The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (EBC) (12 vols.)

Another software company has announced that Zondervan is requiring them to raise their price on the original Expositor’s Bible Commentary (EBC) (12 vols.) And that as of July 1 their price will rise from $99 to over $300. I would have guess a similar price hike will likely be happening here. It is a very good set and wanted to possibly give anyone not owning it a heads up since it looks like Zondervan is forcing the price up (my guess to stop cannibalizing the EBC R which is an improvement (except the loss of the articles in volume 1 of EBC) but not worth the extra price in my mind ).

-Dan

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

DAL

Bad move on Zondercrook's part...LOL...somebody called them "Zondercrooks" a good while ago. If anything, they should drop the price on the new set, instead of trying to raise the price on the old set. The content of the old set (IMO) is better and sufficient than the new set. The price on the old set is just outrageous! Maybe they should think this through or else neither set will get that many sales anymore.

I'm just glad I already own the original set and I'm not planning on purchasing the new one unless it's sold at $200 bucks the most ($250 worse case scenario).

But yeah, those of you who do not own the original set $129 is a steal! Don't miss out on it! Thanks Dan for the info.

DAL

Deacon Steve

Thanks for the heads up, Dan. I know you always go "above and beyond". For those of us who do not own this commentary set, could you post a couple of excerpt's. Perhaps the first few verses in the first chapter of Matthew - and some others.

[:)]

Dan Francis

2 Gospel samples, Psalm 1, And small as it may sound Genesis 1:1 I am not sure if Logos has the notes integrated or if like Accordance it has the notes as a separate module.

-Dan

b. The author’s comment (3:16-21)

16 Commentators are divided as to whether vv.16-21 are a direct continuation of the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus or whether they represent only the author’s comment on Jesus’ words. In either case, they express the most important message of the Gospel (emphasized elsewhere in many ways)-that salvation is a gift received only by believing God for it. The nature of belief is implied in the illustration of Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness (v.14). Belief consists of accepting something, not doing something. The result of belief is that one receives eternal life. He is freed from condemnation and lives in a relation of total honesty with God, for he does not fear having his real self exposed.

“Eternal,” the new life God gives, refers not solely to the duration of existence but also to the quality of life as contrasted with futility. It is a deepening and growing experience. It can never be exhausted in any measurable span of time, but it introduces a totally new quality of life. The believer becomes imperishable; he is free from all condemnation, he is approved by God.

The verb “perish” depicts the opposite of salvation. It is used of death as opposed to life (Mark 3:6, transitive), “destroy” as opposed to preserve (1Cor 1:19), “loss” as opposed to win or gain (2John 8). It may be used of sheep that have gone astray (Matt 10:6) or a son who has wandered from his father’s house (Luke 15:24). Its use here clearly implies that those without God are hopelessly confused in purpose, alienated from him in their affections, and futile in their efforts. Positive belief in Christ is necessary; all that one has to do to perish is nothing. To perish is to fail completely of fulfilling God’s purpose and consequently to be excluded forever from his fellowship.

The presentation of the good news of God’s love offers only two options: to believe or to perish. Eternal life, which is accepted by believing, is a gift of God and brings with it the fullest blessings God can bestow. To perish does not mean to cease to exist; it means to experience utter failure, futility, and loss of all that makes existence worthwhile. Its use with reference to Judas in John 17:12 is a vivid illustration.

17-18 Notwithstanding this gloomy picture of “lost” or “perish,” God’s purpose toward man is positive. God’s attitude is not that of suspicion or hatred but of love. He is not seeking an excuse to condemn men but is rather endeavoring to save them. His purpose in sending Jesus into the world was to show his love and to draw men to himself. If they are lost, it is because they have not committed themselves to God, the only source of life. Beginning at this point, the contrast between belief and unbelief is increasingly exemplified. John has here defined the crux of belief and unbelief and has indicated the effects of each. The progress of both in the characters of those associated with Jesus becomes increasingly evident as the drama of this Gospel unfolds.

19-21 The difference between the believer and the unbeliever does not lie in the guilt or innocence of either, it lies in the different attitudes they take toward the “light.” The unbeliever shrinks from the light because it exposes his sin; the believer willingly comes to the light so that his real motives may be revealed. This verse is paralleled by 1John 1:8-9: “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.”

In John 1:5 we’re told of the natural antipathy that exists between light and darkness. Verses 19-21 of ch. 3 lid this battle from the realm of the abstract to the concrete by showing that it is the love of evil deeds that keep men from responding to the light. There’s no missing the fact that men are held accountable for their actions, and the choice is theirs: evil deeds or truth.

7. Further testimony of John the Baptist (3:22-36)

22-24 This period of Jesus’ ministry in Judea is not paralleled by any account in the synoptic Gospels. It occurred before the arrest and imprisonment of John the Baptist, for he and Jesus were preaching and baptizing simultaneously. Mark begins the active ministry of Jesus after John’s imprisonment (Mark 1:14) and states that Jesus summoned the disciples to follow him at that time. Matthew’s account agrees with Mark’s in substance (Matt 4:12-21). Luke does not specify that John’s arrest preceded Jesus’ ministry, though he mentions the imprisonment at the outset of his narrative (Luke 3:19). Both exercised a rural rather than urban ministry at this time. Jesus and his disciples remained in the Judean country; John was preaching farther north.

23 The exact location of Aenon is uncertain. Two sites are possible: one south of Beth-shan, where there were numerous springs; another a short distance from Shechem. Of the two, the former seems to be the better possibility. Eusebius and Jerome both mention it; and the ancient mosaic Madaba map of sacred sites depicts an “Aenon near to Salim” near the Jordan south of Scythopolis, the later name of Beth-shan. C.H. Turner observes that in this region John would have been in the territory of the Greek city of Scythopolis, outside the domain of Herod Antipas (p. 202).

25-26 The argument between a Jewish inquirer and the disciples of John indicates that there must have been confusion over the respective merits of Jesus and John. If both were baptizing, whose baptism was valid? By popular acclaim Jesus’ influence was growing and John’s was waning. John’s interrogators felt that their friend and teacher had been eclipsed by Jesus’ sudden popularity, and they wanted an explanation.

27-30 John showed no jealousy whatever; on the contrary, he reaffirmed his subordinate position. He would not claim for himself final authority but avowed that he had been sent in preparation for the Messiah. As the bridegroom is more important than the best man, or “friend” of the bridegroom who acted as the bridegroom’s assistant, so he would be content to act as an assistant to Jesus.

Just how far the simile of bride and bridegroom should be pressed is questionable. Should the bride represent Israel, to whom the Messiah came, or the church? The imagery is applied to both (cf. Hos 2:19-20; Eph 5:32), but the focus of this passage is on the bridegroom, not the bride. The emphasis is on the relation of Jesus and John rather than on the relation of Jesus to Israel or to the church. To what extent this explanation of the relation of John the Baptist to Jesus was prompted by later conditions in the church is not stated. Adherents to John’s preaching and baptism certainly existed in the middle of the first century and were widespread. Apollos of Alexandria, who ministered at Ephesus, was one of this company. Aquila and Priscilla later instructed him in the ministry of Christ (Acts 18:24-26). When Paul arrived at Ephesus, he found others who held the same belief. Paul himself brought them into a full understanding of the work of Christ (Acts 19:1-7). It is likely that this halfway understanding persisted among John’s converts.

31-36 This paragraph, like vv.16-21, may be the author’s reflection on what he had just written. Its phraseology accords better with the style of vv.16-21 than with that of John the Baptist. It is valuable as a testimony to the person of Christ in the light of what the author has just written. It declares in no uncertain terms that (1) Jesus came from heaven and spoke with a higher authority than that of earth; (2) that he spoke from observation, not from theory; (3) that he spoke the words of God; (4) that the Father’s love had caused him to endow the Son with complete authority to execute his purpose. These qualities made Jesus superior in every way to John the Baptist, though the latter had an important and divinely authorized message. John spoke as one “from the earth.” The Son, however, was not merely the messenger of God; he was the revealed object of faith. Once again the dividing line is affirmed. The believer in the Son has eternal life; the unbeliever will never possess that life, for he is already under condemnation. The wrath of God remains on him.

This is the only passage in the Johannine Gospel and Epistles in which “wrath” is mentioned. The word does not mean a sudden gust of passion or a burst of temper. Rather, it is the settled displeasure of God against sin. It is the divine allergy to moral evil, the reaction of righteousness to unrighteousness. God is neither easily angered nor vindictive. But by his very nature he is unalterably committed to opposing and judging all disobedience. The moral laws of the universe are as unvarying and unchangeable as its physical laws, and God cannot set aside either without violating his own nature. The rejection of his Son can be followed only by retribution. Acceptance of Christ is the personal appropriation of God’s truth—an appropriation that might be compared to the practice of endorsing a check to cash it.

Merrill C. Tenney, John, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas, vol. 9 of Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), n.p.

John 3:16 Morris says: “In the first century there were no devices such as inverted commas to show the precise limits of quoted speech.... Perhaps the dividing point comes at the end of v.15.... But in v.16 the death on the cross appears to be spoken of as past, and there are stylistic indications that John is speaking for himself” (NIC, p. 228).

EBC Notes. 1st, Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), n.p.

A. The Genealogy of Jesus (1:1-17)

In each Gospel Jesus’ earthly ministry is preceded by an account of John the Baptist’s ministry. This formal similarity does not extend to the introductions to the Gospels. Mark (1:1) opens with a simple statement. Luke begins with a first-person preface in which he explains his purpose and methods, followed by a detailed and often poetic account of the miraculous births of John and Jesus (1:5-2:20) and brief mention of Jesus’ boyhood trip to the temple (2:21-52). Luke reserves Jesus’ genealogy for chapter 3. John’s prologue (1:1-18) traces Jesus’ beginnings to eternity and presents the Incarnation without referring to his conception and birth. In each Gospel the introduction anticipates major themes and emphases. In Matthew the prologue (1:1-2:23) introduces such themes as the son of David, the fulfillment of prophecy, the supernatural origin of Jesus the Messiah, and the Father’s sovereign protection of his Son in order to bring him to Nazareth and accomplish the divine plan of salvation from sin (cf. esp. Stonehouse, Witness of Matthew, pp. 123-28).

1 The first two words of Matthew, biblos geneseos, may be translated “record of the genealogy” (NIV), “record of the origins,” or “record of the history.” NIV limits this title to the genealogy (1:1-17), the second could serve as a heading for the prologue (1:1-2:23), and the third as a heading for the entire Gospel. The expression is found only twice in the LXX: in Genesis 2:4 it refers to the creation account (Gen 2:4-25) and in Genesis 5:1 to the ensuing genealogy. From the latter it appears possible to follow NIV (so also Hendriksen; Lohmeyer, Matthaus ; McNeile); but because the noun genesis (NIV, “birth”) reappears in 1:18 (one of only four NT occurrences), it seems likely that the heading in 1:1 extends beyond the genealogy. No occurrence of the expression as a heading for a book-length document has come to light. Therefore we must discount the increasingly popular view (Davies, Setting ; Gaechter, Matthaus ; Hill, Matthew ; Maier; Zahn) that Matthew means to refer to his entire Gospel, “A record of the history of Jesus Christ.” Matthew rather intends his first two chapters to be a coherent and unified “record of the origins of Jesus Christ. “

The designation “Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham” resonates with biblical nuances. (For comments regarding “Jesus,” see on 1:21.) “Christ” is roughly the Greek equivalent to “Messiah” or “Anointed.” In the OT the term could refer to a variety of people anointed for some special function: priests (Lev 4:3; 6:22), kings (1Sam 16:13; 24:10; 2Sam 19:21; Lam 4:20), and, metaphorically, the patriarchs (Ps 105:15) and the pagan king Cyrus (Isa 45:1). Already in Hannah’s prayer “Messiah” parallels “king”: the Lord “will give strength to his king and exalt the horn of his anointed” (1Sam 2:10). With the rising number of OT prophecies concerning King David’s line (e.g., 2Sam 7:12-16; cf. Ps 2:2; 105:15), “Messiah, or “Christ,” became the designation of a figure representing the people of God and bringing in the promised eschatological reign.

In Jesus’ day Palestine was rife with messianic expectation. Not all of it was coherent, and many Jews expected two different “Messiahs.” But Matthew’s linking of “Christ” and “son of David” leaves no doubt of what he is claiming for Jesus.

In the Gospels “Christ” is relatively rare (as compared with Paul’s epistles). More important it almost always appears as a title, strictly equivalent to “the Messiah” (see esp. 16:16). But it was natural for Christians after the Resurrection to use “Christ” as a name not less than as a title; increasingly they spoke of “Jesus Christ” or “Christ Jesus” or simply “Christ.” Paul normally treats “Christ,” at least in part as a name; but it is doubtful whether the titular force ever entirely disappears (cf. N.T. Wright, “The Messiah and the People of God: A Study in Pauline Theology with Particular Reference to the Argument of the Epistle to the Romans” [Ph. D. diss., Oxford University, 1980], p. 19). Of Matthew’s approximately eighteen occurrences, all are exclusively titular except this one (1:1), probably 1:16, certainly 1:18, and possibly the variant at 16:21. The three uses of “Christ” in the prologue reflect the confessional stance from which Matthew writes; he is a committed Christian who has long since become familiar with the common way of using the word as both title and name. At the same time it is a mark of Matthew’s concern for historical accuracy that Jesus is not so designated by his contemporaries.

“Son of David” is an important designation in Matthew. Not only does David become a turning point in the genealogy (1:6, 17), but the title recurs throughout the Gospel (9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30-31; 21:9, 15; 22:42, 45). God swore covenant love to David (Ps 89:29) and promised that one of his immediate descendants would establish the kingdom—even more, that David’s kingdom and throne would endure forever (2Sam 7:12-16). Isaiah foresaw that a “son” would be given, a son with the most extravagant titles: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace: “Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this” (Isa 9:6-7).

In Jesus’ day at least some branches of popular Judaism understood “son of David” to be messianic (cf. Pss Sol 17:21; for a summary of the complex intertestamental evidence, cf. Berger, “Die koniglichen Messiastraditionen,” esp. pp. 3-9). The theme was important in early Christianity (cf. Luke 1:32, 69; John 7:42; Acts 13:23; Rom 1:3; Rev 22:16). God’s promises, though long delayed, had not been forgotten; Jesus and his ministry were perceived as God’s fulfillment of covenantal promises now centuries old. The tree of David, hacked off so that only a stump remained, was sprouting a new branch (Isa 11:1).

Jesus is also “son of Abraham.” It could not be otherwise, granted that he is son of David. Yet Abraham is mentioned for several important reasons. “Son of Abraham” may have been a recognized messianic title in some branches of Judaism (cf. T Levi 8:15). The covenant with the Jewish people had first been made with Abraham (Gen 12:1-3; 17:7; 22:18), a connection Paul sees as basic to Christianity (Gal 3:16). More important, Genesis 22:18 had promised that through Abraham’s off spring “all nations” (panta ta ethne, LXX) would be blessed; so with this allusion to Abraham, Matthew is preparing his readers for the final words of this offspring from Abraham—the commission to make disciples of “all nations” (28:19, panta ta ethne ). Jesus the Messiah came in fulfillment of the kingdom promises to David and of the Gentile-blessings promises to Abraham (cf. also Matt 3:9; 8:11).

2-17 Study has shown that genealogies in the Ancient Near East could serve widely diverse functions: economic, tribal, political, domestic (to show family or geographical relationships), and others (see Johnson; also Robert R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977]; R.E. Brown, Birth of Messiah, pp. 64-66). The danger in such study is that Matthew’s intentions may be overridden by colorful backgrounds of doubtful relevance to the text itself. Johnson sees Matthew’s genealogy as a response to Jewish slander. H.V. Winkings (“The Nativity Stories and Docetism,” NTS 23 [1977]: 457-60) sees it as an answer to late first-century Docetism that denied the essential humanity of Jesus. One wonders whether a virgin birth would have been the best way to go about correcting the Docetists.

D.E. Nineham (“The Genealogy in St. Matthew’s Gospel and Its Significance for the Study of the Gospels,” BJRL 58 [1976]: 491-44) finds in this genealogy the assurance that God is in sovereign control. Yet it is unclear how he reconciles this assurance with his conviction that the genealogy is of little historical worth. If Matthew made much of it up, then we may admire his faith that God was in control. But since Matthew’s basis was (according to Nineham) faulty it gives the reader little incentive to share the same faith.

Actually, Matthew’s chief aims in including the genealogy are hinted at in the first verse—viz., to show that Jesus Messiah is truly in the kingly line of David, heir to the messianic promises, the one who brings divine blessings to all nations. Therefore the genealogy focuses on King David (1:6) on the one hand, yet on the other hand includes Gentile women (see below). Many entries would touch the hearts and stir the memories of biblically literate readers, though the principal thrust of the genealogy ties together promise and fulfillment. “Christ and the new covenant are securely linked to the age of the old covenant. Marcion, who wished to sever all the links binding Christianity to the Old Testament, knew what he was about when he cut the genealogy out of his edition of Luke” (F.F. Bruce, NBD, p. 459).

For many, whatever its aims, the historical value of Matthew’s genealogy is nil. R.E. Brown (Birth of Messiah, pp. 505-12) bucks the tide when he cautiously affirms that Jesus sprang from the house of David. Many ancient genealogies are discounted as being of little historical value because they evidently intend to impart more than historical information (cf. esp. Wilson, Genealogy and History ). To do this, however, is to fall into a false historical disjunction; for many genealogies intend to make more than historical points by referring to historical lines.

Part of the historical evaluation of Matthew 1:2-17 rests on the reliability of Matthew’s sources: the names in the first two-thirds of the genealogy are taken from the LXX (1Chron 1-3, esp. 2:1-15; 3:5-24; Ruth 4:12-22). After Zerubbabel, Matthew relies on extrabiblical sources of which we know nothing. But there is good evidence that records were kept at least till the end of the first century. Josephus (Life 6 [1]) refers to the “public registers” from which he extracts his genealogical information (cf. also Jos. Contra Apion I, 28-56 [6-10]). According to Genesis R 98:8, Rabbi Hillel was proved to be a descendant of David because a genealogical scroll was found in Jerusalem. Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 3. 19-20) cites Hegesippus to the effect that Emperor Domitian (A.D. 81–96) ordered all descendants of David slain. Nevertheless two of them when summoned, though admitting their Davidic descent, showed their calloused hands to prove they were but poor farmers. So they were let go. But the account shows that genealogical information was still available.

While no twentieth-century Jew could prove he was from the tribe of Judah, let alone from the house of David, that does not appear to have been a problem in the first century, when lineage was important in gaining access to temple worship. Whether Matthew had access to the records himself or gleaned his information from intermediate sources, we cannot know from this distance; but in any case we “have no good reason to doubt that this genealogy was transmitted in good faith” (Albright and Mann).

More difficult is the question of the relation of Matthew’s genealogy to Luke’s, in particular the part from David on (cf. Luke 3:23-31). There are basic differences between the two: Matthew begins with Abraham and moves forward; Luke begins with Jesus and moves backward to Adam. Matthew traces the line through Jeconiah, Shealtiel, and Zerubbabel; Luke through Neri, Shealtiel, and Zerubbabel. More important, Luke (3:31) traces the line through David’s son Nathan (cf. 2Sam 5:14), and Matthew through the kingly line of Solomon. It is often said that no reconciliation between the two genealogies is possible (e.g., E.L. Abel, “The Genealogies of Jesus Ο ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ“, NTS 20 [1974]: 203-10). Nevertheless two theories are worth weighing

1. Some have argued that Luke gives Mary’s genealogy but substitutes Joseph’s name (Luke 3:23) to avoid mentioning a woman. And there is some evidence to support the notion that Mary herself was a descendant of David (cf. Luke 1:32). That Mary was related to Elizabeth, who was married to the Levite Zechariah (Luke 1:5-36), is no problem, since intermarriage between tribes was not uncommon. Indeed, Aaron’s wife may well have sprung from Judah (cf. Exod 6:23; Num 2:3) (so Beng., CHS, Luther). H.A.W. Meyer rearranges the punctuation in Luke 3:23 to read “being the son (of Joseph as was supposed) of Heli [i.e., Mary’s father], of Matthat.” But this is painfully artificial and could not easily be deduced by a reader with a text without punctuation marks or brackets, which is how our NT Greek MSS were first written. Few would guess simply by reading Luke that he is giving Mary’s genealogy. The theory stems, not from the text of Luke, but from the need to harmonize the two genealogies. On the face of it, both Matthew and Luke aim to give Joseph’s genealogy.

2. Others have argued, more plausibly, that Luke provides Joseph’s real genealogy and Matthew the throne succession—a succession that finally jumps to Joseph’s line by default. Hill (Matthew ) offers independent Jewish evidence for a possible double line (Targ. Zech 12:12). This hypothesis has various forms. The oldest goes back to Julius Africanus (c. A.D. 225; cf. Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 1. 7), who argued that Matthew provides the natural genealogy and Luke the royal—the reverse of the modern theory (so Alf, Farrer, Hill, Taylor, Westcott, Zahn). In its modern form the theory seems reasonable enough: where the purpose is to provide Joseph’s actual descent back to David, this could best be done by tracing the family tradition through his real father Heli, to his father Matthat, and thus back to Nathan and David (so Luke); and where the purpose is to provide the throne succession, it is natural to begin with David and work down.

As most frequently presented, this theory has a serious problem (cf. R.E. Brown Birth of Messiah, pp. 503-4). It is normally argued that Joseph’s father in Matthew 1:16, Jacob, was a full brother of Joseph’s father mentioned in Luke 3:23, Heli; that Jacob, the royal heir, died without offspring; and that Heli married Jacob’s widow according to the laws of levirate marriage (Deut 25:5-10). (Though levirate marriages may not have been common in the first century, it is unlikely that they were completely unknown. Otherwise the question of the Sadducees [22:24-28] was phrased in irrelevant terms.) But if Jacob and Heli are to be reckoned as full brothers, then Matthan (Matt) and Matthat (Luke) must be the same man—even though their fathers, Eleazar (Matt) and Levi (Luke) respectively, are different. It seems artificial to appeal to a second levirate marriage. Some have therefore argued that Jacob and Heli were only half-brothers, which entails a further coincidence—viz., that their mother married two men, Matthan and Matthat, with remarkably similar names. We do not know whether levirate marriage was practiced in the case of half-brothers. Moreover since the whole purpose of levirate marriage was to raise up a child in the deceased father’s name, why does Luke provide the name of the actual father?

R.E. Brown judges the problems insurmountable but fails to consider the elegant solution suggested by Machen (pp. 207-9) fifty years ago. If we assume that Matthat and Matthan are not the same person, there is no need to appeal to levirate marriage. The difficulty regarding the father of Matthat and the father of Matthan disappears; yet their respective sons Levi and Jacob may have been so closely related (e.g., if Levi was an heirless only son whose sister married Jacob or Joseph) that if Levi died, Jacob’s son Joseph became his heir. Alternatively, if Matthan and Mat that are the same person (presupposing a levirate marriage one generation earlier), we “need only to suppose that Jacob [Joseph’s father according to Matthew] died without issue, so that his nephew, the son of his brother Heli [Joseph’s father according to Luke] would become his heir” (p. 208).

Other differences between Matthew and Luke are more amenable to obvious solutions. As for the omissions from Matthew’s genealogy and the structure of three series of fourteen, see on 1:17.

2 Of the twelve sons of Jacob, Judah is singled out, as his tribe bears the scepter (Gen 49:10; cf: Heb 7:14). The words “and his brothers” are not “an addition which indicates that of the several possible ancestors of the royal line Judah alone was chosen” (Hill, Matthew ), since that restriction was already achieved by stipulating Judah; and in no other entry (except 1:11; see comment) are the words “and his brothers” added. The point is that, though he comes from the royal line of Judah and David, Messiah emerges within the matrix of the covenant people (cf. the reference to Judah’s brothers). Neither the half-siblings of Isaac nor the descendants of Jacob’s brother, Esau, qualify as the covenant people in the OT. This allusive mention of the Twelve Tribes as the locus of the people of God becomes important later (cf. 8:11 with 19:28). Even the fact that there were twelve apostles is relevant.

3-5 Probably Perez and Zerah (v.3) are both mentioned because they are twins (Gen 38:27; cf. 1 Chronicles 2:4); Judah’s other sons receive no mention. Ruth 4:12, 18-22 traces the messianic line from Perez to David. There is some evidence that “son of Perez” was a rabbinic designation of Messiah (SBK, 1:18), but the dating of the sources is uncertain.

Tamar, wife of Judah’s son Er, is the first of four women mentioned in the genealogy (for comment, see on 1:6). Little is known of Hezron (Gen 46:12; 1 Chronicles 2:5), Ram (1 Chronicles 2:9), Amminadab (v.4; Exod 6:23; Num 1:7; 1 Chronicles 2:10), Nahshon (Num 2:3; 7:12; “the leader of the people of Judah,” 1 Chronicles 2:10), and Salmon (v.5; Ruth 4:18-21; 1 Chronicles 2:11). Amminadab is associated with the desert wanderings in the time of Moses (Num 1:7). Therefore approximately four hundred years (Gen 15:13; Exod 12:40) are covered by the four generations from Perez to Amminadab. Doubtless several names have been omitted: the Greek verb translated “was the father of” (gennao ) does not require immediate relationship but often means some thing like “was the ancestor of” or “became the progenitor of.”

Similarly, the line between Amminadab and David is short: more names may have been omitted. Whether such names properly fit before Boaz, so that Rahab was not the immediate mother of Boaz (just as Eve was not immediately “the mother of all the living,” Gen 3:20), or after Boaz, or both, one cannot be sure. It is almost certain, however, that the Rahab mentioned is the prostitute of Joshua 2 and 5 (see further on 1:6). Boaz (1 Chronicles 2:11-12), who figures so prominently in the Book of Ruth, married the Moabitess (see on 1:6) and sired Obed, who became the father of Jesse (Ruth 4:22; 1 Chronicles 2:12).

D. A. Carson, Matthew, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas, vol. 8 of Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), n.p.

Matt 1:1 For a broader grasp of the place of the Messiah in the OT, cf. Ladd, NT Theology, pp. 136ff.; Douglas, Bible Dictionary, 2:987–95.

Matt 1:3 Older EV (e.g., KJV) have the names Tamar and Hezron in the OT and Thamar and Esrom in the NT. Because English OT names are roughly transliterated from the Hebrew and English NT names are roughly transliterated from the Greek, which for many names transliterates from the Hebrew, we have these variations. NIV rightly smooths them out.

EBC Notes. 1st, Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), n.p.

I. The Discriminating Way of the Godly (1:1-2)

1 The opening phrase of the psalm (“Blessed is the man”) is an appropriate introduction to the Book of Psalms. The Psalms encourage individuals as well as the community of God’s people to live for God’s glory. The formula “Blessed is the man” evokes joy and gratitude, as man may live in fellowship with his God. Blessedness is not deserved; it is a gift of God. God declares sinners to be righteous and freely grants them newness of life in which he protects them from the full effects of the world under judgment (Gen 3:15-19). Outside of God’s blessing, man is “cursed” and ultimately leads a meaningless life (Eccl 1:2). The word “happy” is a good rendition of “blessed” (‘ashre ), provided one keeps in mind that the condition of “bliss” is not merely a feeling. Even when the righteous do not feel happy, they are still considered “blessed” from God’s perspective. He bestows this gift on them. Neither negative feelings nor adverse conditions can take his blessing away.

The blessing of God rested on Abraham (Gen 12:3) and was incorporated into the Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants (Gen 17:2-16; Deut 7:13; 28:3-6). For the godly blessing is both the experience and the anticipation of the fulfillment of God’s promises (cf. Deut 30:15-20). Since man’s being is both physical and spiritual (Gen 2:7), God’s blessings extend to the whole person (cf. Pss 34, 127).

While man’s “happiness” is a free gift of God, it must be promoted by two kinds of activities: dissociation from the wicked and association with God (v.2). Dissociation is brought out by means of three negative sentences. The godly man does not (1) walk (halak ) in the counsel of the wicked, (2) stand (‘amad ) in the way of sinners, or (3) sit (yashab ) in the seat of mockers; rather, he reflects on the Lord in his walking, standing, and sitting (cf. Deut 6:7; see Gunnel Andre, “‘Walk’, ‘Stand’, and ‘Sit,’ in Psalm i 1-2,” VetTest 32 [1982]: 327; cf. Stefan C. Reif, “Ibn Ezra on Psalm I 1-2,” VetTest 34 [1984]: 232-36).

The perfect mood of the verbs in each case emphasizes that the godly are never involved with anything tainted with evil (Jouon, par. 112d). These three descriptions do not represent three kinds of activities of the wicked or a climactic development from walking to sitting or an intensification in the depraved activities of the wicked. Instead, the parallelism is synonymous and profoundly portrays the totality of evil. For a contrastive use of complete loyalty to the Lord, see Deuteronomy 6:7.

There are two possible translations of ‘asat resha‘im : “counsel of the wicked” (NIV) and “council of the wicked” (Dahood, Psalms 1:1-2). The context does not determine the meaning because both meanings are possible. The usage of the phrase elsewhere (“schemes [counsel] of the wicked,” Job 10:3; 21:16) and of similar phrases (“the plans [counsel] of the nations,” Ps 33:10; “the advice [counsel][of] the elders,” 2 Chronicles 10:8, 13) is in favor of the traditional translation: “counsel.” The emphasis lies on the folly of the wicked rather than on the act of meeting as a deliberative body. Their whole “way” (derek ) is corrupt. The “way” is a common metaphor for “manner of life” (TDOT, 3:284-86; TWOT, 1:196-97). The psalm contrasts the two ways: the way of sinners and the way of the righteous (v.6).

The “mockers” (lesim ) have no regard for God and his commandments. The mocker is a fool in the language of wisdom (Prov 9:8; 14:6). He does not respond to instruction (9:7; 15:12) but stirs up strife by his insults (22:10). He delights in mocking (1:22). Thus the way of folly is comprehensive as it entails a devotion to self and to the group in all areas of life.

In contrast the godly in their walking, lying down, and getting up—whether at home or along the road—are devoted to the Lord (Deut 6:7; cf. Josh 1:7-8). In all their activities they keep distant from the ungodly, lest they get under their influence. They carefully guard themselves in their family, business, and social relations as they set the terms of their relations, while being polite and gracious (cf. Prov 25:21-22; 1 Cor 5:9-13; 2 John 10-11).

2 The righteous man is positively identified by his association with “the law of the LORD.” The “law” is not to be limited to the Five Books of Moses or even to the OT as a whole. The Hebrew word torah (“law”) signifies primarily instruction that comes from God (see the appendix to Ps 19: The Word of God). This is the distinctive difference between revelation and religion (J. Ellul, A Living Faith tr. Peter Heinegg [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983], pp. 111-25). Revelation comes from God for the purpose of helping man to live in harmony with God’s will, whereas religion is man’s attempt to order his path and to explain the world around him. The godly in every age live in accordance with revelation. The contents of the revelation may vary, and Christians may dispute how the OT laws relate to the church today; but there should be an earnest search for and delight in doing the will of God as set forth in Jesus’ teaching (Matt 6:10; 12:50; 1 John 3:11-24; 5:2-3; see T.E. McComiskey, The Covenants of Promise. A Theology of the Old Testament Covenants [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985], pp. 66-80).

The psalmist does not speak here about the deadening effects of the law but of its life-giving aspects. Life responds to life, and spirit responds to spirit; so it is with the new life of the believer as he responds joyfully to the living God and to the Spirit who has inspired his word. The believer’s delight is not only in knowing, studying, and memorizing the Word of God but especially in doing God’s will, rather than being deceived by the wicked. C.S. Lewis incisively observed, “The Law’s beauty, sweetness, or preciousness, arose from the contrast of the surrounding Paganism, we may soon find occasion to recover it. Christians increasingly live on a spiritual island” (“Sweeter than Honey,” in Reflections on the Psalms, p. 64).

“Delight” (hepso ) expresses all that makes the man of God happy. The law is more than his delight; it is his chief desire. The fear of the Lord, as the beginning of wisdom, is expressed as a delight in God’s law (112:1; cf. Isa 58:13-14) and not only in pious words or a good feeling about God (cf. TWOT, 1:148-49).

In the wisdom literature the way of torah signifies the adherence to, as well as the enjoyment and application of, God’s will to everyday life. The delight of the godly in doing God’s will on earth (Matt 6:10) is the result of a special relationship with the Lord.

The godly man “meditates” (hagah ) in the law of God day and night. The verb hagah is onomatopoeic (TWOT, 1:205); i.e., in its basic meaning (“to murmur” or “mutter”), it alludes to the sound of animals (Isa 31:4; 38:14) or a moaning noise (Isa 16:7). Since the Bible, in part or as a whole, was generally not available to God’s people, they memorized and “pondered” the word (cf. 119:11), the perfections of the Lord (63:6), and his mighty acts (77:12; 143:5). The alternation of the perfect (v.1) and imperfect (v.2) brings up the habitual aspect of reflection on God’s word (Jouon, par. 112d). The one who meditates continually reflects God’s word in life. H. Ringgren writes that study and practice blend into one: “The zealous study of the law which results in being filled with the will of Yahweh and the doing of his commandments” (TDOT, 3:323).

Meditation is not the setting apart of a special time for personal devotions, whether morning or evening, but it is the reflection on the Word of God in the course of daily activities (Josh 1:8). Regardless of the time of day or the context, the godly respond to life in accordance with God’s word. Even where the word is not explicit, the godly person has trained his heart to speak and act with wisdom (Prov 1:1-7). According to Proverbs 3:1-6, the wise man receives instruction (torah ), writes it on his heart, and wholeheartedly trusts in the Lord with all his heart in all his daily activities. The psalmist exclaims how he loves the law of God because its commandments make him wiser than his enemies and lead him to greater insight and understanding than that of his teachers and elders (119:97-100). On the connection between wisdom and the law of Moses, see Eichrodt, TOT, 2:344-49; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Wisdom and Law in the Old Testament: The Ordering of Life in Israel and Early Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983); Childs, OTTC, pp. 210-14.

II. The Future of the Godly and the Wicked Contrasted (1:3-5)

3 The happiness of the godly is likened to a tree. The tree is a familiar metaphor for the blessed life of the godly (Jer 17:7-8). In the wisdom literature the tree is a metaphor for wisdom itself (Prov 3:18); and the wise man is likened to a tree of life in that his speech and activities are life-giving and restorative (Prov 11:30; 15:4). Unlike trees growing wild in wadis or planted in the fields, where the amount of rainfall varies, the tree the psalmist envisions has been planted purposely by irrigation canals (palge mayim “streams of water”), artificial water-channels made for the purpose of irrigation (cf. Prov 21:1; Eccl 2:5-6; Isa 30:25).

The imagery of the leaves and the fruit assure the godly that they will receive God’s blessing and will enjoy life as a gift of God (cf. Ezek 47:12). True to the language used in wisdom literature, the godly are characterized by the success the Lord sends their way. The “prosperity” of the righteous does not necessarily extend to the assurance of great wealth but primarily to God’s blessing on their words and works (cf. 90:14-17). The psalmist thus encourages the godly to pursue the way of wisdom. The wise man is characterized by success. Nevertheless, the psalm does not encourage a success-oriented faith. The godly do not seek success for its own sake, but they do receive a measure of blessing on their lives. The prosperity of the righteous—guaranteed or limited to the godly—is a gift of God, a by-product of wise living; cf. Joseph (Gen 39:2-3, 23), Joshua (1:8), Solomon (2 Chronicles 1:11-12), and Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 32:30). But success is not an infallible token of God’s presence, for the wicked may also prosper (Ps 37:7). Rather, the righteous live with the hope of God’s blessing.

4 How different is the end of the wicked! Whereas Jeremiah compares the lot of the wicked to a bush in the wasteland that dries up, the psalmist compares the wicked to mere “chaff.” The imagery of chaff is not uncommon in the Bible (cf. Ps 35:5; Isa 17:13; 29:5; Hos 13:3; Zeph 2:2; Matt 3:12). Malachi compares the end of the wicked on the Day of the Lord both to “stubble” and to a tree consumed by fire from root to branch (4:1). The metaphor of chaff reveals both the uselessness of the wicked and the ease with which God will deal with them. Even as the winnower casts the chaff to the afternoon breeze, so the Lord will drive away the wicked. No one will remember their place.

The brevity of the wicked’s description stands in stark contrast to the fuller portrayal of the righteous as a tree with leaves and fruit (v.3). It is also briefly compared to the lengthy description of the wicked in v.1.

5 The conclusion is clearly marked by the word “therefore” (‘al-ken ). The end of the wicked may not be clear while they are alive and busying themselves with wickedness, but from God’s perspective the wicked have no future. They cannot withstand the judgment of God, whether it comes in the present, by means of adversity, or on the Day of the Lord. They are judged by being alienated from the congregation of the righteous. “The assembly of the righteous” (‘adat saddiqim ) is composed of those who have a relationship with God and enjoy his presence. They will experience his presence both now and in the life to come. The word “assembly” (‘edah ) is a collective term for the people of God (TWOT, 1:388), used here in a more spiritual way to indicate that the judgment of God also comes on circumcised Israelites who did not love God or keep his commandments. “Judgment” (mishpat ) is the whole of the judicial process by which Yahweh will establish his rule on earth. He is the God of justice (Mal 2:17-3:5), who in his wrath and righteous indignation execrates the wicked. Therefore, it is an awful matter to fall under his judgment. The judgment of God will strike the wicked so that they will be incapable of rising (cf. Isa 2:12-21). His judgment takes place throughout redemptive history and will come to a climactic end in “the day” of the Lord (Zeph 1:14-18; cf. Matt 13:41-43; 1 Thess 5:1-11).

III. The Discriminating Way of God (1:6)

6 The reason for the certainty of the judgment lies in God’s knowledge of the affairs of men. God knows! The knowledge of God involves not only an objective knowledge about the righteous but also a subjective relationship with them, assuring them that he cares for his own, protects them, and will reward them (cf. 31:8; 37:18; 144:3).

The intimate acquaintance with God as an expression of his love and care is expressed by the verb “know” (yodea‘; NIV, “watches over”; cf. KB, p. 365). The verb, also used for the intimate relationship of husband and wife (Gen 4:1), marks the love of God for his children. God heard the groaning of the Israelites in Egypt, and he “knew” (Exod 2:25; NIV, “was concerned”). This knowledge about their miserable condition is the beginning of the magnificent story of the Exodus, because he demonstrated his love for them by many signs and wonders (cf. Exod 19:4). God’s “knowledge” is a deep commitment to, love for, and care of his own; hence the translation “the LORD watches over” (cf. Rom 8:29-39). As such it is an expression of his covenantal commitment (see Herbert B. Huffmon, “The Treaty Background of Hebrew Yada‘ “ BASOR 181 [1966]: 31-37).

The “way of the righteous” is characterized by a love for God and a readiness to live a godly life. However, there is a second way: “the way of the wicked” (cf. v.1). The Lord offers no protection to those who are not reconciled to him; rather, their end is destruction. Jesus warned us that those who know him must do the will of God as interpreted by him (Matt 5-7). Those who do not produce fruit will come under the judgment of his words: “I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!” (Matt 7:23; cf. vv.15-27).

Appendix: The Ways of Wisdom and Folly

Old Testament wisdom writings (Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes), other sections of the Old and New testaments, and many psalms contrast the ways of the wise and of the fool. There are only two ways: the way of God and the way of man; the way of wisdom and the way of folly. What is biblical wisdom? Biblical wisdom begins and ends with Yahweh, whose way is evident in his creation (Ps 19) and in revelation (Pss 19; 119). The Lord freely chose to reveal himself to Israel and freely elected Israel. The godly in Israel responded to election and divine grace by living in the presence of God. Zimmerli speaks of a dialogical nature of election and responsible living in the presence of Yahweh (OTTO, p. 46). Responsible or wise living was not systematized into a grid of ethical rules. It was first and foremost a devotion to a living God. Childs puts it so aptly, “The response of faith is so intense and directed so personally to God because the possession or loss of life is measured in terms of his relation to God who both ‘kills and makes alive’” (OTTC, p. 210).

The righteous

What is the biblical wisdom that the psalmists speak of so frequently? First, wisdom calls for a response. The invitation is open to all (34:11-12; cf. Prov 1:8-9; 2:1-3:10). Regardless of age, social standing, or gender, whether Jew or Gentile, God expects the response of love and submission to him (49:1-3). Those who devote themselves to a loving response may have to undergo fatherly discipline: “It was good for me to be afflicted so that I might learn your decrees” (119:71). Out of the brokenness of heart, the godly learn wisdom; and out of gratitude they seek wisdom. The way of wisdom demands total commitment: “Blessed are they who keep his statutes and seek him with all their heart” (119:2; cf. vv.3, 10). Since God is greater than any treasure, the love for God demands the ultimate sacrifice—total loyalty and discipleship: “I rejoice in following your statutes as one rejoices in great riches” (119:14; cf. vv.20, 127).

Second, wisdom opens the door to living in the imitation of God, the Great King over all creation. Creation unfolds the manifold wisdom of God. Everything coheres in him and through him. Because he is one, there is one way of living in coherence in this world: the way of God. The way of God is shown throughout the Psalms but may be illustrated by reference to Psalms 111 and 112. In Psalm 111 the psalmist sets forth the way of God. The “way” (derek ) of Yahweh is seen in the variety and magnificence of his works (111:2). They frame the world of human experience, as the Lord maintains order in his world (111:3). He is also generous like a father toward his creation, bestowing on it grace, compassion, and provision (111:4-5; cf. 145:9). He cares much for all of his creation, but so much more for his covenant people who respond to him as wise children (111:5b-6)! They are the object of his particular love, communion, and blessing (111:7-9). He has revealed his way in creation, redemption, and written revelation. He looks for those who respond properly to his presence (111:10).

According to Psalm 112 the wise are like their heavenly Father. The wise imitate God as they establish Yahweh’s way on earth as their divinely appointed sphere of operation (112:3). Their works are established as they show compassion and are gracious (112:4-5, 9). They are steadfast (112:6-7) and successful (112:8-9). They live in harmony with God’s order. Childs rightly observes: “The call to an obedient response which involves honesty, charity and peace is grounded in the prior acts of God” (OTTC, p. 216).

Third, the way of God evidences itself in submission to divine revelation. The Book of Psalms opens with this distinctive way of living in the freedom of divine revelation: “But his delight is in the law of the LORD, / and on his law he meditates day and night” (1:2; cf. 37:31). This seems to be a paradox. The godly is free only when he serves God: “I run in the path of your commands, for you have set my heart free” (119:32; cf. v.45).

This attitude toward God’s revelation is never separate from a love for the Lord: “Praise the LORD. / Blessed is the man who fears the LORD, / who finds great delight in his commands” (112:1). “Fear” (yir’ah ) denotes an attitude of submission and openness to divine instruction. The wise man is not alone. While he shuns the godless way of life, he treasures fellowship with the godly (119:63). In Psalm 111 the psalmist refers to the community of the godly as “the council [sod ] of the upright” (v.1). The sod denotes a group of people who associate together, having a way of living in common (cf. 25:14; Prov 3:32) in distinction from the way of the wicked (Jer 15:17; Ps 64:2).

Fourth, the wise are blessed by the Lord. He rewards them in this life and in the life to come (1:3, 6; 119:1-2, 38, 68, 88; 127; 128; 2 Tim 4:8). He does good to them by delivering them from evil (119:17; cf. Matt. 6:13), by fulfilling his promises (119:123), and by removing the wicked from the earth (1:6; 119:119). The aged psalmist of Psalm 37 encourages the godly to keep life in focus, especially in duress. Trust in the Lord overcomes anxiety and bitterness of heart. Further, God’s promises are true and will come true! Hence, he encourages the suffering saints to trust in the Lord and to do good (37:3).

The psalmist further encourages the young people to gain wisdom by learning from the experience of the past: “Taste and see that the LORD is good; / blessed is the man who takes refuge in him. / Fear the LORD, you his saints, / for those who fear him lack nothing” (34:8-9; see Ps 34).

What promises are set before the wise? They are blessed in receiving the goodness of the Lord himself (23:6; 34:8). His presence brings sufficiency in matters of food, clothing, and human needs (34:9-11; cf. Matt 6:33-34). Yahweh promises to deliver and protect them (34:15, 17-19, 22). Such a person lives closer to Yahweh than he can ever imagine: “He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High / will rest in the shadow of the Almighty” (91:1). This God can and will care for his own by day or by night (91:3-13), on account of their devotion to him: “Because he loves me,” says the Lord, “I will rescue him; I will protect him, for he acknowledges my name” (91:14; cf. vv.15-16).

The imagery of the first psalm portrays the wise person as successful because God is with him. He is likened to a tree, whose verdancy and fruit are lasting (1:3-4; 92:12-15). This is only because “the LORD watches over the way of the righteous” (1:6a). The future of the wise is bright, even in adversity. He holds on to God and to his promises. He believes that regardless of the suffering, Yahweh is for him (37:4-5). He affirms that in the end “he will make your righteousness shine like the dawn, the justice of your cause like the noonday sun” (37:6).

The promise of God, repeated by our Lord, is that “the meek will inherit the land and enjoy great peace” (37:11; cf. Matt 5:5). Yahweh will never abandon those who suffer on account of his name, even in this present evil existence: “For the LORD loves the just / and will not forsake his faithful ones. / They will be protected forever, / but the offspring of the wicked will be cut off “ (37:28; cf. vv.39-40).

Fifth, the godly person (hasid; saddiq ) is dependent on divine guidance (32:8; 119:24, 34), on God’s love (hesed ), and on divine favor (119:29), while humbly walking in reliance on the Lord (119:26-27). He despises the attitude of self-reliance as much as he does the way of those who stubbornly refuse to follow God. But he does recognize his weakness, as he prays, “Oh, that my ways were steadfast / in obeying your decrees!” (119:5; cf. v.9). The wise man is constantly vigilant lest he be tempted and succumb to evil (119:11). Further, he lives in awe of the revelation of God, never assuming that he fully grasps the Word of God, but praying instead, “Open my eyes that I may see / wonderful things in your law” (119:18). This attitude is well-expressed by Ellul as

authenticity of faith, attentive listening to God’s Word, the informing of everyday life by the Christian spirit, and boldness become once more the true face of revelation.... [their] names are not written in any historical movement, in any genealogy, in any story of the propagation of the faith, these men and women who are content simply to be true and pious unknown Christians. (Jacques Ellul, The Subversion of Christianity tr. Geoffrey W. Bromiley [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986], pp. 208-9)

The primary goal of the “righteous” lies with God’s honor and the establishment of his kingdom by orthopraxis the doing of the will of God. He does not seek to impose his will on others, to restructure society, or to transform his arena of operation by exchanging spiritual values for political, societal, or temporal structures. Yes, the wise confess with the psalmist: “I am a stranger on earth; / do not hide your commands from me” (119:19; cf. v.23). His goal is to operate within God’s designs and to persevere in this to the end: “Teach me, O LORD, to follow your decrees; / then I will keep them to the end” (119:33; cf. v.112).

The wise live in anticipation of God’s intrusion in human affairs. In doing the will of God, they continually await with great expectation the establishment of God’s righteousness on earth: in judgment and in rewards. In Psalm 119 we read, “My soul faints with longing for your salvation, / but I have put my hope in your word. / My eyes fail, looking for your promise; / I say, ‘When will you comfort me?’” (vv.81-82; cf. vv.77-79, 174).

Kuntz distinguishes three levels of applicability of divine “retribution” in the wisdom psalms: (1) the ideal or traditional (Pss 1; 25:12-14; 32; 37; 40:5-6; 128; (2) the realistic (Pss 34; 37:39-40; 94:12-15; 112); and (3) the eschatological or futuristic (Pss 49; 73:23-26).

Theology, revelation, ethics, and eschatology are correlatives (1:5-6; 37:34; 119:42-43, 49, 52, 74). Life in hope of the kingdom of God intensifies the desire to do what is right in the present (119:134-63). (Johag persuasively relates “good” to covenantal loyalty in which the righteous person does what is good in the eyes of the Lord; that is, he is faithful [pp. 14-23].) The “fear of the LORD” is the beginning of wisdom in the sense that the wise man desires to order his life in the present in anticipation of the order Yahweh will establish. Wise living is living with “order” (von Rad, OTT, 1:433). The man of hope experiences freedom from fear and great peace because his hope lies in Yahweh: “Great peace have they who love your law, / and nothing can make them stumble. / I wait for your salvation, O LORD, / and I follow your commands” (119:165-66).

Vocabulary of the wise

“poor” and “needy” (‘ani, ‘ebyon, dal, dak see 9:9, 18; 69:32-33; 129:1-2)

“wise” (hakam see 49:10; 107:43, esp. in Proverbs [47 times])

“to be understanding” (b-y-n: binah [“understanding”], tebunah [“understanding”])

“faithful” (hasid “godly,” “faithful [one/people],” “holy one,” “saint,” “consecrated one,” and “devoted” in NIV; see 4:3)

“upright” (yashar often used to characterize the “heart” [cf. 7:10; 11:2; 32:11; 36:10 et al.] or the “way” [37:14] of the godly)

“righteous” (saddiq see 1:6)

“understanding” (s-k-l: maskil [NIV, “any who understand,” 14:2; a Hiphil participle, usually found in superscriptions [see Introduction]; sekel [“have understanding,” 111:10])

“blameless” (tamim “perfect”; denotes a life style of integrity; see 15:2)

The fool

The fool is variously referred to as “the wicked,” “senseless,” “mocker,” “arrogant,” and “enemy.” The fool lives without mystery, without a sense of awe, and without accountability: “How great are your works, O LORD, / how profound your thoughts! / The senseless man does not know, / fools do not understand” (92:5-6). This class of people coexists within the covenant community and outside.

The one group rejects the oracles of God and defines their own style of life in clear contradiction to what they have been taught (50:16). They bring confusion, injustice, greed, competition, slander, and all the evils of this world into the community of the godly (Pss 55; 84:10; 94; 119). Their power could become so overwhelming that they form a threat to those who live godly among the people of God (73:3-4). The other group denotes the enemies of God’s people and the king: the nations that live in rebellion to God’s kingdom.

The response of the godly to either group is a prayer for the manifestation of God’s kingdom in which all unrighteousness will be removed. They clearly distinguish between the way of this world and the way of God (cf. 26:5). Hence, the Psalms open with a clear distinction between the way and the end of the godless mockers and that of the righteous (Ps 1).

The “fool” is a person who lives practically as if God is not there, does not see his actions, and extends his operation on earth by ridding this earth of the godly or by oppressing them (10:2, 4, 13; 11:2; 14; 36:1). C.S. Lewis’s insight is worth quoting: “What makes this contact with wicked people so difficult is that to handle the situation successfully requires not merely good intentions.... It is therefore ... mere prudence to avoid it when we can” (“Connivance,” in Reflections on the Psalms, p. 74).

The “imprecations” on the enemies (see appendix to Ps 137) arise only out of the godly’s sense of hope that Yahweh will reject the kingdoms of man: “Arise, O Lord! / Deliver me, O my God! / Strike all my enemies on the jaw; / break the teeth of the wicked” (3:7). Their faith is in Yahweh who has revealed his nature as righteous, loving, and compassionate. They further believe that Yahweh’s nature and his kingdom will exclude all who live in opposition to his perfections (cf. 11:5). They cannot have a future (cf. 5:4-5).

The godly also believe that God in his love will bless them (7:9) and that this can only happen when all evil is removed (9:5, 16; 37:10, 13, 17, 20, 28, 34, 38, 40; 58:9; 68:2; 75:8; 92:7; 97:10; 104:35; 106:18; 107:42; 112:10; 125:3; 141:6; 145:20; 147:6).

Vocabulary of the wicked

“sinner” (hatta’ see Ps 1)

“wicked” (rasha‘ see Ps 1)

“mocker” (lesim see Ps 1)

“arrogant” (zedim see Ps 119:21, 51, 69, 78, 85, 122)

“fool” (nabal see Ps 14:1)

“who do wrong” (po‘ale ‘awen see Ps 5:5)

Other words denote “enemy” (‘oyeb, mere‘im, rodep, sone’, shorer ).

The problem of wisdom in the reality of a world of alienation

The Psalms, like the wisdom books of Job and Ecclesiastes, reflect realistically on the cost of living in imitation of God. On the one hand, the wise man is protected by the shelter of the Almighty while awaiting the fulfillment of God’s promises. On the other hand, he experiences the full brunt of evil while in this life. This world seems to be populated and dominated by ungodly squatters who disenfranchise the godly. The purpose of wisdom is to give a balanced perspective. True, life is harsh! But God knows and cares (34:15-22)!

The enemies in the various psalms are real, whatever form they may represent: power, greed, injustice, jealousy, religious orthodoxy, or opportunism. The wise are most sensitive to the great disparity existing between God’s rule in justice and righteousness (see appendix to Ps 25: The Perfections of Yahweh) and the twisted way of man. Yet the psalmist encourages the wise not to be afraid whatever may come: “Why should I fear when evil days come, / when wicked deceivers surround me—/ those who trust in their wealth / and boast of their great riches?” (49:5-6).

The commitment of the wise is first and foremost to the Lord, who will reward all who hunger and thirst for righteousness. He will establish his kingdom on earth (see appendix to Ps 5: Yahweh Is King). Yahweh will give his people life in its fullness: “But God will redeem my life from the grave; / he will surely take me to himself” (49:15). But the power, material treasures, and oppression of the wicked will cease forever and ever (49:7-14; cf. Ps 37).

In the lament psalms the king, individuals in Israel, and the community of God’s people pray for the light of God’s kingdom to dawn. The psalms bring into focus both the life of the individual and the community before God and the opposition experienced in this world. The godly live in tension. Who are the enemies? The identification of the enemy changes, depending on who is praying: the Davidic king, an individual, or the nation. But in general it may be said that the godly experienced the reality of a world in alienation: persecution, opposition, oppression, ridicule, injustice, and death (Miller, “Trouble and Woe,” pp. 33-34)!

In this light the psalms encourage the godly to commit their adversities to the Lord (cf. Ps 37), not to be taken by the short-lived pleasures of the fool (49:16-20), and trust in the Father’s wisdom (Ps 73). Even during the darkest hours, the wise remember the confession, “Surely God is good to Israel, / to those who are pure in heart” (73:1). It is true that the graver the burdens of this life weigh on the godly, the more precious Yahweh becomes to them: “Yet I am always with you; / you hold me by my right hand. / You guide me with your counsel, / and afterward you will take me into glory. / Whom have I in heaven but you? / And earth has nothing I desire besides you” (73:23-25).

In this knowledge of God’s care, the “brokenhearted” and “crushed in spirit” have hope that Yahweh will deliver the righteous from “many troubles” (34:19). Out of this conviction the psalmist encourages the godly to look around themselves and see the ways of God: “Consider the blameless, observe the upright; / there is a future for the man of peace” (37:37).

Texts: 1; 10; 12; 14; 15; 19; 32; 34; 36; 37; 49; 50; 52; 53; 73; 78; 82; 91; 92; 94; 111; 112; 119; 127; 128; 133.

Bibliography:George W. Anderson, “Enemies and Evildoers,” pp. 18-29; Michael L. Barre, “‘Fear of God’ and the World View of Wisdom,” BTB 11 [1981]: 41-43; Paul van der Berghe, “Ani et Anaw dans les Psaumes,” Le Psautier ed. Robert De Langhe (Leuven: Institut Orientaliste, 1962), pp. 273-95; Georg Braulik, “Law as Gospel. Justification and Pardon According to the Deuteronomic Torah,” Int 38 (1984): 5-14; Childs, OTTC, pp. 210-12; Heinz-Josef Fabry, “Der himmlische Thronrat als ekklesiologisches Modell,” Bausteine biblischer Theologie. Festgabe fur G. Johannes Botterweck zum 60. Geburtstag dargebracht von seinen Schulern ed. H.J. Fabry (Koln: Peter Hanstein, 1977), pp. 99-126; F.C. Fensham, “Common Trends in Curses of the Near Eastern Treaties and Kudurru-Inscriptions Compared with the Maledictions of Amos and Isaiah,” ZAW 75 (1963): 155-75; Mervyn Fowler, “The Meaning of lipne YHWH in the Old Testament,” ZAW 99 (1987): 384-90; B. Gemser, “Gesinnungsethik im Psalter,” OTS 13 (1963): 1-20; Stanley Gevirtz, “West-Semitic Curses and the Problem of the Origins of the Hebrew Law,” VetTest 11 (1961): 137-58; Ingeborg Johag, “tob—Terminus Technicus in Vertrags—und Bundnisformularen des Alten Orients und des Alten Testaments,” Bausteine biblischer Theologie, pp. 3-23; Carl Keller, “Les “Beatitudes’ de l’Ancien Testament,” Maqqel shaqedh, La Branche d’Amandier. Hommage a W. Vischer (Montpellier: Causse, Graille, Casteneau, 1960), pp. 88-100; Kraus, TP, pp. 156–203; J. Kenneth Kuntz, “The Canonical Wisdom Psalms of Ancient Israel: Their Rhetorical, Thematic, and Formal Dimensions,” Rhetorical Criticism. Essays in Honor of James Muilenberg edd. Jared J. Jackson and Martin Kessler (Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1974), pp. 186–222; id., “The Retribution Motif in Psalmic Wisdom,” ZAW 89 (1977): 223-33; Roland E. Murphy, The Psalms, Job (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977); id., Wisdom Literature and Psalms; id., “Religious Dimensions of Israelite Wisdom,” in Ancient Israelite Religion. Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross edd. Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), pp. 449-58; A. Murtonen, “The Use and Meaning of the Words lebarek and berakah in the Old Testament,” VetTest 9 (1959): 158-77; Anthony Phillips, “Nebalah—a term for serious disorderly and unruly conduct,” VetTest 25 (1975): 237-42; Gerhard von Rad, Wisdom in Israel (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972); id., “‘Righteousness’ and “Life’ in the Cultic Language of the Psalter,” in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (New York: 1966), pp. 243-66; id., OTT, 1:418-41; Reindl, pp. 333-56; Nic. H. Ridderbos, De “Werkers der Ongerechtigheid” in the Individueele Psalmen (Kampen: Kok, 1939); Katherine D. Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible: A New Inquiry Harvard Semitic Monographs 17 (Missoula: Scholars, 1978), pp. 241-45; id., Faithfulness in Action (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985); J. Scharbert, “‘Fluchen’ und “Segnen’ im Alten Testament,” Biblica 39 (1958): 1-36; id., “Die Geschichte der baruk—Formel,” Biblisches Zeitschrift 17 (1973): 1-28; Norman H. Snaith, Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament (London: Epworth, 1944), pp. 51-78; W.S. Towner, “‘Blessed be YHWH’ and “Blessed Art Thou, YHWH’—The Modulation of a Biblical Formula,” CBQ 30 (1968): 386-99; C. Westermann, Der Segnen in der Bibel und im Handeln der Kirche (Munich: Kaiser, 1968); id., “The Blessing God and Creation,” in What Does the Old Testament Say About God? ed. Friedemann W. Golka (Atlanta: Knox, 1979), pp. 39-52; Zimmerli, OTTO, pp. 107-8.

TDOT, 1:27-41, 140-47; 2:99-107; 3:195–230; 4:309-19, 364-85; THAT, 1:557-66; TWAT, 3:83-87, 1059–70; TWOT, 1:282-84.

Willem A. VanGemeren, Psalms, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas, vol. 5 of Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), n.p.

Ps 1:1 The phrase אַשְׁרֵי הָאִישׁ (‘ashre ha’ish “Blessed is the man”) is a formula of blessing and is a synonym of ‏בָּרוּךְ (baruk “blessed”; cf. TWOT, 1:80). Walter Kaser (“Beobachtungen zum alttestamentlichen Makarismus,” ZAW 82 [1970]: 225–50) gives a convincing argument that the expression “blessed is” represents a form of wisdom literature. By this form the author proclaims the blessings of covenantal life and the joy of living continually in the presence of God who is faithful from day to day (cf. 94:12; 112:1; 119:1-2). The formula is found as early as the Pyramid Texts. However, in the covenantal structure of Israel, it was transformed and enriched (cf. TDOT, 1:445–48). Our Lord also used this expression in the Beatitudes (Matt 5:3-12).

Dahood’s proposal to read דֶּרֶךְ חַטָּאִים (derek hatta’im “the way of sinners”) as “assembly of sinners” (Psalms 1:2) is based on the parallel construction and on a doubtful etymology.

Ps 1:2 “LORD” is an English translation of the tetragrammaton יהוה (YHWH), usually pronounced as “Yahweh.” In reading the Psalms, the name of God is an important marker of his presence and his closeness to his people. The significance of the name will receive further attention when important to the exposition of the text (see the appendixes to Ps 3: “Yahweh Is My God,” and to Ps 7: “The Name of Yahweh”; cf. Willem A. VanGemeren, “Tetragrammaton,” in Elwell, EDB, pp. 1079–80).

Brueggemann treats Ps 1 together with Pss 15; 24; 119 as “Songs of Torah” (Message of the Psalms, pp. 38-42).

Ps 1:3 On the shift from active to passive verbs, see Alter, p. 115; R. Lack, “Le Psaume 1—Une Analyse Structurale,” Biblica 57 (1977): 154–67.

Ps 1:3-4 The literary approach of holistic interpretation espoused by Meir Weiss adds a new dimension to understanding the text. He integrates the tree imagery in Ps 1 and Jer 17 as descriptive of the nature of the wise (see The Bible From Within. The Method of Total Interpretation [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984], pp. 133–63).

Ps 1:5 The צַדִּיקִים (saddiqim “righteous”) are those who love God and do his will. They have close fellowship (cf. Ps 15) as they practice the will of the Most High in all areas of life. The OT concept of righteousness includes justification by faith but also a relationship of communion with God and of responsiveness to Yahweh in doing his will (see 111:3-4; 112:3-4; see W.A. VanGemeren, “Righteousness,” in Elwell, BEB, 2:1860–62; TWOT, 2:752–55; see appendix to Ps 25: The Perfections of Yahweh).

EBC Notes. 1st, Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), n.p.

I. Introduction to the Patriarchs and the Sinai Covenant (1:1-11:26)

Chapters 1-11 form an introduction to both the Book of Genesis and the Pentateuch as a whole. These chapters should be read with this dual purpose in mind. They set the stage for the narratives of the patriarchs (Gen 12-50) as well as provide the appropriate background for understanding the central topic of the Pentateuch: the Sinai covenant (Exodus—Deuteronomy).

The author of the Pentateuch has carefully selected and arranged Genesis 1-11 to serve its function as an introduction. Behind the present shape of the narrative lies a clear theological program. In nearly every section of the work, the author’s theological interest can be seen. His theological perspective can be summarized in two points. First, the author intends to draw a line connecting the God of the Fathers and the God of the Sinai covenant with the God who created the world. Second, the author intends to show that the call of the patriarchs and the Sinai covenant have as their ultimate goal the reestablishment of God’s original purpose in Creation. In a word, the biblical covenants are marked off as the way to a new Creation.

A. The Land and the Blessing (1:1-2:25)

A close look at the narrative style of the opening chapters of Genesis suggests that the first two chapters form a single unit. This unit has three primary sections. The first section is 1:1, which stands apart from the rest of chapter 1. The remaining two sections are 1:2-2:3 and 2:4b-25. The heading entitled toledot (“generations”; NIV, “the account of”) in 2:4a serves to connect these last two sections. Two primary themes dominate the Creation account: the land and the blessing. In recounting the events of Creation, the author has selected and arranged his narrative so that these themes are allowed full development. The preparation of the “land” and the divine “blessing” are important to the author of Genesis (and the Pentateuch) because these two themes form the basis of his treatment of the patriarchal narratives and the Sinai covenant. In translating the Hebrew word ‘eres “earth” in 1:1 and 1:2, the EVs have blurred the connection of these early verses of Genesis to the central theme of the “land” (‘eres ) in the Pentateuch. Although ‘eres can be translated by either “earth” or “land,” the general term “land” in English more closely approximates the use of ‘eres in chapter 1. Thus from the start the author betrays his interest in the covenant by concentrating on the ‘eres in the account of Creation (see fn. 5, p. 11). “Nothing is here by chance; everything must be considered carefully, deliberately, and precisely” (von Rad, in loc.).

1. The God of creation (1:1)

1 The account opens with a clear, concise statement about the Creator and the Creation. Its simplicity belies the depth of its content. These seven words are the foundation of all that is to follow in the Bible. The purpose of the statement is threefold: to identify the Creator, to explain the origin of the world, and to tie the work of God in the past to the work of God in the future. The Creator is identified in 1:1 as “God,” that is, “Elohim” (‘elohim ). Although God is not further identified in v.1 (e.g., 15:7; Exod 20:2), the author appears confident that there will be no mistaking this God with any other than the God of the Fathers and the God of the covenant at Sinai. The proper context for understanding 1:1, in other words, is the whole of the Book of Genesis and the Pentateuch. Already in Genesis 2:4b, God (Elohim) is identified with the Lord (Yahweh), the God who called Abraham (Gen 12:1) and delivered Israel from Egypt (Exod 3:15).

The God of 1:1, then, is far from a faceless deity. From the perspective of the Pentateuch as a whole, he is the God who has called the Fathers into his good “land” (‘eres ), redeemed them from Egypt, and led them again to the borders of the ‘eres a “land” he provided and now calls on them to enter and possess. He is the “Redeemer-Shepherd” of Jacob’s blessing in 48:15. The purpose of 1:1 is not to identify this God as such but to identify him as the Creator of the universe.

It is not difficult to detect a polemic against idolatry behind the words of 1:1. By identifying God as the Creator, a crucial distinction is introduced between the God of the Fathers and the gods of the nations, gods that to the biblical authors were mere idols. God alone created the heavens and the earth. The sense of 1:1 is similar to the message in the Book of Jeremiah that Israel was to carry to all the nations: “Tell them this,” Jeremiah said. “‘These gods, who did not make the heavens and the earth, will perish from the earth and from under the heavens’” (Jer 10:11). Psalm 96:5 shows that the full impact of Genesis 1:1 was appreciated by later biblical writers as well: “For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the LORD [Yahweh] made the heavens.”

The statement in 1:1 not only identifies the Creator, it also explains the origin of the world. According to the sense of 1:1 (see Notes), the narrative states that God created all that exists in the universe. As it stands, the statement is an affirmation that God alone is eternal and that all else owes its origin and existence to him. The influence of this verse is reflected throughout the work of later biblical writers (e.g., Ps 33:6; John 1:3; Heb 11:3).

Equally important in 1:1 is the meaning of the phrase “In the beginning” (bere’shith ) within the framework of the Creation account and the Book of Genesis. The term “beginning” (re’shith ) in biblical Hebrew marks a starting point of a specific duration as in “the beginning of the year” (re’shit hashshanah ; Deut 11:12). The end of a specific period is marked by its antonym, “its end” (‘aharit ), as in Deuteronomy 11:12: “the end of the year” (lit. tr. of ‘aharit shanah ) (H.-P. Muller, THAT, p. 709).

In opening the account of Creation with the phrase “in the beginning” (bere’shith ), the author has marked Creation as the starting point of a period of time. “Hence will here be the beginning of the history which follows.... The history to be related from this point onwards has heaven and earth for its object, its scenes, its factors. At the head of this history stands the creation of the world as its commencement, or at all events its foundation” (Delitzsch, p. 76). By commencing this history with a “beginning” (re’shith ), a word often paired with its antonym “end” (‘aha rith ), the author has not only commenced a history of God and his people, he has also prepared the way for the consummation of that history at “the end of time” (‘aharit ) (“Already in Gen 1:1 the concept of “the last days’ fills the mind of the reader,” Procksch, p. 425).

The growing focus within the biblical canon on the “times of the end” (‘aharit hayyamim ) was an appropriate extension to the “end” (‘aharith ) already anticipated in the “beginning” (re’shith ) of Genesis 1:1. The fundamental principle reflected in Genesis 1:1 and the prophetic vision of the times of the end in the rest of Scripture is that the “last things will be like the first things” (Ernst Boklen, Die Verwandtschaft der judisch-christlichen mit der Parsischen Eschatologie [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902], p. 136): “Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth” (Isa 65:17); “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth” (Rev 21:1). The allusions to Genesis 1 and 2 in Revelation 22 illustrate the role these early chapters of Genesis played in shaping the form and content of the scriptural vision of the future (‘aharit hayyamim ).

John H. Sailhamer, Genesis, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas, vol. 2 of Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), n.p.

Gen 1:1 The interpretation given to v.1 rests on the traditional reading of בְּרֵאשִׁית (bere’shith) in the absolute state: “In the beginning.” A strong case, however, can be made for reading the phrase as a construct and subordinating v.1 to vv.2-3: “When God set about to create the heavens and the earth—the world being then a formless waste ... —God said, “Let there be light’” (Speiser, p. 3). The implication of reading the phrase as a construct is that v.1 would then be a circumstantial clause and would no longer carry the traditional sense of “creation from nothing” (creatio ex nihilo). According to such a reading, the world, as unformed material, would have been present when the first act of Creation was performed, that being God’s command in v.3: “Let there be light.” The first act of Creation would have been the creation of light from darkness, and vv.1-3 would say nothing of an original Creation. The principle argument for this view is the lack of an article with רֵאשִׁית (re’shith “beginning”) in v.1. Without the article, it is maintained, bere’shith cannot be read as an absolute (“in the beginning”); it must be read as a construct (“in beginning”) (Speiser, p. 3).

In defense of the traditional view (that bere’shith is in the absolute state), it can be said that re’shith along with several other adverbials, does occur in the absolute state without an article (e.g., Isa 46:10; cf. Konig, Syntax par. 294g). Thus the argument that the article must be with bere’shith for it to be absolute does not hold in every case. There are other arguments that bere’shith should not be read as an absolute (see Westermann, pp. 94ff.), but none of them is sufficient to stand against the traditional view without the central grammatical argument of the absence of the article in bere’shith just referred to. An example such as Isa 46:10, then, is crucial in that it shows that the article is not necessary for the absolute state.

The examples of Konig (Syntax par. 294g) have been contested on the grounds that they are all from poetic texts, where the use of the article varies from that of prose texts such as Gen 1 (Gross, Syntaktische, p. 144). But, although Konig has cited examples from prose texts (e.g., 3:22; 6:4), Gross’s insistence that examples be cited from prose texts alone, though methodologically sound, is too demanding in light of the frequent occurrence of the article in biblical poetry. The traditional reading has in its favor both the simplicity of its style, which is consistent with the remainder of the chapter, and the finite form of the verb בָּרָא (bara’ “to create”). Some have proposed that bara’ be vocalized as bero’; but 5:1, which does in fact have bero’ following a construct, shows both that lengthy circumstantial clauses are not a feature of the style of the writer of Gen 1, and that the infinitive (bero’), not the perfect (bara’), is the expected form for such subordinate clauses (contrasted with that of the style of Hos 1:2, where the construct is used with the perfect). Genesis 2:4b cannot be used to show that lengthy circumstantial clauses are a feature of the style of the writer because of the marked contrast between the style of 1:1-2:4a and 2:4bff.

It has long been recognized that the stylistic features of the “framework” of the Pentateuch vary markedly from that of the narrative within it. Such variations should be considered in any comparisons of style with the Pentateuch. The interpretations of the medieval Jewish scholars Rashi (השׁלם רשׁי תורה חומשׁי חמשׁה [Jerusalem: Ariel, 1986], p. 2) and Ibn Ezra (‏מכראות גדולות‎ [New York: Abraham Isaac Fieldman, n.d.], p. 2) are often appealed to against the traditional view. Both scholars read bere’shith as a construct phrase. It should be noted, however, that grammatical considerations did not motivate Rashi and Ibn Ezra in their choice. It was their own understanding about the order of Creation that led them to reject the traditional reading. Rashi, who was, as far as is known, the first to suggest the construct reading, recognized in the מֶרֵאשִׁית (mere’shith) of Isa 46:10 an exception to his rule that re’shith always occurred in the construct state. He explained this as an exception by assuming (in the guise of an interlocutor) the re’shith in Isa 46:10 was in fact in the construct state and was an elliptical expression for בְּרֵאשִׁית דָּבָר (bere’shith dabar lit., “in the beginning of the thing, of history, of the matter,” etc.). Thus Rashi could say that the re’shith in the mere’shith of Isa 46:10 was in fact a construct phrase.

Rashi, however, would not allow for a similar reading in Gen 1:1—“In the very beginning,” viz., the traditional reading—because he believed the מַיִם (mayim “waters”) of v.2 had already been created before the creation of the heavens and the earth in v.1. Thus v.1 could not be the “very beginning of all things” (traditional view), and consequently reading bere’shith as an absolute was impossible.

Though the argument is subtle, it is clear that Rashi himself did not oppose the traditional reading on grammatical grounds but rather on the basis of the subject matter. He did not understand “the heavens and the earth” (v.1) as an expression of “totality.” Rather he held the two words to refer specifically and solely to the “heavens” and “the earth” as two limited and distinct entities. He also believed that the “heavens” (שָׁמַיִם [shamayim ]) were created from “fire” (‏אֵשׁ [‘esh ]) and “water” (מַיִם [mayim ]). Rashi reasoned quite simply that if the “heavens” were created from fire and water in v.1, the water must have already been in existence prior to v.1. If such were the case, v.1 could not refer to an absolute beginning (traditional view) and so had to be read as a construct (circumstantial clause).

Ibn Ezra, who also was an early advocate of the view that bere’shith is a construct phrase, like Rashi, held to the construct view because of the mention of water in v.2. He assumed that the water must have been created before 1:1 since “heavens” meant only “expanse” (v.8) and “earth” meant “dry land” (v.9), and since the water, which was neither a part of the “expanse” or the “dry land,” was already present in v.2. Neither Rashi nor Ibn Ezra appears to have rejected the traditional view on grammatical grounds, thinking the construct reading was the better reading. Rather they believed it was the only reading that would solve the apparent difficulty of the “water” in v.2 not being accounted for in v.1. In fact, Ibn Ezra warned his readers not to be “astonished” at the suggestion of a construct before a verb, which suggests that he himself felt some difficulty in reading bere’shith before a finite verb as a construct and that he anticipated the same reaction in his readers.

Both Rashi and Ibn Ezra produced examples to show that a finite verb after a construct noun was permissible. But both the fact and the nature of their defense of their reading in 1:1 betrays their own uneasiness with such a reading. The use of the accent tifcha in bere’shith is sometimes used as an argument for the traditional view, suggesting that a construct noun could not or would not have a disjunctive accent. However, not only do construct forms commonly take a disjunctive accent (e.g., זֲהַב [zahab “the gold of”], 2:12; ‏עֵץ [‘es “the tree of”], 2:17), but also since אֱלֹהִים (‘elohim “God”) has been given the athnach a dichotomy must divide its line either where it does in bere’shith or in bara’ thus breaking the connection of subject and verb. The position of the dichotomy in either case is permissible and does not affect the grammatical relationship between the members of such a small line.

Notice the contrast between v.1a and the accentuation of the short athnach lines in nominal clauses (2:11a, 13a) where the tifcha divides the subject and predicate and the subject is conjoined with its adjuncts. The accentuation of 2:6a is also consistent with this distinction since the clause is a nominal clause (see R. Meyer, Hebraische Grammatik vol. 3 [Berlin: Satzlehre, 1972], par. 92, 4b). In the verbal clauses in 3:2a, 4a, however, the subject and predicate are kept together in the short athnach lines and the adverbial adjunct is separated. Genesis 3:12 shows that in verbal clauses subject and verb can be separated in very short athnach lines.

The above examples are not given as “rules” of the accentuation system but only to show that various combinations of accents (conjunctive and disjunctive) are possible within athnach lines of three words or less and that the combinations do not carry grammatical importance. In light of these examples, it is not possible to argue that the accent in bere’shith implies the Masoretes read it as an absolute.

Indications within Genesis itself suggest that the author intentionally chose רֵאשִׁית (re’shith) in v.1 because of its close association with אַחֲרִית (‘aharith) and thus had the “end” in view when he wrote of the “beginning.” For example, re’shith as an adverbial of time meaning “beginning” or “first” occurs only in v.1 in the Pentateuch (Gen 10:10—substantival, not temporal). Elsewhere in the Pentateuch the author uses בַּתְּחִלָּה (battehillah lit., “at the first”; four times, all in Genesis: 13:3; 41:21; 43:18, 20) and בָּרִאשֹׁנָה (bari’shonah lit., “at the first”; ten times, three in Genesis: 13:4; 28:19; 38:28). Both tehillah and ri’shonah differ from re’shith in that they mark a “beginning” of a series in opposition to the “second” or “next” member of the series (see 13:3-4). Re’shith on the other hand, marks the “beginning” in opposition to the “end” (‘aharit; cf. Job 8:7; 42:12; Eccl 7:8; Isa 46:10).

As Rashi argued, if the author had wanted only to say that the heavens and the earth were created first in a series, he would have used bari’shonah. The use of re’shith in 1:1 strongly suggests that the author’s choice of this word was motivated by its association with ‘aharith . If that is so, it suggests that an intentional anticipation of the “end” (‘aharith) lies behind the author’s choice of the word “beginning.” In other words, the author’s depiction of Creation appears to be controlled by an eschatological anticipation of the “end times” (‘aharith).

Another indication that re’shith was used for its association with ‘aharit comes from a consideration of the structure of Genesis and the Pentateuch. It has been noted that, in the narrative style of much of the Pentateuch, the conclusions of minor and major units are marked by poetic texts followed by a brief epilogue (see Introduction: Compositional analysis of the Pentateuch). On these stylistic grounds, the conclusion of the Book of Genesis is chapters 49-50 and the conclusion of the Pentateuch is Deuteronomy 32-34. Both narratives consist of poetic texts with an epilogue. In both of these “conclusions,” the poetic texts are framed by a short prologue (Gen 49:1; Deut 31:28-30) in which the “patriarch” (Jacob and Moses) called together the “elders” (Gen 49:1; Deut 31:28) and spoke his final words to them (cf. O. Eissfeldt, “Die Umrahmung des Mose-Liedes Dtn 32, 1-43 und des Mose-Gesetzes Dtn 1-30 in Dtn 31, 9-32, 47,” Kleine Schriften [Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, n.d.], 3:322ff.).

The function of both prologues is to situate the poetic texts within the framework of the “end times” (be’aharit hayyamim Gen 49:1c; Deut 31:29; NIV, “in days to come”). It is not important at this moment whether the ‘aharit is intended to be read as eschatological (Hugo Gressmann, Der Messias [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1929], p. 223) or only historically future (Joseph Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel [London: Allen and Unwin, 1956], p. 30). The important point here is that the author of Genesis turns directly to the theme and terminology of “the end times” (‘aharith) when he draws his narrative to a close in Genesis and in the Pentateuch as a whole. If the use of ‘aharit is intentional at the conclusion of the narrative, which it surely must be, then it is likely that the use of its semantic antipode, re’shith is also intentional at the beginning of the narrative. Thus, again, it seems apparent that the choice of re’shith in 1:1 is intended to introduce an anticipation of the “end” into the “beginning.” In thus consciously grounding the future in the past, the author of Genesis follows a “fundamental principle” in biblical eschatology: the last things are like the first things (Boklen, Die Verwandtschaft, p. 136).

The phrase הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת הָאָרֶץ (hashshamayim we’et ha’ares “the heavens and the earth”) is a figure of speech (merism) for the expression of “totality.” Its use in the Bible appears to be restricted to the totality of the present world order and is equivalent to the “all things” in Isa 44:24 (cf. Ps 103:19; Jer 10:16). Particularly important to notice is that its use elsewhere in Scripture suggests that the phrase includes the sun and the moon as well as the stars (e.g., Joel 3:15-16).

EBC Notes. 1st, Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), n.p.

Deacon Steve

Oooo ... criticisms of R.E Brown ...

[:S]

Dan Francis

Oooo ... criticisms of R.E Brown ...

Well I find it a pretty good middle of the road evangelical commentary. It is more conservative than I generally would consider I am, but it is a solid series that has good info for a great price.

-Dan

Mike Tourangeau

Another software company has announced that Zondervan is requiring them to raise their price on the original Expositor’s Bible Commentary (EBC) (12 vols.) And that as of July 1 their price will rise from $99 to over $300. I would have guess a similar price hike will likely be happening here. It is a very good set and wanted to possibly give anyone not owning it a heads up since it looks like Zondervan is forcing the price up (my guess to stop cannibalizing the EBC R which is an improvement (except the loss of the articles in volume 1 of EBC) but not worth the extra price in my mind ).

-Dan

It happened.....not sure when but here it is ....https://www.logos.com/product/5457/the-expositors-bible-commentary

Dan Francis

Yes and $365 is no bargain... I mean some people may choose to get it still... but I am sad that the great bargain is now gone.

-Dan

Paul-C

Dan, thanks for the warning. This had been on my wish list for a long time, and I probably would have missed the low price for waiting too long! Very grateful for your heads up. I suspect there are going to be quite a few Logos users, who don't use these forums, who are going to be disappointed when they check their wish lists in coming days and weeks! [:(]

DAL

$365 is indeed no bargain! What were they thinking! Maybe they were selling more of the original version than the revised one; hence, the price increase. Or maybe they just want to force people to buy the revised version, since the price difference between the two is not that big anymore. My suggestion would be (since the original EBC is too expensive now) take the introductory volume and add it to the revised version and get rid of the original EBC altogether. What's the point of having two, one that was a great deal but now it's too expensive and one that is new but even more expensive? Might as well do what we buyers have asked, add the introductory articles volume to the new version or add a new introductory articles volume to the new one and get rid of the old one.

I guess people will start settling for the "Abridged Version of EBC" which is way cheaper, but without the additional notes. I'm surprised they haven't jumped the price up to $150 on this one, since they want to make more money. [8-)]

DAL

Ruben Sandoval

Sad day!

My computer's hard drive crashed on Thursday and I had this commentary in the cart. Low and behold now it's over 2x as much as it was before (from 129 to 365)...needless to say that the commentary set is not going to ever go into my cart again (...unless it's price drops down to what it was and should be again).

Oh well...

DAL

Sad day!

My computer's hard drive crashed on Thursday and I had this commentary in the cart. Low and behold now it's over 2x as much as it was before (from 129 to 365)...needless to say that the commentary set is not going to ever go into my cart again (...unless it's price drops down to what it was and should be again).

Oh well...

If you were logged in with your ID then you might want to call sales and they might be able to do something for you since you were about to order it, but your computer crashed.

DAL

Ruben Sandoval

Yea...I tried that DAL...no budge/got hardlined.

I'm also reaching out to Zondervan to see if they would grant me a sympathy/grace nod on relinquishing the price for this one instance. If not, hey...at least I tried, huh!?!

Ronald Quick

I know I have had sale items in my cart before that I did not purchase and after the sale ended the price reverted back to the original. So I don't think putting an item in your cart will "lock in" a price for you.