The Hebrew terminology for the poor in Psalm 82

The meaning of the Hebrew words for the English term 'poor' continues to be disputed. Two main schools of thought have developed. Some believe the terms refer to literal and material poverty, others that the terms refer to literal-metaphorical poverty. The result has been an impasse. This study suggests that the different Hebrew words for poor should be understood as metaphors for the concept of powerlessness. In addition, the concept of powerlessness is understood to have different perspectives. Psalm 82 is exegeted to provide a basis for this suggestion. The exegesis confirms the contention that poverty is powerlessness.


INTRODUCTION '
The late Helmut Thielicke poignantly reminded his world that there are many who eat their daily bread with tears.Today our planet weeps as every corner of the globe shudders from the pain, agony and death caused by endemic poverty' (Crutchley 1993:v).Into this scenario Jesus speaks the words 'the poor you will always have with you' (Mt 26:11).Poverty is a perennial problem, yet it provides us with a unique opportunity to serve God by serving the poor.But if such service is to be effective the meaning giwen to terms such as poor and poverty needs careful consideration.That there is confusion on this issue will become clear from what follows below.An attempt is also made, however, to point a way forward out of the confusion.
The meaning of the Hebrew words for the English term 'poor' continues to be disputed.So Gutierrez (1974:210) comments that discussion of the term poor involves dealing with 'a theological concept very seldom thought through carefully'.Similarly Croft (1987:69) speaks about the 'conflicting theories concerning the meaning of the terms [for poor] produced by Old Testament scholars'.This is evident from the diversity of explanations given for the meaning of the different Hebrew terms for 'poor'.Rahlfs (1892), for example, maintains that the term poor means 'bend down'.He says the Hebrew words '~y.and '~y.derive from '~y..With time, the words developed separate meanings, namely, '~y.= 'affliction' or 'depression' and '~y.= 'to humble oneself'.Driver (1902: 19-20) holds to a similar point of view.
This perspective is also shared by Kraus (1966:63, 93, 94) and Mowinckel (1962:91), and represents one approach to the meaning of the Hebrew words for poor.
Another view is that of Gutierrez (1974:220) who says that poverty is 'material poverty ... an inhuman condition'.The emphasis is on literal and material poverty.Similarly James Cone (1975:75-82) believes that the poor are those who are really poor (my emphasis); affected by real hunger, thirst, sickness; nakedness, and so on.They are the literal socio-political poor.In fact the Lausanne Occasional Paper (1980:22) questions whether there is any evidence 'that it [the Hebrew terminology] ever had this [i e religious] meaning.So poor is understood in an exclusively literal and material sense.The Kairos Document (1986:57, 61) and Walker (1990:61, 65) holds to the same point of view.
Finally, there are those who believe the meaning of the Hebrew terminology can be explained in literal-metaphorical manner.Among these is Jones (1978:219) who comments: 'it is not a priori impossible that the same term might be used to designate both a sociological situation and an attitude of mind '. Similarly Kvalbein (1987:86; my emphasis) remarks that: to speak biblically and clearly about Jesus and the poor, it is imperative to recognise the two basic meanings of the word poor: in its literal meaning it refers to beggars, to the material need of people not able to sustain themselves.In its transferred meaning it refers to the fundamental position of man before God as helpless, as sinner, regardless of material resources or social position.

EV ALUATING THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE HEBREW TERMINOLOGY
There has been dissatisfaction with each of these descriptions of the meaning of the Hebrew terminology for the poor.So with reference to the position which sees the terms for poor as 'bend down' or 'to be humble' it can be stated that it has accepted uncritically the dominant philosophy of its time, namely, gradualism or developmentalism.Furthermore, the distinction drawn between '~y. and ' 1Y. as far as their meaning is concerned is invalid since Kethib and Qere readings do not make such a distinction.In fact they use the terms interchangeably (cf Rodor 1986:351, note 3;Is 32:7;Ps 9:9;Job 24:4;Ps 18:28;22:26;34:6).
As far as the exclusively literal and material understanding of the Hebrew terms for the poor is concerned, it can be remarked that the context of Scripture is not given the attention it deserves since Scripture itself witnesses to a diversity in connotation regarding the Hebrew terminology for the poor.Moreover, Deist (1977:64-66) comments that 'the categories of poor, captives and the like cannot be confined to the economic and political spheres of life' .This is so because the terms widow and orphan are sy boIs for the faithful community, the faithful remnant (cf Jr 3:7-8; Lm 1:1; 5:3).Furthermore, Jones (1978:209) questions the a priori exclusion of the spiritual meaning of the Hebrew terms for poor as found among those who hold to an exclusive literal material understanding of the Hebrew terms for poor.It tends to limit the way Scripture is allowed to speak.
The literal-metaphorical understanding of the Hebrew terminology for the poor has its own problems.According to Skillen (1978Skillen ( :2270 it is a move in the wrong direction.The real issue, he maintains, is the fact that 'the socio-economic condition of the poor and rich appear to be related to the condition of mankind before the face of God'.In other words the question of the poor and the rich is put in a broader framework than the narrow conception of the literal-metaphorieal description allows.Another weakness is the wrong understanding of metaphor evident in the literal-metaphorical descriotion (cf Croft 1987:47).It works with a limited definition of metaphor.Metaphor is used as code language (i e to refer to objects and reality) whereas the concept of metaphor is more flexible and multi-dimensional with regard to meaning.Kvalbein (1987:81) and Conn (1978:2290 also have problems with this understanding of the meaning of the Hebrew terms for poor.

SUMMARY
Given the state of affairs depicted above, Gutierrez (1974:210) is quite right when he maintains that despite everything done, we are still dealing with an idea 'which remains ambigious' .
To move beyond this it is suggested that we see the different Hebrew terms for the poor as metaphors in the first instance, and secondly, as metaphors for the concept of powerlessness.Several scholars have already alluded to such an approach.Among these are: Handy (1990:55); Gowan (1942:341-353); Deist (1977:58-69); Fensham (1962:129-139); Kvalbein (1987:83); Gillingham (1988-89:18); Weir (1988-89:13-15); Shourie (1987:254-260) and Henry (1979:550).J L Croft (1987) is one person who has worked with this approach which sees the Hebrew terms for poor (i e '~!l, Cil1!, '1!l, li'~~, tzJ1,.'1) as metaphors for the concept powerlessness which has multiple meanings.That is, poverty is viewed as a multidimensional concept.The main contribution Croft makes is the following: * * * He emphasises the importance of the concept metaphor for understanding the meaning of the Hebrew terms for poor in the Psalms.
He works with a multi-dimensional concept of metaphor as opposed to the single meaning concept which sees metaphor as code language.
The crucial insight that the endeavour to determine the meaning of the different Hebrew terms for poor in the Psalms is an attempt 'to chart the different facets of one concept used in a number of different metaphors ' (1987:53).The latter is, in my opinion, the most significant contribution.It points towards a solution to the problem of the meaning of the Hebrew terms for poor in the Psalms.
His attempt has weaknesses though.Among these are: * * * He deals almost exclusively with '~!l.The meaning of the other terms are determined on the basts of the meaning of '~!l.In this way the meaning of '~!l is transferred to the terms tzJ1,.' 1 and l"'~~.
Croft sees the terms for poor as metaphors for the ideas: community, individual and king (cf Croft 1987:71).I believe Psalm 82 shows them to be metaphors for the single concept powerlessness.This thesis is developed further below.
It would seem that Croft falls into the trap of the 'root fallacy' (Barr 1961: 100), since context does not really have the weight Croft (1987:55) claims to give it in arriving at the meaning of the Hebrew for the poor.It actually only serves to indicate which of the predetermined meanings fits the particular term best.What really determines meaning is the 'root meaning' of '~!l and the extension of this root meaning as is demonstrated by his diagram (Croft 1987:70).

CONCLUSION
We have seen that the meaning of the Hebrew terms for poor in the Psalms is still an open question.Moreover, the investigation by J L Croft (1987) has made some valua-1032 HTS 5114 (1995) Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services ble contributions and has pointed towards a possible solution.Ir has its limitations, however, and we have pointed to these.
In order to further explore the significant insight of J L Croft mentioned above, we undertake an exegetical study of Psalm 82: 1-4.The aim is to show that the Hebrew term for the poor are metaphors for the concept powerlessness.Particular attention will be given to meaning parallelism, merismus, and anti-thetical chiasmus, since they are significant for the interpretation of the Psalm and the achievement of our aim.

Introduction
We intend to show that the various Hebrew terms for poor are metaphors for the concept powerlessness.
The text of Psalm 82 has been preserved in a fair state.In this regard Prinsloo (1992:2) remarks that 'Although there are one or two proposals regarding text-critical change (17), these do not really carry any weight and the Massoretic text may be accepted'.We concur with this view (cf Dickson 1993:38-41).
Determining the setting of this Psalm is difficult and opinions vary widely (cf Anderson 1981: 591-592).We concur with the prevailing view that we are dealing here with a prophetic prayer or lament.
Generally the Psalm can be classified as an individual song of prayer which through reinterpretation became a national or communal song of prayer.According to Anderson (1983:2~9) it is difficult to determine its Sitz im Leben.This is borne out by 1.The whole Psalm is exegeted in detail in the dissertation of the author.Verses 3-4 can be regarded as the crux interpretum in relation to the question of the meaning of the Hebrew terms for poor in Psalm 82.
Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services The Hebrew tenninoiogy for the poor in Psalm 82 the fact that verses 1-2 is mythological, verses 2-7 didactic prophetic, and verse 8 a prayer.We therefore have a Psalm of mixed form.Because the prophetic character dominates the Psalm it could be described as a cuI tic-prophetic Psalm (Bellinger 1990:81).We would agree with this categorisation of the Psalm.
Structurally, the Psalm is a closely knitted unit (Prinsloo 1992:7-8) and can be divided as follows: A 82: 1 God's judgement of the gods B 82:2-4 judicial questioning C 82:5-7 judicial sentence D 82:8 God as judge over the earth.

The unity of verse 1
This verse describes the scene in the divine council.Verse la is the heading of the Psalm.C'iJ~~ is the subject of verse lb and verse lc, thus linking them.rmr~ verse lb, is paralleled by :l~,R in verse lc demonstrating the unity of verse I b and 11 verse le.According to Handy (1990:52-:53) both sound pattern and word play makes for the unity of verse lb and verse 1 c.This verse is therefore a well designed unity.

The meaning of verse 1
The participial form of the verb :l'~ indicates that God stands in the divine council.
Implied here is the idea of self appointment.God sets himself up as the one who presides over the proceedings of the council.As the presider he rises to address the council (Dahood 1968:269).In this way reference is made to his sovereignty, lordship and kingship over the gods.Therefore when C'iJ~~ stands up, it is to take control; to exercise his sovereign authority and power.

1034
HTS 51/4 (1995) Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services In the light of such a variety of opinions.it seems best to maintain that ,~ are divine beings who, as subordinate to Yahweh, have been entrusted to ensure the orderly functioning of society, but who, because of failure on their part, are now judged by God.
,~ can also be regarded as the gods (idols) of the nations.However, when it is remembered that idols are concretizations of divine beings, this view is not much different from what has been said above.n1:l,~ which usually has the sense of assembly, company or congregation called together at an appointed time or place (Brown, Driver, Briggs 1979:417)  God presiding over the meeting as the convenor.
God occupying the position of pre-eminence and power as is demonstrated by ~7P and ~•9~:.He is the powerful and sovereign One.
* Seated in the council are the gods (C'iJ"~) over whom God is, about to pass jlidgement (~~~) because of their unjust rule of the cosmos.
In essence verse one shows the sovereignty of God over the gods.It emphasis the fact that the gods are sub-ordinate and accountable to God.He is powerful and the gods powerless.

Juducial questioning: 82:2-4
In this pericope God gives a command and a warning to the gods.They are instructed to rule the cosmos with justice by taking care of the poor.Failure to do this would result in serious consequences for the cosmos and themselves (cf verses 5-7).
An important issue to be dealt with in verses 3-4 is the question of the meaning of the terms for poor.Consideration of the question is crucial for our purpose.Begining with verse 2 we give attention to this matter.
The verbs in 2a and 2b are all Qal PC masculine plural verbs.
Stylistically the last word of 2a and 2b has a segol vowel and in this way link the two half verses.
Several factors point to the transitional nature of verse 2a so that it does not form part of verse 1.Some of these factors are: * * * * The speaker in verse 1 and verse 2a is different.
The verb in verse 2a has the characteristic ending 'u' with which all the verbs of verses 2-4 end despite the fact that it is Qal PC while the rest of the verbs are imperatives.
Verse 2a has the word C'y.~, which is an integral part of the pattern of verses 2-4 (cf verse 2a and verse 4b).
Syntactically, all the verbs in verses 3a-4a are imperatives and the syntactical pattern in verses 3-4 is the same: verb-noun/noun-verb.
On the basis of the above we agree with Handy (1990:54-56) who maintains that the sub-pericope is a unified whole.

Meaning of verses 2-4
The sub-pericope will be dealt with in two sections, namely, verse 2 and 4b and verses the syntactic pattern: verse 2b: partic1e=n-n=verbs and verse 4b partic1e=n-n=verb.
The picture we therefore have is one in which the wicked is seen as those who are powerful.The gods show deference for the power of the powerful and are judged by God for this because it leads to the depowering of the poor.They favour the powerful .
. at the expense of the powerless.This act of theirs represents their failure to act in accordance with their position and nature as gods.Consequently, God calls them to account and sits in judgement on them.

Verses 3-4a
Structurally Psalm 82 is chiastic (Tate1990:334; Handy 1990: 51-66).Verses 3-4a is a good example of this, as can be seen from the structure of verses 2b-4 represented below: It is important to note that these verses contain three word-pairs.Linked to each pair is an imperative.Moreover, the word-pair ani-ras (verse 3b) is framed by two wordpairs both beginning with dal (verse 3a, verse 4a).The terms constituting the wordpairs are translated by the English word "poor' .
The question that now arises is: What is the meaning of the various Hebrew terms translated by the English term poor?In what follows an attempt is made to address this question.
Of the rhetorical devices employed by the poet in this Psalm, the following are vital for our purpose: antithetical chiasmus, merismus and semantic parallelism.Con-

1038
HTS 51/4 (1995) Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services sequently we will look at the poet's use of these devices as a means to answer the question: What is the meaning of the various terms in verses 3-4a translated with the English word 'poor'?5.3.2.2.1 Antithetical Chiasmus One use of the rhetorical device chiasmus is to point out contrasts (Wittenberg 1986:53-55;Prinsloo 1992:3).In this sub-pericope the contrast is between the wicked and the poor (Rhode 1992:4; Gillingham 1988-89:16;Driver 1902:20;Kraus 1986:151;18 McPolin 1989:92).The point of the contrast is to show that the wicked is powerful (Kvalbein 1987:81) and the poor are powerless.
Normally the opposite of wi~ked is virtuous or righteous.Since powerful is a metaphor for wicked, it follows that in the context of Psalm 82 the opposite metaphor is powerless.Moreover, the term poor has the connotation virtuous or spiritually poor, which is another perspective of powerlessness.So then, whereas wicked refers to powerful, poor refers to powerless (cf Fensham 1962:135) as is made clear by the rhetorical device: antithetical chiasmus.Words which• stand in a parallel relationship suggest similarity in meaning as Fabry (1978:213) shows when he remarks: 'that dll stands in parallelism with hbt would suggest that it has a similar meaning'.In verses 3-4a this fact is particularly important for establishing the meaning of the three word-pairs.In verse 3a ~1 and C'T1~ are parallel in meaning.They are in a general sense, synonymous.Lexically ~1 connotes 'a limb dangling down' speaking of its powerlessness (Harris et al1980:190;Pr 26:7;Alexander 1975:350;Fabry 1978:216).On the basis of meaning parallelism therefore C'T1~ can be construed as powerlessness as well.Moreover, Scripture generally'depicts the poor as powerless (2 Sm 12; 1 Ki 21; Ir 52; HTS 51/4 (1995) Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services
On the basis of meaning parallelism therefore it can be inferred that the three word-pairs for poor in verses 3-4a refer to powerless(ness).
Of the ten Hebrew words for 'poor' the poet uses only five, he therefore mentions the few as representative of the whole and by focussing on the categ0ries 'i, C'1'1~, '~y', ~1 and l"~~ the complete scope of the duty of the gods is emphasised.They must take care of all the poor.The various terms for poor form a mosaic of powerlessness which can be experienced in the cosmos, and which the gods have a duty to eradicate.Thus the poet uses merismus to express the scope, diversity and extent of the powerlessness which is the result of the misrule of the gods.Hengstenberg 0848:36) remarks 'everything is ruined by them, [i e ] they ruin everything'.
We pointed out previously that the meaning of the Hebrew terms for the English word 'poor' was still in dispute.By means of this exegesis of Psalm 82: 1-4, and by focussing particularly on the poet's use of anti-thetical chiasmus, meaning parallelism and merismus we endeavoured to establish that C'Y.~l is contrasted with the Hebrew word-pairs '~Y.-~1 "1-C'1'1~ and 'i-li'~~ with the result that poor is construed as powerless and wicked as powerful.Wicked is a metaphor for powerful and the poor word-pairs are metaphors for powerlessness.

CONCLUSION
The concepts power, powerful and powerless(ness) run like golden threads through Psalm 82: 1-4.In verse 1 we encounter it in the participial by means of which the preeminence of God in the divine council is described.He presides; he is Sovereign.He is powerful and the gods are powerless.
Secondly, in verses 2-4 these concepts depict the relationship between the C'Y.~l and the Hebrew word-pairs '~3!-~1 "1-C;11~ and '1-1;'~~.Using antithetical chiasmus, meaning parallelism, merismus, sound and word play the wicked is defined as a metaphor for powerful and the poor word-pairs as metaphors for powerlessness.We Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services refers, in the context of Psalm 82, to a council of gods called together by C'iJ"~.The purpose for convening the council is expressed by ~•9~:' n"amely, to judge the gods.Their failure to ensure orderly government has led to their judgement by God.Thus verse 1 sets the scene in which we have: , a meeting of the gods.
3-4a.The internal structure is vital for establishing its meaning.Below is a diagram representing it internal structure of verses 3-4.1036 HTS 51/4 (1995) Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services * * the stylistic repetition of C'Y.~l (verses 2b and 4b), as well as the repetition of parts of the body: face (verse 2b) and hand (verse 4b).
It is characteristic of the whole Psalm.The following examples illustrate the point: That the terms for poor and their combinations have the connotation powerlessness.That the terms are metaphors for powerlessness.That the one concept 'powerlessness' has various perspectives.We consequently affirm that the Hebrew terms '1, C;l1~, '~3!, ~l and 1;'~~ usually translated in English by the equivalent poor, connote powerlessness.1042HTS51/4 (1995)