New Interpreter's Bible (12 Vols.) - Pre-Publication Examples

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/495721#Comment_495721

This weeks sample….

GALATIANS 2:11-21, TWO TABLES OR ONE? CONFRONTATION AT ANTIOCH

OVERVIEW

Up through 2:10, it looks as though all is well. Paul has emphatically claimed the authority of divine revelation as the source of his preaching, and he has recounted a major triumph in the Jerusalem meeting: The “false brothers” were defeated, and the leaders of the Jerusalem church affirmed their approval of Paul's mission to the Gentiles. In the next section of the letter, however, the plot of Paul's narrative takes a sharp turn; the unity achieved at Jerusalem was shattered by a subsequent conflict at Antioch. The account of this conflict (vv. 11-21) is the climax toward which Paul's story has been building. Paul highlights his confrontation with Cephas (Peter) because it provides the background against which he views the present controversy in Galatia. The issues in the two situations are not identical, but they are closely parallel. Thus Paul can frame his account of his speech to Peter on the former occasion (vv. 14b-21) as a programmatic statement that speaks indirectly to the Galatians as well. Indeed, this speech can be seen as a concise summary of the themes of the letter as a whole.80 Translations and commentaries often place the termination of Paul's address to Peter at the end of v. 14 (as in the NRSV) and treat vv. 15-21 as a separate unit. It must be remembered that ancient Greek manuscripts did not employ the convention of placing quotation marks around quoted direct discourse; therefore, the question of where Paul's speech ends is a matter of interpretive judgment. This commentary will argue that the speech extends through v. 21 (as in the NIV; cf. NRSV footnote). There is no indication in the text of a change of addressee until 3:1, and the first-person plural pronouns in vv. 15-17 show that Paul is continuing to address a Jewish audience (i.e., the Jewish Christians at Antioch), not the Gentile Galatians. Consequently, vv. 11-21 should be treated as a single coherent unit. Indeed, several obscurities in Paul's highly compressed language in vv. 15-21 can be clarified if they are understood in relation to the dispute over table fellowship in Antioch. At the same time, Paul artfully narrates this story in such a way that it serves as a transition into his direct address to the Galatians in 3:1. A movie director making a film of this text might reproduce the effect in the following way: The scene opens in a public meeting of the church at Antioch with Paul confronting Peter; as Paul speaks (vv. 14b-21), the camera pans in on his face so that the members of the Antiochene church gradually disappear from view after v. 18. Then, at 3:1, as Paul says, “O foolish Galatians,” the camera pans back again to reveal Paul in an entirely different setting, pacing the floor and dictating the letter to his secretary. The desired effect is that the Galatians will hear the speech to Peter as being addressed to their situation as well.81 <Page 230 Ends><Page 231 Begins> One result of this rhetorical technique is that Paul never finishes the story of the Antioch controversy; we do not find out how Peter responded to Paul's challenge, and we do not hear how the Antiochene church decided to resolve the dispute. Almost certainly this means that Paul lost. If he had, in fact, convinced Peter and the other Jewish Christians to accept his arguments, he surely would have said so in this letter, just as he did in the preceding narrative of the Jerusalem meeting (vv. 1-10). Regardless of the outcome, however, the telling of this story allows Paul to articulate the theological principles that undergird his present response to the Galatians. The major theme of the unit is that the gospel mandates the formation of a new community in which there is no division between Jew and Gentile, a community in which Jews and Gentiles eat at one table together, not two separate tables.82 The speech of vv. 14b-21 supports this claim by arguing that right relation to God depends fundamentally on “the grace of God” (2:21), and not on observance of the ethnically particular signs of covenant membership (circumcision and food laws). This grace has been made effective through the death of Jesus Christ, which avails for Jew and Gentile without distinction (cf. Rom 3:21-31). Consequently, Peter's withdrawal from table fellowship with Gentile believers at Antioch was, as Paul sees it, a symbolic rejection of God's reconciling grace. Galatians 2:11-14, Paul's Rebuke of Cephas

COMMENTARY 2:11-13.

The coming of Cephas to Antioch (v. 11) marks a major complication in the story. Antioch was a great and prosperous city in northern Syria, the third largest city in the Roman Empire (after Rome and Alexandria).83 According 83 to Josephus, its large Jewish population mixed freely with the Gentiles there. The Jewish race, densely interspersed among the native populations of every portion of the world, is particularly numerous in Syria, where intermingling is due to the proximity of the two countries. But it was at Antioch that they especially congregated....Moreover, they were constantly attracting to their religious ceremonies <Page 231 Ends><Page 232 Begins> multitudes of Greeks, and these they had in some measure incorporated with themselves.84 Even allowing for Josephus's penchant for hyperbole, we may safely conclude that Antioch was home to a substantial Jewish community that had attracted a large number of “godfearers,” Gentiles who were drawn to the worship of the one God in the synagogue. Thus it is not surprising that as the early Jewish Christians began to spread the gospel message, it was at Antioch that they first began to preach extensively to Gentiles. Indeed, Antioch became a major base of operations for the mission to the Gentiles (see Acts 11:19-26; 13:1-3). The multicultural Antiochene Christian community presented new challenges that had been neither anticipated nor resolved by the agreement at the Jerusalem meeting, which had dealt only with the issue of circumcision (vv. 6-10).85 Paul understood the agreement to imply a comprehensive recognition of the equality and fellowship of Jews and Gentiles in Christ (cf. 3:28), but some of the strictly Torah-observant Jewish Christians at Jerusalem interpreted the agreement less liberally. In effect, the Jerusalem agreement had acknowledged a separate-but-equal Gentile mission, but it had not addressed the problem of social relations and table fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians. The Christians at Antioch, recognizing the grace of God in their midst (Acts 11:21-24), made a practice of eating together, Jews at table with Gentiles (v. 12a). Some Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, however, found this practice objectionable. Why? The Law of Moses contains no prohibition of eating with Gentiles. The people of Israel were commanded to abstain from unclean foods and from meat or wine tainted by association with idolatry; but as long as certain fundamental dietary precautions were observed, there was no reason why even strictly Torah-observant Jews could not share table fellowship with Gentiles.86 What, then, was the nature of the issue at Antioch, and why did the “men from James” pressure Peter to stop eating with Gentile believers? Paul gives no explanation of their reasoning; therefore, we can only make guesses. It is possible that the food at the common meals was not kosher, that Peter and other Jewish Christians were disregarding basic Jewish dietary laws by eating meat with blood in it, or pork and shellfish. If so, this would explain Paul's remark that Peter had been living “like a Gentile” (v. 14). On the other hand, it seems unlikely that such flagrant violations of Jewish norms would have been practiced at Antioch, particularly if the Gentile converts were drawn primarily from the ranks of the “godfearers,” who presumably would have already assimilated to Jewish dietary practices. It is more probable that the “men from James” were objecting to the practice of associating with Gentiles at table. This seems to be the implication of Paul's language in v. 12, which says nothing about the food as such but speaks of eating “with the Gentiles.” Such association was not forbidden by Jewish Law, but it would have been perceived, in certain circles, as risky and impolitic: “Close association might lead to contact with idolatry or transgression of one of the biblical food laws....James worried that too much fraternization with Gentiles would have bad results, and that Peter's mission [to the circumcised, 2:8] would be discredited if he were known to engage in it himself.”87 It is possible that the pressure to shun such associations may have come from a faction in the Jerusalem church that wanted to make the emergent Christian movement look good in the eyes of their fervent Jewish countrymen. Robert Jewett has proposed that both the Antioch incident and the controversy in Galatia should be understood against the historical background of a rising Zealot movement in Palestine that advocated radical separation from Gentiles; in such an atmosphere, Gentile sympathizers among the Jewish people might have been targeted for reprisals. The early church was a movement within Judaism, but the Gentile-friendly form it took in Antioch posed difficulties for Judean Jewish Christians who wanted “to avert the suspicion that they were in <Page 232 Ends><Page 233 Begins> communion with lawless Gentiles.”88 Consequently, the response of this faction at Jerusalem was to urge Peter, with the blessing of James, to avoid contact with Gentiles, perhaps in hopes of pressuring the Gentile converts into accepting circumcision and full Torah-observance. Jewett argues that similar motives lay behind the pressure for circumcision of the Galatian Christians: “If they could succeed in circumcising the Gentile Christians, this might effectively thwart any Zealot purification campaign against the Judean church.”89 (Note how well this hypothesis explains Paul's otherwise puzzling statements in Gal 6:12-13.) In any case, whatever political pressures may have been exerted on Peter, Paul had no tolerance for his waffling actions. Paul “opposed him to his face” (v. 12) in a public showdown (“before them all,” v. 14) at Antioch. In Paul's view, God's verdict was already pronounced upon Peter's behavior: “he stood condemned.” The renderings of the NIV (“in the wrong”) and the NRSV (“self-condemned”) both soften the severity of Paul's judgment; because Peter's action was a betrayal of the gospel, Paul saw him as standing under God's condemnation. Who were the “people from James”? Paul does not identify them, but he indicates that they were a delegation from Jerusalem seeking, with the approval of James, to urge Peter to eschew fraternization with Gentiles. We do not know why Peter was in Antioch or how long he had been there, but the imperfect tense of the verb “used to eat” (sunh;sqien synesthien) implies that his sharing table fellowship with Gentiles had been a habitual practice over some period of time, not merely an isolated incident. When confronted by the messengers from Jerusalem, however, Peter “drew back and kept himself separate.” The verb “draw back” (uJposte;llw hypostello) suggests a tactical retreat, like an army pulling back from an exposed position.90 By “separating himself,” Peter was accommodating his actions to a well-established Jewish belief that the people of God should keep themselves free from defiling contact with the evil and idolatrous Gentile world. As already noted, eating with Gentiles was not a technical violation of Torah, but many Jews may have preferred to separate themselves from Gentiles as much as possible, out of a general sense that Gentiles were unclean and distasteful. The Letter of Aristeas, a Jewish apologetic work of the second century BCE, articulates the reason for such separation: To prevent our being perverted by contact with others or by mixing with bad influences, [Moses] hedged us in on all sides with strict observances connected with meat and drink and touch and hearing and sight, after the manner of the Law.91 Such an interpretation of the purpose of the Torah could readily lead, in some circles, to a generalized attitude of wariness toward Gentiles, as we see in Jub. 22:16: “Eat not with them...for their works are unclean.”92 A similar indication of Jewish aversion for Gentiles is found in the Acts of the Apostles, in the story of Peter's vision and commission to preach to the household of the Gentile centurion Cornelius. Peter begins his conversation with them by saying, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit any one of another nation” (Acts 10:28 RSV).93 The Roman historian Tacitus confirms the stereotypical impression of Jews as a misanthropic people who “eat separately” from others.94 Even if such statements are exaggerated, they offer a broad sketch of a general perception that relations between Jews and Gentiles were fraught with tension, a tension focused particularly on eating practices. Nothing in Paul's language suggests that the dispute focused specifically on eucharistic fellow- <Page 233 Ends><Page 234 Begins> ship between Jewish and Gentile believers; the issue seems to have been whether they could eat together under any circumstance. If, however, Peter and the other Jewish Christians were avoiding all table fellowship, this would have included the Lord's supper, which at this early time seems ordinarily to have been celebrated in the context of a communal meal (see 1 Cor 11:17-34). In 1 Corinthians, Paul insists on interpreting the Lord's supper as a powerful symbol of communal unity, but he makes no such argument in Galatians. This suggests that the manner of celebrating the Lord's supper was not a central issue at Antioch. At the same time, it also suggests that Paul could not assume the experience of sharing the eucharist as a basis for his broader argument about table fellowship. It would have been a powerful argument for Paul to say, “If you share the bread and wine with Gentiles at the table of the Lord, how can you refuse to eat ordinary meals together?” Paul's silence on this point suggests that Peter, Barnabas, and other Jewish Christians were not celebrating the Lord's supper with the Gentile Christians in Antioch. Paul charges that Peter separated himself from the common table because he feared “the circumcision faction” (oiJ ejk peritomh'v hoi ek peritomes). It is not precisely clear what group Paul has in mind here. Does he mean Jewish people in general, or does the term refer to a specific group of Jewish Christians? In view of Paul's use of this expression elsewhere (Rom 4:12; cf. Acts 10:45), it seems that he is referring not to Jews in general but to members of the early Christian movement who have Jewish ancestry. Furthermore, Luke's use of the same terminology in Acts 11:2 suggests that it could sometimes designate members of a particular party or faction within the Jerusalem church that focused on maintaining clear Jewish group boundaries.95 Thus it appears that Paul is accusing Peter of fearing other Jewish Christians; the problem is intra-ecclesial. Even though the messengers from James may have focused their suasion on Peter alone, his withdrawal from the common table predictably influenced others, so that the other Jewish Christians, including even Paul's close associate Barnabas, followed his lead (v. 13). From Paul's perspective, this was a disaster. The previously unified Antioch community was now split into two different ethnic communities, with Torah observance as the dividing wall between them. In place of one common table, there were now two separate tables. Paul describes this mass withdrawal from the one table as “hypocrisy” (uJpo;krisiv hypokrisis, v. 13). The Greek word does not have quite the same connotation of malicious duplicity that is present in the English. In Greek, the uJpokrith;v (hypokrites) is an actor, someone who wears a mask and plays a role. Thus hypokrisis is the act of playing out a scripted role. Paul's point is that Peter and the other Jewish Christians at Antioch are caught up in playing a part that does not represent their own considered convictions; they are caving in to external pressure, carrying out someone else's agenda. This is another way of expressing the charge of people pleasing (see the Commentary on 1:10). The fact that Barnabas joined in this role playing must have been especially galling to Paul.96 It was Barnabas who had stood with him at Jerusalem in resisting the “false brothers” (vv. 1-5). According to Luke's account in Acts, Barnabas had originally rejoiced when he came to Antioch and found Gentile believers experiencing the grace of God along with Jewish believers (Acts 11:19-26). Now, however, as Paul saw it, Barnabas had been “carried away” (v. 13) by group pressure, and Paul was left to stand alone as an advocate for God's new creation of a community in which Jews and Gentiles could eat at one table. 2:14. Paul's sharp public rebuke of Peter may seem excessive, particularly if Peter was acting out of a concern to protect Jewish Christians in Jerusalem from persecution by fervent Jewish nationalists. Paul seems to give him no credit for good motives or to make any attempt to talk the matter out privately (cf. Matt 18:15-17) or even to correct Peter “in a spirit of gentleness” (Gal 6:1). What accounts for Paul's vehement response? The answer can only be that he saw in Peter's action “the effective preaching of an anti-gospel in the midst of the Antioch church.”97 Consequently, Paul did not hesitate to take an <Page 234 Ends><Page 235 Begins> uncompromising stand, because “the truth of the gospel” was at stake (v. 14; cf. 1:6-9). Paul had used the same phrase in 2:5 to describe what was at issue in the controversy over circumcision in Jerusalem. In both cases, “the truth of the gospel” is linked directly with the fellowship of Gentile and Jewish believers on equal terms: Neither circumcision nor observance of dietary laws should divide the church. “The truth of the gospel,” therefore, is not merely a doctrine but a social reality, a truth that must be embodied in the practices of a community. This truth was being violated by the exclusionary social practices of Peter and those who joined him in a policy of separate tables. Paul saw in their withdrawal a failure to “walk straight” (ojrqopode;w orthopodeo) toward the truth of the gospel. (The NRSV's “not acting consistently” is a pallid paraphrase; better is the NIV's “not acting in line with the truth of the gospel.”) Thus he addressed to Peter a passionate speech seeking to re-call him and the other Jewish Christians to the one table with the Gentiles. Paul opens fire with an ad hominem argument charging Peter personally with bad faith and gross inconsistency: “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” (v. 14b). To “live like a Jew” means, in this case, to observe Jewish dietary restrictions. The question presupposes that Peter does not ordinarily live a strictly Torah-observant life—and that he would make no pretense of doing so. This would be consistent with his custom of eating with Gentiles at Antioch before the arrival of the delegation from James. Paul charges that by caving in to the pressure from the Jerusalem delegation, Peter is in effect requiring the Gentile converts at Antioch to adopt a higher standard of Torah observance than he himself would normally follow. As noted earlier, the “compulsion” in view here is not a matter of violent coercion but of manipulative group pressure; Peter and the other Jewish Christians at Antioch were in effect “compelling” Gentiles to adopt Jewish observances by boycotting the common table. There is no indication here that the delegation from James was pressing for Gentiles to be circumcised; that issue had already been clearly settled—with the approval of James—by the meeting in Jerusalem (vv. 1-10). The verb ijoudai>>;zein (ioudaizein), translated here as “live like Jews” (v. 14), does not necessarily denote converting to Judaism;98 rather, it means to adopt Jewish practices.99 Presumably, the Gentile Christians could have overcome any objection to table fellowship by conforming their diets to the dictates of Jewish Law. This might appear harmless enough, but in this outside pressure for Gentile Christians to conform to Jewish dietary standards, Paul sees a betrayal of the gospel. (See Reflections at 2:15-21.)

Galatians 2:15-21, Jews and Gentiles Alike Are Rectified Through Christ's Death <Page 235 Ends><Page 236 Begins>

COMMENTARY

The reasons for this judgment follow in the highly compressed argument of vv. 15-21, which serves as a précis of the argument of the entire letter. As noted, Paul has composed his account of this speech with the Galatians in view. Thus the theological argument of vv. 15-21 applies equally to the conflict at Antioch and to the Galatians' present quandary over circumcision. The interpreter's task is to see how the argument functions at each of these levels. 2:15-16. Still addressing Peter, Paul affirms (v. 15) his own participation in the hereditary Jewish tradition that defines its identity sharply against Gentile outsiders: “We ourselves are Jews by birth [lit., “by nature”] and not Gentile sinners.” In this traditional Jewish frame of reference, the Gentiles are categorized as “sinners” (aJmartwloiv hamartoloi) simply by virtue of their being outsiders to the covenant people. Given the more receptive attitude toward Gentiles that Paul has come to hold as the apostle to the Gentiles, we may assume that he employs this categorical label with some degree of irony. Nonetheless, the point is a serious one: He, along with Peter and the delegation from Jerusalem—and, it must be noted, along with the rival Missionaries in Galatia—is a Jew, a sharer in the heritage of Israel (see Phil 3:4-6). His purpose for emphasizing this common ethnic identity emerges as the rest of the sentence unfolds; even those Jewish Christians who are most conscious of their ethnic identity share a common confession about justification through Christ. Paul points to this shared confessional tradition in order to use it as the foundation of his argument that Torah observance is not necessary for Gentiles in the new situation that God has brought into being. The confession articulated in v. 16—which Paul presents as the common belief of Jewish Christians—is the heart of the message of Galatians, the gospel in a nutshell. This confession is so concisely formulated, however, that it presents numerous exegetical problems. Paul writes here in a theological shorthand, and each phrase must be unpacked carefully.100 Consequently, we must make several crucial interpretative decisions here that will determine our reading of the letter as a whole. The issues that demand attention are (a) the structure of the sentence in vv. 15-16; (b) the meaning of the verb “to justify”; (c) the meaning of the phrase “by works of the Law”; (d) the meaning of the expression “through the faith of [or in] Jesus Christ” (dia; pi;stew"v Ihsou' Cristou' dia pisteos Iesou Christou); (e) the allusion to Psalm 143:1 in the last clause of v. 16. <Page 236 Ends><Page 237 Begins> (a) The Structure of the Sentence. The NRSV produces a simpler and more readable English text of vv. 15-16 by turning the participial phrase at the beginning of v. 16 into an independent clause and starting a new sentence in the middle of the verse: We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus. Unfortunately, this translation loses some important nuances of the Greek syntax. The verb “know” in v. 16a is actually a participle (eijdo;tev eidotes); thus a more literal translation would read as follows: We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet, knowing that a person is justified not by the works of the law but101 through the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have trusted in Christ Jesus. The emphasis here falls on the words “even we” (kai; hJmei'v kai hemeis), with the kai understood as explicative (not a conjunction introducing an independent clause, as in the NRSV), reminding the reader that the “we” of v. 16 is precisely the same Jewish constituency signaled in v. 15. Paul's point is that “even we Jews by birth” (i.e., not just Gentiles) have placed trust in Christ instead of in works of the law as the ground of justification. (b) The Meaning of the Verb “to Justify.” The crucial verb “to justify” (dikaio;w dikaioo), which occurs three times in this verse, appears here for the first time in Galatians. To be “justified” is to be declared in the right or placed in right relationship to God.102 The term has its origins in the language of the law court, but in Israel's prophetic literature and psalms the term takes on a distinct eschatological connotation: Even though the pres- ent may be a time of suffering and oppression, the prophets and the psalmists look to God as the source of future vindication. God will ultimately act to “justify” the covenant people by rescuing them and overthrowing their enemies and oppressors. In many OT contexts, the best English translation of the verb is “to vindicate.” For example, in Isa 50:7-8a the mysterious “Servant” figure declares: The LORD God helps me; therefore, I have not been disgraced; therefore I have set my face like flint, and I know that I shall not be put to shame; he who vindicates me [oJ dikaiw;savme ho dikaiosas me] is near. (NRSV, italics added) Thus the verb “justify” points not merely to a forensic declaration of acquittal from guilt but also to God's ultimate action of powerfully setting right all that has gone wrong. Consequently, when Paul speaks here of “being justified,” he repeatedly uses the passive voice. The implied agent of “justification” is God; it is God alone who has the power to set things right. That is why—virtually by definition—no human being can be justified by works of the Law; such works, even if undertaken in obedience to God, remain limited human acts. “Justification,” however, is the eschatological act of God. Thus, when he refers in v. 16 to being “justified,” Paul is speaking of God's world-transforming eschatological verdict as it pertains to individual human beings. Because this verdict effectively sets right all that had gone wrong, the best English translation of the verb dikaioo is “to rectify” (see the excursus: “The Language of Righteousness,” 238). <Page 237 Ends><Page 238 Begins>

v v v v v v v v v v EXCURSUS: THE LANGUAGE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS

The verb dikaio;w dikaioo bears a very close relation to the adjective di;kaiov (dikaios) and the noun dikaiosu;nh (dikaiosyne). These words are often translated into English as “righteous” (as in 3:11 NRSV) and “righteousness” (as in 3:6, 21; 5:5 NRSV; 2:21 NIV), while dikaioo is usually translated as “justify.” Such translations run the risk of obscuring for the English reader many of the inner connections in Paul's thought. The following chart illustrates the relationships between these terms: Greek English (Latin root) English (Anglo-Saxon root) dikaio;w justify rectify di;kaiov just righteous dikaisu;nh justice righteousness or rectification The coherence of Paul's argument becomes clearer if the English translation consistently employs one or the other of these systems of related terms.103 Accordingly, subsequent discussion in this commentary will ordinarily employ the terms “rectify,” “righteous,” and “righteousness/rectification.”

v v v v v v v v v v

Although “rectification” is an important motif in Paul's theology, there is nothing about his use of the verb that is unusual in the context of first-century Judaism. (To be sure, his understanding of how God acts to bring about rectification is sharply distinctive; see the section “The Faith of Jesus Christ,” below.) His usage is thoroughly consonant with the OT examples noted above, and it is closely paralleled by the language of grateful thanksgiving found in the Dead Sea Scrolls: As for me, my judgment is with God. In his hand are the perfection of my way and the uprightness of my heart. He will wipe out my transgression through his righteousness.... As for me, if I stumble, the mercies of God shall be my eternal salvation. If I stagger because of the sin of my flesh, my judgment shall be by the righteousness of God which endures forever. (1QS 11:2-3, 12) Thus, when Paul asserts that Peter and other Jewish Christians share his fundamental understanding of “rectification” as God's action made effective through Christ, there is no reason to doubt his claim. The controversy arises only when we seek further clarification about the roles of “works of Law” and “the faith of Jesus Christ” in relation to the process of rectification. (c) Works of the Law. Martin Luther found in Paul's dichotomy between “faith” and “works of the law” a hermeneutical principle that provided the theological impetus for the Reformation. Luther interpreted “works of the law” as a metaphor for all human striving for God's approval. Thus, he saw in Gal 2:16 a contrast between earning salvation through meritorious performance of good deeds and receiving salvation through faith alone (sola fide).104 This doctrine provided him with a powerful polemical weapon against the practices and teachings of the sixteenth-century Roman Catholic Church. Luther's reading of Paul exercised widespread influence on subsequent Christian interpreters, who associated <Page 238 Ends><Page 239 Begins> the attempt to earn salvation through good works with Pharisaic Judaism and, therefore, saw Paul as announcing a radical break with the Jewish understanding of God and salvation. The difficulty with this account of the matter is that it rests upon a caricature of Judaism, as E. P. Sanders has demonstrated in his watershed study Paul and Palestinian Judaism.105 Judaism has never taught that individuals must earn God's favor by performing meritorious works; members of the covenant people are already embraced by God's gracious election and mercy. Obedience to the Law is not a condition for getting in; rather, it is a means of staying in the covenant community. Sanders describes this Jewish pattern of religion as “covenantal nomism.” Nearly all scholars who study early Judaism and Christianity now acknowledge that Sanders's description of Palestinian Judaism is basically correct. How, then, are we to understand the contrast that Paul draws in 2:16 between being rectified by faith and being rectified by works of the Law? Is Paul setting up an artificial foil, a false depiction of his own Jewish heritage? A solution to this problem has been offered by J. D. G. Dunn, who has proposed that the expression “works of Law” (e[rga no;mou erga nomou) refers not to meritorious deeds in general but specifically to those practices that stand as outward symbols of Jewish ethnic distinctiveness: circumcision, dietary observances, and sabbath keeping.106 If that is right, we could paraphrase Paul as follows: We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet, knowing that a person is rectified not by wearing the badges of ethnic identity but through the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have trusted in Christ Jesus. Thus Paul's critique would be targeted not at “Pelagianism” (seeking to earn salvation through good works) but at ethnic exclusivity (claiming soteriological privilege on the basis of racial or sociocultural distinctiveness). One advantage of this interpretation of “works of the Law” is that it so clearly fits the situation Paul is addressing at Antioch.107 By withdrawing from table fellowship with Gentiles, Peter was not seeking to earn salvation through good deeds; rather, he was seeking to maintain the boundary between the ethnic Jewish-Christian community and its Gentile neighbors. For this reason alone, Dunn's explanation is to be strongly preferred to the traditional “Lutheran” reading of the passage. To be sure, the phrase erga nomou does not refer only to markers of ethnic identity; in principle, it refers—as Dunn has acknowledged—to the comprehensive range of actions required by the Torah.108 (Martyn translates it as “observance of the Law.”)109 Still, the immediate context in Galatians suggests that the expression “works of Law” points especially to the few litmus-test practices where Jewish identity was symbolically at stake. (Indeed, it is probable that the phrase erga nomou was being used by the rival Missionaries in Galatia to characterize the obedience they sought to impose upon Paul's Gentile converts.) (d) The Faith of Jesus Christ. If, then, Paul's confessional formula declares that no one is rectified through Law observance or adherence to the identity-marking practices of Judaism, what is the positive alternative? Here once again we must consider whether Luther and the Reformers were informed by an adequate exegesis of Paul. The Western Christian tradition has generally understood the phrase dia; pi;stewv ijIhsou Cristou'' (dia pisteos Iesou Christou) to mean “through believing in Jesus Christ.” This suited Luther's theology well: In place of human striving for acceptance, salvation is conditioned solely upon believing the proclaimed gospel message. But is this what Paul meant to say? There are reasons to think that he had something different in mind; the phrase dia pisteos Iesou Christou points not primarily to our cognitive response to the preached gospel but to Jesus Christ's act of fidelity in undergoing death for our sake. Paul's prepositional phrase is semantically ambiguous. The genitive case (Iesou Christou) could be either objective or subjective—i.e., gramatically <Page 239 Ends><Page 240 Begins> speaking, Jesus could be either the object or the subject of the action implied in the noun pi;stiv (pistis, “faith”). It is impossible to reproduce the ambiguity exactly in an English translation of the phrase, but we can illustrate the point by constructing a parallel expression: “We are rectified by the love of Jesus.” Does that mean that we are rectified because we love Jesus (objective genitive) or because Jesus loves us (subjective genitive)?110 The ambiguity can be resolved only by situating the sentence in a larger discourse or structure of thought. Furthermore, the noun pistis offers a range of semantic possibilities for English translators. It can be rendered as “faith,” “faithfulness,” “fidelity,” or “trust.” It probably does not, however, mean “belief” in the sense of cognitive assent to a doctrine; rather it refers to placing trust or confidence in a person. The cognate verb pisteu;w (pisteuo) can be translated as “believe” or “trust.” English, regrettably, lacks a verb form from the same root as the noun “faith.” All of this contributes to the uncertainty over how to interpret Paul's statements in v. 16. Paul uses similar expressions about the faith of/in Jesus Christ in Gal 2:20 and 3:22 and again in Rom 3:22, 26, as well as in Phil 3:9.111 The interpretation of all these passages has been extensively debated in recent critical literature,112 and recent English-language commentators on Galatians have lined up rather evenly divided on both sides of the question.113 While acknowledging the lack of scholarly consensus, the commentary that follows here will develop a reading of Galatians that understands pistis Iesou Christou to mean “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ” as manifested in his self-sacrificial death.114 As v. 16 suggests, this formulation does not originate with Paul; it is the common property of early Jewish Christianity. But what does it mean? The phrase “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ” makes sense only if we read it as an allusion to a story about Jesus, “who gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father” (1:4). His self-giving was interpreted by early Christians as an act of pistis, faithfulness. When all humanity had fallen away into unfaithfulness, he alone was faithful to God. At the same time, his death was an act that showed forth God's faithfulness (cf. Rom 3:3), God's determination not to abandon his people to slavery and death. Thus, when Paul writes that a person is rectified only dia pisteos Iesou Christou, he is thinking of Christ's faithfulness as embodied in his death on a cross, which was the event through which God acted to rescue us (cf. Rom 5:8: “God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us”). In the light of this understanding, we can paraphrase vv. 15-16a once again to clarify their sense: We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet, knowing that a person is rectified not by observance of the Law but through Jesus Christ's faithful death for our sake, even we have trusted in Christ Jesus in order that we might be rectified through the faithfulness of Christ and not through observance of the Law. This interpretation is confirmed by Paul's last sentence in this paragraph (v. 21), where he sums up his argument by insisting that rectification comes not “through the Law” but through “Christ's death.”115 (e) Paul's Allusion to Psalm 143:1. The last clause of v. 16 (“because no one will be rectified by works of the Law”) appears redundant, but it is actually Paul's appeal to a scriptural proof to clinch his point.116 His language here echoes Ps 143:2: “Do not enter into judgment with your servant, for no one living is righteous before you” <Page 240 Ends><Page 241 Begins> (NRSV). The parallel is more clearly evident in the Greek texts than in most English translations: Ps 142:2 LXX (= Ps 143:2 MT Gal 2:16d And do not enter into judgment with your slave Because before you Because by works of the Law no living being no flesh will be justified will be justified (dikaiwqh;setai (dikaiwqh;setai dikaiothesetai) dikaiothesetai) The psalm does not include the phrase “by works of the Law” (Paul has added this phrase to highlight the point he is making), but the psalmist does affirm that no human being can stand before God's judgment and that all hope for deliverance rests in the power and righteousness of God. Twice in Psalm 143:1 the speaker invokes God's righteousness (dikaiosu;nh dikaiosyne): Hear my prayer, O LORD; Give ear to my supplication in your truthfulness; Answer me in your righteousness. . . . . . . . . . . For your name's sake, O LORD, you will make me alive. In your righteousness you will bring my soul out of tribulation. (Ps 143:1, 11[142:1, 11] NRSV) By alluding to this psalm Paul underscores his claim that the gospel of justification/rectification through God's act in Christ is entirely consistent with what those who are “Jews by birth” already know—or should know—through the witness of Scripture: We are set in right relationship to God only through God's own act of grace. The ground of our hope is the righteousness of God, not any human “works” or ethnic status. When Paul changes the wording of the psalm from “no one living will be justified” to “no flesh will be justified,” he is perhaps subtly anticipating the argument he will make later in the letter against “those who want to make a good showing in the flesh” by compelling the Galatians to be circumcised (6:12).117 Thus, in vv. 15-16, Paul has set forth his grounds for challenging Peter in Antioch—grounds that serve also as the theological basis for his challenge to the Galatians to reject the pressure to be circumcised. In the sentences that follow (vv. 17-21), Paul answers some anticipated objections and elaborates his position. 2:17-18. In v. 17, Paul dramatically articulates the objection that the emissaries from James (v. 12) had raised against the Jewish Christians at Antioch who were eating with Gentiles (and perhaps also the objection raised by the Missionaries in Galatia against Paul): Those who eat with Gentiles thereby become “sinners” (the same word as in v. 15) just like the Gentiles and thereby drag the name of Christ through the mud, making him an accomplice in sinful actions—and therefore, in effect, the table-waiter118 of sin! The conditional sentence in v. 17 is formulated not as a contrary-to-fact condition but as a real condition: Paul and others who join him at table with Gentiles are “seeking to be rectified in Christ” (v. 16), and they are in fact being perceived as sinners by those who disapprove of their actions. The protasis of the sentence reflects the evaluative perspective of those who condemn the practice of the common table. For the sake of argument, Paul momentarily grants their point of view, saying, in effect, “All right, then, so eating with Gentiles means that we (Jewish Christians) ourselves are sinners.” If that is the consequence of solidarity with the Gentiles, so be it! But then Paul asks whether it follows that Christ, by bringing together Jews and Gentiles, is thereby aiding and abetting sinful behavior: “Is Christ then a servant [dia;konov diakonos] of Sin? Certainly not!” Paul conjures up and then emphatically rejects an absurd image of Christ waiting upon Sin as a personified power; the term diakonos (“servant,” often used of table servants) links the objection vividly to the scene of Jews and Gentiles eating at one table. It is impossible to say whether this image was already suggested by Paul's detractors or whether Paul has formulated it as a rhetorical strategem to show the absurdity of the objection. Paul next explains why he regards it as a mistake for Peter and Barnabas and other Jewish Christians to withdraw and separate themselves <Page 241 Ends><Page 242 Begins> (v. 12) from eating with Gentiles: “For if I build up again the very things that I once tore down, then I demonstrate that I am a transgressor” (v. 18). Paul shifts here from the first-person plural pronouns and verbs that he employed in vv. 15-17 to the first-person singular, which he uses throughout vv. 18-21. It is sometimes suggested that he does this for reasons of rhetorical tact. By using himself as an example, he makes the point more gently than if he directly confronted Peter with the accusation of transgression. In view of the confrontational tone of vv. 11-14, however, this explanation is not very satisfying. A better explanation is that Paul is already beginning the mental transition from the situation at Antioch to the situation in Galatia, no longer addressing Peter directly but beginning to address the issues raised against him personally by the Missionaries in another setting. (In terms of the cinematic analogy suggested above, in v. 18 the camera now pans in for the close-up shot of Paul's face.) The language of tearing down and rebuilding something suggests the image of the Torah as a wall that separates Israel from the Gentiles.119 Paul's gospel declares that Jesus Christ has torn down this wall. The image is powerfully developed in Eph 2:14-16: For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is the hostility between us. He has abolished the Law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it. (NRSV) This passage, probably the work of one of Paul's immediate followers, expresses well Paul's understanding of his apostolic commission as the outworking of God's design to bring Jews and Gentiles together into one new people. By pressuring Paul to separate himself from eating with Gentiles, Peter and the emissaries from Jerusalem are asking him to build up again the wall of separation that he had previously torn down not just at Antioch but throughout his mission to the Gentiles. If he does rebuild that wall, Paul insists, he will establish that he is a transgressor. There are two possible readings of this statement. Paul could mean that the very act of rebuilding the wall of commandments and ordinances would itself be an act of transgression against God's will. This would be a radical and ironic inversion of what the term “transgression” had meant in Paul's “former life in Judaism” (1:13), in which transgression referred to violations of the Law's boundaries, not to reestablishing them.120 On the other hand, Paul could mean that rebuilding the wall of separation would show that his entire apostolic labor of preaching the Law-free gospel to Gentiles had not been a fulfillment of the will of God but a flagrant violation of God's holiness; to follow Peter in leaving the common table would show that Paul's whole apostleship had been in vain (cf. 2:2), an extended defiance of God. His practice of disregarding dietary restrictions and bringing Jews and Gentiles together in the church would have been, from this point of view, nothing but transgression against God.121 This latter interpretation is the one that Paul's original hearers would have been more likely to grasp. 2:19-21. The issue is not left long in doubt, however. Paul moves quickly to declare that the old frame of reference, in which the Law must separate Jews and Gentiles, no longer applies. It has been abolished by the crucifixion of Jesus. Paul understands this crucifixion as a cosmic event in which he participates, with the result that he has “died to the Law” (v. 19). Because he has died to the Law, going back to it is impossible; rebuilding the wall is impossible for Paul, because, having been crucified with Christ, he has come into an entirely new life animated by Christ. One puzzling feature of v. 19 is Paul's statement that “through the Law” he died to the Law. If he had written, “through the cross I died to the Law,” his line of argument would be clear. But why does he say instead, “through the Law”? Nothing in the immediate context offers an explanation of what Paul means by this opaque formulation. Certainly Paul is not thinking of <Page 242 Ends><Page 243 Begins> “dying to the Law” through discovering the futility of his own attempts to observe it; according to his own self-description, he was “as to righteousness under the Law, blameless” (Phil 3:6). (The inappropriateness of the popular picture of Paul prior to his conversion as laboring under the burden of a guilt-ridden conscience was eloquently demonstrated by Krister Stendahl in his classic essay, “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West.”)122 Commentators sometimes refer to Rom 7:11, which says that Sin working “in the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me” (NRSV). In fact, however, this passage sheds no light on Gal 2:19; in Romans, it is clear that one dies to the Law not “through the Law” but “through the body of Christ” (Rom 7:4 NRSV)—i.e., through union with his death in baptism (Rom 6:1-11). Dunn proposes that when Paul says “through the Law” he is referring to his activity as a persecutor of the church, motivated by zeal for the Law.123 This interpretation leaves unexplained how this activity caused Paul to die to the Law; apart from God's intervention and call, he could have gone right on persecuting the church. The explanation that finds the greatest support within the text of Galatians itself is that the Law played an active role in the death of Jesus and pronounced a curse upon him (Gal 3:13). Thus, since Paul's death to the Law came about through his being “crucified with Christ” (v. 19; cf. 6:14), the Law played an instrumental role in this process. In fact, however, Paul does not offer any explicit explanation of this point, and we may be well advised to concede that we do not know exactly what Paul meant by the aphoristic statement “through the Law I died to the Law.” The point that matters for Paul is that he has passed through this death, leaving the Law behind, “so that I might live to God.” This extraordinary assertion—driving a wedge between the Law and God—would be scandalous to the ears of Jews zealous for the Law.124 The more usual Jewish perspective on the relation between the Law and life before God is illustrated by two passages in 4 Maccabees (4 Macc 7:19; 16:25) that apply the expression “to live to God” to those who undergo martyrdom precisely for the sake of the Law. The latter passage states the matter concisely: By these words the mother of the seven encouraged and persuaded each of her sons to die rather than violate God's commandment. They knew also that those who die for the sake of God live to God, as do Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the patriarchs. (4 Macc 16:24-25 NRSV, italics added) Unlike the Maccabean martyrs, Paul has died not for the Law but to it, and he claims thereby to have found life before God. This new life includes, of course, the fellowship of Jews and Gentiles together in a single worshiping congregation gathered in the name of Jesus. Those who are calling for a retreat from this radical new form of community are simply, in Paul's view, living on the wrong side of the cross, in the old age. When Paul says that he has been “crucified with Christ,” he is not referring merely to some sort of private mystical experience. (The “I” throughout vv. 18-21 is a paradigmatic “I,” rhetorically inviting readers of the letter to join with Paul in these confessional statements.) Union with Christ's death is the common experience of all who are “in Christ.” This is articulated most clearly in Rom 6:3-6 (see also Rom 7:6; 2 Cor 4:10; Phil 3:10; Col 2:20; 3:3): Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. (NRSV, italics added) The cross is a transformative event that has changed the world and incorporated Paul—along with all who receive the gospel—into a new sphere of power. It is noteworthy that the verb “crucified with” (sunestau;rwmai synestauromai) is in the perfect tense, signifying a completed past action whose effects continue into the present; <Page 243 Ends><Page 244 Begins> Paul's union with Christ's crucifixion is not merely a once-upon-a-time event but a reality that continues to determine his present existence. That is why he goes on to say, “It is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me.”125 Having died to his old identity, and to the Law that shaped that identity, Paul lives in the mysterious power of the risen Christ. This means that all his values and practices are reshaped in accordance with the identity of the crucified one. The character of that identity is sketched by the latter part of v. 20: “The life I now live in the flesh I live by faith—that is, by the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me.”126 The hallmarks of this new identity are love and self-giving, rather than circumcision and Law observance. All of this has obvious implications for the debate over table fellowship with Gentiles. The two participles in v. 20b that are translated “loved” (ajgaph;santov agapesantos) and “gave” (parado;ntov paradontos) are both aorist participles, pointing to the singular past event of the cross as the locus of Jesus' love and self-donation. In other words, the love of which Paul speaks here is not Jesus' warm feeling of affection toward humanity; rather, it is an enacted love, a love that was made manifest in action and in suffering. Precisely that action gives content to the expression “the faith of the Son of God.” Here, once again as in v. 16, we face the question of whether to translate pistis, followed by the genitive case, as “faith in” or “faith of.” Here in v. 20, the balance of probability tips strongly toward the latter. Paul is not claiming that he lives now by “believing in” the Son of God; he has, in fact, just (rhetorically) denied any continuing personal agency at all. Instead, it is now the pistis of the Son of God, Jesus Christ's own self-giving faithfulness, that moves in and through him.127 The life that he now lives “in the flesh” (i.e., in embodied historical existence) is both animated and determined by Jesus Christ's faithfulness. As J. Louis Martyn articulates it, “Christ's faith constitutes the space in which the one crucified with Christ can live and does live.”128 Here the function of pistis parallels the role of “grace” (ca;riv charis) in Paul's story of salvation, as a comparison to Rom 5:15 shows:129 Rom 5:15 Gal 2:20 ...the free gift ...I live in grace, in faith, namely the grace namely the faith of the one man of the Son of God Jesus Christ It is, therefore, no coincidence that Paul's next sentence (v. 21) refers to the theme of grace: Grace is embodied in Christ's faithful death for our sake. With 2:21, Paul summarizes what he has been saying in the whole of this compact but powerful speech in vv. 15-21: Righteousness/rectification comes not through the Law but through Christ's death on a cross. The implication of this is that those who continue to insist on Law observance as a necessary condition for Gentiles' full participation in the people of God are in effect declaring Christ's death null and void and returning to social and religious norms that defined the status quo before Christ's death. They may be accusing Paul of nullifying the grace of God by ignoring the requirements of God's graciously given Law, but Paul turns the tables on this accusation. “I do not nullify the grace of God,” he says. Unspoken but strongly implied is the counteraccusation: “It is you who nullify the grace of God by acting as though Christ's death was of no importance.” We may put Paul's point in the form of a question: If righteousness were available through the Law, why was it necessary for Jesus to die? Here we see how Paul's pattern of confessional logic begins with the kerygma and then works toward resolution of disputed points. The foundational truth is that Jesus Christ died “to set us free from the present evil age” (1:4). It follows that the Law was powerless to achieve that end. Thus rectification cannot be achieved through the Law. Verse 21 illustrates the truth of Sanders's dictum that Paul's thought moves “from solution <Page 244 Ends><Page 245 Begins> to plight.”130 That is, Paul does not begin with an analysis of the human predicament under the Law and then offer the gospel as a solution; instead, he begins with the confession that Christ died for us and then works out the implications of that confession for diagnosing the human plight and determining the role of the Law. Paul's formulation in v. 21 contains a deft wordplay that is difficult to translate. The word translated by the NRSV as “for nothing” is dwrea;n (dorean), an adverb formed from the accusative case of the noun dwreav (dorea), which means “gift,” as in Rom 5:15. We can come close to capturing the ambiguity of Paul's sentence by translating, “If rectification comes through the Law, then Christ died gratuitously.” The Son of God did in fact “give himself” as a gift, but those who think rectification comes through Law have turned this gracious gift into a gratuitous superfluity. That is the bottom line of Paul's charge against Peter at Antioch (and by implication against the rival Missionaries in Galatia). As Paul sees it, by caving in to the pressure of the emissaries from James, Peter has “set aside the grace of God.” Their insistence on Law observance as the necessary hallmark of the identity of the people of God turns out to nullify the grace of God and render Christ's death meaningless. Paul proclaims that God has chosen to set things right in the world through the cross and through bringing into being a new people in which the old barrier between Jew and Gentile is broken down and made irrelevant. The cross cuts away all the systems of distinction by which we set ourselves apart from others, including the distinction between Jew and Gentile. Thus, when Peter refuses to eat with Gentiles, he is living as though the cross were of no effect. Those who have been crucifed with Christ will no longer separate themselves from one another but will gather around one table.

REFLECTIONS

At the end of the day, was there to be one church or two “separate but equal” churches? That is the issue brought sharply into focus by Paul's confrontation with Peter at Antioch. Was there to be one table where Jews and Gentiles could eat together as brothers and sisters in Christ, or was it necessary to maintain two separate tables, symbolizing the separate cultural identity of the Jewish Christians? The issue was a difficult one, because the Jewish Christians who separated themselves from the common table believed that they were acting in obedience to the revealed Law of God. It was one thing to accept—as the “pillar” apostles had done at the conference in Jerusalem (2:1-10)—that Paul had a legitimate mission to preach the gospel to Gentiles; however, it was quite another thing for Jewish Christians to share table fellowship with the Gentiles who became believers. Would this not lead inevitably to compromising the distinctive identity of God's people? The actions of Peter—and the other Jewish Christians such as Barnabas who followed him in withdrawing from table fellowship with Gentiles—pointed toward the formation of two permanently separated churches, divided along ethnic lines. (And inevitably such a division implied the superiority and greater purity of the Jewish-Christian church.) This concrete social and political setting must always be kept in mind by the interpreter of Gal 2:11-21. Preaching on this passage can be difficult because Paul's account of his passionate response to Peter (2:14-21) is compressed into an unusually dense discourse, prefiguring the major themes of the remainder of Galatians. The themes are weighty, and Paul sketches them so concisely that the congregation may struggle to grasp what he is saying. In order to keep the major issues in focus, the interpreter of Gal 2:11-21 will find it helpful to bear in mind four questions:1. Who sets things right? 2. What role has Jesus played in setting things right? <Page 245 Ends><Page 246 Begins> 3. What is the character of the new life that the death and resurrection of Jesus have inaugurated? 4. How is the truth of the gospel embodied in social practices? The following reflections are keyed to these four central questions.

1. Rectification as God's Doing. Who sets things right? As the exegetical discussion above has emphasized, “rectification” refers to God's action of setting things right. God “rectifies” his people by coming to their rescue and instituting right order in a world gone wrong. The noun dikaiosu;nh (dikaiosyne), usually translated as “righteousness,” is closely linked to the idea of God's covenant faithfulness: Those who are “rectified” are claimed by God's grace as belonging to the people of God; thus “righteousness” (the status of being rectified) is virtually equivalent to covenant membership. Paul's gospel shakes the world by disconnecting this status of belonging to the people of God from observance of the Law and attributing it instead solely to the gracious action of God, through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. Thus rectification is God's doing from start to finish. Only God can set things right, and God has chosen to do that through the death of Jesus rather than through the Law. One of the world-transforming implications of this message is that the Law no longer defines or limits the boundaries of God's grace. The full implications of this paradigm shift in understanding “righteousness” are difficult to grasp. Paul protests that most of his Jewish-Christian contemporaries failed to understand the logic of their own confession (2:15-16) about rectification through Christ and, therefore, inappropriately sought to police the boundaries of the covenant community. Once we understand that rectification is God's doing, not ours, important consequences follow. First of all, this truth sets us free from fear and anxiety. As Paul writes elsewhere, “It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn?” (Rom 8:33b-34a NRSV). Realizing that rectification cannot be a human attainment sets us free to rely fully on the boundless grace of God, disclosed in Christ's death for us. We can let go of our anxious need to make things come out right, our anxious need to ensure the “purity” of the church. Another important consequence of this teaching is that “righteousness”—understood as “rectification”—is never a present possession, because God's final verdict lies in the future. God has not yet set all things right. That is why Paul speaks in Gal 5:5 of awaiting “the hope of righteousness.” When we recognize that rectification is God's doing, we will find ourselves looking to the future for God to fulfill that hope, rather than supposing that we can forcibly set everything right in the present. Thus learning who sets things right is the great antidote to violence and intolerance.

2. The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ. What role has Jesus played in setting things right? Consistent with the message that rectification is God's doing, not ours, is Paul's proclamation that we are rectified only “through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.” We are not rectified by the strength or purity of our own believing. If Paul had meant that, then “faith” would be a new kind of “work,” a human achievement by which we place ourselves into right relation with God. As was pointed out in the Commentary, when Paul says that “a person is rectified not through Law-observance but through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ,” he is pointing to Jesus' act of loving self-giving on the cross. The shorthand expression “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ” refers to Jesus' death for our sake. The phrase interprets Jesus' death both as his act of radical trust in the God who gives life to the dead (cf. Rom 4:17) and, at the same time, as God's act of faithfulness toward a humanity that needed to be rescued from the grasp of sin and death. As Paul declares in Rom 5:8, “God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us” (NRSV). That is why Paul can proclaim that “the righteousness of God” (i.e., God's faithful covenant love) is disclosed “through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ” (Rom 3:21-22).131 <Page 246 Ends><Page 247 Begins> This interpretation does not deny that Paul saw Jesus as the object of faith; Gal 2:16 goes on to say explicitly that “we placed our trust in Christ Jesus.” But the whole emphasis of Paul's message shifts, on this reading, from the subjective state of the believer to the proclamation of what God has done for us in the event of the cross. The difference is subtle but important. Those who preach on Galatians need to drive the point home forcefully: The gospel that Paul preaches is the story of Jesus Christ, “who gave himself to deliver us from the present evil age” (1:4); it is the story of “the faithfulness of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me” (2:20). This means that preaching on this text should invite us not to introspective assessment of our own believing but rather to grateful acknowledgment of what Jesus Christ has done for us. What he has done for us is not merely to enable us to believe and thereby find individual forgiveness of sins. Instead, his faithful death has created a whole new world and liberated us from bondage to powers that once held us captive. Preaching that attends to this aspect of the message of Galatians will have a narrative character, and the narrative will not be just the story of our journey from unbelief to belief; rather, such preaching will recount the story of Jesus' death as the destruction of the old regime and the inauguration of the new creation. It is unintelligible to preach Gal 2:11-21 apart from the passion and resurrection narratives.

3. Crucified with Christ/Christ Lives in Me. What is the character of the new life that the death and resurrection of Jesus have inaugurated? Despite the previous observations, the gospel narrative will also address the individual hearer. In 2:19-21, Paul does speak of his own experience in this new creation. What he reports, however, is nothing less than the annihilation of his old identity through the cross. He has entered into union with Christ's death in such a way that he can make the remarkable statement, “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.” What are we to make of this decentering of the personality, this replacement of the ego by the presence of the living, risen Christ? Sam K. Williams wisely remarks, “Here (vv. 19-20), as so often elsewhere, Paul is at least as much poet as theologian as he searches for language and reaches for images appropriate to his experience of Christ.”132 Paul is describing the experience of having his former life-world terminated and entering a new sphere of reality where he is no longer in charge. This is not merely a matter of having his sins forgiven (indeed, Paul never mentions “forgiveness” in this letter); instead, it is a matter of being transformed for service. Paul finds himself—to his own great surprise—the instrument of Christ's reconciling love, the agent of Christ's mission to a world of Gentiles whom he previously regarded as unclean “dogs.” Over time, Christians have found in Paul's words an apt description of the mystery of being caught up into God's transformation of the world in such a way that the very core of the self is claimed and transmuted by the power of the living God. Paul is not speaking of some sort of momentary mystical “high”; rather, he is describing the ongoing experience of living “in the flesh” as the embodiment of “the faithfulness of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me.” By the power of that faithfulness he finds himself living a new high-risk existence, leaving behind the securities of Law and ethnic affiliation, proclaiming the message of God's love and embodying that message by sitting at one table with those whose way of life he once counted unclean. This involves concrete and costly political choices; it may mean initiating contacts with the poor in Third World countries or serving the homeless in our own cities. Christians who find themselves crossing cultural boundaries to do the work of God in ways that they never could have imagined will often find themselves explaining what has happened by echoing Paul's words: “It is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me.” <Page 247 Ends><Page 248 Begins>

4. The Truth of the Gospel: One Table. How is the gospel embodied in social practices? Paul insists that “the truth of the gospel” (2:14) is a social reality: The gospel must be embodied in the practices of a community that shares a common life. One can betray the truth of the gospel not only by preaching false doctrine but also by engaging in false practices—particularly practices that fracture the unity of the church. The foundation of Paul's opposition to Peter is his conviction that, through the death and resurrection of Jesus, God has brought into being a new community that embraces Jews and Gentiles together as God's people. This is not merely an implication of the gospel or an inference from the gospel; rather, it is an integral part of the gospel itself. Wherever we see Christians trying to rebuild walls of separation in the church, walls that separate people along ethnic or cultural lines, we can be sure that the integrity of the gospel is being violated, and, like Paul, we should feel compelled to speak out against such practices. As noted in the Reflections on 1:1-10, systems of apartheid or racial segregation offer particularly clear contemporary analogies to the abuses that Paul opposed in Antioch and Galatia. But it may be far too easy to pronounce condemnations on apartheid-era South Africa, while ignoring equally insidious abuses closer to home. The Jewish Christians at Antioch were not passing legislation to restrict the activity of Gentiles; they were merely withdrawing into private, privileged enclaves for their meals and worship. When the problem is stated that way, we are forced to ask whether in fact many of our churches practice a de facto ethnic and cultural exclusivity, reflecting the ethnic and socioeconomic exclusivity of our residential neighborhoods. When that happens, our assemblies deny in fact, if not in principle, the truth of the gospel. On the other hand, the history of the church provides numerous impressive testimonies of the power of the gospel to break down the wall of separation between different races and cultures. One of the most remarkable stories of this kind from recent history emerged from the bloody conflict in Rwanda, where in 1994 members of the Hutu tribe carried out mass murders of the Tutsi tribe. At the town of Ruhanga, fifteen kilometers outside Kigali, a group of 13,500 Christians had gathered for refuge. They were of various denominations: Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Pentecostals, Baptists, and others. According to the account of a witness to the scene, “When the militias came, they ordered the Hutus and Tutsis to separate themselves by tribe. The people refused and declared that they were all one in Christ, and for that they were all killed,” gunned down en masse and dumped into mass graves.133 It is a disturbing story, but it is also a compelling witness to the power of the gospel to overcome ethnic division. Paul would have regarded these Rwandan martyrs as faithful witnesses to the truth of the gospel. Having been “crucified with Christ,” they preferred to die rather than to deny the grace of God that had made them one in Christ. <Page 248 Ends><Page 249 Begins>

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/496688#Comment_496688

Sample for this week….

PSALM 15:1-5, THEY SHALL NOT BE MOVED

Link to: {NIV} {NRSV} <Page 731 Ends><Page 732 Begins>

COMMENTARY

Along with Psalm 24, Psalm 15 is ordinarily classified as an entrance liturgy (see also Isa 33:13-16; Mic 6:6-8), a question-and-answer ritual enacted as persons prepared to enter the temple gates. There is evidence from Israel and other ancient Near Eastern sources that there were requirements for entering a holy place (see Deut 23:1-8; 2 Chr 23:19); however, Psalm 15 concludes not with a judgment about admission but with an observation that has the character of a promise. While perhaps modeled on an entrance liturgy, Psalm 15 in its present form has more the tone of liturgical instruction. In its present literary context, it serves to portray the shape of the lives of those who have been mentioned frequently in preceding psalms—those who take refuge in God (Pss 2:12; 5:11; 7:1; 11:1; 14:6), the poor/oppressed/afflicted/meek (Pss 9:9, 12, 18; 10:2, 9, 12, 17-18; 12:5; 14:6), the righteous or “company of the righteous” (Pss 1:5-6; 5:12; 7:9; 11:3, 5; 14:5). In fact, there is a revealing progression from Psalm 13 to Psalm 15. The movement is from the threat of being “shaken” (13:6) to the affirmation that “God is with the company of the righteous” (14:5) to the portrayal of the righteous dwelling with God, the result being that they “shall never be moved” (15:5c ; “moved” here is the same Hebrew word [fwm môt] as “shaken” in 13:4 NRSV). The questions in v. 1 are followed by a series of answers in vv. 2-5ab, the origin and organization of which are variously understood. Many scholars suggest that the answers have been shaped by the influence of the Ten Commandments, but it is not clear that there are actually ten items. The organization of the items is also debated. Bratcher and Reyburn detect twelve items, arranged in an alternating pattern of three positive statements (vv. 2, 4abc) and three negative statements (vv. 3, 4d-5b; the last line of v. 4 actually contains a positive and a negative that are obscured by the NRSV and the NIV—lit., “he swears to his hurt and he will not change”). In their view, “the contrast of plusses and minuses . . . serves the purpose of focusing attention upon the exemplary conduct of those who would enter the Temple for worship.”96 A different (or perhaps complementary) proposal construes v. 2 as an answer to v. 1 in general terms, while vv. 3-5ab offer specific illustrations in the realms of dealing with neighbors (v. 3), with the religious community (v. 4ab), and with people and practices in society at large (vv. 4c-5b).97 Support for this view may be derived from the fact that each item in v. 2 is introduced by an active participle, whereas the other items use finite verb forms <Page 732 Ends><Page 733 Begins> (with the exception of v. 4a, where the NRSV’s “the wicked” is the subject and is accompanied by a passive participle). Complicating this proposal is the observation that each item in v. 2 is paralleled in v. 3—that is, vv. 2a and 3a have to do with walking (the word “slander” [lgr rAgal] in v. 3a is more literally “tread” or “foot it”); vv. 2b and 3b have to do with acting (see “do” in both cases, although the Hebrew differs [l[p pA (al in v. 2b and hc[ ( AZâ in v. 3b]); and vv. 2c and 3c have to do with speech. It is possible that several structural patterns are operating simultaneously. 15:1. The word “tent” (see Exod 33:7-11; Num 12:5, 10; Pss 27:5-6; 61:5) and the phrase “holy hill” (Pss 2:6; 3:4; 43:3) may certainly refer to the Temple on Mount Zion, God’s chosen dwelling place on earth (see Pss 24:3; 46:4-5; 48:1-3; 132:13-14; 1 Kgs 8:1-11). The Temple symbolized God’s presence. Thus, in effect, v. 1 inquires about the identity or life-position of those who belong to God (see Ps 1:1, 5). The first verb in v. 1 (rwg gûr) means literally “sojourn, be a resident alien.” It suggests that no one can deserve to reside in God’s presence. Rather, persons dwell with God only because of God’s gracious permission (see Ps 5:7). 15:2-5b. God’s gracious acceptance of persons into the divine presence has an important implication for understanding the answers in vv. 2-5ab. These answers should not be understood as requirements; rather, they portray the character of persons whose lives have been shaped in conformity with God’s character. Mays suggests of vv. 2-5ab, “It is a picture, not prescription.”98 Not surprisingly, the words that describe the deeds and speech of those who belong to God are used elsewhere to describe God’s own character, work, or word. For instance, God is “blameless” or “perfect” in God’s way (Ps 18:30), work (Deut 32:4), and instruction (Ps 19:7). Those who belong to God mirror God’s character. This is not to say that they are absolutely sinless (see Commentary on Ps 14:1-3) but that their lives are completely oriented to and dependent upon God (the Hebrew root of “blameless[ly]” [!ymt tAmîm] means essentially “to be complete”; see Deut 18:13 NRSV, where this word is translated as“completely loyal”). Persons identified elsewhere as blameless include Noah (Gen 6:9), Abraham (Gen 17:1), David (1 Kgs 9:4; NRSV, “integrity”), Job (Job 1:1, 8; 2:3), and the psalmist (Pss 18:23; 26:1, 11; NRSV, “integrity”; see also Ps 119:1). Psalm 101 is particularly reminiscent of Psalm 15, for here the psalmist, probably the king, studies “the way that is blameless” (101:2), walks “with blameless heart” (101:2), and admits into his presence those “whose walk is blameless” (101:6; cf. Ps 101:4-5 with 15:3 and 101:7 with 15:2). Those who belong to God also mirror God’s character as they “do what is right,” for God is righteous (see Pss 5:8; 7:9, 11; 9:4, 8; see esp. 11:7). God is also characterized by “faithfulness” (see Exod 34:6), and those who speak faithfulness or truth mirror God’s character and embody God’s will (see Jer 9:5; Zech 8:16; cf. Ps 5:6; Amos 5:10). As God’s character is manifested in concrete actions, the character of those who belong to God will be manifested as well. Their tongues will not be instruments of deceit or oppression (v. 3; see Pss 5:9; 12:4). They will bring no harm upon their neighbor by speech or action (v. 3; see Exod 20:16-17; Lev 19:18; Pss 28:3; 101:5). They will oppose those who oppose God, and honor those who honor God (v. 4ab ; see Ps 1:1). They will keep their word even when they suffer for it (see Ps 24:4; Matt 5:33-37). Just as God acts on behalf of the poor and oppressed (see Pss 9:18, 10:17-18; 12:5), so also the business practices of those who belong to God will benefit the poor (v. 5a ; see Exod 22:25; Lev 25:36-37, where the refusal to exact interest is to protect the poor; see also Deut 23:20; Ezek 18:8, 13, 17). As God avoids bribery to enact justice (Deut 10:17-18; Ps 9:4), those who belong to God will do the same (v. 5b ; see Exod 23:7-8; Deut 16:19-20; 1 Kgs 8:3; cf. Ps 10:8). 15:5c. This verse concludes the psalm with a statement that is both an affirmation and a promise. Just as God has established the earth (Pss 93:1; 96:10; 104:5) and Zion (Pss 46:5; 125:1) so that they cannot be “moved” or “shaken” by chaotic forces, so also God secures the lives of those who belong to God. In view of the rest of the book of Psalms, this clearly does not mean that the righteous will live unopposed (see Pss 3:1-2; 5:7-8; 7:6; 9:13-14; 10:1-2; 12:1-4; 13:1-4; 14:4; 34:19). Rather, in even the worst of circumstances, <Page 733 Ends><Page 734 Begins> the righteous will have in God’s presence and power a resource to sustain their lives. That promise is equivalent to the promise of happiness to those who take refuge in God (Ps 2:12) and of prosperity for the righteous in all they do (Ps 1:3). That is to say, those who trust God will always have a solid foundation for facing the world; they will not be moved (see Pss 10:6; 13:4; 16:8; 17:5; 21:7; 30:6; 62:2, 6; 112:6).

REFLECTIONS

The refrain of a well-known African American spiritual consists of references to both Ps 1:3 and Ps 15:5c : “Like a tree that’s planted by the water, we shall not be moved.”99 The juxtaposition reveals a profound understanding of both psalms. While Psalm 15 may be modeled on an entrance liturgy, its present form and context suggest that its primary purpose is to portray what it means to be constantly open to God’s instruction (Ps 1:2), to take refuge in God (Pss 2:12, 5:11, 7:1, 11:1, 14:6, 16:1, 17:7), to live under God’s rule (Pss 2:11, 5:2, 7:7-8; 8:1, 9; 9:7-8, 10:16, 11:4, 14:2). The answers to the questions in v. 1, therefore, are not requirements or prescriptions. Rather, like the content of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5–7, vv. 2-5b portray what life is like when it is lived under God’s reign instead of in reliance upon oneself (see Commentary on Psalm 24). While the answers in vv. 2-5b and the teachings in the Sermon on the Mount are not requirements, both do suggest that the lives of those who are loyal and faithful to God will look different from the lives of the wicked and foolish, who autonomously deny God’s claim (see Pss 10:3-4; 14:1; see also Matt 7:21-23). The character and behavior of the righteous will inevitably mirror God’s character and God’s values. Recipients of grace (see Commentary on v. 1) will inevitably be gracious. Consideration of Psalm 15 in terms of entry into the Temple, or simply in terms of preparation for or participation in worship, raises the question, What does God desire from the worshiper? A traditional answer was that God desires sacrificial offerings; however, the prophets proclaimed that sacrifice was not sufficient. God desires justice, righteousness, knowledge, goodness, and love (see Isa 1:12-17; Hos 6:6; Amos 5:21-24; Mic 6:6-8). Psalm 15 is consistent with these prophetic texts. In short, God desires the loyalty of the whole self—lifestyle (see “walk” in v. 2), action (see “do” in v. 2), and speech (see “speak” in v. 2). The proper gift to bring into God’s presence is the gift of one’s life (see Pss 25:1; 50:12-15, 23; 51:15-17; 86:4; 143:8). Psalm 15 calls for “a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Rom 12:1 NRSV). As Paul recognized, such a gift involves being transformed rather than “conformed to this world” (Rom 12:2 NRSV). In other words, those who live under God’s rule rather than the rule of self will be different (see Reflections on Psalm 12). Such faithfulness will invite opposition, as the life of Jesus reveals, but God’s promise to the faithful is a peace greater than the world can give (see John 14:27). Indeed, persons who entrust themselves to God “shall never be moved” (v. 5c). <Page 734 Ends><Page 735 Begins>

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/507512#Comment_507512

Sample for this week….We still need more people to get behind this fabulous resource. 

Colossians 3:5-11

Put to Death What Is Earthly

<Page 641 Ends><Page 642 Begins>

COMMENTARY

:5-8. The ascetic regulations insisted upon by the advocates of the philosophy were designed to deal with people's “members on the earth”—that is, their physical bodies, which are dependent on the lower, material realm. In v. 5, the writer takes up this notion but gives it his own ethical twist. Both the NRSV and the NIV miss the force of this with their paraphrases of v. 5a. The language at first sounds as if the writer is contradicting his previous polemic against asceticism and severity to the body: “Put to death the members on the earth.” But then comes the list, not of physical parts of the body, as the reader might expect, but of vices. His point is that a genuine concern for the heavenly realm arising out of believers' union with Christ will not lead to the gratification of the flesh, for which he has criticized the philosophy (cf. 2:23). In the thought of Paul there is an “already” and a “not yet” to dying with Christ, whereby those who have died to sin (Rom 6:2-4) still need to be exhorted to put to death the deeds of the body (Rom 8:13). Similarly here, those who have died with Christ (2:20; 3:3) still have to be told to put to death sinful practices. The writer is fond of lists of five. In v. 5 he lists five vices, as also in v. 8, while in v. 12 he will catalog five virtues. The first five vices start off as explicitly sexual ones and gradually become more general. Heading the vices is “fornication” (pornei;a porneia), a broad term denoting general sexual immorality that is also used more particularly of adultery and intercourse with prostitutes. “Impurity” (ajkaqarsi;a akatharsia) is usually associated with sexual sin and is also found in combination with porneia in 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; and 1 Thess 4:3, 7. Because of its context here, the third vice, “passion” or “lust” (pa;qov pathos), also has a primary connotation of uncontrolled sexual appetite. “Evil desire” (ejpiqumi;akakh epithymia kake) takes the list in a more general direction, referring to all forms of sinful desire, to what Paul might call “the desires of the flesh” (Rom 13:14; Gal 5:16, 24). The fifth vice, “covetousness” (pleonexi;a pleonexia), is the insatiable greed whereby people assume that things or other people exist simply for their own gratification. Interestingly, and in line with Jewish tradition, covetousness is equated with idolatry.116 The thought is that all idolatry involves some form of covetousness. When humanity refuses to acknowledge the various aspects of life as the gifts of the Creator, it attempts to seize these things for itself and thereby elevates some desired object to the center of life. In the language of Rom 1:25, humanity ends up worshiping and serving created things rather than the Creator. This is the opposite attitude to the thanksgiving that recognizes God at the center of life (cf. 3:17). An eschatological motivation is provided for putting to death these practices. The vices are so serious that on account of them the wrath of God is coming, and the implication is that those who are found indulging in them will experience that holy anger of God and the judgment that results from it. The implication is clear, although the original text in all likelihood did not contain the phrase “on the children of disobedience” (so NIV).117 The <Page 642 Ends><Page 643 Begins> “once...but now” contrast of vv. 7-8 (cf. 1:21-22) recalls the decisive change that has taken place for the readers, so that, whereas their lives were once characterized by such vices and deserved the coming wrath, this is no longer the case. Instead, the present is to be characterized by a total transformation in which the readers are responsible for putting aside or discarding like old clothes all vices. A further list of five is provided to ensure that the readers understand the extent of their responsibility to abandon the old way of life. Anger, which heads this new list of sins, is given an overwhelmingly negative evaluation in the OT (see Prov 15:1, 18; 22:24; Eccl 7:9), in Hellenistic Judaism (see Sir 1:22; 27:30; T. Dan 2.1–5.1), and in the NT (see Matt 5:22; Gal 5:20; Jas 1:19-20), presumably because of the estrangement from others that nearly always accompanies its expression. “Rage” or “wrath” (qumo;v thymos) is synonymous with “anger” (ojrgh orge), though Stoic writers sometimes distinguished them, with rage denoting the initial explosion of anger.118 “Malice” (kaki;a kakia) includes any attitude or action that intends harm to another. Malice can express itself through “slander” (blasfhmi;a blasphemia), the abuse and vilifying of others; shameful, foul, or obscene language (aijscrologi;a aischrologia) can be the form such abuse often takes. The vices listed here, then, would all be destructive of harmonious relationships, and there can be no place for them in the new way of life, in which believers are related to one another in the body of Christ. 3:9-11. The emphasis on sins of speech, which comes to the fore at the end of the catalog of vices, is continued in the prohibition of lying. There can be no room for lies in the new community, because they poison communication and breed suspicion instead of mutual trust. The warrant used for the exhortation is formulated in terms of the transformation believers have undergone. The imperative is based on the indicative of having stripped off the old person and its practices and having put on the new. The language of “stripping off,” instead of simply “putting off,” again picks up the ascetic terminology of the philosophy (cf. 2:11, 15) and this time gives it an ethical twist. This is not the stripping off of the physical body in acts of severity and self-abasement (cf. 2:16, 23) but a stripping off of the old sinful way of life. Paul talks of the old person's having been crucified with Christ in Rom 6:6 and about putting on Christ in Gal 3:27, where this is equivalent to being baptized into Christ; but he does not use the language of putting off the old person or putting on the new person. Some claim that this language derives from an early Christian baptismal practice of removing clothing before being baptized nude and then putting on a new garment.119 This is possible, but the evidence for such a practice is actually from after the middle of the second century with The Gospel of Philip 101 and Hippolytus's Apostolic Tradition. The meaning of the imagery in The Gospel of Thomas 37, which contains no reference to baptism, is too doubtful for it to count as an allusion to the practice. In any case, the clothing imagery of putting off vices and putting on virtues was widespread among Greek and Hellenistic Jewish writers. It is far more certain that the imagery in Colossians is connected with the significance of baptism than with baptismal practice. The translation of to;n palaio;n a[nqrwpon (ton palaion anthropon) as “old self” and to;n ne;on (ton neon) as “new self” (NRSV and NIV) though better than “old nature” and “new nature,” tends to narrow the reference of its literal meaning, “person.” The old person is the person as identified with the old humanity, living under the present evil age and its powers. The new person is the believer as identified with the new humanity, the new order of existence inaugurated by Christ's death and resurrection. Verse 10 makes clear that this new person is not yet totally new but is in process of renewal. The underlying thought is the familiar “already” and “not yet” of the new age. The present focus of renewal is on knowledge. This is significant in the light of the letter's setting. Any search for further esoteric knowledge is to be seen as unnecessary for those who, as part of the new humanity, are continually being renewed in and growing in knowledge (cf. 1:10). The readers should expect to experience a constant development of perception that will result in their ability to live lives appropriate to the new order, a thought equivalent to Paul's formulation in Rom <Page 643 Ends><Page 644 Begins> 12:2 about being “transformed by the renewing of your minds.” That the renewal in knowledge of the new person is in conformity with the image of the one who created it underscores, through the allusion to Gen 1:27, that the believer is part of a new creation, a new humanity in whom the image of God is restored. If v. 10 has focused primarily on the individual aspect of the new humanity, v. 11 highlights the corporate aspect, as it asserts that within the new humanity the barriers of the old order are abolished. This is an adaptation of the baptismal formula found in Gal 3:28. It is noticeable that here, however, as in 1 Cor 12:13, there is no mention of male and female. Given the problems Paul perceived about the conduct of women in the Corinthian church, the omission of this aspect in 1 Cor 12:13 is understandable. The omission may also be significant in Colossians, which will go on to introduce the household code, which demarcates more firmly different roles for husbands and wives. This should not, however, be overemphasized, since the code also discusses the roles of masters and slaves, and yet slave and free are mentioned in the Colossians version of the formula (v. 11). Nevertheless, women's asserting their freedom in Christ was a factor in the Pauline churches, while slaves' demanding their freedom apparently was not. In the adaptation of the formula “Greek” is mentioned before “Jew” in the first pairing, possibly on account of the Gentile readership, although the dividing of humanity into Greek and Jew in the first place reflects the writer's Jewish perspective. The second pairing, “circumcision and uncircumcision,” repeats the contrast, but this time puts greater emphasis on the religious aspects of the ethnic and cultural division. The thought of the new creation in v. 10 may have influenced this addition, since in Gal 6:15 Paul had written, “For neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything, but a new creation is everything!” Here the proclamation of Christ among the Gentiles (cf. 1:27) entails that the old humanity's categorization of people into these two classes is no longer meaningful in the new humanity. If Jews divided humanity into Jews and Greeks, Greeks divided it into Greeks and barbarians, with the latter category denoting non-Greek speakers and conveying the additional overtones that such people were uncultured and uncivilized. The term “Scythian” intensifies the note of cultural contempt. The Scythian tribes around the Black Sea were considered the lowest kind of barbarian. Josephus considered them “little better than wild beasts” (see also 2 Macc 4:47 for an ironic statement indicating the low regard in which Scythians were held).120 The terms “slave” and “free” will be discussed further under the household code. They are found in the earlier formulations in 1 Cor 12:13 and Gal 3:28; here the claim of the Pauline churches that this basic social division makes no difference in terms of believers' standing in Christ and in the new community is continued. While the philosophy, with its condemnation of those who did not follow its rules and were still bound to the realm of the physical, introduced divisive distinctions into the body of Christ, this formulation stresses inclusiveness and does away with all distinctions based on ethnic, religious, cultural, or social criteria within the new humanity. The relation to Christ is all that matters and transcends these other categorizations. This is the force of “Christ is all and in all.” He permeates and pervades the new humanity. This emphasis on Christ's centrality recalls the focus on his supremacy in both creation and redemption (1:15-20) and his paramount place in the realm above (3:1). If Christ is all in all in relation to the cosmos, then nothing less can be the case within the community of the new humanity.

REFLECTIONS

1. The thrust of this passage provides another reminder that for the writer of Colossians the real issue is not learning special techniques to deal with the powerful forces at work for evil in our lives and in our society but is instead learning how to live the Christian life individually and corporately. He holds that there is no need for a diminished view of the self <Page 644 Ends><Page 645 Begins> in which the body is deemed inferior and people are put in thrall to hostile powers that have a divisive influence. What is wrong is not an inherent flaw in the material world; it is sin, a flawed relationship with the Creator, that has produced alienation. Being restored in the image of the Creator through Christ, therefore, is what makes possible life as it was intended to be lived. The lists of vices and virtues reflect the writer's assumption that the behavior of believers should at least match that enjoined by the conventional ethical wisdom of the day. In fact, the expectation that these standards will receive general consent adds to the persuasiveness of the appeal. In their new context, as part of the characterization of the old and new humanities, the vices and virtues selected are those that will either disrupt or enhance the life of the Christian community. The vices, for which there is no longer any room in Christian existence, are of two main types: (1) sexual immorality and greed and (2) anger and hateful speech. That the exhortations are still needed today is indicated by the existence of some Christian groups and churches that are strongly judgmental of any failure to maintain the strictest standards of sexual conduct but are rife with malicious intrigue and spiteful gossip and of others that are so tolerant and keen to avoid any dissension that they are loath to rebuke or discipline even flagrant breaches of sexual morality. It is easy to pass over these lists simply as conventional examples of early Christian moralism. Yet it may be worth pausing to reflect on some of the vices in a broader context. For example, it is because Christians want to celebrate the goodness of the sexual expression of human love in committed, lifelong relationships and to affirm the option of a healthy celibacy that they will be concerned, with the writer of Colossians, that the distorted practices of an uncontrolled and exploitative sexuality be rooted out or “put to death.” The mention of “covetousness” invites us to broaden our reflections. It is, of course, colored by its context in a list that begins with sexual immorality, but it takes the issues in a more general direction. Greedy desire not only produces sexual exploitation but also fuels the materialism that controls the lives of individuals and societies, leading so frequently to a despising of the poor whose worship of this particular god of mammon is alleged not to be devoted enough. Anger, hatred, and malicious speech are at the roots of violence, whether that violence is domestic, leaving battered wives and children in its wake; national, producing civil wars and ethnic cleansings; or international, leading to the stockpiling of weapons through the arms trade and both the threat of their use and their actual use to wipe out human lives. A broader perspective also compels us to ask whether anger is always a bad thing. What about the victims of violence and oppression? Should not they be allowed righteous anger? Have we not also learned that suppression of anger leads to repression and depression? A more qualified theological evaluation might well want and need to discuss how to express anger and resentment without being overcome by it, while still taking with full seriousness the destructive effects with which it is linked in Colossians. After all, anger can be evidence of the fact that evil is being taken seriously. The inability to be angry about injustice is surely a character deficiency. At the same time, anger and hatred can be a means of reestablishing a sense of self in the face of violation. Perhaps what needs to be stressed is that these appropriate human reactions are never meant to be the permanent characteristics of a life lived in the new order but a part of the costly process of moving to a love of one's enemies, not from a position of weakness but from one of appropriate strength. The listing of anger as a major vice reminds us, however, how easy it is even for victims of violence to perpetuate its cycle if they allow anger to fester and smolder into vengeance. Repressed bitterness and prolonged hatred, even as the result of acts that have wrecked our lives, have their own destructive effects. The seriousness with which these lists of vices are to be treated emerges from the way they are evaluated theologically. In particular, the greed or covetousness that also underlies the <Page 645 Ends><Page 646 Begins> sexual impurity the writer indicts is to be seen as idolatry. When we treat any part of the created order as ultimate, as a god, it then in fact functions like a god for us. But its control has destructive, rather than beneficial, ends. In terms of these lists of vices, sexual immorality, greed, and anger, seen as worship of the gods of Eros, Mammon, and Mars, can take over a person in a destructive way. The same is true of other objects of covetousness, such as power and prestige. But also the conduct of both lists is seen as characteristic of the old way of living, which incurs the righteous wrath of God (3:6). Two implications can be drawn from this assertion in its context. On the one hand, God's wrath, the divine judgment, is not on account of the body but on account of sin. On the other hand, the ultimate problem with sinful actions is not the harm they cause us or others, real though it is, but their affront to a holy God, with the consequence of that God's judgment.

2. Again there is benefit to be gained from seeing particularly 3:5-6 in the broader lectionary context (Year C, Proper 13). While Col 3:1-11 is the epistle reading, Hos 11:1-11 is the Old Testament reading and Luke 12:13-21 the Gospel. The parable of the rich man who fails to see his life and possessions as being on loan from God follows the warning, “Be on your guard against all kinds of greed.” Hosea 11:1 depicts God's anguish in the face of people's propensity to idolatry. In the end, the divine anger and wrath, though merited by humans, will not be executed. They are real, but they do not have the last word, because they are in the service of God's kindness and love, which prevail. Here, too, in Colossians, despite the seriousness of the warning, it has become clear that the God of judgment is also a gracious giver, who has not only provided reconciliation instead of alienation (1:21-23) but has also made available new resources of life and power through Christ's resurrection (3:1-4) and has created the new person that is to be appropriated (3:10). Humans are required neither to save themselves from their plight nor to search for additional means to supplement the solution provided in the gospel. They are to realize that the one who knows the depth and seriousness of their plight has already provided at great cost a solution fully sufficient to match it and that all that is needed is to appropriate fully and thankfully what has been offered.

3. What are the contemporary equivalents of the categories listed in 3:11 that ought not to be obstacles to unity and reconciled relationships within the church? Certainly male and female still need to be added, and, in the light of contemporary understanding of sexual orientation, gay/lesbian and straight should be included. In a global context, the disparity between “First World” and “Two-thirds World” Christians scarcely reflects a universal community displaying the overcoming of differences in a loving and just reconciliation in Christ. Depending on our particular social location, we will also know how far there is to go in the church's being any different from our society's marginalization of particular ethnic groups, whether they be African American, Hispanic American, or Native American. The categories of “slave” and “free” in Colossians also remind us of the economic and class differences that are meant to be overcome in the church today. As if such categories do not present enough of a challenge, since the time of Colossians the church has also experienced the barriers to unity produced by denominational and theological labeling. Is it more important to be known as evangelical or to promote a common gospel? Is it more important to be known as catholic or to focus on the one church and its sacraments? Is it more important to be thought liberal than to be concerned for a reasoned and critical articulation of the gospel in interaction with our culture? Is it more important to promote the charismatic movement than to be open to the variety of workings of the one Spirit? <Page 646 Ends><Page 647 Begins>

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/511340#Comment_511340

We are to the "almost there" point but we still need more people to get this under contract… Here is another sample...

Isaiah 1:2-20, A Lawsuit Against Israel

Link to: [NIV] [NRSV]

Isaiah 1:2 <Page 50 ends>><Page 52 begins>>

COMMENTARY

In terms of both form and content, this first section of chap. 1 consists of no fewer than three, and likely as many as five, distinct units that have been organized thematically. The structure as a whole resembles the movement of a lawsuit, and the initial summons to heavens and earth (v. 2) indicates that this is a prophetic lawsuit in which the Lord brings a case against the people of Judah and Jerusalem. While keeping in view the broader picture, it is helpful to see its individual parts as well. Even if arguments for the original independence of these units are not always convincing, individual paragraphs or stanzas still make sense when read independently. Consequently, and especially when reading prophetic literature, one must be careful to see both the trees and the forest, the individual sections as well as their part in the larger whole. 1:2-3. Although it now stands as part of a larger discourse, this initial speech can be viewed as a unit, conveying a complete message. It leaves a great deal unstated, some of which becomes explicit in subsequent verses. But the ambiguity and imprecision of this poetry also evoke the imaginative response of the hearers. The peculiar form of address already suggests something rather specific about the sort of discourse before us. Yahweh, speaking through the prophet, calls on “heavens” and “earth” to hear a charge against these wayward children. Such divine calls to heaven and earth mark the prophetic lawsuit. What follows the summons is the presentation of the case, or accusation against these “children,” which the hearers must recognize as themselves, the people of God. They are the ones “reared” and “brought up” by Yahweh. The accused are mentioned in the third person, as in a trial when the prosecution addresses the court with a complaint against an offender. In the background of this case is the prior relationship between Yahweh and Israel—that is, a covenant—although Isaiah reflects no awareness of the covenant and election traditions of the Pentateuch. Hence, some scholars have identified this and similar addresses as covenant lawsuits.23 However, the language is <Page 52 ends>><Page 53 begins>> even more intimate than that of the covenant between God and people. The relationship between God and people is like that of a parent and children. The charge is symmetrical—that is, in the first two lines the Lord’s faithfulness is contrasted with Israel’s rebellion, and in the next four lines the faithfulness of the domestic animals (the ox and the donkey) is contrasted with Israel’s lack of knowledge. “To know” and “to understand” are complex expressions in the OT generally and in Isaiah in particular. In Isa 5:13 lack of knowledge leads the people into exile and suffering. In 7:15-16, “to know” refers to the stage of awareness that enables one to judge between right and wrong, and thus to be accountable for decisions, and in 8:4 it refers to a developed level of intellectual maturity. In other instances (12:4; 19:12; 28:9; 38:19), “to know” seems to refer fundamentally to cognition, while in some instances it means “to acknowledge” (19:21; 26:13; 33:13). In certain cases, such as the book of Hosea, “to know” is a covenantal expression, concerning the relationship between God and people. Certainly the expression in these verses concerns the relationship between God and people. But “understand” (˜@yb bîn) in particular suggests the point of view of wisdom literature. Other features of this unit likewise parallel wisdom literature. These features include the motif of sonship (Prov 4:1; 5:1; 6:20) and the parable with its analogy from experience and an application to the contrary.24 What is it here that Israel “does not know” or “understand”? The children do not know or understand that it was the Lord who “reared” them and “brought them up,” who made them who they are. It is implied, but not stated, that they do not know what to do or how to respond to the one who cared for them. But “knowledge” here also means “acknowledgment.” The ox and the ass “know”—that is, acknowledge—their master as master, but Israel does not. The fundamental purpose of these two verses is to accuse Israel of its transgressions, to indict the people for their failures. However, those failures are set out only in the most general terms: Israel has “rebelled,” “does not know” or “understand.” Such accusations make no sense except in the context of a long and intimate relationship between God and people. The general and metaphorical—but not vague—presentation of the accusation leaves a great deal unstated. No specific transgressions are mentioned, but they will be specified in due course. The general character of the accusation allows these verses to serve very well as the introduction to the sequence of prophetic speeches that follow. Thus the book begins with the tone of encounter and incrimination. 1:4-9. This unit could stand alone, but it does not. We have seen how these verses function as part of the larger composition of 1:2-31. Nevertheless, there are indications that these verses are a distinct discourse that probably once circulated apart from its surroundings in Isaiah 1. The cry with which it begins (ywh hôy) is a typical opening formula in prophetic speeches; there is a shift of addressees from the heavens and earth in vv. 2-3 to the nation and the city in vv. 4-9 to the “rulers” in vv. 10-17, and both the tone and the specific purpose of these verses are distinct from what precedes and from what follows. Moreover, in spite of some inner tensions—v. 4 speaks of the people in the third person, vv. 5-8 address them in the second person, and v. 9 uses the first person—these verses comprise a coherent thematic unit. The translation of hôy as “Ah” in the NRSV and the NIV reflects the judgment that the word is simply an exclamation, a means of getting the attention of the hearers or readers. The word may be translated “Woe,” as in the RSV, signaling either condemnation or disaster. This cry appears frequently in the prophetic literature, and typically—as here—is followed by a description of the addressees in terms of their shameful behavior (see Isa 5:8-24). Here the cry “Ah” initiates an indictment of those addressed by describing their reprehensible activity in two ways. First, the prophet characterizes the nation with four terms for bad action: “sinful,” “iniquity,” “do evil,” and “deal corruptly” (v. 4a). Second, three relative clauses display the people’s rebellion against “the Holy One of Israel”: “forsaken,” “despised,” and “estranged” (v. 4b). In the remainder of the section (vv. 5-9), the results of this sinfulness and rebellion are spelled out. This account of disaster <Page 53 ends>><Page 54 begins>> is not a prophetic announcement of punishment that the Lord will bring upon the nation because of their sins, but a description of what they have already brought upon themselves. Beginning with a rhetorical question (v. 5a), the speaker moves to an analogy of the sick and wounded body (vv. 5b-6) and then to a specific description of a national catastrophe. The destruction plainly is the result of a military invasion that leaves the countryside desolate, cities burned, and the land eaten up and occupied by foreigners (v. 7). Graphic similes portray the effects of the invasion on Jerusalem (“daughter Zion”). The first two use agricultural images to show the isolation of the holy city: “like a booth in a vineyard” and “a shelter in a cucumber field.” The third simile is both metaphorical and literal. Jerusalem is, in fact (or has been), “a besieged city.” Characteristically, Jerusalem is called “daughter Zion” (v. 8; see also 10:32; 16:1; 37:22). This is an affectionate personification of the city as a young woman. The translation “Daughter of Zion” (NIV) is misleading. On the other hand, in 3:16 “daughters [plural] of Zion” refers to the women of Jerusalem. The key to the meaning of this discourse is its conclusion in v. 9. The prophet applies a well-known metaphor for destruction to the situation of the nation, “like Sodom and Gomorrah,” which ancient hearers, as well as modern readers, would connect with the tale of the destruction of the two corrupt cities (Gen 18:1–19:29, esp. 19:24-26). But the reference is in the subjunctive and the past tense: “If the Lord of hosts had not left us a few survivors, we would have been like Sodom and Gomorrah” (NRSV, italics added). The sinful nation has brought the disaster upon itself. But the Lord intervened to stop the effects of evil and disloyalty just short of total destruction, leaving a few survivors and, significantly, the city of Jerusalem. Therefore, both in itself and within the context of Isaiah 1, these verses function as indictment, accusation, or reasons for punishment. Following the general accusation in vv. 2-3, this indictment is more elaborate, if not always more specific. Only the account of the disaster (vv. 5-8) is more concrete: Look at the trouble your sins have caused! But the concluding verse turns accusation into warning. The “us” of v. 9 are among those “survivors” who are to hear the woe, the accusation, and the description of destruction as a cautionary tale. The speaker implies, but does not state, that these hearers should change their ways. By contrasting Yahweh’s mercy with Israel’s iniquity, the prophet wants those survivors to learn their lesson. The next time the people rebel, the Lord of hosts might not stop the effects of sin and disloyalty, and Jerusalem might then become like Sodom and Gomorrah. Because vv. 7-9 present such a graphic portrait of a military invasion of the country with an unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem, it has been common to see in those verses allusions to specific historical events. Typically, commentators conclude that the invasion and siege were those of the Assyrian king Sennacherib in 701 BCE.25 This campaign is reported in Isaiah 36–37 (see also 2 Kings 18–20) and recorded in Assyrian inscriptions.26 It is entirely possible that this particular campaign was the background for this discourse, and even that Isaiah delivered it shortly after the siege had been lifted. If that is the case, this would be one of the last of the prophet’s speeches. But it is notoriously difficult to date ancient literature so precisely, especially when it is poetry. The land of Israel saw many invasions that decimated the countryside but left Jerusalem standing. However, the fact that one cannot correlate the text with a specific historical event should not lead to the conclusion that it does not relate to concrete historical events. This prophetic poetry is addressed to a populace that has experienced a horrible military campaign but who lived to tell about it and look to the future. The prophet is less concerned about telling the story than interpreting the events in the light of cause, effect, and the future. The cause of the disaster, he concluded, was sin and rebellion. That the destruction was not total was the effect of divine intervention. Now, he suggests to the people, consider your future actions in that light. The God who has held back total destruction is identified by means of two distinct expressions. The first title, “Holy One of Israel” (v. 4), seldom appears outside the book of Isaiah. It seems likely that this expression is distinctly related to Jerusalem and the Temple (6:3). The holy is the radically other, which cannot be approached with- <Page 54 ends>><Page 55 begins>> out proper preparation (Exod 19:8-15) or viewed without danger (Isa 6:5). Thus it is even more remarkable that this God has intervened to avert total disaster. “Lord of hosts” (v. 9) is one of the most common designations for the deity in Isaiah 1–39. The title couples the name of Israel’s God, Yahweh, with the word for “armies.” The background of the designation must lie in the holy war traditions of Israel, in which Yahweh fights on behalf of the people (see Exod 15:1-3; Josh 5:13-15; 6). “Hosts” in this expression has come to refer to the heavenly armies. Thus the title evokes the image of God intervening against enemy troops. The reference to “a few survivors” (v. 9) suggests the idea of a remnant left after judgment. Although this particular word for “survivor” (dyrc ZArîd) occurs only here in Isaiah, the motif is both common and important in Isaiah 1–39. The roots of the expression clearly are militaristic, referring to those who escaped the sword (e.g., Josh 8:22).27 In Amos 5:3, the announcement that the city that sent a hundred will have ten left serves to emphasize the bad news rather than the good. In Isaiah, good news is frequently announced to or for the “remnant” (rav su)Ar) beyond judgment (e.g., 10:19-21; 11:11, 16; 28:5). In the text before us, the fact that some were left is the good news, testimony to the grace of God. 1:10-20. This section has a clear beginning with a summons to hear, but its conclusion is not so obvious. It certainly continues through the ringing conclusion in v. 17, and v. 18 begins with a new call for attention. However, vv. 18-20 extend and interpret the fundamental point of vv. 10-17, making the instructions to the people explicit and the results of their actions unmistakably plain. The basic pattern is a prophetic introductory call to hear (cf. Amos 3:1; 4:1; 5:1), followed by a speech of Yahweh. The introductory call (v. 10) consists of two parallel sentences, each with three parts: the call, the characterization of what is to be heard, and the identification of the addresses. The summons is addressed to the leaders and the people of Jerusalem, identified derisively as “rulers of Sodom . . . people of Gomorrah.” In the preceding verse, the cities had represented destruction, and citation of these names will always evoke the threat of judgment; but in this verse they exemplify the sinfulness of the leaders and citizens. Thus the very identification of the hearers in the address contains an indictment and sets the tone of accusation. The message to those hearers is identified as “the word of the Lord,” a prophetic formula, and “the teaching (hrwt tôrâ) of our God,” an allusion to a priestly function. Already this opening sets up the tension to be developed in the body of the address. (The traditional translation of tôrâ as “law” in the NIV is not entirely incorrect, but given the burden that term carries for readers of the Bible, it is somewhat misleading. In view here is not a fixed and authoritative body of revealed legislation but the living process of instruction. That is what the subsequent verses contain.) Beginning in v. 11, the words of Yahweh are quoted directly in a two-part speech, first the negative and then the positive, stating what Yahweh rejects and then what Yahweh requires. A ringing rejection of cultic practices is followed by a forceful plea for justice. The speech moves from the rejection of specific cultic practices in the form of rhetorical questions (vv. 11-13a) to a rejection of religious practices with reasons (vv. 13b-15) to a series of positive instructions (vv. 16-17). The divine speech continues in vv. 18-20, but with the inclusion of the prophetic formula “says the Lord” (v. 18a). In these verses the fate of the people is set out before them. The Lord is willing to purify them of their sins, but the future depends on their response. Obedience will bring blessing, but rebellion will bring the sword. Something of the tone of the courtroom continues, with confrontation and accusation, but beginning with v. 10 the discourse shifts from indictment or accusation to another genre, specifically identified as “torah,” instruction. This unit, which closely parallels Amos 5:21-27 and Mic 6:6-8 in both form and content, could be seen as a response to the question posed in Mic 6:6; “With what shall I come before the Lord?” (NRSV). It has long been recognized that these prophetic texts derive from the priestly torah, or instruction to the laity concerning ritual questions, such as the distinction between clean and unclean.28 Thus the prophet has employed a <Page 55 ends>><Page 56 begins>> priestly procedure to address the question of ritual. But whereas the priest would have interpreted or explained the law, the prophet speaks forth in the voice of Yahweh. Some scholars have argued that the prophetic torah speeches are rooted in Israelite wisdom literature and practices.29 Although there are some parallels to such teaching, with the call to pay attention and the concern for right behavior, the links with the priestly instruction are stronger. The catalog of ritual practices rejected is extensive. The prophet first hears the Lord rejecting various kinds of sacrifices (vv. 11-12). The general word for “sacrifice” (jbz zebah) includes all gifts burned on the altar. “Burnt offerings” (twl[ (olôt) of animals are only one of several sacrifices. Such gifts are not required when one appears before God, and processions (“Trample my courts”) are rejected (v. 12). The disapproval of “offerings” (twjnm minhôt, the broader category, including sacrifices as well as other gifts to God) is then extended to encompass incense (v. 13a) as well as all forms of religious celebration and assembly (v. 13b), including regular and unscheduled services of worship. At this point the hearers are given the first hint of the Lord’s problem with religious observances, expressed with deep irony: “I cannot endure solemn assemblies with iniquity.” Verse 14 repeats and underscores the Lord’s repudiation of religious festivals: “Your new moons and your appointed festivals my soul hates”—that is, “I hate.” Perhaps the most radical announcement of all comes in v. 15 with the rejection of prayer itself (“stretch out your hands” refers to the posture of prayer), and the reason for the Lord’s refusal to hear makes the ironic rejection in v. 13 plain: “I will not listen; your hands are full of blood.” Thus the negative sequence concludes with the vivid image of bloody hands, a metaphor for unspecified acts of violence. The language of vv. 16-17 continues the form of direct address with a series of instructions or admonitions. This positive section, in which the Lord turns from what is rejected to what is required, implicitly continues the imagery of v. 15. “Wash yourselves” is a rich and complex expression. It refers at the same time to the literal cleaning of bloody hands, to ritual purification, and to the transformation of one’s life: “cease to do evil.” The instructions that follow move from the general to the specific, making it perfectly clear that learning to do “good” and seeking “justice” are not empty abstractions; nor do they refer simply to changing one’s attitudes. To seek justice is to care for the powerless members of the society: the oppressed, the orphan, and the widow. The aura of the courtroom, of legal process, and of justice in society is explicit not only in the call for justice but also in the terms “defend” and “plead for.” Thus the leaders, in particular, and the people, in general, are instructed to use the courts for their fundamental purpose, to protect those least able to protect themselves. The tone shifts with v. 18, and the speech in vv. 18-20 resumes the metaphor of the trial or lawsuit begun in 1:2, with one side arguing with the other. In ancient Israel there was no formal difference between civil and criminal judicial process. Both were adversarial procedures in which one party accuses and the other responds. The parties presented their cases, called for the judgment they considered to be fair, issued pleas to agree or accept, and even set forth alternatives. In vv. 18-20, the Lord, as plaintiff, no longer accuses and argues that punishment is necessary. Now the plaintiff or prosecutor assumes that the case has been made: Their sins are “like scarlet . . . red like crimson.” The Lord pleads the case with the people, arguing for an outcome other than judgment. Remarkably, this prosecutor now calls for the people to repent of their sins and change their ways. God holds out the possibility that the sins of the people can be washed away (v. 18) and spells out the blessings for them if they are obedient (v. 19). But the sword still hangs over their heads. If they refuse to repent and continue to rebel, judgment awaits. So the plea for change includes both a promise and a warning. <Page 56 ends>><Page 57 begins>>

REFLECTIONS

Readers who take these verses seriously will find it difficult to avoid consideration of a number of crucial theological problems. These include the issue of God as judge, the question of worship and social justice, and the relationship between human sin and divine grace.

1. The image or theme of the Lord as judge appears throughout prophetic literature, and many readers may consider this to be the only God known to the prophets. After all, the prophets commonly announce the Lord’s judgment against Israel or against particular groups or against foreign nations. The issue arises in Isaiah 1 because of both the form and the content of the verses before us. There are both positive and negative dimensions to the metaphor of God as judge. On the one hand, the confidence in a just and fair, rather than arbitrary, God is the foundation for all understandings of human justice in the scriptures. Moreover, when the prophets hear Yahweh pronouncing judgment, it is always in the light of laws and other expectations long known to those who are being judged.30 On the other hand, the image may suggest a distant and dispassionate deity more concerned with right defined juridically than with individuals or nations. That recognition evokes reflection on the relationship between justice and mercy, between God’s justice and God’s love. That may be why the understanding of God as judge is so frequently qualified and modified in the biblical tradition. Perhaps the best-known case is Hosea 11, where Yahweh’s compassion is heard to struggle with the sense of justified punishment, and compassion wins. When God listens to the prayers of the Ninevites and decides not to execute the promised destruction, Jonah says, in the tone of accusation: “You are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and ready to relent from punishing” (Jonah 4:2 NRSV). That is very similar to the direction Isaiah 1 moves on this issue (see Reflection number 3). Moreover, the sense of divine judgment is not the whole story of the prophetic understanding of the relationship between acts and consequences. The disastrous effects of sinful actions are not always seen as legal sanctions imposed by Yahweh. Another idea or preunderstanding is a dynamistic view of acts and consequences—that is, a point of view that sees actions, whether good or bad, as entailing or setting into motion their consequences. At the very least, actions or events themselves are viewed in some contexts as portentous. More than that, such an understanding of reality sees justice as built in. Hosea 8:7 expresses such a perspective: For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind. (NRSV) Isaiah 1:4-9 reflects that perspective as well. That rebellion itself produces estrangement (1:4) is obvious to the prophet. The disasters spelled out as the consequences of iniquity, evil, corruption, and rebellion (1:5-9) are not future punishments or judgments, but the present effects of such actions. Likewise, at the end of this chapter, those who participate in fertility cults are not punished by the divine judge but set themselves on fire with their own deeds and are consumed (1:31). This perspective parallels the common proverb, “Those who play with fire get burned.” Consequently, the interpretation of modern disasters as God’s punishment of sin is not the only alternative available to those who take the prophets seriously. Acts have consequences, and foolish or sinful acts can lead to disaster.

2. Isaiah 1:10-17 in particular raises important issues concerning the relationship between worship and social justice. In fact, it is tempting to take these verses as a total rejection of cultic activity and a call for ethical behavior in its place. Many interpreters, especially in the Protestant <Page 57 ends>><Page 58 begins>> tradition, have been unable to resist that temptation. The words are strong and tinged with contempt. The clear contrast between this range of ritual activities and the resounding call for purification, rejection of evil, and justice and righteousness elicits serious consideration of the legitimacy of religious ceremonies. The prophet clearly places limits upon the sufficiency of ritual. However, it would be a mistake to use this text to drive a wedge between piety and social action, between the life of prayer and worship, on the one hand, and intervention on behalf of the oppressed, on the other hand. This text does not force a decision for one and against the other. It seems unlikely that Isaiah himself ever put aside ritual. He was in the Temple when he had the vision of the Lord of justice (chap. 6). Moreover, Israel’s songs of worship constantly emphasize the link between piety and concern for equity in society. The liturgies for entrance into the Temple make this explicit: “O Lord, who may abide in your tent? . . . Those who walk blamelessly, and do what is right” (Ps 15:1-2 NRSV; see also Psalm 24). Fundamental to coming into the presence of the Lord is living a life of obedience to that Lord’s will for justice. This affirmation by both prophets and the worship tradition (cf. Deut 26:12-15) emphasizes that worship is legitimate when accompanied by attendance to justice in one’s daily life. Nor is the interpretation of legitimate worship here concerned fundamentally with the attitudes or feelings of the worshiper; for example, it is not concerned with the sincerity of the worshiper.31 The prophets, like most of the Old Testament tradition, focus on right actions rather than right thinking, on orthopraxis rather than orthodoxy. Thus to wash oneself in preparation for worship is to deal justly in very specific ways.

3. Throughout this section moves the poignant, almost heartbreaking, contrast between human sin and divine mercy. The contrast brings both human failure and divine concern into sharp focus. Just as human rebellion is demonstrated in acts of corruption and injustice, so also the vulnerability of God becomes visible in God’s willingness to bargain, to hold back the deserved punishment. The movement has a chronological dimension, from past, through the present, and into the future. Isaiah 1:2-3 contrasts God’s past care—like that of a parent—with the people’s rebellion and stupidity. In 1:4-9, the past is not forgotten, but the tension is brought into the present, particularly in the description of the effects of rebellion. Most of 1:10-14 concerns the present failure of worship without justice, and then in 1:15-20 the focus shifts to the future. Here Yahweh is heard to argue for change that may lead to renewal. The word “repent” does not appear, but the concept does. The people are urged to be willing and obedient—that is, to turn around. It may be implied, but it is not stated, that confession of sin is required. Significantly, when cleansing and pardon come in 1:19-20, they are conditional: “If you are willing and obedient . . . but if you refuse and rebel” (NRSV, italics added). God takes, and will continue to take, the initiative, but human response will determine the future. This tension between sin, with its judgment, and the promise of salvation persists throughout Isaiah 1–39. Israel is guilty over and over, and what will God do? This differs from Amos, where the answer is clear and unambiguous: The end has come.s In Isaiah one finds both good news and bad, leaving each reader to struggle with the possibility that the word of God is not always the same in all times and places. The book, and this section, also invites all readers to take responsibility for their own actions—indeed, for their own lives—in the context of that struggle. <Page 58 ends>><Page 59 begins>>

 

Deacon Steve

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514043#Comment_514043

Thanks, once again, Dan!  Keep reminding us of the great value of the New Interpreter's Bible.

[:)]

 

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514088#Comment_514088

Steve said:

Thanks, once again, Dan!  Keep reminding us of the great value of the New Interpreter's Bible.

 

Please convince your friends…  [:O] I know a major Bible software will get it. But Logos integration would be nice, but I fear when it arrives in other software Logos will not get the numbers to get it into production. I know for myself when it arrives in Accordance I will likely get it there as I already have quite a few works in it and it is fast and has a good mobile platform. It's windows app is almost ready to be released. I have tried to make a case that Logos would bing new costumers in by getting the NIB first but it has fallen on deaf ears.

-Dan 

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/514341#Comment_514341

Dan, you should win some award for being so tenacious in recommending this resource. Another person that might be nominated is PA for continually pushing the REB and the NEB - http://community.logos.com/forums/t/72607.aspx

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/515148#Comment_515148

Well I will not be posting anymore now, I am not sure why it is not listed as being under contract, but I have heard it is being worked on… I had been given an estimated date but it is too tentative to be mentioned… 

-Dan

Fasil

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/515163#Comment_515163

I'm glad It's under contract!!!!!!!!!

tom

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/574819#Comment_574819

Fasil said:

I'm glad It's under contract!!!!!!!!!

[y]

Wow, it jumped a lot in a very short amount of time.

mike

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/574820#Comment_574820

what type of commentary is NIB? and what would you compare NIB with..for similarity? NIC, NIVAC, WBC or Tyndale or something else?

Jesse Blevins

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/574824#Comment_574824

Mike, see page 13 for some excerpts provided for us by Dan : ) 

tom

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/574824#Comment_574824

mike said:

what type of commentary is NIB? and what would you compare NIB with..for similarity? NIC, NIVAC, WBC or Tyndale or something else?

The very first page of this thread also provides several example.

mike

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/574831#Comment_574831

tom said:

The very first page of this thread also provides several example.

Alright, I'm in.

tom

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/574844#Comment_574844

mike said:

Alright, I'm in.

[y]

David Carter

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/574820#Comment_574820

tom said:

Fasil said:

I'm glad It's under contract!!!!!!!!!

Wow, it jumped a lot in a very short amount of time.

But now it's back (not for the first time) to almost there [:(] The way Logos are messing with this is quite pathetic

tom

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/575117#Comment_575117

David Carter said:

But now it's back (not for the first time) to almost there The way Logos are messing with this is quite pathetic

[y]

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/575126#Comment_575126

https://www.evernote.com/pub/danielwilliamfrancis/nibsamples

A sample from every book of the Biblical/Apocryphal books treated in the New Interpreter's Bible, to help you determine if this might be a resource you would find useful. Please help to bring this resource to publication by pre-ordering it if you think it might be useful to you. Your credit card is not charged until it ships and Logos offers refunds for purchases that you find are not suitable for your needs after a closer look at them.

http://www.logos.com/product/8803/new-interpreters-bible 

This offers a somewhat random sample in size from a section to an entire chapter. There are a few exceptions, Isaiah has one from each of the two sections done on each half of the book. The Psalms and Gospels tend to be places of more in depth study so each gospel has 3 samples and there are 4 Psalms done. In addition to this two of the shortest  books, Obadiah and Philemon are presented in their entirety to give a fuller view on how things are handled. I hope everyone finds this useful and I am happy to answer any questions I can.

 -Dan

PS: This is a duplicate post from New Interpreter's Bible that I am posting here. I am not sure why we are getting under contract and loosing it.. Well i know last time the files were being waited on, I would have thought yesterday they had received those files.

Brother Mark

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/575211#Comment_575211

Dan Francis said:

https://www.evernote.com/pub/danielwilliamfrancis/nibsamples

A sample from every book of the Biblical/Apocryphal books treated in the New Interpreter's Bible, to help you determine if this might be a resource you would find useful. Please help to bring this resource to publication by pre-ordering it if you think it might be useful to you. Your credit card is not charged until it ships and Logos offers refunds for purchases that you find are not suitable for your needs after a closer look at them.

I appreciate the effort expended to bring us a clear understanding of the value inherent in this resource!  The publishers ought to gift you with a free copy in Logos the day that the product ships for all of your hard work.

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/575237#Comment_575237

Brother Mark said:

I appreciate the effort expended to bring us a clear understanding of the value inherent in this resource!  The publishers ought to gift you with a free copy in Logos the day that the product ships for all of your hard work.

Thanks, it would be very nice... and I have bought 2 sets already .. my hardcover and my abingdon CDROM (but then so have many others)..... but I doubt that will happen... but stranger things have happened... I wouldn't turn it down if offered.. but not going to hold my breath either.

-Dan

tom

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/575237#Comment_575237

Brother Mark said:

I appreciate the effort expended to bring us a clear understanding of the value inherent in this resource!  The publishers ought to gift you with a free copy in Logos the day that the product ships for all of your hard work.

[y]