writing. When his questioners kept pressing him for an answer, Jesus finally stood erect and replied, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Then he resumed his writing.
His reply put the dilemma back on his questioners. In this particular offense there would normally be no witnesses, since its nature would demand privacy. Either the witnesses became such by accident, which would be unusual; or they were present purposely to create the trap for Jesus, in which case they themselves were guilty; or they condoned the deed, and this would make them partners in it. According to Jewish law, in any case of capital punishment the witnesses must begin the stoning. Whether Jesus by his statement implied that they were guilty of condoning or of committing adultery with this woman, or whether he was speaking about past personal guilt is uncertain. In either case, each one of the accusers would either have to admit that he was guilty or else refrain from demanding the woman’s death.
9 The accusers “began to go away one at a time, the older ones first.” The older ones either had more sins for which they were answerable or else had more sense than to make an impossible profession of righteousness. Finally the woman Was left alone.
10 Jesus straightened up and addressed the woman: “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” His address was respectful (cf. 2:4; 20:13). Her accusers had made her the bait for a trap. They were more interested in destroying Jesus than in saving her. Their vicious hatred of him was as bad as her immorality. His rebuke had prevented their pronouncing sentence on her. Jesus did not pronounce sentence either. But neither did he proclaim her to be innocent.
11 Jesus dismissed the woman by saying, “Go now and leave your life of sin.” Meeting a man who was interested in saving rather than exploiting and in forgiving rather than condemning must have been a new experience for her. Jesus’ attitude provided both the motivation and the assurance she needed. Forgiveness demands a clean break with sin. That Jesus refrained from condemning her was a guarantee that he would support her.
-Dan
PS:One final note of interest is the text of the NIV in the EBC is sometimes, like here in John is the 1978 version and not the 1984 version.
0
