PSALM 33

Many Christians go to the Psalms to find comfort since the psalmists have a way of echoing the various feelings we have as we go through life. But it is selling the psalms short to think that they are only the uncontrolled outpourings of some overly emotional authors. Although they may very well speak to our emotions, the composition of each one of these is done quite carefully, as is the compilation of the entire Psalter. I have demonstrated the latter fact in my post titled “Psalms: Introduction to the Literary Structure.”

But before even going into the individual verses within Psalm 33, there are first some general items to discuss. Anderson alludes to two of the most perplexing overall issues when he states, “Some scholars have seen a connection between the twenty-two verses of this Psalm and the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet...yet this similarity may be more of a coincidence than a deliberate feature of the style. The Psalm has no title, but LXX [the Greek version] attributes it to David. This may be either a later addition, or it could have been accidentally omitted from M.T. [the accepted Hebrew text].”

Concerning the first point, Baigent agrees: “There is no evidence that the twenty-two verses were intended to correspond to the twenty-two letters of the Heb. alphabet (cf. Ps. 34).” What both Anderson and Baigent are referring to is the fact that in other places in the Old Testament, such as Psalm 94, poems are structured as alphabetical acrostics in which each of the 22 verses in the composition starts with a consecutive letter of the Hebrew alphabet.

But not all scholars agree, and it does seem rather a coincidence that the very next psalm in the collection (Ps. 34) is a true alphabetic acrostic, even though Ps. 33 does not contain that same regular progression of letters, and thus would be classified as a non-alphabetic acrostic. To me the deciding factor in favor of using that last label for our psalm in question comes from considering the overall structure of Psalms 1-41, often called Davidic Psalms due to the authorship assigned to 39 of them.

Figure 1: Structure of Psalms 1-41

A. Introduction (Ps. 1-2)

B. Seven Psalms of David, ending in an acrostic (Ps. 3-9)

C. Bridge (Ps. 10)

D. Psalms of David (Ps. 11-32)

C'. Bridge (Ps. 33)

B'. Seven Psalms of David, beginning with an acrostic (Ps. 34-40)

A'. Conclusion (Ps. 41)

Note the strong correspondences between the parallel psalms 10 and 33: (1) They are the only two in that collection which are not assigned to David in their superscriptions. (2) And whereas Psalm 10 is an incomplete alphabetic acrostic, Psalm 33 is, as I have stated, a non-alphabetic acrostic. As to the bridging function mentioned in Figure 1, Ps. 33 shares connections with both psalms 32 and 34.

M'Caw and Motyer note that Ps. 33 “picks up part of the concluding sentence of the previous psalm, but unlike it, is not a personal record of experience. It is a corporate expression of praise and worship marked by balance of thought and symmetrical structure.” More on that last thought below.

Holladay also remarks that Ps. 33 “seems to have had a peculiar relaton to Psalm 32 (one notes the likeness of 32:11 and 33:1).”

And, as mentioned earlier, Pss. 33 and 34 share an alphabetic connection.

These two commentators also provide some very helpful hints in constructing the organization of Psalm 33:

1. “The introduction (vv. 1-3) and the conclusion (vv. 20-22) are clearly distinguished from the body of the poem.”

2. “In the body of the psalm are two sections, vv. 4-12 and vv. 13-19, the first of which deals with God the Ruler, and the second with God the Judge.”

3. “Throughout all, He is faithful and steadfast to what He has spoken.” (vv. 4-5) And the same idea reappears in vv. 18-19: “The fundamental principle is simply that of the Lord's faithfulness.”

Supplementing the above three observations are the following: “steadfast love” appears in vv. 5 and 18; “heaven(s)” occurs in vv. 6-9 as well as vv. 13-15; and vv. 10-12 and 16-17 convey the thought that the nations and rulers by themselves are helpless.

Putting all these similarities together, it is extremely easy to reconstruct the overall symmetrical organization of this psalm, contra Jacobson's comment, “The structure of the poem is debated.”

                                                Figure 2: The Structure of Psalm 33

    A. Introduction (vv. 1-3)

            B. God's Faithfulness (vv. 4-5)

                    C. God as Creator (vv. 6-9)

                            D. The Helplessness of Nations (vv. 10-12)

                    C'. God as Creator (vv. 13-15)

                            D'. The Helplessness of Rulers (vv. 16-17)

            B'. God's faithfulness (vv. 18-19)

    A'. Conclusion (vv. 20-22)

The division into the above sub-units finds some confirmation in the scholarly literature. Thus, Anderson breaks the psalm into five units: verses 1-3 (A), 4-9 (B-C), 10-12 (D), 13-19 (C'-D'-B'), and 20-22 (A'). The RSV comes up with a slightly different combination of the groupings in Figure 2: vv. 1-3 (A), vv. 4-5 (B), vv. 6-7 (first half of C), vv. 8-9 (last half of C), vv. 10-12 (D), vv. 13-17 (C'-D'), vv. 18-19 (B'), and vv. 20-22 (A').

In addition, Freedman has done an extensive analysis of the number of syllables and stresses in each section of this psalm. Of most interest are the following results:

Verses         Section in Figure 2     # of Syllables     # of Stresses

1-3                 A                                  18                      48

20-22             A'                                 19                      49

4-5                 B                                  13                      32

18-19             B'                                 11                       32

Note how well the first two and last two sections of Figure 2 match up in this regard.

With all that as introduction, here are a few select comments relating to the individual sections:

Section A

Holladay: “binginot...is found in the superscriptions of Psalms 4, 6, 54, 55, 67, and 76. The NRSV rightly translates 'with stringed instruments, ' that is, various types of lyres or harps (compare 33:2-3).”

Regarding v. 3, Ryken asks, “Why does the psalmist command us to 'sing a new song' to the Lord? Don't the old songs express the truth adequately? They do, but they also gradually lose their power through sheer repetition and familiarity.”

However, Anderson says, “The reference to the 'new song' (verse 3) is occasionally taken to mean that it was intended for the ritual of the renewal of creation at the turn of the year, but it could also be linked with the renewal of the Covenant.”

Section B

“'He loves righteousness and justice'; i.e. loves to perform righteous and just deeds (cf. 99:4; Jer. 9:24). This may also imply that God is concerned both to do and to uphold righteousness and justice. 'Righteousness' (sedakah) is a term of relationships denoting that kind of conduct which serves to maintain the established ties.” (Anderson)

Section C

In regard to verse 6, “The psalm's emphasis on creation is unique, as Diane Jacobson notes, because 'it alone among all the psalms, speaks of God's creation by word.'” (R. Jacobson)

Baigent explains that verse 7 “could refer to the waters above the sky-vault (Gen. 1:7) poetically viewed as an ocean, or to the separation of waters from dry land (Gen. 1:9f; 7:11; Ps. 78:15). Some see the reference to Yahweh's mastery over the primordial sea...”

Section D

The Greek Septuagint adds to the conclusion of v. 10, “and he rejects the plots of princes.”

In verse 12, “the relationship between God and the people is stressed rather than any particular quality of the people. The nation is not even named! It is not called Israel, merely the nation whose God is the LORD. The point scored, again, is that it is the relationship with God that defines the people – the people do not author their own identity. They are those who have been chosen (bahar).” (Jacobson)

Section C'

Anderson states, “Yahweh is not an 'absentee landlord', but he is acquainted with everything that goes on in his world. Being the creator of all, he rules over all, and sees all...God, being the creator of men's minds, is the only one who knows what is in the heart of man (i.e. what determines his actions), and therefore he is able to judge between appearance and reality (cf. I Kg. 3:9).”

Section D'

Jacobson notes that in this section, “the theme changes to 'what saves,' or perhaps better, 'in whom can one trust?'...The theme of what saves is introduced with the stark declaration: 'There is no king who is saved by the greatness of his army.' The force here is dual – both that armies and military might cannot save, so trust not in their empty promises, and that kings themselves, mortal men, cannot save....the king is cast as the leader who in turn needs a leader, the king who in turn needs a lord – the Lord. The term saved (yasa) does not refer to spiritual, eschatological salvation, but to deliverance from earthly threats. That term, along with two synonyms, occurs a total of five times in...vv. 16-7.”

Section B'

Towner notes the similarity between I Timothy 3:11 ('what persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from them all') and Ps. 33:18b,20. He adds, “The theme of 'deliverance' begins in Ps 33:5, but Paul seems to have made his entrance at the point where it is applied specifically to the Lord's intervention on behalf of 'the righteous' in 33:18-20. Thus he makes explicit his interest in a theology of suffering built on the OT theme of the righteous sufferer.”

Section A'

The word nepes “refers to the total human being in both physical and psychological manifestations ...The word may be used not only of the will of an individual but of the will of the whole community: in Ps. 33:20 we read, 'Our nepes waits for Yahweh; he is our help and shield.” (Holladay)

 

JOHN 12:1-11

 

John 12:1-11

There are many ways in which one can divide up the Gospel of John, but let us just look at one particular passage in the first eleven verses of John 12, all taking place on the sixth day before the Passover. This was soon after the raising of Lazarus when that event was still fresh in the mind of those in the vicinity.

And as we reach here the half-way point in this book, we are overwhelmed with the many foreshadowings of Jesus' coming death and resurrection. See, for example, the dual reference to Lazarus' rising from the dead, specific mention of Judas' coming betrayal, description of Judas' greed which is part of the motive for his betrayal, Jesus' foretelling of his death in both verses 7 and 8, and the plan of the chief priests to kill Jesus. All of this is intended to prepare us for the second half of John's Gospel, which is devoted to the Savior's coming death.

Let's first take this narrative in a strictly chronological manner:

The Setting: John 12:1-2

Hendricks notes that Jesus chose to return to the vicinity of Jerusalem, specifically Bethany, in spite of the plot against his life mentioned in the previous chapter (see verses 53 and 57).

Metzger explains the controversy among scholars as to whether the phrase “who had died” to describe Lazarus in v. 1 was in the original. Early manuscripts are divided on this point, and that is reflected in the modern translations, most of whom delete these words as being redundant in light of the subsequent words stating that he was risen from the dead.

Mary's Action: John 12:3

Mary's anointing Jesus' feet with nard is described in this verse. Raymond Brown says, “This action is closely paralleled in Mark 14:3-9; Matt 26:6-16, where at Bethany two days before Passover an unnamed woman pours ointment on Jesus' head...Luke 7:36-50, another parallel, is a penitential scene set in Galilee where a sinful woman weeps over and anoints Jesus' feet. As with Mark/Matt, it is set in the house of Simon. In no Gospel account is Mary Magdalene the agent, despite artistic imagination.”

Ellis adds, “It has even been suggested that Simon was the father of Martha, Mary and Lazarus.”

Guthrie: “There are many similarities between John's and Luke's narratives, but it is unlikely that the two women concerned should be identified.”

As for the ointment used in the anointing, Blum states, “The pure nard was a fragrant oil prepared from the roots and stems of an aromatic herb from northern India. It was an expensive perfume, imported in sealed alabaster boxes or flasks which were only opened on special occasions.” And many commentators give the information that the worth of the nard in this case amounted to almost a year's wages for a laborer.

Judas' Response: John 12:4-6

Culpepper concentrates on the various literary devices John utilized in his Gospel, especially his use of irony. Thus, he says regarding this passage, “Judas protests the waste of precious ointment at the proleptic anointment of Jesus for his burial, yet Judas bears a heavy share of responsibility for that burial. His pretense is concern for the poor, but he was pilfering from the common purse (12:4-6). Then by an irony of events, the other disciples think Judas has gone out to 'give something to the poor' when he slips off into the night to betray Jesus (13:29). From another vantage point one can see that he gave more to the poor than they realized.”

Jesus' Reply: John 12:7-8

There are various ways of understanding the Greek wording in v. 7. For example:

    “The purpose was that she might keep it for the day of my embalming” (AB)

    “Let her keep it till the day when she prepared for my burial.” (NEB)

    “Against the day of my burying hath she kept this.” (KJV)

    “She's anticipating and honoring the day of my burial.” (The Message)

    “She did it in preparation for my burial.” (Living Bible)

Thus, the implication may have been that she (a) was doing it, knowingly or unknowingly, in anticipation of his approaching death, (b) she made a big mistake since she should have saved it until his actual death, or (c) she is being warned to save what still remained for his embalming.

Guthrie says in support of (a), “In light of Mk. 14:8, it is better to understand the meaning as...Mary's present act was in fact anticipatory of His burial.” And “Torrey makes the words a question: 'should she keep it for the day of my burial?'” (Morris)

Verse 8 has caused even more concern. That is mainly due to the fact that when Jesus states, “You always have the poor among you,” He almost sounds as if he is being more hardhearted than Judas in regard to His attitude toward those disadvantaged people (cf. verse 6). Scholars have tried to explain Jesus' words in various ways:

D.G. Miller simply states, “Such spontaneous love [as Mary demonstrated] will not neglect the poor.”

“The response to Judas's objection by Jesus in 12:8...probably involves an allusion to Deut. 15:11: 'There will always be poor in the land.' Jesus' point is that under normal circumstances concern for the poor has its place, but these are not normal circumstances.” (Kostenberger)

Hoppe: “Too often, texts such as Deut. 15:11...have been read as evidence that poverty is part of the natural order of things. But when these texts are read against the wider backdrop of the entire biblical tradition, it becomes clear that not poverty but mutual concern and support are to be the normal pattern of the community's life.”

“In short, the Scriptures are clear in that love of neighbor is among God's top priorities for humankind, but they offer no explicit policy prescriptions for modern nation-states.” (Blanchard)

Action of the Populace: John 12:9

The “great crowd” of the Jews comes to see both Jesus and Lazarus. “Lightfoot thinks that the unusual expression [in quotes] may be meant to recall the crowd of 6:2,5..., for that crowd had followed Jesus in Galilee and sought to make Him king.” (Morris)

And Borchert explains that unlike the meaning of the term 'Jews' elsewhere in the New Testament to imply Christ's enemies, that is not the case here.

Response of the Chief Priests: John 12:10-11

Verse 10 “is an important reminder than an evil thought or deed does not usually remain an isolated event, and those involved in such evil matters are generally forced further into evil in order to 'clean up the loose ends.'” (Borchert)

Morris expresses the same thought in different words: “It is interesting to reflect that Caiaphas had said, 'It is expedient for you that one man should die for the people' (11:50). But one was not enough. Now it had to be two. Thus does evil grow.”

Concerning the word “depart,” Morris states, “The verb is common in John. It may be used here with something of the meaning 'depart from one's allegiance' (i.e. to the chief priests).”

And Borchert adds, “The combination of the words 'departing' and 'believing' could well have also been viewed by the evangelist as a proleptic portrayal of what would happen in the conflict between the early Christians and the synagogue. The preaching and ministry of the early believers led to the departure (exclusion) of Jewish believers/converts from their cradle of Judaism into the fold of the Christian church.”

An Alternative Organization

However, if one wishes to take a more literary approach to divisions within this short unit, the following is another way to look at the verses. Notice the totally symmetrical arrangement.

Figure 1: The Organization of John 12:1-11

A. Jesus “came” to a dinner at the home of Lazarus “whom he had raised from the dead” (vv. 1-2a)

     B. Lazarus was at the table and Martha served (v. 2b)

          C. Mary anoints Jesus' feet with pure nard (v. 3)

              D. Judas complains the money should have gone to the poor (vv. 4-5)

                  E. Judas' real motive (v. 6)

        C'. The nard was meant for Jesus' burial (v. 7)

            D'. “You always have the poor with you” (v. 8)

A'. Crowd “came” to see Jesus and “Lazarus whom he had raised from the dead” (v. 9)

    B'. Chief priests decide to kill Lazarus as well as Jesus (vv. 10-11)

Some verbal parallels are shown in Figure 1 in quotation marks. In addition, we should note that Lazarus is only mentioned four times in the passage, at sections A, B, A', and B'.